I 8 BULLETIN 75. 
ate less food and made larger gains than the pulp fed lambs, 
but the increased cost of food reduced the profit. Lot IV. 
fed beets and grain made a greater profit than Lot II fed 
pulp and grain, though the difference is small. The total 
value of the food steadily increases as the grain and beets 
are added to the ration, and the total gains made, also in¬ 
crease but not in proportion to the increased cost of food. 
T he object of lamb feeding in Colorado is to find a 
market for the surplus alfalfa and the profit for such feed¬ 
ing is often expressed by the value received for the hay so 
used. Then giving the other foods their local market values 
the hay made returns in this experiment of $12.20 per ton 
in Lot I.; $7.36 per ton in Lot II.; $9.86 per ton in Lot III. 
and $8.18 per ton in Lot IV. Giving the alfalfa a local value 
of $4.00 per ton on the farm, the profit for the gains made 
would show a return from feeding pulp with it in Lot I. of 
$4.28 per ton and $4.88 per ton on Lot II. Allowing $4.00 
per ton for alfalfa and one cent per pound for the grain, 
the sugar beets made a return in Lot III. of $7.96 per ton 
and in Lot IV. the return from the beets would be $8.22 per 
ton. When one begins to compute returns made by any 
one food in this way he realizes at once that at best the re¬ 
sults are only comparative. There is nothing to show that 
the food which appears to have given the return indicated 
actually did produce its proportion of the gain. Again the 
final value will vary greatly with the proportion of each food 
consumed in the ration. However, as a means of compari¬ 
son it serves a purpose. The figures we have given show 
that pulp gave approximately one-half the return pound for 
pound that was obtained from beets, but because of its 
cheapness it gave an apparently large value for the hay fed 
with it in Lot I. All of our estimates of cost and profit are 
based on amount of food eaten and the value of the gain. 
This method is sufficient for reliable comparisons and is 
used with the assumption that the increased selling price 
over the price paid for feeders will meet all labor expense 
and necessary waste. 
