Issued February 27, 1908. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. BULLETIN 103. A. D. MELVIN, CHIEF OF BUREAU. .PERIMENTS IN BEEF PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA. BY J. F. DUGGAR, Director Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, AND W. F. WARD, Scientific Assistant. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1908. BUL. 103, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE. PLATE I. FIG. 1. NATIVE ALABAMA Cow WITH CALF BY PUREBRED HEREFORD BULL. FIG. 2. NATIVE ALABAMA Cow WITH CALF BY PUREBRED HEREFORD BULL. FIG. 3. RELATIVE SIZE OF S-YEAR-OLD SCRUB STEER AND PUREBRED ANGUS Cow OF SAME AGE. frasm 6i tti mm SUlss Issued February 27, 1908. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. BULLETIN 103. A. D. MELVIN, CHIEF OK BUREAU. EXPERIMENTS IN BEEF PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA. BY J. F. DUGGAR, Director Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, AND W. F. WARD, Scientific Assistant. WASHINGTON: GOVHRNMKNT PRINTING OFHCK. 1908. THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. Chief: A. I). MEI.VIN. Assistant Chief: A. M. FARRINGTON. Chief Clerk: E. K. JONES. Jiiochemic Division: M. DORSET, chief; JAMES A. EMERY, assistant chief. Dairy Division: Ei>. H. WEBSTER, chief; C. B. LANE, assistant chief. Inspection Division: RICE P. STEDDOM, chief; MORRIS WOODEN, K. A. RAMSAY, and ALHERT E. BEHNKE, associate chiefs. Pathological Division: JOHN R. MOHLER, chief; HENRY J. WASHBURN, assist- ant chief. Quarantine Division: RICHARD W. HICKMAN, chief. Zoological Division: B. H. RANSOM, chief. Experiment Station: E. C. SCHROEDER, superintendent ; \V. E. COTTON, assistant. Animal Husbandman: GEORGE M. ROMMEL. Editor: JAMES M. PICKENS. Librarian: BEATRICE OBERLY ROGERS. f ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICE. Animal Husbandman: George M. Rommel. Assistant Animal Husbandman: G. Arthur Bell. Animal breeding investigations: Animiil Husbandman in charge; E. II. Riley, assistant. Animal nutrition investigations: H. P. Annsby, expert in charge; J. A. Fries, W. W. Bra man, and F. W. Christeusen, assistants. Beef production investigations: Animal Husbandman in charge; Dan T. Gray, expert in charge of Alabama work; Frank G. King, assistant in Missouri work. Hog investigations: Assistant Animal Husbandman in charge; L. R. Davies, assistant. Horse breeding investigations: Animal Husbandman in charge; W. I... Car- lyle, expert in charge of Colorado work ; W. F. Hammond, expert superintend- ent of Morgan Horse Farm, Vermont. Milking Shorthorn investigations: Animal Husbandman in charge; D. A. Gaumnitz, expert assistant in Minnesota work. Poultry investigations: Rob R. Slocum in charge; Raymond Pearl, expert in poultry breeding, Orono, Me. Sheep and goat investigations: Edward L. Shaw in charge; T. F. McConnell in charge of Wyoming sheep breeding work. Supervision of pedigree record associations: Animal Husbandman in charge; Roy A. Cave, assistant. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU or ANIMAL INDUSTRY, Washington, D. C., December 23. 1907. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith for publication as a bulletin of this Bureau a manuscript entitled '' Experiments in Beef Production in Alabama/' by Director J. F. Duggar, of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, and W. F. Ward, scientific assist- ant. The work was done before Director Duggar turned over this work to Prof. Dan T. Gray, who is now in charge. The bulletin is the result of three years' cooperation with the Ala- bama Experiment Station in steer feeding, and covers in a compre- hensive manner tests of different feeding methods in use by Alabama stockmen or considered worthy of trial in that section. This will be the first bulletin published by the Bureau giving results obtained as a direct result of the appropriation for experiments in animal breeding and feeding in cooperation with State agricultural experi- ment stations. Respectfully. A. D. MKLVIX. CllH'f (>f lilll'Cdll. lion. JAMES WILSON. Secretary of Agr PREFACE. The investigations reported by Director Duggar and Mr. Ward in this bulletin, although complete in themselves, were planned to be preliminary to a systematic study of the economy of beef production under southern conditions, especially in sections east of the Missis- sippi River. As a basis for work it was important to know thor- oughly the value of southern feeds in steer feeding. The greatest agricultural necessity of the South to-day is live stock. There are several reasons for this, some of which are to supply local demands, to utilize the southern feedstuffs to best advantage, and to restore fertility to worn-out fields. To meet these demands, a study must be made of every phase of animal husbandry the value of southern feeds, the value of purebred sires to improve the native stock, economy of production, the relation of southern markets to the development of the stock-raising industry, and the influence of soil and climatic conditions. The results set forth in this bulletin add much valuable informa- tion to that in bulletins already published by southern experiment stations, especially as showing the relative values of various feeds and rations. The value of purebred sires has been generally acknowl- edged, but it is not yet put into practice to any great extent. Em- phasis must be placed not only on the inferiority of native stock, but on the rapid improvement that can be made by using purebred sires. Two instances may be seen in Plate I of this bulletin. As to economy of production, the results of these investigations show that much is to be learned, and as to market conditions there is a great deal more to be learned. Soil and climatic conditions have received very little attention and will repay close study. With the progress of the campaign for the extermination of the cattle tick, these problems Income still more pressing. (TEORUK M. ROMMEL. Animal Husbandman^ linwait of Aninwl Industry. CONTENTS. Page. Introductory 9 Objects of the experiments 10 Details of the experiments 11 The steers used 11 Shelter, feed lots, and water supply__ 11 Weighing, etc 12 Method of feeding 12 Character and cost of feeds used-- 12 The rations.- 14 Hogs following the steers__ 14 Comparison of daily gains 14 Feed requirements 1(> Financial statement T.t Daily rations and dry matter required for 100 innuuls of gain__ 24 The nutritive ratio 2"> Slaughter tests 2< Summary 27 7 2:1027 Hull. 103 US-^ 2 LLUSTRATIONS. Page. PLATE I. The value of good blood. Figs. 1 and 2. Native Alabama cows with calves by purebred Hereford bull. Fig. 3. Relative size of 3-year-old scrub steer and purebred Angus cow of same age . , Frontispiece. II. Fig. 1. Steers in feed lots, first experiment. Fig. 2. General view of steers in second experiment 12 III. Scrub steers, first experiment 12 IV. Fig. 1. Scrub steer, first experiment. Fig. 2. Scrub steer, second experiment 12 V. Fig. 1. Grade Red Poll, first experiment. Fig. 2. Grade Shorthorn, first experiment 12 VI. Fig. 1. Grade Red Poll, first experiment. Fig. 2. Grade Here- ford, first experiment 1(> VII. Grade Aberdeen-Angus steers, first experiment 10 VIII. Fig. 1. Grade Shorthorn, first experiment. Fig. 2. Grade Aberdeen-Angus, first experiment 16 IX. Fig. 1. Pen of scrubs, first experiment. Fig. 2. Pen of grades, first experiment 16 X. Fig. 1. Pen of scrubs, second experiment. Fig. 2. Pen of grades, first experiment 20 XI. Fig. 1. Pen of grades, first experiment. Fig. 2. Pen of grades, second experiment 20 8 EXPERIMENTS IN BEEF PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA. INTRODUCTORY. Within the past decade there has been a decided increase in the interest manifested in the growing of beef cattle in the Gulf States east of the Mississippi River. This has been largely due to a decrease in the amount of labor available on farms and to the belief that the losses due to the presence in this region of the cattle tick are in a fair way of being eliminated, either by the artificial immunization of valuable breeding animals brought from higher latitudes or by the eradication of the tick. The outlook regarding the last-named solu- tion of the difficulty is very encouraging, in view of the success attend- ing the work now being done by the Bureau of Animal Industry with the cooperation of the State authorities and the cattle owners. Numbers of bulls of the l>eef breeds have been brought into the South during the last decade; consequently the number of grade beef cattle has rapidly increased. Assuming that a grade animal of the beef breeds can be raised at a profit when making its living on pasturage on low-priced lands, there still remains the open question, so far as this region is concerned, whether there is most profit in mar- keting this animal directly from the pasture or in feeding it for one winter just before shipping so as to sell it at a considerably higher price per pound. Of course a variable answer to this question will be had, dependent (1) upon the difference in price paid for southern cattle from the pasture and from the feed lot; ('2} upon the prices, always fluctuating, of southern feedstuffs; (3) upon the quality of the animals fed, and (4) upon a number of other conditions. It was to throw light upon some of these questions that the follow- ing experiments were undertaken jointly by the Alabama Agricul- tural Experiment Station and the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United States Department of Agriculture. Most of the feeding of cattle in Alabama for fattening purposes is done in the vicinity of the cotton-seed oil mills, and almost exclu- sively the ration consists of cotton-seed meal and cot ton -seed hulls. The high prices of cotton-seed feed products prevailing during the past few years have tended to prevent the extension of winter feeding operations. Those who have been so situated that they could obtain 9 10 EXPERIMENTS TN BEEF PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA. cotton -seed meal and cotton-seed hulls at a low price have been able to continue feeding. Usually cotton-seed meal is cheaper in the immediate vicinity of the cotton-oil mills, and when purchased under a contract made before the beginning of the crushing season. A favorite method of securing low prices for cotton-seed meal and for cotton-seed hulls by those who have the disposal of large amounts of cotton seed consists in the exchange by the farmer of cotton seed for the manufactured feed products of the oil mills. The experimental work here described was at a disadvantage in all these respects, so that the feedstuffs cost more than would be the case with more extensive feeders who are more favorably circum- stanced. Nevertheless, in spite of high prices of feed the experiments were entered upon with the expectation that they would afford some data as to the relative values of the principal southern feedstuffs, even though they should not afford profitable results w y hile the prices of feed should continue high. The principal inducement for farmers to feed cattle on purchased feeds, chiefly cotton-seed meal and cotton-seed hulls, is the great value of the manure produced from this rich ration. For the farmer who habitually purchases cotton-seed meal for use as a fertilizer it is sound policy first to pass this feed through cattle, after which its fer- tilizing value, if no losses occur, should be more than four-fifths of its original fertilizing value. Unfortunately fermentation, leaching, and mechanical losses of the manure and the cost of handling this bulky article must be taken into account as deductions from the theo- retical value of the manure. Even after this is done such manure is a most profitable fertilizer, and these losses are merely noted here as a means of cautioning farmers to reduce them to the lowest possi- ble limit when feeding is done chiefly as a means of 'obtaining a supply of manure. Doubtless if, in the following experiments, we had been able to determine the exact amount and value of the manure produced there w r ould have been a profit from feeding operations which, as here figured, independent of the manure, were often unprofitable. OBJECTS OF THE EXPERIMENTS. Ill planning these experiments two main objects were in view. These Avere to throw additional light on the questions (1) whether farm-grown forage can be substituted profitably for cotton-seed hulls, the usual roughage, and (2) to determine the relative values of the most common southern concentrated feedstuffs cotton seed, cotton- seed meal, and corn. The experiments were conducted with a total of 150 steers; 50 steers were fed for each of three winters under as nearly the same conditions as possible. The steers were 2-year-old grades of the beef and dual-purpose breeds, except that one pen each OBJECTS AND DETAILS OF EXPERIMENTS. 11 year consisted of typical scrubs. The animals were divided into 10 lots of 5 steers each, in such a way that the results obtained would permit of the following comparisons : 1. Sorghum hay or fodder versus cotton-seed hulls. 2. Shredded corn stover versus cotton-seed hulls. 3. Sorghum hay or fodder versus shredded corn stover. 4. Corn-and-cob meal versus cotton seed as the principal concen- trate. 5. Cotton-seed meal versus corn as an appetizer in a cotton-seed ration. 0. The effects of substituting corn-and-cob meal for a part of the cotton-seed meal. 7. The value, if any, of shelter in fattening southern steers. 8. A comparison of scrubs with grades of the beef breeds or dual- purpose breeds. DETAILS OF THE EXPERIMENTS. THK STKKRS USED. The grade steers used were in most cases 2-year-old half bloods. They were out of native cows from bulls of the Angus, Shorthorn, Red Polled, Hereford, and Devon breeds, and were obtained in Wil- cox and Sumter counties in the central prairie region of Alabama. They were not as uniform as desirable, because of the fact that they were obtained from different men, as no one man had very many of the size and quality desired. The steers used in the first experiment (1904-5) were smaller, thin- ner, and poorer in quality than those in the two following years. The steers were in quality from ' ; common " to " good,'" the majority being classed as " medium feeders." The scrubs used were about the average quality of scrubs and were typical specimens of their kind. They were 3 and 4 year olds. About half of them showed traces of Jersey blood, as do a consider- able proportion of the scrub cattle of Alabama. They were thinner in flesh than the grades in the first experiment, and this undoubtedly accounts for their larger gains the first year. The grade steers were valued at 3 cents a pound when put on feed. The scrub steers cost 2i cents a pound. SIIKLTKR, FKKD LOTS. AND WATKK SUPPLY. The feed lots were 10 by 00 feet, the ground sloping away from the shed. These lots had a good slope, but still became very muddy in wet weather. The lot without shelter was at times several inches deep in mud, so that the steers had no dry place to lie down. None of the lots were bedded, though the sheds were. The feed troughs 12 EXPERIMENTS IN BEEF PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA. were under the sheds. The water troughs were near the feed trough* and under the .shed, the water being supplied from a well. The troughs had float valves, so that a fresh supply of water was kept in them at all times. WEIGHING, ETC. The steers were numbered by means of tags in the ears. At the beginning of the preliminary period the steers were weighed and divided as equally as possible with a view to getting the pens uniform in quality and weight. At the beginning and close of the feeding experiment proper the steers were weighed three days in succession to get an average weight. The weighing was begun at 10.30 a. in., the steers having had access to both feed and water. Each steer was weighed at the end of every week. METHOD OF FEEDING. The feed was weighed out twice daily and fed at 7 a. m. and 5.30 p. in. ' The roughage and concentrate were fed at the same time. The steers were fed all the roughage they would eat up clean. They were salted once a week, two days after weighing. They were started on a small grain ration, and this was gradually increased until they were eating a full grain ration. A close watch was kept on them to see that there was no scouring, as this is common in feed- ing cotton seed or cotton-seed meal in large quantities. There was little scouring, it being confined chiefly to the pens getting cotton seed. There was a greater tendency to scour as warm weather came on, so at times the grain ration had to be cut down slightly. The pens getting cotton-seed hulls had the concentrate mixed with the hulls in the feed troughs. Those getting surghum had the grain mixed with the cut sorghum in the same way as the pens getting cotton- seed hulls. The cowpea hay and the corn stover were fed in racks just over the feed troughs, so that any waste would drop into the troughs. Since the laxative effects of cotton seed restricted the amounts of concentrate fed to pens 8 and 9, it was necessary to reduce the corn ration of pen 10 far below the amount of corn usually fed, so that the amount of concentrates fed to these three pens would be the same. The feeding period occupied 84 days each year. CHARACTER AND COST OF FEEDS USED. The cotton-seed meal fed was of average quality, as were the cotton seed, corn, and cotton-seed hulls. The husked corn was coarsely ground, and 70 pounds Avas found to be equivalent to 1 bushel of shelled corn. The corn stover was inferior, being coarse and very dry. BUL. 103, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE. PLATE FIG. 1. STEERS IN FEED LOTS FIRST EXPERIMENT. FIQ. 2. -GENERAL VIEW OF STEERS IN SECOND EXPERIMENT But. 103. BUREAU OF AMMAL INDUSTRY, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE. PLATE III. FIQ. 1 SCRUB STEER FIRST EXPERIMENT. FIG. 2. ANOTHER SCRUB STEER -FIRST EXPERIMENT. BUL. 103. BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE. PLATE IV. FIQ. 1. SCRUB STEER FIRST EXPERIMENT. FIG. 2. SCRUB STEER SECOND EXPERIMENT. BUL. 103, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE. PLATE V. FIG. 1. GRADE RED POLL FIRST EXPERIMENT. FIG. 2. -GRADE SHORTHORN-FIRST EXPERIMENT. CHARACTER AND COST OF FEEDS. 13 There was left in the troughs uneaten 29 per cent of the stover that was fed. This refuse consisted chiefly of the larger sections of the corn stalk, and, of course, its weight was charged to the steers. This waste material was removed from the troughs when necessary and used as bedding. The sorghum forage fed varied considerably in different years, but was on the whole very inferior, being chiefly coarse and sometimes slightly moldy. Ten per cent of it was left in the troughs. The cowpea hay was below average quality, by reason of the fact that it contained a small amount of crab grass. The sorghum was cut into lengths of about three-fourths of an inch, but the cowpea hay was fed whole. During the course of each experiment the local prices of corn and cotton-seed meal and hulls were abnormally high. The average market prices for the three years were approximately as follows : Per ton. Cotton-seed meal _ $24.00 Cotton seed-- 14. 00 Corn (70 cents a bushel )__ 25.00 Corn-and-cob meal (corn 70 cents a bushel) __ 20.00 Cotton-seed hulls 7.00 Corn stover (homegrown; unbaled ; estimated) 4.00 Sorghum fodder (home grown; unbaled; estimated)- 0.67 Cowpea hay (home grown; unbaled: estimated)-- 10.00 Since the prices prevailing while these experiments were in progress were unusually high, the figures given above may be regarded as representing nearly the upper limit of prices for purchased feeds and the market value of the farm-grown roughage unbaled on the farm. By contracting in the summer for the necessary amounts, the purchasable feed can sometimes be obtained at about the following prices : Per ton. Cotton-seed meal - . $20.00 Cotton seed 12.00 Corn-and-cob meal (corn 50 cents per bushel )__ 14.67 Cotton-seed hulls__ 4.00 Corn stover (home grown) 4.00 Sorghum fodder (home grown) __ 6.07 Cowpea hay (homegrown) 10. 00 Unless otherwise stated, all financial calculations in this bulletin are based on the last-named prices. The prices of the roughage grown on the farm would be much lower and the profits much greater than calculated in this bulletin if we could assume as the price of the stover and hay the actual cost of growing it. Unfor- tunately, there are no adequate data on record to establish the cost of growing a ton of each of these feeds. 14 EXPERIMENTS IN BEEF PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA. THE RATIONS. The rations fed to the various pens are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1. The ration fed tn each jten. Pens and steers. Concentrate. Roughage. Pen 1 (scrubs).. ... Cotton-seed meal Cotton-seed hulls Pen 2 (grades') . do Do Pen 3 (grades) -TC">,' ! ^ ^4^^ }^> : fcl^ -v'sa "f-^-V . *_ *". -. FIG. 2. GRADE AUERDEEN-ANGUS -FIRST EXPERIMENT. But. 103, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE. PLATE IX. FIG. 1. PEN OF SCRUBS FIRST EXPERIMENT. FIG. 2. -PEN OF GRADES-FIRST EXPERIMENT. FEED REQUIREMENTS OF CATTLE. 17 concentrated feed (cotton-seed meal) required to make 1 pound of gain. When corn alone is fed in the corn belt the amount required is often 10 to 13 pounds of corn for each pound gain in live weight. In this experiment pen 2 required only about one-third the usual amount of concentrate to produce a pound of increase in live weight, which emphasizes the relatively high fattening value of cotton-seed meal. Corn stover versus cotton-seed hulls (pens J and 4}- When corn stover was fed ad libitum together with a limited amount of cotton- seed meal it required 5.78 pounds of concentrate for 1 pound of gain, as compared with 3.66 pounds of cotton-seed meal when fed in con- nection with hulls. In the same rations it required for 1 pound of growth 18.47 pounds of shredded corn stover as compared with only 13.47 pounds of cotton-seed hulls. In other words, it required 59 per cent more of cotton-seed meal to make 1 pound of gain when fed with stover than when fed with hulls. Moreover, to make 1 pound of gain there was required 37 per cent more stover than hulls. Cut sorghum versus shredded corn stoker (pens 4 and J). Com- paring the amounts of these two feeds to make a pound of gain, there was required only 11.95 pounds of sorghum as compared with 18.47 pounds of stover, or 54 per cent more of stover. To produce the same effect required only 4.23 pounds of cotton -seed meal when fed with sorghum as compared with 5.78 pounds of cotton-seed meal when fed with stover, or 37 per cent more concentrate in the stover ration. Cotton-seed meal versus corn-and-cob meal r/x the principal con- centrate (pens 8 and 10). Taking the average figure for the three- experiments, the amount of concentrate required to produce a pound of gain in a ration consisting chiefly of cotton seed was 4.39 pounds as compared with 4.29 pounds of concentrate in a ration consisting chiefly of corn-and-cob meal. With the corn there was a slightly less roughage (mixed hay) required. However, these differences were both less than 2.5 per cent, so that we may properly interpret these results as showing practical equality in the nutritive effect of cotton-seed and corn-and-ccb meal, pound per pound. Cotton-seed meal versus corn-and-cob meal as a supplementary feed with cotton seed (pens 8 and f)). When only one-third of the ration consisted of cotton-seed meal or corn-and-cob meal, used to make cotton seed more palatable, there were required 17 per cent more concentrate and 10 per cent more roughage to make 1 pound gain in the ration containing corn-and-cob meal. In other words, cotton-seed meal was slightly more cflicient than corn-and-cob meal when used as a supplementary concentrate or appetizer. Kjfect of substituting <;>rn-ad-<- nu-ul for one-third of the cotton -seed meal when fed irith (a) It nil* /// */<>// (pc/i* J 18 EXPERIMENTS IN BEEF PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA. and ), and 4 and /'). (a) When hulls constituted the roughage the substitution of corn for one-third of the cotton-seed meal slightly increased the amount of concentrate required per pound of gain (3.GO pounds to 3.90 pounds) and slightly reduced the amount of hulls required per pound of gain (from 13.47 pounds to 11.01 pounds). This shows that the substitution of corn and the con- sequent widening of the nutritive ratio effected practically no economy in the feed required. (b) When a similar substitution was made in a ration in which the roughage was shredded corn stover, this substitution of corn-and-cob meal for an equal weight of cotton-seed meal gave contradictory results in the different experiments. Effect of shelter (pen* 2 and 6). In two experiments out of three and in the average for three years, shelter resulted in a slight economy in use of concentrated feed and a slight loss in the use of roughage. In other words, shelter on the whole saved 0.2 of a pound of cotton- seed meal per pound gain and lost 0.40 of a pound of roughage. The steers out of doors consumed a larger ration of roughage. Scrubs versitx grades (penx 1 and 2). The averages agree with each of the three experiments in showing that the scrubs required slightly less concentrate and roughage to make 1 pound of gain than did the grades. These results are chiefly due to the fact that in the first year's experiments the scrubs were thinner than the grades. In the other two years there was practically no difference in condition at the beginning of the experiment and very little in economy of feed. TABLR .3. feed required to make I pound of (fain. No. of pen. Ration. 1904-5 1905-6 Concentrate. Roughage. Aver- age daily gain per steer. Pounds of food required per pound of gain. Aver- age daily gain per steer. Pounds of food required per pound of gain. Con- cen- trate. Rough- age. Con- cen- trate. Rough- age. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Cotton-seed meal do Cotton-seed hulls ...do . 2.20 1.88 1.93 1.84 1.89 1.62 1.77 i.a-> 2.10 2.10 1.90 2.75 3.06 2.78 2.70 3.14 3.33 3.69 3.37 3.37 8.36 9.75 9.52 9.59 8.04 11.45 8.68 8.52 7.37 7.92 1.55 1.51 1.87 1.15 1.12 1.20 1.29 2.00 1.48 1.70 3.92 4.16 3.89 5.47 5.53 4.84 5.63 3.86 5.19 4.51 10.57 14.27 10.94 14.82 13.06 13.8(i 12.81 7.91 9.40 9.20 cotton-seed meal, J corn - and - cob meal. Cotton-seed meal do... do do Shredded corn stover. Cut sorghum Cotton-seed hulls Shredded corn stover. J sorghum, \ pea hay. do cotton-seed meal, J corn - and - cob meal. cotton seed, J cot- ton-seed meal. cotton seed, J corn-and-cob meal, corn-and-cob meal, J cotton-seed meal . do FINANCIAL STATEMENT. 19 TABLE 3. Feed required to make 1 [tound of yain Continued. Ration. 1906-7 Average for 3 experi- ments. No. of pen. Concentrate. Roughage. Aver- age daily gain per steer. Pounds of food required per pound of gain. Aver- age daily gain per steer. Pounds of food required per pound of gain. Con- cen- trate. Rough- age. Con- cen- trate. Rough- age. 1 ! Cotton-seed meal 3 do Cotton-seed hulls _ -..-do. 1.30 1.27 1.27 4.01 4.08 4.94 9.10 4.4.') 3.59 7.00 5.63 <>.80 16.06 16.39 15.26 31.00 14.ir> 13.61 19.38 12.97 i."> r>4 1.68 1.53 1.69 1.19 1.39 1.47 1.32 1.68 1.52 1.71 3.28 3.66 3.96 5.78 4.23 3. 80 5.32 4.39 5.12 4.29 11.66 13.47 11.91 18.47 ll.il.-. 12.98 13.80 9.80 10.77 9.66 3 cotton-seed meal, J corn - and - cob meal. 4 Cotton-seed meal 5 do do Shredded corn stover. Cut sorghum 1.17 1.50 .90 1.19 .99 6 ! do ... Cotton-seed hulls Shredded corn stover. i sorghum, \ pea hay. .do.. . . .- 7 i cotton-seed meal, J corn - and - cob meal. 8 cotton seed, J cot- ton-seed meal. 9 I cotton seed, 1 corn-and-cob meal. 10 5 corn-and-cob meal, j cotton-seed meal. do 1.34 :>.oo 11.81 FINANCIAL STATEMENT. Table 4 shows the average, for three years, of the weights of the steers at the beginning and end of tfie experiment proper, the shrink- age in shipment, the average selling price in New Orleans, the aver- age shipping and selling expenses per steer, the total cost of feed at high and at low prices (see p. 13). and the gain or loss per steer (exclusive of manure) calculated for both high and low prices of feed TABLK 4. \\'e\yhtx, shrinkage, and financial statement (arertiye for three i/eur*). No. of pen. Average weight per steer at begin- ning of experi- ment. Average weight per steer at Au- burn at end of ex- periment. Shrink- age per steer in shipping. Selling price per hundred- weight at Sew Orleans. Shipping expenses per steer. Total cost of feed per steer at high price of feed. Total cost of feed per steer at low price of feed. li- J'ound.1. I'ound.t. round*. i 654 795 92 $4.05 $3. 2- $10. (12 $7. 4./ $1.7S 2 734 8(15 82 , 4. 42 3. 2~ 11.3(1 7. '.Hi 2. (15 ;{ 737 878 8ti 4. 32 3. 2" 11.80 8.34 2. 93 4 708 808 (13 4. 1 1 3. 2" 8. 49 7. 5)1 2. 40 5 I. 1 IS 815 (17 4. IK 3. 2~ 10. 01 9. 0!t (i 714 837 73 4. 29 3. 2~ 11.02 7. HI 3. 14 7 (189 799 (19 3. 97 3.27 8. 95 7. S7 4.1(1 8 700 841 74 4. 19 3.27 10. (11 9.41 2. 77 9 688 810 72 | 4. 12 3. T 10. 05 X. (12 3. : 10 722 86*i S2 1 4.25 3. T 12. 04 10. 50 3. Ci8 4-S1. 42 4- 1.34 4- . 53 - 1.47 - 2.00 -I- .07 - 3.07 - 1.58 - 1.90 - 2. 13 20 EXPERIMENTS IN BEEP PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA. Shrinkage. The shrinkage in shipping to market in New Orleans was in all three experiments larger than it would have been under normal conditions. In the absence of facilities for loading cattle at Auburn the steers at the end of the first experiment had to be driven 7 miles before being loaded. In the second and third experi- ments there were unusual delays in transportation; in one case the steers were on the road forty-two hours between Auburn and New Orleans (a distance of 380 miles), because of delayed trains and a strike of railroad switchmen in 'New Orleans. If the steers had reached their destination on schedule time, which is about nineteen hours after leaving Auburn, the shrinkage would undoubtedly have been less and the financial results more favorable. To prepare the steers for shipment, they were all put on a ration consisting chiefly of hay for one day before leaving Auburn. It is interesting to note that cotton seed, although a very laxative food, did not increase the amount of shrinkage of pens 8 and 9 as compared with other feeds. The steers fed on corn stover (pens 4 and 7) shrunk least. A veraye selling price in New Orleans. Taking the average selling price in New Orleans for the three experiments, we find that the highest average return was $4.42 per hundredweight, for pen 2, con- sisting of grade steers fed exclusively on cotton-seed meal and hulls. The next highest price, $4.32, was obtained for pen 3, in which corn- and-cob meal was substituted for a part of the cotton-seed meal. The third highest price, $4.29 per hundredweight, was paid for pen G, fed without shelter on cotton-seed meal and hulls. This is a reduc- tion in price of 13 cents per hundredweight as the apparent loss from feeding in the open. This was due to the steers without shelter hav- ing a rougher, duller coat. The steers getting corn-and-cob meal (pen 10) as the principal concentrate sold a little higher than those fed on cotton seed, but not as high as those fed on cotton-seed meal and hulls. The steers from pens 4 and 7, getting corn stover as roughage, sold lower than any of the other grades, not being so fat. Pen 5, getting sorghum as roughage, sold better than the stover pens and about the same as the pens getting cotton seed and hay, but not so well as the others. The scrubs (pen 1) sold for about two-thirds of a cent less per pound than grades getting the same ration, and sold lower than any others except pen 7, fed stover for roughage. They were probably a little fatter than most of the grades because they were older and had fattened during the experiment instead of growing, as some of the younger grades had done. Buu 103, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE. PLATE X. FIG. 1. PEN OF SCRUBS SECOND EXPERIMENT. FIG. 2. PEN OF GRADES-FIRST EXPERIMENT. BUL. 103 BUREAU OF AMMAL INDUSTRY U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE. FIG 1. PEN OF GRADES FIRST EXPERIMENT. FIG. 2. PEN OF GRADES SECOND EXPERIMENT. INFLUENCE OF RATIONS FED. 21 Pro-fit or loss per steer. Taking no account of the value of the manure and no account of the gains made by the hogs that followed the steers the first winter, we find that with cotton-seed meal at $24 per ton, hulls at $7 per ton, and corn at TO cents per bushel, there was in every combination of these and other feeds a financial loss. This simply shows that such prices are too high to permit profitable feed- ing in such rations as those used, unless the margin between the buy- ing and selling price of steers should be wider than it was in these experiments, namely, from about one-fourth to about three-fourths of a cent per pound. (See Table 6.) A somewhat better financial showing is made when we figure with the more reasonable prices for the purchased feeds and the same prices as before for the home-grown stover, sorghum, and cowpea hay (p. 22). On this basis a small profit was made on all the steers that received cotton-seed hulls. On all other pens there was still a financial loss, chiefly due to the relatively high price which we have assumed for sorghum and cowpea hay in the absence of any data showing the exact cost of producing this roughage. On the basis of prices just assumed, the greatest profit, $1.42 per steer, was made by 'the scrubs, because they were bought at a lower price per pound, thus giving a larger margin (77 cents per hundred- weight), as shown in Table (>. Comparing the financial results for the nine pens of grades, we find that the only three showing a profit rank as follows: 1. Pen 2, fed on cotton-seed meal and hulls. 2. Pen 3, fed on two-thirds cotton-seed meal and one-third corn- and-cob meal and hulls. 3. Pen 0, fed or cotton-seed meal and hulls (without shelter). The feeding of hulls was more profitable than feeding stover at the same price (pens 2 and 4, and 3 and 7). Cotton seed was a more economical ration than corn (pens S and 10). Cotton-seed meal was more economical than corn-and-cob meal as a supplementary feed with cotton seed. It was slightly more profit- able to feed cotton-seed meal as the sole concentrate than to substitute for one-third of the cotton-seed meal an equal weight of corn-and-cob meal. This was true whether the roughage consisted of hulls or corn stover. Return* received for roughaye f<' shows the actual value in beef received as the return obtained from feeding 1 ton of the several kinds of roughage. This is based upon the difference be- tween the selling price of the steers and the purchase price plus the cost of the concentrate fed to each JM>II. The figures given in the first EXPERIMENTS IN BEEF PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA. two columns are based upon prices of $20 a ton for cotton-seed meal, $12 a ton for cotton seed, and 50 cents a bushel for corn. This table shows that on this basis the average financial return per ton of roughage, excluding the value of the manure, was as follows: Cotton-seed hulls, $4.64 to $5.82 per ton. Cut sorghum fodder alone, $3.68 per ton. Mixed sorghum and cowpea hay, $5.18 to $5.92 per ton. Corn stover when fed with cotton-seed meal alone returned only $1.98 per ton. These figures suggest that under conditions prevailing in this ex- periment, and with cotton-seed meal at $20 a ton a farmer could afford to give $4.64 to $5.82 a ton for hulls and have manure to offset labor of feeding, interest on investment, and profit. A quarter of a cent margin in addition to what was received would enable one to pay a considerably higher price for feed or greatly to increase the profit of feeding. TABLE 5. Actual value of roughage for feeding (average for three years). Ration . !? o a/3 Ui & c M &. O fl s~\ OJ M No. of pen. Concentrate. , Roughage. Cost of all steers pen and of gr fed. Cost of steers hundredweighl .i o 3 '-II III OQ e 11 p$ M* e a |& 02 Difference, equi lent to value roughage fed. Roughage c o sumed (pound ") Is ~ o 11 09 1 Cotton-seed meal do Cotton-seed hulls do $103.32 133.50 $2.50 3.00 $3.27 3.74 $125.97 156.61 $22.65 23.11 7,778 8,200 $5.82 5.64 3 cotton-seed meal, J . .do 135.91 3.00 3.63 154.83 18.92 8 145 4 64 4 5 corn-and-cob meal. Cotton-seed meal do . Shredded corn stover. Cut sorghum. 129.41 127.86 3.00 3.00 3.49 3.54 136.67 140.13 7.26 12.27 7,314 6 679 1.98 3 68 6 do Cotton-seed hulls 130.47 3.00 3.62 146.92 16.45 7,855 4.19 7 8 g cotton-seed meal, J corn-and-cob meal. cotton seed, J cot- ton-seed meal. Shredded corn stover. J pea hay, i sor- ghum, do 128.74 124.83 120 21 3.00 3.00 3 00 3.28 3.54 3 46 127.28 144.20 136 80 -1.46 19.37 16 59 6,958 6,538 6 261 42 o.92 5 30 10 and-cob meal. corn-and-cob meal. .do 132.64 3.00 3 57 150 17 17 53 6 763 5 18 J cotton-seed meal. a In calculating the selling price at Auburn the actual shrinkage, which was abnor- mally high in this experiment (see Table 4). is disregarded and the customary local :> per cent deduction substituted therefor. The third column of figures was obtained as follows : .'! per cent for shrinkage was deducted from the sum of the final weights at Auburn. This shrunk weight was then divided into the total amount received in three years for the separate pens of steers in New Orleans, after deducting from the gross sales the expense of shipping and selling, namely, $.'i.27 per steer. Margin received and margin necessary for profit. In Table 6 are presented average financial results for three years, each figure being the average for 15 steers. All these figures, except those in line 3, are on the basis of net prices in the feed lot at the close of ihe experiment. MARKET VALUE OF CATTLE. 23 TABLE 6. Market values at close of experiment and margin of profit for each lot (average for three ;/ears). Classification of values. Penl. Pen 2. Pen 3. Per i4. Pen5. Pen 6.1 Pen 7. Pen 8. 1 Pen 9. Pen 10. Market value of steers per : hundredweight in feed lot" . $3. 27 3. 74 $3. a3 $3. 49 $3. 54 $3.112 $3.2S $3.54 $3. 4ti $:{. 57 What each would have to sell for per hundredweight in feed lot to come out even. 3. 04 3. 57 3. 57 3. fi7 3. 79 3. til 3. 68 3.69 3.69 I 3.83 Margin between buying price and sellingprice inNewOr- leans 1.55 1.42 1.32 1. 11 1.18 1.29 ! .97 1.19 1.12 1.25 Margin necessary between 1 buying and selling price in feed lot to come out even . . .54 .57 .57 67 . 79 .(il .68 .69 .69 .83 Margin per hundredweight I actually received in fwd lot 77 .74 .63 49 .54 . 112 . 2.H . 54 .46 KT Net profit (+) or loss ( ) per steer -t-1.42 +1.34 + .53 1. 47 -2. 00' 4- .07 -3.117 -1.58 -1.90 -2.13 Pen 1 (scrubs) fed cotton-seed meal and hulls. Pen 2 fed cotton-seed meal and cotton-seed hulls. Pen 3 fed two-thirds cotton-seed meal, one-third corn-an:l-cob meal and hulls. Pen 4 fed cotton-seed meal and corn stover. Pen it fed cotton-seed meal and cut sorghum. Pen 6 fed cotton-seed meal and hulls (no shelter). Pen 7 fed two-thirds cotton-seed meal, one-third corn-and-cob meal and stover. Pen 8 fed two-thirds cotton-seed, one-third cotton-seed meal, and one half eowpea hay and one-half cut sorghum. Pen 9 fed two-thirds cotton seed, one-third corn-and-cob meal, one-half cowpea hay. and one-half cut sorghum. Pen 10 fed two-thirds corn-and-cob meal, one-third cotton-seed meal, and one-half hay and one-half cut sorghum. "After making allowance for (1) shipping and selling expenses on basis of full cars of 3.'i head per car; (2) shrinkage in shipping, and (3) a .'{ per cent shrinkage usually deducted by local buyers. The first line shows the actual market value of the steers in the feed lot at Auburn at the end of the experiment, and shows the net prices at Auburn after deducting shipping expenses, etc., and after making allowance for a 3 per cent shrinkage. The second line shows the price at which it would have been nec- essary to sell the steers in the feed lots to come out even. The third line shows the margin received on the basis of prices in New Orleans. The fourth line teaches the important lesson of how wide a margin is necessary under these conditions between the buying and selling prices of steers in the feed lot. It indicates that in general terms a margin of ^4 to 83 cents per hundredweight in the feed lot i< nec- essary to come out even, and that a still wider margin would le needed to afford any direct profit. In cast* the margin is calculated on the difference between the buying price of steers at the beginning of the experiment and the selling price after shipment, the margins indicated above would have to be increased by an amount large enough to cover expenses of shipment and sale. In these experiments the expense of shipping from Auburn to New Orleans and selling amounted to a little less titan half a cent a pound, in addition to 24 EXPERIMENTS IN BEEF PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA. shrinkage. Hence, on the basis of selling prices in New Orleans the margin necessary for our feeding operations to have come out even would have been the margin indicated in line 4, plus nearly 50 cents plus difference in shrinkage, or a total of from $1.25 to $1.51 per hundred pounds. To afford any material profit at the prices here as- sumed, or in case of very heavy shinkage, the feeder should receive more than these latter figures. Line 5 shows the margin actually received between the value of the steers at the beginning and at the end of the experiment, both calculated on the basis of prices in the feed lot at Auburn. In most cases this was too small for profitable feeding. Line shows the net profit or loss per steer, which has been previously commented on. DAILY RATIONS AND DRY MATTER REQUIRED FOR 100 POUNDS OF GAIN. In Table 7 are shown the average amount of roughage and con- centrate fed per steer daily for the three-year period. It also shows the rations on the basis of dry matter required to make 100 pounds of gain. The amount of roughage in the daily ration was largest when hulls were fed, and least when mixed hay was fed. The least amount of concentrate was consumed when cotton-seed meal was used alone, usually from 5.1 to 5.6 pounds per day. When corn-and-cob meal was added to the cotton-seed meal, the amount of concentrate consumed was about 1 pound per day greater. When cotton seed or corn-and-cob meal constituted the principal concen- trate, the daily consumption of concentrated feed was increased to 7.2 pounds. In dry matter consumed per 100 pounds of gain, cotton-seed meal alone and a mixture of cotton-seed meal and corn-and-cob meal were practically identical when fed with hulls, but the mixture was the more effective when fed with stover. With cotton seed the addition of cotton-seed meal as a supplement was slightly more effective than an equal weight of corn-and-cob meal. Corn-and-cob meal and cotton seed were practically equally effective as the principal concentrate. NUTRITIVE RATIO OF RATIONS FED. 25 TABLE 7. Daily rations and dry matter per hundred irciylit of (win. Dry- Average daily No. of pen. Daily gain per steer. Concentrate per 100 pounds gain. Roughage per 100 pounds gain. matter per 100 pounds ration. Conceit- Rough- gain. trate. age. Pound*. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. 1 1.68 328, cotton-seed meal 1,166, cotton-seed hull-; __ 1,337.7 ">.! 18.5 2 1.55 366, cotton-seed meal 1,347, cotton-seed hulls __ 1,533.5 5.6 19.5 3 1.69 396, g cotton-seed meal, 1,191, cotton-seed hulls __ 1,413.2 6.5 19.4 J corn-and-cob meal. 4 1.19 578, cotton-seed meal 1,847, shredded corn 2,110.2 .-, .-, 17.4 stover . 5 1.39 423, cotton-seed meal 1.195, cut sorghum 1,393.3 5.5 15.9 6 1.J7 386, cotton-seed meal.. - 1,298, cotton-seed hulls .. 1,508.3 .-> ."> 21.3 7 1 .32 532, cotton-seed meal, 1,380, shredded corn 1,655.4 (i.."> Fe.e i corn-and-cob meal. stover. 8 1.68 439, g cotton seed, J 980, cowpea bav. ?. 1,244.8 7.1 15.6 cotton-seed meal. sorghum. 9 1.52 512, cotton seed, \ 1,077, J cowpea hay. i 1,378.9 7.2 14.!' corn-and-cob meal. sorghum . 10 1.71 429, g corn-and-cob meal, 9(56, i cowpea hay. ?, 1,210.8 - > 16.1 J cotton-seed meal. sorghum. Analyses' of all feeds, except sorghum and shredded corn stover, taken from Henry's " Feeds and Feeding." Analyses of sorghum fodder and corn stover made l>\ ('. L. Hare, of the Alabama Experiment Station. THE NUTRITIVE RATIO. The nutritive ratio is the proportion lx>tween the digestible protein (or nitrogenous material) and digestible carbohydrates to which is added a sum equal to 2.25 times the digestible fat. It has been held that a nutritive ratio of about 1 to C is especially favorable to the fat- tening of cattle. A ration consisting exclusively of cotton-seed meal and cotton-seed hulls usually contains a larger proportion of nitrogen, and hence has a narrower nutritive ratio than indicated above. Ap- parently the nutritive ratio was not a controlling factor in the rapid- ity of fattening. TAIU.K S. \ntritirc ratio nf rut ion* /< 7 1 :> :? 4~"I "I 1:6.3 1:4.8 1:5.8 1:4.1 1:6.1 ... l:4.:> 1 : 4.8 9 1 : ii.7 1: 1.4 1:6.8 1*4 2 1 3 5 r 4 2 10 1: ">.2 1 : 5. 1 190A 7 NOTES. Ether extract multiplied by -'.25 to get its equivalent in carbohydrates. Analyses and digestibility or all feeds except sorghum and stover taken from Henry's " Feeds and Feeding." Analyses of sorghum fodder and shredded stover made l>y ('. I.. Hare, of the Alabama Experiment Station. Digestion coefficients of corn stover taken from Henry's tables, and for sorghum from Colorado Experiment Station Bulletin !>.'!. Arri'iif/r until J/HI-M nf ti fur tin i/iiirx /!/.' (.' unil I'.XH', ~ (llui'i I. Dry mutter. Nitro gen-free extract. Crude Kther Ilber. ; extract . Stover Sorghum I'errrnt. I'rrcmt. 1'rr cent . I'rr ffnt . I'er ftut . S. - ...V_> (.19 Ci.us Hl.iU t.iii) sa.'M 1.7:1 u).."*; :(2.:> 2.0:1 26 EXPERIMENTS IN BEEF PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA. JHycstion CHeffitienlK of sorghum and stover. Dry matter. Proteids. Nitro- gen-free extract. Crude fiber. Ether extract. Stover (Henry) _ - Per cent. 57.00 Per cent. 40.00 Per cent. o6.00 Per cent. &5.00 Per cen t . 72.00 Sorghum (Colo. Station Hul. !>3) f)8.46 43.01 61.00 49. 23 64.90 Digestible nutrients in corn stover: 4. 19 X 0. 40= 1. 68 per cent 4.'!. 08 X . 50=24. 46 per cent 31.03X .65=20.56 per cent 45. 02 per cent 1.60X .72= 1.15 per cent Digestible nutrients in sorghum : 4.73X43.01= 2.03 per cent 40. 50 X 01. 00=24. 74 per cent 32. 30X49. 23=15. 90 per cent 40. 04 per cent 2.03X04.90= 1.32 per cent digestible protein in stover. digestible nitrogen-free extract, digestible crude fiber. total digestible carbohydrates, digestible fats. digestible protein in sorghum. digestible nitrogen-free extract, digestible fiber. total digestible carbohydrates, digestible fats. SLAUGHTER TESTS. Through the courtesy of an abattoir company of New Orleans we were enabled to make slaughter tests of the steers butchered in New Orleans. A few of the steers were shipped out of the city to butchers in other places, and no data as to slaughter tests of such animals could be secured. Dressed weight. These figures are on the basis of the live weight in New Orleans. The average for three years shows that the scrubs dressed only 54.5 per cent as compared w r ith an average of 57.2 per cent for the grades fed on the same ration. This means that in every 100 pounds gross weight there were 2.7 pounds more dressed meat in the carcasses of the grades than in those of the scrubs. The difference in selling price in New T Orleans was 37 cents per hundredweight live weight in favor of the grades. The table shows that the 'steers fed on cotton-seed meal and hulls dressed higher than those receiving any other ration, averaging 57.2 per cent. Next came the group of pens receiving hay with either corn or cotton seed as the principal concentrate, the hay pens falling about 1 per cent behind the hull pens. The pens receiving stover or sorghum made the poorest showing, falling about 1 per cent behind the hay pens, but dressing out better than the scrubs. Fat on intestines and manyplies. Not even the cotton-seed rations influenced very markedly the proportion of gut and book fat " to the live weight, the percentage of this kind of internal fat seeming to depend large 1 :;' on the individuality of the steers. a Book fat is the term used in New Orleans abattoirs for the fat surrounding the mauyplies, or third stomach. SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 27 TABLE 9. Percentage of dressed weight, fat. hide. ItlnwL etc.. on basis of live weight at New Orleans. No. of pen. Dressed weight. Gut and book fat. Hide. First year. Second year. Third year. Aver- age for three years. First Second year. year. Tliird year . "fil )r First Second unri- y r - vear - ods. Third year. 1 Per et. "51.5 "57.8 "56.3 53.3 53.6 56.2 Peret. "54.5 56.3 57.2 "56.4 "55.5 55.8 52.1 Peret. 56.9 57.6 58.3 56.6 56.3 "59.3 59.1 Per ct. 54.5 57.2 57.3 55.4. 55.1 57.2 Peret. Peret. "0.38 "1.28 6 2.2 1.18 Peret. "1.14 Peret. Peret. Peret. 0.88 6 8.0 9.2 82 7 :> Per ct. t> 3 1.17 1.11 1.14 "1.23 1.85 "1.19 "1..54 "1.22 i>8.1 7.6 ! 4 ".95 "1.05 "1.30 1.13 1.03 8.1 ! "8.9 1.42 8.1 "8.3 1.37 '-7.7 "7.4 "7.8 "8.1 "7.B "8.3 "8 '' B g *54 9 57 4 *1 14 "1.19 "1.13 "1.10 8 3 9 "54.7 .- o "54.6 " 57 . 5 57.8 57.1 56.0 1.4 "1.26 f>6.9 "1.49 1.26 "8.6 "8.0 1.27 "8.2 8.0 "7.!) 10 No. of Blood. Liver, lungs, heart, and diaphragm. Paunch and intestines. l>en. j, y rst Second ar. year. Third year. First year. Second year. Third year. First year. Second year. Third year. Per cent.. 'Per cent. 281 2 41 Per cent. Percent. 2.8 "2.7 "2.8 2.9 3.0 "2.9 Per cent. 3.0 2.8 "3.1 "3.0 "3.1 2.8 Percent. Per cent. "18.5 13.2 Per cent. Percent. "18.37 < 15.6 16.7 ; 9 "2.9 1 2.56 3 ' *2.5 "2 86 2.71 "3.28 "2.70 "2.56 "2 96 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.8 2 (i "14.0 15.9 13.3 "1 7 16.2 11 19. 6 "16.9 "15.33 "17.1 4 2.5 "2.86 2.6 "2.84 *2.9 "2.83 "16.5 "16.7 "16.1 "18.0 17.0 "17.3 6 . 8 bo i)S "3.00 "2.75 "3.00 "2!9 {) 2.6 "2.68 "2.6 "2 9 "3.0 2 7 "17.6 l6"" 2.7 !.">. 1 Unmarked pens have an average of ."> steers. "Average of 3 .steers. ''Average of I steers. SUMMARY. The conclusions