I 
f 
NEW YORK, MARCH 11, 1911. 
WEEKLY, $1.00 PER YEAR 
VOL. LXX, No. 4089. 
RETURNS FROM AN OHIO STEER 
Combining Feed and Pasture. 
The steer shown in the pictures, Figs. 
99, 100, 101 and 102, was purchased late 
in March, 1910, with three others, for 
the sum of $180. Their owner would not 
sell them by weight, so they were not 
weighed, but expert stock buyers esti¬ 
mated their weights at 850 to 900 pounds 
each. These steers were purebred Short¬ 
horns. but looked a little rough as they 
had been wintered on fodder and given 
no grain. The writer drove these steers 
home and started them on ground feed 
and fodder, and as March was warm they 
were able to get some grass also. About 
May 25, after consuming six bushels of 
cornmeal each, the feed was stopped and 
the grass depended upon to carry the 
steers through the Summer. They did 
finely on pasture, growing considerably 
and rounding out noticeably; compare 
Figs. 100 and 101. In Fig. 101 the steer wa - 
slightly closer to the camera than in Figs. 
100 and 102, and in Fig. 99 somewha 
farther away than in Fig. 102, so that one 
can account for some of the differences 
in size. While there was considerable 
increase in size there was also change in 
outline and a noticeable increase in depth 
of body. However, the changes within 
the body of the beef steer, the deposition 
of fat in the muscles called “marbling,” 
the change that makes the fattened ani¬ 
mal usually worth so much per pound 
more than the thin steer, and the putting 
on under the hide of a layer of fat, not 
valued greatly by the consumer, are 
changes that do not show up well in a 
picture unless the feeding has been car¬ 
ried to extremes, as in the case of fat 
steers for shows or demonstrations, but 
to the touch of a practiced hand there is 
noticeable a certain mellowness and 
depth of flesh in the well-fed steer. Fig. 
101 shows the steer at the beginning of 
feeding period, November 1, after five 
months on grass. Fig. 102 shows the steer 
when sold, February 1, after consuming 
12 bushels of corn and about a ton of 
hay and fodder. They were sold and 
weighed February 1 , 1911. They aver¬ 
aged 1,317 pounds in weight, having 
gained in 310 days approximately 450 
pounds each. It being a question of cost 
of production only, these steers were not 
weighed until sold; it was not convenient 
to weigh them at other times, and be¬ 
sides, it is a serious matter to annoy 
stock by frequent and unnecessary 
weighing or driving. 
As to cost and profit; stock and fat 
cattle were too high in March, 1910, and 
as the season advanced the price kept up 
well till early Fall, when fat cattle be¬ 
came a drug on the market, contrary to 
the livestock prophets. Stock cattle 
prices sagged considerably also, but 
killers butchered heavy feeders in pref¬ 
erence to fat beeves, and we had an ab¬ 
normal market condition in that there 
was a small range in price between fleshy 
feeders and fat steers. A lot of thin 
cattle had gone on pasture and into feed 
lot for early Winter sale; then came a 
lot of half-finished stuff from the 
TWO-YEAR-OLD STEER WHEN BOUGHT. Fig. 99. 
AFTER AN EIGHT WEEKS “WARMING UP.” Fig. lOo. 
READY TO FATTEN AFTER FIVE MONTHS ON GRASS. Fig. 101. 
THE FINISHED PRODUCT. Fig. 102. 
drought-stricken western ranges, and to 
cap^the climax, there was a lessened con¬ 
sumption, especially of the better quality 
of beef, and many a well-finished steer 
went to market at a loss to his feeder. 
The steer shown in the pictures might 
have been sold off the pasture before the 
slump came at $5.75 to $6 per hundred, 
at a fair profit, but it seemed wrong to 
sell such thin cattle, and it was thought 
that the abnormal market conditions 
would change. They are unchanged to¬ 
day, except that there is a slight increase 
in price. The demand seems to be for 
any kind of lean beef, just so that it is 
small and carries little or no fat. There 
is some demand for prime beeves, but 
the demand is limited, and only at 
prices that make their production a losing 
operation to the feeder under present 
conditions. For these reasons this lot of 
steers went to market 200 pounds lighter 
than they could have been made at a 
profit. During the last 10 days they were 
fed, each steer ate 16 pounds of corn- 
meal, and about all the hay and fodder 
that would be cleaned up well. Such 
feeding means a loss unless gains of 
more than two pounds per day per head 
are being made, and the selling price 
figured at near six cents per pound. Al¬ 
together these steers ate $8.50 worth of 
corn each and consumed pasture and 
roughage to the extent of approximately 
$15.50 (figured at five cents per day for 
310 days), making a total cost of $69 per 
head (interest included), and as they 
sold by contract at six cents, each steer 
gave a net average profit of $10. Feed 
and pasture are figured at market prices 
and such prices truthfully represent the 
cost of the feeds used, as one is free to 
buy or produce as seems most desirable. 
Feeder cattle, cattle heavier and flesh¬ 
ier than stockers, are now much too high 
in price, selling at a range of 5*4 to six 
cents, and the feeder must bid for these 
cattle in competition with butchers in 
many cases, making it a very poor time 
to stock up with cattle. Fat cattle prices 
ought to be higher from the feeder’s 
standpoint, but the consumer eats less 
and cheaper meat than usual, so the pre¬ 
dictions of a good market for finished 
cattle were wrong and many feeders must 
pocket a loss. At present it seems that 
we shall have reciprocity with Canada, 
mostly in regard to products of the 
farms, and this will likely lower further 
the prices of commodities, including 
meats, so that to continue in business 
the cattle feeder must get cheaper stock¬ 
ers or feeder cattle than are in sight 
to-day. w. e. duckwau,. 
R- N.-Y. — Mr. Duckwall’s concise 
statement would have a good deal of in¬ 
terest for the consumer, who, as he says, 
“eats less and cheaper meat than usual.” 
This is not because the consumer is any 
more penurious than he was 10 years 
ago, but because lie cannot afford lux¬ 
urious living. Since the feeder is not 
paid for his labor, while the working 
consumer can only pay for cheap cuts, 
just who is absorbing the tenderloin and 
porterhouse of the American meat in¬ 
dustry? The farmer can surely prove 
an alibi, and the “ultimate consumer” 
hardly selects chuck steak from choice. 
