Win 880 I geplemfim I957 Econnmlcs of Cattle Feeding Systems for West Texas TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS, DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS IN COOPERATION WITH THE“ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUILTURE \ SUMMARY The purpose of the study reported here is to assist West Texas farmers to appraise the ____ opportunities for marketing sorghum grain through cattle at a profit. To do this, systems of cattle feeding were selected which “fitted in” with cash-crop pro- duction. These systems were selected from among feeding trials conducted at Substation No. 7 at Spur and at the Big Spring Field Station. Current farm prices and costs were ap- plied to experimental results. Most farmers do not have the lots, feed troughs, grain storage or other facilities for a cattle feeding enterprise. The facilities, including a silage field cutter, which farmers will need to add to feed 100 cattle will cost about $4,800. Without a silage cutter, the cost will be about $2,600. The additional facilities required to feed 500 head will cost about $18,000. At prices that prevailed during the fall of 1956 and the spring of 1957, cattle feeding was profitable as a way to market grain sorghum. One favorable factor was the spring cat- tle market in which slaughter cattle brought 4 or 5 cents more per pound than they cost as feeders the previous fall. ‘ As calculated in this study, it would be profitable to feed a relatively heavy grain ra- tion to calves and light weight steers with a 2-cent-per-pound margin in price of slaughter cattle over feeder cattle and with sorghum grain at $2.00 per hundredweight. With $1.25 grain sorghum, feeding systems 1, 2 and 4 would be profitable with a margin of only 1 cent per pound between the price of feeders and the price of slaughter cattle. ‘ Rations high in grain and low in roughage were the most profitable with cheap grain, but ~ the comparative position of high-forage rations is enhanced when grain prices are high. Satisfactory results have been obtained with cottonseed hulls as the principal roughage. Hulls are easy to feed and may be handled mechanically. When handled by hand, less labor is required to feed hulls than to feed silage. By feeding hulls a farmer can avoid purchas- ing the equipment and facilities for making silage. THE COVER PICTURE Cattle being started on feeding tests at Substation No. 7 at Spur. Data obtained with such cattle at Spur and Big Spring provided the basis for this bulletin. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This study was conducted cooperatively by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station l. and the Farm Economics‘ Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Economies et Cattle Feeding Sqstems EST TEXAS FARMERS have centered their at- , tention on the production of cash crops. This : been done, in many instances. to the exclu- g of livestock enterprises. Where cotton is pted, the basic cropping system consists of w and grain sorghum, and in some localities ncludes wheat. Where cotton is not adapted, * major crops are wheat and grain sorghum. Q Current allotments for cotton and wheat it the acreage planted to these crops and in- -: the acreage available for grain sorghum ‘ughout West Texas. Despite widespread uth, which has reduced the production of feed in in Texas, the recent trend of grain sor- ¥ prices has been downward. With the wide- -= adoption of hybrid sorghums and with e favorable rainfall, the production of grain hum probably will increase and the down- 'd trend in prices likely will continue for some e. With these prospects, farmers are looking other and more profitable ways of marketing in sorghum. One of the alternatives consid- ' is marketing grain sorghum through beef " le. i j Few West Texas farmers have had exper- ‘e in feeding cattle. Consequently, numerous tions concerning management problems are Led. These questions concern the ways of fit- I a cattle feeding enterprise into a system of _-crop farming, the cost of facilities needed eed cattle, the results that normally may be ;- ted from different systems of feeding and conditions under which cattle feeding is like- I be profitable. PURPOSE AND PROCEDURE a The purpose of this study is to provide infor- "1 ion that may serve as a general guide to West Y= farmers who wish to consider the “pros cons” of cattle feeding. Farmers in the area who feed cattle were cted to learn the additional investment re- ed. "v. pectively, professor, Department of Agricultural nomics and Sociology, College Station, Texas; super- - dent, Substation No. 7, Spur, Texas; superintendent, tation No. 8, Lubbock,‘ Texas; and agricultural omist, Farm Economics Research Division, Agricul- i: Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. fer West Texas A. C. MAGEE, P. T. MARION, C. E. FISHER and \V. F. HUGHES* Systems of cattle feeding were then selected which e“fit in” with cash-crop production. These systems were selected from among feeding trials conducted at Substation No. 7 at Spur and at the Big Spring Field Station. In each instance, records were available as to the kinds and quan- tities of feed used, the length of the feeding pe- riod, the rate of gain and other necessary details. Current farm prices and costs were then applied to experimental results. In this study, it was as- sumed that farmers will grow grain sorghum and that the problem is one of choosing the most profitable way in which to market the grain. The approach was to figure the added costs and the returns likely to result from cattle feed-“i” ing as compared with the returns from grain sor- ghum on the cash market. With this informa- tion, a farmer can better appraise his own situ- ation with regard to cattle feeding. Because price relationships change rapidly, each system of cattle feeding was evaluated with CONTENTS Summary ____________________________________________________________________ __ 2 The Cover Picture ____________________________________________________ __ 2 Acknowledgment _______________________________________________________ __ 2 Introduction _______________________________________________________________ __ 3 Purpose and Procedure ___________________________________________ __ 3 Cattle and Cash-crop Farming _____________________________ __ 4 Added Investment for Feeding Cattle _______________ __ 4 Sources of Feeder Cattle _________________________________________ __ 5 Feed Supplies ____________________________________________________________ __ 5 Cropping Adjustments ___________________________________________ __ 6 Cattle Feeding Systems _________________________________________ __ 7 Estimated Costs _______________________________________________________ __ 3 Cattle Costs _______________________________________________________ __ 3 Feed Costs _________________________________________________________ __ 3 Marketing Expense _________________________________________ __ 3 Veterinary and Miscellaneous _______________________ __ 9 Depreciation ...................................................... .. 9 Interest _______________________________________________________________ __ 9 Repairs and Operating Costs ........................ __ 9 Estimated Cattle Sales ___________________________________________ __1() Profits from Feeding Cattle ________________________________ __1() Effect of Grain Sorghum Price ____________________________ __12 Effect of Cottonseed Meal Priee __________________________ __12 Feeding Cottonseed Hulls _______________________________________ __13 Other Benefits of Feeding Cattle _________________________ __14 several prices for grain sorghum and with vary- ing margins between the purchase price of feed- ers in the fall and the selling price of slaughter cattle in the following spring. CATTLE AND CASH-CROP FARMING Ordinarily, cotton farmers in West Texas are busy with crop production from about May 1 until approximately a month after frost. Dur- ing the remaining 41/2 to 5 months, most farm- ers do not utilize fullytheir time with farm op- erations. Asa rule, wheat growers have more free time than cotton growers. Wheat farmers usually plan to devote full time to crop produc- tion from the middle of May through most of the summer or into the early fall. For each system of farming, the slack period comes in the winter and early spring, or during part of the fall, the winter and spring. When unused labor is available, labor efficiency may be increased by feeding cattle as long as the add- ed returns exceed the added costs. Cattle work at any other time likely would interfere with crop production. In making this study, it was assumed that a period of not to exceed 150 days normally would be available for drylot cattle feeding. Frequently, farmers would be able to devote enough time to cattle during the fall to permit some grazing of stalk fields. ADDED INVESTMENT FOR FEEDING CATTLE To feed cattle, most farmers will need to build feeding pens and to provide other facilities and improvements. Information obtained from Figure 1. Typical feedlot arrangement on a. West Texas farm. The feed trough runs the length of the pen on one side. The alley Way permits unloading feed from a truck directly into the feed trough quickly and without disturbing the cattle. Some feeders prefer to slope the outer side of the trough. 4 TABLE 1. ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT COMMON ii ~- REQUIRED FOR A CATTLE FEEDI ENTERPRISE ON WEST TEXAS FARMS For 100 head For'500 Quantity Cost’ Quantity Cos o . dollars dolla j material a Items material FEEDING PENS Creosoted posts (no.) 1/2" ‘used cable (ft.) 00., 90 300 450, 3,150»; 75 20,000 400 Gates and loading chute ' 150 350% Material for bracing 40 .. 200, Labor 100 500 Total 455 1,90 1 I é." FEED TROUGH Ready-mixed concrete Slab 30" x 4" x 1.00’ (cu.yd.) 4 64 18 28 No. 6, 6" x 6" Welded wire . (ft. 100 6 500 T, Lumber- 2" x 12" rough ~ (ft.) 300 24 1,500 12 i. Bolts, clamps and misc. 25 125i Labor 80 i"? Total 199 96 . WATER FACILITIES New well and pump 1,50 Water line 200 31;, Water tank (no.) 1-8 ft. 60 5-8 ft. 30 Water heater (no.) 1 40 5 20. - Total 300 2,30 i 0_ OTHER FACILITIES Grain storage (no.) 1-2200 bu. 740 It“ i Feed grinder 160 6 if Trench silo ~ 300 1,50 Field silage cutter ' 2,200 2,20 Front-end tractor loader 395 39 a Mixing and feeding truck 3,550 Miscellaneous equipment 75 75*" Total 3,870 12,020 Total—additional i investment 4,824 17,080 cattle feeders in Moore and Hale counties w’ used in calculating the cost of suitable faciliti for a cattle-feeding enterprise. Two hundr square feet of lot space should be provided t1 animal fed. On this basis, a lot 100 x 200 f would provide enough space for 100 cattle. i Satisfactory pens have been constructed s‘ running 6 or 7 strands of used oil field l, through evenly-spaced holes bored in creoso posts. Some feeders have used old crossties posts. As shown inTable 1, the initial inv ment for feeding pens for 100 head will averai about $4.50 per animal. Pens for feeding it head will cost about $3.80 per head. Farmers report good results with a trou consisting of a concrete bottom, 3 or 4 inci thick and 3O inches wide, with one straight one sloping side of 2 x 12-inch rough lum Two pieces of 2 x 12’s are used to make the ing side of the trough while only one is used the straight side. The initial cost of such a trou will be about $2.00 per linear foot. a < Most farmers who have fed cattle in the area I.‘ consider it necessary t0 provide shelter animals on feed. fThelpresent water supply on most farms is le for 200 feedlot animals. The laying of additional pipe and providing a drinking , will be necessary. In most cases, an addi- '1 well and pump will be needed if more than .animals are to be Watered. Feeders, partic- Fly those in the northern part of the area, use \- to provide Warm water during the win- The cost of the Water facilities added is esti- "I in Table 1 to range from about $3.00 to 0 per head capacity. 7 Some farmers have ample storage for the needed for drylot feeding. Others store n in nearby elevators and haul it to the farm eeded. The grain may or may not be ground rushed on the farm. In either case, there is idded cost. One 2,200-bushel steel bin will ide storage for grain to feed out 100 cattle. shown in Table 1, a bin can be installed at pent prices for about $740. 1 Silage stored in trench silos is a satisfactory hage for drylot feeding. Trench silos can instructed for about 75 cents per ton capacity. size and number of silos needed will depend he feeding program to be followed. The in- '1. ent in trench silos shown in Table 1 was 1 on 400 tons for 100 head. This capacity lld permit heavy use of silage. With relative- eavy feeding of grain, the investment in w silos would be less than is indicated here. . Because of year to year variations in yield, erve of forage is needed to sustain a con- ng feeding program, particularly under dry- conditions. Most feeders find it convenient i; more than one silo. ,A small feeding enterprise does not justify ing a field silage cutter. In some localities, imer can hire silage cut and put in the trench. oore county, this work was contracted for 56 at the rate of $2 per ton. Farmers with l acreages of a silage crop preferred this 0d of harvesting, Whereas large producers lage owned one or more field cutters and put heir own crops. In a few localities, irrigated sorghum for si- is grown as a cash crop. In 1956, green si- was delivered in the trench for $7.00 to $8.00 on. If this service is available, it probably e most convenient and a relatively cheap way y up 100 or so tons of silage. In estimating the cost of facilities needed, e 1, a power scoop or front-end tractor loader included. ‘This tool would be used in load- ilage and in cleaning out feedlots. ‘It was assumed that, in general, farmers d have the trucks or trailers needed for feed- “00 head of cattle. However, for a relatively large feeding enterprise, it is considered that a truck with a mixing bed would be used. A total investment of approximately $4,800 will be needed to provide the facilities for feed- ing 100 cattle. Nearly half of this amount is for a field silage cutter. This part of the investment can be avoided through custom harvesting. The man who already has grain storage can reduce his added investment by about $750. It is estimated that the facilities with which to make and feed silage and to care for 500 cat- tle in the feedlot will require an investment of about $18,000. SOURCES OF FEEDER CATTLE Feeder calves of Commercial to Choice grade are produced on nearby ranches and are avail- able in a weight range of 300 to 500 pounds. Yearling cattle of varying grades and weights also are available. The Drice of feeder animals normally is lowest in the fall when heavy market- ings occur. During recent years, the price of Good grade feeder "cattle has averaged lower in October than in any other month. Feeder cattle produced on nearby ranches are of high quality and are much in demand for northern feedlots. Consequently, if West Texas farmers are to buy cattle locally, they must com- pete with experienced Corn Belt feeders. The October 1956 price of local feeder steer calves of Good grade was approximately 18 cents per pound. Choice grade calves sold at higher prices. In either instance, the local price was about 2 cents per pound above October prices for calves of similar quality on the Fort Worth mar- ket. West Texas ranchmen also sold yearling steers above the Fort Worth market. Because of the strong demand on the part of Corn Belt farmers, the price paid for feeder cattle (either calves or yearlings) is normally about 2 cents per pound above the Fort Worth price for feeders of Good grade. In the fall, calves sell higher than yearling feeder steers of similar quality, Figure 2. On the Fort Worth market, the average price quoted dur- ing October 1956 for Good 500 to 800-pound steers was approximately 2 cents a pound less than the price of Good calves. More commonly, steers are 1 to 1V2 cents per pound cheaper than calves. Since 1945, the average October price of Good calves has ranged from 50 cents to $3.00 per hundredweight higher on the Fort Worth market than the average October price of Good steers. Cattle feeders should watch this spread be- tween the price of calves and older cattle. A widening of this spread, such as occurred in 1949 and 1950, Figure 2, could easily offset any ad- vantages there might be in feeding calves. On the other hand, with a narrow spread, as was the .5 c: Z D O 9- 3O 5 CALVES, 300-500 LBS. o. m _ _ 0- Z u: U 2O ‘ I i ‘I \ 8 I, l \\ \ — éswssns, soo-soo LBS \ ," \ a: I \ / \s O. F \ / _ IQ I l I J L l I l I l I945 I950 I955 Figure 2. Average October price for Good feeder calves and steers on the Fort Worth market, 1946-56. case in 1946, it may be advantageous to feed calves rather than steers. In this study, it was assumed that Good yearling feeder steers could have been bought lo- cally for 17 cents a pound, 0r 1 cent a pound less than the price of Good calves. a A number of High Plains cattle feeders pur- chased cattle during the fall 0f 1956 at Fort Worth or in other parts of the State at less than the cost of feeders from nearby ranches. Pros- pective buyers of feeder animals may be able to save money by “shopping around” before buying. Because of the relatively strong demand for slaughter cattle weighing 700 to 1,000 pounds, it is good planning to choose feeder animals that can be fattened within this approximate weight range. Even though big cattle often make rapid Mgains in the feedlot, they are likely to be heavier than the market demands by the time they are finished. Some good results have been obtained with heifers in the feedlot. Heifers cost less to buy and they fatten faster than steers. Farmers who feed heifers usually prefer calves or short-age yearlings. For best results, heifers should be sold at light weights and young ages. FEED SUPPLIES Sorghum grain is plentiful on West Texas farms, but in many instances forages are not. Results of both research and the experience of farmers show that silage is the most satisfactory homegrown forage for beef cattle. With irriga- tion, silage yields of 15 to 30 tons per acre are reported. A yield of 20 tons per acre is consid- ered normal with good cropping practices. A dry- land silage yield of 6 tons per acre is considered a reasonable expectation. _ When farmers feed silage, it is not necessary to feed alfalfa for vitamin A. However, tests at no use is made of a large acreage of stalk fie Spur show the feeding of 2 pounds of alfalfa . per head daily increased cattle gain by 0.15 p0 per head daily. At this rate, a feeder can w $30 per ton for alfalfa hay as long as cattle ‘ bring 21 cents or more per pound. In this study, alfalfa is shown as a cash ~ when it is included in the feedlot ration beca it is grown on only a relatively few farms. In feeding tests at Spur, the rate of gain increased and feed consumption and feed w, per 100 pounds of gain were reduced when st were fed a small amount of either stilbestro an antibiotic such as terramycin, aureomycinf ilotimycin. In these feeding trials, the grea response from these materials was obtained ' yearling cattle given a medium to long fee period. Stilbestrol or the antibiotics were mi with cottonseed meal prior to feeding. Farmers are not equipped to do this mix’ but cottonseed meal with the proper amount stilbestrol added for cattle feeding is now on , market. Calculations for this report were made on I basis of feeding cottonseed meal to which stil trol had been added. Fed in this way. the e cost for adding the hormone to the ration is :_ than 1 cent per head daily. An economic anal of feeding trials shows such an expenditur“ profitable in most instances. ‘ During recent years there has been some" mand for stalk field grazing to provide for dro stricken cattle from nearby ranches. Norm there is little demand for this type of grazing : If fences are in shape and water availa cattle grazing stalk fields require little atten i Consequently, by grazing stalk fields during ' tober and November, advantage may be take, a favorable market on which to buy feeders out interfering greatly with fall work. The rate of cattle gain on stalk fields is ‘ high. but it is obtained at low cost. In this st no charge was made for stalk field grazing.‘ was considered that normally stalk field gra would not be in demand. ’ CROPPIN G ADJUSTMENTS To have silage, most West Texas fa would need to shift some acreage from sorg grain to silage production. Such a shift w have little effect on preharvesting requireme or costs. a With irrigation, about 5 acres normallv w be needed for each 100. tons of silage. On ~ land farms, approximately 17 acres with ave A yields would be required for 100 tons of sil A farmer who planned to feed 25 pounds 0f si per head daily to 100 steers for 120 days w to devote 8 or 9 acres of irrigated or about res of dry land to silage crops. , fghere likely will be 5 to 10 percent spoilage Uge and some additional loss in feeding. CATTLE FEEDING SYSTEMS ix systems of cattle feeding, each of which fitted in with the production of cash crops, selected from experimental results at Spur ig Spring, and the profit or loss that might pected from cattle feeding under different relationships were calculated. For the sys- selected, the approximate weight of animals . the quantities of feed used and the gain ob- f in feeding periods of different lengths the same as recorded in feeding tests. Based on the results of feeding tests, it is f ed that, on the average, thrifty cattle fed f ding to any of these systems of feeding o grade Good or higher at the end of the g period. Market demand for this grade pughter cattle is relatively strong. 1A summary of the labor and feed require- s, both the average daily ration and the to- lyunds fed per steer, for each system is shown ble 2. Also shown are the average weights ti: into the feedlot, the length of feeding pe- iand the gains obtained. The weight at the iof the feeding period is the market weight the cattle have been shrunk. The first system is a calf feeding enterprise. rding to the plan, 400-pound calves would be ased about October 1, near the time when Figure 3. Two trench silos, onefull and one empty. Unlined silos such as these can be provided in West Texas for about 75 cents per ton capacity. feeder cattle prices normally are the lowest. Such calves could be run on grain sorghum stalk fields for about 60 days before going in the feedlot about December 1. Cotton harvesting and other fall work should be well along by thattime- daily for 150 days. This system offeeding has been followed at Big Spring. Calves averaging 450 pounds when they went in the feedlot ate approximately 9 pounds of sorghum grain, 2 pounds of cottonseed meal and nearly 14 pounds of silage per head for roughage. lar to gains reported by farmers feeding compa- rable rations to calves. Calves have limited capacity Hence, they need a ration high in concentrates to fatten in 150 days or less. The average daily gain of 2.2 pounds per calf is simi- Feeding system 2 involves light weight year- lings averaging about 650 pounds that are run 60 days on stalk fields before going on feed. Gains of 300 pounds per steer were reported for the E 2. SUMMARY OF FEED AND LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR CATTLE FED HIGH AND LOW GRAIN RATIONS‘ Hi gh-grain ration High-roughage ration DIFFERENT WEIGHTS AND AGES OF _ . p Light weight Yearling Light weight Yearling Yearling fedmg system Callves yearling steers steers yearling steers steers steers ~ 2 ' 3 4 sprurchased (no.) 100 100 100 100 100 100 _ge weight (lbs.) 400 600 750 600 7 50 750 f? grazed (days) 60 60 60 in feedlot (days 150 120 100 120 140 100 e per steer: A ght going into . .. -.. lot (lbs.) 450 650 750 650 750 7 50 V. market weight (lbs.) 790 950 1,030 900 1,070 975 M age daily gain 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.1 2.3 2.2 I with steers: ' g l (hrs.) 560 470 350 390 610 450 l steer (hrs.) 5.6 4.7 3.5 3.9 6.1 4.5 ‘ Av. Total Av. Total Av. Total Av. Total Av. Total Av. Total lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. , lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. per per per per per per per per per per per per p day steer day steer day steer day steer day steer day steer fused per steely, lbs. - y» 'ly and total: p w d sorghum grain 9.1 1,365 14.7 1,760 15.0 1,500 9.3 1,116 6.4 900 5.0 500 nseed meal 2.0 300 2.0 240 2.0 200 2.0 240 2.0 280 2.0 200 hum silage 13.3 2,000 23.4 2,800 25.0 2,500 40.0 4,800 54.0 7,560 55.0 5,500 fa hay 2.0 200 2.0 280 2.0 200 ' 10 12 10 12 15 12 on the results of feeding testsoonducted at Substation No_ 7 at Spur and at the Big Spring lField Station. TABLE 3. PRICES USED IN CALCULATING COSTS OF THE CATTLE FEEDING ENTER- PRISES, 1956 Item Unit Pegosilltnlt COST ITEMS Sorghum grain cwt. $ 2-00 Cottonseed meal (with stilbestrol) ton 70-00 Homegrown silage (home i harvested) l0“ 5-50 Homegrown silage (custom q harvested) ton 6-50 Cottonseed hulls ' ton 15.00‘ Alfalfa hay I011 40-00 Salt cwt. 1.25 Feeder calves (grade of Good) f.o.b. farm CWI- 13-00 Feeder steers (grade of Good) f.o.b. farm cWt- 17-00 Marketing expense—-based on market weight twt- 1-00 MARKET PRICE Slaughter calves—grade of Good cwt. 22.00 Slaughter yearlings-grade of Good cwt. 22.00 ‘For purposes of comparison, 1955 prices were used for cottonseed hulls. 120-day feeding period from an average daily ra- tion of 16.7 pounds of concentrates and 23.4 pounds of silage. Yearlings eat more and make higher gains than calves and they fatten in less time. But this does not necessarily mean that yearlings make cheaper gains than calves. Feeding system 3 is for 750-pound yearlings given a high proportion of concentrates. Steers fed 15 pounds of sorghum grain, 2 pounds of cot- tonseed meal, 25 pounds of silage and 2 pounds of alfalfa per head head daily gamed 280 pounds in‘ 100 days. Good results have been obtained at Spur with rations high in roughage. Yearling cattle can use large quantities of roughage and will fatten on high roughage rations. To do this, it is necessary to feed good quality roughage that cattle will con- sume in large quantities. In system 4, light weight yearling steers were first grazed on stalk fields before drylot feeding. In the feedlot, the. ration consisted of 11 to 12 pounds of concentrates and all the silage the steers would take. With this method of feeding, 250 pounds of gain was obtained per steer in 120 days. This system combines high consumption of roughage with a moderate consumption of grain. Feeding systems 5 and 6 combine a low level of grain feeding with heavy use of roughage. System 6 is best suited for cattle carrying con- siderable finish into the feedlot. System 5 would be suitable for relatively thin cattle which re- quire additional time to fatten on a ration high in roughage. been sold at or near harvest time in 1956. The inexperienced cattle feeder should sider that it is easier to keep cattle “on f with a ration relatively high in roughage t with one very high in _grain. The richer ration, the more likelihood there is of trouble f bloat or other digestive disorders. However, a ration high inxconcentratei necessary to get cattle fat in arshort feeding riod. A Labor requirements for feeding cattle ~ greatly from farm to farm. Some have more ~ venient arrangements than others. With si loaders and trucks that mix and unload the I‘ mechanically, one man can feed 600 or more I tle. Farmers who have little or no special f' ing equipment report that 3 to 4 hours of r, are required daily to feed 100 head of cattle._ large part of the labor of feeding cattle is a handling silage. f- ESTIMATED COSTS The estimated costs of feeding 100 s 5 with six feeding systems are shown in Tab] Both operating and overhead costs are inclu In calculating these costs, 1956-57 prices r used, Table 3. ' Cattle Costs The cost of feeder calves is figured at‘ _ cents a pound and the cost of yearling fe steers at 17 cents a pound. These prices ' typical of the amount paid for good feeders r, ing the fall of 1956. It is recognized that m West Texas farmers put cattle in the feedlot -:~ which cost more, while other feeders cost f than 17 or 18 cents per pound. . Feed Costs Homegrown sorghum grain was valued $2.00 per hundredweight, which was represe tive of the price at which the grain could Two kinds of costs were considered in - . ing at a value for silage. First, there is the ' of growing and putting up silage. The cos I owning and operating silage harvesting eq ment was included as a part of this expense. 0nd, to grow silage, it is necessary to use l, that otherwise could be used profitably in 1 ing a cash crop. The farmer has the cost of 1 ' ing and putting up silage plus the loss of thef portunity to make a profit from the crop that lage replaces. In most instances, the crop placed would be grain sorghum. i It was assumed that alfalfa, cottonseed n0 and minerals would be purchased at prices ; prevailed during the fall of 1956. Marketing Expense A This item includes trucking and other; penses associated with transporting the fat : to market and yardage and commission expe ‘»_ cost was calculated at $1.00 per hundred- f-_ for the total liveweight sold and was .-. on recent costs of shipping cattle from tbock to the Fort Worth market. A farmer who cattle locally probably would have marketing ‘p; of less than $1.00per hundredweight. This g likely would be offset to some extent by djustment in the price received for cattle. Verinary and Miscellaneous Veterinary costs have been light for cattle ;at the Spur station and it was considered that ents per head would more than cover this i reciation This is an overhead cost resulting from the tment in feed pens, additional storage, ch silos and other facilities required for a ing enterprise. -rest a Interest on improvements and facilities add- or cattle feeding were figured at 6 percent of depreciated value. Interest on the capital in- f»- in cattle was calculated at 6 percent for ‘length of the feeding period or the combined ling and feeding period. The farmer has money tied up in home- feed until his cattle are sold. Consequent- High-grain ration Figure 4. Cattle trucks lined up ready to load slaugh- ter cattle for delivery on the Fort Worth market. The ex- pense of marketing fat cattle is an important item of cost. The cost of trucking cattle from West Texas to Fort Worth, with yardage, feed, selling commission and othe-r marketing expenses, averages about $1.00 per hundred- weight marketed. ly, interest was charged on the value of the grain sorghum and silage used. Repairs and Operating Costs Estimated repair and operating costs on feedlots, grain storage, feed grinders, silos and other facilities directly connected with cattle able 4. ESTIMATED COSTS AND RETURNS FROM SIX SYSTEMS OF CATTLE FEEDING, 1956 PRICES High-roughagi ration " L' ht ' ht . L’ ht ' ht . . Feeding system Calves lgeaglrflig Yseazlgfigg lgearliiilg Ygtarhng Yearlmg 1 steers steers eers Steers 2 3 4 5 6 _ _ _ — _ — — — — — — — — — Dollars — — — — — — _ _ _ _ - __ ; (purchased (100 head) ‘ 7,200 10,200 12,750 10,200 12,750 12,750 osts: "i. egrown sorghum grain 2,716 3,503 2,985 2,221 1,791 995 tonseed meal and salt 1,133 910 759 908 1,063 761 mfigrgwn silage 650 910 1,554 Zgg? 1,507 a ay 398 _ keting expense 782 941 1,020 891 1,059 965 _ rinary and miscellaneous 25 ~25 25 25 25 25 reciation 2 159 159 159 159 159 159 rest’ d dd d 421 420 351 259 514 346 fairs an operation—a e ‘uipment 180 180 180 180 180 180 l for feeding enterprise 13,266 17,248 19,440 16,397 20,166 18,086 I sales: I als sold (no.) 99 99 99 99 99 99 ’ rage market weight (lbs.) 790 950 1,030 900 1,070 975 .§_ l‘ weight sold 783g 94,032 101,922 89,123 105,922 96,525 e"per cwt. o . 22 11.; cattle sales _ (dol.) 17,206 20,691 22,433 19,602 23,305 21,236 i: from beef enterprise: “ _-57 prices _ (dol.) 3,940 3,443 2,993 3,205 3,139 3,150 f 3-cent margin 5 (dol.) 3,158 1,903 1,223 1,665 1,330 1,535 h 2-cent margin 5 (dol.) 2,378 963 204 724 270 469 I 1-cent margin 5 (dol.) 1,594 22 - 816 - 216 - 789 - 496 _h no margiii 5 (dol.) 812 — 918 - 1,837 - 1,157 - 1,849 - 1,462 Table 2 for more detailed; information as to weights, gains, etc., and Table 3 for price information. {improvements and equipment added for a beef feeding enterprise. .5; the added investment in improvements, equipment, grain, silage and cattle. I -: in this report, pro-fit represents the difference between ca rise exclusive of labor and management. This return is commonly referred to as labor and management income. vrence in the price received per pound for slaughter cattle over the price paid for feeder cattle. ttle sales and the added cost of the cattle feeding feeding would average about $180 per year per 100 head of cattle. This does not include repair and operating costs of silage harvesting equip- ment. These items are included in>the cost of silage. At 1956 prices, cattle purchases made up about half t0 two-thirds of the total costs of the cattle enterprise. The next most important cash expense was for cottonseed meal. It is assumed that many farmers have labor that could be used in cattle feeding. Consequent- ly, labor was not added as a charge. However, the farmer who uses hired labor for the feeding enterprise should consider this labor as a cash cost item. One percent death loss was assumed in calculating the liveweight of cattle sold. This is higher than losses sustained at Spur, but not as high as those at Big Spring. ESTIMATED CATTLE SALES Cattle should be marketed by May 1 to fit in well with cash crop production in West Texas. Good slaughter cattle weighing 700 to 1,100 pounds brought 21 to 23 cents per pound on the Fort Worth market during April 1957.» A price of 22 cents a pound, market weight basis, was used in calculating the value of cattle sales. This is a margin of 4 cents a pound for calves and 5 cents for steers between the buying and selling price. Some West Texas feeders report a larger margin on cattle purchased during September and October 1956 and sold during March, April and May 1957. PROFITS FROM FEEDING CATTLE The difference between cattle sales and costs, exclusive of labor, represents the profit, footnote 3," Table 4, that a farmer might expect from a cattle feeding enterprise with cattle and feed _ MAY PRICE, 600D 700-900 LB. SLAUGHTER STEERS g l’ ‘ 8 3o l; \ q_ /‘\ 1 l‘ 1 \ / I \ I \ II 1 / \ LU * 1 \ / ' \ I1- / \ I \ m \ E 2o ‘ w o I w S2 * OCTOBER PRICE, soo-soo LB. E ’ FEEDER CALVES lo I I I | l 1 I I I l I945 I950 I955 Figure 5. Average October price of Good feeder steer calves and the price the following May of 700-900-pound slaughter steers on the Fort Worth market, 1946-57. 1°. prices that prevailed during the fall of 1956 as the spring of 1957. With slaughter cattle bringing 4 or 5 ce I a pound more than the feeder animals cost t previous fall, each system of feeding studi would be profitable. By using any of the six s ', terns, a farmer could expect to make a substanf profit by feeding his sorghkyunhr grain to cat rather than by selling it at $2.00 per hundr weight at harvest time. By feeding 100 he profits were calculated at $31.00 to $39.00 i. head, depending on the system of feeding. 0' Stated differently, at 1956-57 cattle and f prices, a farmer could earn $1 per hour for t labor involved and, in addition, make $2,500 K $3,300 more from his sorghum grain marke through 100 steers than would have been realiz‘ by selling the grain at $2.00 per hundredweig These profits are in line with the experie l of farmers who did a good job of feeding cat put in the feedlot during the fall of 1956. It is not the purpose of this study to evalu the results of experimental cattle feeding search or to compare different feeding trials. various feeding trials used in making the cal lations shown in Table 4 were not all conduc‘ at the same time, or at the same place or un exactly the same conditions. ’ The relatively low feed cost per pound A‘, gain on calves tends to be offset by the fact t Good feeder steer calves cost more per pou than Good feeder steer yearlings, Figure 2. l the same time, fat calves and fat steers gradi Good tend to sell for about the same price, f ures 5 and 6. Thus, the margin between t, price paid for feeders and the price received ’ slaughter animals is likely to be less with cal than with yearling steers. Systems 1, 2 and 4 had the advantage of s : field grazing for which there was no charge. search shows that 60 days of stalk field grazl should provide an average of 50 pounds of per steer. < During the past 11 years, the spread on n Fort Worth market between the cost of 0 feeder calves in October and the price paid xf Good slaughter calves the following May i averaged about 2% cents per pound, Figure 5. § However, during years of severely decli cattle prices, such as occurred during 1951 :f 1952, slaughter calves sold in May brought > per pound than feeder calves cost the previ fall. Such a situation existed during 3 of past 11 years. In- 1 year there was no margin tween the buying and selling price. Only once in the past 11 years was the i of Good feeder yearlingsteers higher than w. price paid for Good slaughter steers. Howe there is considerable year-to-year variation. the spread between buying costs and selling pri per pound of both calves and yearlings. ' Because of this variation, profits were cal- _ed for each system of cattle feeding, assum- iifferent margins between feeder and slaugh- rices. In each instance, 1956-57 costs were ,, The selling price was adjusted in each case tain the different price margins. lWith a margin of 3 cents per pound and $2.00 _ um grain, it was estimated that system 1 d return more than $30 per head for profit *‘the operator's time and management. The profitable of the systems (numbers 3 and ould return $12 to $13 per head profit with ent margin. Y Based on a 2-cent margin, 100 head of calves _ht weight yearlings (systems 1, 2 and 4) l calculated to return $700 to $2,300 profit. lever, with only a 2-cent margin, it is doubt- hether the opportunities for profit with sys- f 3, 5 and 6 justify the risk involved. With a 1-cent margin, system 1 is the only that would have been profitable with grain yhum at $2.00 per hundredweight. jFor the systems of cattle feeding outlined in - 4, a change of 1 cent per pound in the mar- etween purchase and selling prices of cattle s a difference of $8 to $10 per head in the ts or losses of the cattle feeding enterprise. with a margin of 4 cents per pound, there klikelihood of $16 to $20 greater profit per I than with a margin of 2 cents a pound. The heavier the cattle sold, the greater is the effect of a change of margin on profits per head. By careful buying, a farmer has an oppor- tunity to widen the margin between the purchase and selling prices of cattle put in the feedlot. Every cent or fraction of a cent per pound that can be saved in buying the quality of cattle de- sired is that much added to this margin. Wise buying is the best way to assure a favorable mar- gin. Except during years when the general level of cattle prices are declining sharply, the cattle feeder who buys wisely in October usually can count on a favorable margin for slaughter cat- tle sold in Aprilor May that grade Good or high- er. Although there is year-to-year variation in this margin, with the present outlook for grain sorghum prices, a well-managed cattle feeding enterprise can return a profit at an average mar- gin. Year-after-year operations are likely to be less risky in the long run than an in-and-out op- eration. With year-after-vear operations, the feeder always is in position to benefit when prices are particularly favorable. The favorable years should make up for the seasons when the profit margin is small. Once a cattle feeding enterprise has been add- ed to the system of farming. there are many de- cisions to be made yearly. These decisions con- jE 5. ESTIMATED PROFITS AND LOSSES FROM 100 STEERS FED IN DRYLOT USING SIX SYSTEMS OF FEEDING AND WITH VARYING PRICES FOR GRAIN SORGHUM, VARYING MARGINS IN CAT- TLE PRICES AND OTHER COSTS AT THE 1956-57 LEVEL Feeding system 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 — — — — — — — — —- —- Dollars — — — — — — — — -- - 9 sorghum at $2.50 per cwt. and ttle price margin ofz‘ ‘ » ’ - ts 3,108 1,759 1,670 1,965 2,614 , 1,784 ‘nts 2,326 819 650 1,025 1,555 819 i ts 1,544 122 - 369 84 505 — 147 i.- t 762 - 1,062 — 1,389 — 856 — 564 - 1,112 ‘A ne — 20 — 2,003 - 2,388 i — 1,797 - 1,624 — 2,078 sorghum at $2.00 per cwt. and , tle price margin of z‘ ', ts 3,940 2,843 2,243 2,605 2,389 2,500 Mntg 3,158 1,903 1,223 1,665 1,330 1,535 ~ ts 2,378 963 204 724 270 469 g l; 1,594 22 - 816 - 216 — 789 — 496 9 812 — 918 — 1,837 — 1,157 — 1,849 — 1,462 l sorghum at $1.50 per cwt. and ttle price margin of a‘ . t5 4,747 3,893 3,282 3,462 3,358 2,934 Jlts 3,965 2,953 2,262 ~ 2,522 2,299 1,969 g ‘ts 3,183 2,012 1,243 1,581 1,239 1,003 " t 2,401 1,072 223 ' 641 180 38 ‘ pne 1.619 131 — 796 — 300 - 880 — 928 sorghum atég$L25 per cwt. and ttle price margin ofz‘ 1| tg 5,185 4,466 3,747 4,109 3,927 3,246 ts 4,403 3,526 2,727 3,169 2,868 2,281 i-ts 3,621 2,585 1,708 2,228 1,708 1,315 at _ 2,839 1,646 688 1,288 649 350 "no 2,057 _ 706 - 331 347 — 411 — 616 ifference in price received per pound for slaughter cattle over the price paid for feeder cattle. -ll cern the kind and quality of cattle to buy and the kind of ration to feed. Feeders should con- sider the prospective demand and supply for the various weights and grades of cattle, together with the cost outlook for feed grains. A comparison of system 1 (where calves are fed) with the other systems (involving yearling steers), shows that calves require less feed per pound of gain than larger animals. However, calves normally cost more per pound as feeders than yearling steers (Figure 2). Consequently, since slaughter calves and steers of the same grade sell for about the same price, a cattle feeder is likely to have less margin with calves than with steers. Stated differently, during a year that the cattle feeder has a margin of 2 cents per pound when feeding calves, he is likely to have a larger margin by feeding yearling steers. EFFECT OF GRAIN SORGHUM PRICE To this point, consideration has centered around cattle feeding as an alternative to selling sorghum grain at $2.00 per hundredweight. How- ever, the price of grain sorghum greatly affects the profitableness of cattle feeding. The cotton and wheat allotment programs have greatly increased the acreage available for producing grain sorghum on many Texas farms. Lower prices for grain sorghum likely will result from increased production. Price expectations for both grain sorghum and cattle are important considerations in plan- ning a feeding enterprise. Estimates of the profits and losses that might be expected from cattle feeding with grain sorghum at varying prices are summarized in Table 5. Except for homegrown feed, all costs are those that pre- vailed in 1956-57, as shown in Table 3. Estimates “also are shown for five different margins be- tween the buying and the selling price. of cattle for the different prices of grain sorghum. MAY PRICE , e000 soo-uoo LB.- g ,./ SLAUGHTER STEERS a / ‘A ° so l’ 0- / I 5 //\\ I / / ' _ n. _ I, \v/ . en 1 . 5 /\ x "‘\\ I lb! 20 v ‘ "/ I m \ 0 _ E - OCTOBER PR cE , e000 n. 500-800 LB. FEEDER sTEERs '0 l r r | | | 1 l I I I945 I950 I955 Figure 6. Average October price of Good feeder steers and the price the following May of Good slaughter steers on the ‘Fort Worth market, 1946-57. l2 y, Tables 5 and 8 may serve as a rough gu in appraising the opportunities for profit fr cattle feeding. This information also can be t in evaluating different systems of feeding v" different price prospects for feed and for fee, and slaughter cattle. A In planning a cattle feeding enterprise, c ful attention should be given to the price outl for slaughter animals. A knowledge of the 0 look is basic to a wise selection in choosing - grade, age and weight of cattle to purchase. ; knowledge also is basic in selecting the best-suii ration. Rations high in grain and low in rough are the most profitable when grain is cheap, high forage rations tend to be more favora when grain prices are high. if Except for grain sorghum, costs associa with a feeding enterprise are not expected to ' cline. Therefore, the lower the price of grain ~ ghum, the greater the advantage of using a r tively heavy grain ration. With $2.50 grain sorghum, a price ma of at least 3 or 4 cents a pound is necessary g cattle feeding to provide a profitable market a grain. Over a period of years, farmers can depend on such a favorable price margin. ' other costs at the 1956-57 level, there is a degree of risk in feeding $2.50 grain sorghum cattle. ' On the other hand, withgrain sorghum b ' ing $1.50 per hundredweight, feeding a high gr ration is likely to be profitable with a 2-cent ' gin in the price of slaughter cattle over the Y of feeders. With grain sorghum selling for $1 feeding systems 1, 2 and 4 offer a fair opp tunity for profit with only a 1-cent favor margin in cattle prices. Table 5 shows that even with low-pri’ grain, slaughter cattle must sell for more _ pound than the feeders cost if cattle feedin to be profitable. Cattle feeding is risky u f there is prospect of such a margin. The hig the price of grain sorghum the wider is the .6 gin needed. Careful buying of feeder animal a possible way of increasing this margin. A 9 tle feeder should consider various aspects of outlook for slaughter cattle inuplanning his r to-year cattle feeding operations. Somet’ slaughter prices are not as good as expected , the price margin is not as wide as anticipa Estimates shown in Table 5 may serve as a 1 p to farmers and others in calculating the risk volved in a cattle feeding enterprise sh slaughter prices be less than expected. EFFECT OF COTTONSEED MEAL PRICE Cottonseed meal is the high protein feed l‘ commonly used in balancing a beef cattle ra With most rations, this can be done by w‘ 2 pounds of meal per animal daily. f AQ4E_4.Q r-O-Jl l-Holdv 6. SUMMARY OF FEED AND LABOR RE- QUIREMENTS FOR THREE SYSTEMS OF CATTLE FEEDING, WITH COTTONSEED HULLS USED AS THE PRINCIPAL ROUGHAGE ¢ Yearling Yearling " _, I 31g system Calves steers steers 7 8 9 ; purchased ‘ (no.) 100 ‘100 100 _, ge weight i , (lbs.) 400 7 50 750 1 grazed (days) 60 0 0 ~ m feedlot , (days) 150 100 140 ’ e per steer: V ght going into - lot (lbs.) 450 750 750 i l market weight ;: (lbs.) 765 980 1,030 rage daily gain ‘ (lbs.) 2.1 2.3 2.0 , with steers: 2 otal (hrs.) 500 300 470 i steer (hrs.) 5 3 4.7 Av. Total Av. Total Av. Total lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. per per per per per per ‘_ day steer day steer day steer ‘used per Pr: V: nd sorghum i n (lbs.) 9.1 1,365 11 1,100 6,4 900 . onseed V cal (lbs.) 2.0 300 2 200 2.0 280 onseed lls (lbs.) 6.1 920 9 900 15.0 2,100 lfa hay (lbs.) 2.0 300 2 200 2.0 280 (lbs.) . . 10 10 15 onsequently, a $10 change per ton in the pf cottonseed meal changes the cost of feed- calf or steer by 1 cent per day. For a feed- riod of 150 days, this difference amounts .50 per head fed, or a total of $150 in feeding teers for a period of 150 days. EEDING COTTONSEED HULLS atisfactory results have been obtained with q eed hulls as the principal roughage in feed- ials at Spur and Big Spring. The danger of “n A deficiency in these rations was avoid- Y feeding 2 pounds of alfalfa hay per head I i. ottonseed hulls are easy to feed and may i dled mechanically. When handled by hand, Abor is required to feed hulls than to feed 1’?! feeding hulls instead of silage, a farmer .~ ovide the facilities necessary to feed 100 y for about $2,300, as compared with $4,800 j silage-making equipment is purchased. hree systems of cattle feeding, 7, 8 and 9, ich cottonseed hulls are used, are summar- 1| Table 6. System "7 is for calves handled much as in system 1, Table 2, except that ughage consisted of 6.1 pounds of cotton- seed hulls and 2 pounds of alfalfa hay instead or silage. Daily gains averaged 2.1 pounds per head. With systems 8 and 9, 750-pound steers were fed 100 and 140 days, respectively. The ration in system 8 was relatively high in grain, whereas that in system 9 was low in grain and high in roughage. Except for the kind of roughage, sys- tems 8 and 9 are similar to systems 3 and 5, re- spectively, for which data are summarized in Tables 2 and 4. Cottonseed hulls were abnormally expensive in 1956 because of drouth. In this study, hulls were figured at $15 per ton to more nearly illus- trate a normal cost situation. With prices that prevailed’ during 1956-57, it would have been profitable to use cottonseed hulls at $15.00 per ton in a fattening ration for either calves or yearling steers, Table 7. Systems 7 and 8, both relatively high in concentrates, had little advantage over system 9, a high roughage and low grain ration, from the standpoint of profits. However, with the price relationships used in this study, there were advantages in feeding si- lage. For instance, it Was estimated that 450i pound calves fed silage and concentrates, system 1, Table 4, made nearly $8.00 more profit per TABLE 7. ESTIMATED COSTS AND RETURNS FROM THREE SYSTEMS OF CATTLE FEEDING, WITH COTTONSEED HULLS USED AS THE PRINCIPAL ROUGHAGE, 1956-57 PRICES Yearling Yearling Feeding system Calves steers steers 7 8 9 ————Dollars———- COSTS 100 steers purchased 7,200 12,750 12,750 Homegrown grain sorghum 2,716 2,189 1,791 Cottonseed meal and salt 1,057 709 994 Cottonseed hulls 612 672 1,567 Alfalfa hay 398 398 557 Marketing expense 758 970 1,030 Miscellaneous 25 25 25 Depreciation — added investment 134 134 134 Interest — added investment 454 320 417 Repairs and operation -— added facilities 172 172 172 Total 13,526 18,339 19,537 CATTLE SALES Animals sold (no.) 99 99 99 Average market weight (lbs.) 765 980 1,030 Total weight sold (lbs.) 75,735 97,020 101,970 Price per cwt. (dol.) 22 22 22 Gross cattle sales (dol.) 16,662 21,344 22,433 Profits—1956-57 prices ($2.00 grain sor- ghum) (dol.) 3,136 3,005 2,896 13 TABLE 8. ESTIMATED PROFITS AND LOSSES FROM 100 STEERS FED RATIONS WHICH IN- CLUDE COTTONSEED HULLS WITH VARYING PRICES FOR GRAIN SORGHUM Calves Yearling Yearling Feeding system steers steers 7 8 9 ------Dollars--———a Grain sorghum at $2.50 per cwt. and a cattle price margin of :‘ 4 cents 2,433 1,477 1,499 . 3 cents 1,675 507 479 2 cents » 918 —463 -541 1 cent 161 - 1,433 - 1,560 Grain sorghum at $2.00 per cwt. and a cattle price y margin ofz‘ 4 cents 3,136 2,035 1,877 3 cents 2,378 1,065 857 2 cents 1,621 95 - 163 1 cent 864 —875 - 1,182 Grain sorghum at $1.50 per cwt. and a cattle price margin of :‘ 4 cents 3,839 2,593 2,418 3 cents 3,081 1,623 1,398 2 cents 2,324 653 378 1 cent 1,567 -317 — 641 Grain sorghum at $1.25 per cwt. and a cattle price margin of z‘ 4 cents 4,190 2,872 2,648 3 cents 3,432 1,902 1,628 2 cents 2,675 932 608 1 cent 1,918 —38 -411 ‘Margin is the difference in price received per pound for slaughter cattle over the price paid for feeder cattle. head than calves fed a similar quantity of con- centrates with cottonseed hulls, system 7, Table 7. Yearling steers fed silage were estimated to 14 3 and 5, respectively, Table 4. be more profitable than those fed cottonseed h A systems 8 and 9, Table 7, compared with syst Table 8 shows the estimated profits j losses from steers fed rations containing cot seed hulls with varying prices of grain, and = mates of profits and losses with different ‘l gins between the buying and, selling price of cattle fed. With grain sorghum at $2.00 or more ‘ hundredweight, a satisfactory profit with -' of the three feeding systems that include cot It seed hulls depends on a favorable margin of , 4 cents a pound between the buying and the c‘ ing price of cattle. Estimates shown in Tables 8 and 5 may s in evaluating alternative roughages available drylot feeding. l OTHER BENEFITS OF FEEDING CATTLE Considerable manure results from fee cattle in a drylot. Manure is a valuable sourc fertility and humus. Farmers report good‘ sponses from applications of manure with y gated crops. The response to manure on land has been less pronounced. " ' The methods of storing or handling the , nure before it is spread on fthe field will a both the quantity and quality of this ferti and the time of year that manure is available v affect its usefulness. For these reasons, i difficult to place a value on this by-produc the cattle feeding enterprise. ‘