52 Report or tur DerarrmMent or Antmat Huspanpry OF THE 
RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF THF RATIONS. 
More food was at all times eaten by the chicks having the ani- 
mal meal ration. During the first twelve weeks the dry matter in 
the food consumed by Lot I was 36 per cent greater than in that 
consumed by Lot II and the gain in weight was 56 per cent 
greater. Lot I gained one pound in weight for every 3.3 lbs. of 
water-free food and Lot II gained one pound for every 3.8 lbs. of 
water-free food. 
During the next eight weeks after the cockerels were removed 
the dry matter in the food was nearly 37 per cent the greater for 
Lot I and the gain in weight was 66 per cent greater than that of 
Lot II. One pound gain was made by Lot I for every 6.1 lbs. of 
water-free food-and one pound gain by Lot II for every 7.5 Ibs. of 
water-free food. ‘° 
The next five weeks showed the same relative consumption of 
food, although growth was much slower and about the same for 
each lot, slightly favoring Lot I. The dry matter in the food for 
Lot I was about 36 per cent more than for Lot IJ. One pound 
gain was made for every 10.6 lbs. of water free food by Lot I and 
one pound gain for every 8.1 lbs. of water free food by Lot II. 
Tor the last six weeks the food consumption was nearly 18 per 
cent greater for Lot I. The gain in weight was almost identical 
for both lots, but three pullets began laying in Lot I nearly a’ 
month before any commenced to lay in Lot II. 
RELATIVE ECONOMY OF THE RATIONS. 
The cost of food per pound gain in weight during the first 
twelve weeks was 4.25 cents for Lot I and 5.19 cents for Lot II, an 
excess of 22 per cent. During the next eight weeks the cost was 
about 50 per cent greater for Lot II, the cost per pound of gain 
being 7.5 cents and 11.2 cents, respectively. After this when the 
growth ‘was much slower the food cost of the gain made was much 
greater for both lots: The difference was in favor of Lot II for 
