8a 



summer, as money was finally lost on these two lots of 

 cattle. The gains secured during the winter months 

 were expensive by reason of the fact that the ration was 

 too near a mere maintenance ration. It is seen that in 

 Lot 4, 368 pounds of cottonseed meal plus 2077 pounds 

 of hulls were required to make 100 pounds of increase in 

 live weight. In Lot 5, where Johnson-grass hay was 

 introduced, 424 pounds of cottonseed meal, 1160 pounds 

 of hulls and 935 pounds of hay were required to maki? 

 100 pounds of gain. 



Johnson-grass hay did not improve the ration of cot- 

 tonseed meal and hulls. Nothing was gained by its in- 

 troduction. In comparing the results of Lots 4 and 

 5, it is learned that 035 pounds of Johnson-grass, 

 hay saved 917 pounds of hulls, but caused a loss of 56 

 pounds of cottonseed meal; or, one ton of the hay was 

 worth r$5.26 in this feeding test, when cottonseed meal 

 and cottonseed hulls are valued at $26.00 and $7.00 a 

 ton respectively. It will be remembered that in Part f 

 of this bulletin the same hay was worth only $1.31 .i 

 ton as a fattening feed. The nearer a feed or a com- 

 bination of feeds approaches a mere maintenance ra- 

 tion the more valuable such a hay as Johnson-grass be- 

 comes. 



The small increase in live weight of the steers in Lots 

 X and Y was made without cost as the range, their only 

 feed, was free. 



THE SPRING COST OF THE STEERS. 



The steers in Lots 4 and 5 cost 3I/2 cents a pound the- 

 fall of 1909; those in Lot 4 averaged $21.84 each, and 

 fhose in Lot 5 $21.28. They were well-bred animals; no 

 scrubs were among them. The steers in Lots X and Y 

 were of a very common grade and cost only 2^/4 cents a 

 pound. Although these cattle were not to be fattened for 

 the market until the next summer, they were all bought 

 during the fall of 1909, as it is practically impossible to 

 get together a bunch of cattle in the spring. However^ 



