Bulletin No. 163 ALABA IA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION STEER FEEDING IN ALABAMA 1, Dec. 1911 Fattening Steers on Cottonseed Meal, Hulls, Silage and Johnson-grass Hay. 2. Wintering Steers Preparatory to Summer Fattening on Pasture. 3. The value of Shelter for Fattening Cattle in Alabama. 4. Early Compared with Late Fattening of Steers on Pasture. Investigations in co-operation with the Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D.C. By Dan T. Gray Professor of Animal Industry and T F. Ward Junior Animal Husbandman, Bureau of Animal Industry Part I. Winter Fattening of Steers on Cottonseed Meal, Cottonseed Hulls, Corn Silage, and Johnson-Grass Hlay. INTRIODUCTION. Cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls, the two feeds which in the past have been used almost exclusively during the winter months for fattening cattle in the South, have advanced in price very materially during the last three or four years. This advancement in price- has forced the southern farmers to seek feeds with which to supplement the cottonseed meal and hulls, in the experiment here reported silage and Johnson-grass hay were used as supplementary feeds to the hulls. Cotton seed meal was the only concentrated feed employed. Since the inauguration of the cooperative beef work between the Alabama Experiment Station and the Bureau of Animal Industry, some results have been published relative to winter fattening of steers,* but silage and Johnson-grass hay were not introduced into any of the former rations. It should be understood that this bulletin is only a, report of the progress of the cooperative beef work, as the experiments are being continued. OBJECT OF THE EXPERIMENT. This experiment was planned with the following ob- jects in view: 1 To determine the profit, if any, in fattening a good grade of cattle in the winter time on high-priced feeds. 2. To compare a ration of cottonseed meal and hulls alone with a second ration of cottonseed meal, hulls and silage, and with a third ration of cottonseed meal, hulls and Johnson-grass hay. *Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 103. T he l'1'r s ant Nv( l' div 1it Ii''l ily inr fo s d f l m l 4v i H Iv'n itI'u G) Il sl(1 IIIi I l el1~. Giii )IIls ((1 I'I. I ll R 6t This animal represents one of the av erage steers of the test. about the middle of the test. The abov e photograph was taken 61 fall of 1909, and were the best of a herd of about 300 head of improved cattle. None of them was pure bred, but all had been graded up by the use of Hereford, Aber.deen-Angus and Shorthorn sires. They varied from 2 to 3 years in age. The.average weight of each animal .at the beginning of the test was approximately 830 pounds, so they were larger than the average southern .cattle. This increased size was due to the improved beef blood. As these cattle were better than the average cattle of the State they cost more in the fall than is usually paid for Alabama cattle. They were valued at 314 cents a pound when test began, December 1, 1909. METHOD OF CONDUCTING THE WORK. The cattle were fed under average farm conditions. Mr. F. I. Derby, a farmer and stockman of Sumter Coun,ty, Alabama, agreed to cooperate with the Alabama Experiment Station and the Bureau of Animal Industry in this work, and the feeding was all done upon his farm. Mr. Derby furnished the cattle and the feed, and the work was planned and the feeding carried on under the :supervision of the authors of the bulletin. Mr. J. W. Ridgway, was stationed upon the farm and had personal supervision of the experiment. No artificial shelter was provided for the cattle and no trees were in the feed lots, so they did not even have the protection which trees afford. They were fed in the open fields, as no shelter is needed in Alabama for mature fattening cattle. As Mr. Derby's main object in feeding cattle is to enrich his farm, the cattle were fed on areas which were to be subsequently planted in either cotton or corn. The cattle were fed upon fields consisting of about 10 acres of land to each lot of 20 cattle. -Vhile no account was kept of the amount of manure made, still it is known from subsequent' work that the 60 head of cattle made at least I ton oi manure each day, or 84 tons for the whole feeding period of 84 days. The manure, of course, added very much to the fertili-ty of the land -upon which it was dropped. 62 Many of the clay soils of the State would be ruined by tramping if the cattle were permitted to stay on them during the wet winter weather. The soil of Mr. Derby's farm is a light sandy one, so the tramping of the cattle did not injure it materially. However, since this work was done, Mr. Derby has come to the conclusion that the winter tramping injures even a sandy soil, so hereafter he intends to feed in sheds and barns and haul the manure to the fields. The steers were fed twice each day in open troughs. located in the fields. The troughs were made so that they could be moved from place to place, thus insuring an even distribution of manure, and avoiding too much packing of the soil in one place. The steers were fed in such amounts that the feed was all eaten within a few hours after it was put before them. Many feeders keep feed in the troughs constantly, but more satisfactory results are secured when the steers are required to clean the troughs after each meal. An abundance of pure water and salt was provided all the time. At the close of the test the cattle were shipped to the Louisville' market for sale. The experimental farm was located four miles from Whitfield, Alabama, the nearest railroad station, and the cattle were driven to that point to be loaded on the cars. PRICE AND CHARACTER OF FEEDS. In work of this character the financial statement is not as satisfactory as could be wished, because the price of feeds, as well as of cattle, fluctuate considerably from year to year. Therefore the financial outcome of a particular experiment may not be duplicated by the cattle feeder owing to the different conditions under which he is operating. The prices listed in this bulletin were the actual prices paid for the feeds (except silage which was made on the farm) and the actual prices realized for the cattle. This test was conducted during the winter of 1909-10; prices have not changed materially since that date. The following were 63 the prices of the feeds, that on silage being an estimated one: Cottonseed meal .............. $26.00 a ton Cottonseed hulls ................ 7.00 a ton Johnson-grass hay.............. 11.00 a tonr 2.50 a ton Silage (produced on farm) ..... All of the above feeds were of good quality. TheJohnson-grass hay had been cut at the proper stage and was of excellent quality. The cattle ate it with considerable relish. The silage, after the first few days, was also of good quality as far as brightness and taste were concerned. The corn from which the silage was made did not have a heavy development of ear as the stand was thick and the planting was not made until June. Probably 30 bushels of corn to the acre would have been secured if it had been gathered. The cottonseed meal was fresh, bright and of a high grade. PRELIMINARY FEEDING. Some of the steers were bought as early as November 1, 1909. Mr. Derby was getting his cattle together for winter feeding, so the experimental steers were placed in the feed lots with the general herd of feeding cattle until conditions were ready for the experiment to begin. On November 6 the cattle were all started on a small amount of cottonseed meal and hulls. This amount was gradually increased and they were receiving a full ration of the meal and hulls by November 15. This full feeding of cottonseed meal and hulls was continued until the experimental work began. On December 1, the 60 steers to be used in the experimental work were selected from the general herd of probably 300 steers; they were divided into three lots of 20 steers each, tagged, weighed, placed in their respective fields, and the experiment proper begun. The period previous to December I was considered a preliminary period; this period was introduced so that the cattle would have an opportunity to become accustomed to the surroundings and the feeds. before the inauguration of the test. 64 DAILY RATIONS. Many farmers injure their cattle and get them "off fed" by increasing too rapidly the cottonseed meal part of the ration. These cattle had been in a preliminary feeding period for 24 days before the real test began, yet each steer was fed only 4 pounds of cottonseed meal daily at the inauguration of the erperiment, December 4. Of course, the amount was increased from time to time as the cattle would take it without scouring, but at no time did the steers receive more than 8 pounds of cottonseed meal daily. Many farmers would have had these steers on a daily ration of 10 pounds of cottonseed meal within ten days after the feeding began. Scours, dizziness, stiffness and occasional cases of blindness are almost sure to follow a heavy feeding of cottonseed meal. In the event of such troubles occurring the feeder is often compelled to sell under unfavorable circumstances, as the steers cannot be held profitably. When marketed the buyer is almost sure to discriminate against them because of their poor condition and they consequently sell at a disadvantage when offered to the packer or butcher. The following table outlines, by periods of 28 days each, the amount of feed given each steer daily: TABLE 1. Average Daily Ration For Each Steer, By Months. LOT 1 LOT 2 Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls LOT 3 RATIONS Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Corn silage Pounds 4.64 cottonseed meal Johnson-grass hay Pounds Pounds First 28 days 14.88 cottonseed hulls 22.57 corn silage 6.00 cottonseed meal 15.27 cottonseed hulls 19.49 corn silage 7.73 cottonseed meal 24.79 cottonseed hulls 4.64 cottonseed meal 13.58 cottonseed hulls 9.43 Johnson-grass hay 4.64 cottonseed meal 26.53 cottonseed hulls Second 28 days 6.00 cottonseed meal 6.00 cottonseed meal 15.11 cottonseed hulls 29.43 cottonseed hulls 8.87 Johnson-grass hay 7.73 cottonseed meal 7.73 cottonseed meal 14.21 cottonseed hulls 23.96 cottonseed hulls 7.03 Johnson-grass hay Third 28 days I AKIIH;'I 65 During the first 28 days each steer received an average of only 4.64 pounds of cottonseed meal each day. The cattle feeder would not, as a rule, expect to secure good gains when the daily allowance of cottonseed meal was only 4.64 pounds, but the data show that these animals made excellent gains during the first 28 days. During the first period each steer in Lot I (the silage-fed lot) received 14.88 pounds of cottonseed hulls and 22.57 pounds of corn silage each day, along with the 4.64 pounds of cottonseed meal. The cottonseed meal was sprinkled over the hulls and silage and thoroughly mixed by hand. During the first period of 28 days each steer in Lot 3, the lot to which nothing was fed except the cottonseed meal and hulls, ate 26.53 pounds of cottonseed hulls along with the 4.64 pounds of meal. At the end of the test, when the cottonseed meal was increased to 7.73 pounds for each steer daily, as many pounds of hulls were not consumed as at the beginning, so the daily allowance was cut down to 23.96 pounds for each steer. In Lot 2, the lot in which Johnson-grass hay was used to supplement the cottonseed meal and hulls, each steer, during the first period, ate 13.58 pounds of hulls and 9.43 pounds of the hay each day along with the 4.64 pounds of cottonseed meal; they were given as much hay each day as they would clean up. The hay was fed in racks and none of it was trampled under foot and wasted. During the second period of 28 days each steer ate an everage of 6 pounds of cottonseed meal each day. With the exception of a small increase, the roughage part of each ration was maintained practically as it was in the first period. Each steer in Lot 3 ate practically 30 pounds of cottonseed hulls each day. The average cattle of the South, which are not as large as the ones used in this test, will not consume 30 pounds of hulls per steer per day. In some former beef feeding work done by this Station and the Bureau,* steers which average 816 pounds in weight at the close of the test ate only 19.9 pounds of cottonseed hulls daily. *See Bureau of Animal Industry, bulletin 103. 66 Unfortunately for the test and the cattle, the supply of silage lasted only 56 days, so no silage was fed the steers in Lot I during the last period of 28 days. Cottonseed hulls replaced the silage. During the last period each steer ate 7.73 pounds of cottonseed meal daily; they would have eaten a larger amount if ithad been placed before them. The roughage part of the ration was decreased as the amount of cottonseed meal was increased; the steers themselves regulated the amount of roughage so they were given only as much as they would clean up after each meal. The above table should be closely studied by the cattie feeder. There is no doubt that the average southern farmer feeds too much cottonseed meal to his fattening cattle. When the allowance of meal is kept down to a reasonable amount the cattle will feel better and make gains more economically than when 9 to 10 pounds are fed to each steer daily. At the same time, the owner will not be forced to sell at unfavorable times because of scours and sickness. DAILY AND TOTAL GAINS. The gains as given here are not fictitious in any sense. No "fill" is included, as the cattle had been on feed for 24 days before the test began. The gains would have been considerably larger if the "fill" had been included. 67 TABLE 2.-Average Weights And Gains. (Dec. 1, 1909-Feb. 23, 1910) (84 days.) Number Lot of steers RATION Average Average initial final weight of weight of each steer each steer Pounds Pounds Average total gain of each steer Pounds Average daily gain of each steer Pounds 1 20 Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Corn silage Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls 811 962 151 1.80 2 20 Johnson-grass hay: 3 20 Cottonseed meal 820 949 129 1.54 Cottonseed hulls 851 995 144 1.71 Results for first 56 days-while silage was fed. 1 20 Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Corn silage Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls 811 915 104 1.86 2 20 Johnson-grass hay 3 20 Cottonseed meal 820 900 80 1.43 Cottonseed hulls 851 957 106 1.89 All of the cattle made satisfactory, but not unusual gains. In the first part of Table 2 it is seen that the silage-fed steers (Lot 1), made the largest gains, making an average daily gain of 1.8 pounds for the whole period of 84 days. In the lower part of Table 2 are found the results of the first 56 days of the test, or the period when corn silage was fed to the cattle in Lot 1. When the second part of the table is studied it is seen that the cattle which ate silage did not make as large daily gains as did those which were fed nothing but cottonseed meal and hulls. Durng the first 56 days, each steer in Lot 1 (the silage lot) made an average daily gain of 1.56 pounds, while during the same period each steer in Lot 3 (cottonseed meal and hulls only) gained 1.89 pounds 68 each day. However, the reader should not come to the conclusion that the daily gains measure the success of a feeding operation altogether. It is, of course, necessary for good gains to be secured, but the final profits are not determined entirely by the daily gains. Other factors, as the price of the feeds and the selling price of the cattle, must be taken into consideration. The cattle which were fed a partial ration of Johnsongrass hay made the most satisfactory gains, making a daily gain per steer of only 1.54 pounds during the whole period of 84 days. As far as gains were concerned the Johnson-grass hay proved to be unsatisfactory, as cottonseed meal and hulls, when fed alone, produced greater gain than when the two were combined with Johnsongrass hay. The hay was of good quality and the cattle ate it with considerable relish. Oftentime Johnson-grass is cut at such a late stage of maturity that it is stiff, woody, and unpalatable, but the hay used in this test was cut and harvested at the proper stage. The supply of silage was exhausted at the end of 56 days, so this lot of cattle (Lot 1) was continued to the end of the test on cottonseed meal and hulls, the hull part of the ration being increased sufficiently to take the place of the silage. After the feeding of silage was discontinued the cattle still continued to make good gains, as each steer made a gain of 47 pounds during the last 28 days of the test. During this same period each steer which was eating Johnson-grass hay (Lot 2) made a gain of 49 pounds, while each steer in Lot 3 gained only 38 pounds. As a matter of fact, it was expected that small gains would be secured after the discontinuance of the silage, but the change was made gradually and the steers did not seem to notice the substitution of hulls for the silage. Cottonseed meal and hulls make an extremely palatable combination of feeds; in fact, it is difficult to find a combination of feeds more palatable than a mixture of these two southern feeds. At the end of the experiment the steers in Lots 1, 2 and 3 averaged 962, 949, and 995 pounds, respectively, in weight; they made average total gains of 151, 129, and 144 pounds in the respective lots. 69 QUANTITY AND COST OF FEED REQUIRED TO MAKE 100 POUNDS OF GAIN. In work of this character the real value of a feed, or a combination of feeds, is measured by the number of pounds of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain in live weight. With this information the farmer can apply the knowledge to his own conditions and quickly determine what it would cost to make 100 pounds of gain on his own farm. The table following shows the quantity of feed required to make 100 pounds of increase in live weight and the cost of the gains under the conditions of this test. The price placed upon the feeds was their actual cost laid down on the farm. The silage, of course, was made on the farm, and on it was placed an estimated value of $2.50 a ton. TABLE 3.-Quantity And Cost Of Feed Required To Make 100 Pounds Of Gain. (Dec. 1, 1909-Feb. 23, 1910.) (84 Days.) Lot RATION Pounds of feed to make 100 pounds of gain Pounds Cost of feed to make 100 pounds of gain 1 Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls 341 meal 1020 hulls Corn silage 2 Cottonseed meal 781 silage 399 meal $ 8.98 Cottonseed hulls Johnson-grass hay 931 hulls 550 hay $11.47 3 Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls 357 meal 1554 hulls $10.08 Results for first 56 days-while silage was fed. 1 Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Corn silage Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Johnson-grass hay Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls 287 meal 812 hulls 1132 silage 372 meal 1004 hulls 641 hay 280 meal 1475 hulls $ 7.98 2 $11.88 3 $ 8.80 70 When feeds are valued as previously stated it is seen that the silage-fed steers (Lot 1) made the cheapest gains in both: cases. When the whole period of 84 days.is taken into consideration each 100 pounds of increase in live weight cost $8.98 when the silage was used, $11.47 when. Johnson-grass hay (Lot 2) supplemented the cottonseed meal and hulls, and $10.08 when nothing was fed except cottonseed, meal and hulls (Lot 3). Johnsongrass hay proved to be the most expensive and unsatisfactory feed used. During the first 56 days, when silage being fed, each 100 pounds of gain in Lot I cost $7.98; the. same gain cost $11.88 in Lot 2 where Johnson-grass: hay was used in place of silage, and $8.80 in Lot 3 where cottonseed: meal and hulls were fed alone As far as economical gains were concerned the silage proved to be a valuable addition to the cottonseed meal and hulls, but money was lost when Johnson-grass hay replaced part of the cottonseed hulls, each 100 pounds of increase in weight costing just $3.08 more when the hay was fed than when cottonseed meal and hulls were fed alone. By studying the second part of Table 3, it is seen (Lot 1) that 287 pounds of cottonseed meal, 812 pounds ol hulls and 1132 pounds of silage produced 100 pounds of increase in weight. When the meal and hulls were fed alone (Lot 3) it is further seen that 280 pounds of meal plus 1,475 pounds of hulls produced the same number of pounds of increase in weight; therefore 1132 pounds of silage saved 663 pounds of hulls, but, at the same time, caused the loss of 7 pounds of cottonseed meal. Or, I ton of the silage actually saved $3.94 worth of hulls and cottonseed meal when hulls and meal were valued at $7.00 and $26.00 a ton respectively. Corn silage in this test was therefore worth $3.94 a ton. In the same way it is found that 641 pounds of Johnson-grass hay took the place of 471 pounds of hulls, but caused the loss of 92 pounds of cottoseed meal; or, I ton of hay proved to have a feeding value of only $1.31 when the meal and the hulls were valued as above. Johnson-grass hay in this -was 71 test was therefore worth $1.31 a ton, whereas it cost $11.00 a ton. Ton for ton, silage was just three times as valuable as Johnson-grass hay when they were both used along with cottonseed meal and hulls for fattening cattle. Johnson-grass hay proved to be a poor feed for fattening purposes, while silage had an exceedingly high value when used for the same purpose. The cattle feeder cannot, therefore, afford to use Johnson-grass hay along with cottonseed meal and hulls for fattening purposes, and this experiment tends to show that the majority of southern feeders cannot use a more economical feed than :silage for this purpose. ADVANTAGES OF USING PURCHASED FEEDS. The majority of our southern farmers object to buying cottonseed meal, hulls, and other feeds for beef cattle on the ground that the original prices of the feeds -can not be realized after being fed to cattle. At the same time thousands of these same farmers buy cot-tonseed meal and use it as a commercial fertilizer, when experience and experiments all teach that the first use of the meal should be as a feed for some kind of live stock, and the second use as a fertilizer in the shape of barnyard manure. When the cottonseed meal is fed to live stock it is used twice, once as a feed and again as a fertilizer. Many of our best farmers feed cattle for no other reason than to obtain the barnyard manure and are satisfied if they come out even on the cattle; the manure is well worth the expense of feeding. In these experiments the cottonseed meal cost $26.00 a ton and the hulls $7.00 a ton, and we are satisfied that in every case these feeds realized, as a result of feeding to the cattle, much more than they cost. That is, an actual profit was made on each ton of the feeds and at the same time the manure was left on the farm. The meal and hulls, therefore, were no expense at all to the soil or to the' succeeding crops. 72 VALUE OF BARN YARD MANURE. The farmer who has lands which should be built up should feel that he has fed cattle at a profit when manure is obtained free above all other expenses as this manure has an exceedingly high fertilizing value. "Beef cattle should be more generally introduced because of the good they do in building up and maintaining soils. Under the present system of cotton farming the soils are becoming poorer and poorer. With the introduction of cattle the soil will begin to be built up. Director Thorne, of the Ohio Station, has been making tests with barnyard manure for several years, applying the manure upon a plot of ground upon which was running a three years' rotation of corn, wheat, and clover. Eight tons of manure an acre were applied. The average yearly increase an acre, following the one application, was as follows: Corn, 14.7 bushels at 70 cents a bushel .......... $10.29 Corn stover, 744 pounds at $6.00 a ton.........2.23 Wheat, 8.36 bushels at $1.00 a bushel ......... 8.36 1.79 Wheat straw, 897 pounds at $4.00 a ton ...... Clover hay, 686 pounds at $12.00 a ton ....... 4.12 Total value of 8 tons of manure ........... 26.79 Total value of 1 ton of manure ............ 3.35 He further states (Bulletin 183 Ohio Experiment Station) that the value of farm manure can be materially increased by balancing the manure with the addition of a carrier of phosphorus. The farm manures are too high in nitrogen as compared with the other elements. By balancing stable manure, the value of 8 tons was increased $12.20 after deducting the cost of the material used for the balancing of the manure. This is $1.53 a ton and when added to the $3.35 above, brings the total possible value of each ton of manure up to $4.88. During a feeding period of 100 days each steer will produce at least 1.5 tons of manure. This profit should be added to the feeding or direct profits. The Arkansas Station (Bulletin 68) made a test to de- 73 termine the value, to each succeeding crop, of growing peas in the corn, gathering the corn and then grazing both the peas and the stalks by the steers. T he steers were fed some cottonseed in addition to the grazing. As the result of this crop of peas and the grazing, the succeeding cotton crop was increased 626.5 pounds of seed cotton over the area where corn alone had been grown. A third lot was planted to corn and the increase in corn, due to the pea crop and the grazing, was 14 bushels per acre."* FINANCIAL STATEMENT. It should be remembered that the financial statements in this bulletin are based on the local conditions where the feeding was carried on. Should the conditions elsewhere be different, the financial results will also differ. The price of the cattle when put into the feed-lot is one very variable factor. The feeders in this partibular experiment cost 31/4 cents a pound. In another part of the State they might have cost more, and in still a third part they might have cost considerably less than they did in Sumter County. The financial statement will not be misleading if the reader bears in mind that it does not apply to all conditions. The cattle, as previously noted, were bought in Sumter and neighboring counties for 31/4 cents a pound during the fall of 1909. They were fed on cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls for 24 days before the test began. The test continued for 84 days, when the cattle were ready for sale, and were shipped to the Louisville, Kenmarket where all of the steers sold for $5.75 per tucky, -hundredweight. It cost 65 cents per hundredweight to ship them to the market, so they are estimated in the financial statement at $5.10 per hundredweight. The $5.10 represents the price actually received on the farm. *See Alabama Experiment Station Bulletin 506 74 Lot 1:-Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, corn silage: To 20 steers 16220 lbs. at 31/ cents a pound... .$527.15 To 10290 lbs. cottonseed meal at $26 a ton ... 133.77 To 30768 lbs. cottonseed hulls at $7 a ton ..... To 23554 lbs. corn silage at $2.50 a ton ........ By sale of 20 steers, 18658 lbs. at $5.10 per cwt Total profit 07.69 29.44 798.05 951.66 $153.61 7.68 Profit per steer Lot 2: Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, Johnson-grass hay: To 20 steers, 16400 pounds, at 31/ To 10290 lbs. cottonseed meal at .To 24026 lbs. cottonseed hulls at To 14185 lbs. Johnson-grass hay cs. a pound $533.00 $26 a ton .. 133.77 84.09 $7 a ton .... at $11 a ton 78.02 828.88 By 'sale of 20 steers, 18411 lbs. at $5.10 per cwt. 938.96 $110.08 Total profit 5.50 Profit per steer Lot 3:-Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls: To 20 steers, 17020 lbs. at 314 cts. a pound .... $552.15 To 10290 lbs. cottonseed meal at $26 a ton .. 133.77 STo 44755 lbs. cotton seed hulls at $7.00 a ton 159.09 845.0'1' -By sale of 20 steers' 19303 lbs. at $5.10 pe ,cwt 984.45 Total 'Profit profitsteer per $139.4 6.97 The above financial statement shows that all of the rots of steers were fed at a profit. The outcome was sat where isfactory. The,greatest profit way made in Lot 1, The smallest profi t was made in Lot silage was used. 2, where Johnson-grass hay was fed. The cattle in Lots 1 and 3 sold at the same price and made practically the 75 same total gains in live weight,' but those in Lot I had the advantage- in that they had cheap fed, silage, addei to the basal ration of cottonseed meal and hulls. Each .steer in Lot I made a clear profit of $7.68, while each one in Lot 3 made a profit of only $6.97. The steers which received Johnson-grass hay along with the cottonseed meal and hulls (Lot 2) made a profit of only $5.50 each. SLAUGHTER DATA, Table 4 shows the total weight of each lot of cattle, the live weight at the Louisville market, the number of pounds each steer lost in shipment, the dressed weight at Louisville, and the per cent of dressed weight to live weight. The steers were driven 4 miles to a railroad, and, on account of delays, were in the cars 48 hours. TABLE 4.-Slaughter Records. Lot Number Total. steers weight on o' farm Louisville Pounds Total weight at Average shrinkage en route Total:, dressed weight at Average per cent, dressed out by per steer Louisville Pounds Pounds Average per cent. dressed out by Pounds farm market ' .weightsi weights Per cent. Per cent. 1 2 3 20 20 20 19235 18980 19900 17685 17615 18325 -77.5 68.3 78.8 9926 9736 10164 57.6 51.3 51.1 56.1 55.3 55.5 The shrinkage on the road was rather great, but it should be remiembered that there was delay of several hours in shipment. Those cattle which were fed Johnson-grass hay (Lot 2) lost the fewest poundsin weight. Each steer lost 77.5, 68.3 and 78.8 pounds in Lots-4, 2, and 3 respectively; or, the silage-fed steers (Lot .1)lost int transit 8.1 per-cent of their weight, thosein Lot 2 (iJohnson-grass lot) lost 7.1 per cent, while those in Lot3 (cottonseed mealWand hulls) shrunk 7.9'per cent. The steers in Lot 1, (the silage fed cattle) dressed out higher than the steers in Lots 2 and 3-, dressing 56,:1 per cent by the market weights. The; steers in Lots 2 and 3 per eient respyiectively. dressed 55.3 per cent and ,a :55.5 76 TABLE 5.-Summary of Results. LOTi1LOT2 LOT3 Feed: Cottonseed meal Feed:Feed:Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Johnson-grass Cottonseed hulls Corn silage hay Pounds Pounds 820 Pounds 851 Average weight of steers at beginning, Dec. 1, 1909 -------811 962 151 Average weight of steers at close Feb. 23; 1910________________ Average total gain of each steer for whole period of 84-days-,-Average" daily 'gain of each steer whole period of 84 days----Average daily gain of each steer for first 56days while silage was fed --------------------Average cottonseed meal fed daily per steer - ----- - Average cottonseed, hulls fed daily -per' steer--__-------Average silage fed daily per steer Average Johnson-grass hay fed daily per steer --------__ Cottonseed meal to make 100 pounds of gain for whole period of 84 days --- 949 129-144 1.54 995 1.8 1.86 1.71 1.43 1.89 6.1 6.1 14.3 6.1 26.6 15.1 21.0 - ---------341 287 8.40 399 357 280 Cottonseed meal to -make 100 pounds of gain for first 56 days 372, 931 hulls 550 hay 1004 hulls 641 hay Roughage to make 100 pounds 781 silage gain for whole period of 84 days 1020 hulls Roughage to make 100" pounds of gain for first 56 days- while silage 1554 hulls 1475 hulls was fed ---- ---- 812 hulls 1132 silage Cost to make 100 pounds of gain for whole period of 84 days Cost to make 100 pounds of gain for first 56 days $8.98 7.98 $11.47 11.88 $10.08 8.80 ---- ----- Cost of steers per cwt. in fall Selling price of steers in LouisVille ---------------- -Selling price of steers* on farmProfit per steer 3.25 5.75 5.10 7.68 3.25 5.75 5.10 5.50 3.25 5.75 5.10 6.97 ---- ----- 77 SUMMARY STATEMENTS. to 3 years. old. They had all been graded up by the use o \berdeen-Angus,' Htereford, and Shthorn Sires. 2-At the beginning of the, test they, averaged 827 pounds each in Weight. They, were fed'84 days and at the close of the test each steer averaged 967. 60 head of steers were divided into three lots and fed as follows 1-The steers which were used. in this test were from 2 3-The i Lot 1:- Cottonseed, meal. Cottonseed hulls. Cornsilage. cottonseed meal. ottonseed hulls. Johnson-grass hay. Lot 3:-Cottonseed meal. Cottonseed hulls. 4--For the whole period of 84 days an average daily gLn; o 1.8,, 54, and .71 pounds were secured in Lots ?2and 3, resp ctively. first 56 days, when silage was fed in -the 5 'Durillg Lot 1 an average daily gain of 1.86,.1.43, and 1.89 pounds dwer&.ecured in Lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively. days it cost, $8.98, $11.47 , ,--For tihoevhole. peiod Lot 2: . 1, of 84 and $10.08 to make 100 pounds y r.espectively. r .,-'or:the first .56 days, when, silage wvas fed in Lot 1, it cost, $7.98, $11.88, and- $8.80. to make 100. pounds ,of 3, respectively. gai~n iiiLots 1, ;ard Y8- The fall o 1909 .the steers' cost $3.25 pep undred- ,of. gain in Lots 1, 2,..and Weight. r9- - At the', .end of the test. they -were.,shipped tQ Lots 1, 2, nd 3 it~ of $7.683 $5.503 and $6:97, respectively. . , an e teed lgy tin ozsilage ppoved. ,to Q factory addition to a bas al ration of cottonseed meal rass 1hayf was anAexceeding utdhnson' 4'Y l1s,"t unsatisfactory whei "use'd.In' he she =may. supplement 4 Each T~isi~ n hundredweight, olfr qd~r$5.7 5per ivl..an steer in be i~apov .; y Part II. Wintering Steers Preparatory to Summer Fattening on Pasture. INTRODUCTION. For several years this Station, cooperating with the Bureau of Animal Industry, has been studying the subject of wintering mature steers and subsequently fattening them in the summer on pasture. Some of the work has been published,* but the conditions surrounding the work herein published were altogether different from the circumstances surrounding the previous work. In the first place, these cattle were of different age and quality from the ones which were used in the former experimental work. In the second place, the grass upon which these cattle grazed grew on a sandy instead of a lime soil. In the previous work the cattle were grazed upon lime soils with sweet clover (Melilotus) as the basal pasture crop during the early part of the grazing season. In the work published in this bulletin no sweet clover pastures were available, as it does not occur upon the sandy soils of this region. Two separate experiments are reported in this section owing to the fact that two distinct types of cattle were used. The animals were divided into four lots, two of them composed of high grade young cattle, and the other two of common or scrub cattle fully a year older. The work was done in cooperation with Mr. F. I. Derby, of Sumter County, Alabama, he furnishing the cattle and the feed and the Alabama Experiment Station and the Bureau of Animal Industry providing a trained man to W. Ridgway was locarry on the experiment. Mr. J. *See Alabama Station bulletin No. 151, or Bureau of Animal industry bulletin No. 131. 79 cated on the farm and had personal supervision of all the experimental work. OBJECTS OF THE WORK. This work was outlined with the following objects in view: 1. To study the problem of feeding steers during the winter months with a view to fattening them on pasture the following summer. 2. To determine the profits, if any, in supplementing sandy soil pastures with cottonseed cake during the summer fattening process. 3. To study a common southern method of managing and fattening common or scrub cattle. Steers can be purchased cheaper during the fall of the year than at any other time, so many feeders prefer to buy in the fall. When cheap steers are so purchased, a common practice in the South is to "rough" them through the winter months as cheaply as possible, turn them on pasture the following summer and sell them to the butcher at the end of the pasture season. THE CATTLE. The cattle were all bought in Sumter and neighboring counties, but those selected for Lots 4 and 5 were an excellent grade of animals, all having Shorthorn or Aberdeen-Angus blood, while those placed in Lots X and Y represented no particular breeding; they were, in fact, scrubs, or the common cattle of the neighborhood. The steers in Lots 4 and 5 were from 20 to 24 months old when purchased in the fall of 1909, and had attained an average weight of 616 pounds. The steers of Lots X and Y were from 3 to 4 years old and weighed only 565 pounds each when the test began, December 6, 1909. The cattle, both young and old, were dehorned as soon as brought to the farm. The reader's attention should be called to the fact that, while the results secured in Lots 4 and 5 are comparabl 80 with each other, they are not in any way comparable with the results secured in Lots X and Y. These are two separate experiments and are not comparable in any way. PASTURES. The soil upon which these steers grazed was of a san,dy and sandy loam character, such as is found in a cutover pine district. A large proportion of the pastures ,was low so that in rainy weather they became exceedingly wet. There was some sandy ridge land, however, in each pasture. Carpet grass, lespedeza, broom sedge and a small amount of bermuda and Paspalum Dilatatum constituted the plants that formed the pastures. They afforded an abundance of grass throughout the grazing season, but the growth .was rank and very watery, as the frequent rains kept the pasture exceedingly wet during the -whole test. Sweet clover (Melilotus) does not grow in this region. No expense cr time had ever been expended on these pastures except to build a wire fence around The plants mentined above had come volun tarily after the pine woods were cleared away. -them. WINTER RANGE. The steers of Lots X and Y, after being dehorned and tagged, were turned out December 6,1909, in a tract of cut-over pine lands. Approximately 20,000 acres of land were in this tract, but it was not fenced, so the steers had the privilege of going practically anywhere in the southern part of Sumter County. This land had grown up during the previous summer with broom sedge, lespeueza and other native grasses. When frost came the grasses were, of course, all killed, but still they afforded some grazing for the steers during the first part of the winter. During the latter part of the winter, when grazing is usually short, no little amount of Augusta vetch came up and furnished good grazing during the early spring months. This plant, more thanr anything 81 else, ,perhaps, kept the steers from losing weight while on the range, as it gave good grazing in March and April. The steers evidently gained in weight during these two months. The steers were not taken off this range until April 23, 1910. The young steers of Lots 4 and 5 were not turned on the range. PLAN OF THE FEEDING. In order to give a clear idea of the nature of the work, the general plan of the feeding is outlined below: TABLE 6.--General Plan of The Feeding. The Young Steers. Lot Number of Winter Feeding Summer Fattening (April 2, 1910-Aug. 26, 1910) steers .(Dec. 6,.1909-March 31, 1910) 4 18 Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Cottonseed neal 1 ration Pasture Cottonseed cake Pasture :5 17 Cottonseed hulls Johnson-grass hay 1 Cottonseed cake ration The Common Steers. (Dec. 6. 1909--Aporil 23, 19 10) (April 23, 1910-Sept. 2, 1910) X Range only Pasture and Y Cottonseed cake 43 Range only Pasture alone The general plan was to feed the steers of, Lot 4 and 5 sufficient feed to produce small gains- throughout the winter months. They were a good class ofi- cattle and young, so it was thought that it would pay,to feed them, liberally during the winter months. Accordingly a parr, tial ration of cottonseed .meal and :cottonseed hulls was fd; o . thesteers :in Lot , while those in "Lot, had some Johnson-grass hay added to the basal ration of cotton- 82 seed meal and hulls. No effort was made to fatten these young cattle during the winter; the object was to make only small gains and keep them in thriving condition. The fattening was to occur the subsequent summer, when they were on the pasture. The steers of Lots X and Y were turned out as one lot on the range. Being of poor quality, it was not thought that it would be profitable to give them high-priced feeds during the winter months when they were to be fattened on pasture the following summer. As stated before, the range consisted of cut-over pine lands; they had the freedom of probably 20000 acres. The authors realize that this latter method of handling and feeding cattle during the winter is one that will soon go out of vogue on account of the fact that these large ranges will eventually be settled and fenced, but at the present time and under present conditions many farmers are so situated that they can profitably make use of these large tracts. These cattle received no attention at all throughout the winter months. In fact, only a few of them were seen during the whole winter. The following spring, April 21, they were brought up, weighed again, and turned onto the summer pasture for the summer fattening work. They were now divided in two lots and fed upon different feeds. The steers of Lots X were grazed upon a pasture and received a small feed of cottonseed cake in addition to the pasture. The steers of Lot Y were in a similar pasture and received nothing in addition. No shelter except the trees was provided for the cattle in either the winter or summer time. They did not seem to suffer from cold in the winter or from the heat in the summer. The summer pastures were abundantly provided with good shade trees and water. While there were cattle ticks in the pasture, yet the cattle were not permitted to become badly infested. A dipping vat was used to keep down heavy infestation. No cases of Texas fever developed. The weight of each steer was secured at the beginning 83 and end of each test, and with the exception of Lots X and Y during the winter of 1909-10, the total weight of each lot was noted every twenty-eight days. When the steers were sold they were driven 4 miles to the shipping point at Whitfield, Alabama. CHARACTER AND PRICE OF FEEDS. Local conditions determine to a large extent the farm prices of feeds. Any price that might be assumed would not meet all conditions, but the following prices have been taken as a basis upon which to make financial estimates: Cottonseed meal .................. $26.00 a ton Cottonseed cake ............ ..... 26.00 a ton Cottonseed hulls .................... 7.00 a ton Johnson-grass hay ................. 11.00 a ton Pasture, per steer ............... 50 cts. a month All of the feeds were of good quality. The cottonseed cake, which was used in all of the summer feeding work, had been broken into nut size by the oil mill and sacked. As has been stated in a previous bulletin, this cake can be purchased in the large cake size, just as it comes from the press, for about $2.00 a ton cheaper than in the nut size. Some feeders find that it pays to break the cake on their own farms. The cake is the same thing as cottonseed meal, except that it is not ground into a meal. There are several advaltages in feeding cake in place of cottonseed meal, especially in summer feeding. A rain does not render the cake unpalatable; but it will often put the meal in such a condition that the cattle will not eat it. Again, no loss is incurred with the cake during windy days, whereas the meal, when fed in the open pasture, is sometimes wasted on account of the winds. Furthermore, the cake requires chewing before being swallowed, and therefore must be eaten very much slower than the meal, so when a number of steers are being fed together the greedy one has little chance to get enough cake to produce scours. In feeding cottonseed meal the greedy steer often scours on account of the fact iat he bolt' the meal and getmore than his share fhis not only injures, the steer-butmakes the bunch "eed can 3tit"unevenly: DAILY RATIONS DURING WINTER MONTHS. It should yagain be noted4that the cattle were not being fattened during the winter months ;they.were-simply lingg carried through; so as to be in condition i~iig 'on grassthe following summer.'The steers of tts -4' and 5 were confined on cotton fields where cotcourse, toy. had been grown the previous summer. they obtained some feed from these cotton fields, especialiy the first part of the winter, and in addition were given a half ration of cottonseed'meal,hls, and hay, as noted below..*Lots X and Y were on the open range wi'th no additional feed.. The amount of feed given is shown in the following .table: for fat- Of TABLE -7.-TheA- verage Daily Amountof.Feed Given Each Steer During the Winter Months. The Young Steers. (Dee,, ,1909 Mar. 31, 1910.) (16 days.) Lot -4 Number steers 18 17 of RATION Average daily amount :. Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls ,Cottonseed -meal Cottonseed hulls Johnsonrgrass hay Pounds 23 13.29 5 2.35 6.82 5.50 1 , F .(139 X and 3 .The Qoinmon Steers. (Dec. 6,1909 -Apr. 23, days,.') Open range only 1910) None .r -None z z , '43 " Op n sange only 85 It is seen that none of the steers was fed more than a half ration of purchased feeds. Each steer in Lot 4 received an average daily feed of 2.35 pounds of cottonseed meal plus 13.29 pounds of hulls. Each steer in Lot . consumed an average of 2.35 pounds of cottonseed meal, 6.82 pounds of cottonseed hulls and 5.5 pounds of Johnson-grass hay daily. These were small amounts of feed but, as will be seen later, the animals made a fairly good daily gain. During the whole winter each animal in Lot 4 ate 273 pounds of cottonseed meal and 1542 pounds of hulls at a total cost of $8.95. During the same length of time each steer in Lot 5 ate 273 pounds of cottonseed meal, 791 pounds of hulls, and 638 pounds of hay, at a cost of $9.83. The steers in Lots X and Y received no food at all in addition to the cut-over pine range. WEIGHTS AND GAINS -DURING. THE WINTER MONTHS. The following table shows that all of the cattle gained during the winter months even the ones which were turned out on the open range and received no feed or attention during the whole winter. In this connection it should be called to mind that these cattle which were turned out on the range were mature animals. They were better able than young animals to care for themselves, as they were strong enough to get about over Mature steers large areas and hunt for a living. can withstand careless treatment and yet come through to spring in fairly good condition, while young animals, like those in Lots 4 and 5, might starve with similar feed and treatment. No one would advise a farmer to turn young animals on an open range during the winter months and give them no feed or attention. A young beef animal, if he is to attain a respectable size, must be fed and cared for during the cold months. 86 TABLE 8.-Weights and Gains During the Winier Months. The Young Steers (Dec. 6, 1909-Mar. 31,1910.) 1 .( a s)Average Average Average Average Number Lot of be steers RATION initial spring total d iiy weight of weight of gain of gain of each steer each steer each steer eachsteer Pounds Pounds 698, Pounds 741 Pounds 0.64 4 18 17 Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Johnson-grass hay 1 ration 2 ration 624 5 608 676 68 0.59 The Common Steers. (Dec. 6, 1909-Apr. 23, (139 days.) X and 1910) 575 10f 0.08 43 Range alone Range alone 565 Y The, steers in- Lots 4 and 5 made as good gains as was No effort was made to fatten them. During ,tle ,whole feeding period of 116 days each desired. 74 and 68 pounds in Lots 4 and 5 in, an excellent condition- when spring came. were in good condition when grass came in, .respectively. They ,were steer!gained Each 1 d steer oin nthe rangegt e (Lots. X and s ui lots w oe Y combined)gan h y ot itr. When ceattle are turnedl on the open range during -the winter :they, as- a rule, lose' instead of gain in weight.. In some .former. work the cattle: which had no feed during ,thie cold months except- what they secured, from the open range, lost approximately. 100 , the, spring. pounds each, during; the winter time,.* It is, a very unusual occurence for steers to make gain, durin g, the; winter months,;.:yihen handled and fed as were those in Lots X and Y. *See Alabama Station Bulletin. 151, or Bureau of try Animal Indus- Bulletin 131. 87 QUANTITY AND COST OF FEED REQUIRED TO MAKE 100 POUNDS GAIN DURING THE WINTER. The following table shows that the gains made during the winter months by the steers in Lots 4 and 5 were expensive ones. There is no way to determine the cost of gains made by the range cattle (Lots X and Y), as no value or rental price has ever been placed upon the open range. TABLE 9.-Quantity and Cost of Feed Required to Make 100 Pounds of Gain During the Winter Months. The Young Steers (Dec. 6,1909-Mar. 31, 1910.) (116 days.) Lot' RATION Feed required to make Cost of feed to make 100pounds of gain 100 pounds of gain Pounds 4 Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls 368 2077 $12.05 5 Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Johnson-grass hay 424 1160 935 14.71 The Common Steers. (Dec. 6, 1909 Apr. 23, 1910) (139 days.) and Y x Range alone None Nothing Each 100 pounds of gain during the winter months $12.05 and $14.71 ' itn Lots 4 and 5 respectively. These were very expensive gains and hard to overcoine even ihen the steers wer continued -on a very cheap ration psture arnd cottonseed cake-the following sumrmer. In fact the expensive winter. gains of Lots 4 and 5 were never counteracted by theicheapl gains of the following pdst 88 summer, as money was finally lost on these two lots of cattle. The gains secured during the winter months were expensive by reason of the fact that the ration was too near a mere maintenance ration. It is seen that in Lot 4, 368 pounds of cottonseed meal plus 2077 pounds of hulls 'were required to make 100 pounds of increase in live weight. In Lot 5, where Johnson-grass hay was introduced, 424 pounds of cottonseed meal, 1160 pounds of hulls and 935 pounds of hay were required to make 100 pounds of gain. Johnson-grass hay did not improve the ration of cottonseed meal and hulls. Nothing was gained by its introduction. In comparing the results of Lots 4 and 5, it is learned that 935 pounds of Johnson-grass ,hay saved 917 pounds of hulls, but caused a loss of 56 pounds of cottonseed meal; or, one ton of the hay was worth $5.26 in this feeding test, when cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls are valued at $26.00 and $7.00 a ton respectively. It will be remembered that in Part I of this bulletin the same hay was worth only $1.31 a ton as a fattening feed. The nearer a feed or a combination of feeds approaches a mere maintenance ration the more valuable such a hay as Johnson-grass becomes. The small increase in live weight of the steers in Lots X and Y was made without cost as the range, their only feed, was free. THE SPRING COST OF THE STEERS. The steers in Lots 4 and 5 cost 3 cents a pound thfall of 1909; those in Lot 4 averaged $21.84 each, ,and those in Lot 5 $21.28. They were well-bred animals; no scrubs were among them. The steers in Lots X andT were of a very common grade and cost only 214 cents . pound. Although these cattle were not to be fattened for the market until the next summer, they were all bough during the fall. of 1909, as it is practically impossible to get together a bunch of cattle in the spring. However, 89 it costs something to feed cattle through the winter months, and the farmer who buys them in the fall with the intention of carrying them until the following summer to fatten for the market, is interested in knowing what it will cost to get them through the winter months. In other words, he desires to know the spring cost, which is equal to the fall price plus the cost of getting the cattle through the winter months. If it were possible to get them through the winter months without cost, or gain, or loss in weight, the spring and fall priceswould be identical, but this can seldom be accomplished. As a rule, the steers must be fed, and they commonly gain or lose in weight. These expenses and changes in live weight all have a bearing on the spring price. The following table presents the fall price, the cost to get each steer through the winter, and the spring price after the winter expenses and changes in live weight have been taken into consideration. TABLE 10.Average Fall and Spring Prices of the Cattle, and Cost of Winter Feeding. The Young Steers (Dec. 6, 1909-Mar. 31, 1910.) (116 days.) RATION Fall price per hundred-weight Averaee cost to feed each steer through the winter Lot Spring price per hundred-weight 4 Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Johnson-grass hay $3.50 $8.95 $4.41 5 3.50 9.83 4.60 The Common Cattle (Dec. 6, 1909-April 23, 1910-139 days). X and Y Range alone $2.25 Nothing $2.21 90 In Lot 4 it cost $8.95 to feed each steer through the winter months. In Lot 5, where Johnson-grass hay was used, the expense to feed each steer for the same length of time was raised to $9.83. The Johnson-grass hay increased the expense. When these winter expenses are added to the original cost and allowance made for the winter gains, the steers in the spring cost $4.41 and $4.60 per hundredweight in Lots 4 and 5 respectively, which brought their average price to $30.79 for Lot 4, and $31.11 for Lot 5. The steers in Lots X and Y were cheaper at the end of the winter than they were the previous fall. This was due to the fact that they gained a few pounds during the winter months (10 pounds each), while no expense was attached to feeding them, as they were grazed on the open range. It is, of course, an unusual occurence for these two factors to be combined in this way. These catttle were bought in the fall of 1909 for $2.25 per hundredweight, but when spring arrived, April 23, 1910, 'their cost per hundredweight was reduced to $2.21. S FATTENING THE CATTLE ON PASTURE. At the close of the winter tests the steers were redivided into lots, turned into the summer pastures and fattened for the late summer market. The winter feeding of Lots 4 and 5 was discontinued March 31, 1910. On April 2, 1910, the pastures were ready for grazing, so the summer fattening tests were inaugurated on this date. The steers in Lots 4 and 5 were combined into one lot, and grazed upon the same pasture throughout the summer experiment. The range or common cattle (Lots X and Y) were divided into two lots, as nearly equal as possible in quality, size, breeding, and placed upon separate pastures on April 23, 1910. One lot of cattle, Lot X, was fed cottonseed cake along with the pasture; Lot Y was fed nothing except pasture. The feeding was done once a day in open fed troughs; 91 these troughs were conveniently located in the pastures. In order that all of the cattle would come out to the troughs the feeding was done in the cool of the evening, or about sundown. kept before the An abundance of water and salt animals all the time. was AMOUNT OF COTTONSEED CAKE FED EACH STEER DAILY. To avoid scouring and other ill results, steers which are being fattened must become accustomed gradually to cottonseed meal and cottonseed cake. Many feeders increase the feed too rapidly for best results. The temptation is to get the steers on full feed within a few days after the feeding begins, but this tendency should be curbed. The following table illustrates the amount of cottonseed cake, given each steer daily by periods of 28 TABLE'I:1:.-,Daily Ration for Each Steer During Summer Fattenting. THE YOUNG STEERS (April 2, 1910-Aug. 26, 1910) THE COMMON STEERS April 23, 1910-Sept. 2, 1910) Lot Ration Lot X Lots 4 and 5 combined (Cottonseed cake (Cottonseed cake and pasture) and pasture) Pounds Pounds Y (Pasture alone) First 28 days Second 28 days Third 28 daysFourth 28 days _ Fifth 23 2.19 cake 4.36 cake 5.50 cake 6.00 cake 6.00 cake 5.14 cake 2.84 cake 3.48 cake 3.48 cake 5.00 cake Last 21 days:4.91 cake Pasture. alone Pasture alone Pasture alone Pasture alone Pasture alone days- Last 7 days Attention is again called to the fact that the results secured in Lots and 5 (now combined into one lot) canbe compared with those secured in Lots X and Y. It not 4 ad5.Picuretaiken after cattle hadtt heen Lots4 on feed ahoun .Vt day. 9~ 93 should be noted that these lots were not started on feeds at the same date, sold at the same time, or fed and cares for similarly the preceeding winter. This is not a test in which common cattle are compared with good ones. Lots X and Y, however, are comparable with each other. All of the cattle, except Lot Y which were on the pasture alone, were given a very small daily feed of cake during the first few weeks. Each of the young steers received an average of only 2.19 pounds of cake daily during the first 28 days. This amount was increased from time to time, as shown in the table. For a time each steer was eating 6 pounds of cake a day, but this amount was finally reduced somewhat on account of scouring and hot weather. At first the common steers (Lot X) were also given a very small allowance of cottonseed cake, each steer receiving an average of 2.84 pounds of cake daily during the first 28 days. The steers in this lot were never given a daily feed of over 5 pounds of cake. The-steers in Lot Y received no feed at all in addition to the pasture, the object being to learn whether it would pay to feed cottonseed cake to steers of this grade while grazing a fairly good pasture. WEIGHTS AND GAINS ON PASTURE. The following table shows the average initial weight, average final weight, and the total and average daily gains of each steer. All of the gains were unsatisfactory. To have been entirely satisfactory the average daily gains should have been not less than 2 pounds. The authors are unable to state postively why the gains were no greater, but it was probably due to the unusual amount of rain during the grazing season. The pastures were on low grounds which continued extremely wet throughout the greater part of the test. The grass made a good growth and the steers seemed to be well filled practically all of the time, but, of course, the grass that they obtained was very soft and full of water. 94 TABLE 12.-Weights, Total Gains, and Average Daily Gains of the Steers During the Summer of 1910. The Young Steers. (April 2, 1910-Aug. 26, 1910.) (147 days.) Average final Average total Average daily Averae initial RATION Number Lot of steers weight of weight of gain of gain of each steer each steer each steer each steer Pounds 4 and 5 35 Pasture and Cottonseed cake 687 Pouuds 855 Pounds 168 Pounds. 1.14 The Common Steers. (April 23, 1910 Sept. 2, 1910.) (113 days.) X 28 Pasture Cottonseed cake Y 15 Pasture alone 572 580 761 757 189 177 1.42 1.33 Each of the young steers made a total gain of 164 pounds during the 147 days that they were on feed. This was an average.daily gain of 1.14 pounds. As stated before, these gains were exceedingly unsatisfactory. With the amount of cottonseed cake they received along with the pasture it was expected that they would make not less than an average daily gain of 2 pounds a day. In some former feeding work* the daily gains obtained averaged more than two pounds when the pastures were supplemented by cottonseed cake. The common cattle of lot Y (pasture alone) made fairly satisfactory gains, although larger gains were expected. Each steer made an average daily gain of 1.33 pounds, or a total gain of 177 pounds for the whole summer of 133 days. The steers (Lot X) which received some cottonseed cake along with the pasture made a *See Alabama Station Bulletin 151 or Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 131. '95 very little larger daily gain than the ones on pasture alone. Each cake-fed steer made an average daily gain of 1.43 pounds, or a total gain of 189 pounds for the whole summer, while the pasture steers each gained 177 pounds, or an average daily gain of 1.33 pounds. QUANTITY AND COST OF FEED REQUIRED TO MAKE 100' POUNDS GAIN. When cattle are being fattened and the gains are small, they are almost certain to be expensive; the results secured in this experiment were no exception to the gen.eral rule. The table following shows that the summer gains were extremely expensive when compared to former experiments that have been made in this State. At least two factors were involved in making these summer gains expensive. First, the cattle were fed a rather heavy ration of high-priced cottonseed cake along with the pasture, and, second, the cattle did not respond to the liberal feeding, due probably at least in part to the wet pastures. TABLE 13.- -Quantity and Cost of Feed Required to Make 100 Pounds of Grain. The Young Steers. (April 2, 1910 Aug. 16, 1910) (147 days) Total cost Pounds of Cost to make Lot Number of steers RATION of feed and pasture for each steer feed to make 100 pounds of gain Pounds 100 pounds of gain (including pasture) 4 and 5 35 Pasture Cottonseed cake $11.54 423 $7.06 The Common Cattle. (April 23, 1910 Sept. 2, 1910.) (133 days.) X Y 28 15 Pasture Cottonseed cake Pasture alone $9.10 2.38 274 None $4.82 1.55 96 It cost $11.54 to feed each steer in Lots 4 and 5 through the summer when cottonseed cake is valued at $26.00 a ton and the pasture at 50 cents a month for each animal. Or it required 423 pounds of cottonseed cake at a cost of $7.06, to make 100 pounds of increase in live weight. This was an unusually expensive gain for summer feeding. The following extract is taken from Alabama Station bulletin No. 151, which is a report of some previous work done in fattening cattle in the summer time on pasture: "In every case above, the cost to make one hundred pounds increase in live weight was very low. (In one case $1.18 when pasture was used alone; in another case $1.03; when cottonseed cake was used it cost only $2.56 to make 100 pounds of gain in one experiment, and $3.21 in a second test). When steers are fattened during the winter time each pound of gain is put on at a loss, as each pound put on may be expected to cost from 8 to 12 cents; and the profit is dependent upon the enchancement of the value of the steer over and above the selling value of pounds of gain made. In these tests each pound put on during the fattening period was put on at a profit, a very unusual occurrence in fattening beef cattle. These cheap finishing gains made the feeding operations comparatively safe as far as profits were concerned. As -stated before, these cheap gains were due to two factors; first, the cattle had a cheap and succulent roughagepasture. Second, the amount of concentrated feeds used was kept down to a comparatively small figure; from 2.76 to 3.31 pounds of cottonseed cake and 4.48 pounds of cottonseed were fed each steer daily." In Lot X, one of the lots of common cattle, 274 pounds of cake were required to make 100 pounds of gain, at an expense of $4.82 per hundredweight. To feed each steer in this lot all summer it cost $9.10, when the feeds are valued as above. The cattle in Lot Y received no cake in addition to the pasturage so it cost only $2.38 to feed each one from April 23 to September 2 when pasturage is valued at 50 cents a month per head. U-T : S k 0 l .ti [ " ")f Lu PimshIo,, a few iSndi, turned ai Iclar prof it of S607i. iuals of the lot. I hit are eating cottoseed cake as ai suppilemnt to pasture F.acl stee .1e L ot Y. Picture -dioi,.it each animal. - Ink~d of lot. as Picture taken soon allyeI tet NN inaugurated. \ci pjitt (d nOit 1 1 ni aeOn 98 FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE SUMMER FEEDING. As stated before, the cattle in Lots 4 and 5 cost 3 cents a pound in the fall of 1909. These cattle were fed through the winter of 1909-'10 on a light ration of feeds as heretofore outlined. When spring arrived, and the expense of the winter feeding had been added to the fall price, the steers had cost $4.41 and $4.60 per hundredweight respectively. These were the values placed upon them at the beginning of the summer feeding, April 2, 1910. On August 26, 1910, they were sold for $4.50 pe: hundredweight on the farm, after a 3 per cent shrink. The common cattle in Lots X and Y were also purchased in the fall of 1909, costing, however, only 21/4 cents a pound. They ate no expensive feeds during the winter months as they were turned out on the open range. On April 23, 1910 they were taken off this winter range and weighed again, and it was learned that each steer had gained 10 pounds during the winter. Owing to the fact that they had been fed no feeds during the winter upon which a price was placed (open range has no value placed upon it) they were really cheaper in the spring of 1910 than they were the previous fall as they had gained in weight. This condition of affairs is, of course, very unusual. When this increase in weight was taken into consideration, the cattle cost $2.21 per hundredweight the spring of 1910; at the beginning of the summer work this value was placed upon them. On September 2, 1910 they were sold and shipped to the Atlanta market, realizing $3.871/ per hundredweight for Lot X and $3.60 per hundredweight for Lot Y. 99 FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF LOTS 4 AND 5. Lot 4 Cottonseed cake and pasture: To 18 steers, 12,566 lbs. at $4.41 per.cwt...$554.16 To 12,770 lbs. cottonseed cake at $26.00 per ton.................... . 166.01 To pasture for 514 months at 50 cents a month.4725 767.42 By sale 18 steers, 15,064 lbs. at $4.50 per cwt................................$677.88 Total loss .................... 89.54 Loss per steer.................4.97 Lot 5 -Cottonseed cake and pasture; To 17 steers, 11,494 lbs. at $4.60 per cwt. $528.72 To 12,061 lbs. cottonseed cake at $26.00 a ton ........................... 156.79 To pasture for 514 months at 50 cents a month.........44.62 By sale 17 steers, 13,978 lbs. at $4.50 per cwt............................... 730.13 $629.01 Total loss .................... 101.12 Loss per steer ......... ........ 5.95 It is seen that the steers in both of these lots werefed at a loss, each steer losing $4.97 and $5.95 in 4 and 5 respectively. It should be noted that the ex-pense of feeding these cattle through the previous win-ter is also charged against them in the above statements.. The steers in Lot 4 were fed through the previous winter on cottonseed meal and hulls, while those of Lot 5. had some Johnson-grass hay added to the basal ration of cottonseed meal and hulls. More money was loston the steers in Lot 5 because of the fact that Johnson--grass hay increased the expense of the winter ration.(See page Lots 87.) 100 This work shows clearly that profits cannot be made :upon cattle when the conditions are as they were in this test. It is true that the beef cattle market was demor,alized just at the time of sale, but even with a normal market it would have been impossible to have made money on these young steers. To have come out even ,on the operation the steers of Lots 4 and 5 would have had to sell for $5.09 and $5.24 per hundredweight re:spectively. This they would not have done even under normal market conditions. Too much high-priced feed had been fed. Furthermore, subsequent work seems to teach that, while they were fed too long a time in the summer, they were not fed liberally enough during the winter. If they had been sold earlier in the summer the financial outcome would not have been so discouraging, as the price would have been better and considerable high-priced feed would have been saved. In fact, a little profit would have been secured if they had been sold about July. Then again, the expense of feeding them during the winter was a heavy one, while small gains were secured. It cost $8.95 and $9.83 to feed each steer in Lots 4 and 5 through the winter ,months. If profits are to be made in handling cattle in this manner, the winter feed bill must be carefully looked after. Two or three methods of feeding can be adopted by which the winter feeding can be done more economically than was the case in this test. In the first place, these young steers were not fed a sufficient amount of feed during the winter months. Their ration was too near a mere maintenance ration. In the second place, the open range in some parts of the State, can be used to supplement the high-priced feeds. With young animals the range can never entirely take the place of high-priced feeds, as young animals must be fed during the winter months if satisfactory results are secured. This system of wintering cattle, however, will disappear as soon as the State becomes more densely populated and the large farms are divided into small ones. In the ,only 101 third place, the old cotton and corn fields can be madto be exceedingly profitable when fenced; both the young and old animals can be turned on these fields and oftentimes secure one-half of their winter feed from them. This third method is a permanent one and will be introduced more and more as our farming conditions, change. FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF LOTS X AND Y. Lot X -Cottonseed cake and pasture: To 28 steers, 16,011 lbs. at $2.19 per cwt. $350.64 To 14,493 lbs. cottonseed cake at $26.00 a ton..188.41 To pasture, 4 34 months at 50 cents a month..........................66.50 605.55 By sale 28 steers, 20,665 lbs. at $3.87 2per cwt................................ $800.77 Total profit................: .. 195.22 Profit per steer.........97 Lot Y -Pasture alone: To 15 steers, 8,697 lbs. at $2.25 per cwt..195.68 To pasture, 434 months at 50 cents a month.............................35.63 231.31 By sale 15 steers, 11,008 lbs. at $3.60 per cwt................................. Total profit ................... Profit per steer................ shrink. $396.29, 164.98 11.00 per hundred-- These steers were sold on the farm with a 3. per cent weight, and those in Lot Y for .$3.60. Exceedingly satisfactory profits were made on these cattle, $6.97 clear profit being made on each steer in Lot X, while each animal in Lot Y returned a profit of $11.00 Those in Lot X sold for $3.87 / 102 In this particular experiment it did not pay to supplenent the pasture with the cottonseed cake; more money would have been made it the cake had not been uses. These results, however, do not agree with others secured in former work*. The cattle in Lot X did not respond to the extra feed of cottonseed cake; this is shown to be true by the daily gains. The steers in Lot Y where no ,cake was fed made an average daily gain of 1.33 pounds, while the steers of Lot X, where the cake was fed along -with pasture, made an average daily gain of only 1.42 pounds. This is unusual and the authors regard the :results as abnormal. SLAUGHTER RECORDS. The steers of Lots 4 and 5 were shipped to Atlanta, where complete slaughter records were secured. Those of Lots X and Y were also shipped to Atlanta, but no slaughter data were obtained. TABLE 14.-Shipping Weights and Slaughter Data. ^Lot Number of steers Total weight on farm Pounds Total weight at Atlanta Pounds Shrinkage en route per steer Pounds Total dressed weight at Atlanta Pounds Per cent. dressed out by farm weight Per cent. Per cent. dresed out by Atlanta weight Per cent. 4 5 18 17 15530 14402 14920 13740 33.9 38.9 8252 7531 53.1 52.3 55.3 54.8 The cattle were driven 4 miles from the farm to the railroad. The shrinkage en route was not large, being 33.9 pounds and 38.9 pounds for each animal in Lots 4 and 5 respectively. By Atlanta weights, the steers in Lot 4 dressed 55.3 per cent, while those in Lot 5 dressed 54.8 per cent. See Alabama bulletin 151, or Bureau of Animal Industry bulletin 131. 103 SUMMARY. 1. Two separate tests are reported in Part II. The :steers in Lots 4 and 5 were a high-grade bunch of young cattle; those in Lots X and Y were the common cattle ,of Sumter and neighboring counties. These tests are ,not comparable. 2. The steers in Lots 4 and 5 were carried through the winter of 1909-'10 on the following feeds: Lot 4Cottonseed meal, Cottonseed hulls. Lot 5Cottonseed meal, Cottonseed hulls, Johnson-grass hay. ,small The general plan was to give sufficient feed to produce gains throughout the winter months. No effort was made to fatten the steers as they were to be fattened .the following summer. on pasture. 3. The steers in Lots X and Y were carried through the winter of 1909-'10 on the range alone; no purchased feeds were used. The object was to fatten these cattle the following summer on pasture. 4. The steers in Lots 4 and 5 ate the following ,amounts of feed each day during the winter: Lot 4Cottonseed meal ........ 2.35 pounds Cottonseed hulls ...... 13.29 pounds Lot 5Cottonseed meal ....... 2.35 pounds Cottonseed hulls ........ 6.82 pounds Johnson-grass hay ..... 5.50 pounds 5. The test was inaugurated December 6, 1909. On This date the steers in Lots 4 and 5 averaged 624 and 608 pounds in weight. At the close of the winter period, April 1, 1910, the steers had attained an average weight of 698 and 676 pounds in the respective lots. 104 6. The steers in Lots X and Y (combined during the winter months) averaged 565 pounds in weight at the beginning of the winter test, December 6, 1909. At the close of the winter, April 23, 1910, they had attained an average weight of 575 pounds. 7. To feed each steer through the winter cost $8.95 and $9.83 in Lots 4 and 5 respectively. Johnson-grass hay increased the expense; it did not pay to use the hay along with the cottonseed meal and hulls. 8. The steers in Lots 4 and 5 cost 31/2 cents a pound when they were purchased the fall of 1909. At the end of the winter feeding they had cost $4.41 and 4.60per hundredweight respectively, after the gains were taken into consideration. 9. Owing to the fact that the common cattle in Lots X and Y were fed nothing except range during the cold months, but at the same time gained a little in weight, they were cheaper when spring opened than they were the previous fall. They were bought in the fall of 1909 for $2.25 per hundredweight, and at the end of the winter period, April 23, 1910, their cost per hundredweight was reduced to $2.21. 10. When the spring of 1910 arrived all the cattle were turned on pasture and fattened for the late summer market. Lots 4 and 5 were combined into one lot, while Lots X and Y were separated into two lots. The steers. in Lot 4 and 5 were fed cottonseed cake along with pasture from April 2, 1910 to August 26, 1910. The steers in Lots X and Y were given the following feeds from Aprik 23, 1910 to September 2, 1910: Lot X Pasture, Cottonseed cake. Lot Y Pasture alone. 11. The steers in Lots 4 and 5 (now combined) made. an average daily gain of only 1.14 pounds during thepasture season. This was unsatisfactory. 1'?. Till stl-(rvs il pain of 1.12 an will 141,111'1 1 . liul p 1,11k X : mi Y 1iwll l an wverragT( daily tolmin ls r('s1 'livI'li