Live Stock Breeders* Association. 15$ 



The quality of the cattle used in the different experiments 

 was essentially the same. The cattle used in the winter trials were 

 about six months older than those used in the summer tests. In 

 other words, the summer feeding began in the spring, when the cat- 

 tle were just two years old, whereas the winter feeding experi- 

 ment began in the fall, when the cattle were approximately 30 

 months old. This is to the disadvantage of the winter feeding, be- 

 cause the presumption is that the cattle being six months younger 

 when fed in summer were making gains somewhat cheaper. It will 

 be noted, however, that the average length of the feeding period 

 in the winter trials was only 107 days, whereas in the summer ex- 

 periments it was 210 days, or practically twice as long. This means 

 that the summer-fed cattle were made much fatter, and it is fair 

 to assume that whatever advantage they possessed in point of 

 youth was more than offset by the additional length of the feeding 

 period and the extra amount of fat they were made to carry be- 

 fore the experiment closed. If the comparison is unfair at all, the 

 injustice is done rather to the summer than to the winter-fed cattle. 





Fig. 10. Comfort and contentment are important factors in making rapid and 

 cheap gains. 



It will be interesting to note that the average daily consump- 

 tion of roughness per head in winter by cattle on full feed was 

 8.15 pounds. This means that each steer ate per month about 245 

 pounds of hay. Rating this hay at $5.00 per ton, makes the month- 

 ly consumption 61 cents per head. If the hay be worth $6.00 per 

 ton, the monthly charge for roughness would be 73 cents ; at $7.00 

 per ton, the cost would be 88 cents per steer; with hay rated at 



