BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. 



37 



Lot 4 — Continued. 



Total profit on 16 steers $385.47 



Average profit per steer. 1 24. 09 



Prices of feeds charged in 1915-16: 



Ear corn per bushel 1. 00 



Cottonseed cake per ton 35. 00 



Corn silage do 3.00 



Hay, stover, and straw do 10. 00 



SLAUGHTER DATA. 



At the close of the first year's work the cake-feel steers in Lots 1 

 and 2 were sold to local butchers in Asheville. They were killed at 

 different times, so the slaughter data were not obtainable. The same 

 applies to these lots in the second year's work, 1914-15. They were 

 sold to a prominent North Carolina resort owner, who continued to 

 feed them during the winter to supply the hotels, a few being killed 

 at a time. 



The cake-fed steers in Lots 1 and 2 in 1916 were shipped direct 

 to market and the shipping and slaughter data are given in Table 16. 



Table 16. — Shipping and slaughter data, 1915-16. 



Item. 



Number of steers 



Final weight on farm Sept. 5 -. pounds 



Weight at railroad station Sept. 5 do. . 



Shrinkage in driving to railroad do . . 



Do per cent 



Selling weight ' pounds 



Total net shrinkage in transit do. . 



Do per cent 



Dressing percentage on farm weight do. . 



Dressing percentage on market weight do. . 



Lot 1-b. 



12 

 1,149 

 1,108 



41 



3. 



1,092 



57 

 4.96 



52.24 



54.99 



57 



Lot 2-b. 



12 

 1,158 

 1,099 



59 

 5.1 

 1,071 



87 

 7.51 



52.59 



56.97 



These cattle were driven 15 miles to the railroad station, where 

 they were watered and then loaded on cars. They were shipped 

 September 5. They arrived in Baltimore September 8 and -were sold 

 on the market September 11. All the cattle summered on grass were 

 sold as feeders, so that only a very small number of slaughter data 

 were obtained from the summer w^ork. 



Table 16 shows that the steers in Lot 1-b, wintered on dry feed, 

 lost 57 pounds in transit, and the steers in Lot 2-b, wintered on corn 

 silage, lost 87 pounds in transit. This difference is accounted for 

 by the fact that the winter dry-fed cattle took a greater fill of water 

 than those in Lot 2. The steers in Lot 1 had been accustomed to 

 drinking out of water troughs at the farm, and when they reached 

 Baltimore they took more water than Lot 2, which had drunk out of 

 the branch both winter and summer. Although the silage-fed cat- 

 tle lost more in transit, it will be noticed that their dressing per- 

 centage was higher on both market and home weights than that of 

 the steers in Lot 1. 



