36 BULLETIN 124 



consumed 'more than twice as much corn silage as did those in Lot 

 II. The steers in Lot II, however, consumed ten pounds of hay to 

 take the place of 27 pounds of corn silage in order to obtain an 

 equal amount of dry matter. 9.383 pounds of dry matter were re- 

 quired to produce a pound of gain in Lot I, while Lot II required 

 11.164 pounds, or 1.781 pounds more than Lot I. The daily cost -of 

 feed per steer in Lot I was 12.140 cents; Lot II 13.367 cents. The 

 cost of producing a pound of gain during the first 56 days was 

 6.45 cents for Lot I and 8.38 cents for Lot II. This would indicate 

 that mixed hay is not worth $12 per ton for fattening cattle when 

 corn silage can be obtained for $3.50 per ton. During the second 

 period, the steers in Lot I consumed only four pounds more corn 

 silage per head daily than did those in Lot II, those in Lot II con- 

 suming 4.327 pounds of mixed hay in addition to the silage. The 

 amount of ear corn consumed in each lot was nearly the same while 

 Lot I consumed a small amount more of shelled corn than did Lot 

 II. Lot II consumed approximately two pounds more of dry mat- 

 ter per head daily than Lot I. A greater amount of dry matter was 

 required to make a pound of gain in Lot II than in Lot I. 



It cost .045 cents more to put on a pound of gain, and the cost 

 of feed per head daily was 1.5 cents higher, in Lot II than in Lot I. 

 It will be noticed that there is a marked difference in the cost per 

 pound of gain in the two periods, due to the cheapness of the feed 

 consumed and also to the fact that, in the early part of the feeding 

 period, muscle tissue is being rebuilt and water is added to the body. '] 

 During the latter part of the feeding period, fat is put on, which re- 

 quires a concentrated grain feed, making the ration more expensive. 



Valuation and Sale of Cattle. 



At the close of the experiment, April 4, Mr. E. S. Bayard, of 

 Pittsburgh, placed a value upon the cattle based upon the Pitts- 

 burgh market at that time. He valued both lots at $8.50, stating 

 that there was not enough difference in the condition or finish of the 

 two lots to make a difference in the price. Lot I showed a sleeker 

 coat than did Lot II but it seemed that Lot II carried a little more 

 flesh. The two lots of cattle were sold on the College farm to Al- 

 toona (Pennsylvania) butchers at $8.20 per hundred with 3% 

 shrinkage, cattle weighed on full feed. They valued both lots alike 

 and stated that from a butcher's standpoint there was no difference 

 in the two lots. The cost of shipping and other expenses of putting 

 cattle from State College on the Pittsburgh market is thirty-five 

 cents per cwt. This expense was estimated in selling the cattle on 

 the basis of the Pittsburgh market. 



