688 



Table III shows that in the first trial the addition of silage t( 

 the ration caused a small increase in gain; in the second trial th( 

 silage caused a slight decrease ; and in the third trial the rate of gaii 

 was practically the same in the two lots. The average of the three 

 trials shows little effect of silage on the rate of gain. 



The addition of silage to the ration did not in the first two 

 trials affect the consumption of grain, but in the third trial, the 

 lambs receiving silage ate 1.23 pounds of grain daily per head while 

 those receiving no silage ate 1.35 pounds. The probable cause of 

 this is found in the amount of silage consumed which was much 

 greater in the last trial. The corn in the silage no doubt replaced 

 to a certain extent the dry grain in the ration. Another noticeable 

 feature is that corn silage did not replace half the hay, notwith- 

 standing the fact that each form of roughage was fed once daily. 

 The consumption of .94 pound of silage daily per head replaced 

 only .51 pound of clover hay thereby decreasing the total quantity 

 of dry matter consumed in the form of roughage by the lambs receiv- 

 ing silage. 



The grain required to produce a pound of gain was reduced 

 in two trials and increased in one trial by the addition of corn 

 silage to the ration. The average of the three trials shows that it 

 required 3.77 pounds of grain to make a pound of gain with corn 

 and clover hay and 3.68 pounds when silage was added to the ration. 

 In addition to the grain, 4.35 pounds of clover were required for 

 each pound of gain when no silage was fed; but when silage was 

 added once daily to the ration 2.90 pounds of this roughage re- 

 placed 1.55 pounds of clover hay. 



There was a small decrease in cost of gain by the use of silage 

 in the first trial and a slight increase in cost in the second trial; 

 but in the third trial the addition of silage effected a savingof $1.37 

 per cwt. gain. Had corn been valued in all trials at a uniform 

 price, there would have been a saving of 32 to 36 cents per 100 

 pounds gain by the addition of silage. The extent of the saving in 

 cost of gain would be very little affected by an increase in the price 

 of corn, because of the small saving of corn by the ration containing 

 silage. 



The selling value of the lambs was not greatly influenced by 

 the addition of silage. The silage-fed lambs sold 10 cents higher 

 in the first trial but both lots sold for the same money in the last 

 trial. 



