Se MMMM Lap > ae & LSNixtg * ie ee ee raed - i see aed} Using Corn in Fattening Lambs A ACL L Chara iSO} THESis Set heng + Yar hong fo. (-< 7,07 wh ty. aun. ~3 ot * oF tJ oo, wd u tH : SING coORWN CROP ba) weet Ix FATTEHYING LA™BS., hv wt wn a© ed )? er GoW. Tufelunss. Class of 1901, Avricultural Qollese, Michijan. The Value of Different Rations in Fattening Lambs. The Object. The primary object of this experiment was to determine the relative value of three rations commonly fed to fattening lambs in this state. Other minor points of value and interest to the sheep feeder have presented themselves during the course of the experiment. Feeds Used. The different feeds used in composing the rations were as follows: Ration one consisted of unhusked corn and clover hay. Ration two was iwade up of clover hay and ensilase with shelled corn for grain. The third ration was composed of clover hay and corn-neal. Aside from the feeds mentioned, a certain amount of oats was fed with each ration for the first six weeks of the experiment. In case of the ration given as nunber three shelled corn was substi- tuted for cornemeal during the last five weeks of the feeding trial. The object of substituting, corn for meal was to determine whether the lanbs would make better gains on the whole grain than on the ground crain,. The Animals. The animals chosen for the experiment were lambs purchased of farmers living in the vicinity of the College. Thev were grade Shropshires and good representatives of their class of lambs. They were in a thrifty condition when the feeding trial began. The 36494 7 i ‘ - 2 7 : +*. EN wt se 8 Wie Hoh ~ + qdu 48 —-44 wb SsevenuyeOLent porunes. Toe Plan. Out of a Flock beginning of the exreriment was avout or about one hundred and fifty lambs, thirty as neacly equal in weisht and feeding qualities as it was possible to ,et then, were chosen, These thirty lambs were then divided into lots of ten each. In dividins them into ]ots care was tatren 40 (3% the individuals uniform in size in each lot and to have the Lots as reerlyvy equal in weig?.t as possible. After being divided the Lots were numbered one, two, and three, am each lot Was Wel GS a pen cf suitable size and the feeding tne ration consisting: was fed the ensilage, shed and the weizshts res orded, Each lot was then placed in bevyan. Number one received of wnhusked com and clover hav, MNunner two clover hay and shelled corn ration, while number trrea received tne corneal and clover hay Tne Lenbs were accustomed *0 grain and indoor feeding by giving them srw. quentities of previous tice «- v. r,eter Paenr day Sel £ We. 5 no exercise excepting pens allotted to then, rn ¢ . : reeP rhe Lawiss 3 270rn and ae innins, of and at efroch cOntinually kept within, their reéecn, oats in the bran for two or tnree werwxs 5 tre exveriment. Tre Lanns were fFeedin. fresh water was civen Tney were é.loved sucn as tnevy could cet in the snall feeding VW @ ere ed > A ‘ned For tne tirst tine on Thursdaer, Mov. 29, but were not fed on the experiment rations until Satvrdar, Dec. 5. The first nine deys after being weighed each lot received a certain amount of corn, oats, and elover harp. After the Llxwhs were once Ted on thair respective rations they received as much they would “7 yy + 44. ae* L2i1e@ £90 te 9 sOonswie without lea ving any from one feeding Se froughs th @ amount a} ad ° en . , . wat, - 7 ° ~= y “we . (4% @n wienay . f. ~. “eS slacitiv recnsadld fer 2 as Gr two, a @ e ms. yom VY on ve L { ar - u ts ) e@ To pretew to view the results of the experiment seven tables hesre buen prepared, In iwting there tables the ain hes Hearn to cive in Tioures evervtrings that woult Pe naoetssary vO Gononstratea the velue, if any, of one ration over anotter asecrdin: Its obteined from tre extreriment, During the earse of the faeding trial a resord was “ept of the wei.?.t of each food Gomswied dailv and t+! e Laahs were weiched at intervels of tvo weeks Shroughout the experiment which Lasted vinetyethrese davse cits of tna foad consumed and the cuins sede by tre Lamis for every two weeks ara shown in t?-e tatles. From these ve? the fond and cains of the lfiibs, te everaye ccins, averace dejly velns, tosel orins, cost per pound of cain, and thea total cost for 6Moh pe Ce saab :f - V stood of two wee'srs Nave neeaen determined, The total results A X- onl ct -! revived at hy tne sane matnod ermloved in cormutines the aif < 4 aw We Sy Aas Bu, 4 Ne seriierncntiuly results. It was mot rossitble to ecetormine the exect eowit Of orn ‘3 >) 2 nsiumed by Lot one, because no weisl.t could he ewe 8 node of the orain alone, The method used in commu... vie arount a of sruin was to find the per csit of exr corn in a certain welch oF unhusxed corn. The corn wasted hy the Lents was cieked un and Weageed at the end of avery weok., Thes2 weights are recorde? in tiutLe one under the nead of vas COrne Tables iwiter one and two ylain the results oF the ‘ta: 4 221-3 eo pwrisins Lot number one; the lot which received the wirus-ed corm and clover ney ration. eples three and four illustrate the We ts of Poed consumed and eins made by Lot two whish received ee ensilarve, sbheiled corn, end clover hav ration. Tables five and six ,ive the sane illustration of the third lot which received the rechON consisting of corne-iieel and clover he ¢ 3/4 . Table muiber seven is a catparison cf tre financial Sia ead “LES. Ten Lambs. Lot I, Table I, a | a aa GF GF Fe har 'Curn "Oats "Hey 'Waste*Ave.tAve. 'Tctal "Cost "Total * Corn 'Fodder' ' "Corn 'saiyg'daily'jain "per Lb.tcost. ' ' ’ ' ' 'for * faint’ or ’ of '! ' ' ' ' ' "two ? Toss ioain ' Dates! lbs. ' lbs. ' los. *§ lbs.tlis. "Wks.! : , ’ ' ' ' ' flbs.' lhs.'lbs. 1A ey nn appre en tage nm ng cree FE GI rn WOV.e ? § ? ’ ? 9 ? v ? 8 2G 9025, ? M225 918 ’ ? ’ ’ ? ’ ec, ? t 9 f ? ? ? 'yZ03% g v & 1.3 "21.6 '17.5 "140 ! ’ ' P14 ’ 11.915 Des, 9 9 9 g ? ? ? 'Gain ? ? 15° '69,245 'HOR.1 835. 45 840 "639 79.085 %3,5 m0008 8D q ? ? ? ? ? g ? t 9 Nec ? g 9 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? m4 8700 "12 rOoLeo 6210) FL PAGS) 845,5 § O4ne TL G5" JEN, ? 9 ? ? g g ? ? g eg qt M19. 4 8256549 "L7H «684365 84,7 §' 055 47, 60495 8313 ? 9 9 g 9 ? ? g $ 8 Jine ? ? 9 t ? g ? ? t 9 a6 MeL eth R58 54! "M40 F276 '8,4 ',185 '26 *.0537 2.175 ? g ? ? ? ? g e ? ? Fep, ? ' ’ ’ ? ? ? ? ’ ' 9g PO75,46H toKQ At M40 'RO,75'4 Sf 8s M42. *,05193 '2,173 9 t 9 g ? 9 9 ? 9 g Fer, ' ’ ' t ’ ’ ? ’ ? ' On 9 ’ ’ ? ? ! ? ’ ? ? . ’ 9 ? ? g ? t t g g wir, ? q ? g g ? ? ? e g 2 107.7% Mpa loar ' 70 "9,5 1,6 *.228 "16 P0565) 81.06% Te ye ene ape commer apne me eye @ mm ayeie mame 1 pe nnn og ome = Toteal?969 43 "12126.69106.5 "1500 "157,68 16.4.174 164 0508 "15,764 e ? ? q ? g ? ? ? g Gost of Waste Cory ' PeO08 t ? After subtrecting ecet cf weste corn P.0754 Y2,56€5 ewe, #0 Ten Lambs. Lot I. Table II. mn ee ee 8 ee ee ee eee ee —— 4 So eee ae ee a eal ——— % g g Meichts ' Prices ' Cost oe He oo nn nn + nn nn wage no gn en ee i ge Ten Labs '7538 lbs. '.04¢ per lb. 854,11 ? ¢ t Corin 1969.43 Lb!.20 rer bu. * 6,539 ? 9 ? Corn Fodder 111268.60 '$3,00 rer ton ' 1.69 ? 8 9 Oats 106.5 eo¢ per bue ' 83 t Hay 1300 156.00 per ton * 5,20 ? 8 9 Total cent ’ ' 47,3" q g g Ten labs after experiment. OPP. "St per lb. ' 46.10 ? ? ? e333 s ' rie qe - _—-_ = OO. @ 2 4 @. 8 & Oe a Oe: & Oe eee ee ee a ao... 2 ee Oo _ a Teble III. = CIID S « Teil "Ty Vv —--4- 4 - MotalLtcost tAver, a&lns tay Tor g + WO “3 4? we © x Av ? t — UF "He Tw msi farce ?7 - s. us Ou corn aintfer Lb. } ) Cd » 1: orf tw Gs O wr c ud - &- & oo eo & on ee %-4 ay iy vats ] LS 055 lis.’ yr ils. lhs,? OG. Sa > +oal 7 f& os DA \\ % ‘ Tov e “9 CQ rol LD | a oO ' 9205 170 — 140 mee Dec. "210 1210 t.> 2 eh Me) ©; e'? L Co r~ eather * Teor eee a 'Weicshts "Prices ' Costs ’ ’ ' -- _ -_—— — ; + Ten Lewis "857, 8.047 per’ $36,51 ? t Lb. ? 9 ? ? Corn 7290 5 '40/ per ! Del ' ‘ bie ’ ? g ? Oats "106,85 "25¢ per ! 86 ' ‘ bu, ° ? 9 g Bnisilece "1470 532,00 per? 1.83 ' ' ton ' 9 ? ? Hay 17.250 15,00 pert 4,92 : ’ ton ? ? g —~--- -+-- ———+4- - _—--- Total ccst t ' + $49,138 ' t ' ~ eee To Tv rs ~ Lambs after experinieit "G99 5 ’ 5/ per * $49,975 ’ t Lb. ' ——— mn 7 peg ? g g Profits ' ’ ' —— ae ee: ee see * Cost "per lb, fof pain! 'Total'Ccaost ijeln Se See Train a ! 'dajly ‘Aver, Table V. tAver,. '7ain ' for * two weeks Lot III. Oats "Ground 'Hayv Ten Lembs, 'Corn he es Meal lbs.? "Corn 7 ? I QE Detes? iC €O OL < a M2 oo mo “S st MG z sn +O te r-! i> © C Cc? © nN N t? eo e e e e e CF a n 2 CQ o oa oa oo a= ao ~~ a oo oe = oe oa oo C oa oa “3 CQ a. O. Cv ti? CO Cc 3) CL ci “ft ~ yt ° r © o © {.>3 ® ° e e o Were fe ee we BF Pe ew eB eB ee ee ee ee) S mM 4 Cc CC eC o ws) - ec @ @ @ © @ BP B&B & © 2 ee oO tr e tr CN © © CQ <> c! a = [a] = oa ~~ oa a = oo oo oa a o~ oa oo oo > i e e e aa oH t to rr “ CQ cf ic co c r4 oo Gm eae oe fF @& 2 @ @&F e2 @2 © 82 & & & é nN XQ é OQ @ cv I & Ja ar J Fe h ® 9 F 1,17 7 a ss. ss wns 8 2 ” =a = ' 0% wr 39 co fF oo 83 BW wo eo 77,— eo w 3 8 82 37 8 .wf2©f @ 32 wee @ wee we we @ @ @ 2 w=2 2 28 & @ ww =a 2=#2 @ @S 4 ef BD 2€© 83S se wow oo @ BP 2 fF 2s 2 2 2 f q 1 t wT ? f *204 ed ‘539 4 > a>

f® 8& 8 8@& 8# 2e fF 82—lUOlUlUlUOlw n Pas « ee . “* = Tiare Ten Laibs, Lot ITII. Tanle VI, ———s- ewe ew ee ee ee ee Tec con nw7r rrr rrr” =-osasa ew eeewew ee 2 eo SO! “vr =—_—_we eo oe fF @ -_~s Welsits "' Prices ' Costs ? ? ? ma ee ee eee eee ~-+---- won ne ee ee ee ny ee ne ee ee ep eee ee fen Lavibs 777 los.'4ef per lb. 134,955 ? % 8 Corn 1592.5 '40¢ per bu. r 2,808 ? ? ? O48 © 40 M25 per bu. ! 221? ? 9 t Corn—en1--6- per 100 lbs. for ' ’ ' erinding. "447, '4c/ per bu. 1 3.55 g 9 g 8 Ground oats " " " " 1 456.5 Moy per Du. ' 272 9 ? t Hey 0 __ "1630 _ "$8. per ton ' €,52 ? TS SS ee ee eee Totel Cost ' , red, 72 ? 9 t — Tr tetra s rer teams n es "Trt senses en PT pt tr se gma — Ten Lwios after the experiment ' 961 Sf par lb, ' 49,05 ? ? ? "ww ss ss es se ee see se eer rrr rT er Teeter tC er te ree www re ewww wr errr rrr we Profits ’ ? ’ eo ? g ? Tadle VIL. - eee =_ 2S ee ee eee «<- &- ~~ =_ = © 2 @ =» a =m) @6 Oe ose. OS - e 2 OS oOo Lot I rem) | 813.25 1547.27 m3.0502%2 43.10 '"'Loas 51.27 ? ? ? ? g ? Let IT '§ 36.431 ' 12.83 ' 49.15 r 0086 ' 49,97 'Proerit 4 ? ? ? g 9 ? Lot TILT § 22.96 ' 15,75 ' 438,72 * ,0%"74 ' 49.05 mMProrit .%3 ? ? ? 9 9 t qa a a “eT ee eee ee eS Oe eee eee eve Dw.» ese ws 2 = _ <—/2- apo Lot T ? ? g g ’ J after ! ’ ? ’ ? ’ subtrac-' 54,11. 12.36 1745.47 * 0754 1549.05 ‘loss a7 "4 ? t g 8 9 ? aa ati5 eost of ! ? ’ ¢ ? ! Was +e ? ? ? ? ? ? nor) ! ? ? ’ t ? the len :th of the experinent had been planned Por just twelve Weeks, out, as steted above, for a period of nine days after tre first welpht of the lanbs was taken, all three lots were Ped a ration of eaual parts of cern and oats for prain wnd ciover hay fer comrse feed. On Dec. 8, each lot was fed on its respective ration for tne first tine, and so continued for the twelve followinz weeks. On Dec. 15, the lisitbs were weijhed Tor tne second time, and ther were then Jdeipt.ed at tne end cf each succeadin,, two weeks, In the tables the results have been Getermined for each of the two weeks Tre first nine davs plus the first seven davs cf the regular experinent have reer a rs ” ~ 2 no “ - » _ sero Ye = tr “YT OP bee —trs tt nerioad of tyo Weal ae Lig The Results as Shown bv the Tables. Table one shows that during the first two weeks lot number one lost fourteen pounds. This loss was expected for the lambs consumed but verv little of the unhusked corn for several davs and most of then refused to eat any. of it at first. Lot two made the greatest cain during the first two weeks aic their total cost of feed was the least for this period. Throughout the second period of two wev-ks lots one and two mede but slight gains while number three lost weight. These small gains are due to warm and reinly weather which peevailed at the time, The next four weeks from Dec. 29 to Jan. 26, lots one and three made ¢ood gains as compared ith number two during the same time, Fhe reason that number two made such small freains was because the ensilaye fed to them was not first class, it was taken from the bottom of one and top of another silo, and while it did not look bad it was probably more or less musty, at least the lambs refused to eat as much as they had been eating before. From Feb. 9, through- out the rest of the experiment there was nothing more to interfere. The weather was cold and all the other circumstances seened favorable for the lambs to make cood gains. The last four weeks lot three was fed whole grein. As stated before this change was made to determine whether the lambs would gain best on whole corn or corn-meal. The trial in this case apparently shows that lambs do best On whole grain. The gain of the lot for the last seven days was thirty-nine pounds, or nearly four pounds per head per week, [ft was the larcest gain made in any one week throughout the experiermt. But this one test does not cive sufficient evidence to warrant a definite conculsion as to ve the value of whole corn over corn=meal. It méeyv perneys be inferred from this trial that it does not pav to ¢90 to the expense of erindin,; corn for fattening Lambs. Table number tvo represents the financial statenent of lot One, table four ;jives the same of lot two, and table six thet of lot three. By canparing tables one, three and five it will he seen that the ten lanbs receiving, the unhusked corn ration have made the least total pain with the highest cost per pound of gain. The lot receiving ensilege in their ration have made their gain at the least cost per pound, while they have made nearly as large a total cain as lot three which made the greatest total cain but the cost per pound was slightly higher than that of lot two. Turning now to table seven or the table of comparison of the financial statement of the three lots, it will be seen that the cost of feed of lot one is nearly as great as that of lot three and that the tofal cost is less than that of either of the other two lots. Then hy subtracting the total cost from tne value at the close of the experiment, there is a loss of one dollar and twenty-seven cents (31.27). The table also cives the results of lot one after the cost of the waste corn has been subtracted from the total cost and then there is a loss of only thirty-seven cents. But it seens that the waste corn should be charged up to the sheep just as if i+ had been eaten. For unless the feedinj, of unhusked corn could be so arranged as to utilize the waste it would be an absolute loss, excepting the maruri.22 value that it would have. The total cost of lot two, and their cost per pound of gain is less than that of either of the other two lots. Their value at the end of the HB be experiment is greater than that of lot one and three. The profits are mere than twice those of lot three thich haa a greater cost of feed, a little less total cost, and a slightly greater cost per pound of gain. The following conclusions mév be drawn from the results of this experiment. There is a loss in fattening lambs On shockxcorn especially when the cost per pound of the lambs at the hesinnins is but little less than the cost per pound at the end. Lambs receiving ensilace in their ration will eat less prain and Jay on fat with less expense than those fed grain and hay aione. But should be remembered that if this experiment were duplicated the results in case of lot two and three might be reversed. [It is also doubtful whether the ensilage fed lambs would dress as hich a percent as those fed on dry feeds, if not they would be worth less for the block thtis buyers could not pay as much for them unless their quality of mutton should be superior to the other , One other thing seems to favor the ensitlace rationn It was noticed that through the entire experiment not one of the lambs receivir, ensilace went off of feed. Of the corn meal fed Lambs, two refused to eat but very little crain for several davs. Yhile of the ten lambs fed on unhusked corn, getting off of fedd seemed to be the principle reason that they did not make better gains. The unhusked corn appeared to be unpalatable to the lahs. Owing to the low market value when the lambs were sold, the hich price paid for them at the berinning and high price of feeds, it would seem fron the results of the experiment that there was mone Or very little profit in feeding lamps. But had the market value at the close of the feedins trial been one=half cent higher, 14 (a fair profit would heve been realized even in case of lot one, The value or the manure will cormensete for the time spent in feedins. Price of Feeds, Clover Hay, #8 per ton. Corn Fodder, 83, per ton. Ehsila::e, $2.50 per ton. Shelled Corn, 40/% per bushel. Ber Corn, 20¢ per bushel. Cornemeal, 407% per 56 lbs. plus 8&¢/, per 100 lbs. for grinding. Oats, 25¢ per bu. Ground Oats, 25¢ per 32 lbs. plus 8¢ per 100 lbs. for grinding. First cost of lambs, 43¢ per pound. Market value at the end, 5¢ per pound. Se 9 47