388 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



The question arises as to whether we should give the cattle all the 

 grain they want, either by self-fed or hand full-fed methods. Let us study 

 that phase of the question. 



All of the groups in the first year's test, 1915-16, receiving limited 

 rations, actually showed greater profits per head than did the self-fed or 

 hand full-fed groups. To illustrate: The self-fed cattle returned $33.83 

 per head profit, while the hand full-fed cattle returned $35.32. Now, note 

 that all three limited-fed groups, each taken in comparison with the two 

 just given, show higher profits, the 75 per cent of a full-fed lot, or, namely. 

 Group 3, making a profit of $35 75; the 50 per cent lot, $38.76, and the 25 

 per cent lot, $40.43. These profits are figured on the steers after credit- 

 ing the feed picked up by the hogs. By profits we really mean margin 

 per steer over feed costs, inasmuch as we have not figured in the manure 

 nor the labor nor the interest in these tests. Every one can do this to 

 suit his own convenience. Tbc main points we are trying to bring out 

 are those covering differences in ratios. In this first year, therefore, it is 

 seen that the greatest profits per steer were secured where only one- 

 fourth of a full shelled corn ration was allowed. 



The selling price of these cattle showed an average of $11.40 a hun- 

 dred for the two full-fed lots, as compared to $11.40 per hundred, respec- 

 tively, for both the 75 per cent and the 25 percent groups. The 50 per 

 cent groups sold for $11.25. An average of all the limited groups would 

 be $11.35, or five cents per hundred pounds under the full-fed; but this 

 five cents margin in favor of the full feeding did not justify the extra cost 

 of the ration, because of the high-priced shelled corn allowed. 



Briefly speaking, therefore, according to this first year test, limited 

 grain feeding was in order, because the cost of gains was considerably 

 less than where full-fed; the grain feed for 100 pounds of gain was re- 

 duced over two-thirds where a 25 per cent ration was fed as compared to 

 a hand full-fed one, and the grain ration daily was decreased from prac- 

 tically 15.5 pounds to about 4 pounds. The silage, however, was increased 

 by limited grain feeding from about 30 pounds up to 54 pounds, but this 

 increase is on a roughage feed, corn silage, which ordinarily is produced 

 on our farms more economically than the grain feeds. 



We repeated this 120-day test, as hereinbefore described, the next 

 year, comparing self-feeding with hand full-feeding, with one-half grain 

 feeding, with one-fourth grain feeding. The ration otherwise was handled 

 the same, inasmuch as all the corn silage the steers would consume daily 

 was given, alfalfa hay limited to 1.3 pounds; linseed oil meal, 2.5 pounds — 

 all this with a little salt. 



Where 13.4 pounds of shelled corn was fed daily in conjunction with 

 34 pounds of silage, the margin per head was $41.43, but where one-half as 

 much corn, or 6.7 pounds, was fed, with approximately 10 pounds more 

 silage, or 44.9 pounds, the margin was increased to $43.02, a clear advance 

 of more than $1.50, or exactly $1.59. Remember, however, in all cases, 

 that 2.5 pounds of linseed oil meal were fed per head daily, which is highly 

 desirable, and that the alfalfa was kept the same, namely, just a little 

 better than a pound. 



