TWENTY-FIRST ANNUAL YEAR BOOK— PART VII 519 



oftentimes three pounds for from ninety to a hundred and fifty days, and 

 if started as choice feeders dress out around 57 to 61 per cent. If full fed 

 on grain, they dress from 1 to 3 per cent higher. In two years of Ames 

 results, the limited rations were winners. However, had these cattle been 

 soM in June or July instead of April and May, the table may have turned, 

 because there then is invariably a wider spread between "good" and "not 

 quite so good" cattle — oftentimes more than enough to justify the heavier 

 feeding. I believe, however, that there is less risk involved in feeding 

 the lighter grain ration with silage. The Pennsylvania station has found 

 limited grain feeding best in finishing for the Pittsburgh market. The 

 spread in that market is less than at Chicago, and not suflacient for the 

 higher finish to pay for the extra grain. 



Why not feed lighter grain and heavy silage the first sixty to ninety 

 days; then, if the cattle markets shows a sufficient tendency to pay large 

 enough premium for extra fat, to go ahead and put corn to the cattle. 

 This is a feasible plan, and will bear trial. 



But the feeder must keep his "ear to the ground," and his "eye 

 peeled," so as to forecast in as nearly a correct manner as possible. 

 However, at best, forecasting the market now involves a very large 

 element of "guess," which, in sad but wiser remembrance, is labeled 

 "b' guess and b' gosh!" 



If one feeds no silage, then it appears that the limited grain ration 

 is a disappointment. The hay ration, even with alfalfa or clover, needs 

 to be well fortified with grain. 



5. What do figures show for winter feeding in 1918-19 and 1919-1920? 

 They show losses for both years. Survey figures gathered by the Iowa 

 State College, co-operating with the United States Department of Agri- 

 culture, indicate that the losses for 1918-19 in western Iowa were about 

 nine dollars per head, and in 1919-20 ten dollars per head. Even at that, 

 about one out of three made money, while two out of three, or twice as 

 many, lost money. We believe these figures are somewhat indicative, 

 also somewhat low, of corn belt conditions generally. However, we 

 believe that cattle losses generally were heavier in 1919-20 than the year 

 previous. 



6. What about the future of cattle feeding this year? That depends 

 on where you bought your feeders. If you bought them before the big 

 drop which began the "bump the bumps" in November, and paid 9 and 10 

 cents for 900-pound feeders, which in December could be bought for a few 

 cents less, then I would say that the December buyers appear the wiser. 

 Perhaps some vfould say that the December buyers were less foolish, but, 

 under our present handicaps as regards lack of data, lack of organization 

 to forecast supply, lack of co-operation to prevent market overruns and 

 gluts, who can say when any cattle feeder is wise or foolish — until he 

 finishes his operation. Even then it's not so much a question of "wise- 

 ness" or "foolishness" as it is of good, old-fashioned luck, helped, perhaps, 

 in a great many instances by a few barrels of good, old horse-sense that 

 either increased the good luck or decreased the hard luck. 



We must not forget that we have just been in — I hope thru — one of 

 the greatest slumps — yes, the greatest absolute slump — the Chicago cattle 



