180 
DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 
COMPARATIVE VALUE OF THE DIFFERENT BREEDS OF SHEEP.— On this 
subject we quote the careful, and to us convincing reasoning of H. S. 
Randall, Esq., contained in “The Sheep Husbandry 
“In instituting a comparison between breeds of sheep for wool -grow- 
ing purposes, I will, in the outset, lay down the obviously incontrover- 
tible proposition that the question is not what variety will shear the 
heaviest or even the most valuable fleeces, irrespective of the cost of 
production. Cost of feed and care, and every other expense, must be 
deducted, to fairly test the profits of an animal. If a large sheep con- 
sume twice as much food as a small one, and give but once and a half 
as much wool, it is obviously more profitable, other things being equal, 
to keep two of the smallest sheep. The true question then is, with the 
same expense in other particulars, from what breed will the verdure 
of an acre of land produce the greatest value of wool ? 
“ Let us first proceed to ascertain the comparative amount of food 
consumed by the several breeds. There are no satisfactory experiments 
which show that breed, in itself considered, has any particular influence 
on the quantity of food consumed. It is found, with all varieties, that 
the consumption is in proportion to the live weight of the (grown) ani- 
mal. Of course, this rule is not invariable in its individual application, 
but its general soundness has been satisfactorily established. Spooner 
states that grown sheep take up three and one-third per cent, of their 
weight in what is equivalent to dry hay per day, to keep in store condi- 
tion. Veit places the consumption at two and a half per cent. My 
experience would incline me to place it about midway between the two. 
But whatever the precise amount of the consumption, if it is propor- 
tioned to the weight, it follows that if an acre is capable of sustaining 
three Merinos weighing one hundred pounds each, it will sustain but 
two Leicesters weighing one hundred and fifty pounds each, and two 
and two-fifths South-Downs, weighing one bundled and twenty-five 
pounds each. Merinos of this weight often shear five pounds of fleece, 
taking flocks through. The herbage of an acre, then, would give 
fifteen pounds of Merino wool, and but twelve pounds of Leicester, and 
but nine three-fifths pounds of South-Down (estimating the latter as 
high as four pounds to the fleece) 1 Even the finest and lightest fleeced 
sheep ordinarily known as Merinos, average about four pounds to the 
fleece, so that the feed of an acre would produce as much of the highest 
quality of wool sold under the name of Merino, as it would of New Lei- 
cester, and more than it would of South-Down ! The former would be 
worth from fifty to one hundred per cent, more per pound than either 
of the latter! Nor does this indicate all the actual difference, as I have, 
in the preceding estimate, placed the live-weight of the English breeds 
low, and that of the Merino high. The live-weight of the four pound 
fine fleeced Merino does not exceed ninety pounds. It ranges from 
eighty to ninety pounds, so that three hundred pounds of live-weight 
would give a still greater product of wool to the acre.* I consider it 
perfectly safe to say that the herbage of an acre will uniformly give 
* It is understood that all of these live-weights refer to ewes in fair ordinary, or 
what is called store condition. 
