﻿THE COMMERCIAL FATTENING OF POULTRY. 



29 



Rations Nos. 1, 3, and 4 have a feeding value about equal to ration 

 No. 2 at 36 and 37 eents less per 100 pounds, due largely to the prieo 

 of oat flour. Ration No. 1 fed with condensed buttermilk diluted 

 with one and one-half parts of water has a mucli higher feeding value 

 than any of the other rations fed with ordinary buttermilk, at a slightly 

 lower cost than ration No. 2. Rations Nos. 1 and 3 as fed proved 

 in feeding to bo the most economical rations, while ration No. 4 

 gave very good results in cool weather, late in the feeding season. 



Table ]5. — Comparison of the different rations on the basis of the cost per pound of gain. 



Ration 

 No. 



Gain. 



Grain. 



Buttermilk. 



Total 

 cost. 



Amount. 



Cost. 



tanount. 



Cost. 



1 

 2 

 3 



la 



Pound. 

 1 

 1 

 1 

 1 



Pounds. 

 3.63 

 3.33 

 4.17 

 4.20 



SO. 049 

 .0676 

 .0559 

 .0567 



Pounds. 



i 2. 72 

 4^99 

 6.27 



12.52 



$0. 0272 

 .0125 

 .0157 

 .0252 



$0. 0762 

 .0801 

 .0716 

 .0819 



1 Condensed. 



Ration No. 1 was fed with condensed buttermilk diluted with 1 

 part of water, Nos. 2 and 3 were mixed with ordinary buttermilk, 

 and No. la is ration No. 1 fed with condensed buttermilk diluted 

 with one and one-half parts of water. Ration No. 2 was fed with 6 

 per cent of tallow. These costs are figured on a uniform price of 

 milk and grains at all of the stations, while the costs of gains in each 

 experiment is the actual cost at each feeding station, where the price 

 of buttermilk and grain varied. The amount and cost of the grain 

 and buttermilk per pound of gain at each of the feeding stations is 

 given in Table 16. 



COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTS OF 1910, 1911, AND 1912. 



Table 16 gives the average results of the feeding experiments 

 covering three years at the four feeding stations, during which time 

 1,196,646 birds were fed. The lots in Experiment A were fed longer 

 in 1911 than in 1910, which explains the increased cost of the gains 

 during 1911. The ration in Experiment B was cheaper in 1911 than 

 in 1910; the feeding station was run at full capacity during 1911, 

 which reduced the labor cost compared with 1910, when the station 

 was not full. The milk used in Experiment C was much cheaper 

 than that in Experiment B, which lowered the cost of gains in Experi- 

 ment C. The price of the grains was higher in 1912 than in 1911, 

 especially in Experiments C and D, which increased the cost of gain. 

 Feather picking resulted in much loss of gain in Experiments A, C, 

 and D. . The results secured in Experiment C were better, while 

 those in Experiments A and D were not as good as those produced 

 in 1911. 



