71 



test was therefore worth $1.31 a ton, whereas it cost 

 4f 11.00 a ton. Ton for ton, silage was just three times as 

 valuable as Johnson-grass hay when they were both 

 used along with cottonseed meal and hulls for fattening 

 cattle. Johnson-grass hay proved to be a poor feed for 

 fattening purposes, while silage had an exceedingly high 

 value when used for the same purpose. The cattle feeder 

 •cannot, therefore, afTord to use Johnson-grass hay along 

 Avith cottonseed meal and hulls for fattening purposes, 

 and this experiment tends to show that the majority of 

 southern feeders cannot use a more economical feed than 

 milage for this purpose. 



ADVANTAGES OF USING PURCHASED FEEDS. 



The majority of our southern farmers object to buy- 

 ing cottonseed meal, liulls, and other feeds for beef cat- 

 tle on the ground that the original prices of the feeds 

 can not be realized after being fed to cattle. At the 

 same lime liiousands of these same farmers buy cot- 

 tonseed meal and use it as a commercial fertilizer, when 

 experience and experiments all teach that the first use 

 of the meal should be as a feed for some kind of live 

 stock, and the secqnd use as a fertilizer in ihe shape of 

 barnyard manure. \A'hen the cottonseed meal is fed 

 to live stock it is used twice, once as a feed and again 

 as a fertilizer. Many of our best farmers feed cattle 

 for no other reason than to obtain the barnyard manure 

 and are satisfied if they come out even on the cattle; 

 the manure is well worth the expense of feeding. 



In these experiments the cottonseed meal cost $26.00 

 a ton and the hulls $7.00 a ton, and we are satisfied 

 that in every case these feeds realized, as a result of 

 feeding to the cattle, much more than they cost. That is, 

 an actual profit was made on each ton of the feeds and at 

 the same time the manure was left on the farm. The 

 meal and hulls, therefore, were no expense at all to the 

 isoil or to tliQ succeeding crops. 



