S04 KXTKRIMENT STATION RECORD. 



Tlic jjradc of cattlf tlio fiuisliin^' of which will return to the cattle feeder thegreat> 

 est prolit will <lci»eii(l upon the following consideratioiin: The relative ability of the 

 various •rrades to use feed for the i)roduction of gain and finish, the relative cost of 

 tlie various grades of feeding cattle, the cost of feed, the method of feeding and time 

 of marketing, and the range in prices between prinif and common rough steers or 

 iK'tween the liighest and lowest grades of beef cattle. 



The greater the cost of the feed used the greater is declared to be the advantage 

 in favor of the better grades, ])oth because under normal market condition the gains 

 and linish of these grades are i)ut on with less relative feed consumption than in the 

 lower ones (although this difference is less marked in the inferior than in the inter- 

 mediate grades), and because the cost of feed is a larger factor in the feeding of the 

 lower than the higluT grades. 



"The greater tlie sj)read in the market between the various grades of feeders, the 

 more is the advantage in favor of the commoner grades. As a rule the price of com- 

 mon rough steers fluctuates less than the price for prime steers, and the jirice of the 

 inferior and common grades of feeders varies less than those of the choice and fancy 

 grades. . . . The greater the spread in the market between the various grades 

 of fat steers the more is the advantage in fav<jr of the better grades. . . . When 

 piices rule low in the beef-cattle class and the market is dull and has a downward 

 tendency, the range of prices between prime steers and conunon rough steers is nar- 

 row, and, as a result, condition or fat is more imirortant than quality or beef blood. 

 As a rule, prices of common rough steers in the beef-cattle class fluctuate less than 

 the iirices for ])rinie steers. Hence it will be seen that in general there is less liability 

 to large losses from market fluctuations in the feeding of the commoner than the 

 l)etter grades of feeding cattle. On the other hand, the chances for making large 

 profits are undoubtedly greatest with the better grades. . . . By reducing the 

 corn fed to meal and mixing same with roughage the importance of pork production 

 as a factor in cattle feeding is minimized. Notwithstanding this, the pig, even under 

 such conditions, should not be eliminated. Properly managed he may return a 

 credit to each steer fed of approximately $2." 



The gains of pigs following each lot of steers in the above experiment are given. 

 These ranged from 419 lbs. in the case of the animals following lot 1 (fancy steers) 

 to 5l'0 11)s. in the case of those following lot 4 (medium steers). 



Wheat V. maize as food for fattening cattle, T. Winter {Bd. Agr. and 

 Fialierieti [Lo)alon~\, Jljd. Agr. Edacaliou and lleaearch, 1902-S, pp. 66-68). — One lot of 

 5 steers was fed 3 lbs. of maize meal per head daily, and another similar lot 3 lbs. of 

 wheat meal, both lots receiving a uniform basal ration of pulped swedes, chaffed oat 

 straw, chaffed hay, and decorticated cotton-seed cake. In 10 weeks the lot fed 

 maize meal gained 791 lbs. and the lot fed wheat meal 749 ll)s. The maize meal 

 ration was somewhat the cheaper. 



On tlu' basis of the results obtained the author points out the fact that wheat is a 

 valualjle feeding stuff and tliat "it may frequently be more i)rofitaljle to consume it 

 at home than exchange it on the market for maize, when such a transaction entails 

 considerable expense." 



Feeding experiments, E. R. Lloyd {Missnssippi SUi. R]>t. 1903, p}>. 12, 13). — 

 Statistics are given regarding the pigs kept at the station, and the wintering of the 

 station sheep and breeding cattle. In addition, several feeding experiments are very 

 briefly reported. 



In a comparison of open yards and shelter, made with 2 lots each containing 5 

 steers fed the same ration of cotton-seed hulls and meal, the lot fed under shelter 

 gained 623 l})s. in 90 days and the lot fed in the open yard 731 lbs. At the beginning 

 of the trial the difference in weight l)et\veen the 2 lots was 110 lbs. 



Using 2 lots, each containing 4 2-year-old steers, differing in weight by 63 lbs., 



