62 Report or tor Department or ANIMAL HusBANDRY OF THE 
RELATIVE EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY OF THE RATIONS. 
From the first the ration containing the large proportion of ani- 
mal food gave much the better results, although during the first 
week not so much difference was manifest. The grain mixture 
No. 2, of the contrasted ration, appeared to be much less palatable 
to the ducklings than to the chicks, and to lessen this disadvantage 
corn meal was quite freely used at the beginning with the skim 
milk and curd. . 
During the first ten weeks two and one-third times as much food 
was eaten by Lot A as by Lot B and the total increase in live 
weight was about four times as great. One pound gain was made 
by Lot A for every 3.1:lbs. of water-free food consumed and one 
pound gain by Lot B for every 5.2 lbs. of water-free food. The 
cost of food for each pound gain was about 3.7 cents for Lot A and 
7.% cents for Lot B, a difference not far from 95 per cent in favor 
of Lot A. The use of the animal meal increased the cost of the 
one ration, for while it constituted less than one-fifth the cost of 
total fcod beside the alfalfa it represented considerably over one- 
third of the total cost of the ration. 
While the ducklings in Lot A were thrifty from the start, at all 
times free from disease and made an even flock, those in Lot B 
made an uneven growth and several died. The unevenness of size 
in the flock was very noticeable. At ten weeks of age the birds in 
Lot A seemed to have reached the limit of most profitable growth, 
for during the next five weeks the growth was slow and growth at 
the same rate could not generally show a profit over the cost of 
food. The dry matter in the food eaten was about one ounce per 
day for each pound live weight fed, a much lower rate than before. 
The dry matter in the food eaten by Lot B during this time was 
1.67 ozs. per pound live weight fed, although the amount per fowl 
was, as before, less than for Lot A. The gain in weight made by 
Lot & was somewhat the greater and was made at less cost for 
food. | 
The slow growth made by Lot B for so long a time (during 15 
weeks) did not prevent a more rapid gain being made when the 
ration was more favorable. ‘This is shown by the results of feed- 
