The Proper Beef Type. 35 



the Hereford had only 95 pounds of tallow and 38 pounds of suet 

 on an 888-pound carcass, equivalent to 15 per cent. And beside 

 this striking difference in the percentage of meat in the high- 

 priced cuts, the meat of the Jersey was much inferior to that of 

 the Hereford. The Jersey steer went on accumulating fat around 

 his paunch and internal organs to the extent of nearly one-third 

 of his entire body weight, while he did not have meat enough on 

 his back decently to cover his bones. This explains why a Jersey 

 or a Holstein, or any other animal not expressly bred for beef, 

 can never be made plump and smooth, no matter how long it is 

 fed or how highly it may be fattened. Besides, what scanty 

 flesh that is there will be found of inferior quality owing to the 

 absence of that fat deposited throughout the tissues of the meat 

 that is necessary to a ripe^ juicy and highly flavored cut. There 

 is a fundamental and essential reason why rough cattle do not 

 sell. These same distinctions are largely true of the native and 

 all other unimproved cattle when an attempt is made to fatten 

 them for beef. The men who buy them are well aware of these 

 distinctions and they fix their market values accordingly. 



It is of vital importance, then, that the feeder should have the 

 right kind of cattle for fattening. The Jersey and the Hereford 

 steers previously referred to made practically the same gains in 

 the feed lot and at substantially the same cost per pound for feed 

 consumed, but the market comparison revealed the fact that the 

 steer of beef type and inherited beef-making capacity was making 

 a product worth 49 per cent, more than the other steer, and this 

 increased value not only applied to the gain made in the feed 

 yard, but to the entire carcass as well. The feeder cannot afford 

 to ignore these distinctions. They are of vital concern and deter- 

 mine profit or loss. If the producer were hauling his corn or 

 other products to market, instead of feeding it to cattle, he would 

 not hesitate to select one that would return 49, or 25, or even 10 

 per cent, more than another. The loss cannot be afforded in 

 either way. 



