389 



roughage and was taken out of the experiment a few days 

 after the beginning. 



Both years the lambs in lot I did not take to their 

 feed like those of other lots, and the gains per head show 

 that something was materially wrong, as only one-half 

 as much gain was made in the same length of time as 

 with the lots not receiving any silage. Neither could 

 they be induced to eat their grain ration. 



The following statement of the feeds consumed daily 

 should be studied in connection with the table of weights 

 and gains: 



STATEMENT SHOWING THE AVERAGE DAILY 

 RATION, AND THE AVERAGE COST OF PRO- 

 DUCING 100 POUNDS OF GAIN FOR 

 EACH LOT BOTH YEARS 



Corn Grain Hay Average cost of pro- 

 Silage ducing 100 Ibs. gain 



Lot I .1.38 1.15 .00 11.72 



Lot II I'l 1.52 .76 9.07 



Lot III 60 1.52 .86 7.47 



Lot IV 49 1.49 .97 7.74 



Lot V 37 1.51 1.23 8.59 



Lot VI 22 1.52 1.33 8.80 



Lot VII 00 1.51 1.11 8.96 



Valuing feeds the same per pound for each lot, the 

 average cost for the two years of producing 100 pounds 

 of gain varied from $7.47 to $11.72, a difference of $4.25 

 per hundred. 



In studying the table it will be seen that the most 

 uniform gains were made by the lambs of lot III; that in 

 lots I and II, receiving more silage and less hay, and in 

 the remaining lots, receiving more hay and less silage, 

 the gains made were not so uniform. The financial 

 statement shows that the lambs of lot III also made the 

 cheapest gain. 



The grain ration for the different lots was the same, 

 being one-half by weight of corn and oats. The results 

 show that the lambs received as much grain daily as 



