Issued October 12, 1912. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. BULLETIN 159. A. D. MELVIN, CHIEF OF BUREAU. =" FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. = ^^^ MMMMMMMMMMMttMft 10.08 Results for first 66 days while silage was fed. Cottonseed meal 287 1 Cottonseed hulls 812 $7.98 Corn silage 1,132 | Cottonseed meal 372 2 Cottonseed hulls 1,004 11.88 Johnson-grass hay 641 /Cottonseed meal 280 1 3 \Cottonseed hulls 1.475 When feeds are valued as previously stated it is seen that the silage-fed steers Got 1) made the cheapest gains in both cases. When the whole period of 84 days is taken into consideration each 100 pounds of increase hi live weight cost $8.98 when the silage was used, $11.47 when Johnson-grass hay supplemented the cottonseed meal and hulls (lot 2), and $10.08 when nothing was fed except cottonseed meal and hulls (lot 3). Johnson-grass hay proved to be the most expensive and unsatisfactory feed used. During the first 56 days, when silage was being fed, each 100 pounds of gain in lot 1 cost $7.98; the same gain cost $11.88 hi lot 2 where Johnson- grass hay was used in place of silage, and $8.80 hi lot 3 where cotton- seed meal and hulls were fed alone. As far as economical gains were concerned the silage proved to be a valuable addition to the cotton- seed 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 of hulls, and 1,132 pounds of silage produced 100 pounds of increase in weight. When the meal and hulls were fed alone Got 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 1,132 pounds of silage saved 663 pounds of hulls, but at the same time caused the loss of 7 pounds of cottonseed meal; or, 1 ton of the silage actually saved $3.94 worth of hulls and cottonseed meal when hulls and meal were valued at WINTER FATTENING OF STEERS. 17 $7 and $26 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 cottonseed meal; or, 1 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 test was therefore worth $1.31 a ton, whereas it cost $11 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 can not, therefore, afford to use Johnson- grass hay along with cottonseed meal and hulls for fattening pur- poses, and this experiment tends to show that the majority of southern feeders can not 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 cottonseed meal and use it as a commercial fertilizer, when experience and experi- ments 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 form 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 a ton and the hulls $7 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. VALUE OF BARNYARD 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 54012 Bull. 15912 3 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. built up. Director Thorno, of the Ohio Agricultural Experiment 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 a ton Wheat, 8.36 bushels, at $1 a bushel "'.""..""" Wheat straw, 897 pounds, at $4 a ton Clover hay, 686 pounds, at $12 a ton 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 o'f 100 days each steer will produce at least 1 tons of manure. This profit should be added to the feeding or direct profits. The Arkansas Station (Bulletin 68) made a test to determine 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. The 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 an acre. FINANCIAL STATEMENT. It must 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 results will also differ. The price of the cattle when put into the feed lot is one very variable factor. The feeders in this particular experiment cost 3 cents a pound. In another part of the State they might have cost more than they did in Sumter County, and in still a third part they might have cost considerably less. The financial statement will not be misleading if the reader bears in mind that it does not apply to all conditions. WINTER FATTENING OF STEERS. 19 The cattle, as previously noted, were bought in Sumter and neigh- boring counties for 3J 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 (Ky.) market, where all of the steers sold for $5.75 a hundredweight. It cost 65 cents a hundredweight to ship them to the market, so they are estimated in the financial statement at $5.10 a hundredweight. The $5.10 represents the price actually received on the farm. Lot 1. Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, corn silage: By sale of 20 steers, 18,658 pounds, at $5.10 per hundredweight $951. 66 To 20 steers, 16,220 pounds, at 3 cents a pound - $527. 15 To 10, 290 pounds cottonseed meal, at $26 a ton 133. 77 To 30,768 pounds cottonseed hulls, at $7 a ton 107. 69 To 23,554 pounds corn silage, at $2.50 a ton 29. 44 Total expense 798 - 5 Total profit 153.61 Profit per steer 7 - 6 Lot 2. Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, Johnson-grass hay: By sale of 20 steers, 18,411 pounds, at $5.10 per hundredweight 938. 96 To 20 steers, 16,400 pounds, at 3 cents a pound $533. 00 To 10,290 pounds cottonseed meal, at $26 a ton 133. 77 To 24,026 pounds cottonseed hulls, at $7 a ton 84. 09 To 14,185 pounds Johnson-grass hay, at $11 a ton ... . 78. 02 Total expense .' ' Total profit no - 8 Profit per steer _ Lot 3. Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls: By sale of 20 steers, 19,303 pounds, at $5.10 per hundredweight 984. 45 To 20 steers, 17,020 pounds, at 3J cents a pound $552. 15 To 10,290 pounds cottonseed meal, at $26 a ton 133. 77 To 44,755 pounds cottonseed hulls, at $7 a ton 159. 09 Total expense 845 - 01 Total profit : 139 - 44 Profit per steer 6 - 97 The foregoing financial statement shows that all of the lots of steers were fed at a profit. The outcome was satisfactory. The greatest profit was made hi lot 1, where silage was used. The smallest profit was made in lot 2, where the Johnson-grass hay was fed. The cattle in lots 1 and 3 sold at the same price and made practically the same total gains in live weight, but those in lot 1 had the advan- tage in that they had a cheap feed silage added to the basal ration of cottonseed meal and hulls. Each steer in lot 1 made a clear profit of $7.68, while each one hi lot 3 made a profit of only $6.97. The steers which received Johnson-grass hay along with the cotton- seed meal and hulls (lot 2) made a profit of only $5.50 each. 20 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. SLAUGHTER DATA. Table 5 shows the total weight of each lot of cattle after allowing 3 per cent for shrinkage, 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 delavs were in the cars 48 hours. TABLE 5. Shipping weights and slaughter record-. Lot. Number of steers. Total weight on form. Total weight at Louisville. Average shrinkage per stew. Total dressed weight at Louisville. Average per cent dressed out hv farm Average per cent i i out by market weights. weights. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds 2 3 20 20 20 19, 23.5 18,980 19,900 17,685 17,615 18,325 77.5 68.3 78.8 9,926 9,736 10.164 51.6 51.3 51.1 56.1 55.3 55.5 The shrinkage on the road was rather great, but it should be remembered that there was a delay of several hours in shipment Those cattle which were fed Johnson-grass hay Got 2) lost the fewest pounds m weight. Each steer lost 77.5, 68.3, and 78.8 pounds in lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively; or, the silage-fed steers Got 1) lost in transit 8.1 per cent of their weight, those in lot 2 (Johnson-grass lot) lost 7.1 per cent, while those in lot 3 (cottonseed meal and hulls) shrunk 7.9 per cent. The stoers 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 m lots 2 and 3 dressed, respectively, 55.3 per cent and 55 5 per cent. SUMMARY. TABLE 6. Summary of remits. Item. Lot 1. Feed: Cot- tonseed meal, cot- tonseed hulls, corn silage. Lot 2. Feed: Cot- tonseed meal, cot- tonseed hulls, John son-grass hay. Lot3. Feed: Cot- tonseed meal, cot- tonseed hulls. Average weight of steers at beginning. Dec. 1, 1909 Pounds. 811 962 151 1.8 1.86 6.1 15.1 21 Pounds. 820 Ml 129 1.54 1.43 6.1 14.3 Pounds. 851 995 144 1.71 1.89 6.1 26.6 Average weight of steers at close, Feb. 23, 1910 A\ erage total gain of each steer for whole period" of 84 days A verage daily gain of each steer for whole period of 84 days " A^SS^giJ^^i^^.^^w:: Average cottonseed hulls fed daily per steer Average silage fed daily per steer. . i meal to make 100 pounds gain for whole period of 84 days. . tonseed meal to make 100 pounds gain for first 56 days 341 287 / '781 * 1,020 / 812 >1,132 Dollars. 8.98 7.98 3.25 5.75 5.10 7.68 8.40 399 372 '931 550 '1,004 '641 Dollars. 11.47 11.88 3.25 5.75 5.10 5 50 357 280 21,554 * 1,475 Dollars. 10.08 >.SO 8. -!> 5.75 5.10 6 97 Roughage to make 100 pounds gain for whole period of 84 days Roughage to make 100 pounds gain for first 56 days while silage was Cost to make 100 pounds gain for whole period of 84 days Cost to make 100 pounds gain for first 56 days Cost of steers per hundredweight in fall Selling price of steers in Louisville . . . tilling price of steers on farm Profit per steer 'Hulls. ' * Hay. WINTER FATTENING OF STEERS. 1. The steers wliich were used in this test were from 2 to 3 years old. They had all been graded up by the use of Aberdeen-Angus Hereford, and Shorthorn sires. 2. At the beginning of the test they averaged 827 pounds in weight. They were fed 84 days, and at the close of the test they averaged 967 pounds. 3. The 60 head of steers were divided into three lots and fed as follows : Lot 1: Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, corn silage. Lot 2: Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, Johnson-grass hay. Lot 3: Cot- tonseed meal, cottonseed hulls. 4. For the whole period of 84 days average daily gains of 1.8, 1.54, and 1.71 pounds were secured in lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 5. During the first 56 days, when silage was fed in lot 1, average daily gains of 1.86, 1.43, and 1.89 pounds were secured in lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 6. For the whole period of 84 days it cost $8.98, $11.47, and $10.08 to make 100 pounds of gain in lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 7. For the first 56 days, when silage was fed in lot 1, it cost, respec- tively, $7.98, $11.88, and $8.80 to make 100 pounds of gain in lots 1, 2, and 3. 8. In the fall of 1909 the steers cost $3.25 per hundredweight. At the end of the test they were shipped to Louisville and sold for $5.75 per hundredweight. 9. Each steer in lots 1, 2, and 3 netted a clear profit of $7.68, $5.50, and $6.97, respectively. 10. Corn silage proved to be an exceedingly satisfactory addition to a basal ration of cottonseed meal and hulls, but Johnson-grass hay was an exceedingly unsatisfactory supplement when used in the same way. II. WINTERING STEERS FOLLOWED BY SUMMER FATTEN- ING ON PASTURE. INTRODUCTION. For several years this bureau, cooperating with the Alabama Experiment Station, 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, 1 but the conditions surrounding the work herein published were altogether different from those of the previous work. In the first place, these cattle were of different age and quality from the ones used in the former experi- mental 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 sweet clover does not occur upon the sandy soils of this region. Two separate experiments are reported in this part of the bulletin, 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, Ala., he furnishing the cattle and the feed and the Bureau of Animal Industry and the Alabama Experiment Station providing a trained man to carry on the experiment. Mr. J. W. Ridgway was located on the farm and had personal supervision of all of the experimental work. OBJECT 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. See Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 131. 22 SUMMER FATTENING ON PASTURE. 23 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 tests began, December 6, 1909. The cattle, both young and old, were dehorned as soon as they were 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 comparable 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. THE PASTURES. The soil upon which these steers grazed was of a sandy and sandy- loam character, such as is found in a cut-over pine district. A large proportion of the pastures were 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 Ber- muda and Paspalum dilatatum constituted the plants that formed the pastures. Sweet clover (Melilotus), as before stated, does not grow in this region. They afforded an abundance of grass throughout the grazing season, but the growth was rank and very watery, as the fre- quent rains kept the pasture exceedingly wet during the whole test. No expense or time had ever been expended on these pastures except to build a wire fence around them. The plants mentioned above had come voluntarily after the pine woods were cleared away. THE 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 24 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. on the southern part of Sumter County. Tliis land had grown up during the previous summer with broom sedge, lespedeza and other native grasses. When frost came the grasses were, of course all led, but still they afforded some grazing for the steers during the nrst 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 than anything else, perhaps, kept the steers from losing weight while on the range, as it gave good grazing in March and April steers evidently gained in weight during these two months. The s 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 7. General plan of the feeding. THE YOUNG STEERS. Number of steers. Winter feeding. Summer fattening. (Dec. 6, 1909, to Mar. 31, 1910.) (Apr. 2 to Aug. 26, 1910.) 4 18 Cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls (one-half rstion). Pasture and cottonseed cake. 5 17 Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, and Johnson- grass hay (one-half ration). Do. THE COMMON STEERS. X 28 (Dec. 6, 1909, to Apr. 23, 1910.) Range only. . . (Apr. 23 to Sept. 2, 1910.) Y 15 So "~\""'.".".".".'. Pasture alone. The general plan was to feed the steers of lots 4 and 5 sufficient feed to produce small gains throughout the winter months They were a good class of cattle and young, so it was thought that it would pay to feed them liberally during the winter months. Accordingly a partial ration of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls was fed to the steers m lot 4, and those in lot 5 had some Johnson-grass hay idded to the basal ration of cottonseed 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. I he fattening was to occur the subsequent summer, when thev were on pasture. The steers of lots X and Y were turned out as one lot on the range for the winter. These cattle being of poor quality, it was not thought fitable to give them high-priced feeds during the winter months SUMMER FATTENING ON PASTURE. 25 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 20,000 acres of land. The authors realize that this 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, March 21, they were brought up, weighed again, and turned onto the summer pasture for the summer fattening work. They were now divided into two lots and fed upon different feeds. The steers of lot 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 the cold in the whiter or from the heat in the summer. The summer pastures were abundantly provided with good shade trees and water. While there were cattle ticks ( Margaropus annulatus) 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 and the 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 28 days. When the steers were sold, they were driven 4 miles to the shipping point at Whitfield, Ala. CHARACTER AND PRICE OF THE FEEDS. Local conditions determine to a large extent the farm prices of feeds. Any prices that might be assumed would not meet all condi- tions, but the following prices have been taken as a basis upon which to make financial estimates : Cottonseed meal per ton. . $26. 00 Cottonseed cake do 26. 00 Cottonseed hulls do 7. 00 Johnson-grass hay do 11. 00 Pasture, per steer per month. . . 50 All of the feeds were of good quality. The cottonseed cake, which was used in ah" 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 a ton cheaper than in the nut size. 54012 Bull. 15912 4 26 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. 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 advantages 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 more slowly 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 cotton- seed meal the greedy steer often scours on account of the fact that he can bolt the meal and get more than his share; this not only injures the steer but makes the bunch "feed out" unevenly. THE WINTER FEEDING. DAILY RATIONS. It should again be noted that the cattle were not being fattened during the whiter months; they were simply being carried through so as to be in condition for fattening on grass the following summer. The steers of lots 4 and 5 were confined on cotton fields where cotton had been grown the previous summer. Of course they obtained some feed from these cotton fields, especially during the first part of the winter, and in addition were given a half ration of cottonseed meal, hulls, and hay, as noted below. Lots X and Y were on the open range, with no additional feed. The amount of feed given is shown in the following table: TABLE 8. The average daily amount of feed given each steer during the winter months. THE YOUNG STEERS. [Dec. 6, 1909, to Mar. 31, 1910, 116 days.] Lot. Number, of steers. Ration. Average daily amount. (Cottonseed meal Pounds. 2 35 4 18 \Cottonseed hulls 13 29 (Cottonseed meal 2 35 5 17 < Cottonseed hulls 6.82 1 Johnson-grass hay 5.50 THE COMMON STEERS. [Dec. 6, 1909, to Apr. 23, 1910, 139 days.) X V'' 43 Open range only None. Y f f SUMMER FATTENING ON PASTURE. 2T 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 5 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 1,542 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 feed at all in addition to the cut-over pine range. WEIGHTS AND GAINS DURING 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 large areas and hunt for a living. These mature steers 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. TABLE 9. Weights and gains during the winter months. THE YOUNG STEERS. [Dec. 6, 1909, to Mar. 31, 1910, 116 days.] Average Average Lot. Number of steers. Ration. initial weight of each steer (Dec. 6, spring weight of each steer (Apr. 1, Average total gain of each steer. Average daily gain of each steer. 1909). 1910). 4 18 Cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. (one-half ration}.. 624 698 74 0.64 5 17 Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, Johnson-grass hay (one-half ration) . 608 676 68 .59 THE COMMON STEERS. [Dec. 6, 1909, to Apr. 23, 1910, 139 days.] X y 43 Range alone 565 ' 575 10 .08 f > A XT. 23, 1910. 28 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. The steers in lots 4 and 5 made as good gains as was desired. No effort was made to fatten them. During the whole feeding period of 116 days each steer in lots 4 and 5 gained an average of 74 and 68 pounds, respectively. They were in excellent condition when spring came. Each steer in the range lots (lots X and Y combined) gained an average of 10 pounds during the whole winter. They, too, were in good condition when grass came in the spring. When cattle are turned onto the open range during the winter, as a rule, they lose instead of gain in weight. In some former work the cattle which had no feed during the cold months except what they secured from the open range, lost approximately 100 pounds each during the winter time, 1 but some allowance should be made for the fact that they came off the range several weeks earlier than lots X and Y. It is, however, a very unusual occurrence for steers to make gain during the winter months when handled and fed as were those in lots X and Y. 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 10. Quantity and co t of feed required to make 100 pound? of gain during the innter month \ THE YOUNG STEERS. [Dec. 6, 1909, to Mar. 31, 1910, 116 days.] Lot. Ration. Feed required to make 100 pounds of gain. Cost of feed to make 100 pounds of gain. Cottonseed meal Pounds. 368 4 Cottonseed hulls . . 2 077 } $12.05 Cottonseed meal 424 5 Cottonseed hulls . 1 160 I 14 71 Johnson-rass hay 935 THE COMMON STEERS. [Dec. 6, 1909, to Apr. 23, 1910, 139 days.] X Y VRange alone Nothing. Each 100 pounds of gain during the winter months cost $12.05 and $14.71 in lots 4 and 5, respectively. These were very expensive gains i Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 131. SUMMER FATTENING ON PASTURE. 29 and hard to overcome, even when the steers were continued on a very cheap ration pasture and cottonseed cake the following summer. In fact, the expensive winter gains of lots 4 and 5 were never counter- acted by the cheap gains of the following 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 2,077 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, 1,160 pounds of hulls, and 935 pounds of hay were required to make 100 pounds of gam. Johnson-grass hay did not improve the ration of cottonseed meal and hulls. Nothing was gained by the introduction of the hay. 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, 1 ton of the hay was worth $5.26 in this feeding test, when cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls are valued at $26 and $7 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. (See p. 17.) 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 3J cents a pound in the fall 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 and Y were of a very common grade and cost only 2J cents a pound. Although these cattle were not to be fattened for the market until the next summer, they were all bought during the fall of 1909, as it is practically impossible to get together a bunch of cattle in the spring. However, 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 without gain or loss in weight, the spring and fall prices would 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. 80 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. The following table presents the fall price, the cost to get each steer through the winter, and the spring price after the winter ex- penses and changes in live weight have been taken into consideration : TABLE 11. Average fall and spring prices of the cattle and cost of winter feeding . THE YOUNG STEERS. [Dec. 6, 1909, to Mar. 31, 1910, 116 days.] Lot. Ration. Fall price per hundred- weight. Cost to feed each steer through the winter. Spring price per hundred- weight. Cottonseed meal ' 4 $3.50 $8.95 $4.41 Cottonseed meal ) 5 3 50 9 83 4 60 Johnson-grass hay THE COMMON CATTLE. [Dec. 6, 1909, to Apr. 23, 1910. 139 days.) X Y >Range alone J2.25 Nothing $2.21 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), when no expense was attached to feeding them, as they were grazed on the open range. It is, of course, an unusual occurrence for these two factors to be combined in this way. These cattle were bought in the fall of 1909 for $2.25 a hundredweight, but when spring arrived, April 23, 1910, their cost per hundredweight was reduced to $2.21. FATTENING THE CATTLE ON PASTURE. At the close of the whiter tests the steers were redivided into lots, turned into the summer pastures, and fattened for the late summer market. The winter feeding in 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. SUMMER FATTENING ON PASTURE. 31 The range or common cattle (lots X and Y) were divided into two lots, as nearly equal as possible in quality, size, and breeding, and placed upon separate pastures on April 23, 1910. 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 feed troughs; 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. An abundance of water and salt was kept before the animals all the time. DAILY RATIONS. 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 days: TABLE 12. Daily ration for each :teer during summer fattening. Period. Cottonseed cake and pas- ture. Young steers, lots 4 and 5 combined (Apr. 2 to Aug. 26, 1910, 147 days). Common steers, lots X and Y> (Apr. 23 to Sept. 2, 1910, 133 days). First 28 davs Pounds. 2.19 4.36 5.50 6.00 6.00 5.14 Pounds. 2.84 3.48 3.48 5.00 4.9I Second 28 days Third 28 days . Fourth 28 davs Fifth 28 days Last 7 days Pasture cnly. s Last 21 days. Attention is again called to the fact that the results secured in lots 4 and 5 (now combined into one lot) can not be compared with those secured in lots X and Y. It should be noted that these lots ( were not started on feeds at the same date, sold at the same time, or fed and cared for similarly the preceding winter. Thjs 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 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 32 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. 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 some- what 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 gains and average daily gains of each steer. All of the gains were unsatisfactory. To have been entirely satisfac- tory the average daily gains should have been not less than 2 pounds. The authors are unable to state positively 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 con- tinued 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. TABLE 13. Weights, total gains, and average daily gains of the steers during the summer of 1910. THE YOUNG STEERS. [Apr. 2 to Aug. 26, 1910, 147 days.] Lot. Number of steers. Ration. Average initial weight of each steer. Average final weight of each steer. Average total gain of each steer. Average daily gain of each steer. 4 \ 35 Pasture and cottonseed cake Pounds. 687 Pounds, 855 Pounds. 168 Pounds. 1.14 5 / THE COMMON STEERS. [Apr. 23 to Sept. 2, 1910, 133 days.] X 28 Pasture and cottonseed cake 572 761 189 1.42 Y 15 Pasture alone 580 757 177 1.33 Each of the young steers made a total gain of 168 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 SUMMER FATTENING ON PASTURE. 33 work l the daily gains secured averaged more than 2 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 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 experi- ment were no exception to the general rule. The table following shows that the summer gains were extremely expensive when com- pared with 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 14. Quantity and cost of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain. THE YOUNG STEERS. [Apr. 2 to Aug. 16, 1910, 147 days.] Lot. Number of cattle. Ration. Total cost of feed and pasture for each, steer. Feed re- quired to make 100 pounds of gain. Cost to make 100 pounds of gain (including pasture). 4 \ 35 $11.54 Pounds. 423 $7.06 5 THE COMMON CATTLE. [Apr. 23 to Sept. 2, 1910, 133 days.] 28 $9.10 274 $4.82 15 2.38 None. 1.55 It cost $11.54 to feed each steer in lots 4 and 5 through the summer when cottonseed cake is valued at $26 a ton and the pasture at 50 cents a month for each animal. Or it required 423 pounds of cotton- seed 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. i See Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 131, p. 40. FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. The following extract is taken from Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 131, page 41, 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 100 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 experi- ment, and $3.21 in a second test.) \Vhen 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 enhancement 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 roughage pasture. 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 cotton seed 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 pasture, so it cost only $2.38 to feed each one from April 23 to September 2, when pasture is valued at 50 cents a month per head. 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 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 per 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 2{ 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 con- SUMMEB FATTENING ON PASTURE. 35 sideration, the cattle cost $2.21 per hundredweight in 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 $3.87* per hundredweight for lot X, and $3.60 per hundredweight for lot Y. Financial statement of lots 4 and 5. Lot 4. Cottonseed cake and pasture: By sale 18 steers, 15,064 pounds, at $4.50 per hundredweight ...... To 18 steers, 12,566 pounds, at $4.41 per hundredweight ....... $554. 16 To 12,770 pounds cottonseed cake, at $26 per ton. . . To pasture for 5J months, at 50 cents a month per head ........ *' Total expense ................................................... Total loss .......................................................... 89 ' 5 * 4 97 Loss per steer ...................................... Lot 5. Cottonseed cake and pasture: By sale 17 steers, 13,978 pounds, at $4.50 per hundredweight ............ To 17 steers, 11,494 pounds, at $4.60 per hundredweight ........ $528. 72 To 12,061 pounds cottonseed cake, at $26 a ton ................. 156. 7 To pasture for 5 months, at 50 cents a month per head ...... 730. 13 Loss per steer ................................................... It is seen that the steers in both of these lots were fed at a loss, each steer losing $4.97 and $5.95 in lots 4 and 5, respectively. It should be noted that the expense of feeding these cattle through the previous winter is also charged against them in the above statements. The steers in lot 4 were fed through the previous winter on cotton- seed meal and hulls, while those of lot 5 had some Johnson-grass hay added to the basal ration of cottonseed meal and huUs. More money was lost on the steers in lot 5 because of the fact that Johnson-grass hay increased the expense of the winter ration. (See p. 16.) This work clearly shows that profits can not be made upon cattle when the conditions are as they were in this test. It is true that the beef cattle market was demoralized 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, respectively. This they would not have done even under normal market conditions. Too much high- priced feed had been fed to these steers. 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. they had been sold earlier in the summer the financial outcome would not have been so discouraging, as the price would have been 36 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. 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 1. Then again, the expense of feeding them during the winter was heavy, while only 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 these tests. In the first place, these young steers were not fed a sufficient amount of feed during the winter months. Their ration was too nearly 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 third place, the old cotton and corn fields can be made to be exceedingly profitable when fenced; both the young and old animals can be turned on these fields and often- times 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: By sale 28 steers, 20,665 pounds, at $3.87J per hundredweight $800. 77 To 28 steers, 16,011 pounds, at $2.19 per hundredweight $350. 64 To 14,493 pounds cottonseed cake, at $26 a ton 188. 41 To pasture, 4J months, at 50 cents a month per head 66. 50 605.55 Total profit 195. 22 Profit per steer 6. 97 Lot Y. Pasture alone: By sale 15 steers, 11,008 pounds, at $3.60 per hundredweight 396. 29 To 15 steers, 8,697 pounds, at $2.25 per hundredweight $195.68 To pasture, 4 J months, at 50 cents a month per head 35. 63 23L31 Total profit 164.98 Profit per steer 11. 00 It may be noted that the spring price of these cattle is stated in other places to be $2.21 per hundredweight. This is correct for the entire lot, but after they were divided it was found that the value of lot X was $2.19 and lot Y $2.25 per hundredweight. These steers were sold on the farm with a 3 per cent shrink. Those in lot X sold for $3.8 7 per hundredweight and those in lot Y for SUMMER FATTENING ON PASTURE. 37 $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. In this particular experiment it did not pay to supplement the pasture with the cottonseed cake; more money would have been made if the cake had not been used. These results, however, do not agree with others secured in former work. 1 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 the 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 secured. TABLE 16. Shipping weights and slaughter data. Lot. Number of steers. Total weight on farm. Total weight at Atlanta. Shrinkage en route per steer. Total dressed weight at Atlanta. Per cent dressed out by farm weight. Per cent dressed out by Atlanta weight. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. 4 18 15,530 14,920 33.9 8,252 53.1 55.3 5 17 14,402 13,740 38.9 7,531 52.3 54.8 The cattle were driven 4 miles from the farm to the railroad. The shrinkage en route was comparatively small, 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. SUMMARY. 1. Two separate tests are reported in Part II. The steers in lota 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 4: Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls. Lot 5: Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, Johnson-grass hay. The general plan was to give sufficient feed to produce small gains throughout the winter months. No effort was made to fatten the steers, as they were to be fattened the following summer on pasture. i See Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 131. FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. 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 4: Cottonseed meal, 2.35 pounds; cottonseed hulls, 13.29 pounds. Lot 5: Cottonseed 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. 6. The steers in lots X and Y (combined during the winter months) averaged 565 pounds in weight at the beginning of the 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 3 cents a pound when they were purchased in the fall of 1909. At the end of the winter feeding they had cost $4.41 and $4.60 per 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 lots 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 April 23, 1910, to September 2, 1910: Lot X, pasture and 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 the pasture season. This was unsatisfactory. 12. The steers in lots X and Y made an average daily gain of 1.42 and 1.33 pounds, respectively, during the pasture season. This was also unsatisfactory. SUMMER FATTENING ON PASTURE. 39 13. Including the cost of pasture, it cost $7.06 to make 100 pounds of gain in lots 4 and 5 during the pasture period. These were unusu- ally expensive gains for the summer season. 14. Including the cost of pasture, it cost $4.82 and $1.55 to make 100 pounds of gam in lots X and Y, respectively. 15. The reader's attention is called to the fact that the results secured with lots 4 and 5 are not comparable with those secured with lots X and Y. 16. Money was lost on the cattle in lots 4 and 5 $4.97 on each steer in lot 4, and $5.95 on each one in lot 5. 17. Excellent profits were realized on the cattle in lots X and Y " $6.97 on each steer in lot X, and $11 on each one in lot Y. In this experiment it did not pay to supplement the pasture with the cottonseed cake. This result, however, does not agree with other results secured in former experiments. For reasons stated in the text of this bulletin, the authors regard the results as abnormal. III. THE VALUE OF SHELTER FOR FATTENING CATTLE IN ALABAMA. INTRODUCTION. During the winters of 1904, 1905, and 1906 tliis bureau, working in cooperation with the Alabama Experiment Station, carried through some tests to determine the value, if any, of shelter in fattening southern steers. These results were published in Bulletin 103 of the Bureau of Animal Industry. In comparing the daily gains the authors stated: The animals in pen 2 were fed under an open shed, and pen 6 had no shelter. The average daily gains for the three years was 1.55 pounds for the pen under shelter and 1.47 pounds for the lot without shelter. In the two wet winters (1904-1905 and 1905- 1906) the largest daily gains were made by the lot under shelter; but in the mild and rather dry weather of 1906-1907 the lot without shelter made more rapid gains. With regard to feed requirements the authors further stated : In two experiments out of three and in the average for three years, shelter resulted in a slight economy in use of concentrated feeds and a slight loss in the use of roughage. In other words, shelter, on the whole, saved 0.2 of a pound of cottonseed meal per pound gain and lost 0.49 of a pound of roughage. The steers out of doors consumed a larger ration of roughage. Or, in other words, when the cottonseed meal is valued at $26 a ton and hulls at $7 a ton the shelter saved practically 9 cents on every 100 pounds of gain made. Sheds can not be built and maintained with this small saving. However, the above steers were not managed, with reference to bedding and available space for exercise, as they are usually fed on the farms of Alabama. The feed lots were 16 by 90 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 were under the sheds. The water troughs were near the feed troughs 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. The average feeder of the State does not confine the fattening steers in small lots 16 by 90 feet; the Bureau and Station authorities, however, on account of the lack of ground, had to do so, and of course the steers in the lot without shelter were at a disadvantage on account 40 VALUE OP SHELTER FOB FATTENING CATTLE. 41 of the deep mud. When the farmer feeds without shelter the steers can usually find a dry piece of ground on which to lie, as they are not confined in small lots. In connection with another line of work during the winter of 1910-11 an opportunity presented itself to carry through another experiment along this line upon an extensive scale, and the condi- tions surrounding the present test were more nearly in keeping with average farm conditions than were those of the former experiments. The work was done in cooperation with Mr. E. F. Allison, of Sumter County, Ala. Mr. Allison furnished the cattle and the feed, and the Bureau of Animal Industry and the Alabama Experiment Station provided a trained man to look after the details of feeding. Mr. L. W. Shook was stationed on the farm and had personal supervision of the experiment. PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENT. This work was planned with two objects in view: 1. To study various methods of making and saving manure when beef cattle are fattened during the winter months. One lot of steers was fed on a 5-acre tract of level sandy land, so that all the manure they made was deposited upon the land without the expense of hauling. A second bunch of cattle was fed in a small lot, across one side of which was a good shed. Both the lot and the shed were bedded when necessary. The steers could always find dry places upon which to lie. An accurate account was kept of the amount of bedding hauled, the labor required to haul it, and the ex- pense of hauling the manure from the barn to a second 5-acre tract of land adjoining the first tract. The comparative value of the two methods of making and saving manure is to be finally measured in terms of subsequent yields of corn and cotton. 2. To study the value, if any, of shelter in fattening southern beef animals. The results of the second object are reported in the following pages. Sufficient information relative to the first object has not been col- lected to warrant a report. THE CATTLE. The cattle used in this test were a mixed lot of steers, heifers, and cows, averaging from 2 to 4 years of age. As the main object of the test was to study methods of making and saving manure, the quality of the animals was somewhat neglected. They were the common cattle of Sumter and neighboring counties; only a very few showed signs of improved beef blood. They cost $2.30 per hundredweight during the late fall of 1910. The price paid shows that the quality was poor, as the best feeders of the county were selling for $3 to $3.50 per hundredweight. 42 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. PRELIMINARY MANAGEMENT AND FEEDING. A few of the cattle were raised upon the farm where the experiment was conducted; the majority, however, were purchased from neigh- bors. Some of the cattle were purchased early in the fall; these, together with the few that were raised on the farm, were grazed upon a large pasture, with no additional feed, from October 10 to October 21, 1910. On October 21, 30 head were taken from this pasture and turned into a peanut pasture where hogs and sheep were grazing. While they were on peanuts each animal was given a daily feed of 1 pound of cottonseed cake. On October 31 they were taken back to the first-mentioned pasture and the daily allowance of cake was raised to 2 pounds for each animal. As cold weather approached the value of the pasture gradually decreased, and the amount of cake was therefore gradually increased. By December 16, 1910, each animal was eating practically 4 pounds of cake each day. On this date they were taken off the pasture,, as it was of no further value, and the test inaugurated. The cattle were all dehorned before the experiment began. Individual weights of the cattle were secured at the beginning and end of the test. Lot weights were secured every 28 days. Feeding was done twice each day, once about 7 o'clock in the morn- ing and again at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The cottonseed meal was mixed with the hulls by hand. Water was kept before the cattle all the time. Salt was fed once a week. LOTS AND SHELTER. The cattle were divided into two lots. Lot 1 was fed in a small lot, across the east side of which extended a shed and 'the feed troughs; the animals therefore had the privilege of standing either under the shed or in the open lot. From tune to time sufficient bedding was hauled to cover the entire lot. The object was to keep the whole lot well bedded, but several times during the test that part of the lot not under shelter became exceedingly muddy. However, the cattle could always find dry places. The steers in lot 2 were fed on a 5-acre tract of sandy land with no shelter at all. This tract of land had been under cultivation for several years, so the trees had been removed. The feed troughs, which were also in the open, were made in such a way that they could be pulled from place to place; in this way the manure was evenly distributed over the field. The soil was sandy, so the ground never became exceedingly muddy, although the winter of 1910-11 was an unusually wet one. VALUE OF SHELTER FOR FATTENING CATTLE. 43 CHARACTER AND PRICE OF FEEDS. Cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls were fed to both lots. No other feeds were used. Both the meal and hulls were of good quality. The following prices were taken as a basis upon which to make the financial estimates: Per ton. Cottonseed meal $26.00 Cottonseed hulls 7. 00 DAILY RATIONS. There seems to be no doubt that the majority of our southern farmers feed too much cottonseed meal to cattle which are being fat- tened. The average feeder is tempted to increase the amount of cot- tonseed meal too rapidly at the beginning of the feeding period and continue to increase the amount until the total feed of meal is entirely too great. When this is done the cattle are oftentimes "burnt out" by the time they have been fed from 70 to 80 days and must then be sold often under unfavorable market conditions. "Burnt out" cattle can not be held for better market conditions. The table below shows the average daily ration of cottonseed meal and hulls in this experiment by periods of 28 days each : TABLE 17. Average quantity of feed eaten by each animal daily. [Dec. 16, 1910, to Mar. 28, 1911, 103 days.] Period. Lot 1 (shelter). Lot 2 (no shelter). First 28 days 4.19 pounds cottonseed meal. 16.63 pounds cottonseed hulls. 5.05 pounds cottonseed meal. 20.12 pounds cottonseed hulls. 5.20 pounds cottonseed meal. 19.51 pounds cottonseed hulls. 5.18 pounds cottonseed meal. 18.69 pounds cottonseed hulls. Second 28 days Third 28 days 5.19 pounds cottonseed meal \18.61 pounds cottonseed hulls At the beginning of the test the cattle averaged 578 and 585 pounds in weight in lots 1 and 2, respectively. These cattle were, in a way, accustomed to cottonseed meal, as they had received a small feed of cottonseed cake for several weeks previous to the beginning of the experiment, yet their daily allow- ance of meal was below 3 pounds an animal for several days after the test begun. This amount was gradually raised and each steer ate an average of 4.15 pounds of cottonseed meal daily during the first 28 days; along with this amount of meal an average of 18.11 pounds of hulls were consumed daily by each animal. They were given all of the hulls they would clean up. The cattle in lot 2 ate practically the same as those in lot 1. The heaviest feeding of cot- tonseed meal occurred in lot 1 during the third period, when an average of 5.33 pounds of cottonseed meal was given each animal daily. 44 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. The feeding continued for 103 days, yet no ill results, such as dizzi- ness, staggering, or blindness, followed the use of the cottonseed meal. As before stated, many feeders, on account of the excessive use of cottonseed meal, are not able to feed for more than 80 days. WEIGHTS AND GAINS. Although the daily allowance of cottonseed meal was maintained at a rather small amount, the cattle made satisfactory gains. At the same time no losses were sustained as a result of feeding meal too liberally. TABLE 18. Weights and gains. [Dec. 10, 1910, to Mar. 28, 1911.] Lot. Number of cattle. Ration. Iniliiil weight Dec. 16, 1910. Final weight Mar. 26, 1911. Total gain of each animal. Average daily gain of each animal. 1 (shelter) 33 Cottonseed meal and cottonseed Pounds. 578 Pounds. 754 Pounds. 176 Pounds. 1 71 2 (no shelter) 34 hulls. do 585 757 172 1 67 Each animal in lot 1, fed under shelter, weighed on an average 578 pounds at the beginning and 754 pounds at the close of the test, making a total gain of 176 pounds, or an average daily gain of 1.71 pounds. It is seen that the cattle which had no shelter (lot 2) also made good gams, as each one made a total gain of 172 pounds during the test, or an average daily gain of 1 .67 pounds. As far as gains were concerned, the shelter was of no practical value, as the cattle with shelter made an average total gam of only 4 pounds more than the ones without shelter. QUANTITY AND COST OF FEED REQUIRED TO MAKE 100 POUNDS GAIN. Many feeders believe that a fattening animal will increase in weight during the winter months very much more economically when he is sheltered than when he is forced to remain out in the open weather. The following table shows that there are, at least, no striking results to be secured from the employment of shelter for fattening animals under the conditions of this test: TABLE 19. Quantity and cost of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain. [Deo. 16, 1910. to Mar. 28, 1911.) Lot. Ration. Feed re- quired to make 100 pounds of gain. Cost to make lOOpounds 1 (shelter) (Cottonseed meal Pounds. 288 1,120 292 1,122 } $7.66 7.72 \Cottonseed hulls ( Cottonseed meal \Cottonseed hulls VALUE OF SHELTER FOR FATTENING CATTLE. 45 When shelter was employed (lot 1) it required 288 pounds of cottonseed meal and 1,120 pounds of hulls, at a cost of $7.66, to make 100 pounds of gain. When no shelter was provided (lot 2) the same gains were made with 292 pounds of meal and 1,122 pounds of hulls, at a cost of $7.72. In other words, the shelter saved 6 cents on each 100 pounds of gain made. Sheds or barns can not be built and maintained with this small saving. Other considerations, however, may make it profitable to employ a good shelter for fattening cattle. For instance, when it is impossible to save the manure in any other way it is, without doubt, a wise thing to build barns or sheds for conserving it. PROFITS ON COTTONSEED MEAL AND HULLS AS A RESULT OF FEEDING THEM TO THE CATTLE. In this test the cottonseed meal and hulls were sold by means of the cattle at a handsome profit. Furthermore, the fact must not be overlooked that the greater part of the fertilizer value of these feeds was left on the farm after they had passed through the cattle. The financial statement shows that with lot 1 the total cost of the meal and hulls was $444.17, and there remained a clear profit of $227.15 after paying all expenses. With lot 2 the result was even better, the feed in this case costing $451.81 and the net profit being $254.34. FINANCIAL STATEMENT. This mixed bunch of cattle was bought during the fall of 1910 for an average price of $2.30 per hundredweight. When they were ready to be shipped they were driven 3 miles to the railroad at Bellamy, Ala., and sent to New Orleans, where slaughter data and sale prices were secured. It cost 40 cents a hundredweight to ship them to New Orleans, when freight, commission, yardage, weighing, labor, and feed en route were all taken into consideration. At New Orleans the cattle in lot 1 sold for an average price of $5 per hundredweight, while those in lot 2 sold for an average price of $5.06 per hundredweight. Financial statement. Lot 1. Shelter: By sale of 33 cattle, 24,134 pounds, at $5 per hundredweight $1, 206. 70 To 33 cattle, 19,080 pounds, at $2.30 per hundredweight $438. 84 To 11,677 pounds cottonseed meal, at $26 per ton 216. 80 To 64,962 pounds cottonseed hulls, at $7 per ton 227. 37 To shipping expenses, at 40 cents per hundredweight 96. 54 Total expense 979. 55 Total profit 227.15 Profit per animal 6. 88 46 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. Lot 2. No shelter. By sale of 34 cattle, 24,963 pounds, at $5.06 per hundredweight $1, 263. 13 ' To 34 cattle, 19,875 pounds, at $2.30 per hundredweight $457. 13 To 17,084 pounds cottonseed meal, at $26 per ton 222. 09 To 65,634 pounds cottonseed hulls, at $7 per ton 229. 72 To shipping expenses, at 40 cents per hundredweight 99. 85 Total expense 1, 008. 79 Total profit 254.34 Profit per animal 7. 48 Each animal in lot 1 returned a clear profit of $6.88 above all expenses, while each animal in lot 2 returned a profit of $7.48. Therefore the animals which had no shelter were finally more profit- able than those which were provided with a good barn. This was due to the fact that the cattle without shelter sold for a little higher price at New Orleans than the others. SUMMARY. TABLE 21. Summary statement. Lot 1 (shelter). Lot 2 (no shelter). Average cost of cattle in fall 1910, $2.30 $2.30. per hundredweight. Ration for each lot Cottonseed meal and cottonseed Cottonseed meal and cottonseed Average initial weight of each hulls. 578 pounds hulls. 585 pounds. animal. Average final weight of each animal. . 754 pounds 757 pounds. Average total gain of each animal 176 pounds 1 72 pounds. Number of days on feed Dec. 16, 1910, to Mar. 28 1911 Dec. 16, 1910 to Mar 28 1911 Average daily gain (103 days). 1.71 pounds (103 days). Feed to make 100 pounds of gain Cost to make 100 pounds gain Selling price of cattle per hundred- 288 pounds meal, 1,120 pounds hulls. $7.66 $5.00 292 pounds meal, 1,122 pounds hulls. $7.72. $5.06. weight in New Orleans. Entire cost per hundredweight to $0.40 $0.40. ship them to New Orleans. Total profit on each animal $6.88 $748 1. The cattle (67 in number) used in the test were a mixed lot of steers, heifers, and cows, averaging from 2 to 4 years of age. As the original object of the work (not reported, however, in this publica- tion) was to study methods of making and saving manure, the quality of the animals was somewhat neglected. 2. The object of the experiment, herein reported, was to study the value, if any, of shelter in fattening southern beef animals. 3. The cattle cost on the average $2.30 per hundredweight. 4. The test was inaugurated December 16, 1910, and closed March 28, 1911, a period of 103 days. 5. The cattle were divided into 2 lots, one without shelter and one with shelter. Both lots were fed similar rations of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls. 6. At the beginning of the test the average weight of each animal in lots 1 and 2 was 578 and 585 pounds, respectively. VALUE OF SHELTER FOR FATTENING CATTLE. 47 7. Each animal in lots 1 and 2 made an average total gain of 176 and 172 pounds, respectively. 8. In lot 1, where shelter was employed, it required 288 pounds of cottonseed meal and 1,120 pounds of hulls to make 100 pounds of gain in live weight, while in lot 2, where no shelter was used, 292 pounds of meal and 1,122 pounds of hulls were required to make the same gains. 9. It cost $7.66 and $7.72 to make 100 pounds of'increase in live weight in lots 1 and 2, respectively. 10. Shelter saved only 6 cents on each 100 pounds of gain made. 11. A clear profit of $6.88 and $7.48 was made on each animal in lots 1 and 2, respectively. IV. EARLY COMPARED WITH LATE FATTENING OF STEERS ON PASTURE. INTRODUCTION. The farmer who fattens cattle on pasture is often undecided as to the proper time to sell. The cattle may be sold during the early summer months, after being fed for 90 days, or they may be carried throughout the whole pasture period and sold late in the fall just before the pastures are exhausted. The feeder, however, is familiar with the fact that fat cattle bring better prices in the early than in the late summer months. Few cattle of any kind are offered for sale during May, June, and the early part of July, so that if fat steers are held and not marketed until August and September they come in competition with thousands of grass-fat cattle. This large supply of grass cattle naturally depresses the prices of all classes. However, gains are made cheaply during the pasture season, and notwithstand- ing the fact that cheaper prices obtain late in the summer, the feeder often can not decide whether it would pay better to rush his animals for the early summer market, or feed a small supplementary feed, thus making the gains cheaply and slowly, and sell late in the summer. In order to assist the farmer in dealing with this feeding problem, the experimental work hereinafter described was undertaken. When steers are bought right, fed correctly, and sold intelligently, it has been previously demonstrated that satisfactory profits can be realized when they are fattened on pasture. 1 The present test was carried out with the object of studying the problem as to whether it is more profitable to begin feeding early in the spring and feed a rather heavy ration of cottonseed cake along with the pasture for a short time, or to delay the inauguration of the feeding until the pasture grasses are well started in the spring and feed a light ration of cake along with the pasture for a longer period of time. PLAN OF THE WORK. The test, extending over three years, was carried on during the pasture seasons of 1909, 1910, and 1911. The cattle in each case were bought the previous fall, because they could be bought much i See Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 131. 48 COMPARISON OF EARLY AND LATE FATTENING. 49 cheaper in the fall than in the spring. In fact, steers in this section can hardly be purchased at all during the spring months. As they were not to be fattened until the following summer, it was necessary to make a study of the cheapest and best methods of getting them through the winter months. However, this part of the test is not presented here. Some results of wintering steers preparatory to summer fattening may be seen in Part II of this bulletin, and in Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 131. When the grass appeared hi the spring the winter feeding was dis- continued, and the pasture fattening work inaugurated. The feed- ing was done on the farm of Messrs. Cobjb and McMillan, of Sumter County, Ala. They purchased the cattle and the feed, and provided the pastures, which were divided into various fields in order to facilitate the work. The bureau and the Alabama Experiment Station provided a trained man to live on the farm and have personal supervision of the tests. Mr. W. F. Ward, one of the authors of this publication, was stationed on the farm. The weight of each steer was secured at the beginning and end of each test, and the total weight of each lot was noted every 28 days. When the steers were sold some of them had to be driven 9 miles to the shipping point at Scooba, Miss., while others were driven 12 miles to Epes, Ala., for loading. THE CATTLE AND THE PASTURE. As far as possible grade Aberdeen-Angus, Shorthorn, Hereford, and Red Polled steers were employed ; a few animals had a predomi- nance of Jersey and scrub breeding. They were all bought of farmers in Sumter, Wilcox, Marengo, and neighboring counties, so they repre- sented fairly accurately the average cattle of the western part of Alabama. In age they varied from 2 to 4 years. As will be seen later, the average weight at the beginning of the test was about 640 pounds. When compared with northern cattle it is seen that they were small, but they were as large as the average of the State. The cattle were divided into two lots, one early and one late fattening, in each of the three years during which the experiment lasted. The early fattening lots had the designation lot F in each year, and the late fattening lots were called lot B. There were, therefore, three lots F and three lots B. The summer pastures used in these experiments consisted of a mixture of sweet clover (Melilotus), Japan clover (Lespedeza), Johnson grass, crab grass, and some Bermuda grass. The sweet clover became available for grazing about April 1, while the Japan clover afforded practically no grazing until June 15. In some sec- tions of the country sweet clover is considered a pest, as stock will 50 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. not eat it, but in the South, or at least in Alabama, all kinds of stock eat it with great relish; they take to it as readily as to alfalfa. The pasture was divided into fields, the size of each one depending upon the number of cattle grazed upon it, and also upon whether the steers were to be fed a light or a heavy supplementary feed. The object was to have an abundance of pasture for each lot of cattlo. The early fattening lots of cattle (lot F) were turned on the pasture at a very early date, in fact before the grasses had become thoroughly established. The exact dates will be given later on. The cattle were fed but once a day. This was done about sundown, so that they would all come out to the troughs, which were placed at convenient places in the pastures. No feed was thrown upon the ground. No shelter, except trees, was provided, but the cattle did not suffer from the heat, as the pastures contained plenty of good shade trees. When a summer shade is provided cattle will suffer no more from heat in Alabama than they will in Illinois or Iowa. While there were ticks in the pasture the cattle were not permitted to become badly infested with them ; a dipping vat was used to keep down heavy infestation. In the three years' work, during which time 224 head of cattle were fattened, only one or two cases of Texas fever developed, and none of these was lost. In future work it is expected that the tick will be entirely eliminated. QUALITY AND PRICE OF FEEDS. The cottonseed cake was purchased upon the market, so an average market price was taken in making up the financial statements. It must be borne in mind, however, that prices vary from time to time and from place to place. For instance, cottonseed cake is valued at $26 a ton in this publication, but at the present writing (Dec. 20, 1911) cake can be purchased for $21 a ton. The price mentioned above, $26 a ton, very closely approximates the average price for the years 1909, 1910, and 1911. The pasture is valued at 50 cents per month per steer. The cottonseed cake had been broken into nut size and sacked. This was done by the mill. The cake can be purchased in the large cake size, just as it comes from the press, for about $2 a ton less than the nut size. Some feeders find that it pays to break the cake on their own farms. As a whole, the cake was of excellent quality. Poor and damaged cake was fed a few times, when the good mate- rial could not be secured. DAILY RATIONS. The steers in lot B each year were fed longer than those in lot F, the object being to start lot F on feed a few weeks before lot B, and also to give the animals a heavier supplementary ration of cotton- COMPARISON OF EARLY AND LATE FATTENING. seed cake. This plan was followed out except in 1911. The spring of that year was an unusually dry one, and as a result the pastures were not ready for grazing as early as usual, consequently the lots were started on feed the same date but sold at different times. The steers in lot B were started on feed April 9 in 1909, April 7 in 1910, and April 21 in 1911. Those in lot F were started on feed March 19 in 1909, March 25 in 1910, and April 21 in 1911. The cattle in the B lot were sold August 26 in 1909, August 2 in 1910, and September 8 in 1911. Those in the F lot were sold August 5 in 1909, June 23 in 1910, and August 27 in 1911. Thus the steers in the B lot were fed an average of 137 days, while those in the F lot were fed an average of 119 days. The pastures upon which the two lots of cattle grazed were not exactly similar throughout the whole test, as those in the F lot were started at an earlier date (except in 1911) than those in the B lot. As a matter of fact, the pastures in the case of the F lot were of very small value during the first two or three weeks of the tests ; however, the experiment was outlined to learn whether it is profitable to start steers on feed during the very early spring months. On account of the fact that the pastures were short at this early date the cattle of the F lot were started on a rather heavy feed of cottonseed cake. TABLE 22. Daily feed of cottonseed cake by period; of 28 days. Period. Lot B (long feeding). Lot F (short feeding). Apr. 9 to Aug. 26, 1909. Apr. 7 to Aug. 2, 1910. Apr. 21 to Sept. 8, 1911. Mar. 19 to Aug. 5, 1909. Mar. 25 to June 23, 1910. Apr. 21 to Aug. 27, 1911. First 28 days Pounds. 2.35 3.33 3.54 3.67 3.83 M.OO Pounds. 2.21 4.41 3.80 3.65 *3.50 Pounds. 2.88 3.76 3.72 3.76 3.76 Pounds. 3.24 3.91 4.82 5.00 5.00 Pounds. 3.27 4.57 5.00 15.00 Pounds. 3.40 4.87 4.97 5.00 <5.00 Second 28 days Third 28days.. Fourth 28 days Fifth 28 days Sixth 28 days 1 For 7 days. * For 6 days. For 29 days. For 17 days. For 14 days. It is seen that the steers in the B lot were given from 2.21 to 2.88 pounds of cottonseed cake at the inauguration of the tests, while those in the F lot ate from 3.24 to 3.40 pounds each daily. At the close of the tests each steer in the B lot was consuming from 3.5 pounds to 4 pounds of cake, while those in the F lot were eating, on the average, 5 pounds daily. As a matter of fact there was prac- tically no difference in the total quantity of cake fed to each steer in lots B and F, the main difference being that the steers in the F lot ate their amounts of feed in the fewer number of days. While, to many feeders, the daily feed of cottonseed cake seems small, still reasonably good gains were secured when the size of the 52 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. cattle is considered. The steers in the B lot averaged practically 600 pounds in weight at the inauguration of the tests, and an average daily gain of 1.87 pounds was secured. Those in the F lot were somewhat larger, averaging practically 690 pounds in weight, and an average daily gain of 2.04 pounds was obtained. Large amounts of cake are not required to obtain good gains when the cattle are grazing a reasonably good pasture. It is in any event impracticable to feed a heavy ration of cake along with pasture, as scours develop quickly when cottonseed cake is fed too freely. Scours occurred in fact in a few cases when no more than 5 pounds of cake was fed each steer daily. In the North and Northwest, where corn is cheap, it is practicable and usually profitable to supplement the pasture with a daily ration of from 15 to 18 pounds of corn daily for each steer, but there is no feed in the South cheap enough to be used in such large amounts. TOTAL AND DAILY GAINS. Table 23 outlines the initial and final weights and the gains of each lot, also the average total and daily gains of each steer. TABLE 23. Weights and gains (summary of 3 years). Average Lot. Num- ber of steers. Days fed. Year. Ration. Initial weight of lot. Final weight of lot. Total gain of lot. total gain of each Average daily, gain. . steer. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. f 35 140 1909 Pasture and cake 25,321 34,919 9,598 274.2 1.96 F (short period) . . \ 30 91 1910 .. .do 20,042 26,062 6,020 200.7 2 21 I 25 128 1911 do 16,522 22,808 6,286 257.4 1.96 3-year average .... 2.04 f 7S 154 1909 Pasture and cake 47,916 69,664 21,748 289.9 1.88 B (long period) I 34 119 1910 do.... 19,586 27,514 7,928 233.2 1.96 1 25 140 1911 do 14,123 20,128 6,005 240.2 1.72 3-year average 1 87 These cattle were from 2 to 4 years old , and small for their age. It should be remembered, however, that the initial weights were all taken at the close of the winter months, when the animals were in their lightest form. The steers in the F lot averaged 723, 668, and 661 pounds in weight at the inauguration of the pasture work in 1909, 1910, and 1911, respectively, while those in the B lot averaged 639, 576, and 565 pounds, respectively. The steers in the F lot, the short- fed ones, made an average daily gain of 1.96, 2.21, and 1.96 pounds in 1909, 1910, and 1911, respectively, or an average daily gain of 2.04 pounds for the three years. The steers in the B lot, the long-fed cattle, made an average daily gain of 1.88, 1.96, and 1.72 pounds in 1909, 1910, and 1911, respectively, or an average of 1.87 pounds for the three years. The steers in the F lot were fed a heavier ration of cottonseed cake than those in the B lot, and as a result gained more COMPARISON OF EARLY AND LATE FATTENING. 53 rapidly. When the size of the cattle is taken into account it is seen that the gains were satisfactory. At the end of the feeding periods the steers in the F lot had attained an average weight of 998, 869, and 885 pounds in 1909, 1910, and 1911, respectively, while those in the B lot were somewhat smaller. For southern cattle they were of good size larger than the average but the southern markets prefer larger carcasses than these cattle produced, and will pay a premium for the large steers. QUANTITY AND COST OF FEED REQUIRED TO MAKE 100 POUNDS GAIN. Table 24 shows the number of pounds of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain in each case, the cost of the cottonseed cake to make the gains, and also the cost to make the increase in live weight when both the cake and the pasture are charged against the gains. It is seen that the increase in live weight during the fattening period was put on at a profit; that is, each pound added to the weight of the steers during the fattening period did not cost as much as it could be sold for on the market. This is an unusual state of affairs in fattening cattle, as under average winter conditions, and summer conditions, also, when a heavy supplementary grain feed is given, each pound of increase during the fattening period is made at a loss. The economical gains in these tests were mainly due to two factors: First, the daily gains were satisfactory, notwithstanding the fact that only a small amount of high-priced feeds was consumed by each steer; and, second, the animals were grazing a pasture the cheapest feed that can possibly be obtained in Alabama. When a large amount of concentrated feed is used to supplement the pasture the cost of the increase in weight will be much more expensive than was the case in these experiments. TABLE 24. Quantity and cost of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain. Lot. Number of steers. Year. Ration. Cottonseed cake re- quired to make 100 pounds at gain. Cost to make 100 pounds of gain. Cake. Cake and pasture. F (short period) B (long period) [ 35 30 1 25 f 75 34 1 25 1909 1910 1911 1909 1910 1911 Pasture and cake. .. Pounds. 224 197 244 $2.91 2.56 3.17 $3.76 3.32 4.02 .do do 3-year average 220 2.86 3.69 Pasture and cake 181 176 210 2.35 2.29 2.73 3.24 3.24 3.70 .do .do 3-year average. . . . 185 2.41 3.33 54 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. In the F lot it is seen that 224, 197, and 244 pounds of cottonseed cake were required to make 100 pounds of increase in live weight in the years 1909, 1910, and 1911, respectively, or, averaging the three years, 220 pounds of cake were eaten for every 100 pounds of gain. In the B lot 181, 176, and 210 pounds of cake were fed for every 100 pounds of gain in live weight in 1909, 1910, and 1911, respectively, or an average for the three years of 185 pounds. The saving of cot- tonseed cake in favor of the B lot was due to the fact that the steers in these lots were given a smaller daily allowance than those in the Flot. The total expense in the F lot to make 100 pounds increase in live weight when the pasture and cake are both charged against the gains was $3.76, $3.32, and $4.02 in 1909, 1910, and 1911, respectively, or an average of $3.69 for the three years. The total cost to make the same gains in the B lot was $3.24, $3.24, and $3.70 in 1909, 1910, and 1911, respectively, or an average of $3.33 for the three years. FINANCIAL STATEMENT. As will be seen in the table below, the steers were purchased at various prices at the beginning of the tests. They cost from $2.95 to $3.50 per hundredweight, depending upon the size and quality of the steers and the year in which they were purchased. When the steers were ready for sale buyers came to the farm and purchased them on the farm, allowing for a 3 per cent shrink. In one case (lot B, 1909) they were sold as low as $3.90 per hundredweight on the farm; in no instance did they sell for more than $4.50 per hundredweight. After being sold they were shipped to various southern markets. Two or three loads were sent to Meridian, Miss., some were sent to Atlanta, Ga., while several carloads were shipped to New Orleans. The table below shows, among other things, the initial cost of the cattle each year, the selling price each year, and the total profit on each animal. TABLE 26. Financial statement. Lot. Num- ber of steers. Year. Ration. Initial price per hun- 'dred- weight. Initial cost of each steer. Cost of feed eaten by each steer. Total cost of each steer. Selling price per hun- dred- weight. Selling price oTeach steer. Profit on each steer. F (short fed). {35 30 25 1909 1910 1911 Pasture and cake. do do $3.20 3.20 3.50 $23.15 21,38 23.13 $10.33 6.64 9.98 $33.48 28.02 33.01 $4.375 4.50 4.50 $41.73 37.92 39.82 $8.25 9.90 6.81 3-year aver- age . 3.28+ 22.55 9 08 31.63 4.45+ 39.93 8.30 B (long fed).. f 75 { 34 1909 1910 Pasture and cake . do 2.95 2.95 18.85 16.99 9.38 7.33 28.23 24.32 3.90 4.50 35.14 35.32 6.91 11.00 I 25 1911 do 3.50 19.77 8.89 28.66 4.50 35.14 6.48 3-year aver- age 3.05+ 17.80 8.91 27.46 4.16+ 35.19 7.73 COMPARISON OF EARLY AND LATE FATTENING. 55 It is seen that excellent profits were made in all the tests. In the F lot clear profits of $8.25, $9.90, and $6.81 were made on each steer in 1909, 1910, and 1911, respectively; an average profit of $8.30 was made on each animal. In the B lot clear profits of $6.91, $11, and $6.48 were made in 1909, 1910, and 1911, respectively. In these lots an average profit of $7.73 was secured on each steer; or, those cattle which were started on feed early, fed a heavy ration of cake along with the pasture, and marketed early in the summer months, returned a slightly greater total profit $0.57 each than the ones which were started on feed later and finished for the market at a late date. This is not a marked difference, however, in favor of the early method of feeding. The greatest advantage in favor of the early method of fattening cattle during the summer months is one that does not appear in a test of this kind. When the steers are disposed of at an early date the pastures can be grazed by a second bunch of cattle, or the grass has an opportunity to make an extra growth before cold weather sets in, thus affording extra feed for the winter months. With many farmers late pastures are of great value in saving winter feeds. SUMMARY. TABLE 27. Summary of averages. LotB (long fed). LotF (short fed). Average pounds of cottonseed cake eaten by each steer daily in 1909 . Pounds. 3.40 Pounds. 4.39 Average pound? of cottonseed cake eaten by each steer daily in 1910 3.45 4.33 Average pounds of cottonseed cake eaten by each steer daily in 1911 3.60 4.66 Average daily gains for three years 1.87 2.04 Average number of pounds of cottonseed cake to make 100 pounds of gain 185 220 Average cost of cottonseed cake to make 100 pounds of gain Dollars. 2.41 Dollars. 2.86 Average total cost to make 100 pounds of gain (both pasture and cake included) . . Average initial cost of steers per hundredweight 3.33 3.05+ 3.69 3.28+ Average selling price of steers per hundredweight 4.16+ 4.45+ Average profitTon each steer. . t T 7.73 8.30 1. The object of this part of the work was to determine whether it is more profitable to feed steers a short or a long period of time when they are being fattened on pasture. 2. Grade Aberdeen- Angus, Shorthorn, Hereford, and Red Polled steers, with a few commoner ones, were used. They were bought in Sumter and neighboring counties and represented fairly accurately the average cattle of the western part of Alabama. 3. The steers were fed on pasture and cottonseed cake during the following periods of time: Lot B (long fed): 1909, Apr. 9 to Aug. 26; 1910, Apr. 7 to Aug. 2; 1911, Apr. 21 to Sept. 8. Lot F (short fed): 1909, Mar. 19 to Aug. 5; 1910, Mar. 25 to June 23; 1911, Apr. 21 to Aug. 27. 56 FEEDING BEEF CATTLE IN ALABAMA. 4. The following average daily feeds of cake were given: Lot B (long fed): 1909, 3.40 pounds; 1910, 3,45 pounds; 1911, 3.60 pounds. Lot F (short fed): 1909, 4.39 pounds; 1910, 4.33 pounds; 1911, 4.66 pounds. 5. The steers in the B lot made a daily average gain of 1 .87 pounds, while those in the F lot gained at the rate of 2.04 pounds each day. 6. There were required 185 pounds of cottonseed cake to make 100 pounds of gain in the B lot, while 220 pounds of cake were eaten in the F lot to make the same gain. 7. When the pasture and cake are botli charged against the gains, it cost $3.33 and $3.69 to make 100 pounds of gain in the B and F lots, respectively. 8. The steers in the B lot cost on an average $3.05+ per hundred- weight at the beginning of the tests; they sold for $4.16+ per hun- dredweight at the close. The steers in the F lot cost $3.28+ per hundredweight and sold for $4.45+ per hundredweight. 9. Clear average profits of $7.73 per steer in the B lot and $8.30 per steer in the F lot were made. 10. An additional advantage in selling the cattle early is that the pastures have an opportunity to make an extra growth after the cattle are taken off, thus providing feed for the early winter months. In fact, this is probably the chief advantage to be secured in selling cattle at an early date. ADDITIONAL COPIES of this publication -ii- may be procured from the SUPERINTEND- ENT OF DOCUMENTS, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., at 10 cents per copy A 001 083 181 6