ANTMAI. PRODrCTION. 8fi7 



"With coltnii-sccd liulls i(,r roujibaf;!" it n-cjuirtMl 12.:! Ihs. of rough rice to 

 (.(lu.il I 111. dl' <-(ittnii-s(>tHl inoiil ill tills tost. If tlic rice were charged at $10 

 per ton. the uaiiis would cost tlie same as in the lot eatiug cotton-seed meal and 

 hulls. 



'• Tiiis is hy no means conclusive evi(l<'U<-e as to the feediuL; value of rough 

 rice. Fed with alfalfa, cowpea. or peanut hay, it should he worth more than 

 when fed with cotton-seed hulls. Compared to cottou-seed meal when feeding 

 with hulls it lacl^s hoth in composition and the iihysical (pialitics wliich cause 

 meal t;> be so heartily relished." 



Fattening' steers on barley and rejected wheat, J. II. Siiepperd and W. B. 

 KiciiAKDs ( Xorlli Dtihditt SUt. linL 7.i, pi). .'A^-.loH, fajx. 2). — In continuation of 

 earlier work ( K. S. It.. Id. ]). t;"!), 7 steers were fed ground barley and hi-aii 

 L' : 1 with corn fodder and hay (nullet, slender wheat grass, and oat hay). In 

 i;'>2 days, the jncnige daily gain was 2.14 lbs., ()..'>7 lbs. of grain being required 

 per pound of gain. The maxinnun amount of grain eaten per steer was 20.8 

 Ii)s. The avera.ge dressed weight was (!2.4 i)er cent of the live weight and the 

 calculated profit was $7.57 per head. 



In the second test, made with 2 lots of 11 steers e.-ich a ration of rejected 

 wheat and bran .3:1 was compared with corn meal and bran 3:1, the grain 

 ration being supplemented by hay of inferior grade similar to that mentioned 

 ,aho\'e. 



On the wheat i-,ition the avera.ge daily gain in the 112 days of the test was 

 (».7 111. |ier head. 17 Ihs. of grain being required per pound of gain. On the corn- 

 meal r.ition similai' values were 1.47 lbs. and 8.5 lbs. The cost of a pound of 

 gain in the 2 cases was 12.9 and 8.5 cts., respectively. 



" It re(iuire(l 52 jier cent more wheat than corn to jiroduce a pound of gain. 

 The difference in the cost per pound of gain was very different because of the 

 difference in the price of the corn and the rejected wheat." 



At the close of the test all the steers were fed corn and bran until they were 

 ready for market (7 weeks), the average daily gain of the animals previously 

 fed wheat being 8.08 lbs. per head and of those fed corn 1.5 lbs. 



Considering the whole experimental period, the average gains of the 2 lots 

 were 1.42 and 1.47 lbs., respectively, and the cost of a ptmnd of gain 7.5 and 0.8 

 cts. Accoi'ding to the authors, " rejected whe.nt and l>ran will prove unsatis- 

 facttiry as a ration to finish steers upon." 



"The results derived from the 2 feeding i>eriods seem to indicate that rejected 

 wheat ;ind hrau would iirove as good .n grain ration to feed during the first part 

 of the feeding pei'iod as corn ;ind bran, and that i,'ood gains can be made by 

 feeding corn toward the end of the fe(>ding iH'riod. It is difficult to assign a 

 cause for this change of feeds producing such large .gains. The extra growth 

 made by the steers in . . . [the lot fed the wlieat] may account for the gains 

 made later on. The condition of their systems must have been better for assimi- 

 lating the new ration." 



Roth lots were fed at a loss, the aniouid iieing $1.52 jier head with the wheat- 

 fed steers and $5.81 with the c<irn-fed l<it. \i\ analysis of the rejected wheat 

 used is reported. 



A plan for the improvement of Michig-an cattle, K. S. Siiaw (Michigan Sta. 

 liiil. .{',1. PI). ,i.T-JJ. flfjs. ')). — It is stated that the present bulletin is intended 

 .as a preliminary to reports of investig.ations on animal breeding now in progress 

 or contem))lated at the station. Existing conditions in cattle breeding, tht> 

 inferiority of the connnon stock and rel.ated (luestions are discussed .and general 

 directions given f<n' the upbreeding of cattle. 



The improvement of Michigan cattle, in the author's opinion, necessitates 



