COMPARATIVE PROFIT FROM THE HOUSE FEEDING OF CATTLE AND SHEEP.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2498, 10 April 1882, Page 3

COMPARATIVE PROFIT FROM THE HOUSE FEEDING OF CATTLE AND SHEEP.

A gentleman in Dumfriesshire who has been testing the comparative profit of housefeeding with sheep as against cattle, publishes the following results : In May last be purchased in one of tbe local auction marts six two-year-old heifers at a cost of £lO 10s each, which he grazed in a rented grass park at an outlay for the summer’s keep of £3 10s each. One of them, however, having caught cold was principally fed at home on out grass, &o, and as it did not thrive nearly so well as the others.it maybe left out of the calculation. Early in November the heifers were housed and thereafter the daily diet of each consisted of about 451 b of turnips, 41b to 51b of hay, 41b of oats, and straw ad libitum. Two of them were sold at the same mart on January 6th, and other two on January 13th, the average price of the four being £l7 10s, or £7 each above tha inlaid price in May, being at tho rate of 17s 6d per month. The six heifers referred to, along with two more, occupied tho same space in the farm building as two score of sheep.

On the 19th of August the same gentleman bought in Dumfries market 35 half-bred lambs at 25s each, and these, along with 15 others, were kept from that time until November on a 17-acre field of clover and ryegrass foggage, not receiving during that time any supplemental food. They were housed on the same day as the cattle, and the daily diet of each was 9Jlbs of turnips, lib cut hay, with straw ad libitum. For a few weeks after their confinement they were allowed in addition Jib of oats each daily, and during the last three weeks there was substituted for the oats ilb of Indian corn and Jib of compound cake. A few days ago a sheep which was ailing was killed, and was found to weigh 141bs per quarter. But in order to find out their value half-a dczen sheep were selected as on average, and sold on January 13tb, the price realised by each being 475. Thus they left 22s each for keep daring 21 weeks, that is at the rate of Is OJd per week. It will be seen that during the time each lot were in,tbe farm building one heifer consumed about the same quantity of food of each kind as four sheep, the greater consumption being to a small degree on the side of the cattle. The obvious drawback to the experiment is that the animals were not weighed when they were purchased and eol' l , as well as at intervals, for weight is the most reliable criterion to judge of the increase made by any beast on any particular diet. But taking the difference between tho inbuyiug and selling price of the cattle and sheep respectively as an index, wo have four sheep leaving £4 8a for 21 weeks’ keep, whereas one heifer left £7 for 36 weeks’ keep. If we reduce the length of the heifer’s keep to that of tho sheep, we have the heifer costing £4 2s, and the four sheep £4 Safer the 21 weeks.

It ia an element not without importance) in the comparison that the inlaid price of the four sheep was only £5, whereas that of the heifer was £lO 10s, and the latter would bo even more if her value were estimated at the date when the sheep were purchased. It thus appears that where live stock ia necessary f o consume winter food the requisite number of sheep can be purchased with et least onebelt the capital required to procure cattle, The small quantity of roots allowed in each case is also worthy of special notice, as well as 'the liberal allowance of hay and straw consumed by the sheep. Whether sheep arc kept under cover at the farm buildings or in the open fields during winter, there is no reason whatever in their constitution or otherwise why they should not get as plentiful a supply, relatively to their weight, of forage food, such as hay or straw, as in commonly given to cattle. If the publication of these experiments does no other good than show the small quantity of turnips on which feed ing sheep can be successfully kept, they will not have been made public in vain.