140 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



That the linseed oil meal calves should out-gain those getting cotton- 

 seed meal, require less feed per hundred pounds gain, and make cheaper 

 gains (supplement costing the same), and that they should sell for a 

 higher price, and dress a higher percentage, but shrink more, is not sur- 

 prising. However, we are somewhat dumbfounded when we learn that 

 the cottonseed meal, in order to have broken even with oil meal at $30 a 

 ton, would had to have been bought at $13.28, or, putting it in another 

 way, that with cottonseed meal costing $30, we could afford to pay $46.44 

 a ton for the oil meal, and still come out even. When you decrease the 

 cost of gains 20 cents and increase the selling price 25 cents a hundred, 

 it makes a big difference in the profits. This is precisely what oil meal 

 did as compared with the cottonseed meal. That the somewhat coarse 

 clover, cut when over-ripe, is indirectly responsible for the good showing 

 of the oil meal is quite likely. 



In making the computation concerning the worth of oil meal, we 

 counted the initial cost of the calves at $7.80, figured corn and cob meal 

 at 43 cents, and the hay at $10. By changing the value of the corn and 

 cob meal to 53 cents, and increasing the hay to $12, we find that we 

 could afford to pay $46.28 for the oil meal, as compared to $30 for the 

 cottonseed meal. The differences in the price of corn and hay mentioned 

 made little difference in the relative efficiency of the oil meal. 



That oil meal should run 40.45 per cent protein is somewhat unusual, 

 this being about five pounds higher on the hundred than is usually guar- 

 anteed and found. However, the cottonseed meal also runs 46.85 per cent 

 protein, or from five to six pounds higher than common. This makes the 

 relative comparison as reliable as though the normal percentage were 

 found in both, or 35 per cent for the oil meal and 41 per cent for the cot- 

 tonseed meal. 



That the roughage fed should affect the efficiency of oil meal, I have 

 alluded to. In figuring over some of the recent Nebraska experiments, I 

 find that where cold pressed cake is costing $25, the same being fed in 

 conjunction v/ith corn and corn silage, that one could not afford to pay 

 more than $27.66 for linseed meal in order to come out even. This is on 

 calves. A later trial run on the same cattle, the roughage being changed 

 from silage to prairie hay, showed that when cold pressed cake cost $25 

 that linseed meal is worth every cent of $37.66. Here is an emphatic 

 difference in the efficiency of the supplement caused indirectly by the 

 roughage. 



That linseed was especially efficient when fed with timothy hay, I have 

 often noticed. Cottonseed meal fed with timothy tends to aggravate tne 

 constipating tendency of the ration, while the laxativeness of the linseed 

 has the opposite effect. Where linseed is fed with corn silage, the laxa- 

 tive principle is not especially needed, hence we find that the relative 

 efficiency of linseed in this case is not marked. 



As the cattle become older, linseed becomes relatively less efficient as 

 compared to cottonseed. Professor Allison, of Missouri, in 1911, fed some 

 long two-year-olds, comparing cottonseed and oil meal. Counting the two 

 supplements at the same price, the relative profits of the cottonseed per 



