STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 271 



nection with shipping them from West Virginia, and for hay and 

 pasture which they consumed after reaching the Experiment Sta- 

 tion were paid. The total cost of feed for the various lots is as 

 follows: $284.28 for Lot III, $312.50 for Lot II, $332.52 for Lot 



IV, $344.75 for Lot V, and $3/0.33 for Lot I. The lower cost of 

 total feed for any lot does not necessarily mean that it was the 

 most economical. The value of the cattle at the close of the ex- 

 periment may, in the case of a more expensive lot, be higher than 

 a cheaply produced lot, as this test shows for Lot IV. 



At the prevailing price of feeds, the margin necessary to 

 break even on the cattle in the lots is as follows: Lot I, $1.14; 

 Lot II, 58 cents; Lot III, 52 cents; Lot IV 69 cents; and Lot V, 

 81 cents. If the additional cost of 35 cents per cwt, required to get 

 the cattle on the Pittsburgh market is added to the margin necessary 

 in the feed lot, the total cost per 100 pounds of each lot will be as 

 follows: Lot I, $8.94; Lot II, $8.38; Lot III, $8.32; Lot IV, $8.49, 

 and Lot V, $8.61. These figures would indicate a loss in all lots. 

 Comparing the total cost including the shipping with the valuation 

 placed on each lot, it will be noted that the loss in Lot I was 64 

 cents per cwt, Lot II, 8 cents per cwt, Lot III, 17 cents per cwt., 

 Lot IV, 9 cents per cwt., and Lot V, 36 cents per cwt. On this 

 basis Lot II was the most economical lot in the experiment, the 

 loss on it being 8 cents per hundred or $1.022 per steer. Lot IV 

 ranked second with a loss of 9 cents per cwt or $1.05 per head; 

 Lot III ranked third with a loss of 17 cents per cwt. or $2.161 per 

 steer; Lot V ranked fourth with a loss of 36 cents per cwt., or 

 $4.299 per steer; and Lot I came last with a loss of 64 cents per 

 cwt., or $7.35 per steer. 



Although all lots were fed at a loss, there is a marked differ- 

 ence in the amount of loss in each lot. Lot I, receiving the com- 

 mon Pennsylvania ration, showed by far the greatest loss. The 

 total loss from feeding these twelve steers, not including pork, 

 amounted to $88.08. This shows that such a ration is expensive 

 and such feeding is not well adapted to Pennsylvania conditions. 

 The next greatest loss, amounting to $51.48, was incurred in Lot 



V. The loss in this lot was due to the feeding of surplus protein 

 or high-priced feed, namely, a full allowance of cottonseed meal 



