372 EXPERIMENT STATION KECOKD. 



basal ration of corn and prairie liay. The average gains per head and day on the 

 different supplements were as follows: On bran 1.98 lbs., at a cost of 9.31 cts. 

 per pound, on linseed meal 2.52 lbs., at a cost of 7.87 cts. per pound, on cotton- 

 seed meal 2.29 lbs., at a cost of 8.59 cts. per pound, and on alfalfa hay 2.29 lbs., 

 at a cost of 7.4 cts. per pound. 



In a second test, lasting 20 weeks, with 2-year-old grade Angus weighing about 

 975 lbs. each, the basal ration consisted of corn and unshredded corn stover. 

 The average gains per head and day with the different supplements were as 

 follows: On bran 1.76 lbs., at a cost of 10.49 cts. per pound, on linseed meal 2.33 

 lbs., at a cost of 7.64 cts. per pound, on cotton-seed meal 2.11 lbs., at a cost of 

 8.26 cts. per pound, and on alfalfa hay 2.42 lbs., at a cost of 6.99 cts. per pound. 



A further test was made with 2-year-old grade Shorthorn steers that were 

 given a basal ration of corn and corn stover. In 12 weeks the average gains per 

 head and day with the different rations were as follows : On bran 2.53 lbs., at a cost 

 of 9.24 cts. per pound, on linseed meal 2.43 lbs., at a cost of 9.64 cts. per pound, 

 on cold pressed cotton-seed cake 2.8 lbs., at a cost of 8.29 cts. per pound, and on 

 alfalfa hay 2.55 lbs., at a cost of 8.77 cts. per pound. The alfalfa lot gave the 

 largest percentage of dressed weight and the carcasses were appraised higher 

 than those of the other lots. These experiments show conclusively that in 

 ]S;ebraska a combination of corn and alfalfa is the best and most economical 

 ration for beef production. 



A feeding test was then undertaken to determine the most economical pro- 

 portion of corn and alfalfa, with the following results : On a heavy feed of corn, 

 and of alfalfa hay and corn stover in equal parts as a roughage, the average daily 

 gain per head was 2.42 lbs, at a cost of 6.78 cts. per pound. Corresponding figures 

 on a light feed of corn, and with alfalfa and stover in the proportions of 6 : 4, 

 were 2.01 lbs. at a cost of 6.51 cts. On a heavy feed of corn, and with alfalfa 

 and stover 4.5 : 5.5, the gain was 2.55 lbs. at a cost of 8.77 cts. per pound. On a 

 medium feed of corn, with alfalfa and stover 5.5 : 4.5, the gain was 2.34 lbs. at 

 a cost of 8.76 cts. per pound. On a light feed of corn, with alfalfa and stover 

 6:4, the gain was 2.08 lbs. at a cost of 8.03 cts. per pound. On a heavy corn 

 ration, with alfalfa as the only roughage, the gain was 2.73 lbs., at a cost of 

 8.62 cts. per pound, on a medium corn ration and alfalfa 2.86 lbs., at a cost of 

 7.76 cts. per pound, and on a light corn and alfalfa ration 2.71 lbs., at a cost 

 of 6.95 cts. per pound. The groups fed the medium and heavy grain rations 

 dressed practically the same, with a slight difference in favor of the medium 

 group. Those fed the light grain ration dressed somewhat light because of 

 their lower condition. 



These experiments were made in different years and the price of feeds varied 

 .somewhat, but from the entire series it is concluded " that with corn above 35 

 cts. per bushel and with alfalfa not to exceed $7 per ton, the old method of 

 fattening cattle for market, namely, that of crowding with grain and using but 

 little roughage, is much less profitable than a more moderate use of grain and 

 correspondingly more roughage. Not to exceed three-fourths of a full feed of 

 corn and a correspondingly larger quantity of alfalfa will give practically the 

 same daily gains." 



In order to study individuality, the records of each group were kept separately 

 and the results as presented in tabular form show a great variation in the 

 capacity of individuals to make gains under similar conditions. " Nearly all of 

 the largest gainers of both exi^eriments were steers which measured large 

 middle girths at the beginning of the feeding period, and it would seem that size 

 of middle girth is an important factor in determining future gains. In these 

 experiments the size of bone did not seem to bear any definite relationship to 

 rate of gain, some of the best gainers being large in bone and some relatively 



