g6 STORRS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 
9,925 pounds; estimated weight of the two lambs that died, 125 
pounds; weight of the 138 lambs, 9,800: Actual gain for 
January, 1,431 pounds. | 
The weight of 138 lambs, February 1, was 11,231 pounds; 
on March 1 the weight, including the weight of a lamb that it 
became necessary to butcher during the month, was 12,273 
pounds, a gain for the month of 1,042 pounds. The lambs 
consumed of feed during the month of February, 6,960 pounds 
of grain; 5,250 pounds of ensilage, estimated weight; 1,800 
pounds of hay, estimated weight. At this period the lambs 
had become so large and fat that it was decided to send them 
to the butchers, for fatter and larger ones would not suit the 
market where our lambs are sold. 
Table 22 gives the average weight of the sheep at the begin- 
ning and end of each month, the gain in weight during the 
month, and the weights of total nutrients required to produce 
a gain of one pound in live weight. 
TABLE 23. 
Average Gain Per Sheep in Live Weight During December, 
January and February, and Pounds of Nutrients Re- 
guired to Produce a Gain of One Pound in 
Live Weight During These Months. 



REQUIRED TO PRopUCE A GAIN OF ONE PounD, 
AVERAGE WEIGHT. Live WEIGHT. 






















Total Nutrients. | Fuel Value. 
TIME OF EXPERIMENT. <r 
- 7 oa S ks | 5 = a 
4j.42]3'| 65 \-0 | & |28) ogee 
Lbs. | Whsea|lobss je labse Lbs. | Lbs. Lbs. | Lbs. Cal. Cal. 
December, 1894, - 71.4| 75.6% A52).13525) 1:93) 551 8.81 2.00 25,850 28,040 
January, 1895, - |71.0|81.4 |10.4) 6.96) 1.07| .27 /4.72| .90/ 13,580] 14,160 
February,t 1895, - |81.4) 89.7 | 8.3} 8.93/1.43] .34 | 6.01] 1.15| 17,410) 18,870 
Average, - - |74.6/82.2 | 7.6) 9.71/1.48) .87 | 6.51) 1.35) 18,950) 20,3860 

* Includes weight of wool which was sheared during the month. 
+ The weights at end and the gain in weight for February are calculated for thirty-one days, 
so as to make the three periods comparable. The actual average weight February 28 was 
88.9 pounds, and the gain for February 7.5 pounds. 
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. 
Referring back to the first month of the feeding experiment, 
the question at once arises, What was the cause of the poor 
showing for the month? ‘The trouble was with the ensilage, 
ee wy” 
abeticniincs 
i 
* 
_ 
z# 
. 
ca 

