630.7
I26b
no. 165
cop. 8
•^
UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS LIBRARY
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
AGRICULTURE
Rl
L t -
CIRCULATING C
Contents of Bulletin No. 165
PART I. THE STATISTICAL INTERPRETATION OF FEEDING
EXPERIMENTS
1. Introduction. — Value of feeding experiments. Difficulties of interpre-
tation. Factors producing gains in weight. The problem to be studied. Gen-
eral method of solution Pages 4G3 to 4G7
2. The Frequency Distribution and the Average. — The frequency distri-
bution. The normal frequency curve. The average as a type. The average as
a descriptive value. Pages 467 to 472
3. Variation and its Measurement. — Th? range of observations. The
standard deviation Pages 472 to 473
4. The Significance of an Aver.\ge and its Probable Error. — The stand-
ard deviation of an average. The frequency distribution of an average. The
probable error of an average. The limits of practical certainty. Pages 473 to 478
5. Illustrations of the Use of the Probable Error. Pages 478 to 480
6. A Probability Method for Small Lots of Animals Page 480
PART II. A STATISTICAL STUDY OF VARIATION IN THE GAINS
IN WEIGHT OF FARM ANIMALS UNDER LIKE CONDITIONS
7. Introduction. — ^J. B. Lawes on variation. The coefficient of variation.
Pages 481 to 483
8. Coefficients of Variation Ordinarily Obtained in Feeding Experi-
ments. — Results of Wood and Stratton. Results of Robinson and Hainan. Re-
sults obtained from American experiments. Results obtained at Woburn and
Rothamsted. Discrepancies among coefficients. Meaning of such discrepancies.
Pages 483 to 487
9. Number of Animals per Lot Required in Feeding Experiments. — Ad-
vantages of large lots of animals Pages 487 to 489
10. Size of Gains and Their Variability. — Evidence for sheep, swine,
steers, and poultry. Summary of evidence Pages 490 to 492
11. Reduction of the Experimental Error in Feeding Experiments.
(a) Importance of reducing the experimental error.. .Pages 493 to 496
(b) Selection of animals as regards age, breed, sex, and previous
treatment. Conclusion Pages 496 to 507
(c) Changes in variability of gains during the course of a feeding ex-
periment. Rothamsted experiments with sheep. Woburn experiments
with sheep. Iowa experiment with pigs. Michigan experiment with pigs.
Illinois experiment with steers. Canadian experiment with steers. Sum-
. mary of evidence Pages 507 to 512
(d) Effect of change of ration on variability of gains. Illinois ex-
periment with sheep. Wisconsin experiments with swine. Henry's experi-
ments at Wisconsin with pigs. Wisconsin experiment with lambs. Penn-
sylvania experiments with steers. Woburn experiment with sheep. Con-
clusions Pages 512 to 526
(e) Physiological selection of animals for feeding experiments. Theo-
retical considerations. Does physiological selection eliminate poor gain-
ers? Does physiological selection reduce the experimental error? Con-
clusions Pages 526 to 534
(f ) Summary of methods of reducing experimental error
- • rages 534 to 535
12. Repetition of Feeding Experiments. — Henry's experiments at Wisconsin
with pigs. Wyoming experiments with sheep. Montana experiments with
sheep. Minnesota and Pennsylvania experiments with steers. Difficulties of
repetition. Probable explanation of these difficulties Pages 535 to 540
13. Variability in the Composition of Feedstuffs. — Corn. Wheat. Grains
in general. Roughages. Commercial concentrates. Conclusions
Pages 540 to 548
PART III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX
14. Statistical Data Concerning the Rate of Growth of Sheep, Swine,
Steers, and Poultry Pages 558 to 570
15. Number of Animals to Include in an Experimental Lot, Derivation
of Formula Pages 571 to 572
16. Change in Variability of Gains in Weight as Related to Feed Con-
sumption. (Additional Data.) Pages 573 to 577
17. Bibliography Pages 578 to 579
■A
THE ELEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE
INTERPRETATION OF FEEDING
EXPERIMENTS
By H. H. MITCHELL, Assistant Chemist, and
H. S. GRINDLEY, Chief in Animai. Chemistry
PART I. THE STATISTICAL INTERPRETATION OF
FEEDING EXPERIMENTS
Introduction
Value of Feeding Experiments. — The purpose of the type of
feeding experiment considered in this bulletin is the comparison
of the fattening value of two or more systems of treatment
of farm animals or of the fattening qualities of two or more
groups of animals differing in age, breed, type, condition, or other
particular. This comparison is made on the basis of the gains in
weight recorded, the feed consumption, the results of the block
test, and the economic considerations involved. Such an experi-
ment is the most direct means of attacking many of the problems
confronting the live-stock farmer. Our knowledge of the prin-
ciples of animal nutrition is too fragmentary to enable us to fore-
tell with certainty, except when greatly dissimilar, which of two
rations, for instance, will produce the more rapid or the more
economical gains in weight for a particular kind of farm animal,
no matter how clearly defined or completely analyzed the rations
may be. Actual experiment with those particular rations is gen-
erally essential to a satisfactory solution of the problem. How-
ever, the information thus obtained has at best a very limited ap-
plication to other rations or other conditions, so that such feeding
experiments ordinarily contribute little of fundamental importance
to the science of animal nutrition.
Difficulties of Interpretation. — The plan of the ordinary feed-
ing experiment, such as defined in the preceding paragraph, is
simple, but when completed its results are often of ambiguous sig-
nificance, '^nd the problem of their rational interpretation is in
any case worthy of the most careful attention. This is peculiarly
tru oi experiment station work, upon which recommendations to
the farming community are made. The difficulty of interpreting
463
464 Bulletin Xo. 1G.> [July,
the results of the feeding experiment may be diminished to a con-
siderable extent by taking great care in the selection of experi-
mental animals and by controlling experimental conditions as
carefully as possible or practicable; but even after such precautions
have been taken, a certain degree of ambiguity still attaches to the
experimental results.
The ambiguity inherent in feeding experiments, and in fact in
all experiments concerned with the functional activity of living or-
ganisms, is due to the impossibility of foretelling with certainty
the precise result that would be obtained if the experiment were
repeated as carefully as possible upon other similar animals or
even upon the same lots of animals. This element of uncertainty
in the interpretation of feeding trials is the more pronounced, of
course, when attention is directed to the results that would be
obtained by the practical farmer in following the recommenda-
tions of the experimentalist based upon an investigation conducted
by the latter, because of the fact that the farmer in many cases
cannot impose the precise experimental conditions required. Thus,
an experiment station must be doubly cautious in advising its farm-
ing community as to the systems of feeding that are best to em-
])loy, since, with the most careful attention to details, a greater or
less degree of uncertainty always exists as to whether essentially
the same result would appear on repetition of the experiment.
Furthermore, this uncertainty is always enhanced by the certaintv
that the farming community in general often cannot in practice
follow instructions to the letter.
The publication of the results of a feeding experiment may be
confined to a description of the experimental animals, the rations
fed, and all other experimental conditions, and to a statem.ent of
the gains in live weight detained, the changes in condition of the
animals, the financial gains or losses, etc. "Such a statement is
in itself valuable and not void of interest because it contains the
description of a fact, but as long as this fact is not connected with
other facts its statement is not so much knowledge as the material
for the future acquisition of knowledge. On this ground one even
cannot conclude that under similar conditions results will be ob-
tained which resemble those of the first series of observations. It
is, indeed, out of the question to reproduce exactly the same con-
ditions, and, since one does not know anything about the conditions
which necessitate the result, one cannot positively say that only
the observed conditions are of importance and one n 'ist resign
the hope to foretell future results. But the main interest of all
investigations is to know whether the same, or at least sneillar
results will be obtained in a future repetition of the observation.
Before such a statement can be made it is necessary to forni one's
I
/pij] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 465
views about the causes which were at work to produce the first
result."^
Factors Producing Gains in Weight. — In deahng with experi-
mental observations on hving org'anisms, such as observations on
rates of gain in Hve weight of farm animals, one forms the hy-
pothesis that the experimental results, i. e., the gains in weight
actually obtained, are due, in the first place, to a complex of con-
ditions definitely imposed upon the subjects of the experiment and
under relatively perfect control. These conditions consist, for in-
stance, of the rations fed, the preparation of the rations, the
method and times of feeding, the method of sheltering, weighing,
and exercising the animals, the season in which the experiment is
run, etc. If the feeding experiment be repeated, it is this com-
plex of conditions that it is possible to maintain constant. In the
second place, the gains in weight obtained must be considered as
being influenced also by another group of conditions not under
control. These conditions may be considered as consisting of the
temperaments of the animals as evidenced in their differential physi-
cal activity, their feeding capacities, their physiological peculiari-
ties, and all of the functional characteristics that render one animal
distinct from another and are known collectively as its individuality .
Besides the individualities of the experimental animals, there must
be included in this second group of causal conditions the environ-
mental conditions not under control, such as the weather, and even
the personality of the attendant. Such uncontrolled conditions can-
not be kept constant, of course, from one experiment to another,
but are necessarily variable. Therefore, they constitute the ele-
ment of uncertainty in the full interpretation of the results of
feeding experiments. In (^rder to deal with these variable condi-
tions in foretelling the result of repeating such an experiment, we
merely assume that their influence on the rate of gain in live weight
is perfectly random, showing no recognizable law or regularity ex-
cept in a large series of observations. As Urban aptly says, "We
base our expectation that a repetition of the series of experiments
will give similar results on the identity of the conditions which
we know and on the supposition of the random character of the
influences which we do not know."
The Problem to be Studied. — It is the purpose of this sec-
tion of the bulletin to consider the element of uncertainty in the
interpretation of the results of feeding experiments due to these
variable, uncontrolled, and largely unknown experimental condi-
tions, and to propose methods of dealing with the question in a
systematic and rational manner, so that the sphere of uncertainty
'F. M. Urban, Exp. Stud, in Psych, and Ped., Ill, "The Application of Sta-
tistical Methods to the Problems of Psychophysics," p. 19. Phila., 1908.
466 Bulletin No. 165 [/»^y,
surrounding the conclusions based on experimental results will
be reduced to a minimum and be defined as clearly as possible.
The methods proposed have been employed in other and closely
related fields of research and, in fact, have already been applied
in a brief manner to one of the many problems connected with feed-
ing- experiments, by Wood and Stratton,^ and later by Robinson
and Hainan,'' of Cambridge University.
A feeding experiment involves not only a record and interpre-
tation of the feed consumption and the gains of each lot, but also
a statement of the cost of the experimental animals and of the
feeds consumed as compared with a statement of the price real-
ized on the animals of each lot when sold. The question of the
relative emphasis to be placed on these two subdivisions of the sub-
ject matter of a feeding experiment is of importance. In view of
the fact that the feed consumption and the resulting gains of a
given lot of animals on a given ration determine the final condi-
tion of the animals and afford the basis for the economic considera-
tions involved in a feeding experiment, and in view of the fact
that "conditions as to market price of feeding and fat cattle and
cost of feeds have ne\er been identical during any two consecutive
years and seldom more than similar at irregular intervals,"*^ it is
ob\'ious that the most valuable data of a feeding experiment are
the data concerning the feed consumption and the rapidity of gain
of the class of farm animals from which the experimental ani-
mals were drawn. B. E. Carmichael takes substantially the same
position in the following quotation :
"The author is thoroughly convinced that too important a place is often
given to the cost of gains when discussing the results of a feeding experiment,
thus rendering more probable a wrong understanding by the student or feeder.
When feeders and experimenters think, reckon, and write concerning feeding
experiments with amount of feed and rate and extent of gain in live weight,
rather than zcith cost cff feed, animals, and gains and net proUt from the opera-
tion as the factors for comparisons, it will be reasonable to expect more intel-
ligent selection of rations and consequently fewer failures to secure satisfactory
returns for feed and labor required to conduct feeding operations.
"The writer would not be understood as saying that a financial statement
is of no value or that nothing should be said concerning the cost of gains. On
the contrary, each has a value, but it is believed that in either case the value is
far less important than is the matter of the amount of feed required to produce
a given gain, on account of the sudden and wide variation in price that may
occur.""
The feed consumption in feeding experiments, according to
the ordinary practice, is determined for the entire lot rather than
for the individual animals, and such total data are not susceptible
•Journ. Agr. Sci., vol. 3, pp. 417-440. 1908-10. See also T. B. Wood, Journ.
Board Agr., London, Sup. 7, 1911, Nov., pp. 32-37.
"Journ. Agr. Sci.. vol. 5, pp. 48-51. October, 1912.
'Herbert W. Mumford, 111. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 90, p. 203,
"Ohio .Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 187. pp. 18 and 19.
^913] UXCERTAIXTY IX IXTERPRETATIOX OF FeEDIXG ExpERIMEXTS 467
to treatment by the methods to be outlined below. In this bulletin,
therefore, attention is conhned to the gains in weights obtained
in feeding experiments and to the methods of comparing ade-
quately the gains of two or more lots of animals, since in many
experiments individual gains are reported.
General Method of Solution. — The problem of the feeding ex-
periment that is considered in this section of the bulletin is
the comparison of a number of gains in weight made by animals
in one lot, treated alike as far as practicable, with a number of
gains in weight made by animals in another lot, treated alike, but
in one particular treated differently from the animals of the first
lot, the object of the comparison being to determine whether the
one difference in treatment between the two lots has produced a
dift'erence in the rate of gain in weight. This comparison may be
most effectually made by considering the two series of gains sepa-
rately at first, with the idea of describing each adequately, but
with as few terms as possible, and then comparing the two ab-
breviated descriptions.
The Frequexcy Distributiox and the Average^
In describing the gains made by a group of animals, the total
gain of the group is often taken, but for comparative purposes it
is almost universallv considered that it is better to reduce this
total gain to a per capita basis, and hence it is generally the case
that the common average or arithmetic mean of the individual
gains of a lot is the one value taken as descriptive of the lot.
When a chemist runs a series of atomic W' eight determinations
upon a chemical element, and subsequently takes the average of
his results, this average has a perfectly definite physical signifi-
cance, f. e.^ it is the best approximation obtainable to the actual
atomic weight of the element. However, the case is quite different
when the investigator in animal nutrition averages the gains in
weight made by a group of similarly treated animals during the
same period of time. Strictly speaking, there is nothing here that
can be called a "true value" to be obtained from a set of values
diverging from it as the result of errors of observation. The
distinction between the two cases is well brought out by Edgeworth
when he says that observations, such as those of the chemist, "are
different copies of the same original," while statistics, such as
those of gains in wei^lit of a lot of animals, "are different origi-
nals affording one generic portrait."
The meaning of the average of a set of statistics may be con-
sidered in the following way : It is conceivable that the aggregate
'In the following discussion, "average" refers to the arithmetic mean.
I
468 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
of the direct ly imposed experimental conditions under which the
gains in weight were made, operated in the production of a typical
gain, from which the individual gains diverge as the result of the
casual or random sources of variation, and the average gain may
be considered as the best approximation to this type.
The Frequency Distribution. — In considering this conception of
the average gain in w-eight of farm animals treated in a similar
manner, it is necessary to investigate the frequency distribution of
such gains. Suppose a large number of animals, say several hun-
dred, were treated alike as far as possible with regard to feed,
shelter, etc., and suppose the average daily gain in weight for each
animal be determined for a considerable period of time, say one
hundred days. Suppose the daily gains thus obtained be grouped
into class intervals of o. i lb. and the number of gains occurring
within each class interval be noted. The series of numbers thus
obtained is known as a frequency distribution, since it gives the
frequency with which gains of any given magnitude occur. There
are, of course, no data in existence of the gains in weight made by
several hundred animals treated alike at the same place and during
the same time. Therefore, in obtaining such frequency distribu-
tions an indirect method has been employed.
In obtaining the numbers upon which Fig. i of the chart is
based — this figure being a graphical representation of the frequency
distribution of the daily gains in weight of 498 sheep — the average
daily gains made by 46 lots of sheep were taken, the lots varying
in size from 8 to 16 sheep. The lots were treated in different ways,
of course, and at different stations during different periods of time.
In combining the dift'erent gains for the purpose of forming one
distribution, it was desired to eliminate the variation due to dif-
ferences in feed and other definite factors, and to retain only that
variation due entirely to the casual factors, such as individuality
and imperfectly controlled conditions. In accomplishing this ob-
ject, the average daily gain in weight of the entire group of 498
sheep was obtained and found to he 0.3485 lb. Xext, the gains in
each of the 46 lots were changed, or transmuted, by addition or
subtraction so that the average daily gains of the various lots
were made identical and approximately equal to 0.3485 lb. Thus,
the first lot so treated consisted of 10 sheep with an average daily
gain of 0.283 lb. By adding to each of the ten gains in the lot the
difference between 0.283 lb. and 0.348 lb., which is equal to 0.065
lb., the desired change was accomplished, ^or another lot of ten
animals with an average daily gain of 0.413 lb., 0.065 lb. was sub-
tracted from each of the individual gains. Ry thus making the
average gains of the 46 lots identical without disturbing the vari-
ation within the lots, it was believed that the intluence of the dif-
voiua*
.10
.15
.20
Z5
.30
.35
40
4S
.SO
.55
.60
Tr.-
3
7
27
44
92
129
121
48
21
5
1
. 1
Class
value*
75
1.00
1.25
1.50
175
2.00
Z
Fr«-
qu»ncici
1
2
7
20
48
63
FIG. I FIG. 3
Frec^uency Distribution of the Daily Frequency Distribution (
Gains in V/eight of 498 Shee}^. Gains in Weight of 241
1.75
48
63
2.O0I225
59
ZZ
a502.75
13
3.00325
Cltiss
values
.60
.70
.80
li
.90
14.5
26
1.00 1. 10
57
sas
97
1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60
76.5
45532.5
1.70
7.5
1.80
2.5
i.90i2oda
I I
1.3
FIG. 3 FIG. 5
ibution of the Dail\( Frecjuerjcy Distribution of the Dailv/ Gains in
of 241 Steers. Weight of 461 Pigs.
82.15
84.75
87.35
89.95
92.55
93.15
97.75
FIG. 7
Frequency Distribution of the Coefficients of
Digestibility of the Protein of a Normal Mixed
Diet, Obtained from 1153 Observations on
23 Men.
FIG. 8
Frequency Distribution of the Dail^ Excretion
of Indican in the Urine, Obtained from
814 Observations on U Men.
jQij] Uncertainty ix iNTERPkETATiox ok 1'eeuing Ilxpekimems 469
ferent experimental conditions among the lots was eliminated as
far as possible, while the inlluence of the casual factors represented
by the variation within the lots was preserved intact. The 498 gains
thus transmuted were used in obtaining Fig. i.
In this distribution the class interxal chosen was 0.05 lb., as is
indicated by the first row of figures at the base of the diagram.
The second row of figures gives the frequencies of the different
classes. Thus, the number 129 in the middle compartment indi-
cates that 129 of the 498 daily gains in weight (transmuted ac-
cording to the alx)ve scheme) fell within the interval 0.325 to
0.375 lb., the number directly above, i. e., 0.35, being the mid-
value of this class. The frequency distribution represented by this
second row of numbers is graphically illustrated by the superim-
posed diagram, which is known as a histogram. Along the base
of this histogram, equal spaces are marked ofif representing the
equal class divisions. On each space a rectangle is erected, the
height of which is proportional to the frequency of the respective
class; or, preferably, since the gains must be considered as being
continuously distributed along the base line or scale and merely
summated at ecjual, convenient, arbitrary intervals, the areas of the
rectangles should be considered as representing frequency. Figs.
3 and 5 represent the frequency distributions of the daily gains in
weight of 241 steers and 461 pigs, respectively, and have been con-
structed from transmuted values in the same way as Fig. i.
The Normal freqiieuey Curve. — It will be seen from all three
distributions that the frequencies start at zero, rise rather regu-
larly to a maximum, and decrease regularly to zero again, the rates
of increase and of decrease being appreciably similar. This is
well shown in Figs. 2, 4, and 6. In these figures a curve of a
definite character, represented by a definite equation, and known
as the )ioriiial frequeticy curie, has been fitted to the three distribu-
tions. The base lines of these figures have been divided into the
same equal divisions representing the same classes as the figures
directly above. The closeness of the fit is indicated graphically
by the circled points placed at distances above the centers of the
class intervals proportionate to their actual frequencies as given
in the figures immediately above, and numerically by the frequency
values given in the second row of figures below. These frequency
values give areas beneath the curve between ordinates erected at
the class limits. Thus, the value 122.7 ^^i the second row below
the center of Fig. 2 gives the area bounded by the curve, the base
line, and the ordinates erected at 0.325 and 0.375 ^^^- "'"• the hori-
zontal scale, and corresponds exactly to the value 129 given in
Fig. I. The closeness of fit of these three curves is apparently as
satisfactorv as could be desired.
470 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
Perhaps the most important fact disclosed by these frequency
distributions is that variations in rate of gain in weight due to un-
controlled experimental conditions, while exhibiting no regularity
and rfo conformance to law as regards frequency of occurrence in
the small experiment, actually do exhibit a regularity in the long
run and actually do conform to a law that may be considered as
being approximately represented by the mathematical definition
of the frequency curve satisfactorily fitting the distribution, i. e.,
the normal law of frequency in the cases under discussion. This
tendency of the casual variations in gain in weight observed within
a lot of similarly treated animals to exhibit frequencies of occur-
rence in the long run in conformity to a mathematically defined law
is at the basis of all attempts to predict the results of future repe-
tition of feeding experiments by finding the probability that an
average lot gain or the difference between two average lot gains will
lie between any assigned limits. The law defining the frequency
of occurrence of casual variations is simply a mathematical expres-
sion by which the probability of the occurrence of a given gain in
weight is obtained by finding the extent of its deviation from the
average gain.
The Average as a Type. — Returning to the conception of the
average gain in weight as a type which tends to be set up by the
definite experimental conditions deliberately imposed, and which
is only incompletely realized by reason of the numerous casual
factors which are beyond control, it seems that in the frequency
distributions such a type would be the position on the horizontal
scale of the ordinate passing thru the summit of the frequency
curve. This is the value of greatest frequency, the value more
often realized than any other under conditions of like control. In
Figs. 2, 4, and 6, ordinates are erected at points on the base lines
corresponding to the arithmetic means of the gains in weight, and
it will be seen that the means of the distributions may be regarded
as actually being the points of greatest frequency, or at least very
good approximations to such points.
From a study of these distributions, it may be considered that
a typical gain in weight exists within the lot, and that the aritli-
metic mean of the individual gains is as good an approximation
to this t^-pe as can be readily obtained. In defining this typical
gain to which the arithmetic mean approximates, we may say that
it is the gain that would be realized by each animal in the lot if
no such thing as individuality existed and if all experimental con-
ditions were under complete control and were kept constant for all
animals.
It may be said in passing, however, that the conception of the
arithmetic mean as an approximation to a type does not apply to
/p/j] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 471
all distributions. Thus, Fig-. 7 gives the frequency curve of the
coefficients of digestibiHty of the protein of a mixed normal diet
from 1 1 53 observations on 23 men.^" In this case the mean is dis-
tinctly situated to the left of the maximum ordinate, due to the
peculiar asymmetry of the curve. This condition may be consid-
ered as existing in all cases of distribution of percentages where
the limiting percent is 100 and the typical or modal percent is very
near this limit. Whatever considerable variation occurs in the per-
centage, therefore, must naturally draw out the distribution to a
greater extent below the type, or, as it is technically caWtd, the mode,
than above it. In Fig. 8 is shown another case of asymmetry. This
figure gives the frequency curve of the daily excretion of indican
in the urine, the data for which were obtained by Folin from 814
observations on 1 1 men during the course of his experiment to de-
termine the physiological effect of saccharin.^ Here the lower
physical limit of the distribution is, of course, zero, and since the
typical value, or the mode, occurs near this limit, and since the
variability is rather extreme, the distribution is drawn out above
the mode.
The Average as a Descriptive J'aliie. — A second conception of
the arithmetic mean of a series of gains in weight made by a lot
of uniformly treated animals, is merely that of a discriptive value,
a representative gain used in place of the whole series of gains, the
best representative perhaps of the series. Edgeworth describes it
as: "that quantity which, if we must in practice put one quantity
for many, minimizes the error unavoidably attending such prac-
tice."'^ It must be admitted, however, that if the best that can be
said of a mean is that it is merely a descriptive value, it lacks
much that is desirable. It has no physical meaning such as is pos-
sessed by an average that coincides with the mode. It can be
defined only by reciting its method of calculation, and not by de-
scribing any characteristics that it necessarily possesses. It must be
regarded simply as the result of a mathematical calculation leading
to a value occupying an intermediate position in the series, whose
principal claim to consideration is that it is easily obtained and is
almost universally used, rightly or otherwise. Furthermore, the
calculation of the arithmetic mean, leading as it does to a value
such that the sum of the differences between it and all values below
it is equal to the sum of the differences between it and all values
above it, is most significant only when the value desired is the mid-
value of a symmetrical distribution, and therefore where asym-
metry distinctly exists, the arithmetic mean cannot but suffer a loss
"These data were obtained by the Division of Animal Nutrition of the De-
partment of Animal Husbandry of this station.
"U. S. Department of Agjriculture, Report No. 94. 1911.
'Edgeworth, Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc, vol. 14.
472 Bulletin No. 1G5 [^"0-
of significance. If, for instance, a chemical method of analysis
were such that errors in defect of the true value were distinctly and
decidedly more frequent and more important than errors in excess,
it is evident that the process of taking an arithmetic mean of a
number of results obtained by such a method would necessarily be
looked upon as leading more often than not to a result less than
the desired value.
V.VRIATION AND ITS ^^IEASUREMENT
In calculating the average gain exhibited by a lot of similarly
treated animals, a more or less satisfactory measure is obtained
of the influence of the deliberately imposed conditions upon
the rate of growth. The incidental and uncontrolled experimental
conditions, constituting all individual and environmental factors
that have not been kept constant thruout the lot, find direct and
complete expression in the variation, or dispersion, of the indi-
vidual gains. Hence a measure of the variation of the gains with-
in the lot is a measure of the influence of the uncontrolled factors
in the experiment, which always render more or less ambiguous
the conclusions ultimately deduced. Hence, also, such a measure
is another value descriptive of a series of gains in weight ob-
tained under similar conditions. In fact, so far as rate of growth
is concerned, the average lot gain, and a good measure of the
variation of gains within the lot, sufficiently describe for all ordi-
nary comparative purposes the response of the animals in the lot
to the experimental conditions.
In obtaining a measure of the variation or the dispersion with-
in the lot, it is obviously necessary to have at hand the gains of the
individual animals. The frequent practice, in weighing up lots,
of obtaining only the total weight per lot, so that only the total
gain per lot for the experiment is finally available, renders all study
of dispersion within the lots impossible; for, while the arithmetic
mean of the individual gains in weight is obtainable directly from
the total gain, any measure of dispersion must take into considera-
tion the individual gains and any adequate measure of dispersion
must take into consideration all of the individual gains.
The Range of Observations. — The simplest measure of disper-
sion and the one most commonly used is the range of observations
actually obtained, such range being the difference between the
minimum and the maximum values. However, it has very little
to commend it, in spite of its rather general use, aside from the
ease of its calculation. Obviously, one of the properties of a good
measure of dispersion is that it have as high a degree of staliility
as possible as we pass from one lot of animals to other and
other similarly treated lots. Consider, for instance, a large num-
ber of lots of steers that have been similarlv treated for the same
jp/j] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 473
period of time, each lot, say, containing ten steers. It seems evi-
dent that that measure of the dispersion of the individual gains in
weight is best which is the most constant from lot to lot, since the
same uncontrolled factors to which are due the variation within
the lots have influenced each and every lot. But the range from the
minimum to the maximum gain in a lot is directly affected by the
extreme and unusual gains which may have been obtained, the very
gains whose influence should be minimized because of their in-
frequent occurrence and non-typical character. Furthennore, sup-
posing these lots of steers that are under consideration are not of the
same size, it is evident that the range of dispersion within the lots
will in general increase with the size of the lot, since the steers ex-
hibiting extremely high or extremely low gains will be found more
frequently in the larger than in the smaller lots. Thus, the range
between the highest and the lowest gains in a lot is of little value
for comparative purposes, since, like the total gain, it depends in
part upon the size of the lot; but, unlike the total gain, the in-
fluence of the size of the lot cannot be eliminated by a simple
division by the number in the lot, or in fact, by any other reason-
ably simple mathematical process
The Standard Dcination. — Obviously, a good measure of dis-
persion must take into consideration each and every individual
gain obtained; otherwise it really is not a characteristic of the
whole series of gains and is unduly influenced by the extreme
gains. Perhaps the first method that occurs to one of involving
all gains in a measure of their dispersion is to take the average
deviation of each of the gains from their mean, paying no regard,
of course, to the position of the gain — whether above or below
the mean. In fact, this is an excellent measure of dispersion that
is sometimes used and is known as the az'erage dci'iation. The
measure of dispersion in most common use, however, is obtained,
by squaring all deviations of individual gains from the average,
adding, dividing by the number of gains, and extracting the square
root of the quotient. This is known as the standard dcination, or
the root-nican-sqnare deviation from the mean. While the standard
deviation is much more difticult of calculation, it possesses several
advantages over the average deviation,^ and is in more general use.
The Significance of an Average and its Probable Error
The possession of an adequate measure of variation at once
leads to the problem of determining to what extent variation with-
'For a very good discussion of the average deviation and the standard devi-
ation, see G. U. Yule : "An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics," chap,
viii. London : Chas. Griffin & Co., Ltd. 1911.
474 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
m the lot vitiates conclusions based upon averag-e lot gains. The
averag-e lot gain and the standard deviation of the individual gains
sufficiently describe the lot for all ordinary comparative purposes,
and the question now at issue is how these two descriptive terms can
be used to render any subsequent comparison the most efficacious.
As a matter of fact, the average gain or the total gain of a similarly
treated lot of animals is a very deceptive quantity unless its exact
significance is quantitatively defined by some additional term. An
average gain should be thought of, not so much as an isolated
point in the scale of measurement, but rather as the mid-value of
an interval such that there is a definite probability that upon repe-
tition of the experiment the average gain so obtained will fall
within it. Such an interval is defined by the probable error of the
average; and the probability that repetition of the experiment will
yield an average within the limits of this probable error is exactly
one-half. Raymond Pearl, of the Maine Experiment Station, who
is applying biometric methods to problems of agricultural science,
insists that "an experiment which takes no account of the 'prob-
able error' of the results reached is inadequate and as likely as
not to lead to incorrect conclusions."*
Similarly, \\'ood and Stratton emphasize strongly the advis-
ability and, in fact, the necessity of allowing for errors of sampling
incurred in the selection of animals for experiment. The follow-
ing quotation is especially significant : "With the great growth of
interest among the farming community and the increasing ten-
dency of the farmer to take note of the work of the experimental-
ist and to act upon it, it is becoming increasingly important that
due caution should be exercised by experimenters in interpreting
their results before laying them before the agricultural public."'*
Since an attempt to allow for experimental error in the inter-
pretation of aA-erage lot gains is not effective unless the individual
gains have been obtained, it is obviously important, in conducting
a feeding trial, to ascertain individual behavior — the reaction of
each animal to the experimental conditions imposed. Important
as this condition is, it is too frequently disregarded in experiment
station work. The collection and publication of individual data
is too often thought to have little or no bearing on the problem of
the experiment and conse(|uently to be a waste of energy and space;
and yet by the neglect of this one condition, the investigator throws
away the only opportunity of adequately analyzing his data.
The Standard Deznation of an Average. — The element of un-
certainty in the interpretation of an average gain in weight for a
"Scientia, vol. 10 (1911), p. 106.
"Journ. Agr. Sci., vol. 3, pp. 417-440. 1908-10.
jp/j] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 475
lot of animals is due to the fact that successive lots treated simi-
larly for a given period will necessarily give different average
gains in weight. An arithmetic mean of a series of gains in
weight must be considered as possessing a variability, just as is
the case with the individual gains, due to uncontrolled experi-
mental conditions ; and, since these uncontrolled experimental con-
ditions find direct expression in the variability of gains within the
lot, it follows that the variability of an average gain bears a defin-
ite relation to the variability of individual gains. Obviously, the
variability of an average gain decreases as the size of the lot in-
creases, the main reason for increasing the size of a lot being, in
fact, to render the average gain more significant. It may be
shown, however, that the variability of an average gain does not
decrease directly as the number of animals in the lot increases,
but only as the square root of this nimiber increases.^ In other
words, tJie presumptive standard deviation of an average gain of
a lot is equal to the standard deviation of the gains zi'ithin the lot
divided by the square root of their number.
The Frequency Distribution of an Average. — It may further
be shown that the variation to which a mean gain in weight is sub-
jected as successive samples of animals are taken and treated experi-
mentally is such that the distribution of means tends to assume the
normal form, definable by the normal frequency curved such as
that shown in Fig. 6 of the chart. In fact, whether the original
values from which a mean is derived are so distributed or not, it
may be shown that the distribution of means tends strongly to as-
sume the normal fomi. Xow, in conceiving of the frequency dis-
tribution which would be exhibited by a particular average gain
obtained experimentally if tb.e experiment should be repeated a
large number of times, obviously the best value to assume for
the maximum point in the distribution, the point of greatest fre-
quency, is the actual average gain obtained, since the one experi-
ment actually performed has indicated that this is the most prob-
able value that would be obtained upon repetition.
The Probable Error of an Average. — Let the normal curve in
•Fig. 6 of the chart represent the presumptive distribution of the
average gain of a given lot of animals. The mid-ordinate of the
curve we will assume to be located at this mean value. Now, in
defining the significance of such a mean value, the following pro-
cedure is the customary and perhaps the most natural one to pur-
sue. Divide the area under the curve into two equal parts, one
part symmetrically including the maximum ordinate of the curve.
"Yule : "Theon- of Statistics." p. 340.
•"See Henderson : "Frequency Curves and ^foments." Trans. Actuarial
Soc. of Amer., vol. S, pp. 30-42.
476 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
This has been clone in the figure, and that half of the area situated
at the center of the distribution is indicated by cross-hatching.
Now, since, as explained above, areas under a frequency curve
represent frequencies, it may be said that upon continued repetition
of the experiment, as many average lot gains will fall within the
shaded area as without. Expressed in other terms, the odds in
favor of obtaining a second average gain within the shaded area,
or without, for that matter, are i to i. The distance on the hori-
zontal scale from the center of the distribution to the ordinate
on either side defining the shaded area is known as the prob-
able error of the mean, so that the probable error may be said
to define an ititerral, syiniuetrically including the average, such
that the. odds are exactly even that a second average resulting upon
repetition of the experiment will fall itnfhin it. One of the prop-
erties of the normal frequency cun^e is that the probable error of
the mean is obtainable directly from the standard deviation of the
mean by simply multiplying by the factor 0.6745,^ from which it
follows that the probable error of an az'erage lot gain in weight is
equal to the standard deviation of the average multiplied by 0.6745,
or is equal to the standard deviation of the indiz'idnal gains tmthin
the lot divided by the square root of their ntunber and midtiplied
by the factor 0.6745}^
A very good statement of the relation between the three statis-
tical constants thus far discussed is given by H. L. Rietz in his
Appendix to Eugene Davenport's "Principles of Breeding." Rietz
says: "In describing a frequency distribution, the average gives
absolutely no idea as to whether deviations are large or small, —
nothing in regard to the spread of the distribution. It is the ob-
ject of the 'standard deviation' to be descriptive of this variabilit}^,
and it is the object of the so-called 'probable error' to indicate
what confidence is to be placed in statistical results." The descrip-
tion of a series of gains made by a lot of similarly treated ex-
perimental animals should be thought of as a more or less com-
plete and satisfactory description of the frequency distribution of
gains of which the particular series experimentally obtained is a
random sample.
The Limits of Practical Certainty. — The ordinates situated at
distances from the center of the curve of two and three times the
probable error are also indicated in Fig. 6. The first pair of or-
dinates include nine-elevenths of the area of the curve, or the ratio
of the area within the ordinates to the area without is 4.5 to i ;
"Yule : "Theory of Statistics," pp. 305-307.
"•The probable error of the mean may be expressed mathematically by the
formula Em =0.6745 ;=■ where a is the standard deviation of the original
observations and n is their number.
lyis] Unckktaixtv in Interpretatiun of Feeding Experiments 477
from whicli it follows that the odds of obtaining a second average
gain within a distance of twice the probable error from the aver-
age actually obtained are 4.5 to i. Similarly, for a distance of
three times the probable error, the odds are about 21 to i, for four
times the probable error, 142 to i, for five times the probable er-
ror, 13 10 to I, etc.^ Since there are no definite limits to a dis-
tribution of this kind, the occurrence of average gains upon repe-
tition of the experiment extremely removed from the average gain
actually obtained, which is represented by the mid-ordinate of
the curs'e, cannot be said to be impossible, but only extremely
improbable. It becomes necessary, therefore, in assigning the sig-
nificance of an average lot gain, to decide upon some value which,
when added to and subtracted from the average gain, defines an
interval such that the average gain obtained upon repeating the
experiment is practically certain to fall within it. Wood and Strat-
ton have recommended that for data obtained from agricultural
experiments that pair of ordinates situated equidistant from the
mid-ordinate of the frequency curve and removed from it to such
a distance that the area between them and the curve constitutes
30/31 of the total area under the curve, are good limiting values
for use. This merely amounts to assuming that when the odds
are 30 or more to i that an event will happen, we are practically
certain that it will happen. For a normal distribution, which, as
has been seen, an average lot gain tends to assume, a value 3.17
times the probable error, or, roughly, 3 times the probable error,
constitutes the limiting value recommended by \\'ood and Stratton.
The requirement of odds of at least 30 to i that a feeding ex-
periment upon repetition will duplicate the results actuallv ob-
tained, before definite conclusions be drawn from it and definite
recommendations be made to the farmer, seems reasonable and,
judging from the current practice of the investigators in various
fields employing these methods, is not by any means severe. Thus,
Davenport and Rietz, in Bulletin 119 of this station, say: "It will
be noticed that by the time we have made an allowance of three or
four times the probable error we have reached a chance which
amounts to practical certainty and even 21 to i involves far less
chance than is inz'oh'cd in most business transactions/'
The merit of such methods as these for the interpretation of
feeding trials consists largely of the fact Ci) that thev are per-
fectly systematic, (2) that the argument leading from the origi-
nal individual data to the resulting conclusions is unbroken and
capable of being expressed definitely, and (3) that after it is de-
°C. B. Davenport: "Statistical Aiethods." p. 14. New York. John Wiley &
Sons, 2nd rev. ed. 1904.
478 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
cided that the methods are applicable, the personal judginent of the
investigator, which is so liable to introduce bias into the interpre-
tation, is practically eliminated.
Illustrations of the Use of the Probable Error
In illustrating the use of the probable error we will first con-
sider an experiment published in Bulletin 71 of the South Dakota
Station, the object of which w^as to compare the value of speltz
and barley as a single grain ration for fattening sheep. The
two lots consisted of 12 animals each. Lot I, fed speltz, made an
average gain during the 105 days of the experiment of 25.0 lbs.
per sheep. The standard deviation, of the gains in this lot was
9.44 lbs. From these figures, the best estimate we can make of
the standard deviation that would be exhibited by the average gain
if the experiment were repeated a large number of times is 9.44
lbs, divided by 1/T2 (there being 12 sheep in the lot), which
is equal to 2.73 lbs. Since the distribution of such a series of
average gains would be of the normal type, the probable error of
the average gain obtained in this experiment is equal to its stand-
ard deviation, 2.73 lbs., multiplied by the factor 0.6745, the re-
quired product being 1.8 lbs. The average g'ain with its probable
error is ordinarily written 25.0 ± 1.8 lbs., and the whole expres-
sion means that the odds are exactly even that if the experiment
were repeated with 12 other sheep fed a grain ration of speltz and
treated in all other ways as far as possible the same iis were the
sheep in this experiment, the mean gain for the lot wovild fall with-
in the interval 25.0-1.8 lbs.^23.2 lbs., and 25.0+1.8 lbs.=26.8
lbs. Similarly the odds are 30 to i that this second average gain
would fall within the interval 25.01^(3.17X1.8) lbs., that is, some-
where between 19.3 lbs and 30.7 lbs. Thus, while the average gain
actually obtained was 25.0 lbs., and while this is the most probable
average gain that would be obtained upon repetition of the experi-
ment, we can say witli reasonable certainty only that a second aver-
age gain would fall somewhere between 19.3 and 30.7 lbs. Thus, the
element of uncertainty resulting from the meaningless fluctuations
in the gains of the individual sheep due to the individuality of the
animals and other uncontrolled experimental conditions, has been
fairly definitely and reasonably defined for this lot of animals.
Lot II, fed a grain ration of barley, yielded an average gain of
37.9 lbs., the standard deviation of the individual gains being 8.23
lbs. Proceeding as above, the probable error of this average gain
will be found to be 1.6 lbs., so that we are practically certain that
a second average gain which would result from repeating the ex-
periment on other sheep, would fall within the interval 37.9^1
iQjj] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 479
(3.17X1.6) lbs., namely, between the limits 32.8 lbs. and 43.0 lbs.
Therefore, since we are practically certain that any random
sample of 12 sheep selected as were the sheep of this ex[x;riment
and treated as was Lot I, wonld exhibit an average gain in 105
days between 19.3 and 30.7 lbs., and that any similarly selected
sample of 12 sheep treated as was Lot II wonld show an average
gain in 105 days between 32.8 lbs. and 43.0 lbs., it is obvious that
we may feel sure that the one deliberate difference in treatment
between Lots I and II, i. e., the difference in grain ration, does
influence the gain in weight of sheep, barley tending to produce a
better gain than speltz under the feeding conditions of this experi-
ment. A more systematic way of settling the question, however,
is to take the difference in average gain between the two lots, i.e.,
12.9 lbs., and find its probable error. It may be shown that
the presumptive variability or standard deviation that would be
exhibited by a difference between, two averages if the experiment
were repeated over and over again, is equal to the square root of the
sum of the squares of the standard de\iations of both averages,^
and consequently the probalile error of a difference bears a like re-
lation to the probable errors of the two averages. According to
this formula, the probable error of the difference under considera-
tion is 2.4 lbs., so that we may feel certain that upon repetition,
the excess of gain of the barley lot over that of the speltz lot
would be within the limits 12.91^(3.17X2.4) lbs., that is, between
5.3 and 20.5 lbs. The average difference, 12.9 lbs., is 5.4 times its
probable error, and the odds that the excess average gain of Lot
II over that of Lot I would fall between o and 25.8 lbs. are over
70CXD to I.
In Bulletin 64 of tlie Pennsylvania Station is reported an ex-
periment on steers, one of the purposes of which was to compare
the gains made by steers fed during the winter in a barn with those
made by steers fed in an open shed adjoining an open yard. The
lots contained 12 steers each and were treated alike except as re-
gards shelter. Lot I, fed in a barn, showed an average gain in
126 days of 267.71^8.8 lbs., and Lot II, fed in an open shed, a
gain of 247.71^7.4 lbs. The difference in gain between the two
lots was 19.0=^11.5 lbs. Since this difference is less than twice its
probable error, it may well have resulted from the casual factors
producing variation within the lot.
In the i6th Annual Report of the Wisconsin Station, the re-
sults of an experiment to determine the comparative value of rape
and clover for growing young pigs is reported. Each lot of pigs
contained 21 animals. During an experimental period of 56 days,
*Yule: "Theory of Statistics," pp. 207-208.
480 Bulletin No. 105 [Jtdy,
Lot I, which was pastured on rape, gained yi.o±.i.4 lbs., and Lot
II, pastured on clover, 68.3±:i.3 lbs., the difference in favor of
Lot I being 2.7=1=1.9 lbs. The odds are only 2 to i that upon re-
petition of the experiment the lot pastured on rape would exhibit
a gain between o and 5.4 lbs. above that of the lot pastured on
clover, and it may be shown by taking the ratio of the difference
in gain to its standard deviation and using* tables of the normal
probability integral,^ that the odds are only 5 to i that under the
conditions of this experiment rape-pastured pigs would again ex-
hibit a greater average gain than clover-pastured pigs. Thus,
the data when analyzed by the method under discussion hardly
warrant a definite conclusion,
A Probability Method for Small Lots of Animals
\Miile the calculation of probable errors and the use of tables
of normal probability integrals is the best method available, and
is undoubtedly a good method for precise definition of the element
of uncertainty inherent in the interpretation of averages when the
number of animals per lot is large, when the number is ten or
less, a probability table compiled by "Student" and published in
Biometrika^ for 1908 may better be used for this purpose. In the
article in which the table occurs, "Student" considers the distribu-
tion of means of small samples and finds certain irregularities
Avhich gradually disappear as the size of the sample increases.
These discrepancies between the theory of large samples and the
theory of small samples are such that by the application of the or-
dinary theor}- which has been described above, to small samples,
i. e., samples of ten or less, the odds obtained that repetition will
result in a certain way are greater than the data actually justify.
The methods of analysis described in this article should commend
themselves highly to the investigator who is compelled for practical
reasons to employ small lots of animals.
»C. B. Davenport : "Statistical Methods," p. 119.
"Page 1.
JQIS] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 481
PART II. A STATISTICAL STUDY OF VARIATION IN
THE GAINS IN WEIGHT OE FARM ANIMALS
UNDER LIKE CONDITIONS
Introduction
In the preceding section of this bulletin, it is shown that an
important factor contributing to the element of uncertainty in the
interpretation of feeding trials consists of individual differences
in the reaction of experimental animals to environmental conditions
and of the unavoidable differences in environmental conditions to
which the different experimental animals are subjected. It is
further shown that such a factor of uncertainty can be handled
satisfactorily by the ordinary statistical methods, — standard devia-
tions and probable errors, as well as average gains in weight, being
calculated for the different lots of animals in a feeding experiment.
With the advent of an adequate quantitative measure of varia-
tion in the gains in weight of animals upon like rations and under
similar experimental conditions, the possibility presents itself of
solving many problems intimately concerned with the methods of
conducting feeding experiments and with the improvement of such
methods. Other problems possessing a more general significance
are also brought within reach of definite solution by the use of
statistical measures of variation.
This section of the bulletin treats of the extent of variation in
gain in weight within the lot and upon what this variation depends.
Also, the cjuestion of the reduction of such variation receives
attention. Finally, consideration is given to the possibility that
other than casual sources of variation in gain in weight are con-
cerned in the ambiguity attaching to experimental conclusions as
ordinarily formulated.
The material for the following investigation was gathered
largely from experiment station work in this country, tho some
valuable assistance was received from similar work in Canada and
England. In thus utilizing experimental results collected by many
different investigators at widely varying localities for the purpose
of solving diverse problems in live-stock feeding, many difficulties ,
were encountered in adapting such a heterogeneous mass of data
to the solution of a few related problems, the existence of which
was in no case recognized when the experiments were planned and
undertaken. The facts or suggestions finally elicited, however,
are perhaps the more valuable because of the richness and hetero-
geneity of the results upon which they are based.
/. B. Lazves on Variation. — The existence of extreme varia-
tion among the gains in weight obtained within similarly treated
482 ButLETiN Xo. 165 [July,
lots of animals has ver}^ frequently been the occasion for comment
in experiment station literature. One of the best discussions on
this subject that we have been able to find is that of J. B. Lawes,
occurring in the course of a report of investigations on the com-
parative fattening qualities of sheep conducted at the Rothamsted
Station, England, about sixty years ago. Speaking of the selection
of the 40 Hampshire and 40 Sussex wethers under investigation,
Lawes says :
"It is perhaps seldom that animals have been drawn for purposes of ex-
periment with more care than in the instances of which the foregoing tables
[giving the weights and gains of the sheep] record the results, yet we have
scarcely a sheep in either breed which does not give twice, thrice, or more
times as great an increase in gross live weight at one period, as at another of
equal length; whilst taking the entire period of the experiment, we have nearly
double the increase with some animals as with others by their side, and having
ostensibly the same description and qualities of food provided.
"The variation in the apparent rate of gain of the same animal at different
times, is largely; due to the difference in the amounts of the matters of the food
retained within the animal at the different times of weighing, and to obviate
error from this cause we have only to extend our experiments over a sufficient
length of time, and to be careful, as far^ as possible, always to weigh the ani-
mals at the same period of the day, and under similar circumstances as regards
their hours of feeding.
"With respect to the difference of result shown by different animals, hav-
ing professedly the same allowance of food, much of it is doubtless due to
distinct constitutional tendency to fatten or otherwise; yet in some cases it no
doubt depends upon a real difference in the food consumed by individual ani-
mals, for it is impossible to secure for each its due share of the several foods
supplied; and wherever there are many animals kept and fed together, there are
always some who exercise a kind of mastery over the rest, and if they do not
eat more food altogether than is allotted to them, they will at least take more
of the best of it than is their share, and thus reduce the fair allowance to all
the rest. By this cause, indeed, it is not improbalde that the proper feeding and
increase of some animals well adapted for it may be prevented ; though in so
far as these differences are really due to the quantities of feed consumed by
different individuals, it is obvious that the true relation of food to increase
will be less misstated by the gross numerical results of feeding experiments,
than would be the case were the irregularites entirely owing to varying consti-
tutional capabilities of the different animals to grow or fatten upon the same
food.
"But whatever be the causes of these variations, the figures in the tables
show that, notwithstanding the careful selection of the animals, we have among
the Hampshire sheep a difference in their average weekly gain of from about
3M lbs. to little more than 2 lbs.; and among the forty Sussex sheep, of from
little more than 2i< lbs. to less than 1'^ lbs. Indeed, the tenor of all published
results on feeding seems to show that these fluctuations and variations are the
rule and not the exception ; and the fact of them, therefore, should lead us to
'great caution in drawing nice conclusions from experiments made with but a
small number of animals, and extending only over a short period of time."*
The Coefficient of Variation. — As is shown in the first section of
this bulletin, the standard deviation, or root-mean-s(|uare deviation
from the arithmetic mean, is a good measure of variation for some
purpose, e.g., for gauging the value of the arithmetic mean as an
approximation to the typical gain in live weight under certain defi-
'Journ. Roy.'Agr. Soc. of England, vol. 12, pp. 419-420. 1851.
w
■fp^J]
Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments
483
nite experimental conditions, or, as some prefer to consider it, for
gauging the value of the mean as a quantity descriptive of a given
series of gains in weight obtained under similar conditions, or,
again, for measuring the significance of a mean gain in weight.
For extensive comparison, however, the standard deviation is
inadequate, since, in the first place, it depends upon the units of
weight employed, and, in the second place, it depends in some
measure upon the mean value itself. Thus, a lot of 19 pigs gained
an average of 35.74 lbs. in four weeks, and of 77.11 IIds. in eight
weeks. The standard deviation of the 19 individual gains at the
end of four weeks was 5.31 lbs., and at the end of eight weeks,
11.28 lbs. In view of the great disparity between the correspond-
ing average gains, the question whether the 19 pigs exhibited gains
more variable at the end of four weeks than at the end of eight
weeks, cannot be settled in fairness by comparing simply the two
standard deviations. For the fairest comparison it is customary to
convert the standard deviations into percentages based upon their
respective averages. For example, 5.31 constitutes 14.86 percent
of 35.74, and 11.28 constitutes 14.63 percent of 77.11 ; from which
it follows that the variability for the two periods figured in this
manner was practically identical. The percentages thus obtained,
i.e., 14.86 and 14.63, are known as coefficients of variation, or
coefficients of variability.
Again, consider a comparison as to variability of gain among
lots of different species of animals. Consider, for instance, (i) a
lot of 9 cockerels, (2) a lot of 16 sheep, (3) a lot of 21 pigs, and
(4) a lot of 15 steers, concerning which the following statistical
data have been collected :
Lot
Average
daily gain
Standard
deviation
Coefficient
of variation
1
2
3
4
.589 oz.
.3.50 lb.
1 . 22 lb.
2.53 lb.
.119 oz.
.0451 lb.
.157 lb.
.242 lb.
20.20
12. P9
12.86
9.56
In such cases as the above, the only feasible method of com-
parison is to consider the coefficients of variation.
Coefficients of Variation Ordinarily Obtained in Feeding
Experiments
Results of Wood and Stratton. — It is a matter of some interest
to study the variation in gain in weight, or the experimental error,
ordinarily existing within the lot for the different kinds of farm
animals. The only published investigations of this nature that we
484 Bulletin No. 1G5 [Jidy,
are aware of are those of Wood and Stratton and of Robinson and
Hainan referred to at the beginning of this bulletin. As the result
of nine experiments on the fattening of cattle performed at Cam-
bridge and involving 90 animals, Wood and Stratton found an
average coefficient of variation of 21.20. Five similar experiments
performed in Scotland and involving 50 animals gave an average
coefficient of 20.75, while two cattle-feeding experiments performed
in this country, involving 40 animals, yielded an average coefficient
of variation of 20.31. Finally, seven experiments performed at
Norfolk on the fattening of sheep, involving 100 animals, gave an
average coefficient of 21.21. These four coefficients, three ob-
tained with cattle and one with sheep, exhibit a remarkable agree-
ment and would seem to indicate that for these two kinds of
animals the percentage variability as regards gain in weight for
animals within the lot is substantially the same.
Results of Rohmson and Hainan. — As the result of a statistical
analysis of three feeding experiments, Robinson and Hainan con-
clude that "the probable error of one animal in a pig-feeding ex-
periment is in the region of 10 percent of the average live-weight
increase."^ This is equivalent to asserting that the coefficient of
variation of gains in weight in pig-feeding experiments is about
15, a value considerably lower than the coefficients of Wood and
Stratton for sheep and cattle.
Results Obtained from American B.rperiments. — Results which
we have obtained from experiment station work performed in this
country entirely are slightly different from those just quoted. From
the results of sixteen experiments on the feeding of sheep,^ in-
volving 803 animals divided into 80 lots of 5 to 16 animals each,
we found the average coefficient of variation of the 80 coefficients
calculated, to be 21.63, a- figi^ire comparing favorably with the aver-
age coefficient of 21.20 obtained by Wood and Stratton for sheep.
Eighteen experiments on steers,*^ involving 449 animals divided
into 50 lots of 5 to 15 animals each, yielded an average coefficient of
variation of 16.73. This is considerably lower than the three aver-
ages for steers obtained by Wood and Stratton, i.e., 21.20, 20.75,
and 20.31.
From seventeen experiments on swine,"^ involving 507 pigs di-
vided into 49 lots of 5 to 23 pigs each, an average coefficient of
17.12 was obtained. This coefficient agrees well with that obtained
for steers, i. e., 16.73, but is somewhat higher than that found by
Robinson and Hainan for swine.
"Loc. cit.
"See Appendix, pages 558 to 560.
'See Appendix, pages 563 to 564.
"See Appendix, pages 567 to 569.
■^p-fi]
UlS'CERTAINTY IN IxTERPRETATIOK OF FEEDING EXPERIMENTS
485
The coefficients here reported would appear to indicate that the
variabihty of gains in weights for steers and for swine are substan-
tially the same, whereas the variability for sheep is distinctly higher*.
Results Obtained at IVobiini and Rothamstcd. — Experiments
performed at the Woburn Experimental Farm and at the Rotham-
sted Station^ tend to substantiate the conclusion that as a general
rule sheep give more variable gains than steers. Eight experiments
performed on sheep at the Woburn Experimental Farm, involving
375 animals divided into 25 lots of 10 to 24 animals each, gave an
average coefficient of variation of 20.80. If live experiments per-
formed at the Rothamsted Station, involving 316 sheep divided into
15 lots of 5 to 46 animals each,^ be included, an average coefficient
of 20.40 results. Nine experiments on steers performed at \\ oburn,
involving 22 lots of 4 steers each and 2 lots of 6 steers each, i. e.,
a total of 100 steers, gave an average coefficient of variation of
18.15, o^'^r 2 percent lower than the two coefficients for sheep
given above.
Discrepancies Among Coefficients. — Upon reference to the Ap-
pendix, which gives in tabular form all of the data upon which
the above discussion is based, it will be seen that the percentage
variability of the individual lots varies in a remarkable manner.
This is shown by the following frequency distributions of the co-
efficients of variation of the various lots of animals, including both
English and American experiments.
Kind of
Class intervals
animal
0-5
1
5-10
10-15
23
16
17
15-20
36
13
24
20-25
27
8
13
25-30
12
3
30-35
9
1
35-40
3
1
2
40-45
45-50
Sheep
Swine
5
7
12
1
1
Steers
Extreme coefficients not included in the above table are : for
sheep, 58.21 for a lot of 11 animals, 55.33 for a lot of 10 animals,
and 76.9 for a lot of 5 animals; for steers, 51.90 for a lot of 4
animals. The three distributions tend to confirm the conclusion
that sheep in general exhibit greater variability as regards fatten-
ing qualities than do either steers or swine.
It is worthy of remark that this extreme variability exhibited
by coefficients calculated from data obtained from many separate
lots of animals treated differently at different localities and at dif-
ferent times, is to be expected, not only from the heterogeneity of
'See Appendix, pages 561-562 and 565-566.
486 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
the data, but also in large part from the mere size of the coefficients
obtained. Thus, according to Pearson, the standard deviation of
a coefficient of variation C, may be represented by the formula
l/^/i
^100/
y2
from which it follows that o; increases as C increases, ti being
the number of observations from which C is calculated. Thus,
suppose that a lot of 15 sheep exhibits a series of gains in live
weight whose variability is measured by a coefficient of 20. Then
if successive series of sheep taken 15 to a lot were treated in the
same manner, the best estimate we could make of the standard
deviation of the coefficients of variation obtained, using only the
data of the first series, would be
20
1 + 2 (^)
= 3.79.
Taking the probable error of C as 0.6745 o; and multiplying by
3.17,'' we define an interval symmetrically including the coefficient
20 such that the odds are 30 to i that a second coefficient obtained
from a second lot of 15 sheep would fall within it. Thus, we are
practically certain only that a second lot of sheep would exhibit a
coefficient falling within the limits 20±8.i, i.e., between 11.9 and
28.1.
Meaning of Such Discrepancies. — It is because of the large
probable errors attaching to coefficients of 15 to 20 that it is so
difficult to demonstrate that a given ration or other system of
treatment is capable of producing more (or less) uniform gains
than a second ration or other treatment. It is no exaggeration to
say that a single experiment with lots of the moderate size ordinari-
ly employed can shed practically no light upon a question of this
kind, no matter how extreme the difference in variation between
lots, except in conjunction with other experiments of a like nature.
The point under discussion is worthy of illustration. Consider
the results of two experiments conducted by W. L. Carlyle at the
Wisconsin Station to determine the relative value of rape and
clover pasture for fattening pigs.^ The lots of pigs employed con-
tained 19 animals each in the first experiment and 21 animals each
in the second. In the first experiment, the coefficient of variation
of the gains in weight of Lot I, allowed to run on rape pasture,
was 15.50, while that of Lot II, turned out on clover pasture, was
"See page 477.
"iSth and lOth Annual Reports Wis. Sta.
J9I3]
UnCF.RT.\1XTY IX IXTERPRETATIOX OF FeEDIXG ExPERIMEXTS
487
28.03. One might conclude from this experiment that rape pasture
tended to produce more uniform gains than clover pasture. In the
second experiment, however, the lot on rape pasture gave a coeffi-
cient of variation of 13.23, while the lot on clover pasture gave a
coefficient of only 12.88.
Number of Animals per Lot Required ix Feeding Experi-
ments
Statistical theory is capable of attacking directly a problem of
considerable importance to the technic of feeding experiments,
i. c, the number of animals that should be included in the lots of
a feeding experiment. The calculations upon which Table i, giv-
ing the results of a statistical study of this problem, is based are
given in the Appendix.^ The number of animals required to dem-
onstrate satisfactorily the significance of various percentage dif-
ferences in average gain in weight between two lots of animals,
for sheep and for pigs and steers, is given in this table, the sup-
position being, as the evidence seems to indicate, that in general,
in experiments on sheep more animals are required per lot than
in experiments on swine and steers. The few data that we have
collected concerning the variability of the gains in weight of poul-
try are quite comparable with those for swine and steers, indicating
that the same number of animals per lot are required for the former
as for the latter.
It will be seen from Table i that only a moderate number of
animals are required per lot except for differences of less than 12.5
Table 1. — Number of Aximals per Lot Required to Demonstrate the Signif-
ICAXCE of Various Percextage Differexces Between Average Lot Gains
For experiments on sheep
For experiments on steers
and swine
Percentage
difference
between
average
lot gains
Number of
animals
per lot
required
Percentage
difference
betv.een
average
lot gains
Number of
animals
per lot
required
50
40
30
20
17.5
15
12.5
10 •
7.5
5
2.5
2
2
4
8
10
14
20
31
54
121
482
50
• 40
30
20
17.5
15
12.5
10
7.5
5
1
2
3
5
7
9
13
20
36
80
317
'See pages 571 to 572.
488 Bulletin Xo. iGj [Ji'ly,
to 15 percent between lots. For differences of less than 12.5 to 15
percent the number of animals required increases at a very rapid
rate.
Advantages of Large Lots of Animals. — In order to appreciate
the significance of Table 1, it is necessary to form some idea of the
percentage differences ordinarily obtained between lots of animals
treated differently. In the case of rations markedly different in
nutritive value, such as corn meal alone and corn meal sui)plemented
by meat meal, shorts, middlings, tankage, etc., in swine experi-
ments, differences between average lot gains may run as high as
95 to 100 percent. Experiments comparing the relative efficiency
of alfalfa, timothy, and clover hay, or of some of the more com-
mon grains, or feeding on pasture and in dry lot, in the pro-
duction of gains in weight, may yield differences of 15 to 50
percent between lots. However, such cases as those just cited are
exceptional. In the common run of feeding trials, the purpose is
to determine the relative efficiency of two rations of approximately
e(iual value, so that differences of more than 10 to 15 percent be-
tween lots are not to be expected. Consequently, according to the
best information available, the lots of animals used should contain
at least 10 to 14 animals, if definite information is to be derived
from the experiment. In fact, for differences as low as 10 percent
between lots, 25 to 30 animals are required.^
Such a large number of animals is rarely used and is perhaps
prohibitive for most experiments. However, when working with
animals whose feeding capacities and other individual characteristics
are so variable, and when, in general, experimental conditions are
under such loose control that the standard deviation of gains w ithin
the lot averages 17 to 21 percent of the average lot gain, the point to
insist upon is that the results of single experiments with four or five
animals are in general ])ractically worthless except in conjunction
with other experiments performed under the same conditions. This
is the conclusion to which Wood and Stratton have come, and it
seems to be inevitable, at least until some method of lowering this
extreme variability is discovered.
In the course of the elaborate exj^eriments perfonned at the
Rothamsted Station on the comparative fattening qualities of dif-
ferent breeds of sheep, J. B. Lawes again and again calls attention
to the variability in fattening qualities exhibited by sheep under
'These estimates of the number of animals pier lot required in order to ob-
tain definite information concerning a problem in animal feedinp;. r^te to the
feeding experiment as ordinarily run, in which no particular effort is made to
reduce the experimental error. When such effort is made in an effective man-
ner, perhaps according to the suggestions hereinafter outlined, the above esti-
mates may be reduced to a greater or less extent.
^9^3] L'nlektaintv in Interpretation ok Feeding Kxpekimems 489
supposedly like conditions and selected with the utmost care. Thus,
in his investigation of the Cotswold breed, he says, in speaking
of the table giving the gains in weight per four weeks and for the
entire experiment of each of the 46 wethers:
"This table brings prominently to our view the point to which we have so
often called attention, namely, the great variation in the rate of gain of the
same animal during different consecutive periods and of different animals of
the same breed, however carefully selected, and having ostensibh- the same
description and qualities of food. This point we feel it is important to insist
upon so often, as showing the uselessness of comparative experiments on feed-
ing, unless both conducted with a large number of animals, and extended over
a considerable period of time, so as to eliminate, as far as possible, the effects of
the various sources of irregularity which we have before pointed out."*
The same warning is given in the investigation of Leicester
and crossbred lambs. We wish to emphasize this attitude of Lawes
as being assumed over half a century ago by a man of undoubted
authority in such matters, as the result of an extensive experience
in the fattening of sheep and of other farm animals. It is evi-
dently an attitude necessarily assumed by the careful observer in
practical animal husbandry, as well as by the statistical investigator
after analyzing by methods at present peculiarly his own the wealth
of data which experiment stations everywhere have rendered ac-
cessible to him.
The necessity of employing large lots of animals in demon-
strating the relative efficiency of two treatments of approximately
equal value, for instance two treatments capable of producing a
lo-percent difTerence in gain in live weight between two lots of
animals, is capable of illustration in another and perhaps more ef-
fective way. Assuming an equal percentage variability of gains in
the two lots, each of which contains 10 animals, this percentage
variability must be no higher than 12.06 in order to set up odds
of at least 30 to i, that is, in order to adequately prove any differ-
ence whatever in efficiency between two experimental treatments
capable of effecting a lo-percent difference in gain. Considering
the American experiments only, of the 80 lots of sheep whose co-
efficients of variation were determined, only 11 exhibited a varia-
bility as low as this; of the 49 lots of pigs only 8 possessed a
coefficient of 12.06 or less; of the 50 lots of steers only 9 gave
coefficients as low as or lower than 12.06. With 14 animals to
the lot, a coefficient of variation for each lot at least as low as
14.23 is necessary-. Fifteen of the 80 lots of sheep, 19 of the 49
lots of pigs, and 15 of the 50 lots of steers possessed coefficients of
variation as low as or lower than 14.23. With 16 animals to the
lot, a coefficient of variation for each lot of at most 15.26 is re-
quired. Sixteen of the 80 lots of sheep, 24 of the 49 lots of pigs,
and 19 of the 50 lots of steers possessed coefficients of variation as
low as or lower than this.
•Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of England, vol. 13, p. 182. 1852.
490 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
Size of Gains and Their Variabiuty
From inspection of the data given in the Appendix, one receives
the impression that in general, for the same feeding experiment,
there is a tendency for the variabihty of gains witliin the lot to
correlate itself with the average gain, low average gains being in
general associated with high variabilities. The detailed data are
so heterogeneous as to render any systematic study of this ques-
tion impossible. However, confining ourselves to those experi-
ments in which the lots consist of at least lo animals and the
differences among average lot gains are large, we will consider only
those results capable of affording the most decisive evidence either
one way or the other.
Evidence for Sheep. — Considering the feeding experiments with
sheep^ first, Experiment i offers little evidence either one way or
the other, the gains for most lots being quite similar. However,
Lot I, with the lowest average gain (32.9 lbs.) exhibits the highest
coefficient of variation (25.08) ; while Lot IH, wnVa the highest
average gain (41.3 lbs.) possesses a coefiicient of variation of only
17.31. The standard deviations of these two lots stand in the
same relation to each other. In Experiment 4, Lot I (10 sheep)
shows an average gain of 31.3 lbs., a standard deviation of 4.80
lbs., and a coefficient of variation of 15.34; Lot H (10 sheep)
shows an average gain of 23.4 lbs., a standard deviation of 7.79
lbs., and a coefficient of variation of 33.29. Thus, in this case the
lot giving the lower average gain exhibits the higher absolute
and percentage variability, the differences being very marked.
In Experiment 5, Lots la, Ila, and Ilia were under experiment
in the fall of 1908, while Lots lb, lib, and Illb were under experi-
ment in the fall of 1909, the lots designated by the same Roman
numeral receiving similar rations. It will be seen from page 558
of the Appendix, that much better gains were obtained in 1908
than in 1909, even after reduction to a daily basis; also, that the
variability of gains is greater for the year giving the poorer gains
(1909). Furthermore, on comparing Lot Illa with Lots la and
Ila, Lot Ilia is seen to have the greatest average gain and the
smallest coefficient of variation. Similarly, on comparing Lot Illb
with Lots lb and lib. Lot Illb is seen to possess the greatest aver-
age gain and the least absolute and percentage variability.
In Experiment 6, it will be noted that Lots I and III, with the
lowest average gains, exhibit the highest absolute and percentage
variability. Lot I, Experiment 7, shows an average gain of 25.0
lbs. in 105 days, and a standard deviation of 9.44, i. e., 2>7-77 P^^"
"See Appendix, pages 558 to 562.
/p/j] UXCERTAIXTV l.\ INTERPRETATION OF FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 491
cent of the mean. Lot II exhibits an average daily gain of 37-9,
a standard deviation of 8.23, and a coefTficient of variation of 21.70,
In Experiment 8, Lots la and Ila before weaning exhibit much
better average gains than after weaning'. The results in th.e latter
case are recorded under Lots lb and lib. The percentage varia-
bility before weaning is correspondingly less than that after wean-
ing.
We shall not attempt an analysis of Experiment 9 because the
lots are so small, but from a cursory glance at the results for the
four lots before and after weaning it will be seen that they agree
admirably with the theory that the better gains are also in general
the more uniform gains.
As further support for this conclusion, we cite Experiments 13,
17, 18, 20, 23, and 24 of the Appendix.
Bindcucc for Szvinc. — The experiments on swine^ do not af-
ford very strong confirmation of the theory under consideration,
it must be admitted. This is due in large part to the fact that in
many of the swine experiments the lots made similar gains, and
that in many experiments small lots of animals were employed,
— conditions unfaA-orable to the solution of the problem at hand.
In Experiment 62, tho the lots were small, the inverse correlation
between average gain and variability for the six lots is very evi-
dent. In Experiments 63 and 64, with 8 and 9 animals to the lot,
the evidence is more or less contradictory. In Experiment 65, the
data are very irregular, tho they fall in with the theory after a
fashion. Thus, the average coefficient of variability for the three
lots giving the three lowest average gains is 37.9; for the three
lots giving the next lowest gains, 16.8; for the three lots giving
the next lowest gains, 15.8; and for the lot giving the highest gain,
13.5. In Experiments 66 and 69 the evidence is contradictory,
while in Experiments 67 and 68, it is favorable to the theory. In
Experiment yy, the evidence is contradictory.
Ei'idcnce for Steers. — For steers,^ conditions are about the same
as for swine. We will not consider the Pennsylvania experiments
(35> 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, and 42), since in all of them the two lots
gave very similar average gains in weight. The most comprehen-
sive single steer experiment the data for which are given in the
Appendix, is Xo. 43, an experiment by H. W. Mumford performed
at the ^Michigan Station. In this experiment the correlation be-
tween average daily gain per lot and the coefficient of variation,
while far from perfect, is quite perceptible. The two largest co-
efficients obtained are those for Lots IX and X, exhibiting the
"See Appendix, pages 567 to 569.
"See Appendix, pages 563 to 566,
492 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
two smallest average gains, while the smallest coefficient is that of
Lot VII, exhibiting the largest average gain. Arranging the lots
in groups of two in the order of increasing average lot gains, the
average coefficients of variation per group run as follows: 24.15,
16.40, 15.83, 17.00, and 14.84,
Evidence for Poultry. — Considering next the poultry experi-
ments,^ aside from Experiment 78, in which the results are very
irregular, probably because the lots were composed of different
breeds, and Experiment 84, in which there was only one lot, all
show a greater absolute and percentage variability for the lot ex-
hibiting the lower average gain. The unanimity exhibited by these
five experiments is quite remarkable.
Siinimary of Bvidcnce. — The preponderance of evidence thus
favors the conclusion that good gains are in general uniform gains,
and that in any experiment involving two or more lots of animals
there will be more or less close correlation between average lot
gains and the corresponding coefficients of variation, such that
large values of the former will in general be associated with small
values of the latter. While the evidence that we ha.ve presented
in support of this view is more convincing for sheep and poultry
than for steers and swine, the distinction is more apparent than
real. As explained above, the particular sheep and poultry experi-
ments cited are more favorable to a solution of the problem than
the steer and swine experiments. The conclusion of this section
may be stated in other words, i. e., it appears that experimental
conditions favorable to growth and fattening are favorable to uni-
formity of individual gains.
Re:duction of the Expivrime^ntal Error in Feeding
Experiments
The question whether the extreme variability of gains in weight
ordinarily encountered in feeding experiments, constituting the ex-
perimental error of such investigations, can be reduced without
diminishing the significance of experiment station work, is a legiti-
mate object for discussion and investigation. As the result of a
single careful experiment on four steers. Wood and Stratton con-
clude that there is no way of surmounting the difficulty caused by
the extreme variability of gain in weight of farm animals and that
"the requisite precision in feeding trials can only be obtained by
increase of numbers, or if that is impossible, repetition of the ex-
periment." We are of the opinion that such a sweeping conclusion
as this is not based upon sound and sufficient evidence. The results
of our studies considered in the following pages are not in harmony
with such a conclusion.
'See Appendix, page 570.
jp/j] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 492
In fact, three experiments on swiiije (76, jy, 78) conducted by
one of the Canadian experiment stations seem to present evidence
in direct contradiction to the conclusion of Wood and Stratton.
These experiments involve i lot of 5 pigs, 5 lots of 6 pigs, and 4
lots of 10 pigs. The coefficients of variation of the gains produced
are remarkably, and with one exception, uniformly low, averaging
only 10.98. Only one of the 10 lots possesses a coefficient as high
or higher than the average for tlie experiments on swine performed
in this country, i. e., 17.12. The reports of these experiments are
too meager to enable one to tell what feature or features of ex-
perimental control are responsible for this low variability, but it
seems that here, at least, a relatively high precision in feeding trials
has been attained with only moderately large lots of animals.
(a) Iiiiportaiicc of Reducing the Experimental Error
The importance to the technic of feeding experiments of some
method of increasing the uniformity of gains within the lot as the
period of observation increases should not be underestimated. The
difference between the fattening qualities of two lots of animals
selected differently, or between two systems of treatment, is ex-
pressed fairly well as "a percentage difference rather than a dif-
ference of so many pounds or ounces. The statement that Ration A
dift'ers in fattening qualities from Ration B to the extent of x
pounds has no meaning whatever; the statement that Ration A
differs from Ration B to the extent of x pounds in 3' days, or of
X pounds per day, is perfectly definite and involves all necessary
information ; but the statement that Ration A is x percent better
as regards fattening qualities than Ration B is less cumbersome
and more intelligible than the latter statement, while contain-
ing all necessary infomiation. It is a perfectly legitimate as-
sumption, until proof to the contrary is presented, that the
percentage difference between two rations tends to remain con-
stant thruout a feeding experiment. Now, it may be shown that
the smaller the coefficient of variation of the gains in weight with-
in a lot, other things being equal, the smaller the minimum per-
centage difference between the average gain for the lot and the
average gain for a second lot that can be definitely traced to the
difference in treatment or the difference in make-up between the
two lots.^ Hence the value of legitimately reducing the coefficient
of variation of gains is obvious.
We will illustrate the point with the data from one of the
Rothamsted experiments given in Table 7, e. g., the data for the
lot of 40 Sussex wethers. If this experiment had closed at the
end of 4 weeks, the final coefficient of variation of the 40 total
"See Appendix, pages 571 to 572.
494 Bulletin No. igo [July,
gains in weight would have been 30.32, If another lot of 40 Sus-
sex w^ethers had been under observation for the same period of
time and had also exhibited a variation of 30.32 percent, on some
other ration we will say, then the smallest difference in fattening
qualities between the two rations that could be detected with rea-
sonable certainty would be a difference of 12.5 percent; that is,
a difference between the two average lot gains of 12.5 percent is
the smallest difference that could set up odds of 30 to i that the
difference in ration was actually concerned in the difference in gain.
If this experiment had ended at the end of 8 weeks, this minimal
difference between average lot gains would have been reduced to
9.5 percent; at the end of 12 weeks it would have been 7.2 per-
cent; at the end of 16 weeks, 6.2 percent; and at the end of 20
weeks, 5.6 percent. We see, therefore, that during the course of
this experiment, which was so conducted that the individual gains
were becoming more and more uniform, the average lot gain be-
came much more efficient as a comparative value and much more
representative of the experimental conditions whose influence on
the fattening of sheep it is supposed to measure.
To illustrate further the great practical value of definite meth-
ods of reducing experimental error, we will consider the statisti-
cal data of four experiments with poultry performed by F. T. Shutt
of the Central Experiment Farm, Canada.
Experiments 79, 81, and 82 were performed in 1901-02, and
Experiment 83 in 1904-05. As far as the meager reports of the
experiments indicate, the feed in all lots was given to the fowls "in
such quantity as was immediately consumed." In the first three
experiments, no tendency for gains to become more uniform is
evident. In fact, in Experiment 81 the contrary tendency may be
seen. In Experiment 83, however, the gains in each lot regularly
increase in uniformity to a very marked degree. The ration in
this experiment was not very dift'erent from that of Experiments
79 and 81. In the latter, the ration consisted of ground oats, 4
parts, ground barley, 3 parts, and meat meal, i part, made into a
mash with skim milk. In the former, the ration was ground
oats, 3 parts, and ground barley, 2 parts, also mixed with skim
milk. It would obviously have been to the advantage of Ex-
periments 79, 81, and 82 if they had been conducted as was
Experiment 83, tho just wherein Experiment 83 dift'ered essentially
from the others, one cannot discover from the report. Perhaps
the difference would have been evident only upon careful investi-
gation, for instance of the quantities of feed consumed during each
week of the experiment.
The comment of Shutt upon the variability of the gains ob-
ser\-ed in his several lots of fowls is of interest: "What we may
term individualism is as strone amone fowls as in other classes
I9i3]
^
■ —
<
O
-a
H
O
u
X
><
■*-' O
C
co-c
n!
-3
rt
o
c
f3
;n C
U
U5
■)-> "^
c o
o '^
OJ «
a;
O >
:S
u^
^
c
(/I
c
rrt
*w c
M
J^.S
.— <
•o -
C^
C--
o
re >
-tJ (U
*■*-.
LO-^
r^
ni
n
'>J
^^
ra
^«
o
Oj
lU
t/]
■^
r-*.
m
j:
o _,
13 "a]
S3 C
U
<:
6C
O
M t~ o r~- !C ;c
M C» O t^ tC t^
■* o c^ ■T r^ -^
J- tT C-. <-< CO c
r- C-^ -5- O O t-
C5 in ;d 00 t~ >n
O i- O N O C
M t- iH O OS T-
ro ■>*<■<*< «5 Tf en
M -H C5
00 cc w
C! O C-
■* rl C
>-o tx; X
t~ a c>
IX) y-l t~ t-
. c/1 wa t/5 e/3 cfi
^ ^ ^ j>; ^ ^
o o a;
i; aj aj a^ a; aj
■; ^ ^ S ^ is
"-I W CC M< >n tc
= c n c c c
Cl,
c ^-N
-a o
u
>-- >n O
OC W 50 ■*
Tt «0 t~- en
!■} Tt ■>)■ O C O
O «S 00 C-. C-.
C. -^ ■* N T-l ^
t; !- '-^ 00 t- w
^ !- c »n 1-^ o
W — C> M ■* ^
. c/1 c/3 tn (/3 t/;
^ ^ ^ ^ -:i ^
Q^ ^ O CJ O tL>
u aj tu a; a^ u
^ ^ ^ ? js &
,-j CQ CO Tjl lO to
c n c c c c
•a ^-
P.
P w
>,
•w
CLi
c/l
•o
aj
a;
t.
u
-~ c: ^t -n >.-; 05 CC ■*
;C T- C O CT. in
Tf iC t- c c
-t c o o •* c
n- C X Tf 00 c
m en C IT! «D ■<*•
m tc m 00 C! o
■ t/] en t/) CD (/)
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a:
ij o a^ aj aj a.;
is ^ -s ^ ^ s:
!-< N en •* in tc
c c c n c c
>> «
Ph
«
CU
aj
aj
1- ^
a u
CO o
00
495
en r: t- t^ m
(M >- I- tC CO
C OC T-< C5 «c
c. -^ t- en M-
a> CJ c-*
aj Qj a> a; 1^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
1-^ CQ en -^ m
c n n c c
496 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
of live stock. Vitality, constitutional vigor, and ability to digest
and assimilate food are not rneted out alike to all, and tho there
is no apparent cause, lack of thrift is not uncommonly to be ob-
served in some members of a hatch." This belief, which is strik-
ingly confirmed by the statistical study we have made of some of
Shutt's experiments, is undoubtedly at the basis of the general
practice of the chemistry and poultry divisions of the Central Ex-
perimental Farm, of presenting individual data in all feeding ex-
periments on fowls and in all experiments to determine the effect
of different methods of poultry management on egg production.
It is to be regretted that this practice is so unusual among investi-
gators of the problems of poultry management, since it has so much
in its favor in rendering the results of experiments more intelligi-
ble and less ambiguous.
(b) Selection of Anhnals as Regards Age, Breed and Type, Sex,
and Previous Treatment
In securing the greatest possible uniformity of gains within the
lot in feeding experiments, obviously the first care should be in the
selection of the animals.
Age. — That animals at different ages exhibit different fattening
qualities, needs no demonstration, and the necessity of including
only animals of approximately the same age in an experimental lot
is pretty generally recognized.
Breed and Type. — That different breeds of the same species of
animals behave differently on the same rations is undisputed in
some cases, while in all cases it is a possibility, if not a probability,
in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary. These dif-
ferences are to be expected more especially when the breeds differ
in general type. Thus, in the case of steers, the dairy and beef
types, in the case of swine, the lard and bacon types, and in the
case of sheep, the mutton and wool types, may be supposed to differ
most markedly in fattening qualities.
In the case of sheep, the extensive breed tests conducted at the
Iowa Station by \\'ilson and Curtiss^ and the extensive experiments
of J. B. Lawes at Rothamsted (27, 28, 29) leave no doubt that
breed differences as regards rate of growth do exist.
In the case of steers, the evidence for the existence of breed
difference is apparently not so convincing, or at least not so gen-
erally recognized. Thus, W. A. Henry says : "So far as the data
go, we have no evidence that beef-bred animals make more rapid
growth than do others."^ H. P. Armsby is inclined to the same
"Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta., Ruls. 33 and 35.
"Feeds and Feeding, nth ed., 1011, p. 320.
/p/j]- U.\ CERTAINTY IN INTERPRETATION OF FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 497
opinion.^ ^^'hile we have not made an extensive study of the lit-
erature, some experiments that we have reviewed indicate in no
uncertain fashion that different breeds, especially when of differ-
ent types, may exhibit different fattening qualities under the same
conditions. An extensive experiment by H. \\'. Mumford of this
station^ presents indisputable evidence to this effect. The object of
the investigation was a comparison of the six standard grades of
feeding steers as regards their fattening qualities. Each lot con-
sisted of i6 steers of the same grade. A very complete description
of the lots is given in the original bulletin. However, we shall give
only a brief resume, more especially of the characteristics of the
lots as regards their breeding.
Of Lot I, containing the fancy selected feeders, Mumford says:
"They contained nearly loo percent of the blood of the improved
beef breeds. The dams were high-grade Shorthorn cows and the
sire a registered Hereford." Lot 2, containing choice feeders, were
high-grade Shorthorns. In Lot 3, containing the good feeders,
beef blood still predominated. Concerning Lot 4, the medium
feeders, the author says : "It should be said that this lot did not
contain a steer that failed to show evidence of improved beef blood,
altho the predominating blood seemed to be native or unimproved,
with occasionally a dash of the blood of some one of the dairy
breeds." Lot 5, the common feeders, "showed but a ver}- small
percentage of beef blood. Xative and unimproved blood predomi-
nated." Lot 6, the inferior feeders, "showed no evidences of beef
blood and every evidence of being scrubs."
During a feeding period of 179 days, these lots exhibited the
following average daily gains in weight : Lot i, 2.570 lbs. ; Lot 2,
2.543 lbs.; Lot 3, 2.341 lbs.; Lot 4, 2.128 lbs.; Lot 5, 2.207 lbs.;
and Lot 6, 1.950 lbs. While complete individual data are not given,
thus precluding a complete analysis of the significance of average
lot differences, there can be no reasonable doubt, from a study of
these averages, that the infusion of beef blood tended strongly to
accelerate the rate of gain of the better grade steers.
While the data of the above experiment indicate that breeds of
different general types may dift'er in fattening qualities, some data
presented by Curtiss before the Ames Graduate School during
the summer session of 1910,*^ indicate that decided, tho slight, dif-
ferences in rapidity of gains exist even among breeds of the general
beef type.
•U. S. Dept. Agr.. Bur. An. Ind.. Bui. lOS. pp. 29 and 44. 1908.
"III. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 90.
'See E. Harrison and J. A. S. Watson : "Correlations between Conforma-
tion and the Production of Beef in Beef Cattle, etc." Thesis for the M.S.
degree, Iowa State College, 1911.
\9S
Bulletin No. 165
[July,
In the case of swine, the evidence is unmistakable that at
least some breeds can be differentiated from each other as regards
fattening qualities. Here again breed differences are the more
marked when accompanied by differences in general type. Appar-
ently these differences are not at all constant, but vary with the
rations fed or with the conditions of feeding; that is, in some ex-
periments one breed may show a marked superiority over another,
while in another experiment, in which other rations are used or
other conditions obtain, the relation found in the first case may
be reversed. As an illustration of this point, we shall first cite an
experiment by W. A. Henry of the Wisconsin Station on two lots
of 12 pigs each.^ The total gains made by the individual pigs
at the end of 12 weeks on a ration of corn and wheat middlings,
and the breed and sex to which each pig belonged, are summarized
in Table 3.
Table 3. — Total Gains in Weight of Two Lots of Pigs, with Breed and Sex
OF Individuals
No.
of
Lot I
Lot II
pig
Breed
Sex
Gain
92
Breed
Sex
barrow
Gain
1
Grade Berkshire
barrow
Grade Berkshire
133
2
Grade Berkshire
sow
77
Grade Berkshire
sow
95
3
Poland-China
barrow
29
Poland-China
sow
55
4
Grade Berkshire
sow
103
Grade Berkshire
barrow
98
5
Berkshire
barrow
60
Poland-China
barrow
64
6
Grade Berkshire
barrow
80
Grade Berkshire
sow '
113
7
Yorkshire
sow
80
Poland-China
barrow
30
8
Berk, razorback
sow
71
Pol.-Chin. raz'b.
sow
98
9
Pol.-Chin. raz'b.
barrow
84
Berk, razorback
sow
75
10
Berkshire
sow
87
Yorkshire
sow
81
11
Poland-China
sow
71
Berk, razorback
barrow
109
12
Poland-China
barrow
59.
Berkshire
sow
87
It will be noticed, especially in the case of Lot II, that the Po-
land-China pigs did very poorly. As Henry says : "The Poland-
China hogs proved unsatisfactory feeders, showing losses at the
weighing period on several occasions. Towards the last they be-
came lame and their conditions may be characterized as 'broken
down.' As they had received the same treatment at all times as the
others, we cannot offer any explanation excepting that they were
weaker animals generally."
An Iowa experiment on the feeding of corn and supplementary
feeds to pigs (65) affords data concerning the differential fatten-
ing qualities of different breeds of pigs. Each lot consisted of 9
or 10 pigs and of representatives of 4 or 5 breeds. The gains of the
"18th Annual Report of the Wisconsin Station. 1901.
I9I3]
UXCERTAIXTV IX IXTERPRETATIOX OF FeEDIXG ExPERIMEXTS
499
pigs of the various breeds as regards their position above or below
the mean gain of their respective lots are given in Table 4.
The data in this table are of interest, not so much by reason of
what thev prove as regards the relative fattening qualities of dif-
ferent breeds of swine, but by reason of what they suggest. In
Table 4. — Data Coxcerxixg the Gaixs ix Weight of Tex" Lots of Pigs axd
Their Relatiox to the Breed of the Pigs
Average
No. of gain for Lot ration
lot lot
Pigs giving gains
above the respect-
ive lot average
Pigs giving gains
belozc the respect-
ive lot average
I
103.4 Corn meal.
timothy pasture
3 York-Durocs
1 Poland-China
2 Berkshires
1 Yorkshire
1 Poland-China
2 Berkshires
II
123.5 Corn meal 2 pts.,
shorts 1 pt..
timothy pasture
2 York-Durocs
1 Poland-China
2 Berkshires
1 Yorkshire
1 York-Duroc
2 Poland-Chinas
1 Berkshire
III 133.2 Corn meal 1 pt.,
shorts 1 pt.,
timothy pasture
1 York-Duroc
1 Berkshire
3 Poland-Chinas
I Yorkshire
2 York-Durocs
2 Berkshires
IV
140.9 Corn meal 3 pts.,
meat meal 1 pt..
timothy pasture
1
3 York-Durocs
2 Poland-Chinas
1 Yorkshire
3 Berkshires
V 133.9 Corn meal 5 pts.,
tankage 1 pt..
timothy pasture
2 York-Durocs
2 Poland-Chinas
1 Yorkshire
1 York-Duroc
1 Poland-China
3 Berkshires
VI
133.7 Corn meal,
clover pasture
3 York-Durocs
1 Poland-China
2 Berkshires
1 Yorkshire
1 York-Duroc
1 Poland-China
1 Berkshire
VII
90.9 Corn meal 2 pts.,
shorts 1 pt.,
in dry lot
1 York-Duroc
1 Poland-China
2 Berkshires
2 York-Durocs
1 Poland-China
2 Berkshires
1 Yorkshire
VIII
100.2 Corn meal 1 pt.,
shorts 1 pt,
in dry lot
1 Poland-China
1 Berkshire
3 York-Durocs
1 Poland-China
3 Berkshires
1 Yorkshire
IX
121.8
Corn meal 5 pts.,
meat meal 1 pt.,
in dry lot
2 York-Durocs
2 Poland-Chinas
1 York-Duroc
3 Berkshires
1 Yorkshire
1 Tamworth
X 102..') Corn meal ■> pts..
tankage 1 pt..
in dry lot
3 York-Durocs
3 Poland-Chinas
1 Tamworth
3 Berkshires
1 Yorkshire
500
Bulletin No. 165
[July,
some cases the suggestion is accompanied by a considerable prob-
ability, tho with such few and heterogeneous data that whatever
interpretation is attempted must be couched in very moderate lan-
guage.
It will be noticed that each lot contained a Yorkshire pig. In
the first six lots, the Yorkshire pigs exhibit gains above, and gen-
erally considerably above, their respective lot averages. In' the last
four lots, however, the Yorkshire pigs exhibit gains far below their
respective lot averages. It will be noticed that the first six lots
were turned out on pasture, while the last four lots were confined
in dry lots. The evidence is very suggestive, therefore, that the
advantage of pasture over dry lot is much more marked in the case
of Yorkshire pigs, as representatives of the bacon type perhaps,
than in the case of the other breeds experimented upon.
It will also be noticed that the Berkshire pigs exhibit gains
both above and below the average in Lots I, II, III, VI, VII, and
VIII. In Lots IV, V, IX, and X, however, the Berkshires con-
sistently show gains below the average, and, as the original data
indicate, far below the average ; in short, the Berkshire gains in
Lots IV, IX, and X are the lowest gains in the lots, and in Lot V,
the three Berkshires exhibit the two lowest and the fourth lowest
gains in the lot. These; four lots are the lots in wiiich the corn
meal was supplemented by meat meal and tankage, two of the
lots being turned out on pasture and two being confined in dry
lots. The behavior of the Berkshire pigs seems to be specific and
to distinguish these representatives of the Berkshire breed sharply
from the representatives of the other breeds.
An extensive breed test on swine, extending over three years,
was. conducted at the Iowa station by Curtiss and Craig.'" The
rations in the three experiments differed to a greater or less ex-
tent. A summary of the results obtained after the pigs were
weaned is given in Table 5.
Table 5. — Breed Test at the Iowa Experiment Station
I
I
]
First experiment : 92 days
Breed
Ay.
daily
Rain
10 Duroc-Jerseys
6 Yorkshires
7 Tamworths
10 Chester-Whites
7 Crossbreds
r^ Poland-Chinas
10 Berkshires
.90
.80
.77
.74
.73
.72
.RS
Second experiment : 153 days
Breed
Av.
daily
gain
9 Yorkshires
9 Duroc-Jerseys
10 Berkshires
10 Chester-Whites
10 Tamworths
8 Poland-Chinas
16
10
03
01
00
1.00
Third experiment: 165 days
Breed
I'
5 Yorkshires
10 Berkshires
8 Tamworths
10 Poland-Chinas
10 Duroc-Jerseys
9 Chester-Whites
dail
^-
1.16
•■|
.91
"Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 48. 1900.
ip-fj]
Uncektaintv in Inteki'Retatiun ok Feeding Experiments
501
The rank of the different breeds as regards average daily gain
IS quite different in the three experiments, possibly because of the
different rations used. The experiments agree, however, in several
particulars, e. y., in attributing to the Yorkshire breed a general
superiority, and to the Chester-White and Poland-China breeds a
general inferiority. It may be shown that with a variability in the
Duroc-Jersey and Berkshire lots as high as 33 percent, the odds
are 30 to i that the former breed possesses greater fattening
.powers than the latter under the particular conditions that obtained
in the first experiment.
For other experimental data on breed tests with swine, the
reader is referred to Bulletin 47 of the U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bu-
reau of Animal Industry, by Rommel.
As further evidence on the question under discussion, we wish
to cite a few experiments in which each lot consists of a separate
litter. Some statistical data on these experiments are given in Ta-
ble 6.
Table- G. — Vartatiti.ity of Gains for Lots of Pigs, Each Lot Consisting of a
Single Litter
Reference
No. of
pigs in
litter
Length
of exper-
ment in
days
Statistical
data of total
in weight
gains
Mean
Standard
deviation
C
oefficient
of
ariation
"Pigs observed from birth.
""Pigs observed from weaning
Wis. 7th Ann. Rpt.^'
7
119
64.33
7.09
11.02
8
119
86.74
13.73
15.83
7
119
70.91
9.43
13.30
7
119
65 . 06
6.69
10.29
Mich. Bui. 138"
8
119
104.60
9.77
9.34
9
119
83.55
4.11
4.92
Wis. Bui. 104"
10
56
53.3
6.25
11.73
10
56
24.0
4.58
19.08
5
.56
37.6
3.44
9.15
6
56
45.3
7.25
16.00
8
56
50.5
8.56
16.95
9
56
33.0
6.32
19.15
7
56
51.3
5.00
9.75
6
56
38.0
2.77
7.30
8
56
46.0
6.76
14.70
5
56
49.2
7.11
14.45
5
56
31.4
6.25
19.90
.1
56
57.6
6.67
11.58
Total . ■.
130
Average
13.00
time.
The coefficients of variation of the gains made by these 18 lit-
ters are in general comparati^•ely low. In only 3 litters is the
coefficient of variation greater than the average coefficient for pigs
502 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
as indicated by the American feeding experiments reviewed, i. e.,
17.12. It is interesting to note, in view of what has been said
al)ove as regards the relation between the size of gains and their
variabihty, that the three Htters exhibiting the three highest co-
efficients of variation of the 18 coefficients exhibit also the three
lowest average lot gains obtained in the Wisconsin experiment.
The average coefficient of variation for the 18 litters is more than
4 percent lower than the general average for American swine ex-
periments, indicating with a high degree of probability the ad-
vantageous effect of the rigorous selection of experimental animals
as regards breed, type, age, and ancestry.
As regards the relative fattening qualities of the different breeds
of poultry, we shall simply refer the reader to an extensive investi-
gation of this question conducted at the Central Experimental
Farm and reported by Frank T. Shutt.^ Nine different breeds were
under investigation, and while some were quite similar in fattening
qualities, some were either markedly superior or markedly inferior
to others.
It is difficult to reconcile such unequivocal evidence as ap-
pears to exist as regards the differential fattening qualities of dif-
ferent breeds of animals with the cautious statements often made
by authorities on the fattening of farm animals. We believe the
explanation lies in the method ordinarily used in collecting data
for the solution of the question. The ordinary method of solving
the question of whether breed is a factor in determining the rate
of growth is open to considerable objection. The indiscriminate
averaging together of a large niunber of experiments cannot be
expected to bring out any differential effect of breed. It may, in
fact, actually obscure all such effects, since it is highly probable
(in some cases actually demonstrated) that the effect of breed on
growth and fattening is a function of the ration fed as well as of
other experimental conditions. The Kansas Station has shown,
for instance, that scrub or native steers do much better than Short-
horn steers when turned out on poor pasture, because of their bet-
ter foraging ability, which is a distinctive characteristic of the
unimproved cattle of Kansas; whereas, in the fattening pen, the
Shorthorn steers possess a more or less distinct advantage.'' Simi-
larly, the typical bacon hog ordinarily has the advantage over the
lard hog when turned out on pasture, while when fed in dry lot
his more restless temperament and his ability to get around better
put him at a disadvantage. An interesting illustration of this fact
is the behavior of the Yorkshire pigs in the Iowa experiment dis-
cussed above (page 500). Therefore, the averaging of the results
"Canadian Experimental Farms, Report for lOOf?, np. 210-222.
"Kan. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 51. 1895.
iy;j] Uncektainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 502
of experiments in which the conditions are not strictly comparable
tends to obscure any effect of breed, some experiments com-
pensating for the advantage or disadvantage given to certain breeds
by other experiments. The best method of attacking the problem,
therefore, is the detailed study of individual experiments.
It may be concluded on first thought that while different breeds
may react differently to any given ration, the disadvantage accru-
ing from this fact may be counteracted by balancing lots carefully,
i.e., by including the same number of each breed in each lot. Fur-
thermore, it seems to be the opinion of some that by including dif-.
ferent breeds in the same lot the experiment acquires a more
general significance and the conclusions of the experiment have a
more general application. As a matter of fact, as we shall show,
this greater generality does not at all result from a loose selection
of animals. Such selection simply renders the results of the ex-
periment more ambiguous.
In demonstrating this fact, we shall first consider an experiment
by Henry of the Wisconsin Station on 2 lots of 12 pigs each, the
data of which are given in Table 3. The pigs of Lot II gained, on
an average per head, over 22 lbs. more than the pigs of Lot I. It
may be supposed, on first thought, that the conclusion that corn
meal, which was fed to Lot II, is better for fattening swnne than
whole corn, which was fed to Lot I, applies to all the breeds of
pigs experimented upon, i. c, grade Berkshires, Poland-Chinas,
Berkshires, Berkshire razorbacks, Poland-China razorbacks, and
Yorkshires. An analysis of the individual data reveals a very dif-
ferent state of affairs. The four grade Berkshires of Lot I gained,
on an average, 86.5 lbs., and the four grade Berkshires of Lot II,
109.8 lbs.; the three Poland-Chinas of Lot I gained 53.0 lbs., on
an average, while those of Lot II gained only 49.7 lbs. ; the two
Berkshires of Lot I gained 60 and 87 lbs. respectively, while the
one Berkshire of Lot II gained 87 lbs. ; the one Berkshire razor-
back of Lot I gained 71 lbs., and the two pigs of the same breeding
in Lot II gained 75 and 109 lbs., respectively; the Yorkshire pig
in Lot I gained 80 lbs., and the Yorkshire in Lot II, 81 lbs.; the
Poland-China razorback of Lot I gained 84 lbs., and that of Lot II,
98 lbs.
In summing up such evidence as this, no certain conclusion
applying to any one breed of animals can he deduced. A fairly
high degree of probability has been established that for grade Berk-
shires corn meal is better than whole corn, tho one grade Berk-
shire in Lot I, fed v.diole corn, gained more than two in Lot II, fed
corn meal. For Poland-China pigs, however, the opposite conclu-
sion is more applicable. The Berkshire pig in Lot II exhibited a
gain identical with that of one of the Berkshires in Lot I. The
Yorkshire in Lot II gained only i lb. more than the Yorkshire in
504 Bulletin Xo. 1G5 [July,
Lot I. The Berkshire razorback of Lot I gained only 4 lbs. less
than one of the Berkshire razorbacks of Lot il, while the difference
between the gains of the two Poland-China razorbacks was much
less than half the ditiference between the gains exhibited by the two
Berkshire razorbacks of Lot II fed on the same ration. Evidently
the generality of the conclusion deduced from such heterogeneous
experimental results has not been extended in the slightest by in-
cluding such different breeds in the same lot. Only a confusing
ambiguity has resulted, so that one is not by any means certain
that the conclusion applies to any of the breeds.
Many instances of the marked disadvantages of including sev-
eral breeds in the same lot may be seen in the Iowa experiment of
Kennedy and Robbins, the data of which are given in Table 4.
Thus, consider Lots IX and X, the average gains for which were
121. 8 lbs. and 102.5 lbs., respectively. The three Yorkshire-Durocs
of Lot IX gained 116.7, 122.0, and 155.0 lbs., respectively, and the
three pigs of the same breed in Lot X gained 129.3, 108.3, ^"d
123.0 lbs. It would be difficult indeed to differentiate these two
lots of Yorkshire-Duroc pigs. The two Poland-Chinas of Lot IX
gained 152.7 and 125.7 lbs., while the two Poland-Chinas of Lot
X gained 165.0 and 140.0 lbs. Here also differentiation is impos-
sible. The Berkshires of Lot IX made gains of 113.7, 101.7, and
lOi.o lbs., and the Berkshires of Lot X made gains of 35.0, 26.7,
and 61.7 lbs. Apparently with this breed there is a sharp differen-
tiation between lots. The Yorkshire pig of Lot IX gained 107.7 lbs.,
and the Yorkshire of Lot X, 64.3 lbs. The Tamworth of Lot IX
gained 12 1.7 lbs., and the Tamworth of Lot X, 171.7 lbs. On such
detailed analysis of Lots IX and X as the above, the avoidable am-
biguity due to differential breed characteristics is plainly revealed.
We. are firmly of the opinion that froDi every standpoint the
inclusion of different breeds and types in the same lot of experi-
mental animals is a had practice, possessing no redeeming feature.
Sex. — The evidence concerning the effect of sex on fattening
qualities seems to indicate quite clearly that the castrated male gains
faster than the female of the same species and breed.
In the case of sheep, the evidence for this statement is very
convincing. Carmichaer found in 3 lots of sheep, each containing
22 wethers and 22 ewes, that the wethers, on an average, made 10
percent greater gains than the ewes. Thus, the average daily gains
at the end of 117 days were 0.218 and 0.233 lb. for the ewes and
wethers, respectively, of Lot I; 0.210 and 0.231 lb. for the ewes
and wethers of Lot II; and 0.212 and 0.239 lb. for the ewes and
wethers of Lot IV. Curtiss and Wilson^ found the average daily
■Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 1S7. 1907.
"Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta.. Bui. 35. 1897.
I
^9^3] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 505
t>
gains for a lot of 9 Shropshire wethers during a feeding period of
106 days to be as follows: 0.43 lb. from September 16 to 30,
0.44 lb. for October, 0.30 lb. for November, and 0.28 lb. for De-
cember. A lot of 10 Shropshire ewes on the same ration made the
following average daily gains for the same periods : 0.48, 0.32,
0.25, and 0.26 lb., respectively. The lambs in each lot were fed to
their full capacity of the grain mixture used, and of roots and hay.
The ewe lambs, however, were the lighter eaters. They took on
fat rapidly and were more nearly finished during the latter part
of the experiment than the other lots, which consisted of wether
lambs. According to the authors, "This distinction between the
sexes has been observed in all of the experiments made at this
station, including both cattle and sheep." J. B, Lawes, in an ex-
periment covering a period of 140 days (29), found an average
gain of 44.50 lbs. for a lot of 40 crossbred wether lambs, and an
average gain of 42.50 lbs. for a lot of 40 crossbred ewe lambs, the
breeding being the same. The ration was oil meal, chaffed clover
hay, and roots, and was fed to the two lots in the same quantities
per 100 lbs. live weight. The fact that the difference between the
gains of ewe and of wether lambs in this experiment is small is
probably due to the method of apportioning the ration.
W. L. Carlyle, experimenting with two lots of lambs before and
after weaning (8), reports the individual gains. In Lot I, the
average gain of the 10 ewes during the 10 weeks before weaning
was 33.50 lbs., and that of the 7 wethers during the same period,
39.12 lbs. During the 10 weeks after w^eaning, the average gain
of the ewes was 23.40 lbs., and that of the wethers, 26.86 lbs. In
Lot II, before weaning, the average gain of the 13 ewes was 35.70
lbs., and that of the 4 wethers, 40.00 lbs. After weaning, the aver-
age gain of the ewes w^as 22.77 ^^^s., and that of the w^ethers, 16.00
lbs. W. C. Coffey (3) experimented on three lots of lambs of
different ages, there being 10 lambs to the lot. The lambs were
under observation for 98 days. In Lot I, the 5 ewes gained an
average of 25.1 lbs., and the 5 wethers, an average of 31.5 lbs. In
Lot II, the 6 ewes gained an average of 25.1 lbs., and the 4 wethers,
an average of 38.4 lbs. In Lot III, the 5 ewes gained an average
of 29.5 lbs., and the 5 wethers, an average of 33.7 lbs.
As regards pigs, the evidence on the wdiole favors the view
that barrows gain faster than sows under the same conditions.
Table 7 contains data pertinent to the question at issue.
Carlyle's experiments present contradictory evidence. His lots
contained various breeds of pigs. A possible explanation, there-
fore, is that there were more sows than barrows of the breeds that
gained the faster. His experiment, however, is not reported in
sufficient detail to test the correctness of this view. Nevertheless,
the table supports the view that barrows are in general better
gainers than sows.
506
Bllleti.v Xo. 105
[Jieriment. The statistical data of this investigation
are given in Table 5 of the Appendix.''
IllinGis Bxpcrinicnt zcith Steers. — In Bulletin 103 of the Illi-
nois Station, H. W. Mumford reports the results of an experi-
ment on 10 lots of high-grade Shorthorn steers, the lots consisting
of 10 or 15 steers each. The statistical data for the first 16 weeks
and the total 22 weeks are given in Table 12. In this table it will
be noticed that the average daily gain per steer, instead of the aver-
age total gain per steer, is considered. It may be easily shown that
T.\BLE 12. — Ch.^nce in Variability of Aver.vge Daily Gains in Weight of Ten
Lots OF Shorthorn Steers (43)
(All weights expressed in pounds)
Average
Statistical data of daily gains in weight
daily gain
per steer
Mean
Standard
deviation
Coeffi-
cient of
variation
Mean
Standard
deviation
Coeffi-
cient of
variation
Lot L 10 Steers
Lot IV. 15 Steers
In 16 weeks. . .
In 22 weeks. . .
2.481
2 . 486
.512
. 3,54
20.64
14.24
2.321
2.412
.473
.383
20.38 .
15.96
Lot IT. 15 Steers
Lot VII. 15 Steers
In 16 weeks. . .
In 22 weeks.. .
2.533 .636 25.09
2.499 .503 20.13
2.353
2 . 534
.524 1 22.27
.242 1 9.55
Lot III. 15 Steers
Lot VITI. 10 Steers
In 16 weeks. . .
In 22 weeks. . .
2.072 .497 \ 23.99
2.181 .415 19.03
1.072 .350 17.75
2.106 .200 13.77
Lot TV. 15 Steers
Lot IX. 10 Steers
In 16 weeks. . .,
In 22 weeks. . .
2.353 1 .437 18.58
2.473 .489 1 19.77
2.026 1 .652
2.025 .431
32.18
21.28
Lot V. 15 Steers
Lot X. 10 Steers
In 1 6 weeks . . .
In 22 weeks. . .
2.266 .375 | 16.55
2.470 .388 ' 15.71
1.920
1.995
.640 1 33.33
.539 ' 27.02
'Mich. .\gr. Exp. Sta.. Riil. 138. 1896.
''See page 573.
512 Bulletin No. 16j [J»ly,
the coefficient of variation of gains reduced to the daily hasis is
the same as the coetiicient of variation of the original total gains.
In each lot, with the exception of Lot IV, the gains for the 22-
week period were more uniform than the gains for the 16-week
period. The quantities of feed consumed by the lots were changed
as the experiment progressed, the concentrates in general being
increased and the roughages decreased.
Canadian Experiment iSth Steers. — At the Xappan, Xova Sco-
tia, Station, R. Robertson ran an experiment on 3 lots of 8 Short-
horn steers for 135 days. The statistical data for periods of 15
days are given in Table 13.
In each of the above three lots of steers, it is evident that there
was a pronounced tendency for the gains to become more uniform
as the experiment progressed. It is of interest to note that the high
coefficients for all lots for the first 15-day period are probably con-
nected with the fact that in this experiment, contrary to ordinary
practice, a preliminary feeding period was not included. All lots
were fed alike, as far as possible, for the entire experiment. The
concentrates in the ration (mixed meals) were regularly increased
from start to finish, while the hay (or straw) and succulent feeds
(roots and ensilage) were decreased.
Summary of the Bi'idence. — The experimental data presented
in Tables 8 to 13 inclusive are sufficient to show that in some cases,
at least, feeding experiments may be so conducted that the percent-
age variation of gains within the lot will decrease as the period of
observation increases. As to whether this decrease would continue
indefinitely or would stop with some minimum coefficient, the data
cited can offer no conclusive verdict. It is evident, however, that
the increase in the uniformity of lot gains is ordinarily the most
rapid in the early periods of the experiment, while in the closing
periods of the experiment in most cases the change in the coefficient
of variation is gradual. In fact, in some of the cases cited, the co-
efficient was practically constrnt for the last two or three periods.
From such facts we are inclined to believe, therefore, that the co-
efficient of variation of lot gains cannot be reduced beyond a cer-
tain mininmm characteristic of the experimental conditions and of
the sample of animals under observation.
((/) Bffect of Change of Ration on J^ariability of Gains
Illinois Experiment icith Sheep. — Many of the feeding experi-
ments whose results we have submitted to a statistical analysis
either have failed utterly to exhibit any progressive change in the
coefficient of variation of gains within lots, or have exhibited only
slight reductions, generally in the fore part of the experiment. We
shall consider, first, in this connection, some unpublished data on
IQU]
Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments
513
w
U
H
to
OS
o
S
H
Si
O
«
in
o
n
►J M
^ 'I
O S
o <
Sh
H
<
S
<
>
a
o
<
X
u
Coeffi-
cient of
variation
1 v>
u
(LI
u
O
u
O
J=
t/)
00
LO ^ rt ^ lO M ^ rH CO
■O00't
rt
u
i^;
^O00t-«0«0>0«0t-l
c-:oc5cc'.omt^ioao
r-l 1-1 W Cl
u
a^
a>
c
u
O
O
CO
cc
c
O OJ W Cvt 1-1 tH tH 1-1 T-H
•H.2
rt >
-<-*MooinM>nwic
fO C5 O i> C! O CI J- CI
CO O t^ CI C5 t~ Tf X C!
lMi-((MCOOJ(MCOrOC>t
c/5
— iNrti-li-lTfJ>i-^0
O
O
Mf-3fO00CO'*000C>-
'i'OOrtioooi— ^ooo
^ 1-1 rt (M C\! N W
^2|
aj c "
u
c
u
O
u
C
CAl
GC
o
000 0->*-*-<*>i-lO>0»0000
TJl (M 1-1 1-1 iH
a!
LO-O
M O O W I> O •* 1-1 to
OOt-t-CO^t-(M(M
CO
r0t-O-*'t>Tfco«oi-i«5coc£r:
1-1 T-l CQ W IM CO CO
C
C
H
c3cJrSc3n!r3r!c;!cTj
lo O >o o "O o 'O o >n
i-iCOitiOt^OlOCiCO
ccccccccc
514
Bulletin No. 105
[July.
lamb feeding collected by this station. Three lots of 7 lambs each
were nnder observation for 24 weeks. A statistical resume of the
experiment, as far as the gains in weight and the feed consumed
are concerned, is given in Table 14.
fi
Table 14. — Chance in Variability of Total Gains in Weight of Three Lots
OF Lambs, and Total Feed Consumption per Lot per Period"
(Gains in weight expressed in pounds: feed consumed expressed in kilograms)
Total gain
Statistical data of total gains
in weight
Mean
Standard
deviation
Coeffi-
cient of
variation
Total consumption of feed
per lot per 4-week period
Alfalfa
hay
Corn
meal
Oil
meal
Lot I.
7 Lambs
In 4 weeks. . . .
10.93
2.162
19.78
156.4
82.5
5.41
In 8 weeks. . . .
20.00
2.000
10.00
155.5
96.0
5.06
In 12 weeks. . . .
29.86
1.619
5.42
144.6
108.7
5.72
In 16 weeks. . . .
38 . 50
1.615
4.19
125.2
118.8
6.25
In 20 weeks. . . .
45.53
3.963
8.70
119.2
120.4
6.33
In 24 weeks. . . .
,54.00
3 . 093
5 . 73
117.6
117.2
6.16
Lot II.
7 Lambs
In 4 weeks. . . .
13.64
3 . 248
23. SI
166.7
66.2
23 . 5
In 8 weeks. .. .
22.79
3 . 853
16.91
173.8
79.1
26.6
In 12 weeks. . . .
33.86
4.307
12.72
159.7
88.8
29.8
In 16 weeks. . . .
42.29
6.702
15.85
138.3
97.8
32.5
In 20 weeks. . . .
49.39
8.371
16.95
119.3
102.8
34.3
In 24 weeks. . . .
60.50
9.464
15. C4
124.1
103.0
34.3
Lot III
7 Lambs
In 4 weeks
1 2 . 79
1.870
14.62
177.3
48.4
48.4
In 8 weeks. .. .
23 . 29
2.801
12.03
182.6
56.2
56.2
In 12 weeks. . . .
32.07
2.692
8.39
163.8
62.3
62.3
In 16 weeks. .. .
42.93
2.744
6.39
150.9
68.4
68.4
In 20 weeks. .. .
50.40
4.045
8.03
139.1
73.0
73.0
In 24 weeks. . . .
1 . .'{6
3.758
6.12
137.0
72.6
72.6
"Unpublished data from the 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. H. S. Grindley. W. C.
Coffev, and A. D. Emmett, with the co-operation of W. E. Carroll and Sleeter
Bull.
It will be noticed that in all three lots a decrease in the coeffi-
cient of variation occurred for the first three or four periods only.
An examination of the quantities of feed consumed per period is,
we believe, suggestive of an explanation. We have tabulated this
information in the last three columns of the table, the weights of
feeds being given in kilograms.
It will be seen that the alfalfa hay consumed in general decreased
for all lots from the first to the last period, the most notable ex-
ceptions being slight increases for Lots II and III from the first to
the second 4-week periods. The corn meal and oil meal in general
were increased rather steadily from the first to the fourth period.
jp/j] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 515
From the fourth to the fifth period only a shght increase in the
consumption of these feeds occurred in Lots I and II, tho in Lot
III there was a more marked increase. During the fifth and sixth
periods the consumption of all feeds was practically constant.
Comparing these changes in feed consumption with the cor-
responding changes in the percentage variability of gains in weight,
one is inclined to the opinion that an increasing feed consumption
is in general accompanied by an increasing uniformity of gains
within the lot as measured by the coefficient of variation, while a
constant or decreasing feed consumption is in general accompanied
by a constant or decreasing uniformity of gains. This conckision
is not incompatible with the experiments above cited, tho in the
latter, at times, a constant feed consumption was accompanied by
an increasing uniformity of gains. Also, the conclusion reached
above, that within any experiment the lots making the best gains
generally exhil)it the most uniform gains, falls in line with this
conception, which may be restated in the proposition that conditions
favorable to good gains are also favorable to uniform gains. It is
probable that other factors than change in ration enter into the
([uestion. Possibly the relation of the feed consumption to the
bodily requirements is also concerned in the changes in variability
of the gains in weight, a liberal feed consumption, possibly, being
conducive to an increasing uniformity of gains. Other factors,
such as changes in the weather conditions, very probably exert an
etfect (see page 523).
Wisconsin Experiments with Swine. — We wish to consider
next two experiments conducted at the Wisconsin Station by W.
L. Carlyle in 1897 and 1898. The object was to compare rape and
clover pasture for fattening swine. Corn meal and shorts or mid-
dlings were given as supplementary feeds. The average total gains,
standard deviations, and coefficients of variation, as well as the
total consumption of supplementary feeds per lot per period, are
given in Table 15.
In the experiment of 1897, the consumption of corn meal and
shorts varied only within narrow limits for 8 weeks and was the
same for the two lots. However, in the case of Lot I the coefficient
of variation decreases almost continuously from period to period,
while in the case of Lot II no consistent change is evident. In
kK)king for an explanation of this difference between the two lots,
the description given of the rape and clover pastures is suggestive:
"The rape was quite immature when the experiment began and as
a consequence it steadily improved in quality, while the clover was
better when the experiment began than it was later." Apparently,
for Lot I the pasturage w^as more palatable and was more vora-
ciously eaten as the experiment progressed, while for Lot II, the
516
Bulletin No. 165
[July.
Table 15.— Chance in Variability of Total Gains in Weight of Four Lots
OF Pigs, and Total Feed Consumption per Lot per Period (.58, 60)
(All weights expressed in pounds.)
Total gain
Statistical data of total gains
in weight
Mean
Standard
deviation
Coeffi-
cient of
variation
Feed consumption
per period
Corn
meal
Shorts or
middlings
Lot I.
19 Pigs on Rape Pasture (1S9T
)
In ii weeks
12. 2G
3.242
26.44
590
295
In 4 weeks
22.21
3.915
17.63
560
280
In 6 weeks
35.26
6.640
18.83
627
313
In 8 weeks
47.11
7 . 933
16.84
630
315
In 9 weeks
54 . S9
8.509
15.. 50
315
157
Lot 11. 10 Pigs on Clover Pasture (1897)
Lot I. 21 Pigs on Rape Pasture (1898)
In 2 weeks
10.11
3.837
37.95
590
295
In 4 weeks
19.95
7.937
39 . 78
560
280
In 6 weeks
38.05
10.831
28.46
627
313
In 8 weeks
45.47
14.711
32 . 35
630
315
In 9 weeks
49 . 53
13.885
28.03
315
157
In 2 weeks
20.43
3.320
16.25
650
325
In 4 weeks
37.62
4.402
11.70
770
385
In 6 weeks
54.47
6.751
12.39
910
455
In 8 weeks
7 1 . 05
9.400
13.23
980
490
Lot 11.
21 Pigs
or
Clover
Pasture (1
808)
In
2
weeks. . .
16.52
2.570
15. 56
650
325
In
4
weeks . . .
33.43
5.114
15.30
770
385
In
6
weeks . . .
50.48
6.814
13.50
910
455
Jn
8
weeks. . .
68 . 33
8.800
12.88
980
490
reverse was true ; for this reason, probably, there was an increasing
uniformity of gains in Lot I but not in Lot IL
The experiment of 1898 affords an interesting confirmation of
this view. Here both lots received the same quantities of corn
meal and middlings, the consumption of these concentrates increas-
ing as the experiment progressed. In this case, however, the clover-
pasture lot (II) exhibited a regularly increasing uniformity of
gains, while the rape-pasture lot, except for an initial increase from
the first to the second period, exhibited a decreasing uniformity of
gains. Again referring to the description of the pasturage, we
find that "When the pigs were first put on the rape it was in prime
condition for them, whereas later it became more ripe and woody
and they did not relish nor eat it as they did at first. The clover,
on the contrary, was somewhat parched and dry when the experi-
ment began, but grew very succulent and tender as the fall rains
came on."
Henry's Expcr'unoiis at Wisconsin li'itJi Pigs. — \\'e shall cite
next several experiments perfonned at the \Msconsin Station by
W. A. Henry and associates. The experiments are representative of
Jp/J]
Uncert-M-ntv in Inteki'Ket.vtio.n or Feeding F.xperiments
517
a series extending over ten years, the purpose of which was to
determine the vahie of whole corn as compared with corn meal as
the main portion of the ration for fattening pigs. The statistical
data of the first experiment which we shall consider are given in
Table i6.
T.ABLE 16. — Change in Variability of Total Gains in Weight of Two Lots
OF Pigs, and Total Feed Consumption per Lot per Week (59)
(All weights expressed in pounds)
Total gain
Statistical data of total gains
in weight
Mean
Standard
deviation
Coeffi-
cient of
variation
Feed consumption
per week
Corn
Wheat
middlings
Lot L 19 Pi
gs (Whole Corn)
lu 1 week
8.37
20.05
2.65
2.72
31.66
13.57
490
560
245
In 2 weeks
280
In 3 weeks
30.26
5.24
17.32
630
315
In 4 weeks
35.74
5.31
14.87
560
280
In 5 weeks
45.89
6.77
14.75
560
280
In 6 weeks
58.16
8.74
15.03
616
308
In 7 weeks
69.63
11.88
17.06
616
308
In 8 weeks
77.11
11.28
14.62
616
308
In 9 weeks
87.05
12.26
14.09
616
308
In 10 weeks
96.26
14.82
15.40
616
308
In 11 weeks
102.40
14.38
14.05
616
308
In 12 weeks
112.41)
16.02
14.25
588
294
Lot II. 19 Pigs (Corn Meal)
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
week. .
weeks,
weeks,
weeks,
weeks .
weeks,
weeks.
8 weeks.
9 weeks.
10 weeks.
11 weeks.
12 weeks.
8.37
19.26
28.95
35.16
44.53
56.47
67.37
76.42
89.21
97.16
101.30
112.20
Z. i.}
4.41
4.15
5.70
7.01
8.14
8.87
10.63
10.18
11.61
13.99
14.82
32 . 90
22 . 90
14.33
16.23
15.73
14.41
13.17
13.91
11.41
11.95
13.81
13.21
490
560
630
560
560
616
616
616
644
644
644
616
245
280
315
280
280
308
308
308
322
322
322
308
In Lot I, from the 6th week to the I2tli the ration was prac-
tically constant and consequently the coefficient of variation of the
total gains in weight produced shows no tendency to consistently
decrease as the period of observation increases. In fact, from the
2d to the 1 2th week the coefficients vary within relatively narrow
limits.
The coefficients of variation of gains in weight for Lot TI con-
form more closely to the changes in the quantity of feed consumed.
The continuous increase in the latter during the first 3 weeks is
associated with a continuous decrease in the coefficient of variation.
}
513
Bulletin No. 165
[July.
The decrease in feeds during the 4th week produced an increase in
the coefficient. Xo change in feed during the 5th week accom-
panied a shght decrease in the coefficient. A large increase in feed
intake at the beginning of the 6th week produced a reduction in
the coefficient. A constant intake for the next two weeks was ac-
companied by a further decrease in the coefficient, followed by an
increase. An increase in feed intake at the beginning of the 9th
week occasioned a marked decrease in the coefficient. The con-
stant feed intake of the next two weeks apparently effected first a
gradual increase and then a marked increase in the coefficient of
variation. The decrease in feed intake at the beginning of the
1 2th week was accompanied by a slight decrease in the coefficient
of variation, this effect being anomalous.
The second experiment of this series, which we have subjected
to a statistical study, gave the data contained in Table 17.
Table 17.— Change in Variability of Total Gains in Weight of Two Lots
OF Pigs, and Total Feed Consumption per Lot per Week"
(All weights expressed in pounds)
Total gain
Statistical data of total gains
in weight
Mean
Standard
' deviation
Coeffi-
cient of
variation
Total feed con-
sumption per week
Corn Middlings
Lot L 12 Pigs (Whole Corn)
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
week. .
weeks,
weeks,
weeks .
weeks,
weeks,
weeks .
weeks .
weeks.
In 10 weeks.
In 11 weeks.
In 12 weeks.
14.92
19.67
28.58
34.33
46.67
49.58
53.00
57.58
62.83
66.08
69.33
74.42
,19
.50
,27
,44
6.86
9.85
8.20
9.06
11.97
15.42
16.25
18.20
34.70
22. SG
14.94
15.84
14.70
19.87
15.47
15.73
19.05
23.34
23.44
24.45
2S5
320
326
340
325
308
290
288
284
252
260
226
142
160
163
170
163
154
145
144
142
126
130
113
Lot II. 12 Pigs (Corn Meal)
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
In 10
In n
In 12
week . .
weeks,
weeks,
weeks,
weeks,
weeks,
weeks,
weeks,
weeks,
weeks,
weeks,
weeks.
14.00
2.45
17.50
18.50
3.55
19.17
29.12
4.40
15.12
39.83
6.22
15.61
50.58
8.67
17.15
58.42
10.50
17.97
61.00
10.93
17.90
66.00
13.63
20.65
71.17
14.27
20.05
76.75
18.18
23.69
80.67
22.21
27.53
86.50
26.71
30 . 88
293
340
350
360
361
356
317
312
302
302
308
230
146
170
175
178
181
178
159
156
151
151
154
115
*Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta., 18th Annual Report. 1901.
1913] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 519
After an initial increase for the first 4 or 5 weeks, the ration
decreased fairly regularly to the end of the experiment, in both
lots, the increase in ration was accompanied by a decrease in per-
centage variability of gains in weight, while the decrease in ration
from the 4th or 5th week occasioned an increase in variability that,
in Lot II at least, became more and more pronounced as the ex-
periment progressed, so that in Lot I the variability of the gains
for the entire experiment was larger than the variability of the
gains for the first 2 weeks, while in Lot II the unique condition
of much more variable gains at the end than at the beginning of
the experiment, resulted.
Four more of the experiments 01 Henry and associates have
been subjected to an analysis similar to the above. The statistical
data for these are included in Tables 6 to 9, inclusive, of the Ap-
pendix.* In some of the lots in these investigations the correlation
between change in ration and change in the percentage variability
of gains is very evident.
Of these experiments, only Experiment 32 calls for special com-
ment. In this experiment, altho the ration increased more or less
regularly from the beginning to the end, the coefficient of variation
of the gains in weight of both lots decreased to a minimum and
then abruptly increased and remained at the higher level for the
rest of the experiment. It is obvious that this is hardly to be ex-
pected from the experiments thus far reviewed and from the con-
clusions we have thus far developed of the effect of change of ration
upon change of variability of gains. The calculations contained in
Table 18 afford a more or less satisfactory explanation of these
exceptional changes in the coefficient of variation.
For the purpose of measuring most effectively the changes in-
stituted in the rations, the quantities of the different feeds con-
sumed per w'eek have been converted into Scandinavian feed units.
One feed unit, according to this system, is equal to i lb. of standard
grain, such as corn, or its equivalent in feeding value. According
to this system, in the case of pigs, i lb. of corn is equivalent to 1.2
lbs. of shorts or middlings, and to 6.0 lbs. of skim milk. On
reference to Table 9^ of the Appendix it will be seen that in Lot II
the coefficient of variation decreases for 5 wrecks and then abruptly
increases during the 6th week. In Lot I, the decrease continues
for 4 weeks, but an increase occurs during the 5th as well as the
6th week. Referring now to Table 18, it will be seen that the
number of feed units per 100 lbs. live weight remains at a com-
paratively high level in both lots for the first 5 weeks, and then
"See pages 574 to 577.
"See page 577.
520
Bl'Lletin No. 165
[July,
Table 18. — Relation of Feed to Body Weight ix Experiment 32
Lot I
Lot 11
Total
Total
Feed
Total
Total
Feed
feed
weight
units per
feed
weight
units per
units
of
100 lbs.
units
of
100 lbs.
per
lot,*
live
per
lot,»
• live
lot
lbs.
weight
lot
lbs.
weight
1st week
257
815
31.5
263
822
32.2
2d week
265
891
29.7
273
883
30.9
3d week
314
977
32.1
330
964
34.2
4th week
318
1072
29.7
323
1069
30.2
5th week
359
1172
30.6
373
1177
31.7
6th week
326
1308
24.9
370
1318
28.1
7th week
339
1369
24.8
394
1396
28.2
8th week
369
1494
24.7
416
1528
27.2
9tli week
397
1552
25.6
448
1623
27.6
10th week
437
1673
26.1
470
1743
27.0
11th week
455
1798
25 . 3
500
1862
26.9
12th week
474
1903
24.9
525
2011
26.1
'That is, the total weight of the lot at the beginning of the week.
assumes a lower level rather suddenly during the 6th week. Fur-
thermore, in Lot I this lower level is maintained till the end of
the experiment, while in Lot II further decreases occur. Turn-
ing again to Table 9 of the Appendix, it will be seen that in Lot I,
from the 6th week to the end of the experiment, the coefficient of
variation maintains practically the same level, while in Lot II, a
notable increase occurs at the beginning of the 8th week, coinci-
dent with a decrease of one unit in the number of feed units per
100 lbs. live weight, establishing a higher percentage variability for
the rest of the experiment.
Whether this correlation is really significant or is simply a more
or less remarkable coincidence, we are not prepared to say definitely.
It is at least highly suggestive. If significant, it would indicate
that the effect of change of ration on change of variability of gains
is modified by the relation between ration and body weight or ra-
tion and nutritive recjuirements.
JVisconsin Experiment li'iih Lambs. — An experiment performed
at the \\'isconsin Station by \V. L. Carlyle is of considerable in-
terest in this connection. Two lots of lambs, 17 in a lot, were fed
for 10 weeks before and 10 weeks after weaning. The lambs in
Lot I were fed coarsely ground corn, while those in Lot II re-
ceived coarsely ground peas. Before w'eaning, the lambs in both
lots had all the grain they would eat. After weaning, they were
limited to about J4 lb. per capita per day. The statistical data con-
cerning the total gains in weight every two weeks thruout the ex-
periment, and the total quantities of grain consumed per lot per
period of two weeks, are given in Table 19.
Jpi3]
Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments
521
OS
M
o
^-«
H
CO
d
<
Ci
O
•J
<
O
Q
<
fc.
c
o
fc 2
o «
, w
o es
<
c
<
O
H
[I.
o
><
n
<
<
>
U
<
u
I
u
pa
<
- ^ S •- Ji
O ^ I*
^ o
N
•a
1-
>
n
u
o
u
C
u
O
o
K
n
■u
r,
r*
>
o
r
CO —
Oi 00 O K -f
O OS O lO C!
^B
O
u. c
r3 • -
ci >
C
f^
c>
«o
or
o
o
w
o
CO
-T
o
o
l^
o
i.*^
w
o
■^
fir
o
w
Cv>
C-.
GC
^
'-'
CO
c
^
w
CO
-*
»o
>n
Ci
00
v.*?
l^
-f
o
to
r~
.-o
o
c
CO
X
T-t
T— t
^-
br
*—
03
O
oi
OS
Tj<
t^
00
-*
T— (
CO
to
ro
Urn
o
^^
c
c
_
n
Oi
rH
^^
T— 1
*+-
Oj
C
X
r^
on
o
"*
to
■ ,_
•—
o
r-
re
r-
c
t-
i>
Tf
CO
c
►J
"
r-t
c^
CO
■*
r-
^^
1— <
y~4
to
00
■^
OT
c
Tt>
o
00
w
00
hJ
00
to
CO
^
>o
tH
w
CO
CO
ID
o
1-1
1-H
Tf
to
t-
00
>n
t>
CO
co
CO
Tf
CO
1-1
iH
1-H
C! Tf LO 00 ^
CO (M l:~ C5 CO
Tf I— © CM CO
»o
to
t-
00
oo'
l^
t-
00
«0
to
c/1 c/1 c/: U-, tA
^ ^ ^ ^ is
Cl ■* to X c
IT, ^. 'X. ir. w^
j£ ^ ^ ^ ^
to
K
^^
Ph
<
!/l
■•"^^
P
o
en
o
o
P:j
H
b
O
b
b
W
m
<
c c -j:
^ .2
"O C
C/2 -a
a; -u rt
O C -^
m 2
5 >
M
r^
tr>
OS
00
■«<
ci
CO
CO
w
r-l
i-l
1— 1
■* r- -^ c •*".': c
«c •.'; t^ — ct c! o
« ir: c o o r- t-
CO N Ct
CO •* m 1.0
t- in >i^
I-
in i> (M m
(M ca «o
o «> (M O m o N
iH T-l N Ca CO M"
».T
5D
on
CO
^
r-
w
CR
ca
«l
■*
w
T— (
00
r-
W
^
CO
(N
w
T-l
r-l
IH
•* -* O c> C -* W
CO oc X tr: « c >n
C C! CO C ■* ■* t-
1.0
w
CO
■<*<
■*
•*
■«*>
CC
r^
.0 ■* CO
rt N cj CO Ti< 1.0 «r
CO ^ cs t^ 1.0 r- oc
CO O N CO X t- o
O t- ?> O -f «c C!
r— r-" OJ C> CO Tf
,n c/1 CO c/) in in ty.
n qj qj CJ (U c 4^
a!
>»■* 00 W «> O IM
I- i-l 1-1 N CJ
c c n c c c c
'p
• —
■ —
•-
•-
•-
■-
in
in
in
in
t/i
in
.-
C
C
_C
.Z^
_C
u ni rs rt rt c! C3
PLiOOOOCJOl
534 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
periment of its generality or its practical availability will be of
value, of course, in rendering the feeding experiment more efficient
as an instrument of research.
(/) Summary of Methods of Reducing Experimental Error
We have shown in this section of the bulletin that according to
the evidence available for study, the necessary precision in the
determination of the relative fattening powers of two rations or
other systems of treatment of farm animals, or of the relative fat-
tening qualities of two different lots of animals, not greatly dis-
similar in character, is to be obtained in several ways. It is de-
sirable, first, to select the experimental animals carefully. If we
are to determine the relative fattening value of two rations, or two
methods of shelter, or of confinement, or of such environmental
factors as these, the animals in both lots should be of the same
breed and type, sex, age, and, as far as possible, should have been
under the same treatment for some time previous. Disregard of such
requirements as these does not, as might at first be supposed, give
to the conclusions of the experiment a more general applicability,
but simply attaches to them an additional and entirely avoidable ele-
ment of uncertainty, for the probability always exists that the dif-
ferent breeds, sexes, etc., react differently to the experimental con-
ditions imposed. If we are testing the fattening qualities of two
breeds of animals, or two lots at different ages, the animals within
the lots should be homogeneous and the only difference between
the lots should be that of breeding, or age, i. e., the factor under
investigation.
In the second place, the lots of animals employed should be
fairly large. It seems unwise to use less than lo or 15 animals to
the lot, and wherever possible the lots should be of more generous
proportions, for increasing the size of the lots is the most certain
method of rendering the conclusions of the experiment more sig-
nificant and less ambiguous. Large lots of animals, however, offer
no excuse for a poor selection, because the objections attendant
upon poor selection are not removed by increasing the number
of animals experimented upon, except in so far as one may sub-
divide the lots into larger and larger groups of the requisite homo-
geneity.
In the third place, the experiment may be conducted in such a
way that the experimental error, /. e., the effect of individuality and
unequal conditions within the lot, will continuously decrease and
the experiment will become more and more efficient as an instru-
ment for the solution of the problem at hand. We venture to say
that this is perhaps one of the most important of the conclusions of
ip/j] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Exi'ERIMENts S3S
this bulletin, it is universally conceded that the larger the size of
the lots in a feeding' experiment, the better. Some investigators,
at least, fully appreciate the fact that the more homogeneous the lots
as regards age, breed and type, sex, and previous treatment, the less
ambiguous will be the experimental results obtained. It is also the
general opinion that within certain limits peculiar to the animals
under investigation, the longer the feeding period, the better for
the solution of the problem at hand, but this opinion is founded
upon the conviction that the animals must become thoroly adapted
to the experimental conditions, and not upon any theorem concern-
ing the experimental error. Our results afford a basis for the
general proposition that conditions favorable for fattening are fa-
vorable for uniform gains. In conducting feeding experiments it
appears that if experimental conditions, such as the prescribed
rations, are constantly or increasingly favorable to good gains, the
percentage variability of the gains and the experimental error will
become less and less.
Repetition of Feeding Experiments
Aside from the aliove method of decreasing the experimental
error in feeding trials, the necessary precision in the solution of
problems of live-stock raising may be secured by the repetition of
experiments that by themselves do not settle the point at issue. In
an attempt to determine, by consulting experiment station litera-
ture, the efficacy of repetition of experiments in furnishing con-
firmatory evidence, a striking condition of affairs and one of vital
importance, it would seem, to experiment station work, was dis-
covered. After reviewing the large amount of material available
for such a study, it was found that frequently when the same sta-
tion, and in fact the same investigator, attempted to confirm the
results of previous experiments that apparently pointed to very
definite conclusions, entirely different results were obtained. This
constitutes no reproach or criticism against the particular station
or investigator who thus failed to duplicate results. It does indi-
cate, however, some defect in the ordinary method of controlling
the conditions in feeding experiments, which is worthy of investi-
gation and remedy.
Henry's B.vpcrii)iciits at JViscoiisiii zcith Pigs. — It was with no
difficulty whatever that illustrations of the frequent failure of in-
vestigators to duplicate their own results were found. We shall
first consider Henry's experiments at Wisconsin, extending over
ten years and involving 280 pigs. The object of this extensive
investigation was to test the value of feeding whole corn as corn-
pared with corn meal as the main portion of the ration for fatten-
ing pigs. Eighteen feeding trials were performed, and in fourteen
536
Bulletin No. 1G5
[July,
of these trials the corn-meal lots made greater average gains in
weight than the shelled-corn lots. The percentage differences in
average gain in weight between lots varied from 31.22 to 0.19, six
of the trials exhibiting percentages above 20 and six below 10.
The number of pigs per lot in the eighteen trials is shown in the
following table :
Lots
Pigs
Trials
per trial
per lot
4
2
3
1
2
4
2
2
5
1
2
6
1
2
7
2
2
8
2
2
9
1
2
10
2
2
12
1
2
14
1
p
19
For the experiment of 1899 on two lots of 19 pigs each the
percentage difference between average lot gains was 0.19 in favor
of the shelled-corn lot, while in the experiment of 1900 on two lots
of 14 pigs each the percentage difference between average lot gains
was 20.92 in favor of the corn-meal lot. The average initial weight
of the pigs in the latter trial was about 175 lbs., and in the former
trial, about 186 lbs. In the first trial, there were 10 pure-bred Po-
land-Chinas and 28 crossbred Poland-China-Berkshires, and in the
second trial, 21 pure-bred Poland-Chinas and 7 crossbred Poland-
China-Berkshires, divided between lots as equally as possible. The
first trial contained 18 sows and 20 barrows; the second trial, 11
sows and 18 barrows. The same ration of ^ shelled corn or corn
meal to ^ wheat middlings was fed in both trials. The methods
of feeding the pigs were practically identical, the main difference,
apparently, being that in the 1899 trial the shelled corn and mid-
dlings were fed separately to Lot I, while in the 1900 trial they were
fed together. The 1899 ^^^^^ extended over 12 weeks and the 1900
trial over 14 weeks. This brief comparative description of the
two trials plainly shows their substantial identity as regards the
planning and execution of the experiment and the known experi-
mental conditions and does not in the least prepare one for the
widely divergent results.
In the first trial, the shelled-corn lot gained, on an average,
1.338 lbs. per day, and the corn-meal lot, 1.336 lbs. In the second
trial, the shelled-corn lot gained, on an average, 1. 145 lbs. per day,
while the corn-meal lot gained 1.4 13 lbs. An analysis of this lat-
ter experiment by the methods explained in Part I of this bulletin
jp/j] Un'CERTAINTY IX IXTERPRETATION' OF FeEDIXG ExPERIMEXTS 537
shows that under the conditions of the trial the odds are only i in
about 7700 that on repetition the shelled-corn lot would give a
greater average gain than the corn-meal lot. The fact that such a
contradictory result was obtained in the preceding year indicates
beyond all reasonable doubt that for some cause the tw^o trials
were not duplicates; that is, that there was some experimental con-
dition or combination of conditions not under control and not de-
fined, and yet oi)erating in one trial but not in the other, or operat-
ing very unequally in the two trials, which created the discrepancy
in the results obtained.
Further analysis of the data of the 1900 trial indicates that for
some reason which the report does not specify, the shelled-corn lot
ate considerably less corn and middlings than the corn-meal lot.
Thus, Lot I consumed, on an average, 4.27 lbs. of shelled corn and
2.13 lbs. of wheat middlings per head per day, while Lot II con-
sumed 4.51 lbs. of shelled corn and 2.26 lbs. of wheat middlings.
In the 1899 trial, this marked difference between lots did not exist,
Lot I consuming 4.44 lbs. of shelled corn and 2.22 lbs. of w'heat
middlings per day, on an average, and Lot II consuming 4.51 lbs.
of com meal and 2.25 lbs. of wheat middlings. Thus, the condi-
tion or conditions causing the discrepancy between these two sup-
posedly duplicate trials were probably involved in the composition
or the preparation of the rations fed, or possibly in the selection of
animals that had been subjected to radically different treatment
just previous to the experiment.
Wyoming Experiments zdth Sheep. — In Bulletins 81 and 85 of
the Wyoming Experiment Station, A. D. Faville reports presum-
ably duplicate feeding trials undertaken with the idea of testing the
value of Wyoming-grown grain for fattening sheep. In the first
test, performed in 1908-09, the 34 sheep constituting Lot III con-
sumed, on an average, 2.83 lbs. of hay and 0.83 lb. of barley per
day, and made an average daily gain in 91 days of 0.33 lb. The
35 sheep constituting Lot I consumed 2.72 lbs. of hay and 0.81 lb.
of corn, and made an average daily gain of 0.30 lb. In the second
trial, performed the following year. Lot II, consisting of 41 sheep,
consumed 2.22 lbs. of hay and 0.89 lb. of barley per day, and made
an average daily gain of 0.28 lb. ; while Lot I, also consisting of 41
sheep, consumed less hay per day than Lot II, and 0.89 lb. of corn,
and made an average daily gain of 0.35 lb. The average initial
weights of the barley and corn lots in the first trial were 60.5 and
59.2 lbs., respectively, and in the second trial, 64.5 and 63.9 lbs.
The sheep used in each trial represented various breeds, types,
and sizes, divided between lots as evenly as possible. The individ-
ual data of these experiments are not given and a complete analy-
sis is therefore impossible. Assuming, however, a variability of
538 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
about 21 percent in all lots, we find that for the first trial the odds
are I2 to i in favor of the barley ration, and, for the second trial,
over 100,000 to I in favor of the corn ration. In the latter ex-
periment it may be shown that even if the variability of the lots
were as high as 79.0 percent, a value extremely improbable, the odds
would still be 30 to i in favor of the corn ration. We must con-
clude that this is a second illustration of the fact^that the most
careful efforts to duplicate experimental conditions in feeding ex-
periments as they are ordinarily run often result in failure.^ The
same bulletins offer a third illustration of this fact in the relation
of the barley to the speltz lots in the two investigations.
Montana Experiments with Sheep. — F. B. Linfield reports sup-
posedly duplicate feeding trials in Bulletins 47 and 59 of the Mon-
tana Station, the object being to test the value of local feeds in
fattening sheep. In the first experiment, 22 lambs fed mixed grain
and clover hay made an average daily gain of 0.286 lb. in 95 days,
and a second lot of 22 lambs fed oats and clover hay made an aver-
age daily gain of only 0.220 lb. Again assuming a variability of
about 21 percent, in the absence of more definite information, the
odds are only i to 33,000 that repetition would result in a greater
gain for the oats lot than for the mixed-grain lot. With a variabil-
ity as high as 46.2 percent, these odds would still be i to 30. Nev-
ertheless, in the second trial, performed the following year, 24
lambs fed mixed grain and clover hay made an average daily gain
of 0.231 lb., while an equal number of lambs fed oats and clover
hay made an average daily gain of 0.246 lb. Other similar exam-
ples occur in the same two bulletins, indicating the frequent inabil-
ity of experiment station workers to duplicate their own experi-
ments.
Minnesota and Pennsylvania Experiments zvith Steers. — In Bul-
letin 76 of the ^Minnesota Station, Thomas Shaw reports an in-
vestigation regarding the relative gains made by steers while be-
ing fattened during the winter in the stall and in an open shed.
The seven steers fed in the barn made an average daily gain of
1.742 lbs. per steer in 140 days, while the seven steers fed in the
open shed made an average daily gain of 2.256 lbs. on the same
ration. In this bulletin the gains of the individual steers are given,
and, applying biometric methods, we find that the odds are 1561
to I in favor of out-door feeding. Numerous experiments per-
formed at the Pennsylvania Station, however, have uniformly
"Concerning the second experiment, Faville says : "The test with barley
was hardly a fair one, as four of the lambs in this bunch did very poorly. This
was through no fault of the grain." This explanation is hardly satisfactory,
since (1) poor gains by four of the lambs would not lower tlie average of 41
gains to any marked degree, and (2) no reason is given for supposing that
these poor gains were not due to the grain.
jQij] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 539
failed to show anything approximating a significant difference in
rate of gain between lots fattened in a barn and lots fattened in
an open shed during the winter.
Difficulties of Repetition. — The illustrations cited are sufficient
to show the difficulty of truly duplicating feeding experiments as
ordinarily planned and executed, that is, the difficulty of keeping
constant, in two consecutive experiments, all conditions affecting
to an ai)preciable extent the rate of growth of the experimental ani-
mals. The conclusion seems to be that the ordinary manner of con-
ducting such experiments contains some serious defect. How seri-
ous the defect is and how important it is to remedy such defect is
evident when one asks the question: If the experimentalist him-
self cannot duplicate his own experiments and obtain similar re-
sults even when the most careful attention is given to the details
of management and of experimental conditions, what are the
chances that the practical live-stock farmer, who necessarily cannot
duplicate experimental conditions except in a very approximate
manner, will duplicate the results obtained by experiment stations
and profit by their recommendations? In many cases the chances
are probably remarkably small.
When such instances of disagreement between two similarly
conducted experiments occur, the attempt is often made to explain
away and minimize the disagreement, but the fact that such disa-
greements occur in spite of all efforts to duplicate experimental
conditions, is significant and worthy of serious investigation, since
it is intimately concerned with the value to the agricultural com-
munity of all experiment station work of the type under discussion.
A Probable Explanation of These Difficulties. — The conclusion
to be drawn from the occurrence of discrepancies between sup-
posedly duplicate feeding trials is that the conditions deliberately
imposed upon the experimental animals have not been sufficiently
defined, so that if a more complete definition were made the ex-
planation of the discrepancies would be revealed. It is conceivable,
for example, that the conclusion that barley has a higher fattening
value than speltz when fed to lambs applies only when certain
grades of the two grains, definable, perhaps, by chemical analysis,
are compared.
It appears, therefore, that in formulating the conclusions of a
feeding experiment, it must always be borne in mind that rations
of a definite chemical composition, as well as of a definite qualita-
tive description, have been compared, and that the probability al-
ways exists that if the rations had been the same as regard? quali-
tative description but much different as regards chemical composi-
tion, very different results would have been obtained. A chemical
analysis of experimental rations may be supposed, therefore, to
540 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
yield valuable if not indispensable data to the proper appreciation
of feeding experiments.
Other conditions of the experiment should also be clearly speci-
fied in experiment station bulletins, and the tendency to continually
generalize from data of a very specific description should be
guarded against. Is the experimentalist in a position to assert,
for instance, that his conclusions are not peculiar to the methods
of feeding, the times of feeding, the preparation of the feeds, the
mode of shelter, the extent of confinement, the breed of animals
experimented upon, the particular herds or localities from which the
animals were drawn, etc., etc., which he has employed? We ven-
ture to suggest that such possibilities are worthy of consideration,
and that the determination as to which of two rations is the best
for the fattening of animals is not the simple problem that it is
frequently supposed to be.
Variability in the Composition oi^ Feedstuffs
In connection with the question of the advisability of running
chemical analyses on the experimental rations of feeding trials, it
was thought essential to investigate, if only in a preliminary way,
the natural variability to which the composition of some of the
more common American feedstuffs is subjected. For it is of
course obvious that if this variability is slight, so as to be negligible
for all practical purposes, there is no necessity for the analysis of
rations in each experiment, the average analyses compiled by the
Bureau of Chemistry, for instance, being sufficient ; on the other
hand, if this variability is of such size that it cannot properly be
disregarded, then, for the full appreciation of feeding experiments,
experimental rations must in each case be analyzed.
The study of the variability in the composition of feedstuff's,
therefore, is undoubtedly of considerable importance, and, in view
of the large mass of data available, it could be pursued as exten-
sively as the most ardent statistician might desire. The statistical
measures of variation above developed are indispensable to such a
study. In the preliminary study of this question that has been
undertaken and that has yielded the results briefly summarized
below, these statistical constants have been employed. The import-
ance of a complete study of the natural variability in the composi-
tion of American feedstuffs is such that it is hoped to continue the
study later.
Corn. — Corn has long been recognized as one of the most stable
cereals as regards composition. Thus, Richardson says, speaking
of American corn : "There is apparently the same amount of ash,
oil, and albuminoids in a corn wherever it grows, with the excep-
■fp-fj]
Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments
541
tion of the Pacific slope, where there seems to be no facility
for obtaining or assimilating nitrogen."^ Hopkins has even doubted
the advisability of excepting corn from the Pacific slope, with ap-
parent justification.^
However, the statement above quoted may very easily be mis-
understood. It means simply that the average analyses for corn
from the different states of the union, when compiled from a suf-
ficient number of analyses, generally agree within narrow limits.
For example, Richardson reports analyses of corn sampled in diff-
ferent states from the crop of 1883,*= The average percentages of
protein run as follows: 9 samples from New York, 10.54; 20
samples from Illinois, 10.06; 16 samples from Minnesota, 10.07;
15 samples from Dakota, 10.75; ^3 samples from Nebraska, 10.47;
and II samples from California, 10.26. The agreement is certainly
very close, considering the numbers of samples from each state.
The statement that corn has a very stable composition thus
means that there are no constant differences in its composition in
different localities of the country. It does not mean that its com-
position is practically constant in any one locality. Thus, refer-
ring again to Richardson's analyses, the 20 samples of dent corn
from Illinois exhibit a coefficient of variation of 11.79 ^^ ^^"
gards protein content, certainly no inconsiderable variability. Hop-
kins^ analyzed three rows of kernels taken lengthwise of the ear,
from 163 ears of Burr's white corn grown on the Illinois Experi-
ment Station Farm in 1896. The 163 analyses gave the following
results :
Ash
Protein
10.93
1.048
0.58
Fat
4.690
.4232
9.02
Carbohydrates
Average
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
1 . 426
.1090
7.64
82.96
1.182
1.42
We have determined the variability of several groups of sam-
ples of corn, each group comprising samples from a single state
and a single year's crop, tho not always of a single variety or even
of a single class. As a matter of fact, the differences in composi-
tion between different classes and varieties of corn (excluding
sweet corn from consideration) are apparently slight, judging from
the data we have studied. From the coefficients of variation ob-
tained in each group of samples, we have computed average co-
'U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Chem., Bui. 1, p. 67. 1883.
"111. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 53, p. 136. 1898.
'U. S. Dept. of Agr., Report for 1884, pp. 84-85.
^111. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 55, pp. 208-9. 1899.
542 . Bulletin No. 165 [July,
efficients, proper consideration being given to the size of the groups
in combining their coefficients.^
For protein, we have obtained an average coefficient of varia-
tion of 9.30, and for ash, an average coefficient of 12.59, these two
coefficients involving 233 analyses. The following coefficients in-
volve analyses of 154 samples of corn: moisture, 8.94; fat, 9.22;
fiber, 16.77; ^"d carbohydrate, 1.93.
The c[nestion arises. How are these coefficients to be inter-
preted? \A'e know roughly that the great bulk of fluctuations of
sampling lie within a range of ±3 times the standard deviation
from the mean,^ except when the frequency distribution is of a
very abnormal type. It has been our experience that while the
distribution of percentages of the constituents of feeds is very often
far from being normal, especially in the case of small percentages,
such as of fiber or ash in corn (see page 471), they are nevertheless
not ordinarily extremely asymmetrical, so that we can set the limits
of such distribution at roughly d=3 times the standard deviation
from the mean. Thus, if the average percentage of protein in a
year's crop in Illinois, for instance, is 10.50, the standard deviation
of samples taken thruout the state, as regards their protein con-
tent, could be estimated at 9.30 percent of 10.50, or 0.976, and the
rough estimate may be made that all such samples would possess
protein contents ranging between 10.50+ (3 X 0.976 percent), i.e.,
between 7.57 and 13.43 percent. The extreme deviations allowed
for by these limits, however, would be of rare occurrence, and if
we are concerned, for instance, with the range within which any
one sample of corn would be practically certain to fall, perhaps
fairer limits would be ±2.25 times the standard deviation, that is,
between 8.30 and 12.70 percent. Thus, if we applied the average of
10.50 percent of protein to any one sample of Illinois corn for the
purpose of determining the protein intake of a lot of animals in a
feeding experiment, we might be in error to the extent of 20 to 30
percent of the total intake of protein, and it may be said without
exaggeration that errors of 9 to 12 percent must be expected from
such an approximate method of determining protein consumption.
In the case of the ash intake, a still cruder approximation would
result from the use of an average percentage, since an error of 35
to 40 percent might result, while errors of 12 to 15 percent would
be of relatively frequent occurrence. On the other hand, an aver-
age percentage of carbohydrate could be used with confidence,
since, with the most atypical sample of corn, an error of more than
6 percent could hardly result, while the most frequent errors would
be those of 2 to 3.5 percent.
"Since the standard deviation of the coefficient of variation decreases in-
versely as the square root of twice the number of observations (see formula
on p. 486), in averaging coefficients it was thought best to weight each with^2^
"Yule, "Theory of Statistics," p. 262.
jp/j] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 543
The question under consideration may be approached from an-
other standpoint. We have calculated the nutritive ratios and pro-
duction values of 6 1 samples of flint corn grown in Connecticut in
the same year, the analyses of which are given in the Report of the
Connecticut (New Haven) Station for 1893.
The average nutritive ratio was i : 10.89, '^"^ ^^^ standard de-
viation of the second member of the ratio, 1.398, or 12.84 percent.
According to the standard adopted, the limits of distribution may
be set at the ratios i 16.70 and i : 15.08.^ Ratios of i :8 or 9, and
1:12 or 13 cannot be regarded as extremely improbable of occur-
rence.
The nutritive ratio has long been considered a valuable factor
in indicating the general character of a food and the function it is
likely to perform in a ration. The above calculations would ap-
pear to indicate that for corn this ratio is extremely variable for
different samples of the grain.
The average production value of the 61 samples of Connecticut
flint corn was 89.38 therms per 100 lbs. of grain, the standard
deviation being 1.348 therms, or 1.50 percent of the average. This
is a small percentage deviation and it may therefore be concluded
that, as regards energy value, different samples of corn do not vary
to any appreciable extent,'' or at least to an extent that cannot
properly be neglected in practical work.
The more important constituents of corn whose variability can-
not properly be neglected are the protein, ash, and moisture. Con-
cerning the latter constituent, while its variation in grains is not
of any particular moment to the nutritive value of the grain as
ordinarily considered, it may, and probably does, bear a close rela-
tion to the palatability of the grain for farm animals.
Wheat. — Sharply contrasted with the stability in the composi-
tion of corn in different sections of the country is the extreme
variability in the composition of wheat. Richardson"^ gives the
average composition of wheat from different sections of the coun-
trv as follows :
"Of the 61 ratios actually calculated, the lowest was 1:S.52, and the highest
1:15.17, indicating, as would be expected from the discussion on page 471, that
deviations of any given extreme magnitude are more frequent above the mean
than below, due to the smallness of the numbers in the second members of the
ratios and to their extreme variability. The same condition exists in the case
of the distribution of percentages of crude fiber, and in a modified form, in
the case of ash percentages, while percentages of protein, moisture, and fat
exhibit a distribtition more nearly approaching the normal.
"Chamberlain's figures indicate that substantially the same is true of other
grains. See Bui. 120, Bur. of Chem., U. S. Dept. of Agr. 1909.
"V. S. Dept. Agr., Report for 1884, p. 77.
544 Bulletin No. 165
Table 25. — Average Composition of American Wheat
[July,
Section
Number
of analyses
Water
Ash
Protein
Carbo-
hydrates
Atlantic and Gulf states
Middle states
Western states
Pacific states
117
91
177
20
10.34
10.61
9.83
10.25
1.77
1.85
2.06
1.87
11.35
12.50
12.74
9.73
76.54
75.04
75.37
78.15
The variation in the percentage of protein is very marked, and
is in fact somewhat obscured by considering such large areas as
those in the table. Thus, Richardson gives the average protein
content of 8 samples of Oregon wheat as 8.6o percent, of 22 sam-
ples of North Carolina wheat as 10.43 percent, of 33 samples of
Pennsylvania wheat as 11.44 percent, of 106 samples of Colorado
wheat as 12.73 percent, cjf 19 samples of Texas wheat as 13.14
percent, of 13 samples of Minnesota wheat as 13.19 percent, and
of 12 samples of Dakota wheat as 14.95 percent.^
Not only does wheat ^ary markedly in composition from one
section of the country to another, but also from one crop to the suc-
ceeding crop in the same locality. The wheat investigations con-
ducted by the Washington Station on the Washington crops of
1905-09 inclusive and reported in Bulletins C4, 91, and 100 are of
interest in connection with this point. Considering the Bluestem
variety only, since this variety was better represented than any other,
22 samples of the 1905 crop Q2y:i an average percentage of moisture
of 10.54, of protein, 11.79, ^"^ of ash, 1.93; for the crop of 1906,
represented by 24 samples, these percentages were 11.25, 13.75, ^^'^
2.18 respectively; for 30 samples of the crop of 1907, 10.83, ii-56,
and 1.69; for 22 samples of the crop of 1908, 9.20, 13.25, and
1.88; and for 28 samples of the crop of 1909, 8.1 1, 12.15, and 1.74.
From such evidence as the above, it seems that wheat is one of
the most susceptible of grains to environmental influences.
As regards the variability of wheat in any one locality and from
any one crop, we have obtained the following average coefficients
of variation from data compiled by Richardson : for moisture,
7.10, involving 242 samples; for protein, 9.66, involving 242 sam-
ples; for ash, 11.73, involving 242 samples; for fat, 11.34, in-
volving 104 samples; and for fiber, 19.49, involving also 104
samples. The coefficients obtained for the carbohydrate constitu-
ents were comparable to those obtained for corn.
Comparing these average coefficients with those given above
for corn, it seems that in the case of the protein content the two
grains are about equally variable; as regards moisture, wheat seems
the least variable ; in the case of fat, corn is the least variable ; in
'Tn this connection see also Bui. 128, Bur. of Chem., U. S. Dept. Agr., by
LeClerc. 1910.
jp/j] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 545
the case of ash, the difference is sHght and probably of no signifi-
cance; and in the case of fiber, both grains exhibit a high varia-
bihty, testifying to the general untriistworthiness of average per-
centages of fiber in grains.
The \\'ashingtoii wheat investigations mentioned above yield
coefficients very dift'erent from those obtained from Richardson's
data. Of the Washington analyses, we have considered only the
data for the three varieties best represented, i.e., the Bluestem,
Club, and Turkey Red. Coefficients of variation were computed
for each variety for each of the live crops investigated. The fif-
teen coefficients thus obtained, representing 247 analyses, were
averaged together, each being weighted with the square root of
twice the number of analyses from which it was derived (see foot-
note, page 542). The fifteen coefficients for the percentage of moist-
ure averaged 9.88, and the fifteen coefficients for protein, 13.64.
The average coefficient of variation for moisture is thus almost
3 percent higher than the corresponding average from Richard-
son's data, while the average coefficient for protein is almost
exactly 4 percent higher than the protein coefficient of Richard-
son's analyses. This would appear to indicate that in Washing-
ton the composition of wheat varies to a much greater extent
than elsewhere. In fact, the average coefficient of variation for
the protein content of Washington wheat, 13.64, is higher than
the protein coeffi.cient obtained for any other single state, the high-
est single coefficient for the other states being 12.67, obtained from
61 analyses of Colorado wheat for 1883.
From the above study of the variation to which the composition
of wheat is subjected as its environment changes with the locality
and the year of growth, it is obvious that average percentages cov-
ering the entire country, either for one year's crop or for several
combined, can have very little if any practical utility, since they
are not strictly applicable to the crop of any one state for any one
year, and since they are not even approximately applicable to the
crops of many of the states. In this respect, wheat is markedly
different from corn, for which average analyses seem to be about
equally applicable to all sections, tho, even in the case of corn, varia-
tions from year to year seem to occur and oftentimes to be of such
magnitude that they cannot properly be neglected.
Considering only the variation in the composition of wheat for
any one state and for any one year's crop, for most sections of the
country the evidence would seem to indicate that corn and wheat
are not widely dissimilar, being closely comparable especially as
regards variation in protein content.
Grains in General. — We have made no statistical study of grains
other than corn and wheat. However, of these two corn seems
546 Bulletin No. 105 [July,
to be regarded as the most stable and wheat as the most labile
of the grains. From a close inspection of the analyses collected
by Chamberlain in Bulletin 120 of the Bureau of Chemistry, and
from the data of Richardson, LeClerc, and Jenkins and Winton,^
we are inclined to believe that all grains may be roughly charac-
terized as follows : ( 1 ) the energy value, either total or that
available for metabolism or that available for fattening, of one
unit weight of dry substance of any grain is approximately con-
stant, no matter where or when grown; (2) with the exception of
corn, the chemical composition of grains raised in different sections
of the country varies decidedly and depends, not so much upon the
variety of the grain, but upon the climatic conditions peculiar to the
locality of the crop; (3) all grains vary in composition from year to
year, the extent of the variation in composition seemingly depend-
ing upon the extent of the variation in meteorological conditions,
corn being apparently the least and wheat the most susceptible to
such changes; (4) the content of moisture, protein, and ash in
grains varies considerably, even in the same locality and in crops
of the same year, the variation being such that if the average
composition for a given locality and a given year be applied to any
one sample of grain for that locality and year, an error of 10 and
15 percent would not be improbable, while an error of 30 to 40
percent would not be impossible.
Roughages. — We have made no detailed study of the variability
in the composition of roughages. Inspection of such data as those
compiled by Jenkins and \\'inton^ would seem to indicate that
roughages are much more variable in composition than grains.
This is to be expected when it is recalled that with these feeds,
besides the climatic conditions, the fertilizers used, the time of
cutting, the manner and time of curing, etc., are probably of con-
siderable importance in modifying the composition of the feed.
From 52 analyses of commercial alfalfa meal obtained from
several bulletins on the anal3'sis of commercial feedstuffs,^ we
found an average percentage of protein of 14.83, a standard devia-
tion of 2.172, and a coefficient of variation of 14.65. The latter
figure indicates a very considerable variability, a deviation from
the mean of 44 percent being possible, while deviations of 15 to
25 percent would be of rather frequent occurrence.
Commercial Concentrates. — In obtaining infonnation concern-
ing the variability in composition of some of the commoner com-
"U. S. Dept. of Agr., Off. Exp. Sta., Bui. 11. 1892.
"Bulletins 141 and 152 of the Purdue Station, Bulletin 141 of the Texas
Station, Bulletins 316 and 340 of the New York Station at Geneva. Bulletin
147 of the New Hampshire Station, and Bulletins 71, 78, and 120 of the Massa-
chusetts Station.
19^3]
Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments
S47
mercial concentrated feedstuffs, we have utilized the data from a
large number of bulletins on feedstuff inspection. The average
coefficients obtained are given in Table 26.
Table 26. — Variability in the Composition of Commercial Feedstuffs*
Feedstuff
Protein content
Number
of an-
alyses
Average
varia-
bility
Fat content
Number
of an-
alyses
Wheat bran
Wheat middlings and shorts.
Corn chops
Cottonseed meal or cake
Linseed meal, old process. . . .
Gluten feed
Beef scraps"
Beef scraps"
Tankage"
Tankage"
Blood meal"
678
963
916
722
73
59
24
29
9
19
S
6.87
8.97
8.64
5.29
5.74
10.09
8.47
7.05
6.14
4.08
4.25
352
711
73
59
Average
varia-
bility
12.01
18.73
15.91
31.84
Assuming that the distribution of the percentages of protein is
approximately normal, in appreciating the significance of the above
coefficients of variation the following statement may be made : If
samples of wheat bran be taken thruout Illinois, for instance, for
any one year, and the percentage of protein in each be determined,
I sample on an average out of every 7 taken would exhibit a con-
tent of protein at least 10 percent greater or less than the average
content for all samples, and i sample on an average out of every
32 would exhibit a protein content at least 15 percent removed from
the average protein content for all samples. In the case of stand-
ard wheat middlings and shorts, i sample out of every 4 would
give a protein content 10 percent or more on eitb.er side of the
mean, and i out of every 1 1, a content 15 percent or more on either
side of the mean. For the other feedstuffs, the following figures
would hold approximately :
Feedstuff
Corn chops
Cottonseed meal
Linseed meal . . .
Gluten feed
Beef scraps"
Beef scraps*
Tankage"
Tankage"
Blood meal
Number of samples 10
percent or more greater
or less than the mean
1 out
1 out
1 out
1 out
1 out
1 out
1 out
1 out
1 out
of every 4
of every 17
of every 12
of every 3
of every 4
of every 7
of every 10
of every 70
of every 53
Number of samples 15
percent or more greater
or less than the mean
out of every
12
out of every
214
out of every
110
out of every
8
out of every
13
out of every
30
out of every
68
out of every
4500
out of every
2200
°A11 adulterated samples were left out of the computations contained in this
table when adulteration was noted.
"Guarantee of about 40 percent protein.
''Guarantee of about 55 percent protein.
"Guarantee of about 60 percent protein.
"Guarantee of about SO percent protein.
548 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
From such considerations it appears that if an average analysis
be used in computing the protein intake of experimental animals
in a feeding trial, instead of a direct analysis, as far as the above
commercial feeding stuffs are concerned an error of lo percent
or more would not be infrequent in most cases, and in some cases
an error of even 15 percent or more should not occasion surprise.
Conclusions. — It is evident from such a preliminary study of
the question of the variability in the composition of American
feedstuff's, that as regards feeding experiments, the practical utility
of average analyses is liinitcd, and in the case of many of the
grains and roughages is small indeed. This conclusion is especial!}-
to be emphasized in the case of averages supposed to apply to the
entire country and to all crops, since it cannot be doubted that
marked differences occur in the composition of grains and rough-
ages from locality to locality and are even likely to occur in the
same locality in different years. These remarks apply, in the case
of grains, to the content of moisture, protein, and ash especially;
while, in the case of roughages, even the energy value of a unit
weight of fresh substance may be subject to marked variation, a
problem that we hope to investigate further. The protein content
of commercial concentrates is also often subject to marked varia-
tion. Even when averages are taken of the composition of any
one feed in any one locality for any one year, it has been demon-
strated that samples possessing protein, ash, and moisture contents
10 percent, 15 percent, or more, greater or less than the mean con-
tents, must be reckoned with.
In view of the great variability in the composition of feed-
stufifs and of the fact that a proximate analysis of rations can be
secured relatively easily, we are inclined to believe that one cannot
afford to omit such a precaution in feeding experiments, especially
when they are otherwise comprehensively planned and capable of
quite definitely settling the problem at hand.
ipij^ ■ Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 549
PART III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
(i) Difficulties in Interpreting Feeding Bxperiinents. — The
simple feeding experiment is of value in the solution of many prob-
lems of practical live-stock raising. Under the best conditions, how-
ever, the results of the feeding trial do not point unequivocally to
one conclusion, but are of more or less ambiguous significance.
The cause of this ambiguity is the dissimilarity existing among the
gains of individual animals due to what may be termed indiznduality
as well as to unequal conditions within the lot of animals.
One of the essential problems in the interpretation of a feeding
experiment is the comparison of the gains in weight obtained for
one lot of animals with the gains in weight obtained for another
lot, the purpose of the comparison being to determine whether the
difference in treatment accorded the two lots, or the difference in
their make-up, as the case may be, has been instrumental in securing
a difference in their gaining abilities. If one can assure himself by
the proper methods of analysis that the relative position of the
average gain of one lot with respect to the average gain of the
second lot will remain essentially unaltered if the experiment be
repeated on other similar animals under similar conditions, it fol-
lows that one is justified in attributing to the essential difference or
differences in treatment or make-up between the two lots, an influ-
ence on their gaining qualities. If one cannot so assure himself,
there remains only the alternative conclusion that whatever differ-
ences in gains are observed between the two lots are due entirely
to the individualities of the animals and to other uncontrolled
factors.
(2) The frequency Distribution. — One of the most fruitful
conceptions of the biometric method of analysis is that of the fre-
quency distribution. A set of data obtained tmder comparable
experimental conditions is to be thought of as tending to assume a
definite distribution about some typical value, to which value the
arithmetic mean, or the common average, is often a good approxi-
mation, in spite of the fact that the sources of variation under such
conditions act in a random fashion. It is on this tendency of
comparable experimental data to assume a definite frequency dis-
tribution, expressible by a frequency curve capable of mathematical
definition, that all attempts to predict the result of repeating an
experiment must be based.
(3) Use of Average Results. — Average results should be used
with extreme caution. An average is at best only an imperfect
description of a series of experimental data, and when used for
comparative purposes is often extremely misleading. The calcu-
lation of an average should not be considered a reason for not
550 Bulletin No. 165 I [hdy,
collecting or reporting- the original data, since only by mi^nce
to the original data can its value be determined, and cong^aj^fntly
only by publishing original data can experiment station workers
criticise and properly appreciate each other's investigations.
(4)Variatio)i and Its Measurement. — In adequately comparing
the gains exhibited by one lot of animals with those exhibited by a
second lot, it is necessary to calculate, not only the average gain of
the lot, but also the variation or dispersion of the gains within the
lot, a measurement of the latter being a measurement of the influ-
ence of the uncontrolled factors in the experiment. A good meas-
ure of variation for this purpose is the standard deviation, which
may be defined as the square root of the average squared deviation
of all individual gains from the average gain for the lot.
The average of a series of gains in weight, as well as the in-
dividual gains, must be considered as possessing a variability due to
the experimental factors that were not under control, and since
these uncontrolled factors find direct expression in the variability
of gains within the lot, it follows that the variability of an average
gain bears a definite relation to the variability of the individual
gains within the lot. Obviously, the variability of an average
gain decreases as the size of the lot increases, and it may be shown
that the relation is such that the presumptive standard deviation of
the average gain is equal to the standard deviation -of the original
gains divided by the square root of their number.
(5) The Probable Error. — In predicting the result of repeating
a feeding experiment, on two lots of animals w^e will say, using
other animals, but subjecting them to the same conditions that
obtained in the given experiment, we first make the assertion that
the most probable average lot gains that would be obtained in a
second experiment are the average lot gains actually obtained in
the^first experiment. Our prediction is very inadequate, however,
until we estimate from the data of the first experiment what devia-
tions in a second experiment we must expect from these most
probable values, since it would be remarkable indeed if exact dupli-
cation occurred. It is the purpose of the probable error of these
average lot gains to afford this information.
The probable error of an average gain is that value which, w^hen
added to and subtracted from the average, defines two limiting
values such that the odds are .even that a second experiment will
give an average gain falling between them. If w^e add to and
subtract from an average gain 3.17 times its probable error, there
are obtained two limiting values such that the odds are 30 to i
that a second experiment will give an average falling between them.
Now odds of 30 to I represent a degree of confidence amounting
to practical certainty, so that we may feel reasonably certain that
ipij] Uncektainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 551
a second experiment will give an average gain for a lot of animals
of a specified description and under specified conditions, lying
somewhere within an interval defined by adding to or subtracting
from the average gain experimentally obtained 3.17 times its prob-
able error. The probable error of an average gain is obtained by
simply multiplying the standard deviation of the average by 0.6745.
It is generally desired, however, to determine the significance
not only of average lot gains, but also of differences between aver-
age lot gains. The probable error of such a difference may then
be calculated by squaring the probable errors of the two averages
involved, adding, and extracting the square root of the sum. The
probable error of a difference between two average gains defines
its significance in exactly the same manner as the probable error
of an average gain defines the significance of that average.
By the use of such a probability method as that briefly out-
lined above, we are able to interpret the results of feeding experi-
ments in a fairly satisfactory manner. The element of uncertainty
resulting from the meaningless variation existing among individual
gains, due to uncontrolled experimental factors, has been definitely
and reasonably defined.
(6) CoefHciciits of Variation. — For some purposes, the stand-
ard deviation is inadequate as a measure of variation, due to the
fact that it depends upon the units of measurement employed, and
for gains obtained during different periods of time or gains ex-
hibited by different kinds of animals, is correlated with the aver-
age gain. For extensive comparisons of variation, therefore, the
coefficient of variation is used, this coefficient being simply the
standard deviation calculated as a percentage of the average. The
coefficient of variation of gains within lots is a good measure of
the experimental error.
From an extensive review of experiment station literature in
this country, we have obtained an average coefficient of variation
of gains of about 21 for similarly treated lots of sheep. For
steers and swine, an average coefficient of about 17 has been ob-
tained. From these figures, supplemented by a detailed study of
the data, it appears probable that sheep in general exhibit greater
variability in gaining qualities than do either steers or swane. The-,
small amount of data we have collected concerning the fattening
of poultry indicate an average variability of about 16 percent.
Apparently poultry may be classed with steers and swine as re-
gards variability of gains.
Extreme discrepancies were found to exist among individual
coefficients of variation. This is doubtless due in part to the het-
erogeneity of the data, but it is in large part to be expected from the
mere size of the coefficients. A determination of a relation be-
tween particular rations or systems of treatment and the variability
1
SS2 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
of gains is practically impossible except in extensive or in repeated
experiments. •
(7) Number of Animals Required per Lot. — Based upon the
average coefficients of variation found for sheep and for steers
and swine, calculation indicates that experimental lots should con-
tain at least 10 to 14 animals, or even 25 to 30 animals wh^i the
rations or other conditions under investigation are very similar.
The necessity of using at least 10 to 15 animals per lot in feeding
trials seems to be well established. Wherever this number can be
increased, the better, for this is the surest and most generally rec-
ognized means of increasing the significance of experimental re-
sults. Again, however, it is well to note that increasing the size
of lots is no remedy for a poor selection of experimental animals.
Furthermore, increasing the size of lots cannot eliminate individ-
uality, but merely reduces its effect on the average. It has been
shown that when there are as many as 40 animals to the lot, an
appreciable degree of uncertainty still attaches to average lot gains.
Also it should be borne in mind that the beneficial effect of increas-
ing the size of lots varies not with the number in the lot, but with
the square root of this number. Thus, for the same standard
deviation of individual gains, a lot of 10 animals will give a prob-
able error of the average gain only twice as large as a lot of 40
animals.
(8) Uniformity of Gains is Desirable. — Whenever and where-
ever possible it is advantageous to reduce the experimental error
of feeding trials, i.e., to increase the uniformity of gains within
the lots, provided the value of the experiment and its practical
availability are not also thereby reduced. The smaller the coeffi-
cient of variation of the gains in weight within a lot, other things
being equal, the smaller the minimum percentage difference be-
tween its average gain and that for a second lot that can be defi-
nitely traced to the difference in treatment or to the difference in
make-up between the two lots. Hence a reduction of the experi-
mental error means a reduction in the coefficient of variation of
gains within the lots.
(9) Selection of Animals to Insure Uniformity of Gains. —
It is well known that animals at different ages exhibit different
rates of growth and different fattening qualities. It is also obvious
that different breeds of the same species of animals often exhibit
similar differences, especially if they are of different general types,
and even where it is not obvious that breed differences exist it is not
justifiable to assume that they do not exist. The available data
indicate with a high degree of certainty that wethers gain faster
than ewes, barrows faster than sows, and cockerels faster than
pullets, at least at the fattening age. Furthermore, it is beyond
dispute that differences in treatment of animals previous to ex-
/p/j] UXCERTAIXTV XX IXTERPRETATION OF FEEDING EXPERIMENTS SS3
periment may frequently be the cause of differences in fattening
qualities. The careful and intelligent selection of the experimental
animals is one of the best methods of reducing the experimental
error and thus obtaining more valuable and more significant re-
sults without interfering with conditions that the experiment must
conform to by reason of the use to which its conclusions are to
be put. We cannot over-emphasize the necessity of securing per-
fectly homogeneous lots as regards age, breed, type, sex, and pre-
vious treatment. The great preponderance of evidence indicates
that by thus selecting the animals for experimental purposes, the
experimental error will be greatly reduced. The necessity of
selecting homogeneous lots of animals is not appreciably dimin-
ished by the balancing of heterogeneous lots.
(lo) Good Gai)is are Unifonn Gains. — In ^ny experiment in-
\T)lving two or more lots of animals, it has in general been found
that the lots exhibiting the best average gains also exhibit the
more unifonn "gains, and vice versa.
(ii) Changes in the Variability of Gains During an Experi-
ment. — It has been found from experiments in which the ex-
perimental animals have been weighed periodically during the
investigation that frequently the coefficient of variation of gains
progressively decreases from the l^eginning q| the experiment to
the end, the rate of decrease being greater during the early periods
than during the later periods of the feeding trial. Apparently this
decrease would not, under the best conditions, continue indefi-
nitely, but would gradually attain to a minimum coefficient char-
acteristic of the particular sample of animals under observation
and of the particular experimental conditions.
In other experiments, a continuous decrease in the coefficient
of variation of gains is not evident. In most cases of this descrip-
tion that we hav6 analyzed, a more or less close correlation be-
tween changes in ration and changes in variability of gains may
be observed, such that an increasing ration is generally accom-
panied by a decreasing coefficient of variation, a constant ration
by a constant or slightly increasing coefficient, and a decreasing
ration by an increasing coefficient. Unfavorable weather condi-
tions seem also to be instrumental in producing more variable
gains, while in a few instances the correlation between ration and
coefficient of variation above defined seems to be complicated or
obscured by other factors, such as the relation of food intake to
body weight or bodily requirements. \\'hile the evidence adduced
does not unanimously point to one explanation of the changes in
variability of gains during the course of a feeding trial, consider-
able support may be found for the general statement that when
conditions are constantly or increasingly favorable to growth and
554 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
fattening, an increasing uniformity of gains is generally secured,
or in other words, the experimental error is progressively reduced.
It seems, therefore, that whenever practicable and whenever the
nature of the experiment will permit, the animals should be in-
duced to consume an increasing amount of food, that is, a con-
stant ration per lOO lbs. live weight. A considerable increase
in the ration near the close of the experiment for the purpose of
"finishing off" the animals for the market is frec[uently very effi-
cacious in securing more uniform gains.
(12) Physiological Selection. — Another method of reducing
the experimental error of feeding trials that is in vogue in one
form or another at different stations, has been investigated. The es-
sence of this method is the selection for experiment of only those
animals that during* the course of a preliminary feeding period have
proved themselves to be functionally similar as regards the rate
of growth or fattening". Hence we have called the method physi-
ological selection. From theoretical considerations alone, it appears
that even if physiological selection is efficacious in accomplishing
its purpose of eliminating poor gainers and reducing experimental
error, it will so multilate the feeding experiment itself as to render
it much less valuable to practical li\"e-stock farming and to limit
its applicability and thus reduce its significance.
Experimental evidence, however, indicates clearly that physi-
ological selection does not eliminate the poor gainers. In fact^it
appears that those animals exhibiting the poorest gains in a pre-
liminary period are in general no worse than a random sample of
the entire group of animals in a subsequent feeding experiment.
Furthermore, physiological selection is very inefficient in reducing
experimental error, even when conducted along the most rigorous
lines. Hence this method is both theoretically faulty and practi-
cally incompetent to accomplish its purposes.
(13) Repetition of E.vpcriuients. — The necessary precision in
feeding trials may be attained by a reduction of the experimental
error as above shown or by repetition of the experiment. From
a study of the efficacy of repetition, it appears that frequently
under the most favorable conditions, feeding experiments cannot
be duplicated. Frequently experiment stations have obtained re-
sults from feeding trials pointing unequivocally to a certain con-
clusion, and yet subsequent attempts to duplicate such experiments
have yielded results quite incompatible with the first conclusion.
The gravity of such a situation cannot be over-emphasized. Its
remedy seems to be, first, the more careful reporting of experimental
conditions, including a chemical analysis of rations, and second, the
conviction that the conclusions of feeding experiments are more
intimately connected with the particular experimental conditions
ip/j] UXLEKTAINTV IN INTERPRETATION OF FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 555
that obtained than has heretofore been beheved. The conckision,
for instance, that one feed is better for fattening purposes than
another may be totally at fault if other samples of the two feeds,
possessing quite different compositions, be used, or if other breeds
of animals, or animals more (or less) mature, be used, or other
methods of preparing the feeds or sheltering the animals be fol-
lowed. Such possibilities should always be kept in mind, and the
frequent tendency to generalize from data of a very specific de-
scription should be carefully guarded against.
(14) Variability in the Composition of Feedstuff s. — The ad-
visability of submitting experimental rations to a chemical analy-
sis is clearly indicated by a study of the variability in the composi-
tion of feedstuffs. In the case of grains, this varialnlity is
negligible, apparently, as far as the energy value of the feed is
concerned, but it is considerable and in many cases extreme in the
case of the moisture, protein, and ash content. With roughages,
inspection of analytical data w^ould indicate an even greater vari-
ability than with grains, apparently involving even the energy
value. In the case of commercial concentrates, variation of the
protein content is often quite comparable to that in grains, tho in
the more highly nitrogenous concentrates, such as blood meal with
a protein guarantee of 80 percent, the percentage variability is
less evident.
(15) Individual Feeding Not Essential. — The simple feeding
experiment concerning itself entirely with the gains in weight
and the feed consumption of farm animals under certain definite
experimental conditions, has served many useful purposes and
yielded much valuable information to practical live-stock farming.
Its purpose is to yield specific information which must generally be
considered in connection with the specific conditions under which it
was conducted, as opposed, for instance, to the purpose of the
nutrition experiment, which is the securing of more or less general
information, not so strictly limited by the conditions under which
the experimental data were collected. Therefore, it is neither
necessary nor, in fact, expedient that the technic of the simple
feeding experiment be carried to the same degree of refinement as
that of the nutrition experiment proper. Any great refinement of
the former, is objectionable from the standpoint of the practical
availability of the results of feeding trials.
Thus, the individual feeding of animals in ordinary feeding trials
seems unnecessary, if not inadvisable, because we are here imposing
an experimental condition entirely out of harmony with ordinary
practical live-stock raising, and while the experimental error may
very probably be reduced by seeing to it that each animal obtains
the same amount of feed per 100 lbs. live weight for instance,
SS6 Bulletin No. 165 [July,
the practical availability of the experimental data obtained would
undoubtedly be greatly reduced. The individual feeding of ani-
mals may yield valuable data for some purposes. However, the
variability in the consumption of feed and consequently in the
gains produced cannot be presumed to be the same in individual
feeding as in lot feeding.
(i6) Publication of Results.' — The results of feeding experi-
ments should be published, not only with the idea of describing a
particular investigation, but also with the idea of determining, in
so far as such a determination is possible, whether a reasonable
probability exists that the practical live-stock farmer will actually
benefit himself by applying the results of the investigation to his
own live stock. If no such probability exists, the farmer should
be specifically warned. The elaborate analysis necessary for an-
swering such a question will very probably not be appreciated by the
majority of the readers of experiment station bulletins, but this
is no excuse for not using such analytical methods at the expense
of accuracy in the formulation of conclusions and recommenda-
tions. As a matter of fact, the analysis undertaken need consti-
tute no part of the bulletin published, the purpose of such analysis
being primarily simply to check or rectify conclusions.
(17) Formulating Conclusions. — In formulating the conclu-
sions of feeding experiments, the necessity of keeping in mind the
possibility that several of the specific experimental conditions may
seriously limit the applicability of the results of the investigation
should not be lost sight of. Thus, Ration A may be superior to
Ration B under some, but not all, conditions. The possibility, if
not the probability, exists that if the constituents of Ration A are
not up to a certain standard, the reverse relation may hold ; hence
the necessity of a chemical analysis of the rations used in order
that one may know the actual conditions under which the experi-
mental conclusions may reasonably be applied. It is not sufficient
simply to enumerate the individual feeds of which the rations are
constituted and the proportions in which they enter into the ra-
tions. An exhaustive and repeated chemical anlysis of rations is
neither necessary nor especially advantageous. In fact, if a fairly
complete analysis of feeds be made at the beginning of the experi-
ment and substantially the same feeds be used thruout the subse-
quent feeding period, it may be necessary to run only moisture
determinations on the feeds from time to time during the experi-
ment. If variation in the moisture content of feeds is not appre-
ciable during storage, even the repetition of moisture determina-
tions will be unnecessary. However, an ordinary' analysis should
be made of each new supply of feed from a sample fairly repre-
sentative of the entire supply.
jp/j] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 557
Other conditions than the composition of rations may limit the
appHcabihty of conchisions. The manner in which the feeds are
given to the animals, e.g., whether they be given ad libitimi or in
restricted quantities, may determine to some extent the relative
merits of rations. The breed or type of animals experimented
upon may be still another limiting factor. The age or condition
of the animals may be still other limiting factors. Such consid-
erations as these, which are associated with greater or less degrees
of probability, should receive due attention in interpreting feeding
experiments, and the assertion that a given experiment indicates
a superiority of one ration over another should be made only in
close connection with a brief statement of the more important ex-
perimental conditions.
In conclusion, we take pleasure in acknowledging the valuable
assistance of Professor H. L- Rietz in aiding us to a proper com-
prehension of the technic of the statistical methods and of their
general applicability to agricultural problems.
SS8
Bulletin No. 165
U»ty,
K
m
z
o
<
<
Q
<
<
H
1-1
<
a
O
O
c o
Is
c
CO -a
c
1§
C3 * —
en
O
d
Length
of experi-
ment, days
H
d
. d
CO -^ "-I »n J> r-
O ^- « •«»< t- rH
o r- C5 c»
C5 X O (M
t^ CO to
1-1 X T-l
CO c\>
CJ iH t> C> X CJ
IM W CO I- l^ C5
O X ■* t- o t-
O X t> 1-1 CO r-l
O -^ t- ^ 1-H 00
M C^ "-I i-l tH r-1
t^ ira t- CO
1-1 rn r-< CJ
■* t- X
(M W T-l
O CO
1-^ CO
rt X O O X o
(M >n (N CO 1-1 CO
to N rH CO CI X
CI 1-1 e* T-l T-l T^l
If) (M >n in »n t-
OJ O tH 05 O o
CO 1-1 O o
O tH !> «r5
■^ to -^
X Tf t-
O C-.
X t-
X t- O CO in X
■ 1-
CO O t- CO ti to
>0 lO ■>* !0
to X >n
■* I>
CO to CO CO CO CO
Ci 1*' t* It -^ t^
o o M >n ■* Ti<
05 IN in CO
CO ■* to
CO Tj"
Tf .0 C! O (M
l^ CO X C! O C!
o t- to X
o N »n O CO
■* o o ■*
O «D CO C-.
CO X X
C! C: to
o ^
X o X t- ■* in
■* O ■* CI X X
X 1-1 1-1 o c; 1-1
t- to t- CO C5 l-
1.0 O T}< LO to CO
t- to J> CO
t- C^ LO
X 0!
to t> to X 't l>
m ■* Ti< T}< Tf o
o «o iH »r5 »-l o
O (M t- X
to X 05
I> ■*
to 1-1 (M t- O to
CI in to o c X
o
E
<
CO ■* Tf CO CO CO
O 50 to O » «D
o o o o o o
— ' 'f w w
!M (M :^ ^ J^ 1— (
f— ^ *— « f^ K*^ *^fc
1— 1 1— 1 K*
KH H-( 1— ( ^^
1 — 1 1 — 1
XXX
O CV C".
CO
HH 1—1
t— H l-H HH 1 — II — 1 »— t
f— 1 »— ( 1— 1 HH
HH I—I t— I S.. >-^ 1—1
1— 1 1— 1 l'^ 1^ 1-^
0! Oi T'J W O! W
rv C5 C-. o c~. OS
o o o o
t- l^ £- I-
o 9
■n in in
o o o o o c
r^ r-t 1-1 r-l 1— 1 1— 1
-^
(M
^
ira
fO
J9I3]
Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments
559
« d
c o
i> -^
o rt
O >
n
TS n
j=
S.2
be
"S rt
QJ
C ■-
?
C3 >
H-P (U
c
m-v
c
rrt
o
c
a
C
"ti o
Q
.Si rt
— '
o
,
CO -a
<
OS
t-
"c
<
W
1 — 1
J
<
H
t/i
ri;
H
<
H
L/J
M-l
hH
og-
.J
n
6^
<
t«
H
o
J
d
y5
■ -■ >>
M Q<
C X .
iJ -^
1 c
1— 1 Ui IL>
° H
e
.' °
hl^;
^t
X c
w y
£
;0 (M
O 00 O T-l
■^ n
^•r-roi.ooo«>THrH
■*C0Cllr-OOt-00
O
TficOOOOOOrHcOOOOO
oioowooinocMOO
t- m 05
00 rH rH
t- •rH
CO CI
1— ! O >0 tH
r-( IM rH CO
tOOOCOIMOOOt--*
rH rH rH C 00
o o to o
•*^t»-CO«DOi«rH
rHt-OOlMt-OOt-rH
iMeOOOrHt-rHtO-^rHf^
COrHO!>OOC>it-CO
W 00 rH
C5 O N
C» CO
■* o >.o o
>-0 CO ■* CO CO (M (M CO
in
[-cotoinooTtiinoco
00 rtl rH
O a
CO 00 t^ OJ
NCJONNOMO
inintomoowmNOo
ON-*
i.O •* 5D — 1
CO W CO (M
— lOO-*'OtS«3i-l
COWOOrHCOrHCOW
00
«o
^rHJ>CO-*rHOt-COO
COCONWCJOOCOlMOOCJ
Ci O 00
CO -^ CO
O C5 m 00
00 CO l> rH
C2COroOt-OOt~
TfiSDCOCOOJlMOOO
ooco(M-*oorHco«oinTf<
■^01!0
Ci CO o
CO w c^
00 CO o >n
(M rH CO r-l
coot-oooocoo
00
iNrHtCrHCOThfOIMOO
in ■* r^
O -t> M o
T- O t- ■*
OOOOCO^-<1-*
T^ r1
W rH C.
35 C5
to >n 00 o
0(MOrjOOUOl>00>n
o
mininincoi>rHin-*co
00 O I>
00 ot
00 00
rH r- rH 00
00 -O CO 5D
rHCloOIMl^iMOO
4.0 00 Tfi i- «0 X 'O 00
«0
OOOOOOr-.Oi-HO
O CO c
CO J> oc
"u
E
<
W CJ
t- r- t- !^
oo«oo;do5050
OOOOOoc-.Cocr.
rH rH rH i-H rH r^
Ci <^ c-.
c) JO ciJ j3
rt^ rS^ rt^ rt-o
o
1 — II — 11 — '^^.^l — 11—^1 — iK^ix*
'"' S 1— 1 r^ t^ |I^ t— 1
1— H V— 1
HH
HH l-H HH 1 — \ r^ r^
.-J >n
o o
r-( T— 1
O o O O
t> I- t- I-
OOOOOOOO
i> t^ t- £- t- t>- t^ !>
o o o
00
05
"
n
c
>
c«
u
60
O
IS
H
560
Bulletin No. 165
[July.
Ph
Ui
u
K
to
!z
o
<
<
Q
<
<
H
CD
a
O
.5?
.5
_c
'rt
O
c o
o >
1§
co-o
lU
V)
o
'5
l-H
c
n.2
o
m 2
rt >
^ ooo>oosco>nco
(M in
" X
•* IN t- ■*
CO •>*< Tf X
1
CO •* w
t- CD I-
r<5
CD CO CO CO 0» Oi
IM T-H M rH W r-l
-hcdoocothcocooooim
(M i-H 1-1 CO (M W (M O rt 1?!
CO CO
•<1< CO LO CO
W CI t-
in m CO
T-l
OS CD CD
O -"f I-
N
« CO W W t- 05
O n ro Oi tH M
•^1-ICO-^COOO^OO
GO 00 CI t> CO (^ O t^ O I-
1^ LO
O t^ ^ N
CD O! CO OS
O O CO CO O l-
T-1 T-t 1— t
COiOtOGOCOCOCOCOCOCO
CO CJ
LO '-'
1-1 in Ti< Tt
CO OS CO
o in -*
>
<
•JS CO CO N (M O
Tj*r»O^OOCOOWCS
cococol^Jco<^^cococow
X t^
N CO
•* N X CD
CO W r-l
■* o ^
in CO CD
'!0 ■* O -^ t- Oi
■* o CO CO t- CO
cOTficOOOCONscWcocO
oirawcooooooococD
CO CO
lO t-
CD « X X
T-H ■* w in
"a
CO >0 CJ t- O 00
C^'XCOOOOJOOCO-*-*©
^H 1— i T— ( T-l tH rH r^
co CO
CO CO
X rt
N CO X OS
r-t
05 r-< CO O CO I>
CO W 05 O CO C»
OCOOSi-IOOiOt1<^OOC5
O W Tj< ©
•<*■>*< r»< CO
C
u
X
W
bo
•-0 OJ en "l- X -^
C; CO CS CO X CO C-. — ' O l^
CO t-
N CO' OS T-.
N (M O C! O Oi
Noxo-^ost-cocom
i.O CO
o o
(M O -* X
O O 1-1 >-
•5
OS iH tH o CQ ^
!> 00 CO 00 00 C»
>OrJ!?•*■>!<
OS
u
1-1
1)
s
<
00 05' OS OS 00 cr:
oooooooeoo
IC LO
in in in in
t- t> t-
K-( l-H !.> K^ _ f-1
^^ t-H
1 — 1 t— 1 t-H ^
i-H K^ t— '
O o o o o c>
xxxxxxxxxx
OSOSOSOOiOOOSCSO
X X
X X X X
O^ O^ C^ OS
XXX
CO CO CO
r-l T-l T-l
t3
c«
'—I ^c
s
CO
■*
in
s
I9I3]
Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments
561
o
O
o
<
<
Q
<
<
(-1
in
n
<
a.
«>
o
.S
c
c5
O
5.1
'ii
o >
o
I'E
c
1
,-1 TT t- O
M O ■* t~.
^ rt O T)<
o
01 05
CJ en
X X X Ci
X " CO o
-f O — ' CO
X c: tr o
e >o X
CO LO X
-*" o> -^
lO — (D
t- ■* O ^
<-! rt -4 M
■^ X O t-
Jvj rt CM -^
X
O i-O
1-0 O
CO X CO o
— Oi CO Ci
CO N CO N
CM X C!
1— 1 T-l ^^
0! 1.0 Tf
e-i CM -^
O CO .~5 t^
■* X Tp O
■<1< X — 1 C
O X X Ci
•O X Ci -^
;£ i-o o tr
ro W -^ N
o ■* w o
« O 'O
O I- «c
Ci Ct LO
CO X ^
£- O t- O
X O X o
CI
CO «.o
CO c.
o t- o t-
O O O X
o t- «n
t- t- »-o
N 00 o o
X •<*• w >-':
t- t- O X
O — ' Tf —
•
01 o Ci
X rJ S-J
ro o t~ o
■* ■* CO IM
O OJ cc o
CO CO CO CO
o
OJ CO
O -^ IN ■*
TJ. Tj. T). -^
-H C5 t- O
CO CJ W CO
en (M CO
Tt> Tt< Tf
X t- --
X t- i-<
(M —1 >0
CO CO CO
x: -o n ci
rt O to r^
?^ LO X o
CO Tf
b f^ o CO
O CS O N
N C O ^
X O Ci
rH CO CI
If,
C5 t- t- l>
CO Tf CO CO
CO
CO
t- <£>
5D >0 ?D t~-
t- ".O to X
CD !0 !>
CO -^ X
•O Tf !>
t^ J> t-
»-o to >.o
c
c
X 3C c! r?
C3 05 O Tf
d x' ci X
X o rj —
Tf o -^ r:
ci X
X l>
^ U ^ c
t-* 1-' t- ci
-»• X CO X
CI C-. o c
CJ CC t- -^
ro c-1 -+
LO t- O
1.0 «0 lO
•a
o
T-l N CO I-
SQ o c «r
c.
I- o
•* 1-1 ct ■*
O T-f Oi Tj-
•* LO LO
t:- l> t>
t/)
r- t- r~ t-
— o --^ —
(C
O! Oi
CO CO CO rt
C> (M T! (M
t^ t- Tf O
CO M ^ CO
Ci Ci c-.
C C c:
CO «D CO
c c c
o o o o
N
o c o
CM CM Ol
N T-H W r-
■* Tf
in irt w to
in in -^ n
■<*l •* -^t
N M W
1— (
^^->
1— ( ^H
1 — ( 1 — 1 H-i
HH HH 1 — r
o o c
XXX
CM
t^ ,— ( Tf X
X O C5 c
C 3
X X X X
C5 O C-. C!
r- I- t> t-
X X X X
CO CO CO
Ci Ci Ci
r^
X
o
w
CO
CM
c
>
>.
OJ
u
bo
_o
3
\3
562
Bulletin No. 1G5
\J»iy,
s
s
o
U
Id
Cd
W
m
2
o
<
<
Q
<
<
C/5
03
<
.M C
c o
«-x:
o *^
o >
tn
u^
o
O
•o C
ou
"H rt
lU
C .2
is
rt >
■>-' t)
r
CAl -o
c
05
s
ID
>:
c
ti o
c •-
.li rt
u •.—
i£ S3
D.
CI
o >
o
^
o
O
•a c
-3
be C-
n X .
o n *-
■ c
•"*«*-. ti
o E
e;
1 c
•cz
v
0.*J
X c
t1 a>
in 1-1
m t-
M O CO CO t-
1
00
t- O rH Q
o N i-l •* 'H
in CO
to
rH CO CO ri
M CO
tH (M
CO C* iH rH
j-i j-f
rH C-:
(M
to w (M :
^^ ro
re CO
in t"- <-l •>*' •>*<
•^ cc
c-.
C! m b-
CO oa
« w
o CO th in N
O rH
■^
in o m
o o
m •*
M 05 «0 CO M"
'-' t-
c
Oi to m
rH
rH
<
M W
r-
r- o c
O fO
T-l 00
m o 00 (N t-
to t-
to
m m m
O CO
^ CO
o CO t~ Tf in
05 N
CO
T}< -f C>
N n o
«J
•^
"^
o
•
u
*
■■ — '
■* M
<0
00
CS 00 (M
C/3
. >
.
-*-'
Ttl t>
CO rt
(M (M CI IM t-
GO m
C-.
o ■* m
!< t-
IM N
c.
o o o :
o o
C5 Cl
CO CO CO CO Ir-
CO 00
-^
•* M< ■
CO -a
c
CO-O
c
en
O
o a
d
Length
of experi-
ment, days
t
Tjf l> t-
T-H 0 CO CO «D t- f^
CO M CO 00 CO CO
CO t> «o .* t- O
w X C-. t- cc r~ 02 c;
t- 00
«o ^
CO N
O O
;o ra
rH o^ CO w i.o w
CJ C5 Cl Ci O C2
O CO O CO *^ ^
HH I— I 1-^
»c CO
en LO
05 a-.
00
a.
n
o
c«
O
e
JZ
564
Bulletin No. 165
[July,
S
s
o
w
CO
o
<
<
P
<
<
CO
w
l-l
<
a;
(A
O
be
o
si
•u.2
11
rt >
CO T3
1 m
s
u
u
O
+->
'P
o
G
t/5
O tn
d
Length
of experi-
ment, days
i
L)
1
l^ CO
05 05
QC CO
-f CO CO r- — 1 CO lO t- oc CI
Wi-HOt-t-csint-c-ic
CO >0 CO CO
CO CO (M en
J> CJ
O CO
1.0 O
C>1 t^
•*00>Oi«0>-OOCO'-lt-
T-tC^'— T— IT-IT-I r-lWCJ
IM 1-1 Tj> CO
tH Ol rH 1-1
oo5oo>niMO'-iC5
OOrioOOOOOTfOCOCO
CO 0 -"l^ ■*
rH CO
OS CO
00 00
(M 00
CO 1-1
N CO
O 00
!M 1-1
O O
CO >.o
W IM
J3
OO'-ICOON-^eD'OlO
ooooot^t-rHcooeac.
CO 00 ■* CO
CO CO oo 1-1
•^ W (M CO
Tj. CO
(M C3
CO Tf
(M OV
CO (M
Wn t-
ci i> c» >o
>n QC
0 CO
o o
00 00
00 00
iH 1-1 m lo
N iH tH IM
(M (M (M CJ
rH 7-1 r-l tH
o o
T^ r^
rH (M
CO CO
O O
tH rH
E
<
^H 1 — (
IN M
W N
o»o>o>n>n>o>nooo
lo o m »n
lo in
in m
)— 1 ^-
t—
hH 1 — 1
1 — 1 I—*
1— 1 1— ' r^ 1-^ i_ 1— 1
I— 1 l-H H^ S.
I-H l-H f^
>>
o o
o o
CO «D
"o lo lo ira >-"5 o i.o m 'o >o
(M (M M (M
00 00 00 00
05 Ci
C> (M
o o
in in
CO
1
CO
■4'
•*
Tf
IJl
bfl
rt
O.
^
o
c
(U
>
b£
>.
x;
^
u
c
03
t/5
J
+-»
J=
>-.
n
ILI
ILI
^
>
E
W)
3
C
c
lU
CTJ
c
QJ
c«
.4> O
OJ
^-^
^
•a
.
J3
E
c«
D
C
o
bo
w
rt
(«
u
lU
w
j:
>
H<
^9^3] Uncekt.mnty in Interpret.xhon of Feeding Experiments 565
«
u
(d
H
O
<
<
P
<
C/2
tn
u
(U
o
c
a
.an
Is
lU >
U
•a c
13.2
rt >
c
c
15.2
c5
4;
2
«n
a
d
Lengtli
of experi-
ment, days
-
> d
/< c
< •!:;
>n
>n >n
l-H l>
OD W X
OS X
00 1-H 00
T-)
r-l
r;
rc ?! «
05 (M
-l to X
M t~
C5 X I>
CC (M
M N N
—1 fC
oc
TJ. .^
en
C
0/
E
1-
c
CJ
.
c,
X X
X
>.-:: ■«■
br
c
•a
OJ
CJ
U»
Ci Ci
■-^ C5
r:
•V
rt
C
rt
U
XXX
~' ^
— ' H^ln;
7i Si
>--5
w w
rt r; .-^
t^
X
■*>
t'
«D •^ M in
i-i W X
« 00 M ©
© © CO ©
CO t^
© .*
©
©
© N CO
© © CO CO
1-1
CO
OS
rH
W OJ »-i
t- r-l N
t- CO in —1
a Ti tn
?J ri
CO
© OS t- «
CO rH
t- N Ci t~
© (M © ©
CO X
10 ©
CO CI
© ©
to ©
r- (M
co
X
© f^ X
"f .-4 Tj< LO
CO l-H r-l W
(M CO
©' -«•'
W Ci
X ©
>n -^ t- fc
C* W 11 ■*
ffl LO OJ X
«0 Tj" ©
>« t- C5 ©
rl rl rH (M
© CO >n CO
NO©©
r- w »n rH
X W © Tj<
rH ^— r^
TJH OS © ^
© ^ T»<
-J. © X ^
01 © © '-
r^ >n
0}
©
LO t- .* ©
X in LO t~
■* X
© . LO
s
a
X
if'
r^ iH © M
•~' X — ©
•r M .* «C
46.4
61.3
88.4
67.3
© c
t- CO — 10
■* -- © CO
CO CO >n 0!
>0 ©
X lO
•0
-.«• rt © —
-s< X rt X
t-H CJ " !M
"-•^ LO Tf ©
© © © ©
© © C
CQ OJ
© © CO X
rH r- © CO
N N CO CO
CI CO
X X
© ©
"So
c
'«•
.^ .^ .^ .^
T^ T}< T»< Tj-
^ ^
.*■*•* Tf
f -^
n! ^ rt j:
ca rt j2^
^H 1— «
■— < >^ 1—1
1—1 H-(
1— 1 1— 1
H- 1
© T-H X Tj-
© © © X
;: ;:
X
©
© -T-«
Tf Tf t- t^
© ©
©
©
in
CO
1.0
bo
c
>
>^
Ci
u
«
42
E
^
c
4J
n1
bO
V
,
U
rt
«*-
1)
u
Vl-l
-a
c«
lU
c«
c
• w^
'5
VI
taO
u
>>
E
c
u
bo
u
rt
H <
566
Bulletin No. 1G5
[July.
cc
z
o
<
<
P
<:
o
*4H
■^ c
E C
o >
o
o
Mean Standard
deviation
(/I
u
— I O "O CO
(M (M tH rH
Cv! in tH .o
C5 O IM C>
--H c>} >n ■*
o o tH ^
^ ^ ^ ^
rt C« _Q J3
C<1 C! iM CI
il
Jp/J]
U^XERTA1^•TY IN LNTEKPl
be
o
^2
•3 c
'S 2
rt >
U5
-4-»
. to
Length
of experi-
ment, days
I
1 d
1^ y
^
>c
10 rH
TJH 00
CO
N rH Ifl C
>n N to rH rH C--
b- 00 05 to
to l-H
X >ra t-
rH rt 00 00
in 00
rH T-H
CO W
rH r-^
00
CQ (M tH CO
(N (M CM rH rH
(M CO to to
rH rH rH
IN CO ■* W
iH 0* rH W
^ CO
00
CI (M
oc
■* 00
>0 to Tf N rH 00
M C N to rH t-
t- CO 00 to
CO ■* 1—
CO •* to to
00 M
r-i
CD Tji
rH rH
C5 00
tO 00 00 to 00
r-^ T^ y-i T-l r^
^ TjH rH to
rH rH W
rH rH t- to
X r-
rH rH tH T-
C5 L-:
CO rH
to
■0
^
c w -^ •* fO
C! to CC N to
CO W rH l>
rH to t- rH
rH CO C! r-
N to 1.0 CO
tA.
— C-.
!> C
N rH
s
to t- t- CO rt t^
1-^ rH rH rH rn
t- CR 05
■* 0> TH C3
N N 1-
P 2
Ci N
rH Tj< 1.0 to C5
N CO CO CO 00
Hf i-O to CO ^ t-
•* T*< 05 to
00 00
ci Hf r- to
»n to to
CO CO ts to
CO rn OJ T-
-5
rH T— 1
lO W
C5 00
ocooi>£-oj a a c.
CO CC! rJ C-.
c
rt
lU
<
1-H d
tH t-1
X 00
r- 1-H
c
'if
rH C to Th to
to CO CO d CO ■*
t- ■* ^ ro
X 00' 00 «
to t- ■*
CO Hj- CO CO
1-1 rH rt r-
C5 C-.
»
rH r^
rH rH
t- t- 00 to
X as 00 CO
05 C5 C-. C-.
1 — I HH
1 — 1 1 — 1
HH 1— 1
1— 1
-0
1— I 1— 1 f— 1 >--» K,. 1— 1
1— I I— 1 1— ( HH
1— 1 I— 1
HH 1— 1 1— < S.
Irt ^H ►-^
-0
11
•0 :r
CO 00 00 X X CO
t- C-. C5 Oi C5
-^ •* Ti- Tf
X X X X
c s c
000c
rH rH rt r-.
CO
=r.
3
CO
to
to
568
Bulletin No. 165
[July.
s
o
CO
%
o
■<
<
P
1-1
<
to
C/1
be
'5.
o
_n
O
II
il
o >
o
•o n
rt >
CO-C
C/5
'a
o
re
'c
c o
o >
o
13.2
-g.re
J- (U
LO-O
a
(L>
c/)
O
O en
. be
d
Length
of experi-
ment, days
P
d
,-1 .*
O C5
O C5
00 tH
o w
O CO
to 00
CO to
Q0OC0r-M50t-00CC00
i-ii-lr-iWr-l COOlT-<.^
T-l
O CO
t-l 1-1
00 Tf
lO CO
1—1 T-l
00 w
1-1 CI
Tt>fOO5C!00>O
N ■*
N CO
OS to
O Tf
•* C>}
CO !M
O f>! fO Tt< >.0 CO CTi O M O
.-^ CO
r- c:
00 t~
t- o
1-1
^ to
O 00
o o
1-^ 1—1
C5 O
O Tf
iH T-l
QOOOCOt-CCOOt-COC
00 o>
o ^
en 00
(M a
00 »n
O CO
CM i-O
to 1^
O c:
•13
C! 1--5 to 00 ■* O »0 CC O •*
(MOJNi-IIMr-IWi-INOO
o o
i> to
t— 1 1—1
■* CO
1—1 1—1
t^ CO
i-i (M
CO c
CO TJ.
t^>.-:tDC0C501MT-(OC
CO C-.
O (M
Tj< 00
•* CO
aC' oc
t- 1—
IM I-
c
p
n,
ro >c •'; O •* th »n th M c
ci C-5
GO to
0-. 00
,-j CO
CO '-
CO I-
W
to
•5
u
u
C500COJ>i-iCTicO-t-hOSX
iH 'i-
Tf 05
■* (M
Tt- N
O LO
CO c
i-o CO
CO »-0
CO >o
t- 00
CO CO
CO LO
CO r-
o
E
<
ooocnoooooo
r-ti— IrH tHt— lr.HrHT-^T-n
Tt< ■*
05 05
o c
t- 00
(M IM
1— t T-l
irs o
1 1 1 1
1— ( H^
HH 1 1
1 — 1 1 — 1
t—t
1 — 1
CO 00
(M (M (M M (M M (M W N C>}
oc 00
o o
o o
to to
00 00
o
I-
o
o
o
o
■o
bO
a
o.
n
o
c
>
'bii
>>
re
u
bO
_o
13.2
nS >
c
d
i)
."2
c:
c.S
^ >
S.2
1.2
— ' OJ
n
to r-
ul CO
-f M O M
X O >-i ^
cy; o "-I i-H
c-3 O O o
n 00 f C
T»< IM C^ W
O ^ " --I
00 O t- M
M IM O 00
T-l (M ^ O
C; Tf « lit
r~ o » w;
ot oi CO ts
o 00 ir: o
(M r^ i-H ,-
in 00 CO O
O W i-H 00
W N W O!
C^i «0 »n C\!
to to 50 to
;^>
000c
':i:^>
tfl
c
tc
en
n
>>
<\>
c
'u
u
ti
tc
C
y.
^«
V
^
(\>
X!
tn
(U
bo
f )
c
rt
I-.
tl
.(-f
CI
u-i
r
•o
^ c
bO
570
Bulletin No. 165
[July,
v.
H
hJ
P
O
Pn
o
o
•J
<
W
.J
pa
<
>>
o
o
,s
bo
.E
_c
'rt
O
Si
■||
o
Standard
deviation
c
Age at
beginning
of experi-
ment, days
O
X
CO
1^
6
:2;
Length
of experi-
ment, days
o
W
el
d
c
E
00
N t- CO i-t
^ C-l
00 O
t- t-
O 00
(M CO
■*
CJ
(^> >n o C5
o o
00 o
(M C
CO 00
1-1 CO
CM
o>
.-> CS 8> CO
i-H CO
CO C3
O t-
(M W
lO t-
O
tH r-l rH
ro i-H
Oi
C\i CO
l—t
CM
«
tH t- W O
00 in
O >c
CO CO
O Th
CO in
■>^<
CO
■^ CO O oc
(M o
CO C5
lO »o
Tf in
TH CO
CO
M
CO t- CO O
00 t-
iH 1-1
^ o
O IH
in
W 05
CO 1-1
rH O
in
to
o o o ac
CD ■>*<
CO 1-1
a> 00
1-1 m
•* CO
CO
CO
CO CO CO ^
(M ■<1<
(M oa
■* CO
-*i CO
CO CO
l-H
en
o
O O t- CO
Tf r:)<
t^ t-
!> t-
Tf Tt>
O O
n
«5
O O !> CD
OC 00
J> l^
f^ i>
00 00
05 O
t-
u
0)
o<
X
br
-n
CJ
11
(U
i_i r1
t— 1 1— 1 t— 1
>
'3)
>.
'3,
ctS
u
bo
o
3
4=
S
_)
n
<
<
(U-T3 JiJ
1
U dj . - P <"
1
MOOOtO-^OSCO'OCQCJOfOMlOOMe'!
(MOOOOOO>«OSOOC^l(M-*<(M(Mit>t-OCC:
tfi
rH T-iT-(--iT-it-4r-lr-t-«ctjici>M-
•S
(r: (M ^ T-^ T^ rt
U5
Ph
CO
o
o
55 .S
o
'*a>'HOto-*os^-*CJooroc-!>rtiroi-iT-i
C.5
OOCOTfOrf 1- t-tCO t- coo C-. -*»C!-i
o
11
5
rHr-IiHrHr-iNWNCMCOrOTfTfCOrfOil"
rt
rt
•O
h— i
rt
c
o
o
03
l_l
CO N oi CO 05 t- N oj ■-' C n w (M 0-. r~- c^j ira
c/l
t~ C3 CO t- T? O t-- C-J O C OC t- t- X. t; t- O
NTto«ct-c-x
C^
o-;:; ^
O u (U
?^ !^ p 1^
u 2 5 ^
i- CV ^ "O O >ra 00-*0».0>-0;CC3C^
r^ THr-i i-HT-lT-li-lT-lTMrtT-li-iT-C-!?!
a o J^
en C^
to
j_,
c
s
|m
^.2
C-1 (O X LO C Cs X CO W LO CO ■* I> uo m o ^
'P
•5.2
u
rot-l-lT-^cxO(^!^T^I-tKO■*05l-^»clco
?
Is
6^
O^XCOCO^i-IXrtO'Hi-iOiXCCC-.
t/2
1—1
1
o
o
rHCv!r-lT-1r-ir-lr-) t— liHTHr-i r-li-^
n
to
3
p
•^ ::
CO
1- O
rt
rt ■-
U~t
oto«5!0«OXi-HTHoeor-
c
r3 >
O
xt-uot-rooxoot-cocowwt-cowt-
Or-iCJCiM-*-*COi.O;Ct-Xl>t-OOC~.
t, ,
-^ CJ
t-XOC5C:
r-1
'jr.
"a
to
.(TiVitntrttntfiir. fsi^ntritritj\rfiin^j\w.
.
^^^^^J^^^^^^^^^^^^
rt
ijoiLJa;oo
U4>CJQJQJC^l>Q>QJQJl>0QJl>0Q-'0
_o
tH C! CO ■* i.O O I- X 05 O "-1 C^ CO "^ to «D t-
EEr:CECE::cc=:cc:cccc
3
c
tao
574
Bulletin No. 105
[July,
Ul
a
X -v.
^' 'n
CO
t- C5 C5 T-1 rt I— C\> (M !trt
cccccccccccccc
t™ C- f^ t^
IM M O
cc c^ t^
CO «5 »o »n c- «o t-
oooooicot-oooJc-jTfininoo
cccccccccccccc
jp-fi]
Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments
575
a
o
H
D
i/i
O
U
Q
Is)
Id
tn
-)
<
H
O
<
c
c
o
O U
9 bo
in
< <
<
O
c
><
<
>
O
<
6
(d
I-)
(!)
<
•3
U5
"J
; ,
CsdOOOOCOOC
-^ c
c
ot-^-^-t-^•^-t-t-^-
o
m
11
1 r^
^
ooi-Tccxeoccic^
is u
o
o
^"^
Tl> — tc X C-. O C-. v- 1- T-
-«rTrr}'Tr->r-T
S
tA
«4-. -
n
bo
t) ?- rt
o
U
« o ■* C-. 1-"; -^ X X i-; — '
Ci .-t T- t- J- T- Ci «C C-. C!
o 5'C
— i> c :>! X o >.': o ■* rt
'rt
u-S «
bo
C-. ■
-^t-xci cc — r-:-*-*
• ^^
-w lU
o
13
co-o
o
tr
zz
c3
OS X X ?■> ^ X C C: C"! O
CO
O
fci;—
-* « o ~ 12 o ~ 5^ X Er
S
"" " ' ' • ^ '- -^— -
m
o
^ c
O
000©C©^-t-I>
^"■£.
IT.
-^ E
o c
1> —
> t/".
— c
u
C
U
,-^
.-Il.'^SSXOOO^XO
1-- t- X C Cv> W Ol c o t-
c
r:rCM-*^Tj<-^Tt
CO
*4-* ^
c
O
NOt-ClC. OOX— X
'5
to
t75
— iOOOXl-t-OOO
CJTj'o-^'^oxiraoi--;
"rt
TfTjirOWNNt-lr-ini-
O
.r?
p"
data
in wcig
S.2
o
1—1
•*in«cj05Mxt-— 'C
11
M O O M ■* O CJ O O O
H- (
r-:T}<
<
<
>
w
u
<
<
^
O C-. ■* l-T 0-, Ci
r-f-;-*OCCC-. 1— C!M-*
-T3
en
.2
I-
OOMCOMMMNfOfOC*:
O
ooo«o«. "^
r7>
1> c
CJ 5
> t"
— o
c
(MO^Ot-LTot-t-r-
1-1
OOClOTtf^OOOOtO
rt u
o
.''■^
CO ■* LO o »-'' o in o in «rt
O
U
C
H
o
U
—
CO
•♦^ s
£°-2
"o
r-rcNt>oo,-iOostcc
.«
Cs> ir; N ,-1 C! N CQ O t> O
6.1 rt
^
oo^>cco'^J|^}oo■*>ncQ
, ,
,-|^lMrt
nccoo»noi-
"rt
i/3 -a
_tj
tn
n
t)5
c5
Tj.oooooc^o>nO>-i(M
00 cc 'n o oo ■* c oc fo t-
,-iroM'!o«Occoowc<:
T-i r-l r-t 1— 1
'5
bo
.tnenentncncntne/)t/3
^^-^^-^j«:js:^^^
OOI'IUS-'IUOOCJ'D
1
5iOlUo4'-< u
c
o
'V
^ H ^
9 .=!■
1 1-4 '53
I 5
O
■J
<
H
O
H
O
><
H
OS
>
bi
o
^;
<:
X
u
bl
<
oooooooocorHooooooooooor
COOOCOOOOOi— 'OOOOOOOOCCCO
E V
50C050?00?0(DO(D*000
OCD "^
— ii-lrHi-lr-liHr-lr-INWWC-J
rtTHT-lr-li-IT-IWNWWeMC'J
c/1
-^'i
i~>
o
u
(U
tu
^♦H
^^
re
f-4
u
>-':lC>^•00OMOO— IMMM
XTflO^OOt-OWO^t- —
O
o
c>iNoina3tDi>ooowcoTj<
WC0«05D0000OT-cl-*»fit^
H
u
c
o
-Hr-lrHHrHr-lr-lrtWWNW
"at
rtrlT-lrtrHr-iWNWevlCQW
^1
_'5)
'33
U
V
OOOOOC5«Ot-OCSOOMrJ<
u
s
ct--j-!j'^os>omOooO'-'
o
oo-5tn>r5
c
Ol-';CO-!»»0
tiM«>-*T»n
ooooi>c5«n"*i>«05a«stc
T!r-iT-lrtrtr-(rti-(i-(r-ir-l^
■^C^Jr-lrHr-tTHT-tr-li-ii-HT-iT-i
c
o
"^^
bo
be
OS
bo
"d c
u o
£
CL-
rt-_n
C'J
C5r-5t-O'-
50-*rHTjHrJ>0000'-l'-l-*0
a
y rt
"
CC0000030 0i--^^i-i«0
C^i— t-Ot-f^COOmCiOOO
o
r-OONM>-'^
(MCOCOOOt-OO^lM'^CCl^
V-H
tH 1— 1 ^H T-l 1— 1
, 1
M-t
t/i-v
t— 1
o
o
H-1
o
J
-o
^^
c
nowuoooi^ooWNiNr-c
OOMOOCOMMMt'Iint-OOO
(A
ooi/j-*!>0'-^«-';-*^c:tc-*
oxooctocxt-t-ccow
!OMrtO>'-l;OtC■'-^^'-^00
iOi-HOCi^t-xtcectocvx
T-lWW-^^Ottlt-OOOC
1-1 C^ IM ■* ^ O «C t- X C-. O
c/}
(
M
c
«
t
10
c
3
C
D
.t/)trtc/)tr)c/)c/)t/5c/5crtt/:c/;
• rntfitfivitr. tnViVirr. ifi^n
^^ji:^^^^j«i^^^^
^^^^^^^^^.^J^^^
C>D'Ua-'OOCJ(U4;fU4>
OWOOCJOQJQJCJQJOU
4;CJ4>l>4>CQ,J4>OOCJflJ
^&?^^?^&^^^^
^^^iS^^iS^^^^^
rH(MM-*mOt-00050'-W
rH(MM-*>.'5!Ot>X05C'-OT
1— T— T—
f-~ T—
CCCECCCCCC = =
CECCCCCCCCCC
578
Bulletin No. 165
[July,
Bibliography
1. Craig, S. J. and Melvin, L. R. III. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bachelor Thesis. 1906.
2. Craig, J. A. Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 32. 1892.
3. Coffey, W. C. 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bachelor Thesis. 1906.
4. Wilson, J. W. So. Dak. Agr. Exp. Bui. 119. 1910.
5. Wilson, J. W. Ibid.
6. Coffey, W. C. 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Master Thesis. 1909.
7. Chilcott, E. C. and Thornber, W T. So. Dak. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 71.
1901.
8. Carlyle, W. L. Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. 16th Annual Report. 1899.
9. Carlyle, W. L. Wis. Agr. Exp. St^. 15th Annual Report. 1898.
10. Craig, J. A. W'is. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 32. 1892.
11. Wilson, J. W. and Skinner, H. G. So. Dak. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 86. 1904.
12. Wilson, J. W. and Skinner, H. G. So. Dak. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 80. 1903.
13. Mumford, H. W. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 136. 1896.
14. Arkell, T. R. N. H. Agr, Exp. Sta. Bui. 152. 1911.
15. Arkell, T. R. Ibid.
16. Grindley, H. S., Coffey, W. C, and Emmett, A. D. 111. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Unpublished manuscript. 1912.
17. Voelcker, J. A. Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol. 63. 1902. From
Woburn Station.
18. Voelcker, J. A. Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol. 62. 1901. From
Woburn Station.
19. Voelcker, J. A. Journ. Roy, Agr, Soc. of Engl, Vol. 60. 1899. From
Woburn Station.
20. Voelcker, J. A, Ibid.
21. Voelcker, J. A. Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol. 59. 1898. From
Woburn Station.
22. Voelcker, J. A. Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol. 57. 1896. From
Woburn Station.
23. Voelcker, J. A. Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol. 53. 1892. From
Woburn Station.
24. Voelcker, J. A. Journ. Roy, Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol. 56. 1895.
Woburn Station.
25. Lawes, J. B. Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol. 10.
Rothamsted Station.
26. Lawes, J. B. Ibid.
27. Lawes, J. B. Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol. 12.
Rothamsted Station.
28. Lawes, J. B. Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol. 13. 1852, From
Rothamsted Station.
29. Lawes, J. B. Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol. 16. 1855. From
Rothamsted Station.
30. Shaw, T. Minn. Agr, Exp. Sta, Bui, 76. 1902.
31. Shaw, T. Ibid.
32. Watson, G. C. and Risser, A. K. Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 57. 1901.
33. Carmichael, B. E. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 193. 1908.
34. Sheppard, J. H. and Richards, W. B. No. Dak. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 73.
1906.
35. Mairs, T. I. and Risser, A. K. Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 64.
36. Mairs, T. I. and Risser, A. K. Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 68.
37. Mairs, T. I. and Miller, N. G. Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 74. 1905.
38. Mairs, T. I. Penn. Agr, Exp. Sta. Bui 83. 1907.
39. Mairs, T. I. Ibid.
40. Mairs, T. I. Ibid.
41. Mairs, T. I. and Tomhave, W. H. Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 88. 1908.
42. Mairs, T. I. and Tomhave, W. H. Ibid.
43. Mumford, H. W. 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 103. 1905.
44. Georgeson, C. C, Burtis, F. C, and Shelton, Wm, Kan. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bui. 34, 1895,
From
1849. From
1851. From
1903.
1904.
jp/j] Uncertainty in Interpretation of Feeding Experiments 579
45. Georgeson, C. C, Burtis, F. C, and Otis, D. H. Kan. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bui. 39. 1893.
46. Georgeson, C. C, Burtis, F. C, and Otis, D. H. Kan. Agr. Exp. Sta,
Bui. 47. 1894.
47. Georgeson, C. C, Burtis, F. C, and Otis, D. H. Kan. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bui. 51. 1895.
48. Robertson, R. Canadian Experimental Farms. Report for 1901. 360-363.
49. Voelcker, J, A. Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol, 63. 1902. From
Woburn Station,
50. Voelcker, J. A, Journ. Roy. Agr, Soc. of Engl. Vol, 62, 1901. From
Woburn Station,
51. Voelcker, J. A. Journ. Roy, Agr, Soc. of Engl, Vol, 60, 1899. From
Woburn Station,
'52. Voelcker, J. A, Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol. 59. 1898. From
Woburn Station,
53. Voelcker, J, A, Ibid.
54. Voelcker, J. A, Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc. of Engl. Vol. 56. 1895. From
Woburn Station.
55. Voelcker, J, A. Journ. Roy. Agr. Soc, of Engl, Vol. 57. 1896, From
Woburn Station.
56. Voelcker, J. A. Journ. Roy, Agr, Soc. of Engl, Vol. 53. 1892, From
Woburn Station.
57. Voelcker, J. A. Ibid,
58. Carlyle, W. L. Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. 15th Annual Report. 1898.
59. Henry, W. A. Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. 16th Annual Report, 1899.
60. Carlyle, W, L, Ibid.
61. Michael, L. G. and Kennedy, W, J, Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 113. 1910.
62. Wing, H, H, N. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 220. 1904.
63. Henry, W, A. Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. 15th Annual Report. 1898.
64. Kennedy, W. J. and Robbins, E. T. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 91. 1907.
65. Kennedy, W, J. and Robbins, E. T, Ibid.
66. Henry, W, A, Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. 17th Annual Report. 1900.
67. Henry, W, A, Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. 15th Annual Report. 1898.
68. Henry, W, A, Ibid.
69. Carlyle, W. L, and Hopkins, A. G. Wis, Agr, Exp. Sta. 17th Annual
Report. 1900.
70. Henry, W, A, and Otis D. H, Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 145. 1907.
71. Henry, W. A. and Otis, D. H. Ibid.
72. Henry, W. A. and Otis, D. H. Ibid.
73. Sheppard, J. H. and Richards, W. B. N. Dak. Agr, Exp, Sta. Bui. 84.
1909.
74. Georgeson, C, C, Burtis, F. C, and Otis, D, H, Kan. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui,
47. 1894.
75. Grisdale, J. H, Canadian Experimental Farms. Report for 1899: 61.
76. Robertson, R. Canadian Experimental Farms. Report for 1900: 309-310,
77. Robertson, R, Canadian Experimental Farms. Report for 1899: 255-256.
78. Shutt, F. T. Canadian Experimental Farms. Report for 1902: 219-222.
79. Shutt, F. T. Canadian Experimental Farms. Report for 1902: 222-223.
80. Shutt, F. T. Canadian Experimental Farms. Report for 1902: 226-227.
81. Shutt, F. T. Canadian Experimental Farms. Report for 1902: 226-227.
82. Shutt, F. T, Canadian Experimental Farms. Report for 1902: 228-230,
83. Gilbert, A. G, Canadian Experimental Farms. Report for 1905: 256.
84. Shutt, F. T. Canadian Experimental Farms. Report for 1898: 214,
i
J I
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA
Q 630.7IL6B
BULLETIN UBBANA
1651913
C008
iiiiiiiniini
3 0112 019529764