26 _ _ _ CONKEY'S STOCK BOOK 



etc., in a feed. This proportion of protein is what fixes the nutritive ratio. 

 Thus the "nutritive ratio" of a certain ration might be written, 1 :6, which 

 we read 1 to 6, and which could just as well be written in a fractional 

 form y$, meaning that in this particular ration the protein was l /f> of the 

 ration. The other ^ would be the combined carbohydrates and fats. For 

 instance, starch, sugar and fibre of stalks, etc., would be the fats. It is a 

 "narrow" or "wide" ration according to whether there is more or less of 

 the protein, the "narrow" ration meaning a large proportion of protein in 

 comparison with the total carbohydrates and fat. 



So you see, in any question of feeding, you work out a "balanced" 

 ration, making it wide or narrow according to the result you want in 

 production. Now we come to the big principle of getting not only a 

 "balanced" but an economical ration. 



CHEAPER FEEDS Often, by a little practical looking around, a ration 

 can be balanced just as well out of home-grown and 



near-by less expensive feeds, and so save fully 50% of the owner's cost for 

 feeding. 



Suppose, for instance, a stockman is some distance away from both 

 oats and timothy crops: Let him look around; it is more than probable 

 he can substitute a number of cheaper, more convenient home-grown feeds t 

 which he can use to just as good advantage. 



WHAT IS ECONOMY? This looking around for cheaper, more con- 



venient products is one-half of the problem: 



"How to economize in feeding." The other half is the question of waste, 

 already indicated; and it is certainly a big half in economically balancing 

 a ration. Without proper knowledge of the elements to be properly bal- 

 anced, a farmer might feed timothy or any ordinary hay along with corn, 

 which would certainly be wasteful. These two feeds belong to the same 

 class. To get the necessary quantity of digestible protein in a ration, say, 

 of 15 Ibs. of corn, with timothy hay, as much as 36 Ibs. of the hay would 

 have to be used, which is absurd on the face of it. No work animal could 

 consume this amount in a day; moreover, there would be a waste of 14 Ibs. 

 of carbohydrates over what the animal needed, which would mean over- 

 taxing the animal's organs, and an endless chain of -complicated trouble. 

 But, if with the 15 Ibs. of corn, alfalfa hay was combined, 10 Ibs. would be 

 all that was needed, making a well-balanced ration, supplying everything 

 needed, and doing it all economically in cost to the owner and ease to the 

 animal's digestive system. The trouble here was that corn and timothy 

 hay, being both of them grasses (Gramineae), were both rich in carbo- 

 hydrates but poor in protein. Alfalfa, being a legume or pod bearing crop, 

 is rich in protein, however, and thus capitally filled in the deficiency of 

 the corn ration. 



It all sounds wordy, but it isn't hard to understand. We know it in 

 theory already. Do we always put this knowledge into practice? 



Even suppose you do, and I do still the average man doesn't fully 

 think out his feeding rations and suit each one of them to the animal's 

 requirements. 



300 X 100 X 15^c = ? For instance, we know, in a certain Southern section, 

 a 100-mule place where they feed on oats and hay. 



But they could select other foods, easier to get in that section and cheaper, 

 and could balance them into a combination, say molasses, corn-and-cob 

 meal, cotton-seed meal and hay, which would make a saving on each 



