693 



The feeding of the larger quantity of silage had no apparent 

 feet on the appetites of the lambs for grain nor on their general 

 irift. No bad effects from eating silage were shown by the lambs, 

 rhich always ate their feed eagerly, excepting during the first few 

 lys of the first trial when they were slow about eating silage, 

 .fter they had learned the taste of this feed, however, they relished 

 very much. 



A study of the data reveals a striking uniformity of results, 

 none of the trials was there any marked difference in the rate 

 gain of the two lots, and the average gain per lamb for the 

 iree trials was 24.2 pounds when silage was fed once daily and 

 [.4 pounds when this roughage was fed twice daily. There was no 

 lifference in the quantity of grain eaten by the lambs of the two 

 )ts in any trial. The table shows, however, that when the silage 

 fed twice daily, there was approximately 50 per cent, more of 

 lis roughage eaten than when it was fed once daily. After the 

 imbs were well advanced in finish, they ate very little more silage 

 rhen it was fed twice daily than when it was fed only once. An- 

 ther significant fact is that at no time did the lambs in any trial 

 it more than two pounds of silage daily. There was much greater 

 msumption of silage in the last two trials than in the first one. 

 [evertheless, the large quantity of hay eaten in proportion to the 

 silage consumed is rather surprising and especially so when it is 

 >rne in mind that cattle receiving silage once daily consume from 

 ro to four times as much silage as hay and when receiving a full 

 feed of silage about five to seven times as much silage as hay. The 

 iverage of three trials shows that practically the same quantities 

 if silage and hay were eaten when both were fed once daily. When 

 silage was fed twice daily, less than two pounds of this roughage 

 eaten for every pound of clover hay consumed. In other 

 rords, lambs receiving all the silage they will eat will still continue 

 iting comparatively large quantities of hay. 



It will be noted from the table that the difference in the grain 

 'quired to make a pound of gain in any trial was very small. There 

 a considerable difference in the roughage required to make a 

 >und of gain. On an average, 1.19 pounds of silage replaced .55 

 )und of clover hay in the feed required to make a pound of gain. 

 This slight difference in feed requirement per pound of gain made 

 'ittle difference in cost of gain but what difference appeared was 

 favor of the larger quantity of corn silage. The greatest and 

 least. saving in cost was 26 cents and 6 cents respectively per hun- 

 Ired pounds gain. When the average is taken with feed at normal 

 ices, there was but 10 cents per hundred pounds difference in cost 

 )f gain between the two rations. 



There was a marked difference in the finish on the lambs pro- 

 luced by the two rations. In the two trials wherein the final values 

 >f the lambs were secured by lots, there was 5 cents per cwt. in 

 me trial and 30 cents per cwt. in the other trial in favor of the 

 irger quantity of silage. This difference in finish was as noticeable 



