FATTENING LAMBS. 9 



condition inilo and feterita chops were added to the ration, and dur- 

 ing the- first six days following the, introduction of this feed the aver- 

 luily gain increased from 0.23 to 0.42 pound per head, the latter 

 ing a gain almost double that made* daily during the week previous 

 the introduction of the chops. 



It will be noted from Table II that during the first fifty-nine days 

 the feeding period the daily cost of the ration supplied to the lambs 

 each lot was less than one cent per head. Also that during this 

 riod the cost of one hundred pounds of gain was $2.67 for Lot 1 and 

 1.32 for Lot 2. 



The cost of <rains in each lot was considerably enhanced during the 

 md period, as shown by Table II. During this period the lambs in 

 lot made material gain. Lot 1 averaging 0.31 pound and Lot 2 

 M- pound per head daily. The cost of one hundred pounds gain dur- 

 this period increased from $2.6? to $4.11 in Lot 1, and from $3.32 

 $5.79 in Lot 2, 



At the end of the second period of twenty-four days one hundred' 

 id twenty-five fat lambs were "topped"* from each lot and sent to the 

 )rt AA^orth market; those from Lot 1 sold at $7.60 per hundred 

 mnds, while the Lot 2 lambs, which showed a little more finish,, 

 raght $7.80. 



The shrinkage on the first shipment of lambs was high. At the feed 

 )ts the one hundred and twenty-five pound lambs "topped" from Lot 1 

 reraged 78.7 pounds, while those of Lot 2, although carrying more 

 lish, averaged only 75.4 pounds. On the Fort Worth market the 

 day the Lot 1 lambs averaged 68.2 pounds, while those from Lot 

 averaged 66.5 pounds, i. e., the lambs of Lot 1 shrank 13.4 per cent, 

 id those of Lot 2, 11.2 per cent, 



In Table II the third period shows the average daily ration received 

 the lambs remaining in the feed lots after the fat lambs had been 

 topped" out. During this nineteen-day period the rations supplied 

 Lots 1 and 2 were practically the same as they had been receiving 

 iring the twenty-four days previous to the first shipment of lambs to 

 irket. The average daily gain made by the lambs remaining in Lot 

 during this period was 0.173 pound, while those of Lot 2 averaged 

 J85 pound per head daily during the same period. The average daily 

 st of the ration per lamb in Lot 1 during the third period was- 

 1.0132, while that of Lot 2 averaged $.0222 per head. 



Even though the raily ration of the lambs in Lot 2 cost almost twice 

 that consumed by Lot 1, the average daily gain of Lot 2 was almost 

 twice that made by Lot 1 during this period. It will be noted that 

 even though Lot 2 received a ration twice as costly as that supplied 

 t<; Lot 1 during this period, nevertheless, it proved to be an econom- 

 ical ration during this period on account of the increased gain made 

 over that of the Lot 1 lambs. During the third period the cost per 

 hundred pounds of gain was $7.60 for Lot 1 and $7.77 for Lot 2. 



By referring to Table II it will be noted that during the thirct 

 poriod the average daily gain of the Lot 1 lambs was only 0.173 pound, 

 find in an effort to increase the gain milo and feterita chops were added 

 to the ration on the twentieth day after the disposal of the first ship- 



