are likely to be controversial issues since some will contend they practice 

 daily hopper feeding because it gives more flexibility, better growth, and 

 less wastage of feed. 



As was found true in house feeding, there are two additional possible 

 economies in handling grain for range feeding, i.e., simplification of the 

 feeding program and elimination of one or more handlings of bagged 

 grain. The former is also likely to be controversial as regards results. The 

 effectiveness of the latter admittedly rests upon the supposition of proper 

 layout. Diagrammed in Figure 8 are the handlings under various alternatives. 



GRAIN AT THE MILL 



^ L ! 



BAGS STORED IM 

 GRAIN ROOM- 

 NOT ON RANGE 



\ 



SULK FEED STDSEO 

 IN GRAIN ROOM- 

 NOT ON RANGE 



HOPPERS OR SCATTERED 



- - KEY - - 

 i-MOST COMMON KETHOOi L-LirT 



S- SPOUT 

 C-CiilRY 



-ALTERNATE 



D-OIP 



E- EMPTY FROMBAS 



P- POUR FROM PAI L 



Figure 8. Alternative steps in range 

 feeding. 



Full use of the most direct means of handling is not being made with 

 either bagged or bulk feed. Neither are the prevailing methods the most 

 indirect. Delivery by the grain dealer direct to range hoppers or to range 

 storage would seem to offer possibilities of time savings to growers. With 

 the latter, it would probably not be generally inconvenient to the dealer. 

 Also, there is the general objection of the possibility of spreading disease 

 from one range to another. 



Some methods of saving labor in feeding replacement stock on range 

 are shown in Figure 9. These are all in use in this or other areas. 



31 



