4 
COLORADO EXPERIMENT' STATION 
The weights and gains made by the two lots, as shown in the 
table, are very closely alike. The amounts of corn and oil meal fed 
the two lots were also nearly equal. But the hay eaten by the lot 
fed whole hay was over double that eaten by the lot fed cut hay. 
Table II shows how this effects the feed required for ioo pounds 
of gain and the cost of gain. There was only one pound difference 
in the average gain per head made by the two lots of lambs in six 
weeks. 
TABLE II. 
FEED FOR GAIN AND COST OF GAIN —125 LAMBS IN EACH LOT 
Lot 
Ration 
Average 
Gain Per 
Pounds of Feed For 100 
Pounds Gain 
Cost of 
Feed For 
No. 
Head, Six 
Weeks, lbs. 
Corn 
Hay 
100 lbs 
Gain* 
A 
Corn, Alfalfa Hay, Whole, 
on Ground 
13 
478 
1511 
8,6 
$8.73 
B 
Corn, Alfalfa Hay, Cut, on 
Ground 
12 
525 
724 
9.3 
7.61 
*NOTE—Corn at 1 cent per lb., Alfalfa Hay at $5.00 per ton, Cut Hay at $6.00 
per ton, Oil Meal at 2 cents per lb. 
FEED FOR GAIN 
The lot fed whole hay required 47 pounds less corn for 10c 
pounds gain than the lot fed cut hay, but ate 1511 pounds of hay for 
every hundred pounds gain, while the cut hay lot ate only 724 pounds 
of hay for each 100 pounds gain. This is a marked difference. 
COST OF GAIN 
The prices, from which the costs given in the above table were 
computed, are not the exact prices of the feeding stuffs at the time 
the experiment was carried on; but they are round numbers, and 
changing the prices of feed stuffs in this instance could not greatly 
affect the ratio between the figures for the two lots. This experiment 
shows a considerable saving by using cut hay, although the cost of 
feed for 100 pounds of gain in either case is so high as to be almost 
prohibitive. A partial explanation of this may be found in the fact 
that the fleeces of the lambs were trimmed preparatory to showing 
at the Western Stock Show, causing a shrinkage in the weight of 
the lambs dtiring the fourth week. With Lot B this shrinkage 
amounted to a loss of 252 pounds for the week, or about 2 pounds 
per head. The most of this shrinkage was regained the following 
week, however, as shown by the gain of 529 pounds for that week, or 
over five pounds per head. So we cannot look for an explanation 
of the high cost in this shrinkage. But considering the feed given 
the whole hay lot, we find that they ate on an average 4.7 pounds 
of hay per head each day, an enormous amount. This would indi¬ 
cate very poor hay or an unnecessary waste of good hay, so that in 
either case, one would not be justified in reaching the conclusion that 
the economy shown by the table would ordinarily follow the use of 
