of different Breeds of Sheep. 
75 
sidering 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 dif- 
ferent lots of sheep. Leaving the point of the amounts of food 
consumed per head, tlie 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 tlie 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 Cotswolds, however, all give a larger 
amount of gross increase 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 Ave 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 icool, 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 — ■ 
