IT* *• H»"¥l FORESTRY PAMPHLETS " £•' - VOL. £2 V- * P Grazing - Cattle Beef Production. By J. H. Sjciniier and W. A Cochel. Cir. 8, Purdue university Agri- cultural Experiment Station. Part I. Beef Production II -- Cir. Wo. IE. Fedding, Bui. 115, Purdue Ag. Exp. Sta. • f If JJJ Tf ^50 " TT TT Tt .'ft n y Tf 142 lf rf Tt n TT ft YJ Tt 146 TT ft TT TT w n rf 153 TT Tf n " " n VIII n 163 " " Tf n Cattle n XI " 183 tf " " w IT "XII Tf 191 " " TT n Skim Milk and Milk Substitutes for Calf Feed- ing, Bui, 193f Purdue Ag. Exp. Sta. Storage Barn, Sheds, Feed Lots and other Equip- ment for Feeding Experimental Cattle in Car Load Lots. Bui. Ho. 110, Univ. of Illinois Ag. Exp. Station. ' Maintenance Rations for Beef Breeding Cows. Bui, I^o. Ill, Univ. of Illinois Ag. Exp. Sta. Short Fed Steers. Bui. 142. Univ. of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station. Economic Factors in Cattle Feeding, uir. Ho. 169, Illinois Agri. Experiment Station. Economic Factors in Cattle Feeding. Cir. rio, 175, Illinois Agri. Experiment Station. athods of Steer Feeding. Bui. 83, Pennsylvania ^tate College Agri, Experiment Station. Steer Feeding Experiments. Bui. No. 88, Penn- sylvania btate College Agri. Exp. Station. Methods of Fattening Strers. Bui, Ito« 102, Pennsylvania Agri. njcperiment Station. Influence of Type and of Age upon the Utiliza- tion of Feed by Cattle. Bui. No. 105, Penn- sylvania State College Agri. Experiment Sta. Jhe Maintenance Ration of Cattle. Bui. Wo. Ill, Pennsylvania State College Agri. Sxp. ^ta. » ^Silage for Steers. Bui. Wo. 118. Pa. State Col. Agri. Exo. ota. 4-- — VOL. 25 (CONT'D) Feeding 12xperiments, Bui. 124, Pa. State Col. Agri. Exp. Sta. ^Steer Feeding Experiments, Bui. 133, Pa. State Col. Agri. Exp. Sta. ? Steer Feeding Experiments, Bui. No. 145 , .\ Pa. State Col. Agri. Exp. Sta. * Raising Beef Cattle in Alabama. Bui. 150, ^ Alabama Agri. Exp. Sta. ^ Wintering Steers in Alabama; Fattening Oat- thp on Pasture in Alabama. Bui. 161, Alabama Agri. Exp. Sta. .intering Yearling Cattle, Bui. No. 75, Mis- souri Agri. Sxp. Sta. - Fattening Cattle for the Market. Bui. 76, Missouri Agri. Exp. Sta. : Feeding Beef Cattle in Mississippi. Bui. 92, Miss. Agri. Exp. Sta. Cattle Feeding Experiment, Nebraska Agri. Exp. Sta., Bui. No. 90. Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska, Bui. 117, Neb. Agri. Exp. Sta. ^Economical Rations in Beef Production. Bui. 100, Nebraska Agri. Exp. Sta. Cattle Feeding Experiments, Bui. 93, Neb. Agri. Exp. Sta. ; The Feeding of Farm Stock, Bui. 127, N. H. Agri. Exp. Sta. > Substitutes for Skimmed Milk in Raising Calves, Bui. 269, Cornell Agri. Exp. Sta. ^Influence of Environment and Breeding in Increasing Dairy Production. Bui. 165, Iowa Agri. Exp. Sta. 1 Investigation in Animal Nutrition. Bui. 155, Minnesota Agri. Sxp. Sta. ,he Dehorning of Cattle. Bui. 350, U.S. D. A., Farmers1 Bulletin, by Hichard W. Hickraan. >Bul. 149 of the Colorado Agri. College: Part 1 — Carrying Range Steers through the Winter ^ Part II--Sugar Beets for Fattening Steers • The Feeding Value of jipeltz in i3eef and Pork ^ Production. Bui. 100, S. D. Agri. Exp. Sta. ^Fattening Cattle. Bui. 33, N. D. Exp. Sta. -crrf • .?*;$& .IoO '.?• A wnrxdqxi'Tv griii& » Ic 0 .1 f* I^ ,^ *o; Ij.^^A .1 . eiivftifeU Hi \iI.ttBC tsyd .^rmjp J'SJB^ s «. » >-:;^ *li irro Rel fl.r. 9a »JFJ . isijaa ^a , r »:gA .d/; tV.II .Iirfit CK 'r:TtxrbOT^ nr.l: sno/tB/i iaoimoa *j^?-: »jx;-; .XT?-'' .s^?3M fOui '; -C -*.' : ^ ^ii , / ,n< J^u'Cit^ * L ;c ,e£3"$nC Tt 3/t 'j'i .ai^t'liuE e«iT ,1 .e ,0 '". UTILIZATION -- VOL.23 (CONT'D) * Steer-Feeding. Bui. Ho. 96, Florida Agri. Exp. Station. By John M. Scott, fattening Cattle. Bui. No. 58. Montana Agri. Exp. Station, .by F. B. Linfield. *cSteer Feeding. Bui. No. 78, Montana Agri. -Xp. Sta. By R. W. Clark "Care and Management of the Dairy Herd. Bui. 220, N, C. Agri. Exp, Sta. By ?/est Raleigh. "Feeding and Management of Beef Cattle. Bui. 219, N. C, Agri, Exp, Sta. By W. Raleigh. ^Feeding Experiments with Beef Cattle, jjul. 218, N. C. Agri. Exp. Sta. By W, Ealeigh. *Stock Feeding. Bui. 128, S. C. Agri. Exp. Sta. By John Michels. ^Selecting Steers for Feeding. Bui. 224, Wis. v Agri. Exp. Sta. l> Steer Feeding. Bui, 182, Texas Agri, Exp, Sta. ^Feeding Baby Beeves, Bui, 198, Texas Agri. Exp. Sta. ^Better Horses for Utah, Cir, 18, Utah Agri. Sxp. Sta. '^The Feeding of Dairy Cows. Farmers' Bulletin 743, U. S. Dept.of Agri. ^Marketing Live Stock in the South. Farmers1 Bulletin 809, U, S. Dept. of Agri. PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station CIRCULAR No. 8. , IND., OCTOBER, 1907. BEEF PRODUCTION, I. PURCHASING FEEDERS By J. H. SKINNER AND W. A. Beef production in Indiana usually follows one of two dis- tinct lines. Either the feeder raises his own cattle and finishes them for market, which is beef production in its true sense, or he buys his stackers and feeders either from the producer or some central market and finishes them, which is beef feeding (finish- ing) rather than beef production. Undoubtedly the first class, beef producers, can afford to handle nothing but the best cattle. Their problem is one of breed- ing and feeding. Their methods of handling stock will depend largely upon local conditions. If they have an abundance of land suitable for grazing, they may possibly afford to carry their cattle in summer on grass, in winter on rough feed until they weigh from 1,000 to 1,200 pounds; then give them a short heavy grain feed, finishing them for market at 24 to 36 months of age. This method requires a minimum amount of grain in proportion to roughage. If all of the land is such that it will produce good crops of corn, a different system should be followed. The aim of the pro- ducer then should be to grow and fatten his animals at the same time, so that they will go on the market as prime yearlings, weigh- ing around 1,000 pounds at 15 months of age. This method de- 'V»H •)***'i i mands a special type of animal, which can briefly be described as early maturing. The indications of early maturity are a broad forehead, short face, short thick neck, short legs, deep compact body, straight back, low flanks and general quality throughout. In order to finish yearlings it will be necessary to force them from the time they are weaned until they go to market. This will de- mand a large proportion of grain and concentrated feeds in pro- portion to roughage. The second class, beef feeders, has the same problem as the beef producers in feeding. In place of breeding, they have diffi- culty in finding high grade beef steers, and when found, have the problem of determining how much to pay for the skill on the part of the man who has produced them. The greatest- question before the feeders of Indiana today is, where can good feeders be bought at a price that will assure a profit over and above the cost of steers and the feed consumed in the feed lot? When a cattle feeder is not a producer he i? compelled to buy his feeders in one of the four following places: 1. In his immediate locality. 2. At central markets, such as Chicago, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Omaha and St. Louis. 3. In public sales of stockers and feeders, which are con- ducted during the fall in Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and Ohio. 4. In sections adjoining the corn belt, where feeders rather than fat cattle are produced. BUYING LOCALLY. Formerly it was possible to pick up a load of desirable feed- ing cattle, uniform in age, color, type, breeding, condition and quality in almost any section of the State. In recent years the conditions of farming have changed so much that this is no longer possible throughout the corn belt. The supply is limited, because land suitable for grain farming has advanced so rapidly in value that it is not thought profitable to keep it in permanent pastures. A greater revenue per acre can be obtained at present by growing corn. Furthermore many farmers consider that it is no longer profitable to keep a cow a year solely for the calf she produces, hence they have sold off their well bred cattle and depend upon 3 buying elsewhere. And again a large proportion of cattle feed- ers have retired from their farms, moved to town and are renting their farms. Under prevailing conditions a renter cannot afford to stock a farm, as his lease has to be renewed annually, while the man who produces cattle must necessarily be able to live on the same farm through a series of years. The exceptionally high prices paid for butter during the last few years, together with the increased price for veal calves, have tempted many farmers to sacrifice a good beef calf as veal and milk an unprofitable cow. Not only has the supply been diminished, but the quality has declined due to the fact that a large majority of farmers keep just enough cows to supply their families with milk and butter. The result is that cows have been selected which show marked dairy form and characteristics rather than the beef type and conforma- tion. As the cows are kept to supply dairy products it is prefera- ble to have them come "fresh" at different times in the year, in order that the dry cows may be replaced by fresh ones. The calf crop is thus very uneven in size. Little attention is paid to the kind of a sire used as the calves being considered of little value are generally sent to the butcher as veal. Those which escape this market are frequently raised at a loss. The use of inferior sires is common with the small farmer, as he does not appreciate the value of the pure bred sire and there- fore does not feel justified in buying a registered bull of the mod- ern beef type to use on a few cows, but instead either buys a bull calf for $20 or $30, uses him. for one year, sells him at a slight advance over cost price or depends on using his neighbor's. The cows not having been selected with a view of producing typical beef calves, are of indiscrimnate breeding. Frequently beef, dairy and scrub breeding will be found in the same herd. These mated to the same bull, at different seasons of the year bring forth a calf crop lacking as much in uniformity of age, breeding, type, conformation and color as it is possible to conceive of. When a farmer has produced a bunch of high grade steers, which are best suited for the feeder it has not been due to accident but rather to thought, time and money expended for that purpose. When this has been done he fully appreciates their value and as a rule wants to feed them out. 4 The advantages of buying locally are 1. No expenses for traveling, feed, yardage, commission and freight. 2. It is possible to know the previous treatment cattle have had. 3. Cattle are accustomed to farm conditions, know how to eat grain. 4. Cattle are quiet in feed lot. 5. If equal in other respects native cattle will do better than others. 6. Have no soreness and stiffness due to shipping to over- come. The disadvantages in buying locally are 1. The difficulty in securing uniformity in age, type, condi- tion, color and breeding. 2. The producer wants to sell all of his calves or feeders, at the same time, usually depending upon the good ones to sell the poor ones. This makes it necessary for the buyer to take un- desirable steers. 3. The average farmer is not thoroughly acquainted with market prices and is unable to price his stuff accordingly. BUYING IN CENTRAL MARKETS. Steers found in the central markets vary according to the country tributary to them, though at times cattle will be found of an entirely different type than is usually seen. This is due to the activity of shippers, who learning that there is a demand for a certain kind of cattle at one market, which is not being filled, will cater to this demand by shipping from one market to another. CHICAGO. The Union Stock Yards at Chicago is the great central mar- ket for fat cattle. In the southwest section of the yards will be found what is known as the Stocker and Feeder Division. This is usually well supplied with all grades of stockers and feeders, from inferior to the very best. These cattle have been bought up by speculators, known as "scalpers," in mixed lots, just as they come from the country and are sorted into uniform lots of feeders. They 5 include cattle which have come in off of grass and are not good enough for killers ; steers reshipped from other markets where there has been no demand for them, steers which have been "warmed up," that is, given a short grain feed before leaving the country, but not enough to make them sell with fat cattle, and culls which have failed to do well in the feed lot. Here will also be found many steers from dairy cows, sired by beef bulls and carrying enough beef blood to have desirable (acceptable) color markings but not enough to insure beef type and conformation. KANSAS CITY. ' Kansas City is generally considered the greatest feeder mar- ket in the country. This is due to its situation just at the edge of the range country. Here will be found a larger percentage of grass cattle and stock calves than at any other market. These cattle are drawn largely from western ranges where attention has been given to breeding cattle for beef purposes. The ranch own- ers come to Indiana every fall to buy our pure bred beef bulls in car load lots in order to improve their herds, thus cutting down the supply used at home. The result is that grass fat cattle from the west from July to November sell in competition with our native corn fed cattle of plainer quality. Cattle bought at Kansas City and other western markets usually have had little or no grain. The supply to select from is so large that a feeder can get almost anything he wants on the open market rather than through scalp- ers. There is one section of the yards given up to firms which deal exclusively in stock calves. These are largely Hereford, Shorthorn and Angus shipped in from the range and sorted into lots which are uniform in breeding, weight and age. Occasionally there will be found among them calves from dairy districts sired by Hereford or Angus bulls, possessing typical Hereford mark- ings or black and polled like the Angus, which will prove a dis- appointment to the feeder. The freight rate from Kansas City and the long trip should always be considered by Indiana feeders when purchasing on that market. INDIANAPOLIS. The Indianapolis Stock Yards are conveniently located in the south part of the city. The supply of feeders here comes chiefly from the ruiigh, hilly land in southern Indiana and Illinois, though occasionally they are reshipped from St. Louis, Kansas City and other markets. These cattle vary from the very best to the in- ferior scrub steers, but as a rule have been raised on small farms, are acclimated, have learned to eat corn, and have been shipped only a short distance. They will recover quickly and be ready to go on full feed. The Indianapolis market has one advantage over all others for Indiana feeders. It is easily accessible and requires a short run to almost any part of the State. Chicago has the same advantage to northern, and Louisville and Cincinnati to southern Indiana feeders. ADVANTAGES IN BUYING ON CENTRAL MARKETS. 1. It is possible to get uniformity in age, color, weight, condition, breeding and quality. 2. By going to market, the feeder learns what the market demands in finished cattle and can buy accordingly. 3. At times all markets are glutted and it is possible to buy cattle at really less than they are worth. 4. It is possible to get in touch with a reliable commission firm which will keep the feeder posted as to when to buy and se- cure best values. He should describe the kind of cattle he wants and let them buy for him. The charges amount to about five cents per hundred, which is more than repaid by the commission man's knowledge of prices, shipping facilities and sorting of cattle. DISADVANTAGES. 1 . There is no way of telling what previous treatment the steers have had. 2. Steers which have become stale are apt to find their \vav to the feeder pens. 3. It requires a week to 10 days to recover from smciicss and bruises received in the yards and in shipping. 4. In buying1 fleshy feeders in the yards, it is. necessary to bid against butchers and packers. 5. It is possible that some of the feeders have previously been in the feed lot and failed to thrive. ' 7 BUYING AT PUBLIC AUCTION SALES. In recent years there has grown up quite a business by send- ing cattle, mostly calves and yearlings, from the range country into the corn belt and selling them at public auction to feeders. These cattle are usually sorted into bunches that are uniform as to size and color markings. At all auctions they are sold to the highest bidder, sometimes well worth the money; at other times, for more than they are really worth. These cattle coming direct from the range must necessarily be handled carefully at first, so that they overcome their natural wildness and timidity. The advantages are 1. Uniformity in age, color and breeding. 2. There is no commission, feed bill and yardage to pay. The disadvantages are 1. The cattle have just recently been shipped a long dis- tance ; hence are sore and stiff. 2. They frequently sell for more than they would bring in the open market. Since the western branches have begun using pure bred beef bulls on the ranges, a few of the larger feeders have made a prac- tice of going directly to the southwest for their steers. They have a large number of cattle to select from and see the kind of breeding stock back of them. It is customary to allow a 10% "cut back" when buying in this way. BUYING IN GRAZING SECTIONS ADJACENT TO THE CORN BELT. There is in southern Indiana, Illinois and central Missouri, a large amount of rough and broken land which is suitable only for grazing. As a rule these soils are especially adapted to the growth of blue grass and clover, are supplied with an abundance of water and the grazing season is long. There is not enough corn grown to finish all the cattle produced ; hence they go to the markets in the fall of the year as grass fat cattle or as feeders. This seems to be the logical place for the corn belt feeder, who does not produce his own feeders, to secure his cattle. During the past two years the Experiment Station has bought two year old feeding cattle in Lawrence, Ripley, Jennings and Orange counties, and has found that these cattle can be bought and handled at a profit. The advantages in buying feeders in southern Indiana are 1. There is low freight rate with no expense attached for yardage and commission. 2. The cattle are acclimated, and possess capacity and con- stitution. 3. They are strictly grass cattle and are gentle. 4. These cattle are shipped into the central markets, where they are sold as feeders. The shipper must have a profit and also the firm which handles them. If bought direct from the producer of course the freight to the yards and the middle man's profits are saved. That it is not the present rule is due largely to the fact that the average run of cattle produced in these sections in- dicate that no particular attention has been paid to breeding. There are too many coarse, rough, leggy steers with plain heads and lack of quality. They do, however, possess two very desirable characteristics ; they have constitution and capacity, which insure rapid and economical gains. In those communities, however, will be found some cattle of a most desirable type. These are pro- duced by men who appreciate the value of good blood and have not hesitated to use it. PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station CIRCULAR No. 12. LAFAYETTE, INDIANA, MAY, 1908. BEEF PRODUCTION. II. METHODS OF BEEF PRODUCTION IN INDIANA. BY J. H. SKINNER AND W. A. COCHEL. The information reported in this circular is the result of an investigation of the methods of beef production in Indiana, institu- ted by the Animal Husbandry Department of Purdue Experiment Station in 1906. A list of one hundred questions was sent to twenty- five hundred of the most successful feeders in the state with a view of securing information in regard to the extent of the business of feeding cattle, the equipment used, and the methods of feeding in vouge among feeders. In response to these inquiries, nine hundred and twenty-nine replies were received. This inquiry covered a wide range of subjects relating to cattle feeding operations so that the information obtained relates to practically every phase of the in- dustry, such as the number, class, and age of cattle on feed at different seasons of the year; the cost of producing, maintaining and finishing cattle; the cost of buying and finishing cattle under local conditions; the relative profit accruing from the different systems of management; the methods of wintering stockers; feed- ing cattle on full feed; the question of feeds used, prices of feeds, yield of crops, size of farms and rotation in use, effect on fertility of soil, etc. This circular is an attempt to summarize the reports received in such a way as to give Indiana feeders the benefit of the informa- tion. The list of questions sent out by the Experiment Station follows : — QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO PRESENT METHODS OF BEEF PRODUCTION IN INDIANA. EXTENT. 1. How long have you been feeding cattle ? 2. How many cattle do you feed annually ? j. Is cattle feeding on the increase or decrease in your locality? 4. Are you feeding as 'many cattle this year as usual f EQUIPMENT. 5. How many acres of land in your farm ? 6. How many acres devoted to pasture ? 7. How many acres devoted to corn ? 8. How many acres devoted to hay ? o. Do you grow clover f Alfalfa? Roots? Cow peas ? Sorghum ? Soy beans ? 10. What kind of shelter do you provide for fattening steers f Barn ? Open shed ? Straw stacks ? Timber lot f Open lot ? if. Do you make any provision against flies in summer or mud in winter? If so, what? 12. Do your cattle get lousy in winter ? What do you do for them ? ij. What is the source of your stock water? 14. Do you use a tank heater? 75. Do you use a self-feeder? If so, with what success? FEEDERS. 16. Do you raise feeders ? 17. What are the advantages in growing your own feeders ? 18. Do you raise calves on skim milk or allow them to suckle cow? 10. What kind of grain and roughage doyoufeed a skim milk calf? 20. At what age do you wean calves ? 21. Do you feed grain before weaning ? 22. Do you produce baby beef ? If so, do you allow them to lose the calf fat ? 23. At what age do you put calves on full feed ? 24- Do you buy your feeders f If so, where? 25. What are the advantages of buying feeders ? 26. What time of year do you buy them f 27. What aged feeders do you prefer ? What weight? What breed? 28. Do you feed steers three years old or over? If so, why ? 29. Do you prefer a thin feeder or one carrying some flesh ? jo. Do you put feeders on full feed immediately after purchase or do you carry them on rough feed for a time ? FEEDS. jr. How do you feed your corn ? As broken ear ? Snapped ? Shelled ? Corn and cob meal ? Soaked ? Corn meal ? Shock corn ? j2. Do you feed oats to fattening steers ? If so, at what stage of the feeding period, and how long do you continue ? jj. Do you feed bran ? Linseed oil meal ? Gluten feed? Cotton seed meal? Distiller's grain? Brewer's grain? When do you begin feeding the above feeds and how long do you continue ? How much of eaeh do you feed per head per day ? J4. What kind of roughage do you use ? 35. How do you handle your corn stalks ? Pasture ? Cut up in shocks ? Shred ? j6. Do you use silage for fattening cattle ? 37. If so, how much do you feed per steer daily? How long do you feed it? j8. What crops do you put into your silo ? jo. What are the advantages and disadvantages of feeding silage ? 40. What kind of pasture do you have? Blue grass ? Clover ? Timothy ? Mixed grasses ? 41. How much pasture is required per steer when on full feed of grain ? 42. How much when not receiving any grain ? 4J. When do you turn out onto grass ? 44. How late do you pasture in the fall before feeding hay ? 45- Do you feed any green -crops to supplement pasture when grass begins to bifrn up ? If so, what crops ? FEEDING. 46. Do you practice winter or summer feeding ? 47. Do you feed grain to stockers ? If so, how much and when ? 48. What season do you find most profitable for feeding ? 49. When feeding in winter do you feed in lots, or do you allow cattle to run on pasture f 50. Do you turn cattle which have been full fed in the winter on grass or continue to feed until finished in dry lot ? 57. How long do you take to get cattle on full feed ? 52. How long do you feed a full feed ? 5j. How much grain do you consider a full feed for two-year-old cattle ? For yearlings ? For calves ? 54. Do you limit the amount of roughage ? 55. How many times per dav do you feed grain ? Roughage ? 56. How much roughage without grain does it take to winter a yearling, ? A two -year -old ? 57. How many pounds of grain does it take per pound of gain in summer for two-year-olds on full feed ? For year ling s ^ For calves f 58. How many pounds of grain does it take per pound of gain in winter for two-year- olds on full feed f For yearlings f For calves ? 59. When feeding silage, what kind of grain and roughage do you feed ? 60. Do you mix your grain and hay together ? 61. What do you use for bedding ? GAINS. 62. What average daily gain do you get when full feeding in winter on two-vear-olds ? On yearlings ? On calves ? 63. What average daily gain do you get when full feeding on grass on. two-year-olds ? On yearlings ? On calves ? 64. What gain do you get when carrying stockers through the winter without grain ? 6^. Does feeding grain to stackers in winter diminish sum-met gains on pasture ? 66. What gain do you get on pasture without grain for the season f (Six months'). 67. Do steers gain as much toward the close of the feeding period as in the beginning f 68. Do you sell your cattle to local butchers, traders, or do you ship them yourself ? 69. Where do you market your fat cattle ? 70. What month do you sell ? 71. At what age do you sell ? At what weight ? 72 How much does a steer shrink from feed lot to market f 7j. What do your cattle grade on the market f 74. What treatment do you give your steers the last two or three days before shipment ? 75. What do you use for bedding cars ? 76. Do you accompany your cattle to market ? FINANCIAL. 77. What margin between the cost of feeders and the selling price of steers is necessary to break even ? 78. What is the cost of a pound of^gain in summer ? 70. What is the cost of producing a ealf until weaning time ? \ 80. What is the cost of producing a one year-old Jeeder ? 81. What does it cost to produce a two-year-old feeder f 82. Do you buy commercial fertilizer ? 8j. What do you consider as the value of the manure from a fatten- ing steer ? 84. What is the land worth per acre in your community f 41 85. Is your land increasing or decreasing in fertility ? SALT. 86. What kind of salt do you use ? 87. How often do you salt your cattle ? 88. Will cattle getting clover hay eat more salt than when getting timothy ? HOGS. Do you find beef cattle profitable unless you consider the hogs in connection with them f 90. How many hogs do you use per steer on full feed where no' additional feed is fed to hogs ? 91. What do you consider the best age to turn a pig into the feed lot? 92. What weight do you prefer to have them when turned into the feed lot ? 93. What breed do you prefer ? 94. Where do you obtain your hogs ? 95. What gain do you get on your hogs ? 96. Do you feed any additional feed f 97. Have you found cotton seed meal fed to cattle injurious to hogs following f Have you, fo'md linseed meal fed to cattle bene- ficial to hogs following ? MISCELLA NEOUS. 98. What is the most important problem before the cattle feeders at present ? 99. What information in regard to the methods of feeding would enable feeders to handle cattle more profitably ? 100. Please state the average selling price on the farm, and the feed- ing value of the following Jeeds : — Corn, bushel. Oats, bushel. Clover hay (loose) ton. Timothy hay (loose) ton. Oat straw (loose) ton. Wheat straw (loose) ton. Corn fodder, shock. Stalk field, acre. Sheaf oats, bundle. Millet, ton. DISTRIBUTION OF REPLIES ACCORDING TO COUNTIES. No. lists No. replies No. lists No. replies COUNTY. sent out. received. Adams 13 12 Allen 16 6 Bartholomew ___17 10 Benton 42 35 Blackford 9 5 Boone 48 32 Brown 5 Carroll 31 12 Cass 19 14 Clark 5 5 Clay___~ 10 7 Clinton 19 12 Crawford 14 Daviess 49 17 Dearborn 5 2 Decatur 15 12 DeKalb 8 4 Delaware 75 21 Dubois 3 1 Elkhart 11 7 Fayette 12 4 Fountain 34 16 Franklin 14 6 Fulton 12 3 Grant 54 19 Gibson 7 3 Greene 16 7 Hamilton. _ 45 21 Hancock 32 11 Harrison 22 5 Hendricks 99 30 Henry 45 17 Howard 5 3 Huntington 24 6 Jackson 44 11 Jasper 47 11 Jay 28 13 Jefferson 36 14 Jennings 3 Johnson 23 7 Knox 39 8 Kosciusko 27 8 LaGrange._ .__21 6 Lake 19 8 LaPorte 12 7 Total number questions sent out Total number replies received After making a study of the replies to the questions, which were COUNTY. sent out. received. Lawrence __ 24 15 Madison __ _ 57 33 Marion ___51 21 Marshall __ . 18 8 Martin _ _ 18 11 Miami 46 24 Monroe __.19 2 Montgomery ____70 28 Morgan __ . 33 9 Newton __ . 28 14 Noble 8 5 Ohio 26 4 Orange _ - 24 11 Owen 5 1 Parke 36 13 Perry _ _ _ __10 7 Pike 24 8 Porter 25 5 Posey _ _ 45 9 Pulaski _22 8 Putnam ____77 20 Randolph __ 42 14 Ripley 6 Rush ____101 25 Scott __22 11 Spencer _ _ ... 2 1 Shelby _____39 10 St. Joseph _ 10 4 Starke 9 4 Steuben . . 31 9 Sullivan 10' 7 Switzerland 6 4 Tippecanoe 17 7 Tipton 53 20 Union__ ___ 32 11 Vermillion _ 18 9 Vigo_ --. 25 6 Wabash___. __22 4 Warren 58 14 War rick _ 20 8 Washington 6 4 Wayne _. 43 17 Wells 36 4 White______ 45 10 Whitley 30 11 out ...2486 ;d__ _ 929 8 sent out primarily for the purpose of securing information which would enable the Animal Husbandry Department to more intelli- gently conduct experiments in cattle feeding, it is thought that the data from so wide a range of practical experience are of sufficient interest and importance to Indiana feeders to justify the Experi- ment Station in publishing the report. THE EXTENT OF THE BUSINESS. The first five questions were relative to the extent of the busi- ness of cattle feeding in Indiana. The first two questions indicate that the reports are based upon the feeding of 806,862 steers. The average experience of each man extended over 18.3 years involving the use of 55.5 steers annually. On January 1st, 1906, there were in Indiana 1,141,778 cattle other than milk cows. It would be fair to assume that not more than one-fourth of these were in the feed lots being finished for market. From these figures the conclusion may be drawn that the replies to this list of questions are based upon the feeding of three times as many cattle as were fed in the whole state during the year 1906, hence the report should, in a measure, be authoritative as it is not only given by men who have had a long practical experience, but who have handled cattle in sufficient numbers to justify them in reaching conclusions, based upon their own experience. Such information should prove valu- able to others engaged in the same line of work. For the year 1906, 31 per cent reported an increase in the number of cattle being fed in their locality, 15 per cent reported no change, while 54 per cent reported a decrease. The majority, or 63 per cent of these same men reported that they, themselves were feeding more cattle than was their usual custom, while 37 per cent reported a decrease in the number they were feeding. This is an interesting fact in that the men reporting were, as a rule, ex- perienced feeders who had fed cattle for many years. This means that the professional cattle feeder is more apt to increase his hold- ings of cattle at a time when the average number of cattle going on feed is smaller than usual, while the man who feeds only a car load occasionally is apt to drop out of the market just at the time it should prove a profitable proposition. BEEF PRODUCTION ADAPTED TO LARGE FARMS. The average size of the farm devoted to beef production in Indiana as reported in answer to question 5, was found to be 398.3 acres, of which 98 acres is in corn, 135 in pasture and 60 in meadow. This shows that 75 per cent of the total area of the farms reported is in corn and grass, leaving the other 25 per cent to buildings, lots, orchards, gardens, woodland and the growing of small grains which would indicate that the extensive corn grower has found it impos- sible to keep up soil fertility without the use of livestock. The labor problem precludes the possibility of marketing so great a quantity of corn through dairy cattle, and as hogs are not adapted to utilize the roughage in a satisfactory way, the producer must either feed beef cattle (or other meat-making animals) or market his grain at the elevator. The cost of feeding corn to cattle is no greater than the cost of hauling it to market while the amount of time actually consumed is not materially greater. In other words, the labor in- volved in feeding beef cattle may be fairly charged against the cost .of marketing farm crops rather than against the profit in feeding cattle. A further feature in regard to the labor in feeding beef cattle is that it gives employment throughout the entire year. BEEF FARMS ARE LARGELY DEVOTED TO CORN AND GRASS. Under average conditions in the state, the farms devoted to the production of beef contain 1.76 acres of corn and 2.42 acres of grass for every steer marketed during the year. This does not mean that this amount of land is devoted exclusively to steer feeding. A part of the corn would necessarily be fed to hogs, to teams on the farm, to breeding cows, young cattle and stockers that are being carried over the winter; and doubtless a limited amount would be sold on the market. The amount of grass, as will be seen on page 20 of this report, in reply to question 41, is more than is necessary for full feeding cattle- on grass. For this reason it is supposed that a large number of cattle feeders carry upon their farms a bunch of steers, as stockers, without giving them any great amount of grain; thus having on hand in reality two distinct classes of cattle; one in the feed lot, being finished for market; the other in stocker or feeder condition, being prepared for the feed lot at a later date. Assuming that corn would yield 50 bushels per acre, which is ten bushels more than the average for the state, the average cattle feeder would produce 4400 bushels of corn annually. It is estimated that 50 bushels of corn is sufficient to fatten a steer; this will leave 1650 bushels of corn over and above what is necessary to finish 55 cattle, which may be used for other purposes. LEGUMES APPRECIATED BY CATTLE FEEDERS. Practically every cattle feeder in the state reported that he was growing clover. Alfalfa is being grown by 22 per cent; cow peas by 8 per cent and sorghum by 15 per cent of those reporting. 10 The replies to this question indicate that reports were made by the most progressive farmers of the state, as these crops are being produced only by those who are thoroughly informed in regard to the best agricultural practice. The answers to question 9 in- dicate that the cattle feeder is endeavoring to make a larger use, than is generally supposed, of leguminous crops, such as clover, alfalfa and cow peas, and of supplements to pasture, such as sorghum. SHELTER FOR FATTENING STEERS. • Under question 10 there was a great variety of answers given. A number reported the use of two or more kinds of shelter such as barn and straw stack, or barn and open shed. Taking a summary of all answers, it was found that 609 are using barns; 302 open sheds; 357 straw stacks; 177 timber lands and 268 are using open lots for feeding cattle. In most instances where timber or open lots were reported it was found that they were usually used in connection with either a barn or open shed. That is, there are very few feed- ers who do not favor some form of shelter for cattle. The import- ance of a dry shed and a windbreak is thoroughly appreciated. Seven per cent of the men are making some provisions against flies in summer and 93 per cent are paying no attention to this matter, whatever. This is in accordance with the generally accepted view that, to date there is no cheap, economical method of effectually combating the nuisance of flies. Those who do report some provision for this purpose are in the main depending upon a darkened barn to which the cattle have access during the heat of the day. This is usually secured by hanging burlap curtains over the doors and windows and letting just as little light in the barn as possible. FAVORABLE CONDITIONS IN FEED LOTS ADVANTAGEOUS. Muddy feed lots are the source of much inconvenience in the state. Seventy-seven per cent make no provision whatever against mud; 23 per cent use various sorts of paving materials, bedding the whole lot very deeply with straw, or feeding in some place, such as a sand ridge, where lots never become muddy. Where cattle are confined to a small lot, it has been found that the mud nuisance can be avoided very readily. This however, necessitates the use of a large amount of straw which is not always available to the pro- fessional feeder. The cattle which are in barns or covered lots are not at so great a disadvantage and the amount of straw necessary to keep them out of the mud is not nearly so great. The answers to question 12, " Do your cattle get lousy in winter? " show that 11 83 per cent report no trouble from this pest; some trouble is reported by 17 per cent. Of those who are bothered in this way, 33 per cent report the use of coal tar disinfectant or dip, for ridding- their cattle of lice. The use of home made preparations is reported by 55 per cent. The other 12 per cent make no provision whatever to exter- minate them. ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PURE. WATER NECESSARY. Wells for the purpose of watering- cattle are reported by 58 per cent of the feeders. Springs are available to 21 per cent and the remainder depend upon ditches, creeks or natural ponds. This shows that a large majority of cattle feeders appreciate the value of a good source of pure water. Tank heaters are being- used by 30 per cent of the feeders who practice winter feeding. A few of the remainder depend upon pumping water just as the cattle need it; upon springs which never freeze up, or upon banking the water tanks with saw dust, manure or some other substance to keep them from freezing, but, taken as a whole, the great majority make no provision whatever in regard to warming the water in winter. RAISING AND BUYING FEEDERS. In reporting upon the question of raising or buying feeders, it is found that 42 per cent of the cattle feeders do not pretend to produce any of their cattle; 52 per cent grow part of them and buy the remainder, while only 6 per cent are really beef producers, that is, breeding their own cattle and feeding them out. This agrees with the generally accepted view that the cattle feeder is not, as a rule, a cattle producer, or stating it in another way, the cattle pro- ducer does not finish his own product. There seem to be two dis- tinct classes of men engaged in the business; one class devoted to the production of feeders whose problem is to grow them as cheaply as possible without the use of concentrated feeds, in order to market a large amount of grass and cheap, rough feeds in proportion to grain; and the other class devoted solely to the fattening- of cattle, buying feeders as cheaply as possible and using them chiefly to market a large amount of corn in proportion to other feeds. BETTER CATTLE CAN BE PRODUCED THAN BOUGHT. It is generally accepted that the advantages in growing feeders are that the cattle are better in quality and breeding, are more quiet, and make better gains. Twelve per cent of the answers in- dicate that cattle can be produced cheaper than they can be bought, considering grade and quality, but the greatest advantage in 12 growing cattle is that they are better. The man who produces a high grade beef steer, does not do so by accident, but because he has given time and attention to his business, studied market de- mands and observed the type of cattle which make cheap, rapid gains in the feed lot and finish into the most desirable market pro- duct. When he has produced these cattle and compares them with such as must be purchased as feeders, he finds them more satis- factory as they have the capacity and the constitution to stand heavy feeding without getting "off feed", are blocky, compact animals which require a relatively short feed to finish and are of a quality which secures top prices. Of those who are producing a part of their cattle, 82 per cent allow the calves to suckle the cows, while 18 per cent milk the cows and grow the calves on skim milk. Stating it in other words, the general practice of the men who grow feeders, is to depend solely upon the calf to pay for maintaining the cow a year. This necessi- tates the use of improved blood which is also evident by the answers to the preceding question where 83 per cent of those reporting, state that the cattle are better. Seventy-five per cent of tfyose who are raising their own feeders, feed the calf grain before weaning. CATTLE FEEDERS DO NOT RAISE THEIR OWN CATTLE. In regard to purchasing feeders, 94 per cent of the men pur- chase at least a part of their feeders. This means either that the cattle feeder has not the facilities for producing a sufficient number of cattle, or that he f eete that they can be produced cheaper in other localities not adapted to the growing of corn. Of those who buy their feeders, 29 per cent go to Chicago for them; 27 per cent buy in their immediate locality; 15 per cent in Indianapolis; 9 per cent in Kansas City and the remainder are purchased in various places, showing that the general practice of the feeder buyer is to go to some central market when he is unable to obtain the cattle in his immediate locality.* During the past three years the Station has ' found that feeders can be purchased during the fall of the year in the southern part of the state at a price which will justify feeding them out. These cattle possess constitution and capacity, with a fair degree of beef type and are capable of making rapid and economical gains. They do not have the best quality and breeding, but have a tendency to be plain and leggy. Otherwise they are all that can be desired in feeding cattle. _^___ • *See Circular No. 8. " Purchasing Feeders ", Purdue Experiment Station. 13 THE ADVANTAGE OF PURCHASING FEEDERS OVER RAISING THEM. Fifty-eight per cent report that their reason for buying feeders is that they can be bought cheaper than they can be produced under conditions which are now confronting them. Twenty-five per cent report that they can get more uniformity; 12 per cent report that they can obtain better selection. The other reasons for purchasing are as follows : "A greater number can be handled ", " quicker returns secured ", " less trouble in buying than in raising cattle"; but the preponderance of evidence is that two-year-old steers can be purchased cheaper than they can be raised. This does not hold true of the calf which will, on the average, bring 5 cents per pound in the fall of the year after running with his dam through- out the summer and will weigh at that time between 450 and 600 pounds. This is only possible however, where.bulls of the best beef blood are used on cows possessing at least a fair degree of beef type. Fifty-one per cent of the feeder buyers buy cattle in the fall of the year; 16 per cent in the spring, and the remainder during the summer and winter. This would seem to indicate that the practice of winter feeding is more extensive than summer feeding, as cattle are, in a great majority of cases, put on full feed immedi- ately after being purchased. FEEDERS PREFER TWO-YEAR-OLD STEERS. In regard to the age at which steers are purchased, 76 per cent of those reporting, prefer to buy two-year-old steers; 16 per cent yearlings, and only 7 per cent prefer calves. The average weight of the most desirable two-year-old steer is in the neighborhood of 1000 pounds. He should also be what is termed a " fleshy feeder ", if to be placed on grain feed immediately. Another question which bears directly on the age of cattle used in the feed lot was asked, " Do you feed steers three-years-old or over ? If so, why? " It was found that 18 per cent express a preference for them. The main reasons given were, they usually carry more flesh, make more rapid gains, fatten quicker, thus shortening the feeding period, require less grain to finish them, utilize rougher and coarser feeds, feed out more unif ormily, withstand severe weather better, and at certain seasons of the year sell better. Another reasongiven by two men, and probably of as great importance as the preceding, was that a coarser and plainer class of cattle could be used than where younger steers were fed. It would seem that just so long as steers weighing from 1000 pounds to 1250 pounds can be bought low enough to in- sure a profit in feeding them out with a short, quick heavy grain feed, they will be preferred by extensive cattle feeders. Fleshy 14 feeders are preferred because they can be returned to market in a shorter time, thus allowing the corn grower to put in cattle in the fall of the year, after the busy crop season is over, feed them dur- ing the winter months and return them to market before spring work demands all of his time. BABY BEEF. Question 22 was asked in order to obtain information in regard to the extent of the production of "baby" or yearling beef. A summary of all answers given indicates that 25 per cent of the men reporting were at that time engaged in producing yearling beef and 75 per cent in feeding older cattle. The feeder who buys calves with the intention of making yearling beef, must of necessity de- mand more quality, better breeding and expect to feed them on a better quality of feed than is necessary in handling older cattle. It takes from 8 to 10 months to make them fat enough to sell well, and the profits depend upon the cheapness of gains. This method should appeal especially to the man who is raising calves and finish- ing them as he would market them at 15 to 18 months of age, and if of proper breeding and sufficiently finished, would usually secure nearly as high a price per pound as for older cattle. The feeder who intends to produce ''baby " or yearling beef, requires that the calves be carrying their milk fat when started on feed, as it is im- possible to fatten a calf as a yearling, which has lost the calf fat before started on a full feed of grain. Stating it differently, it is absolutely necessary that typical, blocky beef calves carrying their milk fat, be used if any profit is to result in the production of year- ling beef. PREPARATION OF FEEDS. The question of whether or not it is profitable to put a large amount of labor on corn to increase the feeding value, is one that is very largely disputed. There were 73 per cent of the feeders who reported the use of broken ear corn, which is about the simplest form in which it can be fed; the next in rank of popularity was feeding shock corn which is used by 46 per cent of the feeders; the next is snapped corn used by 35 per cent; corn and cob meal seems to be next in favor with 27 per cent using it; shelled corn is used by 21 per cent. Other methods of preparation such as soaking or grinding are not very extensively used. About 4 per cent of all who answered this question are soaking their corn and 4 per cent are feeding it in the form of corn meal. This would seem to indi- cate that the most profitable method is to feed it as broken ear or 15 snapped corn which logically follows with the preference of the feeders for two-year-old cattle. The answers indicate that by far the greater per cent prefer to feed their corn with as little labor in the preparation as possible. In other words, they think that the increased returns due to grinding, soaking, or shelling, are not sufficient to offset the labor in the operation. OATS AS A CATTLE PEED. In. regard to feeding oats to fattening steers, 60 percent of the cattle feeders do not use them at any time during the feeding period. For special purposes, such as starting steers on feed, or finishing them during the last month, 25 per cent use them. Others feed oats to calves and young stock only, leaving a small per cent who feed them at all times and to all ages and classes of cattle. This is what would naturally be expected from the relatively high price oats demand on the market as compared with corn and other con- centrated grain feeds. THE USE OF SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDS. The use of supplemental feeds such as bran, linseed meal, cotton seed meal and gluten feed seems to be quite extensive and growing in popularity. Forty per cent of those who use supplemental feeds prefer bran. This certainly is not due to any superior feeding value which bran has over other supplements, but rather to the fact that it is a safe feed with which feeders are familiar, is available in almost any locality and is thus the most easily obtainable of all sup- plemental feeds. Linseed meal, which is used by 44 per cent of the feeders, seems to be the most popular of all commercial concen- trated feeds; cotton seed meal by 9 per cent and gluten feed by less than 4 per cent. It was noted that not more than 50 per cent of all the men engaged in cattle feeding make any use of supple- ments, while of those who do appreciate their value, less than 10 per cent use them continually from the beginning to the end of the feeding period. In the great majority of instances, they are used for the same purpose as oats, to stimulate the appetite toward the close of a long feeding period or during the last four to six weeks to give a ''finish" or "bloom" to the cattle. The amount fed varies from a " handful per steer daily " up to as high as 8 pounds, which is reported by one feeder. There seems to be no general rule followed as to the amount which should be fed in order to secure the greatest returns even by those who are most thoroughly familiar with such feeds. The work of the Animal Husbandry Department of Purdue Experiment Station indicates that the value of such feeds 16 is even greater than is generally believed by the most progressive feeders.1 CLOVER HAY ROUGHAGE MOST EXTENSIVELY USED. Clover hay seems to stand in a class by itself as a roughage to feed with corn for fattening cattle. Practically all who reported, use clover hay where it is available, and in the majority of cases, they prefer it to any other roughage. The next feed in popularity is corn stover, which is fed by nearly everyone who feeds cattle. An interesting feature in this connection is that three times as many prefer clover to timothy hay. The cattle feeding experiment con- ducted during the winter of 1906-07 proved conclusively that it is impractical to use timothy hay as a roughage for cattle if it is pos- ' sible to get clover. METHODS OF UTILIZING CORN STALKS. Corn stalks are recognized as a necessary adjunct to the pro- duction of corn. The experimental work of the Agronomy Depart- ment has shown that practically one-half of the weight of the corn crop is found in the ears and one-half in the stalk. It is also true that 37 per cent of the digestible nutrients of the corn crop, grown for grain, is in the stover and 63 per cent in the ears. 2 The question of handling stalks, so that the cost of labor employed in cutting, storing and curing them into a palatable form of roughage, will not overbalance their feeding value, is one of immense concern to the farmers of the state. It seems a large waste to allow one-half of the weight of the corn crop to stand in the field and be pastured off during the late fall and early winter rnonths. In summarizing the answers to this question, it is found that 424 practice this method as compared with 495 who cut their corn. Of those who shock their corn, 64 per cent also shred it. As this does not increase the feed- ing value of the material the benefit comes from convenience in storing and feeding and from decreasing the amount of labor neces- sary in handling the manure. SILAGE AS A FACTOR IN BEEF PRODUCTION. The question of whether or not it is profitable to use corn silage in fattening cattle, is one that is being considered very carefully by cattle feeders all over the corn belt. Seven per cent of the beef cattle feeders in Indiana are using silage. A more careful study of this question shows that practically all of them are using corn as 1 See Bulletin 115, "Steer Feeding", Purdue Experiment Station. 2 See Henry's " Feeds and Feeding ", p. 169. 17 the chief crop for making silage. Other crops such as alfalfa, sorg- hum, oats, milo maize and fodder are mentioned but not used in an extensive way. It would seem from these reports that corn is the most satisfactory crop for the silo. This is because the other crops mentioned, if properly handled, are almost wholly consumed by cattle without putting them in a silo. In feeding shock corn or corn stalks in any form, there is from 20 to 50 per cent of the stalk re- fused by all farm animals. When properly made into silage this is put into such a mechanical condition and made so palatable that it is consumed with very little waste. ADVANTAGES IN FEEDING SILAGE. As the practice of feeding silage is comparatively new among cattle feeders, the information obtained in the reports by those using it should carry a great deal of weight. There is probably no better way of presenting their views than to give a few concise quotations from practical feeders. " Advantages : 1. Conserve highest possible value of crop. 2. Work done in long days, etc. 3. No waste of feed. 4. Capacity of farm more than doubled. 5. Land not injured by hauling. 6. Clean ground for other crops. 7. Most economical way of handling corn crop. Disadvantages : 1. Additional expense for machinery and silo. 2. Crop must be fed to ruminants. 3. Extra labor required at filling. 4. Silage not diversified nor marketable ". ' ' Advantages : 1. Economy of storing feed. 2. Small expense in feeding. 3. Supply of succulent feed on which cattle do well. Disadvantages : 1. Expense of silo and machinery for filling ". " Advantages : 1. Cheapens the feed. 2. Makes perfect digestion. 3. Convenient, is liked by animals. 4. Enables you to feed ground feed to advantage. '18 Disadvantage : 1. Cattle drift more when shipped ". ' ' Advantages : 1. Succulent feed in winter. 2. Convenient to feed, less waste. 3. Get crop in better time and cheaper. Disadvantage : 1. Less corn to feed whole ". " Advantages : 1. Too many to enumerate. Disadvantage : 1. Hogs won't do as well after cattle ". Miscellaneous replies : ' ' Cheaper than pasture and fully as good but takes more time' ' . " Feed always handy and in the dry. Do not have to expose yourself". " Best and most economical way of supplying filling ". ' ' Utilize more of the plant in silage. Convenient to mix other feeds with. Handy to feed ". " Sharpens appetite. Helps balance ration ". " All advantages. Only disadvantage is that when grain is in- creased, silage makes the bowels too loose". ' ' Cattle consume entire corn plant. Keeps cattle in good con- dition". " Convenient, no waste. Never saw cattle off feed ". " Cheap feed and keeps cattle in fine condition ". " Silage easy to feed. Are working to find disadvantages ". "No disadvantages. Cheapest feed available. Keeps stock ^thrifty and hearty ". " No disadvantages except mud around the silo ". " Easy to feed and get full benefit of entire corn field ". ' ' Improves digestion, stimulates appetite and gives better ap- pearance to skin and hair ". " Appetizer. Keeps bowels loose, grain in better shape to be digested. More feed can be put in same space ". 19 SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES. 1. Work done in long days, etc. 2. No waste of feed. 3. Capacity of farm more than doubled. 4. Land not injured by hauling. 5. Clean ground for other crops. 6. Most economical way of handling corn crop. 7. Economy of storing feed. 8. Small expense in feeding. 9. Supply of succulent feed on which cattle do well. 10. Cheapens the feed. 11. Makes perfect digestion. 12. Convenient, is liked by animals. 13. Enables you to feed ground feed to advantage. 14. Cheaper than pasture and fully as good but takes more time. 15. Do not have to expose yourself. Feed always handy and in the dry. 16. Cattle consume entire corn plant. Keeps cattle in good condition. 17. Improves digestion, stimulates appetite and gives better appearance to skin and hair. SUMMARY OF DISADVANTAGES. 1. Additional expense for machinery and silo. 2. Crop must be fed to ruminants. • 3. Extra labor required at filling. 4. Silage not diversified nor marketable. 5. Cattle drift more when shipped. 6. Less corn to feed whole. 7. Hogs won't do as well after cattle. 8. No disadvantages except mud around the silo. These few reports cover in a thorough manner all of the ad- vantages and disadvantages mentioned by the feeders who are at present using silage. There are other factors entering into the use 20 of this feed which have been observed in the feed lots at the Station, but have not been touched upon by those reporting. THE USE OF CONCENTRATES WITH SILAGE. In answer to question 59, it was found that 90 per cent of the feeders using corn silage depend upon corn as the main part of the grain ration. Ten per cent are feeding either cotton seed or linseed meal in addition to other grain with silage. This, according to the results secured at Purdue Experiment Station in the winter of 1906-07 would indicate that the advantage of feeding a concentrated nitrogenous feed with a ration composed of corn and corn silage, is not generally appreciated as much as it should be. It was found in that experiment that the addition of cotton seed meal to such a ration resulted in an increase in value of 6 cents per bushel on corn fed over and above the cost of concentrated feed. In other words, it proved to be a highly profitable investment to feed a limited amount of cotton seed meal with a ration composed of shelled corn, corn silage and clover. PASTURE PRODUCES CHEAP AND ECONOMICAL GAINS. Blue grass seems to be the favorite for grazing purposes, followed very closely by clover, mixed grasses and timothy, in the order named. In answer to question 41, " How much pasture is required per steer when on full feed of grain?" the average number of acres given is 1.1. The average number given when the steers are not receiving grain is 2 acres, showing that summer feeding of cattle permits a more intensive system of agriculture than grazing in summer and feeding in winter. Practically twice the amount of grass is necessary where steers are grazed without grain as where steers are grazed and given a full feed of grain. In regard to the time of turning out on pasture, 70 per cent do so early in the spring and 30 per cent keep their cattle up until the grass has attained some degree of maturity and lost its washy nature. This is probably contrary to the best practice, so far as the most economi- cal use of pasture is concerned but may be justified on account of the additional expense and labor in feeding in dry lot. WINTERING STOCKERS AND FEEDERS. Of those who are carrying their stockers through the winter, 77 per cent feed nothing but roughage. Only 23 per cent feed grain in any form and of these the majority feed late in the spring just before turning out on grass. This would indicate that stockers are purchased in the fall, not with the view of increasing their weight 21 during the winter, but rather for the purpose of securing them more cheaply, returning the plant food contained in rough feeds, such as corn stalks, straw and hay to the soil and having cattle of such quality and in such condition as to insure maximum gains on grass. WINTER VS. SUMMER FEEDING. Question 46 deals with the general practice of winter and sum- mer feeding. Replies indicate that 60 per cent of the feeding in Indiana is done in the winter; 40 per cent in the summer. This is what would naturally be inferred from the answers to question 26, in reply to which 51 per cent preferred to buy feeders in the fall and 16 per cent in the spring. From this it would appear that the ma- jority of cattle feeders put their cattle on feed immediately after purchasing, while the minority prefer to buy thin or stocker steers, use them for consuming roughage on the farm, and feed them out at a later date. WINTER FEEDING PROFITABLE IN INDIANA. Forty-one per cent report winter feeding as most profitable; 33 per cent, summer; 16 per cent, spring; and 10 per cent, fall. In other words, the great majority of cattle feeders are either feeding in summer or winter. The particular system followed depends largely upon the facilities within reach of the individual. When there is a large amount of cheap grass land, the practice seems to be in favor of summer feeding; where all of the land is adapted to the produc- tion of corn and small grains, it would seem that winter feeding is most general. This carries out the thought in the first paragraph of this circular, in which it was stated that the business of cattle feed- ing is one of disposing of farm crops. In winter feeding 86 per cent use a small lot for their cattle and 14 per cent allow access to pasture, which has not been used heavily during the summer. There is no accurate information upon this subject but so great a showing in favor of the small lot should be given due consideration. TURNING FULL FED STEERS ON GRASS. Where steers have been full fed on grain during the winter with the intention of marketing them during the early summer month the question arises as to whether they should be turned on grass in the spring with a full feed of grain, or be kept in a dry lot until finished. The replies to question 50 show that the great majority prefer to finish in a dry lot. The reason for this is that steers which have had a full feed during the winter, and then turned out on a good pasture, do not consume a sufficient amount of grain at first, 22 but depend too much upon grass which has less substance and is more palatable. The result is that they shrink rapidly in weight for the first 10 to 15 days, so that they weigh little if any more, a month later than when turned out. After that, however, they will make more rapid gains than if they had been in a dry lot. When marketed, the buyer prefers " dry fed " to " grassy " steers as they dress out a higher percentage of carcass to live weight and also yield firmer meat. If, owing to the high price of roughage, or some other equally good reason, it is necessary to turn such cattle on grass, then it is probably advisable to do so as soon as the ground becomes firm enough in the spring to prevent injury from tramping and to con- tinue to feed roughage in addition. In this way the cattle and the grass come on together so that there will be no abrupt change in the feeding which would result in a corresponding period of loss on the cattle. METHODS OF FEEDING. The time consumed in getting cattle on full feed by different feeders varies from three days to three months. The average of all replies to this question is 34 days. The length of the period for feed- ing a full feed depends largely upon the age and condition of the steers when put in the feed lot, the degree of finish attained and the kind of feed used. The answers to question 51 would indicate that 70 per cent practice feeding through a long, and 30 per cent, through a short period. In summarizing the answers to this question, all who prefer feeding 100 days or less were classified in the short feeding list. The average length of feeding full feed under all conditions is 131 days, which with 34 days consumed in reaching a full feed, would make the average length of the whole feeding period 165 days. USE OF SELF-FEEDER. The self-feeder seems to be more in general use during the sum- mer than winter. By this method, cattle can be fed once or twice per week rather than per day and the labor involved is very much less. After cattle are on full feed the self-feeder is satisfactory, provided the proper amount of attention is given to it. It has been the experience of a number of feeders, however, that practically as much time is consumed in keeping the feeder working properly as would be in feeding at regular intervals. In the use of the self- feeder, special care and attention are necessary to avoid clogging in the feeder, as it is important that there be an abundance of feed available at all times. Provision must also be made for pro- tecting the grain, as dampness, together with high temperature, causes fermentation, especially with ground feeds such as linseed or 23 cotton seed meal or bran. If allowed access to this sour or fer- mented feed, the cattle are very apt to be troubled with indigestion. All of these details necessitate great care when self-feeders are used successfully. ROUGHAGE USUALLY FED IN UNLIMITED QUANTITIES. The evidence is that roughage is usually fed in unlimited quan- tities, less than 12 per cent indicating that they make any pretention to the use of a limited amount. The usual custom is to keep the racks full at all times so that the steers are able to select out the more palatable portions and refuse the remainder. The work of the Station would indicate that fully as 'good results may be secured by limiting the amount of roughage to what the cattle will consume without waste. This is especially true in seasons like that of 1906- 07 when roughage was actually worth more per pound than grain. The replies to question 60, show that 91 per cent of the feeders make no effort to have the roughage and grain in such condition that both will be consumed at the same time. This is in line with other state- ments in regard to the cost of producing beef and shows conclusively that the average cattle feeder firmly believes in the practice of feed- ing his farm products in such a way as to avoid labor. That is, he believes that the additional expense due to chaffing hay and mixing it with grain would not be balanced by the difference in the efficiency of the ration. GRAIN CONSUMED BY STEERS ON FULL FEED. The reports indicate that the average amount of grain consid- ered a full feed per head daily for two-year-old cattle is 22.8 pounds; for yearlings, 15.6 Ibs; and for calves, 4.3 Ibs. The amount given for two-year-olds and yearlings is approximately correct as these figures compare very favorably with results at the Station. It would seem, however, that feeders have underestimated the amount consumed by calves as that reported is small as compared with the data obtained from the experimental lots at the Station for the past two years, which was from 9 to 10 Ibs. daily per calf when on full feed. GAINS MORE EXPENSIVE IN WINTER THAN IN SUMMER. In reporting on question 57, it was found that twice as many men reported on the amount of grain required per pound of gain on two-year-old cattle as on yearlings and three times as many report on two-year-olds as on calves. This is consistent with the answers to the former question in regard to the age of cattle preferred in the feed lot, and shows that as yet, the great majority of cattle feeders prefer cattle carrying some age. The average of all answers to the 24 question " How much grain is necessary per pound gain in summer for two-year-olds on full feed? for yearlings? for calves? " is that 9.2 pounds of grain are consumed per pound of gain on two-year-old cattle; 7.5 pounds on yearlings and 5.6 pounds on calves, to produce one pound of gain; to the question "How many pounds of grain does it take per pound of gain in winter for two-year-olds on full feed? for yearlings? for calves? " is that 11.2 pounds of grain are consumed per pound of gain on two-year olds; 8.9 on yearlings and 7.7 on calves. It is interesting to compare the replies to these two questions which show that the gains are more expensive in winter than in summer feeding. From the reports, feeders estimate that it requires two pounds more on the two-year-old; 1.4 pounds more on the year- lings and 1.1 pound more on the calf to produce a pound of gain in winter than in summer. This is consistent with the figures in ex- periments at Purdue and other experiment stations. COST OF GAIN INCREASES WITH AGE OF CATTLE. While these reports are not based upon accurate records but rather upon estimates made by practical feeders, they indicate that cattle feeders generally agree that the cost of gains increases with the age of the cattle as the two-year-old steer makes his gain at a greater cost of feed than either the yearling or the calf because the ability to consume grain increases more rapidly than the rate of gain. The difference in the cost of gains on two-year-olds, yearlings and calves, is not so great as is generally conceded by the men who are produc- ing yearling beef, as it is frequently stated that the cost of gains on two-year-old steers is from two to three times as great as it would be on calves. The evidence here presented would indicate that such a statement is greatly exaggerated. Another important point, and one which is frequently overlooked by cattle feeders, in considering the cost of gains, is that practically twice as much gain must be put on calves to make them prime, as is necessary to finish two-year-old steers starting in the feed lot in equal condition. GAINS SECURED UNDER DIFFERENT METHODS OF FEEDING. In answer to question 62 as to the average daily gain for full feeding in winter, the reports show that two-year-old cattle gain 2.1 pounds per day; yearlings, 1.9; calves 1.7. In summer two-year-olds gain 2.7; yearlings 2.3 and calves 2.3. These figures on the winter feeding of cattle are comparable with the results obtained at the Experiment Station where it was found that the daily gain varies almost directly with the age of the cattle; that is, the older the 25 steer, the greater is the daily gain while in the feed lot. It is in- teresting to note that in summer the average daily gain on yearlings and on calves is given at the same figure. The report also shows that the daily gain per steer is greater during the summer when full feed- ing than during the winter. This is consistent with the answers to questions 57 and 58 and in a large measure accounts for the difference in the cost of producing the gains on cattle of different ages. In answer to question 65 " Does the feeding of grain to stockers in winter diminish gains in summer on pasture ? " 85 per cent report that it does not, while 14 per cent report that it does and about 1 per cent are undecided as to this question. When it is stated that the feeding of grain does not diminish summer gains, a great ma- jority qualify this statement by saying " if not fed in excessive quantities ". In other words, the general practice is to feed a small amount of grain in order to keep steers from losing flesh and running down to a condition from which they will not recover quickly when put on pasture in the spring. It seems to be a question of how much grain is fed rather than as to the feeding of grain. None of the feeders prefer to have their steers go on grass in high condition if they expect to graze without feeding grain. SMALL GAINS ON STOCKERS IN WINTER. The average of all answers to question 64 would indicate that if the steers maintain their weight during the winter period where no grain or other concentrated feed is used, their condition is satisfac- tory. In other words, the practice of roughing stock through the winter is not for the purpose of making any gain on them but for one or both of the following reasons : (1) to utilize and return to the land in the form of manure, the rough feeds such as corn stalkb, straw, damaged hay, which would otherwise go to waste; (2) to have cattle in the spring of the year of suitable quality and condition to make rapid gains on grass. The feeder who has an abundance of rough feed is usually able to buy thin cattle in the fall, carry them through the winter very cheaply, so that the cost of the cattle and the cost of wintering them will amount to less than he would have to pay for the same cattle in the spring. It is further agreed that the steer so handled during the winter goes on grass in a condition to insure a maximum gain during the summer. A careful study of market reports will convince one that stocker and feeder cattle car- rying flesh, are much cheaper during the late fall than during the spring months. 26 GAINS MADE ON GRASS WITHOUT GRAIN. The gains secured on steers during the grazing season < 6 months > without grain is, on an average, 301 Ibs. or approximately 50 pounds per month. As pasture costs from 75 cents to $1.00 per month, it will be seen that the cost of gains in summer on grass alone, amounts to from 1^4 to 2 cents per pound. This question may be reduced to a problem which confronts the cattle feeder as follows : a thin stocker weighing 750 pounds in the spring when grazing season be- gins, worth 5 cents per pound, with pasture at the ordinary price of $1.00 per month, and having made a gain of 300 pounds, can be sold in the fall at $4.15 per hundred without either gain or loss in the transaction. This largely accounts for the fact that feeders can be bought cheaper in the fall than in the following spring. PREPARATION OF CATTLE FOR SHIPMENT. In regard to the treatment of cattle before shipment, 52 per cent of the answers indicate that no special treatment whatever is given to steers the day before shipment. Of the remainder, the great majority use timothy hay and reduce the grain feed. Twelve per cent place the steers in a dry lot before shipment. It is generally 'agreed among careful feeders that cattle should be taken off corn the day before loading and given all the hay they will eat, preferably timothy, with a good feed of oats amounting approximately to 5 Ibs. per head. They should be allowed water until the morning when they are driven to the pens. Special attention should be given to start early, in order that they may be driven slowly. This method will insure a minimum shrink between feed lot and shipping station, while an excessive amount of feed and water, together with rapid moving of fat cattle, is certain to cause scouring and excessive shrinkage. Proper treatment before shipping insures cattle arriv- ing on the market in a dry condition which is of great importance to the shipper as they will not only take on a reasonable fill, but be much more attractive to the buyer. One very interesting feature of the answers to this question is that the cattle feeder is thoroughly convinced of the fact that an excessive fill on the market is detri- mental rather than beneficial as buyers refuse to bid on such cattle until late in the day when they have lost most of it. It was found that 85 per cent of the men who ship their cattle, either accompany them to market or arrange to be on the market the day the cattle are sold. This shows that the man who ships cattle appreciates the value of being on the market at the time they .sell in order that he mav not onlv understand the factors that enter into the selling price 27 or market value of cattle, but that he may also see that the com- mission firm uses proper care in handling them. BEDDING CARS BEFORE SHIPMENT. The information secured on bedding cars is interesting as it shows that the general practice with fully 90 per cent of Indiana shippers is to bed their cars with straw. This is due of course to straw being more available than other coarse products which would be suitable for this purpose. Other bedding materials that are recommended are corn stalks, clover chaff, refuse from the feed- ing of shredded fodder, saw dust, sand and damaged and inferior hay. Ninety-nine per cent bed cars with some one of these materials before shipment. WHERE CATTLE ARE MARKETED. Twenty per cent of the cattle feeders dispose of their product locally; 29 per cent sell to traders or shippers and 51 per cent both feed and market their own cattle. Judging by the reports, the Union Stock Yards of Chicago receive 40 per cent of all fat cattle marketed from this state; the Indianapolis yards receive 30 per cent and those remaining are marketed in other cities such as Buffalo, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, Louisville and Cleveland, in the order named. In answer to question 70, as to what months cattle are sold, the months are given in order according to the number of cattle marketed as follows :— July, May, June, April, December, March, September, October, August, February, January and November. The replies as to when cattle are disposed of seem to indicate that winter feeding is more generally practiced as the larger number answered : — " During the spring and early summer ". MARKETING CATTLE. The greater portion of answers to question 71 give the age at which cattle are marketed as from 2 to 3 years. Less than 10 per cent of the cattle being marketed in the state are yearlings. The average weight of fat cattle marketed is 724 Ibs. for yearlings; 983 Ibs. for two-year-olds and 1278 Ibs. for three-year-olds. This would indicate that many feeders are handling a class of cattle which do not possess the quality and breeding which will justify making them prime, or that they are not making them fat enough to secure their highest market price and a greater profit. The shrinkage on cattle from feed lot to market is estimated at 25 Ibs. per steer. This varies with the age of the cattle, weather conditions at time of shipping, and other factors, but the amount given is a very fair average. Ten per cent of the feeders reporting, market their cattle 28 as prime or in finished condition; 24 per cent, as choice or some similar grade: L'n' per cent as good; 27 per cent as fair to medium and lo per cent as butcher stuff. TIIF. FINANCIAL I'HASF OF CATTLF FFFDIXG- In answer to question 77 " What margin between cost of feeders and selling pi-ice of steers is necessary to break even? " the highest margin mentioned was s:>.()0 and the lowest was 20 cents per hun- dred. The average of all answers was $1.07 per hundred. As this includes the feeding of cattle of various ages and classes, to different degrees of fatness or finish and through different lengths of feed- ing periods, it would be fair to conclude that it is necessary for cattle to increase 20 cents per hundred per month while fattening for market. In other words, the cattle feeder thoroughly appreci- ates the fact that it it impossible to finish cattle at a cost per hun- dred equal to or less than their selling value, hence the profit in feeding depends largely upon the margin between the buying price of feeders and selling price of fat cattle. COST OF PRODUCING BEEF. The factors which control the cost of producing beef in the feed lot are : the season of the year; the kind of ration fed; cost of feeds; the age; the quality and type of steers; the previous treat- ment and the condition of the cattle; the degree of finish attained; the value of manure and pork produced. The reply to question 7> " What does it cost to produce a pound of gain in summer and in winter ? " proves conclusively that gains are made more cheaply in summer. The average of all answers was 7.2 cents in winter and 4.K cents per pound in summer. A difference of 2. 8 cents between the cost of gains for the two seasons is entirely too great for cattle re- ceiving a full feed of grain. The Missouri Station* has experimented on this question for a series of years, the results of which show the cost of gains to be 22 per cent greater in winter. It must be assumed that in answering this question, a large number of feeders include gains on steers which were grazed without grain which would neces- sarily reduce the average cost for the summer season. The cost of gains in winter is also somewhat lower than the results of the work of the I'urdue Kxperiment Station in fattening for the market, would indicate. Although the variation in price of feeds may ac- count for considerable difference in cost of producing beef, these figures seem to indicate that the cattle feeder does not fully appre- ri No. TI'.. Missouri Kxporirm-nt Station, Columbia. Mo. 29 ciate the cost of production when full feeding or else the cattle are marketed before they are finished. The latter assumption is prob- ably correct as indicated in the replies to question 71. COST OF PRODUCING FEEDERS. The cost of a calf at weaning time (5.1 months of age as shown in question 20) taking an average of all answers, is $12.82; at 12 months of age, $20.62 and at 2 years of age,$32.76. This would indicate that under the average conditions a cow could be kept for $1.08 per month while raising her calf to weaning time, which would presuppose that she was either fed on very cheap feeds or if fed grain, that she would have to be milked at least a part of the time to offset this additional expenditure. From weaning time until the calf is one year old, it would cost 98.7 cents per month and from 1 to 2 years old, $1.01 per month. Using these figures as a basis, the conclusion may be drawn that a more expensive ration is fed the calf from weaning time until one year old than from 1 to 2 years old. On the basis of these estimates it would seem that the production of feeders would be a profitable business, as feeders for several years have sold for more than these reports would indicate the cost of production to be. However, it is doubtful whether these estimates should be taken as a guide. FEEDING BEEF CATTLE MAINTAINS SOIL FERTILITY. The question of maintaining soil fertility is one that concerns every farmer in the state- As shown by analyses of feeds used in experimental feed lots * frequently a farm crop contains plant food in the form of nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash, which if re- placed in the form of commercial fertilizers, would actually cost more than the average selling value of the particular crop. This is especially true of rough feeds such as clover, shredded stover and wheat and oat straw. If these same crops are fed to beef cattle, less than 10 per cent of this plant food is sold when the animal goes to market. The extensive cattle feeder usually buys a sufficient amount of plant food in the form of bran, cotton seed meal or linseed meal to replace thio 10 per cent, hence, is in reality not decreasing but is continu- ally increasing the total amount of plant food on the farm. Another feature in the upbuilding of soil is the supply of humus which should not be ignored as it is of vegetable origin and cannot be purchased on the market; the live stock feeder is continually adding to the sup- * See Purdue Experiment Station Bulletin No 115, on "Steer Feeding", p. 316. 30 ply in the soil while the grain farmer must necessarily diminish it unless he devotes a considerable part of his land to clover, cow peas or some other intermediate crop. In answer to question 82 it was found that the use of commer- cial fertilizers is not general among cattle feeders, while 96 per cent of the replies to question 85, indicate that their soils are not only maintaining their fertility but are actually increasing in production. This brings out in a very forcible manner the fact that cattle feeding is a certain and definite means of soil improvement. Further in- formation was desired on this important phase of the subject so we asked for the average value of the land devoted to this purpose, which was reported as $97.55 per acre. The average value of all land in the state is not over $60.00. which means that beef is being pro- duced on land that is worth over one-half more per acre than the average. HOGS A NECESSARY ADJUNCT TO BEEF CATTLE. In answer to the question " Do you find beef production profit- able unless you consider hogs in connection ? " 12 per cent report that it is, while 88 per cent report that it is not possible to feed cattle profitably unless hogs follow. This is in accordance with the results of the Experiment Station work, in which it has been determined that unless the best of rations are used, it is impossible to derive a profit except by the use of hogs in connection with cattle. The re- plies state that the number of hogs used per steer is 1.5. This evi- dently means that some feed in addition to that fed to steers is given to hogs, as we find in our work that the waste will not support more than one hog to a steer. The average age of hogs preferred by cattle feeders, for following steers, is 5.1 months; the average weight, 92 Ibs. This would indicate that they prefer an active hog which has not been crowded as the weight given presupposes such hogs have been kept largely on a growing ration thus developing rather "a large frame and a small amount of fat in proportion to the weight. Out of 634 answers to question 93, "Which breed of hogs is pre- ferred ? " 400 indicated Poland China; 120 Duroc Jerseys; 53 Berk- shires; 27 Chester Whites; 2 Hampshires and 6 0. 1. C. The others expressed no preference. The average rate of gain per head on hogs following cattle in the feed lot is reported as 1.4 Ibs. pei day. This agrees with the answers to questions 91 and 92 as it is only a growthy sort of a hog which is able to make so great a daily gain in the cattle lots. IMPORTANT PROBLEMS DEMANDING ATTENTION. In answer to question 98, " What is the most important problem 31 before the cattle feeders at the present day? " 239 reported, secur- ing feeders; 216, methods of feeding; 284, price of either feeders or of fat cattle; 67 foreign markets; and 52 packers. This would seem to indicate that the question of obtaining good feeders at a price that will justify feeding them out into marketable condition at pre- vailing prices of feeds and fat cattle, is the most serious one that confronts the cattle feeder. Proper methods of feeding steers is another thing that seems to be demanding a great deal of thought and attention. It would also indicate that the cattle feeders realize that under present conditions they will have to change their former methods of feeding in order to obtain any profit from the operation. - In answer to question 99, ' ' What information in regard to meth- ods of feeding would enable the feeder to handle cattle more profit- ably ? "there were a great variety of answers. In the majority of cases information in regard to the proper methods of selecting and preparing the ration from farm grown feeds was considered as most important. FEEDING VS. MARKET VALUE OF FARM CROPS. In answer to question 100 as to the relative feeding and market value of different crops that are grown upon the farm, it will be interesting to give a complete statement of the average of all answers which is shown in the following table : Aver. Selling price. Corn per bushel $ .39 Oats per bushel .28 Clover hay (loose) 5.56 Timothy hay (loose) 7.47 Oat straw ___- . 3.00 Shredded fodder 4.28 Wheat straw 2.34 Corn fodder , per shock .17 Stalk field, per acre .72 This matter is of great interest to cattle feeders and would in- dicate that not only is it possible to grow greater crops on lands devoted to this business, but that these same crops will bring from 2 per cent in the case of timothy hay, to 43 per cent more in the case of stalk fields, when fed to beef cattle than when sold on the market. It is also interesting to note that general practice agrees very largely with the summary of these reports, in that the crops usually grown and fed to beef cattle, such as corn, corn stalks in various forms, and clover hay, show a much greater difference between selling price and feeding value than do timothy hay and wheat straw. Percentage sr. Feeding increase value. over selling price. $ .49 25 .33 17 7.27 30 7.65 2 3.61 20 4.74 30 2.63 12 .19 11 1.03 43 I N DEX PAGE Introduction 1 List of questions.. 2 Distribution of replies 7 The extent of the business - 8 Beef production adapted to large larnis 8 Beef farms are largely devottd to corn and grass 9 Legumes appreciated by cattle feeders 9 Shelter for fattening s-teers 10 Favorable conditions in feed lots ad\antageous 10 Adequate su]>ply of pure water necessary 11 Raising and b living f et ders . 11 Better cattle can be produced than bought 11 Cattle feeders do not raise their own cattle 12 The advantage of purchasing- feeders over raising1 them 13 Feeders prefer two-year-old steers 13 Baby beef 14 Preparation of feeds 14 Oats, as a cattle feed 15 The use of supplemental feeds 15 Clover hay roughage most extensively used 16 Methods of utilizing- corn stalks 16 Silage as a factor in beef production 16 Tlie use of concentrates with silage 20 Pasture produces cheap and economical gains 20 Wintering stockers andfeeders 20 Winter vs. summer feeding 21 Winter feeding profitable in Indiana 21 Turning full fed steers on grass 21 Methods of feeding 22 Use of self feeder 22 Rough ige usually fed in unlimited quantities 23 Grain consumed by steers on full feed 23 Gains more expensive in winter than in summer 23 Cost of gain increases with age of cattle 24 G 'ins secured under different methods of feeding 24 Method of wintering influence s gains in following summer 25 Small gams on stackers in winter 25 Gains tnnde on grass without grain 26 Preparation of cattle for shipment 26 Be-'ding cars before shipment 27 Where cattle are marketed 27 M:irkfting cattle 27 The Hnincial phase of cattle feeding.. Cost of producing beef 28 Co^t of producing fe Tiers _ Feeding be f cattle maintains soil fertility lings a necessarv adjunct to beef cattle 30 Important problems demanding attention Feeding vs. market value of corn crops__ __31 PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station CIRCULAR NO. 14. LAFAYETTE, IND., JULY, 1908. BEEF PRODUCTION. Ill, FACTORS INFLUENCING THE VALUE AND COST OF FEEDERS. J. H. SKINNER AND W. A. COCHEL. The production of cattle which will return a profit both to the producer and the feeder, is a problem which deserves careful atten- tion. It is easily possible to buy cattle which have been produced at a loss and fatten them at a profit, but the aim of the most thoughtful- and intelligent men engaged in the beef cattle business is to encourage the production of a grade of cattle which will re- turn a profit when sold as feeders without diminishing the profits in finishing them. In producing such cattle the particular system to be followed should be determined by the size, location and adaptabil- ity of the farm. One farm may be especially adapted for the pro- duction of feeders, another for the production of yearling beef and still another, only for finishing cattle. In many sections of Indiana there is an abundance of rough land suitable only for grazing. Under such conditions the produc- tion of feeders should prove profitable by grazing them in summer and carrying them through the winter on cheap roughage such as clover hay, silage and straw, thus producing 1,000 to 1,200 pound feeders at a minimum cost and a reasonable profit. In other sec- tions where the proportion of grazing to farming land is about equal, it is possible to both grow and fatten steers at the same time, marketing them as 1,000 to 1,200 pound prime yearlings. In still other sections where all of the land is suitable for growing corn and much of it is too valuable for permanent pasture, a different system may be followed by purchasing feeders and finishing them for market. The producer's profit depends upon the breeding, type and quality of the steers, the rate and cost of gain, cost of pasture and feed, the kind of ration fed, the condition of the steers when sold, and the manurial value of the feeds used. The feeder's profit depends upon the margin between the cost of feeders and selling price of fat cattle, the quality and type of steers, their previous treatment and condition when placed in the feed lot, the rate and cost of gain, degree of finish when marketed, value of manure pro- duced, kind of ration fed, and gain on hogs following. It is of vital importance to the producer to be able to appreciate the factors which influence the value of feeders in order to make the maximum profit from the business. It is essential that he rec- ognize good and bad features in order to select, breed and produce what is wanted by the feeder. It is of importance to the feeder to have a knowledge of what determines the market price and value of different grades of feeders in order that he may buy the kind of cattle which are relatively the cheapest at the time of purchase. The chief aim in producing or in feeding beef cattle is to turn large quan- tities of grain and roughage into a more profitable product, to main- tain soil fertility and to increase the yield of crops from year to year. The successful beef cattle producer or feeder must of neces- sity be a good farmer and, in addition, have the business ability and the knowledge of breeding, feeding and management of livestock, to derive two profits , one from growing farm products, the other from feeding them on the farm. Regardless of the system followed, whether it be the production of feeders or finishing cattle, a knowl- edge of the factors which control the cost of feeders, is of vital importance. These factors may be arranged into two distinct groups ; one inherent in the individual, which causes one grade of cattle to bring a higher price per hundred weight than another ; the other, depend- ing on financial or industrial or market conditions and influencing all grades. The group of factors which influences the prices of various grades of cattle is as follows : — 1. Type or conformation. 2. Quality and breeding. 3. Age. 4. Condition. 5. Weight. A typical beef steer is blocky and compact ; has a short, deep Type, body, short, thick neck, short, straight legs, straight back and underline, an abundance of width from one end to the other, plenty of scale and a "feeder's fteacj and eye." The skilled feeder buy~ er pays much more attention to the head than the inexperienced buyer would deem necessary, especially with stock cattle, which are not filled out sufficiently to judge as to their future development and probable form when finished. He will also realize at first glance whether or not the eye is one that indicates a quiet and contented disposition. No. 3. Typical beef steers which returned a profit both to the producer and to the finisher. These cattle were fed as yearlings at the Station during the winter of 1906-07. Cost $4.15 per hundred. Daily gain per head for six months, 2.37 Ibs. Selling price $6.00 per hundred. The head should be broad, short, with full forehead, strong jaw, large mouth and nostrils, and free from either coarseness or del- icacy. If such a head is found on a steer in feeder condition, it is usually a guarantee that he will make good use of feed and develop into a thick, blocky individual when finished. A thick, short neck is desirable, not because of its intrinsic value but because it usually indicates a thick carcass. No. 4. An ideal feeder's head. A feeder of blocky, early maturing type, which will finish into a prime steer weighing 1075 Ibs. at 15 months of age. Fed at the Station as a calf during the winter of 1907-08. Daily gain for six months 2 Ibs. No. 5. A steer of inferior type fed at the Station during the winter of 1905-06. Notice lack of constitution; long narrow head, long neck, rough shoulders, high flanks and poor back. Daily gain .77 Ib. for six months. A short, straight back indicates strong muscular development and a tendency to mature early. Other things being equal, the steer with the broadest and thickest back will be the most valuable as the highest priced cuts of meat are taken from the back and loin. For this reason, feeders should be selected which will develop wide, thick backs in order that they may sell for top prices when fat. A desirable depth of body and spring of rib, result not only in ai greater proportion of high priced meat but also give the steer the capacity for a large development of vital organs and ample room for a large digestive system without any tendency to paunchiness. Capacity for feed is essential in a feeder as the body must be maintained and provided with heat and energy before any of the food is stored in the form of fat. All that the steer can consume, digest and assimilate above maintenance requirements, is used for production ; hence the greater the capacity, the greater the propor- tion of feed that is utilized for production and the less for main- tenance. Short, straight legs, together with a short, deep, broad body, are associated with early maturity. This is desirable from the pro- ducer's standpoint as it enables him to market his cattle as feeders weighing 1,000 pounds at 18 to 20 months instead of keeping them a year longer in order to attain the same weight. The early matur- ing steer will also sell for a greater price per pound, as the experi- enced feeder has learned that they will not only make rapid and economical gains but will finish quicker than those which are slower in maturing. Not only is this type more desirable to the producer and to the feeder, but also to the packer, as the early maturing kind yield a higher dressing percentage, thicker cuts and greater proportion of high priced meat. No. 6. Capacity and type combined. A fleshy feeder suitable for short, heavy grain feeding. The "staggy" head and coarseness are undesir- able. Fed at the Station during the winter of 1906-07. Daily gain for 90 days, 3.20 Ibs. No. 7. Steer No. 34 showing no capacity for feed. Daily gain 1.65 Ibs. for six months. Fed in the same lot as the grade Shorthorn steer illus- trated on page 17 of this Circular, which made 3.08 Ibs. daily during the same period In the stocker or feeder, quality is synonymous with capa- Quality. cjty and early maturity. It is indicated by a thick, fine, bright or oily coat of hair, a fine, hard dense bone, and an appearance of refinement, smoothness and symmetry throughout. Such a coat as described is generally associated with a healthy, pli- able and mellow skin ; as the inner digestive organs are continuations and modifications of the outer skin, health in one usually indicates health and activity in the other, insuring a good use of food and rap- id gains. Smoothness and symmetry, together with quality and beef type shorten the fattening period. As the gains in the feed lot are expensive, this is an important factor in favor of the steer which possesses quality. No. 8. High grade Hereford. "Quality" in a feeder is synonymous with capacity. This type can be fed at any age and it pays to make them prime. Fed as a yearling at the Station. Daily gain for six months 2.63 Ibs. Not only should a great deal of attention be given to quality in feeders because it insures less expense in finishing, but it en- hances the value of the finished or fat steer. Quality in fat steers when combined with beef type, means higher dressing percent- age, even covering of fat on carcass, large proportion of high priced cuts, better mixture of fat and lean, or marbling of meat, less waste in cutting and finer muscular fiber, all of which make the steers with No. 9. A prime high grade Angus. Quality and finish in fat steers mean high dressing percentage and attractive carcasses. Daily gain for six months, 2.40 Ibs. quality more valuable to the killer than those which are plain and coarse. The question of breeding is not easily separated from Breeding, that of quality and type as these can only be secured by the intelligent use of pure bred and registered beef bulls of good quality and approved beef conformation. A critical survey of the native stockers and feeders of the state shows that the importance of producing good cattle is not generally appreciated. It would be easily possible to increase the value of the native Indiana beef cattle $1.00 per hun- dred weight if proper attention were paid to the selection and use of breeding bulls. There are 1,141,778 cattle, other than milk cows, in the state.* An increase of $1.00 per hundred weight in value would be $8,563,225, assuming an average weight of 750 pounds per head. It is frequently stated that the Indiana farmer cannot compete with the western man who produces cattle on cheap land, This is true unless he either produces better cattle or uses a more profitable method of handling them. The majority of Indiana feed- ers go to central markets to buy feeders because they can secure *Year Book, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1906. II Two illustrations showing the effect of good breeding. I ! No. 10. Six steers sired by pure bred beef bulls, head 2.64 Ibs. for six months. Average daily gain per No. 10a, Four steers sired by grade bulls fed in the same lot as those in the preceding illustration. Daily gain 2.13 Ibs. for six months, show- ing a difference of 24% in favor of the use of well bred steers or $5.50 per head when fat cattle sell at $6.00 per hundred. 12 steers of more uniformity and better breeding* although they read- ily admit that native cattle, if equal in other respects, are better than can be purchased in the yards. In buying feeders, the breed is not of so great imporance as the individual, but preference should always be shown for uniformity in color, weight, age, condition, quality and type in a car load of feeders. No. 10b. Southern Indiana steers produced by the use of pure bred sires through a series of years. These steers made an average gain of 420 Ibs. per head in a six months feeding period while other cattle of unknown breeding made an average of 350 Ibs. under similar treat- ment, a difference of 70 Ibs. to the steer. This difference in gain on 35 cattle while in the feed lot would justify the producer in using a $200 bull rather than a scrub at $50. There would be a further profit due to the higher value per pound of such cattle. •Circular No. 12, "Methods of Beef Production.' 13 When such a load of high grade beef steers are put in the feed lot and properly fed, the result will be a more rapid and a cheaper gain, a quicker finish, a greater increase in value per hundred, a higher dressing percentage, a greater proportion of high priced cuts, a better quality of meat, less loose fat and a higher price when sold, than if a mixed lot of scrubs were fed. No. 11. High grade Herefords showing uniformity in type, condition and color due to the use of pure bred sires. Uniformity can only be secured in producing feeders by se- lecting and sticking to one breed through a series of years, placing especial emphasis on individual excellence, and by the use of pure bred and registered bulls of good conformation, on cows which pos- sess at least a fair degree of beef type.* There are four or five leading breeds of pure bred beef cattle, all of which are bred with the same end in view, viz., to produce early maturing animals that have the constitution and capacity to stand heavy feeding and that are capable of making rapid and economical gains, finishing quickly, and when fat, yielding the highest grade of beef. In addition to these points, there are a number of breed characteristics which are of value in a breeding herd but of minor importance in the feed lot. The greatest improvement in cattle in any community has only been secured by the use of pure bred beef bulls. A sire should get 30 calves per year for at least five years. If the value of his calves *Circular No. 8, "Purchasing Feeders." 14 is increased $1.00 per head, this would amount to $150.00 during his period of usefulness. It is apparent that such an increase is easily possible as it would only amount to an increase of 10 cents per hundred on the 1,000 pound feeder. In other words, an increase of $1.00 per head on the calves would overbalance the difference in price between a $50.00 scrub bull and $200.00 beef bull of excellent type and breeding. Assuming that the cost of gains and the amount of increase in live weight are the same on two steers weighing 1,000 pounds, each when put on feed, one of which cost $4.00 per hundred and the other $5.00, the difference in price being due to breeding, the margin be- tween buying and selling price necessary to break even in feeding well bred steers will be smaller than in feeding common or cheaper grades, as shown by the following exhibit : No. 11a. High grade Angus steers showing uniformity in type, quality and finish. A profit to the producer and feeder. No. 12. Mixed lot of "scrub" steers. Too many of this kind are produced in Indiana. They always insure loss to the producer and frequently to the feeder. Original weight Original cost Increase in feed lot Cost of increase Final weight of steer Total cost of finished steer Selling price per cwt. Increase in value neces- sary to feed without profit or loss Scrub Steer 1,000 Ibs. $40.00 400 Ibs. $30.00 1,400 Ibs. $70.00 $5.00 $1.00 High Grade Steer 1,000 Ibs. $50.00 400 Ibs. $30.00 1,400 Ibs. $80.00 $ .71 In this instance the margin between buying and selling price has to be $1.00 per hundred on the scrub as compared with 71 cents on the high grade steer. To illustrate this point more fully, if it cost $7.50 per hundred to put gains on each steer, the difference between the original cost and the cost of increase per hundred pounds live weight on the scrub steer would be $3.50 while on the No. 13. Steer No. 48, sired by grade bull, in "feeder" condition. No. 13a. Steer No. 48, sired by grade bull, after having been fed for six months. Daily gain, 1.54 Ibs. No. 13b. Steer No. 35, sired by pure bred bull, in "feeder" condition. No. 13c. Steer No. 35, sired by pure bred bull, after being fed six months. Daily gain, 3.08 Ibs. Notice how much greater the improvement is on the high grade steer while in the feed lot. i8 high grade steer it would be $2.50 per hundred. This would be re- covered by a margin of 32 cents on the scrub steer or 23 cents per hundred on the high grade steer. It is also true that well bred cat- tle will require less feed per pound of gain, make gains more rapidly and take less increase in weight to put them in the same condition. It frequently happens, however, that scrub cattle, in thin condition can be bought so cheaply that they can be finished at a profit. This means a loss to the producer with a profit to the feeder. No. 14. Common rough steer, a loss to the producer but a profit to the feeder. Gain in 90 days, 291 Ibs. If well bought, and marketed at the right time, such steers may be fed at a profit. Condition. There is a distinction between condition and weight, which is frequently overlooked by the practical cattle feeder. Condition^ in connection with feeders, means the degree of fatness. Other things being equal, the higher the condition of cattle going into the feed lot, the greater will be the profit to the feeder. The feeder buyer can afford to pay more for fleshy feeders because they require a shorter feeding period to finish and are usually more thrifty than thinner cattle which have had an equal opportunity. It is generally recognized that the gains on cattle while in the feed lot being finished for market are quite expensive, which is an- 19 other reason for a greater price being paid for fleshy cattle. This may be illustrated by the following exhibit : 1,000 Ib. steer @ $4.00 $40. oo 100 Ibs. increase in feed lot ©$7.50 $7.50 Total cost of 1,100 Ib. steer $47.50 Total cost per hundred $ 4.32 It can be readily seen that the same steer when weighing 1,100 pounds would have cost the feeder $4.32 per hundred as compared with $4.00 per hundred when weighing 1,000 pounds. The pro- ducer is generally so situated that he is able to secure this higher condition at much less expense than is possible in the feed lot, and frequently at less than its selling value per hundred. Under such conditions he should endeavor to hold his cattle until they may be marketed as "fleshy feeders" in order to obtain the additional prem- ium paid for this grade of cattle. The heavier the feeder, the greater will be the profit from Weight, the margin between the cost of feeders and the selling price of fat cattle. The poorer the quality the more import- ant it is to have weight at the beginning of the period. Assuming that two lots of cattle of the same age, type, breeding, condition and previous treatment, are offered at $4.00 per hundred, one lot weigh- ing 1,000 pounds, the other 1,200 pounds, a rise in value of $1.50 per hundred while being finished would amount to $15.00 on the 1,000 pound cattle and $18.00 on the 1,200 pound cattle, a differ- ence of $3.00 per head in favor of the heavier cattle, due to addi- tional weight alone. If this additional weight were due to condition rather than size, there would be a further profit due to either a shorter feeding period or a higher price when sold. The question of age is one that has attracted much attention. Age. T he younger the steer, provided weight, condition and quality are the same, the more valuable to the feeder, as the cost of gain increases with the age of the cattle. In selecting calves which are to be finished as yearlings, the greatest attention must be paid to se- cure quality, type and breeding as it is impossible to finish inferior cattle at an early age. Calves taken directly from their dams and weighing from 350 to 500 pounds will bring more per pound than they will any time later until they are fat enough to be attractive to the killer. A greater price may also be paid per pound for well bred calves which are to be carried as stockers than for lower grades. A difference of 50 cents per hundred on the price of a 400 pound calf will amount to $2.00. When weighing 1,000 pounds this would be overcome by an increase of 20 cents per hundred, which is easily secured with a very little better breeding and more quality. In other words, the calf buyer is justified in paying for quality and indica- 2O tions of early maturity whether he intends to carry them as stockers or put them in the feed lot immediately. GENERAL CONDITIONS INFLUENCING THE PRICE OF FEEDERS. The other group of factors influencing the cost of feeders, is neither under the control of the producer or of the feeder but is determined by the general financial and industrial condition of the country together with trade and market conditions. The feeder mar- ket depends upon supply and demand, hence any condition which affects the outlet for beef cattle, of necessity has a decided influence on prices. This second group of factors is as follows: 1. The locality. 3. Season of the year. 3. Price, condition and supply of corn. 4. Supply of roughage. 5. Condition of the market for fat cattle. In certain sections of the country where there is an abun- Locality. ance of rough land, capable of producing blue grass, clover and other pasture grasses in abundance, and well supplied with good. water, the production of feeders can be success- fully followed. When such grazing land is available in large quan- tities there is usually a scarcity of tillable land to produce enough corn and other grains to finish cattle at a profit, hence the most logical procedure for the producer in such a section is to market cattle as feeders. Investigation has shown that southern Indiana is especially adapted to this method of beef production. These cattle are usually shipped to central markets, *hence their home value is determined by their market price, less the expense incident to shipping, such as freight, commission, feed and yardage. In the grain growing sections of the country, the cost of feeders is de- termined by their price at central markets with the additional ex- pense incurred in shipping them to the feed lot. In this way the locality in which the cattle are produced may influence the price of feeding cattle 50 cents per hundred or more, depending upon the local supply and demand and the distance from a central market. It is well known that the season of the year has a de- The Season cided influence on the cost of feeders. In the fall when of the. there is an abundant supply of cattle going to market Year. m a\\ degrees of condition from grass fat to thin stock- ers, the feeder has a wide selection and an abund- ance of material from which to draw. A large supply of cattle at this time of the year, together with the approaching winter when the feeds will be more expensive and the gains less rapid, reduces the price. In the spring there is a strong demand for feeders due to the approach of a favorable feeding season and to the scarcity of cattle with flesh enough to be classified as feed- *Circular No. 8, "Purchasing- P eeders." 21 ers. At this time the packer or butcher has exhausted the supply of cheap beef which was put up during the summer season and is on the market for the class of cattle most desirable for feeding pur- poses. If the feeder bids against him, he necessarily has to pay more than he does in the fall when there is a larger number of cattle going on the market from which to select. This has caused a large number of cattle feeders to buy stockers in the fall at com- paratively low prices, carry them through the winter in stalk fields, on wheat and oat straw, corn fodder and other cheap, rough feeds, with little grain and a minimum amount of care and attention. If stockers maintain their weight under such conditions during the winter, the owner is usually satisfied. No. 15. A lot of high grade Herefords 12 months of age, fed at the Sta- tion during the winter of 1906-07. Average daily gain for six months 2.08 Ibs. per head. These cattle sold in Chicago at $6.75 per hun- dred, August, 1907, the highest price paid during that year for cat- tle weighing under 1000 Ibs. per head. There is also in the spring a strong demand for stockers suit- able for grazing. Summer gains are usually cheap as stockers will put on from 250 to 350 pounds during the six months grazing pe- riod, if not started on the grass in too high a condition. At or- dinary rental for pasture, this gain will cost from 2 to 3 cents per pound, hence a greater price per hundred can be paid for steers in the spring of the year than in the fall. This may be shown by the following explanation. Cattle weighing 700 pounds in the spring when turned on grass and costing 5 cents, should gain 300 pounds during the summer without grain. This will cost, with pasture at $i.po per month per head, 2 cents per pound, thus the same cattle weighing 1000 pounds at the close of the grazing season, will have 22 cost $41.00 per head. This includes $35.00 for the original cost and $6.00 for grazing. Thus it will be seen that they could be sold at $4.10 per hundred or 90 cents per hundred cheaper in the fall than in the spring without profit or loss. During nearly every summer there is a drought in some large section of the country where the chief source of revenue is from cattle which are carried to utilize grass. When such a drought oc- curs over a large area of land, there is a shortage of feed so that cattle which would otherwise have been carried through, are rushed into market, making an over supply or glut which necessarily re- duces the price of feeders. In other years there may be an abund- ance of grass throughout the season which holds back the cattle that would have come on the market regularly during the summer, until late in the fall. The supply and price of corn in the fall of the year Supply and largely determine the price of feeders. In other words Price of Corn. a large crop of corn selling from 30 to 40 cents per bushel, necessarily means increased prices for feed- ers, due to a strong demand. If the supply of corn is so short that the price is advanced materially, there is a corresponding decrease in the demand for feeders. At the same time there will be many who had intended to feed their cattle that will ship them to market to avoid the necessity of feeding high priced corn. This causes an abnor- mal supply, which, taken with the decreased'demand, insures a large supply at a low cost. When there is a large corn crop selling at low figures, the small feeder who handled from one to two car loads of cattle, is much more apt to venture into the cattle business than he would with corn at 50 cents per bushel. When the corn crop is not in marketable condition, there is a further incentive to feed cattle in order to convert it into beef and pork. This may in some instances cause so great a demand for feeding cattle as to over- balance the depressing influence of high priced corn. It may be generally stated that exceptionally high priced corn, in good mar- ketable condition, causes a weak market, while a larger crop, or one not in marketable condition, causes a strong market for feeders. The supply of roughage is another determining factor The Supply in the price of feeders. There is a demand for fleshy of steers suitable to go on full feed of corn quickly, in Roughage, seasons such as the past two years (1906-07) when clover has been a failure and a comparatively small amount of rough feeds is available. This in a measure, causes the thinner sorts of cattle to be discriminated against. If, on the other hand, there is a large crop of clover and other roughage with a small supply of grain, there is as great a demand for stockers as for feeders. When the supply of both grain and roughage is abundant, Condition of the Fat Cattle Market. there is a greater tendency to buy stockers to consume roughage and feeders to consume the grain. If there is a wide outlet for beef and a small supply, causing fat cattle to sell at high prices, many are en- couraged to feed cattle who would otherwise not do so. Experienced cattle feeders consider that there should be an increase of from 20 to 30 cents per hun- dred per month on cattle while fattening, in order to insure a profit. When fat cattle are selling from $6.50 to $7.50 per hundred, feed- ers should apparently be worth $1.00 more per hundred than if the fat cattle mairket is on a basis of $5.50 to $6.50. As a general rule however, it may be said that the experienced cattle feeder who is in business continuously from one year to another, is disposed to avoid buying feeders when fat cattle are selling at extremely high prices. He also avoids buying feeders during periods of high prices and prefers to wait until an opportune time which occurs every year, when they sell at normal prices. Too frequently the beginner starts in the business when prices are inflated and is compelled to market his cattle when a reaction has taken place. No. 11b. First prize and champion "Short-fed Special" cattle shown by Purdue Experiment Station at "International" 1907. Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 115. VOL. -XIII. DECEMBER, 1906. Steer Feeding PUBLISHED BY THE STATION* LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. BOARD OF CONTROL. WILLIAM V. STUART, President, L/aFayette, Tippecanoe SYLVESTER JOHNSON, DAVID E. BEEM, - HENRY A. MILLER, JAMES M. BARRETT, CHARLES DOWNING, JOSEPH D. OLIVER, CHARLES MAJOR, ADDISON C. HARRIS, County - Irving-ton, Marion County Spencer, Owen County Montmorenci, Tippecanoe County Fort Wayne, Allen County Greenfield, Hancock County South Bend, St. Joseph County Shelby ville, Shelby County • Indianapolis, Marion County WINTHROP E. STONE, A. M., Ph. D., President of the University STATION ARTHUR Goss, M.S., A.C. Director WILLIAM C. LATTA, M. S. , JAMES TROOP, M. S., - - JOSEPH C. ARTHUR, D. Sc., - JOHN H. SKINNER, B. S., ALFRED T. WIANCKO, B. S. A., - ROBERT A. CRAIG, D. V. M., - OTTO F. HUNZIKER, M. S. A., WILLIAM J. JONES, JR., M. S., A. C., MARTIN L. FISHER, B. S., SAMUEL D. CONNER, B. S., OWEN C. HA WORTH, B. S.,* FRANK D. KERN, B. S., GEORGE I. CHRISTIE, B. S. A., WILBER A. CocHEL, A. B.,B. S., - WALTER P. KELLEY, B. S.,* LAWRENCE S. HASSELMAN, B. S., : CLINTON O. CROMER, B. S., CHARLES G. WOODBURY, M. S., HERMAN D. Wendt, ROLAND E. STONE, MADISON B. PORCH, B. S.,* NELLIE TRACY, JESSIE L. COWING, - ... STAFF. , Station Chemist, State Chemist Consulting- Agriculturist Horticulturist and Entomologist -. f • -. - Botanist Animal Husbandry - Agriculturist Veterinarian Dairy Husbandry * - Associate Chemist Assistant Agriculturist Assistant Chemist Assistant Chemist Assistant Botanist Associate Agri. Extension Work Assistant in Animal Husbandry Assistant in Soil Improvement : Assistant Chemist - Assistant Agriculturist Assistant Horticulturist Dairy Field Assistant Assistant Botanist Assistant Chemist Clerk and Librarian Bookkeeper •Connected with Fertilizer Control. Steer Feeding J. H. SKINNER AND W. A. COCHEL SUMMARY. 1. Ear corn and clover hay proved to be the most efficient ration used in trfis test, in economy of gain, rate of gain and profit per steer. 2. Ear corn, shredded stover and oat straw, supplemented with linseed meal, proved to be more efficient than ear corn, shredded stover and oat straw in economy of gain, rate of gain and profit per steer. 3. A ration of ear corn, shredded stover and oat straw was not efficient, economical or profitable. 4. The addition of some nitrogenous food stuff either in the form of concentrate or roughage added to the efficiency of the ration and to the profit of the feeder. 5. The value and importance of clover hay for fattening cattle was clearly demonstrated. 6. Linseed meal proved to be an efficient and profitable sup- plement when fed with ear corn, shredded stover and oat straw. 7. The steers receiving a ration of ear corn, shredded stover antf oat straw, supplemented with linseed meal, were as well finished as those receiving ear corn and clover hay, although they made smaller gains. 8. The steers receiving ear corn, shredded stover and oat straw without the linseed meal were not comparable with the other two lots in finish, rate of gain or profit. 9. The narrower the ration in this test the greater was the daily consumption of dry matter per 1000 Ibs. live weight. 10. The total amount of dry matter consumed daily per steer, the rate of gain and the cost of gain were greatest when the cattle were on full feed. 11. The hogs following the steers fed on ear corn and clover made the greatest gain. 12. A comparison of the different rations fed in this test shows that the most rapid gains were the cheapest and most profita- ble. For the convenience of the reader, the most important facts brought out in this experiment are presented in tabular form on page 331. 312 INTRODUCTION. Beef production is one of the greatest industries in Indiana. Careful estimates show about $25,000,000 invested in cattle, land and equipment devoted to this business. In recent years the rapid in- crease in land values, the high price of all kinds of feed, and the comparatively low price of fat cattle have made many farmers ques- tion whether or not feeding cattle can be made profitable. The busi- ness of cattle feeding is becoming more and more complicated and involves many important questions, such as buying or growing "feed- ers," methods of feeding, marketing, etc., which are not readily answered under average farm conditions. Cattle feeders, as a rule, do not keep careful records of their feeding operations and, conse- quently, but little definite information is available as to profits or losses from cattle feeding. Recognizing the importance of careful investigation along these lines the Indiana Livestock Breeders' Association in co-operation with similar state organizations presented the matter to the Indiana State Legislature in 1904. The result of this movement was an annual appropriation of $5,000 made to the Experiment Station for live stock investigation, especially with beef cattle. This has made it possible for the Animal Husbandry Department to begin a series of cattle feeding experiments with a view of securing information that should make the business more profitable to feeders. The first of these experiments conducted during the winter of 1905-06 is reported in this bulletin. It should be clearly under- stood, however, that this is a report of progress, that is of a single test, the results of which should be taken as indicative of what may be expected under similar methods and conditions rather than con- clusive. The profits from cattle feeding do not depend on the price of land. Land values are based largely upon production, distance from markets and the available shipping facilities. If it is profitable to grow corn, oats and clover on $100 land, the only question left to the farmer is whether he can market these crops by feeding them to cat- tle, at a price equal to their market value at the elevator. This ap- plies to the land owner who has corn and a large amount of cheap roughage to dispose of, and not to the man who buys both cattle and feed, expecting to make his profit from the transaction, without giv- ing any consideration to the value of the manure. The fertility of the soil cannot be ignored. The progressive man will make profita- ble use of the manure from his cattle. We hold the view that it is not more expensive, under ordinary conditions, to feed the crop to cattle than to market it, hence the feeder has made a profit equal to the manurial value of the feeds used, if at the close of the feeding 313 period his cattle sell for enough to pay for the original cost of the cattle, the feed consumed and the interest on the investment. It is not a question of profit from feeding cattle, but rather a question of the most profitable method of disposing of farm crops. Indiana is especially adapted to the production of high class beef cattle, as is shown by the large number of prizes won by Indiana cat- tle in the show rings of the various state fairs and live stock exposi- tions, also by the great number of high class cattle marketed annually by Indiana feeders. A large portion of the State lies directly in the corn belt ; blue grass grows abundantly all over the State and much of the land is especially adapted to growing clover, cowpeas and other leguminous crops with which to balance the corn in the ration. There is abundance of good water available, favorable feeding sea- sons and comparatively no contagious or infectious diseases of cat- tle. In addition to these natural advantages, Indiana has the greatest live stock markets in the world right at her door. It seems then that with the ability to produce good cattle, abundance of the best recognized food-stuffs, favorable climatic and market conditions, and soil that needs building up, beef production should be profitable in Indiana. Object. The main object of this experiment was to test the efficiency of various combinations of corn and other feeds for fattening cattle, such as corn stover, oat straw and clover hay, commonly available on Indiana farms. The comparisons were also planned so as to clearly demonstrate the importance and value of feeding fattening cattle some nitrogenous feed, either in the form of roughage or concen- trate, to supplement the corn of the ration. Corn is recognized as the cheapest of fat forming foodstuffs and is used as the basis of the grain ration in this test. Oat straw and corn stover were chosen for roughage because of their great abun- dance and cheapness. Clover hay was used in the comparison owing to its nitrogenous character, palatability, and the fact that the crop can be most profitably disposed of by feeding. The Station also de- sires to encourage the growing and feeding of clover, as it undoubt- edly should find frequent use in any judicious system of cropping in many sections of the State. Plan of Experiment. The experiment was planned with the view of using n steers to the lot, with just enough hogs following to consume the undigested corn in the droppings of the steers. It was decided to use simple meth- ods in preparing the feed, in order to make the conditions of the test comparable with those of the average feeder as far as possible. To accomplish this .broken ear corn and uncut roughage were used, with the exception of the stover which was shredded. ANIMALS IN THE TEST: — The steers used in this experiment were Hereford and Shorthorn grades purchased December, 1905, at the Union Stock Yards in Chicago, through Alexander, Ward & Conover, at $4 per cwt. They were selected with the view of secur- ing uniformity, although it was impossible at the time to get the quality and weight desired. The cattle were purchased at a time when "feeders" were scarce and in strong demand. This condition of the market made it impossible to buy the cattle for what they were really worth. The cattle were shipped to the University farm where they were held for two weeks on a preliminary feed consisting of corn stover and oat straw for roughage, and a small allowance of ear corn. At the end of this time they were separated into three lots as nearly equal as possible in age, weight, quality, condition and breeding. SHELTER, FEED LOTS AND WATER SUPPLY: — The lots in which the cattle were fed were 40^x50', with an open shed 1 2^40' on the west side of each lot. As it was necessary to feed in the lots they were built up with cinders and gravel and sloped away from the sheds, thus affording surface drainage. These lots were much drier than the average feed lot, although at one time the mud in them was about four inches deep. No bedding was used in the lots, though the sheds were kept well bedded at all times. The water was supplied in galvanized iron tanks set in the end of the lots opposite the sheds. These tanks were protected by a layer of 4 to 5 inches of manure, outside of which was a wooden jacket i" thick. The tanks were pro- vided with covers, wnich were kept open except the night before the steers were weighed and during extremely cold weather. Ice rarely formed in the tanks, but in case it did, it was removed each morning. WEIGHING: — The steers were each numbered by means of a tag fastened on a strap around the neck. They were all weighed in- dividually and by lots, before watering three mornings in succession, at the beginning and the close of the experiment, in order to over- come variation in fill and to obtain average weights. While the ex- periment was in progress each lot of steers was weighed every ten days in order to keep a record of the rate of gain and the feed con- sumed by ten day periods. In addition to this, all the steers were weighed individually every thirty days. The hogs were given num- bers on tags and weighed individually at the beginning and close of the experiment, and by lots every ten days. METHOD OF FEEDING: — The feed was weighed out twice daily, the steers being fed grain in troughs in the open yards at six-thirty a. m. and five-thirty p. m. Roughage was fed after the grain in the morning and before the grain in the evening. The cattle were fed no more grain nor roughage than they would readily clean up in one- half to three-quarters of an hour. All feed refused, such as corn stover, hay and straw, was weighed back frequently in order to keep exact records of the amount actually consumed. Salt was kept in boxes in the sheds and was available to the steers at all times. Dur- ing the first 90 days the cattle were fed a limited grain ration. But little trouble from scouring occurred in lots I and 2. It was some- what difficult, however, to -keep the cattle in good condition in Lot. 3. The Quality and Price of Feeds Used. Ear corn was purchased from farmers in the neighborhood of the Station and was sound, marketable corn of good quality, shelling out 56 pounds of corn to the bushel (70 pounds ear corn). The clover hay fed to Lot I was a little coarse, rather too ripe, but well cured, and would grade No. I clover on the market. The shredded stover was not first class, due to unfavorable weather at the time of shredding and to the scarcity of shredded stover on the market, from which to select. The quality of the stover was equal to the aver- age on most farms. Shredded stover was used in preference to un- shredded because it was more conveniently stored and more readily handled in feeding. No sore mouths were observed from feeding shredded stover, as is frequently reported by cattle feeders. The oat straw had been threshed in a barn and was bright and clean, with little oats in it. The linseed meal was purchased from the American Linseed Co., of Chicago, and was what is known as Old Process Oil Meal of good quality. PRICES OF FEEDS : — It is a very difficult matter to fix a price upon the feeds used in experimental work. The variation in price from time to time throughout the period involved in any cattle feeding experiment, and tne fact that very frequently it is impossible to se- cure, locally, the feeds desired at any price, makes it impracticable to use current market prices. Any list of prices, which might be sub- mitted, would very probablv not be of practical value to the feeder on the average farm, except in rare cases where his conditions were exactly the same as those which governed the prices set forth. In other words, any statement of prices of feeds used in experimental work is purely arbitrary. It seems necessary, however, that some financial statement be made in connection with a bulletin giving the results of feeding experiments. Such a statement can only be used by the feeder as a matter of comparison. In order to make such a statement and put the work on a practical basis, inquiries were sent out to a large number of practical farmers with the view of securing the average prices for farm grown feeds in different sections of the State. From these replies the following prices were agreed upon as a basis for the financial statement in this bulletin : Ear corn $11 .43 per ton, or 4oc per bushel. Clover hay 6.00 per ton Shredded stover 3 . oo per ton Oat straw 2.00 per ton Linseed meal 28.00 per ton The cost of shredding and baling have not been taken into con- sideration in the above estimates, as neither in any way affect the feeding value of the foodstuffs. The following table gives not only the usual analyses of the feeds used, but also the fertilizer analyses of the ash of these feeds : TABUS i :— Analyses of Feed Stuffs.* Ear Corn Linseed Meal Clover Hay Shredded Stover Oat Straw Dry Matter 90 060 90.960 88 100 89.370. 89.040 Crude protein (NX 6.25) 8.775 34.169 11.131 5.650 2.737 Ether Extract (crude fat) 3.587 6.418 1 915 1 263 1.880 Crude fiber 5.395 8.303 33 215 29 173 33.985 Nitrogen free extract. . . Crude ash 70.953 4.350 37.115 4 955 36.192 5 647 45.794 7.490 42.581 7.857 FERTILIZER ANALYSES. Nitrogen (N) 1 404 5 467 1 781 0 904 0 438 Potash (K£ O) 0 397 1.315 1.430 1.053 1.200 Phosphoric acid (P2 Os ) 0 585 1.693 0.350 0.420 0.185 *Analyses made by Department of Chemistry, Purdue Experiment Station. A study of the above table will show that the feeds used in this experiment do not vary greatly from the average analyses* except in moisture, which is less than the average. This is doubtless due to the fact that the feeds were baled and stored in a barn early, and, *Henry's— "Feeds and Feeding:.' 317 as a consequence, were thoroughly air-dried at the time the analyses were made. The table shows the fertilizer constituents contained in each of the feeds used. Estimating nitrogen to be worth I5c, potash 5c and phosphoric acid 5c per pound, which are the average prices of these materials in Indiana, the plant food in a bushel of ear corn is worth iS.ic, or in a ton of ear corn $5.19; of linseed meal per ton $19.39, clover hay, per ton $7.12, shredded stover per ton $4.19 and oat straw per ton $2.69. It is true that it would be practically im- possible to return all of the fertilizer constituents of these feeds to the soil, as a portion of them, amounting to something less than 10 per cent., would be carried off by the steers in the increase in live weight while in the feed lot ; and under the best possible conditions there would be some loss from leaching and heating of the manure. This would be especially true in the case of nitrogen. These fertili- zers may also be bought in forms more readily available to plants, although this would more than likely be offset by the value of the organic matter in the manure. It can be seen that in the case of clover hay, shredded stover and oat straw, the fertilizer value of these feeds is greater than the aver- age market prices for them in this State. This shows clearly that it is unprofitable for farmers to sell clover hay, shredded stover and oat straw and buy commercial fertilizers. Rations Fed. Lot I. Ear corn. Clover hay. Lot 2. Ear corn. Linseed meal. Shredded stover. Oat straw. Lot 3. Ear corn. Shredded stover. Oat straw. Table II is a complete record of the feeding of the steers in each lot. The experiment continued throughout 180 days, but for con- venience in discussion it has been divided into six periods of 30 days each, which are designated as months, and also into two periods of 90 days each, designated as the first half and second half of the ex- periment. 318 111 »-H 1O CO CO CO 00 CO 00 CO CO O CO OO XC 00 CO rH ^ CO 00 t- •«**»—( ^.COXO 233 o o co — o HH -1°9 co r- ^ CO 2rl3 — °*. CO 00^ •Lbs. dry matter per 1000 Ibs live weight daily CD 05 O CO XC 05 co r- 05 HH 00 CO 00 t- O5 O O5 CO b r- co CO r- rH 'HH 00 CO 05 — ' rH r-N 00 05 -^ -H XO JT^ CO 00 CO CO O I-H XO O5 00 O5 rH CO CO CO — i— i O5 CO CO —i CO HH CO CO CO CO CO Hi CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO rH CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO jjj CO GO CO CO CO •* IT— r- O5 O 00 O 05 05 HH CO t- 00 O xo HH r- 05 HH 05 -H CO CO CO O 05 O5 IT- CO XC IT- CO ^ CO t— CO O5 t- o IT- CO co co CO CO XC oo r- xc CO CO — O O5 O5 00 CO CO CO XC IT- XO CO CO -* CO xc O O5'00 xo ^ co r- co t- Hi CO 05 r~- co co r- CD ~- CO rH 00 00 IT- oo r- O 05 JT- CO CO OO ~ xo co CO ^ CO 00 '00 t- T*H CO ~ •^ t- r- 05 ~- IT- CO o ec CO •** r- T*H 00 CO — < o o CO CO CO O r-i O rH r-i rH co r- co o o oo CO CO r- o 1-" oo CO CO r- O CO 05 CO CO r- O —1 05 CO CO r-i xc r- xo O — O5 CO CO — 00 O5 t- Proportion of grain to roughage OO XO CO CO 0 0 rH rH rH CO XO ^ CO xo XC o o o' rH CO CO 000 co r- co CO CO HH o o o xc xc O CO rH CO O CO 05 CO rH CO t- CO 00 co xc xo CO O5 CO CO rH CO °< CO 5 O O O O O O o o o 000 o o o in! XO CO O CO CO ^ CO rH CO O5 "^ XO 00 XO CO CO 00 CO CO CO HH CO CO CO CO rH O' r-i O •* co co o CO CO ^ t- 00 CO ^ rH XO ^* XO rH CO 00 00 CO CO IT- CO O CO CO 0 0 rH rH rH O5 O5 00 OO CO CO t- CO IT- CO T* CO xc •* co O 05 00 CO "* CO oo r- t- ||!ll O> CO ^^ 00 CO 00 r- co IT- CO 05 co t- CO CO ^ CO CO CO O -HH rH 05 00 CO O CO O -* O5 SCO rH CO 00 CO CO CO XC CO CO T*H XC -* t- co xc O XO O5 r- Tt< xc 05 O O5 rH xc co xc rH rH rH rH rH 00 CO CO rH CO CO 00 CO CO rH "* XC O CO CO CO XC XO rH CO CO CO xc co ^ rH rH rH CO •«*! O CO CO CO os o r- rH CO rH Lbs. Roughage Eaten per Steer daily l| t- XC co co' 00 00 rH rH -* CO 00 00 rH rH 05 CO rH CO CO O5 CO rH OO t- CO CO . CO O5 "* O5 00 O rH CO 05 O rH CO* rH CO CO CO CO -H 111 CC CO rH •«* XO 00 CO rH 05 05 §§ 05 rH IT- CO 00 O CO CO oo r- XO MH rH XC t-I CO O CO o IT- CO CO 00 CO 0 rH xc xc 00 IT- t- CO XO^H HH XO CO CO rH CO i» XC CO (M 05 QO CO 00 s IT- rH rH CO CO XC r- o rH CO CO' GO A\ivp aaajs aad iBajv HO *sqq XO 00 05 0 00 rH CO CO 05 rH O CO* t- rH rH xc oo rH xc rH ~ '*" S 00 OO 00 CO CO HH rJ CO OO CO 00 CO O ^* 05 O CO rH O CO 00 CO OO CO XO O CD ^H O5 ^H t- t- xc O HH O5 t- O5 XC QO OO OO HH XO CO O5 O5 O5 XO XO XO rH 05 00 CO r-i 00 CO CO rH ^ CO O CO CO CO XO CO rH CO CO CO xo xc -* rH rH rH CO CO O CO CO CO 05 oo r- rH rH rH rH CO CO "o : : "o : : o : - rH COCO "o : : — c^r ro "o j : "o : - i 9 — 2nd 90 days lot 1 '• 2 " 3 r- (N CO 01 i 6 (A o* g a OT 6 £ CO 1 0 o 43 4-> During the first two months the grain ration was limited in or- der to make larger use of roughage and to save corn, but after the beginning of the third month the steers were fed according to ap- petite until the end of the experiment. The steers were started on 7 pounds of ear corn per head daily, which was gradually increased. At the end of the second month they were receiving 18 pounds of ear corn, which was rapidly increased until they were receiving all they would clean up. While the grain ration was limited, it will be observed that Lot I (corn and clover) ate more roughage per head daily than either of the other two lots, or, in other words, clover hay is more palatable than shredded fodder and oat straw. when fed with ear corn. A further study of this table will show that Lot 2 (ear corn, linseed meal, shredded stover and oat straw), consumed more roughage than Lot 3 (ear corn, shredded stover and oat straw) or, that linseed meal, when added to a limited grain ration, does not decrease, but has a tendency to increase the consumption of roughage as the steers are more than those receiving the same amount of corn without the meal. Linseed meal increased the palatability of the ra- tion composed of ear corn, shredded stover and oat straw. When the steers were fed according to appetite the largest amount of grain was consumed by Lot I receiving ear corn and clover hay. The steers in this lot consumed 25 pounds of ear corn daily per steer, or slightly more than one-third of a bushel during the sixth month, which in this experiment was considered a full feed. Lot 2, receiving ear corn and oil meal with shredded stover and oat straw did not con- sume quite so much corn (23.6 pounds) during this period as Lot i, but by adding the corn and meal together we find that there was a greater total consumption of concentrates by Lot 2 than by Lot I. By comparing the consumption of grain in Lot 3, receiving ear corn, shredded stover and oat straw, it will be seen that this lot at no time ate as much concentrate (21.81 pounds) as either Lot I or Lot 2. Lot 2 consumed an average of 20.45 pounds concentrate and 7.03 pounds of roughage per head daily for the entire experiment, while Lot 3 consumed 17.59 pounds concentrate and 7.67 pounds roughage, thus showing that the addition of linseed meal to a ration of ear corn, shredded stover and oat straw increased foor consump- tion. The fact that the cattle in Lot 2 consumed more feed, es- pecially concentrates, than Lot 3 is due to the favorable influence of oil meal on the digestion and to the palatability of the feed. This shows very clearly the advantage of feeding some nitrogenous feed with ear corn in order to secure large consumption of feed. Another point brought out by the table is that, as the amount of grain con- sumed increased, the amount of roughage consumed decreased. Lot i consumed 12.65 pounds of hay when fed 9.8 pounds of ear corn and 320 only 5.24 pounds of hay when fed 25 pounds ear corn per steer daily. The same thing is true in Lots 2 and 3. Table II also shows the daily consumption of food per 1000 pounds live weight in each lot. It will be seen that so long as the grain ration was limited, Lot 3 received more concentrates per 1000 pounds live weight than Lot i. This was due to the fact that the steers in Lot 3 did not gain so rapidly as those in Lot I. However, clover hay was relished so much more than shredded stover and oat straw that the steers in Lot I consumed 21.66 pounds dry matter daily per 1000 pounds live weight as compared with 19.90 in Lot 3, during the first month. A further study of this table will show that there was a gradual increase in the daily consumption of dry matter per 1000 pounds liveweight in Lots I and 2 receiving 21.66 and 21.59 pounds at the beginning, until the end of the third month, when they were receiving 26.08 and 24.94 pounds dry matter per 1000 pounds liveweight respectively. From the beginning of the second half un- til the close of the experiment, at which time they were consuming 22.19 and 22.81 pounds of dry matter per 1000 pounds liveweight daily, there was a gradual decrease. The steers were not up to a full feed and their appetites were increasing at a grater rate than their weight until the end of the third month, after which time the increase in liveweight was greater than the increase in food consumption. Lot 3 has an entirely different record. The steers in this lot were not at all times ready for their feed, but were never in that condition known as "off feed." They varied so greatly in rate of gain and ap- petite throughout the experiment that it is impossible to make any consistent statement concerning the consumption of dry matter dur- ing different months. Comparing the daily consumption of dry matter per 1000 pounds liveweight in Lots I and 2 during the first and last 90 days of the experiment it will be noticed that there is a remarkable similarity. The smallest amount of dry matter was consumed during the last half. This is due to the fact that a fat steer cannot consume as much dry matter per 1000 pounds liveweight as a thin steer. The opposite is true in Lot 3. The cattle in this lot consumed more per 1000 pounds liveweight during the second half of this experiment than during the first half. The steers in Lot 3 did not begin to decrease in food consumption per 1000 pounds liveweight until the end of the fifth month, when they were in about the same condition as the other lots at the end of the third month. The nutritive ratio and the amount of dry matter in the rations in the various lots varies greatly from that recommended in the German Feeding Standards. This will usually be the case with cat- tle rations in the corn belt. The standards of fattening cattle call for 28 to 30 pounds of dry matter daily per 1000 pounds liveweight 321 and a nutritive ratio varying from 1 15.4 to 1 16.4, while in Lot I the average dry matter varied from 21.7 to 26 pounds and the nutritive ratio varied from 1:9.1 to 1:11.5; in Lot 2 from 21.59 to 24.97 pounds and from 1:12.1 to 1:9.7; in Lot 3 from 19.90 to 22.91 pounds and from i :i5-5 to i :i3.8. It will be noticed that Lots i and 2 were fed practically the same nutritive ratio throughout the experi- ment and that the consumption of dry matter daily per 1000 pounds was practically the same in each lot, while Lot 3, which was fed a wider ration, did not consume nearly so much feed, falling below Lots i and 2 more than i pound daily per 1000 pounds liveweight. It will be noticed further that during the first 90 days when Lot I was receiving a narrower ration than Lot 2, the dry matter consumed daily per 1000 pounds liveweight was greater. During the last 90 days when Lot 2 received a narrower ration than Lot i, the dry mat- ter consumed daily was greater in this lot. No definite conclusion is warranted from such limited data, yet this experiment indicates that the narrower the ration, within certain limits, the greater is the total dry matter consumed daily per 1000 pounds liveweight. It may be assumed that, so far as the consumption of dry mat- ter is concerned, a nutritive ratio of i :io.5 is more efficient with the grade of cattle and feeds used in this experiment than one of i -.14.0. We cannot assume, however, that a nutritive ratio of i :54 and 1 :6.4, recommended by the Standards, would have been more or less ef- ficient than i : 10.5. TABLE III. — Showing average daily gain per steer by months and periods. Average daily gain per steer. Lot i Lot 2 Lot 3 1st month i.Q3 .OQ • 74 2nd month 2.IO .68 .40 3rd month 2.A.O 2. 12 .36 4th month I.Q3 .4^ .30 5th month 1.66 .86 .07 6th month 2.81 2. $4 .85 ist 90 days . . . 2. 02 60 . 17 2nd 90 days 2. 13 .0^ .A3 i 80 davs . f • AO 2.08 • yj .7Q •to .30 NOTE a. — At the end of the 2nd month one of the steers in Lot i developed a case of actinomycosis (lumpy jaw) and it was decided to remove this animal from the test and continue it with ten steers. Table III shows the average daily gain per steer in each of the three lots by months and also during the first and last half of the experiment. Lot i. which received ear corn and clover hay, made greater gains than Lot 2, which received ear corn, linseed meal. shredded stover and oat straw, every month with the exception of the 5th. Lot 2, which received linseed meal, made better gains .it all times than Lot 3. which received the same ration without the lin- seed meal. This shows very clearly the advantage of feeding some nitrogenous feed with corn. The ration fed Lot 3 was of such a nature that the steers would not consume a sufficient quantity to make rapid gains. Its physical character was such that it required a large amount of energy to Handle it. The nutritive ratio was very wide and the digestion of the feed was not satisfactory at all times. These factors account for the small gains in this lot. The ration fed in the second lot was more palatable, hence the steers ate a much larger quantity ; the addition of oil meal had a desirable effect on di- gestion, and the ration was more narrow than that fed to Lot 3. These factors undoubtedly account for the more rapid gains in Lot 2. The ration fed to Lot I was more palatable than that fed to Lot 2, it required less energy to handle it and it had practically the same nutritive ratio and fully as desirable an effect on digestion, hence produced more rapid gains. The fourth and fifth months were unsatisfactory for feeding, as the weather was unfavorable to rapid or economical gains. The rapid gains in all lots during the sixth month may be accounted for by the fact that during this month the cattle were not disturbed by visitors as they were in the early months of the experiment. It should be noted also that May iQth, the day before the cattle were weighed, was a cold, rainy day. This may have caused the cattle to fill poorly, and, as a consequence, the gains for the fifth month ap- pear to be low. while those of the sixth month are. relatively high. The last weights were not abnormal, as they are composed of the average of 3 days' weighing. liy comparing the daily gains during the first and the last half of the experiment it will be seen that, without exception, the steers made better gains when they were on full feed of corn, than when the grain ration was limited. Ho\vever, these cattle were not finish- ed. Individual records which do not appear in this bulletin, show that the younger steers in Lots I and 2 made the best gains, while in Lot 3 the best gains were made by the more- mature and coarser steers, or in other words, the ration fed in Lot 3 was better adapted to mature cattle than to younger. A mature steer does not require protein for the formation of muscle and tissue, hence can use a wide ration to a much better advantage than a growing steer. It was very noticeable that the younger steers in Lot 3 where the ration was very wide, though of good beef type, did not make so satisfactory gains as the more mature steers. In Lots I and 2 the vouncr steers 323 made equally as rapid gains as those more mature. Steer No. 5 in Lot i gained 476.6 pounds in 180 days, while steer No. 8 in the same lot gained only 280 pounds; steer No. 20 in Lot 2 gained 398.2 pounds while steer No. 12 gained 268.3 pounds ; steer No. 24 in Lot 3 gained 291.6 pounds, while steer No. 28 gained 140 pounds. The steers which gained the most rapidly, attained the best finish and were worth most per pound, were of strictly beef type. This shows the value of beef blood in the feed lot. Considering the gains in another light we find a most important fact brought out, that is, that the steers which had been fed on ear corn and clover had made as much gain in 114 days, or slightly less than 4 months, as the steers fed on ear corn, shredded stover and oat straw made in 6 months. The steers which had been fed on linseed IV. — Showing daily gain per steer, feed, dry matter, digesti- ble nutrients, and cost per cwt. gain required. Daily grain per Steer, Pounds Concentrate per 100 Ibs. grain Pounds Rougrhagre per 100 Ibs. gain Cost per 100 Ibs. grain 1 Pounds digrestible nutrients per 100 Ibs. 1st 90 days Lotl 3 , 0?, 767 ear corn. . . 518 clover hay $5.93 1142 796 Lot2.... 1 60 938 ear corn. . 444 shredded stover 7.15 1421 996 73 oil meal . . 126 oat straw Lots 1.17 1249 ear corn. 558 shredded stover 8.13 1775 1243 170 oat straw 2nd 90 days Lotl ?, 13 1110 ear corn. . . 292 clover hay .... $7.20 1257 943 IvOt2 1 95 1172 ear corn 154 shredded stover 8 34 1358 1027 LotS 1 43 95 linseed rneal 1424 ear corn 95 oat straw 275 shredded stover 8 76 1703 1245 214 oat straw ..... 180 days Lotl. . . . 2 08 946 ear corn 399 clover hay $6 59 1204 873 Lot 2 1 78 1063 ear corn 285 shredded stover 7 79 1387 1013 LotS 1 30 85 linseed meal 1345 ear corn 108 oat straw 392 shredded stover 8 46 1736 1244 194 oat straw 324 meal with corn, shredded stover and straw had gained as much in 135 days as those which had been fed on the same ration with the ex- ception of linseed meal, made in 180 days. That is to say, where clover hay is substituted for shredded stover and oat straw the feed- er will save two months; where linseed meal is added to corn, shredded stover and oat straw he will save one and one-half months out of a six months feeding period. A study of Table IV will show that 946 pounds of ear corn are required to make 100 pounds of gain when fed with clover hay, 1063 pounds when fed with linseed meal, shredded stover and oat straw, and 1345 pounds when fed with shredded stover and oat straw. 399 pounds of clover hay substituted for 392 pounds of shredded stover and 194 pounds of oat straw resulted in a saving of 399 pounds of ear corn, or a difference in cost of $1.87 or 28 per cent, in making 100 pounds of beef, in favor of Lot I over Lot 3. By feeding linseed meal with corn, shredded stover and oat straw there was a saving of 282 pounds of ear corn, 107 pounds of shredded stover and 86 pounds of oat straw for every 85 pounds of linseed meal fed, or a difference in cost of 67c or 8 per cent, in making 100 pounds of beef in favor of Lot 2 over Lot 3. The difference in cost of producing 100 pounds of gain is not the whole measure of the value of clover and linseed meal, as the steers which received these feeds, although worth the same at the beginning of the experiment, were worth 35 cts. per cwt. more when sold. The cost of producing 100 pounds of beef was greater in all lots during the last half of the experiment than during the first, although the rate of gain was greater. This is due to two factors; first, a greater proportion of grain was fed, making the ration itself cost more; second, a greater amount of digestible dry matter is required for a pound of increase on fleshy steers, than on thin steers. The table shows that less dry matter was required during the first than during the second half of the experiment to produce 100 pounds gain in the lot fed clover. In the other two lots the opposite was true. Undoubtedly this is due to the fact that the ration fed Lot I during the first half of the experiment was more nearly balanced than it was during the last half. That is, it came nearer meeting all the requirements of the animal without waste. In Lots 2 and 3 the ration was more nearly balanced during the second half than during the first, hence the more efficient use of dry matter in producing gains. Pork Produced. The method of feeding in this experiment was such that the cat- tle consumed all the grain weighed out to them. The feed bunks were of such a design that practically none of the grain was lost. In this 325 way the only feed available for the hogs was the droppings of the steers. Whether this is the most profitable way to feed cattle and hogs is open to serious question; however, it was the only practical way of determining the value of the waste in this test. The number of hogs varied from 4 during the first 10 days to 13 hogs to n steers during the last 10 days. A sufficient number of hogs was kept in each lot to utilize the droppings to best advantage. The lots were not paved, hence at times became sloppy, although they were never in as bad condition as average feed lots in the State. The condition of the lots necessarily makes a poor showing for the hogs. TABLE V. — Showing total grain consumed by steers, gain on hogs, grain per pound of pork, pork per bushel of corn and beef per bushel of corn. . Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Grain consumed by steers . . 34874 Ibs. 37508 Ibs. 34830 Ibs. Gain made by hog's 1048 " 966 " 888 Grain fed per lot per pound of 33.2 " 38.7 " 39.2 I 4 Pork per bushel of corn con- sumed by steers 2.10 •'• 1.80 " 1.78 i ( Beef per bushel corn consumed. . . Pork and Beef per bushel corn consumed 7.39 " 9.49 •» 6.58 " 8 38 " 5.20 6.98 i t The accompanying table shows the gains made by the hogs fol- lowing the steers in each lot, also the amount of grain fed per steer necessary to make a pound of pork from the droppings. This varies from 33.2 pounds when fed with clover hay, to 39.2 pounds when fed with shredded stover and oat straw. It was noticeable throughout the experiment that the hogs in Lot 3 were not thrifty ; especially was this so of the younger hogs. Those which had attained a size of 100 pounds and upwards without carrying much fat seemed to thrive better in the feed lots. By reducing these figures to the amount of pork produced per bushel of corn fed to steers we find that each bushel should be credited with 2.10 pounds in Lot i, 1.80 pounds in Lot 2, and 1.78 pounds in Lot 3. From these figures it would be justifiable to say that clover hay not only had an advantage over shredded stover and oat straw where fed to fattening cattle, but shows equally favorable results on the hogs following. The difference is so slight in favor of the addition of oil meal over corn alone that no conclusion can be safely drawn. The table also shows the total amount of beef and pork produced from a bushel of corn. These figures do not mean very much, as no account is taken of the increase in value of the steers ; however, they are useful as a comparison -between lots. It will be seen that 2.19 pounds more beef and pork were produced per bushel of corn where clover was used instead of shredded stover and oat straw, 1.38 pounds more beef and pork were produced where linseed meal was added. TABUS VI. — Showing weights of steers, shrink, dressing percentages, weight of caul, ruffle, gut fat and hide, value of carcass and selling price of cattle. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Average weight of Steers at Purdue 1264.5 lbs.1214.5 Ibs, Average weight of steers at 1132.7 Ibs. Chicago 1227.0 1177.2 37.3 3.$ 1107.3 25.4 2.2; Average weight per carcass . . , Percent, of carcass (warm) to liveweigfht , Shrink per steer j 37.5 Percentage shrink i 2.9$ j 719.9 Ibs 682.6 Ibs. | 611.0 Ibs. 58.6$ 56.8$ 54.0$ I Caul, ruffle and gut fat per steer. . 35.3 Ibs. 34.9 Ibs.j 26.8 Ibs. Weight of hides 83.2 Ibs. 77.4 " 77.0 " Value of carcass per cwt $7.10 $7,00 $6.75 Selling price of cattle \ $5.35 $5.35 $5.00 Table VI shows weight of steers at feed lots and on the market, the shrinkage in shipment and the weight of carcasses, fat and hides in each lot, also the per cent of shrink and dressed beef. The morn- ing of shipment the steers were weighed before drinking, their reg- ular allowance of ear corn was replaced by oats and their roughage by timothy hay. Salt had been withheld two days previously. They were driven two miles to the stock pens, where thev were allowed a small amount of water, and loaded in well bedded cars. The shrink per steer was practically 3';,' in Lots I and 2 and 2.2()'< in Lot 3. The feeding of clover or linseed meal caused greater shrink in ship- ment. The cattle arrived in Chicago in good condition and were sold by Alexander, Ward & (Jonover to the S. & S. Co., to whom we are indebted for the figures in Table VI. As stated in the beginning, these cattle were not of the type and quality profitably made prime, but were average cattle and yielded average results. The dressing percentages were not large, however, but normal for cattle of this class and grade. It will be noticed that Lot I, fed corn and clover, though selling for the same price as Lot 2, fed corn, linseed meal, shredded stover and oat straw, dressed nearly 2% higher and their carcasses were worth locts more per cwt., showing that they were not only the most profitable lot for the feed- er, but also for the packer. Lot 3, which made the poorest gains, dressed the lowest percentage and was unprofitable not only to the feeder but to the packer. There was not over sects per cwt. variation in the market value of the best and poorest carcasses in Lots I and 2, while in Lot 3 there was a difference of $1.50 according to G. L. Franklin, Assistant Manager Beef Department of S. & S. Co. The amount of caul, ruffle and gut fats were in the same order as the gains and dressing percentages of the steers. Financial Statement. It is difficult to make a satisfactory financial statement of ex- perimental work. Investigators fully realize this, but to make the work appeal to practical feeders it is necessary to make financial comparisons between rations. It must be understood that the condi- tions in Indiana are so variable that a statement which would be applicable to one section would be wholly misleading in another; in northern Indiana the price of feeders is determined by the Chicago market price and the cost of getting the steers to the feed lots. In southern Indiana the price of feeders is determined by the Chicago or Indianapolis price less shipping expenses. The prices of feed vary greatly, as has been shown by the discussion on page 315 of this bulletin. These and manv other variable factors make it impossible for the feeder to apply any financial statement of experimental re- sults directly to his feeding operations. The relative rate of gain, feed required per cwt. gain, and finish of the cattle as brought out in these different lots, should have a definite bearing on the feeder's methods. The cattle were bought on the Chicago market as previously stated, at $4 per cwt., and shipped to LaFayette, where they were held 17 days before going into the experiment. This was done to ex- clude from the experimental weights the abnormal gains made while the steers were recovering from shipment. Calculating cost of 328 freight, commission and feed from the time the steers were bought until December 22, when the experiment began, the steers cost $4.18 per cwt. The steers were sold in Chicago the day following the close of the experiment at $5.35, $5-35 and $5.00. The hogs were sold at $6.35 per cwt. on the same day. These figures have been used in making the financial statement. The total amount of feed used is given in the table so that the cattle feeder may substitute local prices in each statement to find what the profit would have been under similar conditions in his locality. It will be seen that the steers which were fed on corn and clover hay returned a profit of $19.78 over and above the cost of their feed, without counting the pork produced. When the pork produced is taken into consideration the profit was increased to $86.20, or look- ing at it another way, the corn fed brought 57.3cts. per bushel when clover hay was $6 per ton. The steers fed on ear corn, linseed meal, shredded stover and oat straw did not pay for the feed they consumed, but when the receipts from hogs were added to those from cattle the profit over and above the cost of feeds amounts to $45.68, or corn fed brought 48^ cts. per bushel, when linseed meal was worth $28, stover $3 and oat straw $2 per ton. The steers fed on ear corn, shredded stover and oat straw showed a decided loss without taking into account the receipts from pork produced. The profit with pork produced was only $12.59, or 42^2 cts. per bushel of corn. The financial statement is satisfactory under conditions prevail- ing during the winter and spring of 1905-06. There are many fac- tors not brought .out fully in this statement, which influence the profit and loss in feeding cattle. Suffice it to say that this is simply a re- port of progress. At some future date these factors will be taken up and discussed more thoroughly. 329 Financial Statement. Lot I. To 10 steers 8930 pounds @ $4.18 per cwt $373-33 To 34874.4 pounds ear corn @ 4oc per bu 199. 13 To 14735.3 pounds clover hay @ $6 per ton. . . 44.20 To freight, commission, feed and yardage ...... 20 . oo Total expenditures $636.66 By 10 steers 12,270 @ $5.35 per cwt $656.44 By 1046 pounds pork @ $6.35 per cwt 66.42 Total receipts $722 . 86— $722 . 86 Total profit $ 86.20 Profit per steer 8.62 % on investment for 6 months *3-5% Price received per DU. for corn 57 .30 Financial Statement. Lot 2. To II steers 9853 pounds @ $4.18 per cwt $411.85 To 37508 pounds ear corn @ 4oc per bushel. . . . 214. 17 To 3000 pounds linseed oil meal @ $28 per ton. . 42.00 To 10060 pounds shredded stover @ $3 per ton 15-09 To 3844 pounds oat btraw © $2 per ton 3.84 To freight, commission, feed and yardage 2I-53 Total expenditures $708.48 By ii steers 12950 pounds @ $5.35 per cwt . . .$692.82 By 966 pounds pork @ $6.35 per cwt 61 . 34 Total receipts $754- 16 — $754. 16 Total profit $ 45.68 Profit per steer 4.11 % on investment for 6 months 6 . 4% Price received per bu. for corn 48. 50 330 Financial Statement. Lot 3. To II steers 9890 pounds @ $4.18 per cwt. . . . $413.40 To 34830 pounds ear corn @ 400 per bu 198.87 To 10158 pounds shredded stover @ $3 per ton. IS-23 To 5039 pounds oat straw @ $2 per ton 5 . 03 To freight, commission, feed and yardage • 20.26 Total expenditures $652 . 79 By ii steers 12180 pounds @ $5 per cwt $609.00 By 888 pounds pork @ $6.35 oer cwt 56.38 Total receipts $665 . 38— $665 . 38 Total profit $ 12 . 59 Profit per steer 1 . 14 % on investment for 6 months i .9% Price received per bu. for corn 42 . 5c TABLE VII.— Summary of Results. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Average weight of steers at beginning Dec. 20 893.1 Ibs. 895.7 Ibs 899 Ibs Average daily gain per steer. . 2.08 " 1.78 " 1.30 1 bs. Average concen- trate fed daily per steer 19.70 Ibs. 18. 94 Ibs. ear corn 17.59 * 1 ear corn ear corn 1.51 " oil meal Average rough- age fed daily per steer 8.32 Ibs. 5.08 tkshred'eds. 5.13 • ' shred'ed s. clover hay 1.94 " oat straw 2.54 • 4 oat straw Concentrate per 100 pounds gain 946. Ibs, 1063 •• ear corn 1345 • ear corn ear corn 85 " linseed m. Roughage per 100 pounds gain 399. Ibs. 285 -shred'eds. 392 ' 'shredded s. clover hay 108 " oat straw 194 ' ' oat straw i Cost per 100 pounds gain. . . $6,59 $7.79 $8.46 Pork produced per bushel of corn fed to steers 2.10 Ibs. .. 1.80 Ibs 1.78 1 bs. Cost of steers per 100 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 Selling price of steers $5.35 $5.35 $5.00 Profit per steer . . $8.62 $4.11 $1.14 The table above brings together in convenient arrangement for comparison the most important points brought out in preceding tables. 332 I 1 333 334 335 336 s 337 tl £»s '3 2 CQ _ °§ si PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 130. VOL. XIV. NOVEMBER, 1908. STEER FEEDING, ill. RESULTS OF SHORT VS. LONG FEEDING PERIODS. Published Dy tne station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA, U, S. A, BOARD OF CONTROL. ADDISON C. HARRIS, President Indianapolis, Marion County SYLVESTER JOHNSON Irvington, Marion County DAVID E BEEM, Vice-President Spencer, Owen County HENRY A. MILLER Montmorenci, Tippecanoe County CHARLES DOWNING Greenfield* Hancock County JOSEPH D. OLIVER South Bend, St. Joseph County CHARLES MAJOR Shelbyville, Shelby County GEORGE A. JAMISON LaFayette, Tippecanoe County ANDREW A. ADAMS - - Columbia City, Whitley County WINTHROP E. STONE, A. M., Ph. D. President of the University STATION STAFF. ARTHUR Goss, M. S., A. C. Director and Station Chemist JAMES TROOP, M.S.- - Horticulturist and Entomologist JOSEPH C. ARTHUR, D. Sc. Botanist JOHN H. SKINNER, B. S. Animal Husbandry ALFRED T. WIANCKO, B. S. A. - Agriculturist ROBERT A. CRAIG, D. V. M. Veterinarian OTTO F. HUNZIKER, M. S. A. Dairy Husbandry GEORGE I. CHRISTIE, B. S. A. Sup't Agricultural Extension WILLIAM J. JONES, JR., M. S., A. C.* State Chemist MARTIN L. FISHER, B. S. Ass't Agriculturist SAMUEL D. CONNER, M. S. Associate Chemist OWEN C. HAWORTH, B. S.* Ass't Chemist FRANK D. KERN, M. S. Ass't Botanist WILBER A. COCHEL, A. B., B. S. - Associate in Animal Husbandry CLINTON 0. CROMER, B. S. Ass't Agriculturist CHARLES G. WOODBURY, M- S. Associate Horticulturist GEORGE W. SPITZER, Ph. G. Dairy Chemist EDWARD G. PROULX, B. S.* - Ass't Chemist JOHN B. ABBOTT, B. S. Ass't in Soil Improvement HERMAN H. MADAUS, B. S. Ass't in Veterinary Laboratory A. COKE SMITH SUMMERS. B. S.* - Ass't Chemist CARLETON CUTLER, B. S.* Ass't Chemist HORACE C. MILLS, B. S. Ass't in Dairying AARON G. JOHNSON, B- S. Ass't Botanist NELLIE TRACY - Clerk and Librarian JESSIE L. COWING Bookkeeper •Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control. RESULTS OF SHORT VS. LONG FEEDING PERIODS. J. H. SKINNER. W. A. COCHEI,. SUMMARY. 1. A short feeding period necessitates the purchase of heavy fleshy steers which would usually be marketed as killers. 2. "Short fed" cattle consumed a greater proportion of con- centrates to roughage than "lon^ fed" cattle. 3. "Short fed" cattle made a greater daily gain per head than "long fed" cattle. 4. In the first test the total amount of corn necessary to finish each steer was 34 bushels in the "short fed" lot and 54.6 bush- els in the "long fed" lot ; in the second test, 42.5 bushels in the "short fed" lot and 61 . 1 bushels in the "long fed" lot. 5. In the first test it was necessary to put on 285 pounds per head in the "short fed" lot and 464 pounds in the "long fed" lot to attain the same marketable finish ;^in the^second test 318 pounds in the "short fed" lot and 479 pounds in the "long fed" lot. 6. During the period when both lots of cattle were in the feed lot there was a greater profit per head from feeding the heavier, fleshier steers. 7. In the first test the margin necessary to prevent loss on the "short fed" cattle at the time of marketing was 48 cents per hundred ; on the "long fed" cattle at the same time 50 cents, and on the "long fed" cattle at the time of marketing, $1.04 per hundred. In the second test the margin necessary to prevent loss on the "short fed" cattle at the time of marketing was 92 cents per hun- dred; on the "long fed" cattle at the same time $1.01 per hundred and at the time of marketing, $1.54 per hundred. 8. The cost of gains was cheaper on the thinner cattle during the first three months of the test, but when fed to the same marketa- ble finish, the cost of gains was practically the same. 9. In short feeding cattle for late summer and fall markets it is necessary to start with very fleshy feeders of excellent beef type in order that they will not sell in competition with western grass fat cattle. 10. Additional data will be necessary before definite con- clusions may be drawn as to the profits resulting from, these two methods of feeding, due to the many variable factors which have a direct bearing on the profit and loss in cattle feeding. 282 PART I. SHORT VS. LONG FEEDING. The increase in land values and the high market prices offered for corn, roughage and commercial feeds during the past 10 years, have resulted in many changes in the methods of beef production in the corn belt. Most marked, possibly, have been the changes in the length of the feeding period. There has been a growing tendency to shorten the feeding period, which has resulted in two distinct methods of feeding; one involving the purchase of mature, fleshy feeding cattle, usually three years old and giving them a heavy grain feed for a short period ; the other involving the purchase of younger, lighter or thinner cattle and feeding them through a longer period. The first method gives rise to the term "Short-Fed Cattle" and neces- sitates a larger use of grain in proportion to roughage ; the second method gives rise to the term "Long-Fed Cattle," and permits the use of a greater amount of roughage in proportion to grain. "Short Feeding" as used in this bulletin, means the feeding of heavy, fleshy cattle weighing from 1175 to I3°° pounds, which are placed on full feed of grain as quickly as possible, with a limited amount of roughage and fed to a marketable finish in 90 to 1 10 days. This does not mean that the cattle were marketed in a half fat con- dition. "Long Feeding" as here used, means the use of steers weigh- ing from 1000 to 1150 pounds, thinner than the "Short-Fed" cattle, fed to a marketable finish in 180 days. The steers were allowed all the roughage they would consume without waste and a greater length of time was utilized in getting them to a full feed. F'or several years farmers have been anxious to obtain informa- tion as to the possibilities of utilizing a shorter feeding period, and the agricultural press has tried to obtain articles dealing with this subject with very limited success. The International Live Stock Ex- position management recognized the importance and interest in this matter, and offered liberal premiums for the first time, in 1907, for a "Short-Fed Special" contest in which a load of two year old Here- ford steers, fed and exhibited by this Station won the championship. PURPOSE OF BULLETIN. The object of this bulletin is to present the information se- cured at the Station during the past two years, as to the rate and cost of gain, feed consumed, degree of finish attained and profit secured from feeding cattle through a "short" and "long" feeding 283 period. The results presented here should be considered as a re- port of progress as the amount of data has not extended over a sufficient length of time to justify definite conclusions. While several stations have fed cattle, both for a long and for a short period, it has not been done with a view of determining the relative merits of the two systems of feeding. SHELTER, FEED LOTS AND WATER SUPPLY. The shelter used in these experiments consisted of an open shed 12x40 feet on the west side of a lot 40x50 feet. The shed was kept bedded at all times. The lots were built up with cinders and gravel but at times became very muddy. Fresh, clean water was supplied from the city supply, in galvanized tanks, set in the open lot and protected by packing horse manure in a box built around them. DESCRIPTION OF CATTLE. Two lots of cattle were started on feed at the same time each year. The "long fed" steers used, averaged, at the beginning of the first test, 1010 pounds and would have graded as good, fleshy feeders; the ''short fed" steers averaged 1175 pounds and were carrying too much flesh to be classified as feeders, buit would have been sold as killers, if placed on the market at the time they went into the experiment. The cattle in both lots were purchased in Ripley, Jennings and Lawrence counties and were native steers, showing a predominance of Shorthorn and Hereford blood. They were plain, with a tendency to legginess and to roughness. They were practically equal in quality in each lot, the only difference being in the higher condition and additional weight of the "short fed" cattle. The steers used in the second test were similar in type and breeding to those used the first year but averaged 113 pounds per head heavier in the "long fed" lot and 100 pounds in the "short fed" lot. Each year the steers had been grazed without grain during the previous summer, and were strictly "grass cattle." The first year the cattle were placed in the feed lots immediately after shipment, where they were given a preliminary feed of shelled corn and clover hay for 10 days preceding the test. The cattle used in the second test were delivered early in September and. allowed to run on pasture until the experiment started. They were in better condition to start the experiment as they had entirely recovered from shipment before being placed in the feed lot. The first test began Novem- ber 21, 1906, and closed for the "short fed" lot February 19, 1907; 284 for the "long fed" lot, May 20, 1907. The second test started November 17, 1907, and closed for the "short fed" cattle March 15, 1908, and for the "long fed" cattle, May 15, 1908. FEEDS USED. All lots were fed on shelled corn, cotton seed meal, clover hay and corn silage. The corn used during the first test was of fair quality only and would have graded No. 3. That used in the second test was of inferior quality, containing a large percentage of moisture and would have been called "no grade." The cotton seed meal was the "Dixie" brand, guaranteed to contain 41 per cent, pro- tein and 9 per cent, fat and of excellent quality. The corn silage used during the first test was made from a field which would have yielded 30 bushels per acre. The corn was allowed to become ripe as possible without danger of spoiling when put in the silo. That used during the second test was from a field which would have yielded 50 bushels per acre and was not allowed to become quite so ripe as in the preceding year. The silage kept well and was of excellent quality both winters. The clover hay used in the first trial was free from mixture of other grasses but had been damaged in the stack, so that it frequently showed a streak of white mold. That used in the second test was bright and well cured, but was mixed with about one-third blue grass and timothy. PRICES OF FEEDS. In order that a comparison of the cost of gains and margin necessary in feeding may be made, it is necessary to fix upon a uniform price so that the comparative results from feeding under different conditions may not be influenced by variable factors. For this purpose, shelled corn is valued at 40 cents per bushel, cotton seed meal at $28.00 per ton, clover hay at $8.00 per ton and corn silage at $2.50 per ton, which represents a good average through a series of years. The variation in the price of corn during the two winters when the work was conducted, together with the fluctuation in the price of fat cattle, makes it necessary to use different prices in computing profit or loss from feeding. In the financial statements, corn is valued at the prevailing market prices at the time of feeding: cotton seed meal at $28.00 per ton; clover hay at $10.00 per ton and corn silage at $2.50 per ton. METHODS OF FEEDING. The steers were fed twiice daily, at 6 a. m. and 4 p. m., in mangers and troughs provided for the purpose and set in open lots. There were 10 steers in each lot. The shelled corn was placed in troughs and immediately afterward the cotton seed meal was spread over it. Hay was fed in the morning and silage, in the evening as soon as the grain ration was consumed. The total amount of feed given was governed by the appetite of the cattle. In the "short fed" lots the roughage was limited so that a greater proportion of concentrates would be consumed. In the "long fed" lot the steers were given all the roughage they would consume without waste, and concentrates limited to what they would consume within one half to three quarters of an hour. Cot- ton seed meal was fed at the rate of 2.5 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight during the first test and 2 pounds during the second. In the first test the steers were given a preliminary feed so that they were accustomed to their rations at the beginning of the experiment. The "long fed" cattle were started on 7 pounds shelled corn, i pound cotton seed meal, 6 pounds clover hay and 20 pounds corn silage per head daily. The "short fed" cattle were started on 9 pounds shelled corn, i pound cotton seed meal, 5 pounds clover hay and 20 pounds corn silage. At the end of the first 10 days the concentrates had been increased to 13 pounds in the "long fed" lot and to 18 pounds per head daily in the "short fed" lot ; at the end of 30 days to 16.5 pounds and 21.8 pounds, respectively. In the second test the steers were fed grain for the first time at the beginning of the experiment. The "long fed" cattle were started on 6 pounds shelled corn, i pound cotton seed meal, 10 pounds clover hay and 20 pounds corn silage per head daily, in two feeds. The "short fed" cattle received 8 pounds shelled corn, i pound cotton seed meal, 8 pounds clover hay, and 20 pounds corn silage. At the end of the first 10 days the "long fed" cattle were consuming 12 pounds of concentrates, and the "short fed" cattle 14 pounds per head daily. At the end of 30 days they were consuming 16.6 pounds and 22.7 pounds respectively. 286 !I NOO O ^ xn o 8 8888 N* 00 vo O in 8 m o O ^j- M M M •"* . tH M M 1— I „ I3 s 2 •It 5 > rt tX T}" ^" m CO 1 S* in ON ON M ^! 9 w. ^ in •g co J^ 0) 0 N co m H- 1 m tx oj oo 'O CQ txoo co HI M 04 1— 1 •^ TfVO O 1— 1 CO g| S88888 mtx M covo O I ,0 ----- 88^888 1— 1 1— 1 ON O O m m O O 00 M ur a O O Tt" in O O tx 6 4 !i O co O vo co N 00 CO O 00 00 00 *&* jp m irjvo N», m O tx O tx O\ m O cooo *-* w com CO aJ Tj- Tf Tj- rO CO N rf co ro tx in co co co co m co ^f -3 •d £z z z z -. ^ 2 ^ £ « «.<.<.<• s« s« %• ^ •0 il ^\ in o invo ^ N 00 O hH W ^t £0g O O O M COVO cOvO vO tx a O w rx o in ON tx Tl b| o O 1—1 *** o Is in u")VO O vo in •-1 oo cooo mvo HH rovo O covo tx i_n covo c^ tx co 10 rfvo O O ON ON M mvo O y -M M ^00 O> ix tx inoo vO ^ ON C^ O O ON 00 ON ON t-t M h-l ul Jg, >- oJ >-» CO a> CO CO CO CO CO CO «J ''O CO CO CO CO CO CO ^J p*% • g o3 rt cd rt ccJ rt rt rt aT a? aT" rt *o fc *& "Tj *Tj *Tj ^O *& w w -TJ -^ --& *-& 'U t) O co > o o o o o o -1^ o o o o o o co ^ fO co CO CO V^ »" +-> ~O 13 J2 (-1 r-i ^ (J O +_, *o TI ^ <~! n tn J2 O 1-1 oi co "tf- mvo fc t/i i-i M c^ ro ^d" mvo fe i-4 M 28; Table I gives a complete record of the amount of feed consumed daily by both "long fed" and "short fed" lots of cattle during the two winters of 1906-7 and 1907-8. It will be noticed that the "long fed" cattle consumed less corn, practically the same amount of cotton seed meal, more clover hay and more corn silage per head daily dur- ing the first 90 days of the experiment, conducted during the winter of 1906-7. The main difference in the rations for the two lots of cattle in the first test was that the "short fed" cattle consumed 6.18 pounds more corn per head daily than did the "long fed" cattle dur- ing the first 90 days. In the second test the same thing is true, that the consumption of grain was greater and that of roughage smaller in the "short fed" lot, making a difference of 3.08 pounds of corn per head daily in the "short fed" lot for the first no days of the test. The table also shows that there was a gradual increase in the amount of concentrates consumed from the beginning to the end of the first 90 days of the experiment with the "short fed" lots in both winters. In the second test there was a marked decrease during the last 20 days. The "long fed" cattle reached the maximum amount of grain consumed in the fourth and third month, after which there was^a gradual decline until the end of the test in both instances. It will also be noticed in comparing the first 90 day period of each test with the second, that the "long fed" cattle received a much greater pro- portion of grain to roughage during the second go day period. This is true of both years. It was the plan of the experiment that the "long fed" cattle should consume a greater proportion of roughage to grain than the "short fed" cattle. The table also shows by com- paring the amount of feed consumed by the "short fed" cattle in 90 to no days, with that consumed by the "long fed" cattle in 180 days, that there was a much heavier consumption of grain by the "short fed" cattle. 288 TABLE; II. — Showing Weights, Gains, Feed Consumed Daily per Head and per Pound Gain, Cost of Gains and Necessary and Actual Market Values of Cattle. Long vs. Short F'eeding, Winter 1906-7. Ration : Shelled corn, cotton seed meal, clover hay and corn silage. Lon £Fed Short Fed Length of feeding period .... Initial value Nov. 20, '06. . . . Initial weight Nov. 20, '06. .. Final weight Feb. 19, '07. . . . Final weight May 20, '07. . . . Total gain 10 steers ist 90 days.* $4-25 10108 Ibs. 12550 ' 2442 " i 80 days $4-25 10108 Ibs. 14745 " 46^7 " 90 days, $4.50 1 1 758 Ibs. 14605 2847 " Daily gain per steer 2.71 " T-'-'O/ 2.^7 " 3.16 " Total feed consumed : shelled corn I^I1^ " • J/ 3OO2O " 1007^ ' cotton seed meal •~OO *D 2421 " ^01 " 2467 " clover hay . .... ... '?Q2Q " OO:7v> 7084 " 2835 " corn silage oy-^y 16520 " f\j\jt^ 27O2O ' 13500 " Daily feed per steer: shelled corn 15.01 " 16.66 " 21.19 " cotton seed meal 2 6q " 2 QQ " 2.74 " clover hay •" • ^7 4.36 " • yy VQS " 3.15 " corn silage 18.35 " 15.01 " 15.00 " Feed per Ib gain. shelled corn C.37 " 6.47 " 6.70 " cotton seed meal .98 " I.l6 " .86 " clover hay 1.63 " 1.^2 " .00 " corn silage 7.43 " 5.82 " 4.74 " Cost of gains** corn at 4Oc. per bu $6 82 D ' *- $7 SO $6 08 corn at 5oc per bu 7 81 HY • jy 8 74. 8.17 Necessary selling price per cwt. to break even :** corn at 4oc. per bu / • $4.. 7^ **• /*T $^.2Q • */ $4.08 corn at 5Oc. per bu *r*rm / 0 4.Q4. *rj • *ry q 66 *rf JfU ^.21 Actual market value per cwt. •y*r $4.85 j • ^-"^ 5.60 *° $5-35 *The divisions are made in the data given for the "long fed" cattle based upon the first 90 days and the whole period. **Based upon the following prices : Cotton seed meal $28 . oo per ton Clover hay 8 . oo per ton Corn silage 2 . 50 per ton 289 Table II shows that during the first 90 days of the test the steers in the "short fed" lot made a greater daily gain per head than those in the "long fed" lot. It also shows that the gains in the "long fed" lot decreased as the period progressed, which is usually true when cattle are given a full feed of grain for any considerable length of time. During the first 90 days the "short fed" steers gained an aver- age of 3.16 pounds per head daily and the "long fed" cattle, 2.71 pounds, showing a difference of .45 pound daily in favor of the heavier cattle. The total amount of corn necessary in finishing each steer in the "long fed" lot was 54.6 bushels, while in the "short fed" lot it was 34.0 bushels. This accounts largely for the demand for heavy, fleshy feeding cattle when corn is high. The cost of gain was cheaper in the "long fed", lot during the first 90 days than it was in the "short fed" lot. However, this condition is reversed when the 90 day period for "short fed" cattle is compared with the 180 day period for the "long fed" cattle, showing that it cost less per hundred to finish fleshy feeders than it did to finish thinner and lighter feed- ers and make them equally fat. The table also shows that the neces- sary margin between the buying and selling price was 48 cents per hundred for the first 90 days, or 16 cents per month in the "short fed" lot and 50 cents per hundred or 16.6 cents per month in the "long fed" lot. For the six months period the margin necessary was $1.05 per hundred, or 17.5 cents per month, where the long feeding period was used. This is based upon corn selling at 40 cents per bushel, which was slightly above the average market value for the first 90 days of this test. An increase in value of 16 cents per hun- dred for each month would have made it possible during the winter of 1906-7 to feed cattle under the conditions prevailing in the "short fed" lot, or 16.5 cents per month during the first 90 days and 17.5 cents per month during the 180 day period in the "long fed" test. 290 FINANCIAL STATEMENT— "LONG-FED" CATTLE, 1906-7, (First 90 days.) To 10 steers, wt. 10,108 Ibs. @ $4.25 per cwt $429-59 To 13,515 Ibs. shelled corn @ 360. per bu : 86.86 To 2421 Ibs. cotton seed meal @ $28.00 per ton 33-89 To 3929 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 19.64 To 16,520 Ibs. corn silage @ $2.50 per ton . . . 20.65 Total expenditure • $590.63 By 10 steers, wt. 12,550 Ibs. @ $4.85 per cwt $608.63 By 455 Ibs. pork produced @ $6.00 per cwt 27.30 Total receipts $635.97 Total profit $ 45 . 34 Profit per steer 4.53 Price received per bu. for corn 54-8c. Excess over market value per bu.i i8.8c. FINANCIAL STATEMENT — "LONG- FED" CATTLE, 1906-7, (180 days.) To 10 steers, wt. 10,108 Ibs. @ $4.25 per cwt . . .$429.59 To 13,515 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36c. per bu 86.86 To 11,208 Ibs. shelled corn @ 38c. per bu 76.03 To 5297 Ibs. shelled corn @ 43c. per bu 40.67 To 5393 Ibs. cotton seed meal @ $28.00 per ton 75-5° To 7084 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 35 .42 To 27,020 Ibs. corn silage @ $2.50 per ton 33-77 Total expenditure $777.81 By 10 steers, wt. 14,745 Ibs. @ $5.60 per cwt $825.62 By 867 Ibs. pork produced @ $6.00 per cwt 52.02 Total receipts $878 . 24 Total profit ,. . . .$100.40 Profit per steer < 10.04 Price received per bu. for corn 56.8c. Excess over market value per bu l8.7c. 291 FINANCIAL STATEMENT — "SHORT-FED" CATTLE, 1906-7, (90 days.) To 10 steers, wt. 11,758 Ibs. @ $4.50 per cwt $529. n To 19,073 Ibs. shelled corn @ 360. per bu 122.58 To 2467 Ibs. cotton seed meal @ $28.00 per ton 34-53 To 2835 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 14. 17 To 13,500 Ibs. corn silage @ $2.50 per ton 16.87 Total expenditure. $717.26 By 10 steers, wt. 14,605 Ibs. @ $5.35 per cwt < $781.36 By 480 Ibs. pork produced @ $6.10 per cwt 28.80 Total receipts $810. 16 Total profit < $ 92.90 Profit per steer 9.29 Price received per bu. for corn 63. 2c. Excess over market value per bu. . .« 27.2C. The financial statement for the "long fed" cattle is divided into two periods for convenience in discussion. The cattle were valued by a committee of commission men at the beginning of the test, at the end of 90 days and again at the end of six months. The prices used for corn are based upon the actual market values at LaFayette during the period through which it was fed. Cotton seed meal was valued at $28.00 per ton ; clover hay at $10.00 per ton and corn sil- age at $2.50 per ton. The statements show clearly that there was a greater profit in feeding the heavier, fleshier cattle during the first three months of the 1906-7 test than there was in feeding thinner and lighter cattle during the same length of time, the profit amount- ing to practically twice as much per steer in the "short fed" lot as in the "long fed" lot for the same period. The total profit, however, in feeding the "long fed" steers for six months, was slightly greater per head than that in feeding the "short fed" cattle for three months. The market conditions vary so much that a large amount of evidence would be necessary before drawing any final conclusions as to the relative profits from "long" and "short" feeding periods because the cattle are not sold at the same time. The statements show that the "short fed" cattle returned 8.5 cents more per bushel of corn con- sumed than the "long fed" cattle during the first test. 2Q2 TABLE III. — Showing Weights, Gains, Feed Consumed Daily per Head and per Pound Gain, Cost of Gains and Necessary and Actual Market Values of Cattle. Long vs. Short Feeding, Winter 1907-8. Ration : Shelled corn, cotton seed meal, clover hay and corn silage. Long ' Fed Short Fed Length of feeding period Initial value Nov. 17, '07 Initial weight Nov. 17, '07.. . Final weight Mar. 16, '08 Final weight May 15, '08.. . . no days* $4.00 H235lbs. 14320 ' onSe " I 80 days $4.00 11235 Ibs. 16021 " AlRfl " i 10 days $4.50 12870 Ibs. 16005 ' '41 1< " Daily Sfain per steer 3°°5 r> Sr» " 47°° ? (fa " OLOO 2 8c " Total feed consumed: shelled corn £ . OU opj/1 ro (( lA^II (( ^.05 21840 " cotton seed meal O'jR? " 6^66 A86o " ^o0^^ 26/11 " C7C8 " 8l27 " AQQI " 0/0° TO/IOO " O1-^o 26QOO " 4yy* TCCOO " Daily feed per steer: shelled corn Iy4yu 18 to " ^uyyu TO OT " 1OOUU 21 67 " cotton seed meal 10. ^y 2 d " 2 70 " 2 AO " clover hay ^ • Jo 523 " ^./U /I CI " A c;^ " •*O 17 71 " 4- o1 IA 00 " 4- jo IA OO " Feed per Ib. gain: shelled corn j./ . / j. 6 64 " l4-vy 7 ye " 14. uy 7 6V) " cotton seed meal 00 " /• *3 I 02 " /.uu SA " .yu I 86 " I 60 " .04 i t;8 " corn silage 6 u " i .uy C 6A " 1 . ^0 A OA " Cost of gain per cwt. :** corn at 4OC per bu *-* • »JA $7 c •? 5 7 or 4«y4 $7 8l corn at 5i2 Actual market value per cwt. .UA $5.40 5«M $7.00 0 -4-^ $5-75 *The divisions are made in the data given for the "long fed" lot based upon the first no days, and the whole period. **Based upon the following prices : Cotton seed meal $28.00 per ton Clover hay 8 . oo per ton Corn silage 2 . 50 per ton 293 During the winter of 1907-8 the work of the "short" vs. "long" feeding was duplicated in order that more evidence might be accum- ulated on this subject before publication was made. The cattle used in this test were slightly heavier both in the "long and short fed" lots than in the preceding year, the "long fed" cattle weighing 1123 pounds per head while the "short fed" cattle weighed 1287 pounds. As in the preceding test, the average gain and amount of grain con- sumed daily per steer (in the "short fed" lots) were greater and the roughage was less. The cost of producing 100 pounds of gain in the "long fed" lot during the first no days was $8.71, while in the "short fed" lot it was $9.21, showing that as in the preceding test, the higher the condition of the steer when placed in the feed lot, the more expensive is the gain. When the "long fed" cattle were fed to the same marketable finish the cost of gain was $9.18 per hundred, or practically the same as in the "short fed" lot. This is based upon corn at 50 cents per bushel, which was five cents per bushel higher than the average market price during the first no days of the test, but practically the average for the 180 days during which the "long fed" cattle were in the feed lot. The necessary margin between buying and selling prices of the "short fed" lot,' in the second test, was 65 cents per hundred, or 18.3 cents per month, with corn at 40 cents per bushel, or 92 cents per hundred with corn at 50 cents per bushel. In the "long fed" lot during the same period the necessary margin was 83 cents per hundred, or 23 . i cents per month, with corn at 40 cents per bushel, or $1.01 per hundred with corn at 5oc per bushel, during the first no days of the test. For the full period of six months, the necessary margin was $1.16 per hundred or .19.3 cents per month, with corn at 40 cents per bushel, or $1.54 per hundred with corn at 50 cents per bushel. This would seem to indicate that it is necessary to have an increase in value of 16 to 18.3 cents per hundred each month that the "short fed" cattle are in the feed lot with corn at 40 cents per bushel, in order to obtain market prices for feeds without taking into consideration the value of hogs or manure. In the "long fed" lot the necessary increase in value was from 17.5 to 19.3 cents per hundred each month with feeds at the same prices. These figures are based upon weights and values in the feed lot, without shrinkage. 294 FINANCIAL STATEMENT — "LONG-FED" CATTLE, 1907-8. (First no days.) To 10 steers, wt. 11,235 Ibs. @ $4.00 per cwt $449.40 To 9575 Ibs. shelled corn @ 430. per bu 73-53 T) 6730 Ibs. shelled corn @ 45c. per bu ' . . . . 54.08 To 4145 Ibs. shelled corn @ 5oc. per bu 37. oo To 2782 Ibs. cotton seed meal @ $28.00 per ton 38.94 To 5758 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton. 28. 79 To 19,490 Ibs. corn silage @ $2.50 per ton 24.36 Total expenditure • $706. 10 By 10 steers, wt. 14,320 Ibs. @ $5.40 per cwt $773.28 By 700 Ibs. pork produced @ $4.80 per cwt 33. 60 Total receipts $806.88 Total profit $100.78 Profit per steer 10.08 Price received per bu. for corn i 72.6c. Excess over market value per bu 27.6c. FINANCIAL STATEMENT — "LONG- FED" CATTLE, 1907-8, (180 days). To 10 steers, wt. 11,235 Ibs. @ $4.00 per cwt $449.40 To 9575 Ibs. shelled corn @ 43C. per bu 73-53 To 6730 Ibs. shelled corn @ 45c. per bu < . . . . 54.08 To 6200 Ibs. shelled corn @ 5oc. per bu 55-35 To 6005 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55c. per bu 58.97 To 5723 Ibs. shelled corn @ 6oc. per bu 61 .31 To 4860 Ibs. cotton seed meal @ 28.00 per ton 68.04 To 8123 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 40.61 To 26,990 Ibs. corn silage @ $2.50 per ton 33-73 Total expenditure $ 895.02 By 10 steers, wt. 16,021 Ibs. @ $6.70 per cwt $1073.40 By 970 Ibs. pork produced @ $5.00 per cwt 48. 50 Total receipts $1121.90 Total profit $ 226.88 Profit per steer 22.68 Price received per bu. for corn. . . .< 86.8c. Bxcess over market value per bu 37C- 295 FINANCIAL, STATEMENT — "SHORT FED" CATTLE, 1907-8, (no days.) To 10 steers, wt. 12,870 Ibs. @ $4.50 per cwt $579- J5 To 11,794 Ibs. shelled corn @ 430. per bu 90.56 To 7866 Ibs. shelled corn @ 45c. per bu 63 .21 To 4180 Ibs. shelled corn @ 5oc. per bu , 37. 32 To 2641 Ibs. cotton seed meal @ $28.00 per ton 36.97 To 2991 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton. . . : 24.95 To 15,500 Ibs. corn silage @ $2.50 per ton 19-37 Total expenditure , $851 .53 By 10 steers, wt. 16,005 ^s. @ $5.75 per cwt $920.28 By 880 Ibs. pork produced @ $4.80 per cwt 42.24 Total receipts ., $962 . 52 Total profit > $110.99 Profit per steer • 11.09 Price received per bu. for corn 71. ic. Excess over market value per bu. . 26.ic. The financial statements for the winter of 1907-8 for the first no days are quite similar for the "long- and short fed" cattle, showing a slight difference in favor of the heavier and fleshier cattle during the period when both lots were fed. The financial statement based upon the six months feeding period shows a decided difference in favor of the ''long fed" cattle as compared with the "short fed" cattle fed for no days, the profit per steer being practically twice as great and the price received per bushel for corn 10 cents greater in favor of the cattle fed for six months. A careful study of these tables and financial statements will show very clearly that more than one or two years work is necessary to justify publishing financial statements in regard to the different methods of feeding. This is due largely to the fluctuations of values of cattle upon the market and to the variable prices for feeds during different years. During the winter of 1907-8 there was a marked improvement in cattle values between the time of marketing the "short fed" and "long fed" cattle, which makes a showing in favor of the long period very much better than it would be if prices had re- mained stationary. 296 The cattle feeder should consider carefully the data presented in Tables I and II which clearly show that lighter and thinner cattle make cheaper gains than heavy, fleshy feeders if fed the same length of time, but where fed to the same marketable finish, the cost of gains will be practically the same ; that heavy, fleshy feeders, suitable to be finished in 90 to no days, will cost practically 50 cents more per hundred than cattle similar in every respect ex- cept that they do not carry so much flesh ; that the difference in cost of the fleshy feeders and light thin feeders, both during the fall of 1906 and 1907, was not great enough to offset the difference in the cost of making gains in the feed lot. This shows that it is generally cheaper to buy flesh on the feeders than to put it on in the feed lot. It was necessary to put on 464 pounds during the first test and 479 pounds during the second test on the "long fed'1 cattle, and 285 pounds in the first test and 318 pounds in the second test on the "short fed" cattle, while in the feed lot, to make them equally fat. It was necessary for the "short fed" cattle to increase in value 16.6 cents per month for a three months period, while it was necessary for the "long fed" cattle to increase 17.5 cents per month for a six months period, with corn at 40 cents per bushel in order to break even on feeding cattle without counting the value of either hogs or manure. 297 PART II. THE INTERNATIONAL "SHORT FED" CHAMPIONS OP 1907. In June, 1907, the management of the International Live Stock Exposition issued a circular letter, in which was published the an- nouncement of a new class for the following show, which was to be held in Chicago during the following December. The following extract from the Preliminary Classification pub- lished by the directors, explains fully the purpose of the exhibit and the rules governing it: "SHORT-FED SPECIALS." "The International Live Stock Exposition, being desirous of determining and demonstrating the best and most economical method of feeding cattle, has created the following classes, to be known as "Short-Fed Specials." Cattle to be eligible for entry must not have been fed grain for six months previous to the time application is made, but after that time the owner may feed the cattle such feeds, including grain, as in his judgment will accomplish the greatest results within the given feeding period — i. e., from the date application is made for entry to the opening day of the Exposition." The following rule governs this contest: Rule 88. (a) Application for entry must be made between the first and I5th of August, (b) Cattle must be owned by the ex- hibitor at the time application is made, (c) Cattle must not have been fed grain for six months prior to the time application is made ; they may, however, have been run in stalk fields, (d) Eighteen cat- tle may be fitted, but only fifteen of this number can be shown as one car load, (e) Cattle must be weighed 12 hours in dry lot off feed and water, on day application is made and a record must be kept of the weight of these animals. The cattle to be judged will again be weighed, under similar conditions, at 10 a. m. Monday, December 2nd. (f) Sworn statement by the owner and two other reputable persons that cattle had not been fed grain for six months previous to time application for entry is made, also covering the weight of animals on date of application, must be sent to the General Superin- tendent of the Exposition with said application, (g) A record of the kind, weight and cost of feeds consumed during the feeding period must be kept by the owner, who will deliver this information, together with the weight of the animals at the time of entry, to the 298 Superintendent of the Exposition. (Blanks for all of these purposes will be furnished on request to the General Superintendent.) (h) In judging these classes, quality and finish will count sixty per cent. ; gain forty per cent.'' The following prizes are offered for these classes : Class 1st Prem- ium 2nd Prem- ium 3rd Prem- ium 20 1 car load of 15 head, I year and under 2. 202 car load of 15 head, 2 years and under 3. 203 champion car load of these classes. ..... $100 IOO Cup $50 50 $25 25 As the Station had taken up a line of investigation on the sub- ject of "Short Feeding," it was decided to enter a car load of ex- perimental cattle in this contest in order to compare the methods of reeding with those of experienced and practical feeders, where the rate and cost of gain were made the basis of the award. The cattle were purchased primarily to determine whether or not cattle could be profitably fed for a short period on grass in the fall, the Interna- tional contest being a secondary consideration. They were high grade steers sired by pure bred Hereford bulls out of cows of mixed Hereford and Shorthorn breeding. When pur- chased they were grazing in an open blue grass pasture which gave them an abundance of grass of the best quality. Adjoining this pas- ture was a small lot naturally set with sugar trees which afforded protection from the sun. A small branch, fed by springs, ran through the sugar grove furnishing a supply of pure water. Under these conditions the best possible results could be expected from grazing. During the previous winter they were wintered on a mixture of blue grass and clover hay. with some corn stover, which was fed on a blue grass pasture, which had not been grazed heavily during the preced- ing summer. The owner stated that they had been in demand for killing purposes when turned on pasture early in the sring so that they must have been in much better condition at that time than cattle used for grazing purposes usually are. If they had been shipped to market at the time of purchase, they would have been purchased by butchers or packers as they would have been termed grass fat cattle. In qnalitv and type every steer showed evidence of good blood. They were not sn uniform in size as is desirable, but otherwise were ideal cattle for use in short feeding, in that they were blocky, compact, with broad backs and deep bodies and of excellent beef type. They had not been fed grain; consequently, were in the best condition to make rapid and economical gains. 299 They were shipped to the Station, August 5, 1907, where 18 head were weighed into the experiment, at an average of 1073 pounds. They were placed in a nine acre tract set in timothy and clover. This pasture had been used previous to that time in finishing a lot of 10 yearling Herefords. Late in July it was mowed and yielded three tons of mixed hay. For this reason the grass was very short and had to be supplemented with green feed later in the season. The steers were fed no grain until the morning of August 12, when they were given 18 pounds shelled corn, 9 pounds oats and 9 pounds bran to the lot of 18 head. They were fed the same amount of feed twice daily until August 16, when the corn was increased to 36 pounds, the oats and bran remaining the same. On the afternoon of August 1 6 they were given 5 pounds of cotton seed meal in addition to other feeds. All of the steers were eating well b) August 1 8. At this time oats and bran were dropped from the ration on account of their relatively high price. IV. — Showing Total Amount of Feed Consumed and Gains Made by 18 Head of Cattle Used in a "Short Fed Special" Contest from August 8 to November 26, 1907. Date Feed Consumed Shelled corn Cotton seed meal Green sorghum Corn stover Gain Aug. 8-18 .... Aug. 18-28 . . Aug. 28-Sept. 7 Sept. 7-17 Sept. 17-27 . . . Sept. 27-Oct. 7 Oct 7-17 450 lb 2466 2635 3J05 3350 3485 3670 3670 3605 3810 3870 s.* t 42 lb 450 390 482 540 570 6OO 600 600 600 -6OO s* 1970 Ibs. 4410 " 2985 " 2460 500 Ibs. 1815 " 1550 " I72O 2090 " 895 Ibs 890 390 380 405 625 615 495 460 565 740 V-XV-L. / J./ Oct. 17-27 Oct. 27- Nov. 6. Nov. 6-16 Nov. 16-26 . . . Total . . . 34116 " 5474 " TI825 " 7675 " 6460 " — Also 117 pounds each of oats and bran. From Nov. 26 until the opening day of the show, they were fed 386 pounds shelled corn, 70 pounds cotton seed meal, 150 pounds oats and 700 pounds mixed hay. 3oo They were consuming 14.5 pounds shelled corn and 2 pounds cotton seed meal per head daily by September i. On September 13, when they were eating 17.5 pounds shelled corn and 2.5 Bounds cotton seed meal, the grass had failed to such an extent rhat it was necessary to supplement the grass ; green sorghum was cut and fed to the cattle. October I, the grain ration had been increased to 19 pounds shelled corn, 3 pounds cotton seed meal and 15 pounds green sorghum per head daily. On October 15, they were eating 20.5 pounds shelled corn and 3.3 pounds cotton seed meal. The green sorghum was not available from this time on, hence corn stover was used as roughage, limited to what they would clean up readily, amounting to approximately 10 pounds per head daily. There was no further change in the ration until November 6, when the corn was increased to 21.2 pounds and again on November 15, to 21 .6 pounds per head daily which was the maximum amount fed during the experiment, the cotton seed meal remaining 3.3 pounds per head daily. On November 26, in order to prepare them for shipment, the corn in the ration was reduced 6 pounds per head for the morning feed. In the afternoon they were given 3 pounds corn, 3 pounds oats and I pound cotton seed meal, with 5 pounds mixed clover and timothy hay. On the morning of November 27, they were fed 6 pounds oats and 6 pounds timothy hay per head without access to water, in order to avoid excessive shrink- age between the Station and Chicago. Estimating shelled corn at 5oc. and oats at 48c. per bushel, with bran at $24.00, cotton seed meal at $28.00, green sorghum at $2.00, corn stover a $2.00, and hay at $12.00 per ton, which were the average prices of these feeds while the experi- ment was in progress, and the pasture used at $2.00 per head, the total cost of feeds was $439.85 from August 8 to November 26, during which time the steers gained 6460 pounds or 3.25 pounds per head daily. This gain includes the first 10 days after ship- ment, during which there was a rapid increase in weight due to fill.. Under these conditions the gains cost $6.80 per hundred. RECORD OF HOGS FOLLOWING "SHORT-FED" CATTLE. On August 15, 20 hogs weighing 3200 pounds went into the experimental lot. At the end of the period they weighed 4930 pounds. The hogs were fed 2950 pounds of shelled corn in ad- dition to the feed obtained from the droppings of the steers. Estimating this corn at 45 cents per bushel, the total cost would be $23.75. The value of the increase, 1730 pounds on the hogs 301 at five cents per pound would amount to $86.50, making a profit on the hogs due to the waste in steer feeding, of $62.74 which should be given credit on the feed bill of the steers. The cattle were sold after winning a first prize of $100.00 in the two year old class and chaimpionship over all "short fed" classes, at $6.45 per hundred which would amount to practically $6.00 per hundred in the feed lots at the Station, on November 26, when the final weights were taken. The cost of feeds was $439.85, the returns from the hogs, $62.74 and from the cattle $1547.10. This leaves a net value of $6.05 per hundred for the steers or $64.99 Per head when the experiment started without considering the $100.00 won as prize money. This is a remark- able financial showing under the conditions prevailing during the fall of 1907, as the values of fat cattle declined from $1.00 to $1.50 per hundred between August i, when the cattle were purchased, and December 2, when they were sold. The finish attained by these steers can be judged by their selling price in Chicago. The price received, $6.45 per hundred, was $1.55 per hundred lower than the price of the grand champion load in the show, 70 cents higher than the next best load of "short fed" cattle, and slightly above the average for all car toad lots of Herefords in the show. * * PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 142, VOL. XV MAY, 1910 STEER FEEDING v FINISHING STEERS 1907,1908 and 1909 Part I. Dry Lot vs. Pasture for Finishing Yearlings Part II. Finishing Two Year Old Steers Part III. "Short Fed" Cattle at 1908 International Published by the station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. BOARD ADDISON C. HARRIS, President ANDREW A. ADAMS GEORGE ADE CHARLES DOWNING CYRUS M. HOBBS GEORGE A. JAMISON CHARLES MAJOR HENRY A. MILLER JOSEPH D. OLIVER OF CONTROL Indianapolis, Marion County Columbia City, Whitley County - Brook, Newton County Greenfield, Hancock County - Bridgeport, Marion County LaFayette, Tippecanoe County Shelbyville, Shelby County - Montmorenci', Tippecanoe County South Bend, St. Joseph County WINTHROP E. STONE, A. M., Ph. D. - President of the University STATION STAFF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS ARTHUR Goss, ,M. S., A. C. JOSEPH C. ARTHUR, D. Sc. GEORGE 1. CHRISTIE, B. S. A. ROBERT A. CRAIG, D. V. M. - OTTO F. HUNZIKER, M. S. A. WILLIAM J. JONES, JR., M. S., A. C.1 JOHN H. SKINNER, B. S. - JAMES TROOP, M. S. ALFRED T. WIANCKO, B. iS. A. Director and Station Chemist Botanist - Sup't Agricultural Extension - Veterinarian Dairy Husbandry .State Chemist Animal Husbandry Horticulturist and Entomologist Agriculturist ASSOCIATES AND ASSISTANTS JOHN B. ABBOTT, M. iS. SAMUEL D. CONNER, M. S. PERRY H. CRANE, B. S. - CLINTON O. CROMER, B. S. CARLETON CUTLER, B. S.4 WILLIAM F. EPPLE, Ph. G. MARTIN L. FISHER, B. S. - MARY A. FITCH, A. M. • . GEORGE M. FRIER, B. S. A. - HELEN H. HENRY* AARON G. JOHNSON, B. S. FRANK D. KERN, M. S. HARRY E. KIGER, B. S. - HERMAN H. MADAUS, B. S. HORACE C. .MILLS, B. S. - WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, M. S.s EDWARD G. PROULX, M. S.* OLLIE E. REED, B. S. CHARLES W. RICE, B. S.4 HENRY P. RUSK, B. S. - GEORGE SPITZER, Ph. G. A. COKE SMITH SUMMERS, B. S. CHARLES G. WOODBURY, M. S. WINFRED R. WRIGHT, B. S. NELLIE TRACY - MARY K. BLOOM Ass't in Soil Improvement Associate Chemist - Ass't in Dairy Field Work Ass't Agriculturist Ass't .State Chemist Ass't Dairy Chemist Associate Agriculturist •Scientific Ass't in Botany Ass't in Agricultural Extension Ass't in Agricultural Extension Ass't Botanist Associate Botanist Ass't in Animal Husbandry Ass't in Veterinary Laboratory Ass't in Dairy Husbandry Entomology Ass't State Chemist Ass't in Milk Production Ass't State Chemist First Ass't in Animal Husbandry - Associate Dairy Chemist Ass't State Chemist Associate Horticulturist - Ass't in Dairy Bacteriology - Clerk and Librarian Bookkeeper 'In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control '-Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture— Seed Testing 3 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture— Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investi- gations 4Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control FINISHING STEERS 1907, 1908 and 1909 j . H. SKINNER W. A. COCHEI/ SUMMARY PART I 1. Calves, given a full feed of grain from November to May, will make more rapid and cheaper gains, attain a higher finish, sell at a higher price and return a greater profit if continued in dry lot than if turned on pasture for finishing. 2. Full fed calves when turned on grass, shrink in weight during the first 10 days and require from two to three weeks to regain their original weight. 3. Steers in dry lot consume a greater amount of concentrates than similar cattle on pasture. PART II 4. Cattle, fed on well balanced rations throughout the feeding period make more expensive and less rapid gains during the finish- ing period. 5. A nitrogenous supplement added during the finishing period, to a ration deficient in protein, increases the rate and de- creases the cost of gains. 6. During the springs and summers of 1907, 1908 and 1909, an additional profit to that secured in regular feeding experiments, resulted from carrying steers to a higher degree of finish. PART III 7. The "Short Fed" cattle exhibited by Purdue Experiment Station at the International, 1908, made more rapid gains, cheaper gains and sold at a higher price per hundred than any other cattle entered in the "Short Fed Special" contest. Associate in Animal Husbandry— Resigned December 1, 1909 PART I DRY LOT VS. PASTURE FOR FINISHING YEARLINGS The feeder, who in the fall of the year buys calves with a view to finishing them for market in such condition that they will sell as prime yearlings, should realize that he is entering into a feeding proposition that will require from nine to 12 months for its completion. In order to make the greatest financial success from the venture, he should select calves showing pronounced beef type, quality, early maturity, large capacity for feed and the "milk fat" which has been secured by having suckled the dam until placed in the feed lot. The calves should, if possible, be taught to eat grain before weaning in order that there may be no loss in weight or condition when required to depend entirely upon themselves for sustenance. These two factors are only under the control of the man who finishes calves of his own raising and who should logically follow the production of yearling beef in the corn belt. For him who makes a business of feeding cattle rather than producing them, the western ranges must furnish the material for the feed lot, which means that the calves will necessarily have lost much of the "bloom" carried at weaning time and also be entirely unaccustomed to the feeds used for production, of beef in the corn belt, both of which will result in a longer feeding period where prime yearling beef is produced. When calves are first placed in the feed lot they should be given the most palatable feed that can be obtained until they have learned to eat. Most excellent results in starting them can be secured from a grain mixture of shelled corn, bran and oats mixed in equal proportions by weight, adding one part of linseed meal to 10 parts of the grain mixture. For roughage, good, bright clover or alfalfa hay and corn silage are most useful. After they have learned to eat grain, the expensive feeds such as bran and oats may be dropped from the ration and the more concentrated feeds such as corn, cotton-seed or linseed meal increased according to appetite, and fed in connection with good roughage during the winter. This method of treatment will result in an increase of approximately two pounds per head daily for six months as shown in bulletins No. 129 and No. 136. When high grade calves are given a full feed during this period on such rations, they will sell from 25 cents to 50 cents per hundred below the prices paid for fat cattle of equal quality and type on the central markets and will require from three to four months of full feeding to make them prime. At this time there 445 is usually an abundance of grass, flies are annoying, the hot weather of the summer months is approaching, and the demands for labor in seeding, cultivating and harvesting crops are urgent. These conditions would seem to make it advisable to turn the half -fat yearlings on grass rather than keep them in the dry lots for fin- ishing, but the work reported in the following pages shows a de- cided advantage in favor of dry-lot feeding. In order to test the advisability of using these methods of finishing yearlings, the Sta- tion has divided the calves used in the winter feeding experiments reported in bulletins No. 129 and No. 136 into two lots at the close of the age experiments, turning one on grass and keeping the other in dry lot, continuing the full feed of grain for three months in each lot. METHOD OF EXPERIMENTATION The quarters used for dry-lot feeding were the same as used in the experiments reported in previous bulletins. They were not well adapted to summer feeding as the sheds were too low to be kept reasonably cool, too narrow to furnish protection from the sun and could not be darkened so as to keep out flies. The quar- ters used for pasture consisted each year of nine acres of mixed timothy and clover pasture which furnished more grass' than the cattle could consume from the middle of May to the middle of August. There was a double row of catalpa trees running along the west side of the pasture which furnished protection from the sun; otherwise, the cattle on pasture had no shelter. CATTLE USED During the first and second tests high grade Hereford steers were used which had been given a full feed of shelled corn, cotton- seed meal, clover hay and corn silage during the winter feeding season from November 15 to May 15. In the third test high grade Angus steers which had been given a full feed of shelled corn, cotton-seed meal and clover hay during the winter season, were used. Under this method of treatment the cattle entered the summer feeding experiments in such a condition that they would have sold as half- fat yearlings, being too fleshy to be considered as feeders. They were divided into two lots as nearly equal as pos- sible in age, weight, type, quality and condition with due considera- tion of their rate qf gain during the preceding winter. 446 WEIGHING AND FEEDING The average weight of each steer for three days at the close of the winter feeding was used as the initial weight for summer feeding. They were weighed in lots at 10:00 a.« m. at the end of each 10 ('ay period, individually at the end of each 30 day period and for three consecutive days at the beginning and the close of the experiment. Shelled corn and cotton-seed meal were used as a grain ration in both lots during each of the three experiments, fed twice daily in such quantities as would be cleaned up readily in one-half to three-quarters of an hour. The pasture cattle grazed at will, where the}' had an abundance of grass throughout each of the three years. The dry-lot cattle were fed mixed clover and tim- othy hay the first year, corn silage and clover hay for the first month of the second year, after which the silage was discontinued on account of not having a sufficient number of cattle on feed to keep it from spoiling during the hot weather, and clover hay the third year. Roughage was fed in the dry lot in such quantities that it would be cleaned up without waste. AYater was supplied each lot from the town water supply in galvanized iron tanks, which were cleaned out at frequent intervals. Salt was supplied once each week in limited quantities. VALUATION The cattle were valued at the close of the winter feeding ex- periment- on a basis of their actual worth on the Chicago and In- dianapolis markets by members of the firms of Alexander, \Yard and Conover. Chicago, and Yalodin, Parr, Moffitt and Co., of In- dianapolis. These values were used as the initial values in the summer feeding experiments. At the close of the summer feeding they were sold on the Chicago market as one lot. after having both buyers and salesmen estimate the difference between those fed in dry lot and pasture. At the time the steers were divided into two lots they were apparentlv consuming the same amount of feed. 447 'asture IB9UI P99S UJOO . 000000000 02C5OOOOOOOO . OOOOOOOTf<0 oo O5 rH O5 0 05 P9H9U.S Sd(McoeoTt o3 P > s 5 ce c S « 02 EH 448 A study of Table I will show that during each of the three years the cattle remaining in the dry lot continued to consume a maximum amount of grain while those turned on grass in each in- stance consumed from three to six pounds less per head than they were accustomed to at the close of the winter feeding experiment. There was not a very material increase in the amount consumed in. dry lot in later periods but in the pasture the increase was quite rapid until about the close of the experiment when the steers on pasture were again consuming practically the same as those in the dry lot. In the second test during the last period they were consum- ing more. This is the first noticeable difference between the two- methods of feeding, and shows that yearling steers which have been given a full feed of grain during the winter months will, if turned on grass about the middle of May, lose their appetite for grain when first turned out, not regaining it until they have been on pasture from 40 to 50 days. A detailed study of bulletins No. 129 and No. 136 will show that the steers, when divided into two lots on May 20, 1907, were consuming 12 pounds of shelled corn, 1.9 pounds cotton-seed meal, 2.25 pounds clover hay and 10 pounds corn silage per head daily; during the next 10 day period, the dry-lot steers consumed 12.9 pounds shelled corn, 2 pounds cotton-seed meal and 5 pounds hay and the pasture steers 6.9 pounds shelled corn, 1.32- pounds cotton-seed meal. The following year when divided into- two lots on May 15, 1908, they were consuming 11.5 pounds shelled corn, 1.7 pounds cotton-seed meal,. 2. 25 pounds clover hay and 10 pounds corn silage per head daily; during the next 10 day period, the dry-lot steers consumed 12.75 pounds shelled corn 1.8 pounds cotton-seed meal, 2.3 pounds clover hay and 10 pounds corn silage, and the pasture steers, 9 pounds shelled corn and 1.27 pounds cotton- seed meal. The third year, when divided into two lots on May 17^ 1909, they were consuming 13.5 pounds shelled corn, 2 pounds cot- ton-seed meal and 5 pounds clover hay per head daily; during the next 10 day period, the dry-lot steers consumed 14 pounds shelled corn, 2 pounds cotton-seed meal and 5 pounds clover hay, and the pasture steers, 12.6 pounds shelled corn and 1.9 pounds cotton-seed meal. The results of three years work with yearling steers which have had a full feed of grain during the preceding winter, show conclusively, that when they are kept in the dry lot they will not only consume their regular full feed during the latter half of May, but will also show a normal increase in grain consumption. If turned on pasture they lose their appetite for grain to some extent and depend upon green succulent grass which is more palatable to, them. It should be understood that these results were secured with steers which had received a full feed of both grain and roughage 449 from the time they were weaned in the fall of the year until the middle of May, when there was in each instance an abundance of succulent pasture. If they had been turned out earlier in the sea- son before grass had started there would not have been the marked decrease in the consumption of grain, or if they had been fed on a light grain ration during the preceding winter, so that they would have gone on grass in stocker or feeder condition, their appetite for grain would probably have been just as great as that of cattle kept in the dry lot. Table I shows that there was a gradual increase in the amount of grain consumed by the dry-lot cattle throughout the 90 days they were on feed. In the first test the pasture steers, though given access to all the grain they would eat, never con- sumed as much as those in the dry lot. During the second and third tests the steers on pasture during the last three 10 day periods consumed as much as those in the dry lot. 450 I O o I en *£ S rt 3 •8 tuo .S I *» P99S „; o o o S OS 0 0 0 os Q £4 -UOHO^l ~ IO «O «O t- M £) ' os 02 72 uaoo .0 o M< K Tfi ~' ^ eo Tt< TK IM | XBH 02' o o o ^2000 0 0 £ ^ T-H rH rH 10 £ "Q * 3 W &! P99S ^1 I 1 0 o oo rH °c uaoo 10 10 0 03 IO rH O 0 l>- P9TT9UQ n CO •* 10 _ •<*< Tf rt< eo aj- P99S 93 0 CO 0 ,Q -t- IO t- CO OS 3^ -UO^OQ —i eo 10 10 rH 11 uaoo . 10 10 10 W2 CO U3 ••*< £ OO (M — IO CO IO w •— i t- to ia rH rH 0 eo Ir- co CO >>"» fic P99S „; o o o J2 -5t* 00 t- ^ IO IO LO 0 OS 50 rH uaoo ^ 0 10 10 0 t- •p^TT^UC! •^ O If) IM oo "" "* "^ "* (M 9 P99S ^ rH* S S O oo |« -UOnOQ ,_ •* ^ IO eo iH 1" uaoo 10 0 10 OJ r- 05 rH 0 oo t" — • o oo IO en os oo o o T-< OS rH t- l> 10 to co co •«*" •*»" ! t4 £wtj .2 o o os' 10 ** £ r-l t- CO os i CM CO CO P ^j 'oJ 3 CQ 5'S5 ream .CM T-l t- 03 rH* t» •*•* paas ,£ T»< oo t- OO a: -uo^oo •— I OO -S< •**< rH rH rH rH ^ IO CM t- 0 UJOO 0j CO rH CO co P9|j9l{g £ T-l 0 CO rH T-l OS 0 t- «0 0 rH rH rH 00 i I-B9UI T»< rH C- 03 g 03 0> *H rl 0) P99S & <0 0 TH i-S t- co eq rH rH 00 0 rH 03 w ^ I- ^ t- 1 (2 s UJOO 03 ^ 1 ^ .Q U» rH 10 to x./ p^ii^ms -< 00 0 •<*< CO 10 0 OS . rH oo oo 0 OS •"« 00 1 9S-BUS 1—1 CO •^ os OS rH i 00 00 "^ CO E *» ? XBH CO CO 2 ^ 4) ^2 (M 10 T-l «j T-I co co IN S ° oo-* rH . C4 rH CO OO ' ^ P99S W . . ^2 CO cq r- OS -uo^;oo — < 00 (M CO T-l rH o rH UJOO OS T*I CO W "* 00 10 IO 1! UJOO .0 rH . t- 03 10 per 60c. per bushel $5.00 $6.11 $6.01 5.50 6.54 6.44 6.00 6.96 6.88 6.50 7.39 7.31 Cost >per cwt. Corn ( g> 70c. per bushel $5.00 $6.35 $6.21 5.50 6.77 6.65 6.00 7.20 7.08 6.50 7.62 7.52 upon the following- prices: — Cotton-seed meal. .. @ $28.00 per ton Clover hay @ $ 8.00 " " Corn silage @ $ 2.50 " " Pasture @ 75 cents per head per month Table VI 1 1 shows that a greater margin is necessary in feed- ing in dry lot, although, the cost of gain is less, due to the more rapid gains made by the dry-lot cattle. An increase of 10 cents per bushel in the price of corn requires a corresponding increase, 23 to 24 cents in the selling price of the dry lot and 20 to 21 cents in the lot on pasture. An increase of 50 cents per hundred in the initial value of the steers as they went into the finishing period necessitated a corresponding increase of 42 to 43 cents in the selling price at the close of the experiment in order to insure an equal profit. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS In presenting the financial statements for the yearlings finished in dry lot and on pasture, the feeds have been charged at the pre- vailing market price at the time of feeding. As the cattle had been used in the winter feeding experiments and were divided equally for finishing in summer, the final prices in the winter experiments with calves, reported in bulletins No. 129 and No. 136 have been used as initial values for yearlings. The dry-lot and pasture cattle were shipped each year to the Union Stock Yards, Chicago, and sold by Alexander, Ward and Conover, as one lot. Before delivery, how- ever, they were separated into two lots, as fed in the summer, which were inspected by buyers, sellers and commission men who deter- mined the difference in value between the two lots. The final values determined in this way \vere used after making allowance for the cost of shrinkage, feed, yardage, commission and freight from the Station feed lots to market. Although hogs were used in each lot to consume the undi- gested corn in the droppings from cattle, no credit has been allowed in the financial statements for pork produced, because of the im- practicability of determining what proportion of gain on hogs following cattle on pasture was due to the waste in cattle feeding and to the additional feed secured by the hogs from grass. It may be assumed, however, that there was sufficient grain left undigested to produce at least two pounds of pork from each bushel of corn fed to the cattle, which would increase the profits from feeding very mate- rial! v. There would be a further profit in each lot from the manure produced during a three months period of full feeding which is not estimated in the financial statements. No allowance has been made for the labor in feeding as the price of feeds includes the cost of marketing which under average conditions would be equal to that of feeding. 459 It will be seen that the total expenditures for feeding the dry- lot cattle were greater than for those on pasture each year, due to the larger consumption of grain in dry lot, and that the total value of the dry-lot cattle when marketed was also greater, due to their greater weight and higher finish. The difference in selling value in favor of the dry-lot cattle at the close of three months feeding was 20 cents per hundred in 1907 and 1908 and 10 cents in 1909. A study of the financial statements will show that there was a profit in feeding all lots during each of the three years except in the case of the pasture cattle in 1909 where there was a loss of $1.48 per head from the three months feeding. This, however, is more than balanced by the gains made by hogs following. From the summary of three years work it will be seen that the average price of corn fed was 60 cents per bushel, the average sell- ing price of the cattle $7.14 per hundred if finished in the dry lot, and $6.97 per hundred if finished on pasture; that the total profit from dry-lot feeding based upon the cattle alone without consider- ing hogs or manure was almost two and one-half times as great as from feeding on pasture, and that the corn fed to the dry-lot cattle brought 7.2 cents per bushel, while that fed to the pasture cattle brought 3.4 cents per bushel over its market value at the time of feeding. f It should be remembered in considering the profits from feeding during the past three years that unusual conditions have been con- fronted. Half to three-fourths fat yearlings were in strong de- mand and selling out of proportion to finished cattle when the ex- periment started in each of the three years. The price of corn was exceptionally high during the same period, and at no time were the cattle marketed when values were at the high point of the year. While the net profits as shown in the financial statements are not large, they are satisfactory in view of the conditions confronted and show that there was a profit in finishing yearlings under ad- verse conditions during the three summers (1907, 1908 and 1909) in addition to a very material profit from winter feeding. From the three years work it would be safe to conclude that high grade calves showing beef type, early maturity, quality and capacity for feed can be profitably finished as prime yearlings if given full feed during a nine months period ; that dry-lot feeding is superior to pasture feeding in finishing yearlings, as shown by the rate of gain, cost of gain, finish secured, profit per steer, price received per bushel for corn, and interest on the investment. 460 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Dry lot— 1907 May 15 To 10 steers, weight 8796 Ibs. @ $5.35 per cwt. $470.58 " 239.4 bus. shelled corn @ .50 per bu. 119.70 " 1937 Ibs. cotton-seed meal @ 1.40 per cwt. 27.11 " 4487 Ibs. mixed hay @ .50 per cwt. 22.43 Total expenditures $639.82 Aug. 15 By 10 steers, weight 10,288 Ibs. @ $6.55 per cwt. 673.86 Total profit $ 34.04 Profit per steer 3.40 Price received per bushel for corn .642 Interest on investment for three months in cattle and feed 5.3% Pasture — 1907 May 15 To 10 steers, weight 8800 Ibs. @ $5.35 per cwt. $470.80 " 165.7 bus. shelled corn @ .50 per bu. 82.85 " 1380 Ibs. cotton-seed meal @ 1.40 per cwt. 19.32 " pasture 10 steers 3 months @ .75 per head per month 22.50 Total expenditures $595.47 Aug. 15 By 10 steers, weight 9916 Ibs. @ $6.35 per cwt. 629.66 Total profit $ 34.19 Profit per steer 3.42 Price received per bushel for corn .706 Interest on investment for three months in cattle and feed 5.7% Dry lot— 1908 May 15 To 10 steers, weight 8701 Ibs. @ $6.30 per cwt. $548.16 " 229.82 bus. shelled corn @ .65 per bu. 149.38 " 1690 Ibs. cotton-seed meal @ 1.40 per cwt. 23.66 •' 3730 Ibs. mixed hay @ .50 per cwt. 18.65 " 3000 Ibs. silage @ .125 per cwrt. 3.75 Total expenditures $743.60 Aug. 15 By 10 steers, weight 10,240 Ibs. @ $7.40 per cwt. 757.76 Total profit $ 14.16 Profit per steer 1.41 Price received per bushel for corn .711 Interest on investment for three months in cattle and feed 1.9% 461 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) Pasture — 1908 May 15 To 10 steers, weight 8751 Ibs. @ $6.30 per cwt. $551.31 " 205.98 bus. shelled corn @ .65 per bu. 133.88 " 1493 Ibs. cotton-seed meal @ 1.40 per cwt. 20.90 "• pasture 10 steers for 3 months @ .75 per head per month 22.50 Total expenditures $728.59 Aug. 15 By 10 steers, weight 10,130 Ibs. @ $7.20 per cwt. 729.36 Total profit $ .77 Profit per steer .07 Price received per bushel -for corn .653 Interest on investment for three months in cattle and feed .1% Dry lot— 1909 May 15 To 10 steers, weight 8273 Ibs. @ $6.40 per cwt. $529.47 " 236.96 bus. shelled corn @ .65 per bu. 154.02 " 1800 Ibs. cotton-seed meal @ 1.40 per cwt. 25.20 " 4500 Ibs. mixed hay @ .50 per cwt. 22.50 Total expenditures $731.19 Aug. 15 By 10 steers, weight 9796 Ibs. @ $7.50 per cwt. 734.70 Total profit $ 3.51 Profit per steer .35 Price received per bushel for corn .664 Interest on investment for three months in cattle and feed .4% Pasture — 1909 May 15 To 10 steers, weight 8088 Ibs. @ $6.40 per cwt. $517.63 " 224.17 bus. shelled corn @ .65 per bu. 145.71 " 1790 Ibs. cotton-seed meal @ 1.40 per cwt. 25.06 " pasture 10 steers 3 months @ . 75 per head per month 22.50 Total expenditures $710.90 Aug. 15 By 10 steers, weight 9406 Ibs. @ $7.40 per cwt. 696.04 Total loss $ 14.86 Loss per steer 1.48 Price received per bushel for corn .583 Loss on investment for three months in cattle and feed .2% 462 FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THREE YEARS WORK IN FINISHING YEARLINGS ON DRY LOT VS. PASTURE Dry lot , ^' May 15 To 30 steers, weight 25,770 Ibs. @ $6.00+ per cwt. $1548.21 " 706.18 bus. shelled corn @ .599+ per bu. 423.10 " 5427 Ibs. cotton-seed meal @ 1.40 per cwt. 75.97 " 12,717 Ibs. mixed hay @ .50 per cwt. 63.58 " 3000 Ibs. corn silage @ .125 per cwt. 3.75 Total expenditures $2114.61 Aug. 15 By 30 steers, weight 30,324 Ibs. @ $7.14+ per cwt. 2166.32 Total profit f $ 51.71 Profit per steer 1.72 Price received per bushel for corn .672 Interest on investment for three months in cattle and feed 2.4% Pasture May 15 To 30 steers, weight 25,639 Ibs. @ $6.00+ per cwt. $1539.74 " 595.85 bus. shelled corn @ .608+ per bu. 362 .*44 " 4663 Ibs. cotton-seed meal @ 1.40 per cwt. 65.28 " pasture 30 steers 3 months @ . 75 per head per month 67.50 Total expenditures $2034.96 Aug. 15 By 30 steers, weight 29,452 Ibs. @ $6.97+ per cwt. 2055.06 Total profit $ 20.10 Profit per steer .67 Price received per bushel for corn .642 Interest on investment for three months in cattle and feed 463 PART II FINISHING TWO YEAR OLD STEERS The degree of finish to which a steer is carried should be gov- erned by the quality and type of the steer, the season of the year, the cost of gains and the condition of the market for finished cat- tle. It is not always profitable to make cattle fat enough to sell at top prices especially if they are of poor type and deficient in qual- ity but when high grade steers are being fed on rations that insure economical gains there is usually an additional profit secured from making them prime over marketing them in half-fat condition. During the winter 1906-7 the Station fed one lot of cattle on shelled corn, cotton-seed meal, clover hay and corn silage, a similar lot on shelled corn, clover hay and corn silage, both of which are reported in bulletin No. 129. When they had been in the feed lots for four months, another lot, which had been fed shelled corn, clover hay, corn stover and oat straw during the same length of time, was purchased from a feeder and given a ration of shelled corn, cotton-seed meal, clover hay and corn silage. 464 TABLE IX.- — Finishing Steers March 21 to May 20, 1907 Previous Record and Treatment (4 months) Lot 1 Age Shelled corn 2 yrs. Cotton-seed meal Clover hay Corn silage Initial Final claily weight weight per steer 1010S 13505 Shelled corn Lot 4 2 yrs. Clover hay Corn silage Shelled corn Lot 8 2 yrs. Clover hay Shredded stover Oat straw 10175 12540 1.97 10026 12126 1.75 Record During Finishing Period (2 months) Shelled corn Lot 1 2 yrs. Cotton-seed meal Clover hay Corn silage Shelled corn Lot 4 2 yrs. Clover hay Corn silage Shelled corn Lot 8 2 yrs. Cotton-seed meal Cl o v «- > r hay I Corn silage 13505 14745 12510 13481 1.56 3.06 465 Table IX shows that Lot I which was fed a good ration made a much more rapid gain than either Lot 4 or Lot 8 during the first four months of feeding. In the finishing period Lots I and 4 were continued on the same ration as they had received at the Station during the first four months, Lot 8 was changed from a poor ration to the same as given Lot i. This change resulted in Lot 8 making a more rapid gain than either of the other two lots during the finishing period. Considering the whole period together, Table IX shows that the most rapid gain was made by Lot I followed by Lot 8 and Lot 4 in the order named. This indicates that the slow gains made by Lot 8 during the first four months of feeding were due to the character of the ration rather than the individuality of the cattle. The table also shows that Lot I not only made more rapid gains than Lot 4 during the first four months of feeding but also during the last two months, which indicates that a well selected ration will continue to result in more rapid gains than a poor one until the cattle are finished. A comparison of the rate of gain in Lots i, 4 and 8 will show that unless there is an improvement in the ration during the close of a feeding period the rate of gain will be less than during the earlier stages of fattening. There are at least three factors controlling the rate of gain made in the feed lot during the finishing period : 1. Previous method of feeding 2. Condition of cattle 3. Kind of ration used all of which must be considered when the finishing period begins. 466 TABLK X. — Showing Results Secured in Finishing Steers, Spring of 1907. Length of Feeding Period 60 Days Lot 1 Lot 4 Lot 8 RATION Shelled corn, Shelled Shelled corn, cotton-seed corn, cotton-seed meal, clover haj-, meal, clover hay, corn silage clover hay, corn silage corn silage Number of steers 10 10 10 Initial value $742.77 $658.35 $636.61 Initial weight 13505 Ibs. 12540 Ibs. 12126 Ibs. Final weight 14745 " 13481 " 13965 " Total gain 1240 " 941 " 1839 " Av. daily gain per steer 2.06 " 1.S6 " 3.06 " Total feed consumed Shelled corn 10565 " 11749 " 10382 " Cotton-seed meal 2026 " 1731 " Clover hay 1995 " 1965 " 1940 " Corn silage 6000 " 6000 " 6000 " Av. feed consumed daily per steer Shelled corn 17.6 " 19.58 " 17.3 " Cotton-seed meal 3.37 " 2.88 " Clover hay 3.32 " 3.27 " t 3.23 " Corn silage 10.00 " 10.00 " 10.00 " Feed consumed per pound gain Shelled corn 8.52 " 12.48 " 5.64 " Cotton-seed meal 1.63 " .94 " Clover hay 1.60 " 2.08 " 1.05 " Corn silage 4.83 " 6.37 " 3.26 " Cost of gain per cwt. Corn @ 40c. per bu. $ 9.60 $10.55 $ 6.18 " @ 50c. " 11.13 12.77 7.18 Profit per steer Corn @ 40c. per bu. 2.26 .40 5.97 " @ 50c. " .38 1.691 4.11 Necessary margin in feeding .34 .'37 .12 Actual margin secured .50 .40 .55 1Loss 467 Table X shows that the cost of gain in Lot I was less than in Lot 4 where a poorer ration was being used continuously for six months but that it was greater during the finishing period than in Lot 8 where the ration was improved. This is due to the fact that Lot i was in a much higher condition than Lot 8 when the finishing period started, hence consumed less feed in proportion to their weight and made less rapid gain. The results of this trial would indicate that it is advisable to feed a good ration throughout the whole feeding period, but if this is not possible good results can be secured from improving the ration toward the close of the feed- ing period. During the winter of 1906-7 three lots of cattle were fed at the Station as follows: Lot 4 shelled corn, clover hay and silage, Lot 5 shelled corn and clover hay and Lot 6 shelled corn and tim- othy hay. When the winter feeding experiment closed all three lots were fe Date of close of preceding experiment i Shelled corn Ibs. Ibs. 4 2 yrs. i Clover hay G mos. 1.85 $8.27, 1348 $5.30 May 20 | Corn silage 5 2 yrs. Shelled corn G mos. 2.01 8.56 Clover hay 1373 i 5.45 May 20 6 2 yrs. Shelled corn 6 mos. 1.56 9.2' Timothy hay ] 12S1 5.20 May 20 Finishing Period — Summer, 1907 o ~~ ••"i tH O+-> ^ o _i, >><(-i b£) —i O C | CO e3 tifl-*-1 fi M C £^ *r .^ C No. of lot uS Ration fed to.^ '£ ^* c c a) '""3 ° c ill Is O ^ *C R to c3 bC g ucm p, ^ O ^j ^ M P, ft2 *; He o 5 ° S < 1-5 Q ° 15 ^ $ 8.00 per ton 469 Table XI shows that the change in rations increased the rate of gain . 7 pound per head daily, in Lot 4 ; .78 pound in Lot 5 ; and . 74 pound over that secured from the preceding six months feeding in Lot 6. The cost of gains was decreased 50 cents in Lot 4, 90 cents in Lot 5, and 65 cents per hundred pounds in Lot 6. The necessary increase in value per hundred pounds in order to justify the change in rations and continue the feeding period one month longer was 13 cents in Lot 4, 12 cents in Lot 5, and 17 cents in Lot 6, while the ac- tual improvement was 95 cents per hundred in Lots 4 and 5, and 85 cents in Lot 6. There was a general increase in cattle values of 75 cents per hundred pounds which was in no way due to the change in rations. A similar test was conducted the following year with four lots of cattle after five months feeding which was reported in bulletin No. 129. Lot i had been fed on shelled corn, cotton-seed meal, clover hay and corn silage, Lot 4 on shelled corn and clover hay, Lot 5 on shelled corn, cotton-seed meal and clover hay and Lot 6 on shelled corn, clover hay and corn silage. The only change made in these rations was to add cotton-seed meal to the rations used in Lots 4 and 6. 470 XII.— Finishing Steers Treatment Before Finishing Period — Summer, 1908 c . No. of lot I Ration fed VI A C'O to*! Daily gain Cost of gai a 5 t* z — ti to*-1 G gcg ^60 a lot oJ2 fed ££ o QIJ *0 «-Sg> CO ^)J5 rf?1 Q) 4J •"•••• "C * »-? •*-> v S -2 o g 4) 5s .2 ^5-2 2£ i-3 1 0 0 ^ 03 ft ft^ |i« |«a Shelled corn 1 2 yrs. Cotton-seed meal 1 mo. Ibs. 2.55 $9.30 $6.39 $.14 $6.75 $.50 Clover hay Corn silage Shelled corn 4 2 yrs. Cotton-seed 1 mo. 1.48 17.24 6.30 .35 6.35 .40 meal Clover hay Shelled corn 5 2 yrs. Cotton-seed meal 1 mo. 1.40 17.09 6.59 .29 6.70 .40 Clover hay Shelled corn Cotton-seed 6 2 yrs. meal 1 mo. 3.36 7.46 6.10 .10 6.40 .40 Clover hay Corn silage Based upon the following prices: — Corn 50 cents per bushel Cotton-seed meal @ $28.00 per ton Clover hay @ $ 8.00 per ton Corn silage @ $ 2.50 per ton 471 Table XII shows that when the steers were continued on the same rations there was a decrease in the rate and an increase in the cost of gains due to the higher condition of the cattle. Lot 4 which had previously been fed on shelled corn and clover hay failed to show any improvement during the next month from the addition of cotton-seed meal to the ration. This, however, was due to one of the steers in this lot being off feed and to the extremely muddy condition of the lot in which they were fed. For these reasons the results from feeding this lot should not be considered as based upon average conditions. The results, however, are reported in order that the feeder may appreciate the influence which unfavorable con- ditions may have in determining the results of an experiment. Lot 6 gave results similar to those se.cured in previous work which justi- fies the statement that when conditions are normal, an improve- ment in the ration during the final stages of fattening results in a more rapid and a cheaper gain than where the use of the same ration is continued. During the winter 1908-9 one lot of cattle, Lot 6, was fed on shelled corn and clover hay for six months, the results of which were reported in bulletin No. 136. After the close of the experiment this lot, not being finished, was retained in tne feed lots for one month, a change being made in the ration by the addition of cotton-seed meal. During the six months feeding period they had made an average daily gain of 1 . 89 pounds per head from the use of 10.15 pounds shelled corn and 5.23 pounds clover hay at a cost of $12.35 Per hundred. During the finishing period of one month, the same results were secured as in previous years from improving the ration in increasing the rate of gain from 1.89 pounds to 2.90 pounds per head daily and decreasing the cost of gains from $12.35 to $10.83 Per hundred. At the close of the winter feeding experiment they were valued at $6.55 per hundred. The last months feeding required a margin of 23 cents per hundred to in- sure an equal profit, while the actual margin secured was 30 cents or a profit of seven cents per hundred without giving credit for the manure or pork produced. The results of all trials conducted at the Station during the months of May and June, 1907, 1908 and 1909 have shown that the final month in finishing steers of good quality and breeding has added an additional profit to that secured during the winter feeding season. This has been exceptionally large where the cattle were not on the most efficient rations during the winter and which were improved during the finishing period by the use of nitrogenous concentrates. 472 PART III THE SHORT-FED CATTLE AT THE INTERNATIONAL, 1908 On August i, 1908, the Experiment Station put in a load of high grade Angus yearlings that had not receive4 grain during the preceding winter or summer, averaging in weight at that time 737 pounds per head. They were used to secure additional data in re gard to short feeding cattle during the late summer and early fall months and were shown at the International Live Stock Exposi- tion held in Chicago in December, 1908, in competition with cattle entered in the short-fed contest by practical feeders in different sections of the country. The object of this work was to compare the results of cattle feeding at the Experiment Station with those secured by practical feeders who have had long years of experi- ence in the business and have been sufficiently successful to enter into the International contest. The cattle were shipped to the University farm during the latter part of July and were started, on August I, on a ration which consisted of four pounds shelled corn, one pound cotton-seed meal and 20 pounds corn silage. Owing to the severe and prolonged drought which was prevalent over the state of Indiana during the fall of 1908, it was impossible to se- cure pasture for these cattle, hence it was decided to feed them on silage in connection with their grain ration. At the end of the first 10 day period they were consuming n pounds shelled corn and two pounds cotton-seed meal per head. This was increased gradually. At the end of the first month they were consuming 13.5 pounds shelled corn, 3.5 pounds cotton-seed meal and 25 pounds corn silage per head daily. By the end of the second month they were consuming 14.5 pounds shelled corn, four pounds cotton-seed meal and 28 pounds corn silage. The maximum amount of grain was fed during the third month which amounted to 16 pounds shelled corn and four pounds cotton-seed meal per head. Silage was gradually reduced during the same period so that they con- sumed 20 pounds per head daily. In order to prepare them for shipment and to overcome the tendency toward paunchiness the cat- tle were beginning to show, the silage was taken out of the ration two weeks before shipment, clover hay being supplied in its place during the remainder of the period. On the day before ship- ment corn was reduced, cotton-seed meal omitted entirely and in its place the same quantity of oats was fed. On the day of shipment the amount of oats was increased to five pounds per head and the corn decreased to six pounds per head. They were watered the evening lief ore shipment and shipped to Chicago on November 27, where they were entered in the International Short- fed Contest. 473 XIII. — Showing Rate and Cost of Gains, Selling Price, Dressing Percentage and Prizes Won by Each Lot of Cattle Exhibited in the "Short-fed" Contest at the Inter- national Live Stock Exposition Held in Chicago, December, 1908 Crabb two-year-olds Henderson two-year-olds Purdue yearlings Feed consumed 18 head 784 bus. corn, 2000 Ibs. cotton- seed meal, 8000 Ibs. clover hay, pasture, 6 acres, 1000 Ibs. Acme feed 15 head 560 bus. corn, 750 Ibs. molasses, 20,000 Ibs. alfalfa hay 18 head 513 bus. corn, 7221 Ibs. cotton- seed meal, 180 Ibs. oats, 44,400 Ibs. corn silage, 2020 Ibs. clover hay Value of feeds $750.00—18 head 624.99—15 head $529.37—15 head $586.74 — 18 head 488.95—15 head Gain (15 steers) 4146 Ibs. 4200 Ibs. 5377.5 Ibs. 3Cost per hundred pounds gain $15.07 $12.60 $9.09 Selling- price (15 steers) $ 7.10 $ 7.20 $7.70 Dressing per cent. (15 steers) 59.86 59.9 59.01 Prizes won 1st in class, $100; Rosenbaum spe- cial $100; Ingwersen spec- ial, $100 Cham- pion silver cup 2nd prize in class, $50 1st prize in class, $100 upon the following prices: — Corn @ 75 cents per bushel Cotton-seed meal @ $28.00 per ton Hay @ $10.00 per ton Corn silage @ $ 4.00 per ton Stock feeds and molasses feeds and pasture at prices prevalent at the time they were used 474 The accompanying table gives the result of the different lots of short- fed cattle exhibited at the show. The statement varies slightly from that presented by the various feeders owing to the fact that the prices used for feeds were variable. Jn making np the table an uniform price of feeds has been nsed in order that the com- parison may be made as nearly accurate as possible. There were two lots of two year old cattle exhibited and one of yearlings. It will be noticed in studying this table that the 15 head of yearlings fed at the Station made a gain of 53/7.5 pounds as compared with .[140 pounds and 4200 pounds bv the two year old cattle fed by practical feeders. This would amount to 80 pounds per steer during the four months feeding period in favor of the methods used at the Station. The cost in producing TOO pounds gain is presented in connection with the rate of gain to show that the Station cattle made their gains at a cost of $5.98 per hundred less than the Crabb two-year-olds and $3.51 less than the Hender- son two year old cattle. The cattle were sold at public auction on the same market and an interesting comparison is there shown, where the Purdue yearlings sold at S/./o per hundred or 50 cents per hundred higher than the Henderson two-year-olds and 60 cents higher than the Crabb two-year-olds. The dressing percentage in the various lots was quite uniform, varying from 59.01 per cent, up to 59.9 per cent. First prize was awarded to the Crabb two- year-olds in the two year old class and to the Purdue yearlings in the yearling class. Y\ nen it came to awarding the championship it was given to the Crabb two-year-olds in spite of the fact that the Station cattle had made 1231.5 pounds greater gain at a co4 I § 1 a 5 * ""! § S 3 ^ g 3 «3 W S 8 § 1 •* CO t- i-H rH ia ^ «• s * °° s * 00 05 . °P pa X5 2 .C .Q § g.« 0 S 0 ^ S S CO 10 •* JC °° t- e K s s s * 1 t *" ** a to oo * 8" s j s «- rH „ S | 05' 0 | 00 i •'-'- 1 5 S 5 § 5 s 8 gj Ci •H O eg ^J g « | 5 r^ ^ " €«- CO "* rH S §3 " *- 55- ii I !3 §8 S S S t-. ^< eo Ji E fc •• 0 S 05 A £ oo .a 1 5 5 » a 3 3 3 I 3 S « S s 8 « ^ 5 S 5o 53 S 5 rH °° 8 * 1 t i S i 1 I 8 j | ! t3 03 ^ "2 1 | i j a Q. Number of cattle Initial value per cwt._ .C M !s 1 M _g ^ ti I I a "5 to Total feed consumed ] Shelled corn ' Cotton seed meal ___ Clover hay Corn silage Cost of feeds per hea( At market price whe At uniform market Feed per pound gain Shelled corn Cotton-seed meal __ Clover hay Corn silage 6oi TABLE II. — Showing Summary of Three Years Work on the In- fluence of Age on the Economy and Profit of Fattening Steers Calves Year- lings Two-year- olds Initial value per cwt. $4.58 $4.23 $4 26 Av initial weight 497 9 Ibs. 820 Ibs. 1033 4 Ibs Av. initial values per head $22.80 $34.68 $44.03 Av. length of feeding period 270 days 200 days 180 days Av. daily gain per head 1.89 Ibs. 2.23 Ibs. 2.50 Ibs. Av. total feed consumed per head Shelled corn 3063 7 Ibs 3049 Ibs q-ioq tj iva Cotton-seed meal _ 456.8 " 498.9 " 520 9 " Clover hay (1st two years) 857 " 714 " 7fiO 1 " Clover hay (3rd year) 1505 3 " 1501 9 " 1707 8 " Corn silage (1st and 2nd years) 1950 " 2848.7 " 2700 " Av. cost of feeds per head At market price for feeds when fed $42.29 $41 18 $42 17 At uniform price for feeds1 39.66 40 48 42 26 Av. cost per 100 Ibs. gain At market price for feeds when fed 8 25 9 25 9 35 At uniform price for feeds1 7.74 9 09 9 37 Av. final weight 1010 8 Ibs 1265 Ibs 1484 Ibs Av. total gain per head 512 9 " 445 " 450 6 " Av. necessary selling values per cwt. At market price for feeds when fed _ $644 $6 00 $5 80 At uniform price for feeds1 618 5 94 5 81 Av. necessary margin in feeding1 1 00 1 71 1 55 Av. margin secured on stationary market1 2 09 2 22 2 09 Av. selling value per cwt. On actual market . 7 15 6 63 6 35 On stationary market 6 60 6 45 6 35 Av. value per head On actual market _ 72 27 83 86 94 23 On stationary market 66 71 81 59 94 2£ Av. profit per head On actual market value per cwt.2 7 Ifi o nn On stationary market1 _ 4.25 6.43 7.95 iBased upon the following prices: Shelled corn Cotton-seed meal Clover hay Corn silage *At actual prices of feeds when fed 50 cents per bushel $28.00 per ton $ 8.00 per ton $ 2.50 per ton 602 Fig. 1. Calves In thrifty feeder condition. Note the type used Fig. 2. Finished calves 603 Table II shows that the average valuation of the calves at the beginning of the test was 32 cents per hundred higher than that of the two-year-olds and 35 cents higher than that of the yearlings. Their average weight was 535.5 pounds less than that of the two- year-olds, or not quite one-half as great, and 322 pounds less than that of the yearlings. The calves required 90 days and the yearlings 20 days longer feeding period than the two-year-olds, to make them prime. The average daily gain of the calves was .61 pound per head less than that of the two-year-olds and .34 pound less than that of the yearlings. The average of the three trials shows that the total amount of concentrates (shelled corn and cotton-seed meal) required to finish calves was 3520.5 pounds per head; yearlings, 3547.9 pounds and two-year-olds, 3704.6 pounds. On account of the inability to secure a sufficient amount of silage for feeding during the third year a direct comparison cannot be made in the average amount of rough- age consumed. By reducing all to a dry matter basis it will be found that the average amount of dry matter consumed in roughage by calves was approximately 1745 pounds ; by yearlings, 2015 pounds and by two-year-olds 2041 pounds, showing that the older cattle con- sumed a greater amount of roughage as well as concentrates and that the proportion of roughage to concentrate was greater. With uniform prices for feeds, the table shows that it cost 82 cents less to fatten a calf than a yearling and $2.60 less than a two- year-old. This difference was so little that the feeder who intends to fatten calves, yearlings or two-year-olds might consider that it will take an equal amount of feed in either instance. While the initial weight of the calves was much less than that of the older cattle it was necessary to secure an additional gain of 60 to 65 pounds per head in order to make them equally fat as the yearlings or two-year- olds at the time of marketing. The gains on calves amounted to 103 per cent., on yearlings 54 per cent, and on two-year-olds 43.6 per cent, on their initial live weight. There are four factors, the initial cost per hundred, the cost of gains, the initial weight and the amount of gain required in fattening, which control the margin necessary to break even in finishing cattle. In these experiments, the initial weight and the gains necessary for finishing the two-year-olds had a greater influence in reducing the necessary margin than the initial cost per hundred and the cheaper gains made by the calves. With yearlings, the difference in the in- itial weight and in gains required for finishing as compared with the calves, was not great enough to overcome the advantage due to the cost per hundred and the decreased cost of gains on calves. The average selling value under actual market conditions dur- 604 Fig;. 3. Yearling: feeders Fig. 4. Finished yearling* 605 ing the three years in which these cattle were fed, decreased with the increased age of the cattle. This was due to the fact that the two- year-olds were marketed in May, each year, the yearlings in May, the first, and in June, the two following years, while the calves were marketed in August, each year. In 1907 there was an improvement of $1.00 per hundred in the price of fat cattle from May until August when the calves were marketed. In 1908 there was an im- provement of $1.00 per hundred from May to June, followed by a decline of 50 cents from June to August. In 1909 there was an im- provement of 10 cents from May to June and a further improve- ment of 45 cents from June to August. Owing to the difference in market conditions when the various lots of cattle were sold the selling value on a stationary market is given. While this does not change the relative order of the various ages it reduces the differ- ence between the selling value of the calves and the, two-year-olds from 80 cents to 25 cents per hundred and between that of the calves and yearlings from 52 cents to 15 cents per hundred, which was due to the superior quality and type of the calves as compared with the yearlings and two-year-olds. Quality, breeding and type being the same, calves, yearlings and two-year-olds will sell at the same price per hundred, if they are made equally fat. The same conditions which affected the value of the cattle make the profits from feeding misleading when based upon the market prices of feeds and cattle, both of which varied on account of the yearlings and calves being marketed later than the two-year- olds. When all feeds are charged at a uniform price and the market values of the cattle based upon a stationary market the profits re- sulting increase with the age of the cattle. In addition to the profits reported it should be considered that there was a large amount of manure accumulated from feeding through so great a length of time and that there was a further profit from hogs which were utilized to prevent waste in the feed lots. The pork produced from each bushel of corn fed to calves amounted to approximately one pound, to yearlings, 1 . 85 pounds and to two-year-olds, 2 . 5 pounds, which would tend to make the difference in profit from feeding even more marked than where the profit on cattle alone is considered. 6o6 Fig. 5. Two year old feeders FigT. 6. Finished two-year-olds 607 The results of this work justify the following conclusions: 1. The initial cost per hundred of calves is greater than that of older cattle. 2. The length of time necessary for finishing steers decreases with the increased age of cattle. 3. The rate of gain and the cost of gain increase with the increased age of the cattle. 4. The proportion of roughage to concentrates consumed in- creases with the increased age of the cattle. 5. The amount of gain necessary in finishing cattle of equal condition decreases as their age increases. 6. The difference in total quantity of feed necessary for finish- ing cattle of different ages and fed to the same marketable finish is negligible. 7. The average margin required between buying and selling prices to prevent loss was $1.60 per hundred on calves, $1.71 on yearlings and $1.55 on two-year-olds; the margins secured on a stationary market were $2.02 on calves, $2.22 on yearlings and $2.09 on two-year-olds, resulting in a profit of 42 cents per hundred on calves, 51 cents on yearlings and 54 cents on two-year-olds. 8. The increase in live weight necessary to make calves prime was 103 per cent. ; yearlings, 54 per cent, and two-year-olds, 43.6 per cent, of their initial weights at the beginning of the feeding period. 9. At an uniform price for feeds the difference in cost of gains between calves and yearlings was $1.35; between yearlings and two- year-olds, 28 cents per hundred pounds. 10. The experienced farmer who feeds cattle should handle older cattle in preference to calves ; while the farmer who produces and finishes his own cattle may find calves more preferable. 6o8 PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 153, VOL. XVI SEPTEMBER, 1911 STEER FEEDING VII WINTER STEER FEEDING 1909-10 and 1910-11 Part I. Corn Silage and Clover Hay as Roughage for Fattening Steers Part II. Influence of Different Proportions of Cottonseed Meal in Rations for Fattening Steers Part III. Long vs. Short Feeding PuDlisted by tie station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. ADDISON C. HARRIS, President GEORGE APE CHARLES DOWNING SAMUEL M. FOSTER CYRUS M. HOBBS GEORGE A. JAMISON CHARLES MAJOR JOSEPH D. OLIVER WILLIAM V. STUART WINTHROP E. STONE, A. M., PH. D. BOARD OF CONTROL Indianapolis, Marion County Brook, Newton County Greenfield, Hancock County Fort Wayne, Allen County Bridgeport, Marion County LaFayette, Tippecanoe County Shelbyville, Shelby County South Bend, St. Joseph County LaFayette, Tippecanoe County President of the University STATION STAFF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS ARTHUR Goss, M. S.. A. C. JOSEPH C. ARTHUR, D. Sc. - GEORGE I. CHRISTIE, B. S. A. - ROBERT A. CRAIG, D. V. M. OTTO F. HUNZIKER, M. S. WILLIAM J. JONES,, JR., M. S., A. C.1 JOHN H. SKINNER, B. S. JAMES TROOP, M. S. ALFRED T. WIANCKO, B. S. A. - CHARLES G. WOODBURY, M. S. Director Botanist Sup't Agricultural Extension Veterinarian Chief Dairy Husbandry State Chemist Chief Animal Husbandry Entomologist • Chief Soils and Crops Horticulturist ASSOCIATES AND ASSISTANTS JOHN B. ABBOTT, M. S. EVELYN ALLISON, B. S. JAMES C. BEAVERS, B. Agr. REUBEN O. BITLER, B. S.4 JESSE G. BOYLE, B. S. SAMUEL D. CONNER, M. S. CECIL W. CREEL, B. S.3 CLINTON 0. CROMER, B. S. CARLETON CUTLER, B. S.4 JOHN J. DAVIS, B. S.3 RALPH B. DEEMER, B. S.4 WILLIAM F. EPPLE, PH. G. MARTIN L. FISHER, B. S. MARY A. FITCH, A. M. GEORGE M. FRIER, B. S. A. - FREDERICK D. FULLER, B. S.4 ROY L. GREEN, B. S.4 FRANK D. KERN, PH. D. FRANKLIN G. KING, B. S. PHILIP LUGINBILL, B. S. in Agr.3 GERTRUDE M. MCCHEYNE, B. S.5 JOHN W. MCFARLAND, B. S.4 HERMAN H. MADAUS, B. S. - LOVINA S. MERICK 2 HORACE C. MILLS, B. S. CLAYTON R. ORTON, B. S. - ALLEN G. PHILIPS, B. S. A. WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, M. S.3 FRANCIS J. PIPAL, M. A. EDWARD G. PROULX, M. S.4 MORRIS W. RICHARDS, M. S. OTIS S. ROBERTS, B. S.4 J. HOWARD ROOP 4 - GEORGE SPITZER, PH. G., B. S. HAROLD R. SMALLEY, B. S. DAVID O. THOMPSON, B. S. JOSEPH W. WELLINGTON, B. S. REX A. WHITING, D. V. M. WINFRED R. WRIGHT, B. S. - NELLIE TRACY MARY K. BLOOM Associate in Soils Ass't in Botany Extension Work in Soils and Crops Deputy State Chemist Ass't Horticulturist Chemist Soils and Crops Entomological Assistant Ass't in Crops Deputy State Chemist Entomological Assistant Deputy State Chemist Ass't Dairy Chemist Associate in Crops Scientific Ass't in Botany Ass't in Agricultural Extension Chief Deputy State Chemist Inspector State Chemist Dep't Associate Botanist Associate in Animal Husbandry Entomological Assistant Ass't in Agricultural Extension Inspector State Chemist Dep't Ass't in Veterinary Laboratory Ass't in Agricultural Extension Ass't in Dairy Husbandry Ass't Botanist Associate in Poultry Husbandry Entomology Ass't Botanist Deputy State Chemist Ass't Horticulturist Chief Inspector State Chemist Dep't - Deputy State Chemist Dairy Chemist Ass't Chemist, Soils and Crops Extension Work in Animal Husbandry Ass't Horticulturist Animal Pathologist Ass't Dairy Bacteriology Clerk and Librarian Bookkeeper " l In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Detailed by U. S. Dep't of Agriculture — Seed Testing 3 Detailed by U. S. Dep't of Agriculture — Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations 4 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 8 Lecturer in Domestic Science ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNDER LEGISLATIVE ACT OF 19O9) T. A. COLEMAN, Rushville - State Live Stock Association U. R. FISHEL, Hope - - - State Poultry Fanciers' Association H. H. SWAIM, South Bend State Horticultural Society D. B. JOHNSON, Mooresville - - State Dairy Association D. F. MAISH, Frankfort - - State Corn Growers' Association WINTER STEER FEEDING 1909-10 and 1910-11 F. G. KING H. P. RUSK' SUMMARY PART I 1. Corn silage in all rations where it was fed, proved a more economical and more profitable roughage than clover hay alone for fattening cattle. 2. The addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cot- tonseed meal, and clover hay, decreased the consumption of shelled corn in amounts closely approximating the grain content of the silage in the ration. 3. The addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay, increased the rate and decreased the cost of gain, and effected equally as good finish on the cattle. 4. The addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay, increased the profits per steer in amounts closely corresponding to the saving in cost of gains. 5. The substitution of corn silage for clover hay with grain rations of corn and cottonseed meal did not affect the rate of gain but did greatly reduce the cost of gain. 6. Corn silage alone as roughage with a grain ration of shelled corn and cottonseed meal gave slightly less finish than clover hay alone as roughage, but the cost of gains was enough less to effect a much larger profit where silage was the only roughage fed. 7. The more nearly corn silage replaced the clover hay in the ration the cheaper the gain, but the entire elimination of clover hay from the ration was accompanied by slightly less finish on the cattle. 8. Under prevailing market conditions the larger the propor- tion of corn silage in the roughage, in the early part of the fatten- ing period, the cheaper were the gains. 9. In order to induce sufficient grain consumption to insure satisfactory gains it was necessary to limit the amount of silage fed during the latter part of the feeding period. 10. Corn silage in the ration produced relatively more rapid improvement in the condition of the cattle during the early part of the fattening period, than did clover hay alone as roughage. 11. The consumption of frozen silage scoured the cattle. 1 Resigned September, 1910 4 PART II 12. The use of 2.5 pounds of cottonseed meal per 1000 pounds live weight of cattle, in a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay and corn silage made more rapid gains and effected a higher finish on the cattle than where 1.25 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight were consumed. 13. With corn above 40 cents per bushel, the cost of gain was less where the larger amount of cottonseed meal was fed with shelled corn, clover hay, and corn silage. 14. The ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay and corn silage returned the largest profits where the cottonseed meal was fed in the proportion of 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight. 15. The consumption of 2.5 pounds of cottonseed meal daily per i ceo pounds live weight in a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay produced gains at a greater cost than when half that amount of cottonseed meal was consumed. 1 6. The consumption of the larger amount of cottonseed meal where shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay were fed pro- duced a better finish on the cattle. 17. The profit per steer was less in 1909-10 where 2.5 pounds of cottonseed meal were consumed daily per 1000 pounds live weight in connection with shelled corn and clover hay and in 1910- n the profits were in favor of the larger amount of nitrogenous concentrate. PART III 18. The consumption of roughage by the heavy, fleshy feeders was relatively less, and the consumption of grain relatively greater than by lighter, thinner cattle. 19. The short-fed cattle in the trials of 1909-10 made more rapid gains than the long-fed cattle. 20. The heavier and fleshier the cattle at the beginning of the feeding period, the more expensive were the gains. 21. Corn silage and clover hay proved efficient for carrying heavy, fleshy feeders for the first part of the feeding period. 22. Cattle in the trial of 1910-11, carried for 60 days on clover hay and corn silage and then short-fed, made less gain and returned a smaller profit than long-fed cattle. INTRODUCTION The past few years have witnessed a great awakening of in- terest in agricultural problems of all kinds and especially in those relating to the conservation of soil fertility and permanent systems of farming. The study of these problems has resulted in an increasing tendency among the most progressive farmers to market a part, at least, of their crops through live stock and thus retain as large a per cent, of the fertility as possible upon the farm. This tendency brought them early face to face with the problem of developing some efficient method of utilizing, through live stock, the fodder and other roughages produced. The result is a more general appreciation of the importance of the part which cattle feed- ing, as a means of utilizing the roughage, must take in future systems of farm management. One of the greatest losses on the farm is due to the lack of proper utilization of roughage incidental to grain production. It is impossible to produce grain without also producing large amounts of roughage. Since cattle are pre-eminently the most satisfactory animals to consume large quantities of roughage, the solution of the roughage problem lies largely with this class of stock, and with it rests the real value of the roughage grown on the farm. Cattle feeding is coming more and more to be considered as a means of marketing grain, conserving soil fertility, and completely utilizing the roughage produced on the farm rather than a means of commer- cial speculation. The work of the Experiment Station with beef cat- tle has been conducted with the intention of meeting the demands of practical feeders for information regarding the most efficient meth- ods of feeding the crops produced on the farm and especially the utilization of the various kinds of roughage. MARKET CONDITIONS. — The conditions of the live stock market during the time covered by the feeding trials reported in this bulletin have been rather unusual. At the outset of the 1909-10 season, feeders were confronted with the problem of feeding high-priced corn to high-priced steers. The butchers were competing with the country buyers for the fleshier kinds and the prices of feeders were forced to a very high level. Indiana pastures, too, were short and the native feeders were not only high priced but thin. These con- ditions, coupled with the scarcity of clover hay, made the prospect rather gloomy, but owing to the very strong demand for all kinds of meat which prevailed during the winter of 1909-10 and the spring following, fat cattle marketed during that period, sold at a good margin over cost of feeders and where fed judiciously, returned a large profit on the investment. The season of 1910-11 began under somewhat different conditions. The unusually large corn crop in 1910 and the abundance of feed throughout the great feeding sections of the country created such a demand for all classes of feeding stock that the fall market for feeding cattle was raised to the highest point for many years. This was followed in the spring by a dull market for fat stock and resulted in a most disastrous year for feeders. OBJECT The experiments reported in this bulletin are a continuation of series reported in bulletins Nos. 129, 130, and 136. The object of the trials reported in this bulletin was to -obtain additional informa- tion on the value of corn silage as a roughage for fattening steers, and data on the best methods of utilizing the roughage produced on the farm. The work, however, was not confined entirely to a direct comparison of roughages but also involved the study of the influence of the addition of supplementary feeds, such as cottonseed meal, to the ration, and to a comparison of the relative profits from long and short feeding periods. SHELTER, FEED LOTS, AND WATER SUPPLY The conditions surrounding the cattle were no better than those of the average feed lot. Each lot of 10 steers was fed in a yard 40x50 feet, with an open shed 12x40 feet facing east, on the west side of each yard. The yards were covered with cinders and gravel. This did not prove entirely satisfactory because it did not prevent the lots from getting very muddy and sloppy. This condition resulted in some trouble from cinders getting into the cleft of the steers' hoofs and causing lameness. The sheds were kept well bedded so that the cattle had a comfortable place to lie down. However, no bedding was used in the lots. The water was supplied from the West Lafayette Water Works in galvanized iron tanks set in the open lot and surrounded by five or six inches of manure, held in place by a wooden jacket. The water was further protected by tank covers which were closed dur- ing the night in cold weather. No attempt was made to heat the water and considerable trouble was experienced with ice in the troughs, in extremely cold weather. WEIGHTS The average of individual weights taken on three consecutive days at the beginning and close of the experiments were used as initial and final weights. The identity of each steer was known by means of a numbered tag on a strap fastened around the neck of each steer. Individual weights were taken at the end of every 30 day period, and lot weights at the end of every 10 day period, in order to obtain proportions of feeds desired in the rations and facil- itate keeping records of feed consumed and gains made. Weights were taken in the morning beginning at 9 o'clock, 1909-10, and 8 o'clock in 1910-11. No attempt was made to withhold the water before weighing in 1909-10. The tanks were closed at 6 o'clock in the evening before weighing in 1910-11. METHOD OF FEEDING The method of feeding was the same in all lots in both trials reported in this bulletin. Grain was fed at 6:00 A. M. and 4:30 P. M., in troughs in the open lot. Shelled corn was placed in the trough, the cottonseed meal poured upon it and both thoroughly mixed by hand. After the cattle had cleaned up the grain ration which usually required from a half to three-quarters of an honr, the roughage was fed. In Lots I and 5, clover hay was fed in the morning and silage at night; in Lots 2 and 6, clover hay without other roughage, was fed both morning and night; in Lot 3, silage without other roughage was fed both morning and night; while in Lot 4, silage was fed both morning and night and in addition clover hay was fed in the morning. Lot 7, in 1909-10, was fed the same as Lot 3. Lot 8, in 1909-10, and Lot 7, in 1910-11, were fed the same as Lot 4. It was the intention to have all silage cleaned up within two hours and all clover before the next time to feed clover. Salt was supplied at regular intervals. DESCRIPTION OF THE CATTLE The cattle used in the experiment during the winter of 1909-10 were two-year old steers of mixed breeding. About three-fourths of the number used were black cattle showing a preponderance of Angus blood, the other one-fourth was red cattle showing either Shorthorn or Hereford ancestry. About one-half of these cattle was purchased in Lawrence county, Indiana; they were native Indiana cattle. The other half was purchased in Montgomery county, Indiana; they were all black and had been purchased in Chicago in the spring of 1909, and pastured in Montgomery county during the summer and fall. Nothing definite is known of their treatment before they were purchased in Chicago, but a few of them were branded and this would indicate that at least that part of them came from the western ranges. There were only a few •choice feeders in the bunch and there were several that would not grade above medium. All of these cattle were in thin condition when they reached the University farm. Fifteen of the heaviest and fleshiest of the number were selected for the "short-fed" lot which was designated as Lot 7. The average weight of these steers was 1055 pounds. Six of them were black and showed evidence of Angus ancestry, six showed Shorthorn breeding and three Here- ford breeding. They were plain with a little tendency toward legginess, and aside from being heavier and fleshier than the steers in the other lots, they apparently possessed less quality. Sixty •other steers, averaging 893 pounds per steer, were divided into lots of 10 steers each, care being taken to have all lots as nearly equal as possible in regard to thrift, weight, condition, breeding and quality. These six lots averaged eight blacks and two reds to the lot. These cattle were valued at $4.65 per- cwt. for Lots I, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. and $5.00 for Lot /. Market quotations for feeding cattle for the week were as follows : Selected, strong wi-ight, fleshy feeders ... .$5. oo-$5-3O Good feeders 900-1000 pounds $4.25-$4.85 Fifteen light, thin, medium steers from the same drove were wintered on blue grass pasture and corn stalk fields, and then placed in a short feeding test on March 17, 1910. The cattle used in the winter of 1910-11 were two and three year old steers of mixed breeding but of somewhat better quality than those used the previous year. Of the 70 steers, 24 were black, 34 red and 12 red with white faces, denoting a preponderance of Angus, Shorthorn, and Hereford blood respectively. They had been wintered and grazed the previous winter and summer in Lawrence countv, Indiana and were natives of that region. There were only a few choice feeders in the lot and very few that would not grade as "good, fleshy feeders". All lots were divided, equally according to size, breed, condition, and quality. These cattle were valued at $5.00 per cwt. on November 19, 1910. Market quotations for feeding cattle for the week were as follows: Selected, fleshy feeders $5-25-$5.65 Good feeders $4.85~$5.25 Although these steers carried enough flesh for choice feeders, lack of quality would not permit them to grade above "good." METHOD OF VALUING CATTLE At the beginning of the experiment of 1909-10, Messrs. J. T. Alexander of the firm of Alexander, Ward, and Conover, Chicago, and J. II. Moffitt of the firm of Yalodin, Heeler, Moffitt and Company, and Mr. Lichtcnberg, of Indianapolis, and in 1910-11 Messrs. J. T. Alexander and Allen Heeler visited the feed lots and placed values upon each lot of cattle, upon the basis of the Chicago and Indianapolis markets, which were taken as the initial values. At the close of the experiment of 1909-10 Messrs. Alex- ander and Heeler, and at the close of the experiment of 1910-11 Messrs. Conover and Heeler visited the feed lots and placed the values upon the cattle on the basis of the Chicago market. In order to cover expenses of shipping, 40 cents per cwt. was deducted from these values of the fat cattle. All financial state- ments are based on market prices for feeding cattle, and Chicago values for finished cattle, less 40 cents per hundred. 9 QUALITY OF FEEDS The rations fed during the winter of 1909-10 and 1910-11 were composed of various combinations of part or all of the following feeds : shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, and corn silage. The corn used was of good quality and would grade as No. 2, except during the latter part of March and the first part of April, 1910, there were some rotten kernels and a musty smell to the corn fed. The cottonseed meal was of "Choice" grade guaranteed to contain 41 per cent, crude protein and 8 per cent. fat. The clover hay used in 1909-10 was of only medium quality. The clover crop of 1909 was very short and it was very difficult to secure first class hay. Fully one-third of the bales contained some musty hay and none of them were entirely free from timothy or other impuri- ties. The clover hay fed in 1910-11 was pure and of good quality, only a small part of it being of inferior quality, and it was readily eaten by the cattle. The silage was produced from corn raised on the college farm, making about 60 bushels per acre in 1909 and about 65 bushels per acre in 1910, the yield of silage being approximately 12 and 13 tons per acre respectively. The corn was well matured; about two- thirds of the husks and one-third of the blades were brown when the silos were filled. PRICES OF FEEDS The prices of feeds are based on the actual prices at the time the experiments were conducted. In 1909-10, the average price of corn, in Lafayette, was as follows: first month, 49.9 cents; sec- ond month, 55.7 cents; third month, 56.7 cents; fourth month, 53.7 cents; fifth month, 51.9 cents; and last 10 days, 50.2 cents per bushel. In 1910-11, the average price of corn was as follows: first month, 36.1 cents; second month, 37 cents; third month, 37.8 cents; fourth month, 36.9 cents; fifth month, 39.3 cents per bushel. Cottonseed meal is valued at $33.00 per ton in 1909-10 and $30.00 per ton in 1910-11. These values are slightly higher than was paid by the Station for this feed in car load lots. Clover hay in all in- stances is valued at $10.00 per ton. Corn silage is valued at $3.50 per ton in 1909-10 and $3.00 per ton in 1910-11. This allows 75 cents per ton for harvesting, 25 cents per ton for the stover contained in- a ton of silage and 50 and 40 cents per bushel for the corn accord- ing to whether the silage is valued at $3.50 or $3.00 per ton. For purposes of comparison in the statements on the cost of gain, corn is valued at two arbitrary prices, 50 and 40 cents per bush- el. In these comparisons cottonseed meal is valued at $30.00 per ton, clover hay at $10.00 per ton, corn silage at $3.50 per ton when corn is 50 cents and at $3.00 when corn is 40 cents per bushel. In all financial statements and summaries the actual value of the feeds is taken. 10 HOGS Enough hogs were kept behind the cattle to thoroughly work over the droppings. The number in each lot varied slightly accord- ing to the condition of the yards but usually there were five hogs in the first three lots and 10 in the next three, 12 in Lot 7 and 15 in Lot 8 of 1909-10, and there were eight hogs in each lot of 1910-11 except in Lot 7 for the first two months, when there were only seven hogs. No grain was fed the hogs in Lots, I, 2, and 3 of 1909-10 after the cattle were on full feed and none of the lots of 1910-11 received any grain except Lot 7 where grain was fed be- fore the cattle were placed on full feed. The hogs of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of 1909-10 received corn in addition to the droppings. When hogs in any lot became finished they were removed and others put in their places. There were two such drafts before the close of the experiment in 1909-10 and one in 1910-11. PARTI CORN SILAGE AND CLOVER HAY AS ROUGHAGE FOR FAT- TENING STEERS Part I of this bulletin is a report and discussion of the results obtained in trials conducted in 1909-10 and in 1910-11 to determine the relative value and the most economical combina- tion of corn silage and clover hay for fattening steers. There is produced upon the farm large quantities of rough feeds that do not bring on the market, prices to justify the removal of such quan- tities of plant food as of necessity accompanies the sale of such products. Therefore, one of the greatest problems to be solved in successful farm management is the disposal of the roughage pro- duced on the farm in such a way as to secure the feeding value and at the same time conserve the plant food therein contained. The use and value of clover hay is pretty well recognized and under- stood but the use and value of the corn sf-alk is neither understood . nor appreciated. It has long been know;i that the stalks contain a very large per cent, of the food nutrients of tl:e corn plant. When harvested^to preserve the grain only, the stalks, either standing or as corn stover, while containing the food nutrients, have them locked in such a way with woody fibre that they are not readily available for animals. The woody parts are not only unpalatable but when eaten require so much energy in digestion that a large part of their value is lost. When harvested, by putting the entire plant into the silo, the plant passes through a process of fermenta- tion that leaves the hard parts of the stalk soft and palatable, and the general effect of summer grass is secured in winter by feeding the corn silage. When fed in the form of silage, the entire corn plant is consumed. II The trials reported herein are a continuation of and are based upon previous investigations at this station and reported in bulletins Nos. 129 and 136. The trials reported have shown that the addi- tion of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn and clover hay for fattening cattle does not materially affect the profit. They have also shown that the addition of cottonseed meal to a ration either with or without silage is profitable. However, when cottonseed meal was fed, the addition of corn silage decreased the cost of making gains by amounts varying from 50 cents to $2.00 per hundred and made as good or better finish on the cattle than when only dry roughage was used. The exceedingly favorable showing of corn silage led to a continuation of the investigation. It must be understood, however, that it is not the purpose of these trials to find a substitute for clover hay for cattle feeding, but rather to discover the most satisfactory method of utilizing, through the medium of fattening cattle, the roughage produced by the corn plant. Clover and corn must con- tinue as the principal crops in the corn-belt, and the roughage from both sources should be used in such combination that the greatest good will be secured from them. With this object in view the fol- lowing comparisons of silage and clover alone and in combination were made in a two year series.. Because of the fact that earlier trials had shown the economy of using cottonseed meal in a ration and more especially in a ration containing corn silage, all the rations in this test received shelled corn, and cottonseed meal in the propor- tion of 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight of cattle. The only variable factor between the four rations was the amount of corn silage or clover hay fed. The rations fed were as follows : Lot i. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage, (evening) clover hay (morning). Lot 2. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight, clover hay. Lot 3. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage. Lot 4. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage twice daily, clover hay. A comparison of Lots i and 2 shows the effect of adding a limited amount of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cotton- seed meal, and clover hay ; of Lots i and 4 shows the effect of dif- ferent amounts of silage; and Lots 2 and 3 shows the effect of entirely replacing the clover hay with silage. The first noticeable difference in the effect of the rations is shown in the appetites of the cattle for the different feeds. Since this is a very important detail in the effect of rations, the variations in the amount of feed consumed at different stages of the feeding period should be carefully noted. Table I shows the average amounts of feed consumed daily per steer by 30 day periods : 12 TABLE I. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, Winter 1909-10 Date of experiment November 17, 1909-April 26, 1910 Length of experiment (160 days) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Shelled corn, i RATION Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, Shelled corn, cottonseed Shelled corn, cottonseed cottonseed meal, clover hay clover hay, (morning) corn silage (evening) meal, clover hay, meal, corn silage (morning) corn silage, (morning and evening) First month shelled corn 10.60 Ibs. 10.60 Ibs. 10.60 Ibs. 10.60 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.79 " 1.79 " 1.79 " 1.79 " clover hay 9.20 " 14.77 " 5.29 " corn silage 15.48 " 31.07 " 31.07 " Second month shelled corn 13.48 " 13.48 " 13.48 " 13.48 " cottonseed meal 2.47 " 2.40 " 2.40 " 2.47 " clover hay 8.13 12.01 " 4.61 " corn silage 16.08 31.74 " 31.88 " Third month shelled corn 14.95 " 15.02 " 14.70 " 14.70 " cottonseed meal 2.68 " 2.48 " 2.52 " 2.68 " clover hay 8.00 " 12.00 " 4.80 " corn silage 15.00 " 30.00 " 30.00 " Fourth month shelled corn 17.53 " 18.48 " 15.37 " 16.03 " cottonseed meal 2.97 " 2.80 " 2.87 " 2.97 " clover hay 7.29 " 10.99 " 3.19 " corn silage 14.17 " 28.23 " 28.25 " Fifth month shelled corn 18.98 " 19.95 " 13.93 " 16.92 " cottonseed meal 3.00 " 2.96 " 2.50 " 2.88 " clover hay 6.31 " 9.79 " 3.73 " corn silage 10.87 " 21.48 " 21.53 " Last 10 days shelled corn 18.55 " 19.90 " 13.70 " 15.90 " cottonseed meal 3.00 " 3.00 " 2.73 " 3.00 " clover hay 5.85 " 9.70 " 6.00 " corn silage 8.00 15.20 " 16.00 " Average of entire period shelled corn 15.33 Ibs. 15.78 Ibs. 13.62 Ibs. 14.44 Ibs. cottonseed meal 2.61 " 2.52 " 2.44 " 2.58 " clover hay 7.67 " 11.77 " 4.43 " corn silage 13.93 " 27.67 " 27.76 " I. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, (continued) Winter 1910-11 Date of experiment November 18, 1910— April 17, 1911 Length of experiment (150 days) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, cottonseed RATION cottonseed meal, Shelled corn, cottonseed Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, clover hay, (morning) meal, clover hay meal, corn silage (morning) corn silage, corn silage, (morning (evening; and evening) First month shelled corn 13.13 Ibs. 13.33 Ibs. 11.22 Ibs. 10.35 Ibs. cottonseed nieal 1.86 " 1.88 " 1.88 '• 1.79 " clover hay 9.17 " 15.82 " 5.65 " corn silage \ 20.53 " 12.53 " 39.07 " Second month shelled corn 18.05 " 20.52 " 14.05 '• 13.05 " cottonseed meal 2.97 " 2.87 " 3.04 ' 2.97 " clover hay 4.99 " 9.73 " 4.38 " corn silage 21.00 tl.38 " 30.00 " Third month shelled corn 19.25 " 22.18 " 14.94 " 15.25 " cottonseed meal 3.27 " 3.13 " 3.28 " 3.20 " clover hay 5.00 " 10.00 " 4.00 " corn silage 21.00 " 10.00 " 30.00 " Fourth month shelled corn 20.00 " 23.00 " 15.28 " 16.21 " cottonseed meal 3.43 " 3.35 " 3.43 " 3.41 " clover hay 5.00 " 10.00 " 4.30 " corn silage 21.00 " 37.53 " 29.09 " Fifth month shelled corn 20.88 " 23.00 " 1 7.93 " 17.03 " cottonseed meal 3.68 " 3.57 " 3.58 " 3.64 " clover hay 5.00 " 9.50 " 4.15 " corn silage 20.33 " 29.40 " 26.81 ". Average of entire period shelled corn 18.26 Ibs. 20.41 Ibs. 14.68 Ibs. 14.38 Ibs. cottonseed meal 3.04 " 2.96 " 3.04 " 3.00 " clover hay 5.83 " 11.01 " 4.50 " corn silage 20.77 " 38.17 " 31.00 " 14 It will be noted that the daily grain consumed during the first two months of the 1909-10 trial was practically the same in all lots. The grain offered for the first 30 days was the same for all the cattle. The amount fed the first day was six pounds of corn and one-half pound of cottonseed meal per steer. This amount was gradually increased for 30 days, at the end of which time 13 pounds of corn daily per steer and 2 . 5 pounds of cottonseed meal daily per looo pounds live weight were being consumed. An attempt was made in the fourth 10 day period to increase the corn but it was not successful in any of the lots until near the end of the second 30 day period at the end of which time all lots were consuming .14 pounds of shelled corn and a little less than 2.5 pounds of cotton- seed meal daily per steer. After the first two months, the amounts of grain eaten became variable for the different lots. In the season of 1910-11, the cattle were put on full feed in less time than in 1909-10 and therefore began showing variation in grain consumption more quickly than in the previous year. All lots received six pounds of shelled corn and one-half pound of cotton- seed meal daily per steer for four days, when a gradual increase was made in the grain offered, each lot being increased according to appetite until at the end of 17 days all lots were on full feed. The average amount of grain consumed per steer, when they reached full feed, was 2.8 pounds of cottonseed meal and 18, 18, 14, and 13 pounds of shelled corn daily per steer for Lots I, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The corn was increased in each lot when the appe- tites of the steers would justify it and the cottonseed meal was kept in the proportion of 2.5 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight, the amount being adjusted every 10 days when weights of the cattle were taken. The clover hay in all lots in which it was offered was supplied in such quantities as would be eaten by the cattle before the next time to feed clover. Where silage was fed, the time taken to get the cattle on full feed of this roughage, was 18 days in 1909-10 and six days in 1910-11. Twelve pounds of silage per steer was offered at the first feed. The amounts at which the appetites of the steers were satisfied was 17.5 pounds in 1909-10 and 21 pounds in 1910-11, Lot i being fed once and Lots 3 and 4 twice daily. Lot 3 in 1910-11 a few days later was increased to 23 pounds per steer at each feed. This amount, however, was eaten for a comparatively short time. As is to be expected in fattening cattle, the amount of roughage consumed decreased as the fattening period advanced. This is clearly shown by the figures for 1909-10 and to some extent in those for 1910-11. The steers fed in 1910-11, however, seemed to relish the roughage more than cattle ordinarily do, and consequently con- tinned consuming large amounts of roughage. Better results would probably have followed if less roughage had been consumed during the latter part of the feeding period. In fact it became necessary to arbitrarily reduce the amount eaten in Lot 3 during the last month in order to insure large enough consumption of grain to re- turn satisfactory gains. With the above details in mind the table showing the daily feed consumed presents some interesting figures relating to the appetites of the cattle. Since no attempt was made in 1909-10 to feed grain to the limit of the appetites of the cattle, until after the feeding period had been well started, the effect of the various com- binations of silage and clover on the grain consumption is best shown by the results of 1910-11 and the last four months of 1909-10 when corn was given according to the appetites of the cattle. Con- sidering the matter from this standpoint it will be noted that the grain consumed depends primarily on the amount of silage eaten. The corn in the silage evidently replaces the shelled corn in the ration in amounts approximating the grain contained in the silage, thereby reducing the amount of grain consumed by cattle on full feed. The cattle on full feed of silage consumed approximately two-thirds as much corn as those receiving only clover hay as roughage. As the fattening period of cattle advances, less rough- age and, up to a certain point, more grain is consumed. This point in Lot 2 was reached in 1909-10 at the end of the fourth month and in 1910-11 at the end of the third month. When silage is being fed, however, the grain consumed does not apparently cease to increase until a very small amount of silage is being consumed. In other words, enough less silage is consumed in the latter end of the feeding period to permit the corn ration being gradually in- creased instead of remaining stationary the last month or two as is the case when only dry roughage is fed. The apparent contra- diction of these statements in the results of Lots 3 and 4 of 1909-10 is due to some musty and partly rotten corn being fed during the latter part of March and the first part of April that threw the cattle off feed. Another marked effect of silage in the ration was the reduc- tion in the amount of clover hay eaten. There was, however, no reduction in the quantities of dry matter consumed in the form of roughage. There was approximately the same amount of dry mat- ter in three pounds of silage as in one pound of hay fed these cattle. While there was a very material displacement of hay by silage, de- pending upon the amount of the latter fed, there was more dry matter consumed where both silage and hay were fed than where either was fed alone. i6 GAINS. — It is a difficult matter to record the efficiency of a rati»n because of the varying factors that enter into the problem. The rate of gain is, however, a fairly accurate index of the value of a ration. While the rate of gain is not necessarily an absolute record of the effect of the feeds, it must be relied on more largely than any other one thing to show the difference in rations for fat- tening purposes. This is especially true, as it is in this case, when the cattle in all lots are of the same age, size, quality, and condition at the beginning of the trial. Table II shows the average daily gain and the total gain per steer in each lot. TAP.LK II. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Winter 1909-10 Steer by Months,. Date of experiment Length of experiment RATION First month Second month Third month Fourth month Fifth month Last 10 days November 17, 1909— April 26, 1910 (160 days) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, (morning) Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage cottonseed meal, clover hay, (morning) corn silage, corn silage, (evening) (morning and evening) 3.18 1.81 3.55 2.05 2.43 2.17 Ibs. 2.41 Ibs. 1.43 " 3.23 " 2.03 " 1.9G " 3.30 " 2.3G 1.86 3.53 2.15 l.GO 2.G5 11. 2.71 Ibs. 2.GO " 3.51 " 2 21 " 2.05 " o Tr; " Total gain per steer Average daily gain for entire period 412.7 Ibs. 3G5.5 Ibs. ! 372.0 Ibs. i 420.5 Ibs. 2.r,S " 2.28 " 2.33 " 2.G3 " TABLE II. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months,, (continued) Winter 1910-11 Date of experiment November 18, 1910— April 17, 1911 Length of experiment (150 days) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 RATION Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, (morning) corn silage, (evening) Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay,r (morning) corn silage,, (morning and evening)1 First month 1.60 Ibs. -.04 * Ibs. 2.23 Ibs. 1.72 Ibs. Second month 3.33 " 3.40 " 3.42 " 2.40 " Third month 2.65 " 3.02 " 2.40 " 3.62 " Fourth month 2.52 " 2.68 " 1.38 " 2.40 •'•' Fifth month 2.84 " 3.11 " 2.43 " 1.955 " Total gain per steer 388.3 Ibs. 364.9 Ibs. 355.8 Ibs. 362.7 Ibs. Average daily gain for entire period 2.59 " 2.43 " 2.37 " 2.42 " 1 — Denotes a loss It will be noted that the rate of gain by monthly periods is quite variable. This is due to conditions other than the rations. The small gains made the second month of 1909-10 were due to the extremely cold weather during part of the period when the tem- perature dropped as low as 17 degrees below zero. Water was very cold all the time and the silage often froze before the cattle could eat it, thereby causing scouring. Lot 3, receiving corn silage alone as roughage, suffered most severely and lost six pounds per steer during the 10 day period ending January 6, 1910. The ex- tremely small gains for the first month of 1910-11 were due largely to the condition of the cattle and the change from pasture to dry lot. The steers were heavy, fleshy feeders and the change from green grass which was unusually succulent in the fall of 1910 to dry feed was such a radical change that it required a month for some of the lots to get started. The change from grass to silage was not as radical as from grass to clover and the cattle receiving silage made far more satisfactory gains at first than those receiv- ing clover hay alone as roughage. The superiority of corn silage for the early part of the feeding period when cattle are taken from grass is shown by the first two months' gains of each of the two years' trials reported. i8 The gains for the entire period are more reliable because they cover a greater length of time and are also based on the average of three days' weights at the beginning and end of the experiment. These gains show that the addition of a limited amount of silage (Lot i) to a ration of corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay (Lot 2) increased the gain in 1909-10 from 2.28 to 2.58 pounds daily per steer and in 1910-11 from 2.43 to 2.59 pounds or an average for the two years of .23 pound daily per steer. The effect of adding corn silage to the limit of the appetites of the cattle (Lot 4) was to make a more rapid gain in 1909-10 than where only a limited quantity of silage was fed and in 1910-11 to give the same gain as when no silage was fed. The gains of 1910-11 are somewhat mis- leading due to the fact that a steer in Lot 4 was troubled with bloat and made only 70 pounds gain before being removed from the lot at the end of 100 days.1 Based on the records of the nine thrifty steers, the gains of Lot 4 would have been 2.57 pounds daily per steer. This is practically the same gain made by Lot i, which shows that the full amount of silage gave as rapid gains as a limited feed and that both rations containing silage produced on an average more than a quarter of a pound faster gains than when no silage was fed. The effect of using corn silage as the exclusive roughage was to very slightly increase the rate of gain in 1909-10 over the clover hay lot and to cause a corresponding decrease in 1910-11. The average of the two years is almost identical for the rate of gain be- tween the two lots, and a little more than a quarter of a pound less than when both silage and hay were fed. COST OF GAINS. — The cost of gains depends so largely on the price of feeds that any thorough discussion of the subject must nec- essarily he based on different prices of feeds. Table III shows the average amounts of feed consumed per pound of gain and the cost per 100 pounds gain with feed at dif- ferent prices. 1 All records in this bulletin involving- Lot IV, 1910-11, are based on figures for 10 steers for 100 days r.nd on figures for nine steers for 50 days. One-ninth has been added to the figures obtained during the last 50 days in order to raise the totals to a basis of 10 steers for 150 days TABLE: III. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per 100 Pounds Gain, with Feeds at Varying Prices Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, RATION cottonseed meal, clover hay, (morning) corn silage, Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage cottonseed meal, clover hay, (morning) corn silage, (evening) (morning and evening) Feed per pound gain 1909-10 shelled corn 5.94 Ibs. 6.91 Ibs. 5.86 Ibs. 5.50 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.02 " 1.10 " 1.05 " .98 " clover hay 2.97 " 5.15 " 1.69 " corn silage 5.40 " 11.90 " 10.56 " 1910-1.1 shelled corn 7.05 " 8.39 " 6.19 " 5.95 " cottonseed meal 1.18 " 1.22 " 1.28 " 1.24 " clover hay 2.25 " 4.53 " 1.86 " corn silage 8.02 " 16.09 " 12.82 " Cost per cwt gain: Actual cost * 1909-10 $9.76 $10.98 $9.42 $9.56 1910-11 8.82 9.71 8.49 8.71 Corn @ 50 cts. per bu.2 1909-10 9.25 10.40 8.89 9.07 1910-11 10.59 11.58 . 10.27 10.35 Average 9.90 10.99 9.56 9.66 Corn @ 40 cts. per bu.3 1909-10 8.06 9.16 7.54 7.83 1910-11 9.13 10.08 8.76 8.96 Average 8.58 9.62 8.14 8.35 1 These figures are based on the following prices: 1909-10: shelled corn, first month, 49.9 cents; second month, 55.7 cents; third month, 56.7 cents; fourth month, 53.7 cents; fifth month, 51.9 cents; last 10 days, 50.2 cents; cottonseed meal, $33.00 per ton; clover hay, $10.00 per ton; corn silage, $3.50 per ton 1910-11: shelled corn, first month, 36.1 cents; second month, 37 cents; third month, 37.8 cents; fourth month, 36.9 cents; fifth month, 39.3 cents per bushel; cottonseed meal, $30.00 per ton; clover hay, $10.00 per ton; corn silage, $3.00 per ton 2 Clover hay, $10.00 per ton; cottonseed meal, $30.00 per ton; corn silage, $3.50 per ton 8 Clover hay, $10.00 per ton; cottonseed meal, $30.00 per ton; corn silage, $3.00 per ton 20 It will be observed that the feed required to make a pound of gain was much greater in 1910-11 than in 1909-10. This is due to the fact that the cattle were both older and fleshier in 1910-11, at the time they were placed on feed, than were the cattle fed the previous year. Since both age1 and higher condition on cattle in- crease the cost of gains it was to be expected that the expense of making gain would be higher with the heavier cattle. Also the winter of 1910-11 was so warm and there were so many damp disagreeable days, that the cattle did not gain as well as they nor- mally should. Table III brings out in a most striking manner the principal and most characteristic advantage of corn silage over dry roughage as a feed for fattening cattle. The least reduction in cost per 100 pounds gain due to silage was 89 cents and in one case it amounted to $1.56. The grain required to make a pound of gain was least in Lot 4 of both years with Lot 3 a close second. Lot 2 required a much larger amount of grain than any other lot. The roughage required to make a pound of gain \vas practically in reverse order to the grain required for the same purpose. The cost of the clover hay and the extra amount of grain required for the gains made was such that the cost per 100 pounds gain was greatest where the largest amount of dry roughage was eaten and decreased quite con- sistently as the clover hay was replaced by corn silage. Lot 3. where only corn silage was fed for roughage, made the cheapest gain each year. It will be seen that Lot 4, where a full feed of silage was fed in connection writh clover hay, gave almost as cheap gains as Lot 3, and that Lot i, where only half feed of silage was given, effected a saving of $1.22 and 89 cents per 100 pounds gain over Lot 2 in 1909-10 and 1910-11 respectively. The most reliable basis of comparison of costs is when feed is valued at a fixed price for both years. Table III contains figures on the cost of gain when both years' trials are reckoned on stationary prices for feed. It will be noted that in every case the highest cost of gain is in Lot 2, where no silage was fed, the average being $10.99 Per 10° pounds gain with corn at 50 cents per bushel and $9.62 with corn at 40 cents per bushel. With corn valued at 50 cents per bushel the cost of making gains was reduced, by the addition of corn silage once daily (Lot i ), $1.09 per 100 pounds and with corn at 40 cents per bushel $1.04 per 100 pounds. By the addition of corn silage twice daily, (Lot 4;, there was a further reduction in cost enough to make it $1.33 and $1.27 less per 100 pounds than the clover hay-fed lot according to whether corn is 50 cents or 40 cents per bushel respectively. When the process of substituting corn silage- for clover hay was carried still farther and no hay whatever fed (Lot 3), the 'cost of making gains was further reduced, the total 1 Piinlm- KxjH>r;inont Station liulktins Nos. 12f), ISO, 1 •<"' 21 reduction being $1.43 and $1.48 per 100 pounds gain as corn was 50 cents or 40 cents per bushel respectively. The fact should not be lost sight of, however, that both corn and corn silage are lacking in protein and that some nitrogenous concentrate must be fed in con- nection with them in order to reduce the cost of making gains. FINISH. — The finish on the cattle is really the deciding factor in any ration. A few cents advance or decline in the selling price of fat cattle may very easily overcome a great difference in the cost of gains, because the gains are not a large per cent, of the total weight of the cattle if mature steers are used for feeding. Neither is the total gain an absolute index of the selling price of the cattle for it has often been observed, that the same number of pounds gain made from different rations may result in a great difference in the finish of the cattle. For this reason the finish secured on the cattle is of great importance in determining the value of a ration. The effect of the different rations upon the finish of cattle is shown by Table IV, which gives the selling values of the cattle in the feed lots at the end of the feeding period and after a short feeding period. TABLE: IV. — Showing Selling Value of Cattle at End of Feeding Trial and at an Earlier Period in the Experiment Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 8 Lot 4 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, cottonseed TDGH! RATION clover^hay cottonseed ' cottonseed TTipfii mcftl clover hay, cSnf.fl *•« fa l 0 £ w 2 2 - - Q fl co 2 0 IH 3 ^2 S O 00 O5 IO §f Us X3 w -t-'+J "C ft o »H C^' CO rH C• K iC t- (M 5 S „ » s "1 »•£££ 1> | *J3 . ' . ^ 13 _. fl "3 .^ o v '3 w_. | g S S S 3 ^ ° " W o * c5 CDOrHO g.0^00' 55 w > _2 _K SB <1 03 |s l-l* rH CD * CO' CD ll 3s s B T-o S-g HO 8 8 aw >UoT » 5 5:5 3 § O-M " 'a AT ^ o *o" cT t-T rH ll-s^lll 1—1 CD »O CD 8d) o, O O -- «gt^ I-H 1 3 C^ id rH (N* K5 W2 § - 1*1" O) ^ A P* 11 -^88 .. « w eg S § 0> 03 -g S3 2 ^- «5- A Pi c *S v « 05 bO^'O coo S g | a « S § -g -2 >— ' . j, g |jj «s g | §^^ ^H S rO r-i S O fl O COO ^r-] ^H *H ^0 .. ° ° rH 02 oj O S 4* S •d *^ ** .S 42 * S -8 °» 53 fe KS ^ ° 'O jg Pi Pi ^g gs 1 ^lia*® '^11 s« fl i^Oo;^^ ^JOOTfl W ^"g M«> «• €6- c3 & frt a'^dt-.'^ *~ ' "S cj E £ A^.Aigj - - P* Q) ^R ^ o dl ^ ^ 3rHQ#.rHC^ >a >l g~ $S OJ^JJ^S o^^^ SjQlpSo ^^ « « SMpl S5 fl ^ 93 §.£? °'S8'a8 a^66 « ^£g ^ a S S3 J" «M • O t> t> Q} tuo Jj > OJ 05 a «» S o o ta S s 1 a &H Q Q, H M M. 34 It will be noted that with the exception of the cottonseed meal, less feed was required to make a pound of gain when 2.5 pounds of the meal per 1000 pounds live weight were used. When corn is valued at 40 cents per bushel the average of the two years shows that the cost per hundred pounds gain is equal for the two rations, and that with corn above 40 cents the cost is in favor of the larger amount of cottonseed meal, while if corn is below 40 cents the cost is in favor of the smaller amount of cottonseed meal. The higher the price of corn above 40 cents per bushel the greater was the differ- ence in the cost of gains in favor of Lot I ; the lower the price of corn below 40 cents per bushel the greater the difference in cost in favor of Lot 5. FINISH. — The effect of different proportions of cottonseed meal in a ration on the finish secured on the cattle is shown in Table IX, which gives the selling value of the cattle. TABUS IX.— Showing Selling Value of Cattle Fed on Different Amounts of Cottonseed Meal with Shelled Corn, Clover Hay, and Corn Silage RATION Lot l Lot 5 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 Ibs. daily per 1000 Ibs. live weight, clover hay (morning), corn silage (evening) Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 1.25 Ibs. daily per 1000 Ibs. live weight, clover hay (morning), corn silage (evening) Selling value in lot at end of trial 1909-10 1910-11 $7.25 5.95 $7.20 5.70 It will be noted that the cattle sold in 1909-10 for practically the same price thereby denoting approximately the same finish. There was a difference in 1910-11, however, of 25 cents per cwt. in favor of using the larger amount of cottonseed meal. SUMMARY. — Table X shows a summary of the results secured. 35 X. — Summary Part II — I Date of experiment Length of experiment Nov. 17, 1909— Apr. 26, 1910 * Nov. 18, 1910— Apr. 17, 1911 « (160 days) (150 days) Lot 1 Lot 5 Lot 1 Lot 5 RATION Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, (morning) corn silage, (evening) Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, (morning) corn silage, (evening) Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, (morning) corn silage, (evening) Shelled com, cottonseed meal, clover hay, Cmorning) corn silage, (evening) Hrbttnn spprl mpal rlailv npr 1000 Ibs. live weight 2.5 ibs. 1.25 Ibs. 2.5 Ibs. 1.25 Ibs Initial value per cwt. $4.65 $4.65 $5.00 $5.00 Av. initial weight 900 Ibs. 892.5 Ibs. 1122.0 Ibs. 1114.8 Ibs Av. final weight 1312.7 1260.5 1510.3 " 1465.5 " Total gain per steer 412.7 368.0 " 388.3 350.7 Av. daily gaiu per steer 2.58 " 2.30 " 2.59 " 2.34 " Total feed consumed shelled corn 24520 24610 27393 27850 cottonseed meal 4171.5 " 2061 4565 2257.5 " clover hay 12264 11739 8748 8455 corn silage 22280 22275 31160 28890 Av. daily feed per steer shelled corn 15.33 " 15.38 " 18.26 " 18.57 " cottonseed meal 2.61 " 1.29 " 3.04 " 1.505 " clover hay 7.67 " 7.34 " 5.83 " 5.64 " corn silage 13.93 " 13.92 " 20.77 " 19.26 " Feed consumed per Ib. gain shelled corn 5.94 " 6.69 " 7.05 " 7.94 " cottonseed meal 1.02 " .56 " 1.18 " .64 " clover hay 2.97 " 3.19 " 2.25 " 2.41 " corn silage 5.40 " 6.05 " 8.02 " 8.24 " Cost of gain per cwt. $9.76 $9.95 $8.82 $8.73 Necessary selling price 6.26 6.20 5.98 5.89 Selling value of cattle in feed lot without shrinkage 7.25 7.20 5.95 5.70 Profit per steer (without pork) 13.02 12.62 .50 loss 2.82 loss Pork produced per lot 9003 Ibs. 1005* Ibs. 810 Ibs. 805 Ibs. Profit per steer (including pork) $21.04 $19.14 $4.36 $2.01 1 Pork valued at nine cents per pound, 1909-10 2 Pork valued at six cents per pound, 1910-11 3 90 pounds of corn fed to hogs 4 2865 pounds of corn fed to hogs 36 This summary is based on the price of feeds as follows : Shelled corn, 1909-10, first month, 49.9 cents; second month, 55.7 cents; third month, 56.7 cents; fourth month, 53.7 cents; fifth month, 51.9 cents; last ten days, 50.2 cents per( bushel. 1910-11, shelled corn, first month, 36 . 1 cents ; second month, 37 cents ; third month, 37.8 cents; fourth month, 36.9 cents; and fifth month, 39.3 cents per bushel; cottonseed meal, $33.00 per ton in 1909-10, and $30.00 per ton in 1910-11 ; clover hay, $10.00 per ton, and corn silage, $3.50 per ton in 1909-10 and $3.00 per ton in 1910-11. No account of the straw used for bedding, and labor of feeding is included. Neither is there any account of the manure produced. The pork produced from the droppings is considered a part of .the feeding operation and is added to the receipts from the cattle. There were usually five hogs in Lot i of 1909-10 and 10 in Lot 5 of the same year, the latter receiving some shelled corn in addition to the droppings. There were eight hogs in each lot in 1910-11 and they received no grain, except in the droppings, after being placed in the feed lots. Pork is valued at nine cents per pound in 1909-10 and six cents per pound in 1910-11. The grain fed the hogs in Lot 5 in 1909-10 is valued at 53 cents per bushel and its cost is deducted from the value of the pork actually pro- duced before the value of the pork produced from the dr6ppings is accredited to the receipts from cattle. The unusually large returns of 1909-10 and the extremely small profits of 1910-11 are due to the condition of the market at the end of the trials. The spring of 1910 saw an abnormally high market for all classes of meat animals while, considering the cost of feeding cattle in the fall of 1910, the spring of 1911 witnessed a very dull and unsatisfactory market. The summary shows that the ration containing 2.5 pounds of cottonseed meal per 1000 pounds live weight to be more profitable than the one containing only half as much cottonseed meal. This was due quite largely to more rapid gain, because the cost of making gains was not greatly affected. The margin required to come out even was six cents in 1909-10 and nine cents per cwt. in 1910-11 in favor of the smaller amount of cottonseed meal; but the cattle made sufficiently greater gain and sold for sufficiently higher price, where the larger amount of cottonseed meal was fed, to more than overcome the extra margin required. The difference in selling price was only five cents per cwt. in 1909-10 with the result that there was only 40 cents per steer difference in profit not in- cluding pork but in 1910-11 there was a difference of 25 cents per cwt. in selling price and a corresponding difference of $2.32 in loss per steer in favor of the heavier amount of cottonseed meal. When the pork produced from the droppings is considered the profit per steer was increased, by the use of the larger amount of cottonseed meal, $1.90 per steer in 1909-10 and $2.35 per steer in 1910-11. 37 2. — INFLUENCE o£ DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS OF COTTONSEED MEAI, IN A RATION OF SHELLED CORN AND CLOVER HAY The influence of the different proportions of cottonseed meal on the appetites of the cattle is shown by Table XI, which gives the average amount of feed consumed daily per steer. TABLE XL — Showing* Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, Winters 1909-10 and 1910-11 Date of experiment Length of experiment Nov. 17, 1909— Apr. 26, 1910 (160 days) Nov. 18, 1910— Apr. 17, 1911 (150 days) Lot 2 Lot 6 Lot 2 Lot 6 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, RATION cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed meal, meal, meal, meal, clover hay clover hay clover hay clover hay Cottonseed meal daily per 1000 Ibs. live weight 2.5 Ibs. 1.25 Ibs. 2.5 Ibs. 1.25 Ibs. First month shelled corn 10.60 " 10.60 " 13.33 " 13.52 " cottonseed meal 1.79 " .89 " 1.88 " .95 " clover hay 14.77 " 14.96 " 15.82 " 15.93 " Second month shelled corn 13.48 " 13.48 " 20.52 " 20.63 " cottonseed meal 2.40 " 1.20 " 2.87 " 1.46 " clover hay 12.01 " 12.41 " 9.73 " 9.85 " Third month shelled corn 15.02 " 15.02 " 22.18 " 22.00 " cottonseed meal 2.48 " 1.26 " 3.13 " 1.58 " clover hay 12.00 " 12.00 " 10.00 " 10.00 " Fourth month shelled corn 18.48 " 18.48 " 23.00 " 22.00 " cottonseed meal 2.80 " 1.40 " 3.35 " 1.67 " clover hay 10.99 " 11.20 " 10.00 " 10.00 " Fifth month shelled corn 19.95 " 20.22 " 23.00 " 22.92 " cottonseed meal 2.96 " 1.50 " 3.57 " 1.77 " clover hay 9.79 " 9.96 " 9.50 " 10.00 " Last 10 days shelled corn 19.90 " 19.90 " cottonseed meal 3.00 " 1.50 " clover hay 9.70 " 9.79 " Average of entire period shelled corn 15.78 Ibs. 15.83 Ibs. 20.41 Ibs. 20.21 Ibs. cottonseed meal 2.52 " 1.27 " 2.96 " 1.49 " clover hay 11.77 " 11.96 " 11.01 " 11.16 " 38 In 1909-10, both lots were started on six pounds of shelled corn which was gradually increased until at the end of 30 days the steers were receiving 13 pounds of corn daily. Lot 2 was started on .5 pound and Lot 6 on .25 pound of cottonseed meal daily per steer. This amount was gradually increased until «at the end of 17 days, Lot 2 was receiving 2 . 4 pounds and Lot 6, i . 2 pounds daily per steer, after which time the amount fed was increased in pro- portion to the weights of the cattle. In 1910-11, the same method of starting on feed was employed as in 1909-10. The corn was increased more rapidly, and the cattle of both lots were on full feed at the end of 17 days when they were eating 18 pounds of shelled corn, and 2.8 and 1.4 pounds of cottonseed meal in Lots 2 and 6 respectively. Clover hay was the only roughage offered the cattle in any of the lots. Both lots were started on 20 pounds of clover hay daily per steer. This amount rapidly decreased until at the time the cattle were on full feed of grain, the hay consumed daily per steer was 12 pounds in 1909-10 and 16 pounds in 1910-11. These amounts gradually decreased in 1909-10 as the cattle became fatter, but after decreasing to 10 pounds daily per steer in 1910-11 the amount remained practically the same throughout the trial. It will be noted that there was a marked similarity in the appe- tites of Lots 2 and 6 in 1909-10 for both corn and clover. The addition of the larger amount of cottonseed meal was not accom- panied by a corresponding decrease in other feeds. In other words the extra amount of cottonseed meal stimulated the appetites to such an extent that the larger amount of cottonseed meal was con- sumed in addition to the corn rather than as a substitution for it. In 1910-11, the larger amount of cottonseed meal was not only con- sumed without decrease in the grain ration but for a period of about six weeks covering the fourth month and parts of the third and fifth months stimulated the appetites of the steers to the consumption of a larger amount of corn. GAINS. — The effect of different proportions of cottonseed meal in a ration of corn and clover hay is shown by Table XII, which gives the average daily and total gain per steer by months. 39 TABLE: XII. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months, Winters 1909-10 and 1910-11 Date of experiment Nov. 17, 1909— Apr. 26, 1910 Nov. 18, 1910— Apr. 17, 1911 Length of experiment (160 days) (150 days) Lot 2 Lot 6 Lot 2 Lot 6 Shelled corn. Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, RATION cottonseed ; cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed meal, meal, meal, meal, clover hay clover hay clover hay clover hay Cottonseed meal daily per 1000 Ibs. live weight 2.5 Ibs. 1.25 Ibs. 2.5 Ibs. 1.25 Ibs. First month 2.41 2.55 -.04 .74 Second month 1.43 1.33 3.40 2.70 Third month 3.23 3.25 3.02 2.60 Fourth month 2.03 2.12 2.68 2.43 Fifth month 1.96 1.83 3.11 3.27 Last 10 days 3.30 3.05 Total gain per steer 365.5 Ibs. 363 Ibs. 3G4.9 Ibs. 352.2 Ibs. Average daily gain for entire period 2.28 " 2.27 " 2.43 " 2.35 " It will be noted that the rate of gain was practically identical in the two lots in 1909-10; that while the monthly gains varied somewhat, the average for the entire period was the same. This was not the case, however, in 1910-11. The sum of the first two months' gains was the same for both lots, but from that time, Lot 2 consumed more grain and the gain was correspondingly larger, so that the gain of this lot for the 150 days averaged slightly larger than that of Lot 6. COST OF GAINS. — Table XIII shows the amount of feed con- sumed per pound gain and the cost per hundred pounds gain with feed at different prices. 40 « O5 ^ ^ ^ "3 » j2 o o -G -C 8 •is o I ca" t?§o j_i £ rH t-^ ' 10 €*=h CQ O OQ o CJ 02 » v. ^ 111 -J-l M M S Oi 05 «. - ^ §1 si &* s I lift! ^ rH GO CO || o ft 11 1 OQ N 00 rH ^ It'll I en £> J £«5^|| C5 » S ® C8 GO ^ ^ v. * *" fl ^ ^" ^9" O -M S o r-1 ~ 5 iH O CD •|° ^p ^ ^ en 8" i ill? 10 00 CD b- 0 O5 00 S fe | > _« 5 1*8 11 I r-5 CD ' »O €«• is js" " ' fe tij g S S 0 0 05 gfl Wa.*** li B^. IK • * o "* • 5 en BD fl O § S * S O bo^ 'H «, m " f *« *S 2 13 s S, -^ r-lfc W ^S a . -: *5 S S w5 a? tD « a gl, « « 31|^|g| t— ( a g y ^ r^ ^ co ^^ o ^ M ^ _^ ^ O O X a'i a ^8^^ idS+j+j * >>(^ «co & SS. W II B-s 05 !l illl lljl Q.J-? OQOO ^CJW bO 8^3 6^3 -Q X3 «B *S g*s ^ — ^ '_ CC o ^ o o H o 5 0 fe 0 H et fi Table XIII on the feed required to make a pound of gain shows that in both trials more corn and hay were required to make a pound of gain in Lot 6 than in Lot 2 but that much less cotton- seed meal was required for the same amount of gain. In view of the fact that the cottonseed meal is far the highest priced feed of the three, the cost of gains is noticeably influenced by the amount of it consumed. The cftst of gains was greatly increased by the use of the larger amount of this concentrate. With corn at 50 cents per bushel and cottonseed. meal at $30.00 per ton the average of tjie two years' work shows that the cost of gains was increased CH cents per 100 pounds by the use of the larger amount of cottonseed meal; and with corn at 40 cents per bushel, and other feeds at the same price the increase in cost per 100 pounds gain by the use of the larger amount of cottonseed meal was 66 cents. FINISH. — The effect of the different proportions of cottonseed meal in the ration on the finish of the cattle is shown in Table XIV, which gives the selling value of cattle. TABUS XIV.— Showing Selling Value of Cattle Fed Different Pro- portions of Cottonseed Meal with Shelled Corn and Clover Hay RATION Lot 2 Lot 6 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 Ibs. daily per 1000 Ibs. live weight, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 1.25 Ibs. daily per 1000 Ibs. live weight, clover hay Selling value in lot at end of trial 1909-10 1910-11 $7.30 5.85 $7.10 5.60 Selling value after short feed 1909-10 1910-11 7.20 5.50 7.10 5.50 The valuation of the cattle shows that in the opinion of the commission men Lot 2, fed the heavier amount of cottonseed meal was better finished and should have sold for 20 cents per cwt. more in 1909-10 and 25 cents per cwt. more in 1910-11 than Lot 6 fed the same ration except that the cottonseed meal was fed in only half as large amounts. The valuation of the cattle 40 and 60 days before the end of the trial shows that the greatest improve- ment in condition of the cattle in Lot 2 over those of Lot 6 was in the latter part of the feeding period. SUMMARY. — Table XV shows a summary of the two years* work. • 42 TABLE XV. — Summary Part II — 2 Date of experiment Length of experiment Nov. 17, 1909— Apr. 26, 1910 * (160 days) Nov. 18, 1910— Apr. 17, 1911 • 1 (150 days) RATION Lot 3 Lot 6 .Lot 2 Lot 6 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay • Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hey Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled com cottonseed meal, clover hay Cottonseed meal daily per 1000 Ibs. live weight 2.5 Ibs. 1.25 Ibs. 2.5 Ibs. 1.25 Ib Initial value per cwt. $4.65 $4.65 $5.00 $5.00 Av. initial weight Av. final weight Total gain per steer 8S9.5 Ibs. 1255 365.5 " 888.5 Ibs. 1251.5 " 363.0 1121.3 Ibs. 1486.2 " 364.9 1122.8 Ib 1475 352.2 '• Av. daily gain per steer 2.28 " 2.27 " 2.43 " 2.35 • Total feed consumed shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay 25250 4028.5 " 18837 25330 2027 19140 30610 4439.5 " 16515 30320 2228.H " 16735 Av. daily feed per steer shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay 15.78 " 2.52 " 11.77 " 15.83 " 1.27 " 11.96 " 20.41 " 2.96 " 11.01 " 20.21 " 1.49 * 11.1(5 ' Feed consumed per Ib. gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay 6.91 " 1.10 " 5.15 " 6.98 " 8.39 " .56 " ! 1.22 " 5.27 " 4.53 " 8.61 " .63 " 4.75 Cost of gain per cwt. $10.98 $10.21 $9.71 $9.10 Necessary selling price 6.49 6.26 6.16 5.98 Selling value of cattle in feed lots without shrinkage 7.30 7.10 5.85 5.60 Profit per steer (without pork) 10.12 10.49 4.57 loss 5.58 los Pork produced per lot 7233 Ibs. 11771 Ibs.!: 1005 Ibs. 840 Ibfl Profit per steer (including pork) $16.54 $18.56 $1.46 $ .54 losj 1 Pork valued at nine cents per pound in 1909-10 * Pork valued at six cents per pound in 3910-11 1 90 pounds of corn fed to hogs * 2666 pounds of corn fed to hogs 43 •This summary is based on the actual price of feeds at the time the trials were conducted, (see page 9) No account is taken of bedding, labor, or manure. The pork produced from the drop- pings is considered a part of the feeding operation and is added to the receipts from the cattle. .There were usually five hogs in Lot 2 of 1909-10 and 10 in Lot 6 of the same year, the latter receiving some shelled corn in addition to the droppings. There were eight hogs in both lots in 1910-11 and they received no grain, after being placed in the feed lots, except that found in the droppings. Pork is valued at nine cents per pound in 1909-10 and six cents per pound in 1910-11. The grain fed the hogs in 1909-10 is valued at 53 cents per bushel and its cost deducted from the value of the pork actually produced before the value of the pork produced from the droppings is accredited to the receipts of the cattle. The unusually large returns in 1909-10 and the extremely small profits of 1910-11 are due to the condition of the market at the end of each trial. The spring of 1910 saw an abnormally high market for all classes of meat animals while considering the cost of feeding cattle in the fall of 1910, the spring of 1911 witnessed a very dull and unsatisfactory market. The summary of the two years' work shows that the effect of using 2.5 pounds of cottonseed meal per 1000 pounds live weight as compared with one half that amount with corn and clover hay was shown in only two factors, the cost of gains and the finish secured on the cattle. The rate of gain and the feed required to make a pound of gain was very little affected. The use of a larger proportion of high priced feed in the form of cottonseed meal increased the cost of gains to quite an appreciable extent, 77 cents per 100 pounds in 1909-10, and 61 cents per 100 pounds in 1910-11. The result of this increase in cost of gains was to increase the neces- sary selling price 24 cents in 1909-10 and 18 cents in 1910-11. In order to overcome this difference in margin required, the cattle on the heavy amount of cottonseed meal must of necessity sell higher. tThe increased selling price due to the heavier amount of cotton- seed meal was 20 cents per cwt. the first year and 25 cents the second. The result was that the difference in selling price was not enough in 1909-10 to overcome the extra cost of gains made by the heavy cottonseed meal ration which showed 37 cents per steer less profit that year than the lighter cottonseed meal ration. The extra finish on the cattle and the fact that heavy cattle were fed in 1910-11 was enough to overbalance the extra cost of gains and there was a difference the latter year in returns per steer of $1.01 in favor of the heavy cottonseed meal ration. It should be borne in mind, however, that two months before the end of the trials, there was little difference in the finish of the two lots of cattle in either year ; but from that time, the heavier amount of cottonseed meal in the ration, made a marked improvement in the finish of the cattle in this lot. 44 PART IE SHORT VS. LONG FEEDING During the past five years this station has conducted a series1 of experiments with the view of obtaining information relating to the various factors involved in short and long feeding periods for fattening cattle. However, the question of the length of time to feed cattle depends on so many variable factors that it is im- possible to draw definite conclusions. In addition to economic conditions bearing upon the problem, there are all the factors affecting beef production such as market demands and prices ; the supply, and the condition, quality, and age of the cattle; the supply, relative and actual cost of grain, roughage, etc. It is obvious that feeding trials involving the question of a long or short feed are of value from an experimental standpoint only when the various influencing factors as they occurred in the trials, are known and understood. Even when the influence of all other factors is under- stood, the effect of market prices which cannot be determined in advance is so great that any definite conclusions in regard to the best system to follow under all conditions is impossible. An illustration of the effect of market conditions is shown in the two lots of short-fed cattle of 1909-10. On March 17, 1910,. one lot of short-fed cattle was marketed and returned a profit including pork of more than $28.00 per steer while the cattle used in the second trial beginning March 17 and marketed 120 days later, returned a profit of less than $10.00 per head, notwithstanding the fact that the latter made more rapid and cheaper gains than have ever been made by any other lot of steers fed experimentally at this station. Part of this is due to the condition of the cattle when started on feed in the second trial, but it is due largely to the in- fluence of the market conditions. The kind of cattle should determine to a large extent the length of time to feed. In order to secure a reasonably good finish on cattle with a short feed, it is necessary that they not only carry considerable flesh when starting on feed, but also that they be welt matured. The thinner and younger the cattle, other things being equal, the longer is the time required to finish them. Therefore,, young cattle, and cattle with little flesh are, as a general rule, not satisfactory for the purpose of short feeding. The grade, of the steer as a general rule should influence the degree of finish to which i Bulletins Nos. 129, 130, 142, 146 45 he should be carried. Steers of poor quality that could not be made into prime finished cattle if fed indefinitely, should be sold before they have become excessively fat. Other conditions being equal, the last 100 pounds of gain required to make a steer prime are the most expensive gains put on the steer, and the increase in selling price must be correspondingly larger to insure profit from the ad- ditional finish. It is obvious, therefore, that the additional gain required to make a steer, of high quality prime, would not be profitable on a steer which would not sell above a medium price if finished, although it might prove exceedingly profitable on an animal capable of finishing into a prime steer that would bring the top of the market. The relative supply and cost of grain and roughage to be dis- posed of is a factor which should, in a measure, determine the length of the feeding period. Cattle for short feeding are usually in higher condition at the beginning of the feeding period, and therefore the proportion of grain to roughage consumed is greater than with cattle fed for a longer period. Where feeders wish to dispose of large quantities of roughage, the feeding period is neces- sarily longer than when a larger proportion of concentrates to roughage is to be fed. The study of the results of these trials will show the influence of a number of factors bearing on the question of the advantages of long and short feeding periods. Because the trials of 1909-10 and 1910-11 are so unlike, they are discussed separately with no attempt at correlation. i. — SHORT vs. LONG FEEDING, 1909-10 CATTLE USED IN THE EXPERIMENT. — The lot of long-fed cattle used in this comparison is the lot described as Lot 3 in Part I. The short-fed cattle in Lot 7 were heavier and somewhat fleshier steers than those used in the long- fed lot. They averaged 1056 pounds when started on feed November 17, 1909, while the long-fed lot averaged 897 pounds. The steers used in Lot 8 were the light, thin, medium cattle which were left after the steers for the other seven lots had been selected. On November 23, 1909, these steers averaged 772 pounds. They were wintered on bluegrass pasture and corn-stalk fields. On March 3, 1910, they were brought from the stalk fields, placed in the feed lot and fed clover hay until March 17, when they were put into the experiment, averaging 805 pounds, and were valued at $6.00 per cwt. 46 XVI. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Long and Short-Fed Steers, Winter 1909-10 Lot 3 Lot 7 Lot 8 RATION Shelled corn, cottonseed Shelled corn, cottonseed Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, meal, meal, corn silage corn silage clover hay, corn silage First month shelled corn 10.60 Ibs. 10.47 Ibs. 10.14 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.79 " 1.78 " 1.63 " clover hay 3.57 " corn silage 31.07 " 36.89 " 35.51 " Second month shelled corn 13.48 " 15.67 " 14.10 " cottonseed meal 2.40 " 2.82 " 2.14 " clover hay 2.75 " corn silage 31.74 " 33.31 " 36.52 " Third month shelled corn 14.70 " 16.80 " 16.54 " cottonseed meal 2.52 " 2.97 " 2.39 " clover hay 1.61 " corn silage 30.00 " 33.33 " 35.88 " Fourth month shelled corn 15.37 " 19.13 " 17.64 " cottonseed meal 2.87 " 3.29 " 2.79 " clover hay 1.59 " corn silage 28.23 " 25.44 " 27.31 " Fifth month shelled corn 13.93 " cottonseed meal 2.50 " corn silage 21.48 " Last 10 days shelled corn 13.70 " cottonseed meal 2.73 " corn silage 15.20 " Average of entire period shelled corn 13.62 Ibs. 15.52 Ibs. 14.61 Ibs. cottonseed meal 2.44 " 2.72 " 2.24 " clover hay 2.38 " corn silage 27.67 " 32.24 " 33.81 " 47 Table XVI shows the average amount of feed consumed, daily per steer. It will be noticed that with the exception of the first 30 day period, the short-fed steers consumed larger amounts of con- centrates per head than the long-fed steers. The steers in each lot were started on a daily allowance of six pounds of shelled corn. In the long- fed lot, this was gradually increased so that they were consuming 10 pounds per head at the end of the first 10 days, 12 pounds at the end of the second 10 days, and 12 pounds at the end of the first 30 day period, their average for the first 30 days being 10.6 pounds. Lot 7 was receiving 11.5 pounds of shelled corn per head at the end of the first 10 days. This seemed to be a little too much, considering the amount of roughage they were consum- ing, and a few of them went "off feed" ; the allowance was re- duced to 10 pounds per head until they all regained their appetites. This irregularity, due to a few of the steers going "off feed", brings down the average consumption of corn for Lot 7 to 10.47 pounds per head for the first 30 days. The cattle in Lot 8, which went on feed March 17 when the experiment with Lot 7 closed, were much lighter than those in either of the other two lots and their allowance of shelled corn was not increased quite so rapidly as was the case with Lots 3 and 7. ,Their average consumption of corn for the first 30 days was 10.14 pounds. The initial allowance of cottonseed meal was one-half pound daily per steer, in all lots ; this was rapidly increased to approximately two and one-half pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, where it remained throughout the experiment. The table shows that from this time on, the amount of concentrates consumed by the short-fed cattle increased more rapidly than it did in the long-fed lot. In the case of Lot 7 this can be ascribed to the larger capacity of the heavier steers, but in the case of Lot 8 it must have been due to either the kind of roughage fed or seasonal influence, because they were smaller than the steers in the long-fed lot. All of these steers were fed according to appetite. However, as the feeding period progress- ed, the amount of silage fed had to be reduced in order to increase the consumption of concentrates, but they always received as much as they would eat without decreasing their appetite for concentrates. The entire roughage of Lots 3 and 7 consisted of corn silage. Lot 3 was started on 24 pounds of silage per head daily and the allowance was gradually increased so that they were getting 35 pounds per head by the end of the second week, where it remained until about the middle of the second 30 day period, when it began to gradually decrease as the consumption of concentrates increased. Lot 7 was started on 40 pounds of corn silage per head and in- creased to 43.3 pounds per head at the end of the first week. A 48 few days later some of the steers in this lot went "off feed" and the daily allowance of corn silage was reduced to about 27 pounds per head. After all the steers regained their appetites, the allowance was increased to 36.6 pounds per head, which was the largest amount of silage consumed after that time. The roughage in Lot 8 consisted of clover hay and corn silage ; silage was fed twice daily in as large amounts as the steers would consume without reducing their appetites for grain. Clover hay was kept before them at all times. The table shows that the relative amounts of roughage consumed during the different 30 day periods correspond with that of the other two lots, being slightly greater in the second 30 day period than in the first, and gradually decreas- ing after the second 30 day period, as the consumption of concen- trates increased. TABLE XVII. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months by Long and Short-Fed Steers, Winter 1909-10 Lot 3 Lot 3 Lot 7 Lot 8 Long-fed Short-fed Short-fed Short-fed Number of days fed 160 120 120 120 First month 2.36 Ibs. 2.36 Ibs. 2.16 Ibs. 4.18 Ibs. Second month 1.86 1.86 " 2.50 " 3.43 " Third month 3.53 3.53 " 3.47 " 2.87 " Fourth month 2.15 2.15 " 2.04 " 2.29 " Fifth month 1.60 Last 10 days 2.65 Total gain per steer 372 Ibs. 297.5 Ibs. 305.6 Ibs. 383.1 Ibs. Average daily gain for 120 days 2.48 " 2.55 " 3.19 " Average daily gain for 160 days 2.33 " GAINS. — Table XVII shows the average daily gain per steer by months and the total gain per head for steers in short vs. long feed- ing experiments. It will be noticed that both "short-fed" lots made more rapid gain than the long- fed lot. The average daily gain for the four months period was 2.48 pounds in Lot 3, 2.55 pounds in Lot 7, and 3 . 19 pounds in Lot 8. The difference between the gains made by Lot 8 and the other two lots is quite large and may be due to one or more of three factors; the thin condition of the steers 49 when put on feed, the addition of a small amount of clover hay to the ration, or the more favorable weather conditions for fattening cattle. It will also be noticed that the average daily gain made by Lot 3 for the 160 day period is considerably less than that for the 1 20 day period, showing that rate of gain decreases as the fattening period progresses. COST OF GAINS. — Table XVIII shows the amount of feed con- sumed per pound of gain and the cost per hundred pounds gain with feed at different prices. TABLE XVIII. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain, and Cost per 100 Pounds Gain with Feeds at Varying Prices Lot 3 Lot 3 Lot 7 Lot 8 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, RATION cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed meal, meal, meal, meal, corn silage corn silage corn silage clover hay, corn silage Number of days fed 160 120 120 120 Feed per pound gain shelled corn 5.86 Ibs. 5.46 Ibs. 6.09 Ibs. 4.58 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.05 " .96 " 1.07 " .70 " clover hay .75 " corn silage 11.90 " 12.20 " 12.66 " 10.59 " Cost per cwt. gain Actual cost $9.42 $9.02- $9.89 $7.71 Corn at 50 cts. per bu. 8.89 8.46 9.26 7.36 Corn at 40 cts. per bu. 7.54 7.18 7.85 6.28 A study of Table XVIII shows that the average amount of feed consumed per pound of gain was highest in Lot 7 and lowest in Lot 8. Since both these lots were short-fed, the cause cannot be attributed to the length of the feeding period. It is clearly a case of the effect of condition on the rate and cost of gain. It is. a well known fact that the more nearly finished cattle are, the slower is the rate and the higher the cost of gain. This is strikingly illustrated by Lots 7 and 8. The cattle in Lot 7 were heavy, fleshy feeders, while those in Lot 8 were rather light and very thin and in just the condition to make rapid and economical gains. In fact, the rate of gain in Lot 8 was the highest and the feed requirements the lowest of any lot of cattle of similar age fed experimentally at this station. So The effect of condition on gain is again shown in Lot 3 by com- paring gains for the first 120 days, and for the entire feeding period of 160 days. The rate of gain is higher and the cost of gain lower when a short feed only is considered than when they are based on the entire feeding period of 160 days. Since the steers used for short feeding are usually in higher condition than those to be fed for a long period, the cost of gains is very likely to be higher when all cattle are carried to same degree of finish than when thinner cattle are fed. But it is also true that the latter part of the fattening period with all classes of cattle is likely to be the more expensive as regards cost of gains. SUMMARY. — Table XIX shows a complete summary of the re- sults of the trials. TABLE XIX. — Summary Part III — i. Winter 1909-10 RATION Lot 3 Lot 3 Lot 7 Lot 8 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage Shelled corn, Shelled corn, cottonseed cottonseed meal, meal, corn silage corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Number of days fed 160 120 120 120 Initial value per cwt. $4.65 $4.65 $5.00 $6.00 AT. initial weight Av. final weight Total gain per steer 897.5 Ibs. 1269.5 372 897.5 Ibs. 1195 297.5 " 1055.7 Ibs. 1361.3 305.6 803.9 Ib 1187 383.1 Av. daily gain per steer 2.33 " 2.48 " 2.55 " 3.19 " Total feed consumed shelled corn 21795 cottonseed meal 3898.5 " clover hay corn silage 44276 " 16245 2874.5 " 36311 27930 4888 58040 26292 4024 4285 60851 Av. daily feed per steer shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage 13.62 " 2.44 " 27.67 " 13.54 " 2.40 " 30.26 " 15.52 " 14.61 " 2.72 " 2.24 " 2.38 " 32.24 " 1 33.81 " Feed consumed per Ib. gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage 5.86 " 1.05 " 11.90 " 5.46 " .96 " 12.20 " 6.09 " 1.07 " 12.66 " 4.58 " .70 " .75 " 10.59 " Cost of gain per cwt. $9.42 $9.02 $9.89 $7.71 Necessary selling price 6.05 5.74 6.09 6.55 Necessary margin 1.40 1.09 1.09 .55 Selling value of cattle in feed lots without shrinkage 7.20 7.25 7.70 6.60 Profit per steer (without pork) 14.64 18.06 21.81 .56 Pork produced per lot 6201 Ibs. 4701 Ibs. 12702 Ibs. 1735s Ibs Profit per steer (including pork) $20.14 $22.21 $28.15 $9.22 1 90 pounds of shelled corn fed to hogs J025 pounds of shelled corn fed to hogs 3 2770 pounds of shelled corn fed to hogs 52 These figures are based upon the following prices for feeds : shelled corn, Nov. 17 to Dec. 17, 49.9 cents; Dec. 17 to Jan. 16, 55.7 cents; Jan. 16 to Feb. 15, 56.7 cents; Feb. 15 to Mar. 17, 53.7 cents; Mar. 17 to April 16, 51.9 cents; April 16 to May 16, 52.9 cents; May 16 to June 15, 52.6 cents; June 15 to July 15, 54.2 cents per bushel; cottonseed meal $33.00 per ton; clover hay $10.00 per ton ; corn silage $3.50 per ton. No account is taken of labor, bedding, or manure. The pork produced from the droppings is considered a part of the feeding operation and is added to the receipts of the cattle. There were usually five hogs in Lot 3, 12 in Lot 7, and 15 in Lot 8, the hogs in the last two lots receiving some shelled corn in addition to the drop- pings. Pork is valued at nine cents per pound. The grain fed to the hogs is valued at 53 cents per bushel and its cost is deducted from the value of the pork actually produced before the value of the pork produced from the droppings is accredited to the receipts of the cattle. These trials were influenced so much by the peculiar market conditions that accurate comparisons of the two methods are very difficult. A comparison of the final valuations does not in any case indicate the relative degree of finish attained by the different lots, but they do indicate in a very lucid way the variations in the market and its bearing upon the relative profits of short vs. long feeding periods. A comparison of the valuations placed on Lot 3 at the end of the 120 days, and after 40 days further feeding, shows that the price for fat cattle had dropped more than the value of the extra finish put on during that time amounted to, so that the last 40 days feeding was at a loss of $3.42 per head. Lot 8, valued at $6.00 at the beginning of the trial, was sold on a still lower market than Lot 3 and the result was that this lot which made the most rapid and eco- nomical gain produced the smallest profit. A further study of the table shows that the margin between the necessary selling pri.ce and the final valuations at the end of the 120 day period, was only 10 cents higher in Lot 7 than Lot 3, yet there is $3-75 difference in the profit per 'steer without pork, in favor of the larger cattle. 2. — SHORT vs. LONG FEEDING, 1910-11 The plan for short feeding this year was varied somewhat from that of previous years. Instead of the fattest and most mature steers being selected for short feeding as in previous years, the short-fed cattle of this year were equal in size, quality, and condition with the long-fed cattle. The short-fed cattle, during the first two months, instead of receiving grain as did the long-fed cattle, received clover hay and corn silage, without grain. After 60 days without grain the short-fed lot was fed on the same ration as the long-fed lot. This method of management placed the cattle of both lots on the same 53 market, thus eliminating the factor of market fluctuations and vari- able demands. The cattle used in the test were two and three year old southern Indiana cattle, a description of which will be found on page 8. Table XX shows the average amount of feed consumed daily per steer. TABLE XX. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Long and Short-Fed Steers, Winter 1910-11 Lot 4 Lot 7 Clover hay, corn silage, Shelled corn, (first 60 days) RATION cottonseed meal, Shelled corn, clover hay, cottonseed corn silage, (morning and meal, clover hay, evening) corn silage, (morning and evening) (last 90 days) Number of days fed 150 150 First month shelled corn 10.35 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.79 " clover hay 5.65 " 13.05 Ibs. corn silage 39.07 " 39.70 " Second month shelled corn 13.05 " cottonseed meal 2.97 " clover hay 4.38 " 9.12 " corn silage 30.00 " 42.00 " Third month shelled corn 15.25 " 11.73 " cottonseed meal 3.20 " 2.92 " clover hay 4.00 " 3.73 " corn silage 30.00 " 42.00 " Fourth month shelled corn 16.21 " 14.80 " cottonseed meal 3.41 " 3.28 " clover hay 4.30 " 3.87 " corn silage 29.09 " 38.70 " Fifth month shelled corn 17.03 " 17.93 " cottonseed meal 3.64 " 3.48 " clover hay 4.15 " 2.53 " corn silage 26.81 " 29.73 " Average of entire period shelled corn 14.38 Ibs. 8.89 Ibs. cottonseed meal 3.00 " 1.94 " clover hay 4.50 " 6.46 " corn silage 31.00 " 38.43 " 54 Lot 4 was started on six pounds of shelled corn, one-half pound of cottonseed meal, 24 pounds of silage, and 10 pounds of clover hay ; the grain and silage being increased gradually until within five days, 42 pounds of silage were being consumed daily per steer. At the end of 17 days the cattle were on full feed of grain, at which time the daily ration contained 13 pounds of shelled corn, 2.8 pounds of cot- tonseed meal, 42 pounds of corn silage, and six pounds of clover hay. Lot 7 received 24 pounds of corn silage and 20 pounds of hay the first day. The silage was increased until at the end of five days, 42 pounds were being consumed. This amount remained constant for about 90 days. The clover hay consumed, constantly decreased from the first but remained almost stationary at about nine pounds daily during the second month. The first feed in the third month had five pounds of corn and one-half pound of cottonseed meal per steer added to the ration. The amount of grain was increased until within n days, the cattle were on full feed. There was no decrease in the amount of silage for more than 30 days but the clover hay consumed, rapidly dropped to three pounds daily per steer, but again increased to four pounds after about two weeks of full feeding. After the cattle had been given grain for 30 days the amount of silage consumed gradually decreased until the end of the feeding period. The steers in Lot 7 had good appetites until they had been on full feed 60 days, but at the end of this time they became slow about cleaning up and for two weeks they were indifferent about their eating, although they continued to •consume as large quantities of feed. GAINS. — Table XXI shows the average daily gain per steer by months and the total gain per steer. TABLE XXL — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months by Long and Short-Fed Steers, Winter 1910-11 Lot 4 Long-fed Lot 7 Short-fed First month 1.72 Ibs. 1.12 Ibs. Second month 2.40 " 1.73 " Third month 3.62 " 3.00 " Fourth month 2.40 " 2.25 " Fifth month 1.955 " 2.22 " Total gain per steer 362.7 Ibs. 309.5 Ibs. Average daily gain (entire period) 2.42 " 2.06 " Average daily gain (first 60 days) 2.06 " 1.425 " Average daily gain (last 90 days) 2.66 " 2.49 " 55 It is noted that the first two months' gains in Lot 7 while not as rapid as in Lot 4, were about as satisfactory as could be expected when no grain is being fed. It was to be expected that the gains would not be large when the cattle were receiving no grain; but after the end of 60 days at which time grain was added, the gains should have been more rapid. The table shows that the gains for the last 90 days were larger in Lot 4 which had been on full feed for two months, than in Lot 7 that had just been placed on feed. It is probable that the lack of gain in Lot 7 was due largely to the fact that the steers continued eating such large quantities of bulky, rough feed that not enough grain was consumed to insure rapid gain on steers carrying so much flesh. COST OF GAINS. — Table XXII shows the average amount of feed consumed per pound of gain, and the cost per 100 pounds gain with corn at different prices. TABLE; XXII. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per 100 Pounds Gain, with Feed at Varying Prices, Winter 1910-11 Lot 4 Lot 7 Long-fed Short-fed Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage 5.95 Ibs. 1.24 " 1.86 " 12.82 " 4.31 Ibs. .94 " 3.13 " 18.62 " Cost per cwt. gain Actual cost $8.71 $8.70 Corn at 50 cts. per bu. 10.35 10.08 Corn at 40 cts. per bu. 8.96 8.85 I ! The table shows that the grain consumed per pound of gain was much less in Lot 7 but that the roughage was correspondingly larger than in Lot 4, so there was little saving in cost of gains in the short- fed lot when corn was as low as 40 cents per bushel. As grain advances in price, however, there would be a greater difference in cost of gains between the two lots. Also since the gains were not nearly so large in Lot 7, the total cost of feed was not nearly so great as in Lot 4. FINISH. — The finish secured on the cattle in Lot 7 is of much interest since the advantage of such a method as was adopted in this lot lies in the fact that feeding cattle can be held for a short time on roughage alone in order to take advantage of a later market, pro- vided conditions warrant it, and thus be full fed for a short time only. Table XXIII shows the selling value of the cattle at the end of the experiment, and 60 days before the end of the experiment. TABLE XXIII.— Showing Selling Value of Long and Short-Fed Cattle, Winter 1910-11 Lot 4 Lot 7 Long-fed Short fed Selling value of cattle in lots at the end of experiment $5.85 $5.60 60 days before the end of experiment 5.70 5.30 It will be noted that the short-fed lot did not acquire as good a finish by 25 cents per cwt. as did the long-fed lot. This difference in value was not as great, however, as had been the case two months before the end of the trial when the values were 40 cents per cwt. different. SUMMARY. — Table XXIV shows a complete summary of the results of the trial. 57 XXIV.— Summary Part III— 2. Winter 1910-11 Lot 4 Lot 7 Clover hay, Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage (first 60 days) RATION clover hay, Shelled corn, corn silage (morning cottonseed meal, and evening) clover hay, corn silage (morning and evening) (last 90 days) Number of days fed 150 150 Initial value per cwt. $5.00 $5.00 Av. initial weight 1116.9 Ibs. 1122.5 Ibs. AY. final weight 1479.6 1432.0 " Total gain per steer 362.7 309.5 Av. daily gain per steer 2.42 " 2.06 " Total feed consumed shelled corn 21568 13340 cottonseed meal 4505 2905 clover hay 6753 9690 corn silage 46493 57640 Av. daily feed per steer shelled corn 1 4.38 " 8.89 " cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage Feed consumed per Ib. gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage Cost of gain per cwt. Necessary selling price Selling value of cattle in feed lots without shrinkage Profit per steer (without pork) Pork produced per lot Profit per steer (including pork1) 3.00 4.50 31.00 5.95 " 1.24 " 1.86 " 12.82 " $8.71 5.91 5.85 .86 loss 650 Ibs. $3.04 1.94 6.46 38.43 4.31 " .94 " 3.13 " 18.62 " $8.70 5.80 5.60 2.86 loss 7502 Ibs. $ .71 1 Pork valued at six cents per pound 2 1387 pounds of shelled corn were fed in addition to droppings of cattle 58 In the above summary the prices of feeds are given as they oc- curred during the progress of the experiment. Corn varied in price from 36.1 to 39.3 cents per bushel; cottonseed meal' was $30.00 per ton ; clover hay $10.00 per ton ; corn silage $3.00 per ton. With an initial value of $5.00 per cwt. in the feed lot and feed at the above mentioned prices it would have been necessary for Lot 4 to sell for $5.91 per cwt. and Lot 7 for $5.80 per cwt. in the feed lot in order to pay for the cattle and feed. In other words, a margin of n cents more was required for the long-fed than for the short-fed lot. There was a difference in selling value between the two lots, how- ever, of 25 cents per cwt. in favor of Lot 4, which reduced a loss of $2.86 per steer with the short-fed lot to 86 cents per steer in the full fed lot. When pork is considered, there was a profit of $3.04 per steer in the long-fed lot and of 71 cents per steer in the short-fed lot. It must be remembered, however, that the amount of pork produced can be greatly influenced by the addition of a small amount of grain and by the condition of the yards. The hogs in Lot 4 received no extra grain after being placed in the lot with the steers. Those in Lot 7, however, received 1387 pounds of shelled corn, all of which was fed before the cattle were placed on grain ration. There were eight hogs in Lot 4 and seven in Lot 7 until March 8, after which time both lots contained eight hogs. The value of the corn fed the hogs in Lot 7, 37.4 cents per bushel, is deducted from the value of pork actually produced in the lot before the value of the pork produced from the droppings, is accredited to the receipts from the cattle. 59 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS In order to present the economic phases of the experiments as completely as possible and to show in detail the methods of securing the figures used in the foregoing discussions, an itemized financial statement of each lot is given. The price of corn is based on the average prices paid by the LaFayette elevators during the different months of the trials. Cottonseed meal is valued at $33.00 per ton in 1909-10 and $30.00 per ton in 1910-11, which prices are slightly higher than was actually paid for this feed in car load lots. Clover hay is valued at $10.00 per ton ; corn silage is valued at $3.50 per ton in 1909-10 and $3.00 per ton in 1910-11. No account is taken of the straw used for bedding nor of the labor of feeding. Neither is any value assigned to the manure produced by the cattle. In these financial statements, the pork produced from the drop- pings is considered a by-product of the cattle feeding operations and its value is added to the profit of that operation. The number of bogs per lot was somewhat variable as was made clear on page 10. When additional corn was fed the hogs its cost at the current prices at the time is deducted from the value of the actual pork produced before the pork produced from the droppings was accredited to the returns of the cattle. In order to permit more complete comparisons of results the returns are stated in the following ways : total profit ; profit per steer; and price received per bushel of corn fed. The profits of 1909-10 are abnormally large and it should be borne in mind that the cattle were sold on a much stronger market than the one on which they were bought. The profits of 1910-11 were very small, but the cattle were sold on a relatively much lower market than the cne on which the feeders were bought. 6o FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Lot i. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Clover Hay, and Corn Silage, (once daily) 1909-10 Nov. 17, To 10 steers, weight 9000 Ibs. @ $4.65 per cwt $ 418.50 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 3180 Ibs. shelled corn @ 49.9 cts. per bu 28.34 Dec. 17-.Tan. 16, To 4045 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.7 cts. per bu. .... 40.23 Jan. 16-Feb. 15, To 4485 Ibs. shelled corn @ 56.7 cts. per bu 45.41 Feb. 15-Mar. 17, To 5260 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53.7 cts. per bu 50.44 Mar. 17-Apr. 16, To 5695 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.9 cts. per bu. ... . . 52.78 Apr. 16-Apr. 26, To 1855 Ibs. shelled corn @ 50.2 cts. per bu 16.63 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 4171.5 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $33.00 per ton. . 68.83 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 12264 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 61.32 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 22280 Ibs. corn silage @ $3.50 per ton. 38.99 Total expenditures $ 821.47 April 26, By 10 steers, weight 13127 Ibs. @ $7.25 per cwt 951.71 Total profit without pork $ 130.24 Profit per steer without pork 13.02 Nov. 17-Nov. 27, To 90 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53 cts. per bu. $ .85 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, By 900 Ibs. pork @ $9.00 per cwt 81.00 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 80.15 Total receipts including pork 1031.86 Total profit including pork 210.39 Profit per steer including pork 21.04 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle 1.01 Lot 2. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, and Clover Hay, 1909-10 Nov. 17, To 10 steers, weight 8895 Ibs. @ $4.65 per cwt $ 413.62 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 3180 Ibs. shelled corn @ 49.9 cts. per bu 28.34 Dec. 17-Jan. 16, To 4045 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.7 cts. per bu 40.23 Jan. 16-Feb. 15, To 4505 Ibs- shelled corn @ 56.7 cts. per bu 45.61 Feb. 15-Mar. 17, To 5545 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53.7 cts. per bu 53.17 Mar. 17-Apr. 16, To 5985 Ibs. shelled Corn @ 51.9 cts. per bu 55.47 Apr. 16-Apr. 26, To 1990 Ibs. shelled corn @ 50.2 cts. per bu 17.84 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 4028.5 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $33.00 per ton 66.47 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 18837 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 94.19 Total expenditures $ 814.94 April 26, By 10 steers, weight 12550 Ibs. @ $7.30 per cwt 916.15 Total profit without pork $ 101.21 Profit per steer without pork 10.12 Nov. 17-Nov. 27, To 90 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53 cts. per bu. $ .85 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, By 723 Ibs. pork @ $9.00 per cwt 65.07 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 64 . 22 Total receipts including pork 980.37 Total profit including pork 165.43 Profit per steer including pork 16.54 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle .90 6i FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) Lot 3.— Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, and Corn Silage, 1909-10 Nov. 17, To 10 steers, weight 8975 Ibs. @ $4.65 per cwt $ 417.34 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 3180 Ibs. shelled corn @ 49.9 cts. perbu 28.34 Dec. 17-Jan. 16, To 4045 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.7 cts. perbu 40.23 Jan. 16-Feb. 15, To 4410 Ibs. shelled corn @ 56.7 cts. per bu 44.65 Feb. 15-Mar. 17, To 4610 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53.7 cts. per bu 44.21 Mar. 17-Apr. 16, To 4180 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.9 cts. per bu 38.74 Apr. 16-Apr. 26, To 1370 Ibs. shelled corn @ 50.2 cts. perbu 12.28 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 3898.5 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $33.00 per ton 64.33 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 44276 Ibs. corn silage @ $3.50 per ton 77.48 Total expenditures $ 767 . 60 April 26, By 10 steers, weight 12695 Ibs. @ $7.20 per cwt 914.04 Total profit without pork $ 146 . 44 Profit per steer without pork 14 . 64 Nov. 17-Nov. 27, To 90 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53 cts. per bu. $ .85 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, By 620 Ibs. pork @ $9.00 per cwt 55.80 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 54 . 95 Total receipts including pork 968.99 Total profit including pork 201.39 Profit per steer including pork 20 . 14 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle 1.05 Lot 3. — (First 120 days for comparison with Short-Fed Lots) 1909-10 Nov. 17, To 10 steers, weight 8975 Ibs. @ $4.65 per cwt .$ 417.34 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 3180 Ibs. shelled corn @ 49.9 cts. per bu 28.34 Dec. 17-Jan. 16, To 4045 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.7 cts. per bu 40.23 Jan. 15-Feb. 15, To 4410 Ibs. shelled corn @ 56.7 cts. per bu 44.65 Feb. 15-Mar. 17, To 4610 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53.7 cts. per bu 44.21 Nov. 17-Mar. 17, To 2874.5 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $33.00 per ton 47.43 Nov. 17-Mar. 17, To 36311 Ibs. corn silage @ $3.50 per ton.. 63.54 Total expenditures $ 685 . 74 Mar. 17, By 10 steers, weight 11950 Ibs. <§> $7.25 per cwt 866.38 Total profit without pork $ 180 . 64 Profit per steer without pork 18.06 Nov. 17-Nov. 27, To 90 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53 cts. per bu.. .$ .85 Nov. 17-Mar. 17, By 470 Ibs. pork @ $9.00 per cwt 42.30 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 41.45 Total receipts including pork 907 . 83 Total profits including pork 222 .09 Profit per steer including pork 22.21 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle 1.31 62 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) ]_/0t 4. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Clover Hay, and Corn Silage, (twice daily) 1909-10 Nov. 17, To 10 steers, weight 8925 Ibs. @ $4.65 per cwt $ 415.01 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 3180 Ibs. shelled corn @ 49.9 cts. perbu 28.34 Dec. 17-Jan. 16, To 4045 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.7 cts. perbu 40.23 Jan. 16-Feb. 15, To 4410 Ibs. shelled corn @ 56.7 cts. per bu 44.65 Feb. 15-Mar. 17, To 4810 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53.7 cts. per bu 46.12 Mar. 17-Apr. 16, To 5075 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.9 cts. per bu 47.03 Apr. 16-Apr. 26, To 1590 Ibs. shelled corn @ 50.2 cts. per bu 14.25 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 4134.5 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $33.00 per ton 68.22 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 7086 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 35.43 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 44418 Ibs. corn silage @ $3.50 per ton 77.73 Total expenditures $ 817 . 01 April 26, By 10 steers, weight 13130 Ibs. @ $7.60 per cwt 997.88 Total profit without pork $180.87 Profit per steer without pork 18 . 09 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 2665 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53 cts. perbu. $ 25.22 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, By 1405 Ibs. pork @ $9.00 per cwt 126.45 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 101.23 Total receipts including pork 1099 . 11 Total profit including pork 282 . 10 Profit per steer including pork 28 . 21 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle 1 . 22 Lot 5. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Clover Hay, and Corn Silage, (once daily) 1909-10 Nov. 17, To 10 steers, weight 8925 Ibs. @ $4.65 per cwt $ 415.01 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 3180 Ibs. shelled corn @ 49.9 cts. perbu 28.34 Dec. 17-Jan. 16, To 4045 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.7 cts. per bu 40.23 Jan. 16-Feb. 15, To 4485 Ibs. shelled corn @ 56.7 cts. per bu 45.41 Feb. 15-Mar. 17, To 5250 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53.7 cts. per bu 50.34 Mar. 17-Apr. 16, To 5765 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.9 cts. per bu 53.43 Apr. 16-Apr. 26, To 1885 Ibs. shelled corn @ 50.2 cts. per bu 16.90 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 2061 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $33.00 per ton 34.01 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 11739 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 58.70 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 22275 Ibs. corn silage @ $3.50 per ton 38.98 Total expenditures $ 781 . 35 April 26, By 10 steers, weight 12605 Ibs. @ $7.20 per cwt 907. t>6 Total profit without pork $126.21 Profit per steer without pork 12.62 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 2665 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53 cts. perbu. $ 25.22 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, By 1005 Ibs. pork @ $9.00 per cwt 90.45 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 65.23 Total receipts including pork 972 . 79 Total profit including pork 191 . 44 Profit per steer including pork 19.14 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle.. .97 63 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) Lot 6. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, and Clover Hay, 1909-10 Nov. 17, To 10 steers, weight 8885 Ibs. @ $4.65 per cwt $ 413.15 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 3180 Ibs. shelled corn @ 49.9 cts. per bu 28.34 Dec. 17-Jan. 16, To 4045 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.7 cts. per bu 40.23 Jan. 16-Feb. 15, To 4505 Ibs. shelled corn @ 56.7 cts. per bu 45.61 Feb. 15-Mar. 17, To 5545 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53.7 cts. per bu 53.17 Mar. 17- Apr. 16, To 6065 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.9 cts. per bu 56.21 Apr. 16-Apr. 26, To 1990 Ibs. shelled corn @ 50.2 cts. per bu 17.84 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 2027 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $33.00 per ton 33.45 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 19140 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 95.70 Total expenditures $ 783 . 70 April 26, By 10 steers, weight 12515 Ibs. @ $7.10 per cwt 888.57 Total profit without pork • , $ 104 . 87 Profit per steer without pork 10 . 49 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, To 2665 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53 cts. per bu. $ 25.22 Nov. 17-Apr. 26, By 1177 Ibs. pork @ $9.00 per cwt 105.93 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 80.71 Total receipts including pork 969 . 28 Total profit including pork 185.58 Profit per steer including pork 18 . 56 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle .94 Lot 7. — Fifteen Steers Short-Fed, Winter 1909-10 Nov. 17, To 15 steers, weight 15835 Ibs. @ $5.00 per cwt $ 791.75 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 4710 Ibs. shelled corn @ 49.9 cts. per bu 41.97 Dec. 17-Jan. 16, To 7050 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.7 cts. per bu 70.12 Jan. 16-Feb. 15, To 7560 Ibs. shelled corn @ 56.7 cts. per bu 76.55 Feb. 15-Mar. 17, To 8610 Ibs. shelled corn @ 53.7 cts. per bu 82.56 Nov. 17-Mar. 17, To 4888 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $33.00 per ton.. 80.65 Nov. 17-Mar. 17, To 58040 Ibs. corn silage @ $3.50 per ton 101.57 Total expenditures $1245 . 17 March 17, By 15 steers, weight 20420 Ibs. @ $7.70 per cwt 1572.34 Total profit without pork $ 327 . 17 Profit per steer without pork '. 21.81 Nov. 17-Mar. 17, To 2025 Ibs. shelled corn @ 54 cts. per bu.$ 19.53 Nov. 17-Mar. 17, By 1270 Ibs. pork @ $9.00 per cwt 114.30 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 94 . 77 Total receipts including pork 1667 . 11 Total profit including pork 421 . 94 Profit per steer including pork 28.13 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle 1.39 64 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) Lot 8. — Fifteen Steers Short-Fed, Spring 1910 Mar. 17, To 15 steers, weight 12058.3 Ibs. @ $6.00 per cwt $ 723.50 Mar. 17-Apr. 16, To 4565 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.9 cts. per bu 42.31 Apr. 16-May 16, To 6345 Ibs. shelled corn @ 52.9 cts. per bu 59.94 May 16-June 15, To 7442 Ibs. shelled corn @ 52.6 cts. per bu 69.90 June 15-July 15, To 7940 Ibs. shelled corn @ 54.2 cts. perbu 76.85 Mar. 17-July 15, To 4024 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $33.00 per ton.. 66.40 Mar. 17-July 15, To 4285 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 21.43 Mar. 17-July 15, To 60851 Ibs. corn silage @ $3.50 per ton 106.49 Total expenditures $1166 . 82 July 15, By 15 steers, weight 17806 Ibs. @ $6.60 per cwt 1175.20 Total profit without pork $ 8.38 Profit per steer without pork .56 Mar. 17-July 15, To 2770 Ibs. shelled corn @ 52.9 cts. per bu.$ 26.17 Mar. 17-July 15, By 1735 Ibs. pork @ $9.00 per cwt. . . 156.15 Value of pork produced from droppings : $ 129 . 98 Total receipts including pork 1305 . 18 Total profit including pork 138.36 Profit per steer including pork 9 . 22 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle .83 Lot i. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Clover Hay, and Corn Silage, (once daily) 191011 Nov. 18, To 10 steers, weight 11220 Ibs. @ $5.00 per cwt $ 561.00 Nov. 18-D.ec. 18, To 3940 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.1 cts. per bu 25.40 Dec. 18-Jan. 17, To 5415 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37 cts.. perbu 35.78 Jan. 17-Feb. 16, To 5775 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37.8 cts. per bu 38.98 Feb. 16-Mar. 18, To 6000 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.9 cts. per bu 39.54 Mar. 18-Apr. 17, To 6263 Ibs. shelled corn @ 39.3 cts. per bu 43.95 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 4565 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $30.00 per ton.. 68.48 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 8748 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 43.74 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 31160 Ibs. corn silage @ $3.00 per ton 46.74 Total expenditures $ 903 . 61 April 17, By 10 steers, weight 15103 Ibs. @ $5.95 per cwt 898.63 Total loss without pork $ 4.98 Loss per steer without pork .50 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, By 810 Ibs. pork @ $6.00 per cwt 48.60 Total receipts including pork 947 . 23 Total profit including pork 43 . 62 Profit per steer including pork 4.36 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle . . .46 65 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) Lot 2. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, and Clover Hay, 1910-11 Nov. 18, To 10 steers, weight 11213 Ibs. @ $5.00 per cwt $ 560.65 Nov. 18-Dec. 18, To 4000 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.1 cts. per bu 25.79 Dec. 18-Jan. 17, To 6155 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37 cts. per bu 40.67 Jan. 17-Feb. 16, To 6655 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37.8 cts. per bu 44.92 Feb. 16-Mar. 18, To 6900 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.9 cts. per bu 45.47 Mar. 18-Apr. 17, To 6900 Ibs. shelled corn @ 39.3 cts. per bu 48.42 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 4439.5 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $30.00 per ton 66.59 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 16515 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 82.58 Total expenditures $ 915 . 09 Apr. 17, By 10 steers, weight 14862 Ibs. @ $5.85 per cwt 869.43 Total loss without pork $ 45 . 66 Loss per steer without pork 4 . 57 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, By 1005 Ibs. pork @ $6.00 per cwt 60.30 Total receipts including pork 929 . 73 Total profit including pork * 14 . 64 Profit per steer including pork 1.46 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle .40 Lot 3.— Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, and Corn Silage, 1910-11 Nov. 18, To 10 steers, weight 11210 Ibs. @ $5.00 per cwt. $ 560.50 Nov. 18-Dec. 18, To 3365 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.1 cts. per bu 21.69 Dec. 18-Jan. 17, To 4215 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37 cts. per bu 27.85 Jan. 17-Feb. 16, To 4482 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37.8 cts. per bu 30.25 Feb. 16-Mar. 18, To 4585 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.9 cts. per bu 30.21 Mar. 18-Apr. 17, To 5380 Ibs. shelled corn @ 39.3 cts. per bu 37.76 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 4563.5 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $30.00 per ton 68.45 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 57255 Ibs. corn silage @ $3.00 per ton 85.88 Total expenditures $ 862 . 59 April 17, By 10 steers, weight 14768 Ibs. @ $5.75 per cwt 849.16 Total loss without pork $ 13.43 Loss per steer without pork 1.34 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, By 790 Ibs. pork @ $6.00 per cwt 47.40 Total receipts including pork 896 . 56 Total profit including pork 33 . 97 Profit per steer including pork 3.40 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle .46 66 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) Lot 4.— Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Clover Hay, and Corn Silage, (twice daily) 1910-11 Nov. 18, To 10 steers, weight 11169 Ibs. @ $5.00 per cwt $ 558.45 Nov. 18-Dec. 18, To 3105 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.1 cts. per bu 20.02 Dec. 18-Jan. 17, To 3915 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37 cts. per bu 25.87 Jan. 17-Feb. 16, To 4575 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37.8 cts. per bu 3088 Feb. 16-Mar. 18, To 4864 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.9 cts. per bu 32.05 Mar. 18-Apr. 17, To 5109 Ibs. shelled corn @ 39.3 cts. per bu 35.85 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 4505 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $30.00 per ton 67.58 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 6753 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 33.77 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 46493 Ibs. corn silage @ $3.00 per ton 69.74 Total expenditures $ 874 . 21 April 17, By 10 steers, weight 14796 Ibs. @ $5.85 per cwt 865.57 Total loss without pork $ 8 . 64 Loss per steer without pork .86 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, By 650 Ibs. pork @ $6.00 per cwt 39.00 Total receipts including pork 904 . 57 Total profit including pork 30.36 Profit per steer including pork 3 . 04 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle .45 Lot 5.— Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Clover Hay, and Corn Silage, (once daily) 1910-11 Nov. 18, To 10 steers, weight 11148 Ibs. @ $5.00 cwt $ 557.40 Nov. 18-Dec. 18, To 4005 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.1 cts. per bu 25.82 D.€c. 18-Jan. 17, To 5570 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37 cts. per bu 36.80 Jan. 17-Fcb. 16, To 6000 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37.8 cts. per bu 40.50 Feb. 16-Mar. 18, To 6000 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.9 cts. per bu 39.54 Mar. 18-Apr. 17, To 6275 Ibs. shelled corn @ 39.3 cts. per bu 44.04 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 2257.5 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $30.00 per ton 33.86 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 8455 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 42.28 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 28890 Ibs. corn silage @ $3.00 per ton 43.34 Total expenditures $ 863 . 58 Apr. 17, By 10 steers, weight 14655 Ibs. @ $5.70 per cwt 835.34 Total loss without pork $ 28.24 Loss per steer without pork 2.82 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, By 805 Ibs. pork @ $6.00 per cwt 48.30 Total receipts including pork 883 . 64 Total profit including pork 20.06 Profit per steer including pork 2.01 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle.. .42 67 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) Lot 6.— Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, and Clover Hay, 1910-11 Nov. 18, To 10 steers, weight 11228 Ibs. @ $5.00 per cwt $ 561.40 Nov. 18-Dec. 18, To 4055 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.1 cts. per bu 26.14 Dec. 18-Jan. 17, To 6190 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37 cts. per bu 40.90 Jan. 17-Feb. 16, To 6600 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37.8 cts. per bu 44.55 Feb. 16-Mar. 18, To 6600 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.9 cts. per bu 43.49 Mar. 18-Apr. 17, To 6875 Ibs. shelled corn @ 39.3 cts. per bu 48.25 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 2228.5 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $30.00 per ton 33.43 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 16735 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 83.68 Total expenditures $ 881 . 84 April 17, By 10 steers, weight 14750 Ibs. @ $5.60 per cwt 826.00 Total loss without pork $ 55 . 84 Loss per steer without pork 5 . 58 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, By 840 Ibs. pork @ $6.00 per cwt 50.40 Total receipts including pork 876 .40 Total loss including pork 5 . 44 Loss per steer including pork .54 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle .37 Lot 7.— Ten Steers Short-Fed, 1910-11 Nov. 18, To 10 steers, weight 11225 Ibs. @ $5.00 per cwt $ 561.25 Jan. 17-Feb. 16, To 3520 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37.8 cts. per bu 23.76 Feb. 16-Mar. 18, To 4440 Ibs. shelled corn @ 36.9 cts. per bu 29.26 Mar. 18-Apr. 17, To 5380 Ibs. shelled corn @ 39.3 cts. per bu 37.76 Jan. 17-Apr. 17, To 2905 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $30.00 per ton 43.58 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 9690 Ibs. clover hay @ $10.00 per ton 48.45 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, To 57640 Ibs. corn silage @ $3.00 per ton 86.46 Total expenditures $ 830 .52 April 17, By 10 steers, weight 14320 Ibs. @ $5.60 per cwt 801.92 Total loss; without pork $ 28 . 60 Loss per steer without pork 2 . 86 Nov. 28-Jan. 27, To 1387 Ibs. shelled corn @ 37.4 cts. per bu..$ 9.26 Nov. 18-Apr. 17, By 750 Ibs. pork @ $6.00 per cwt 45.00 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 35 . 74 Total receipts including pork 837 . 66 Total profit including pork 7 .14 Profit per steer including pork '. .71 Price received per bu. corn fed cattle .41 PURDUE-tJNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 163, VOL. XVI NOVEMBER, 1912 STEER FEEDING VIII WINTER STEER FEEDING 1911-12 Part I. Corn Silage and Clover Hay as Roughage for Fattening Steers Part II. Corn Silage and Oat Straw vs. Corn Silage and Clover Hay for Fattening Steers Part III. Long vs. Short Feeding Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. BOARD OF CONTROL ADDISON C. HARRIS, President Indianapolis, Marion County GEOBGE ADE Brook, Newton County CHARLES DOWNING Greenfield, Hancock County SAMUEL M. FOSTER Fort Wayne, Allen County CYRUS M. HOBBS Bridgeport, Marion County CHARLES MAJOR Shelbyville, Shelby County JOSEPH D. OLIVER South Bend, St. Joseph County ROYAL E. PURCELL Vincennes, Knox County WILLIAM V. STUART LaFayette, Tippecanoe County WINTHROP E. STONE, A. M., Ph. D. President of the University STATION STAFF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS ARTHUR Goss, M. S., A. C Director JOSEPH C. ARTHUR, D. Sc Chief in Botany GEORGE I. CHRISTIE, B. S. A Sup't Agricultural Extension ROBERT A. CRAIG, D. V. M Chief Veterinarian OTTO F. HUNZIKER, M. S Chief in Dairy Husbandry WILLIAM J. JONES, JR., M. S., A. C.1 State Chemist JOHN H. SKINNER, B. S Chief in Animal Husbandry JAMES TROOP, M. S , Chief in Entomology ALFRED T. WIANCKO, B. S. A Chief in Soils and Crops CHARLES G. WOODBURY, M. S Chief in Horticulture ASSOCIATES AND ASSISTANTS JOHN B. ABBOTT, M. S Associate in Soils EVELYN ALLISON, B. S Assistant in Botany JAMES C. BEAVERS, B. Agr Associate in Soils and Crops Extension REUBEN O. BITLER, B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist JESSE G. BOYLE, M. S Assistant in Horticulture RALPH E. CALDWELL, B. S Associate in Milk Production SAMUEL D. CONNER, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops CECIL W. CREEL, B. S.3 Entomological Assistant CLINTON O. CROMER, B. S Assistant in Crops CARLETON CUTLER, B. S.* Deputy State Chemist JOHN J. DAVIS, B. S.3 Entomological Assistant RALPH B. DEEMER, B. S.* Deputy State Chemist WILLIAM F. EPPLE, Ph. G' Assistant in Dairy Chemistry MARTIN L. FISHER, M. S Associate in Crops RAE W. FLEMING, B. S Assistant in Serum Laboratory HENRY Fox, Ph. D.3 Entomological Assistant GEORGE M. FRIER, B. S. A Assistant in Agricultural Extension FREDERICK D. FULLER, M. S.* Chief Deputy State Chemist ROY L. GREENE, B. S.4 Inspector State Chemist Department FRANK D. KERN, Ph. D : Associate in Botany FRANKLIN G. KING, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry JOHN W. MCFARLAND, B. S.4 Inspector State Chemist Department HERMAN H. MADAUS, B. S , Associate in Serum Production LOVINA S. MERiCK2 Assistant in Agricultural Extension HORACE C. MILLS, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures CLAYTON R. ORTON, B. S Assistant in Botany JOSEPH OSKAMP, B. S Assistant in Horticulture ALLEN G. PHILIPS, B. S. A Associate in Poultry Husbandry WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, M. S.3 Entomology FRANCIS J. PIPAL, M. A Assistant in Botany EDWARD G. PROULX, M. S.* Deputy State Chemist MORRIS W. RICHARDS, M. S Assistant in Horticulture OTIS S. ROBERTS, B. S.4 Chief Inspector State Chemist Department J. HOWARD ROOP, B. S.4 , Deputy State Chemist HAROLD R. SMALLEY, B. S Assistant Chemist Soils and Crops GEORGE SPITZER, Ph. G., B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry HERBERT B. SWITZER, B. S Assistant in Dairy Bacteriology DAVID O. THOMPSON, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry Extension REX A. WHITING, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology NELLIE TRACY Secretary to the Director and Librarian MARY K. BLOOM Bookkeeper 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Detailed by U. S. Dep't of Agriculture — Seed Testing 8 Detailed by U. S. Dep't of Agriculture — Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations 4 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNDER LEGISLATIVE ACT OF 19O9) T. A. COLEMAN, Rushville State Live Stock Association U. R. FISHEL, Hope ....State Poultry Fanciers' Association H. H. SWAIM, South Bend State Horticultural Society D. B. JOHNSON, Mooresville State Dairy Association D. F. MAISH, Frankfort State Corn Growers' Association WINTER STEER FEEDING 1911-12 J. H. SKINNER F. G. KING SUMMARY PART I 1. The profit from feeding in this experiment was large be- cause of unusual market conditions for fat cattle. 2. The addition of corn silage to a ration for fattening cattle decreased the consumption of shelled corn in amounts closely ap- proximating the grain content of the silage consumed by the cattle. 3. The addition of corn silage once daily to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay, reduced the cost of gains $1.83 per hundred pounds and increased the total profit $8.85 per steer. 4. The addition of corn silage twice daily to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay, reduced the cost of gain $3.17 per hundred pounds and increased the total profits $11.19 Per steer. 5. The substitution of corn silage for clover hay in a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay reduced the cost of gain $4.35 per hundred pounds and increased the profits $17.97 Per steer. 6. The more nearly corn silage replaced the clover hay in the ration the cheaper was the gain and the greater the profit. 7. Corn silage produced a very rapid finish on the cattle. 8. The silage used in this trial contained an unusually high per cent, of dry matter and was, judging from previous experience, more efficient for fattening cattle than silage containing a higher per cent, of moisture. PART II 9. The feeding of oat straw instead of clover hay in a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, dry roughage (once daily) and corn silage (once daily) decreased slightly the amount of feed eaten and the gains made; but decreased the cost of gain $1.13 per hun- dred pounds and added $2.77 per steer to the total profits. 10. Cattle fattened on a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay (once daily) and corn silage (once daily) finished better and sold for 15 cents per cwt. higher than cattle fed a similar ration with the clover hay replaced by oat straw. 11. A ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, oat straw, and corn silage (twice daily) proved to be as efficient for fattening cat- tle as a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay and corn silage (twice daily). 12. The feeding of oat straw instead of clover hay in a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, dry roughage and corn silage (twice daily) effected a saving of 90 cents per hundred pounds gain and in- creased the profit $5.11 per steer. PART III 13. Corn silage, oat straw, and two pounds of cottonseed meal daily per head produced a daily gain of 1.87 pounds per steer for sixty days. 14. Cattle fed roughage sixty days and full fed grain one hun- dred days made slower and cheaper gains than cattle full fed one hundred and sixty days. 15. Short-fed cattle returned a profit of 38 cents per head less than long-fed cattle when pork is considered ; when considered with- out pork, short-feel cattle made a profit of 83 cents per steer more than long-fed cattle. 1 6. The results from the long and short-fed cattle of this trial and the rapid rise in the market soon after this trial closed shows that the use of silage and some other roughage can often be profit- ably fed during the early part of the feeding period in order to save grain and put the cattle on a more favorable market. INTRODUCTION The steer feeding trial reported in this bulletin was conducted under most extraordinary conditions. A shortage of beef that had been threatening for several years arrived in the winter of 1911-12 and the summer of 1912. This forced the price of beef in the sum- mer of 1912 to the highest price for more than forty years. Conse- quently, in spite of high cost of feeding cattle and abnormally high price for feed, cattle marketed in the spring and summer of 1912 returned probably as large profits as any product of the feed yards of the corn belt for many years past. • s The results reported in this trial were secured under conditions such as were found in the average feed lot of the State, and show no more favorable returns than were obtained by a large per cent, of the best cattle feeders of the State. The financial results of these trials, however, must not be considered as typical of the results to be secured from fattening steers, because it is doubtful if cattle feeders will soon be confronted with conditions such as prevailed during the past season. In the feeding of cattle, there is more to be considered than the actual cash returns from the feeding operation, in that, roughage is consumed that would otherwise be sold from the farm at prices usu- ally entirely too low for the quantity of plant food removed by such sale. Cattle feeding is now more often considered as an efficient means for the disposition of roughage and conservation of soil fer- tility than as a matter of commercial speculation. In fact, it is a conservative statement to say that under conditions existing on the majority of farms in Indiana, an average of several years' returns will show more profit in the manure produced from cattle feeding than in the direct money made on the cattle. OBJECT The object of this work was to obtain additional information on the value of corn silage for fattening cattle, the comparative value of clover hay and oat straw when fed in combination with corn sil- age and grain, and the value of corn silage and other roughage with- out grain for the early part of the feeding period. The first and last items are continuations of work previously conducted at this station and reported in Bulletins Nos. 129, 130, 136, and 153. The second part is a comparison made at this station for the first time. 7i6 SHELTER, FEED LOTS, AND WATER SUPPLY The conditions surrounding the cattle were no better than those of the average feed lot. Each lot of ten steers was fed in a yard 40 by 50 feet, with an open shed 12 by 40 feet facing east, on the west side of each yard: The yards were covered several inches deep with cinders. Under average weather conditions the cinders have not prevented the lots from becoming muddy but in the winter of 1911-12, the unusually cold weather kept the ground frozen so con- stantly that no trouble was experienced with mud until the last few weeks of the trial when the lots became sloppy. The sheds were kept well bedded but no bedding was used in the yards. The water was supplied in galvanized iron tanks set in the open lot and surrounded" by five or six inches of manure, held in place by a wooden jacket. The water was further protected by tank covers which were closed during the night in cold weather. The winter was unusually cold and considerable trouble was experienced with ice in the troughs. WEIGHTS Each steer was weighed individually for three consecutive days at the beginning and end of the trial and every thirty days during the progress of the same. The average of the three weights at the beginning and end of the trial was taken as the initial and final weights respectively. The identity of each steer was known by means of a numbered tag on a strap fastened around the neck. Lot weights were taken every ten days in order to facilitate keeping records of feed consumed and gains made. Weights were taken at 9 :oo A. M. without any change in the ration or water of the cattle. Each lot of hogs was weighed every ten days. METHOD OF FEEDING The method of feeding was the same in all lots reported in this bulletin. Grain was fed at 6 :oo A. M. and 4 130 P. M. in troughs in the open lot. Shelled corn was placed in the trough, the cottonseed meal poured upon it and mixed in thoroughly by hand. After the cattle had cleaned up the grain which usually required from a half to three- quarters of an hour, the roughage was fed. Lots I and 5 were fed silage at night and the former clover hay and the latter oat straw in the morning. Lots 3, 4, 6 and 7 were fed silage both morning and evening. Lot 4 was fed clover hay and Lots 6 and 7 oat straw in the morning. Lot 2 was fed clover hay both morning and evening. Dur- ing the first two months, Lot 7 was fed oat straw both morning and evening and the cottonseed meal was fed both morning and evening with the silage. It was the intention to have all silage cleaned up within two hours and all clover before the next time to feed clover. Salt was supplied once a week at regular intervals. 717 DESCRIPTION OF THE CATTLE The cattle used in this trial consisted of twenty steers purchased on the Chicago market, twenty-one steers from the Kansas City mar- ket, and twenty-nine steers purchased in Montgomery county, In- diana, that had previously come from the Kansas City market. Eighty-six steers were purchased but in order to secure a uniform drove for experimental purposes, sixteen uneven steers were dis- carded. Of the steers placed on trial seven were black and sixty- three red. Nearly all the red cattle had white faces, and almost all of them carried brands. The cattle used in the trial were of choice quality but did not carry enough flesh to make them sell near the top of the feeder market. The cattle were divided equally into seven lots according to size, breed, condition, and quality. Each lot of cattle was valued at $5.40 per cwt. on the basis of the Chicago and Indianapolis markets. Market quotations for feeding cattle at that time were as follows : Selected, strong weight, fleshy feeders $5.40 — $5.90 Good feeders 900 to 1000 Ibs 4 . 85 — 5 . 35 Selected stockers 500 to 700 Ibs 4.60 — 5.25 Fifteen cents per cwt. were added to the market valuation of the cattle in order to cover cost of shipping, thereby making the initial value of the cattle in the yards $5-55 per cwt. METHOD OF VALUING CATTLE At the beginning of the experiment Mr. J. T. Alexander of the firm of Alexander, Ward and Conover, Chicago, Illinois, Mr. J. H. Moffitt of the firm of Volodin, Beeler, Morfitt and Co., Indianapolis, and Mr. Frank Lichtenberg of Indianapolis visited the feed lots and placed values upon each lot of cattle on the basis of the Chicago and Indianapolis markets. At the end of the trial, Messrs. J. T. Alexan- der and Allen Beeler of the same firms visited the feed lots and valued the cattle on the basis of the Chicago market. All financial statements are based on the market price for feeding cattle plus 15 cents per cwt., -and Chicago values for finished cattle less 40 cents per cwt. QUALITY OF FEEDS The rations fed in this trial consisted of various combinations of the following feeds : shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, oat straw and corn silage. The corn used was of fair quality but contained some rotten grains and was not dry enough for storing in l-arge quantities. The cottonseed meal was of "choice" grade guaranteed to contain 41 per cent, crude protein and 8 per cent. fat. 7i8 The clover hav with the exception of a few tons was of good qual- ity. Oat straw fed during the first part of the experiment was good but that fed the la>t two months contained considerable quantities of wet moldy straw. Silage was of excellent quality, made from corn grown on Purdue farm which yielded approximately 38 bushels per acre. The yield of silage was about seven tons per acre. The corn, when put into the silo was well matured. Practically all the grains were dented and about three- fourths of the blades were brown. The stalks, however, contained more moisture than is ordinarilv found in corn in such advanced stages of maturity. The silage was unusually dry and contained approximately 35 per cent, of dry matter. PRICES OF FEEDS The prices of feeds used in presenting financial results are based on the actual prices at the time the experiment was in progress. The average price of corn in Lafavette was as follows: first month, 51.7 cents; second month 51.7 cents; third month, 57.1 cents; fourth month, 58.5 cents; fifth month, 64.2 cents; last ten days, 71.2 cents. Cottonseed meal is valued at 829.00 per ton ; clover hay at $20.00 per ton ; oat straw at 88.00 per ton ; and corn silage at $4.00 per ton. All financial statements are based on the above mentioned prices of feeds. Since the prices for roughage prevailing when this trial was conducted were so abnormally high, a presentation of the factor of cost of gain is made with roughage at different prices. The cost per loo pounds gain is shown with clover hay at $15.00 per ton, oat straw at 86.00 per ton, and corn silage at $3.50 per ton; and again with clover hay at $10.00 per ton, oat straw at $4.00 per ton, and corn silage at 83.50 per ton. These arbitrary values do not enter into any summaries or financial statements which are based entirely on the prices for feeds as they occurred at the time the trial was con- ducted. HOGS Knough hogs followed the cattle to thoroughly work over the droppings. Kadi lot except Lot 7 contained nine hogs. Lot 7 con- tained seven hugs the first month, eight hogs the second, third, and fourth months, and nine hogs the last 40 days. Very few changes were made in the hogs during the trial. All lots of hogs received corn in addition to the droppings from the cattle. The amount of corn fed depended on the condition of the lots but all lots were fed the same amount- except Lot 7 before the cattle in that lot were put on full teed of grain. The hogs used in this trial were rather large framed animal- in thin to medium flesh when the trial began. 719 PART I CORN SILAGE AND CLOVER HAY AS ROUGHAGE FOR FATTENING STEERS Part I of this bulletin is a report and discussion of the results secured from a trial to obtain additional information on the relative value of corn silage and clover hay for fattening cattle. The trial herein reported is a continuation of a series of experiments on this subject which has been conducted for several years at this station and reported in Bulletins Nos. 129, 136 and 153. Previous trials have shown that corn silage is a very efficient roughage for cattle and is at prevailing prices for feeds a very economical form in which to utilize the corn crop. Data are somewhat conflicting concerning the question of whether silage should replace a small or large part or even entirely replace the clover hay. The purpose of this trial was to furnish some additional data for determining the conditions under which the different quantities of silage and hay should be fed. Be- cause of the fact that earlier trials have shown the economy of using cottonseed meal in the ration and especially in one containing corn silage, all rations in this test contained cottonseed meal in the pro- portion of 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 Ibs. live weight of cattle. The only variable factor between the four rations was the amount of corn silage or clover hay fed and time of feeding. The rations fed were as follows : Lot i. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage (evening), clover hay (morning). Lot 2. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, clover hay. Lot 3. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2 . 5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage. Lot 4. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2 . 5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage (morning and evening), clover hay (morning). A comparison of Lots i and 2 shows the effect of adding a limited amount of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay. Lots 4 and 2 show the effect of adding silage •according to the appetites of the cattle to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay. Lots 3 and 2 give a comparison of corn silage and clover hay when each are fed as the only roughage for fattening cattle. Table I shows the average amount of feed consumed daily per steer by thirty day periods. 720 TABLE I. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, November 17, IQIL to April 25, 1912 (160 days) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Shelled corn, RATION Shelled corn, cottonseed Shelled corn, Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, meal, clover hay (morning), corn silage (evening) cottonseed meal, clover hay cottonseed meal, corn silage clover hay (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) First month shelled corn 11.53 Ibs. 11.63 Ibs. 11.53 Ibs. 11.53 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.96 " 1.98 " 1.98 " 1.98 " clover hay 7.00 " 15.90 " 4.13 " corn silage 15.42 " 30.50 " 27.33 " Second month shelled corn 14.48 " 17.07 " 14.20 " 14.00 " cottonseed meal 2.63 " 2.63 " 2.75 " 2.68 " Second month shelled corn 14.48 " 17.07 " 14.20 " 14.00 " cottonseed meal 2.63 " 2.63 " 2.75 " 2.68 " clover hay 6.00 " 10.97 " 2.75 " corn silage 17.50 " 33.78 " 28.41 " Third month shelled corn 15.27 " 19.42 " 15.00 " 14.00 " cottonseed meal 2.82 " 2.83 " 2.93 " 2.85 " clover hay 5.81 " 10.41 " 2.08 corn silage 17.50 31.15 " 25.83 Fourth month shelled corn 17.00 " 20.00 " 15.83 " 13.50 " cottonseed meal 3.02 " 3.03 " 3.13 " 3.03 " clover hay .5.48 " 10.35 " 1.93 " corn silage 15.75 " 24.25 " 22.47 " Fifth month shelled corn 17.70 " 20.40 " 16.17 " 14.75 " cottonseed meal 3.15 " 3.22 " 3.30 " 3.20 " clover hay 5.33 " 9.10 " 2.00 " corn silage 14.50 " 20.43 " 21.67 " Last 10 days shelled corn 18.50 " 20.50 " 17.50 " 15.50 " cottonseed meal 3.30 " 3.30 " 3.35 " 3.30 " clover hay 4.10 " 8.30 " 2.00 " corn silage 14.50 " 17.75 " 19.50 Average entire period shelled corn 15.40 Ibs, 17.88 Ibs. 14.73 Ibs. 13.68 Ibs. cottonseed meal 2.75 " 2.77 " 2.85 " ' 2.78 " clover hay 5.81 " 11.16 " 2.54 " corn silage 16.03 " 27.38 " 24.70 " 721 It was desired to have the cattle reach their maximum consump- tion of roughage as early as possible. The lots receiving clover hay were eating their maximum quantity of this roughage when the ex- periment began, but the silage was not fed until the experiment began. Three days were required to get the cattle on full feed of silage which amounted to 15 pounds daily per head in Lot I and 30 pounds daily per head in Lots 3 and 4. Lot 4 on the fifth day refused a part of their silage and did not again consume 30 pounds daily per head until the tenth day of the trial. Thirty pounds each per day. was the largest quantity of silage eaten by the steers in Lot 4. After twenty-one days on feed the steers in Lot i were fed 17.5 pounds of silage and those in Lot 3 were fed 35 pounds. These were the largest amounts fed the steers in those lots. The quantity of clover hay eaten daily per steer at the beginning of the trial was 10 pounds in Lot I ; 20 pounds in Lot 2 ; and 10 pounds in Lot 4. These amounts of clover hay consumed decreased as the cattle were placed on full feed of grain, until at the end of thirty days they had become almost constant at about 6 pounds in Lot I, 12 pounds in Lot 2, and 4 pounds in Lot 4. The first two lots of steers consumed these amounts with but slight decrease for a considerable period but the cattle in Lot 4 were not eager for hay and did not eat four pounds daily for more than a week when they again decreased their hay consumption. The grain fed was the same in all lots for the first twenty-seven days. Ten pounds of corn per steer were fed for eleven days when it was increased to n pounds where it remained for two days and then to 12 pounds daily per head. This amount was fed for eight days and then increased to 13 pounds. This quantity of corn with 2.5 pounds of cottonseed meal w!hich was being fed at that time seemed to satisfy the appetites of the steers for grain except those in Lot 2. After six more days the amount of corn in Lot 2 was in- creased to 14 pounds of corn daily per head. From that time for- ward, the steers in Lot 2 ate more grain than those in any other lot. Cottonseed meal was not fed for the first two days while the cattle were learning to eat grain. On the third day . 5 pound of the meal per steer was added to the grain ration at each feed. The quantity was gradually increased until at the end of ten days it was fed at the rate of 2.5 pounds per 1000 pounds of cattle. The appetites of the steers in Lots I, 2 and 3 were as good as could be expected. The steers in Lot 4, however, became rather slow to take feed during the last few days of the second rrfonth and con- tinued so until within about three weeks of the end of the trial. Since it was more desirable for them to eat grain than roughage at an ad- vanced stage in fattening an attempt was made to keep their appe- 722 tites for grain keen by limiting the roughage. This was not entirely successful, however, and it was necessary often to. reduce the grain ration. In Lot 3 the silage was limited during the last six weeks of the trial. This was not done because of poor appetites of the cattle but to induce a greater consumption of grain. It has been found by experience that in order to induce the consumption of large enough quantities of grain to make satisfactory gains, the silage should be limited during the latter part of the feeding period when silage is the only roughage. With the above mentioned exceptions all feeds were fed according to the appetites of the cattle. The table shows that except in Lot 4 there was a gradual in- crease in the grain consumption and a corresponding decrease in the roughage consumption as the fattening period advanced. The largest quantity of grain and the smallest amount of roughage eaten by each lot of steers was at the end of the experiment, while the largest amount of roughage consumed was in the early ptert of the fattening period. There was in Lot 4 a decrease in roughage consumption as the fattening period advanced but during the third and fourth months, the amount of grain eaten was not increased. This was not due to the ration but to the fact that, with no apparent reason, the steers in this lot had, during that time, very poor appetites for all feeds. Attention is called to the extent to which corn silage replaced clover hay in the ration. The addition of silage once daily decreased the hay consumption from 11.16 pounds daily per head to 5.81 pounds ; while silage twice daily in the ration reduced the hay eaten to 2.54 pounds. Also the replacement of hay by corn silage was ac- companied by a decrease in the grain consumption. This trial con- firms previous tests in showing that the corn in silage replaces a por- tion of the grain in the ration. The amount by which the grain ra- tion is reduced approximates the quantity of grain found in the sil- age. Silage must, however, be considered a roughage and not be used to replace grain to any greater extent than necessary as is evidenced by the fact that silage often has to be reduced as the cattle become fat, in order to induce a satisfactory grain consumption. GAINS. — Gains are not necessarily an absolute index of the rel- ative value of rations but must be relied upon to a certain extent. The gains made by the lots of cattle are shown in Table II. 723 TABLE: II. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months, November 17, 1911, to April 25, 1912 (160 days) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, cottonseed RATION cottonseed Shelled corn, Shelled corn, meal, meal, clover hay (morning), corn silage (evening) cottonseed meal, clover hay cottonseed meal, corn silage clover hay (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) First month 2.06 Ibs. 2.17 Ibs. 3.41 Ibs. 2.84 Ibs. Second month 2.22 2.43 2.63 2.40 Third month 3.18 3.33 2.90 2.30 Fourth month 2.03 2.17 2.27 2.33 Fifth month 2.03 1.93 1.47 1.65 Last 10 days 2.88 1.90 2.30 2.58 Total gain per steer 374.5 Ibs. 380.0 Ibs. 403.3 Ibs. 371.6 Ibs. Average daily gain for entire period 2.34 " 2.38 " 2.52 " 2.32 " It will be noted that very poor gains were made the fifth month. This is due to some extent to the increased fleshiness of the cattle but can be accounted for more largely by the fact that the weather had been very cold until that time and the yards had been frozen so that the cattle were not in the mud, but in March the ground thawed and the atmosphere became humid with the result that the cattle did not eat well and made poor gains. Table II shows that Lot 3 fed corn, cottonseed meal and corn silage without hay made the fastest gains. This is not in accord with results secured in the two previous trials in which the gains of Lots I and 4 were faster than those of Lot 3. The exceedingly good showing of Lot 3 is prob- ably due to some extent to the high per cent, of dry matter in the silage, because results indicate that the more mature the corn when put into the silo, the better are the results secured from feeding it to cattle. The rate of gain in the three lots fed clover hay did not vary greatly but the variation was slightly in favor of Lot 2. This again is contrary to previous trials1 in which the addition of silage in- creased the rate of gain. This rate of gain can easily be accounted for in Lot 4 by the appetites of the cattle during a part of the trial but the steers in Lot i were apparently normal in every par- ticular. These variations in the results of experiments serve as a good example of the necessity of repeating trials several times be- fore final conclusions are drawn in order to avoid errors due to con- ditions not under the control of investigators. 1 Bulletins Nos. 136 and 153 724 COST OF GAINS. — The cost of gains depends so largely on the prices of feeds that a thorough discussion of the subject must neces- sarily be based on different prices of feeds. In this trial the actual prices of roughage were so far above normal that the results must be presented with different prices for roughage in order to properly connect these results with normal conditions. Table III shows the average amount of feed consumed per pound gain and the cost of 100 pounds gain with feed at different prices. Table III. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per Hundred Pounds Gain with Feeds at Varying Prices RATION Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage Cost per cwt. gain 1 Actual cost clover hay $20 per ton; corn silage $4.00 per ton 1 Clover hay $15.00 per ton and silage $3.50 per ton 1 Clover hay $10.00 per ton and silage $3.50 per ton 2 Clover hay $10.00 per ton Corn 40 cts. per bu. Corn 50 cts. per bu. Dry matter consumed per pound gain Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay (morning), corn silage (evening) Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) 6.58 Ibs. 7.53 Ibs. 5.84 Ibs. 5.89 Ibs 1.18 " 1.17 " 1.13 " 1.20 " 2.48 " 4.70 " 1.10 " 6.85 " 10.86 " 10.67 " $12.40 $14.23 $9.88 $11.06 11.61 13.05 9.61 10.52 10.99 \ 11.88 9.61 10.24 8.67 • 9.42 7.44 8.09 10.02 10.76 8.76 9.41 11.21 Ibs. 11.57 Ibs. 9.74 Ibs. 10.76 Ibs. 1 Based on the following prices of feeds: cottonseed meal, $29.00 per ton; corn, first month 51.7 cents, second month 51.7 cents, third month 57.1 cents, fourth month 58.5 cents, fifth month 64.2 cents, last ten days 71.2 cents 2 Based on the following prices of feeds: cottonseed meal, $29.00 per ton; clover hay, $10.00 per ton; corn silage, $3.00 and $3.50 per ton, according to whether corn is valued at 40 cents or 50 cents per bushel The one factor in which corn silage has always shown superiority over other roughages has been in the cost of gains. The results of this trial are in accord with those of previous trials at this station in 725 showing that the more nearly corn silage replaced clover hay in the ration the greater was the reduction in cost of gain. The largest quantity of grain required to make a pound of gain was in Lot 2. As the clover hay was replaced by corn silage the grain requirements per pound gain were gradually decreased until the total displacement of dry roughage by silage was accompanied by the smallest grain requirement to make a pound of gain. The roughage (not dry matter) consumed per pound gain was almost inversely proportional to the grain requirements. The cost of gain was highest in Lot 2 where it was $14.23 per cwt. The addition of corn silage once daily to the ration reduced the cost of gain $1.83 per cwt. The addition of corn silage twice daily reduced the cost $3.17 per cwt., and the substitution of corn silage for clover hay reduced the cost of gains $4.35 per cwt. While the price of clover hay was abnor- mally high, the valuation of clover at $io.oo per ton did not change the relative standing of the rations in regard to cost of gains, al- though it caused a great, narrowing of the differences. But even on that basis, the use of silage affected savings in cost of gain varying from 89 cents to $2.27 per cwt. The least difference in cost of gain was when corn was valued at 40 cents per bushel and clover hay at $10.00 per ton. When figured on such a basis, there was a reduction in cost of gain of 75 cents, $1.33 and $1.98 per cwt. according to the degree to which clover hay was replaced by corn silage. Nor is this due entirely to the difference in value of roughage. The figures on the dry matter required to make a pound of gain show that the figures on cost of gain are fundamentally correct. The dry matter required to make a pound of gain was 11.57 pounds when clover hay alone formed the roughage of the ration. The substitution of corn silage once daily reduced this to 11.21 pounds; the feeding of corn silage twice daily in combination with clover hay reduced it to 10.76 pounds ; while the complete substitution of the silage for the dry roughage reduced the dry matter per pound gain to 9.74 pounds. It must be kept in mind, however, that the animal body requires more protein than is found in corn and corn silage and that this food nutrient must be supplied in some concentrated form before best results can be secured from these two feeds when fed in combination with each other. FINISH. — One of the most striking effects of the rations fed in this trial was shown in the finish produced on the cattle. Since a small difference in selling price may overcome a large difference in cost of gain, the finish of the cattle is of great importance and may outweigh any saving in cost of gain. Table IV gives the selling values of the cattle in the lots without shrinking at the end of the feeding trial and also after a feeding period of ninety days. These values are 40 cents below what commission men believed the cattle were worth in Chicago at the time the trial ended, and after only ninety days on feed. 726 Table IV.— Showing Selling Value of Cattle at End of Feeding Trial and at an Earlier Period in the Experiment Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Shelled Shelled corn, RATION corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay (morning), corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage cottonseed meal, clover hay (morning), corn silage (morning (evening) and ' evening) Selling value in lots at end of trial $8.25 $8.25 $8.35 $8.10 Selling value in lots at end of 90 days feeding period 6.85 6.35 7.10 6.60 Excess in selling value over clover hay lot at end of experiment .00 .10 '-.IS Excess in selling value over clover hay lot after 90 days feeding period .50 .75 .25 Margin secured per cwt. total $2.70 $2.70 $2.80 $2.55 first 90 days 1.30 .80 1.55 1.05 last 70 days 1.40 1.90 1.25 1.50 Profit per steer not including pork total $10.51 $3.37 $20.96 $13.58 first 90 days 4.11 2-5.47 13.29 2.85 last 70 'days 6.40 8.84 7.67 10.73 The values are based on the Chicago market, less 40 cents per cwt. to cover expense of shipping 1 — Denotes a lower selling price 2 — Denotes a loss The valuations are of service in showing the relative finish of the cattle. But the variations in the demands of the market at dif- ferent seasons of the year, and also the supply of and demand for certain kinds of cattle make it impossible to accurately guage by the selling values the difference in finish between cattle. Therefore these valuations should be considered as only approximating the dif- ferences in finish of the cattle. Considering the cattle fed clover hay only for roughage as a standard, it is noted that the selling values at the end of the trials 727 show that the addition of silage once daily to the ration did not af- fect the selling value of the cattle. The addition of silage twice daily (Lot 4) decreased the selling value of the cattle 15 cents per cwt. However, in this connection it should be borne in mind that the cattle in Lot 4 were rather poor eaters during a large part of the trial. The substitution of corn silage (Lot 3) for clover hay (Lot 2) as rough- age increased the selling value 10 cents per cwt. It was found neces- sary in Lot 3 to limit the silage fed the cattle in order to induce the consumption of large enough quantities of grain to make satisfactory gains. The finish at the end of the feeding period, however, was not as interesting as at the end of ninety days. After being on feed for ninety days, the cattle fed silage had shown a very remarkable improvement over those not receiving this succulent feed. The addition of silage once daily increased the selling value of the cattle 50 cents per cwt. ; the addition of silage twice daily to the clover hay for roughage increased the finish 25 cents per cwt. ; and the substitution of silage for hay increased the value of the cattle 75 cents per cwt. The high value of silage for short feeding is thus emphasized by the margin and profits secured during the first ninety days as com- pared with the last seventy days. The increase in profit per steer the last seventy days was greater in Lot 2 than in either Lots I or 3 and the increased margin was 40 cents per cwt. greater in Lot 2 than in any other lot. In other words the most marked benefits from silage occurred during the early part of the fattening period and in the last seventy days there was enough greater margin secured in the clover hay lot to overcome the greater difference in cost of gain. SUMMARY. — The many and often conflicting factors affecting cattle feeding are such that duplicate results can seldom be secured with the same rations. In order to secure an accurate idea of the value of rations on a comparative basis it is necessary to study all factors in their relation to the general question in the exact form in which they were found during the progress of the trial. Table V shows a complete summary of the results. In the summary the prices of feeds are as follows : shelled corn, first month 51.7 cents, second month 51.7 cents, third month 57.1 cents, fourth month 58.5 cents, fifth month 64.2 cents, last ten days 71.2 cents per bushel; cottonseed meal $29.00 per ton; clover hay $20.00 per ton ; and corn silage $4.00 per ton. No charge is made for the straw used in bedding nor for the labor of feeding. Neither is any credit given for the manure produced by the cattle, it being considered that the value of this product of feeding will pay for the labor of feeding and the straw used for bedding. In reality, on the 728 TABLE V. — Summary of Part I Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot, 3 Lot 4 Shelled com, RATION Shelled corn, cottonseed Shelled corn, Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, meal, clover hay (morning), corn silage (evening) cottonseed meal, clover hay cottonseed meal, corn silage clover hay (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) Initial value $5.55 $5.55 $5.55 $5.55 Initial weight 9653 Ibs . 9660 Ibs. 9687 Ibs. 9637 Ibs. Final weight 13398 13460 13720 13353 Total gain 3745 3800 4033 3716 Average daily gain 2.34 " 2.38 " 2.52 " 2.32 " Total feed consumed shelled corn 24645 28605 " 23570 21885 cottonseed meal 4401 4437 " 4562.5 " 4452.5 " clover hay 9298 17848 4071 corn silage 25650 43810 39664 Daily feed per steer shelled corn 15.40 " 17.88 " 14.73 " 13.68 " Daily feed per steer shelled corn « 15.40 " 17.88 " 14.73 " 13.68 " cottonseed meal 2.75 " 2.77 " |; 2.85 " 2.78 " clover hay 5,81 " 11.16 " 2.54 " corn silage 16.03 " 27.38 24.79 Feed consumed per pound gain shelled corn 6.58 " 7.53 " 5.84 " 5.89 " cottonseed meal 1.18 " 1.17 " 1.13 " 1.20 " clover hay 2.48 " 4.70 " 1.10 " corn silage 6.85 " 10.86 10.67 Cost of gain per cwt. $12.40 $14.23 $9.88 $11.06 1 Necessary selling price 7.47 8.00 6.82 7.08 Actual selling price in | lots without shrink 8.25 8.25 8.35 8.10 Profit per steer not including pork 10.51 3.37 20.96 13.59 Pork produced from droppings 1128 Ibs. 907 Ibs. 957 Ibs. 1033 Ibs. Corn fed to hogs 2096 2096 2096 2096 Profit per steer including pork $17.09 $8.24 $26.21 $19.43 Pork is valued at $7.75 per cwt. 729 average farm the manure more than pays for the labor and bedding. The prices of feeds are such as were paid in Lafayette during the progress of the trial. The pork produced from the droppings of the cattle is considered a by-product of the cattle feeding operations and its value is added to the receipts from the cattle. There were nine hogs in each lot throughout the trial. Grain was fed the hogs when the condition of thejots prevented their receiving sufficient feed from the droppings alone. The grain fed the hogs is valued at 57.8 cents per 'bushel and its cost is deducted from the value of the pork actually produced before the pork produced from the droppings is accredited to the receipts from the cattle. The profits shown in this trial are typical of the results secured from feeding cattle during the spring of 1912. Nevertheless, such large profits should not mislead anyone in regard to the profits from cattle feeding. In spite of high cost of feeding cattle in the fall of 1911 and the abnormally high cost of roughage the extremely high price paid for fat cattle in the spring and summer of 1912 rendered the cattle feeding operations the most profitable for many years. The table shows that Lot 2 fed corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay returned the least profit of any of the four lots. The only reason for this was the extremely high cost of gains. With an initial weight of 966 pounds per head and a cost in the feed lot of $5.55 per cwt, the cattle in this lot would have had to sell for $8.00 per cwt. in the lots without shrink in order to make them come out even. When the 15 cents per cwt. for buying feeding cattle and 40 cents per cwt. for marketing fat cattle are added to this necessary margin it makes the difference between the buying price on the market and the selling price on the market $3.00 per cwt. The actual selling value in the lots was $8.25 per cwt. which was high enough that the cattle re- turned a profit of $3.37 per head. When the pork produced is added to the returns from the cattle, the profit per head was increased to $8.24. These returns are not large even when such a wide margin between the buying and selling price of the cattle is considered, because of the high price of clover hay. When one-half the clover hay was replaced by corn silage, no change was made in the actual margin secured because the cattle of the two lots were valued the same at the end of the fattening period. There was, however, large enough reduction in the cost of gains that the cattle fed silage once daily could have sold for $7.47 per cwt. in the lots and made the same returns as those not fed silage, had they sold at $8.00 per cwt. Since the cattle sold for the same price, the profit per steer was increased from $3.37 to $10.51 by the addition of silage once daily to the ration. When pork is considered this profit was increased to $17.09 per steer. In this trial it is noted that the 730 only factor affected by the addition of silage was the cost of gains but that alone was enough to make a difference of $7.14 per steer. The addition of silage twice daily to a ration of shelled corn, cot- tonseed meal and clover hay made greater reduction in cost of gain than when a limited amount of silage was fed and thereby made a further narrowing of the necessary margin until the cattle receiving all the silage and clover hay they would eat for roughage could have sold for $7.08 per cwt. and made the same financial returns as would those of Lots i and 2 had they sold for $7.47 and $8.00 per cwt. re- spectively. The cattle of Lot 4 lacked 15 cents per cwt. of selling as high as those of Lots I and 2 but in spite of that fact, the saving in cost of gain was sufficient to dause Lot 4 to return a profit of $13.59 per steer as compared with $10.51 and $3.37 per head in Lots I and 2 respectively. The value of the pork produced raised this profit to $19.43 per steer which was the highest in any of the lots fed both silage and clover hay. The substitution of corn silage for clover hay as roughage had a most remarkable effect in this trial ; the daily gain was increased, the cost of gain was decreased $4.35 per cwt. and the selling value of the cattle was increased 10 cents per cwt. The gain in these factors from the use of silage alone as a substitute for clover hay resulted in $17.59 per steer greater profit than when no silage was fed, $10.45 Per head greater than when half silage and half hay was fed, and $7.37 per head greater than when both silage and hay were fed according to the appetites of the cattle. With the pork produced which brought the profit to $26.21 per head, the profit in this lot was the highest of any lot fed in the trial. It is probable that better re- sults were secured in this trial with silage alone for roughage than can ordinarily be expected when compared with the other rations of this trial because the silage carried an unusually high per cent, of dry matter which is highly desirable in silage for fattening cattle but is also hard to secure on account of the poor keeping quality of silage of unusually low moisture content. PART II CORN SILAGE AND OAT STRAW VS. CORN SILAGE AND CLOVER HAY AS ROUGHAGE FOR FATTENING STEERS The large production of corn in the State and the high feeding value of this grain leaves little choice for the feeder in selecting a grain for economical beef production. The great variety of roughage produced in the State, however, gives the cattle feeder a wide range of choice between roughages. The low protein content of corn and the proportionally high per cent, of this nutrient found in the 73 T leguminous hays such as clover hay, alfalfa hay, cowpea hay and soy bean hay has led to the general adoption of these hays, when the price is not prohibitive, in preference to the non-leguminous roughages such as timothy hay, oat straw, corn stover, etc. That this practice is correct is borne out by a vast store of experimental data 1 in which the legumes have been compared with non-legumes with the almost universal result that the former have proven far more efficient for producing gains which were usually made at a lower cost. A large number of these trials were made before a concentrated nitrogenous supplement was commonly used in the ration. Since nitrogenous sup- plements have come into more common use the advisability of neg- lecting the cheap non-leguminous roughages such as oat straw and corn stover in favor of the higher priced leguminous hays has been questioned. This is especially true in view of the fact that corn silage when fed in connection with cottonseed meal has invariably given better results at this station than when clover hay alone was fed as roughage. Trials made in the winters of 1909-10 and 1910-11 and reported in Bulletin No. 153 led to the conclusion that cattle receiving a full feed of silage desire some form of dry roughage. The small amount of clover hay eaten in a ration of silage indicated that the benefit to be derived from it lay more in the satisfying of the appe- tites of the cattle for some form of dry roughage rather than in the food nutrients furnished. If this is the case, a non-leguminous roughage such as oat straw or corn stover would serve the same pur- pose as clover hay. The trials reported in Part II of this bulletin were planned to give information on this phase of the question. The cattle used in the test were two years old, and are described on page 717. Four lots of ten steers each were fed as follows : Lot i. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage (evening) clover hay (morning). Lot 4. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage (morning and evening), clover hay (morning). Lot 5. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage (evening), oat straw (morning). Lot 6. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage (morning and evening), oat straw (morning). Lots i and 4 have been discussed under Part I. The only dif- ference between the rations of Lots i and 5 and between those of Lots 4 and 6 was that in Lots 5 and 6 oat straw replaced the clover hay of Lots i and 4. The effect of the ration on the appetites of the steers is shown in Table VI. 1 Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletins Nos. 115 and 136. Nebraska Agri- cultural Experiment Station Bulletins Nos. 85, 90, 100 and 116. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletins Nos. 75 and 76 732 Table VI. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, November 17, 1911 to April 25, 1912 (160 days) ' Lot 1 Lot 5 Lot 4 Lot 6 Shelled corn, RATION cottonseed Shelled corn, cottonseed Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, meal, clover hay (morning), com silage (evening) meal, oat straw (morning), corn silage (evening) clover hay (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) ' oat straw (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) First month shelled corn 11.53 Ibs. 11.53 Ibs. 11.53 Ibs. 11.53 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.96 " 1.96 " 1.98 " 1.98 " clover hay 7.00 " 4.13 " oat straw 6.17 " 3.82 " corn silage 15.42 " 15.25 " 27.33 " 26.35 " Second month shelled corn 14.48 " 14.00 " 14.00 " 14.00 " cottonseed meal 2.63 " 2.60 " 2.68 " 2.68 " clover hay 6.00 " 2.75 " oat straw 4.00 " 1.93 " corn silage 17.50 " 17.50 " 28.41 " 28.22 " Third month shelled corn 15.27 " 15.13 " 14.00 " 14.00 " cottonseed meal 2.82 " 2.77 " 2.85 " 2.85 " clover hay 5.81 " 2.08 " oat straw 3.96 " 1.90 " corn silage 17.50 " 17.50 " 25.83 " 25.92 " Fourth month shelled corn 17.00 " 16.00 " 13.50 " 14.00 " cottonseed meal 3.02 " 2.95 " 3.03 " 3.05 " clover hay 5.48 " 1.93 " oat straw 3.90 " 2.00 " corn silage 15.75 " 15.58 " 22.47 " 24.57 " Fifth month shelled corn 17.70 " ! 16.87 " 14.75 " 14.97 " cottonseed meal 3.15 " 3.10 " 3.20 " 3.22 " clover hay 5.33 " 2.00 " oat straw 3.44 " 2.00 " corn silage 14.50 " 14.50 " 21.67 " 22.45 " Sixth month (10 days) shelled corn 18.50 " 18.40 " 15.50 " 16.50 " cottonseed meal 3.30 " 3.20 " 3.30 " 3.35 " clover hay 4.10 " 2.00 " oat straw 3.00 " 2.00 " corn silage 14.50 " 14.50 " 19.50 " 21.60 " Average of entire period shelled corn 15.40 Ibs. 14.94 Ibs. 13.68 Ibs. 13.88 Ibs. cottonseed meal 2.75 " 2.71 " 2.78 " 2.79 " clover hay 5.81 " 2.54 " oat straw 4.21 " 2.31 " corn silage 16.03 " 15.97 " 24.79 " 25.26 " 733 When starting the cattle on feed, they were induced to consume a large quantity of roughage before they were placed on full feed of grain. Within three days all lots were receiving what corn silage they would consume within two hours after it was fed. Lots I and 5 were eating 15 pounds of silage and 10 pounds of dry roughage daily per head. The silage was increased to 17.5 pounds daily per head at the end of 21 days feeding when the dry roughage had de- creased 6 pounds daily per head. This was the maximum quantity of silage eaten. The cattle in Lots 4 and 6 were eating at the end of three days feeding, 30 pounds of silage daily per head and 5 pounds of dry roughage. They did not continue eating this amount and were fed smaller amounts until the end of the first ten days when they established a normal roughage consumption of 30 pounds of silage and 4 pounds of dry roughage daily per head. This quan- tity of dry roughage was consumed for only about 30 days when it was again decreased. The grain ration was the same in all lots for the first twenty- seven days. Ten pounds of corn per steer were fed for eleven days when it was increased to n pounds where it remained for two days and then to 12 pounds daily per head. This amount was fed for eight days and was then increased to 13 pounds. This quantity of corn with 2.5 pounds of cottonseed meal which was being fed at that time seemed to satisfy the appetites of the steers for grain. From this time forward, any difference in quantity of feed con- sumed was apparently due to the rations. No cottonseed meal was fed for the first two days but beginning with the third day when .5 pound per head was fed, the amount was gradually increased until at the end of ten days it was fed at the rate of 2.5 pounds daily per looo pounds live weight. The appetites of the steers in Lots I and 5 were good. In Lot 6 during the first two months and in Lot 4 during the third and fourth and part of the fifth months the steers were slow to eat their feed. Table VI shows that the steers in Lots I and 5 which are comparable ate practically the same quantities of corn silage ; but those of Lot I receiving clover hay ate an appreciably larger quantity of dry rough- age and also slightly larger quantities of grain. This difference was evidently due to the character of the ration. In Lots 4 and 6, in which corn silage was fed twice daily, the difference in feed con- sumption was so small that it can easily be accounted for by the difference in the appetites of the steers which was not due to the rations. The clover hay was, however, seemingly more palatable than the oat straw. GAINS. — Table VII shows the daily gains made by the cattle during the trial. 734 TABLE; VII. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months, November 17, 1911 to April 25, 1912 (160 days) Lot 1 Lot 5 Lot 4 Lot 6 RATION Shelled corn, cottonseed Shelled corn, cottonseed Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, meal, clover hay (morning), corn silage (evening) meal, oat straw (morning), corn silage (evening) clover hay (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) oat straw (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) First month 2.06 Ibs. 1.37 Ibs. 2.84 Ibs. 2.24 Ibs. Second month 2.22 2.63 2.40 " 2.90 Third month 3.18 2.30 2.30 " 2.67 Fourth month 2.03 2.20 2.33 " 2.13 Fifth month 2.03 2.07 1.65 " 2.27 Last 10 days 2.88 2.85 2.58 " 1.80 Total gain per steer 374.5 Ibs. 345.5 Ibs. 371.6 Ibs. 384.3 Ibs. Average daily gain for entire period 2.34 " 2.16 " 2.32 " 2.40 It will be noted in Table VII that the steers receiving clover hay and silage once daily (Lot i) made more rapid gains than the corresponding lot fed oat straw once daily and silage once daily (Lot 5). On the other hand those fed oat straw and silage twice daily (Lot 6) made more rapid gains than those fed clover hay and corn silage twice daily (Lot 4). The difference in gain between Lots i and 5 can be attributed to the effect of the ration because the steers in both lots ate well at all times ; but the difference in gain between Lots 4 and 6 is so small that it can easily be accounted for by the difference in eagerness with which the cattle ate. These gains of the various lots show that corn silage in Lots i and 5 did not replace the dry roughage to such an extent but that the superior feeding quality of clover hay over oat straw produced better results. But in Lots 4 and 6 the silage replaced the dry roughage to such an extent that the value of the dry roughage in the ration was reduced to a basis of variety in the ration rather than a difference in food nutrients furnished. In other words, the results of Lots 4 and 6 indicate that when silage is fed according to the appetites of the cattle, the clover hay in the ration can be replaced by other forms of dry roughage without injuring the ration. This is due to the fact that any form of dry roughage satisfies the desire of cattle for variety but the quantity consumed furnishes such a small proportion of the food nutrients eaten that the class of dry roughage fed makes little difference. 735 COST OF GAINS. — The cost of feed during the progress of this trial was very abnormal and the cost of gains is presented with feeds at different prices. Table VIII presents these data in several forms. TABLE VIII. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per 100 Pounds Gain with Feeds at Varying Prices Lot 1 Lot 5 Lot 4 Lot 6 RATION Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay (morning), corn silage (evening) Shelled com, cottonseed meal, oat straw (morning), corn silage (evening) Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay (morning), corn silage (morn'ng and evening) Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, oat straw (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) Feed per pound gain shelled corn 6.58 Ibs. 6.92 Ibs. 5.89 Ibs. 5.78 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.18 " 1.25 " 1.20 " 1.16 " clover hay 2.48 " 1.10 " oat straw 1.95 " .96 " corn silage 6.85 " 7.40 " 10.67 " 10.52 " Cost per cwt. gain 1 Actual cost, clover hay at $20.00 per ton, oat straw $8.00 per ton, corn silage $4.00 per ton $12.40 $11.27 $11.06 $10.16 1 Clover hay at $15.00 per ton, oat straw $6.00 per ton, corn silage $3.50 per ton 11.61 10.89 10.52 9.80 1 Clover hay at $10.00 per ton, oat straw $4.00 per ton, corn silage $3.50 per ton 10.99 10.70 10.24 9.70 2 Clover hay at $10.00 per ton, oat straw $4.00 per ton: Corn 40 cts. per bu. 8.67 8.26 8.09 7.58 Corn 50 cts. per bu. 10.02 9.68 9.41 8.88 Dry matter consumed per pound gain 11.21 Ibs. 11.20 Ibs. 10.76 Ibs. 10.42 Ibs. 1 Based on the following prices of feeds: cottonseed meal, $29.00 per ton; corn, first month 51.7 cents, second month 51.7 cents, third month 57.1 cents, fourth month 58.5 cents, fifth month 64.2 cents, last ten days 71.2 cents per bushel 3 Based on the following prices of feeds: cottonseed meal, $29.00 per ton; clover hay, $10.00 per ton: oat straw, $4.00 per ton; corn silage, $3.00 and $3.50 per ton, according to whether corn is valued at 40 cents or 50 cents per bushel 736 It will be noted in Table VIII that the grain required was deter- mined largely by the rate of gain. A comparison qf Lots I and 5 in which corn silage was fed once daily shows an increase in feed re- quired per pound gain by replacing clover hay with oat straw while in Lots 4 and 6 where silage was fed twice daily, oat straw was as effective for producing gains as clover hay. The lower price of Oat straw made the cost of gains with this roughage much less than when clover hay was fed. The cost of gain was $1.13 per cwt. less in Lot 5 than in Lot i and 90 cents per cwt. less in Lot 6 than in Lot 4 when clover is valued at $20.00 per ton and oat straw at $8.00 per ton. When the value of roughage was placed at more nearly normal prices the differences in cost of gain were reduced ; but with clover hay at the normal price of $10.00 per ton and oat straw $4.00 per ton, the cost of gain with corn at 40 cents per bushel was 41 cents per cwt. less in Lot 5 than in Lot I and 51 cents per cwt. less in Lot 6 than in Lot 4. The dry matter required to make a pound of gain shows that the difference in cost is due, when both silage and cot- tonseed meal are fed, largely to the difference in cost of the two classes of dry roughage. FINISH. — Since a small difference in selling price may overcome a large difference in cost of gain, the following figures on the selling value of the four lots of cattle in this trial are interesting. Table IX shows the selling value of the cattle in the lots without shrink at the end of the feeding trial and also after a feeding period of ninety days. It is noted that where silage was fed once daily and dry rough- age once daily, the substitution of oat straw for clover hay reduced the selling value of the cattle 15 cents per cwt. On the other hand, when silage was fed twice daily, the substitution of oat straw for clover hay increased the selling value of the cattle 15 cents per cwt. Since the cattle of Lots I and 6 were valued at the same price and since two previous trials 1 had shown that cattle fed the ration of Lot 4 had finished as well as those fed the same as Lot I, it is doubt- ful if succeeding trials will show that Lot 6 produces better finish than Lot 4. 1 Bulletin No. 153 737 TABLE IX.— Showing Selling Value of Cattle at End of Feeding Trial and at an Earlier Period in the Experiment Lot 1 Lot 5 Lot 4 Lot 6 RATION Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, oat straw clover hay (morning), corn silage (evening) oat straw (morning), corn silage (evening; (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) 1 Selling value in lots at end of trial $8.25 $8.10 $8.10 $8.25 1 Selling value in lots after 90 days feeding 6.85 6.35 6.60 6.50 Excess in selling value of clover over oat straw fed lots: at end of trial .15 -.15 at end of 90 days .50 .10 Margin secured per cwt. total 2.70 2.55 2.55 2.70 first 90 days 1.30 .80 1.05 .95 last 70 days • 1.40 1.75 1.50 1.75 Profit per steer without pork: total 10.51 13.73 13.58 18.83 first 90 days 4.11 .15 2.85 4.06 last 70 days 6.40 13.58 10.73 14.77 1 These values are 40 cents per cwt. less than the Chicago price At the end of 90 days feeding, the cattle of Lot 5 were valued 50 cents per cwt. less than those of Lot I, and those of Lot 6 ten cents per cwt. below those of Lot 4, thus showing when final values are considered that much greater improvement was made in the last 70 days by the lots fed oat straw. The profit per steer at different periods of the trial also show more improvement during the last 70 days by the lots fed oat straw. These facts in connection with those noted under the finish of the cattle discussed in Part I indicate that the roughage has its greatest influence during the early part of the fattening period. In other words a superior quality of roughage pro- duces a quicker finish on the cattle but during the latter part of the period, the lessening influence of the roughage allows the grain ration to have a tendency to bring all lots of cattle to the same finish. SUMMARY. — Table X shows a summary of the trials. 738 . TABLE X. — Summary of Part II RATION Lot 1 Lot 5 Lot 4 Lot 6 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay (morning), corn silage (evening) Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, oat straw (morning), corn silage (evening) Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, oat straw (morning), corn silage (morning and evening) Initial value $5.55 $5.55 $5.55 $5.55 Initial weight 9653 Ibs. 9680 Ibs. 9637 Ibs. 9687 Ibs Final weight 13398 13135 13353 13530 - Total gain 3745 3455 3716 3843 Average daily gain 2.34 " 2.16 " 2.32 " 2.40 " Total feed consumed shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay oat straw corn silage 24645 4401 9298 25650 23900 4331 6740 25550 21885 4452.5 " 4071 39664 22200 4467.5 " 3695 40410 Daily feed per steer shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay • oat straw corn silage 15.40 " 2.75 " 5.81 " 16.03 " 14.94 " 2.71 " 4.21 " 15.97 " 13.68 " 2.78 " 2.54 " 24.79 " 13.88 " 2.79 " 2.31 " 25.26 " Feed consumed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay oat straw corn silage . 6.58 " 1.18 " 2.48 " 6.85 " 6.92 " 1.25 " 1.95 " 7.40 " 5.89 " 1.20 " 1.10 M 10.67 " 5.78 " 1.16 " .96 " 10.52 Cost of gain per cwt. $12.40 $11.27 $11.06 $10.16 Necessary selling price 7.47 7.05 7.08 6.86 Actual selling price in lots without shrink 8.25 8.10 8.10 8.25 Profit per steer not including pork 10.51 13.73 13.59 18.83 Pork produced from droppings 1128 Ibs. 1070 Ibs. 1033 Ibs . 1015 Ibs. Corn fed to hogs 2096 2096 2096 2096 Profit per steer including pork $17.09 $19.86 $19.43 $24.54 1 Pork is valued at $7.75 per cwt. 739 In this summary the same prices for feeds are used as noted on page 727 and oat straw is valued at $8.00 per ton. The method of handling the hogs and of figuring profits were the same as employed in Part I noted on page 729. The table shows that when corn silage was fed once daily, the substitution of oat straw (Lot 5) for clover hay (Lot i) reduced the consumption of feed and the rate of gain but also reduced the cost of gain. Lot 5 could have sold for $7.05 per cwt. and made the same returns per steer as those in Lot I if they had sold at $.7.47 per cwt. Lot 5 sold for $8.10 per cwt. thereby returning a profit of $13.73 Per steer while Lot i sold for $8.25 per cwt. and returned a profit of $10.51 or $3.22 per steer less than Lot 5 fed oat straw. When the pork produced from the droppings is considered, the lot fed oat straw returned a profit of $19.86 per head while the one fed clover hay made a profit of $17.09 per steer or- a difference of $2.77. It should be borne in mind, however, that both rations contained cottonseed meal to furnish protein which would otherwise be lack- ing and especially so in the ration of oat straw, corn silage and shelled corn. When silage was fed twice daily, the substitution of straw for clover hay did not greatly affect the consumption of feed or the rate of gain but decreased the cost of gain $.90 per cwt. The cattle fed oat straw could have sold for 22 cents per cwt. less than those fed clover hay and have made the same financial returns. Since the selling value was 15 cents per cwt. greater when oat straw was fed, the profit was $5.24 per head greater than in the clover hay fed lot. Had both lots of cattle sold for the same price there would have been more than $3.00 per head greater profit in the lot of cattle fed oat straw. When pork from the droppings is considered, Lot 6 fed oat straw returned a profit of $24.54 per head while Lot 4 fed clover hay returned only $19.43 profit per head. PART III LONG VS. SHORT FEEDING In the business of cattle feeding one of the greatest problems is one of when to market the cattle. While it is impossible to predict with certainty what the market will be at any time of year, there are often indications that point to a certain part of the year as being a better time to market cattle than other times. It is sometimes de- sirable to withhold grain from the cattle in order to find a later mar- ket without having the cattle on full feed for a long time. It is for the purpose of obtaining information on the value of corn silage and other roughage without grain for the early part of the feeding period that a series of trials were begun in which the cattle were fed no corn for sixty days after the experiment was started. The trial here reported is the second1 conducted on this plan. The cattle used in this experiment were choice feeders a full description of which is found on page 717. An effort was made to have the cattle of both lots equal in all respects when the trial began. 1 First trial, Bulletin No. 153 740 T.M'.I.K XI. — Showing Average Amount nt Feed Consumed Daily per Mead by Long and Short-fed Steers, \Yin-ter 1911-12 Lot (i Lot " Long-fed Short -fed First month shelled corn 11.53 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.98 " 1.67 ibs. oat straw 3.82 6.37 " corn silage 26.35 " 32.00 " Second month shelled corn 14,00 •• cottonseed meal 2.68 " 2.00 " oat straw 1.93 " 5.40 " corn silago 28.22 " 35.00 " Third month shelled corn 14.0n " 9.87 " cottonseed meal 2.85 " 2.75 " oat straw 1.90 " 2.49 " corn sila.ue 25.92 34.20 " Fourth month shelled corn 14.00 " 14.08 " cottonseed meal 3.05 " 9 0)9 " oat st ra w 2.00 " 1.88 " corn sila.u'o 24.57 " 28.62 " Fifth month shelled corn 14,97 " 17.40 " cottonseed meal 3.22 3.13 •• oat straw 2. on " 1.69 '• corn silage 22.45 " 23.08 "' Last ten days shelled corn 16.50 " 18.50 cot tonseed meal 3.35 " 3.20 " oat st ra w 2.00 " 2.00 " corn silage 21.60 " 18.80 " A vera ae out ire period shelled corn 13.88 Ibs. 8.91 Ibs. coi ton seed meal 2.79 " 2.54 " oat st ra w 2.31 " 3.47 " corn silaae 25.26 " 29.84 " Average fjrst t;n days shelled corn 12.77 " col ton seed meal '* '13 " 1.83 " oat st ra w 2.88 " 5.88 " corn silaae 27. 2X " 33.50 " Average last Inn days shelled com 14.51 - 14.255 " c ' 1 1 1 o n s e ( ( j meal 3.07 " 2.96 " oat si ra w 1.97 " 2.02 " corn silaae 24.04 " 27.65 " Lot 6 was put on full feed at the beginning of the trial. The steers were fed 10 pounds of corn per head the first day and re- ceived increasing amounts of grain until they were on full feed at the end of 21 days at which time they were eating 13 pounds of corn, 2.4 pounds of cottonseed meal, 3 pounds of oat straw and 30 pounds of corn silage daily per head. The amount of roughage eaten soon decreased and the corn fed was raised to 14 pounds daily per head, where it remained with slight increases during the latter part of the trial. Lot 7 was fed no corn for the first 60 days. At the end of three days they were eating 30 pounds of corn silage, 10 pounds of oat straw and one pound of cottonseed meal daily per head. At the end of 13 days the daily ration consisted of 35 pounds of silage, 6 pounds of oat straw and 2 pounds of cottonseed meal. This latter amount of feed was maintained with very slight variation in the oat straw eaten, until the cattle were put on feed at the end of 60 days. On the sixty-first day the cottonseed meal was raised to 2. 5 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight and 5 pounds of corn were added to the ration. Within six days the corn had been gradually increased to 10 pounds daily per head and the oat straw consumption had fallen to less than 3 pounds, the silage consumption remaining at 35 pounds daily per head. For a period of two weeks thereafter the ration remained constant. From that time forward there was a gradual decrease in the roughage consumption and a corresponding increase in grain consumption. The steers of Lot 6 were not eager for feed during the first two months but had very good appetites during the remainder of the trial. The steers of Lot 7 were eager for their feed at all times and had especially keen appetites for grain. It is noted in Table XI that the steers of Lot 6 had fairly uni- form appetites throughout the trial with a gradual replacement of roughage by grain. In Lot 7 when the grain was added the rough- age consumption was rapidly decreased until the steers of this lot were soon eating more grain and less roughage than the long-fed cattle. Notwithstanding the fact that some time was required to get the cattle of Lot 7 on full feed, the grain consumption in that lot was almost as large during the last 100 days as in Lot 6 which was full fed throughout the trial. During the last two months of the trial the grain consumption of the short-fed lot was much larger than the long-fed lot. GAINS. — The gains of the two lots are shown in Table XII. 742 TABLE; XII. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months by Long and Short- fed Steers, Winter 19,11-12 Lot 6 Lot 7 Long-fed Short-fed First month Second month Third month Fourth month Fifth month Last 10 days 2.24 Ibs. 2.90 2.67 2.13 2.27 1.80 1.99 Ibs. 1.75 " 2.32 " 2.57 " 2.17 " 2.80 " Total gain per steer Average daily gain for entire period Average for first 60 days Average for last 100 days 384.3 Ibs. 2.40 " 2.57 " 2.30 " 351.8 Ibs. 2.20 " 1.87 " 2.395 " Table XII shows that the roughage without grain produced sat- isfactory gains on the steers during the 60 days in which no corn was fed. While the rate of gain in the short-fed lot was good during the last one hundred days the cattle were on full feed, the increase in gain over the long-fed lot was hardly as great as would naturally be expected because the rate of gain in Lot 7 during the last one hundred days was the same as in Lot 6 during the entire feeding period. COST OF GAINS. — Table XIII shows the average amount of feed consumed per pound of gain and the cost per one hundred pounds gain with feed at different prices. TABLE XIII. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain, and Cost, per 100 Pounds Gain with Feeds at Varying Prices Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 6 Lot 7 Long-fed Short-fed Long-fed Short-fed . (entire period) (last 100 days) Feed per pound gain shelled corn 5.78 Ibs. 4.05 Ibs. 6.32 Ibs. 5.95 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.16 " 1.15 " 1.33 " 1.24 " oat straw .96 " 1.58 " .86 " .84 " corn silage 10.52 " 13.57 " 10.45 " 11.54 " Cost per 100 pounds gain actual cost $10.16 $9.50 $11.29 $11.02 (a) corn 50 cts. per bu. 8.88 7.98 9.58 9.30 (b) corn 40 cts. per bu. 7.58 6.92 8.19 7.94 (a) and (b) Oat straw, $4.00 per ton (a) Corn silage, $3.50 per ton (b) Corn silage, $3.00 per ton 743 It is noted that considering the trial as a whole, the withholding of corn effected a large saving in grain requirements but that it in- creased the roughage eaten per pound gain. When the last one hun- dred days only are considered in Lot 7, the long- fed steers made a cheaper gain for one hundred and sixty days feeding than did the short-fed lot during the one hundred days they were on feed. When the last one hundred days only are considered in both lots, the short- fed cattle made cheaper gain. This was due probably to the fact that they were in thinner condition at that time, which is conducive to cheaper gain. FINISH. — The value of the cattle in the lots as fixed by a com- mittee of commission men is shown in Table XIV. TABLE; XIV.— Showing Selling Value of Long and Short-fed Cattle, Winter 1911-12 Lot 6 Lot 7 Long-fed Short-fed Selling value in lots without shrink at end of trial $8.25 $8.10 After 90 days on trial 6.50 6.10 Margin secured total 2.70 2.55 first 90 days .95 .55 last 70 days 1.75 2.00 Profit total 18.83 19.66 first 90 days 4.06 2.80 last 70 days 14.77 16.86 These valuations for cattle are 40 cents per cwt. less than Chicago prices Table XIV shows that the cattle fed grain the last 100 days only, sold within 15 cents per cwt. of those fed 160 days. It also shows that the improvement in Lot 7 nearly all occurred during the last 70 days. A margin of $1.75 per cwt. was secured in Lot 6 and $2.00 per cwt. in Lot 7 during the last 70 days. This large margin was due to some extent to the raise in the market and not entirely to finish of the cattle. Had both lots of cattle been sold at the end of 90 days on feed, Lot 6 would have returned a profit of $4.06 per head and Lot 7 $2.80 per head. The last 70 days of feeding resulted in a profit of $14.77 Per head in Lot 6 and $16.86 per head in Lot 7. SUMMARY. — Table XV gives a complete summary of the feeding trial. 744 TABLE: XV. — Summary Part III, Winter 1911-12 Lot 6 Lot 7 'Lot 6 Lot 7 160 days 160 days 100 days 100 days Initial value $5.55 $5.55 Initial weight 9687 Ibs. 9642 Ibs. 11230 Ibs. 10765 Ibs Final weight 13530 13160 13530 13160 « Total gain 3843 3518 2300 2395 « Average daily gain 2.40 " 2.20 " 2.30 " 2 395 " Total feed consumed shelled corn cottonseed meal oat straw corn silage 22200 4467.5 3695 40410 14255 4060 5550 47750 14540 3070 1970 24040 14255 2960 2020 27650 « Daily feed per steer shelled corn cottonseed meal naf Q-t-ncnxr 13.88 ' 2.79 " 9 31 " 8.91 " 2.54 " Q 47 " 14.54 " 3.07 " 1 Q7 " 14 2 9 255 " 96 " H9 " Daily feed per steer shelled corn 13.88 ' 8.91 " 14.54 " 14.255 " cottonseed meal 2.79 " 2.54 " 3.07 " 2.96 " oat straw 2.31 " 3.47 " 1.97 " 2.02 " corn silage 25.26 " 29.84 " 24.04 " 27.65 Feed consumed per pound gain shelled corn 5.78 " 4.05 " 6.32 " 5.95 " cottonseed meal 1.16 " 1.15 " 1.33 " 1.24 " oat straw .96 " 1.58 " .86 " .84 " corn silage 10.52 " 13.57 " 10.45 " 11.54 Cost per cwt. gain $10.16 $9.50 $11.29 $11.02 Necessary selling price in feed lot 6.86 6.61 Actual selling value in lots without shrink 8.25 8.10 Profit per steer without pork 18.83 19.66 Pork produced from droppings 1015 Ibs. 880 Ibs. Corn fed hogs 2096 2244 Profit per steer including pork $24.54 $24.16 1 Pork is valued at $7.75 per cwt. 745 In the above summary corn is valued as follows: first month 51.7 cents, second month 51.7 cents, third month 57.1 cents, fourth month 58.5 cents, fifth month 64.2 cents, last 10 days 71.2 cents per bushel ; cottonseed meal is valued at $29.00 per ton ; oat straw $8.00 per ton ; and corn silage $4.00 per ton. When pork is considered, the value of the corn fed the hogs is deducted from the value of the pork actually produced before the value of the pork produced from the droppings is added to the receipts from the cattle. It is noted that the rate and cost of gain in Lot 6 were greater than in Lot 7. Therefore the necessary selling value must of neces- sity have been higher. The short-fed cattle could have sold for 25 cents per cwt. less than the long-fed lot and paid for the cost of feed and initial cost of cattle. The long-fed cattle sold for $8.25 per cwt. and the short-fed lot at $8.10 per cwt. thereby returning a profit of $18.83 and $19.66 per steer respectively. When the pork produced from the droppings is added to the receipts from the cattle, the long- fed lot returned a profit of $24.54 per head while the short-fed lot made $24.16. The cause of the exchange of positions in regard to profit is due to the fact that during the first two months, little pork was produced from the droppings in Lot 7. The results of this trial show the possibilities of the method em- ployed in Lot 7. While the profit was practically the same in the two lots, Lot 7 could have been carried thirty days longer without having reached such a high condition that gains would have been prohibitive. Within 30 days after this trial closed the market had risen very appreciably, so that if Lot 7 had been held for a short time as would often be the case when such a system of feeding is followed, the profits would have been considerably larger than in Lot 6. 746 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS In order to present the economic phases of the experiment as fully as possible and to show in detail the method of securing the figures used in the foregoing discussions, an itemized financial state- ment of each lot is given. The price of corn is based on the average prices paid at LaFayette elevators during the different months of the trial. Cottonseed meal is valued at $29.00 per ton which price al- lows 95 cents per ton for unloading the feed from the car. Clover hay is valued at $20.00 per ton ; oat straw at $8 . oo per ton, and corn silage at $4.00 per ton. No account is taken of straw used for bed- ding nor of labor of feeding. Neither is any value assigned to the manure produced by the cattle. In these financial statements the pork produced from the drop- pings is considered a by-product of the cattle feeding operation, and its value is added to the profit of the cattle. The value of the corn fed the hogs is deducted from the price received for the pork before the additional profit from pork is added to the receipts from the cattle. In studying these results it must be borne in mind that the spring and summer of 1912 witnessed the highest market for over forty years and that in spite of high cost of feed, the profits in this trial as well as with all cattle feeding during the season were abnor- mally large. Lot i. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled corn, Cottonseed meal, Clover hay, and Corn silage, (once daily) 1911-12 Nov. 17, To 10 steers, weight 9653 Ibs. @ $5.55 per cwt $ 535.74 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 3460 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.7 cts. per bu. 31.94 Dec. 17- Jan. 16, To 4345 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.7 cts. per bu. 40.11 Jan. 16-Feb. 15, To 4580 Ibs. shelled corn @ 57.1 cts. per bu. 46.70 Feb. 15-May 16, To 5100 Ibs. shelled corn at 58.5 cts. per bu. 53.28 Mar. 16-Apr. 15, To 5310 Ibs. shelled corn @ 64.2 cts. per bu. 60.88 Apr. 15-Apr. 25, To 1850 Ibs. shelled corn @ 71.2 cts. per bu. 23.52 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 4401 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $29.00 per ton 63.81 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 9298 Ibs. clover hay @ $20.00 per ton. .. 92.98 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 25650 Ibs. corn silage @ $4.00 per ton... 51.30 Total expenditures $1000.26 April 25, By 10 steers, weight 13398 Ibs. @ $8.25 per cwt 1105.34 Total profit without pork $ 105.08 Profit per steer without pork 10.51 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 2096 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 57.8 cts. per bu $21.63 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, By 1128 Ibs. pork @ $7.75 per cwt 87.42 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 65.79 Total receipts including pork 1171.13 Total profit including pork 170.87 Profit per steer including pork 17.09 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle .971 747 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS— Continued Lot 2. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled corn, Cottonseed meal, and Clover hay, 1911-12 Nov. 17, To 10 steers, weight 9660 Ibs. @ $5.55 per cwt $ 536.13 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 3490 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.7 cts. per bu. 32.22 Dec. 17-Jan. 16, To 5120 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.7 cts. per bu. 47.27 Jan. 16-Feb. 15, To 5825 Ibs. shelled corn @ 57.1 cts. per bu. 59.39 Feb. 15-Mar. 16, To 6000 Ibs. shelled corn @ 58.5 cts. per bu. 62.68 Mar. 16-Apr. 15, To 6120 Ibs. shelled corn @ 64.2 cts. per bu. 70.16 Apr. 15-Apr. 25, To 2050 Ibs. shelled corn @ 71.2 cts. per bu. 26.06 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 4437 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $29.00 per ton 64.34 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 17848 Ibs. clover hay @ $20.00 per ton... 178.48 Total expenditures $1076.73 Apr. 25, By 10 steers, weight 13460 Ibs. @ $8.25 per cwt 1110.45 Total profit without pork $ 33.72 Profit per steer without pork 3.37 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 2096 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 57.8 cts. per bu $21.63 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, By 907 Ibs. pork @ $7.75 per cwt 70.29 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 48.66 Total receipts including pork 1159.11 Total profit including pork 82.38 Profit per steer including pork 8.24 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle .744 Lot 3. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled corn, Cottonseed meal, and Corn silage, 1911-12 Nov. 17, To 10 steers, weight 9687 Ibs. @ $5.55 per cwt $ 537.63 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 3460 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.7 cts. per bu. 31.94 Dec. 17-Jan. 16, To 4260 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.7 cts. per bu. 39.33 Jan. 16-Feb. 15, To 4500 Ibs. shelled corn @ 57.1 cts. per bu. 45.88 Feb. 15-Mar. 16, To 4750 Ibs. shelled corn @ 58.5 cts. per bu. 49.62 Mar. 16-Apr. 15, To 4850 Ibs. shelled corn @ 64.2 cts. per bu. 55.60 Apr. 15-Apr. 25, To 1750 Ibs. shelled corn @ 71.2 cts. per bu. 22.25 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 4562.5 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $29.00 per ton 66.16 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 43810 Ibs. corn silage @ $4.00 per ton. .. 87.62 Total expenditures $ 936.03 Apr. 25, By 10 steers, weight 13720 Ibs. @ $8.35 per cwt 1145.62 Total profit without pork $ 209.59 Profit per steer without pork 20.96 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 2096 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 57.8 cts. per bu $21.63 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, By 957 Ibs. pork @ $7.75 per cwt 74.17 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 52.54 Total receipts including pork 1198.16 Total profit including pork 262.13 Profit per steer including pork 26.21 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 1.204 748 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS— Continued Lot 4. — -Ten Steers Fed Shelled corn. Cottonseed meal. Clover hay and Corn silage (twice daily) 1911-12 Nov. 17, To 10 steers , weight 96 37 Ibs. @ $5.55 per cwt $ 534.85 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 3460 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.7 cts. per bu. 31.94 Dec. 17- Jan. 16, To 4200 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.7 cts. per bu. 38.78 Jan. 16-Feb. 15, To 4200 Ibs. shelled corn @ 57.1 cts. per bu. 42.83 Feb. 15-Mar. 16, To 4050 Ibs. shelled corn @ 58.5 cts. per bu. 42.31 Mar. 16-Apr. 15, To 4425 Ibs. shelled corn @ 64.2 cts. per bu. 50.73 Apr. 15-Apr. 25, To 1550 Ibs. shelled corn @ 71.2 cts. per bu. 19.71 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 4452.5 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $29.00 per ton 64.56 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 4071 Ibs. clover hay @ $20.00 per ton 40.71 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 39664 Ibs. corn silage (S 3) $4.00 per ton 79.33 Total expenditures . . .$ 945.75 Total profit without pork $ 135.84 Profit per steer without pork 13.58 Nov. 17-Apr. 25. To 2096 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 57.8 cts. per bu $21.63 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, By 1033 Ibs. pork @ $7.75 per cwt 80.06 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 58.43 Total receipts including pork 1140.02 Total profit including pork 194.27 Profit per steer including pork 19.43 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 1.076 Lot 5. — Ten Steers 1 and C $5.55 per cwt $ 537.24 Nov. 17-Dec. 17, To 3460 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.7 cts. per bu. 31.94 Dec. 17-Jan. 16, To 4200 Ibs. shelled corn @ 51.7 cts. per bu. 38.78 Jan. 16-Feb. 15, To 4540 Ibs. shelled corn @ 57.1 cts. per bu. 46.29 Feb. 15-Mar. 16, To 4800 Ibs. shelled corn @ 58.5 cts. per bu. 50.14 Mar. 16-Apr. 15, To 5060 Ibs. shelled corn @ 64.2 cts. per bu. 58.01 Apr. 15-Apr. 25, To 1840 Ibs. shelled corn @ 71.2 cts. per bu. 23.39 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 4331 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $29.00 pei- ton 62.80 Nov. 17-Apr. 25, To 6740 Ibs. oat straw @ 1 $8.00 per ton 26.96 Nov. 17 Apr. 25, To 25550 Ibs. corn silage @ $4.00 per ton 51.10 Total expenditures $ 926.65 Apr. 25, P.y 10 steers, weight 13135 Ibs. @ $8.10 per cwt 1063.94 Total profit without pork $ 137.29 Profit, per steer without pork 13.73 Nov. 17 Apr. 25, To 2096 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs < CATTLE FEEDING XI WINTER STEER FEEDING 1914-15 Part I. Corn Silage and Leguminous Hay vs. Leguminous Hay as Roughage for Fattening Steers Part II. Ground Soybeans vs. Cottonseed Meal as Supplement to Rations for Fattening Steers Part III. Clover Hay vs. Alfalfa Hay as Roughage for Fattening Steers Part IV. Cane Feeding Molasses vs. Mixed Molasses Feed as Sup- plements to Rations for Fattening Steers Published by tie Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. BOARD OF CONTROL ADDISON C. HARRIS, President Indianapolis, Marion County GEORGE ADE r. Brook, Newton County CHARLES DOWNING Greenfield, Hancock County SAMUEL M. FOSTER Fort .Wayne, Allen County JOHN A. HILLENBRAND Batesville, Ripley County CYRUS M. HOBBS Bridgeport, Marion County JOSEPH D. OHVER South Bend, St. Joseph County ROYAL E. PURCELL Vincennes, Knox County WILLIAM V. STUART LaFayette, Tippecanoe County WINTHROP E. STONE, A. M., Ph. D President of the University \ STATION STA F F HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS ARTHUR Goss, M. S., A. C Director GEORGE I. CHRISTIE, B. S. A Sup't Agricultural Extension ROBERT A. CRAIG, D. V. M Chief Veterinarian OTTO F. HUNZIKER, M. S Chief in Dairy Husbandry HERBERT S. JACKSON, A. B Chief in Botany WILLIAM J. JONES, JR., M. S., A. C.1 State Chemist JOHN H. SKINNER, B. S Chief in Animal Husbandry JAMES TROOP, M. S Chief in Entomology ALFRED T. WIANCKO, B. S. A Chief in Soils and Crops CHARLES G. WOODBURY, M. S Chief in Horticulture ASSOCIATES~AND ASSISTANTS JOHN M. ALDRICH, Ph. D.3 Entomological Assistant EVELYN ALLISON, B. S Assistant in Botany PAUL R. BAUSMAN, B. S.4 Inspector State Chemist Department JAMES C. BEAVERS, B. Agr Associate in Soils and Crops Extension REUBEN O. BITLER, B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist RALPH E. CALDWELL, B. S Associate in Milk Production GLEN G. CARTER, B. S.4..... Inspector State Chemist Department DAVID B. CLARK, D. M. C Assistant Veterinarian CARL H. CLINK, B. S Assistant in Serum Production THOMAS A. COLEMAN Ass't State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations SAMUEL D. CONNER, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops CLINTON O. CROMER, B. S •. Associate in Crops CARLETON CUTLER, B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist JOHN J. DAVIS, B. S.3 Entomological Assistant in Charge RALPH B. DEEMER, B. S.4 * Deputy State Chemist LEO P. DOYLE, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology CLAUDE B. DURHAM, B. S Associate in Horticultural Extension WIILLIAM F. EPPLE, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry FREDERICK A. FENTON, M. S.3 Scientific Assistant MARTIN L. FISHER, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops GEORGE M. FRIER, B. S. A Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits FREDERICK D. FULLER, M. S,4 Chief Deputy State Chemist LESLIE R. GEORGE, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology ROY L. GREENE, B. S.4 Inspector State Chemist Department MABEL L. HARLAN Assistant in Agricultural Extension ABNER J. HUNTER, B. S. A Assistant in Serum Production CORA A. JACOBS, A. M.2 Seed Analyst SADOCIE C. JONES, M. S Assistant in Soils LAWRENCE C. KIGIN, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian FRANKLIN G. KING, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry HERBERT E. MCCARTNEY, B. S. A Assistant in Animal Husbandry Extension PRESTON W. MASON, B. S Assistant in Entomology DONALD F. MATTSON, B. S. A Assistant in Creamery Inspection HORACE C. MILLS, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures HARRY C. MUGG, B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist HARRY A. NOYES, M. S. Research Assistant in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology GLEN L. OGLE, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection JOSEPH OSKAMP, B. S Research Assistant in Pomology GEORGE A. OSNER, Ph. D Associate in Botany HARRY C. PAINE, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian ALLEN G. PHILIPS, B. S. A Associate in Poultry Husbandry FRANK J. PIPAL, M. A Associate in Botany EDWARD G. PROULX, M. S.4 Deputy State Chemist CHARLES C. REES, M. A Assistant in Botany MORRIS W. RICHARDS, M. S Associate in Horticulture OTIS S. ROBERTS, B. S.4 Chief Inspector State Chemist Department J. HOWARD ROOP, B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist ALFRED F. SATTERTHWAIT 3 Scientific Assistant JOHN W. SCHWAB, B. S. in A. H Assistant in Animal Husbandry Extension LEWIS H. SCHWARTZ, B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SYDNEY P. SMYTH, B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry GEORGE SPITZER, Ph. G., B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry CHESTER G. STARR, B. S. A....'. Assistant in Swine Production and Management HERBERT B. SWITZER. B. S. A Assistant in Dairy Bacteriology DANIEL G. TOWER, M. S.8 Scientific Assistant FRED L. WALKEY, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian REX A. WHITING, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology NELLIE TRACY Secretary to the Director and Librarian MARY K. BLOOM Bookkeeper 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Seed Testing 8 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations 4 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNDER LEGISLATIVE ACT OF 19O9) J. P. PRIGG, Daleville State Live Stock Association U. R. FISHEL, Hope State Poultry Fanciers' Association H. H. SWAIM, South Bend State Horticultural Spciety D. B. JOHNSON, Mooresville State Dairy Association D. F. MAISH, Frankfort State Corn Growers' Association WINTER STEER FEEDING 1914-15 J. H. SKINNER F. G. KING SUMMARY PART I 1. The addition of 24.94 pounds of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay decreased the average grain consumption 4.09 pounds daily per head and the hay consump- tion 8.60 pounds daily per steer. 2. The addition of 28.36 pounds of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay decreased the average grain consumption 4.09 pounds daily per head and the hay consump- tion 10.23 pounds daily per steer. 3. The addition of corn silage to a ration consisting of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay decreased the rate of gain while in a ration containing alfalfa hay the gains of the cattle were increased by the addition of corn silage. 4. Corn silage in the ration decreased the cost of gain four cents per hundred pounds when cjover hay was fed and $3.16 per hundred pounds when alfalfa hay was fed. 5. The addition of corn silage to the ration had on the average no effect on the finish of the cattle. 6. The addition of corn silage to the ration decreased the loss per steer $2.80 when clover hay was fed and $12.00 when alfalfa hay was fed. PART II /. Cattle fed ground soybeans as a supplement to corn, straw and corn silage for full-fed cattle maintained eager appetites for a period of one hundred fifty days. 8. Cattle fed ground soybeans as supplement made more rapid gains than those fed cottonseed meal. 9. Cattle fed ground soybeans made greater gains on a given amount of feed than cattle fed cottonseed meal as supplement. 10. Cattle fed ground soybeans were valued higher at the end of the trial than those fed cottonseed meal. 11. The profit per steer was larger when ground soybeans were fed than when cottonseed meal was fed. 86o PART III c f 12. Cattle fed shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay ate the same quantity of corn and very nearly the same quantity of hay as cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. 13. Cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay and corn silage consumed the same quantity of grain but more hay and less silage than those fed a ration in which alfalfa hay was used instead of clover. 14. Cattle fed clover hay as the only roughage made more rapid gains than those fed alfalfa hay. 15. Cattle fed clover hay and corn silage made less rapid gains than those fed alfalfa hay and corn silage. 1 6. Gains were more economical with clover hay than with alfalfa hay as roughage. 17. Gains were less economical with clover hay and corn silage than with alfalfa hay and corn silage as roughage. 18. Cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay returned a loss, including pork, of $10.26 per steer against a loss of $13.07 when alfalfa hay replaced clover hay. 19. A ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay returned a loss, including pork, of $7.46 per head as com- pared with a loss of $1.07 per head whetl clover hay was replaced by alfalfa hay. PART IV 20. The substitution of a small quantity of feeding molasses (cane) for an equal quantity of corn in a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, and corn silage had no appreciable effect on the consumption of concentrates but greatly increased the con- sumption of silage. 21. The feeding of a proprietary molasses feed instead of cot- tonseed meal had very little effect on the appetites of the cattle. 22. The addition of molasses to the ration increased the rate of gain ; the use of proprietary molasses feed instead of cottonseed meal resulted in a smaller rate of gain. 23. Cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay returned a loss of $7.46 per steer, including pork ; cattle fed a similar ration with a part of the corn replaced by feeding molasses (cane) returned a loss of $6.19 per head; cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, proprietary molasses feed, corn silage, and clover hay returned a loss, including pork, of $12.91 per steer. 86i INTRODUCTION The cattle feeding trial reported in this bulletin was conducted during a severe and extensive outbreak of foot and mouth disease that demoralized the livestock industry and brought heavy losses to cattle feeders. Feeding cattle and feed were high and the market for fat cattle in the spring was very little higher than that for feed- ing cattle in the fall. These conditions resulted in one of the most unprofitable feeding seasons since experimental work in cattle feed- ing has been in progress at this station. OBJECT The object of this work was to obtain additional information on the comparative value of leguminous hay alone and in combination with corn silage as roughage for full-fed cattle; to compare ground soybeans and cottonseed meal as sources of protein for supplement- ing rations for fattening cattle; to test the comparative value of clover hay and alfalfa hay as roughage for fattening cattle ; and to test the value of feeding molasses and mixed molasses feeds for full- fed cattle. Tests covering the first three items had been conducted at this station ; the last item is a new project. PLAN The plan of the work was to secure seventy choice heavy feeding cattle. These cattle were divided into seven lots of ten steers each, as nearly as possible equal in size, condition, quality, thrift and breeding. Each lot of cattle was placed in similar surroundings and fed for one hundred fifty days. The only difference between lots was in the rations fed which were as follows : Lot i. Shelled corn, ground soybeans 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage, and oat straw. Lot 2. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, clover hay. Lot 3. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, alfalfa hay. Lot 4. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage, and clover hay. Lot 5. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, molasses (cane), corn silage and clover hay. Lot 6. Shelled corn, molasses feed, corn silage, and clover hay. Lot 7. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage, and alfalfa hay. 862 SHELTER, FEED LOTS, AND WATER SUPPLY Each lot of cattle occupied similar quarters which consisted of an open, concreted lot 20 by 28 feet joined on the west by an open shed 16 by 28 feet. The concrete floors which were cleaned every two or three weeks kept the yards in comfortable condition during the entire season. The sheds were kept well bedded. The cattle had comfortable quarters at all times. Both grain and roughage were fed under cover. Grain and silage were fed in troughs thirty inches wide along the feed alley. Hay was fed in the racks on either side of the lots. Water was supplied in galvanized iron tanks adjacent to the open lots and surrounded by five or six inches of manure held in place by wooden jackets. A fresh supply of water was kept before the cattle at all times. WEIGHTS Each steer was weighed individually for three consecutive days at the beginning and end of the trial and every thirty days during the progress of the same. The averages of the three weights at the beginning and end of the trial were taken as the initial and final weights, respectively. The identity of each steer was known by means of a numbered tag on a strap fastened around the neck. Lot weights were taken every ten days in order to facilitate keeping records of feed consumed and gains made. Weights were taken at 9 :oo A. M. without change in the ration or water of the cattle. Each lot of hogs was weighed every ten days. METHOD OF FEEDING The method of feeding was practically the same in all lots re- ported in this bulletin. Grain was fed at 6:00 A. M. and 4:30 P. M. in troughs, under cover. The corn was placed in the trough an4 cottonseed meal, ground soybeans, or mixed molasses feed poured upon and mixed with it. After the cattle had cleaned up the grain, which usually required from a half to three-quarters of an hour, roughage was fed. The lots receiving silage were fed this roughage both morning and evening. In Lot 5, molasses (cane) was poured upon the silage at each feed. Lots 2 and 3 received hay twice daily ; the other lots received dry roughage at the morning feed. It was the intention to have all silage cleaned up within two hours after it was offered and all dry roughage before time for the next feed. Salt was kept before the cattle at all times. DESCRIPTION OF THE CATTLE The cattle used in this trial were purchased locally and con- sisted largely of steers of Shorthorn breeding, a large number being pure-bred. There were a few grade Herefords and Angus in the drove. All were cattle of high quality and were rather fleshy steers, suitable for short feeding. All lots were valued at $8.00 per cwt. in the feed lot. 863 METHOD OF VALUING THE CATTLE The feed lots were visited at the beginning of the trial by Mr. J. T. Alexander of Chicago, who placed a local value on the cattle. At the end of the trial, Messrs. J. T. Alexander and Tom Murray of Chicago, and Joe S. Taylor of Indianapolis, visited the yards and placed values on the cattle on the basis of the Chicago market. Financial statements are based on the local value of feeding cattle, and Chicago price for fat .cattle less 50 cents per hundred pounds. QUALITY OF FEEDS Rations fed in this trial consisted of various combinations of the following feeds : shelled corn, cottonseed meal, ground soybeans, feeding molasses (cane), Champion Molasses Feed,1 clover hay, alfalfa hay, oat straw, and corn silage. The corn was of excellent quality at all times. Cottonseed meal was of choice grade guaran- teed to contain 41 per cent, crude protein and 6 per cent, crude fat. The soybeans were purchased in an adjoining county and 'ground in a mill on the Station farm. They showed a composition of 39 per cent, crude protein and 19 per cent, crude fat. The molasses feed was guaranteed to contain 1 1 per cent, crude protein and 2 per cent, crude fat. The clover hay was medium to choice in quality but about one-fourth of it contained a considerable proportion of timothy. The alfalfa hay was grown in the vicinity of Lafayette and was repre- sentative of native alfalfa. The alfalfa fed during the first two and one-half months was choice second cutting, stored loose in a barn and later baled. Before baling, it was of the very best quality but was badly shattered in baling. The alfalfa fed the last two and one-half months was of the first cutting and while a little coarse, carried prac- tically all its leaves. The oat straw was of excellent quality. The corn silage was made from corn grown in the Wabash bottom, yield- ing approximately thirty-five bushels per acre. The corn when put into the silo was ripe enough to shock with comparative safety. PRICES OF FEEDS The prices of feeds used in presenting financial results are based on the actual market prices at the time the experiment was in progress. The average price of corn in Lafayette was as follows: first month, 60.6 cents ; second month, 66.6 cents ; third month, 62.9 cents; fourth month, 63.6 cents; fifth month, 69.4 cents per bushel; ground soybeans, cottonseed meal, and molasses feed $28.00 per ton ; feeding molasses (cane) $1.125 per cwt. ; clover hay $16.00 per ton; alfalfa hay $18.00 per ton ; oat straw $6.00 per ton ; corn silage $5.00 per ton. All financial statements are based on the above mentioned prices of feeds. 1 For a period of eight days no Champion Molasses Feed was available and Sucrene was fed 864 HOGS Each lot contained ten hogs. They were of excellent quality and averaged approximately 130 pounds per head at the time the experiment started. All lots of hogs received corn in addition to droppings from the cattle. The amount of corn fed depended on the appetites of the hogs. Five hogs in each of three lots of cattle (i, 2, and 4) were fed a small quantity of shorts and tankage in addition to the corn and droppings. METHOD OF STARTING CATTLE ON FEED The cattle had been accustomed to silage, cottonseed meal and corn before they arrived at Purdue Farm. Quarantine measures had made it necessary to keep the cattle on pasture after grass was too short to make satisfactory feed. The cattle were, therefore, fed silage in such quantities as they would eat, about two pounds of cottonseed meal daily per head, and a small quantity of corn. On their arrival at the feed lots at Purdue, they were continued on the same feed and all the hay they would eat until they had been divided into lots for experiment. The silage in Lots 2 and 3 was then dropped and the hay in Lot i changed to oat straw. The first daily ration after the experiment started consisted of all the roughage the cattle would consume, eight pounds of corn and, except in Lots i and 6 which were fed ground soybeans and molasses feed respec- tively, 2.4 pounds of cottonseed meal daily per head. The cottonseed meal and ground soybeans at the end of ten days were put on the basis of 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight of the cattle. Corn fed was gradually increased until at the end of forty days the cattle were receiving all the grain they would readily consume. In Lot 5, feeding molasses (cane) was gradually added to the ration until at the end of twenty days, three pounds of molasses were being fed daily per head. The quantity of corn fed in Lot 5 was there- after three pounds daily per steer less than in Lot 4. In Lot 6, molasses feed was used instead of cottonseed meal. It was started at the rate of 2.4 pounds daily per head. At the end of ten days it had been raised to three pounds daily per head, and at twenty days to five pounds and at the end of thirty-three days to six pounds daily per head at which amount it remained during the remainder of the trial. 865 PARTI CORN SILAGE AND LEGUMINOUS HAY vs. LEGUMINOUS HAY FOR FATTENING STEERS Part I of this bulletin is a report and discussion of the results of a trial to secure more complete information as- to the feeding value of corn silage as compared with leguminous hay as roughage for fattening cattle. This is an exact duplication of the test1 con- ducted at this station in the winter of 1913-14. It is also one of a series2 of experiments that has been in progress at this station for several years in which clover hay has been compared with corn silage. The trial herein reported gives information as to the effect of the addition of corn silage to rations of corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay; and corn, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. The rations fed were as follows : Lot 2. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, clover hay. Lot 3. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, alfalfa hay. Lot 4. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, clover hay, and corn silage. Lot 7. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, alfalfa hay, and corn silage. The only difference in the ration between Lots 2 and 4 and Lots 3 and 7 was the addition of corn silage. Previous trials have shown that best results can be secured with corn silage when sup- plemented by a concentrate high in protein; therefore, cottonseed meal in the proportion of 2.5 pounds daily per thousand pounds live weight was fed to the four lots of cattle reported in Part I. The description of the cattle and the method of starting them on feed is reported on page 864. DAILY RATION. — Table I shows the average amount, of feed consumed daily per steer by thirty-day periods. 1 Bulletin No. 178 2 Bulletins Nos. 129, 136, 153, 163, 167, 178 866 I. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, December 16, ,1914 to May 15, 1915 (150 days) Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3 Lot 7 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, RATION cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed meal, meal, meal, meal, clover hay clover hay, alfalfa hay alfalfa hay, corn silage corn silage First month shelled corn 11.17 Ibs. 10.98 Ibs. 11.17 Ibs. 10.98 Ibs. cottonseed meal 2.70 - 2.70 " 2.70 " 2.70 " clover hay 15.42 " 4.23 " alfalfa hay 16.67 " 3.08 " corn silage 30.80 " 33.53 " Second month shelled corn 16.98 " 13.97 " 16.98 " 13.97 " cottonseed meal 3.18 " 3.17 " 3.15 " 3.22 " clover hay 13.80 " 4.67 " alfalfa hay 14.78 " 2.80 " corn silage 24.83 " 29.40 " Third month shelled corn 19.28 " 14.00 " 19.28 " 14.00 " cottonseed meal 3.38 " 3.35 " 3.33 " 3.40 " clover hay 13.17 " 5.00 " alfalfa hay 12.78 " 2.97 " corn silage 24.12 " 29.33 " Fourth month shelled corn 20.00 " 14.00 " 20.00 " 14.00 " cottonseed meal 3.57 " 3.50 " 3.52 - 3.57 " clover hay 12.83 " 5.00 " alfalfa hay 12.10 " 2.93 " corn silage 22.14 " 25.53 " Fifth month shelled corn 20.88 " 14.88 " 20.88 " 14.88 " cottonseed meal 3.75 " 3.(55 " 3.70 " 3.73 " clover hay 11.70 " 5.00 " alfalfa hay 9.63 " 3.02 " corn silage 22.83 " 24.00 " Average daily feed for entire period shelled corn 17.06 Ibs. 13.57 Ibs. 17.66 Ibs. 13.57 Ibs. cottonseed meal 3.32 " 3.27 " 3.28 " 3.32 " clover hay 13.38 " 4.78 " alfalfa hay 13.19 " 2.96 " corn silage 24.94 " 28.36 " 867 Table I shows that the addition of corn silage to the ration re- sulted in a very marked decrease in the quantity of grain and hay consumed by the cattle. The saving in grain was not as marked during the early part of the feeding period as during the latter part. The saving in roughage, however, was more marked during the first part of the feeding period than during the latter part. There was an average corn consumption of 17.66 pounds daily per head when no silage was fed as compared with 13.57 pounds when silage comprised a part of the ration. When silage was added to a ration of corn, cot- tonseed meal, and clover hay there was a decrease in the corn con- sumption of 4.09 pounds daily per head and 8.60 pounds of hay daily per head. The lot receiving corn silage ate on an average 24.94 pounds of this roughage daily. When corn silage is added to a ration of corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay there was a saving of 4.09 pounds of corn and 10.23 pounds of hay daily per head by the use of 28.36 pounds of corn silage. GAINS. — Gains made by the four lots of cattle are shown in Table II. TABUS II. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months, December 16, 1914 to May 15, 1915 (150 days) RATION Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3 Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay, corn Milage First month Second month Third month Fourth month Fifth month 2.53 Ibs. 2.70 " 2.85 " 2.28 " 3.00 " 1.83 Ibs. 3.32 " 2.03 " 1.80 " 2.37 " 2.28 Ibs. 2.83 " 2.02 " 2.78 " 2.72 " 2.87 Ibs. 2.48 " 2.52 " 2.12 " 3.15 " Total gain per steer Average daily gain for entire period 400.8 Ibs. 2.67 " 340.3 Ibs. 2.27 " 379.1 Ibs. 2.53 " 394.0 Ibs. 2.63 " Table II shows that the addition of corn silage to a ration of corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay resulted in a decrease in the gains made by the cattle. There was no apparent reason why this should be true because there were no exceptionally poor gaining steers in Lot 4 that reduced the average of the entire lot. Neither were any of the steers hard to keep on feed, although the entire lot at times were not as eager for their feed as is desirable. The cattle in Lot 2 not receiving silage made an average daily gain of 2.67 pounds as compared with 2.27 pounds in Lot 4 receiving silage. This is contrary to the average of four previous trials on this subject, in which the corn silage added to the ration has increased the rate of 868 gain. The addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cotton- seed meal, and alfalfa hay resulted in an increase in the gains made by the cattle. The average daily gain was 2.53 pounds daily per head when no silage was -used and 2.63 pounds when silage was added to the ration. This corroborates the previous trials on the subject and also corroborates previous trials in which clover hay, and clover hay and corn silage were compared. COST OF GAIN. — The cost of gain is based upon prices of feed as they prevailed throughout the trial. TABI.E; III. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per Hundred Pounds Gain RATION Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3 Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay, corn silage Peed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 6.61 Ibs. 1.24 " 5.01 " 5.98 Ibs. 1.44 " 2.11 " 11.00 " 6.99 Ibs. 1.30 " 5.22 " 5.17 Ibs. 1.27 " 1.13 " 10.80 " Dry matter consumed per pound gain 11.11 " 12.37 " 11.37 " 10.53 " Cost per cwt. gain $13.42 $13.38 $14.63 $11.47 It will be noted in Table III that there was a smaller quantity of corn required to make a pound of gain in Lot 4 than in Lot 2, and in Lot 7 than in Lot 3. This is due to the fact that corn in the silage replaced a part of the corn that would otherwise have to be fed to have the cattle on full feed. There was also a marked decrease in the hay required to make a pound of gain by the use of corn silage, the saving in hay being 2.90 pounds between Lots 2 and 4, and 4.09 pounds between Lots 3 and 7. This saving in grain and hay was effected by the use of n pounds of corn silage in Lot 4 and 10.8 pounds in Lot 7. This is in contrast to results secured in the winter of 1913-14 in which there was a greater saving of corn and less saving of hay when silage was added to the ration containing clover hay than to one containing alfalfa hay. There was practically no saving in cost of gain by the addition of corn silage to a ration con- taining clover hay. This is due to the unsatisfactory gains made by the cattle in Lot 4. When silage was added to a ration containing alfalfa hay there was a saving of $3.16 on every hundred pounds gain made by the cattle. 869 SUMMARY. — In giving the summary of a feeding trial, financial factors present variable quantities. Such items as these are, there- fore, presented under conditions existing during the progress of the trial. Prices of feed are given on page 863. No charge is made for the straw used in bedding nor for the labor of feeding ; neither is any credit given for the manure produced by the cattle, it being consid- ered that this by-product will pay for the labor of feeding and the straw used for bedding. There were ten hogs in each lot throughout the progress of the' trial. Enough corn was fed these hogs to make them gain satisfac- torily. Five hogs in both Lots 2 and 4 received a small quantity of shorts and tankage in addition to the corn and droppings. Corn fed the hogs is valued at 64.7 cents per bushel, shorts at $25.00 per ton, and tankage at $50.00 per ton, and their cost is deducted from the value of the pork actually produced before the pork produced from the droppings is accredited to the receipts from the cattle. 870 TABI.E IV. — Summary of Part I RATION Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3 Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay, corn silage Initial value Initial weight Final weight Total gain 18.00 11652 Ibs. 15G60 4008 $8.00 11657 Ibs 15060 3403 $8.00 11626 Ibs 15417 3791 $8.00 11695 Ibs. 15635 3940 Average daily gain 2.67 " 2.27 " 2.53 " 2.63 " Total feed consumed shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 26495 4976 20075 20350 4911 7170 37417 26495 4921 19790 20350 4986 4440 42540 Daily feed per steer shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 17.66 " 3.32 " 13.38 " 13.57 " 3.27 " •4.78 " 24.94 " 17.66 " 3.28 " 13.19 " 13.57 " 3.32 " 2.96 " 28.36 " Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 6.61 " 1.24 " 5.01 " 5.98 " 1.44 " 2.11 " 11.00 " 6.99 " 1.30 " 5.22 " 5.17 " 1.27 " 1.13 " 10.80 " Cost of gain per cwt. $13.42 $13.38 $14.63 $11.47 Necessary selling price 9.39 9.22 9.63 8.87 Actual selling price in lots without shrink 8.30 8.20 8.25 8.35 Loss per steer not including pork 17.02 15.30 21.28 8.19 Pork produced 1646 Ibs. 1790 Ibs. 1633 Ibs. 1571 Ibs. Corn fed to hogs 4104 4104 3496 4034 Shorts fed to hogs 225 225 Tankage fed to hogs 225 225 Loss per steer including pork $10.26 $7.46 $13.07 $1.07 Pork is valued at $7.50 per cwt. Table IV shows that the addition of corn silage to a ration of clover hay did not have the marked beneficial results that it has shown in previous trials. The rate of gain was not as rapid, the cost of gain was only slightly reduced and the selling price of the cattle was ten cents less than where no silage was fed. Owing to the fact, however, that there was very little difference in the selling value of the cattle and that the smaller amount of gain in Lot 4 had produced practically the same finish on the cattle as the larger amount of gain in Lot 2, the necessary selling price was considerably less in Lot 4 than in Lot 2. There was a loss without pork of $15.30 per steer when silage was fed as compared with $17.02 per steer when silage was not fed. When the pork produced from the drop- pings is considered there was a loss of $7.46 per head when silage was fed as compared with $10.26 per head when no silage was fed, thus showing that even with somewhat unsatisfactory gains by the cattle fed silage there was more satisfactory financial returns than where the cattle were fed no silage. The addition of corn silage to a ration containing alfalfa hay had a beneficial effect in that it increased the rate of gain, decreased the cost of gain Very materially, and added slightly to the selling value of the cattle. There was a loss not including pork of $21.28 per steer when no silage was fed as compared with a loss of $8.19 per head when silage comprised a part of the ration. When pork is considered as part of the returns from the cattle there was a loss of $13.07 per steer when no silage was fed as compared with $1.07 when silage was used. 872 PART II ,: GROUND SOYBEANS vs. COTTONSEED MEAL FOR FATTENING STEERS This trial is the third of a series to determine the comparative value of ground soybeans and cottonseed meal as nitrogenous sup- plements to rations for fattening cattle. Since it is a well established fact that corn silage is most efficient as a feed for fattening cattle when fed in connection with a concentrate containing a high per cent, of protein, it is highly desirable that a source of native concen- trated protein be available. Since ground soybeans contain the high- est per cent, of protein of any of the native feeding products avail- able in quantities large enough to be of great economic importance, this series of trials was inaugurated to establish their value as a cattle feed. The relative composition of ground soybeans and cottonseed meal is shown in the following statement : Water per cent. Protein per cent. Fiber per cent. Nitrogen free extract per cent. Fat per cent. Ash per cent. Ground soybeans 8.6 38.94 3.17 25.24 19.07 4.98 Cottonseed meal 7.4 43.3 7.6 26.1 9.3 6.3 The cattle fed in this trial are described on page 862. The method of starting the cattle on feed is shown on page 864. In previous trials rations under comparison have been identical except as between cottonseed meal and ground soybeans. Other series of trials, however, have shown that rations containing oat straw and silage have practically the same effect on the cattle as rations con- taining clover hay and silage. The trial reported in this bulletin was made with the lot that received soybeans, receiving oat straw in addition to silage as roughage, while the lot receiving cottonseed meal received clover hay in addition to corn silage as roughage. DAILY RATION. — The average daily feed consumed per head is shown in Table V. 873 V. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, December 16, 1914 to May 15, 1915 (150 days) Lot 1 ' Lot 4 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, RATION ground soybeans, cottonseed meal, oat straw, clover hay, corn silage corn silage First month shelled corn 10.98 Ibs. 10.98 Ibs. ground soybeans 2.70 " cottonseed meal 2.70 " clover hay 4.23 " oat straw 1.17 " corn silage 33.53 " 30.80 " Second month shelled corn 14.52 " 13.97 " ground soybeans 3.23 " cottonseed meal 3.17 " clover hay 4.67 " oat straw .70 " corn silage 27.96 " 24.83 " Third month shelled corn 15.00 " 14.00 " ground soybeans 3.45 " cottonseed meal 3.35 " clover hay 5.00 " oat straw .70 " corn silage 27.40 " 24.12 " Fourth month shelled corn 15.00 " 14.00 " ground soybeans 3.63 " cottonseed meal 3.50 " clover hay 5.00 " oat straw .85 " corn silage 24.53 " 22.14 " Fifth month shelled corn 15.88 " 14.88 " ground soybeans 3.80 " cottonseed meal 3.65 " clover hay 5.00 " oat straw 1.15 " corn silage 23.10 " 22.83 " Average daily feed for entire period shelled corn 14.28 Ibs. 13.57 Ibs. ground soybeans 3.36 " cottonseed meal 3.27 " clover hay 4.78 " oat straw .91 " corn silage 27.31 " 24.94 " 874 It will be noted in Table V that with the exception of the first month there was a larger consumption of corn in Lot I receiving ground soybeans than in Lot 4 receiving cottonseed meal. There was also a slightly greater silage consumption. This was counter- balanced by the greater hay consumption in Lot 4 receiving the cot- tonseed meal. The cattle in Lot i maintained eager appetites for their feed throughout the entire trial. This is not in perfect accord with two previous trials1 on the subject in which it was shown that the cattle receiving ground soybeans did not maintain eager appetites for more than ninety to one hundred days, after which time they seemed t<> have an aversion for corn silage and ground soybeans. In this trial, however, eager appetites were maintained during the entire feeding period. The soybeans did not have as marked a laxa- tive effect on the cattle in this trial as in previous trials. GAIN. — The rate of gain by months is shown in Table VI. TABLE VI. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months, December 16, 1914 to May 15, 1915 (150 days) Lot 1 Lot 4 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, ground soybeans, cottonseed meal, oat straw, clover hay, corn silage corn silage First month 2.78 Ibs. 1.83 Ibs. Second month 3.47 " 3.32 " Third month 2.22 " 2.03 " Fourth month 2.37 " 1.80 " Fil'th month. 2.34 " 2.37 " Totiil i-r;iin per steer A ve nitre daily train lor entire period 395.1 Ibs. 340.3 Ibs. 2.03 " 2.27 " It will be noted that very satisfactory gains were made during the entire: period by cattle fed ground soybeans. The gains were not so satisfactory by the cattle fed cottonseed meal. As was previously noted, however, the gains in Lot 4 were not as rapid as is normally the case with this ration. There was a gain of 395 pounds per steer by the cattle fed ground soybeans as compared with 340 pounds by the cattle fed cottonseed meal. COST or GAINS.— Table VII shows the average amount of feed consumed per pound gain and cost per hundred pounds gain. 8/5 TABLE VII. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per Hundred Pounds Gain RATION Lot 1 Lot 4 Shelled corn, ground soybeans, oat straw, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Feed per pound gain shelled corn ground soybeans cottonseed meal clover hay oat straw corn silage 5.42 Ibs. 1.28 " .35 " 10.37 " 5.98 Ibs. 1.44 " 2.11 " 11.00 " Dry matter consumed per pound gain 9.96 " 12.37 " Cost per cwt. gain $10.76 $13.38 It will be noted that the gains in Lot I where ground soybeans were fed were made on a smaller quantity of all the component feeds than were those in Lot 4 fed cottonseed meal. This is due to the fact that the gains in Lot 4 were not as rapid as was normally to be expected with this ration. Nevertheless the cost of gain in Lot i was very economical when compared to the cost of gain by other rations fed in this experiment. SUMMARY. — The prices of feeds in the following summary are the same as noted on page 863. The ground soybeans were valued at $28.00 per ton, the same as was paid for the cottonseed meal. When pork is considered the value of the feed fed the hogs is de- ducted from the pork actually produced before the pork produced from the droppings is added to the receipts from the cattle. The summary shows that the cattle fed ground soybeans made more rapid gains, more economical gains, and attained a higher finish than similar cattle fed a ration containing cottonseed meal. There was a greater pork production in the lot receiving cottonseed meal than in the one receiving ground soybeans. 8;6 TABU; VIIL— Summary of Part II RATION Lot 1 Lot 4 Shelled corn, ground soybeans, oat straw, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, cl'over hay, corn silage Initial value . $8.00 $8.00 Initial weight 11686 Ibs. 11657 Ibs. Final weight 15637 15060 Total gain 3951 3403 Average daily gain 2.63 " 2.27 " Total feed consumed shelled corn ground soybeans cottonseed meal clover hay oat straw corn silage 21415 5046 1370 40958 20350 4911 7170 37417 Daily feed per steer shelled corn ground soybeans cottonseed meal clover hay oat straw corn silage 14.28 " 3.36 " .91 " 27.31 " 13.57 " 3.27 " 4.78 " 24.94 " Feed per pound gain shelled corn ground soybeans cottonseed meal clover hay oat straw corn silage 5.42 " 1.28 '" .35 " 10.37 " 5.98 " 1.44 " 2.11 " 11.00 " Cost of gain per cwt. $10.76 $13.38 Necessary selling price 8.70 9.22 Actual selling price in lots without shrink 8.35 8.20 Loss per steer not including pork 5.45 15.30 Pork produced 1687 Ibs. 1790 Ibs. Corn fed to hogs 4104 4104 Shorts fed to hogs 225 225 *;^ Tankage fed to hogs 225 225 Profit or loss per steer including pork $1.62 (profit) $7.46 (loss) Pork is valued at $7.50 per cwt. PART III CLOVER HAY vs. ALFALFA HAY AS ROUGHAGE FOR FATTENING STEERS Part III of this bulletin is a report of the second trial con- ducted at this station to determine the comparative value of clover hay and alfalfa hay as roughage for fattening steers. The value of alfalfa was shown in the previous trial to be no higher than that of clover as a feed for cattle. DAILY RATION. — Average daily feed per steer by months is shown in Table IX. TABLE IX. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, December 16, 1914 to May 15, 1915 (150 days) Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 7 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, RATION cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed meal, meal, meal, meal, clover hay alfalfa hay clover hay, alfalfa hay, corn silage corn silage First month shelled corn 11.17 Ibs. 11.17 Ibs. 10.98 Ibs. 10.98 Ibs. cottonseed meal 2.70 " 2.70 " 2.70 " 2.70 " clover hay 15.42 " 4.23 " alfalfa hay 16.67 " 3.08 M corn silage 30.80 " 33.53 " Second month shelled corn 16.98 " 16.98 " 13.97 " 13.97 " cottonseed meal 3.18 " 3.15 " 3.17 " 3.22 " clover hay 13.80 " 4.67 " alfalfa hay 14.78 " 2.80 " corn silage 24.83 " 29.40 " Third month shelled corn 19.28 " 19.28 " 14.00 " 14.00 " cottonseed meal 3.38 " 3.33 " 3.35 " 3.40 " clover hay 13.17 " 5.00 " .alfalfa hay 12.78 " 2.97 " corn silage 24.12 " 29.33 " Fourth month shelled corn 20.00 " 20.00 " 14.00 " 14.00 " cottonseed meal 3.57 " 3.52 " 3.50 " 3.57 " clover hay 12.83 " 5.00 " alfalfa hay 12.10 " 2.93 " corn silage 22.14 " 25.53 " Fifth month shelled corn 20.88 " 20.88 " 14.88 " 14.88 " cottonseed meal 3.75 " 3.70 " 3.65 " 3.73 " clover hay 11.70 " 5.00 " alfalfa hay 9.63 " 3.02 " corn silage 22.83 " 24.00 " Average daily feed for entire period shelled corn 17.66 Ibs. 17.66 Ibs. 13.57 Ibs. 13.57 Ibs. cottonseed meal 3.32 " 3.28 " 3.27 " 3.32 " clover hay 13.38 " 4.78 " alfalfa hay 13.19 " 2.96 " corn silage 24.94 " 28.36 " 8;8 It will be noted that in Lots 2 and 3 in which hay was the only roughage fed there was no difference at any time during the feeding period in the quantity of corn consumed by the cattle in the two lots. There was a difference in the hay consumption, however. During the first two months of the feeding period larger quantities of alfalfa hay than of clover hay were eaten. During the last three months of the period, larger quantities of clover hay than of alfalfa hay were eaten. The average of the entire feeding period showed very little difference in the feed consumption between Lots 2 and 3, there being no difference in the corn consumption and very little in the hay consumption. This indicates that as far as this trial is con- cerned there was practically no difference in the palatability of the two kinds of hay as indicated by the appetites of the cattle. In Lots 4 and 7 in which corn silage was fed in connection with the hay there was no difference in the corn consumption during any month in the feeding period. There was a difference in the roughage consumption, however. During every month in the feeding trial larger quantities of clover hay were eaten than of alfalfa hay. The lot of cattle receiving alfalfa hay ate during every month in the feeding trial more corn silage than the cattle receiving clover hay in addition to the silage. The average of the entire feeding period shows that the cattle in Lot 4 consumed 4.78 pounds of clover hay and 24.94 pounds of corn silage daily per head while the cattle in Lot 7 consumed 2.96 pounds of alfalfa hay and 28.36 pounds of corn silage daily per head. These results are not entirely in accord with those secured in the winter of 1913-14 in which the cattle receiving clover hay ate smaller quantities of hay and larger quantities of corn silage than those receiving alfalfa hay and corn silage. There is no explanation for this difference except the individuality of the cattle. GAINS. — Average daily gain per steer and total gain per steer is shown in Table X. TABLE: X. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months, December 16, 1914 to May 15, 1915 (150 days) RATION Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 I,o t 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay, corn silage First month Second month Third month Fourth month Fifth month 2.53 Ibs. 2.70 " 2.85 " 2.28 " 3.00 " 2.28 Ibs. 2.83 " 2.02 " 2.78 " 2.72 " 1.83 Ibs. 3.32 " 2.03 " 1.80 " 2.37 " 2.87 Ibs. 2.48 " 2.52 " 2.12 " 3.15 " Total gain per steer Avert) go daily gain for entire period 400.8 Ibs. 2.67 " 379.1 Ibs. 2.53 " 340.3 Ibs. •2.27 " 394.0 Ibs. 2.63 " 879 It will be noted in Table X that the cattle in Lot 2 fed clover hay as the only form of roughage made more rapid gains than those in Lot 3 fed alfalfa hay. There was a difference of 21.7 pounds per steer in one hundred fifty days. The cattle in Lot 4 fed clover hay and corn silage made considerably less gain than those in Lot 7 fed alfalfa hay and corn silage. In only one month out of five in which the cattle were on feed did the cattle in Lot 4 make more rapid gains than those in Lot 7. The difference was 53.7 pounds per steer during the entire feeding period in favor of Lot 7. Previous trials have shown that the ration used in Lot 4 may normally be expected to pro- duce as rapid or more rapid gains than the one used in Lot 2. There- fore, too much emphasis should not be placed upon the slow rate of gain made in Lot 4. COST OF GAIN. — Table XI shows the average amount of feed consumed per pound gain and the cost per hundred pounds gain. XL — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per Hundred Pounds Gain RATION Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay, corn silage Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 6.61 Ibs. 1.24 " 5.01 " 6.99 Ibs. 1.30 " 5.22 " 5.98 Ibs. 1.44 " 2.11 " 11.00 " 5.17 Ibs. 1.27 " 1.13 " 10.80 " Dry matter consumed per pound gain 11.11 " 11.37" " 12.37 " 10.53 " Cost per cwt. gain $13.42 $14.63 $13.38 $11.47 Table XI shows that Lot 2. fed clover hay alone for roughage required slightly smaller quantities of both corn and roughage to make a pound of gain than did the cattle in Lot 3 fed alfalfa hay alone as roughage. The cost of gain was $1.21 per hundred pounds less when clover hay was fed instead of alfalfa hay. Had alfalfa and clover hay been valued at the same price the cost of gain would have been $.69 per hundred pounds greater with the alfalfa hay than with the clover hay. In Lot 4 fed clover hay in combination with corn silage as roughage, gains were made at a higher expenditure of both grain and roughage than in Lot 7 fed alfalfa hay in combina- tion with corn silage as roughage. The cost of gain was $1.91 per 88o hundred pounds less tfi Lot 7 than in Lot 4. This large difference in cost of gains is due primarily to the slower gains of the cattle in Lot 4, because it is evident that with the small quantity of hay eaten in both lots that it was not primarily the ration that caused the dif- ference in cost of gain. SUMMARY. — Table XII shows a summary of the data secured in this comparison. Prices of feeds are shown on page 863. It will be noted that in Lots 2 and 3 when hay furnished the only roughage eaten by the cattle that more rapid gains and more economical gains were produced with clover hay than with alfalfa hay. It will also be noted that the cattle were slightly better finished when the clover hay was fed. With an initial cost of $8.00 per cwt. it would have been necessary for the cattle fed clover hay to have sold for $9.39 as compared with $9.63 per cwt. when alfalfa hay was fed. The cattle fed clover hay returned a loss when pork is not included of $17.02 per head as compared with $21.28 per head by cattle fed. alfalfa hay. When pork is included there was a loss of $10.26 in Lot 2 as compared with a loss of $13.07 in Lot 3. Had alfalfa hay been valued at the same price as clover hay the loss in Lot 3 would have been $11.09 instead of $13.07. When the cattle were fed both hay and silage as in Lots 4 and 7, there was a more economical gain and considerably better finish secured on the cattle when alfalfa hay instead of clover hay was fed. With an initial value of $8.00 per hundred pounds the cattle would have had to sell for $9.22 and $8.87 per cwt. in Lots 4 and 7 respectively. When pork is not considered there was a loss of $15.30 when clover and silage were fed, as compared with $8.19 when alfalfa hay and silage were fed. When pork is considered there was a loss of $7.46 in Lot 4 as com- pared with $1.07 in Lot 7. Considering the subnormal gains of Lot 4 and also the small quantity of hay consumed in both Lots 4 and 7, it is highly probable that the difference between these two lots of cattle was due more largely to the individuality of the cattle than to the ration fed. 88 1 XII.— Summary of Part III RATION Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 7 Shelled corn, , cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay, corn silage Initial value $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 Initial weight 11652 Ibs. 11626 Ibs. 11657 Ibs. 11695 Ibs. Final weight 15660 15417 15060 15635 Total gain 4008 3791 3403 3940 Average daily gain 2.67 " 2.53 " 2.27 M 2.63 " Total feed consumed shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 26495 4976 20075 26495 4921 19790 20350 4911 7170 37417 20350 4986 4440 42540 Daily feed per steer shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 17.66 " 3.32 " 13.38 " 17.66 " 3.28 " 13.19 " 13.57 " 3.27 " 4.78 " 24.94 " 13.57 " 3.32 "' 2.96 " 28.36 " Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 6.61 " 1.24 " 5.01 " 6.99 " 1.30 " 5.22 " 5.98 " 1.44 " 2.11 " 11.00 " 5.17 " 1.27 " 1.13 " 10.80 " Cost of gain per cwt. $13.42 $14.63 $13.38 $11.47 Necessary selling price 9.39 9.63 9.22 8.87 Actual selling price in lots without shrink 8.30 8.25 8.20 8.35 Loss per steer not including pork 17.02 21.28 15.30 8.19 Pork produced 1646 Ibs. 1633 Ibs. 1790 Ibs. 1571 Ibs. Corn fed to hogs 4104 3496 4104 4034 Shorts fed to hogs 225 225 Tankage fed to hogs 225 225 Loss per steer including pork $10.26 $13.07 $7.46 $1.07 Pork is valued at $7.50 per cwt. 882 PART IV CANE FEEDING MOLASSES vs. MIXED MOLASSES FEED AS SUPPLEMENTS TO RATIONS FOR FATTENING CATTLE In the feeding of live stock, one of the principles upon which the feeder relies with great confidence is the palatability of feed. It is a well known fact that stock consuming feed with relish are more thrifty than those consuming an equal quantity of feed with appar- ently no relish. Successful feeders are endeavoring at all times to provide a ration most palatable to their stock. It is a common prac- tice in preparing animals for show to use molasses or sugar to make their feed more palatable. The practice of using a small quantity of molasses in the ration for cattle has in recent years been arousing considerable interest among feeders of market stock. The feeding of mixed molasses feeds to fattening cattle has also been arousing great interest among the cattle feeders of the State. For the purpose of testing the feeding value of molasses and the mixed molasses feed, this trial was inaugurated. The following rations were fed: Lot 4. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, clover hay, and corn silage. Lot 5. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, feeding molasses (cane), clover hay, and corn silage. Lot 6. Shelled corn, mixed molasses feed, clover hay, and corn silage. The only difference between the ration in Lot 5 and that in Lot 4 was the fact that approximately three pounds of corn in the ration were replaced by three pounds of feeding molasses. In Lot 6 the cottonseed meal was replaced by mixed molasses feed in which molasses formed approximately 50 per cent, of the mixture. DAILY RATION. — Table XIII shows the daily ration consumed by cattle in the different lots. 883 TABI«£ XIII. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, December 16, 1914 to May 15, 1915 (150 days) Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, RATION cottonseed meal, cottonseed meal, molasses feed. clover hay, molasses (cane), clover hay, corn silage clover hay, corn silage corn silage First month shelled corn '10.98 Ibs. 9.32 Ibs. 10.20 Ibs. cottonseed meal 2.70 " 2.70 " molasses 2.14 " molasses feed 3.56 " clover hay 4.23 " 4.10 " 4.23 " corn silage 30.80 " 32.40 " 30.93 " Second month shelled corn 13.97 " 11.08 " 11.63 " cottonseed meal 3.17 " 3.20 " molasses 3.01 " molasses feed 5.92 " clover hay 4.67 " 4.67 " 4.67 " corn silage 24.83 " 29.03 " 24.90 " Third month shelled corn 14.00 " 11.00 " 12.00 " cottonseed meal 3.35 " 3.40 " molasses 3.04 " molasses feed 6.00 " clover hay 5.00 " 5.00 " 5.00 " corn silage 24.12 " 28.33 " 23.58 " Fourth month shelled corn 14.00 " 11.00 " 12.00 " cottonseed meal 3.50 " 3.G2 " molasses 3.03 " molasses feed 6.00 " clover hay 5.00 " 5.00 " 5.00 " corn silage 22.14 " 28.00 " 22.87 " Fifth month shelled corn 14.88 " 11.88 " 12.85 " cottonseed meal 3.65 " 3.77 " molasses 3.00 " molasses feed 6.00 " clover hay 5.00 " 5.00 " 5.00 " corn silage 22.83 " 28.00 " 24.00 " Average daily feed for entire period shelled corn 13.57 Ibs. 10.86 Ibs. 11.74 Ibs. cottonseed meal 3.27 " 3.34 " molasses 2.84 " molasses feed 5.50 " clover hay 4.78 " 4.75 " 4.78 " corn silage 24.94 " 29.15 " 25.26 " It will be noted that there was very little difference in the quan- tity of concentrates consumed in the three lots. In Lot 4 the concen- trates consisted largely of corn with a small quantity of cottonseed meal. In Lot 5 the concentrate consumption was very similar to that in Lot 4 except that slightly less than three pounds of corn was replaced by feeding molasses. In Lot 6 where the mixed molasses feed was used the cottonseed meal and a part of the corn were replaced by the molasses feed. The total quantity of concen- trates consumed, however, was largest in Lot 6 and smallest in Lot 4. There was practically no difference in the hay consumption of the three lots, it being identical in Lots 4 and 6 and slightly less in Lot 5. In silage consumption there was very little difference between Lots 4 and 6 in which cottonseed meal and mixed molasses feed respec- tively were fed. In Lot 5 receiving the feeding molasses in addition to the ration fed in Lot 4 there was an increased consumption of silage, this increased consumption being rather marked. The cattle in Lot 5 had keen appetites for the molasses which was poured over the silage. The cattle in Lot 6 greatly relished the mixed molasses feed during the first month but thereafter showed no greater relish for the molasses feed than for the corn. GAINS. — Gains made by the cattle are shown in Table XIV. TABLE XIV. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months, December 16, 1914 to May 15, 1915 (150 days) RATION Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, molasses (cane), clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, molasses feed, clover hay, corn silage First month Second month Third month Fourth month Fifth month 1.83 Ibs. 3.32 " 2.03 " 1.80 " 2.37 " 2.49 Ibs. 3.23 " 2.43 " 2.40 " 2.49 " 1.93 Ibs. 2.35 " 1.65 " 1.98 " 2.43 " Total gain per steer Average daily gain for entire period 340.3 Ibs. 2.27 " 391.6 Ibs. 2.61 " 310.5 Ibs. 2.07 " It will be noted in Table XIV that the most rapid and the most uniform gains were made by the cattle in Lot 5 receiving a small quantity of molasses in addition to corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay and corn silage. During no month did their gains fall below two and one-third pounds daily per head. The cattle receiving a ration of corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay and corn silage did not 88s make as satisfactory gains as when the molasses was fed, there being a difference of 51.3 pounds per steer in 150 days feed. In Lot 6 where the cottonseed meal was replaced by molasses feed the gains were decreased by the use of the molasses feed, the total gain per steer being 310.5 pounds in Lot 6 as compared with 340.3 pounds in Lot 4. COST OF GAINS. — Table XV shows the average amount of feed consumed per pound gain and the cost per hundred pounds gain. XV. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per Hundred Pounds Gain RATION Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, molasses (cane), clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, molasses feed, clover hay, corn silage Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal molasses molasses feed clover hay corn silage 5.98 Ibs. 1.44 " 2.11 " 11.00 " 4.16 Ibs. 1.28 " 1.09 " 1.82 " 11.17 " 5.67 Ibs. 2.66 " 2.31 " 12.20 " Dry matter consumed per pound gain 12.37 " 11.36 " 13.67 " Cost per cwt. gain $13.38 $12.08 $15.18 It will be noted that the feed required to make a pound of gain was greatest in Lot 6 and least in Lot 5. This is due not only to the concentrates but to roughage as well. Although silage consumption in Lot 5 was higher than in Lot 4, the hay consumption was consid- erably less. It will also be noted that the dry matter* consumed per pound gain was least in Lot 5 and greatest in Lot 6. The cost of gain per hundred pounds followed the same order. These facts show that in this trial the substitution of molasses feed for cottonseed meal in the ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, and corn silage resulted in a greater expenditure of feed for each pound of gain and a greater cost for each pound of gain. On the other hand, the replacing of a small quantity of corn by an equal quantity of feeding molasses decreased the feed required to make a pound of gain and reduced the cost of each hundred pounds of gain. SUMMARY. — Table XVI shows a summary of the data secured in this comparison. Prices of feeds are given on page 863. Taking as a standard, Lot 4 receiving a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, and corn silage, the replacement of a small quan- 886 tity of corn by feeding molasses (cane) as shown in Lot 5 resulted in a more rapid gain, a more economical gain and a slightly lighter loss per steer. While the cattle in Lot 4 would have had to sell for $9.22 per hundred pounds in the lot to break even, the cattle in Lot 5 could have sold for $9.02 per hundred pounds. Both lots were valued at the end of the trial at $8.20 per hundred pounds in the feed lots, thus returning a loss of $15.30 per head and $12.84 Per head in Lots 4 and 5 respectively. When pork is considered there was a loss of $7.46 per head in Lot 4 as compared with a loss of $6.19 per head in Lot 5. With Lot 4 as a standard and the cottonseed meal replaced by mixed molasses feed as in Lot 6 there was a decrease in the rate of gain, an increase in the cost of gain and a slight decrease in the sell- ing value of the cattle. It would have been necessary for the cattle receiving the mixed molasses feed instead of cottonseed meal to have sold for 29 cents per hundred pounds more than those in Lot 4 to make the same returns. As a matter of fact the actual selling value was 10 cents per hundred pounds less than in Lot 4. The loss per steer in Lot 6 when pork is not included was $20.82 per head as com- pared with $15.30 per head in Lot 4. When pork is included in the returns from the cattle the loss was $12.91 per head and $7.46 per head in Lots 6 and 4 respectively. In studying these data, however, it is well to bear in mind that conclusions should not be drawn from one trial but that the experiment should be repeated before reliable data can be secured. 88; XVI.— Summary of Part IV RATION Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, molasses (cane), clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, molasses feed, clover hay, corn silage Initial value $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 Initial weight 11657 Ibs. 11712 Ibs. 11655 Ibs. Final weight 15060 15628 14760 Total gain 3403 3916 3105 Average daily gain 2.27 " 2.61 " 2.07 " Total feed consumed shelled corn cottonseed meal molasses molasses feed clover hay corn silage 20350 4911 7170 37417 16285 5006 4267 7130 43730 17615 8244 7170 37885 I>aily feed per steer shelled corn cottonseed meal molasses molasses feed clover hay corn silage 13.57 " 3.27 " 4.78 " 24.94 " 10.86 " 3.34 " 2.84 " 4.75 " 29.15 " 11.74 " 5.50 " 4.78 " 25.26 " Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal molasses molasses feed clover hay corn silage 5.98 " 1.44 " 2.11 " 11.00 " 4.16 " 1.28 " 1.09 " 1.82 " 11.17 " 5.67 " 2.66 " . 2.31 M 12.20 " Cost of gain per cwt. $13.38 $12.08 $15.18 Necessary selling price 9.22 9.02 9.51 Actual selling price in lots without shrink 8.20 8.20 8.10 Loss per steer not including pork 15.30 12.84 20.82 Pork produced 1790 Ibs. . 1520 Ibs. 1687 Ibs. Corn fed to hogs 4104 4104 4104 Shorts fed to hogs 225 Tankage fed to hogs 225 \ Loss per steer including pork $7.46 $6.19 $12.91 Pork is valued at $7.50 per cwt. FINANCIAL STATEMENT Lot i. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Ground Soybeans, Oat Straw, and Corn Silage, 1914-15 Dec. 16, To 10 steers, weight 11686 Ibs. @ $8.00 per cwt $ 934.88 Dec. 16-Jan. 15, To 3295 Ibs. shelled corn @ 60.6 cts. per bu 35.66 Jan. 15-Feb. 14, To 4355 Ibs. shelled corn @ 66.6 cts per bu 51.79 Feb. 14-Mar. 16, To 4500 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.9 cts. per bu 50.54 Mar. 16-Apr. 15, To 4500 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.6 cts. per bu 51.11 Apr. 15-May 15, To 4765 Ibs. shelled corn @ 69.4 cts. per bu 59.05 Dec. 16-May 15, To 5046 Ibs. ground soybeans @ $28.00 per ton 70.64 Dec. 16-May 15, To 1370 Ibs. oat straw @ $6.00 per ton 4.11 Dec. 16-May 15, To 40958 Ibs. corn silage @ $5.00 per ton 102.40 Total expenditures '. $1360.18 May 15, By 10 steers, weight 15637 Ibs. @ $8.35 per cwt 1305.69 Total loss without pork $ 54.49 Loss per steer without pork '. 5.45 Dec. 16-May 15, To 4104 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 64.7 cts. per bu $ 47.42 Dec. 16-May 15, To 225 Ibs. tankage fed hogs @ $50.00 per ton 5.63 Dec. 16-May 15, To 225 Ibs. shorts fed hogs @ $25.00 per ton 2.81 Total cost of extra feed for hogs $ 55.86 Dec. 16-May 15, By 1687 Ibs. pork @ $7.50 per cwt 126.53 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 70.67 Total receipts including pork 1376.36 Total profit including pork '. 16.18 Profit per steer including pork 1.62 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle .691 FINANCIAL STATEMENT— Continued Lot 2. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, and Clover Hay, 1914-15 Dec. 16, To 10 steers, weight 11652 Ibs. @ $8.00 per cwt $ 932.16 Dec. 16-Jan. 15, To 3350 Ibsi. shelled corn @ 60.6 cts. per bu 36.25 Jan. 15-Feb. 14, To 5095 Ibs. shelled corn @ 66.6 cts. per bu 60.59 Feb. 14-Mar. 16, To 5785 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.9 cts. per bu 64.98 Mar. 16-Apr. 15, To 6000 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.6 cts. per bu 68.14 Apr. 15-May 15, To 6265 Ibs. shelled corn @ 69.4 cts. per bu 77.64 Dec. 16-May 15, To 4976 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $28.00 per ton 69.66 Dec. 16-May 15, To 20075 Ibs. clover hay @ $16.00 per ton 160.60 Total expenditures $1470.02 May 15, By 10 steers, weight 15660 Ibs. @ $8.30 per cwt.. 1299.78 Total loss without pork $ 170.24 Loss per steer without pork 17.02 Dec. 16-May 15, To 4104 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 64.7 cts. per bu $ 47.42 Dec. 16-May 15, To 225 Ibs. tankage fed hogs @ $50.00 per ton 5.63 Dec. 16-May 15, To 225 Ibs. shorts fed hogs @ $25.00 per ton r 2.81 Total cost of extra feed for hogs , $ 55.86 Dec. 16-May 15, By 1646 Ibs. pork @ $7.50 per cwt. 123.45 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 67.59 Total receipts including pork 1367.37 Total loss including pork , 102.65 Loss per steer including pork . 10.27 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle .433 Lot 3-— Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, and Alfalfa Hay, 1914-15 Dec. 16, To 10 steers, weight 11626 Ibs. @ $8.00 per cwt $ 930.08 Dec. 16-Jan. 15, To 3350 Ibs. shelled corn @ 60.6 cts. per bu 36.25 Jan. 15-Feb. 14, To 5095 Ibs. shelled corn @ 66.6 cts. per bu 60.59 Feb. 14-Mar. 16, To 5785 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.9 cts. per bu 64.98 Mar. 16-Apr. 15, To 6000 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.6 cts. per bu 68.14 Apr. 15-May 15, To 6265 Ibs. shelled corn @ 69.4 cts. per bu 77.64 Dec. 16-May 15, To 4921 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $28.00 per ton 68.89 Dec. 16-May 15, To 19790 Ibs. alfalfa hay @ $18.00 per ton 178.11 Total expenditures $1484.68 May 15, By 10 steers, weight 15417 Ibs. @ $8.25 per cwt 1271.90 Total loss without pork ,. $ 212.78 Loss per steer without pork 21.28 Dec. 16-May 15, To 3496 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 64.7 cts. per bu $ 40.39 Dec. 16-May 15, By 1633 Ibs. pork @ $7.50 per cwt 122.48 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 82.09 Total expenses including pork 1353.99 Total loss including pork 130.69 Loss per steer including pork 13.07 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle i .353 890 FINANCIAL STATEMENT — Continued Lot 4. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal Clover Hay. and Corn Silage, 1914-15 Dec. 16, To 10 steers, weight 11657 Ibs. @ $8.00 per cwt $ 932.56 Dec' 16-Jan 15, To 3295 Ibs. shelled corn @ 60.6 cts. per bu Jan' 15-Feb 14, To 4190 Ibs. shelled corn @ 66.6 cts. per bu Feb 14-Mar. 16, To 4200 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.9 cts. per bu 47.17 Mar. 16-Apr. 15, To 4200 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.6 cts. per bu 47.70 Apr. 15-May 15, To 4465 Ibs. shelled corn @ 69.4 cts. per bu 55.33 Dec. 16-May 15, To 4911 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $28.00 per ton 68.75 Dec! 16-May 15, To 7170 Ibs. clover hay @ $16.00 per ton.... 57.36 Dec. 16-May 15, To 37417 Ibs. com silage @ $5.00 per ton.... 93.54 Total expenditures May 15, By 10 steers, weight 15060 Ibs. @ $8.20 per cwt..... Total loss without pork .-... •---$ 15?-9j* Loss per steer without pork Dec. 16-May 15, To 4104 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 64.7 cts. per bu. ... $ 47.42 Dec. 16-May 15, To 225 Ibs. tankage fed hogs @ $50.00 per ton ... 5.63 Dec. 16-May 15, To 225 Ibs. shorts fed hogs @ $25.00 per ton .. Total cost of extra feed for hogs ... --$ 55.86 Dec. 16-May 15, By 1790 Ibs. pork @ $7.50 per cwt 134.25 Value of pork produced from droppings Total receipts including pork ... vfiq Total loss including pork ... 7^-^ Loss per steer including pork .. '-Jo Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle ... FINANCIAL STATEMENT— Continued Lot 5.— Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Molasses. (Cane), Clover Hay, and Corn Silage, 19 14-1 5 Dec 16 To 10 steers, weight 11712 Ibs. @ $8.00 per cwt $ 936.96 Dec 16-Jan 15 To 2795 Ibs. shelled corn @ 60.6 cts. per bu 30.25 Jan' 15-Feb. 14, To 3325 Ibs. shelled corn @ 66.6 cts. per bu Feb 14-Mar 16 To 3300 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.9 cts. per bu.-.. 37.07 Mar 16-Apr' 15,' To 3300 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.6 cts. per bu Apr' 15-May 15, To 3565 Ibs. shelled corn @ 69.4 cts. per bu..... Dec. 16-May 15, To 5006 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $28.00 per ton 70.08 Dec 16-May 15, To 4267 Ibs. molasses (cane) @ 1.125 cts. per pound . Dec 16-May 15, To 7130 Ibs. clover hay @ $16.00 per ton.... 57.04 Dec.' 16-May 15, To 43730 Ibs. corn silage (a) $5.00 per ton- Total expenditures .. May 15, By 10 steers, weight 15628 Ibs. @ $8.20 per cwt..- Total loss without pork .. Loss per steer without pork Dec. 16-May 15, To 4104 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 64.7 cts. per bu. ... -— $ 47.42 Dec. 16-May 15, By 1520 Ibs. pork @ $7.50 per cwt..... Value of pork produced from droppings Total receipts including pork ... Total loss including pork ... RIV Loss per steer including pork ... Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 89i FINANCIAL STATEMENT— Continued Lot 6.— Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Molasses Feed, Clover Hay, and Corn Silage, 1914-15 Dec. 16, To 10 steers, weight 11655 Ibs. @ $8.00 per cwt $ 932.40 Dec. 16-Jan. 15, To 3060 Ibs. shelled com @ 60.6 cts. per bu 33.11 Jan. 15-Feb. 14, To 3490 Ibs. shelled corn @ 66.6 cts. per bu 41.51 Feb. 14-Mar. 16, To 3600 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.9 cts. per bu 40.44 Mar. 16-Apr. 15, To 3600 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.6 cts. per bu 40.89 Apr. 15-May 15, To 3865 Ibs. shelled corn @ 69.4 cts. per bu 47.90 Dec. 16-May 15, To 8244 Ibs. molasses feed @ $28.00 per ton.... 115.42 Dec. 16-May 15, To 7170 Ibs. clover hay @ $16.00 per ton 57.36 Dec. 16-May 15, To 37885 Ibs. corn silage @ $5.00 per ton 94.71 Total expenditures $1403.74 May 15, By 10 steers, weight 14760 Ibs. @ $8.00 per cwt 1195.56 Total loss without pork $ 208.18 toss per steer without pork 20.82 Dec. 16-May 15, To 4104 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 64.7 cts. per bu $ 47.42 Dec. 16-May 15, By 1687 Ibs. pork @ $7.50 per cwt 126.53 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 79.11 Total receipts including pork 1274.67 Total loss including pork 129.07 Loss per steer including pork 12.91 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle .238 Lot 7.— Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Alfalfa Hay, and Corn Silage, 1914-15 Dec. 16, To 10 steers, weight 11695 Ibs. @ $8.00 per cwt $ 935.60 Dec. 16-Jan. 15, To 3295 Ibs. shelled corn @ 60.6 cts. per bu 35.66 Jan. 15-Feb. 14, To 4190 Ibs. shelled corn @ 66.6 cts. per bu 49.83 Feb. 14-Mar. 16, To 4200 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.9 cts. per bu 47.17 Mar. 16-Apr. 15, To 4200 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.6 cts. per bu 47.70 Apr. 15-May 15, To 4465 Ibs. shelled corn @ 69.4 cts. per bu 55.33 Dec. 16-May 15, To 4986 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $28.00 per ton 69.80 Dec. 16-May 15, To 4440 Ibs. alfalfa hay @ $18.00 per ton 39.96 Dec. 16-May 15, To 42540 Ibs. corn silage @ $5.00 per ton 106.35 Total expenditures $1387.40 May 15, By 10 steers, weight 15635 Ibs. @ $8.35 per cwt 1305.52 Total loss without pork $ 81.88 Loss per steer without pork 8.19 Dec. 16-May 15, To 4034 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 64.7 cts. per bu $ 46.61 Dec. 16-May 15, By 1571 Ibs. pork @ $7.50 per cwt 117.83 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 71.22 Total receipts including pork 1376.74 Total loss including pork 10.66 Loss per steer including pork 1.07 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle .619 01 VI PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment BUI,I,ETI-N No. 191, VOL. XIX , 1916 CATTLE FEEDING XII WINTER STEER FEEDING 1915-1916 Part I. Corn Silage and Leguminous Hay vs. Leguminous Hay as Roughage for Fattening Steers Part II. A Limited Feed of Corn as Compared with a Full Feed of Corn for Fattening Steers Part III. Clover Hay vs. Alfalfa Hay as Roughage for Fattening Steers Part IV. Cane Feeding Molasses vs. Mixed Molasses Feed as Supplements to Rations for Fattening Steers Published Dy foe station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. BOARD OF CONTROL ADDISON C. HARRIS, President Indianapolis, Marion County FAY S. CHANDLER Indianapolis, Marion County CHARLES DOWNING Greenfield. Hancock County SAMUEL M. FOSTER Fort Wayne. Allen County JOHN A. HILLENBRAND Batesville. Ripley County CYRVS M. HOBBS Bridgeport, Marion County JOSEPH D. OLIVER South Bend, St. Joseph County GEORGE PURCELL Vincennes, Knox County WILLIAM V. STUART LaFayette, Tippecanoe County WINTHROP E. STONE, A. M., Ph. D President of the University STATION STAFF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS ARTHUR Goss, M. S., A. C Director GEORGE I. CHRISTIE, B. S. A Sup't Agricultural Extension ROBERT A. CRAIG, D V. M .Chief Veterinarian OTTO F. HUNZIKER. M. S Chief in Dairy Husbandry HERBERT S. JACKSON, A. B Chief in Botany WILLIAM J. JONES, JR., M. S., A. C.1 State Chemist JOHN H. SKINNER, B. S Chief in Animal Husbandry JAMES TROOP, M. S Chief in Entomology ALFRED T. WIANCKO, B. S. A Chief in Soils and Crops CHARLES G. WOODBURY, M. S Chief in Horticulture ASSOCIATES AND ASSISTANTS JOHN M. ALDRICH, Ph. D.3 Entomological Assistant EVELYN ALLISON, B. S Assistant in Botany PAUL R. BAUSMAN, B. S.4 Inspector State Chemist Department JAMES C. BEAVERS, B. Agr Associate in Soils and Crops Extension REUBEN O. BITLER. B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist CHARLES S: BREWSTER, M. S.... ...Assistant in Poultry Husbandry RALPH E. CALDWELL, B. S Associate in Milk Production GLENN G. CARTER, B. S.4 Inspector State Chemist Department DAVID B. CLARK, D. M. C Assistant Veterinarian CARL H. CLINK, B. S Assistant in Serum Production THOMAS A. COLEMAN Ass't State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations SAMUEL D. CONNER, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops CLINTON O. CROMER, B. S Associate in Crops GEORGE A. CROSS, B. S Graduate Assistant in Animal Husbandry CARLETON CUTLER, B. S.4 First Deputy State Chemist and Microscopist (Feeds) JOHN J. DAVIS, B. S.3 Entomological Assistant in Charge RALPH B. DEEMER, B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist LEO P. DOYLE, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology WILLIAM F. EPPLE, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry FREDERICK A. FENTON, M. S.3 Scientific Assistant MARTIN L. FISHER, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops GEORGE, M. FRIER, B. S. A Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits LESLIE R. GEORGE, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology ROY L. GREENE, B. S.4 Inspector State Chemist Department MABEL L. HARLAN Assistant in Agricultural Extension ABNER J. HUNTER, B. S. A Assistant in Serum Production CORA A. JACOBS, A. M.2 , Seed Analyst SADOCIE C. JONES. M. S Assistant in Soils LAWRENCE C. KIGIN. D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian FRANKLIN G. KING, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry HERBERT E. MCCARTNEY, B. S. A Assistant in Animal Husbandry Extension EDWIN B. MAINS, Ph. D Assistant in Botany PRESTON W. MASON, B. S Assistant in Entomology SHIRLEY L. MASON, A. B.3 Scientific Assistant DONALD F. MATTSON, B. S. A Assistant in Creamery Inspection HORACE C. MILLS, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures HARRY C. MUGG, B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist HARRY A. NOYES, M. S., Research Assistant in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology GLEN L. OGLE. B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection JOSEPH OSKAMP, B. S Research Assistant in Pomology GEORGE A. OSNER, Ph. D Associate in Botany HARRY C. PAINE, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian ALLEN G. PHILIPS, B. S. A Associate in Poultry Husbandry EDWARD G. PROULX, M. S.4 First Deputy State Chemist (Fertilizers) HARRY J. REED Associate in Horticulture CHARLES C. REES, M. A Assistant in Botany OTIS S. ROBERTS, B. S.4 Chief Inspector State Chemist Department J. HOWARD ROOP, B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist ALFRED F. SATTERTHWAIT 3 Scientific Assistant GEORGE SPITZER. Ph. G., B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry CHESTER G. STARR, B. S. A Assistant in Swine Production and Management HERBERT B. SWITZER, B. S. A Assistant in Dairy Bacteriology THOMAS S. TOWNSLEY, B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry GILBERT P. WALKER, B. S Assistant in Soils and Crops FRED L. WALKEY, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian JAMES L. WEIMER, Ph. D Assistant in Botany REX A. WHITING. D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology LESTER YODER, B. S. A Graduate Assistant in Horticultural Chemistry NELLIE TRACY ^ Secretary to the Director and Librarian MARY K. BLOOM Bookkeeper ! In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Seed Testing 3 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations * Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNDER LEGISLATIVE ACT OF 19O9) J. P. PRIGG, Daleville State Live Stock Association U. R. FISHEL, Hope State Poultry Fanciers' Association H. H. SWAIM, South Bend State Horticultural Society D. B. JOHNSON, Mooresville State Dairy Association D. F. MAISH, Frankfort State Corn Growers' Association WINTER STEER FEEDING 1915-1916 J. H. SKINNER F. G. KING SUMMARY PART I 1. The addition of 28.64 pounds of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay reduced the daily corn consumption 2.53 pounds per steer and the daily hay consumption 10.63 pounds per steer. 2. The addition of 30.81 pounds of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay decreased the daily corn consumption 2.77 pounds per steer and the daily hay consump- tion 10.02 pounds per steer. 3. The addition of silage to a ration of shelled corn, cotton- seed meal and clover hay slightly decreased the rate of gain while with the ration containing alfalfa hay, corn silage increased the rate of gain. 4. Corn silage reduced the cost of gain on the cattle. This reduction in cost amounted to 94 cents per hundred pounds when clover hay was in the ration and $2.30 per hundred pounds when alfalfa hay comprised the dry roughage. 5. The addition of silage to the ration slightly increased the selling value of the cattle. 6. The use of corn silage increased the profit per steer $4.06 when clover hay was in the ration and $7.02 when alfalfa hay was fed. PART II 7. Cattle fed a limited ration of corn, consumed larger quan- tities of hay and silage than cattle receiving a full feed of corn. 8. Cattle fed a limited grain ration gained .10 pound daily per steer less than cattle receiving a full feed of corn. 9. Cattle fed a limited feed of grain made more economical gains than full-fed cattle. The reduction in cost of gain by the limited feed was 84 cents per hundred pounds. 10. Cattle fed a limited grain feed were valued 10 cents per hundred pounds less than full-fed cattle but returned a profit of $1.66 per steer greater than the latter. PART III 11. Cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay ate the same quantity of grain but considerably larger quantities of hay than cattle fed alfalfa hay instead of clover hay. 12. Cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, and corn silage ate slightly more grain and hay but less silage than cattle fed a similar ration with alfalfa hay instead of clover hay. 13. Cattle fed shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay gained practically the same as those fed a similar ration with alfalfa hay replacing clover hay. 14. Cattle fed clover hay and corn silage as roughage gained less rapidly than those fed alfalfa hay and corn silage as roughage. 15. A ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay produced gains on cattle with approximately the same expenditure of feed and at the same cost as a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. 1 6. A ration containing clover hay and corn silage as roughage failed to make as economical gains on full-fed cattle as a ration containing alfalfa hay and corn silage as roughage. 17. The finish on the cattle was practically the same whether clover hay or alfalfa hay was fed. 18. Cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay returned a profit including pork of $9.55 per steer as com- pared with $10.59 per steer when alfalfa hay replaced clover hay. 19. A ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, and corn silage returned a profit on cattle of $13.61 per head including pork as compared with a profit of $17.61 per steer when alfalfa hay replaced the clover hay. PART IV 20. The substitution of a small quantity of feeding molasses (cane) for an equal quantity of corn in a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, and corn silage increased the appetites of the cattle. The increase in feed consumption was principally of corn silage. 21. The feeding of proprietary molasses feed instead of cot- tonseed meal induced a slightly larger feed consumption on the part of the cattle. 22. The addition of molasses to the ration increased the rate of gain; the use of proprietary molasses feed instead of cottonseed meal resulted in a smaller rate of gain. 23. Cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay returned a profit including pork of $13.61 per steer ; cattle fed a similar ration with a part of the corn replaced by feeding molasses (cane) returned a profit of $11.52 per steer; cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, proprietary molasses feed, corn silage and clover hay returned a profit, including pork of $9.24 per steer. INTRODUCTION The cattle feeding trial reported in this bulletin was conducted in the winter following a corn crop of very poor quality. The excess of cool, wet weather during the summer resulted in feed being of poor quality and of low feeding value. The gain made by the cattle was below normal on account of the poor quality of both cattle and feed. Nevertheless, the price of fat cattle was high enough in the spring that all lots of steers showed some profit. OBJECT The object of the trial was to obtain additional information on the comparative value of leguminous hay alone and in combination with corn silage as roughage for fattening cattle; to test the com- parative value of clover hay and alfalfa hay as roughage for full- fed cattle ; to test the value of feeding molasses and mixed molasses feeds for fattening cattle; and to test the value of a limited feed of corn with corn silage as compared with a full feed of corn for finishing steers. PLAN The plan of the work was to secure seventy medium feeding cattle. These cattle were divided into seven lots of ten steers each, as nearly as possible equal in size, condition, quality, thrift, and breeding. Each lot of cattle was placed in similar surroundings and fed for one hundred fifty days. The only differences between lots were in the rations fed which were as follows : Lot i. Shelled corn (limited), cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage, clover hay. Lot 2. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per looo pounds live weight, clover hay. Lot 3. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, alfalfa hay. Lot 4. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage, clover hay. Lot 5. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, molasses (cane), corn silage, clover hay. Lot 6. Shelled corn, molasses feed, corn silage, clover hay. Lot 7. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage, alfalfa hay. SHELTER, FEED LOTS, AND WATER SUPPLY Each lot of cattle occupied similar quarters which consisted of an open, concreted lot 20 by 28 feet joined on the west by an open shed 16 by 28 feet. The concrete floors which were cleaned every two or three weeks, kept the yards in comfortable condition during the entire season. The sheds were kept well bedded. Both grain and roughage were fed under cover. Grain and silage were fed in troughs thirty inches wide arranged along the feed alley. Hay was fed in the racks under the shed on either side of the lots. Water was supplied in galvanized iron tanks ad- jacent to the open lots and surrounded by five or- six inches of manure held in place by wooden jackets. A fresh supply of water was kept before the cattle at all times. WEIGHTS Each steer was weighed individually for three consecutive days at the beginning and end of the trial and every thirty days during the progress of the same. The averages of the three weights at the beginning and end of the trial were taken as the initial and final weights, respectively. The identity of each steer was known by means of a numbered tag on a strap fastened around the neck. Lot weights were taken every ten days in order to facilitate keeping records of feed consumed and gains made. Weights were taken at 9 :oo A. M. without change in the ration or water of the cattle. Each lot of hogs was weighed every ten days. METHOD OF FEEDING The method of feeding was practically the same in all lots reported in this bulletin. Grain was fed at 6:00 A. M. arid 4:30 P. M. in troughs, under cover. The corn was placed in the trough and cottonseed meal, or mixed molasses feed poured upon and mixed with it. After the cattle had cleaned up the grain, which usually required from a half to three quarters of an hour, roughage was fed. The lots receiving silage were fed this roughage both morning and evening. In Lot 5, molasses (cane) was poured upon the silage at each feed. Lots 2 and 3 received hay twice daily ; the other lots received dry roughage at the morning feed. It was the intention to have all silage cleaned up within two hours after it was offered and all dry roughage before time for the next feed.- Salt was kept before the cattle at all times. DESCRIPTION OF THE CATTLE The cattle used in this trial were purchased locally and were rather uneven in quality, breeding, and condition. As a whole, they were of medium quality. A majority was red, indicating Shorthorn breeding with a few blacks and white faces, indicating Angus and Hereford breeding, respectively. They were not of the quality to be made thick fat but had the appearance of being steers that would make average gains. A majority was two-year-olds with a few cattle either older or younger than this age. METHOD OF VALUING THE CATTLE The feed lots were visited at the beginning of the trial by J. T. Alexander of Chicago and J. S. Taylor of Indianapolis who placed a value on the cattle on the basis of the Indianapolis market. (The Chicago market was not open to feeding cattle.) At the end of the trial the cattle were valued by the same commission men in company with Mr. Tom Cross, a buyer for Armour and Company of Chicago. Financial statements are based on the Indianapolis value of feeding cattle plus 15 cents per hundred pounds and Chicago prices for fat cattle less 50 cents per hundred pounds. QUALITY OF FEEDS Rations fed in this trial consisted of various combinations of the following feeds : shelled corn, cottpnseed meal, feeding mo- lasses (cane), Champion Molasses Feed, clover hay, alfalfa hay, and corn silage. The corn was of poor quality at all times. The wet weather during the summer and the early frost prevented the corn from maturing into good quality feed. Cottonseed meal was of choice grade guaranteed to contain 41 per cent, protein and 6 per cent, crude fat. The molasses was commercial feeding mo- lasses without a guarantee. The molasses feed was guaranteed to contain n per cent, crude protein and 2 per cent, crude fat. Clover hay was of medium quality. Alfalfa hay consisted of about equal parts first, second, and third cutting and was of good quality considering the unfavorable season for curing hay. Corn silage was made from corn produced on Purdue Farm yielding approximately 52 bushels per acre. The corn was well matured when put into the silo. PRICES OF FEEDS The prices of feeds used in presenting financial results are based on the actual market prices at the time the experiment was in progress. The average price of corn in Lafayette was as follows : first month, 55.9 cents; second month, 62.5 cents; third month, 62.4 cents ; fourth month, 58.2 cents ; fifth month, 63.7 cents per bushel ; cottonseed meal $38.00 per ton; molasses feed $31.00 per ton; feed- ing molasses (cane), $30.00 per ton; clover hay and alfalfa hay, $12.00 per ton; corn silage $4.50 per ton. All financial statements are based on the above mentioned prices of feeds. HOGS Each lot of cattle also contained ten hogs. They were of good quality and averaged approximately one hundred five pounds per head at the time the experiment started. All lots of hogs received corn in addition to droppings from the cattle. The amount of corn fed depended on the appetites of the hogs. Five hogs in each of three lots of cattle (2, 3, and 4) were fed a small quantity of shorts and tankage in addition to the corn and droppings. METHOD OF STARTING CATTLE ON FEED The cattle had been in the feed yards for two weeks before they were started on experiment. During that time they received all the corn silage and second class alfalfa hay they would eat. When started on experiment, silage was dropped from the ration in Lots 2 and 3 and clover substituted for alfalfa hay in all lots except Lots 3 and 7. The first of the experiment the ration consisted of all the roughage the cattle would eat, .8 pound of cottonseed meal in all lots except Lot 6 which received molasses feed, and 4 pounds of corn daily per head in all lots except Lot i which received no corn. The corn was slowly increased, but sixty days elapsed before the cattle were given all the corn they would eat. Lot I received no corn the first month, five pounds daily per head the second month, seven pounds the third month, eight pounds the fourth month, and nine pounds the fifth month. Cottonseed meal in the lots in which it was fed was increased until at the end of four weeks it was being fed at the rate of 2.5 pounds daily per thousand pounds of weight. Champion Molasses Feed was gradually raised to 6 pounds daily per head. In Lot 5, feeding molasses (cane) was gradually added to the ration until at the end of 30 days, 3 pounds of molasses daily per head were being fed instead of an equal quantity of corn. PART I CORN SILAGE AND LEGUMINOUS HAY vs. LEGUMINOUS HAY FOR FATTENING STEERS The value of corn silage as compared with clover hay as roughage for fattening steers has been a subject of investigation at this institution for ten years. The object has been to learn the com- parative value of the corn crop in the form of corn silage as com- pared with a roughage secured from a leguminous hay used in the rotation. The trial reported in this bulletin is an exact duplication of the test conducted at the Station in the winter of 1914-15. The trial here reported gives information as to the effect of the addition of corn silage to rations of corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay .and corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. The rations fed were as follows : Lot 2. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per looo pounds live weight, clover hay. Lot 4. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, clover hay, corn silage. Lot 3. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per looo pounds live weight, alfalfa hay. Lot 7. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, alfalfa hay, corn silage. The only difference in the rations between Lots 2 and 4 and Lots 3 and 7 was the addition of corn silage. Cottonseed meal was fed in all lots in the proportion of 2.5 pounds daily per.iooo pounds live weight. The cattle used in the trial and the method of starting them on feed is reported on page 8. DAILY RATION. — The influence of the different feeds on the daily consumption of the various constituents of the ration is re- ported by thirty-day periods in Table I. As noted in Table I the corn silage in the ration reduced the corn required to have the cattle on full feed. Since the cattle were not given all the grain they would consume until the end of the sec- ond month this reduction in grain consumption by the use of corn silage was much more apparent during the latter part rather than the earlier part of the feeding period. Special attention is called to the saving in hay effected by the use of corn silage. The average daily consumption of hay during any single month did not exceed 2.5 pounds daily per steer in either of the lots receiving corn silage. The average amount of hay consumed daily per steer when corn silage was fed was approximately two pounds, whereas, when clover hay alone furnished the roughage the hay consumption was 12.67 pounds 'for the entire fattening period and when alfalfa hay was used 11.97 pounds daily per steer. 'The corn silage was consumed in quantities varying from 23.03 pounds to 37.23 pounds in Lot. 4 and from 25.50 pounds to 37.37 pounds in Lot 7, the average for the entire period being 28.64 pounds in Lot 4 and 30.81 pounds in Lot 7 daily per steer. It is apparent that the corn silage made a great saving in the other constituents of the ration and practically replaced hay. 10 TABLE I. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, December i, 1915 to April 29, 1916 (150 days) Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot3 Lot 7 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, RATION cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed meal, meal, meal, meal, clover hay clover hay, alfalfa hay alfalfa hay, corn silage corn silage First month shelled corn 6,08 Ibs. 6.08 Ibs. 6.08 Ibs. 6.08 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.75 " 1.75 " 1.75 " 1.75 " clover hay 15.93 " 2.27 " alfalfa hay 15.87 " 2.50 " corn silage 37.23 " 37.37 " Second month shelled corn 10.00 " 9.00 " 10.00 " 9.00 " cottonseed meal 2.45 " 2.42 " 2.40 " 2.47 " clover hay 14.50 " 2.25 " alfalfa hay 13.37 " 1.58 " corn silage 29.07 " 32.43 " Third month shelled corn 14.00 " 11.00 " 14.00 " 11.00 " cottonseed meal 2.57 " 2.55 " 2.47 " 2.62 "' clover hay 12.00 " 1.72 " alfalfa hay 11.40 " 1.58 " corn silage 28.00 " 30.30 " Fourth month shelled corn 15.60 " 11.72 " 15.60 " 10.70 " cottonseed meal 2.70 " 2.68 " 2.63 " 2.82 " clover hay 10.93 " 2.13 " alfalfa hay 10.47 " 2.17 " corn silage 25.87 " 28.43 " Fifth month shelled corn 16.00 " 11.25 " 16.00 " 11.08 " cottonseed meal 2.87 " 2.83 " 2.83 " 2.98 " clover hay 10.00 " 1.82 " alfalfa hay 8.77 " 1.93 " corn silage 23.03 " 25.50 " Average daily feed for entire period shelled corn 12.34 Ibs. 9.81 Ibs 12.34 Ibs. 9.57 Ibs. cottonseed meal 2.47 " 2.45 " 2.42 " 2.53 " clover hay 12.67 " 2.04 " alfalfa hay 11.97 " 1.95 " corn silage 28.64 " 30.81 " GAINS. — Gains made by the four lots of cattle are shown in Table II. TABLE II. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months December i, 1915 to April 29, 1916 (150 days) . RATION Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3 Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay, corn silage First month Second month Third month Fourth month Fifth month 1.99 Ibs. 1.72 " 2.23 " 1.18 " 3.32 " 2.29 Ibs. 1.55 " 2.30 " 1.57 " 2.38 " 1.72 Ibs. 1.17 " 2.48 " 2.12 " 2.82 " 2.39 Ibs. 2.33 " 2.85 " 1.67 " 2.51 " Total gain per steer Average daily gain for entire period 313.2 Ibs. 2.09 " 302.6 Ibs. 2.02 " 309.4 Ibs. 2.06 " 352.4 Ibs. 2.35 " Table II shows that the addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and clover hay had very little effect on the gains of the cattle, there being a total difference of only 10.6 pounds per steer during a five months feeding period, this difference being in favor of Lot 2. This is not in perfect accord with the average of previous trials on this subject because the average has shown a slight increase in the daily gains by the addition of corn silage in the ration. The addition of corn silage to a ration of corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay had considerable effect on the daily gains made by the cattle. This was especially marked during the first three months. During the five months on feed the cattle receiving alfalfa hay as the only roughage gained 309.4 pounds as compared with 352.4 pounds by cattle receiving the same ration with corn silage in 'addition. If the average of the two lots not receiving silage is compared with the average of the two lots where this feed was used it is apparent that there was an appreciable increase in the rate of gain due to addition of corn silage, thus corroborating previous trials at this station. COST OF GAINS. — The influence of corn silage on the cost of gain is shown in Table III. 12 TABLE III. — Showing Average Amount of Pound Gain and Cost per Hundred Feed Consumed per Pounds Gain RATION Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3. Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay, corn silage Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 5.91 Ibs. 1.18 '* 6.07 " 4.86 Ibs. 1.21 " 1.01 " 14.20 " 5.98 Ibs. 1.17 " 5.8.0 " 4.07 Ibs. . 1.08 " .83 " 13.11 " Dry matter consumed per pound gain 11.23 " 11.31 " 10.65 " 9.98 " Cost per cwt. gain $12.33 $11.39 $12.23 $9.93 It will be noted in Table III that in both lots receiving corn silage the gains were made at a lower expenditure of grain than where the silage was not used. There was also a very marked sav- ing in the hay required to make a pound of gain. With clover hay as roughage there was a saving of 1.5 pounds of corn and 5.6 pounds of hay on every pound of gain, which was replaced by 14.2 pounds of corn silage in the ration. When silage was added to alfalfa hay as roughage there was a saving of 1.91 pounds of corn and 4.97 pounds of hay by the use of 13.11 pounds of corn silage. When financial statements are considered the addition of corn silage to clover hay effected a saving of 94 cents on each hundred pounds of gain. Corn silage added to alfalfa hay as roughage saved $2.30 on each hundred pounds of gain. SUMMARY. — In order that the entire operation may be presented in concise form a summary is made of all the factors as they existed during the progress of this trial. No attempt is made to present them in their variable forms but to give them only as they existed in this trial. Prices of feed are given on page 7. No charge is made for straw used for bedding nor for labor of feeding. Neither is any credit given for any manure produced by the cattle, it being considered that this by-product will pay for the labor of feeding and the straw used for bedding. There were ten hogs in each lot throughout the progress of the trial. Enough corn was fed these hogs to make them gain satis- factorily. Five hogs in Lots 2 and 4 received a small quantity of shorts and tankage in addition to corn and droppings. Corn fed the hogs is valued at 60.6 cents per bushel, shorts at $25.00 per ton and tankage at $50.00 per ton and their cost is deducted from the value of pork actually produced before pork produced from drop- pings is credited to the receipts from the cattle. TABLK IV. — Summary of Part I RATION Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3 Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay, corn silage Initial value $6.90 $6.90 $6.90 $6.90 Initial weight Final weight Total gain Average daily gain 8853 Ibs. 11985 3132 2.09 " 8752 Ibs. 11778 " 3026 2.02 " 8668 Ibs. 11762 " 3094 2.06 " 8783 Ibs. 12307 3524 " 2.35 " Total feed consumed shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 18505 3701 19010 14715 3671 " 3055 42960 18505 3626 17960 14360 " 3791 2930 46210 " Daily feed per steer shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 12.34 " 2.47 " 12.67 " 9.81 " 2.45 " 2.04 " 28.64 " 12.34 " 2.42 " 11.97 " 9.57 " 2.53 " 1.95 " 30.81 " Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 5.91 " 1.18 " 6.07 " 4.86 " 1.21 " 1.01 " 14.20 " 5.98 " 1.17 " 5.80 " 4.07 " ' 1.08 " .83 " 13.11 " Cost of gain per cwt. $12.33 $11.39 $12.23 $9.93 Necessary selling price 8.32 8.05 8.30 7.77 Actual selling price in lots without shrink 8.65 8.70 8.65 8.75 Profit per steer not including pork 3.97 7.60 4.09 12.10 Pork produced 1107 Ibs. 1156 Ibs. 1203 Ibs. 1075 Ibs. Corn fed to hogs 4044 " 4086 " 4052 " ,4589 Shorts fed to hogs 225 " 225 225 " Tankage fed to hogs 225 225 225 " Profit per steer including pork $9.55 $13.61 $10.59 $17.61 Pork is valued at $9.75 per cwt. 14 Table IV shows that the addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay > slightly reduced the rate of gain but also reduced the cost of gain 94 cents per hundred pounds and slightly increased the selling value of the cat- tle. With an initial weight of 885.3 pounds per steer the cattle fed clover hay alone as roughage weighed at the end of five months 1198.5 pounds and would have had to sell for $8.32 per cwt. in the feed lots in order to pay expenses. They actually sold for $8.65 per cwt., thus returning a profit of $3.97 per steer, pork not being considered. When pork is considered, the profit was $9.55 per steer. Cattle fed shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, and corn silage, starting at initial weight of 875.2 pounds per steer, weighed at the end of five months on feed 1177.8 pounds per steer and would have had to sell for $8.05 per cwt. in order to pay expenses. They actually sold for $8.70 and returned a profit of $7.60 per steer not including pork. When pork is considered they returned a profit of $13.61 per steer as compared with $9.55 per steer when silage was not fed. The addition of corn silage to a ration of corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay, very materially increased the rate of gain, reduced the cost of gain $2.30 per cwt. and increased the selling value of the cattle 10 cents per cwt. The cattle fed alfalfa hay alone for roughage weighed 866.8 pounds per steer at the beginning of the trial and 1176.2 pounds at the end of the trial. It would have been necessary for these cattle to sell for $8.30 per cwt. in order to pay expenses. They actually sold for $8.65 and returned a profit of $4.09 per steer when pork is not considered and $10.59 Per steer when this item is credited to the cattle. Cattle fed a similar ration but with corn silage added, weighed 878.3 pounds per steer at the beginning of the trial and 1230.7 pounds at the end of the trial. They could have sold for $7.77 per cwt. and paid expenses. Their actual selling price was $8.75 per hundred pounds. They returned a profit of $12.10 per steer with pork not considered, and $17.61 per steer when this by-product is considered. The addition of silage to alfalfa hay increased the profit including pork $7.02 per steer. 15 PART II A LIMITED FEED OF CORN AS COMPARED WITH A FULL FEED OF CORN FOR FATTENING CATTLE Cattle are coming to be considered on the corn belt farms pri- marily as instruments for the disposition of the rough feed produced in order that the market value may be secured for this by-product of corn production and the soil fertility returned to the land. Since the price of corn continues higher and is more fully utilized by hogs than by cattle, the desirability of reducing the quantity of corn neces- sary to fatten cattle is readily apparent. This is especially true if it is possible to make good cattle on the roughage produced on the farm, and which when sold, commands a comparatively low price when the soil fertility removed is considered. Also cattle are pre- eminently the greatest users of roughage available for use in the corn belt. This is especially true for corn silage. Therefore, the desirability of reducing, as far as possible, the corn required to fat- ten cattle and substituting therefor corn silage which is produced in such abundance on the farm, is highly important. In order to test the feasibility of using corn silage more largely for fattening cattle Lot i in this trial was fed a ration of corn silage, clover hay, and cot- tonseed meal. During the first month no corn was fed. The fol- lowing amounts of corn were fed thereafter: second month, five pounds daily per steer; third month, seven pounds daily per steer; fourth month, eight pounds daily per steer; and fifth month, nine pounds daily per steer. The cattle in Lot 4 were fed a ration of corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, and corn silage. The corn was fed in such quantities as the cattle would consume after they had been gradually worked onto a full feed. DAILY RATION. — The average daily feed consumed per head is shown in Table V. It will be noted that the cattle receiving a limited feed of corn ate larger quantities of both clover hay and corn silage than the cattle on full feed. The greatest difference in silage consumption occurred in the fourth month while the greatest difference in hay consumption occurred during the first month. The average of the entire period showed that the cattle receiving a limited feed of corn consumed 3.09 pounds of hay and 33.01 pounds of corn silage as compared with 2.04 pounds of clover hay and 28.64 pounds of corn silage by the cattle receiving a full feed of corn. The average dif- ference in corn consumption was 4,01 pounds daily during the entire period. i6 TAIIIJ: \". — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, December i, 1915 to April 29, 1916 (150 days) RATION* First month shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage Second month shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage Third month shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage Fourth month shelled corn cottonseed meal clover liny corn silage Fifth month shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage Lol 1 Lot -1 Shelled corn Shelled rorn, (limited), cottonseed meal, cot t oilseed meal. clover hay, clover hay, corn silage corn silage 6.08 Ibs. 1.75 Ibs. 1.75 " 4.07 " 2.27 " 39.83 " 37.23 " 5.00 " 9.00 " 2.40 " 2.42 " 2.85 " 2.25 " 32.93 " 29.07 " 7.00 " 11.00 " 2.53 " 2.55 " 2.53 " 1.72 " 33.53 " 28.00 " 7.98 " 11.72 " 2.157 " 2.G8 " 2.55 " 2 13 " 31.73 " 25.87 " 9.02 " 11.25 " 2.83 " 2.83 " 2.5G " 1.82 " 27.02 " 23.03 " entire period 5.80 Ibs. 9.S1 Ibs. 2.44 " 2.45 " 3.09 " 2.04 " 33.01 " 28.fi4 GAIN. — The influence of a limited amount of corn on the rate of gain made by cattle is shown in Table VI. VI. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months, December i, 1915 to April 29, 1916 (150 days) RATION Lot 1 Lot 4 Shelled corn (limited) , cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage First month Second month Third month Fourth month Fifth month 1.59 Ibs. 1.92 " 1.78 " 1.75 " 2.57 " 2.29 Ibs. 1.55 " 2.30 " 1.57 " 2.38 " Total gain per sieer Average daijy gain for entire period 288.5 Ibs. 1.92 " 302.6 Ibs. 2.02 " It will be noted in Table VI that the cattle receiving a limited feed of corn made more rapid gains during three of the five months they were on feed than the cattle fed a full feed of corn. However, the total gain was not as great in Lot I as in Lot 4. Steers fed a limited feed of corn gained 288.5 pounds during the feeding period as compared with 302.6 pounds by steers that were full-fed on corn. " This is a difference of one-tenth of a pound daily per steer. COST OF GAINS. — The influence of limiting the feed of corn on cost of gain is shown in Table VII. VII. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per Hundred Pounds Gain RATION Lot 1 Lot 4 Shelled corn (limited) , cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage 3.02 Ibs. 1.27 " 1.61 " 17.16 " 4.86 Ibs. 1.21 " 1.01 " 14.20 " Dry matter consumed per pound gain 11.44 " 11.31 " Cost per cwt. gain $10.55 $11.39 Table VII shows that limiting the feed of corn saved 1.84 pounds of corn on each pound of gain made by the cattle. This was replaced by .06 pound of cottonseed meal, .6 pound of clover hay and 2.96 pounds of corn silage. With cost of feed as given on page 7, it required $10.55 to produce 100 pounds of gain with limited corn as compared with $11.39 with a full feed of corn. Figures on the dry matter consumed per pound of gain show that limiting the feed of corn was fundamentally less economical than feeding it according to the appetites of the cattle. SUMMARY. — The prices of feeds used in the following summary are found on page 7. The value of the corn fed the hogs is deducted from the value of the pork before it is credited to the cattle. It will be noted that the cattle receiving a limited feed of corn did not gain as rapidly but more economically than those receiving a full feed of corn. The cattle receiving a limited feed of corn could have sold for 24 cents per hundred pounds less than the full-fed cattle and have paid expenses. The actual selling price was only 10 cents per hundred pounds in favor of the full-fed cattle. The actual profit per steer was $1.66 greater with a limited feed of corn than with a full feed of corn. When pork is considered, there was a difference in profit of $1.02 per steer also in favor of limiting the ration. TABLE VIII.— Summary of Part II RATION Lot 1 Lot 4 Shelled corn (limited), cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Initial value $6.90 $6.90 Initial weight Final weight Total gain Average daily gain 8762 Ibs. 11647 2885 1.92 " 8752 Ibs. 11778 3026 " 2.02 '• Total feed consumed shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage 8700 3656 " 4637 49516 " 14715 3671 " 3055 42960 " Daily feed per steer shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage 5.80 " 2.44 " 3.09 " 33.01 " 9.81 " 2.45 " 2.04 " 28.64 " Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay corn silage 3.02 " 1.27 " 1.61 " 17.16 " 4.86 " 1.21 " 1.01. " 14.20 " Cost of gain per cwt. $10.55 $11.39 Necessary selling price 7.81 8.05 Actual selling price in lots without shrink 8.60 8.70 Profit per steer not including pork 9.26 7.60 Pork produced 1143 Ibs. 1156 Ibs. Corn fed to hogs 5336 " 4086 " Shorts fed to hogs 225 " Tankage fed to hogs 225 Profit per steer including pork $14.63 $13.61 Pork is valued at $9.75 per cwt. 2O PART III CLOVER HAY vs. ALFALFA HAY AS ROUGHAGE FOR FATTENING STEERS Part III of this bulletin is a report of a trial to determine the comparative value of clover hay and alfalfa hay as roughage for fattening steers. Two previous trials have shown that when hay furnishes the only form of roughage, clover has been the equal of alfalfa hay. When silage is fed in connection with them, one trial has shown superior results with clover hay and the second trial has shown superior results with alfalfa hay. DAILY RATION. — The average daily feed per steer by thirty- day periods is shown in Table IX. Table IX shows that when hay was the only form of roughage used, cattle receiving clover hay ate exactly the same quantity of corn during every month in the feeding trial but slightly larger amounts of hay than cattle receiving alfalfa hay as roughage. There was very little difference in hay consumption during the first month but during the last month the difference was considerable. There was a'difference of .7 pound daily per steer in hay consumption dur- ing the average of the entire period. When both hay and silage were fed as roughage the cattle receiving clover hay ate more corn during the last two months on feed than the cattle receiving alfalfa hay. On the other hand their appetites for silage were not as keen as when the alfalfa hay was used. The average of the entire feeding period shows also a slightly larger hay consumption for the cattle receiving clover hay. 21 TABLE IX. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, December I, 1915 to April 29, 1916 (150 days) Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 7 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, Shelled corn, RATION cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed meal, meal, meal, meal, clover hay alfalfa hay clover hay, alfalfa hay, corn silage corn silage First month shelled corn cottonseed mea] 6.08 Ibs. 1.75 " 6.08 Ibs. 1.75 " 6.08 Ibs. 1.75 " 6.08 Ibs. 1 75 " clover hay 15.93 " 2.27 " JL. 1 U alfalfa hay 15.87 " 250 " corn silage 37.23 " 37.37 " Second month shelled corn 10.00 " 10.00 " 9.00 " 9.00 " cottonseed meal clover hay 2.45 " 14.50 " 2.40 " 2.42 " 2.25 " 2.47 " alfalfa hay 13.37 " 1.58 " corn silage 29.07 " 32.43 " Third month shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay 14.00 " 2.57 " 12.00 " 14.00 " 2.47 " 11.00 " 2.55 " 1.72 " 11.00 " 2.62 " alfalfa hay 11.40 " 1 KQ " corn silage 28.00 " JL.tlO 30.30 " Fourth month shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay 15.60 " 2.70 " 10.93 " 15.60 " 2.63 " 11.72 " 2.68 " 2.13 " 10.70 " 2.82 " alfalfa hay 10.47 " 217 " corn silage 25.87 " 28.43 " Fifth month shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay 16.00 " 2.87 " 10.00 " 16.00 " 2.83 " 11.25 " 2.83 " 1.82 " 11.08 " 2.98 " alfalfa hay 8.77 " 1 QQ " corn silage 23.03 " -L»*7O 25.50 " Average daily feed for entire period shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay 12.34 Ibs. 2.47 " 12.67 " 12.34 Ibs. 2.42 " 9.81 Ibs. 2.45 " 2.04 " 9.57 Ibs. 2.53 " alfalfa hay 11.97 " 1 Q6; " corn silage 28.64 " J-.i7tJ 30.81 " 22 GAINS. — The gains made by each lot of steers are shown in Table X. TABLE X. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months. December i, 1915 to April 29, 1916 (150 days) RATION Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay, corn silage First month Second month Third month Fourth month Fifth month 1.99 Ibs. 1.72 , " 2.23 " 1.18 " 3.32 " 1.72 Ibs. 1.17 " 2.48 " 2.12 " 2.82 " 2.29 Ibs. 1.55 " 2.30 " 1.57 " 2.38 " 2.39 Ibs. 2.33 " 2.85 " 1.67 " 2.51 " Total gain per steer Average daily gain for entire period 313.2 Ibs. 2.09 " 309.4 Ibs. 2.06 " 302.6 Ibs. 2.02 " 352.4 Ibs. 2.35 " It will be noted in Table X that the cattle receiving clover hay alone as roughage made practically the same gain as cattle receiving alfalfa hay alone as roughage, the difference being less than four pounds per steer during the five months feeding period. Apparently the two forms of hay may be considered equal for producing gains on cattle, based on the results of this trial. When both hay and silage were fed the cattle receiving alfalfa hay made consistently larger gains than those receiving clover hay. There is no apparent reason why this should be the case because the quantity of hay eaten was entirely too small to account for the difference in the gains of the cattle. However, all the cattle were thrifty and seemingly equal in all lots at the beginning of and throughout the progress of the trial. A significant fact in regard to the rate of gains made by the cattle in the three trials comparing clover hay and alfalfa -hay in which corn silage has been fed, is that in every case the lot of cattle more nearly replacing hay by corn silage made more rapid and more economical gains. COST OF GAIN. — Table XI shows the average amount of feed consumed per pound of gain and the cost per hundred pounds gain. TABLE: XL — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per Hundred Pounds Gain RATION Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay, corn silage Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 5.91 Ibs. 1.18 " 6.07 " 5.98 Ibs. 1.17 " 5.80 " 4.86 Ibs. 1.21 " 1.01 " 14.20 " 4.07 Ibs. 1.08 " .83 " 13.11 " Dry matter consumed per pound gain 11.23 " 10.65 " 11.31 " 9.98 " Cost per cwt. gain $12.33 $12.23 $11.39 $9.93 It will be noted that Lot 2. fed clover hay as roughage made its gains on slightly less corn than Lot 3 fed alfalfa hay. It required a larger quantity of hay, however, when clover instead of alfalfa was used. The cost of gain was practically the same in these two lots, it being $12.33 Per cwt- with clover hay and $12.23 per cwt. with alfalfa hay. The dry matter required to make a pound of gain was very nearly the same 'with a slight difference in favor of the alfalfa hay. In Lot 4 fed clover hay and corn silage as roughage, gains were made at a greater expenditure of all kinds of feed than when alfalfa hay and corn silage were used. The cost of gain was $1.40 per hundred pounds greater when clover hay was used than when alfalfa hay was fed. SUMMARY. — Table XII shows a summary of the feeding opera- tion as relating to the four lots comparing clover and alfalfa hay. Prices of feeds are shown on page 7. It will be noted in com- paring Lots 2 and 3 that there was practically no difference in any of the principal factors influencing the profit or loss in the feeding operation. The rate of gain was practically the same. The cost of gain was also approximately equal in both lots. The selling value of the cattle was the same. There was a difference of only 12 cents per steer in the profit not including pork. Owing to the fact that the hogs following the cattle receiving alfalfa hay made slightly larger gains than those receiving clover hay, the profit per steer including pork, was slightly larger with the alfalfa hay than with the clover. For all practical purposes, however, the results obtained in this trial show clover hay and alfalfa to be worth the same when furnishing the only roughage for fattening cattle. TABLE XII.— Summary of Part III RATION Lot 2 Lot 3 LvOt 4 Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay, corn silage Initial value $6.90 $6.90 $6.90 $6.90 Initial weight Final weight Total gain Average daily gain 8853 Ibs. 11985 3132 2.09 " 8668 Ibs. 11762 3094 2.06 " 8752 Ibs. 11778 3026 " 2.02 " 8783 Ibs. 12307 3524 - 2.35 " Total feed consumed shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 18505 3701 19010 " 18505 3626 17960 14715 3671 3055 42960 " 14360 3791 " 2930 " 46210 " Daily feed per steer shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 12.34 " 2.47 " 12.67 " 12.34 " 2.42 " 11.97 " 9.81 " 2.45 " 2.04 " 28.64 " 9.57 " 2.53 " 1.95 " 30.81 " Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal clover hay alfalfa hay corn silage 5.91 " 1.18 " 6.07 " 5.98 " L17 " 5.80 " 4.86 " 1.21 " 1.01 " 14.20 " 4.07 " 1.08 " .83 " 13.11 " Cost of gain per cwt. $12.33 $12.23 $11.39 $9.93 Necessary selling price 8.32 8.30 8.05 7.77 Actual selling price in lots without shrink 8.65 8.65 8.70 8.75 Profit per steer not including pork 3.97 4.09 7.60 12.10 Pork produced 1107 Ibs. 1203 Ibs. 1156 Ibs. 1075 Ibs. Corn fed to hogs 4044 ." 4052 " 4086 " 4589 " Shorts fed to hogs 225 " 225 225 Tankage fed to hogs 225 225 " 225 " Profit per steer including pork $9.55 $10.59 $13.61 $17.61 Pork is valued at $9.75 per cwt. 25 A comparison of Lots 4 and 7 in which both hay and silage were fed shows that the cattle receiving alfalfa hay excelled those receiving clover hay in every factor except in pork production. The rate of gain was more rapid, the cost of gain was less, the finish on the cattle was slightly better, and the profit per steer was higher when alfalfa hay rather than clover hay was fed. However, these rations were so nearly similar that it does not seem at all prob- able that the difference between two pounds of clover hay and two pounds of alfalfa hay in the daily ration should make as marked a difference as is shown in this trial. Apparently there was some difference in the individuality of the cattle that accounts for the difference in the results secured by the two rations although such difference was not evident. 26 PART IV CANE FEEDING MOLASSES vs. PROPRIETARY MOLASSES FEED AS SUPPLEMENTS TO RATIONS FOR FATTENING CATTLE In the winter of 1914-15 a trial was inaugurated to test the value of molasses and molasses feed as supplements to rations for fattening cattle. The basis for a belief that any benefit could be derived from the use of such feed was that the palatability of the ration is one of the best indexes of its value. If these feeds con- taining molasses could be used to improve the appetites of cattle, their usefulness might attain great prominence in the cattle feeding business. The following rations were fed: Lot 4. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per looo pounds live weight, corn silage, clover hay. Lot 5. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, molasses (cane), corn silage, clover hay. Lot 6. Shelled corn, proprietary molasses feed, corn silage, and clover hay. This is an exact duplication of a trial conducted the previous winter. The only difference between the rations in Lot 5 and Lot 4 was the fact that practically three pounds of corn in the ration were replaced by three pounds of feeding molasses. In Lot 6 the cotton- seed meal was replaced by proprietary molasses feed in which mo- lasses formed approximately 50 per cent, of the mixture. DAILY RATION. — The influence of these different rations on the appetites of the cattle is shown in Table XIII. TABLE: XIII. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, December i, 1915 to April 29, 1916 (150 days) Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, cottonseed Shelled corn, RATION cottonseed meal, molasses feed, meal, molasses clover hay, clover hay, (cane) , corn silage corn silage clover hay, corn silage First month shelled corn 6.08 Ibs. 5.35 Ibs. 5.35 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.75 " 1.75 " molasses 1.16 " molasses feed 2.80 " clover hay 2.27 " 2.28 " 2.28 " corn silage 37.23 " 37.53 " 36.67 " Second month shelled corn 9.00 " 6.33 " 6.33 " cottonseed meal 2.42 " 2.45 " molasses 2.73 " molasses feed 5.07 " clover hay 2.25 " 2.28 " 2.17 " corn silage 29.07 " 32.57 " 30.47 " Third month shelled corn 11.00 '* 8.00 " 8.00 " cottonseed meal 2.55 " 2.58 " molasses 2.95 " molasses feed 6.00 u clover hay 1.72 " 1.68 " 1.43 " corn silage 28.00 " 32.00 " 29.33 " Fourth month shelled corn 11.72 " 8.98 " 8.98 " cottonseed meal 2.68 " 2.72 " molasses 3.05 " molasses feed 6.00 " clover hay 2.13 " 2.00 " 2.10 " corn silage 25.87 " 31.93 " 27.27 " Fifth month shelled corn 11.25 " 9.75 " 9.75 " cottonseed meal 2.83 " 2.92 " molasses 3.08 " molasses feed 6.00 " clover hay 1.82 " 1.73 " 1.83 " corn silage 23.03 " 29.20 " 23.97 " Average daily feed for entire period shelled corn 9.81 Ibs. 7.68 Ibs. 7.68 Ibs. cottonseed meal 2.45 " 2.48 " molasses 2.59 " molasses feed 5.17 " clover hay 2.04 " 2.00 " 1.96 " corn silage 28.64 " 32.65 " 29.54 " 28 It will be noted that the substitution of a small quantity of molasses for an equal quantity of corn made a marked improvement in the appetites of the cattle. This was especially true during the latter part of the feeding period and manifested itself principally in the consumption of silage. The average silage consumption dur- ing the entire period was four pounds daily per steer more when mo- lasses was fed. There was also a slight improvement in the grain consumption when the molasses was used. The total quantity of con- centrates consumed daily per head was 12.26 pounds of corn and cottonseed meal as compared with 12.75 pounds with corn, cot- tonseed meal and molasses. The average daily consumption of silage was 28.64 pounds without the molasses and 32.65 pounds with the molasses. The effect of replacing cottonseed meal with pro- prietary molasses feed did not have any marked influence on the appetites of the cattle. The most decided influence shown was in the increased grain consumption which amounted to one-half pound daily per steer throughout the feeding period. The silage consump- tion was slightly larger but not enough to make any material dif- ference in the results due to proprietary molasses feed. The cattle relished the proprietary molasses feed during the entire feed- ing period and would often pick it from among the shelled corn before the latter was consumed. GAINS. — Gains made by the cattle are shown in Table XIV. TABLE XIV. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months, December I, 1915^0 April 29, 1916 (150 days) RATION Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, molasses (cane), clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, molasses feed, clover hay, corn silage First month Second month Third month Fourth month Fifth month 2.29 Ibs. 1.55 " 2.30 " 1.57 " 2.38 " 2.32 Ibs. 1.82 " 2.22 " 1.92 " 2.96 " 1.93 Ibs. 1.52 " 2.33 " 1.42 " 2.31 " Total gain per steer Average daily gain for entire period 302.6 Ibs. 2.02 " 337 Ibs. 2.25 " 285.1 Ibs. 1.90 " Table XIV shows that the most rapid and most consistent gains were made by cattle in Lot 5 receiving a small quantity of molasses in addition to shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, and corn silage. The average daily gain for this lot of cattle was 2.25 pounds per steer. The cattle receiving a similar ration with the molasses omitted made a gain of 2.02 pounds daily per head. The cattle re- ceiving the proprietary molasses feed made the least rapid gains of any of the three lots. In only two out of five months did their gains exceed two pounds daily per head. THe average daily gain per steer during the five months was 1.90 pounds. COST OF GAINS. — Table XV shows the average amount of feed consumed per pound of gain and cost per hundred pounds gain. TABLE XV. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per Hundred Pounds Gain Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Shelled corn, Shelled corn, RATION cottonseed meal, cottonseed meal, Shelled corn, molasses feed, clover hay, molasses (cane), clover hay, corn silage clover hay, corn silage corn silage Feed per pound gain shelled corn 4.86 Ibs. 3.42 Ibs. 4.04 Ibs. cottonseed meal 1.21 " 1.11 " molasses 1.15 " molasses feed 2.72 " clover hay 1.01 " .89 " 1.03 " corn silage 14.20 " 14.53 " 15.54 " Dry matter consumed per pound gain 11.31 " 10.94 " 12.32 " Cost per cwt. gain $11.39 $11.35 $12.73 It will be noted that the gains were made at the least expediture of both grain and roughage in Lot 5. It required 5.68 pounds of concentrates and 14.53 pounds of silage in addition to a small quan- tity of hay to make a pound of gain. In Lot 4 it required 6.07 pounds of concentrate and 14.20 pounds of 'silage. In Lot 6 re- ceiving the proprietary molasses feed it required 6.74 pounds of con- centrate and 15.54 pounds of silage in addition to the hay to make a pound of gain. It will be noted that the dry matter required to make a pound of gain was least in Lot 5 and greatest in Lot 6 thus showing that when a small quantity of molasses replaced a part of the corn, the cattle made more economical use of the nutrients con- sumed. The cost of gain was not greatly affected by the substitution of molasses (cane) for an equal quantity of corn, each hundred pounds of gain costing approximately the same in the two lots. When the cottonseed meal was replaced by proprietary molasses feed the cost of gain was materially increased. The ration contain- 30 ing the cottonseed meal produced gains at $11.39 per cwt. as com- pared with $12.73 by a ration in which proprietary molasses feed was used as a supplement. SUMMARY. — Table XVI shows a brief summary of the data secured in the three lots in which molasses and molasses feed were compared. The cattle in Lot 4 receiving a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, and corn silage increased their weight 302.6 pounds per steer during the feeding period of one hundred fifty days. It would have been necessary for these cattle to sell at $8.05 per cwt. in order to pay expenses. The actual selling price in the lots was $8.70 thus returning a profit of $7.60 per steer when pork is not included. When this by-product was added to the re- ceipts from the cattle the profit was $13.61. The cattle fed a similar ration but with three pounds of corn replaced by an equal quantity of molasses, increased their weight 337 pounds per steer in one hun- dred'fifty days. It would have been necessary for these cattle to sell for $8.13 per cwt. in order to pay expenses. The actual selling price was $8.75 thus returning a profit of $7.48 not including pork which item increased the profit to $11.52 per head. Cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, molasses feed, clover hay, and corn silage increased their weight 285.1 pounds per steer in one hundred fifty days and would have had to sell for $8.33 per cwt. in order to pay expenses. The actual selling price was $8.60 thus returning a profit of $3.16 per steer not including pork and $9.24 when this item is considered. It is called to the attention of the reader that the most efficient ration from the standpoint of the gains and the finish of the cattle was the one composed of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, molasses, clover hay and corn silage but that the most economical ration was the one consisting of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, and corn silage. TABLE XVI.— Summary of Part IV RATION Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, molasses (cane), clover hay, corn silage Shelled corn, molasses feed, clover hay, corn silage Initial value $6.90 $6.90 $6.90 Initial weight 8752 Ibs. 8783 Ibs. 8782 Ibs. Final weight 11778 " 12153 " 11633 " Total gain 3026 3370 2851 Average daily gain 2.02 " 2.25 " 1.90 " Total feed consumed shelled corn 14715 11525 11525 " cottonseed meal 3671 3726 molasses 3889 molasses feed 7761 clover hay 3055. " 2995 " 2945 " corn silage 42960 " • 48968 44310 Daily feed per steer shelled corn 9.81 " 7.68 " 7.68 " cottonseed meal • 2.45 " 2.48 " molasses 2.59 " molasses feed 5.17 " clover hay ' 2.04 " 2.00 " 1.96 " corn silage 28.64 " 32.65 " 29.54 " Feed per pound gain shelled corn 4.86 " 3.42 " 4.04 " cottonseed meal 1.21 " 1.11 " molasses 1.15 " molasses feed 2.72 " clover hay 1.01 " .89 " 1.03 " corn silage 14.20 " 14.53 " 15.54 " Cost of gain per cwt. $11.39 $11.35 $12.73 Necessary selling price 8.05 8.13 8.33 Actual selling price in lots without shrink 8.70 8.75 8.60 Profit per steer not including pork 7.60 7.48 3.16 Pork produced 1156 Ibs. 855 Ibs. 1125 Ibs. Corn fed to hogs 4086 3974 4518 Shorts fed to hogs 225 Tankage fed to hogs 225 Profit per steer including pork $13.61 $11.52 $9.24 Pork is valued at $9.75 per cwt. FINANCIAL STATEMENT Lot i. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn (limited), Cottonseed Meal. Clover Hay and Corn Silage, 1915-16 Dec. 1. To 10 steers, weight 8762 Ibs. @ $6.90 per cwt ...$ 604.58 Dec. 31-Jan. 30, To 1500 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.5 cts. per bu 16.74 Jan. 30-Feb. 29, To 2100 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.4 cts. per bu 23.40 Feb. 29-Mar. 30, To 2395 Ibs. shelled corn @ 58.2 cts. per bu 24.89 Mar. 30-Apr. 29, To 2705 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.7 cts. per bu 30.77 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 3656 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $38.00 per ton 69.46 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 4637 Ibs. clover hay @ $12.00 per ton 27.82 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 49516 Ibs. corn silage @ $4.50 per ton.... 111.41 Total expenditures .....$ 909.07 Apr. 29, By 10 steers, weight 11647 Ibs. @ $8.60 per cwt..... .. 1001.64 Total profit without pork $ 92.57 Profit per steer without pork 9.26 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 5336 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 60.6 cts. per bu ....$ 57.74 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, By 1143 Ibs. pork (§• $9.75 per cwt 111.44 Value of pork produced from droppings.... $ 53.70 Total receipts including pork 1055.34 Total profit including pork 146.27 Profit per steer including pork... 14.63 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 1.558 Lot 2.. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, and Clover Hay, 1915-16 Dec. 1. To 10 steers, weight 8853 Ibs. ft) $6.90 per cwt $ 610.86 Dec. 1-Dec. 31, To 1825 Ibs. shelled corn (f? 55.9 cts. per bu 18.22 Dec. 31-Jan. 30, To 3000 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.5 cts. per bu..... 33.48 Jan. 30-Feb. 29, To 4200 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.4 cts. per bu 46.80 Feb. 29-Mar. 30, To 4680 Ibs. shelled corn @ 58.2 cts. per bu 48.64 Mar. 30-Apr. 29, To 4800 Ibs. shelled com @ 63.7 cts. per bu 54.60 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 3701 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $38.00 per ton 70.32 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 19010 Ibs. clover hay @ $12.00 per ton.... 114.06 Total expenditures $ 996.98 Apr. 21t, By 10 steers, weight 11985 Ibs. (a $8.65 per cwt..... .. 1036.70 Total profit without pork.... ....$ 39.72 Profit per steer without pork.... 3.97 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 4044 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 60.6 cts. per bu. ... ....$ 43.76 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 225 ]Ls. tankage fed hogs ft $50.00 per ton.... 5.63 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 225 Ibs. shorts fed hogs ft $25.00 per ton.... 2.81 Total cost of extra feed for hogs $ 52.20 Apr. 29, By 1107 Ibs. pork ft) $9.75 per cwt..... . 107.93 Value of pork produced from droppings.... ....$ 55.73 Total receipts including pork.... - 1092.43 Total profit including pork . 95.45 Profit per steer including pork.... 9.55 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle.. . .899 33 FINANCIAL STATEMENT— Continued Lot 3. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, and Alfalfa Hay, 1915-16 Dec. 1, To 10 steers, weight 8668 Ibs. @ $6.90 per cwt $ 598.09 Dec. 1-Dec. 31, To 1825 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.9 cts. per bu 18.22 Dec. 31- Jan. 30, To 3000 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.5 cts. per bu 33.48 Jan. 30-Feb. 29, To 4200 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.4 cts. per bu 46.80 Feb. 29-Mar. 30, To 4680 Ibs. shelled corn @ 58.2 cts. per bu 48.64 Mar. 30-Apr. 29, To 4800 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.7 cts. per bu 54.60 Dec. 1-Aipr. 29, To 3626 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $38.00 per ton 68.89 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 17960 Ibs. alfalfa hay @ $12.00 per ton 107.76 Total expenditures $ 976.48 Apr. 29, By 10 steers, weight 11762 Ibs. @ $8.65 per cwt 1017.41 Total profit without pork $ 40.93 Profit per steer without pork J 4.09 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 4052 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 60.6 cts. per bu $ 43.85 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 225 Ibs. tankage fed hogs @ $50.00 per ton 5.63 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 225 Ibs. shorts fed hogs @ $25.00 per ton 2.81 Total cost of extra feed for hogs $ 52.29 Apr. 29, By 1203 Ibs. pork @ $9.75 per cwt 117.29 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 65.00 Total receipts including pork 1082.41 Total profit including pork 105.93 Profit per steer including pork 10.59 Price received per bus'hel of corn fed cattle .931 34 FINANCIAL STATEMENT— Continued Lot 4. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Clover Hay, and Corn Silage, 1915-16 Dec. 1, To 10 steers, weight 8752 Ibs. @ $6.90 per cwt $ 603.89 Dec. 1-Dec. 31, To 1825 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.9 cts. per bu 18.22 Dec. 31-Jan. 30, To 2700 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.5 cts. per bu 30.13 Jan. 30-Feb. 29, To 3300 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.4 cts. per bu 36.77 Feb. 29-Mar. 30, To 3515 Ibs. shelled corn @ 58.2 cts. per bu 36.53 Mar. 30-Apr. 29, To 3375 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.7 cts. per bu 38.39 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 3671 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $38.00 per ton 69.75 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 3055 Ibs. clover hay @ $12.00 per ton 18.33 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 42960 Ibs. corn silage @ $4.50 per ton 96.66 Total expenditures $ 948.67 Apr. 29, By 10 steers, weight 11778 Ibs. @ $8.70 per cwt 1024.59 Total profit without pork $ 75.92 Profit per steer without pork 7.59 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 4086 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 60.6 cts. per bu $ 44.22 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 225 Ibs. tankage fed hogs @ $50.00 per ton 5.63 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 225 Ibs. shorts fed hogs @ $25.00 per ton 2.81 Total cost of extra feed for hogs $ 52.66 Apr. 29, By 1156 Ibs. pork @ $9.75 per cwt 112.71 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 60.05 Total receipts including pork 1084.64 Total profit including pork ?.... 135.97 Profit per steer including pork 13.60 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 1.126 Lot 5. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Molasses, Clover Hay, and Corn Silage, 1915-16 Dec. 1, To 10 steers, weight 8783 Ibs. @ $6.90 per cwt $ 606.03 Dec. 1-Dec. 31, To 1605 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.9 cts. per bu 16.02 Dec. 31-Jan. 30, To 1900 Ibs. shelled com @ 62.5 cts. per bu 21.21 Jan. 30-Feb. 29, To 2400 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.4 cts. per bu 26.74 Feb. 29-Mar. 30, To 2695 lbs>. shelled corn @ 58.2 cts. per bu 28.01 Mar. 30-Apr. 29, To 2925 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.7 cts. per bu 33.27 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 3726 Ibs. cottonseed meal @' $38.00 per ton 70.79 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 3889 Ibs. molasses @ $30.00 per ton 58.34 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 2995 Ibs. clover hay @ $12.00 per ton 17.97 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 48968 Ibs. corn silage @ $4.50 per ton.... 110.18 Total expenditures $ 988.56 Apr. 29, By 10 steers, weight 12153 Ibs. @ $8.75 per cwt 1063.39 Total profit without pork $ 74.83 Profit per steer without pork 7.48 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 3974 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 60.6 cts per bu , $ 43.00 Apr. 29, By 855 Ibs. pork @ $9.75 per cwt 83.36 Value of pork produced from droppings .... $ 40.36 Total receipts including pork - 1103.75 Total profit including pork 115.19 Profit per steer including pork 11.52 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 1.168 35 FINANCIAL STATEMENT— Continued Lot 6.— Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Molasses Feed, Clover Hay, and Corn Silage, 1915-16 Dec. 1, To 10 steers, weight 8782 Ibs. @ $6.90 per cwt $ 605.96 Dec. 1-Dec. 31, To 1605 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.9 cts. per bu 16.02 Dec. 31- Jan. 30, To 1900 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.5 cts. per bu 21.21 Jan. 30-Feb. 29, To 2400 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.4 cts. per bu 26.74 Feb. 29-Mar. 30, To 2695 Ibs. shelled corn @ 58.2 cts. per bu 28.01 Mar. 30-Apr. 29, To 2925 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.7 cts. per bu 33.27 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 7761 Ibs. molasses feed @ $31.00 per ton.... 120.30 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 2945 Ibs. clover hay @ $12.00 per ton 17.67 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 44310 Ibs. corn silage @ $4.50 per ton 99.70 Total expenditures „ $ 968.88 'Apr. 29, By 10 steers, weight 11633 Ibs. @ $8.60 per cwt 1000.44 Total profit without pork $ 31.56 Profit per steer without pork 3.16 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 4518 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 60.6 cts. per bu $ 48.89 Apr. 29, By 1125 Ibs. pork @ $9.75 per cwt 109.69 Value of pork produced from droppings •...$ 60.80 Total receipts including pork 1061.24 Total profit including pork 92.36 Profit per steer including pork 9.24 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 1.057 Lot 7.— Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Alfalfa Hay, and Corn Silage, 1915-16 Dec. 1, To 10 steers, weight 8783 Ibs. @ $6.90 per cwt $ 606.03 Dec. 1-Dec. 31, To 1825 Ibs. shelled corn @ 55.9 cts. per bu 18.22 Dec. 31-Jan. 30, To 2700 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.5 cts. per bu 30.13 Jan. 30-Feb. 29, To 3300 Ibs. shelled corn @ 62.4 cts. per bu 36.77 Feb. 29-Mar. 30, To 3210 Ibs. shelled corn @ 58.2 cts. per bu 33.36 Mar. 30-Apr. 29, To 3325 Ibs. shelled corn @ 63.7 cts. per bu 37.82 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 3791 Iba. cottonseed meal @ $38.00 per ton 72.03 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 2930 Ibs. alfalfa hay @ $12.00 per ton 17.58 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 46210 Ibs. corn silage @ $4.50 per ton 103.97 Total expenditures $ 955.91 Apr. 29, By 10 steers, weight 12307 Ibs. @ $8.75 per cwt 1076. 8fr Total profit without pork $ 120.95 Profit per steer without pork 12.10 Dec. 1-Apr. 29, To 4589 Ibs. shelled corn fed hogs @ 60.6 cts. per bu $ 49.66 Apr. 29, By 1075 Ibs. pork @ $9.75 per cwt .. 104.81 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 55.15 Total receipts including pork 1132.01 Total profit including pork 176.10 Profit per steer including pork 17.61 Price received per bushel of com fed cattle ... 1.296 PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 193, VOL. XIX , 1916 SKIM MILK AND MILK SUBSTITUTES FOR CALF FEEDING Published Dy the station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. BOARD OF. CONTROL ADDISON C. HARRIS, President Indianapolis, Marion County PAY S. CHANDLER Indianapolis, Marion County CHARLES DOWNING Greenfield, Hancock County SAMUEL M. FOSTER Fort Wayne. Allen County JOHN A. HILLENBRAND Batesville, Ripley County CYRIZS M. HOBBS Bridgeport, Marion County JOSEPH D. OLIVER South Bend, St. Joseph County GEORGE PURCELL Vincennes, Kuox County WILLIAM V. STUART LaFayette, Tippecanoe County WINTHROP E. STONE, A. M., Ph. D President of the University STATION STAFF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS ARTHUR Goss, M. S., A. C Director GEORGE I. CHRISTIE, B. S. A Sup't Agricultural Extension ROBERT A. CRAIG, D. V. Al .-..Chief Veterinarian OTTO F. HUNZIKER, M. S Chief in Dairy Husbandry HERBERT S. JACKSON, A. B Chief in Botany WTILLIAM J. JONES, JR., M. S., A. C.1 State Chemist JOHN H. SKINNER, B. S Chief in Animal Husbandry JAMES TROOP, M. S Chief in Entomology ALFRED T. WIANCKO, B. S. A Chief in Soils and Crops CHARLES G. WOODBURY, M. S Chief in Horticulture ASSOCIATES AND ASSISTANTS JOHN M. ALDRICH, Ph. D.3 Entomological Assistant EVELYN ALLISON, B. S Assistant in Botany PAUL R. BAUSMAN, B. S.4 Inspector State Chemist Department JAMES C. BEAVERS, B. Agr Associate in Soils and Crops Extension REUBEN O. BITLER, B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist CHARLES S. BREWSTER, M. S.... Assistant in Poultry Husbandry RALPH E. CALDWELL, B. S Associate in Milk Production GLENN G. CARTER, B. S.4 Inspector State Chemist Department DAVID B. CLARK, D. M. C Assistant Veterinarian CARL H. CLINK, B. S Assistant in Serum Production THOMAS A. COLEMAN Ass't State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations SAMUEL D. CONNER, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops CLINTON O. CROMER, B. S Associate in Crops GEORGE A. CROSS, B. S Graduate Assistant in Animal Husbandry CARLETON CUTLER, B. S.4 First Deputy State Chemist and Microscopist (Feeds) JOHN J. DAVIS, B. S.3 ^..Entomological Assistant in Charge RALPH B. DEEMER, B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist LEO P. DOYLE, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology WILLIAM F. EPPLE, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry FREDERICK A. FENTON, M. S.3 Scientific Assistant MARTIN L. FISHER, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops GEORGE M. FRIER, B. S. A Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits LESLIE R. GEORGE, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology ROY L. GREENE, B. S.4 Inspector State Chemist Department MABEL L. HARLAN Assistant in Agricultural Extension ABNER J. HUNTER, B. S. A Assistant in Serum Production CORA A. JACOBS, A. M.2 Seed Analyst SADOCIE C. JONES. M. S Assistant in Soils LAWRENCE C. KIGIN. D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian FIJANKLIN G. KING, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry HERBERT E. MCCARTNEY, B. S. A Assistant in Animal Husbandry Extension EDWIN B. MAINS, Ph. D Assistant in Botany PRESTON W. MASON, B. S Assistant in Entomology SHIRLEY L. MASON, A. B.3 Scientific Assistant DONALD F. MATTSON, B. S. A Assistant in Creamery Inspection HORACE C. MILLS, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures HARRY C. MUGG, B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist HARRY A. XOYES, M. S.. Research Assistant in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology GLEN L. OGLE, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection JOSEPH OSKAMP, B. S Research Assistant in Pomology GEORGE A. OSNER, Ph. D Associate in Botany HARRY C. PAINE. D. V. M Associate Veterinarian ALLEN G. PHILIPS, B. S. A Associate in Poultry Husbandry EDWARD G. PROULX, M. S.1 - First Deputy State Chemist (Fertilizers) HARRY J. REKD.... Associate in Horticulture CHARLES C. REES, M. A Assistant in Botany OTIS S. ROBERTS, B. S.4 Chief Inspector State Chemist Department J. HOWARD ROOP, B. S.4 Deputy State Chemist ALFRED F. SATTERTHWAIT 3 Scientific Assistant GEORGE SPITZER. Ph. G., B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry CHESTER G. STARR, B. S. A Assistant in Swine Production and Management HERBERT B. SWITZER, B. S. A Assistant in Dairy Bacteriology THOMAS S. TOWNSLEY, B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry GILBERT P. WALKER, 13. S Assistant in Soils and Crops FRED L. WALKEY. D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian JAMES L. WKIMKR, Ph. D Assistant in Botany REX A. WHITING, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology LESTER YODER, B. S. A Graduate Assistant in Horticultural Chemistry NELLIE TRACY Secretary to the Director and Librarian MARY K. BLOOM Bookkeeper 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Seed Testing 3 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations 4 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNDER LEGISLATIVE ACT OF 19O9) J. P. PRIGG, Daleville State Live Stock Association U. R. FISIIEL, Hope State Poultry Fanciers' Association H. H. SWAIM, South Bend State Horticultural Society D. B. JOHNSON, Mooresville - State Dairy Association D. F. MATSH, Frankfort ". State Corn Growers' Association SKIM MILK AND MILK SUBSTITUTES FOR CALF FEEDING O. F. HUNZIKER R. E. CAIvDWKl.lv PURPOSE The purpose of the experiment recorded in this bulletin is to furnish the dairyman with practical and reliable information as to the proper preparation and use of rations for calf feeding when the market value of whole milk and its products is too great to per- mit of its economical use for this purpose. MAINTENANCE OF THE HERD BY PURCHASING COWS NOT CONDUCIVE TO ECONOMICAL HERD IMPROVEMENT The maintaining of a dairy herd is one of the difficult problems that constantly confronts every milk producer. In a great many in- stances, the herds are maintained by buying cows on the general market or from breeders who are less fortunately situated in regard to the disposal of their product as whole milk, and who, for this reason, use the skim milk available for the growing of heifers. Aside from the breeder of pure-bred cattle, it is only occasionally that a dairyman is sufficiently interested in his herd to rear his own cows. Under existing conditions, there is a constant demand for dairy cows of profitable production or of improved breeding and the value of such animals is often much higher than the actual cost of producing them. The cows sold on the open market are usually produced by dairymen who have skim milk available for the growing of calves. Many dairymen who dispose of their product as whole milk would gladly increase the size of their herd or improve its quality if it were possible for them to do so economically. The prices which are being paid for grade cows are sufficient proof of the extent of the demand. The practice of buying cows into the herd, under average conditions, is not conducive to increased production. The cows which are offered for sale are often very inferior animals. They are available because the owners appreciate the value of records and dispose of their cows as soon as they fail to yield a profit, or they are handled by professional cow buyers who sell their animals as soon as they decline in production. This practice pre- vails, although many of their cows may be fair individuals from the standpoint of dairy conformation. THE RAISING OF HEIFERS HAS MANY ADVANTAGES The dairyman who keeps individual records, who breeds the cows that show profitable production, to bulls of desirable ancestry, and raises the heifer calves from these cows, is following a system of maintaining his herd that promises the greatest and surest pos- sibilities for herd improvement and increased production. Dairy- men, who are using grade cows exclusively, may apply this method of herd improvement with practically the same assurance of suc- cess as the breeder of pure-bred stock. The influence of a sire of known breeding, when mated with cows of profitable production, insures offspring of like character- istics. The practice of raising his own heifers assists the dairy- man in protecting his herd against animals harboring germs of communicable diseases and in guarding the consumer against the dangers of unsafe milk. Aside from yielding a product that may jeopardize the health of the consuming public, unsound cows are also undesirable because they are not in a condition to do justice to their milk-producing ability, causing decreased production. SCARCITY AND MARKET VALUE OF SKIM MILK AS A HUMAN FOOD The advantages to the dairyman of producing his own cows as above set forth are counteracted, to no small extent, by the difficul- ties of producing them economically under existing conditions. The demand for whole milk is increasing from year to year, both as a product for direct consumption in cities and towns and for the manufacture of condensed milk and cheese. Skim milk is, there- fore, not available on a large number of farms as a feed for raising calves and, although it is considered as- ranking next to whole milk for this purpose, it is impractical to recommend its universal use. There are several milk substitutes for calf feeding on the mar- ket, some of which are used very extensively. Doubtless, in many instances, their value is exceedingly high for this purpose. As the demand for whole milk increases, the extensive use of these ma- terials must necessarily follow. A calf meal that will successfully take the place of skim milk as a feed for calves will do much to- ward increasing the cow population of our country and to encour- age the dairymen to develop their herds in accordance with the best principles of breeding, which is a more desirable practice than that of depending upon buying cows from unknown sources. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CALF FEEDING EXPERIMENT RATIONS USED. — Three rations were used in this experiment as indicated below. LOT I. — RATION I (Skim milk) Consisting of whole milk, skim milk, ground corn and oats as a dry mash, alfalfa hay and corn silage. LOT II — RATION II (Home-mixed calf meal) Consisting of whole milk, home-mixed calf meal (containing hominy feed, linseed meal, red dog flour and dried blood, equal parts by weight), ground corn and oats as a dry mash, alfalfa hay and corn silage. LOT III.— RATION III (Blatchford's Calf Meal) Consisting of whole milk, Blatchford's Calf Meal, ground corn and oats as a dry mash, alfalfa hay and corn silage. The above rations were fed for a period of one hundred eighty- two days to three lots of ten calves each.1 Most of the calves used in this experiment were pure-bred animals from cows belonging to the Experiment Station dairy herd. TABLE I. — Showing Breeding and Sex of Calves in the Three Lots Lot I Lot II Lot III Breed Num- ber S >x Num- hpr S JX Num- ber S BX calves Heifer Bull calves Heiier Bull calves Heifer Bull Jersey _ _ 7 6 1 5 4 1 5 4 1 Holstein 3 3 3 2 1 4 1 3 Ayrshire 2 1 1 1 1 Total ._ 10 9 1 10 7 3 10 6 4 HISTORY OF CALVES UNDER EXPERIMENT The record of the performance of each individual calf was kept separately, both in regard to feeds consumed and the variation in live weight. A daily record was made of the feeds fed and the body weight was determined at the end of each seven days. At the conclusion of each thirty days, the calves were photographed under standard conditions and in a way that would show the physical condition of the calf as well as the variation in size. These photo- graphs- represented six thirty-day periods during the first six months of the calf's life and are presented together with a tabulated aver- age daily summary of the feeds consumed, composition of ration, cost of ration, and variations in live weight. 1 Two calves in Lot III died METHOD OF FEEDING RATION I — LOT I. FED SKIM MILK RATION The calves used in this lot remained with the cow for a period "of four to five days, at the end of which time they were placed on bucket feeding. Whole milk was fed until the calves were three weeks of age. During the second and third weeks, skim milk was gradually substituted, placing the calf on a full ration of this ma- terial at three weeks of age. This method of feeding was continued, in most instances, until the calves were six months of age. In ad- dition to the skim milk ration, they secured a dry mash made up of ground corn and oats, equal parts by weight. This grain was placed before them at ten days of age. The calves had access, also, at this time, to alfalfa hay of fine quality and to a small amount of corn silage. RATION II — LOT II. FED HOME-MIXED CALF MEAL RATION This lot of ten calves remained with their dams for four to five days, at the end of which time they were placed on bucket feeding. At seven days of age, a small amount of home-mixed calf meal was mixed with the milk. This material was gradually in- creased and mixed with water in the proportion of one part of meal to seven parts of water. As this mixture was increased, the amount of whole milk was decreased so that by the time the calves were five weeks of age, they were scheduled to receive a full ration of calf meal, which usually consisted of eighteen to twenty ounces per head per day. This method of feeding was continued until the calves were six months old at which time they were receiving twenty- four ounces per head per day. In addition to the milk or milk substitute ration, the calves in Lot II secured the same kinds of concentrates and roughages as were fed to the calves in Lot I. RATION III — LOT III. FED B LATCH FORD'S CALF MEAL RATION The calves in Lot III remained with their dams for four to five days, at the end of which time they were placed on bucket feeding. During the second week of their lives, a small amount of Blatchford's Calf Meal was placed in the milk. This amount was gradually in- creased and mixed with water in accordance with printed directions furnished by the company manufacturing Blatchford's Calf Meal. At five weeks of age, all calves in this lot were scheduled to be on a full ration of calf meal consisting of seventeen ounces per day. This amount was gradually increased until the calves were six months of age, at which time they were receiving twenty-two ounces per head per day. In addition to the milk and milk substi- tute ration, the calves secured the same kinds of concentrates and roughages as did the calves in Lots I and II. MANAGEMENT OF CALVES The general management of the calves was the same for all three lots so far as the housing and general care were concerned. Water and salt were placed before the calves at all times and es- pecial attention was given to insure a uniform temperature of the milk or milk-substitute ration. The calves were fed at approximately the same hours morning and evening and were housed in warm, well-ventilated stalls with a south exposure. An abundance of bedding was supplied and all reasonable precautions were ob- served in regard to sanitation. All feeds not consumed were re- moved before additional feed was fed and especial attention was given to the thorough cleaning of the buckets in which the milk or milk substitute ration was fed. During the season when the weath- er would permit, the calves were given the range of a small lot for the purpose of exercise. None of the calves used in this experi- ment were given access to pasture. II. — Showing Chemical Composition of All Feeds Used in the Experiment Name of feed Dry matter per cent. Crude protein per cent. Carbo- hydrates per cent. Fat per cent. Ash per cent. Whole milk 11.58 2.85 5.08 3.00 .65 Skim milk 10.05 3.96 5.30 .04 .75 Blatchford's Calf Meal Home-mixed calf meal Alfalfa hay _ 88.68 89.59 91.79 28.10 36.45 14.21 50.06 45.70 69.62 5.47 4.59 1.48 5.05 2.85 6.48 Oats 87.67 11.76 67.73 4.18 4.00 Corn 8269 8.80 68.82 382 125 Corn silage 39.19 3.88 32.39 1.13 1.79 Hominy 88.68 10.67 69.98 5.55 2.48 Linseed meal 91.18 32.73 43.32 10.30 4.83 Red dog flour 87.80 15.15 69.49 2.01 1.15 Dried blood 90.70 87.26 .49 2.95 III. — Showing Prices of Feeds Used in the Experiment Name of feed Price of feed Whole milk Skim milk Corn Oats Alfalfa hay Corn silage Home-mixed calf meal Blatchford's Calf Meal .$ 1.50 per 100 pounds .25 per 100 pounds . .60 per bushel .40 per bushel _ 15.00 per ton _ 4.00 per ton _ 40.00 per ton _ 70.00 per ton PHOTOGRAPHS The calves were photographed each thirty days during the first six months which is the total period included in this experiment. The illustration, Fig. i, portrays the equipment used in securing these pictures. The background was divided into six-inch squares and in order to secure contrast in the photographs of calves of dif- ferent breeds, a black or a white background was used, according to the color of the calf. The camera was placed upon a stationary support and was situated at a uniform height and distance from the background for each exposure. Fig. 1 No special attention was given the calves previous to being photographed; therefore, the illustrations as shown, represent the calves as they actually appeared upon the days the pictures were secured. The chief value of a series of photographs, as herein presented, lies in the fact that such illustrations furnish the experienced feeder a better index in regard to the condition of the calf than it is possible to give with tabulated figures alone. While a given ration may pro- duce a fair individual when viewed at six months of age, the actual merits of any calf feed should be apparent as effectively at one period of the calf's development as at another. INDIVIDUAL RECORDS The tables shown in connection with the individual photographs of the calves represent the performance of the various individuals from the standpoint of feed consumed, variation in live weight, com- position, and cost of ration. The report is based on an average daily performance for each of the twenty-six weeks. From these figures, it is possible to observe, at a glance, the approximate ration received by the calves at the time the photograph was taken, as the bold-faced type represents the average daily ration secured during the week the photograph was secured. It also indicates the amounts of each of the feeds one may expect a calf to consume as well as the age of the calf when it consumed a measurable amount of the various feeds. 10 Calf No. 17 at 30 days of age Calf No. 17 at 60 days of age Calf No. 17 at 90 days of age Calf No. 17 at 120 days of age Calf No. 17 at 150 days of age Calf No. 17 at 180 days of age Fig. 2. Calf No. 17— Lot I (fed skim milk ration) Holstein heifer born August 31, 1913. Birth weight, 81 pounds II spunod — uivS AIJBP 83BJ3AY gpunod spunod s^uao UOIIBI jo isoo s^uao ^^^S i3!5:3SS5^ feg S ^SSS eoi>r~ 10 1- M co «3 eo * ^ r-i in 10 CM IM ^ 05 co IO O U5 (N CM r-l (X) CO 09 t~ 00 •* CM i r-i co 10 m I-H < eg co eo co eo co eo « eo eo co co co co co co I qsy illlllllllllllill •^uaoiad SS^SSi ^BJ '-i ™. ""l * °. ( •oqiBO •^uao jad ^uaowd JSife rH OD rH iiillll spunod aSBijs UJOQ spunod spunod qseui AJQ spunod spunod ^ N co -*u» Ot^oo e> o 12 t> 12 18 24 8O 36 42 48 34 66 72 78 84 5JO Calf No. 300 at 30 days of age Calf No. 300 at 60 days of age IT6 12 18 24 30 r3tt 42 48 54 60 fifi 72 78 84 90 £ 11 Calf No. 300 at 90 days of age Calf No. 300 at 120 days of age 12 18 24 a<>-:«i 42 4>S 34 •«> W» 7« 78 S4 JK> Calf No. 300 at 150 days of age Calf No. 300 at 180 days of age Fig. 3. Calf No. 300— Lot I (fed skim milk ration) Jersey heifer born September 10, 1&13. Birth weight, 63 pounds 13 d^j ga 2S spunod— UIB 3 A'llBp 8SBI8AV spunod spunod UOt^BJ JO }SOO s^uao OJ W CO N O> 00 •>* OS CO (M rrl (M I ® ffl t^ Csl O (M 1C LO CO ^* kO i-H CO s^uao aSBns uaoo qsBirt Aaa s^uao s^uao 09 eo co co co eo co co *o co eo eo co eo co e«5 co co 5| o« •^uao jad qsy •!juaD lad »«^ lillilil •^uao jad ma^oid apnio •^uao aad |i spunod spunod spunod qsBui AJQ spunod spunod ^HO, 0^008, rH Calf No. 19 at 30 days of age Calf No. 19 at 60 days of age Calf No. 19 at 90 days of age Calf No. 19 at 120 days of age Calf No. 19 at 150 days of age Calf No. 19 at 180 days of age Fig. 4. Calf No. 19— Lot I (fed skim milk ration) Holstein heifer born September 20, 1913. Birth weight, 78 pounds .5 I s « < ^ fl+3 If •r w spunod— urnS A"IIBP 83BI9AV spunod spunod •^rH S^U9D UOt^BI JO A^q Bjtejtv g^U90 qsBui A"j(i s^uao I M M CO CO «O CO CO CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO JO o> '1U90 J9d spunod spunod spunod qSBUI AJQ gpunod jSffP fe m us m in loirs m ic ic m spunod i6 Calf No. B 20 at 30 days of age Calf No. B 20 at 60 days of age * Ci 12 1.8 214 ?*> 3fi 42 48 54 « Calf No. B 20 at 90 days of age Calf No. B 20 at 120 days of age 42 48 54 HO <* ra 78 S4 W Calf No. B 20 at 150 days of age Calf No. B 20 at 180 days of age Fig. 5. Calf No. B 20— Lot I (fed skim milk ration) Jersey bull born October 9, 1913. Birth weight, 66 pounds 8 tt 6 £ rt O £ spnnod— gpunod UJBS spunod UOITBI JO ^SOO iO'* S1U80 UOIIBI jo 3soo A^^AV s^uao 83BIJS UJOO ^Bq BJl^JiV S1U80 qsBtn Aia s^uao S^U80 3inra 8ioqM txi eo co (Ncococooococoeococococococococicooocoooco T4 M-l O >> J_ rt 3* 8 .S o in •^U80 J8d qsy lllllllllllllllllll *^U80 I8d ma^ojd apniQ •^uao jad g^g£ 1 m so o co lllil coo!5^F^r— Oi^-iicS^-'iDoicoooooooSoD^Ooc^^- spunod 83BHS UJOQ spunod A-Bq BJIBJIV sptmod spunod Sura raids' s s a spunod i8 6~l2 18 24 30 36 4.2 48 S4 60 W Calf No. 202 at 30 days of age Calf No. 202 at 60 days of age Calf No. 202 at 90 days of age i> 12" 18 24 -30 '30 32~48 54 60 66 72 2!8 84 0<5 Calf No. 202 at 120 days of age 12 1» 24 ;*) y« 44. 40 54 WU 66 72 78 &4 ?XJ Calf No. 202 at 150 days of age Calf No. 202 at 180 days of age Fig. 6. Calf No. 202— Lot I (fed skim milk ration) Jersey heifer born November 13, 1913. Birth weight, 55 pounds o s :§ ^ °rt Oi T spunod — T spunod spunod s^uao UOllBI JO 1SOO S^U90 UOtlBJ JO s^trao qsBUl A"ia >[liui uip[S s^uao •^uaD aad -OqiBQ uphold apnio •!)U8D J9d spunod 9SBIJS UJOQ spunod spunod qSBm AJQ spunod spunod hs c ^- ^< in j d « «m §H 10 ia i 00 OOlO^OO mm in « ic w »— « co ift eo $5 m 10 in u> 10 10 m m ic in ift i rne>qco''OOe>O'-icsieio-*io?Dt^ooQ5Or-i O'-icsieio-*io?Dt^ooQ5Or-i CN co •* 10 eg 20 Calf No. 213 at 30 days of age Calf No. 213 at 60 days of age fe te irfWaft'3B'4g 4S .-,.* MI M, ^-Jtt 84 m Calf No. 213 at 90 days of age Calf No. 213 at 120 days of age Calf No. 213 at 150 days of age Calf No. 213 at 180 days of age Fig. 7. Calf No. 213— Lot I (fed skim milk ration) Jersey heifer born November 19, 1913. Birth weight, 49 pounds 21 If S3 £ spunod— UIBS A'UBp 83BJ8AV spunod UJBS IB^OJ, spunod UOI^BJ JO }SOO 8SBJ8AV UOHBJ JO S^uao IS s^uao qsBra Aia •^U80 J8d qsy llill •^U80 J8d '5t'l^QO^OOC&1iO^| rH>C^I ^EjOQ^'~(2'~l*O •^U80 J8d -oqjBO •^U9D J8d lilllillllsllllllllii '^U80 J8d spunod 83BHS UJOQ spunod spunod qsBia A"JQ r^ co T- ^ c? in in w LOUS m ifl inift 10 10 irt in S spunod spunod 3[nui aioqM 22 Calf No. 314 at 30 days of age Calf No. 214 at 60 days of age 36 42 4S 54 6O W> 72 78 H4 fJO •I Calf No. 214 at 90 days of age Calf No. 214 at 120 days of age f>. 12 18 24 -JO 30 42 4W 54 f«O 6ft 72 ZH f*4 H(J Calf No. 214 at 150 days of age Calf No. 214 at 180 days of age Fig. 8. Calf No. 214 — Lot I (fed skim milk ration) Jersey heifer born November 21, 1913. Birth weight, 54 pounds 18 24 'M 36 42 48 54 60 W 78 'SSS 84 "W Calf No. 12 at 30 days of age ' Calf No. 12 at 60 days of age 6 12 18 24 3O 36 42 48 34 <«l «6 72 JS8 84 $10 Calf No. 12 at 90 days of age Calf No. 12 at 120 days of age nsns B4 isrm 42 '48 94 <«r I|^7'>'i-HOJ«— O *o .1 n £ two _C £ c CO bjo C O J3 CO X w 3 spunod — UIBS gpunod gpnnod g^uao i jo ^SOD SCJU9D UOI^BJ JO 9SBIJS UJOQ s^uao qSBUI A"J(I 3nira uipis g^uao qgy '^U90 J9d upload 9pnio gpunod 93eng uioo gpunod spunod qgsui AJQ gpunod gpunod s ; rH »— LO IO IO IO I-O COW" 0 rH g, « ^ JO g ^ « g g rH CJJ g g ^ JO DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OF LOT I— FED SKIM MILK RATION The calves in this lot maintained a thrifty condition through- out the entire experiment. Considerable trouble was experienced with indigestion or scours ; however, these attacks were of short duration. The calves apparently relished the feeds which they received and maintained a high standard of quality throughout the entire test. Special care was given the calves at all times, both in regard to individual feeding and their physical condition. No difference was noted in respect to the hardiness of the breeds represented. The most serious disease affecting any of the calves in Lot I was a mild attack of pneumonia, although but one calf was affected with this malady and the disease was of short duration. Lice were found at two or three different times, but were destroyed as soon as dis- covered. TABLE XIV. — Showing Live Weight, Gain, and Cost of Gain of the Individual Calves in Lot I Number calf Birth weight pounds Final weight pounds Total gain pounds Daily gain pounds Cost per pound gain cents Average daily cost cents Total cost dollars 17 81 353 272 1.49 4.3 6.5 11.92 300 63 302 239 1.31 5.3 7.0 12.82 19 78 335 257 1.41 5.8 8.2 15.01 B20 66 309 243 1.33 5.0 6.6 12.17 202 55 244' 189 1.03 6.8 7.0 12.88 213 49 261 212 1.16 6.0 7.0 12.74 214 54 256 202 1.10 6.3 7.0 12.87 12 50 212 162 .89 7.5 6.6 12.15 112 74 319 245 1.40 5.5 7.4 13.48 11 47 237 190 1.04 5.4 5.6 10.32 Average 61.7 282.8 221.1 1,21 5.7 6.9 12.63 VARIATION IN LIVE WEIGHT OF CALVES IN LOT I. — The value of a ration received by growing calves is largely determined by its influ- ence upon their live weight. In Table XIV, it is noted that the calves which received the skim milk ration were quite uniform in weight at birth. The birth weight of the lightest calf in Lot I was 47 pounds or 23.8 per cent, below that of the average of the lot. The heaviest calf in this lot weighed 81 pounds at birth or 31.28 per cent, above the average of the lot. The gain in live weight varied between rather wide limits, although with remarkable uniformity. The lightest calf receiving the skim milk ration weighed, at the end of the sixth month, 70.8 pounds less, and the heaviest calf weighed 70.2 pounds more than the average for the lot. The uniform efficiency of the skim milk ration is shown by the fact 'that six of the ten individual calves in Lot I maintained the same ratio in weight at birth to weight at six months of age. The average daily gain in live weight for the lot receiving the skim milk ration was 1.21 pounds. The largest average daily gain made by any one of the ten calves in Lot I was 1.49 pounds or .28 pound above the average for the lot. The poorest daily gain made by any of the calves receiving the skim milk ration was .89 pound or .32 pound below the average for the lot. The average weights at the end of the various weeks during the experiment show con- siderable variation. The average weekly gain during the first five weeks was six pounds or 2.45 pounds below the average gain made during the next four weeks. After the ninth week, the gain in live weight showed a decided increase, continuing until the eighteenth week. From the eighteenth to the twentieth weeks, the gain in weight was consistent but not as great as during the period included between the tenth and eighteenth weeks. The highest average gain cover- ing a period of four weeks was 10.35 pounds which was made during the last month of the experiment and the highest weekly gain was 11.5 pounds, made during the twenty-sixth week. The lowest weekly average gain in live weight was 4.7 pounds made during the fourth week of the test. The largest weekly gain made by any individual calf in Lot I was 26 pounds, produced during the twenty-third week. The average maximum weekly gain yielded by the lot was 19.3 pounds. One calf increased but 10 pounds in weight during its best week which represent the minimum gain for the lot in this particular. It is worthy of notice, however, that this calf yielded this amount of gain during four of the twenty-six weeks. Four of the ten calves in Lot I lost in weight during one or more weeks, six calves maintained a standard weight during one week and two gained an average of 2.0 pounds during their poorest week. The total loss in weight for all calves receiving the skim milk ration was 19 pounds or an average of 4.75 pounds per calf for those that lost in weight. The losses occurred in various periods of develop- ment, the exact weeks being as follows : — first, third, fourth, tenth and twenty-third. The large number of the calves that retained a standard weight for two weeks is rather singular. In comparing the gains in live weight produced the week previous and the week sub- sequent to the period during which the calves failed to gain, it shows that the average weekly gain produced previous to the week that losses occurred was n.i pounds as compared with 10.5 pounds for the week immediately following. ' COST OF RATION RECEIVED BY LOT I. — The successful feeding of live stock requires that the gains in live weight be economically produced. The feed cost per pound gain for all the calves in Lot I averaged 5.7 cents, the extremes being- 7.5 cents as the maximum and 4.3 cents as the minimum. In comparing the total cost with the 3-2 total gains made by the calves in Lot I, it is evident that there was considerable difference between individual calves 'so far as the ef- ficiency with which they used the feeds was concerned. The calf that cost $10.32 for feed during the first six months of its life was the smallest calf at birth and made a daily gain of slightly over i.o pound. The calf ranking next to the one just mentioned, in feed cost, was the heaviest calf at birth and made the largest daily gains. The most expensive calf cost $15.01 for feed during the experiment and ranks next to the heaviest in birth weight. The average cost of feed during the course of the experiment was $12.63 per head for all calves in Lot I. The uniformity in cost is especially noticeable. The average cost of six of the ten calves varied less than 50 cents per head from that of the average for the lot and the average cost of eight of the ten calves varied less than 85 cents per head from the average for this lot. With two exceptions, the individual cost of the calves in this lot varied less than 40 cents per head from that of the average cost. The most expensive feeding period was during the second week of the test, due to the large consumption of whole milk. After the third week, the average daily cost gradually increased from 3.4 cents per head to 3 .97 2.19 .!»7 2.87 .7(1 1.84 .98 2.50 Corn sihi pounds .44 .39 .47 .24 .2(5 .27 .28 .35 .27 .35 .33 of the ration which thcv received. The calves remained with the cows 4.2' days and cmisuiped, during the remainder of the first week, 'j-7 poumK of whole milk per dav. This amount was increased to i i .o i pounds per day during the second week, .28 pound of which was skim milk. Xo whole milk was fed after the third week and 33 but 3.2 pounds during the third week, the total amount of milk con- sumed during this period was 10.58 pounds. The skim milk ration was gradually increased to 13.8 pounds, the amount fed daily during the last week of the test, and 15 pounds was the largest daily amount received by any one of the ten calves. The economic rearing of calves on milk depends, largely, upon the continuous use of skim milk, thereby reducing the amount of whole milk needed. The average daily amount of whole milk con- sumed per calf by the ten calves reported in Table XV is .72 pound per day, which, for the six months included in this experiment, is equivalent to 131 pounds per head. Jersey heifer No. 202 consumed the largest amount of whole milk of any of the calves in Lot I, or approximately 165 pounds for the period. The birth weight of this calf was 55 pounds or 6.7 pounds below the average for the lot. The gain in live weight made by calf No. 202 was not in proportion to the amount of whole milk consumed as there were but two calves in the lot that showed a lower gain in body weight. The minimum amount of whole milk re- quired by any one of the ten calves was .543 pound per day, amounting to 98.8 pounds for the period of 182 days. The maxi- mum gain in live weight produced by any one of the ten calves in this lot was made by a calf which consumed approximately, the same amount of whole milk as was consumed by the average individual receiving milk. The amount of skim milk consumed per head by the calves in Lot I was ii.n pounds per day. The total amount of skim milk consumed per head for the entire period was 2022 pounds, making the total 2153 pounds of milk including the whole milk. Calf No. 19 consumed 13.54 pounds of skim milk per day, or 2.43 pounds more than the average for the lot. This calf ranks second from the standpoint of total gain and is the most expensive from the standpoint of total cost. It required 442.26 pounds more skim milk to make the gains for calf No. 19 than for the average for the lot. The minimum amount of skim milk was consumed by calf No. 17, the daily amount required being 9.19 pounds or 1.92 pounds less than that required by the average for the lot. An interesting fact concerning the development of this calf is that it made the greatest average daily gain and ranks low from the standpoint of cost for the entire period. The amount of skim milk required by calf No. 17 was 349.44 pounds less than that for the average of the lot. The calf which consumed an amount of skim milk equal to the average for the lot ranks lowest in total gain. The calves receiving the skim milk ration began to consume the dry mash during the second week, although in very small amounts. During the thirteenth week, they were receiving slightly over one pound per head per day and at the completion of the test, they were consuming 1.6 pounds per day. Out of the lot of ten calves, but one was eating a measurable amount of dry mash at two weeks of age. 34 By the third week, six calves developed an appetite for this material and not until the seventh week, were all the calves in-Lot I eating this feed. The amount of this mixture consumed by the calves in Lot I averaged .98 pound per day. The total amount consumed per head for the period included in this experiment was 178.71 pounds, equivalent to 1.59 bushels of corn and 2.78 bushels of oats. The variation in daily consumption between individual calves was slight, the mini- mum being .76 pound and the maximum, 1.07 pounds. No re- lationship appears to exist between the amounts of dry mash con- sumed and the gain in live weight. The only dry roughage fed was alfalfa hay and the average daily amount consumed by Lot I was 2.5 pounds, equivalent to 455 pounds per head for the period included in this experiment. Some alfalfa hay was consumed during the first week. During the sev- enth and eighth weeks, the largest increase in daily consumption of alfalfa hay took place. By the twelfth week the calves were consum- ing approximately, two pounds per head per day ; the fifteenth week, three pounds "per head per day; the twentieth week, four pounds per head per day ; and the twenty-fourth week, five pounds per head per day. The maximum daily consumption of alfalfa hay by Lot I was 5.59 pounds. The appetite for alfalfa hay varied with indi- viduals as is shown by the following: — one calf began eating hay 4uring the first week, three during the second week, four during the third week, six during the fourth week, seven during the fifth week, nine during the sixth week and ten during the seventh week. Calf No. ii consumed the smallest amount of alfalfa hay or .66 pound less than that eaten by the average calf in Lot I. This calf weighed the least at birth and consumed approximately, the smallest amount of all feeds fed. The gain in live weight is directly proportional to the feeds consumed so far as this individual calf is concerned. The calf that ate the largest amount of hay con- sumed .'6 pound more hay than the average for the lot and ranks high from the standpoint of total gain. The silage was not relished to any great extent by the calves in this lot, although they were not given an unlimited amount as is sometimes done. «The first indication of a desire for silage was manifested during the fourth week, although a very small amount was consumed. One-fourth of a pound per day was consumed during the ninth week, half a pound during1 the nineteenth week and .63 pound during the twenty-sixth week. Two calves began eating silage by the fifth week, five during the seventh week, seven during the eighth week, eight during the ninth week and ten during the tenth week. The average daily consumption of silage was .33 pound per head or approximately, 60 pounds per head for a period of one hundred eighty-two days. The variation in the amount of this feed 35 • consumed was so slight that it, doubtless, produced little effect upon the cost and rate of growth. Certain calves were quite heavy feeders upon all feeds fed and the consumption of corn silage by these calves was in proportion to the amount of other feeds consumed. TABLE: XVI. — Showing Cost and Composition of Ration Received by Lot I i Feed consumed pounds Cost dollars Dry matter pounds Crude protein pounds Carbo- hydrates pounds Fat pounds Ash pounds Whole milk 131.3 1.97 15.20 3.74 6.67 3.93 .85 Skim milk 2022.45 5.05 203.25 80.08 107.18 .80 15.16 Dry mash 178.71 2.07 152.22 18.37 122.01 7.14 4.69 Alfalfa hay 455.66 3.42 418.25 64.74 317.23 6.74 29.52 Corn silage 61.11 .12 23.94 2.37 19.79 .69 1.09 Total 12.63 812.86 169.30 572.88 19.30 51.31 FOOD NUTRIENTS RECEIVED BY LOT I. — In selecting feeds for live stock, it is necessary to consider their comparative efficiency in relation to their total cost. The average cost of raising the calves on a skim milk ration, as shown in Table XVI, was $12.63 Per head. Of the total cost, the skim milk consumed represents 39.9 per cent. ; the alfalfa hay, 27.07 per cent. ; the dry mash, 16.38 per cent ; and the whole milk, 15.5 per cent. The milk portion of the ration, which includes both the whole milk and the skim milk, costs $7.02, or 55.5 per cent, of the entire feed cost of the calves in Lot I. The average daily amount of dry matter consumed by the calves in Lot I was 1.27 pounds during the second week of the test and 7.85 pounds during the twenty-sixth week. The increase in the amount of dry matter consumed was as great during the first nine weeks as during the last four weeks of the test. The increase in consumption of dry matter was the least during the four weeks following the eighteenth week. During the first part of the experi- ment, it required, approximately, .7 pound of dry matter to pro- duce one pound gain as compared with one pound of dry matter to produce a pound gain at the conclusion of the test. The largest amount of dry matter was supplied by the alfalfa hay as over 50 per cent, of the total amount consumed during the entire period came from this feed. ' Skim milk ranks next as a source of dry matter, supplying 25 per cent., and the dry mash, third, 36 supplying 18.7 per cent. The cost of the dry matter as cal- culated on the basis of a dollar valuation is as' follows: — corn silage 199.5 pounds; alfalfa hay "122.29 pounds; dry mash 73.57 pounds; skim milk 40.25 pounds; and whole milk 7.71 pounds. The average amount of dry matter consumed by the calves in this lot was 64.35 pounds for each dollar invested in feed. The amount of protein required during the first part of the test was .4 pound per hundred pounds live weight. This requirement gradually increased to .5 pound during the last week of the test. The increase in protein consumption was gradual and uniform from the beginning to the end of the test. The protein was furnished largely, through the skim milk, as approximately 47 per cent, was supplied by this material. Alfalfa hay ranks next as a protein car- rier, supplying 38.2 per cent., and dry mash third, furnishing 10.9 per cent. The carbohydrates consumed by the calves in Lot I varied between .75 pound per hundred pounds live weight during the second week of the test to 2.04 pounds per hundred pounds live weight at the close of the experiment. As with the protein, the in- crease in carbohydrate consumption was gradual and regular from the beginning to the end of the experiment. The daily consumption of the various food nutrients indicates an adequate supply. The total amount of dry matter consumed per day was 4.46 pounds; protein, .93 pound; carbohydrates, 3.14 pounds; and fat, .106 pound. The nutritive ratio of the average daily ration was 1 13. 6. The daily nutrients required per hundred pounds live weight are as follows: — dry matter, 1.57 pounds; pro- tein, .33 pound; carbohydrates, i.n pounds; fat, .037 pound. The ash was supplied largely from two feeds, alfalfa hay and skim milk. The alfalfa hay supplied 57.6 per cent, of ash out of the total daily consumption of approximately .28 pound, and the skim milk supplied 29-55 Per cent- of ash out of the total of 87.15 per cent, supplied by the two feeds named. GROWTH OF CALVES IN LOT I. — The average height of the calves in Lot I at the end of the first thirty-day period, was 30.7 inches. The height of the various individuals in the lot varied from 29 inches to 33 inches. The rate of growth of the individual calves during the five periods over which it is possible to report is as fol- lows : — second month, three increased three inches, five, two inches, and two, one inch in height; the average gain during the second month was 2.1 inches. During the third month, three calves gained three inches, six, two inches, and one, one inch in height ; the average for this period was 2.2 inches. The fourth month but two calves gained three inches, and eight gained two inches in height ; the aver- age for this period was the same as during the second period, 2.2 inches. The fifth period, one gained three inches, eight, two 37 inches and one, one inch in height, with an average for the period of two inches. The last month, nine gained two inches and one one inch in height, with an average for the period of 1.9 inches. The total gain in height by two calves was nine inches ; three, 10 inches; four, n inches, and one, 12 inches. The average growth per head for the period of five months was 10.4 inches. The uni- formity in growth during all periods indicates that the calves were thrifty at all periods of development. The final height of the calves averaged 41.1 inches, the difference in individuals varying from 38 to 44 inches. The relation between the height and live weight of the calves -at -the ^end of each month during the first six months of the lives of the calves in Lot I is as follows : — at thirty days of age, the lot averaged 2.99 pounds ; at sixty days, 3.38 pounds ; at ninety days, 4.43 pounds ; at one hundred twenty days, 5.44 pounds ; at one hun- dred fifty days, 6.61 pounds ; and, at one hundred eighty days, 6.88 pounds for each inch in height. The largest increase in height in comparison with the increase in body weight was made during the fourth month. The average monthly increase was .78 pound for each inch in height. (> 12 18 24 y<) W 42 4H 54 6O 66 72 78 84 90" Calf No. 299 at 30 days of age Calf No. 299 at 60 days of age Calf No. 299 at 90 days of age Calf No. 299 at 120 days of age Calf No. 299 al 150 days of ag« (all No. 299 a< ISO days of age I \x. 1 2. (alt No. 29!.' — Lot II (fed home-mixed calf meal ration) .Jersey heifer horn August :>l, I9i:i. IJirlh weight, 10 pounds 39 ation in weight . spnnod — spunod spunod JO ^SOD 10 in to to to o m to r~ to t— s^uao 9SB[IS UJtOQ s^nao s^uaa •^U9D lad qsy •^uao jad uphold apnio •juao jad Average daily ration consumed spunod aSBIJa UJOQ spunod spnnod qsBiu AJQ spunod paxiui-araojj spunod spunod i* !&8£§£!£l£§i£§jgj&£33SgSiSjBS <§ 1 10 10 f— Ci co Sj ?QrHC|SQO'3y®^9l*r£ i - '- 10 *o cc i "- *" *^5 5 O O O O C3 O T-H r-H v- rH rH T-H (M CM C-l 'M ^T CNI -M fM r-l CO I t-i rr »CM I O !fi|S - S ^CO CDi— If^r- lCOO**COl ° -.SS355 10 •* 10 . ""1 . (NOi to Calf No. B 18 at 30 days of age Calf No. B18 at 60 days of age Calf No. B 18 at 90 days of age Calf No. B 18 at 120 days of age Calf No. B 18 at 150 days of age Calf No. B 18 at 180 days of age Fig. 13. Calf No. B 18— Lot II (fed home-mixed calf meal ration) Ayrshire bull born September 3, 1913. Birth weight, 69 pounds spunod— uiv.3 A"i{Bp aSBaaAy >- spunod DIBS [B^OJ, spunod UOI:JBI jo ^soo WrH UOI;BI jo aSBiJg ujoo s^uao s^uao H JIBO P3XIUI-9UIOH :s^ js 51 JHJUI aioqM. -<* -^ o co^f •^uao jad qsy llill iiillil "O g cs Is cS o M ^L! •^uao lad •;juaD lad uia^oid apnij ^^<^^^S^lfl®®l^p5J^-Jt^I-lO -T ^OJ' rn i-< I-H ^ i-! i?q eo' co co' co' co' to co' •* •* in in in 10 i.o in ui 10 10 m' spunod aSB[jsj UJOQ spunod spunod qsBiu AJQ; 1 co co eo i^i 10 10 in i ift ift 10 to c5 spunod IB9UI JIBD paxiiu-ouioji spunod W^BM spunod Calf No. 104 at 30 days of age Calf No. 104 at 60 days of age Calf No. 104 at 90 days of age Calf No. 104 at 120 days of age Calf No. 104 at 150 days of age Calf No. 104 at 180 days of age Fig. 14. Calf No. 104— Lot II (fed home-mixed calf meal ration) Ayrshire heifer born September 24, 1913. Birth weight, 82 pounds 43 s- o o «-M o .2 £ _c V fe & oj I spnnod — O t/} I b X w p * spunod UIBS IB^OJ, gpunod jo ijsoo s^uao s^nao qsBui AJQ IB8UI JJBO paxitn-araoji qsy • JTOD lad •^uao aad -oqaBQ •ijuao jad spunod 9SBIIS UJOQ spunod spunod qsBui AJQ spunod spunod spunod 1* II in eo M 10 o •* 05 Os ift CM 10 is> to eo O ift ift in in in in in as <2 c<> CM £2 S3 o o o o o o o o Q oo S3 os c> o afeg P M O Tjl -^ CO 44 Calf No. 301 at 30 days of age Calf No. 301 at 60 days of age h 12 18 24 30 3fi 42 48 «4 «O «<> 72 78 «4 Wl 34' Calf No. 301 at 90 days of age Calf No. 301 at 120 days of age Calf No. 301 at 150 days of age Calf No. 301 at 180 days of age Fig. 15. Calf No. 301— Lot II (fed home-mixed calf meal ration) Jersey heifer born October 18, 1913. Birth weight, 57 pounds 45 spunod — .S -u Ctf O - O G '-3 £ c 1 o J3 t/) spunod spunod HBI J UOI^BJ JO qsy St- O •^uao jad IM co co co co co co co co -* -* •* m «o co -t i-i CSI •* 00 i csi co' co' -* •* «* co* co co co ( COCOCOCOeOWCMCOCOCOCO -* oo >: O «e eo illllllllilllliii lgiillllllilliiilsllggl •^uao lad )O50OC^^'>1Op'^'iy1 es ~z a D -C w §8 spunod aSBLis IUOQ spnnod spunod qsBia ^JQ spunod IB3UI J[B3 paxiui-auioii spunod S §5 f^ go? 5 '°°S 22SSSSSS SSSS 2S2SS S° °° spunod Calf No. 215 nt :U> day* <;! a ire C'alf No. 215 at (>0 days of age Calf No. ']!.". at 1 21) (lays of aj;e r) H4 !W C'a'f No. 215 at ISO days of ajf« I i«. 17. (all No. 215 — Lot II (f«-al ration) .I«-rs«-y hcilCr horn November 21, 191H. Uirtli ueijrbt, 50 pounds 49 g. 26 spunod — UI spunod UIBS HUOJ, spunod 5Dl^O>T— I^O'MiOr^tO^'Mi 5> S *- w « 3 3 «> ® S » rHrH»— T-HrHrHr- tv— rHi— li— I rt U <4-H c •g UOI^BJ J' s^uoa UOl^BI JO S^U8D qSBUI A^G IB8UI J[BO paxiui-auiOH 8. is co eo co W> 72 78 84 90 i 12 IS 24 30 '36 42 48 54 «O 6ft :<2 78 84 W Calf No. 216 at 30 days of age Calf No. 216 at 60 days of age Calf No. 216 at 90 days of age Calf No. 216 at 120 days of age C> ' la 18 34 3O 36 42 48 54 fiO 66 78 3!8 84 90 Calf No. 216 at 150 days of age Calf No. 216 at 180 days of age Fig. 18. Calf No. 216— Lot II (fed home-mixed calf meal ration) Jersey heifer born December 24, 1913. Birth weight, 65 pounds o I— I «3 CO 1 (Ng r- r- i- ^— e oa be c '> o -Cj CO X X £s 03 3 •O 2 qsy lil 1 CM '*t« i~^ r-! CO -? O, J i ^' CO T— i L oo^^ico3^^^® *^U90 J9d sa^BjpAq -oqJBQ i— w r C^ ^ OO 7 1 /^ ' — '^ LO ' '^ "^ •luao aad spunod aSBiis uaoo spunod spunod qsBtu AJQ spunod IB3UI JIBO paxiui-auiojj spunod 1 1 1 t— lo (M ^ w S ;M ^ ^i S r>i T-i ^"i S o? i 10 in 10 in ia m LO 5t° S S S22rH SSrHrH S S 2 S S S 2 S ^ ^ °* |°° spunod 6 12 18 24 30 ;«i 42*48 54 «O Mi 72 Calf Xo. B 24 at 30 days of age Calf No. B 24 at 60 days of age Calf No. B 24 at 90 days of age Calf No. B 24 at 120 days of age 6 12 18 '4 Calf No. B 24 at 150 days of age Calf No. B 24 at 180 days of age Fig. 19. Calf No. B 24— Lot II (fed home-mixed calf meal ration) Jersey bull born February 21, 1914. Birth weight, 66 pounds 53 § 11 !t CQ d o 1 & bjo G fe >^ I X XI w i_r M H spnnod— spunod spunod S 35 JO ^SOD s^uao noiiei jo s^uao aSBijs uaoo s^uao s;uao qSBUI S.1Q paxiai-9raOH £S^s is F?^^.^ j i j i i i I j I j i j j I I S3 S £§ qsy •;}uaD iad sa^BjpAq -oqjt?o •^uao jad •juao lad spunod aSBijs HJOO spunod spunod qSBUI ^JQ 10 IQ in i spunod paxiui-araoH spunod 1 IO r-l r-l IM LQ Ift I 00 t^b- -* 00 ' ! ' fri 50 O oi CO SO co C5 ci O 0 Q OOOOdoOOOQOO spunod •f c-i oo i fc- -^ m i i i i i i i r i I e 4^ H^ ^4 »«> <>*> ra ys H4 m> 42 48 54 «>t> «»-mi\ o3 O M-H o o s pun o d — ni B S A^IBp 93BJ9AY rt s 3 GO g £ .s o cH > X X w .-r fQ spunod spnnod s^uaa jo s^uoo s^uao tJSBUI ^JQ IB9UI J[BD paxiui-gniOH JHira aioqAi qsY '^U8D J9d -oqjBQ jad spunod spnnod spanod qsBui AJQ; spanod IB9UI J[BD spnnod spnnod Jr r-l(M O5 CO <>q I 00 ^- CO IM •* to C<] CO 01 ^C C G '3 B II spunod qsBui ^aa spunod ^l T^ o r^ i"^ O paxiui-auiOH '^ c>i 10 1C in CO O iQ »O in »O i~ r (M in CO 4>1 C-1 «M rH 1-1 •>] 01 CM !M Ol ^1 in id IO lO in gpunod r- CC O5 C> ^ O O O O O5 O5 spunod ig^Hsass DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OF LOT II— FED HOME-MIXED CALF MEAL RATION The calves in Lot II did not present a thrifty appearance during the first part of the experiment. Indigestion was the chief dif- ficulty encountered, although in the majority of cases it was possi- ble to check this condition by reducing the amount of milk substitute they were receiving and substituting a small amount of milk. The milk substitute which the calves received was consumed with consid- erable relish as long as a small amount of milk was included. After the eighth week, their desire for the milk substitute increased and very little trouble was experienced after this time so far as their appetites were concerned. Individual attention was given all calves throughout the entire experiment in order to insure the highest pos- sible physical condition and to obtain satisfactory records. The various breeds presented no difference, whatever, in regard to hardi- ness, although, as a rule, the larger calves seemed to survive the influence produced by the change in feeds more readily than the smaller calves. One or two calves failed to respond to the change in the ration after they had been subjected to a serious attack of indigestion and, as a result, their appearance indicated a loss of countenance. The calves were found to be infested with lice two or three different times, but were immediately treated. TABLE XXVII.— Showing Live Weight, Gain, and Cost of Gain of the Individual Calves in Lot II Number calf Birth weight pounds Final weight pounds Total gain pounds Daily gain pounds Cost per pound gain cents Average daily cost cents Total cost dollars 299 40 186 146 .80 7.7 6.2 11.41 B18 69 271 202 1.10 6.3 7.0 12.77 104 82 265 183 1.00 7.5 7.5 13.81 301 57 244 187 1.02 7.2 7.4 13.51 B21 112 365 253 1.39 6.2 8.6 15.85 215 50 232 182 1.00 7.9 7.9 14.40 216 65 238 173 .95 7.8 7.4 13.57 B24 66 238 172 .94 7.4 7.0 12.81 115 84 200 116 .63 9.0 5.8 10.56 116 71 202 131 .71 8.1 5.8 10.69 Average 69.6 244.1 174.5 .95 7.4 7.1 12.93 VARIATION IN LIVE WEIGHT OF CALVES IN LOT II. — The birth weight of the calves that received the ration containing the home- mixed calf meal, averaged 69.6 pounds. There was considerable variation between the weights of individuals in this lot. With the exception of one calf, the lot averaged, approximately, 65 pounds or 59 4-6 pounds below the average weight of the ten calves. By exclud- ing two animals in calculating the average, the extreme weights of the calves in Lot II were 84 and 50 pounds, respectively. Express- ing the variation in weight in terms of percentage, it is noted that the heaviest calf weighed 60.9 per cent, more than the lightest calf, and 42.5 per cent, less than the average for the lot. At the end of the experiment, Lot II averaged 244.1 pounds. The lightest calf in this lot weighed 179 pounds less than the heavi- est calf which weighed 120.9 pounds more than the average for the lot. Three individuals in this lot maintained the same relative position at birth and at the end of the test. The failure of such a large number of calves to gain in weight consistently from birth to the age of six months, indicates that the ration which they re- ceived was not especially well adapted to animals of this age. The extreme difference in weight of individual calves at birth was 72 pounds, and at the end of the experiment, the difference in weight of the same two calves was 179 pounds. On the other hand, two calves that weighed within one pound at birth, weighed exactly the same at the end of six months. Five of the ten calves in Lot II gained over one pound per head per day. The five indi- viduals that made the best gains were not the heaviest calves in the lot as the birth weights varied from 40 to ,112 pounds. The calf that produced the poorest gain weighed 14.4 pounds above the average for the lot at birth. The average daily gain for all calves receiving the home-mixed calf meal was .95 pound, equivalent to 172.9 pounds for the period of one hundred eighty-two days. The average gain in body weight was rather irregular. The weekly gain in weight was 5.34 pounds as an average for the first five weeks of the experiment or, approximately one-third of a pound above that made during the next four weeks. After the ninth week, the gains made by seven-day periods were consistent, varying from 5.65 pounds to 8.7 pounds. The largest average weekly gain was 14.5 pounds, made during the twenty-fifth week and the minimum weekly gain was 2.6 pounds, made during the sixth week. The larg- est weekly gain made by any individual calf in Lot II was 29 pounds, produced during the twenty-fifth week. The average maximum weekly gain was' 21 pounds. The lowest maxi- mum weekly gain made by any one of the ten calves was 13 pounds. Eight of the ten calves lost weight one or more times, four maintained a standard weight, and one calf gained but two pounds as its minimum performance. The total loss in weight for all calves re- ceiving the home-mixed calf meal was 69 pounds or an average of slightly over four pounds during the sixteen weeks that losses oc- curred. The largest loss took place during the eleventh week and nine of the sixteen losses occurred on or after the thirteenth week. The average gain made the week previous to the week that the losses occurred was 12.3 pounds and the gain made the week subsequent was 9.4 pounds. 6o COST OF RATION RECEIVED BY LOT II.— The cost per pound gain varied with the rate of gain in five instances. The average for the lot was 7.4 cents per pound gain. The calf that 'made the best gain increased in weight 253 pounds at a cost of 6.2 cents per pound and the poorest calf gained in body weight, 116 pounds at a cost of nine cents per pound gain. The increase in weight was not propor- tional to the amount of feed consumed in many cases, as is illus- trated by calves Nos. B 21 and 115. The average cost of the ten calves in Lot II for the entire period was $12.93. The most ex- pensive calf cost $15.85 and ranks first from the standpoint of total gain. The most economically-produced calf cost $10.56 and made the smallest total gain. Based on percentage terms, the calf that made the most satisfactory gains cost 33.3 per cent, more during the first six months of ;ts life than the calf that made the most unsat- isfactory gains. In comparing the cost of the best individual with the average for the lot, one finds that it cost 22.5 per cent, more than the average calf receiving this feed. The average daily cost for all calves receiving the home-mixed calf meal was 7.1 cents, the minimum 5.8 cents and the maximum 8.6 cents. Five of the ten calves in Lot II varied less than 90 cents per head from the average cost for the lot. The most expensive feeding period for the calves in Lot II was during the second week, averaging slightly over 14 cents per day. The daily cost gradually decreased until the ninth week, at which time the calves were costing slightly over five cents per day per head. After the ninth week, the daily cost gradually increased reaching the maximum of 8.17 cents on the twenty-sixth week. TABLE XXVIII. — Showing Average Daily Ration Consumed by Lot II Number calf Whole milk pounds Water pounds Home-mixed calf meal pounds Dry mash pounds Alfalfa hay pounds Corn silage pounds 299 1.30 7.78 1.23 .59 1.50 .15 B18 1.04 9.58 1.75 .61 1.58 .16 104 .99 9.55 1.78 .78 2.11 .20 301 .96 8.17 1.35 .87 2.93 .26 B21 1.48 8.77 1.48 .86 3.42 .21 215 1.88 7.75 1.13 .89 2.31 .11 216 .93 8.61 1.24 1.14 2.92 .20 B24 1.32 8.43 1.18 1.04 1.88 .26 115 .90 8.87 1.14 .83 1.52 .32 116 .90 8.93 1.14 .81 1.62 .32 Average 1.17 8.64 1.33 .84 2.18 .22 6i RATION RECEIVED BY LOT II. — The age at which the calves in Lot II began to consume the various kinds of feed and the amounts consumed by them is a correct guide as to the degree of their develop- ment. The calves .remained with the cows for 4.8 days and consumed, during the remainder of the first week, 10.27 pounds of whole milk per day. The amount was decreased to 8.96 pounds of whole milk during the second week, although they consumed 10.89 pounds of liquid, there being 1.67 pounds of water and .26 pound of calf-meal substituted for a portion of the milk. The third week, the whole milk ration was further reduced, although amounting to 6.2 pounds, and the daily liquid ration was increased to 11.54 pounds. During the fourth week, the whole milk ration was reduced to 4.53 pounds per day and fed together with 5.81 pounds of water and .94 pound of calf meal. The .liquid ration during the fifth week con- sisted of 3.51 pounds of whole milk, 6.99 pounds of water and 1.16 pounds of calf meal. The sixth week, but 1.66 pounds of whole milk, 7.98 pounds of water and 1.36 pounds of calf meal, totaling 11 pounds of liquid, were fed. Whole milk feeding was discontinued after the eleventh week and but one-tenth of a pound was fed during the tenth and eleventh weeks. The total liquid ration fed during the twelfth week was 11.67 pounds. This amount was gradually reduced to 11.2 pounds, which was the amount fed during the seven- teenth week. After this period, the amount was gradually increased to 11.99 pounds, the amount received during the twenty-sixth week. The dairymen who use a calf meal ration in the raising of calves, usually have only whole milk available for the feeding of young stock, and as a result, desire to reduce the amount of this material used for feeding purposes, to the minimum. The milk portion of the ration received by the calves in Lot II averaged 1.17 pounds per head for the period of one hundred eighty-two days, equivalent to 212.94 pounds or 25 gallons, for the experimental period. The variation in daily amounts consumed by various indi- vidual calves ranged from 1.88 pounds to .9 pound. The calf that required the maximum amount of whole milk consumed 342.2 pounds, 60.7 per cent, more milk than that required by the average calf in the lot. The calf that received .9 pound of whole milk per day, obtained 49.14 pounds less whole milk than the average indi- vidual in the lot. Five of the ten calves required less than one pound of whole milk per day and two calves required but .9 pound. The two calves that consumed the minimum amount of whole milk weighed above the average for the lot at birth. • The final weight of the calves that received a large amount of whole milk was not in proportion to the amount of milk consumed. The amount of water consumed per day when fed in connection with the calf meal averaged 8.64 pounds. The variation between individual calves in this particular was very slight, the maximum dif- ference being 1.8 pounds and less than one pound in comparison with 62 the average for the lot. Practically, seven times as much water was consumed as whole milk. The average age of the calves when they began to consume water was two weeks. The calf meal was fed during the first week to some of the calves in this lot. although the lot averaged 1.8 weeks of age as the date the calf meal was first fed. The amount consumed varied from .26 pound during the second week to 1.62 pounds during the fourteenth week. After that time, it was thought best to reduce the amount of calf meal fed, and a reduction was made to 1.42 pounds by the twenty-second week. It was again increased after this date to 1.49 pounds by the twenty-sixth week. The average amount of calf meal consumed per day during the period was 1.33 pounds or 21.28 ounces. The average maximum amount required by any in- dividual calf was 28.48 ounces and the minimum, when not re- ceiving whole milk, was 18.08 ounces. The calf meal and water were mixed in the proportion of one pound of calf meal to 6.49 pounds of water. The dry mash was first eaten during the second week, four calves indicating a desire for this material at that time; four more were added to this list during the third week, and two during the sixth week. ( )ne of the calves that ate dry mash the third week, refused this feed during the fourth and sixth weeks but ate it consistently after the seventh week. The average age of the lot at the time the calves began eating the dry mash was 3.2 weeks. The amount of dry mash consumed varied from .TI pound during the third week to 1.5 pounds during the twenty-sixth week. The calves began con- suming one pound of this mixture at fourteen weeks of age. The average daily amount of dry mash consumed for the entire period was .84 pound or approximately, 13.4 ounces. The maximum amount consumed by any individual calf was 1.14 pounds or 18.24 ounces, and the minimum, .59 pound or 9.44 ounces. The total amount consumed per head for the period was 152.88 pounds, equiv- alent to 1.36 bushels of corn and 2.39 bushels of oats. Tlie alfalfa hay was first eaten at 3.2 weeks of age as an aver- age for the lot. Vive calves began eating hay at two weeks, two at three- weeks, one at four weeks and two at six weeks of age. The amount of this material consumed by the calves in Lot II during the time included in this experiment, showed a gradual increase from the first to the last week. The first hay was eaten during the second week. At eight weeks of age the calves were con- >uming a pound per day; at thirteen weeks, two pounds per day; at seventeen weeks, three pounds per day ; and at twenty-four weeks, four pounds per day. The maximum amount of alfalfa hay con- sumed was during the twenty-sixth week and amounted to 4.5 pounds per dav. The average daily amount of alfalfa hay con- sumed for the period was 2.18 pounds, equivalent to 390.76 pounds for the period. The maximum daily amount of alfalfa hay con- sumed by any individual in the lot was 5.68 pounds and the average maximum amount consumed was 3.29 pounds. The age at which the calves in Lot II developed an appetite for corn silage was eight and one-half weeks. One calf ate a small amount of corn silage after the third week; two during the sixth week ; one during the eighth week ; two during the ninth week ; two during the tenth week ; one during the eleventh week ; and one during the thirteenth week. One of the calves that began to eat silage during the tenth week ate it for but two weeks, refusing it until the twenty-first week. Another calf that ate silage during the sixth and seventh weeks, refused the feed after this time until the sixteenth week. The daily amount of corn silage consumed varied from the insignificant amount of .02 pound during the fifth week to .44 pound during the twenty-fifth week. The calves were consuming .25 pound during the thirteenth and fourteenth weeks. The average daily consumption of corn silage for. the entire period was .22 pound or approximately, 40 pounds for the period. The average maxi- mum daily consumption was less than one-third pound and the mini- mum amount .11 pound. TABLE XXIX. — Showing Cost and Composition of Ration Received by Lot II Feed consumed pounds Cost dollars Dry matter pounds Crude protein pounds Carbo- hydrates pounds Fat pounds Ash pounds Whole milk 213.95 3.21 24.77 6.09 10.86 6.41 1.39 Home-mixed calf meal 244.13 ' 4.88 218.71 88.99 111.56 11.19 6.96 Dry mash 154.012 1.78 131.18 15.83 105.15 6.16 4.04 Alfalfa hay 397.709 2.98 365.05 56.51 276.88 5.88 25.77 Corn silage 40.80 .08 15.98 1.58 13.21 .46 .73 Total 12.93 755.69 169.00 517.66 30.10 38.89 FOOD NUTRIENTS RECEIVED BY LOT II.— The importance of a calf meal depends upon its ability to reduce the cost of growing young stock. The calves receiving the home-mixed calf meal cost $12.93 per head. The whole milk consumed represents 24.82 per cent. ; the calf meal, 37.71 per cent. ; alfalfa hay, 23.04 per cent. ; and the dry mash, 13.76 per cent, of the total cost. The milk portion of the ration, which includes both the whole milk and the calf meal, cost $8.09, or 62.56 per cent, of the total feed cost of the calves in Lot II to the age of six months. 64 The average daily amount of dry matter received by the calves in Lot II was 1.36 pounds during the second week oi; the test. This amount was gradually increased to 1.97 pounds during the fifth week; 3.07 pounds during the ninth week; 4.12 pounds during the thirteenth week; 4.98 pounds during the sixteenth week; 5.92 pounds during the twenty-first week and 6.91 pounds during the twenty-sixth week. The amount of. dry matter required increased immediately after the eighteenth week and decreased during the last four weeks of the experiment. The largest increase in dry matter consumption was during the period included between the sixth and nineteenth weeks. During the second week it required 1.68 pounds of dry matter for each hundred pounds live weight and dur- ing the twenty-sixth week, 2.87 pounds for each hundred pounds live weight. The largest amount of dry matter was supplied by the alfalfa hay, as approximately 48.3 per cent, of the total amount came from this source. The calf meal ranks next as a source of dry matter supplying 28.9 per cent, and the dry mash third, supplying 17.4 per cent. The cost of the dry matter in the milk portion of the ration as calculated on a unit basis is as follows: — for each dollar invested in calf meal, 44.81 pounds of dry matter were supplied; and for each dollar invested in whole milk, 7.716 pounds of dry matter were supplied. The average amount of dry matter consum- ed by the calves in this lot was 58.44 pounds for each dollar invested in feed. The amount of protein required during the first part of the test was .45 pound for each hundred pounds of live weight. This re- quirement gradually increased to .55 pound for each hundred pounds live weight during the last week of the test. The increase in protein consumption was gradual from the beginning to the end of the test. The protein was largely furnished by the calf meal as approximately 52 per cent, of the total amount consumed was secured from this material. Alfalfa hay ranks next, supplying 33.4 per cent, and the dry mash stands third, furnishing 9.3 per cent. The carbohydrates consumed by the calves in Lot II varied between .79 pound per hundred pounds live weight during the sec- ond week of the test to 2.04 pounds during the twenty-sixth week. As with the protein, the increase in carbohydrate consumption was gradual and regular from the beginning to the end of the test. The daily consumption of the various food nutrients indicates that an adequate amount was supplied. The total amount of dry matter consumed per head per day was 4.15 pounds; protein, .93 pound; carbohydrates, 2.84 pounds; and fat, .16 pound. The nutri- tive ratio of an average daily ration was 1 13.4. The daily nutrients required per hundred pounds live weight are as follows : — dry mat- ter, 1.7 pounds; protein, .38 pound; carbohydrates, 1.16 pounds; fat, .067 pound. The ash was supplied, largely, from one feed, namely, 65 alfalfa hay. The alfalfa hay supplied 66.3 per cent. ; calf meal, 17.9 per cent., and the dry mash, 10.4 per cent, of the ash received by the calves in Lot II. GROWTH OF CALVES IN LOT II. — The average height of the calves in Lot II at the end of the first thirty-day period was 31 inches. The height of the different individuals in the lot varied from 27 inches to 36 inches. The rate of growth of the various individuals during the five periods over which it is possible to report is as fol- lows : — second month, six calves increased two inches and four in- creased one inch in height; the average gain for the period was 1.6 inches. During the third month, one calf gained three inches, six two inches, and three one inch in height ; the average gain for the period was 1.8 inches. The fourth month, three calves gained two inches and seven one inch in height; the average gain for the period was 1.3 inches. The fifth month, five calves gained two inches and five one inch in height ; the average growth for the period was 1.5 inches. The sixth month, five gained two inches and five one inch in height; the average for the last period was 1.5 inches. The total gain in height is represented by one animal gaining four inches ; one five inches ; two seven inches ; three eight inches ; two nine inches ; and one ten inches. The uniformity in growth during the five periods represented is interesting so far as the aver- ages are concerned. The final height of the calves averaged 38.7 inches, with 36 inches as the minimum and 43 inches as the maximum. The relation between the height and live weight of the calves at the end of each month during the six months under investiga- tion in Lot II is as follows: — at thirty' days of age, the lot averaged 3.11 pounds for each, inch in height; at sixty days, 3.59 pounds; at ninety days, 4.06 pounds ; one hundred twenty days, 4.95 pounds ; one hundred fifty days, 5.64 pounds; and one hundred eighty days, 6.32 pounds. The largest increase in height was made between the third and fourth periods in comparison with increase in body weight. The average monthly increase was .64 pound for each inch in height. 66 ImmmwmwimWi mmmmmmmmm ••••••••« ••••••••B1 1 (all1 No. 18 at 30 days of a«e Calf No. IK at 00 days of age Calf No. 18 at !)() days of ant- alf No. 18 at 1-iO days of age Calf No. 18 at l.'.d da.\s of a«c Calf No. 18 at 180 days of ajje I ij;. '-".. Calf No. 18 — Lot III ( f «>d ltlat«-hford's Calf M«-al ration) Holsteiii lieif«-r born S«>pt<*inl>cr ;i, l!>i:i. Uirth \veiKht, 78 pounds f gpunod— uiBS #) spunod spunod 00 O ^00 i*-M^^u>T^ j -t ;rlS2J^t£*"" THC-I lP*-^i-Hi— ICOi-H I i— 1 J^-^lAlCir- U»i-l«O £° O a> I UOftBI JO ^SOO t-73 UOI^BJ JO aSBJJS UJOQ qSBUI AjQ i in *- I IQ it^c/31-' I t-1 qsy •^uao jad -oqjBo =°S2<38c*S2.!Pt~0>O32'>10'coc<19?'3:'a'rH S'" QOI~'— rH^COOSOT^rHCN^^^CMt'^'^O^^CM^ ^^^^^y"^^™ •^uao jad illllilllllllii X X 2^ >>2 spunod aSB[ts UJOQ spunod spunod qsBui AJQ spunod spunod spunod SS5 ! i ! ! IS •<*co-*« 68 «> 12 18 -M ;*> -36 42->4S -"4 Calf No. B 19 at 30 days of age Calf No. B 19 at 60 days of age Calf No. B 19 at 90 days of age Calf No. B 19 at 120 days of age Calf No. B 19 at 150 days of age Calf No. B 19 at 180 days of age Fig. 23. Calf No. B 19 — Lot III (fed Blatchford's Calf Meal ration) Jersey bull born September 4, 1913. Birth weight, 59 pounds 69 Variatio live wei spunod— UIBS spnnod CO | | | »- i-H rH 1 *- r-l (N v- spunod UOJ^BJ JO ^SOO eSens UJOQ s^uaa i rH 10 ip ic CO ^C ^^ •^U3D J9d on ra 4;U90 J9d '^U3D J9d •;U90 I9d spunod spunod ABU. BJIBJIV -^ lO lf> OO ^ OO CO ^r— ( 1 IOO COJtT— (Fll-- *— CD ^JCM J;^ TH§3 i i 55 LO eoo5eo-«iieo ! 1 "«*cocot>C3C>OaJco 42 4,S 54 «K) «> Tii 78 84 9O Calf No. 8 at 30 days of age Calf No. 8 at (iO days of age Calf No. 8 at 00 days of age Calf No. 8 at 120 days of age • ! ! i kn -H- ' Calf No. 8 at I ~>0 days of ag« Calf No. 8 at 180 days of age I ig. 21. Calf No. 8 — Lot III (fed Ulatchford's Calf Meal ration) Jersey Itnll born Oetoher '.'>, l!>i:5. ISirth \\eight, 1!) pounds 00 d 'od O *0 o I o in spunod— UIBS .e ^ A'IJBP aSBiaAy I .^ spunod spunod UO^BI JO ^SOO A^Bq BJIBJIV qsBiu AJQ qsy -oqjBQ !5 ! aasa s 1 O> 7"! 7T ^ O5 -t1 CO -r *^- r-- fe ® Qg C4 f>l C^J <>l Kf i CO I-- 0^1 ?0 CN o> (X) O ^ "•"• o> i^r^^c^ t- co -^ rH » [^ 1Q Ol CO IO 00 r-H CO I Id 3?*3S3S8^ w Zp fv in io o I-H o spunod aSB[IS UJOQ spunod spunod qSBUI ^JQ spunod spunod JS;BAI is : i is :8ift«» |S :^^r-;^ i r-l •* lO U* OS Ol •* I I I i-HO OO 00 00 O 0> 00 Oi © O O O Q O <£> spunod ggSi S^. IS 358!= : i : ! I ! ! ! ! ! ! i ! eo t- •* Tj( co ' I •*' O o os to «-^ i I ! ! I I I I I! ! I ! Calf No. 302 at 30 days of age Calf No. 302 at 60 days of age Calf No. 302 at 90 days of age Calf No. 302 at 120 days of age Calf No. 302 at 150 days of age Calf No. 302 at 180 days of age Fig. 25. Calf No. 302— Lot III (fed Blatchford's Calf Meal ration) Jersey heifer born October 19, 1913. Birth weight, 45 pounds 73 spunod— UIBS A'IJBP aSBiaAV gpnnod UIBS IB^OJ, spunod s^uao •* O a* O Oi co eo co in os «ft c«i CO 00 •* «*t- T-H -^-^OO eSB[is UJQO »— i-H rH i-l »— *•* tS ^ H5 OD^ 05 • "-r i — T-* o llllslll lil spunod dSTBUS UJOQ spnnod ,-H TH i— rH rH rH T- CO (M CC OO CO CO CO CO S3 a 3 73 w spunod qsBui AJQ spunod spunod S I spunod JLIira aioqAi ^ to tO IO VQ 1> to I l I I I l rH o5 « eo a5 fe as i oo 06 to io co t~ o o o o ' I ! I ! I I 74 Calf No. li 22 at 30 days of age Calf No. 1$ 22 at GO days of age Calf No. li 22 at 1)0 days of age Calf No. 1422 at 120 days of age Calf No. li 22 at l.*><» days of ag« Calf No. IJ 22 at ISO days of age •iB. 2. Uirth weight, (i 1 pounds 75 N O w gpunod aSB[is UJOQ spunod spunod spunod 76 Calf No. B 23 at 30 days of age Calf No. B 23 at 60 days of age Calf No. B 23 at ,90 days of age Calf No. B 23 at 120 days of age : 6 12 18 24 ap ';»«• 4a"^"g4"«0"CB"7gTB'S4 W) 84 Calf No. B 23 at 150 days of age Calf No. B 23 at 180 days of age Fig. 27. Calf No. B 23— Lot III (fed Blatchford's Calf Meal ration) Jersey bull born December 20, 1913. Birth weight, 61 pounds = spunod— UIBS spunod spunod iqSpAi BAIT; UOIIBJ: jo :jsoa s^uaa UOt^BJ JO 77 2 is ,CO£COCO£ sjueo oo oo 1> "* on ra qsy s ilillllllll ' ^uaa jad •;uaa jad uja^ojd apnjQ • ;uaa lad spunod UJOQ spunod £S •si Is spunod qSBUI ^JQ i I-H »— r-i f- ^ 10 10 in ic in ic ift m o m 10 i spunod LO ift in at in ift ira m ia 10 ift m spunod NceOOOOOOOOOOoOOOOOOOOO spunod Calf No. 109 at 30 days of age Fig. 28. Calf No. 109 — Lot III (fed Blatchford's Calf Meal ration) Jersey-Ayrshire heifer born January 10, 1914. Birth weight, 49 pounds Died February 17, 1914. Cause of death, chronic indigestion and malnutrition T'" <& '12 iF 7p ft* HO Calf No. B 113 at 30 days of age Fig. 29. Calf No. B 113 — Lot III (fed Blatchford's Calf Meal ration) Grade Holstein bull born March 2, 1914. Birth weight, 98 pounds Died April 8, 1914. Cause of death, malnutrition 79 spunod— UIBS spunod UIBS [B^OJ, spunod UOl^BJ JO ^SOO UOI^BJ jo 93B[IS UJOQ qSBUI ^IQ g^uao qsy uiajoid spunod spunod spunod qsBui AJQ spunod spunod spunod z« Is co os.i> oo eo co iyq oo in m co l CO •* 10 t^ CO 00 m CO COCM i-l (N CO •<* «» «O t- re i— i PQ 6 M-l O *o o c -5 fe IH > W PQ H spunod — 03 3 T3 g |i spunod UJBS spunod S^U90 qsBra AJQ '^uao igd qsv '^U9D J9d -oqjBo spunod spunod spunod qSBUI A"J(I spunod spunod spunod in oo <>5 OT ^- o r-i oo -^H oq e«4 oo So Calf No. 114 at 30 days of age Calf No. 114 at 60 days of age Calf No. 114 at 90 days of age Calf No. 114 at 120 days of age Calf No. 114 at 150 days of age Calf No. 114 at 180 days of age Fig. 30. Calf No. 114 — Lot III (fed Blatchford's Calf Meal ration) Grade Holstein heifer born February 26, 1914. Birth weight, 85^ pounds Sf spunod — m^S spunod spunod o3 O M-l O G 3 t/3 UOHBJ JO ^SO3 1> O 00 CO •* 00 00 t- 10 0 CO OS 00 00 05 35 C3S O O O 0 05 05 05 0> UOI^BJ JO aSBIIS UJOQ lit- s;uao •^uao jad qsy lilllillllll lilllilll •^uao aad •;uao jad uia^ojd apnao •;uao jad spunod spunod X X spunod qSBUI ^JQ spunod spunod spunod SSSfe I i< co •* i sq co 82 Calf No. B 50 at 30 days of age Calf No. B 50 at 60 days of age Calf No. B 50 at 90 days of age Calf No. B 50 at 120 days of age Calf No. B 50 at 150 days of age Calf No. B 50 at 180 days of age Fig. 31. Calf No. B 50 — Lot III (fed Blatehford's Calf Meal ration) Grade Holstein bull born May 10, 1914. Birth Weight, 94 pounds 11 spunod — UIBS spunod UIBS [B10J, lc<5«S'^i-ii-ieoi-iT spunod s^uaa UOI^BJ jo ^soa s^uaa S;U9D aSBns ujoj 15 rH rH CS latchford's Calf Meal did not pre- sent a thrifty appearance during1 the first part of the experiment. In- digestion was the chief cause of trouble in the majority of cases; however, it was possible to correct this condition by reducing the amount of calf meal they were receiving and substituting a small quantity of whole milk. In other instances, the calves failed to improve rapidly in general appearance, physical vigor and weight. This condition was usually at its worst during the fifth and sixth weeks, although with a few of the calves, it continued until they were two or two and one-half months of age. The milk substitute was relished during the first part of the test or so long as a small portion of milk was included in the daily ration. After the calves were placed on a full ration of calf meal, a considerable portion of the gruel was refused. \ cry little trouble, however, was ex- perienced in getting the calves to eat a sufficient amount, the chief cause of the trouble being over-eating. Care was exercised at all times to maintain the calves in a thrifty condition and to insure an accurate record in regard to the amount of feeds consumed. The two breeds used in this lot show very little, if any, difference in their ability to resist the undesirable influence of the calf meal. The same may be said in regard to the sex of the calves used in the experiment. \Yith one exception, all the calves in this lot that lived, recovered from the influence of the calf meal sufficiently to present a thrifty condi- tion at the close of the test. 'I ne calves receiving this ration, sim- ilar to those in the other two lots, were infested with lice two or three times, but inasmuch as they were treated promptly, the detri- mental influence resulting is thought to be slight. Two calves in this lot failed to recover from an attack of in- digestion and lack of proper nutrition. Calf No. TO<) was first at- tacked with a serious intestinal trouble at nine days of age. It was treated at mice with a scour reined}-, prepared by the company that manufactures I'latchford's Calf Meal. The calf failed to im- prove, although treatment was continued, until thirteen days of age. The calf meal was gradually increased after this date although the calf appeared to be losing in strength continuously. During the seventh week, it was so weak that it had to be held up when fed. refusing most of its feed and finally dying at forty-live days of age. It may be stated that a representative of the J. AY. Harwell Co., manufacturers of P.latchford's Calf Meal, was present at the Uni- versity the major amount of the time this calf was on test and his suggestions concerning its feeding were followed as nearly as pos- sible. 85 Calf No. B 113 first showed signs of a decline at twelve days of age. Again at fifteen days of age, a slight attack of scours appeared. As with No. 109, this calf gradually declined in strength, showing a serious lack of proper nutrition. At thirty-four days of age, it was so weak that it could not stand while eating. A peculiar part of this calf's condition was its greedy appetite even though too weak to stand. Conditions failed to improve and the calf died at forty days of age. TABLE XL.— Showing Live Weight, Gain, and Cost of Gain of the Individual Calves in Lot III Number calf Birth weight pounds Final weight pounds Total gain pounds Daily gain pounds Cost per pound gain cents Average daily cost cents Total cost dollars 18 78 160 82 .45 26.42 11.90 21.67 B19 59 219 160 .87 11.72 10.31 18.76 8 49 194 145 .79 11.20 8.93 16.24 302 45 185 140 .76 12.68 9.76 17.77 B22 64 238 174 .95 8.47 8.10 14.75 B23 61 219 158 .86 10.43 9.00 16.48 114 85 175 90 .49 17.05 8.43 15.35 B50 94 212 118 .64 15.69 10.17 18.52 1091 49 B1131 98 Average 68.2 200.2 133.4 .73 13.18 9.58 17.44 VARIATION IN LIVE WEIGHT OF CALVES IN LOT III. — The birth weight of the calves that received the ration containing the Blatch- ford's Calf Meal, averaged 68.2 pounds. The calves in this lot were quite uniform in weight at birth. The extremes in weight were 98 pounds and 45 pounds. At the end of the experiment, Lot III averaged 200.2 pounds per calf. The heaviest calf in the lot weighed 37.8 pounds more and the lightest, 40.2 pounds less than the average for the lot. None of the calves maintained the same relation in weight at birth and at the end of the six months period. The heavi- est calf at birth, together with one of the lightest, died during the first part of the experiment. The heaviest calf that lived stood sixth in respect to total gain. The thriftiest calf weighed 64 pounds at birth or 4.2 pounds below the average for the lot. The lightest calf at birth weighed 185 pounds at the end of the experiment, or fifth place from the standpoint of total gain. The fact that all of the calves failed to gain consistently from the beginning to the end of the experiment indicates' that the ration which they received was not well adapted for animals at this age. The extreme difference in weight of the calves at birth was 53 pounds and at the* end of the 86 « experiment, 78 pounds. On the other hand, two calves that weighed within three pounds of each other at birth weighed exactly the same at the end of six months. None of the calves in Lot III gained over a pound per day. The calf that produced the poorest gain weighed 9.8 pounds above the average for the lot at birth. The average daily gain for all calves receiving the Blatchford's Calf Meal was .73 pound, equivalent to 132.86 pounds for the period of one hundred eighty-two days. The average gain in body weight was rather uniform for all calves in Lot III during the first five weeks. After the tenth week, a larger increase in gain occurred and continued until the end of the experiment. The largest gain was made between the twenty-third and twenty-sixth weeks and the smallest gain was made during the first five weeks. The largest average weekly gain was 8.6 pounds, made during the twenty-third week, and the minimum weekly gain was .9 pound, made during the fourth week. The largest weekly gain made by any individual calf in Lot III was 20 pounds, produced during the fourteenth week. The average maximum weekly gain was 13.3 pounds. The lowest maximum gain, made by any one of the calves in this lot, was two pounds. Nine of the ten calves that entered this experiment lost weight one or more times. Five main- tained a standard weight one or more times and there was no calf in the lot that had a constant gain throughout the experiment. The total loss in weight for all calves receiving the Blatchford's Calf Meal was eighty-six pounds or an average of 2.86 pounds during the thirty weeks that losses occurred. The maximum loss for any of the ten calves was six pounds, occurring four times during the experiment. Nineteen of the losses occurred before the fourteenth week, the largest number occurring during the third and fourth weeks. A uniform weight was maintained during eleven weeks and all but one occurred before the fifteenth week. The weekly average gain made the week previous to the week that the losses occurred was 3.1 pounds, and the gain made the week subsequent was 2.2 pounds. COST OF RATION RECEIVED BY LOT III. — The cost per pound gain varied with the rate of gain in four instances. The average for the lot was 13.18 cents per pound gain. The calf that made the best gain increased in weight 238 pounds at a cost of 8.47 cents per pound, and the poorest calf gained in weight, 82 pounds at a cost of 26.42 cents per pound gain. The average cost of the ten calves in Lot III for the entire period was $17.44. The most expensive calf cost $21.67 and ranks lowest from the standpoint of total gain. The most economically produced calf cost $14.75 and stands first from the standpoint of total gain. Based on percentage terms, the calf that made the most satisfactory gains cost 46.9 per cent, more during the first six months of its life than the calf that made the most satisfactory gains. The best individual gained 30.4 per cent. more than the average for the lot at a cost of 35.7 per cent, less per pound gain. The average daily cost for all calves receiving the Blatchford's Calf Meal was 9.58 cents with 8.10 as the minimum and 11.9 as the maximum. Two of the eight calves in Lot III varied less than a dollar per head from the average cost for the lot. The most expensive feeding period for the calves in Lot III was during the second week, averaging slightly over 13 cents per day. After the second week, the cost gradually grew less until the eighth week. From the ninth to the sixteenth weeks, the average daily cost was rather uniform, averaging, approximately, the same as during the third week. The daily cost was subsequently again reduced as low as 8.2 cents but was increased after the twenty-third week to approximately, ten cents per day. TABLE: XLL — Showing Average Daily Ration Consumed by Lot III Number calf Whole milk pounds Water pounds Blatchford's Calf Meal pounds Dry mash pounds Alfalfa hay pounds Corn silage pounds 18 5.0 5.69 .9304 .4965 .7293 .1098 B19 3.532 6.74 1.1112 .4539 .7651 .1098 8 2.5247 6.51 .9717 .6552 1.2458 .1263 302 2.7692 7.00 1.0105 .7767 1.4986 .2225 ,B22 1.0109 8.71 1.1208 .9016 2.1016 .2321 B23 1.0151 8.61 1.1969 1.1140 2.6543 .3043 114 1.0164 8.65 1.2063 .9903 1.9571 .3186 B50 2.8104 9.51 1.0281 .7307 1.9653 .2170 Average 2.46 7.67 1.07 .77 1.61 .21 RATION RECEIVED BY LOT III. — The age at which the calves in Lot III began to consume the various kinds of feed and the amount consumed by them are as follows: the calves remained with their dams for 4.3 days and consumed, during the remainder of the first week, 11.4 pounds of whole milk per day. This amount was de- ceased to 8.14 pounds of whole milk during the second week, al- lough they consumed 10.07 pounds of liquid, there being 1.67 Hinds of water and .26 pound of calf meal substituted for a por- tion of the milk. The third week, the whole milk ration was fur- ler reduced, and the liquid ration was increased to 10.75 pounds containing 5.5 pounds of whole milk. During the fourth week, the rhole milk ration was reduced to 3.82 pounds per day and fed together with 6.56 pounds of water and .84 pound of calf meal. 'he liquid ration during the fifth week consisted of 2.81 pounds of le milk, 7.62 pounds of water and 1.07 pounds of calf meal. The sixth week, 2.25 pounds of whole milk were fed together with .i i pounds of water and 1.02 pounds of calf meal, totaling 11.38 88 pounds of liquid. The lowest amount of whole milk fed during the first sixteen weeks was during the seventh week, at which time, one and one-half pounds of whole milk were consumed per day. The daily requirements of whole milk increased after this time until the tenth week, at which time the calves were consuming 4.32 pounds per day. It was again reduced gradually and discontinued after the nineteenth week. During the last three weeks of the test, a small amount of whole milk was again added. There were four consecutive weeks during the entire period that milk was not fed to some of the calves in this lot. The milk portion of the ration received by the calves in Lot III was 2.46 pounds per head for the period of one hundred eighty- two days, equivalent to 447.72 pounds, or 52.06 gallons, for the ex- perimental period. The variation in the daily amount consumed by the various individuals was five pounds as the maximum and i.oi pounds as the minimum. The calf that required the maximum amount of whole milk consumed 910 pounds, or 50.8 per cent, more milk than that required for the average of the lot. The calf that received i.oi pounds of whole milk per day consumed 183.8 pounds or 263.9 pounds less than the average of the lot. Three of the eight calves required less than two pounds of whole milk per day ; three less than three pounds per day; one. three and one-half pounds per day and one. five pounds per day. The calf that consumed the maximum amount of whole milk made the poorest gains, averaging but .45 pound per day and the calf that consumed the smallest amount of whole milk produced the largest gains, making an average daily gain of .95 pound. The amount of water consumed per day was 7.67 pounds. The variation between individual calves in this particular was rather marked, due to the fact that it was necessary to substitute such a large amount of whole milk in certain instances. Practically, 3.1 times as much water was consumed as whole milk. The average age at which the calves be- gan to consume water was T.8 weeks. The calf meal was fed to a portion of the lot. during the first week, although the lot averaged 1.7 weeks of age as the date the calf meal was first fed. The amount consumed varied from .26 pound during the second week, to 1.4 pounds during the twenty-third week. The amount consumed was rather irregular during the course of the experiment; slightly over a pound per day was con- sumed during the fifth, sixth and seventh weeks; during the eighth, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth and fourteenth weeks, slightly less than one pound of calf meal per day was consumed; after the fifteenth week, the amount was gradually increased until the twenty-third week, after which time it was reduced to. approximately, 1.25 pounds per day. The average amount of calf meal consumed per day during the period was T.O/ pounds or 17.12 ounces. The max- imum amount required by any individual calf was T.2 pounds, or 89 19.2 ounces, and the minimum was .93 pound or 14.88 ounces. The calf meal and water were mixed in the proportion of one pound of calf meal to 7.17 pounds of water. The dry mash was first eaten during the second week, three calves indicating a desire for this material at this time. Three more were added to this list during the third week. One calf was added to this list during the fourth week, one during the fifth week, and two during the sixth week. The average age of the lot at the time the calves began eating the dry mash was 3.6 weeks. The amount of dry mash consumed varied from one-tenth of a pound during the fourth week to 1.42 pounds during the twenty-fifth week. The calves began consuming one pound of this mixture at fifteen weeks of age. The average daily amount of dry mash consumed for the entire period was .77 pound or approximately, 12.3 ounces. The maxi- mum amount consumed was i.n pounds, or 17.76 ounces, and the minimum amount was .45 pound, or 7.2 ounces. The total amount consumed per head for the period was 140.14 pounds equivalent to 1.25 bushels of corn and 2.18 bushels of oats. The alfalfa hay was first eaten at 3.9 weeks of age as an average for the lot. Six calves began eating hay at three weeks of age ; one at four weeks ; one at five weeks ; and two at six weeks of age. One calf that consumed hay during the fourth week refused it until the seventh week. The amount of this material consumed by the calves in Lot III during the time included in this experiment showed a gradual increase from the first to the last week. The first hay was eaten during the third week. At eleven weeks of age, they were consuming approximately, one pound per day ; at sixteen weeks, two pounds per day ; at twenty-one weeks, three pounds per day. The maximum daily consumption of alfalfa was 3.59 pounds, which occurred during the twenty-sixth week. The average daily amount of alfalfa hay consumed for the period was 1.61 pounds, equivalent to 293.02 pounds for the period. The maximum daily amount consumed by any individual in the lot was 2.65 pounds, and the minimum, .72 pound. The age at which the calves in Lot III developed a taste for corn silage was 8.22 weeks. One calf ate a small amount of silage during the fifth week, three during the seventh week, two during the tenth week, one during the eleventh week and one during the thirteenth week. Three calves discontinued eating this material, skipping from two to five weeks before they would again consume a measurable amount. The amount of corn silage consumed varied from .02 pound during the fourth week to .46 pound during the twenty-fourth week. The calves were consuming approximately, one-fourth of a pound during the fifteenth week. The average daily consumption of corn silage for the entire period was .21 pounds or approximately 38 pounds for the period. The maximum daily consumption was slightly less than 0.3 pound and the mini- mum amount consumed was o.i pound. -XLII. — Showing Cost and Composition of Ration Received by Lot III Feed consumed pounds Cost dollars Dry matter pounds Crude protein pounds Carbo- hydrates pounds Fat pounds Ash pounds Whole milk 447.71 6.72 51.83 12.75 22.74 13.42 2.91 Blatchford's Calf Meal 195.1 6.83 173.01 54.82 97.66 10.67 9.85 Dry mash 139.33 1.61 118.68 14.32 95.12 5.57 3.65 Alfalfa hay 293.88 2.20 269.75 41.76 204.59 4.34 19.04 Corn silage 38.59 .08 15.12 1.49 12.49 .43 .69 Total 17.44 628.39 125.14 432.60 34.44 36.14 The calves receiving the Blatchford's Calf Meal cost $17.44 per head. The whole milk consumed represents 38.53 per cent. ; the calf meal, 39.16 per cent.; the alfalfa hay, 12.61 per cent.; and the dry mash, 9.23 per cent, of the total cost. The milk portion of the ration which includes both the whole milk and calf meal, cost $13.55 or 77.69 per cent, of the total feed cost of the calves in Lot III to the age of six months. FOOD NUTRIENTS RECEIVED BY LOT III. — The average amount of dry matter consumed by the calves in Lot III was 1.21 pounds during the second week of the test. This amount was gradually increased to 2.11 pounds during the seventh week; 3.06 pounds dur- ing the eleventh week ; 4.06 pounds during the sixteenth week ; 4.96 pounds during the twentieth week; and 5.86 pounds during the twenty-sixth week. The amount of dry matter required increased fastest between the seventh and twentieth weeks and slowest dur- ing the last six weeks of the experiment. During the second week, the calves consumed 1.59 pounds of dry matter and during the twenty-sixth week, 2.93 pounds of dry matter for each hundred pounds live weight. The largest amount of dry matter was supplied by the alfalfr hay, approximately, 42.92 per cent, of the total amount coming from this source. The calf meal ranks next as a source of dry matter, supplying 27.53 per cent., and the dry mash, third, supplying i8.f per cent. The cost of the dry matter in the milk portion of the ra- tion, as calculated on a unit basis, is as follows : for each dollar in- vested in calf meal, 25.33 pounds of dry matter were supplied and for each dollar invested in whole milk, 7.71 pounds of dry mattei were supplied. The average amount of dry matter consumed by the calves in this lot was 36.03 pounds for each dollar invested in feed. The amount of protein required during the first part of the test was .41 pound for each hundred pounds live weight. This re- quirement gradually increased to .527 pound for each hundred pounds live weight during the last week of the test. The increase in protein consumption was gradual and regular from the begin- ning to the end of the test. The protein was largely furnished by the calf meal, approximately 43.8 per cent, of the total amount being secured from this material. Alfalfa hay ranks next, supplying 33.37 per cent. ; dry mash, third, furnishing 11.44 per cent. The carbohydrates consumed by the calves in Lot III varied be- tween .75 pound per hundred pounds live weight during the second week of the test to 2.12 pounds during the twenty-sixth week. As with the protein, the increase in carbohydrate consumption was grad- ual and regular from the beginning to the end of the test. The daily consumption of the various food nutrients is as fol- lows : the total amount of dry matter consumed per head per day was 3.45 pounds;. protein, .687 pound; carbohydrates, 2.37 pounds; and fat, .189 pound.. The nutritive ratio of an average daily ration was i : 4. The daily nutrients required per hundred pounds live weight were as follows: dry matter, 1.7 pounds; protein, .343 pound; carbohydrates, 1.18 pounds; and fat, .0944 pound. The ash was supplied largely from one feed, namely, alfalfa hay. The al- falfa hay supplied 52.69 per cent. ; the calf meal, 27.26 per cent. ; and the dry mash, 10.10 per cent, of the ash received by the calves in Lot III. GROWTH OF CALVES IN LOT III. — The average height of the calves in Lot III at the end of the first thirty-day period was 30.3 inches. The height of the different individuals of the lot varied from 26 inches to 34 inches. The rate of growth of the various individuals during the five periods over which it is possible to re- port is as follows: — second month, one calf increased two inches in height ; six, one inch and one failed to gain ; the average gain for the period was one inch. During the third period, four calves gained two inches in height, and four one inch ; the average gain for the period was 1.5 inches. The fourth period, one calf gained three inches in height ; four calves two inches, two one inch and one failed to gain; the average gain for the period was 1.6 inches. The fifth period, two calves gained two inches in height and six one inch ; the average gain for the period was 1.3 inches. The sixth period, two gained three inches in height, three two inches, two one inch and one calf failed to gain; the average gain for the period was 1.9 inches. The total gain in height was represented by three calves gaining five inches, three eight inches and two nine inches ; the 92 average total gain in height for the lot was 7.3 inches. The final height of the calves averaged 37.6 inches, the individuals varying from 35 inches to 39 inches. The relation between the height and live weight of the calves at the end of each month during the first six months of the lives of the calves in Lot III is as follows: — at thirty days of age, the lot averaged 2.69 pounds for each inch in height; at sixty days, 2.98 pounds; at ninety days, 3.49 pounds; at one hundred twenty days, 4.28 pounds ; at one hundred fifty days, 4.85 pounds and at one hundred eighty days, 5.34 pounds for each inch in height. After sixty days of age, the calves maintained a uniform growth in rela- tion to live weight until they were one hundred fifty days of age, after which time there was a slight decrease. SUMMARY The consideration of the comparative efficiency of the various rations used in this experiment is presented in the following dis- cussion. So far, the discussion has had to do, only, with results produced by each ration separately. Under this heading, the three rations, previously discussed, are compared. LTVK WKIGIIT OF CALVES The calves, at birth, were quite uniform in weight so far as the average for the lots is concerned. Lot I. receiving the skim milk ration, averaged 61.7 pounds at birth. The calves that re- ceived the home-mixed calf meal weighed 7.9 pounds or 12.8 per cent, more than those that received the skim milk ration. Lot III, receiving the Blatchford's Calf Meal ration, weighed 6.5 pounds or 10.5 per cent, more than Lot I and 1.4 pounds less than Lot TI. TAT, LI: XLTTT. — Showing Summary of Weight of Calves Birth weight pounds T TT I IT 01.7 09.0 08.2 Maximum Minimum weight weight Final Total forage of calf of calf weight gain '''H1^ in lot in lot pounds pounds K<11[1 above below average average per cent. per cent. Average maxi- mum weekly gains pounds Average mini- mum weekly loss pounds 282.8 221.1 1.21 31.28 23.8 19.3 -1.2 244.1 174.5 .95 (50.1) 42.5 21.0 -4.2 200.2 133.4 .73 43.69 34.0 13.3 -3.7 While the average birth weights for the three lots are quite uniform, it should be remembered that the birth weights of the in- dividuals in Lots II and III showed a wider range of variation than those in Lot I. 93 The total gain for each of the three lots presents a larger com- parative variation than the birth weights. Lot I gained 221.1 pounds or an average of 1.21 pounds per day. Lot II weighed 46.6 pounds or approximately 21 per cent, less than Lot I. The lot receiving the Blatchford's Calf Meal weighed 87.7 pounds or 39.6 per cent, less than Lot I. The average of each of the three lots shows a phenomenal gain for all calves during certain weeks. In considering the performance of the individual calves that produced the largest gains from the standpoint of daily performance, it is noted that Lot I gained 2.75 pounds per day, Lot II, three pounds per day and Lot III, approx- imately, two pounds per day. Considering the poorest week, it is found that the skim milk ration produced the least loss, Blatch- ford's Calf Meal ranking next and the home-mixed calf meal third. These figures indicate, to a certain extent, the severity of the set- backs produced by the various feeds. Table XLIV presents data showing the rather remarkable gain of certain individual calves. Doubtless, these figures are influenced, to some degree, by the weights of these calves at birth. It indicates, however, the extensive gain that may be produced by growing calves under the most favorable conditions. TABLE XLIV. — Showing Summary of Weights of Calves Lot No. Maximum weekly individual Lowest maximum weekly Individual Number of indi- vidual calves Number of weeks losses Total loss in weight Average gain the week pre- vious to Average gain the week sub- sequent pounds gain pounds that lost weight occurred pounds loss pounds to loss pounds I 26 10 4 6 19 11.1 10.5 II 29 13 8 16 69 12.3 9.4 III 20 2 9 30 86 3.1 2.2 The number of individual calves that lost weight varied mark- edly with the three lots. The small number of calves receiving the skim milk ration which lost in weight is worthy of special attention. A ration that produces such uniform and consistent gains is undoubt- edly adapted to the stock so fed. Lots II and III indicate a poor performance in this respect as 80 and 90 per cent, respectively, of the calves in these two lots lost weight. The number of weeks that losses occurred is found to be 2.3 per cent, of the total time for Lot I, 6.2 per cent, for Lot II, and 13.6 per cent, for Lot III. The total losses for all weeks averaged 3.16 pounds per week for Lot I, 4.31 pounds for Lot II and 2.86 pounds for Lot III. It is noted that the average weight of the calves the week previous to the week during which losses occurred is uniformly higher than during the week subsequent to these losses. 94 COST OF A financial statement is of limited importance on account of the arbitrary manner of determining feed values. It is thought, how- ever, that the figures presented in Table XLV are comparable and of some value in this connection. TABLE XLV. — Showing Summary of Cost of Calves Lot No. Total cost dollars Average daily cost cents Cost per pound gain cents Maximum cost dollars Minimum cost dollars I 12.63 6.9 5.7 15.01 10.32 II 12.93 7.1 7.4 15.85 10.56 III 17.44 9.58 13.1 21.67 14.75 The calves receiving the skim milk ration cost, for the period of one hundred eighty-two days, $12.63, or an average daily cost of 6.9 cents. Lot II cost 2.37 per cent, and Lot III, 38 per cent, more than Lot I. The cost per pound gain offers the greatest variation. Each pound of gain produced by the home-mixed calf meal coat 29.8 per cent, more than by the skim milk ration and each pound of gain produced by the Blatchford's Calf Meal ration, cost 129.8 per cent, more than the gain produced by the skim milk ration. - The maximum and minimum costs for Lots I and II were remarkably close together while for Lot III, they were very much above the other two. The average daily ration of the three lots, as shown in Table XLVI, indicates the actual amount of the various feeds fed. Lot I consumed .72 pound of whole milk per day or 37.5 per cent, less than Lot II and less than one-third of the amount required by Lot III. The total amount of milk or milk substitute consumed per day, as an average for the entire experiment, by the three lots was 11.83 pounds for Lot I, 11.14 pounds for Lot II and 11.20 pounds for Lot III. The uniform amount of liquid material con- sumed by the three lots is of importance. TABLE XLVI. — Showing Average Daily Ration Consumed Home- Blatch- Lot No. Whole milk pounds Skim milk pounds Water pounds mixed calf meal ford's Calf Meal Dry mash pounds Alfalfa hay pounds Corn silage pounds pounds pounds I .72 11.11 .98 2.5 .33 II 1.17 8.64 1.33 .84 2.18 .22 III 2.46 7.67 1.07 .77 1.61 .21 95 The largest amount of dry mash was consumed by Lot I. Lot II consumed 85.7 per cent, and Lot III, 78.6 per cent, as much as Lot I. The smallest amount of alfalfa hay was consumed by the lot receiving the Blatchford's Calf Meal ration, and the largest amount, by the lot receiving the skim milk ration. Lot II con- sumed 12.8 per cent, and Lot III, 35.6 per cent, less alfalfa hay than Lot I. The amount of corn silage consumed was so small that its influence could have no material effect on the results. AGES OF CALVES WHEN THEY BEGAN EATING THE VARIOUS FEEDS The average number of days during which the calves remained with their dams was obtained by averaging their ages at weaning time. The calves in Lot I were the youngest, Lot III ranking next and Lot II third. TABLE XLVII. — Showing Average Age of Calves When They Began to Consume the Feeds Number Ages of calves at time they began to consume feed Lot No. of days calves remained Whole milk Skim milk Water Home- mixed calf Blatch- ford's Calf Dry mash Alfalfa hay Corn silage week week meal Meal week week week dams week week I 4.2 1 2.8 4 4 7.5 II 4.8 1 2 1.8 3.2 3.2 8.5 III 4.3 1 1.8 1.7 3.6 3.9 8.22 The figures showing the date when the calves began eating feeds in addition to milk are of value as the thriftiness of the calves seemed to be governed, to a marked degree, by the number of dif- ferent feeds which they consumed as well as the ages of the calves at the time they developed a taste for the various feeds. The calves in Lot I developed an appetite for all feeds fed at an earlier age than did those in the other two lots. Lots II and III were practically equal in regard to the time they first began to eat the various feeds. TOTAL AMOUNT OF FOOD NUTRIENTS CONSUMED The average daily consumption of dry matter for the three lots is as follows: — Lot I, 4.46 pounds; Lot II, 4.15 pounds, and, Lot III, 3.45 pounds. Lot II consumed, approximately, one-third of a pound and Lot III, one pound of dry matter daily less than Lot I. In terms of percentage, Lot II consumed 92.97 per cent, and Lot III, 77.31 per cent, as much dry matter as Lot I. 96 TAP.LE XLVIII. — Showing Total Amount of Food Nutrients Consumed T f. v Dry matter Crude protein Carbohydrates Fat Ash pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds I 812.86 169.3 572.88 19.3 51.31 II 755.G9 169.0 517.66 30.1 38.89 III 628.39 125.14 432.6 34.44 36.14 The daily protein consumption for the three lots shows Lots I and ].[ to have consumed the same amount and Lot III, .24 pound less than the first two. Lot II T consumed 74.05 per cent, as much protein as did Lots I and II. The uniform amount of protein con- sumed by the calves in Lots I and II is worthy of notice. The daily consumption of carbohydrates shows that Lot I con- sumed 3.14 pounds per day, Lot II, 2.84 pounds per day and Lot III, 2.37 pounds per day. The daily fat consumption was .106 pound for Lot I, .165 pound for Lot II and .189 pound for Lot 111. PKRCKXTAGK COST OF ALT, FKKDS FKD The milk portion of the ration consumed by Lot I cost 55.4 per cent, of the total cost, by Lot II, 62.53 Per cent, of the total cost and by Lot III, 77.69 per cent, of the total cost. The skim milk and calf meals in the three lots cost, approximately, the same. The variation in the total cost of the milk portions of the rations is due. largely, to the extra amount of whole milk consumed by Lots H and HI. TAIM.I; XLIX. — Showing Total Cost of Rations and the Percentage Cost of Each Feed Lot No. I II III Lot post of ration dollars Whole milk per cent. 12.63 15.5 12.93 24.82 17.44 38.53 Skim milk per cent. 39.9 n Home- Blatch- Dry Alfalfa Corn c mixed ford's mash hay silage calf meal Calf Meal per per per per cent. per cent. cent. cent. cent. ) 16.38 27.07 1.15 37.71 13.76 23.04 .67 39.16 9.23 12.61 .47 The dry mash cost 2.62 per cent, less for Lot II and 7.15 per cent, less for Lot III than for Lot I. The alfalfa hay cost 4.03 per cent, less for Lot II and 14.46 per cent, less for Lot III than for Lot I. 97 AMOUNT OF DRY MATTER CONSUMED The total amount of dry matter supplied by the milk or milk substitutes consumed by the three lots, as based in terms of per- centage, is as follows: — Lot I, 26.87 Per cent.; Lot II, 32.18 per cent.; Lot III, 35.77 per cent. The alfalfa hay supplied, approxi- mately, 50 per cent, of the dry matter for each of the three lots. The amount of dry matter obtained from whole milk shows Lot III to be 6.38 per cent, above Lot I. TABLE; L. — Showing Total Amount of Dry Matter Consumed and Amount Supplied by Each Feed Lot No. Total amount of dry matter pounds Whole milk per cent. Skim milk per cent. Home- mixed calf meal per cent. Blateh- ford's Calf Meal per cent. Dry mash per cent. Alfalfa hay per cent. Corn silage per cent. I 812.86 1.87 25.01 18.72 51.45 2.95 II 755.69 3.28 28.9 17.4 48.3 2.23 III 628.39 8.25 27.53 18.89 42.92 2.41 AMOUNT OF PROTEIN CONSUMED The protein consumed by the calves in Lot I is supplied, chiefly, from two feeds, skim milk and alfalfa hay. Lots II and III secured a larger proportion'' of the protein from the milk portion of the ration than did Lot I. Over 49 per cent, of the protein for Lot I and 56 per cent, of the protein for Lot II were secured from the liquid portions of the rations which they received. The dry mash and alfalfa hay supplied almost an equal amount of protein for all three lots. Especially, is this true with respect to the alfalfa hay consumed by Lots II and III. TABLE LI. — Showing Total Amount of Protein Consumed and Amount Supplied by Each Feed Tntnl Lot No. amount of pro- tein Whole milk per Skim milk per Home- mixed calf meal Blatch- ford's Calf Meal Dry mash per Alfalfa hay per Corn silage per pounds cent. cent. per cent. per cent. cent. cent. cent. I 169.3 2.2 47.31 10.9 38.2 1.4 II 169 3.6 52.6 9.37 33.5 .94 III 125.14 10.2 43.8 11.44 33.37 1.2 98 AVERAGE DAILY CONSUMPTION OF FOOD NUTRIENTS The average daily rations as shown in Table LII represent rations that are quite well-balanced from the standpoint of total nutrients. For each hundred pounds of live weight, Lot I required 1.57 pounds, Lot II, 1.7 pounds, and Lot III, 1.7 pounds of dry matter. The protein required per hundred pounds live weight was .33 pound for Lot I, .38 pound for Lot II, and .34 pound for Lot III. The carbohydrates required per hundred pounds live weight were i.n pounds for Lot I, 1.16 pounds for Lot II and 1.18 pounds for Lot III. The fat required per hundred pounds live weight was .037 pound for Lot i, .067 pound for Lot II and .094 pound for Lot III. From these figures, it would appear that each of the three lots of calves was quite well and evenly supplied with nutrients based on total live weight. TABLE LII. — Showing Average Daily Rations and Their Nutritive Ratio Lot No. Dry matter pounds Crude protein pounds Carbo- hydrates pounds Fat pounds Nutritive ratio Live weight pounds I 4.46 .93 3.14 .106 1:3.6 282.8 II 4.15 .93 2.84 .165 1:3.4 244.1 III 3.45 .687 2.37 .189 1:4.0 200.2 RATE OF GROWTH OF CALVES The growth of the calves in the three lots, by months, is shown in Table LIU. Considering the fact that the three lots were made up, largely, of calves of the same breeding, these figures are of special value. Lot I made the most regular and extensive gain in height with Lot II ranking second and Lot III, third. The aver- age growth of the calves in Lot I was 25.96 per cent, more than Lot II and 29.8 per cent, more than Lot III. The calves in Lot I produced their chief gain in height during the third and fourth months and the smallest gain during the sixth month. The mini- mum gain in height for Lot I for any one month was greater than the maximum gain for Lot II and just equal to the maximum gain for Lot III. The smallest growth in Lot II was during the fourth month although the maximum growth was made during the third month. The uniformity in growth for Lot II was especially notice- able as three of the five months show the same gain in height. Lot III gained the largest amount during the sixth month and the low- est during the second month. The average growth of the calves in Lot I was 10.4 inches or 25.96 per cent, more than Lot II and 29.81 per cent, more than Lot III. 99 TABLE LIU. — Showing Growth of Calves in Height Lot No. Height at thirty days of Growth second month Growth third month Growth fourth month Growth fifth month Growth sixth month Average monthly growth Total growth in height age inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches 1 30.7 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.9 2.08 10.4 II 31.0 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.54 7.7 III 30.3 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.9 1.46 7.3 WEIGHT OF CALVES AT VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT The relationship between height and weight is a true index in re- gard to the physical condition of the calves throughout the experi- ment. For each inch in height, Lot I averaged 4.95 pounds or 6.87 per cent, more than Lot II and 20.40 per cent, more than Lot III. During the first month, Lot II was heavier in proportion to height than either Lot I or Lot III ; however, during the remainder of the test, the relationship of the three lots in regard to weight was Lot I, first; Lot II, second; and Lot III, third. From these figures, it would appear that the degree of thrift of the three lots of calves was directly reflected by their weight per unit height during the several months of the experiment. TABLE LIV. — Showing Relation Between Height and Live Weight Weight per each inch in height Lot No. First month Second month Third month Fourth month Fifth month Sixth month Average pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds I 2.99 3.83 4.43 5.44 6.16 6.88 4.95 II 3.11 3.59 4.06 4.95 5.64 6.32 4.61 III 2.69 2.98 3.49 4.29 4.85 5.32 3.94 100 CONCLUSIONS 1. The use of skim milk as a feed for young calves is increasing in tho>e sections where it is available in large quantities. Its use for this purpose should be encouraged unless its market value is above thirty cents per hundred pounds. So long as skim milk is available as a feed for live stock, milk substitutes for dairy calves are of comparatively limited value. 2. Jn certain sections of the State, the chief product sold from the farm is whole milk. Under these conditions, the growing of dairy heifers becomes a very expensive proposition unless a milk substitute may be secured, making it possible to reduce the amount of milk required for calf feeding to the minimum. Under such con- ditions, the use of a home-mixed calf meal is advisable although the calf so produced will not be as well developed at six months of age as if fed milk during its early growing period. 3. The prices charged by concerns manufacturing calf meals are usually very much above the actual cost of producing them, chiefly, on account of advertising cost, transportation charges and dealers' profits. All things being equal so far as the efficiency of the ration is concerned, the use of a ready-prepared calf meal is, large- ly, prohibitive on account of the high retail prices of such feeds. 4. The results, from the standpoint of gain in weight and growth in height, produced by feeding Blatchford's Calf Meal do not warrant its recommendation as an absolute milk substitute for the growing of dairy calves. 5. In order for a ration to be considered an unqualified suc- cess for dairy calves, it should produce, at least, one pound of gain per day as an average for the first six months of the life of the calf. An average daily gain of one and one-half pounds is not uncommon, although slightly above that which the average dairyman may ex- pect. 6. The amount of grain mixture and dry roughage consumed b\- daily calves is a splendid index to their thriftiness. The develop- ment of an appetite for dry feeds is governed by the type of milk or milk substitute ration fed and the method of feeding the supple- mentary feeds. The feeder's ability to encourage and teach the calves to eat dry feeds is an important factor to consider in raising calves by hand. 7. The amount ol food nutrients required per day by growing calves is, approximately, one-third of a pound of protein, one pound of carbohydrates and five-hundredths of a pound of fat. The above figure^ are based upon the total amount rather than the amount of digestible nutrients consumed. IOI 8. The rate of growth in height of dairy calves is rather uni- form during the first six months of their lives. The average monthly growth for an average sized calf should be from one and one-half to two inches, although certain individuals may much exceed these figures. 9. As dairy calves advance in age, their relation between height and weight gradually changes. A calf at thirty days of age should weigh, approximately, three pounds for each inch in height. This figure gradually increases until, at six months of age, the aver- age calf should weigh, approximately, six and one-half pounds for each inch in height. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writers desire to express their special appreciation to Mr. C. E. Stauffer, herdsman at this institution during the time the major portion of this experiment was in progress, for the splendid execution of the experiment as planned, and to Messrs. Spitzer and Epple, Chemists of the Department of Dairy Husbandry, for the analytical work herein presented. IO2 INDEX page IV i; POSE 3 .MAINTENANCE OF THE HERD BY I J I 'RCIIA SI \G COWS XOT COXDUUIVE TO K( oxo-MicAL HERD I MPROYEMEXT , 3 THE RAISING OF HEIFERS HAS MANY ADVANTAGES 4 SCARCITY AND MARKET YAI.CE OF SKIM MILK AS A HUMAN FOOD.... 4 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CALF FEEDING KXPERIMENT 5 HISTORY OF CALVES VNDER KXPERIMENT 5 METHOD OF "FEEDIXG 6 MANAGEMENT OF CALVES 7 PHOTOGRAPHS 8 INDIVIDUAL "RECORDS 9 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OF LOT I (FED SKIM MILK RATION) 30 A'ariation in live weight of calves in Lot I 30 Cost of ration received by Lot I 31 Eation received by Lot I 32 Food nutrients received by Lot I 35 Growth of calves in Lot I 36 DISCUSSION OF EESULTS OF LOT II (FED HOME-MIXED CALF MEAL RATION) 58 A'ariation in live weight of calves in Lot II 58 Cost of ration received by Lot IT 60 Ration received by Lot IF 6] Food nutrients received by Lot IT 63 Growth of calves in Lot IT 65 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OF LOT IT I (FED BLATCIIFORD'S CALF MEAL RATION) 84 A'ariation in live weight of calves in Lot III 85 Cost of ration received by Lot III 8G Ration received by Lot ITT 87 Food nutrients received by Lot TIT 90 Growth of calves in Lot IFF 91 SUMMARY 92 Live weight of calves 92 Cost of calves 94 Age of calves when they began eating the various feeds 95 'Total amount of food nutrients consumed 95 I'errontage cost of all feeds fed 96 Amount of dry matter consumed - 97 Amount of protein consumed 97 Average daily consumption of food nutrients 98 Rate of growl li of calves 98 Weight of calves at various stages of development 99 CONCLUSIONS --- - 1 00 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - - 101 TABLES page TABLE F. Showing brooding and sox of the calves in the three lots 5 TABLE I F. Showing chemical composition of all feeds used in the experiment - "' TABLE 1 1 F. Showing prices of foods used in the experiment.... TABLE TV. Showing weoklv summarv of entire feeding period of Calf No. 17 '. 11 TABLE A7. Showing weeklv summarv of entire feeding period of Calf Xo. 300 ... 13 103 TABLES (continued) page TABLE VI. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 19 15 TABLE VII. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. B 20 17 TABLE VIII. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 202 19 TABLE IX. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 213 21 TABLE X. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 214 ; 23 TABLE XI. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 12 25 TABLE XII. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 112 27 TABLE XIII. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 11 29 TABLE XIV. Showing live weight, gain and cost of gain of the individual calves in Lot I 30 TABLE XV. Showing average daily ration consumed by Lot 1 32 TABLE XVI. Showing cost and composition of ration received by Lot I 35 TABLE XVII. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 299 39 TABLE XVIII. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. B 18 41 TABLE XIX. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 104 43 TABLE XX. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 301 45 TABLE XXI. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. B 21 47 TABLE XXII. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 215 49 TABLE XXIII. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 216 51 TABLE XXIV. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. B 24 .53 TABLE XXV. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 115 55 TABLE XXVI. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 116 57 TABLE XXVII. Showing live weight, gain and cost of gain of the individual calves in Lot II 58 TABLE XXVIII. Showing average daily ration consumed by Lot II 60 TABLE XXIX. Showing cost and composition of ration received by Lot II 63 TABLE XXX. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 18 67 TABLE XXXI. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. B 19 69 TABLE XXXII. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 8 71 TABLE XXXIII. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 302 73 104 TABLES (continued) page TABLE XXXIV. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. B 22 75 TABLE XXXV. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. B 23 77 TABLE XXXVI. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 109 79 TABLE XXXVII. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. B*113 79 TABLE XXXVIII. Showing wreekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. 114 81 TABLE XXXIX. Showing weekly summary of entire feeding period of Calf No. B 50 83 TABLE XL. 'Showing live weight, gain and cost of gain of the individual calves in Lot III 85 TABLE XLI. Showing average daily ration consumed by Lot III 87 TABLE XLII. Showing cost and composition of ration received by Lot III 90 TABLE XLIII. Showing summary of weights of calves 92 TABLE XLIV. Showing summary of weights of calves 93 TABLE XLV. Showing summary of cost of calves ,. 94 TABLE XL VI. Showing average daily ration consumed 94 TABLE XLVII. Showing average ages of calves when they began to consume the feeds 95 TABLE XLVIII. Showing total amount of food nutrients consumed 96 TABLE XLIX. Showing total cost of rations and the percentage cost of each feed 96 TABLE L. Showing total amount of dry matter consumed and the amount supplied by each feed 97 TABLE LI. Showing total amount of the protein consumed and the amount supplied by each feed 97 TABLE LII. Showing average daily rations and their nutritive ratio 98. TABLE LIII. Showing growth of calves in height 99 TABLE LIV. Showing relation between height and live weight 99 ILLUSTRATIONS page page FRONTISPIECE FIG. 16. Calf No. B 21 46 FIG. 1 8 FIG. 17. Calf No. 215 48 FIG. 2. Calf No. 17 10 FIG. 18. Calf No. 216 50 FIG. 3. Calf No. 300 12 FIG. 19. Calf No. B 24 52 FIG. 4. Calf No. 19 14 FIG. 20. Calf No. 115 54 FIG. 5. Calf No. B 20 16 FIG. 21. Calf No. 116 56 FIG. 6. Calf No. 202 18 FIG. 22. Calf No. 18 66 FIG. 7. Calf No. 213 20 FIG. 23. Calf No. B 19 68 FIG. 8. Calf No. 214 22 FIG. 24. Calf No. 8 70 FIG. 9. Calf No. 12 24 FIG. 25. Calf No. 302 72 FIG. 10. Calf No. 112 26 FIG. 26. Calf No. B 22 74 FIG. 11. Calf No. 11 28 FIG. 27. Calf No. B 23 76 FIG. 12. Calf No. 299 38 FIG. 28. Calf No. 109 78 FIG. 13. Calf No. B18 40 FIG. 29. Calf No. B 113 78 FIG. 14. Calf No. 104 42 FIG. 30. Calf No. 114 80 FIG. 15. Calf No. 301 . 44 FIG. 31. Calf No. B 50 82 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. no STORAGE BARN, SHEDS, FEED LOTS ANJ) OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR FEEDING EXPERIMENTAL CATTLE IN CAR LOAD LOTS BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD AND EDWIN S. GOOD URBAN A, JULY, 1906 SUMMARY OF BULLETIN No. 110 1. General plan of beef cattle experimental plant. Page 303. 2. A description in detail of construction of storage barn and methods of preparing and handling concentrates and roughages in same. Page 304. 3. A description in detail of the construction and operation of the feed lots, sheds and feed carrier sj'stem of that part of the plant situated south of the alley . Page 305. 4. Description of lots and sheds north of the alley. Page 308. 5. Description of construction of engine house, also of corn crib. Page 309. 6. General summary of cost of beef cattle experimental plant. Page 30Q. STORAGE BARN, SHEDS, FEED LOTS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR FEEDING EXPERIMENTAL CATTLE IN CAR LOAD LOTS BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD, CHIEF IN ANJMAL HUSBANDRY AND EDWIN S. GOOD, ASSISTANT IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY INTRODUCTION The Illinois Experiment Station considers it extremely import- ant for the reader to know, in studying the results of feeding tests, the exact conditions under which the feeding has been done. This bulletin shows the conditions surrounding the feeding of the experi- mental car load lots of cattle at this ' Station as reported in Bulle- tins 83, 90, 103, and in. It is not maintained that this plant cannot be improved or that it will meet the needs of, or be the most economical for, cattle feeders in general. PLAN The general plan of the experimental feeding plant at this Sta- tion, for the feeding of two hundred head of beef cattle in car load lots, and individually, consists of a storage barn facing east and west and two rows of feed lots connected by a paved alley, lying east and west from the west side of the storage barn. South of the feed lots is a corn crib 144 feet in length, and north of the storage barn is a 20- by 28-foot engine house. On the west side of the barn and north of the alley are stock scales. There are twelve feeding lots in the two rows mentioned, seven of which are situated on the south side of the alley and five on the north side. All face to the south and all are paved with brick with the exception of three lots on the north side of the alley, one of which is used for experimenting with cattle fed in an ordinary earth lot. The sheds on the south side of the alley are open on the south side, while those on the north side are inclosed, and provided with large sliding doors. None are paved. Feed carriers convey the concentrates and chaffed roughage from the second floor of the storage barn to the lots on the south side of th'i alley. For general plan, see Plates i and 2. 303 304 BuLLETiNNo.110. [July, STORAGE BARN The storage barn, containing a silo, feed grinder, cutter and shredder, feed bins, stalls, and storage room for roughages, is of plank-frame construction, all the framing material being of two inch lumber sized to ij/s inches. It is 44 by 72 feet and is divided into five bents. Beginning at the north, the bents are spaced as fol- lows: 15 feet; 14 feet 6 inches; the drive-way, 12 feet; 14 feet 3 inches; and 15 feet 8 inches. The foundation is a brick wall 13 inches thick extending below the frost line and rising one foot above the grade line. The ground was excavated six inches for the floor and the resulting space filled 3^ inches with gravel well tamped, then y2 inch with fine sand over which were laid No. i paving brick flushed with cement. The brick were laid flat in all places with the exception of the drive-way where they were placed on edge. The two north sections contain a 3O-ton silo, feed bins, cutter, and storage for baled hay. The walls are 18 feet high; curb, 31 feet; peak, 40 feet; stud- ding 2x6, 24 inches on center; plates, 2x6, 2 ply; drop siding 1x8 inches; rafters, 2x6 inches, 24 inches on center; roof sheathing, 1x2 j/^ inches, 3 inches apart; cedar shingles, 5x2, laid 4>^inches to the weather. Middle Bents. — The foot of each middle bent rests upon the foundation and an inward projection of i foot 3 inches by 13 inches. A 2x1 2-inch piece is laid flat on the foundation for a sill. This sill is bolted to the brick by top screws and further strengthened by iron braces extending from the foot of the bent to the foundation. Plates 3 and 4. End Bents. — The end posts are of the same size and material as are the interior ones, but only 3-ply. The posts rest on the founda- tion and are spiked to a 2x1 2-inch piece laid on edge, A brace extends from the upper end of this post to the purlin plates. For dimensions and bracing, see Plates 3 and 4. The two south bents have a loft which has bins for the storage of cut hay and various kinds of prepared feed. This loft is partly sup- ported by four interior posts, each made of five 2x8-inch pieces. Joists as drafted are 2x10 inches, i foot on center. Matched floor- ing, 1x3*4 is used. Plate 6. The roof is a gambrel or curb style. The purlin plates are sup- ported mainly by purlin posts from the foundation. A truss ex- tends from the plates to the peak, running between them and bolted to the purlin post. This truss is drafted at an angle of 45°, but in practice was dropped 2 feet 6 inches at the peak. With this style of roof, we have a % pitch. For sizes of material and manner of bracing, see Plates 3, 4, and 5. 1906. \ BEEF CATTLE EXPERIMENTAL PLANT. 305 A feed cutter and grinder are located near a 4x14 foot bin on the first floor. This bin has a capacity of 300 bushels. Just above this bin and in connection with it, is a smaller one with a capacity of 100 bushels. Grain is scooped into the south end of the lower bin and elevated into the one above from which it runs into the grinder and when ground, is elevated to the bins on the second floor. When ear corn is fed in the form of corn and cob meal it is scooped from a wagon into the grinder and elevated as in the case of shelled corn or other grain. If fed finely broken (similar to crushed corn) it is run through an ensilage machine and blown into bins on the second floor as is also done with hay when fed in a chaffed state ; but if fed broken by hand it is scooped from a wagon to the second floor, through the same opening by which the feed carriers leave the barn. Other feeds such as oil meal, cottonseed meal, gluten meal, bran, etc., which are always purchased in sacks, are conveyed to the second floor by hand from a wagon in' driveway of barn. As these feeds are needed they are weighed during the day, placed in feed carriers, and conveyed at feeding time to the lots south of alley. Plates 7 and 8. There are four double, two single and four box stalls in this barn used for feeding cattle where individual records of gains and feed consumed are desired. These are situated under the loft, that part of the barn having a second floor. The partitions between the stalls are four feet in height. The uprights of these stalls are 4x4- inch oak posts, which also serve the purpose as supports for second floor. The siding of the stalls are 2x6 and 2x8 plank placed in a vertical position, capped above and set in a groove in 4x4 oak pieces which rest on 4x4's sunk in the brick pavement. At the cor- ners of the stall, these 4x4' s are joined by ^xQ-inch joint bolts. For ground plan and dimensions, Plate 6 is explicit. The feed mangers are placed low in all the stalls and extend their entire width ; those in the box stalls are bolted to the sides so they can be taken out when necessary. These mangers are 6 inches from the pavement, i foot deep, i foot 2 inches wide at the bottom and i foot 10 inches at the top. The material is of 2-inch lumber and strengthened at the sides of the stalls by short 4x4-inch pieces from the pavement to the side of the boxes. The different pieces are securely spiked together. Plate 6. FEED LOTS AND SHEDS SOUTH OF The lots on the south side of the alley are each 48 feet long by 36 feet wide, exclusive of shed, with a 12x36 shed open to the 306 BULLETIN No. ] 10. [July, south. Each lot is enclosed by a board fence 4 feet 8 inches high. All lots are paved with brick. The sheds are not paved. These lots have gates leading into each other, to the alley, and out of the south end of the lots. There is also a gate in each lot so placed that it, together with the gate between the lots, can close the space between the fence and feed bunk, thereby making it possible to con- fine the cattle under the shed while the lots are cleaned and in the lots when the sheds are cleaned. Each lot is furnished with a feed bunk for concentrated feed and two mangers for hay. One water- ing tank is provided for two lots. Plates 9, 10, and u. PAVING The grade used in paving these lots was one slightly above the surrounding level and given enough slope (6j4 inches from north to south and 3*4 inches from east to west of each lot) to allow the water to run to the south-west corner of each lot where tile were laid to carry it away. After the proper grade had been secured the ground was cov- ered with six inches of gravel which was rolled and tamped down solid, covered with one inch of fine sand upon which No. i paving brick were laid flat, (herring-bone pattern, Plate 12) except in the alley and around the scales where they were placed on edge. After being put in place, the brick were rolled down even and upon inspec- tion, if any were found to be soft, they were replaced with good ones. The space between the brick was filled with a grout "filler" con- sisting of one part clean, sharp, sand and one part of Portland cement. The cement and sand were thoroughly mixed dry in tight boxes, then made into a mortar of the consistency of cream and thoroughly broomed into the joints. The slushing was repeated to insure the filling of all cracks or joints between the bricks. This was done to keep water from getting underneath the pavement; which, if allowed to enter, would soften the subgrade or cause the heaving of the brick by alternate freezing and thawing. The cement filler was allowed to set a week before heavy loads were allowed on it and as the work was done in summer, the sun's rays were kept off by means of a canvass for the first day. A re- taining curb of 2x8 plank, braced by a 4x4, placed 2^ feet in the ground, was put in at the gates to keep the animals from breaking the edge of the brick. Next to the shed, 3x8 oak plank were used for curbing. Where there are mangers and fences, the bottom board was placed low enough to act as a curb. Plate 12. 1906.] BEEP CATTLE EXPERIMENTAL PLANT. 307 SHED The shed south of the alley is 250 feet long and 12 feet wide and is divided into seven equal compartments by the extension of the same fences which separate the corresponding feed lots. The sides and roof of this shed are supported on the north side by split oak posts set in the ground 6 feet apart and on the south side by 4x4/5 set 12 feet apart. The plates are 2x6's; rafters, 2x6's, 3 feet on center. The shed is sided with- 8 inch ship-lap. The north side of the shed, which faces the paved alley, is 6 feet high while the south side is 8 feet high thus giving the roof a slope of 2 feet. The boards of the roof project over the frame work i foot 5 inches on the side toward the lots and 7 inches on the side toward the alley. The sheds are covered with I inch lumber over which is fastened prepared roofing. Plates i, 2, and n. FEED BUNKS, TRACK, HAY MANGERS, AND WATER SUPPLY The feed bunks are 5 feet 9 inches by 18 feet and are located 5 feet 6 inches from the shed. The posts are 4x4' s, 9 feet apart one way and 6 feet apart the other way. All extend from the pave- ment above the bunk to form the framework of the feed carrier's track. On top of the 4x4 uprights are nailed 4x4 cross pieces. Short 2x4*5 are placed as stays between the 4x4*5 on the side of the bunk. The floor is made of 2x6's, resting on 2x6 pieces, spiked to the posts i foot above the pavement. The sides and ends are 2x6's. ix6-inch fence boards are nailed lengthwise of the bunk for strengthening purposes. Plates i, 9, 10, and n. Two hay mangers in each lot are built of material of the same size and in the same manner. The posts are 4x4's resting upon the brick pavement and are placed 4 feet 6 inches apart. The flooring is made of ix6's (matched) and rests upon 2x4 ties nailed to the posts. The sides and ends of the manger consist of a 2x 12- inch and a 2x6-inch piece. ix6-inch cross pieces, placed 3 feet above the floor of the manger, help to strengthen the structure. Plates 9 and n. The entire length of the track is 270 feet and the total fall, 1 1.25 feet, which means a fall of i foot in 24 feet. However, the fall from the door of the barn to the west side of lot 4, a little over half the distance, is I foot in 19.8 feet, while the remaining fall is only I foot in 36.5 feet. Thus it is seen the greatest fall is allowed just after the carriers leave the door. This is done for two reasons. First, the track could not be any lower in lot 7 (the last of the series) without having the feed carrier so low at that place as to 308 BULLETIN No. 110. [July, allow the cattle to interfere with it, also the car over the first bunk ought to be low enough so that it can be reached easily for dumping ; second, the track for the last few lots should be of such a level as to overcome the momentum given the carriers at the start. As it is, the first three carriers out of the barn stop of their own accord over their respective feed bunks. The strength of framework, rope and windlass would have to be very strong to stop the momentum of all the carriers at once. The carriers start from the barn in a series, connected with a rope attached to a windlass in the storage barn. The rope is of such a length between the carriers as to allow each one to stop over a certain feed bunk. Plates i, 10, u, and 13. Galvanized iron tanks 2x2x8 feet are so placed that the steers in two lots have access to one tank. These tanks are supplied with water from the University water system. There is a pipe extending from a tap at the bottom to nearly the top of the tank to let the water flow into the drain in case it is left turned on too long. When the tanks are cleaned these pipes are unscrewed from the tap and thus all the water allowed to drain from them. The tank is set in a wooden box the size of which leaves a space of 5 inches between it and the tank, in which may be placed a filler to keep the water from freezing. The box and tank rest upon a platform raised six inches from the pavement. Material for boxing is 1x6 lumber (matched), nailed to 2x4' s. The ends of the 2x4' s are bolted and braced by a ix 1/2 -inch iron strap. This was found necessary in order to keep the cattle from crushing in the ends of the box. A lid on hinges at each end of the tank can be closed down in cold weather to pre- vent the water from freezing or to prevent the. cattle ,from drink- ing at weighing time. Plates 9, 10, and 12. The alley is 12 feet wide and, as has been mentioned, paved by placing the brick on edge. The paving extends to the barn and up to the scales. A dip of 4^/2 inches from edge to center of pavement and a fall of 3% feet from storage barn to end of alley, where a drain is located, keeps the alley dry and also serves the purpose of draining the water flowing from the roof of the sheds situated south of the alley. Plates i, 2, and 12. LOTS WITH CLOSED SHEDS These lots lie to the north of the alley just mentioned. Four of them are 36x36 feet, and one is 48x108 feet. Two of the lots, Nos. 8 and 10, 36x36 feet, are paved; the remainder are unpaved. These lots are not provided with a feed carrier system as are those on the south side of the alley. In other essentials, however, the arrangement is practically the same. 1906.] BEEF CATTLE EXPERIMENTAL PLANT. 309 This shed was built in 1901, two years before the main part of the plant was constructed. It was originally built to house breeding stock in winter. The south side is 6 feet to the eaves and the north side 5 feet 6 inches, and the ridge 8 feet. Split oak posts are placed in the ground every 6 feet to receive the siding. Four 4x10 foot posts supporting 2x1 2's nailed edgewise for plates are placed 12 feet apart throughout the center of the shed. Plates i and 14. ENGINE HOUSE The engine house is 20x28 feet, 12 feet to eaves; 2x4-inch stud- ding, 2 feet on center ; same for rafters ; corner posts, two 2x4 inch; roof, one-half pitch; joists on plates 2x6 inch. 2 feet on center; and siding same as barn. This inclosure has a door 12 feet wide situated on the north end of the building and another door large enough to allow for the play of a belt between engine and machinery in storage barn ; also 5 windows 2x5 feet in dimensions. The floor in this building is of double thickness and made of 2x10- inch boards, 24 feet in length. CORN CRIB The foundation of the crib consists of brick pillars ixi foot set below the frost line and extending i foot 6 inches above the grade line. The pillars are twelve feet apart, and upon them rest four 2x1 2-inch pieces spiked together for joist supports. The crib is 8 feet wide at the bottom and 10 feet 9 inches wide at the top. The height at the north side is 10 feet and on the south side n feet. The capacity is 5682 bushels of ear corn. For location, joist, stud- ding, rafters, and details of each, see Plates i, 2, and 15. The total cost of the beef cattle experimental plant is as follows : Storage barn, including- bins ....$1,321.25 Total cost of seven open sheds and lots (this includes all material and labor except drainage) 2,036.57 Total cost of closed sheds and lots (includes all material and labor except drainage) 793.80 Special fencing for lot west of north sheds 43.08 Cost of all draining and tiling 46.50 Cost of paving in alley and around scales 412. 64 Engine house 144.22 Corn crib 350.91 Scales and scale rack, silo, feed grinder and ensilage cutter 524.53 One outside water tank . . , . 15.99 Total $5,689.49 A detailed statement of the bill of materials and cost of same will be sent upon application. 310 BULLETIN No. 110. [July, 1906.] BEEF CATTLE EXPERIMENTAL PLANT. 311 T 2 V oc < * DQ i 1 in *^- i I O UJ Ziu ^j -J CL Q Z cr CO U a o: O 00 312 BULLETIN No. 110 [July, WEST 5 1 DTE ELEVATION TOP. OF Tflt/JS Z't" MIDDLE BENT END BENT ONE HALF SECTION ONE HALF SECTION PLATE III. SIDE ELEVATION AND CONSTRUCTION DETAIL OF STORAGE BARN. 1906.} BEEF CATTLE EXPERIMENTAL PLANT. 313 I > 314 BULLETIN No. 110. [July, 1906.] BEEF CATTLE EXPERIMENTAL PLANT. 315 PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLANK FRAME CATTLEBARN Two Vnws or INTERIOR PILLAR DETAIL ALLPOSTS SOLID CROSS SECTION-SHOWING FRONT orSTALLS &BlNS UNDER SECOND FLOOR PLATE VI. DETAIL OF GROUND PLAN AND SECOND FLOOR PLAN OF STORAGE BARN. 316 BULLETIN No. 110. [July, 1906.1 BEEF CATTLE EXPERIMENTAL PLANT. 317 318 BULLETIN No. 110. [My, 36'C Lor5. GROUND PLAN PLATE IX. GROUND PLAN OF A FEED LOT. 1906. J BEEF CATTLE EXPERIMENTAL, PLANT. 319 320 BULLETIN No. 110. O UJ i.i I i«Q S , N N 1 1906.] BEEF CATTLE EXPERIMENTAL PLANT. 321 DETAIL OF FEED LOT 1 TK 1 < 4=^/ Q'O" & * -Wooo FKAHZ WATERINGTANK S ECTI o N THROUGH A B OAK i M II $r\ /ex LAID FLAT BRICK PAVEMENT or FEED LOT A SECTION THROUGH AB GROUND PLAN FLOOR OF PAVEMENT BRICK LAID ox EOGZ PAVEMENT OF ALLEY- CROSS SECTION PLATE XII. CONSTRUCTION DETAIL. 322 BULLETIN No. 110. [July, 1906.] BEEF CATTLE EXPERIMENTAL PLANT. 323 p * e* * >J 0 8 0 1 CO | § -7 ^1 ; g *o 1 o: ^ N t; J ! 2 t i i BULLETIN No. 110. hdy, 1906 S ? *t! Q § ^ 3 Qi Q ^1 « e 5 o k r? * J_ r -=--y -.0.0 rf^./ — n rnn«J n - L-l EE 1 Q UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. in MAINTENANCE KATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING COWS BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD I URBANA, ILLINOIS, AUGUST, 1906 SUMMARY 1. The development of the range country changed the center of production of feeding cattle from the corn belt to the west. In view of the present agri- cultural development of the range renewed interest attaches to the breeding cow and her offspring and methods for feeding them in the corn belt. Page 325. 2. The object of this experiment was to compare feeds readily available on Illinois farms for maintaining beef breeding cows during the winter season. Page 326. 3. Silage, shock corn, and corn stover, respectively, proved to be economical feeds for the maintenance of cows when fed in connection with clover hay and oat straw. Pages 328 and 329. 4. The average daily gain per cow in lot i was 1.07 pounds. The average daily ration per cow consisted of corn silage, 16.64 pounds ; clover hay 3.5 pounds ; and oat straw, 9.56 pounds. Pages 329 and 330. 5. The average daily gain per cow in lot 2 was .758 of a pound. The aver- age daily ration per cow was shock corn, 8.7 pounds ; clover hay, 3.5 pounds; and oat straw, 10.83 pounds. Pages 329 and 330. 6. The average daily gain per cow in lot 3 was .41 of a pound. The average daily ration per cow in this lot during the time the cows were confined to stover and oat stray, was corn stover, 21.67 pounds; oat straw, 5.15 pounds; and when clover hay was used, stover, 10.28 pounds; clover hay, 1.56 pounds; and oat straw, 8.19 pounds. Pages 329 and 330. 7. Under the conditions of this experiment, silage produced 41 percent greater gain in live weight than an equal acreage of shock corn. Page 329. 8. The cows in this test would not eat as much shredded stover as un- shredded, and clearly preferred the latter. Page 331. 9. The yield of crops used in this test was 57.9 bushels corn and two tons stover per acre; and for crops purchased, viz., clover hay and oat straw, yields of 1^4 and one ton respectively were assumed. Page 331. 10. On the above basis approximately one acre of land is sufficient to pro- duce the crops necessary to support a breeding cow 140 days in winter, and this acreage should produce a considerable amount of grain in addition to that nec- essary for the maintenance of one cow. Page 332. 11. The product of one-third acre -of land is sufficient to maintain a cow 140 days in winter, if we regard the surplus srrain produced as offsetting an acreage proportionate to its market value. Page 333- MAINTENANCE RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING COWS BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD, CHIEF IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY INTRODUCTION The question of the economical maintenance of beef breeding cows has received but little attention by live stock investigators. The exact place of the corn belt cattleman as a factor in producing the world's future supply of beef is a matter of conjecture only. Formerly Illinois farms were well stocked with high grade beef cows from which were produced the feeding cattle that were subse- quently fattened to furnish a profitable outlet for the large acreages of corn grown. This was when land and corn were cheap. As land became more valuable and corn was used for other purposes than making meat it was found that there was but small profit, if any, in keeping a cow a year for the beef calf she would produce. During this transition period extensive breeding herds were formed on the western ranges. The breeding of feeding cattle as a common prac- tice on high priced lands has passed at least temporarily. The supply of feeding cattle has come more and more largely from localities where land is cheaper. Range-bred feeding cattle are becoming yearly a large factor in corn belt feed lots. The passing of the range and its extensive herds of cattle has been freely predicted and no doubt will eventually take place ; that vast acreages of range country are being transformed into farms is a matter of common knowledge. That the southwestern cattleman is becoming more familiar with the value of his available feeds for fattening cattle is evident, which no doubt will result in more feed- ing or finishing of cattle in that section of the country. Notwith- standing these facts, there is more or less uncertainty surrounding the extent and the nature of the future cattle business on the num- erous farms resulting from the subdivision of the extensive ranges. The question of where the future supply of feeding cattle will be bred and reared is a pertinent one. Many predict that ultimately a much larger proportion of cattle fattened in the corn belt will be bred there. It is not our present purpose to discuss this question, but enough has been said to suggest to the reader the reasons for in- vestigating the subject in hand, namely, that this has been a neg- lected question among investigators, and some conditions point to 325 326 BULLETIN No. 111. [August, more universal interest in this subject in the future. The breeding of beef cattle on high priced land presupposes the economical main- tenance of the cows from which such stock is bred. OBJECT The object of this experiment was to compare cheap feeds read- ily available on Illinois farms for maintaining beef breeding cows during the winter season. In the selection of the feeds to be fed, an effort was made to use such as are not looked upon as cash crops of the farm but more in the nature of by-products of low commercial value. Also, to study the effect of these various rations upon the general thrift of the cows, in order to determine to what extent such feeds may be used, observations were made of birth weight and gains of offspring calved during the progress of the test. The corn plant in some form was used as the basal part of the rations fed. In this connection it might be stated that the author's interpreta- tion of maintaining a pregnant cow is to have her gain sufficiently to account for the growth of the foetus, which at birth weighs fifty to ninety pounds. PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENT Thirty grade Aberdeen-Angus cows, similar in size, conforma- tion, and breeding were secured for this experiment. In breeding they were from one-half to three-fourths Aberdeen- Angus blood, and in age from three to six years. The cows were the result of one or two crosses of choice Aberdeen-Angus bulls on native Missouri cows which contained varying quantities of Short-Horn blood. They arrived at the Experiment Station farm December 20, 1904. These cows had nursed their calves during the summer and having but recently weaned them, they were thin in flesh, yet thrifty, and by no means emaciated. Perhaps a better idea of their condi- tion may be secured from a reference to Plate i from a photograph which was taken of one of the lots at the beginning of the test. From the time they arrived until the experiment began all received the same feed; namely, corn stover. The* thirty cows were divided into three lots of ten each a few days after their arrival at the farm. Great care was exercised to make the lots fully comparable in age, condition, conformation, and size, to insure that whatever differences occurred would be directly referable to the differences in the rations fed. The cows in lot I, received ear label numbers from 471 to 480 inclusive, those in lot 2 from 481 to 490 inclusive, and those in lot 3, from 491 to 500 in- 1906.] RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 327 elusive. Corn silage, shock corn, corn stover, clover hay, and oat straw were the feeds used. These were charged to the cows at the following rates : Corn silage $3-34 per ton. Shock corn 5.59 per ton. Corn stover 2.25 per ton. Shredded stover 2.25 per ton Clover hay 8.06 per ton. Oat straw 1.50 per ton. Each lot was fed a ration made up of the following feeds : Lot i. — Corn silage, clover hay, and oat straw. Lot 2. — Shock corn, clover hay, and oat straw. Lot 3. — Corn stover and oat straw, (to March 8, 1905), corn stover, oat straw, and clover hay, (March 8 to May 16, 1905.) In order to determine whether or not siloing the corn made the corn plant more valuable for wintering these cows, the amount of corn and its accompanying roughage fed in each instance was the same. This calculation was made on the basis of the amount of corn in a given amount of silage and shock corn respectively. The silage was 28.09 percent, and the shock corn 53.68 percent ear corn. Oat straw was used for bedding the cows and since this roughage constituted a portion of their feed some precaution was necessary to prevent the cows consuming straw of which no record could be secured. This point was guarded by keeping good fresh oat straw where the cows could eat it at will. The rejected portions only were used for bedding. The amount of corn stover fed was regulated by carefully noting the amount the cows would clean up well without material waste. The corn stover reserved for feeding lot 3 was all used by Febru- ary 7 and it was necessary to substitute in its place some shredded stover. The shredded stover available at the time was apparently too dry when shredded, and as a consequence the cows did not relish it as well as they did the natural stover. However, the cows in lot 3 were fed shredded stover and oat straw until March 8. By this time they would not consume to exceed four or five pounds of stover each daily. This was not sufficient to maintain them, so in or- der to prevent them from losing in weight three pounds of clovei hay per cow per day were added to the ration. March 15 an excel- lent lot of shredded corn stover was secured. This was liked better by the cows in lot 3, but there was no mistaking the fact that the cows preferred the stover in its natural rather than its shredded form. The quality of the silage, shock-corn, and straw was choice; 328 .BULLETIN No. 111. [August, the clover hay, only medium. The larger part of the stover was choice, but the shredded stover fed from February 7 to March 15 was of poor quality. From the beginning of the test until January 28, salt was fed each lot at regular intervals after which time it was kept before them at all times in order to determine the relative amounts the different lots would consume. SHELTER AND FEED LOTS Each lot of cows was provided with the same sized feed lot and open shed. The lots were paved with brick except under the sheds which were open their whole length to the south. These sheds were 12x36 feet. The feeding was done in racks or bunks outside except the straw which was fed in a manger under the shed to pre- vent it from getting wet and thus unfitting for bedding what was not eaten. The sheds were bedded daily so that the cows always had a clean dry place on which to lie. Each lot had access to clean water at all times except the night before weighing when the water was shut away from them. Each lot was fed twice daily, during the winter months at 7 a. m. and 4 p. m., but in the spring earlier in the morning and at 5 p. m. The clover hay in each instance was fed at night. All other feeds were divided equally between the two feedings. The silage- fed cows were started upon ten pounds per cow per day. This was increased at the rate of one pound per cow every other day until the daily ration of each cow reached twenty pounds. The amounts fed were varied from time to time in an effort to feed enough and not too much to maintain the cows. The cows were weighed at intervals of one week. They were weighed before being fed in the morning and the water was with- held for twelve hours previous to taking the weights. The initial and final weights were secured by taking the average weights on three consecutive days at the beginning and end of the test, respec- tively. » The table shows that the silage-fed cows did much the best Since the cows were weighed individually as well as by groups it was determined that, aside from the cows which calved there were three cows in lot 3 that actually lost in live weight, — one losing as much as one hundred pounds. Another cow in this lot gained as much as one hundred thirty-six pounds. In lots I and 2 no cows lost in weight except those which calved before the end of the test. 1906. ] RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 329 WEIGHT OF Cows AT BEGINNING AND END OF TEST Lot i, silage-fed Average weight of each cow at the beginning 860.33 Ib. Average weight of each cow at the end. 1010.43 Ib. Average gain of each cow for 140 days 150.10 Ib. Average daily gain of each cow for 140 days 1.07 Ib. Lot 2, shock corn-fed Average weight of each cow at the beginning 858.50 Ib. Average weight of each cow at the end 964.69 Ib. Average gain of each cow for 140 days 106.19 Ib. Average daily gain of each cow for 140 days .758 Ib. Lot 3, corn stover-fed Average weight of each cow at the beginning 859.83 Ib. Average weight of each cow at the end 916.36 Ib. Average gain of each cow for 140 days 57-53 Ib. Average daily gain of each cow for 140 days 41 Ib. From these records it will be seen that the average daily gain for each cow in the various lots is as follows : Lot i, silage-fed 1.070 Ib. Lot 2, shock corn-fed 758 Ib. Lot 3, corn stover-fed 410 Ib. As the experiment progressed even a casual observer could see that the cows in lots i and 2 were in much better thrift and spirits than those in lot 3. The staring coats of the cows in lot 3 indicated that they were "out of condition/' while the hair of the cows in lots i and 2 was as sleek and as glossy as could be desired. There was a dull sluggishness about the cows in lot 3 that did not exist at all in the other lots. As to the consistency of the droppings of the cows in lot 3, we quote the feeder, — "The droppings from the corn-stover cows were very irregular, especially be- fore the clover was added, it often being the case that from one cow they would be very dry and offensive, while that of another cow might be of such a thin consistency that it could almost be properly designated as scours." This showed that the feed which lot 3 was receiving was not ideal to keep the digestive tract in order. The digestion of the cows in lots i and 2, judging from the droppings, seemed to be in excellent condition throughout the trial. 330 BULLETIN No. 111. [August, FEED CONSUMED BY EACH LOT Lot i, silage-fed. Feed eaten daily per cow (average for the whole time) Silage 16.65 lb. Clover hay 3-5° lb. Oat straw 9-56 lb. Lot 2, shock corn-fed. Feed eaten daily per cow. Shock corn 8.70 lb. Clover hay 3-5° lb. Oat straw 10.83 lb. Lot 3, corn stover-fed. Feed eaten daily per cow. Corn stover (first 42 days) 21.67 lb. Corn stover, shredded, (last 98 days) 10.29 lb. Clover hay (average for 140 days) 1.56 lb. Oat straw 8.19 lb. The average amount of ear corn fed each cow in lots i and 2 was 654.14 pounds, or in other words the cows in lot i were fed the same amount of corn per cow as were those in lot 2, the differ- ence being in the method of preparation. The cows in these two lots also received the same average amount of clover hay, namely, 3.5 pounds per cow daily. Since lots i and 2 received practically the same amounts of corn and clover hay, they must necessarily have consumed the products from equal acreages of these feeds as it is known that the yield of corn and hay, respectively, was the same in each instance. As elsewhere stated, the cows in each lot were permitted to con- sume as much straw as they wished. It soon developed that the different lots of cows consumed unequal amounts of straw. In lot T, silage-fed, the average amount of straw consumed daily was 0-5/) pounds; in lot 2, shock corn-fed, 10.83 pounds; and in lot 3, corn stover- fed, 8.19 pounds. Tt will be noted that more oat straw was consumed by lot 2 than by lot i. This seems explainable from the fact that there was prac- tically no waste of any part of the corn plant where it was fed in the form of silage, while there was considerable waste of stalk where shock corn was fed. Stated in exact terms, 1290 pounds of the coarse stalks of the stover were left uneaten by lot 2 while there was no waste of silage in lot r. Silage may be fed liberally enough to cause some waste but it was not done in this case. Lot 2 con- sumed 1466 pounds of oat straw more than did lot i. Tims it will 1906.} RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 331 be seen that the extra amount of oat straw practically took the place of the wasted stover. The two lots therefore consumed practically the same amounts of feed. There was, however, a very important difference in effect, namely, that the feed fed lot I produced in 140 days an average of 44 pounds gain per cow more than did the feed fed lot 2. This warrants the conclusion that the mere act of siloing the corn plant increases to a considerable extent its value for wintering cows. During the period in which lot 3 received only corn stover and oat straw, — the first forty-two days of the experiment, — the cows in this lot consumed an average of 21.67 pounds of corn stover and 5.15 pounds oat straw daily. Upon this ration the cows made an aver- age daily gain of close to .7 of a pound each. When the shredded stover of poor quality was substituted, the cows ate less of it and more of oat straw. Notwithstanding the latter however, it was soon necessary to add three pounds of clover hay to the ration to secure satisfactory results. The total amount of oat straw con- sumed by this lot was less than that consumed by either lot I or lot 2. From February 18 to the end of the test all the cows were al- lowed free and constant access to loose salt and a record kept of the amount consumed by each. The average daily consumption of salt per cow in the various lots was as follows: Lot i, .08 of a pound; Lot 2, .12; and Lot 3, .10. COMPARISON OF ACREAGES In order to make a further comparison of the three rations used in this test, we may calculate the number of acres required to winter cows by each of the three methods used. The exact acreages of sil- age, shock corn, and corn stover used were known. As indicated on page 330, lots i and 2 received equal acreages of corn in the form of silage and shock corn respectively. The corn crop yielded 57.86 bushels of corn and two tons stover (cured basis) per acre. Since the other crops used were purchased on the market it is necessary to assume the yield of each. We may assume that the yield of oat straw was one ton per acre, and that of clover hay 1 34 tons, which are believed to be in keeping with the yield of corn mentioned above. Expressing the average amounts of feed consumed per head (page 330) in terms of the acreages required to produce these feeds, we have the following : 332 BULLETIN No. 111. ACREAGE CONSUMED PER Cow Tons consumed. Yield per acre, tons. Acreage consumed. Lot 1. Silage Clover hay Oat straw 1.165 .245 .669 8.109 1.750 1.000 .1436 .1400 .6692* Total No. acres .9528 Lot 2. Shock corn Clover hay Oat straw Total No. acres. .609 .245 .758 4.327 1.750 1.000 .1407 .1400 .7581* 1.0388 Lot 3. Stover Clover hay Oat straw 1.009 .109 .573 2.000 1.750 1.000 .5045* .0624 .5733* Total No. acres. 1.1402 *Tlie grain produced in addition is not here considered. The above total acreages, however, are not a criterion of the rel- ative efficiency of the three rations, because the areas which pro- duced the oat straw and corn stover fed yielded also a certain amount of grain. In order to express the acreages of oat straw in terms comparable with the acreages of other crops used, we may reduce the straw and oats to their money values, determine the per- centage which the value of the straw constitutes, based on the total value of both straw and oats, and regard this percentage as the proportion of the acreage of oats which is represented by the straw grown thereon. Thus assuming a yield of fifty bushels per acre of oats, at 32 cents per bushel, the value of oats per acre is $16.00; value of one ton straw, $1.50 (page 327). The straw, then, makes up 8.908 per cent of the value of the crop, and that percentage of the acreages of stra\v indicated in the above table may be considered as representing the amount of land actually chargeable to the straw which the cows consumed. Similarly, our records show that the corn crop yielded 57.86 bushels of grain and two tons stover per acre. Calculating the corn at 35c per bushel and the stover at $2.25 per ton, we find the value of corn to be $20.25 and stover $4.50 per acre, from which we de- termine that 1 8.18 percent of the value of the crop consists of stover. Computing the percentages of straw and stover thus deter- 1906.] RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 333 mined, upon the acreages given below, we have the following com- parable results : Lot i. Acreage consumed. Silage 1436 Clover hay 1400 Oat straw 0592 Total 3428* Lot 2. Shock corn 1407 Clover hay 1400 Oat straw . .0668 Total 3475* Lot 3. Stover 0917 Clover hay 0624 Oat straw 0505 Total 2046 *For actual amount of land involved see statement on p. 332. RECORD OF THS Cows THAT . Cows about to calve were removed from their respective lots, usually a few days prior to calving and individual records kept both of the feed consumed and the increase or decrease in weight of cows and calves. As the oldest calf at the end of the test was onl> seventy days old the calves in no case received any feed other than the milk of their dams. It is true that some of the calves began to pick at the bedding when no more than a week old but what they consumed was so slight that this factor was immaterial. When a cow was removed, her ration was made up of the same kind of feeds to which she had previously been accustomed. Soon after calving the amounts were greatly increased in order to insure a good flow of milk for the calf and not permit the cow to run down in condition to any great extent. The accompanying tables present the important data concerning gains and losses in weight, feed consumed, and cost of feeds : 334 BULLETIN No. 111. WEIGHT, GAIN, AND COST OF FEED [August, Wt. cow wt. Birth wt. Total Daily Length Daily Cost 1 No. cow. after birth cow May 16 weight calf, calf May 16, gain calf, grain calf test days, cost of feed Ib. gain on calf, Ib. 1905, Ib. Ib. Ib. Ib. Ib. or age calf. per cow, cents. calf, cents. 486 (lot 2) 935 835 58 170 112 1.69 66 6.831 4.044 487 (lot 2) 945 848 72 200 128 1.83 70 6.843 3.731 478 (lot 1) 920 893 66 191 125 1.98 63 7.489 3.789 471 (lot 1) 945 885 74 165 91 1.49 61 7.630 5.121 FEED EATEN DAILY PER Cow No. cow. Corn silage, Ib. Shock corn, Ib. Clover, Ib. Oat straw, Ib. 486 (lot 2) 17.0 4.79 2.23 4S7 (lot 2) 16.9 4.90 2.12 478 (lot 1) 32.5 4.83 1.73 471 (lot 1) 32.8 4.85 2.83 Notwithstanding the fact that the cows were fed much more after calving than before, they fell off very materially in weight. This loss of weight was not as marked with the cows in lot i, where silage was fed as it was in lot 2 where shock-corn was fed. Obvi- ously the data are not available to determine whether this difference was due largely to the difference in the rations fed or whether it was due to the varying quantities of milk produced by the individ- ual cows involved. If the amount left by the calves for a time after calving be taken as an indication of milking qualities, it would seem that in general the shock corn-fed cows were naturally heavier milk- ers than the silage-fed cows. Other things being equal, it would be expected that the calves from cows giving the largest flow of milk would make the most rapid gains. If so, and if the shock corn-fed cows gave more milk than the silage-fed ones, why did the calf or cow number 478 (sil- age-fed) gain most and the cow suffer the least loss in live weight? In order to determine this matter accurately it would require that the cows be milked and a careful record kept of the yield. Enough is already known to satisfy the writer that if the cows in lot i (sil- 1906.] RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 335 age-fed) did not give as much milk as the cows in lot 2 (shock corn- fed) it was because of a non-milking tendency in the silage-fed cows for which the ration was in no way responsible. The feed of each cow, as soon as she calved, was increased a third from what had been found approximately a maintenance ration when she was dry. This amount, however, was inadequate to maintain the cow while suckling a calf. The amount was there- fore quite rapidly increased until the shock corn-fed cows received twenty pounds shock corn and five pounds clover hay, and the sil- age-fed cows received a daily allowance of thirty-eight pounds of silage and five pounds of clover hay. This amount seemed about right to keep the cows from shrinking in weight while nursing their calves and was approximately twice the amount necessary to main- tain the same cows while dry. It might be added that none of these cows were heavy milkers. The cost of feed for the shock corn-fed cows was not as great at, for the silage-fed cows. Reference to the table will show that cost of gains on calves was also computed. The high priced gains on the calf of cow number 471 were apparently due to the fact that this cow was a poor milker, apparently never giving milk enough for the calf. It has been stated elsewhere that there was but little difference in the thrift of the cows in lots i and 2 before calving. A few days after calving, however, it was manifest that there was a marked difference between the cows wintered on silage and those wintered on shock-corn. The former ration was clearly superior. The data derived from this experiment are of value also in add- ing weight to the evidence which has been accumulating the last few years, that the German maintenance standard should be revised. The table shows that in no case was the amount of protein fed as large as the German standard calls for to maintain a one thou- sand pound animal, but as far as the general appearance of the cows in lots i and 2 were concerned no one would doubt that they were sufficiently supplied with all the nutrients. It is again inter- esting to note in this connection that, although lot i received a smaller ration per cow throughout the test, they made larger aver- age daily gains than did the animals in lot 2. The different results which these two rations produced can be ascribed only to some in- definite property which one contained that the other did not; we might call this the difference in palatability of the two feeds. The silage-fed lot received feed which was more palatable than that given to lot 2, which had shock corn. BULLETIN No. 111. [August, DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS, CALORIES, AND NUTRITIVE RATIOS Ave. Ave. Dry mat- Digestible nutrients per 1000 lb., live wt. Energy per Nutri- weight, daily ter per 1000 lb. tive cows. gain. 1000 lb., Carbo- Ether live wt., ratio. live wt. Pro- hy- ex- calories. tein. drates. tract. Lot 1,— Silage 930 1.07 16.2 .567 7.44 .27 16047 1:14.2 Lot 2,— Shock corn 910 .75 19.2 .631 9.05 .25 19054 1:15.3 Lot 3,— Stover (42 days) 880 .95 17.8 .456 9.74 .18 19716 1:22.1 Lot 3,— Shredded stover (69 days) . 895 .29 17.8 .557 8.54 .21 17837 1:16.2 Wolff's standard. iooo .00 18.0 .700 8.00 .10 16000 1:11.7 FINANCIAL STATEMENT The following statement forms an interesting- study. The corn involved in the rations of the cows in lots i and 2 is figured at 350, 400, 450, and 500 per bushel. No account is taken of the labor in- volved in the care of the cattle nor the fertilizer produced. LOT 1, (Silage-fed.) $ .35 $ 40 $ 45 $ 50 Average cost of keeping one cow for 140 days 6 873 7.263 7 679 8.095 Average cost of keeping one cow one month • 1 470 1 556 1 646 1 735 Average cost of keeping one cow one d3y . . 049 052 055 058 LOT 2, (Shock corn-fed.) Price of corn ».... $ 35 $ .40 $ .45 $ .50 Average cost of keeping one cow for 140 davs 6.504 6.911 7.318 7.725 Average cost of keeping one 1.390 1.481 1.568 1.655 Average cost of keeping one .046 .049 .052 .055 1906.] RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 337 As no corn was fed in lot 3, no statement involving variation in price of corn is possible. The stover, straw, and clover hay used throughout the test are figured at the one price stated in the early pages of the bulletin without any reference to the change in price of corn. In lot 3 the total average cost of keeping one cow for 140 days was $4.374, the average cost of keeping one cow for one month was $0.937, and the cost of keeping one cow for one day was $0.031. By referring to the data given it will be seen that figuring corn at 35 cents per bushel, it cost practically 37 cents more to keep a cow on silage for 140 days than it did to keep one on shock corn, the same supplements being used in both instances. Since the silage- fed cows gained in this 140 days 150.10 pounds to the shock corn- fed cows, 106.19 pounds, it strikingly emphasizes the superiority of silage for this purpose. CONCLUSIONS 1. It is assumed that the maintenance ration of a pregnant breeding cow should be regarded as the ration necessary to permit of sufficient gain in weight to account for the weight of the foetus. 2. Breeding cows of the beef type may be wintered without grain provided they are given all. of the corn stover and oat straw they will consume during the early part and supplemented with a small amount of clover hay during the latter part of the season. While the cows in lot 3 used in this test were so fed, and while they weighed 57.53 pounds more per head at the end than at the beginning of the test, this method is not recommended because the cows so fed lacked thrift at the end of the test. 3. The corn plant fed either in the form of shock corn or silage supplemented with a limited amount of clover hay proved satisfac- tory rations for wintering beef breeding cows. 4. Although the rations fed the cows receiving silage were smaller than those given the ones receiving shock corn, the gains were larger. 5. Before calving the general condition of the cows in lots i and 2, the lots receiving silage and shock corn respectively, was about the same; however, those cows in lot i which gave birth to calves during the experiment showed more thrift than did those of lot 2 under like conditions. 6. The amounts of feed consumed in terms of the acreages in- volved in producing these feeds were as follows: Lot i (silage fed), .9528 acre; lot 2 (shock corn), 1.0388 acres; lot 3 (corn stover), 1.1402 acres. 338 BULLETIN No. 111. [August, 7. A comparison of the three rations in terms of relative effi- ciency of the acreages involved by taking into consideration the money value of the grain grown on the acreages involved but not fed the cows, is as follows: Lot i, ( silage) ? .3428 acre; lot 2, (shock corn), .3475; lot 3, (corn stover), .2046. 8. Figuring corn at 35 cents a bushel, clover hay $8.00, shock corn $5.59, corn stover $2.25 and oat straw $1.50 per ton, it cost 4.9 cents a day per head, or $1.47 a month or $6.873 f°r T4° days to maintain lot I (silage fed) ; $.046 a day or $1.390 a month or $6. 504 for 140 days to maintain lot 2 (shock corn fed) ; $.031 a day or $.937 a month, or $4.374 for 140 days to maintain lot 3 (corn stover fed). 9. It cost 37 cents more to winter a cow fed silage for 140 days than it did one fed shock corn. However, the cows fed silage, lot i, gained 150.10 pounds while those in lot 2 gained but 106.19. 10. In this test it took approximately twice as much feed to maintain a cow when suckling a calf as it did during her preg- nancy. 11. The average daily cost of keeping the cows that calved in lot i was 7.56 cents while the average in lot 2 was 6.84 cents. Be- fore calving the average daily cost of keeping a cow in these lots was 5.8 cents and 5.5 cents, respectively. 12. The data with reference to the relative efficiency of rations fed lots i and 2 for the maintenance of cows and gains on calves after calving, are not based on a sufficient number of animals to eliminate individuality, hence should not be regarded as conclusive. 13. The cows in lot i, (silage-fed) ate less oat straw than did either of the other two lots which may be accounted for by the fact that they were eating the whole of the corn plant. That is to say there was practically no waste. 14. Corn plant fed in the form of silage is more palatable than if fed in the form of shock corn, which may be the cause of its being more efficient for the maintenance of beef breeding cows. 15. The amount of feed required for maintenance is apparently less than that given in the German standards. 1 6. The experimental data presented will materially aid in a study of the practicability of raising calves and producing our own feeding cattle in the corn belt. RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING "Cows. 339 340 BULLETIN No. 111. [August, 1906.] RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 341 342 BULLETIN No. 111. [August, 1906 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 142 SHORT FED STEERS A COMPARISON OF METHODS OF FEEDING BY HERBERT W. MUMPORD AND H. 0. ALLISON URBANA, ILLINOIS, NOVEMBER, 1909 SUMMARY OF BULLETIN No. 142 1. Under the conditions of the experiment, the profit to be derived from short feeding cattle was 7.36 percent interest on the total expenditure for ninety days for lot 1 and 18.88 percent for lot 2. 2. With expenses as figured the necessary margin per cwt. between buying and selling price in Chicago in order to break even was $1.137 for lot 1 (common method of feeding) and $1.166 for lot 2 (chopped hay and self-feeder), when the pork produced is not considered. 3. Mixed feed when fed thru a self-feeder is especially advantageous for accustoming cattle to a heavy grain ration in a short time. 4. By the use of mixed feed and the self-feeder the necessity of a skillful feeder is reduced. 5. Cattle fed chopped hay mingled with concentrates thru a self-feeder will consume larger quantities of feed than when the same feeds are fed separately at regular periods twice per day. 6. By chopping the hay, mingling it with the grain and feeding thru a self- feeder as in lot 2, more rapid gains were secured and at slightly less cost per pound than when these same feeds were fed separately twice per day as in lot 1. 7. The larger gain of lot 2 resulted in better finish, 15 cents per cwt. higher selling price, and $2.05 per steer more profit (not including pigs) than lot 1. 564 SHORT FED STEERS A COMPARISON OF METHODS OF FEEDING BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD, CHIEF IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, AND H. O. ALLISON, ASSISTANT IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY INTRODUCTION Among common methods of beef production there is recognized the practice of short feeding or "warming up" of cattle. This process usually requires from 60 to 100 days and the cattle are generally mar- keted in a half fat or unfinished condition. In this, as in most enter- prises of this sort, the variations of common practice are wide. These variations are in the grade and condition of cattle selected for feeding, the methods of handling, and the rations used. Some feeders, for instance, select heavy fleshy cattle of the better grades while others select cattle thin in flesh, but generally mature, and of the lower grades. 'Then too, the variations in the methods of handling the cat- tle are wide, the chief difference being in the policy of forcing rapid and large gains by the use of a rather expensive ration as compared with that of smaller gains by the use of limited quantities of feed or less expensive feeds. The factors surrounding and the possibilities of short feeding are considerably different from those of long feeding where the cattle are fed for six months or longer and generally marketed in finished condi- tion. It is not intended, however, at this time to compare the practice of short feeding with that of finishing beef cattle. We introduced this work rather to study the methods and possibilities of short feeding. To do this, a test was conducted with two carloads of cattle under conditions comparable to those existing in Illinois. In this work the relative merits of two different methods of feeding were studied and other available data were collected thus supplying a basis upon which the business of short feeding cattle may be judged. CONDITIONS OF THE EXPERIMENT The steers used in the experiment were purchased on the Chicago- market August 22, 1905. They consisted of thirty-four head of good to choice, fleshy, three-year-old feeders. All were dehorned and the average weight was 1,073 pounds in Chicago. They were natives and northwest rangers mixed, but all were undoubtedly strictly grass cat- tle. Upon arrival at the experimental farm, they were divided into 565 566 BULLETIN Xo. 142 [November, two lots of seventeen head each. In this division every effort was made to make the lots as nearly alike as possible in quality, condition and weight. In order to make the test as practical and simple as pos- sible, the usual preliminary feeding period was dispensed with and the steers were put on experiment two days after their arrival. To secure the corrrect weight of the steers at the beginning of the experiment, they were weighed on three consecutive mornings, August 24, 25, and 26, before feeding and watering. The average of these weights was then taken as the correct weight at the beginning of the test which began on August 25. The experiment was divided into periods of two weeks, the cattle being weighed at the end of each period under the same conditions as to water and feed. Both lots received the same feeds consisting of corn meal, oil meal, and clover hay. Lot 1 received these according to the common method of feeding, that is, whole hay and concentrates fed separately at regular feeding periods twice per day. In the case of lot 2 the clover hay was chaffed by running it thru an ordinary ensilage machine and it was then mingled with the grain portion of the ration and fed thru a self-feeder, to which the cattle had access at all times. Four pigs were placed in each lot to utilize whatever undigested feed passed thru the steers. While it was thought at the time that more pigs might have been used to advantage, the difficulty in securing them made the trial impossible. FEED LOTS AND EQUIPMENT With the exception of the method of feeding, the conditions sur- rounding both lots were alike. Owing to the prevailing warm weather at the begining of the experiment, it was thought best not to confine the steers to a small feed lot with no shade other than that provided by the shed. Consequently they were given the run of small paddocks 237 x 112 feet which adjoined the feed lots. Along one end of these extended a double row of soft maple trees which furnished ample shade and under which the cattle spent most of their time during the day. These paddocks were sodded with blue-grass, but as it had been pastured during the forepart of the season there was no available feed when the cattle were turned in, and "because of the tramping and soil- ing from the droppings, the steers obtained no feed from this source. It may be said, however, that the pigs ate some of the grass and likely profited slightly thereby. The feed lots proper were paved with brick and measured 36 x 48 feet, with a 12 foot shed running along the north side. In these small lots the cattle were fed and allowed to run at all times. The steers had access to pure, fresh water supplied in galvanized steel tanks into which it was drawn from the University plant. The concentrates were supplied to lot 1 in an open feed-box similar to that used in the ordinary feed lot, wThile the clover hay was fed in mangers along the side of the lot. As the hay and grain were mixed for lot 2, a specially adapted self-feeder was constructed thru which the mixture would run as the cattle needed it. 1909] SHORT FED STEERS 567 PLATE 1. SECTIONAL VIEW OF SELF-FEEDER. 568 BULLETIN No. 142 [November, Plate 1 shows a cross section of the self-feeder giving the essential features of its construction. It was so arranged that the feed could be conveyed by means of a feed carrier on a suspended track from the barn to the feeder into which the feed was dumped. The track was similar to those used for hay carriers and is shown at point T. The rectangular frame which was 5 feet wide and 10 feet high was con- structed of 4 x 4-inch material. This served as a frame for the feeder as well as a support for the track. It will be noticed from the cut that the bin was but 16 inches wide at the opening and this opening was 6 inches high. This construction seemed necessary in order to enable the cattle to work the feed out as needed and to prevent clogging. The studding, which were 2 x 4-inch material, were placed four feet apart inside the bin and served as supports to the sides. Other than these points the feeder was not essentially different from those commonly in use in the corn belt. QUALITY AND COST OF FEEDS The feeds used were corn meal, oil meal, and clover hay. The corn graded No. 2 yellow, and the clover hay No. 1. The oil meal was "Old Process," ground linseed cake, pea size. The cost of these feeds and their preparation was as follows : Per ton Cost of grinding corn, $0.060 per cwt. or $ 1.200 Chopping hay by running thru ensilage machine, $0.05 per cwt. or 1.000 Shelled corn, $0.35 per bu. or 12.499 Ground corn, including cost of grinding :... 13.699 Clover hay 8.000 Chopped clover hay T. . . 9.000 Oil meal (ground linseed cake, pea size) 28.000 METHOD OF FEEDING STEERS Owing to the shortness of the feeding period it was thought best to get the cattle on full grain feed as soon as possible in order to secure the greatest gain in live weight and best finish, as this principle was thought to be desirable in short feeding. Oil meal was used to supplement the ground corn because it has been found at the Illinois Station that it contributes to the production of larger gains by stimu- lating the appetite so that larger quantities of concentrates are con- sumed to advantage.* The full grain feed was reached by gradually increasing the grain ration in lot 1 and the proportion of concentrates to roughage in lot 2, the rate of change varying somewhat with the appetite of the cattle. At the end of four weeks they were practically on full feed with no bad effects noticeable except with one steer in lot 1. He appeared to have a slight attack of indigestion and did not eat well from September 16 to 22. Table 1 shows the average daily ration per steer by periods. These periods correspond with the periodical weights which were taken every two weeks. Period 1 extended from August 25 to September 8 ; "Illinois Bulletin No. 103 Page 80. 1909] SHORT FED STEERS 569 Period 2, September 8 to 22; Period 3, September 22 to October 6; Period 4, October 6 to 20; Period 5, October 20 to November 3 ; Period 6, included 19 days from November 3 to 21. TABLE 1. AVERAGE DAILY RATION PER STEER BY PERIODS (POUNDS) Periods Average 89 days, Aug. 25 to Nov. 21 Lot Feeds 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Ground corn. . . Oil meal 9.45 1.81 18.47 18.69 2.98 14.60 17.92 2.71 15.05 20.91 3.23 13.39 23.19 3.23 11.53 22.81 3.41 9.13 19.05 2.92 13.45 Clover hay. . . . 2 Ground corn. . . Oil meal 10.78 2.06 16.63 21.59 3.27 17.85 22.01 2.52 12.60 27.26 3.82 12.18 25.20 3.79 10.50 22.06 3.31. 8.39 21.52 3.13 12.77 Chopped clover It will be seen from Table 1 that lot 2 cosumed the most feed. This was also noticeable from the appearance of the cattle during the experiment as lot 2 carried the best fill. We can attribute this to no other cause than the method of feeding, as lot 1 could not be induced to take more feed. The decreased consumption in Period 3 in the case of lot 1 was lue to a change in ground corn which it was impossible to avoid. While the m'eal seemed sweet and good in every way, it was ground the burr process while the plate grinder had previously been used. As a result, it took the cattle in lot 1 several days to become accustomed to it, whereas with lot 2, the corn being mingled with the hay, the falling off was not so noticeable. TABLE 2. PROPORTION OF CONCENTRATES TO ROUGHAGE Periods 1 2 3 4 5 6 89 days 1:1.64 1:1.29 1:0.67 1:0.71 1:0.72 1:0.51 1:0.55 1:0.39 1:0.43 1:0.36 1:0.34 1:0.33 1:0.61 1:0.51 Lot 1 Lot 2 The above table shows the proportion of concentrates to rough- for both lots during different periods. The plan was to cater to the appetites of the cattle in these proportions and as a result lot 1 took a larger proportion of hay than lot 2. When we consider that the cost of digestible nutrients in the case of lot 1 is .9029 cents per pound in form of hay and .8692 cents per pound in form of corn (which is .0337 cents per pound greater in the form of hay than in corn),* it is probable that this larger proportion of roughage would work as a handicap to lot 1 in the cost of producing gain. It will be noticed that from the first period on, the proportion of grain was radually increased until at the close of the experiment the grain •ation was about three times that of the roughage. 'Average Composition of American Feeding Stuffs— Henry's Feeds and Feeding. 570 BULLETIN No. 142 [November, TABLE 3. AVERAGE DAILY GAIN PER STEER IN POUNDS BY PERIODS AND AVERAGE FOR WHOLE TIME Lot No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average 89 days 1 2 4.117 4.147 1.910 2.794 3.025 3.088 2.976 3.655 3.466 4.242 2.554 2.337 2.984 3.326 TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF TABLE 3 (POUNDS) Periods Lot No. Aug. 25 to Sept. 22 Sept. 22 to Oct. 20 Oct. 20 to Nov. . 21 Aug. 25 to Nov. 21 1 2 3.014 3.470 3.000 3.371 2.941 3.146 2.984 3.326* Table 3, shows the average daily gain per steer during the periods corresponding to those in Table 1. Owing to the great variation in the weights of steers it has seemed best to summarize these six periods into three in order to study the relative rate and cost of gains. Con- sequently periods 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6 are summarized in Table 4. From this it can be readily seen that lot 2 made the larger gains, but the difference in rate of gain decreases as the feeding period advances. This indicates that the mixed feed fed thru a self-feeder may be especially advantageous for accustoming cattle to a grain ration. It also indicates that the difference in its favor would probably be more marked in the short than in the long feeding period. TABLE 5. AVERAGE COST PER POUND OF GAIN BY PERIODS AND AVERAGE FOR THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT (Value of pork produced not credited to steers) Aug. 25 to Sept. 22 Sept. 22 to Oct. 20 Oct. 20 to Nov. 21 Aug. 25 to Nov 21 89 days Lot 1 Lot 2 $0.0650 0.0650 $0.0770 0.0797 $0.0832 0.0798 $0.0753 0.0749 (Value of pork produced credited to steers) Lot 1 Lot 2 0.0637 0.0638 0.0753 0.0747 0.0817 0.0763 0.0739 0.0711 Table 5 summarizes the cost of gains. While the data presented here are probably not sufficient to warrant a definite conclusion, it in- dicates that the diminishing efficiency of the feed consumed as the feeding advances was slightly more marked in lot 1 than in lot 2. In the lower part of the table the value of the pork produced was de- ducted from the expense, thus reducing the cost per pound gain of beef. Another point of significance as, shown by Table 5, is the simi- larity in the average cost of gain for the two lots for the entire period. 1909J SHORT FED STEERS 571 Large consumption of feed in order to produce maximum gains is generally associated with expensive gains. In this case, however, the self-fed cattle (lot 2) produced an average daily gain per steer of .342 pounds more, and not figuring value of pork produced, the cost was four hundredths of a cent per pound less than the hand fed lot, (lot 1). It should also be kept in mind that the cost of the chopped hay was one dollar per ton more than the ordinary hay and this extra charge was figured in the cost of gain. This indicates strongly then, that for short feeding cattle, there is an advantage in chopping the hay, mingling it with the grain and feeding thru a self-feeder. TABLE 6. WEIGHT OF STEERS AND EXTENT OF GAINS IN POUNDS Total Wt. 17 steers Average Wt. per steer Average gain in 89 dayi Lot No. Beginning of Exp. Close of Exp. Beginning of Exp. Close of Exp. Total per steer Per steer per day 1 2 18,110 18,176 22,625 23,200 1065.29 1069.17 1330.88 1364.70 265.58 295.52 2.98 3.32 Table 6 shows the total and average weights of the steers at the beginning and close of the experiment and the total and average daily gain per steer. As the increase in live weight of mature cattle is largely fat, we might suppose that the steers in lot 2, which had gained 29.94 pounds per steer more, would be fatter and consequently worth more on the market. This was corroborated by the values placed on the steers in Chicago at the close of the experiment. MARKETING In preparing the cattle for shipment three feeds of timothy hay were substituted at the last for the clover hay usually fed. Two of these were included in the feed before the final weights were taken. No special account is made, however, in the feed tables of this hay, as it was thought to be of too little difference in value and importance to be considered as affecting the gains or the cost to any noticeable ex- tent. The last feed lot weight was taken on the morning of November 22, before the cattle had been fed or watered. They were then fed timothy hay and about half the usual grain feed. They also had ac- cess to water for an hour, after which it was removed. In the afternoon, between three and four o'clock, the cattle were quietly driven a distance of about a mile to the loading chutes, where they were loaded at about five o'clock. They arrived and were un- loaded in Chicago the following morning at 6 :30 Thursday, November 23. After being allowed to fill, their value was estimated by expert judges. Lot 1 was estimated at $5.45 and lot 2 at $5.60 per cwt. on the then existing market. This makes a margin between buying and selling price of $1.20 per cwt. in the case of lot 1, and $1.35 per cwt. for lot 2. For commercial reasons the two loads were turned together and sold as one bunch for $5.60 per cwt. The Chicago weight was 572 BULLETIN No. 142 [November, taken at 9 a. m. November 23 and showed a shrinkage for the entire thirty-four head of 1,175 pounds, an average of 34.558 pounds per steer. As the cattle were sold together the dressing percentages obtained were for the entire 34 head. They are as follows, 58.10 percent beef; 6.80 percent fat, and 6.65 percent hides. There is little to be said concerning these figures. In general, however, the cattle were "Good" to ''Choice" in grade at the time of marketing. ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COST OF FEEDERS To 34 steers, 36,490 Ib. @ $4.25 per cwt - .$1,550.82 Commission 20.00 Freight, two cars 41-°8 Feed prior to experiment 4.00 Total expense ... .$1,616.70 The above statement shows the expense to be $1,616.70, and since the cattle only weighed 36,286 pounds at the beginning of the experi- ment, having shrunk 204 pounds, or 6 pounds per head, their actual cost was $4.455 per cwt. at the feed lot. ITEMIZED FINANCIAL STATEMENT Lot 1, 17 steers To 17 steers, 18,110 Ib. @ $4.455 per cwt 14.416 tons ground corn @ $13.699 per ton ..................... 197.488 2.214 tons oil meal @ $28.00 per ton ........................... 61.999 10.175 tons clover hay @ $8.00 per ton ........................ 81.404 Freight Champaign to Chicago, commission, feed and yardage.. 38.440 Total expenditures ....................................... $1,186.131 By 17 steers 22,037.5 Ib. @ $5.45 per cwt .......................... $1,201.043 140 Ib. pork @ $5.00 per cwt ................................. Total receipts ................................................ $1,208.043 Total expenditures ....... Total profit .................................................. $ 21.912 Profit per steer .............................................. ITEMIZED FINANCIAL STATEMENT Lot 2, 17 steers To 17 steers, 18,176 Ib. @ $4.455 per cwt ......................... $ 809.740 16.282 tons ground corn (a) $13.699 per ton... 2.375 tons oil meal (a) $28.00 per ton .......................... 9.661 tons chopped clover (ft $9.00 per ton .................... 86.950 Freight Champaign to Chicago, commission, feed and yardage.. Total expenditures .................. ..$1,224.680 By 17 steers 22,612.5 Ib. (a) $5.60 per cwt .......................... $1,266.300 325 Ib. pork @ $5.00 per cwt ............ Total receipts ............................ Total expenditures. . Total profit ................................................... $ Profit per steer .............................................. 1909] SHORT FED STEERS 573 The itemized financial statement shows that no charge was made for the labor involved in feeding the steers after the feed was pre- pared. The general custom is to allow the value of the manure produced to balance the cost of the labor involved. There seemed to be but little difference in the amount of labor necessary to feed the two lots, altho it was of a little different nature. For lot 1 the skill of the feeder was an important factor and called for regularity in the work. On the" other hand for lot 2 the work was not necessarily regular, but involved considerable labor in mingling the concentrates with the chopped hay. The larger amount of pork produced in lot 2 accounts for part of the difference in profit. The reason the pigs did better in this lot was partly due to the steers throwing small quantities of feed out of the self -feeder. Being from this source it seems proper to credit the ac- count with this full amount of pork produced. In general, the financial results of this experiment are favorable" to the method of feeding used for lot 2. While the data given in this publication are not extensive, they indicate that for short feeding cat- tle the plan of chaffing hay, mingling it with grain, and feeding thru a self-feeder is worthy of further investigation and trial by feeders. TABLE 7. EFFECT OF VARIOUS PRICES OF CORN ON PROFIT OR Loss Lot 1 Cost per bushel, cents 35 40 45 50 Profit total +$21.912 — $ 3 831 —$29.574 — $55 317 Profit per steer + 1.288 — 0.225 1 . 739 — 3 253 Lot 2 Cost per bushel, cents 35 40 45 50 Profit total +$57.870 +$28.795 — $ 0.280 —$29.355 Profit per steer + 3.404 + 1.693 0.016 — 1.726 The matter of profit or loss in feeding operations naturally de- pends upon the cost of the feed as compared with the price of beef. For this reason the above will be of interest as it gives the effect of various prices of corn on the financial statement. In the above table the plus or minus signs refer to profit or loss. Five cents per bushel difference in the price of corn changes the total expense of lot 1, $25.743 ; of lot 2, $29.075 ; or an equivalent in the final cost of the mar- ket weight of the cattle of 11.6 cents per cwt. in case of lot 1, and 12.8 cents with lot 2. 574 BULLETIN No. 142 [November, TABLE 8. PROFIT OR Loss AS INFLUENCED BY THE MARKET Falling Stationary Rising Total Per steer Total Per steer Total Per steer Lot 1 Lot 2 —$33.181 + 1.331 —$1.951 + 0.078 +$21.912 -j- 57.862 +$1.288 + 3.403 +$77.005 +114.393 +$4.529 + 6.729 The cattle were bought and sold on practically a uniform or sta- tionary market. That is, they would have sold at the time they were purchased for about the same price that they did at the close of the experiment had they been in the same condition. These conditions do not always exist, however, so in order to see the effect of a fall or rise of 25 cents per cwt. in the market Table 8 is presented. Under the falling market the selling price for lot 1 is figured at $5.20, sta- tionary $5.45, and rising at $5.70 per cwt., making a difference in total receipts in each case of $55.094. For lot 2 the falling market was figured at $5.35, stationary $5.60 and rising at $5.85 per cwt., making a difference in total receipts in each case of $56.531. The minus signs in the table indicate a loss while the plus signs indicate a profit. 1909] SHORT FED STEERS 575 576 BULLETIN No. 142 November, 1909] SHORT FED STEERS 577 578 BULLETIN No. 142 November, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Agricultural Experiment Station URBANA, ILLINOIS, SEPTEMBER, 1913 CIRCULAR No. 169 ECONOMIC FACTORS IN CATTLE FEEDING III. A REVIEW OF BEEF PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD AND Louis D. HALL 1870 MILLIONS 10 2O 3O 40 SO 60 70 8O 9O 1OO I I CATTLE 3O 40 50 60 7O 80 8O 1OO PEOPLE 1O RATIO OF CATTLE; TO POPULATION, 1870 TO 1910 SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION. — American beef production naturally divides into two epochs, which may be termed "Early History" and "Recent Development." This division is marked by the adoption of refrigeration in shipping dressed meat. Page 3 2. EARLY HISTORY. — Corn-fed cattle were first produced near the begin- ning of the ipth century in southern Ohio and were driven overland to be marketed in Baltimore. Increased eastern demand led to a gradual extension of the industry thruout the Mississippi valley until checked by the Civil War. Page 3 3. RECENT DEVELOPMENT. — The extension of railroads and the invention of the refrigerator car in 1868, followed by the use of the tin can in packing meat, extended the beef production industry to* remote western states and made it possible to slaughter cattle in the West and to market the salable product considerably cheaper. Page 5 4. NUMERICAL INCREASE OF CATTLE. — Statistics show that the number of cattle on farms and ranges in the United States increased from 20,000,000 in 1867 to 68,000,000 in 1000, but that during the last ten years the rate of increase has diminished rapidly, and the last part of the decade shows an actual de- crease in numbers. Page 8 5. RATIO OF CATTLE TO POPULATION. — The number of cattle has decreased but little; however, the proportion of cattle to population was only 75 percent in 1910 compared to 84 percent in 1890. This decrease has been accentuated by the rapid increase in population. Page 9 6. RATIO OF BEEF PRODUCTION TO SURPLUS. — The value of the cattle in the United States has increased $129,000,000 in seven years. On the other hand, the decline in the number of cattle in proportion to population has reduced the export of meat products from $72,435,000 to an almost negligible amount dur- ing the same period. Page 9 7. CATTLE CLASSIFIED BY AGE AND SEX. — A census of the cattle by age, sex, and value indicates among other facts that approximately 60 percent of the cows of breeding age are1 considered dairy cows. Page 10 8. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF CATTLE IN THE UNITED STATES. — A com- parison of the distribution of the cattle (other than milch cows) and the1 popu- lation shows that while more than two-thirds of the cattle are west, more than two-thirds of the population is located east of the Mississippi river. Page H 9. DEVELOPMENT .OF THE GREAT CATTLE MARKETS. — Cattle markets develop in the wake of the producing areas. This is indicated by the growth of Chicago and cities west of Chicago, as cattle markets, while eastern cities have declined as cattlef markets. Page 13 10. LOCAL SALE AND SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE. — The large central markets are of primary interest to the feeder. Reliable statistics gathered in 1903 indicate that only half the 13,000,000 cattle marketed for slaughter that year were slaught- ered in large central markets. Page 16 11. THE PASSING OF THE RANGE. — The range country is undergoing a transition during which the number of cattle is decreasing, but an increased production is promised in the future. Page 17 12. MEXICAN AND CANADIAN CATTLE RANGES. — Mexico offers opportunities for great development, but a decade or more will be required to reconstruct the country and develop its latent possibilities. Western Canada is rapidly being taken up by homesteaders who give little attention to stock raising at present. Eventually Canada and Mexico should become important factors in the world's beef supply. Page 23 13. BEEF PRODUCTION IN THE SOUTH. — Various handicaps have prevented the southern states from exerting much influence upon the beef industry, but better conditions, the need of crop rotation, and the many natural advantages for stock raising are now tending to promote the southern cattle industry. 1 I Page 26 NOTE. — This is the third of a series of circulars dealing with economic fac- tors in cattle feeding. (I. Relation of the United States to the World's Beef Sup- ply. II. Argentina as a factor in International Beef Trade.) Following publica- tions will treat of cattle-feeding conditions in the corn belt, and cattle feeding in its relation to farm management and soil fertility. A REVIEW OF BEEF PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD, Chief in Animal Husbandry, and Louis D. HALL, Assistant Chief in Animal Husbandry One hundred years have elapsed since beef-cattle production be- came a prominent feature of American agriculture. A study of the tendencies that have marked the development of the industry dur- ing that period throws much light upon present and prospec- tive conditions with which the cattle feeder has to deal. In this brief sketch, general developments only can be considered, and the more recent decades will receive chief attention. Two comparatively distinct periods constitute the history of beef production in this country. Up to the Civil War, cattle feeding ac- companied general agriculture in its gradual extension westward thru the Ohio and Mississippi valleys. At the same time, the graz- ing* industry spread from Texas over the great western plains. Im- mediately after the war an enlarged beef demand in the East, to- gether with improved facilities for the transportation of cattle and distribution of beef, stimulated the production and marketing of beef cattle and marked the beginning of modern conditions. The general divisions of this review, therefore, may be designated as the "Early History" and the "Recent Development" of the beef industry. EARLY HISTORY Pioneers from the Allegheny region, and especially from the Virginias, introduced the grazing and corn feeding1 of beef cattle into the valleys of southern Ohio and northwestern Kentucky near the beginning of the iQth century. In 1805 the first fat cattle were driven by Felix Renick from the then new country of the Scioto valley, Ohio, 350 miles eastward across the Alleghenies to Balti- more, where they found a profitable market. During the next de- cade the trailing of cattle was extended to Philadelphia and New York. The establishment of an outlet and the growth of the east- ern demand for beef stimulated the cattle business in the Ohio valley region and gradually extended it westward over Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. Until the early fifties, it was customary to take cattle to market on foot. In many instances, this meant a drive of a thousand miles, requiring ten to twelve weeks. Indeed it was not uncommon for cattle to be driven to the large eastern cities from points as far west as Iowa and as far south as Texas. One of the first shipments of cattle by rail from Kentucky to eastern markets, made in 1852, is described by the shipper as fol- lows : "One week was consumed in driving- the cattle, 100 in num- ber, from the neighborhood of Lexington, Kentucky, to Cincinnati. Here they were loaded in box cars and shipped by rail to Cleveland, whence they were taken by steamboat to Buffalo. After a stay of several days at Buffalo, the animals were driven to Canandaigua, Xew York ; thence were hauled in immigrant cars to Albany, where they were unloaded in the freight house. After spending two days in a feed yard near Albany, the stock was taken by boat to New York. The freight on these cattle from Cincinnati to Buffalo was at the rate of $120 per car and the total expense from Kentucky to Xew York was $14 per head." About 1855 shipments by rail were made from Indiana to Xew York, and in the same year began the shipment of cattle from Chicago. The westward extension of rail- roads during the next decade resulted in a proportionate increase in rail shipments of cattle eastward and gave rise to various slaught- ering and shipping centers in the Middle West. KIG. 1. — KOUTKS OK EARIYY SHIPMENTS OF CATTryi<; Coincident with the extension of beef production from east to west was the expansion of the industry from the Mexican border thru Texas and northward. Mexicans settling in Texas brought with them large numbers of Mexican or Spanish cattle and made ranching their leading occupation. The peculiar adaptation of the vast prairies of western and northern Texas to cattle raising, be- cause of their luxuriant mesquite and buffalo grass, abundant streams, and mild climate, soon attracted large numbers of stock- men from all parts of the United States; and by 1815 these early stockmen were the leading ranchmen of this section. During the next few decades and until the Civil War, the herds increased with great rapidity ; but the outlet for cattle was restricted by the distance from market and the lack of railroads. At this time they were marketed principally in New Orleans, Mobile, and Mexico, while smaller numbers were carried by boats to cities along the Mississippi river. The latter trade was cut off by the Civil War, and this, to- gether with the impoverished condition of the South, virtually de- stroyed the market for Texas cattle. The industry was abandoned to a large extent, and cattle became almost worthless, some chang- ing hands at $i to $2 per head. There was no demand for many that were offered, and some herds were abandoned on the range. "As an evidence of the low value of cattle in Texas at this period, it is recorded that a buyer went into a herd of 3500 steers and cut out $600 at $6 a head, and 600 more at $3 a head."1 Statistics of cattle in the United States during the first two- thirds of the century are almost entirely lacking, and such as are available must be regarded as rough estimates. Consequently, it is difficult to record the development of beef production during that period further than to outline its general tendencies. RECENT DEVELOPMENT During the five-year period following the Civil War, several significant factors combined to revolutionize the beef-cattle business in the United States. Rapid increase in population and the devel- opment of manufacturing industries in the East and North brought about a new demand and a larger outlet for beef. Railroad exten- sion thruout the Middle West made possible the establishment of central markets which became accessible to beef -cattle producers at long distances. In 1857 the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad was extended from Cincinnati to St. Louis. Here it connected with the Missouri Pa- cific, which was then under construction from St. Louis to Kansas City. Altho this latter road was started soon after 1850, it was not finished until 1865. At the same time the completion of the Han- nibal and St. Joseph between the Mississippi and Missouri rivers IB. O. Cowan, Breeder's Gazette, Jan. 22, 1913, p. 193. 6 established rail service between Kansas City and Chicago. Conse- quently, when it was planned to extend the Kansas P'acific still far- ther westward, the southwestern cattlemen, with access to both the Chicago and the St. Louis markets in sight, saw a bright future for their industry. In Texas and the western states, the effect of improved condi- tions and better marketing facilities was marked. The wide dif- ference in the market price of cattle in the North and in the South opened a profitable outlet for the southwestern herds, and a strong movement of Texas cattle to northern markets soon developed. By 1870 three principal routes to eastern markets had become estab- lished. "One way led by coastwise steamer to New Orleans, whence the animals were taken northward on river boats. At Cairo, Illi- nois, the railroad journey was begun northward to Chicago, thence to the East. A second route from Texas was over a trail to shipping points on the Red river, whence the cattle were forwarded on steam- boats to Cairo, thence to be shipped by rail northward. A third route followed the trails from Texas to feeding* grounds along the railroads in Kansas and in regions farther north. From stations along these railroads the animals were forwarded to eastern mar- kets/'1 The northern demand for these southwestern cattle, due to im- proved methods of slaughtering animals, the use of refrigeration in shipping dressed beef, and the utilization of packing-house by-pro- ducts, increased enormously about 1870. Accordingly, the opening of a railroad shipping station at Abilene, Kansas, in 1867, marked the beginning of heavy shipments of southwestern cattle to St. Louis, Chicago, and the East. About 35,000 head were shipped from Abilene in 1867, 75,000 in 1868, 150,000 in 1869, 300,000 in 1870, and 600,000 in i87i.2 Some of the cattle enumerated above were grazed and wintered on the ranges of western Kansas ready to take advantage of a favorable market. The severe winter of 1871 put a check on this movement. "This was the flood year of cattle drives from Texas, and it is estimated that 600,000 cattle arrived in western Kansas that season. Many of them were young stock cat- tle, and a large number of the steers intended for market were in thin flesh and could not be made fat that summer and fall because of excessive rains and the washy condition of the grass. The supply brought forward was greatly in excess of the demand, and in conse- quence, prices dropped. Many herds were held on the prairies un- til late autumn, waiting for buyers. It is thought that 300,000 of that season's drive had to be wintered in Kansas. As this had not iU. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1908, p. 231. sCattle Trade of the West. J. G. McCoy. Pp. 106, 179, 225, 226. been foreseen, no preparation for it had been made."1 It was es- timated that 250,000 cattle died from exposure on the range during that winter. During the following season only about 300,000 head were driven north; but in 1873 the trade revived because of in- creased demand, and approximately 450,000 Texas cattle were driven into Kansas. Gradually the practice of taking southwestern cattle to the northern ranges of Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana increased, and continued during the 70' s and 8o's. In 1884 it was estimated that 415,000 head were trailed over this route. Follow- ing that date, railroads developed more rapidly and carried a large proportion of the cattle to northern pastures, and by 1890 the old trails were abandoned. Along with better facilities for shipping live cattle came im- proved methods for transporting dressed beef and beef products. The invention of the refrigerator car in 1868 made it possible to slaughter cattle in the West and ship the dressed beef to the large eastern cities and to Europe. Thus the fresh-meat trade extended over the summer season as well as the four cold months to which it had been previously confined. This invention greatly reduced the cost of transportation besides making it possible for the packers to oper- ate thruout the entire year. For example, from Chicago to New York in 1908 the freight and other expenses of the road on an export steer of average weight (1250 pounds) varied from $4 to $4.40, while the freight on the carcass of the same animal (700 pounds) was only $3.15, not including the expense of icing. From Kansas City to New York the difference between live and dead freight was still greater, amounting possibly to $2.25 or $2.50 per head. The total cost of shipping a live steer from Chicago to Liverpool, in- cluding freight, feed, and attendance is estimated to have been $13.60 to $16.70, or considerably more than double the cost of ship- ping the average weight of fresh beef yielded by the animaL2 Fresh beef was first shipped in a refrigerator car from Chicago to Boston in September, 1869, but it was not until 1875 that this sys- tem became well developed. About the same time, the tin car was introduced into the meat-packing industry and it contributed still further to the successful shipment of beef products to markets in distant parts of the world. The utilization of previously wasted by-products for the manufacture of valuable products also began to receive close attention. These factors, together with the settlement and extension of the cattle-producing* regions of the West, the build- ing of railroads, and the development of agriculture and industry in general, combined to mark the most important turning point in the annals of American beef production. IB. O. Cowan, Breeder's Gazette, Jan. 22, 1913, p. 193, 2U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1908, p. 243. NUMERICAL INCREASE OF CATTLE Statistics indicate that the number of cattle rapidly increased from decade to decade up to 1900. Since that time, it shows evi- dence of having declined, altho the figures obtainable for this later period are hardly comparable with those of the previous decade. These facts are illustrated by Table i. It will be observed that the number of cattle other than milch cows is approximately 60 percent of the total number of cattle. TABI,E 1.— CATTLE ON FARMS AND RANGES, 1867 TO 19121 Year Total cattle, number Cattle other than milch cows, number Increase in total cattle by decades, percent 1867 20 000 000 12 000 000 1870 25 000 000 15 000 000 25 1880 33 000 000 21 000 000 32 1890 53 000 000 37 000 000 38 1900 2 68 000 000 45 000 OOO3 28 1910 69 000 000 i 47 000 000 2 62 000 OOO4 41 000 000 - 8.7 19125 58 000 000 37 000 000 1U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1910, p. 630. 2 Abstract of the I2th Census, p. 238. 3 Estimated. 4Abstract of I3th Census, "Live Stock on Farms," p. 316. 5Statistical Abstract of U. S., 1911, p. 155. Before passing this table, an explanation should be given for the two sets of data for 1910. The Bureau of Animal Industry es- timates the number of animals in the country on January i of each year, and in 1910 this estimate was 69,000,000. While this number is quite accurate, it is approximate, and so is not comparable with the more carefully gathered census figures. The census report of 62,000,000 cattle, while accurate, is not comparable to previous cen- sus reports, due to the time of year that the data were gathered. In 1900, the census was taken June i, while in 1910 it was taken April 15 — a difference of six weeks at the season of the year when the largest numbers of farm animals are born. The inaccuracy of di- rectly comparing the 1910 census report with previous census fig- ures is shown by the following statement made in an abstract from the 1910 census report. After estimating that from five to six million calves would have been born from April 15 to June I, 1910, and that probably one or two million of the older cattle would have been slaughtered or otherwise disposed of, the report continues: "Instead, therefore, of a decrease in the total number of cattle from 67,719,000 on June i, 1900, to 61,804,000 on April 15, 1910, a decrease of not more than three million, and possibly not over one million, would have resulted had the enumeration of 1910 been made as of June i." This statement indicates only a small de- crease in the actual number of cattle during the past ten years, but this decrease is significant when the present demand is taken into consideration. RATIO OF CATTLK TO POPULATION Altho the cattle of the United States have increased numerically by decades up to the present time (with the probable exception of the last few years), their number has not kept pace with the grow- ing population during the last two ten-year periods (see Table 2). In 1890 the number of cattle was equal to 84 percent of the popula- tion, while in 1910 it was at most no higher than 75 percent, and in- dications are that the ratio is rapidly diminishing at the present time. The number of cattle as compared with population is more striking when it is considered that while the number of cattle in 1910 at best may have been on a par with the number in 1900, the popu- lation between those same years increased 21 percent and there is little tendency toward an abatement in this rate of increase. How- ever, the most recent reports indicate that the number of beef ani- mals is on an actual decrease at present. TABI,E 2.— RATIO OF CATTLE TO POPULATION, 1870 TO 19101 Year Total cattle per capita Cattle other than milch cows, per capita 1870 .64 .39 1880 .66 .42 1890 .84 .59 19002 .89 .66 19102 .67 .45 iBased upon Abstract of the I3th Census, pp. 24, 316; U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1910, p. 630; Abstract of i2th Census, p. 32. 2Based upon Bureau of Animal Industry figures. Total cattle per capita for 1900 was .58, for 1910, .75 ; cattle other than milch cows per capita in 1900 was .36, in 1910, .51. RATIO OF PRODUCTION TO SURPLUS A natural consequence of the decline in the relative number of cattle as compared with population has been a diminution in both the relative and the actual surplus of beef cattle and beef products. Comparing the annual value of cattle other than milch cows with the annual value of exports of beef cattle and beef products at ten- year intervals, we find a marked decline in the percentage value of the surplus, and it is evident from the following table that in this country the consumption of beef has practically overtaken its pro- duction. 10 TABLE 3. — VALUE OK CATTLE ON FARMS AND OF EXPORTS OF BEEF CATTI.E AND BEEF, 1867 to 1912 Year Farm value of cattle other than milch cows' Value of beef cattle and. beef exports- Percent of value exported 1867 $185 254 000 $2 143 000 1.2 1870 290 401 000 2 693 000 .9 1880 341 761 000 31 544 000 9.2 1890 560 625 000 56 170 000 10.0 1900 689 486 000 68 407 000 9.9 1905 661 571 000 72 435 000 10.9 1908 845 938 000 55 466 000 6.6 1910:! 917 453 000 24 400 000 2.7 19121 790 064 000 14 602 000 1.8 1U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1909, p. 571. ^Calculated from U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bur. of Statistics, Bui. 75, pp. 23-29. 3TJ. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1911, p. 629. 4U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1912, pp. 681, 726. CATTLE CLASSIFIED BY AGE AND SEX In Table 4 are given the numbers and percentages of the vari- ous classes of cattle on farms and ranges in the United States, April 15, 1910, and also a comparison of the average value of the cattle of the different classes. TABLE 4 — CATTI.E IN UNITED STATES, APRIL 15, 19101 Calves born after Jan 1, 1910 (under 3% mo.) Steers and bulls born in 1909 (3^-15^ mo.) Steers and bulls born be- fore 1909 Heifers born in 1909 (3;£- On farms and ranges, number Percent of all cattle Value Value per head 7 806 539 12.6 $ 52 000 133 $ 6.66 5 450 289 8.81 347 901 174 26.66 7 598 258 12. 3J 7 295 880 11.8 103 194 026 14.14 12 023 682 19.5 269 160 193 22 . 39 20 625 432 33 . 4 706 236 307 34.24 1 003 786 1.6 21 031 774 20.95 61 803 866 100.0 $1 499 823 607 Av.?24.27 Cows and heifers not kept for milk, born before 1909 Cows and heifers kept for Total i Abstract of i.3th Census, "Live Stock on Farms," pp. 313, 314. 11 Several interesting facts are revealed by the above figures. Al- most two-thirds of the cows of breeding age are designated as dairy cows, the remainder being kept primarily for raising beef calves. The ratio of bulls and steers to cows and heifers is i to 1.46. An explanation of the small number of calves as compared with the number of breeding cow's is given on page 8. Unfortunately, the data are such that no comparison can be made between the values of cattle of the same sex at different ages nor between the values of steers and heifers of the same age. However, a comparison can be made between the values of dairy and beef cows, the former being worth almost $12 per head more than the latter. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF CATTLE IN THE UNITED STATES The accompanying map shows graphically the relative import- ance of each group of states in numbers and money value in the pro- duction of cattle other than milch cows, in 1910. In addition to the data brought out upon the map, Table 5 gives the total number and value of cattle other than milch cows for the entire United States at the time of the last census and the average value per head. In the north central states, from Ohio to Nebraska, and in the region including Oklahoma and Texas are found the greatest rela- tive numbers of cattle. However, owing to wide variation in type and quality, numbers are only a partial indication of the importance of cattle raising in the various sections ; the value per animal must also be taken into consideration. TABI,E 5. — NUMBER AND VAI,UE OF CATTLE OTHER THAN MII,CH Cows IN THE UNITED STATES, APRII, 15, 19101 Section Number Average price Total value North Atlantic 2 130 000 $16.54 $35 234 000 South Atlantic 3 029 000 13.79 41 760 000 North Central west of the Mississipi. . 12 320 000 22.12 272 538 000 North Central east of the Mississipi. . 4 990 000 18.57 92 669 000 Southern and Gulf. . Far Western 10 786 000 7 925 000 16.28 22 15 175 574 000 175 512 000 Total 41 180 000 (Av.$19.28) $793 287 000 1 Calculated from Abstract of I3th Census, "Live Stock on Farms," p. 316. 12 13 The average value of beef cattle in the Atlantic and south cen- tral states is shown to be comparatively low. Altho the north central states have only 41 percent of the cattle of the country (other than milch cows) numerically, the aggregate value of such cattle in these states is more than 46 percent of the total value. The so-called "corn-belt" states — Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas — have about one-third of the cat- tle other than milch cows in the United States, but they represent more than one-third the value of such cattle in the country. In ad- dition to the cattle regularly enumerated, upon which the preceding statement is based, we must consider the hundreds of thousands of feeding cattle that are annually brought into the corn belt to be fat- tened. Including this supply of cattle, and considering their qual- ity and value, perhaps one-half the beef-producing industry of the country is centered in the seven states mentioned. It is interesting to note that while more than two-thirds of the cattle represented on the accompanying map are west of the Missis- sippi river, more than two-thirds of the population of the United States is in states east of the Mississippi. In 1880, 78 percent of the population1 was east and more than one-half (about 55 percent) of the cattle2 west of the Mississippi. Another striking comparison is that of the manufacturing and the non-manufacturing sections of the United States. At the time of the last census, more than one-half of the population was found in less than one-seventh of the area of the country, viz., the states east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio and Potomac rivers. This portion of the country produces more than three-fourths of our manufactured products, pays more than four-fifths of all salaries and wages, and contains more than two-thirds of the assessed value of all real and personal property. It is therefore the great consum- ing area of the country; but (east of Chicago) it has less than one- eighth of the beef cattle and less than one-fifth of all cattle of the United States. In other words, seven-eighths of the beef cattle and four-fifths of all cattle are produced west and south (principally west) of the manufacturing district. Consequently, there has been an enormous movement of cattle from west to east to supply the de- mand for beef in the more densely populated sections. This has brought about the establishment of the great cattle markets at Chi- cago, the "Missouri river points" — Kansas City, St. Louis, Omaha, St. Joseph, Sioux City and South St. Paul. DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREAT CATTLE MARKETS A study of the growth of the important market centers sheds much light on the development of the cattle-raising industry of the lAbstract of the I2th Census, pp. 32, 33. 2U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bureau of Statistics, Bui. 64, p. 57. 14 country. Comparing the annual receipts, in round numbers, at ten- year intervals since 1870, we have the summary given in Table 6. (The markets are arranged in the order of receipts for 1910.) A study of these market records shows clearly1 the extent to which western slaughtering has replaced the shipment of live cat- tle to eastern cities. The markets at Chicago, Missouri river points, St. Paul, Ft. Worth, and Denver have grown rapidly, while a number of eastern markets (e.g., Buffalo and Pittsburg) show a marked falling off. The recent development of the far-western markets Denver and Ft. Worth is especially noteworthy. Large markets are also being developed at Seattle, Portland (Oregon), and San Francisco which will contribute still further toward local slaughter in the 6 — NUMBER ox CATTIVE RECEIVED AT L. Usad For Botfc Cattle ami Sh*<*. Desert. 3.— LOCATION OF THE RANGE COUNTRY1 Notwithstanding the fact that the above figures are partly es- timates and were made at different times of the year, they are sufficiently accurate to represent the general trend of conditions. A marked increase in cattle is shown in each state from 1870 to 1890. This was the period that saw the establishment and growth of the big bonanza cattle ranches thruout the entire West ; when beef cattle "kings" were at the height of their prosperity. During the next decade further increases are to be noted in Texas, !U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1908, p. 232. 20 0161 I OO6I 0681 181 0161 0061 0681 2881 OI6I OOtt 0681 ••• *88I 0161 0061 • Ofeftl •• 2881 Of 61 0061 0681 0061 I 0891 0161 0061 0681 •• 2881 0161 I 0061 C68t 0161 3061 • 0681 OJ.fl 21 Oklahoma, Colorado, and the Dakotas, while the remaining range states show a decrease or remain practically unchanged. From 1900 to 1910 a marked decrease occurred in Texas, and smaller declines in New Mexico, Arizona, and Montana; all other states mentioned, particularly Wyoming and the Dakotas, show an increase. These decreases, first in the northern range states, then in the southern, were due, in large part at least, to the passing of the four-year-old steer. By marketing stock at three years of age, instead of four, an entire generation of cattle was eliminated from the western country. This fact alone is enough to account for a considerable falling off in the number of cattle even tho the yearly calf crops were increasing in size. It should also be kept in mind that considerable shifting of stock from one state to another was constantly taking place in the range country. Consequently, a de- crease in one state would be practically balanced by an increase in another. However, it appears from these figures that the recent tendency has been toward liquidation of cattle on the southwest- ern ranges, while in the Northwest as a whole the number of cattle has remained practically at a standstill. This decrease is made more evident when it is considered that the maximum number of cattle in these western states was reached in 1906, when the total number was estimated at 18,057,000. Since that date, there has 1870 1890 1899 1900 5,993,000 13,763,000 11,359.000 17,134,000 FIG. 5.— AGGREGATE NUMBER OF CATTLE IN VARIOUS WESTERN STATES, 1870 TO 1910 22 been a gradual decrease in numbers, but not a corresponding de- crease in the amount of beef produced. It is a prevalent belief of those who are in a position to judge, that the number of range-breeding cattle has recently, and is now, diminishing. Opinions as to future developments differ widely and are influenced largely by local conditions. Homesteaders who begin operations under adverse conditions in some sections of the range country will require a number of years before they will be enabled to produce enough cattle to equal the number they dis- place. In some localities farming is restricted to valleys and other limited areas capable of irrigation or the growing of special crops, leaving large areas of open range lands of the poorer grade. Un- der proper management, these remaining range lands are capable of a larger production than they are at present yielding. In still other sections, extensive areas unsuited to any purpose but graz- ing await more efficient management. Speaking of the western range as a whole, the writers believe that within a few years, if not in the more immediate future, the failure of farming ventures in many range districts, the value to be derived from a small drove of cattle on a well-established farm by the utilization of otherwise wasted roughage, the enclosure, conservation, and more efficient management of private and public ranges, the demand for milk and beef in growing western cities, and the demand for feeding cattle in the corn-belt will result in an expansion of cattle raising in the range district; provided, of course, present market prices continue, and judging from the present demand this seems probable. Altho the receipts of range cattle at large markets have been quoted to depict range conditions, they are not a correct criterion of present conditions. Quite naturally the increase in the western population and the growth of such markets as Omaha, Ft. Worth, Denver, and Portland, have reduced the number of range cattle annually received at Chicago and other older markets. It is readily seen that the somewhat gradual decrease in range-cattle receipts at Chicago from 886,000 in 1890 to 376,000 in 1910 has been, in large part, the result of the increase of population and the growth of slaughtering centers thruout the range country. Figures which might be quoted from various western markets in no way take into account the cattle which are slaughtered in small outlying towns and are used locally to supply the rapidly-increas- ing population in many of the newer sections of the western coun- try. With the settlement of the western range lands by the small grain farmers, there is a growing tendency to utilize a part of the crop in fattening cattle for local markets. This may seem a small factor in anv one section of the West, but taken in the aggregate for many states, it becomes a large factor in the disposal of west- ern cattle. It is not argued that there has been no reduction in the number of cattle in the United States, or even in the West. How- ever, "the passing of the range" is many times used with too much 23 emphasis, — and well might it continue to be so used if it would en- courage a larger production of cattle. Might it not better be said that the rapid increase in population, rather than the decrease in cattle, has been the chief factor in bringing about the present de- mand for meat, and that because of this condition the demand will continue to grow, and this should stimulate a larger beef production. MEXICAN AND CANADIAN CATTLE RANGES In attempting to forecast the future cattle supply of the West, the regions beyond our southwestern and northwestern boundar- ies must be taken into consideration. Defining the range country, Mr. Frank Hastings has said: "The great bulk of the American continent lying west of the g8th meridian, with large tracts in Canada for its northern portion and greater still in Mexico for its southern areas, may properly be called the range."1 Mexico has as yet developed the production of cattle only to a small extent, and her significance as a factor in cattle raising lies in her latent possibilities. The following is quoted from Mr. Frank J. Hagenbarth of Utah, who developed the great Palomas ranch in Chihuahua,2 "The greater part of the area of Mexico is above the tick line and all the plateaus leading to the Sierra Madre mountains are ideal for cattle-breeding purposes. Only the river bottoms and the coast country produce the bane of the cat- tle industry, the tick. The whole country grows Para grass in profusion. It is a marvelous feed, equal to the bunch grass of Montana, succulent and highly nutritious. The states of Sonora, Coahuila, Durango, Sinaloa, and Chihuahua not only produce this feed in great quantities, but boast of an excellent climate. Calves may come at any season of the year and encounter no vicissitude. It must not be presumed that no handicap exists, however. The northwest range country has a severe winter, while Mexico's greatest obstacle to cattle raising is drouth. But this can be ob- viated by constructing dams and storing water that falls during the rainy season. The present practice, even on such properties as the Terrazas ranches, is to let cattle wander anywhere from ten to fifteen miles for water, if they find it then. I have met few people in Mexico who had even grasped the beef-raising pos- sibilities of the country. A few Polled Durham and Hereford bulls have been taken in, but little effective effort can be detected, and any impression that northern Mexico is in a position to flood the United States markets with cattle of any kind is erroneous." Packers report that cattle purchased in Mexico compare well with the northern United States range cattle that reach the Chi- cago market. However, Mexico has not yet realized the possi- bilities for the production of either cattle or sheep, and there can i American Breeder's Association, Annual Rept., Vol. I, p. 208. 2Breeders Gazette, June 21, 1911, p. 1453. 24 be no great immediate improvement. At least ten years will be required to restore the damage done by the insurrection. That Mexico is a growing factor affecting our own range-cat- tle industry is shown by the number of cattle brought across the Mexican line into the United States during recent years. For example, the number of cattle imported from Mexico in 1905 was 22,000; in 1906, 24,000; in 1907, 27,000; in 1908, 64,000; in 1909, 126,000; in 1910, 1 88,000. x These cattle are grazed on ranges thruout the West. They have been taken as far north as Montana and even Canada but are held principally in the South- west until marketable as killers or feeders. Conditions in the Canadian range country are well described in a recent report by Hon. J. G. Rutherford, Veterinary Director General and Live Stock Commissioner of Canada, from which the following extracts are quoted : "As is well known, the Canadian west is now experiencing the same change in cattle-raising methods as has already taken place in much of the country south of the line, formerly devoted to ranching purposes. "The ranching industry in Canada is rapidly passing. In Saskatchewan and Alberta the handwriting is already on the wall, and in these provinces it is only a matter of time until even the districts still regarded as unfit for general agriculture will, thru modern methods of dry farming or by means of irrigation, be brought under cultivation. In the Peace River country ranching may per- sist for a time, but there, as elsewhere on the continent, the settler will soon be its undoing and the cowboy will disappear. "The incoming of settlers, many of them from the dry belt, has transformed large areas of land, formerly considered only fit for ranching, into fertile farms growing great crops of grain and fodder. While there is yet much territory un- touched by the settler and on which the cattle still range as formerly, its area is being yearly curtailed, and, as a natural consequence, the free, easy and somewhat wasteful methods of the rancher are gradually giving place to those of the farmer and feeder. That this change will, instead of lessening the out- put, eventually result in a large increase in the cattle production of the trans- formed districts, needs no demonstration. Under ranching conditions, twenty acres is the usual allowance for each head of cattle, while the losses from ex- posure, from lack of food and from wild animals constitute a heavy drain on the herd. "The close farmers are, as yet, in the minority in the less thickly settled portions of Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is still much open grazing land available and many settlers let their cattle run at large during the summer, thus, for the present as it were, combining ranching with farming. As time goes on and the land becomes more generally taken up, this condition will dissappear, as it has already done in many districts in Manitoba, as well as in the newer west, and the farmer will have to depend for his feed on the output of his own acres. "At the present date, while many of the larger ranches have closed out, the cattle industry is by no means at an end. It is true that many cattlemen, seeing the inevitable end of ranching, have been rapidly 'beefing' out their herds by selling cows, spaying heifers and disposing of bulls, but this is only a link in the chain connecting the old with the new and better condition of the industry. The determination to 'beef out' has temporarily increased the output of cattle of range quality, but, while this is going on, the incoming settlers are stocking up, not to return to the old system of selling their cattle off the grass in the fall, but to follow the more profitable method of finishing beef thruout the year for the good markets, as is done in other progressive countries, where beef raising is recognized as a legitimate and useful adjunct to mixed farming." i Commerce and Navigation of the U. S., 1910, p. 161. (Years ending June 30.) 25 Thus the history of the United States range country is being repeated or even carried to a greater extreme in Canada. The large ranges are giving way to the grain farmer, who eventually may and probably will adopt a system of mixed farming. At pres- ent the country is short of breeding cattle, but the people are awak- ening to the opportunity for cattle raising. The serious side of the settlement of western Canada by grain farmers is shown by the following report of the Winnipeg cattle market: Total cattle Shipped to Ontario Year received Feeding cattle Butcher cattle 1909 170,000 unknown unknown 1910 191,000 39,750 40,000 1911 102,700 16,875 unknown 1912 95,ooo 825 5,500 During this same period the export trade dropped from 90,000 in 1908 to 1,500 in 1912. While a part of the decrease in cattle marketed may be due to a shifting of demand to western centers, it seems evident that the liquidation of western Canadian cattle has assumed large proportions. The condition of the range industry was described in striking terms by a representative western cattleman at the National Live Stock Convention in February, 1908, when he said: "No one at all familiar with the ranching industry will hesitate to state that it is in a condition of rapid decline, dying as decently and as quickly as it is financially able to do. It is not yet dead, however ; there were still in force in the four western provinces, on April i, 1908, 039 grazing leases, involving 3,259,271 acres divided as follows: Manitoba, 12,642 acres; Saskatchewan, 632,493 acres; Alberta, 2,132,718 acres; British Columbia, 281,418 acres. The average area under lease is 3,481 acres. It would therefore appear that there are still a good many cattle kept under the old condi- tions, even when the sheep and horse leases are taken into consider- ation." In the past, Canada has been a large producer of grain, the bulk of which was shipped from the country. The older farming areas are already reaping the sin of such practice — that of de- creased soil fertility. Canada cannot grow such a large variety of crops, and especially legumes, as are found in the United States, and consequently the up-keep of the soil is much more dependable upon stock raising than it is in the United States. Upon the realization of the above facts and of the scarcity of feeding cat- tle, many eastern Canadian farmers are turning to stock raising. This should result in a steadily increasing production of meat ani- mals. As with Mexico and other countries, no immediate result can be expected in so far as beef production is concerned. A check in the slaughter of calves, about which so much is said, would re- quire from eighteen to thirty months in which to finish these same animals as high-grade beef or to increase the size of the breeding 20 herd, so that by this method it would require at least from five to ten years of concerted effort to bring about a marked and permanent increase in the number of cattle marketed. BKKI" PRODUCTION IN TIIK SOUTH The early extensive beef production followed the lines of least resistance or of greatest profit with least expense of labor and capital. It remains for the present stockmen to develop to the fullest the latent possibilities of land once passed by for greater opportunity elsewhere in so far as beef production was concerned. Some sections of the country have not raised large numbers of cat- tle because other farming pursuits offered greater temporary in- ducements. This is especially true of the South, meaning those states regarded as the cotton states. Formerly, cotton offered such enormous profit that it was continually produced upon the same land without rotating with other crops, but of late years, the invasion of the boll-weevil has demanded a system of diversified farming. The boll-weevil cannot withstand intelligent systems of crop rotation. To meet the present needs, therefore, it is necessary to find crops that will fit into the ro- tation and yet be utilized. With the natural climatic conditions and the thriving forage crops which will furnish feed the entire year, many advocates of stock raising have arisen. A few years past all argument in behalf of cattle raising was balked by the question, What about the tick? The Texas fever tick has been the ban to cattle raising in the South. In 1906 the United States Department of Agriculture inaugurated a movement to stamp out this pest. Strict quarantine of cattle was established over fifteen states or parts of states where tick infection was prevalent. During the seven years that the fight- has been in progress, 10,0,000 square miles of the original 740,000 square miles of infected area, or about 2$ percent, have been freed of tick infestation. Tust what this war on the tick has meant to southern stockmen is shown in the following digest of over one hundred replies re- ceived to questions addressed to farmers and stockmen in Missis- sippi :l 1. What were the approximate annual losses of cattle from tick fever in your county from IQOO to TQOQ inclusive? Ans\\er: 18.5 percent. 2. What was the approximate value of all cattle that died annually? An- swer: $2,132,370. 3. What has hcen the annual loss of cattle from tick fever since the tick eradication he.^an? Answer: i.i percent. 4. What was the average value of three-year old steers in your county from 1900 to 1909 inclusive? Answer: 2.y\ cents per pound. 5. What is the average price now? Answer: 3^/2 cents per pound. (An in- crease of 35 percent.) ij. A. Kiernan, Breeder's Gazelle, Feb. 7, 1912, p. 318. 27 6. Is there any difference in the average weight of cattle now and before tick eradication began? Answer: Yes, 19.7 percent. 7. Is there any improvement in the grades of cattle in your county since the work of tick eradication began? Answer: Yes. 8. Do you use cow manure as fertilizer? If so, state the relative produc- tiveness of land on which it is used as compared with land on which it is not used. Answer: 83 percent. The loss expressed in money terms may give a clearer concep- tion of the havoc played by the fever tick. It is estimated that for several years previous to the eradication of the tick in any of the infested areas of Mississippi, 18.5 percent, or 161,000 cattle in the entire state, representing a value of $2,132^,370, died annually from tick fever. These statements regarding the benefit brought to the southern states by eradicating the fever tick are sufficient to assure a greater future for stock raising- in these sections. The success with which the eradication has been .effected should stimulate many more farmers to engage in beef production. The secret of the success is the dipping tank. The cow acts as a carrier for the ticks, which are found in the pasture upon grass and weeds. When dipping is regularly practiced, the cow fills the role of conveyor of the ticks from the pasture to the dipping tank until at last the crop is exhausted. A second method of eradication is starvation. Altho it requires nine months to starve the ticks which are in the pasture awaiting- the coming of the host animal, this method can be used with success. The control of the tick has opened a new vista for the south- ern farmer. Not only is diversified farming required to control the boll-weevil, but also to build up the once fertile soil that has become depleted by continual cropping and the removal of the en- tire crop from the farm. Consequently successful stock raising of- fers a means of bringing the soil back to its normal productivity. However, the southern farmers lack experience in handling stock, and since they are dependent upon negro labor, it will require some time to establish stock raising on a solid foundation. Many sections of the South surpass the corn belt in being" able to produce a greater variety of crops well suited to live-stock production. Cowpeas, velvet beans, alfalfa, vetches, and clovers are deep-rooting legumes which will materially aid in putting the soil in good physical condition. Shallow cultivation has depleted the surface soil, but good cultivation and the growing of deep-root- ing crops should place the land on a productive basis within a, few years. The legumes and grasses will furnish forage the entire year where properly managed, whereas at present the number of cattle as well as other animals is kept reduced below the carrying capacity of the land because the winter season is not provided for. At present the number of cattle per square mile in the South is far below what 28 it is in the corn belt, while in reality much of the southern land, due to the long growing season and the heavy production of crops, is capable of carrying much more stock than could be carried upon an equal northern area. Not only can stock be grown in this section of the country, but there is every opportunity to finish steers for the market. Corn properly tended does quite as well as it does further north. Cot- tonseed meal of course is cheap and readily available. Conse- quently, with corn, cottonseed meal, and a variety of legumes available, the southern cattle feeder has all the feeds that the corn- belt cattle feeder could desire for finishing cattle. There seems to be no logical excuse for the South not to furnish meat for the people within its limits, altho at present large amounts of high- priced meat products are received from the northern states. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Agricultural Experiment Station URBANA, ILLINOIS, JULY, 1914 CIRCULAR No. 175 ECONOMIC FACTORS IN CATTLE FEEDING IV. CATTLE FEEDING CONDITIONS IN THE CORN BELT BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD AND Louis D. HALL 1870 1890 1910 1913 TOTAL CATTLE OTHER THAN MILCH Cows IN CORN-BELT STATES SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION. — Seven corn-surplus states — Ohio, Indiana, Illi- nois, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska — embrace the corn belt, which is the natural center of beef production. About one-third of the cattle of the country other than milch cows are contained in the states named, and their value is equal to about two-fifths of the total value of such cattle in the United States. Page 5 2. RAPID EVOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRY. — Twenty to fifty years ago, the corn belt as a whole was a combined breeding, grazing and fattening ground for beef cattle, but now it is so generally devoted to corn raising that little grazing land — consequently few breeding cattle — remain; and a large proportion of the cattle fattened for market are purchased as feeders from the West or elsewhere. The number of cattle other than milch cows appears to be diminishing thruout the corn belt, and in some typical districts is now no greater than it was forty years ago. Page 5 3. INFLUENCE OF DAIRYING. — Statistics of cattle in corn-belt states indicate a proportion of milch cows amounting to about one-half of the total cattle in the eastern section, one-fourth in Kansas and Nebraska, and corresponding proportions in intervening states. Dairying has in- creased enormously as a factor in the cattle industry. The introduction of dairy cattle and indiscriminate breeding has deteriorated the quality of beef cattle, and at the same time the actual number of cattle worthy of the name of milch cows has increased but little. Relatively more steers are found in the western than in the eastern portion of the corn belt. Page 10 4. FATTENING STEERS. — Four-fifths to nine-tenths of the beef cattle marketed from typical corn-belt localities are cattle that have been purchased as stockers or feeders. The number of stockers and feeders shipped to the country from Chicago and Missouri river markets shows a considerable increase by decades. The fattening of cattle has passed largely from the hands of general farmers to those of profes- sional cattle feeders, and in some sections has been abandoned to a considerable extent by the latter. Among the chief factors responsible for this tendency are relatively high prices for grain compared with those for fat cattle, increase in land values, extension of cattle feeding operations in the West, increase in farm tenancy, and neglect of soil fertility. Page 12 5. THE OUTLOOK. — The undeveloped state of beef-cattle produc- tion in proportion to population and area justifies the expectation of an ultimate extension and development of cattle raising and feeding. Corn- fed beef cattle doubtless will continue in demand by a class of trade in which the grass beef of the West can not compete. The grazing lands of the West may be expected to furnish a partial supply df stockers and feeders to the corn belt for many years to come; however, an increasing proportion, and eventually a large proportion, of the cattle matured in the corn belt must be reared there. Page 15 Improved and intensified fanning methods, the introduction of corn silage, alfalfa and other forage crops, the more complete utilization of waste roughage, and increased attention to manure as a means of main- taining fertility will tend to render cattle production more practicable. Nevertheless, those upon whom the cattle feeder is dependent for his market must consider the increasing cost of producing cattle and pay prices commensurate therewith; the resumption and extension of beef production will come only as a result of higher relative prices for fat cattle. Page 17 .\oic. — This is the fourth of a series of circulars dealing with eco- nomic factors in cattle feeding. The circulars that have been published are: No. 103, Relation of the United States to the World's Beef Supply; No. 10-i. Argentina as a Factor in International Beef Trade; No. 109, A Ileview of Beef Production in the United States. The next circular in the series \\ill treat of cattle feeding in its relation to farm management and soil fertilitv. CATTLE FEEDING CONDITIONS IN THE CORN BELT BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD, Chief in Animal Husbandry, and Louis D. HALL, Assistant Chief in Animal Husbandry Seven "corn-surplus states" — Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska — embrace the great corn-pro- ducing area and constitute the natural center of beef production in the United States. As shown in Circular No. 169, about one- third of the cattle of the country other than milch cows are con- tained in the states mentioned, and their value is equal to about two-fifths of the total value of such cattle in the United States. Furthermore, large numbers of cattle are shipped into these states to be fattened and forwarded to market, and are not included in' the estimates of annual cattle population. Corn-fed cattle are the distinctive feature of the cattle industry of the United States, and this circular deals primarily with problems and methods of cattle feeding in the corn belt. It is therefore proper to consider some- what fully the trend of general conditions surrounding the indus- try in that section and the fundamental economic factors that affect it. RAPID EVOLUTION OP THE CATTLE FEEDING INDUSTRY During the period of settlement and the earlier years of cul- tivation of corn-belt lands — a period extending from the fifties to the nineties inclusive, of the last century, — these lands gen- erally were stocked with cows of beef type ; and while the coun- try was being brought into cultivation, they became a combined breeding, grazing, and fattening ground for cattle. Such local- ities were admirably suited to beef production because of the abundance of cheap grass and cheap corn they afforded. A most vivid and concise illustration of cattle-feeding conditions and methods in Illinois about 1880 is contained in the following statement quoted from one of the most widely known stockmen of that day, Mr. John D. Gillette r1 i Feeds and Feeding, W. A. Henry, 1st ed., p. 389. COST OF STEER TWELVE MONTHS OLD Value of calf at birth $3.00 Expenses of dam of calf, chargeable to calf for one year as follows: 8 percent interest on $50, value of cow 4.00 Keep of yearling and feed of cow 12 months 12.25 Insurance on cow 1.00 Risk of failure of cow to breed 1.75 Loss of calves by death, etc 1.00 No corn fed up to 12 months. Value of pasture and keep up to 12 months . 6.00 Total 29.00 Weight of calf at 12 months, 700 pounds, at 5 cents 35.00 Profit at 12 months of age 6.00 COST FROM TWELVE TO TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS OF AGE Value of steer at 12 months of age 35.00 Value of shock corn, 110 bushels, at 35 cents 38.50 Pasture 12 to 24 months 3.00 Interest and risk 2.80 Total 79.30 Less 500 pounds of pork made on droppings of steer, at 5 cents. . 25.00 Net cost 12 to 24 months. . 54.30 Weight of steer at 24 months, 1,600 pounds, at QV2 cents. . . 104.00 Profit at 24 months of age 49.70 COST FROM TWENTY-FOUR TO THIRTY-SIX MONTHS OF AGE Value of steer at 24 months of age 104.00 Value of shock corn consumed in entire year, 125 bu., at 35 cents. 43.75 Pasture, May 1 to Nov. 1 4.00 Interest and risk 8.32 Total 160.07 Less 500 pounds pork at 5 cents, made on droppings of steer 25.00 Cost at 36 months of age. . 135.07 Weight at 36 months of age, 2,200 pounds, at 7 cents 154.00 Profit at 36 months of age 18.93 As the remarkable corn-growing possibilities of the soil and climate in the corn belt became more and more evident and the demand for corn grew greater, the westward movement of agri- culture naturally stimulated the growing of corn and, to a cor- responding degree, diminished the area of grazing land. Grad- ually, but surely, the plow drove out the cow until in the heart of the corn country but few females of the beef type remained, For thirty years or more in some such sections, it has been a proverb that "it does not pay to keep a cow a year for the chance of a calf." At the same time that conditions within the corn belt were tending to reduce the rearing of beef cattle there, the industry was extending on the great breeding ground of the Southwest and the grazing lands of the West (see Circular No. 169). Thus an increasing supply of cheap stockers and feeders from the range was a further large factor in causing the abandonment of cattle raising by many farmers, who reasoned — and logically so — that calves could be produced and grown more econom- ically on the cheap grass lands of the West than on corn-belt farms. Moreover, the attractive opportunities which the range country offered the cattleman induced many live-stock farmers of the Mississippi valley to migrate west, thus diminishing still further the proportion of cattle feeders to grain growers in the central states. The extent to which this change in conditions has affected beef production is indicated somewhat accurately by the results of inquiries that have been made on an extensive scale among cattle feeders of Illinois and Indiana. In 1902 this experiment station secured reports of methods used by 509 cattle feeders in Illinois, and found that only 12 percent raised their entire supply of feeding cattle.1 It was estimated that only about 15 percent of the native steers marketed in Chicago from Illinois were carried from birth to maturity without changing hands. 2 The Indiana Experiment Station in 1906 investigated the methods of 929 cattle feeders in Indiana, and reported that "only 6 percent are really beef producers, that is, breeding their own 1 111. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. No. 88, p. 1. 2 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. No. 79, p. 6. o o ILLINOIS ^ OO oo OOO OoO O.OtO « «« u u J2 * y 9 cattle and feeding them out." About one-half of the total number raised a part of their feeding cattle, and 42 percent made a prac- tice of purchasing all their feeders. x It is significant that a considerably smaller proportion of breeders was found in Indiana than in Illinois. Altho the data are not strictly comparable, owing to possible differences in the class of cattle feeders represented and an interval of four years between the two investigations, it is undoubtedly true that the decrease in the proportion of breeders to feeders of beef cattle has moved gradually from the eastern to the western border of the corn belt. Notwithstanding the abandonment of cattle breeding by a majority of the more extensive beef .producers, the aggregate number of cattle in the region under consideration shows an increase from 1870 to 1910, altho in but few instances did it keep pace with the population. This is due mainly to the large num- ber of farmers who keep only a few cattle to furnish the family supply of milk and beef and to consume the waste roughage and forage of the farm. The statistics for the years 1911, 1912, and 1913 show an actual decrease in the number of cattle in the corn belt. In order to illustrate this point more fully, Table 1 is pre- sented. TABLE 1. — NUMBER OF CATTLE OTHER THAN MILCH Cows IN THE CORN -BELT STATES States 18701 18901 19102 19113 19123 1913* Ohio Indiana... Illinois.... Iowa.. ... Missouri . Kansas. . . Nebraska. 801 000 750 000 1 224 000 815000 731 000 346 000 55000 918000 1 054 000 1 765 000 2 680 000 1 819000 1 921 000 1 346 000 978 000 1 020 000 1 974 000 3611 000 2 165000 3 2C-0 000 3 040 000 942 000 744000 1 391 000 2919000 1 671 000 2 202 000 2 225 000 885 000 707 000 1 266 000 2773000 1 504 000 1 872 000 2 002 000 814000 686000 1 228 000 2 607 000 1 444000 1 778000 1 902 000 Total... 4 722000 11 503000 16048000 12094000 11 009000 10459000 1 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bur. An. Indus., Ann. Rept. 1897, pp. 267-289. 2 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1909, p. 572. 3 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1911, p. 630. 4 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1912, p. 682. i Ind. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. No. 12, p. 11. 10 INFLUENCE OF DAIRYING The remarkable growth of large and small cities thruout this fertile section resulted in a corresponding demand for milk and butter. This could be met only by the establishment of dairy farms within comparatively short distances from the cities and an increased production of dairy products on general farms; whereas the supply of beef could readily be secured from greater distances, especially in view of the increasing beef pro- duction of the range country at this time. Table 2 shows -the actual number of milch cows and also the proportion of milch cows to total cattle in the corn-belt states by twenty-year periods since 1870, including 1913. TABLE 2. — NUMBER OF MILCH Cows IN THE CORN-BELT STATES 18701 18901 19102 19133 States Number |5| Number I21 Number I'fl Number ii_ Ohio 734 000 435 000 683 000 465 000 371 000 162 000 35000 48 37 36 36 34 32 39 783 000 608 000 1 09 4 000 i 279 000 813 000 758 000 424 000 46 36 38 32 31 28 24 9 47 000 687 000 1 232 000 1 570-000 925 000 737 000 879000 49 40 38 30 30 18 22 869 000 634 000 1 007 000 1 337 000 789 000 698 000 607 000 52 48 45 34 35 28 24 Indiana... Illinois. . . Iowa.. .. Missouri.. Kansas... Nebraska. 1 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bur. An. Indus., Ann. Kept. 1897, pp. 267-289. 2 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1909, p. 572. 3 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1912, p. 682. Passing from the eastern to the western states of the corn belt, the percentages in the right-hand column show a remark- ably uniform decrease in the proportion of milch cows. Approx- imately one-half of the cattle of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois are classified as milch cows, while only about one-fourth of those of Kansas and Nebraska are so classified. As in the case of beef cattle, the increase in the number of milch cows has been much less marked during the last twenty years than in the previous period, owing to the less pronounced changes in population and industrial development. The slight increase in the proportion of milch cows to the total number of cattle in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois during forty years does not 11 adequately represent the increased importance of dairying as a factor in the cattle industry, nor the extent to which the dairy type predominates in the cattle stock of the states mentioned. It is a result of the extension of general farming and the neglect of systematic beef-cattle breeding, together with a great tendency on the part of the average farmer to cross-breed cattle of the beef and dairy types, thereby deteriorating the quality of both. In this way the relative number of animals worthy* of the name of milch cows has been limited, and at the same time in most corn-belt localities, the production of steers suitable for the feed lot has very nearly approached the vanishing point. The marked decrease in the proportion of milch cows to the total number of cattle in the four states west of Illinois, in spite of a large increase in their actual numbers, is explained by the general movement of range cattle into those states from the Southwest and West. It is likely with increased population and the adoption of intensive systems of agriculture, the proportion of milch cows will approach more nearly that of the states farther east. Further light may be thrown on the types and classes of cattle kept on corn-belt farms by summarizing the returns of the United States Census relating to age and sex of cattle. Figures from the Twelfth Census are presented because of the more minute classification it affords in this particular. TABLE 3.— RELATIVE PROPORTION OF VARIOUS CLASSES OF CATTLE IN THE CORN -BELT STATES IN 19001 "O C« C6CN» o3 m co^ -o "" «* ^ 03 CD ?r. TD £-. ccTD £ O P- j> i— i States _>-§ CD CD o3 » -2*§« £ 3 ° 3 05 0 QQ CD '^'fl. ^co Q rt o Ohio \ierct. 93 6 perct. 106 perct. perct. 6 Q 'I 7< perct. 1 9 perct. 10/i perct. r,A(\ perct perct. i. o -i nn Indiana 25.0 11.9 8.3 2.1 1.7 10.7 35.2 5.1 100 Illinois 99.8 11 4 o 5 S 7 1 Q 1 0 A qq ^ 7 9 ! i nn Iowa 23.8 13.5 11.2 3.2 1.7 10.9 27.2 8.5 100 Missouri 21.1 1^ 7 J9 0 5 2 1 "i 1 0 1 9« « 407 1 no Kansas 20.5 12.4 11.7 9.5 1.4 9.9 15.7 18.9 100 Nebraska 23.6 12.5 9.9 3.9 1.6 10.8 16.7 21.0 100 Averasre 22.7 12.4 10.4 4.6 1.6 10.5 26.1 11.7 100 l Calculated from Abstract of Twelfth Census, 1900, pp. 238, 240, 246, 247. 12 The smaller proportion of milch cows in the more westerly states, as previously shown, is here verified, and a correspond- ingly larger proportion of other cows is noted. \, Relatively more steers are found in the western portion of the corn belt, and the difference is more marked in the case of the older than in that of the younger steers, thus showing the natural tendency to keep cattle longer in those sections of the country where pasture lands are both cheaper and more abundant. With respect to the proportion of calves under one year, heifers under two years, and bulls, the data show no striking differences; and likewise, with regard to the proportion of bulls to cows and the proportion of calves to cows, the various sections of the corn belt appear comparatively similar. Table 4 gives available data from the Thirteenth Census. While these data are not in all respects comparable with similar data from the Twelfth Census, they show the same general ten- dencies. TABLE 4.— RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF VARIOUS CLASSES OF CATTLE IN THE CORN -BELT STATES IN 19101 States Calves Steers and bulls Year- ling heiiVrs Dairy cows Other COWS Unclas- sified animals Total perct. perct. perct. perct. perct. perct. perct. Ohio 13.9 16.3 12.8 49.3 7.7 .... 100 Indiana 13.5 16.9 13.3 46.5 9.8 .... 100 Illinois 13.3 19.5 12.6 43.0 11.6 .... 100 Iowa 12.8 29.1 12.7 31.6 13.8 100 Missouri . . . 11. tf 31.0 1-2.0 33.4 12.0 100 Kansas2 12.4 34.1 10.9 23.9 18 1 0.6 100 Nebraska2. . . 12.5 30.0 12.4 21.0 24.0 0.1 100 Average.. . 12.8 26.9 12.3 332 14.7 0.1 100 1 Calculated from Abstract of Thirteenth Census, 1910, pp. 316, 317. 2 Includes unclassified animals. FATTENING STEERS IN THE CORN BELT Notwithstanding the rapid extension of the acreage devoted to corn growing, and the great demand that has arisen for corn for other than feeding purposes, the crop is still fed chiefly to farm animals. As nearly as can be estimated, 80 percent of the (;rrn produced in the United States is fed to live stock.1 It is, of '111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. No. 140, p. 9. 13 course, more largely sold off the farms of the corn-belt states than those of other sections of the country, but probably not far from one-half, of the crop of Illinois is fed on the farm.1 A temporary curtailment of one branch or another of the live-stock industry, especially cattle and hog feeding, is so promptly reflected in a reduced corn market that stock feeding is quickly resumed to a greater or less extent, tho with increasing reluctance and mis- givings. This applies especially to fattening cattle, as this branch of live-stock production offers the most immediate and ready means of disposing of large quantities of corn, and at the same time utilizes much otherwise wasted roughage, such as stalk fields, corn stover, and straw. That beef production in the corn belt has become largely a steer-fattening enterprise apart from breeding is clearly demon- strated by the investigations of the Illinois and Indiana Experi- ment Stations quoted in a preceding paragraph. In Illinois it was found that in 1902 more than one-half of the cattlemen from whom reports were obtained were feeders who purchased the cattle they finished for market ; in addition, more than one-third were both feeders and breeders, but even the latter purchased most of their feeding cattle.2 About 85 percent of the native beef steers marketed in Chicago were fattened after having been pur- chased as stockers and feeders.3 In Indiana in 1906, 929 reports were received from cattlemen in that state, of whom 42 percent were found to purchase all their feeding cattle and 52 percent grew only a part of them and bought the remainder.4 The extent and tendency of this important phase of the in- dustry are also shown in a measure by the shipments of stockers and feeders from the large cattle markets during recent decades (see Table 5). In the evolution, or transition, of corn-belt beef production from a cattle-raising to a steer-feeding proposition with a large proportion of the feeders purchased at the large markets, the business, to a considerable extent, has gravitated into the hands of men who handle comparatively large numbers of cattle— from a few carloads to several hundred head. Tho these professional cattle feeders in most cases are farmers, they usually buy all 'III. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. No. 140, p. 8. 2I11. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. No. 88, p. 1. •111. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. No. 79. p. 6. 4Ind. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. No. 12. p. 12. 14 TABLE 5. — SHIPMENTS OFSTOGKERS AND FEEDERS FROM VARIOUS MARKETS1 Markets 1880 . 1890 1900 %1910 1913 Chicago5' 300 000 406 000 S80 000 Kansas City.. Omaha6 130 OOO3 647 OOO3 966 OOO6 724 OOO4 994 ooo 631 000 431 000 914000 AO^ 000 St. Louis7.. . 75 OOO8 102 000 159 000 St Joseph2 51 OOO9 60 000 fi7 000 St Paul5 130 OOO10 1 14 000 951 000 9A9 000 Sioux City2. . . 176 OOO4 178 000 220 000 India,napol is11 Louisville7 42 000 Ft Worth12. . . 493 000 Denver11 Buffalo". . 1 From reports of Stock Yards Companies. 2 Statistics for 1880 and 1890 not obtainable. 3 Estimated. 4 1905. Statistics for 1900 not obtainable. 5 Statistics for 1880 not obtainable. 6 1897. Statistics for 1890 not obtainable. 7 Statistics for 1880, 1890, and 1900 not obtainable. 8 1908. Statistics for 1900 not obtainable. 9 1901. Statistics for 1900 not obtainable. 10 1898. Statistics for 1890 not obtainable. 11 Cattle shipments not classified as to stockers and feeders. 12 Statistics for 1880, 1890, 1900, and 1910 not obtainable. their feeding cattle and a large part of the corn they feed, use but little of the manure produced, and freely admit the large element of speculation incurred. The capital, risk, business skill, and distance from markets involved in cattle feeding necessarily deter many farmers from converting their corn into beef. The proper place and purpose of beef production in the corn belt, however, is to provide a profitable market for the crops grown on the farm and at the same time conserve the fertility of the soil. These con- siderations are of greater consequence to the small farmer than to the "big feeder." It is therefore essential to the welfare of agri- culture that the business should be distributed more generally among farms of average size instead of being concentrated in the hands of a few farmers and capitalists whose farms, as well as their fortunes, are frequently enriched at the expense of the neighbors whose corn they buy. With a reasonable degree of skill in buying, feeding, and marketing, it is ordinarily safe and usually profitable for the general farmer to engage in the fatten- ing of steers. In some sections of the corn belt, cattle feeding has not only 15 passed largely from the hands of general farmers to the large feeders, but has also been abandoned to a considerable extent by the latter. This tendency may be assigned to several causes: (1) Prices of grain have been relatively higher than those of cattle, and inducements to sell corn for cash at the elevator in- stead of feeding have therefore been strong. (2) Land has increased rapidly in value, and it is a prevalent idea that high- priced land prohibits profitable cattle feeding. As a matter of fact, the actual influence of this factor is usually insignificant as compared with prices of corn and cattle in determining the profit in feeding cattle. Increased value of farm lands has made it pos- sible for many cattlemen to retire or to relinquish active manage- ment of their farms to others less competent to engage profitably in the business. (3) Opportunities for cattle feeding in vari- ous portions of the West have attracted many successful cattle feeders from the older sections of the corn belt. The opportun- ities for exclusive grain growing in these newer regions have not been equally attractive; hence there has been a tendency for a large exodus of live-stock producers, while the grain growers more generally have remained. (4) The farms in many of the older, more prosperous communities have become occupied largely by tenants. The prevailing system of short-term leases and a lack of experience in feeding cattle on the part of tenants have resulted in a marked decrease not only in cattle feeding but in the production of live stock of all kinds. (5) The apparent continuation of satisfactory crop yields in a large part of the corn belt has resulted in a failure to appreciate the value and necessity of manure. This fact has blinded most farmers to an important factor in cattle feeding. (6) The fact that cattle, ready for the feed lot, could be produced cheaper in the West than in the corn -belt has caused the general farmer, who pro- duced his own feeders and did not use enough cattle to pay to buy them from the western country, to go out of the live-stock busi- ness. That is, at the prevailing prices he could not compete in the production of beef with the "big feeder," who was able to place his cattle in the feed lot at a lower cost than they could be produced in the corn belt. THE OUTLOOK In the light of conditions set forth in this and foregoing cir- culars, a few general deductions may safely be drawn relative to 16 the probable future trend of beef production in the corn-growing section of the United States. The undeveloped state of cattle production' in proportion to the population and the area of the United States as compared with the condition of the industry in older countries justifies the expectation of an ultimate extension and development of cattle raising and feeding in this country. Tin rapid increase of pop- ulation and the slower rate of increase in the number of cattle have rendered the export beef trade a relatively insignificant fac- tor; but with a large domestic demand in proportion to the supply, and limited competition from abroad, the industry should be practically independent of foreign trade. General market con- ditions are now and promise to remain favorable to the producer, for he has a domestic market as a regular outlet and a foreign market as an influential regulator of prices and as an elastic con- sumer of surplus. The "passing of the range" has not diminished the number of western cattle entering the markets, but the growing popula- tion of the West and, consequently, the increased amount of beef slaughtered and consumed in that section have reduced the rela- tive importance of western cattle as a factor in corn-belt markets. Further, corn-fed beef cattle, which can be properly and profit- ably finished only within a limited section of the country, doubt- less will continue in deman^l by a class of trade in which the cheaper grass beef of the West cannot compete. Notwithstanding the general subdivision of western ranges and ranches by settlers, the fact that large areas of the West and Southwest are 'adapted only to grazing indicates that these sec- tions wrill continue to produce a considerable number of feeding cattle. As Ireland with her abundance of grass has grown "store" or feeding cattle for the farmers of England and Scot- land for many years and continues to do so, similarly the grass lands of our great West and South may reasonably be expected to supply stockers and feeders to large markets of the corn belt for many years to come. An increasing proportion, and eventually a large proportion, of the cattle matured in the corn belt, however, must be reared there; because, as explained in Circular 164, the quality of west- ern cattle will be adversely affected by an increased proportion of 17 cattle of the dairy type, and at the same time the development of agriculture will facilitate the finishing of a larger proportion of feeding cattle on western farms. Certain sections of the corn belt, and some farms in all sections, are partially or wholly un- suited to grain growing, and these lands, in many instances, may be most profitably used for grazing purposes. With the development of more intensive farming methods, the introduction of corn silage, alfalfa, and forage crops in gen- eral will tend to render both cattle raising and feeding more prac- ticable and profitable. Also, regardless of the price of land or of grain, a considerable amount of roughage and aftermath remains to be either fed or wasted on every farm, and this factor will con- tribute largely toward maintaining beef production in the corn belt. Eventually, manure will be regarded more highly by corn growers in the Middle West than it is now. Long continued crop- ping without adequate rotation and fertilization will ultimately compel such attention to manure as it now receives from cattle feeders, not only in Great Britain and Continental Europe, but also in certain parts of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Cattle feeding will be found to be one of the most convenient and satis- factory means of obtaining this valuable fertilizer. This factor is of sufficient importance to be treated at some length in a sub- sequent circular. Over against what has been said in the foregoing paragraphs, it must also be clearly understood that a remunerative and rea- sonably stable market will be indispensable to the further development of the beef-cattle industry^ Farming in gen- eral, and stock raising in particular, must henceforth be recog- nized as a capitalized business, the products of which must sell above the cost of production in order to render the enterprise profitable. Those upon whom the cattle feeder is dependent for his returns must consider the increasing cost of producing cattle un- der present and future conditions, and pay prices commensurate therewith. Unfortunately, the cattle feeder frequently has been compelled to accept very inadequate returns, and seldom has his profit been in full proportion to his outlay if all elements of cost be figured at their just value. luThe important fact connected with the cattle-raising in- dustry is a marked shortage, the extent and far reaching effects 18 of which the public has by no means fully realized. The con- suming public have complained of the high cost of meats. At times they have accused producers of securing too great profits from the business. There should be no mistake or misunderstand- ing. The present shortage is due primarily to the fact that farmers have found meat production, and primarily beef production, less profitable than other agricultural enterprises. Over-production and cheap meat, while possible, are extremely remote. An increased supply will come, not as a result of lower prices, but only as a result of higher prices. Consumers generally do not appreciate the fact that for a generation or more they have been able to buy meat products at a price which does not cover the cost of production under present-day conditions. It is obvious that the conditions which have brought about the increased cost of meat products will continue to operate even in greater force in the future than in the past. "The public will ultimately come to understand that the pro- ducer must receive more rather than less for his product if an ample supply of meat is to be assured. In the past the price of cattle has been based, so far as it has been based upon anything, upon free or cheap range, cheap land and labor, and cheap corn. Even the cattle feeder of the corn belt has been guilty at times of relying for his profit upon sharp practice in buying feeding cattle for less than the cost of production when the producer, thru drouth or misfortune or possibly a lack of knowledge, has been forced to sell. Few, if any, of these conditions surround the industry today. "All will readily agree that the producer is entitled to a mod- est profit in cattle production. No business which depends upon sharp practice, or upon depriving some necessary factor in the trade from its just proportion of the profits of the industry can long survive. It may well be asked, What is a modest profit? In the past, with rapidly changing conditions, it has been next to impossible to answer this question. Conditions are now likely to be more stable; that is, changes will be less frequent and less radical. A business-like beef production which extends over such a vast area of country where conditions surrounding it are so variable naturally presents a most difficult problem. One thing, however, is certain, and that is that if there is any con- i Extract fiom an address by Professor Mumford before the Illinois State Farmers' Institute at Galesburg, February 18, 1914. 19 siderable increase in the production of beef cattle in the United States, it will come from the establishment of small herds on many farms rather than of large herds on extensive areas. This means, if it means anything, that the price will be fixed by the cost of producing cattle on improved farms, so that ultimately the producer will be by far the most important factor in fixing the price of beef. This does not mean that producers will be per- mitted to fix a price altogether out of proportion with the cost of production, but one entirely consistent with it. "Obviously, beef will be most extensively produced where conditions favor its economical production. Can it be denied that any considerable area in this or in any other country offers more favorable conditions for beef production than the corn belt? If not, then the corn belt holds the key to the solution of the cattle situation. Conditions surrounding the industry and the cost of producing beef cattle in the corn belt, therefore, will likely be a large factor in determining the answer to the question of a price basis which will represent the cost of production and a modest profit. Fortunately, nowhere in the country has the cost of production been more carefully worked out or more accu- rately determined. The largest and most advantageous use of these data is one of the problems of the corn-belt cattlemen. "No price basis can prevail which does not represent the greatest use of the best methods in cattle production. The cattle raiser who does not and will not avail himself of the most eco- nomical practice must be content to accept lessened or, in many instances, no profits. This means that ultimately he must change his ways or go out of business. "The resumption of cattle raising on many of the smaller corn-belt farms will present problems of marketing which will need adjustment. The producer of less than a carload is now distinctly handicapped, and yet it has just been predicted that the bulk of the cattle in the future will be produced by men who have considerably less than a carload of cattle ready for market at any one time during the year. There will need to be developed, there- fore, some method of marketing which gives to the smaller oper- ator substantially the same advantages enjoyed by the larger operators." The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN NO. 83 General View of Beef Cattle Barns. fIDetbo&s of Steer ffee&ing. STATE COLLEGE, CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. OCTOBER 1907. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Advisory Committee of Board of Trustees JOHN A. WOODWARD, Chairman ... . . . Howard H. V. WHITE, ....... Bloomsburg WILLIAM F. HILL, ...... Chambersburg M. E. CONARD, ...... West Grove G.AHKIKL HIKSTKR, ....... Harrisburg Experiment Station Staff. THE PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE THOMAS F. HUNT, . . .... . Director WILLIAM FREAK. . . . Vice Director: Agricultural Chemistry WILLIAM A. BUCKHOUT, ..,.'.. Botany GEORGE C. BUTZ, ..... Horticulture ^GEORGE C. WATSON, ...... Agriculture H. E. VAN NORMAN, ..... Dairy Husbandry ALVA AGEE, ...... Agricultural Extension JOHN W. GILMORE, . . .... Agronomy I { TGI I P. BAKER, . . . . . . . 'Forestry CHARLES L. PENNY, . . . Ayrintlitiral Chemistry THOMAS I. MAIRS, . ... Animal Husbandry JOHN P. STEWART. .... . Horticulture WILLIAM C. PATTERSON . . . Superintendent of Farm* MISS JULIA CATHARINE GRAY .... Librarian and Clerk BAILEY E. BROWN, Agronomy M. S. MCDOWELL, ..... Agricultural Chemistry H. R. FULTON, . . . . . . Botany MISS ELIZABETH B. MEEK, .... Bacttriology CHARLES F. SHAW, .... . . Agronomy .}. W. CLARK, ..... Dmitri/ Husbandry J. PLUMMER PILLSBURY . ... 'Horticulture JOHN W. WHITE, .... Agricultural Chemistry A. W. BROOM ELL, .... Agricultural Chemistry GUY C. GIVEN, ..... Agricultural Chemistry JOHN H. BAR RON, ... . . . . Agronomy C. L. GOODLING . . Dairy Husbandry \\. P. FISHBUKN, . . . . Agricultural Chemirtry \V. H. TOMIIAVE. . . . . . Animal Jfimlandry H. D. EDMISTON ...... Laboratory Assistant MISS G RACE M. STANYON, .... Stenographer MISS MARY A NS ART, . . ... Stenographer MISS MAY X. PARK, ...... Stenographer MISS JANE B. KKN YON, ..... Mntograjiticr MISS MABEL E. RICE, . . . Ste On July 1st. 1907. there was established by direction of the Board of Trustees of The Pennsylvania State College a separate agencv of research known as "The In- stitute of Animal Nutrition'' with Dr. Heniv 1'rentiss Arinsby, Director. The In- stitute of Animal Nutrition will have charge of all work in animal nutrition and the staff formerly employed in such work has been tninsfei red to the Institute. The bulletins of the Station will be mailed regularly, free of charge, to residents of the State who request it. Address, Director of Experiment Station, Stale College, Centre County, Pa. * Absent on leave. 2 The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station. BULLETIN NO. 83. fIDetbo&s of Steer Stover vs Silage, Barn vs Shed, Cottonseed Meal vs Ajax FlaU BY THOS. I. MAIRS. SUMMARY. 1. Steers fed corn silage as a part of their ration made bet- ter gains than those fed corn stover. 2. The steers fed corn stover ate more grain than those fed corn silage. 3. The cost of the feed was more where corn silage was used as a part of the ration than where corn stover was used. 4. The steers fed corn silage made more economical gains than those fed corn stover. 5. The steers fed corn silage showed a better coat and a more thrifty appearance than those fed corn stover. The results of this shelter test confirm the conclusions of former years, namely : 1. Shelter has very little effect upon the appetite of the animals except in extreme weather. * 2. In this climate it is seldom that the weather is too cold for steers on full feed out doors provided they are kept in dry quarters and out of strong winds. 3. It is very essential for fattening steers that they be well bedded. 4. It is decidedly advantageous that the yard be macad- amized or given an impervious coating of some kind to prevent mud during soft weather. Wet bedding and muddy yards are more injurious than extreme cold. 5. The amount of feed required per pound of gain is practic- ally the same whether the steers are kept in a warm basement stable or outside. 1. Twelve fattening steers when fed on Ajax flakes for ten weeks made about 100 pounds more gain than 12 similar steers fed upon cottonseed meal, both being fed in connection with ear corn, corn stover and hay. 2. Although the steers fed Ajax flakes ate more both of the flakes and of ear corn than the steers fed cottonseed meal, on account of the less price per pound of Ajax flakes compared with the cottonseed meal the cost of food consumed per pound of gain was nearly identical. CORN STOVER VS. CORN SILAGE FOR FATTENING STEERS. During the feeding season of 1906-07 a test was conducted to de- termine as far as possible the relative value of shredded corn stover, and corn silage for fattening steers. Twelve steers were divided into two lots of six each the aim being to have the two lots as nearly equal as possible as regards weight and quality. These steers were high grade Hereford and Shorthorn yearlings which had been bought in the Pittsburg market for fatten- ing in the College barn. They were tied in two rows of stalls in the basement of the College barn and had water constantly before them. The two lots were fed the same kind of grain viz : broken ear corn and cottonseed meal. They were fed twice daily, the corn being placed in the trough first and one pound of cottonseed meal per steer poured over it. It was the aim to let the steers have all the corn they would eat and still retain a good appetite. The two lots were fed equal quantities of mixed hay. Lot I was fed corn stover, which is the fodder without the ears ; the quantity fed intended to be approximately as nearly equal to the hay fed as practicable. Lot II was fed corn silage in such quantities as they would eat up clean. It should be born in mind that the silage contained the ears while the stover did not. The hay was fed after the grain ration in the evening and the stover and silage after the grain ration in the morning. The hay, grain and stover were weighed as described elsewhere in this bulletin in the article on shelter for fattening steers. The s^- lage was weighed daily as fed. During only two periods was any un- eaten silage left in the mangers. One of these periods was at the Be- ginning of the test before the steers had become accustomed to the feed ; the other was later at a time when some damaged 'silage was fed through mistake. The steers were required to eat all the hay given them. ' Table I. Weight of Steers. I 246 255 Total Aver. 132 154 22 | 26 145 24 187 31 119 20 il:; 19 m 21 143 24 12£4 2T4 Silage 27 33 34 28 36 37 20 37 25 22 35 28 21 20 32 30 51 26 20 36 39 24 16 25 10 19 15 16 62 30 4'.) 47 30 53 35 24 18 33 20 21 16 19 20 13 12 15 25 25 22 28 17 34 20 27 23 39 | . 28 24 1 17 228 229 215 239 Total 179 177 Aver. 30 30 161 27 III 18 271 132 45 22 1IH 19 146 24 140 96 i 210 . 'Table II shows the gains of the individual steers by periods dur- ing the experiment. From this table it is seen that the total gain made by Lot I was 1284 pounds, while that made by Lot II was 1439 pounds. The average gain made by Lot I was 214 pounds, while in Lot' II it was 240 pounds or 26 pounds more. The gains made by Lot II seemed to be more uniform than those made by Lot I. During the entire experiment Lot II, the steers fed silage, seemed to be in better health in general, had better appetites and showed a better coat than Lot I.-1 During only one period of the nine, did Lot I, which was fed stover, make a greater gain than Lot II. That was during the peri- od from Jan. 29th to Feb. i2th when the damaged silage was fed as mentioned above. Table III. Amount oj Feed, Offered, Refused and Eaten. I lyOt I I I,0t Total ear corn eaten_ ,' _ 9970 9687 Total cottonseed meal eaten _« 1176 1176 Total hay eaten I_ 3288 3225 Total stovf t~ fed 2775 Totol stover refused. __ 1647 Total stover eaten __ 1128 Total silage fed 11014 . -. ; 192 Total silfefceieateni_l __•: . .__ 10822 Table III shows the feed eaten by the two lots for the entire ex- periment. 'From this it is seen that Lot I ate more corn than Lot II. The cottonseed meal eaten by the two lots was exactly the same, as planned, and there was practically no difference in the hay eaten by the two lots ; Lot I eating only 62 pounds more than Lot II during the entire experiment. Not quite as much stover was fed to Lot I as was intended owing to the difficulty in inducing the steers to eat it, without cutting down the allowance of hay more than was thought advisable. The estimated cost of feed for the two lots is shown in table IV. Table IV. Cost oj Feed. " \ ' • . 9 I* I I/>t II $64.10 $62.27 Cottonseed meal 17.64 17.64 Hav 16.44 16.23 Stover 5.65 Silage— 13.77 Total 103.73 109.91 This table assumes the corn to be worth $ .45 per bushel, cotton- seed meal $30 per ton, hay $10 per ton, corn stover $4 per ton and corn silage $2.50 per ton. The prices given for corn and cottonseed meal are what they actually cost as they were bought for feeding these steers. The prices given for the roughage is estimated. From this table it is seen that the feed eaten by Lot I cost $103.73, while that eaten by Lot II cost $109.91, making a difference in cost of $6.18 to offset the difference in gain of 155 pounds. Assuming that the steers sold at five and a half cents a pound, the 155 pounds was worth $8.53. This does not represent the actual difference between the two feeds as Lot II at the close was in better condition and would proba- bly have sold somewhat higher on a discriminating market. Had the silage been normal throughout the entire experiment, undoubtedly the difference in favor of Lot II would have been even greater. Undoubtedly a part of the superior value of the corn silage was due to the ears which it contained as it is noted that on this feed the steers ate a smaller amount of grain than those fed corn stover. BARN VS. SHED-FIFTH TRIAL. During the winter of 1906-07 a further test was made similar to those made during the past four winters reported in Bulletins 64 and 68 and in the annual reports of 1902-03 to 1905-06 inclusive. The ob- ject of this trial was to secure further data on the relative economy of barn and shed as shelter for fattening steers in Pennsylvania. The same quarters were used as heretofore, viz : A large pen or box stall in the basement of the College barn for one lot, and an open shed in a yard adjoining for the other. This shed is situated south of the barn, is open toward the scuth-east but closed on the back and two ends. A part of the yard including that beneath the shed, has been paved with cinders so that it is possible for the steers to keep out of the mud. An effort was made to keep each lot well bedded so that the steers might have a comfortable place to lie down when they felt like it. As in former years the four main points observed were as follows: i st. Comparative gain in live weight. 2nd. Amount of feed eaten. 3rd. Relative amount of feed required per pound of gain. 4th. Relation of temperature to gain. ANIMALS. As in former tests twenty-four steers were divided into two lots of twelve each as nearly equal in quality and condition as possible ac- cording to the judgment of experienced feeders. The animals were all grade Shorthorns and were selected from two loads of steers which had been bought in Pittsburg for feeding at the College barn. One lot was but slightly heavier than the other as will be seen by reference to Table I. FEEDING. The two lots were fed together from the time that they arrived at the College early in November until a few days before they were plac- ed on experiment, December 18. The feed consisted of broken ear corn with corn stover and mixed hay for roughage up to January ist. From January ist to January 29th the steers of each lot received one pound of cottonseed meal each per day. From January 2gth to Feb- Jnterior of barn in which all steers were fed except J,ot II of the shelter ex- periment. ruary 26th they received two pounds each daily. The broken ear corn, clover hay and corn stover were continued throughout the ex- periment ; tne amount fed being guided by the appetite of the ani- mals. The grain was fed twice daily ; the broken ear corn was first placed in the manger and the cottonseed meal poured over it. The hay and stover were fed after the grain, the hay being fed in the after- noon, and the stover in the morning. While some of vthe stover was refused by each lot, the steers were always required to eat the grain and hay up clean. At the beginning of each period enough ear corn was weighed into bins for each lot to feed them during that period. At the end of Opsn shed in which Lot II of the shelter test was fed. the period any corn which had not been fed was reweighed and the amount deducted from the original weight. The cottonseed meal was weighed daily as fed. The hay and stover were weighed in bags for each lot one week in advance. Samples of hay and stover were taken at each weighing and sent to the chemical laboratory for determina- tion of loss on air drying. At the close of each period the refused tover was weighed and .samples taken for the same purpose. A corn- site sample of the cottonseed meal was taken for each period by taking a small quantity from each bag as opened. At the time of weighing the corn for each period, ten representative ears were chosen for determination of per cent, of gain and loss on air drying of both grain and cob. At the beginning of the experiment and at the end of each two weeks thereafter the steers were weighed on three successive morn- ings after being off water for about sixteen hours. The average of these three weighings is taken as the correct weight at the beginning or close of any period. Table I gives the weight of the individual steers together with to- tal weight of each lot at the beginning and the close of the experi- ment. It also gives the total gain for the entire time 7 able I Weight of Individual Steers, I«ot Number of Steers Weight Dec. 18, 1906 Weigh. Feb. 26, 190? Gain in 70 days 1 1151 134-1 19T 16 1216 13 '5 129 4 1168 1297 5 1119 12HO i *u I,ot I 6 1037 1134 7 1141 1313 172 Barn 8 1112 1271 159 f 19 1080 1238 1.58 11 nfi 1 3 M! f3T> 12 1106 12S2 nfi 39 1044 1179 135 42 1036 .1.182 147 Total 1 13383 15105 1722 Gain in 70 days I«ot Number of Weight Weight Steers Dec. 18, 190(i Feb. 26. 1907 14 1100 1230 IHO 15 1194 1337 145 2 1132 1312 180 17 1177 -1361 184 Iyot II 18 1222 1422 200 19 1120 128(> 1 0(5 21 1118 1*75 160 Shed 23 1171 1301 130 24 1103 1278 17.". 25 1087 1183 !)'! 44 993 1180 1S7 49 1073 1232 15-J Total 13486 15397 lltOll From this it will be seen that at the beginning of the experiment Lot II weighed 103 pounds more than Lot I. At the close of the ex- periment Lot II weighed 292 pounds more than Lot I, having gained 189 pounds more. 10 Table Gains of Individual Steers by Periods. Number of Gains by periods Steers TYot Dec. 18 to Jan. 1 Jan. 1 to Jan. 15 Jan. 15 Jan. 29 to to Jan. 29 Feb. 12 Feb. 12 to Feb. 26 Total Gain 1 42 51 27 55 18 103 I 16 9 38 37 20 25 129 4 38 25 31 32 8 129 5 47 16 20 36 22 141 « 23 11 21 30 12 07 Barn 7 46 27 36 28 35 172 s 41 31 38 30 10 150 10 63 35 17 43 (i 158 IT 33 22 38 18 25 136 12 39 17 28 51 -0 126 39 i 44 32 24 13 22 135 42 28 39 23 32 25 147 Total 448 34 1 340 388 202 1722 14 19 17 41 15 38 130 ir> 51 •I 58 1 26 145 It II Shed Com eaten ' 16240 17578 Cottonseed meal eaten 1008 1008 Hay eaten _ _ 3932 3852 ' Stover offered 4193 4162 Stover refused.. 1433 993 Stover eaten _ 2760 3169 Table IV shows the amount of feed eaten by the two lots during the entire seventy days of the experiment. From this table it will be seen that the lot in the shed ate more corn and stover than those in the barn. The amount of cottonseed meal eaten by the two lots was the same and the amount of hay almost the same, although slightly more was eaten by the steers in the barn. Table V. Cost of Feed. lyOt I 1 Barn [ Jyot II »Shed Cost of corn @ 45C per bushel 1104.40 1 $113.00 Cost of cottonseed meal @ $30 00 per ton 15.12 15.12 Cost of hay @ 810 00 per ton - 19.66 19.26 Cost ot stover ($ $4.00 per ton - 8.39 1 8.32 .-.i "'Total cost "of feed for 70^da*s' •_ _ 147.57 156.70 Cost of feed per 100 Ibs gain 8.57 8. IS Difference in favor of shed 1 .42 12 Table V shows the cost of the feed eaten by the two lots. From this it is seen that the total cost of feed for Lot I, in the barn, was $147.57, while the cost of that eaten by Lot II, in the shed, was $155.- 70. The figures for the cottonseed meal and corn represent the actual cost of these feeds. The prices of hay and stover are estimated and represent approximately what these products would have brought. The cost of 100 pounds of gain on Lot I $8.57, while on Lot II it was $8.15, showing greater economy in the outside lot. Table VI. General Summary of Five Years. Shed Barn 2 96 3 04 Stover fed. per pound of gain 3 08 3 12 Grain fed per pound of gain _ _ 9.51 0 49 Daily gain per steer _ _ _ _ 1.95 1.93 10.51 10.71 Table VI gives a general summary of five years' work along this line. From this table it will be seen that the daily gain per steer and the estimated cost of a pound of gain are practically the same for the two lots. During the last two years the showing has been more in fa- vor of the shed on account of the yard being in better condition. COTTONSEED MEAL VS. AJ4X FLAKES FOR FATTENING STEERS. The object of this experiment was to compare the relative merits of cottonseed meal and Ajax flakes as a source of protein for fattening steers, as indicated by gain in live weight, cost of feed consumed, cost of feed per pound of gain, and health and appetite of the animal. PLAN OF EXPERIMENT. December 18, 1906, two lots of twelve steers each as nearly equal as possible were selected from two carloads bought in Pittsburg for fattening at the College barn. The experiment began January i5th, 1907, and extended to March 26th, a total period of seventy days. The lot known as Lot I in this article is the same as Lot I in the shelter experiment described elsewhere in this bulletin. The steers were fed grain in equal portions twice daily. The amount of grain fed being dependent upon the appe- tite of the animal. For roughage they were fed mixed hay in the evening and shredded corn stover in the morning immediately after they had eaten the grain. The grain fed consisted of broken ear corn and cottonseed meal for Lot I and broken ear corn and Ajax flakes for Lot III. The object was to feed approximately equal quantities of protein. The corn was placed in the manger first and the Ajax flakes and cottonseed meal poured over it. From December i8th to January 1 5th the two lots were fed exactly alike. The feed consist- ing of broken ear corn, shredded corn stover and mixed hay to De- cember 3ist and broken ear corn, cottonseed meal, mixed hay and corn stover from December 31 st to January I5th. The steers of each lot during this time received one pound of cottonseed meal each per day. At the beginning of the experiment and at the close of each two weeks thereafter the steers were weighed individually on three con- secutive days and the average of these three weighings assumed to be the correct weight. Table I. Weight of Steers. Number ol ] Weight March 2C. 1 1244 1409 1C. 12 >',', 4 I22f. 135H ]_ot 1 1182 1303 i; u 71 1172 Cottonseed 7 12 11 1350 4x 11 si ItilS meal 10 117s 127!i 11 1229 134'.i 12 11 \-2 1257 3!i 1 12(i 1208 42 1102 1212 Total 141 --, ir>5!i4 Average 1 1 > I3,r.x in 11 14 12(>.''. r> 10 S2 12")0 I,0t III -4C, 1 1 131 (i Is 12 12 \'.\ II Ajax ;"><) 1 2 is tods fil 11 )S 1302 flakes i:; 12 s,s • I3'.i."> •+(\ i 1 i7 !21s 22 '? In 137! . 20 36 22 31 12 121 i; 21 :io 12 32 66 101 Cottonseed 7 36 28 35 42 -5 130 8 38 30 19 42 5 134 meal 10 17 43 0 49 -8 101 11 38 18 25 38 ! 1 120 12 28 51 -9 26 _]_ 95 39 24 13 •22 21 8 88 ; 4'2 23 32 25 31 -1 no Tdtal 340 c88 202 423 66 1419 Average 28 32 i 17 35 6 118 38 37 i3 46 13 -6 103 40 37 27 45 19 21 149 45 56 29 43 19 21 168 III 46 89 IS 44 31 7 139 48 20 20 49 20 2:3 132 Ajax 50 43 20 55 4 28 150 51 19 1 43 39 2 104 Flakes 13 40 24 -19 28 34 107 20 16 14 19 1 1 51 22 48 10 53 21 -2 130 3 41 27 46 20 12 146 9 ,;9 8 44 10 17 138 Total 455 211 468 22.^ 158 i5i7 Average 38 i 1(5 39 19 13 126 Table II shows the gains of the individual steers by two weeks periods as well as the total gain for the entire experiment. From this table it will be seen that the gains made by Lot I, on cottonseed meal, were in general more regular though on the average less than those made by Lot III, on Ajax flakes. Except during the last period from March i2th to March 26th rthe gains made by Lot I were fairly regu- lar. As there was not much difference in the uniformity of the in- dividual steers of the two lots it would indicate that the irregular gains made by Lot III, on Ajax flakes, might be attributed to the feed. Both the heaviest and the lightest gains were made by steers in Lot III. The gain of 51 pounds made by steer No. 20 in this lot would indicate that there was something wrong with this animal, al- though nothing was discernible. During 'three of the periods Lot III 15 made greater gains than Lot I. Lot I made the greater gain. While during the other two periods Table III. Total Peed Eaten. IX>t I I,ot III Corn eaten - 16386 1767'» Cottonseed meal eaten _ _ ._ _ ' 1512 Ajax flakes eaten 9Q04 Hay eaten __ _ .. 3693 3625 Stover fed 4088 4047 Stover refused. _____ _ _ 1589 1907 Stover eaten -- _ - - '.'499 2140 Table III shows the total feed eaten by the two lots. From this it will be seen that Lot I ate more stover than Lot III, while Lot III ate more corn in spite of the fact that they were getting the larger amount of nitrogenous concentrate. The stover fed to the two lots was practically the same, but Lot I, the steers on cottonseed meal, ate closer than Lot III, that is they did not leave so much refuse. Pos- sibly the smaller amount of stover eaten by Lot III may be accounted for by the more bulky nature of the grain. Table IV. Cost of Feed. Lot I IvOt III Cost ot corn (cb 45c per bushel $105.34 $113.65 Cost of cottonseed meal @ »30.00 per ton __ . „_ _. _ 22.68 Cost of Ajax Flakes @ §26 00 per ton 26.05 Cost of hay @ $10 00 per ton * 1^.47 18.13 Cost of stover @ $4.00 per ton 8.18 8.09 'lotul cost of feed for 70 days i 15t.67 I 165.92 Total cosl of feed per 100 Ibs. of gain I 10.00 ; 10.!)* Table IV shows cost, different feeds eaten by the two lots, the total cost for the seventy days and the cost per hundred pounds of gain. From this table will be seen that during the seventy days the cost of feed for Lot I, on cottonseed meal was $154. 67, for Lot III, on Ajax flakes, $165.92. From Tables I and II it is seen that Lot I gained 1419 pounds, while Lot II gained 1517 pounds. The greater gain made by Lot II makes the cost of feed per hundred pounds of gain approximately the same for two lots. The difference of .04 of a pound in favor of cottonseed meal is too small to warrant any marked conclusions. The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Kxperiment Station BULLETIN No. 88 HOME OF THE PENNSYLVANIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS STATE COLLEGE CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NOVEMBER, 1908 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE Advisory Committee of Board of Trustees JOHN A. WOODWARD, Chairman, Howard, Pa. H. V. WHITE Bloomsburg E. S. BAYARD Pittsburg WILLIAM F. HILL Huntingdon GABRIEL HIESTER Harrisburg Experiment Station Staff THE PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE THOMAS F. HUNT Director WILLIAM FREAR Vice-Director: Agricultural Chemistry WILLIAM A. BUCKHOUT Botany H. E. VAN NORMAN Dairy Husbandry ALVA AGEE Agricultural Extension HUGH P. BAKER Forestry CHARLES L. PENNY Agricultural Chemistry RALPH L. WATTS Horticulture FRANK D. GARDNER Agronomy THOMAS I. MAIRS Animal Husbandry JOHN P. STEWART Horticulture WILLIAM C. PATTERSON Superintendent of Farms MISS JULIA CATHARINE GRAY Librarian BAILEY E. BROWN Agronomy M. S. MCDOWELL Agricultural Chemistry H. R. FULTON . .Botany MISS ELIZABETH B. MEEK Bacteriology CHARLES F. SHAW Agronomy J. W. CLARK Poultry Husbandry C. W. LARSON Dairy Husbandry JOHN A. FERGUSON Forestry J. PLUMMER PILLSBURY Horticulture JOHN W. WHITE Agricultural Chemistry GUY C. GIVEN Agricultural Chemistry C. L. GOODLING Dairy Husbandry H. P. FISHBURN Agricultural Chemistry MISS MARGARET B. MACDONALD Agricultural Chemistry CHARLES F. NOLL Agronomy W. H. McINTIRE Agronomy C. E. MYERS Horticulture S. W. DOTY .Animal Husbandry HOWARD R. McMILLIN Agricultural Chemistry J. H. RUNK Botany H. D. EDMISTON Laboratory Assistant WILLIAM G. MURTORFF Clerk MISS GRACE M. STANYON Stenographer MISS MARY ANSART Stenographer MISS JANE B. KENYON Stenographer MISS MABEL E. RICE Stenographer MISS LYDIA M. VALLIN Stenographer F. E. WHITING Stenographer MISS CARRIE A. BOWES Stenographer On July 1st, 1907, there was established by direction of the Board of Trustees of The Pennsylvania State College a separate agency of research known as "The Institute of Animal Nutrition" with Dr. Henry Prentiss Armsby as Director. The Institute of Animal Nutrition will have charge of all work in animal nutrition and the staff formerly employed in such work has been transferred to the Institute. The Bulletins of the Station will be mailed regularly, free of charge, to residents of the State who request it. Address, DIRECTOR OF EXPERIMENT STATION, STATE COLLEGE, CENTRE COUNTY, PA. The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 88 STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 1907-08 BY T. I. MAIRS AND W. H. TOMHAVE CONCLUSIONS 1. When corn silage forms a considerable portion of the ration of fattening steers mor^e care is required in getting them on full feed than when a dry ration is fed exclusively, or silage is fed in small quantities. 2. Omitting the first two weeks, steers fed corn silage ad libi- tum once a day and a limited grain ration made better gains during the first half of a fourteen weeks fattening period than did steers on a full grain ration with about half a silage ration, while during the last half of the fattening period the results were reversed, therefore. 3. During the early part a fourteen weeks fattening period the. steers getting the larger quantity of dry matter in their feed made slightly better gains than those getting the smaller quantity of dry matter in connection with an equivalent amount of nutrients, and during the latter part of the period, the steers getting these nutrients in connection with the smaller amount of dry matter made the better gains. 4. Slaughter tests failed to show any difference in the car- casses of the two lots that might be attributed to the difference in the feed. 5. At the prices for feed named in this article the steers re- ceiving the smaller amount of dry matter made the more economical gains. 6. Steers in an open shed ate slightly more roughage than those in a well ventilated barn when getting an equal amount of grain. 7. Steers in an open shed made practically the same gains as those in a well ventilated barn on the same grain ration. Different Quantities of Dry Matter As is well known our concentrated feeding stuffs are nearly always much more expensive than the roughage. Thas is, the same amount of digestible matter can usually be had more cheaply in connection with a large quantity of dry matter than in the more concentrated form. The digestible matter in grains and seeds costs more per pound than in the stems and branches of our farm crops. Some of our farm animals are undoubtedly better prepared than others for handling the digestible matter in these coarse feeds. There is little doubt but it is possible to feed a ration which is too concentrated for best results, and it is also possible to feed one which is too bulky. Just what the ratio of total dry matter should be to digestible matter is not definitely known. In order to secure some evidence along this line and to determine to what extent corn silage may be profitably fed to fattening steers the experiment de- scribed in this article was planned. The test was designed to com- pare a limited grain ration with a full grain ration for fattening steers when fed in connection with corn silage and mixed hay and corn stover for roughage, the amount of digestible matter to be the same. Two lots of twelve steers each were selected for this experi- ment. These two lots were made as nearly equal as was thought possible as regards size, breeding and general adaptability for fat- ' tening. Both lots were placed in pens in the basement of the Col- lege barn and were fed from October 3Oth to February 6th on the experiment. Previous to this time they had all been fed together. A supply of drinking water was constantly before them. They were weighed on three consecutive days at the beginning and at the close of the experiment and on two consecutive days at two weeks' intervals throughout the test. The water was shut off at 5 o'clock on the day preceding the weighing in each case. The weighing began at 9 A. M. and proceeded as rapidly as possible, Lot I being weighed first in each instance. 4 Both lots received the same kind of feed, consisting of broken ear corn and cottonseed meal as concentrates, corn silage in the morning, and in the evening mixed hay to December 12, and corn stover from that time to the close of the experiment. Lot I re- ceived all the ear corn they would eat, while Lot II received about FIGURE 1 Lot I October 19, 1907 two-thirds as much as Lot I. Lot I received two pounds of cotton- seed meal per steer per day and Lot II two and one-quarter pounds. It was the intention to feed Lot II twice as much corn silage as was fed to Lot I when on full feed. Lot II was given all the corn silage they would eat with a limited grain ration. Lot I was given all the corn they would eat with a limited silage ration. The intention was to so apportion the feed that the two lots would get the same amount of digestible matter, but Lot I should receive the more concen- trated ration, that is Lot II should receive the greater amount of dry matter. The corn fed was of a very poor quality , as was prac- tically all the corn in Pennsylvania in 1907, but the other feeds were probably up to the average. The feed was weighed and determined for each two weeks coinciding with the weighing periods of the steers. FIGURE 2 Lot II October 19, 1907 Table I gives the weight of the individual steers at the begin- ning and the end of the experiment at two weeks' intervals. Table I. Weight of steers at beginning and end of feeding period 1907- 1908. Steer No. Oct. 30 Feb. 6 Total Gain Daily Gain r i 1053. 1313 260 2.65 3 1210 1515 305 3.11 5 1150 1328 178 1.82 7 1027 1190 163 1.66 (_H 9 1032 1267 235 2.40 H 11 933 1137 204 2.08 s 13 1183 1330 147 1.50 15 932 1092 160 1.61 17 1113 1317 204 2.08 19 1135 1323 188 1.92 21 1005 1233 228 2.33 I 23 1005 1153 148 1.51 Total 12778 15198 •24'2() 24.67 Average . . 1065 1266 201.66 2.06 2 1050 1298 248 2.50 4 1137 1327 190 1.94 6 1137 1357 220 2.25 8 897 1097 200 2.04 ^ 10 962 1160 198 2.02 HH J 12 1080 1235 155 1.57 g 14 1112 1315 203 2.07 •—I 16 1185 1358 173 1.77 '18 1098 1275 177 1.81 20 1008 1190 182 1.86 22 1037 1180 143 1.48 24 1047 1157 110 1.12 Total 12750 14949 2199 22 41 Average . . 1063 1246 183.25 1.87 It is seen from this table that the average of the two lots at the beginning of the experiment was practically the same, being 1065 and 1063 pounds respectively. At the close of the experiment there was also but little difference. Lot I, however, was 20 pounds heavier than Lot II, the average of Lot I being 1266 pounds, while Lot II averaged 1246 pounds. This table also shows the total gain of the individual steers for the period and the average daily gains during the experiment. Table II shows the individual gains by periods. From this table it will be seen that the gains by Lot I were more uniform throughout the test than those made by Lot II. During the first Table II. ndividual gain for each period. Steer Oct. :in Nov. 13 No\ • '27 Dee. 11 Dec. -2\ Jan. ,* Jan. ;2-> Total Averayv Xo to to to to to to to Daily Nov. i;\ Nov. •_>: Dec. 11 Dec. ->\ Jan. 8 Jan. •>•> Feb. 0 (Jain 1 19 61 5 53 38 32 53 2b() 2.65 ;; 10 62 48 85 25 33 47 305 3.11 5 15 °7 43 30 25 -5 43 178 1.82 - 10 13 30 30 60 -30 50 163 1.66 9 20 48 10 60 35 17 45 235 2.40 11 17 27 23 52 18 15 52 204 2.08 V lo 17 35 2 11 34 21 27 147 1.50 1 5 •> 30 30 35 20 5 42 160 1.61 17 25 30 8 40 48 40 14 204 2.08 19 20 20 32 10 38 35 33 188 1.92 21 30 40 20 20 50 17 51 228 2.33 .23 1 i 55 30 -7 27 18 18 148 1.51 Total . . 188 438 281 41'.) 418 198 475 2420 24.67 Average 15.66 36.5 23.4 34.9 .",4.83 16.5 39.58 201 (16 2.06 2 — / 48 25 52 46 47 23 248 2.50 4 - 43 0 58 42 48 5 190 1.94 H -1 55 15 55 32 40 35 225 2.25 8 -1 62 y GO 23 29 35 200 2.04 _ 10 - 43 20 32 48 35 25 198 2.02 ~" 12 _2 67 U 50 40 0 20 155 1.57 J 14 43 37 61 9 • 38 10 203 2.07 -3 16 2:> 2S 50 25 8 30 173 1.77 18 -1 55 3d 27 48 -8 38 177 1.81 20 _ 55 10 38 40 2 45 182 1.86 2° 1 32 __ r,t Weight ing Per Ct. i I' r i 3 5 7 9 11 13 17 19 I 21 1287 1485 1302 1166 1244 1114 1301 1291 1297 1208 59.05 58.05 57.60 59.61 59.64 58.53 60.20 60.42 59.75 57.28 737 839 733 676 726 636 764 755 750 677 1.78 1.55 1.31 1.63 1.28 1.31 1.61 1.94 1.92 1.24 57.27 56.50 56.29 57.98 58.36 57.18 58.59 58.48 57.83 56.04 Total....! 12698 7493 7293 | Average . | 1270 749 59.01 729 ! 1.56 57.45 a !1 f I I 10 14 16 18 20 L 22 1264 1300 1330 1075 1137 1289 1331 1250 1166 1157 730 787 785 645 670 7tfO 805 713 673 697 57.75 60.54 59.00 60.00 38.93 58.96 60.48 57.00 57.72 57.28 711 766 763 * '651 744 785 692 652 676 1.50 1.62 1.63 56.25 58.92 57.37 ' 57'. 25 58.72 58.98 55.36 55.93 55.47 1.6S 1.24 1.50 1.64 1.79 1.81 Total 12298 7265 i 6440 Average . 1230 727 58.77 716 1.60 57.14 * Figures lost. From this table it is seen that there was no particular difference in the lots. While there is a slight showing in favor of Lot I both in dressing and in cooling, the difference is not great enough to be of any signficance. The following comments were made upon the carcasses by Mr. Tomhave as they were slaughtered by William Zoller & Company, who handled the steers. Lot I. i. This carcass was fairly well covered, the fat being quite evenly distributed. Weak in the loin. Classed as a fair butcher's carcass. 3. Well covered and smooth. Thick through the loin and well filled in the hind quarters. Classed as an a No. i carcass. 12 5- The covering on this carcass was only fair. The carcass was long and thin, weak in the loin. 7. This carcass was well covered with fat evenly distributed. Classed as very good top notch carcass. 9. Fairly well covered and classed only fair. ii. This carcass was thin and weak in the loin, not very well covered. Classed as fair. FIGURE 5 Lot II February 13, 1908 13. This carcass was quite coarse, with rolls over the ribs, and patches in other places. Bare over the loin and round. 17. This carcass was bare and not well covered. Classed as a poor carcass of the lot. 19. This was the fattest bullock, smooth and well covered all over the body. Classed as a very good carcass. 21. Covering fair, weak in the loin, thin, not very heavily fleshed. Lot II. 2. This carcass was well covered and smooth, classed as a good butcher's carcass. .. . 4. Not well covered and very uneven. The fat on the outside found in patches, an undesirable carcass. 6. A good carcass, well covered and smooth. 8. This carcass was well covered and classed as a good carcass. 10. This was a very smooth, thick and well covered carcass. Classed as a No. I carcass. 14. This carcass was smooth and well covered but weak in the loin, poorly fleshed and thin. Classed as a fair carcass. 16. This carcass was fairly well covered, with a good round, weak in the loin, and heavy front quarter. 18. Bare over the hind quarters, high hook joints and thin and weak in the loin. ' 20. This carcass fairly smooth and very well covered. Classed as a fair carcass. 22. Good carcass, smooth and well covered. • The following is the comment that was made by the man in charge of the killing room and Mr. Wettock, general manager of the William Zoller Packing Company, after cutting the carcass. "From outward appearance these carcasses appeared as being in good first class condition, well covered on the outside and plenty of fat on the inside. They did not break out near as well as was expected. The color of the meat was dark and the fat and lean were not well mixed, there being only a small amount of fat in the inside. These cattle were what would commonly be termed short fed or warmed up cattle, due to the short time the cattle were on feed and to the breed." The experts in the packing house were apparently able to make no distinction between the two lots, and it would appear from this test that a wider difference in rations will be necessary if any variations in car- cass are to be made. Effect of Shelter Experiments made at this Station during the last six years, at the Missouri Experiment Station and elsewhere, have indicated that steers can be fattened more economically during cold weather in an 14 open shed than in a closed stable. In all these experiments there are two main factors making up the difference in the environment. The open shed is always at a lower temperature than the closed stable and has perfect ventilation. In most cases there are more than two factors. In many cases the steers in the open shed re- LOT rr. SO/TXff&T" rnn LO LOT m. 1 TTT v IT 1 1 i izri" ii II ti m FIGURE 6 ceived a larger ration than those in the stable, but had a less com- fortable place to lie. The object of this test was to eliminate as far as possible all differences except of temperature. 15 Two lots of steers of twelve each as nearly uniform as possible as regards age, size, breeding, flesh and quality were selected for this test. The steers known as Lot III were placed in a pen or box stall in the basement of the College barn. This basement is 90 feet by 60 BARM FIGURE 7 feet, with a ceiling 10^ feet high. In each end there are eight win- dows about 2*/2 feet by 4 feet. In the north side there are 10 win- dows about 2^ feet square. On the south side there are eight Dutch doors. The sash was removed from half the windows and the opening covered with common muslin. There are ten ventilat- 16 ing shafts each 6 inches by 12 inches extending from the ceiling to the roof. The Dutch doors open under an overshoot and the top half was kept open except at night and during stormy weather. In addition to the twelve steers in this test there were in this basement twenty-four other fattening steers and about twelve horses. The steers known as Lot IV were kept in a yard about 50 feet by 70 feet adjoining the barn on the south side. For shelter they had a shed 12 feet by 30 feet open at the southeast side and closed at both ends and at the opposite side. Both lots had drinking water constantly before them, except that it was turned off at 5 o'clock each day preceding the date on which the steers were to be weighed. The two lots received exactly the same kind of feed in equal quantities. An effort was made to keep both lots well bedded so that neither would find any discom- fort in lying down, if they cared to do so. The grain ration con- sisted of broken ear corn to February 2ist and shelled corn from that date to the close of the experiment. In addition to the corn each lot received one pound per steer of cotton-seed meal daily. The roughage consisted of corn stover in the morning and mixed hay in the afternoon, both being fed after the grain. The steers were weighed at two weeks' intervals during the experiment, and the feed was determined for the periods coinciding with the weighing of the steers. Table V. Feed consumed by Lot III and Lot IV. FEED L,OT III LOT IV Hay Fed 3293 3316 Hay Refused 6 Hay Consumed 3287 3316 Corn Stover Fed 9479 9390 Corn Stover Refused 5080 3567 Corn Stover Consumed 4399 5823 Corn and Cob Fed 27240 27240 Shelled Corn Fed 5148 5148 Cottonseed Meal 2760 2760 This table gives the amount of feed offered to, refused and con- sumed by the two lots. The only difference is in the amount of corn stover refused by the two lots! Lot IV eating its corn stover much cleaner than Lot III indicates that the steers of the outside lot had keener appetites. Table VI. Table VI shows the weight of the steers at the beginning and at the close of the experiment, with total gain and .average daily gain for each steer. Weight of steers during feeding period 1907-1908. Steer No November 13 March 19 Total Gain Daily Gain f 25 878 1150 272 2.18 27 947 1242 295 2.34 29 827 1073 246 1.95 31 820 995 175 1.39 —• 33 913 1208 295 2.34 — 1 35 940 1150 210 1.66 H' 37 997 1310 303 2.40 O , 7 39 773 953 180 1.43 41 967 1237 270 2.14 43 888 1158 270 2.14 45 852 1145 293 2.32 I 47 840 1155 315 2.50 Total 10642 13776 3124 24.79 Average . . . 886.68 1148 260.33 2.066 26 993 1337 344 2.73 28 823 1143 320 2.54 30 783 972 189 1.50 32 895 1228 333 2.64 > 34 1175 1433 258 2.05 L j 36 972 1192 220 1.75 SI 38 740 858 118 .94 3 40 835 1087 252 2.00 42 895 1188 293 2.32 44 997 1225 228 1.81 46 705 913 208 1.65 48 830 1173 313 2.48 Total 10673 13749 3076 24.41 Average . . . 889.4 1H5.75 256.33 2.034 From this table it is seen that the two lots weighed almost ex- actly the same at the beginning of the experiment, and the steers in the barn. Lot III gained a total of forty-eight pounds more than those outside. This difference is too small to warrant its being attributed to more congenial surroundings. Table VII gives more in detail the gains made by the individual steers during the" experiment. Table VII. Individual gain for each period. Steer NovtQ13 Mn ' "* Nov. 27 Nov. 27 to Dec. 11 Dec. 11 to Dec. 24 Dec. 25 to Jan. 8 Jan. 8 to Jan. 22 Jan. 22 to Feb. 5 Feb. 5 to Feb. 19 Feb. 19 to Mar. 4 Mar. 4 to Mar. 19 Total Gain Daily Gain r 25 34 63 55 10 20 23 30 -3 50 272 2.18 27 28 55 45 35 10 57 13 -o 57 295 234 1 29 30 63 30 13 5 37 50 -12 30 246 1.95 31 -25 30 42 25 10 48 -13 38 20 175 1.39 (— i 33 17 I 65 63 12 -5 35 55 10 43 295 2.34 M 35 7 ; 13 45 20 35 45 -12 -13 70 210 1.66 § 37 63 75 60 22 -4 27 32 -27 | 65 303 2.40 J 39 22 32 21 25 19 ; 38 18 7 -2 180 1.43 41 -7 65 35 40 -20 80 8 -3 72 • 270 2.14 43 27 30 BO 30 -5 65 42 -2 23 270 2 14 45 38 75 32 12 28 1 25 35 -20 55 293 232 47 30 47 53 35 30 55 33 -23 55 315 2.50 Totnl . . 264 613 |54l 279 123 535 . 291 -53 5*3 3124 24.79 Average 22 51.1 45.08 2325 10.25 44.58 24.25 -4.43 44.42 260.33 2.066 f 26 52 72 50 30 -22 85 10 0 <>7 344 2.73 28 52 37 30 28 50 25 38 -3 63 320 2.54 30 7 55 38 _^ 36 -1 20 -27 62 1S9 1.50 32 45 78 31 18 5 83 -8 10 68 333 2.64 > 34 37 26 37 45 -5 60 10 10 38 2o8 2.05 M 36 33 33 50 -12 5 50 15 -25 72 220 1.75 gl38 30 45 -13 23 -27 0 8 10 43 118 .94 j 40 17 80 18 33 37 15 13 -3 42 252 2.00 42 40 47 68 17 8 48 4 23 38 293 2.32 44 23 80 -10 50 2 30 21 -23 55 228 1.81 46 35 55 20 30 _2 -8 27 13 38 208 1 65 4S 35 (50 35 33 10 50 25 10 58 313 2.48 Total . . 406 669 347 3D7 97 438 112 5 644 3076 24.41 Average 33.83 55.75 2891 25.28 8.08 37.50 15.17 0.41 1 53.66 256.33 2.034 From this table it appears that during the periods when one lot made a good gain the other made a good gain also, and that what- ever effect weather conditions may have had it was very similar for the two lots. Note particularly the good gains made by both lots during the second, sixth and ninth, and the poor gains made during the fifth and eighth periods. The poor gains during the eighth period may in part be attributed to the change from ear corn to shelled corn February 2ist. The accompanying chart illustrates graphically the increase in live weight and shows how closely the two lots ran along together. N> ^F^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ § i° FIGURE 8 20 The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 102 METHODS OF FATTENING STEERS Concentrated and Bulky Rations Compared Heavy and Light Rations of Corn Silage Compared The Value of Shelter for Silage-Fed Cattle STATE COLLEGE CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SEPTEMBER, 1910 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE Advisory Committee of the Board of Trustees. JOHN A. WOODWARD, Chairman, Howard, Penna. H. V. WHITE Bloomsburg. E. S. BAYARD Pittsburg. VANCE C. McCoRMiCK Harrisburg. GABRIEL HIESTER Harrisburg Experiment Station Staff. THE PRESIDENT OP THE COLLEGE. *THOMAS F. HUNT Director ALVA AGEE Acting Director: Agricultural Extension WILLIAM A. BUCKHOUT Botany WILLIAM FREAR Vice Director: Agricultural Chemistry H. E. VAN NORMAN Dairy Husbandry *H. P. BAKER Forestry R. L. WATTS Horticulture F. D. GARDNER Agronomy THOMAS I. MAIRS Agricultural Education W. A. COCHEL Animal Husbandry CHARLES W. STODDART Agricultural Chemistry H. R. FULTON Botany * J. P. STEWART Experimental Horticulture MISS JULIA CATHARINE GRAY Librarian C. L. GOODLING Superintendent of Farms fBAILE Y E. BROWN Agronomy M. S. McDOWELL Agricultural Extension *MISS ELIZABETH B. MEEK Bacteriology C. F. SHAW Agronomy C. W. LARSON Dairy Husbandry JOHN A. FERGUSON Forestry MISS MARGARET B. MacDONALD Agricultural Chemistry J. BEN HILL Botany W. D. CLARK Forestry HOMER W. JACKSON Poultry Husbandry W. J. WRIGHT Horticulture J. PLUMMER PILLSBURY Horticulture J. W. WHITE Agricultural Chemistry G. C. GIVEN Agricultural Chemistry *C. F. NOLL Agronomy W. H. MacINTIRE Agronomy *C. E. MYERS Horticulture EDWARD S. ERB Agricultural Chemistry W. G. ROSS Agronomy EDWARD HIBSHMAN Agricultural Chemistry W. E. TRIPP Bacteriology J. W. GREGG... F. P. WEAVER A. A. BORLAND R. H. BELL F. S. BUCHER Horticulture Agricultural Chemistry .... Dairy Husbandry Horticulture Agronomy H F. HERSHEY Experimental Horticulture CLIFTON D. LOWE Animal Husbandry K. B. LOHMANN Horticulture J. A. RUNK Agronomy WALTER THOMAS Agricultural Chemistry LUTHER G. WILLIS Agricultural Chemistry R. S. MACKINTOSH Horticulture B. O. SEVERSON Animal Husbandry RALPH A. WALDRON Botany W. A. COOK Dairy Husbandry HARRY D. EDMISTON Laboratory Assistant WILLIAM G. MURTORFF Clerk MISS MARY ANSART Stenographer MISS JANE B. KENYON Stenographer MISS CARRIE A. BOWES Stenographer MISS H. MARILLA WILLIAMS Stenographer MISS ELLEN F. BACHMAN Stenographer MISS BETTY HEINLE Stenographer The Bulletins of the Station will be mailed regularly, free of charge, to residents of the State who request it. Address Director of Experiment Sta- tion, State College, Center Co., Pa. * Absent on Leave. t Assigned by the Bureau of Soils.U. S. Dept. of Agr. The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 102 METHODS OF FATTENING STEERS Concentrated and Bulky Rations Compared Heavy and Light Rations of Corn Silage Compared The Value of Shelter for Silage-Fed Cattle By W. A. COCHEL and S. W. DOTY Profitable feeding of beef cattle is possible only in sections where there is a large production of crops in proportion to the labor employed. Under average conditions it requires no more labor to feed the crops grown on the farm to beef cattle than to deliver them to the market. The same help, utilized in growing the crops in the summer, can feed them to the cattle in the winter, thus giving continuous employment throughout the year. The character of the crops produced should determine the method of feeding in order that there may be as little cash outlay as possible in finishing cattle. Supplemental feeds should be purchased that will correct the deficiencies of home-grown feeds, increase their palatability and insure cheaper and more rapid gains as well as high finish on the cat- tle. In other words, beef cattle should be considered as machines for utilizing large amounts of roughage, such as stover, straw and dam- aged hay which would otherwise have little market value. These should be supplemented with concentrated and marketable feeds in such (3) quantities as to make the cattle attractive to buyers. If the cattle under these conditions sell for a sufficient price to pay for themselves and market prices of feeds consumed, the feeder has, in addition to the profit from growing crops, a large amount of manure with which to maintain the fertility of the soil and increase the yield of crops. During the winter of 1909-10 the Pennsylvania State College and Experiment Station has followed its usual practice of feeding a suffi- cient number of cattle to consume the stover, corn silage and hay and utilize the straw produced on the College Farm in the customary four course rotation. A limited amount of cottonseed meal was purchased in order to improve the farm-grown feeds. In addition to the cattle kept for instructional work, forty-eight head of steers were purchased upon the open market at the Union Stock Yards, Chicago, Illinois, December i, 1909, to be used for experimental purposes. Description of Cattle. These steers were two-year-old grade Herefords and Shorthorns, averaging approximately 825 pounds per head, costing $4.65 per cwt. They were blocky, deep-bodied cattle of good quality, but lacking the weight, flesh, and breeding necessary to bring the best price as "feed- ers." They were shipped to State College immediately after purchase where they were fed shredded stover, mixed hay and corn silage until they had recovered from shipment. Method of Experimentation. For experimental purposes they were divided into four lots as nearly equal as possible in age, type, breeding, quality, condition and weight and fed as follows : Lot I. Full feed grain, one-half feed corn silage and rough- age according to appetite. (Fed in barn). Lot II. Two-thirds feed grain, full feed of corn silage and roughage according to appetite. (Fed in barn). Lot III. Full feed of grain, full feed of corn silage and roughage according to appetite. (Fed in barn). Lot IV. Full feed of grain, full feed of corn silage and rough- age according to appetite. (Fed in open shed). These methods of feeding permit of comparisons between Lot I, fed a concentrated ration, and Lot II, fed a much more bulky ration, in which the proportion of digestible nutriments to dry matter is much larger ; between Lot I, fed a concentrated ration with a limited amount (4) of corn silage, and Lot IIL fed a concentrated ration with a large amount of corn silage; and between Lots III and IV, both given the same ration, Lot III being fed in barn, and Lot IV, in an open shed. Weighing, Bedding and Feeding. Each steer was weighed individually for three consecutive days at the beginning of the test and again at the close. Water was shut off at five o'clock in the evening before the weights were taken at nine o'clock the following morning. The average of the first three weights was considered the initial, — of the last three, the final weights for the experiment. They were weighed individually under the same conditions at the end of each twenty-eight day period and collectively at the end of each fourteen day period' in order to secure evidence upon their behavior throughout the test. All lots were bedded at irregular intervals as the condition of the enclosures in which they were kept demanded. It was the intention that they should have a dry bed at all times. Water from the College supply was kept before them in abundance, except the nights before the weight was to be made. Coarse barrel salt was supplied in unlimited quantities at all times. Grain was fed at six o'clock in the morning, followed by silage as soon as the grain was cleaned up and again in the afternoon at four o'clock, followed by shredded stover or mixed hay. Broken-ear corn was fed during the first two months when the steers began to shell off the corn, leaving a few cobs in the troughs. At this time a change was gradually made to shelled corn which was used until the close of the test. After the corn was fed, cottonseed meal was poured over it in order that each steer should get a propor- tional amount. Lots I, II and III were allowed to run loose in large box stalls in the basement of the College barn ; Lot IV, in an open shed 12x30 feet, with access to a lot 30x70 feet. None of the steers were tied and every precaution was used to give them freedom. Feeds Used. The ear corn used was purchased locally. It contained a very high percentage of moisture and was at times slightly frozen. The shelled corn was shipped from Indiana and also contained a high per- centage of moisture. It was comparatively free from rotten grains and dirt and, with the exception of one week, free from mould. The cottonseed meal was of excellent quality. The shredded stover was very poor, a large part of it having been struck by hailstorm late in (5) the season and all of it damaged very materially by being stored in the barn in bad condition. The corn silage was of fair quality, showing some mouldy spots which could not be separated from that which was sound without excessive waste. It carried a relatively high percentage of moisture. The mixed hay was approximately one-half clover and one-half timothy with a slight sprinkling of other grasses. It was well cured and free from dust, mould and weeds. Table I. SHOWING AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF AIR-DRY MATTER IN FEEDS FED AND REFUSED. Moisture Air-Dry Matter Kar Corn (20% cob) 22.Q% 77 1% Shelled Corn • • 1660 Cottonseed Meal • • 61 A. o? »6 Shredded Stover (Fed) 2O 2^ 7O 77 Shredded Stover (Refused) Lot I • • 24.87 /y'// Shredded Stover (Refused) Lot II 60. 55 Shredded Stover (Refused) Lot III 25 72 7428 Shredded Stover (Refused) Lot IV 76.5O Corn Silage 71 17 288^ Mixed Hay / *••*•/ 13 6"^ 86.^7 A sample of each feed, except silage, was carefully taken when weighed and held in closely covered lard cans until the end of each two weeks' period, when it was taken to the laboratory for analysis. The silage sample was secured at the end of each period and taken directly to the laboratory. Table I gives the average amount of moisture and air-dry matter determined for all samples. It shows that the corn and silage are higher while the stover and cottonseed meal are lower in moisture than is usually found. Table II shows the average amount of feed consumed per head daily in each of the four lots. It may be noted that the average amount of dry matter consumed each month increases gradually from the be- ginning to the end of the feeding period. During the first month the grain was increased from six pounds per head daily at the beginning to fifteen pounds at the close : afterwards the rate of increase was much less rapid until the end of the third month when all lots were consuming the maximum amount of grain allowed them. They were fed at all times so that they would consume their grain ration in one-half hour and their (6) Table II. SHOWING AVERAGE AMOUNT OF FEED CONSUMED DAILY PER HEAD BY MONTHS. 1st Month Lot I. Lot II. Lot III. Lot IV. Ear Corn 8.84 Ibs. 6.766 Ibs. 9.018 Ibs. 9.018 Ibs. Cottonseed Meal 1.476 " 1.803 " 1.116 " 1.116 " Shredded Stover 5.39 " 3.689 " 4.372 " 3.973 " Corn Silage 6.964 " 13.107 " 13.178 " 13.178 " Mixed Hay 2.446 " 2.392 " 2.434 " 2.452 " Air-dry matter per head daily 16.66 " 15.59 " 17.508 " 17.151 " 2nd Month Ear Corn 14.732 Ibs. 9.821 Ibs. 14.732 Ibs. 14.732 Ibs. Cottonseed Meal 1.964 " 2.222 " 1.964 " 1.964 " Shredded Stover 7.232 " 4.053 " 2.94 " 2.762 " Corn Silage 10.00 " 20.00 " 20.00 " 20.00 " Air-dry matter per head daily 21.94 " 18.85 " 21.45 " 21.25 " 3rd Month Ear Corn 1.666 Ibs. .595 Ibs. 1.666 Ibs. 1.666 Ibs. Shelled Corn 12.467 " 8.833 " 12.467 " 12.467 " Cottonseed Meal 2.00 " 2.25 " 2.00 " 2.00 " Shredded Stover 8.446 " 5.02 " 3.473 " 3.256 " Corn Silage 9.166 " 18.333 " 18.333 " 18.333 " Air-dry matter per head daily 23.005 " 19.36 " 21.69 " 21.49 " 4th Month Shelled Corn 17.535 Ibs. 11.66 Ibs. 17.535 Ibs. 17.535 Ibs Cottonseed Meal 2.00 " 2.25 " 2.00 " 2.00 " Shredded Stover 2.776 " 2.017 " .919 " .895 " Mixed Hay 4.738 " 3.291 " 2.306 " 2.672 " Corn Silage 8.333 " 16.666 " 16.666 " 16.666 " Air-dry matter per head daily 25.22 " 21.14 " 24.05 " 24.33 " 5th Month Shelled Corn 18.00 Ibs. 12.00 Ibs. 18.00 Ibs. 18.00 Ibs. Cottonseed Meal 2.00 " 2.25 " 2.00 " 2.00 " Corn Silage 8.333 " 16.666 " 16.666 " 16.666 " Mixed Hay 7.226 " 6.589 " 3.833 " 4.262 " Air-dry matter pel head daily 25.501 " 22.62 " 24.98 " 25.36 " roughage in one hour. The maximum amount of concentrated feed used was twenty pounds per head daily, and the same of silage. As the grain rations were increased the silage and other roughage were decreased in order to reduce the paunchiness and increase the killing qualities of the cattle at the close of the experiment. (7) Table III. SHOWING AVERAGE DAILY GAIN PER HEAD BY MONTHS. Method of Feeding Lot 1—12 Steers Full feed grain, % feed silage and roughage accord- ing to appetite (in barn) Lot II— 12 Steers % feed grain, full feed silage and roughage accord- ing to appetite (in barn) Lot III— 12 Steers Full feed grain, full feed silage and roughage ac- cording to appe- tite (in barn) Lot IV— 12 Steers Full feed grain, full feed silage and roughage ac- cording to appe- tite (open shed) 1st Month 2nd " 3rd " 4th " 5th " 2.507 Ibs. 2.031 " 1.406 " 3.177 " 1.374 " 2.395 Ibs. 2.068 " 1.555 " 2.567 " 1.319 " 2.575 Ibs. 1.823 " 2.254 " 2.515 " 1.522 " 2.46 Ibs. 2.574 " 1.964 " 2.53 " 2.281 " Av'ge daily gain for 5 months.. J 2.099 Ibs. 1.98 Ibs. 2.138 Ibs. 2.362 Ibs. Table III shows the average daily gain per head in each lot dur- ing the period of five months. In comparing Lot I, fed a concentrated ration, with Lot II, fed a bulky ration, it may be seen that during the first three months of the period the steers on the bulky ration made the most rapid gains, while during the last two months those on the con- centrated ration increased more rapidly. When the total period is considered the concentrated ration proved more effective as far as the rate of gain is concerned. By referring to Table II it will be seen that the steers in Lot I on a concentrated ration consumed 16.66 pounds air-dry matter during the first month, and those in Lot II, on a bulky ration, 15.59 pounds, — a difference of 1.07 pounds. During the fifth month the amounts con- sumed were 25.50 pounds in Lot I and 22.62 pounds in Lot II, a dif- ference of 2.88 pounds which, in a large measure, accounts for the ad- ditional gains made by Lot I as the feeding period progressed. This would seem to indicate that a bulky ration with thin cattle is just as efficient as one of more concentrated form, but as cattle fatten, concentrates become necessary if the rate of gain is to be maintained. By comparing the gains made by Lot III, when silage was ex- tensively used, with Lot I, where it was limited* the difference is in favor of the heavy silage ration. The results of the previous tests at this Station have shown clearly that fattening steers will make as rapid gains when fed on dry feeds in the open lot as similar cattle fed in the barn. Previous tests, how- ever, have not included rations where the roughage consisted largely of corn silage. On account of the prevalent idea that the feeding of (8) silage necessitates warm quarters Lot IV was fed in an open shed as compared with Lot III on a similar ration in the basement of a warm barn. Table III shows that during the winter of 1909-10, which was much colder than the average of recent years, the silage-fed cattle in the open shed made much more rapid gains than those in the barn. It should be remembered in this connection that the shed gave ample protection from wind and rain and was well bedded at all times. The gains in all lots were satisfactory for light cattle fed for five months to a high marketable finish. Fig. 1. Basement of College barn where steers of Lot III were fed. A Comparison Between Bulky and Concentrated Rations. The summary shows that Lot I, fed a heavy grain ration, made more rapid gains than Lot II, fed a medium grain ration, during the entire feeding period of 140 days. In order to make the same pro- portion of digestible nutrients in the rations of each lot the amount of cottonseed meal was limited to two pounds, per head, daily, in Lot I and 2.25 pounds in Lot II. It will be noted that the total amount of air-dry matter consumed was greater in Lot I. The amount of air-dry matter required to produce one hundred pounds gain is determined by the character of the feeds used, the method of feeding and the con- dition of the cattle at the beginning and at the close of the feeding (9) period. In this test there was a difference in favor of the steers fed a bulky ration, due largely to the greater amount of corn silage used in this lot and to the fact that the steers were not fed to so high a de- gree of condition at the close of the experiment. Because of the high price of corn during the winter of 1909-10 the cost of feeding a con- centrated ration was $71.98, or $6.00 per head, greater than where a bulky ration composed largely of corn silage, shredded stover and mixed hay was used. Although the gains in Lot I were more rapid the additional cost of feed made them cost $1.49 more per hundred than in Lot II. After five months feeding on a concentrated ration Lot I had cost $6.68 per hundred pounds, and Lot II $6.23, a difference of Fig. 2 Open shed where steers of Lot IV were fed. 45 cents in favor of the bulky ration. At that time the Station secured the services of Mr. J. K. Conrad to place values on all lots of cattle in the experiment on the basis of the Pittsburg market. Without be- ing informed as to the method of feeding he valued Lot I at $7.60 and Lot II at $7.35 per hundred, a difference of 25 cents in value as compared with 45 cents in cost, showing that the demand for thicker, heavier cattle was not great enough to pay for their additional cost. The profit from feeding is based upon feeds at the following prices : corn, 67.70 per bushel ; cottonseed meal, $3*4.00 per ton ; shred- (10) ded stover, $3.50 per ton; corn silage, $3.00 per ton; mixed hay, $12.00 per ton, and upon the selling value of the cattle on the Pittsburg mar- ket. As the experimental weights were taken after the cattle had been off water from 5 p. m. until 9 a. m., the shipping weight would show a considerable gain; there is no credit given for the amount of pork Table IV. FINAL SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENT. LOT I LOT II LOT III LOT IV Method of feeding Full feed grain, % feed silage, 2-3 feed grain, full feed silage, Full feed grain, full feed silage. Full feed grain, full feed silage, roughage roughage roughage roughage (in barn) (in barn) (in barn) (open shed) Length of feeding period 140 days 140 days 140 days 140 days Initial weight, Dec. 14, 1909 9535 Ibs. 9425 Ibs. 9700 Ibs. 9703.3 Ibs. Initial cost per cwt. $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 Final weight, May 13, 1910 13061.1 Ibs. 12753.3 Ibs. 13291.6 Ibs. 13671.6 Ibs. Total gain 3526.6 " 3328.3 " 3591.6 " 3968.3 " Average daily gain per Head 2.099 " 1.98 " 2.138 " 2.362 " Total feed consumed Ear corn 8480 Ibs. 5572 Ibs. 8540 Ibs. 8540 Ibs. Shelled corn 16129 " 10918 16129 < 16123 " Cottonseed meal 3172 " 3621 3051 ' 3051 " Shredded stover 8011 " 5027 3943 ' 3658 " Mixed hay 4836 " 4130 2815 ' 3154 " Corn silage 14380 " 28484 28505 ' 28502 " Total air-dry mat- ter consumed 37745.6 Ibs. 32786.86 Ibs. 36859.05 Ibs. 36817.68 Ibs Air-dry matter per 100 Ibs. gain. 1070.29 " 985.083 " 1026.24 " 927.78 " Total cost of feed* $396.46 $324.48 $396.87 $ 398.34 Cost of feed per 100 Ibs. gain. $ 11.241 $ 9.75 $ 11.05 $ 10.03 Final cost cattle per cwt. $ 6.684 $ 6.237 $ 6.634 $ 6.462 Total cost cattle and feed $873.21 $795.73 $881.87 $ 883.49 Final value of cattle per cwt. $ 7.60 $ 7.35 $ 7.60 $ 7.75 Final value per lot $992.68 $937.37 $1010.16 $1059.54 Total profit per lot $119.47 $141.64 $ 128.29 $ 176.05 Total profit per steer $ 9.95 $ 11.80 $ 10.69 $ 14.67 Price rec'd per bu. corn $ .971 $ 1.195 $ .992 $ 1.108 *Based on the following prices of feeds: Corn, $ .677 bu.; Cottonseed Meal, $34.00 per ton; Stover, $3,50 per ton; Silage, $3.00 ton; Mixed Hay, $12,00 per ton. (11) produced from the waste in feeding and no value given for ma- nure. These three factors would more than offset the cost of ship- ping the cattle, hence the Pittsburg values are considered just and fair in estimating the profits. At the close of the experiment all lots were sold "together, after reserving two of the best steers for in- structional work, at $7.50 per hundred, weighed up full of feed and water. The actual profits are somewhat larger than indicated in the summary but the proportional amount is the same in each lot. The results show clearly that when corn is high in price it is more profitable to feed a lighter grain ration with a greater proportion of roughage or, if the heavy grain ration is fed, that the cattle should be marketed before they become as fat as those in Lot I were at the close of the experiment. The results agree with those reported during the two preceding winters in that the chief demand in Pennsylvania is for cattle that are not made fat enough to grade as "choice" or "prime" upon the central markets, but for those that grade as "good butcher" steers or "good killers." In the opinion of all buyers who looked over the cattle Lot II was sufficiently fat for their trade while Lot I was less desirable because of the necessary waste in cutting. In every instance they preferred the steers which showed evidence of beef blood, broad, straight backs, deep bodies and short legs so necessary in making the most attractive carcasses for the consumer. Under the conditions prevailing during the time that this experi- ment was in progress the steers in Lot I returned an average profit of $9.95 per head, and those in Lot II, $11.80; a difference of $1.85 in favor of the more bulky ration. After charging all other feeds at full market value' Lot I returned 97-ic, Lot II $1.195 per bushel, for all corn consumed. This indicates that the most profitable method of fat- tening in winter is found in feeding limited grain rations combined with large quantities of wholesale roughage. A Comparison of Different Quantities of Corn Silage for Fat- tening Cattle. For many years corn silage has been considered one of the cheap- est and most efficient feeds for dairy cattle. Many feeders of beef cattle have thought that, on account of its succulent nature, it is not suitable for fattening purposes. Others have considered it as an ap- petizer and conditioner rather than a feed. In recent years this and other stations have taken up the study of its value in many ways so that it is now recognized as one of the most valuable additions to fattening rations. A study of the summary will show that the main (12) difference in the feeding of Lots I and III was that Lot III received a full feed of silage while Lot I received only one-half that amount. This resulted in a much larger consumption of other roughage by Lot I, though the total cost of feeding of each lot was practically the same. The additional amount of silage consumed by Lot III resulted in a slight increase in the rate of gain, a decrease in the cost of gain and an increase of $8.72 in the total profit. There was a difference of five cents per hundred in the final cost of the two lots of cattle though none in their final value per hundred on account of feeding the heavier Fig. 3. Steers fed in barn, daily gain £.13 pounds per head. Price returned per bushel of corn 99.2C. Profit from feeding $12f ' silage ration. This test indicates that the chief value of large quantities of corn silage in rations for fattening cattle is in reducing the cost of production and increasing the rate of gain. The Value of Shelter for Fattening Cattle Receiving Heavy Rations of Corn Silage. A study of the summary (Table IV) shows that Lots III and IV were fed the same amounts of corn, cottonseed meal and corn silage with other roughage approximately the same. The only difference in the method of feeding was that Lot III was kept in a large box stall in the basement of the College barn, where all conditions were apparently most favorable for rapid and economical gains, while Lot IV was kept in an open lot in which was an open shed 12x30 feet, where the feeding was done. The shed was kept well bedded so that the cattle might have a dry place to lie down at all times. These two methods of feeding have been used at the Station during the six preceding winters, but in every instance the two lots of cattle were fed rations which contained no (13) silage. The results were favorable to open-shed feeding during those tests. There has been a general impression among feeders that the use of corn silage necessitated greater protection of the qattle against cold ; that, on account of its succulent and laxative nature, the cattle would suffer if not kept in warm quarters. For this reason the ex- periments here reported included a comparison in which a heavy silage ration was fed in open shed to Lot IV as compared with a simi- lar ration to Lot III in the basement of the College barn. Fig, 4. Steers fed in open shed, daily gain 2.86 pounds per head. Price returned per bushel of corn fed $1.108. Profit from feeding $176.05. The results show that the steers fed in the open shed mack more rapid gains at a saving of $1.02 in cost per hundred pounds. At the close of the experiment they had cost i7-2c. per hundred less and were valued at I5c. per hundred more than those in the barn. The profit per head from open-shed feeding was $14.67, and from feeding in barn $10.69, a difference of $3.98 per head or an increase of n.6c per bushel in the value of corn fed to the cattle out of doors over that fed in the barn. This demonstrates clearly that full feeding of cattle is more profitable from every standpoint if they are given ample protection from wind and rain, without protection from cold even where they are al- lowed a maximum amount of corn silage. f The Fertilizer Value of Feeds. While the discussion presented in connection with the summary of results has not taken into consideration the manurial value oi feeds, (M) this is one of the most important phases of the study of beef production. The chief profit derived from steer feeding comes from the increase of crop yields due to an intelligent use of manure. Table V. SHOWING FERTILIZER VALUE OF FEEDS. Feed Consumed Plant Food Contained in Feeds* Total Valuet Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid Potash LOT I. Ear Corn Shelled Corn Cottonseed Meal Shredded Stover Corn Silage Mixed Hay 119.57 Ibs. 293.55 " 215.38 " 83.31 " 40.26 " 80.28 " 48.34 Ibs. 112.90 " 91.35 " 23.23 " 15.82 " 21.76 " 39.85 Ibs. 64.51 " 27.59 " 112.15 " 53.21 " 74.96 " Total 832.35 Ibs. 313,40 Ibs. 372.27 Ibs. Value $166.47 $15.67 $18.61 $200.75 LOT II. Ear Corn Shelled Corn Cottonseed Meal Shredded Stover Corn Silage Mixed Hay 78.5t£%s. 198.71 245.86 52.28 79.75 68.56 31.76 Ibs. 76.43 " 104.28 " 14.58 " 31.33 " 18.58 " 26.19 Ibs. 43.67 " 31.50 " 70.38 " 105.39 " 64.01 " Total 723.72 Ibs. 276.96 Ibs. 341.14 Ibs. $175.64 Value $144.74 $13.85 $17.05 LOT III Ear Corn Shelled Corn Cottonseed Meal Shredded Stover Corn Silage Mixed Hay 120.41 Ibs. 293.55 " 207.16 " 41.01 " 79.81 " 46.73 " 48.68 Ibs. 112.90 " 87.87 " 11.43 " 31.35 " 12.67 " 40.14 Ibs. 64.51 " 26.54 " 55.19 " 105.61 " 43.63 " Total 788.67 Ibs. 304.90 Ibs. 335.62 Ibs. Value $157.73 $15.24 $16.78 $189.76 ; OT IV. Ear Corn Shelled Corn Cottonseed Meal Shredded Stover Corn Silage Mixed Hay 120.41 Ibs. 293.44 207.16 38.04 79.90 52.36 48.68 Ibs. 112.86 " 87.87 " 10.61 " 31.35 " 14.19 " 40.14 Ibs. 64.49 " 26.54 " 51.21 " 105.46 " 48.89 " Total 791.31 Ibs. 305.56 Ibs. 336.73 Ibs Value $158.26 $15.28 $16.84 $190.37 * Based upon averages given by "Feeds & Feeding," Henry. tBased upon the following prices: Nitrogen, 20c per lb.; Phos. acid, 5c per lb.; Potash, 5c per lb. (15) Table A' shows that the nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash con- tained in the feeds used in this series of experiments, if replaced in the form of commercial fertilizer at twenty cents per pound for nitrogen, and five cents per pound for phosphoric acid and for potash, would cost $756.52, or an average of $15.76 for each steer fed. While the steers would remove a small portion of these materials from the farm when sold on the market and there would be a further loss from leaching of manure, the average feeder can easily return to the land sixty per cent. of all the plant food consumed by his livestock. This would amount to approximately two (2) dollars per month for each steer, which is a matter worthy of consideration in steer feeding. It may also be noted that the most concentrated ration used in these tests, that fed to Lot I, had the greatest amount of plant food in it, while the more bulky ration, that fed to Lot II, had the least. This shows that in purchasing con- centrated feed for livestock ^fiere is a large amount of fertilizer material gained in addition to the feeding value, which helps to build up the land. General Conclusions. The results secured from the experimental work of the winter of 1909-1910 indicate that: 1. The most economical ration for fattening steers in Pennsyl- vania is one composed largely of roughage with a limited amount of concentrates. 2. The local demand for beef is such that the cattle should not be carried to too high a degree of finish. 3. Increasing the proportion of corn silage in ration for fat- tening steers increases the profits and gains from the feeding. 4. Protection from cold is as unnecessary for fattening cattle on succulent feeds as when dry, feeds are used. 5. Steer feeding was a profitable venture in Pennsylvania under conditions prevailing at the Experiment Station from December 15, 1909, to May 3, 1910, the average price received for corn fed to experi- mental cattle being $1.05 per bushel. 6. The margin necessary between buying and selling prices to prevent loss from fattening cattle on a bulky ration was $1.23 per cwt., and on a concentrated ration, $1.68 per cwt. 'The difference in margin necessary for feeding in the shelter experiment was 17.21-. per cwt. in favor of outdoor feeding. (16) The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 105 INFLUENCE OF TYPE AND OF AGE UPON THE UTILIZATION OF FEED BY CATTLE STATE COLLEGE CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NOVEMBER, 1910 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE Advisory Committee of the Board of Trustees. JOHN A. WOODWARD, Chairman, Howard, Penna. H. V. WHITE Bloomsburg. E. S. BAYARD Pittsburg. VANCE C. MCCORMICK Harrisburg. GABRIEL HIESTER Harrisburg Experiment Station Staff. THE PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE. * THOMAS F. HUNT Director ALVA AGEE Acting Director: Agricultura] Extension WILLIAM A. BUCKHOUT • • Botany WILLIAM FREAK Vice Director: Agricultural Chemistry H. E. VAN NORMAN . Dairy Husbandry *H. P. BAKER Forestry R. L. WATTS Horticulture F. D. GARDNER Agronomy THOMAS I. MAIRS Agricultural Education W. A. COCHEL Animal Husbandry CHARLES W. STODDART Agricultural Chemistry H. R. FULTON Botany * J. P. STEWART Experimental Horticulture MISS JULIA CATHARINE GRAY Librarian C. L. GOODLING Superintendent of Farms tBAILEY E. BROWN Agronomy M. S. McDOWELL Agricultural Chemistry *MISS ELIZABETH B. MEEK Bacteriology C. F. SHAW Agronomy C. W. LARSON Dairy Husbandry JOHN A. FERGUSON Forestry MISS MARGARET B. MacDONALD Agricultural Chemistry J. BEN HILL Botany W. D. CLARK Forestry HOMER W. JACKSON Poultry Husbandry W. J. WRIGHT Horticulture J. PLUMMER PILLSBURY Horticulture J. W. WHITE Agricultural Chemistry G. C. GIVEN Agricultural Chemistry *C. F. NOLL Agronomy W. H. MacINTIRE Agronomy *C. E. MYERS Horticulture EDWARD S. ERB Agricultural Chemistry W. G. ROSS Agronomy EDWARD HIBSHMAN Agricultural Chemistry W. E. TRIPP Bacteriology J. W. GREGG Horticulture F. P. WEAVER Agricultural Chemistry WALTER THOMAS Agricultural Chemistry LUTHER G. WILLIS .Agricultural Chemistry A. A. BORLAND Dairy Husbandry R. H. BELL Horticulture F. S. BUCHER Agronomy H. F. HERSHEY Experimental Horticulture K. B. LOHMANN Horticulture J. A. RUNK Agronomy CLIFTON D. LOWE Animal Husbandry B. O. SEVERSON Animal Husbandry RALPH A. WALDRON Botany SLEETER BULL Agricultural Chemistry W. A. COOK Dairy Husbandry HARRY D. EDMISTON Laboratory Assistant WILLIAM G. MURTORFF Clerk MISS MARY ANSART Stenographer MISS JANE B. KENYON Stenographer MISS CARRIE A. BOWES Stenographer MISS H. MARILLA WILLIAMS Stenographer MISS ELLEN F. BACHMAN . Stenographer MISS JEAN T. SANDSTROM Stenographer The Bulletins of the Station- will be mailed regularly, free of charge, to residents of the State who request it. Address Director of Experiment Station, State College, Center Co., Pa. * Absent on Leave. t Assigned by the Bureau of Soils. U. S. Dept. of Agr. The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 105 INFLUENCE OF TYPE AND OF AGE UPON THE UTILIZATION OF FEED BY CATTLE HENRY PRENTISS ARMSBY AND J. AUGUST FRIES In a permanent system of agriculture, the essential function of domestic animals is to utilize for the benefit of man the solar energy stored in the inedible products of the soil, such as hay, straw, and other forage crops, or in the host of by-products arising in the pre- paration of farm crops for use as human food. When these inedible substances are consumed by domestic animals a portion of this energy is recovered, in part as work but largely in the form of materials serving for the nutrition of man. The Institute of Animal Nutrition of The Pennsylvania State College, in co-operation with the Pennsylvania Experiment Sta- tion and with the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United States Department of Agriculture, is engaged in a study of those scientific principles which underlie and condition the successful economic transformation by the animal of waste products into human food. The investigations in progress relate to three general classes of questions : First: How do different feeding stuffs compare with each other as to their content of energy and the proportion of it which may be rendered available to man through the agency of domestic animals? (3) Second: What is the relative efficiency of different types of animals as converters of waste energy into forms suitable for human food? Third: How do the various conditions under which animals may be kept affect their efficiency as producers of human food? The experiments here recorded relate chiefly to the second class of problems above mentioned, viz., the influence of the type of animal, their special subject being a comparison as meat producers of the beef type of animal with the so-called "scrub," that is, with an animal of mixed and unknown breeding but partaking of the dairy type. Practical experience has shown that there is a distinct financial advantage on the side of the specific beef type of steer, but considerable diversity of opinion exists as to the real reasons for this difference. Description of Experiments. Two steer calves were selected as the subjects of investigation. One of these was a pure bred Aberdeen-Angus of typical beef form, while the other was a "scrub" containing considerable Jersey blood and possessing the dairy rather than the beef form. These animals were about 8^2 and n months old respectively at the beginning of the investigation in October, 1904, and were under nearly contin- uous observation for over 2.^/2 years. During this time, with the ex- ception of certain of the periods in which the balance of matter and energy was determined by means of the respiration calorimeter, they were fed an ordinary growing ration and while maintained in a thrifty condition were not fattened. The feeding stuffs used in each period were of the same kind for both animals and the dif- ferent grains fed were mixed throughout in the same proportions for each steer. The live weights of the animals were taken at least weekly, as well as on three consecutive days at the end of each month, and they were systematically measured and photographed every three months. The accompanying photographs of the animals on three different dates will serve better than words to illustrate the character of the animals used. The measurements show that the "scrub" increased more rapidly in length and height than did the pure bred animal, the gain of the latter being more largely due to increase in size of body. At intervals, the digestibility of the total ration and the nitro- gen balance were determined for each animal. It was originally intended to make these determinations once in three months, but (4) this proved to be impracticable. In all, four such trials were made in addition to those included in the respiration calorimeter experi- ments mentioned in the next paragraph, viz., in December, 1904, July, 1905, November, 1905, and June, 1906. During each of the three winters covered by the investiga- tion, four experiments were made on each animal by means of the respiration calorimeter in order to determine the percentage availa- bility of the energy of the feeds consumed. During the first winter, that of 1905, the feeding stuffs used differed from those employed during the ordinary feeding. In the succeeding two winters, the grain feeds used were the same, only the amounts differing. The respiration calorimeter experiments, of course, included determi- nations of the digestibility of the rations and of the nitrogen bal- ances of the animals. Digestive Capacity. The assertion is often heard that the typical beef animal has a greater digestive capacity than the scrub. What is really meant by this assertion in most cases is that the former has a greater power of assimilation. If we use the word digestive in the strict sense as referring to the percentages of the several nutrients con- sumed which are resorbed from the digestive tract and taken up into the blood, the idea that there are important individual dif- ferences among animals in this respect has not been borne out by experiments in the past and is not supported by these investi- gations. Digestibility of Hay. — The results of the several digestion ex- periments may be most simply compared on the basis of the per- centage of digestibility of the total dry matter, the total energy and the protein. Table I shows the average percentage digestibility of these ingredients of the hay fed in each of three years covered by the investigation, the figures being in each case the average of two trials. (5) Table i. — Average Percentage Digestibility of Timothy Hay. Pure-bred Steer % Scrub Steer % 1905 Total dry matter 52.8 54-9 Energy Protein 49-5 14.4 50.8 3-0 1906 Total dry matter 537 55-3 Energy 507 52.6 Protein 34-i 33-8 1907 Total dry matter 62.0 61.4 Energy 58.6 57-9 Protein 43-8 43-6 The differences between the two animals shown by the fore- going table are so small as to be scarcely significant, but if anything seem rather in favor of the scrub animal, especially during the first two years. At any rate the figures give no evidence of the posses- sion of any higher digestive power by the pure bred animal. Digestibility of Grain. — The digestiblity of the grain was de- termined in the usual way by a difference computation. The re- sults as between the two trials made in each year were somewhat fluctuating, although the differences were not larger than might be expected. The average results for the digestibility of the grain are shown in Table 2. Table 2. — Average Percentage Digestibility of Grain. Pure- bred Steer % Scrub Steer % 1905 — Bran Total dry matter 66.1 66.5 Energy 67.5 69.1 Protein 72.7 81.4 1906 — Mixed Grain Total dry matter 81.4 80.4 Energy 82.3 81.9 Protein 72.6 76.0 1907 — Mixed Grain Total dry matter 77.8 78.8 Energy 78.9 797 Protein 734 80.3 (6) The foregoing results lend no support to the supposed greater digestive capacity of the pure-bred animal. Metabolizable Energy. Feed may be regarded as the fuel of the animal body, supply- ing energy for its operation much as coal or other fuel does for those of the engine. The feed of domestic animals, however, is very incompletely oxidized in the body, much of its potential energy escaping unused in the unburned matter excreted in the feces and urine,and in the gaseous products of fermentation, especially methan. It is clear that only that portion of the total energy remaining after the subtraction of the amount carried or! in the excreta can possibly be of use to the body. This portion of the total energy has been called by the writers metabolizable energy, the term sig- nifying that portion of the total energy which can be converted into the kinetic form in the body. It is equivalent to the energy of the feed minus the energy of the excreta. The term fuel values has also sometimes been employed for it because it is equivalent to the total amount of heat capable of being produced in the body by the oxidation of the feed. In these investigations, the determinations of the energy of feces, urine and methan in the respiration calorimeter experiments afford the basis for comparing the percentage of the total energy of the feeding stuffs which was metabolized by the two animals, the average results being as follows : Table j. — Average Percentage of Feed Energy Metabolizable. Per Cent, of Total Energy Per Cent, of Energy of Digested Organic Matter Pure-bred Steer Scrub Steer Pure-bred Steer Scrub Steer Timothy Hay J905 1906 1907 39.52 40.52 46.14 40.70 41.88 45-n 79.91 79-88 78.75 80.07 79-57 77.92 Average of 3 years 42.06 42.56 79-51 79.19 Wheat Bran 1905 Mixed Grain 55-01 55-99 81-53 80.97 1906 1907 67.47 64.49 66.64 62.98 81.99 81.73 81.41 78.95 Average of 2 years 65-98 64.81 81.81 80. 1 8 (7) Aside from an apparent slight inferiority of the scrub steer as regards the mixed grain in the experiments of 1907, which arises from an exceptionally low result in one of the trials, the foregoing figures fail to indicate any material difference in the percentage of the total energy of the feed which the two animals were able to metabolize. Availability of Metabolizable Energy. The metabolizable energy of a feeding stuff is that portion of its total potential energy which is capable of conversion into the kinetic form in the body. It corresponds to the conception of "Physiologischer Warmewert". or "Physiologischer Nutzeffeckt" in- troduced by Rubner* in connection with his experiments upon the replacement values of nutrients, or to the fuel values of Atwater**. Upon the results of his earlier experiments, Rubner based his celebrated law of isodynamic replacement. This law is in effect that, when fed in limited quantities, the several nutrients may be substituted as sources of energy for body substance previously katabolized, or may replace each other, in amounts inversely pro- portional to their physiological heat values, i. e., their metabolizable energy. The validity of this law has been generally accepted and not only have the relative values of single nutrients and of human dietaries been estimated upon the basis of their metabolizable en- ergy, but it has been attempted also to apply Rubner's factors to the digestible protein, carbohydrates and fats, so-called, of stock feeds and extensive tables of the fuel values of the latter computed in this way have been published. Moreover, there has been a natural tendency to overlook the limitation which Rubner set to his law and to apply it to productive as well as to maintenance rations. It has been fully demonstrated, however, that only under special conditions is the metabolizable energy, or fuel value, of a nutrient or feeding stuff the measure of its value to the organism. This was shown clearly by the early experiments of Zuntz and his associates, which antedate Rubner's results, while later investi- gations have fully confirmed the earlier ones, the difference being especially marked in the case of herbivorous animals. Zuntz & Hagemannt have demonstrated that this is the case with the horse. * Zeitschrift fur Biologie; 21, 250 and 337. **U. S. Dept. of Agr., Office of Experiment Stations, Bui. 21; Conn. (Storrs) Experiment Station, 12th Report (1899), p. 71. t T.andw. Jahrb., 18, 1; 23, 125; 27, Erganzbd. III. (8) especially upon coarse feeds, Kellner* has shown the same thing to be true in the fattening of cattle, the authorst have demonstrated that it also holds in the case of maintenance and sub-maintenance rations of cattle, and RubnerJ himself has shown that his earlier results were due to the comparatively low temperatures at which he experimented and constituted a special case of a general law. Opin- ions are still more or less divided as to the cause of the phenomenon, but there is no dispute as to the fact. Only a part of the metabol- izable energy of the feed is ordinarily substituted for energy previ- ously derived from the katabolism of protein and fat in the body or is recovered in the gain of flesh and fat made by the animal on abundant feeding. Method of Determining Availability. The relation between the amount of metabolizable energy supplied to the animal in its feed and the resulting effect upon the body may be determined by a comparison of two periods in which different amounts of the feeding stuff or ration in question are con- sumed. For example, in Periods III and IV of the experiments of 1905, two different amounts of the same timothy hay were fed. After making the necessary corrections as described in the detailed account of the experiments to be published later, it was found that the metabolizable energy of the rations consumed and the gain of energy by one of the animals (a loss being regarded as a nega- tive gain) were as follows : Metabolizable Energy Gain of Energy of Ration by Animal Period IV 5981.4 Cals. - 680.2 Cals. Period III 3641.4 Cals. —2096.1 Cals Difference 2340.0 Cals. 1415.9 Cals The excess of 2340 Cals. of metabolizable energy in Period IV as compared with Period III reduced the loss of potential energy from the body by only 1415.9 Cals. In other words, only 60.5 per cent, of the additional metabolizable energy supplied in Period IV was substituted for energy previously derived from the kata- bolism of body substance, while the remainder was disposed of by an increase of 924.1 Cals. in the heat production of the steer, cor- * Landw. Vers. Stat., 44, 257; 47, 275; 50, 245; 53, 1. t U. S. Dept. Agric.. Bureau of Animal Industry, Bulletins 51, 74 and 101; mdw. Jahrb.,32, 665; 34, 861; 37, 423. Gesetz e des Enefgieverbrauchs bei der Ernahrung, 1902. (9) responding to Rubner's "specific dynamic effect", the heat pro- duction rising from 5635.8 Cals. to 6559.9 Cals. It is customary in such a case to speak of the 1415.9 Cals. as the available energy of the hay added to the basal ration of Period III and to say that 60.5 per cent, of the metabolizable energy of the hay was available. Such a method of statement does not necessarily imply that the remaining 39.5 per cent, served no useful function in the body, but simply asserts that the net result to the organism was the same as if 60.5 per cent, of the metabolizable energy were substituted unit for unit for energy derived from the katabolism of body substance and as if the remaining 39.5 per cent, were useless. What the ex- periment really shows is that a unit of metabolizable energy in the hay had only 60.5 per cent, of the value of a unit of metabolizable energy in the body substance, (chiefly fat) previously katabolized. but the first method of expression is both common and convenient and may be retained. Experimental Results. After correcting for differences in the amount of time spent standing and lying, for the slight variations in the live weight in the periods compared and for slight unavoidable differences in the proportion of hay or grain in the mixed rations, the average re- sults are as shown in Table 4. Those for hay in the year 1906, as indicated, are of questionable value. Table 4. — Summary of Availability of Metabolizable Energy. Pure-bred Steer % Scrub Steer % Timothy Hay Experiments of 1905 Experiments of 1906 Experiments of 1907 60.51 71.49 ? 57.05 55-21 60.86 ? 56.50 Wheat Bran Experiments of 1905 58.74 51.98 Mixed Grain Experiments of 1906 Experiments of 1907 58.89 61-55 51.51 5771 Taking the results as a whole, they seem to indicate a small but distinct superiority of the pure-bred over the scrub steer as regards the availability of the metabolizable energy of the feed. (10) Pure- Bred Steer— Oct. 8, 1904. Scrub Steer— Oct. 8, 1904. This difference appears to be more marked in the earlier years, while as the animals matured the scrub nearly or quite overlook the pure-bred steer in this respect, so that it seems questionable whether the differences in the third year's experiments are of much sig- nificance. In explanation of such a difference, little but speculations can be presented. It is not easy to conceive how any metabolic process or set of processes, such, for example, as are involved in the pro- duction of fat from carbohydrates, can be conducted more efficiently in one individual than in another. It would seem that if such a difference between individuals exists as is indicated by the foregoing results, we must seek for its explanation in differences in the character of the body substance gained or katabolized. Upon this point, of course, respiration calorimeter experiments afford but little information. They show the total gain or loss of ash, nitro- genous matter and fat (and glycogen), but reveal nothing as to the part of the body where they are deposited or katabolized, nor as to the exact nature of the material involved. It may not be without significance in this connection that, as shown on previous pages, the growth of the pure-bred steer was more largely iu body girth, while the scrub steer increased relatively more rapid- ly in length and height, or that, as will appear later, the pure-bred steer showed a tendency to fatten while the scrub inclined to gain relatively more nitrogenous material. In other words, the dif- ference in availablity may conceivably be related to the apparent difference in the nature of the gains or losses. As regards any influence of age upon the percentage availabilty of the feed, the results appear indecisive. In the case of the bay, ('aside from the questionable results of 1906), the differences are very small and in opposite directions with the two animals. In the case of the mixed grain of 1906 and 1907, there is apparently a tendency to a somewhat greater availability by the older animals. On the whole, the results as regards the influence of age afford little support to the belief in a greater ability of young animals to utilize the metaholi/.ablc energy of their lecd. Energy Required for Maintenance. From the results of the two periods on hay alone in each year, it is easy to compute on the one hand the amount by which it would have been necessary to increase the supply of metaboli/able energy to prevc'in any loss of potential energy from the body, or, (12. on the other hand, to calculate the amount of potential energy which would have been lost by the animal had the ration been reduced to zero. Thus in the case of the pure-bred steer in the experiments of 1907 for example, the metabolizable energy of the hay consumed daily in Period III was 6234.5 Calories and on this ration the body lost daily 1679.4 Calories, while a comparison with Period IV showed an availability of the metabolizable energy of 57.05 per cent. Evidently, then, to prevent the loss from the body of 1679.4 Calor- ies it would have been necessary to add to the daily ration suffi- cient hay to supply. 1679.4-^0.5705=2943.7 Calories of metabolizable energy, making the total metabolizable energy of the daily ration 2943.7+6234.5=9178.2 Calories. If, on the other hand, the ration has been reduced to zero, the loss of energy per day by the animal would have been increased by 1634.5X0.5705=3556.8 Calories. and 'the total loss would have been 1679.4+3556.8=5236.2 Calories. A ration, therefore, supplying 5236.2 Calories of available en- ergy would have been a maintenance ration for this animal. Computed in the manner shown in the foregoing example, the maintenance requirements of the two animals in the three Table 5. — Computed Maintenance Requirements in Terms of Available Energy. Pure-bred Steer Cals. Scrub Steer Cals. Per day and head Experiments of 1905 4396" 3946 Experiments of 1906 5228 4801 Experiments of 1907 5236 5821 Per day and 500 kgs. live weight Experiments of 1905 6649 7532 Experiments of 1906 6077 6806 Experiments of 1907 5l86 6931 series of experiments were as shown in Table 5. For the sake of ready comparison, the results have also been recalculated to a uniform weight of 500 kilograms in proportion to the two-thirds power of the live weight. The experiments of 1907, the results of which were the most satisfactory, show a marked difference between the two animals as regards the maintenance requirement, that of. the scrub steer be- ing 33-7 Per cent- higher than that of the pure-bred steer. The re- sults obtained in 1905 and 1906 have less weight, but nevertheless they show a difference in the same general direction. On the average of the three years' experiments the available energy required for maintenance per 500 kilograms live weight was : Pure-bred steer 5971 Cals. Scrub steer 7090 Cals. Even omitting the relatively low result for the pure-bred steer in 1907, the average for this animal is materially lower than that for the scrub. The correction of the results to a uniform time of 12 hours standing may be assumed to have approximately eliminated any difference in the maintenance requirement due to the influence of standing or lying. The scrub steer possessed the active, nervous temperament of the dairy type, while the pure-bred steer showed the quiet, almost phlegmatic disposition of the typical beef animal. The figures appear to show that this difference in temperament, aside from any effect which it had upon the amount of time spent stand- ing or lying, very materially affected the maintenance requirement. If such differences prove to be characteristic of the two types of animals they will go far toward explaining the economic superiority of the beef type. Gains in Live Weight. During the months intervening between the respiration calo- rimeter experiments of each year, the animals received a ration sufficient to produce a normal growth but not to materially fatten them. The average gains per day and the amount of air dry matter in the feed consumed per kilogram of live weight are shown in the following table. (14) Table 6. — Gains in Live Weight in Intermediate Feeding Periods. Daily Gain Air-dry Matter Gain per Per 1000 Kgs. in Peed Eaten Day Mean Weight per Kg. Gain Kgs. Kgs. Kgs. Pure-bred Steer Oct. i-Dec. n, 1904 0.482 1.828 11.00 Mar. 3i-July 13, 1905 0-359 1.262 15.52 July i3-Sept. 28, 1905 o-594 1.762 8.15 Sept. 28-Nov. 28, 1905 0.448 I.I99 13.62 Apr. 6-July 4, 1906 0-594 1.382 i3-99n July 4-July 28, 1906 0.021 0.046 [204.30] July 28-Oct. 27, 1906 O.II2 0.243 39-73 Oct. 27-Dec. 4, 1906 0.726 1.509 9.66 Apr. 30-Oct. 28, 1907 0.367 0.654 Oct. 28- Jan. 4, 1908 0.568 0.926 Totals and Means Oct. i, i9 IOXK A / •o-"'-1 6 2^1 Timothy hay •i.yv^o . IQO^ . B 7o<;8 > ^y^D 1006 . A / •WJV-/ ^.60^ > y £ 1906 B 6.378 • IQO7 A 4860 • •L;7V-// IQO7 . B 6406 » J.V./W/ Average of all £ 1&A Average, omitting 1904 Averaee, ioo=;-o7. . 0.^04 6.113 £\ tor • THE MAINTENANCE RATION. As already denned on page 7, the maintenance ration is the quantity of feed which will supply sufficient protein and energy in available forms to meet the maintenance requirements of the body. Obviously, the amount of the maintenance ration will depend both upon the magnitude of the maintenance requirements and upon the availability of the protein and energy of the materials compos- ing the ration. The maintenance ration of protein. It seems to have been satisfactorily shown that a supply of di- gestible protein in the feed equal to the amount broken down dur- ing fasting is at least sufficient for a maintenance ration. As al- (9) ready noted, however, this quantity cannot be determined directly for cattle. The only available method, then is to try various amounts of protein and see how low the supply can be reduced without causing a loss of protein from the body. In considering the results of such experiments, two points must be borne in mind. First, if more protein is supplied to the mature animal than it needs for its maintenance, the surplus is practically all broken down and oxidized as fuel to supply energy. The mere fact, there- fore, that there is no loss of body protein on a given ration, while it shows that the protein supply is ample, does not show that a less quantity would not be sufficient. Second, when there is an inadequate supply of carbohydrates and fat in the food, protein which would otherwise be used for maintenance may be broken down and used as fuel. The protein supply can be reduced to its lower limit only when there is a liberal supply of fuel material in the ration. i The question to be considered, then, is what is the least amount of protein which has sufficed to maintain cattle when the total food supply was ample to yield the necessary energy. Wolff's standard for maintenance, long current, of 0.7 pounds digestible crude protein per 1000 pounds live weight was based upon experiments by Henneberg & Stohmann in 1858 with the addition of an allowance for the fact that their experiments were made at a relatively high temperature. Wolff's standard, however, was intended as a guide for actual maintenance feeding rather than as an expression of the minimum protein requirement, which, as later experiments show, may be reduced considerably below Wolff's standard. Of the more recent experiments, those of Kuhn and Kellner at the Moeckern Experiment Station were the earliest. Of the eight animals experimented upon, seven gained fat during the experiment, showing that the rations contained a sufficient quantity of non- nitrogenous nutrients, while in the remaining cases the loss of fat was relatively small. Dividing the experiments into groups accord- (10) ing to the amounts of digestible protein consumed, the following average results per thousand pounds live weight are obtained : Daily gain or loss of body protein. Average Digestible Protein Consumed Lbs. Average Gain or Loss of Protein by Animal Lbs. Average of 5 animals. Average of 3 animals. 0-59 0.32 + 0.089 - 0.085 Of the trials at this Station reported in Bulletin No. 42, Experi- ments II, VI and VII showed a slight gain of protein by each of the three animals experimented upon, while in Experiment VIII the losses of protein were very small, except for Steer No. 3. Omit- ting this latter case, the daily averages for each experiment, per thousand pounds live weight, were : Daily gain of body protein. Average Digestible Protein Consumed Lbs. Average Gain of Protein by Animal Lbs. Experiment II O 4.O O.O1^ Experiment VI . . . . f . o.^o O.O6 Experiment VII Experiment VIII .... 0.29 0.50 0.06 0.002 In the series of experiments with the respiration calorimeter, the results of part of which have been given on page 9, there were two in which 0.44 pound of digestible true protein per thousand pounds live weight sufficed for maintenance. In the remaining experiments considerbly larger amounts were consumed, so that, as pointed out on page n, the results do not show the minimum needed. In experiments by the Laboratory for Agricultural Research in Copenhagen, protein maintenance was secured with two dry cows on rations containing an average of only 0.23 pound digestible crude protein per thousand pounds live weight. Their experiments on milking cows, however, indicated a higher figure, viz., between 0.45 and 0.60 pound. In the light of the results just enumerated the conclusion ap- pears justified that a ration supplying a minimum of about 0.6 (11) pound digestible crude protein or 0.5 pound digestible true protein will suffice for the protein maintenaince of mature cattle. The maintenance ration of energy*. It has been shown that the maintenance requirement is equiva- lent to the amount of energy consumed during fasting, and that for thin mature cattle this averages about 6.1 Therms per thousand pounds. We have now to inquire how much feed must be supplied to meet this requirement. Plainly, the value of a feeding stuff so far as it serves as fuel, depends, in the first place, on how much total energy can be secured from it in the form of heat. This can be measured without difficulty fcy burning the substance, and measuring the heat produced. The following are the results of a few such determinations : Total energy in 100 pounds1. Timothy hay 175.1 Therms Clocer hay !73-2 Therms Oat straw 171.0 Therms Wheat straw 1714 Therms Corn meal 170.9 Therms Oats 180.6 Therms Wheat bran J75-5 Therms Linseed meal l9&-7 Therms Available energy : But the value of a fuel depends also upon how much of the energy which it contains can be used. Hard coal con- tains plenty of energy, but it would not be of much use to run a gasoline engine. Wheat straw contains fully as much energy as corn meal, but much of that energy cannot be utilized by the ani- mal machine. Two causes combine to affect the availability of the energy con- tained in feeding stuffs. First, more or less of the feed escapes from the body unburned. If a coal is of such quality that portions of it drop through the grate unconsumed, and if smoke and combustible gases are carried off through the stack, it is evident that a ton of it will supply far less heat to the boiler than it would if the combustion were perfect. The case of the feeding stuff is similar. Much of even the best feeding stuffs escapes digestion and is excreted in the dung, carrying with it a corresponding quantity of the chemical energy of the feed. More or less incompletely burned material is also contained 1 With 15 per cent, moisture. (12) in the urine, while ruminants, and to a certain extent horses, also give off combustible gases, arising from fermentations in the diges- tive tract. Thus about 22 per cent, of the energy of corn meal and fully 55 per cent, of that of average hay has been found to escape in these ways. Second, the animal body has to extract its real fuel material from its feed, separating it from the relatively large proportion of useless material which it excretes. To effect this separation re- quires work and consumes energy, and this energy, of course, is not available for other purposes. The case is somewhat as if the gasoline engine had to distill its own gasoline and separate it from impurities. Moreover, when the animal eats more feed than is re- quired simply to furnish energy to run its machinery, and hence is able to produce meat or milk, the process of converting the food into suitable forms to store up in the body may require a fur- ther expenditure of energy. It is not, then, the total energy contained in a feeding stuff which measures its value for maintenance, but what remains after deducting the losses in the unburned materials of the excreta and the energy expended in extracting the real fuel materials from the feed and transforming them into substances which the body can use or store up. For example, while 100 pounds of corn contain, as stated, about 170.9 Therms of chemical energy, only about 88.8 Therms remain, after all these deductions have been made, to repre- sent the actual value of the corn as a source of energy to the organ- ism. Determination of available energy : The amount of energy in available form which a feeding stuff contains is determined by the same sort of experiments as those which serve to determine indi- rectly the maintenance requirement. Thus in the example on page 8, the steer in both periods was on a sub-maintenance ration, i. e., he was breaking down daily more or less of his own tissue, especially his fat, to supply energy. As determined directly with the respi- ration calorimeter, the actual daily amount of energy thus derived from the destruction of body tissue was as follows : • Hay eaten Energy supplied from body tissue Ibs. Therms Period IV n.68 0.371 Period III 7.05 2.495 Difference 4.63 2.124 (13) The addition of 4.63 pounds of hay to the basal ration of Period III diminished the draft on the body tissues by 2.124 Therms, this being equivalent to 0.459 Therm for each pound of, hay. Obviously, the latter number expresses the value of one pound of this hay for maintenance and to maintain a steer with an average requirement of 6.1 Therms would plainly require 6.1 -f- 0.459 = :3-29 pounds of this particular timothy hay. Kellner at the Moeckern Experiment Station has made a large number of similar experiments on heavier rations which produced more or less gain by the animals. For example, an experiment in which oat straw was added to a basal ration gave the following re- sults: Oat straw Energy stored in eaten gain of body tissue Ibs. Therms Period i 8.8 3.535 Period 3 (basal ration) o 1.777 Difference 8.8 1.758 Each pound of straw produced a gain of tissue equivalent to 0.2 Therm of energy. This is its "production value" as part of a fattening ration. It is not yet certain that the production values obtained in this way correspond exactly with the values below the point of main- tenance obtained in the manner described in the previous paragraph. The indications are, however, that the two agree substantially for concentrated feeds, while for the coarse fodders the production value may be somewhat less than the maintenance value. For the present, however, and until more extensive determinations of main- tenance values are available, it appears advisable to disregard this possibility and to consider the maintenance and production values as for practical purposes identical. Upon this assumption, and largely upon the basis of Kellner's results, the following table1 has been .computed, showing approximately the* energy values either foi maintenance or for production of a number of the more important feeding stuffs. 1 Originally published in Bulletin No. 71 of this Station and reproduced in Farmers' Bulletin No. 346 of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. (14) Dry matter, digestible protein, and energy values per 100 pounds. Feeding stuff. Total dry matter. Digestible true protein. Energy value. Green fodder and silage: Alfalfa Pounds. 28.2 Pounds. 2 50 Therms. 1245 Clover crimson 19 1 2 19 11 30 29.2 221 16 17 Corn fodder — green 20.7 41 1244 Corn silage . 25.6 0 88 16 56 Hungarian grass 28 9 1 33 1476 Rape 14.3 2 16 11.43 Rye 23.4 1 44 11.63 Timothy 38.4 1 04 1908 Hay and dry coarse fodders: Alfalfa, hay 91 6 6 93 3441 Clover hay — red 84.7 5 41 34.74 Corn forage field cured 57.8 2 13 30.53 Corn stover 59.5 1 80 26.5a Cowpea hay 89 3 8 57 40 76 Hungarian hay 92.3 3.00 44.oa Oat hay ... 84.0 2 59 26.97 Soy bean hay 88.7 7 68 38.65 Timothy hay 86.8 205 33 56 Straws : Oat straw . . . 90.8 1.09 21.21 Rye straw ... 92.9 .63 2087 Wheat straw 904 37 16.56 Roots and tubers : Carrots 11.4 .37 7.82 Mangel-wurzel s . . 9.1 .1^ 4.62 Potatoes 21.1 45 18.05 Rutabagas 11 4 88 8.00 Turnips 9.4 .22 5.74 Grains: Barley 89.1 8.37 80.75 Corn ... 89 1 6 79 88.8^ Corn-and-cob meal 84.9 4.53 72.05 Oats 89.0 8.36 66.27 Pea meal . . . 89.5 16.77 71.75 Rye 88.4 8 12 81 72 Wheat 89 5 8 90 82 6a By-products : Brewers' grains — dried 92.0 19 04 60.01 Brewers' grains — wet 24.3 3.81 14.82 Buckwheat middlings 88.2 22.34 75.92 Cotton-seed meal 91.8 35.15 84.20 Distillers' grains — dried — Principally corn ... 93.0 21.93 79.23 Principally rye 93.2 1038 60.93 Gluten feed — dry 91.9 1995 79 32 Gluten meal — Buffalo 91.8 21.56 88.80 Gluten meal — Chicago 90.5 33.09 78.49 Linseed meal — old process 90.8 27 54 78.92 Linseed meal — new process 90.1 29.26 74.67 Malt sprouts 89.8 1236 4633 Rye bran 882 11 35 5665 Sugar-beet pulp — fresh 10.1 .63 7.77 Sugar-beet pulp — dried ... . 93.6 6.80 60.10 Wheat bran 88.1 10.21 48.23 Wheat middlings 84.0 12.79 77.65 (16) Maintenance ration in terms of available energy : If the foregoing results are correct, then a ration which, according to the table, fur- nishes 6.1 Therms of energy value should be an average mainten- ance ration for a thousand pound steer, provided, of course, it con- tains sufficient protein. There are a number of experiments on record by means of which the truth of this can be tested. The most extensive trials of this sort are the Moeckern experiments of Kiihn and Kellner already mentioned, made with the aid of a respiration ap- paratus. The results of the respiration experiments at this insti- tute of course show an agreement because they are the basis upon which the maintenance requirement is computed. It should be understood that it is only rarely and by accident that the exact maintenance ration can be hit upon in such an ex- periment. Practically these refined methods always show some gain or loss by the animal, the energy equivalent of which can be estimated from the results of the respiration experiments. The energy value of the feed consumed is, therefore, corrected by adding to it the energy of the loss or subtracting from it the energy of the gain in order to obtain the exact maintenance requirement. The energy values required for the maintenance of eight mature cattle, computed substantially in the manner just indicated1, were as shown in the following tabulation. The very high requirement indicated for Ox B was doubtless due to the fact that he never laid down during the respiration experiments; accordingly he has been omitted in computing the average. It will be seen that the average result and the range of variation agree well with those obtained in the experiments at this Institute tabulated on page 9. Energy requirements for maintenance — per 1000 pounds live weight. Ox V 5.50 Therms Ox B 8.39 Therms Ox A 5.91 Therms Ox IV 7-32 Therms Ox III 6.06 Therms Ox II 6.60 Therms Ox VI 5.31 Therms Ox XX 6.67 Therms Average, omitting Ox B 6.20 Therms There are also on record a number of experiments in which the 1 A more exact discussion of the method of comparison will appear in a bulletin of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, entitled "The Maintenance Requirements of Farm Animals". (16) sufficiency of a ration for maintenance has been judged by its effect upon the live weight. As is well known, the live weight of an animal is a very uncertain indication of the results of short feeding periods. When, however, the weight of a mature animal is main- tained with but little variation through a long period, it is safe to consider that the average ration consumed approximates very close- ly to an exact maintenance ration. This is not true, however, of young animals, as has been shown by Waters. Such animals may grow at the expense of their fat tissue on an insufficient ration, maintaining their live weight by an increase in the water content of the body. Such experiments are those of the writer1, of Haecker2 and of Evvard3. For the present purpose a detailed description of the ex- periments appears unnecessary. The results are summarized in the following table ; all of them refer to thin animals. Energy requirement of cattle for maintenance. (per 1000 Ib. live weight.) Number of Animals Number of Single Trials AVAILABLE ENBBGY PER DAT Maximum. Therms Minimum. Therms Average. Therms Respiration experiments Armsby & Fries Kellner Totals and averages Live weight experiments Armsby (Coarse fodder) Armsby (much grain) Haecker Evvard, 60 day expt. Evvard, 362 day expt. Totals and averages 3 7 7 7 7.06 7-32 4.86 5-31 6.ii 6.20 10 3 3 3 3 i 14 10 3 5 3 i 7.19 7.60 6.26 6-45 7-85 ' 5-09 6.62 4-88 , 5-30 6.45 6.16 7.02 5.62 5-71 7.18 8.09 10 22 7.04 5-8l 6.72 The average of the live weight results is greater than the aver- age of the respiration results on account of a single exceptionally high result. The average of the other experiments is 6.31 Therms as compared with 6.16 Therms for the respiration experiments. 1 Penna. Expt. Station, Bulletin No. 42. 2 Minnesota Expt. Station, Bulletin No. 79. 3 Thesis for degree of M.S., University of Missouri, 1909. (17) SUMMARY. On the basis of the results recorded in the foregoing pages, it is believed that the average maintenance ration of thin cattle may be formulated with a considerable degree of accuracy as follows : Average maintenance ration of cattle. (per looo Ib. live weight.) Digestible crude protein per day. ... 0.5 Ib Energy value per day 6.2 Therms FACTORS AFFECTING THE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT. It is apparent from the foregoing results that while it is pos- sible to state with a considerable degree of accuracy the average maintenance ration of cattle, individual cases may vary considera- bly from the average. It is desirable, therefore, to consider briefly some of the causes of these variations. Muscular activity. Probably the most important of these factors is muscular activ- ity. All muscular work is done at the expense of energy derived from the oxidation of body material, and no other factor influences so largely the amount of tissue thus used up. In maintenance, of course, an animal does no work in the ordinary sense, but notwith- standing there is necessarily more or less muscular activity which tends to increase the maintenance requirement. Standing and lying : One of the most marked examples of the effect of muscular exertion is furnished in the case of cattle by a comparison of the standing and lying positions. In experiments at this Institute it has been observed that a steer when standing has produced from 28 to nearly 65 per cent, more heat than the same steer when lying down, this heat of course arising from the com- bustion of materials of the body or of the feed. Similar results have been obtained elsewhere in experiments upon dogs and some- what less marked ones in experiments upon men. While some ex- perimenters have failed to find with ruminants a correspondingly large increase in the carbon dioxid given off during standing as compared with lying, the general fact that standing increases the heat production is unquestioned. It is clear, then, that of two steers, one of which lies down for 12 hours and the other for 8 hours out of the 24, the former will, other things being equal, require less (18) energy for maintenance. In the experiments at this Institute, re- ported on page 9 of this bulletin, the maintenance requirement has been corrected as accurately as possible to an average period of twelve hours standing out of the twenty-four. In the other results mentioned on page 17, this factor has not been taken into account. An example of the apparent effect of this factor is seen in the re- sults upon Ox B in Kellner's experiments, which, as noted, stood throughout the respiration trials. Temperament: The nervous, restless animal is continually ex- pending energy in a variety of unnecessary movements which may very materially increase the amount of fuel material necessary for his maintenance as compared with the quieter and more phlegmatic animal. Zuntz & Hagemann, for example, report a respiration ex- periment upon a horse in which the restlessness caused by the pres- ence of a few flies in the chamber of the apparatus increased the amount of body material oxidized by fully 10 per cent. The influence of temperament seems to be illustrated by the experiments at this Institute in 1905-07. Steer A of those experi- ments was a pure-bred beef animal of an unusually quiet disposition, while Steer B was a scrub of a decidedly nervous temperament. The maintenance requirements of these two animals per thousand pounds live weight, as shown in the table on page 9, were as fol- lows: Available energy required for maintenance. STEER A Pure-bred Beef Steer STBEB B Scrub IQO^ 6 23 Therms 7.06 Therms y 5 IQOO . S-70 6.38 IQO7 . 4.86 6.50 Average q.6o 66s j.w F.V*J Like the temperament, any external conditions tending to af- fect the degree of muscular activity will also tend to affect the maintenance requirement. The steer confined in a stall, for ex- ample, is likely to take less muscular exercise and, therefore, to re- quire a smaller amount for maintenance than one simply confined to a pen or an open yard. The animal comfortably bedded and thereby induced to spend much of his time in lying down will con- sume a smaller portion of his feed for maintenance than one kept under less comfortable conditions. Any sort of excitement is likely (19) to be paid for by increased muscular activity and correspondingly increased consumption of food for maintenance. Condition. The condition of an animal as the word is commonly used is practically synonymous with the amount of fat tissue carried. Kell- ner, in addition to the experiments already mentioned, investigated the maintenance requirement of three fat animals, including one (Ox B) of those whose requirements in the thin state were deter- mined. His results were somewhat contradictory. Ox B showed a lower requirement per thousand pounds live weight when fat than when thin, but the average for three fat animals was materially higher than that for thin animals, namely 8.85 Therms available energy per thousand pounds live weight. Evvard's live weight experiments also included a second sixty-day trial upon the same three animals partially fattened which showed a maintenance re- quirement of 9.07 Therms as compared with 7.18 Therms in the thin state. External temperature. As the experiment cited on page 8 illustrates, the consump- tion of feed is a source of heat to the animal and this heat aids in maintaining the normal body temperature. It has been clearly shown that at temperatures in the neighborhood of 6o°F. a steer on a maintenance ration is producing considerably more heat than is necessary to maintain his body temperature. If the surrounding temperature falls, it is evident that for a time no increased heat production would be necessary, but sooner or later a point would be reached below which increased oxidation of feed or tissue would be required for the sake of additional heat production, although just what this temperature is has not been determined. With animals consuming a heavy ration, fattening steers for example, the food consumption is the source of a large amount of heat and it has been clearly demonstrated that such animals may be exposed to a very considerable degree of cold without leading to the consumption of any additional material for the sake of heat production alone. In such cases, therefore, the maintenance require- ment would not be increased until a much lower temperature was reached than in the case of the animal on a simple maintenance ration. (20) The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 118 SILAGE FOR STEERS WINTERING BEEF BREEDING COWS STATE COLLEGE CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OCTOBER, 1912 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE Advisory Committee of the Board of Trustees. H. V. WHITE, Chairman. Bloomsburg, Penna. E. S. BAYARD... ...Pittsburg N. B. CRITCHFIELD Stoyestown W. T. CREASY Catawissa VANCE C. McCORMICK....Harrisburg Experiment Station Staff. THE PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE. ALVA AGEE Acting Director WILLIAM A. BUCKHOUT Botany WILLIAM FREAR , Vice Director: Agricultural Chemistry H. E. VAN NORMAN Dairy Husbandry R. L. WATTS Horticulture F. D. GARDNER Agronomy THOMAS I. MAIRS Agricultural Education CHARLES W. STODDART Agricultural Chemistry J. P. STEWART Experimental Pomology W. H. TOMHAVE Animal Husbandry JOHN A. FERGUSON Forestry MISS JULIA CATHARINE GRAY Librarian C. L. GOODLING Superintendent of Farms M. S. McDOWELL Agricultural Extension *MISS ELIZABETH B. MEEK Bacteriology C. F. SHAW Agronomy C. W. LARSON Dairy Husbandry MISS MARGARET B. MacDONALD Agricultural Chemistry G. C. GIVEN Agricultural Chemistry C. F. NOLL Agronomy J. W. GREGG Horticulture B. O. SEVERSON Animal Husbandry F. N. FAGAN Horticulture W. H. DARST Agronomy *J. BEN HILL Botany W. E. TRIPP Bacteriology RALPH A. WALDRON Botany J. B. BERRY Forestry R. R. CHAFFEE Forestry W. R. WHITE Agricultural Education J. W. WHITE Agronomy C. E. MYERS Horticulture WALTER B. NISSLEY Horticulture J. F. ADAMS Botany H. H. HAVNER Sanitation and Hygiene M. C. KILPATRICK .Poultry Husbandry EDWARD S. ERB Agricultural Chemistry EDWARD HIBSHMAN Agricultural Extension F. P. WEAVER - Agricultural Chemistry WALTER THOMAS Agricultural Chemistry J. F. CLEVENGER Botany C. A. SMITH Agricultural Chemistry H. P. DAVIS Dairy Husbandry E. L. ANTHONY Dairy Husbandry J. D. HARLAN Agronomy DAVID I. WARNER Poultry Husbandry R. H. BELL Experimental Pomology P. M. CLEMMER Agricultural Chemistry JOSEPH F. COX Agronomy ALBERT R. BECHTEL < Botany EARL T. WILDES Horticulture ALVA H. BENTON Agronomy FRED M. CRAWFORD Agricultural Chemistry HARRY D. EDMISTON Laboratory Assistant WILLIAM G. MURTORFF Clerk MISS MARY ANSART Stenographer MISS CARRIE A. BOWES Stenographer MISS H. MARILLA WILLIAMS Stenographer MISS ELLEN F. BACHMAN Stenographer MISS JEAN T. SANDSTROM Stenographer MISS MARIE L. GRENNELL Stenographer MISS EDITH DITENHAFER Stenographer The bulletins of the Station will be mailed regularly, free of charge, to all residents of the State who request it. Address Director of Experiment Station. State College, Centre Co., Pa. 1 Absent on leave. Sun Pig. & Bdg. Co.. Williamsport. Pa. The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 118 SILAGE FOR STEERS By W. A. COCHEL As the value of hay, corn, and other feeds generally used for fattening beef cattle, has shown a tendency to increase very rapidly, many who consider it necesary to finish steers for market in order Figure 1. Steers used in silage experiments, winter of 1911-12. to keep up the fertility of the soil are tempted to abandon the making of beef, to sell the grain and roughage produced, and to depend upon restoring the plant food to the soil in the form of 3 green manures and commercial fertilizers. This experiment is a continuation of the work previously reported in Bulletin 102 and the Annual Report of the Pennsylvania School of Agriculture and Experiment Station for the year ending June 30; 1911, which has been carried on in order to determine profitable methods of steer feeding under Pennsylvania conditions. Experiments at this and other stations have shown that the addition of corn silage to the rations that are usually fed to fat- tening animals results in cheaper and more rapid gains in the feed lot, and that its succulent nature causes cattle to shed the hair early and to look more attractive than those fed exclusively on dry feeds. A further advantage in Pennsylvania is that an excellent quality of corn silage can be produced in localities where the season is too short for corn to mature. The purpose of this experiment was to determine to what extent silage could be profitably used in steer feeding. Twenty- seven grade Shorthorn and Hereford steers were purchased on the open market in Pittsburgh for this purpose. Three of them were used for other purposes, and the remaining twenty-four were en- tered in the silage test. The Cost of Cattle at Market vs. Cattle Delivered In Feed Lots. In order that a full and complete record of the cattle may be available, the following data are inserted. Nov. 16 To 23 cattle, wt. 19,450 Ibs., @ $4.90 per cwt. $953-Q5 To 4 cattle, wt. 3-,34O Ibs., @ $5.00 per cwt. 167.00 To Freight, Pittsburgh to State College .... 34-36 Dec. i Feeds used preliminary to beginning of test : Mixed hay, 6310* @ $12.00 per ton .... $37.86 Corn silage, 6100* @ $2.50 per ton .... 7.62 Cottonseed meal, 90* @ $30.00 per ton . . 1.35 46.83 Total cost of 27 cattle, Dec. i, 1911 $1,201.24 By Value of 3 cattle used for other purposes 127.03 Total cost of 24 cattle at beginning of experiment $1,074.21 Total weight of 27 cattle, Dec. i. 1911 23,692 Ibs. Total weight of 27 "cattle, Nov. 13, 1911 22,790 Ibs. Gain during preliminary feeding period 902 Ibs. Average gain per head 33.5 Ibs. Total weight of 24 experimental steers 21,175 Ibs. Average cost per cwt $5-Q7 It will be seen from the above data, that the cost of the cattle delivered in the feed lots, after paying freight and preliminary feed- ing expenses, was 16 cents per hundred more than their cost in the yards. The hay used during this period was of inferior quality and the silage was damaged to some extent, hence the price is lower than for that used in the experiment. During this period, 12 of the steers were dehorned in order that they might not be a source of disturbance to others which had been dehorned before purchase. The cattle classified as fair to good feeding cattle. They showed evidence of an infusion of beef blood upon a ''scrub" foun- dation. They did not possess the weight, type, quality or con- dition of the best feeding cattle, fjut were selected with a view to having a lot of steers that would represent an average grade used throughout the state. They cost approximately one dollar per hundred less than quotations of choice to fancy cattle upon the Chi- cago market at the time of purchase. Method of Feeding and Sheltering. The 24 steers were divided into two lots as nearly alike as possi- ble in age, weight, breeding, quality, condition and temperament, designated as Lot I and Lot II. The steers in each lot were given all of the corn silage they would consume and two pounds of cotton- seed meal per head, daily. As previous experiments at this Station* have shown that a limited grain ration was more profitable than a full feed during the early part of the fattening process, the steers in Lot I were fed approximately three-fourths of a full feed of ear corn during the first two months, after which they were given all that they would eat without waste until the close of the experiment. Lot II was not fed any corn until the beginning of the third month, when ear corn was added to the ration of silage and cottonseed meal in approximately the same amount as was fed to Lot I during the experiment. In each case, the ear corn was broken into two or three pieces to facilitate its consumption by the cattle. A suf- ficient number of hogs to prevent waste of grain which the cattle had failed to masticate and digest was allowed to run with the cattle. Each group of steers was housed in an open shed, boarded up closely on three sides, with the south side open. Adjoining the shed was an open lot to which the steers had access at all times. The shed was kept bedded at all times. Water was supplied from *Bulletin 112. galvanized iron troughs located outside the lots, one board being removed from the fence in order that the steers might have access to water at will. Plan of Feeding Shed. Ear corn was fed at 6 A. M. and 5 P. M. Immediately after the cattle had consumed this, the corn silage was put in the manger and the allowance of cottonseed meal distributed over it in such manner that the proportion of cottonseed meal consumed by each animal would be determined by the amount of silage eaten. Quality of Different Feeds. The ear corn was quite v-ariable, though it was about an aver- age of that produced in the mountain valleys in the central portion of the state. It was free from mould and foreign material. The cottonseed meal was of excellent quality. The corn silage was grown on the college farm. On account of the drought which prevailed early in the summer, the stalks were not very heavy, and due to heavy rains in the fall, it contained a large amount of mois- ture when put into the silo. It was, however, of excellent quality, well preserved in a cypress stave silo. The accompanying table is presented to show the condition of the various feeds. TABLE I.— Air-Dry Moisture in Feeds.* Dec. 19, 1911 Jan. 15. 1912 Feb. 12, 1912 Mar. 8, 1912 April 2, 1912 AVER AGE Dec. 1, '11 to April 19, 'U 20.79 21.20 15.86 16.82 16.71 18.276 Cottonseed meal 9.19 7 14 7.57 6.74 7.33 7.594 Corn Silage 61.62 66.81 67.56 65.41 68.52 65.984 Corn silage and corn cobs refused 61.34 37.87 36.65 42.73 44.647 A study of the table showing the amount of different feeds of- fered and refused by the steers in each lot will show clearly that *Reportecl by Department of Experimental Agricultural Chemistry. the dry feeds were limited to the amount which the cattle would consume. As the feeding period progressed, the steers would shell the corn from the cob and leave the cobs in the trough, so that the refuse silage contained some corn cobs. However, the chief object was to give each lot all of the silage that it would consume, so that a limited amount was left during each period. This was utilized for the feeding of other stock on the farm, hence was not an entire waste. It will be noticed that the steers in Lot I ate less silage as the amount of grain was increased, a fact which was even more striking in Lot II, when the addition of 1610 pounds of ear corn at the beginning of the third month caused a decrease in the amount consumed of 3224.75 pounds of silage. TABLE II.— Feeds Offered and Refused. LOT 1—12 STEERS LOT 2—12 STEERS DATE Offered Refused Offered Refused Ear corn Cotton- seed meal Corn silage Corn silage Ear corn Cotton- seed meal Corn silage Corn silage Ibs. Ibs. 1 Ibs. 1 Ibs. 1 Ibs. Ibs. Ibs Ibs. Dec. 1-15 . . . 1330 275 5810 129.83 275 7475 48 Dec. 15-29 2080 336 4750 110.00 336 8350 98 Dec. 29-Jan. 12, 1912 . . 2315 336 4375 199.00 336 8400 67.50 Jan 12-26 . . 2235 336 4425 336.25 336 8400 93.00 .Jan. 26- Feb. 9 ... 2420 336 4200 386.50 1610 336 5225 142.75 Feb. 9-23 . . . 2650 336 3550 492.50 2340 336 4400 458.00 Feb. 23- March 8 2535 336 3370 450.00 2380 336 3420 330.75 March 8-22 2667.5 376.5 3360 437.75 2527.5 376.5 3360 J312.50 March 22- April 4 . . 2660 499.5 3360 570.25 2520.0 499.5 3360 442.25 Total ..|20892.5 3167 37200 3112.08 ||11377.5| 3167 52390|1992.75 There was little trouble caused by the method of feeding fol- lowed. At the beginning of the experiment, a few steers showed a tendency to scour, doubtless due to the change from hay and dry feed to silage. This condition lasted only a few days, after which the consistency of the droppings was normal. There were no steers "off feed" throughout the 18 weeks during which they were fed, although two individuals, one in each lot, seemed to be quite restless and would not come to the trough until after the others were satisfied. The temperature during January and Febru- ary was decidedly below normal, the winter being the coldest on record at the College. A stave silo, 18 fee* in diameter, in which the silage frequently froze at a distance of one to one and one- half feet from the wall was used. The silage was removed from the whole surface and that which was frozen, fed with the re- mainder without any attempt to thaw it before feeding. The weather was extremely unfavorable for silage feeding in open sheds, so that the results secured during this period should be entirely conclusive. There was a very marked variation in the gains of the cattle throughout the winter, as shown by the accompanying table. The condition of the cattle seemed to be improving at all times, hence the variations may be due to a difference in fill at the time of weighing. TABLE III.— Average Daily Gain Per Steer. 1 Lot 1 Lot 2 — No grain Dec. 1-15 Dec. 15-29 2.70) ) 2.67 2.64) 1.51) ) 2.24 3.07) Dec. 29-Jan. 12 Jan. 12-26 1.97) ) 2.38 2.80) 2.04) ) 2.53 3.03) Jan. 26-Feb. 9 Feb. 9-23 1.84) ) .44 Loss .96) 3.03) ) .66 Loss .07) Feb. 23-March 8 March 8-22 2.83) ) 2.24 1.66) 2.63) ) 1.97 1.32) , March 22-Apr. 4 1.27 1.27 2.03 2.03 Dec. 1-Jan. 26 (56 days) 2.52 Ibs. 2.40 Ibs. Jan 26-Mar. 22 (56 days) 1.33 1.30 Dec. 1-Mar. 22 (112 days) 1.93 :,; 1.75 Dec. 1-Apr. 4 (126 days) 1.86 1.85 The small gains during the third month were due to the reg- ular water supply being frozen, when it was necessary to drive the cattle out of their'lots to another source of water. As it was only possible to do this once each day, there Avere many times when the cattle would refuse to drink, thus being off water for 48 hours. As this condition occurred in. each lot, it does not affect the comparative results, but does materially reduce the rate of gain for the entire period and has unfavorable influence upon profits. The low rate of gain in Lot I during the last two weeks of the ex- periment was due to the length of time they were kept upon the same ration without any improvement in it. From this and other experiments, it seems necessary that rations be made concentrated toward the close of the finishing period in order that cattle may continue to make rapid gains until ready for the market. It would have been desirable in practice to have replaced the ear corn with shelled corn during this period, which would have caused a greater consumption of digestible nutrients above that required for main- tenance. The results are, however, satisfactory, when the condi- tions under which the experiment was conducted and the method of feeding with light grain rations and without dry roughage of any sort are considered. TABLE IV. — Average Amount of Feed and Dry Matter Consumed Per Head Daily. DATE LOT 1 LOT 2 Ear corn Cotton- seed meal Cora silage Air-dry Kar matter corn Cotton- seed meal Corn silage Air-dry matter 1 Ibs Ibe- Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. 1 Ibs. 1 Ibs. I Ibs. Dec. 1-29 10.14 1.81 30.72 21.47 ! 1.81 46.66 19.85 Dec. 29-Jan. 26 13.54 2.00 24.59 20.69 2.00 49.52 18.29 Jan. 26-Feb. 23 15.08 2.00 20.44 21.03 11.75 2.00 26.85 20.72 Feb. 23-Mar. 22 15.48 2.12 17.38 20.10 14.60 2.12 18.26 20.48 Mar. 22-Apr. 4 15.83 2.97 16.60 20.29 15.00 2.97 17.36 20.03 Dec. 1-Jan. 26 (1st 56 days) 11.85 1.90 27.65 21.08 1.90 48.09 19.07 Jan. 26-Mar 22 (2d. 56 days) 15.28 2.06 18.91 20.57 13.18 2.06 22.56 20.61 Jan. 26-Apr. 4 (last 70 days) 15.03 2.24 18.47 20.51 13.54 2.24 21.52 20.49 Dec. 1-Apr. 4 (126 days) 13.81 2.09 22.54 20.76 7.52 2.09 33.33 19.86 Table IV shows that there was a gradual increase in both the amount of ear corn and cottonseed meal fed to the cattle in Lot I, but that an increase in concentrates was accompanied by a decrease in the amount of silage used. The steers in this lot consumed a greater amount of dry matter during the first eight weeks of the feeding period than during the last ten weeks. The reverse was true in Lot II where ear corn was added to the ration during1 the latter period. The total amount of feed used by each steer in Lot 9 I was 24.8 bushels of corn, 41.6 pounds of cottonseed meal and 2,593.4 pounds of corn silage. In Lot II it was 13.5 bushels of corn, 41.6 pounds of cottonseed meal and 4,365.8 pounds of corn sil- age. As the gains made by each lot were almost identical, it may be said that 1,772.4 pounds of corn silage replaced 792.92 pounds of ear corn, or a ton of silage would replace 894.6 pounds of ear corn, which at 7oc per bushel would give the silage a replacement value of $8.94 when substituted for ear corn under conditions prevailing in this test. TABLE V. — Feed and Air-Dry Matter Required to Produce a Pound of Increase in Live Weight. DATE LOT 1 LOT 2 Ear corn Cotton- seed meal Corn silage Air-dry matter Ear corn Cotton- seed meal Corn silagre Air-dry matter Dec. 1-Jan. 26 Jan. 26-Apr. 4 Dec. 1-Apr. 4 Ibs. 4.68 11.65 7.43 Ibs. .75 1.69 1.12 Ibs. 10.93 13.97 12.13 Ibs. 8.33 15.52 11.17 Ibs. 7.00 4.06 Ibs. .79 1.58 1.13 Ibs. 20.20 15.25 17.99 Ibs. 7.99 14.44 10.72 Table V shows that the amount of feed and dry matter re- quired to produce a pound of gain increases as the feeding period advances even though the ration is made more concentrated and has a higher energy value. This is probably due to the difference in the character of the gain. In the early stages there is a filling up of muscular tissue with water and proteids, but during the fin- ishing period the gain is for the most part fat, which has a higher energy value than any other substance in the body. The results indicate that the heavier silage ration was more efficient in pro- ducing gain, though the general appearance of the cattle indicated that Lot I was fatter at the close of the test, hence the difference in efficiency was probably due to a difference in the kind of mater- ial put on the carcass. Neither of the two lots were sufficiently finished to command the attention of buyers who look for fancy beef, but were classified as "handy-weight" steers such as are in strong demand at all times. A higher finish would have required a much longer feeding period and a much more expensive ration. Shipment and Sale of Cattle. The cattle were loaded on cars at State College Saturday morn- ing, April 6, 1912, and shipped to Pittsburgh where they were sold as one lot on Monday, April 8, 1912. The following table gives in detail the expenses incurred in shipment. 10 TABLE VI.— Shipment, Sale and Killing Test of Cattle. LOTl (12 Steers) LOT 2 (12 Steers) Home weight (not shrunk) 13 425 Ibs 13 360 Ibs Sale weight in Pittsburgh 12,720 " 12,630 " Dressing percentage 57 08 % 57.56 % ^^eight of hides 800 lb« 111 Ibs Edible fat 472 " 522 " Rough fat 60 " 60 " Selling value at yards $ 7 20 $ 7 00 Total receipts 8^15 84 884 10 Expenses of shipping: Freight $ 2405 $ 23.85 Commission 7 20 720 Feed and yardage 9 00 8.70 Total $ 40 26 $ 39 75 Net receipts 875 58 844.35 Selling value in feed lots without shrinkage 6.52 6.32 The shrinkage in transit was practically the same in each lot and was very much heavier than in former shipments between the two points. The cattle were delayed enroute, due to tracks Figure 3. Soil erosion due to a deficiency of humus, be seeded to permanent pasture. 11 Such hillsides should being blockaded, and as the car was heavily loaded this fact possibly caused an excess shrinkage. The morning of April 8, the weather was very damp, raw and disagreeable,, which material- ly affected the fill, and on account of securing experimental weights the selling was delayed until n o'clock during which time most of the fill had been lost. These factors should be taken into consideration when shrinkage is considered. The dressing per- centage in the two lots was quite similar, though the carcasses in Lot I were slightly more attractive, being smoother and more evenly covered. SUMMARY. Steer Feeding Experiment During the Winter of 1911-12. LOT 1 (12 Steers) LOT 2 (12 Steers) Length of feeding period 126 days 126 days Initial value per cwt. in feed lots $5.07 $5.07 Initial weight 10,615 Ibs. 10,560 Ibs, Final Weight 13,425 ' 13,360 Total gain 2,810 ' 2,800 Average daily gain per steer 1.86 ' 1.85 Total feed consumed: Ear corn 20,892.5 ' 11,377.5 Cottonseed meal . 3,167 ' 3,167 Corn silage 34,087.9 " 50,397.2 Air-dry matter consumed 31,403.4 " 30,037.9 Average daily feed per steer: Ear corn 13.81 " 7.52 Cottonseed meal 2.09 " 2.09 Corn silage 22.54 " 33.33 Average air-dry matter consumed per steer daily 20.76 " 19.86 Total cost of feed* $319.25 $252.64 Cost of feed per 100 Ib gain* 11.36 9.02 Total cost of cattle and feed 857.43 788.03 Cost per cwt. at close of expt > 6.39 5.90 Selling value per cwt. in Pittsburgh 7.20 7.00 Selling value at home \ . 6.52 6.32 Net receipts 875.58 844.35 Total profit* 18.15 56.32 Price received per bushel of corn fed after paying for other feeds* .761 $1.046 Price received per ton for silage after paying for other feeds* 4.65 5.73 *Based upon ear corn at 70c per bushel: cottonseed meal at $32.00 per ton and corn silage at $3.50 per ton. The summary of the experiment shows that the feedingof corn silage as the only roughage resulted in satisfactory gains in eacl lot, and that while there was a profit in feeding ear corn throughout the entire feeding period, a greater profit was secured when lighl 12 plain feeders averaging 880 pounds at the beginning of the feeding period were carried for two months on a ration consisting entirely of corn silage, followed with a grain ration toward the end of the feeding period. In estimating profits, full market value has been allowed for all feeds so as to cover the labor of feeding. No credit is given for manure or for pork produced from the droppings of the cattle. It is generally estimated that hogs following steers will gain 2 pounds for each bushel of ear corn fed to cattle. If this additional increase were allowed, the profit in Lot I would b.e increased $47.84, and in Lot II, $26.80 over and above that indi^ cated in the summary. A record of bedding used and manure pro- duced in Lot I was kept, which shows that 25,6/5 pounds of saw- dust and 2,762 pounds of straw were used for bedding. The manure weighed out amounted to 101,560 pounds. Al- lowing $1.00 per ton for sawdust (the cost delivered at barn), $8.00 per ton for straw and $1.50 per ton for manure, there was an ad- ditional profit of $31.24 to that made from direct feeding of steers and production of pork from droppings in Lot I during the 126 days of feeding. This shows that in cattle feeding, the profits secured from the by-products of feed lots may amount to more than the direct financial gain on the cattle. The test shows con- clusively that silage can be used as roughage even in the coldest- of winters when fed in an open shed ; that there was a considerable saving of corn by the exclusive use of silage during the first part of the feeding period and that the value of feeds utilized in the production of beef during the winter of 1911-12 was much greater than their market value. The results of this and other tests at The Pennsylvania State College and Experiment Station indicate that beef can be finished profitably in the state, where due atten- tion is paid to the growth of crops equally adaptable to the soil and to feeding purposes. WINTERING BEEF BREEDING COWS Selection of rations on which beef cattle may be successfully maintained during the winter at a comparatively • low cost is one of the most important problems before live stock producers. In the past, the feeders of beef cattle have depended upon shipping cattle from western markets for finishing o"n eastern grown feeds, as two- year-old steers could be purchased for less than the cost of pjoduc- ing them locally. The large ranges of the west are being divided into smaller farms and their supply of cattle is diminishing while the demand is continually increasing. The result of this will be Figure 4- Group of Angus cows used in silage experiment. Photograph taken at close of feeding period. the production of feeding cattle on lands that are especially adapted to the business, capable of producing grass in abundance, well sup- plied with water and shade and of such topography or distance from markets that they cannot profitably be utilized for the con- tinuous production of cereal crops. There are large areas in almost every section of Pennsylvania, which, although too steep to plow, are especially adapted to the growth of pasture grasses and in every way favorable to the pro- duction of beef. In many of the counties w.here timber has been cut off, the hillsides might as well be producing grass as brush and weeds. The problem after the pastures have been established is 14 to grow a sufficient amount of roughage to carry cattle through winter at a minimum of expense. The demand for hay has in- creased so rapidly during the past few years that many farmers would sell it rather than feed it to cattle, were it not for the fact that they realize the necessity of keeping roughage on the farm in order to maintain the fertility of the soil. This experiment was undertaken to find some feed that would produce a larger amount of food nutrients per acre than hay, nil Figure 5. Low-set Blocky Aberdeen Angus cows suitable for the produc- tion of market topping steers. equally as well adapted to the feeding of breeding cattle, supple- mented with a minimum amount of concentrated feeds which would furnish the digestible nutrients not provided by the farm-grown crop. Corn silage was selected as most nearly meeting these con- ditions. It is adaptable to a wider range of soil conditions than any other crop except grass, it produces a large amount of food nutrients per acre, is palatable, succulent, easily grown, harvested with comparative ease and can be stored at less expense for buildings than any other forage crop. In addition to these advan- tages, there is no other form in which the corn crop will be entirely consumed by livestock, thus it increases in value by being placed in the silo. Cottonseed meal was used as a supplement because 16 of the fact that protein, in which corn silage is quite deficient, could be secured in this form cheaper than from any other source and because of the large percentage of protein that could be fed in very small quantities, thus reducing the expense for transporation and labor in feeding. Previous investigation has also shown that the laxative tendency caused by heavy feeding of succulent feeds is materially reduced by the addition of cottonseed meal to the rations. The Plan of the Experiments. Ten pure-bred Shorthorn cows were purchased in Mercer County, Pennsylvania, and ten pure-bred Aberdeen-Angus cows were selected from the College herds to be used in the test.The Shorthorns were in very thin flesh, having been kept entirely on grass during the summer and fall of 1911. On account of the de- ficiency in rainfall, pastures were extremely short, hence the cattle had lost flesh during the grazing season. They had produced calves the preceding year, but were not bred at the time of purchase. The Angus cows had raised calves during the summer and were re-bred to produce another crop during the winter and spring. Because of the better fall pasture in the central part of the state, they were in much higher condition at the beginning of the test. Each group of ten cows was allowed to run loose under an open shed used for steer feeding purposes, adjoining which was an open lot. The floor space in each shed, exclusive of that occupied by mangers and feeding alley, was 420 square feet. The area of the open lot was 780 square feet. The cattle were confined in these lots from the beginning of the experiment on December i, 1911, until the close, April 19, 1912, a period of 140 days. While the housing and shelter were ample, as shown by results secured, a greater area in the open lot would be desirable. Method of Feeding. The corn silage was removed from the silo twice daily and ted to the cows directly after weighing, in such quantities that there would be none left in the mangers one hour after feeding. Cottonseed meal was fed once daily at the rate of one pound to each cow. This was distributed over th'e entire amount of silage in order that the amount consumed would be determined by the amount of silage. One lot of cows was bedded with sawdust, the other with straw. Bedding was distributed at such intervals as the condition of sheds and lots justified. 16 TABLE I.— Showing Feeds Fed and Refused. DATE 10 Shorthorn Cows 10 Aberdeen Cows Cotton- seed meal Corn silage Refused silage Cotton- seed meal Corn silage Refused silage Dec 1-15 1911 .... 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 8000 7700 7700 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 181.00 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 8700 . 7775 7700 8400 8400 8400 8400 7550 7000 7000 74.58 19.00 57.00 130.75 309.75 13V.75 Dec 15-29 Dec. 29-Jan. 12, 1912 .. Jan 12-26 9.25 11.50 8.00 33.50 54.75 87.25 15.50 Jan 26-Feb 9 . . Feb 9-23 Feb. 23-Mar 8 Mar 8-22 Mar 22-Apr 5 Apr. 5-19 ! 1400 I 82200 | 400.75 || 1400 1 79325 | 726.83 Figure 6. Shorthorn cow used in silage experiment, at end of feeding period. Note high condition Table I shows that the Shorthorn cows did not consume quite as much silage during the first two weeks as did the Angus, due to the fact that they had never been fed from the silo previously, while the Angus cows had received silage in their ration the preced- ing winter. After the first six weeks, frowever, both lots were fed at the rate of 60 pounds per head daily, which proved to be ample for satisfying their appetites. This amount was fed to the Short- 17 horn cows throughout the remainder of the winter, with less than i% waste. During the latter part of February, however, the An- gus cows refused to eat. the full allowance, although they were in- creasing in weight and some of them were suckling calves. This result confirms that of preceding tests at this station with steers fed largely on roughage, when thin they will make very rapid gains, but as they improve in condition, their consumption of feed decreases, finally reaching a point where the appetite for roughage is only sufficient for maintenance. It is probable that a decrease in food consumption would also have been noted in the Shorthorn lot if the test had been continued through a longer period of time. At the close of the test, both lots of cows were turned on pasture without grain and had made slight gains after two months of grazing, at which time this report was written. As beef cattle are maintained largely for the purpose of pro- ducing manure to be used in increasing the yield of crops, a record of the amount of bedding and manure produced in the Shorthorn lot was secured. During the 140 day feeding period, 9851 pounds of straw were used in bedding the ten cows, and from this lot 88,405 pounds of manure were removed. It would require, under these conditions, the straw from approximately one acre of small grain to bed each individual and this would result in the production of 8,840 pounds of manure. A larger amount of straw could have been util- ized to advantage where cows were closely confined as in this test, though under farm conditions where the cows were permitted to run in pasture during suitable weather, the required amount of bedding could be materially reduced. Summary of Experiment in Wintering Twenty Beef Breeding Cows. Length of experiment : 140 days Initial weight of 20 cows 21,438.7 Ibs. Final weight of 20 cows 24,729.66 Total gain 3,290.84 Average daily gain per cow 1.17 Total feed consumed Corn silage 16,039.75 Cottonseed meal 2,800.00 Average daily feed per cow Corn silage 57.64 Cottonseed meal «• 1.00 Cost of feeding 20 cows Corn silage @ $3.50 per ton $280.69 Cottonseed meal @ $30.00 per ton 42.00 Total $322.69 18 Average cost of feed per cow Bedding used per cow 985 Ib. wheat straw @ $8.00 per ton Labor in feeding Total expenditure Value of manure per cow 8840 Ibs. @ $1.50 per ton Value of increase in weight: 164.5 Ib. @ 5c per Ib Total value Net cost of wintering cow 16.13 3.94 2.00 22.07 6.63 8.22 14.85 8.22 The data presented in the summary is based upon prevailing local prices of feeds throughout the state during the winter of 1911- Figure 7. A typical Shorthorn cow suitable for the production of feeding steers. 12. Corn silage is valued at $3.50 per ton, which is equivalent to 7oc per bushel for corn, thus allowing a very material profit in its pro- duction before charging it as feed. It required four tons of silage to winter each cow, which is equivalent to one-half of an acre when corn yields 40 bushels per acre or one-^hird of an acre when the land * will produce a 60 bushel corn crop. The weather conditions during the progress of the test were the most severe of any ever recorded at the local weather bureau, the temperature frequently falling be- 19 low zero and at times as low as 23 degrees below. The results were thus secured under the most unfavorable rather than favorable circumstances and should be easily duplicated in the future. As the cows have not lost in weight on pasture without grain from the iQth of April to the 29th of June, it is reasonable to suppose that they will maintain their weight throughout the summer where ample range is provided to insure an abundance of grass through- out the season. With pasture at $1.00 per head per month, the total cost of maintenance throughout the year will be $15.22 per head, or with pasture at $2.00 per head it will amount to $22.22, Figure 8. Group of Shorthorn cows at close of silaye feeding experiment either of which estimates allow ample profit from the growing of crops and a reasonable rate of interest on land kept in permanent pasture. Only a few of the cows have produced calves during the progress of the experiment. The oldest of these weighed 520 pounds when six months of age, which, at prevailing beef prices, would allow a profit of from $10 to $15 on the cost of keeping the cow. This system of farming will permit a uniform distribution of labor throughout the year, a maximum profit in the production of crops, the maintenance of soil fertility at a minimum expense and the utilization of all rough and broken land capable of pro- ducing grass. It will also solve the problem of securing feeding cattle at less cost than they can be purchased on the central markets of the country, eliminate loss in transit and insure a better bred lot of cattle in those sections of the state where the system is fol- lowed. The state of Pennsylvania is especially adapted to the pro- duction of grass and silage, which are the two crops considered in this experiment. The local demand for beef is greater than in any other section of the country, which should insure profitable pro- duction of beef within its borders through a long series of years. 20 The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 124 STEERS ON PASTURE STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS STATE COLLEGE CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SEPTEMBER, 1913. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE Advisory Committee of the Board of Trustees. II. V. WHITE. Chairman, Bloomsburg, I'enna VANCE C. McCORMICK ITarrisbnrg C. J. TYSON. Flora Dale E. S. BAYARD Pittsburgh N. B. CRITCHFIELD Stoyestown Experiment Station Staff. THE PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE. TR. L. WATTS Director : Horticulture WILLIAM FREAR .Vice Director : Experimental Agricultural Chemistry F. D. GARDNER Agronomy THOMAS I. MAIRS Agricultural Education CHARLES W. STODDART Agricultural Chemistry J. P. STEWART Experimental Pomology W. H. TOMA VE Animal Husbandry JOHN A. FERGUSON Forestry C. W. LARSON Dairy Husbandry ERA \K D. KERN " Botany M. S. McDOWELL .' .' Agricultural Extension C. L. GOODLING Superintendent of Farms *MISS ELIZABETH B. MEEK Bacteriology MISS MARGARET B. MacDONALD Agricultural Chemistry G. C. GIVEN Experimental Agricultural Chemistry C. F. NOLL Agronomy B. O. SEVERSON Animal Husbandry F. N. FAGAN Horticulture W. II. DA RST Agronomy E. L. WORTHEN Agronomy ARTHUR W. COWELL Horticulture CLAYTON R. ORTON . Botany W. R. GORTIAM Agricultural Extension EDWARD K. TTTBSHMAN Expert in Farm Management FRED S. PUTNEY Dairy Husbandry .7. BEN HILL ' Botany R. R. CTTAEFEE ' Forestry H. PL HAVNER Animal Husbandry W. E. TRIPP Bacteriology RALPH A. WALDRON Botany W. R. WHITE . Agricultural Education J. W. WHITE Agronomy C. E. MYERS ' .' Horticulture J. F. CLEVENGER Botany WALTER B. NISSLEY Horticulture J. F. ADAMS Botany M. C. KTLPATRICK Poultry Husbandry GEORGE R. GREEN .'.' '. . . .Forestry EARLE I. WILDE .' .' Horticultural ALBERT R. BECHTEI .'.'.. .'.' Botany JOSEPH F. COX Agronomy ERNEST L. ANTHONY Dairy Husbandry F P WEAVER Agricultural Chemistry .7. B. DEMAREE ..'.'. Botan? R. U. BLASTNGAME . Aeronomy R. S. MADDOX Forestry I .7 BTBBY . Dairy Husbandry J R BECHTEL Horticulture PAUL GERLAUGH Animal Husbandry ERNEST DeTURK Agricultural Chemistry A. R. HAAS Botany C. W. TTICKMAN Animal Husbandry EDWARD S. ERB Experimental Agricultural Chemistry WALTER THOMAS. Experimental Agricultural Chemistry HERBERT P. DAVIS Dairy Husbandry JAMES D. TTARLAN . Experimental Agronomy DAVID E WARNER Poultry Husbandry R. H. BELL Experimental Pomology P. W. CLEMMER Experimental Agricultural Chemistry FRED M CRAWFORD. ... . .'.' Experimental Agricultural Chemistry KARL J. SEULKE An'mnl Husbandry FRED S. HOLBEN. Experimental Agricultural Chemistry MISS JULT A TATHARTNE GRAY .' Librarian and Editor H. D. EDMISTON Experimental Agricultural Chemistry A. F. HILDEBRANDT '.'.'.". Gardener WILLIAM G. MURTORFF Clerk MISS MARY ANSART Stenographer MISS IT. MARILLA WILLIAMS Stenographer MISS JEAN T. SANDSTROM MISS EDITH DITEXIIAEKR. MISS M. VERNA BRYCE.. Stenographer Stenographer Stenographer MISS GRACE WELLI VER Stenographer MISS GRACE DeWALD Stenographer MISS BESSIE SHADE Stenographer MISS ALMA BRYCE Stenographer MISS L. MADELINE McCLINTOCK Stenographer The bulletins of the Station will be mailed regularly, free of charge, to all resi- dents of the State who request It. Address Director of Experiment Station, State Col- lege, Center County, Pa. *Absent on l^av<>. Sun I'tg. & Bdg. Co., Williamsport, Pa. The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 124 STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS AT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE By W. H. TOMHAVE and B. O. SEVERSON CONCLUSIONS. 1. Corn silage at $3.50 per ton is more economical as a sole roughage for feeding steers than a combination of silage and mixed hay when hay is valued at $12.00 per ton. 2. Corn silage was found more palatable for fattening steers than ear corn, which makes it necessary to limit the amount of si- lage in the ration in order to insure the greatest gain in flesh during the finishing period. 3. After paying farm prices for other feeds consumed (as indi- cated in Table VII), the steers in Lot I (silage as a sole roughage) returned $1.469 per bushel of corn. Lot II (silage and mixed hay as a sole roughage) returned $1.308 per bushel. 4. The margin necessary between the buying and selling prices in Lot I was .57 cents and in Lot II .71 cents per hundred pounds, live weight. 5. Steers returned $2.23 more per head for feed consumed when followed by hogs in the feed lot. 6. Net profits received from experimental feeding cattle under Pennsylvania conditions, not including pork produced, during the winter of 1912-1913 ranged from $11.224 per head for Lot II to $14.095 per head for Lot I. (23) 24 BULLETIN 124 INTRODUCTION. C , The high prices received for beef cattle during the winter of 1911-1912 created considerable interest in beef cattle feeding in Pennsylvania. Feeding cattle were high in price in the fall of 1912 which kept many farmers from purchasing steers to feed. The large corn and hay crops all over the country reduced the prices received for these feeds as compared to the previous year and brought greater returns to the farmer who fed his crops to cattle than when these feeds were sold on the market. The scarcity of beef cattle had a tendency to hold up the value of cattle during the entire winter and spring, resulting in substantial profits from feed- ing steers. The results reported in this experiment are similar to those ob- tained by many feeders in Pennsylvania. The financial results obtained in this test should not be taken as typical of what may be accomplished every year, as the price at which cattle are purchased and the market price of farm feeds and the selling price of the cattle are the determining factors. How- ever, if reasonable prices can be obtained from the feeds grown on the farm by feeding cattle, it is often better to dispose of these crops in that way than to sell them on the market. When crops are sold from the farm each year, a large amount of fertility is lost to the farm which would remain if the crops were marketed through cat- tle. Not only would the fertility remain on the farm, but a market would be established for many unsalable farm crops. Object. The object of this experiment was to obtain additional informa- tion upon the feeding value of corn silage and mixed hay as roughage in feeding cattle. Also to further investigate the advisability of hav- ing the ration made up largely of roughage during the early part of the feeding period and of adding grain during the latter part. Pre- vious experiments at this Station indicate that it is more desir- able to feed a large amount of roughage during the early part of the feeding period and to add grain to the ration during the latter part. By this method of feeding, the daily gains made were not as large as when grain was fed the entire time, but the gains were made STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 25 much cheaper than when considerable grain was fed during the early part of the feeding period. This experiment was carried on in line with the previous results obtained. Cattle. The cattle used in this trial were of mixed breeding with beef blood predominating. They were purchased in Roane County, West Virginia, and would have classed as fair feeders on the Pitts- burgh market. Nearly all were two-year old cattle and averaged a little less than nine hundred pounds per head at the time the feed- ing trial was started. Thirty head were purchased, of which twenty-four were used for the experiment. The cattle were equally divided in so far as weight, quality, breed and type were concerned with twelve head in each lot. Initial Cost of Cattle. The thirty head of cattle were purchased for $1600.00, plus the freight charges of $64.00 from West Virginia to Lemont, Pennsyl- vania, which is near one of the college farms. In addition to this, a charge of $1.50 per head is allowed tp pay for a month's pasture before they were put on the experiment. The thirty head of cattle on November 15 weighed 26,897 pounds which made the actual cost $6.28 per cwt. the day they were put on the experiment. Shelter, Feed Lots and Water Supply. These cattle were fed in an open shed enclosed on three sides and open to the south. The covered part of the shed, 14x30 feet, provides ample protection from rain and snow. An open pen, 25x 30 feet, joins the shed, permitting the cattle to take some exercise. The open lots are cemented and have retaining walls which keep them from getting muddy during wet weather, but require consid- erable bedding to absorb the water. Open galvanized tanks filled with water were kept before the cattle constantly. On account of the mild winter, little difficulty was experienced from freezing of the water. Feeds and Method of Feeding. The steers in Lot I were fed all the corn silage they would con- sume during the first two months of the feeding period. In addi- tion to this they received three pounds of cottonseed meal per 1000 26 BULLETIN 124 pounds live weight daily. At the end of fifty-six days, they were fed, in addition to this combination, all the ear corn they would con- sume. During the last two months they received shelled corn in place of ear corn as they would not consume a full feed of corn on the cob without wasting some of it. The individuals in Lot II re- ceived, as roughage, twenty pounds of corn silage and all the mixed hay they would consume during the first fifty-six days. In addi- tion to this roughage, they received three pounds of cottonseed meal per 1000 pounds live weight daily. During the third month they received in addition all the ear corn they would consume. During the last two months they received shelled corn in place of ear corn. The time of feeding was the same for both lots. They were fed at 6 A. M. and 4:30 P. M. each day. Lot I received half its silage at each feeding period and half its allowance of cottonseed meal. Lot II received its hay in the morning and silage in the evening. The cottonseed meal was all fed in the evening and not divided as in Lot I. The cottonseed meal was poured over the si- lage at the time of feeding. During the period in which grain was fed it was placed in the mangers prior to feeding the roughage. The ear corn was broken into pieces three to four inches in length so as to make it readily and completely consumable. The quality of the feed used in the test was good. The silage was put up in a wooden stave silo from corn that was in the dent stage or fairly well matured. Because of the mild winter there was little trouble from the silage freezing in the silo which made it easy to handle. The mixed hay was grown on the College farm and was of good quality but had more timothy than was desirable for feeding steers. The ear and shelled corn was also grown on the College farm and most of it was well matured. The cottonseed meal was of a "choice" grade. Price of Feeds. The prices of the feeds used in the financial statement are such as prevailed in the vicinity of State College during the winter. Corn silage was valued at $3.50 per ton, mixed hay at $12.00 per ton. ear corn at 55c for a bushed of 72 pounds, shelled corn at 550 per bushel of 56 pounds and cottonseed meal at $31 per ton. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 2? Weights and Weighing. Each steer was weighed individually for three consecutive days at the beginning of the feeding trial. Individual weights were taken for three consecutive days for the initial weight at the end of fifty-six days, the roughage feeding period, and at the conclusion of the experiment. At the end of each four weeks, individual weights were taken on one day and group weights were taken on the day previous and following the day on which individual weights were obtained. Group weights were also taken in the middle of each four-week period. The weighing was always done at 9 A. M. with- out any change in the feeding and handling of the cattle. Hogs in the Feed Lot. A few hogs were put in the lots at the end of the first month but as the cattle were receiving no grain, except that found in the silage, it was necessary to supply additional feed. The hogs put in the lot were not first class and some were too small to make the most desirable type of hogs to follow cattle. Table I.— Air Dry Moisture in Feeds' Nov. 29 Dec. 27 Jan. 24 Feb. 21 Mar. 21 Average Amount of Dry Matter In Feeds Ear corn Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. 16.36 Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. 83.64 Cottonseed meal .... Mixed hay 8.25 6 21 6.31 18.75 6.31 14.28 8.26 18 72 9.82 27.78 92.21 82.85 Corn silage 65 68 68.19 68.93 6606 66.62 32.91 Shelled corn . ... 15.73 17.39 18.61 82.76 Refused corn silage. Refused hav. . 71.00 6.37 67.10 20.86 67.40 22.12 74.16 23.00 66.26 35.90 30.82 78.35 * Reported by the Department of Experimental Agricultural Chemistry. Samples of feed were taken every month to the Laboratory of Experimental Agricultural Chemistry for air-dry moisture determi- nations. In studying Table I, it will be noted that the amount of moisture in the cottonseed meal, corn silage and shelled corn was quite uniform. The amount of moisture in the hay varied from 6.29 per cent, to 27.78 per cent., or a variation of 21.57 per cent. BULLETIN 124 Table II.— Feeds Offered and Refused: Lot 1 — 12 Steers OFFEB ED I lEFUSED DATE 11 Cotton- seed meal 3| Shelled corn §1 Is Is 02 * Nov, 15-29.. fts. 6800 ft s. 302 ft a. ftS. K>s. 63 50 ftS. ftS. Nov. 29— Dec. 13 8125 432 5 46 75 Dec. 13— Dec. 27 .... 9050 482 105 25 Dec. 27— Jan. 10, 1913 7900 490 153 00 Jan. 10— Jan. 24 5450 497.5 1575 141 00 Jan. 24— Feb 7 4077 504 2171 87 00 186 50 Feb. 7—21 3960 514 1903 11 25 15 00 Feb. 21— March 7 3500 532 1942 9 50 39 25 March 7— March 21 . . 3500 532 1817 32 50 March 21— April 4 . . 3500 532 1956 1 75 27 25 55862 4818 3746 7618 651.50 186.50 81.50 Lot M--12 Steers DATE OFFERED REFUSED 3 M 0.5 0-3 sk X rt X* Cotton- seed meal ss Ho Shelled corn B| 6| S>> M * 2* ss Hg Shelled corn Nov. 15-29. . BBS. 3060 3360 3360 3360 3360 3360 3360 3360 3360 3360 tt)S. 1750 1905 1750 1660 1280 830 700 700 700 600 fts. 302 432 481 490 497 504 513 532 532 532 tts. 1575 2295 fts. ftS. 30.50 tt>s. 31.71 63.00 39.50 97.25 134.75 143.00 51.50 72.75 32.50 as. ftS. 58.50 76.50 Nov. 29— Dec. 13 Dec. 13-Dec. 27..... Dec. 27— Jan. 10, 1913. Jan . 10— Jan .24 "3" 55.75 Jan.24-Feb. 7 Feb . 7-21 1876 1947 1551 1644 62.25 93.'50 130.25 17.50 Feb. 21— March 7 ... Mar. 7— Mar 21 Mar. 21— Apr. 4 33300 11695 4815 3870 7018 334.00 666.00 58.75 135.00 By a study of Table II, which gives the amount of feed con- sumed and refused, it will be seen that Lot I was consuming the maximum amount of corn silage, as a small amount was refused each feeding period. Lot II received an average of about 20 pounds of corn silage per head daily and refused very little during the entire feeding period. The steers in Lot II were receiving all the hay they would consume in addition to this amount of silage as indicated by the amount refused, even though the amount was gradually decreased after the first month. It will also be noticed that the amount of roughage consumed materially decreased when grain was added to the ration. In Lot I, the amount of silage consumed decreased 1438 pounds during a two-week period when 1575 pounds of ear corn were added. The addition of corn to the ration did not decrease the appetite of the cattle for silage, but it became necessary to re- duce the amount fed in order to get the cattle to eat a sufficient STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 29 amount of grain. In Lot II, the amount of hay consumed de- creased 327 pounds during the two-week period when 1575 pounds of corn were added to the ration. Lot I refused a considerable por- tion of the ear corn offered at the end of the third month of the feeding period. The steers would shell the corn and refuse to eat the cob. As soon as the shelled corn was substituted for the ear corn, very little was refused. Lot II consumed a little more ear corn than did Lot I but Lot I consumed 654 more pounds of shelled corn than did the cattle in Lot II. Table III. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Steers, November 15, 1912, to April 4, 1913, (28 Day Periods) 140 Days. Lot I. Lot II. First Period: Corn silage Lbs. A A (\(\A Lbs. 1 Q fJ1 f\ Cottonseed meal 2-1 or o -1 or Mixed hay • 1 0 9QP» Ear corn Air dry matter 171 QQ 1 fi 1 Qfl Second Period: Corn silage .... 1 1 .Idy 49.676 20.00 Cottonseed meal 2.899 2.899 Mixed hay 9.750 Ear corn . . Air dry matter . ... 18.519 17.000 Third Period: Corn silage 27.673 19.801 Cottonseed meal 2.981 2.981 Mixed hay 5.416 Ear corn 10.594 11.372 Air dry matter 20.252 23.110 Fourth Period: Corn silage 22.14 19.702 Cottonseed meal. . . . 3.113 3.110 Mixed hay . . . 3.794 Shelled corn ... 11.282 11.202 Air dry matter 19.692 21.879 Fifth Period: Corn silage 20.730 19.000 Cottonseed meal . 3.166 3.166 Mixed hay 3.772 Shelled corn 11.146 9.281 Air dry matter 18.848 19.377 Average for 140 Days: Corn silage. . 32.226 19 503 Cottonseed meal 2.869 2.866 Mixed hay 6.606 Ear corn 2 119 2.274 Shelled corn 4.485 4.096 Air dry matter 18.99 19 111 • BULLETIN 124 Fig. 1.— Lot 1 at the Beginning of the Feeding Period Fig. 2.— Lot I at the Close of the Feeding Period STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 31 Fig. 3.— Lot II at the Beginning of the Feeding Period Fig. 4-.-Lot II at the Close of the Feeding Period 32 BULLETIN 124 Table III is presented to show the average amount of feed con- sumed daily per steer by twenty-eight day periods. The aim in feeding these cattle was to get them to take a maximum amount of roughage as soon as possible after the trial began. The steers in Lot I were to receive all the corn silage they would consume and those in Lot II were to have twenty pounds of corn silage and all the mixed hay they would consume. Lot II received 33 1-3 pounds per day at the beginning. On the fourth day the amount was in- creased to 41.66 pounds per head. This was increased to 45.5 pounds on the nth day and raised to 50 pounds per head daily on the 2Oth day. Fifty pounds per head was the largest amount fed daily while the cattle were not receiving grain. The average daily consumption per steer in Lot II was eight pounds of mixed hay and fifteen pounds of silage during the first three days, after which the silage was increased to twenty pounds and the hay to ten pounds per head daily. On the tenth day the hay for Lot II was increased to twelve pounds daily per head which was the largest amount re- ceived at any time. At no time did these cattle show as keen an appetite for hay as for corn silage. At the beginning of the third period, ear corn was added to the ration which materially decreased the amount of roughage consumed. Both lots were started on 6l/2 pounds of ear corn per head daily. This was increased at the rate of one-half pound per head daily until the steers were receiving twelve pounds per head in both lots at the end of two weeks. At the end of twenty days, after the ear corn was added to the ration, Lot I was receiving fourteen pounds per head daily and Lot II fifteen pounds. This amount of ear corn seemed to be all the cattle would consume in addition to the other feeds. At the end of 28 days shelled corn was fed in place of ear corn as they were beginning to refuse a portion of the latter. There was little variation in the amount of shelled corn con- sumed during the fourth period, each lot consuming about eleven pounds per head daily, During the fifth period, Lot I consumed an average of about two pounds more per head than did Lot II. The amount of dry matter consumed by Lot I during the differ- ent periods was very uniform with a variation of less than three pounds for the entire period. A difference of over five pounds was found in Lot II. The average for the entire period is very nearly the same, being slightly in favor of Lot I. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 33 Table IV. — Average Daily Gain per Steer, by Periods. Lot I. Lot II. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. November 15 — November 29 2.33 ) 2 4^ 2.65 l o on November 29 — December 13 2.57 }••• M*%U 1.75 /•• U9O\f December 13 — December 27. December 27 — January 10-13 3.055 ) .35 /•••• 1.35 2.281 \ .377 j ' * .952 January 10 — January 24 January 24 — February 7 3.26 \ 1.033 / ' 2.147 3.07 \ 2.42 / ' ' 2.74 February 7 — February 21. .. February 21 March 7 1.95 \ 2.00 t 1.975 1.25 -I 2.75 /" 2.00 March 7 March 21 ... 1.48 \ 2197 / •••• 1.838 1.37 ) 1.36 f" 1.365 March 21 April 4 November 15 to January 10, 56 davs 1.90 ) 1.576 January 10 to April 4, 84 da ivs 1.987 2.035 Average,- November 15 to April 4. 140 days.. 1.944 1.803 From Table IV, it will be noted that satisfactory gains were made by both lots from the beginning of the experiment to the end of the first six weeks, Lot I making an average gain of 2.655 pounds per head daily, while Lot II made a gain of 2.34 pounds per head daily. The cattle in both lots made no gain during the two weeks from December 27 to January 10, but showed a loss of .35 pounds per head daily in Lot I and .37 pounds per head daily in Lot II for that period. Since neither lot made any gains during that time, the cause in each case must be the same. During these two weeks the weather was very warm and much rain fell which may have been the cause of the cattle not doing well. The cattle in both lots seemed to lack appetite. Previous experiments indicate that after roughage alone has been fed for a time, the cattle seem to stop gain- ing satisfactorily unless grain of some kind is added to the ration. It is possible that the length of time that roughage alone could be fed to advantage to these cattle was six weeks instead of eight weeks as planned. As soon as ear corn was added to the ration both lots again made better gains and continued to gain to the end of the feeding period. The gains for the entire feeding period were more uniform in Lot I than in Lot II. The fluctuation of daily gains made was much greater in Lot II than in Lot I. Lot II also showed the greatest variation in the amount of feed consumed. The daily gains made by the cattle in Lot I for both the first and second periods were about the same. Lot II made nearly .5 of a pound greater gains during the second period than during the first period. 34 BULLETIN 124 This would seem to indicate that silage is a more completely digest- ible food than mixed hay, since there was little difference in the amount of dry matter and other food nutrients consumed daily by the two lots. Table V.— Average Weight and Gain of Steers. N"r» Lo t 1. Final Weight Initial Weight Gain 140 Days Daily Gain 4 Lbs. 1141 66 Lbs. 923 33 Lbs. 21833 Lbs. 1 560 5 1193 00 868 33 326 67 2 333 7 1301 66 966 66 335 00 2 393 8 . 1208 33 920 00 288 33 2 059 11 1326 66 998 33 328 33 2 345 12 1235 00 936 66 298 34 2 131 16 .. 1293 33 906 66 386 67 2 762 19 1045.00 901.66 143 34 1 024 28 1145 00 891 66 286 67 2 048 43 1108.33 916 66 191 67 1.362 63 1003.33 77500 228.33 1.631 72 1085.00 836.66 248.34 1774 Total 14,088.30 10,808.28 3280.02 "Wr» Lot 11. Final Weight Initial Weight Gain 140 Days Daily Gain 1 Lbs. 1293.33 Lbs. 958 33 Lbs. 335.00 Lbs. 2.393 2 1208 33 88500 323.33 2.309 3 ...'.... 1011 66 838 33 173.33 1.248 13 1080 00 831 66 248.34 1.774 14 1093 33 923.33 170.00 1.214 17 1303.33 955.00 348.33 2 488 20 1266 66 996 66 270.00 1 929 21 1223.33 975.00 24833 1.774 22 1281.66 930.00 351 66 2.512 61 1116.66 868.33 24833 1.774 62 1201.66 916 66 285.00 2.036 67 918.33 785.00 '133.33 .950 Total .. 13,998.28 10,863.30 3134.95 Table V shows the individual weights of the steers in both lots at the beginning and close of the feeding trial, the total gains made and the average daily gain made by the individual steers. It will be noted that at the beginning of the feeding trial, there were nine head in Lot I weighing over 900 pounds and eight in Lot II, but that those weighing between eight and nine hundred pounds in Lot II averaged more than those in Lot I. The total weight made the STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 35 average of Lot II sixty pounds heavier than that of Lot I. In select- ing the individuals for each lot it was deemed more desirable to have a uniform distribution of type, breed and conformation, even though there was a slight difference in the weight of the two lots. The cattle in each lot making the good gains were deep bodied, wide over the back and loin and possessed wide foreheads. Those mak- ing the smallest gains were individuals that were shallow bodied, narrow in the forehead and restless in the feed lot. Lot I shows greater uniformity in individual gains which corresponds to their behavior in the amount of dry matter and feed consumed during the different periods. Table VI. — Showing Amount of Feed and Dry Matter Consumed Daily per Steer by Periods, Amount of Dry Matter per Pound of Gain, and Cost of Producing a Pound of Gain. Lot 1. Lot II. First Period (56 Days): 46.885 Lbs. 19 507 Lbg 2 542 " 2 542 10.024 Ear corn Air dry matter 17.829 " 17.595 1.90 " 1.576 Air dry matter per pound of gain. . . . 9.383 " 6.45 Cents 11.164 8 39 Cents 12.140 Cents 13 367 Cents Second Period (84 Days): Silage 23.514 Lbs 19 501 Lbs Cottonseed meal 3 087 " 3 086 4 327 •Ear corn 3.531 " 3.791 7.476 " 6 827 Air dry matter 19 597 " 21 455 1.987 " 2 035 Air dry matter per pound gain 9.875 " 10 453 9.55 Cents 10 000 Cents Cost of feed per day 18 837 Cents 20 3922 Cents 1 944 Lbs. 1 805 Lbs Dry matter for pound gain entire period . 1008 10 853 " Cost per pound gain entire period .... 8.31 " 9.215 " Table VI shows the average amount of feed and dry matter consumed per head daily by periods, the air-dry matter necessary to produce a pound of gain, the cost of feed per head daily- and the cost per pound of gain. During the first period, the steers in Lot I 36 BULLETIN 124 consumed 'more than twice as much corn silage as did those in Lot II. The steers in Lot II, however, consumed ten pounds of hay to take the place of 27 pounds of corn silage in order to obtain an equal amount of dry matter. 9.383 pounds of dry matter were re- quired to produce a pound of gain in Lot I, while Lot II required 11.164 pounds, or 1.781 pounds more than Lot I. The daily cost -of feed per steer in Lot I was 12.140 cents; Lot II 13.367 cents. The cost of producing a pound of gain during the first 56 days was 6.45 cents for Lot I and 8.38 cents for Lot II. This would indicate that mixed hay is not worth $12 per ton for fattening cattle when corn silage can be obtained for $3.50 per ton. During the second period, the steers in Lot I consumed only four pounds more corn silage per head daily than did those in Lot II, those in Lot II con- suming 4.327 pounds of mixed hay in addition to the silage. The amount of ear corn consumed in each lot was nearly the same while Lot I consumed a small amount more of shelled corn than did Lot II. Lot II consumed approximately two pounds more of dry mat- ter per head daily than Lot I. A greater amount of dry matter was required to make a pound of gain in Lot II than in Lot I. It cost .045 cents more to put on a pound of gain, and the cost of feed per head daily was 1.5 cents higher, in Lot II than in Lot I. It will be noticed that there is a marked difference in the cost per pound of gain in the two periods, due to the cheapness of the feed consumed and also to the fact that, in the early part of the feeding period, muscle tissue is being rebuilt and water is added to the body. '] During the latter part of the feeding period, fat is put on, which re- quires a concentrated grain feed, making the ration more expensive. Valuation and Sale of Cattle. At the close of the experiment, April 4, Mr. E. S. Bayard, of Pittsburgh, placed a value upon the cattle based upon the Pitts- burgh market at that time. He valued both lots at $8.50, stating that there was not enough difference in the condition or finish of the two lots to make a difference in the price. Lot I showed a sleeker coat than did Lot II but it seemed that Lot II carried a little more flesh. The two lots of cattle were sold on the College farm to Al- toona (Pennsylvania) butchers at $8.20 per hundred with 3% shrinkage, cattle weighed on full feed. They valued both lots alike and stated that from a butcher's standpoint there was no difference in the two lots. The cost of shipping and other expenses of putting cattle from State College on the Pittsburgh market is thirty-five cents per cwt. This expense was estimated in selling the cattle on the basis of the Pittsburgh market. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS Table VII. — Summary of Feeding Experiment. 37 Lot I. 12 Steers Lot II. 12 Steers RATION Corn Silage Cottonseed Meal Ear Corn Shelled Corn Corn Silage Mixed Hay Cottonseed Meal Ear Corn Shelled Corn Initial value $ 6 28 $ 6.28 Initial weight 10,808.33 Lbs 10,863.33 Lbs. Final weight 14,088.30 " 13,998.28 " Total gain 3,279.77 3,134 95 Average daily gain. . 1,944 " 1.803 " Feed Consumed: Silage 55,210.50 " 32 891 82 Mixed hay 11 029 00 '' Cottonseed meal.. 4,818.00 " 4 816 00 Ear corn ... . .... 3,559.50 " 3 811 25 Shelled corn 7,536.50 '• 698300 Daily Feed per Steer: Silage .... 32 266 " 19 503 " Mixed hay 6 606 " Cottonseed meal . 2 869 " 2 863 " Ear corn 2 119 " 2 274 " Shelled corn 4 48^ " 4 096 " Cost of Feed per Lot: Silage $96 832 $57 56 Mixed hay $66 174 Cottonseed meal $74 68 $74 63 Ear corn .... $27 194 $29 117 Shelled corn $74 001 $68 575 Cost of Feed $272 707 $296 56 Cost of gain per cwt $8.31 $9.46 Necessary selling value per cwt Actual selling price in lots plus 3% shrinkage 6.753 8.20 6.992 8.20 Initial value per steer . ... 56.56 56 851 Cost of feed per steer 22.725 42.71 Selling value per steer 93 38 92 785 Profit per steer not including pork. . . Price received from a bushel of corn after paying for other feeds 14.095 $1.469 11.224 $1.308 Prices received for feeds when fed to beef cattle: Corn silage per ton Mixed hay per ton Cottonseed meal per ton Corn per bushel $5.69 49.79 $ .8911 $5.09 17.45 45.05 $ .799 *Based upon corn silage at $3.50 per ton; mixed hay $12 per ton; cotton seed meal $31 per ton, and corn at 55 cents per bushel. 38 BULLETIN 124 A summary of this experiment shows that the feeding of corn silage alone as a roughage was the more satisfactory of the two methods of feeding. In this lot the gains were made more cheaply and larger daily gains were obtained than were made by the cattle receiving corn silage and hay for a roughage. The cost of produc- ing one hundred pounds of gain was greater in Lot II than in Lot I. This is, however, due to the fact that mixed hay is more ex- pensive at $12.00 per ton than is corn silage at $3.50 per ton. The experiment also bears out the results of previous experi- ments at the Station, which indicate that when light weight cattle of about 900 pounds are put on roughage during the early part of the feeding period they will make economical gains even though it may be done at smaller gains per head daily. The cost of producing one hundred pounds of gain in Lot I was 1.15 cents less than that of Lot II. This difference was in a meas- ure due to the irregular gains made by Lot II and also the price charged for hay. The necessary margin between the buying and selling prices of the two lots was 47 cents in Lot I and 71 cents in Lot II. The price received for each bushel of corn consumed after paying the average market price for the other feeds was $1.469 for Lot I, and $1.308 for Lot II. Allowing a proportionate increase in value for all feeds fed from the profits on the cattle the returns are as follows : Lot I. Corn Silage $ 5.69 per ton. Cottonseed Meal 49-79 per ton. Corn 891 1 per bushel. Lot II. Corn Silage $ 5.09 Mixed Hay 17.45 Cottonseed Meal 45.05 Corn 799 per bushel. The hogs in Lot I gained 611 pounds while following the cattle. In addition to the droppings from the steers, they received 2160 pounds of a grain mixture of corn and tankage. Valuing the addi- tional feed at $25 per ton, they made a profit of $30.12 from follow- ing the cattle. The hogs in Lot II gained 575 pounds. They also received 2160 pounds of grain in addition to what they were able STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 38 to pick up in the feed lot. This lot of steers made a profit from hogs following them of $26.76 or $2.23 per head. Adding this to the .profit from actual feeding, the net profits from Lot I are $199.26 and for Lot II $151.44. No account was kept of the amount of manure produced or the bedding used. The manure produced should pay- for the bed- ding used and for the labor required to feed the cattle. When farm grown feeds are fed to cattle and home market prices are al- lowed for the feed, the labor of handling is paid for, as in such instances fully as much labor is required to handle the feed in haul- ing it to market as is required when feeding it to cattle. The results of this experiment again demonstrate that cattle feeding is a profitable business in Pennsylvania. It may not be possible to make such large profits each year, but it means a steady market for some forms of roughage that can be but should not be sold from the farm. It further demonstrates that corn silage is one of the most valuable roughages that can be obained for feeding beef cattle. The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 133 STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS STATE COLLEGE CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NOVEMBER, 1914. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Advisory Committee of the Board of Trustees H. V. WHITE, Chairman, Bloomsburg, Penna. B. 8. BAYARD Pittsburgh N. B. CRITCIIFIELD Stoyestown VANCE C. McCORMICK. .Ilarrisburg C. J. TYSON Flora Dale EDWIN ERLE SPARKS. President of the College. STAFF Administration R. L. Watts, Dean1 nnd Director. C. L. Goodling, Superintendent of Farms. Julia C. Gray, Librarian and Editor. William G. Mnrtorff, Clerk. B. Marilla Williams, Record Cleri. Jean T. Sandstroni, Secretary. Agronomy F. D. Gardner, Head Department. E, L. Worth en, Soils. C. F. Noll, Farm Crops. W. H. Dnrst, Farm Crops. J. W. White, Soils. R. U. Blasingame, Rural Engineering. R. S. Smith, Soils. B. L. Moftitt, Soils. H. N. Cobb, Farm Crops. L. J. Obold, Farm Crops. Agricultural Education T. I. Mairs, Head of Department. W. R. White, Assistant. Agricultural Chemistry Charles W. Stoddart, Head of Department. Margaret B. MacDonald, Food and Dairy Chemistry. T. P. Weaver, Soil & Fertilizer Chemistry. Ernest DeTurk, Physiological Chemistry. D. E. Daley, Assistant. Agricultural Extension M. S. McDowell, Head of Department. W. R. Gorham, Farm Management. B. K. Hibshman, State Leader of County Agents. Pearl MacDonald, Home Economics. L. C. Tomkins, Dairying. Animal Husbandry W. H. Tomhave, Head of Department. B. O. Severson, Sheep and Beef Cattle. U. H. Havner, Horses and Swine. Paul Gerlangh, Swine. M. C. Kilpatrick, Poultry. P. E. Daugherty, Herdsman. F. B. Crooks, Poultry. M. F. Grimes. Beef Cattle. Botany Frank D. Kern, Head of Department J. Ben Hill, Genetics. C. R. Orton, Plant Pathology. •R. A. Waldron, Plant Pathology • Absent on leave. J. F. Adams, Plant Pathology. A. R. Bechtel, Weeds and Seeds. J. B. Dcmaree. Plant Pathology. A. R. Haas, Plant Physiology. A. A. Hansen, Plant Pathology. W. H. McKinney. Plant Pathology. J. P. Kelley, Genetics. Dairy Husbandry C. W. Larson, Head of Department F. S. Putney, Milk Production. *Elizabeth B. Meek, Bacteriology. E. L. Anthowy, Dairy Buttermaking and Milk Production. S. I. Bechdel, Milk Production. J. M. Sherman, Bacteriology. G. S. Bulkley. Milk Production. I. J. Bibby, Dairy Manufacture. T. L. Hills. Bacteriology. F. P. Knoll, Superintendent of Creamery Experimental Agricultural Chemistry William Frear, Vice-Director and Head of Department. *Guy C. Given, First Assistant Chemist. E. S. Erb, Assistant Chemist. Walter Thomas, Assistant Chemist. II. R. K ray bill, Tobacco Experiments. F. J. Ilolben, Assistant Chemist. D. II. Bredt. Assistant Chemist. R. C. Bathgate, Assistant Chemist. B. L. Ca (dwell, Assistant Chemist. H. D. Edraiston, Laboratory Assistant. Charles Kern, Laboratory Assistant. Experimental Pomology J. P. Stewart, Head of Department W. C. Gillespie, Assistant. Forestry John A. Ferguson, Head of Department R. R. Chaffee, Lumbering. George R. Green, Wood Technology. Clarence Anderson, Forest Management. Horticulture M. G. Kains, Head of Department. C. E. Myers, Vegetable Gardening. Arthur W. Cowell. Landscape Gardening. F. N. Fagan, Pomology. Earl I. Wilde, Floriculture. J. R. Bechtel. Vegetable Gardening. A. F. Hildebrandt. Gardener. A. F. Mason, Pomology. Sun Ptg. & Bdg. Co., Williamsport. P* BULLETIN No. 133 STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS By W. H. TOMHAVE AND C. W. HICKMAN. CONCLUSIONS. 1. Corn silage at $3.50 per ton is slightly more economical when used as the sole roughage for steers, than a combination of mixed hay and silage in which the silage is limited to 20 pounds per had daily when hay, costing $12.00 per ton, is freely fed. 2. A ration of mixed hay and corn stover as roughage, with broken ear corn, or corn and cob meal, and bran as grain, when fed throughout the entire feeding period, is not economical in Pennsyl- vania. The cattle fed this ration through the entire feeding period produced 100 pounds of gain at an average cost of $12.97, while those receiving no grain during the first 56 days except cottonseed meal, and what grain was present in the silage, made 100 pounds of gain at an average cost of $10.48. Wheat bran as a source of protein at $25.00 per ton is much more expensive than cottonseed meal at $34.00 per ton. The additional cost of grinding corn is not repaid by greater gains from steers. 3. Alfalfa hay at $15.00 per ton, when fed at the rate of 5 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight in combination with corn silage, is not so efficient as a source of protein as 2}^ pounds of cottonseed meal per 1000 pounds live weight daily at $34.00 per ton. The feeding of 5 pounds of alfalfa hay with 2^2 pounds of cottonseed meal per 1000 pounds live weight daily as a source of protein, in a ration of corn silage and corn, is not now economical. Alfalfa hay, fed in combination with corn silage during the first 56 days with corn added to the ration for the balance of the period, reduced the cost of gams, but also decreased the rate of gain, as compared with the ration differing by the addition of cottonseed meal. 4. Corn silage at $3.50 per ton as the sole roughage is more economical than corn silage and alfalfa hay combined, when alfalfa hay costs $15.00 per ton. 246 BULLETIN 133 5. The cost of producing a pound of gain was considerably less during the first period, when roughage only was fed, than dur- ing the second period, when grain also was fed. 6. Cattle receiving no corn silage, but fed corn from the be- ginning of the experiment, consumed more dry matter daily than those fed corn silage without corn. INTRODUCTION. The prevailing high price of beef cattle during 1911, 1912, and 1913 created unusual interest in this class of live stock in Pennsyl- vania. Feeding cattle were in strong demand in the fall of 1913 and consequently sold at extremely high prices. The prevailing price was about one dollar per hundred higher than during the same time the previous year. As compared with conditions exist- ing during 1912 and 1913, the price of all farm feeds ranged much higher. The high prices paid for feeders combined with high priced grain and roughage made cattle feeding an unprofitable enterprise during the past winter. Very few cattle feeders realized financial profit after allowing prevailing market prices for roughage and grain fed/ The unfavorable market conditions for finished cattle during the spring of 1914 materially reduced the returns from cattle in the feed lots of Pennsylvania. As a consequence of these conditions the financial results obtained during- the past year are not normal. While the financial returns show a deficit this year, it must be re- membered that last year the profits from cattle feeding were con- siderably greater than the losses this year. It should also be noted that in the experiment of this year a higher price has been allowed for the farm feeds than a year ago. Objects. The objects of this experiment were: First, to secure more information concerning the value of corn silage as a roughage for fattening cattle ; Second, to determine the difference in the cost of feeding cattle by the common Pennsylvania method and that adopted by the Experiment Station ; Third, to determine the value of alfalfa, as a source of protein, in a ration fof fattening cattle, as compared with cottonseed meal; Fourth, to determine whether a ration containing alfalfa hay requires additional protein from some ~- STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 24^ concentrated feed such as cottonseed meal; Fifth, to compare rations in which the roughage is composed of corn silage only, corn silage and mixed hay, and corn silage and alfalfa hay ; Sixth, to de- termine the cost of producing a pound of gain during the first part of the feeding period, when roughage alone is fed, as compared with the latter part of the feeding period, when grain is added to the ration. Description of Cattle. The cattle used in this experiment were of mixed breeding, with beef blood predominating. They were purchased in Roane County, West Virginia, and would have classed as 'fair feeders' on the Pittsburgh market. They were two-year-olds, averaging a lit- tle more than nine hundred pounds each at the beginning of the experiment. The sixty head purchased were divided into five lots of twelve head each, as equally as possible according to age, type, breed, weight, quality, and general condition. The average indi- vidual weight at the beginning of the experiment of the lightest lot was 910 pounds, while those in the heaviest lot averaged 926 pounds. Shelter, Feed Lots, and Water Supply. The cattle were fed in sheds enclosed on three sides and open to the south. The covered part of the sheds for each lot was 14 x 30 feet which provides ample protection from rain, snow, and sleet, except during severe storms from the south. A pen 25 x 30 feet joined each shed so as to permit the cattle to exercise in the open. The uncovered portions of the feed lot had concrete floors which kept the cattle free from mud in rainy weather, and retained all fertility until it was hauled away. A large amount of bedding was required to absorb the accumulation of water during wet weather, but the amount of manure produced increased in proportion. Open galvanized tanks filled with water were constantly kept before the cattle. During cold weather the ice was broken twice daily to allow the cattle to drink. The Rations. The steers in Lot I received the ration which is commonly fed in Pennsylvania. It was composed of mixed hay and corn stover as roughage, and chopped ear corn, or corn and cob meal, and bran as concentrates. The steers received all the mixed hay they would consume and four pounds of corn stover per head daily in addition. 248 BULLETIN 133 \ The grain mixture was composed of three parts corn and one part bran. Of this the animals were fed twice daily all they would readily consume (while the mixed hay was fed in the evening and the corn stover in the' morning). Lot II received corn silage as the sole roughage during the entire feeding period. During the first 56 days no grain was added to the ration except cottonseed meal, which was fed at the rate of 2^/2 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily and continued throughout the entire feeding period. At the close of the 56-day, feeding period, ear corn was fed at the rate of 15 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily for which 12 pounds of shelled corn was substituted later. Lot III received corn silage and alfalfa as roughage during the entire feeding period. The alfalfa was fed to supply the re- quired protein in the ration. This lot received no grain during the first 56 days of the feeding period. The alfalfa was fed at the rate of 5 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily and the corn silage according to appetite. At the end of the 56-day feeding period, ear corn was added to the ration at the rate of 15 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily for which 12 pounds of shelled corn was substituted later. Lot IV received corn silage and mixed hay as roughage, corn silage being fed at the rate of 20 pounds per head daily and the mixed hay ad libitum. The roughage, with cottonseed meal at the rate of 2^ pounds per 1000 pounds live weight, was fed daily dur- ing the first 56 days. Ear corn was added to the ration for the balance of the feeding period, at the rate of 15 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily. During the latter part of the feeding period, the ear corn was replaced by shelled corn which was fed at the rate of 12 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight. Lot V received corn silage and alfalfa hay as roughage. The alfalfa hay was fed daily at the rate of five pounds per 1000 pounds live weight. In addition to this the steers received all the corn silage they would consume. This roughage, in combination with 2^/2 pounds of cottonseed meal per 1000 pounds live weight, was fed during the first 56 days of the feeding period. Ear corn at the rate of 15 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight was fed daily for two months, while for the balance of the feeding period the grain ration was changed to 12 pounds of shelled corn. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 249 Manner of Feeding. The time of feeding was the same for all lots. The cattle of all lots were fed at 6 A. M. and 4:30 P. M. daily. Lot I received grain and corn stover in the morning and grain and mixed hay in the evening. s Lot II was fed corn silage both morning and evening with the allowance of cottonseed meal poured over it. During the second period, in which the cattle received both grain and silage, the grain was fed first, after which the silage was put in the manger. Lot III was fed its allowance of alfalfa hay which was fol- lowed by silage at both feeding times. When grain was given, it was fed before the roughage. Lot IV received hay in the morning and corn silage in the evening. The cottonseed meal was poured over the silage in the evening. During the second part of the feeding period the rough- age was fed in the same order. Lot V received silage both morning and evening. The cot- tonseed meal was poured over the silage at each feeding. The allowance of alfalfa hay was fed immediately before the silage was consumed both morning and evening. When corn was added it was fed before the roughage. Quality of Feeds. The quality of the feed used in this test was good. The sil- age, was made from corn bordering on maturity, some of which was frosted, and was put up in a wooden stave silo. The silage kept in good condition with the exception of slight freezing during the winter. The mixed hay, grown on the college farm, was of high quality. The alfalfa was produced on the college farm and was cured in splendid condition. Most of the ear corn fed was pur- chased in the vicinity of the Experiment Station. It was well ma- tured and of good quality. All the shelled corn used was purchas- ed on the Buffalo market and was graded No. 3 Yellow Dent. The cottonsed meal was a standard 41 per cent protein product. The bran was spring wheat bran purchased from a western mill. Prices of Feeds. The prices of feeds used in the financial statement are based upon the prices which prevail in the vicinity of State College dnr- 250 BULLETIN 133 Fig. 1. — Lot I at Beginning of Experiment. Fig. 2.— Lot I at Close of Experiment. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 251 Fig. 3. — Lot II at Beginning of Experiment. Fig. 4. — Lot II at Close of Experiment. 252 BULLETIN Fig. 5. — Lot III at Beginning of Experiment. Fig. 6. — Lot III at Close of Experiment. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 253 Fig. 7. — Lot IV at Beginning of Experiment. Close f Fig. 8.— Lot IV at Close of Experiment. 254 BULLETIN 133 Fig. 9. — Lot V at Beginning of Experiment. Fig. 10-— Lot V at Close of Experiment. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS ing the winter. Corn silage was valued at $3.50 per ton, mixed hay $12.00 per ton, ear corn 70 cents per bushel of 70 pounds, shelled corn 70 cents per bushel of 56 pounds, corn and cob meal at 75 cents per bushel of 70 pounds, bran $25.00 per ton, cotton- seed meal $34.00 per ton, alfalfa hay $15.00 per ton, and corn stover $3.50 per ton. Weights and Weighing. Each steer was weighed individually for three consecutive days at the beginning of the feeding trial, at the end of 56 days, and at the close of the experiment. At the end of every four weeks, individual weights were taken one day and group weights were taken the previous and following days. Group weights were taken also in the middle of each four-week period. The weighing was done each time at 9 A. M. without any change in the feeding and handling of the cattle. Hogs in the Feed Lot. Hogs were put in each lot at the beginning of the experiment. The average weight of the pigs put on the experiment at the be- ginning was 114.5 pounds. Six were placed in Lot I, four in Lots II and III, and three in Lots IV and V. The number was increased to six and seven for each lot when corn was added to the ration. Owing to the absence of grain from the ration during the first part of the feeding period, corn and tankage were fed to the hogs in addition to the droppings from the cattle. When grain was added to the ration, light fall pigs weighing 55 pounds were placed in Lots IV and V. TABLE I.— Air-Dry Moisture in Feeds*. Nov. 28 Jan. 7 Feb. 4 Mar. 4 Apr. 1 Average amt. of air dry matter in feeds Ear corn. 18.60 17.74 17.74 18.60 81.830 Wheat bran 14 93 14.05 16.31 10.26 13.49 86.195 Corn stover 2.88 5.54 26.79 36.63 19.72 81.688 Mixed hay . . 11.32 24.42 23.17 9.85 17.56 82 . 736 Corn silage 63 73 72.18 70.28 68 42 77 05 29 668 Cottonseed meal . . Alfalfa hay . 7.19 15 63 7.69 23.47 17.74 12.59 8.33 8.91 13.12 15 63 89.186 84.754 Shelled corn 10.85 89.150 Corn & cob meal. . 14.18 14.00 14.11 85.003 ^Reported by the Department of Experimental Agricultural Chemistry. 266 . BULLETIN 133 Samples of feed were taken each month to the laboratory of Experimental Agricultural Chemistry for air-dry moisture determi- nations. In making a study of Table I, it will be noted that the amount of moisture in the ear corn did not vary much during the entire feeding period. Wheat bran varied slightly, being highest in moisture content during February and lowest during March. Corn stover varied more than any of the other feeds. The stover was very dry during the fall and early winter. During February, March, and April it was fed as taken from the field which ac- counts for the high moisture content. The cottonseed meal was fairly uniform in moisture content except during the months of February and April. Mixed hay varied from 9.85% for March to 24.42% for January. Corn silage was quite uniform, however, increasing slightly in moisture content during the winter. This was possi- bly due to the fact that the corn in the top of the silo was a little more mature and consequently contained less moisture. The alfalfa hay varied from 8.91 per cent in March to 23.47 per cent in January. Shelled corn contained only 10.85 Per cent moisture, be- ing of good No. 3 grade. The corn and cob meal was very uni- form and varied little during the three months in which samples were taken. By a study of Table II, which shows the amount of feed offer- ed and refused, it will be noted that Lot I received all the rough- age they would consume. They refused more corn stover than any other feed, owing to the liberal feeding of other roughage. The amount of corn stover consumed decreased as the feeding period progressed. The amount of hay consumed varied little during the entire feeding period. That they were receiving all they would consume is indicated by the fact that they refused a small amount each two-week period. They refused a small amount of bran also during the first two months, being unaccustomed to full grain feeding. They refused none of the corn or corn and cob meal during the entire feeding trial. A study of Lot II indicates that the cattle in that lot received all the corn silage they would consume as roughage. The amount was gradually increased during the first 56 days. As soon as car corn was added to the ration, the corn silage consumption de- creased. This decrease continued, so that at the end of the feed- STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 257 ing period the steers were consuming less than half the amount consumed at the end of the first 56 days. None of the cottonseed meal was refused ; and only a small amount of the ear corn, when it was first fed. Lot III refused a small amount of corn silage and alfalfa. Most of this was refused when grain was first added to the ration. The amount of alfalfa hay fed and consumed, was increased as the weight of the cattle increased. It became necessary to reduce the amount of silage after grain was added to the ration, and less than one-half the amount consumed at the beginning of the test was fed at the close of the test. A small amount of ear corn was re- fused shortly after corn was first added to the ration. The shelled corn was all consumed during the time it was fed. The steers in Lot IV, which received mixed hay and corn sil- age as roughage, were fed all the hay they would consume, and in addition 20 pounds of silage daily. The amount of corn silage offered remained constant throughout the entire experiment. The amount of hay consumed gradually decreased after the grain was added to the ration so that at the end of the feeding period the steers were receiving less than one-half the amount of hay con- sumed at the beginning of the test. Practically all the ear or shelled corn fed was consumed except during the last two weeks when ear corn was fed, at which time a small amount was refused. Lot V received all the roughage they would consume in the form of silage and alfalfa hay. The amount of corn silage fed was gradually increased from the beginning of the experiment until grain was added to the ration, after which it was gradually de- creased. The amount of alfalfa hay was gradually increased through- out the entire experiment. The cattle refused some of the alfalfa hay at every period of the experiment, the amount refused being largest at the end of the eight-week period when the grain was added. The allowance of alfalfa hay was more readily consumed when the allowance of silage was decreased. The ear corn fed was readily consumed during the entire period except during the month of February, when 211 pounds were refused, the bulk of which was the cobs from which the corn had been shelled. It is difficult to make a comparison of the amounts of roughage consumed by the several lots, owing to the differences 258 BULLETIN 133 i i & •d S £ I o" n o r w Hj « ts 11 52 . oo o q q q q q oo «2 c: r-' I-H ci M* cs d op T* O , eo • cc ^^ M 7 £ S P ..... wia . . 0 rr> c5 ^ • • • « 'CICIGO ! • s BS oc «E5«o c ?S? r-"eo-f-rdr:d--w : -t 0^ ^d • • • • -oo ll ::::::::!§ § 72 S§ : : : :SSf3S : : i -s oo •a i- (M Cl » O O 00 C-l O O O CC C". O C-l CI •* O 1- l~ O5 w ec •0 iJS ^ 1 o O = [r. IftOOOOOOOOO 01 oo 10 to M O et o o Cl '- a 5i cc o • '.'.'. '. H t_ ^ .Tt< r- rH oal^c ^ :»j g. 3d O5 Cvjl (M^ir-( c Illlllllll H C/3 — u .... | ' • * 02 •o i! . « J3 § COOW ~W~ ' fl« ©owe oj3 M IE • • . 58 • QQ «•• C * 1 si Sfc S2,«a 1 s! fc O cc 0 • • . . SJ.J rH 11 25 1 THC-IT-IC^ »Vdc p o ^f • C4 C, »O»O 10 cu-OO »o»o 1C ^& 33 eo -T e t- •* i- 1~ ,- ci i- i--*eo^c:>.'5c:iO'*io i-iWr-ir-l •fl- 1C 3 .9 ... g§>22!!: i- -r OJ . . . ,»fl©q . . ; IC ~HCI fe S^ o ~ O oo g"*©lfi«OC.^-i© . J~ ^r t~ co •"* *J V) en > fc* C Si . . . .^~|C1O • • • • • • Iff 1- K •* • • • • • .Iffr-CIM • • • • • .i-iCviWW • • ec CO TTWiMCD • • lOt-CO1* • • IQi-KMCO • • ^WiN(N • • cc CO M ^J 0 Hi Cottonseed meal ClClOOOTflOOCO© CC C. C5 C 1 C 1 CO »O 1- 1- Oi ooeoeo^^-^^Tf*-* •t OMO-*MiM •*aO'-nMio»c 00 OTl O5 OS Ci O 00 t- t- ! £ 0 'O M >» £ e3 GOOQC£'TIOr*t'O*f*'f':t( 10 0 I- X CO --.000 00 00 Tt< ^ 00 2* rH oooooo •0000*00 00 t- j< §s »0»OOOOOOOlO>0 gs 000000000 it C 0 1C 0 C 0 0 0 260 BULLETIN 133 in the combinations fed. The amount of cottonseed meal varied little for the three lots receiving- it as a source of protein. The amount of ear and shelled corn varied but little for Lots II, III, IV, and V. Lot I consumed considerably more grain than any other lot, as it received grain from the beginning- of the feeding trial. Table III is presented to show the average amount of feed con- sumed daily by each steer by twenty-eight day periods. Each lot of cattle was started on feed gradually and brought to a full feed as rapidly as possible. Lot I was started on 4 pounds corn stover per head daily, the amount being increased until at the end of ten days they were receiving five pounds per head daily, which is the maximum amount received at any time. Mixed hay was fed at the rate of 8 pounds per head daily at the beginning and gradually increased to ten pounds per head daily. The grain mixture of three parts corn and one part bran was fed at the rate of 6 pounds per head daily at the beginning and gradually increased until at the end of two weeks the cattle were receiving i2l/2 pounds per head daily. This amount was increased as rapidly as they would consume it The average amount of corn stover consumed per head daily was greatest during the first four weeks. It was gradu- ally decreased each period except the fourth when a little more was consumed than during the preceding four weeks. The amount of mixed hay consumed per head daily varied little. The maximum amount was 9.81 pounds per head daily, the minimum 9.57 pounds per head, or an average for the entire feeding experiment of 9.67 pounds per head daily. The grain consumed was gradually in- creased during each period, 11.34 pounds being fed during the be- ginning, period and 16.31 pounds during the final period, or an average of 15.08 pounds per head daily for the entire feeding period. At the beginning of the experiment Lot II was fed daily 33.3 pounds of corn silage per head. This amount was increased to 37.5 pounds after the third day and to 50 pounds at the end of the i6th day. For a short time during the second period, this lot received 54 pounds per head daily. The cottonseed meal was gradually in- creased from onq pound per 1000 pounds live weight at the beginning of the test until at the end of the first week they were receiving daily their allowance of 2l/2 pounds of cottonseed meal per 1000 TABLE III. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Steers, November 12, 1913, to April i, 1914, (28-Day Periods) 140 Days. Lot I Lbs. Lot II Lbs. Lot III Lbs. Lot IV Lbs. Lot V Lbs. First Period. Corn stover 2 94 Corn silage 43.87 38 053 18 958 Qfi f>AQ Mixed hay 9 59 9 36 Alfalfa hay 4 61 4 H Ear corn 8 52 Wheat bran 2.82 Cottonseed meal 2.155 2 155 2 155 Air-dry matter 20 586 17.912 17 878 17 180 18 763 Second Period. Corn stover 2.62 Corn silage 51.10 42.785 19 985 38 60 Mixed hay 9 81 10 412 Alfalfa hay 5. 085 4 58 Ear corn 11 35 Wheat bran 3.72 Cottonseed meal 2.46 2 437 2 416 Air-dry matter 22 332 16 486 15 794 15 675 16 475 Third Period. Corn stover 1 22 Corn silage 37.80 30.719 19.63 27.52 Mixed hay 9 60 6 17 Alfalfa hay 4.256 4.01 Ear corn 11.089 11.089 11 003 11 026 Corn and cob meal . 12 00 Wheat bran 3.93 Cottonseed meal 2.59 2.54 2.54 Air-dry matter 21 . 733 21.964 21.867 21.718 22.849 Fourth Period. Corn stover 1 53 _ Corn silage 28.96 27.74 19.786 17.866 Mixed hay . . .-, 9 57 4.32 Alfalfa hay 4.988 4.735 Ear corn 12.72 13.047 13.068 12.997 Corn and cob meal 12 23 Wheat bran 4.08 Cottonseed meal 2 79 2 77 2 708 Air-dry matter 23 . 770 22.060 22.985 23.024 24.870 Fifth Period. Corn stover .... 1 17 Corn silage 25.125 18.27 20.00 18.71 Mixed hay 9 80 4.70 Alfalfa hay 5 625 5.589 Shelled corn 11.985 11.982 11.975 11.94 Corn and cob meal 12 75 Wheat bran 4.25 Cottonseed meal 2 875 2.875 2.833 Air-dry matter 23.632 18.950 19.758 21.644 19.758 Average for 140 days. Corn stover 1.89 Corn silage ... 37.07 31.04 19.67 28.33 Mixed hay 9 67 6 99 Alfalfa hay 4.83 4.61 Ear corn ... 3.97 4 75 4 83 4 84 4.80 Shelled corn 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.39 Corn and cob meal 7.36 Wheat bran . . 3 76 Cottonseed meal 2 57 2 56 2 53 Air-dry matter 22.410 19.074 19.656 19.848 21.006 362 BULLETIN 133 pounds live weight. The amount of corn silage .consumed daily was materially reduced as soon as ear corn was added. The aver- age amount consumed daily during the first two periods was 47.48 pounds, while during the time grain was fed the amount consumed was 30.63 pounds per head. The cattle were started on six pounds of ear corn per head, which amount was increased daily until the full allowance was fed at the end of two weeks. The average daily amount of grain consumed per head in Lot II was 9.72 pounds as compared to 15.08 in Lot I to which grain was fed from the begin- ning. Lot III consumed an average of 40.419 pounds of corn silage during the first two months, or "roughage feeding period." They received daily 33.3 pounds per head at the beginning of the trial, the amount being gradually increased as rapidly as they would consume it. The maximum amount consumed at any time by this lot during the second period was 42.75 pounds. The amount of silage was greatly reduced toward the end of the experiment, which was necessary so that the cattle would consume the allowance of alfalfa hay and grain. The average daily consumption of silage for the last three months was 25.576, or 17.18 pounds less than when no grain was added to the ration. The alfalfa, used as a source of protein, was fed daily at the rate of 3.75 pounds per head at the be- ginning and gradually increased to the full allowance of 5 pounds per looo pounds live weight. This lot of cattle consumed daily an average of 12.04 pounds of ear or shelled corn per head during the time that grain was fed. Lot IV consumed an average of 19.67 pounds of corn silage throughout the entire experiment. This was nearly their full al- lowance of 20 pounds per head daily. They consumed daily an average of 6.99 pounds of mixed hay per head for the entire feeding period. During the first 56 days or, "roughage feeding period," they consumed daily 9.88 pounds of hay per head which amount was greatly reduced as soon as grain was added to the ration. The full allowance of cottonseed meal was consumed as fed throughout the entire experiment. The grain allowance averaged 12.03 pounds per head daily for the third and fourth months while ear corn was fed. An average of 1 1.975 pounds of shelled corn was consumed during the last month of the experiment. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 263 Lot V consumed an average of 28.33 pounds of corn silage for the entire period. During the first 56 days when no grain was fed they averaged 37.584 pounds daily., This amount was greatly reduced as soon as grain was added to the ration, averaging 21.36 pounds per head daily during the grain feeding period. This re- duction in the amount of silage fed was necessary to induce .the cattle to consume their allowance of alfalfa hay and grain. The quantity of alfalfa hay consumed varied little during the test, but increased gradually with the increase in weight of the cattle. The full allowance of &/2 pounds of cottonseed meal per 1000 pounds live weight was consumed daily. An average of 12 pounds of ear corn was consumed during the two months in which it was fed, and 11.94 pounds of shelled corn was consumed daily during the last month. The amount of air-dry matter consumed by four-week periods is quite uniform in Lots II to V, inclusive, for both the first and second four-week periods. Lot I, receiving grain in the ration, but no silage, consumed 20.586 pounds of dry matter daily, as compared with 17.912 pounds of air-dry matter for Lot II, which re- ceived corn silage only as roughage. The average amount oS air-dry matter for the four lots,- receiving no grain except cottonseed meal and silage as all or part of the roughage, is 17.933 pounds for the first four weeks, as compared with 20.586 pounds per head daily for the lot receiving grain and no succulent feed. The same gen- eral relation continued during the second four-week period, except that the amount consumed by Lot I was greater than in the preced- ing four weeks and lower in the other lots. Lots II to V, in- clusive, averaged 16.107 pounds per head daily as compared with 22.332 pounds per head daily for Lot I. During the third and fourth four-week periods there was very little difference in the five lots. A further marked difference was noted in the fifth or last four- week period. Lot I continued to consume 22.410 pounds per head daily, while the other lots dropped to an average of 20.025 pounds per head daily which was due to a more concentrated grain in the form of shelled corn. The average amount of air-dry matter con- sumed for the entire 140 days was highest in Lot I and lowest in Lot IT which was due entirely to the character of the ration fed. 264 BULLETIN 133 Wi *» O5 ,T CO »•* >O O ^ 5 § 222 co oq ^.os co oi p^ p p CM CM' CM — < co CM CM" •g v CO a a O 03 Q — CM -.CM *- ' CM CO CO CM CM i *Q CO 00 ^^ ^5 C^l t>^ i "W 00 rtj «C CM, CO CO i I CM 1-1 CM i-t »-• — < o 33 —i *O CM CM 1-J ca CM' o oq oq co oq > H PQ H t>- oo co «o oo os U3 TJJ CO I i-J i-J CO i-J CM' CM' CM 26 Dec. « I «4" s^l h oo^ °2 i 'T* a 7 i 1=1 Jtt II* CM ^^ '-'bL^ 6.6 88 S2 -6-8 5 QQ STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 265 Table IV gives the average daily gain per head; by two-week periods. It will be noted that the gains made by all lots during the first six weeks were satisfactory. Lot I made an average daily gain of 2.149 pounds: Lot II, 2.136 pounds; Lot III, 2.146 pounds; Lot IV, 2.017 pounds; and Lot V, 1.904 pounds. The gains made during the seventh and eighth weeks were unsatisfactory and greatly reduced the average for the first 56-day period. This factor is in keeping with results obtained at this station in previous experiments, namely, that the cattle fed a large amount of roughage during the early part of the feeding period seemed to cease making substantial gains at the end of the sixth week. It will be noted, however, that the cattle in Lot I also made very poor gains during the same period, even though fed a liberal amount of grain. Weather conditions or some other factor common to all lots may have been the cause of this reduction in gains. As soon as grain was added to the ration of the lots receiving roughage only, the rate of gain increased and so continued until the period from February 18 to March 4, during which time a severe snow- storm made all cattle in the lots somewhat uncomfortable just prior to weighing, and possibly caused the poor gains for the two-week period. The average daily gains for the first and second periods were more uniform in Lots I and II than in the other three lots. >oth of these lots possibly received a greater amount of grain rwing to the grain fed Lot I and the full feed of silage for Lot II. The gains for Lots III, IV and V were higher during the second period than during the first period. The average for the entire period was lowest in Lots I and III, while Lots II, IV and V were quite uniform. The smaller gains made in Lot I were no doubt due to the absence of silage in the ration, while that of Lot [II is due to the small amount of grain or concentrated feed con- sumed because of the absence of the cottonseed meal. The aver- age daily gains made by all lots except Lot I were all that could be expected from the character of the rations fed. The sudden falling off in gains at the end of the sixth week would seem to indicate that a two-month roughage feeding period is too long. ^ c i> •-• o oo cc GO r>« to *****.*' 0 ^ Tt< CN •C'lr^or^o-^ O5 — " ^f • OC tD ^ >— i -r Tt< co po ; co O «p l>-. 3 S c^i c• -r: 1-1 »o >.- i- ^ -T -* r- t~ o c i d c/5 co 06 IT' ^ i-i t- X — re T-I ::-'^. '. 000 :Sc? ; : ; • -^ '-r CO . n'°< . , . . c-i — i -co ri •t* •00^ >- • -r o' i- co o. c n c4 CO O • CC ri « O f Farms. Julia C. Gray, Librarian and Editor. William G. Murtorff, Clerk. H. Marilla Williams. Itecord Clerk. Jean T. Sandstrom, Secretary. Agronomy F. D. Gardner, Head of Department. E. L, Worthen, Soils. C. F. Noll. Farm Crops. W. H. Darst, Farm Crops. J. W. White. Soils. It. S. Smith, Soils. 11. A. Andree, Farm Mechanics. E. O. Anderson. Farm Management. H. P. Cooper, Farm Crops. D. C. Wimer, Soils. Agricultural Education T. I. Mairs, Head of Department. W. It. White, Assistant. Agricultural Chemistry Charles W. Stoddart. Head of Department. Margaret; B. MacDonald, Food and Dairy Chemistry. E. K. DeTurk. Physiological Chemistry. *H. It. Kraybill, Plant Chemistry. D. E. Haley, Soil and Fertilizer Chemistry. Animal Husbandry W. H. Tomhave, Head of Department. B. O. Severson, Breeding and Sheep. Paul Gerlaugh, Swine. F. D. Crooks, Poultry. 1. D. Wilson, Veterinarian: Horses. L. S. Kleinsclnnidt, Poultrv. F. L. Bentley, Beef Cattle. L. P. McCan'n, Swine. It. II. Olmstead, Sheep. Botany Frank D. Kern, Head of Department. •C. It. Orton, Plant Pathology. J. lien Hill, Genetics. J. F. Adams, Plant Pathology. *A. Jt Haas. Plant; Plivsiolo-y. A. A. Ha risen. Ecology. J. P. Kelly, Genetics. \V. G. Edwards, Kotany and Forestry. L. O. Overholts, Mycology. It. S. Spray, Weeds and Seeds. G. A. Meckstroth, Plant Patholo-y. J. W. Miller. Teaching Fellow. John Ellis, Gardener. Dairy Husbandry Fred Itasmussen, Head of Department. F. S. Putney, Milk Production. E. L. Anthony, Farm Dairying and Milk Production. J. M. Sherman, Bacteriology. •Elizabeth B. Meek, Bacteriology. S. I. Bechdel, Milk Production. G. S. Bulkier. Milk Production. I. J. Bibby, Dairy Manufacture. E. K. Hitchner. Bacteriology. A. L. Beam, Farm Dairying and Milk Pro- duction. W. D. Swope, Milk Production. F. P. Knoll, Superintendent of Creamery. Experimental Agricultural Chemistry William Frear, Vice Director and Head of Department. G. C. Given, First Assistant Chemist. E. S. Erb. Associate Chemist. Walter Thomas, Associate Chemist. Charles Kern, Laboratory Assistant. Experimental Pomology J. P. Stewart. Head of Department. W. C. Gillespie, Assistant. Forestry John A. Ferguson, Head of Department. George It. Green, Wood Technology. Clarence It. Anderson, Forest Management. Horticulture S. W. Fletcher, Head of Department. C. E. Myers, Vegetable Gardening. A. W. Cowell, Landscape Gardening. F. X. Fagan, Pomology. E. I. Wilde, Floriculture. J. It. Bochtel, Vegetable Gardening. A. F. Yeager, Pomology. J. S Gardner. Vegetable Gardening. L. D. Jesseman. Pomology. Albert White, Horticulture. e of charge, to all residents of the it ion. State College, Centre Co., Pa. Grit Publishing Co., Williamsport, Pa. BULLETIN No. 145 STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS W. H. TOMHAVE, B. O. SEVERSON, PAUL GERLAUGH The experimental work reported in this bulletin covers the three years of (a) 1913-1914, (b) 1914-1915 and (c) 1915-1916. It is presented in the form of a summary rather than as a detailed de- scription of each experiment. Details of each experiment have been published annually in the Annual Report of The Pennsylvania State College. The work of 1913-1914 was also reported in Bulle- tin 133 of this station. The work deals largely with a study of the rations or combinations of feeds best suited to Pennsylvania con- ditions. The work of three consecutive years with Lots I, II, III, and IV, which were fed in the same manner each year, is herewith reported. The work with Lot V (a) covers the year 1913-1914; that with Lot V (b) covers the year 1914-1915 ; and Lot VI, the year 1915-1916. SUMMARY 1. The common Pennsylvania ration of corn and cob meal, wheat bran, mixed hay and corn stover, fed during the entire 140-day period, did not improve the finish nor value of the cattle, and it proved to be more expensive than any of the rations which contained silage as roughage only, or roughage and cottonseed meal in the early part of the feeding period, and whose combinations were supplemented with corn in the latter part ; also when corn silage and cottonseed meal were fed during the entire period. 2. Corn silage proved to be the most desirable roughage. (a) Bulletin 133, by W. H. Tomhave and C. W. Hickman. (b) Annual Eeport, 1914-15: W. H. Tomhave and B. O. Severson. (c) Annual Report, 1915-16: W. H. Tomhave and Paul Gerlaugh. RTLLKTIX 1-ir, 3. A ration with a limited amount of corn silage supple- mented with mixed hay was not so economical nor so satisfactory a roughage ration as one containing silage as a sole roughage. 4. All rations in which corn silage was used as a part or all of the roughage proved to he more economical and more efficient than a ration without silage. 5. A ration of corn silage and alfalfa hay as a source of pro- tein, during the first 56 days of the feeding period, supplemented with corn the balance of a 140-day period, was the cheapest- daily ration, but it did not produce sufficient gains and finish. ( Xo cot- tonseed meal). 6. Wheat bran at $25 per ton is not so desirable a source of protein as cottonseed meal at $32.66 per ton, or alfalfa hay at $15 per ton. 7. The results from comparing alfalfa hay and cottonseed meal as a source of protein, in a ration of corn silage as roughage,' supplemented with corn during the last three months of a five- month feeding period, indicate that cottonseed meal is a superior .source of protein on account of producing a more rapid finish on the cattle, which will thus command a higher selling price on the market. S. The margin necessary between the buying and selling prices is reduced by hogs following cattle in the feed lots, espe- cially when whole grain is fed. 9. Corn silage fed to the limit of appetite and supplemented with 2_r _> pounds of cottonseed meal per head daily the first three months, and 3'/j pounds per head daily the last two months, proved to be the most economical ration. Cattle thus ted were valued within r> cents per 100 pounds ot cattle receiving, during the last 84 dav>, corn in addition to silage and cottonseed meal. (1915- 19H> only). 10. The returns per steer, after paying for the feed consumed, were in direct proportion to the amount of silage consumed. The lots receiving the largest amount ot silage alone and silage sup- plemented with cottonseed meal gave the best returns per steer. 11. .Five pounds of alfalfa hav per day, in addition to 2J/2 pnund> of cottonseed meal as a source of protein, was not found economical. ( 191 3-14 onlv Lot Y (a) ). STEER FEEDING EXl'EKIMEXTS 5 12. The cost of producing a pound of gain was considerably less during the first period than during the second period. 13. Cattle receiving no corn silage consumed a greater amount of air-dry matter than those receiving silage. The amount of air- dry matter consumed is in direct proportion to the amount of corn silage consumed. 14. The manure produced was figured as being sufficient to pay for the bedding and labor required to take care of the cattle. Cattle at Beginning of Experiment Cattle at Close of Experiment 6 BULLETIN 145 Object of the Experiment The purpose of these experiments was to secure the following information : 1. Value of corn silage as a roughage for fattening cattle. 2. Difference in cost of feeding cattle by the so-called "Penn- sylvania method," — a ration without silage, — and by the Pennsyl- vania Experiment Station method, — a roughage the greater portion of which is silage fed to the limit of appetite, together with cotton- seed meal in limited amount, and grain the latter part of the feed- ing period. 3. Value of alfalfa hay as a source of protein as compared with cottonseed meal. 4. Comparison of roughage of (1) corn silage; (2) corn silage and mixed hay; (3) corn silage and alfalfa hay; and (4) mixed hay and corn stover without silage. 5. Possibility of fattening cattle satisfactorily and economic- ally on a ration of corn silage and cottonseed meal, the silage being fed in unlimited amounts and the cottonseed meal at the rate of 2^ pounds per 1000 pounds live weight during the first 84 days, and 3y2 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight during the last 56 days of a 140-day feeding period. 6. Value of adding cora to a ration of corn silage, mixed hay and cottonseed meal at the end of a 28-day feeding period rather than withholding it until the end of 56 days. 7. Cost of producing a pound of gain during the first part of the feeding period on roughage alone supplemented with cotton- seed meal, as compared with the latter part of the feeding period when grain in the form of corn is added to the ration. 8. Comparison of a ration without silage with one having a limited amount of silage, and one in which silage is added ad libitum. 9. Financial returns from hogs following the cattle in the different feed lots. Description of Cattle The cattle used in this experiment were of mixed breeding, with an equal representation of Shorthorn, Hereford and Angus breeds. They were purchased in West Virginia for the 1913-1914 STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 7 experiment, in Greene county, Penna., for the 1914-1915 experiment and in Greene and Bedford counties for the 1915-1916 experiment. Those from West Virginia and Greene county were mostly native- bred cattle, while those purchased in Bedford county were shipped in as calves from the Chicago market. The majority of these cattle were "two-year-olds," and they averaged about 900 pounds at the beginning of the experiment. They would have classed as fair feeders on the Pittsburgh market. On the basis of weight, breed, age, quality, type and general condition they were divided into five lots of twelve each. Shelter, Feedlots and Water Supply The cattle were fed in the experimental sheds at the college. The sheds are enclosed on three sides, the open side being toward the south. The covered part of the shed for each lot is 14 x 30 feet ; this provides ample protection for the cattle except during severe storms from the south. A yard 25x30 feet adjoins each lot, which has a concrete floor and is large enough for exercise. The use of the concrete floor makes it possible to retain all liquid and solid manure. Open galvanized tanks always filled supplied the drinking water. During cold weather it was necessary to break the ice in the tanks twice a day. The mangers are extended the full length of the feeding shed, allowing 30 feet for each lot, or 2j4 feet per steer. The feed was given to the entire lot at one time, it being assumed that the same amount was being consumed by each individual. The Rations The same rations were fed during the three years to Lots I, II, III and IV. Lot V (a) was fed during 1913-1914, Lot V (b) dur- ing 1914-1915, and Lot VI (c) during the last year of the experi- ment, 1915-1916. Lot I — Mixed hay and corn stover as roughage Chopped ear corn, or corn and cob meal and wheat bran as concentrates All the mixed hay they would consume 4 pounds corn stover per head daily Grain mixture, 3 parts corn and one part bran by weight — grain fed to limit of appetite This is the ration commonly fed by Pennsylvania farmers who do not have silos B.ULLETIN 145 Lot II — Corn silage as the sole roughage entire feeding period Cottonseed meal only in addition to the roughage during first 56 days, at rate of 2% pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily Ear corn or shelled corn in addition to the silage and cottonseed meal, the last 84 days of the experiment. Ear corn was allowed at rate of 15 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily, and shelled corn at rate of 12 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily, during time it replaced ear corn Lot III — Corn silage and alfalfa hay as sole roughage and feed during first 56 days — alfalfa hay as a source of protein as well as comprising a portion of the roughage Alfalfa hay at rate of 5 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily, corn silage to limit of appetite After corn was added it was given at same rate as to Lot II No cottonseed meal, as alfalfa hay was to supply required protein Lot IV— Corn silage restricted to 20 pounds per head daily Mixed hay to limit of appetite Cottonseed meal at rate of 2*& pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily Roughage and cottonseed meal only during first 56 days of feeding period Ear or shelled corn, last 84 days, in addition to roughage and cottonseed meal, as for Lots II and III Lot V (a) — Corn silage and alfalfa hay as roughage. Alfalfa daily at rate of 5 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight Corn silage, all they would consume, in addition to the above This roughage, combined with 2~y2 pounds cottonseed meal per 1000 pounds live weight daily, during 56-day feeding period Ear corn at rate of 15 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily for two months. Grain ration for balance of feeding period reduced to 12 pounds shelled corn (b) — Corn silage and mixed hay as roughage throughout entire feed- ing period. Corn silage at rate of 20 pounds per head daily and mixed hay ad libitum Cottonseed meal at rate of 2*/2 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily entire feeding period Ear corn added at the end of 28 days at rate of 15 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily, as soon as cattle became accus- tomed to the grain. Changed to shelled corn at rate of 12 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily, at end of 56-day feeding period Lot VI (c) — Corn silage as the sole roughage during entire feeding period - Cottonseed meal in addition at rate of 2^ pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily, being increased the last eight weeks of feeding period to 3% pounds per 1000 pounds live weight daily Corn was not fed to this lot at any time during the whole feed- ing period STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS • 9 Method of Feeding The time of feeding was the same for all lots — 6 a. m. and 4:30 p. m. The method of feeding was as follows : Lot I — Grain before the roughage morning and evening. Corn stover in morning, mixed hay in evening II — Corn silage morning and evening. Cottonseed meal divided into two parts and poured over silage. When grain was fed in second period, silage, cottonseed meal and allowance of corn all given at same time Lot III — Corn silage morning and evening. Alfalfa hay before the silage. When corn was added, second period, silage and corn offered at same time Lot IV— Mixed hay in morning and corn silage in evening. Cottonseed meal poured over silage first 56 days. When corn was added, it was fed morning and evening, cottonseed meal being given with the corn Lot V (a) — Silage morning and evening, with cottonseed meal poured over at each feeding. Allowance of alfalfa hay fed immediately before silage was consumed both morning and evening. When corn was added, it was given before the roughage (b)— Hay in morning, silage in evening. Cottonseed meal poured over silage. Grain fed before roughage both morning and evening Lot VI (c) — Corn silage morning and evening. Cottonseed meal poured over silage at each feeding. Quality of Feed Used A good quality of feed was used each year. The corn which was made into silage was fairly well matured. The mixed hay, which was grown on the college farm, contained a high percentage of timothy, and one year was slightly damaged by rain. The alfalfa was purchased on the market and was either second or third cutting. The cottonseed meal was a choice grade of 41% meal. The wheat bran was purchased from local mills, except that for the 1913-1914 experiment which was a western bran. The corn was grown in the vicinity of State College and was well matured. Weights and Weighing Each steer was weighed individually for three consecutive days at the beginning and close of the experiment, and for three days at the close of the 56-day feeding period. Group weights were taken every two weeks. At the end of each 28-day feeding period individual weights were taken for one day and group weights the previous and following days. The weighing was done as near 9 a. m. as possible without change of feed or water. 10 BULLETIN 145 Hogs in the Feedlot Hogs were put into the lots to follow the cattle during the experimental periods. The number varied with the different periods. Exceptional gains were not made by any of the lots owing to the fact that heavy grain rations were not fed to the cattle. In some cases it became necessary to supply the hogs with extra feed to keep them from losing flesh. , Prices of Feeds Table I — Average Price per Ton Allowed for Feeds 1913-14 1914-15 1915-16 Average Wheat bran ... $25 00 $24 00 $26 00 $25 00 Cottonseed meal . . . 34 00 30 00 34 00 32 66 Corn and cob meal Corn stover ... 21 40 3 50 21 40 3 50 21 40 3 00 21 40 3 33 Corn silage Alfalfa hay Mixed hay Ear corn 3 50 15 00 12 00 20 00 3 50 15 00 13 00 20 00 3 50 15 00 13 00 20 00 3 50 15 00 12 66 20 00 Shelled corn 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 00 Table I shows the prevailing prices of feeds in the vicinity of State College during the three years of the experiment. There was no marked variation in the prices during the entire time. The prices of farm feeds did not vary so much as did the quality of the commercial feeds purchased. These prices were used as the basis of charging the farm-grown feeds. Commercial feeds were purchased on the wholesale market in carload lots. All feeds are tabulated on tonnage basis. Table II — Average Percentage of Air-Dry Matter in Feeds Used in the Experiments* 1913-14 1914-15 1915-16 Average Wheat bran 86.19 89 00 84.66 86.62 Cottonseed meal 89.18 93 90 93.86 92.31 Ear corn 81.30 84.40 81.70 82.47 Corn and cob meal Shelled corn 85.00 89 15 87.74 85 39 83.66 88.57 85.46 87.70 Corn stover 81.68 83 63 79.01 81.44 Corn silage 29.67 34.29 24.47 29.33 Alfalfa hay 84.75 82.56 81.04 82.78 Mixed hay 82.73 84.27 82.25 83.08 * Reported by the Department of Experimental Agricultural Chemistry. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 1 1 Table II shows the average amount of air-dry matter con- tained in the feeds during the time of the experiment. It will be noted that there was no marked difference in any of the feeds during the entire time. The percentage of dry matter in practically all the feeds wa*s highest during the winter of 1914-15. Wheat bran varied 5%, being lowest in 1915 and highest in 1914. Cotton- seed meal varied nearly 4%, being lowest in 1913 and quite uniform in 1914 and 1915. Ear corn showed slight variation, being highest in 1914 and the same for 1913 and 1915. Corn and cob meal was higher than ear corn on account of being used later each year, and possibly some drying of the meal through grinding. Shelled corn varied slightly, being highest in 1913 and lowest in 1914, and showing an average of 87.70% for the three years. Corn stover varied slightly, with a difference of less than 5% for the three years. There was quite a variation in the moisture content of the silage, as indicated by the average of 34.29% of air-dry matter in the silage of 1914 and 24.47% for 1915. This variation is no doubt due to the difference in maturity and slightly frozen condition of the corn at the time of harvesting. The alfalfa and mixed hay varied little during the three-year period. Table III shows the average daily gain per steer by periods during the three years. It is tabulated for the first 56 days, the last 84 days and for the average of 140 days. Reviewing the average daily gain for the first 56 days we find that it is quite uniform for Lot I for the three years, varying less than .15 of a pound with an average of 1.69 pounds per steer per day. The gains in Lot II varied from 1.71 pounds to 2.23 pounds. Lot III varied from 1.49 pounds to 2 pounds per head daily. Lot IV made very uniform gains during the three-year period, ranging from 1.60 pounds to 1.70 pounds per head daily, and an average daily gain of 1.64 pounds per head for the three years. Lot V (a), reported for one year only, gained T.65 pounds per head daily. Lot V (b) made a gain of 2.01 pounds per head daily during the year it was on experiment. Lot VI made an average gain of 2.48 pounds per head daily. Reviewing the average daily gains for the last 84 days it will be noted that there is a marked difference in the average daily gains per head in Lots I and II. In Lot I the highest gains occurred in 1914 when a gain of 2.37 pounds was made. The lowest gains 12 BULLETIN 145 were made in 1913 when the gain of 1.69 pounds was made. The average for this entire period was 1.97 pounds. In Lot II the highest gains were made during the second year by a daily average of 2.20 pounds per head. The lowest gains were made during the last year by an average of 1.69 pounds. It is noteworthy that this lot made its heaviest gains during the first 56 days, and its low gains during the second period. There was very little difference in the gains made during the second period in Lots III and IV. Lot V (a) and (b) and Lot VI (c) were fed only one winter, and made substantial gains during the second period. Recapitulating the gains for the entire period of 140 days we find that they are in direct proportion to the silage fed, provided it was supplemented with cottonseed meal as a source of protein. The lowest gain was made in Lot III which received alfalfa hay as a source of protein. As may be observed there is not a very marked difference in the average daily gain of the various lots, which ranged from 1.79 pounds per head daily in Lot II to 2.12 pounds in Lot V (b), which was fed only one year. Table III — Average Daily Gains per Steer by Periods (in Pounds) Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV LotV(a) LotV(b) Lot VKc) First 56 days 1913-14 1.71 1.87 .49 1.62 1.65 1914-15 1.61 2.21 .64 1.60 2.01 1915-16 1.74 2.62 .00 1.70 2.48 Last 84 days 1913-14 1 69 1 80 .80 2 04 l!96 1914-15 2 37 2.20 90 2.03 2.19 1915-16 1 96 1.69 .86 1.98 1.79 Average first 56 days Average last 84 days. Average 140 days 1.68 1.97 1.85 2.23 1.89 2.03 .71 .85 .79 1.64 2.01 1.86 1.65 1.96 1.83 2.01 2.19 2.12 2.48 1.79 2.06 (a) 1913-14. (b) 1914-15. (c) 1915-16. Table IV shows the amount of feed and air-dry matter con- sumed daily per steer by periods, the amount of air-dry matter required to make a pound of gain and the cost of producing a pound of gain. The results are divided into two periods, namely, the first 56 days and the last 84 days. The results for the total period of 140 days, and the average amount of feed consumed per steer per day are reported for each period. The ration in nearly STEElt FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 13 every case was simple and the amount consumed varied with the composition or character of the feed. Table IV — Feed and Air-Dry Matter Consumed Daily per Steer by Periods, Air-Dry Matter per Pound of Gain, and Cost of Producing a Pound of Gain Period 1—56 days Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV (a) LotV (b) LotV (c) Lot VI Wheat bran 3 14 Cottonseed meal 2 22 2.11 2.28 2.17 2.88 2.14 Ear corn 9.60 Corn and cob meal Shelled corn Corn stover 3.22 62^59 17! 70 2.48 7.14 $.0588 .1458 Corn silage 53.69 47.13 4.61 21.15 37.58 4.36 17! 67 1.65 10.66 $.0829 .1373 19.93 8^73 18.72 2.01 9.32 $.0759 .1527 Alfalfa hay Mixed hay 8 63 10.79 17.64 1.64 10.76 $.0859 .1409 Air-dry matter 20.62 1.68 12.28 $.1194 .-2007 18.29 2.23 8.20 $.0584 .1303 17.95 1.71 10.50 $.0677 .1169 Average daily gain Air-dry matter per Ib. gain . . . Cost per Ib gain Daily cost of feed Period 11-84 days Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV (a) LotV (b) LotV (0 Lot VI Wheat bran 4.14 Cottonseed meal . . . 2.72 2.65 2.69 2.48 3.56 Corn and cob meal 12 45 Shelled corn 11.15 11.04 10.97 10.38 11.92 .... Corn stover 2 68 Corn silage 29.53 2i]56 1.89 11.41 $.1254 .2371 2.03 10.12 $.0986 $.1944 25.70 5.114 23^57 1.85 12.74 $.1162 .2150 1.79 11.84 $.0968 $.1757 19.93 5.'69 23.00 2.01 11.44 $.1261 .2535 1.86 11.17 $.1100 $.2084 21.36 4.778 22'! 82 1.96 11.64 $.1272 .2504 1.84 11.20 $.1112 $.2052 20.00 i!66 23.53 2.19 11.19 $.1165 .2491 2.12 10.44 $.0993 $.21057 66.66 19! 44 1.79 10.86 $.0989 .1772 2.06 j 9.371 $.0828 $.1644 Alfalfa hay Mixed hay Air- dry matter SA6 24.27 1.97 12.32 $.1240 .2442 1.85 12.30 $.1221 $.2268 Average daily gain Air-dry matter per Ib. gain Cost per Ib gain Daily cost of feed Average daily gains (140 days) Air-dry matter per Ib. gain (140days; Cost per Ib. gain (140 days) Daily cost of feed (140 days) (a) 1913-14 only, (b) 1914-15 only, (c) 1915-16 only. In calculating the ear corn consumed, it was reduced to the basis of shelled During the first period the ration for all lots except Lot I was made up of roughage supplemented with a small amount of cotton- seed meal. Lot III is also an exception owing to the fact that alfalfa hay was fed as a protein supplement. 14 IJI'LLKTIN 34.-, The amount of air-dry matter consumed per steer daily is quite uniform for all lots receiving silage as all or a part of their roughage. In Lot I, which received no silage, the amount of air- dry matter consumed daily is 2.63 pounds more than the average of the other lots. This must in part be accounted for by the lack of silage in the ration of that lot. There is a wide variation in the daily gains. This factor was highest in all lots which received a large amount of silage. The presence of grain in the ration without silage did not seem to in- fluence it. The air-dry matter required to make a pound of gain is highest in Lot I, to which no silage was fed. At the prevailing prices of feeds during the three years, the cost of making a pound of gain in the different lots during the first 56 days is interesting. This cost is directly influenced by the rate of gain per day and the selection of the feeds. In all lots offered grain other than that to which cottonseed meal was added, the cost of a pound of gain was relatively higher than when no grain was fed. The greater the amount of silage, the lower the cost of a pound of gain. Lots II and VI, receiving silage and cottonseed meal, made the cheapest gains and also the highest daily gains. The cost of a pound of gain was highest in Lot I, which received the ration without silage and cottonseed meal. The daily cost of the feed consumed was highest in Lot 1. This cost per steer for the several lots was: Lot I, 20 cents;. Lot II, 13 cents; Lot III, 11.6 cents; Lot IV, 14 cents; Lot V (a), 13.7 cents; Lot V (b), 15.2 cents; Lot VI (c), 14.5 cents. The cheapest daily ration was fed in Lot III — silage and alfalfa hay — but the daily gains, were lower, and consequently the cost of gains higher than in some of the other lots. The summary of the second period shows the rations fed, and it will be noted that grain was fed in all lots except Lot VI. The grain in all cases except Lot I was composed of shelled or ear corn. It became necessary to reduce the amount of silage in all lots on a heavy allowance, when corn was added to the ration, in order to get the cattle to consume the specific amount of corn. The silage was reduced to less than 30 pounds per head daily in lots that received 45 to 60 pounds of silage per head during the first STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 15 period. The amount of air-dry matter consumed per steer daily varied little in all lots on an allowance of corn and some silage. Lot I, receiving no silage, was highest with 24.27 pounds, while Lot VI, fed all silage as roughage and no grain except cottonseed meal, was lowest, with 19.44 pounds per steer daily. The average daily gain for the 84-day period was higher in the lots which made the lower gains during the first period. This would indicate that the making of large gains during the first part of the feeding period is partly offset by smaller daily gains during the latter part of the feeding period. It must be remembered, however, that large gains during the fore part of the feeding period are essential on account of the large amount of roughage that is usually fed during this period, which has a tendency to reduce the cost of gain for the entire period. The average amount of air-dry matter consumed per pound of gain was very uniform in all lots. The greatest difference is found in Lots I and VI, one of which received no silage and the other silage as a sole roughage. The cost per pound of gain is uniform for all lots except Lot VI. The lower cost of making a pound in this lot was due to the cheaper ration fed. It will be noted that in all lots where grain was fed the cost of producing a pound of gain materially increased over the first period. The same condition is found in the average cost of the daily ration. The cost of feed per steer per day ranges from 21 cents to 25 cents. In the lot to which no grain was fed, except a small allowance of cottonseed meal, the daily cost of the feed was 17% cents per steer. Recapitulating the daily gains for the 140 days, it will be noted that they are highest in those lots to which a large amount of corn silage was fed as roughage, or a limited silage ration was supplemented with corn after the first 28-day feeding period. This .is notably shown in Lots II, V (b) and VI (c). Lots II and VI (c) received the large amount of silage as roughage and cottonseed meal as a protein supplement. Lot V (b) received a limited silage ration, but corn was added to the ration at the end of 28 days. Lot III, which received an unlimited silage ration but alfalfa hay as a protein supplement, made the lowest daily gain. This condi- ti< >n seems to indicate that it is necessary to have the protein supplement in a concentrated form when the large amount of silage is fed. The cost of producing a pound of gain and the daily cost of the ration was lowest in the lots to which silage was fed in unlimited amounts. It should be kept in mind that this is a variable factor depending upon the prevailing price of grain or roughage. It is assumed, however, that the prices allowed are fixed. Table V — Average Amount of Feeds Consumed per Steer — 140 Days (in Pounds) Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV Lot V(») Lot V> Lot VI'«'> 1 1913-14 Wheat bran - 1914-15 > 1915 16 524 . 7 564.2 672.0 A venire 587 Kar corn } 1913-14 or corn and [- 1914-15 col) meal ) 1915-16 1587. 2 1692.6 2065. .... A verat^e 1781 6 j 1913-14 Shelled corn - 1914-15 > 1915-16 867.3 917.9 1003. 876.2 900.1 987.2 874.6 905.7 966.2 872.4 1160.8 Average 929 4 921 "> 915 5 872.4 1160 8 Cottonseed { J^" mea1 \ 1915-lfi 360.2 344.8 358.5 357.8 326.6 331.6 354.3 345.6 419.9 A verai^e 354 5 338 7 354 3 345.6 419.9 1 1913-14 Corn stover - 1914-15 > 1915 16 265. 392. 560. Average j 1913-14 Corn silage - 1914 15 ) 1915 16 405.7 5189. 5320. 5917. 440 1 . 4294 . 5210. 2754. 2793. 3024. 3974.5 2793. 9105. A\ era^e 1 1913-14 Mixed hay - 1914 15 \ 1915-16 1315.2 852. S 1378.3 5475.4 4635. 2857. 979. 1 1110.3 1158.3 3974.5 2793. 880.6 9105. A verai^e \\W> 1 1082 5 880.6 1 1913 14 Alfalfa hay - 1914 15 ) 1915 16 684.5 660.6 722.2 646. Average .• 68!). 1 646. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 17 Table V shows the average amount of feed consumed per steer in each lot during a feeding period of 140 days. The average per steer for each year is tabulated and the average for the three years is given. These data show the possibility of determining readily the approximate amount of feeds required to supply a steer when fed these different combinations. Table VI — Buying and Selling Prices of Steers per Hundred Weight Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV (a) "Lot V (b) Lot V (c) Lot VI [ Buying . . $7 45 $7 45 $7 45 $7 45 $7 45 ) Selling 8 30 8 30 8 15 8 40 8 25 1913-14 • Necessary selling value Necessary margin .... [ Buying". . 8 59 1 14 7 45 8 03 58 7 45 7 97 52 7 45 8 13 68 7 45 8 26 81 $7 45 ) Selling 7 50 7 55 7 40 7 65 7 80 1914-15 • | Necessary selling value Necessary margin .... Buying 8 30 85 7 50 7 69 24 7 50 7 82 37 7 25 8 25 80 7 25 8 08 63 $7 35 Selling 8 55 8 85 8 45 8 70 8 80 1915-16 Necessary selling value Necessary margin 8 46 96 8 06 56 7 81 56 7 99 74 .... 7 49 14 Buying 7 47 7 47 7 38 7 38 7 45 7 45 7 35 Aver- Selling 8 12 8 23 8 00 8 25 8 25 7 80 8 80 age Necessary selling value Necessary margin 8 45 983 7 93 46 7 87 483 8 12 74 8 26 81 8 08 63 7 49 14 Table VI gives the buying and selling price of the cattle for each year of the experiment. It also gives the margin necessary to pay for the feed consumed during the experiment and the price at which it was necessary to sell the cattle in order to break even on the feeding operation. The margin necessary between the buy- ing and selling prices of the cattle varies considerably in the dif- ferent lots, depending upon the type of feeds supplied and the amount of grain in the ration. In 1914-15 the cattle in all cases sold for very little more than was paid for them as feeders, the loss in Lot I being especially noticeable. Recapitulating the average for the three years, it will be noted that there is a profit in all lots except in Lot I, where there is an average loss of 33 cents per 100 pounds. In Lot V (a) there is a loss of one cent, but that occurs in only one year. The same is true of Lot V (b), in which there is a loss of 28 cents per 100 for one year. 18 BULLETIN 145 Table VII — Amount Received per Ton for Hay or Silage After Paying Market Prices for Other Feeds Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV Lot V<» Lot V(b) Lot VI (0 ) 1913-14 $ 1 08 $ 9 62 Mixed hay j 1914-15 J 1915-16 -8 84 15 62 .... ..:. 79 23 10 $5 42 .... Average $ 2 62 $10 64 $5 42 ) 1913-14 $3 10 $1 33 2 78 $1 38 Silage [ 1914-15 3 16 1 31 -1 37 1 12 j 1915-16 6 70 6 36 7. 39 .... $6 91 Average $4 32 $3 00 $ 2 93 $1 38 $1 12 $6 91 Table VII shows the price received for hay or silage after allowing market, prices for the other feeds. This amount varied considerably, being especially low in 1914-15, when there was a loss on the hay fed in Lots I and IV and on the silage fed in Lot IV. This materially reduces the average for the three years in most lots. In 1915-16 substantial returns were secured in all lots for both hay and silage. TABLE VIII— SUMMARY OF RESULTS— THREE YEARS (IN POUNDS) Total gain per lot— 140 days Lots 1913-14 I 2855 II 3085 III 2813 IV 3151 (a) V 3098 (b) V (c) VI 1914-15 3481 3706 3023 3126 3563 1915-16 3051 3456 3217 3132 3477 Average 3135.66 3415.66 3017.66 3136.33 3098 3563 :'-477 Total gain per steer — 140 days 1913-14 238 257 234 263 258 1914-15 290 309 252 260 297 1915-16 254 288 268 261 289 Average 260.66 284.66 251.33 261.33 258 297 289 Total cost of feed per lot 1913-14 $370 33 $312 55 $284 28 $332 52 $344 75 1914-15 379.50 310.85 284.76 341.59 35614 1915-16 36049 33925 314 03 35829 276.88 Average $370.10 $320.88 $294.36 $344.13 $344.75 $356.14 $276.88 STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 19 Total cost of feed per steer 1913-14 $ 30.86 $ 26.04 1914-15 31.62 28.90 1915-16 . 30.04 28.27 23.69 $ 27.71 $ 28.73 23.73 28.41 $ 29.68 26.17 29.84 $ 23.07 Average $ 30.84 $ 27.74 $ 24.53 $ 28.69 $ 28.73 $ 29.68 $ 23.07 Returns from pork produced 1913-14 $ 13.22 1914-15 16.66 1915-16 . -11.29 18.48 32.43 15.37 10.17 $ 21.20 $ 19.98 25.54 40.98 $ 45.65 19.55 14.13 $ .29 Average $ 6.19 $ 22.09 $ 18.42 $ 25.44 $ 19.98 $ 45.65 $ .29 Profit or loss per steer, not including pork produced 1913-14 -734 -1 02 -2.16 -1.05 -4 22 1914-15 -9.41 -1.70 -5.52 -6.73 -3.23 1915-16 92 8.47 7.44 5.87 15.47 Profit or loss per steer, including pork pro- duced 1913-14 -6.24 1914-15 -8.02 1915-16 . - .02 .51 1.00 9.75 -1.32 .71 -3.39 -3.37 9.07 7.05 -2.56 .57 15.49 The total gains for each year show a decided variation in each lot, excepting Lot IV, in which they remained practically stationary. The widest variation is between Lots I and II. The total gain per steer for each year shows the same variation as does the gain per lot. The total feed cost per steer, for each year, for 140 days, shows little variation in the lots for the first two years. The feed for all lots was higher in price the last year owing to the fact that the cattle consumed more feed than in the previous two years. Hogs were put into each lot to consume such feed as passed through the cattle undigested. A net gain .was made from hogs in all lots except those in Lot I, on which during the last year a loss of $11.29 was sustained by having the hogs in the feed lot. The hogs in this lot received a limited grain ration, which was charged against them. They did not make sufficient gains nor sell for a price sutiicient to pay for the feed consumed. In all other lots there was some income from hogs following the cattle. The cattle were sold each year to a local packing house in Altoona, Penna. Their valuation, made by a Pittsburgh commis- sion merchant, less the estimated marketing cost, was used to determine the profits after the feed consumed was paid for. In 1913-14 and 1914-15, a loss per steer occurred in all lots when pork was not included. This loss ranged from $1.02 per steer in Lot II to S7.34 in Lot I. In 1913-14, considering the returns from pork, the loss in Lot I was $6.24, while in Lot II there was a profit of 51 cents per steer for the same period. In 1914-15, the loss, not including pork, ranged from SI. 70 in Lot II to S9.41 in Lot 1 ; after allowing for the pork produced, a profit of SI. 00 occurred in Lot .II and a loss of $8.02 in Lot I. These figures show imt only the importance of hogs in the fcedlot. especiallv when whole grain is fed to the cattle, but also of keeping the feed cost of the cattle down. In 1915-16 there \vas a net profit on all lots, after allowing for cost of feed consumed. This profit ranged from {)2 cent- per steer in Lot I to SI 5. 47 per • - •( T in Loi \ 1 . BULLETIN No. ISO JUNE, 1910 ALABAMA Agricultural Experiment Station OF THE Alabama Polytechnic Institute AUBURN RAISING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA B\ DAN T. GRAY, Professor of Animal Industry, AND W. F. WARD, Junior Animal Husbandman, Bureau of Animal Industry. Opelika. Ala. Post Publishing Company 1910 COMMITTEE OF TRUSTEES ON EXPERIMENT STATION. HON. H. L. MARTIN Ozark HON. TANCRED BETTS Huntsville HON. A. W. BELL Anniston STATION STAFF. C. C. THACH President J. F. DUGGAR Director and Agriculturist B. B. Ross Chemist and State Chemist C. A. CARY ....Veterinarian and Director of Farmers' Institutes F. E. LLOYD Plant Physiologist and Pathologist P. F. WILLIAMS Acting Horticulturist J. T. ANDERSON Chemist, Soil and Crop Investigation D. T. GRAY Animal Industry W. E. HINDS Entomologist C. L. HARE Chemist C. S. WILLIAMSON Associate Chemist T. BRAGG First Assistant Chemist E. F. CAUTHEN Farm Superintendent and Recorder W. F. WARD* Junior Animal Husbandman J. W. RIDGEWAY* Special Agent in Beef H. J. CHATTERTON* * Special Agent in Beef N. E. BELL Second Assistant Chemist I. S. McADORY Assistant in Veterinary Science W. F. TURNER Assistant in Entomology M. J. FUNCHESS Assistant in Agriculture C. S. RIDGEWAY Assistant in Botany J. C. PRICE Assistant in Horticulture L. W. SHOOK Assistant in Animal Industry 0. H. SELLERS Stenographer *In co-operative beef work with Bureau of Animal Industry. Some Alabama grass steers. In Experimental work in summer 1909. RAISING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA Bv DAN T. GRAY AND W. F. WARD. INTRODUCTION. The work of eradicating the "Texas-fever" tick is pro- gressing satisfactorily in the South; every year new areas are freed from the tick, and with the progress of the work there comes an added interest in all kinds of cattle pro- duction. When the ticks in a county are exterminated, renewed interest begins to 'be immediately manifested in the beef cattle business, as the Southern farmers now real- ize that the "Texas-fever" tick has been practically the only drawback to the cattle business in the past. When the tick is finally exterminated no section of the United States will be as well suited to beef production as the South, because of i1s mild climate, long grazing season, and cheap lands. At the present time the South produces but a small pro- portion of the meat that her people consume. In Alabama there are but 544,000 head of cattle other than milk ani- mals ; or, in other words, there are about 1.2 head of cattle in the State to each family. If no outside meats, were shipped into the State, the people would consume all of this beef in less than a year's time. There is a wide field open to the Southern farmer who wishes to produce beef. There are many reasons why the Southern States should raise more beef cattle than are being raised at the present time. First, the South, under the present system of farm- ing, has thousands of acres — and good ones, too — which are not being used at all. Statistics tell us that only about 40 per cent of the tillable or arable land of the South is being used. Sixty per cent of the land is lying idle and returns to the owner not a cent in wealth. All of the lands cannot be used as cotton lands, because, first, there are not enough people to work the lands in any such way, and second, many of these pauper acres are not suitable for cul- tivation. In fact, many acres that are now under cotton cultivation should be turned into permanent pastures and grazed writh live stock. No state can become wealthy when only 40 per cent of the land capital is being used. The grocer, or the banker, or the hardware merchant, could not possibly make a profit on his business if he used only 40 per cent of his capital. And the farmer cannot hope to be successful in his operations until he begins to make use of at least a reasonable proportion of his capital. No farming business can be made successful when only $4,000 out of a possible $10,000 is being used* Then again beef cattle should be more generally intro- duced because of the good they do in building up and main- taining soils. Under the present system of cotton farming the soils are becoming poorer and poorer. With the intro- duction of cattle the soil will begin to be built up. Direc- tor Thome, of the Ohio Station, has been making tests with barnyard manure for several years, applying the ma- nure upon a plat of ground upon which was running a three years' rotation of corn, wheat and clover. Eight tons of manure an acre were applied. The average yearly in- crease an acre, following the one application, was as follows : Corn, 14.7 bushels at 70 cents a bushel $10.29 Corn stover, 744 pounds at $6.00 a ton 2.23 Wheat, 8.36 bushels at $1 a bushel 8.3G Wheat straw, 897 pounds at $4 a ton *1.79 Clover hay, 686 pounds at $12 a ton 4 . 12 Total value 8 tons of manure $26.79 Total value 1 ton of manure 3.35 He further states (Bui. 183, Ohio Experiment Station) that the value of farm manure can be materially increased by balancing the manure with the addition of a carrier of phosphorous. The farm manures are too high in nitrogen as compared with the other elements. By balancing sta- ble manure, the value of 8 tons was increased $12.20 after deducting the cost of the material used for the balancing of the manure. This is $1.53 a ton, or when added to the $3.35 above, brings -the total possible value of each ton of manure up to $4.88. During a feeding period of 100 days each steer will produce at least 1.5 tons of manure. This profit should be added to the feeding or direct profits. The Arkansas Station (Bui. 68) made a test to determine the value, to each succeeding crop, of growing peas in the corn, gathering the corn and then grazing both the peas and the stalks by the steers. The steers were being fed some cotton- seed in addition to the grazing. As the result of this crop of peas and the grazing, the succeeding cotton crop was increased 626.5 pounds of seed cotton over the area where corn alone had been grown. A third lot was planted to corn, and the increase in corn, due to the pea crop and the grazing, was 14 bushels per acre. A third reason why beef should be more generally pro- duced in the South, is that there is a demand for it, and the demand should be met in order that the money may be kept at home. "During the year of 1907 there were about 15,151 home raised animals slaughtered in the city of Birmingham (this includes cattle, veal, hogs, sheep and kids), while there were 36,097 live Western animals brought into the city and slaughtered. In addition to all this, thousands of pounds of cured meats were also retailed over the city." (Farmers' Bulletin No. . ..) This money should be kept at home and added to the Southern wealth. Packing houses are now being built throughout the South, and good markets are assured for the beef animals which the farmer produces. The fourth reason offered in favor of beef production is, that as our farmers learn the value of diversification in farming operations, there will be an increased amount of roughage, as corn, fodder, cowpea and clover hays, soy beans, etc., which, many times can be marketed more profit- ably through the beef animals than in any other way. The beef cattle serve as important machines for converting the surplus fodders into valuable barnyard manure, which gives to the growing crops not only the benefits of its fer- tilizing elements, but increases the mechanical condition of the soil by the addition of that important compound — humus. No animal can take the place of the beef steer in making use of the winter corn and cotton fields. I>eef cattle are peculiarly suited to fit into the farming operations of the South. The farms are large, and many acres are not being used because of the lack of sufficient labor. At present there is no better way to put the whole farm to work than by introducing beef cattle into the sys- tem of farming. They require but a small amount of labor in addition to that used upon the average cotton farm. The hog, while lie deserves a prominent place upon almost every farm, cannot be made to use all of the large uncultivated areas on the farms, for he is not strictly a grazing animal. Many farmers who have the large uncultivated areas are not now sufficiently skilled in the handling of live stock to introduce sheep or dairy cattle, as the sheep and dairy business require more skill than the beef business. Then, too, the dairy business requires an increase in the amount of labor used upon the farm; and the labor item is one that many farmers are trying to reduce. DETAILS OF THE TEST. OBJECT OF THE WORK. The primary object of this work was to learn what it would cost to raise a grade steer to the feed-lot period,, under average Southern conditions. After this was deter- mined, it was expected that suggestions could be made and plans offered by which beef animals could, in the future, be produced more cheaply than were the ones in this test. In order to obtain definite information regarding beef General view of cattle used in experiment. production in the South, which would enable them to logically outline work for the future, the Alabama Experi- ment Station, and the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United States Department of Agriculture, jointly undertook a co-operative experiment with a large stock farmer in the; Tennessee valley. ; „ I CATTLE USED. The animals used in the work were a herd of grade Aber- deen-Angus cows, headed by two pure-bred Aberdeen-Angus 8 bulls. Mr. J. S. Kernachan, of Florence, Alabama, the farmer with whom the work was conducted, began in 1900 the work of grading up some Holstein and scrub cows b.v the use of pure-bred Aberdeen-Angus bulls. The Holstein cows had been used for dairy purposes. The scrub cows were bought from some of the neighboring farmers. The scrub and Holstein mothers were not included in the experi- mental work. Their grade offspring were used. The experi- mental herd, at the beginning of the test in 1906, consist- ed of the following animals: Cows (that had dropped calves) 15 Two year old heifers (18 to 30 months) . . .13 Yearling heifers (12 to 18 months) 121 Heifer calves (recently born) 14 Three of the above cows were five years old; the others were less than five years of age. All of them were grade Angus. Some of the young ones were three-fourths pure, but the majority were but one-half pure. While Mr. Kernachan -{had some pure-bred Aberdeen-Angus cows upon his farm, they were not included in the test. No pure-bred animals -except the bulls were used. MANAGEMENT OF THE HERD. During the summer months the herd grazed upon a good pasture; no feed was given in addition to the pasture. This pasture was made up principally of white clover, ber- muda and lespedeza. This afforded the animals abundant pasture for about seven months of the year. During the winter months all of the cattle, young and old, had the run of the range. This range, which was inclosed, consisted of the old corn and cotton fields, with some cane along the river and creek banks. In addition to the winter range, hay and cottonseed were fed ( See statement later for the winter feeds). The cattle were not made to go through the winter on range alone, so when spring came they were in reasonably good flesh. It might have been profitable to 9 have kept all the animals gaining throughout the winter months; as to this the authors cannot say since this test does not cover that point. The young stuff did make gain» during each winter, but the cows and older animals usually lost in weight during the latter part of the winter. The 'shelter was of such a nature that none of the ani- mals suffered from the cold. During the mild winter weather the canebrake afforded ample protection from the cold. During severe storms or continued wet spells the cat- tle barn was used. The barn used to store hay and shelter cattle. Note the open sheds on each side. 50 x 70 feet. During the first year of the test the bulls were not al- lowed to run with the cows. The males were kept in a pasture separate from the cows and the cows brought there to be bred. It was learned, however, that many of the cows went through the year without bringing calves, as the other farm work prevented the owner from keeping in close touch with the cows. During the second year's work the bulls were allowed to run with the cows ; thereupon the per cent 10 of calves born during the first quarter of the year increased very materially over what it was when the bulls were kept Jn a pasture to themselves. No effort was made to completely eradicate the ticks. When the cattle became badly infested with ticks they were greased on the parts of the body w^here the ticks were most numerous. How DATA WAS COLLECTED. The farm was visited at least every three months by a representative from either the Bureau or the Station, and data secured about the births, deaths, weights, feeds used, etc. Each animal was numbered by means of a metal tag in the ear so that individual records could be secured. Soon after a calf was born it was tagged and weighed. All feeds were weighed or measured out to the animals. Vast amounts of manure were produced, but no account was kept of it, as most of it was dropped out in the fields and pastures. During the winter months some manure was collected around the barns and lots; this was all hauled onto the cultivated fields. PRICE OF FEEDS. Local conditions determine, to a large extent, the price of feeds. Any prices that the authors might assume would not meet all conditions, but the following prices have been taken as a basis upon which to rest the financial estimates : Mixed hay $ 6.00 a ton Cottonseed 14 . 00 a ton Green sorghum 1 . 50 a ton Pasture 2 . 50 an acre for season The hay, which consisted of a mixture of sorghum, crab grass, Johnson grass and cowpeas, was not of good quality, so a rather low farm price was placed upon it. Six dollars a ton was all it was worth. The green sorghum was used one fall (1906) for several days to supplement a short pas- 11 ture which was rendered short on account of an extreme drouth, and an early frost. The sorghum was cut and im- mediately thrown to the cattle. No price was placed upon the winter range. One hundred sheep, and about thirty horses and mules used the winter range in common with the cattle. WEIGHTS AND GAINS. t TABLE I. Average Weights and Gains of Cattle for Two Years CLASS 3. of animals 3 c i» £ Summer gains Winter gains Summer and winter gains |I| | rerage 'total in per head r winter OB fli'3 £5 !- 1 lily gain £ < 9 42 278 9 10 3 30 months ) Yearlings ) 12-24 [ 219 2 80 1 28 —16 4 90 . 203 - 7 70 3 79 months ) 2-yr. olds j 24-30 > 195 2 80 1 43 —25 4 90 170 7 70 4 53 months ) 2-yr. olds 24-33 170 2 80 1 65 —35 4 90 136 7 70 5 66 months • Cows all ages 116 2 80 2 41 —104 4 90 12 7 70 64 18 *Keep of dam not charged. **Keep of dam charged. Feeds charged as follows: Cottonseed at $14.00 per ton; green sorghum at $1.50 per ton; mixed hay at $6.00 per tori; pasture charged at $2.50 per acre for season. In the winter all cattle had access to the corn, cotton and pea-stubble fields of the plantation, and were fed some hay and a small amount of cottonseed to keep them in a reasonable condition of flesh. The average cost of winter- ing those animals that were more than twelve months of age was |4.90 per head (See table 3). When the cost of wintering the dam was charged against the calf, the cost of 100 pounds of gain was $9.42. As all the other animals lost some in weight during this period, the cost of gain could not be determined. The last column of Table 2 shows that when the cost of keeping the dam was not charged against the calf, 100 pounds of gain for the whole year cost 51 cents, but when the dam's yearly expense, as well as the pasture of the calf, were charged against the calf, the total cost to make 100 pounds of gain was $3.30. The cost of keeping an animal 15 from the time he was 12 months until he was 24 months old was |7.70; the amount of gain was 203 pounds, thus making 100 pounds of gain cost |3.79. The two year old animals (24-30 months) gained 170 pounds at a cost of $7.70, or at a rate of $4.53 per 100 pounds for the year. The cost of gain on the long two year old cattle (24-33 months) was $5.66 per 100 pounds. The last column of the table points out the fact that, as the animal advanced from the calf period to maturity, the cost of 100 pounds of gain increased, and all other condi- tions being equal, the younger the animal the cheaper were the gains. WINTERING CATTLE. Table 3, shows the total amount of feed consumed, the total cost to winter the whole herd, and the average cost to winter each animal for three consecutive winters. TABLE 3. Cost of Wintering Cattle* « |j 1 Ad 1 6. "2 >> 8 Q is 8 o°8 • .1 ° 1 .c aa YEAR "3° ill o§ lge« °3 11 'o o it -J Ef 6 0 0 Js |Sil| jw U ft l» 1905 -'6 45 27000 $189 00 35600 $106 80 $295 801 «fi -S7 1906-'7 65 12000 84 00 22000 $16 50 39600 118 80 219 30 3 37 1907-'8 59 3132 21 92 86443 259 32 281 24 4 77 Average 14044 98 31 7333 5 50 53881 161 64 265 45 4 90 *0nly animals above one year old were counted. The feed that the calves ate was charged against those animals which were more than one year old. During the winter of 190o-'6 the herd consumed 27,000 pounds of cottonseed and 35,600 pounds of hay. That is. each animal that was more than 12 months old, consumed 600 pounds of cottonseed and 791 pounds of hay for the whole winter. The winter of 1905-'6 was a hard one on the cattle, as it was very wet and rainy. The winter range wns not as good as usual, hence the large amount of feed con- sumed. With cottonseed charged at $14.00 a ton, and hay at $(i.OO a ton, each animal that was over twelve months old, o- n- 16 sumed $6.57 worth of feed. The cattle, as a herd, came through the winter in good condition. The winter of 1906-'7 was very mild and the cattle did not eat as much feed per head as they ate the previous winter. There were two very heavy frosts on the nights of Octo- ber 13th and 14th, however, which killed all the lespedeza, so the cattle had to be fed some green sorghum from the middle of October until the fields became available as win- ter range. Each animal consumed, during the whole winter, 338 ^pounds of green sorghum, 185 pounds of cottonseed, and • 610 pounds of hay. The cost of wintering each animal above twelve months old was $3.37. From October 15th to December 1st, of the winter 1907- '8, the cattle were fed hay and a small amount of cottonseed, as there was no green sorghum to be used. During this time they consumed 11 pounds of hay and 1.2 pounds of -cottonseed per head per day. From December 1st to Tan aiary 1st they were in the fields and canebrake and did not come up for feed. From January 1st to March 20th, 101)8, the cattle came up to the barn each evening and were fed hay, but no grain. For the whole winter each animal consumed 53 pounds of cottonseed and 1,465 pounds of hay. The cost of wintering the cattle was $4.77 per head. The average for the three winters shows that it cost $4.90 .-to winter each animal over twelve months of age. AREA OF PASTURE KEQUIRED PER ANIMAL. ~A number of cattle, not in the experiment, were grazed in the pasture with the experimental cattle. Assuming that two calves would eat as much grass as an animal over twelve months old (and this assumption is followed out in rental charges), there .would be the equivalent of 92 animals on 103 acres of land during the summer of 1906, x)r an average of 1.12 acres of pasture to each animal. 17 During the year of 1907 there were 90 animals on the 103 acres, giving an average of 1.14 acres to eacn animal. An average for the two years shows that 1.13 acres of land furnished pasture for one animal. This area, when •charged at $2.50 per acre, gives a cost of $2.80 per season for the pasture of each animal over twelve months old. This pasture was far better than the average Alabama pasture, as is shown by the fact that 1.13 acres supplied sufficient pasture for one animal. On an average, from 3 1-2 to 5 1-2 acres are required for each animal. When this piece of land was first put down to pasture it would not to keep as many animals as it does now ; in fact, it was no better than the average pasture but by grazing, it has been raised to its present state of fertility. BREEDING KECORD. TABLE 4. The Per Cent of Calves Born. YEAR I 0 y "o 6 8 £•0 Jl o2 d13 Per cent, of calves dropped Record by quarters; number of calves dropped « 3 I2! a s 32* 9 * in tr> *2~ 3 o jr. >r. fi 1906 24 25 25 17 18 14 70.8 72 56 5 9 14 4 1 # 5 5 3 3 1907 1908 *The experiment closed on April 15th, so no record was obtained later than this date. An animal that had dropped a calf was classified as a cow; the heifers were put in this class as soon as they calved. The .number of calves born was very small, when compared to the number of cows that should have brought calves, especially during the year 1906. This low number was partly due, no doubt, to the fact that the bulls were kept away from the cows and the owner, owing to the pressure of other business, not being able to breed the cows when they should have been bred. The owner soon realized 18 the fact that too many of the cows went through the year without bringing calves, so in the spring of 1907 he turned the bulls with the cows and permitted them to run to- gether the year round. A complete record of the number of calves dropped was not secured for the year 1908 — the year after the bulls were turned with the cows — as the test closed in April; but during the first quarter of the year 1908, fourteen calves were born, while during the same quarter of the years 1906 and 1907 only 5 and 9 calves, respectively, were born. No record was kept of the number of calves dropped after April, 1908, but when the last notes and weights were made it was seen that practically all of the cows were pregnant. Of course, it is a disputed point whether it is better to allow the bull to be with the cows or to keep him away from them all of the time. The farmer who has large pastures and has other business to look after, in addition to the cattle, cannot possibly obtain a high per cent of calves unless the bull is permitted to be with the cows. The busy farmer will not see the cows at the right time. The breeder of registered animals should not allow the bull to run with the cows, for it is desirable that a record of the date of service be kept. It is important that as many of the cows a-s possible produce calves each year; the idle cow is not only idle capital but she is a constant consumer of farm products. The idle cow has a very important part to play in the total expense of raising a calf, as the expense 'of keeping her must be charged against the calves which other cows produce (See financial statement, table 5-A). When there were 25 cows the owner had $750 invested in cattle (esti- mating each cow to be worth $30) ; of this amount only $540 was returning a profit when 72 per cent of the cows brought calves. In this case there were $210 invested in idle capital ; this amount represents the equivalent of seven cows, and those seven cows consumed $51.80 worth of feed in a year. 19 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. FEED EXPENSE TO RAISE A BEEF ANIMAL TO VARIOUS AGES. As a jule the farmer charges nothing against the cost of raiding, a calf but the feeds consumed. Looking at it from thi$ standpoint the cost of raising a calf in this experiment, to various ages was as follows : A. To 12 months: JF®. winter feed of 1.39 cows the first winter $ 6.81 To summer pasture of 1.39 cows 3.89 To summer pasture of 1 calf 1 . 40 • I Total cost $12.10 Cost per hundred weight 3.01 B. To 24 'months: To cost of 12 months old calf $12 . 10 To winter feed of animal (12-24 months)* 4.90 To summer pasture (12-24 months) 2.80 v Total cost $19 . 80 ; Cost per hundred weight 3 . 07 C. To 30 months: To cost of 24 months old steer $19 .80 To winter feed of animal (24-30 months)* 4.90 '*. Total cost '... $24.70 E Cost per hundred weight 3 .20 D. To 33 months: To cost 01 30 months old steer $24.70 To summer pasture for one-half summer 1.40 Total cost $26.10 Cost per hundred weight 3 . 14 *Here again it is assumed that all animals over twelve months of age ate the same amount of feed, which assumption is, of course, not absolutely accurate. In rental practice, though, this assumption is carried out. It should be remembered that the different classes of animals were not kept separate and fed in different lots; they all ran together, so the above statement is only a close approximation of the cost of raising the animals to the various ages. In the above statement it has been assumed that all animals which were over twelve mouths of age ate the same amount of feed and pasture; it was further assumed that the animal under twelve mouths of age used only one-half as much pasture as the animal which was over one year old. The last assumption is in keeping A good cow of the herd. She dropped a calf every year. with actual farm charges for pasture. It should be remem- bered that the cost to winter an animal was secured by dividing the total number of animals over one year old into the total cost of feed consumed during the winter months. When placing the value upon the feeds, as shown on page 2, it cost $12.10 to raise a twelve months old calf, #19. SO if he was kept until he was twenty-four months of age. $24.70 to raise him to two r.nd one-half vears old, and 21 $2K3.10 to keep him until he was thirty-three months old. Or, it cost about three cents a pound to grow the animal to various ages, when nothing but the feed and pasture was charged against him. This feed bill could be materially reduced by extending the pasture grazing season. The pasture season could be extended three months, almost anywhere in the South, by the use of "spotted" burr clover (MeJicago maculata). Burr clover is a winter growing crop and occupies the ground in common with bermuda, which makes its growth during the summer months. FEED EXPENSE, INTEREST, INSURANCE, ETC., TO PRODUCE A BEEF CALF. In estimating the cost of producing a beef animal, it is usual to charge nothing against the animal but the winter feed and the pasture used. But there are other items that should be charged against this animal, as interest on the money invested in the cattle, mortality, depreciation in value of the cows, etc. He 'should be credited with the ma- nure produced. The following estimates charge the calf not only with the feeds used, but the other items mentioned above, and gives him credit for the approximate amount of manure produced : A. To 12 months old: To winter feed of 1.39 cows $ 6.81 To summer pasture of 1.39 cows 3 . 89 To summer pasture of calf -« 1 . 40 To 7 per cent interest on 1.39 cows at $30 per head. . 2.92 To 7 per cent interest on 1-25 of a bull worth $150 . . .42 To annual depreciation in value of 1.39 cows at $1.50 . . 2 . 09 To pro rata depreciation of herd bull 80 To taxes, insurance, fencing and repairs 86 To 4 per cent mortality 1.20 $20.39 22 *By 3,600 pounds of calf manure at $1.25 a ton .,$ 2.25 By 10,800 pounds of mother's manure at $1.25 a toft 6.75 Total expense of calf $11 . 39 Cost per hundred weight 2.85 B. To 24 months old: To cost at 12 months of age (manure not included) $20.39 To winter feed t ;.» '.?. . . 4 . 90 To summer pasture r • ?«* 2 • 80 To 7 per cent interest on yearling 1.45 To taxes, insurance, repairs, etc .86 To 4 per cent mortality ,s, . .83 $~3l723 By 23,400 pounds of manure for 24 mos. at $1.25 a ton, 14. 63 Total expense of steer ' $16 . 60 Cost per hundred weight '>. '•'. . : . '. 2.57 C. To 30 months old: To cost at 24 months of age( manure not included) $31.23 To winter feed 4.90 To 7 per cent interest on 2 year old animal for 6 mos. 1 . 10 To taxes, insurance, repairs, etc., for 6 months 43 To 4 per cent mortality of 2 yr. old animals for 6 mos. .63 $38.29 By 28,800 pounds of manure for 30 mos. at $1.25 a ton, 18.00 Total expense of steer ..'...$20.29 Cost per hundred weight 2 . 62 D. To 33 months old: ,fO , To cost at 24 months old (manure not included) . . . .$31.23 To winter feed VI1. . '. 4 . 90 To 3 months pasture - .... 1 . 40 To 7 per cent interest on 2 yr. old animal for 9 mos. 1.65 To taxes, insurance, repairs, etc., for 9 months /... .64 To 4 per cent mortality for 9 months ; , . .94 ,/m $40.76 By 31,500 pounds of manure for 33 mos. at $1.25 a ton, 19.69 Total cost per steer $21 . 07 Cost per hundred weight 2.53 *In estimating the amount of manure produced it was assumed that the animal under one year of age produced 20 pounds per day for 180 days; that the yearling produced 25 pounds per day for a year; and that the two year old steer and the cow each produced 30 pounds per day. The price of manure, $1.25 a ton, is an assumed one, as there was no way to determine its exact value. But, judging from the many tests that have been made at Stations, the above value is a very conservative one. For instance, as quoted in the introduction, the Ohio experiments show raw manure to be worth $3.35 a ton when placed under the crops mentioned; when the manure was treated with a phos- phorous carrier, its value was raised to $4.88 a ton. There was a difference, though, between the Ohio manure and the manure secured in the above tests; -the Ohio manure was collected in the winter time when grains and hays were fed. It was a richer manure than that made during the summer months in this test, but probably no richer than the Alabama manures made during the winter months. 23 It is seen that when a calf is charged with everything that could be charged against him, and then credited with the manure produced, the cost of making 100 pounds of gain was somewhat smaller than the figures obtained when noth- ing but the feed and pasture were taken into consideration. The labor employed to feed and look after the animals was not included in the above estimates, as it was a very small item. One winter the labor to feed and care for the cattle was f 10.00 for the whole herd. Another winter the total labor item was only $7.50. The method used in the feeding and handling involved the use of but little labor; there was no feeding to be done but once a day, when the cottonseed and the hay were measured out to the cattle in a very few minutes. When all of the expenses were charged against the ani- mals and no credit was made for the manure, the expense of producing a steer varied from $4.84 to $5.07 per hundred pounds. The cost per hundred weight of raising a steer, when the manure produced received no credit, was as follows: To 12 months of age $5.07 per hundred weight To 24 months of age 4.84 per hundred weigh - To 30 months of age 4.95 per hundred weight To 33 months of age 4.90 per hundred weight These figures mean that if the above animals were sold for the above prices (The above prices can be realized for good cattle, as is shown by the fact that 60 steers, of about the same quality as those in this test, were fed by the Ala- bama Experiment Station and the Bureau of Anima.' In- dustry and sold February 28th, 1910, on the Louisville mar- ket for $5.75 per hundred weight) the feeds used were mar- keted at a good farm price ; all deaths were deducted ; seven per cent interest was received on the money invested in the animals ; $2.50 an acre were secured for the summer pasture; and finally the manure was secured free. Of course, in order that all these profits be realized, good cattle must be raised; it cannot be done with scrubs; the scrub will not sell to advantage when he is offered to the butcher or packer, as his meat is of a poor quality and he dresses out a low per cent of salable meat. The cattle upon this farm were not produced as cheaply as it is possible to raise them in the South. At least two farm practices can be introduced upon the average farm which will make it possible for steers to be rai^d much cheaper than were these animals. In this test no winter pastures were used, except the winter range. Through the use of a combination of burr clover and bermuda the pas- ture season can be extended at least two months in the year. The farmer who lives as far south as Greenville, Alabama, can have a grazing pasture the year through by the use of bermuda, burr clover and velvet beans. In the second place, the cattle were infested with the Texas tick, which reduced their average size no small amount. It is impossible to state just how much the tick retards the growth of a steer, but there were several severe cases of tick fever reported. Some of these cases died, and some of them lived, but when they did live they never attainel anything near their normal size. Through the efforts of both the Southern States and the Federal Government the tick is now being exterminated; when the tick is eliminat-i-l, the farmer can expect to raise larger cattle than formerly, and, too, the death rate will be materially decreased. BULLETIN No. IS1 JUNE, 1910 ALABAMA Agricultural Experiment Station OF THE Alabama Polytechnic Institute AUBURN 1 . Wintering Steers in Alabama. 2. Fattening Cattle on Pasture in Alabama. BY DAN T. GRAY, Professor of Animal Industry, and W. F. WARD, Junior Animal Husbandman, Bureau of Animal Industry. Opelika, Ala.: The Post Pubishing Company, 1910 COMMITTEE OF TRUSTEES ON EXPERIMENT STATION, HON. H. L. MARTIN Ozark HON. TANCRED BETTS Huntsville HON. A. W. BELL Anniston. STATION STAFF. C. C. THACH President J. F. DUGGAR Director and Agriculturist. B. B. Ross Chemist and State Chemist C. A. CARY Veterinarian and Director of Farmers' Institutes F. E. LLOYD Plant Physiologist and Pathologist P. F. WILLIAMS Horticulturist J. T. ANDERSON Chemist, Soil and Crop Investigation D. T. GRAY Animal Industry W. E. HINDS Entomologist C. L. HARE Chemist C. S. WILLIAMSON Associate Chemist T. BRAGG First Assistant Chemist E. F. CAUTHEN Farm Superintendent and Recorder W. F. WARD* Junior Animal Husbandman J. W. RIDGEWAY* Special Agent in Beef H. J. CHATTERTON* Special Agent in Beef N. E. BELL Second Assistant Chemist I. S. McADORY Assistant in Veterinary Science W. F. TURNER Assistant in Entomology M. J. FUNCHESS Assistant in Agriculture C. S. RIDGEWAY Assistant in Botany J. C. PRICE Assistant in Horticulture L. W. SHOOK Assistant in Animal Industry O. H. SELLERS Stenographer *In co-operative beef work with Bureau of Animal Industry. SUMMARY. PART 1. 1. The cattle used in all of these tests were practically mature ones. 2. Winter rations used: 1907-'08. 1908-'09. Lot 1. ... Range alone. Range alone. Lot 2. ... Range plus half ration cot- Range plus half ration cot- tonseed meal and hulls. tonseed meal and hulls. Lot 3. ... Range plus half ration pea- Range plus half ration cot- vine hay. tonseed. Lot 4 Range plus half ration cheap hay. 3. In 1907-'08 each range steer (Lot 1) lost 97 pounds in weight. In 1908-'09 each range steer (Lot 1) lost 106 pounds in weight. 4. In 1907-'08 each steer in Lot 2 received 2.35 pounds of cottonseed meal and 8.5 pounds of hulls each day in addi- tion to the range. During the winter of 1908-'09 each steer in Lot 2 received 2.41 pounds of cottonseed meal and 8.71 pounds of hulls daily. The first year each steer lost 6 pounds in weight; the second year each steer gained 3 pounds in weight. 5. In 1907-'08 each steer in Lot 3 was fed a daily ration of 8.5 pounds of good peavine hay in addition to the range; the loss in weight per steer for the winter was 9 pounds. 6. In 1908-'09 cottonseed was tried as a supplement to the range, 4.71 pounds being fed to each steer daily. The loss in weight per steer for the winter was 40 pounds. 7. In 1908-'09 cheap hay was used in Lot 4 to supple- ment the range, 11.8 pounds being fed to each steer daily. The winter loss per steer was 40 pounds. 8. The total cost to winter each steer in 1907-'08 was $4.70 and |3.57 in Lots 2 and 3 respectively. The total cost to winter each steer in 1908-'09 was $5.63, $3.23 and $2.06 in Lots 2, 3 and 4 respectively. 9. In 1907-'08 the fall buying price was $2.50 per hun- 28 dred weight. When the expense of wintering the steers was added to the fall price the spring prices were found to be $2.89, $3.17 and $3.03 per hundred weight in Lots 1, 2 and 3 respectively. 10. In 1908-'09 the fall buying price was $2.56 per hun- dred weight. When the expense of wintering the steers was added to the fall price, the spring prices were found to be $3.01, $3.34, $3.20 and $3.09 per hundred weight in Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. PART II. 1. The steers which were used in the above winter work were re-divided into lots and continued into the summer feeding work. 2. In 1908 the steers were fed for a period of 112 days on pasture. In 1909 they were fed for 154 days. 3. The summer rations were: 1908. 1909. Lot A Pasture alone. Pasture alone. Lot B. . . . Pasture plus cottonseed Pasture plus cottonseed cake. cake. Lot C.... Pasture plus "Caddo" cake. Lot D. . . . Pasture plus cottonseed cake. Lot E Pasture plus cottonseed. 4. In 1908 the amount of feed used daily per steer, in addition to the pasture, was 3.31 pounds, 3.31 pounds and 2.76 pounds in Lots B, O and D respectively. In 1909 the daily amount of feed used per steer to supplement the pas- ture was 3.40 pounds and 4.49 pounds in Lots B and E re- spectively. 5. In 1908 the average daily gains were 1.51, 2.32, 1.84 and 1.62 pounds in Lots A, B, C and D respectively. In 1909 the average daily gains were 1.74, 1.88 and 2.06 pounds in Lots A, B and E respectively. 6. In 1908 the total cost to make one hundred pounds gain was $1.18, $2.56, $3.03 and $3.24 in Lots A, B, C and D respectively. In 1909 the total cost to make one hundred pounds of gain was $1.03, $3.21 and $2.39 in Lots A, B and E respectively. 29 7. In 1908 the net profits per steer were $2.86, $10.42, $6.62 and $0.43 in Lots A, B, C and D respectively. In 1909 the net profits per steer were $7.06, $6.99 and $8.39 in Lots A, B and E respectively. 8. In 1908 the steers dressed out (farm weights) 49.5 per cent, 53,8 per -cent, 53.6 per cent and 52.7 per cent in Lots A, B, C and D respectively. In 1909 they dressed out (farm weights) 51.8 per cent, 54.2 per cent and 53.9 per cent in Lots A, B and E respectively. 9. These experiments are being continued at the pres- ent writing. Some Alabama grass steers. In Experimental work in summer 1909. 1. Wintering Steers in Alabama. 2. Fattening Cattle on Pasture in Alabama, By DAN T. GRAY AND W. F. WARD. INTRODUCTION. In Bulletin No. 150* are published the results of the in- formation \vhich was collected by the Alabama Experiment Station and the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington in a throe year.'' test to determine the cost of raising a beef calf. One point is brought out clearly in that work, namely, that if money is to be made upon beef operations, the steer must be properly finished for the market before he is offered for ?;alo. If the steer is sold unfinished, the man who raised him is almost sure to lose money on the operation. The question arises, then, IIow shall the steer, after he has Ix'on raised, or has reached the feed-lot period, be fin- ished for Hie market to get Hie greatest possible profit out nf him? The steer can lie finished in one of t\vo ways: he can be falfened during the winter months, or he can b? *Those interested in the subject of beef production can get the bulletin by writing to the Alabama Experiment Station at Auburn, or the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington. 31 fattened during the summer months while the pastures are available. Since the co-operative beef work between the Ala'bama Experiment Station and the Bureau of Animal Industry began, some results have been published relative to winter fattening.** The present bulletin presents the results of two years' work in fattening cattle upon pasture during the summer months and selling the cattle at the end of the summer. It should be understood that this bul- letin is only a report of the progress of the work, as the experiments are being continued. DETAILS OF THE EXPERIMENTS. PLAN OP THE WORK. The cattle were bought in the fall, on account of the fact that they couU be bought much cheaper in the fall than in the spring. In fact, they could hardly be bought at all in the spring. But they were not to be fattened until the fol- lowing summer, so it became necessary to make a study of the cheapest and best methods of getting these mature steers through the winter months. So the work was divided into: 1. A study of methods of wintering mature steers, 2. Fattening these steers on pasture the following sum- mer. The cattle used in the winter's work were continued into the following summer's work. CATTLE USED. The various pictures will show the kind of cattle which were used in these tests. Grade Aberdeen- Angus, Shorthorn, Hereford, and Red Polled were used. Many of them had a predominance of Jersey and scrub breeding. They were all bought of farmers in Sumter, Wilcox, Marengo, and neighboring counties, so they represented the average cattle of the western part of Alabama. They varied from two to four years in age. As will be seen later, the average weight at the beginning of the fall work was about 750 pounds each. **See Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin No. 103. 32 How THE WORK WAS CARRIED ON. Owing to the fact that pasture was not available upon the Experiment Station at Auburn, Alabama, the work was carried on upon the farms of Cobb and McMillian of Sum- terville, Alabama, who kindly agreed to co-operate with the Alabama Experiment Station and Bureau of Animal Indus- try. The winter range and summer pastures were divided into lots suitable for the work. One of the authors of this bulletin, Mr. W. F. Ward, was stationed upon the farm and had personal supervision of all the experimental work. At the end of each experiment the cattle were all shipped "to the New Orleans market, where complete sale and slaugh- ter records were secured. LOT 1. — End of winter 1908. Feed, range alone. Total winter gain of each steer, — 97 pounds. Total cost to winter each steer, (?). THE WINTER RANGE. The winter range consisted of the winter corn and cotton fields. The leaves had not been stripped from the corn stalks. Crab grass had grown up sufficiently between the rows of corn after the last cultivation, to be of some value to the cattle during the early weeks of the winter. No cane brakes were used. The cattle, except those in the range lots, were not given unlimited range; each lot was confined to a certain area. Of course, the man who has cane brakes 33 has an advantage in handling and feeding cattle in the win- ter time. Those animals which were confined in limited areas had about ten acres each upon which to graze. The outside cattle, or range lot, had an unlimited grazing area. The winter range was available for use immediately after the cotton had all been picked. SUMMER PASTURE. The summer pasture used in these experiments consisted of a mixture of sweet clover (Melilotus), Japan clover (Lespedeza), Johnson grass, crab grass, and some bermuda. The sweet clover became available for grazing about April 1, while the Japan clover was not ready until about June 15. In some sections of the country sweet clover is con- sidered a pest, as stock will not eat it, but in the South, or at least in Alabama, all kinds of stock eat it with great relish : here they take to the sweet clover as readily as to alfalfa. The pasture was divided into lots; the size of each lot depending upon the number of cattle grazed upon it, and as to whether the steers were to be fed a concentrated supple- ment or not. The object was to have an abundance of pas- ture for each bunch of cattle. METHOD OF FEEDING AND HANDLING THE CATTLE. In both the winter and summer work the steers were fed but once a day. In the winter time movable feed troughs were placed out in the fields in which to feed the hulls, cottonseed meal and cottonseed, and movable hay racks were made in which to feed the hay. The racks and troughs were all made movable so that the manure would be distributed over the corn and cotton fields. Movable feed trough's were also used during the summer feeding on pasture. No feeds were thrown upon the ground. No shelter, except trees, was provided for the cattle in either the winter or summer time. They had no access to sheds. They did not suffer to any appreciable extent from the cold in the winter time or from the heat in the summer time. The summer pastures were well provided with goo-T shade trees. When a summer shade is provided, cattle will not suffer as much from heat in Alabama as they will in Illinois or Iowa. While there were ticks in the pastures, the cattle were not permitted to become badly infested with them; a dip- ping vat was used to keep down heavy infestation. In the two years' work, during which time over 300 head of cattle were fattened, there were only four cases of Texas fever, and none of these cases was lost. In future work it is ex- pected that the tick will be entirely eliminated. The weight of each steer was secured at the beginning and end of each test. The total weight of each lot was se- cured every twenty-eight days. When the steers were sold they had to be driven nine miles to a shipping point. LOT 2. — End of winter 1908. Feed, cottonseed hulls and cotton- seed meal plus range. Total winter gain of each steer, — 6 pounds. Total cost of wintering each steer t $4.70. PRICE OF FEEDS USED. When the feeds were purchased upon the market, the market price plus the expense of hauling to the farm, was used in making up the financial statement. When the feed used was grown upon the farm an assumed' market price was placed upon it. Local conditions determine to a large ex- tent, the farm prices of feeds. Any prices that the authors might assume would not meet all conditions, but the follow- ing prices have been taken as a basis upon which to rest the financial estimates: 35 Cottonseed meal .$26.00 per ton Cottonseed 14 .00 per ton "Caddo" cake 23.00 per ton Cottonseed cake 25 . 00 per ton Cottonseed hulls 6.00 per ton Damaged hay 5 . 00 per ton Cowpea hay 10 . 00 per ton Pasture 50 per month per steer The above represents the prices of the purchased feeds laid down on the farm; the farm was fourteen miles from the railroad station. The cottonseed cake, which had been broken into nut size and sacked, was purchased from the Epes Cotton Oil Co. of Epes, Alabama. This cate can be purchased in the large cake size, just as it comes from the LOT 3. — End of winter 1908. Feed, peavine hay and range. Total winter gain of each steer, — 9 pounds. Total cost of wintering each steer, $3.57. press, for about two dollars a ton cheaper than in the nut size. Some feeders find that it pays to break the cake on their own farms. The cake is the same thing as the cotton- seed meal, except that it is not ground into a meal. There are several advantages in feeding cake in place of cotton- seed meal — especially in summer feeding. A rain does not render the cake unpalatable; but it will often put the meal in such a condition that the cattle will not eat it. Again, no loss is incurred with the cake during windy days ; cottonseed' meal, when fed in the open pasture, is wasted on account of the winds. Furthermore the cake requires chewing before 36 being swallowed and therefore must be eaten very much slower than the meal, so when a number of steers are being fed together the greedy one has little chance to get enough cake to produce scours. In feeding cottonseed meal the greedy steer often scours on account of the fact that he can bolt the meal and get more than his share; this not only injures the steer but makes the bunch "feed out" un- evenly. The "Caddo" cake was purchased from the Caddo Cotton Oil Company of Shreveport, Louisiana. "Caddo" cake is the cake left after extracting the oil from the cottonseed by the cold process. That is, it is made up of both the cake and the hulls; or it consists of everything in the seed ex- cept the oil. These tests do not show it to be as valuable for feeding purposes as the ordinary cottonseed cake. The chemical, analysis of the "Caddo" cake fed, as reported by the State Chemist, Dr. B. B. Boss, of Auburn, was as- follows: Moisture 9.75 per cent. Ash 4 . 70 per cent. Fibre 21 . 18 per cent. Protein 27.62 per cent. Ether Extract (oil) 8.78 per. cent. Carbohydrates 27.97 per cent. The mixed hay was a second or third class hay that could not be sold upon the market at all. It consisted of a mix- ture of Johnson grass, crab grass, and some alfalfa. The price placed upon it was all it was worth. The cow pea hay was bright and of good quality. PART I. WINTERING THE CATTLE. As previously stated, the steers were bought in the fall of the year as they could then be secured cheaper than at any other date. In fact, in western Alabama where the work was done" the cattle could not be purchased in the spring at all. The object was to get these steers through the winter months as economically as possible and fatten them, on pasture the following summer. Farmers are not agreed as to what is the best way to handle and feed mature steers during the winter months. Some farmers claim that the animals should be "roughed" through the winter upon a very small amount of feed in addition to the winter range; some hold that the range needs no supplementary feed at all ; still others believe that the steer should be fed liberally so that he will be kept gaining all through the winter months. The cattle used in the winter work were dehorned, tagged, and divided into lots (Three lots in the winter of 1907-'08, and four lots in the winter of 1908-'09) so that a study could be made of the amount of feed that should be fed during the winter time, and also to learn the value of some of the Southern feeds for carrying cattle through the cold months. GAINS DURING THE WINTER MONTHS. The winters of 1907-'08 and 1908-'09 were both mild ones. There was no weather cold enough to make the steers suffer, although, as before mentioned, there was no shelter at all, except a few trees. The following table shows the ration fed, total weights, and gains of each lot for the two winters : 38 TAHLI: 1. Cains Ditrinij Winter 190T-'OS — (JS4 clays.) j£ w ~ •g _>> | "5 >- •— ^j §0 2-f « r- TJy '5 ® 2 0; Ore 0; H **- ~ C RATION -^0 " '"5 W r- U « ^ u c c Z \l& Pi I'll !»•- v Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs, 1 26 Range alone . 7?o 625 —97. — 1 15 29 f Range plus half ration cotton- ) \ seed meal and hulls ( 726. 720. - 6. - .or 3 24 \ Range plus half ration peavine ) I hay [ 724. 715. - 9. - .11 i 2 3 •X- I Gafws During Winter 1008--09— (98 days}. 25 25 25 25 Range alone Dec. 4 705. 7U5. 706. 689. Mch.12 599 0 708. 666. 649. -106. 3 . —40. —40. -1.08 .03 — .40 — .57 j Range plus half ration cotton- ] ) seed meal and hulls . v j Range plus half ration cottc;u- t / seed . . . \ \ Range plus half ration cheap ) '( hay f *This lot started in test January 1st, so fed only 70 days. It was intended that the steers which received some feed in addition to the range should suffer no loss in weight during the winter months, but in some cases the loss was considerable during the latter part of the winter period when the range afforded very little grazing. The object was to give just enough feed, in addition to the range, to enable the cattle to hold their fall weight. No gains in live weight were desired. It should be remembered that these were all practically mature cattle, varying from two 1o four years in age. During the first winter the experiment continued from December 1) to March •>. a jKTiod of 85 days. During ^his time the range ca11le (Lot 1) lost 1)7 pounds each in live weight while ihe steers in Lois 2 and '> practically neld their rail weights. All of the cattle came through the winter in excellent health. While the cattle in the range 39 lot were thin at the end of the winter season, still they were in good condition for grazing; they evidently had not been weakened in any way. At the opening of the spring the steers in the peavine hay lot (Lot 3) seemed to be in better thrift than thos-e in Lot 2, (the cottonseed meal and hulls lot), but they made practically the same gains in weight during the following summer. The hay used in 1907-'08 was of good quality. During the winter of 190S-'09, the test continued from December 4th to March 12th — a period of 98 days. There were practically the same loses in live weight as the previous winter in Lots 1 and 2. In the range lot each steer lost 106 LOT 1. — End of winter 1909. Feed, range alone. Total winter gain of each steer, — 106 pounds. Total cost of wintering each steer, (?). pounds. The steers in Lots 3 and 4 lost rapidly in weight the last month of the test, due to the fact that the grazing on the range was not good at the end of the season ; it was not intended that they should shrink in weight. Lot 4 was not started in the test until January 1, so the cattle in this lot were fed only seventy days. The hay used by Lot 4 was a very cheap hay; it was made up of a mixture of Johnson grass, crab grass, and some alfalfa, but had been damaged by rain to such an extent that it could not be sold at all. 40 AMOUNT OF WINTER FEEDS USED. During the winter of 1907-'OS a comparson was made between feeding on the range alone and the same1 range when supplemented in one lot with a part ration of cottonseed meal and hulls, and in a third lot with a good quality of -cow pea hay. The following winter (1908-'09) the same comparison was again made as regards Lots 1 and 2, while in a third lot cottonseed was used and in a fourth lot some ^damaged mixed hay was used to supplement the range. TABLE 2. Feeds used Winter 1907-'08— (84 days}. 0 J *J 0$ d RATION Total amount consumed per steer Daily amount feed consum- ed per steer Concen- trates iC bcta |« O Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. i Range alone —4 38 55 2 ( Range plus half ration cottonseed ) \ meal and hulls ( 16. —10. -12. . 3 \ Range plus half ration peavine ) I hay : | 15. —16. ~~ 1908-'09— (98 1 2 3 4 Range alone .... Dec. 4 to Jan. 1st Jan. 1 to Jan. 29 Jan. 29 to Feb. 26 Feb. 26 to Mch. 12 -40. 18. 0. — 43. —12. —16. —13. - 7. - 5. -46. -23. -16. 2. 22. - 4. ( Range plus half ration cottonseed ) 1 meal and hulls .... 5 Range plus half ration cottonseed . . Range plus half ration mixed bay During each year's work those steers which received feed in addition to the range were started on a very small daily allowance. This amount was increased every few days for 28 days, when it was held uniform for the remainder of the winter. During the first winter's work the range cattle (Lot 1) practically held their initial weight during the first 28 days. As time went on and the range became shorter they lost more and more in weight. This is what should be expected. But the heaviest losses in 1908-'09 were exper- ienced at the early part of the winter. However this winter was an unusual one. Tt was very rainy and muddy during the early months, so that the cattle were very uncomfortable and could not graze well. During the last of the winter very little rain fell, spring set in early 44 so as a matter of fact, the grasses put up early and the range cattle had some green feed during the last month in addition to the range. i» As stated elsewhere, all of these cattle came through to spring in good grazing condition; they were strong and active, although the steers in the range lots (Lot 1) had fallen off in live weight about 100 pounds each. LOR 3. — End of winter 1909. Feed, cottonseed plus range. Total winter gain of each steer, — 40 pounds. Total cost of wintering each steer, $3.23. FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR WINTER WORK. In the fall of 1907 the steers cost $2.50 per hundred weight, but the next fall, 1908, feeders had advanced some in price, making the fall price average $2.56 per hundred weight. The following spring cost was of course consider- ably greater than the fall price for two reasons. First, the cattle were not as heavy as they were the previous fall, and second, the cost of the winter feed had to be added to the fall price. The fall cost, plus the depreciation in live weight, plus the cost of winter feed made the steers cost around $3.00 per hundredweight in the spring. The follow- ing table, No. 4, shows the spring cost by lots. The average of these spring costs was taken as the initial cost of the steers in the summer feeding work which followed. The average cost of wintering each steer in the various lots, 45 together with the difference in value between fall an 3 spring, are as follows: TABLE 4. Financial Statement. 1907-'08. Lot 1. Range alone: To 722 Ibs. steer at $2.50 per hundred wt. $18.05 By value of same steer in spring, 625 Ibs. at $2.89 per hundredweight $18.05 $18.05— $18.05 Lot 2. Range plus cottonseed meal and 'hulls: To 726 Ibs. steer at $2.50 per hundred wt. .$18.15 To 714 Ibs. cottonseed hulls at $6.00 per ton 2.14 To 194 Ibs. cottonseed meal at $26.00 per ton 2.56 By value steer in spring 720.5 Ibs. at $2.89 per hundred weight $20. 82 By required increase in value over range steer to break even, 28c per hundred- weight 2 . 03 $22.85— $22.85 Lot 3. Range plus peavine hay: To 724 Ibs. steer at $2.50 per hundred wt.$18.10 To 714 Ibs. peavine hay at $10.00 per ton 3.57 By value steer in spring, 715 Ibs. at $2.89 per hundred weight $20 . 65 By required increase in value over range steer to break even, 14c per hundred- weight 1.02 $21.67— $21.67 1908-'09 Lot 1. Range alone: To 705 Ibs. steer at $2.56 per hundred wt. $18.05 By value same steer in spring, 599 Ibs. at $3 . 01 per hundredweight $18 . 05 $18.05— $18.05 Lot 2. Range plus cottonseed meal and hulls: To 705 Ibs. steer at $2.56 per hundred wt. $18.05 To 854 Ibs. cottonseed hulls at $6.00 per ton 2.56 To 236 Ibs. cottonseed meal at $26.00 per ton 3.07 By value steer in spring, 708 Ibs. at $3.01 per hundredweight $21 . 31 By required increase in value over range steer to break even, 33c per hundredweight 2.37 $23.68— $23. 6& Lot 3. Range plus cottonseed: To 706 Ibs. steer at $2.56 per hundred wt. $18.08 To 462 Ibs. cottonseed at $14.00 per ton . 3.23 By value steer in spring, 666 Ibs. at $3.01 per hundredweight By required increase in value over range steer to breaK even, 19c per hundred- weight $20.05 1.26 $21.31— $21.31 Lot 4. Range plus cheap hay: To 703 Ibs. steer at $2.56 per hundred wt. $18.00 To 826 Ibs. waste hay at $5.00 per ton .. 2.06 By value steer in spring, 649 Ibs. at $3.01 per hundredweight $19 . 53 By required increase in value over range steer to break even, 8c per hundred- weight .53 $20.06— $20.06 LOT 4. — End of iv inter 1909. f eed, coarse hay pins range. Total winter gain of each steer, — 40 pounds. Total cost of wintering each steer, $2.06. The total cost to winter each steer in 1907-'()8 was $4.70 and |3.57 in Lots 2 and 3 respectively. The range has no price placed upon it, although the results show that it has a very great value. The total cost to winter each steer in 190S-'09 was $r>.G3, $3.23 and $2.06 in Lots 2, 3 and 4 respec- tively. After the cost of wintering the cattle and the winter shrinkage were added to the fall buying price the spring cost was obtained. The spring costs in Lots 1, 2, and 3 in 1907-'08 were $2.89, $3.17 and $3.03 per hundred weight respectively. In 1908-'09 the spring costs were $3.01, $3.34, $3.20, and $3.09 ^er hundred weight in Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. It is seen that the cheap coarse feeds produced about as good results as the high priced feeds, and at the same time the steers were carried through the winter much more eco- nomically with the cheap than with the expensive feeds. It will always pay to make use of the coarse or cheap winter feeds for the mature steers and save the high-priced feeds for the young animals of the farm. It is well known that the effects of feeding mature cattle through the winter months continue throughout the follow- ing grazing season. Those mature cattle which make the most gain through the winter may be expected to make the smallest gains the following summer. This has been found to be true in this work, but a detailed presentation of this point will be found in later publications. TABLE 5. Total Summary of Winter Work. 1907-'08-84 days 1908-'09-98 days V 1 3 Lot 2 Range and cottonseed meal and hulls ?'| ^ n C f> £?'> »!! 722 Ibs. 726 Ibs. 724 Ibs. 705 Ibs. 705 Ibs. 706 Ibs 689 Ibs. ning of test ) Total gain per steer \ for whole winter f —97. Ibs -6. Ibs. -9. Ibs. —106 Ibs. 3. Ibs. -40. Ibs -40. Ibs. Average daily gain ) per steer ... ) Ibs. -1.15 Ibs. -.07 Ibs. —.11 Ibs. -1.08 Ibs. .03 Ibs. — .4 Ibs. — .57 Concentrates con- ) sumed per steer |> 2. 35 Ibs. 2 41 Ibs. 4 71 Ibs per dav ) Roughage con- sumed per steer 8 51bs 8 5 Ibs. 8 71 Ibs 11 81bs per day Average expense to winter each $4 70 $3 57 $5 63 $3 23 $2 06 steer . Initial, or fall cost of steers per cwt. $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.56 $2.56 $2.56 $2.56 Total cost fcteers j per cwt in spring \ $2.89 $3.17 $3.03 $3.01 $3.34 $3.20 $3.09 48 PART II. Fattening Cattle on Pasture., INTRODUCTION. As a rule the ^ordinary permanent pasture in Alabama can be depended upon to furnish grazing from about April 1 to some time in October. The frosts usually kill the pastures in October. By making use of winter growing plants, such as burr clover, the grazing season can be opened about February 1 and sometimes even earlier. A common mistake is to overstock the pastures. When this is done the grass often becomes short in August and September, and the cattle actually lose in weight instead of making a gain. The South often experiences a drought in August and September, therefore the farmer should have no more cattle on hand than can be well cared for during the grazing period. The pastures used in this test, as stated before, were made up of several kinds of grasses. No one kind of plant was depended upon entirely. Johnson grass, Japan clover, and Melilotus were the most important grazing plants used. In addition to these some bermuda and crab gras.3 were also found. If the pastures are to be improved each year, and the grazing season extended over as many months as possi- ble, several plants must be made use of. The cattle used in the summer feeding work were the same ones as had been used in the preceding winter's experimental work. When grass appeared in the spring the winter work was discontinued, the cattle redivided into- lots, and the summer feeding work was begun immediately. Some steers, which had not been in the winter experiment, were added to the summer work. These extra steers had been fed nothing through the winter months except what they obtained on the open range. They were of the same quality as the steers which had been used in the winter tests. All of these cattle had been dehorned the previous fall. DETAILS OF THE EXPERIMENT. GAINS DURING THE SUMMER FEEDING. The gains as recorded in the following table will show that the pastures used were good ones. It should be remem- bered, too, that as a result of feeding upon these pastures they are getting better and better as time goes on. The following table sets forth, in a tabulated form, the total and daily gains of the steers for the summers of 1908 and 1909: TABLE 6. Total and Daily Grains During the Pasture Feeding Test. 1908— (112 days). £ I L e e ui « 012 RATION 0) £ * !-i |!« fl &Si o>.2 w " e ^ o»^3 ^ 5 0 ^ii ^ Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. A 26 Pasture alone 732 902 170 1.52 B 26 Pasture plus cottonseed cake 739 999 260 2.32 C 26 Pasture plus "Caddo" cake 738 944 206 1.84 D 54 Pastare plus cottonseed cake 532 713 181 1.62 1909— (154 days). A 40 Pasture alone 647 915 268 1 74 B 75 Pasture plus cottonseed cake 639 929 290 1 88 E 25 Pasture plus cottonseed 653 970 317 2.06 *The cattle in Lot D were not of the same grade as those in Lots A, B, and C, so really Lot D can not be compared with the other lots. Lot D was made up of a bunch of mixed cattle with no special breeding, and ranging from two to five years in age. The object in handling this bunch was to see if money could be made on such cattle. They had not been dehorned. It is seen that, in every case, those cattle that received some supplementary feed gained more rapidly than those which received no feed but pasture. Of course, the more rapid a steer gains the quicker he can be gotten in shape for the market, and this is a very important point, as the 50 learly fall o Sa fll 3 3 gJH |2-s £sa Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. A 26 Pasture alone B 26 Pasture plus cottonseed cake . . 371 3.31 143. C 26 Pasture plus "Caddo" cake . . . 371 3.31 180. D 54 Pasture plus cottonseed cake . . 309 2.76 171. 1909— (154 days). A 80 Pasture alone B 75 Pasture plus cottonseed eake . . 524 3.40 181 K 25 Pasture olus cotton seed . . 691 4.49 218 STEER OF LOT B. — End of summer 1908. Feed, cottonseed cake and pasture. 52 Lot A received no feed in addition to the pasture as one object was to learn whether it would pay to supplement the pasture with a concentrate. During the summer of 1908 each steer in Lot B was given daily 3.31 pounds of cotton- seed cake in addition to the pasture: in 1909 each steer in this lot was fed 3.4 pounds of the cake per day in addition to the pasture. In 1908 "Caddo" cake was used in one lot so that its value as a feed could be compared to cottonseed cake. The steers in Lot D in 1908 (these were a mixed bunch of steers and cannot be compared directly to the other three lots) , on account of being smaller than the ones in the other lots, were fed only 2.76 pounds of cottonseed cake per head per day. In 1909 cottonseed was fed to Lot E. When looking at the last column it is seen that the cot- LOT B. — End of summer 1908. Feed, cottonseed cake and pasture. Average daily gain of each steer 2.32 pounds. Cost of 100 pounds of gain .... $2.56 Total profit per steer 10.42 tonseed cake was more efficient than the "Caddo" cake for making gains. In 1908 only 143 pounds of cottonseed cake were required to make one hundred pounds gain, while 180 pounds of the "Caddo" cake were required to make the same number of pounds gain. Lot D cannot be compared to Lots B and C. It is true that the "Caddo" cake did not cost as much as did the cottonseed cake, but it will be seen later, when the cost of the feeds are taken into consideration, that ^he cottonseed cake was the more economical feed to use. Cinder the conditions of this test one pound of cottonseed cake was equal, in feeding value, to 1.28 pounds of "Caddo" cake. 53 During the summer of 1909 a direct comparison was made between cottonseed cake and cottonseed as feeds to be used to supplement pastures. Under the conditions of this test one pound of cake proved to be equal to 1.21 pounds of the seed. The seed proved to have an exceedingly high feeding value when used as a feed to supplement the pastures. The steers in Lot D were a bunch of mixed scrubs varying from one to five years in age. There was very little improved blood among these cattle. They were not de- horned so they were always restless at the feed trough, as the timid ones were afraid of the steers with long sharp horns. This lot was fed as a side issue to the main experiment to determine whether a profit could be made upon this class of cattle. LOT C. — Middle of summer 1908. Feed, "Caddo" cake and pasture. Average daily gain of each steer 1.84 pounds. Cost of 100 pounds of gain $3.03 Total profit per steer 6.62 There was no way, of course, to determine just how much pasture grass was consumed, except as to the area measured off for each lot. But it is interesting to note that the amount of concentrated feeds required to make lOO^pounds increase in live weight was exceedingly small. This was due to at least two factors. First, the steers had a green feed to go along with the concentrated feeds. Second, the amount of concentrated feeds fed daily was held down to only a few pounds, thus requiring the steers to obtain the major part of their feed from the pasture. Where lands are cheap pasture is cheaper than the too liberal use of con- centrated feeds. It is impossible, at the present time, to say whether the amounts fed in these tests were the correct 54 ones or not. It is hoped that some light may be thrown upon this point during the progress of the work. COST OF SUMMER GAINS. It is always unsatisfactory to discuss the cost of gains as it depends largely upon the cost of the feeds, the cost of which varies greatly under different conditions. In this dis- cussion the price placed upon the feeds is the actual mar- ket quotations plus the expense of hauling them from the depot to the farm. The hauling distance was fourteen miles. Pasture is charged at fifty cents per month per steer; this is the prevailing price placed upon pasture throughout the western part of Alabama. TABLE 8. Cost to Make 100 Pounds of Cain. 1008— (112 days). 0 RATION Pounds feed to make 100 pounds gain Cost 100 Ihs. gain, pasture not charged Cost 100 Ihs. gain, pasture charged A B C I) Pasture Pasture Pasture Pasture alom plus plus plus $1.18 2 . 56 3.03 3.24 cottonseed cake "Caddo" cake cottonseed cake 143 180 171 SI. 79 2.07 2.14 1909— (154 days). A E E Pasture i Pasture Pasture alon plus plus e $2.26 1 . 53 $1.03 3.21 2.39 cottonseed cake 181 218 cottonseed * Price of feeds: Cottonseed cake $£ J5.00 per ton 53.00 per ton L4.00 per ton . 50 per month "Caddo" cake $ Cottonseed Pasture 55 In every case above, the cost to make one hunched pounds increase in live weight was very low. When steers are fat- tened during the winter time each pound of gain is put on at a loss, as each pound put on may be expected to cost from 8 to 12 cents ; and the profit is dependent upon the en- hancement of the value of the steer over and above the selling value of pounds of gain made. In these tests each pound put on during the fattening period was put on at a profit, a very unusual occurrence in fattening beef cattle- These cheap finishing gains made the feeding operations comparatively safe as far as profits were concerned. As stated before, these cheap gains were due to two factors: First, the cattle had a cheap and succulent roughage; — pas- LOT D. — End of summer 1908. Feed, cottonseed cake and pasture. Average daily gain of each steer 1.62 pounds. Cost of 100 pounds of gain .... $3.24 Total profit per steer 43 ture. Second, the amount of concentrated feeds used was kept down to a comparatively small figure : from 2.76 to 3.31 pounds of cottonseed cake and 4.48 pounds of cotton- seed were fed to each steer daily. At the Missouri Station (Bulletin 76) the average of the summer trials show that 814 pounds of grain were required to produce one hundred pounds of gain, while in the Alabama test only 143 to 218 pounds of concentrate were required to make the same crains. At Missouri the steers were given an approximate daily feed of 20 pounds of grain in addition to the pasture. 56 While the Missouri cattle were fed a much heavier grain ration than the Alabama cattle, still the records of this test show the Alabama cattle to have made almost as large daily gains as did the Missouri steers. When Lots B and C (1908) are compared it is seen that the cottonseed cake is superior to the "Caddo" cake, as one hundred pounds of increase in weight were made at a cost of $2.56 when the cottonseed cake was used, whereas when the "Caddo" cake was fed the same gain cost $3.03. When the cottonseed cake sells at $25.00 a ton the "Caddo" cake is not worth $23.00 a ton ; when cottonseed cake sells at $25.00 a ton this test shows the "Caddo" cake to be worth only $20.54 a ton. LOT A. — End of summer 1909. Feed, pasture alone. Average daily gain of each steer 1.74 pounds. Costs of 100 pounds of gain $1 . 03 Total profit per steer 7.06 The common or mixed bunch of cattle (LotD) make a very poor showing when compared with Lots B and C, although, as will be seen later, the steers in Lot D returned a small profit. In comparing Lots B and E (1909) it is seen that the cottonseed produced gains more cheaply than did the cot- tonseed cake — that is, when the cottonseed is valued at 67 114.00 a ton and the cake at $25.00 a ton. When cotton- seed cake is valued at $25.00 a ton this test shows the cot- tonseed to be worth $20.73 a ton for fattening catle on pasture. Cottonseed had this disadvantage however: dur- ing the latter part of the feeding period they were not rel- ished as much as the cottonseed cake, and some trouble was experienced in keeping the steers "on feed." There was no trouble from scours when the seed were fed in the above amounts. FINANCIAL RESULTS OF SUMMER FEEDING. Although those cattle which received pasture alone made cheaper gains than the ones which received some feeds in addition to the pasture, it must not be inferred that the grass cattle were the most profitable ones; the cost of the gains alone does not determine the final profits. While it is desirable to make the gains as cheaply as possible, still the selling price of the cattle at the end of the feeding pe- riod must also be taken into consideration before the final profit can be determind. TABLE 9. Financial Statment. 1908. Lot A. Pasture alone: To 26 steers, 19031 Ibs. at $2.92 per cwt. $555.71 To pasture at 50c a month per steer . . 52 . 00 To freight, commission, feed and yardage 94. 12 Total expenditures $701 . 83 By sale of 26 steers at $3.66 per cwt. $776.29 Total profit on lot $74.46 Profit per steer 2 . 86 Lot B- Pasture plus cottonseed cake: To 26 steers, 19199 Ibs. at $2.92 per cwt. $560.61 To pasture at 50c a month per steer . 52.00 To 9646 Ibs. of cottonseed cake at $25 . 00 per ton 120 . 57 To freight, commission, feed and yardage 94.12 Total expenditures $827 . 30 By sale of 26 steers, 24245 Ibs at $4.53 per cwt $1098 . 30 Total profits on lot $271.00 Profit per steer 10.42 58 Lot C. Pasture plus ''Caddo" cake: To 26 steers, 19176 Ibs. at $2.92 per cwt. $559.94 To pasture at 50c a month per steer .. 52.00 To 9646 Ibs. of "Caddo" cake at $23.00 per ton ........................... 110 . 93 To freight, commission, feed and yardage 94.12 Total expenditures ............ $816 . 99 By sale of 26 steers, 22740 Ibs. at $4.35 per cwt ........................... $989 . 19 Total profit on lot ............ $172.20 Profit per steer ............... 6 . 62 Lot D. Pasture plus cottonseed cake: To T4 steers, 28754 Ibs. at $2.50 per cwt. $718.85 To pasture at 50c a month per steer .. 108.00 To 16686 Ibs. of cottonseed cake at $25 . 00 per ton ........................... 208 . 57 To freight, commission, feed and yardage 195.48 Total expenditures ............ $1230 . Pfl By sale of 54 steers, 36450 Ibs. at $3.44 per cwt ........................... $1253 . 88 Total profit on lot ............ $22 . 98 Profit per steer ............... .43 1909. i ot A. Pasture alone: To 40 steers, 25879 Ibs. at $2.95 per cwt. $763.43 To pasture at 50c a month per steer . 110.00 To freight, commission, feed and yardage 144.80 Total expenditures ............ $1018 . 23 By sale of 40 steers. 34314 Ibs. at $3.79 'per cwt .......................... $1300.50 Total profit on lot ............ $282.27 Profit per steer ............... 7 . 06 Lot B. Pasture plus cottonseed cake: To 75 steers, 47916 Ibs. at $2.95 per cwt.$1413. 52 To pasture at 50c a month per steer .. 206.25 To 39^25 Ibs. of cottonseed cake at $25 . 00 per ton .................... 491 . 56 To freight, commission, feed and yardage 271.50 Total expenditures ............ $2382 . 83 By sale of 75 steers, 66514 Ibs. at $4.37 'per cwt ........................... $2?OP . f 6 Total profit on lot ............ $523. 83 Profit per steer ............... 6 . 99 59 Lot E. Pasture plus cottonseed: To 25 steers, 16328 Ibs. at $2.95 per cwt. $481.68 To pasture at 50c a month per steer . 68.75 To 17265 Ibs. of cottonseed at $14.00 per ton 120.85 To freight, commission, feed and yardage 90 . 50 Total expenditures $761.78 By 25 steers, 22858 Ibs. at$4.25 per cwt. $971.46 Total profit on lot $209 . 68 Profit per steer 8.39 It should be noted that the total profits shown above are based on estimates after pasture rent, freight, commissions, feed and yardage are taken from the total sales. In 1908 it cost $3.85 per head to get the steers to the New Orleans market and in 1909 the expense was $3.62 per head. These cattle were shipped from western Alabama to New Orleans, a distance of about 500 miles; many farmers in the South are not required to ship their cattle this distance. In 1908 the greatest profits were realized upon Lot B, the lot which received cottonseed cake in addition to the pasture; in this lot a net profit of $10.42 per steer was made. Lot C, the "Caddo" fed lot, returned a net profit of $6.62 per steer. The pasture lot, Lot A, made a profit of only $2.86 per steer. It paid to feed the cattle some feed in addition to the pasture, because when they were offered for sale those steers which had been fed the concentrated feeds were in much better condition than those that received pasture only, and consequently sold for more money per hundred weight. The grass cattle sold for $3.66 per hundred weight, the cottonseed cake cattle for $4.53 per hundred weight, and the "Caddo" cattle for $4.35 per hundred weight. The above represent the New Orleans prices. It cost about 60 cents per hundred weight, including- shrinkage, to ship the steers to New Orleans. In 1909 there was not such a marked difference in favor of the lots which received feed in addition to the pasture. In fact, the pasture lot, Lot A, and the cottonseed cake lot, Lot B, made practically the same profit, the former mak- ing a net profit of $7.06 per steer and the latter a net profit of $6.99 per steer. But the cottonseed fed lot, Lot E, was decidedly more profitable than either of the other lots, it making a net profit of $8.43 per steer. The profits in every case were exceedingly satisfactory. In 1908 it proved to be exceedingly profitable to supple- ment the pasture with a concentrated feed. In 1909 no extra profit was made as a result of the use of the ootton- LOT B. End of summer 1909. Feed, cottonseed cake and pasture. Average daily gain of each steer 1.88 pounds. Cost of 100 pounds of gain $3.21 Total profit per steer 6.99 seed cake, but when cottonseed was fed along with the pas- ture the profits were greater than when pasture was used alone. The data so far collected warrant the statement that it pays to supplement our Southern pastures with a concentrated feed when cattle are being finished for the fall market. Additional experimental work will determine what concentrated feeds can be used to the greatest ad- vantage. 61 SLAUGHTER RESULTS. The cattle were shipped to New Orleans for sale and slaughtered, where complete individual slaughter records were secured. The authors have presented only a part of the slaughter records in the following table; the point will be discussed more fully in a subsequent publication. TABLE 10. Slaughter Data. 1908. £ 5 S-fi be s$ «« &5 0 RATION « £** I a* pi. fllf !|l| o 111 111! ^•S.Sa |i« Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Per ct. A Pasture alone 902 816 86 49 5 B Pasture plus cottonseed cake 999 932 66 53.8 C Pasture plus "Caddo" cake 944 874 70 53.6 D Pasture plus cottonseed cake 724 686 38 52.7 1909. A Pasture alone 916 859 57 51.8 B Pasture plus cottonseed cake 941 899 42 54.2 E Pasture plus cottonseed 1001 946 55 53.9 It is seen by the above table that the steers which were given some feed in addition to the pasture suffered less loss in live weight in transit than did the ones which had nothing to eat but pasture. In 1908 each pasture steer (Lot A) lost 86 pounds in transit, while those which had been fed some concentrated feeds lost from 38 to 70 pounds each. The common cattle, Lot D, suffered a very small shrinkage which was due, in part, to their being smaller steers than the other cattle. The cattle did not shrink as much in 62 11)09 as in 1908, but in 1909 the grass cattle lost consid- erably more weight in transit than did those that had been fed. In both years the steers which had been fed the cotton- seed products dressed out several per cent higher than the grass cattle. In 1908 the grass cattle dressed out 49.5 per cent; in 1909 a similar lot dressed out 51.8 per cent. The cattle which had been given some concentrated feeds along with the pasture dressed around 54 per cent. It should be noted that the last column is based on the farm weights of the cattle. If the New Orleans live weights were taken it would raise the figures in the last column from 2 to 2.5 points in each case. LOT E.- — End of summer 1909. Feed, cottonseed and pasture. Average dally gain of each steer 2.06 pounds. Cost of 100 pounds of gain $2.39 Total profit per steer 8.39 TABLE 11. Complete Summary of Summer Feeding. 1907- '8 1908-'9 9 C O h to 3 "Ss CO 11 o 1 tl 11 i Lot B Pasture cottons* cake Lot C Pasture "Caddo' cake Lot D Pasture cottonst cake Lot A Pasture a • 143 180 171 181 218 100 pounds ^ain . ) CostlOOpoundsgaia, { pasture charged . . f $1.18 $2.56 $3.03 S3. 24 $1.03 $3.21 $2.39 Initial cost of steers ) per 100 pounds ( 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.50 2.95 2.95 2.95 Selling price (N. O.) 1 of steers per 100 > 3.66 4.53 4.35 3.44 3.79 4.37 4.25 pounds ) Total profit per steer. 2.86 10.42 6.62 .43' 7.06 6.99 8.39 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND MECHANIC ARTS Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN NO. 75 WINTERING YEARLING CATTLE a. Comparison of Different Coarse Fodders When Fed Alone, and when combined with a Limited Grain Ration b. Influence of Winter Gains Upon Following Summer Gains at Pasture c. Efficiency of Rations as Affected by the Sea- son COLUMBIA, MISSOURI April, 1907 E. W. Stephens Publishing Co., Columbia, Missouri Upiversiby of bl>e Sbabe of Missouri COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND MECHANIC ARTS Agricultural Experiment Station BOARD OF CONTROL THE CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF CURATORS HON. WALTER WILLIAMS, President. HON. CAMPBELL WELLS, Colombia. HON. B. H. BONFOEY, Platte City. Unionville. ADVISORY COUNCIL THE MISSOURI STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE OFFICERS OF THE STATION THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY H. J. WATERS, B. S. A DIRECTOR PAUL SCHWEITZER, Ph. D CHEMIST J. C. WHITTEN, M. S., Ph. D HORTICULTURIST J. M. STEDMAN, B. S ENTOMOLOGIST J. W. CONNAWAY, M. D. C VETERINARIAN F.B.MUMFORD,B. S., M. S ANIMAL HUSBANDRY B. M. DUGGAR, A. M., Ph. D ... BOTANY C. H. ECKLES, M. S DAIRY HUSBANDRY M. F. MILLER, M. S. .....! AGRONOMY W. L. HOWARD, Ph. D ASSISTANT IN HORTICULTURE R. M. BIRD, Ph. D ASSISTANT CHEMIST E. B. FORBES, B. S., B. S. A.... ASSISTANT IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY R. H. SHAW, B. S ASSISTANT IN DAIRYING *E. H. FAVOR, B A ASSISTANT IN HORTICULTURE B. F. FLOYD, A.'B.... ASSISTANT IN BOTANY H. L. SHANTZ, Ph. D ASSISTANT IN BOTANY J. B. TIFFANY, D. V. S ASSISTANT IN VETERINARY SCIENCE A. E. GRANTHAM, A. B., B. S. A ASSISTANT IN AGRONOMY LEONARD H ASEMAN, A. B ASSISTANT IN ENTOMOLOGY F. G. KING ASSISTANT IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY W. H. CHANDLER, M. S ASSISTANT IN HORTICULTURE E. A. TROWBRIDGE, B. S. A ASSISTANT IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY L. F. CHILDERS, B. S ASSISTANT IN AGRONOMY GEORGE REEDER ...METEOROLOGIST ARTHUR RHYS HERDSMAN JOHN SCHNABEL...! GARDENER J. G. BABB, A. B SECRETARY R. B. PRICE TREASURER S. E. KENNEDY CLERK AND STENOGRAPHER *Absent on leave The Bulletins and Reports of the Station will be mailed free to any citizen of Missouri upon request. A cordial invitation is extended to all persons to visit the Station grounds at any time. Address, Director Agricultural "Experiment Station, Columbia, Boooe County, Missouri. WINTERING YEARLING CATTLE By H. J. WATERS, Director SUMMARY OF RESULTS In this bulletin are reported the results of seven years' work in wintering high grade yearling cattle on different forage crops and on different grain rations. The effect of these rations upon the gain in the winter and in a few cases upon the capacity of the animals to make gains at grass the following summer has been carefully studied. Credit should be given to Chas. M. Conner, B. S., Pro- fessor of Agriculture, North Carolina Agricultural College; D. W. May, M. S., Director of the United States Govern- ment Experiment Station, Porto Rico; Thos. I. Mairs, M. S., Assistant Professor of Animal Husbandry, Pennsylvania State College; and Claude L. Willoughby, B. S., Animal Husbandman, Georgia Experiment Station, who at different times had charge of the details of the experiments here reported. These experiments were begun in the winter of 1895-6, and have embraced four years of comparisons of the feeding value of various forage crops when used without grain, and four years of work when a limited^ amount of grain, chiefly corn, was added to the various sorts of coarse fodders under test. In the experiments without grain, the following rough- nesses have been compared: 1. Timothy Hay; 2. Whole Corn Stover; 3. Shredded Corn Stover; 4. Siloed Corn Stover; 5. Clover Hay; 6. Cowpea Hay; 7. A Combination of Whole Corn Stover and Clover Hay. 3 In the four years' experiments in which a limited amount of grain was used, the value of the following rations for wintering cattle was compared: 1. Shelled Corn and Timothy Hay; 2. Shelled Corn and Clover Hay; 3. Shelled Corn and Cowpea Hay; 4. Shelled Corn and Alfalfa Hay; 5. Shelled Corn and Millet; 6. Shelled Corn and Sorghum; 7. Shelled Corn, half Corn Stover and half Clover Hay; 8. Shelled Corn and Whole Stover; 6. Shelled Corn; Cottonseed Meal and Wheat Straw; 10. Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal and Corn Stover. The principal results obtained in these experiments may be summarized as follows: A COMPARISON OF VARIOUS COARSE FOD- DERS WHEN FED WITHOUT GRAIN 1. Timothy Hay Alone. Timothy hay of average quality was found to be nutritious enough to a little more than maintain the weight of yearling steers that were in thin con- dition to begin with. That is, steers of this class were wintered on timothy hay of fa-ir quality without loss in weight, and, on the average, made a slight gain. The gain, however was very small, varying from a slight loss in one experiment, when the weather was particularly unfavorable, to a fair gain when the quality of the hay was good and the weather was dry, bright, and crisp. Our experiments show that 18.25 pounds o£ hay were required to be offered daily to a steer weighing 750 pounds for these results. On this basis, it would require 328$ Ibs. or slightly more than a ton and a half of hay to winter a steer of this size from November I to April 30 — six months — and, according to our experiments, the steer would make a gain of about 50 pounds. 2. Whole Corn Stover Without Grain. Taking the average of our four years' work, it appears that whole field-cured corn stover, handled as in ordinary farm practice, would not quite maintain yearling steers moderately thin to 4 begin with. That is, the average of all of our trials shows a loss of 33 pounds per steer, on the basis of a six months' wintering period, or from November I to April 30. In these experiments, we offered an average of 33^ pounds of stover daily per steer, computed on the basis of 750 pounds live weight. This would require three tons of stover per steer for a six months' wintering period. 3. Shredded Corn Stover Without Grain. The results with shredded stover were slightly less favorable than with whole stover, although the difference was so small as to be easily within the limit of error. Clearly, so far as our experiments show, there was no enhancement of the feeding value of the stover by the shredding process. Almost as much shredded stover was refused, or left uneaten, as of the whole stover. Shredding, therefore, would seem to be justified upon the ground of greater con- venience in handling and the protection of the fields against injury by hauling stover out in muddy weather, etc., rather than upon that of the enhancement of its value as a feed. 4. Siloed Stover Without Grain. Siloed stover without grain produced very much better results than did field-cured stover, either fed whole or shredded, but the results are too meager to warrant a definite conclusion. 5. Combination of Clover and Stover Without Grain. In every trial, equal parts of clover hay and corn stover proved to be more efficient than did timothy. By combining stover, with clover, therefore it is possible to bring its feeding value up to that of timothy hay, or, on the assumption that stover has little feeding value, the conclu- sion is justified that clover has practically double the feed- ing value of timothy. A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROUGHNESSES WHEN COMBINED WITH A LIMITED AMOUNT OF GRAIN 1. Shelled Corn and Timothy Hay. This is the standard ration with which all others are compared, and is 5 chosen for the Standard because it more nearly approxi- mates farm practice than any -other single combination. This combination proved very unprofitable in every trial, and was not to be compared in economy with the use of some legume hay with corn. 2. Corn and Corn Stover. This proved to be a much poorer combination than did even corn and timothy hay, as might be expected. 3. Corn and Millet. This was not as satisfactory a combination as was corn and timothy hay in either of the two years through which the trials extended. 4. Corn and Sorghum. This did not prove to be as efficient a ration as one would be led to expect, from the reputation this hay has throughout the State as a feed. The gains made on a limited amount of corn and all the sorghum hay the animals would eat were larger than from millet or stover, but less than from timothy and a like amount of corn. ^« 5. Corn and Clover Hay. By substituting clover for timothy in these trials, the efficiency of the ration was prac- tically doubled. That is, a bushel of corn when fed in com- bination with clover hay produced essentially double the number of pounds of gain that were produced on similar steers with the same amount of corn and good timothy hay. 6. Corn and Cowpea Hay. What was found to be true of clover applies almost identically to cowpea hay. That is, so far as our results go, cowpea hay of good "quality with practically no peas on the vines has about the same feeding value as good clover hay, and like clover hay, when combined with corn, is capable of producing about double the amount of gain that can be obtained from timothy hay. 7. Corn and Alfalfa Hay. Our results do not indi- cate a material difference between the feeding value of al- falfa and good clover or good cowpea hay. It is safe to as- sume, however, that alfalfa of ordinary quality is fully equal, to either of these hays in their best condition. Alfalfa in its best condition is without doubt more efficient than either clover or cowpea hay. 6 8. Corn, Clover Hay and Corn Stover. As was the case with this combination of roughnesses without grain, in every trial the combination produced larger gains than did good timothy hay. This means that with a large amount of coarse material like stover to be utilized, one of the most useful materials to feed in connection with it is a limited quantity of clover, cowpea, or alfalfa hay. To combine with this stover, food stuffs which do not remedy its chief de- fect, viz: low protein content, such as millet, sorghum, tim- othy or even corn, will not compare in economic results with the use of a Jegume hay. 9. Corn, Cottonseed Meal and Stover or Straw. In these experiments it was sought to supply the protein in cottonseed meal instead of in clover, cowpeas, or alfalfa. In other words, to attempt to utilize the low-priced roughage like stover or straw by combining cottonseed meal and a limited amount of corn with it. The amount of gain secured was far less than when le- gume hay was used, such as clover or cowpeas, and in view of the high price of cottonseed meal, it would not be profit- able to attempt to substitute this material for one of the le- gume hays for the wintering of cattle. 10. Gains Made From Light Feeding are Rela- tively Costly. In our feeding trials without grain, the cattle were but little more than maintained at best, and, therefore, practically all of the food consumed was wasted, when reck- oned from the standpoint of gains made. As has already been pointed out, timothy hay very little more than main- tained the cattle. When we fed poorer material than timothy hay, such for example as corn stover, not only was all of the feed wast- ed when considered on the basis of the gains made, but to this expense must be added the cost of a slight loss in weight of the animal. As the ration was increased in amount so that the rate of gain increased the cost of gains diminished uniformly. This seems to be true up to the full limit of the appetite of the animal, or to the point where the animal is on full feed or approximately on full feed. That is, other things being 7 equal, and considering only the cost per pound of gain, the cheapest gains are uniformly made when the animal is on full feed or approximately so. 11. Cattle, to Graze Well, Must .be Thin. By grazing a portion of the cattle used in these experiments the following summer, it was found that there is a fairly definite relation between the gains made in winter and those possi- ble to be made the following summer at grass. In other words, the gains made on grass are inversely proportionate to the amount of fat the animal carries, and are almost in- versely proportionate to the gains made the previous winter. If, therefore, cattle are to be grazed the following sum- mer, it is important that they be wintered lightly, or in such a way as not to carry to grass any considerable amount of fat. 12. Circumstances Under Which Small Winter Gains May Be Justified. It will be impossible, therefore, to take advantage of the cheapest way of making gains in winter if the cattle are to be grazed the following summer. For, to reduce this gain to the lowest cost per pound as has already been pointed out, would necessitate full feeding or approximately full feeding the animal. This, in turn, would have the effect of storing up fat on the body, rendering the animal unfit to be grazed the following summer. In short, this would bring the animal to a marketable condition, or to a condition where it would be unprofitable to keep it longer for any purpose. While it will probably be profitable under ordinary cir- cumstances to feed in the winter up to the full capacity of the animal to grow without laying on fat, it will be justifi- able in many seasons when the farmer has large quantities of cheap, coarse, material without an opportunity to market it, to bring the cattle through the winter in even thin con- dition, so that they may make the largest possible gains the following summer. 13. The Value of Cattle Enhanced by Winter- ing. The wintering process enhances the value of cattle, just as does the fattening process, although for another reas- on and to a much less degree. But this enhancement of 8 value due to the wintering process is necessary- in. order to make up the deficit that is practically inevitable when cattle are wintered lightly. This enhancement is due to the fact that the steer in the spring has the grazing season, which is the season of cheap gains and large profits, immediately before him, and is, therefore, worth more than in the preceding or the succeeding fall, when he has before him the wintering period, which is the period of expense. In the case of the fattening steer, the value is enhanced by reason of the ani- mal being put in marketable condition. In the case of the animal that is being merely wintered, the enhancement is due mainly to a change of position rather than to a change in condition. 14. Seasonal Influence. A very large variation in the results of wintering cattle due to differences in season is inevitable. This may be a difference in the previous sum- mer season as manifested in the quality of the roughage, as is strikingly illustrated by the high efficiency shown in the fodders and the hays grown in the dry season of 1901. • Or it may manifest itself in the deterioration of the quality of the material during or after harvest, by storms, excessive rains, etc. Or the weather of the winter may affect the re- sult, by influencing the animals directly. Cold, crisp, dry, bright, steady, weather furnishes ideal conditions for maxi- mum returns. Then the appetite is sharp; the food is in good condition, and is eaten with the minimum of waste; the sheds and lots are dry, so that the animals follow a regular routine of eating, drinking, and lying down. Alternative warm and cold, rain and snow, intermingled with foggy, muggy, weather, with muddy lots, wet coats, and wet feed, when the animals eat irregularly and stand up most of the time for want of a comfortable place to lie, furnish the most adverse conditions for making gains or even maintaining weights. DETAILS OF THE EXPERIMENT • Animals. The animals used in all of these experi- ments were high grade steers of the breeds designated^ and were for the most part bred and raised in. the vicinity of the Experiment Station. 9 After being assembled, they were either grazed or fed alike for as much as thirty days, to eliminate as far as pos- sible the influence of any differences in previous treatment. This length of time was also employed in becoming familiar with the different animals, with a view to properly dividing them into lots that would represent the same quality, thrift, condition, etc. Live Weight. The animals were weighed five days in succession at the beginning of the experiment, and the 'same number of days at the close of the experiment, at the same hour each day, and before being watered. The average of these weighings represents the initial and the final weights, and the difference in these figures is assumed to represent the gain or loss due to the feed or treatment involved. In addition to these initial and final weighings, the animals were weighed at the end of every ten day period through- out the experiment. Method of Feeding. As a rule, the animals were fed twice daily — at 7 a. m., and at 5 p. m., and were given what- ever amounts of roughage they would consume without un- due waste. ' A ton or more of loose hay or stover* was hauled in at a time from the field or stack, stored in a dry place in the feeding shed, and charged up to the lot of animals to which it was to be/ fed. The animals were fed in a suitable manger under a dry shed, and were allowed the run of an open lot something like a tenth of an acre in area. .The mangers were cleaned each day, and the refuse material was stored in a dry bin provided for that purpose until it was weighed and sampled for water determinations and analysis. When the fresh feed was weighed in, a 3000 gram sample was carefully drawn, enclosed in a tight pail and sent immediately to the chemical laboratory for the determination of moisture and subsequent analysis. *In this Bulletin, by "Corn Storer" is meant the plant after the ear is removed. By "Corn Fodder" is meant the entire plant, including the ear. IO When the orts were weighed up, a similar sample was drawn for the same purpose. Water. The animals had free access to fresh deep- well water in a trough under the shed. Salt. In most instances barrel salt was kept in a box under the shed, where the steers had free access to it. In some of the experiments rock salt was used instead. FIRST TRIAL— 1895-6 TIMOTHY HAY AND FIELD-CURED STOVER, FED WHOLE February 1st to March 2 1st, 1896. — 49 days. Five Yearling Steers in each Lot. The Timothy Hay used in this experiment was cut when the seed was in the dough, cured in the ordinary way, and put up in large stacks in the open field in the usual manner. Aside from the presence of considerable coarse weeds, the hay woitld be considered average quality. The Stover was very coarse and large, the corn having yielded from 75 to 85 bushels per acre, was cut at about the usual time, set up in shocks sixteen hills square, husked at the usual time, set up again and allowed to stand until hauled in to be fed. In other words, the common farm practice with respect to the handling of both of these feeds was imitated as closely as possible. Excessive rains in the preceding December had very materially lowered the quality of the stover, so that, taken in connection with its coarseness, it was not up to the average in palatableness or quality, and no grain of any sort was fed. Eleven high-grade Shorthorn Steers, about eighteen months old, averaging about 675 pounds in weight, in rather thin condition, were used in the experiment. They were divided so that Lot I, having Timothy Hay, contained six steers, and Lot II, receiving Whole Corn Stover, contained five steers. ii TABLE i. FOOD CONSUMED, AND GAIN OR LOSS IN LIVE WEIGHT PER LOT DURING THE EXPERIMENT FEBRUARY IST TO MARCH 2IST, 1896 — 49 DAYS Lot i — 6 Steers. Fresh feed. Dry matter. flbs. Ibs. Timothy Hay. Food offered 4176 3654 Food refused 968 868 Food eaten 3208 2786 Lot II — 5 Steers. Fresh feed. Ibs. Dry matter. lt)S. Whole Corn Stover. Food offered 6474 4710 Food refused 2246 1793 Food eaten 4228 2917 TABLE 2. DAILY FOOD CONSUMED PER STEER FEBRUARY IST TO MARCH 2isT, 1896 — 49 DAYS Lot I — Six Steers Timothy Hay Food offered Food refused Food eaten 14.2 12.40 3-3 Lot II — Five Steers Whole Corn Stover 0 •< 3 3 II ri? • ere o cr "• 8 sr r 3 I s ft n i! ?|f S ^ -^3 0 0. s ^ t> w" ?| . iE 91 rf S 5' ' a, ?a " , o • n .40 26.42 14.22 .96 9.16 7 31 •54 17.26 11.91 *675.2 29 *677.3 -a ^Average of sixteen weighings — one every day for five consecutive days at beginning of trial, and one each week thereafter until the close. TABLE 3. DAILY FRESH FOOD AND DRY MATTER CONSUMED PER STEER, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF 1000 POUNDS OF LIVE WEIGHT * * O 5 O * 9° r: 3- 3 « j*. •— S. \o 5" 5* _ rt _. ^n - ' 0- S rn &f a Z ^0 | ,| ftj ~& 1 ? ?|^ 1 J Lot No. Kind of Food IK ' | " 1 i i S.| II * §' ?" ^ " 8 " S 5' crS 3 ** " cr " n 5*3 i rt Q. 1 ?l 1 rt O "f *LotI Timothy Hay 807 22.27 18.60 18.13 «S.i8 32.2 Lot II Whole Stover 791 32.85 24-57 17.81 13.84 -ii. 8 Lot III Shredded Stover 791 25.10 20.47 15.35 13.08 -15.6 Lot IV Siloed Stover 811 47.24 12.02 46.85 11.85 10.8 *On basis of five steers TABLE 6. DAILY FOOD EATEN PER STEER, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF 1000 POUNDS LIVE WEIGHT DECEMBER 7, 1896 TO MARCH 7, 1897 — 92 DAYS. FIVE STEERS IN EACH LOT b & -• «| a' 3 > Lot No. Kind of Food PW I rl ••+* § 3 o- !4 §= |_ °2 ?&l . a n § i il I Timothy Hay 27.60 22.46 18.93 18.6 32.2 II Whole Corn Stover 41.50 22. 50 17.49 45.78 -i i. 8 III Shredded Corn Stover 3J-79 19.41 17.80 38-69 -15-6 IV Siloed Corn Stover 58.15 57.77 14.68 .82 10.8 THIRD TRIAL— 1897-8 A third experiment along .this line was made in the winter of 1897-8, beginning January 1st and closing March 15, 1898, covering a period of 74 days. This was an exact duplicate of the one of the previous winter, in that one lot was fed Timothy Hay alone, another, Whole Stover, a third, Shredded Stover, and a fourth, Siloed Stover. To these was added a fifth lot, which was fed equal parts of shredded stover and clover hay. As in the former trials, no grain of any sort was given. The Timothy was harvested when the seed was in the dough, cured in the ordinary manner, and stored in a stack in the open field, as in previous trials, and was- of average quality. The Stover, whole, shredded, and siloed, was prepared in the same manner as described in the report of the second trial. The Clover Hay was cut when about one-third of the heads were brown, cured in the usual way, stored in a rick in the field, and hauled in and fed as required. As in former trials, samples of the fresh substance and of the refuse material were drawn regularly throughout the experiment for the determination of moisture. 16 The cattle used were yearling Herefords, in thin to moderate flesh, weighing from 675 to 775 pounds. As in former trials, the cattle were fed under an open shed, had access to an open lot, and had deep-well wat- er in a trough before them. TABLE 7. TOTAL AMOUNT OF FOOD EATEN BY EACH LOT DUR- ING THE EXPERIMENT JANUARY i, 1898 TO MARCH 15, 1898 — 74 DAYS. FOUR OR FIVE YEARLING STEERS IN EACH LOT z; H H H H c 1 ^ i! J'| Kind of Food 1 1 1 H H H 3 H O IS r& pfi _- O rgr li w f* o e £T 3 " S.i- a'S ef> S S ll 3-° Lot Kind of Food < t. I r "a, . *-< No. ri o a eT* D- s 0 g. ? | r| 8, 1 1 § 1 1 Sf Lot II Timothy Hay 649 4120 480 3640 ii. 6 3120 -30 Lot IV Whole Corn Stover 627 8012 3*38 4774 40.4 3398 -2OO LotV Whole Stover and Clover Hay 666 *72o8 *i884 *53H *26.I *4'65 24 * Whole Stover offered, 4060 Ibs.; eaten, 2560 Ibs.; refused, 1500^3.5 percent refused, 36.9. Clover Hay offered, 3148 Ibs.; eaten, 2764 Ibs.; refused, 384 Ibs.; per cent refused, 12.2. JDry matter consumed in Stover, 1813 Ibs.; Dry matter consumed in Clover, 2352 Ibs. TABLE ii. AVERAGE DAILY FOOD CONSUMED PER STEER DECEMBER 20, 1898 TO FEBRUARY 24, 1899 — 66 DAYS. FOUR YEARLING STEERS IN EACH LOT 1F» CO 8 a ,?| O Lot No. Kind of Food rf ? 2 P», co r& 3 i» n 1 3 s1!. * a I Timothy Hay 15.61 13.8 11.82 ii. 6 -. ii V Whole Corn Stover 30-35 18.1 12.87 40.4 -.76 r Whole Corn Stover and Clover Hay •r.i 2O. 2 15.78 *26.I .09 *Of the combination of Clover and Stover, 36.9 oer cent of the Stover fed was re. fused, and 12.2 percent of the Clover. SUMMARY It will be profitable to consider together the results of the four years' experiments with roughnesses of various kinds when fed without grain. Altogether fourteen lots of animals were involved, the experiments extended over four years, and included: Four trials of Whole Corn Stover versus Timothy Hay. Two trials of Shredded Stover versus Whole Stover. Two trials of Siloed Corn Stover versus Whole and Shredded Stover. Two trials of equal parts Corn Stover and Clover Hay versus Timothy Hay. I. The Feeding Value of Timothy Hay Without Grain On the basis of the results reported in the preceding tables it may be said that yearling steers when in thin con- dition and after having lost what the farmer terms "grass sap," which in practice usually occurs before the animals leave the pasture, may be wintered on timothy hay without any grain whatever and make a small gain in live weight. That is, timothy hay of average quality is nutritious enough to a little more than maintain animals of this class and in this condition. The gain made, however, is small, varying from a slight loss in one experiment, when the winter was particularly un- favorable, to a considerable* gain when the quality of the hay was good, and the winter was dry, bright and crisp but moderate. The whole gain for the four years was 85 pounds for one steer in 281 days, or the equivalent of a gain of 54 pounds per steer for a six months wintering period, from November ist to April 30th. It is believed that this is as high as would occur in actual practice. To accomplish this, yearling steers weighing an average of 750 pounds will, on the basis of our four years' experi- ments, consume and waste an. average of 18.25 pounds of hay per day. This is the actual average amount offered in our experiments covering four years, when computed on the 20 basis of steers weighing 750 pounds. It is true that some of this was wasted, mainly because of the presence of weeds, etc., but as the hay was of average quality and that portion refused was worthless except for bedding, it is fair to charge the entire amount fed, so long as it was not fed wastefully. On this basis, it would require for a six months' winter- ing period, or from November 1st to April 30th, 3285 pounds of hay, for which, as has already been pointed out, we we should have an increase of 54 pounds in the live weight of the animal. Estimating hay at $6.0O per ton,' we have a charge of $9.85, and a credit, at 5 cents per pound, which is low enough for gains made in winter, of $2.70, due to gain in live weight, leaving a net deficit of $7.15 per head, chargeable to the cost of wintering, or practically $1.00 per hundred pounds of weight of the steer. This means that if the steer had been purchased at 4 cents a pound in the fall, and wintered on timothy hay alone, he would have to bring 5 cents a pound at grass to merely balance accounts. This is on the assumption that the labor saved by feeding the hay at home over baling and hauling it to a local shipping point would on the average fully offset the labor of feeding and caring for the animal. In other words, as will be shown in more detail else- where in this bulletin, the making of gains in winter are ex- pensive, even when what has always been supposed to be cheap material like hay is used exclusively, and that what the feeder calls the margin of profit, which is so essential in the fattening of cattle, is likewise essential in making profit- able gains when animals are lightly fed in winter. That this margin of profit is necessary to balance ac- counts in full feeding operations, has been clearly shown in a large number of feeding experiments and is well establish- ed in practical experience. It has not generally been em- phasized, however, that this law applies in the case of cattle which are being wintered on what has been popularly sup- posed to be very cheap material, like coarse fodders and hays, or when given in addition to this coarse material a limited amount of grain, making what has always been pop- ularly considered cheap gains. 21 (I. The Feeding Value of Whole Corn Stover Without Grain From our four years' study of this problem, it appears chat yearling steers somewhat thin in flesh when fed all the coarse whole field-cured corn stover they would eat would scarcely be able to maintain their weight. The gain or loss per head on this ration for the different seasons is as follows: First trial, loss 2 Ibs. Second trial, loss 12 u Third trial, gain 14 " Fourth trial, loss 50 " Total loss in 281 days 50 " Loss in six months 33 " It will be observed that practically all of the loss occurred in the fourth trial, which was conducted under especially unfavorable circumstances. The stover was very coarse and badly leached out, and the weather during the trial was exceptionally unfavorable for all classes of live stock. It was during this period that the only loss in live weight which we had from feeding timothy hay alone occurred. In truth in this winter all of our lots of cattle on roughness alone, with the exception of one having a com- bination of clover and stover, showed a loss in weight. It is quite probable, therefore, that our results are low enough for stover. In fact, under ordinary management steers may be maintained without loss on field-cured corn stover, and under specially good management a gain equal to that re- ported for timothy hay will be possible. But to produce stover of a quality capable of making even a slight gain would entail some sacrifice of the yield of grain perhaps, by cutting it a little earlier than would be necessary where grain is the primary object sought, and it is not that class of stover which we desire to consider in this connection, but such stover as is produced under the average farm condi- tions in Missouri. It will be interesting to note the amount of stover eaten and the amount of waste, *as shown by our experiments, all computed on the basis of steers of uniform weight of 750 pounds, as was the case with timothy hay. 22 DAILY CONSUMPTION OF WHOLE STOVER PER STEER, ON BASIS OF 750 POUNDS LIVE WEIGHT Offered IBs. Eaten Ibs. Refused per cent. First trial 29.45 19.11 34.69 Second trial 31. ia 16.86 45.78 Third trial 37-74 ai.ya 4* -45 Fourth trial 36.30 ai .63 40.40 Average 33.60 19-83 40.98 In other words, the average ration for the yearling steer weighing 750 pounds was 33.6 pounds of stover of which 19.83 was eaten, leaving 13.77 pounds, or 41 per cent, as refuse or waste material. On the basis of the amount offered there will be required fora six months' wintering period 6048 pounds, or in round numbers, three tons per head. It is true that only 3570 pounds of this was eaten, and that 2478 pounds was refused, but as this refuse material is of value only for bedding and manure, it is fair to charge it 'as a part of the cost of wintering the steers. At $2.00 per ton for this stover — about what it costs to cut and cure it, including the extra cost of husking the corn and not estimating anything for the diminution in the yield of grain due to cutting the corn instead of allowing it to fully mature on the stalk — we have a total cost per head for feed for a six months wintering period at $6.0O per steer. Inasmuch as each steer on the average in our experi- ment lost 33 pounds in live weight, we should add this to the cost, which, at 5c per pound, is $1.65, making $7.65 per head as the total cost of feed and loss in weight chargeable to wintering when whole corn stover is used. On the basis of $6.00 per ton for timothy hay, and $2.00 for whole stover, when fed, alone, the advantage in 23 economy of wintering is slightly in favor of timothy. The timothy steers showed a deficit of $7.15 per head, and the sto- ver steers $7.65, or a difference of 5b &.§ b 111 I tl* 5- SO fN| O so t- CO 3- u-> ^- n* 8 2 ^ a, *j 2 oo t~» so t-» °^ •»*• d NO oo •«$- so so so NO NO 1 M U O1 Q ' 1 ,1 igll h 2^ ^ J E hH C . *•' ^ « 1 s 1 •§ ^ >£ 'B 1 J ^^ 2 h ^ The results of those lots which received no grain have been fully discussed under the fourth trial without grain in their bearing upon the various methods of wintering cattle in that way. Inasmuch as these animals were fed in con- nection with animals having a limited grain ration, it will be interesting to make some comparison of these two methods of wintering cattle and to compare two important sources of protein. We have here, in other words, a comparison of stover alone and of stover and four pounds of corn meal daily, and of stover and four pounds of grain, consisting of 3 parts corn meal and 2 parts cottonseed meal daily. It will be seen that the cattle having stover alone lost 200 pounds, or an average of something like three-fourths of a pound daily per head. Those receiving all of the stover they would eat and four pounds of corn meal daily per head, ate very little less stover — some 300 pounds — out of a total of nearly 5000 pounds. Strange to say, however, this amount of corn meal, combined with stover, was not sufficient in the very severe weather during which this experiment was conducted to sustain the animals without loss of weight. By the addition of 4 Ibs. of corn meal daily per head, however, this loss was reduced to 85 pounds per lot, as compared with 200 pounds for cattle on stover alone. It will be noted, however, that when the mixed grain was substituted for corn meal alone, the mixture consisting of three parts corn meal and two parts cottonseed meal, the effect was very striking both in the amount of stover eaten and in the effect upon the live weight of the animals. Instead of diminishing slightly the amount of stover con- sumed as was the case when corn meal alone wras given with stover as compared with stover alone, the addition of the cottonseed meal to the ration, with its available protein, had the effect, as is always the case, of stimulating the appetite. This as is usually the case has the effect of in- creasing materially the amount of roughness consumed. This is noted in the fact that the steers without any grain whatever consumed 4774 pounds of stover, while those with four pounds of corn meal daily and all the stover they would eat consumed 4470 pounds, or as has already been pointed out, 32 about 300 pounds less, while the lot of steers having a mixed grain ration consumed 5362 pounds of stover, or some 500 pounds more. Then, again, instead of losing 200 pounds, as did the steers without grain, or 85 pounds, as did those having four pounds of corn meal, the steers on this ration of mixed grain and corn stover gained 204 pounds. Therefore by replacing two-fifths of the corn meal by that amount of cottonseed meal, and giving the steers all the stover they would eat a gain of three-fourths of a pound a day was made, while the steers on exactly the same amount of grain in the form of corn meal and with all the stover they would eat lost one-third of a pound daily. This means that the substitution of I 2-3 pounds of cottonseed meal a day for an equal amount of corn meal made a total difference on the animal of more than a pound a day. Rating this gain or loss in live weight at 5 cents a pound* it is evident that each i 2-3 pounds of cottonseed meal brought a return of 5 cents. Attention has already been called to the influence that the protein in a cheap form like clover exerts upon the ef- ficiency of the ration. It will be interesting to note in this trial that in the combination of clover and stover without grain the protein stimulated the appetite as it did in the case of the cottonseed meal, as shown by the fact that 5324 pounds of clover and stover were consumed, as compared with 4774 pounds of straight stover, and instead of the animals losing 200 pounds, as did those on straight stover, they gained, on a combination of clover and stover, 24 pounds per lot, or an average gain of something like one-tenth of a pound daily, as compared with a loss of three-fourths of a pound daily on stover alone. This will be referred to again at more length when the results of other experiments along this line have been presented. It will be interesting to compare the results obtained from these various rations with that secured from timothy hay alone. Note that a combination of a limited quantity of corn meal with stover was really not more effective than timothy without grain; but of more significance is the fact that a com- bination of clover with this stover was much more effective 33 than the timothy, and as has already been pointed out, ma- terially more efficient than the small quantity of corn meal and stover. This means that with stover as the chief food supply, and the farmer has the choice of adding a small quantity of corn or a half allowance of clover, in point of both efficiency and economy the stover-clover combination will be preferable. Such combinations as corn and stover, corn and straw, or millet, etc., should in the interest of economy be avoided. Considering these results particularly in the light of those that are to follow, it is well to bear in mind that these ex- periments covered a period of the severest cold ever known in this latitude, when the mercury for some ten days was not above zero, and registered a minimum of some 26° below zero. The low efficiency of the food in comparison with other seasons is largely explained by this fact. It will be interesting to compute these results on the basis of a six months' wintering period, from November 1st to May ist. These data are, therefore, given in the follow- ing table: I * £ ^ •^ •e O Profit or loss in win- ON _I oo •4- tering procoss. 1 7 1 1 7 Value of gain in 0 o U~i 00 ? oo oo weight at 5c perlb. M 1 NO ^ NO H 1 Total gain in wt. per o~~ 8 ~~b rt NO' o ON CO NO vn steer for 1 80 days. i 7 1 Total cost of food per 3- J CO M M steer for 180 days. 00 t vr> ON » O Cost of roughage of- M NO «. X t4 fered per steer. oo vA ON vr> vrv Cost of grain eaten ON ON per steer. NO' * Average weight of cattle. 00 VO- s. NO NO 00 NO iri 1 .s bo :| 2 1 •5 rS s-x V •s tfl Q i- K co 1> b s J /_N 1 0 c jj .s o 4J 0 * s> 2 U c 1 o g f I & 8 1 c a cT '2 O "5 1 1 w 1 I I 1 1 3 ~ > > > s 35 Second Trial— 1899-1900 Twenty yearling grade Hereford steers, of moderate flesh, were divided into five lots of four animals each, -and the experiment was begun December 30, 1899, and continued until April 10, 1900 — 101 days. The cattle were fed as fol- lows: Each steer in every lot (except Lot VII.) received four pounds of shelled corn daily, and in addition: Lot II. Timothy hay. Lot IV. One-half corn stover; one-half clover hay. Lot VI. Cowpea hay. Lot VII. Cowpea hay (No grain). The animals were fed in a shed open to the east, had free access to open lots, with deep-well water before them constantly. There was a preliminary period of some 20 days preced- ing the opening of the experiment. w w O W w h Q W3 w o «* Z3 2 Jz S £o g ^fe£ w £ ° §2! 2« w O O 7 w H ON 0 * ON CO Profit or loss per steer. i i I CO Value of gain per t* Tf- t~» OO steer at 50 per Ib. Cost of food offered « 0 ON oo J per steer. oo £ oo ^ Cost of food offered $ gs £ ON per 100 Ibs. gain.f «3b 1-- *» 0 Average daily gain VO oo 00 vri «, per steer. » H K H oo Total "gain per lot. H s H H Per cent of roughage refused. ^ 1 0 CO ^ Roughage eaten per lot S s vn 1 vO *"* ^ oo Roughage offered per 00 * 00 o 00 lot. o r-. ro ON O 00 ro 00 Corn eaten per lot. Ill • Average weight of U-l ^£> vO oo oo oo cattle. *** ^~ E g 2 «3 i f> i i • u ^ £ «\ ^ § £ % g 1 1 E 1 ^^ rf h «^S O .5 .^ ••* E, c C a d a d 1 u i "w >, 13 u "v E CO CO CO § 2 .s •«*• t I 3 ~ > ~ a 37 The results of .this trial seem to be in all respects trust- worthy. The experiment was begun December 30, 1899, an<^ continued until April 10, 1900. In other words, it began at a time when in ordinary farm practice the grass held over from summer is exhausted, when the stalk fields have been eaten out, and when the farmer is obliged to feed his cattle from the hay and grain produced the previous summer. It closed at the earliest moment (April 10) that in this latitude could be depended upon, even in unusual seasons, for good pasture. That is to say, the experiment covered the precise period of the year that the farmer must feed his stock cattle. It will be observed that there was a very striking differ- ence in the gains made on the different rations. For ex- ample, 4 pounds of shelled corn, when combined with timo- thy hay, made an average gain of about two-thirds of a pound daily per steer, while the same amount of corn, when com- bined with cowpea hay, produced more than i^ pounds daily. In other words, the combination of cowpea hay and shelled corn was more than twice as efficient as was the com- bination of timothy hay and corn. In passing, it may be well to note that the animals ate more cowpea hay than they did timothy. The average daily consumption of timothy hay per steer was 16.7 pounds, while the steers having cowpea hay ate 19.2 pounds. Attention has already been called to the fact that whenever the protein content of a ration is increased over a basal ration of corn and timothy, the appetite is stimulated and a larger con- sumption of feed is the result. It will be noted that four pounds of shelled corn and one-half clover and one-half corn stover produced a total gain of 357 pounds, as compa'red with 262 pounds for corn and timothy hay. Here, as in all previous trials, a mixture ot one-half clover and one-half corn stover for roughness, either fed alone or in combination with grain, has been more efficient and necessarily considerably cheaper than straight timothy. It is interesting to note the gain of the lot having cowpea hay without grain, in comparison with other lots which had four pounds of shelled corn and different sorts of roughness. It will be recalled that this limited grain ration 38 when combined with cowpea hay produced 622 pounds of gain, whereas the steers without the grain and eating all the cowpea hay they would, made a gain of 228 pounds, The average daily gain for four pounds of corn and cowpea hay was 1.54, and for cowpea hay alone was .56. Considering the winter period of feeding alone, and disregarding entirely the behavior of the cattle in the fol- lowing summer on grass, or assuming that they would gain equally well the following summer, it paid handsomely to add corn to the ration, even though the steers went through the winter in a thrifty condition and made a fair gain on the. hay alone. That is to say, the difference between the gain of the two lots was 394 pounds. The difference in the feed was 28.8 bushels of corn. To state the case absolutely accu- rately, the lot of cattle having the corn were offered 310 pounds less hay, worth, at the current market price, ap- proximately $1.00. Disregarding this, however, we have an extra gain of 394 pounds, worth, at 5c a pound, $19.70, which may be fairly attributed to the use of 28.8 bushels of corn. This means that the corn brought practically 70c a bushel, as compared with the returns from feeding the hay without grain. Stating the case differently the cost per 100 Ibs. of gain was $5.71 on corn and cowpea hay and $10.94 or almost double on the hay ration alone. Here, as in general, when the ration is made nutritious enough to insure large or rapid gains the cost of the gain is reduced and vice versa. This as has already been pointed out appears true even when coarse and so-called cheap fodders are used for the small gains and the larger gains are made from the socalled high priced grains. It is interesting to note that the steers gained almost as much, however, on cowpeas alone as did those having 4 Ibs. of shelled corn and a full ration of good timothy hay, the gain for cowpea hay alone being 228 Ibs. per lot and for corn and timothy 262 Ibs. . Third Trial— 1900-1901 This trial was made with grade yearling Shorthorn steers, and was begun January 29, 1901, and continued until April 19, 1901, covering 80 days, with four steers in each lot. The steers were well bred native cattle of excellent qual- ity, had been roughed until this time, and were in what would be considered ordinary or thin condition. As before, the steers were; fed in a shed, open to the east, with free access to open lots which were not at all times dry. Each steer was given 6 pounds of shelled corn daily, and in addition the roughnesses fed to the various lots were as follows: Lot III. Timothy hay. Lot IV. Clover hay. Lot V. Millet. Lot VI. Sorghum hay. Lot VII. One-half corn stover; one-half clover hay. The hays of the various kinds were of average quality, and had been preserved without injury by the weather. The millet had been cut and harvested before the seed passed into the dough state. The sorghum had been sown thickly and produced little or no grain, and few of the stems were larger than an ordin- ary lead pencil. It was cut at the usual time, field curedT and allowed to remain in large shocks until required for feeding. It is well known that the best quality of sorghum hay is not produced by this method of growing or handling, but this was the only kind that could be purchased in the neigh- borhood at the time the experiment was conducted. The following is a summary of the results: 40 cf < s i o ^ w o 1 < 2 x . fe O S P ON * ON 0 00 ON vo CO Profit or loss per steer. c» V} CO •6ft «9b 4b 4 «l Value of gain per steer t^. ON o O 00 ^ vo at 50 per pound. CO •SQ: 00 i 4 VO Cost of food offered oo oo VO OO VO vo 0 cT per steer. £ ^ & & ^ vO M oo 1^ M Cost of food offered vo ON 0 vo CO per 100 Ibs. gain.f oo •+ d VO i *& *§: *9= Average daily gain 8 8 CO H VO per steer « * « 00 M ON vr> CO Total gain per lot. CO vo " CO Per cent roughage r-^ « ^ t # refused. " CO VO ON Roughage eaten pet lot. CO f* VO ON £ rt ON * Roughage offered per 0 O 00 O 00 CO 00 lot. VO f l-l 0 0 0 0 0 Corn eaten per lot. M ON ON ON ON Average weight of •<*- o o M ON ON CO co cattle. oo ON ^ vo OO £ e M 5 G e S 2 2 2 .-s > ~a :§ "9 13 i >-, "S ^ as X fr >-. ac >* E 3C G C 1 1 o 1 3 1 o CO £ h U •^ CO ^ c c c C c 0 * u o 8 O O O U u 3 3 T! 3 -C CO CO CO lo CO £ vo vO * vO vo 3 a M ^ > > > .5 3 1 ?1 ^^ -a c El 00 S ON O H w -^ L & o a:- •4- ° CO 4J VO C ^ § "2 G S a g « M l3 s CO S P s j « 5 ^T, co « C K °- ! 8 |.|--.| fitr rt tT . u *- S w S S! o U x 2 « : a co _ S .S ^ S a 1 c <2 .2 S •2 JJ CU I » I v£ '-S M 2 <*- I -g § 2 0 S u 8 W — 60 'C •fi - 5 cu II 41 Here again the season of the year covered by the ex- periment was essentially that in which, under ordinary farm conditions, cattle are a direct expense to the farmer, by reason of having to be fed. While the length of the period was only 80 days, extending from January 29 to April 19, yet the results agree in detail with those of longer experi- ments in previous and subsequent years. In all of our trials the low efficiency of timothy as a feed in comparison with its cost has been very striking, and this experiment is no exception. Note that the gain from six pounds of shelled corn and clover hay is just double in amount that obtained from exactly the same quantity of corn and all of the good timothy hay they would eat. In one case the average gain was two pounds per day; in the other it was one pound per day. As was the case in former trials, clover and stover com- bined showed a high efficiency, not so high as clover alone, but in excess of timothy, and in consideration of the fact that this stover must be utilized in some way, and of the further fact that in ordinary farm practice it is difficult, in fact almost impossible, to secure enough clover hay to winter all the stock to be kept on the farm as an exclusive rough- age, this combination has proven to be exceptionally ad- vantageous. In order to use the stover to the best advantage, it is necessary to combine it with a limited quantity of clover, cowpeas, or some such leguminous hay. The poor showing made by millet and by sorghum was a surprise. Owing to their low content of protein, it was expected that they would fall below clover and cowpeahay, but that they should fall so far below timothy, we were not prepared to believe. This remark applies especially to sor- ghum. Fourth Trial— 1901-02 The general experiment was again repeated in the winter of 1901-02, with grade native yearling Hereford steers of good quality and in moderate flesh. They were all fed alike, on Stover, Alfalfa Hay and a limited amount 42 of corn, for a period of three and a half weeks, until they became thoroughly accustomed to their new quarters and until we had had the opportunity to study carefully each individual and divide them into lots of uniform quality, thrift, etc. This winter the experiment was conducted in a shed open to the south, with access to small lots without grass. The experiment began December 26, 1901, and- con- tinued until April 24, 1902, or 120 days. There were four steers in each lot. Each steer was fed six pounds of grain daily, which in all lots except one was shelled corn. In lot VIII. it was a mixture of four pounds of corn and two pounds of cotton- seed meal. The various roughnesses fed were as follows: Lot I. Timothy Hay. Lot II. Clover Hay. Lot III. Alfalfa Hay. Lot IV. Cowpea Hay. Lot V. Sorghum Hay. Lot VI. One-half Corn Stover, one-half Clover Hay. Lot VII. One-half Wheat Straw, one-half Clover Hay. Lot VIII. Wheat Straw. It will be recalled that the summer of 1901 was ex- ceptionally dry, practically no rain having fallen from the middle of April until the end of the summer season. The quality of the forage produced that year was, there- fore, exceptional. Having a very small content of moist- ure at the time of harvest, it was cured readily, necessa- rily without rain, and with a minimum of bleaching by the sun, Owing to the very limited amount of moisture in the ground, the yield was light, which means that the material was very fine, and had presumably the minimum amount of woody fiber. In short, wheat straw in a season like this had almost if not quite as much quality as tim- othy hay has in seasons that are exceptionally wet and when it is subjected to drenching rains in the process of curing. In view of the further fact that the weather of the winter was uniformly dry, with temperature cold enough 43 to give a stimulus to the appetite, and yet steady, so as to interrupt the appetite and activities the least, the quar- ters were dry, and the weather bright in the main, so that the animals were induced to remain out.of doors a great deal, all of which furnish the best conditions for large gains. It is to be expected, therefore, under, all these cir- cumstances, that the feeds would be used with small waste and with most excellent results. The timothy hay was cut when the seed was in the dough, cured without rain, and kept in a large rick until required for feeding. The quality was good. The clover was cut twhen one-third of the heads were brown, stacked immediately, and when fully cured, was baled and stored in a barn until required for feed. Qual- ity excellent. The alfalfa, first cutting, fine texture and good color, was stacked, then baled, and stored in a barn until required for feeding. Quality good. The cowpea hay was cut when an occasional pod had been formed, cured in shock until dry enough to bale, then stored in a barn. Fully one-third crab grass. Otherwise the quality was good. The corn stover, small, fine, was cut when the few ears that formed were fully glazed, set up in shocks sixteen hills square, where it remained until required for feeding. All ears and nubbins carefully removed. Bright, sweet and good. Sorghum. Grown in rows 44 inches apart, with perhaps plants about 4 inches apart in the row, stalks rather coarse, and all produced seed. Harvested when about one-half of the heads were ripe, set up in shocks, and preserved in good condition until required for feeding. Quality good. In the table below will be found a summary of the re- sults: 44 a H 00 VO 0 O VO t^. 00 l-s. 0 o ON OO H «% I I vri A a M «!> I Value of gain per steer at 50 per Ib. vo t-- 00 * vr> t^ ON vr> t^ t^ eg t^ O ro ON CO vn 00 t^ «% V-l VO vo ^9- Cost of food offered per steer. vo vo M n •* rt vo to irt vO VO W-l ro OO 0 0 vr> OO * vo VO «& *9t •tft «% «<% *ft £ «% Cost of food offered s vo to M 00 0 VO ro to ON per 100 Ibs. gain. t-^ «J vo «i w> «% r-^ «% 21 vo «9t »/•> «ft ^ Average daily gain fv * CO ON o vri M £ per steer. • • *? Total gain per lot. 00 VO SO ON 1 r< 00 fx r< vo VO M VO ro ^ t^ 00 c* vo M vo <* Roughage eaten per lot. M oo to ct ON * 00 ON t^. ^ OO t^ 00 ro vo •M- 1 vri OO -t- u^ to to t^ H vO VO vo Roughage offered per lot. 0 oo vo oo r^ to ON ^ N 00 O 00 vO OO ot vO •H- to ON vo ON •1- oo ON v/1 t-» vo • s vo Corn eaten per lot. o 00 oo rt 0 oo oo O 0 oo oo n 0 oo oo d O 00 00 M 0 00 00 (4 0 oo oo M * o oo •z Average weight of steers. , fr a >-, A I 1 1 O s- *s 3 < >> rt X 1 3 >-, M X e 1 1 fe 1 ^ ! CO ^ V 1 X I CO 1 X { Cottonseed Meal; Wheat Straw 1 1 i I 2 "5 £ JS T3 « T3 £ J 0 ~a S "S £ J3 c c! 2 *w _c co J c c3 ! 60 CO jO '1 | 1 CO N\ 3 i_i •—i <-H > > » > «-H > > i JB «-£ - 45 The results are essentially the same as have already been reported for former trials. The superiority of clover over timothy is again marked. The superiority of a combination of stover and clover over timothy is still to be observed. The high feeding value of the timothy in this trial is easy to be accounted for by the exceptional quality already referred to. It is interesting to note the excellent gains made this season by the use of shelled corn and one-half wheat straw and one-half clover. In other seasons, when the straw is not so bright, clean and palatable, it is hardly to be expected that these results could be duplicated. In Lot VIII, having shelled corn, cottonseed meal and wheat straw, an attempt was made to supply the pro- tein in cottonseed meal instead of using clover hay for this purpose. It will be observed, however, that the re- sults would not justify the adoption of this as a practice. In other words, the average daily gain on shelled corn, wheat straw and clover was 1.31 pounds, or a total of 628 pounds for the entire experiment, as compared with .94 of £ pound daily, or 451 pounds for the entire ex- periment on two-thirds shelled corn, one-third cottonseed meal, and wheat straw. In short, the gains made on the steers receiving clover hay and wheat straw lacked #1.00 per head of paying for all the feed they consumed, while those receiving corn, cottonseed meal, and straw, lacked $9.90 per head of paying out. RESIDUAL EFFECT OF DIFFERENT FEEDS At this point it will be well to consider the effect of the gains made in winter upon the capacity of the animal to make gains the following summer at pasture, Or, to consider the effect of the condition of the animal in the spring upon its capacity to graze profitably. Fortunately, all of the cattle used in the experiments in the winter of 1899 and 1900 were turned to pasture together as soon as the trial closed, and grazed together from April 30 to December 24. During the last 30 days of the pasture sea- 46 son, they were fed a limited quantity of grain, but were all treated exactly alike in that respect. Thus we have the op- portunity to ascertain whether these different feeds have any residual effect, or whether the amount of gain made in winter affects the gain to be made at grass during the following summer. These cattle were weighed five days in succession before being turned to grass in the spring, and were weighed on five successive days when brought to the sheds in the fall. The difference in these is considered to be the gain in weight at pasture. The following table shows the gains made in sum- mer in relation to the gains of the previous winter, ranked in the order of winter gains: TABLE 17 3 £ H B" 'S 5s ^3 £? 4 n 5* ^ 5' o Winter Ration erg s; 1* S J t "q Ig3 P's » r 3 5 P 1 5 Corn and Cowpea Hay 155 345 500 Corn Stover and Clover Hay 118 357 475 Corn and Timothy Hay 65 422 487 Cowpea Hay alone 57 364 421 It will be noted that in general the larger the gain in winter, the less the gain the following summer on grass. Considering the three lots having equal quantities of grain and different roughnesses, their summer gains are in inverse ratio to their previous winter gains. This means that the thinner the animal in the spring, provided it be strong enough to graze well, the greater the gain it is capable of making at grass during the summer. Conversely, the fatter the animal, the less capacity it has for making large gains on grass. That this will be true of fat animals is self-evident. It is easy to conceive of animals going to grass so fat from having been grain fed for a considerable length of time that 47 they will be incapable of maintaining even their weight on grass alone, but will actually lose in weight. This probably means that the appetite and the general activity of the ani- mal have been so affected by excessive fat, or by the pro- longed grain feeding, that the animal will not eat enough grass to even maintain its weight. It is self-evident that the fat steer has a materially higher total maintenance require- ment, by reason of the fact that he is much heavier, and this extra weight has in no way increased his appetite or his ca- pacity for grazing. In other words, his appetite and his ca- pacity for grazing have at the very least stood still, while his weight and, therefore, his maintenance cost have, through the fattening process, been considerably increased, It is safe to go even farther, and say that if the animal be made fat, i. e. approximately in marketable condition, the appetite and the ability to graze well will both become very materially reduced at the same time that the maintenance cost per steer has been increased. At this point, certainly, the steer would be inca- pable of eating enough grass to maintain its weight. It frequently occurs that yearling cattle winter well, and carrying to grass considerable fat, will weigh little if any more the following fall than they did in the spring. They will be considerably larger but much thinner. Fat has in this pro- cess been displaced by growth. SECOND TRIAL OP RESIDUAL EFFECT The steers used in the third trial of a limited grain ration, or in the winter of 1900 and 1901, were grazed together the following summer. They had been fed alike from the time the experiment closed, April 2Oth, to may 10th, on six pounds of shelled corn daily per head, as during the experiment, and a mixture of the various roughages used in the experiment. In the summer they had the run of the same pasture, and during the last 60 days were fed ear corn at pasture, all being fed together. They were weighed five days in succession at the end of the experiment, and had been weighed 5 days in succession just previous to being turned out. The following table shows the gains made by each lot, and the relation that these gains bear to those made in the previous winter. Winter Ration if * Summer g steer. f? r« c/5 9 • 5" | 1 * i Corn and Clover Hay 1 60 479 639 Corn and Clover and Stover '33 500 633 Corn and Timothy Hay 79 497 576 Corn and Sorghum Hay 41 643 684 Corn and Millet Hay 30 548 578 Here again there is a fairly definite relation between the gains made in winter and those made the following summer at grass or, as has already been pointed out in a previous trial, the gains in summer are in- inverse ratio to the gains made the previous winter. Or, perhaps more accu- rately stated, the summer gain is inversely proportionate to the amount of fat the animal carries to grass. CATTLE TO GRAZE WELL MUST BE THIN It is evident therefore that if cattle are to be grazed the following summer, advantage cannot be profitably taken of the cheapest way of making gains, in winter namely, by full feeding, inasmuch as the animal would in a short time under this treatment be carrying so much fat that itx would not make good gains at grass, and the only profitable dis- position to make of it would be to continue the fattening process until it was ready for market. This makes the cost per pound of gain in merely wintering cattle excessively high. This, however, is not a fair measure of the cost of wintering as a rule, inasmuch as the number of pounds of gain is very small. For example, a steer gaining 50 pounds during the winter and costing 10 cents a pound for this gain, or a total of $5.00 for the entire wintering period, would be a comparatively inexpensive animal to take through a six 49 months' wintering period, whereas, viewed from the stand- point of cost of gain, 10 cents a pound would look like an ex- cessive price and it would look like the animal had been wintered disadvantageously. As a matter of fact, however, he would probably be in a condition in the spring to very quickly pay back this deficit of $2.50 in the rapid gains he he would make at grass. In ordinary practice, cattle are kept on the farm in winter to eat the surplus coarse forage, to clean up the stalk fields, and to eat the surplus grass left from summer, and if they pay expenses during the winter the farmer con- siders himself fortunate. CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SMALL GAINS MAY BE JUSTIFIED Then, if the farmer should be possessed of a large quantity of coarse fodder and only a limited quantity of grain, and should likewise be possessed of considerable cheap grass to be utilized the following summer, the most profitable way in which steers could be wintered would be to run them through comparatively thin, so that the pasture might be utilized to the greatest advantage. As has already been explained by making the gain larger in winter the deficit in wintering could be reduced somewhat, but the probabilities are that by fall the account would be squared, or this excess deficit due to light winter feeding would be overcome by the increased gains the steers would make at pasture because of their thin condition. GAINS FROM LIGHT FEEDING RELATIVELY COSTLY It has-already been pointed out that the gains made from light feeding are relatively expensive. The old notion that light feeding makes cheap gains will not bear investigation. The truth is, other things being equal, the cheapest gains are made on full feed or approximately full feed. As the ration is decreased from this point, the food required per pound of gain increases uniformly until a maintenance ration is reach- So ed, when, of course, all of the food given is wasted when con- sidered from the standpoint of gains made. Reducing the feed even below the point of maintenance, so that the ani- mals actually lose in weight, as is often done in unapproved farm practice, the deficit to be met is not only the total cost of the feed used, but the value of the loss in weight as well. All of this means that the use to which a steer is to be put the following summer, whether to be grazed or full fed, will influence in a large measure the way in which he can be most profitably wintered. If to be grazed alone, there is a very definite limit to the amount^of grain that can be fed without seriously affecting the capacity of the animal to make profitable use of the pasture the following summer. Or, to state it differently, there is a very definite limit in the amount of fat that it will be profitable to put on a steer in winter that is to be grazed the following summer. On the other hand, as a general proposition, the smaller the gains, the more costly they are, and, within certain limits, the more expensive the wintering operation becomes, or the larger the deficit from wintering. THE AGE AFFECTS THE WAY IN WHICH CATTLE SHOULD BE WINTERED In general, the age of the animal will affect materially the kind, quality and amount of feed that may be profitably used in wintering. In other words, the age will determine largely whether they are to be fed liberally on palatable and nutritious feeds, or to be roughed through on coarse fodders of the cheapest sort. Young cattle will require the former class of feeds in more liberal quantities, while the older cat- tle will be able to utilize to advantage the poorer and coarser grades. This is principally true because it is more important to keep the animals gaining steadily at the age of 6 to 1 8 months than later. Checking the rate of gain after 24 months of age, when the rate of growth has naturally declined and when the tendency of the animal to lay on fat begins to as- sert itself, will make much less difference than if it be check- ed in the earlier stages when the tendency to grow and not to fatten is much more marked. 51 It is believed that to make growth at the natural or proper time, that is, when the animal is young, and when the tendencies of the entire organism are to convert food into growth, and when it may be made with the least ex- pense of food, room, labor and investment', will be highly advantageous as compared with so feeding the animal as to restrict the growth at this age and depend upon making up this deficiency by liberal feeding later. In fact, it is believed that from birth until the steer goes to grass at the age of twelve months, there should be sufficient food of a palatable and nutritious character to supply the requirements of the maximum growth of which each individual is capable, without laying on any considerable quantity of fat. This is, of course, on the supposition that they are not to be fed out as baby beef. In case they are to be made into baby beef, naturally the quicker they are made fat, the greater the profit in the feeding. The first winter, between the ages of 6 and 12 months, is not the time to at- tempt to utilize cheap coarse fodders extensively, like stover, etc. These materials should be used chiefly on older cattle. It goes without saying that from 12 to 18 months of age the cattle should receive an abundance of nutritious grass, so as to promote a uniform and rapid growth or to approximate the full capacity of the animal for growth and to lay on as much fat as possible, for gains at pasture are cheap, and all the fat it is possible to make here will be made at the very minimum of expense. As to the winter treatment from the ages of 1 8 to 24 months, all will depend upon what the immediate future of animal is to be. If it is to be grazed the following summer as a two year old, it should be made to utilize the cheap fod- ders on the farm, eat out the stalk fields, etc. In any case, it should not be permitted to lose in weight, but should be made to gain liberally, so long as it does not lay on any fat. The laying on of fat at this juncture is unprofitable if the animal is to be grazed, for two reasons. First. It is unnecessarily expensive to make fat by par- tial feeding. As has already been pointed out, gains made on anything less than full feed are made at a cost that in- creases directly as the quantity of food is decreased. 52 Second. Fat on an animal affects its ability to make rap- id and economical gains the following summer at grass, as has been clearly shown by our results where cattle had been made to gain different amounts in winter and were grazed together the following summer. WINTERING, LIKE FATTENING, ENHANCES THE VALUE OF CATTLE Gains made in winter, whether made by full feeding or otherwise, are relatively expensive. Gains made in summer on grass, while cheap, do not or- dinarily enhance the value of the animal above the market value of the gains actually made. It is only on account of the extreme cheapness with which gains may be made in summer on grass, therefore, that the grazing of cattle is profitable. It is on account of the enhancement of the value of the animal by making it fat or in marketable condition in addi- tion to the value of the gains put on that makes full 'feeding under any circumstances profitable. That is to say, the food required to make the gain in full feeding costs more than the gains made will sell for. Were it not, therefore, for the en- hancement of the value of the carcass already produced in a cheap way on grass, the fattening operation would be uni- formly conducted at a loss. By the process of wintering cattle their value is enhanced to a less degree, it is true, than by the fattening process, but the enhancement of value is necessary to make up the deficit in the wintering process. This enhancement is due to the fact that the steer in the spring has the grazing season, which is the season of profit, immediately before him, and he is therefore worth more to his owner than in the preceding fall, when he faced the wintering period, which is usually a period in which a deficit occurs. The enhancement of value in this case is one mainly of position, whereas in the case of the fattening steer it is one of condition. 53 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND MECHANIC ARTS Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN NO. 76 FATTENING CATTLE FOR THE MARKET I. A Study of the Most Approved Practices in Beef Production in the Corn Belt. II. A Summary of Some of the Feeding Exper- iments Conducted at This Station. COLUMBIA, MISSOURI December, 1907 E. W. Stephens Publishing Co., Columbia, Missouri TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGES. General Summary and Conclusions 3-11 List of Questions Submitted to Practical Feeders 11-12 Range of Experience of Feeders Interviewed 14-15 Average Length of Full Feeding Period 15 Relation of Age of Cattle to Time Required to Fatten 16-17 Quality of Cattle in Relation to Length of Feeding Period 18 The Most Profitable Weight of Steer 18-19 The Age of Cattle Usually Fed in the Corn Belt 21-22 Why Feeders Prefer Two Year Old Cattle 24 Young Cattle Must be Fat to Sell Well 27 Well Bred Cattle Required for Baby Beef 29 Most Favorable Season of the Year for Feeding * 31-34 Experiments in Summer and in Winter Feeding 35-37 Advantages of Summer Over Winter Feeding 38-40 Gains on Grass Alone are Cheap but Low Priced 41-42 Factors Affecting the Demands of the Market 42-50 Value of Shelter in Full Feeding 51 Summary of Experiments with Shelter 52 The Value of Roughage in Full Feeding 61 Kinds of Roughage Preferred by Missouri Feeders 62 Experiments With Different Kinds of Roughage 63 The Preparation of Feed 67 Methods of Preparation Preferred by Feeders . . . ". 67 Factors Determining How Grain Should be Prepared 71-73 Hogs Utilize the Waste 73 Number of Hogs Required 76 Hogs Sell Higher Than Steers 76 Buying Margin, or Margin of Profit 81 Factors Determining the Size of the Margin 83-88 Getting Cattle on Full Feed 89 Abundant Supply of Pure Water Necessary 92 Other Factors Than Cheapness of Gains 94 Methods of Feeding 96 THE SHOW HERD OF FAT STEERS FED BY THE MISSOURI COLLEGE OF AGRI- CULTURE IN 1907. AND EXHIBITED AT THE INTER-STATE FAIR, KANSAS CITY, THE MISSOURI STATE FAIR, SEDALIA, THE AMERICAN ROYAL, KANSAS CITY, AND THE INTERNATIONAL LIVE STOCK EXPOSITION, CHI- CAGO. CHAMPIONSHIP PRIZES WON, 9; FIRST PRIZES WON, 17; SECOND PRIZES WON, 16; THIRD PRIZES WON, 7; FOURTH PRIZES WON, 2. EV- ERY STEER WON AT EVERY Snow, EXCEPTING ONE STEEB AT ONE SHOW. FATTENING CATTLE FOR THE MARKET. BY H. J. WATERS, DIRECTOR. SUMMARY. It will be well nigh impossible to condense into a few par- agraphs the essence of the bulletin which follows, for the reason that the bulletin is itself a summary of a number of experi- ments covering a wide range, and is moreover a summary of the experience and observation of nearly a thousand of the most suc- cessful cattle feeders of Missouri, Iowa and Illinois. These ex- periences extended over an average period of nearly twenty years, and with an aggregate of something near two million cattle. An attempt has been made to cover somewhat carefully for the use of the student, the practical feeder and the teacher, the entire range of* fitting cattle for the market. The principal conclusions are as follows: i. The practical man in the long run arrives at correct conclusions on the main points involved in his practice. A theory that runs counter to the conclusions of men of long ex- perience or to the principles of a long established practice should be well considered and should have the support of ex- tensive and accurate experimental data before being accepted. 3 2. The average length of the full feeding period of the extensive feeders interviewed was shown to be i77 days, or es- sentially six months. There was a close agreement between the various feeders interviewed on this point, showing that this practice is fairly well established. 3. The weight of steer returning the greatest profit, in the estimation of these men was, for Missouri, 1345 pounds; for Iowa, 1358 pounds; for Illinois, 1390 pounds; for Nebraska, 1400 pounds; or an average for all of 1367 pounds. The same men report that 1500 and 1600 pound steers have not, on the average, been profitable. 4. Forty per cent of all the feeders interviewed gave two years as the age at which they put their cattle on full feed. Twenty-four per cent gave two and a half years of age. Thus 64 per cent put their cattle on full feed between the ages of two and three years, as contrasted with less than 4 per cent who full fed calves, less than 4 per cent who put them on feed as yearlings, and with but a fraction over 4 per cent who put their cattle on full feed at eighteen months of age. Of the number of feeders reporting from1 Missouri, Iowa and Illinois, twice as many put their cattle on full feed at three years of age as begin feeding them under two years of age. 5. Evidently the Corn Belt cattle feeder is not yet making baby beef. This is due to the fact that older cattle feed more uniformly, finish in a shorter time, and with less attention to the details of feeding. Of even more importance perhaps is the fact that older cattle may be bought as feeders with enough more margain than young cattle to make the feeding operation, on the whole, more profitable. It is furthermore shown that aged cattle are in somewhat better demand on the market, especially if somewhat underdone, or of plain quality. 6. In the matter of the most favorable season for fatten- ing cattle, the feeders show a decided preference for summer, or rather for some season other than winter. A majority of those interviewed reported that they had ceased to practice win- ter feeding. 7. The experiments quoted show that cattle gain materially faster in summer, and at something like four-fifths the cost of similar cattle fed in winter. In addition to the more rapid and cheaper gains on the cattle themselves, it is shown that the hogs also thrive better in summer, and the labor required for feeding, hauling manure, etc., is materially reduced over winter feeding. 8. Gains are cheaply made on grass alone, but are low- priced, because the cattle are not in marketable condition and must be sold as feeders with sufficient margin to enable the buyer to fit them for market. 9. The season of the year affects the market demand of cattle. Certain weights and classes are required for certain sea- sons, while other weights and classes will meet the best demand at other seasons. The steer that is staple the year round is the thick fleshed native weighing from 1200 to 1400 pounds. This class answers the demand of the dressed beef, the live export, the dead export, and the Eastern shipper trade. Or, all classes of buyers use a greater or less number of these cattle throughout the year, making them staple at steady prices. 10. Yearlings weighing 900 to uoo pounds when well fin- ished and not offered in too large numbers find a steady market and a good demand throughout the year. When plain in qual- ity, or somewhat underdone, or when a little over supplied, the price declines' sharply, because this class has a more limited use than the dressed beef steer just described. 11. Three year old cattle weighing 1500 to 1600 pounds find a good demand for hotel and resort trade the year around if not offered in too large numbers. The demand is better, one year with another from the latter part of the summer to the first of December than at any other time for this class of cattle. They do not need to carry so much quality or finish as yearlings or even dressed beef steers to sell at the highest price for their class. 12. The value of roughage in full feeding. The feeders interviewed expressed a great variety of opinions on this point. In the main they were indifferent to the kind or quality of roughness when full feeding. The experiments conducted at this Station show that the roughage affects profoundly the rate and cost of gain and the finish of the cattle. It is shown that with cattle bringing 5 cents a pound, corn, when combined with clover or cowpea hay, was worth 81-4 cents more per bushel than when combined with timothy. On the assumption that one-fifth of all the corn produced in Missouri is fed to cattle, the increased profits from combining it with clover or cowpeas, over combining it with timothy, would amount to two and half million dollars each year. 13. A large roughness consumption does not necessarily mean a diminished grain consumption. If the roughness be a legume hay, such as clover, or cowpeas, or alfalfa, the amount consumed will be materially larger than when it is timothy, or corn stover, or prairie hay, or millet, and at the same time the cattle will eat a larger amount of grain. The extra amount of protein in the legume hay has the effect of stimulating a larger total consumption of feed, a considerable portion of which is grain. 14. The value of shelter in full feeding. It is shown, as a result of four years' experimental work, that steers on full feed gain more rapidly and somewhat more economically when hav- ing access to an open shed, or even when confined in an open lot, than when sheltered in a well ventilated barn. These re- sults are corroborated by five years' work of similar character at the Pennsylvania Experiment Station. A large majority of the practical feeders reported adversely to the use of a barn in fattening cattle. 15. Getting cattle on full feed. There is a direct relation between the quality and condition of the feed and the ease and readiness with which cattle may be accustomed to it. Cattle may be gotten on full feed more quickly when coarse and rela- tively unpalatable material is used than when highly nutritious and well prepared feeds are used. 1 6. The buying margin. The gains put on cattle during the fattening process cost more per pound than they bring on the market when the steer is sold. The cost of these gains will vary between 6 cents and 10 cents per pound, -while the steer will bring on the market an average of from 4 cents to 7 cents per pound. This situation is not met in commerce by attempting to force the price of the finished steer to a point high enough to meet the expense of fattening directly and pay a profit, but by lowering the price at which the steer in thin condition may be purchased. The raiser of the cattle is required to sell them as feeders at a lower price per pound than the animal will bring on the market when fattened. In other words, the burden of the fattening operation has been laid upon the cattle raiser rather than upon the meat consumer. 1 7. The amount of margin required to cover the expense of fattening and pay a profit is governed by a variety of circum- stances. Younger cattle require a smaller margin than older cattle, because they make cheaper gains. Short fed cattle, a smaller margin than long fed cattle, because the costs of gains is higher the longer cattle are on feed. Cattle of high quality require a narrower margin than cattle of poor quality because of the higher price at which they sell when finished. A larger margin is required in winter than in summer, because, it re- quires more feed to make a pound of gain. The higher the price of feed, the larger the margin required, unless the price of finished cattle has correspondingly increased. The farmers interviewed reported an average margin of $1.02 per hundred for a six months' feed on two year old cattle in the summer. It is estimated that for a similar feed in winter approximately $1.50 would be required. 1 8. The preparation of the feed. It will be observed that the average cattle feeder gives comparatively little attention to the preparation of his feed. It is fed on the average in essen- tially its natural condition. Fifty-three per cent of the Missouri feeders reported feeding ear corn exclusively, while 4? per cent of those from Illinois, and 41 per cent of those from Iowa made a similar report. It is further shown that ear corn was used exclusively or for a part of the year, or during some part of the fattening period, by 76 per cent of the Missouri feeders, 7i per cent of the Iowa feeders, and 53 per cent of those from Illinois. Shelled corn was fed dry either exclusively or at some season of the year or in some part of the feeding period by 23 per cent of the Missouri feeders, 31 per cent of those from Iowa, and 23 per cent from Illinois. 8 . Corn and cob meal was used by only 6 per cent of the Mis- souri feeders, by 3 per cent of those from Iowa, and 10 per cent from Illinois. Shelled corn, ground, was fed by 3 per cent of the Mis- souri feeders, 4 per cent of those from Iowa, and by none of those reporting from Illinois. 19. The use of better prepared feed in the finishing end of the fattening period than in the beginning or middle of the period was reported by a large number of the feeders. This is an attempt to maintain a good rate of gain through the latter end of the feeding period, by catering to the appetite. At this time the system is loaded with fat and the maintenance cost per steer is very high ; at the same time the appetite is variable and is disposed to decline. Anything, therefore, that tends to increase the amount of food consumed will affect favorably the rate and cost of gain. 20. Better preparation is required in summer than in win- ter feeding, because the grass in summer is more palatable than the roughage used in winter, and for a large enough consump- tion of grain to produce a profitable gain it is required that the grain be palatable. Moreover, grain in summer is dry, hard, and more difficult to masticate, and is liable to have been somewhat fouled by mice and rats. These difficulties are in practice usu- ally overcome by soaking the corn from 12 to 18 hours. 21. Better preparation of grain is required for young cat- tle than for aged animals, in order to stimulate the most rapid possible gain. This is necessary to finish the younger animals within a reasonable time. They use so large a proportion of their food for growth that a high rate of gain is necessary to make them fat quickly. 22. The real reason for preparing grain for cattle is not to reduce the proportion of grain passing through the animal undigested but rather to increase the rate of gain. This is so because whatever part of the grain the steer fails to utilize the hogs which follow the cattle will utilize to good advan- tage. 23. The feeder is interested primarily in the aggregate gain of steer and hog per unit of grain fed, and cannot afford, 9 i under the ordinary farm conditions, to invest much labor and money in the preparation of feed which increases the steer gains wholly or mainly at the expense of the hog gains. So long as the food is offered in palatable enough form to make the steer gain at a rapid rate and make him fat in a reasonable time, the feeder is not interested in how much passes through the steer unmasticated or undigested, because the hog will make good use of it. 24. Taking the average price of all fat hogs and all the fat steers sold on the Chicago market for the past twenty-four years, it has been found that the hogs have brought a higher price per pound. It will be accepted without argument that less food is required to make a pound of gain on hogs than on cattle. As a rule, therefore, the hog end of the cattle feeding operation is more profitable than the cattle end. 25. The number of hogs required to utilize the waste per steer will vary greatly with the character of the feed, the way in which it is prepared, and with the size and age of the cattle. The range would be from two to three hogs per steer on snapped ear corn, perhaps one and one-half on husked ear corn, about one on shelled corn, and from one-third to one-half a hog on crushed or ground corn. 26. Whatever factors favor rapid and profitable gains on cattle, excepting the better preparation of the feed, are liable to be favorable to the hog that follows. For example, hogs make better gains following cattle fed on clover or cowpea or alfalfa roughness with corn than they do when the roughness is timothy, millet or sorghum. Likewise there is a material benefit to the hog by feeding the steer a limited amount of lin- seed meal. There is also a benefit to the hog from feeding cottonseed meal to the steer, although it is less marked than when linseed meal is used. 27. It is almost as profitable to use a supplemental feed like tankage or linseed meal for hogs that are following cattle as for those that are being fed on fresh grain. Especially is this true of hogs following cattle fed on straight corn with timothy or stover for roughness in winter or blue grass or timothy pasture in summer. Likewise a clover, alfalfa, cowpea, 10 or soja bean pasture for hogs following cattle will affect just as favorably the profits as though the hogs were not following cattle. In view of. the fact that a considerable part of the profit of steer feeding is in the hog gains, it is important that most careful attention be given to the hogs, in order that the maxi- mum gain may be secured. 28. An abundant supply of pure water convenient to the feeding bunks and to the grazing grounds is absolutely imper- ative. It is fatal to good results to require the cattle to travel long distances to water or to. drink from pools or troughs that are befouled by hogs or other stock. A steer on full feed and under the strain of rapid production requires a large quantity of water daily. 29. Cattle that are being fattened should be fed with the utmost regularity, should be kept as quiet as possible, and should be encouraged to lie down when not eating. They should never be frightened or disturbed in any way. 30. Changes in feed and surroundings. Changes in feed, location or surroundings of cattle that are fat should never be made, except such as are decidedly for the better, and even then should only be made when most imperative. 31. The student should keep constantly in mind that there are other factors than mere cost of gains which bear quite as important a relation to the profitable outcome as does this one. The Experiment Station has been too apt to consider this alone and to call the problem settled in the direction that the greatest economy in gains leads. In the buying of the animal, there is required an intimate knowledge of the whole range of cattle feeding and of market requirements with regard to dif- > ferent classes at different seasons of the year, etc. The business judgment developed at this point will affect very vitally the financial outcome. 32. Endeavor to meet these requirements of the market. No one can hope to develop good judgment in this direction without a thorough familiarity with the various market classes of cattle and without knowing how much fat each class requires to enable it to be sold to the best advantage. It would of course be fatal to follow one rule with all grades. Cattle of good quality II will require a relatively higher finish because, as a rule, their cost price as feeders is so high that there will be too small a margain between it and the selling price to pay a profit if they are not made prime. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO PRACTICAL FEEDERS. Some five years ago, the Experiment Station asked nearly three thousand of the most experienced and successful cattle feeders in Missouri and a limited number of such men in Illinois and Iowa for a summary of their experience, observations and conclusions concerning some of the most vital points in beef production. The questions propounded were as follows : 1. How many years have you fed steers? 2. State approximately the total number of cattle you have fattened and marketed. 3. What is the usual length of your feeding period; i. e., the number of days the steers are on full feed? 4. What season of the year have you found to be the most profitable for feeding, and why? 5. Have you found winter feeding satisfactory, and do you continue to practice it ? 6. In winter feeding do you shelter in a warm barn, an open shed, or feed in the open lot? 7. In winter feeding do you aim to give the steers access to good bluegrass pasture during open weather ? 8. About what weight at selling time has in your exper- ience returned the most clear profit, and why? 9. Have you found it profitable under ordinary circum- stances to produce 1500 to 1600 pound steers? 10. What average daily gain do you expect : (a). In winter on full feed? (b). In summer on full feed and grass? 11. In buying feeders, what margin over cost price per 100 pounds do you consider necessary in order to make money? 12. At what age do you usually put your steers on full grain feed? 13. Describe briefly your method of feeding steers during the fattening period, including the feeds you use. 12 14- What has been your experience in feeding cottonseed meal, linseed meal, or bran in connection with corn? 15. What roughness do you prefer during the fattening period, and do you allow steers to have all of, it they will eat ? 16. Have you used silage, and with what results? 1 7. Do you crush, shell, grind or soak your corn, or feed it in the ear whole? 18. How many hogs do you estimate per steer? Returns were received from 726 feeders in Missouri, representing 55 counties; 39 from Illinois, representing 16 coun- ties; 91 from Iowa, representing 23 counties; one from Ne- braska. These 857 individuals represent an average experience of 18.3 years each, with a total of practically two million head of cattle fed and marketed. It is fair to presume that we secured returns from the most intelligent, the most successful, and the most experienced cattle- men in Missouri, and presumably likewise in. Illinois and Iowa. It is obivous, therefore, that their experience in the matter of feeding cattle and their conclusions, based upon this experience, are entitled to the greatest respect and to have great weight with the teacher or investigator in shaping his theories, and with the practical feeder in determining his practice. This is par- ticularly true in the case of those questions where the 'answers agree to any very large extent. THE PRACTICAL FEEDERS' CONCLUSIONS USUALLY RIGHT. As a rule, the practical man arrives in the long run at cor- rect conclusions on the main points involved in his practice. This is perhaps more true of the cattle feeder than of any other class of farmers, for several reasons : First, he is among the most intelligent and progressive of the farming class. Second, giving most of his attention to the buying, feeding and marketing of cattle, makes him in a large sense a specialist in this particular branch of agriculture. Third, he has opportunities for checking up his observa- tions and judgment with accurate data that men in other lines of farming do not have. This comes about because, as a rule, he buys his cattle by weight and has, therefore, an accurate knowledge of the cattle at the time he begins his feeding opera- tions. He always sells by weight and has, therefore, the weight of his cattle at the close, and can easily determine quite accu- rately the gain. Furthermore in many instances, he buys a large portion, and frequently all of the feed used, which en- ables him to determine with a fair degree of accuracy the amount of food consumed. These are the necessary data, of course, for reliable conclusions as to the outcome of his feeding operations. Fourth, the professional feeder is of necessity more or less of an experimenter. He is forced by the varying supply of different kinds of feed to vary the material fed from season to season, and thus one season while he may naturally prefer a certain grain or hay the supply is inadequate or the price is too high, and he adopts another. Normally he might prefer to feed his corn whole, but the price may be such as to warrant him in grinding it, and so on throughout the entire range of steer feeding. The state of the feeder market will justify his feeding three or four years olds in one season, heifer calves in another, and so on. Thus his experience is forced, so to speak, to take a very wide range in the quality and condition of cattle fed, and in the kind, condition and quality of feed used. These considerations therefore would seem to justify us in giving to the conclusions of these men the greatest weight. That is, the difference between two or more methods or prac- tices, when large, may be safely assumed to have already been discerned by the practical man, by reason of his exceptional fa- cilities for securing accurate data already pointed out, and furthermore because of his capacity for close observation and sound reasoning. On the main questions involved in the economical and prof- itable production of beef, the men with such extensive exper- ience as have contributed to the contents of this bulletin may be considered as safe advisers, and a theory that runs counter to the conclusions of these men or to a long established prac- tice should be well considered and should show the support of rather extensive and accurate experimental data before being accepted. 14 This does not mean, however, that there are not many ex- ceedingly important differences between practices which the feeder, with all his experience, has not the facilities for measur- ing, and which he must rely upon the experiment station to de- termine for him. The series of tables presented at the end of this Bulletin contain the data furnished by these gentlemen in so far as they were susceptible of tabulation, with the substance of their con- clusions as to the best methods of feeding, in the remarks at the end. Necessarily some details have to be omitted in presenting the matter in this condensed form, for to print these reports separately and in detail would of course be impossible. The tabulation of these data was done entirely by the writer, and every effort was made to interpret correctly the feeder's mean- ing and in condensing it to retain the real essence of his report. To the student of beef production and to the beginner in beef feeding, nothing could be more profitable than the most detailed and careful study of these individual reports, taking into account, in estimating the conclusions of the men, the num- ber of years of experience and the number of cattle upon which he bases his conclusions. Question i. How many years have you fed steers? A glance at the detailed reports at the end of the Bulletin will show that the number of years' experience of these men varies from two to fifty. But few men however with less than five years experience attempted to answer the questions. Of the 726 replies received from Missouri, the average length of experience in feeding was 18.3 years. For the 91 returns from Iowa, the average was 17.5 years. For the 39 replies from Illinois, the average was 22 years. Question 2. State approximately the total number of ani- mals you have fattened and marketed ? This varied from a few hundred to a maximum in the case of one man of 140,000. It will be observed that from 5,000 to 6,000 is not an unusual number for the different men reporting. The total for the 609 who answered this question from Mis- souri was 1,133,744. For the 82 answering this question from Iowa, 235,469. For the 34 answering from Illinois, 78,259, and 15 for the one answering from Nebraska, 69,595, making a total of 1,567,06? for the 726 answering this question, or an average of 2,160 cattle fed and marketed per man. A total of 857 an- swered our questions, but, only 726 answered the question as to the number of cattle fed. Assuming that those who did not answer the question had an equal experience with those who did, the total number of caftle represented in our reports would be 1,851,120. The magnitude of these numbers will be apparent when it is realized that this is approximately, two-thirds of the total number of cattle offered for sale at Chicago in an entire year and is practically equal to the entire receipts at the Kansas City stock yards and more than arrive at either St. Louis or Omaha in a year. 3. What is the average length of your feeding period; i. e., the number of days your cattle are on full feed? * It will be observed, in studying the details of the reports, that the number in this particular varied all the way from 60 or 90 days for a short feed on old cattle, to a full year for baby beef. The average of all the answers received to this question is as follows : State Number of Re- ports. Average length of feeding period. . Days. >i \j-i O N^\ a^j CD P to '0^ an> °° P to O N\ CL«^ "8 H 2.0 8-w ^t w 2.V! art 00 P Oo P-0 8"* V! > p at Missouri Iowa. 680 88 38 25 I 3 22 4 3 29 8 2 257 36 H 91 15 8 77 i5 4 149 9 4 16 14 Illinois Total 806 680 88 38 29 29 39 307 114 96 162 16 14 Percentages. Missouri 3-68 1.14 7.90 3.22 4-54 7.90 4.26 9.09 5-26 37.80 40.90 36.84 I3-38 17-05 21.05 11.32 17-05 10.52 21.91 10.23 10.52 2-35 2.06 1.74 Iowa Illinois Average 806 3.603.60 4.84 38.09 14.14 ii .91 20.09 1.98 FEEDERS PREFER CATTLE IN THEIR TWO-YEAR-OLD FORM, It is quite evident that a majority of the feeders interviewed prefer cattle in their two year old form. This is evidenced by their stating that the average length of the feeding period was six months, which is about the time required to make two year old cattle prime, is longer than is necessary for three year olds, and is too short for yearlings or calves. It is further evidenced by the average weight which they considered they had found most profitable, viz., approximately 1,350 pounds. This is too light for three year olds, and too heavy for yearlings or calves. Then, again, the question put to them directly as to whether they had found 1,500 or 1,600 pound steers profitable as a rule, 22 out of 721 replies, in round numbers, 7o per cent, answered in the negative. All of this is further confirmed by the answer to the ques- tion direct as to what age they usually put their cattle on full feed. A study of this age summary is exceedingly interesting and instructive, as the results are very striking. For example, out of a total of 680 replies from Missouri, 257, or nearly 40 per cent, gave two years as the age at which their cattle were put on full feed, which would mean with a six months feeding period as was reported by them in answer to previous questions, 30 months old cattle when finished and ready for the market. Thirteen per cent gave 2.\ years of age, and n per cent gave essentially the same answer, namely "between 2 and 3 years of age," as their preference. Thus more than 62 per cent of the Missouri feeders reported that they put their cattle on feed at between 2 and 3 years of age, as contrasted with less than 4 per cent who put them on feed as calves, less than 4 per cent who put them on feed as yearlings, and but a fraction over 4 per cent who put them on feed at i \ years of age. What is true of the reports from Missouri is essentially true of Iowa and Illinois, as will be readily seen from the sum- mary just presented. It is a significant fact that in Misouri, Iowa and Illinois the number of men who put their cattle on feed at 3 years of age was almost double the number who put their cattle on feed under two years of 'age. THE CORN-BELT FEEDER IS NOT YET MAKING BABY BEEF. It is perfectly apparent from these data that after all that has been said about the advantage of cheaper gains being made by young cattle, the feeders of the cornbelt are not yet making baby beef. It is impossible within the scope of this bulletin to discuss this very intricate question in detail, and the reader is re- ferred for a more elaborate discussion to an article by the writer in the Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture* and to a forthcoming bulletin of the Experiment Station. * Waters: "Limitations of Baby Beef Production." 39th An- nual Report, Missouri State Board of Agriculture, 1907. Pp. 114 — 166. 23 It may be well to note at the outset, however, that there has been a very strong tendency in this direction within the last third of a century. In other words, baby beef is quite another thing from what it was even twenty-five years ago. Then a 30 months old steer weighing 1,400 pounds would have been classed as baby beef, and it would really have been a baby, con> HEAVY BULLOCKS FAT ENOUGH TO TOP THE MARKET FOR THEIR CLASS. USED IN THE STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF AGE UPON THE COST OF GAIN. TWELVE MONTHS OLD CALVES WEIGHING 900 LBS. AND READY FOR THE MARKET AT A PROFIT TO THE MAN WHO BRED AND RAISED THEM, AS WELL AS TO THE MAN WHO FED THEM. USED IN THE E!XPERIMENTS IK REGARD TO INFLUENCE OF AGE UPON COST OF GAIN. pared with the 3, 4 or 5 year old bullocks then standard on the market weighing from 1,600 to 1,800 or even 2,000 pounds thick fat and hard. One of our reporters, Mr. G. A. Bradford, a veteran feeder of Boone County, Missouri, reports the sale in the early sixties of a carload of cattle weighing an average 24 of more than 2,200 pounds, for $11.00 per hundred, and adds that at that time the larger and older the cattle, the higher price they brought. Our point of view has changed radically. The market demands have been revolutionized. These huge bullocks are no longer on the market and would be no longer in demand if presented. We have been gradually hastening our cattle to market, cutting down their ages and weights, until a twelve months old steer weighing 800 or 900 pounds will bring as high a price as any other age and weight, provided he be fat, and provided such calves be not offered in too great numt- bers. For the details of this phase of the subject, the reader is referred to the chapter on Factors Affecting the Demands of the Market. Size and weight do not any longer constitute a lim- itation to baby .beef production. According to our present inter- pretation of baby beef, no steer would be so classed outside of his yearling form, and as a rule the maximum age would be from 18 to 20 months, and the maximum weight from 1,100 to 1,300 pounds. This means that the feeding operation must be gin with the calf at weaning time and continue without inter- ruption until the calf is fat. Some even go farther and begin the feeding period as soon as the calf is old enough to eat and while it is still running with its dam, and place these animals on the market fully fat at the beginning of June or July, 14 or 15 months of age, and weighing from 800 to 1,100 pounds. WHY THE FEEDERS PREFER TWO-YEAR-OLD CATTLE. There are a number of reasons why the feeder still insists upon making rather heavier cattle, notwithstanding the fact that it costs considerably more to carry them to this age and that it costs somewhat more per pound to finish them after they ^are brought to this point. First of all perhaps is the fact that the cattle feeder is as a rule not a cattle raiser. At least he raises only a very small portion of the cattle he feeds. The catle raiser, on the other hand, is, as a rule, not a cattle feeder, seldom feeding even those of his own raising. The raising of cattle and the fitting of them for market are two separate and independent operations, conducted as a rule by two different men, each operating inde- 25 pendently of the other, and the one not especially interested in the scope or outcome of the other's operations. The cattle feeder is interested in the cattle raiser only to the extent of hav- ing him supply him with animals of the proper quality and at such a price as will enable him to fit them for market with profit. This means that under the conditions prevailing in the feed- er and stocker market, in recent years at least, the younger animal in an unfinished condition sells for enough more per pound to, in a considerable measure, counterbalance any ad- vantage it may possess in the cost required to make it fat. Or, stated differently, the older animals may be bought for enough less per pound to overcome a considerable part of the excess cost per pound required to finish them for market. Or, in feeders' parlance, the margin of profit in feeding older cattle is greater than in feeding younger ones. RELATION OF AGE TO COST OF FEEDERS. This may be illustrated by statistics furnished the writer by a number of experienced feeders in central Missouri who were interviewed on this point recently. Taking calves of a quality which in the fall (October 1st) would be worth say 5 cents per pound, or would bring $25.00 per head, as a basis, cattle of the different ages could be bought, one year with another, at the following prices: Yearlings $3-?5 per hundred. Two year olds 4.00 per hundred. Three year olds 4.25 per hundred. These same cattle the next spring would stand the feeder, in the judgment of these men, on the basis of the same market as in the fall, as follows: Yearlings (which are the calves referred to above) $5.00 per hundred. Two year olds $4.50 per hundred. Three year olds, from $4.75 to $5.00 per hundred These figures perhaps represent a local condition, and do not fairly represent the larger feeder markets such as Kansas 26 City and Omaha. In these markets, it is the opinion of the writer that less difference, exists in the cost of feeders of diff- erent ages, the quality being the same. OLDER CATTLE IN BETTER DEMAND ON THE MARKET. It has already been pointed out that a part of the excess cost in making gains on older cattle is offset by the lower price at which feeders are laid in. Another important part is, in the average case, offset by the extra price per pound which the older steer of average quality and finish will bring on the market. It is true, as has already been stated, that the yearling steer weighing 900 to 1,000 pounds, if of high quality and fully fin- ished, will sell as well as any other age or weight, provided not too many of them are offered at once. It must not be forgotten, however, that plain steers of this age and weight, and even cattle of excellent quality but not fully fat, will not sell as well as older cattle of similar quality and in similar condition. Fur- thermore, there is only a limited use to which the lighter and highly finished carcass is put. When that demand is satisfied, unlike in the case of the 1,300 or 1,400 pound dressed beef steer, there is no other equally good place to use him. It seems that this class of beef is bought almost wholly on orders, and so long as the supply is as limited as it is, the animals bring a good price, but the packers will not fill their coolers with this sort of beef and hold it until a demand arises, except at a very sharp decline from standard prices. In this respect apparently the market demand for very heavy cattle — 3 year olds, weighing from 1,506 to 1,600 pounds — for hotel and resort trade, is much like the demand for 900 or 1,000 pound steers in that so long as there is not an over supply it is in strong demand at good prices. The uses to which these carcasses are put are so limited however that the moment the offerings are in excess of the demand the price declines sharply, as compared with the steer of medium weight, 1,300 to 1,400 pounds, com- monly known as the dressed beef steer. YOUNG CATTLE MUST BE FAT TO SELL WELL. Attention has already been called to the fact that the year- ling must be fully finished to sell well. This fact, while so well known to the experienced feeder, is so often overlooked that it will bear further emphasizing in this connection. It seems to be a well established law in the cattle trade that the older and larger the animal is, the less fat beyond a certain point it is re- quired to carry to sell well up toward the top of the market for its class. It not infrequently occurs that heavy three year olds will bring the top of the market for heavy cattle, while a yearling equally fat would not sell within 50 cents of the market, and might even be classed on the market as a well advanced feeder rather than as a fat steer. In this connection the reader is again referred to the replies from the commission men and packers in relation to the factors affecting the demands of the market. One cannot fail to be impressed with the unanimity with which these men agree that the so-called dressed beef steer, or the 2 year old, weighing from 1,300 to 1,400 pounds, is in most active de- mand and sells at a better price one day with another, year after year, than any other age or weight of similar quality and of equal finish. It is furthermore significant that the feeder has said with striking ^unanimity that the 2 year old steer weighing between 1,300 and 1,400 pounds has returned him the greatest profit. PRICES BROUGHT BY EXPERIMENTAL CATTLE OP DIPPER- " ENTAGES. Some definite data on the relative selling qualities of cat- tle of different ages have come out of the numerous experiments in feeding cattle of different ages by different Experiment Sta- tions. Taking the prices brought by cattle of different ages fed by various Experiment Stations in recent years, we find the data bear out the general assumption heretofore expressed. It should be observed that in nearly every instance the cattle were sold on the same market and on the same day and the figures 28 are fairly comparable. In all cases the cattle of different ages has been fed the same length of time. They were not in all cases in the same state of flesh when the experiment began however, so the difference in the selling price is not all due to difference in condition or fatness but in part to the fact that older cattle require somewhat less flesh than younger cattle to sell well. Selling Prices of Cattle at Different Ages in Various Experiments. OTTAWA EXPERIMENT STATION. 1900 — 192 Days. Weight at selling time Ibs. Selling price $ Yearlings 1020 Two-year-olds 1230 Three-year-olds'. 1901 — 203 Days. Calves 780 Yearlings 1 187 Two-year-olds 1302 Three-year-olds 1575 1902 — 1 86 Days. Calves 840 Yearlings 1298 Two-year-olds Three-year-olds J597 1903 — 1 80 Days. Yearlings 1263 Two-year-olds 1377 Three-year-olds 1553 4-50 4.65 4.70 4 50 4-77 5.00 5-50 6.17 6.17 6.17 5-25 5-25 5-25 29 1904 — 129 Days. Yearlings 1050 Two-year-olds Three-year-olds KANSAS EXPERIMENT STATION. 1902-3 — 210 Days. Calves . . . . 729 Yearlings 997 Two-year-olds 1226 Three-year-olds *433 MISSOURI EXPERIMENT STATION. 1905 — 210 Days. Yearlings 1179 Three-year-olds 1698 1906 — 210 Days. Yearlings I295 Two-year-olds . . , 1445 4-75 4-85 5.00 4-25 4-55 4.70 4-95 6.20 6.75 6.35 6.85 WELL BRED CATTLE REQUIRED FOR BABY BEEF. Of considerable importance is the fact that animals to be profitably finished as yearlings must have the tendency toward early maturity well emphasized. It is of the utmost importance that they be uniform in age, size and general tendencies. A dif- ference of three months in age is relatively large when the ani- mal is in the yearling form, whereas it is of comparatively little moment in a 2 or 3 year old. The tendency of one animal to grow instead of fatten is exceedingly unfortunate when one is attempting to finish it in its yearling form, whereas by the time it is 2 or 3 years old the tendency has been so reduced that it cuts little figure for the average animal. This, unfortunately i. 30 eliminates a large majority of the cattle as they are at present bred. In addition to these facts it may be stated that older cat- tle fatten with greater certainty, with fewer culls, and with less attention to the niceties of feeding. There is less risk in handling 2 and 3 year olds, inasmuch as weaning, dehorning, and vaccination against blackleg have all been passed through by that time. In view of the fact that animals to be made into baby beef must be of choice quality, makes it a question, after all, which interests primarily, the breeder and raiser of cattle rather than THE TYPE FROM WHICH BABY BEEF CAN BE PROFITABLY MADE. the feeder, as these operations are now divided. This means that the cattle raiser on high-priced land in the corn belt is, as has already been stated, the one who will lose most of what- ever is to be lost on the aged steer, not only in the process of growing him, but in the final fattening process as well. The professional feeder may be expected to continue to prefer to feed cattle that have passed the period of rapid growth and have got- ten to a point where they will take on fat easily, readily and uniformly so long as the breeder and raiser will consent to 31 grow them to this age and sell them to him with a sufficient margin so that the feeding operation will prove profitable. If the raiser and feeder of cattle were the same man, it would be but a short time until our cattle would be going to market at from 14 to 18 months of age instead of from 30 to 36 months of age, under the conditions now prevailing in the corn belt. Already there has been a marked tendency on the part of the farmer on the high priced land in the corn belt to go out of the business of raising beef cattle. This has been partic- ularly true under the influence of the high prices for corn that have prevailed in recent years and a steady advance in the price of land and labor. This is very strikingly true of the best corn regions of Illinois, Missouri and Iowa, and has forced the feeder to rely more and more upon western or range cattle, which in the meantime have been greatly improved in quality, so that a two year old range steer now is as large and almost as mature in form as was the three or four year old steer of twenty years ago from the same region. In the meantime, however, land values have advanced enormously in the range country, and the ranchman is beginning to insist upon selling his cattle younger and thus reduce expenses in making them. It may, therefore, be accepted as final that so long as the cattle raiser, whether he be on high priced land in the corn belt or on the ranches of the West, will supply cattle of moderate maturity, such as two year olds, to the feeder at enough less per pound than he will sell calves or yearlings to enable him to meet the increased cost of gain required to make them fat, so long will the feeder continue to feed this class of cattle in preference to younger ones. MOST FAVORABLE SEASON FOR FEEDING. The answers to questions 4, 5 and 10, concerning the best time of year to feed, etc., are exceedingly interesting. The questions propounded were: 4. "What season of the year have you found most profit- able for feeding, and why?" 5. "Have you found winter feeding satisfactory, and do you continue to practice it?" 32 io. "What average daily gain do you expect: (a) In winter on full feed; (b) In summer on full feed at pasture?" We received 818 answers to the main question in relation to the most profitable season of the year, 69? of which were from Missouri, 86 from Iowa, and 35 from Illinois. These answers are briefly summarized in the f ollo.wing table : A summary of the answers to the question : "What season of the year have you found most profitable for feeding?" State Number Reports Number preferr'g winter Number preferr'g summer No. pref. spring & summer 3 £>2 rt *« O »s% li? srs? QTQ n> 5 •33? i 7 HI W 3-5 1 3K5 fl> g »§£ ~ 7 H wr £H $ 3 rt SOTS n Missouri Iowa 697 86 57 353 4.r 99 57 6 45 r 69 16 17 I Illinois •2C r 16 2 2 r I Total 818 71 414- IOC 6c QO 10 Percentages. Missouri , Iowa Illinois 697 86 35 8.18 10.46 14.29 50.64 52-33 45-71 14.20 4-65 5-71 8.18 7.00 5-71 6-45 5-8l 11-43 9.90 18.60 14.29 2.44 1.16 2.86 Average. ...... 818 8.68 50.61 12.83 7-94 6.60 II. 01 2.32 From this table it will be clear that in the judgment of these feeders the season of the year does exert a profound influence upon the economy with which steers may be made fat. Or that in the fattening of cattle thejre is a large seasonal influence to be reckoned with. It will be noted that only 7i out of 818, or 8.6 per cent expressed a preference for winter feeding. Whereas, 414, or slightly more than half the entire number, expressed an unqualified preference for summer. One hundred and five answers, or 13 per cent of the whole number preferred spring and summer. Sixty-five, or practi- cally 8 per cent, preferred summer and fall. Six and one-half per cent expressed a preference for spring. Eleven per cent 33 preferred autumn, and 21-3 per cent expressed no preference, saying that they fed all the year round. Thus, practically 90 per cent of the feeders interviewed ex- pressed a preference for some season other than winter, which, broadly speaking, means summer feeding. It is of interest to note further that as a rule the 7i men who expressed a preference for winter are small feeders who have fed but a short time and are perhaps from experience acquainted only with this method of making cattle. Question 5. "Have you found winter feeding profitable, and do you continue to practice it," has already been covered under Question 4, except in one detail, and the answers will be interesting considered in this connection. Altogether 813 feed- ers replied, with results shown in the following summary: IF BEEF CATTLE ABE TO BE RAISED ON THE HIGH PRICED LAND OF MISSOUBI IN THE FUTURE, THEY MUST BE OF THIS CLASS TO BE PROFITABLE. 3 34 Summary of answers to the question: "Have you found winter feeding profitable and do you continue to, practice it?" State Number of reports Yes No Missouri 60 1 Iowa ... uyi 88 c6 395 Illinois .... 14. ou 20 6^ T4 5*r x^ Total Sii •272 44.1 PERCENTAGES. Missouri .... 601 42 84 r7 16 Iowa 88 61 61 16 16 Illinois •74. 58.82 41 l8 Average. 8n 4C 86 C4 24 It will be observed that 54 per cent of these feeders say that they have discarded winter feeding. Question 10 relates to the same question, viz. : What average daily gain do you expect: (a) in winter on full feed; (b) in summer on full feed at pasture ? The answers to this question are summarized as follows: IN WINTER. State Number of reports Average daily gain Missouri . . . 612 2. II Iowa 70 2. 12 Illinois 14. 2.l8 Nebraska .... T I . CO Total 726 2. 11 35 IN SUMMER. 608 2.90 Iowa. . . . 66 2.80 Illinois 2Q 2.84 Total . >]Q-I 2.88 While it is believed that these average gains are high un- less the cattle are well shrunk before the feeding begins, at the same time the relative gain between summer and winter feeding is significant. ONE OF THE EIGHT EXPEBIMENTAL FEEDING PASTUBES AT THE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE. HERE ABE IDEAL CONDITIONS FOB MAKING STRICTLY FANCY CATTLE. EXPERIMENTS IN SUMMER VS. WINTER FEEDING. This Station has conducted a number of feeding experi- ments in summer and in winter, under circumstances that make the results fairly comparable, and a summary of the outcome of these experiments will be interesting in this connection. Be- low is given, a summary of three years results in summer feeding with two year old steers, and of five years of winter feeding with cattle of similar age, the rations being in both 36 cases chiefly shelled corn, with some supplement like cotton- seed meal or linseed meal in a number of cases in both summer and winter, and in other cases, corn alone. The roughness in winter was in most cases timothy hay. In a few cases however, clover or cowpea hay was used. COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF SUMMER AND WINTER FEEDING. Summer Winter Time covered by experiment ....... 3 years 5 years Number of steers involved 88 IOC Average No. days on experiment per lot. 209.3 107 Total grain consumed •jcr,-i'?4 Ibs. 238,872 Ibs. Total roughness consumed «• 9^450 Total gain in weight A-I 6l2 o-J QIO Grain eaten daily per steer . 21 2Q Roughness eaten daily per steer. 8 ic Grain required per pound of gain 8.14 9.99 Roughness required per pound of gain . . 3-82 Average daily gain per steer 2. ^7 2. I"* The quality of the cattle used in the different experiments was essentially the same. The cattle used in the winter trials were about six months older than those used in the summer tests. In other words, the summer feeding began in the spring, when the cattle were just two years old, whereas the winter feeding experiment began in the fall, when the cattle were ap- proximately 30 months old. This is to the disadvantage of the winter feeding, because the presumption is that the cattle being six months younger when fed in summer were making gains somewhat cheaper. It will be noted, however, that the average length of the feeding period in the winter trials was only io7 days, whereas in the summer experiments it was 210 days, or practically twice as long. This means that the summer fed cat- tle were made much fatter, and it is fair to assume that what- 37 ever advantage they possessed in point of youth was more than offset by the additional length of the feeding period or by the extra amount of fat they were made to carry before the exper- iment closed. If the comparison is unfair at all, the injustice is done rather to the summer than to the winter fed cattle. It will be interesting to note that the average daily con- sumption of roughness per head in winter by cattle on full feed was 8.15 pounds. This means that each steer ate per month about 245 pounds of hay. Rating this hay at $5.00 per ton, makes the monthly consumption 61 cents per head. If the hay be worth $6.00 per ton, the monthly charge for rough- ness would be 73 cents ; at $7.oo per ton, the cost would be 88 cents per steer; whereas with hay rated at $10.00 per ton, the charge for this portion of the steer's ration would be $1.22 per month. The price for pasture of steers on full feed would easily fall somewhere between 61 cents and $1.22 per month. This means that the roughness consumed in winter will practically offset the cost of grass in summer. The problem is, therefore, narrowed down to a direct comparison of the grain required to produce a pound of beef under the two systems and the relative amount of labor and general expenses involved. It will be observed that 10 pounds of grain made one pound of beef in winter as an average of all steers, or that a bushel of corn (for the bulk of the grain used was shelled corn in both summer and winter) made 5.6 pounds of beef. The average of the summer trials shows that 8.14 pounds of grain produced a pound of gain, or that a bushel of corn represented 6.88 pounds of beef, a difference in favor of sum- mer feeding of 22.7 per cent in the grain requirement per pound of gain. It will be noted that the steers gained more rapidly in sum- mer than in winter, the average for winter feeding being 2.13 pounds per day, and in summer, 2.37 pounds per day. These summaries, therefore, furnish a general answer to the objections raised by numerous writers to the tendency among our feeders toward the discarding of winter feeding and the adopting of summer feeding. ADVANTAGES OF SUMMER OVER WINTER FEEDING. The advantages of summer over winter feeding may be very briefly summarized as follows: First. Gains made in summer require less grain. Second. The gains are made more rapidly, so that the an- imal is finished in less time. Third. Steers may be made thick and prime on corn and grass in summer without the use of expensive supplementary feeds like cottonseed meal or linseed meal, and will carry to market a lustrous coat. .It is impossible by the use of corn and such roughage as timothy or prairie hay to bring animals within a reasonable time to anything like the degree of fatness that may be easily made with corn and grass, and they will never carry the bloom that is put on by full feeding at pasture. Pre- sumably the green grass contains sufficient protein to give the high finish and excellent coat required of animals that bring a high price. To approximate this finish in winter feeding re- quires the use of a considerable quantity of expensive grain like cotton seed meal or linseed meal, or the use of clover, cow- pea or alfalfa hay for roughage. Fourth. The hog makes larger gains and shows a very much lower death rate in summer than in winter feeding. Fifth. There is a considerable saving in labor in summer feeding over winter feeding, in view of the fact that only the grain has to be hauled, and in view of the further fact that as a rule the steers need to be fed but once a day — either about sunrise or near sunset. To offset this, however, labor on the average farm is scarce and much higher priced in summer than in winter. The manure is scattered by the cattle themselves, and the hauling of it out upon the ground is dispensed with. Grass is cheaper than hay, as has already been pointed out, and makes better gains. The handling of the roughage is likewise disposed of. 39 INFLUENCE OF WEATHER. A part of the superiority of summer over winter for fat- tening cattle is due to the superiority of grass over cured hay as a feed, but another part of it may be attributed to the more uniform and steady climate of summer and to the absence of the disturbance of the variable weather of winter. In other words, the weather itself affects very materially the rate and cost of gain of cattle. The ideal conditions in winter for cheap and rapid gains are clear, cold, crisp weather. The conditions most unfavorable are cloudy, wet, warm, foggy, muggy weather. The injurious effects of this damp weather are three-fold : First, exerting a depressing influence upon the animal it- self to such an extent that its appetite is greatly reduced. Second, the lots, despite any ordinary management, become excessively muddy, thus keeping the animal on its feet instead of making the conditions most favorable for it to lie down. Third, affecting the palatability of the feed. In the latitude of Missouri, the winter weather is quite variable, and this is particularly true of the season from the middle of February to the middle of April. It is particularly costly to attempt to finish cattle in this season. Fairly rapid and economical gains can be made in this variable weather on thin cattle that have been freshly put on feed, but 'when the steers approach the finishing period, when their appetites become dainty, and when at best it is difficult to induce them to eat enough to make substantial and economical gains, the disturb- ance of the weather is particularly noticeable, and oftentimes when cattle are almost finished they will stand for 30 and some- times 60 days without making scarcely any gain at all. This is quite likely to be true if the lots are muddy and if the roughness is not particularly palatable and is fed in the open, where it is drenched with rain Soon after it is put in the rack. The most favorable portion of the winter season for feed- ing is in the late autumn and during December and January, unless these months be wet or variable. Many of the most successful feeders do not finish their cat- tle in these unfavorable parts of the winter, but utilize them for getting the cattle started or "warmed up" as they express it. 40 THE SEASON AS IT AFFECTS SUMMER FEEDING. The weather in summer is not likely to be so variable as in winter, although its combined influence upon vegetation and di- rectly upon the cattle themselves is sufficient to affect very ma- terially the results. This influence, however, is chiefly upon the vegetation, which immediately affects the animal that is feeding upon it. Taking the extremes of rainfall for an example. In an exces- sively wet summer the grass is rank, coarse and washy. Usu- ally this grass is very palatable, which encourages the animal to make a disproportion of its daily ration of grass rather than of grain. The grass is furthermore washy, tending constantly to scour the animals, so that the grain and grass they eat have less than a normal nutritive value. Later in the season, if the rains continue the covering of grass on the ground in good pastures becomes so dense and thick as to be attacked by a white mold, and becomes, in the parlance of the feeder, "funky." Then the animals eat very little of it, and what they do eat has apparently little nutritive value. Moreover, it is in such a sea- son as this that such pests as the horn fly are most numerous and most injurious. It is at the close of such a feeding season as this that cattle shrink badly in shipping and reach the market in a soft, unfinished condition, after having made unsatisfactory gains. The other extreme is the dry season, when the growth of grass is very much restricted, and when only sufficient rain occurs to keep it from becoming covered with dust and to main- tain, except in July and August, a moderate growth, and when during July and August the grass cures on the pasture and is not injured by rain after being cured. Under these circum- stances the grass is very nutritious, has no tendency whatever to scour the animals, and is not so palatable that they will eat a disproportionate amount of it and thus neglect their grain. In our experience, in such seasons the amount of grain con- sumed has been very much larger than in wet seasons with suc- culent grass, and the rate of gain has been materially higher. Not only so, but the flesh laid on is hard, which means that it 41 is fat, and the animals will reach a prime condition in from 40 to 60 days less time, will stand shipping far better, will make a better fill on the market, are cleaner, and uniformly sell better. Likewise, in such dry season there is frequently an entire ab- sence of flies. Between these two extremes come all gradations and com- binations of rain, heat and flies, which will affect favorably or adversely the result. . As a further illustration of the effect of the grass upon the character of the gain, attention is called to the condition of the cattle from New Mexico, Arizona, and portions of California when they reach the market. These cattle, after having grazed on the cured grass, are fat enough to seriously compete with steers of even better quality which have been grazed on blue- grass in the ordinary season in the corn belt and have been fed for a short time, say 60 or 90 days, on corn. GAINS ON GRASS ALONE ARE CHEAP BUT LOW PRICED. Some of the authorities on feeding have questioned the wisdom of the change from winter to summer feeding, which has been one of the most characteristic developments in beef production in the middle west during the last 25 years. These authorities maintain that it is more profitable, all things consid- ered, to graze the cattle in summer and full feed in winter after the grass is gone. They base their judgment on some imperfect and very limited data and upon the very erroneous assumption that grain fed to cattle on pasture, to be profitable, must show enough gain over and above what the cattle would make on grass alone to pay a profit on the grain consumed. Unless therefore, in the judgment of these authorities, this result is accomplished, the grain has been used on the steer in summer at a loss. They further point out the fact that the yearling steer would gain on grass alone during the six months period of sum- mer an average of about 45 pounds per month, and a 2 year old steer approximately 50 pounds, which at a reasonable charge for pasturage would make the gain cost from i£ cents to 2 cents a pound made on grass alone, while gains produced with 42 a combination of grain and grass in summer cost from 5 cents to 8 cents a pound. The conclusion, therefore, is that the adding of grain to the ration in summer does not tend to cheapen the cost of gain and that cheaper gains could be made by permit- ting the steers to graze without grain. It is a matter of common knowledge that the cheapest pos- sible gains are made on grass alone. It should not be forgotten however, that steers when grazed without grain are not ready for the market and must either be sold as grass cattle at a relatively low price, or they must be sold as feeders with suffi- cient margin to enable the buyer to finish them in winter, under less favorable circumstances and at a greater cost than is re- through the expensive period of winter as stockers to be fed out quired to finish them in summer. Or else they must be carried the following summer. In other words, while grass gains are cheap gains, they are likewise low priced gains and leave the animal in an unmarketable condition at the beginning of winter, when it is in less demand than at any other time of year and must be sold at the lowest price of any season of the year. This means that the wintering of cattle and the fattening of cattle are both expensive processes, and were it not for the en- hancement of the value of the steer by these processes over and above the selling value of the mere pounds of gain made, they would both be conducted at a loss. The proper comparison, therefore, between summer and winter feeding is: Which method will fit a steer for market in the best way, at the least expense, and in the shortest time, and land him on the market at a season when he will sell to the best advantage. Our results as has always been pointed out show that this may be accomplished to the best advantage in summer. FACTORS AFFECTING THE DEMANDS OF THE MARKET. (1) The season of the year. (2) The weight and condition of the cattle. Intimately bound up with the whole matter of profitable beef production is the demand of the market. It is not suffi- cient to consider alone the most economical method of produc- 43 ing cattle. It is equally necessary to send the cattle to the market in a condition to be most acceptable to the buyer and at a time of year when they are in good demand and will bring remunerative prices. The season of the year in which animals are fed will of course affect directly the season of the year in which they are marketed. The question arises, therefore, is there any seasonal demand of the market which would affect the question as to what season of the year is best to fit cattle? The writer within the present year interviewed a number of the most experienced livestock commission men and a few of the buyers for the large packing houses on this point, submitting to them the following questions : 1. Has there been of late years as active a demand for thick fat cattle in May and June, as formerly when most of the grain-fed cattle were put on feed in October and finished about the first of June? 2. What season of the year, one year with another, do you consider furnishes the best demand for average cattle fin- ished about as the average native steer is finished? 3. Would you indicate what you consider to be the poorest season of the year for a man to hit, one year with another, and can you give the reasons for these fluctuations in demand and price? 4. Outside of the Christmas market, what season of the year does the market require the greatest number of fancy beeves or cattle of the class that would grade as Christmas cattle? 5. Can it be said that any particular grade of cattle will sell steadier, one day with another through the year, and year after year, than all others ? That is to say, is there a grade of cattle of which there is less fluctuation in the price? If so, what grade is it, and what is the explanation of the stapleness, so to speak, of this particular grade or class of cattle? 6. Why is there such a wide variation in the price of strictly fancy cattle from day to day, from month to month, and from season to season, even when plainer sorts are selling fairly steady? 7. What weight do you now consider most popular with the buyers, one season with another? 44 The replies, it is believed, are well worthy of most careful consideration in dealing with the general question. Clay, Robinson & Co., Livestock Commission, Chicago : 1. "We have had an active demand for many years during the months of May and June for thick fat cattle, but during June the steers weighing from 1,000 to 1,400 pounds have been the best sellers, as heavy weight steers do not suit the trade as well in warm weather, on account of making too large a car- cass, etc. 2. There is a good demand throughout the year for good average finished steers, with the exception of the Lenten sea- son, at which time the demand is curtailed. Well finished steers FANCY YEARLINGS MADE STRICTLY PRIME. SOME OF THE CATTLE USED IN OUR FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. weighing 1,350 to 1,500 pounds being in demand with the excep- tion of the month of June. Yearlings sell well at all times, and buyers cannot get enough to fill their orders. 3. There is always less money realized on cattle fed for February and March than for any other months of the year. The weather at that time is usually unfavorable for finishing cattle, requiring a large outlay of feed for a small gain, and in addition to this we seldom have an advance in the cattle market between the I5th of January and the I5th of March, or during the Lenten season. Cattle fed in other months of the year can 45 be handled more profitably. Steers put on feed the latter part of February or the first of March have two chances, for if the market is not good after 100 or 120 days feed, say, in June or July, they may be fed on for August and September markets to good advantage. We also find that heavy weight half fat steers weighing 1,100 to 1,200 pounds can be put on feed Sep- tember ist and1 marketed during the first half of January to good advantage. This enables short fed cattle to strike a good market and bring a good price. 4. Outside of the Christmas market, we think the best demand for fancy beeves is in September, October and Novem- ber. 5. Well matured cattle weighing 1,400 to 1,500 pounds are the best sellers throughout the year, taking one year with an- other. 6. There is not such a wide variation in the price of strictly fancy cattle during any of the months. 7. As intimated before, the most popular cattle with buy- ers one season with another, are well finished choice yearlings and cattle weighing 1,350 to 1,500 pounds." John Alexander, of Alexander, Ward & Conover, Live Stock Commission Merchants, Chicago: "i. The demand is not considered so good in May and June for thick fat heavy cattle as formerly, but I think that de- pends entirely upon the supply, as about so many thick fat or prime cattle can be used every month in the year to supply a certain class of high-priced trade, which will not have anything but thick loins. It frequently happens, however, that we get more good thick fat, good weight, cattle in May and June than in any other month of the year, and they do not sell so well in proportion to other grades and people get the impression that the demand is not so good. 2. Average cattle, finished about as the average native steer, will, one year with another, meet the best demand in April, May and June, and frequently the demands in July, August and September are just as good. 3. The poorest season of the year in which to market cattle of this class is October, November and December, as re- 46 ceipts are usually heaviest at all markets at that time of the year. This is because it is the winding up of the grass season. Then the demand is not so good especially in November and December, as the markets are usually liberally supplied with game, poultry and fresh hog meat. The only reasons I can runs for a considerable time, congesting and overstocking the market, and when the dressed beef men and butchers have their coolers full they will not take on more supplies, except at re- duced prices. Then, again, the export trade cuts a large figure at different seasons of 'the year. The live and dead export trade is very heavy from our western market for several months ; then, again, it is light. Northwestern and Eastern Canada cut a big figure in our export trade at different seasons of the year; then, again, at times South American refrigerated beef limits the export demand from this country. 4. There is not much difference in the demand for strict- ly choice cattle during the different months or seasons, outside of the Christmas demand, which requires a large supply for holiday trade in this country and in Europe. The demand is good each month in the year for about so many choice cattle to supply the higher priced trade of this country, and the Lon- don export trade usually uses a fair supply each month of good to choice cattle for a high priced trade in England, but does not take the extremely top cattle, as New York City and the large cities of this country use the most of our extremely high priced steers. 5. Unquestionably, there is a grade of cattle that may be said to sell steadier than any other, and that is well fattened cattle of good quality weighing around 1,500 pounds. Cattle weighing 1,250 to 1,400 pounds will answer just as well. This weight of cattle is popular because the dressed beef men, live exporters, dead exporters and eastern shippers, in other words, about of all classes of buyers can use more or less of that weight the year round, making them staple at good prices. 6. In my opinion, there is not a great variation in the price of strictly fancy cattle from week to week or month to month, as the markets have stood in the last few years. There is a good general demand for such cattle every month and 47 nearly every week in the year for the high priced trade in this country. There are usually only about two days in the week for choice cattle, namely, Mondays and Wednesdays, at the Chicago market. Following an old established custom, cattle of this class generally all get here on these days. As a large per cent of these cattle go to the eastern markets, the eastern buyers rely upon these days for their supply. Local buyers and dressed beef men must likewise rely upon these days to secure the quality they desire, as they cannot depend upon getting them on what is generally called "off days," such as Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. 7. Concerning the most popular weight one season with another, I have answered this question above, by saying that the average is about 1300 pounds, I would add, however, that prime or choice yearlings, weighing anywhere from 900 to 1,000 pounds, are popular and in good demand and are good sellers the year round." E. W. Houcks, of Drum Commission Co., Kansas City, Mo. : "i. There has not been the active demand in May and June for thick fat cattle as in former years. The trade seems to require the lighter kind. In fact, yearling steers and heifers weighing from 7oo to 900 pounds have been more sought after, and the dressed beef steer weighing 1200 to 1300 pounds has brought as much as the export steer. 2. Outside of the limited number of Christmas cattle, our experience has been that the average native steer such as the Misouri farmer markets commands the best price in July, August and September. As a rule this time in the year the markets are flooded with grass beef weighing under 1200 pounds. The supply of heavier cattle, well fatted, such as the corn belt produces, is more or less limited. This makes the packer buy good native beef at a good price in order that he may sell as much of his heavier grass beef as possible. 3. The poorest season of the year to market the average Missouri steer is in the late fall and winter months. One rea- son for this is that during the last ten or fifteen years alfalfa has been very extensively grown in Kansas and Nebraska and the farmers of this section have been holding their cattle up in 48 good flesh and marketing them in the fall months. After the frost falls on the blue stem grass of Kansas, the cattle will be- gin to shrink immediately on it, but when fed plenty of forage — sorghum, kaffir corn, alfalfa, etc. — they can be ( held up in flesh until the winter months. Many farmers feed grain for 60 days which, together with plenty of alfalfa hay, makes a very fair quality of dressed beef cattle. This class of beef, cheaply made, comes of course in competition with the Missouri fed cattle, ex- cepting the Christmas kind. 4. Our experience has been that outside of the Christmas market, the best season of the year to market these fancy beeves is in August and September. At this time most of the fat cat- THREE YEAR OLD CATTLE OF GOOD QUALITY, AND FAT ENOUGH TO SELL WELL. tie are shipped out and the fresh cattle are going on feed. If there is a shortage at all on fat cattle, it frequently shows up about this time of year. 5. The dressed beef grade of cattle fluctuates less through- out the year than any other class. This seems to be the staple grade of beef. It is a handy weight, from 1150 to 1350 pounds, and furnishes a carcass that is eaten the year round by the class of people who eat most of the meat. Nearly all butchers buy this class of beef, while the fancy butchers handle the high grade kind, and the commoner class of butchers handle the cheap 49 grades. , The dressed beef steer is also serviceable for export nowadays. Formerly this was not the case. A 1300 pound steer is just as good today for export trade as the heavier weight of cattle. In fact, we might term the dressed beef steer the all purpose bullock. Baby beef weighing from 750 to 900, and the fancy bullock weighing from 1,500 to 1,600 go to the fine hotel trade and to the table of the wealthy man, while the dressed beef steer is bought by the great majority of people. As a rule the average 2 year old steer is classed as the dressed beef bullock when he goes to market, and it seems to be a profitable age to market him. 6. There is a limited demand for strictly fancy cattle. A limited number can be marketed to advantage, but if they come in too large numbers, as is no unusual thing, the price de- clines from 25c to 58c ?8>7'J /y 3 5 2073 Gain per lot Ibs 66 g. 9 "77 . 711 Daily gain per steer, Ibs I 67 Gain per bushel of corn, Ibs 4.71 4.89 5-31 Digestible matter per Ib. gain, Ibs n-33 11.40 10.21 In this trial the difference in the amounts of grain and hay eaten and gain made by the different lots, was small. How- 56 ever, the results of the previous trials were confirmed inasmuch as the cheap'ness of gain was in inverse ratio to the amount of shelter given. In this experiment, a bushel of corn stood, for the follow- ing gains : In Barn > 4.71 Ibs. In Open Shed 4.89 Ibs. In Open Lot .. . . 5.91 Ibs. A fourth trial was made which extended from January 6th to April i6th, 1901 — 100 days — 4 steers in each lot, with the following results : Barn Open Shed Open Lot Corn eaten, bushels. . . Hay eaten, Ibs.. M3 2006 157 or/jo 175 "IA(\I Gain per lot, Ibs.. 72Q 780 836 Gain per day per steer, Ibs. . . . Gain per bushel corn, Ibs. . . . Digestible matter per Ib. gain, Ibs. 1.83 5.10 JO O7 I 1.97 5 03 IO "?4 2.09 4-77 II 21 These results run contrary to those of all former trials in that the most economical gain was made in the barn, the next cheapest in the open shed, and the dearest in the open lot. Curiously enough this would have been considered the most satisfactory of any of the winters covered by the experiment for outdoor feeding, since the weather was not severe, was fairly steady, dry and comparatively free from rain and snow storms. It would naturally have been expected that the barn would show to' the least advantage, whereas it was the only season in four years when it produced the cheapest gains. A bushel of corn •was in this trial equivalent to the following number of pounds of beef: In Barn . . ... In Open Shed In Open Lot. 5.10 Ibs 5.03 Ibs .4. 77 Ibs il Averaging the three trials in which the barn, open shed and open lot were compared, we have the following exhibit: Barn. Open shed Open Lot. Corn eaten, bushels 158 3471 803 1.78 5-o8 10.77 168 3395 907 1.99 5-40 10.25 170 3937 932 2.05 5-48 IO.22 Hay eaten, Ibs.. . . Gain per lot, Ibs.. Daily gain per steer Gain per bushel of corn, Ibs Digestible matter per Ib. gain, Ibs The average of the four years work in which the barn and open shed were compared, shows : Open shed Barn. Corn eaten bushels 162 17-? Hay eaten, Ibs ... . . . "?747 784. *7 Gain per lot, Ibs . 7QC 006 Daily gain per steer Ibs I*7O I Q2 Gain per bushel of corn Ibs 4QI i -y* 524. Digestible matter per Ib gain Ibs . II ^O IO ^4. For a more complete discussion of these experiments, together with a number of experiments in sheltering cattle that were lightly fed, see bulletin of this Station on this subject. Thus in every case the cattle that were confined in a barn at night and during very stormy weather "during the day, except long enough to drink twice daily, ate less food, made smaller gains and with but one exception made less gain per bushel of corn or per pound of dry matter than did similar cattle that had access to an open shed with the privilege of going out at will, and made less economical gains than did those which were re- quired to stay in the open lot without any form of shelter and only a pile of corn stalks on which to lie. 59 Results of Shelter Experiments at the Pennsylvania Experiment Station. Professor T. I. Mairs, who had charge of the shelter exper- iments at this Station just quoted, has carried on similar exper- iments at the Pennsylvania Station during the past 'five years.* These experiments have failed 'to show any benefit from shelter either in the rate or economy of gain over and above a dry lot and a protection from the storms. » The Standard Cattle Company's Experiments With Shelter. A very interesting experiment with reference to the value of shelter in full feeding cattle was made by the Standard Cat- tle Co., Ames, Nebraska, and through the courtesy of the Super- intendent, Mr. Allen, I am permitted to present a summary of it. This company, up to the time Mr. Allen gave us his report, had fed, in fourteen consecutive years, 69,595 head of cattle, about 90 per cent of which were from the ranges of Wyoming, and were from four to five years old when put on feed. An accu- rate record was kept of the amount of food consumed, gains in weight, etc., quite as detailed as is kept by the Experiment Station in such cases. The following statement was made to the author by Mr. Allen: "One of the most complete and valuable experiments in our feeding has been that of indoor and outdoor feeding. When our Feeding Station was established we constructed a barn to hold 3,000 cattle, following the fashion of some Wyoming cattle- men at that time, which we used for the first three seasons. Since then we have used it only occasionally and in all, out of fourteen seasons, we have used it only six. Our cattle are fed in outdoor feed lots, generally having the shelter of timber. In one or two cases there are sheds, and in some lots the shelter is hardly sufficient. When we used our barn the cattle were driven into separate stalls, where they had to stand through the feeding period. This was the most objectionable feature in *Penna. Exp. Station Bulletins 64, 68, 74. 6o attempting to give shelter, and the effect on a considerable portion of the cattle was not good. In the earlier part of the feeding period in our barn, the cattle uniformly made steady progress, but after a certain point individual cattle began to get into an unthrifty condition. These were removed from the barn as soon as it was ascertained that they were not doing well, and in most all cases they made an immediate improvement in outdoor lots. It was my habit to estimate that ten per cent, of the cattle would have to be removed from the barn during the feeding period, but in our last season, 1896-7, we removed twenty per cent of all the cattle in the barn. The cattle were fed with great care, the corn being ground as fine as possible an3 mixed with oil cake or cottonseed meal and bran." From all of this evidence it may be safely concluded that cattle already carrying some fat and on full feed of grain and hay do not require any protection from the cold prevailing in this latitude in winter. In other words, there is apparently sufficient heat generated in the body in the mastication, diges- tion, assimilation, fermentation, etc., of this large quantity of food to maintain the normal temperature of the body. In fact it is not unreasonable to suppose that under such circumstances a reasonable amount of cold is a benefit to such animals rather than a detriment. This is supposing that the coats of the cattle are kept dry. It is probable that the radiation of heat by an animal with a wet skin is in excess of the heat produced inciden- tally or as a natural result of the mechanical and chemical pro- cesses occurring in the body. In that case a portion of the food would have to be burned especially to supply the heat required to keep the animal warm. Apparently then the only shelter required for cattle of this class is that which will protect them from rain and snow and break the northwest winds and furnish a dry place in which the animal may lie down. It is of more importance that the fatten- ing animal lie down regularly and during a large portion of the time than that it be protected from the cold. An abundance of sunshine and fresh air, a comfortable place in which to lie, and freedom from all external disturbances, furnish ideal conditions for rapid and economical gains. 6i This perhaps does not apply to the same extent to animals fed lightly or in thin condition. THE VALUE OF ROUGHAGE IN FULL FEEDING. The statements of the individual feeders in the large tables under "Methods of Feeding" clearly reveal a striking lack of uniformity in their judgment and practice with reference to roughage. The question was put to them directly : Question 15. "What roughness do you prefer during the fattening period, and do you allow the steers to have all of it they will eat?" It will be observed that in this one question we raised two important points in relation to the fattening of steers, namely, the kind of roughness and the quantity to use. It is unfortunate that they were not put in separate questions, so that we might have secured direct expressions on each point. We are able, however, to get some notion of the esteem in .which these prac- tical feeders hold different roughnesses from the summary of their answers. The Feeder's Estimate of the Value of Different Kinds of Roughness. The answers to this question have been incorpor- ated in the remarks under "Methods of Feeding" because they are of such a nature as to be very difficult to condense into tab- ular form. As has already been pointed out, the most impres- sive fact in connection with the answers to this particular ques- tion is the great variety of opinions. The summary of the an- swers from Missouri, given below, covers every kind of rough- ness produced on the farm, from the husks on snapped corn alone, to the best quality of clover or alfalfa hay fed to the full limit of the appetite of the animal. Out of a total of 416 answers to this question from 42 counties, it is interesting to observe that their preferences were as follows: 62 KINDS OF ROUGHNESS PREFERRED BY MISSOURI FEEDERS. Number Reports Per cent of whole Hay 54 Clover Hay .SO Clover and Timothy ..... 45 Timothy Hay 42 Hay and Stover ... 24 Stover 22 Clover and Stover 20 Hay or Stover 16 Flax Straw 16 Snapped Corn — No Roughness . 16 Timothy or Clover 12 Little Roughness — Snapped Corn 1 1 Straw ii Hay and Straw 9 Oat Straw , ._ 9 Clover and Millet 9 Limited Roughness — Ear Corn 9 Sorghum and Hay 7 Hay and Oat Straw 6 Millet 6 Prairie Hay 6 Hay, Stover and Millet— all they will eat. ... 6 Sheaf Oats, Clover and Stover 3 Sheaf Oats, cut, and Clover Hay 2 Hay and Sheaf Oats -...-. 2 Mown Oats. ... 2 All kinds of Roughness.. I Total - 416 12.9 12.0 10.8 10. 1 5-8 5-3 4.8 3-8 3-8 3-8 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2.. 1-7 1.4 i-4 1.4 i-4 .72 .48 •48 .48 .24 100.00 63 In view of the great variety of opinions and the great diver- sity of practice as revealed in the foregoing table, we would seem to be warranted in concluding that the practical feeder regards one roughness is practically as good as another for cattle when on full feed. This is tantamount to saying that in their judg- ment the roughness in full feeding exerts very little influence upon the result and is really a matter of little importance. Feeding Experiments with Different Kinds of Roughness. — On the theory that the feeder is generally right and that any important difference between two methods or practices would be discovered by him, and the poorer or less profitable one soon discarded, we would be forced to conclude, by the great variety of opinions expressed concerning the value of rough- ness, that it makes little difference what roughness is used or in what amount it is fed. This furnishes, however, a very striking exception to the rule, for the opinions of these practical feeders are widely at variance with the results of careful and elaborate experiments on this point, conducted at this Station. During the past eleven years, very systematic experiments in the comparison of the various kinds of roughage both for win- tering and for fattening cattle have been made, and it has been found that the kind of roughness exerts a profound influence upon the cost of gain and a large influence upon the finish or quality of the cattle at the end. The results for fattening cattle are none the less striking than are those for cattle that are being merely wintered. Inasmuch as a special bulletin detailing all of these results and considering this phase of the subject in detail is in course of preparation, and that such a bulletin for wintering cattle has been published,* the results of only one or two experiments will be given here. These results may be safely accepted, how- ever, as fairly representative of a large number of others and to establish the law laid down above, that the kind of roughness given exerts a profound influence upon the rate and cost of gain and upon the finish of the cattle. *Bulletin 75, Mo. Exp. Station, "Methods of Wintering Cattle.' 64 Comparison of Different Roughnesses for Fattening Steers. First trial — 1899-1900 — 119 days — 4 two year old steers in each lot — full fed on shelled corn. * 2 Corn and timothy hay 166 3813 802 1.69 11.51 4.87 Corn and cowpea hay. 188 3663 1257 2.64 S 31 6.74 Corn, clover hay and corn stover. . . 185 Iti889j 917 1.94 II .29 4.96 Second trial — 1900-1901 — 105 days — 4 two year old steers in each lot — full fed on shelled corn. 0 _~ H -c •>. — ^ ~ ^ o o-o 0 P 3 W (re P" "* CL t/J i— 0 5' Kind of Feed. rn cr 3 (T OfQ P %• P ro ^ 0 CL h-h On crccn? 3 5 3 cn • O • P 3 cr — 00 S.3 r* 3* cr cr ™ c <-f* C/3 >•*• ^3 • 3" I • D • 3 ' Oi ; n> Corn and timothy hay .57.5 | 2540 I 789 1-97 II . 19 5.00 Corn and clover hay 176.2 4768 TI35 2.84 8.696.44 Corn and cowpea hay 175-3 4783 ;II34 2.S4 8.656.47 Corn, clover and corn stover 176 {t'sls}11402'85 8.30 6.74 *Clover hay. fCorn stover. The Kind of Roughness Affects Very Materially the Outcome. The foregoing results are worthy of complete acceptance by the student and feeder. It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that the notion prevailing among practical feeders that the rough- ness is of little consequence except to give the food a good me- chanical condition and to hold it in the alimentary tract long enough to be digested, and that the less roughness a steer con- sumes the more grain he will eat and therefore the more rapidly 65 and economically he will gain, is not well founded. Neither is the notion held by the same men that a nutritious, palatable, and somewhat laxative hay, like clover, alfalfa, cowpeas, or flax straw, is injurious rather than beneficial to cattle on full feed, on account of its tendency to scour and because of the inclina- tion of the animal to eat such large quantities of it that they will consume too little grain to make rapid and cheap gains. It is their idea that such coarse fodders as prairie hay, timothy, corn stover, wheat straw or oat straw possess the qualities best suited to the purposes of full feeding animals because they are so low in palatability that there is no danger of the steer eating too much and because of their slight tendency to produce costiveness in the animal and thus enable even a limited quantity of roughage to hold the grain in the digestive tract the required length of time. A Large Roughness Consumption Does Not Necessarily Cause a Diminished Grain Consumption. All of our experiments with different kinds of hays and coarse fodders show that a large consumption of roughage is not necessarily connected with a diminished grain consumption. In other words, steers eating a legume hay like clover, cowpeas or alfalfa will invariably consume not only more roughness than similar steers eating timothy, for example, but materially more grain as well. For example, in the first trial quoted, the total consumption of grain per lot was 166 bushels when combined with timothy and 188 bushels for a similar lot of cattle when eating cowpea hay. In the second trial, the timothy lot consumed 157 bushels of corn during the experiment, while the clover lot consumed i76 bushels, and the cowpea lot 175 bushels. The cattle had all of the shelled corn they would eat in each case. . It will be noted that in the second trial the clover and cowpea steers ate almost twice as much roughness as did the timothy steers, notwithstanding their larger consumption of grain. It will be interesting to note the effect of all of this upon 'the economy of production, as shown in the foregoing table of 5 66 results. In the first trial, 4.8? Ibs. of gain was secured for each bushel of corn when combined with timothy, and 6.74 Ibs. of gain was secured for each bushel of corn fed with cowpeas. In the second trial a bushel of corn combined with timothy produced 5 Ibs. of gain, whereas the same amount of grain and all of the clover hay the steers would eat made 6.44 Ibs., and when com- bined with cowpeas, produced 6.4? Ibs. Averaging both trials, it will be observed that a bushel of corn with timothy produced 4.93 Ibs. of gain in weight, while the same amount of corn with clover or cowpeas produced 6.58 Ibs., or a difference of 1.65 Ibs. of beef for each bushel of corn due directly to the difference in the kind of roughness fed. Rat- ing this gain at the low price of 5 cents per pound, this means that the feeder is getting 81-4 cents per bushel more for his corn by combining it with some such hay as clover or cowpeas than when it is combined with good timothy. If one-fifth of all the corn produced in Missouri were fed to cattle, the increased profits from combining it with clover or cowpeas as compared with timothy would amount to $2,500,000.00 each year. The profit is not all, however, in the increased gains se- cured by the use of legume hays like clover and cowpeas, for, in addition, to this, the steers get fat quicker, fatten more uni- formly, and show at the end of the feeding period a higher finish and carry more bloom and are altogether smoother. By reason of these facts they will sell for from 10 cents to 25 cents per hundred more on the market, or will add from $1.25 to $2.50 to the value of each steer so fed over and above the economy in the gains already referred to. It may be further stated that the hog following the steer does better when the steer is fed on a legume hay than when the roughness is material like timothy, prairie hay, corn stover, or straw. Thus we have a four-fold profit from the use of one of these legume hays : First, in the form of cheaper gains ; second, in the form of more rapid gains; third, in a higher finish and better selling quality; fourth, in the form of increased hog gains. 6; To these a fifth might well be named which accrues to the man owning the land upon which the legumes grew or is fed in the added fertility to the soil. Timothy, millet and sorghum wear land out, put a poor finish on cattle, and make relatively slow and costly gains. THE PREPARATION OF FEED. This is one of the very oldest questions in connection with the feeding of animals. The first thought in the mind of the average man who seeks to apply better methods to stock feeding is in reference to the manner in which the food shall be prepared. To the novice it is in this line that there seems to be the greatest A CASE WHERE THE CATTLE AND THE HOGS BOTH PAID A PROFIT. OUR SUMMER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. USED IN opportunity for reform. When the Experiment Stations were established, this was the first problem in nutrition to be at- tacked. Nevertheless the practice of the feeder is not essen- tially different in this regard from what it was a quarter of a century ago. Particularly is this true of the feeder of beef cattle. While it has been found highly profitable to expend con- siderable energy and money in preparing the foods for the highly specialized dairy cow, the average beef animal seems to have time enough and sufficient energy of not a very expensive sort to do the work of dividing and preparing the feed which it was at first sought to spare him, by cutting, chafing, grinding, soaking, cooking, and so on. The question was put directly to the feeders interviewed : 68 Question No. i7. "Do you crush, shell, grind or soak your corn, or do you feed it in the ear whole?" The answers to this question, when condensed into tabular form, are as follows: METHOD OF PREPARATION OF GRAIN PREFERRED. • MISSOURI IOWA ILLINOIS ALL STATES No. Re- p'ts Per cent No. Re- p'ts Per cent No. Re- p'ts Per cent No. Re- p'U Per cent i Husked ear whole . . 2 Husked ear broken. . . 3*Snaooed ear. . 215 79 9i 68 48 38 28 47 24 15 ii 12 10 9 10 12 4 I 4 29-5 10.8 12.5 9-3 6-3 5-3 3-9 6-3 3-2 2.0 i-5 1.6 1*4 1.4 1-5 1.6 •5 .1 •5 15 8 5 ii 17 6 4 2 4 4 6 i 2 2 I 2 16.6 8.8 5 5 12.2 18.8 6.6 4-4 2.2 4-4 4.4 6.6 i .1 2.2 2.2 I.I^ 2.2 3 12 2 6 i i 4 2 2 2 8-3 33-3 5-5 16.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 II. I 5-5 5-5 5-5 233 99 98 85 66 45 33 53 28 19 17 i5 12 II 13 12 6 3 4 27-3 ii. 6 11.4 9.9 7-7 5-2 3-8 6.2 3-2 2.2 1.9 i-7 1-4 1.2 1.6 1.2 •7 •3 4 4 Shelled dry 5 Ear first half, shelled later 6 Ear winter, shelled summer 7 Ear or shelled 8 fCrushed . . Q JGround . . . • 10 Ear winter, soak sum- mer ii Shelled, soaked. . . 12 Ear soaked 13 Snapped winter, ear summer 14 Ear winter, crushed summer 15 Crushed or shelled. . . 16 Ear aged cattle, crush calves and yearlings 17 Crushed winter, soak- ed summer 18 Ear first, shell or grind finish. 19 Ear aged cattle, shell calves and yearlings *Snapped corn is a term applied quite commonly in the Mississippi Valley to corn that has been broken off the stalk with the husk and s^ank adhering. fThe corn and cob ground or crushed together. JCorn meal or shelled corn ground. 69 These tabulated data clearly show that the bulk of the feeders give little or no attention, under most circumstances, to the preparation of the grain, or that they feed it essentially in its natural condition. Ear Corn. — For example, it appears that ear corn, either snapped* or husked, fed whole or broken, was reported as fed exclusively by 53 per cent of the Missouri feeders, by 4? per cent of the Illinois feeders, and by 31 per cent of the Iowa feed- ers, or by an average of 50 per cent of all the men answering the question concerning the preparation of feed. It furthermore appears that ear corn was used exclusively or for a part of the year or during the early part of the feeding period by 75.6 per cent of the Missouri feeders interviewed, 7i per cent of the feeders from Iowa, and 53 per cent of those from Illinois, or an average of 74 per cent of all the feeders in- terviewed. Shelled Corn. — It appears, that shelled corn, dry, was fed, either exclusively, or at some season, or in some part of the feeding period, by 23 per cent of the Missouri feeders, 31 per cent of the Iowa feeders, and 22 per cent of the Illinois feeders, or an average of 25 per cent of all those interviewed. Corn and Cob Meal.— It is a significant fact that only 4? out of the 726 Missouri feeders interviewed, or 6.3 per cent, reported that they crushed their corn exclusively. Of the 90 Iowa feeders interviewed, 2 so reported, and of the 36 Illinois feeders, 4, making a total of 53 out of 852, or 6.2 per cent of all the feeders interviewed. Corn Meal. — That the feeders consider that they have not found it profitable to put much effort into the preparation of feed is still more strikingly shown by the fact that only 24 Missouri feeders, out of a total of 726, reported feeding corn meal ; only 4 out of 90 Iowa feeders so reported, whereas none of the 36 Illinois feeders followed this practice. This means that 28 out of 582, or 3.2 per cent of all the feeders interviewed, grind corn, as a regular practice, for their cattle. *Ear corn with the husk adhering. 70 Taking all of those who reported the use of crushed or ground corn, either exclusively or at some special season of the year, or at some time in the fattening process^ or with some classes of cattle, it was found that but 14.? per cent of the Mis- souri feeders, 12.2 per cent of the Iowa feeders, and 22.2 per cent of the Illinois feeders follow this practice. Soaked Corn. — It will be noted that a considerable number report in favor of soaking the corn instead of crushing or grind- ing it. Necessarily this practice is limited to spring, summer, or early fall feeding, as it is not feasible either to soak corn or to feed soaked corn in freezing weather. The results of some experiments conducted at the Kansas Station, while not con- clusive, indicate that soaking was about as effective as grinding for cattle. If this be true, soaking must commend itself on ac- count of requiring less expense than grinding, either of equip- ment necessary to perform the operation or of labor. It frequently happens in summer feeding that the ear corn becomes so dry and hard that the cattle will not eat enough to make good gains. This is especially true when one is feeding a variety of corn with rough grains, closely compacted on a hard cob. In this case the corn must either be shelled, crushed or soaked. On many farms the soaking is the cheapest and easiest of the three operations and is perhaps quite as effective as either of the others if carefully done. Every precaution must be taken to feed it perfectly sweet, to keep the troughs cleaned out, and to change the water frequently. The customary length of time to soak corn is 12 to 18 hours, depending upon the com- pactness of the ear and the density of the cob. Toward the end of a long feed, shelled corn soaked 12 to 1 8 hours is very profitable and helpful in making a rapid finish or in maintaining rapid gains to the end. Chafing Hay, etc. — Many attempts have been made to in- crease the efficiency of the ration by combining chafed hay or similar material with the grain. Undoubtedly a ration so com- pounded will be handled by the animal with less liability to scours and to getting off feed, and will be masticated and di- gested more perfectly and will therefore be more completely utilized than when it is given in its natural state but, for the ordinary class of cattle, the labor involved has been found to be out of all proportion to the increased efficiency shown. The market does not demand that ordinary animals be made fat enough to require this nice attention to feeding. To make show animals, all of this is necessary, and is fully justified. Better Preparation Required toward the Latter End of the Feeding Period. It is evident, from a study of the detailed answers to our question in regard to the preparation of feed, and particularly from a study of the summary of these replies just presented, that the practice of offering feed of finer texture, better quality and higher palatability in the latter part of the feeding period than in the earlier part is well established. This is due to the fact that an animal in thin condition has a good appetite and will consume coarse and relatively cheap material in sufficient quantity to make profitable gains. Later, when the system is loaded with fat, the appetite becomes more delicate and dis- criminating, and requires to be catered to in quailty, condition and palatability to a marked degree in order that a rapid rate of gain may be maintained and an economical finish be made. This is particularly true of cattle that are to be made very fat, and is more true of young animals than of older ones. It is more true of young than of old animals on account of the ten- dency of the former to use much of its feed for growth. In such cases a relatively large gain may show a very slight im- provement in the condition of the animals. Therefore, a prep- aration of feed that would be wholly impracticable for the earlier or main portion of the feeding period might prove to be exceed- ingly profitable in the last 60 days. Failure to recognize this fundamental fact in cattle feeding distinguishes the unsuccessful feeder from the successful one. Better Preparation Required in Summer Than in Winter Feeding. It further appears, from these replies, that the feeder offers his grain in rather better form in summer than in winter. This is primarily due to the fact that grass in summer is more pala- table than is the roughage usually offered in winter, namely, 72 hay. In order, therefore, to make sure that the cattle will dis- criminate against the grass to a sufficient degree, or that they will eat a sufficiently quantity of grain to make rapid gains and become fat in a reasonable time, it is necessary to offer them grain in a palatable form. In winter, when the roughage is not particularly palatable, sound corn in practically any form will be preferred to hay, so there is little difficulty in maintaining the proper proportion between the grain and roughage con- sumed. In other words, the grass in summer is much more likely to interfere with the animal's appetite for grain than is the hay in winter. It is furthermore true that the grain in summer is dryer and harder and therefore more difficult to masticate than in winter. The ears of corn that have been husked and stored in a crib are by midsummer so dry and the cob is so hard that it is practically out of the question for the steer to handle it in this form profitably, especially is this true if it be one of the improved and high shelling varieties of corn like Reid's Yellow Dent, Learning, Boone County White, etc. Some of the old and unimproved cattle corns have so soft a cob as to not require this treatment even in summer. The yield of such a corn how- ever is so low as to more than offset the advantage of the soft cob in cattle feeding. Moreover, the corn by this time is quite likely to have been soiled more or less by mice and rats, unless stored with the husk on. It is a very common and well ap- proved practice to snap the corn and store it with the husk on if it is to be fed to cattle the following summer. It is usually husked just before being offered, comes out fresh, clean, is not unduly dried out, and is exceedingly palatable. Another point undoubtedly influencing the practice is that the corn may be soaked in summer much more conveniently than in winter, as all difficulty from freezing is avoided. The only point to be guarded against is souring. If the corn is not soaked more than twelve hours and the box is cleaned out each time, the water changed frequently and the feed troughs are carefully cleaned each day, no difficulty of this nature will be experienced. For details of the practice in these regards, the reader is referred to the remarks of the different feeders in the main tables under the head of Methods of Feeding. 73 More Preparation of Grain Required for Young Cattle Than for Aged Animals. This is almost self-evident. Three year old steers, for ex- ample, can handle ear corn and coarse roughage far more ad- vantageously than can calves, say, that are just being weaned. It is not at all difficult to make a fair rate of gain on young an- imals, and to accomplish only this result would not require any special preparation of grain. But to make a gain that is suffi- ciently rapid to fatten the animal within reasonable time does require that the grain be offered in an easily assimila- ble form and that the roughage be of a very palatable and nu- tritious character. In other words, as has already been pointed out, the first draft a young animal will make on its food, out- side of maintenance, is for growth, and it is necessary to induce the animal to eat and digest an amount considerably in excess of the requirement for maintenance and for growth in order to make it fat. The aged steer, on the other hand, has little use for food for growth, and puts practically its entire ration, out- side of that required for maintenance, to the uses of fat pro- duction, and it is not, therefore, so vital a matter that the animal gain to the absolute limit of its capacity in order to get fat in a reasonable time or to prove profitable. Thus it comes about in practice that the feeders use ear corn for aged cattle and crushed or ground or soaked or shelled corn for calves and year- lings. HOGS UTILIZE THE WASTE. It will be noted that all of the discussion of this factor has so far been with relation to the influence of foods prepared in different ways upon the rate of gain of the steer, rather than upon the degree to which it is digested, and utilized. This is so because hogs are invariably used to pick up whatever waste may occur from imperfect preparation of the feed before it is offered to the cattle. As a rule, hogs are worth more per pound live weight than are cattle. It is, therefore, a matter of comparative indifference to the feeder as to just how the uses of the grain are distributed between the steer and the hog. The feeder is only interested in the total gain in live weight per unit of grain fed, and cannot, under ordinary farm condi- 74 tions, afford to invest much labor and money in a preparation of the feed which increases the steer gains wholly or mainly at the expense of the hog gains. So long as the food is offered in pala- table enough form to make the steer gain at a fairly rapid rate and to make it fat in a reasonable time, he is not interested in how much passes through the steer unmasticated or undi- gested. Whatever part of the grain the steer fails to use, the hog will utilize to good advantage. The Amount of Gain Made by Hogs. It is a common saying among cattle feeders that the profit is in the hog that follows the steer. In former times, under good management, it was expected that the gain on the hogs would pay the feed bill and leave the gains made by the steer as clear profit. This was when aged cattle were fed exclusively and were given snapped or ear corn in very large quantities so that a considerable quantity of extra corn was thrown out to the hogs. Naturally then more hogs were used per steer than now. At present, if the cattle end of the feeding operation pays expenses and leaves the hog gain clear, it is regarded as a profi- table operation. This does not imply that a better outcome cannot be made under good management. The amount of hog gain secured per head of cattle or per hundred pounds of grain fed to the cattle will of course be af- fected by a number of factors. For example, the age and size of the cattle, the character of the grain fed, with respect to the amount of protein it carries, the way in which it has been pre- pared, the kind of roughness in winter, the character of the pasture in summer, the season of the year, and the age and con- dition of the hogs themselves. It will be impossible, therefore, to establish an average figure for hog gain that would be of any value. Necessarily, the younger the animal and the better prepared or the more finely ground the food is, the less the steer will leave undigested and unutilized for the hog. Conversely, aged cattle, for example, fed on snapped or ear corn, will throw a considerable quantity of the grain out of the trough while eating, a considerable proportion of the grain will pass through 75 the animal unmasticated, and a considerable portion only par- tially masticated, so that the hog gain per head of cattle will be very large. Add to this a pasture rich in clover for summer feeding, or a roughness of clover, cowpea or alfalfa hay for winter feeding, or a limited amount of linseed meal added to the grain, and the conditions for the maximum hog gains per steer are furnished. Thus 100 pounds of finely ground corn has been found to produce about two-thirds of a pound of hog gain, while 100 pounds of shelled corn under similar circurrir stances produced four pounds of gain. We do not seem to have any experimental data on hog gains with snapped corn. Pro- fessor Mumford estimates* that out of 1,000 pounds of shelled corn, 1 7 2-3 bushels, fed to ordinary two year old steers with timothy hay in winter, there would be left undigested, for the use of the hog, from 175 to 200 pounds, or that 800 pounds of this grain would be utilized by the steer for the production of, say, from 100 to no pounds of gain, leaving 200 pounds which may be relied upon to produce from 40 to 50 pounds of pork. These figures are very conservative indeed, and are con- sidered to be below rather than above the average result. A sort of rough average of the estimates of a number of the feed- ers contributing to this bulletin was 2 pounds of steer gain and 2 pounds of hog gain per day per head of cattle, on the basis of a half bushel of corn per day to each steer. This is a total gain in live weight of eight pounds per bushel of corn, and will readily be seen to be considerably in excess of Professor Mum- ford's estimate. While this result may be secured with aged cattle in thin to moderate flesh and with rather large and thin hogs, it is believed that the gains per bushel of corn would be considerably diminished when the steers and hogs were both ap- proaching a fat condition. Taking, therefore, the entire feeding period, it is believed that this figure would be somewhat too high. *Prof. F. B. Mumford. "Factors in Profitable Beef Production." Missouri Exp. Sta. Cir. 12, p. 22. 76 The Number of Hogs Required to Utilize the Waste. This will, as has already been pointed out, vary greatly with the character of the feed, size of the cattle and the age and con- dition of the hogs, season of the year, etc. This number was variously estimated by our reporters from one-fourth of a hog per steer, following calves and yearlings on ground grain, to two and a half hogs per head after 3 year olds. In some cas- es, or when hogs command a higher price than cattle and are much more profitable, the feeder lays stress on the hog end of his operation, and may run four or five hogs per steer, or even more. An approximate average number of hogs per steer would be like the following, on the basis of two year old cattle and 100 or 150 pound hogs: Snapped ear corn, 2 to 3 hogs per steer; Ear corn, ij hogs per steer; Shelled corn, i to ij hogs per steer; Crush or ground corn, 1-3 to \ a hog per steer. The actual average, taking all conditions of feed and ages of cattle, was \\ hogs per steer, or 300 hogs to every 200 steers. Hogs Sell Higher Than Steers. It is an almost universal practice to run rather more hogs after cattle than will be just required to clean up the waste. This is because, first, as a rule, hogs are more profitable than cattle, and the feeders try to make as many hogs as they can conveniently. Second, it is difficult to adjust this matter so that the hogs will be nourished to a proper degree to make profitable gains without having an excessive number and feeding them in addition to the cattle. It is important to feed hogs well that are following cattle otherwise they will unduly disturb the cat- tle. This disturbance is particularly unfortunate toward the lat- ter end of the feeding period, when the cattle are fat, and naturally lie down a considerable portion of the time. If, on the other hand, too few hogs are kept behind the cattle there is a waste of feed, and in summer favorable condi- 77 tions for the propagation of hornflies are supplied. When a large number of hogs run with the cattle, say four or five for each steer, in the summertime, there is danger that they will soil the grass to such an extent that the steers will not do well. Except for the inconvenience of hauling feed to two pastures at that time of year, when labor is exceedingly scarce, it would be better, to more nearly adjust the relation of hogs to cattle and put th,e excess hogs in a pasture to themselves. Taking the average selling price of all the hogs and native fat steers in the Chicago market for the past twenty-four years, we have the following interesting exhibit :* Cattle. Monthly average price per 100 Ibs. of 1200 to 1500 Ib. beeves from 1882 to 1905, 24 years $481 Monthly average price per 100 Ibs. of 900 to 1200 Ib. cat- tle from 1882 to 1905, 24 years . 4 24 Hogs. Monthly average price per 100 Ibs. for heavy packing hogs averaging 250 to 350 Ibs., from 1882 to 1905, 24 years $ 5 15 Monthly average price per 100 Ibs. for light bacon hogs, from 1882 to 1905, 24 years 501 Extra Feed for the Hogs. Whenever extra grain is to be fed to hogs, it is always ad- visable that it be given to them before the cattle are fed, so that they may not crowd around the feed troughs or under the wagon and team and be injured. A common and very approved practice is to have a pen nearby in which the hogs are fed so that they may be kept away from the cattle during the time they are being fed. This will enable the cattle to eat without dis- turbance and will protect the hogs from injury. Furthermore it frequently happens that one or more steers will develop a depraved appetite and insist upon feeding with the hogs instead of at the troughs with the cattle. Such cattle seldom finish with the rest, unless prevented from eating with the hogs. *As computed from ''Facts and Figures," 1906, by Woods Bros., Live Stock Commission Merchants, Union Stock Yards, Chicago. 78 When any considerable number of hogs begin to show ma- turity or fatness, it is advisable to put fresh ones in to follow the cattle and clean up the waste. It is impossible to make hogs in this state of flesh range as widely as the cattle will normally range at pasture, and it is unprofitable to have hogs in this condition hungry enough to gather the waste over a wide area. The fat hogs may be either removed and finished alone, or else supplied with sufficient feed in the vicinity of the feed troughs and water to make a rapid finish and be marketed. Above all, it is important that the watering troughs of the steers be protected against the hogs, and that the steers be not allowed access to hog water. In general, whatever factors favor rapid and profitable gains on cattle are likely to be favorable to the hogs that follow them. In other words, hogs make better gains when following cattle fed corn and clover or cowpea or alfalfa hay than when following cattle fed corn and timothy, millet, sorghum, or straw for roughness. It has already been pointed out that the cattle do very much better, and thus a four-fold profit is secured, viz., an increased gain on the cattle, increased selling quality of the cattle due to the extra bloom, an increased gain on the hog, and an increased fertility of the land on which the feeding op- eration is conducted. In reality, a fifth profit may be mentioned, that which accrues to the soil upon which the clover, cowpea, or alfalfa hay is grown. Likewise, hogs following cattle that are eating a grain ra- tion containing linseed meal or cottonseed meal, especially the former, will show greater thrift and larger gains than will those cleaning up the waste from cattle fed corn alone. It is well known, of course, that cottonseed in its raw state will kill hogs, but in our twelve years' experience in running hogs after cattle whose grain ration was from one-sixth to one-fourth cotton- seed meal, we have never lost a hog from anything approximat- ing cottonseed meal poisoning. Cottonseed meal does not show so large a benefit upon the hog as does a similar amount of lin- seed meal, but the benefit is appreciable over and above that of corn alone. 79 Clover, Alfalfa or Cowpea Pasture for Hogs Following Cattle. It will require no experimental data to support the state- ment that the hogs as well as the cattle will do better on past- ures with as large a mixture as possible of clover. One of the most profitable things that can be done in the average case would be to provide a clover or alfalfa pasture of sufficient size to accommodate the hogs so that they would graze on this clover after having cleaned up the waste from the cattle, instead of grazing on the steer pastures. This would tend to protect the steer grass from being unduly soiled by the hogs, and would produce very largely in- creased gains on the hogs. Another excellent plan would be to provide, if possible, contiguous to the steer pasture, a small field of cowpeas or soja beans upon which the hogs could be turned by the middle of August or September, and have this nitrogenous grain to supplement the corn they pick up after the cattle. This would enable the hogs to be finished well and rap- idly, and would make largely increased hog gains. A SUPPLEMENTAL GRAIN FOR HOGS FOLLOWING CATTLE. The profits from the use of some such supplemental feed as middlings, linseed meal or tankage will be almost as striking with hogs following cattle as when given to hogs fed the grain direct. It is never profitable to feed straight corn to hogs except when they are running on alfalfa, clover or soja bean pasture. When following cattle on the ordinary bluegrass pasture, therefore, and particularly when following cattle in a dry lot, a small amount of old process linseed meal or of tankage, or if these are not available, a limited amount of middlings, will invariably add materially to the profits to be derived from the hogs. This is very clearly shown by the results of a recent experiment in Ohio,* when 1-3 Ib. of digested tankage was given daily per head of hogs following cattle on corn and mixed hay, in contrast with hogs following similarly fed cattle without the tankage. The hogs having no tankage gained 808 pounds, *Ohio Exp. Sta. Cir. 73. 8o while those receiving the tankage gained 1,230 pounds. Condi- tions were otherwise identical. The amount of tankage used was 259.5 pounds, costing, laid down, $4.88, from which an in- creased hog gain of 422 pounds was secured. The profit from this operation will be apparent when it is realized that this extra hog gain cost but little more than I cent per pound. In view of the fact that a considerable part of the profit is in the hog, it is important that considerable attention be given to the making of the maximum hog gains in connection with the steer feeding operation. For the best results it requires an active hog to follow cat- tle. Of late years the feeder has not had the opportunity of THE CLASS OP HOGS PREFERRED FOR PICKING UP THE WASTE AFTER CATTLE. discriminating as he would like, but, other things being equal, he prefers a well grown hog weighing from 100 to 150 pounds, thin in flesh and of good bone. It is not advisable to put shoats weighing less than 50 or 60 pounds after cattle it if can be avoided, and under no circumstances should sows in pig or with young pigs at their side be used for this purpose. Frequently someone, usually a beginner, writes to the Sta- tion for information as to how to prepare the grain so as to be able to feed cattle profitably without hogs to follow. In such case, the writer usually reports that it is inexpedient to use hogs, on account of a previous outbreak of cholera on the farm, or because of the scarcity of hogs and the difficulty with which 8i they can be bought. Our invariable answer is not to feed the cattle, but to either sell them to someone who has hogs or to keep them until hogs may be safely used. This advice does not of course apply with as much force to weanling calves where one is fixed for grinding the grain and has an abundant supply of choice clover or cowpea hay to go with it, but even then the hog gains will help out materially in the operation. One cannot, however, afford to equip for grinding grain to feed a single bunch of cattle, and, as has already been pointed out, when hogs are healthy the grinding is not, as a rule, profita- ble. THE BUYING MARGIN OR THE MARGIN OF PROFIT. These are the terms commonly employed by the feeder to designate the difference between the cost of the steer when put in the feed lot and the price per pound it brings when finished. In other words, if 'the cattle cost 4 cents per pound when ready to be put on fefxd, and brought 5^ cents per pound when fin- ished, the so-cilled margin of profit would be i£ cents per pound, or, as is commonly stated, $1.50 per hundred. That it is necessary to have some margin or spread between the cost of the thin steer and the selling price of the fat one, in order to make th<; feeding operation even pay expenses in many cases, and pay n profit, in the average case, it is only necessary for the student to compare the cost of gains made in the fattening pro- cess, a ••; shown by accurate experiments at the various Stations with i;he average selling price of such cattle on the market. In other words, a cost of 6 cents to 8 cents per pound for tnc whole gains made in the fattening period is very common. It is possible, in fact not improbable, that the steers when finished will not sell above 5-J cents per pound. Assuming that the cost of this gain was 7-J cents per pound and that it sold for 5^ cents, there is a direct loss of 2 cents on every pound of gain made. If, therefore, the steer has been made to gain 250 pounds in the fattening process, and there has been a deficit of 2 cents per pound in making it, the steer has lost the feeder $5.00. This is of course on the assumption that there has been no 6 82 change in the value of the carcass by the addition of this fat, and that the steer cost $5.50 per hundred in thin condition and sold for $5.50 per hundred in a fat condition. Under such a regime, the fattening of cattle at anything like the present prices would be wholly out of the question. This situation has been met, in commerce, not by making the finished steer sell for a high enough price to directly meet the cost of gains during the fat- tening process and pay a profit, which would require that steers bring from 6 to 10 cents per pound on the market, but by low- ering the price at which the steer in a thin condition may be bought, or by making the raiser sell to the feeder at a lower price per pound than the animal will bring on the market when fattened. In other words, the burden of this fattening opera- tion has been put upon the cattle raiser rather than upon the packer and the meat consumer. Therefore, the value of a steer is enhanced by the fattening process out of all proportion to the value of the pounds of gain made. Assuming that the steer in its unfinished condition, com- monly known as a feeder, costs 4 cents per pound, and that the same steer when fat brings 5^ cents per pound, there is an en- hancement of value on all of the live weight the steer had when the feeding operation began, of i-| cents per pound. Assuming that the steer weighs 1,000 pounds as a feeder, this same 1,000 pounds of live weight is worth $15.00 more when loaded with fat than when thin. This, of course, in addition to the value of whatever the steer may have gained in the process. If the steer gained 250 pounds in the fattening process, then this gain, at the market price of the steer would have a value of $13.75, which, when added to- the $15.00 of increased value of the car- cass bought as a feeder, would make a total increase in the value of the steer of $28.75 with which to pay the expenses of the fattening operation and derive a profit. Tf we assume, as we did above, that there was a direct loss of 2 cents per pound on the increase in weight of the steer during the fattening process, or $5.00 per head for the entire operation, and we have an enhanced value of $15.00 with which to offset this, it is perfectly obvious that there would remain a profit of $10.00. This, of course, is disregarding the value of 83 the hog gains, the value of the manure, and all such secondary profits. Upon the size of this so-called margin of profit, or upon the size of the difference between the cost price per pound of the steer and the selling price per pound, will depend in a large measure the profits of the operation. It is a common saying among cattle men that it is impossible to lose money on cattle that are bought right, whereas it is impossible to make money on those that are bought too high. It is in the buying of cattle perhaps that quite as much money is made or lost as in the mak- ing of them fat. The amount of this difference or the size of the margin necessary to insure a reasonable profit in the feeding operation will depend upon a great variety of circumstances. Margin as Affected by the Length of Feed or the Degree of Fatness of the Animal. — First of all, the length of the feeding period will affect it directly, or, to be strictly accurate, the amount of fat the animal is made to carry to market will in- fluence largely the size of the margin required. Other things being equal, the fatter the animal, the larger the margin re- quired. This does not vary directly with the degree of fatness. Up to a certain point in the fattening process, the cost per pound of gain increases but slowly. Beyond this point, however, which will vary greatly with individual animals, and considera- bly with the season of the year, the character of the feed, etc., the rate of increase in cost mounts rapidly. The point where the cost of gain begins to increase rapidly cannot be described, in fact, is not known within very definite limits, but it is suffi- cient for the purposes of this paper to say that it is some- what beyond the point to which the ordinary steer is carried. It is not, however, beyond the point to which the average load of show steers, or the well seasoned Christmas cattle, or cattle that top the market, are carried. It is perfectly obvious that a smaller margin of profit would be required, if the feeding op- eration be stopped short of this expensive period, and that the margin must be increased materially, if the animal be made to take on many pounds of gain at this excessively high rate of cost. Thus it has come about that many feeders, instead of esti- mating the margin of profit as a lump sum per hundred pounds, figure it at so much per hundred per month. A very customary estimate for winter feeding is 25 cents per month. This means that the value of the steer, computed on the basis of its weight when the feeding operation began, must be enhanced 1-4 cent a pound, or 25 cents per hundred pounds for each month that the feeding operation continues over and above, of course, the market value of the gains made. Thus, for a three months feeding period a margin of 75 cents would be required, whereas for a six months feeding period the margin would be $1.50 CHAMPION GALLOWAY STEER AT THE INTER- STATE FAIB, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI STATE FAIR, SEDALIA, AMERICAN ROYAL LIVE STOCK SHOW, KANSAS CITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LIVE STOCK EXPOSITION, CHICAGO, 1907. FED AND EX- HIBITED BY THE MISSOURI COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE. per hundred. While this is not strictly accurate, and the mar- gin of 25 cents per month for the first two months is propor- tionately more than it would be for the fifth and sixth months of the feeding operation, and is decidedly more than for the seventh and eighth months on two year old cattle, yet this is accurate enough for ordinary purposes and would admit of a reasonably high degree of finish on the cattle. The Margin as Affected by the Age of the Cattle. — It is ob- vious, from what has been said under the head of "Baby Beef," about young animals making cheaper gains than older ones, 85* that a relatively larger margin is required for old than for young cattle. The chief limitation of baby beef production is in the relatively small margin allowed between the cost of the animal in an unfinished condition and its selling price in a fin- ished condition. It is not uncommon to have to pay as much per pound for weanling calves as they will bring on the market as fat yearlings. They may still make money, because the young animals gain more cheaply. This oould not be done with 2 or 3 year old cattle and can only be done with very high class calves. The Quality of the Steer in Its Relation to the Size of the Margin Required. — It is perfectly obvious that a larger margin is necessary upon plain cattle than upon those of high quality. In fact, the quality may be good enough in extreme cases so that no margin will be required, even on aged steers. It has already been pointed out that with very high class calves this is possible. In other words, a load of cattle is occasionally good enough to bring 8 cents or 9 cents and in extreme cases 10 cents a pound. It is not likely that it has cost this amount to make the gains on them. Certainly cattle of high quality come nearer selling on the market for what the gains put on them in the finishing process cost than do the plainer and lower priced sorts. On the other hand, it should be borne in mind that these cattle of high quality that bring the top of the market are invariably long-fed cattle, and while, other things being equal, it costs, to say the least, no more to make a pound of gain on well bred cattle than on the common sorts, yet as the prac- tice is now adjusted, it actually does, because the high grade cattle are made much fatter. Or, to state it more correctly, the plain, cheap cattle are marketed early enough to escape the most expensive end of the fattening process, whereas the well bred, market topping cattle have to be carried through this expensive end in order to bring them to a degree of fatness to command this high price. As a matter of fact, on account of the liberal supply of feeding cattle of low quality, as compared with the supply of fancy feeding cattle, the buyer is able to secure a con- siderably larger margin, as a rule, on the plainer sorts, and this has in recent years made it possible to feed this class of cattle 86 very profitably — even more profitably, usually than the higher grades. Of course it is the raiser of the plainer cattle who has to bear the loss. Because this loss does not happen to come out in the fattening operation is no sign it does not exist. The feeder simply shifts to the man who raises this poor class of cattle. After all this is where it belongs. The Margin as Affected by the Season of the Year. — It has al- ready been shown that gains are made more cheaply in summer than in winter. In our experiment, the summer gains were about 20 per cent cheaper, or cost only about four-fifths as much as did those made in winter. It is clear, therefore, that this would affect directly the size of the margin required. It is a common experience with buyers that feeding cattle are considerably higher in the spring than they are in the fall. In other words, the feeder market has adjusted itself to this requirement of the situation. The Margin as Affected by the Price of Corn. — Scarcely any- thing affects so directly the cost of gains as does the value of the feed from which they are made. Obviously, a larger mar- gin would be required with corn at 50 cents per bushel than when it can be purchased for 30 cents, the selling price of the cattle remaining the same. It is a common experience, however, that when corn is high fat cattle and hogs are quite likely to be correspondingly high. This is particularly true of the spring and summer following a short corn crop and a winter of high priced corn. It is not so apt to be true of the fall and early winter of such season, and it is almost never true at that time in the year for half fat cattle. This is because many feeders are too timid to carry their cattle on to a good finish, and crowd them on the market in a half fat condition. In the normal year, or with corn at the ordinary price, these cattle would be carried along until finished and would therefore be marketed at a considerably later date. In years of high priced corn, there- fore, there is upon the market an unusually large number of such cattle at a time that normally takes care of a large number of short fed cattle and a large number that have gotten par- tially fat on grass. All of this conspires to force the market down. The price of these cattle may indeed be forced below that of seasons of more abundant and cheaper corn, but as soon as this run is over the market invariably recovers and is strong for well finished beeves until the partially fattened cat- tle of another corn crop reach the market and even until well finished cattle from the new corn crop are offered. The Buying Margin as Affected by the Condition of the Cattle When Bought. Naturally the condition of the animals when purchased will affect the cost of the gains to be made, and therfore the buying margin required to pay out. The thinner the animals are when purchased, so long as they are thrifty, the less the A VERY THIN STEER OF GOOD QUALITY, BUT REQUIR- ING A RELATIVELY LARGE MARGIN ON ACCOUNT OF THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED TO MAKE HIM FAT. THE RAISER THUS SUSTAINS A DOUBLE Loss: FIRST, IN Loss OF WEIGHT OF THE ANIMAL, AND SECOND, IN THE Low PRICE FOR WHICH HE MUST BE SOLD TO ENABLE THE FEEDER TO COME OUT WITH A PROFIT. average cost per pound of gain will be for the whole feeding operation, but the longer it will take of course to put them in a marketable condition. Other things being equal, a larger mar- gin per month will be required on partially fat cattle than on very thin cattle. Or, if 20 cents a month for the entire feed- ing period would return a profit for very thin cattle requiring to be fed six months, a bunch of similar but half fat cattle 88 requiring but three months to finish would need more than 20 cents a month to prove equally profitable. It frequently hap- pens in actual practice, however, that the longer time required to fatten the thin cattle will be a greater handicap than will the excess cost in the gains on the fatter cattle. This is because the finishing period of the thin cattle might fall at a particularly undesirable season of the year, on account of the weather, or the probability of poor demand for this particular class of cattle on the market. In fact, to the feeder who lives near the market, and is able to spend considerable time in the yards, the greatest profit in feeding comes from the purchase of partially fat steers and finishing them in from 50 to 100 days and returning them to the market. This is of course hardly feasible except where the freight charge for this double transfer is small and where the feeder is near enough to market to pick up bargains of this sort. These partially fat cattle are as a rule what the original feeder considered to be finished and in marketable condition, but when they reached the market and found too much com- petition and too poor a demand on account of their lack of fat, were forced down to feeder prices. Frequently such cattle may be secured at a price to leave a margin of from $1.00 to $1.50 for a 60 or 90 day feed. It is perfectly obvious that the somewhat increased cost of the gains due to it being the latter end of the feeding period would be of little consequence in the face of this large enhancement in price for so short a feed. The question was put directly to the feeders interviewed: Question n. "In selling your fat cattle, what margin over the cost price of your feeders do you consider necessary to make money ?" Altogether, 608 Missouri feeders answered this question, and gave an average of $1.02 per hundred margin for the entire feeding operation; 8 Iowa feeders reported an average of 98 cents per hundred, whereas 34 Illinois feeders reported the average margin necessary as $1.02, or exactly the same as the Missouri feeders reported. When it is recalled that these same men reported the average length of their feeding period to be i77 days, or essen- tially six months, and that the average weight of their cattle 89 was 136? pounds, and that the average age was 2 years, we have a fair expression of their judgment as to the margin necessary under these circumstances. It should be borne in mind however, that these same men were doing summer feed- ing chiefly and this margin is evidently for that season of the year. In winter, for a six months feed on two year old cattle a rather larger margin, approximately $1.50 per hundred, would be demanded or expected^in the average case. GETTING CATTLE ON FULL FEED. There is a direct relation between the quality and condition of the feed and the ease with which cattle may be accustomed to it. In other words, it is very much easier to put cattle on full feed with coarse, rather unpalatable, material than with highly nutritious, palatable, and well prepared feed. The diffi- culty in this preliminary feeding period is to prevent animals that are unaccustomed to grain from overeating. It goes with- out saying that this danger is much minimized by using at this time food that is relatively unpalatable. The time required to get cattle on full feed will vary any- where from two to six weeks, depending upon the character of the feed, the age of the animals, and their previous treat- ment. As a rule, from thirty to forty days are employed. It is a very common practice, as will be noted by the individual replies under the head of "Methods of Feeding," to begin with shock* corn in winter, and in a few days, when the steers can stand rather more corn than can be given in this form without undue waste of stover, a limited amount of snapped ear corn** is thrown in the troughs, either whole or broken. A little later, husked ear corn is substituted for snapped corn, and hay in part for the stover. At the end of two or three weeks it is entirely feasible to have the ordinary steer on full feed of ear corn and hay by this method. He will not be eating as much as he can be made to consume later when the grain is changed to six-sevenths shelled corn and one-seventh linseed meal, for example, or when the corn is given shelled and the roughness "The entire corn plant field cured and fed whole. **The ear removed from the stalk with the husk and shank attached. 90 is bright, clean clover or cowpea or alfalfa hay, instead of stover or timothy hay. But by this time the limit of his appetite for this rather low class of feed may be reached, and the changes subsequently made may be very gradual and all in the direction of improving the quality and palatability of the feed. If clover or alfalfa or cowpea hay is to be used as the principal or sole roughness, or if one of these hays is to be used in connec- tion with corn stover, which all things considered will prove to be, the most profitable way to feed steers in winter, the change from corn stover and timothy to this hay or to this combination must be very gradual. It is better to take at least sixty days for the complete change of this roughness. In the meantime it is entirely feasible, however, to have had the cattle on full feed of corn for thirty days or more. In the early fall, when the steers are yet running on good grass, it is 'a very common practice to begin with the entire green corn plant, changing gradually to the snapped ear, and finally, as the corn becomes hard, to the husked ear, and later in winter, perhaps during the last thirty or sixty days, shelled corn is used. Another very approved practice is to run the entire corn plant through a cutter, beginning just as it is passing out of the roasting ear state, and feed this to the cattle, gradually sub- stituting ear corn as the plant matures and becomes hard. This is an especially effective method of getting cattle on feed quickly and making a profitable short feed on aged cattle. For summer feeding it is quite a common practice to half feed during February, March and April, or at least through March and April, in the lots, and then half feed during the flush or grass, May and June, full feed during July and August, and sell. There is little danger of over feeding steers with grain when they are first turned to grass in spring, especially if the grass be firm and nutritious. As a rule under these cir- cumstances the steers will eat very little grain for a few days, even though they have formerly been on full feed, and this is a most excellent time to put animals on full for summer feeding when it is necessary to do it quickly. 91 Changes in Feed and Surroundings. Changes in feed or, location or surroundings of cattle that are fat should never be made, except such as are "decidedly for the better, and even then should only be made when ino- perative. After a steer is on feed and is beginning to show fat, whatever changes in the feed are necessary must be made very gradually, and should always be in the direction of im- proved quality and palatability. This law will admit of no violation, except in very rare cases where the cattle show too great a fondness for the roughage and seem to be eating too little grain on that account. Even then it will be more rational to attempt to bring the grain up to a standard of excellence where it will successfully compete with the roughness rather than to lower the grade of the ration by substituting a poorer roughness, Frequently when feeding at pasture the grass be- comes very soft and washy, while it remains very palatable. In this case the remedy would be a hay of good quality to temper the grass. The main point insisted upon is that the quality should be improved as the animals approach the finishing point. This may in a majority of cases be most effectively done by adding a limited quantity of old process linseed meal, from one-tenth to one-seventh of their whole grain ration, during the last 60 or 80 days. This will insure a large consumption of grain and of course rapid gains to the end, and will materially improve the coat and enhance the selling quality of the steer over and above an equally fat one that has not had some such food as linseed meal. It goes without saying that this linseed meal should be added very gradually to the ration. THE USE OF SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDS. The question was submitted in regard to the use of sup- plemental feeds, as follows: Question 14. "What has been your experience in feeding cottonseed meal, linseed meal and bran in connection with corn?" Comparatively few of the feeders interviewed answered this question, which would seem to indicate that at that time -92 the use of such feeds was not a common practice. It is be- lieved that within the last few years this practice has grown very greatly in favor and that at the present large quantities of these materials are used by the cattle feeders of the corn belt. The replies to this question were not of such nature as to permit of any summary in the form of a table and were withal too meager to form the basis of an opinion upon so important a matter. This Station has been conducting elaborate tests of the various supplemental feeds, both for winter and for sum- mer feeding, during the past twelve years, and a full and de- tailed report of this work is now being prepared for publication by Professor F. B. Mumford, of this Station, and the reader is referred to this publication for information on this subject. Silage For Full Fed Cattle. We had essentially the same experience with the inquiry in relation to the use of silage as with the one in relation to supplemental feeds. At the time the feeders were interviewed, they had not had sufficient experience with this material to form a reliable judgment, and as a result, very few of them ventured an opinion. Very recently the Missouri and the In- diana Experiment Stations have conducted a number of exper- iments along this line, and it would be safer for the reader to reserve judgment on this point until these results are before him. AN ABUNDANT SUPPLY OF PURE WATER. In order to secure satisfactory results in steer and hog feeding, it is of the utmost importance that an abundant sup- ply of pure, clear, cool water be furnished. This point was strongly emphasized by a great number of the experienced feed- ers making reports for this bulletin. It is furthermore import- ant that the hog be required to drink in a separate place from the cattle, and that the water for each class of stock be protected against the other. It will not do to allow the steers to drink from the hog troughs or the hog wallows nor to permit the hogs to foul the water in the cattle troughs. 93 It is a well established law that all classes of stock should be watered regularly and should have an abundant supply, but this is especially important for animals which are under the strain of rapid production, such as the highly developed dairy cow when in full flow of milk, and the growing or fattening steer when on full feed and producing to its utmost capacity. A steer on full feed in one of our experiments* voided in its dung and urine daily per thousand pounds live weight 32 pounds of water, as compared with 13 pounds as the averaging voiding of two other steers of the same weight that were fed only a sufficient amount to maintain body weight without gain or loss, the character 'of the ration being exactly the same in both cases. To restrict the amount of water drunk by the steers and hogs, either by its location being remote from the feeding troughs and pastures, by reason of its irregular or inadequate supply, by reason of inadequate trough room, by reason of its filthy condition and uninviting surroundings, is to directly re- strict the gains and to reduce the profits of the feeding opera- tion. Wherever at all feasible, a constant supply of deep-well water, freshly pumped, in troughs of adequate size, should be provided in a locality convenient to the feed troughs, conven- ient to the ranges, and at a point where the droppings that naturally accumulate in the vicinity of the watering trough will be of value to the farm rather than be washed away by the first rains that come after they are deposited. *Not yet published. 94 Fattening Cattle Should be Fed Regularly and Be Kept Quiet. Clock-like regularity in the feeding and watering of cattle on full feed is of the utmost importance. If possible, the same man even should always doxthe feeding, and it is important that this be the most intelligent and trustworthy man on the farm. It is scarcely possible for a man to get the best gains out of cattle and to get them all to come along uniformly and have no founders and "throw outs" unless he take a personal interest in the work in hand. To make the crop and general farm work the principal and the cattle feeding the subsidiary thing is likely to prove unfortunate for the cattle. OTHER FACTORS THAN CHEAPNESS OF GAINS. The student should keep constantly in mind that there are other factors than mere cost of gains which bear quite as important a relation to the profitable outcome as does this one. The experiment station has been too apt to consider this alone arid to call the problem settled in the direction that the greatest economy in gains led. In the buying of the animals there is required an intimate knowledge of the whole range of cattle feeding and of market requirements with regard to different classes of cattle at different seasons of the year, etc. The business judgment developed at this point will affect very vitally the financial outcome. The feeder in this respect is a speculator, and to be wholly successful he must be able to fore- cast with a considerable degree of accuracy what the state of the market will be six months in the future or at the time when the cattle he is buying will be ready to market. He must aisu be able to determine the degree to which the cattle are to be fin- ished to bring, not the highest price of which cattle of that class are capable, but, rather, the largest profit. Endeavor to Meet the Requirements of the Market. No sounder advice could be given the beginner than to study carefully the requirements of the market. This may be best done by visiting the market as frequently as possible and espe- 95 cially when the cattle of his own feeding are to be sold. To bring cattle to just the point of finish, or to just the degree of fatness that will make them most profitable, or to avoid carrying them too long, or to avoid selling them too early, is perhaps the most difficult point to determine in the entire range of beef production. No one can hope to develop good judgment in this direction without a thorough familiarity with the various mar- ket classes of cattle and without knowing how much fat each class requires to enable it to be sold to the best advantage. It would of course be fatal to follow one rule with all grades. Cattle of good quality will require a relatively higher finish because, as a rule, their cost price as feeders is so high that there will be too small a margin between it and the selling price to pay a profit if they are not made prime. Plain to con> mon sorts, however, are not worth enough to justify being made thick fat, and must go to market carrying medium flesh if they pay a profit. The beginner, however, is more likely to err in the direction of shipping too early than of carrying his cattle too long. Frequently a six weeks' additional feed will make from 40 cents to 60 cents difference in the price of the cattle on the market. On the basis of 1400 pound steers, this equals from $5.60 to $8.40 per head besides the value of the gains made. On the other hand, money is frequently lost by making cattle too thick, especially when they have not the quality to pay for so long a feed. Or, it may happen that the top of the market is not enough above the price commanded by good to choice cattle to pay for making them prime. To top the market and lose money is not profitable. NOTE How THEY THICKEN AS THEY FATTEN. Number of hogs al- lowed per steer? How do you feed your corn ? 5« tf' ' HI « S'S rt ct rt nS w w w a U 3 V- W CJ W At what age do you t your cattle on feed? year* put full CO 0» What margin of profit Is necessary per 100 Ibs.? §88 8 8 £ What weight of cat tle has returned greatest profit? 008 Do you shelter In warm barn, open shed or feed In open lot? "8 | r O. •s -s -g -s -g ft J3 J3 J3 J3 (/)(/)(/}(/)(/) Season of year most profitable to feed. . . , SL fl'Crt B 6 s . qj w w u ^ s s a a •c a .s aa ,ro O. 3 ^» 3 3 &•- • in. • tn • y*1 . • tn- & 3 O-tt. V3W Average length of feeding period, days S S Total number of cat- tle fed ll I g Number years experi ence ............. ii § iil'jil-lltf &'= s I Ifli^lla*! 97 , - S * S -o u £ S" | & • * ; j: ii* * I I % "3 c .s •£ f „ s * 5f| & | | *~ £•£ v -o "fi1 :«> M ,»4 ^ OH &..«. rt«rtrtrtrtc« rtrtrtrt fid Cd CdWWW w H &B fiu m w ^ * | ,u, «, ^ A w \4 8 8 ii e ' is s § 1 1 I 1 1 X3 U V 6 - E 8 I 1 (/) C/3 you feed your corn ? At what age do you put your cattle on full feed? years ... What margin of profit , is necessary per 100 Ibs.? What weight of cat- •i, tie has , returned x greatest profit? ... Do you shelter in warm barn. open . shed or feed in open lot? . C— O t- 03*3 «** | US as 5 " el 1*.|6 g 8§ -gfl 8 -oS «j a I I liael Mil* . -GO a >> *rt " « » -l IN i-l (M •A ' &3 * . ^ „ 1 8 8 C C C ^3 r- - a a e O O O H *O *O Season of year most profitable to feed -5 * 8 II? i i •O = B fi H ^ a^§-gg 8 1 I 3 3 3 ~ 3 Q.f/3 Q//3 3 D 3 c/} c/3 c/) < tour m c/) c/) c/2 Average length of feeding period, days 1 1 § 5 _o»i— — 8 S S S S S c, « CO I Total number of cat tie fed... Number years experi ence ............. o oo in 3S 2g c < 'I? ( ^ K 1 ^ 1/2 ' jj • E-H . g OJ s >o 5 w'S ,^1 II *. Ill bcH O he Sfc s g, s •o'c,"5 s a c_) 5T TT, y — ^ 2 Sco S S s a 3 "3 CO CO a = a ~ c c— c a c B'e'3'cg ^ c^^^ Number of hogs el- lowed per steer?.. IOO ? 1 * ! 1 1 1 ! w p* i ! K * •=! A I Si' !*f!rff« s ;j fc|!;i !!(it o« P^-3 H M a «* "C'rt ^°"S2S B? 0.60^-= 1< !te • • ss lib « >1 ||J „ g Sl« « 5 f°£ I § «l- " s ijj*.} p* 1 1 «i; g**« -e P ** ** I 111 I « - s^g-s; ,^S^ piliC* liiii o*"1 o 2S ^ IIP Slpi! C^ 5«o S ^ lift |s!sl|* «as-i5« _£_b__g_H_ Efi ^rn OD O 5 &» 111 "" |ls !^ §8* £«S 1*1 f:il es^ °->,a g fe O 03 .C +^ S'i.PI: J|fl?S S8"SB»C« HKlfij i^1!1!1 rH ^H Ot How do yon feed your corn ? 1 :1 ;| a a s all I At what age do you put your cattle on full feed? years ... « 7 (N 0» C<5 10 «C3 e» ei What margin of profit Is necessary ] 100 Ibs.? 8 §8 8 8 8 8 8 S What weight of cat- tle has returned greatest profit? ... ii l- Do you shelter In warm barn, open shed or feed in open lot? "S "8 'S "8 - Season of year S u g> ti«S 9 S < QbpS profitable to feed. . . fl c — £ Average length of feeding period, days Total number of cat- tle fed § §' 4 4 Number years experi- ence ;. . o o »H w ;- .M S 101 ? 3 i! If i S 4> a a a a. a a aar 3 3 3 31 C/) (/) C/2C/3 a a a a a a a a a a 33333 n c/t v> (/>(/> I I o o 00 O oo oo o I At what age do you put your cattle on full feed? years 1- 102 •2-si 3 • 1^ • siUMtii 2. fiS.M4.-S" " iirs| ^aFI*ls ' obs- *uS2 S1? ° I H i ! IliF I i 1 ll i ! -111! ! I I IS B I t°^ * * ,.•3 8 § i«a"& a a sag, « s "sasi s 5l8:: I 6 naM j^| ssgl! « - slsss |sa. !*|i| » 1 i}p° *j!| 111! i LiffiKiS! c fcVl ^ rtS&|So! Sa-gSa" rtS^e.^ S'fe^^'^1 +i-'fe " « vi ® 2 HiiKSfifiiiifti *-'5a)§"S ^ s 5 ° o ci^ ft i* § 3 2?|-§| Nsll^i&s-ll-SgB 5i»«L-B rfJ-S* o^Sf -9 ^.^Sa «ja V, • - ^Sn.ajCb-P-ecofefl+j^'^ What margin of profl Is necessary per 100 Ibs.? ., 8 8 I 6 What weight of cat tie has returnee greatest profit? 8 § 1 1 1 1 Do you shelter in warm barn, open ! shert or feed In open lot? . •8 -- S in t/2 in •8 "S Jeason of year mos profitable to feed.. a s a a a a £ £ ; .. u i- e' v. u >< 5 W " n3 •* U "^ 6 a a 4 a a A § ! § £ i § 3 s WWtfl^.wVJfcA a ^ 1 -8 OT fc Average length ol feeding period, days I I 1 I § S 8 S O O 55 & 8 S 'S S S Total number of cat tie fed... Number years experi ence S 2 5 -8 5 P O ^5 a £ s ^ S i-fi 5_ a ig"2^ C <0 *» A to fii 4 C S 8 1 1 * 1 * I S & & 1 8 i ? g a* <2 "-1 a ^ £ oo aj w a *"* ftii *£ 5 % o^ S s § -2 3 "' "SSs E ~*Q >> § -i-1 -r > „_, ^ s*l | s|K?« ^^ • ^a^^^s 5^s ^ g-^g-fi^ gg& 1 S°a3-o o«_T H >a .t-tfl -8 o3^^ ^a'Ss § Is 1 1- IK •e *^ o n£? n a r O'O 5 -8^ I gl ITs^-g ° ^ ^ 0; y - 6«j > s Ml «i! K •el's B a W) ss-| s £ a j^D >> J-H «* •§"•& ^•O 3 o W B g g . o 5 "i:"!l! !^253«S >6CC I&.S ^ S?^ o > " " " * ' S H St a?j 'C . •o oj*o := § e s li a a 3[2 3 3 •>»w w co t^« v. v. rt u u, u u w 2 ^ u u a a . e a e a a d a e e 3 3 ^ TS w B S ^l| * a I I1S.8S •II -°J t %lsi ^1 1!-& i rfPjS ..m 4) t)<-i « S wC "d ^ o ^ ^^£§^1 o I I I ,9 •s-2^ !H» fifc-aS I!J VMM tJU *S at N 10 in rH C) -^ .*! 3 s www 8 M I 8 S § 8 S 8 8 S 8 8 >o yon shelter in warm barn, open shed or feed in open if II verage length of feeding period, days i)Hrf£!iu!i > o^ 3-H-0 °ft* ^-S105 *> 5ifi!A§U|«!i>" P ... a 4> 3.9 o> p ** *H p g* fl „ ^2o3ajJ3.2"~'oxit'>StJP. -t.oj ;fli:sigi.»iNsiisg 3g gg^gSfeSal* HSg^a8 > 10 rH 1-1 — < C* I i I op S S 8 8 8 8 S 8 8 S5 8 8 8 8 8 8 "S "8 J= J= 1 -8 -8 £ :- J= J3 rt H c/3 t/3 03 a « « « •° X! 43 J3 H t/5 CO C/i « "S O jg •J (« u. co on 1^ v ,r a A I.SE.SS s s 3 CLrr> Q.rn ^ K^ g § 2 S I I s. . a. S S 3 a ^3 ': § :i: flji dlsl UKiifPi^W^flJrsSift-,-^ s *?l34fl«^i«l4li*O§l>liI^iy'Ih:I w a a EH' BS io6 | | | 3 "3 ^ ^ s 3 o; ,_ "te r+- 5 g = s >> "O o •a ° ~ o ^ y. •— i C ^ s ; 03 cj S x C fc |' ^.1 .; Q | ^ i 1 I . 1 g 5 •= ~ ^ ir^iio t ^ ; ^ ^ 03 < •O a s« •3 — "~ — ' . "S ~ i \ ^| ^ ° 1 c £ K "« ^ .s c : S 3 T3 ! | eS = g||g| ^ J :' 8 | | -2 S 1 t- 2 w | S1? [^ K 8 1 1 « 5 « | •d ? c £.5 "T ~ ~ ~ ^ -*-> C + 41 " ' Ei § ~ S ^~ .i; .SS w " s £ ^ < ~j 5 £ -S ^ "« o • 52 C X +j ^ ; >| .. c * i 3 *^ H— ' ^ t SB ? c _ :r'^ « ^ >. ^ ^ O ^ _ CS - * > §° Ctf K ^^"v^c^'^^oS ^ ^"' -^ o C ^ i 0 fa g g c s '£ "•-i ^ S ^ "~ '" ,s 'S r ^ 5 '— p— ( O ^ •• 3 "c£ fe ^ 5 ^ .c > ^ ^ ^ .— .^ f c ~ ^H ^ r - ^ »> bj) o „• "§> tt * J £M |S j^; * S , * |1* I s l •* C1 8 " -* '•• 3 S t» S g § £ g o "g ill |§1§1|^I 1 1 P!J 1 1 < *c _ 43 | ^ 03 'u K C F^S^bcS0"^ ^ J "e t ^-§ « ro ' 3 -c'E o' P b S ^ """ ^"^.rt'^T-c.s'Saj E ^ ^ o t ^. E to «4-( 3£~ >~~ 5 o >. ^ - t • -^ ^ c .: :" '-^ 'S o S g * j : ^'-| O a: *" -1 ^ 3 " ^ o C ^•7 * "t ^02 " JH £ ^ ? 5 ^ ; ; aJ o3 r^ tjj"^ E ^ C; c^ 5 c o -^ K v c S. " ^- x c ^- ^ 'c ' ^ ,^i ^ o §.s^ C£F Z tu .w •= _>. > c s x -: ^ ""' "Sr— e "* " +J *j ^ 1-1 c ° o ffl c 'I"* o|Jr"'^e"5 E : fco'r' ^ 5 -u t4 r ; £ C o> w ~ W CJ C XE E^^^^^r^ o ^ 'T; ^ y; 5 ' " T ^ s ^ ^ .2 ^ ^ r^ p^j.c^'^-oa^ : r. M ,, " c x c s ^^ S CH ^^ i ^ £ ^75"^ ? ES g 'S 'i " ^ c ^- ^~^ y >r- ' - C ^ o ^ , - "o c : ^ 'c ^ ^ c; "^ ^ ; C 3 ^ -^ g ^ 2 .§ r ||^i s^'g sy'[ i £^F^o £^ J ^ j-- «s flg§ii^ 5^£.^| Jl Jll ~ ^^i 2 D 6 ^ fa 3;'aOQc3c5^e3W«;— 2 fa P How do you feed your 9 corn ? V- U , 1~ r_ 2 — - b"" b l_ ? 3 ^ u 'o ^ij u ^1^-s - ,^ c ^ ^ ^ At what age do you •+J put your cattle on full feed? years . . . « 5 li S 5 *"• 7 i N so 1 si c : fi ^ What margin of profit ^5 is necessary per » j r; 8 S S 8 8 S S R S c^ c bn .3 What weight of cat- ! I I s i 1 ! ! 1 1 • 1 1 tle has returned 777 7 7 7 7 £2 greatest profit? ... 8 §88? 1 P 1 s i 1 ! i I .2 ~OQ c T V Do you shelter in JJL warm barn, open sbed or feed in open rt CQ •g -g e -a - 3 -a -c -a 3 5 ', - "S § o 55 C/3 C/3 h (/) C/) i-J >. CTJ CJ 0 C75 J C^ C^ t 5 -G C > W3 C 1 > Season of year most ijj profitable to feed.. . o i- ,^ u - ^i r« ,i! ^ ^ ^ : h«^ ^ v,.^- g 3-S l.E B u^ i Hi g '^1 '* i fcj ii-j 13 c. r-Sa. ^ «4H Q 1 g s s s? J = J2 8 Average length of fc*> feeding period, days 111 ^ T 7 7 c g § S S § i i § i | s ! 5 § oJ ,-, ^ ^H ^-, ' c' S Total number of cat- 555 0,00 ? S 8 8 c < S 9 ^ tie fed ^5 *7< F-I S T' 't1 1C • i* >1 0 5 £ t? Number years experl- ?, s s s O O rJj T CO »f o 10 o o a j a 5 5 S 7 £ ' : • : ,. : : ~- : - : a: : ' : : rf i : 1-5 • b£ ' 1 i SI i $ a Wli = :| : I :|o .^E -jlr -I||1 si s S| St. ^idi ^ Q ?H 'n^'oS^:^1^ c^ Kcl~~'"c^'n u'2 ^'H^-S ^ ^ ^ 'p E!' r~* ^ & *r~. -^ W O c ^ £ oJ^p^c^; .<-c*^ P^ .Pn Q ? ^ ^ HH ^* r^ y; C p^ ^ C V fo • J/i 0 •« 0 U3 H & £ o t? M K b ^ B fa O K PQ M' ^ 1 ! * 1 4* O .' to; til 00 1 1 f .O 04 ^ cd «o a> .M *o ?.* § £** * *5 1 s 1 I a a • 5 '3 a i I I 1 Hi I I 8 ' I P | "^ "3 £ So ^ .'- H " -e -g !S s*^ c*° ^-S Ig 5 j *2^ 5 '* Ba il'i r^a;-^^ *«« c .« ° =5 ^g se «K o •og'H °1§ 5 dL888|a %*% tl« •; S c8 c TJOca oS^-58 "S S SlSlfcl |l-I|g» • -B § § 8 0» « O g LO g 111 I I I c V S £ ft V. *% -0 T5 1 I S C/) °° ^ c/}c/)CQc/3c/)i-Jc/>O O CQ co w JQ a 0 1 « e 3 ,« D 3fe 3 0 3 p«! w ^ «J»W • wi^cflfr. a a a a a^a i a a a a a-c a e 3 3 3 3 3a3 3 1 I g s § 8 1 1 s s a • 2 ' s * ° I ' f^. a- . . .o. ^Mo fi •< H . 6 5 ^ « - ^ c> ^ S « S B i% 1 08 l I 1 A -s 1 i ! i I l! I : t « ! 1L1 :.i!8' Number of hogs al lowed per steer?.. How do you feed your corn ? . . SSI SSIS^ w III 1 1 I SSIS l At what age do you put your cattle on full feed? years ii T T *. *>. ^ eo(N Average length of feeding period, days OO Total number of cat- O3 I tie fed iii a Number years experi- h 0 * S£ l s *1 1 j § «o tf ; se s s-1 foS s "= flS ci u JH j2 o fll u W tf U Uc^° W U Oj- u u (A rt « 3 =5 .1 u 1 t^ O cd O 8 8 S § 888 S 8 8 fe So C/2 C/5 O eassaaaaS B a a a a a a a .s 3 33333333grt § g o I .2 ^iii 1 § J3 O o m o 'Ofe 110 Number of hogs al- lowed per steer?. . How do you feed your corn ? At what age do you put your cattle on full feed? years What margin of profit is necessary p,er 100 IDS.? S i 1 5 3 U) 13 "S I * fl 5 ti0-' *»** o c US -* ft&>>t>Ei_( - w 0>a |S|t|l|s|S|I| l> SQ oc D3 w p sa 8 155 - eo rt W W 10 10 TH > 4J 5 s S OJ o i| *fM| = J.JJI ,5a ° '^5 ^ i:S « ^2 lh ££ «ES|tf' '?J< O C O v k.'O dS .. ^gg E Is^sl s5 .•0^-5 P! I gglSfc ;««!! H « fl "c £~ * o g*3 £ K .a WW § So § §88^88 §»o E- 8 "S « .n <3 C/) >J E "8 "2 "S "S iM • <<, G t? :«8 : I. >tf.i C ^|-go^ <^ .» " «- ^J * •"^Ss:1 W^Sjfi^S-.e^ 0 C aj i? H «t >> 112 « g Number of hogs al- lowed per steer?. . h i i a J * 1-t t a I I 8' * * 1 1 1 i 1 1-1 iili L a i ! : , i I-IS s^ ! * i I' H ••!<» °:sl I « v, || $ J* ii*a ^ I * tt s i * £•«£ Sv5, ill *|& • " fi* »-!•>-> $5 *: S How do you feed your corn ? (A « H Wtd 155 wu At what age do you put your cattle on full feed? years ... What margin of profit is necessary per 100 Ibs.? 8888 What weight of cat- tle has returned greatest profit ? ... °S?° Do you shelter In warm barn, open shed or feed In open lot? . He TD'C'D H & Season of year most profitable to feed. . . ** £S £ 85 J5 g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 £ 8 8 S 8 £5 fe 8 ill ! 1 1 s s "8 B - -S "8 "8 c C • * C 9x:j=j= nHw^wc/ii/itn •8 "S C/3 CO C/) CO C/5 •^ "g "8 "8 "S Si f. J= X! - B SuB = . '~* 3 5 O- 3 < C/3 ?/)C/)J)&4' li I as 3 3 C/3C/2 C/5 (/) , e ^ s s c 5 B > f> 3 > .!> I/) I I 1 bo Z B B e — •— i B >•«•• 00 (/JCAfb A c ;r a s B c __ V B CA c/) t. U. CO I I 1 8 S S g :., :|*i . :ss« :"! ^ . ' tc | . .JJ | c- ' '°|B| .E S * K •-s.2 H £ fc > 5 ^ &" « cjfc.2 X « ^ ^ PQ -|£C£ S oa >> .2 :£*£ £ '^^£^ 'gHab^lJp'^*' ^1^ Number of hogs al- lowed pei steer?. . How do you feed your corn ? . At what age do you put your cattle on full feed? years . .. What margin of profit Is necessary per 100 Ibs. ? . :*S u W c/5 c/}yj3iW be 8 fe S § 8 S S s ^o What weight of cat- tle has returned 1 ' _ greatest profit? ... = JQ jo 151 •4-J tn _ — (U pi 0^ O Do you shelter in warm barn, open ^ shed or feed in open O O 8 3 a P3 tie fed ^^ T- • CO Number years experJ- o& .t i~ i- -M tO 0 K^4 ence 0 fV] ... . p 5 K • ' 1 ' ' ^j ^ I ' c • ^. : a" ' 5? ' H 4-1 • OJ • ^ • t; • c -M P-i H § '5' w • & -^-cU" •? -c (S -e £ ~ 8 p_C B ! ^ "° S a 3 a c a -c 3 a en e -c a DCX3 c/3 c/j in e e-c a C &3 C/1C/3C/) S S § § § SO TH S 7 7 8 8 *» S +* • • f . a**3 « . • _»a ..•**•• • a • « u *r .... o . u, . §§5 S • £ • 'tSsi, £ i al ' * S a & - : S » «w a ^ ' S *J ' I n" ' .8 ' ^ll-^ll-lll^Illliplfto " IflllgllllHIg^ ; ^ g H Number of hogs al lowed per steer?. . i «?| a, j#. if! ! 11 ii M Pi How do you feed your corn ? . At what age do you put your cattle on full feed? years .. What margin of profit is necessary per 100 Ibs.? 8 8 § 8 What weight of cat- tle has returned greatest profit ? g 8 Do you shelter in warm barn, open shed or feed in open lot? •g "8 E £ % o 5S Season of year most profitable to feed. . . il C/) C/5C/J C u ^ s 8- 1 11 1 C/3 CO V3C/3 C/) IP Average length of feeding period, days i Total number of cat- ! tie fed... Number years experi- S I S § 3 | £ § HH jyr ^ K §iiiig!i^sS;!iiflji|iiiJ!iifi;i, i!Plll"lfidi •Hi«Plii|l"l ^i"i « ^ a a sf i : * 2 0 I 5 I :as • :is i » M '•». I Hi a i! 1 1^1 1 «$* I .2ass,H s 0* c £ S&S •§ a -s^v s g^^ tt *-..^S £a Jjg O O a i I h h 0) 4-3 5 S II ^ & i : ? - •sll - '•53 td W au c i- ciS'So H C/2 118 tle. fattening ethod * ! : 1 1 I I >> c & «. g ^ § ,Q O O OQ o £ o o •o s s s a * s — « •£ £ .0 'S S i iris •^ •£< « -"-".a a Kgs^^SM c J^^ ^ fe S ^* S-'l^-^o" ^^ ^ ?• ta <& 2 ^^woot^So^^ ^ l§f3 Is P^ Number of hogs al- 40 10 ^ in ^ - -T^NOtal-icOWOJ^ CO d CO « -4^ 1 questions is necessary perl 100 Ibs. ? What weight of cat- tle has returned greatest profit? ... Do you shelter in warm barn, open shed or feed in open lot? Season of year most profitable to feed. . . 1 £ •a o T3 C C C V- u c c c •n u T3 13 HI tl c/5 rt « J3 (/2 c7) a rt rt CO — 1 i m x; c^ x: js W3 (^ > ^ u 1^. •B ^ u T ^E U E u E: B E e wr fL> QJ 1J ^cE E E |S •hi k.'s>in S g C/5 B 3 (/3 rt fc. 1 I in EEiuS E E 3 D , C- 3 D 3 (/) c/i <"i c/~. in in in = -c s rt a 3 b.c/)c/2 Average length of feeding period, days 50 40 90 80 20 S § 00— 60—1 20 g c« Total number of cat- tle fed H Number years experi- ence ............. <> . ^lW3«idl^fciJ I :. « 5 * lo 1 2 ~ 3 8 •a d a 3 5 id 85-s H gg* ;-i q 3 "I'S s ft & US 03 , 0 a; °as 1?1 s§B Sal *» *» S fl •=! IHI! •d S3 -a * o o a ? a tc-- -*-> cj i oj 0 §J -^ t-> S^rT •^ dS g Bll . §lf .-c a a e s (U 3 3 G.3 3 3 tfl CO i— >/j y; co co a a § § S § ' co o if; T-l 0* CO 2 S o. . 120 1 .3 i e * 1 1 f iil I * * ) •? *7l •-« m 41 ^ :! •Sal t 'flu o jy fj-5 <« * °-S ££*£„- 5 •3D«53§^5 -g Number of hogs al lowed per steer?. , How do you feed your corn ? At what age do you put your cattle on full feed ? years What margin of profit Is necessary per 10Q Ibs.? What weight of cat tie has returned greatest profit ? ji Do you shelter In j warm barn, open -. shed or feed In open ^ lot? Season of year most profitable to feed. . . iifW I ] C5 S W •<{ il 'Oo-t->ga «K! ° fc a -1 S l iffi nj J- rt-C v. rt rt rt ct H MHJ M CJ W W U Cd Jt/5 o T TJ< SO CO 1 ^ 1 (MM ecototw 8 8 I 888 8§888'8 T3 i C c c s o a a iilpifi's C/5C/5 W C/3 "*" C/5 "" C/3 "*" -g •! 3 a a (/}(/}(/} a-s 121 08 g. I q 5 * 1 s S a,8** ;wfi l|8«9 ifcSf! ii31f c £ « •3 « I : 111 ^wg ^ 60 rt Ml •aa> o ?£ *- '-S In Is a 5 .. G « « S w P! I'i ^?S 8 iplg! iffll :i •S" 'SSSs: S.cSi S^ ja 03 ti t-> M t, ..as flT.S tJ t>> OB+j C S3S|^ |8l«5 2ll|| 2-s 3=^ "..fi5aM3 5^-g^^ plg8!^ K^«. ^*«8£'a^ siSfef ^g«gaj0« £^^0 ^IP'I'S 5g'^I *3_g«s«« -s^ca Is Sttbl !fl^!!i "--i ^7; "o H ^ tl M«-I <^ i? c i|.s§* I ti§ 5«ti « *^- 608 «73 _ g5-0 « ««tis »ag^s PQ p H o in m S^P« 1 i':i5e* IIP1*:*' t» O 02 , 1 I 1 I 1-8 t>. 3 1 73 P 8 I.! g § s; S I *s 1 -3 3 o ^ . 9 liir 1-1 OJ CO I I I ||« o"S o*S o' « rt « rt*« S' wwgw-Sw- ^ 01 01 i-i 8 § 8 § 8 8 8 8 8 S So -S S 8 § I I I "S "S "S "S u u u u u_^ °« 5 t) 4) t; WW~ V-v.a § I I II- ill 3 3 3 3 3 £J C/3 C/} C/2 C/)V) S £.£ 6 a. 6 i> t/T 3 ? w r'u ."> U fa fc «3 90 I I renient. Cottonseed moal rain until corn will do to or straw they want. 3 and clover and occasion- of roughness and let them iths or under. _ ill eat; buy cattle about to ? cd S c 00 p g >O ^ 1 | 1 S« 1 !&i iT jy "" O ^ o"e >•. "" -v^ ^1 i 11 M ^ * ^d o a g fcDfe o >^ " -g 3 £ § * 3 " *S ft a g t* M c £ 2 E p o ^ ^ rofitable method of fattening cattle. METHODS OF FEEDING. |||||pP? rf3"^N_l^SHL|Qj * cx£-;s^c.^ot | SfJ: | •= ^ o^'g j 8^-25 8 J '1 "S B" a'S^'S o!^ § J-; a)| GC K K K c^ > to c> ,. j ^ a gr? ^ 2 c 5 5 .g ^ a L" o ^"c B J '& "3 S2 ^ ^ ^ ^ hr ^ J .S 0) <2 3 ^ 3S5 § ^a ?1 S §^« 5 ra ca to o : -3 "o P S o S ^ cj bC.^ ! cd "^ ^ ^H y : a & o_^ ^ 5 "Sgl ' S r S^I "^ ^ p ^ cc O ^M ^ ^ _a C •^S <2 - C * 4J O1 ~ JM ^H U "*~ I* igl*s I! Mil PH Number of hogs al- lowed per steer?. . o* o in in o, S « ^ 22^-^ - „ 2 « O How do vou feed your 1 u u »- 0 C ^> -CO CJ corn ? c wu i_a b a t/3 O a W W c tn w w5si3i| C M r i M *~: o At what age do you put your cattle on full feed? years . .. CO J, m m CO CO ^j N O? CO ^? CO iO +5 What margin of profit is necessary per 100 IDS.? S5 e 8 S 8 S S 8 £ §o in J- o w co J? S £ « .g What weight of cat- 1 1 ||§8 1111 0 0 g g i tle has returned greatest profit? ... S g 8 | | 0 0 i i 1 1 1 §§88 8 8 S 8 .£•» f Do you shelter in warm barn, open shed or feed in open lot? C T3 '^3 C rt 0 ^ ^ rt CQ >J cn c/3 CQ T3 ^ •§ |aa co H H in m in in •a -a ? -a 4) 4J t- £2 U J3 c£ -C C/} >J> C/3 § T: 1 Season of year most profitable to feed.. . Illll I 1 Ilililf SEES E £ E E Q S E V2 i E 6 .0 c3 inm in " in in !Sj in in t/3 C/3 C/3 B- O Average length of feeding period, days | | | § S 7 T ?. § o o o N 2 C7 i ^ in O' o o £ ?, ^ r, o d ~ l~ I 06 c* Total number of cat- tle fed .n ^t o i- I 1 S i ills | 1 1 I C/3 B Number years expert' cnfe ^ 1 S ^ ?t S 1-1 oo m s „ '- s o o »n 70 r- 0 i-. APPEND " BO ^ < W & y. llJI^I |:p 2 ^SxIffifpJisI J o g'fe W .Ci .S -S i Welch W. Encle, Middle Grove . r. L. Smithey, fetrother W. Catlett, Granville . . F. Woods, t>> '. '. !| :ri : ^| 03 "S 5f £ Monroe City . . H. Farrell, Madison . W. McBride, Paris . T. Hall, Woodlawn . . . t^H^t-ihSwBa I lig 1 1 I 1 1 iii^lHii aggg gU«-° _ fl t» tf«li TI r-( P < :*i^s 5 02 J> iC 10 TH 9J' TH i-i 2- cs rt rt rt rt S W W W W W co w « 10 sc •?• 2 1=1 tn < in 8 i i S g S § § S 5 S 1— I ^-t C* TH §•! 124 45 -S I I m I e ii*i : ;» 5 <3 3-g 5 *& S S fl "5 $ « 4) S * ' ,2 S|l£- -S B«!£i I f if III * « ts.* -a 53 - S H«:» ? s P!H!! !H « | * "- l» f| .1 ! qj H) O 43 J3 j 55 -w Season of year most profitable to feed. . . 2 e .S E > 3 !> C/3 e a : 6 -c It/) C/3 0^5 ^ 5 c S I 8 ^'C B ^6 3 Q-3 JS 3 8 g 8 Average length of feeding period, days Total number of cat- tle fed... Number years experi- in o to l-H CO l-H £ : 6» 0 8 >•» +» : tt 125 ill § I ii: ±i « 1: ^§w£l- =:|««l;«ss {JS: llfifsi|^:isf j?«* ig^s : i ij g 1 |: fi.jr! :gi iss p*fl i |lla Si i "3 Sw ,s fe s-s «— < 173 SS !sl ! 0.^-0 .rt^fl |&lglla|l5 W ?isi^dPjS!|lIi,sl rlli ;P ja i difl «l gS & c.- "S fe ^ ^^e -8 1 !i' i I I § 8 ^* | S° « g^ S^ ^^ g g| a ^ « E ?S 3 tn G ^ O >o 53 .j « "O «-->^oj XT!-'5'3 f36" ' «^|*2fe5a^|||g|-Sfi' ^i; 5 ^4+j j >» ni«a«iflHin og fri M • 2 . S S u W &q *H . fli 6 8 c-ac -a cc-a-cwcSc-c Ort^rtO 'So1' v.Vjui)4-i(ot.(nv.u ij CQ (A CQ M M hJ t/2 CQp3(/)co 1-303030303 c/i a; D ti C/3 C/) O) c «' 3 u=<5 w. •GUV-'OU w i_u=<3w u k.. 4J u w I C OJ HBWU fl (-3 S-£8 c -§.§1 1 3 as > aa.3 3 COtOC/2 !> C/)t/3(/5 C/3 c 9 •*-! 6 *j c •C B .S 8 -.S u a 3 ^. 3 rt^, a toc/3 !> c/3 fc;^ to 6Sfa--c6 a-g .S S 8 S I 1 1 I 126 S £ SgS? 3 s | I i 1 »£g 1 - § | | £J~ " i ' & " 1 .".'• 5 « g ? * l«l 1 ! 1 s K -?s!» ! s a | * 12 § s Is! t^lS3* a 1 3 ' {j||{W jjijj|j|jjS * i & sill" S Si? irffifll 1 1 fS - ? - llael- *J!|$ "^li" 1 1 »& I 1 ; s 1 iisilfiPt Bil! i!:1!.-; iW« ^ 'StKb. > &n'3'0~> >°?^S^ £o •? £ s"*0pS5 «g S §5* % sS-Sgiss •§=.«..£ tx^&lgS1^ s-SSfep £sl 1 &Spi«l *£*?£ -n|g^^f *§S*«i >n"M'4J ^ ^"^SccS4^ ^llW:Sc a''^aj'^£+jW^Ea'c"oC',-. jjr— C 'd^^-Sq., '2 ™S ^ fa "^ O CJa'C3.JoSc.l= rrt 4;^ 5 « SC ^ ^O E K 5 5 * i?b § ° &5 * fit? « S 0 Sif* - ^•a'So. -0 - -M e. c £« C-^ r- - &« £ 2 c-^ g •/ i Si ! pi!1! if-:?t SSiiSHPii 1 ' !|! 0 S M 1 tt'fa 0 faWfa^cow«lw£ p^ Number of hogs al- *? i lowed per steer?. . lO ^ ^4 ^ (JJ ~ . H u O f, J2 O j- O O C corn w£ K w w w w u u td w ^w^w^a-s S w rt At what age do you +-> put your cattle on full feed? years ... «* 5l - I W CO (7i 7 , S CO I ? «c >* J, £ tWhat margin of profit ig necessary per 100 Ibs. ? g o S 8 ! I S S § §>O O lO CO 0 (N 88^: S 8 8 8 8 § 11 1 1 § 1 1 § 1 1 en tie has returned fl greatest profit? ... g g g g = O c-j cc eo -^ ? • rH ^ p c ^f g profitable to feed... | _£ •= |-= * CA; tl (^ '^^ 1 1 -cili •3 ^ ^«^ f 3 0; (U 3 QJ 1 e e ^ e 5 B E .0 E 3 3 3 « a " C/j LTi fc, CO S E E E- E E E a-p 3 3 3^5 C/3 CO C/3 C/3 '" "o g o 5 5 S 5 5 S 85 = 0000 S § > 3 c Average length of 3 ^ 7 T *" p feeding period, days 4 1 | § 1 g i 1 9 Total number of cat- 88^ ^ tie fed . . S S 5 M I ^ J 1 1 1 1 o c S § > 1 1 Number vears experl- ~j .- o j- -- « '•"- •-••-•,_,:^ H 8 S S § S 3 S "* ?5 S ?, | p IVi-.iija1 : '• •s • i i M ;e- g ?;l g 1 1 = 1': fill! :^ j» .|.:^!el. ^I'ill si g< i ^ttiPfiliiifij^y^iM^ 1 g » | «|«|%^-|| ,a ^ ^el^-l^-lll»M^ ? « 127 a *l s § : * 0 £« •g *£ 3 E| € 83 I1 §^ 0,>? Sto B oj 1-9 1"H , O p1 «U a « 8 I € S I 5 L" § § .1 , bo « ^ S S " 2 fcfc Ha flu •O -Q £ w St^raei C O fci 5 *2 * £3 s •* III1 llfi ob»2 fl5 .to "S fi|'jj-g..|| 2*°* tS'S^ai ^e«i* « Sfci &S5 ^ » gj^ ^•ss^ ^-M dflg«lg |I^ilIs|s"2§ Sf^^lfe5*!^6* ;**££ w^., p ^j 'S'd >>S !§B ft-p-5 S o >• t, ILf'a § "&« -13 ^oo « 5-g o * 'Sc ^S.^jocg ^ o S ! * s? * o H SS- *->a s • a g Q n „.* -JS-^c l~5^So+Jfco§ti§ ca'o «qC3£oc S,§ « -Ic-sl « c

-J (/. l« 6 9 3*2 a J> h a Q ^ ^ -8 <: b 1 S II § g l go o o* QO S § S S 8 8 8 8 g i- IN •* t> o to TT i i O O J> O •2 I w -s1 S :i 'I .81..: » . a .fc rc^ti-e g-e fe ^o«c«cg' S 3 ^ l^sies; e£|§ o in 10 I v« «t «•! «t »4 ot i-i o SS? Is IB S5 "aJ ^"S1. Is »J> r :* ** fl"g Ig °^^li^«s j|a||«E^ %, ^^g^g^a^SSr^g ,^ -- -o5 ^5i^> ..a -9 I-H 0* i- O3 (M r/l W 1 i I i S 1 2 5 >> g * . tf -a I I s j •s * al^ 8 .- s oG^C n-GOii)^ ga 03020 A S ^ j *j +* ^3- S'S « 0^0^°! *fi fe^ <« w 4) a; JJi P ^ *-" C ;"3 fl B ain, C I • II W M O JO O-- ' u a u eo N e<« (M CO IN CO CO CO 0 O p N Q 1- O t— O O 1"H O CO *Q § g 1111 t/3 J C/5 •a T3 u w CO CO •S "S o S I 1 J 1 1 _3 _5 CQ w 8- co co li Hi f-..= Cg S'C g A*C §'w. .9-5 ,5.9-3 #.2»S.9'<3 3 00000000 £c3s&r«S2s I III 00 CO « S (W u ° O (jW !- ^ W V, ^, U £ U j^6* W V. 3 ^ 3 9* 3,rt^ °-CO 3 S 2 « ., § I 888 *30 ! f •s I Number of hogs al" lowed per steer?.. How do you feed your corn? At what age do you put your cattle on full feed ? years ... ! I l*s les l-c u, Q., rt rt rt PC rt T^ M M M M '/) "S "S II «0 10 IN ci ec c* ec «^ What margin of profit is necessary per 100 Ibs.? . What weight of cat- tle has returned greatest profit ? . . . ; g te 8 8 8 8 g 8 S I I 111 Do you shelter In warm barn, open shed or feed In open lot? . | | in in «"§ £ -g a .= "8 "5 ^ - E u1 H !g 111 R Season of year most 2 profitable to feed. . . S 6 , s _ 6 < w «s M S»ai ip I b! fe W5 tflfc ^ Average length of 2* feeding period, days Total number of cat- 2 tie fed. SIS s a I i i I I Number years experi- ence , K 55 ft £ I"? H;* O IS' 3d !i a* iit s§" *i! 1I| 35J s!? 8g£ J*| ti 1 i 1 1 « ! 1 ! •2 £ | Sol s i " « i]3|i | s i ;;^;f i ° : £l S S8| s|-?'ll rsSlfg Illlf .DlS!flS .frfl'2§^'S'«P3- 1 ij'JilaJifflAa I- "° 3^ o0^^ ofa a?6** a1 jO< 02 E> i>2 W _B « O it5 siiii 88«»aa£ SUM **!!* fcs8"" llsfiS *&|H IKW i«!W •^l-ji1 lilt: f-J i-v US I S w £ S I U w c^ «g 1 1 ' I . . . ? . I (M CO co C* I) I) 88S 88S88S 1 I 1 I I § 111 T3 -a -a -o It U II W en (/>•• v> (/) Ss he c II S g'l I a •= e a I s 1 i B! ? "2 .5 .S I I 2 S g 8 I S 1111 |_IB?cs6a_«0 ..„, ffl*i*iaicujji!j '•"llisjrif^ilj ^i!^"^0 .^ fa ®«" ?* S •< B H EH H M' | 1 I | 1 2 kr C3 Q 2 GJ 1 1 ^ •^ , 5 • a 6 1 * = £ f 2 1 a S I ; ; jf i j | _ a S c 1 1 a J b» fc f a 1 " 5 E "3 3 * JM ' r JC ' ^ 'j3 « 5 ^ ^ i Sa ^^>& 5 S*2,* "^ a u85"'5 A *~*S \l\\ '3 — 5 ^-s^a "c-^5 | 5 - < •o ts^c ftC5£'r' « ^ ° & C t, IT t p 1 j.-g'l -5 -3 I« g 1C " I 1 1 j S P o 52 g 1 -S 51 S -"'^-c " * 1 * 1 c w K £ p c«tr- ^^^ ^^ -o cJS-| g^g £*| S| | | |^ Jljl g fa o *3 fa O 02 c o a M O< "3 otf SI! iiji! HiSi — c 'S • "S ^ ' •£-. S 3 ^ ... .3 | « 1 ££> a Hi T f* : = i g a C ^ 5 -»-s H KcS |*| Ij, S^ |B.S ^ ^ :- * •^ S u V o> •§«= I? 1 e'^ »5^ ®* ^ fc ° § ^ e *4-4 V >• S P S -83^ ^'''C k 43 _ c a O ^ 0 13 ^ fl ° S ft -T2 ' 1 & -gSS ^«^* s|g 3«5 p^| s"« i-L-^ a g ^ g « * ! "Jy O •g1"1^ § . « ^ w c "n a ^ 2 S * CC -M *S S *" "*" s s gl* |fg E"£ « fl^-g ^1 o _ age" a! ^|*3| *-* 5 «c r !T in e * v^c a =£ A ^ a o ~ t §j £ 8 5S^ C*-:F? ^«Jr- rb+J- -o SB -C£'S< £ * t»> S S-^e |8 g|f&{ «rt "3 1^6 j=^PS«Sg ^5 p ^8^ ^3 i "es5 8 2 02 faO ^UMM^KK^ K £ W !/ A Number of hogs al- 1 V> ^ ' : ' . 5'^ 4C U ^ lowod per steer?.. ~ CO r^ i-l T- GO u ^w T: jr o o V i How do you feed your corn ? "5 rtrt «5rtrtrt|rtrtrt| S 8- S I c/> W tf W L> W WW w W WW M a ^c u & ^ At what age do you •^ i — " so o 0 put your cattlo on full feed? years . .. | S-t i- inswers Sou sun df vear most profitable to food... u C * ^fc uPuC-uu^ 2^| B^l 6 5 S ® 2 § ? S rj 7J g Total number of cat- 8 3| 1 § § | § | i | o o CO tlo fed S ^ | „ .. S 1 Number years experi- ence 2 S S S „ 2 u 2 S S « S S „ f 63 -/ 7 .- : c- • ^> • • fr •' fc~ • 2 ; «3 ; »r i : ; ' W 2? g ~-\ '• I _.- . : PH rt . „ H 5 «? Si f". ' t: « 5 -r ' = K B a/ k *-' i • fe ? n '^r5 £ «'£''•'? r SO5C^CCgJ.CH "cOH -c;>> g £ g . • £ .5'''E'>'K"£Ec-'5 £ ^g£ "2 03 fa ? r-i 133 I p jag It ifl-M I| g« 1* a£ a" w x al»! 4J fe Cd O i IS P! il^ P O C n E 8 S I j 15 fe c5 * S 1 I 11 ea S •* fe J * fifl ?l ! -14 §1 2S|SJ !!Sfi5 *i £3-2 «<§ n « 8 •c 'C c O & 3 tiCd y W 1 C/3 1 1 i U W 13 "S 7) C/3 111 ! O 3 1 eo « < e» eo ®i at IM so S g 8 §8528 te te 8 S 8 g 1 till g * « c§ I ^ 4) — . Jj »> S4S ^ a e 8^5 -c a a 3 c a D 3 (ft 4 9) (n M * * u, u v aj S S 3 3 W W II ii I S g s 1 g | g § 1 g S S if HE : ty. urf, '34 . 5 t» 1 .1 1 11s b a * % a r H s *•• * 1 IS till SK 1 3?S . •i s s * ^ •c rt 3 *• 'sJ^ti-'3^ ^ SrtO §E «|S ^ g | t| ' :1 • ^ p §•? +J.EJ t> "C 4, ;« - -j 0 -ij 3tc 5 .2 «"3 fl ..t s $s ii ss! !i -i * a« ,- •s §" 1 ;i p| p " i g; - -i e g=r; |i S 3* S f) . „, O 0 « "^ s-e b A c ft ° o •o^a =-l 1 !1 llelll I B |! Is 0 "2 c .a10 < 5£ ^^ S^ t, o "SS a;^ B & ° ** S c •"" ^ o u°^" 5 §,£ *5 =1 1 a» a S * -a 1 1 g!§ !! i i? Sill ! i!S ii c8 1 si§ *" §S §lll*s " Sg^g ;.| •3 OS'S JJ+J -*- sg ps-ogooo 5"' ir5 a * : £ •3 § o "°g i > frjU^al •§ fill |J •s I Isfals §•• Sfjg !">. ^2 n§>S -S ^ 7" ^ '•*-' ^^ ^ . o 5 "^ * T § &£1 It °% '~l~*i£ 1 5s 1 1 ?~ 3 .a -S 3 a 8? &"fp3°§ S .*,, ^_ fc* i. ~ c fc S+-1 t-S a' flc.Sc .^ ±?^ o ^ «.ir 5tS^°M S^ S ^ = 1 IB! if si Iflfi^ ij l?Js -^ *rt 2 S a t-n c cS ^"rt0^0 ^i * S£t-'S - — 1 ~ £ W « M 5 H B 81 i Number of hogs al- .j low ed per steer?. . at O _ J3^ o: "^ J3"0 u How do you feed your "v-3-9 >- u corn ? •*->•' 3 "en H . C/I- = u^rtufei c3 -3 i« "^ u <1> o Ufe Wufe w ww-S : ^ At what age do you co :-= -r- 0 put full your cattle on feed? years ... ^ « T- 3 i What la 100 margin of profit necessary per Ibs. ? . SS 2 2 22Q <- QO s ~~ ^ ^ ^^^ ' "2 .s § g 5 ? | g 11 1 What weight of cat- " S ^ tie has returned | greatest profit? ... g g p tf « ~ 2 *J S S S 2 J S c ^ Do you shelter In rt S war she( lot? m barn, open 1 or food In open "g _ "j ^ O r;* ^3 3 -o -o S -n -a -c 1 1* W u 4J *-» OJ 4J J3 J3 rt J3 0 js jr ] C/5 C/3 > (/) «-J C/3 (/; C/3 J t/5 V g u v. -a u qj o c i_ a; 3 Son son of year most £f c S profitnblo to food.. . 'C | c S 6 rt ^ E E 6 =.S G = oJ o. a ^: 3 3 aj K-^ 3 rt t/3 t/3 ? V^ OO C/) &- 1? C/3 b-i < o i Si > o o <~ o o o GO O GC lO O O ^ Avera ge length of 1 feeding period, days c \ § | S g | Total o number of cat- 111 i II I 3 > CO tie fed | - CO S 8 a Numl or years expert- - ^ r^ 0 p o -T o - .T p EJ K I * *^ * K C • E •< ^ 5 : : - *§ B ^ «" 1 | a ': - • - 1 : d : 2 : £ w & *i ^"K! iaS-2sS o« t " ja " ^ O • S'o'o-'1*^ S ^^ 2 l^o^o°HH« • " tJEti M • 'I B« |T- S|^| l^|^£| - «| 1 G •cinCiOcs^rjO'''3 < ', *ij «303^w ^C'C^O'C*' ^iC3i^ gO °* O >_ ca * ^^ ^('P^Oo ^1 • S *«• £ n' ^ r? M££O 3£ SHP: »J 2 « ° * jjj |ap g ^a vi Si «l S*8£ M s£.*$ S*|* *!«* ill S3 | fa §? o * -a §8 S 0>4-> fc ** § S« -o S* § • -^ eo '* 5 IS ll o-o §o H.S at ^« i^; i i a f rt rt rt ttl W W i: S -g « 1 : i I = I ~ 1 - ° T i '-:» t I *« •o ^ r-l 08 B .- " «! 2 5 '§ Us fi" ! K c i 21 3i - j » P •I a W *^ U *dJ (g I £«£ I 3 a s s s ; •« i 1 1 1 i •a 8 es . « § i S j£ os ** B | 88 « I? Ip31si 2-l««lC sta^S! 86=211 IS •u M S° Mg ?JI»!l5 •SI'S ^ S ° * 8 8 S 8 § 8 % 8 S 8 8 8 II 111 1 1 r 1 s, 55 O 5 « "8 •o -a c c a -a *' s U "g o rt 5 5 M m CA U) a al a-ca 30.3 U U 4*4) e a a e 33 UUU 4) t» 1> 8-3 a s a£ a a 3^33 C/)^ C/2 C/3 V «S a a« e a^, = s 3 3 C rt rt C^yj rt fc ft, S S g a o g 3ii H *; - • • ^ * • If-Slllla S 1 '' s ^I^lfl I !." SS d . fa WS W to At what age do you put your cattle on full feed ? years . . . T T T * T »« COCO ** ««CO -< rH 0* I-l r-( What weight of cat- tle has returned I greatest profit? Season of year most profitable to feed. . . Average length of feeding period, days * P •§*" 8 * =3 " - "- iff s«f * f . I! 1 !lilft 1 1 il : If iirii m 3>S 5 ^.St^S8 °£$ 1 § BlrcifrSJftlfl •=S 5 rJugatlifjNI I! i !| 8 S^-I^SIl ^ , > -- sf 11 is=3 = H 72 lit f :!: lii «a::sjiga iflSS ^- ft!! ' fc •§ - ' ft S 1 1 15 1 ii i * i s S * 1 «S'i al*« 'Sell- afifi'38 •8~85§£ ^gg-t imj • •-TTJ -* t/3 !> .sat a O.> C/5 !> c c s S is S. I I il!|l!' Ha* Si' ^J*;l •BSSBi ;!ilffy;l!l?Il! g§^, g fi|5i l|<2l^3 ps W 138 •s 5 .S 5 5 1= £ "£ .-S i I 1 I i - i ! i : I * t, S « x a !l I 1 •o >> ~ S * l*lil l!.s. !_• « s "* i « 1 I 60 -M I 1 lla | | \H R-O .s ' -* S •* ..2 c_ ^ w IH+J 4J -^ fl j£ P -c^^- 'ig.-i;3isi mmer, t or snap aw; spr « o . -5 &g a*' S -^fc-S^ 2b «^ i fll^i "5 "" o ^^riS-S^ 73. ill jrf J l*i'afl|* P M g |*Il« 5 *! oo £ i -|a°s g f^li 8 :«a Si ii -i ga She Sna Number of hogs al- lowed per steer?. . o o o How do you feed your u5 j,S *•' corn ? At what age do you put your cattle on full feed? years What margin of profit ! is necessary per 100 Ibs.? •8S. ^_ o_ o __ o 2|2lfyl si MWM.08 ^ Wg eo c, J, t ^ • o o o 0 00 o o o o o o i What weight of cat-i tie has returned i greatest profit? . :Do you shelter in i warm barn, open i shed or feed In open •8 "S -S js a fi in (ft in : Sea son of year most profitable to feed. . . Average length of feeding period, days 4) o t-i 2 _.b ^S Si; 10 «0 -Of . T*< ••••. 01 rt^cS^ rt{3w rtrtrtc3rtc32c3rtrtu rtu rt W-SW-S W63cn WWcflWc^WUW^Wt^ Wen W a 5 S w 88 S g 8 8 8 8 1 i as 33 t/3 7) I I- 1 I I I H H co c/i c/5 c/) S "8 , ^333 v oj u B >.s s 8 "5 8 8 3 393 •8 S 'SSS 1 §»I S a E-ca B = 3 3 0. 3 > rt C/} C/3O1 fe 8b 3 ^ 8 E 140 5 1 I i § sil i i ii l i Si , * f« <*.•£ €aa 1 " l-s st- bf« 111 I s lie 3 i !si : i ,;i°* Number of hogs al- lowed per steer?. . - 10 »o ta -. - I f« at »4 t4 H How do you feed" your corn? 1 ji "S s~ * S a> v o & = At what age do you put your cattle on full feed ? years . . . >f5 t-i Qt jWhat margin of profit Is necessary per 100 ibs.? ..;....... 8 S8§££8£8 888 £S 1-. TH« ^ TH -P ^ « . „ ,- What weight of cat i iiiiiiii fgfif! tie has returned greatest profit? ... i Do you shelter in warm barn. open shed or feed In open D •zX^asKS S * fi 5 X S C/5 t/3c/3C/3iJWCQc/5C/5 ffi C/5 C/3 (/3 C/5 Season of year most profitable to feed. . . a^ c al^ a a a a a? s sfc a -n aafe = a s a aa* = a - e8O-99d>5{^999 99i<,™9 ," C/5<< J. C/3 C/)t/3 fe 00 C/3 {/) 5/31/5 fe C/3 I* S S8®SS888 SSSSSf Average length of feeding period, days Total number of cat-i 53 tie fed... 1 1 s s Number years experi- ence «0 ,- , - — -j; -c et oo «o S SS 12 ** e5 c 31 • fl" • J?fa § : : : i|: i c • tj c a? • : 1 . ' fcT • a • frt •*-• ^ 02 : . rf . . a- S5 • :S '! * o li •g 2*3 "2 "Sb* & *£ ££ -13 Ill I if ••£f> -° a 5 lag 1* s *> *£ rt * • o CQ CC rH (M 141 8 8 888 s 1 8 1 1 1 1 *o tn •o ^3 c -a 4> O U (U C/) C/3 CO CAJ 2 I \ \ nil a S § § 8 8 8 8 ,:§:| i1!! 2 l:'l :1 . 6 g 9 ?J c g B CM H < g "S O •$ !! <1 In FEED EATEN. n 6 JS ifi 1. Jan. 6 to Feb. 8 34 days 6545 935 532 2.1 Hulls, 3138 Ibs. Hay, 2285 Ibs. Corn, 458 Ibs. C.S.Meal 670 Ibs. Bran, 458 Ibs. $ 33.74 14.3c 6.4c 2. Feb. 9 to Mar. 8 28 days 6945 992 400 2.04 Hulls, 2529 Ibs. Hay, 1800 Ibs. Corn, 921 Ibs. Meal, 378 Ibs. Bran, 378 Ibs. 32.27 16.4c 8.04c 3. Mar. 9 to Apr. 11 34 days 7429 1061 484 2.03 Hulls, 2936 Ibs. Hay, 1904 Ibs. Corn, 2524 Ibs. Meal, 442 Ibs. Bran, 442 Ibs. .54.11 22.9c 11. 6c Totals Average 1407 201 2.09 $120.12 17.8c 8.5c LOT 2. — 5 steers stall fed on meal and hulls. Total weight, 4078 Ibs. Average weight, 815.6 Ibs. PERIOD. o 8 *g .5P &£ o> .S O 5 R a si FEED EATEN. •3 I O ^ m 1. 34 days 4395 879 317 1.87 Hulls, 4422 Ibs. Meal, 975 Ibs. $ 19.39 11. 4c e.ic 6c 6.2c 2. 28 days 4647 929.4 252 1.8 Hulls, 3333 Ibs. Meal, 797 Ibs. $ 15.28 10.9c 3. 34 days 4988 997.6 341 2.-|- Hulls, 4306 Ibs. Meal, 1167 Ibs. $ 21.08 12.4c Totals Average 910 185 1.93 $ 55.75 11.61C 6.1c 20 MISSISSIPPI EXPERIMENT STATION. LOT 3. — 3 poor steers. Stall fed on mixed ration. Total weight, 1992 Ihs. Averapeweight, 064 Ihs. PERIOD. c £'? f^ | X _£j' .- t FEED il ~ FATEX. c o 1 J_D &' o i 4_ ^0 • •r."3 +~ -n -1 C 3 r " ^ $f| ^ §, fc 1 . Jan. 0 to Feh. 8 2103 701 34 days 111 Hulls, 1144 Ihs. Hav, 713 Ihs. 1.09 Corn. 173 Ihs. Meal, 254 Ibs. Bran, 173 Ihs. S 12.02 11. 8c 10.8c 2. Feh. 9 to Mar. 8 2200 733 28 days 97 Hulls, 873 Ibs. Hav, 030 Ibs. 1.15 Corn, 321 Ihs. Meal, 134 Ibs. Bran, 134 Ihs. S 11.20 13.4 11. 6c 3. Mar. 9 to Apr. 11 2382 794 34 days 182 Hulls, 992 Ihs. Hay, 078 Ihs. 1.78 Corn, 840 Ihs. Meal, 158 Ibs. Bran, 158 Ibs. S 18.45 18. Ic 10. Ic Totals Average 390 130 1.35 S 41.73 14. 5c 10. 7c LOT 4.— 5 steers fed in open lot \\itli shelter on mixed ration. Total weight, 4355 Ihs. Average weight, 871 Ihs. PERIOD. o % -^ " < . d < 1 6 ft 1. Jan. 8 to Feb. X 32 dav. Hulls, 2255 Ibs. Hav. 1500 Ihs. •1055 931 3001.X7 Corn, 320 Ihs. S 23.77 Meal, 480 Ihs. Bran, 390 Ihs. 14.84c 7.9c 2. Feh. 9 to Mar. X 2X days Hulls. 1980 Ihs. illav, 1350 Ihs. 1XOS (Mil.O 1531.09 Corn, 700 Ibs. S 24.23 Meal, 275 Ihs. Bran, 275 Ihs. 17.31c 15.8c 3.' Mar. 9 to Apr. 1 1 34 days Hulls, 2224 IbsJ Hav, 101 5 Ihs. 5335 1007 5273.1 Corn. 1890 Ibs. * 41 .54 Meal, 330 Ibs.! Bran, 330 Ihs. 24.4 Ic 7.87c Totals Average 980 S 89.54 , 1962.085 18.6c 9.13c FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN MISSISSIPPI. 21 LOT 5. — 5 steers fed in open lot without shelter on cottonseed meal and hulls. Total weight, 4870 Ibs. Average weight, 974 Ibs. 3^ . £ 51 - 1 fefij r°'o o>*55 FEED lo'C •£> IB£ a PERIOD. *o S'g 1 O R &k EATEN. *© 3 a" o|'| & >• X! ^i 6 fta 1. Jan. 8 to Feb. 8 5176 1035.2 306 1.8 Hulls, 4590 Ibs. $ 19.59 12.24c 6.4c 32 days Meal, 960 Ibs. 2. Feb. 9 to Mar. 8 5331 1066.2 155 1.1 Hulls, 3960 Ibs. $ 16.98 12.12c ll.c— 28 days Meal, 890 Ibs. 3. Mar. 9 to Apr. 11 5599 1119.8 268 1.58 Hulls, 4660 Ibs. $ 23.54 13.83c 8.78c 34 days Meal, 1330 Ibs. Totals 729 $ 60.11 Average 146 1.52 12.8c 8.2c TABLE II. TABLE I IN EXTENDED FORM, SHOWING INDIVIDUAL GAINS OF STEERS. LOT 1. STEER No. and WEIGHT. 1 1 1 '53 " 1 02 h-1 Average gain per day. Value of feed eaten. Cost per day. d ^> W) 1 "^ 8 219 Wt, 858 1st 2nd 3rd 925 980 1079 67 55 99 2.— 2.— 2.9 $ 4.57 4.23 7.86 13.44c 15.1 23.1 6.82c 7.7c 7.94c 57.2 Total and Average 221 2.3 $ 16.66 17.35c 7.54c 202 Wt. 867 1st 2nd 3rd 945 1000 1085 78 55 85 2.3— 2.— 2.5 $ 4.73 4.48 7.91 13.9c 16.c 23.3c 6.06c 8.14c 9.36 60 Total and Average 218 2.27 $ 17.12 17.83c 7.84c 131 Wt. 820 1st 2nd 3rd 870 925 990 50 55 65 1.47 2. L91 $ 5.12 4.77 8.18 15.06c 17. c 24.x c 10.24c 8.67c 12.58c 55.2 Total and Average 170 1.77-- $ 18.07 18.82c 10.63c 126 Wt. 922 1st 2nd 3rd 998 1055 f!088 76 57 33 2.24 2.04— .97 $ 5.14 4.80 7.43 15.12c 17.14c 21.85c 6.77c 8.42c 22.51c Total and Average 1 166 1.73 $ 17.37 18.1 c 10.46c 22 MISSISSIPPI EXPERIMENT STATION. LOT 1— CONTINUED. | re ^ d fT 0) £d oS 'I °1 STEER No. ^ °^o <3 O §0^ 'o-^ S-, OJ 1 • 'rt » and ^ Is « o3 ^ O) ^ OH o ^ WEIGHT. g ^Pn 03 ^3 |l ^s 03 3 I o> I 128 1st 755 70 2.06 $ 4.37 12.85c 6.24c 2nd 795 40 1.53 3.95 14.1 c 9.88c 57.8 Wt. 685 3rd 855 60 1.77— 6.30 18.5 c 10.5 c Total and Average 170 1.77 $ 14.62 15.23c 8.96c 133 1st 1012 112 3.3— $ 4.96 14.3c- 4.43c 2nd 1075 63 2.25 4.99 17.82c 7.92c 56.9 Wt. 900 3rd 1140 65 1.91-1- 8.18 24.c-|- 12.58c Total and Average 240 2.5 $ 18.13 18.9 c 7.55c 132 1st 1040 70 2.04 $ 4.99 14.7 c 7.13c 2nd 1115 75 2.68 5.05 lg-C_|_ 6.73c Wt. 970 3rd 1192 77 2.26x 8.25 24.26c 10.71c Total and Average Grand Tot. and Av. 222 1407 2.09 $ 18.29 $ 120.26 19.05c 17.8 c 8.69c 8.5 c LOT 2. STEER No. and WEIGHT. T3 faC-g .S £ ^ & • S-g-g ill d 'c8 O 03 a Lt 0 Q. fit Value of feed eaten. H "^ "§ |*| 6l& Ta> •ss %? II 130 Wt. 862 1st 2nd 3rd 949 1020 1105 87 71 85 2.55 2.54 2.5^ $ 4.26 3.36 4.75 12.65c 12.c 14.c 4.9 c 4.73c 5.59c 57.4 Total and Average 243 2.53x $ 12.37 12.9c 5.1c- 122 Wt. 765 1st 2nd 3rd 840 897 960 75 57 63 2.2 2.04 1.85 $ 4.06 3.16 4.27 12.c— 11.3 c 12.6 c 5.41c 5.54c 6.8 c 58. Total and Average- 195 2.03 $ 11.49 12.C— 5.9 c 226 Wt. 820 1st 2nd 3rd 890 950 994 70 60 44 2.06 2.14 1.3 $ 3.98 3.12 4.21 11.7 c 11.14c 12.4 c 5.7 c 5.2 c 9.6 c Total and Average 174 1.81 $ 11.31 11.78c 6.56c 34 Wt. 955 1st ?nd 3rd f981 1015 1089 26 34 74 .77— 1.21 2.18 $ 3.60 10.6 c 2.98 10.74c 4.27 12.56c 13.9 c 8.76c 5.76c 56.3 Total and Average 134 1.39 $ 10.85 11.3 c 8.1 c • 129 Wt. 676 1st 2nd 3rd 735 765 840 59 30 75 1.74 1.07 2.21 $ 3.49 2.62 3.58 10.26c 9.4 c 10.53c 5.9c 8.73c 4.8 c 55.5 Total and Average Grand Tot. and Av. 164 910 1.71 1.93 $ 9.69 $ 5'5.71 10.1 c 11.61c 5.84c 6.2 e FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN MISSISSIPPI. LOT 3. 23 .2 ^ . d <*H d 1 A . C3 STEER No. *£>£ +3 °l2 3 bJO^ *o-2 43 0 • "1 \ and WEIGHT. 1 a) |ii l& & C2 3 « f 3a h si £ ? 5 ! -< 0 A fln-d 29 1st 637 57 1.68 $ 3.89 11.44c 6.82c 2nd 670 33 1.18 3.47 12.4 c 10.52c 55. Wt. 580 3rd 750 80 2.35 5.65 16.6 c 7.06c Total and Average 170 1.77 $ 13.01 13.55c 7.65c 14 1st 611 21 .62 3.45 10.75c 16.43c 2nd 690 29 1.03 3.20 11.42c 11.03c 52.2 Wt. 590 3rd 683 43 1.26 5.24 15.41c 12.18c Total and Average 93 .97 $ 11.89 12.38c 12.78c 216 1st 855 33 .97 $ 4.68 13.76c 14.18c 2nd 890 35 1.25 4.59 16.4 c IS.llc 50.6 Wt. 822 3rd 949 59 1.73 7.55 22.21c 12.8 c Total and Average Grand Tot. and Av. 127 390 1.32 1.35 $ 16.82jl7.52c $ 41.72 14.5 c 13.25c 10.7 c LOT 4. STEER No. and WEIGHT. ? f T3 1 ^o^ £TT§ |« d JB O | *£ I*3 2 *H |§, ^ ^ . 0) 3 6 8;d SH oS SJ 205 Wt. 830 1st 2nd 3rd 930 960 1075 100 30 115 3.12 Ibs. 1.07 3.38 57.3 Total and Average 245 2.6 212 Wt. 950 1st 2nd 3rd 970 983 1081 20 13 98 .625 .465 2,9 59.5 Total and Average 131 1.4 135 Wt. 1035 1st 2nd 3rd 1090 1125 1230 55 35 105 1.72 1.25 3.1 58.7 Total and Average 195 2.-|- 134 Wt. 730 1st 2nd 3rd 830 870 972 100 40 102 3.12 1.93 3.0 58.5 Total and Average 242 2.57 121 Wt. 810 1st 2nd 3rd 835 870 977 25 35 107 .78 1.25 3.15 Total and Average Grand Total and Av. 167 980 1.78 2.085 24 MISSISSIPPI EXPERIMENT STATION. LOT 5. STEER No. and WEIGHT. TJ 0 ME 1 1 -*^ .5P § n. '3 O &>» |S 233 Wt. 890 1st 2nd 3rd 950 995 1085 60 45 90 i 1.88 1.6 2.64 59.5 Total and Average 195 2.07 35 Wt. 1010 1st 2nd 3rd 1040 1059 1093 30 19 34 .94 .7 1. 59. Total and Average 83 .98 136 Wt. 1035 1st 2nd 3rd 1105 1130 1175 70 25 45 2.2 .9 1.3 59. Total and Average 140 1.5 137 Wt. 960 1st 2nd 3rd 1040 1082 1145 80 42 63 2.4 1.5 1.85 56. Total and Average 185 1.97 I 209 Wt. 975 1st 2nd 3rd 1041 1065 1101 66 24 36 2.06 .86 1.06 58.2 Total and Average Grand Totals and Av. 126 729 1.34 1.55lbs. StJLLEf IN No. 90, THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA. OF THE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OF NEBRASKA. VOLUME XVIII, ARTICLE I. CATTLE FEEDING EXPERIMENT. ROUGHNESS SUPPLEMENTARY TO CORN FOR FATTENING TWO-YEAR-OLD RANGE STEERS. BY H. R. SMITH. DISTRIBUTED NOVEMBER 25, 1905. UNCOLN, NEBRASKA, U. S. A. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OP NEBRASKA THE GOVERNING BOARD JOHN L. TEETERS, Resident, Lincoln EDSON P. RICH, Omaha ELISHA C. CALKINS, Kearney CARL J. ERNST, Omaha CHAS. S. ALLEN, Lincoln WM. G. WHITMORE, Valley THE STATION OFFICERS E. A. BURNETT, B.Sc., Director T. L. LYON, Pn.D., Associate Director and Agriculturist J. S. DALES, M. PH., Financial Secretary WM. W. MARSHALL, Executive Clerk THE WORKING STAFF H. R. SMITH, B. Sc., Animal Husbandman A. T PETERS, D. V. M., Animal Pathologist FREDERICK D. HEALD, PH.D., Botanist S. AVERT, PH. D., Chemist A. L. HAECKEB, B. Sc. A., Dairy Husbandman LAWRENCE BRUNER, B. Sc. , Entomologist ERWIN H. BARBOUR, PH. D. , Geologist G. R. CHATBURN, A.M., Highway Engineer R. A. EMERSON, B. Sc., Horticulturist O. V. P. STOUT, C. E , Irrigation and Drainage Engineer G. D. SWEZEY, M. A., Meteorologist J. H. GAIN, M. D. C., Associate Animal Pathologist W. P. SNYDER, M.S , Superintendent Experimental Substation* North Platte ALVIN KEYSER, B. Sc., Assistant Chemid S. W. PERIN, Farm Foreman CATTLE FEEDING EXPERIMENT. ROUGHNESS SUPPLExMENTARY TO CORN FOR FATTENING TWO- YEAR-OLD RANGE STEERS. By H. R. SMITH. In the economical production of beef, the character of the roughness fed in connection with corn is a factor of greater importance than we have given it in the past. Heretofore, the inclination among cattle feeders ha,s been to depend almost entirely upon corn for producing beef, supplying almost any sort of roughness that would satisfy the craving of the animal for something bulky. Some, in fact, have operated upon the theory that in producing beef for the market it is desirable to feed corn as heavily as possi- ble, discouraging the consumption of rough feed by supply- ing an inferior quality of hay and not infrequently nothing more than a straw stack. Under present market conditions, with a foreign and home demand for corn such as to make this grain continue high in price, and with beef selling at a figure hardly in keeping with modern corn values, we are forced to depend less upon grain and more upon the cheaper bulky foods. Tn other words, we are compelled to recognize the fact that the steer is an animal adapted for the conversion of roughage as well as grain into beef and that this part of the ration should be given as much consideration. It was the desire on the part of the Station to secure data on the relative value of rough feeds common in the West that led to a feeding test with yearling steers during the winter of 1904, the results of which were published in Bulletin 85. It seemed advisable to se- cure further proof along this line, and similar investiga- BULL. 90, AGE. EXP. STATION OF NEBR. VOL. XVIII, ART. I. 6 Cattle Feeding Experiment. tions were carried on the past winter with two-year-old steers. The only departure made in the two-year-old test was the use of alfalfa hay as a source of protein in the place of oil-meal for the steers fed corn-stoyer. PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENT. On December 28, 1904, fifty range two-year-old steers, mostly grade Shorthorns, were purchased in South Omaha. These steers came from what is known as the North Park country in Colorado, where they had all been handled in the same manner, none having received grain previous to their use in the experiment. When purchased they went under the stock yards nomenclature of "hay feds." Upon arrival at the Experiment Station farm, the fifty steers were placed in five separate lots with ten in each lot. In making the division, the better steers were distributed in such a way as to make the several lots as even as possible in both quality and weight. SHELTER. At the north end of each feed lot was shed space with large open doors on the south to permit the steers to pass in and out at will. These sheds were kept bedded with straw and the steers were thus encouraged to lie down when not eating, a matter of importance in beef production. Within each shed was placed a box which always contained salt. Both hay and grain were fed in the lots, which were sufficiently large to permit the steers to move about freely without being unduly active. The yards were no drier than the average feed lots in the State. No doubt still larger gains would have been secured had the lots been better drained. WATER. Water was made accessible twice each day by giving each lot of cattle the run of a yard in which was stationed a tank fed by an elevated reservoir. The water came from a deep Cattle Feeding Experiment. 7 well and was always pure. Small heaters were used in the tanks during extremely cold weather simply to prevent ice formation. The importance of having a plentiful supply of water cannot be given too much emphasis. PRELIMINARY FEEDING. Inasmuch as all the steers were accustomed to native prairie hay, it seemed best to continue with that feed for a time, making the change to the experimental rations gradual. Twenty-four days were occupied in making this change, so that it was not until January 21st that each lot was on its experimental ration entire and the records of the experiment proper were begun. During these three weeks of preliminary feeding, the steers were fed a grain ration, gradually in- creased from four pounds the first day to ten pounds Jan- uary 21st INITIAL WEIGHTS OF STEERS. The steers were weighed at the time of the division of the lots, December 28th, and each lot was again weighed four days in succession just preceding and immediately after January 21st, the average being taken for the initial wei^.-t of each lot January 21st, the opening day of the experiment. The average of four successive days' weighings was made in order to secure a more reliable record of weights and gains, a single weight being unsatisfactory because it may be on a fill either above or below normal. RATIONS FED. Each lot was fed for twenty-four weeks upon rations as follows : Lot 1, shelled corn and prairie hay. Lot 2, shelled corn 90 per cent, oil-meal 10 per cent, and prairie hay. Lot 3, shelled corn and alfalfa hay. Lot 4, shelled corn, alfalfa hay, and corn-stover. 8 Cattle Feeding Experiment. Lot 5, shelled corn 90 per cent, oil-meal 10 per cent, and sorghum hay. CHARACTER OF FOODS USED. The shelled corn used was a good quality of yellow dent. The oil-meal was oil-cake which had been ground coarsely, the particles being about the size of peas or kernels of corn. The pea size is less likely to be adulterated than finely ground meal and is not blown by the wind in open bunks. Both the prairie hay and the alfalfa were of good quality, the latter being from an early cutting, therefore less laxa- tive in its effects. The corn-stover was from corn cut and put in the shock just after the husks about the ears had turned yellow, while most of the stalk leaves were yet green. The kernels were hard and well dented, so there was no injury whatever to the corn by cut! ing and shocking at that stage. The ears were all removed from the stalks several weeks later and the stover (stalks without ears) was left in shocks outdoors until late in winter, when it was stored under roof. It was fed in open racks unshreddcd. The sorghum hay (cane) was grown by planting the seeds rather thickly. The stems varied from the size of a pencil to that of the finger on a man's hand. The fodder was kept in stacks until late spring, when some was put under cover for better preservation during rainy weather. The sorghum was also fed in open racks uncut. METHOD OF FEEDING. Each lot having been gradually increased from four pounds of grain per steer December 28th to ten pounds January 21st, the opening of the experiment proper, there remained considerable room for a further increase before a full feed of grain was reached. For the sake of economy in the larger use of roughage, it was not until the end of the eighth week Cattle Feeding Experiment. 9 of the experiment proper that the cattle were receiving what would be considered a full grain feed. During the first two months of the experiment, all lots were purposely fed the same weight of grain and all the hay that would be cleaned out of the racks reasonably well. After the second month, each lot was fed grain according to the appetites of the cattle, some taking more than others, the amount fed being just what would be consumed within about one hour after feeding. The steers were fed morning and night, at the same hours each day, and the feeding bunks were large enough to accommodate the ten head at one time. Every feed of roughage was weighed, the waste being thrown out for bedding but charged to the steers as though all had been consumed. This amounted to several pounds each day in the case of the corn-stover, the butts being use- less for feed. MONTHLY RECORD OF GAINS. An attempt was made to secure an accurate record of the gains by month. It was thought that by making an average of three weights on successive days at the end of each month, uneven ness due to fill would be overcome, which was true in part, though the daily gains for each separate month as shown by the following table are so variable as to make one conclude that fill is a difficult matter to control, even when several weighings are made at the same hour each day and under the same conditions. The table is of especial interest in that it shows the average amount of both grain and hay fed daily during each period of four weeks, the increasing amount of feed required for a pound of gain as the cattle take on more fat, and the corresponding increase in cost of gains. 10 Cattle Feeding Experiment. go punod T jo «0 rH !>• Cl CO ^ 00 g» CO O O '*l 00 i— I r^ IO C-' OS 00 OS JM ;HH rHlOOO t*- rH rH OS IO CO t-' OS O CO •^ IO t- t- t> O jo puriod aedpooj^ox UD CO 1C OO "* t^ r~ osoc-o co ^ O r- CMCOlOO rH rH rH rH r-i CM i rJH CD 00 OS O rH CM rH rH CD jo puriod aed peums -uoo £. B H 3 CO IO CO CO CO CO CM CO CM CO CO CO CD rH CM ^H 10 rH CO* tO CO CM CM* CO •ure3 jo puriod aed pecans -UOO UIBJjC) •ft OS t* CO CC t~- t- Tjl t- O O !M ^ CD 00 O —i CO rHiH tH ^CD O5O5O5CO 00 uee^s aed •§ CO CO Oi r- ^-l CD CNCOrHOS O t> OS JN b- IO CO ** •aee;B aed (M CO CO O5 t' t- ds O5 CD 'MOSiO O5 O5 O i— 1 HH oo ^ -H co r- co CO O t-~ TH O *O OS OS O O rH CM CM CM -oo" &.o- -o- 1-5 fe ^ <5 ^ r, 1-3 ^ .,,, 02 Tj ^ -M +3 -M rH(MCO •* IOCD t- -^ O5 O t- CO O* CO •ureS jo punod. jad pooj •aivX jo punod jgd parans -uoo A « H jo punod J9d pgtuns -UOO UtBXQ S lO Tjl CO CO CO kO S OS OS 00 t- t- t- OS 82a338j& Tji co' c~ os t~ co CO OS CO OrH C- CO C- CO CO t-iH CO lOCO. -e S§ jl is 0 12 Cattle Feeding Experiment. COMMENTS ON THE EXPERIMENT. At the end of the second month one of the largest steers in Lot 4 contracted pneumonia from the effects of dipping and was withdrawn. His weight was credited to that lot, and the average thereafter was made on nine steers, which in no wise affected the results, though the withdrawal of such a heavy steer lowered the average of later weights in that lot. After the second month's feeding, while each lot was fed all the grain that would be cleaned up reasonably soon, it will be noted that Lot 1 consumed the least grain of all. This lack of appetite was no doubt due to the fact that in- sufficient protein was furnished by corn and prairie hay, the steers in this lot being the only ones which were given a poorly balanced ration. This is exactly what occurred with yearling steers the previous winter, and it is probable that the smaller consumption of food partially accounts for the smaller gains on corn and prairie hay both winters. A large utilization of food is always more economical than a smaller one, because it is the surplus over and above maintenance re- quirements which goes to produce increase in weight. The steers receiving sorghum hay were the heaviest con- sumers of grain, \vhich was also true with yearlings the pre- vious winter, though there was less difference with the latter. The steers when on a full grain feed consumed but a rela- tively small quantity of roughage, the amount being regu- lated in each lot by the inclination of the cattle. The light gain for food consumed during the last month was due to the fact that the steers were then in good flesh, though the hot weather in June, together with the annoyance caused by flies, no doubt contributed to make the gain an unsatisfactory one. With salt before the cattle at all times, each steer in Lot 1 consumed an average of .21 pound per week; in Lot 2, .21 pound; in Lot 3, .19 pound; in Lot 4, .15 pound; and in Lot 5, .31 pound. Cattle Feeding Experiment. The cost of producing one pound of gain is based upon the following average market values current in Lincoln, Nebr., during the progress of the experiment: Corn, 70 cents per hundred (39 cents per bushel). Oil-meal, fl.40 per hundred ($28 per ton). Alfalfa hay, $6 per ton. Prairie hay, $6 per ton. Sorghum hay, $3.50 per ton* Corn-stover, $2.50 per ton. Following is a condensed table showing the average record of each steer by lot for the entire period of twenty-four weeks from January 21 to July 8, 1905: TABLE II. — Averages per steer for the entire period. - Lotl. Lot 2. Lot 3. Lot 4. Lot 5. 1 || | 1 l I •I'd 1 If i| 1 I| •3 If ii P §» 0*" ! g Jrt Average weight per steer January 21, 926 934 937 941 926 Average gain per steer for six months, 314.8 360 6 385 4 401.5 385 7 Average gain per steer per day, pounds Average grain per steer per day, pounds Average roughage per steer per day, 1.9 17.9 2.1 19.4 2.3 18.6 2.4 18.4 2.3 21.5 pounds 9.7 9.5 9.2 9.9 8.8 Average grain consumed for eaoh Dound of gain pounds 952 906 8 14 7 89 9 36 Average roughage consumed for each Dound of firkin pounds .... 5 19 4 30 402 456 3 82 Average cost of one pound of gain, 8.23 8.27 6.89 6.49 7 87 Nutritive ratio by lot 1:10.2 1:8 1:7.4 1:8.4 1:8.2 14 Cattle Feeding Experiment. The following (able, si lowing the record for yearling steers as determined in H)04 and published in Itulletin 85, is intro- duced here to show the relative efficiency of similar rations with younger rattle. The yearlings were in better flesh at the beginning so that a comparison of the cattle at different ages should not be made : TABLE III. — Averages for yearling steers, December 26, 7903, to June 26, 1904. Lot 1. Lot 2. Lot 3. Lot 4. Lots. U" Corn, prairie bay. f! Corn, alfalfa hay. ® £ 'c 2 l{ Average weight per steer December 26, 1903 pounds 801 246 1 35 143 8.7 10.5 G.5 8.27 799 347 1.91 154 8.8 8.1 4.6 G.82 8C8 359 1.97 15.3 9.2 7.7 4.7 6.01 777 35G 1.96 15.G U.2 8.0 5 7 6. 09 788 324 1.78 15.G 11.3 8.7 6.4 7.0 Average gain per steer for six months, pounds Average gain per steer per day for six months pounds . Average grain per steer per day. pounds Average roughage per steer per day, pounds Grain consumed per pound of gain, pounds . Roughage consumed per pound of gain, pounds Cost of one pound of gain, cents Nutritive ratio by lot 1:10.4 1:8 1:7 1:8 3 1:9 Prices, 1904. — Corn, GO cents per hundred; oil-meal, 825 per ton; prairie hay, SG per ton; alfalfa, $6 per ton; sorghum, $3.50 per ton; corn-stover, £2.50 per ton. DEDUCTIONS FROM THE TWO EXPERIMENTS SUMMARIZED IN TABLES II AND III. (1) I»y adding one pound of oil-meal to every nine pounds of corn to furnish protein lacking in a ration consisting of corn and prairie hay, 5 per cent less grain was required for each pound of gain on 1 \vo-ycar-old steers and 23 per cent less on vearlinus. Cattle Feeding Expcr.ment. 15 (2) By feeding alfalfa hay, which is a protein-rich rough- ness extremely palatable and readily masticated, in place of prairie hay with corn alone, 14 per cent less grain was "re- quired for each pound of gain on two-year-olds and 27 per cent less on yearlings. (3) Alfalfa hay, fed once per day in connection with corn and well-cured cornstalks, furnished sufficient protein for two-year-olds to make the three foods a combination pro- ducing heavy and very economical gains — more economical than any other ration in the experiment. . (4) Corn and oil-meal mixed at the rate of one pound of oil-meal to nine of corn, fed with cured cornstalks for rough- age, made an efficient combination for yearlings, and one quite as economical a,s corn and alfalfa, oil-meal at that time being worth $25 per ton. (5) Sorghum hay fed with corn 90 per cent and oil-meal 10 per cent, the latter to supply needed protein, made a good fattening ration for both two-year-olds and yearlings, though, less economical than cornstalks, the latter being cheaper because a by-product in corn production. (6) Though less profitable in the end, the cost of produ- cing one pound of gain on two-year-olds was approximately the same without the use of oil-meal as when the oil-meal formed 10 per cent of the grain ration in connection with corn and prairie hay and cost $28 per ton. On yearlings the cost of producing one pound of gain was 17 per cent less with 10 per cent of oil-meal than without oil-meal when the latter was worth $25 per ton. (7) The use of cornstalks, worth $2.50 per ton, in Lot 4, as a substitute for one-half the alfalfa, worth $6 per ton, as fed in Lot 3, reduced the cost of gains on two-year-olds 6 per cent. (8) Thin two-year-olds from the 'range made practically as large gains for food consumed as did yearling steers in good grass flesh at the beginning of the experiment. 16 Cattle Feeding Experiment. SHIPMENT. All lots of cattle in this experiment with two-year-old steers were reduced to one-half their usual allowance of grain and fed prairie hay immediately after the close .of the ex- periment, preparatory to shipment two days later. SALE. They were sold in South Omaha, July 11, 1905, to the Omaha Packing Company, at the following prices: Lot 1, corn and prairie hay $5 10 per hundred Lot 2, corn, oil-meal, and prairie hay. . 5 25 per hundred Lot 3, corn and alfalfa hay 5 25 per hundred Lot 4, corn, alfalfa and corn-stover. ... 5 30 per hundred Lot 5, corn, oil-meal and sorghum 5 30 per hundred Lots 4 and 5 sold at the top price for the day, at which time there was a heavy run of beef cattle. The writer does not believe that the ration fed Lot 3 caused them to under- sell Lots 4 and 5, as a small difference in quality, rather than fat, could easily have been made six months previous when the cattle were divided. In Lot 1, however, there was a pronounced lack of finish, apparently about one month's feeding, which was unquestionably the cause of their being sold 15 and 20 cents below the other lots. The previous win- ter the corn and prairie hay fed yearlings sold from 20 to 35 cents per hundred below all other lots, and the alfalfa and corn lot in that experiment was one of the number which sold 35 cents higher. The following statement of the dress- ing of each lot, as furnished by the Omaha Packing Com- pany, shows the lack of finish on the steers fed corn and prairie hay, as steers lacking flesh dress a lower percentage : Cmttle Feeding Experiment. 17 DRESSING BT LOT. CARCAS3. INTESTINAL FAT. Lot 1 60.20 per cent 2.G6 per cent Lot 2 60.87 per cent 2.69 per cent Lot 3 . .61.40 per cent 3.30 per cent Lot 4 61.62 per cent 3.33 per cent Lot 5 60.73 per cent 3.26 per cent FINANCIAL STATEMENT. In the following statement, the original cost of the steers (|3.90 per hundredweight in South Omaha, 30 cents per hundred below top prices for feeders) including freight from South Omaha to Lincoln and food consumed during the pre- liminary period of feeding, makes the net cost on the opening day of the experiment proper exactly four cents per pound on experiment weights. The selling price is also net on final weights in the experiment. The cost of labor is not included since it is customary to figure the manure worth the labor. Lot 1. 1905 Dr. Cr. Jan. 21 To 10 steers, weight 9,260 Ibs., at 4 cents net, Lincoln $370 40 To 29,988 Ibs. corn at 70 cents per cwt. (39 cents per bu.) 209 91 To 16,348 Ibs. prairie hay at $8.00 per ton 49 04 To interest on investment ($370.40) for 6 mo. at 6 per cent 11 11 1905 July 8 By 10 steers, 12,410 Ibs., at $4.78 net, Lincoln.. $592 58 By 732 Ibs. of pork, from droppings, at 5 cents net 36 60 By loss on ten steers (pork produced from droppings included) 11 28 $640 46 $640 46 (Loss per steer, $1.13.) 18 Cattle Feeding Experiment. THE FIVE LOTS AS THEY APPEARED AT THE CLOSE OF THE EXPERIMENT. Lot 1. Corn and prairie hay. : , ' T-ot 2. Corn 90$, oil-meal 10$, and prairie hay. Cattle Feeding Experiment. Lot 3. Corn and alfalfa hay. Lot 4. Corn, alfalfa, and corn-stover. Lot 5. Corn 30#, oil-meal 10#, and sorghum hay 80 Cattle Feeding Experiment. Lot 2. 1905 Jan. 21 To 10 steers, weight 9,340 Ibs., at 4 cents net, Lincoln $373 60 To 29,273 Ibs. corn at 70 cents per cwt '204 91 To 3,252 Ibs. oil-meal at $28 per ton 45 53 To 15,437 Ibs. prairie hay at $6 per ton 46 31 To interest on $373.60, 6 mo. at 6 per cent 11 20 To profit on 10 steers, pork produced included. 10 92 1905 July 8 By 10 steers, 12,930 Ibs., at $4.98 net, Lincoln.. $643 12 By 987 Ibs. of pork at 5 cents net 49 35 $692 47 $692 47 (Profit per steer, $1.09.) Lot 3. 1905 Jan. 21 To 10 steers, weight 9,370 Ibs., at 4 cents net, Lincoln $374 80 To 31,502 Ibs. corn, at 70 cents per cwt 220 51 To 15,557 Ibs. alfalfa hay at $6 per ton 46 67 To interest on $374.80, 6 mo. at 6 per cent 11 24 To profit on 10 steers, pork produced included . . 28 60 1905 July 8 By 10 steers, 13,240 Ibs., at $5 net, Lincoln $66142 By 408 Ibs. of pork at 5 cents net 20 40 $681 82 $681 82 (Profit per steer, $2.86.) Lot 4. 1905 Jan. 21 To 10 steers, weight 9,410 Ibs., at 4 cento net, Lincoln $376 40 To 31,678 Ibs. of corn at 70 cents per cwt 221 74 To 9,154 Ibs. of alfalfa at $6 per ton 27 46 To 9,154 Ibs. of corn-stover at $2.50 per ton 11 44 To interest on $376.40, 6 mo. at 6 per cent 11 29 To profit on 10 steers, pork produced included. . 33 18 1905 Mar. 18 By one steer withdrawn, weight 1,140 Ibs., at $4.70 $53 58 July 8 By 9 steers, 11,916 Ibs., at $5.04 net, Lincoln.. 600 68 By 545 Ibs. of pork at 5 cents 27 25 $881 51 $681 51 (Profit per steer, $3.32.) Cattle Feeding Experiment. 21 Lot 5. 1905 Jan. 21 To 10 steers, 9,260 Ibs., at 4 cents net, Lin- coln $370 40 To 33,427 Ibs. corn at 70 cents per cwt 227 62 To 3,603 Ibs. oil-meal at $28 per ton 50 44 To 14,745 Ibs. sorghum hay at $3.50 per ton 25 80 To interest on $370.40, 6 mo. at 6 per cent 11 11 To profit on 10 steers, pork produced included. . 19 22 1905 July 8 By 10 steers, 13,120 Ibs., at $5.03 $660 24 By 887 Ibs. pork at 5 cents 4435 $704 59 $704 59 (Profit per steer, $192.) CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS EXPERIMENT. 1. When the ration consisted of corn and prairie hay, the amount of grain required for each pound of gain was less- ened live per cent by adding oil-meal to the grain ration. The cost of producing a pound of gain was not lessened by the addition of oil-meal, but a better finish was secured, which caused the cattle to sell for 15 cents more per hundred, making a profit of $1.09 per head where a loss of $1.13 re- sulted from feeding corn and prairie hay only. The cattle returned a value of $35 per ton for the oil-meal fed, with corn worth 39 cents per bushel. 2. Alfalfa is much superior to prairie hay when the grain consists of corn alone. It also proved to be a cheaper source of protein than oil-meal. The returns on the cattle fed al- falfa hay, were the alfalfa figured at $11.14 per ton, would have been as great as the returns on prairie hay at $6 per ton, with corn as the grain ration at 39 cents per bushel. In com- parison with prairie hay at $6 when oil-meal worth $28 per ton was a part of the grain ration, the alfalfa returned a value of $8.28 per ton. 3. Bright, well-cured corn-stover fed with an equal weight of alfalfa, the grain consisting of corn alone, gave slightly larger gains than corn and alfalfa, and proved the most eco- nomical ration in the experiment. The addition of corn- stover may have improved to some extent the corn and alfalfa 22 Ctttie feeding Experiment. ration by furnishing greater variety and by its tendency to check scours sometimes caused by alfalfa. The stover fed with alfalfa returned a value of $4.57 per ton in comparison with alfalfa at $6 per ton as the sole roughness. 4. Sorghum hay returned a value of |4.63 per ton in com- parison with prairie hay at $6, each being fed with corn 90 per cent and oil-meal 10 per cent. 5. The ration given Lot 1, corn and prairie hay, with a nu- tritive ratio of 1 :10.2, was too low in protein for large gains. However, the fact that corn, alfalfa, and stover, with a nutri- tive ratio of 1 :8.4, gave a little larger gain for food consumed than corn and alfalfa (1:7.4), is additional proof of the cor- rectness of the "American idea" that the old and accepted German standards call for more protein than is needed for the best gains, and that a nutritive ratio of 1 :8 may be just as satisfactory for fairly mature cattle as one more narrow. For Western conditions it is certainly more profitable. 6. The margin between cost and average selling price (net) for all steers in this experiment was a little less than fl per hundred. While the profit was small, the steers re- turned a good price for the rough feeds at the market values quoted — high enough to make them profitable crops to grow on the farm. Had the feeds been sold, these values for rough- age would not have been secured on the average Nebraska farm, nor would the manure have been left to make the next crop larger. The results furnish a strong argument in favor of judicious feeding. Note. The writer's experience in fattening cattle on corn in the stalk prompts the conjecture that if a part of the corn in Lot 4 had been fed as shock corn (bundle corn), still more economical gains would have been secured, as with that system there is no expense for husking and shelling the corn, the cob is kept fresh and soft within the husk, thus easily masticated, and the mixture is more readily pene- trated by digestive juices in the stomach than is shelled corn. Cattle feeding Experiment. 23 In this experiment it seemed necessary to feed the corn sep- arately to secure an accurate record of grain consumed. It is expected that data along the line noted will be forthcom- ing one year hence. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The feeding in this experiment was done by Mr. Joseph P. Lamb whose watchfulness, and accuracy in making weights and keeping records are worthy of the highest commendation. FOUR PERTINENT FACTS. Disclosed by Two Experiments (1903-1905). (1) With present prices for both corn and beef, greater con- sideration must be given to the character and quantity of rough- ness fed in connection with corn to fattening cattle. (2) Alfalfa hay is pronouncedly superior to prairie hay for beef production, and the more rapid the extension of the area of land devoted to the production of alfalfa, supplanting the less valu- able and lower yielding native hay, the more rapid will be the production of wealth from our soil. (3) Native prairie hay, if for any reason it is most available for feeding purposes, should not be fed with corn alone, but rather with corn supplemented with a small quantity of some protein food, such as oil-meal, to give more nearly a balance of nutrients in keeping with animal requirements. (4) Cornstalks cut and put in the shock immediately after the ears ripen possess a food value which can not consistently be ignored by the farmer, and existing land values warrant the larger utilization of this roughness by the adoption of methods of harvesting that will make such material more valuable for feeding purposes. 55 O ci 0 O . r- r- •15 SJS P. en o "«3 ° ^ CO 03 - i— I rti JH Q) js °! . ^ 02 ££ 10 .J3 . «^ 03 . fi fe ., Assistant in Agricultural Kolanit. P. S. TIM M iici.i , A. M., Assist;u-t motif of Airri( TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Prices used for feed and cattle 6 Kind of forage fed to each lot 7 Plan of bulletin 8 Continuous record of steers, Tables 1 to 8 9 Gains during first winter, Table 9 18 Daily gains, winters and summers, Table 10 19 Relation of summer and winter gains 20 Relative gains of steers, Table 11 23 Weights of steers at ends of periods, Table 12 24 Forage required for winter, Table 13 25 Forage eaten per steer daily, Table 14 26 Cost of gains , 26 Pounds feed required for 100 Ibs. gain, Table 15 27 Cost of 100 Ibs. gain during winter, Table 16 28 Cost of 100 Ibs. gain during summer, Table 17 29 Cost of feed for wintering steer, Table 18 29 Cost of steer at end of periods, Table 19 31 Cost of steer per 100 Ibs. at end of periods, Table 20 32 Relative standing of forage rations as indicated by winter gains, Table 21 33 Relative standing of forage rations as indicated by summer gains, Table 22 34 Relative standing of forage rations as indicated by gains for the year, Table 23 34 Values of steers for different periods during experiments, Tables 24 to 31 inclusive 35 Rise in price per 100 Ibs. necessary to cover cost of winter feed, Table 32 44 Decrease in price per 100 Ibs. that may be permitted in fall below the spring price, Table 33 44 Cost of steers per 100 Ibs. in spring, Table 34 45 Cost of steers per 100 Ibs. in fall, Table 35 46 Cost of 100 Ibs. gain in summer at various charges for pasture, Table 36 48 Relative price received for ton of forage when cattle are sold in spring, Table 37 49 Summary of entire experiment .53 GROWING FEEDER STEERS IN WESTERN NEBRASKA. BY W. P. SNYDBB. During 1906 and 1907, experiments were conducted with steers to study the effect of alfalfa, prairie hay, cane hay, and mixtures of the latter two with alfalfa in wintering steers. The results of these tests were reported in Bulletin 105. In the fall of 1907 a similar experiment was begun. In this test there were 108 steer calves, divided into 6 lots of 18 calves each. These calves were bought out of herds adjacent to North Platte. They were a fairly good class of grades of the leading beef breeds. They were not, however, all of one breed, but were of mixed breeds and colors. The cost varied from $3.75 to $4.00 per 100 Ibs., or about $17.00 per head. The average weight was 450 pounds. The plan contemplated putting each lot on a separate ration, continuing the same forage ration for three winters, and selling the steers off grass the fall after they were three years old. This plan was adhered to, excepting that the steers were marketed August 5, owing to a shortage of pasture due to dry weather. The various lots were quite uniform. There was a loss of three steers during the experiment. One steer dropped dead at the feed rack and the other two were killed by lightning. The quality of the forage was not always uniform. The prairie hay was of good quality thruout, but the cane was some- times coarse, and some of the alfalfa during the third winter was coarse and damaged by being stacked when too damp. Each lot ran in a corral of about an acre in extent with a constant supply of water and an open shed 22x24. The steers of each lot were branded on a different part of the body, so that BUL. 117, AGE. EXP. STATION OF NEBE. VOL. XXIII, ART. II. 6 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska there would be no difficulty in determining the lot to which each steer belonged. During the summer all lots , ran together in a canyon pasture of 1,500 acres which they shared with about 75 head of horses and cattle. A prairie fire on March 20, 1910, burned the cattle sheds and corrals. This caused all the steers to be thrown together with the other cattle. Fortunately weights had been taken March 18. The time from that date until the steers were turned on grass is accounted for in Period 5B. Three weights were taken at the beginning and close of each period, excepting at one or two times when two weights gave fairly uniform results. The cattle were weighed when they had been away from water 12 hours or more, and had not been fed hay for the same length of time. The aim was to get a fair and uniform shrinkage on each lot. Tho care was taken to accom- plish this, it is probable that the spring weights of the lots carry- ing the most flesh do not represent the actual weights as nearly as the corresponding weights of the thinner lots. However this may be, the weights recorded would be the usual weights upon which the steers would sell if changing ownership at that time. PRICES USED FOR FEED AND CATTLE. In writing up the results of an experiment it is always diffi- cult to decide what prices should be assigned to the feed used and to the stock, owing to many factors, among which are the changes in prices during the progress of the experiment and the difference in prices in various localities. In this test we have assumed the following prices : Alfalfa, per ton $6.00 Prairie hay, per ton 5.00 Cane, per ton 4.00 Corn, per bushel 50 Oats, per bushel 35 Cattle per 100 Ibs. in spring 4.25 Cattle per 100 Ibs. in fall 3.75 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 1 It is obvious that cattle are worth more per pound in the spring than in the fall. During the winter the expense is heavy and the gain is light, while during the summer the opposite is true. We have assumed that this difference is 50 cents per 100 Ibs. The results of the experiment show that in order to have gotten the value assumed for the feed, we should have made the spring price more than 50 cents per 100 Ibs. above the fall price. We have assumed that the cost of the pasture during the summer was equal to 6 per cent interest on 8 acres of land valued at $8.00 per acre, plus a slight charge of 25 cents per head for water. This amounts to $4.09 per head for the summer. If the pasturing season were G months in duration, the charge would be at the rate of 68 cents per month. During the first winter all the calves were fed a light grain ration of 2 pounds daily per calf. The grain was two parts corn and one part oats. The forage was weighed in wagon-load lots as it was drawn to the steers. It was piled in front of feeding racks, and given to the steers twice daily. The waste was not recorded. KIND OF FORAGE FED TO EACH LOT. The forage ration was as follows : Lot 1. Alfalfa. Lot 2. Prairie hay. Lot 3. Cane. Lot 4. One-half alfalfa and one-half prairie hay. Lot 5. One-half alfalfa and one-half cane hay. Lot 6. One-half prairie hay and one-half cane hay. The experiment began December 3, 1907, and ended August 5, 1910. The time covered has been divided into six periods, each one including a summer or a winter. Period 5 has been sub- divided into Periods 5A and 5B. This is on account of the break in the experiment caused by the fire of March 26, 1910. Period 5 A covers the winter up to March 18, while the steers were in separate lots on the different forage rations. Period 5B covers S Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska the time from March 18 to May 4, when the steers ran to- gether and were fed alfalfa and prairie hay. > As the pasture was burned the grass was late in starting and the steers were fed later in the spring than usual. PLAN OP BULLETIN. In the following account of the performance of these steers, Tables 1 to 8 give the continuous record from December 3, 1907, to August 5, 1910, carrying the cost forward from one period to the next until the end of the experiment. The steers are charged at $3.75 per 100 Ibs. at the beginning of the experiment in Table 1. The "cost" of the steer from that date is obtained by adding, to the original cost, 6 per cent interest on the money invested in the steer and the market price of the feed eaten. The interest is computed at the end of each period. This causes a charge for interest to be made in the case of each steer for the money invested in him up to the end of the preceding period. In this way there is interest charged on the feed or pasture after the end of the winter or of the summer period. Tables 25 to 31 inclusive give the record for each winter and summer period independently of the preceding or the succeeding period. The account treats the steer as if he were bought at the beginning of the period and sold at the end. The assumed market value of the steer is used for the basis of each period, rather than the amount the steer had actually cost at that time. These tables show the profit or the loss on each lot of steers ;'or each winter and each summer. The value of the steer in the fall is assumed to be $3.75 per 100 Ibs. and in the spring $4.25. To the price of the steer at the beginning of the period is added the cost of the feed and interest at 6 per cent on the money invested in the steer during the period. Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska TABLE 1. PERIOD 1, FIRST WINTER. December 3, 1907, to April 21, 1908. Comparative values of alfalfa, prairie hay, and cane, and com- binations of these, with a light grain ration for wintering calves. Each lot contained 18 steers. There were 103 days in the period. Lot No • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alfalfa Prairie Cane Alfalfa and Alfalfa and Prairie hay hay prairie hay cane and cane Average first weight, Dec. 3, Ibs 446 450 452 451 451 449 Average last weight, Apr. 21, Ibs ... ... 578 489 512 568 576 511 Average gain, Ibs Average daily gain, Ib Relative gain, per cent Forage for steer during winter, Ibs Forage per steer per day, Ibs. . Forage for 100 Ibs. gain, Ibs. . Grain for 100 Ibs. gain, Ibs . . Cost of feed for wintering steer Cost of forage for wintering steer 132 .94 100 1741 12.5 1312 212 $8.33 5 22 39 .28 30 1481 10.65 3798 717 $6.81 3 70 60 .43 45 1860 13.3 3100 467 $6.83 3 72 117 .84 90 1695 12.19 1448 239 $7.77 4 66 125 .9 95 1831 13.17 1464 224 $7.69 4 58 62 47' 1578 11.35 2545 451 $6.66 3 55 Cost of grain for wintering steer . 3 11 | 3 11 3.11 3 11 3.11 3 11 Cost of feed for 100 Ibs. gain. . Cost of steer in fall at $3.75. . . Cost of wintering — feed and in- terest Cost of steer in spring Cost of steer per 100 Ibs. in spring 6.01 16.73 8.71 25.44 4.40 ! 17.46 16.88 7.20 24.08 4.92 10.74 16.95 7.22 24.17 4.72 6.63 16.91 8.16 25.07 4 41 e.iri 16.91 8.08 24 ^9 4.34 10 74 16.84 7 05 23 89 4.67 10 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska TABLE 2. PERIOD 2, FIRST SUMMER. April 21, 1907, to October 31, 1908. Yearling steers on pasture after being wintered on rations indi- cated in Table 1. Each lot contained IS steers. There were 193 days in the period. Lot No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forage rations fed previous winter Alfalfa Prdirie hay Cane Alfalfa and prairie hay Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and cane Average first weight, Ibs Average last w ight, Ibs .... Average gain, ]bs Average daily gain, Ibs Relative gain, per cent Cost of pasture Cost of pasture per 100 Ibs. gai n . . 578 785 207 1 07 81 $4.09 1 97 489 726 237 1.22 100 $4.09 1 72 512 742 230 1.19 97 $4.09 1 76 568 748 180 .93 76 $4.09 2 26 576 758 182 .94 76 $4.09 2 19 511 745 234 1.21 99 $4.09 1 74 Cost of steer in spring Cost of summering feed and interest Cost of steer in fall Cost of steer per 100 Ibs. in fall 25.44 4.90 30 34 3.87 24.08 4 86 28 94 3.98 24.17 4.87 29. C4 3.91 25.07 4.90 29.97 4.00 24.99 4 89 29.88 3.94 23.89 4.85 28.74 3 86 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 11 TABLE 3. PEKIOD 3, SECOND WINTER. October 31, 1908, to March 31, 1909. Comparative values of alfalfa, prairie hay, and cane and com- binations of -these for wintering yearling steers. Lot 1 con- tained 17 steers; the other lots 18 steers each. There were 150 days in this period. L.ot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forage rations Alfalfa Prai rie hay Cane Alfalfa and, prairie hay Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and cane Average first weight, Ibs. . Average last weight, Ibs. . . Average gain, Ibs Average daily gain, Ib Relative gain, per cent. . . . Forage per steer during winter, Ibs 785 900 115 .76 78 4085 726 688 38 L* .25L* .26L* 2481 742 787 45 .30 31 3536 748 880 132 .88 90 3590 758 905 147 .98 100 4504 745 792 47 .31 32 3150 Forage per steer per day, Ibs . . ... 27 16 5 20 3 23 9 30 21 Forage per 100 Ibs. gain, Ibs Cost of feed for wintering steer 3552 $12 26 Loss $6 20 7850 $7 07 2710 $9 87 3120 $11 26 6700 $7 09 Cost of feed for 100 Ibs. gain 10.66 Loss 15.75 7.45 7 66 15.07 Cost of st°er in fall 30 34 28 94 29 04 29 97 29 88 28 74 Cost of wintering — feed and interest . . . 13 02 6 92 7 80 10 62 12 01 7 81 Cost of steer in spring Cost of steer per 100 Ibs. in spring 43.36 4.81 35.86 5.21 36.84 4.68 40.59 4.61 41.89 4.63 36. f 5 4.01 * L indicates loss. 12 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska TABLE 4. PERIOD 4, SECOND SUMMER. March 31, 1909, to November 2, 1909. Tico-year-old steers on pasture after being wintered on rations indicated in Table 3. Lots / and 2 contained 17 steers each; the other lots 18 steers each. There were 216 days in the experiment. Lot No 1 2 3 i 4 5 6 Forage rations fed previous winter Alfalfa Prairie hay I I Cane Alfalfa and prairie Alfalfa and Prairie hay and hay cane Average first weight, Ibs 900 688 787 880 905 792 Average last weight, Ibs 1022 930 985 998 1010 973 Average gain, Ibs ; 122 242 198 i 118 105 181 Average daily gain, Ibs 57 1.21 92 .55 1!) .84 Relative gain, per cent 50 100 82 1 49 43 75 Cost of pasture $4 09 $4.09 $4 09 $4.09 $4 09 $4.09 Cost of pasture per 100 Ibs. gain 3 35 1.69 2 07 3.47 3 S9 2.26 Cost of steer in spring 43 36 35.86 36 84 40.59 41 89 3T.55 Cost of summering — feed and interest 5 in 5 3S 5 41 5 . 54 5 59 5.40 Cost of steer in fall 49 00 41.24 42 25 46.13 47 18 41.95 Cost of steer per 100 Ibs. in fall. . 4 79 4 43 4 2!) 4. (52 4 TO 4.31 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 13 TABLE 5. PERIOD 5, THIRD WINTER. November 2, 1909, to May 4, 1910. Comparative values of alfalfa, prairie hay, and cane and com- binations of these for wintering two-year-old steers. Lots 1 and 2 contained 17 steers each; the other lots 18 steers each. There were 183 days in this period. Lot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forage rations Alfalfa Prairie Cane Alfalfa and Alfalfa and Prairie hay hay prairie hay cane and cane Average first weight, IDS 1022 930 985 998 1010 973 Average last weight, Ibs 1039 899 965 1083 1074 962 Average gain, Ibs Average daily gain, lb 17 09 31 L* 16 L* 20 L* 10 L* 85 .46 64 34 11 L* 05 L* Relative gain, per cent 20 3L* 2L* 100 75 Loss Forage per steer dur- ing winter, Ibs Forage per steer per day, Ibs Forage per 100 Ibs. gain, Ibs 4606 25.1 27090 4279 23.3 Loss 4992 27.5 Loss 5739 31.3 6750 5654 30.8 8834 4748 25.9 Loss Cost of feed for win- tering steer $13 71 $11 09 $10 89 $15 92 $14 53 $11 33 Cost of feed for 100 Ibs. gain Cost of steer in fall . . Cost of wintering — feed and interest. . Cost of steer in spring 81.27 49.00 15.20 64 20 Loss 41.24 12.35 53 59 Loss 42.25 12.18 54 43 18.73 46.13 17.33 63 46 22.70 47.48 15.98 63 46 Loss 41.95 12.61 54 56 Cost of steer for 100 Ibs. in spring 6.17 5.96 5.64 5.87 5.90 5.67 * L Indicates loss in weight. 14 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska TABLE 6. SUB-PERIOD 6A, WINTER EXPERIMENT. November 2, 1909, to March 18, 1910. Comparative values of alfalfa, prairie hay and cane and com- binations of these for wintering two-year-old-steers. Lots 1 and 2 contained 17 steers each; the other lots 18 steers each. There were 136 days in this sub-period. Lot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forage rations Alfalfa Prairie hay Cane Alfalfa and prairie Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and hay cane Average first weight, Ibs 1022 930 985 998 1010 973 Average last weight, Ibs 1054 901 984 1157 1118 970 Average gain, Ibs . . 32 29 L* 1L* 159 108 3L* Average daily gain, Ibs 23 .21 L* Loss 1.16 .79 Loss Relative gain, per cent 20 Loss Loss 100 68 Loss Forage per steer dur- ing period, Ibs 3595 3268 3981 4728 4643 3737 Forage per steer per day, Ibs 26 24 29 35 34 27 Forage per 100 Ibs. gain, Ibs 11234 Loss Loss 2973 4300 Loss Cost of feed for win- tering steer $10. 7;' $8.17 $7.96 $13.00 $11.61 $8.41 Cost of feed for 100 Ibs. gain 33. 70 Loss Loss 8.18 10.75 Loss Cost of steer in fall. . 49. 00 41.24 42.25 46.13 47.48 41.95 Cost of wintering- feed and interest. . . 11. 90 9.10 8.92 14.05 12.69 9.34 Costof steer in spring, March 18 60. 90 50.34 51.17 60.18 60.17 51.29 Cost of steer per 100 Ibs. March 18 5. 77 5.58 5 . 40 5.20 5.41 5.28 * L indicates loss. Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 15 TABLE 7. SUB-PEBIOD 5B, SPRING EXPERIMENT. March 18, 1910, to May 4, 1910. Record of steers fed alfalfa and prairie hay after being wintered on rations indicated in 5A. Lots 1 and 2 contained 17 steers each; the other lots 18 steers each. There were 47 days in this sub-period. Lot No 1 Alllo 2 ts ran t 3 ogethe alfa 4 r, fed p Ifa. 5 rairie h 6 ay and Forage rations Average first weight, Ibs . ... Average last weight, Ibs Average loss (shrinkage), Ibs. Average daily loss, Ibs Forage per steer during pe- riod Ibs 1054 1039 15 .3 1011 21.5 $2.92 60.90 3.30 64.20 6.17 901 899 2 .04 1011 21.5 $2.92 50.34 3.25 53.59 5.96 984 965 19 .4 1011 21.5 $2.92 51.17 3.26 54.43 5.64 1157 1083 74 1.5 1011 21.5 $2.92 60.18 3 28 63.46 5.87 1118 1074 44 .9 1011 21.5 $2.92 60.17 3.29 63.46 5.90 970 962 8 .15 1011 21.5 $2.92 51.29 3.27 54.56 5.67 Forage per steer per day, Ibs . . Cost of feed per steer, Period 5B Cost of steer March 18, 1910. . . Cost of spring keep— feed and interest Cost of steer in spring, May 4 ... . Cost of steer per 100 Ibs. in spring 16 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska TABLE 8. PERIOD 6, THIRD SUMMER. May 4, 1910, to August 5, 1910. Three-year-old steers on pasture after being wintered on rations indicated in Table 5. Lot 1 contained 16 steers, Lot 2, 17, and the other lots 18 steers each. There were 92 days in this period. Lot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forage rations fed previous winter Alfalfa Prairie Cane Alfalfa and Alfalfa and Prairie hay hay prairie hay cane and cane Average first weight, Ibs 1039 899 965 1083 1074 962 Average last weight, Ibs 1215 1092 1175 1232 1251 1164 Average gain, Ibs Average daily gain, Ibs 176 1 91 193 2 09 210 2 28 149 1 61 177 1 92 202 2 20 Relative gain, per cent Cost of pasture 84 $2 17 92 $2 17 100 $2 17 71 $2.17 84 $2 17 96 $2 17 Cost of pasture per 100 Ibs. gain 1 22 1 12 1 03 1 46 1 23 ' 1 07 Cost of steer in spring, May 4 . Cost of summering — feed and interest. 64.20 3.15 53.59 2 99 54.43 3.00 63.46 3 14 62.46 3.13 54.56 3.01 Cost of steer in fall, August 5. Cost of steer per 100 Ibs. in fall 67.35 5.54 56.58 5.18 57.43 4.88 66.60 5.40 65.59 5.24 57.57 4.94 Table 1 gives the record from December 31, 1907, to April 21, 1908. Table 2 gives the record from April 21, 1908, to October 31, 1908. Table 3 gives the record from October 31, 1908, to March 31, 1909. Table 4 gives the record from March 31, 1909, to November 2, 1909. Table 5 gives the record from November 2, 1909, to May 4, 1910. Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 17 Table 6 gives the record from November 2, 1909, to March 18, 1910. Table 7 .gives the record from March 18, 1910, to May 4, 1910. Table 8 gives the record from May 4, 1910, to August 5, 1910. It should be noted that Tables 6 and 7 cover the same time as Table 5. There was a change in the conditions on March 18 of the third winter. Tables 6 and 7 show the difference in the two parts of the period covered by Table 5. In Table 5, Sub-periods 5A and 5B are combined. During Sub-period 5B the steers all ran together and were fed alfalfa and prairie hay. This favored the lots that previously had not been fed alfalfa in that it furnished them a new and better kind of forage than they were to have received. The chief disturbing factor, brought about by the unavoid able change made at the end of Sub-period 5 A, was in the shrinkage on the fleshier lots during Sub-period 5B. However, tho this change was a disturbing factor it did not affect the final results sufficiently to cause any appreciable change in the profit or loss on the steer and in the relative standing of the rations. It was decidedly unfavorable to the steers fed rations containing alfalfa, and therefore favorable to those formerly not fed alfalfa. We have compiled several tables from the preceding tables in order to bring together in a more accessible form the sub- jects of chief importance, such as the increase in weight during winter and summer, the feed required for winter, the feed for 100 Ibs. of gain, the cost of feed for winter and for summer and for 100 Ibs. gain, the relative value of the forage rations, and finally the relative profit or loss resulting from the various rations and the profit or loss on all the steers during the entire experiment. 18 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska TABLE 9. — Gams made ~by calves fed a light grain ration and forage during winter from December 3, 1907, to April 21, 1908. Kind of forage Average gain per calf during period Average daily gain per calf Relative gain Alfalfa Pounds 132 Pound 94 100 Alfalfa and cane 125 .90 95 Alfalfa and prairie hay 117 84 90 Prairie hay and cavne Cane 62 60 .44 43 47 45 Prairie hay 39 .28 ?0 The grain ration was the same for all lots (Table 9). The difference in the gains can be attributed only to the difference in the forage rations. The steers fed a full ration of alfalfa or half alfalfa gained from 2 to 3^ times as much during the winter as those that did not have any alfalfa in their ration. The lowest gain per calf was 39 Ibs. during the winter, or .28 Ib. per day from priarie hay, and the highest gain 132 Ibs. during the winter, or .94 Ib. per day from alfalfa. The forage rations during the first winter ranked in value, as indicated by the increasa in weight of calves, as follows: alfalfa, alfalfa and cane, alfalfa and prairie hay, prairie hay and cane, cane, and prairie hay. Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 19 TABLE 10. — Average gain in pounds per day, per steer. Lot Winter Summer 1st 2d 3d Ave 1st 2d 3d Ave. L6-s. 1 18 1.50 1.46 1.02 1.12 1.42 1.28 1 Alfalfa .... 2 Prairie hay 3 Cane Lb. .94 .28 .43 .84 .90 .44 .64 Lb. .76 .25L* .30 .88 .98 .31 .50 Lb. .09 .16L* .IOL* .46 .34 .05L* .10 Lb. .59 .4L* .22 .72 .74 .23 .41 Lbs. 1.07 1.22 1.19 .93 .94 1.21 1.09 Lbs. .57 1.21 .92 .55 .49 .84 .76 Lbs. 1.91 2.09 2.28 1.61 1.92 2.20 2 00 4 Alfalfa and prairie hay 5 Alfalfa and cane< 6 Prairie hay and cane . . Average . . . Average for all lots three summers, 1.28 Ibs.; average for all lots three winters, .41 Ib. * L indicates loss in weight. A study of Table 10, in which the daily gains of the various periods are brought together, indicates that the results of the three winter periods were similar. The steers getting alfalfa or part alfalfa made fair gains, while those fed on prairie hay or cane or both of these made slow gains or lost flesh. The steers in Lot 2, fed prairie hay, lost an average of .4 Ib. per head daily during the three winter periods. The steers fed cane, Lot 3, during the same time gained .22 Ib. per head daily; those on prairie hay and cane, Lot 6, gained .23 Ib. per head daily, while the steers fed alfalfa, Lot 1, gained .59 Ib. ; those fed prairie hay and alfalfa, Lot 4, gained .72 Ib. and those fed alfalfa and cane gained .74 Ib. The relative gains for the six periods are given iri Table 11. The low gain of Lot 1 (alfalfa) during the third winter has not been accounted for fully. The difference in the appearance of the lots indicated the results given by these figures. Why Lot 1 did not do better we are unable to state, but we are of the opinion that the quality of the alfalfa was less favorable 20 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska- to this lot than to Lots 4 and 5, and also that alfalfa alone does not have as beneficial effect on steers reaching, maturity as on younger steers. During each winter, cane gave greater gains or less loss than prairie hay. A combination of cane and alfalfa gave larger gains during the first and second winters than alfalfa and prairie hay. but during the third winter the opposite was true. On the average a ration of prairie hay and cane gave a slightly greater gain than either fed alone, but the ad- vantage of the combination was very slight. The average daily gain per steer for all lots combined was, during the first winter .04 lb., the second winter .50 Ib. and the third winter .10 lb. The grain fed during the first winter would account for the gain being greater than during the second winter. The low gain of the third winter is partially due to the running of the lots together during the latter part of the period and the consequent shrinkage on the fleshier lots. How- ever, the gains during period 5 A in the winter was only .3 lb. per steer per day. When all factors are taken into account, the daily gains are less during the third winter than during the second or first. RELATION OK STALMKIi AND \YIXTKTl GAIN'S. When we turn to a study of the gains made during the summer, we find that the lots which made the faster gains dur- ing the winter made the slower gains during the summer fol- lowing. The steers that went lo pasture in good condition did not gain as much during the summer as those which went to pasture thin in flesh. The lots wintered on alfalfa or part- alfalfa were no doubt fleshier in the spring than the sicers of the average herd, and those not fed alfalfa were not as thin in flesh as the thin cattle of the average herd. None of the steers were1 so thin as to be weak. It is probable that during the first few weeks on pasture the fleshier steers lost more in weight than the thinner steers. Period r>B indicates this. The (Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 21 relative summer gains of the six lots (Table 11) show that during two summers Lot 2, wintered on prairie hay, gained more than any other lot and that during the other summer Lot 3, wintered on cane, made the greatest gain. The average rela- tive gains for the year place the lots much more closely to- gether than the summer or winter gains alone. Tho there was a tendency for the steers poorly wintered to catch up to the others in weight during the summer, yet they were much lighter than the better wintered steers when put on the market. If the steers had been kept till fall before being sold, the weights of all lots might have been more nearly the same, but it is probable that the increase in weight on steers during the sum mer is largely made before August 1. The average daily gains of all lots for the three summers are strikingly lacking in uniformity. During the first summer the average daily gain per steer from April 21 to October 31 was 1.09 Ibs. These steers were yearlings. During the second summer the average daily gain per steer for all lots from March 31 to November 2 was .76 Ib. The steers were then two years old. During the next summer, when the steers were 3 years old, the average daily gain per steer for all lots was 2 Ibs. from May 4 to August 5. There are several reasons for lack of uniformity in the gains made during the three summers. The climatic conditions of the seasons were not similar, and, as the acreage of pasture was limited, this affected the pasture. There was about the same number of stock in the pasture each season, but during the first two seasons a herd of 50 cows ran with the steers. There was a division fence and another water system put in in the spring of 1910, and during the season the cows were kept separate from the steers. It is probable that the 8 weeks of fastest gains are from May 15 to July 15, or possibly a week or two later, depending on the season. Another period of rather rapid gains is believed n/ feeder Steers in Western Nebraska bv sonic cattlemen to be during' September and October, after the flies have gone and when the weather is cool and the grass mature. This was no doubt true during the time of unlimited range, but in the large percentage of pastures now the grass is short before fall arid fast gains are not possible. As evidence of the truth of this the fact may be cited that it was not an uncommon practice to ship "beef cattle from western Nebraska ranges 20 years ago that sold on the market at the same price as grain-fed cattle, but shipping "beef" steers off grass has gone out of date because fat steers are no longer produced on the western Nebraska range as in the years gone by. This bears directly on the relative gains of these summers. Steers on pasture during' May. June, and -July should show a larger gain per day than steers on pasture1 from April 1 to November 1. The two-year-old steers made slower gains than the yearlings. but they were on pasture as late in the fall and a month earlier in the spring than the yearlings. It is quite probable that the month of April considerably reduced the daily average. The condition during the third summer was even more unfavorable. Practically all the pasture land was burned over March ii(>. The steers were held on forage till May 4, so that the pasture might have an opportunity to recuperate. Tho the grass was thin and short it may have been in condition to make faster gains during the early summer months than if it had not been burned. The steers were on pasture from May 4 to August r>. a short period favoring fast gains without any period of shrinkage. Another factor worthy of consideration is what in 1910 the spring weights were taken after the cattle had all run together in a field of several acres in exlent for 47 days and had shrunk greatly. The shrinkage per steer in Lot 4 amounted to 74 Ibs. It is probable that the spring shrinkage, which usually comes after the cattle are on grass, came this time before they were put in 1lie summer pasture. Also during the first two seasons Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska the steers remained on pasture till the first of November. It is probable that there was a shrinkage during October and probably no gain after September 15 tho we have no data to confirm this or disprove it. The three-year-old steers were weighed August 5, and the experiment closed. Their summer period ended before the beginning of the fall shrinkage or the time of slow gain. On the other hand, the summer of 1910 was one of the driest of any during the past 35 years and did not favor growth of pasture. From these facts it is evident that the gains of the three summers should not be considered as in- dicative of the relative gains that may be expected from steers of these different ages. TABLE 11. — Relative gains of steer for six periods, in per cent, using 100 per cent for the highest gains as a basis. Lot No . . . 1 2 3 4 5 g Forage rations . . . Alfalfa Prairie hay Cane Alfalfa and prairie hay Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and cane First winter 100 30 45 90 95 47 Second winter 78 26 L* 31 90 100 32 Third winter. 20 3L* 2L* 100 75 Loss Average 3 winters . 78 Loss 38 99 100 43 First summer 81 100 97 76 76 99 Second summer. . . 50 100 82 49 43 75 Third summer 84 92 100 71 84 96 Averages summers 75 100 95 67 69 90 Average 6 periods . 96 80 89 98 100 90 * L indicates loss in weight. 24 Growing Feeder tfteers in Western Nebraska TABLE 1±- -Weights of steers at beginning of experiment hay eane cane Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Calves*.. ....... 12.5 10.6 13.3 12.2 13.2 11.4 12.2 Yearlings ............ 27.0 16.5 20.3 23.9 30.0 21.0 23.1 Two-year-olds ........ 25.1 23.3 27.5 31.3 30.8 25.9 27.3 Average .............. | 21.5 , 16.8 20.4 22.4 24.6 19.4 21.9 * The calves were fed 280 Ibs. of grain each during the winter or 2 Ibs. of grain each daily. Table 14 gives the forage eaten per steer daily. This shows that the calves with a light grain ration were fed from 10. G to 13.3 Ibs. of forage daily. During the second winter, with no grain being fed, the forage eaten amounted to about twice as much as during the first winter. The forage eaten per day during the third winter was not very much more than during the second winter. The forage eaten per steer daily for the three winters, taking the average of all the lots was, the first winter 12.2 Ibs., the second winter 23.1 Ibs., and the third winter 27.3 Ibs., and the average for all lots during the three winters was 21.9 Ibs. per steer daily. COST OF GAINS. The amount of feed required for 1UO Ibs. gain or the cost of 100 Ibs. gain when wintering stock cattle may be misleading. The carrying of the cattle thru the winter from one summer period of cheap gains to another summer period of cheap gains is of much more importance than the gain made during the winter, tho during a fattening period the gains are the all- important part. However, the gain made during the winter is of value in itself, especially when the owner markets the cattle Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 27 in the spring, and may indicate the condition and vigor of the animal due to the forage upon which it has been wintered. The forage required for 100 Ibs. of increase in weight varies greatly when only roughage is fed, as much the larger part of the feed is used in maintaining the body of the animal. One noticeable feature with the lots of steers was that the increased weight of the heavier lots over the lighter in the spring was largely flesh rather than frame. While the lighter lots often lost weight during the winter, the loss was in flesh and they continued to develop frame tho losing in total weight. The loss of flesh and of weight during the winter is, on the whole, not economical, and methods of wintering should be worked out which not only will be cheap but will permit the animal to gain in weight. TABLE 15. — Feed required for 100 Ibs. increase in weight with steers during the winter. Lot No i 2 3 4 5 6 Forage rations . . . Alfalfa Prairie hay Cane Alfalfa and prairie hay Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and cane Yearlings, forage. Two-year-olds, forage Pounds 212 1312 3552 27090 Pounds 717 3797 Loss Loss Pounds 467 3100 7850 Loss Pounds 239 1448 2710 6750 Pounds 224 1464 3120 8834 Pounds 451 2545 6700 Loss Table 16 gives the cost of feed for 100 Ibs. of gain on each lot during each winter. Where there was a loss in weight, no attempt has been made to estimate the cost of the loss. The figures indicate that gains made during the winter on stock cattle are very expensive. This is due to the increase in weight being made slowly on expensive feed. This table indicates clearly that the selling price in the spring must be much above that in the fall if the steers pay for the feed eaten during the winter with the rations used. 28 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska TABLE 16. — Cost of feed for 100 Ibs. gain on steers during each winter. Lot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forage rations . . . Alfalfa Prairie hay Cane Alfalfa and prairie hay Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and cane First winter Second winter Third winter $6.01 10.66 81.27 $17.46 Loss Loss $10.74 15.75 Loss $6.63 7.45 18.73 $6.15 7.66 22.70 $10.74 15.07 Loss These figures have very little relation to the cost of the steers per hundred in the spring, since the entire cost of wintering a steer may be charged against a very small gain. The increase in weight during the summer was made three times faster (Table 10) than during the winter. These gains are also much cheaper as showTn by Tables 16 and 17. The cost of the summer gain depends largely upon the conditions under which the steers are pastured. Renting pasture on the usual terms prevailing is cheaper than owning the land. In the Sand Hills area, and in other parts of western Nebraska where it is not deemed advisable to crop more than a small proportion of the land, pasture is still cheap, but in the farming sections pasture for growing cattle can not be considered cheap, when the cattle are charged with interest on the money invested in the land; at least it can not be considered "cheap" in the sense that this word has been applied to pasture in western Nebraska. Under the conditions on the Substation farm and in the country adjacent to North Platte and probably thruout a large part of the hard land areas of western Nebraska, the cost of • summer pasture for a steer will not be far from the charge we have made, where the owner has title to the land. This charge is 6 per cent inter- est on 8 acres of land valued at fS.OO per acre plus 25 cents for water for each steer. This acreage may be too low for average Growing Feeder Steers m Western Nebraska 29 years. In many places this charge may be reduced because of a lower valuation on the land, but even in the Sand Hills area there is but little land valued at less than $4.00 per acre, and here the acreage per steer required is much more than that used in the estimate above. If there is much winter pasture it will probably be outside of the acreage pastured during the sum- mer. Table 17 gives the cost of 100 Ibs. gain of the six lots, when each steer is charged $4.09 per summer for pasture and water. Table 35 gives the cost of 100 Ibs. gain if these steers were charged for pasture at prices ranging from 25 cents to 75 cents per month. (Page 46.) TABLE 17. — Cost of 100 Ibs. gain on steers on pasture during each summer — pasture at $4-09 per steer. Lot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Winter rations Alfalfa Prairie Cane Alfalfa and Alfalfa and Prairie hay Aver- hay prairie hay cane and cane age Yearlings $1 97 $1 72 $1 76 $2 26 $2 19 $1 74 $1 90 Two-year-olds 3 35 1 69 2 07 3 47 3 89 2 26 2 70 Three-year-olds 1.22 1.12 1.03 1.46 1.23 1.07 1.19 Averasre . . $2.18 $1.51 $1.62 $2.40 $2.44 $1.69 $1.93 TABLE 18. — Cost of feed per head for wintering steers in this experiment. Lot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forage rations Alfalfa Prairie hay Cane Alfalfa and prairie hay Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and cane Calves $8 33 $6.81 $6 83 $7 77 $7 69 $6 66 Yearlings -12 26 6 20 7 07 9 87 11 26 7 09 Two-year-olds — 13.71 11.09 10.89 15.92 14.53 11.33 Total $34.30 $24.10 $24.79 $33.54 $33.48 $25.08 30 Growmg Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska Table 18 shows the cost of feed for wintering steers at the prices charged for forage and grain in this bulletin. The farmer or stockman often has the forage and the grain so far from market that the market value has little or nothing to do with his operations. Under such conditions he should consider the value of the feed at the price it costs him to produce it. He will not be counting any profit on the selling price of the forage but all his profit will come from the steers. But the man who is within reach of market points should count his feed at the price it will net him on the market. He may then find that the steer does not give a return above the market value of the feed, but if the steer pays the market value for the feed he is not causing the owner any loss. The farmer may think he can winter his cattle at much less expense than the figures in Table 17 indicate, but after he has used the products that he could not otherwise convert into money he will find that the cost will be approximately as indicated if he charges the values used in making up these figures. The above table gives the cost of feed eaten by the steers each winter. The total cost of wintering the steers should also include interest on the investment. Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 31 TABLE 19. — Cost* of steers at the beginning of the experiment, and at the close of each period. Lot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forage rations .... Alfalfa Prairie Cane Alfalfa and Alfalfa and Prairie hay hay prairie hay cane and cane • -, * ( besrinniner. . $16 73 $16 88 $16.95 $16 91 $16 91 $16.84 Period l]^ S 25 44 24 08 24 17 25 07 24 99 23.89 Period 2 close 30 34 28 94 29 04 29 97 29 88 28 74 Period 3 close . ... 43 36 35.86 36 84 40 59 41 89 36.55 Period 4 close 49 00 41 24 42 25 46 13 47 48 41 95 Period 5 close 64 20 53 59 54 43 63 46 63 46 54 56 Period 6. close . . 67.35 56.58 57.43 66.60 65.59 57.57 * The "cost" as used in this table is arrived at as follows: The first cost at the beginning of the experiment values the steer at $3.75 per 100 Ibs. To this first cost there is added at the end of the lirst period 6 per cent interest on the money invested and the cost of the feed eaten at the prices quoted on page 6. The amount thus secured is considered the cost at the beginning of the second period. The cost at the end of the second period plus 6 per cent interest on that cost during the period, plus the cost of the feed during the period, gives the cost at the end of that period. The cost at the end of the other periods is arrived at in the same manner. Table 19 shows that the lots fed alfalfa or part alfalfa had a greater expense account to settle than those not fed alfalfa, but they also had more weight than the other lots with which to offset this account. They would also have commanded a higher price per 100 Ibs. on the market, due to the better con- dition of flesh. Table 20, showing the price per 100 Ibs. at which the steers would have to sell in order to pay the account against them, more nearly shows the true condition. 32 Growing Feeder Steers in \Vextern Nebraska TAKLE 20. — Cost of steer per 100 Ibs., including purchase price} interest and feed from date of original purchase, December \ to marginal date. FALL. Lot No. . Forage rations. . . . Alfalfa Decembers, 1907.. $3.75 October 31, 1908 .. 3.87 November 2, 1909. 4.79 Augusts, 1910.... 5.54 Prairie hay $3.75 3.98 4.43 5.18 Cane Alfalfa and prairie hay Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and cane $3.75 3.86 4.31 4.94 $3.75 3.91 4.29 4.88 $3.75 4.00 4.62 5.40 $3.75 3.94 4.70 5.24 Lot No. SPRING. Forage rations. . . . Alfalfa Prairie hay Cane $4.72 4.68 5.64 Alfalfa and prairie hay Alfalfa and cane $4.34 4.63 5.90 Prairie hay and cane April 21, 1908. . . March 31, 1909. . . May 4, 1910 $4.40 4.81 . 6.17 $4.92 5.21 5.96 $4.41 4.61 5.87 ; $4.67 4.61 5.67 The prices given iii this table are above market values and indicate that the steers put on the market would not have settled their account in full. The cost per 100 Ibs. rose each spring higher than each preceding spring and higher each fall than the preceding fall. This rise is magnified because the steers were being charged more for feed than their market value warranted. However, Tables 24 to 31, inclusive, which give each period without any relation to the other periods, indicate the same, in the main. The gains of the second summer cost more than those of the third summer because of reasons already noted regarding the pasturing season. The low cost of summer gains is due to fast gains on cheap feed. Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 33 A study of the gains made by the six lots during the differ- ent periods and years, and the rank that these give the various forage rations, is very interesting and instructive. During the winter the steers getting alfalfa or part alfalfa made larger gains than those getting no alfalfa, while in the summer the opposite was true, but at the end of each year the steers fed alfalfa had gained more than those not fed alfalfa. The follow- ing tables give the data for this statement in detail : TABLE 21. — Relative standing of various forage rations as shown in pounds of gain daily per steer during winter. Calves Yearlings Two -year-olds 1905-06* i 1907-08 •I 1906-07* 00 1908-09 03 1 1909-10 05 ti i o 0 6 o 0 Lbs. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Alfalfa Alfalfa Alfalfa and prai- Alfalfa.. 1.23 Alfalfa... .94 and cane . .76 and cane . .98 rie hay. . . .46 Alfalfa Alfalfa Alfalfa and prai- Alfalfa and cane 1.20 and cane . .90 Alfalfa.. .68 rie hay. . . .88 and cane . .34 Alfalfa Alfalfa Alfalfa and prai- and prai- and prai- rie hay. . 1.14 rie hay. . . .84 rie hay . . .51 Alfalfa... .76 Alfalfa. . . .09 Prairie Prairie Prairie Prairie hay and Prairie hay and hay and hav 65 cane 44 hav. . . 15f cane . . . 31 cane 05f Cane 89 Cane. 43 Cane 53t Cane 31 Cane lOt Prairie Prairie Prairie hay .28 hay .25f hay .16t * The data for these t Loss. years are taken from Bulletin 105. 34 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska TABLE 22. — Relative daily gains of steers during summer that icere wintered on the different forage rations indicated. Yearlings Gains Two-year-olds Gains Prairie hay Lbs. 1.22 Prairie hay Lbs. 1 21 Prairie hay and and cane 1 21 Cane 92 Cane 1 19 Prairie hay and cane 84 Alfalfa 1 07 Alfalfa 57 Alfalfa and cane. .94 Alfalfa and prai- rie hav . . .55 Three-year-olds Gains Alfalfa and prai- rie hay i .93 Alfalfa and cane . Lbs. Cane 2.28 Prairie hay and cane 2.20 Prairie hay 2 . 09 Alfalfa and cane . 1 . 92 Alfalfa 1.91 Alfalfa and prai- .49 rie hay 1.61 When we consider the summer gains made by the six lots, we find that the steers wintered on prairie hay made the largest gains two times out of three and those wintered on cane made the largest gains once. Those wintered without alfalfa always made larger summer gains than those wintered on alfalfa or a ration ono-hnlf nlfnlfa. TABU-: :>.'>. -/{dative standing of various forage rations as shown />// the (/a ins made by the steers during the year — winter and summer. First Year | •£ !O L&s Alfalfa 339 Alfalfa and cane 307 Alfalfa and prairie hay 297 P r a i r i e hay and r-ane . . 296 Cane 290 Prairie hay. . 276 Average. .301, Second Year •£ O ibs Alfalfa and cane 252 Alfalfa and prairie hay. 250 Cane . . . . 243^ Third Year O_ Lbs Alfalfa and cane 241 Alfalfa and prairie hay. 234 Alfalfa 193 Prairie hay and cane . . . 191 Alfalfa 237J Prairie hay and cane . . . 228; Cane 190 Prairie hay. . . 204 Prairie hay. . . 162 236 . Total Gains Lbs Alfalfa and cane 800 Alfalfa and prairie hay. 781 Alfalfa 769 Cane 723 Prairie hay and cane ... 715 Prairie hay. . . 643 . 738 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 35 Table 23 shows that the total gain for each year was more for those fed alfalfa or a ration one-half alfalfa than for those not fed any alfalfa. From this it is evident that alfalfa gave better results than no alfalfa during each year, with the ex- ception of one lot in the second year, and that, tho the financial statement shows a greater financial loss with the lots fed alfalfa than with those not fed alfalfa, that only means that for this experiment the relative assumed price for alfalfa was too high. Tables 24 to 31 inclusive give the results of each winter and summer period without any relation to any other period. The steer is charged at the beginning of a winter with his weight valued at $3.75 per 100 Ibs. and at the beginning of summer period at $4.25. To this is added 6 per cent interest for the period on his valuation at the beginning of period and the cost of the feed or pasture. These tables show the profit or loss during each summer and each winter, with the values assumed for feed and cattle. TABLE 24. — First winter account — market values — calves. December 3, 1907, to April 21, 1908. Lot No I 2 Q A K « Forage rations . . . Alfalfa Prairie hay Cane Alfalfa and prairie hay Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and cane Value of steer in fall at $3.75 Cost of feed Interest on invest- ment . $16.73 8.33 38 $16.88 6.81 39 $16.95 6.83 39 $16.91 7.77 39 $16.91 7.69 39 $16.84 6.66 39 Cost of steer in spring. . 25 44 24 08 24 17 25 07 24 99 23 89 Value of steer in spring at $4.25.. Loss per steer dur- ing winter Value of steer in fall per 100 Ibs.. Cost of steer in spring per 100 Ibs . 24.57 .87 3.75 4 40 20.78 3.30 3.75 4 92 21.76 2.41 3.75 4 72 24.14 .93 3.75 4 41 24.94 .05 3.75 4 34 21.72 2.17 3.75 4 67 36 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska Table 24 shows a loss during the first winter on each lot. This loss is greater as the steer becomes older and as the winter gain is less. The greatest loss during the first winter was with the steers fed prairie hay and the least loss with those fed al- falfa and cane. In order to have balanced their account the steers fed prairie hay would have been obliged to sell for 58 cents more per 100 Ibs. than those fed alfalfa and cane, tho the former were so much thinner than the latter that they would have sold on the market for probably from 25 to 50 cents less per 100 Ibs. The lots costing the most for wintering would have settled their account more easily in the spring than the lots costing the least during winter. The 50 cents more allowed as the selling price in the spring above the selling price in the fall was not enough to pay for the feed eaten and interest on the money invested in the steer. When the price in the fall was 50 cents less than in the spring the steers often failed to pay the summer expense. In Period 1, the price would have been $1.17 with Lot 2, and 59 cents per 100 Ibs. more with Lot 5 in the spring than in the preceding fall if the steers paid for only the feed and interest. The difference in price would have been much greater during the third winter. Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 37 TABLE 25. — First summer account — market values* — yearlings. April 21, 1907, to October 31, 1908. Lot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Winter rations . . . Alfalfa Prairie hay Cane Alfalfa and prairie Alfalfa and cane Prairie;, hay and; ' hay cane Value of steer in spring at $4.25. .. $24.57 $20.78 $21.76 $24.14 $24.48 $21.72 Cost of pasturing steer 4.09 4.09 4.09 4.09 4.09 4. OS Interest on value of steer at 6 per cent .79 .83 .70 .78 .79 .7G Cost of steer in the fall 29.45 25.70 26.55 29.01 29.36 26.51 Value in the fall at $3.75 29.44 27.23 27.83 28.05 28.43 27.94 Profit during sum- mer per steer . . . 1.53 1.28 1.43 Loss during sum- mer per steer. .. .01 .96 .93 Value of steer in spring per 100 IDS 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 Cost of steer in fall per 100 Ibs 3.75 3.54 3.58 3.87 3.87 3.69 Lot 1, yearling steers. Ration, alfalfa hay. Photo, spring, 1909. Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska TABLE 26. — Second winter account — market values — yearlings. October 3, 1908, to March 31, 1909. Lot No. Forage rations Value of steer in fall at $3.75 ..... Cost of feed ...... Interest on steer investment ..... j Cost of steer in spring .......... Value of steer in spring at $4.25.. Loss on steer dur- ing winter ...... Value of steer in fall per 100 IDS.. Cost of steer in spring per 100 Ibs. . Alfalfa $29.44 12.26 .74 42.44 38.25 4.19 3.75 4.71 $27.23 6.20 .68 34.11 29.24 4.87 3.75 4.95 3 4 5 6 Cane $27.83 7.07 Alfalfa and prairie hay $28.05 9.87 Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and cane $28.43 11.26 $27.94 7.09 .70 .70 .71 .70 35.60 38.62 40.40 35.73 33.45 37.40 38.46 33.66 2.15 1.22 1.94 2.07 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 4.52 4.38 4.46 4.51 Lot 2, yearling steers. Ration, prairie hay. Photo, spring, 1909. Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 39 TABLE 27.— Second summer account — market values — two-year- old steers. March 31, 1909, to November 2, 1909. Lot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Winter rations . . . Alfalfa Prairie hay Cane Alfalfa and prairie hay Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and cane Value of steer in in spring at $4.25 Cost of pasturing steer .... $38-25 4 09 $29.24 4 09 $33.45 4 09 $37.40 4 09 $38.46 4 09 $33.66 4 09 Interest on value of steer 1 37 1.05 1 20 1 36 1 37 1 20 Cost of steer in fall 43.71 34.38 38.74 42 85 43 92 38 95 Value of steer in fall at $3 .75.... 38 33 34 88 36 94 37 43 37 88 36 49 Profit during sum- mer per steer . . . Loss during sum- mer per steer. . . Value of steer in spring per 100 Ibs 5.38 4.25 .50 4 25 1.80 4 25 5.42 4 25 6.04 4 25 2.46 4 25 Cost of steer in fall per 100 Ibs. 4.27 3.69 3.93 4.29 4.35 4.00 Lot 3, yearling steers. Ration, cane hay. Photo, spring, 1909. 40 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska TABLE 28. — Third winter account — market values — two-year-old steers. November 2, 1909, to May 4, 1910. Lot No ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forage rations . . . Alfalfa Prairie hay Cane Alfalfa and prairie Alfalfa and Prairie hay and hay cane cane Value of steer in fall at $3.75 $38.33 $34.88 $36.94 $37.43 $37.88 $36.49 Cost of feed 13.71 11.09 10.89 15.92 14.53 11.33 Interest on invest- ment at 6per cent 1.17 1.05 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.11 Cost of steer in spring Value of steer in 53.21 47.02 48.96 54.49 53.57 48.93 spring at $4.25. . 44.16 38.21 41.01 46.03 45.65 4089 Loss during win- ter per steer 9.05 8.81 7.95 8.46 7.92 8.04 Value of steer in fall per 100 IDS.. 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 Cost of steer in spring per 100 Ibs. . 5.12 5.23 5.07 5.03 4.98 5.08 Lot 4, yearling steers. Ration, alfalfa and prairie hay. Photo, spring, 1909. Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska. 41 TABLE 29. — Third winter account — market values-^-two-year-old steers. November 2, 1909, to March 18, 1910. Lot No Forage rations. . . . 1 Alfalfa 2 Prairie hay 3 Cane 4 Alfalfa and prairie hay 5 Alfalfa and cane 6 Prairie hay and cane Value of steer in fall at $3.75 Cost of feed Interest on invest- ment at 6 per cent Cost of steer in spring $38.33 10.79 .87 49 99 $34.88 8.17 .79 43 84 $36.94 7.96 .82 45 72 $37.43 13.00 .85 51 28 $37.88 11.61 .85 50 34 $36.49 8.41 .82 45 72 Value of steer in spring at $4.25. . Loss per steer dur- ing winter Value of steer in fall per 100 Ibs.. Cost of steer in spring per 100 Ibs. . 44.80 5.19 3.75 4.74 38.29 5.55 3.75 4.86 41.82 3.90 3.75 4.64 49.17 2.11 3.75 4.43 47.52 2.82 3.75 4.50 41.23 4.49 3.75 4 71 Lot 5, yearling steers. Ration, alfalfa and cane hay. Photo, spring, 1909. Growing Feeder Steers hi \\' extern Nebraska TABLE .SI)*- - Spring account — market values — three-year-old steers. March 18, 1910, to May 4. 1010.7 Lot No. . Forage rations. Alfalfa Value of steer in spring at $4.25. . $44.80 Cost of feed 2.92 Interest on value of steerat 6 percent Cost at end of 5B. . Value at end of 5B at $3.75 Lossduring Period 5B Value of steer in spring per 100 Ibs Cost of steer per 100 Ibs. at the end of Period 5B . . .35 48.07 38.96 9.11 4.25 4.62 Prairie hay $38.29 2.92 .30 41.51 33.71 7.80 4.25 4.61 Cane $41.82 2.92 .35 45.09 36.19 8.90 4.25 4.67 Alfalfa and prairie hay Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and cane $49.17 2.92 $47.52 2.92 $41.23 2.92 .39 52.48 .37 50.81 .35 44.50 40.61 40.28 36.08 11.87 10.53 8.42 4.25 4.84 4 25 4.73 4.25 4.62 * Tables 29 and 30 cover the same time as Table 28, dividing the time into the two Sub-periods before and after March 18. t After the prairie fire on March 26, all lots of steers ran together and were fed alfalfa and prairie hay. Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 43 TABLE 31. — Third summer account — market values — three-year- old steers. May 4, 1910, to August 5, 1910. Lot No Winter rations. . . . 1 Alfalfa 2 Prairie hay 3 Cane Alfalfa and prairie hay 5 Alfalfa and cane 6 Prairie hay and cane Value of steer in spring at $4.25. . Cost of pasture per steer . ... $44.16 2 17 $38.20 2 17 $41.01 2.17 $46.03 2 17 $45.65 2.17 $40.88 2.17 Interest on value of steer Cost in the fall per steer . .68 47 01 .59 40 96 .63 43 81 .71 48 91 .69 48 51 .63 43 68 Value in the fall at $3.75 Loss during sum- mer per steer . . . Value of steer in spring per 100 Ibs 45.59 1.42 4 25 40.95 .01 4 25 43.40 .41 4 25 46.20 2.07 4 25 46.93 1.58 4 25 43.66 .02 4 25 Cost of steer in fall per 100 Ibs.. 3.87 3.75 3.73 3.97 " 3.88 3.75 Table 32 shows the amount that should be added to the fall value of the steer to secure a spring selling value that would pay for the feed eaten and interest on money invested in the steer during the winter. The average rise in value per 100 Ibs. of all the lots during the winter, in order that the winter feed and interest on the steer would have been paid, would have been 82 cents for the first winter, 83 cents for the second winter, and $1.33 for the third winter, or, for all lots for the three winters, 99 cents. That is, taking the average selling price in the fall as $3.75 per 100 Ibs., then the steers would have sold necessarily for 99 cents per 100 Ibs. more, or $4.74, to have paid interest on the money invested in them during the winter and the value of the feed eaten. I 44 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska TABLE 32. — Price steer must sell at in spring per 100 Tbs. above a fall cost of $3.75 per 100 Tbs. to pay for winter feed and interest on fall valuation. Lot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forage rations Alfalfa Prairie hay Cane Alfalfa and prairie Alfalfa and cane Prairie hay and Aver- age hay cane Calves — 1st spring ... . $0.65 $1.17 $0 97 $0 66 $0 59 $0 92 $0 82 Yearlings — 2d spring. . 96 1 20 77 63 71 76 83 Two-year-olds— 3d spring 1 37 1 48 1 32 1 28 1 23 1 33 1 33 Average 3 springs — .99 1.28 1.02 .86 .84 1.00 .99 TABLE 33. — Price at wMch steer may sell in the fall below a spring cost of $4.25 per 100 Ibs. and pay for pasture at $4.09 per steer per summer an^L interest on spring valuation of steer. Lot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Winter rations Alfalfa Prairie Cane Alfalfa and Alfalfa and Prairie hay Aver- hay prairie hay cane and cane age Yearlings $0 50 $0.71 $0 67 $0 38 $0 38 $0 56 $0 53 Two -year-olds Three-year-olds Average 3 falls .02* .38 .25 .56 .50 .59 .32 .52 .50 .04* .28 .21 .10* .37 .22 .25 .50 .44 .16 .42 .37 * The fall selling price of these three lots would have been the amount indicated above $4.25 per 100 Ibs. in order to have paid for summer pasture and interest. Table 33 shows the drop that may be permitted from a spring valuation of $4.25 per 100 Ibs. and have the selling price cover the spring cost of steer, interest on investment, and cost of summer pasture. This table indicates that usually a drop in value may be permitted during the summer, and the interest Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 45 and pasture bill settled when the spring value is set at $4.25 per 100 Ibs. In the fall of the second season Lot 1 would have had to sell for 2 cents, Lot 4 for 4 cents, and Lot 5 for 10 cents per 100 Ibs. above the spring price in order to have paid for the summer expense. Aside from these the decrease that might have been permitted in the fall selling price below the spring- price of $4.25 varied from 25 cents with Lot 6 in the second fall to 71 cents with Lot 2 in the first fall. The average decline that might have been permitted on the value of all the steers in Period 2 was 53 cents per 100 Ibs.; in Period 4, 16 cents per 100 Ibs.; and in Period 6, 42 cents per 100 Ibs., — or the average for all steers for the three periods 37 cents per 100 Ibs. That is, taking the average of all the steers for the three summers, if the purchase price in the spring were $4.25 per 100 Ibs. and they were sold for 37 cents less per 100 Ibs., or $3.88 per 100 Ibs., in the fall, they would have paid interest on the money invested in them and the pasture bill. TABLE 34. — Price per 100 Ibs. steers must sell for in the spring to pay for winter feed and interest on investment with a fall valuation of $3.75. (Compiled from Tables 24 to 31.) Lot No Forage rations 1 Alfalfa 2 Prairie hay 3 Cane 4 Alfalfa and prairie hay 5 Alfalfa and cane 6 Prairie hay and cane First spring Second spring . . . Third spring $4.40 4.71 5.12 $4.92 4.95 5.23 $4 72 4.52 5.07 $4 41 4.38 5.03 $4.43 4.4« 4.98 $4.67 4.51 5.08 Table 34 shows the price that the steers of each lot would necessarily have sold for each spring in order to have paid for the feed eaten during the previous winter, charging the prices indicated for forage on page 0 and considering the steers worth $3.75 per 100 Ibs. in the fall with interest on the investment. Tf a steer in Lot 1 cost $3.75 per 100 Ibs. in the fall and sold for Ill Growing Feeder Steers in Western \ebraska si. 40 in the spring of the first year, lie would have paid his original cost, interest on this, and the value of the feed eaten. To have accomplished the same, in the second spring he would have sold for $4.71 per 100 Ibs. and in the third spring for §5.1-. The cost of the steer per 100 Ibs. was higher each successive spring. TABLE 35. — With -pasture at the following priee per head per mouthy these steers, if purchased at •$'//. 50 cents 1.04 75 cents. . 4.18 $3.31 3.37 3.49 3 (53 $3 . 56 3. (51 3 . 70 3 . 85 $3.86 3.! 6 1.05 1.20 $3.96 1.02 4.11 4.25 $3.61 3.69 3 . 77 3.93 $3.70 3 76 3 86 4.00 THIRD SUMMER. Lot No Pasture, per month 25 cents . 35 cents- 5'1 cents 75 cents. Aver- age $3.76 83.61 $3 62 $3.8(5 $3.77 $3 . (55 $3.72 3.80 3 70 3. (57 3.91 3.82 3.69 3.76 3 . 88 3 . 77 3 . 75 3 98 3.89 3.77 3 . 81 1 00 3 91 3.87 1.10 1.00 3 90 3 96 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska . 47 Table 35 gives the price that the steers should have' been sold at in the fall to have paid for the summer pasture, count- ing the cost of the steers in the spring at $4.25 per 100 Ibs. and charging a fixed price per steer per month for pasture. The pasture season is considered as six months. If a steer in Lot 1 cost $4.25 per 100 Ibs. in the spring and the pasture bill were 25 cents per month for six months, the steer if sold in the fall at $4.32 per 100 Ibs. would have paid the original cost and the pasture bill. The interest on the investment and insurance against loss are not counted in this calculation. Lot 6, yearling steers. Ration, prairie and cane hay. Photo, spring, 1909. 48 Growing Feeder Steers in Western y TABLE 30. — With pasturage at the price per month indicated in the margin the summer gains of the steers would have cost per WO 11) s. as -follows: FIRST SUMMER. Lot No Winter rations Alfalfa Prairie hay 3 Cane Alfalfa 'flf Prairie and hay Aver" Pasture, per month prairie hay and cane age 25 cents 35 cents 50 cents 75 cents $1.00 $0.77 $0.i $0.70 $0.90 .89 $0.69 $077 1.09 1.56 2.35 3 12 .96 1.36 2.05 2 72 SECOND 1.25 1.80 2.70 3 55 .97 1.39 2.08 2.76 1 08 1.55 2 33 3 09 Lot No. . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 Aver- age Pasture, per month 25 cents $1 .33 SO 70 $0 82 si .37 $1 55 $0 .90 $1.11 35 cents 1 .8.") .93 1 14 1 .91 2.15 1 .24 1.53 50 cents 2 56 1.29 1 .58 2 .64 2.97 1 .73 2.13 75 cents 1 .00 2.00 2 45 4 .11 4.62 2 70 3.31 $1.00 5 30 2.70 3 26 5 .47 6.14 3 60 4.64 Lot No. Pasture, per month 25 cents 35 cents 50 cents .... 75 cents $1.00 . THIRD SUMMER. 1 ' 2 ! 3 ' 4 Aver- age $0 92 1.28 $0 1 ,84 16 $0 1 .77 07 $1 1 .09 .51 $0 1 92 27 $0 1 ,80 .11 $0.89 1.23 1.77 2.76 3.70 l' 2 ! 3 62 51 .34 1 2 i 3 .47 .31 07 2 3 4 .10 .26 .H3 1 2 3 76 ,80 64 1 2 3 54 40 .19 1.71 2.67 3.54 Table1 30 has been compiled to show the cost of 100 Ibs. of gain on the several lots during each summer, charging for the pasture a fixed price per month per steer of 25 cents, 35 cents, .">() cents, 75 cents, and SI. 00. This should give the farmer and Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 49 stockman a more or less definite idea of the cost of summer gains under his conditions. The pasture season is considered as six months. The interest on the investment and insurance against loss are not counted in this calculation. TABLE 37. — Record of six lots of steers fed different forage rations during the winter and run together in a canyon pas- ture during the summer. There were 976 days in the experi- ment. December 3, 1907, to August 5, 1910. Lot No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forage rations Alfalfa Prairie Cane Alfalfa and Alfalfa and Prai;ie hay hay prairie hay cane and cane Average first weight, Ibs 446 450 452 451 451 449 Average last weight, Ibs Average gain, Ibs Average daily gain, Ib 1215 769 78 1092 642 65 1175 723 74 1232 781 80 1251 800 82 1164 715 73 Relative gain, per cent Feed eaten per steer during experiment, tons ( grain 96 5.21 $3 11 80 4.12 $3 11 90 5.19 $3 11 97 5.59 $3 11 100 5.99 $3 11 89 4.73 $3 11 Cost of feed ] forage ( pasture First value of steer at $3.75. .. Interest at 6 per cent on total investment (computed at end of each period) 31.19 10.35 16.73 5.13 20.99 10 35 16.88 4 59 21.63 10.35 16.95 4 75 30.43 10.35 16.91 5.08 30.37 10.35 16.91 5 11 21.97 10. H5 16.84 4 72 Total cost at North Platte .... Selling price per 100 Ibs. at North Platte to balance ac- count 66.51 5 49 55.92 5 12 56.79 4 83 65.88 5 34 65.85 5 26 56.99 4 89 Omaha weight (North Platte weight less 3.1 per cent shrinkage) 1177 1058 1139 1194 1212 1128 Cost of shipping and selling, $0.281 per 100 Ibs. Omaha weight $3 31 $2.97 $3 20 $3 35 $3 41 $3.17 Total cost of steer when sold. . Value per 100 Ibs. Omaha es- timate 69.82 4 55 58.89 4.25 59.99 4.50 69.23 4.70 69.26 4 70 60.16 4 50 Value in Omaha at above price . 53 45 44 97 51 26 56 12 56 96 50 76 Loss per steer 16.37 13.32 8 73 13.11 12.30 9.40 50 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska Table 37 gives the results of the entire experiment with six lots of 18 steers each, fed different forage rations during the winter and run together during the summer in a native grass pasture. The time covered is from December 3, 1907, to August 5, 1910. The lots began with an almost uniform weight, but ended the experiment with a difference of 159 Ibs. per head in favor of Lot 5, fed alfalfa and cane, over Lot 2, fed prairie ha}7. The increase in weight during the three years ranged from 642 Ibs. per steer in Lot 2 to 800 Ibs. per steer in Lot 5, and averaged 738 Ibs. per steer for all lots. On the average, the yearly in- crease in weight per steer was 246 Ibs. The increase in weight daily per steer ranged from .65 Ib. in Lot 2 to .80 Ib. in Lot 5. The rank of the forage rations as indicated by the total gain per steer was as follows: alfalfa and cane, alfalfa and prairie hay, alfalfa, prairie hay and cane, cane, and prairie hay. The tons of forage eaten per steer varied from 4.12 of prairie hay to 5.99 of alfalfa and cane. There was more alfalfa required than prairie hay to winter a steer, but there was much more increase in the weight of steer from the alfalfa. The total average cost of the feed per head for the three years was $39.56. The lowest cost was $34.45 for the steers in Lot 2. The interest on the investment is ordinarily not given due consideration by the owner. In this table the interest is computed at the end of each period on the cost of the steer at the beginning of that period and these several amounts brought together as the total interest on the investment. The interest on the average steer during the entire experiment was $4.87. If we add together the first cost of the steer, the value of all feed eaten, and the interest on the investment, the total will give the entire cost of the steer. By this method, on August 5, 1910, the cost per steer ranged from $55.92 for those in Lot 2 to $66.51 for those in Lot 1. The average cost of each three-year-old steer on August 5 of the third summer was $61.32. This was at Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 51 the time when the average weight was 1188 Ibs. per steer. To have paid their cost at that date, they would have sold neces- sarily at |5.16 per 100 Ibs. The net selling price at Omaha amounted to $4.29 per 100 Ibs. on the North Platte weights. The exact profit or loss on the entire operation is rather difficult to determine. But we can arrive at it fairly accurately. The difference between home weights and Omaha weights was 3.1* per cent. That is, a steer of Lot 1, weighing 1215 Ibs. at home after being in a corral over night without water, shrunk 38 Ibs. before he was sold in Omaha. We therefore consider the weights of the steers of each lot to be the home weight less 3.1 per cent. The cost of shipping and selling was equal to 28.1 cents per 100 Ibs., Omaha weights. This makes the cost of shipping and selling |3.23 per steer besides the shrinkage. The total cost of the steer when sold in Omaha includes the original cost of the calf in the fall of 1007, the cost of all feed, interest on cost of steer at end of each period, and the cost of marketing him. Calculating in this way, the average steer of Lot 1 when sold in Omaha had cost $69.92, and of Lot 2 $58.59. The price of the steers of the other lots ranged between these. The steers of each lot \vere put into a separate pen at the Stock Yards at Valley where a cattle salesman from Omaha placed an estimated selling value on each lot. Taking his valua- tion, which is given in Table 38, as the selling price, tho it was slightly below the actual selling price, we find that the steers of no lot paid all that they had cost. The heaviest loss was with the steers fed alfalfa. For reasons already mentioned we do not think that the loss on this lot should have been as much as the results of this experiment indicate, but we have no explana- tion to offer for the loss on the other lots. We believe these figures represent approximately the average result of keeping cattle under conditions similar to those under which these cattle were kept. The conditions were similar to those prevailing on the better 52 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Xebraska class of western Nebraska farms and ranches, except that these steers consumed no cheap or unmarketable forage to reduce their cost. The steers were not of uniform breeding or color, but were a good class of grades. The protection from storms, the water facilities, the pasture and the forage were certainly as favorable to profitable results as on the better managed farms. The forage is charged at a rather low figure, considering the value of land and the acreage necessary for a steer. We believe that the man keeping steers where he feeds hay worth the price charged in this experiment and pastures them in the summer time on grass that costs the price charged here will have approximately the same financial loss, unless he buys at a lower price or sells at a higher price. We are accustomed to think that it does not cost as much to raise a steer as is charged in this test, but if we will observe closely the wintering of cattle on many of the ranches we shall find that it is not un- usual to feed two tons of hay per head of cattle. The farmer will reduce this cost by feeding forage that, be- cause of its quality or of the distance from market, does not command the price charged in this bulletin. In so far as he does this he reduces the cost. The ranchman living a consider- able distance from market feeds hay that can not be put on the market because of the distance, and often pastures on land that he neither owns nor rents. However, there are not many cattle pastured in this manner now. But the man who feeds hay that he could sell at the price per ton in the stack charged in this bulletin is not making a profit from the steers. It wrould seem evident that under existing market prices the feeder cat- tle must be wintered on forage worth less than the ordinary market values. \Vli(ro the owner of the cattle raises his forage, he may obtain a profit on the entire operation of growing forage and feeding it to steers, but the profit will come from the price charged for the forage. If the steers pay more than the cost of Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska 53 the production of the forage, they give a profit. On the farm where there is more forage than would otherwise be used and where it cannot readily be marketed, if the steer will consume it and give a fair return for it he is giving a profit. In the matter of net profit or loss there are many factors entering in to obscure the final result. These steers are charged market value for all they consumed. They required some at- tention, but they left on the farm a large quantity of manure. If the value of this were known, we might find that the steers gave a profit in the end. It is difficult to determine which ration gave the most profit- able results. The final result would indicate that cane gave the least loss and alfalfa the most. Even taking the final profit or loss as the determining factor, this would indicate only that the relative values assigned to the three kinds of forage were not correct. Alfalfa or combinations of alfalfa and other forage gave more pounds gain during the winter and during the entire time than a ration containing no alfalfa. This shows that alfalfa is a better forage for growing steers than prairie hay or cane. But for wintering steers that are to be marketed off grass in the fall, alfalfa is not worth as much more than prairie hay and cane as is charged in this bulletin when fed under these con- ditions. However, there arises the question of the relative amount of pasture eaten by the various lots during the summer. The steer wintered on alfalfa did not gain nearly so much during the summer as the steer wintered without alfalfa. It may be that he did not eat as much grass. In this case we have charged him with more than his part of the cost of pasture. SUMMARY. The steers that went on grass in the spring thin in flesh in- creased in weight faster during the summer than the steers that went on grass in good flesh. 54 Growing Feeder Steers in Western Nebraska Steers wintered on alfalfa or a ration one-half alfalfa make much faster gains during the winter than those wintered tin prairie hay or cane alone, but do not make as fast gains the fol- lowing summer. Steers wintered on a ration of alfalfa or one-half alfalfa make a greater gain during the winter and the summer following com hined than steers wintered on prairie hay or cane alone. liolh yearling and I \\ o yea r old steers lost weigh I when fed cam* <>r a ration one hall cane and one hall prairie hav. Steers fed alfalfa or a ration one-half alfalfa gained in weight during each winter. The value of cattle should be approximately $1.00 per 100 Ibs. more1 in the spring' than in the preceding fall in order thai they may pay for their winter feed. The value of cattle in the fall may be considerably lower lhan in the spring and the cattle still give a profit on the sum mer operation. The value of alfalfa in comparison with prairie hay or cane is higher when fed to cattle that are to he sold in the spring than when fed to cattle that are to be sold the fall following. "\Vith the. prices used for feed and cattle in this bulletin it is not profitable to produce steers for the feed lot. The price of cattle is too low in comparison with the market value of forage. BULLETIN No. 100. THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA. BULLETIN OF THE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OF NEBRASKA. VOLUME XX, ARTICLE I. ECONOMICAL RATIONS IN BEEF PRODUCTION. BY H. R. SMITH. DISTRIBUTED SEPTEMBER 11, 1907. SHORT LOIN OF JAMES-IMPROVER First Prize carcass. Yearling Class (all breeds), International Live Stock Exposition, Chicago, December, 1906. Fed and exhibited by the Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Nebraska. LINCOLN, NEBRASKA U. S. A. CONTENTS. Page. Introduction 3 Plan of Experiments 5 Prairie Hay versus Alfalfa 7 The Use of Corn-stover with Corn and Alfalfa 10 Feeding Corn-fodder 13 Corn and Prairie Hay versus Corn, Linseed-meal and Prairie Hay.... 15 Protein Concentrates (Wheat Bran, Linseed-meal, and Cottonseed- meal) Compared 17 Linseed-meal (a Protein Concentrate) versus Alfalfa (a Protein Roughage) 20 Prairie Hay versus Corn-stover 22 Heavy versus Light Feed of Corn with Alfalfa and Stover 23 The 1906-1907 Experiments 26 Financial Statement 36 Conclusions . 39 ECONOMICAL RATIONS IN BEEF PRODUCTION. BY H. R. SMITH. The determination of methods by which beef production can be made more profitable is one of the important problems now under investigation at the Nebraska Experiment Sta- tion. During recent years the attractive prices offered for corn by the markets of the world have led many stockmen of the State to discontinue their cattle feeding operations and to sell the crop direct to elevator companies for shipment. Others have turned their attention to pork and mutton pro- duction. That beef values have not kept pace with those of corn in the upward trend of recent years is not denied. Nor can it be said that the market quotations for corn-fed beef have been as attractive as the prices offered for finished pork and mutton during the past few years. Nevertheless, cattle feeding has its place, and the industry will be regarded with increasing favor as we learn to more fully appreciate the im- portance of cattle in their relation to the economic manage- ment of our land. On practically every farm in the State where grain crops have been grown and sold direct to the elevator for a succes- sion of years the soil is much below the productive capacity of adjoining farms where crop rotation and stock feeding have been practiced. Pork production, good so far as it goes in turning back to the land fertilizing material taken from the soil and profitable as it has been during these years of high prices, should not be carried on to the entire exclusion of all other forms of meat production. The occasional de- struction of an entire herd of swine by the ravages of cholera is a matter to be considered, but as an argument for a greater diversity of live stock on the farm it does not carry the weight of the one great argument, viz., the economical conversion of BULL. 100, AGR. EXP. STATION OF NEBR. VOL. XX, ART. I. 4 Economical Rations in Beef Production. a larger part of the vast quantity of roughage grown on every farm as by-products to grain into some marketable commod- ity. Cattle and sheep feeding not only make possible the utilization of such material, but these ruminants, requiring much bulk as they do, also encourage the growth of more clover and alfalfa in the crop rotation, thus preserving the fertility of the land. Cattle are not only able to consume bulky material in quantity, but they are also able to take it in its crude form, less costly, therefore, than if labor is ex- pended in its preparation. During the years of low-priced corn, cattle feeding was profitable under almost any system of feeding, but conditions having changed, methods must be varied to meet the new sit- uation. Beef has always been a luxury, and we can hardly expect its rise in value to be commensurate with that of corn and other cereals used in the human dietary. When it be- comes excessively high in price the consumers use less meat and more of other foods which, tho less palatable, are much cheaper and can serve as substitutes. Tn beef production, as in other forms of industry, competition forces us to adopt more economical methods, and it is left for the farmer to make beef more cheaply rather than to discontinue the feed- ing of cattle because of higher priced grain. If cattle feeding, aside from its beneficial effect in main- taining or restoring soil fertility, is still a profitable industry in states farther east — as it is when properly conducted — the farmers of Nebraska are situated to make it doubly so by virtue of the natural conditions which favor the industry here, viz., lower priced corn than any other state in the Union, the possibilities of alfalfa and clover culture, notably the former, favorable markets and shipping facilities, and a cli- mate of relatively low humidity in winter which permits out- door f c(Ml ing. It would be unreasonable to expect cattle to return every year without fail prices for corn above what might have been received at the elevator. The instability of the average stock market would hardly permit it. But fol- Economical Rations in Beef Production, 5 lowed year after year with careful buying and the exercise of skill in the management of cattle, particularly with refer- ence to the selection and use of foods, fair profits are to be depended upon. Nebraska, relatively speaking, is a newly settled State, the eastern half being occupied by farmers who have been giving most of their attention to the growing and selling of grain. It is not at all surprising, therefore, to find that as the need of stock on the farm is felt mistakes will be made and what might have been profits are really losses. That the Experi- ment Station might be brought in closer touch with actual conditions, as they exist in this State, the writer in the early spring of 1903 visited a large number of feed lots to learn what rations were in common use. In this investigation it was found that by far the largest number were fattening steers on corn and prairie hay, tho some were making use of straw, cane or millet as a substitute for prairie hay. In the more central and western portions of the State corn and al-' falfa were being fed, while a number in the Missouri Kiver counties were feeding clover. The use of oil-meal and cotton- seed-meal was confined to a few men who feed on an extensive scale and who buy practically all their grain. From the ob- servations made it would be conservative to say that unbal- anced rations were being fed on two-thirds of the farms vis- ited. That our farmers might have a practical demonstration of thi* greater possibilities of a system of cattle feeding which is more nearly in harmony with Nature's laws Avith respect to the character of the food as opposed to a system which ignores entirelv tho animal's physiological requirements, the series of experiments herein described were conducted under conditions precisely as they may be found on many farms in the State. PLAN OF EXPERIMENTS. The steers selected for all experiments were grown under range conditions, having had no grain previous to their pur- 6 Economical Rations in Beef Production. chase. They were chosen for uniformity in age, quality and size as nearly as it was possible to secure it. ^Yhen the divi- sion into lots of ten steers each was made previous to the ex- perimental feeding, an effort was put forth to make the several lots representative of the entire herd so that no one lot would have the advantage of another in weight, quality, condition or age. This would make the several lots of a sin- gle winter's experiment comparable, but not the lots fed one winter with those fed another winter. In other words, the reader is not to compare the feed record of 1904-05 with the feed record of 1905-06 or any other year. Grade Hereford yearlings from Cherry County, Nebraska, were fed in 1903- 04; Grade Shorthorn two-year-olds from North Park, Colo- rado, in 1904-05; Grade Shorthorn and Hereford two-year- olds from Rock County, Nebraska, in 4905-06, and Grade Angus two-year-olds from Sioux County, Nebraska, in 1906- 07. All lots in every experiment were provided writh sheds having large open doors on the south side to permit the steers to go in and out at will, none having horns. The yards were small but of sufficient size to permit of some exercise. All cattle were given water morning and night and salt Avas kept before them at all times. Each lot wras fed for a preliminary period of approximately three wwks before the records of the experiment were begun in order that all steers might know how to eat grain and furthermore have time to gradu- ally adapt themselves to their respective rations. The initial weights of the different lots as tabulated are an average of four weighings made on successive days just before watering in the morning. This is done to reduce as much as possible the element of error often caused by a fill larger one day than another. Every feed was carefully weighed, no credit being given for any coarse roughness left in racks and afterwards thrown ont for bed cling. This waste Avas charged to the steers just as tho it had been consumed. From what has been said above it may be assumed that the differences in gains as re- ported in the tables to folloAV are caused by the rations, at Economical Rations in Beef Production. least as largely so as it was possible to make the several lots in a given experiment average uniform in quality and gain- ing capacity. It is out of the question to eliminate entirely the error which might be caused by individual differences in the gaining capacity of steers even by feeding in lots of ten each. It is for the purpose of making the conclusions more reliable that the same experiments are being continued thru a succession of three or more years. PRAIRIE HAY VERSUS ALFALFA, Following is a comparison of the feeding value of native prairie hay as it grows in Nebraska, and alfalfa, each being fed as a roughness to supplement heavy corn feeding: TABLE I. — Corn and prairie hay versus corn and alfalfa. Yearling Two- year-old Two- year-old steers steers steers Average Dec., '03, to Jan., '05, to Nov., '05, to for June, '04, — July, '05,- Feb., '06,— 3 years. 24 weeks. 24 weeks. 12 weeks. Shelled corn and prairie hay. Shelled corn and alfalfa. Shelled corn and prairie hay. Shelled corn and alfalfa. iSnap- ped corn and prairie hay. Snap- ped corn and alfalfa. Corn and prairie hay. Corn and alfalfa. Average initial weight per steer, Ibs . 801.00 808.00 926.00 937.00 975.00 977.00 901.00 907.00 Average gain per day Ibs 1.35 1.97 1 .90 2.30 1.20 2.06 1.48 2.11 Average grain fed per day, Ibs 14.30 15.30 17.90 18.60 9.47 9.47 13.89 14.46 Average hay fed per day, Ibs 8.70 9.20 9.70 9.20 18.22 22.15 12.21 13.52 Grain consumed per Ib. of gain, Ibs. . 10.50 7.70 9.52 8.14 7.87 4.60 9.29 6.81 Hay consumed per Ib. of gain, Ibs 6.50 4.70 5.19 4.02 15.16 10.75 8.95 6.49 Total food consumed per Ib. of gain, Ibs. . 17.00 12.40 14.71 12.16 23.03 15.35 18.25 13.30 Cost of 100 Ibs. gain. . . 18.27 $6.04 $8.23 $6.89 $8.76 $5.49 $8.32 $6.29 ^Profit or loss per head including pork produced Profit Profit Loss Profit Loss Profit Loss Profit from droppings .... $0.38 $8.66 $1.13 $2.86 $0.08 $3.56 $0.27 $5.02 Snapped corn is the ear within the husk or shuck. The figures in the table are its shelled corn equivalent. 2 In computing profits all items of expense were included except the labor of feeding which is customarily figured as an offset to manure made. 8 Economical Nations in Beef Production. It is never safe to accept as definite the conclusions drawn from a single experiment, but when we have, during a suc- cession of three years, the marked contrast in daily gains, cost of production, and net profits in favor of alfalfa as com- pared with prairie hay which the above table indicates, there would seem to be little room to doubt the superiority of al- falfa when each is fed with corn alone. There may be sev- eral reasons for this. Perhaps first in importance is the fact that alfalfa is a legume, having, like clover and cowpeas, the power to take nitrogen from the air, storing it within its cellular structure in the form of proteids, which material is needed by the animal in the formation of lean tissue and bone. Alfalfa in itself contains more protein than the aver- age fattening animal requires, an excess sufficient to com- pensate for that lacking in corn, the two together, therefore, making a balanced ration for fattening cattle. Prairie hay, like corn, lacks protein and when fed singly or together they do not supply enough of that nutrient to meet physiological requirements. This is best shown by examining the follow- ing chart, the black lines representing the digestible protein (lean formers) of each food and the white the digestible carbohydrates (starches, etc.) and vegetable oils, both of the latter producing animal fat and body heat. What is ap- proximately a well-balanced ration for the average two- year-old steer is indicated by the line having the nutritive ratio 1 :T, by which is meant one pound of protein to seven pounds of carbohydrates and fats. It will be noted how closely the ration corn and alfalfa — two pounds of the former to one of the latter — approaches this proportion. In fact, we are not sure but that 1 :7.3 is just as suitable as 1 :T for an average two-year-old steer. The corn and prairie hay combination, however, is decidedly lacking in protein, which is no doubt one of the chief causes of its failure as an eco- nomical ration. Economical Rations in Beef Production. ^Nutritive ratio. Prairie hay 1-123 Corn and prairie hay. 1:10.2 [ Corn 1-9 66 Corn and alfalfa hay. 1:7.34 [ Balanced ration for cattle (approximate) 1:7.00 » Alfalfa 1-384 But the composition of a food is not the only factor which determines its value. Alfalfa is very much more relished than prairie hay and it is less difficult to masticate. Steers crowded for the largest possible consumption of grain can also be induced to eat a little more corn with alfalfa than with prairie hay. In determining the cost of producing 100 pounds of gain, alfalfa and prairie hay were figured at $6.00 each per ton for the three years. Corn was 33 cents per bushel in 1903, 39 cents in 1904, and 35 cents in 1905. It is unfair to make com- parative values of a roughage like alfalfa, which balances well with corn alone, and one like prairie hay which does not, but when thus fed as in these three experiments, the alfalfa returned values ranging from f 10.80 to $15.70 per ton as compared with prairie hay at $6.00. The experiments show, however, that we can not afford to feed prairie hay at $6.00 1This chart is based on the average composition and digestibility of the foods indicated as determined at numerous places. The nutritive ratio is found by multiplying the digestible fats by 2^4, adding this to the digestible carbohydrates and dividing the sum by the digestible protein. 10 Economical Rations in Beef Production. per ton even if we include in the profits all pork made from droppings, as was done in these computations; at least we can not afford to do so if corn alone makes up the grain ra- tion. Keferring to the net profits per head as given in the table it is of interest to know that the net advance of selling over cost price for the twenty-four weeks periods was }1.30 per hundred on the corn and prairie hay steers in 1903 and $0.78 in 1904, while the advance on the alfalfa steers was |1.65 per hundred in 1903 and $1.00 in 1904. The larger ad- vance received for the alfalfa steers was no doubt due to the higher finish made by those steers. It is apparent that good profits can be made by feeding corn and alfalfa even tho the selling price of the cattle does not greatly exceed the cost price. In these experiments the feeding of alfalfa at $6.00 per ton with corn made this grain bring, when converted into beef, 51 cents per bushel in 1903, 44 cents in 1904, and 60 cents in 1905. It would take a larger advance than our mar- kets usually afford to make corn and prairie hay profitable at the prices for corn and cattle which have prevailed during the past few years. Clover was not fed in this series of experiments, but be- cause it is similar to alfalfa in composition, tho somewhat lower in protein, it would not be unreasonable to expect good gains on corn and clover; and experiments made in other states show favorable results for this combination of foods. With any other form of roughness with the exception of cow- pea hay, which is also a legume, we would hardly expect sat- isfactory gains unless some protein concentrate is fed with corn. THE USE OF CORN-STOVER WITH CORN AND ALFALFA. From the experiments already described it is apparent that a ration of corn and alfalfa is capable of producing large and profitable gains, enough so to make corn bring more in the form of beef than as a cash crop. But with corn there is also Economical Rations in Beef Production. 1 1 the stalk upon which it grew. Do not these stalks grown in such large quantity on our corn land possess sufficient nu- tritive value to make it worth while to harvest them for feed- ing purposes? Left standing in the field they become woody and are useful only as winter forage for stock cattle and horses, their value being estimated at from 25 cents to $1.00 per acre, a price not to exceed 50 cents per ton. When cut and put in shocks immediately after the corn ripens they re- main fairly green, retain in the leaves the nutritive properties Fig. 1. Rack for feeding corn fodder or stover. which they possessed when harvested and are much relished even by cattle on a full grain feed. For the purpose of se- curing data upon the above question two experiments were conducted in Avhich the ration corn and alfalfa was compared with corn, alfalfa and stover (stalks without the ears). The stover was fed unshredded in racks provided with vertical slats only wide enough apart to permit the steers to enter their heads, thus preventing the stalks from being pulled out and trampled under foot. The coarse butts refused, approx- imately 40 per cent of the stalks fed, were thrown out for 12 Economical Rations in Beef Production. bedding purposes but charged to the steers as feed consumed. The stover was fed each morning in order that the steers might have the entire day to work over the stalks, and the alfalfa was fed only at night to those lots receiving stover. Following is the record of the steers — ten two-year-olds in each lot — fed as indicated: TABLE II. — Corn and alfalja versus corn, alfalja and corn-stover. Jan., '05, to July, '05 — 24 weeks. Nov., '05, to Jan., '06,— 12 weeks. Average of the two experiments. Shelled corn and alfalfa. Shelled corn, alfalfa) and corn- stover. Snap- ped corn and alfalfa. Snap- ped " corn, alfalfa and corn- stover. Corn and alfalfa. Corn, alfalfa and corn- stover. Average initial weight per steer, pounds 937.00 2.30 18.60 9.20 8.14 4.02 12.16 $6.89 $2.86 941.00 2.40 18.40 9.90 7.89 4.56 12.45 $6.49 $3.32 977.00 2.06 9.47 22.15 4.60 10.75 15.35 $5.49 $3.56 974.00 1.96 9.61 22.45 4.90 11.44 16.34 $5.01 $4.20 957.00 2.18 14.03 15.67 6.37 7.38 13.75 $6.45 $3.21 957.00 2.18 14.00 16.17 6.39 8.00 14.39 $6.05 $3.76 Average gain per day, pounds Average grain fed per day, pounds. Average roughness fed per day, pounds Grain consumed per pound of gain, pounds Roughness consumed per pound of gain, pounds Total food consumed per pound of gain, pounds Cost of 100 pounds of gain Net profit per head including pork. . The table shows that in the first experiment equal parts of alfalfa and stover produced a slightly larger daily gain than alfalfa fed as the sole roughness with shelled corn. In the second experiment, when snapped corn was used, the reverse was true. A ration consisting of corn and alfalfa is often too laxative, especially with the later cuttings of alfalfa. In the first experiment it is very probable that the stover lessened the tendency to scour, while in the second experiment the presence of husk and cob served the same purpose. There may have been also some advantage in having stover with alfalfa for variety. In this connection it may be said that Economical Rations in Beef Production. 13 prairie hay will answer these purposes, but prairie hay ordi- narily costs as much as alfalfa, so there is but little advan- tage in using it. In both the experiments tabulated above, the use of corn-stover at $2.50 per ton as half the roughness reduced the cost of gains — in the first 40 cents per hundred, and in the second 48 cents. The stover proved to be actually worth $3.55 per ton with snapped corn and $4.16 per ton with shelled corn, worth 39 cents per bushel, as compared with alfalfa fed alone at $6.00 per ton. Nebraska produced last year, in round numbers, eight million tons of corn-stover. If one-fourth of this amount could have been converted into beef, bringing but $2.50 per ton as fed from the shock instead of 50 cents in the stalk fields, four millions of dollars could have been added to our earnings, and no losses from cornstalk disease would have come from feeding the stalks thus harvested. FEEDING CORN FODDEE (ENTIRE PLANT). The objection that is usually raised against the practice of cutting and shocking corn for feeding purposes is the labor involved in husking it from the shock. The fact that a great deal of corn may be fed to cattle in the stalk unhusked is en- tirely overlooked. In a 1905-06 experiment one lot of ten two-year-old steers was fed corn fodder for a period of twelve weeks in comparison with the same amount of snapped corn and stover fed another lot. Two-thirds of all the corn given the one lot was attached to the stalk, the remainder consist- ing of shelled corn fed at night. Charging four cents per bushel for husking, the cost of gains was the same in both lots. In 1906-07 this comparison was again made and half of all the corn fed was attached to the stalk. Here again the cost of production was practically the same, being only 10 cents per hundred less for snapped corn. The feeding of corn on the stalk in the morning with shelled corn and alfalfa hay at night is proving to be a very economical system of beef production, and it may be continued thruout the entire pe- 14 Economical Rations in Beef Production. 4 Fig. 2. Hauling bundles of corn fodder in late winter. Fig. 3. Building bottom of round stack for spring feeding. Next tier of bundles should be flatwise with all heads touching at center. Economical Rations in Beef Production. 15 riod by stacking the bundles near the feed yards for use in late winter. For such purposes corn which has been drilled a little thicker than usual is best because the ears are some- what smaller, tho it should not be planted so thickly that the yield of corn will be reduced. By feeding corn fodder we utilize the stalk and yet are put to no extra labor husking it. In fact corn can be cut with a harvester and put in the shock cheaper than it can be picked and cribbed, inasmuch as three men with a team and harvester can cut and shock seven acres per day. Records from the Farm Department of this Experi- ment Station show that it costs fl.18 per acre to cut and shock corn, which figure does not allow for wear and tear on the machine. Three cents per bushel should cover the cost of harvesting corn with a machine and putting it in shocks, in which form it may be fed direct to the cattle. CORN AND PRAIRIE HAY VERSUS CORN, LINSEED-MEAL AND PRAIRIE HAY. On many farms alfalfa or clover is not available in suffi- cient quantity to form even half of the roughness supplied fattening cattle. Under these circumstances the use of some commercial protein concentrate would seem desirable. In order that this might be given a practical test, three experi- ments were conducted in which the ration corn and prairie hay was fed with and without the protein concentrate linseed- meal (oil-meal). The latter food was made but 10 per cent of the grain ration because of its high protein content and relative cost. In this experiment, as in all other experiments described in this bulletin, ten steers were feel in each lot. For the purpose of making the results more easily comprehended by the reader, the tables are made to show the average record for each steer bv lot. 16 Economical Rations in Beef Production. TABLE III. — Corn and prairie hay versus corn, linseed-meal and prairie hay. Dec., '03, to June, '04,— 24 weeks. Jan., '05, to July, '05,— 24 weeks. Feb., 'Q6, to April, '06,— 8 weeks. Average of the three experiments. Shelled corn and prairie hay. Shelled corn9C$, oil-meal 10$, and prairie hay. Shelled corn and prairie hay. Shelled corn90$, oil-meal 10$, and prairie hay. Shelled corn and prairie hay. Shelled corn90$, oil-meal K$, and prairie hay. Shelled corn and prairie hay. Shelled corn90$, oil-meal ll#, and prairie hay. Av. initial wt. per steer, Ibs . Av. gain per day, Ibs 801.00 1.35 14.30 8.70 10.50 6.50 17.00 $8.27 Profit $0.38 1:10.4 799.00 1.91 15.40 8.80 8.10 4.60 12.70 16.82 Profit $4.76 1:8 926.00 1.90 17.90 9.70 9.52 5.19 14.71 $8.23 Loss $1.13 1:10.2 934.00 2.10 19.40 9.50 9.06 4.30 13.36 18.27 Profit $1.09 1:8 1176.00 1.27 19.10 5.50 15.10 3.94 19.04 110.74 Loss $0.46 1:10 1187.00 2.52 24.60 6.80 9.77 2.70 12.47 $7.87 Profit $1.43 1:8 967.00 1.51 17.10 7.90 11.71 5.21 18.92 $8.52 Loss $0.40 1:10.2 973.00 2.18 19.80 8.40. 8.98 3.87 12.84 $7.61 Profit $2.43 1:8 Av. grain fed per day Ibs . Av. hay fed per day, Ibs Grain consumed per Ib. of gain, Ibs Hay consumed per Ib. of gain, Ibs Total food consumed per Ib. of gain, Ibs. Cost per 100 Ibs. of gain Net profit or loss per head including pork from drop- piners Nutritive ratio That linseed-meal is capable of supplying what corn and prairie hay lacks is readily apparent when we note the marked increase in daily gains effected by its use. Each year the steers fed linseed-meal took on a more thrifty appear- ance, as indicated by the coat of hair a few weeks after the experiments were begun. They ate their grain with greater relish and when on full feed consumed somewhat more grain, which of course partly accounts for the increased gains. This was especially noticeable in the short period of heavy grain feeding in 1905-06 when the steers were crowded with grain thruout that entire period, the oil-meal steers taking 5.5 pounds of grain per day in excess of the lot not receiving it. However, in the two previous experiments when both lots Economical Rations in Beef Production. 1 7 were purposely kept on the same amount of grain per day for the first three months, the linseed-meal steers, particularly the yearlings in 1903-04, gave much larger gains. It will be noted also that much less grain was required to make a pound of gain each year, the average for the three years being 23 per cent less. This is equivalent to saying that four pounds of corn with linseed-meal produced as much beef as five pounds without linseed-meal. With corn averaging 35.7 cents per bushel and linseed-meal $28.33 per ton for the three years, the cost of producing one pound of gain was 10.7 per cent less by the use of the linseed-meal. The experiments show the urgent need of some protein concentrate with corn and prairie hay, provided its cost is not too great. Had the average cost of the linseed-meal been $45.00 or more per ton for the three years, there would have been no advantage in using it. PROTEIN CONCENTRATES COMPARED. Having shown the importance of using with corn and prai- rie hay a small quantity of some protein concentrate, in this case linseed-meal, we next compare three protein foods com- monly sold in Nebraska, viz., wheat bran, linseed-meal and cottonseed-meal. Gluten feed, a by-product in the manufac- ture of starch, glucose, etc., from corn, would have been in- cluded in these tests if the cost of freight from eastern fac- tories were not such as to make the price of this food prohibitive for stock feeding purposes here. Just as soon as starch and glucose are manufactured in quantity in this sec- tion, gluten feed will no doubt become a formidable competi- tor of the protein foods mentioned. Owing to the lower pro- tein content of wheat bran, this food was made 22 per cent of the grain ration, whereas linseed-meal and cottonseed-meal were each made 10 per cent of the grain ration. It will be noted in the table to follow that the basic part of each ration in the first experiment was corn and prairie hay, while in the second it was corn and corn-stover. 18 Economical Rations in Beef Production. TABLE IV. — Wheat bran versus linseed-meal versus cottonseed-meal. Feb., '06, to Apr., '06 — 8 weeks. Nov.', '06, to Apr., '07,— 20 weeks. Shelled corn 75$, bran 25$, prairie hay. Shelled corn 90$, oil-meal 10$, prairie hay. Shelled corn 90^, cotton- seed- meal 10$, prairie hay. Corn 78$, bran 22$, corn- stover. Corn 90$, oil-meal 10*, corn- stover. Corn 90$, cotton- seed- meal 10$, corn- stover. Average initial weight per steer Ibs . 1146.00 1.98 25.20 5.50 12.97 2.78 15.75 $9.31 1.00 8.31 Profit $0.57 1:8 1187.00 2.52 24.60 6.80 9.77 2.70 12.47 $7.87 0.84 7.03 Profit $1.43 1:7.3 1154.00 2.29 24.60 6.20 10.77 2.72 13.49 $8.59 0.68 7.91 Profit $0.47 1:6.8 973.00 1.76 24.97 8 91 14.19 5.06 19.25 $10.49 2.30 8.19 Loss $3.94 1:8.8 976.00 2.33 23.02 8.96 9.88 3.85 13.73 $7.64 1.31 6.33 Profit $1.65 1:8.2 988.00 2.11 22.83 8.89 10.83 4.21 15.04 $8.26 1.68 6.58 Profit $1.32 1:7.6 Average gain per steer per day Ibs Grain consumed per steer per day Ibs Average roughage consumed per steer per day, Ibs Grain consumed per pound of gain Ibs Roughage consumed per Ib. of gain Ibs Total food consumed for 1 Ib. of gain Ibs Cost of 100 pounds of gain Value of pork produced as a by-product for 100 Ibs. of gain on steers Net cost of food per 100 Ibs. of gain Net profit or loss per head including pork Nutritive ratio by lots In both of these experiments bran gives a much smaller daily gain than either linseed- or cottonseed-meal. In order to furnish the desired amount of protein, it was necessary to feed from five to six pounds per day to each steer, which quantity of this food, rather laxative in its effects, caused the steers to scour both winters. Several steers in the bran lot became more or less rheumatic or stiff. This was also observed both winters, but it was more pronounced in the second trial. No doubt these difficulties were partly respon- sible for the unsatisfactory gains on corn and bran, as no Economical Rations in Beef Production. 19 other lots were similarly affected. The bran put on the mar- ket today is apparently less valuable than formerly, no doubt because of its high crude fiber content due to modern methods of milling which effect a more complete extraction of the valuable portions of the wheat kernel. While cottonseed-meal is slightly higher in protein than linseed-meal, the latter gave the larger gains in both these experiments, tho the difference was not great. The cattle did not eat the mixture of corn and cottonseed-meal with the same relish that was conspicuous when the ration corn and linseed-meal was placed before them, and this no doubt fur- nishes one explanation of the superiority of linseed-meal in producing not only larger daily gains but also larger gains from the same weight of food. The feeds used in the first experiment cost as follows: corn 35 cents per bushel, bran |15.00 per ton, linseed-meal $32.00 per ton, and cottonseed- meal $32.00 per ton. Those used in the second experiment cost as follows : corn 36 cents per bushel, bran $18.00 per ton, linseed-meal $29.50 per ton, cottonseed-meal $27.75 per ton, and stover $2.50 per ton. The prices given for commercial foods are on the basis of car lots f. o. b. Lincoln. At the above prices it will be noted that the cost of producing one pound of gain was much greater with bran than either of the other protein foods. In the first experiment the linseed-meal proved to be three times as valuable as bran. The difference was even greater in the second experiment. It would not be wise, however, to place any relative values upon these foods until after further tests are made. In examining the above table it is interesting to note that the gains made in the second experiment, where corn-stover was used as the roughness, compared favorably with those made in the first experiment, on prairie hay. We can not, however, formulate any estimate of the relative values of the two forms of roughness from the above table, because the first experiment was of only eight weeks' duration, during the finishing period, while the second test lasted twenty 20 Economical Rations in Reef Production. weeks, practically the entire fattening period. Furthermore, grade Shorthorns were used in the first experiment and grade Angus in the second. LINSEED-MEAL (A PROTEIN CONCENTRATE) COMPARED WITH ALFALFA (A PROTEIN ROUGHAGE). The two experiments with protein concentrates conducted to date favor the use of linseed-meal as a food supplementary to corn when the roughness consists of either prairie hay or corn-stover. The question now arises, would it be possible to supply sufficient protein by making half of the roughness alfalfa, dispensing with the use of the concentrate, and still be able to secure just as satisfactory gains? This would make it possible to utilize a great deal of stover or prairie hay and at the same time obviate the necessity of purchasing the commercial food. Two experiments in which the ration corn and linseed-meal was compared with corn without such a food when alfalfa forms half the roughness are here reported. TABLE V. — Linseed-meal versus alfalfa. Feb., '06, to Apr., '06,— 8 weeks. Nov., '06, to Apr., '07,— 20 weeks. Corn 90$, linseed- meal 10$, and prairie hay. Corn 100$, alfalfa hay and prairie hay ieq'1 parts) Corn 90$, linseed- meal 10$, and corn- stover. Corn 100$, alfalfa hay and corn- stover (eq'l parts) Av . initial wt . per steer, Ibs 1187.00 2.52 24.60 6.80 9.77 (2.70 12.47 $7.87 0.84 7.03 1.43 1:7.3 1164.00 2.29 23.20 8.10 10.16 3.55 13.71 $7.40 1.07 6.33 2.53 1:8.7 976.00 2.33 23.02 8.96 9.88 3.85 13.73 $7.64 1.31 6.33 1.65 1:8.2 978.00 2.42 22.33 9.77 9.22 4.03 13.25 $6.99 1.53 5.46 6.38 1:8.7 Av . gain per steer per day, Ibs Grain consumed per steer per day, Ibs. Roughage consumed per steer per day Ibs Grain consumed per Ib. of gain, Ibs. . Roughage consumed per Ib.of gain, Ibs. Total food consumed for 1 Ib. of gain, Ibs Cost of 100 Ibs . of gain ... Value of pork produced as a by- product for 100 Ibs . of gain on steers Net cost of food per 100 Tbs. gain Net profit per head including pork produced from droppings Nutritive ratio Economical Rations in Beef Production. 21 In the matter of daily gains, the linseed-meal seems to have the advantage in the first experiment with prairie hay, and the alfalfa in the second experiment with corn-stover. An average gain of two pounds per day for an entire fattening period is ordinarily considered good. The gains made on both rations in the two experiments reported are therefore very gratifying, particularly the average gains made for a period of twenty weeks in the second experiment. The fact that one lot of ten two-year-old steers gained 2.33 pounds each per day for a period of five months with unshredded corn-stover for roughness and no hay of any kind, is added proof of the high feeding value of this by-product so com- monly wasted in Nebraska. While the linseed-meal ration shows its superiority over the alfalfa combination in making larger daily gains during one experiment, the use of alfalfa without linseed-meal made the gains less costly in both. The alfalfa-fed steers in the first experiment sold for the same price per hundred as the linseed-meal steers. In the second experiment the alfalfa steers sold for $5.65 per hundred, while the linseed-meal steers sold for $5.50 the same day, which difference may have been due to the quality of the individuals at the beginning of the test and not to the feed. With corn costing 35 cents per bushel and prairie hay $6.00 per ton, the alfalfa hay proved to be worth $13.11 per ton in comparison with linseed-meal costing $32.00 per ton. In the second experiment, with corn worth 36 cents per bushel and stover valued at $2.50 per ton, the alfalfa returned a value of $13.12 per ton in comparison with linseed-meal at $29.50. From these figures it is apparent that alfalfa possesses a high value as a source of protein. The experiments furthermore suggest that a relatively small quantity of this hay will sup- ply sufficient protein to insure good gains on two-year-old steers, and that this can be produced on the farm much cheaper than it can be purchased on the market in the form of linseed-meal or some other protein concentrate. 22 Economical Rations in Beef Production. PRAIRIE HAY VERSUS CORN-STOVER. In the comparison of linseed-meal and alfalfa, first when used with corn and prairie hay, and second with corn and stover, the reader is not to draw any conclusions as to the relative values of prairie hay and stover, because they were fed during different years under dissimilar conditions. Fol- lowing is a direct comparison of these two forms of rough- ness, one year with linseed-meal supplementing the corn, an- other year with alfalfa forming half the roughness with each, and a third comparison with each roughness fed with corn alone : TABLE VI. — Prairie hay versus corn-stover. Dec., '03, to June, Nov., '05, to Jan., Nov., '05, to Jan., '04,— 24 weeks. '06,— 12 weeks. '06,— 12 weeks. Corn 93$, oil-meal 10*, and Corn 90$, oil-meal 10$, and Snapped corn, prairie Snapped corn, corn-sto- Snapped corn and Snapped corn and prairie hay. corn- stover. hay and alfalfa. ver and alfalfa. prairie hay. corn- stover. Average initial weight per steer pounds 799.00 777.00 979.00 974.00 975.00 976.00 Average gain per steer per day, pounds 1.91 1.96 2.01 1.96 1.20 1.02 Average grain consumed per steer per day, pounds 15.40 15.60 9.47 9.61 9.47 9.47 Roughage consumed per steer per day, pounds. . . 8.80 11.20 21.10 22.45 18.22 22.86 Grain consumed per pound of gain, pounds. . 8.10 8.00 4.70 4.90 7.87 9.25 Roughage consumed per pound of gain, pounds. . 4.60 5.70 10.47 11.44 15.16 22.44 Total food consumed per pound of gain, pounds. . 12.70 13.70 15.17 16.34 23.63 31.69 Cost of food for 100 pounds of gain $6.82 $6.09 $5.47 $5.01 $8.76 $8.11 Nutritive ratio . . 1:8 1:8.3 1:7.2 1:7.3 1:11 1 : 13.1 When balanced rations were fed, the protein being fur- nished in one experiment by the use of linseed-meal and in the other by alfalfa hay, the corn-stover made a favorable showing with prairie hay, proving to be worth in the first $4.23 per ton and in the second $5.17 per ton compared with Economical Rations in Beef Production. 23 prairie hay at $6.00 per ton. In the third comparison, with- out a protein food, the stover returned a value of but $2.77 compared with prairie hay at f 6.00, which smaller value is perhaps attributable to the lower protein content of stover. As already stated, not more than 60 per cent of the stover charged to the steers fed in these experiments was consumed, the remainder consisting of refuse butts which had to be thrown out for bedding. The stover actually consumer! would seem to possess a feeding value quite the equal of prai- rie hay. Inasmuch as corn-stover contains only 60 per cent dry matter, while prairie hay is approximately 90 per cent, it would seem conservative to say also that the dry matter of the entire cornstalk with ear detached, cut immediately after the corn ripens and properly cured in the shock, is equal to the dry matter of prairie hay. THE RELATIVE ECONOMY OF A HEAVY AND LIGHT RATION OF CORN. The experiments so far conducted and reported in these pages indicate that beef can be produced most economically in Nebraska by the use of corn, alfalfa, and corn-stover. It would seem proper to next determine, if possible, what pro- portion of corn to such roughness is most economical. Corn has ruled high in price during the past few years, while rough- ness of all kinds has remained relatively low in value until the last year when hay has been abnormally high because the dry weather which prevailed thruout the country during the early part of the summer caused a shortage in this crop, the effect of which will no doubt be but temporary. The cost of hauling and shipping hay and other bulky feed is such as to make it seem probable that the price of roughness on our Ne- braska farms, many of them situated some distance from stations, will not advance with corn in the future. Beef cat- tle in the West are ordinarily fed all the grain they will con- sume, very commonly by the use of self-feeders, having before 24 Economical Rations in Beef Production. them what rough feed is needed to satisfy the craving for bulk. The latter is often of very inferior quality, perhaps a stack of wheat straw, and a very limited Quantity is con- sumed. That a good quality of roughness can be made to take the place of a part of the corn is shown by the following single experiment conducted the past winter : TABLE VII. — Heavy versus light feed of corn with alfalfa and corn-stover. Nov., '06, to Apr.,'07,— 20 weeks. Nov., '06, to May, '07,— 24 weeks. Corn (heavy feed), alfalfa hay 50$, corn- stover 50$. Corn (light feed), alfalfa hay 60$, corn- stover 40$. Av initial wt per steer Nov 14 Ibs 978.00 339.00 2.42 22.33 9.77 9.22 4.03 $6.99 1.53 5.46 6.38 1 :8.7 977.00 339.00 2.01 13.89 18.08 6.91 8.96 $7.06 1.44 5.62 4.61 1:7.3 Av. gain per steer, 5 mos. for Lot 4, 6 mos. for Lot 5 Ibs Av gain per steer per day Ibs Av grain consumed per steer per day Ibs Av roughage consumed per steer per day Ibs Av grain consumed for each Ib of gain Ibs Av. roughage consumed for each Ib. of gain, Ibs. . . Av . cost of 100 Ibs. of gain Value of pork produced as a by-product for 100 Ibs. of gain on steers Net cost of food per 100 Ibs. of gain Profit per steer, including pork produced from droppings Nutritive ratio The steers on the light ration of corn were never given to exceed fourteen pounds of corn per day, the average daily ration for the twenty-four weeks being 13.89 pounds, while the full-fed steers were given as high as 24 pounds per day, an average of 22.33 pounds for the period of twenty weeks fed. The light fed steers consumed as much more roughness as the heavy fed steers consumed more corn. It is interesting to note that the ten steers on the light grain ration made the same gain in six months (24 weeks) that the heavy fed steers made in five months (20 weeks). The light fed steers were equally well finished with the extra Economical Rations in Beef Production. 25 month's feeding and sold at $5.50 per hundred, the top of the South Omaha market May 14, '07, when there was a heavy run of cattle. The heavy fed cattle sold for $5.65 April 16th, one month previous, when the market was 20 cents per hun- dred higher, as found by averaging the selling price of the top hundred steers April 16th and the same number May 14th. In computing the net profits in the above table, both lots were figured at $5.38 per hundred net, the price received for the heavy fed cattle on home weights at the close of the ex- periment. At last winter's ('06-707) prices on feeds, viz., shelled corn 36 cents per bushel, snapped corn 35 cents, al- falfa hay $8.00 per ton, and stover $2.50 per ton, the heavy fed steers produced gains at a net cost (deducting pork from droppings) of $5.46 per hundred compared with $5.62 for the light fed steers. Had the alfalfa hay cost $5.00 per ton instead of $8.00 — and alfalfa in the stack on the average farm of Ne- braska does not usually command a figure greater than $5.00 — the net profits per steer would have been the same in both lots. This would have been true also if the corn had cost 50 cents per bushel instead of 35 cents, figuring the alfalfa at $8.00. This experiment emphasizes further the value of al- falfa as a beef producer, and it opens a new and important field for future investigation. The record made by the light fed cattle was no accident, as another lot in a corn fodder experiment made very nearly as large gains on the same grain ration. No conclusions, however, are to be drawn until after further tests along this line are made. As a single experi- ment it suggests the possibility of producing beef most eco- nomically on what approaches a full grain feed when corn is low in price and alfalfa high. When corn is high and^ alfalfa low, something more like half a full feed of grain would make beef production more profitable even tho more time is re- quired to finish the cattle. Judging from the results of the above experiment, it is probable that the most economical proportion of grain to hay under average conditions will be found somewhere between a half feed and a full feed of grain. 26 Economical Rations in Beef Production. Nothing definite, however, will be known until after several tests are made in which different quantities of grain are fed. THE 1906-07 EXPERIMENTS. The sixty steers used in last winter's experiments were purchased in October, 1906, from Mr. James Cook of Agate, Sioux County, Nebr. They were high grade Angus two-year- olds selected from a herd numbering about two hundred, all reared under range conditions, having had, previous to their purchase, nothing but grass supplemented with native hay during the winter months. They were in what would be con- Fig 4. Angus steers as they appeared on the range when purchased. Photo by Morrill Geological Expedition. sidered good grass flesh when purchased, and no doubt would have sdld at top values for feeder steers had they been sent to market. These steers cost $4.00 per hundred at the ranch and were weighed after having been yarded twenty-four hours without feed and water. The steers were shipped during the time of the severe October snowstorm and the shrinkage was very heavy. This shrinkage with the freight across the State Economical Rations in Beef Production. 27 & 10 bi 28 Economical Rations in Beef Production. and the expense of three weeks' preliminary feeding made the steers cost net Nov. 14th, on the initial weights of the experi- ment, 4.58 cents per hundred as given in the Financial State- ment to follow. All steers were yarded at the Experiment Station Oct. 26, 1906, and given a liberal feed of hay and but little grain. Owing to the fact that they had never been fed grain it was necessary to sprinkle corn-meal over the hay in order to get them started. They immediately acquired a fondness for corn-meal and a few days later for shelled and snapped corn, the feed being increased from one pound of meal per steer the first day to four pounds of shelled and snapped corn per day by the end of the first week, Nov. 2d. By Nov. 14th, when the records of the experiment were begun, the steers in Lots 2 and 3 were each receiving 7.8 pounds of snapped corn in the morning and 6 pounds of the mixture of shelled corn and linseed- or cottonseed-meal at night, the equivalent of 12 pounds of grain per day. Owing to the bulky character of bran, which formed about one-fourth of that ration, Lot 1 was purposely given a little larger feed of grain to make the quantity of corn correspond more nearly to that fed Lots 2 and 3, which received linseed- and cottonseed-meal, forming but 10 per cent of the daily grain ration. On Dec. 12th the ten steers in Lot 1 received 146 pounds of snapped corn in the morning and 84 pounds of shelled corn and 55 pounds of bran at night. The ten in Lot 2 received 146 pounds snapped corn in the morning and 89 pounds shelled corn and 22 pounds of linseed-meal at night. Lot 3 received the same ra- tion except that cottonseed-meal was substituted for linseed- meal. On that date, therefore, each steer in Lots 2 and 3 was receiving the equivalent of 19.8 pounds of shelled corn and 2.2 pounds of the linseed- or cottonseed-meal, while each steer in Lot 1 received the equivalent of 19.3 pounds of shelled corn and 5.5 pounds of bran. Lot 4 was fed the same quantity as Lots 2 and 3, the grain being corn alone. These four lots were given all the grain they would consume during the last Economical Rations in Beef Production. 29 three months of the experiment, an average of about 25 pounds to each steer per day. Lots 5 and 6 were never in- creased beyond 14 pounds of corn per day. They consumed much more roughness, however, as their record indicates. The results of one experiment with these steers in which wheat bran, linseed-meal and cottonseed-meal were compared are published on page 18 of this bulletin for purposes of com- parison with the previous winter's test in which the same feeds were used. The records of Lots 4 and 5 are published on page 24, in the experiment entitled "Light versus Heavy Grain Ration/' the steers in Lot 4 having been fed heavily on grain for a period of five months and those in Lot 5 very moder- ately for six months. The steers in Lot 6, the financial state- ment of which follows, were also fed six months on the same quantity of grain supplied Lot 5. During the first two months the steers in Lot 6 were fed a large part of their corn on the stalk as corn-fodder to serve as a comparison with Lot 5 on snapped corn, while during the last three months they were fed ground corn for a comparison with shelled corn fed that period to the steers of Lot 5. The results of the corn fodder versus snapped corn experiment and the shelled corn versus corn-meal experiment will not be published until next year when the records for a series of three years will be com- pleted. It may be stated at this writing that the records to date indicate that grinding corn for cattle does not pay when there are pigs behind to consume the undigested corn in the droppings. The data obtained in the other experiment dur- ing two years show no particular advantage in favor of de- taching the ears from stalks supplied fattening steers. How- ever, all conclusions concerning this will be deferred until more data are at hand. In the following Financial State- ment of the sixty steers there is included a small item for cane hay which was substituted for corn-stover during the closing days of the experiment after the supply of stover had been exhaust oJ: 30 Economical Rations in Beef Production. Economical Rations in Beef Production. 31 32 Economical Rations in Beef Production. •s I ft Economical Rations in Beef Production. 33 34 Economical Rations in Beef Production. Economical Rations in Beef Production. 35 36 Economical Rations in Beef Production. FINANCIAL STATEMENT. Lot 1, on corn, wheat bran, and corn-stover. 1906 Nov. 14 To 10 steers, weight 9,737 Ibs., at $4.58 per cwt net, f. o. b. Lincoln $44596 To 21,140 Ibs. shelled corn at 36 cents per bu. ($0.643 per cwt.) 135 93 To 8,507 Ibs. snapped corn (6,352 Ibs. of corn) at 35 cents per bu. ($0.625 per cwt.) 39 70 To 7,465 Ibs. of bran at $18 per ton 67 19 To 11,050 Ibs. of corn-stover at $2.50 per ton.. 13 81 . To 1,430 Ibs. of cane at $3.50 per ton 2 50 To interest on $445.96 for 5 mo. at 6 per cent 11 15 1907 Apr. 3 By 10 steers, weight 12,207 Ibs., at $5.08 per cwt. net, Lincoln $620 12 By 907 Ibs. pork at 6*4 cents net 56 71 By loss on ten steers 39 41 $716 24 $716 24 (Loss on each steer, $3.94.) Lot 2, on corn, linseed-meal, and corn-stover. 1906 Nov. 14 To 10 steers, weight 9,767 Ibs., at $4.58 per cwt. net, f. o. b. Lincoln $447 33 To 22,685 Ibs. shelled corn at 36 cents per bu. ($0.643 per cwt.) 145 86 To 8,510 Ibs. snapped corn (6,352 Ibs. of corn) at 35 cents per bu. ($0.625 per cwt.) 39 71 To 3,183 Ibs. of oil-meal at $29 50 per ton 46 79 To 11,050 Ibs. of corn-stover at $2.50 per ton. . 13 81 To 1,470 Ibs. of cane at $3.50 per ton 2 58 To interest on $447.33 for 5 mo. at 6 per cent 11 18 To profit on ten steers (pork included) 16 53 1907 Apr. 3 By 10 steers, weight 13,023 Ibs., at $5.23 per cwt. net, Lincoln $681 10 By 683 Ibs. pork at 6% cents net 42 69 $723 79 $723 79 (Profit on each steer, $1.65.) Economical Rations in Beef Production. 37 Lot 3, on corn, cottonseed-meal, and corn-stover. 1906 ; Nov. 14 To 10 steers, weight 9,887 Ibs., at $4.58 per cwt. net, f. o. b. Lincoln $452 83 To 22,443 Ibs. shelled corn at 36 cents per bu. ($0.643 per cwt.) 144 31 To 8.510 Ibs. snapped corn (6,352 Ibs. of corn) at 35 cents per bu. ($0.625 per cwt.) 39 71 To 3,172 Ibs. cottonseed-meal at $27.75 per ton 44 01 To 11,050 Ibs. of stalks at $2.50 per ton 13 81 To 1,400 Ibs. cane at $3.50 per ton 2 45 To interest on $452.83 for 5 mo. at 6 per cent. . 11 32 To profit on ten steers (pork included) 13 16 1907 Apr. 3 By 10 steers, weight 12,843 Ibs , at $5.23 per cwt. net, Lincoln $671 69 By 798 Ibs. pork at 6% cents net 49 91 $721 60 $721 60 (Profit on each steer, $1.32.) Lot 4, on corn, alfalfa hay, and corn-stover. 1906 Nov. 14 To 10 steers, weight 9,787 Ibs., at $4.58 per cwt. net, f. o. b. Lincoln $448 25 To 25,037 Ibs. shelled corn at 36 cents per bu. ($0.643 per cwt.) 160 99 To 8,334 Ibs. snapped corn (6,221 7 Ibs. of corn) at 35 cents per bu. ($0.625 per cwt.) . . 38 89 To 5.745 Ibs. corn-stover at $2.50 per ton 7 18 To 7,205 Ibs. alfalfa at $8 per ton 28 82 To 715 Ibs. cane at $3.50 per ton 1 25 To interest on $448.25 for 5 mo. at 6 per cent 11 21 To profit on ten steers (pork included) 63 80 1907 Apr. 3 By 10 steers, weight 13,170 Ibs., at $5.38 per cwt. net, Lincoln $708 55 By 829.4 Ibs. pork at 6% cents net 51 84 $760 39 $760 39 (Profit on each steer, $6.38 ) 38 Economical Rations in Beef Production. Lot 5, on shelled corn, snapped corn (light feed), alfalfa, and corn-stover. 1906 Nov. 14 To 10 steers, weight 9,777 Ibs., at $4.58 per cwt net, f. o. b. Lincoln $447 79 To 17,960 Ibs. shelled corn at 36 cents per bu. ($0.643 per cwt.) 115 48 To 7,210 Ibs. snapped corn (5,384 Ibs. of corn) at 35 cents per bu. ($0 625 per cwt.) 33 65 . To 9,392 Ibs. of corn-stover at $2.50 per ton. 11 74 To 18,635 Ibs. of alfalfa at $8 per ton 74 54 To 2,350 Ibs. of cane at $3.50 per ton 4 11 To interest on $447,79 for 6 mos. at 6 per cent 13 43 To profit on ten steers (pork included) 38 95 1907 May 1 By 10 steers, weight 13,157 Ibs., at $5.25 per cwt. net, Lincoln $690 74 By 783.2 Ibs. pork at .614 cents net.. 48 95 $739 69 $739 69 C Profit on each steer, $3.90.) Lot 6, on shelled corn, corn-meal . . 21 48 To interest on $359.15 for 3 mo. at 6 per cent. 5 39 To profit on ten steers 31 01 1906 Jan. 24 By 10 steers, weight 11,479 Ibs., at $4.15 per hundred $476 38 By 219.5 Ibs. pork at $5.40 11 85 $488 23 $488 23 (Profit per steer, $3.10.) Lot 3. 1905 Nov. 1 To 10 steers, weight 9,773 Ibs., at $3.67 per hun- dred net, Lincoln $358 66 To 7,955.5 Ibs. corn at 62^ cents per hundred. 49 72 To 15,195 Ibs. alfalfa at $6.00 per ton 45 58 To interest on $358.66 for 3 mo. at 6 per cent. . 5 38 To profit on ten steers 35 59 1906 Jan. 24 By 10 steers, weight 11,508 Ibs., at $4.15 per hundred $477 58 By 321.3 Ibs. pork at $5.40 per hundred 17 35 $494 93 $494 93 (Profit per steer, $3.56.) Lot 4. 1905 Nov. 1 To 10 steers, weight 9,765 Ibs., at $3.67 net, Lin- coln $358 37 To 7,955.5 Ibs. corn at 62 MJ cents per hundred. 49 72 To 15,900 Ibs. corn-stover at $2.50 per ton 19 87 To interest on $358.37 for 3 mo. at 6 per cent. . 5 38 To profit on ten steers 136 1906 Jan. 24 By 10 steers, weight 10,623 Ibs., at $4.00 per hundred $424 92 By 181.1 Ibs. pork at $5.40 per hundred 9 78 $434 70 $434 70 (Profit per steer, 13 cents.) Lot 5. 1905 Nov. 1 To 10 steers, weight 9,741 Ibs., at $3.67 per hun- dred $357 50 To 8,070.3 Ibs. corn at 62^ cents per hundred. 50 44 To 7,700 Ibs. alfalfa at $6.00 per ton 23 21 To 7,700 Ibs. corn-stover at $2.50 per ton 9 62 To interest on $357.50 for 3 mo. at 6 per cent. 5 36 To profit on ten steers 41 29 1906 Jan. 24 By 10 steers, weight 11,388 Ibs., at $4.15 per hundred $472 60 By 274.4 Ibs. pork at $5.40 per hundred 14 82 $487 42 $487 42 (Profit per steer, $4.20.) Cattle Feeding Experiments. 18 Lot 6. 1905 Nov. 1 To 10 steers, weight 9,718 Ibs. at $3.67 'per hundred $352 65 To 5,380.2 Ibs. unhusked corn at 55.3 cents per hundred (31 cents per bushel) 28 67 To 2,690.1 Ibs. corn at 62% cents per hundred (35 cents per bushel) 16 81 To 7,700 Ibs. alfalfa at $6.00 per ton 23 21 To 7,700 Ibs. corn-stover at $2.50 per ton 9 62 To interest on $352.65 for 3 mo. at 6 per cent. . 5 28 To profit on ten steers 45 IS 1906 Jan. 24 By 10 steers, weight 11,232 Ibs., at $4.15 per hundred $466 13 By 283.1 Ibs. pork at $5.40 per hundred 15 29 $481 42 $481 42 (Profit on each steer, $4.59.) If the alfalfa had cost $14.90 per ton, there would have been nothing saved nor lost by feeding it with prairie hay, as the profits would have been the same with or without al- falfa. As compared with prairie hay alone at $6.00 per ton, alfalfa alone returned a value of $10.80 per ton. If the al- falfa had cost $19.70 per ton, there would have been nothing gained nor lost in feeding it with the corn-stover. The above figures are true for this particular experiment only, and should not be considered conclusive tho they agree in prin- ciple with former comparisons. The experiment furnishes a strong argument in favor of making at least half the rough- ness alfalfa. The corn-stover in this experiment returned a value of $4.07 per ton in comparison with prairie hay at $6.00. Two-thirds of the corn in Lot 6 was fed on the stalk and one-third as snapped corn. Charging four cents per bushel for removing the ears, the unhusked corn cost 31 cents and the remaining third was figured at 35 cents. The cost of gains was the same as in Lot 5, but the corn-fodder gave a slightly higher net profit because of the larger production of pork. This will be tested further. 14 Cattle Feeding Experiments. EXPERIMENT II. PROTEIN CONCENTRATES VS. ALFALFA FOR SUPPLEMENTING CORN AND PRAIRIE HAY. This experiment was undertaken for the purpose of secur- ing data on the relative values of Avheat bran, oil-meal, and cottonseed-meal as sources of protein, in contrast also with alfalfa hay. The cattle used in Experiment I were redivided to make all lots average even in condition. This was accom- plished by distributing the thinner steers of Lots 1 and 4 of the former experiment among all six lots of the present ex- periment. A period of three weeks between the two experi- ments was used to get the lots on the new experimental ra- tions, during which time snapped corn was gradually changed to shelled corn. At the end of this interim of three weeks, the beginning of Experiment II, February 15, 190G, each steer in the several lots was receiving 17 pounds of corn per day. As this was to be a period of heavy grain feeding, it was thought favorable for testing protein concentrates. Each lot was given a gradual increase of grain, the increase being made according to the appetites of the cattle receiving the several rations, tho the bran lot was purposely fed a little more total grain than the other lots because of the greater bulk and correspondingly less corn in a ration one-fourth bran. RATIONS FED. The steers in the several lots Avere given rations as follows : Lot 1, corn and prairie hay. Lot 2, corn 75 per cent, bran 25 per cent, and prairie hay. Lot 3, corn 90 per cent, oil-meal 10 per cent, and prairie hay. Lot 4, corn 90 per cent, cottonseed-meal 10 per cent, and prairie hay. Lot 5, corn, alfalfa 50 per cent, prairie hay 50 per cent. Lot C, corn-and-cob meal, alfalfa 50 per cent, prairie hay 50 per rent. Cattle Feeding Experiments. 15 At the close of the experiment, April 12, 1906, each steer in Lot 1 was consuming an average of 22*4 pounds of grain per day; Lot 2, 27 pounds; Lot 3, 25 pounds; Lot 4, 25 pounds ; Lot 5, 25 pounds ; and Lot 6, 25 pounds. The steers in Lot 1, receiving corn and prairie hay, could not be induced to eat more than 22*4 pounds each per day, while those in the other lots would have taken 27 pounds, showing as in three former experiments that such a combination is less appetizing. It was intended to carry this experiment for a period of twelve weeks, but the muddy condition of the yards, in which satisfactory gains were no longer possible, made it necessary to terminate the experiment at the end of eight weeks and ship the cattle. The following table shows the record of the steers by lot for that period : TABLE II. — Averages per steer for the experimental period of eight weeks. Lotl. Lot 2. Lot3. Lot 4. Lot 5. Lot6. Shelled corn, prairie hay. Shelled corn 75$, bran 25$, prairie hay. Shelled corn 90$, oil-meal 10$, prairie hay. Shelled corn 90$, cotton- seed meal 10$, prairie hay. Shelled corn, alfalfa hay 50$, prairie hay 50$. Corn-and- cob meal, alfalfa hay 50$, prairie hay 50$. Average weight per steer February 15, pounds Average gain per steer (8 weeks), pounds 1176 71 1146 111 1187 141 1154 128 1164 128 1169 110 Average gain per steer per day, pounds 1 27 1 98 2 52 0 00 2 2Q 1 os» Grain consumed per steer per day, pounds 19 1 25 5 24 6 24 6 OQ 0 1Q 9 Hay consumed per steer per day, pounds 5 5 5 5 6 8 fi 2 Q 1 7 P; Grain consumed per pound of gain, pounds Hay consumed per pound of gain, pounds Total food for one pound of gain, pounds 15.10 3.94 19 04 12.97 2.78 15 75 9.77 2.70 12 47 10.77 2.72 13 49 10.16 3.55 13 71 9.77 3.85 1Q fiO Cost of one pound of gain, cts. Value of pork produced as a by-product for each pound of gain on steers, cents . 10.74 2 05 9.31 1 00 7.87 04. 8.59 fift 7.40 1 07 7.79 71 Net cost of food per one pound of gain, cents 8.69 8.31 7.03 7.91 6.33 7.08 Nutritive ratio by lot 1:10 1:8 1:7.3 1:6.8 1:8.7 1:8.8 16 Cattle Feeding Experiments. COST OF FOODS USED IN EXPERIMENT JI. , Shelled corn, 35 cents per bushel (62^ cents per hundred) . Corn-and-cob meal, 38 cents per bushel (68 cents per hun- dred). Wheat bran, f 15.00 per ton. Oil-meal, f 32.00 per ton. Cottonseed-meal, |32.00 per ton. Alfalfa hay, $6.00 per ton. Prairie hay, $6.00 per ton. The pork produced as a by-product was figured at market price, viz., $5.75 per hundred. COMMENTS ON THE RESULTS. The table shows that shelled corn, oil-meal and prairie hay gave the largest gains and that shelled corn, alfalfa, and prairie hay gave cheapest gains. In this experiment the lat- ter ration gave as large gains as were made on corn and cot- tonseed-meal with prairie hay. Here again, as in three preceding experiments, corn and prairie hay gave the smallest and most expensive gains. A much larger amount of grain per pound of gain was con- sumed by the steers of this lot, which explains in part at least why more pork was produced for each pound of gain made by those steers. The figures show that the use of oil-meal with corn and prairie hay effected a saving of 35 per cent of the grain con- sumed for one pound of gain made on corn and prairie hay without oil-meal. The saving was 14 per cent by the use of bran, 29 per cent with cottonseed-meal and 33 per cent with alfalfa hay. Giving full credit for all pork produced, the net cost of producing gains was 4.4 per cent less by the use of bran than with corn alone, 19 per cent less with oil-meal, 8.9 per cent less with cottonseed-meal, and 27 per cent less with alfalfa hay. Cattle Feeding Experiments. 17 FINANCIAL STATEMENT. In the following financial statement, the net cost ($4.15 per hundred) was, as nearly as could be estimated, the mar- ket price of cattle of that class when the experiment was be- gun. This price was 4 cents per hundred more than the aver- age appraisement of the entire herd at the close of the pre- ceding experiment three weeks earlier. It was intended that each lot should be sold separately at the close of Experiment II, April 16th, but thru some mistake at the stock-yards the several lots became mixed and were therefore sold together. Deducting freight, etc., all steers netted $4.58 per hundred on home weights. The condition of flesh of Lot 1 was mate- rially below that of other lots, the remaining four being fairly uniform, with perhaps a little thicker flesh on the steers which received oil-meal and cottonseed-meal. Inasmuch as all sold together, it was not thought best to discriminate between lots with the exception of Lot 1, which is figured at $4.50 per hundred, while the others are placed at $4.60, at which prices all lots average $4.58, the actual net price received. As pre- viously mentioned, the steers were sold one month earlier than was originally planned because of the extremely muddy condition of the yards. Had they been fed the other month the price received would have been much higher, tho whether or not the higher selling price would have paid for the feed another month is not known. Lot 1 (Corn and Prairie Hay). 1906 Dr. Cr. Feb. 15 To 9 steers, weight 10,580 Ibs., at $4.15 per hundred $439 07 To 9,650 Ibs. of corn at 62% cents per hundred (35 cents per bushel) 60 31 To 2,800 Ibs. prairie hay at $6.00 per ton 8 40 To interest on $439.07 for 2 mo. at 6 per cent. . 4 39 1906 Apr. 12 By 9 steers, weight 11,220 Ibs., at $4.50 per hun- dred net, Lincoln $494 90 By 229 Ibs. pork at $5.75 per hundred net, Lin- coln 13 16 By loss on nine steers 4 11 $512 17 $512 17 (Loss per steer, $0.46.) 18 Cattle Feeding Experiments. Lot 2 (Corn, Bran, and Prairie Hay). 1906 Feb. 15 To 10 steers, weight 11,461 Ibs., at $4.15 per hundred net, Lincoln .' $475 63 To 10,734 Ibs. corn at 62% cents per hundred. . 67 09 To 3,545 Ibs. bran at $15.00 per ton 26 58 To 3,090 Ibs. prairie hay at $6.00 per ton 9 27 To interest on $486.68 for 2 mo. at 6 per cent. 4 86 * To profit on ten steers 576 1906 Apr. 12 By 10 steers, weight 12,567 Ibs., at $4.60 net, Lincoln $578 08 By 195 Ibs. pork at $5.75 per hundred net, Lincoln 1111 $589 19 $589 19 (Profit on each steer, $0.57.) Lot 3 (Corn,' Oil-meal, and Prairie Hay). 1906 Feb. 15 To 10 steers, weight 11,872 Ibs., at $4.15 per hundred $492 69 To 12,409 Ibs. corn at 62% cents per hundred. 77 56 To 1,369 Ibs. oil-meal at $32.00 per ton 21 90 To 3,805 Ibs. prairie hay at $6.00 per ton 11 41 To interest on $492.69 for 2 mo. at 6 per cent 4 92 To profit on ten steers 14 30 1906 Apr. 12 By 10 steers, weight 13,280 Ibs., at $4.60 per hundred net, Lincoln , $610 88 By 207 Ibs. pork ut $5.75 per hundred net, Lin- coln 11 90 $622 78 $622 78 (Profit on each steer, $1.43.) Lot 4 (Corn, Cottonseed-meal, and Prairie Hay). 1906 Feb. 15 To 10 steers, weight 11,537 Ibs., at $4.15 per hundred net, Lincoln $478 78 To 12,409 Ibs. corn at 62% cents per hundred. 77 56 To 1,369 Ibs. cottonseed-meal at $32.00 per ton. 21 90 To 3,490 Ibs. prairie hay at $6.00 per ton 10 47 To interest on $478.78 for 2 mo. at 6 per cent. . 4 78 To profit on ten steers 4 73 1906 Apr. 12 By 10 steers, weight 12,817 Ibs., at $4.60 per hundred net, Lincoln $589 58 By 152 Ibs. pork at $5.75 per hundred 8 64 $598 22 $598 22 (Profit on each steer, $0.47.) Cattle Feeding Experiments. 19 Lot 5 (Corn, Alfalfa, and Prairie Hay). 1906 Feb. 15 To 10 steers, weight 11,641 Ibs., at $4.15 per hundred net, Lincoln $483 10 To 13,010 Ibs. corn at 62^ cents per hundred. 81 31 To 2,170 Ibs. alfalfa at $6.00 per ton 6 57 To 2,370 Ibs. prairie hay at $6.00 per ton 7 11 To interest on $483.10 for 2 mo. at 6 per cent. . 4 83 To profit on ten steers 2528 1906 Apr. 12 By 10 steers, weight 12,923 Ibs., at $4.60 net, Lin- coln $594 46 By 238 Ibs. pork at $5.75 per hundred net, Lin- coln 13 68 $608 14 $608 14 (Profit on each steer, $2.53.) Lot 6 (Corn-and-cob meal, Alfalfa, and Prairie Hay). 1906 Feb. 15 To 10 steers, weight 11,692 Ibs., at $4.15 per hundred net, Lincoln $485 22 To 10,730 Ibs. corn (13,412 Ibs. corn-and-cob meal) at 68 cents per hundred 72 96 To 2,050 Ibs. alfalfa at $6.00 per ton 6 15 To 2,145 Ibs. prairie hay at $6.00 per ton 6 43 To interest on $485.22 for 2 mo. at 6 per cent. . 4 85 To profit on ten steers 20 49 1906 Apr. 12' By 10 steers, weight 12,790 Ibs., at $4.60 per hundred net, Lincoln $588 34 By 135 Ibs. pork at $5.75 per hundred net, Lincoln 7 76 $596 10 $596 10 (Profit on each steer, $2.05.) INFERENCES FROM EXPERIMENT II. Conclusions can not be drawn from the results of a single experiment, but the records of this test indicate that oil-meal is superior to cottonseed-meal. The greater profits, however, from oil-meal were due in part to the fact that the hogs be- hind the cattle fed cottonseed-meal made much smaller gains. The records in this experiment also indicate that oil-meal has a value nearly three times as great as bran. To be more explicit, if the bran in this experiment had cost |20.80 per ton, the oil-meal $59.60 per ton, and the cottonseed-meal $45.60 per ton, the net profits would have been the same in each case as on corn and prairie hay without a protein concentrate. 20 Cattle Feeding Experiments. None of the protein concentrates proved as cheap as alfalfa hay. It is intended that further data along these lines shall be forthcoming. While the steers fed corn-and-cob meal required somewhat less corn for a given gain, they could not be induced to eat ay much as those fed shelled corn and the -same kind of rough- ness. With shelled corn worth 62% cents per hundred, the corn-and-cob meal returned a value of 65 cents per hundred pounds of corn, not enough difference to pay for the grinding. THE 1904-05 EXPERIMENT. For purposes of comparison, the record of the experiment conducted with two-year-old steers in 1905 and published in Bulletin 90 is given below : TABLE III. — Averages per steer for the entire period (24 weeks}. • Lot l. Lot 2. Lot3. Lot 4. Lot5. o> Q. T3 C 03 g£ O^3 0 13 >> V 0! B-z "-1 22 '3!5 it 6* 0 >• OJ jg i*S i£J "03 c" 0 O £ ed rt • Roughage — Clover hay and corn silage. FEEDING OF FARM STOCK. 205 Grain mixture! No. 3 Amount for 900- pound cow, 9 lb. 1300 pounds corn meal ^ 200 pounds gluten feed Amount for 900- 200 pounds middlings pound cow, 8 lb. 100 pounds linseed meal Roughage— Clover hay and corn silage. 300 pounds hominy chop 300 pounds middlings [300 pounds gluten feed Roughage — Mixed hay and corn stover. T400 pounds corn meal 1 Grain mixture I 300 pQunds gluten meal I Amount for 900- (200 pounds hominy chop J pound cow> 9 lb" Roughage — Mixed hay and oat hay. T300 pounds ground oats ^ Grain mixture J 300 pounds' brewers' grains I Amount for 900- No. 5 1200 pounds bran pound cow, 9 lb. 1 100 pounds linseed meal Roughage — Mixed hay and corn silage. For cows of a greater or less weight than 900 pounds a proportionately greater or less weight of the mixture should be fed. It is frequently more convenient, although somewhat less accurate, to measure rather than weigh out the various amounts of grain mixtures. Since the quart is a common and suitable unit of measure for this purpose on the farm, the following table has been prepared to show the average weight of one quart and the amount of one pound of dif- ferent feeding stuffs. Name of feed. Weight of one quart. Measure of one pound. Bran .5 11 .6 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.1 .6 1.0 .8 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.0 )S. 2.0 q 1.7 '.7 .6 .7 .8 .6 .8 .9 1.7 1.0 1.3 .8 .7 . .6 .5 1.0 to. Brewers' grains Corn and cob meal Corn meal • Corn whole Cottonseed meal ... Gluten feed Gluten meal Hominy chop Linseed meal N P Malt sprouts Middlings Oats ground . Oat middlings... Wheat, ground ... Wheat whole 206 FEEDING OP FARM STOCK. Using the figures in the above table, we can easily com- pute the number of quarts in any given weight of feed or mixture of feeds. For example, take the following: 9 pounds of grain mixture No. 1=11.5 quarts. 8 pounds of grain mixture No. 2= 6.6 quarts. 9 pounds of grain mixture No. 3= 7.8 quarts. 9 pounds of grain mixture No. 4= 6.2 quarts. 9 pounds of grain mixture No. 5=13.9 quarts. It will be noticed that when bran, brewers' grains, ground oats or other comparatively bulky grain feeds enter into the ration a larger measure of the feed is required. In so far as possible the ration should be made up so that the more bulky grain part goes with the less bulky roughage part. For example, grain mixture No. 2 is better adapted to "foundation" ration No. I, which contains silage, than is grain mixture No. 1, so far as bulk is concerned. For the same reason, another grain mixture than No. 5 would be better adapted to ''foundation" ration No. IV, which is already rather bulky on account of the silage. The question of how far silage can be made to replace grain in a ration for the dairy cow without injuriously af- fecting either her health or the quality of the milk is the one of economic importance to the New Hampshire farmer. A series of experiments bearing on the above question is now in progress at this Station and some interesting re- sults are anticipated. SUMMARY. (1) The economic feeding of stock should be the feeder's primary object. (2) Economic feeding must go hand in hand with sci- entific feeding. (3) The principles of scientific feeding have been care- fully worked out by skilled investigators and feeders. (4) The application of these scientific principles is a FEEDING OF FARM STOCK. 207 very simple process involving only the rules of common arithmetic. (5) Every farmer can and should apply these principles in his everyday practice. (6) A careful study of the market prices on feeds and an inspection of their guarantee tags will mean money in pocket to the farmer. PUBLICATIONS OF EXPERIMENT STATION. The following publications of the Station are available for distribution : No. 2. Feeding Experiments. No. 3. When to Cut Corn for Ensilage. No. 4. The Science and Practice of Stock-Feeding. No. 5. Fertilizers and Fertilizing Materials. No. 6. Experiments with Fertilizers. No. 7. Test of Dairy Apparatus. No. 8. Feeding Experiments. Part 1. Principles of Feeding. Part 2. Corn Meal, Middlings, Shorts, and Cotton-Seed Compared. No. 11. Pig Feeding. Part 1. Results of Feeding Skim Milk and Corn Meal versus Corn Meal and Middlings. Part 2. Digestion Experiment. No. 12. Fertilizer Experiments. No. 14. Ensilage in Dairy Farming. No. 16. Effect of Food on Composition of Butter Fat. No. 17. Stock Feeders' Guide. No. 18. Effect of Food on Milk. No. 19. Spraying Apples and Pears against Fungi. No. 20. Effect of Food on Milk. Feeding with Fats. No. 21. Farmyard Manures and Artificial Fertilizers. No. 22. Prevention of Potato Blight. No. 23. Some Dangerous Fruit Insects. No. 24. The Flow of Maple Sap. No. 25. The Composition of Maple Sap. No. 26. Analysis of Fertilizers and Wood Ashes. No. 27. Spraying Experiments in 1894. No. 28. Remedies for the Horn Fly. No. 29. Remedies for Flea Beetles. No. 30. An Experiment in Road Making. No. 31. Seventh Annual Report. 1895. No. 32. Studies of Maple Sap. No. 33. Two Shade-Tree Pests. No. 34. Surface and Sub-Irrigation out of Doors. No. 35. The Codling Moth and the Apple Maggot. No. 36. Analyses of three Common Insecticides. No. 37. Crimson Clover. No. 38. The Tent Caterpillar. No. 39. The Army Worm. No. 40. Eighth Annual Report. 1896. No. 41. Potatoes : Varieties, Fertilizers, Scab. No. 42. Part 1. Tomato Growing in New Hampshire. Part 2. Notes on Tomato Breeding. No. 44. The Cankerworm. No. 45. Fruit and Potato Diseases. No. 46. Part 1. An Experiment with a Steam Drill. Part 2. Methods of Road Maintenance. No. 48. Ninth Annual Report. 1897. 208 FEEDING OF FARM STOCK. No. 53. The Farm Water Supply. No. 66. Poisonous Properties of Wild Cherry Leaves. No. 57. Forage and Root Crops. No. 58. Cost of Raising Calves. No. 59. Tenth Annual Report. 1898. No. 60. Green Corn under Glass. No. 61. Inspection of Fertilizers in 1898. No. 62. Forcing Pole Beans under Glass. No. 64. The Forest Tent Caterpillar. No. 66. Experiments in Pig Feeding. No. 67. The Spiny Elm Caterpillar. No. 68. Eleventh Annual Report. 1899. No. 69. Inspection of Fertilizers in 1898. No. 70. Experiments with Muskmelons. No. 71. Corn Culture. No. 72. Insect Record for 1899. No. 74. Growing Strawberries in New England. No. 75. The Forest Tent Caterpillar. Second Report. No. 76. Utilizing the Greenhouse in Summer. No. 77. Experiments in Road Surfacing. No. 78. Bovine Tuberculosis. No. 79. Twelfth Annual Report. 1900. No. 80. Inspection of Fertilizers in 1900. No. 81. Insect Record for 1900. No. 82. Feeding Farm Horses. »-l No. 83. Value of Meadow Muck. No. 84. Forcing Dwarf Tomatoes. No. 85. Remedies for the Cankerworm. No. 86. Growing Watermelons in the North. Classification of Water- melons. No. 87. Thirteenth Annual Report. 1901. No. 88. Inspection of Fertilizers, 1901, Analyses of Ashes, etc. No. 89. The Squash Bug. No. 90. Insect Record for 1901. No. 91. Killing Woodchucks with Carbon Bisulphide. • No. 92. Silage Studies. No. 93. The Cold Storage of Apples. No. 94. Remedies for Fleas. No. 95. How to Grow a Forest from Seed. No. 96. Fourteenth Annual Report. 1902. No. 97. Inspection of Fertilizers. 1902. No. 98. Inspection of Feeding- Stuffs. 1902. No. 99. Selected List of Vegetables for the Garden. No. 100. White-Fly of Greenhouses. No. 101. Fungous Diseases and Spraying. No. 102. Insect Record. 1902. No. 103. Standard Milk. No. 104. Fifteenth Annual Report. 1903. No. 105. Fruit Growing. Varieties for N. H. No. 106. Forestry. No. 108. Inspection of Fertilizers. No. 109. San Jose Scale. No. 110. Orchard Management in New England. No. 111. Experiments with Potatoes and Potato Culture. No. 112. Remedies for the Black Fly. No. 113. Experiments in Pig Feeding. No. 114. The Babcock Test for N. H. Dairymen. No. 115. Sixteenth Annual Report. 1904. No. 116. Inspection of Feeding Stuffs. 1904. No. 117. Inspection of Fertilizers. 1904. No. 118. Tile Drainage. No. 119. Forestry. No. 120. The Dairy Industry in New Hampshire. No. 121. The Gypsy Moth in New Hampshire. No. 122. The Brown-Tail Moth in N. H. Second Report. No. 123. Inspection of Fertilizers. 1905. No. 124. Inspection of Feeding- Stuffs. 1905. No. 125. Vegetable Novelties. No. 126. The Care of Composite Milk Samples. JULY, 1909 BULLETIN 269 CORNELL UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OF THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE Department of Animal Husbandry SUBSTITUTES FOR SKIMMED MILK IN RAISING CALVES Under the direction of HENRY H.WING BY E. S. SAVAGE AND G. W. TATLBY, JR. • ITHACA, N. Y. PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY ORGANIZATION OF THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF CONTROL THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY THE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE AND STATION COUNCIL JACOB GOULD SCHURMAN, President of the University. ROBERT H. TREMAN, Trustee of the University. LIBERTY H. BAILEY, Director of the College and Experiment Station. EMMONS L. WILLIAMS, Treasurer of the University. JOHN H. COMSTOCK, Professor of Entomology. HENRY H. WING, Professor of Animal Husbandry. EXPERIMENTING STAFF LIBERTY H. BAILEY, Director. ALBERT R. MANX, Secretary to the Director. JOHN HENRY COMSTOCK, Entomology. HENRY II. WING, Animal Husbandry. JOHN CRAIG, Horticulture. T. LYTTLETON LYON, Soil Investigations. HERBERT J. AVEBBER, Plant Breeding. BENJAMIN M. DUGGAR, Plant Physiology. JOHN L. STONE, Farm Practice. JAMES E. RICE, Poultry Husbandry. GEORGE W. CAVANAUGH, Chemistry. ELMER O. PIPPIN, Soils. WILLIAM A. STOCKING, Jr., Dairy Bacteriology. HERBERT II. WHETZEL, Plant Pathology. GEORGE F. WARREN, Farm Crops. LOWELL B. JUDvSON, Horticulture. CHARLES S. WILSON, Pomology. MERRITT W. HARPER, Animal Husbandry. JAMES A. BIZZELL, Soil Investigations. CHARLES A. PUBLOW, Dairy Industry. CYRUS R. CROSBY, Entomology. CLARENCE A. ROGERS, Poultry Husbandry. PAUL J. WHITE, Farm Crops. DONALD REDDICK, Plant Pathology. HAROLD E. ROSS, Dairy Industry. ARTHUR W. GILBERT, Plant Breeding. HARRY H. LOVE, Plant Breeding. CHARLES F. CLARK, Plant Breeding. EDWARD R. MINNS, Farm Practice. ELMER S. SAVAGE, Animal Husbandry. The regular bulletins of the Station are sent free to persons residing in New York State- who request them. SUBSTITUTES FOR SKIMMED MILK IN RAISING CALVES. In New York State and, indeed, throughout the United States, the consumption of raw milk is increasing very rapidly. Milk is consumed in the cities in greater quantities every year, and in the country the production of cheese is utilizing the milk from an increasing area. The milk producer gets no skimmed milk from either the shipping station or the cheese-factory; therefor he must have some other food for raising his calves. In order to keep up his herd and to increase the quality and productive capacity of the herd from year to year, this food must fully take the place of skimmed milk. Whole milk is acknowledged to be the best food for calves, but the farmer cannot afford to feed this to his calves for any length of time. Skimmed milk with hay and grain probably makes the best substitute, but now that the supply of skimmed milk is being cut off, a satisfactory substitute for it must be found. Several substitutes have been put on the market, said to fully take the place of skimmed milk for feeding calves and to keep them in good, healthy, growing condition. During the year 1907-8, this Station made a trial of two of these commercial foods, namely, Lactina Suisse, a vegetable milk powder manufactured in France, and Schumacher Calf Meal, put out by the Quaker Oat Company of Chicago. The data secured from the trial of these two foods as compared with skimmed milk were not considered sufficient, so the experiment was repeated in the year 1908-9. However, because of some changes in the method of keeping the records and because the trial was continued one month longer in 1908—9, it was considered best to write up the work of each year separately and then to consider the results of both years in for- mulating the general conclusions. Before discussing the experiments in detail, we shall note the work that has been done on this question at other stations. TRIALS AT OTHER STATIONS There seems to have been very little work done on this question at the experiment stations, and the literature on milk substitutes for calf- feeding is scant. Mention of only three important experiments has been found in the experiment station literature, and a short resum£ of them is here given. Pennsylvania experiments. The most extensive experiment was the work of Hayward at the Pennsylvania Station in the fall and winter 492 of 1901-2.* The feeding trial in this case was with a calf meal prepared according to Hayward's own formula. In England, calf meals are fed by nearly every farmer, and Hay ward took as a basis for his formula the following mixture, recommended by the Agricultural Colleges of England: Flour i6§ pounds Flaxseed-meal 33^- " Linseed oil-cake meal 50 With this formula as a basis, a fairly satisfactory meal of the fol- lowing composition was made Oct. 15, 1901: Wheat flour 30 pounds Cocoanut-meal 25 " Nutrium 20 " Linseed-meal 10 Dried blood 2 " It was supposed that the wheat flour would serve to regulate the bowels, besides furnishing considerable nourishment. Only high-grade flour was used, but it was thought that a low-grade of commercial flour might serve as well. Cocoanut-meal is a by-product in the manufacture of cocoanut-oil. It was analyzed at the Pennsylvania Station and found to contain 20% protein and 9.03% fat. As cocoanut-oil is of a complex nature, the meal is likely to become rancid in a short time. The meal also has a strong odor of cocoanut-oil. For these reasons it might not be relished. It proved fairly satisfactory, however, in this trial. Nutrium is a soluble skimmed milk powder manufactured by the National Nutrient Company at Jersey City, N. J. It is manufactured by drying skimmed milk at a comparatively low temperature and by a certain method of agitation. Nutrium has the appearance of wheat flour and, because it is dry, will keep indefinitely in a dry place. Its composition as determined by the Pennsylvania Station was: Water 8.60% Ash 6.62% Protein 33-93% Lactose 50.50% Being virtually skimmed milk dissolved in water, it was thought that a great part of the success in the feeding of the calf meal was due to the nutrium used. The chief objection to the nutrium was its cost. * Pennsylvania Station Bulletin Xo. 60. 493 The properties of linseed-meal are too well known to need discussion. Dried blood is a product of the large abattoirs. The special brand used by Hayward is known as the Helmet Brand, and is sold by Armour & Company of Chicago. It is recommended as a cure for scours and perhaps also as. a tonic. The cost of a pound of the entire mixture was estimated at 3.02 cents. A few of the calves were reared on another meal of the following composition : Corn-meal 13 pounds Nutrium 20 Flaxseed ij " Dried blood 2 Flour 30 Cocoanut-meal 6 Oat-chop (sifted) 6 " This mixture was found to be a little more palatable perhaps, but did not seem to give quite so good results as the first mixture. The cost was approximately the same as the first mixture. The calves in the experiment were not selected but were taken just as they were born, fed on whole milk for seven to ten days, and then grad- ually changed to the calf meal ration. They were fed twice a day from a calf feeder. All the calves that were fed the meal seemed to grow as well as the two calves which were raised on skimmed milk, hay, and grain and compared with the calf-meal fed calves as a check. In the opinion of Hayward, as good- and as thrifty calves can be raised on calf meal as on skimmed milk. He succeeded in rearing un- selected calves without the aid of milk after the first 14 to 18 days. The calves weighed 150 to 250 pounds each when four to five months old, and were produced at a food cost of $8 to $9 each. Massachusetts experiments. J. B. Lindsey* made an experiment in 1903 with Hayward's mixture and with Blatchford's Calf Meal. Two thrifty grade Jersey calves were fed on Hayward's mixture and weighed respectively 310 and 260 pounds when six months and five and one-half months old. Calf No. i gained 1.4 pounds daily when on Hayward's mixture, and Calf No. 2, i.i pounds daily. The food cost of CalfJNo. i up to six months of age was $20.20, while calf No. 2 cost, up to five and one-half months of age, $15.11. The calves were fed whole milk for the first 9 to 14 days, then skimmed milk and the meal mixture gradually substituted, the whole * Sixteenth Annual Report, Massachusetts Hatch Station, Jan., 1904. 494 milk being entirely taken away at the end of three weeks. Three quarts of skimmed milk were fed daily, in addition to the meal mixture, until the ca'ves were four to rive weeks old, when both calves were placed on a diet of the meal mixture alone. One pound of this meal was stirred thoroughly into eight pounds of very hot water; this gruel was then allowed to cool until milk- warm, in which condition it was fed. The calves were taught to drink, instead of being fed with a calf feeder as Hay ward recommended. Enough gruel to contain three-fourths pounds of meal was fed at first, and the amount gradually increased, until at the end of the experiment calf No. i was getting three pounds per day and Calf Xo. 2, two pounds per day. Blatchford's Calf Meal is put out by the Barwell Mills, at Waukegan, 111., and is highly recommended by the manufacturers as a milk sub- stitute. It is composed principally of linseed-meal, beans, carob-beans, cottonseed-meal and fenugreek. It was bought by Lindsey at retail at three and one-half cents per pound. This calf meal was tested by feeding it to one rugged grade Holstein calf. The calf was first fed whole milk for a few days, changed then to a mixture of \vhole and skimmed milk, and at the end of two or three weeks the calf meal was gradually substituted. The calf at first objected to the odor or taste of the meal, and never seemed thoroughly to relish it, although no serious difficulty was experienced in inducing the calf to take the gruel. One pound of the calf meal was stirred into six pounds of hot water, the gruel was allowed to cool and the mixture was fed milk- warm. When the calf wras a little more than three months old, he was receiving two and three-fourths pounds of the meal daily, and continued to take this amount until the experiment ended when he was approximately four and one-half months old. The animal grew well and suffered no serious digestive troubles, lie made an average daily gain of 1.15 pounds during the last 42 days of the trial, and when four and one-half months old weighed 251 pounds. Lindsey did not care to draw any definite conclusions from a single trial with one calf, but thought Blatchford's meal hardly as satisfactory as I lay ward's mixture. He thought it hardly possible to raise delicate calves on the meal entirely. Ontario experiments. II. II. Dean* found that cocoa shell milk, made by boiling one-fourth pound of cocoa shells (not cocoanut shells) in two gallons of water, when fed one and one-half to two gallons per day with bran and oats, green feed, etc., appeared to be a very good substitute for skimmed milk and he thought it worthy of a trial by * Annual Report of Department of Agriculture of Ontario, 1903. Vol. i. 495 farmers who wish to raise calves and have little or no skimmed milk to feed. Cocoa shells are a by-product in the manufacture of cocoa and were purchased by Dean in Toronto for three cents per pound. The gain made by the calves fed on the cocoa shell milk, hay, grain, etc., compared very favorably with that made by the calves fed on skimmed milk, hay, and grain. These three trials seem to constitute all the important work on this subject reported in experiment station literature. Other experiments have been reported, but they were made in connection with other work and the results were not satisfactory enough to warrant noting them in this connection. I. EXPERIMENT AT CORNELL STATION, 1907-8 Three lots of calves, designated as A, B and C, were fed, respectively, skimmed milk, Schumacher Calf Meal, and Lactina Suisse. At the time the experiment was begun, several calves, one to two months old, that had been fed skimmed milk, were available, and although no record of the food had been kept, it seemed best to continue them as Lot A since the number of calves available for the experiment was limited. These calves undoubtedly had some advantages over the younger calves in Lots B and C. The calves in Lot B, with one exception, were also on hand but were younger than those of Lot A at the time of beginning the experiment, and none had had any skimmed milk although some had been fed Schumacher Calf Meal for a sufficient time to become accustomed to it. Table X gives the average age of the calves in each lot at the beginning of the experiment, Nov. 12, 1907. The calves of Lot A were on an average 52 J days old at the beginning of the experi- ment, those in Lot 619^ days old, while the calves in Lot C were fed from birth according to the directions for feeding Lactina Suisse. In order to show the results at more nearly the same age, Table III has been prepared, showing the gains of Lot A for approximately the first 120 days after birth. This table shows that the calves- of Lot A made an average daily gain of 1.62 pounds for the first 120 days after birth, which is a little less than the average gain of 1.76 pounds per day during the 1 20 days of the experiment. Table I shows the age, breed, sex, weight at birth and summary of results with each calf in the experiment. In this table, in the second column "H" stands for Holstein, "J" for Jersey, "S" for Shorthorn and "A" for Ayrshire, the breed being designated by the first letter of its name. The letter "G," placed before the letter designating the breed, 496 indicates that that particular calf is a grade of the breed named, sex, "H" stands for heifer and "B" for bull calf. TABLE I. DETAILED STATISTICS OF CALVES, 1907-1908 Lot A. Fed skimmed milk, hay and grain Under Calf No. Breed Sex Date of birth Weight at birth Weight Nov. 12, 1907 Weight March n, 1908 Total gain Gain per day Cost of one pound gain i 2 3 4 5 G. H rjs G. b H J H H B H H Oct. 4, '07 Sept. 13, '07 Oct. 13, '07 Sept. 7, '07 Aug. 31/07 Ibs. go 47 89 91 So Ibs. i54 i37 J43 203 158 Ibs. 357 334 389 43 * 340 Ibs. 203 197 246 228 182 Ibs. i .69 1.64 2.05 i .90 I-5I .050 .052 .042 • 045 .065 Lot B. Fed Schumacher Calf Food, hay and grain 6 H H Oct. 8, '07 87 122 289 167 I-39 .064 8 H H Oct. 1 8, '07 97 I2O 282 162 T-35 .079 9 H H Oct. 19/07 95 127 290 163 i-35 .079 10 H H Oct. 23, '07 98 "3 251 138 i-*S •093 ii Crossbred A&S B Oct. 28, '07 77 86 241 J55 1.29 •°73 J3 G. S H Nov. 7, '07 87(?) 87 203 116 •97 .108 Lot C. Fed Lactina Suisse, hay and grain I7 G. S B Nov. 18, '07 99 168 69* .61 •138 18 H H Nov. 1 8, '07 96 1 80 84* •74 .108 J9 G. S B Nov. 23, '07 75 (Mar. 2, '08) !55 80* .72 .089 20 H H Dec. 4, '07 86 171 85* .86 . 101 21 G. S B Dec. 14, '07 70 118 48* •55 .179 * Calf 1 7. Total gain from birth 114 days. 1 18. 114 ' 19. no ' 20. 98 "21. " " " " 88 " The commercial foods Schumacher Calf Meal is a commercial product prepared by the Quaker Oats Company of Chicago. According to the manufacturers, this meal contains oat-meal, oat-germ, vacuum cooked wheat-meal, flax, and condensed milk. It is claimed in addition that the food has been subjected to processes which facilitate digestion. The chemi- cal analysis as guaranteed by the Company is as follows: Protein 19-21% Carbohydrates 54~56% Fat 8-9.5% Fiber 3% 497 Lactina Suisse is a so-called vegetable milk powder manufactured at Vevey, Switzerland, and at Lyons, France. It is imported into this country and sold by John H. Lynch, New York, N. Y. It is claimed by the manufacturers that Lactina Suisse is made in powder form from vegetable matter almost exclusively, with the addition of some phosphate of lime. Its chemical composition as guaranteed by the manufacturers is: Protein 29.75% Fat 6.20% Fiber . 3 .00% Carbohydrates 44.01% Soluble phosphate j 2 . 52% Indeterminate matter j 7.22 Water | 7 . 30% Methods of feeding The calves were fed all the dry grain they would eat up clean each day. This grain was mixed according to the formula: 6 pounds corn and oats (ground half and half by weight) . 3 pounds of wheat-bran. i pound of oil-meal. Hay was kept before the calves at all times so that they could eat all they wished. This was mixed hay, with a good percentage of clover. Clean water was provided for each lot as the calves were judged to be o d enough to need it. All the pai's used n feeding were washed daily and scalded with hot water. The calves were kept in different pens, those of about the same age being kept together. The pens were cleaned often and were kept well bedded. The hay and dry grain were weighed daily for each pen, the amounts added for each 3o-day period and the results averaged for each calf. The gruel from the calf meal and the Lactina Suisse, and the milk were weighed for each individual calf at each feed. In computing the cost of feed for each calf, whole milk was considered to be worth $1.65 per hundred- weight, the price paid by the Station Creamery to its patrons during the time the experiment was in progress. Skimmed milk was charged to the calves at 15 cents per hundred- weight; hay at $10 per ton; corn and oats at $30 per ton; bran at $27 per ton; oil-meal at $34.50 per ton, making the cost of the dry grain mixture $29.55 Per ton or $1.4775 Per hundred- weight. The Schu- macher Calf Meal and the Lactina Suisse cost respectively three and one- half cents and six and one-half cents per pound delivered in Ithaca, N. Y. 498 Detailed record of Lot A The calves in Lot A were older than the others at the beginning of the experiment, and had been fed whole milk for three or four weeks after birth and then gradually changed to skimmed milk. The amount of skimmed milk was increased as the calves seemed to demand, until 22 pounds per day was being fed, half in the morning and half in the evening. This milk was warmed to 90° F. when fed. The calves in Lot A grew very well and were not troubled wTith any digestive disorders. The detailed record of feed for Lot A is given in FIG. 119. — Lot A at average age of 5 months. Average weight 370 pounds. Picture taken at end of the experiment. Table II for each 30-day period from Nov. 12, 1907 to March u, 1908. The total gain for each 30-day period and the average gain per day for each calf are also given. The average gain per day shows a gradual increase as the calves grew older. TABLK II. LOT A. DETAILED RKCORD OF FEED AND GAINS FOR 30-DAY PERIODS. Nov. 12, igoy-Dec. 12, 1907 Calf Xo. Pounds skimmed milk 1 Pounds hay Pounds grain Total gain Average gain per day 6 so So . 8 45-4 51 .70 630 So. 8 45-4 46 •53 6^0 So. 8 45-4 46 •53 630 So. 8 45-4 48 .60 630 So. 8 45 -4 49 •63 499 TABLE II — Continued Dec. 12, iQoy-Jan. 12, 1908 I . . 616 65.7 85.0 39 I . 3O 2 616 65.7 85.0 44 0 I .46 •7 616 65.7 85.0 51 I . 70 4 616 65.7 85.0 61 2 .03 616 65.7 41 Jan. 12 igoS-Feb. n, 1908 I CQ4 105 . 2 84.4 56 1.87 2 105 . 2 84.4 52 I . 40 ? . . CQ4 105 . 2 84.4 60 2 . OO 4 CQ4 105 . 2 84.4 I . OO 5 594 Feb. ii, 105 . 2 igoS-Marcl] 84.4 L II, 1908 45 I.50 i 2 3 4 e. . 648 648 648 648 648 153-2 153-2 !53-2 153-2 I53 • 2 97- 97- 97- 97- 07 - 57 55 89 62 47 I . 90 ..83 2 . 96 2.07 In Tables VII, VIII, IX, and in Table X which is a summary of these, the total gains for the entire experimental period, the gain per day and the cost per pound of gain, show up more favorably for Lot A than for Lots B and C. The following table shows the gain of Lot A during approximately the first 120 days after birth: TABLE III. LOT A. SHOWING GAINS IN FIRST 120 DAYS AFTER BIRTH Calf No. Time No. of days Pounds gain Daily gain i 2 3 4 5 Ave Birth to Feb. " Jan. " Feb. " Jan- " Jan- rage daily gain f 12, 1908 129 120 120 126 I33 210 1 80 211 221 198 Ibs. 1.62 1.50 1-75 i-75 1.48 12 1908 12, 1908 12, 1908 12, 1908 3r lot . . 1.62 The cost of feed cannot be shown in this table because the records were not kept except for the gains in weight. This table was prepared in order that the gains of the calves at the same age might be com- pared, and we see by com- paring it with Tables VII, VIII, and IX, that the calves fed skimmed milk made the best daily gains from birth. In Lots B and C, the records given in the other tables are for approximately the first 120 days after birth, and it is not necessary to make extra tables for those lots. Detailed record of Lot B In Lot B, calves No. 6, 8, 9, 10 and n were fed whole milk from birth up to the beginning of the experiment, the amount of milk varying with the age of the calf. Some Schumacher Calf Meal was also fed before Nov. 12, 1907, so they were all some- what accustomed to it. Calf No. 13 was fed from birth exactly in accordance with the directions which came with the meal. After Nov. 12, all the calves in this lot were fed as nearly as possible in accordance with the direc- tions, except when the meal was refused or it seemed advisable from the standpoint of health to feed them other- wise. The directions for feeding the Schumacher Calf Meal are as follows: Let the calf run with the cow or feed him whole milk until seven to ten days old, then begin using about two tablespoonsful of meal to a pint of boiling i ' *.: to H b-0 o •« water and two quarts of milk at a feed night and morning. Gradually increase the amount of meal until at the end of 14 days the amount for one feed is one quart of milk, three-fourths quart of meal mixed with one pint of cold water and then with one quart of boiling water added after the lumps are all stirred out in the cold water. Mix the milk and the meal gruel together at the time of feeding. As the calves grow older, they may be fed according to the following table: TABLE IV. TABLE FOR FEEDING SCHUMACHER CALF MEAL Age of calf Quarts of milk Quarts of meal Quarts of water Lukewarm Boiling 7- i4 14-21 21- 28 28-120 days i i No milk 1 i i \ i i i i* « « The amounts indicated in the above table are the maximum at the end of the periods named. The changes are to be made gradually. The amounts are for one feed and can be changed to suit the age and con- dition of the calf. The best results were obtained by mixing the gruel sometime before feeding and then warming it again when ready to feed. The object in using a little cold or lukewarm water is to get the lumps all worked out before adding the boiling water. If boiling water is added directly to the meal it is almost impossible to get rid of the lumps The calves in Lot B made good gains on the Schumacher Calf Meal, and the cost of one pound of gain compared favorably with the cost of raising the calves in Lot A on skimmed milk. Some trouble was experienced in getting the calves to take the meal gruel readily. The amounts called for by the directions seemed a little large in some cases and were cut down accordingly. One calf, No. 6, refused to take the gruel at all and was put on skimmed milk. Calf No. 1 1 did not seem to do well on the meal alone, so some skimmed milk was added to his ration. Table V shows in detail for Lot B the amounts of the different feeds, cost of feed, total gain and average daily gain for each period of 30 days. Tables VII, VIII, IX, and X show that while the cost per pound of gain with Lot B is larger than with Lot. A, yet the gains are very good and the cost moderate. 502 TABLE V. LOT B. DETAILED RECORD OF FEED AND GAINS FOR 30-DAY PERIODS Nov. 12, 1907— Dec. i2, 1907 Calf Xo. Whole milk Skim- med milk Schu- macher Calf Meal Hay Grain Total gain Average daily gain 6 8 1 Ibs. 109.4 1 08 4 Ibs. i Ibs. Si. 8 44.8 /6s. 34-4 16. s Ibs. J3-5 i .6 /6s. 33- 32 . Ibs. I . 10 i . 06 9 TO I I . . ' 1 08 . 4 . . 108.4 I IO . O 44-8 44.8 4O . ^ 16.5 16.5 16. s i .6 1.6 1.6 35 • 27. 19 . 1.16 .90 •63 IT... I I J. . 2 34. I 16. ? 1.6 20 . .67 Dec. 12, i907-Jan. 12, 1908 6 379- 7-° 63.2 35- 36. . 20 8 60 . o 4S • 7 21 . 31 . .03 9 60 . o " O / 43-7 21 . 31- •°3 10 60 . o 43-7 21 . 30- . oo ii 161 . 31 .0 63.2 35- 39- • 30 13 60 . o 43-7 21 . 25- • 83 Jan. 12, i9o8-Feb. 11,1 908 6 S6o . 111.3 72.0 45- • S° 8 60. 96 . 2 43-3 49- •63 9 60. 96.2 43 • 3 47- •57 10 60. 96.2 43-3 35- •J7 ii 1 68. 29. III.3 72.0 46. •53 13 60. 96 . 2 43-3 34- •J3 Feb. n, igoS-Mn rch ii, 19 08 6 559- 138.6 65 . o 57- .90 8 60 . o 117.6 54- i 5°- •63 Q 60.0 117.6 54.1 5° • .63 10 60 . o 117.6 54-i 46. •53 ii 153- 3°-° 138.6 65.0 51 • .70 13 60.0 117.6 54- i S1 • .70 503 Detailed record of Lot C Lot C was fed Lactina Suisse. The directions for feeding are as follows: For the first seven to ten days after birth, feed whole milk; for the second and third weeks, one- third Lactina Suisse gruel and two- thirds milk; for the fourth, fifth and sixth weeks, one-half Lactina Suisse gruel and one-half whole milk; then gradually decrease the milk until Lactina Suisse gruel is being fed alone, increasing the amount of the gruel as the calf can take it. The gruel is made by mixing one pound of the Lactina Suisse powder with 19 pounds of boiling water. The dry powder is mixed with a little cold water first to get all the lumps out, and then the boiling water is added. This mixture, or gruel, is used like milk as regards quantity. FIG. 121. — Lot C at average age of 4 months. Average weight 159 pounds. Picture taken at end of experiment. Table VI shows in detail the amount of feed eaten by Lot C, total gain, and average daily gain for each 30-day period. Tables VII, VIII, IX, and X show that the daily gain is lower and that the cost per pound of gain is higher with Lactina Suisse than with either skimmed milk or Schumacher Calf Meal at the same age. Yet the gains are large enough to warrant the statement that fair calves can be raised with Lactina Suisse. TABLE VI. LOT C. DETAILED RECORD OF FEED AND GAINS FOR 30-DAY PERIODS Nov. 12, 1907— Dec. 12, 1907 Calf No. Whole milk Lactina Suisse Hay Grain Total gain Average daily gain 17 i . Ibs. 108.8 Ibs. 4 . 06 Ibs. $ • $ Ibs. .6 Ibs. (18 days) Ibs. l8 I IO . T, 3.Q8 c . $ .6 "6. (18 days) •33 I Q 6< 2 2 62 r c 6 2 . ( 1 1 days) . ii 2O . . so .0 7- •63 504 TABLE VI — Continued Dec. 12, ipoy-Jan. 12, 1908 17 74-5 74-5 IOI .0 205 .0 237.0 Jan. 12 13-87 11.28 9-95 5-20 1-65 I9o8-Fe 43-7 43-7 36.2 36.2 36-2 D. II, 190 21 .O 21 .O !7-5 8 16.0 16.0 22 .0 19.0 16.0 •53 •53 •73 •63 •53 iS IO 20 21 17 7- 7- 7- 47- 84. Feb. ii, 14-65 14.65 12 .65 IO.8O igoS-Mar 96 . 2 96 . 2 68.7 68.7 68.7 "h ii, 190 43-3 43-3 20.7 20.7 20.7 8 23- 8 34- 20. •77 1.03 •93 .66 18 IQ . . 20 21 1 7 15-9 9-5 9-5 9-5 117.6 117.6 77- 77- 77- 54-i 54-i 26 .4 26.4 26.4 24. 31- 27.* 12.* .80 I; 03 I ,-2 I 1.42 18 1C) 20 21 TABLE VIT. SUMMARY OF TABLE II FOR LOT A Cost Cost of Gain of one Calf No. Skimmed Hay Grain entire Total per pound gain Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. i 2488.0 374 0 311 8 IO . 2 I 203 i 60 o ^o 2 2488.0 O / t V •3 74 . n 0 j. j. . u 3ii 8 IO . 2 I *WO • IO7 L . \jy I 64. . w jw O C2 2488.0 o / *r y 374 . Q o " 3ii .8 IO . 2 I *y / • 246 J. . \J if. 2 O C • ^o ^ O4.2 4 2488.0 O / • 7 374-9 o 311.8 10.21 *• T-^ - 228. ' • WO I .90 • **^« •045 5 2488.0 374-9 311.8 IO . 21 182. I-5I .056 TABLE VIII. SUMMARY OF TABLE V FOR LOT B Cost Skim- Cost Gain of one Calf Whole med Schu- Hay Grain of Total per pound No. milk milk macher feed gain day gain Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. 6.. . 109.4 !505-o 58.8 347-5 185-5 10 .61 167 J-39 .064 8. .. 108.4 224.8 274.0 120.0 12.80 162 x-35 .079 9. .. 108.4 224.8 274.0 120 0 12.80 163 !-35 .079 IO. . . 108.4 224.8 274.0 120.0 12.80 138 1-15 •°93 ii ... IIO.O 482.0 J3°-3 329.6 173 6 ii .29 155 1.29 •°73 13. .. 114.2 214.1 274.0 120. O 12.51 116 -•97 . 108 * These three calves were dropped Feb. 29, 1908 because Lactina Suisse gave out. Weights reckoned for 19 days. 505 TABLE IX. SUMMARY OF TABLE VI "FOR LOT C Calf No. Whole milk Lactina Suisse Hay Grain Cost fof; feed Total gain Gain per day Cost of one pound gain I 7 Ibs. IQO .3 Ibs. CI .48 Ibs. 261 . o Ibs. I IO . O o . ^7 Ibs. 69 Ibs. .61 .138 18 IQI . Z 4^j . 16 263 .0 119.0 9 .05 84 •74 .108 I O 177 2 •2 •?6 72 187.4 6^.2 7 . i c 80 • 72 .080 20 3O2 O 27 3 ^ 181.0 64.6 8.62 8<5 .86 . IOI 21 321 . O 21 . 9<5 181 .9 64.6 8.59 48 • "51) 00 • J79 /y TABLE X. SUMMARY OF TABLES VII, VIII, AND IX, FOR 1907-1908 No. Average number Average age Cost Total Average Average cost Lot of of days at of average gain of one calves in exper- begin- feed gam per day pound iment ning of gain Ibs. Ibs. A c 1 20 <52.6 IO 21 211 .2 i 76 048 B 6 I2O 10 6 12.14 I SO . I I 2 ^ 081 c c IOS From birth 8.60 73-2 .70 .116 Conclusions from work in 1907-8 A careful study of Tables VII, VIII, and IX, which summarize the results for each calf, and then of Table X, which shows the average for each lot, warrants the following conclusions: (1) While skimmed milk gives the best results as a substitute for whole milk, good strong calves can be raised without milk of any kind after the third or fourth week. (2) It will cost at the present prices of milk, skimmed milk, hay, grain, etc., $12 to $15 to raise a calf to five months of age. (3) Under normal conditions, a calf well cared for and properly fed should make an average daily gain of one to one and one-half pounds during the first four months of his life. (4) Schumacher Calf Meal does not appear from this feeding trial to be a complete substitute for skimmed milk, yet the gains from the use of this meal are good and the cost of a pound of gain is fairly low. (5) In the results derived from feeding Lactina Suisse, the gains per day became greater as the calves grew older, but this food did not seem to be nearly equal to skimmed milk or Schumacher Calf Meal at any corresponding periods of age. £W- 506 II. EXPERIMENT AT CORNELL STATION, 1908-9 Since a part of the calves in the experiment of 1907-8 were older than the others, it was considered best to repeat the experiment in 1908-9, keeping a record of each calf from birth. The calves to be fed on the different foods in 1908-9 were not selected in any way. The plan was to put each calf on experiment at birth and to feed equal numbers of calves on each food during the course of the experiment. From the results of 1907-8, it was considered not worth while to continue feeding Lactina Suisse because of its high cost and because of the generally poor results obtained by its use. The foods used for trial were skimmed milk, skimmed milk powder, Schumacher Calf Meal and Blatchford's Calf Meal. Calf No. i was fed Schumacher Calf Meal, calf No. 2 Blatchford's Calf Meal, calf No. 3 skimmed milk and calf No. 4 skimmed milk powder. By alternating the calves as they were born during the fall, the lots fed on the different foods would thus have nearly equal numbers. However, owing to the fact that some of the bull calves were sold from time to time and thus dropped from the experiment, the calves in Lot D, fed skimmed milk, finally num- bered seven, those in Lot E, fed skimmed milk powder, numbered six, Lot F, fed on Schumacher Calf Meal, numbered four, and Lot G, fed on Blatchford's Calf Meal, numbered four. All records of food, weight, etc., were kept separately for each calf. The milk or gruel and the dry grain was weighed separately for each calf. The hay eaten by all the calves on experiment was weighed daily, and at the end of each month the amount of hay was averaged for each calf according to his age. Each calf was kept on experiment from birth until he was 150 days old, or through the first five months of his life. Table XI gives in brief the breed, sex, date of birth, etc., for each calf in the experiment. Each calf was weighed at birth and every Thursday thereafter up to and including the last Thursday before he was 150 days old. He was then weighed when 150 days old. The record of these weighings for each individual is shown in Table XII. By weighing the calves each week, a check was kept on their development. 507 TABLE XI. DETAILED STATISTICS OF CALVES, 1908-1909 Lot D. Fed skimmed milk, hay and grain Calf No. Breed Sex Date of birth Weight at birth Weight at end Total gain Gain per day Cost of one pound gain G H B 1908 Aug. 20 Ibs. 85 Ibs. 287 Ibs. 202 Ibs. i . 3<: .048 g G G H Sept. 8 62 2£cr IQ3 I . 2O • OS3 1 1 .... G G H Sept. 12 83 32O 237 i. <8 • °44 15 10 G. S H H H Oct. 3 Oct 22 62 68 290 72Q 228 261 1-52 I . 74 .048 . 042 22 24 S H B H Nov. 9 Nov. 12 68 83 3°3 328 235 245 i-57 1.63 •053 .052 Lot E. Fed skimmed milk powder, hay and grain 4. ... H B Aug. 29 79 273 194 1.29 .061 6. ... H H Sept. i 75 261 186 1.24 .060 12 . ... H H Sept. 13 92 280 188 1.25 .065 16. ... j H Oct. 6 46 208 162 i .08 .065 20 . ... j H Oct. 24 57 239 182 I .21 .062 23. ... S H Nov. 10 64 257 193 1.29 .069 Lot F. Fed Schumacher Calf Meal i H H Aug. 13 53 232 179 1.26 .083 r H H Aug. 2Q CQ 200 i so I . OO . 106 13 J H • *• "-o • — V Sept. 23 J 7 52 7 184 J 132 .88 .092 I? H& S B Oct. 8 91 282 191 i . 27 .083 Lot G. Fed Blatchford's Calf Meal 2 H H Aug. 13 49 197 148 •99 .114 9 S H Sept. 10 62 170 108 .72 •157 M H H Sept. 26 97 228 I3I .87 .132 18 S H Oct. 10 78 214 136 .91 •135 The commercial foods The skimmed milk powder was purchased from the Merrill-Soule Company of Syracuse, N. Y. The manufacturers claim for this product that it is simply ordinary skimmed milk dried by a patented secret process to a powder as fine as wheat flour. The grade used by this Station in this experiment was the third grade product and was purchased f. o. b. at the factory for two cents per pound. The manufacturers inform us that through an improvement in the process this grade is no longer made except in very small quantities. 508 x CO £ CO t~ 0 vn t- co O O O COCO CM 00 10 01 O n O -* O t- O 10 r-\C 00 O to >o co 00000 t^ O 00 ^ O\ t^ 04 M - -0 -00- M c, H 0 "o sr^o" i?n=rs4- , >. r*1* 0 ro ^t^iOOCOOCOO ^ 10.^00 IN IT-. Tf ,C CO 0 Tf Tf o •*: 53 -^^r^ 1 *3 ^r o oj Tf oj V, o w " o. co'oV 13 :-:;: § ri tn 7^-o ^ 7^-^- M c 2 ^ H^S g H M- - ? I 'S s ^ QQ QcoOTf^coN^ T3 M 8 £00 0 M 'g M o 00 co "^ O O CM O -P fo - ^Illl^I « 2^-2 £ i!" o 00 00 M O M M •o ^co^°"2Mi-' 0 0 M t-00 0 J ^ J \C 00 O O ^ OOOOOOOn M O M O t^- O OOO MD M r^oO Cf O ^j. O I- OOO OCO O o o o ->o t^oo OOO vO O r^cO O'OO O'OOr^O^-O CO 00 M 0 CO IN O O O O «- l> 00 t^^O O r^ r^ o oo 0 COCO 00 IN 0 CO N o^o co -c oo t^co M 00 loco O r^\o CO M Tf^C lO^C O OOO 10O t- 00 00 00 Tf ir>\O co o oo CO O O Tf O t-- O r^ *H3I3A iou-,^0 Tf \O O t^ PIO sm UOU.S ||^|>< M M r» 'to >^>^ «J°a |^^2>n> 00 O M O IH CO CO O M 00 O O O xaS VXX^X «KKW«a xx*a araM_ JI«D 6&oc> I COCO M 10 ffiwffiw 509 Schumacher Calf Meal has been fully described in the report of the work of 1907-8, page 496. Blatchford 's Calf Meal has been described by Lindsey as noted on page 493. It was purchased by this Station from J. W. Barwell, Wau- kegan, 111., at four cents per pound delivered in Ithaca, N. Y. The analysis of this meal as guaranteed by the manufacturers is: Protein 25% Fat ! 5% Methods of feeding The methods used in feeding in 1908—9 were much the same as in 1907—8. The dry grain was mixed according to the formula on page 497. Clean water and mixed hay were kept before the calves at all times. The dry grain was weighed in 1908—9 for each individual calf, whereas in 1907—8 the grain was weighed for a lot and then averaged for the individuals. The hay was weighed for all the calves and then averaged for each calf according to his age. The milk and gruel of all kinds was weighed for each individual calf at each feed. In computing the cost of feed for each calf, the same prices were charged for each food in 1908—9 as in 1907—8, in order to make compar- isons more uniform. In 1907—8, some of the calves were troubled with scours. In order to avoid this trouble, about one tablespoonful of blood flour was mixed with each feed for each calf. The blood flour is sold by Swift and Com- pany of Chicago, and under the name "Soluble Blood Flour." The manufacturers state that this material, which is a by-product from the abattoirs, will prevent scours. It is sold for $1.50 per hundred- weight, and since the cost was so small no account has been taken of the cost of the amount used. The effect of the blood flour on the digestion was good, keeping the calves in good condition. The manufacturers state that this blood flour contains 47% protein, so that as a food its effect would be good on growing calves; but in this experiment it was not intended as a food but for the control of digestive troubles. The amounts of food eaten by the different lots of calves, together with the cost of feed, total gain, and the cost of one pound of gain, are given below for each group. The amounts of feed were kept for each day's feeding, the totals were added at the end of each month, and the sum of these totals for the five months from birth for each calf is given in the tables. CALF No. 3. CALF No. IT. CALF No. 8. CALF No. is. CALF No. 19. CALF No. 22. FIG. i22a — Lot D at 5 months, of age. Average weight 302 pounds. Amount and cost of food for the five months from birth for each calf TABLE XIII. LOT D. FED SKIMMED MILK, HAY AND GRAIN Calf No. Whole milk Skimmed milk Hay Grain Entire cost of feed Total gain Cost of one pound gain 8. ........ Ibs. 109 .0 178.0 Ibs. 2626.0 2383 .0 Ibs. 341.8 285.2 Ibs. 150.0 154.0 9.67 10 . 22 Ibs. 202 193 .048 .053 ii 15 19 22 156.0 i55-o 148.0 31 ^ . O 2542.0 2438.0 2553-0 2441 .0 295.2 429.7 447-2 362 . 7 169 .0 174.0 159.0 I2O .O 10.36 10.94 10.86 12 .44 237 228 26l 235 .044 .048 .042 .053 24 . . 3 EJI . O 2359.0 362. 7 IOO . 0 12 . 62 245 .052 The calves in Lot D grew very well and were not troubled to any extent with digestive troubles. In Table XII it is shown that they each reached a weight of over 250 pounds at the end of five months, that is, at five months of age, and in Table XIII it is shown that the entire food cost ranged from $9.67 for calf No. 3 to $12.62 for calf No. 24. In Lot E, Table XIV, the milk powder gave very good re- sults. The food was prepared as follows: One pound of the milk powder was dissolved in nine pounds of water, this being practically the proportion of solids to water in ordinary skimmed milk. The powder was sifted to get out the lumps, then mixed with a little cold water, and finally boiling water was poured on and the whole mixed. This method gave the best results, ensuring a liquid free from lumps, which served as skimmed milk in every way, the amount given at a feed being the same as of skimmed milk and fed at the same temperature. In Table XII it is shown that the calves fed on the milk powder reached a weight of 208 pounds to 280 pounds at five months of age. FIG. i22b. — Calf No. 24, Lot D, at 5 months of age (see Fig I22a.} 512 CALF No. 4. CALF No. 12. CALF No. 6. CALF No. 16. CALF No. 20. CALF No. 23. FIG. 123. — Lot E at 5 months of age. Average weight 253 pounds. TABLE XIV. LOT E. FED SKIMMED MILK POWDER, HAY AND GRAIN Calf No. Whole milk Skimmed milk powder Hay Grain Entire cost of feed Total gain Cost of one pound gain Ibs. 124 . o Ibs. 2*1.8 Ibs. <^i .8 Ibs. I 3 < . O I I . O2 Ibs. IQA .061 6 12 16 20 23 I33-° 198.0 162 .0 174.0 318.0 237-5 247.2 220. 7 236.7 203.9 341.8 308.9 324-4 352.9 362.7 !35-o 135-° 90 .0 85.0 105 .0 11.23 12 .36 10.59 11.22 13.20 -vO 00 0* CM PO iNOO 00 vO 00 ON IH H M H IH .060 .065 .065 .062 .069 The cost of raising these calves to five months of age was $10.59 to $13.20, according to Table XIV. The calves in this lot did very well and the raising of the calves on this food was as easy as on skimmed milk, hay and grain. TABLE XV. LOT F. FED SCHUMACHER'S CALF MEAL, HAY AND GRAIN Calf No. Whole milk Schu- macher Calf Meal Hay Grain Entire cost of feed Total gain Cost of one pound gain i e . . Ibs. 304.0 260 o Ibs. 210 .4 227.2 Ibs. 232.2 241 .8 Ibs. 85.0 I2O . O 14.80 is. 87 Ibs. 179 I SO .083 . 106 12.. 142 . o 184. I 61* .0 406 . O O"N O 12.21 122 . 092 17 .... IOO . O 2 . S., Field Superintendent F. S. \Yilkins, B. S., Assistant in Farm II. W. Johnston, B. S-, M. S., Assistant Crops in Soi'ls ANIMAL HUSBANDRY W. IT. Pew, B. S. A., Chief G. M. Turpin, B. S., Chief in Poultry L M. Evvanl. M. S., Assistant Chief in Husbandry Animal Husbandry and Chief in Swine IT. II. Kildee, B. S. A., Chief in Dairy Production. Husbandry R. Dunn, B. S., Assistant A. C. McCandlish, M. S. A., Assistant in Dairy Husbandry BACTERIOLOGY R. E. Buchanan, M. S., Ph. D., Chief; Associate in Dairy and Soil Bacteriology BOTANY L. 11. Pammell, B. Agr., M. S., Ph. D., Charlotte M. King, Assistant Chief Chief CHEMISTRY A. \V. Dox, B. S. A., A. M., Ph. D., Chief G. P. Plaisance, B. S., M. S., Assistant W. O. Gaessler, B. S., Assistant Chief A. K. Lamb, B. S., M. S., Assistant S. B. Kuzirian, A. I',., A. M., Ph. D., As- G. W. Roark, Jr., B. S., Assistant sistant DAIRYING M. Mortensen, B. S. A., Chief B. \V. Hammer, B. S. A., Chief in Dairy Bacteriology ENTOMOLOGY R. L. Webster. A. B., Acting Chief C. E. Bartholomew, B.S.. M.S., Assistant in Apiculture FARM MANAGEMENT II. B. MunRcr, 1',. S., Chief O. C,. Lloyd, B. S., M. S., Assistant Chief HORTICULTURE AND FORESTRY S. A. Reach, B. S. A., M. S. , Chief T. I. Alaney, B. S., Assistant in Pom- A. T. Frwin M . S.. Chief in Truck Crops nfogy Laurenz Greene, 15. S., M. S. A., Chief G. 15. MacDonald, B. S. F., Chief in For- in Pomology estry VETERINARY M EDICFNE C. II. Stange, D. V. M., Chief GENERAL OFFICERS F. \V. Berkman, Ph. 1'.., Bulletin Editor F. 1C. Colburn. Photographer INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENT AND BREEDING IN INCREASING DAIRY PRODUCTION* By H. H. Kildee and A. C. McCandlish Data secured in an investigation which has now been under way for eight years at the Iowa Agricultural Experiment station give direct support to the belief that a good paying dairy herd can be built up from a foundation of common cows thru proper methods of feeding and management and thru the use of a good purebred dairy sire. The results of this work are presented in a preliminary way in this bulletin and will be given in more com- plete form when the investigation has been carried further. Investigations of this kind are fundamental to the task of in- creasing dairy production to meet increasing demands for dairy products because they seek to find ways of getting more milk and butterfat from the overwhelming majority of com- mon cows. Ther are in the United States, according to gov- ernment reports, more than 20,000,000 so-called dairy animals whose average production is not half as much as it might be if proper methods of selection, breeding, feeding and management were followed by all dairy farmers. Any information that will help to build up better and more productive dairy herds from these animals is consequently of large value. The first year's work of any cooperative cow testing associa- tion clearly demonstrates that the low average production is due both to poor feeding and inferior cows. However, it is hard to determine the relative importance of improved feeding and man- agement compared with the influence derived from the intro- duction of "dairy blood" through the use of purebred dairy sires. Then, too, data from the experiment stations showing the influence of these factors are very limited. With a herd that had been previously poorly fed, Wing l found that an abundant ration easily digestible and rather nitrogenous in character and continued thru two years resulted in an average increase of about 50% in total yield of milk and butter fat com- pared to the production of these cows on the owner's farm the year preceding and the year following the time at the station. At the Maryland station 2 ten cows of not over average pro- duction were kept under good conditions for several years. The * This work was started under the direction of Prof. H. G. Van Pelt in 1907 and continued under his direction until his resignation in 1909, then for one year under the direction of Prof. A. Leitch. Since September, 1910, it has been under the direc- tion of the senior author. This is only a preliminary report. 1 Wing, H. and J. A. Foord. Record of an Attempt to Increase the Fat in Milk "by means of Liberal Feeding. Bull. Cornell Agr. Exp. Sta. 222. 1904. 2 Doane. C. F. The Influence of Feed and Care on the Individuality of Coivs. Bull. Md. Ag. Exp. Sta. 69. 1900. 384 first year's record was taken as a standard with which to com- pare succeeding records and it was found that nine out of the ten cows increased in production after the first year. Somewhat similar results in showing the residual and developmental ef- fects of improved feeding were secured at the Cornell station 3 when a herd of sixteen grade and purebred dairy cows which had never before received grain was divided into two lots of eight each. One lot received grain and the other none during the pas- turing season. During this season the grain fed lot produced 27% more milk than did the other lot. In the following season six cows of each lot remained and during the pasture season the lot that had received grain during the previous summer pro- duced 16% more milk than did the check lot, both being treated alike the second summer. The increase in production was attri- buted to the grain fed the previous season and was especially noticeable in the younger animals. Data showing the influence of the sire on the production of a purebred herd have been obtained at the Missouri station,4 where during a period of eighteen years, with the system of feeding and management remaining fairly constant, the records of the daugh- ters of six Jersey bulls were compared with the records of their dams. It was found that the average production of the four daughters of the poorest sire for twenty-six lactation periods was 19% less milk and 8% less fat than the average production of their dams for twenty-three lactation periods while the average production of the three daughters of the best bull for fifteen lactation periods was 68% more milk and 61% more fat than the average production of their dams for fourteen lactation periods. This valuable and interesting information clearly demonstrates the variation in the ability of different bulls to transmit dairy qualities, and emphasizes the fact that the selection of a bull to head a purebred herd of dairy cattle is a very important matter. It is much more difficult, however, to secure data showing the influence of the purebred dairy sire in increasing the production of a scrub or grade herd. In practically all cases where pure- bred sires are used, improved methods of feeding and man- aging the herd are initiated at about the. same time. And while no one denies the value of this introduction of " dairy .blood," definite data showing the value of the purebred sire on the scrub or common herd, independent of improved feeding, have not been available. Owing to the large investment required, only a small percent of the dairy farmers can have purebred herds. Consequently the greater part of the dairy products of the country come from grade cows. Therefore everything that will increase their pro- 3 Roberts, I. P. Sundry Investigations of the Tear. Bull. Cornell Ag. Exp. Sta. 49. 1892. * Eckles, C. H. Dairy Cattle and Milk Production. July, 1911. 385 duction is of great importance. Many farmers with common cattle are desirous of entering the dairy business. Their prob- lem is to decide which method of entry is the better, "buying in," or "growing in." Everyone knows that a good dairy herd can be bought, but many have found that this method is not only expensive, if really good cows are secured, but hazardous, due to the introduction of diseases. Many also buy up a herd before they learn from experience that proper feed and manage- ment must be given to the animals. The question of greatest im- portance and frequently asked is, "Can such a herd be pro- duced from a foundation of common cows where the initial ex- pense is the price of a good purebred dairy sire ? " It is important that this question be answered satisfactorily and with assurance of final success and also of a reasonable income from the heifers resulting from the mating with the first purebred sire, before many farmers will attempt to build up eificient and economical dairy herds, using as the foundation the cows they already own. OBJECTS OF THIS INVESTIGATION In this investigation it is attempted to determine the influence of purebred dairy sires in increasing the production from a foundation of scrub cows as well as the effect of improved feed- ing and management. In order that other influencing factors might be brought to a minimum, scrub cows from an isolated region of Arkansas were selected for the basis of this work in 1907. The work is still in progress and the data presented in this publication are in the form of a preliminary report, taking all records completed up to the end of 1915. Many of the daugh- ters of the scrub cows are not mature and heifers carrying 75% of the blood of a recognized dairy breed have not as yet gone thru a lactation period. Stated in detail the objects of this work were agreed upon as follows : 1. To determine the effects of improved feeding and care and whether or not there would be an increase in production in the second and succeeding years due to the residual and continued effects of improved feeding and the development of the digestive and mammary systems. 2. To compare the records of heifers sired by a scrub bull with the records of their dams. 3. To determine the influence of purebred dairy sires on the production of milk and butter fat. 4. To compare scrub with grade calves in rate of growth and digestive powers. ANIMALS USED In the summer of 1907 Prof. H. G. Van Pelt purchased in an isolated region of Arkansas seven cows, four yearling heifers, two heifer calves and a young bull. These animals were inferior individuals, being rather small, of very limited abdominal, udder 386 and vein capacity, and very unprepossessing so far as quality and top lines were concerned. So far as could be learned no purebred bulls had ever been used in that section of the state up to the time of purchase. The environment was not such as would stimulate heavy milk production as the cattle received little if any grain or concentrates, being forced to live on the rather scanty supply of grass and hay available. No attention had been paid to the amount or quality of milk produced or to the length of lactation periods. The principal duty of the cows had been to produce enough milk for family use and to raise their calves. The cattle reached Ames early in December, 1907, and were in very thin flesh. The accompanying photographs are more expressive than words in giving a true impression of the condi- tion of the cattle at the time of reaching the college farm. PLAN OF INVESTIGATION The scrub cows and their calves were given the same care, feed, and shelter as the purebred dairy cattle in the herd. This en- vironment has remained fairly constant during the eight years work. The milk from each cow was weighed each milking and a com- posite sample taken from which the percent of fat was deter- mined every seventh day. During the past two years the cows have been weighed every Monday morning so that it has been possible to feed what was required for milk production plus body maintenance. The concentrates in the ration were weighed out each day to each cow producing milk. Amounts of silage and hay were esti- mated from occasional weighings. These feeds were charged at average prices and the same prices charged for all the years. The cows were credited with the butter fat at an average price of thirty-one cents per pound and skimmed milk at twenty-five cents per hundred. Pasture and soiling crops were charged at $6.00 per acre in addition to cost of labor, seed, etc., for the latter. The net returns are secured by deducting from the income for butter fat and skimmed milk the cost of all feeds. No charge was made for labor or shelter nor credit given for calves and manure. Some of the cows were in calf to a scrub bull when they reached the farm and one of them dropped a heifer calf which was later used in the experiment. Purebred sires of the Guernsey, Hoi- stein and Jersey breeds were used on these scrub cows and all heifer calves grown out under the same conditions as the pure- bred calves on the farm. With the establishment of an Ayrshire herd, an Ayrshire bull is also beine: used on some of the cows. Some of the scrub cows dropped bull calves every year as long as they were in the herd, thus the number of heifers for use 387 in this work has been limited. The bull calves were killed or vealed. The only ones saved were by the scrub bull brought with the cows and used one year. These calves were used in a feeding test reported in the latter part of this bulletin. Heifers by purebred sires were bred to other purebred sires of the same breed and the heifer calves resulting from this union were also kept for dairy purposes. A few of these heifers carrying 75% of the blood of recognized dairy breeds have just freshened but their records are not available for this preliminary report of the work. RESULTS Unfortunately, records of production and feed consumed prior to the time the cows were brought to the college farm are not available. Consequently it is impossible to compare the records of the cows under their original environment and those obtained under conditions such as a fairly well managed herd would have. However, a comparison of successive lactation periods, after coming to the farm, is of interest and in the following tables the cows are divided into two classes: The two cows that came to the farm at four years of age in table I and those advanced in age in table II. SUCCESSIVE LACTATION PEEIODS OF SCKUB COWS In table I are shown the milk and fat records of cows nos. 6 and 31 for seven successive lactation periods. As these cows were about four years of age at the time of the first lactation period at the college farm, a part of the increase in production should be attributed to their normal development. However, the greater part of the increase is considered due to the develop- ment of digestive and milk secreting systems due to superior feeding and milking, and the residual effects of better feeding, as the cows had all been but scantily fed and poorly cared for TABLE 7 — AVERAGE YEARLY RECORDS OF THE COWS NOS. 6 AND 31, THAT CAME TO THE COLLEGE FARM AT 4 YEARS OF AGE MILK FAT No. of Lactation Increase or decrease Increase or decrease Net returns Cost of feed per Period Lbs. from first lactation Lbs. from first lactation over feed cost pound of fat 1 3084.6 149.24 $13.93 26c 2 3984.4 29 178.97 19 32.15 18c 3 4618.1 50 217.79 46 31.68 21c 4 4907.7 59 229.91 54 37.48 19c 5 4224.0 37 197.59 32 31.80 19c 6 1991.3 -35 84.76 -50 1.97 34c 7 2862.5 —8 133.70 -10 18.95 21c 388 Fig. 1. Scrub cow no. 6, showing condi- tion at arrival. First year's record at sta- tion, 4 years of age, 2,742.1 Ibs. of milk, 131.04 Ibs. of fat. Fig. 2. Scrub cow no. 6, three years lat- er. Record, 5556.7 Ibs. of milk, 244.79 Ibs. of fat. Increase over first record, 2814.6 Ibs. milk and 113.75 Ibs. fat. Fig. 3. Scrub cow no. 9, an aged cow, showing condition at time of arrival at sta- tion. Fig. 4. Scrub cow no. 9, one year later. Record for year, 3647.6 Ibs. milk and 180.7 Ibs. fat. 389 before coming to the farm. It will be noticed that the cows increased rapidly and steadily up to the fourth lactation period, at the station when they produced 59% more milk and 54% more fat than during the first period. This is a much greater increase over the four-year-old performance than was ever se- cured from animals raised on the college farm and is five times as great as the breed associations' handicap (by which the four- year old is required to produce 90% as much as required of a mature cow five years old or over). The decrease for the fol- lowing periods is not regular, due to the fact that cow no. 31 produced much more during the seventh than during the sixth period, but the decline is what one would expect from advancing age. In the net returns column it will be noticed that the greatest returns were secured in the fourth period after coming to the farm when the average for the two cows was $37.48 as against $13.93 the first year and $1.97 the sixth. The average cost per pound of butter fat decreased from 26 cents the first year to 18 to 21 cents except during the sixth year when one of the cows made a very poor record. The de- crease of practically 30% in cost per pound of butter fat from the first year to the second, third, and fourth indicates that the cows used much of the feed the first year to build up their bodies. In table II are shown the successive records of cows nos. 7, 8, 9, 12, and 33. All of these were aged cows and due to old age were kept but three years in the college herd, where some of them produced heifer calves by purebred dairy bulls. The records of these heifers are shown in subsequent tables. It will be noted that these five aged cows did not respond to improved feeding and management in such a way as to show in- creased production during succeeding lactation periods. How- ever, it cannot be said that these cows did not increase in produc- tion after coming to the farm and receiving improved rations and care, as records of their production under the original con- ditions are not available. TABLE II — AVEEAGE YEAELY EECOEDS OF THE FIVE COWS NOS. 7, 8, 9, 12, AND 33 THAT WEEE AGED WHEN THEY CAME TO THE COLLEGE FAEM No. of Lactation Period MILK FAT Net returns over feed cost Cost of feed per pound of fat Lbs. Increase or decrease from first lactation % Lbs. Increase or decrease from first lactation % 1 2 3 3790.9 2802.3 2841.1 -26 -25 183.84 135.50 141.60 -26 -23 $24.40 18.64 18.58 23c 22c 22c 390 Comparisons between tables I and II would indicate that the decrease between the first and second and the second and third lactation periods in the case of the old cows was due to advanc- ing age. It will be noted that the cost of feed per pound of butter fat remained nearly constant for the three years and did not fall below twenty-two cents per pound, while in the case of the younger cows there was a greater decrease in cost. In table III the cows that were four years old or over when they came to the farm are referred to as " original scrubs ; ' ' those that came as yearlings and calves, or were dropped on the college farm, are designated as ' i developed scrubs, ' ' while the terms Hoi- stein x scrub, Guernsey x scrub and Jersey x scrub refer to the first generation heifers out of scrub cows and by purebred sires of those breeds. The comparisons are made between cows falling into these different classes and in this table the younger animals are not compared to their own dams but to all of the old cows taken as a group. In the comparison between the developed scrubs and the originals it will be noticed that the former have produced 13% more milk and 12% more butter fat while little difference is noted in percent of fat or length of lactation period. With seven cows in each group and the number of lactation periods, twenty-five and twenty-nine respectively, this increase is worthy of note. A direct comparison can not be made between dams and daughters in this case as but one record made by a scrub daughter of one of the old cows is available. The first generation of Holstein grades show an increase of 64% in amount of milk, 41% in pounds of fat, 15% in length of milking period and a decrease of 14% in percent of fat in milk. The first generation Guernsey grades show an increase of 12% in quantity of milk, 6% in pounds of fat, 1% in length of lac- tation period and a decrease of 5% in percent of fat in milk. The smaller increase shown by these grades can not be charged TABLE III — AVEEAGE YEAELY EECOEDS SHOWING INFLUENCE OF FEED AND MANAGEMENT AND THE USE OF PUEE BEED DAIEY SIEES ON PEODUCTION Lacta- Average Yearly Records Per cent Increase over Lotl Lot No. of cows tion periods Lbs. of Lbs. of % fat Days in Lbs. of Lbs. of % fat Days in milk fat milk milk fat milk 1. Original 1 1 II scrubs 7 29 3397.1 161.67 4.76 283 || 2. Developed II scrubs 7 25 |l 3841.2 181.64 4.73 276 || 13 12 -1 -2 3. Holstein x 1 1 1! II scrubs 4 12 5561.6 227.94 4.10 326 || 64 41 -14 15 4. Guernsey x 1 1 scrubs 4 8 || 3787. G 170.56 4.50 287 12 6 -5 1 5. Jersey x 1 1 II II scrubs 1 1 1 2 |f 3643.1 199.64 5.48 1 317 II 7 24 15 12 II || II 1 391 Fig. 5. Scrub cow no. 52. Best record, 4588.4 Ibs. milk, and 201.67 Ibs. fat. Six, years old when photo- graphed. Fig. 6. Holstein x Scrub no. 69, out of scrub no. 52. Four year old record, 6822.8 Ibs. milk and 283.75 Ibs. fat, an increase of 49% in milk, 41% in fat and $22.38 in profit over dam's best record. Age three years when photo- graphed. Fig. 7. Second gen- eration Holstein grade heifer calf no. 281 of Holstein x Scrub cow no. 69, age 7 months when photographed. Not until second gen- eration do most Hol- stein grades show- white markings typi- cal of purebreds. to the breed of the sire but to the fact that no mature records are available and further that before the college owned a herd of Guernseys a bull was borrowed and his daughters, while not mature, have not equalled their dams' records, while a two-year- old grade by our present Guernsey herd bull has produced over 101% more milk and 107% more butter fat than her scrub dam, developed here at the station, produced in her best year. Only one first generation Jersey grade has freshened and her two lactation periods show an increase of 7% in quantity of milk, 24% in pounds of fat, 15% in per cent of fat and 12% in length of milking period as compared to group of original scrubs. 392 % of M Rdatii, Ik Pn duct, 01 aey Chart 1. Showing relative monthly milk production of College herd EELATIVE MONTHLY MILK PEODUCTION Chart I shows the relative monthly milk production of the college herd of purebred cows, representing the four leading dairy breeds ; the first generation grades re- sulting from the use of purebred sires on the scrub cows ; and the scrub cows. In making this chart the records of seventy-one purebred cows of various ages for 160 lactation peri- ods, nine grades for twenty-two early lac- tation periods, and fourteen scrubs for fifty-four lactation periods were used. Records for succeed- ing thirty day periods of each lactation to the purebreds, pro- duced consderably more milk than did the scrubs and did not decrease so rapidly between the fifth and ninth months. This last point of relative persistency is more clearly shown in chart II which is made from the same records. This chart shows the relation of each suc- ceeding month's rec- ord of the first month 's production of that group. In this chart it will be noted that the purebred cows are much more persistent, especially from the sixth month on, than the grades. The grades, however, do not decline nearly as rapidly from the fifth month on as do the scrubs. In table IV comparison is made between a number of the scrub cows and their daughters by purebred sires. This is not a breed X, \ m \ Rtlat, Milk 1 •Mont •oduct i/V yn \ \ X \ \ Too \ \ \ \ \^ 4*0 \ \ N \ \ Pan-arrJ X fa pe ue nJs off M,M 'M ^v \ \ \ \ ' ^ \ ^ Grain \ X X •W.,4, X X Me, hofL, fatten ^ ^\ Chart 2. Showing relation of production of college herd in succeeding months to first month's production 393 Fig. 8. Scrub cow no. 56. Best record, 4975.0 Ibs. milk and 253.13 Ibs. fat. Age five years when pho- tographed. ig. 9. Scrub no. 77, out of scrub cow no. 56. Four year old record, 8689.3 Ibs. milk and 321.31 Ibs. fat, an increase of 75% in milk, 27% in fat and $6.80 in profit over dam's best rec- ord. Age five years when photographed. Fig. 10. Second gen- eration Holstein grade no. 282 out of Hol- stein x Scrub cow 77. Age seven months when photographed. comparison in any way as none of the scrub cows have daughters, by more than one purebred sire, in milk. The variation in the production of the dams themselves, and the fact that for this preliminary report the records of such a small number of heifers of purebred sires are available, also renders this impossible. Furthermore, the sires were not selected with this in view but were the bulls in use in our purebred herds with one exception, which is noted later. In the case of the heifers by the Holstein sire it will be noted that when the best record made by each heifer is compared to the 394 L 395 best record of her dam, these heifers have produced in quantity of milk, from 1603.4 to 3714.3 pounds, or 45% to 75% more than their dams and 50.33 to 82.08 pounds, or 27% to 41%, more but- ter fat. When the average records for each are compared, in spite of the fact that mature records of the scrubs are compared with immature records of the heifers, as in the case of the best records, it will be noted that the Holstein grades have produced from 1901.0 to 2560.2 pounds, or 49% to 101%, more milk and 58.54 to 95.51 pounds, or 33% to 61%, more butter fat than their dams. In the net returns column it will be noted that with the excep- tion of no. 207, whose only record was made at one and a half years of age, there is a good increase in returns in favor of the heifers. No. 207, was bred too young and during her first lacta- tion period required a great deal of feed for body growth, con- sequently her returns are not as great as her dam's. The other heifers show a considerable increase in net returns over their dams. This increase ranges from $6.80 to $22.38 when the best records are compared and the average net returns per lactation are $7.70, to $12.28 more than that of their dams. In the case of the first generation Guernsey grades it will be noticed that three of the four have thus far produced less than their dams. By way of explanation, it may be stated that lack of maturity of the heifers at the time records were made is no doubt a factor of great importance, as is the fact that the scrub cows nos. 6, 33, and 53, the dams of these three heifers, have the highest average records of any of the scrubs with daughters by purebred bulls. However, it is evident that a much greater factor is the variation in the ability of different sires within a breed to transmit dairy qualities. Heifers nos. 87 and 110 were sired by a Guernsey bull loaned to the station before a Guernsey herd was owned by the college. Unfortunately records of his purebred daughters as compared with their dam« are not available. However, the best record we have had from a first generation heifer was made by no. 175. As a two year old this heifer produced 6078.5 pounds of nr']k and 310.95 pounds of fat, or 3049.9 pounds, or 101% more milk and 161 pounds, or 107% more fat, and $2-4.48 more profit than her dam's best r:cord. This halfblood Guernsey was sired bv our present herd bull and her record compared to the other first generation Guern-fv grades clearly indicates that variation in the ability of sire? *o transmit dairv qualities is a factor of impor+pppe orid wo^hy of close study by the man selecting a sire when the bull is to h^ used on a scrub herd, as well as when selection is made for a hi^h grade or pure- bred herd. The one first sreneration Jersey errade that has freshened to date shows a good increase over her dam in butter fat production, 396 Fig. 11. Scrub cow no. 33. Best record 4916.0 Ibs. milk and 204.91 Ibs. fat. Ma- ture when photo- graphed. Pig. 12. Guernsey x Scrub cow no. 87, out of scrub cow no. 33. Two year old record, 4286.8 Ibs. milk and 193.59 Ibs. fat, de- crease of 13% in milk in 6% in fat from best mature record of dam, due to heifer's imma- turity and lack of pre- potency of sire. Age six years when pho- tographed. Fig. 13. Second generation Guernsey grade heifer calf no. 296, out of Guernsey x Scrub cow no. 87 and by Rouge II' a son. Color, red fawn, white markings. Age five months when photographed. in spite of the fact that her dam was one of the two scrub cows that came to the college when four years of age and has made comparatively good records. The question naturally arises in the mind of the practical dairy farmer as to whether or not the bulls used on these scrub cows were high priced animals and therefore beyond his reach. Consequently it should be stated that none of the bulls used were bought at high prices although they were all well bred from the production standpoint. Young bulls of equal breeding can be bought for very nominal prices. 397 Fig. 14. Developed Scrub no. 60. Best record 3534.3 Ibs. milk and 190.29 Ibs. fat* Age four years when photographed. Fig. 15. Holstein x Scrub no. 207, out of scrub cow no. 60. Rec- ord at one and one- half years old, 5137.7 Ibs. milk, 251.85 Ibs. fat, an increase of 45% in milk and 32% in fat over dam's rec- ord of three and one- half years. Age two and one-half years when photographed. Fig. 16. Second gen- eration Holstein grade no. 311, out of Hol- stein x Scrub cow no. 207 and by purebred Holstein bull. Not only have these first generation heifers proved to be very much superior to their dams in production, and thus clearly demonstrated the value of a purebred dairy sire as an investment for a common or scrub herd as well as for a high grade or pure- bred herd, but a study of the illustrations also brings out the great improvement in constitution, capacity, mammary develop- ment, straightness of top line, quality and type. This improve- ment is more marked in the second generation grades. 398 .;-,,. , ... Kig. 17. Developed scrub no. .is. Color, brindle. Best record, Mni'X.t; Ibs. milk and 149.95 Ibs. fat. Age live years when pho- tographed. Fig. IS. Guernsey x Scrub no. 17~> out of scrub cow 110. ~>8. Color, brindle. Two year old record (H)7s.r> Ibs. milk and .'-!lii.9"> Ibs. fat, an increase of 1 (i 1 (/( in milk, 1 07' '< in fat and $24. 4S in prof- it, over dam's best record. Age tlin-e and one-half yeai's when photographed. DIGKSTIVE AX I) FKIvDIX'r AHIJ.ITV OF SCHTB AND GRADE CALVES II IIHS liiM-ii found fit tin1 Missouri Agricultural Experiment s.tMtion thnt 1lic ehict' (iiffci cncc between lii»-li producing and low producing dairy cows docs not lie in the coefficient of digestion or in Ihc maintenance requirements, hut is due to the fact that a heavy milking cow has a ^renter capacity than a poor cow for 399 Fig. 19. Scrub cow no. 31. Color, brindle and white. Best rec- ord 4258.6 Ibs. milk, 215.02 Ibs. fat. Age eight years when pho- tographed. Fig. 20. Jersey x Scrub cow no. 174 out of scrub cow no. 31. Color, dark fawn. Two year old record, 4232.2 Ibs. milk and 236.24 Ibs. fat, an increase of 10% in fat over dam's record. Age two years when photographed. utilizing food above her maintenance requirement.5 The above work was conducted with purebred animals all of which had been kept under similar conditions. In connection with the work on scrub cows already described, feeding and digestion trials were conducted with calves from the scrub cows and sired by a scrub bull while grade Shorthorn and Angus calves were used as a check lot. Four scrub and four grade calves were used originally, there were two bulls and two heifers in each lot, but as one of the 5Eckles, C. H. and Reed, O. E. A Study of the Cause of Wide Variation in Milk Production by Dairy Cows. Res. Bull. Missouri Ag. Exp. Sta. 2. April, 1910. Fig. 22. Guernsey x Scrub heifer calf no. 288 out of scrub cow no. 31. Color, fawn, white markings. Age six months when photographed. First generation calves by present Guernsey herd bull are all well mark- ed but those by first were not. 400 Fig-. 23. Jersey x Scrub heifer calf no. 235, out of scrub cow no. 6. Color, dark fawn. Age 4 months when photographed. Fig. 24. Jersey x Scrub heifer calf no. 241, out of scrub cow no. 60. Color, light fawn. Age 4 months when photographed. Fig. 25. Jersey x Scrub cow no. 174, and heifer calf no. 245 by a solid colored Jersey bull. grade females proved to be unhealthy it had to be dropped from the experiment. They were four months old when the experi- ment started. The feeding trial lasted 196 days, in which two digestion trials of ten days each were made. All calves received the same amount of separated milk and in addition each one was given what grain and alfalfa hay it could 401 consume to advantage. The grain mixture consisted of three parts, cracked corn, two parts ground oats and one part wheat bran. TABLE F — FEED CONSUMPTION AND GAINS FOR SCRUB AND GRADE CALVES Lot No. of Average Daily Feed Average Daily Average Feed for 100 Ibs. gain Calves Milk Grain Alf. hay Gain Milk Grain Alf. hay Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Scrubs 4 15.14 2.45 1.80 1.12 135.2 21.9 16.0 1 Grades 3 15.14 4.17 1.82 1.61 93.9 25.9 11.3 I 1 1 While both lots consumed about the same amount of hay .the grades utilized much larger quantities of grain — their consump- tion per head being about 70% more than that of the scrubs. TABLE VI — DIGESTION OF FEED BY CALVES 6 Lot Dry matter % Carbo- hydrates % Fat % Protein % Fiber % Ash % Scrubs' 73.96 81.91 75.49 78.22 45.07 50.85 Grades 74.78 81.37 76.33 82.10 44.49 53.12 This table shows that the powers of the scrubs and grades to digest the various food constituents are practically the same. At the end of this 196 day feeding trial these calves were turned over to the Animal Husbandry section for a continuation of the work and it is expected that a more detailed report will be published later. SUMMARY The results of the eight years' work as given in this prelim- inary report may be summarized as follows: 1. The scrub cows that came to the station when young (four years old) increased in production rapidly and steadily up to the fourth lactation period, after reaching the station, when they produced 59% more milk and 54% more fat than during the first period. 2. The scrub cows that came to the station advanced in age did not increase in production after the first year. However it cannot be said that their production was not greater than it had been under their original environment. 6 The analytical work for these digestion trials was done by W. G. Gaessler of the Chemical Section. 402 3. The scrub heifers developed at the station averaged 13% more milk and 12% more fat than did the scrub cows that came to the station when four years old or over. 4. The daughters of all except one purebred bull have proved to be much better producers, as two and three-year-olds, than their dams as mature cows. However, this can not be consid- ered a breed comparison for the reasons brought out in the dis- cussion of table IV. 5. The average of all the records made by first generation heifers by a purebred Holstein sire show an increase of 2314.5 pounds, or 71%, in milk and 67.15 pounds, or 42%, in fat, at an average age of 3^/2 years, over the record of their scrub dams at an average age of six years. 6. The average record of the one first generation Jersey grade that has freshened is 205.6 pounds, or 6% more milk and 32.9 pounds, or 20%, more fat at an average age of 2% years than the record of her scrub dam at an average age of seven years. 7. The greatest increase shown by any of the first gen- eration grades is that of no. 175 by the second Guernsey bull used. This heifer as a 2-year-old produced 3451.0 pounds, or 131%, more milk and 179.22 pounds, or 136%, more fat than the average record of her scrub dam reared at the station. How- ever, the average records at an average age of three years made by the first generation grades by the first Guernsey sire used, are not quite equal to those of their mature dams. 8. Variation in the ability of sires to transmit dairy qualities is a factor to be considered in selecting a purebred bull to head a scrub or common herd as well as for a high grade or purebred herd. 9. In persistency of milk production the grades were inter- mediate between the scrub and the purebred cows in the herd. 10. The first generation grades are much superior to their dams in dairy conformation. 11. Many of the first generation grades show the characteris- tic color of their sire 's breed ; however, in the case of the Hoi- steins this was not so pronounced until the second generation. 12. There was no appreciable difference between the scrub and grade calves so far as coefficient of digestion is concerned, but the grades had a greater capacity for handling concentrates than had the scrubs. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 155 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION BEEF-PRODUCTION I. FEED REQUIREMENTS II. FEED-COST OF PRODUCTION BY T. L. HAECKER CHIEF OF DIVISION OF DAIRY AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY UNIVERSITY FARM, ST. PAUL MARCH 1916 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION STATION STAFF A. F. WOODS, MA., DAgr., Director A. D. WILSON, B.S. in Agr., Director of Agricultural Extension and Farmers' Institutes C. G. SELVIG, MA., Superintendent, Northwest Substation M. J. THOMPSON, M.S., Superintendent, Northeast Substation O. I. BERGH, B.S.Agr., Superintendent, North Central Substation E. C. HIGBIE, M.A., Superintendent, \Vest Central Substation CHARLES HARALSON, Superintendent, Fruit-Breeding Farm, Excelsior W. P. KIRKWOOD, B.A., Editor HARRIET W. SEWALL, B.A., Librarian T. J. HORTON, Photographer R. W. THATCHER, MA., Agricultural Chemist E. DANA DURAND, Ph.D., Agricultural Economist JOHN T. STEWART, C.E., Agricultural Engineer ANDREW Boss, Agriculturist FRANCIS JAGER, Apiculturist T. L. HAECKER, Chairman, Division of Dairy and Animal Husbandry F. L. WASHBURN, MA., Chairman, Division of Economic Zoology E. G. CHEYNEY, B.A., Forester W. G. BRIERLEY, M.S. in Hort, Chairman, Division of Horticulture F. J. ALWAY, Ph.D., Soils Chemist E. M. FREEMAN, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist and Botanist M. H. REYNOLDS, B.S. A., M.D., D.V.M., Chairman, Division of Veterinary Science DIVISION OF DAIRY AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY T. L. HAECKER, Dairy and Animal Husbandman Section of Animal Husbandry J. S. MONTGOMERY, B.S. in Agr., Assistant Animal Husbandman. Horses T. G. PATERSON, B.S. in Agr., Assistant Animal Husbandman. Beef Cattle and Sheep R. C". ASHBY, M.S., Assistant Animal Husbandman. Swine Section of Dairy Husbandry R. M. WASIIBURN, M.S. A., Dairy Husbandman. Dairy Manufacture GrsTAv W. GEIIRAND, Ph.B., Assistant Dairy Husbandman. Dairy Stock and Production K. O. HANSON, Assistant in Dairy Laboratory Section of 1'iiullry 1 1 nshandry A. C. SMITH, B.S., Poultry Husbandman I). J. LANK, Assistant in Poultry Husbandry Section of . Iniutal Xnlrition MII.DRKTII HAGGARD, I'-. A., Chemist in Animal Nutrition AGNES Lkicsox, Assistant Chemist in Animal Nutrition W. F. CANTWKI.L, 15. S. in Clieni.. Assistant Chemist in Animal Nutrition INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION BEEF-PRODUCTION By T. L. HAECKER INTRODUCTION During our investigations in feed requirements in milk-production, covering a period of fifteen years ending in the spring of 1909, much new and valuable information was obtained in regard to feed and nutrient requirements under fairly normal conditions and rational methods of feeding for milk-production. The practical application of the data secured in these investigations was published in popular form in Bulletin 130, and the details of the work were set forth in Bulletin 140. The demand for Bulletin 130 has required the issue of 100,000 copies. When definite and authentic information on milk-production meets with such universal favor by owners of milk cows, it is reason- able to assume that similar information bearing on rearing and fatten- ing of steers for beef-production will meet with favor. The plan of investigation is the same as the plan of the investigation of feed and nutrient requirements for milk-production. The results will be discussed first from the standpoint of total feed requirements and the general feed-cost of production ; second, from the standpoint of the dry matter and available nutrients required in the various stages of growth and fattening, and the relation of these nutri- ents to the tissues in the body. The data under Feed Requirements give new and definite informa- tion that has been needed for many years, and are of permanent value, as the feed or nutriment required to produce a given product is now what it was a decade ago and will be the same a decade hence. The data under Feed-Cost of Production, on the other hand, give only gen- eral, not definite, information, because prices of feed-stuffs vary and price levels change. I. FEED REQUIREMENTS Beginning in the autumn of 1891, seven calves were used for study- ing the feed and nutrient requirements in the growing and fattening of steers in comparison with like requirements for cows for milk- production. In the experiments in feeding dairy cows to determine the nutriment required in milk-production, it was found that certain cows 4 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION converted feed to both milk and gain in body weight. In the experi- ment on the food of maintenance there was also some slight gain in body weight. In order to make even approximate deductions of the nutriment actually required for the production of a given unit of dairy product, and the amount of nutriment actually required for the main- tenance of a given weight of animal body, it was necessary to know the amount that was diverted to gain in body weight. There were no available data on this point. Experiments in feeding for gain in weight had been conducted for the purpose of calculating the cost of gain, the amount of gain to a given quantity of grain or roughage con- sumed, and in a few cases, the amount of dry matter consumed to a given gain ; but nothing had been done in regard to the nutriment re- quired for a pound of gain. To get some information on this point, all feed-stuffs consumed by the seven calves from birth until they weighed, on an average, 1,000 pounds, were weighed and analyzed, and complete computations were made of the feed consumed, its nutriment content, and the relation of nutriment consumed to gain in body weight. The data were not then offered for publication because they related to matters not entirely within the province of the Division of Dairy Husbandry. In 1907 the experimental and educational work of the Division of Dairy Husbandry was enlarged to include animal nutrition, and provi- sion was made for the equipment of an analytical laboratory and the employment of analysts. During the winter of 1907-08 it was decided to inaugurate a series of experiments with beef -bred calves to de- termine their composition by making a complete chemical analysis of a fairly representative one at each period of 100 pounds gain in weight, and also to keep a complete record of all food consumed by each ani- mal and the dry matter and digestible nutrients required for production to the various stages of growth. All the steers employed in the investigation in animal nutrition with respect to beef -production were kept in the barn during their life- time, except that half the steers from Groups III, V, and VII were turned to pasture when they were one year old. During the first year they were all kept in small portable stalls. During the second year those that were retained in the barn on continuous stall-feeding had the freedom of a runway in the barn, and were confined in portable stanchions only while they were eating their rations. For this purpose each steer was assigned to a definite place in the row of stanchions. Each steer was tagged on the ear with a number corresponding with the number over the stanchion to which he belonged. By strictly ad- hering to this method, each one soon knew his place. On each manger, numerals were placed with crayon showing the pounds of grain, hay, and silage that made up his daily ration. Each steer always received FEED REQUIREMENTS 5 as much hay and silage as he would eat, and the amount of grain re- quired was determined by the feeder. The chief reliance in estimating the amount of grain needed, was the odor given off from the feces. A fetid smell indicates that more grain is taken than is needed. The general conduct of the steers and their general appearance also were noted. Eating the ration quickly, restlessness, and looking for more, indicate a need of more feed; while slow feeding, failure to clean up the feed box, and sluggishness in movement indicate that less feed is needed. In a general way, it was soon found that increasing the grain ration 0.2 of a pound every alternate Monday morning would meet the requirements, though there were deviations from this general rule with certain individuals, and with all at certain seasons of the year. The variations in individual steers with respect to the amount of grain required for normal growth or gain caused corresponding variations in their weights at the end of the second year, ranging from 1,000 to 1,400 pounds with approximately the same degree of finish. They were fed twice a day with strict regularity as to time and quan- tity of feed given. They always had access to water and salt, and the runway was bedded with mill shavings. Every Monday morning, each steer was taken to platform scales to be weighed. For a time, they were weighed on scales the platform of which was scarcely large enough to hold them and was raised about ten inches above the level of the floor. The deliberate way in which they approached the scales and carefully and slowly mounted the platform and then stood still to be weighed, was exceedingly interesting. The pasture steers of Group V, after returning from pasture, were kept in an open yard without any shelter, from October 16 to June 9, except while they were eating their rations ; while those of Group VII were kept in a runway in the barn from November 1 to August 1 , following. During the winter of 1907-08 a group of beef -bred calves was chosen and designated as Group II, and the seven steers previously re- ferred to were designated as Group I. Of Group II, ten were slaugh- tered for analysis and the others in demonstration work for classes in cutting and curing of meats. None of the animals was finished for market. For this reason the feeding records for Group II are not in- cluded in this bulletin. In May, 1908, a circular letter was sent to several breeders of beef cattle, specifying the kind of calves wanted for a new group for carry- ing on our investigation in beef-production. On May 31 there were 29 calves averaging 99.6 pounds in weight. All feed was weighed as fed and composition of feed-stuffs determined by chemical analysis. Spe- cial instructions were given not to feed more than each would eat up clean and utilize. They received from 8 to 10 pounds of whole milk 6 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION per day for two or three weeks, according to the judgment of the feeder, and then a gradual change was made to separator skim milk. The roughage fed was choice upland prairie hay and corn silage. The concentrates were farm grains and their standard by-products, such as bran, flour middlings, and oil meal, except that 5 pounds of blood meal was fed to each calf in Group III during the time it made the first 200 pounds gain. The special object in presenting this bulletin is to show the amount and kind of feed needed by a calf to make normal and economical growth under the conditions described for each approximate gain of 100 pounds in body weight. TABLE I FEED CONSUMED AND ACTUAL GAIN MADE DURING THE VARIOUS STAGES OF GROWTH — GROUP III Week Ending Weight Milk Skim Milk Grain Hay Silage Gain May 31, 1908 Lbs. 99.6 Lbs. 329 Lbs. 98 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Sept. 27, 1908 Dec. 20, 1908 Mch. 14, 1909 June 13, 1909 Aug. 22, 1909 200.0 295.9 404.1 503.5 597.7 70 994 693 378 99.7 138.6 249.2 392.0 383.6 113.8 167.6 272.4 434.0 464.8 34.3 283.2 312.0 419.7 121.1 100.4 95.9 108.2 99.4 94.2 Total 399 • | 2,163 | 1,263.1 | 1,452.6 | 1,170.3 498.1 Oct. 24, 1909 Jan. 2, 1910 Mch. 6, 1910 May 15, 1910 July 17, 1910 Oct. 9, 1910 702.2 799.3 899.9 1,000.6 1,099.1 1,201.3 ... ... 401.8 522.2 519.0 641.8 622.3 865.0 510.9 659.1 654.6 767.3 744.7 1,006.3 104.5 97.1 100.6 100.7 98.5 102.2 Two-year-olds ... 3,572.1 4,342.9 603.6 Total to Total to Total to .... Total to .... 1,201.3 1,302.5 1,400.6 1,500.0 399 399 399 399 2,163 2,163 2,163 2,163 4,835.2 5,669.7 6,523.0 7,428.8 5,795.5 6,581.5 7,351.5 7,911.5 1,170.3 2,234.7 3,410.7 5,146.7 1,101.7 1,202.9 1,301.0 1,400.4 Table I shows that from the time of the arrival of the calves to May 31, 1908, when they weighed, on an average, 99.6 pounds, they had consumed, per head, 329 pounds of whole milk and 98 of skim milk ; that September 27 they weighed 200 pounds, having made an average gain of 100.4 pounds on 70 pqunds of milk,. 994 of skim milk, 99.7 of grain, 113.8 of hay, and 34.3 of corn silage; that December 20 they weighed 295.9 pounds, having made an average gain of 95.9 pounds on 693 pounds of skim milk, 138.6 of grain, 167.6 of hay, and 283.2 of corn silage, and so on to August 22, 1909, when they weighed 597.7 pounds, having made 498.1 pounds of gain on 399 pounds of milk, 2,163 of skim milk, 1,263.1 of grain, 1,452.6 of hay, and 1,170.3 of silage. FEED REQUIREMENTS In the second subdivision of the table are given the dates of the various stages of growth, the weight, feed consumed, and actual gain made. The gain of 603.6 pounds during the time covered by the second subdivision required 3,572.1 pounds of grain and 4,342.9 of hay. Six of the steers were fed until their average weight was 1,302.5 pounds, as it was desired to obtain the composition of a steer of that degree of finish. The feed required is given in the same line, and in the last two lines the feed consumed to bring them to 1,400 and to 1,500 pounds. Table II gives the amount of the different kinds of feed in the grain mixture consumed during the various periods, the total during the first year, and the second year. TABLE II KINDS AND AMOUNTS OF FEED-STUFFS IN THE GRAIN MIXTURE— GROUP III Weight Grain Corn Barley Bran Oil Meal Blood Meal Oats Lbs. 99.6 200.0 295.9 404.1 503.5 597.7 Lbs. 99.7 138.6 249.2 392.0 383.6 Lbs. 48.9 32.5 45.5 71.3 69.7 Lbs. 23.6 45.5 71.3 69.8 Lbs. 29.3 52.6 91.1 142.5 139.5 Lbs. i9.5 27,2 66.8 106.9 104.6 Lbs. 2.0 2.7 0.3 Lbs. Total 1,263.1 267.9 210.2 4550 3250 5.0 702.2 799.3 899.9 1,000.6 1,099.1 1,201.3 401.8 522.2 519.0 641.8 622.3 865.0 73.1 95.0 94.4 116.7 113.1 157.3 73.0 94.9 94.4 116.7 113.2 157.3 146.1 189.9 188.7 233.4 226.3 314.5 109.6 142.4 141.5 175.0 169.7 235.9 1 1 Second year.. 3,572.1 649.6 649.5 1,298.9 974.1 .... Total... 4,835.2 9175 8597 1 7539 12991 50 1,302.5 1,400.6 1,500.0 5,669.7 6,523.0 7,428.8 1,069.2 1,227.3 1,433.6 1,011.4 1,162.0 1,262.6 2,057.4 2,368.6 2,710.8 1,526.7 1,757.6 1,979.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 '2.5 37.8 The results obtained from this group, considering the amount of feed consumed and time required to bring them to 1,200 pounds, were not satisfactory ; they should have reached this weight in approximately two years. In studying the details of the feeding it appears that they were changed too quickly from whole milk to skim milk, and the ration of grain given up to the time they weighed 500 pounds was too light. After that they received as much as and sometimes .more than other groups that made better gain. It was not expected that there would be a profit from fixed rations and stall-feeding throughout the lifetime of the steers but it was expected that they would nearly break even. How- ever, this phase of the subject will be referred to later. In the latter part of April, 1909, another call was made for beef- bred calves approximately one week old at time of shipment, placing special emphasis on the importance of their being of high grade — INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION three or four top-crosses of full-blood sires of good breeding. By May 23, 30 calves had arrived weighing, on an average, 100.5 pounds. Dur- ing the first year they were kept in sections of portable stalls. The second year they were confined in stanchions while they were taking their rations, and the rest of the time had the freedom of a covered runway. Table III gives a complete record of the dates when the group made an approximate gain of 100 pounds, the average amount of milk, skim milk, grain, and roughage consumed for the gain made, their weight as yearlings, the amount of feed consumed, and the gain made during the first year. In the lower subdivision is given a similar record for the second year, and the last line gives the total for the two years. TABLE III FEED CONSUMED AND ACTUAL GAIN MADE DURING THE VARIOUS STAGES OF GROWTH — GROUP IV Week Ending Weight Milk Skim Milk Grain Hay Silage Gain May 23, 1909 Sept. 5, 1909 Dec. 5, 1909 Feb. 2, 1910 Apr. 24, 1910 June 12, 1910 Lbs. 100.5 202.7 302.3 404.2 501.4 600.0 Lbs. 225 197 Lbs. 52 936 322 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 92.7 253.2 286.9 278.3 249.4 i03.9 327.1 402.4 383.0 346.2 102.2 99.6 101.9 97.2 98.6 154.6 328.6 288.6 222.5 From calf to 12 months 422 | 1,310 1,160.5 1,562.6 994.3 499.5 Aug. 14, 1910 Oct. 2, 1910 Nov. 27, 1910 Jan. 22, 1911 Mch. 26, 1911 May 21, 1911 692.3 796.5 903.0 1,002.3 1,104.7 1,204.1 ... 370.5 339.6 427.0 435.5 543.6 566.1 519.5 474.7 571.2 549.1 553.1 369.0 155.9 .216.3 625.2 793.0 957.9 92.3 104.2 106.5 99.3 102.4 99.4 From 12 to 24 months 2,682.3 3,036.6 2,748.3 604.1 Total 422 1,310 3,842.8 4,599.2 3,742.6 1,103.6 The calves attained a weight of 600 pounds in about 13 months, and of 1,204.1 pounds in 24 months, while Group III required 28 months. To reach the 600-pound weight, the steers in Group IV received 23 pounds more whole milk, 853 pounds less skim milk, 102 pounds less grain, and 169 pounds less roughage, counting 3 pounds of silage equiv- alent to a pound of hay. Group IV reached the 1,200-pound weight on 992 pounds less grain, 339 pounds less roughage, 853 pounds less skim milk, and 23 pounds more whole milk. Most of the calves in the two groups came from the same farms. The environment of the two groups was the same. The same feed as to quality and kind was given, but Group IV received a greater portion of the roughage consumed in the form of corn silage. The cause of the difference in results obtained from the two groups is a matter of vital importance. If followed up, results like the former would lead to great losses and in time financial FEED REQUIREMENTS ruin, while the latter would yield profit if market conditions were any where near right. Group IV received more animal nutrients and less plant nutrients than Group III in growing from the 100-pound to the 200-pound weight. The time of change from animal to plant nutri- ment is the critical period with the young. The calves were also brought to a larger ration than those in Group III in growing from 100 to 200 pounds weight, but it is quite likely that the difference in results was chiefly brought about by the better- trained eye of the feeder of Group IV. TABLE IV KINDS AND AMOUNTS OF FEED-STUFFS IN THE GRAIN MIXTURE — GROUP IV Weight Grain Corn Barley Lbs. 100.5 202.7 302.3 404.2 501.4 600.0 Lbs. 927 253.2 286.9 278.3 249.4 Lbs. 16.9 46.0 52.2 50.6 45.3 Lbs. 16.8 46.0 52.2 50.6 45.4 Lbs. 337 92.1 104.3 101.2 907 Lbs. 25^3 ' 69.1 78.2 75.9 68.0 Lbs. First yea r 1,160.5 211.0 211.0 422.0 316.5 — 692.3 796.5 903.0 1,002.3 1,104.7 1,204.1 370.5 339.6 427.0 435.5 543.6 566.1 67.4 61.7 77.6 79.2 156.4 169.8 67.4 61.8 77.6 79.2 10.3 1347 123.5 155.3 158.3 215.4 226.5 101.0 92.6 116.5 118.8 112.8 113.2 487 56.6 Second year. "Total" | 2,682.3 612.1 | 296.3 1,0137 | 654.9 105.3 | 3,842.8 | 823.1 | 507.3 | 1,435.7 | 971.4 j 105.3 Table IV gives the amount of the different grains fed to Group IV during the two years. During the first year, the grain mixture was two parts each of ground corn and barley, four parts of bran, and three parts of linseed meal. During the second year, barley gradually in- creased in price, and in the 1,100-pound period a gradual change to ground oats was made. The latter part of April, 1910, when Group IV had attained a weight of 500 pounds, another circular letter was sent to farmers who had previously furnished calves of satisfactory breeding and type, re- questing the shipment during May of new-born beef-bred calves. Judg- ing from the rate at which the calves came, it appeared that farmers were eager to dispose of their beef-bred calves without question as to price, since before the shipments could be stopped 64 calves arrived in Minneapolis by express. A few days after the arrival of the calves, when their digestive systems contained a normal amount of food, they were weighed. The average weight was 79 pounds. On the morning of May 29, 45 calves were selected for the experiment and the others were sold for veal when in proper condition. Those selected averaged 101 pounds in weight. 10 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION Table V gives the dates when the calves reached a given weight, the feed consumed during each approximate hundred pounds of gain, and the total consumed up to the time when they were a year old; the amount consumed during the second year ; and the total during the two years. TABLE V FEED CONSUMED AND ACTUAL GAIN MADE DURING THE VARIOUS STAGES OF GROWTH — GROUP V Week Ending Weight Milk Skim Milk Grain Hay Silage Gain May 29, 1910 Sept. 11, 1910 Nov. 13, 1910 Jan. 15, 1911 Mch. 19, 1911 May 14, 1911 Lbs. 101.0 199.3 295.1 399.2 505.6 602.7 Lbs. 299 205 Lbs. 49 813 476 Lbs. 9a9 195.6 257.9 302.6 295.4 Lbs. 99.3 220.8 261.9 277.7 278.3 Lbs. 90!6 370.7 494.8 520.9 Lbs. 98.3 95.8 104.1 106.4 97.1 From calf to 12 months | 504 | 1,338 | 1,142.4 | 1,138.0 | 1,476.4 501.7 July 16, 1911 Sept 10 1911 698.9 8006 382.2 4228 358.8 466 1 580.6 96.2 101 7 Nov. 26, 1911 Jan. 21, 1912 Mch. 31, 1912 June 9, 1912 903.6 998.5 1,098.4 1,200.9 ... ... 655.2 492.1 691.6 764.6 643.0 258.4 280.0 296.8 131.4 838.2 1,207.8 1,212.4 103.0 94.9. 99.9 102.5 From 12 to 24 months | 3,408.5 | 2,303.1 | 3,970.4 598.2 Total | | 504 | 1,338 | 4,550.9 | 3,441.1 | 5,446.8 | 1,099.9 There is remarkable uniformity in the records of Groups IV and V, especially up to the 800-pound stage, up to which time Group V was a little in the lead, scoring 600 pounds on May 14, while Group IV did not weigh that until June 12 ; and Group V weighed 800 pounds Sep- tember 10, while Group IV weighed 796 pounds October 2. They reached the 903-pound mark on practically a tie, Group IV reaching it November 27, while Group V reached it one day earlier. They also kept abreast during the 1,000- and 1,100-pound periods. During the 1,200-pound period, Group V required twelve days more than Group IV. In examining the feeding record it is found in both instances that Group V slackened its rate of gain after a change in the grain mixture. In going from 100 to 600 pounds in weight the steers in Group IV consumed 18 pounds more grain and 363 pounds more roughage, while during the time the two groups were gaining from 600 to 1 ,200 pounds the steers in Group V consumed 1,726 pounds more grain and 327 pounds less roughage than did those in Group IV. How such a differ- ence in grain required to make a given gain can be avoided is a mat- ter of vital importance. In the case of Group IV there was only one change in the grain mixture during the second year, while with Group V there were four changes. Since Group V consumed less grain during the first year than Group IV and so much more during the second year, a comparison of the FEED REQUIREMENTS 11 amounts of the different kinds of grain consumed by the two groups during the two years is of more than ordinary interest. In the first place, barley had to be discontinued because the price rose beyond its feeding value, so oats was substituted. Second, during the second year another change was made by withdrawing bran and replacing it with flour middlings. The latter is a better feed but only a trifle more than half the quantity was fed. During the second year Group IV had 612 pounds of corn and 655 of oil meal, while Group V had 1,764 pounds of corn and 444 of oil meal. There is almost conclusive evidence that too much corn and too little oil meal was fed, and also that too many changes in the grain mixture were made. TABLE VI KINDS AND AMOUNTS OF FEED-STUFFS IN THE GRAIN MIXTURE — GROUP V Weight Grain Corn Barley Bran Oil Meal Oats Mid- dlings Lbs. 101.0 199.3 295.1 399.2 505.6 602.7 Lbs. 9a9 195.6 257.9 302.6 295.4 Lbs. 16.5 35.6 46.9 83.3 88.6 Lbs. 16.5 35.6 46.9 11.5 Lbs. 33! i 71.1 93.8 118.7 118.2 Lbs. 24.S 53.3 70.3 65.1 59.1 Lbs. 240 29.5 Lbs. Total... 1,142.4 270.9 110.5 434.9 272.6 53.5 698.9 800.6 903.6 998.5 1,098.4 1,200.9 382.2 422.8 655.2 492.1 691.6 764.6 114.7 126.8 239.3 276.8 471.4 535.2 . . .. 152.9 169.1 176.7 18.5 76.4 84.6 88.3 49.2 69.2 76.5 38.2 42.3 65.5 49.2 69.1 76.5 85.4 98.4 81.9 76.4 Second year 3,408.5 1,764.2 517.2 444.2 340.8 | 342.1 Total... | 4,550.9 | 2,035.1 110.5 952.1 716.8 394.3 342.1 In the spring of 1911 there was no call for calves because so much material had accumulated in the analytical laboratory and so many data had been acquired that it was necessary to postpone the feeding experi- ments for a year. Letters, however, were received from farmers who had previously sent calves, expressing a desire to furnish their usual quota. During the latter part of April, 1912, another call was made for beef -bred calves. This letter brought only a few. Another letter was sent and a few more came. As a last resort a prominent breeder of beef cattle was engaged to solicit shipments, and by June 23, 21 calves were secured. This was a new experience and quite the reverse of that when Group V was being formed. There is also ample evidence that it was quite the reverse of what would have happened had a group been called for in the spring of 1911. 12 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION Table VII is a record of the dates when the calves attained a given weight, the feed consumed in making the gain, the gain made and feed consumed the first year and during the second year, and the total gain and feed consumed during the two years. TABLE VII FEED CONSUMED AND ACTUAL GAIN MADE DURING THE VARIOUS STAGES OF GROWTH — GROUP VI Week Ending Weight Milk Skim Milk Grain Hay Silage Gain May 13, 1912 Lbs. 116.0 Lbs. 138 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Sept. 4, 1912 199.4 362 848 964 1002 83.4 Nov. 24, 1912 Feb. 2, 1913 Mch. 30, 1913 May 18, 1913 298.3 397.2 501.2 606.1 700 49 190.5 242.5 229.9 244.5 235.7 268.6 233.3 243.8 56.0 426.7 670.2 651.2 98.9 98.9 104.0 104.9 From calf to 12 months 500 | 1,597 | 1,003.8 | 1,081.6 \ 1,804.1 490.1 July 6, 1913 Sept. 14, 1913 Nov. 23, 1913 Jan. 25, 1914 April 12, 1914 May 10, 1914 702.4 804.7 897.6 1,001.7 1,101.8 1,135.7 ... ... 284.0 608.6 692.9 600.7 698.0 262.1 280.6 625.7 534.9 426.9 402.2 138.6 693.8 39.9 361.0 683.4 1,219.6 509.9 96.3 102.3 92.9 104.1 100.1 33.9 From 12 to 24 months ... | 3,146.3 2,408.9 3,507.6 529.6 Total.. . 500 | 1,597 I 4,150.1 | 3,490.5 | 5,311.7 | 1,019.7 For reasons stated, the record of Group VI begins with a few calves with an average weight of 116 pounds and after having consumed 138 pounds of milk. The majority of the calves arrived after the first of June and since it was not known how they were fed before shipment, the usual amount of whole and skim milk was fed. The feed consumed by the time they weighed approximately 200 pounds was the same as the other groups had. They reached a weight of 600 pounds about the time the preceding two groups did. They used 138 pounds less grain and 52 pounds more roughage during the first year than did Group V. The grain consumed during the second year was 3,146 pounds, being 262 pounds less than Group V had. The roughage con- sumed was 4,162 pounds, counting three pounds of corn silage equal to one pound of hay. The grain consumed during the two years was 4,150 pounds, being 388 pounds less than was taken by Group V. On account of a shortage in feed and a lack of available funds, the group was sold before it reached the weight of 1,200 pounds. As will be seen by Table VIII, the grains were fed in equal parts up to the last three periods in the second year, when barley was in- cluded in the grain mixture. This was done because barley had dropped in price to a point where it could be fed to advantage. Corn was also increased and oil meal reduced. FEED REQUIREMENTS 13 TABLE VIII KINDS AND AMOUNTS OF FEED-STUFFS IN THE GRAIN MIXTURE — GROUP VI Weight Grain Corn Oats Bran Oil Meal Mid- dlings Barley Lbs. 1160 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 199.4 298.3 397.2 501.2 606.1 96.4 190.5 242.5 229.9 244.5 21.6 38.1 48.5 45.9 48.9 18.8 38.1 48.5 46.0 48.9 ISA 38.1 48.5 46.0 48.9 18.8 38.1 48.5 46.0 48.9 is.s 38.1 48.5 46.0 48.9 .... First year | 1,003.8 203.0 200.3 199.9 200.3 200.3 702.4 804.7 897.6 1,001.7 1,101.8 1,135.7 284.0 608.6 692.9 600.7 698.0 262.1 56.8 121.7 138.6 166.9 209.4 78.7 56.8 121.7 138.6 73.3 69.8 26.2 56.8 121.7 . 138.6 73.4 69.8 26.2 56.8 121.7 138.6 73.4 69.8 26.2 56.8 121.8 138.5 120.1 139.6 52.4 93.6 139.6 52.4 Second year 3,146.3 772.1 486.4 | 486.5 486.5 | 629.2 | 285.6 Total... | 4,150.1 | 975.1 | 686.7 | 686.4 | 686.8 | 829.5 | 285.6 The latter part of April, 1913, a circular letter was sent out notify- ing the men who had furnished calves for this experiment that another consignment of calves was desired during the month of May. Later a second letter was sent out. No calves came in response to these calls. Then the same person who had collected calves for Group VI was engaged to secure the calves for Group VII. On June 2, 4 calves were secured averaging 141.5 pounds in weight. By July 6 the group num- bered 13, averaging 144.54 pounds. By July 27 the group numbered 25, weighing, on an average, 136 pounds, and by August 10, 30 had been secured averaging 146.5 pounds. The cause of the difficulty in securing calves for the experiment will be referred to later. TABLE IX FEED CONSUMED AND ACTUAL GAIN MADE DURING THE VARIOUS STAGES OF GROWTH — GROUP VII Week Ending Weight Milk Skim Milk Grain Hay Silage Gain June 16, 1913 Sept 21, 1913 Nov. 30, 1913 Feb. 1, 1914 Apr. 12, 1914 May 31, 1914 Lbs. 141.5 194.4 306.3 403.2 500.8 601.0 Lbs. 230 245 Lbs. 802 696 389 Lbs. '98.1 212.7 243.7 306.5 261.1 Lbs. iis!9 232.4 283.2 340.8 264.1 Lbs. '77.9 223.7 510.8 569.7 Lbs. *52i9 111.9 96.9 97.6 100.2 From calf to 12 months | 475 1,887 | 1,122.1 | 1,236.4 | 1,382.1 459.5 July 19, 1914 Sept 6, 1914 Nov. 15, 1914 Jan. 17, 1915 Mch. 14, 1915 May 23, 1915 695.6 799.8 902.9 999.7 1,096.3 1,197.5 334.2 363.4 585.3 584.9 572.5 763.5 482.7 350.4 383.8 294.2 252.8 289.8 102.8 565.4 1,176.4 1,320.2 1,136.1 1,315.6 94.6 104.2 103.1 96.8 96.6 101.2 From 12 to 24 months | ... ... | 3,203.8 2,053.7 5,616.5 596.5 Total | 475 | 1,887 | 4,325.9 | 3,290.1 | 6,998.6 | 1,056.0 14 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION The calves were fed milk and skim milk the same as the other groups. The amount of grain and hay consumed was a trifle more than was the case with the groups preceding, and they reached the 600- pound weight at about the same time. During the second year they consumed 56.5 pounds more grain and 397.8 pounds more roughage than did Group VI, but they weighed 1,197.5 pounds when they were sent to market, while Group VI weighed only 1,135.7 pounds. TABLE X KINDS AND AMOUNTS OF FEED-STUFFS IN THE GRAIN MIXTURE — GROUP VII Weight Grain Corn Oats Bran Mid- dlings Oil Meal Barley Lbs. 141.5 194.4 306.3 403.2 500.8 601.0 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 98.1 212.7 243.7 306.5 261.1 19.6 42.6 48.7 61.3 52.2 19.6 42.6 48.7 61.3 52.2 19.6 42.5 48.8 61.3 52.3 19.6 42.5 48.8 61.3 52.2 19.7 42.5 48.7 61.3 52.2 First year | 1,122.1 224.4 224.4 224.5 224.4 224.4 695.6 799.8 902.9 999.7 1,096.3 1,197.5 334.2 363.4 585.3 584.9 572.5 763.5 66.8 72.7 117.1 117.0 158.4 458.1 66.8 72.7 117.1 117.0 107.2 76.3 66.8 72.7 117.1 116.9 42.0 66.9 72.7 117.0 117.0 114.5 152.7 66.9 72.6 117.0 117.0 114.5 76.4 35!9 Second year 3,203.8 990.1 | 557.1 | 415.5 640.8 564.4 35.9 35.9 Total... | 4,325.9 1,214.5 | 781.5 | 640.0 865.2 788.8 It will be seen from Table X that the grains fed during the time the group was in the experiment were a mixture composed of equal parts until the steers weighed approximately 1,000 pounds. The corn was increased and the bran decreased while they were making the 1,100- pound weight. In going from the 1,100- to the 1,200-pound weight the bran was discontinued, the oats and oil meal decreased, and the corn materially increased. In the foregoing tables have been given the average weights of the steers at the various stages of growth, the average gain, and the aver- age amounts of the different feed-stuffs consumed, the total amount during the first year, during the second year, and during the two years, for each group. SUMMARY OF FEED REQUIREMENTS The following tables present similar data based on the average of all the steers in the five groups so as to get more definite data in regard to the normal growth during the various stages and the feed require- ments necessary to convert a calf into a 1,200-pound steer ready for market in approximately two years. SUMMARY OF FEED REQUIREMENTS 15 TABLE XI SUMMARY OF THE FIVE GROUPS, GIVING AVERAGE WEIGHT OF STEERS AND FEED CONSUMED PER STEER Period Weight Gain Milk Skim Milk Grain Hay Silage Lbs. — to 100 100 — 200 200-300 300 — 400 400 — 500 500 — 600 Lbs. 111.7 199.2 299.6 401.6 502.5 601.5 Lbs. '87.5 100.4 102.0 100.9 99.0 Lbs. 244 216 Lbs. 40 879 577 163 Lbs. '95.6 198.1 256.0 301.9 286.8 Lbs. i6o\6 236.7 297.7 333.8 319.4 Lbs. 6.9 132.3 332.3 476.8 417,1 From calf to 12 months 489.8 460 1,659 1,138.4 1,294.2 1,365.4 600— 700 700— 800 800— 900 900 — 1,000 1,000 — 1,100 1,100—1,200 698.3 800.2 901.4 1,000.6 1,100.1 1,200.9 96.8 101.9 101.2 99.2 99.5 100.8 ... ... 354.6 451.3 575.9 551.0 625.6 739.8 430.5 515.2 557.5 459.2 446.6 490.5 306.6 121.1 377.0 693.4 871.3 871.5 From 12 to 24 mdnths 599.4 3,298.2 2,899.5 3,240.9 Total to 1,200.9 1,302.5 1,400.6 1.500.0 1,089.2 1,190.8 1,288.9 1.388.3 460 460 460 460 1,659 1,659 1,659 1.659 4,436.6 5,271.1 6,124.4 7.030.2 4,193.7 4,979.7 5,749.7 6.309.7 4,606.3 5,670.7 6,846.7 8.582.7 Total to Total to Total to . . Table XI tells a story of great importance to every one directly or indirectly interested in the promotion of agriculture, the restoration and maintenance of soil fertility, and the reestablishment and main- tenance of the beef industry. It reveals at a glance what a farmer has to stake for every hundred-pounds' growth of the steer. It tells the story in terms which every farmer and farm laborer can understand. On the one side there is the new, grade, beef -bred calf ; on the other, two years later, is the finished steer weighing 1,200 pounds. Between them is the record of the material required to bring about this change. It was 460 pounds of milk, 1,659 of skim milk, 4,436.6 of grain, 4,193.7 of hay, and 4,606.3 of corn silage. Following the total required for bringing a steer to 1,200 pounds, is added the total feed required to bring to a weight of 1,300, 1,400, and 1,500 pounds. The table, however, does not give the kind and amount of the differ- ent feed-stuffs included in the "grain" column in Table XL This is given in Table XII. Table XII shows that during the first year the calves received, on an average, 1,138.4 pounds of grain, composed of 235.5 pounds of corn, 106.4 of barley, 347.2 of bran, 267.8 of linseed meal, 85.0 of flour mid- dlings, and 95.6 of oats. To this should be added 0.9 of a pound of blood meal fed to Group III. Had clover or alfalfa been fed instead of wild hay, less than half the amount of linseed meal would have been needed. On account of the high price of oats and barley, small amounts of these were fed. From the experience obtained in the 10 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION supervision of these feeding experiments we would in the future in- verse the proportions of bran and flour middlings in rations for beef- production. But the amount of grain fed during the first year cannot be materially reduced if the calves are to weigh 600 pounds when they are one year old. So far as the feeding and management of these calves during the first year is concerned, any farmer can do the same with a fair promise of profit. TABLE XII SUMMARY OF THE FIVE GROUPS, GIVING AVERAGE AMOUNTS OF THE VARIOUS FEED-STUFFS IN THE GRAIN MIXTURE Period | Weight | Grain | Corn | Bar ley | Bran |QiTMeal|Midds.| Oats Lbs. — to 100 100— 200 200— 300 300— 400 400— 500 500— 600 Lbs. 111.7 199.2 299.6 401.6 502.5 601.5 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 95.6 198.1 256.0 301.9 286.8 24.7 39.0 48.4 62.5 60.9 6.7 21.0 28.9 26.7 23.1 26.8 59.3 77.3 93.9 89.9 21.6 46.1 62.5 71.0 66.6 7.7 16.1 19.5 21.5 20.2 7.7 16.1 19.4 26.3 26.1 From calf to 12 months] 1,138.4 235.5 106.4 347.2 267.8 85.0 95.6 600— 700 700— 800 800— 900 900 — 1,000 1,000—1,100 1,100 — 1,200 698.3 800.2 901.4 1,000.6 1,100.1 1,200.9 354.6 451.3 575.9 551.0 625.6 739.8 75.8 95.6 133.4 151.3 221.7 330.1 28.1 31.3 34.4 57.9 59.8 39.3 111.5 135.4 155.3 120.1 110.7 135.3 82.1 102.8 120.4 106.7 107.2 125.5 24.7 38.9 68.2 67.1 67.2 57.3 32.4 47.3 64.2 47.9 59.0 52.3 From 12 to 24 months 3,298.2 1,007.9 250.8 768.3 644.7 323.4 303.1 Total to Total to Total to Total to 1,200.9 1,302.5 1,400.6 1,500.0 4,436.6 5,271.1 6,124.4 7,030.2 1,243.4 1,395.1 1,553.2 1,759.5 357.2 508.9 659.5 760.1 1,115.5 1,419.0 1,730.2 2,072.4 912.5 1,140.1 1,371.0 1,592.4 408.4 408.4 408.4 408.4 398.7 398.7 401.2 436.5 During the second year the steers kept on continuous stall- feeding consumed on an average 3,298.2 pounds of grain, composed of 1,007.9 pounds of ground corn, 250.8 of ground barley, 768.3 of bran, 644.7 of linseed meal, 323.4 of flour middlings, and 303.1 of ground oats. It is not claimed 'that the proportion in which the different concentrates were fed was the best that could be made in practical feeding. The aim was to make sure that they were provided with an ample supply of proteids and soluble ash so they could make maximum body growth under rational methods of feeding. Data obtained, but which cannot be presented now, indicate that oats or flour middlings could have been substituted for about half the oil meal fed during the second year and up to the time when the 1,500-pound weight was reached. The record shows that under a system of continuous stall-feeding the steers consumed up to the time their average weight was 1,200.9 pounds: 4,436.6 pounds of grain, of which 1,243.4 pounds was corn, 357.2 barley, 1,115.5 bran, 912.5 linseed meal,' 408.4 flour middlings, FEED-COST OF PRODUCTION 17 and 398.7 oats. This is followed by data showing the amount of con- centrates consumed after the close of the first year to bring certain steers to 1,300, 1,400, and 1,500 pounds. Constant stall-feeding during the second year is not practicable under conditions that exist on the average farm. As the general practice is to turn yearlings to pasture in the spring, some of the nutrition steers were turned to pasture and finished for market after returning from pasture with a view of com- bining the data thus obtained with the data secured from the first- year records, to show feed requirements and cost of production under farm conditions. The results of this phase of the experiment will be given under the heading "Yearlings Turned to Pasture." II. FEED-COST OF PRODUCTION In the morning, when the farmer enters the stable and finds a new- born male calf, his first thought is what disposition to make of him. The average calf has no special breeding; it's just a calf weighing, say, 80 pounds, composed of 54 pounds of water and 22 of inedible dry matter, plus waste, equal to the water- free solids of 130 pounds of milk testing 3.5 per cent fat. His first impulse is to rear him, for he is fond of livestock and knows that as a general proposition it is beneficial to the farm, so the youngster is allowed to live for the present only. During the few days while he is nursing with the dam, the farmer de- cides whether he is to be sold for veal or reared for beef; sold for a stocker or feeder or finished for the market. So a knowledge of the cost of the feed required for the various stages of growth will be very helpful to the farmer in making the best disposition of the calf. Since the major portion of the beef supply must now come from our arable farms, it is of vital importance that conditions are such that there will be no question as to the advisability of rearing the calf. Of course, conditions vary in different localities, on farms especially, with respect to the value of feeds, so every farmer must be governed by the conditions in his locality and on his farm. The feed requirements have been given. If to this is applied the average farm value of feeds in Minnesota during the period covered by the experiment, some much- needed light will be given on the feed-cost of rearing and fattening of steers. The farm prices of grains and hay are based on the reports given in the Yearbooks of the United States Department of Agriculture and the others are estimated. 18 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION PRICES CHARGED FOR FEED- STUFFS 1908-1915 Hay. per ton $ 700- c per Ib ( ^ents )35 j.j.u.j . Silagre. . per ton 250- per Ib 125 Oil meal per ton 3400- per Ib 7 Flour middlings per ton 2600- per Ib 3 Bran per ton 2400- per Ib 2 Corn per bushel 50- per Ib Q Barley per bushel 55- per Ib 1 Oats per bushel 37- per Ib 2 Milk . . .per 100 pounds 1 30- per Ib 3 Skim milk. . .oer 100 oounds .25: oer Ib. .25 TABLE XIII SUMMARY OF THE FIVE GROUPS, GIVING COST OF THEX VARIOUS FEED-STUFFS IN THE GRAIN MIXTURE -d .2 "C M-H £ & 3 a ^ G et ffi c/5 H CO Q Uxi Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Cents 100 111.7 $3.18 $0.10 $328 106 100— 200 199.2 87.5 2.80 2.20 $ 1.19 $ 0.38 $ 0.01 6.58 7.5 200— 300 299.6 100.4 1.44 2.50 .83 17 494 49 300— 400 4016 1020 41 324 104 42 5 11 50 400— 500 502.5 100.9 3.79 1.17 .60 5.56 5.5 500— 600 601.5 99.0 3.60 1.12 .52 5.24 5.3 From calf to 12 months 489.8 5.98 4.15 14.32 4.54 1.72 30.71 6.3 600— 700 698.3 96.8 4.45 1.51 .38 6.34 6.5 700— 800 800.2 101.9 5.67 1.80 .15 7.62 7.5 800— 900 901.4 101.2 7.16 1.95 .47 9.58 9.5 900—1,000 1,000.6 99.2 6.72 1.60 .87 9.19 9.3 1,000—1,100 1,100.1 99.5 7.39 1.56 1.09 10.04 10.0 1,100—1,200 1,200.9 100.8 8.53 1.72 1.09 11.34 11.2 From 12 to 24 months 599.4 39.92 10.14 4.05 54.11 9.0 Total... | 1,200.9 | 1,089.2 5.98 4.15 54.24| 14.68| 5.77 84.82 1 7.8 1,200—1,300 1,302.5 101.6 10.54 2.75 1.33 14.62 14.4 1,300—1,400 1,400.6 98.1 10.77 2.67 1.47 14.91 15.2 1,400—1,500 1,500.0 99.4 11.24 1.96 2.17 15.37 15.4 Total... | | 1,388.3 $5.98 $4.15 $86.79 |$22.06 |$10.74$ 129.72 9.3 Table XIV gives the cost of the different feed-stuffs and the total cost during the various stages of growth, the cost of each kind of feed for the first year, the second year, and for the two years. The items charged against the yearlings are : for grain, $14.32 ; for milk, $5.98 ; for hay, $4.54; for skim milk, $4.15; for silage, $1.72; total, $30.71. For the second year the grain amounts to $39.92; the hay, $10.14; the silage, $4.05; total $54.11. For the two years the total cost for each steer weighing 1,200 pounds is $84.82, or 7.8 cents per pound gained. The total cost for feed to bring the steers to a weight of 1,300 pounds was $99.44; to bring to 1,400 pounds the cost for feed was $114.35, and to 1,500 pounds, $129.72. Attention is especially called to the gradual increase in the cost of one pound of gain in weight. From 600 to 700 pounds it cost 6.5 cents, from 700 to 800 pounds 7.5 cents ; and from 800 to 900 pounds the cost increased to 9.5 cents. In the regular order of increase one would naturally expect that the cost would be approximately 8.5 cents, for in going from 900 to 1,000 pounds it was only 9.3 cents per pound. This discrepancy in cost of gain was caused by the fact that with two of the groups the supply of silage gave out, while with one group there 20 INVESTIGATION IN. ANIMAL NUTRITION was an ample supply and considerable was fed. Had a shortage of sil- age occurred in all groups at that season, the discrepancy in cost of production would have amounted to about 2 cents per pound more than when silage was fed. The gain from 1,000 to 1,100 pounds cost 10 cents per pound; from 1,100 to 1,200 pounds, 11.2 cents per pound; from 1,200 to 1,300 pounds, 14.4 cents per pound; from 1,300 to 1,400 pounds, 14.2 cents per pound; and from 1,400 to 1,500 pounds, 15.4 cents per pound. In view of the fact that the steers were stall-fed during their lifetime, these results, while showing a remarkably low cost of produc- tion under the conditions mentioned, are not applicable to farm con- ditions so far as the cost of production during the second year is con- cerned. Feeding for profit and feeding for scientific investigations are different propositions. The cost of the yearlings is entirely satis- factory, and whether it could be materially reduced under farm con- ditions is a question. It is a fair estimate to assume that under the present methods of feeding and handling, steers are marketed when 30 months old. Under the methods employed in this investigation they were ready for market in from 24 to 25 months. At no time did they receive grain at the rate of one pound per hundred pounds of live weight except while they were being changed from milk nutrients to plant nutrients, and during the short time when little or 'no silage was available, as is shown by Table XV. TABLE XV DAILY GAIN, GRAIN AND ROUGHAGE CONSUMED DURING GIVEN PERIODS ACTUAL PER 100 POUNDS LIVE WEIGHT Period Gain | Grain | Roughage || Grain | Roughage Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. | Lbs. |i Lbs. Lbs. 100 to 200 0.88 0.86 0.99 0.57 0.65 200 to 300 1.37 2,85 3.71 1.14 1.48 300 to 400 1.48 3.79 6.08 1.08 1.74 400 to 500 1.62 4.39 7.45 .98 1.66 500 to 600 1.98 5.17 8.83 .94 1.60 600 to 700 1.71 6.25 8.94 .97 1.38 700 to 800 1.78 7.61 • 9.51 1.01 1.27 800 to 900 1.53 8.53 10.25 1.00 1.20 900 to 1,000 1.62 8.91 11.23 .92 1.18 1,000 to 1,100 1.53 9.49 11.29 .90 1.08 1,100 to 1,200 1.48 10.71 11.16 .93 .97 Table XV shows that the steers were on light feed during their lifetime as compared with the general practice. The term "roughage" includes both hay and corn silage, rating three pounds of silage equal to one pound of hay. During the two periods from 700 to 900 pounds, only one group received a full supply of silage and one group had none. The other groups had none in going from 700 to 800 pounds and only YEARLINGS TURNED TO PASTURE 21 a small amount in going from 800 to 900 pounds. All groups but one were ready for market within 25 months. YEARLINGS TURNED TO PASTURE Three of the groups, when yearlings, were divided into two lots of equal weight; one was turned out to pasture while the other was re- tained for nutrition investigation. The pasture steers of Group III were not returned from pasture in time to get normal results from a feeding-experiment, so some were sold while others were used in class- demonstration work in butchering. But the pasture steers of Group V were returned at the proper time and after a week's preliminary feeding, to get a fair normal weight, were started on a feeding experi- ment. They were kept in an open runway, but twice a day were con- fined to stanchions while they were taking their morning and evening rations. They soon learned their stalls, and as soon as the door was opened each took his place. All feed was weighed out to each steer. As soon as they had taken their rations they were given their freedom in an open yard. Unfortunately, after they had reached a weight of 900 pounds other cattle of about the same size were occasionally put in the runway awaiting the time when they were to be slaughtered in butcher-demonstration work. The strangers admitted to the runway caused some disturbance and some depression in the rate of gain. TABLE XVI RECORD OF GROUP V, PASTURE LOT o> I Date H j .£ >> V bo £>.£ r&.S &£ >'§. <^ O O M 'in J$ *-> QO &S !§ Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. T,bs Oct. 16, 1911 728.2 Nov. 12, 1911 798.8 . 70.6 168.6 126.0 574.6 6.0 2.522 238 Dec. 24, 1911 904.6 105.8 260.4 167.4 1,081.2 6.2 2.518 246 Feb. 18, 1912 999.6 95.0 415.0 263.9 1,526.0 7.4 1.696 437 April 14, 1912 1,091.5 91.9 490.1 416.5 1,023.0 8.8 1.641 535 June 9, 1912 1,203.1 111.6 580.5 248.5 1,366.1 10.4 1.992 520 Total second . year 4749 19140 12223 55703 804 1 995 40^? Total first year 602.7 501.7 1,142.4 1,138.0 3.26 1.433 228 Table XVI shows that on October 16, 1911, the average weight of the steers was 728 pounds, and by June 9, 1912, they weighed 1,203 pounds, making a gain of 475 pounds in 238 days, on 1,914 pounds of grain, 1,222 of hay, and 5,570 of silage. In 77 days they gained 176.4 pounds, a daily gain of 2.52 pounds on a daily grain ration of 6.1 pounds. The daily average weight of grain fed during the whole feed- 22 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION ing-period was 8.04 pounds. The grain mixture was made up of 1,203.2 pounds of corn, 264 of flour middlings, 191.4 each of oats and oil meal, and 63.1 of bran. The grain' consumed to 100 pounds of gain was 403 pounds. The last line shows the average weight of steers at the close of the first year, the amount of feed consumed, except the milk, the daily average gain, grain consumed, and the pounds of grain to 100 pounds gain. TABLE XVII COST OF FEED OF GROUP V, PASTURE LOT Date Average Weight Grain £ay Silage Total Cost per Lb. of Gain Lbs Cents Oct. 16, 1911.. 7282 Nov 12 1911 7988 $ 193 $044 $072 $ 309 44 Dec. 24, 1911 Feb 18 1912 904.6 9996 2.93 448 .59 92 1.35 1 91 4.87 731 4.6 77 April 14, 1912 1,091.5 514 146 128 788 86 June 9 1912 1203 1 610 87 171 86§ 78 Total second year.. Total first year "6027 20.58 14.15 4.28 3.98 6.97 1.85 31.83 29.87 6.7 6.0 Total $34.73 $8.26 $8.82 $61.70 6.3 Table XVII shows the cost of feed consumed from the time the steers returned from pasture until they reached the weight of 1,203.1 pounds. The grain cost $20.58 per head, the hay, $4.28, and the silage, $6.97, making the total cost for feed to make 474.9 pounds gain, $31.83, which brings the rate to 6.7 cents per pound. The cost ranged from 4.4 cents in going from 728.2 to 798.8 pounds, to 8.6 in going from 999.6 to 1,091.5 pounds. The cost of the gain in the last period was 7.8 cents. The small amount of feed required and the low cost of gain, considering that they were kept in the open, is remarkable, and shows that heavy feeding either in growing or finishing steers is a wasteful practice. During all this investigation in feeding for economic beef- production, less than a pound of grain was fed daily during the various stages of growth and fattening except during the time when the change was made from milk nutrients to plant nutrients and during the short periods when silage was not available. The total cost of the feed required to bring the steers from an average weight of 101 pounds to 1,203.1 pounds, except while they were in pasture, was $61.70 per head. They were sold in South St. Paul for $7.75 per hundred pounds. After deducting the cost of feed, transportation, and all other charges there was a net margin of $23.16 per head. The steers in Group V under continuous stall-feeding reached a weight of 1,200.9 at a total cost for feed of $81.07 and were sold at the same time, bringing $8.25 per hundred weight. After deducting cost YEARLINGS TURNED TO PASTURE 23 of feed, transportation, and all other charges, there was left a net margin of $9.38 per head. On May 31, 1914, the steers in Group VII averaged 601 pounds. They were divided into two lots of equal weight, one was continued in stall-feeding and the other was shipped to the substation at Waseca to be turned out to pasture. The feed was ample throughout the sea- son and conditions seemed favorable for making good growth, as the pasture contained both bottomland and upland. There was ample supply of grass, water, and shade. The steers received salt once a week and were weighed at regular intervals. They were in pasture 153 days and were then shipped back to the central Station at University Farm. After one week of stall-feeding they weighed 645.4 pounds, having gained at the rate of approximately 0.29 of a pound per day. The cause of the discrepancy in the gain of the two lots while in pas- ture has been carefully studied without any satisfactory explanation having been reached. TABLE XVIII RECORD OF GROUP VII, PASTURE LOT _c Date 1 _c °rt 'rt & bo |.S 'r3 "t3 •S 0 O ffi c/5 00 QO Si Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs, Nov. 1, 1914 645.4 Nov. 29, 1914 707.6 62.2 176.6 155.4 444.1 5.1 1.535 284 Jan. 3, 1915 804.7 97.1 234.8 175.0 718.2 6.7 2.774 242 Feb. 21, 1915 904.3 99.6 388.9 244.7 1,130.8 7.9 2.033 390 April 11, 1915 995.6 91.3 431.5 245.0 1,264.2 8.8 1.863 474 June 6, 1915 1,094.0 98.4 537.6 265.0 1,542.3 9.6 1.757 546 Aug. 1, 1915 1,205.8 111.8 584.8 260.4 1,253.4 10.4 1.996 523 Total second year 560.4 2,354.2 1,345.5 6,353.0 841 2001 420 Total first year 601.0 459.5 1,122.1 1,236.4 1,382.1 3.21 1.314 242 Table XVIII gives the initial weight of the steers of Group VII after returning from pasture, their average weight at the close of the various periods, the grain, hay, and silage consumed, the average amount of grain consumed daily, the gain per day, and the pounds of grain consumed up to the time they weighed 1,205.8 pounds, the daily average pounds of grain consumed, the gain made, and the pounds of grain required on the average to make 100 pounds gain. The last line gives similar data with respect to the first year of the group, except the milk they received, which is not given. From the time they returned from pasture until they reached a weight of 1,205.8 pounds, the amount of the different grains consumed was: corn 1,056.2 pounds, flour mid- dlings 470.9, oil meal 333.6, oats 327.5, bran 136.9, and barley 29.1. 24 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION TABLE XIX COST OF FEED OF GROUP VII, PASTURE LOT Date Weight Grain Hay Silage Total Cost per Lb. of Gain Nov. 1, 1914 Lbs. 6454 Cents Nov. 29, 1914 707.6 $ 2.23 $054 $055 $ 332 53 Jan. 3, 1915 8047 296 61 90 447 46 Feb 21 1915 9043 488 86 1 41 715 72 April 11, 1915 995.6 489 86 158 733 80 June 6 1915 10940 586 93 193 872 89 Aug. 1, 1915 1,205.8 637 91 157 885 79 Total second year 27.19 471 794 3984 71 Total first year 601.0 14.14 4.33 1.73 31.10 6.8 Total .......... | ..... | $41.33 | $9.04 | 9.67 | $70.94 6.9 Table XIX gives the same data with respect to the weights of the steers at the various stages as were given in Table XVIII, followed by the cost of the various feeds, the total feed-cost after returning from pasture, and the feed-cost per pound of gain. The lot of this group that was on continuous stall feed was ready for market May 23, 1915, but because of the small gain made in pasture these did not attain the desired weight until August 1. The range of feed-cost for a pound of gain was from 4.6 cents in going from 700 to 800 pounds to 8.9 cents in going from 900 to 1,000 pounds, the same as was the case with the pasture lot of Group V. The -total cost for feed after returning from pasture was $39.84 against $31.83 for Group V. The average feed- cost for a pound of gain after returning from pasture was 7.1 cents, being 0.4 of a cent more than the cost of the former lot. During the first year the feed-cost was $31.10, being 6.8 cents per pound of gain. The total feed-cost per head of this lot was $70.94, being 6.9 cents \vhile on stall feed against $61.70 for total feed-cost and 6.3 cents per pound of gain for the pasture steers of Group V. This increase in total feed-cost and feed-cost per pound of gain was doubtless wholly due to the fact that they had to be fed 69 days more to bring them to the proper finish. The cost of the milk consumed the first year is not listed but is included in the total cost of $31.10. Notwithstanding the unsatisfactory gain made in pasture, 30 per cent of them topped the market at $9.50 per hundred weight, while 70 per cent brought $8.50 per hundred weight under specific instructions that they should be sold strictly on their market value. After deducting cost of feed there was a net margin of $28.12 per head. To show at a glance the daily average pounds of feed, grain, hay, and silage consumed by the two lots of steers after they returned from pasture, actual and per 100 pounds live weight, Table XX is given. YEARLINGS TURNED TO PASTURE 25 TABLE XX FEED CONSUMED DAILY BY THE STEERS AFTER RETURNING FROM PASTURE Weight ACTUAL PER 100 POUNDS LIVE WEIGHT Grain Hay Silage Grain Hay Silage Lbs. 700— 800 800— 900 900—1,000 1,000—1,100 1,100—1,200 Lbs. 6.4 7.1 8.1 9.2 10.4 Lbs. 4.8 4.5 4.9 6.1 4.6 Lbs. 20.5 24.4 26.6 22.9 22.4 Lbs. 0.85 .86 .85 .88 .90 Lbs. 0.64 .53 .52 .57 .40 Lbs. 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.2 2.0 The record includes the steers from Groups V and VII turned to pasture when they were one year old and averaged approximately 600 pounds in weight. Those from Group V were sent to market the same day the stall-fed steers were ready. The others were fed six weeks longer before they reached the 1,200-pound weight. TABLE XXI SUMMARY OF PASTURE LOTS, GROUPS V AND VII Period Weight* Gain Grain Hay Silage Daily Grain Daily Gain Grain to 100 Lbs. Lbs. 700— 800 800— 900 900Ul,000 1,000—1,100 1,100—1,200 Lbs. 801.8 904.5 997.6 1,092.8 1,204.4 Lbs. 94.2 102.7 93.1 95.2 111.6 Lbs. 234.8 324.7 423.3 513.8 582.7 Lbs. 175.0 207.0 254.4 340.7 254.5 Lbs. 718.2 1,106.0 1,395.1 1,282.6 1,309.7 Lbs. 6.4 7.1 8.1 9.2 10.4 Lbs. 2.648 2.276 1.780 1.699 1.994 Gain Lbs. 240 318 456 541 522 Total second year 4968 20793 1 231 6 5811 6 823 1 998 412 Total first year 601.9 480.6 1,132.3 1,187.2 1,429.3 3.24 1.374 235 •Average weight on return from pasture, 707.6 pounds. Special attention is invited to the light grain ration fed, on the average, to the two groups of steers during the various stages of growth after their return from pasture. In going from 707.6 pounds in weight to 1,204.4 pounds, the daily grain ration averaged 8.23 pounds, and they gained 100 pounds to 412 pounds of grain consumed. Comparing this with results obtained in seventy-one experiments re- viewed in the new and revised edition of Feeds and Feeding,1 we find that the average pounds of grain to 100 pounds of gain is 804, or nearly double the amount required in our investigation. The general complaint is that there is little, if any, profit in beef- production, and yet the common practice in feeding experiments as well as in so-called practical feeding, is to feed from 50 to 100 per cent 1 Henry, W. A. Feeds and Feeding. 691 pp. 15th Ed. 1915. 26 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION more grain in the daily ration than steers can utilize. This is a source of loss that should be prevented, and calls for a radical change in the methods of feeding. By referring to Table XIV it will be seen that in the cost of pro- duction of the yearlings, the grain amounts to $14.32, while the whole milk item is $5.98. These are the two items in which there is danger of giving more than is needed for normal growth. In the items of cost for the second year the grain amounts to $39.92, and the roughage to $14.19 under continuous stall-feeding, while the pasture lots used only $23.89 for grain and $11.95 for roughage, showing that cost of pro- duction was lowered when our grain feeding was the lightest. TABLE XXII COST OF PRODUCTION, PASTURE LOTS OF GROUPS V AND VII Group FIRST YEAR 1 1 SECOND YEAR Cost o f Feed per Steer | j Cost of Feed per Steer Grain Hay Silage] Total || Grain Hay Silage] Total V.. $14.15 14.14 $3.98 4.33 $1.85 1.73 $29.87 | 31.10 1 $20.58 27.19 $4.28 4.71 $6.97 7.94 $31.83 39.84 VII Average 14.14 4.16 1.79 30.48 - 23.89 14.14 $38.03 4.49 4.16 $8.65 7.46 1.79 $9.25 35.84 30.48 $66.32 Cost first year Average cost c f feed for 2 years Table XXII shows that the average feed-cost per steer of Groups V and VII for the first year was $30.48, and for the second year after returning from pasture $35.84, making the total feed-cost per steer for the two years $66.32. The feed-cost for the yearlings of the two groups was remarkably uniform. The additional cost for Group VII the second year was caused by the steers making a daily gain of only 0.29 of a pound while in pasture, while Group V gained 0.8 of a pound per day. TABLE XXIII INCOME AND BALANCE, PASTURE LOTS, GROUPS V AND VII Date Marketed | Average Group] Price | per Cwt. Income per Steer Cost of Feed per Steer Return over Feed per Steer June 13, 1912 Aug. 2, 1915 V VII $7.75 8.80 $84.86 97.20 $61.70 70.94 $23.16' 26.26 Average 91.03 66.32 24.71 Table XXIII gives the average price for which the steers of Groups V and VII were sold at the stock yards, the receipts per steer, the cost of feeds, and return over cost of feed by each group. The difference in price received per steer was due not so much to difference in quality as to difference in price levels, that is, quotations were higher when Group VII reached the market. The average price received was $91.03, the cost of feed $66.32, and net income over cost of feed $24.71 per steer. OBSERVATIONS 27 BENEFITS FROM PASTURE The difference in cost of production between the steers on continu- ous stall-feeding and those turned to pasture the second year gives some very interesting and valuable data on the benefits derived from pasture. The pasture steers of Group V were in pasture 140 days and gained 125 pounds per head, gaining 0.8 of a pound per day. Dur- ing all the time they were on stall feed the cost was $61.70. They sold for $7.75 per hundred weight, while the lot on continuous stall- feeding cost $81.07 per head and sold for $8.25. The pasture steers brought $23.16 net, per head, while the stall-fed steers brought $9.38 net, per head, leaving $13.78 per head to the credit of the pasture, or in other words, the pasture saved 68.9 cents per week on feed-cost of production. The pasture steers of Group VII were in pasture 153 days and gained 44.4 pounds or 0.29 of a pound per day. The stall-fed steers brought $19.36, net, while the pasture steers brought $26.26, net, leav- ing $6.90 per head to the credit of the pasture, notwithstanding the fact that they made a gain of only 0.29 of a pound per day. Even under the small gain they saved 31.4 cents per week on feed-cost of production. The average earnings of the two groups while on pas- ture was 50.2 cents per week per head. The average duration of the pasture season was 21 weeks, so the feed-saving from the pasture during the season was $10.54 per head. OBSERVATIONS The experience and knowledge gained during the seven years this investigation has been in progress have awakened in the writer a deep interest in the development of the beef industry. His relations with the large number of animals used in the work have been very close and have been a constant source of pleasure and satisfaction. Their response to kindly treatment and an occasional caress was almost hu- man. The youngsters soon learned the voice of the master and as soon as it was heard in the barn, several would go to the railing of the runway awaiting the time for a few kindly strokes of the hand. To the stall-fed steers, the runway and the stanchions in which they at stated times took their nourishment were their world. They knew nothing of sunshine, green pastures, shade trees, hills, dales, or rippling brooks. The small, covered runway, the water tank, the salt box, the stanchions admitting them to their evening and mtirning meals were their all. They knew time to the dot. As the time for feeding ap- proached they would one after another arise, stretch themselves, do 28 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION their toilet, bovine way, and gradually restlessness would supplant contentment. When the feeder appeared each would come to his place waiting for his own stall to be opened. Each knew, not only his place, but as well, just the time when his turn came to be admitted to his feed-box. It was by this watchfulness, kindly treatment, uniformity and regularity in feeding that such uniform and satisfactory results were obtained. The feeding, compared with the general practice, was very light, but ample for best results except in the first year of Group III. The light feeding was necessary, as the primary object of the experiment was to study the nutrients actually required to make normal growth and gain in fat. If more feed is given than an animal can or does assimilate, the feeding-habit and the digestive system become wasteful, and when wastefulness has once been acquired, the restora- tion to normal feeding and efficiency in assimilation is a very slow process. The data show the amount and kind of feed-stuffs required at the various stages of growth both under continuous stall-feeding and by turning to pasture. They give some light on the cost of production. They reveal the fact that at times farmers are exceedingly anxious to get rid of their calves regardless of price, and that at other times they will not part with them without the purchaser begging for them and paying double price, and then only a few will reluctantly respond. During 1910 and 1911 the farmers were anxious to get rid of their male calves, and during 1912 and 1913 they were as reluctant to part with them. In seeking for the reason of this change on the part of the farmers the data in the following table were compiled from the year- book of the Daily Farmers' and Drovers' Journal, and have reference to the cattle received at the Union Stock Yards, Chicago. TABLE XXIV RECEIPTS OF NATIVE AND RANGE CATTLE WITH AVERAGE PRICES PAID, AND RE- CEIPTS OF CALVES AT THE CHICAGO STOCK YARDS FOR TEN YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1914 YEAR RECEIPTS OF CATTLE AVERAGE PRICE RECEIPTS OF VEAL CALVES Natives Range Natives Range 1905 2,964,469 | 389,000 $4.55 $3.80 380,835 1906 2,904,250 358,000 5.05 4.40 413,269 1907 2,855,314 375,000 5.40 4.50 421,934 1908 2,662,006 292,200 5.55 4.80 421,671 1909 2,527,907 342,100 5.90 5.25 409,714 1910 2,676,958 319,700 6.40 5.40 499,941 1911 2,640,814 252,100 6.00 5.65 521,512 1912 2,432,096 185,000 7.35 7.60 505,401 1913 2,360,012 129,300 8.10 7.40 375,382 1914 2,032,236 168,900 8.30 7.65 363,614 OBSERVATIONS 29 Figures from the Chicago stock yards are taken because that is the heart of the livestock market in the Central West, and receives more stock than any other market in the district. The time covered by the table includes the time when there were the most cattle in the United States, the largest number of native and range cattle, except one year, and shows the greatest changes with respect to average prices for both range cattle and native, and the changes that took place in the number of calves that were received at the stock yards during the last ten years. In the year 1905, 2,964,469 native steers were received. In 1914 the receipts were 2,032,236, a decrease of 932,233. During the year 1905, 389,000 range cattle were received. During the year 1914 the range cattle received were 168,900, being a decrease qf 220,100, or a total decrease during the ten-year period of 1,152,333. One would naturally expect that where there is such an enormous and unprec- edented decrease in cattle, there would also be a relative decrease in veal calves sent to market, for it is obvious where there is a decrease in cattle there will also be a decrease in the number of calves. But notwithstanding the fact that there was a constant decrease in both native and range steers marketed during the last ten years, 380,835 calves were received at the stock yards in 1905, and 521,512 in 1911, an increase of 140,677. So there was some reason other than a sur- plus of calves that made the farmers so anxious to get rid of them. The prices they received could not have influenced them because calves brought less that year than they did the year preceding. A glance at the two columns giving the average price received for range cattle and for natives — which refers to steers received from the farms — shows that the average price for native steers ranging in weight from 1,050 pounds to 1,200 pounds, during the year 1905, was $4.55, and gradually rose until it reached $6.40 during the year 1910, 'when the receipts of calves were 499,941 ; that is, during the time when the prices paid for native and range steers increased very slowly, the receipts of steers decreased and receipts of calves increased, showing conclusively that farmers sold the male calves for veal because market conditions from 1905 to 1910 gave little if any promise of profit if they raised and fattened them. This view is confirmed by the fact that when the aver- age price of native steers during the year 1911 was cut to $6 per hundred weight in face of the decreased receipts of both range and natives, the receipts of veal calves reached 521,512, the highest mark in the history of the Chicago stock yards, and was further veri- fied during the year 1912 when native 'steers averaged $7.35 per hun- dred weight and the receipts of calves decreased to 505,401 ; and again in 1913 when natives brought, on an average, $8.10 per hundred weight and the receipts of calves fell to 375,382, less than had been received any 30 INVESTIGATION IN ANIMAL NUTRITION year preceding and when the price for calves was the highest on record. Then, as final proof, it is found in the record for the year 1914, when natives brought $8.30 per hundred weight, the receipts of calves dropped to 363,614. The enormous sale of calves during the 1910-1912 period is distinctly reflected in the corresponding shrinkage of the receipts of native steers during the 1912-1914 period. Comparing the cost of production, as shown in Table XIV, with the average prices paid for native steers ranging in weight from 1,050 to 1,200 pounds during the years 1905-1911, as shown in Table XXIV, it will be seen that there was little, if any, encouragement for farmers in the Central West to raise steers for market. The rapid increase in the price of land, the high price of feed and labor, the slow increase in price paid for steers, made the farmer's end of the business so intol- erable that many became discouraged. During these years of unsatisfactory market conditions for farmers who had specialized in beef-production, many became disheartened and turned their attention to dairying, and it is this crisis in beef-produc- tion, more than all other influences combined, that started the unprec- edented infusion of dairy blood into the herds all over the country. During the time the range was open, free, and ample to provide the bulk of the beef needed in the country, it was a constant menace to the development of a permanent and paying beef industry on the arable farms of the north central states. Those who were fortunate or fore- sighted enough to secure a large tract of land when it was cheap, and those who secured small tracts by homestead, tree-claims, or other methods could for a time compete with the range. But as the country increased in population and the land increased in value, the chance for making profits in beef-production on arable land, gradually dimin- ished under range conditions. There are two fundamental and divergent factors bearing upon this industry. On the one hand, the price level for beef must be such that consumption will not be materially depressed, and on the other, it must promise a profit to the farmers who rear and fatten the steers. This calls for a number of reforms. (1) The wide spread between the prices paid for steers and the price of meat to the consumer must be narrowed. (2) There must be stability in the market, for without this, great losses will be sustained by the beef-producers, which will result in many abandoning the business. (3) Experimental, demon- strational, and educational work must be conducted along practical — not spectacular — lines. (4) Farmers must make radical changes in their methods of feeding and handling steers in order to reduce the cost of production, for economical production and early marketing are as important factors in assuring profit in beef-production as is a promis- ing and stable market. OBSERVATIONS 31 How this can be accomplished is clearly shown in the data sub- mitted. From the time a calf is dropped there should be light, careful, and methodical feeding so that it will make normal gain every day. By this method it will be ready for market in approximately two years. Comparing the small amount of feed consumed during the first year and the short time required to fit calves for the market after they re- turn from pasture, with the way they are handled in general practice, it will be seen that there is great opportunity for reducing the cost of production. In view of the fact that about half the feed consumed by steers dur- ing their lifetime is expended for maintenance, getting them into mar- ket condition in as short a time as possible is a very important factor in bringing profit. This can more surely be brought about by the methods outlined above than by those in general vogue. Heavier grain- feeding is wasteful, and bringing them to higher weights than was done in this investigation is expensive, as is shown in Table XIV, and increases the liability of loss to the producer, the purveyor, and the consumer. Issued February 6, 1909. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. FARMERS' BULLETIN 350. THE DEHORNING OF CATTLE. BY RICHARD W. HICKMAN, V. M. D., Chief of the Quarantine Division, Bureau of Animal Industry. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1909. LETTER OF TRANSM1TTAL. U.*S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, Washington, D. „ nffi . THE PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE - - \ L. M. TAYLOR, SECRETARY, G. A.WEBB, TREASURER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IN CHARGE A. A. EDWARDS, Chairman J. L. BRUSH E. M. AMMON8 STATION STAFF L. G. CARPENTER, M. S., Director, - IRRIGATION ENGINEER C. P. GILLETTE, M. S., ENTOMOLOGIST W. P. HEADDEN, A. M.,PH. D., CHEMIST WENDELL PADDOCK, M. S, HORTICULTURIST G. H. GLOVER, M. S., D. V. M., VETERINARIAN ALVIV KEYSER, A. M. AGRONOMIST J. O. WILLIAMS, B. S. A., U. S. Expert in charge - HORSE BREEDING W. G. SACKETT B. S., BACTERIOLOGIST P. K. BLINN, B. S., FIELD AGENT, ARKANSAS VALLEY, ROCKY FORD R. E. TRIMBLE, B. S., - - - ASSISTANT IRRIGATION ENGINEER F. C. ALFORD, M. S. ASSISTANT CHEMIST EARL DOUGLASS M. S., .... ASSISTANT CHEMIST S. ARTHUR JOHNSON, M. S., - - ASSISTANT ENTOMOLOGIST B. O. LONGYEAR, B. S., - - - ASSISTANT HORTICULTURIST E R. BENNETT, B. S., - - - - POTATO INVESTIGATIONS MIRIAM A. PALMER, ARTIST L. C. BRAGG, - - ASSISTANT IN ENTOMOLOGY STATE FRUIT INVESTIGATIONS O. B. WHIPPLE, B. S.. GRAND JUNCTION, - FIELD HORTICULTURIST GEORGE P. WELDON, B. S., DELTA, FIELD ENTOMOLOGIST PART I CARRYING RANGE STEERS THROUGH THE WINTER W. L. CARLYLE and G. E. MORTON INTRODUCTION Cattlemen are, at variance in their opinions as to whether range steers should be winter fed as calves and as yearlings, when they are to be carried over for fattening as two-year-olds. And an equal divergence of opinion exists as to whether it is wise to carry steers to that age before finishing. The experiment detailed in PART I of this bulletin was outlined by Prof. W. L. Carlyle in 1905 and carried out under his direction until its completion in 1908. Professor J. A. McLean and the writer, who succeeded him, carried out the winte,r feeding work with the steers. The writer is the only one of these three at hand at the publication of the bulletin, and as he did not see the first two years of the experiments, he finds it difficult to make, as thorough a writ-up as he would like. The data presented is suf- ficient, however, to indicate the answers to one or two questions con- cerning winter feeding of store steers. PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENT In the fall ~r 1905, 20 head of representative steer calves were secured from the herds of W. H. Gerdts, Cope, Colo. ; E. M. Ammons, Littleton, Colo., and I. B. Griffith, New Castle, Colo. Three calves were Hereford grades, and were brought to the College for winter feeding. A like number of representative steers of the same crop were brought to the College from these herds in the fall of 1906, and again a like number in the fall of 1907, with the exception that the five head from Mr. Griffith's herd were not secured in 1907, because of shipping difficulties. Each summer the steers, which had been winter fed at the College, were turned out upon enclosed range, owned by the College and located on the foot hills west of Fort Collins. In this way some of the steers were winter fed as calves, as yearlings and as two-year-olds; some were fed as yearlings and as two-year-olds; and some fed only as two-year-olds. Again, some of the steers fed as calves were finished off as yearlings, while others were not marketed until they we,re twos. The following table shows the weights and gains made by the steers each season: COLORADO EXPERIMENT STATION O bS; £*- &5IS < OT I "S - 1 a 4 w S o ^ t* * 8 ^ ^ I 2 § O > H a s a 2 2 2 S S 2 J S S n I! c I -M *^ ^MH (50 O t> O V bo bog. «° CARRYING RANGE STEERS THROUGH THE WINTER 5 In discussing the table, we will first take up this question: // you expect to feed steers out at two years of age, does it pay to winter feed them either as calves or as yearlings? The steers fed during the third winter only — the winter during which they were fitted for market — gained 235 pounds per head and weighed 1146 pounds, while those fed the second and third winters, gained 361 pounds the third winter and weighed 1407 pounds. The latter not only weighed "261 pounds per head more because of their previous feeding, but were in better shape to pr»t on good gains the winter they were finished out, putting on 126 pounds per head more weight than the steers fed the third winter only. Another point in their favor was that the extra weight was in fat rather than in frame, as they were valued at the close of the third winter, when ready for -market, at $6.20 per cwt, while the steers fed the third winter only, were valued at $5.75 per cwt. These valuations were made by Mr. Henry Gebhardt, of Denver, without knowledge of what lots the steers were from. Mr. Gebhardt, at the same time, placed a valuation of $6.10 upon the steers brought in to the College in the fall of 1905 and fed all three winters. These steers made -a gain of only 223 pounds per head the third winter, — less than either of the other lots ; and they showed an average weight of 1368 pounds per head, or 39 pounds per head less than the steers that were not winter fed as calves, and 222 pounds per head more than the steers that were not winter fed either as calves or yearlings. These results plainly show that winter feeding the calves was not profitable when the steers were to be held over to be finished off as two-year-olds, for the lot that were not winter fed as calves, but were fed the two succeeding winters, not only made the largest gain during the last winter, but showed the heaviest average weight, and were in best market condition. We can state then, so far as the gains made by these steers are concerned, that when the aim in view was to finish the steers as two-year-olds, the feed put into them as calves was wasted, but feeding them the winter they were yearlings put them in shape to make better gains the next winter and made better market steers of them. This result does not coincide with the view of those cattle- men, who believe that if only one winter's feed is to be given previous to the winter of finishing, that feed should be given the calves in order to retain upon them their baby flesh. But a study of the weights and gains of the steers brought in as calves will bring out the reason, I believe, for the poor showing made by these steers the third winter. COLORADO EXPERIMENT STATION WEIGHTS AND GAINS OF STEERS FED THREE WINTERS AND THOSE FED TWO WINTERS Weight Steers Fed Each Winter Steers Fed Two Winters Weight Gain Weight Gain Fall of 1905 (Calves) .... 404 663 804 1094 1145 1368 259 141 290 62 223 664 984 1046 1407 32U 95 361 Fall of 1906 Spring of 1907 Fall of 1907 . Soring of 1908 . . . .. You will note the heavy gain put on by the calves during the first winter's feeding — almost as much as they put on the next winter as yearlings. As a consequence, they weighed, the fall that they were yearlings, 140 pounds per head more than the steers of the same crop brought in from the range as yearlings. The next spring they were only no pounds heavier, the next fall 99 pounds heavier, and the spring they were marketed, 39 pounds lighter than the steers brought from the range as yearlings. This gradual decrease in the margin between the two sets of steers indicates that the winter feeding as calves hastened the steers to maturity and consequently lessened their power for gain each successive season at a rapid rate. Another way to look at the question is to compare the gains made each year by the same lot of steers. The lot fed as calves made a gain of 400 pounds per head the first winter and succeeding sum- mer; the next year they made 352 pounds gain per head — already starting down hill you notice — and the last winter they made a gain of only 223 pounds per head, or 36 pounds per head less than they made the winter they were calves. Considering the year when they were one year old, they made a gain of 431 pounds as against a gain of 285 pounds when two- year-olds. And the steers that were not fed until they were yearlings made a gain of 456 pounds the year that they were twos. CARRYING RANGE STEERS THROUGH THE WINTER WEIGHTS AND GAINS OF STEERS OF THE DIFFERENT BRANDS All Steers are of the Same Age, Calved 1905. See Note Fall 1905 Year 1905-06 Winter 1906-07 to April-2nd Summer 1907 Winter 1907-08 June 7thx Oct. 26th* VI 1905 3527 353 7646 765 412 9930 993 228 (3) 3125 1042 3320 1107 65 4230 1410 303 Total (10) . . . ag VI 1906 6857 686 9595 960 274 (6) 5790 965 6360 1060 95 8390 1398 338 11360 1136 209 1240 0 Total (10) \\ erage Gain VI 1907 9265 927 Total (10) U 1905 1870 374 3999 800 446 5155 1031 231 (1) 1210 1240 30 Total (5) 2968 594 4218 844 250 (5) 4625 925 5090 1018 93 7165 1433 415 Total (5) U 1907 4400 880 5830 1166 286 Total (5) 1 L 1905 2690 538 4398 880 342 5427 1085 205 (2) 2165 1083 2310 1155 72 2740 1370 215 Total (5) 1 — I, 1906 3464 693 4455 891 198 (3) 2905 968 3200 1067 99 4150 1383 316 Total (5) Average Average Gain NOTK — For convenience the steers are designated by the year during which they were brought from the range. For example U — 1906 means the U — steers brought to the College from the range in the fall of 1906, the steers then being yearlings. *June 7th was the date upon which the steers kept over were put out to pasture. xThe figures in brackets in this column are the number of head of steers not sold and put out on pasture June 7th. Thus any way one wishes to look at the problem, the feeding of calves does not appear profitable if they are to be held over for finishing as two-year-olds. The amount of feed used is not con- sidered in the discussion above, because the interpretation of results could in no way be affected by the cost of the feed, save for the gen- eral statement that the greater the cost of feed for calves, the greater would be the loss to the feeder. COLORADO EXPERIMENT STATION FEEDING TWO WINTERS OR ONE In considering winter-feeding for two winters compared with feeding the third winter only, we must note first of all that the steers fed as yearlings weighed 261 pounds per head more at marketing than the steers fed the last winter only, and were worth 45 cents per cwt. more than the latter. They were both heavier and fatter. Whether this extra weight and fatness paid for the feed put into them as yearlings is problematic. The feed for the steers, brought to the College in different seasons was not kept separate, so that the feed per head as shown in the following table is an average for all the steers: AVERAGE FEED AND GAIN PER HEAD and and 3rd Winters Season Winter Number Head Average Weight at Close Winter Average Giii: During Winter Feed Per Head in Pounds Cost of Feed Per Head Corn Alfalfa Hay Sugar Beets 1906-07... 20 (held over) 991 992 2644 1306 $19.89 1906-07... 20 (sold) 1087 1203 2536 2270 2404 1906-07... 40 (all) 1039 307 1138 2660 1921 22.83 1907-08... 35 1289 284 1252 ' | 2835 1998 24.60 NOTE — Price of corn, $1.00 per hundred; price of alfalfa, $5.00 per ton; price of beets, $5.00 per ton. AVERAGE FEED AND GAIN PER HEAD 2ND AND 3RD WINTERS. The steers denoted in the second column of this table as "held over," comprised six head of the steers fed as calves, and 14 head of those brought in as yearlings. The average feed per head for these during the second winter was 992 pounds of corn, 1306 pounds of sugar beets, and 2644 pounds of hay, or in round numbers l/2 ton corn, 2*4 tons of hay, and 2/3 of a ton of sugar beets. At the prices listed, this feed cost about $20.00 per head ($19.89). With alfalfa hay at $10.00 per ton, the cost of feed would be raised to about $26.00 per head. Now for returns. Assuming that the feed during the third winter, for the two lots under discussion, was approximately equal, as assumption not out of the way, the extra income from the steers fed two winters may be credited against the first winter's feed. Re- ferring again to Table A, we find the steers fed the second and third winters weighed 1407 pounds per head at the close. This weight at an advance of 45 cents per cwt. over the other steers, means $6.33 credit. Then 261 pounds extra weight at $6.20 gives $16.18, or a total of $22.51 to credit against the feed. And yet another item is to be taken into consideration, the College range is not good range late in the summer, which accounts for the low gains made each summer. Any range man would expect to secure larger gains than are shown by the spring and fall weights of these steers. So that with this evidence before us, I believe the winter CARRYING RANGE STEERS THROUGH THE WINTER 9 feeding as yearlings was a paying proposition. It is by no means proven, but the indications are strongly in that direction. With so many problems involved in this one experiment, it is difficult to make a clean cut conclusion on each issue. While we have convincing proof that the winter feeding of .calves, destined to be fed each win- ter until sold as two-year-olds, was a losing proposition, all we can say concerning the question at issue is this : The winter feeding of yearlings destined to be fattened and sold as two-year-olds, resulted in heavier, fatter and more marketable steers; and besides producing good gains during the winter in which the feeding was done, pro- duced residual feeding effects shown by very heavy gains the winter they were finished. And so far as we can tell from the results at hand, such feeding will .ordinarily produce a profit if feeding stuffs are not too high priced. FATTEN YEARUNGS OR TWO-YEAR-OLDS? But another question arises : Does it pay better to winter feed as calves and finish us yearlings, or winter feed- as yearlings and finish as twos? This question involves many more points than those taken up in this feeding experiment, so that it cannot be answered fully here. But we can furnish some data of use to the cattleman in figuring the problem for himself. The problem as it lies before the cattleman is this : If he fattens his steers as yearlings, he must charge all loss of cows and calves and depreciation of value in the young cows against this one year's running of the steers ; while if he carries the steers two years he may distribute this charge over two year?. On the other hand if he feeds as yearlings he gets cheaper gains on his steers, as one will on all young animals, and he releases his capital so that it is turned over every year instead of every other year. He does not need to make so large a profit on the yearlings, because he will make that profit twice as often. The light which this experiment throws on that problem, con- sists in a definite knowledge of the gains made by steers during the different seasons as is shown in Table A. The steers winter fed as calves madfe a gain during that winter and the following summer of 400 pounds ; while the steers not fed until the winter they were yearlings made a gain during that winter and the following summer of 415 pounds. With practically equal gains, the calves undoubtedly put on their gain much more cheaply than the yearlings. By referring to PART II of this Bulletin it will be seen that yearlings put on their gain at about two-thirds the cost of the gain put on by two-year-olds. The second winter's feeding shows two-year-old steers weighing 1046 pounds per head in the fall, making a gain of 361 pounds per head during the winter; while yearling steers weighing 804 pounds per head made a gain of 290 pounds. The two-year-oMs gained 34.6 per cent, of their live weight, while the yearlings gained 37.3 per cent, of their live weight. This again is in favor of the younger steers. 10 COLORADO EXPERIMENT STATION Upper picture — Steers when calves. Centre picture — Steers coming two-year-olds. Lower picture — Open shed in which steers slept and were fed grain. Hay racks in foreground. CARRYING RANGE STEERS THROUGH THE WINTER u During the winter of 1905-06 the calves were fed upon beet tops until the I5th of February, running in the fields with stock cattle. When taken from the beet fields ten head were fed a ration of four pounds daily of ground corn with alfalfa hay ; while the other ten head were fed a ration of twenty pounds per head of sugar beets. Both lots made approximately the same gains, the only differenece being that the lot fed beets ate somewhat less hay. For the purposes of this discussion, it is sufficient to say that the amount of feed consumed by the younger animal is less than that consumed by the older. And from this standpoint of feeding alone, it seems more economical to winter feed as calves and finish as yearlings than to winter feed as yearlings and finish as two-year-olds. FINISHING YEARLINGS // you intend to finish steers as yearlings, is it profitable to feed them hay and grain the unnter that they are calves? The steers winter fed as calves gained 30 pounds per head less during the winter they were yearlings, than the steers gained that were not winter fed as calves; but they averaged no pounds per head more in weight than the latter and sold for 25 cents per cwt. more. This offers no satisfactory conclusion without a knowledge of the cost of feed. However, the calves fed during their first winter gained 259 pounds per head that winter, and yet were only 140 pounds heavier the next fall than those not winter fed. This indicates a poor summer gain, which their gain of 141 pounds per head undoubtedly was. The steers in this experiment lost a great deal of flesh when first turned on the range and did not thrive at any time during the summer as range cattle wintered on hay would have done. The only conclusion that one can come to with the insufficient data at hand, is that whether or not there be profit in winter feeding of calves destined to be sold as yearlings, depends upon the condition of the range upon which they were run. It is more, a question of grass and storms than one that can be settled definitely for all conditions. MARKET VALUE OF THE STEERS The last spring of the experiment when all of the steers were coining three-year-old, Mr. Henry Gebhardt, of Denver, put a mar- ket valuation on the three lots of steers, without knowledge as to how each lot had been handled. He valued the steers that had been fed every winter at $6.10 per cwt.; those fed two winters at $6.20 per cwt., and those fed one winter at $5.75 per cwt. These prices indicate the comparative condition of flesh of the various lots, and the valuation given corresponds to the final weights of the three lots. These market prices mean that the steers which were not fed as calves, but were fed the winter that they were yearlings, then put back on the range, and finished out as two-year-olds, not only made the most rapid gains and were heaviest when put upon the market, but were fattest, having put on a large proportion of their gains in flesh and fat. 12 COLORADO EXPERIMENT STATION FAT, BONE AND LEAN MEAT IN A RIB CUT Rib roasts, comprising the 8th and Qth ribs and measuring 5 inches in width, were taken from the carcasses of the two steers. One steer, A, which had been fed both the winter he was a yearling and the succeeding winter, was killed in April, weighing 1440 pounds. The other steer, B, which was fed only as a two-year- old, was held until August after steer A had been killed, when he reached the 1400 pound weight. The rib cuts taken were dissected with the following results : Lean Meat Far Bone Steer A 8 Ibs 13 oz 8 ibs 12 oz 2 iks 4 oz • 9 ibs. 2 oz 7 Ibs. 5 oz 3 Ibs These figures show little difference between the steer which had been fed two winters, and the one fed only one winter. What difference there is shows more bone and lean meat in the animal fattened rapidly at a later stage of life. There was practically no difference in the appearance of the rib cuts from the two steers. SUGAR BEETS FOR FATTENING STEERS PART II. SUGAR BEETS FOR FATTENING STEERS. The steers used in the experiment, described in Part I, were fed during each winter with a view to finding the value of sugar beets in replacing part of the corn used with the customary corn and al- falfa ration in Colorado. European and Canadian feeders regard roots highly as an aid in finishing cattle, but in America it has been dif- ficult to popularize their use. Many inquiries have come to this Station, however, as to the value of sugar beets for stock feed, and in conversation with feeders, I find that many are firmly convinced that sugar beets possess a feeding value of from $5.00 to $10.00 per ton. Results of experiments conducted in other states indicate a much lower value than this for feeding, and the following experi- ments were conducted with a view of ascertaining the true value of sugar beets for feeding under Colorado conditions. The results obtained throw considerable light upon this question. EXPERIMENT i In this trial of 16 weeks, Lot I was fed six pounds of corn and 30 pounds of sugar beets per head each day, while Lot 2 was fed 12 pounds of corn. This meant replacing half the corn with sugar beets in the proportion of 5 pounds of sugar beets to one pound of corn. The steers were yearlings. FEED, GAIN, AND COST OF GAIN Pounds Feed Lot No. in Total Gain Total Feed Pounds \verage Gain Per Required For 100 Ibs. Gain Cost of Feed 100 Lot Weight Corn Sugar Beets Alfalfa Hay Head Coin Sugar Beets Alfalfa Hay Ibs. Gain I.... * 4714 9245 52234 30194 239 196 1108 641 S6.33 2.... ** 4256 18851 30640 216 443 720 6.23 * At fif.-t 18 head, after 3rd week, 20 nead. **At first 17 head, after 3rd week, 20 head Note — Corn at $1.00 per cwt., Beets at $5.00 per ton, Alfalfa Hay at $5.00 per ton. The steers fed the sugar beets made somewhat better gains than the others, averaging 23 pounds heavier at the close. By inspection of the columns showing feed required for 100 pounds gain, we find that 1108 pounds of sugar beets replaced 247 pounds of corn and 79 pounds of alfalfa hay; or 4.5 pounds of sugar beets replaced i pound of corn and .32 pounds of hay in the production of 100 pounds gain in live weight. Figuring corn at i cent per pound, sugar beets at $5.00 per ton, and hay at $5.00 per ton, the sugar beet ration cost $6.33 for every hundred pounds gain produced, while the corn ration cost $6.23. These results indicate that if corn costs more, or sugar beets less than these prices, it will pay to substitute sugar beets for half of the corn ration. COLORADO EXPERIMENT STATION o bX) 1 bJB SUGAR BEETS FOR FATTENING STEERS SECOND TRIAL 1907-1908 This trial lasted 22 weeks. The steers were two-year-olds. Lot i was fed 12 pounds of corn per head each day, while Lot 2 was fed 6 pounds of corn and 30 pounds of sugar beets. FEED, GAIN, AND COST OF GAIN Pounds Feed Re- Lot No. in Total Ga:n Total Feed Lbs. Average Ga'n Per quired for 100 Pounds of Gain Cost of Feed For Lot Weight Corn Sugar Beets Alfalfa Hay Head Corn Sugar Beets Alfalfa Hay 100 Ibf. Gain 1 17 4425 46SS 28454 1 ?27? AOOJ1 52653 46560 260 '59 643 2*l\ 1502 1190 1000 $941 9 55 Note — Corn at $1.00 per cwt.. Beets at $5.00 per ton, Alfa1fa Hay at $5.00 per ton. The two lots of steers made equal gains. 1502 pounds of sugar beets replaced 313 pounds of corn and 190 pounds of hay in the production of 100 pounds gain, or 4^4 pounds of sugar beets replaced one pound of corn and *4 pound of hay. Figuring prices of feeds the same as in the previous trial, the sugar beet ration cost $9.55 for every hundred pounds of gain produced, while the corn ration cost $9.41. The greater cost in comparison with' the former trial is undoubtedly due to the greater age of the steers. This trial is so closely in accord with the previous trial with regard to the amount of beets necessary to replace half the corn ration, that we may state with reasonable certainty, that sugar beets when fed with a half ration of corn, have a feeding value of about one-fifth that of corn ; it will take from 4^2 to 5 pounds of sugar beets to give the results produced by one pound of corn. The steers used in the second experiment were priced by Mr. Henry Gebhardt, of Denver, without a knowledge as to the manner in which they had been fed. He valued the steers fed on sugar beets and corn at 10 cents per hundred weight less than the steers fed corn, so that the finish of the steers in one lot was not much different from that in the other. Bulletin 100 January, 1907 SOUTH DAKOTA Agricultural College EXPERIMENT STATION BROOKINQS, SOUTH DAKOTA The Feeding Value of Speltz IN Beef and Pork Production DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY WILL A. BEACH PRINTING Co,, Sioux Falls, S, D. GOVERNING BOARD Board of Regents Hon. I. W. Goodner, President. Pierre, S. D. Hon. F. A. Spafford Flandreau, S. D. Hon. R. M. Slocum Herreid, S. D. Hon. A. W Burtt . . Huron, S. D. Hon. M. F. Greeley. Gary, S. D. Hon. I. D. Aldrich (Secretary of Regents). .Big Stone, S. D. STATION COUNCIL R. M. Slocum Regent Member F. A. Spafford Regent Member Robert L. Slagle, President of the College James W. Wilson, Director and Agriculturist N. E. Hansen, Vice-Director Horticulturist James H. Shepard Chemist W. A. Wheeler Botanist and Entomologist E. L. Moore Veterinarian and Zoologist R. A. Larson Secretary and Accountant Assistants H. G. Skinner Animal Husbandry John S. Cole Agronomy A. E. Koch Chemistry Charles Haralson Horticulture T. B. Kelly Stenographer Any farmer of the state can have the Bulletins of this Station free upon application to the Director. THE FEEDING VALUE OF SPELTZ IN BEEF AND PORK PRODUCTION. James W. Wilson H. G. Skinner Three subjects were investigated in this experiment: (i) The value of speltz, both whole and ground, for steers as compared to whole corn. (2) The value of speltz, both whole and ground, for the production of pork. (3) The comparative value of speltz and corn for hogs when follow- ing steers fed on these grains. Speltz is of Russian origin and has evidently found; a home in the semi-arid region of the Northwest. The real name is Emmer (Trilicum dicoccum^) but speltz is the com- monly accepted term. With the exception of three counties west of the Missouri river it is now grown in every county in the state. According to the second census report of South Dakota, published in 1905, of the crops for 1904, two-thirds of the speltz produced in this state was grown in a section lying east of the Missouri river and north of a line passing through the southern boundry of Brookings county westward to the Missouri river. During 1904 there were 2,952,214 bnshels of speltz raised as compared to 5,637,230 bushels of corn in this section showing that it is one of the principal crops. The following is an analysis of the grain, prepared by J. H. Shepard, Chemist of this Station: I2O Analysis of Speltz HUSKS Air Dry Water Free Substance Substance Water 8.12 Ash .. 7.45 8.10 Ether Extract 1.48 1.61 Crude Fiber 39.02 42.46 Crude Protein 2.39 2.60 N.-free Extract 4J-54 45-23 Total Nitrogen 383 Albuminoid Nitrogen. .300 .326 HUSK AND GRAIN Air Dry Water Free Substance Substance Water ....... i o. 1 72 ..... Ash . ..... 2.956 3.29 Ether Extract 2.467 2.75 Crude Fiber . . . 11.450 I^-75 Crude Protein lI-577 12.90 N.-free Extract - . ... 61.398 68.31 Total Nitrogen 1.84 2.04 Albuminoid Nitrogen. ... 1.42 1.58 Plan of Experiment In the Spring of 1906 sixteen head of two-year-old grade Hereford steers of uniform type were purchased in the stock yards at Omaha. They came from a western ranch, were hay fed, and knew nothing about eating grain. Upon ar- rival at the Station they were divided into four different lots, quality and weight for each lot considered, so they would be equal as far as possible, and weighed up for the experiment. On account of an accident, one in the shelled corn lot had to be thrown out at the begining of the experiment. The grain 121 and hay were weighed before each feeding and each lot was given all they would eat both morning and evening. On the same date two head of swine of similar size and age were weighed and put in each lot. The cattle were kept in the dry lots until the close of the experiment when they were ship- ped to the Chicago market and sold on their merits, at the following prices per hundred pounds: Corn, $6. 10; Speltz, $5.85; Corn and Speltz, $5.75 and ground Speltz $5.75. This was the highest price paid for cattle that day, but had there been a load of each they would no doubt have brought more. They had the run of a small yard (see cut) acd with the ex- ception of the grain ration, each lot was under the same conditions. The experiment extended over a period of 170 days with the following ration per lot: Lot I. Shelled corn and prairie hay. Lot II. Whole speltz and prairie hay. Lot III. Shelled corn and speltz (mixed half and half by weight) and prairie hay. Lot IV. Ground speltz and prairie hay. All rations were fed inside sheds so that no loss would occur by blowing fine particles of feed from troughs\ With the exception of Lot i the swine were fed extra as there did not seem to be sufficient grain in the droppings, and Lot i was fed extra only until the steers were on full feed. The average daily grain fed per steer from the beginning to the end of the experiment was as follows: Shelled corn 20 pounds, whole speltz 18.9 pounds, corn and speltz 18.48 pounds and ground speltz 15.39 pounds. The largest con- sumption of grain per head daily was as follows: Shelled corn 29 pounds, whole speltz 28 pounds, corn and speltz 28 pounds and ground speltz 18 pounds. The grains were purchased in the local market from time to time but the speltz for the three lots was of the same quality. 122 The swine were fed from 2 to 8 pounds per lot, extra, daily. Two different lots of swine were used and, with' the ex- ception of those following steers in corn lot, the second lot were fed forty-four days after the steers were sold, on same kind of feed the steers were getting, to determine the quan- tity of grain required to produce a pound of gain. The swine following steers fed on corn were much fatter than those of other lots and a further test of the value of corn for hogs in this condition was not deemed advisable. But the average of three trials from three different Experi- ment Stations with hogs of similar weight for the production of a pound of pork with shelled corn, which is 5.43 pounds, is taken as a basis for computing gains of swine for the corn lot. Swine in the other lots were not fat but in good con- dition. Table No. I. VALUE OF SPEI/TZ FOR STEERS Kinds of Feed "o en G HO 'JS *o c ^ 2*1 tn^O bf o?0 -C no gt <-> O en 111 c £ 3 he 3 O S.S'c 'O Q >* C p , he •s-o S^S-.s" o OH O PH 51 O ^ s^-a Shelled corn, Prairie hay . . . 10388 5684 1218 8.48 4.66 2.38 7-4 Speltz Prairie hay 128^ 72ol 1212 10 60 6 01 i 78 8.1 Speltz, Corn, Prairie hay .... 12569 8181 1377 9.12 5-94 2.02 7-7 Ground Speltz Prairie hay.. 10470 9261 1049 9.98 8.82 1-54 9-3 When speltz is ground it separates into two parts, the husk and the grain. From the analyses of this grain found on a preceding page, it may be seen that there is a large per cent of crude fibre in both the husk and the grain. Armsby in his Manual of Cattle-Feeding states the follow- ing in regard to the digestibility of crude fibre: UA portion of the crude fibre of coarse fodders is digestible. This fact is so well ascertained, and has been so uniformly observed, I23 that no special proof of it need be brought forward here. The amount digested varies, according to the quality of the fod- der and other circumstances, from 25 per cent to as high as 70 per cent of the total quantity. ' uThe ruminants, in particular, have the power of digest- ing large amounts of crude fibre, a power due, doubtless to the great extent of their alimentary canal and the length of time during which the food remains in it. They are hence especially adapted to the consumption of coarse fodder, such as hay and straw, and can extract from it considerable quan- tities of nutrients, while the horse stands considerably below them in this respect, and the hog seems, like the carnivorous animals and man, to be able to digest only young and tender fibre, such as is found in roots and in young and juicy green fodder." Analyses show that corn contains from 2 to 3 per cent of crude fibre. In comparing the pounds of grain and the pounds of hay required to produce a pound of gain, with the lots getting whole speltz and ground speltz, it will be noticed there is quite a difference, not only in the quantity of feed consumed but in the gain made by lot. It was impossible to get the lot fed on ground speltz to eat as much grain daily as did the lot receiving the whole grain, which indicates that the dividing of the natural speltz grain into two feeds, by grinding, is a detriment rather than a benefit. The palatability of the feed is decreased. This was found to be the case in feeding ground speltz to sheep (Bulletin No. 80 of this Station). As to the value of grinding grain for fattening cattle, the following is taken from Smith's Profitable Stock Feeding: "It undoubtedly saves some feed, though this saving is not ordinarily great enough to pay for the grinding. At the Kansas Station 8 per cent was saved, which would be con- sidered a good showing, yet this saving would mean but 4 ^ pounds of corn to the bushel — with corn high in price, per- haps enough to pay the grinding bill, but not the labor. In the case of sore mouths, or when a quick finish is sought, or with cholera too prevalent to make the keeping of pigs for 124 running behind cattle safe, grinding is practicable. The feasibility of grinding, therefore, depends entirely upon cir- cumstances, but for Western conditions it is not ordinarily profitable to grind grain for cattle." The results obtained, as reported in Table No. I, are com- parable with those obtained at the Nebraska Experiment Station where a similar ration was fed. Smith found that it required 9.5 pounds of corn and 5.2 pounds of prairie hay for the production of a pound of gain with western bred steers. From Table No. I it may be seen that there was a gain of .24 of a pound more daily with the lot getting whole speltz than with the lot getting ground speltz. The ground speltz lot did not have the finish, when sold that the other lots had. Their lines were not filled out as they should be after feeding this period of time. The cost of producing a pound of gain is based on the fol- lowing prices of feeds: Shelled corn 40 cents per bushel. Whole speltz 60 cents per hundred. Ground speltz 67 cents per hundred. Prairie hay $6.00 per ton. These prices may seem too high for some localities in the state but the results show the actual cost outside of labor, which is usually offset by the value of manure to the next crop, the marketing of the grains and roughage at home, etc. This test shows that a pound of corn is equal to one and one-fourth pounds of speltz for steer-feeding. It also shows that where the corn and speltz were mixed half and half by weight, the relation is about the same with a small increase in gain in favor of the mixture. 125 Tab e No. II. SPELTZ FOR SWINE 'O S T3 08 I'd TD'O 'C **"* en 2 «S 2 §8 Kind of Feed >, e "c ° 3) Q O rt O ll 8 £ & o.S M Whole Speltz. ...... 44 702 QI 7.71 4.6 Speltz and Corn . . . 44 I ^7 c 20 -2 C «5 Ground Speltz 44 893 1 08 8.26 c.c The swine used in this experiment had been following the three lots of steers fed on speltz for 57 days and weighed 250 pounds to 280 pounds per head at beginning of the test, but were not fat. All feeds were weighed carefully morning and evening before feeding. From Table No. II will be seen that where the grain was ground they consumed more but it also required .55 of a pound more of grain to make a pound of gain. Table No. III. SWINE FOLLOWING STEERS FED ON SPELTZ. 5 *J rt bC i- / ^~ bJO C ^^ v * « fl Is 73 c be ^ j> C o-Q c ^ v, G O "rt 2.E ^ '> C W3 Kind of feed & .S ^•oSJ C e stock and is produced in the western part of the state, where stockraising occupies nearly the whole attention of the population.. By reason of the fact that range cattle are run in large herds and are, by force of circumstances, obliged to. "rustle" con- siderably for a living, they will be neither so carefully selected nor. so uniformly fed and sheltered as the domestic or farm stock. They are coarser, later maturing and not so capable of producing prime beef as the farm stock. As a general proposition, because of their poorer breed- ing and selection, together with their HJSS adaptability to handling and slower response in the feed lot, it is safe to say that they will never seriously compete with farm cattle on the market. The animals fed on small farms will rank much nearer strictly prime beef than will the range steers, even when the latter are fattened. The small farmer will probably feed cattle with greater profit to himself than will the feeder of range stock. Amonig the advantages which the farmer will have over the ranchman in feeding cattle are the following: It will make a market for grain which is "off" grade and often wasted when not so used. It makes a market for his time in winter, which would not otherwise be sold. It forms a kind of savings bank by forcing him to place a considerable value in stock, which is released in one sum. By growing corn fodder for stock the land is kept free from weeds. Cultivated land produces good follow- ing wheat crops. The tests at this Station published in the Eighth Annual Report, page 72, show the increased yields of wheat for the three years following a cultivated crop to be 17.6 bushel? more per acre than on land, which had had no rest from wheat. Farms upon, which stock is kept and fattened annually do not lose their fertility as do the grain cropped farms. Range stock must of necessity be sent to the eastern half of the state to fatten, they being less expensive to ship than would be the somewhat bulky grain feed. I wish to call attention again to the fact that all of the railroads of tihe stare are taking a deep interest in having our stock finished at home, and assert that they stand ready to make all reasonable concessions in the way of feeding privileges and rates possible, to bring about this result. 283 THE OUTLOOK FOR CATTLE PRICES. The outlook for a term of years often constitutes an important feature upon entering into a niew enterprise. A question arising in the mind of onie contemplating the establishment of a feeding station is, what will be the future demand for and price of cat- tle? It is a well known and too frequently illustrated fact that cattle must be bought at a reasonable price -as well as fed right, if a profit is to accrue from the operation. It is well for the buyer and feeder to have in mind the general facts so far as they may be learned from statistics. The number of cattle in the United States has decreased rapidly dur- ing the past six years. The causes which brought about this condition were varied. The price of stock lor about five years gradually fell, and a lack of activity was the common complaint from the market. This de- pression was simultaneous with depressions in other commercial pro- ducts. At the same time the price paid for sheep and hogs fell and their numbers decreased. Breeding stock was sold off very close, and t'he United States today contains the smallest percentage of cattle in propor- tion to the population which it has for many years. Against the facts leannied from statistics must be placed the market demand for younger stock. A much larger number of two-year-old cattle are now being demanded by and placed upon the market than there was in 1892 and during earlier years. T\vo-year-old cattle can be pro- duced in iwo-fthirds of the time which is required to rear three-year-olds, and in one-half the time in which four-year-olds can be placed upon the market. This earlier maturing beef will account for only a small fraction of the decrease in t'he number of beef cattle. The export or foreign trade in live cattle has increased more than one-third during the past five years, and our trade in fresh beef has increased at about the same rate. The niajoir part of this trade is with Great Britain, a fact which indicates that it will probably remain stable without marked increase or decrease in the future. Increasing OUT foreign trade is a possibility which can only be hoped for by the introduction of thoroughly inspected meats into Ger- many and France, the prospects for which are not flattering at the present time. South American countries are competing to a certain extent, but eve seriously handicapped by having much higher shipping rates to the English markets than we have. Australia devotes her attention almost exclusively to mutton pro- duction. Russia will not prove a serious competitor in the near future probably, from the fact that she has no large packing concerns, nor rigid govern- ment system of inspection, both of which it requires time to establish. Its peasantry are probably not capable of feeding and breeding stock of a sufficiently high quality to compete in the European markets. The market value of cattle is dependent to a considerable degree upon £84 our national laws governing the importation of stock. Canada at the north and Mexico on the south have sent many animals into the United States luring- the pasi few years. At present, however, the policy of strongly restricting them is in vogue, and will doubtless continue for a lew years, if not permanently. A canvas of the conditions in the meat markets of Chicago on the part of *lie Breeders' Gazette, shows very plainly the effect of the general finances of the country upon the meat market. The retail meat markets of Chicago demanded smaller carcasses as well as a less total quantity of meat to supply the market demand during the period of financial depres- sion. Their customers bought smaller roasts and lighter cuts of meat throughout, which brought about a general market demand for lighter animals. Meat producing stock of aill classes come more or Less directly into competition in supplying the market demand, and it takes less time to increase the number of sheep and hogs than it does cattle. The facts reviewed above seem to indicate that present high prices may be expected to continue for several years. It will require' a number O'f years to grow breeding stock sufficient to bring the number back to that owned by the people of the United States prior to 1893. HANDLING RANCH CATTLE. The handling of the wild and not infrequently vicious -range stock adds a number of problems to those of ordinary feeding. Older stock must be taken and a longer preliminary feeding must be provided. In answer to many of the questions which will arise with one con- templating the fattening of range stock, I will quote freely from Manager Iv. M. Allen's report of the operations of the Standard Cattle Company, of Ames, Neb., published im the Report of the Kansas State Board of Agri- culture for the quarter ending December, 1897. This company has fed nearly 50,000 head of cattle for an average period of 186 1-3 days. They have kept a careful record of their live weights, gains made, grain eaten, and of their operations in general. This large number of animals, an average of about 4,500 a year, carried along successfully on grain feed for eleven years must sho# very nearly what must be expected in feeding ranch cattle on a large scale. Mr. Allen states that the cattle used were largely raised on their own ranch in Wyoming, where Shorthorn and Hereford full blood and grade bulls have been used for the past ten years. Some cattle have been purchased outside, however, and were mostly the medium grade of Texas steers. Their cattle have been four and five years old, with occasionally an older animal. The practice of Manager Allen is to give his animals a lonig prelim- inary feeding upon cut or shredded corm fodder before feeding them a grain ration. He has found, however, a fact which I did not learn in the feed- ing- experiment reported in these pages, i. e., with a large number of 285 animals running together in one feed lot, much extra care must be exer- cised to prevent the sickening of the more greedy ones. He says: "In January, 1896, however, after the most extreme care during the fall in putting our cattle on feed, and after they had been for a lomg while on a feed of ground grain of nearly twenty pounds per day, besides the corn they were getting in cut fodder, when attempting to raise them to a full feed of ground grain we sickened 150 head in a day, and killed several." In the feeding experiment at this Station, we found much trouble in getting some of the range steers to eat grain feed. They were first fed a mixture of bran and shorts with a little oil meal and seemed to gradually learn to like it. There was much difference in individuals, some taking to grain very readily, even greedily after a few days, while others ate sparingly for a long time. These steers which failed to- learn to eat readily did not seem to be what are known by feeders as "dainty" steers, but only slow in learning to eat. I can readily see how a considerable percentage of such steeis in a bunch of cattle fed together might induce the feeder to increase the quantity oi grain feed too ralpid'ly far the ca- pacity of the more greedy animals. It was foumd also that after these steers had acquired a taste for bran and shorts that they did not care for so palatable a food as corn meal of a good grade. It took a number of days to ger certain of them to eat even a fair amount of corn meal after having Earned to eat bran and shorts greedily. The same difficulty, al- though less marked, was fotmd in starting the lot of steers upon barley alter the preliminary feeding on bran" and shorts for a month. It will thus be seen that the feeder will be obliged to exercise care and to watch his animals closely when a change in the ration is made. Mr. Allen's results answer some of the most important questions, which come to one contemplating the establishment of a feeding station, viz., How much grain will they consume per day? How much hay or other rough forage will they eat? What rate of gain per day can be expected Irom ranige cattle when fed in yards. What shrinkage do they riake in shipping? How many cattle can be fed in a single yard? The average weight of Mr. .Mien's steers upon entering the feed lot was i,027Y2 pounds, and at the time of shipping them to market they weighed 1,260 1-5 pounds. Thus it wi'i'l be seen that the figures given be- low are from practically 50,000 head of cattle, fed in about equal numbers during eleven seasons. The average weight of these steers was 1,143 4-5 pounds, which means that they would be known to the buyer as 1,150 pound steers. The average length of time fed was 186 1-3 days, the range being from 126 to 252 days. They ate an average of 16 3-4 pounds of grain (largely corn meal) per day. They consumed practically 12 pounds of hay and other rough food daily. 286 The average gain was 1.26 pounds or practically I 1-4 pounds per day. He recommends feeding steers in yards containing 150 animals. Mr. Allen states that in shipping cattle no special preparation could be given them, as steers which were ready for market were selected from different yards and thrown together. He states, however, that he does not allow them to drink too heavily before shipping them. It is preferable to ship cattle on dry rather than o>n succulent feed. They seem to shrink less and are much less subject to scours. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENT AT THIS STATION. Eight head of steers which had escaped from a car by the door being accidentally left open, were secured for this test. They came from the range west of the Missouri River in this state. They were a little over thirty months old at the beginninig of the test, and were nearly three years old when the experiment closed. Seven of them showed the result of an intermingling of Shorthbrn blood and were probabl> between quarter and half blood Shorthorns. The other steer No. 8 showed Aberdeen Angus blood and was probably a half blood. He was well marked and was a well proportioned steer. From the accidental m'an/ner in which these eight steers happened to be the ones taken for the test, it will be seen that they were not specially selected. My judgment is, however, that they would average considerably better than the ranige stock of our state, but many similar ones can be had each year. They were not accus- tomed to beinig handled, and it was found impossible to manage one of the number in a way which would give his individual live weight, and the. weight of feed which he ate. Steer No. 10 was inclined to be persistently vicious also, but was sufficiently tractable to be used on the test. My thanks are due Mr. H. M. Ash, the farm foreman, and his men for the careful weighing and general handlinig of these wild, and at times dangerous steers. In addition to the seven head of range cattle used in the te>sit, three head of steers reared at the Experiment Station were used. These latter were of the same age as the ranch steers. One was a full blood Hereford, one a half blood Hereford and the other probably a half blood Hoi stein.. The cattle were divided into two lots of five steers each, the two lots weighing practically the same. The two steers with Hereford blood were placed in the barley fed lot, and the Holstein and Aberdeen Angus steers were placed in the bran and shorts lot. The two Hereford steers were at a disadvantage from the fact that the full blood Hereford No. 3 was sick for about three weeks and lost flesh for awhile. The half blood Hereford was also handicapped by reason of having carried more fat at the beginning of the test than did amy otfher steer. 287 RESULTS FROM A PRELIMINARY FEEDING OF BRAN, SHORTS AND OIL MEAL. Three grade Shorthorn range steers, the Aberdeen Angus range steer and the Experiment Station Holstein grade steer constituted the brian and shorts fed animals on this experiment. These steers together with the barley lot were fed 'bran and shorts, equal parts by weight, mixed with a pound of oil meal per day per head. This ration was given them for a month, while they were becoming ac- customed to a gnain ration as well as to confinement in the barn, and to the handling, which the test made necessary. During this first four weeks this lot of steers ate an average of 12 pounds of grain per day and made an average gain of a little less than a pound and >a quarter per day. The remaining five steers constituting the lot which was to be compared with them ate a fraction less -than 12 pounds per head per day and gained an average of a little more than, a pound and a third each daily. The following table gives the facts stated above in convenient form; RESULTS OF FOUR WEEKS PRELIMINARY FEEDIN'G WITH BRAN AND SHORTS. Lot No. Number of Animals. Average Weight of Steers. Average Weight Grain Eaten per Day. Average Gain in Weight per Day. Grain Eaten per lb. Gain. i 2 5 5 1'bs. 992.3 994-3 Ibs. 11.88 ! 12.05 Ibs. 1.38 1.24 Ibs. i 8.60 9-70 The barley lot are thus seen to have made a somewhat better showimg whik on the same grain during the preliminary feeding. By the above figures it is learned that the brain and shorts steers re- quired 9.79 pounds of grain to gain one pound in weight, and the barley steers required 8.6 pounds of grain to gain one pound in weight while up- on the same feed. BRAN AND SHORTS VERSUS BARLEY. At the cl'ose of the four weeks' preliminary feeding a twelve weeks' test of ground barley against bran and shorts was begun. During the time of this test tihe bran and shorts were mixed in tihe proportion of two parts shorts to one part of bran by weight and to each ten pounds of the mix- ture a pound of oil meal was added. Oil meal was also added to the ground barley at the above rate, viz., one pound of oil meal to ten pounds of ground barley. The bran and shorts fed steers gained an average of a little over a pound and a third per day. They ate an average of 14 1^3 pounds of grain a day. The barley fed steers gained an average of nearly a pound 288 and three quarters per day. They ate an average of nearly 16 pounds of gram per day. The following table shows the amount of food eaten and t'he daily gain made: IxKSTLT FROM FEEDI X'G I5AK1.EY VER-L'S BRAN AND SHORTS TOR TWELVE WEEKS. Kind of Feed. Average Weight of Steers. Grain Eaten per Day. Hay Eaten per Day. Gain in Weight per Day Grain Eaten per Ib. Gain Five steers fed barley.. Five steers fed bran and shorts Ibs. 1080.4 1054.8 Ibs. 15-9 14-32 Ibs. 16.9 17. 16 Ibs. 1-74 j i-35 Ibs. 9-14 10.6 It will be seen from the above table that about TO 1-2 pounds of bran ci!i-;e of this twehc weeks' test that the bran and -hort-. fed steers, were not becoming so well finished as the 'barley fed steers. The difference, in quality or ripeness was greater than the difference in the rate of increase in weight l; i X A XC 1 A L ST AT KM EXT. statement from any particular experiment )f limited hanges in the price of feed. The 289 prices paid for feeding stock and the value of fat cattle also enter into the problem and have the effect of making it variable. The following facts are given, however, which show the results actually obtained in this test and with a substitution 'of values prevailing at another time may prove helpful to feeders. VALUE OF FEEDS. Barley 36 cents per bushel; 75 cents per 100 pounds. Oil meal $20.00 per ton; $1.00 per 100 pounds. Bran and shorts $12.00 per ton; 60 cents per 100 pounds. Play $4.00 per ton; 20 cents per 100 pounds. Following is the cost per 100 pounds of gain wiith the different rations fed: COST OF IOO POUNDS GAIN. LOT I. Barley, 822 3-5 pounds $6. 17 Oil Meal. 91 2-5 pounds 91 Hay, 970 pounds i . 94 Total $ 9.02 LOT n. Bran and shorts, 907 pounds $ 5 . 44 Oil Meal, 102 1-2 pounds T .03 Hay, 1,271 pounds 2. 54 Total .$ 9.01 From the above tabk it willl be learned that with the prices prevailing at the time of the test, there was but one cent per hundred pounds differ- ence im the cost of the feed required to produce 100 pounds gain. GAIN IN VALUE OF THE STEERS. The price received per pourid for the aictual gate in weight of fat cattle represents the smaller part of thei* increase in value. In addition to the value of the gained weight, is the gain on the original weight, which brinigs a higher price per pound. In this test the increase in value of the original carcass was one cent per pound. At the beginning of this experiment local buyers offered three and one- half cents per pound for the steers used, and at the close they valued them at four and one-half cents per pound. It is perhaps not quite fair to count the increased value of the original carcass whoilly due to the twelve, weeks of grain feeding, as the increase might not have occurred had it not been for the four preceding weeks of preliminary feeding. 290 The exact facts are stated concerning the prices offered, but feeling that they may not represent the whole truth, 1 make this explanation. The bran and shorts fed steers showed less of what is known as ripe- ness, finiis'h or quaLity at the ertd of the twelve weeks of the test than did the barley fed lot. I am of the opinion that they would have been rated somewhat lower on the Chicago market. BARLEY FED STEERS. Weight of five steers at the beginning of the test, 4,916 pounds at 3 1-2 cents $ 172.06 Weight of five steers at the close of the test, 5,791 pounds, at 4 1-2 cents 260.59 Increase in value $ 88. 53 COST OF FEED EATEN. Barley, 6,013 pounds at 36 cents per bushel $ 45.00 Oil Meal, 668 pounds at $20.00 per too 6.68 Hay, 7,093 pounds, at $4.00 per ton 14. 19 Total cost of feed $ 65.97 Balance or profit $ 22.56 Average profit per steer $ 4.51 BRAN" AND SHORTS FED STEERS. Weight of five steers at the beginning of the test, 5,060 pounds at 3 1-2 cents $ 177.10 Weight of five stee/s at the close of the test, 5,627 pounds at d 1-2 cents 253 .22 Increase in value $ 76. 12 COST OF FEED EATEN". Bran and shorts, 5,143 pounds, at $12.00 per ton $ 30.86 Oil meal, 571 pounds, at $20.00 per ton 5.71 Hay, 7,203 pounds, at $4.00 per ton 14.41 Total $ 50.98 Balance or profit $ 25. 14 Profit per steer $ 5.03 It will thus be seen that with the prices given the steers fed bran and shorts gave fifty-two cents per head more profit than did the lot fed barley, although the barley fed steers made much more rapid daily gains and a greater increase m weight for each hundred pounds of grain eaten. By substituting the prices for feed in any given community the results, in so far as this test is an indication, can be readily ascertained. . 291 CONCLUSIONS. This experiment and the data obtained from other sources given in the foregoing pages indicate: 1. There is enough grain and mill products in the state to fatten our cattle. 2. That feeding stations can be made a success where a supply of tran and shorts are assured. j. Cattle can be profitably fattened on corn fodder, hay and barley on nearly all the farms in North Dakota. 4. It is not advisable to feed mo-re than 150 head of cattle in one \ard. 5. Grass fat range steers do not compete directly with gram fed steers. 6. Growing corn fodder for roughage makes fewer weeds and heavier yields for following wheat crops. 7. The market demand will probably continue to be good owing to a scarcity of meat producing animal's in the United States. 8. Range steers require a long preliminary feeding before a heavy supply of grain is given them. 9. Eleven hundred fifty pound 'Steers fed for 'a period of six months -.vill eat an average of about 16 3-4 pounds of grain and 12 pounds of hay per day. 10. Range steers fed in a commercial way will gain from a pound and a quarter to a pound and a half per day.' 11. Cattle should neithei be gorged nor starved for feed oir water before shipment is made. A medium quantity of dry feed is best. 12. Barley gives a heavier gain per hundred pounds of grain fed and a higher rate of giain per day than does bra-n and shorts. 13. With the prices for feed which prevailed locally, bnan and shorts gave the cheaper gain and the greater profit. ]. H. SHEPPERD. INDEX. PAGE Sources of Feed 281 Grain Feed 381 Rough Feed 282 Who can do the Feeding 282 Cattle Prices, Outlook for 283 Ranch Cattle, Handling of 284 Steer Feeding Experiment at Station 286 Results from a Preliminary Feeding of Bran, Shorts and Oil Meal. . 287 Bran and Shorts vs. Barley 287 Financial Statement 288 Value of Feeds 289 Gain in Value of the Steers 289 Barley Fed Steers 290 Cost of Feed Eaten 290 Bran and Shorts Fed Steers 290 Cost of Feed Eaten 290 Conclusions 291 BULLETIN No. 96. JANUARY, 1909. Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. STEER-FEEDING. BY JOHN M. SCOTT. . Fig. 1. Two year old grade, weight 620 pounds. Good form for a feeder. The Bulletins of this Station will be sent free to any address in Florida upon application to the Director of the Experiment Station, Gainesville, Fla. The Record Co., St. Augustine, Fla. CONTENTS. PACK Cattle Feeding in the South 29 Cattle Feeding in Florida 29 Need of More Beef and Better Cattle 29 Improved Blood Increases Meat Yield 30 Orading I'p Not Difficult 30 Feeding Experiment 30 1 fo\v the Experiment Was Conducted 31 The Feeds Which AYere Compared 31 Results of the Experiment 34 Financial Results . 35 IMPORTANT FACTS. 1 . Florida farmers can produce good beef with Florida-grown feeds. 'i. Beef can be produced practically as cheaply in Florida as elsewhere. :•>. The feeding period required to fatten cattle in Florida is shorter than in the Northern States. f. The average daily gain that may be obtained in Florida by proper methods of feeding is larger than the Northern feeder can expect. 5. A combination of corn, velvet beans in the pod, and some rough- age (such as cottonseed hulls, crab-grass hay, or sorghum hay), with a nutritive ratio of '1 :<> or 1 :7, will give best results. I I>y nutritive ratio is meant the ratio between digestible protein and carbohydrates ; thus, a feed containing one pound of digestible protein to six pounds of digestible carbohydrates would have a nut ritive ratio of 1 :(>. ) 0. To make- cattle- feeding profitable we must use well-bred bulls of STEER-FEEDING. BY JOHN M. SCOTT. CATTLE-FEEDING IN THE SOUTH. With the present development of agriculture in the South, few sub- jects have received more attention from public men than the feeding of animals for meat products. The idea is that the South should not only supply its own meats, but also that Southern farmers should feed out as much as possible of the cottonseed meal and other rich protein feeds produced here, which are now shipped away to other States, and by this means also, to a large extent, replace commercial fertilizers with barnyard manure. The fertility of the land would be increased by the addition of the manure produced by feeding protein feeds, and also by the growing of legumes, such as velvet beans, cowpeas and beggar- weed — all of which are excellent feeds to use in the production of meat. CATTLE-FEEDING IN FLORIDA. Cattle-feeding as an industry is in its infancy in Florida. While many farmers own a few cattle, and a few farmers own large herds, yet fattening for the market has received but little attention. But like some other agricultural undertakings, cattle-feeding has seldom been thoroughly tried, and few men have given to the industry serious atten- tion or protracted effort. From results obtained on the Station farm we are led to believe that this industry will become one of no small im- portance. With the clearing of new lands, and the further introduction of im- proved farm machinery and up-to-date methods of handling and caring for the various farm crops, a considerable area will be added to that already in cultivation. Feeds of all kinds will become in consequence more plentiful, and it follows that a strong and increasing demand will be felt for ways and means of disposing of these products. The custom of growing only one money crop — cotton — is fast being re- placed by the better practice of alternating numerous other crops, such as corn, velvet beans, sweet potatoes and forage crops, which are ex- cellent feed for all classes of live stock. Probably no better way can be suggested for marketing farm products than to feed them to live stock on the farm. When any feedstuff that is rich in ammonia (ammonia in feedstuffs corresponds to protein) is fed to animals, only a part of the ammonia is retained in the animal body ; hence the manure produced is rich in ammonia. It should be remembered that ammonia is the most costly of the fertilizing elements that we have to buy. Therefore if we can produce it on^the farm and at the same time grow a good crop of feed, it serves us a double purpose ; and this can be done by growing leguminous crops and feeding them to live stock on the farm. NEED OF MORE BEEF AND BETTER CATTLE. Florida does not produce enough meat to supply perhaps more than a quarter of what it consumes, but depends upon the Northern States 30 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. for probably about three-fourths of all its meats. This certainly is not because we can not raise beef, pork, or mutton in Florida ; for we do actually raise large numbers of cattle, hogs and sheep. From the re- sults of the test given in this bulletin we find that we can produce beef nearly as cheaply here as elsewhere ; but at the present time fat cattle on foot sell for considerably less per pound than do fat cattle in the Northern States. On the other hand, the meat on the block is practi- cally the same in price. This is due largely to the inferior grade of live stock common in the South, and can only be changed by the improve- ment of the grade of cattle. IMPROVED BLOOD INCREASES MEAT YIELD. The native cows and steers resemble animals of the dairy breeds with regard to beef production. They lack the width and thickness of loin, the round full quarter, and the thick well-covered rib, which are so characteristic of animals bred for beef. The beef steer makes its increase in weight in these parts — the parts that are most valuable for meat. The frame of the native animal is small and narrow, and while it makes a good gain in weight when fattened, yet the gain is made in those parts of the body that are of little food value, as the fat around the kidneys and viscera. The animal that makes the gain in weight in the valuable cuts, such as the loin, quarter, and rib, is natu- rally the most profitable. GRADING-UP NOT DIFFICULT. The improvement of cattle by grading-up is not difficult. The one important point is the selection of a good sire. The sire should be a pure-bred animal of one of the beef breeds, and not produced from a cross or mixture of breeds. The usual objection is the cost of a pure- bred sire. This may be $100 or $150. True, this does seem a great price to one who is accustomed to purchase a native bull for $25. But, if a farmer has a herd of fifty cows, the increased value of the first lot of calves would more than pay for the pure-bred sire. Suppose that the first calves from the pure-bred sire number thirty ; at the end of three years the gain in selling price over native stock would be more than $300, or twice the cost of the sire. This leaves out of considera- tion the younger calves, and supposes that all are sold for beef, while in reality the heifers would be retained to improve the herd. FEEDING EXPERIMENT. The experiment was conducted for the purpose of securing infor- mation on the following points : 1. What combination of our feeds wrill give the best results for beef production? 2. What will be the cost of producing a pound of gain? 3. How long a feeding period is required to fatten Florida-grown cattle for the local market? 4. What average daily gain in weight should the Florida feeder expect? Bulletin No. 96. HOW THE EXPERIMENT WAS CONDUCTED. 31 Sixteen head of steers were used in this experiment. These steers were bred and raised by S. H. Gaitskill, of Mclntosh, Fla., and were from native Florida cows, sired by a well-bred Shorthorn bull. The steers were divided into four lots of four steers each, as nearly equal in weight and quality as possible. Each lot was weighed at the begin- ning, and every thirty days until the end of the experiment. The weighings were all done in the morning, after feeding hay and grain, but before watering. The weights given are averages of three weigh- ings on three consecutive days. The weights were all taken on a pair of wagon scales which were located near the feed-lots. A chute connected the yard with the scales. The feeding-yard for each lot of steers was 75 by 100 feet. hig. 2. bteers ot Lot 1 at beginning ot test. mS?1 m B W m K Fig. 3. Three steers of Lot I at end of test. THE FEEDS WHICH WERE COMPARED. The crab-grass hay, velvet beans, and sorghum silage used in this feeding test were grown on the Station farm, and for the experiment were estimated at $4.00, $6.00 and $3.00 per ton, respectively— which is about the actual cost of production. The corn, cottonseed meal, and cottonseed hulls were purchased on the market, and when deliv- ered at the railroad station cost : corn, $1.58 ; cottonseed meal, $1.50 : Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, and cottonseed hulls, $0.73 a hundred. The steers in lot I were fed corn, cottonseed meal and crab-grass hay; lot II, corn, cottonseed meal, sorghum silage, and cottonseed hulls ; lot III, corn, velvet beans in the pod, and cottonseed hulls, and lot IV, cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls. TABLE I RATIONS PER THOUSAND POUNDS LIVE WEIGHT. Lot I Pounds Lot II Pounds Lot III Pounds *Lot IV Pounds Corn 10.5'» 6 00 8.00 Cottonseed meal 3.75 5.00 6.50 Crab-fijrass hay 13 50 Sorghum silage 20.00 Cottonseed, hulls 14.00 10.00 25 00 Velvet beans in pod 12.00 Nutritive ratio 1:0 1:6 1:6.5 1:4.8 *On February 16, the feed for this lot was changed to one pound of meal to three pounds of hulls. This was done because the steers did not eat their feed well, and appeared to have too much roughage for the amount of con- centrate they were getting. Hg. 4. Steers ot Lot 11 at Deginnmg ot test. Fig. .5. Steers of Lot II at end of test. The steers were all started on a preliminary feeding on January lr 1908, and this was continued for two weeks, when all the steers in each lot had become accustomed to the feeds and surroundings. On Jan- uary 15, 1908, the feeding test proper began, and lasted eighty-four days, closing April 8, 1908. Bulletin No. 96. TABLE II. FEEDS CONSUMED. 33 Lot 1 Pounds Lot 11 Pounds Lot III Pounds Lot IV Pounds Corn 3311 18SO 2528 Cottonseed meal J179 1576.5 1963 Crab-grass hay 4370 Sorghum silage 6288 Cottonseed, hulls 4408 3144 6174 Velvet beans in pod 3760 Totals 8863 14152 5 9432 8137 Average daily roughage per head. 13.00 31.83 13.83 18.37 Table II shows the amounts of feeds consumed by each lot of steers. From the table it will be seen that there was little difference as to the average daily roughage consumed by the steers in lots I and III ; but the steers in lot IV ate more. The apparently large daily amount of roughage consumed by the steers in lot II is due to the silage fed, which contained about 75 per cent, of water. Fig. 6. Steers of Lot III at beginning of test. Fig. 7. Steers of Lot III at end of test. 34 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. t RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT. TABLE III. WEIGHTS AND GAINS BY PERIODS. DATE Lot I Pounds Lot 11 Pounds Lot ill Pounds Lot IV Pounds January 15 — Beginning 2920 2891 2818 2869 .February 14 — Thirty days . . 3218 3128 3106 3010 JVlarch 15 — Sixty days 3481 3427 3415 3166 April 8 — Eighty-four days '3788 3782 3800 3490 Pounds gained in first 30 days . 29d 237 288 141 Pounds gained in second 30 days 263 299 309 156 Pounds gained in last 24 days 307 355 385 324 Table III shows the weights and gains by periods. The steers in all lots except lot IV made good gains from the beginning to the end of the feeding experiment, and in the last 24 days of feeding the steers in lot IV also made satisfactory gains. The weights are the averages of weighings on three consecutive days. TABLE IV. WEIGHTS AND GAINS. Lot I Pounds Lot II Pounds Lot III Pounds Lot IV Pounds Weight at beginning of test 2920 2891 2818 2869 Weight at end of test 3788 3782 3800 3490 Total gain 868 891 982 621 Average gain per head 217 225 25 245 5 155 25 Average daily gain per head 4) 583 2 681 2 922 1 X48 Average daily gain per 1000 Ibs. live wt. Pounds feed for one pound of gain 3.538 10.21 3.712 15.883 4.147 9.604 2.576 13.103 Cost of one pound of gain $.0907 $.1065 $.0755 $.1200 Table IV shows the weights and gains per lot and per head, the average daily gains, the pounds of food required to make one pound of gain, and the cost of one pound of gain. A glance at this table shows that the steers in lot III not only made the best gains, but the cost per pound of gain was considerably less than for the other lots of steers. It will be noticed that the cost of one pound of gain decreases as the average daily gain increases. The amount of feed consumed does not wholly determine the average daily gain or the cost per pound of gain. But the nutritive ratio of the rations fed, as is seen in the case of lot IV, to a large extent controls the average daily gain, and the cost per pound of gain. The nearer a balanced ration is fed (nutritive ratio 1:6 or 1:7), the larger average daily gain may be expected, and the cheaper will be the gain per pound. It will be seen that the steers in lot IV, on cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls, made only an average daily gain of 1.848 pounds, Bulletin No. 96. 35 while the steers in lot III, on corn, velvet beans in the pod, and cotton- seed hulls, made an average daily gain of 2.922 pounds. This does not mean that cottonseed meal is not a good meat producer, but that the combination of feeds in the case of lot IV was not what it should have been. When feeding cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls only, it is impossible to combine them so as to give a balanced ration. Then again the farmer can grow such feeds as velvet beans, corn, and some roughage (such. as crab-grass hay, or sorghum hay) much cheaper than he can buy cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls, and as good and perhaps better and cheaper gains could have been obtained if lot III had been fed crab-grass hay or sorghum hay instead of cottonseed hulls. FINANCIAL RESULTS. TABLE V. LOT I. Dr. Cr. By 4 steers 3788 Ibs live weight (^ $ 035 per Ib $132.58 T'n 4 «tppr« 9Q90 1V»« livp wpicrVit fa) $ 02o r»Pr lh $73 00 To 8314 Ibs corn (5)/ $1 58 per hundred 52.36 To 1179 Ibs cottonseed meal &/ $1 50 per hundred 17 68 To 4370 Ibs. crab-grass hay @ $4.00 per ton 8.74 151.78 $ 19.20 LOT II. By 4 steers 3782 Ibs live weight @ $ 035 per Ib $132.37 To 4 steers 2891 Ibs live weight @ $ 0^5 per Ib $72 27 To 1880 Ibs corn @ $1 58 per hundred 29 70 To 1576 5 Ibs cottonseed meal @ $1 50 per hundred 23 65 To 6288 Ibs sorghum silage @ $3 00 per ton 9 43 To 4408 Ibs. cottonseed hulls @ $.73 per hundred 32.18 167.23 Loss . . .• $ 34.86 LOT III. By 4 steers, 3800 Ibs. live weight. @ $.035 per Ib $133.00 To 4 steers 2818 Ibs live weight @ $ 025 per Ib $70 45 To 2528 Ibs corn @ $1 .58 per hundred 39.94 To 3144 Ibs cottonseed hulls @/ $ 73 per hundred 22 95 To 3760 Ibs. velvet beans in pod @ $6.00 per ton 11/28 144.62 Loss $ 11.62 LOT IV. By 4 steers, 3490 Ibs. live weight, @ $ 035 per Ib. $122.15 To 4 steers, 2869 Ibs. live weight, @ $ OU5 per Ib $71 72 To 1963 Ibs. cottonseed meal @ $1.50 per hundred 29 44 To 6174 Ibs. cottonseed hulls @ $.73 per hundred 45.07 146.23 Loss $ 24 08 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. Fig. 8. Steers of Lot IV at beginning of test. Fig. 9. Steers of Lot IV at end o The above table shows the cost of the feeds consumed and the loss on each lot of steers, figuring the feeds at the cost delivered at the railroad station. It will be seen from the table that all steers were fed at a loss varying from $11.62 to $34.86 per lot. This may be accounted for in three ways. First : the financial condition of affairs throughout the United States during the past winter was such that the prices of such products were considerably lower than if conditions had been normal. In fact there were very few if any cattle purchased before November 1, 1907, and fed out drring the winter, but what were fed at a loss of $5 to $10 per head. This does not apply to Florida alone, but to the entire cattle-feeding section of the United States. Second: the steers were fed late in the season, and at the time the cattle were sold, grass-fattened animals were being put on the market; hence the prices at the time were lower than they had been a month earlier. The buyer said at the time, that if the steers had been put on the market a month earlier, they would have been worth $.04 a pound, which is $.50 a hundred more than what they brought. Bulletin No. pd. 37 If then we figure them at this earlier price, the results will be dif- ferent. Lot III would then show a gain of $7.39; lot I, a loss of 26c; lot IV, a loss of $6.G3, and lot II, a loss of $15.95. Third : at the present time local buyers throughout the State make very little if any difference in the price per pound between half fat and well finished cattle. Hence there is no inducement for the feeder to go to extra expense to supply a first-class cut of beef. It is right that the middleman should allow the feeder a difference in price, just as he charges a different price to the consumer. The consumer would rather pay a difference of one or two cents a pound between the price of good and poor beef; for the fatter the animal, the sweeter, the juicier, and the more tender is the meat. MONTANA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE EXPERIMENT STATION F. B. LINFIEL.D, DIRECTOR BULLETIN NO. 58 FATTENING CATTLE FOR THE YEARS 1904 AND 19O5 BT F. B. LINFIELD Animal Industry BOZEMAN, MONTANA OCTOBER 1905 MONTANA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE EXPERIMENT STATION BOZEMAN, MONTANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION JOSEPH K. TOOLE, Governor \ A. J. GALEN, Attorney-General v Ex-OJficio W. E. HARMON, Supt of Public Instruction ) J. M. EVANS ...... C. R. LEONARD ...... N. W. MCCONNELL ..... O. P. CHISHOLM ..... S. D. LARGENT ..... G. T. PAUL E. O. BUSENBURG . CHARLES R. KESSLER EXECUTIVE BOARD WALTER S. HARTMAN, President • E. B. LAMME, Vice- President .... PETER KOCH, Secretary .... JOHN MAXEY ...... JOHN ROBINSON ...... STATION STAFF HELENA MlSSOULA BUTTE HELENA BOZEMAN GREAT FALLS DILLON LEWISTOWN HELENA BOZEMAN BOZEMAN BOZEMAN BOZEMAN BOZEMAN F. B. LINFIELD, B. S. A., Director and Animal Industry R. A. COOLEY, B. Sc., Entomologist V. K. CHESNUT, B. Sc., Chemist R. W. FISHER, B. S , Horticulturist E. TAPPAN TANNAT, Irrigation Engineer W. J. ELLIOTT, B. S. A., Dairyman ALFRED ATKINSON, B. S. A., Agronomist EDMUND BURKE, Assistant Chemist FRANK HAM, B. S., Assistant Chemist Post Office, Express and Freight Station, Bozeman. . b All communications to the Experiment Station should be addressed to THE MONTANA EXPERIMENT STATION, Bozeman, Montana. NOTICE. — The Bulletins of the Experiment Station will be mailed free to any citizen of Montana on request. Please state whether all publications are desired as issued or only those specified. Give name and address plainly. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENT, 1903-4. INTRODUCTION. The feeding tests with the car load of steers was again taken up during the winter of 1903-4. We were somewhat late in getting the animals, so that they were put immediately into the feeding yards upon their arrival at the college farm. 32 head "of steers were fed. They ranged in age from two to three years and were an average lot of range steers, though nothing extra as to quality. They were purchased from two or three farmers in the neighbor- hood of Bozeman and cost an average of a little over three cents vper. pound live weight. Some of the steers were dehorned when purchased, but about half the lot were dehorned just before the test started. PURPOSE AND PLAN OF THE TEST. This experiment was arranged as a continuation of the ex- periment of the year before, namely, to test the feeding value ©f the different kinds of grain and combinations of grain which are available to the Montana farmer. The steers were divided into four lots, 8 steers in each lot, our aim being to divide these steers as evenly as possible according to weight and quality. The lots were fed as follows : Lot I received clover hay and crushed wheat as a grain ration. Lot II received clover hay, and ground oats as the grain ration. Lot III received clover hay, and ground barley as a grain ration, and lot IV received clover hay and a mixture of grains consisting of equal parts of wheat, oats and barley. The clover part of the ration consisted of the first and second crops and was a very fair quality of clover. The grain was good sound grain. It was chopped medium fine and was in good condition for feeding. The 60 BULLETIN NO. 58. experiment started on December 21. For the first six to eight days hay alone was fed. Then we started with the grain, gradually in- creasing the amount until at the end of three weeks the full grain ration of 5 pounds per day per steer was fed. The hay was fed twice a day. The grain at first was fed once a day, but later, when a larger quantity was fed, they received the grain twice a day. The steers had water and salt where they could get to it at any time. The steers were weighed three days in succssion at the beginning of the test and every two weeks thereafter until the •close of the test, when they were again weighed three times in succession. The average of these weights was taken as the aver- age weight of the steers. The cost of the feed was as follows: •Clover hay, $5.00 per ton; wheat, $1.25 per hundred pounds; oats, $1.00 per hundred pounds; barley, $1.00 per hundred pounds; bran, 85 cents per hundred pounds. These were about the average prices in the Gallatin valley for that year. The steers were fed in yards which sloped to the west. These yards were about 25 feet by 150 feet. At one end of these yards was a straw covered shed, about 25 by 20 feet, into which the steers went nearly every night. These sheds and yards were kept bedded with straw so as to give the animals as comfortable quar- ters as possible. The hay and grain were fed in racks and troughs 'outside in the yards. The steers, when first put into the yards, were somewhat restless, but they soon quieted down. Thev were not familiar with grain and had at first to be coaxed to eat it. THE GAINS MADE. Table No. I gives the weights and gains of the steers. This table is divided into periods, so as to permit a study of the gains during the progress of the test. Considering the whole time of the test, 101 days, it will be noticed that the steers gained 2i§ pounds each, increasing from 935.8 to 1153.8 pounds, which was an increase of 2.16 pounds per dav, a very satisfactory ^ain, consid- ering the length of the test. There is not very much to notice in the gains made in the first, second and third periods. For the fourth period all of the animals made proportionately better eains than they did at any other time. Considering- the two periods, from Jan. 13 to March'8, which. might be called the test period and continued for 65 days, it will be noticed that the steers fed on the mixed grain ration made the largest gains per day, namelv, 2.23 pounds. The barley ration gave the next largest gain, namely, STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 61 TABLE No. i— WEIGHTS AND GAINS OF &TEERS, 1903-4- *H .2 *•• * r-H CO US CO 1^ t^ US GO CO ^ rH r-H CCCO GO USUSOt^,CO ' USt^ rHGOCOO p CO r-H -HH CO CS CO t-- 00 GO CO >-S CO 13 co co co co § S 5 S O O CO Tt4 CO O US GO rH ,— 1 CO CO OrHrHCO 1-HrHrHrH^COCOCOCO vf^.g ~ 53 i— i CO 00 O 0 0 C5 r-H rH CO r-H CO r-H C> CO CO C5 CO «CO CO CO CO ^^13.2 i^ 00 CO us OS t~- SO <30 CO CO CO CO S^§^ 50 us t- l- CO CO us US rH GO 00 O rH GO 1^ CO t- O rH GO US CO 00 O O GO C5 C5 10 1-- CO Tf CO GO CO 0 CO 1 Tf GO CO rH Jlfii us us O CO IS CO GO r- t— I— I— l^ S CO 00 CO CO GO GO GO CO US O O r-H 0 0 rH t^ '30 1.^ C5 GO 30 GO GO CO CO CO O CO CO CO CO 1 CO >S O O 'CO CO GO O rHOOrH COCOCOCO i- cc i- c: j— i co I-H rjn QOQOQOOO.l3JO5OS.OS 1 ±1 SE •_; ^ _ ->^so * a GO t- F- t- US "* r-H CO rj 10 o co 1III CO us 0 0 GO CO GO GO O us O CO US CO GO r-H s s s § co co rf c: ir So • HOW LOTS WERE FED. 8 o g 'qj •<- • g •'6 iifl ^ 0 rQ S o S c c £ C^ (3j CS cj s" s' s' s Si' r- tH' r- -• '.'.'.'. . cS : : : c . . -o : . : 8 . " ^ 0 rQ g His S c. S g w c3 c3 crj i" i" i" ^" r r r ' r s c c c c! a rt s >i r>i r>S >, 5 5 .5 § iscii » «,'§? 0) 0) GO" « CO I 00* hi GC ^ ~7! |S b£ be 0 CO 0 g 0 CO a A — 0 « T3 1. . . 0 ^0; o 00 o oT a CO 0 0) ^ " - o 62 BULLETIN NO, 58, 2.19 pounds per day, or 122.5 pounds on each steer. The wheat ration gave the next largest gain, with 2.13 pounds per day and 119.6 pounds for each steer. The oat ration gave a gain of no pounds for each steer — the lowest gains made. Considering^ the whole time .of the experiment, which will include the first period, when no grain was fed, the mixed grain ration again gives the largest gain, 2.35 pounds per day or 238 pounds on each steer. The barley ration comes next, giving a return of 2.13 pounds per day or 215 pounds per steer. The oat ration comes third, with 2.09 pounds of gain per day and 210.8 pounds for each steer. The wheat shows a gain of 2.06 pounds per day and 208.1 pounds for each steer for the whole time of the test. For the test period, during which the steers were on a full grain ration, it will be noticed that the steers fed on the oat ration made the slowest gains. This cor- responds with the results of the year before, as is noted in table No. 2. On March 9 the grain of all the cattle was changed to mixed grain and continued for 22 days. This mixed grain consisted of Y-2. barley, ^ °ats and % bran. It will be noticed that for this period the steers gained more rapidly than at any other time dur- in the test, and that the steers fed previously on the oat ration, next to the steers fed the mixed grain ration, gained more than those that had been fed wheat or barley. From table No. 2 it is interesting to note the close compari- son between the results of this year apd the previous year on the same ration. The average for the car lot was 2.15 pounds per day for 1903 and 2.16 for the year 1904. TABLE No. 2. — A Comparison of che daily Gain, pfcr Stfefcf, for 1903 and 1904. Days Fed. 1903-ill days.. 1904—101 days.. Lot 1. Fed wheat. Ibs. Lot 2. Fed Oats. Ibs. Lot 3. Fed Barley. Ibs. Lot 4. Fed Mixture Ibs. Average for Car lot. Ibs. 1903 gain per day 1904 gain per day Average 2.10 2.06 2.08 1.69 2.09 1.89 2.34 2.13 2.24 2.53 2.35 2.44 2.15 2.16 2.16 STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 63 FOOD EATEN PER DAY AND FOR ONE POUND OF GAIN. Table No. 3 gives the total food eaten by each lot for the various periods, and also the food eaten per day for each pound of gain, and the cost of this feed. Considering the whole time of the test, 101 days, we find that each steer ate on the average 2391 pounds of clover and 455^ pounds of grain. During the first per- iod it will be noticed that the steers ate very lightly of both the clover and the grain, eating but 19.6 pounds of clover and about 21/2 pounds of grain. The second period the steers ate more largely of the clover, increasing the daily ration to -23.4 pounds and the grain to five pounds per day. The third period there was again an increase in hay to 27.1 pounds with the 5 pounds of grain. The fourth period the steers dropped il/2 pounds per day on the hay eaten. Considering next the food eaten for each pound of gain we find that on the average it required 10.97 pounds of hay and 2.09 pounds of grain for each pound of increase in live weight. This was the average for the 32 steers. Considered by lots the food for each pound of gain ranged from 10 pounds of hay and 1.83 pounds of grain up to 11^/2 pounds of hay and 2.15 pounds of grain. Con- sidering the whole time of the feeding the steers fed the mixed grain made the most economic gains. The barley comes next, followed by the oat and wheat rations. Considering, however, the test period of 56 days, which is the correct basis of comparison, the oat and wheat rations change places, the oat ration being the most ex- pensive, requiring i2l/2 pounds of hay and 2.55 pounds of grain to produce I pound 'of increase in live weight. During the first period when fed upon the light grain ration the steers gave the best average results considering the amount of food eaten. Prob- ably, however, this might have been partly a filling process and will not therefore afford as just a comparison as later feeding. Next to this comes the fourth period when a mixed grain ration was fed. Here we find that the range was from 8.8 pounds of the clover and 1.7 pounds of grain, to 11.9 pounds of clover and 2.33 pounds of grain, to produce each pound of increase in live weight. These results are very satisfactory from the standpoint of economic production. 64 BULLETIN NO. 58. m Hi Cost of Feeding £0, ce c - CC >C L?2 CC Tf 1C CC co »->< »-i e*?f-< F-4 1-1 H (M tN - yi CM r*_ ic cs co CC GO GO GO GO GO 2222!cM®cMcC 1C 2 2 2 2 s S S S £ fe fe £ 55 OS" > > o o & ^ OOO :O UOO r-H CM CC •* f-H o o O S S 2 ;• t5 * -§.. 0• C5 "^- CO t^- O O O 0 QOOO Z 19 * v. - i— i j,^ ^ „ 03 03 O3 03 O ^O ^O ^O 5 o o o CO rH (M CO CO IO CO t^ 1C O GO 0 rH rH CO (M ~- t- !>• t- O CO O CO O CO O IO IO (D O) * >* >*\ > c3 cs cS rr- rr- rr- r— E be 02 O3 02 rjj rrjj §§§§ 03 O> 03 03 2 ° £ £ QUO O ^cxj "co "* I O d 10 5 ^ &D CO U5 t- 2 03 03 03 03 ^_,"(M CO d cS ci 1-J rrj rj-J =3 c8 cS i* i* 1* £ be fee fee fee ^ rr- rrj rr; §§§§ -H CM CMCSCOCO O CO CM CO t^CMi— i OS I1* CO T— i r- 1 |O •<* GO GO ICCO ^H' ic l- ,-H CM O P-H TjH I>1 ^H r-^ ^ ' CM CO CM GO CMCOCMTtil^CMCM-— i i— i CO CM r-n CM CM CM .— i f - >c QO I-H o CO OGiCl^O'COiCCOCS CO TtH OS r-l i-< co co ic C O >C 1C 1C GO'* COCM^r-i OS i— i CMOt-^r— t iCiC 1C 1C Tf CO ^^.^p^'r^rt ° ° l-2r2'Op2 O O Q O O O O 'OOP O •-H CM CO Tt< H -— ICMCO-* § •-i CM CO CO ss £ rt ^g 2 o 0 4, 74 BULLETIN NO. 58. pound of increase in live weight. These figures afford a very inter- esting comparison of the relative value of the various rations. Put into money value we find that the cost of each pound of gain ranged from 8.49C for lot I up to I2.55C for lot IV — a differ- ence of 4c in favor of the lighter grain ration. For lot II, fed 5 pounds of grain per day, each pound of gain cost more than did the gain on lot IV, fed the larger grain ration. As noted above the steers in lot II, for some reason, did not do very well. Considering, next, the whole time of the test, which will in- clude the 30 days preliminary feeding, when hay was mainly fed,, and but little grain, we find that this preliminary period material- ly helps out the cost of feeding. It will be noted by referring to table I that the gains made during this first, or preliminary period, were on the average much faster than the gains made during the 99 days test period. We find also that the amount of hay and grain eaten per day per steer and for each pound of gain in live weight was considerably less than during the experimental period. During this preliminary period the cost of one pound of gain in live weight averaged about 3.4 cents per pound, compared with 8^2 to i2l/2 cts. per pound during the experimental period. The effect of this, as stated before, is to materially reduce the cost of feeding for the whole time of the experiment. The hay eaten per day by the steers, on the average for the 129 days, was practically the same as for the experimental period, but the grain ration ranges from 2.5 to 7 pounds, which is considerably lower than for the experi- mental period. The food eaten for each pound of gain is consider- ably less, both in clover and in grain, ranging from 2 to 7 pounds less hay and from .7 to nearly 2 pounds less grain. Considering the average of the car-lot we found that the steers ate 24.4 ppujids of hay and 4.7 pounds of grain per day. The food eaten for one pound qf gain averaged 18.9 pounds of clover and 3.81 pounds of grain. The cost of feeding averaged for the car-lot 8.4 cents for each pound of gain in live weight. These re- sults, as will be noted by referring to the first experiment reported in this bulletin and to previous years' tests, are considerably more expensive gains than we have previously had in our feeding tests. This is true even of the smallest grain ration, viz : three pounds per day. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. FINANCIAL RESULT OF THE TEST. 75 Table No. 3 gives the financial statement and the summary for this test. It presents, in another way, several facts given in the previous tables. The steers, on the average, cost $28.00 each, but to put all on an even basis, they are figured at a calculated rate of $2.58 per hundred pounds. In this way we get the correct cost of each lot of steers as determined from their beginning weights. The average cost of feeding each steer, for the 129 days, ranged from $9.47, for lot I, to $14.76 for lot IV — a difference of $5.43 per steer in favor of lot I, which was fed the light grain ration. The average cost per steer for the carload was $12.16. The total cost of feeding the carload was $291.89. TABLE No. Ill— FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND SUMMARY, 1904-5 Lotl. Clover & 3 Ibs, of gr'n. Lot 11. Clover & 5 Ibs. of gr'n. Lot 111 Clover & 1 Ibs. of gr'n. Lot IV Clover & 10 Ibs of gr'n. Average andtot'ls Nnmber of steers 6 6546 $169.00 56.91 9.47 225.91 7570 1024 267.96 44.66 42.05 7.01 6 6488 $167.40 68.14 11.36 235.54 7386 898 261.45 43.58 25.91 4.32 6 6553 $169.60 78.25 13 04 247.85 ' 7590 1037 268.67 44.78 20.82 3.45 6 6490 $168.00 88.59 14.76 256.59 7556 1066 267.46 46.58 10.87 1.81 24 26077 $674.00 291.89 12.16 965.89 301.02 4025 1065.54 44.40 99.55 4.15 Weight at beginning Ibs Cost of steers at 2 58c per Ib Cost of food per lot Cost of food per steer Total cost of steers Weight at close of test . . .... Ibs. Net gain in pounds Ibs. Rec'd for steers, shrunk w'ght, 3.5c Ib Received per head for steers Profit on each lot and totivl profit Profit or loss on each steer. . These steers sold for 3.5 cents per pound, shrunk weight, which was nearly i cent above the purchase price. The price re- ceived per steer ranged from $43.58 for lot II to $46.38 for lot IV. The average price received for the steers was $44.40 at Bozeman. The profit on each steer in the lot tells an interesting story. On lot I the profit was $42.05. On lot II it was $25.91. On lot III the profit was $20.82, and on lot IV only $10.87. The profit on each steer ranged from $7.01 for lot I, which was fed on the light grain ration, down to $1.81, for the steers fed the heavy grain ration, or, in other words, the steers fed the light grain ration returned nearly four times the profit obtained on lot IV, fed the heavy grain ration. 76 BULLETIN NO. 58. WHERE DOES THE PROFIT COME FROM? In Bulletin 48 it is stated that the profit in feeding the steers we have handled has been due to the difference between the buy- ing and -selling price of the steers, rather than to any profit made on the increase put upon the animals while feeding. The above table, No. 4, which gives the cost price of the steers, the selling price, and cost per pound of gain for six years, from 1900 to 1905, inclusive, fully illustrates this point. In only two instances was the cost of the gain less than the selling price of the steers, namely: For lot I, in 1901, and for lot I in 1902. Yet in every year, except for 1903 and 1904, there was a profit over mar~ ket prices made on the steers, and in 1903 the loss was very little, namely, $6.00 on the car lot or 25 cents, on each steer. In 1904 the loss was greater. A pertinent question is, what is the least dif- ference between the buying and selling price that will afford a safe margin when feeding for profit? In 1903 the steers practically paid for their feed. The difference between the buying and selling price was 35 cents per hundred. In 1904 the difference between the buying and selling price was only 36 cents per hundred pounds, and the loss on the car load was $40.51, or $1.26 per steer. In 1900 the difference between the buying and selling price was 78 cents per hundred pounds and the profit on the car load was $77.93, or on each steer $4.87. In 1901 the difference between the buying and selling price was 95 cents and the profit on the car load was $122.59 and for each steer $3.95. In 1902 the difference between the buying and selling price was $1.17 per hundred pounds and the profit on the car load was $168.68 or $7.66 for each steer. In 1905 the difference between the buying and the selling price was 92: cents per hundred pounds, and the profit on the car load was $99.55, or for each steer $4.15. While we cannot neglect the commercial factor of buying and selling in considering the profit in feeding steers, yet the cost of the ration may mean very much on the financial returns. In 1900 the difference in the cost of 100 pounds of gain, between the cheapest and most expensive ration, was $1.28. In 1901 the differ- ence was 46 cents per hundred pounds. In 1902 it was $1.80 per hundred pounds. In 1903 it was $1.97 per hundred pounds and in 1904 the difference was 87 cents per hundred pounds, and in 1905 the difference was $2.80 per hundred pounds. Jf we estimate that the steers gained 200 pounds each during* STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 77 TABLE No. IV. — A Comparison Between the Cost and Selling Price of the Steers, with the cost of Each Pound of Gain for the Six Years from 1900 to 1905. * 1900 . t 1901. £ 1902. Q GO O o x Q o ~J1 Q 0 o 0 O o Pj O GO m QD GO 2 t/i • GO 0 GO 0 O GO 0 0 3 O g GO GO 0 0 CO £ 0 CO e*. GO C^ H4l 0 $ &. 0> I r""J a n p' ® GO ID cr CO | cr GO 5 cr "§ o 0 P o o 9 GO (t> 1 ^ 2 et- rt- (D et- c-f- s 0 GO 0 0 GO 0 0 o o GO Hi GO N» GO Hh GO O, 0 GO O^ 0 GO 0^ Q r+- P- 0 g" PI C3 sr p^ 3 ro GO « a* GO 5 cr w "8 , . ^" | ^ ' >-S cr 1 5? CfQ £. s 5s an |. tt> 0- I cr FT * ^ 5* Cents. Cents. < Jents. Cents. Dents. ( Dents. Cents. Cents. Cents. 1 3.65 4. 5.90 3.2 3.5 5.33 2 58 3.5 6.7 2 3.65 4. 6.13 3.2 3.5 5.01 2.58 3.5 8.9 3 3.65 4. 4.81 3.2 3.5 4.86 2.58 3.5 8.6 4 3.65 4. 4.17 3.2 3.5 4.56 2.58 3.5 9.5 * See Bulletin No. 27. See Bulletin No. 35. f See Bulletin No, 31. § See Bulletin No. 48. 78 BULLETIN XO. 58. the winter, and nearly all those steers did better than that, the dif- ference in the cost ({noted would mean a difference in the returns of from 92 cents to $5.60 on one steer, or a difference of $92.00 to $560.00 more profit on 100 steers, according- to the ration fed. These facts are certainly worth considering. Yet another point to consider is the cost of these gains com- pared to the cost in the east. A recent Iowa bulletin (No. 79) gives the cost of feeding steers per pound of increase where a large number of steers were considered as follows: Fifty steers were fed in a lot and the cost of each pound of gain ranged from 7.88 cents to 9.45 cents in 1903 and from 9.65 cents to 11.08 cents in 1902. Except for 1905 the results obtained by the Montana Experi- ment Station were very much below those above quoted from Iowa. These steers wer fed during the various winters from 101 to 139 days and the average daily gain was over two pounds per day, as will be noted in another place in this bulletin. It will also be noted that these gains are made on a much lighter grain ration than is usual in the corn districts. These results afford much en- couragement to the Montana feeder who finishes his cattle before sending them to the eastern market. The six years covered by these tests have been an area of low prices for cattle, so that the returns have not been large compared with the returns from feed- ing sheep. However, they have, in the main, been on the right side, which should be encouraging, because more propitious times are surely coming. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 79 SUMMARY. Experiment for 1903-4. (i.) The results of the tests made during the winter 1902-3 and 1903-4 seemed to show that the relative value of the different grains, (when fed with clover) to produce increase in live weight on a steer, is: ist, mixed grain; 2d, barley; 3d, wheat; 4th, oats. See page 62. (2.) Considering the food required for each pound of gain the relative value of the different grains, when fed with clover, is as follows: ist, mixed grain ; 2d, wheat; 3d, barley; 4th, oats. See page 63. (3.) With the cost of grain and hay, as reported in this bul- letin, the relative value of these grains was as follows, starting with the lowest or cheapest ration: ist, mixed grain; 2cl, barley: 3d, wheat; 4th, oats. See page 66. (4.) These steers cost 3.2 cents per Ib. live weight and sold for 3.5 cents per Ib. Considering this difference between the buy- ing and selling price and the cost of the grain and hay fed, these steers failed to pay for their feed by $40.51, which represented a loss of $1.26 on each steer. See page 67. Experiment for 1904-5. (i.) In this test while the steers fed the larger grain ration gained more and faster than those fed the smaller grain ration, yet the gains were in no wise in proportion to the difference in the grain. Steers fed 7 and 10 pounds of grain a day gained an aver- age of but two pounds more each than those fed three pounds of grain per day over a period of 99 days. See table I., page 71. (2.) The food required for each pound of gain ranged from 22.8 Ibs. of hay and 2.66 Ibs. of grain for lot I, and 18.6 Ibs. of hay and 7.53 Ibs. of grain. This represents a displacing of the cheap hay by the more expensive grain, which, with prices as they are with us, does not tend towards economy of production. See page 74. (3.) Put into money value, the cost of each pound of gain ranged from 8.49 cents for lot I, up to 12.55 cents for lot IV, a dif- ference of 4 cents in favor of the light grain ration. See page 74. SO. BULLETIN NO. 58. 14.) Un the average for 129 days each steer in this carlot ate 24.4 pounds of hay and 4.7 pounds of grain per day. They required 18.0. pounds of hay and 3.81 pounds of grain for each pound of in- crease in live weight, and the cost of this increase averaged 8.4 cents per pound. See page 74. (5.) These steers cost 2.58 cents per pound and sold for 3.5 cents per pound live weight. With this difference and considering the cost of the food, the profit on the food given each steer of this car was as follows : Lot I. fed 3 pounds of grain $7-31 each. Lot II, fed 5 pounds of grain 4.32 each. Lot III, fed 7 pounds of grain 3-45 each. Lot IV, fed 10 pounds of grain i .81 each. (6.) In the experiments conducted in feeding a car lot of steers for the past six years, in but one year, and then with but one lot, has the selling price of the steers equaled the cost of the gain. The profit is a business matter and must come from selling the animal at an ;u!vanc°d price per pound over the buying price. The better condition of the animal generally makes it poss'b'e to get this extra price. Page 76. (7.) The above fact does not make less important the neces- sity for the investigations to find the most efficient and cheapest ration. For the six years during which these tests have run, the difference in cost between the rations fed for the various years wovdd mean a difference of from $92.00 to $560.00 more profit on ioo steers. See page 77. STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 81 «2 BULLETIN NO. 58. INDEX. Steer Feeding Experiments, 1903-4 58 Purpose and Plan of Test 58 The Gains Made 60 Food Eaten per day and for One Pound of Gain 63 Cost of Feeding the Steers 66 Financial Results with Steers . 67 Steer Feeding Experiment, 1904-5 68 Plan of the Experiment 68 Cost of the Feed 69 Weighing of the Cattle 69 Discussion of Results 70 Gain in Live Weight 70 Food Eaten by Steers and Cost of Food 72 Financial Results of the Test 75 Where Does the Profit Come From* 76 Summary 79 MONTANA AGRICULTURAL COLLEOK EXPERIMENT STATION. BOZEMAN, MONTANA F\ B. LINK1ELD, Director. BULLETIN NO. 78. STEER FEEDING Small Grains and Clover Hay For Two Year Old Steers BY R. W. CLARK Animal Industry BOZEMAN, MONTANA. JANUARY, 1910. MONTANA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE EXPERIMENT STATION. BOZEMAN, MONTANA. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Ex-OJJicin Helena Missoula Butte Helena Bozeman Great Falls Dillon Lewistown Helena Bozeman Bozeman Bozeman Bozeman EDWIN C. XORRIS, Governor A. J. GALEN, Attorney General \V. E. HARMON, Sup't Public Instruction J M. EVANS ...,.., C. R. LEONARD ....... O. \V. McCo.NNELL ...... 0. P. CHISHOLM ..... S. D. LARGENT ...... G. T. PAUL . ROY C. AYRKS ...... CHARLES R. KESSLER ...... EXECUTIVE BOARD JAMES M. HAMILTON, President J H. BAKER, Vice-President WALTER S. HARTMAN, .... GEO. Cox, Secretary and Treasurer . STATION STAFF F. B. LINFIELD, B, S. A., Director. R. A. Coo LEY, B. Sc., Entomologist ALFRED ATKINSON, B. S. A., Agronomist KOIJEKT \V. CLARK. \\. S. A., Animal Industry. EDMUND BUKKE, B. S., CJiemist DEANE B. SWINGLE, M. S., Botanist and Bacteriologist. O. B. YVmi'i'LE, R. S. Horticulturist. YY. i. TAYLOR, I). V. M., Veterinarian } B. NELSON, ftiijSt. Dry Farm Work. RKTBEN M. PINCKNEY, B. S., A. M., Assistant CJiemist. L. F. GIESEKER, B. S,, Assistant Agronomist. WM. F. Sciioi'PE, B. S , Asst. J'oultryinan. \V. \Y. SI-AIN, B. S., Asst. Dr// Fanning. II. E. MORRIS, B. S. Assistant Botanist. H. P. GRIFFIN, B. S , Ass't An fund Industry. R C. [ONES, H. s , Assistant Dairyman, N. B. LrxnwALL, Cleric. Post X)ffife. Express and Freight Station, Bozeman. All r-onimuiiications to the Experiment. Station should he addressed to THE MONTANA EXPERIMENT STATION, Bozeman, Montana NOTICE.— The Bulletins of Ihe Experiment Station will be mailed free to any riM/on of Montana on request. Please state whether all publications are desired as issued or only those specified. Give name and address plainly. STEER FEEDING SMALL GRAINS AND CLOVER HAY FOR TWO YEAR OLD STEERS INTRODUCTION With the gradual increase in the price of grain, the feeder is becoming confronted with a new problem. He is in the business for profit and unless the price of animal products increases pro- portionately with the price of grain, he must decrease expenses or quit the business. The latter is serious for no country can be kept in a prosperous condition without a large number of farm animals, and any condition that tends to hinder the raising of farm animals should be discouraged. The amount of grain fed to dairy and beef cattle is changing. Experiments with dairy cows are beginning to show that less grain can be fed, for heavy maximum production than has been the practice to feed. Enormous quantities of grain have been fed, but on account of the increase of its price, farmers of the United States are probably not feeding grain as heavily as in former years. Reports from various parts of the country show that less grain is being fed. A large amount of grain for a short period with fleshy steers or a small amount of grain with considerable roughage for a long period with thin steers, seems to be giving good results and is apparently finding favor. Reports from the middle and eastern states, are that farmers are looking more to sil- age, roughing their cattle through the winter and finishing on grass in the Spring with less grain than in former years. This may not be very general yet, but it shows that there is a tendency to feed less grain. The farmer who has been feeding large quantities of grain for long periods is beginning to find that often there is little or no profit derived from the operation, but sometimes a loss. To 40 MONTANA EXPERIMENT STATION feed large quantities of grain to cattle at a profit requires close figuring and most intelligent management. The economy of feeding large quantities of grain, especially of nitrogenous composition, with clover and alfalfa hay has often been questioned. While there is a great deal yet to be learned some valuable information has been secured. Results of experi- ments in which nitrogenous hay and grain were fed, tend to show that the gain is not in proportion to the amount of grain fed, es- pecially when the grain is fed in large quantities. In the experiments herein reported, the maximum amount of grain fed was small compared with the amount often recommended and fed in some sections of the country, yet the results indicate that even less than this amount can be most profitably fed when it and the forage is nitrogenous. Work on the problem began at this experiment station in the winter of 1900-1901 and has been carried on for five years. The first experiment was not intended to throw light on the economy of feeding different amounts of grain to steers, but as the results were satisfactory in a way, they are used here for comparison. The method of feeding, dividing the cattle into lots according to individuality, so that all would be on an equal basis, the weather conditions, the preliminary .feeding, etc., are not given here as this has been given in previous bulletins. The different lots were of equal quality, except the lots fed in the winter of 1900-1901, and any condition that affected one, affected all. Not less than six nor more than eleven steers were fed in one lot any year and they were well filled when the initial weights were secured so that the increase was actual gain. The hay being out of doors, equal volumes of it varied in weight at times on account of snow and rain and for this reason the results are not as valuable as they would have been, could the hay have been kept dry. More or less of the variation in the results from year to year was probably due to this condition. The condi- tions under which the work was carried on were not satisfactory, but a few practical conclusions are drawn which will suffice until a suitable barn is built, after which the same line of work will be continued. STEER FEEDING 41 * I h c a o O "3 O5 t- CC c Bran, 14 Frosted Barley and 14 Frosted Wheat with Clover Hay to Steers, Winter of 1907—1908. Whole Period* While on full feed _. C ^ y ~" CTQ ;± 5 • "^ ~ ' ' S 7 2 . C-. I. 65iO| ^ 2 a®£ T3 ^ft^ £S££ fes*3 0) cfl 0 CO in CO 0 t- OS CO O O CO O o 0 0 CO • co o oo in co in OC co m co os CO 10 0 rH 00 •* CO CO •* 00 t- CO 00 rH t~ — — _ nay - o o Tf «O O U5 10 ITS iH rH CO co co co in 00 rH «t< rH t- Cr 05 CO rH CO CO in Hav. . 3££ •^ CO OS CO O CO t- CO O OS TH TH Z- 0 0 -t OS O CO iO CO oo oo o TH — to o co r- oo os in m co m m c~ t- t- r- ro in in ^ .-o os o co rH CO -t< 00 OO 00 OO OO 0 t- "50 CO •* O U3 T-i io m Tt« Wt. at beginning of § «j j> experiment — Ibs. . . • os t- t- o o o IO Tt< OO 00 CO O :r t- 05 o m co in OS 00 OS 00 CO CO CO CO o co in m os oo co m -* os o tn t- t- oo oo O CO O O t- in co cp in in m m CO CO CO CO Kind and amount ol feed £££ CJD bfl bC rt 03 03 5 3 3 5 cd a3 a3 cc rt a3 aJ cS be be M) bC be be be bJO W) bfl bO be Wj bfl bfl X5 Xi X3 ,0 ^2 ,0 X2 X2 £2 £5 .T5 JO X5 ^ ,0 ^-0 X> UD U5 U5 <3°3• >• >• 0 O O a> a> > K> o o o a) CD > > > > o o o o a) a> a> a> > > > > o o o o a> a> a> a> > > > > o o o o 000 OOO 0000 OOO O OOOO Lot .... TH 0 05 rH O 0 O5 iH U, 0> +i a 5 CO o CD rH rH O 0> t_r c ? m 0 OS TH •^ O OS TH j-T a> a s t- o OS TH ci O OS TH (-T 0) •«_> a i? *"" H £ § os rH 0 OS rH 1 ^ STEER FEEDING 45 The cheapest and largest daily gain was made during the first two years, this being due to most perfectly cured hay. Professor Shaw, who planned and conducted the work for three years, wrote as follows : "The clover consisted of both first and second cutting hay, which had been cured in perfect condition under a cloudless sky. This clover retained all the blooms, which presented the same colorations they possessed on the day of cutting." These results emphasize most strikingly the value of well cured hay. The first winter, on 5 pounds grain per head per day, I pound of gain re- quired 12.4 pounds of hay and 2.5 pounds grain; the second winter, 8.3 pounds hay and 2.1 pounds grain; the third winter, 28 pounds hay and 5.43 pounds grain, and the fourth winter 16.6 pounds hay and 3.5 pounds grain. The results of feeding different amounts of grain are uniform, for in no year did the larger amount of grain show a corresponding increase in gain. The cost of gain was increased by the larger amount of grain fed. TABLE IV. — Average results from feeding different amounts of grain to steers. 3 Ibs grain per steer per day *ood consumed for 1 Ib. gain. Lbs Daily Ibs.gain Cost of 1 Ib. gain, cts. Hay Grain 18.2 14.9 15.4 13.8 2.18 3.3 4.6 6.0 1.12 1.4 1.5 1.5 7.64 7.77 9.2 10.14 5 Ibs. grain per steer per day 7 Ibs grain per steer per day .... 10 Ibs. prain per steer per day The average daily gain per steer for five trials varied from i.i pounds to 1.5 pounds. Equal daily gains were secured with 7 and 10 pounds of grain, and . I of a pound less with 5 pounds of grain. In figuring the cost, in the average results given above, grain was valued at $1.00 per cwt, and hay at $6.00 per ton. The prices are a little above the average, but are conservative. The cost of production increases with the amount of grain fed, from 7.6 cents per pound with 3 pounds grain to 10.1 cents per pound with 10 pounds of grain. These results, covering the work of several years , undoubtedly give a fairly accurate measure of what can be done under the conditions mentioned, in feeding from 3 to 10 pounds of grain per head per day to steers. 46 MONTANA EXPERIMENT STATION FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE FIVE YEARS The figures so far given indicate very costly production and tend toward discouragement, but they are not complete. An article "well bought is half sold," and this is especially true in feeding cattle. The profit usually comes from the shrink secured when purchased and from the increase in the selling price when sold. This is not in the field of experimentation and is not considered at this time. To buy and sell well is a business question out of the realm of this bulletin. The steers fed during the winter of 1907-1908 had been driven 150 miles and were weighed within 36 hours after the trip and on a 2% shrink. The second weighing was made a month later, at which time they weighed 150 pounds more per head. This was not all actual gain, but partially a filling up process. Financial statements, showing the profit or loss by years on all lots fed. FOR 1900—1901 Nov. 13, 1900. To 31 steers at $25.00 per head $ 775.00 March 30, 1901. To cost of feed Lot l 146.34 March 30, 1901. To cost of feed Lot II 124.53 March 30, 1901. To cost of feed Lot III 124.74 March 30, 1901. To cost of shipping to Seattle 150.80 To net profit 122 . 59 April 6, 1901. By 31 steers 2880 Ibs. at 5c ..$1444.00 $1444.00 $1444.00 Net profit per head $ 3.95 FOR 1901 — 1902 Jan. 2, 1902. By clover first period, 14,295 Ib. at $5.00 per ton .$ 35.73 Jan. 2, 1902. By barley first period, 1,141 Ib. at .90 per cwt. 10.26 Mar. 28, 1902. By clover test period, 36,600 Ib. at 5.00 per ton . 91.50 Mar. 28, 1902. By barley test period, 13,040 Ib. at .90 per cwt. 117.35 Apr. 12, 1902 By clover third period, 6,435 Ib. at 5.00 per ton . 16.08 Apr. 12, 1902. By barley third period, 2,267 Ib. at .90 per cwt. 20.40 Dec. 9, 1901. By 20 steers at $33.00 per head 660.00 Dec. 9, 1901. By 2 steers at $34. 00 -per head 68.00 Apr. 15, 1902. By net profit on 22 steers 168.68 $1188.00 Apr. 15, 1902. To 22 steers at $54.00 per head $1188.00 $1188.00 $1188.00 Net profit per head 7.66 STEER FEEDING 47 j Average and total, Lot IV. — Clover and 10 Ib. grain Lot III.— Clover and 7 Ib. grain Lot II. — Clover and 5 Ib. grain o • Lot I. — Clover and 31b. grain c ' FOR 1906—1907 To cost of 28 steers at $32.00 per head $ 896 . 00 To pasture 28 steers 6 weeks, at $1.00 per month 42.00 To cost of 50960 Ibs. hay at $6.00 per ton 152.88 To cost of 10476 Ibs. grain at $1.03 per cwt 107.93 By 28 steers $1369.15 'j.o net profit 170.34 $1369.15 1369.15 Profit per head $ 6.08 FOR 1907—1908 Oct. 21, 1907. To cost of 24 steers at 4c per Ib $888.86 Nov. £8, 1907. To pasture for 24 steers, 3 weeks at $1.00 per mo. 18.00 Tlar. 24, 1908. To cost of 103,085 Ibs. hay at $3.00 per ton 154.62 Mar. 24, 1908. To cost of 15596 Ibs. grain at 95c per cwt 148.19 Mar. 30, 1908. To cost of 756 Ibs. grain at 95c 7.18 Mar. 30, 1908. By 24 steers $1172.62 To net loss 44.23 $1216.85 $1216.85 1 oss per head 1.94 There was a small profit every year except one on the steers fed, but the main advantage was in finding a market for the feed at reasonably good prices, and retaining its fertilizing value on the farm. Were it not that much of the farm crops were fed, the feed, especially hay, would have a very low market value, for the market is limited. Clover hay and frosted grain are not very saleable at any time and prices are comparatively low. There was no profit in feeding, if the feed had to be purchased during the winter 1907 and 1908 (an off season). The hay crop was very heavy and of very poor quality, and because of panic condi- tions there was no market for it. The steers were purchased at $4.00 per cwt. a few days before business depression set in, at the highest price of the season. But, notwithstanding this, by feeding, a market was secured and the hay disposed of at $3.00 per ton. Hay that was carried over by farmers to the following winter deterior- ated greatly and did not bring as satisfactory returns as was ob- tained by feeding it the first winter. CONCLUSIONS 1. In short feeding periods, 5 pounds of grain of nitrogenous composition, fed per day with clover hay to a 1000 pound steer, gave nearly as satisfactory gain as 10 pounds grain and at three-fourths the cost. 2. The cost of gain increases with the amount of grain fed, without a corresponding increase in the gain. 3. With well cured clover hay the cost of gain is about one half of that secured with poorly cured hay, if price of each is the same. BULLETIN 220 AUGUST, 1911 NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OF THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND MECHANIC ARTS WEST RALEIGH CARE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DAIRY HERD RALEIGH EDWARDS & BROUGHTON PRINTING Co. STATE PRINTERS. N. C. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND MECHANIC ARTS THE NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE A. & M. COLLEGE GOVERNOR W. W. KITCHIN, ex-officio Chairman, Raleigh C. W. GOLD Raleigh M. B. STICKLEY Concord E. M. KOONCE Jacksonville T. T. BALLINGER Tryon T. E. VANN Como N. B. BROUGHTON Raleigh D. A. TOMPKINS Charlotte 0. L. CLARK Clarkton J. O. ELLINGTON Fayetteville EVERETT THOMPSON . . . Elizabeth City W. E. DANIEL Weldon R. H. RICKS Rocky Mount W. H. RAGAN High Point O. MAX GARDNER Shelby W. B. COOPER Wilmington M. L. REED. Asheville STATION STAFF D. H. HILL, President of the College C. B. WILLIAMS Director and Agronomist W. A. WITHERS Chemist F. L. STEVENS Vegetable Pathologist and Bacteriologist J. S. JEFFREY Poultryman- F. C. REIMER Horticulturist R. S. CURTIS Animal Husbandman G. A. ROBERTS .Veterinarian R. I. SMITH Entomologist J. C. McNuTT ....'. Dairy Husbandman J. D. CECIL Animal Pathologist WT. C. ETHERIDGE Associate Agronomist B. J. RAY . Assistant Chemist A. R. RUSSELL Assistant in Field Experiments F. W. SHERWOOD Assistant Chemist L. R. DETJEN Assistant Horticulturist GUY WEST WILSON Assistant in Vegetable Pathology T. B. STANSEL Assistant Bacteriologist A. F. BOWEN Bursar LOULA V. SHERWOOD Secretary and Stenographer The Bulletins and Reports of this Station will be mailed free to any resident of the State upon request. Visitors are at all times cordially invited to inspect the work of the Station, the office of which is in the new Agricultural Building of the College. Address all communications to N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, ' WEST RALEIGH, N. C. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Selecting Good Dairy Cow 73 Feeding Dairy Cows 76 Corn Silage 79 Herd Improvement 80 Care and Management of Bull 80 Dairy Calf — Feeding and Management 83 Age to Breed Heifers 84 CARE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DAIRY HERD. BY J. C. McNuTT. The increasing demand for high class dairy products in North Carolina is a clear indication that more farmers in the State might profitably devote time and money to developing good dairy herds. Up to the present time the number of dairy cows has been so small and the average production so low that it has been necessary to bring large quantities of dairy products into the State every year. There is abso- lutely no reason why sufficient milk and butter could not be produced within the State to supply the demand, and if the people could be brought to realize the profits in the industry a material improvement would certainly be brought about. The fact that the climate of North Carolina is so mild that cattle do not have to be stabled only a short period during the year is a de- cided advantage. Another and very important consideration is, that cottonseed meal, one of the richest dairy feeds, is produced here and can be purchased by the dairymen of North Carolina much cheaper than by the dairymen in the States farther north. Furthermore, legu- minous crops grow remarkably well here and there is more corn being grown every year, which speaks well for the dairy possibilities. A growing interest in dairying is shown by the large number of new silos constructed during the past few years. To improve and develop the dairying of the State in a substantial way, those interested must go about it in a careful, systematic manner, using good sound business methods and keeping careful records of all details. It is the purpose of this bulletin to make suggestions and to demonstrate, if possible, whereby the dairyman can feed and manage his dairy herd in a profitable manner. Selecting a Good Dairy Cow. To select good high milk producing dairy cows requires experience and a careful study of cows. The best judges make mistakes at times, but there are certain well defined rules which, if carefully followed, will prove satisfactory in the majprity of cases. First of all, it must be considered what constitutes a good dairy cow. The dairy cow is an animal that has been developed to produce milk and butter economically. The most economical producers as a rule show a characteristic dairy type known as the triple wedge form. All of the breeds of dairy cattle conform to this type in a general way, although they may be radically different in breed characteristics. Typical dairy animals are angular and muscular, rather than smooth and evenly fleshed. Experience teaches that the lean, clean cut cows showing quality in thin mellow hide, fine hair, and bone, are the most economical producers as a rule, provided they have a good feed capacity, strong constitution, and a well developed udder. These essentials are too often ignored in the 74 If. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. selection of cows for dairying purposes. To be a producer a cow must be able to consume, and this ability is best shown in the cow that possesses the deep, well sprung middle. To produce economically she must possess a lean, clean cut character, showing that she is turning her feed to good account in milk and butterfat production. To be able to feed heavily and consistently, a cow must have a strong consti- tution, shown by a deep full chest, which allows ample room for her heart and lungs. A well developed pelvic arch is also desirable, as it gives a cow strength where strength is needed in supporting weight, and ample room for her reproductive functions. A cow may possess the essentials of feed capacity, constitution, quality and form, but lack in udder development and thereby become an undesirable cow from a dairy standpoint. To be an efficient producer a cow should have a large, well developed, soft, pliable udder which helps to complete the dairy structure. The most desirable udder is one that fits rather closely, being evenly balanced, extending well up between the thighs, and well forward on the belly, with teats of uniform size placed well apart to allow easy milking. The typical dairy cow shows greater depth and thickness through the rear portion of the body than through the front. This is necessary as greater space is required for a well developed digestive sys- tem than for a well developed respiratory system. This gives the cow a wedged appearance as viewed from both side and top. The third FIG. 1— Grade Jersey cow showing the typical wedge form from the side. A splendid feeder and producer. wedge of the triple wedge indicates refinement and constitution, the point of the wedge being the thin sharp withers and the base, and the broad, well developed chest. CARE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DAIRY HERD. 75 FIG. 2 — Grade Jersey heifer lacking in feed capacity and constitution as shown by shallow, thin body. A light feeder and poor producer. In selecting a dairy cow avoid the one with a thin narrow head, small muzzle, weak jaw, narrow chest, with legs set close, and feet pointing outward, and short flat ribs, for such cows do not possess the capacity or strength for heavy production. They will prove as a rule FIG. 3 — Three year old Jersey heifer showing good dairy type. A good feeder and excellent producer. Record foi 120 days was 3371.8 pounds of milk and 181.8 pound of butter. to be weak, poor feeders, and consequently poor producers. Also avoid the one that possesses a short, heavy masculine head and neck, thick 76 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. fleshy shoulders and coarse withers. Such cows often use a large portion of the food supplied them in putting flesh upon their own body rather than for producing milk and butter economically. Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate clearly the difference between a Jersey heifer, showing good dairy form, and another of the thick fleshy type which shows considerable masculinity in having a short heavy head and neck. The records of these two heifers brings out clearly the ability of the one showing the dairy type to produce milk and butter, while the record of the other is just about what we could expect considering her conformation. Both heifers have been kept under favorable conditions and have been well fed. While one has been making a splendid profit the other has barely paid for her feed. Feeding Dairy Cows. The cost of keeping a mature dairy cow in the various States ranges from $42, as reported by some of the Middle Western States, to $80 to $90 per year in some of the Eastern States. This wide range in cost is due to the range in price of feeding stuffs in the various States and to the length of time which the cows must be confined to the stable. Good permanent pastures also greatly reduce the cost of maintaining a herd. There is no phase of the dairy industry that requires more care- ful attention than the feeding. Neglect and oversight on the part of the feeder will often greatly reduce the profits if not make the herd unprofitable. In feeding the dairy cow it must be borne in mind that the feeding of the animal is for the production of human food and that to secure best results she must receive foods she can handle economically and produce a maximum amount of milk from them. The balanced ration which 1ms come to be quite generally known is meant one from which the animal receives sufficient quantity of each nutrient of the food so that it can maintain itself and do satisfactory work in addition. The work in the case of the dairy cow is the pro- duction of milk and butterfat. The work of the draft horse is haul- ing. With the sheep, it is growth of fleece or flesh. For the pig growth or fat production, and the beef steer meat production. In other words a ration can be balanced so as to meet the requirements of any animal or class of animals. It is a well known fact that plants in some form or other form the bulk of the food of domestic animals. For plant growth certain con- ditions are necessary, such as light, heat and the presence of available plant food in the form of various combinations of elements in solution in the moisture of the soil. The roots of the plant absorb this plant food in the form of sulphates, phosphates, chlorides and nitrates, taking it up through the stems until it reaches the leaves where, by the aid of the sun and the peculiar structure of the cells of the leaf, it is broken up, reuniting with elements which come in through the leaves and then is stored as plant tissue which serves as animal food. Considering the plant from a food standpoint, it is found that the elements have been rearranged into what are known as the protein group, those containing nitrogen which are used in forming muscle, milk, wool, etc. ; carbohy- CARE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DAIRY HERD. 77 FIG. 4 — Three year old grade Jersey heifer showing coarseness in a masculine head, neck and shoulders, and undesirable form of udder. Record for 120 days 1389.4 pounds of milk and 80.8 pounds of butter. FIG. 5— Grade Jersey cow five years old shown eighteen months after calving. Record for one year, 9147 pounds of milk and 472.43 pounds of butter. A good type to select. 78 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. drates such as sugars and starches, which are used in keeping the body warm and forming fat; and those known as fats or oils which are used in keeping the body warm and for forming fat. These three — protein, carbohydrate and fat — are known as digestible nutrients. Other com- pounds are also stored in the plant such as water, which is usually found in large quantity in growing plants and mineral matter, found in small amounts and very important in the development of the bony framework of the animal. In feeding animals it must first be considered that they require a certain amount of nutrition for maintaining their body. And if we are going to expect extra work from them we must supply enough extra nutrition to meet the demands upon the animal. For example, a dairy cow weighing 1,000 pounds must have .7 pound protein, 8. pounds car- bohydrates and .1 pound fat to maintain herself without gain or loss when she is not milking and is at rest. When producing an average of 22 pounds of milk per day she must receive 2.5 pounds protein, 13 pounds carbohydrates and 0.5 pound fat, according to the German standard. The experience of the dairymen of the United States has demonstrated that dairy cows can produce satisfactory results when re- ceiving less protein and slightly more carbohydrates than the figures mentioned, thereby lessening the cost of the ration somewhat, as car- bohydrate foods are usually cheaper than those high in protein. The grains or the foods known as concentrates which carry a high per cent of protein and which can be used satisfactorily in feeding dairy cattle are cottonseed meal, distillery grains, brewers' grains, linseed meal, cowpeas, soy beans, gluten meal, gluten feed, malt sprouts, buckwheat shorts, buckwheat middlings, peanut meal and wheat bran. Those which carry a high per cent of carbohydrates and which can be used in feeding dairy stock satisfactorily are corn, wheat and wheat middlings, rye, barley, rice, sorghum seed and Kaffir corn. These feeds are com- monly used alone for fattening cattle, but may be used in connection with the protein feeds for dairy stock. Among the coarse feeds rich in protein are the legumes, as the clovers, peas, beans and alfalfa which carry a high per cent of digestible protein, so are exceptionally valuable in feeding dairy cattle ; as by their use we can avoid feeding so much high priced concentrated feed. The coarse feeds that carry a consider- able percentage of carbohydrates and fat are corn fodder, corn stover and corn silage and practically all of the true grasses as timothy, orchard grass, oats, wheat, barley and rye. To formulate a satisfactory dairy ration, a number of factors must be considered such as size of the cow, period of lactation and condition and ability to produce. Some important considerations to bear in mind in selecting feeds are variety, palatability and digestibility. A safe rule to follow is to always supply as much coarse feed in the form of silage and hay as the cows will clean up and then supply as much grain extra as is required to balance the ration and secure the desired re- sults in production. An average size dairy cow will consume about 35 pounds of corn silage per day, and if this amount is fed she will eat from ten to twelve pounds of good hay in addition. With this as a basis in CARE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DAIRY HERD. 79 feeding, a very good rule to follow in grain feeding is to allow one pound of grain for every three pounds of milk produced daily or one pound of grain for each pound of butterfat produced weekly. For example, a cow producing four gallons of milk per day or ten pounds of fat per week should be given ten pounds of hay, thirty-five pounds of corn silage and ten pounds of grain. In making up the grain ration it is desirable to use a combination of three or four grains mixed in right proportion so as to balance up the ration to meet the requirements. Variety is also secured by using three or four different feeds, which is quite a consideration in holding cows on feed for a continuous period. Some good dairy rations are outlined below, the amounts to be supplied daily in two feeds : 1. Corn silage, 35 pounds ; clover hay, 10 pounds ; grain mixture, made up of distillery grains three parts, cottonseed meal two parts, wheat bran one part. 2. Clover hay, 20 pounds; grain mixture: wheat 'bran one part, corn meal two parts, oats one part, and cottonseed meal one part. 3. Peavine hay, 10 pounds ; corn stover, 12 pounds ; grain mixture : gluten feed two parts, wheat bran one part, and oats one part. 4. Corn silage, 25 pounds; peavine hay, 14 pounds; grain mixture: cottonseed meal two parts, corn meal two parts, wheat bran two parts. 5. Peavine hay, 15 pounds; dried beet pulp, 4 pounds (before moisten- ing) ; grain mixture : cottonseed meal two parts, brewers' grains three parts, wheat bran one part. It will be noticed that only clover and peavine hay were considered in the rations mentioned. Hay from the grasses can be used in feeding dairy cows, but it is not as desirable as good leguminous hay. The grasses do not carry the high per cent of protein that the legumes do and that is so essential for dairy cows. Corn silage is such a common dairy feed, it was included in a number of the rations. It is one of the best feeds that the dairyman can provide for his cows and enough should be put up to supplement short pastures as well as for winter feeding. Five to six tons provided for each cow will carry the herd through the greater portion of the year. If it is not possible to pasture it is very desirable to provide some green feed such. as green rye, wheat, oats, and peas or corn. The fall sown crops like rye and wheat will furnish feed by the first of May. As a rule the wheat will be ready after the rye is gone. Canada field peas and oats sown on good soil in late February will make feed by the latter part of May, and by sow- ing at different periods green feed can be had for a considerable period in the spring. The clovers are often ready for feeding in May, and they make the best kind of green feed for dairy cows. As all growing plants carry a high per cent of water it is desirable to allow them to stand until they develop well so as to secure as much nutrition as pos- sible, rather than feed them when immature when they carry a high per cent of water and are low in nutrients. Corn Silage. — It is especially important to understand the develop- ment of the nutrients in the corn plant when putting up silage. In the past many people have made the mistake of cutting the corn too 80 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. early, before the plants had time to mature a maximum amount of digestible feed. In such cases they have had silage of low feeding value. Others have been obliged for various reasons to leave the corn standing too long, so as to become dried out. Such corn does not carry sufficient water to make the silage moist enough to prevent rotting. If the corn is cut when it is well glazed with the stalk still green, and when put into the silo cut fine, evenly distributed and thoroughly packed, there will be very little loss providing the silo is tight and reasonably well con- structed. Corn silage is one of the cheapest and best feeds that the dairyman can provide for his herd, and if every dairyman in North Carolina could feed corn silage in liberal quantities, dairying in general would be more profitable and the average production of the cows of the State would be materially increased. Herd Improvement. Our breeds of cattle have been developed and improved by a few thoughtful men who realized the value of good stock. The dairymen of this State can materially improve the quality of their stock if they will go about it in a careful, systematic manner. It is a pleasure to note that there are a number -of excellent herds in the State that have been developed by progressive, energetic men. To improve and develop a good dairy herd much depends upon the herd bull and his ability to get calves that will mature into better cows than their dams. It is a common mistake among dairymen to think that it makes very little difference what kind of a bull their cows are bred to, just so they get with calf. Such ideas are largely responsible for the low average production of the dairy cows in many of our States. It is unreasonable to expect to secure strong, vigorous, healthy, high producing offspring from immature nondescript sires. There are en- tirely too many grade and scrub bulls scattered over the State for the welfare of the dairy industry, and until the people in general realize the importance of securing better breeding stock there is little hope for improvement. It is a common thing to find a yearling bull in active service, and perhaps he is given an opportunity to serve three or four times as many cows as he should rightfully have considering his age. Early breeding is responsible for loss in size and vigor very frequently. Care and Management of Bull. If it is necessary to use the yearling bull he should be well grown for his age before he begins service and receive the best of care from that time on. By the best of care is meant plenty of good, clean, sub- stantial feed that will keep him growing and keep up his vigor. The ration should carry considerable protein and should always be sufficient to keep him improving. At first, one cow a week is sufficient and as he grows, develops and matures the number may be increased, if it is necessary, so that he may serve one or two a day when he is mature. CARE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DAIRY HERD. 81 Sudden changes in the feed and extremes should be avoided. To keep the bull strong and vigorous he must receive regular exercise. This may be obtained in a small lot, by tread power or in running up and down under a strong overhead line. The tread power is responsible for many a good bull retaining his strength, vigor and ability to breed successfully until an advanced age. It is a common opinion among some that when the bull gets to be three or four years old he should be killed and a yearling take his place. Not so, he has just reached the period of greatest usefulness in his life if he is rightfully handled. Any one with good judgment can see where it would be advisable to secure the services of a tried, mature sire rather than take chances with an untried immature sire. In feeding the herd bull it must always be remembered that to main- tain vigor considerable nitrogenous food must be supplied. A grain mixture of oats three parts, wheat bran three parts, corn meal two parts and linseed meal one part, fed along with good leguminous hay and a small amount of corn silage will keep the bull in excellent condition. Some people think that the bull should get his feed from what the cows leave, but this is poor policy as the bull is going to have too much in- fluence over the future of the herd to be treated in this way. FIG. 6— Jersey bull, Eminent 19th, 78620, at four years of age. An excellent type of bull at the age of greatest usefulness. Figure 6 shows the pure bred Jersey bull Eminent 19th in breeding mdition. This bull has as fine a lot of daughters as can be found inywhere and the majority of them are out of grade Jersey cows. The iniformity of his get is something remarkable, yet is just what can be rpected of a high class, splendid individual with such ancestry back )f him. 82 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. FIG. 7— Jersey heifer, Eminent's Nina, showing desirable form for developing into dairy cow. FIG. 8— Grade Jersey heifer by Eminent 19th, showing excellent form and dairy indications. • CARE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DAIRY HERD. 83 Dairy Calf. Feeding and Management. — Some dairymen consider that they can not afford to raise their own cows and prefer to go out through the country and take their chances in picking up a good cow as they need one. The numher of cows bought in this way that really prove to be worth their purchase price is very small. It is much more satisfactory in the long run to raise the cows for the dairy and in this way know the 'history of the animal and something about what can be expected in the way of production. As a rule where milk is retailed the price is such that the owner con- siders it unprofitable to feed the calf on whole milk for any length of time, but it is advisable to make a little sacrifice at first for the welfare of the calf later on. If the calf gets well started there will be little trouble. There is no objection to leaving the calf with the cow for three or four days or until the milk is fit for use. The calf can be taken away then and placed in a separate stable if it is possible, as the cow will give less trouble if the calf is where she can not see it. By missing one feed, the calf will usually be hungry enough to be anxious to start to drink readily and will usually give little trouble when it finds that the bucket contains the supply. -Four pounds of milk per feed fed three times a day for the first ten days will give the calf a good start when a small amount of skim milk may be substituted for a part of the whole milk, the amount of skim milk being increased so that when the calf is a month old, it is getting skim milk entirely. When the calf is two weeks old the feeds may be changed to two per day with the amount of milk increased gradually as the calf shows ability to handle it. As a rule when a calf is three weeks old it will begin to eat a little grain and it will usually be well to supply some to replace the butterfat removed from the milk. An excellent grain mix- ture for calves is one made of corn meal, oats, and wheat bran in equal parts with a little linseed meal added. To grow calves well they should have just what grain they will clean up readily at each feed. Plenty of green grass is good for growing calves, but if it is hot and dry or winter time a fine quality clover hay will produce excellent results. In addition to being nutritious, the clover hay carries considerable mineral matter which will help materially in developing the framework. Calves should have milk until they are at least five or six months old for best results. If they are forced to subsist on coarse feeds and grain too young they will be stunted, as their digestive system is not developed enough to handle such food, exclusively, at an early 'age. A common mistake among some dairymen is to feed just what they happen to have to their calves instead of securing feeds that the calf can thrive on. In the Southern States cottonseed meal is commonly fed to calves, and it is one of the poorest feeds that can be given the young calf. If it does not prove to be fatal, it will be decidedly detri- mental to thrift. The writer, in some feeding trials at this Station recently, has used cottonseed meal with other grains and has found that calves could not handle the meal satisfactorily until they were ten or twelve months old. In every case it proved detrimental to development 84 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. • where tlie calves were under ten months of age. This being true, it would be better to feed some other feed while the calves are young, such as oats, bran, and com, which are known to be satisfactory. TO secure good size the animal should continue to grow steadily until mature. If allowed to stop growing through neglect in feeding or other causes they become more or less stunted. FIG. 9— The Jersey cow— G. M. K.'s Sylvia at ten years of age. Good dairy form and still doing good work in the herd. Age to Breed Heifers. As too early breeding of heifers is almost sure to prove detrimental to perfect development, it is well to allow them to get fairly well ad- vanced before breeding for the first time. The dairy breeds vary in length of time required for maturing so it is necessary to breed some heifers later than others. Heifers of the Jersey or Guernsey breeds may safely be bred to drop their first calf when they are twenty-four to thirty months old, provided they are well grown. If not well devel- oped, it will be advisable to give them a little more time. As the Ayshires and Holsteins are a little slower in maturing, they should be bred later, so as to drop their first calves when they are thirty to thirty- six months old. This will give them opportunity to develop into good sized useful dairy cows. With good care and management the cow should be able to freshen each year and continue to be a good producer until she is at least twelve years old. It is not at all uncommon to find a cow much older than this doing good work in the dairy herd. BULLETIN 219 AUGUST. 1911 NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OF THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND MECHANIC ARTS WEST RALEIGH FEEDING AND MANAGEMENT OF BEEF CATTLE RALEIGH EDWARDS & BROUQHTON PRINTING Co. STATE PRINTERS. N. C. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND MECHANIC ARTS THE NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE A. & M. COLLEGE GOVERNOR W. W. KITCHIN, ex-offlcio Chairman, Raleigh C. W. GOLD. Raleigh M. B. STICKLEY Concord E. M. KOONCE . ...... .. Jacksonville T. T. BALLINGER Tryon T. E. VANN Corao N. B. BROUGHTON Raleigh D. A. TOMPKINS Charlotte 0. L. CLARK Clarkton J. 0. ELLINGTON Fayetteville EVERETT THOMPSON . . . Elizabeth City W. E. DANIEL Weldon R. H. RICKS Rocky Mount W. H. RAGAN High Point O. MAX GARDNER. Shelby W. B. COOPER Wilmington M. L. REED Asheville STATION STAFF D. H. HILL, President of the College C. B. WILLIAMS Director and Agronomist W. A. WITHERS Chemist F. L. STEVENS Vegetable Pathologist and Bacteriologist J. S. JEFFREY. Poultryman F. C. REIMER Horticulturist R. S. CURTIS Animal Husbandman G. A. ROBERTS Veterinarian R. I. SMITH Entomologist J. C. McNuTT. .' Dairy Husbandman J. D. CECIL Animal Pathologist W. C. ETHERIDGE Associate Agronomist B. J. RAY Assistant Chemist A. R. RUSSELL Assistant in Field Experiments F. W. SHERWOOD Assistant Chemist L. R. DETJEN Assistant Horticulturist GUY WEST WILSON. Assistant in Vegetable Pathology T. B. STANSEL Assistant Bacteriologist A. F. Bo WEN Bursar LOULA V. SHERWOOD Secretary and Stenographer The Bulletins and Reports of this Station will be mailed free to any resident of the State upon request. Visitors are at all times cordially invited to inspect the work of the Station, the office of which is in the new Agricultural Building of the College. . Address all communications to N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, WEST RALEIGH, N. C. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Summary 49 Introduction 51 The Beef Cattle Industry in North Carolina 51 Season for Feeding 53 Method of Feeding .' 53 Feeding Equipment 54 Grades of Feeders 55 Selection and Cost of Feeders , 56 Frequency and Regularity of Feeding 57 ^Vater and Salt 57 Available Feeds 58 Corn Silage for Beef Production 59 Preliminary Feeding Period 59 Final Feeding Period ( 61 Gains per Day 62 Season of Marketing 62 Selecting and Sorting for Market 63 Marketable Condition 64 Preparation for Shipment 64 Cost of Shipping % 65 Market Classification 66 Margin of Profit 67 Scours 67 Thrush or Foul-of-the-foot , 68 Effects of Overfeeding with Cottonseed Meal 68 SUMMARY The feeding of beef cattle should occupy an important place in our system of agriculture because of the additional value thus obtained from cottonseed meal, the chief concentrated feed used in this State. The soils of the State are generally in need of large quantities of humus, which can be supplied to a large extent from manure. The cheap roughages and concen- trated feeds used for fattening beef cattle will when turned into manure supply the soil with this material. More attention should be paid to the selection of feeding cattle. There is a tendency at present to buy a cheap grade of mixed cattle, which will use approxi- mately the same amount of feed as good cattle, but which will neither gain as rapidly, nor increase the value of the finished carcass to the same extent. After shipping cattle from the mountains, it is a good plan to feed them on roughages largely for two or three days. A small amount of corn silage will be beneficial in overcoming any trouble incident to the direct change from pasture to dry feeds. A small amount of cottonseed meal may be used with the silage and dry roughage during this period. Not more than one pound of the meal should be fed daily, however, during the first few days of the feeding period. Beef cattle should not be cramped in muddy, filthy, unventilated quarters. They can withstand considerable cold without harmful effects, although they should not be subjected to undue exposure. An open shed protected on the north, east and west is sufficient for feeding beef cattle. In saving the manure, however, it is best to confine them in roomy sheds or barns partially open to the south. If the sheds are large, roomy and well ventilated and water is supplied inside of the building it is not necessary to allow cattle the run of an open lot. In fact, such a practice is not advisable under Southern conditions. Water and salt should be kept continually before the steers. By so doing they will never take more than is necessary, while if they are supplied at irregular intervals considerable trouble may arise. The idea that water and salt should be given in limited quantities is a mistake, as this practice will be detrimental to the best interests of the cattle feeder. For a short feeding period ranging from one hundred to one hundred and, twenty days not more than four to five weeks should be required to get steers on full feed. The amount of roughage fed should be determined by the appetite of the animals. No more should be given than will be cleaned up readily at each feed. The cottonseed meal part of the ration should not be increased on the average more than two pounds per animal per week. By feeding one pound of meal per steer for the first few days and then increasing it at the above rate, the steers will be on a full ration of seven to eight pounds about the end of the fifth week. In many cases cattle are fed too much cottonseed meal, especially during the preliminary period. The writer knows of certain instances in this State where cattle were started on a ration containing four pounds of cottonseed meal per head dai'y. This practice can not bring other than unsatisfactory results. 50 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. If the cottonseed meal is fed at the rate of three-quarters of a pound per hundred pounds live weight, no trouble should arise from its use. A thousand pound steer on full feed would get at this rate seven and one-half pounds per day, which is a safe and efficient ration for a one hundred to one hundred and twenty day feeding period. If a thousand pound steer is fed from 900 to 1,000 pounds of cottonseed meal properly distributed over a feeding period of one hundred to one hundred and twenty days the results should be satisfactory. After cattle once go on fattening feeds, they should be put in marketable condition as rapidly as possible. Such a practice will insure larger financial returns. Care should be taken, however, not to unduly increase the rations in the beginning as trouble is likely to arise if too much cottonseed meal is given. A good grade of feeding cattle should gain at least two pounds per animal daily, if properly fed. By using a better grade of cattle, the gains will not only be increased, but the quality of the finished carcass will be better, and it will sell for a higher price per pound. Considering the condition of the beef cattle industry of the State at present, the most satisfactory financial results will be obtained usually by selling the finished cattle at home. The average grade of cattle fed in the State at present will not net as large returns on the central markets as en the home markets. The farmer can afford to take from forty to fifty cents less per hundred pounds live weight, and sell his cattle at home, thus avoiding the heavy shrinkage inci- dent to shipping and the uncertainties of th« central markets. §Hi5s3} rfa «ft FEEDING AND MANAGEMENT OF BEEF CATTLE BY R. S. CURTIS. Reasons for Feeding. The reasons for feeding beef cattle in the South are evident to those who have given soil management serious consideration. While it is not absolutely necessary to feed cattle on the farm to maintain the fer- tility of the soil, it is recognized as an important factor toward this end. The by-products of cottonseed are at our door and the South at present is using for cattle feeding purposes only a small portion of the cotton- seed meal which it manufactures. The exports of cottonseed and cotton- seed meal are approximately 1,000,000 tons yearly, while large amounts of the meal used in the State are used directly for fertilizing purposes. This seems like a grave mistake when a good grade of feeding cattle can be obtained in the mountains of the State to turn this cottonseed meal into beef and manure. .If the feeders of other States can afford to ship these cattle for feeding purposes, there seems to be no good reason why they should not be fed in this State on cottonseed meal which has nearly double the feeding- value of corn. Many of these feeding cattle are handled by two* of three parties, each realizing their profit, after which Virginia, Tennessee or South Carolina feeders fatten them and realize even then satisfactory returns on the transaction. If our farmer feeders buy these cattle direct from the growers, thus saving the middleman's profit, it will be a good investment to aid in restoring some of the im- poverished farms. It may be conservatively stated that all farmers who will feed a few beef cattle each winter, will soon double and even triple the value of their cultivated lands. Manure will bring about permanent improve- ment in the soil which commercial fertilizers as ordinarily used can not accomplish alone. The fertilizing value of cottonseed meal used for feeding purposes and returned in the manure will be at least seventy- five per cent of its original value. Therefore by feeding it to beef cattle its entire feeding value, and three-fourths of its fertilizing value can be obtained against its fertilizing value alone when used directly in the field. A proposition of this kind which has been shown to be practical by actual demonstration should cause many farmers to give the matter serious consideration. Educaton along this line is imperative. It means richer farm lands and larger and more profitable crops for those who use conservative judgment in putting the practice into operation. The Beef Cattle Industry in North Carolina. The beef cattle industry at present is in an unsatisfactory condition for two reasons. First, many of the farmers who feed cattle live in the city, having regular employment therein, and are conducting their farms as an adjunct to their city business. This necessitates the em- ployment of laborers usually very unskilled in the feeding and manage- •>- X. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. mem of live slock. Even with feeds having no detrimental properties such as cottonseed meal has, the industry would suffer to a material extent under such management. Because of our dependence on cotton- seed meal to furnish the concentrated portion of the ration, the condi- ]•']<;. 1. — A water .supply system of 5, COO gallons capacity suitable for cattle feeding and iren- cral farm purposes. tion is especially unfortunate for the feeder. The writer has visited a number of farms where cattle were being fed, and unfortunately in many instances unbusiness-like methods of feeding were in use. Cotton- seed meal, to return the most satisfactory results, must be fed with care and judgment. As a result of slack methods, farmers are reporting small gains and in exceptional cases a depreciation in the value of the FEEDING AND MANAGEMENT OF BEEF CATTLE. 53 original animals. Such results can be overcome by using a specific plan in administering the rations. Unless some definite method of feeding is followed in all important details, unsatisfactory results are sure to follow. The writer will attempt to outline some of the most important factors to be taken into consideration in order to secure good average re- sults.. If the large feeders of the corn belt used such a system of man- agement as prevails in general throughout this State they would not be able to follow the cattle feeding business many years. In a number of instances the writer has seen cattle in this State with a constant supply of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls before them, the feed troughs never being entirely cleaned of their contents. This accumulation of feed in the trough is sure to bring on troubles incident to the use of large quantities of cottonseed meal. This system of feeding even with the ordinary feeds would soon bring about disas- trous results. By using care and judgment in* feeding, this State can be made second to none in the production of beef cattle. Season for Feeding. For several reasons the winter season is naturally the best time to feed beef cattle in this section of the country. First, it is difficult to buy feeding cattle in the spring. In the mountain country, where practically all the feeding cattle are produced, the grazers will not sell in the spring of the year except for exorbitant prices, because of their desire to take advantage of the cheap gains which can be made during the spring, summer and early fall. The feeder can not pay the necessary price to secure feeders in the spring and come out even on the transaction. After these cattle have made their maximum gains on pasture, which will be from the first to the fifteenth of October, the grazers are ready to sell. Naturally these cattle can be bought at this season at a lower price than at any other time of the year. Second, cottonseed meal can be purchased cheaper during the fall months, when the season's crop is first placed on the market. Third, the farmer has more time during the winter season to super- vise the feeding of cattle and distribute the manure over the farm. Fourth, a higher price can be obtained for finished cattle during the winter and early spring months because the competition of grain fed cattle during the spring and summer with grass fattened cattle would force the price of the grain fed cattle to an unprofitable figure. Further- more, the climatic conditions in this State makes the winter season very desirable for feeding beef cattle. The cold is not severe enough to in- fluence the gains, in fact, considering all the factors involved, the winter season is more favorable for cattle feeding than the summer season. Method of Feeding. The usual method followed in feeding beef cattle is to divide the daily ration into two equal feeds which are given in the morning about seven and in the evening about four. This is a matter which should receive 54 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. close attention as no one thing pays better in the feed lot than regularity in feeding and caring for the steers. The length of the feeding period under Southern conditions should range from one hundred to one hundred and twenty days, the period being necessarily limited in length because of the effect of cottonseed meal after a certain rather definite time. The writer believes that the shorter feeding period with the maximum safe ration of meal is better than the prolonged period with the smaller ration, a plan followed by some feeders. FIG. 2. — A movable scale rack for weighing beef cattle. When supplied with rollers and a track, it can be removed from the scales for weighing roughage. The latter practice rarely pays except for young stock which it is intended to force later. Beef cattle intended for the market when finished , should be forced to maturity as rapidly as conditions will per- mit. In all cases mature judgment should be used in keeping the steers from going off feed. It is far better to hold them in check somewhat than to allow this condition to arise. If the concentrated part of the ration consists of cottonseed meal entirely steers will rarely make satisfactory gains or increase much in value after one hundred and twenty days. It may be possible to feed somewhat beyond this period but unless there is a corresponding gain and increase in the value of the cattle such a practice will rarely pay for the extra feed given. ( ir Feeding Equipment. The most economical method of feeding beef cattle in this State is to confine them either in small lots where shelter is easily accessible, or under large roomy well ventilated barns or sheds. By following this latter plan the manure will all be conserved, which is an important fac- tor. The former method, while less expensive, has the disadvantage of FEEDING AND MANAGEMENT OF BEEF CATTLE. 55 leaving part of the manure exposed to the weather. However, if the feed lot is small and kept well bedded, the loss of manure may not be great. The writer prefers a large covered barn, well ventilated, with water and salt provided inside. A barn of this type need not be ex- pensive. The principal cost will be in the roof, the sheltered sides being boarded up only part way. For those who care to allow their cattle in the open a short time each day or at frequent intervals, a small lot to the south may be provided. However, if the barn is large, amply venti- lated and the cattle are not cramped, there is no necessity for allowing them outside. Beef cattle should be kept quiet, to make the most rapid gains. The practice of allowing the cattle access to a large open lot is not conducive to rapid and economical gains. Stall feeding sometimes prac- ticed in the State, is also expensive because of the extra cost of buildings and labor involved. The former method described is advocated by the largest and most successful feeders. The cattle are easily fed and they have practically the same advantages as the stall-fed animal. iFrom the financial standpoint, stall feeding is not practical under Southern conditions, and it is doubtful whether it is a judicious practice in other sections. Grades of Feeders. In Figs. 3, 4 and 5 is shown the difference in the grades of feeding cattle found on the various markets in this State. The common grade of feeders are light and rough and are lacking in flesh, capacity and early maturing qualities. .Their weight ranges from 800 to 950 pounds. Such steers make small gains and do not improve in value materially even with careful feeding. The same statement ap- FIG. 3. — A very faulty feeder, lacking in weight, capacity and breeding. plies to the mixed lots consisting of inferior steers, cows, heifers and oxen which are frequently used. These feeders are generally of mixed blood, not uniform in size or weight, making small gains with an uneven finish. Neither of the two classes are satisfactory for the discriminat- ing market. 56 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Feeders which class as medium consist of steers weighing from 900 to 1,000 pounds. They are fairly uniform in size, although the type varies to a limited extent. The breeding is more uniform than that of the com- mon grades. They possess more natural flesh or muscle than common feeders and they are smoother and more uniform in maturing. This class of cattle for the average feeder, especially the beginner, will give very satisfactory results as they can generally be purchased at a reasonable price and sold at a figure sufficient to clear the feeder without the neces- sity of straining market quotations. The good to choice grade of feeding cattle consists of steers weighing from 950 to 1,100 pounds. They are of uniform breeding, average well in size, type and color, possess considerable quality, are smooth and well muscled and finish evenly. This grade of cattle goes mostly to Virginia feeders who bid the highest prices for them. These cattle are generally finished on corn and sold at the central shipping points for prices con- siderably higher than the quotations on local markets. The above classification has not been given with the idea that it is exhaustive or complete but for the cattle feeders of this State it will serve as a rough guide in selecting cattle for fattening purposes. Selection and Cost of Feeders. The selection and purchase of feeding cattle should receive very care- ful attention. This is one of the most important factors in making a success of the feeding business. "No matter how well a steer may be FIG. 4.— A steer with sufficient weight, but one with a low dressing per- centage. The back is low, the ribs are too flat, the rear quarters are light, and the paunch contains too much offal. fed and cared for, if the margin between the buying and selling price is not properly adjusted, loss is certain. Too much emphasis can not be placed on this point. The grade of feeders purchased will necessarily determine the price within certain limits. The class of cattle to be fed FEEDING AND MANAGEMENT OF BEEF CATTLE. 57 should first be decided upon and then the price adjusted according to market conditions. In this State the major portion of the feeders shipped to the Eastern and Piedmont sections are common cattle. They may be divided into two general classes, namely, plain rough steers and mixed feeders consisting of cows, heifers, stags and oxen. While there may be a market for a limited number of these, they are unsatisfactory in the feed lot as they make small gains, and do not sell satisfactorily because of their lack of breeding, condition and uniformity. Good feeders consist of steers, low-set, broad and deep, with good length of body smoothly and heavily covered with natural flesh or muscle. An animal of this type will gain well in the feed lot under normal conditions. It is possible to make gains on such steers ranging from two to three pounds per day. The ordinary class of feeders used throughout the State, under average conditions, will gain from one to one and one-half pounds daily. If sufficient care and time is taken in purchasing feeding cattle, much improvement can be effected in this re- spect. At present a good average grade of feeders can be purchased for four cents per pound or thereabouts, mountain weights, and the in- creased gains which can be made on this class of cattle with the better selling price will more than overbalance the difference in cost of these cattle and plain rough feeders. Feeding cattle should be neither too old nor too young. Very young steers will not fatten readily, and especially is this true considering the nitrogenous character of cottonseed meal. There is not so much danger, however, in getting stock too young as there is in buying those which are old, unthrifty and very late in maturing qualities. The best results will be gotten from two and three year old steers under Southern con- ditions. They will fatten readily, and will not be so likely to become affected by heavy cottonseed meal rations as younger steers. Frequency and ^Regularity of Feeding. Steers intended for the open market are ordinarily fed twice daily. During the winter season when most of the cattle are fed, the feeding should be done at some regular time each day. Seven in the morning is not too early, as the steers will generally be ready for their feed at this time. In the afternoon, if they are fed about four-thirty, they will have time to consume their feed before night. It is not so important that they be fed exactly at these hours, however, it is important that regularity in the hours of feeding be followed throughout the feeding period. If the hours given above interfere with farm work, they may be changed to fit in with this work, although it would not be best to depart radically from the hours stated. The time between feeds should be divided as equally as possible, and these hours followed with considerable regularity. Water and Salt. "Water and salt should be supplied regularly. The best plan to fol- low is to keep the water and salt where the steers can have free access to them. In this way they will satisfy their appetite daily and not take an undue quantity at any time. There is a mistaken idea prevalent in 58 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. some sections of the State, that water and salt should be supplied at certain intervals during the day or week. A practice of this kind is sure to result in trouble in a large number of cases. If the steers are given free access to these necessities they will rarely if ever take more than needed. Available Feeds. The feeds which are available in the State, from an economical stand- point, are cottonseed meal, corn stover, corn silage, and cottonseed hulls. In certain instances, varying with local conditions, other roughages may be used but their importance in cattle feeding is limited. For example, cowpea hay is a standard feed, but the price is prohibitive for fattening beef cattle. In feeding dairy cattle this feed may be used because of the larger and more profitable returns. Cottonseed meal without doubt will form the main concentrated feed for fattening cattle. It is the only concentrate produced in. suffi- cient quantities at a price which will justify the cattle feeder in using it. Corn stover and corn silage may be produced on the farm in quanti- ties sufficient to fatten many more cattle than are now annually fed. They are both well adapted to feed with cottonseed meal because of their carbonaceous nature. Better use should be made of these feeds, considering the price at which they can be produced as compared with the market price of cottonseed hulls. While the latter gives very satis- factory results, the fact should not be lost sight of that the farmers of this State allow large quantities of corn stover to waste which can be used to equal or better advantage than the hulls for feeding beef cattle. FIG. 5. — This steer will grade as a fair feeder, although more weight in the rear quarters would be desirable. A steer of this type will fatten readily and finish smoothly. Likewise corn silage which has produced such satisfactory results in the experimental work at this Station should be more widely used. In the Northern and Western States this feed is rapidly finding a place in the FEEDING AND MANAGEMENT OF BEEF CATTLE. 59 beef cattle ration. Its desirable effect has always been very evident wherever it has been fed. If more of the corn crop was preserved in,' this way it would mean larger profits in the cattle feeding industry. With cottonseed meal valued at $28.00 to $30.00 per ton, corn stover at $7.00 to $8.00 and corn silage at $2.50 to $3.00, there is little excuse for using such large quantities of cottonseed hulls which will cost from $7.00 to $11.00 per ton, the market price depending on the season of the year. Corn Silage for Beef Production. The indications from the experimental data at hand are that corn silage will become an important factor in beef production in the State. In Station Bulletin 218 are given some results obtained with this feed. The average profit per steer obtained from two years work was in favor of the cattle fed on cottonseed meal, and corn silage alone for roughage. Whether the same results will always be obtained is to be determined. It is thought, however, that larger quantities of cottonseed meal can be fed successfully by using corn silage in the ration. This is a point of special significance to be reported in a subsequent bulletin. As a general thing, cattle which are fed silage make better use of their feed and finish more satisfactorily. The hide and hair is kept mellow and glossy, which is a good indication of thrift in fattening cattle. In Indiana about seven per cent of the cattle feeders are using corn silage in their beef cattle rations. In a recent bulletin of that Station it is stated that the addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cotton- seed meal and clover hay, resulted in more rapid and cheaper gains, and greater profits per steer than any other ration fed. It is stated that the results indicate that corn silage may be used profitably as a portion of the ration in finishing steers. Workers at other stations have shown the advantages of corn silage in beef production, -although the kind of sup- plementary feeds used with silage will vary the results obtained. Be- cause of this fact, the use of corn silage with cottonseed meal in the South is a problem in itself, which the writer hopes to work out in a definite form. Preliminary Feeding Period. One of the greatest sources of trouble among cattle feeders of the State is the irregular methods used in getting cattle on full feed. With the safest of feeds, some men by careless methods and undue crowding of the cattle may get them off feed, which brings on scouring, a very troublesome condition in the feed lot. With cottonseed meal, a rich nitrogenous feed of a laxative nature, and toxic when fed in excessive quantities, extra precaution should be taken in getting steers up to full feed, and keeping them in a normal condition thereafter. A number of cases have been reported where the results from the meal feeding have not been satisfactory. The trouble was no doubt caused largely by irreg- ular feeding on varying quantities of the meal or by forcing the cattle too fast in the beginning. Such a practice in the feed lot can never bring other than unsatisfactory results. 60 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. The data given in Table 1 will be of considerable aid to cattle feeders if they will follow the general plan outlined of increasing the cotton- seed meal part of the ration as given therein. These rations are figured out on a basis of one steer, ten steers and multiples of ten up to one* hundred. By selecting the horizontal column giving the number of steers being fed, the proper bi-weekly increase of meal may be deter- mined by the figures following to the right of the page. For example, if thirty steers are being fed, they should receive 15' pounds of cotton- seed meal each feed the first half of the week, 22.5 pounds each feed the last half of the week, 30 pounds each feed the beginning of the second week, and so on through the period until they are on a full ration of 210 pounds the fifth week, which makes the total ration for each steer seven and one-half pounds daily. It will very likely not be best to increase the meal to the amount indicated in the last half of the sixth week for the final period unless the steers are of an unusual weight. With present knowledge of the sub- ject, it is suggested that seven to seven and one-half pounds should con- stitute the maximum daily ration o.f meal during the final period. TABLE 1.— GIVING THE QUANTITIES OF COTTONSEED MEAL IN POUNDS TO FEED DURING SUCCESSIVE STAGES OF THE PRELIMINARY PERIOD. Number of Steers Time of Feeding NUMBER OF WEEK First Week Second Week Third Week Fourth Week Fifth Week Sixth Week . 1 steer a. m p. m .5 .5 .75 .75 1. 1. 1.25 1.25 1.5 1.5 1.75 1.75 2. 2. 2.5 2.5 3. 3. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4. 4. 10 steers a. m p. m 5.0 5.0 7.50 7.50 10. 10. 12.50 12.50 15.0 15.0 17.50 17.50 20. 20. 25.0 25.0 30. 30. 35.0 35.0 35. 0| 40. 35. Oj 40. 20 steers a. m p. m..... 10. C 10.0 15.00 15.00 20. 20. 25.00 25.00 30.0 30.0 35.00 35.00 40. 40. 50.0 50.0 60. 60, 90. 90. . 70.0 70.0 70. Oj 80. 70.0 80. 30 steers a. m p. m 15.0 15.0 22.50 22.50 30. 30. 37.50 37.50 45.0 45.0 52.50 52.50 60. 60. 75.0 75.0 105.0 105.0 105.0 105.0 120. 120. 40 steers a. m p. m 20.0 20.0 30.00 30.00 40. 40. 50.0 50.0 60.0 60.0 70.00 70.00 80. 100. 0 80. 100.0 120. 140. 0 120. 140.0 140.0 140.0 160. 160. 50 steers a. m p. m 25.0 25.0 37. 50 37.50 50. 50. 62.5 62.5 75.0 75.0 87.50 87.50 100. 100. 125.0 125.0 150. 150. 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 200. 200. 60 steers a. m p. m 30.0 30.0 45.00 45.00 60. 60. 75.0 75.0 90.0 90.0 105.00 105.00 120. 120. 150.0 150.0 180. 180. 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 240. 240. 70 steers a. m p. in 35.0 35.0 52.50 52.50 70. 87. 5 70. 87. 5 105.0 105.0 122.50 140. 122. 50 j 140. 175.0 175.0 210. 210. 245.0 245.0 245. 0 280. 245.0 280. 80 steers a. m p. m 40.0 60.00 40.0 60.00 80. 80. 100.0 100.0 120.0 120.0 140.00 140. 00 160. 160. 180. 180. 200. 0 240. ; 200.0 240. 280.0 280.0 280.0 280.0 320. 320. 90 steers a. m p. m 45.0i 67.50 45.0 67.50 90. 90. 112.5 112.5 135.0 135.0 157. 50 157. 50 225.0 225.0 270. 270. 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 360. 360. 100 steers a. m p. m 50.0 50.0 75.00 75.00 100. 100. 125.0 125.0 150.0 150.0 175.00 175.00 200. 200. 250.0 300. 250. Oj 300. 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 400. 400. FEEDING AND MANAGEMENT OF BEEF CATTLE. Final Feeding Period. 61 The final feeding period is the time during which steers should make rapid progress toward fitting for market. When they are first placed on feed it is necessary to proceed slowly until the animals adapt them- selves to the change. During this time the gains will be small as the chief object during the preliminary period should be to regain the shrink- age lost in shipping and to adapt the digestive system to the new feeds. FIG. 6. — A type of animal too often seen in the feed lots of this State. Cattle of such breeding are too inferior to use high priced cottonseed meal. After steers are once placed on a full ration, the fewer the changes in kind of feed, and other of their surroundings, the more satisfactory the results will be, other things being equal. The only change which should be made will be the amount of feed, which should be regulated by the appetite and condition of the animals. Changes should be made very gradually, as there is nothing more fatal in steer feeding than irregular care and management. This is especially true when using a feed like cottonseed meal. A succulent feed like corn silage should be introduced into the ration gradually and eliminated in the same way if for any* reason this becomes necessary. Sudden' changes to and from watery feeds, such as silage, often cause digestive disturbances such as scours, which are very disastrous in the feed lot. It is important to use dry feeds with caution, yet there is not the same danger as with silage, which contains about eighty per cent of water, a factor often responsible for the washy condition in steers fed corn silage alone. When steers are first taken from the pasture it is a good plan to feed a small amount of corn silage with the dry roughage feeds. If this can be done it will help materially in overcoming the effect of sudden changes from pasture to dry feeds, now largely used for fattening steers. t>2 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. The final feeding period should he characterized by regularity both on the part -of the feeder and the animals. The appetite of the steers should be kept keen by regular and judicious feeding and the gains therefore made larger and more uniform. Any sudden departure from FIG. 7.— The class of meat which comes from animals like that shown in Fig. 6. The cuts of meat are small, they lack marbling and are consequently tough and unpalatable. this record should be taken as an indication of trouble either in the feeding or management. The sooner this condition is checked the better, as the unsatisfactory results often obtained are caused by lack of atten- tion to these details. Gains Per Day. As a general thing the class of cattle used in this State for feeding purposes do not make profitable gains. Larger daily gains should be se- cured, which will reduce the cost of production. A large number of the cattle will not average over one and one-fourth pounds gain per day. A good grade of cattle should make at least two pounds gain daily, and even two and one-half pounds would not be unreasonable to expect of them. The better classes of cattle sold on the larger markets will make as high as three or three and one-half pounds gain daily when on full feed. In selecting cattle for feeding purposes, growthy steers with ample capacity for using feed should be secured. The angular type of animal so often seen in the feed lot is an inferior gainer, and a slow seller. The broad backed, low-set, deep bodied steer will, as a general thing, make much larger gains on an equal amount of feed, than the small angular type of animal. Season of Marketing. The season of marketing beef cattle in this State has a narrow range for the reason that practically all of the cattle fed come from the mountains of this State where the pastures generally begin to deteriorate about the first of October, so that the grazers contract to deliver the feeders from October 1st to 15th. For this reason most of the good cat- tle are put on feed by October 15th to November 1st. It will be seen therefore that unless cattle are fed on roughage feeds temporarily in the fall a large portion of them will be placed on the market about the same time the following spring. A great many of the FEEDING AND MANAGEMENT OF BEEF CATTLE. 63 cattle are ready for market about March 1st of the following year. Such a condition necessarily causes an oversupply of fat cattle, especially on the local markets, where most of them fattened in this State are sold. If the beginning of the fee-ding period could be deferred for one month even, so that some of these cattle could be marketed between the time the major portion of the grain fed cattle are sold, and the grass cattle come on the market, they could be disposed of more readily and at better prices. As this is important, any system which can be devised to remedy it will be a great benefit to the cattle feeders of the State. Selecting and Sorting for Market, In buying cattle for feeding purposes, it is important that they be purchased at a reasonable price. Cattle well bought are half sold. Likewise, it is important to obtain the highest market price possible, and to do this the cattle should not only be fat but they should be uni- form in size, type and quality. FIG. 8. — A lot of 800-pound feeders, too young to fatten satisfactorily in a short feeding period, although otherwise they average very well in feeding qualities. Some cattle feeders have the idea that the good cattle in the lot will sell the inferior ones. This is a mistake, and especially so when they are sold on a central market. On the other hand it is true that the in- ferior cattle will depress the selling price of the whole lot. Local butchers are not so critical, yet it is far better to have a uniform lot of cattle even for this market. In the large stock markets, the speculator makes a profitable business of buying mixed lots of stock, sorting them according to weight, quality and condition, and then reselling them at an advanced price because of their uniformity. It is important that cattle feeders pay more attention to this point. An unsatisfactory sale is often the result of not giving these matters proper thought and care. When cattle are shipped or if a buyer comes to the farm they should be properly divided in the way mentioned above. If one-half of a lot of steers are in high condition, and one-half in low condition, it would be unwise to mix them with the idea that the steers in low condition would sell as well as the others. In a case of this kind, it would be much better to offer the good ones for sale in a lot by them- selves and retain the others until they were fat. 6^ IS". f which aie correlated wilh the smooth, even and firm covering of hodv fat, which gives the rotundity of form characteristic of the fat animal. Preparation for Shipment, The preparation of cattle for shipment is very important. Xo matter how well steers may look at home if they are not properly prepared for shipment their shrinkage will lie heavy and their condition will not be conducive to a roadv and satisfactory sale at the stock yards. From twelve to 1 wen fy-foiir hours before the cattle are loaded in the car. the grain ration should he cut down very materially, and dry rough- age iriven instead. This is especially true if corn silage is fed, which FEEDING AND MANAGEMENT OF BEEF CATTLE. 65 is likely to cause a washy condition when the steers get heated and ex- cited. As cottonseed meal is a laxative feed, great care should be used in feeding it for a day or two before shipment. It is a well known fact that grass fattened cattle shrink abnormally when shipped. In shipping cattle every precaution should be taken to withhold green feeds, such as grass, silage, or any of the concentrates, such as cottonseed meal and linseed meal, which are likely to purge the animals. It is a good plan to feed hay principally, the day before shipment. Timothy hay is rec- ognized as being ideal for this purpose. If this can not be obtained, corn stover or cottonseed hulls will serve the purpose. Clover, alfalfa or cowpea hay should not be fed at this time because of their laxative1* character. Water and salt should be withheld for six to eight hours be- fore shipment. The use of salt to secure a good fill of water is neither a paying proposition nor a legitimate practice. The car should be well bedded with straw, sawdust or some other litter convenient for use, and the cattle should be loaded snugly, but not packed. Prior to shipment all undue excitement should be avoided. If these suggestions are followed the cattle should reach market in good condition, ready to eat and drink normally before sold. Careful and in- telligent management will assure both the shipper and the buyer honest weights and satisfactory returns. Cost of Shipping. Usually the cattle feeder can afford to take from forty to fifty cents per hundred pounds less for his cattle on the local market. This is es- pecially true for the beginner who may not be able to judge when cattle are ready for the market or when it is most advisable to ship for other reasons. The following figures will enable the feeder to determine with considerable accuracy what the shipping expenses will be to Baltimore on one carload of fat cattle, assuming the selling price to be six cents per hundred. The cost of shipping to Richmond would be somewhat less than the figures given below. Shrinkage on 30 cattle, 40 pounds per head — 1,200 Ibs. @ 6 cents per pound $ 72.00 Freight 66.00 Commission charges 30.00 Yardage, feeding and weighing • • • • 12.00 Total $180.00 i These figures are subject to modification according to the location of the feeder ; however, the principal difference would be on the shrinkage and freight charges. It will take considerable experience to judge just when it will pay to ship and when to sell at home. If the price offered at the farm is within reason, however, it will usually not pay to take a material risk. Any one who contemplates shipping should be governed largely by the price offered for the cattle at home and the quotations on the central market. It should be remembered that steers from the 66 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. quarantine area are usually quoted at twenty-five to thirty-five cents less per hundred pounds than steers from the non-quarantine areas, al- though the discrimination in price is not as great as heretofore. Market Classification. The subject of market classification is a special study in itself, es- pecially on the larger central markets. It is necessary, however, for the cattle feeder to have a general knowledge of the grades and classes of cattle on the market where his cattle are usually sold. For example, it must be known where cattle will grade in order to study market quota- tions intelligently and determine the approximate price for which a given lot of cattle will sell. The farmer who has a load of butcher cattle for sale would be at a loss to know what his cattle would likely sell for, un- less he actually knew that they would grade as butcher stock. These facts must be known by the man who expects to sell on the central markets intelligently. FIG. 10.— A lot of 950-pound steers which will grade as medium feeders. This class of cattle is very satisfactory for the average feeder, especially the beginner. The following classification is used by a Baltimore commission firm and will give some idea of the range in grades and classes of cattle on that market. The figures given are March quotations. It will be noticed that no quotations are given on export cattle during this season of the year, as the supply is limited. MARKET CLASSES AND QUOTATIONS. Choice Export Steers Medium Export Steers ...... . Choice Butcher Steers ...................... $6.50 Medium Butcher Steers ..................... 5.50 Good Fat Heifers ......................... . 5.00 Light Heifers ............................. 3.00 Fat Cows ................................. 2.00 Bulls .................................... 4.00 Oxen .................................... 3.00 Fresh Cows .............................. . 15.00 Good Fat Calves ........................... 9.00 Light Common Calves ...................... 6.00 $7.00 6.50 6.25 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 60.00 9.50 8.00 FEEDING AND MANAGEMENT OF BEEF CATTLE. 67 Most of the steers sold from this State will grade as butcher stock and a large portion of them will go in as medium butcher steers. Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Maryland furnish some cattle for the export market, but they are corn fed, having plenty of weight, quality and condition. The product from North Carolina is most likely to be a butcher cattle trade in the steer classes. Margin of Profit. The margin of profit on cattle, considering their original cost, the cost of the feed, and the market for fat cattle should be from $1.50 to $1.75 per hundred pounds. Even with this margin it is not possible to obtain an appreciable profit from cattle feeding. It is possible, however, to clear the manure, pay for the labor and get possibly from one to two dollars profit per steer. If this profit can be obtained, the cattle feeder should consider himself very fortunate, as many of them lose, although in a great many cases considerable loss could be avoided by a better sys- tem of management. If the manure can be cleared, it is well worth the time spent in caring for the cattle because of the value of this product in improving the farms. A large part of the fertility in cottonseed meal is left in the manure, which amply justifies the farmer in feeding beef cattle. If the steers can be fattened and the fertility of the meal re- tained on the farm without an actual outlay of money it is an economical practice in building up the farms of this State. FIG. 11. — The class of meat which comes from steers of the grade shown in Fig. 10. Contrast with the cuts of meat shown in Fig. 7. The principal obstacle to overcome is to get the industry on a firmer financial basis. By reducing the cost of production which is now rather high, the necessary margin to break even can be reduced, thus making possible a larger percentage of profit in the business. When this can be done more cattle will be fed. Scours. The man who can not keep scours out of his feed lot is not in a posi- tion to make a success of the cattle feeding business. This trouble is the bane of the cattle feeder wherever it becomes prevalent. It is an in- dication that the digestive system is out of condition, which is caused largely by careless feeding and management. The droppings from a steer which is doing well should be dark in color and firm in consistency. 00 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Any washy or loose condition should be remedied at once, as a steer affected in this way will not only stop gaining, but actually lose flesh if the trouble continues for any length of time. Under the system of feeding followed in this State, scours are more likely to give trouble because of the laxative nature of cottonseed meal. If corn silage is fed either alone or with some dry roughage it may have a tendency to bring about a lax condition, although this is not likely to happen under careful management. One. of the principal precautions to take is to start the steers on a light ration of meal and increase it gradually. If this is done and average judgment is used thereafter in feeding no trouble should occur. Thrush or Foul-of-the-Foot Thrush or foul of the foot is caused by allowing steers to stand in the sheds or yards in manure which has been accumulating for considerable time. For this reason the manure should not be allowed to remain in the barns and yards for an undue length of time. Plenty of bedding should be provided to overcome this trouble as well as to aid in conserv- ing the manure. There is very little that can be done for fattening steers affected with this trouble except to remove the cause. Care should be taken to provide clean and dry bedding. If the steers are not allowed to wade in filthy lots this trouble is not likely to develop. Effects of Overfeeding with Cottonseed Meal. It is probably generally known that when cottonseed meal is fed in large quantities, during prolonged periods, it causes either blindness, staggering or possibly death in extreme cases. The writer is not aware of any deaths in this State, although it is stated that a few have oc- curred. As a general thing with beef cattle, the first indication of the trouble is seen in the failure to make uniform gains. This is followed by a dry rough coat of hair, dullness, sleepiness, possibly a staggering gait and loss of appetite in prolonged cases. Because of this troublje arising after feeding cottonseed meal heavily for one hundred to one hundred and twenty days the chances for making prime fat cattle are greatly reduced unless they are finished on some other concentrate. After steers from two to three years old have been fed from 900 to 1,000 pounds of cottonseed meal, a keen watch should be kept of their general condition and the progress they are making. When the gains begin to grow small it is a good indication that the cattle have taken as much cottonseed meal as the system will stand. When this condition arises they should be marketed as soon as possible, providing this has not already been done before the effects of the cottonseed meal were noticed. BULLETIN 218 JULY, 1911 NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OF THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND MECHANIC ARTS WEST RALEIGH FEEDING EXPERIMENTS WITH BEEF CATTLE Awards A Broughton Printing Co., State Printers N. C. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND MECHANIC ARTS THE NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE A. & M. COLLEGE GOVERNOR W. W. KITCHIN, ex-offlcio Chairman, Raleigh C. W. GOLD. .' Raleigh M. B. STICKLEY Concord E. M. KOONCE Jacksonville T. T. BALLINGER Tryon T. E. VANN Como N. B. BROUGHTON Raleigh D. A. TOMPKINS Charlotte . O. L. CLARK Clarkton J. 0. ELLINGTON Fayetteville EVERETT THOMPSON . . . Elizabeth City W. E. DANIEL Weldon R. H. RICKS Rocky Mount W. H. RAGAN High Point 0. MAX GARDNER Shelby W. B. COOPER Wilmington M. L. REED Asheville STATION STAFF D. H. HILL, President of the College C. B. WILLIAMS Director and Agronomist W. A. WITHERS Chemist F. L. STEVENS Vegetable Pathologist and Bacteriologist J. S. JEFFREY Poultryman F. C. REIMER Horticulturist R. S. CURTIS Animal Husbandman G. A. ROBERTS Veterinarian R. I. SMITH Entomologist J. D. CECIL Animal Pathologist W. C. ETHERIDGE . Associate Agronomist B. J. RAY Assistant Chemist A. R. RUSSELL Assistant in Field Experiments F. W. SHERWOOD Assistant Chemist L. R. DETJEN . .Assistant Horticulturist GUY WEST WILSON Assistant in Vegetable Pathology T. B. STANSEL Assistant Bacteriologist A. F. BOWEN Bursar LOULA V. SHERWOOD Secretary and Stenographer The Bulletins and Reports of this Station will be mailed free to any resident of. the State upon request. Visitors are at all times cordially invited to inspect the work of the Station, the office of which is in the new Agricultural Building of the College. Address all communications to N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, WEST RALEIGH, N. C. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Summary 27 Beef Cattle Industry* of North Carolina. 29 Objects of Experiment 30 Plan of Experiment 30 Barn, Lots and Water Supply 31 Description of Steers 31 Weights of Steers 32 Shrinkage 32 Kind of Feeds Used 32 Valuation of Feeds 32 Amount of Cottonseed Meal Fed 33 Method of Feeding 34 Preliminary Feeding 35 Summary of Two Years Work 36 Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months 38 Dressing Percentages 39 Financial Statement 39 Discussion of Results 43 SUMMARY. The feeding of beef cattle can be made profitable in this State, especially dur- ing the winter months. While large profits can not be obtained usually, the in- dustry furnishes a means of using the cheaper rough feeds on the farm and ob- taining the feeding value of cottonseed meal before it is used as a fertilizer. The length of the feeding period is limited because of the harmful effect of cottonseed meal when fed in quantities sufficient to produce large gains. The most profitable feeding period will range from one hundred to one hundred and twenty days, the exact length of time depending upon the amount of cottonseed meal fed daily. The average daily feed of cottonseed meal for two and three year old steers should be about seven pounds per animal. The average daily feed used in these experiments, including the preliminary period, was 7.30 pounds per animal the first year and 6.82 pounds the second year. The average amount of cottonseed meal fed during the two years to produce a pound of gain was 5.71 pounds for lot i, fed corn silage and corn stover for roughage; 5.77 pounds for lot 2, fed corn silage for roughage; and 5.17 pounds for lot 3, fed cottonseed hulls for roughage. These figures show that it took less cottonseed meal to produce a pound of gain when fed with cottonseed hulls than when fed with either corn silage or corn stover. The average daily gain for the two years was largest with the steers fed cot- tonseed meal and cottonseed hulls. The average daily gains made by the steers fed cottonseed meal, corn stover and corn silage, and cottonseed meal and corn silage were approximately the same each year. The cheapest gains were made the first year by the steers fed cottonseed meal and corn silage. In the second year the steers fed this ration made cheaper gains than any of the others, either the first or second year of the experiment. The cost of gain should not be confused with the final profits, which are influ- enced by the quality of the steers and the selling price per pound. The second cheapest gains during the first year were made by the steers fed cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls and during the second year by those fed cottonseed meal and corn silage. The most expensive gains were made both! years by the steers fed cottonseed meal, corn silage and corn stover. While the steers fed cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls made somewhat larger and cheaper gains during the second year, their dressing percentage was two and one-tenth per cent lower than the steers fed cottonseed meal and corn silage, and two and two-tenths per cent lower than the dressing percentage of the steers fed cottonseed meal, corn silage and corn stover. The parties handling these steers reported them much better as a whole than most of those sold on the local market. The special criticism made, however, was that the steers fed cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls were inferior in- cutting qualities to either of the other two lots. The cost of the gains was rather high with all the steers both years; however, the gains made by the feeders of this State in general will usually cost as much 28 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. or more. The high cost of gains on the experimental cattle was partially the, result of using a grade of steers inferior in breeding and gaining qualities al- though the cattle as a whole were better than the average grade of cattle fed in the State. High grade feeders properly fed should make double the gains} made by these steers, which would reduce the cost of gains one-half. The average cost of the gains per hundred pounds for the two years was $17.55 for lot i, $15.56 for lot 2, and $15.13 for lot 3. The average profit per steer for the two years, including the manure, was $4.36 for lot i, $7.99 for lot 2, and $4.44 for lot 3. These results show that corn silage is an excellent feed for fattening beef cattle. It not only made a larger profit per steer but produced a better quality of meat than did the other feeds. The average price per hundred pounds live weight necessary during the two years to clear the total cost of the finished steers was $6.08 for lot i, $5.78 for lot 2, and $5.99 for lot 3. The average .price actually obtained was $5.82 for lot i, $5.87 for lot 2, and $5.73 for lot 3. The cattle fed corn silage both years returned slightly more than necessary to balance the original cost of the steers and the feed consumed without consider- ing the value of the manure. This was true with only one other lot of steers. During the first year, the cattle fed cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls returned just enough to balance the transaction without counting the value of the manure. In every other case there was a slight loss, although when the value of the manure was considered each lot made a satisfactory financial showing. Steers intended for feeding purposes should be at least two years old and should weigh preferably 900 to 1,000 pounds in order to fatten satisfactorily in the short feeding period necessary when fed on cottonseed meal. This is, especially true of cottonseed meal because of its high nitrogen content. A feed of this character when fed to immature animals will prolong their growing period, consequently the advantage of feeding heavier cattle which have reached ma- turity. As the results obtained in these experiments seem to favor the use of corn silage for fattening beef cattle, it is important that the feeder save a portion of his corn crop in the form of silage. It is not good business policy for the feeder to buy cottonseed hulls at the present prices to replace this roughage, which can be produced on the farm; especially so when it is considered that it will give equal or better results than cottonseed hulls. It is necessary to have a margin of $1.50 to $1.75 per hundred pounds live weight to insure satisfactory financial returns on beef cattle. During the first year the margin on the steers used in this experiment was $1.75 per hundred pounds and the second year $1.375 Pe* hundred pounds. FEEDING EXPERIMENTS WITH BEEF CATTLE BY R. S. CURTIS. Beef Cattle Industry of North Carolina. The feeding of beef cattle in North Carolina will undoubtedly become an important industry. In the western portion of the State, the moun- tain pastures afford excellent grazing where already very desirable types of feeding cattle are being produced. With the advent of better bred sires to use on the common cattle of that region and the improvement of the pasture lands by better management the industry is sure to develop rapidly. Prominent cattle growers state that a large percentage of the desirable grazing land is not at present utilized for pasturage purposes. Not only will the area be extended into the more remote parts, but the quality of the pastures will be improved by better methods of manage- ment. The writer mentions North Carolina especially because the western section of the State is typical of the Appalachian region for cattle graz- ing purposes. The production of feeding cattle is not limited to this State alone, as Virginia and Tennessee, especially, can produce types of cattle equally as desirable, and within reach of the cattle feeders of this State. Virginia is using to a large extent her own cattle for feeding purposes and also the larger and better cattle of eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina. This is a condition which should receive the attention of the more progressive stockmen of this State. North Caro- lina feeders should feed all of the cattle produced in the State and, if necessary, draw on the surrounding States for surplus needs. It need^not be stated that cottonseed meal is the only commercial con- centrate which at present can be used for feeding beef cattle. The cattle feeding industry furnishes a means of obtaining both the feed and ferti- lizer values from this commercial product and for this reason every effort should be made to use as much cottonseed meal in our live stock and gen- eral farming industries as conservative business methods will permit. It has not been definitely determined just how much cottonseed meal is most profitable for feeding beef cattle, but it is likely that the concentrated portion of the ration will consist largely of cottonseed meal for an in- definite period. Knowing the approximate quantity of cottonseed meal which will form a safe and satisfactory ration, the writer has confined his work of the last two years in determining the most profitable roughage feeds to use with the meal. The chief roughages available in this State are corn stover, corn silage, and cottonseed hulls. Others of local importance could be named, but it is considered that these three are the most important from the standpoint of economy in beef production. As beef cattle do not return large profits in the South it is necessary to confine the roughage part of the rations to the less valuable feeds produced on the farm. 30 N. C. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. These experiments are based upon the fact that large quantities of corn stover are wasted annually, that corn preserved as corn silage is the most economical method in saving the crop and that corn silage is rapidly coming into favor as a heef cattle feed. Cottonseed hulls, though recognized as important, are becoming more expensive each year, and from the evidence obtained at this Station and elsewhere they are not as satisfactory for roughage as corn stover or corn silage. It is not a judicious practice to use costly commercial feeds to replace corn silage and corn stover which can be produced on every farm. Objects of Experiment. The objects of the experiment were to determine the difference in the feeding value of corn stover, corn silage, and cottonseed hulls when fed with cottonseed meal. This determination included the following: 1. The average daily gains. 2. The quality of the carcass. 3. The economy of production. The last factor is really the most important to the feeder, yet the quality of the carcass influences the selling price of cattle to a marked extent. This proved to be of special importance in this case. Flan of Experiment. The experiment was planned with the idea of making a comparison of corn stover, corn silage and cottonseed hulls as roughage feeds. The same quantity of cottonseed meal was fed to each of three lots of steers. When an increase was made for one lot, the same increase was made for each of the other two lots. The aim was to feed as much meal as pos- sible for best results. Conditions were made as nearly the same for each lot of cattle as possible, the only variation being in the kind and quantity of roughage given. FIG. 1— Station Beef-Cattle Barn. In making an increase or changing the proportions of roughage feeds, due consideration was given the individual appetite of the steers, allow- ing them to direct rather than to follow any special scheme of feeding the roughage. At all times, however, judgment was used in withholding an undue increase of any part of the rations and especially was this true in the preliminary feeding period. FEEDING EXPERIMENTS WITH BEEF CATTLE. 31 Barn Lots and Water Supply. The steers were fed in the barn, shown in Fig. 1. The stalls were located on the south side and were fifteen feet wide by twenty feet long. They were connected with lots twenty feet wide by eighty feet long. The steers were kept in the stalls during the night and a large part of the day. Water was furnished from a supply tank. This system of ^ fl^.O 0.3 5.0 ".& "Y.o " Corn and cob meal 84.9 4.4 60.0 2.9 14.1 5.7 4.7 Corn bran 90.9 7.4 59 . 8 4.6 16.3 12.1 6.8 Gluten meal 91.8 25.8 43.3 11.0 50.3 3.3 0.5 Germ meal 89.6 9.0 61.2 6.2 26.5 8.0 5.0 Starch refuse 91.8 11.4 58.4 6.5 22.4 7.0 5.2 Grano gluten 94.3 26.7 38.8 12.4 49.8 5.1 1.5 Hominy chops 88.9 7.5 55.2 68 16.3 9.8 4.9 Glucose meal 91.9 30.3 35.3 14.5 57 . 7 Sugar meal 93.2 18.7 51.7 8.7 36.3 4.1 0.3 Gluten feed 92 . 2 20.4 48.4 8.8 38.4 4.1 0 3 Wheat 89.5 10.2 69.2 1.7 23 . 6 7.9 5.0 High-grade flour 87.6 8.9 62.4 0.9 18.9 2.2 1.5 Low-grade flour 87.6 8.2 62.7 0.9 28 . 9 5.6 3.5 Dark feeding flour 90 . 3 13.5 61.3 2.0 81.8 21 .4 10.9 Wheat bran 88.1 12.2 39 . 2 2.7 26.7 28.9 16.1 Wheat bran, spring wheat. . . . 88.5 12.9 40.1 3.4 Wheat bran, winter wheat. . . . 87.7 12.3 37.1 2.6 Wheat shorts 8cS.2 12.2 50.0 3.8 28.2 13.5 '"5.9" Wheat middlings 87.9 12.8 53.0 3.4 26 . 3 9.5 6.3 Wheat screenings 88.4 9.8 51.0 2.2 24.4 11.7 8.4 Rye 88.4 9.9 67.6 1.1 17.6 8.2 5.4 Rye bran 88.4 11.5 50.3 . 2.0 23.2 22.8 14.0 Rye shorts 90.7 11.9 45.1 1.6 18.4 12.6 8.1 Barley 89.1 8.7 65.6 1.6 15.1 7.9 4.8 Malt sprouts 89.8 18.6 37.1 1.7 35.3 14.3 16.3 Brewers' grain, wet . . 24.3 3.9 9.3 1.4 8.9 3.1 0.5 Brewers' grains, dried 91.8 15.7 36.3 5.1 36.2 10 3 0.9 Oats 89.0 9.2 47.3 4.2 20.6 8.2 6.2 Oat meal 92 1 11.5 52.1 5.9 23.5 Oat feed or shorts 92.3 12.5 46.9 2.8 17 . 2 "V.i" 5.3 Oat dust 93.5 8.9 38.4 5.1 21.6 Oat hulls 90 . 6 1.3 40.1 0.6 5.2 '"aii" "5.2" Rice 87.6 4.8 72 . 2 0.3 10.8 1.8 0.9 Rice hulls 91.8 1.6 44.5 0.6 5.8 1.7 1.4 Rice bran 90 . 3 5.3 45.1 7.3 7.1 2.9 2.4 Rice polish 90 0 9.0 56 . 4 6.S 19.7 26.7 7.1 Buck wheat. 87.4 7 7 49.2 1.8 14.4 4.4 2.1 Buckwheat hulls 86.8 2'l 27.9 0.6 4.9 0.7 5 2 Buckwheat bran 89.5 7.4 30.4 1.9 36.4 17.8 12.8 BucKwheat shorts 88 9 21.1 33.5 5.5 Buckwheat middlings 87.3 22.0 33.4 5.4 42.8 21.9 "iii-i" >orghimi seed 87.2 7.0 52 1 3.1 14.8 8.1 4.2 Broom corn seed. 85 . 9 7.4 48.3 2.9 16.3 Kallir eorn . 81.8 7.8 57 . 1 2. 7 Millet 86.0 8.9 •15.0 3.2 20.4 8.5 " S.Q ' Elax seed. . 9C.8 20.6 17 1 29.0 36.1 13.9 10.3 Linseed meal, old process 9(1.8 29 . 3 32 . 7 7 0 54 . 3 16.6 13.7 STOCK FEEDING. 15 NAME OF FEED. Dry Matter in 100 Lbs. Digestible Nutrients in 100 Pounds. Fertilizing Constitu- ents in 1000 Pounds. G " 1 OH >> It o'0 *-> u 0) -M A « +*tt WW 1 2 '£ O'O -S'S 8^ O o e* A cc ! Concentrates Continued Linseed meal, new process Cotton seed .... Lbs. 89.9 89.7 91.8 88.9 89.7 89.6 92.5 91.8 89.3 90.0 89.5 89.2 85.2 85.7 20.7 57.8 59.5 20.0 34.9 38.4 27.0 34.7 37.8 23.4 20.6 30.1 28.9 21.0 16.0 16.0 86.8 90.1 91.1 78.8 92.3 87.1 83.4 80.0 88.7 91.1 88.4 92.1 85.0 90.4 92.9 90.8 85.8 85.7 85.7 Lbs. 28.2 12.5 37.2 0.3 15.6 16.0 12.1 31.2 42.9 25.2 16.8 29.6 18.8 22.4 1.0 2.5 1.7 2.5 3.0 1.2 1.5 2.1 2.6 2 1 0.6 1.5 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.8 .9 .8 .8 .5 5.9 .9 .2 10.8 4.8 2.4 3.5 8.8 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.3 1.5 Lbs. 40.1 30.0 16.9 33.1 38.3 52.6 20.8 19.6 22.8 28.7 51.8 22.3 54.2 49.3 11.6 34.6 32.4 10.2 19.8 19.1 11.4 21.2 18.9 14.1 12.2 16.8 16.0 10.2 7.1 7.2 43.4 42.3 46.9 87.3 51.7 40.9 40.1 43.3 88.7 46.4 29.9 44.7 40.7 86.3 40.6 88.6 41.2 28.2 88.0 Lbs. 2.8 17.3 12.2 1.7 10.5 9.0 29.0 12 8 6.9 7.5 0.7 14.4 1.1 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.4 1.4 1.0 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.5 0.9 0.7 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 Lbs. 57.8 31.3 67.9 6.9 82.8 26.9 22.8 55.5 75.6 49.6 30.8 53.0 33.8 40.7 4.1 17.6 10.4 9.1 '"i'.8 4.3 "'4:9' 3.3 2.3 '"s'9 12.6 18 1 11.5 11.9 12.0 14.1 16.1 9.9 23.2 Lbs. 18.8 12.7 28.8 2.5 16.0 11.0 12.2 21.5 18.1 20.0 8.2 18.7 "l2'6 1.5 5.4 2.9 2.3 "a!e 1.6 "'i'.i''. 1.5 0.9 " i'e" 5.3 4.1 3.6 4.0 3.5 2.7 4.8 4.0 6.7 1.2 2.8 2.0 8.0 7.0 Lbs. 13.9 11.7 8.7 10.2 24.0 5.0 5.6 11.7 15.0 13.0 9.9 19.0 "i2'.9 3.3 S.9 14.0 7.5 '"7:6" 7.6 '"88 7.3 2.3 " 5'.5 9.0 18.8 10.2 15.7 13.0 15.5 14.9 21.0 10.8 5.1 7.9 12.4 20.9 4.2 Cotton seed meal Cotton seed hulls . Cocoanut meal .. . Palm nut meal Sunflower seed Sunflower seed cakes Peanut meal Rape seed meal Peas Soja (soy) bean Cowpea Horse bean . Roughage.— Fodder Corn. Fodder corn, green Fodder corn, field-cured Corn stover, field-cured Fresh Grass. Pasture grasses (mixed) Ky . blue grass Timothy, different stages. . . Orchard grass, in bloom Red top in bloom Oat fodder.. Rye fodder Sorghum Meadow fescue, in bloom Hungarian grass Green barley Peas and oats Peas and barley Hay. Timothy hay... Orchard grass. Redtop Ky.blue grass Hungarian grass. . Mixed grasses. Rowen (mixed) Meadow fescue Soja bean hay Oat hay. Marsh or swamp hay Marsh or swamp hay; White daisy Straw. Wheat... , 5.9 4.6 6.2 13.1 7.9 Rye. . . Oat Barley Wheat chaff Oat chaff 16 BULLETIN 128. NAME OF FEED. Dry Matter in 100 Lbs. Digestible Nutrients in 100 Pounds. Fertilizing Constitu- ents in 1000 Pounds. c 1 PH >> II 3* £ o sS XI * V* | 2 6-d I1 to 1 £ Fresh Legumes. Red clover, different stages.. . Alsike, bloom Crimson clover Lbs. 29.2 25.2 19.1 28.2 16.4 24.9 84.7 78.8 90.3 90.8 90.4 91.6 89.3 89.9 86.4 20.9 28.0 23.9 27.5 32.0 20.7 25.8 21.0 24.0 21.1 13.0 13.5 9.1 9.5 11.4 11.4 11.7 20.0 15.3 20.0 12.0 9.1 19.2 11.6 14.0 44.7 91.5 89.8 89.2 10.2 79.2 12.8 25.4 9.6 9.4 9.9 6.6 Lbs. 2.9 2.7 2.4 8.9 1.8 3.2 6.8 5.7 8.4 11.5 10.5 11.0 10.8 2.3 4.3 0.9 2.0 0.6 3.0 1.9 1.5 2.7 1.6 1.6 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.5 2.1 52.8 66.2 44.1 0.6 9-1 8.6 17.6 8.1 2.9 3.9 0.8 Lbs. 14.8 18.1 9.1 12.7 8.7 11.0 85.8 32.0 42.5 42.2 34.9 39. fl 38.6 40.0 32.3 11.3 18.5 14.9 8.5 13.4 8.6 8.7 9.2 18.0 16.3 8.8 10.2 5.4 7.2 8.1 7 8 11.2 16.8 8.2 9.8 4.6 5.8 8.8 4.6 8.1 34.4 .0 .8 .0 7.8 59.5 4.9 2.7 4.7 5.2 4.0 4.7 Lbs. 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.2 1.9 1.6 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.7 0 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 1.7 2.5 13.7 10.8 ' '.'6 3.7 3.6 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.8 Lbs. 5.3 4.4 4.3 7.2 2.7 2.9 20.7 22.3 23.4 '27.5 20.5 21.9 19.5 17.5 14.8 2.8 Lbs. 1.3 1.1 1.8 l.K 1.0 1.5 3.8 5.5 6.7 5.2 4.0 5.1 5.2 4.0 3.5 1.1 Lbs. 4.6 2.0 4.9 5.6 3.1 5.8 22.0 12.2 22.8 18.1 18.1 16.8 14.7 13.2 10.2 3.7 Alfalfa Cowpea Soja bean Legume Hay and Straw. Red clover, medium Red clover, mammoth. Alsike clover White clover Crimson clover Alfalfa. Cowpea Soja bean straw Pea-vine straw Silage. Corn Clover Sorghum Alfalfa Grass .' .' '.'.'.'. !> Cowpea vine . Soja bean Barnyard millet and soj a bean . Corn and soja bean Roots and Tubers. Potato 3.2 2.4 2.2 1 9 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.8 2.6 8.8 3.8 4.1 2.2 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.9 2.0 1.4 1.1 2.5 1.5 4.6 4.4 4.8 3.8 8.9 4.9 5.1 4.4 4.7 4.3 5.9 6.2 Beet, common Beet, sugar Beet, mangel Flat turnip. Ruta-baga Carrot Parsnip Artichoke. ... Miscellaneous. Cabbage Spurry.. Sugar beet leaves Pumpkin field Pumpkin, garden Prickly comf rey Rape. 1.1 4.2 4.5 135.0 118.9 77.5 1.4 14.6 5.8 28.2 5.6 5.6' 4.8 1.5 1.6 1.1 1.5 18.5 7.0 120.0 0.2 0.5 1.9 6.6 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.4 0.9 7.5 3 6 7.7 1.0 2.0 0 4 56.3 1.8 1.1 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.8 Acorns, fresh Dried blood Meat scrap Dried fish Beet pulp Beet molasses. Cow's milk Cow's milk, colostrum Skim milk, gravity Skim milk, centrifugal Buttermilk. Whey STOCK FEEDING. , 17 PART II. — Silos and Silage. A silo is an air-tight receptacle for preserving green feeds in a succulent condition. Feed thus preserved is known as silage. Clover, cow-peas and other forage crops have been successfully made into silage, but experience has shown that the cheapest and most satisfactory silage is made from corn cut in the dent- ing or glazing stage. Silage is now universally recognized as one of the cheapest and most indispensable feeds in economical milk production. With the studious dairyman, it is no longer a question of "can I afford to build a silo," but "can I afford to be without one?" ADVANTAGES OF SILAGE. — The advantages of feeding silage may be briefly stated as follows : 1. It furnishes the cheapest roughage available upon the farm. 2. It furnishes roughage, which, in degree of succulence and palatability, more nearly approaches green pasturage than any- thing else to be had upon the farm. 3. Owing to its kinship to grass in succulence and palatability, it can readily be substituted for the latter during periods of drought and during late summer and fall when pasturage is nearly always inadequate. 4. It has made winter dairying a feasible and profitable busi- ness, because the silage readily takes the place of summer pas- turage. 5. It furnishes a uniform feed and makes uniformly good feeding a possibility the year round. 6. It permits the storage of a large amount of feed in a com- paratively small space. 7. Where the silo adjoins the barn it makes feeding easy. 8. It permits housing the corn crop regardless of the condi- tion of the weather. 9. There is practically no waste in feeding. 10. It yields the largest amount of feed possible fron? the corn plant. SIZE OF SILOS. — The size of the silo is determined by the number of cattle to be fed. In general, a cow will consume about 40 pounds of silage daily ; and, if fed silage 180 days in the year, she will consume a total of 7,200 pounds. At this rate 18 , BULLETIN 128. 20 head of cattle would consume 72 tons. But it 'should be remembered that it requires a silo of not less than 80-tons' capacity to hold 72 tons of well made silage. A cylindrical silo of this capacity will measure about 14 feet in diameter and 28 feet in height. A good rule to follow in determining the size of a silo is to estimate the amount of silage that is to be fed during the year and assume a weight of 40 pounds for every cubic foot of silage. LOCATION OF SILO. — For convenience of feeding, the silo should be as near the manger as possible. It is preferably joined to the barn at one end by means of a chute, so that one can step into the silo without leaving the barn. Where the silo is thus located, it is necessary to prevent the escape of silage odors at milking time, by providing doors for closing up the chute leading to the silo. CONSTRUCTION OF SILO. — Silos should be round, having the appearance of a cylinder whose height is about twice its dia- meter. They may be built of wood, stone, brick, concrete, or a combination of two or more of these. As a rule, the choice is determined by the relative cost and availability of the materials mentioned. In building a silo, four things must be kept in mind. First, it must be air-tight. Second, it must have sufficient strength and rigidity to enable it to withstand the pressure of the silage without yielding. Third, it must have a smooth inside surface to permit the silage to settle readily. And, fourth, it must be deep so that the weight of the silage will give compactness suf- ficient to expel the air which is held between the particles of milage. It is desirable that the total depth of the silo be at least 30 feet. Where the ground is dry, five or six feet of this depth may be underground. When 30 feet is selected as the fixed depth, the silo can be made of the desired capacity by selecting the proper diameter, which may vary from 12 to 24 feet. For want of space we. shall attempt to describe briefly only one type of silo, one which has proven very satisfactory, both in efficiency and in cheapness of construction. This is known as the Curler silo, a detailed description of which is given in Bulletin No. 125 of the Wisconsin Experiment Station. Fig. 1 shows a vertical section through this silo. STOCK FEEDING 19 ;.M ^Trrs'r FIG. 1. VERTICAL SECTION THROUGH CURLER SILO. 20 BULLETIN 128. A represents one-half inch beveled sheeting. B represents two by four inch stud. C represents one-half inch sheeting. D represents beveled lath. E represents cement clinch between laths. F represents cement lining 5-8 inch thick. G represents two by four inch sill. II represents stone foundation. I represents ground. The 2 by 4 studding are set 12 inches apart on a circular foundation, and the 1-2 inch sheeting is nailed on horizontally as shown in the illustration. The inside, including the floor, is cemented, using two parts of sand to one of cement. Ventilation of the wall is necessary to preserve the silo. This is secured by leaving a small open space at the top on the inside between the lining and the plate, and boring holes near the sill through the outside sheeting, covering them with gauze to keep rats and mice out. Any roof that sheds water is suitable for a silo, as the top need not and should not be tight. In fact, it is well to have a small opening in the roof to provide ventilation. For convenience the door of the silo should be continuous, extending from top to bottom. Short pieces of matched planks are commonly used for a continuous door. These are put in one by one as the filling of the silo progresses ; the ends being, however, first covered with a paste of clayey mud to assist in rendering the door air-tight. Heavy building paper tacked on the inside of the door will also help to exclude the air. The break or weakness in the silo wall caused by the continuous door is overcome by running iron rods horizontally across the door at short intervals, fastening the ends to the studding on either side of the door. CUTTING TIIK CORN. — Corn for the silo should not be cut until nearly mature. This is desirable for several reasons. First, and most important, is the fact that corn at maturity con- tains about five times as much dry matter as it does at the tasseling stage. This rapid increase in nutrients from the tas- scling stage on is forcibly shown by the following figures, ob- tained at the New York (Geneva), Experiment Station: STOCK FEEDING. 21 TABLE 6. — Showing Nutrients in Corn Plant at Different Stages of Growth. Dry Matter Per Acre Stage of Growth. (tons). Fully tassled 8 Fully silked 1.5 Kernels watery to full milk 2.3 Kernels glazing 3.6 Ripe 4. This table teaches an important lesson, and should discou- rage farmers from cutting young, immature corn, either for silage or soiling purposes. Postponing the cutting until the corn has reached the dent- ing or glazing stage also makes silage of better quality. At this stage the plant is less watery and the sugar has been largely converted into starch, thus preventing excessive fermentation and the formation of an undue amount of acid in the silage. FILLING THE SILO. — When the corn reaches the right stage of maturity, it should be cut at once and hauled from the field to the silo, where the entire plant, ears and all, is run through an ensilage cutter or shredder, cutting it into pieces from 1-2 to 1 inch long. The ensilage cutters are provided with car- riers which carry the silage to any height desired in the silo. Where silos are rapidly filled, not less than two men should remain constantly in the silo, leveling and distributing the sil- age. This is necessary to insure uniform silage and an even settling. The silage should also be tramped, especially along the edge of the silo where, owing to the friction of the wall, it will not settle as readily as elsewhere. In case of rapid filling it is best also to leave the silage to settle a day or two and then refill. After such settling there will be room for considerably more silage. COVERING FOR SILAGE. — The floor and walls of the silo are air tight by construction, and where the silage has been thor- oughly packed, none should spoil at these places. At the top, however, where the silage is exposed to the air and where it is less solidly packed some of it will naturally spoil. To reduce this loss of silage to a minimum, some cheap materials that will 22 BULLETIN 128. pack well, such as old, wet hay, for example, should be placed On top of the silage immediately after filling, and this should be followed by a thorough wetting so as to hasten the settling and matting process. Usually a dozen barrels of water may be run over the top of the silage to good advantage. COST OF SILOS AND MACHINERY. — The cost of silos varies with the cost of materials and the method of construction/ An 80-ton silo of the Curler type can be built for about $150. Other silos of the same capacity but made of different materials may cost double this amount. A moderate sized ensilage cutter that would answer for an 80-ton silo would also cost about $150. Where some form of power must be purchased a gasoline engine is recommended because of the many other uses it may serve on a dairy farm. A moderate sized ensilage cutter when not too heavily fed can be operated satisfactorily with an eight horse power gaso- line engine. The cost of such an engine is about $325. DEPTH OF SILAGE THAT MUST DAILY BE REMOVED FROM TOP. — Owing to the constant contact of the air with the top layer of silage, it is necessary to remove a horizontal layer of silage to a depth of not less than 11-2 inches daily to prevent any from spoiling. If this fact is kept in mind when building a silo, its diameter can be made such as to make possible the feeding of a layer of this depth daily with the amount of live stock at hand. PART III. — Feeding Swine. The farmer who will avail himself of the natural conditions for swine raising in South Carolina can produce pork with less labor and at a lower cost of feed than is possible in the best sections of the corn belt. Why then not prodt?ce our own pork instead of depending upon the West for it? FEEDING BROOD Sows. — A month before farrowing the sow should receive a liberal allowance of nutritious feed to properly develop the young within her. A mixture of wheat middlings and wheat bran, rice meal, peas, or oats, supplemented with succulent rougage, such as suitable grazing or root crops, will STOCK FEEDING. 28 make a very satisfactory ration for a brood sow. A few days before, and a few days after farrowing, the ration should be rather light, but thereafter it should be gradually increased as the young pigs demand more and more milk. FEEDING YOUNG PIGS. — Wean thex pigs when about two months old. For about a month after weaning, the young pigs should receive all the skim milk they will drink with wheat middlings or rice meal additional. If there is a lack of skim milk, wheat middlings may be fed instead. After the pigs have passed the third month, their main feed should consist of suita- ble forage crops, supplemented with grain suited to the period of their growth. GRAZING CROPS. — Rape (Dwarf Essex) is an ideal hog feed, and, when sown in the fall, makes excellent late fall and early spring grazing. Rape may also be sown in the spring. Crim- son clover, rye, oats and vetch can be used successfully for grazing swine during the fall, winter and spring. During the early summer Bermuda pasture will maintain swine in an ex- cellent growing condition. Later in the summer grass should be supplemented with sorghum and cowpeas, two excellent feeds for swine. Sorghum furnishes an enormous yield of forage to the acre and is highly relished by hogs. During November and December, when March shoats should be fitted for the block, they should be turned on to patches of artichokes and Spanish peanuts, which make an excellent com- bination of feeds, and, moreover, have the advantage of en- abling the hogs to do the harvesting. Sweet potatoes and chufas may be fed as substitutes for artichokes, but on account of the watery condition of the potatoes and artichokes, they should never be fed alone, but in conjunction with more con- ' centrated feeds, like peanuts, peas, corn and grains. Clovers and alfalfa make excellent grazing for swine and should be grown wherever possible. By feeding forage crops in proper succession, hogs can be grown and fitted without any corn whatever, though it is always desirable to feed some corn a month previous to slaughter to aid in firming the flesh. SALT AND WOOD ASHES. — These should be freely supplied to swine, especially young growing swine. Pigs have a great 24 BULLETIN 128. craving for these substances, and when entirely withheld will react unfavorably upon the health and daily gain of the animal, besides conducing to soft-textured bone. NUMBER OF HOGS PER ACRE. — If a proper succession11 of for- age crops is grown along the lines indicated, it is possible to raise at the rate of from five to eight hogs per acre. BULLETIN No. 224 JUNE, 1912 THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SELECTING STEERS FOE FEEDING BY J. L. TORMEY MADISON, WISCOXSIX DIGEST Steers for Feeding Must have Heef Characteristics fixed by beef ancestry. These may be obtained quite satisfactorily by continu- ally using pure bred bulls of the same type and breed. Pages 3 to 6 The Highest Percentage of Good Cuts and the Least Waste in Killing are the qualities desired in beef steers. In selecting feed- ers, however, a strong frame with plenty of room for vital organs, must be chosen, for the steer that would kill with least waste might not be strong enough to put on the greatest amount of flesh economically. Pages 6 to 8 A Wide Strong Hack, Great Heart Girth, and Smooth Covering of Hones are essentials in a good feeder. The head is an excellent index of the power of a steer to make economical gains. A side view of the body from hocks and knees to back bone should show a well tilled rectangle. The general form should be compact and deep and broad. Short legged animals are desirable. Good balance or proportion of parts is very important. Pages 8 to 12 Cattle are Classified by the Purpose for Which They are Sold; and graded according to their fitness for that purpose. Pages 12 to 18 Feede?-s are Usually Honght at the big markets or from local buyers. High priced land cannot be profitably used to raise steers. When to buy, depends largely on the buyer's equipment, the amount and time he intends to feed, and on the condition of the steers. Pages 18 to 22 It Costs More per Pound to Fatten a Steer than the Fxtra Flesh will Sell for. Consequently the selling price for the whole carcass must be enough greater per pound to pay the loss on the added flesh and make a profit. The difference between the cost price per hundred pounds of the feeder and the selling price per hundred pounds of the same steer when fat, is called "the feeding margin." There must always be a sufficient margin to break even: A greater margin means a profit. The necessary margin depends on the cost of feeds, the ability of the steer to make gains, the initial cost and weight, distance from market, season of year, the length of the feeding season. Pages 22 to 24 Cattle are \o\v Fsually Fed Sixty to \inety Days, as a longer period often does not pay. It in the best to select that grade of feeders which seems at the time of buying, to offer the widest mar- gin, or the quickest gains in flesh on a narrower margin. It may somet imes be better to fatten thin stockers up to the butcher class than selected feeders up to prime bee1!'. Pages 24 to 2.1 Active Hogs Should Follow the Steers. I5y special preparation of feed, as by shelling or grinding corn, the steers may be made to produce larger gains, but the combined gains of hogs and steers will be no greater than where corn is fed on the cob. Page 25 Selling to a Local Huyer is Fsually the IJest Policy unless one has two or more carloads to market. "However, shipping to the market hns advantages as well as risks. The best time to market is when nricos ;ire going up. for there is then a keener demand. Piif-es 25 to 30 SELECTING STEERS FOR FEEDING By J. L. TOBMEY There are no very accurate figures showing the number of cat- tle raised in Wisconsin for beef. Wisconsin is primarily a * ' dairy state" as far as the cattle industry is concerned, and dairying will undoubtedly become more popular in time to come. Condi- tions in the state which have to do with the production of mar- ketable products are better suited to dairying than to beef pro- duction. The 1910 Census reports give the total number of cattle in Wisconsin as 2,678,160, and of these 1,471,591 or 54.6% were re- ported as dairy cows, many of which were probably of some beef breed extraction. It states that 92.9% of the farms in the state reported dairy cows. The cows not used for dairy purposes numbered 173,152. There were 1,206,579 cattle other than dairy cows, which in- cluded bulls, calves, steers, and beef cows. It is safe to assume that some of the cows reported as dairy cows produced calves kept for beef production. In 1908 the Wisconsin State Board of Agriculture reported that out of 1,600 pure bred bulls in service on Wisconsin farms, 748 or over 46%, were beef bulls of the Short Horn, Aberdeen Angus, and Hereford breeds. There are today in sections of Wisconsin a large number of well-to-do farmers who own large farms with good pastures. This land is utilized for grazing steers, or cows to produce beef calves because the owners cannot devote the time to the direct supervision necessary to competent and profitable dairying ; and they do not care to assume the responsibility of directing the large amount of hired help, which is often unsatisfactory and difficult to obtain. WISCONSIN BULLETIN 224 Numerous questions on the economical production of beef come to this station from Wisconsin farmers. To answer many of these questions as simply as possible is the purpose of this bulletin. THE CATTLE TO KEEP FOR BEEP Anyone who expects to feed cattle profitably for the market should not try to feed an animal that is not by conformation and other physical characteristics naturally adapted for fattening. In short, only good feeders should be selected. The good feeder comes from parents that are good feeders and whose ancestry is of good feeding stock, accustomed to con- sume large amounts of feed and deposit it upon their bodies as meat of good quality. The importance of good breeding upon the quality of animals kept for a specific purpose, cannot be over- estimated, and the use of pure bred sires in establishing good working herds cannot be overvalued. The mating of a common ancestor or one of no known breeding with a pure bred sire and continuing to use a pure bred sire on the following generations of offspring is known as "grading." Good common cows bred to vigorous pure bred Short Horn, Here- ford, or Aberdeen Angus bulls show in their calves remarkable improvement over themselves in type and quality. ( See Figure 1.) It should be remembered that the value of the grade is due to the characters derived from pure bred ancestors. Table I shows the effect of the pure bred sire in improving common stock. TABLE I. GRADING-UP A SCRUB HERDa Disappearance of unimproved blood by the continuous use of pure bred sires on succeeding generations. Generations Sires Dams Offspring Per rent purity Per cent purity Per cent purity Per cent unimproved blood I... 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 50 75 87.5 93.75 96.87 50 (i) 75 (i) 87.5 (I) 93.75(15/16) 96.87(31/32) 98.44(63/64) 50 (i) 25 (J) 12.5 (4) 6.25(1/16) 3.12(1/32) 1.5 (1/64) 2. ... 3 4 5 6 a Principles of Breeding by Davenport, p. 602. In this table it is assumed that pure bred sires are used and the female offspring of the dams of the preceding generations are SELECTING STEERS FOR FEEDING FIGURE 1. A GOOD PURE BRED BULL IMPROVES FOUNDATION STOCK A bull of the type shown, mated with a good cow like the one shown, will usually produce offspring like the steer at the bottom of the picture. 6 WISCONSIN BULLETIN 224 mated with the pure bred sires. For example, let it be assumed that a pure bred Short Horn bull is mated with a common cow of no known breeding. The bull is 100% pure. The cow has no known purity and is counted as being 0% pure. Each off- spring of this mating will have inherited equal characters from both sire and dam, and will have 50% of pure and 50% of unim- proved blood. In the second generation, the female of 50% purity is mated with a bull of 100% purity, and the resulting calves contain 75% of pure and 25% of unimproved blood. In the fourth genera- tion, or after the use of four pure bred sires in succession, the calves are 15/16 pure; and in the sixth generation or after.. a period of fifteen to twenty years, the calves are 98.44% pure, with only about 1%% of unimproved blood. Although to all practical intents and purposes the offspring in this generation resemble the pure bred animal, there never will come a time when the offspring will be pure. There may be good grades, however, as well fitted for the market as pure breds. How TO BUILD UP A GOOD BEEF HERD To build up a herd of good cattle, select pure bred sires of the type and breed desired. Mate these with common cows, if bet- ter cows of high grade or pure breeding are not available. Save the female calves which most closely conform to the desired type. Continue to mate these with good pure bred bulls and save the best female offspring as before. Although total purity of blood will never be attained in case only common or grade cows were available for foundation stock, the desired type can be obtained and a world of good along the line of improvement can be accom- plished. In selecting bulls, for breeding purposes, choose from the so- called special beef breeds, viz., Short Horn, Hereford, Aberdeen Angus and Galloway. (See Figure 2.) The West Highland breed (See Figure 3) is also classed with beef cattle. The Polled Durhams may be classed with the Short Horns and the Polled Herefords with the Herefords. SELECTING FEEDING CATTLE The block is the supreme and final test of the beef animal. The butcher desires an animal that will deliver the highest percentage SELECTING STEERS FOR FEEDING FIGURE 2. REPRESENTATIVE HERDS OF LEADING BEEF BREEDS From top to bottom they are: Galloway, Hereford, Aberdeen Angus, Shorthorn. 8 WISCONSIN BULLETIN 224 of good cuts, and show refinement in parts that are not edible, in order to reduce waste. Fineness of bone, lack of paunchiness and a small head are thus desired by the butcher, but the steer with light bone, small paunch and a frail head would be unable to go through the feeding period and make economical gains. Even though the strong, vigorous, capacious feeder may not turn out at the finish into the exact ideal of the butcher, he is the one that puts on the largest and steadiest gains, endures heavy feeding for the longest time, finally finishes out with the m M " " '^^f^:^ FKiUKK X. TYPICAL WKST III (ill LAND CALF A coat of hair adapted to inclement weather. greatest weight, and yields the highest percentage of prime beef. Jn selecting feeders, there is perhaps no point more important than the back. A wide, straight, strong back, with a well sprung rib, is essential. (See Figure 4.) The girth of the steer should be large — that is, the distance around, the body back of the shoulder should be as large as possible. This means more room for vital organs and insures a better constitution than is other- wise likely to prevail. Associated also with a large girth is a well sprung I'ib, making a wide back on which there is room for the deposition of a large quantity of high priced meat. There is also greater depth of chest and greater digestive capacity with a large girth. (See Figure 5.) SELECTING STEERS FOR FEEDING -SPRING OF RIB BACK The head is an excellent index to the character of the feeder, because there is a relationship between the different parts of an animal's body. The steer with a wide head is usually a good feeder, for a wide head goes with a food capacity for putting on a large amount of flesh. Usually the steer with a wide head will grow thick through tte body and wide across the back like the steer shown in Fig- ure 4. Width of muzzle is also impor- tant because it indi- cates capacity for feed consumption and for good breathing. The eye should be prominent, clear, and placid, indicating health, and a quiet disposition which is desirable in an ani- mal destined to take on flesh. Although the neck is not a choice cut, it is thick and short on a good steer, for a thick compact body, a necessity in a good feeder, usually ac- companies a short, thick neck. The brisket, which is the flesh covering the point of the breast bone between the fore legs, is not choice meat but on the well- built steer it is well let down and has good width, thus conforming to the general thickness throughout and helping to complete the parallelogramic form desired in the good feeder. (Study Fig- ure 5.) The shoulder should be evenly covered, compact, and wide at the top. "While width of shoulders at the top is a mark of a good feeder, steers with extremely wide shoulders should not be selected, for they are usually coarse and have unduly prominent hip points. The shoulder should blend smoothly with the neck, FIGURE 4. A GOOD HEAVY STEER Showing development of parts named. 10 WISCONSIN BULLETIN 224 leaving no crease or definite line where the neck and shoulder meet. This imaginary boundary line between the shoulder and the neck is known as the "shoulder vein." The expression "a full shoulder vein," means that the neck and the shoulder are well blended. Toward the rear, the shoulder should blend well into the back and sides of the animal so that there is no tendency toward "tying in" which is always characteristic of an animal vrith a poor heart girth. ^COUPLING \| THIGH f DEPTH °/ CHEST FIGURE 5. SIDE VIEW OF THE SAME STEER Note shortness of legs, great depth of chest, short coupling, parallelogramic form, long rump and large thigh. The coupling, that is the distance from the last rib to the "hook," or hip point (See Figure 5), should be short in accord- ance with the. general compactness desired throughout. The steer should also be wide in this region and well muscled, with no indication of being sway backed. This is the region of the loin from which valuable cuts are taken. The rump of -the steer (as shown in Figures 5 and 6) should be long, wideband level. This is the region bounded in front by the hooks, or hip points, and extends backward to the tail head and downward; as far as the pin bones on either side of the tail head. While width at the hooks is desirable, too much prominence SELECTING STEERS FOR FEEDING 11 is objectionable. Smoothness of covering is the thing most de- sired in the finished steer, and this is difficult to obtain when the hooks are too prominent. "Patchiness" or the assembling of fat in patches is most common on animals with prominence either at the hooks or at the pin bcnes. The pin bones on the good type are set wide apart and smoothly cov- ered. A drooping rump is undesirable, but not more object- ionable than one too prominent at the tail head. A prominent tail head, usually as- sociated with prom- inence at the hooks and at the pin bones, tends toward patchi- ness, and generally goes with a rump that is hard to cover smoothly. "Twist" is gener- ally used to refer to the flesh between the thighbones. "Thigh" is used to refer to the flesh on the outside of the thigh bones. (See Figure 6 ) Tak- FIGURE 6. A WELL COVERED ANIMAL pn fncrptVipy fhov nrm Note thickness and depth of thigh and twist and liey smooth covering of rump. stitute the quarters. Plumpness, fullness, and thickness, with good muscular develop- ment and flesh well carried down both on the inside and out- side, constitute good thighs and twist, and consequently good quarters. Guard against the steer with a poor thigh and a high, scanty twist, for he will not develop well fleshed quarters. In the region of the flank, the steer should be full and low, so as to make the underline from the brisket to the flank level and to complete, the parallelogramic form obtained from a side view. (See Figure 5.) 12 WISCONSIN BULLETIN 224 Select steers with short legs, for short legs decrease the amount of offal and increase the killing percentage. Also, short legged animals do not travel about much. They thus save their energy and use their feed for gain. A strong bone without coarseness is to be desired. Too much refinement is associated with a weak constitution. Symmetry of outline, or balancing of parts, is a very important point in selecting steers. By symmetry is meant a general uni- formity throughout with no part out of proportion with any other part. Depth of chest should be balanced by depth of twist, and width of shoulders should be accompanied by width through- out. ; ; FIGURE 7. A— POOR FEEDER B— GOOD FEEDER Note shape of head and lack of capacity Note capacity and large heart girth, and indications of constitution These steers come from the same lot and had received the same care and treatment. B was born with greater possibilities. In addition to the foregoing points, the steer should have a pliable skin of reasonable thickness, covered by a heavy mossy coat of hair. Pliability of skin and mossiness of coat indicate thrift and general well being. Thickness of skin and hair indi- cates good constitution. i • . . ' • CLASSES AND GRADES OF CATTLE ON THE MARKET Beef cattle on the market are classed according to the commer- cial use for which they are adapted. ' ' Class ' ' designates the use to which an animal is to be put. " Grade " indicates the quality or degree of fitness of the animal in that class. The same grades, prime, choice, good, medium, fair, common, and poor or inferior, run down through the classes from the best to the poorest in the order above named. SELECTING STEERS FOR FEEDING 13 Classification of cattle can be found in the market reports in any reliable agricultural journal, and the following is taken from "The Breeders' Gazette" of October 4, 1911: CLASS I. NATIVE BEEF CATTLE Price per Grades hundred pounds Prime yearling steers 930 to 1,300 Ibs $7.75 to $8.00 Good yearling steers 950 to 1,200 Ibs 7.00 to 7.60 Prime fat steers 1,450 to 1,700 Ibs 8.00 to 8.35 Prime fat steers 1,250 to 1,450 Ibs 7.80 to 8.20 Good fat steers 1,250 to 1,400 Ibs 7.00 to 7.65 Medium fat steers 1,200 to 1,300 Ibs 6.45 to 6.85 Medium fat steers 1,100 to 1,200 Ibs 6.00 to 6.45 Fair fat steers 1,100 to 1,200 Ibs 5.65 t* 5.99 Fair fat steers 900 to 1,100 Ibs 5.15 to 5.50 Common fat steers 900 to 1,050 Ibs 4.90 to 5.15 CLASS II. WESTERN RANGE CATTLE CLASS III. BUTCHER CATTLE AND CALVES Price per Cows hundred pounds Choice to prime cows $.00 to $5.85 Good to choice beef cows 4.15 to 5.00 ij'air to good beef cows 3.60 to 4.15 Common to fair beef cows 3.20 to 3.50 Common to good cutters... 2.75 to 3.15 Inferior to good canners 1.50 to 2.75 Heifers Prime selected heifers , 6.25 to 7.10 Good to choice heifers 4.65 to 6.00 Fair to good heifers 4.00 to 4.65 Common to fair heifers 3.25 to 4.00 Bulls Good to choice fat bulls 4.50 to 5.65 Fair to good fat bulls 3.90 to 4.50 Bologna bulls 3 30 to 3.70 Common light bulls 2.75 to 3.25 Calves Good to choice veal calves 8.50 to 9.25 Fair to good veal calves 7.50 to 8.50 Good to choice heavy calves 4.25 to 5.25 Inferior to fair heavy calves 3.25 to 4.25 CLASS IV. STOCKERS AND FEEDERS Price per hundred pounds Selected fleshy feeders $.25 to $5.75 Good feeders, 900 to 1000 Ibs 4.75 to 5.15 Selected stockers, 500 to 700 Ibs 4.56 to 5.00 Fair to good stockers, 600 to 700 Ibs 4.00 to 4.50 Common and mixed stockers, 500 to 700 Ibs 3.40 to 3.75 Inferior stockers, 500 to 700 Ibs 3.00 to 3.35 Stock heifers, 650 to 800 Ibs 3.25 to 4.00 Stock heifers, 400 to 600 Ibs 3.00 to 3.50 Stock bulls . . 3.00 to 3.50 WISCONSIN BULLETIN 224 CLASS Choice milkers . . . Good cows Inferior to fair . , V. MILKERS AND SPRINGERS Price per bead JjUiS.OO to $70.00 45.00 to 60.00 , 25.00 to 35.00 CLASS VI. EXPORT CATTLE CLASS VII. SHIPPING CATTLE CLASS VIII. STAGS Class I. Native Beef Cattle. Cattle in this class either go at once to the slaughtering pens, are shipped to eastern markets, ex- FlGrKE S. A PRIME HEREFORD OF GREAT CAPACITY AND SCALE This steer gained 4 pounds daily after he had attained a weight of 1,'JJO pounds. When sold he weighed over 2,500 pounds. The market cau handle only a few such cattle, but generally pays top prices for the few. ported to meet the demand of foreign trade, or, in the case of sv pounds rot ton ppcd menl. 34- pounds silage (chiefly sor- ghuni ) . s ] loimd- rico hrnn. Lot 4. 6 pounds cotton seed rnenl. 32 pounds silage (chiefly sor- und- ground milo bends. PLATE 3— THE STEERS OF LOT 3 AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EXPERIMENT. PLATE 4— THE STEERS OF LOT 4 AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EXPERIMENT. STEER FEEDING. Lot 5. 6 pounds cotton seed meal, 50 pounds silage (chiefly sor- ghum). Fifth Period — 20 Days. Lot 1. 6 pounds cotton seed meal, 50 pounds sorghum silage. Lot 2. ]2 pounds cold pressed cotton seed, 35.3 pounds sorghum Lot 3. 6 pounds cotton seed meal, 35.6 pounds sorghum silage, 6.9 pounds rice bran. Lot 4. 6 pounds cotton seed meal, 32 pounds sorghum silage, 12 pounds ground milo heads. Lot 5" 6 pounds cotton seed meal, 50 pounds sorghum silage. Whole Period — 140 Days. Lot 1. 5.18 pounds cotton seed meal, 49.05 pounds silage. Lot 2. 10.36 pounds cold pressed cotton seed, 39.5 pounds silage. Lot 3. 5.18 pounds cotton seed meal, .35.02 pounds silage, 7.11 pounds rice bran. Lot 4. 5.18 pounds cotton seed meal, 33.98 pounds silage, 10.14 pounds ground milo heads. Lot 5. 5.18 pounds cotton seed meal, 49.05 pounds silage. Sorghum silage replaced corn silage during the last fifty days, and, therefore, a statement of the total dry matter, the digestible nutrients, and the nutritive ratio of the rations used, based on the figures shown in Table 2, are presented in two periods, as follows: TABLE 3. First Period — 90 Days. Lot No. Average Ration — Ibs. Dry matter, Ibs. Digestible Nutrients, Ibs. Nutritive Ratio. Protein. Carbo- hydrates. Fat. 1 2 4.72 cotton seed meal 48 52 corn silage 4.314 13.483 1.822 .524 .912 7.569 .335 .223 Total 17.797 2.346 8.481 .558 1:4.15 9 45 cold pressed cotton seed 8.529 11.521 1.806 .447 2.561 6.467 .711 .190 41 46 corn silage Total 20.05 2.253 9.028 .901 1:4.9 3 4 72 cotton seed meal 4.314 9.790 6.247 1.822 .380 .610 .912 5.495 2.783 .335 .162 .708 35 23 corn silage . 6 86 rice bran Total 20.351 2.812 9.19 1.205 1:4.23 4 4 72 cotton seed meal 4.314 9.748 7.936 1.822 .378 .497 .912 5.472 5.238 .335 .161 .158 35 08 corn silage 9 1 ground milo heads Total 21.998 2.697 11.622 .654 1:4.85 5 4 72 cotton seed meal ... 4.314 13.483 1.822 .524 .912 7.569 .335 .223 48 52 corn silage Total 17.797 2.346 8.481 .558 1:4.15 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE 4. Second Period — 50 Days. Lot No. Average Ration — Ibs. Dry matter Ibs. Digestible Nutrients, Ibs. Nutritive Ratio. Protein. Carbo- hydrates. Fat. 1 6 cotton seed meal 5.484 15.485 2.316 .090 1.159 8.155 .426 .245 50 sorghum silage .... Total 20.969 2.406 9.314 .671 1:4.49 2 12 cold pressed cotton seed 36 . 1 6 sorghum silage 10.831 11.198 2.294 .065 3.253 5.897 .903 .177 Total 22.029 .2.359 9.150 1.08 1:4.9 3 6 ' cotton seed meal . 5.484 10.734 6.884 2.316 .062 .672 1.159 5.653 3.067 .426 .169 .780 34 66 sorghum silage 7. 56 rice bran Total 23.102 3.050 9.879 1.375 1:4.25 4 6 cottonseed meal 5.484 9.910 10.465 2.316 .057 .656 1.159 5.219 6.908 .426 .156 .208 32 sorghum silage 12 ground milo heads Total 25.859 3.029 13.286 .79 1:4.97 5 6 cotton seed meal 5.484 15.485 2.316 .090 1.159 8,155 .426 ,245 50 sorghum silage . . Total 20.969 2.406 ^9.314 .671 1:4.49 The Wolff-Lehmann standard for a 1000-pound steer in the latter stages of fattening calls for 26 pounds dry matter,, 2.7 pounds digesti- blfe protein, 15 pounds digestible carbohydrates, and .7 pound digestible fat, giving a nutritive ratio of 1 :6.2. Since the average weight of the cattle for the last 40 days was approximately 1000 pounds, it is possible to gain a very good idea of how the rations used during this period compared with the standard. The results of the experiment are shown in detail in the following tables : PLATE 5— THE STEERS OF LOT 5 AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EXPERIMENT. STEER FEEDING. TABLE 5. Results for First Period of 30 Days. 3* * Cu'S 'S1""^ dJJ T3O •8 ^M" Total Feed Eaten Per 1-3 Q^>-J Pounds Feed Per 100 « w o li s,> Head— Lbs. 0-e fcf Pounds Gain. GO l£ §2 0^ §2 N £ < ' H •< u 1 1? 780 108. 1 cotton seed meal. . . 70 2.33 154.46 cotton seed meal. . . 1397 silage 1995.71 silage $5.15 2 12 774 216.2 cold pressed cotton 90 3 240.27 cold pressed cotton seed. seed. 1312 silage 1457.77 silage $4.95 3 12 760 108. 1 cotton seed meal. . . 102 3.4 105. 92 cotton seed meal. . . 1105 5 silage 1082 93 silage 139 2 rice bran 136.41 rice bran $4.24 4 12 742 108. 1 cotton seed meal 116.4 3.88 92.87 cotton seed meal. . . 1105 5 silage 949 6 silage 173 ground milo heads. 148. 64 ground milo heads . $4.21 5 12 757 108. 1 cotton seed meal. . . 92 3.06 117.59 cotton seed meal. . . 1397 silage 1519 3 silage. . .... $3.92 TABLE 6. Results for Second Period of 30 Days. o 8 Total Feed Eaten Per |5 y Pounds Feed Per 100 !« 0 <3 2 Q> Head— Lbs. O-a 3 z "P$ 2 8 — , rt |ls °0 3 I" |U & |Offi O1"1 U 1 12 850 146. 1 cotton seed meal. . . 36.2 1.2 403. 1 cotton seed meal. . . 1520 silage 4193 1 silage $11 93 2 12 864 292.2 cold pressed cotton 49.1 1.63 594.4 cold pressed cotton seed. seed. 1261 silage 2564 74 silage $10 68 3 12 862 146. 1 cotton seed meal. . . 39.5 1.31 369. 15 cotton seed meal. . . 1121.5 silage 2833 26 silage 228.7 rice bran 577 89 rice bran $14 24 4 12 858 146. 1 cotton seed meal. . . 45.8 1.52 318.81 cottonseed meal... 1121.5 silage 2446 9 silage 286.4 ground milo heads. 625 ground milo heads. $14.38 5 12 849 146. 1 cotton seed meal. . . 26.6 .88 547.96 cotton seed meal. . . 1520 silage 5700 silage. . . $16 22 10 TKXAS AGRICUT.TUIUL EXPI-KIMEXT STATIOX. TABLE 7. Results for Third Period of 30 Davs. _^ . u « c jM ~ en ^ « On'S i _ .r~ . ^~ Total Feed Eaten Per .s^ d « j -*~ OH Pounds Feed Per 100 1« c •• u 5" Head— Lbs. Pounds Gain. u-,_3 5 11 Pi si Pi l§ ^ £ < h < a 12 886 171 cotton seed meal. ... 1 1450 silage 2.45 231 . 86 cotton seed meal. . . 1966.1 silage ' §6.19 12 913 312 cold pressed cotton seed. 1159 silage 2.58 411.29 cold 'pressed cotton seed. 1195 . 48 silage $7 . 32 12 902 171 cotton seed meal. . . 9 14 silage 250 rice bran 92 I 3.06 185.7 cotton seed meal. 1025.15 silage 271 .49 rice bran. . . 171 cotton seed meal 931 silage 360 ground milo heads. . . SB . 40 90.8' 3.02 188.25 cotton seed meal... 1021.95 silage 396.33 ground milo heads. S8.13 12 876, 171 cotton seed meal. .. | 1450 silage 71.2 2.37 240 cotton seed meal .. 2035.08 silage SO. 41 TABLE 8. Results for Fourth Period of 30 Days. Total Feed Eaten Per Head— Lbs. "~^^ \ Pounds Feed Per 100 g.^—1! Pounds Gain. 12 960 180 cotton seed meal. . 1500 silage 2 43 216.85 cotton seed meal... 2057. 14 silage S6. 54 12 991 360 cold pressed cotton seed. 1 101 silage 64.1 2.13 561 .03 cold pressed cotton seed. 1715.84 silage $9.02 12 99 1 180 cotton seed meal. . 1020 silage 2 10 rice bran. . . 3.3 1 77 337.5 cotton seed meal. .. 1912.5 silage 450 rice bran $11.35 1 03 " •38 |s 8 •2§ 5 2 P f r S~ . 12 1033 120 cotton seed meal. . . 19.8 .99 605.04 cotton seed meal. . . 5042 01 silage £16. 03 2 1? 1055 240 cold pressed cotton 20 1 1200 cold pressed cotton seed seed. 707 silage 3535 silage 519.10 . 3 12 1047.5 120 cotton seed meal. . . 31.5 1.57 380.95 cotton seed meal. . . 713 silage 2263 silage 438 09 rice bran - 512 38 4 12 1063 120 cotton seed meal. . . 21.08 1.05 569. 17 cotton seed meal. . . 640 silage 3035 57 silage 240 ground milo heads . 1138.33 ground milo heads. $23.90 5 12 1033.7 120 cotton seed meal. . . 13.3 .66 900 cotton seed meal. . . 1000 silage 7500 silage $23.85 TABLE 10. Results for the Whole Period of 140 Days. £j§ |d 1 . f» £j o £«• Total Feed Eaten Per •|3 QJS^ Pounds Feed Per 100 ff,S X J-. CO §>> Head— Lbs. — . ^ &3"a Pounds Gain. la 2 ® •j|3 pa. a2 1 12 780 725 cotton seed meal 272 1.94 266.54 cotton seed meal. . . 6867 silage 2524 63 silage $7.52 2 12 774 1450 cold pressed cotton 301 2.15 481 . 72 cold pressed cotton seed. seed; 5540 silage 1840 53 silage $8.30 q 12 760 725 cotton seed meal 319 2.27 227.27 cotton seed meal. . . 4904 silage 1537 30 silage 996 rice bran 31** 22 rice bran $8 09 4 12 742 725 cotton seed meal 342 2.44 21 1 . 98 cotton seed meal. . . 4758 silage 1391 22 silage 1419 ground milo heads. . . 414.91 ground milo heads. $9.20 5 12 757 725 cotton seed meal 290 2.07 250 cotton seed meal. . . 6867 silage 2367 93 silage $7.05 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. MARKETING. On April 1, 1914, the cattle were shipped to the Fort Worth market. They were driven from the feeding pens to the shipping pens between 10:45 and 11:45 A. M. and were immediately loaded on the cars. They were unloaded at Fort Worth April 2, at 7 A. M., and in order to ascertain their shrinkage from shipping and the fill they would take, they were weighed before receiving water or feed. The data obtained are presented in the following table : TABLE 11. Lot No. Average Weight at College, April 1, 10:45 a. m. Average Weight Empty at Fort Worth April 2, 8:15 a. m. Average Shrinkage, Lbs. Average Final Weight Fort Worth April 2, 1:40 p. m. Average Fill, Lbs. Average Net Shrinkage, Lbs. Net Shrink- age, per cent. 1 1052 944 108 972 28 80 7.6 2 1075 977 98 1018 41 57 5.3 3 1079 977 102 1018 41 61 5.65 4 5 1084 987 97 1024 37 60 5.53 1047 936 111 972 36 75 7.16 SLAUGHTER RECORD. The cattle were sold to Swift & Co., who kindly furnished us the yields in beef and their estimate of the different lots dressed and in the cooler, the latter being expressed in the following communication: FORT WORTH, TEXAS, April 8, 1914. Prof. J. C. Burns, College Station, Texas. DEAR SIR: Attached you will find statement of yields on five lots of cattle killed April 3rd,, which were fed at A. and M. College. In comparing the relative value of these cattle would place them as follows: Lot No. 4. Lot No. 3. Lot No. 2. Lot No. 1. Lot No. 5. You understand the requirements of the ideal bullock are thickness in conformation, well covered with fat, which should be evenly dis- tributed, and a bright color both in the fat and lean portions. In commenting on your several lots, would say that Lot No. 4 is well finished with a very desirable color. Lot No. 3 is not as well finished as Lot No. 4, not having as much fat, although color is as good. There is very little to distinguish between Lot No. 2 and Lot No. 1, PLATE 6— THE STEERS OF LOT 1 AT THE END OF THE EXPERIMENT. - PLATE 7— THE STEERS OF LOT 2 AT THE END OF THE EXPERIMENT. STEER FEEDING. 13 being practically the same. They have a good color, but not as well finished as Lot. No. 3. Each of these two lots contained two cattle which were below the average. Lot No. 5 carries fully as much fat as any of the other lots but lacks their color and smoothness. Yours respectfully, SWIFT & Co. Beef Department ML/AM. Per M. L. The dressing percentages were as follows: Lot 1 , . 56.89 per cent. Lot 2 57.05 per cent. Lot 3 58.04 per cent. Lot 4 58.46 per cent. Lot 5 56.55 per cent. FINANCIAL STATEMENT. An itemized statement of the financial results of the experiment is shown in the following table: TABLE 12. 1 2 3 4 5 ^•» Number of steers 12 780 12 774 12 760 12 742 12 757 Average weight at beginning of experiment — pounds Cost per steer at beginning of experiment at $6.05 per ^ hundred pounds $47.19 20.45 1.70 .25 .11 .50 $46.83 24.98 1.78 .25 .11 .50 $45.98 25.82 1.78 .25 .11 .50 $44.89 31.48 1.79 25 .11 .50 $45.79 20.45 1.70 .25 .11 .50 Cost of feed consumed per steer during experiment Freight charge per steer in marketing at 17 1-2 cents per Cost of yardage per steer on market Commission per steer in selling $70.20 71.44 $74.45 76.35 $74.44 77.88 $79.02 79.36 $68.80 69.98 Selling price per steer Net profit per steer $ 1.24 $ 1.90 $ 3.44 $ .34 $1.18 Prices per hundred pounds for which steers actually sold Prices per hundred pounds necessary to have broken $ 7.35 7.22 1.17 8.25 2.20 $ 7.50 7.31 1.26 8.29 2.24 $ 7.65 7.31 1.26 8.29 2.24 $ 7.75 7.71 1.66 8.69 2.64 $ 7.20 7.08 1.03 8.10 2.05 Increases in selling prices per hundred pounds above initial cost necessary to have broken even Prices per hundred pounds necessary to have made a profit of $10 per head (hogs not included) Increases in selling prices per hundred pounds above initial cost necessary to have made a profit of $10 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. Though the cost of the labor and hauling involved in feeding, the cost of the salt consumed, and the value of the manure are not included in the above statement, it is generally found that the value of the 14: TEXAS AUKICULTUIUL Fxri-i;ntEXT STATION. manure will more than oll'set the other items. When, however, the interest on the investment is taken into consideration there was a loss, though small, on every lot except Lot 3, on which there was still a small profit. Since, this year, there is an abundant crop of milo and its price is much lower than when this experiment was conducted, it is of interest to note the financial results in the case of Lot 4, with ground milo heads costing £14 instead of $'?0 a ton. With the other feeds at the prices previously stated the profit on this lot would have been $4.60 a head instead of 34 cents a head. THE HOGS. Xovember 10. five shoats were placed in the pen with Lot 3, receiving cotton seed meal, silage, and rice bran, and six shoats were placed in the pen with Lot 4. receiving cotton seed meal, silage, and ground milo heads. The five shoats of Lot 3 weighed, at that time, 350 pounds. February 10, after following the cattle 83 days, they weighed exactly the same as at the start. From then on they were fed additional feed in the form of rice bran and made fairly satisfactory gains. However, practically no returns can be attributed to them since they did no more than maintain their weight while following the steers and receiving no additional feed. The six shoats of Lot 4 weighed, at the start, 445 pounds. With the exception of two head, which died suddenly March 6, evidently from cotton seed meal poisoning, they followed the cattle until March 8, a period of 109 days. The total gain they made, includ- ing that of the two that died, was 199 pounds, which, at 7 cents per pound, would have amounted to $13.93. Credited to the steers this would have made the profit from Lot 4, $1.50 a head instead of only 31 cc-nts a bend. On March 8, as neither the shoats of Lot 3 nor those of Lot 4 were doinir well, and n? further losses seemed evident, they were removed from the cattle feed pon= and fed ; no losses occurring after the change was made. There is little doubt but that the hogs of Lot 4 would have made much bettor :rains while following the cattle, had the pen not been ver mudd a large ortion of ihe time. It -hould not be oui of order at this point to state that occasionally complaints are inade of poor results from the feeding of silaue. Tt is found that such results are in most cases due to one or both of two causes, first, the silage having been made from a crop that was not -nflifientlv mature when placed in Ihe silo. and. second, the silage having been fed without supplementing it with a feed relatively rich in proiem, <\\<-}\ ;H eoilon seed meal. When a crop of corn, sorghum, kafir. milo or feiorila is very green and immature it has not completed the proee-s of building up dry matter and food materials from the soil and air, and. therefore, if placer] in the silo at this stasre the percentage PLATE 8-THE STEERS OF LOT 3 AT THE END OF THE EXPERIMENT. II 1 *, * PLATE 9— THE STEERS OF LOT 4 AT THE END OF THE EXPERIMENT. STEER FEEDING. 15 of water in the silage will be relatively high and the feeding value correspondingly low. The best silage is made when the crop is thor- oughly mature and yet sufficiently green to pack well. Even though some of the leaves are dry the crop will still make good silage. Water, in sufficient quantity to cause thorough packing, may always be added if found necessary at the time of filling the silo. Corn, sorghum, kafir, milo or feterita silage fed alone does not make a satisfactory ration either for growing or fattening animals for the reason that it is deficient in protein, which is necessary for the pro- duction of lean meat or muscle and to aid digestion. Some cotton seed meal or 'cake, which is nearly always our cheapest source of protein, should be fed in connection with it for the best results. The amount of meal or cake to be used will, of course, depend on the class of animals and the purpose for which they are being fed. That farmers must realize the great value of manure resulting from the feeding of cattle on their lands is becoming more and more evident each year. Every crop removed from the land, when nothing in the way of fertilizer is given to that land in return, means a smaller store of plant food left for the production of future crops and, hence, yields are bound to become less and less. When cattle are fed on the land on which crops are produced, full value is obtained from the manure, the fertilizing constituents of which amount, on the average, to 90 per cent, of the total fertilizing value of the feeds from which such manure is derived. On the other hand, when feeding is done in pens, not only quite a loss of manure occurs through leaching, even under the most favorable conditions, but if the remainder is to be utilized, there is the expense of hauling it to the fields. Though it 'is realized that some soils, particularly the clays when wet, may be put in poor physical condition from tramping, yet the above facts certainly emphasize the importance of feeding on the land where the manure is needed, when practicable. The cow produces on the average 49 pounds of solid excrement and! 19 pounds of urine — a total of 68 pounds of manure — daily This means the production of approximated 4f tons during a period of 140 days. This amount of manure at $2.75 a ton, a conservative price when com- pared with that of commercial fertilizer, would be worth $13.06. Thus, it is again seen just how important it is to save and utilize this manure. It is furthermore seen that, though no profit be realized besides the manure, the farmer can still well afford to feed cattle on his place. SUMMARY. 1. Based on the selling prices of $7.35 per hundredweight for Lot 1 and $7.50 per hundredweight for Lot 2, cold pressed cotton seed could have cost $23.90 a ton and proved of equal value to cotton seed meal at $28.00 a ton. 2. Eice bran at $16.70 a ton proved profitable in supplementing cotton seed meal and silage and was more profitable for this purpose than ground milo heads at $20.00 a ton. In fact, based on the selling 16 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. prices of $7.65 per hundredweight for Lot 3 and $7.75 per hundred- weight for Lot 4, rice bran could have cost $22.92 a ton and proved of equal value to the ground milo heads at $20.00 a ton. It was very evident that the milo heads, which contained about 75 per cent, grain, were much more palatable than the rice bran. When the latter is used it is very important that it be fresh and of good quality and that it be fed during the fall and winter months. During warm weather it becomes rancid very quickly and in such condition cattle do not relish it and it deteriorates in feeding value. 3. Based on the final weight at Fort Worth, Lot 5, that had had access to a shed open on the south side, grainer) 23 pounds a head more than Lot 1, fed in a similar pen without shelter, both having received the same kind and amount of feed. Had Lot 5 sold .for $7.35 per hundredweight, the price for which Lot 1 sold, there would have been a difference in profit in its favor of $1.40 a head. The reason Lot 5 sold for a lower price, — $7.20 per hundredweight, — was evidently due to two rather light, inferior steers that it contained, which caused a lack of uniformity in comparison with Lot 1. 4. Lot 4, which had received cotton seed meal, silage, and ground milo heads, made the best gain and showed the best finish. This lot, together with Lots 2 and 3, shrank considerably less than Lots 1 and 5 in being shipped to market. 5. The results with the hogs indicate that there is quite a danger of loss in having them follow cattle that are receiving full rations of cotton seed meal. Previous tests indicate, however, that they may follow, with a fair degree of safety, cattle that are receiving only enough cotton seed meal — 3 to 4 pounds for each 1000 pounds of live weight a day — to balance their ration. It is probably true, too, that in feeding grain and in having hogs follow the cattle that the best results will be obtained in feeding only enough cotton seed meal to balance the ration. The rations for Lots 3 and 4 in this test, on account of the full amounts of cotton seed meal fed, were much narrower than the feeding standards, for fattening cattle require. On the other hand, the abundance and relative cheapness of cotton seed meal and cake in the South justify the use of narrower rations than are used for fattening cattle in the corn belt. 6. The results of the experiment show very clearly that without a greater margin or spread between the prices for feeders and the prices for fat cattle than was had in this case, there is practically no direct profit in feeding cattle with feeds at the prices herein quoted. The losses incurred by many cattle feeders during the past year have been . Figure 2— The calves of Lot 1 on January 20, 1910. FEEDING BABY BKKVKS. Figure 3— The calves of Lot 3 on January 20, 1916. r: -,.-->:•,: 4 — The calves of Lot 4 on January 20. 1010. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Each lot was then started on the ration it was to receive during the experiment. The feeds constituting the rations fed were as follows: Lot 1 : Cotton seed meal, ground milo, corn silage, and Sudan hay. Lot 2: Peanut meal, ground milo, corn silage, and Sudan hay. Lot 3 : Cold-pressed cotton seed, ground milo, corn silage, Sudan hay. Lot -!: Cotton seed meal, ground milo, corn silage, and cotton seed hulls. The period from December 13 to December 20 was used in getting the calves accustomed to their new rations, the actual experiment be- ginning on the latter date. From the date the calves arrived at College Station, November 4, until the beginning of the experiment, December 20. a period of 40 days, the forty-eight head consumed the following amounts of feeding stuffs: 100.5 pounds cotton seed meal. 160.5 pounds peanut meal. 3,569 pounds cold-pressed cotton seed. 4,080.5 pounds ground milo. 28,426.5 pounds corn silage. 6,067.5 pounds Sudan hay. 234 pounds cotton seed hul-ls. The value of the above stated amounts of feeding stuffs at the prices later quoted in the bulletin was $177.69. Therefore, the calves had cost, at the beginning of the experiment, $35.90 a head. Their average weight at this time was 471 pounds, and hence they had cost $7.62 per hundred pounds. FEEDS USED. An average sample of each kind of feed used was analyzed by the Chemistry Division of the Experiment Station and the average analyses appear in the following table: TABLE 1. Feeds. Percentage Composition. Analysis Number. Water. Ash. Crude protein. Crude fiber. Nitrogen free ex- tract. Fat. Cotton seed meal .... Peanut meal (hull included) Cold-pressed cotton seed 8.81 9.34 10.19 11.41 67.08 73.20 6.59 11.50 6.04 3.39 4.19 1.70 1.98 1.88 10.08 2.92 42.88 35.27 24.06 10.38 2.87 1.87 8.30 3.44 10.46 22.76 23.44 2.40 8.10 7.86 31 . 76 45.41 25.04 19.60 29.78 71.48 19.22 14.51 41.77 36.36 6.77 6.64 8.34 2.63 .75 .68 1.50 .37 11276 11277 11278 11275-11378 11499-11700 11712 11269-11498 11697 1169R 11710 11279-11280 11387 11274 Milo chops Corn silage . . Sorghum silage Sudan hay Cotton seed hulls. . . . FEEDING BABY BEEVES. .9 Based on the analyses given in Table 1, the digestible nutrients of each feed are presented in Table 2. TABLE 2. Feeds Dry matter in 100 pounds. Digestible Nutrients in 100 Pounds. Crude protein. Carbo- hydrates. Fat. Cotton seed meal 91.19 90.66 89.81 88.59 32.92 26.80 93.41 88.50 36.02 25.04 19 49 6.85 1.46 .17 4.1 .48 22.65 12.33 32.69 63.16 18.91 13.84 41.53 39.59 6.43 8.67 8.00 2.37 .61 .38 .81 .25 Peanut meal (hulls included) Cold-pressed cotton seed Milo chops Corn silage . . . Sorghum silage Sudan hay. . . Cotton seed hulls All the calculations pertaining to the financial results of the experi- ment are based on the following prices for feeding stuffs, these prices representing the actual cost of the feeds in the barn and in the silo at the feeding and breeding farm, where the experiment was conducted : Cotton seed meal $35.00 per ton. Peanut meal (hulls included) 28.00 per ton. Cold-pressed cotton seed 24.00 per ton. Milo chaps 23.80 per ton. Corn silage 3.50 per ton. Sorghum silage 3.50 per ton. Sudan hay 10.00 per ton. Cotton seed hulls 10.00 per ton. Black strap molasses, at 16 Jc a gallon... 27.00 per ton. PLAN OF EXPERIMENT. Each lot of calves was subjected to the same conditions throughout the experiment except in respect to the rations. Each lot occupied a pen GOxlOO feet and had access to a shed open on the south side. Water from a deep well was supplied in galvanized iron troughs in the open pen, and granular salt in small wooden troughs under the shed, so that the calves had free access to both at all times. The hay racks were under the shed, but the troughs for the concentrates and silage were in the open. Except in the case of hay, all feeds were supplied regu- larly twice daily, early in the morning and late in the afternoon, the rations being equally divided between the two feeds. The concentrates and silage in the cases of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and the concentrates, silage, and hulls in the case of Lot 4, were thoroughly mixed together by hand in the troughs. The hay was placed in the racks in the morning, a sufficient quantity being allowed for the whole day. At the beginning and again at the end of the experiment each lot was weighed every day for three successive days, and the initial and final weights, herein reported, represent the respective averages. A single weight of each lot was obtained every thirty days. The weighing was clone each time between 10:00 and 11:00 a. m. i n I;AI. Lx I'KKIM KNT STATION. • actual feeding experiment cover d a period of ^o] da.vs. from • e\. ninv. of December '?n. r.i|.\ to ihe morning of .Inly S. l!»lli: . : e. if the liu'hi preliminarv feeding from the tim-- of the calves" . November L until the morning of December %jo. i- included. re fed •? i; davs. The ration- per head daiiv foi1 th> first th. re*- tiav- of the experiment >ws : L' l 1 : ] \ p"uiii :.- col ton -eed mi ah '! pounds Lfiound niilo. 1 i'i pounds corn si'age. '.I pounds Sudan bay. "3 pounds ground rnilo. Hi pounds ^ii'ii'lnini silage. 1 ;,: pound.-. Suda]i hay. Lot )l : *>\ pound- cold-jnx-Sf-i'd cotton socd. V ])ounds ii'KHind inilo. 1 o' pound- corn ^-ilagc. 1 :) ])ounds Sudan } \i\\\ Lot -1 : 1^ pounds (-oiiou seed inoal. ''i pounds ground nn'lo. 1 (! pounds corn silage. :> jtounds cotton -ocd liulls. . Lot '' and the eo'd-|)ress.vd cotton so d in Lol :">. likewiso, had been i ner.-a.-od to ! pounds each per head daily. Thu-. the amount- of each wrc continued throughout the experiment. It will he noted thai twi e a- much of ( ach peanut meal and cold-pressed c-otion seed as o! eoMon -"IM; meal Mr aniiuai \va- l'(-d. '!'he amount of hulls contained 'ii the two tir-t named fen!.- s\ a- the reason for dointf this. It should hot ' ,'• taken to mean, however, that it renuircs as iniK'b a- 'i pounds "f itli'-r peanut meal or > ol(l-press('(l (-olton -eed to c much ci ipectii ' a h s as Lot )!. re(|iiired consider- FEEDTXG BABY BEI: \ f:s. 11 ment, — an indication that peanut meal containing the hull is not as palatable to cattle as cold-pressed cotton seed or cotton seed meal. The same amount of ground milo was fed io each lot and this was gradually increased throughout the experiment as the calves grew larger and became able to take more. jSTone of the calves were "off feed" at any time, nor were any of them affected with the scours. A small quantity of black strap molasses was fed to all of the lots as an appetizer for eleven days during the latter part of the experiment. The average allowance was .59 pound per head daily. Good weather for feeding prevailed most of the time through the winter and spring. The pens were well drained arid even during and after heavy rains- did not become, very muddy. The average rations fed and the gains made during each period are presented in the following table: TABLE 3. Lot No. Total gain per calf. Average daily gain. Avcrfl^jc 1 \3tions. Pounds. Pounds. First Period — 30 Days. 1 1.33 Ibs. cotton seed meal, 3.78 Ibs. milo chops 12.46 Ibs. corn silage, 2.97 Ibs. Sudan hay 44 1.46 2 2.66 Ibs. peanut meal, 3.78 Ibs. milo chops 12.40 Ibs. corn silage, 1 . 73 Ibs. Sudan hay 43 1.43 3 2.66 Ibs. cold-pressed cotton seed, 3.78 Ibs. milo chops, 12.46 Ibs. corn silage, 1.74 Ibs. Sudan hay 51 1.7 4 1.33 Ibs. cotton seed meal, 3.78 Ibs. milo chops, 12.53 Ibs. corn silage, 3 Ibs. cotton seed hulls. . 40 1.33 Second Period — 30 Days. 1 1.93 Ibs. cotton seed meal. 6.43 Ibs. milo chops, 11.28 Ibs. corn silage, 2.95 Ibs. Sudan hay 64 2.13 2 3.86 Ibs. peanut meal, 6.43 Ibs. milo chops, 10.56 Ibs. corn silage, 1.26 Ibs. Sudan hay 49 1.63 3 3.86 Ibs. cold-pressed cotton seed, 6.43 Ibs. milo chops, 12 Ibs. corn silage, 1 .39 Ibs. Sudan hay 63 2.1 4 1 .93 Ibs. cotton seed meal, • 6.43 Ibs. milo chops, 12.16 Ibs. corn silage, 2 . 95 Ibs. cotton seed hulls . . 65 2.16 Third Period — 30 Days. 1 2 Ibs. cotton seed meal, 7.93 Ibs. milo chops, 12.65 Ibs. corn silage, 2 Ibs. Sudan hay 74 2.47 2 4 Ibs. peanut meal, 7.93 Ibs. milo chops, 9.48 Ibs. corn silage, .95 Ib. Sudan hay 64 2.13 3 4 Ibs. cold-pressed cotton seed, 7.93 Ibs. milo chops, 12 Ibs. corn silage, .99 Ib. Sudan hay 63 2.1 1 2 Ibs. cotton seed meal, 7.93 Ibs. milo chops, 14 Ibs. corn silage, 2 Ibs. cotton seed hulls. . 57 1.9 Fourth Period— 30 Days. 1 2 Ibs. cotton seed meal, 8.90 Ibs. milo chops, 13.15 Ibs. corn silage, 2 Ibs. Sudan hay 61 2.03 o 4 Ibs. peanut meal, 8.90 Ibs. milo chops, 9 Ibs. corn silage, 1 Ib. Sudan hay 71 2.37 3 4 Ibs. cold-presKed cotton seed, 8.90 Ibs. mifo chops, 12. 15 Ibs. corn silage, ] Ib. Sudan hay 68 2.26 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE 3— Continued. Lot No. Average Rations. Total gain per calf. Average daily gain. Pounds. Pounds. Fourth Period— 30 Days— Continuek. 4 2 Ibs. cotton seed meal, 8.90 Ibs. milo chops, 12.51 Ibs. corn silage, 2 Ibs. cotton seed hulls. . 60 2.00 Fifth Period — 30 Days. 1 2 Ibs. cotton seed meal, 9.92 Ibs. milo chops, 14.05 Ibs. corn silage, 2 Ibs. Sudan hay 52 1.73 2 4 Ibs. peanut meal, 9.92 Ibs. milo chops, 10.02 Ibs. corn silage, 1 Ib. Sudan hay 71 2.37 3 4 Ibs. cold-pressed cotton seed, 9.92 Ibs. milo chops, 14.05 Ibs. corn silage, 1 . Ib. Sudan hay 69 2.3 4 2 Ibs. cotton seed meal, 9.92 Ibs. milo chops, 13.92 Ibs. corn silage, 2 Ibs. cotton seed hulls. . 71 2.37 Sixth Period — 51 Days. 1 2 Ibs. cotton seed meal, 10.69 Ibs. milo chops, 16.67 Ibs. sorghum silage, 1 .94 Ib. Sudan hay 31 .6 2 3.98 Ibs. peanut meal, 10.64 Ibs. milo chops, 11 .52 Ibs. sorghum silage, .90 Ib. Sudan hay 9 .17 3 3.98 Ibs. cold-pressed cotton seed, 10.64 Ibs. milo chops, 11.81 Ibs. sorghum silage, .91 Ib. Sudan hay 2 .04 4 2 Ibs. cotton seed meal, 10.69 Ibs. milo chops, 13.06 Ibs. sorghum silage, 1 Ib. cotton seed hulls 13 .37 The total dry matter, the digestible nutrients, and the nutritive ratio of the average rations used during the last period of 51 days are pre- sented in the following table: TABLE 4. Lot No. Average Rations — Lbs. Dry matter, Lbs. Digestible Nutrients, Lbs. Nutri- tive Ratio. Pro- tein. Carbo- hydrates. Fat. 1 2 3 4 2 cotton seed meal 1.823 9.470 4.467 1.812 .720 .732 .028 .079 .453 6.751 2.307 .805 .128 .253 .063 .015 10.69 milo chops 16.67 sorghum silage 1 . 94 Sudan hay Total 17.572 3.608 9.425 3.087 .840 1.559 .996 .728 .019 .036 10.316 .490 6.720 1.594 .373 .459 .345 .252 .043 .007 1:7.27 3.98 peanut meal 10.64 milo chops 1 1 . 52 sorghum silage .90 Sudan hay Total 16.960 3.574 9.425 3.165 .850 1.779 .775 .728 .020 .037 9.117 1.301 6.720 1.634 .377 .647 .318 .252 .044 .007 1:5.97 3.98 cold-pressed cotton seed 10.64 milo chops 11.81 sorghum silage .91 Sudan hay Total 2 cotton seed meal 10.69 milo chops 13.06 sorghum silage 17.014 1.823 9.470 3.500 1.770 1.560 .720 .732 .022 .009 10.032 .453 6.751 1.807 .791 .621 .128 .253 .049 .005 1:7.32 2.00 cotton seed hulls Total 16.563 1.583 9.802 .435 1:6.8 FEEDING BABY BEEVES. 13 Since the nutritive ratio of the commonly accepted fattening standard varies from 1:6.5 to 1:7.5, it will be seen that the above rations cor- responded very closely to the standard, except in the case of Lot 2, whose ration was somewhat narrower than the others. THE HOGS. Hogs followed the calves to clean up any grain in the droppings and any waste of grain from the troughs. They received no other feed. On January 19., two shoats were placed in the pen with each lot of calves. They remained there until May 2, when they were marketed at Fort Worth with other hogs shipped at that time. These shoats cost $7.00 per hundredweight and brought $9.60 per hundredweight when sold. An account of the weights, gains, and financial returns is presented in the following table: TABLE 5. Total Marketing Lot No. No. of hogs. Total weight Jan. 19, Ibs. weight on market Total gain. Lbs. expenses, per lot. Net profit per lot. May 4, Ibs. j 2 255 344 89 $1.15 $14.02 2 2 250 351 101 1.16 15.04 3 2 255 352 97 1 16 14.78 4 2 260 333 73 1.13 12.63 On May 2, two other shoats were placed with each lot of calves to replace those that were sold. Those of Lot 1 weighed 282 pounds; those of Lot 2, 283 pounds; those of Lot 3, 272 pounds, and those of Lot 4, 282 pounds. As the calves were receiving a heavy grain ration at the time, two shoats to each lot did not prove to be a sufficient number, and, therefore, June 7, another shoat was added to eadh lot. These additional shoats weighed as follows: Lot 1, 140 pounds; Lot 2, 210 pounds; Lot 3, 1G5 pounds, and Lot 4, 180 pounds. These hogs, now three to each lot, continued with the calves until the end of the experiment, July 8. The total gains were as follows: Lot 1, 61 pounds ; Lot 2, 77 pounds ; Lot 3, 68 pounds, and Lot 4, 58 pounds. As these hogs were not sold at the close of the experiment, only the value of the gain has been considered in calculating the financial re- turns. This value was placed at 9 cents per pound and was conserva- tive, in view of the price of hogs at that time. On this basis the returns were as follows: Lot 1, $5.49; Lot 2, $6.93; Lot 3, $6.12, and Lot 4. $5.22. Combining the gains from the hogs used in the early part of the experiment with those from the hogs used in the latter part, one gets the following results: Lot 1, 150 pounds; Lot 2, 178 pounds; Lot 3. 165 pounds; Lot 4, 131 pounds. Combining the financial returns, one finds that Lot 1 yielded $19.51; Lot 2, $21.97; Lot 3, $20.90, and Lot 4, $17.85. 14 TEXAS AGRICULTUKAL EXPERIMENT STATION. MARKETING OF TIIE CALVES. As previously stated, the experiment closed after the morning feed of July 8, the final weights being taken between 10:00 and 11:00 a. m. That evening only one-half of the regular feed of concentrates was fed to each lot. The regular amount of silage was allowed all lots and the regular amount of hulls was fed to Lot -4. More than the usual amount of Sudan hay Avas fed, hoAvever; Lot 4, as well as the .others, nceiving it. The morning of July 9, the calves Avere not fed, but about (5:00 o'clock Avere driven to the shipping pens, a distance of one mile. By 8:30 a. m. they were loaded on the cars for shipment ,to the Fort Worth market. They arrived at the stock yards about 4:00 a. m. July 10, and were unloaded by 5:40. They Avere supplied wator and hay between 7 :30 and 8 :00, and by 9 :00 a. m., were sold to Armour & Company. By 9 :30 they had passed over the scales. The prir-es received Avere as follows : Lot 1 : 12 calves $9.50 per hundred pounds. Lot 2:10 calves 9.50 per hundred pounds. Lot 2 : 2 calves 9.00 per hundred pounds. Lot 3 : 12 calves 9.50 per hundred pounds. Lot 4: 10 calves 9.50 per hundred pounds. Lot 4: 2 calves 9.00 per hundred pounds. The two calves in each of Lots 2 and 4 that sold for $9.00 per hun- dredweight AATere not as good individuals nor as Avell finished as the others: hence the lower price received for them. The packers evidently saAv little difference on foot in the lots after these four calves Avere eliminated. DETAILED RESULTS. The results of the experiment in detail are presented in the folloAv- inir table: FEEDING BABY BKKVKS. 15 TABLE 6. Feeding Period 201 Days — Dee. 20, 1915 to July 8, 1916. Lot 1 Cotton seed meal Ground milo, silage, Sudan hay. Lot 2 Peanut meal ground milo silage, Sudan hay. Lot 3 Lot 4 Cold pressed Cotton cotton seed meal, seed giound ground I rnilo milo si'age, silage, cotton Sudan hay. seed hulls. Number of calves , Average initial weight 12 475 801 1.62 752 49 6.1 1.89 8.23 13.72 2.27 116.54 507.59 846.16 140.03 1.99 $10.28 380.4 1657.5 2766 457.3 6.5 $33.60 2.02 36 20 9.50 71.41 .41 1.62 profit 1.21 5.00 1.96 .6 770 723 68.68 23.20 1.96 36.20 7.32 12 465 772 1.52 742 3g.88 3.77 8.21 10.60 1.11 247.18 538.11 694.38 73.16 2.11 $11.47 759.8 1654.7 2136.7 225 6.5 $35.28 2.00 35.43 9.41 69.86 2.85 1.83 loss 1.02 3.32 1.98 .17 763 733 $69.01 24 . 58 1.98 35.43 7.02 12 476 792 1.57 757 35 4.41 3.77 8.21 12.35 1.14 240.14 522.78 785.54 72.84 2.05 $10.87 759.8 1654.7 2487.3 230.8 6.5 $34.40 2.02 36.27 9.50 71.88 • .81 1.74 profit . 93 4.75 2.09 .04 790 755 $71.72 24.08 2 01 36.27 9.36 12 468 780 1.55 738 42 5.38 1.89 8.23 13.03 2.29 121.77 530.36 839.90 147.59 2.08 $10.67 380.4 1657.5 2626 461.5 6.5 $33.37 1.99 35.66 9.43 69.53 1.49 1.49 even .... 4.27 1.95 .37 761 720 $67.90 23.28 1.96 35.66 7.00 Average final weight at College Station Average daily gain per head Average final weight, Fort Worth Net shrinkage per calf, pounds Net shrinkage, per cent Average Daily Ration: — Meal or cake Ground milo. . . . Silage (corn or sorghum) Sudan hay or cotton seed hulls Feed Required for 100 Pounds Gain: — Meal or cake Ground milo Silage (corn or sorghum) Sudan hay or cotton seed hulls Blackstrap molasses Cost of feed for 100 pounds gain. . Pounds of Feed Consumed Per Calf: — Meal or cake Ground milo Silage (corn or sorghum) Sudan hay or cotton seed hulls Blackstrap molasses Cost of feed per calf Marketing expenses per calf Initial value per calf at $7.62 per 100 pounds. . Price received per 100 pounds at Fort Worth.. Final value per calf Loss per calf Returns per calf through hogs following Profit or loss per calf with hogs included Profit per head if calves had sold for $10.00 per 100 pounds (returns from hogs included) Average daily gain per head for first 150 days Average daily gain per head for last 51 days. . Average final weight at College Station at end of 150 days Average final weight at Fort, Worth (estimated) Final value per calf at end of 150 days at same prices for which each lot sold at end of the experiment Cost of feed per calf at end of 150 days Marketing expenses per calf Initial value per calf Profit per calf (hogs not included) . . DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. . The foregoing table shows that, though there was not much difference in the average dailv gain among the different lots, the largest gain was made by Lot 1, followed by Lofs 3, 4, and 2, in the order named. Lot 1, however, shrank most in shipping, whereas, Lot 2 shrank least. On the basis of the sale weights at Fort Worth, therefore, the rank in average daily gain per head changed somewhat, giving Lot 3 first place with a gain of 1.39 pounds; Lots 1 and 2, second place with a gain of 1C TEXAS AGHKTI/ITHAL KXTKHIMKNT STATION. 1.:.)? pounds each, .UK! Lot 4. third place with a gain of 1.34 pounds, Comparing Lots 1. 2, ami 3 as to profitableness, the ret urns from the hogs included, one will see tliat Lot 1. receiving cotton seed meal, ground milo, silage and Sudan hay, yielded the largest profit oi' $1.21 per head; Lot 3. receiving cold-pressed cotton seed, ground niilo. silage and Sudan hay. ranked second with a profit of 93 cents per head; and that Lot 2, receiving }x?anut meal, ground milo, silage and Sudan hay, ranked last with a loss of $1.02 per head. Therefore, cotton seed meal at $35.00 per ton proved more economical in supplementing ground milo, silage and Sudan hay. than did cold-pressed cotton seed at .$'24.00 per ton. or peanut meal at $2S.nn per ton, and further, at these prices, cold- pressed cotton seed proved more economical than peanut meal. Accord- ing to the results the returns from the hogs not being included,, and cotton seed meal being valued at $35.00 per ton, peanut meal proved to be worth only $31.40 per ton and cold-pressed cotton seed, $22.80 per ton. Comparing Lots 1 and 4, the former receiving Sudan hay and the latter cotton seed hulls, one will note that Lot 1 yielded a profit of $1.21 per head, whereas Lot 4 only came out even. Therefore, Sudan hay proved superior to cotton seed hulls with both feeds at the same price, — $10.00 per ton. The returns from hogs being ignored, and Sudan hay being valued at: $10.00 per ton, it was found that cotton seed hulls were worth only $5.34 per ton. When one reviews the report of this experiment, the question will probably arise as to why the calves were not marketed sooner than they were, in view of the small gains made during the last 51 days. An explanation, therefore, seems appropriate at this point. During the fifth 30-day period of the experiment, which ended Mav IS. all lots made good gains, hut at the same time did not show the degree of finish desired. It was thought, therefore, that good gains could be obtained for several weeks longer and, at the same time, that the desirable finish would result. When the regular date for weighing, June 11, came, "the scales proved to be out of order, and several davs elap> d before tliev were repaired: hence, the failure to obtain weights at tli.' end of the sixth 30-dav period. It was soon seen that the calves were nol doing well enough to jusiifv holding them longer, and while thev dul not -how quite as hiii'li finish as we ha.d hoped io obtain, it was dceid"d to bring the experiment to a close Julv 8. While the prices received for these calves were u'ood. the profit was verv -mail: in fact, if a reasonable interest on the investment had been allowed, there would have been an actual loss in each lot. In this con- nection, there are t \vo important point- to be taken into consideration. First, the price- paid for feeding stuffs were exceptionally high. The same feeds would nrdinarilv he cheaper on fh" farm, particularly those direct ! v produced on the farm. Second, there would have been a large snviiiL1" in feed had the ealvis be-n marketed about .lune 1. The market wa- -omo better then and fhev would likdv have brought as much per pMin.l ;il that time us thev brought later. The v_'ain- were verv small during the !a-t 51 davs. hardlv sullicient to have amounted to much, FEEDING BABY BEEVES. 17 even from the standpoint of finish. The poor gains during this period are attributed to the heat and flies. Had the calves been marketed about June 1, after having been on feed 210 days, including the 164 days of the experiment and the 46 days of preliminary feeding, it is believed that a very fair profit would have resulted. This belief is supported by the data presented in the lower part of Table 6. It is very evident that if calves are to be fed in this country for the purpose of fattening them for the market, they should be started on feed by November 1, and fed not later than June 1. This plan will make possible a feeding period of seven months during the cooler portion of the year. SLAUGHTER RECORD. The calves were purchased by Armour & Company, who kindly gave us the dressing percentages of the different lots, which, together with their comments on the dressed beef, are presented in the following communication : "Dressed Beef Department, Fort Worth, Texas, July 13, 1916. Professor J. 0. Burns, A. and M. College, College Station. Texas. DEAR SIR : Referring to the four twelve lots of Angus yearlings which we bought on Monday, July 10, we give you herewith dressing on same : Av. Live Wt. Av. Dr. Wt. Pet. of Beef. Lot 1 752 442 58.80 Lot 2 742 440 59.20 Lot 3 757 453 59.90 Lot 4 737 428 58.10 In judging these lots from a beef standpoint, Lot 3 was first choice. The cattle in this lot were thicker and filled out better, had a very good cover, a good color, and a larger percentage of fat. Lot 2, second choice, were very good cattle, with a possible exception of two off cattle in the lot, which had not done as well as the balance. They had a very good color, white fat, and showed a smoother finish than anv of the other lots. However, they were not as thick, nor did they ma^ke the percentage of beef of Lot 3. Lot 1 was third choice, had a higher color, and the fat was not as white as other lots. Lot 4 was the lightest, and made the smallest percentage of beef. In summing up the total, however, taking all lots together, they were a very desirable kind of beef for this territory, and were about as even a bunch as we ever get. If there is any information we have overlooked, which you would like to have, if you will advise us, we shall be glad to give it to you. Your? truly, ARMOUR & Co., (Signed) W. G. Finlay." 18 TKXAK AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Figure 5 — The calves of Lot 1 on July 6, 1916. 6— The- calves of Lot 2 on July 6, 101(5. FKEDIXG BABY BKKVKS. Figure 7— The calves of Lot 3 on July 6, 1916. Figure 8 — The calves of Lot 4 on July 6, 1016. 20 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF BABY BEEF PRODUCTION. There are both advantages and disadvantages in feeding young cattle, calves, and yearlings, for the market, and it will depend upon condi- tions as to whether the feeding of such animals will prove more profit- able than the feeding of older cattle. Chiefly in favor of baby beef production may be mentioned the following arguments: 1. Young cattle grow, as well as fatten, and require less feed for a given amount of gain, than older cattle. 2. Young cattle, if of high grade and well finished, command higher prices on the market, as a general rule. 3. Marketing cattle at an early age affords quicker returns on the money invested and enables the stockman to maintain a larger herd of breeding cattle. In favor of feeding cattle two years old or older the following argu- ments may be stated: 1. Cattle two years old or older have, to a large extent, already attained their growth, and, therefore, fatten and finish more easily than younger cattle, thus requiring a shorter feeding period. 2. Cattle two years old or older can handle to good advantage a relatively larger amount of roughage or coarse feed than calves and yearlings. In order to obtain desirable finish on the younger animals, a larger proportion of concentrated feed must be fed. 3. It does not require as much skill and close attention on the part of the feeder in feeding cattle two years old or older as in feeding younger cattle. 4. The losses through deaths are less among cattle two years old or older than among calves and yearlings. While there are other factors which arise from time to time and have a bearing on this question, those which have been stated seem to be the chief ones. They clearly show that in determining the kind of cattle to feed, it depends largely upon the conditions as to whether one should choose calves, yearlings, or older cattle. Those who have avail- able plenty of grain and other concentrated feeds at low prices may, with good management, reap more profit by feeding young cattle. This is especially true of the man who raises his feeder cattle, and at the same time grows the bulk of his grain and roughage. With grain and other concentrated feeds high in price, the same man will likely find it more profitable to carry his feeders to a more advanced age, grow- ing them on pasture and rough feeds and fattening them in a com- paratively short period when they are two or three years old. The man who buys his feeder cattle should, also, be governed as to choice of ages largely by the prices of concentrated feeds, especially firrain, re- membering that calves and yearlings are more difficult to finish than older cattle and that a liberal allowance of grain is generally essential in fattening them, whereas in the case of older cattle a fair degree of finish may be obtained from such feeds as cotton seed meal, cake, and so forth, in combination with various roughages, with the use of little or no grain. FEEDING BABY BEEVES. 21 Another important consideration is the grade of cattle that should be used for producing baby beef. While high grade beef cattle, whether young or old, are always to be preferred for feeding, there is no case in which good individuality and breeding are of so much importance as in that of feeder calves and yearlings. The straight-lined, smooth, blocky, robust, sappy-hided, well-bred, beefy individuals, with short, wide heads, are the kind that give the best results. Such animals possess, in a marked degree, the tendency to fatten at an early age, and when finished they are of the class that commands the highest price on the market. If calves that are to be fattened can be got on feed before being weaned they will shrink far less when weaning takes place and will, therefore, be further advanced in the fattening process at a given age than if they had been weaned before being started on feed. Of course, it is generally onl}7 the man who raises his calves that is in a position to handle them in this way. If weaning must take place first, then every effort should be made to get the calves on feed as soon as pos- sible in order to keep them from losing their milk fat. SUMMARY. 1. There was very little difference in the gains of the four lots of calves. 2. Based on the selling prices of $9.50 per 100 pounds for Lot 1 and $9.41 per 100 pounds for Lot 2, peanut meal (hulls included) was worth only $21.40 per ton, with cotton seed meal at $35.00 per ton. 3. ' Based on the selling price of $9.50 per 100 pounds for Lots 1 and 3, cold-pressed cotton seed was worth only $22.80 per ton, with cotton seed .meal at $35.00 per toft. 4. Based on the selling price of $9.50 per 100 pounds for Lot 1 and $9.43 per 100 pounds for Lot 4, cotton seed hulls were worth only $5.34 per ton, with Sudan hay at $10.00 per ton. 5. In all of the lots there was an advantage in having hogs follow the calves. G. Though the difference in the dressing percentages of the dif- ferent lots of calves was not great, Lot 3 ranked first with 59.90 per cent; Lot 2 second with 59.20 per cent; Lot 1 third with 58.80 per cent, and Lot 4 fourth with 58.10 per cent. That there was little difference in the quality of the different lots of carcasses is indicated in the fol- lowing statement from Armour & Company: "Taking all lots together, they were a very desirable kind of beef for this territory, and were about as even a bunch as we ever get/' 7. The calves should have been marketed by June 1, before the hot weather and the flies became severe. Utah Agricultural College EXPERIMENT STATION Circular No. 1 8 Better Horses for Utah PREPARED FOR THE STATE BOARD OF HORSE COMMISSIONERS BY W. E. CARROLL, Secretary. Logan, Utah, February, 1916 Lehi Sun Print Lehi, Utah. STATE BOARD OF HORSE COMMISSIONERS. DR. E. D. BALL Director of Utah Experiment Station DR. H. J. FREDERICK Veterinarian Utah Experiment Station DR. W. E. CARROLL, SECRETARY Animal' Husbandman Utah Experiment Station LIST OF DEPUTY INSPECTORS, WHO HAVE INSPECTED STALLIONS FOR THE BOARD. Dr. E. P. Coburn, Brigham. Dr. A. J. Webb, Ogden. Dr. L. K. Knighton, Murray. Dr. R. K. Knighton, American Fork. Dr. J. M. Allen, Spanish Fork. Dr. J. G. Irons, Nephi. Dr. R. W. Hoggan, Richfield. BETTER HORSES FOR UTAH. BY W. E. CARROLL. The two chief factors which determine the profits realized from the horse breeding business are the cost of production and the quality of the product put on the market. As land values increase, taxes automatically become higher, and this together with the increasing cost of labor, makes the feed and care given the horse more expensive. These factors are so completely inde- pendent of the horse breeder that he has little control over the cost of production. This statement is not intended to convey the idea that no account should be taken of costs, or that costs do not vary. Quite the contrary. In fact, there may be sufficient difference in systems of feeding and management to mean loss to one man and profit to another. The fact remains, however that with even the greatest effort the producer cannot lower the cost below a certain point, and that this minimum has been increasing during the past several years. Since the cost of production cannot be controlled, there re- mains only one of two things for the horse breeder to do : go out of the business because his profits have failed, or raise the quality of his product to such a point that its selling price will justify his efforts. The quickest and most economical way of accomplishing- this latter end is by using the best sire obtainable. Every colt should be given the privilege to be well born, but this cannot be done as long as the haphazzard methods practiced in the State in the past continue. Don't place a lifelong handicap on a colt before he is born by breeding his mother to an inferior horse. Another warning to be read from the signs of the times is that only the best mares should be permitted to raise foals. This is just as important as the use of a good stallion, for sire and dam each have an equal influence on the offspring. Number and Price of Horses. Prices of inferior horses are never very far above the cost of production, and frequently they are considerably below. The curves in Figure 1 show the farm price of horses and the number of horses on the farms of the United States from 1867 to January BETTER HORSES 5 1, 1915. This gives the "ups and downs" of the horse business more eloquently than words. The dotted line gives the number of horses and the contiguous line, the average farm price. The curves show in general an increase in both price and number of horses during this period. It is interesting to note that the number of horses is less subject to variation than is the price. A comparison of these two curves, however, shows that the number of horses is not entirely independent of the market price. For example, 1879 marks a low point in the price of horses, which resulted in a falling off of one million in numbers in 1882. Again, in 1897 horses were worth a little less than $32 per head. This decline began about 1890. The decrease in numbers began about 1893 and continued to a low point in 1899. It is natural that the falling off in numbers should be a year or two later than low prices, because men cannot go out of the horse business all at once, much as they might desire to do so. It would appear that another decline in price was beginning this year. In fact, those most familiar with the horse market, say that nothing but the artificial demand created by the war in Europe prevented a sharp falling off in horse values. Profit and Loss in the Horse Business. The history of the horse business has been that at each low point in prices most everyone breeding horses become anxious to get out of the business. They say there is no money in it (which is true) and that they will have nothing more to do with it — which is equally untrue. This dissatisfaction results in as many as can selling or ceasing to breed their mares. In a few years the supply gets down to normal again, the demand brings up the market, and many men buy in at the advanced prices. Probably the safest rule to follow when dealing with a market so fluctuating is to produce a rather steady supply of a product of the very highest grade. Those who jump in and out of the business are usually in, or getting out, when prices are low, and out, or getting in, when they are high. Men who study carefully and intelligently the type of horses demanded by the market and then work seriously to produce this, seldom go wrong or lose money. 6 CIRCTLAR XO. 18 The Type of Horses Most in Demand. At regular horse markets, weight is one of the chief require- ments. Of course, soundness in horses is always in demand, yet among sound horses the market will pay a large premium for weight. Oilier things being equal, weight is often considered worth 2-> cents per pound. The following quotations from a recent Chicago paper will illustrate the point: Poor to Choice, good. to extra. Drafters. 5 to s years 1550 to 1750 Ibs $1S5 — 200 $240 — 285 Loggers 1(55 — 1S5 200 — 225 Drivers . 100—135 180—200 Saddlers . 75—150 175—300 Western, branded . 25— 50 (55—100 Farm chunks . (JO — 140 165 — 200 Express (full aged, sound) 1350 to 1450 Ibs 75—175 200—210 AYagon (good, sound) 1250 to 1350 Ibs 75 — 150 1(55—200 Loggers are usually 1he somewhat coarser, rougher drafters. Farm chunks arc short, thick, low set horses weighing most any- where from 1250 to 1550. Kxpressers stand up well and show more possibility of faster driving than chunks. AY agon horses, in conformation, stand about midway between these two classes and weigh around 1250 to 1350 pounds. From these explanations it will be seen that wagon horses and farm chunks are much the same type as drafters, differing from them only in weight. The lop price for wagon horses and chunks was $200. while top drafters. 200 pounds or more larger, brought $2s5.- a difference well worth considering. A differ- ence, too. which may under certain conditions be made by the particular stallion to which the mare is bred. Choice to extra drivers at the top brought $200. while the same irrade of saddlers sold for $300. These are special horses and have probably been trained to the harness or saddle for fancy purposes. They are classes in which the average farmer cannot compete. Aunt her lesson to be learned from these quotations is the value of qimlily. Comparing lop prices in each class, it is seen BETTER HORSES 7 that choice to extra drafters sold for $85 per head more than the poor to good ones did. For loggers this difference was $40 ; drivers, $65; saddlers, $150 (or just double); farm chunks, $60; and so on. The drivers and saddlers of the poorer grade are more nearly what the average farmer would raise, and in this grade they are worth less money than drafters. Another point to be considered in connection with marketing heavy against light horses is that there is usually an almost unlimited demand for good, drafty horses, while the light classes sell in comparatively small numbers. The outlet, therefore, is always surer for the heavier horses. Ther-e is an occasional local farm demand for so-called "all around horse" which usually contains some blood of the lighter breeds. In fact, good ones of this type, standing up well and weighing in the neighborhood of 1250 pounds usually sell well locally. For general market purposes, how- ever, the average farm mare had much better to bred to good draft stallions. Further Need of Improvement. Table 1 shows the number of purebred and grade licenses in force in the State at the date of previous reports and for the season of 1915. From this it will be seen that there has been a steady increase in the proportion of purebred stallions in ser- vice in the State. In 1909 only 73.7 per cent of the total were purebred, while in 1915 this proportion had increased to 79.6 per cent. This percentage increase of purebred stallions shown in table 1 is very gratifying. It is hoped that it points. to a time not too far distant when none but purebred stallions will be stand- ing for service in the State. Compared with other States, however, our total number of purebred stallions is much too low. Table 2 gives for the States named the total and purebred licenses in force in 1914 and the proportion of the total that the purebred licenses make up. From this it will be seen that in Utah a larger proportion of licensed stallions are purebred than in any other state listed. The last column of the table, however* tells a very different story. These figures show the number of horses and mules on the farms 8 CIRCULAR NO. IS of the states for each purebred stallion and jack licensed. For example. Iowa has one purebred for each 251 horses and mules on the farms. As will be seen, Utah has one for each 6-13. It was not possible to determine in all cases whether the licensing was compulsory, so the figures cannot be taken as absolute. From a comparative standpoint, it is seen that Iowa has 2.6 times as many purebreds as Utah, and we hear no reports that Iowa is overstocked. The Stallion License Law as a Factor in the Improvement of Horses. A factor which is bound to be a potent one in the improve- ment of the quality of our horses in the enactment by the State Legislature in 1906-07 of a license law for stallions and jacks standing for public service in the State. The first law of the kind in the United States was put in operation by men who had the interests of the horse breeding business of Wisconsin at heart. The Wisconsin law became effective January 1, 1906. During the next year similar bills were introduced into the Legislatures of three other states. Utah was one of the three to see the great value of such a law. Jowa and Minnesota were the other two. The Jowa law became effective March 30, 1907, the Minnesota law April 25, 1907, and the Utah law, May 13, 1907. All of these laws were passed during the same session of the respective legislatures, and were all based upon the provisions of the Wisconsin act. Our Legislature of 1911 made some modifications in the first ad: and gave us the Utah law as it now stands. During the operation of the act of 1907 a total of 323 licenses were issued. Since the law in its present form has been in force a total of 608 licenses have been issued. Four hundred sixty-one of these are for purebred stallions. 147 For grades, and 4 for non-standards. The season of 1916 there were in force 230 purebred licenses, 59 grade licenses, and 5 non-standard licenses, making a total of 2^!) li'-crised stallions in the State during that season. Advantage to Mare Owners. A stallion (or jack) license is a guarantee to the mare owner that Cat. least at the time the examination was made) the stallion '")• jaek , has no transmissible unsoundnesses. The stallion or BETTER HORSES 9 jack owner is required by law to "post and keep affixed, during the entire breeding season, copies of the license certificate of said stallion or jack in a conspicuous place where said stallion or jack stands for public service." All mare owners before breeding to a horse should make sure that the stallion is properly licensed for that breeding season. By doing this he has the word of a competent veterinarian, that from the sire, the colt will inherit no weaknesses which will im- pare its usefulness. Why some farmers continue to breed to scrub stallions is a mystery. It must be that such men want scrub colts, that they prefer them to higher class animals. True, there is usually some difference in the service fee. This is seldom more than a few dollars, however, while the difference in the value of the colts from the two classes of horses is seldom less than $25 the day they are dropped and often increases to $75 or more as the colts grow out. Advantage to Stallion Owners. The stallion law puts the work- of running a horse on a very much more business-like basis, as it is a guarantee against loss of out standing bills to owners of purebred animals. It eliminates unsound and unworthy individuals from com- petition with good horses. That in itself, it is plain to see, will in a short time improve the general type of horses throughout the State. This should be sufficient incentive to stallion owners, because a stallion has so much better opportunity to prove his worth when the grade of mares he is mated wHh more nearly approaches his own class. Amendments. Experience with the law has shown the desirability of cer- tain amendments. These changes would make the law more just to all concerned and easier to carry out, both for the stallion owners and for the officials administering the law. Those interested should lend their support at the next session of our Legislature and see that the proposed amendments are incorporated in the law. 10 TABLE 1- CIRCULAR NO. IS -PUREBRED AND GRADE LICENSES IN FORCE. Date of Report. 1909 1913 1915 Xo. of Li censes. Purebred Grade 204 76 347 92 230 59 Percent of purebred licenses. 73.7 79.0 79.6 TABLE 2.— LICENSED STALLIONS AND JACKS IN 1914. No. of Licenses Percent Hoi'ses on State. Total. Purebred. Purebred farms for each purebred. Utah* 289 230 80 643 Iowa 9875 6600 67 251 111. 9182 5679 62 284 Xeb.** 50(55 2853 56 364 Wis. 3197 1774 55 399 So. Da. 2446 1357 55 570 Ind. 5901 3157 • 53 298 X. Da. 2779 1445 52 549 Ore. 1276 . 636 50 494 Calif. 1663 815 49 708 Minn. 3860 1878 49 468 Penn. 2356 1029 44 623 *For season of 1915. **Exclusive of jacks. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARMERS' BULLETIN WASHINGTON, D. C. 743 JULY 24, 1916 Contribution from the Bureau of Animal Industry, A. D. Melvin, Chief. THE FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS. By HELMER RABILD, H. P. DAVIS, and W. K. BRAiNERD,1 of the Dairy Division. CONTENTS. Liberal feeding necessary for profit- Summer feeding Winter feeding Importance of a balanced ration Nutritive value of the grains and Page. 1 3 8 10 concentrates 12 Page. Compounding a grain mixture 18 Quantities of roughage and grain to feed 22 Individual feeding 22 Water for cows — 23 Salt 23 Successful feeding of dairy cows from an economic standpoint in- volves the providing of an abundant supply of palatable, nutritious feed, at the minimum cost per unit of feed, and supplying it to the cow in such way as to secure the largest production for feed con- sumed. This bulletin will attempt to give some factors involved in the economical selection of feeds and to guide the producer in sup- plying them to the cows. LIBERAL FEEDING NECESSARY FOR PROFIT. The dairy cow has been likened by many writers to a machine or a manufacturing plant. This comparison can be applied literally, with certain reservations. A certain proportion of the power furnished any machine is used for running the machine itself and is not in any sense productive. In a steam engine this is represented in the ex- haust, steam, in heat which escapes without producing steam, and in the friction of the working parts of the engine. In the manu- facturing plant it is represented by the managerial, the clerical, and 1 Rewritten and completed by Messrs. Rabild and Davis from incomplete manuscript by Mr. Braincrd, who died in May, 1915. 41190°— Bull. 743—16 1 FARMERS BULLETIN forces. These forces, while necessarv for the successful oper- ation of the business, are. in a sense, unproductive. In tlie feeding of tlie d;.iry cow this overhead expense, this un- prodnctive force, is termed the "maintenance ration."* and is that portion of the feed given ihe cow which is used hy her to perform her own fund ions, such as heating the body, pumping the Mood, di- gesting the Iced, aud moving the l.xxiv from place to place. This feed, from a productive standpoint, is entirely lost to the farmer. The cow can produce without- loss of body weight oulv after she has exaded this toll of maintenance. Having received feed enough to maintain her. practically all the feed she consumes above this can he used for milk production. This maintenance ration is a iixed charge, and the more feed a cow can consume above that required for maintenance ihe greater the amount available for production. Feeding for profit can, therefore, be defined as liberal feeding, or feeding to the full capacity of the cow. This point is illustrated by Table 1. ( Tho>e figures are only approximate but will serve to illustrate the point.! TAISLK 1.— r proportions of c-cnrtf feed rc<-uirc ne-third. ( )l!(>-h;lll'. Three-fifth; It will be noted in Table 1 that when the cow is fed only a main- tenance ration no feed is available for milk production; when she is fed twice this quantity, half the feed can be used for milk produc- tion : when she is fed two and a half times the maintenance, three- fifths of the feed can be so used. One of the most common mistakes in the feeding of dairy cattle on our farms is that the good cows are not fed a sufficient quantity of feed above that required for main- tenance. This is cspeciallv true of the highlv specialized dairy cow; that is. the cow which when fed all she will take makes it all into milk, except what is needed for maintenance. It is, however, unfor- tunately true that all cows in the dairies of the country are not this kind. Some cows when fresh make all the feed above maintenance into milk" for a period of several months before thev begin to lay on f!e-h : others, if fed heavily, begin to gain in weight soon after fresh- ening, l-'rom i he standpoint of economical milk production one can not generally alSord to give a dairy cow more than she will consume THE FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS. 3 without gaining in weight. There are times, however, when it is desirable to make exceptions to this rule ; for example, practically all highly specialized milk producers in the early part of the lactation period lose in weight; that is, they produce milk at the expense of their own body flesh. When such cows approach the end of their milking period they normally regain the flesh they have lost in the early part of this period. The feeder can, therefore, well afford to feed such cows liberally, being assured that the feed will be returned to him in the form of milk when the cows again freshen. SUMMER FEEDING. The problems involved in winter and summer feeding are so differ- ent as to make a natural division between the two. Summer feeding ordinarily consists in the use of pastures or soiling crops. These may be supplemented when necessary by silage or other roughage or by grain. When dry feeds alone are fed in the summer, the problems are not materially different from winter feeding. PASTURE. Pasture is the natural feed for dairy cows, and in many respects the best. With abundance of good grasses in fresh, succulent condi- tion, we have one of the rations most conducive to heavy production. Even with the very best of pasture, however, a cow can not be forced to maximum production on it alone. This is owing to the fact that for the greatest production she must be induced to take a large amount of nutrients. The bulky nature of pasture grass places a positive limit upon the capacity of the cow to take feed. In other words, the cow's stomach can not contain grass enough to supply the required nutrients for maximum milk production; therefore, a part of the ration should be of a more concentrated nature. Good pasture contains an abundant supply of succulent, palatable, and nutritious grasses. On such pasture it should be possible for a cow to satisfy her appetite with a few hours' grazing. Pasture of this kind will supply all the food material needed for medium production and a large part of that necessary for large production. For average con- ditions, with ample pasture of good . grasses or legumes in good, succulent condition, good production can be secured. The economy of the use of pasture depends chiefly upon several factors, such as the price of land, the price of labor, and the lay of the land. PRICE OF LAND. The price of land has a direct bearing upon the cost of pasture and is an important factor where land values are high. If pasture is to be depended upon entirely for from four to six months in the year, FARMERS BULLETIN and production is to be kept up to a profitable standard, anywhere from 1 to 4 acres or more must be provided for each cow. This is assuming that in permanent pasture there is a good, clean turf, with little or no waste places, and that for temporary pasture there is a good stand of grass or legumes throughout. Land which will give these conditions frequently sells at from $50 to $300 an acre, and the interest on the investment must necessarily also vary widely, as is shown in Tables 2 and 3 : TABLE 2. — Interest on cost of pasture per cow for the season; interest at 6 per cent on the value of the land, allowing from l to 4 acres per cow. Acres Value of land per acre. per cow. $25 $50 S100 $150 $200 . 1 $1.50 $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 11 2.25 4.50 9.00 13.50 18.00 2 3.00 6.00 12.00 18.00 24.00 2J 3.75 7.50 15.00 22.50 30.00 3 4. .50 9.00 18.00 27.00 36.00 3i 5.25 10.50 21.00 31. .50 42.00 4 6.00 12.00 24.00 36.00 48.00 TABLE 3. — Cost of pasture per cow per day on basis of Table 2, with a pasture season of 150 days. Acres, per cow. Value of land per acre. $25 $50 $100 $150 $200 1 ? p ? Cents. 1 ? I* 3* Cents. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cents. 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Cents. 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Cents. 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 It will be seen that the price of land may readily become so high that it would be unprofitable to graze it. In many sections of the country a cow can be fed on dry feed for average production for about 20 cents a day. Therefore, when the daily rental or interest on the value of pasture approaches that sum the farmer should care- fully consider other methods of summer feeding. The cost of caring for permanent pastures must also be taken into consideration. This will consist in the expense of cutting weeds, building and repairing fences, etc. PEICE OF LABOR. The pasture system of summer feeding reduces to the minimum the amount of labor required to handle a given number of cows, and, therefore, it is especially adapted to conditions where labor is high. THE FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS. 5 LAY OF LAND AND KOUGHNESS OF STJKFACE. In mountainous or hilly sections of the country there is often a part of the farm which, on account of steepness, tendency to wash, or the presence of rock formation near the surface, can not or should not be plowed frequently. On such farms it is often best to plow only the bottoms, keeping the uplands in permanent pastures. The dairyman will find ready application of the pasture system for sum- mer feeding on such farms. PASTURE WITH SUPPLEMENTS. GRAIN. As has been said, the supplementing of pastures with grain is some- times advisable, even when the pastures are of the best. In many sections, however, pastures are never of the best kind, and in no sec- tions are they always in the best condition. It is evident, therefore, that the commercial dairyman will seldom depend upon pasture alone. Grain should be fed to heavy-producing cows under all pasture con- ditions. Prof. C. H. Eckles, of the University of Missouri, suggests the following-named quantities of grain with abundant pasture for vary- ing production : Jersey cow producing — 20 pounds of milk daily 3 pounds of grain. 25 pounds of milk daily 4 pounds of grain. 30 pounds of milk daily 6 pounds of grain. 35 pounds of milk daily 8 pounds of grain. 40 pounds of milk daily 10 pounds of grain. Holstein-Priesian or Ayrshire cow producing — 25 pounds of milk daily 3 pounds of grain. 30 pounds of milk daily 5 pounds of grain. S5 pounds of milk daily 7 pounds of grain. 40 pounds of milk daily 9 pounds of grain. 50 pounds of milk daily 10 pounds of grain. While this is, of course, an arbitrary rule and variations should be made to suit different conditions and individual cows, it is in accord with good feeding practice and probably is as good a rule of its kind as has been formulated. For cows of medium production it is usually more economical to feed silage or some green crop rather than grain for supplementing short pasturage. In supplementing pasture with grain it should be remembered that the percentage of protein in the grain ration need not be the same as for winter feeding. Good pasture is an approximately balanced ration. The grain ration to be fed with pasture grass should, therefore, have approximately the same pro- portion of protein to other nutrients. In the case of extra-heavy pro- 6 FARMERS' BULLETIN 743. H • ducers the percentage of protein in the grain mixture should be somewhat greater. The following-named mixtures are suggested for supplementing pasture without other roughage: Mixture No. 1: Ground oats 100 pounds Wheat bran 100 prfunds Corn meal 50 pounds Mixture No. 2: Wheat bran 100 pounds Per cent digestible protein, 10.3. Per cent digestible protein, 12.7. Corn meal 100 pounds Cottonseed meal 25 pounds Mixture No. 3: Corn-and-cob meal- - 250 P™^ Per cent digestible protein, 15.5. Cottonseed meal 100 poundsj Mixture No. 4: Wheat bran 100 poundsj Gluten feed 50poundsl Per cent digestible protein, 13.6. Corn meal 50 pounds) SOILING CROPS. Pastures, except where irrigation is practiced, are so dependent upon rainfall that there is practically sure to be some period each season when they are short. It is a well-known fact among dairy- men that if a cow, for lack of proper feed, falls off in her flow of milk for any period of time it is difficult or impossible to bring her back to a full flow until she again freshens. To carry the cows over this period on grain alone is expensive ; consequently, the sup- plementing of pasture with soiling crops is becoming much more common and is growing in favor. In fact, in many sections it is extremely difficult to keep a herd in maximum production through- out the summer without furnishing some supplemental feed. Un- less an abundance of pasture is available, there is practically sure to be a shortage toward the end of the season. Special crops can be grown for these shortages, but they usually involve added ex- pense and inconvenience compared with standard farm crops. Sec- ond-growth red clover, oats, peas, or alfalfa are excellent. Corn is available in August and September. These crops are usually a part of the regular cropping system of a well-conducted dairy farm. The advantages of soiling crops as a supplement to pasture are that large quantities of forage can be grown on a relatively small area, because it is frequently possible to harvest more than one crop in a season on land used for soiling. Another advantage is the pal- atability and succulence possessed by such crops. With their use pasture need not be cropped so closely and less feed is wasted through tramping by the cattle. By judicious application of the soiling sys- THE FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS. 7 tern it is often possible to reduce the acreage of land used for pas- ture, which in addition to the saving in land required for pasture has the added saving in the cost of fencing. Soiling crops usually are fed in the stable where the manure can be saved for application on cultivated fields. An objection which can be urged against the use of soiling crops is the greater amount of labor required and the difficulty in using this labor to the best advantage. Another difficulty is to plan a suc- cession of special crops which will at all times during the season sup- ply an abundant supplementary feed. Even with the best arranged plan, its success depends very largely upon weather conditions. THE SUMMER SILO.1 Silage has found a wide use in this country as a palatable, suc- culent, and economical roughage for use during the winter. Many of the advantages of its use in winter apply equally wrell in sum- mer, and there are additional ones that apply alone to the latter season. The use of a summer silo is particularly applicable on high-priced land. If the land is pastured it will require from 1 to 3 or more acres a season for each cow, while 1 acre of corn put in the silo will supply succulent roughage for several cows for a like period. It is true that grain will be necessary in addition to silage, but the great problem on high-priced land is to raise a sufficient quantity of roughage. As has previously been said, soiling crops have been used to a great extent either in place of or in addition to pasture. The great- est disadvantage in their use is that much labor is required. In order to use these crops they must be cut and hauled from day to day. This work is expensive because only small areas are cut at one time, thus making it impracticable to use the harvesting machinery of the farm to advantage and entailing considerable loss of time in harnessing and unhitching the team. Considerable inconvenience also is occasioned by the fact that the field work is pressing at that season of the year and both man and horsepower are badly needed in the fields. Silage, on the other hand, is cut at one operation when the work in the field is not pressing. The crop ordinarily grown for silage is corn, which is a part of the regular farm rotation and con- sequently fits in well with the regular routine of work. With a silo for summer feeding, the dairyman always has an abundant supply of feed that is easily handled. By using silage the necessity of cutting and hauling the supplementary roughage during rainy weather is eliminated. Another advantage as compared with 1 See Farmers' Bulletin No. 578, " The Making and Feeding of Silage." BULLETIN 743. the soiling system lies in the fact that with the latter it is often neces- sary to feed a portion of each crop after it has matured too much to he palatable, and probably to start on the succeeding one while it is runners' I'.nllclin No. r>sn " I lonirmiKic Silos." THE FEEDING OF DAIKY COWS. 9 duced on the farm. Often the freight rates and the middleman's charges, if saved, will constitute a good profit for the feeder. This is especially true of roughage. Such feeds are buljky and in most cases must be baled at a considerable cost ; the freight rates also are much greater in proportion to the nutrients contained than on the grains. When land is high in price and the markets for dairy products are good, it is often impracticable to grow all the feeds on the farm. In such cases arrangements first should be made to grow the rough- age, on account of the high cost of transporting these feeds. In most cases the prime object of the farm under such conditions will be to supply the greatest possible quantity of roughage. It is a difficult problem to provide a system of winter feeding of roughage which will make the best use of home-grown roughage and at the same time insure full production. Only a general discussion of the problem can be attempted. SILAGE. In addition to containing the proper nutrients in the right propor- tion, part of the ration should be of a succulent nature^ It is ex- tremely difficult, if not impossible, to keep cows in full production throughout the winter without some succulent feed. There are two chief sources of succulent feed for winter feeding — silage and roots. Of these, silage is in almost universal use by commercial, dairymen. While almost any green crop may be used for silage, the heavy yields of corn, as compared with other crops, and its comparative ease of handling, together with its keeping qualities, make it the leading silage crop. WThere the cost of land and the prices of dairy products are high, and the system of farming of necessity is intensive, it is questionable whether the dairyman should consider any other silage crop. ROOTS. The chief function of roots in cattle feeding is to supply a succulent feed. Under general farm conditions the quantity of nutrients grown per acre in root crops is small in comparison to the cost of produc- tion. These root crops, however, can be preserved during the winter equally well whether large or small quantities are fed each day, and therefore have special application when only a few cows are to be fed. Of the different root crops, mangel-wurzels furnish the greatest yield per acre. Other kinds of beets and turnips and carrots may be used. Turnips, however, should be fed after milking rather than before, as they cause a bad flavor in the products if fed immediately before milking. Carrots impart a desirable color to the milk. 41190°— Bull. 743— 1G 2 10 FABMEBS* BULLETIN 743. DRY ROUGHAGE. The best kinds of dry roughage to be fed to the dairy cow, in con- nection with cor* silage or roots, are leguminous hays, such as alfalfa, red, crimson, or alsike clover and soy-bean or cowpea hay. While corn silage is an excellent feed, it is not a balanced one, as it does not contain sufficient protein and mineral matter to meet fully the requirements of the cow. The leguminous hays, in addition to being very palatable, have a tendency to correct this deficiency. They are also one of the best and cheapest sources of protein. One or more of these hays can be grown on any farm, and in addition to their value for feeding purposes, they improve the soil in which they are grown. Hay from Canada field peas, sown with oats to prevent the peas from lodging, also makes an excellent roughage. Corn stover, coarse hay, etc., also find a good market through the dairy cow. This class of roughage is low in protein, however, and when it is used the grain ration must be richer in protein. No positive rule can be laid down as to the quantity of dry rough- age that should be fed, but about 6 to 12 pounds a day for each cow, in addition to silage, will be found to be satisfactory in most cases. When the dry roughage is of poor quality, such as coarse, weedy hay or a poor grade of cornstalks, a large portion can often be giATen to advantage, allowing the cow to pick out the best and using the re- jected part for bedding. With this quantity of dry roughage the cow will take, according to her size, from 25 to 50 pounds of silage. This may be considered as a guide for feeding to apply when the roughage is grown on the farm. When everything has to be purchased, it is often more economical to limit the quantity of roughage fed and in- crease the grain ration. BOUGHAGE ALONE TOO BULKY A BATION. While a cow's stomach is large and her whole digestive system is especially designed to utilize coarse feeds, there is a limit to the bulk that she can take. This limit is below the quantity of roughage that it would require to furnish the nutrients she must have for maximum production; that is, a ration may contain the proper proportions of protein and carbohydrates and still be so bulky that she can not handle it. She therefore should have some grain even though the roughage in itself is a balanced ration. IMPORTANCE OF A BALANCED RATION. It is probably well at this point to refer briefly to the composition of feedstuffs as it relates to economical feeding of the dairy cow. The cow takes into her digestive system feeds which she utilizes for THE FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS. 11 the production of body tissues, heating the body,, performing bodily functions, such as digesting feed, moving from place to place, and for milk production. For the purposes of the present discussion, it is sufficient to say that the constituents or compounds and the relative quantities necessary for these operations have been determined; that is, we know that milk contains protein and energy or heat-producing constituents, the protein being represented by the casein and albumin and the energy and heat-producing constituents by the fat and sugar. In addition to the constituents or compounds necessary for the pro- duction of milk, she also must have the constituents necessary for performing the other functions mentioned. These, for convenience, have been classified into proteins, carbohydrates, and fats. Fats per- form much the same functions as carbohydrates and are worth for production practically two and one-fourth times as much per pound as carbohydrates, and in the balancing of a ration are usually classed with them. This brings us to a definition of a " balanced ration," which is a ration containing these various nutrients in the proportion the cow needs them. The economical importance of a balanced ration is evident. The cow can use only certain elements or compounds in certain propor- tions ; consequently, if the ration supplies an excessive amount of any one, the excess is liable to be wasted. Not only is this true, but as the cow has to assimilate it even though she can not use it, her capacity for production is reduced. COST. In making a ration, cost is one of the important factors. The best practice is to compound a grain mixture so that it will balance with the home-grown roughage. With this in mind, the separate grains should be selected to supply the necessary nutrients at the lowest possible cost. For this, not only the price per hundred pounds but also the relative cost of each constituent, especially protein, must be considered. For example, to determine the cost of a pound of digestible protein in a given feed divide the price of 100 pounds by the per cent of digestible protein in the feed. If this calculation is made for several feeds, the relative cost of protein in each will be apparent. Then the feeds that furnish protein at the least cost can be selected. The same can be done to determine the cost of the carbo- hydrates and fat, which are the heat-making or energy-producing part of the feed. BULK. A certain bulk is necessary in the grain mixture to obtain the best results. When heavy feeds are used, some bulky ones should be in- cluded to lighten the mixture, since it is probable that a certain degree 12 ARMERS' BULLETIN 74:3. c;f bulkine.-s aids digestion. S< me of the common feeds are classified as t<> bulk in Table 4 : B ilky. Medi i in. Alfai fa inoal. Corn meal ( r feed. Corn -and cob meal. Homii-.y. l',rai (wl eat '. (Jluleu'lcod I>riei 1 hn ,vers Drains. [{.ye. "[ »I'jr, Id ist iilers'graius. Harlev. ( |.,; < pro ind. Buckwhtat middlir Malt s;tr< nts. 3>rie< I be< •t inilp. PALATABILITY. Palatal tility is of great importance in successful feeding. The best results can not be obtained with any feed which is not well relished by the cow: consequently any unpalatable feed to be used should be mixed with those that are appetizing. PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECT. Iii making the grain mixture care should be exercised that too large a quantity of either constipating or laxative feed is not in- cluded. Cottonseed meal, for example, is decidedly constipating and should be fed with laxative grains or succulence, such as silage or roots. For ordinary feeding in most parts of the "Tinted States not more than one-third of the grain should be cottonseed meal. In some sections larger quantities have been fed, but this practice is not to be recommended. On the other hand, linseed-oil meal, because of its distinctly laxative action, should not be fed ordinarily in greater quantities than 11 pounds a day. NUTRITIVE VALUE OF THE GRAINS AND CONCENTRATES. As a general rule, the energy or heat-producing material is found chiefly in the stem and leaves of the plant and the protein is largely in the seeds. The great exception is in the case of legumes, which have larger percentages of protein throughout the plant and par- ticularly in the leaves. Tt should be noted, therefore, that in supply- ing grain we are chiefly concerned with the protein it contains. Two classes of feeds are used for making up the grain ration, Lamely, grains and by-products of the manufacturing industries. Tin- grains produced on the farm and commonly used for cattle feed- nig arc corn. oats, barley, and rye. In many cases the demand for these grains for other purposes has become so great that the dairy- man can not aiford to use them; consequently, it has usually been found more economical to use the by-products of the manufacturing THE FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS. 13 industries. The following are among the most common of these feeds: Wheat bran, wheat middlings, linseed meal, cottonseed meal, gluten meal, gluten feed, hominy feed, brewers' grains, malt sprouts, distillers' grains, beet pulp, molasses, buckwheat middlings, coconut meal, peanut meal. The following analyses1 represent digestible nutrients in 100 pounds. The fat is multiplied by 2.25 and added to the carbohy- drates. This represents the energy or heat-making part of the feed. WHEAT BRAN. Digestible nutrients. — Protein, 12.5 per cent; carbohydrates and fat, 48.4 per cent. Bran is the outside coating of grains, and is the residue or by- product from the manufacture of flour. Wheat bran may be derived from winter or spring wheat, and there is little difference in its com- position from either source. From a physiological standpoint wheat bran is one of the very best feeds for cows. It is slightly laxative in nature, and generally tends to keep the cow's digestive system in good condition. The price based upon its protein content is usually so high that most com- mercial dairymen combine it with other feeds in which protein costs less per pound. Aside from the value of the nutrients which it con- tains, it has a special value in a feeding mixture, as it gives bulk and adds to the palatability. Wheat bran may be used when the rest of the grain ration is lacking in palatability or is of a constipating nature. It is especially good when the roughage is all dry. The best grades of wheat bran are of light weight, with large flakes. Some of the large mills put the sweepings from the mill into the bran ; there- fore, it is usually best to buy the highest grade of bran, provided the mills grading it are reliable. The output of small country mills is usually of excellent quality. Bran contains a high proportion of phosphorus and potash in its ash content. WHEAT MIDDLINGS. Digestible nutrients. — Protein, 13.4 per cent; carbohydrates and fat, 55.9 per cent. Standard wheat middlings or shorts are composed of the finer por- tions of the bran together with the coarser portion of the flour. They are not quite so flaky as bran, are a little less laxative, and contain a somewhat smaller quantity of ash. In other respects they may be said to resemble bran closely. This feed is somewhat pasty when moist, and consequently lacks bulk. 1 The analyses of dicrostible protein, carbohydrates, and fat of the various feeds are taken from " Feeds and Feeding," by Henry and Morrison. 14 FARMERS' BULLETIN 743. LINSEED MEAL. IHfi< xtihlc nulricntn. — Old process: Protein, SO. '2 per cent; carbohydrates and fal. 47.7 per cent. New proiv^s : Protein, 31.7 per cent; carbohydrates and Linseed meal is a by-product of the manufacture of linseed oil from flaxseed, and is produced under two processes, known as the old and the new. Linseed meal or oil meal from a physiological standpoint is one of the Aery best feeds. It is laxative, palatable, and a very good "conditioner." but. like wheat bran, its price is usually ex- cessive for its nutritive value. It has, however, a distinct place in a mixture in supplying protein to increase the palatability and improve the physiological effect. It is very heavy, so that it is well to feed it in connection with a bulky feed. It is especially applicable in a mixture to be fed with dry roughage. COTTONSEED MEAL (CHOICE). J)ilc nulriciilx. — 1'rotein, 37 per cent; carbohydrates and fat, 41.2 per cent. Cottonseed meal is the richest in protein of all the common cow feeds on the market. It is usually the cheapest source of protein available, but it does not have the best physiological effect upon the cow, often causing digestive troubles if fed in large quantities for long periods. At first it is advisable to start with 1 to 2 pounds a day, gradually increasing the quantity if no bad results are observed. In some herds in the North as high as 5 to 6 pounds a day are fed without bad results. In the South there seems to be no limit in this direction. Cottonseed meal is a highly concentrated feed and should, if pos- sible, be fed in a mixture with some bulky feed like bran. It can be fed to better advantage when the roughage contains an ample quantity of succulent feed. While its physiological effect in the North at least is not good as compared with most other cow feeds, its cheapness and the fact that in time the cows seem to overcome this tendency to digestive trouble from it are rapidly giving it great prominence as a cheap source of protein for dairy cows. GLUTEN MEAL AND GLUTEN FEED. DiffcKfiblr •ii-ittrifiilx. — (ilulen inea! : Protein, 30.2 per cent; carbohydrates, and f;il. .">3.S p<-r cent. Chiton feed: Protein, 21.0 per cent ; carbohydrates and fa I . nil. 1 per cent . (ilutcn meal is a by-product of the manufacture of starch from corn. rl he basis of the meal is the germ part of the corn kernel, (iluten feed is composed of the gluten meal plus a certain quantity of corn hnm. which makes it lighter than the meal. Both feeds are fairly pa hit a hie and are usually among the cheapest sources of pro- tein. THE FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS. 15 DRIED BREWERS' GRAINS. Digestible nutrients.— Protein, 21.5 per cent; carbohydrates and fat, 44.2 per cent. Dried brewers' grains rank with wheat bran as a flaky, bulky feed. The physiological effect is nearly if not quite as good as bran. They differ in that they carry a somewhat larger percentage of protein than bran. Cows sometimes do not eat these grains readily at first, but soon overcome this aversion. MALT SPROUTS. Digestible nutrients.- — Protein, 20.3 per cent; carbohydrates and fat, 50.3 per cent. Malt sprouts are loose and bulky and cows usually do not take them readily at first. The chief place of this feed is with other feeds in a mixture. Both brewers' grains and malt sprouts come from barley and are by-products from the manufacture of beer. The proprietary feed companies control at the present time a large percentage of the output of dried grains and malt sprouts from the larger breweries and these excellent feeds do not now appear un- mixed on the market to so great an extent as they did a few years ago. HOMINY MEAL, FEED. OR CHOP. Digestible nutrients. — Protein, 7 per cent ; carbohydrates and tat, 77.6 per cent. This by-product of the manufacture of hominy consists of part of the starchy portion of the corn and part of the germ. It is variously known, as the heading suggests, as hominy meal, feed, or chop. In many respects it resembles corn and is a good substitute for it. This feed is used chiefly to furnish the energy or heat-making part of the ration, but because of its low percentage of protein it is not an economical source of the latter. DRIED DISTILLERS' GRAINS. Digestible nutrients. — Corn grains : Protein, 22.4 per cent ; carbohydrates and fat, 66.5 per cent. Rye grains : Protein, 13.6 per cent ; carbohydrates and fat, 52.8 per cent. These grains are the by-product of the manufacture of alcohol and distilled liquors from corn and rye. Both kinds are rather bulky and usually the corn grains are among the cheapest sources of protein. These grains are not particularly palatable, consequently they should be used with other feeds in the grain ration. DRIED BEET PULP. Digestible nutrients. — Protein, 4.6 per cent ; carbohydrates and fat, 67 per cent. Dried beet pulp is a by-product from the manufacture of sugar from the beet. As a source of protein it is not of high value, and the 10 fanner should recognize thi> fact when ho buys it. It is bulky, how- ever. and ha> an excellent physiological eilect upon the cow, as it aids in keeping her dige-tive organs in good condition. AY hen for any reason neither silage nor roots are available the pulp can be soaked, for about lii hours in about four times its weight of water; it then constitutes a good substitute for a succulent roughage. Beet pulp should be classed as a carbohydrate rather than as a protein leed. MOLASSES. f>> i< .s ///;/<.• nutrients. — Protein. 1 per cent; carbohydrates and i'at, ."VS. 2 per cent. Molasses, from both the beet and cane sugar factories, is valuable as a source of energy or heat-making material, the main difference between the two kinds being that the former is more laxative when fed in large quantities. When fed in small quantities, molasses adds materially to the palatability of the ration, but unless it is very lowr in price it is not usually an economical feed for dairy cows. BUCKWHEAT MIDDLINGS. H>l<' iiiift'i<'iil'K. — Protein, 24. G per cent ; carbohydrates and fat, 52 per This floury feed is composed largely of thai part of the buckwheat kernel under the hull together with some of the coarsest of the flour. It is rather heavy and tends to produce a tallowy butter if fed in large quantities. In certain sections it is one of the cheap sources of protein. Frequently bran and chaff are added to the middlings, thus greatly reducing their feeding value. COCONUT MEAL. ]>'nj( xtii,lr inttr'u nix. — Protein. 1S.S per cent; carbohydrates and fat, CO. 2 per cent. This meal is the ground cake resulting from the manufacture of coconut oil. It is a rather heavy feed which, on account of its high oil content, tends to become rancid if kept for long periods in the summer. If it is possible to obtain coconut meal at a reasonable price it will be found to be a valuable addition to the ration. PEANUT MEAL. Thi.- meal is the by-product of the manufacture of peanut oil and varies greatly in composition, depending upon the percentage of hulls it contains. It is an excellent dairy feed and in some sections is a cheap source ol protein. THE FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS. 17 FARM GRAINS. Some of the more common grains that are grown upon the farm will be described briefly below. CORN. Disgcstible nutrients. — Corn meal : Protein, 6.9 per cent ; carbohydrates and fat, 76.9 per cent. Corn-and-cob meal: Protein, 6.1 per cent; carbohydrates and fat, 72 per cent. Corn is probably the most common grain grown upon the farm and is well adapted to be part of the ration of a dairy cow. Corn is palatable, heavy, and one of the best and cheapest sources of the energy or heat-making part of the ration, but, on account of its low protein content, it should not form the entire grain ration. In. order to lighten up this grain, the cob is often ground with the kernel, the resulting meal being called corn-and-cob meal. This feed is more bulky and better adapted for mixing with heavy grains. OATS (GROUND). Digestible nutrients. — Protein, 9.4 per cent; carbohydrates and fat, 60.6 per cent. This very palatable cereal is slightly laxative and very well adapted for feeding dairy cattle. Owing to the high market price of oats, it is usually more economical to sell them and purchase other feeds which furnish nutrients at a cheaper price. BARLEY (GROUND). Digestible nutrients. — Protein, 9 per cent ; carbohydrates and fat, 70.4 per cent. This is a palatable feed and one that can be used to good advantage as a source of carbohydrates or energy material for dairy cows where its price is moderate. Like corn, it should not be the only grain in the ration. RYE (GROUND). Digestible nutrients. — Protein, 9.2 per cent; carbohydrates and fat, 70.5 per cent. This grain is not. especially palatable and should not be used in large quantities, as it tends to produce a hard, tallowy butter. Mixed with other feeds, it is often a valuable addition to the ration. ROUGHAGE. All roughage may be divided for convenience into two general classes with reference to its content of protein. In the first, or low- protein, class are placed corn silage, corn stover, timothy hay, millet 18 FARMERS7 BULLETIN 743. hay, prairie hay, hays from the common grasses, straws of the various cereals, and cottonseed hulls. The second, or high-protein, class includes the various legume hays, such as alfalfa, the clovers, cowpea, soy bean, and oat and pea. Economy in feeding demands that grain should supplement the roughage, consequently the grain mixtures will be compounded to fit the class to which the roughage belongs. COMPOUNDING A GRAIN MIXTURE. A few simple rules for making up a grain mixture are given briefly below : 1. Make up the mixture to fit the roughage available. With roughage entirely of the low-protein class the grain should contain approximately from 18 to 22 per cent of protein, while with exclusively high-protein roughage the grain ration need contain only about 13 to 16 per cent. 2. Select grains that will furnish the various constituents, especially protein, at the least cost, using home-grown grains if possible. 3. Be sure that the mixture is light and bulky. 4. The mixture should be palatable. 5. See that the grain has the proper physiological effect upon the cow. All these suggestions should be kept in mind in order to obtain the best possible combination of grains. For the convenience of the feeder Table 5, showing the digestible protein content of the more common grains and by-products feeds, is given. The per cent columns are arranged in 5 per cent divisions. TABLE 5. — Approximate digestible protein content of various grains and by-products. Average 5 per cent (2.5 to 7.4 per cent). Average 10 per cent (7.5 to 12.4 per cent). Average 15 per cent (12.5 to 17.4 per cent). Average 20 per cent (17.5 to 22. 4 per cent). Corn meal. Corn-and-cob meal. Hominy feed. Dried beet pulp. Wheat, ground. Oats, ground. Barley, ground. Rye, ground. Buckwheat, ground. Sorghum grains, ground. Wheat bran. Wheat middlings. Dried distillers' grains (rye). Gluten feed. Malt sprouts. Dried brewers' grains. Dried distillers' grains (corn). Coconut meal. Peanut meal with hulls. Cowpeas. Average 25 per cent (22.5 to 27.4 per cent). Average 30 per cent (27.5 to 32.4 per cent). Average 35 per cent (32. 5 to 37.4 percent). Average 40 per cent (37.5 to 42.4 per cent). Buckwheat middlings. Gluten meal. Linseed meal (both processes). Soy beans. Cottonseed meal. '• . •' Peanut meal (hulled nuts). The per cent of protein in a grain mixture may be found as follows: Take any number of parts of any number of feeds in the table, and for each part put down the per cent of the column in which it is found. Add these numbers and divide the sum by the number of parts. Examples : THE FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS. 19 1 part wheat bran 15 1 part cottonseed meal 35 1 part gluten feed . ^ 20 3 3) 70 23. 3 per cent protein. 3 parts wheat bran (3X15) 45 2 parts cottonseed meal (2X35) 70 1 part gluten feed (1X20 )__ 20 6 G) 135 22. 5 per cent protein. The approximate price of a ration per pound of protein may be ascertained as follows: Divide the total price of the mixture by the average protein content as derived above. The mixture costing the smallest price per pound of protein, other things being equal, is the most economical. Unfortunately, other things are never exactly equal, for the physiological effect of the grain, bulk, and palatability must also be taken into consideration. Practically all the grain feeds low in protein are rich in carbohydrates, but, as already stated, grains are purchased primarily for their protein content, as almost invariably the carbohydrates can be produced more cheaply in the form of corn silage, cornstalks, etc. While the above-mentioned method of testing the economy of a grain ration is not entirely accurate, it is usualty a safe method to follow. SAMPLES OF GRAIN MIXTURES TO BE FED WITH VARIOUS ROUGHAGES. WITH LOW-PROTEIN ROUGHAGES. The following grain mixtures are adapted to be fed with rough- ages of the low-protein class, such as corn silage, corn stover, timo- thy, prairie, rowen, or millet hays, cottonseed hulls, etc.: Mixture 1. — Per cent of digestible protein, 18.4 : 500 pounds corn meal. 400 pounds dried distillers' grains (corn). 200 pounds gluten feed. 300 pounds linseed meal (old process). Mixture 2. — Per cent of digestible protein, 19.8 : 100 pounds corn meal. 100 pounds cottonseed meal. 100 pounds linseed meal (old process). 200 pounds wheat bran. Mixture 3. — Per cent of digestible protein, 19.8 : 300 pounds corn meal. 200 pounds cottonseed meal. 100 pounds dried distillers' grains (corn). 100 pounds gluten feed. 20 FARMERS7 BULLETIN 743. Mixture 4. — Per cent of digestible protein, 19.8 : 200 pounds corn-and-cob meal. 100 pounds cottonseed meal. 100 pounds linseed meal (old process). Mixture 5. — Per cent of digestible protein, 18.8 : 200 pounds corn meal. 150 pounds cottonseed meal. 100 pounds gluten feed. 100 pounds wheat bran. Mixture 6. — Per cent of digestible protein, 18.1 : 200 pounds corn meal. 100 pounds cottonseed meal. 100 pounds oats, ground. 100 pounds linseed meal (old process). Mixture 7. — Per cent of digestible protein, 19.4: 400 pounds corn meal. 200 pounds cottonseed meal. 300 pounds gluten feed. 400 pounds dried brewers' grains. Mixture 8. — Per cent of digestible protein, 18.3 : 200 pounds corn meal. 100 pounds linseed meal (old process). 150 pounds glute*i feed. 200 pounds dried brewers' grains. Mixture 9. — Per cent of digestible protein, 18.4 : 300 pounds corn-and-cob meal. 200 pounds cottonseed meal. Mixture 10. — Per cent of digestible protein, 19.1 : 200 pounds corn-and-cob meal. 100 pounds cottonseed, meal. 100 pounds gluten feed. 100 pounds buckwheat middlings. Mixture 11. — Per cent of digestible protein, 19.1: 200 pounds barley. 200 pounds cottonseed meal. 300 pounds alfalfa meal. 100 pounds \vheat bran. WITH HIGH-PROTEIN ROUGHAGES. With roughage of the high-protein class, such as clover, alfalfa, soy beans, cowpeas, and vetch or other legume hay, the following grain mixtures may be used: Mixture 12. — Per cent of digestible protein, 14.1 : 400 pounds corn meal. 100 pounds cottonseed meal. 100 pounds gluten feed. 100 pounds wheat bran. Mixture 13. — Per cent of digestible protein, 15.6 : 400 pounds corn meal. 200 pounds gluten feed. 200 pounds linseed meal (old process). 100 pounds oats, ground. THE FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS. 21 Mixture 14. — Per cent of digestible protein, 14.9 : 200 pcmncls corn meal. 200 pounds gluten feed. 100 pounds malt sprouts. 100 pounds wheat bran. Mixture 15. — Per cent of digestible protein, 16.7: 300 pounds barley. 100 pounds cottonseed meal. 100 pounds alfalfa meal. 100 pounds wheat bran. Mixture 16. — Per cent of digestible protein, 13.7 : 100 pounds barley. 200 pounds coconut meal. 100 pounds oats, ground. 100 pounds wheat bran. Mixture 17. — Per cent of digestible protein, 15.8 : 300 pounds corn-and-cob meal. 200 pounds gluten feed. 100 pounds cottonseed meal. 100 pounds wheat bran. Mixture 18. — Per cent of digestible protein, 15.5 : 100 pounds corn meal. 100 pounds linseed meal (old process). 100 pounds oats, ground. WITH COMBINATION OF LOW AND HIGH PROTEIN KOUGHAGES. The following grain mixtures are adapted for feeding with a combination of the low and high protein classes of roughage, such as silage and clover, or other legume hay; corn stover and clover, or other legume hay ; mixed hay, or oat-and-pea hay, etc. : Mixture 19. — Per cent of digestible protein, 16.3: 400 pounds corn meal. 300 pounds dried distillers' grains (corn). 100 pounds gluten feed. 100 pounds linseed meal (old process). Mixture 20. — Per cent of digestible protein, 16.1 : 300 pounds corn meal. 100 pounds cottonseed meal. 100 pounds linseed meal (old process). 200 pounds wheat bran. Mixture 21. — Per cent of digestible protein, 16.4 : 400 pounds corn meal. 100 pounds cottonseed meal. 200 pounds dried distillers' grains (corn). 100 pounds gluten feed. Mixture 22. — Per cent of digestible protein, 16.7 : 400 pounds corn meal. 100 pounds cottonseed meal. 200 pounds gluten feed. 200 pounds dried brewers' grains. Mixture 23.— Per cent of digestible protein, 16.4 : 200 pounds corn-and-cob meal. 100 pounds cottonseed meal. 22 FARMERS' BULLETIN 743. Mixture 24. — Per cent of digestible protein, 16.7 : 200 pounds corn meal. 100 pounds peanut nieal (with hulls). 100 pounds cottonseed meal. 100 pounds wheat bran. Mixture 25. — Per cent of digestible protein, 16.4 : 100 pounds corn meal. 100 pounds oats, ground. 100 pounds 'cottonseed meal. 100 pounds wheat bran. The above-named mixtures which contain linseed meal are par- ticularly adapted for use when no succulence is in the ration. QUANTITIES OF ROUGHAGE AND GRAIN TO FEED. In this connection the general principles brought out earlier in the discussion should always be kept in mind, namely, that eco- nomical feeding demands that the cows be fed to full capacity. To do this and to have the best effect on the individual cow requires a thorough knowledge of feeds and of cows. To give a few prac- tical rules to guide the beginner in obtaining this knowledge is all that has been attempted in this publication. Rules of this nature in reference to the quantities to feed will not be out of place. 1. Under most circumstances the cow should be fed all the rough- age that she will eat up clean, adjusting the grain ration to the milk production. Only when the cow tends to become over/at should the quantity of roughage be restricted. 2. A grain mixture should be fed in the proportion of 1 pound to each 3 pints or pounds of milk produced daily by the cow, except in the case of a cow producing a flow of Ifi pounds or more, when the ration can be 1 pound to each 3% or 4 pounds of milk. An even bet- ter rule is 1 pound of grain each day for every pound of butter fat produced during the week by the cow. 3. Feed all the cow will respond to in milk production. When she begins to put on flesh, cut down the grain. INDIVIDUAL FEEDING. Different cows have different capacities for converting feed into milk. For this reason the above-mentioned rules can serve only as indicators for the inexperienced feeder. No man who has not a full appreciation of the wide variation in individual cows will be fully successful as a feeder. Some cows may have natural capacity for producing large quantities of milk, and may not receive feed enough for maximum production. By increasing the feed of the highest- producing cows and carefully consulting the milk sheets on which each cow's daily production is recorded, the skillful feeder will soon find that some cows in the herd will respond to the increased allow- THE FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS. 23 ance and return a good profit on the additional feed given. On the other hand, there are cows that have a limited capacity for milk pro- duction and are very liable to be overfed. By carefully studying each individual cow the feeder will soon ascertain the point beyond which any addition to the grain ration becomes unprofitable. WATER FOR COWS. All animals require plenty of good, pure water. This is especially true of the milking cow, as water constitutes more than three- fourths of the total volume of milk. The water supply, therefore, demands the dairyman's most careful attention. Stale or impure water is distasteful to the cow and she wrill not drink enough for maximum milk production. Such water may also carry disease germs which might make the milk unsafe for human consumption or be dangerous to the cow herself. During the winter, when cows are stabled the greater part of the time, they should be watered two or three times a day unless arrangements have been made to keep water before them at all times. The water should, if possible, be 15° or 20° above the freezing point, and should be supplied at practically the same tem- perature every day. When water well above freezing temperature is stored in tanks and piped directly to the cow, there is probably little occasion for facilities to warm it. When it stands in a tank on which ice often forms, it usually pays well to warm it slightly. This can be done by a tank heater, by live steam, or by hot water from a boiler. If a boiler is used for running a separator or for heating water to wash and sterilize utensils, steam from it can readily and cheaply be used to warm the water. SALT. Salt is required by all animals. The dairy cow requires an ounce or more a day, and while she should be given all she needs, she should not be forced to take more than she wants. It is best, therefore, to give only a small quantity on the feed, and to place rock salt in boxes in the yard \vhere she can lick it at will. WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1916 MARKETING LIVE STOCK IN THE SOUTH SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT S. W. DOTY Assistant in Marketing Live Stock and Meats FARMERS' BULLETIN 809 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Contribution from the Office of Markets and Rural Organization CHARLES J. BRAND, Chief Washington, D. C. April, 1917 WASH-NGTON : GOVERNMENT PRiNTINQ OFFICE : 191? TIIK OH Ik- 1 for southern ('armors* live stock lies chiefly nilh local butchers and shippers, and therefore is limited and often unsatisfactory. Not un- commonly farmers slaughter their animals without Lisly arranging I'or the sale of the dressed carcasses and. because of the perishable nature of their product, are forced to sacrifice il on an over- supplied market. Local packing houses have benefited farmers acees- le to Ihcm l>y providing a year-round market. Co- operative shipping and marketing clubs, local live stock buying companies, and the establishment of specified market points, with sales on advertised dates, also have improved marketing conditions greatly. Many farmers market their hogs as cured meals, which are sold to dealers or to consumers. In prepar- ing farm-cured meals in the South, artificial refrigera- tion is desirable. This may be provided by individual or community meat-curing houses. Some local ice arid cold-storage plants cure meats for farmers; others purchase the dressed hogs and cure on their own ac- count. Ice plants might extend this business. These local marketing plans have proved successful ii! various communities and have increased the num- ber of live stock produced. They are therefore offered in this } ulletin as suggested remedies to communities v . i;; inadequate markets. MARKETING LIVE STOCK IN THE SOUTH: SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT. CONTENTS. Page. Page. Need of better local markets for live stock 3 j Cattle sales of South Carolina 9 Local markets and methods of marketing com- Marketing farm-cured meats 10 monly followed 3 The southern ice plant as a local market 11 Local marketing of stock on foot 5 '• Municipal or public abattoir as an aid in the Cooperative live stock shipping 5 local marketing of live stock 12 Tennessee lamb and wool marketing clubs 7 Meeting market demands 13 A Mississippi commercial club's marketing plan 8 NEED OF BETTER LOCAL MARKETS FOR LIVE STOCK. FREQUENTLY the statement is made that the live-stock prob- lem of the South is more essentially one of production than of marketing; in other words, that the live-stock markets and transportation facilities will not be improved materially until the South raises stock in sufficient numbers to attract buyers and to warrant the expenditure of capital for equipment and service. Nevertheless, the lack of a ready market and the unsatisfactory prices received by the small farmer undoubtedly have helped to retard the development of the live-stock industry in many sections of the South. Since it is largely to the small farmers that the South must look for the desired increase in live-stock production, it is essential to offer them encouragement in the way of better marketing facilities. This can be done by establishing local markets of such a nature that the farmer will be assured of an opportunity to dispose of his stock at a fair market price. LOCAL MARKETS AND METHODS OF MARKETING COMMONLY FOLLOWED. Under present conditions in the South a large part of the live stock is sold by farmers! to local butchers for retail trade, and to local dealer-shippers for shipment to market.1 In the nine Southeastern 1 TJ. S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Report No. 113, Meat situation In the United States, Part V, Methods and costs of marketing live stock and meats. 1916. NOTE.— The purpose of this bulletin is to place before southern farmers who produce stock in small lots and who are experiencing difficulty in marketing their live stock the more important local marketing plans which have been found successful in certain communities and which are practicable under southern conditions. 79944°— 17 3 4 FARMER S BTLLKTIN S09. Stints (Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Loui.-iana. Mississippi. Alabama, ami Arkansas) 47 per cent of the cattle marketed for nu-al purposes is sold to local butchers either on tout oi1 as farm-dressed carcasses; 30 per cent is sold to local. dealer- slih'pers foi1 shipment to market: and 7 per cent is shipped by owners in em' iots. the remaining 10 per cent being sold to local packers, to \.-' agents for shipment, or for shipment to feeding points. Calves are marketed largely to local butchers, the average from the nine States being :>('> per cent, while '&> per cent is sold to local [lippers. Sheep are marketed in a similar manner, 55 per c< :;i being sold to local butchers and approximately -M per cent to ; dealers for shipment to market. Hogs also are marketed largely locally. 70 per cent being sold either on foot or as I'arm- dressed cm-asses to local butchers for retail trade, and as farm-cured meat -ausage. Seventeen per cent is sold to local dealer- sbippors for shipment to market and 7 per cent is shipped in carload lots by owners, the remainder being sold largely to local packers and to packers" agents for shipment. A very common method of marketing employed by the small farmers is to slaughter the animals on the 1'arm and sell the dressed carcasses to local retail dealers, or to consign them by express to commission men for sale in the larger cities. Approximately (5 pei' cent of the calves. •' per cent of the cattle, 1*2 per cent of the sheep and lambs, and ]('. per cent of the 'nigs of the ninth South- ea-tern States are marketed in this manner. In many cases animals are killed and offered for sale regardless of market conditions. Frequently advantage is taken of cool weather to kill and dispose of hogs, with the result that the dressed car- c asses must be sold on a glutted market, and, being a perishable product, must be disposed of at any price obtainable. An ex- ample, which is only one of many, was observed at a small town in Louisiana during the winter of 1915-K). where each time the weather became cooler cents because of a temporary oversnpply of fresh meats in these towns. The farmers could have avoided these losses by finding a market for their meat before slaughtering, by delaying slaughtering until market conditions were improved, or by selling tin- animals alive on a good market. FVMI under normal market conditions the prices paid for dressed c;t rc;i.-se- oitcn ;ire not m proportion to the quoted live-weight prices MARKETING LIVE STOCK IN THE SOUTH. 5 of the animals. In Louisiana, instances were noted in the autumn of 1916 where farmers were being paid 8 cents per pound for dressed hogs when at the same date hogs of similar grade were quoted at 9 to 9J cents per pound live weight on the Fort Worth market. Similar conditions are reported from other sections of the South. Considering, therefore, the prices ordinarily paid the farmer in the South for meat animals, live and dressed weight, together with the labor of killing and dressing and the uncertainty of the meat trade, farm animals in many cases may be sold to better advantage on foot than as dressed carcasses. LOCAL MARKETING OF STOCK ON FOOT. The outlets usually available to farmers wishing to dispose of their meat animals on foot are the local dealer-shipper and the local retail butcher. But for farmers located near a packing plant the marketing problem is simplified, as a ready market is provided at all times and better prices than those paid by local dealers usually are obtainable. Such institutions should have all the support pos- sible to help assure their success. Packing plants in the South have experienced difficulty in procuring live stock during the summer months, which has tended to hinder their progress. Farmers should consider the advisability of fitting their hogs for market during different seasons of the year. Comparatively few farmers are situated near these packing plants. On the other hand, many farmers are located in the vicinity of small towns where the local demand for meats is very limited, and any sur- plus must be marketed elsewhere. These farmers are dependent upon local dealer-shippers for the sale of their live stock, inasmuch as no one farmer has sufficient stock of his own to make up a full carload for shipment to market. At some points there may be but one shipper, in which case the farmer is compelled to accept the prices offered, although they may be unsatisfactory, while in many com- munities no live-stock shippers are operating. Such conditions un- doubtedly have been the means of retarding live-stock production in many parts of the South. For the purpose of bettering market conditions for farmers sa situated several plans for marketing live stock locally have been developed and found practicable. Such plans might well be adopted in many localities in the South where present marketing facilities are found to be inadequate. COOPERATIVE LIVE STOCK SHIPPING. Of the various marketing plans under discussion, undoubtedly co- operative shipping is being most generally adopted in the United States. This is a method by which producers of live stock in less- 6 FAmiKU S BULLETIN 809. than-carload lots are enabled to ship their animals to centralized live-stock markets. Farmers taking1 advantage of this method of marketing receive prevailing market prices for their stock less the cost of marketing. They are independent of local buyers and save the profits realized by these buyers. Also by means of a sinking fund set aside for the purpose, farmers are reimbursed for animals killed or injured in transit. Associations for marketing live stock in this manner are simple in organization and no capital is required, inasmuch as it is entirely a consignment business and farmers are paid for their stock when returns from a shipment are received. Cooperative live stock shipping associations1 have met with marked success during the last few year* in a number of the Middle Western States. The United States Department of Agriculture has a list of approximately 750 organizations in IT) States that are ship- ping stock in this manner, and the movement is extending rapidly. Minnesota, with a total of more than 200, leads in the number of these associations: and estimates by the crop and special live stock reporters of the Bureau of Crop Estimates of the United States De- partment of Agriculture indicate that approximately '2~> per cent of the cattle and hogs and 15 per cent of the calves and sheep marketed from that State are shipped through these associations. Cooperative live stock shipping is adapted to the needs of many communities in the South, particularly those which are situated within convenient shipping distances of large centralized live stock markets or packing houses, and which do not have adequate local markets. A few associations, primarily formed for shipping hogs, already have been organized in the South, and one of the results noted has been the adoption of better production methods in these localities. When it is known that there is a chance to ship hogs direct to a good market, where they will be sold on their merits, instead of selling them to local buyers at arbitrary prices, farmers usually are more inclined to give their hogs special care and not to allow them to run at random and feed on whatever they can find. An instance of the need for some plan of marketing which will enable farmers with a few hogs to reach centralized markets was noted recently in Louisiana. A farmer who had 10 hogs to market was unable to dispose of them at near-by towns, since the local butchers were ovcrsupplied with fresh meats, and the local shippers were indisposed to handle the hogs. Accordingly, the farmer pur- chased 17 hogs from a neighbor, loaded the o(> in a car and shipped them to market. Although it was a light car, the profit on the 17 . T.. !>.. < 'oopenit ive live slock shipping :>.- >ocia t ions. I". S. Fanners' Hullctin TIN, 1!H<;. •rr, \V. I!., A sy-ie-in of {'.(-counts for live stock shipping asso- ol Agriculture bulletin 4U.'{, 1!HC,. MARKETING LIVE STOCK IN THE SOUTH. 7 head bought paid for the time spent in the transaction and all costs of making the shipment, including shrinkage on the original 19 head. It is generally considered that conditions which will be favorable to the organization of associations for shipping stock cooperatively in the South must be developed gradually. Until live stock is pro- duced in the South in sufficient quantities to warrant shipping organ- izations for the purpose, a very simple plan of cooperative shipping in which several farmers combine their stock to make up carload lots for shipment may be followed. Many associations in the North have resulted from such a plan and undoubtedly shipping associa- tions in the South will be formed largely in this manner. TENNESSEE LAMB AND WOOL MARKETING CLUBS. Lamb and wool marketing clubs have been in successful operation in Tennessee for more than 25 years. They were the outcome of unsatisfactory marketing conditions in the lamb-producing sections of Tennessee. The plan originated at Goodletsville, where there is a club with a membership of 50 persons living within a radius of 3 miles from the shipping stations, and its success has prompted farmers in other sections of Tennessee to organize in a similar manner. The organization of these clubs is comparatively simple. The officers consist of a president and a secretary-treasurer, who, with three other members, form an executive committee, the chairman of which is the secretary-treasurer. The annual meeting for the elec- tion of officers is held early in the spring, that each member may report the number of lambs and the amount of wool that he will have to sell. The secretary-treasurer advertises for sealed bids on the lambs owned by the club. The advertisement indicates the number, grade, and quality of the lambs and the date shipment will be made. The lambs are then sold at the shipping point to the highest bidder, the executive committee reserving the privilege of rejecting all bids in case they seem too low. On the shipping date the executive commit- tee is on hand to grade the lambs brought in by each farmer. All lambs not up to the advertised standard are returned to the farmer, who either holds them over for some future shipment or sells them at a sacrifice. This has the beneficial influence of training the owners to deliver only those lambs which will come within the grades advertised by the committee. The day for the wool sale is advertised, that bidders may be on hand to see the fleeces, which are graded into No. 1, clear ; No. 2, slightly burry; No. 3, burry; and No. 4, hard burry. Each grade is weighed, and sealed bids are received by the committee, which also reserves the privilege of rejecting all bids. The farmer who owns a small flock of ewes has the same advan- tage in marketing his lambs as the large producer. Expenses are 8 FARMER'S BULLETIN 809. made proportionate and all receive the benefit of competitive bids. The results are seen principally in the better prices obtained. It is stated freely that the club members receive from $1 to $2 a hundred- weight more for lambs of the same grade and 2 cents per pound more for wool than farmers in the community who have not the benefit of cooperative selling. The members are encouraged to fol- low uniform methods in breeding and handling their flocks, with the result that the clubs have an established reputation in many of the large markets for the uniformity and high quality of their lambs and wool. A MISSISSIPPI COMMERCIAL CLUB'S MARKETING PLAN. A " farmers' stockyards company " was organized at a city in Missis- sippi in 1912 by a committee of the board of trade. The company is capitalized at $10,000, with $2,500 paid in, this amount having been found sufficient to transact the business of the company. The com- pany was organized primarily to provide the farmers of the sur- rounding country with a good local market for their live stock throughout the year, with the hope of increasing the production of live stock. The stockholders, who are local business men, receive no dividends, and it is their aim, while maintaining the capital stock unimpaired, to conduct the business so that the farmer will receive the maximum returns for his live stock. The operating expenses of the company therefore are reduced to a minimum. The manager receives $15 for every carload of stock shipped by the company, and the secretary-treasurer a salary of $150 per annum. The rental of the stockyards (an abandoned cotton-compress lot) is secured by charging 5 cents per head for all live stock taken into the yards. Other expenses are the wages of a caretaker and the city water charges. The company buys live stock in any sized lots on two days of each week throughout the year, paying cash. The prices paid the farmer are those prevailing at the large centralized markets, such as East St. Louis and Fort Worth, minus a small margin to cover the usual marketing expenses. The latter include the operating expenses of the company; the cost of feed, at shipping points and en route; freight ; shrinkage ; and the charges at the market, namely, insurance, yardage, feed, commission, and dockages. An immediate result as reported by the secretary of the organiza- tion has been shown in the higher prices paid by local butchers for all live stock offered and in their readiness to pay cash for pur- chases, whereas previously it was not uncommon to demand credit extensions from the farmers. On the other hand, since the work of the company has demonstrated the fact that live stock can be bought and shipped to centralized northern and southern markets, local MARKETING LIVE STOCK IN THE SOUTH. 9 dealers have started operations in the vicinity, which have curtailed the business of the stock yards company. An extended interest in live-stock production by farmers in the surrounding country has been noted. BATTLE SALES OF SOUTH CAROLINA. The extension department of Clemson Agricultural College, South Carolina, cooperating with the United States Department of Agri- culture, has instituted a plan for marketing cattle which has been followed two years and has proved sufficiently successful to warrant its continuance. The plan is a direct outgrowth of a movement to increase the production and fattening of cattle in the State. At the outset the main purpose of the work was to interest small farmers in raising and feeding cattle, and by improving feeding 'methods to showT them the advantages to be derived from putting their stock in marketable condition. With this object in view a number of farmers in various sections of the State were induced to feed from two to five head of cattle under the direction of live-stock specialists employed jointly by the extension department of the college and the United States Department of Agriculture. At this juncture the question of marketing these cattle arose. The -local markets at this time, in many sections of the State, were found to be unsatisfactory, and therefore very little encouragement was offered the farmers to in- crease or improve their live stock. To overcome these difficulties the following plan was outlined : Three places which would be accessible to the farmers feeding cattle were designated, and a market day was arranged for each place. On the days set for the sales the cattle were assembled at these points, and by previous arrangement buyers from several of the northern markets were present to bid on the cattle. The sales were conducted on the private-sale plan rather than as auctions. The results were satisfactory from the stand- point of both buyer and seller, the cattle netting from one-half to 1 cent a pound more than local buyers were offering. Aside from the benefits derived from the market itself, the educa- tional feature of having these sales at home was of no little value to the farmers. It enabled them to study the grades under which cattle are sold and to see the reason one lot of cattle brought a higher price than another. Cooperation on the part of the rail- roads in offering better shipping facilities has added to the success of the sales. Expert cattle salesmen were obtained to conduct the sales the second year, which added to their success. The extent to which this plan is practicable for other parts of the South will be determined wholly by local conditions. It is thought by many who are familiar with southern conditions that until the live-stock industry is well established in the South a 10 FARMER'S BULLETIN 80$. marketing plan of this kind is more adaptable to some sections than cooperative shipping. MARKETING FARM-CURED MEATS. Experience has shown that it is practicable for the average south- ern fanner to cure the pork needed for home use. The possibility of marketing hogs in the form of cured meats also is worthy of con- sideration. Local conditions will determine the extent to which this may be practiced. It depends largely on the opportunity open to the farmer to dispose of his hogs, alive or as dressed carcasses, at satisfactory prices to local shippers or butchers or otherwise. In many communities the only market for the farmer with a small number of hogs is the local retail butcher, and ordinarily he is oversupplied with dressed hogs and other fresh meats dur- ing the winter months. Under such conditions curing meat on farms for market may be practiced profitably, as the meat can be held until prices are favorable. Farmers in many localities are employing this method successfully, notably in Brooks County, (la., where it has been an important feature of the farming oper- ations for 25 years. A ready local market is provided in the South for farm-cured meats that are handled properly and cor- rectly trimmed and cured. The meat may be sold to wholesale grocers and local retail butchers or to private customers. In the latter case, shipments consisting largely of hams, bacon, and sausage may be made by parcel post or express. Tt is not intended to discuss in this bulletin the methods of cur- ing meat. This work demands careful attention on the part of the farmer, especially when he does not have refrigeration. A great deal of meat has been lost during the curing process because of weather conditions, However, if the following important pre- liminaries are observed, and the rules for curing followed carefully, the amount of spoiled meat may he. reduced to a minimum: 1. IV certain that the animal is healthy and in good condition. L'. Kn -p hou-.s oi'f f«>ed and with plenty of accessible water for 24 hours pre- vious io killing. •'!. !'•'• Kur<> ihe animal dors n<>! b:-<-ome heated previous to slaughter. •1. fir sure the carcass is chilled thoroughly or cooled out before the meat is <'a i up ! u !>(• inn in! • ) rure. •". f'ul ail pier-cs uniformly and irim all raji^ed ed.iros carefully. A ham or pi'-" (.i Itacoti which \< a 1 1 ra<-i ivcly shaped is more salable than one which is not. I>oeau-e of climatic conditions in the Southern States, particularly th" fin1!' Stale-, some form oi' artificial refrigeration will aid and safeguard Ihe riirinn1 process. This may be supplied by a private meat fiiriuir house .-.n the farm or :>\ a community meat-curing house or ] y taking the moat to a local ice1 plant lo be cured. It; -i te-t conductor! in a .--m-ill meat-curing house in southern (/corgi a . it was estimated that the cost of curing the meat was not MARKETING LIVE STOCK IN THE SOUTH. 11 more than three- fourths of a cent a pound, including the cost of the ice. This house, which is 9 by 9 feet in size, has been found to be sufficiently large for the average farmer. Meat houses, varying in size from 6 by 8 feet to as large as 16 by 30 feet, recently have been built and operated successfully by at least 10 farmers in southern Georgia, and it is predicted that many more of these houses will be built in the near future by farmers in this section. THE SOUTHERN ICE PLANT AS A LOCAL MARKET. The curing and handling of pork products opens an extensive field to ice plants throughout the South. For several years the managers of a few plants have cured meat for farmers at a specified price per pound. A more recent development of the business, however, has been the purchase of dressed hogs from farmers by the ice-plant management. This plan was inaugurated at Canton, Miss., during the winter of 1913-14, where it since has become an important feature of the ice company's business. Information obtained from the managers of ice plants who have had experience in curing meat for farmers indicates that the plan has been profitable to the ice-plant owners and of considerable service to farmers in the respective communities. One ice company which cures meat for farmers charges 1 cent per pound for curing, 2 cents for curing and smoking, and 3 cents for curing, smoking, and wrapping. These charges include all labor, salt, and other material, and are based on green weight of meat. The farmer delivers the meat to the plant cut into desired pieces for curing. The management reports that approximately 30 tons of meat were cured at this plant during the winter of 1913-14, 55 tons during the winter of 1914-15, and approximately 120 tons during 1915-16. Fourteen plants in Georgia and one in Mississippi are reported to be conducting the business after this plan. While no figures are available to show the actual cost of curing meats, reports of managers who have conducted the business indicate that a charge of 1 to 2 cents a pound, depending upon the local conditions and the amount of meat in cure, will return a reasonable profit to the plant and at the same time be fair to the farmer. Where the owners of ice plants make a business of buying the hogs and selling the cured products, dressed hogs are purchased from the farmer. The meat is handled in about the same way as at the smaller packing plants, and the cured meat and other, products are sold locally. The management of one ice plant which has conducted this business for several seasons reports that the number of hogs produced in the community has been practically doubled during this period. This increase is attributed largely to the market which the ice plant has provided. The buying records of this plant for the 12 FARMER'S BULLETIN SOD. winter of 191-1— 15 show that the hogs delivered to the plant average three for each patron. These facts show that the local market for h«.g> thus provided by ice plants is of particular value to the small fanner. He receives more for his hogs than he otherwise would, a fair profit is made at the ice plant, and a good home product is offered the consumers at a reasonable price. During- the winter of 1914-15 the practice of purchasing hogs from farmers was taken up at three plants in Arkansas, and, under the supervision of a representative of the Department of Agri- culture, it was extended to 10 ice or cold storage plants in that State during the winter of 1915-10. As a. result of the work in Arkansas, at least one ice company in Louisiana and two in Mississippi are now buying dressed hogs from the farmer-. Not only does this business furnish the farmer a steady and substantial market for his hogs during the winter months, but it makes it possible for the owners of ice plants to utilize their equip- ment and storage rooms as a source of revenue during a period when the ice business is dull. It is not likely that a very large number of hogs will l)e handled by any one ice plant. However, this outlet offers encouragement to farmers who are starting in the business of raising hogs and gives them a market for their surplus while pro- duction is being increased and other markets or packing-house cen- ters are being established. MUNICIPAL OR PUBLIC ABATTOIR AS AN AID IN THE LOCAL MARKETING OF LIVE STOCK. Centralized slaughtering at abattoirs either municipally owned or pri\ately owned and operated under city inspection is increasing each year throughout the country. Investigations by the United States Department of Agriculture indicate that at least 22 cities in \ •' states now ha1 -'e such plants, the greater number of which are located in the South. Five of the 7 cities which own abattoirs and 1-J of the 15 which have privately owned public abattoirs are south- ern <•'}{ ies. The main purposes in establishing these abattoirs are to enable municipalities to farry out effectively a thorough system of inspec- tion, to overcome insanitary conditions, and to provide refrigeration facilities for locally slaughtered meats. But many feat tires in con- nection with institutions of this kind are of interest from the stand- point of marketing. Principal among these are the utilization of offal, pracj icallv all of whirl) is wasted in the old tvpe of local slaugh- (crhouse, the ics.-cninii' of the percentage of cut, hides, and the better appearance ol drc ;•ci - unless accompanied l>y a Federal certificate j kd'ore sliipment. No- uncommonly it is found that such are d i>criminated a^ain.^t to the extent of 40 to 50 cents a •i^h! in ;-ompari-.on u'ith other cattle of ecjual qualitv :i ni ine district. nr ti«'k fever, {. S Department of Agriculture, Fan: rattle tick e:-;i -lii-r. t iou on the rattle iudustry of the So uiture. liureau oi Animal Industry, 1914. U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY