;."> 



same total gains in live weight, but those in Lot 1 had 

 the advantage in that they had a cheap fed, silage, addea 

 to the basal ration of cottonseed meal and hulls. Each 

 steer in Lot 1 made a clear profit of .$7.68. while each one 

 in Lot 3 made a profit of only J}>6.97. The steers which 

 received Johnson-grass hay along with the cottonseed 

 meal and hulls (Lot 2) made a profit of only $5.50 each. 



SLAUGHTER DATA. 



Table 4 shows the total weight of each lot of cattle, 

 the live weight ;il llic Ldiiisvillo market, the number of 

 pounds each steer Idst in shij)inent, the dressed weight 

 at Louisville, and liie per cent of dressed weight to livo 

 weight. The steers were driven 4 miles to a railroad, 

 and, on account of delays, were in the cars 48 hours. 



Table 4. — Slaughfcr Records. 



The shrinkage on tlie road was rather great, but it 

 should be remembered that there was a delay of several 

 hours in shipment. Those cattle which were fed John- 

 son-grass hay (Lot 2) lost the fewest pounds in weight. 

 Each steer lost 77.5, 68.3 and 78.8 pounds in Lots 1, 2, 

 and 3 respectively; or, the silage-fed steers (Lot 1) lost in 

 transit 8.1 per cent of their weight, those in Lot 2 (John- 

 son-grass lot) lost 7.1 per cent, while those in Lot 3 (cot- 

 tonseed meal and hulls) shrunk 7.9 per cent. 



The steers in Lot 1, (the silage-fed cattle) dressed out 

 higher than the steers in Lots 2 and 3, dressing 56.1 per 

 cent by the market weights. The steers in Lots 2 and 3 

 dressed 55.3 per cent and 55.5 per cent respectively. 



