290 



The exact facts are stated concerning the prices offered, but feeling 

 that they may not represent the whole truth, 1 make this explanation. 



The bran and shorts fed steers showed less of what is known as ripe- 

 ness, finiis'h or quaLity at the ertd of the twelve weeks of the test than did 

 the barley fed lot. I am of the opinion that they would have been rated 

 somewhat lower on the Chicago market. 



BARLEY FED STEERS. 



Weight of five steers at the beginning of the test, 4,916 pounds 



at 3 1-2 cents $ 172.06 



Weight of five steers at the close of the test, 5,791 pounds, at 

 4 1-2 cents 260.59 



Increase in value $ 88. 53 



COST OF FEED EATEN. 



Barley, 6,013 pounds at 36 cents per bushel $ 45.00 



Oil Meal, 668 pounds at $20.00 per too 6.68 



Hay, 7,093 pounds, at $4.00 per ton 14. 19 



Total cost of feed $ 65.97 



Balance or profit $ 22.56 



Average profit per steer $ 4.51 



BRAN" AND SHORTS FED STEERS. 



Weight of five steers at the beginning of the test, 5,060 pounds 

 at 3 1-2 cents $ 177.10 



Weight of five stee/s at the close of the test, 5,627 pounds at 

 d 1-2 cents 253 .22 



Increase in value $ 76. 12 



COST OF FEED EATEN". 



Bran and shorts, 5,143 pounds, at $12.00 per ton $ 30.86 



Oil meal, 571 pounds, at $20.00 per ton 5.71 



Hay, 7,203 pounds, at $4.00 per ton 14.41 



Total $ 50.98 



Balance or profit $ 25. 14 



Profit per steer $ 5.03 



It will thus be seen that with the prices given the steers fed bran and 

 shorts gave fifty-two cents per head more profit than did the lot fed 

 barley, although the barley fed steers made much more rapid daily gains 

 and a greater increase m weight for each hundred pounds of grain eaten. 

 By substituting the prices for feed in any given community the results, 

 in so far as this test is an indication, can be readily ascertained. . 



