















Sept 8, 1855.] 



THE AGRICULTURAL GAZETTE 



603 



a power more capable of detecting the EXPERIMENTS ON THE COMPARATIVE FAT- 

 TENING QUALITIES OF DIFFERENT BREEDS 

 OF SHEEP. 



There is a power more capaoie 01 detecting tne 

 presence, whether of food or poison in a soil, than 

 anv power the chemist wields — this power is 

 —L+ahlo life. The living plant will make 



use 



living plant will make 

 agents though present in 

 that the chemist cannot 



an y paw 

 vegetable life. 



of fertilising 



quantity so small 

 Measure it; and the composition of plants, the 

 jnany analyses that have been published of them, 

 are thus to be considered better indices to what a 

 fertile soil must have within it than is furnished by 

 the direct chemical examination of the soil itself. 

 Last spring Dr. Daubeny delivered a lecture at 

 Oxford in which a striking illustration of this point 

 was given. His subject was the presence of phos- 

 phoric acid in certain of the older rocks ; and this, 

 though inappreciable by the ordinary chemical tests, 

 had been made evident by the growth of Barley in 

 artificial soils prepared from the rocks in question. 

 The subsequent analysis of the Barley plants proved 

 the presence of more phosphoric acid than had ex- 

 isted in the seed ; and there is this curious agricul- 

 tural interest incidentally attaching to the experi- 

 ment, that from the extremely small quantity of 

 phosphoric acid present in the older rocks, as com- 

 pared with those of more recent formation, the 

 inference drawn "would seem to be, that we had 



Upon the whole, the geneial results of this com- 



bred sheep, and nearly one-fourth more than the Hamp- 

 shires, which are the second in order of rate of increase 

 per head per week. 



The increase per 100 lbs. live weight per week, as 



parative trial between the Leicesters and their cross g* ven m the last line of the first or upper division of 



with the Southdown are : — That the cross-breds con- 

 sumed slightly more food, in relation to a given weight 

 of animal, within a given time, than the Leicesters. 

 That the Leicesters and cross-bred wethers consumed 

 all but identical amounts of food to produce a given 

 amount of increase, and the cross-bred ewes rather less 

 than either. That the cross-breds yielded slightly the 

 most increase upon a given weight of animal withiu a 

 given time. That the Leicesters gave rather more wool, 

 both per head and per cent, upon their weight, and the 

 cross-bred ewes more than the wethers. That the fat Lei- 



the Summary Table, does not show by any means such 

 a variation in the rate of increase among the six lots, 

 when it is thus calculated in relation to their respective 

 weights instead of per head. Still, even in this respect, 

 the Cotswolds stand the first; next come the cross- 

 breds ; then the Hampshires and Leicesters ; and lastly 

 the Sussex Downs. The rate of increase thus calculated 

 in relation to the average weight of the animal is for 

 the Cotswolds one-tenth more than for the cross-breds, 

 and from one-seventh to one-sixth more than for the 

 Hampshfres, Leicesters, and Sussex Downs. It is here 



cesters averaged only about 4 lbs. more weight per carcass j worthy of observation, that, excluding the Leicesters, 

 than the cross-breds. Tiiat the cross-breds gave, within j tlie °. rder in which the different lots gave increase in 

 a given time, slightly the highest per centage of dead j relation to their weight is obviously pretty nearly the 



e most loose or inside inverse of that of the quality of the mutton. That is to say, 



approached the border at least of the lower limit of 



organic existence" — the stunted, dwindled, puny 



stems of the half grown Barley, barely vegetating 



in the artificial soils manufactured from these 



ancient rocks, proving to the philosopher that the 



scantiest animal existence alone could there have 



been, just as a puny crop of grain upon infertile 



soil proves to the farmer that but little stock is kept 

 upon that land. 



gave slightly the highest average price per head. 



With the above observations we conclude the com- 

 parison between the Leicesters and cross-breds alone, as 

 rapid fatteners on a liberal system of feeding and 

 management ; and in the usual " Tabulated Summary " 

 of the results which next follows (Table XIX.), we in- 

 clude those of the Hampshire and Sussex Downs and 

 Cotswolds. Henceforth, therefore, the whole six lots of 

 sheep will be compared together. 



Taking the items of comparative interest somewhat 

 in the order in which they stand in this Tabulated Sum- 

 mary, it is seen that of the six lots that have been ex- 

 perimented upon, the Cotswolds give by far the largest 

 average weekly increase per head ; indeed, about half 

 as much more than either the Sussex, Leicester, or cross- 



TABLE XIX.— GENERAL SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTS WITH HAMPSHIRE AND SUSSEX DOWNS, 

 COTSWOLDS, LEICESTERS, CROSS-BRED WETHERS, AND CROSS-BRED EWES. 



Particulars. 



40 



Hants. 



tfov. 1850, 1 

 May 1851, 

 26 weeks. 



Average weight per head when put up 



>t when fat, including wool 



total increase per head 



increase per head weekly 



weekly increase per 100 lbs., live weight 



it 



» • . 



tt. 



lbs. oz. 

 113 7 

 183 1 



69 10 

 2 10| 

 1 12f 



40 



Sussex. 



\ov. 1850, t 

 May 1851, 

 26 weeks. 



lbs. oz. 



88 

 140 12 



52 12 

 2 0} 

 1 12i 



46 



Cotswolds. 



Dec. 1851, to 



April 1852, 



20 weeks. 



Average food consumed 

 per head weekly 



Average food consumed 

 weekly per 100 lbs. live 

 weight of animal 



Food consumed to pro- 

 duce 100 lbs. increase of- 

 live weight of animal ... 



Oil-cake... 

 Clover-hay 

 Swedes ... 

 Oil-cake... 

 Clover-hay 

 Swedes ... 



Oil-cake... 



Clover-hay 



Swedes 



• • • 



« • i 



• » * 



• ♦ • 



• • t 



♦ •• 



• • • 



• • • 



• t • 



• i ■ 



« • . 



• • • 



• • 



Average wool per head 



Average wool per 100 lbs. live weight of animal f 



*fcen shorn 



t ■ • 



• • ■ 



-1 



"*- 



Average 

 dead or 

 carcase 

 weights 

 (in stones 

 of 8 lbs.) 



Weights 

 taken at 



home. 



( Of the 4 of largest and 4 \ 



of smallest increase) 



Of the 8 of medium > 



increase C 



( 



Weights 

 allowed at 



Newgate 

 market. 



Of the 16 killed • 



Of the 4 of largest and \ 

 4 of smallest increase J 



Of the 8 of medium I 

 increase j 



7 



7 



106 



5 



4 



12J 

 



3± 



Hi 



71 10} 

 291 9± 

 261 6 J 

 3966 12 



6 4 

 3.77 



0* 



6 

 5 



77 m 



5 4l 



lbs. oz. 



119 13 



183 7 



63 10 



3 2| 



2 1 



5 



68 

 297 

 285 



7 



3835 12 



5 10 

 4.57 



st. 

 12 



lbs. 

 6J 



12 4J 



* • • 



k 



Of the 16 killed 



• • • 



ft* 



Proportion of carcass r Of 4 of largest increase 

 m 100 lbs. of the Of 4 of smallest increase 

 gross, or unfasted i Of 8 of medium increase 

 live weight. 



I Of total 16 kilted ... 



• • ■ 



• * t 



Proportion of carcass 

 m 100 lbs. of the- 

 lasted live weight. 



f Of 4 of largest increase 

 Of 4 of smallest iucrease 

 Of 8 of medium increase 



; Of total 16 killed 



12 5A 



st. lbs. 

 9 4 



9 5| 



9 5J 



12 4 

 12 2 



9 2 



9 4J 



12 3 



56.9 

 56.4 



56.8 



56.7 



9 3 



57.2 

 56.1 

 57.4 



57.0 



8 1 

 6 14J 

 113 4 

 5 3f 



4 74 



73 6$ 



253 10i 



216 llf 



3557 8 



40 



Leicesters. 



Dec. 1852, to 

 April 1853, 

 20 weeks. 



lbs. oz. 



101 5 



145 14 



44 9 



2 34 



1 12| 



40 



Cross-bred 



wethers. 



Dec. 1852, to 



April 1853, 



20 weeks. 



lbs. oz. 



95 1 



139 9 



40 

 Cross-bred 



Ewes. 



Dec. 1852, to 



April 1853, 



20 weeks. 



41 

 2 



S 

 3J 



1 14* 



lbs. oz. 



91 4 



133 12 



42 8 



2 2 



1 14 



5 14 



5 94 



83 13 



4 12 



4 S£ 



67 13 



263 13 



251 4 



3761 



9 4| 

 5.44 



st. lbs. 

 12 6* 



12 34 



12 a 



8 2 

 5.58 



5 14 

 5 94 

 82 14 

 5 

 4 12* 

 70 10 

 264 4J 

 251 10| 

 3725 4 



5 94 

 5 5 

 78 

 4 154 



4 in 



69 5£ 



263 8± 



250 5i 



3671 



6 7 



4.60 



7 34 

 5.40 



st. lbs. 

 9 4J 



9 4 



Q 41 



12 2 



59.1 

 57.4 



57.8 



9 



2i 



9 2J 



9 2i 



56.2 

 51.9 

 55.4 



st. lbs. 

 9 U 



9 2| 



st. lbs. 

 8 54 



8 6± 



9 9. 



8 6 



8 7 



9 01 



8 34 

 8 4 



8 7J 



8 3f 



58.0 



54.7 



56.4 

 53.2 

 55.7 



553 



55.0 

 55.1 

 553 



55.2 



« • • 



• • > 



* ■ • 



• •t 



• ■ • 



A w 8e , wei s ht of 



*TJ*} per hea °> 



weighed warm. 



Of 4 of largest increase 

 Of 4 of smallest increase 

 Of 8 of medium increase 



Of total 16 killed 



• • • 



• • 



• • • 



* 1 - 



• • * 



f^ 1 ^ lbs. of the 

 lasted weight, 



Of 4 of largest increase 

 Of 4 of smallest increase 

 Of 8 of medium increase 



• « - 



• 1 ■ 



Of total 16 killed 



• • • 



2 g ,^ windpipe 

 PWhead, weighed 



Of 4 of largest increase 

 Of 4 of smallest increase 

 Of 8 of medium increase 



• • ■ 



« • . 



* • * 



Of total 16 killed 



• 11 



• • ■ 



roportion of inncra / Of 4 of largest increase 

 "WMhglta.iS "" 



«as? 



asted 



Of 4 of smallest increase 



increase 



Of total 16 killed 



• t ■ 



• * » 



• • » 



61.2 

 60.0 

 60.6 



60.6 



lbs. oz. 

 12 154 



11 5 



12 7 



61.8 

 59.3 

 60.6 



60.6 



62.9 

 60.4 

 61.2 



61.4 



12 42 



7.24 

 7.09 



1 

 1 



1 



10 



9; 

 94 



1 93 



lbs. oz. 



10 44 



8 6J 

 10 2J 



9 12 



lbs. oz. 

 8 llf 



8 2| 



9 84 



61.6 

 57.0 



60.8 



60.1 



61.4 



58.7 

 60,8 



60.5 



61.3 

 61.0 

 60.7 



60.9 



lbs. oz. 

 8 3J 

 3 15J 

 6 8 



8 tM 



6 44 



7.08 

 7.17 



7.45 



7.29 



1 



1 

 1 



44 



si 



6* 



1 51 



0.84 

 1.03 

 0.93 



0.89 



1.0.-. 



1.03 



4.57 



5.08 

 5.53 



5.18 



500 

 3.59 

 4.90 



lbs. oz. 

 7 2 



6 8 



7 34 



lbs. oz. 

 7 7 



6 7 



7 2} 



6 15 



7 0? 



5.09 

 5.20 

 5.55 



460 



5.35 



5.74 

 5.74 



5.84 



5.79 



1 14± 



1.01 

 0.99 

 1.19 



• « • 



..I 0.93 





1.00 



106 



1 



1 

 1 



6 

 8 

 6 



1 6 



1 

 1 



1 



84 

 64 



5j 





1 

 1 



1 



34 



44 

 34 



1 64 



0.85 

 1.43 

 105 



1.09 

 1.18 

 105 



1.10 



1.09 



1 33 



0.94 

 1.15 

 0.99 



102 



Averalft Ell? of the carcft ses, per stone of 8 lbs 



A venSe Z money return per head of those sold dead (without wool) 

 4vera^« 1 mone y return per head of those sold alive (without wool) 



^s&MSSiS^ the W001 per head ••■ ■ 



* In the 



• • • 



■ • • 



• ■ a 



• •» 



1851. 



8. 



3 

 40 



40 



7 



1 



d. 

 



? 



01 



!i-_ 



s. d. 

 3 2± 



82 



34 



6 



64 



4 



2 





Bau ^est an<?n, 0f ti h r Cot8wo,ds ' *" the averages in this table are calculated from the results 



> *uu me 10 of medium increase— in all 20 killed, instead of onlv 16 killed, as in the case 



1852. 



5. (i. 



2 10 

 37 14 

 35 4 



9 8 



1853 



8. 



d. 



1. d. 



4 



14 



4 2 



40 



H 



39 114 



38 



4 



40 4 



10 



2 



9 34 



1 



3 



1 6 



8. 



d. 



4 



2 



38 



1 



37 



114 



10 



3 



1 



5 



le nve of 



the finest mutton. Consistently with this view, the Lei- 

 cesters, however, fall somewhat short in the rate of their 

 increase considering the somewhat inferior quality of 

 their mutton compared with that of the cross-bred and 

 Hampshire sheep. 



In the second main division of the Summary Table 

 we have the various particulars of the consumption of 

 food by the different lots of sheep. Leaving the point 

 of the amounts of food consumed per head, the variations 

 in which, so far as the dry foods are concerned, depend 

 on the varying original weights of the different lots ; 

 and looking only to the amounts consumed per 100 lbs. 

 live weight of animal, or to produce 100 lbs. of increase, 

 we see that, although the oilcake and Clover chaff were 

 in each case given in proportion to the original weights 

 of the sheep, yet the result was that, taking the average 

 throughout the entire period of the experiment, the 

 Leicesters had less of these dry foods in relation of their 

 average weight than any of the other lots, and more 

 particularly than the Hampshires, Sussex Downs, and 

 Cotswolds. Notwithstanding this, however, the Leicesters 

 also ate less in relation to their average weight of the 

 Turnips, which they were allowed ad libitum, than any 

 of the other breeds. This less consumption of total 

 food in relation to their weight by the Leicesters might 

 be in their favour, if the result were that they consumed 

 also less for the production of a given amount of 

 increase. But the fact is seen to be that, in relation to 

 the increase they yielded, the Leicesters consumed 

 quite as much food as the cross-breds, and notably more 

 than the Cotswolds. Leicesters, cross-breds, and Cots- 

 wolds, however, all give a larger amount of gross in- 

 crease for a given amount of food consumed than either 

 the Hampshires or the Sussex sheep. Such are the 

 results of the experiments as they stand on the point of 

 the amount of food required to yield a given amount of 

 increase. But we must not forget that the trials were 

 not all made side by side and in the same season ; those 

 with the Hampshire and Sussex Downs being made 

 together in 1850-1, those of the Cotswolds alone in 

 1851-2, and those with the Leicesters and cross-breds 

 in 1852-3. And although the quality of the respective 

 foods was in all cases as nearly alike as circumstances 

 would allow, yet the actual stocks used were different 

 for the three seasons. There is, nevertheless, much of 

 consistency in the general character and direction of the 

 actual numerical results; which are, indeed, much 

 what we should expect, considering the generally 

 admitted distinctions between the different breeds, 

 though perhaps not on all points what is currently 



stated of them. 



With respect to the wool, it is seen that the long- 

 woolled Cotswolds and Leicesters gave the greatest 

 weight, both per head and per 100 lbs. live weight of 

 animal ; next in order come the cross-breds ; and lastly, 

 the Hampshire and Sussex Downs. The order of 

 highest amount of wool per head is : 



Cotswolds I Cross-bred wethers 



Leicesters Hampshires 



Cross-bred ewes | Sussex Downs. 



The order of highest amount of wool per 100 1 

 weight is : 



Leicesters I Cross-bred wethers 



Cotswolds I Sussex Downs 



Cross-bred ewes | Hampshires. 



It is worthy of notice, that of the cross-breds which 

 were fed in the same season and side by side with the 

 Leicesters, the ewes gave considerably more wool both 

 per head and per 100 lbs. live weight than the wethers j 

 the female offspring, therefore, inheriting more promi- 

 nently the qualities of the male parent so far as the 

 fleece is concerned. Comparing together the Ham p. 

 shires and the Sussex Downs, which were fed side by 

 side with each other, the Hampshires gave an average 

 of 1} Jb. niore wool per head ; but the Sussex, on the 

 other hand, gave nearly one-fourth more than the 

 Hampshires per 1 00 lbs. live weight of animal. 



Looking to the question of the quantity of mutton or 

 weight of carcase yielded by the different breeds thus 

 fed only to the age of about 15 or 1 6 months, it is seen 

 that the Hampshires and Cotswolds averaged nearly 

 1 24 stones (8 lbs. per stone) of marketable meat or dead 

 weight, equal to 24 or 25 lbs. per quarter; these Cots- 

 wolds were, however, six weeks less time on fattening 

 food than the Hampshires, and were nevertheless some- 

 what too fat. The Sussex Downs and Leicesters gave 

 only about three-fourths as much dead weight per head 

 as the Hampshires and Cotswolds; that is, little more 



» 



