FOODS — ANIMAL PRODUCTION. 77 



At the conclusion of the experiment the steers were sold and slaugh- 

 tered. The price received was $5 per 100 lbs., "netting S-i.TT per 100 

 lbs. at the station, or a total value of 6910.04: at the end of the 110 

 days." The total cost of feed consumed was $047.72. 



The various points under consideration are discussed and the two 

 experiments are compared in detail. A brief summary of the discussion 

 is given below : 



Corn mc(d vs. wheat meal. — The average daily gain per animal in 1894 

 of lots li and 1 on corn meal was 2.07 lbs., and lots 5 and (I on wlieat 

 meal, 1.98 lbs.; in 1895 it was 2.02 lbs. for lot 3 on corn meal, and 1.70 

 for lot 1 on wheat meal. The results are contradictory. 



Linseed meal vs. (/hiten meal. — In 1894 the average daily gain per ani- 

 mal of lots 3, 4, and 6 on linseed meal Avas 1.96 lbs. and of lots 1, 2, and 

 5 on gluten meal 2.11 lbs. In the author's opinion this would " war- 

 rant the statement that for the fattening of cattle these feeding stuffs 

 are api^roximately of equal value pound for pound and that the one 

 which can be bought for least money is the one to use." 



In 1894 lot 2, on mixed grain (corn meal and bran), with gluten meal, 

 made an average daily gain per animal of 2.15 lbs., and lots 7, 8, and 

 9 on mixed grain, without gluten meal, 1.98 lbs. In 1895 the average 

 daily gain per animal of lot 3 on mixed grain, -with gluten meal, was 

 2.02 lbs., and of lots 4 and 5 on mixed grain, without gluten meal, 

 2.05 lbs. 



The results were in favor of gluten meal. 



Corn silage as part of a ration, and earn silage vs. corn stover. — In 1894 

 lots 2 and 4, with silage, made an average daily gain fter animal of 2.07 

 lbs., and lots 1 and 3, without silage, 2.03 lbs. In 1895 lot 1, on a ration 

 with silage, made an average daily gain per animal of 1.70 lbs., and 

 lot 2, on stover, of 1.60 lbs. The slight difference was in favor of silage. 

 The author reviews briefly the comparison of corn silage and stover at 

 other stations, and makes the following deductions: 



"The logical conclusiou of all this work is that the iirocess of eusiliny adds noth- 

 ing to the nutritive valne of a feeding stuff". It does add to its palatabilitj', how- 

 ever, when the method has been properly employed, and in consequence a larger 

 proportion of the fodder Avill be consumed. In regard to the cost of this method, 

 ■we do not consider it any greater than that of the ordinary method of cutting and 

 husking and stacking the stover, and not so great as cutting, husking, and stack- 

 ing and grinding the grain, and certainly all this must be done if the food materials 

 are to be as thoroughly preserved and nuide as completely available as they are in 

 well cured silage." 



Finishing heeves on grass. — During the last 2 weeks of each experi- 

 ment half of the cattle were turned out to grass during the day, and 

 stabled at night. The others remained in the barn all the time. The 

 average daily gain per animal in 1894 was 1.42 lbs. at pasture and 2 lbs. 

 in the barn; in 1895 it was* 1.37 lbs. at pasture and 1.76 lbs. in the barn. 

 The best gains were made by the steers kejyt in the barn. 



Warm barns vs. open sheds. — In each exi)eriment 2 steers were fed 



