56 Reporr or THE Department or AnimaL HusBANDRY OF THE 
RELATIVE EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY OF THE RATIONS. 
In the food eaten by Lot III there was about 37 per cent more 
dry matter than in that eaten by Lot IV and the gain in weight 
was about 54 per cent greater. One pound gain was made by Lot 
III for every 4.6 lbs. water-free food and one pound gain by Lot 
IV for every 5.2 lbs. of water-free food. The food cost of growth. 
was nearly 27 per cent greater for Lot IV, the cost of food per 
pound gain in weight during the fourteen weeks being 5.6 cents 
for Lot III and 7.1 cents for Lot IV. 
During the preliminary period of three weeks with part of the 
chicks, those having the animal meal ration gained 13.5 per cent 
more in weight and consumed 17 per cent more food. The water- 
free food required was 3.6 lbs. by Lot III for each pound gain in 
weight and 3.4 lbs. by Lot IV. The food cost per pound gain 
was about 4.1 cents for Lot III and about 4.7 cents for Lot IV. 
The average weight of 1 lb. was reached by Lot III three and 
one-half weeks sooner than by Lot IV and the average weight of 
2 lbs. over four weeks sooner. When the chicks in Lot IIL had 
attained the average weight of 3 lbs. those in Lot IV averaged less 
than 2.2 lbs. 
THE FEEDING TRIAL WITH COCKERELS. 
The feeding trial with the two lots of cockerels began in Sep- 
tember when they were about three months old. The two lots 
were alike at the start and averaged almost exactly the same in 
weight. As in the other feeding trials the amount of protein sup- 
plied per fowl was about the same for the two lots, but the nutri- 
tive ratlo was somewhat wider with the animal meal ration. 
