2 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
cation of that previously reported, it will be of interest to introduce the 
discussion with a short extract from the above-mentioned publication, 
especially since the two years' work do not agree in all particulars. 
In the discussion following the financial statement, it was stated that 
all the calves were fed at a profit (the calves were bought at $3.50 a 
hundred pounds and sold for $5.01, $5.11, and $5.26, respectively, in 
lots 1, 2, and 3), the lowest being $1.48 per calf in lot 3 and the high- 
est $2.25 per calf in lot 2. These profits meant that the corn and the 
hay raised on the farm were sold, through the calves, at TO cents a 
bushel and $15 a ton, respectively ; that the money expended for cot- 
tonseed meal and hulls was all returned to the owner; that the fer- 
tilizer value of these feeds was left on the farm, and, in addition, 
each calf returned the above additional profits. The monetary re- 
turns were satisfactory, as by means of the calves the farm feeds 
were sold for more than could have been secured for them on the 
market, and their fertilizing value was left on the farm in the shape 
of barnyard manure. 
The calves in lot 3, which received the heavy ration of corn-and- 
cob meal, returned the smallest profit, notwithstanding the fact that 
they sold for the highest price at Cincinnati. The increase in the 
price did not overcome the added expense of feeding a heavy ration of 
corn-and-cob meal. Although it did not pay to feed the heavy ration 
of corn-and-cob meal, it did pay to feed the small amount of corn-and- 
cob meal that was used in lot 2, as the calves in this lot proved to be 
the most profitable. This indicates that when fattening beef calves 
with cottonseed meal and corn-and-cob meal as the concentrates one- 
third of the concentrated part of the ration can consist profitably of 
corn-and-cob meal, but it is less profitable to have com-and-cob meal 
constitute two-thirds of the concentrated part of the ration. 
However, there was one factor that had not been taken into consid- 
eration which, if considered, adds to the profits of lots 2 and 3, es- 
pecially the latter. Some undigested corn passed through the calves 
in these two lots; hogs following them would have derived no little 
benefit from the droppings. In fact, several hogs did follow the 
steers in lot 3, but no record was kept of their gains. These gains 
should be credited to the calves. 
In the present test, hogs followed those calves that were fed a par- 
tial ration of corn. 
OBJECTS OF WORK. 
As with the previous test, the main object in this calf-feeding work 
was to determine whether the farmer can afford to raise a good grade 
of beef calves and finish them for the market when they are about 
a year old. In the South the usual custom is to keep the offspring 
until they are from 2 to -1 years old before finishing them for the 
market. Manv farmer-, however, are now asking if it would not be 
