MAINTENANCE OF BREEDING EWES OF MUTTON AND WOOL SHEEP 9 



There was no apparent difference in vitality in ewes of both 

 lots during the winter of 1911-12, but the ewes in Lot II in 1912-13 

 were decidedly stronger and more active. The ewes of Lot I prior 

 to lambing showed discomfort by constant stretching of the body. 



The grain mixture was added to the ration in all lots eight 

 weeks prior to lambing in 1911-12, and four weeks prior to lambing 

 in 1912-13. The largest amount of silage eaten per ewe was 6.8 

 pounds daily for 56 days prior to lambing in 1911-12 in Lot I. The 

 lowest amount was 2.6 pounds daily per ewe for 42 days after 

 lambing in 1912-13, also in Lot I. The quantity of corn silage 

 consumed, however, was very uniform in Lot II, during the two 

 winters. The air-dry matter in feeds consumed per ewe was 16.1 

 per cent less per ewe and 16.3 per cent less per 100 pounds live- 

 weight in Lot I than in Lot II. The lower cost of maintenance in 

 Lot I indicates that corn silage reduces the total cost. 



The manure was valued at $2.50 per ton which is less than 

 the value of its fertility constituents 7 . The weight of wool was 

 .213 pounds more per ewe in Lot I than in Lot II, a difference due 

 possibly more to individuality than to the ration fed, since the 

 market value, based on quality and length of fiber, was the same 

 in both lots 8 . 



The greater weight of lambs in Lot I at four weeks after 

 birth was due to the high mortality of weak lambs. Thirty-three 

 percent of the ewes in Lot I were assisted in lambing in 1911-12, 

 and one lamb was born dead. Five lambs were dead at birth in 

 1912-13. They were soft and flabby and the placenta was slimy 

 and semi-decomposed. Two ewes in this lot died at lambing time. 

 They showed some nodular disease, but not sufficient to cause 

 death. Their deaths were no doubt due to complications caused 

 by lack of appetite and the burden of pregnancy. 



The lambs in Lot II were vigorous at birth. The ewes in this 

 lot were thrifty and maintained good appetites. Of the lambs 

 that died prior to being placed on pasture in Lot II, two were 

 killed by accident, and one twin died of weakness. Dogs were 

 responsible for the mortality after the lambs were pastured. Two 

 ewes of this lot died of very advanced stages of nodular disease. 



The feed was consumed more uniformly throughout both win- 

 ters in the Delaine-Merino lots than in the Shropshire lots. The 

 ewes of Lot IV, fed corn silage and alfalfa hay as roughage, con- 



7 Ohio Bulletin 246, $4.45 per ton. 



^Valuation by J. Bateman & Co., Philadelphia. 



