Division II. 



4. 5. 6. 



Cost of lamb, $3.49 $3.43 $4.08 ) ^.^.^ ^^ 



Cost of feed consiinied, 4.24 3.03 3.82 j ^— -^^ 



$7.73 $7.46 $7.90 



Value received for meat, $5.94 $5.06 $6.65) 



" " wool and pelt, .80 1.11 1.12 [ $25.17 



" of obtaiuable manure, 1.71 1.23 1.55 J 



$8.45 $7.40 $9.32 

 Difference in favor, $3.08. 



6. CONCLUSIONS. 



1. The superior feeding effect of a daily diet rich in digestible 

 nitrogenous food constituents when raising lambs for the meat mar- 

 ket is well demonstrated in Division I. as compared with those in 

 Division II. 



2. The good services of the particular fodder rations used in case 

 of the first division of lambs is shown b}' a fair rate of increase in 

 live weight. 



3. Corn ensilage as a substitute in part for ro;veu has given very 

 satisfactory results. 



4. The profit obtained with reference to both divisions of lambs 

 is due to the commercial value of the fertilizing constituent contained 

 in the obtainable manure. This value amounts in the case of the 

 first division of lambs to $5.67. To appreciate this value properly 

 it needs to be considered, that in determining the financial results of 

 the experiment all home-raised fodder articles are counted on the 

 basis of their retail selling price in our vicinity. Sheep are known to 

 produce one of the best home-made manures. 



The decidedly beneficial influence of a rational and liberal system 

 of stock feeding on the financial results of a mixed farm manage- 

 ment cannot find its full expression in the mere presentation of the 

 results of a feeding experiment, however careful the matter may be 

 arranged. 



