The results of .this trial seem to be in all respects trust- 

 worthy. The experiment was begun December 30, 1899, an< ^ 

 continued until April 10, 1900. In other words, it began at 

 a time when in ordinary farm practice the grass held over 

 from summer is exhausted, when the stalk fields have been 

 eaten out, and when the farmer is obliged to feed his cattle 

 from the hay and grain produced the previous summer. It 

 closed at the earliest moment (April 10) that in this latitude 

 could be depended upon, even in unusual seasons, for good 

 pasture. That is to say, the experiment covered the precise 

 period of the year that the farmer must feed his stock cattle. 



It will be observed that there was a very striking differ- 

 ence in the gains made on the different rations. For ex- 

 ample, 4 pounds of shelled corn, when combined with timo- 

 thy hay, made an average gain of about two-thirds of a pound 

 daily per steer, while the same amount of corn, when com- 

 bined with cowpea hay, produced more than i^ pounds 

 daily. In other words, the combination of cowpea hay and 

 shelled corn was more than twice as efficient as was the com- 

 bination of timothy hay and corn. 



In passing, it may be well to note that the animals ate 

 more cowpea hay than they did timothy. The average daily 

 consumption of timothy hay per steer was 16.7 pounds, while 

 the steers having cowpea hay ate 19.2 pounds. Attention 

 has already been called to the fact that whenever the protein 

 content of a ration is increased over a basal ration of 

 corn and timothy, the appetite is stimulated and a larger con- 

 sumption of feed is the result. 



It will be noted that four pounds of shelled corn and 

 one-half clover and one-half corn stover produced a total 

 gain of 357 pounds, as compa'red with 262 pounds for corn 

 and timothy hay. Here, as in all previous trials, a mixture 

 ot one-half clover and one-half corn stover for roughness, 

 either fed alone or in combination with grain, has been 

 more efficient and necessarily considerably cheaper than 

 straight timothy. 



It is interesting to note the gain of the lot having 

 cowpea hay without grain, in comparison with other lots 

 which had four pounds of shelled corn and different sorts of 

 roughness. It will be recalled that this limited grain ration 



38 



