EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETINS. 



263 



Total feed consumed by each lot during test 



gether with lower value of beet pulp as compared with corn meal — beet 

 pulp, $15.00 per ton, corn meal |20.00 per ton — tended to cheapen the 

 ration of the steers receiving the pulp. As shown by the above table, 

 the total cost of feed consumed by the Corn Meal Lot was §67.74, which 

 was $7.70 more than the cost of feed for the Corn Meal Beet Pulp Lot, 

 and §14.88 more than the cost of the Beet Pulp Lot. 



The average cost of ration per head daily was 14.1 cents with the Corn 

 Meal Lot, 12.5 cents with the Corn Meal Beet Pulp Lot, and 11.0 with the 

 Beet Pulp Lot, a difference in the cost of ration of more than three cents 

 per head daily between Lot 1 and Lot 3. 



Weights and gains of each lot: 



Lot 1. Corn meal 



Lot 2. Corn meal, beet pulp. 

 Lot 3. Beet pulp 



Weight 



Aug. 11. 



lbs. 



3229.2 

 3194.9 

 3198.5 



Weight i Gain in ( Gain per : rr.„»„i „„„t I /,„„* „, 



Dpn S 19(1 flavt! hpaH Hnilv Total COSt CoSt of 



lbs. lbs lbs of feed. 1 1 lb. gain. 



4208.1 

 4017.2 

 4000.2 



978.9 

 822.3 

 801.7 



2.039 

 1.713 

 1.670 



S67.741 

 60.039 



S0.0690 

 0.0730 



52.863 I 0.0659 



The greatest gain made during the feeding period was that of the 

 Corn Meal Lot, 978.9 lbs., or a little more than 2 lbs. per head daily. The 

 Beet Pulp Lot gained the least, 801.7 lbs., or 1.67 lbs. per head daily, 

 nearly equaling Lot 2, which gained 1.71 lbs. daily. The Corn Meal Lot 

 led the Beet Pulp Lot by a margin of 177.2 lbs. in gain, but even that 

 could not offset the difference in cost of ration. The gains made by the 

 Corn Meal Lot cost 6.9 cents per lb., while the Beet Pulp steers gained 

 for 6 . 59 cents a difference of 31 cents per hundred weight in favor of the 

 Beet Pulp steers. Lot 2, fed on the combination ration of beet pulp and 

 corn meal, produced gain at a cost of 7.3 cents per lb., a considerably 

 higher figure than either of the other two lots. From the previous trial 

 we should expect Lot 2 to gain cheaper than the Corn Meal Lot, but at 

 a higher cost than the straight Beet Pulp Lot, as in the second feeding 

 trial the Corn Meal Beet Pulp Lot stood practically half way between 

 the other two, both in actual gain and in cost per lb. gain. In the first 

 feeding trial none of the steers received the ration of corn meal and 

 beet pulp together, so that no comparison is available. The failure of 

 the Corn Meal Beet Pulp Lot to make proportionate gains in this test 



