A271-823-15,000 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, Prelldent BULLETIN NO. 309 JUNE, 1923 DIVISION OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY I. Fattening Steers on Cottonseed Meal and Hulls With and Without Corn II. The Influence of Age on Fattening Steers iI-Iin wlthm 30 days to _ Texan.- ..... 5 B. YOUNGBLOOD, Dnmcuron, COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS 001mm, TEXAS STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CoNNER, M. S... V'ce Director CHARLES A. FELKER, C ief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary A. D. JAcKsoN, Executive Assistant CHARLES GORZYCKI, Technical Assistant M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Assistant Chief Clerk VETERINARY SCIENCE *M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief H. Scmvnnr, D. V. S., Veterinarian V. J. BRAUNER, D. V. M., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY G. S. FRAPS, Ph. ., Chief; State Chemist S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist N. B. GUERRANT, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. E. TEAGUE, B. S., Assistant Chemist A. G. PETERSON, B. S., Assistant Chemist WALno WALKER, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE H. NEss, M. S., Chief W. S. HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist ANIMAL INDUSTRY J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chic; . M. SnERwoon, B. S., oultry H usbandman . R. WARREN, B. S., Swine Husbandman . L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman (genetics) “Q26 ENTOMOLOGY——Continued. H. B. PARKS, B. S., Apiculturist S. RUDE, B. S., Entomologist H. ALEx, B. S., Queen Breeder . O. VicToR, JR., Apiary Ins ector . R. JoRnAN, B. S., Apiary nspector AGRONOMY A B. CQNNER, M. S., Chief A H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronomist E B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Agronomist G. N. STRQMAN, M. S., Agronomist; Farm Superintendent **PEARL DRUMMOND, Seed Analyst PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief COTTON BREEDING ***G. F. FREEMAN, D. Sc., Chief IE. P. HUMBERT, Ph. D., Acting Chief E. O. REA, B. S., Plant Breeder FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Farm and Ranch Economist R. N. WADE, Laboratory Assistant SOIL SURVEY - **W. T. CARTER, JR., B. S., Chief H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor H. V. GEIB, B. S., Soil Surveyor C. A. W W L. M. MURPHY, Wool and Mohair Specialist FEED CONTROL SERVICE J. D. SUNKEL, Dairyman B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief Inspector ENTOMOLOGY S. D. PEARcE, Inspector M. C. TANQUARY, Ph. D., Chief; State J. H. ROGERS, Inspector Entomologist W. H. Woon, Inspector H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist J. J. KELLY, Inspector SUBSTATIONS Y No. 1. Beeville, Bee County No. 10. College Station, Brazos County I. E. COWART, M. S., Superintendent No. 2. Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent No. 4. Beaumont, Jefierson County A. H. PRiNcE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5. Temple, Bell County _ D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent No. 6. Denton, Denton County P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7. Spur, Dickens County R. E. DICKSON, B.;S., Superintendent 8. No. Lubbock, Lubbock County R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent No. 9. Balmorhea, Reeves County J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent TAs of July 1, 1923. (Feeding and Breeding Substation) L. J. McCALL, Superintendent No. ll. Nacogdoches, Naco doches County G. T. McNEss, Superinten ent **No. 12. Chillicothe, Hardeman County A. B. CRoN, B. S., Superintendent No. 14. Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent D. H. BENNETT, V. M. D., Veterinarian SchoolYof Agriculture Men Carrying Cooper- ative Projects on the Station S. W. BILSING, Professor of Entomology _ A. T. Porrs, Professor of Vegetable Gardening D. W. WILLIAMS, Professor of Animal H us- bandry, Hogs _ F. A. BUEciiEL, Professor of Agricultural Economics G. W. ADRIANCE, Associate Professor of Horticulture _ W. E. GARNETT, Professor of Rural Sociolggy G. P. GROUT, Professor of Dairy Husban ry *In cooperation with School of Veterinary Medicine, A. and M. College of Texas. **In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. "giln cooperation with Schoolfof Agriculture, A. and M. College of Texas. On leave. CONTENTS. PAGE i} ll ary of Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1,31“ ary 0f Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 PART I. ‘ject of This Experiment .... ........................... .. 7 ivious Experiments With Feeding Cottonseed Meal and Hulls. . . 7 le 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 . . . . . . . . . .. 9 le Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 liminary 'l‘reatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 'ghts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 "ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 d‘ of Rations—Table 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 , cter and Composition of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 if ysis of Feeds Used—Table 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Vther Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 and Health of Steers . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1 I ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 w ts for 9O Days and 120 Days—Table 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 j» ts by 30-Day Periods—Table 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 keting and Killing Results—-Table 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Lussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 1i 1. Rate of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 -2. Economy of Gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 s. Final Condition of the Steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1v 4. Usual Prices of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 [Ck Produced and Feed Consumed by Hogs-—Table 7 . . . i . . . . . . . . 19 = itutes for Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 titutes for Cottonseed Hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 a PART II uduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 1 e Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . .. 22 A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ‘inary Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 F er Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ‘tite and Health of Steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . .. 23 ‘hts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 g Rations, Weights, Gains, and Cost of Gains—Table 8 . . . . . .. 24 PAGE Results by 30-Day Periods-Table 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Marketing and Killing Results—Table 10 . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 1. Rate of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 2. Economy of Gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3. Length of Feeding Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 4. Final Condition of Steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26- Pork Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 Pork Produced and Feed Consumed by Hogs—Table 11 . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Ordinary Financial Aspects of Fattening Steers of DifferentAges. . 27 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Energy Value of Rations Fed—Tab1e 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 Financial Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Bulletin N0. 309 June, 1923 I. FATTENING STEERS ON COTTON SEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED HULLS WITH AND WITHOUT CORN H. THE INFLUENCE OF AGE ON FATTENIN G STEERS BY J. M. JoNEs J. L. LUSH J. H. JONES SUMMARY OF PART I .1 This experiment was to determine Whether the adding of corn to a ‘gration of cottonseed meal and hulls for fattening mature steers would he more profitable than the feeding of meal and hulls alone in years iwhen corn is extremely high in price. A The steers were fed for 120 days and those receiving corn gained about one-third more than those which received only meal and hulls. This difference Was greatest toward the end of the feeding period be- ifcause the steers which received only meal and hulls fell off much more rapidly in their rate of gain dirring the last thirty days, almost ceasing ‘J to gain at all during the last fifteen days. " i The steers receiving only meal and hulls required a greater number of pounds of feed to produce a hundred pounds of gain but utilized more roughage and less concentrates. With cottonseed meal and ground f shelled corn costing about the same price pound for pound and hulls a costing about one-fourth as much, the cost of one hundred pounds of gain was lesswhere only meal and hulls were fed, except in the last r thirty days when the small gain being made by the steers receiving Zmeal and hulls caused their gain to be more expensive. The steers receiving corn finished so much evener and fatter that they sold for 84.3 cents more per hundred pounds, thereby more than "gmaking up the extra cost of their feed bill and returning a slightly Zlarger profit. It was impossible to finish the steers on meal and hulls 5to as high a degree as those receiving corn, because the former were ;ceasing to gain in weight. The inability to properly finish the cattle fwas the most serious single defect of the cottonseed-meal-and-hulls ration. The first faint indications of cottonseed-meal poisoning were begin- ‘ning to be evident at the end of the experiment in the steers which mere fed on meal and hulls alone. kc Hogs following the steers which received ground shelled corn pro- ‘ uced an average of 10.94 pounds of pork from the droppings of each _ er during the last 104 days of the experiment. i With cottonseed hulls at $9.92 per ton and cottonseed meal at $36.60 ‘ r ton corn would have had to cost more than $1.07 per bushel before t would have been more profitable to have left it out of the ration than 6 BULLETIN No. 309. to have fed it. The price of corn very rarely gets that high in relation to the price of cottonseed meal and hulls and therefore this ration of cottonseed meal and hulls alone does not often deserve to be considered. Cottonseed meal and hulls should not be full fed for periods of much if any more than 90, to 100 days, and not then unless the price of corn is practically as high pound for pound as that of cottonseed meal. Other experiments have shown that the feeding period. can be con- siderably prolonged and the danger from cottonseed-meal poisoning les- sened if silage is fed with the cottonseed meal and hulls. Other experiments point to the same general conclusions as this one although this one yielded exceptionally large gains and exceptionally economical gains on both rations. In many parts of Texas it will usually be found economical to substi- tute the grain sorghums for corn in these rations a11d sorghum hay or fodder for at least part of the cottonseed hulls. Other experiments have shown that the feeding value of the grain sorghums is practically equal pound for pound to that of corn. SUMMARY OF PART II This experiment was to determine the effects of age upon fattening steers. The steers used were high-grade Herefords closely related. Eleven long two-year-olds in fair feeder flesh constituted one lot, and fifteen long yearlings which were not so well fleshed constituted the other. The ration was the same per 1000 pounds of live weight for both lots and consisted of a definite amount of ground shelled corn and cotton- seed meal, and cottonseed hulls according to appetite. The younger steers ate a slightly larger proportion of hulls. The older steers gained more per steer but less per 1000 pounds of live Weight. The average cost of 100 pounds of gain was $11.81 per steer with the older steers and $9.94 with the younger steers. When they were marketed after being fed 120 days the older steers were nearer than the younger ones to the end of the period when they could make profitable gains. The older steers were fatter than the younger ones, outsold them 59 cents per 100 pounds, and outdressed them 1.4 per cent. The older steers shrank in transit a larger number of pounds, but a smaller per cent. of their live weight. Hogs following the steers gained more per steer from the older steers but not much more in proportion to the total amount of corn fed. For all three lots taken together 67 tons of feed and 13 tons of feeder steers were manufactured into 19 tons of finished steers which could be marketed for very little more than it would have cost to market the original feeder steers. These figures indicate that it is cheaper to ship the steers to where the feed is grown than to pay freight on the feed to a convenient place for feeding the steers. To serve the best interests of the country as a whole cattle feeding should be regarded and engaged in in each community as a method of marketing the surplus feed of that localitv. FATTENING STEEEs. 7 PART I FATTENING STEERS ON COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON- SEED HULLS WITH AND WITHOUT CORN OBJEoT 0F THIs EXPERIMENT This experiment Was planned to find the answer to the question of whether steers on a ration of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls would make large enough and cheap enough gains to be more profitable than steers which received a considerable amount of ground shelled corn in addition. It has been known for many years that a ration consisting only of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls cannot be made as well balanced a as it could be if ground corn or some ground grain sorghum were added to it. However, very few direct comparisons have been made hereto- fore between two such rations to determine whether the poorer ration might not still be good enough to return the greatest profit in years a- when cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls are low and corn and the grain sorghums high in price. ‘ PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTS WITH FEEDING CoTToNsEEn MEAL AND HULLs Cottonseed hulls are bulky and do not have a high feeding value per ,_ pound. Therefore moving them from one place to another is expensive and freight costs have always been high enough to keep them from , ever having been fed to a very great extent commercially more than a short distance from where they were grown. Cottonseed meal, on the . other hand, is a very concentrated and valuable feed and therefore is " being shipped to and fed in almost all parts of the United States and in many countries of Europe. As. a result of these two facts cottonseed meal has been used in fattening beef cattle in many experiments widely scattered over the United States, but cottonseed hulls have been used § extensively in the experimental feeding of beef cattle only in the South- ; tern states. When cottonseed meal is fed outside of the cotton-producing . regions it is fed in small quantities for the sake of its high protein con- — tent, which is needed to balance the rations ordinarily fed on the farms of the northern and western states. Tn the cotton-producing regions, 1" however, cottonseed meal is often fed for its fattening value. Formerly this practice was much more common than at present* because the f growth of the dairy industry all over the nation and the more general , diffusion of knowledge about balanced rations has created a large de- mand for cottonseed meal outside of the cotton belt on the part of men who want it for its protein content and are willing to pay for it on that basis. On the basis of its protein content a pound of cottonseed meal ‘Bulletin No. 41, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (1896). “By far the greater part of Texas stall-fed steers are fattened on a ration of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hu1ls.” 8 BULLETIN N0. 309. is worth much more than any of the ordinary grains but on the basis of its fattening value it is" Worth little if any more than many other com- mon feeds such as corn and the grain sorghums. This increased demand for cottonseed meal on account of its protein content has lifted its price so much that ordinarily the feeder even in the cotton belt can better afford to feed only enough cottonseed meal to balance his ration and secure the energy in some cheaper feed than he can to feed the cotton- seed meal for its energy value alone. Cottonseed meal produced in Texas within the last fifteen years has been required by the Texas Feed Control Law to contain a higher amount of protein and a smaller amount of hulls than is required for interstate shipment or for sale within most bf the other cotton-producing states. This has resulted in a distinctly beneficial reputation for Texas cotton- seed meal in the markets and unless the analysis of the cottonseed meal is given this should be borne in mind when experiments conducted in other states are being compared with those in Texas. However, in spite of these changes in common feeding practice and in market demands there still occur times when the price of cottonseed meal is so low in relation to that of other feeds that many Southern cattle feeders go back to the common ration of ten to thirty years ago, namely, cottonseed meal and hulls. It was to determine if ppssible just how low in price modern high-protein cottonseed meal must get in com- parison with other feeds before the cattle feeder can afford to feed cotton- seed meal for its energy value alone that this experiment was under- taken. Although there have been many experiments in which fattening steers were fed on cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls alone, there have been very few in which such a ration has been compared with one to which corn or grain sorghums have been added. Usually when cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls have been fed, the object has been to find out more about the poisonous effects of cottonseed meal after prolonged feeding periods or to test the values of silage or different kinds of hay as supplements to or substitutes for cottonseed hulls. Experiments dealing directly with the question of adding corn to a basal ration of cottonseed meal and hulls for nearly mature steers are reported in Texas Bulletins 10 and 55 (both now out of print) and in Bulletin 103 of the Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D. (l, and in Farmers’ Bul- letin 628, U. S. Department of Agriculture. The results of using sim- ilar rations for calves are discussed in Alabama Bulletin 158 and in Farmers’ Bulletin 631, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Table 1 shows a summary of the important results obtained with mature steers in the four bulletins cited above. m‘; .;m.-.w.u.“-_~.-.a._....r.i ....i . .1‘ . a-a-aifi-nmiwm. FATTENING STEERs. _ 9 Table 1 Bureau U. S. Dept. Reference to Bulletin Texas 10 Texas 55 Animal Agriculture Average Industry 103 628 Year completed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1890 1899 1908 1915 . . . . . . . . . . Number of days . . . . . . _. . . z . . 90 100 84 96 92.5 Per cent. crude protein in cottonseed Mmea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 .2 “Average 38.6 . . . . . . . . . . qual1ty” Steers fed on cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls alone- Initial weight. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . 713 .75 684 734 967 774 .75 Average daily gain. . . . .. . . . .. 2.292 2.139 1 .55 1.42 1 .85 Daily ration~—Meal. . . . . . . . .. 5.933 4.064 - 5.6 3.25 4.71 Hulls . . . . . . . .. 17.38 22.26 19.5 11.88 17.76 Steers fed corn-and-cob meal in addition to cot tonseed meal and cotton- _ seed hulls- Initial weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785 .5 692 737 941 788 .9 Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . 2.292 2. 104 1 .69 1.61 1 .92 Daily Corn-and-cob meal. . 4.972 2.894 2. 17 2.0 3.01 ration Cottonseed meal. . . . 4.076 4.292 4.33 2.11 3.7 . Cottonseed hulls. . . . 16.589 19.352 19.4 9.25 16.15 The results given in this table show that the addition of corn-and-cob meal to the ration increased the rate of gain slightly but also increased the feed consumed per pound of gain. All of the rations are small and most of the gains would be considered rather unsatisfactory today. A number of other experiments using similar rations but with the addition of small amounts of molasses, silage, or hay tended to show the same thing, namely, that the addition of corn to a ration consisting mainly of cottonseed meal and hulls will increase the rate of gain but will also increase the cost of feed per one hundred pounds of gain unless the price of corn be low as compared to the prices of cottonseed meal and hulls. The cattle which have made the largest gains usually sell for a higher price than the others because they are fatter, and thereby return to their feeder the extra cost of their feed bill or more. Other interest- ing conclusions reached from these experiments, but not shown in the tables, are that steers fed on cottonseed meal and hulls alone usually begin to lose the keenness of their appetites some time between eighty and a hundred days after they go on feed and, as they eat less and less, it becomes increasingly unprofitable to continue to feed them, while steers which also receive corn continue on feed for much longer periods. Moreover, when the feeding of a large amount (six to eight pounds or more per head per day) of cottonseed meal to mature steers_is prolonged much beyond a hundred days with cottonseed hulls as the sole roughage there is danger of loss from cottonseed-meal poisoning?“ The results with feeding these rations to calves are similar with the exception that the high protein content of the cottonseed¢meal-and-hulls ration causes the calves to tend to grow rather than fatten** arfd the fact that calves require a longer feeding period than older cattle and therefore the danger of poisoning and the ill effects of the loss of appetite, after the early part of the feeding period, are greater and more serious with the feeding of calves than with the feeding of older cattle. *N. C. Bulletin N0. 109; Journal of Agricultural Research 1915, Vol. V, pages 261-288; Journal of Agricultural Research 1918, Vol. XII, pages 83-102, 425-551. **U. S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers’ Bulletin No. 631. 1O I BULLETIN N0. 309. In view of the differences in the composition of the cottonseed meal used in the experiments referred to above and the cottonseed meal which is being sold in Texas at present, the above results are not absolutely correct as measures of the value of the addition of corn to a ration of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls under present conditions. There are four fundamental things which need to be known about the addition of corn to a ration of cottonseed meal and hulls. They are, first, how much the addition of corn will increase the daily gain; second, how much the addition of corn will increase the amount of feed consumed per hundred pounds of gain; third, how much the addition of corn will prolong the period during which large gains can be made; and fourth, how much more desirable the corn-fed animals are from the standpoint of the butcher when both lots have finally put on all. the fat which they can, economically. An excellent opportunity was offered to test this out at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Substation No. 7 at Spur in Dickens County during the winter of 1922-23 due to the fact that both cotton- seed meal and cottonseed hulls could be purchased at Spur in October , for moderate prices ($36.60 and $9.92 per ton) While there were no surplus grain sorghums available locally, and shelled corn, which could be purchased cheaper than the grain sorghums this year, sold, when delivered and ground, at an unusually high price ($1.01 per bushel, which is equivalent to $36.08 per ton or almost equal to the price of cottonseed meal pound for pound). CATTLE UsEn The cattle used were high-grade Hereford steers, being the result of five to seven top crosses of purebred Hereford sires upon grade Hereford cows. They were dropped on the Ranch Experiment Station, near Sonora, in the early spring of 1920 and were approximately thirty-two months old when the feeding test began on November 1, 1922. Most of the steers were of very good feeder conformation but there was some variation in the amount of flesh which they carried at the be- ginning of the test. Most of them carried enough fiesh to be in good thrifty condition but a few showed some eifect of their scanty pasture in the thinness of their fiesh. The two thinnest steers were not included in the test and one other was removed from Lot IV in the second month of the experiment. The steers were divided into two lots on the basis of weight, the amount of flesh they carried, and their desirable feeder characteristics; hence any possible differences in the rate or economy of gain due to the differences in the amount of fat which each steer carried at the beginning of the experiment should have been equally divided between the two lots. The committee of three stockmen who inspected and appraised the steers at the beginning of the experiment were agreed that the two lots were equally matched. PRELIMINARY TREATMENT These steers were raised under ranch management typical of south- western Texas, which means that they received no feed other than grass except a little cottonseed cake in times of great feed scarcity. The graz- ing was abundant through 1920 and until mid-summer of 1921, from mama-x.» s- n... FATTENING STEERs. 11 which time on account of continued drought it became very scanty until early in May of 1922 when they were transferred to Substation No. 7, at Spur in Dickens County, where the grazing was fairly good until about the middle of July, after which it failed rapidly on account of continued dry Weather. Beginning September 26th and until October 22nd they were fed 1.0 to 1.5 pounds of cottonseed cake per head per day on pasture. Be- ginning October 23 the allowance of cottonseed cake was rapidly in- creased until the last twenty-four hours before the test oflicially began on November 1st they were receiving cottonseed meal at the rate of 3.5 pounds per head per day. The first cottonseed hulls fed were 10.0 pounds per head on October 25th and this amount was gradually in- creased until the last twenty-four hours before the test began they re- ceived an average of 13.6 pounds per head. During this period of feed- ing on pasture twenty-11ine head of other cattle, mostly younger, were fed with them and, since they used their horns freely in keeping the younger cattle away from the feed troughs, these two—year-olds ate more than their actual share which is shown above. , The steers were not dehorned but did have the tips cut off of their horns October 21 so as to prevent them from injuring each other. These were healed when the test began eleven days later. WEIGHTS All weights were taken at the same time of day, beginning at 1 o’clock. All steers were weighed individually each time. Weights were taken on three successive days at the beginning and end of the test, using- the average of the three weights as the initial and final averages re- spectively, and counting the middle days of the three as the beginning and end of the test from the standpoint of feed consumed. In addition an indiviual Weight of each steer was taken every thirty days during the test. RATIONS The chemical composition of the ground shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and cottonseed hulls used is shown on page 12. The amounts of each feed actually fed during each thirty-day period is shown in Table 5 age 14. Those amounts were determined according to the plan shown in Table 2. Table 2. Plan of rations. Pounds of feed per day per 1000 lbs. live weight. First I Second Last Lot No. Feed 30 days 30 days 60 days Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 3.25 2.5 I Lot III Ground shelled corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 l 10.75 12.0 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.0 I 17.5 15.0 Lot IV Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.0 ~ 6.0 6.0 Cottonseed_hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.0 24 .0 24.0 In actual practice the steers often showed an appetite for more feed than this and they were then allowed enough additional cottonseed hulls 12 BULLETIN N0. 309. to keep them contented. This will explain the deviations of Table 5 from what was planned as shownin Table 2. ' CHARACTER AND COMPOSITION or FEEDS All corn fed was of No. 2 grade. Mixed corn, mostly yellow, was used the first seventy-three days; then white corn was used for eleven days; then mixed corn for thirteen days; then yellow corn for the re- mainder of the test. Samples were taken of the feeds used at 30-day intervals (or oftener if new lots were purchased and fed between two sampling dates) and analyzed by Dr. G. S. Fraps, Chief of the Division of Chemistry of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. The aver- age analysis of each feed is given in Table 3. Table 3. Average percentage analysis of feeds used in 1922-23 steer feeding experiment. Ground shelled Cottonseed Cottonseed corn meal hulls Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . 9.84 43 21 3.975 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.81 1 1.050 Crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.77 11 51 47.315 Nitrogen-free extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.50 25 51 37.435 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.70 6 46 7.785 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.38 5 30 2.440 The feed bunks were 10 inches deep and only that very small portion of the feed which dropped from the steers’_ mouths while they were chew- ' ing was wasted. The feeds were always thoroughly mixed in the bunks so that no steer could get an undue proportion of concentrates. Feed- ing was done twice a day, at seven in the morning and five-thirty in the evening. Salt and water were available at all times. WEATHER CONDITIONS Weather conditions during the feeding trial were almost ideal. Dur- ing the period 1373 inches of rain fell. This moisture was a positive benefit in that at no time was the rain heavy enough to make the lots muddy, and that it always cleansed and cooled the air. It would have been very desirable to have had more of these showers, for at times the air was so dry and full of dust as to be oppressive. The cool weather which prevailed during the last forty days of the trial held the appetites of the steers up as nothing else would have done. The large gains may in part be ascribed to the almost ideal weather which prevailed. The feed lots were forty by eighty feet and sloped to the south enough to be well drained. They were surrounded by a tight board fence six feet high on the north and north ends of the east and west sides but no other shelter was provided against rain or wind. Water Was provided in a tank situated at the lower end of the lots where both lots of steers could reach it. APPETITE AND HEALTH or STEEBs During the first ninety days of the test the appetities of the steers were even larger than was expected. None of the steers of Lot 3 were FATTENING Srnnns. i 13 sick at any time during the test. One steer in Lot 4 10st weight from the time he was put in the pen until removed on December 1.6. His sharevof feed consumed up to that date was deducted from the record of Lot 4. About one hundred days after the beginning of the test most of the steers of Lot 4 began to fall off somewhat in their appetites. One of them was quite sick on the 97th and 98th days but showed signs of impaction rather than cottonseed-meal poisoning. He apparently recovered but did not wholly regain his appetite; and he lost over sixty pounds in the last fifteen days of the test. When this steer was slaugh- tered at Fort Worth a large abscess was found in the lower front portion of the second stomach (reticulum) indicating that a nail or wire swal- lowed with the feed had pierced the stomach at this place. This had evidently been the cause of his sickness on the 97th and 98th days of the test and of his subsequent loss of weight. In the tables of results, the results of the first, second, and third thirty-day periods and of the first ninety days and the marketing and killing data are calculated to include this steer but the results of the last thirty days and of the whole one hundred and twenty days are calculated without his weights and subtracting his proportionate share from the amount of feed eaten, since it was evidently unfair to include his last thirty days’ performance. The steers of Lot 4 were weighed on the 105th day and showed a good gain (2.28 pounds per head per day) for the preceding fifteen days, but gained only .39 pound per day, for the following fifteen days. Resume The Weights, gains, and daily rations are shown in Table 4 for the first 90 days, and for the whole 120-day period. The cost of gain is included as the best practical single figure for expressing the efficiency of each ration in different periods, but it is recognized that this figure would be different if other prices were used for the feeds. Especially if the price of corn were lower, ‘as it would be ordinarily, the cost of gain would be materially reduced for Lot 3. Table 4. All figures are in pounds except where otherwise noted. Lot III Lot IV Lot III Lot IV first first 120 days 120 days 90 days 90 days Number of steers included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10 11 9 Initial wei ht . . . . . . . . . . 840. 1 848.5 840. 1 834.4 Weights . . . . . . . . . . Final welg t . . . . . . . . . . . 1137.1 1087.4 1226.6 1123.6 Total gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297.0 238.9 386.5 289. 1 Daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.3 2.65 3.22 2.41 Cottonseed meal. . . .. 3.19 6.05 3.24 6.17 Daily ration . . . . . . Ground shelled corn. . . . 10.77 . . . . . . . . . . 12. 12 . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . 21.51 25.57 20.68 26.00 Feed consumed per Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . 96.8 227.8 100.5 256. 1 100 lbs. gain.. . . Ground shelled corn. . . . 326.5 . . . . . . . . . . 376.4 . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . 651 .7 963.1 642 .2 1079 .2 Feed consumed per Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . 287 .5 544.2 388.5 740.4 steer . . . . . . . . . . . Ground shelled corn. . . . 969.7 . . . . . . . . . . 1454.6 . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . 1935.5 2301.3 2481 .8 3120.3 Cost of feed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 10.89 S 8.95 3 11.81 8 10.04 14 BULLETIN N0. 309. Table 5 shows the results by 30-day periods. Table 5. Cost of Average Lot No. Daily ration Feed consumed per 100 lbs. Initial daily 100 lbs. gain gain weight gain i‘ First thirty days. Lot III 3.54C.S.M . . . . .. 115.6C.S.M..... 11 steers 8.41 corn . . . . . . . . .. 274.6 corn......... $ 10.11 840.1 3.06 18.77 hulls . . . . . . . . . 612.8 hulls . . . . . . . . Lot IV 5.39 C.S.M . . . . .. 210.2 C. 8.17 848.5 2.56 10 steers 22.34 hulls . . . . . . . . . 871 . 1 hulls . . . . . . . . Second thirty days. Lot III 3.23 C.S.M . . . . .. 94.54 C. 11 steers 10.41 corn . . . . . . . . .. 305.12 corn . . . . . . . .. $ 10.61 932.0 3.41 23.21 hulls . . . . . . . .. 680.31 hulls . . . . . . .. Lot IV 6.18 C.S.M . . . . .. 216.3 C. 8.56 925.4 2.86 10 steers 26.54 hulls . . . . . . . . . 928.0 hulls . . . . . . . . Third thirty days. Lot III 2.81 C.S.M . . . . .. 82.2 C.S.M..... 11 steers 13.50 corn . . . . . . . . . . 394.2 corn . . . . . . . . . $ 11.87 1034.4 3.42 22.53 hulls . . . . . . . . . 658.0 hulls . . . . . . . . Lot IV 6.56 C.S.M . . . . .. 258.4 C. 10.16 1011.2 2.54 10 steers 27.83 hulls . . . . . . . . . 1095.8 hulls . . . . . . . . Fourth thirty days. Lot III 3.37 C.S.M . . . . .. 112.9 C. 11 steers 16.16 corn . . . . . . . .. 542.1 corn. .. . . . . . . $ 14.87 1137.1 2.98 18.21 hulls . . . . . . . .. 610.7 hulls . . . . . . .. Lot IV 6.54 C. S.M . . . . .. 3911C. 15.26 1073.4 1.67 9 steers 27.3 hulls . . . . . . . . . 1632.8 hulls . . . . . . . . m (If the steer with the abscess were included in the results for Lot IV for the fourth thirty days, the daily gain would be 1.30 pounds, the amount of feed consumed per 100 pounds of gain would be 504 pounds of cottonseed meal and 2103.7 pounds of hulls, and the cost of feed per 100 pounds of gain would be $19.65.) MARKETING elThe marketing and killing results for the two lots are presented in Table 6. FATTENING Srnnns. 15 Table 6. ‘ Lot III I Lot IV 5.. C. Ft- Weight at Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1226.6 lbs. 1126.3 lbs. Weight at Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109.1 lbs. 1011 .0 lbs. s. Shrinkage in tr_ansit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117.5 lbs. 115.3 lbs. f; Pel‘ cent of_shrinkage.. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . 58% 10 24% E. Carcass weights (deducting 2%%Lfor chilling) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613.5 lbs. s02 .4 lbs. é Dressing per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.72% 59.58% Per cent of live weight which was hide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.30% 7.357 E; Per cent of live weight which was internal _fat* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.56% 4.35%.; y. Price received per hundred pounds live weight at Fort Worth. . . . $ 9.13 3 8 .28 . l (*By internal fat is meant the ediblejat whichlis taken from the body cavity and which is 5 not a part of the sides of dressed beef.) DISCUSSION or RESULTS 1. Rate 0f Gain.—Gains for both lots of steers were quite satisfac- tory and in fact were above the average for such cattle on such rations. The lot receiving corn gained more at every period than the lot which received only meal and hulls. The lot receiving corn gained about twenty per cent. faster than the other lot during the first two periods, about thirty-five per cent. faster during the third period, and almost eighty per cent. faster during the fourth period. The average total gains per steer, together with the “probable errors” of those gains and the coefficients of variability are as follows: Average‘ Coefiicient of total gain variability per steer of gain pounds per cent Lot III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 386.36 =i=11 .73 14.93 Lot IV (including steer with abscess) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 .87 5:13.54 22.84 Lot IV (excluding steer with abscess). . . : . . . . . . . . . 289. 1 =|=12.74 19.60 Difierence between Lot III and Lot IV (includinglsteer _ with abscess) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . 108.49 $17.91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Difference between Lot III and Lot IV (excluding steer with abscess) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.26 =|=17.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Probable error” does not refer to any mistakes in taking or recording d_ata—-_(all data were carefully checked to exclude such mistalges)——b*ut does show the hrnits within which the results might beexpected to corne if the experiment were repeated. It i_s based upon the variations of the gains of the individual steers from the average gain for their lot and upon the number of steers used. _ were; s s1 _ _ _ _Even with the steer with the_ abscess excluded which is certainly a fairer comparison) the difierence between the two lots is 5.6 times its pro able error or, in other_ words, the odds are about 14,000 to 1 that any other group of similar steers fed on the corn ration will make greater gains than if fed meal and_ hulls alone. This amounts to certainty so far as there 1S any cer- tainty in human observations. _ The. greater variability in the amount of gain made by the steers of Lot IV confirms the judgment of the buyer that they were much less uniform in degree of finish than the steers which received corn. This emphasizes one very important practical difference between the two rations, which is that the meal-and-hulls ration is ,not adapted to as long a feeding period as the ration containing corn. At the end of ninety days the lot on meal and hulls were beginning to gain more slowly and after one hundred and five days they almost ceased to gain at all. They were not well finished when they were sold; that is, they did not carry enough fat to meet the butchefs ideal, and they brought a lower price accordingly, but they had put on nearly all the fat which 16 BULLETIN N0. 309. they could with that particular ration. Only one steer showed definite symptoms of cottonseed-meal poisoning other than the loss of appetite which several of them were beginning to show. That steer (which was not the one with the abscess) had been gradually going oflt‘ feed for several days before the end of the test, his eyes were getting dull, his joints swollen, and he walked slowly and stiffly. A heavy ration of cottonseed meal and hulls is suited only to short feeding periods, preferably not more than eighty or ninety days and cer- tainly not much more than one hundred days. Since this ration does not produce very large gains it necessarily follows that market-topping cattle cannot be produced by it unless they carry a considerable amount of fat when they go on feed, and that the type of feeding to which this ration is best adapted is the finishing of mature steers which are already in fair flesh. During the last thirty days the rate of gain was beginning to decrease in the lot which received corn, but there is no evidence to indicate that the steers would not have made at least fair gains for another month. Most of them were finished enough that it would not have been profitable to feed them for another month, but a few needed more fat to make them ideal beef. 2. Economy of Gains.—The lot which received only cottonseed meal and hulls uniformly required the most pounds of feed for each hundred pounds of gain, but a greater proportion of this feed was roughage and less of it was concentrates than with the lot which received corn. At the prices actually used in figuring the cost of feed per hundred pounds of gain in this experiment the gain of the lot fed on meal and hulls alone was cheaper during every period except the fourth, and if they had been capable of gaining as fast and finishing into as desirable a condition as the other lot they would have been the most profitable. However, as pointed out previously, the price of corn was high in com— parison to that of cottonseed meal and hulls this year, and it will readily be seen that any decrease in the price of corn or increase in the price of cottonseed meal and hulls would have made the gains of Lot III cheaper or those of Lot IV more expensive. In either event the difference be~ tween them would have been more in favor of the lot receiving corn and it is safe to say that the test this year is more favorable to the meal and hulls ration from the standpoint of cost than it would be any year in the future when prices are normal. The increase in the cost of gain for each lot each month that it was fed is typical of all livestock fattening. The animals eat more and more in proportion to the amount of gain they make each succeeding ' month. Probably the extreme increase in cost of gain shown by Lot IV during the last thirty days is partially due to the effect of the beginning of cottonseed-meal poisoning. It is this increasing expensiveness of gain, however, in normally healthy cattle which often causes the cattle feeder to market his cattle too soon. A much larger proportion of the gains in the last stages of fattening is true fat than in the early stages, when much of the gain in body Weight is protein and body liquids. This explains why the last few weeks of feeding do so much more to increase the market value of the steers than the first weeks of feeding do. Mar- keting cattle before they are quite well enough finished is probably the FATTENING STEERs. 17 most common mistake among men who do not feed cattle regularly, or are new at the business. By doing so they often fail to raise the value of the cattle a few cents per hundred pounds and thereby fail to make a substantial profit. a . 3. Final Condition of the iS’z‘eers.——The steers were loaded at Spur on the morning of March 3, unloaded at Stamford that night for feed (hay) and water, loaded again early the next morning and arrived at Fort Worth in time for the early market March 5th. A cold north wind had been blowing during both days and it was raining in Fort Worth. They were allowed water and prairie hay but no grain and were weighed t0 Armour & Company about 10 o’clock, before they had opportunity to take a fill. Ten of the steers of Lot III were sold at $9.25 per cwt., topping the market. The other steer of Lot III was not so well finished and sold for $7.75 per cwt., making the average price received for eleven head, $9.13 per cwt. Five of the steers of Lot IV (including both the steer with the abscess and the steer beginning to show cottonseed meal poisoning) sold for $8.75 and the other five for $7.75, making an average price of $8.28 per cwt. for the steers which received only cottonseed meal and hulls. These prices may be regarded as a fairly accurate indication of the opinion of the paekerbuyers as to the desirability of each lot for beef. They also show the greater unevenness of Lot IV in that it had five individuals which were inferior in finish, whereas Lot III had but one. This opinion of the buyers is shown to be correct by the killing records, where it will be seen that Lot III dressed out 1.14 per cent. heavier than Lot IV and possessed over 50 per cent. more internal fat than Lot IV. Among partially fat animals, of the same breeding and the same treat- ment previous to fattening, the amount of this internal fat may be taken as a_ fair indication of the total amount of fat which they carry. This difference in the amount of internal fat agrees fairly well with the differ- ence in total gain which they made in the feed-lots at Spur, in which Lot III gained about 40 per cent. more total weight than Lot IV. The dressed sides of the corn-fed steers carried more fat which was whiter and more evenly distributed than was the case with the meat from the steers fed on meal and hulls alone. The fat of some of the latter had a slightly yellowish tint but all were not uniform in this respect. Both lots made good beef but it was evident that the beef from the corn-fedlot with its thicker, smoother, and whiter fat would be a better advertisement in any butcher’s window and would bring a higher price to the packing company. The three most important factors which determine whether any ration is desirable are the rate of gain and the economy of the gain which it produces and how nearly it will finish the animals to meet the butcher’s requirements so that they will bring a high price when sold. It has already been shown that a ration of meal and hulls is distinctly inferior to one also containing corn, in the rate of gain which they produce, and that the meal-and-hulls ration is superior in its economy of gain, or at least that it was with the prices used in this experiment, and always will be from the standpoint of using a large amount of roughage and a small amount of valuable concentrates. It is in the third respect, however, 18 ‘ BULLETIN N0. 309. that the meal and hulls ration proves the most defective; the steers receiving it could not have been made fat enough to command as high a price as those receiving corn no matter how long they might have been fed. In fact, had they been fed much longer it is almost certain that there'w0uld have been serious losses from cottonseed-meal poisoning. The steers which received the corn were made so much more desirable from the butcher’s standpoint that they sold for a pgice enough higher - to more than overbalance the greater cost of their gains. 4. Usual Prices of Feeds.——Figure 1 shows the relation between Texas farm prices of corn, cottonseed meal, and cottonseed hulls over, the last ten years. The prices for hulls were not reported prior to 1915. PP1°° P9? - -- t- cottonseed meal. t -' " -' 100 lbs‘ -———-———- shelled corn. 1/ / \ -- ------- cottohseed hulls. /, \ 3 3.00 / 3 2.50 \ 1 \ / / \ cottonseed s 2.00 / meal. , / ”\she11ed corn. ._ ._/ 3 1 50 ’ __ __ =""-_____________ ________ A‘ s. I’, _‘ \ $ 1.00 _, ~’ ‘~._ '/ s, I, \ I I 4 I \ ‘a _»' ~~~~ __ , ' cottonseed $ ~50 '"' I?" mun. 19 3 19‘4 1 15 1 16 19 7 1 18 1 19 1920 1 21 1 22 Figure 1. Average price received by farmers in Texas for corn and paid by farmers in Texas for cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls during the last ten years. Figures furnished by the Bureau of Agrlcultura} Economics, United States Department of Agriculture. The arrows indicate the prices used in this experiment. ' I J I! l a Of course, there is variation from month to month and in different sec- tions of the state according to whether production has been large or small in that locality, but these figures will serve to show that, except for the last two years of the war, cottonseed meal has tended to bring a significantly higher price than corn pound for pound and that in plan- ning future feeding operations the cattle feeder must expect on the average to pay materially higher prices for a ton of cottonseed meal than for a ton of shelled corn, and therefore a ration of meal and hulls will not show up as well financially as it did in this test. The reason for this higher price of cottonseed meal is, as was pointed out previously, that it sells both on the basis of its high protein content and its feeding FATTENING STEERs. 19 value; Whereas corn which is slightly superior in its feeding value is very low in protein and therefore is purchased for its feeding value alone. The price of cottonseed hulls is very largely a local matter and will be determined largely by local production and demand, the freight making it almost prohibitive to ship hulls any great distance for feed- ing purposes. PoRK PRODUCED It is a well known fact that cattle which are eating a large amount of corn do not digest it all, but that some will pass through their bodies undigested. This amount is much larger if the corn they are eating is shelled corn or ear corn, but there is some of it even when the corn is ground before being fed to the steers, as it was in this experiment. Hogs which are kept in the same lots with the steers will recover most of this waste grain. From November 1'7 until the end of the test four hogs whose Weights varied between 29 and 240 pounds each were kept in a small pen by themselves in one corner of one of the feed lots and self-fed ground corn and tankage free-choice. They were to serve as a check lot upon the feed consumed and the gains made by the hogs following the steers. Four (and part of the time five) hogs whose weights varied between 76 and 216 pounds were kept in the pen with the steers of Lot III and were fed once daily a small amount of ground corn and tankage but not enough to keep them from actively working over the dropPings of the steers. Since the steers of Lot IV did not receive any corn, no hogs were used in this lot. The results with the hogs in the check lot and ' those following Lot III are shown in Table 7. Table 7. Pork produced and feed consumed by hogs. Lot III Check Lot Total ain in weight of each lot from November 17 to March 1 . . . . . . . 320 512 Total eed consumed by hogs: Tanka e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 262.5 Groun corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 1537.3 Ground darso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702 1799.8 Feed consumed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 .52 Amount of gain which is accounted for by assuming that 351 .52 lbs. of grain will produce 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199.7 512 Amount of gain produced from steer droppings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120.3 . . . . . . . . . . Amount of pork produced per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.94 . . . . . . . . . . The amount of feed required to produce a hundred pounds of gain in the check lot was unusually small. For hogs self-fed corn and tankage free-choice, this figure is usually about 400 pounds per 100 pounds of gain. However, if we take the amount of feed required to produce a hundred pounds of gain in the check lot in this experiment at its face value and assume that the pigs following the steers made just as efficient use of their feeds as did those in the check lot, there still remain 120.3 pounds of pork produced by Lot III and not accounted for by the grain which they were fed, or 10.94 pounds of pork were produced from each steer as a by-product. Probably the true amount of pork produced by the steers was somewhat more than this because the pigs which followed them were not fed enough to gain at the most efficient rate and there- 20 BULLETIN No. 309. fore a larger proportion of their feed was used for maintenance rather than growth. Therefore 10.94 is probably an understatement rather than an exaggeration oi’ the pork actually produced as a by-product by each steer. The hogs which followed the steers did not receive enough feed to make maximum gains and in general appearance looked rather’ unthrifty and had developed very large middles. It would therefore appear that one hog to three or four mature steers is ample to utilize all the waste grain when the steers are being fed a ration of ground shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and cottonseed hulls. The ground darso used during a part of the time instead of corn for Lot III is a relatively new grain sorghum, which has been receiving considerable publicity for the last two or three years and has a chemical composition and a feed- ing value similar to that of the other grain sorghums. Sunsrrrurns ron Com: In ordinary years it will be found profitable in many parts of Texas, particularly in the western part of the state, to use milo, feterita, or some other of the grain sorghums instead of corn. These grains have been found to be nearly or quite equal to corn pound for pound in fat- tening beef cattle* and can be more profitably used in localities where -corn is higher in price per pound of shelled corn. Sussrrrrrrns FOR COTTONSEED HULLs Many experiments have been conducted with the object of finding the value of different roughages as compared to cottonseed hulls.** Thus it has been determined that 100 pounds of silage is approximately equal in feeding value to between 65 and 70 pounds of hulls and that Johnson grass hay or sorghum hay when well enough cured and with stems fine enough that cattle will eat it is somewhat superior to cottonseed hulls pound for pound. A combination of silage and some dry roughage is usually superior to either one alone. *Texas AgriculturalZExperiment Station, 1922, Bulletin 1N0. 1296 “Grain Sorghum: vs. Corn for Fattening Baby Beeves.’ "Texas Bulletins Nos. 47, 55, 153, 263; Mississippi Report 1903, Mississippi Bglletins Nos. 167, 182; NorthTCarolina Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 35, North Carolina Bulletins Nos. 218, 222; U. S. D. A. Farrners’ Bulletins Nos. 631 762; U. S. Bureau of Animal Indust? Bulletin No. 103; Arizona BulletiuN o. 93; Henry and Morrison “Feeds and Feeding,” page 49 . FATTENING STEERS. 21 PART II THE INFLUENCE OF AGE ON FATTENING STEERS INTRODUCTION During the last two or three decades there has been a very marked change in the age and size of the fat steers which reach the terminal markets. Formerly two-year-olds were considered as young and small and there were many four-year-olds and even five-year-olds, although most of these older cattle went directly to market from grass and were not fattened in the feed lots. Now the two-year-olds and the yearlings furnish most of the fat steers which reach the markets by Way of the feed lots and even the feeding of calves is a very important branch of the feeding industry. It is not necessary to go into detail here about the causes which have brought about this change. Mostly it has been due to the increasing preference of the consumer for smaller cuts of meat than could be ob- tained from the fully mature steers, and to the rise in the values of land and cattle which has brought to bear upon the man who raises feeder cattle increasing economic pressure to sell them younger and secure a quicker turnover on the money invested. Obviously the ranchman can raise a greater number of feeder steers on a given area of land if they are sold as yearlings than if they are sold as two-year-olds. Whether he will make more money by selling them as yearlings is of course an- other question and will depend upon many economic factors such as the difference in the price of steers of different ages, the percentage of death losses on that particular ranch, the amount of money invested in these cattle, etc. However, for the man who buys these steers to fatten there are a number of differences in the feed-lot performance of steers of different ages, which are constant ‘and independent of price fluctuations. If these differences are known they will enable the prospective feeder -to esti~ mate more correctly whether, with prices as he finds them at any par- ticular time, he will find it most profitable to feed calves, yearlings, or older cattle. A considerable amount of experimental work has been done on this question at several different agricultural experiment stations and the results reported here do not pretend to answer completely the whole question, nor to discover any fundamentally new things about it. They are, however, further evidence in support of certain things indicated by work at other stations and are presented as such corroborating evidence. The general conclusions drawn from previous studies* of the ques- tion are: _ *The results of a lar e number of experiments and feeding trials are discussed in a condensed form in the two books isted below. sby, H. P. 1917. “The Nutrition of Farm Animals,” pp 430-438. The Mcmillani Company, New York City. Henry and Morrison, 1923. “Feeds and Feeding,” Eighteenth edition, unabridged, pp 448-454 The Henry-Morrison Company, Madison, Wisconsin. 22 BULLETIN No. 309. First, that the older steers gain more pounds per day per head than» the younger steers but not more per day per 1000 pounds of live weight. ' Second, that younger steers require less feed per hundred pounds of‘ gain. in their feed. Third, that older steers can utilize a larger proportion of roughage Fourth, that younger steers require a longer period of feeding to be? brought to the same degree of finish. Fifth, that a larger proportion of the gain made by the older steers is true fat and less of it is protein and water. Sixth, that steers of difierent ages are about equally eflicient in the utilization of the excess of digestible nutrients consumed above the re-fl quirements for maintenance. Armsby after discussing these conclusions from the standpoint of the; most efiicient production of the world’s meat supply makes the follow- ing statement: “Plainly the beginning of the fattening should be so? timed that it Will be completed by the time the rate of gain of lean meat 1' ceases to be profitable under the existing market conditions.” How-r‘ ever, he plainly recognizes that this may not hold true Where the man ; who produces the steers is not the man who fattens them. Moreover, T ' there are times when the market will pay a premium for cattle of a oer-i tain size or degree of finish having little direct relation to the economy of their production or to the intrinsic food value of each pound of meat, CATTLE Usnn The steers in Lot III already described in Part I of this Bulletin; were the group of older steers used for this comparison. They were long two-year-olds when the 120-day feeding test began and were three years old when it ended on March 1, 1923. The steers which consti» tuted the younger group were long yearlings when the 120-day feedingfl period began and were two years old when it ended on March 1, 1923. _ They were out of the same herd of cows and most of them were sired f by the same bulls as the older steers, and therefore many of them were? brothers or half-brothers to steers in the older lot. They were raised on_ the same ranch under the same system of management and differed. only in age and in the character of the grazing which they had at corre-fl sponding times in their lives. This latter difference was rather im- portant in this case because the older steers were dropped in a year of y abundant rainfall and did not suffer any check to their growth on ac-I. count of unusually scanty pastures until mid-summer of 1921 when they were fifteen to seventeen months old. From then until they went into; the feed lot November 1, 1922, they had only two months (May andf‘ June, 1922) of normally aabundant grazing. The period of drouthl began while the younger steers were still suckling their mothers and - they were weaned into rather bare pastures. Since this period of scanty » grazing began while they were much younger, they were affected more. harmfully by it and were stunted more than the older steers which had more nearly attained their full size before the drouth began. The men who appraised the steers at the beginning of the feeding test were agreed. that the steers were of good feeder type but that the yearlings were somewhat stunted. Therefore, there were two differences between these FATTENING STEERs. 23 two lots; the difference in age and the fact that the younger steers were neither as fat nor as large for their age as the older ones at the begin- ing of the trial. RATIONS The younger steers, which were known as Lot I, were fed the same ration_as Lot III per 1000 pounds of live weight. The younger steers showed, however, a slightly larger appetite throughout the experiment and therefore Were fed a somewhat larger proportion of hulls. The character and composition of the feeds were discussed on pages 11 and 12 of Part I. ' ~ PRELIMINARY TREATMENT The preliminary treatment of both lots was the same and has already been described on pages 10 and 11 in Part I. WEATHER CONDITIONS Weather conditions were almost ideal and are described in detail on page 12 in Part I. HEALTH AND APPETITE OF STEERS All of the steers in both lots were thrifty and had good appetites throughout the feeding period. The steers of Lot I were not so quiet as those in Lot III and did considerable fighting. Their horns were tipped so that they could not wound each other but the Weaker and more timid ones were prevented from always getting their full share at the feed trough. Their behavior in this respect was a powerful argu- ment for completely dehorning cattle which are to go into feed lots. WEIGHTS All steers were weighed individually three successive days at the begin- ning and end of the test and the average weights of the three days taken as the initial and final weights, respectively. The beginning and the end of the test were each calculated as the middle day of the three from the standpoint of feed consumed. Individual weights of each steer were also taken at thirty-day intervals. REsULTs The weights, gains, daily rations, and cost of gains are shown in Tables 8 and 9 by thirty-day periods and summed up for the whole 120-day feeding period. The figure for the cost of gain would be differ- ent if different prices for the feeds were used, but it would vary in nearly the same proportion for both lots since they were fed the same ration except that Lot I ate a slightly larger proportion of hulls. 24 BULLETIN No. 309. Table 8. Daily rations, weights, gains, and cost of gains. (All figures are in pounds except where otherwise stated.) Lot I Lot III 120 days 120 days Number of steers included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 11 f Initial weight . . . . . . . . . . 534.1 840.1 Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final weight . . . . . . . . . . . 866.7 1226.6 l Total gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332.6 386.5 Daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.77 3.22 Cottonseed meal . . . . . .. ' 2.3 3.24 Daily ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground shelled corn. . . . 8.73 12.12 L Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . 15.31 $0.68 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . 83. 1 100.5 Feed consumed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . Ground shelled corn. . . . 315.1 376.4 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . 552.4 642.2 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . 276.5 388 Feed consumed per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground shelled corn. . . . 1048.0 1454.6 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . 1837.0 2481.8 Cost. of feed per 100 lbs. of gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9.94 8 11.81 Table 9 shows the results by 30-day periods. Table 9. _ _ Cost of Average Lot No. Daily ration Feed consumed per 100 lbs. Initial daily 100 lbs. gain gain weight gain First thirty days. LotI 2.46 C.S.M . . . . .. 76.6 C.S.M.... 15 head 5.84 corn . . . . . . . .. 181.9 corn . . . . . .. S 6.78 534.1 3.21 _ 13.59 hulls . . . . . . . .. 423.3 hulls . . . . . . . Lot III 3.54 C. S.M . . . . .. 115.6 C.S.M.... 11 head 8.41 corn . . . . . . . .. 274.6 corn . . . . . .. S 10.11 840.1 3.06 18.77 hulls . . . . . . . . . 612.8 hulls . . . . . . . Second thirty days. LotI 2.23 C.S.M . . . . .. 91.2 C.S.M.... 15 head 7.34 corn . . . . . . . .. 300.9 corn . . . . . .. 8 10.53 630.4 2.44 16.90 hulls . . . . . . . . . 692.6 hulls . . . . . . . Lot III 3.23 C.S.M . . . . .. 94.5 C.S.M.... 11 head 10.41 corn . . . . . . . .. 305.1 corn . . . . . .. 10.61 932.0 3.41 23.21 hulls . . . . . . . . . 680.3 hulls . . . . . . . Third thirty days. Lot I 1.99 C. S.M . . . . .. 73.2 C. S.M 15 head 9.56 corn . . . . . . . .. 351.3 corn . . . . . .. S 10.72 703.6 2.72 16.72 hulls . . . . . .. 614.8 hulls . . . . . .. Lot III 2.81 C. S.M . . . . .. 82.2 C. S.M 11 head 13.50 corn . . . . . . . .. 394.2 corn . . . . . .. 11.87 1034.4 3.42 22.53 hulls . . . . . . . . . 658.0 hulls . . . . . . . Fourth thirty days. Lot I 2.54 C. S.M . . . . .. 93.6 C. S.M 15 head 12.19 corn . . . . . . . .. 449.1 corn . . . . . .. 12.37 785.2 2.72 14.02 hulls......... 516.3 hulls . . . . . .. Lot III . . . . .. 3.37 C. S.M . . . . .. 112.9 C. S.M 11 head 16.16 corn . . . . . . . .. 542.1 corn . . . . . .. 14.87 1137.1‘ 2.98 18.21 hulls . . . . . . . .. 610.7 hulls . . . . . .. FATTENING STEERs. 25 The marketing and killing results are presented in Table 10. Table 10. Lot I Lot III Yearlings Two-year-olds Weight at Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866 .67 1226.55 Weight at _Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769 .33 1109 .09 Shrinkage in transit (lbs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.33 117.46 Shrinkage in transit (per cent) . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.23 9.58 Carcass weights (shrunk 2%% for chilling) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456.2 673 .5 Dressing per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 .3 60.7 Per cent of live weight which was hide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.59 7.30 Per cent of live weight which was internal fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11 6.56 ' Price received per 100 lbs. of live weight at Fort Worth. . .. . . $8.54 $9.13 DISCUSSION or RESULTS 1. Rate of Gain.—The rate of gain was very satisfactory for both lots of steers. It is highly probable that the steers of Lot I had for some reason taken on a considerable fill when they were weighed at the end of the first 30-day period; hence the extraordinary gain (for yearlings) of 3.21 pounds per day during the first 30 days and a gain during the second thirty-day period which was lower than during the tl-ird and fourth periods. It will be seen that the older steers gained more pounds per steer at every period (if we except the large first 30-day weights of the yearlings as due to an‘ unusual fill), but gained less per 1000, pounds of live weight.* These results as to the rate of gain are in agreement with the findings of most other investigators; but the absolute amount of gain was unusually high. 2. Economy of Gains-The younger steers made 100 pounds gain on less feed than the older steers during every period. This, too, is in agreement with most or all other experimental work and may be re- garded as a settled fact for cattle similar in breeding and condition, but differing in age. However, the reader should not jump to the con- clusion that because this is true it will always be more profitable to feed *The average total gains per steer, together with the “probable errors” of those gains, and the coefficients of variability are as follows: Average Ccefiicient of total gain variability of per steer gain per cent. pounds Lot III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 386.36 =l=11.73 14.93 Lotl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332.6 =l=8.74 15.09 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.76 =l=14.63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The difference is 3.67_times itfprobable error, which means that, judging from this experi- ment alone, the chances are about 14040 1 ,that,_the ‘older,’ steers would in any future trial with similar steers _show a greater daily gain per steer than the younger steers. This of itself is practical certainty of that fact and, when taken in consideration with the fact that other expen- ments have shown the sainething, amountsto positive proof. The sli htly larger variability shown by the younger steers is due very largely to two steers, one of _w ieh gained only 200.7 pounds and the other only 256.0 ounds. hese were the two which_were the most timid about approaching the feed trough w en the others were there and if their gains were to be discarde the variability would be only 8.4%. Both of these steers were among the three which sold at a lower price. 26 BULLETIN N0. 309. younger cattle. The initial weight of the older steers is greater and consequently every increase which is made in their value per pound by the process of fattening means more profit on the older steers than on the younger ones. The greater economy of gain on the part of the younger steers is very largely due to fact that a larger proportion of their gain is protein tissue and body liquid and less of it is true fat than is the case with older cattle. . It will be noticed that for both groups the gain was increasingly less economical as the fattening period progressed. This increase in the amount of feed required for 100 pounds of gain was greater with the older steers the last 30-day period, thus indicating that the older steers were nearer the end of the period during which they could be fed profitably. 3. Length of Feeding Peri0d.-—That the older steers were nearer the end of the period during which they could have made economical gains is also shown by their more rapidly decreasing rate of gain and the fact that they were decreasing more rapidly in the amount of hulls which they would consume. 4. Final Condition of Steers.—The steers were forty-eight hours in transit to Fort Worth, there being a cold wind most of the time and a slow Fain when they were unloaded and allowed hay and water at Fort Worth. Probably they ate and drank very little, which accounts for the unusually large shrinkage. The larger shrinkage of the older steers (in pounds but not in percentage of body weight) agrees also with other experimental work and the experiences of feeders generally. Ten of the eleven older steers sold for $9.25 per hundred pounds, which topped the market that day. The other older steer sold for $7.75 per hundred pounds. The eleven averaged $9.13. Twelve of the younger steers sold for $8.75 and the other three for $7.50 per hundred. The fifteen averaged $8.54. These figures may be taken as a fairly accurate measure of the value of the two lots for beef. From the dressing per- centage it will be seen that the buyer secured one hundred pounds c-f dressed beef cheaper from the jyearlings than from the two-year-olds, but the meat of the latter was more thickly covered with fat and would sell more readily or at a higher price from the packer’s cooler. PORK Pnonuoun During the last 104 days of the test, pigs followed both lots of steers and, besides the feed which they picked up from the droppings, were hand-fed enough corn and tankage to keep them growing nicely. An- other lot of pigs were kept up as a check lot in a pen in a corner of one of, the lots and were self-fed corn and tankage free-choice. The results are shown in Table 11. ' FATTENING Srnnns. 2'2’ Table 11. Pork produced and feed consumed by hogs. Lot I Lot III Check Lot Number of pigs in each lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 and 5 4 and 5 4 Total gain in weight of each lot from November 17th to arch 1st . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 320 512 Total feed consumed by hogs-Tanka e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 82 262. Groun corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 505 1537.3 Ground darso . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 115 . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702 702 1799.8 Feed consumed per _100 lbs. of gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351.52 Amount of gain which is accounted for by assuming that 351.52 bs. of grain will produce 100 bs. of gain. . . . . 199.7 199.7 512 Amount of gain produced from steer droppings . . . . . . . . . . . 106 .3 120.3 . . . . . . . . . . Amount of pork produced per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.09 10.94 . . . . . . . . . . The amount of pork credited to each steer is probably more of an understatement than an exaggeration because the check lot showed an unusually efiicient use of their feed and it is likely that the hogs follow- ing the steers were less efficient in the use of the grain they received. Moreover, theygained more slowly than the che ck lot and therefore a larger proportion of the feed they consumed was used for maintenance. Darso is a relatively new grain sorghum of ab as the other grain sorghums. and feeding value out the same composition It will be observed that the hogs following the older steers gained distinctly only a little more in proportion to steers ate. This also agrees with previous experiments. passes undigested through the bodies of older steers, to their larger rations and their less thorough mastication. When whole corn is fed, either as shelled corn or as ear corn, the amount which passes ‘through the difference between steers of different ages is more per steer than those following the younger steers; but the total amount of corn which the More feed owing very largely steer is very much larger and the larger absolutely, although perhaps not relatively. Presumably when the proper combination of hogs is used to follow the steers, will be wasted with steers of one age than another. no larger proportion of the corn fed ORDINARY FINANCIAL ASPECTS or FATTENING STEERs on DIFFERENT Aens In feeding steers of any age the profit or loss is going to depend very largely on the difference between . and the price which is received for the finished steers. the price which is paid for the feeders This difference is known as the “mar in” and as was mentioned reviousl , each in- j - crease in the margin means a greater profit on small one. Therefore, other things being equal, older s Therefore, greatest profit when the margins are large. feeder estimates the margin will be, heavy, aged steers. The cost of gain is always be fed for a longer period than older steers. was the case in this experiment ( length of the feeding period of younger steers 0v older ones may cost as much as is saved by younger more economical gains. a large steer than on a teers make the the larger the the more eager he will be to feed cheaper with younger steers, but they must If the cost of a pound of gain is much greater than the selling price of the steers per pound, as and usually is the case), the increased er that required by steers through their 28 BULLETIN No. 309. The length of the feeding period is longer with the younger cattle but is more indefinite. That is, mature steers will come very suddenly to the end of the period when it is profitable to fatten themi and, if the market conditions are not just right to sell them at that time, the feeder must either go ahead and market them or continue to feed them (while waiting for the market to improve) nearly a full feed when they are no longer gaining profitably or increasing in market desirability. The younger steers, on the other hand, on account of not having first reached the limits of their growth, do not so suddenly reach the end of their profitable fattening period. They reach a condition in which they will first be acceptable to the butchers as fat beef in a time not much longer than that required by the older steers but, if the market is not good at that time, they can be continued on feed one or two months, or even longer if feed is cheap, and, because they are still growing, will make gains only a little more expensive than their early gains and will probably improve their desirability as finished beef from the butcher’s viewpoint. Therefore the feeder of younger cattle is not so much at the mercy of market fluctuations. He has at least a month or two longer in which to try to market his product profitably. Older steers will usually consume a larger proportion of cheap rough- age during their fattening, but that was not true in this experiment, owing probably to the thinner condition and consequently greater appe~ tites of the younger cattle. When the older cattle do consume a larger proportion of cheap roughage it tends to reduce the cost of their gain more nearly to that of the younger ones. It will be seen from this elementary statement of the relation between the age of steers and the profits to be gained from fattening them that the profits from older cattle are" more dependent upon the market, since they are so dependent upon the margin and the cattle must be marketed 'within a very short period. Feeding younger cattle does not offer the opportunities for such large profits, and neither is it attended by the danger of such large losses. It is therefore less speculative and more reliable as a part of the regular yearly program of marketing the sur- plus feed grown on the farm or in the neighborhood. No one can know positively in advance in a given year whether younger or older cattle will return the larger profit. The difference in favor of the older cattle is greatest when the margin is largest, the market steadiest, and the price of concentrate feeds is highest. Two of these factors are dependent upon the future behavior of the market and can be no more than estimated at the time the feeding begins. FATTENING STEERS. 29 APPENDIX NET ENERGY VALUES OF THE RATIONS FED The net energy values of the rations fed to the three lots of cattle were calculated by Dr. G. S. Fraps, State Chemist, and are shown in Table 12. These calculations are based upon our present information with respect to the productive values of the feeds used. Table 12. Net energy values of the rations fed. Lot number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I III IV Productive value of rations, therms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.75 17 .60 10.55 Estimated daily maintenance requirements, therms . . . . . . . 4 .72 6.20 5.88 Available for gain, therms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.03 11 .40 4 .67 Daily gain, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.77 3.22 2.41 Therms for one pound gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.89 3.55 _ 1.93 It would appear from these results that rations 1 and 4 were better utilized by the animals in producing gain in weight than was ration 3. The high gain in proportion to feeding value of Lot 4 may be caused by one or both of two things: It is possible that this ration of cotton- seed meal and hulls has a higher feeding value than our present knowledge leads us to think or, in the second place, the animals did not lay on as much fat in proportion to the gain made, as those of Lot 3. The animals of Lot 3 were the fattest of the three lots. During the earlier stages of fattening, the storage of fat is ac- companied by a considerable gain of water, and some gain in protein. As the fattening progresses, however, the gain comes to consist of an increasing extent of fat, accompanied by very little protein and a very small percentage of water. It therefore requires more therms to pro duce a gain of one pound in live weight in the later stages of fattening than in the earlier stages. Much more net energy will be required in a fattening ration to produce a pound of increase of live weight towards the close of the fattening process than at its beginning, and the gains become more expensive as the animals become fatter. The lots receiving corn were upon a better fattening ration than Lot 4 on cottonseed meal and hulls alone and were in better condition when sold, and for this reason one therm of net energy value produced less gain in live weight. The lot on a ration of meal and hulls alone made good gains but these gains consisted to a great extent of water, so that the animals were not in as good condition when sold as the others. 30 BULLETIN No. 309. FINANCIAL STATEMENT Lot I Lot III Lot IV Yearlings, Ground corn, Ground corn, Cottonseed Cottonseed Cottonseed Meal Meal Meal and hulls and Hulls and Hulls Number of steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11 1O Initial value per steer (at Spur) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 21 .92 $ 42 .33 42.33 Initial value of steers per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 10 5.04 4.99 Final value of steers per cwt. (at Fort Worth). . . . . 8.54 9.13 8.28 Total increase in value per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.78 58.88 41 .41 Value of pork iproduced per steer at 7c per pound. . .50 .77 . . . . . . . . . . . . Gross income rom feeding operations (per steer) . . . 44.28 59.65 41 .41 Total feed bill per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.06 45.65 29.03 Marketing cost per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .27 5 . 04 5.04 *Profit per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.95 8.96 7.34 *No credit is given the steers _for the value of the manure they produced. No charge is made against the steers for labor, insurance, or interest on the investment. Prices used in making out this financial statement are as follows: Ground corn, $1.803 per cwt. ($1.01 per bushel). Cottonseed meal, $1.83 per cwt. Cottonseed hulls, $9.92 per ton. The initial values.Were placed on the steers on a per head basis by a (committee of three stockmen who sell large numbers of feeder calves and steers each year. It is because the values were placed on a per head basis and Lot IV averaged slightly heavier at the start that the initial values of Lot III and Lot IV per 100 pounds are not quite identical. The margins actually obtained in this feeding experiment were un- usually large. If they had been much more than $1.00 per cwt. less the feeding operations this year would have shown a loss. BIBLIOGRAPHY Armsby, H. P.,- 191'7——“The Nutrition of Farm Animals.” Henry and Morrison, 1923—“Feeds and Feeding,” Eighteenth Edition, unabridged. v Journal of Agricultural Research, 1915—V0l. 5, pages 261-288. Journal of Agricultural Research, 1918—Vol. 12, pages 83-102, 425-551. Alabama Bulletin No. 158, 1911—“Fattening Calves in Alabama.” Arizona Bulletin No. 93, 1921—“Feeding Cottonseed Meal and Cotton— seed Products to Range Cattle.” Mississippi Annual Report, 1903. Mississippi Bulletin N o. 167, 1914——“Corn Silage Compared with Hulls for Fattening Steers.” Mississippi Bulletin No. 182, 1917—“Si1age for Fattening Steers.” North Carolina Bulletin No. 109, 1894—“Feeding Trials with Animals.” North Carolina Bulletin No. 218, 1911—“Feeding Experiments with Beef Cattle.” North Carolina Bulletin No. 222, 1912—“Cottonseed Meal and Corn Silage Feeding Experiments with Beef Cattle.” North Carolina Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 35. FATTENING STEERs. 31 Texas Bulletin N0. 41, 1896—“Steer Feeding.” Texas Bulletin No. 47, 1898—“The Effects of Food on Economic Dairy Production.” Texas Bulletin No. 55, 1899—I, “Feeding Steers”; II, “Feeding Value of Cottonseed and Its Products.” Texas Bulletin No. 153, 1912—“A Test of the Relative Values of Cot- tonseed Meal and Silage, and Cottonseed Meal and Cottonseed Hulls for Fattening Cattle.” Texas Bulletin No. 2-63, 1920—“Rations for Fattening Steers.” Texas Bulletin No. 296, 1922—“Grain Sorghums vs. Corn for Fattening- Baby Beeves.” U. S. D. A. Farmers’ Bulletin No. 631, 1918—“Five Years’ Calf- Feeding Work in Alabama and Mississippi.” . U. S. D. A. Farmers’ Bulletin No. 762, 1919——,“A Comparison of Roughages for Fattening Steers in the South.” U. S. Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin No. 103, 1908—“Experi- ments in Beef Production in Alabama.”