1837] 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



267 



Lot. 2>i, llOdiiys, 3 17 = 4.5294 shillings 



per work. 

 Lot 3.1, 110 days, 1 13 7^= 2.2712 shillings 



per week. 



Improvemeiits in Live IVeight. 



We have thus obtained data on which we can 

 ascertain whether the (breuoinir methods of feed- 

 ing of cattle can be practised without loss. 



We reixret that we are unable to present the 

 amount of the beef, tallow, and hides, of all the 

 cattle in this experiment when killed, having only 

 obtained a correct return of four of them, which 

 Avere slaughtered by Mr. M. Hutchison, Leith. 

 But as we have ascertained prettj^ accurately the 

 dead weight of cattle, from a number of experi- 

 ments on those of like condition and age, by mul- 

 tiplyinir the live vveiixht by the decimal .571, we 

 shall a[)ply this rule to the live weights in the 

 above rable, in order to ascertain thequantity, and 

 estimate the value, of the beef produced; and we 

 shall add 6(/. per stone to the beef, being its in- 

 creased value by feedino; at the end of the experi- 

 ment. The tallow is about ^^-^ of the live weight, 

 or that multiplied by .08 will give the nett weight 

 of the tallow. The hide is about Y7,n P'^i"' of the 

 live weight, or that multiplied by .05 will give the 

 nett weight of the hide; and the live weight multi- 

 plied by .28, will give the weight of the entrails and 

 refuse. 



Lot 1st, subjected to these rules, stands thus: 

 Improvement in live weiirhl, 108 stones 



equal 61 stones, 10 lb. beef, at 68. 



per stone. £18 10 3^ 



Increased value of the carcass of 339 



stones, at 6d. per stone. 8 9 6 



Increase of value from feeding, £2G 19 9^ 

 Deduct cost of keep of each beast, 



£5:2:7 by 6, 30 15 6 



Loss on feeding lot 1st, £3 15 



Being £12: 6: 0| per cent. 

 Lot 2J — Improvement of live weight, 



101 stones, equal 57 stones, 10 lb. 



beef, at 6s. per stone, £ 17 6 



Increased value o( carcass of 310 



stones, at 6d. per stone. 7 15 



Increase of value from feeding, £25 1 3 

 Deduct cost of keep of each beast. 



£3, 17s. by 6, ' 23 2 



Profit on feeding lot 2d, £ 1 19 3) 

 Being £8: 10: 1 percent. 

 Lot 3d — Improvement of live weight, 

 49^ stones, equal 28 stones, 4 lb. beef 



at 6s. per stone. £8 9 8J 



Increased value of carcass of 326 stones 

 at 6d. per stone, 5 13 



Increase of value from feedinjj, £14 2 8^ 

 Deduct cost of keep of each beast, 



£1: 18:7U)y6, 11 11 7^ 



Profit on feeding of lot 3d, £2 11 1 

 Being £22 : 1 : 1 per cent. 



Thus, when turnips alone were used, a profit of 22 

 per cent, was realized; when corn was used along 

 with turnips, the profit was diminished to 8^- per 

 cent.; but when still more expensive food was 

 used, that is, corn and linseed cake, along with 

 turnips and potatoes, a loss was sustained of no 

 less than 12;^',- per cent. 



Two pau-s of I lie above cattle were selected and 

 exhibited at the Local Show in this county, and 

 gained the first pri.^es as the best beasts bred in the 

 county. One pair belonged to lot 1st, and the 

 other pair had one beast from lot 1st, and another 

 from lot 2d. They were sold on the ground for 

 £20 a-piece. Their live and dead weigiits were 

 respectively as follows: — No. 1, live weiiiht 112 

 stones; dead weitrht of beef, 68 stones, 2 lb; tal- 

 low, 8 stones 10 lb.; hide. 5 stones 11 lb.; other 

 olfals, 32 St. 5 lb. No. 2, (from lot 2d,) live weight 

 100 stones; dead weight of beef, 58 stones, 6 lb.; 

 tallow, 7 stones 7 lb.; hide, 4 stones 12 lb.; other 

 offals, 29 stones, 3 lb. No. 3, live weight 103 

 stones; dead weight of beef, 62 stones, 3 lb.; tal- 

 low, 9stones; hide, 4 stones 12 lb.; other offals, 28 

 stones 13 lb. No. 4, live weight 109 stones; dead 

 weight of beef 62 stones, 4 lb.; tallow, 9 stones, 4 

 lt>.; hide, 5 stones, 12 lb.; other offals, 31 stones, 

 8 1b. 



We shall give another view of the subject by 

 estimating the cost of producing a lb. of live 

 weight. 



Lot 1st cost 4.834 pence for every lb. of increased 



live weight. 

 Lot 2d cost 3.92 pence for every lb. of increased 



live weight. 

 Lot 3d cost 4.39 pence for every lb. of increased 



live weight. 



We are not aware that anyone has hitherto at- 

 tempted to assign the separate agency of each kind 

 of Ibod in the production of live weight, when 

 more kinds than one are employed in the feeding 

 of cattle. Could this be done in a satisfactory 

 manner, the question would at once be set at rest — 

 Which (bod was the most profitable? VVe have 

 already stated the cost of producinir 1 lb. of live 

 weight in each of the three lots of cattle in this 

 experiment, Avhere it appears that the joint agency 

 of turnips and corn is the cheapest ot" the three. 

 But we a.'e not prepared to say that the like re- 

 sult will be uniformly obtained, because, although 

 observing the improvement in live weight of a con- 

 siderable number of cattle on a <?iven quantity of 

 turnips to be, on an average, an increase of 1 lb. 

 of live weight for every 90 1b. of turnips, under 

 good management, and with good cattle, yet we 

 have seen cattle which did not improve 1 !b. of 

 live weight for every 1000 lb. of turnips. By thig 

 experiment, lot 3d only increased a lb. of live 

 weight for every 116 lb. of turnips; and it will be 

 observed, fi-om what cause we know not, that for 

 the first thirty-two days of this experiment, this 



