Comparative Fattening Qualities of Sheep. 



439 



heavier tlian any of the others, sold at much lower rates than the 

 rest; the average price of the Hampsliires sold at the first sale is, 

 therefore, rather unfairly reduced through this circumstance, and 

 hence the greater difference in favour of the Sussex sheep at this 

 sale. In the second sale, however, the Hampshires were all of 

 them exceedingly nice mutton. 



There is a difference of Qd. per stone between the first and 

 second sale of Hampshires, and of 4^d. per stone between the first 

 and second sale of Sussex sheep, which, it will be seen in Table 

 XV., is equal to a difference of 55. Id. per head on the Hamp- 

 shires and 55. ^d. per head on the Sussex between the two days' 

 sale. This serious difference was the result of a very flat market 

 on May 13th, but as the disadvantage would be nearly equal for 

 both breeds, the comparison between them is not thereby 

 affected. 



As nearly as can be estimated, deducting, of course, the value 

 of the offal, the Hampshire sheep sold alive, also on May 13th, 

 realized about 25. lOM. per stone, and the Sussex sold alive at 

 the same time 35. '2d. per stone. 



At the foot of Tables XIII. and XIV. respectively are given 

 the money value of each lot of 40 sheep, 32 of them being 

 actually sold, and the remaining 8 of each calculated at the rate 

 of the sheep sold alive ; and a glance at the Summary, Table 

 XV., will show that the price of the 40 as thus obtained, is, in 

 the case of both the breeds, exceedingly near to the same rate 

 that the animals sold for alive. In Tables XIII. and XIV. it is 

 seen that the wool of the Sussex sheep fetched \d, per lb. 

 more than that of the Hampshires. 



The loose fat (which includes both the caul and the gut fat) 

 sold for id. per lb. more at the second sale than at the first, but 

 this was the same for both breeds. 



In attempting to make out a debtor and creditor account of a 

 feeding experiment we meet with many difficulties, some of 

 which we do not profess to overcome in the statement which 

 we now subjoin. Indeed, we wish it to be clearly understood 

 that in showing a balance account of the experiment we only seek 

 to make difair comparison, and by no means undertake to discuss 

 in this place the question of the profit or loss of feeding gene- 

 rally, or of feeding in this particular case, considered as a branch 

 of farming practice ; but only to show as far as we are able what 

 have been the comparative merits of the two breeds in a money 

 point of view. With this limited object then, we charge against 

 neither breed the cost of transit from the breeder, which would of 

 course vary with the locality of the purchaser, nor do we make 

 any charge for attendance or for the carriage of the animals to 

 market at last. 



