io Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station 
very low. To produce two tons of this meal per day required two men 
and a team besides the power cost, and if the hay were in the slightest 
degree damp two tons a day could not be put through. 
The alfalfa cutter used for producing the cut hay would run 
through two tons per hour. Figuring the cost of cut hay at $i 
per ton greater than whole hay, and of fine meal at $5 per ton 
greater than whole hay, with whole hay at $5 per ton, we have a 
cost for producing 100 pounds gain in live weight of $5 24 for cut 
hay and $5.03 for fine meal. 
II . I 
We may also compare Lot VI, the cut hay lot, with Lot IV of 
the previous table. The lambs used in Lots II to IV inclusive were all 
divided up for experiment at the same time, were put into the feed 
lot at the same time, and were all on a pound of grain per head per 
day at the time of starting the experiment. Lots V and VI were re¬ 
divided a month later because of an accident, and so the data foi 
them covers only ten weeks instead of fourteen weeks as in the 
case of Lot IV. The lots may fairly be compared, however, on the 
basis of feed required for gain in live weight, as all lots had passed 
the preliminary period during which grain feed was being increased 
to one pound. 
Comparing Lots IV and VI, we find that the whole hay lot re¬ 
quired 27 pounds more hay and 1 pound less corn for each hundred 
pounds gain in live weight produced, resulting in a cost for the 
whole hay lot of $5.02, while the cut hay lot cost $5.24. We see here 
no saving in cost of gain, but with lot V, the alfalfa meal lot, we see a 
slight saving when whole hay is $7 per top, but none when whole hay 
is $5 per ton. The hay used was poor quality chiefly because grasshop¬ 
pers had worked upon it in the field. Good alfalfa hay is eaten quite 
closely without being cut or ground, so that cutting or grinding good 
hay does not cause closer consumption in the same degree as with poor 
hay. Even a good quality hay has more or less poor hay mixed with it 
because stack tops and bottoms are necessarily of poor quality, so that 
cutting the hay usually results in closer consumption of these parts. 
When all the hay is poor quality, the cutting apparently results in 
much closer eating of the stems, and a correspondingly greater saving. 
CONCLUSIONS 
Self Feeders eor Hay 
We may safely conclude as the result of two years’ work that 
theie is a mateiial saving in cost of production where self feeders are 
used.. The figures for these two years show a saving of 35 cents pei 
■ tinning foot, which would repay the cost of the racks in three seasons. 
There are a number of facts to be noted concerning the self feed¬ 
ers, which have been observed in the course of their use. The distance 
bet a een rack openings on opposite sides of the rack must not be too 
great, or a pillar of uneaten hay will remain, preventing the main body 
of hay in the rack from slipping down to where the sheep can reach it. 
