Economical Rations in Beef Production. 19 



other lots were similarly affected. The bran put on the mar- 

 ket today is apparently less valuable than formerly, no doubt 

 because of its high crude fiber content due to modern methods 

 of milling which effect a more complete extraction of the 

 valuable portions of the wheat kernel. 



While cottonseed-meal is slightly higher in protein than 

 linseed-meal, the latter gave the larger gains in both these 

 experiments, tho the difference was not great. The cattle did 

 not eat the mixture of corn and cottonseed-meal with the 

 same relish that was conspicuous when the ration corn and 

 linseed-meal was placed before them, and this no doubt fur- 

 nishes one explanation of the superiority of linseed-meal in 

 producing not only larger daily gains but also larger gains 

 from the same weight of food. The feeds used in the first 

 experiment cost as follows: corn 35 cents per bushel, bran 

 |15.00 per ton, linseed-meal $32.00 per ton, and cottonseed- 

 meal $32.00 per ton. Those used in the second experiment 

 cost as follows : corn 36 cents per bushel, bran $18.00 per ton, 

 linseed-meal $29.50 per ton, cottonseed-meal $27.75 per ton, 

 and stover $2.50 per ton. The prices given for commercial 

 foods are on the basis of car lots f. o. b. Lincoln. At the 

 above prices it will be noted that the cost of producing one 

 pound of gain was much greater with bran than either of the 

 other protein foods. In the first experiment the linseed-meal 

 proved to be three times as valuable as bran. The difference 

 was even greater in the second experiment. It would not be 

 wise, however, to place any relative values upon these foods 

 until after further tests are made. 



In examining the above table it is interesting to note that 

 the gains made in the second experiment, where corn-stover 

 was used as the roughness, compared favorably with those 

 made in the first experiment, on prairie hay. We can not, 

 however, formulate any estimate of the relative values of the 

 two forms of roughness from the above table, because the 

 first experiment was of only eight weeks' duration, during 

 the finishing period, while the second test lasted twenty 



