572-812-4511:

I_t_xAs Aemcuuunn rxvrnnmn smnorg

BULLETIN NO. 153 AUGUST, 1912

Division of Animal Husbandry

A Test of the Relative Values of
Cotton Seed Meal and Silage, and Cotton Seed
Meal and Cotton Seed Hulls for
Fattening Cattle.

BY
JQHN C. BURNS,

Animal Husbandman

ASSISTED BY

T. P. M ETCALFE.

 

POSTOFFICE,
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY,"_'TEXAS.

AUSTIN PRINTING COMPANY
AUSTIN. TEXAS

E

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS.
GOVERNING BOARD.
(Board of Directors A. & M. College.)

WALTON PETEET, President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fort Worth

JouN I. GUION, Vice-President . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Ballinger

CIIAs. DAVIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steele’s Store

L. J. HART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..San Antonio

J. ALLEN KYLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Houston

R. L. BENNiyiu‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Paris

D. W. KEMPNER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Galveston

En. R. KONE . . . . . . l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Austin
PRESIDENT OF COLLEGE.
R. T. Mr-LxlcR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Col1ege Station
STATION STAFF.
B. YoUNoRLoon, M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Director

M. FRANCIS, D. V. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Veterinarian

G. S. FRArs, Pu. D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chemist

H. NEss, M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Horticulturist

J. C. BURNS, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Animal Husbandman

WILMON NEWELL, M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Entomologist

A. B. CONNER, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agronomist

F. H. Br.o1>(.'1c'r1g P11. D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Plant Pathologist and Physiologist

J. M. JOHNSON. M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Farm Management Expert

W. L. BOYETT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..State Feed Inspector

HARPER DEAN, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .Assista11t Entomologist

J. B. RATHER. M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Chemist

J. B. KELLY, A. B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Chemist

L. C. LUDLUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Chemist

F. B. PADDOCK, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Entomologist

H. H. JOBSON, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Agronomist

CnAs. A. FELKER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cl1ief Clerk

A. S. WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Secretary

J. M. ScnAEnEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Sten0grapher

R. L. SPILLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . .Mailing Clerk

STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS.
“GOVERNING BOARD.

Hrs EXCELLENCY GOVERNOR O. B. COLQUITT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Austin
LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR A. B. DAVIDSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Cuero
COMMISSIONER 0F AGRICULTURE HON. En. R. KONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Austin
DIRECTOR OF STATIONS.
B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Col1ege Station
SUPERINTENDENTS OF SUB-STATIONS.
E. E. BTNFORI), Beeville Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Beeville. Bee County

W. S. HOTCIIKISS. Troup Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Troup, Smith County

E. M. JOHNSTON. Cooperative Rice Station . . . . . . . Beaumont, Jefferson County

I. S. YORK, Spur Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Spur, Dickens County

T. W. BUELL, Denton, Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Denton, Denton County

A. K. SHORT, Temple Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Temple, Bell County

V. L. CoRY, Lubbock Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lubbock, Lubbock County

P. D. PERKINS, Angleton Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Angleton, Brazoria County

H. C. STmvART. Pecos Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Pecos, Reeves County

G. T. MoNEss, Nacogdoches Sub-Station. . . .Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County
H. C. HoLMEs, Feeding and Breeding Station. . .Col1ege Station, Brazos County

Norm-The main station is located on the grounds of the Agricultural and
Mechanical College, in Brazos County. The postoflice address is College
Station, Texas. Reports and bulletins are sent upon application to the
Director. A postal card will bring these publications.

(2)

A TEST OF THE RELATIVE VALUES OF COTTON SEED
MEAL AND SILAGE, AND COTTON SEED MEAL AND
COTTON SEED HULLS FOR FATT uNING CATTLE.

BY JOHN C. BURNS.
ASSISTED _BY T. P. hlEToALFE.

INTRODUCTION. "

The experiment reported in this bulletin was conducted during the
past Winter and spring in cooperation With Col. T. S. Bugbee of
Clarendon, T'exas, whofurnished the cattle, the feeds, the scales,
and, in fact, everything connected with the Work except the man who
did the feeding and collected the data.

The purpose of the experiment was to ascertain whether cotton seed
meal and silage may be used more profitably for fattening cattle than
cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls, the two feeds which compose
the ration that is used much more than any other for fattening cattle
throughout the South. The high price of cotton seed hulls during-
recent years emphasizes the importance of finding, if possible, a more
economical feed to take its place, either partially or altogether. Be-
cause of the low nutritive value of this feed and the relatively large
amount necessary to use, it is this portion of the ration rather than
the meal that makes the feeding of meal and hulls so expensive at
current prices.

The feeding of silage to dairy cattle has been practiced extensively
and with a high degree of success for many years, but only recently
has it been loolzed upon with much favor for beef production. The
experiment herein reported is the first one that has been conducted
by this Station for the purpose of testing the value of silage in a
ration for beef cattle, The results should be of considerable practical
value from the fact that the experiment was conducted entirely under
actual farm conditions. Since these are the results of only one ex-
periment, they should not be taken as absolutely conclusive and for
this reason the Station will conduct other experiments along the same
line during the coming fall, winter, and spring.

CATTLE USED.

The cattle used in the experiment were 4O head of range bred three-
and four-year-old. grade Shorthorn and Hereford steers all of which
were dehorned. Though not highly graded they showed a preponder-
ance of improved blood and represented about the average of the cattle
of the Panhandle section of the State. They were the “tops” of a
bunch of about 200 head and were fairly uniform as to conformation.
quality, and condition. Their average weight when the experiment
began was 904 pounds, and the value placed on them was $42.50 a
head.

.H.ZHE~MHMNH awe mo GZFZZFFQHM HEB E4 ~ EOQ E0 wmmmew HEP ._ HE<QL

..);,£z£:

FZQEHMEMNH Hi9 5Q GZHZZHUHM

_5_
FEEDS USED.

The feeds used, namely, cotton seed meal, cotton seed hulls, silage.
and hay, were of average quality.

The silage was composed chiefly ofmilo maize, which had been
harvested when the heads were about mature and the stalks and leaves
were still green The other components of the silage Were sorghum
and Indian Corn. It was estimated that the larger portion of the silage
fed consisted of about 75 per cent milo maize, 15 per cent Indian
corn, and 10 per cent sorghum. That which was fed during the last
20 days of the test contained a somewhat higher percentage of Indian
corn. ‘

The hay was composed of sorghum and Johnson grass, about half
and half.

An average sample of each lot of feed was analyzed by the Chemical
Division of the Experiment Station. These analyses are shown in the
following table:

TAB LE 1 .
Percentage composition.
l ‘ Nitrogen
Feeds. Period used. Water. l Ash. Protein. Crude Free- Fat.
l Fiber . extract.
Cotton seed meal" Dee. 8, 1911, to l
Mar. 13, 1.012__ 6.42 5.65 45.45 7.39 24.67 10.42
Cotton seed mea1__ Mar. 14, 1012, to
April 5,1912“ 6.26 l 5.49 44.05 9.28 25.72 9.20
Cotton seed hul1s_. Dec. 8, 1011, to 
Feb. '26, 1912-- 10.91 j 2.50 5.07 46.05 33.70 1.68
Cotton seed hulls-_ Feb. 27, 1912, to ;
Mar. 14, 1012-- 10.15 y 2.58 4.81 43.00 38.33 1.13
Cotton seed hul1s_- Mar. 15, 1912, to ,
April 5,1912“ 8.24 2.44 4.50 45.65 37.49 1.68
Silage ___________ __ Dec. 8, i911, to ‘
Mar. 14, 1912__ 66.02 y 2.82 2.54 8.86 19.15 .61
Silage ___________ __ Mar. 15, 1912, t0 I
April 5, 1912-- 60.52 I 3.05 3.28 10.57 21.70 .88
Hay _____________ __ Jan. 8, 1912, to
April 5, 1912-- 8.48 7.21 4.22 30.78 48.02 1.29

The cost of the feeds was as follows":

Cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$27.00 per ton.
Cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.50 per ton.
Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.50 per ton.
Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.00 per ton.

The crops "from which the silage was made were grown on Colonel
Bugbee’s place. Though the actual ‘cost of production-including the
rental value of the land, the preparation of the soil, planting, and cul-
tivating the crops and placing them in the silo—was estimated to be
considerably less than $2.50 a ton, this price is placed on the silage
because it is thought that it represents more nearly what the average
cost of production would be throughout the State.

PLAN OF‘ EXPERIMENT.

The afternoon of December 7, 1911, the steers were divided into
two lots, designated as Lot I and Lot II. the former containing 15

i’:

head and the latter 25 head. The division was made as equally as
possible with regard to average weight, quality, and breeding. Only
15 head were used in Lot I for the reason that this number was eon-
sidered sufficient t0 eliminate any differences in the result that might
be attributed t0 differences in individuality, and because it was not
desirable t0 purchase any morecotton seed hulls than was necessary
t0 conduct the experiment properly.

The pens in which the cattle were fed were practically equal in

all conditions that might have had a bearing on the results. Each
had a shed open on the south side which afforded protection against
the cold north wind to some extent, but whi-ch did little more than
this as will be explained later. The cattle in both pens had free
access to salt and water at all times.

The two lots were fed as follows:

Lot I.—Cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls.

Lot II.—Cotton seed meal, silage, and, during a part of the ex-
periment, mixed sorghum and Johnson grass hay.

The cattle were fed twice daily, early in the morning and late in
the afternoon. The meal and hulls were thoroughly mixed together
in the feed trough The silage was placed in the trough, the meal
sprinkled over it, and then the two feeds were thoroughly mixed to-
gether with an ordinary hull fork. The hay was supplied in a sepa-
rate trough, though a rack would have been better.

A preliminary feeding period of a few days would have been desir-
able in order to get the cattle to eating well before beginning the actual
test, but on account of the late date, the experiment proper was begun
on the day of the first feeding.

THE FEEDING TEST.

The experiment covered a period of 119 days, from th-e morning
feed of December 8, 1911, to the evening feed of April 4, 1912.

The rations per steer for the first day were as follows:

Lot I.—3 pounds cotton seed meal, 19% pounds cotton seed hulls.

Lot II.—3 pounds cotton seed meal, 24 1/5 pounds silage.

Hay was added to the ration of Lot II on January 8th. This addi-
tion was made because the steers in this lot were not eating a suffi-
cient quantity of the silage, possibly because of its succulent character,
to afford them as much dry matter as was being consumed by those in
Lot I. It was found, however, that the steers did not take to the hay
very readily; indeed, they did not seem to relish it at any time,
though they were supplied with it until the end of the experiment. It
is doubtful, therefore, whether the addition of hay proved to be of any
advantage. The average daily amount consumed per steer was
slightly over 3 pounds.

After the first few days as much hulls for Lot I and as much silage
for Lot II were supplied as the steers would clean up, the daily
amounts for each steer being about 28% pounds hulls and about 5O
pounds silage, respectively.

The cotton seed meal for both lots was gradually increased, On
January 6th the amount reached 6 pounds a head daily for each lot.
this amount remaining unchanged until February 11th, when 7

__6__._

pounds a head daily was fed. When, therefore, the steers were on
full feed their rations were as follows:

Lot I.—7 pounds cotton seed meal, 30 pounds cotton seed hulls.

Lot II.-—7 pounds cotton seed meal, 5O pounds silage, 3 pounds hay.

The writer feels confident that the results would have been more
satisfactory if a smaller quantity of meal had been fed. There was
one steer, in particular, in Lot I that showed the evil effects of the
heavy meal feeding towards the end of the experiment. Though Lot
II received the same quantity of meal per steer there were apparently
no injurious effects-a fact which would seem to indicatejthat a
larger quantity of meal may be fed successfully in connection with
silage than with hulls, or that the injurious effects of the meal may,
at least to some extent, be counteracted by the silage.

For a feeding period of 119 days, with cattle of the weight of those
used, better results should have been obtained, especially in Lot I and
Probably in Lot II also, if the quantity of meal had been increased
gradually from 3 pounds at the start to 5 pounds at the end of 4O
days; continued on this amount until the end of 8O "days and then
increased to 6 pounds for the remainder of the period. i

A great mistake made by many feeders in Texas is that they do
not feed their cattle sufficiently long to finish them. As a general rule
the higher price received for finished cattle Will more than pay for
the 3O to 6O days of extra feeding necessary to finish them. It is
rarely the case that cattle are in proper condition to be marketed at
the end of 120 days of feeding. Three and four-year-old steers should
generally be fed 150 days and younger cattle a still longer period,
two-year-olds requiring about 180 days. It is, however, less prac-
ticable to carry cattle on straight meal and hulls for longer than 120
days than on many other kinds of rations.

The cattle that were used in this experiment were not finished when
they were marketed, and it is believed that had they been fed 3O days
longer the results would have "been more profitable, provided the
(guantity of meal previously fed had been such as to permit of further
feeding, which, however, was not the case. Though, apparently, the
silage-fed steers could have been fed longer without injurious effects,
it would probably have been better for them as well as for the hulls-
fed steers, if the feeding was to" have lasted 150 days, for the allow-
ance of meal to have been about as follows: 2 to 2% pounds of meal
for the first thirty days; 3 to 3% pounds for the second 3O days;
4 to 41/3 pounds for the third 3O days; and 5 pounds for the last
6O days; the increases to have been made gradually or not at a greater
rate than about 1/1 pound per day.

There was no trouble in getting either lot of steers to eating well,
but it was very noticeable from the beginning to the. end of the ex-
periment that the steers of Lot II relished their ration of meal and
silage much more than the steers of Lot I relished their ration of meal
and hulls. The steers in Lot II would eat the silage about as readily
before the meal was mixed with it as afterwards, whereas those in
Lot I did not care for the hulls until after the meal was mixed with it.

The droppings from the steers of both lots were in good con-
dition throughout the experiment, no scouring or digestive ‘disorders
being indicated.

__9___

The weather conditions were unusually severe during the greater
portion of the period that the experiment was in progress. A few
days after the cattle were started on feed a heavy snow fell and,
in melting, placed the pens and the space under the sheds in very bad
condition. This was followed by alternate freezing and thawing, so
that when the ground was not frozen the mud was knee deep. The
steers’ feet became very sore and for several days it seemed to be an
effort for them to get to the feed troughs. These conditions began
about December 19th,, and with the snows that fell in February, the
pens and sheds were kept in such a bad condition until near the close
of the experiment that there was no dry place for the cattle to lie
down. Neither lot, therefore, made the gains that they should have
made had the conditions been normal. '

The final results of the experiment are shown in the following table:

TABL] II.
Average Total Average Cost of
Lot weight at No. of Total feed: gain daily Pounds feed feed
No. "start. steers. Eaten per head. per gain per per 100 lbs. per
Lbs. Lbs. head. head. Gain. 100 lbs.
Lbs. Lbs. _ Gain.
One -_- 895 15 712.5 cotton seed meal 236 1.98 301.9 cotton seed $10.04
3316.8 cotton seed hulls

me
1405.4 cotton seed
hulls

Two -__ 909 25 716.1 cotton seed meal 295.9 cotton seed 7.82
5661.0 Silage 242 2.03 meal
278.7 Hay y 2339.0 silage
1 115.0 hay

‘The table shows the results to_ be considerably in favor of the
cotton seed meal, silage, and hay ration. The steers of Lot II made
a slightly greater gain at a much lower cost. Since the amount of
cotton seed meal fed to each steer was practically the same in both lots,_
the diiference in favor of Lot II must be attributed to the silage and
the small amount of hay. This is certainly a favorable showing for
silage, to say the least. It is apparent that at current prices silage
can be utilized to much better advantage than cotton seed hulls for
fattening cattle. -

Though the silage used in this experiment was composed chiefly
of milo maize, it is reasonable to believe that silage made of Indian
corn, kafir corn, or even sorghum would, at least, give equally as

_ good results, It remains, however, for other experiments to determine

definitely the relative values of the various kinds of silage for fatten-
ing cattle.

___1Q__

QZHHQMMHMNH HUME mo QZH HMHH.

B4 H EOQ ma wmmmew awe

A5 @943

_.11_

.B.Zfi§~fimrmvmfl  hO QZH HEB E4 i BOQ b0 wmmmew Hi9 QC @515

 

 

-.—12— *
MARKETING.

As previously stated, the ration test ended with the afternoon
feed of April 4th. The final weights were taken early in the morning
on April 5th, before the cattle were given anything to eat. ,On that
day and until noon of the following day the steers in both lots were
fed corn husks (shucks) in liberal quantity, preparatory to shipping,
no other feed being given. On the afternoon of April 6th they were
shipped to the Kansas City market, and were unloaded there about
6:00 p. m., April 8th. In order to ascertain the shrinkage that had
occurred since the morning of April 5th, the steers of each lot were
run across the scales immediately after being unloaded, before they
were fed or Watered.

A comparison of the weights is shown in the following table:

TABLE III.

Average weight Average weight

 

Lot No. at Clarendon. y at Kansas City. Shrinkage.
0H8 .................................... __ 1131 lbs. l 104v lbs. l s4 lbs.
Two .................................... -- 1151 lbs. 3, 106s lbs.  s3 lbs.

It will be observed that there was practically no difference in the
shrinkage of the steers of Lot I and those of Lot II.

The two lots of steers were sold separately to Swift & Company
on the morning of April 9th, having been supplied in the meantime
with hay and ivater. They were weighed by the buyers at about 11:00
a. m. . .

A statement of the weights of the steers and the prices received for
them is shown in the following table:

   

TABLE IV.
Lot No. No. steers. i Average weight. Price per cwt. Amount.
One _______________________ _. 15 i 1060 lbs. $5375 $7155
TWO ---------------------- --l 25 

1083 lbs. 1 $6.95 4 $75.27

The table shows that the silage-fed steers sold for 20 cents per
hundredweight more than the hulls-fed steers. By comparing this
table with Table III it will be seen that the “fill” received by Lot I
was 13 pounds per steer and that received by Lot II, 15 pounds per
steer. '

SLAUGHTER TEST.

Through the kindness of Swift & Company, slaughter records of the
two lots were furnished us. Lot I dressed 58.45 per cent and Lot II
58.2 per centathe difference being too small to be of importance.

The following communication from Swift & Company indicates
their estimate of the tattle on the hooks:

__13_

SWIFT & COMPANY,
STOOK YARDS STATION,
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS.
April 12, 1912.
Prof. J. C. Bums, A. db M. College, College Station, Texas,

DEAR SIR; We attach herewith statement showing yield, etc., on
cattle killed Wednesday, April 10, 1912."

Lot “I,” 15 cattle, costing $6.75 alive, were of a medium grade, 3
in this lot being on the “fair” order.

Lot “II,” 25 cattle, costing $6.95 alive, dressed out considerably
better than Lot “I,” there being but two slightly below the average
flesh and quality of the whole lot. -

These two lots of cattle are not what we consider a well finished
bunch of cattle, but classify according to our grading as “fair to
medium.” I

Yours respectfully,
' SWIFT & COMPANY.
Beef Department. Per H. L. H.
HLH-ECH. »

FINANCIAL OUTCOME.
A statement of the initial cost per steer, the average cost of feed,

the average expense in marketing, the average selling price, and the
average net profit for eachlot is shown in the following table.

TABLE V.
Lot Lot
I. II
Number of steers ____________________________________________________________ __ 15 i 25
00st per steer at beginning of experiment _______________________________ _- $42.50  $42.50
Cost of feed consumed per steer during experiment ______________________ __ 23.715  17.72
Cost of shueks ($6 per ton) consumed per steer preparatory to shipping .08  .'-‘67
Igght charge per steerin marketing ____________________________________ __ 3.46  3.46
(ioet of yardage per steer on market _____________________________________ __ .25 l .25
( 0st of hay per steer on market __________________________________________ -- .375 | .375
‘(Ibgilrnisslon per steer in selling ____________________________________________ -_ .50 7 .50
 -0st per steer ________________________________________________________ _- 70.88 l 64.87
seuingflblg ner steer_--__i__--_ .............................................  71.55 j 75.27
Net profit per steer _________________________________________________________ <1? .67 i 10.40

The net profit of $10.40 a head on the steers of Lot II as compared

with the net profit of 67 cents a head on the steers of lot I shows that

silage has a high value for beef production.

Neither the lah-"Jr involved in feeding; on the one hand, nor the
value of the manure, on the other, is included in the above statement.
As a general rule, however, the value of the manure oifsets the cost
of labor in most feeling operations, a fact that should be more gen-
erally recognized

_14_
SUMMARY.

1. Silage was a much cheaper feed than cotton seed hulls and
yielded slightly larger gains.

2. There was practically no difference in the shrinkage of the two
lots of steers in shipping.

3. There was practically no difference in the dressing percentage
of the two lots.

4. The silage-fed steers showed considerably better finish and
brought 20 cents a hundredweight more on the market than the hulls-
fed steers.

5. The net profit on the silage-fed steers was $10.40 a head and
the net profit on the hulls-fed steers was 67 cents a head.

The results of this experiment seem to indicate that a ration of
cotton seed meal and silage may be used far more profitably than a
ration of cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls for fattening cattle.