16 BULLETIN" 762, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
centages are all satisfactory, and th e purchaser reports that the steers 
of all lots showed extra nice carcasses and that he was well pleased 
with the war they dressed out. 
SUMMARY OF THE EXPERIMENT. 
1. This experiment was a duplication of the Alabama test reported 
in Part I of this bulletin as to the relative efficiency of cottonseed 
hulls, corn silage, and a combination of the two when fed with cot- 
tonseed meal for fattening steers. 
2. The steers used were grades of the various beef breeds, averag- 
ing 813 pounds per head at the beginning of the experiment. The 
77 steers were divided into three lots and fed 113 days during the 
winter of 1911~15. 
3. Cottonseed meal was fed in equal quantities to all the steers. 
In addition to this the steers in Lot 1 were fed cottonseed hulls, those 
in Lot 2 corn silage, and those in Lot 3 both cottonseed hulls and 
corn silage. 
1. For the entire feeding period of 113 days the steers of Lots 1, 
2, and 3 made an average daily gain per head of 1.38, 1.15, and 1.67 
pounds, respectively. These daily gains are noticeably smaller than 
those made in the Alabama test the previous winter. This is due 
chiefly to slightly inferior steers, poor silage, less desirable feeding 
conditions, and a longer feeding period in the 1911-15 trial. 
5. The cost to make 100 pounds of gain was $10.70 for Lot 1 ; $11.26 
for Lot 2, and $8.90 for Lot 3. 
6. The steers of Lot 1 were marketed at an average loss of $1.62 
per head, but those of Lots 2 and 3 returned an average net profit of 
$2.27 and $2.13 per head, respectively. Xot withstanding the fact 
that the prices of feeds were less and the steers were sold at a greater 
margin in the 1914-15 trials, the three lots of steers fed the previous 
year in Alabama made considerably more profit. The high cost of 
gains in 1914-15 had offset the advantages of cheap feeds and more 
favorable marketing. 
7. The shrinkage per head in transit to market was 51 pounds for 
Lot 1, 63 pounds for Lot 2, and 56 pounds for Lot 3. The silage-fed 
steers shrank a little more in transit than the steers of Lot 1. 
8. The dressing percentages were 56.27, 58.41, and 57.97 for Lots 
1, 2, and 3, respectively. 
9. While the steers of Lot 1, which were fed cottonseed hulls as 
roughage, made slightly larger daily gains and less expensive gains 
than the steers of Lot 2, which received a poor grade of silage, the 
steers of Lot 2 made a greater profit and dressed out a higher per- 
centage of marketable meat. 
