338 BULLETIN No. 111. [August, 



7. A comparison of the three rations in terms of relative effi- 

 ciency of the acreages involved by taking into consideration the 

 money value of the grain grown on the acreages involved but not 

 fed the cows, is as follows: Lot i, ( silage) ? .3428 acre; lot 2, 

 (shock corn), .3475; lot 3, (corn stover), .2046. 



8. Figuring corn at 35 cents a bushel, clover hay $8.00, shock 

 corn $5.59, corn stover $2.25 and oat straw $1.50 per ton, it cost 

 4.9 cents a day per head, or $1.47 a month or $6.873 f r T 4 days to 

 maintain lot I (silage fed) ; $.046 a day or $1.390 a month or $6. 504 

 for 140 days to maintain lot 2 (shock corn fed) ; $.031 a day or 

 $.937 a month, or $4.374 for 140 days to maintain lot 3 (corn 

 stover fed). 



9. It cost 37 cents more to winter a cow fed silage for 140 days 

 than it did one fed shock corn. However, the cows fed silage, lot i, 

 gained 150.10 pounds while those in lot 2 gained but 106.19. 



10. In this test it took approximately twice as much feed to 

 maintain a cow when suckling a calf as it did during her preg- 

 nancy. 



11. The average daily cost of keeping the cows that calved in 

 lot i was 7.56 cents while the average in lot 2 was 6.84 cents. Be- 

 fore calving the average daily cost of keeping a cow in these lots 

 was 5.8 cents and 5.5 cents, respectively. 



12. The data with reference to the relative efficiency of rations 

 fed lots i and 2 for the maintenance of cows and gains on calves 

 after calving, are not based on a sufficient number of animals to 

 eliminate individuality, hence should not be regarded as conclusive. 



13. The cows in lot i, (silage-fed) ate less oat straw than did 

 either of the other two lots which may be accounted for by the 

 fact that they were eating the whole of the corn plant. That is to 

 say there was practically no waste. 



14. Corn plant fed in the form of silage is more palatable than 

 if fed in the form of shock corn, which may be the cause of its being 

 more efficient for the maintenance of beef breeding cows. 



15. The amount of feed required for maintenance is apparently 

 less than that given in the German standards. 



1 6. The experimental data presented will materially aid in a 

 study of the practicability of raising calves and producing our own 

 feeding cattle in the corn belt. 



