ANIMAL PRUDUCTION. 803 



also fed. During the firnt month the proportion of coarse fodder to concentrated 

 feed was about 4:3. From this time on the grain ration was gradually increased 

 and the coarse fodder diminished until at last the grain ration was about 5 times as 

 great as the coarse fodder. Considering the test as a whole, the nutritive ratio of 

 the ration was 1:7.64. All the lots were handled alike, being kept in yards with 

 sheds, and throughout the test remained in good health. 



At the beginning of the test the steers weighed on an average not far from 1,000 lbs. 

 each. The fancy steers made an average daily gain of 2.57 lbs. per head, at a cost of 

 6.74 cts. per lb. The average daily gain of the choice steers was 2.543 lbs. and the 

 cost of a pound of gain 8.21 cts. In the case of the good steers these values were 

 2.341 lbs. and 8.17 cts.; with the medium steers 2.128 lbs. and 8.77 cts.; with the 

 connnon steers 2.207 lbs. and 8.12 cts.; and with the inferior steers 1.957 ll)s. and 

 8.()6 cts. The digestible dry matter required per pound of gain ranged from 9.952 

 lbs. with lot 1 (fanc}' steers) to 13.049 Uis. with lot 4 (medium steers). The l)eef 

 produced per bushel of corn fed ranged from 7.45 lbs. with lot 4 (medium steers) 

 to 9.74 lbs. with lot 1 (fancy steers). The increase in total value of the cattle per 

 1,000 lbs. of digestible dry matter consumed ranged from |1.91 with lot 4 to $3.11 

 with lot 1. 



The cattle were shipped to Chicago for slaughtering, the shrinkage in shipi)ing 

 ranging from 0.54 percent with lot 6 (inferior steers) to 2.08 percent with lot 3 

 (good steers). When slaughtered the proportion of dressed carcass to live weight 

 ranged from 59.36 percent with lot 6 (inferior steers) to 61.62 per cent with lot 1 

 (fancy steers). The greatest range in percentage of caul fat and rough fat was also 

 foimd with these lots, being for the former 3.39 with lot 1 and 3.83 with lot 6, and 

 for the latter 6.07 with lot 1 and 7.98 with lot 6. 



After slaughtering, the steers were judged by experts, and all those in lots 1, 2, 

 and 3 (fancy, choice, and good steers) were rated as No. 1 carcasses, the percentage 

 of prime animals being the largest in lot 1, in which case 15 were designated as 

 prime and 1 as choice. In the case of lot 4 (medium steers), " 1 finished as choice, 

 4 as good, 8 as medium, and 3 as common. Four of the carcasses in this lot graded 

 as No. 1 light, and the remainder as No. 2 tops." "With lot 5 (common steers), "5 

 finished the test as good, 6 as medium, and 5 as common beeves. The grading of 

 the beef was the same as that in lot 4, namely, 4 carcasses graded as No. 1 light, and 

 12 as No. 2 tops." Considering lot 6 (inferior steers), "4 finished as good, 6 as 

 medium, and 6 as common. Six carcasses graded as No. 1 light, 9 as No. 2 tops, 

 and 1 as No. 3 beef." 



This and other data, in the author's opinion, shows the possibility of securing rea- 

 sonably high percentages of dressed beef of satisfactory grade, even with low-bred 

 steers, provided they are intelligently fed to as high a finish as they are capable of 

 taking. The financial aspect of the test is discussed in detail on the basis of a steady, 

 or what would ordinarily be considered a normal, market and a falling or declining 

 market. 



The author's principal conclusions are in effect as follows: More rapid and much 

 larger gains may be secured with the better grades than wath the more common 

 grailes. When the various grades of beef cattle are put in the best marketable con- 

 dition there is a very definite relation between the percentages of dressed beef and 

 the grade of cattle involved. The better the grade of cattle the higher the percent- 

 age of dressed beef. Low-grade cattle carry larger percentages of internal fat than 

 those whii-h are better bred, while there appears to be a more abun<lant and more 

 evenly distributed layer of surface fat on the better-bred steers. 



Since differences between animals tend to disappear as the feeding process goes on, 

 the differences in cjuality between various grades are more pronounced than such dif- 

 ferences between the various grades of 1)eef or fat cattle. Quality is the more impor- 

 tant consideration in feeding cattle; condition, in fat cattle. 



