1C TEXAS AGHKTI/ITHAL KXTKHIMKNT STATION. 



1.:.)? pounds each, .UK! Lot 4. third place with a gain of 1.34 pounds, 



Comparing Lots 1. 2, ami 3 as to profitableness, the ret urns from the 

 hogs included, one will see tliat Lot 1. receiving cotton seed meal, ground 

 milo, silage and Sudan hay, yielded the largest profit oi' $1.21 per head; 

 Lot 3. receiving cold-pressed cotton seed, ground niilo. silage and Sudan 

 hay. ranked second with a profit of 93 cents per head; and that Lot 2, 

 receiving }x?anut meal, ground milo, silage and Sudan hay, ranked last 

 with a loss of $1.02 per head. Therefore, cotton seed meal at $35.00 

 per ton proved more economical in supplementing ground milo, silage 

 and Sudan hay. than did cold-pressed cotton seed at .$'24.00 per ton. 

 or peanut meal at $2S.nn per ton, and further, at these prices, cold- 

 pressed cotton seed proved more economical than peanut meal. Accord- 

 ing to the results the returns from the hogs not being included,, and 

 cotton seed meal being valued at $35.00 per ton, peanut meal proved 

 to be worth only $31.40 per ton and cold-pressed cotton seed, $22.80 

 per ton. 



Comparing Lots 1 and 4, the former receiving Sudan hay and the 

 latter cotton seed hulls, one will note that Lot 1 yielded a profit of 

 $1.21 per head, whereas Lot 4 only came out even. Therefore, Sudan 

 hay proved superior to cotton seed hulls with both feeds at the same 

 price, $10.00 per ton. The returns from hogs being ignored, and 

 Sudan hay being valued at: $10.00 per ton, it was found that cotton 

 seed hulls were worth only $5.34 per ton. 



When one reviews the report of this experiment, the question will 

 probably arise as to why the calves were not marketed sooner than they 

 were, in view of the small gains made during the last 51 days. An 

 explanation, therefore, seems appropriate at this point. During the 

 fifth 30-day period of the experiment, which ended Mav IS. all lots 

 made good gains, hut at the same time did not show the degree of 

 finish desired. It was thought, therefore, that good gains could be 

 obtained for several weeks longer and, at the same time, that the 

 desirable finish would result. When the regular date for weighing, 

 June 11, came, "the scales proved to be out of order, and several davs 

 elap> d before tliev were repaired: hence, the failure to obtain weights 

 at tli.' end of the sixth 30-dav period. It was soon seen that the calves 

 were nol doing well enough to jusiifv holding them longer, and while 

 thev dul not -how quite as hiii'li finish as we ha.d hoped io obtain, it 

 was dceid"d to bring the experiment to a close Julv 8. 



While the prices received for these calves were u'ood. the profit was 

 verv -mail: in fact, if a reasonable interest on the investment had been 

 allowed, there would have been an actual loss in each lot. In this con- 

 nection, there are t \vo important point- to be taken into consideration. 

 First, the price- paid for feeding stuffs were exceptionally high. The 

 same feeds would nrdinarilv he cheaper on fh" farm, particularly those 

 direct ! v produced on the farm. Second, there would have been a large 

 snviiiL 1 " in feed had the ealvis be-n marketed about .lune 1. The market 

 wa- -omo better then and fhev would likdv have brought as much per 

 pMin.l ;il that time us thev brought later. The v_'ain- were verv small 

 during the !a-t 51 davs. hardlv sullicient to have amounted to much, 



