NINETEENTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK— PART VII 3S9 



Now, where one-fourth as much corn was fed, or 3.3 pounds, along 

 with 50.7 pounds of silage, the profits were still further increased over 

 full-feeding, or by a difference of $3.69, or, namely, to $45.12. 



Here, again, we note that for 120 days' feeding the cattle receiving a 

 light grain ration as compared to a heavy one, made the most profit per 

 head. The selling price of the steers showed an average this year of 

 $11.69 for the two full-fed groups, as compared to $11.55 and $11.48, re- 

 spectively, for the two limited-ied groups, or an average of $11.52 where 

 the grain was held down one-half to three-fourths. Here is a difference 

 between the full grain ration and a limited one-half to three-fourths ration, 

 therefore, of only 17 cents per hundred pounds on the selling value of the 

 steers, which is not enough to offset the extra costs in gains, which 

 amount to $1.84 per hundred in favor of one-fourth grain feeding, as con- 

 trasted with full-feeding by hand. If 300 pounds were put on a steer, this 

 difference in cost of gains would amount to three times this figure, or 

 $5.52 on the steer in favor of limited feeding, and if the steer weighed 

 1,300 pounds at the time of going to market, this would necessitate an 

 excess selling value of between 42 and 43 cents more for the heavy grain- 

 efd cattle as compared to the iight grain-fed ones. 



Inasmuch as the difference in margin has been running only about 10 

 to 25 cents on Iowa fed cattle fed in these two different ways, the justifi- 

 cation for feeding a full grain ration is not to be found in the profits. 



Some folks like to make their cattle fat, and take great pride in doing 

 so, but most every one wants to make his pocketbook fat. To do so, it 

 looks as if it would be a splendid plan to sell the cattle with a little less 

 finish, and to get that finish witli a heavy silage and light grain ration. 



In all of our experiments at Ames on limited versus full feeding of 

 grain, the cattle carcasses on the hooks have justified the valuations in 

 the yards. The dressing percentages have been very close, averaging, as 

 would be expected, a little higher for the full-fed cattle, but with only an 

 approximate difference of one per cent. The meat from the carcasses was 

 quite acceptable according to the market demands from both systems of 

 feeding, there being very little difference in this respect. It was notice- 

 able that where the fat cattle had inclined to become a little rough or 

 patchy, that thse carcasses were discriminated against much more than 

 any of the carcasses in the lighter-fed lots. 



Professor H. O. Allison, of the Missouri Experiment station, has been 

 doing some very practical work on this problem. He 'began his investiga- 

 tions in the same year as did the Iowa Experiment Station, but instead of 

 feeding different proportions of grain to his cattle, he fed them a full-feed 

 of grain versus no grain at all. In brief, he fed two groups full-feed and 

 two groups limited-feed rations, the difference in these pairs being that 

 one received cottonseed meal and the other linseed oil meal. 



In the first year's results, the limited corn-fed cattle receiving cotton- 

 seed meal as contrasted with the full-fed corn cattle receiving the same 

 supplement, returned $3.10 per head greater margin, or $6.77 as compared 

 to $9.87. Where linseed oil meal was fed with the full ration, the margin 

 was $9.32, but where fed with the limited ration, the margin was $14. 5&, 

 or a difference of $5.24 in favor of limited grain feeding. 



