20 



It will be observed that the feed required to make a pound of 

 gain was much greater in 1910-11 than in 1909-10. This is due to 

 the fact that the cattle were both older and fleshier in 1910-11, at 

 the time they were placed on feed, than were the cattle fed the 

 previous year. Since both age 1 and higher condition on cattle in- 

 crease the cost of gains it was to be expected that the expense of 

 making gain would be higher with the heavier cattle. Also the 

 winter of 1910-11 was so warm and there were so many damp 

 disagreeable days, that the cattle did not gain as well as they nor- 

 mally should. 



Table III brings out in a most striking manner the principal 

 and most characteristic advantage of corn silage over dry roughage 

 as a feed for fattening cattle. The least reduction in cost per 100 

 pounds gain due to silage was 89 cents and in one case it amounted 

 to $1.56. The grain required to make a pound of gain was least in 

 Lot 4 of both years with Lot 3 a close second. Lot 2 required a 

 much larger amount of grain than any other lot. The roughage 

 required to make a pound of gain \vas practically in reverse order 

 to the grain required for the same purpose. The cost of the clover 

 hay and the extra amount of grain required for the gains made 

 was such that the cost per 100 pounds gain was greatest where the 

 largest amount of dry roughage was eaten and decreased quite con- 

 sistently as the clover hay was replaced by corn silage. Lot 3. 

 where only corn silage was fed for roughage, made the cheapest 

 gain each year. It will be seen that Lot 4, where a full feed of 

 silage was fed in connection w r ith clover hay, gave almost as cheap 

 gains as Lot 3, and that Lot i, where only half feed of silage was 

 given, effected a saving of $1.22 and 89 cents per 100 pounds gain 

 over Lot 2 in 1909-10 and 1910-11 respectively. 



The most reliable basis of comparison of costs is when feed 

 is valued at a fixed price for both years. Table III contains figures 

 on the cost of gain when both years' trials are reckoned on stationary 

 prices for feed. It will be noted that in every case the highest cost 

 of gain is in Lot 2, where no silage was fed, the average being 

 $10.99 P er 10 pounds gain with corn at 50 cents per bushel and $9.62 

 with corn at 40 cents per bushel. With corn valued at 50 cents 

 per bushel the cost of making gains was reduced, by the addition 

 of corn silage once daily (Lot i ), $1.09 per 100 pounds and with corn 

 at 40 cents per bushel $1.04 per 100 pounds. By the addition of corn 

 silage twice daily, (Lot 4;, there was a further reduction in cost 

 enough to make it $1.33 and $1.27 less per 100 pounds than the clover 

 hay-fed lot according to whether corn is 50 cents or 40 cents per 

 bushel respectively. When the process of substituting corn silage- 

 for clover hay was carried still farther and no hay whatever fed 

 (Lot 3), the 'cost of making gains was further reduced, the total 



1 Piinlm- KxjH>r;inont Station liulktins Nos. 12f), ISO, 1 <"' 



