*&' *V" -vi <- 3W< ' ^ ~^_ ^^ /> ? ^7S|/ LIB RAR.Y OF THE U N IVLRSITY OF ILLINOIS ^raPW ^SS^^i ; - :- ira;*y"srF r <^3R. . m ^,Y 4*3^ A <^^ 00 M o 22 -* ft %? 8- N ~ to P3 ?? ll M 00 N z >% a. & M (j\ M > 5?* & -i - "< H OJO o ] Z% 3% M u> ^0 & *< ^^ O ^ o% n^ H W -L- " - O g w Jo" > < n 3 TO n> >-, T3 a JS M OJ J2 S be <" iS 3J? j? ^ -i a . Number of pigs 7 933 77 .786 7 IOIO 100 1 .02 7 i no 00 .92 7 1 200 95 97 4 570 .^ 4 585 20 .36 4 605 -10 -.178 4 595 * 35 .625 Weight of lot at beginning of period Gain of lot 422 Average daily gain per pig. Gain of pigs per 100 Ibs. ground gram fed to steers Gain of pigs per 100 Ibs. whole grain fed to steers .... 447 3-395 made the smallest total gain of any of the lots, but also that the number of pounds of pork produced by them for each 100 pounds grain fed the steers was considerably less, both when the steers were fed shelled corn and when they were fed meal. This circum- stance should not be passed without careful consideration. Before 556 BULLETIN NO. 83. [January, drawing- conclusions as to the reasons for this somewhat unlocked for condition it is well to examine the facts at hand. It should be observed that the steers in lot 3 receiving 1 corn, gluten meal, timo- thy hay, and corn stover were fed a fewer number of pounds of dry matter than either of the other lots, (more roughage than lot 2, but less grain, and both less grain and less roughage than was fed lot 1). The roug-hag-e parts of the rations of lots 2 and 3 were practically the same, giuten meal being- the only factor of differ- ence between the two rations on the side of the concentrates used. In case exactness is required it should be stated that 1000 pounds more roug-hage was fed to lot 3 than to lot 2 in a feeding- period of 18 weeks or .66 of a pound more per steer per day, certainly not a great difference. Lot 3 made more beef and a total of more meat than lot 2 and still lot 3 received less corn and a total of less grain than lot 2. The very slig-ht difference in the amount of roug-hag-e fed to lots 2 and 3 in no way accounts for the wide varia- tion in the g-ains made. The corn, gluten meal, timothy hay, and corn stover ration must therefore, be pronounced a much more ef- fective ration than the corn, timothy hay, and corn stover ration. The amount of dry matter required for each pound of beef made was practically equal in lots 1 and 3. This shows that for beef production the corn and clover hay ration and the corn, glu- ten meal, timothy hay, and corn stover ration were practically equally effective. The relative total amounts, therefore, of food- stuffs used for beef production in lots 1 and 3 reappearing- in the dropping-s of the steers and therefore available for pork production bear precisely the same relation to each other as do the relative amounts of dry matter fed the steers in each instance. The least dig-estible part of the rations of each lot was the roug-hag-e; there was more roug-hag-e fed to lot 1 than either to lot 2 or lot 3 al- thoug-h the roug-hag-e fed to lots 2 and 3 was less dig-estible than that fed to lot 1. However, it should be borne in mind that even if there were the same relative amounts of food in the dropping-s of the two lots of steers available for pork production, the part in the droppings of lot 1 would be more available for the use of the pigs than that in the droppings of lot 3 since a large part of it would be whole corn. Whatever differences exist between the two lots, so far as pork production is concerned, other than those which would naturally arise from the difference in the amount or availa- bility of the food-stuffs in the droppings must be attributed either to the beneficial influence of some constituent in the one ration upon the growth or fattening of the pigs, or to the detri- IQ03-] FEEDS SUPPLEMENTARY TO CORN FOR FATTENING STEERS. 557 mental effect of some constituent or combination of constituents in the other, or both. TABLE 3. GAINS IN WEIGHTS OF STEERS AND PIGS FOR EIGHTEEN WEEKS. Lot i. Corn, clover, hay. Lot 2. Corn, timothy hay, corn stover. Lot 3. Corn, timothy hay, gluten meal, corn stover. Total gain in weight of steers 3944 . 5 2900 1555.5 Average daily gain per steer 2.51 1.858 2.268 Average grain per pound gain 7.68 0.87 7.44 Average roughage per pound gain 4.82 5.88 5. 14 Average dry matter per pound gain 10.71; 13.20 IO.72 Average gain per 100 Ibs. grain i ^ . 02 IO. 1^ 13.44 Total gain in weight of pigs ^42. 482 422 Pork produced per 100 Ibs. whole grain. . . Pork produced per 100 Ibs. ground grain. . Total beef and pork produced 3-78 .616 4486 . 5 3.665 594 3382 3-395 447 3Q77 . 5 Grain per pound meat 6.75 8.47 6.6; Roughage per pound meat 4.24 5.05 4.6 Dry matter per pound meat 9-45 11.32 9.58 The relatively greater effectiveness of the corn and clover hay ration as compared with the corn, timothy hay, and corn stover ration for beef production has been clearly shown by the records of this experiment. That the advantage of the former ration was due entirely to the nature of the roughage fed is probable since corn was the concentrate in both instances. Notwithstanding the fact that the corn and clover hay ration was more effective for beef production, it appeared also to be very favorable to pork produc- tion, as more pork was produced by the pigs following lot 1 and more pork per pound of grain fed to the steers, than in either of the other lots. The relatively good showing made by the pigs follow- ing lot 2 can not be attributed to any superiority of the ration fed the steers for pork production, but may be justly referred to the fact that such ration was less effective as a beef producing ration, there naturally being more undigested and hence, more available hog feed in the droppings. Care should be taken not to conclude that the ration fed to lot 2 is to be preferred even for pork produc- tion to other rations used in this experiment simply because more pork was produced by the pigs following this lot nor should we conclude that the ration fed to lot 3 was one unfavorable to pork production simply because less pork was produced by the pigs fol- lowing the steers getting corn, gluten meal, timothy hay, and corn stover. By far the larger part, if not all, of the apparent disad- vantage of the ration fed to lot 3, as regards the pork producing factor in this experiment, is accounted for in the fact that less food was to be found in the droppings of steers in lot 3 not only 558 BULLETIN NO. 83. [January because there was less in absolute quantity fed to the steers, but also because that used was relatively more effective for beef pro- duction and also that the quantity of food-stuffs in the droppings was more available for pigs in the droppings of lots 1 and 2 than in the droppings of lot 3. After all, the important factors to be considered from the standpoint of the beef producer are the rela- tive total amounts of beef and pork produced from a given ration, the relative quality or value of the products and the relative cost of such rations. Since the principal object is the production of beef, a ration that tends to produce good gains which are largely gains in beef rather than pork is to be commended rather than condemned. In examining the records of this experiment, Table 3, we find that the total amount of beef and pork produced during the eighteen weeks of this experiment was in lot 1, 4486.5 pounds, lot 2, 3382 pounds, and lot 3, 3977.5 pounds; that the rel- ative amounts of food-stuffs required for producing these gains do not bear the same relation to each other as do the gains, there be- ing a slight advantage of the ration fed to lot 3 over that fed to lot 1, and a decided and all important advantage over that fed to lot 2 by both lots 1 and 3. The advantage in the economical pro- duction of meat exhibited by lot 3 over the other lots is made more far-reaching when we consider the relative values of the three lots as sold in the open market, lot 1 selling for $7.30, lot 2, for $7.00, and lot 3, for $7.45 per hundred weight. It should also be borne in mind that under normal conditions the ration fed to lot 3 where corn was supplemented by the concen- trate, gluten meal, has against it its greater cost as compared with the ration fed lot 1 where corn was supplemented by the rough- age, clover hay, and still further that while clover hay would ma- terially add to the fertilizing value of the manure made by the steers in lot 1, gluten meal feeding would not add materially to the fertilizing value of the ration fed lot 3, as compared with lot 1. Nitrogenous roughages are available or should be on every Illinois farm. Where they are not it will be economy to purchase nitro- genous concentrates, and undoubtedly, to a limited extent where nitrogenous roughages are available. MARKET AND SLAUGHTER TESTS. The steers were shipped from Champaign on the evening of June 22d thus making it posssible to have them on the market Monday morning, June 23d. Table 4 exhibits the weight of the steers at Champaign, their live and dressed weight in Chicago, the per cent, of shrink- FEEDS SUPPLMENTARY TO CORN FOR FATTENING STEERS. 559 age, tog-ether with the weights by lots of the hides, caul fat, ruffle fat, gut fat, gut ends, and loose fat. The total weight of each of the three lots of steers at the beginning of the experi ment was practically TABLE 4. SHIPPING AND SLAUGHTER WEIGHTS OF STEERS. Lot . I. Lot . 2. Lc y. Total. Average. Total. Average. Total. Average. Weight at Champaign June 21 ic eg; I2QQ I4C.c;c 121^ IC.17O 1281 Weight at Chic ago June 23 KI7O 1264 I 2890* 1 172 14880 1 240 Percentage of shrink- age 2.7 2 18 3 2 Shrinkage per steer. . 35 41 41 Dressed weight of car- casses 8036 74 c 7^76* 671 8cni 716 Percentage of carcass to live weight 58.9 C.7.2 C.7.7 Weight of hides 916 3"'V 76 780 71 OO7 3f 1 76 Weight of caul fat 263 207 247 Weight of ruffle fat. . . 212 165 185 Weight of gut fat 736 C7I 662 Weight of gut ends. . . 7 62 44 CI Weight of fat 127^ 106 987 QO II4.C O"> *In the total weights of cattle on foot in Chicago as sold, of the dressed beef, fat and hides of lot 2, only eleven steers are concerned, while the total weights for lots I and 3 and the Champaign weights of lot 2 represent twelve steers. equal, the lightest weight lot being lot 1 which was 42 pounds less than lot 2 and 134 pounds less than lot 3. As sold in Chicago lot 1 was the heaviest of the three being 1 107 pounds heavier than lot 2 and 290 pounds heavier than lot 3. The shrinkage in shipping of the steers in lots 2 and 3 were practically the same being an average of 41 pounds per steer while the average shrinkage per steer in lot 1 was only 35 pounds. The steers in lot 1 dressed out 58.9 per cent, of beef, and 8.4 per cent, of fat; lot 2, 57.2 per cent, dressed beef and 7.7 per cent, of fat; lot 3, 57.7 per cent, of dressed beef, and 7.02 per cent, of fat. These fig- ures clearly show that lot 1 led both in percentages of dressed beef and fat, lot 3 coming second as to percentage of dressed beef and third as to fat; lot 2 standing second as to fat and third as to per- centage of dressed beef. From the fact that lot 3 dressed a higher percentage of dressed beef and a lower percentage of fat than lot 2, and from the fact that much greater gains were secured upon the steers in lot 3 than in lot 2, it is evident that the corn, gluten meal, timothy hay, and corn stover ration was more conducive to the production of lean beef or flesh than to the production of fat while the corn, timothy hay, and corn stover ration was more con- 560 BULLETIN NO. 83. [January, ducive to the production of internal fat than to beef and especially of lean beef. The effect of the rations fed to the three lots seems to have extended even to the hides for the relative weights of the hides of the different lots correspond with the live weights and the weights of dressed beef. The differences in the percentages of dressed beef and fat of the different lots though apparently small are still large enough to be of great importance to the packer. A few pounds of dressed beef and a few pounds of fat extra on every beast slaughtered by the packer soon add up to vast sums of money. At this time prime packers tallow was worth 7^4, cents and green salted hides worth 7^ cents per pound. In com- puting the value of the hides and tallow an allowance was made of 16 per cent, for shrinkage in the weight of the fresh hide dur- ing the curing process and of 30 per cent, in the weight of the rough tallow for shrinkage in rendering. The meat from lot 1 was adjudged worth 10^ cents per pound, from lot 2, 10 cents per pound and from lot 3, 10^ cents per pound. As there was no satis- factory method of estimating the value of the offal parts aside from the fat, such as hearts, tails, livers, blood, bone meal, casings, tank- age and the like, it was assumed that these parts were of equal value in the three lots and such differences as are here noted are based on the values of the dressed carcass, hide and fat. This is mani- festly inaccurate and tends to exaggerate the differences between the three lots, but is the best that can be done with the data at hand. The consideration of these values for the hides and tallow, however, do not add greatly to accuracy of the computation as these products are certainly worth more per pound to the packer than country prepared products bring in the market, a difference ac- counted for by the superior condition of the packing house pro- ducts. Their opportunities are better for marketing and the cost of putting their products into marketable condition is reduced to the minimum. The hides as taken from the animals in the pack- ing houses by experts, under the eyes of still more expert and crit- ical inspectors, are worth very much more per pound than indiffer- ently prepared country hides. As much may be said of the fat; especially such parts of it as are utilized for the manufacture of artificial butter. The values of the three lots to the packers were computed on the basis of the above figures and the results are as follows. Lot 1 was worth $90.50 per steer; lot 2, $76.31 per steer, and lot 3, $85.02 per steer. The market values of the three lots were, for lot 1, $92.28 per steer, for lot 2, $82.03 per steer, and for lot 3, 1903.] FEEDS SUPPLEMENTARY TO CORN FOR FATTENING STEERS. 561 $92.38 per steer. It will be seen by this that while on the basis of market values of live cattle on the day they were sold, the pack- ers were obliged to pay ten cents more for each steer in lot 3 than in lot 1, each steer in lot 1 was worth $5.48 more to them than each steer in lot 3. And while each steer in lot 3 cost $10.35 more than in lot 2, the actual value to the packer of each steer in lot 3 aside from offal products other than fat was only $8.71 cents more than in lot 2. This is conclusive evidence that the buyer of the live cattle was practically correct in his estimate of the rel- ative values to the butcher of the steers in lots 2 and 3, but that his judgement was seriously at fault as to the relative val- ues of lots 1 and 3, the former selling- on foot at a disadvantage as compared with the latter, while on the hooks, the carcasses of lot 1 were pronounced more valuable by ^ of a cent per pound than those in lot 3. The error in judgement of the buyer in this in- stance was in accordance with the universal opinion of good judges as to the relative merits of the various lots of cattle on foot. Not a buyer in the yards would have been willing to pay more per hun- dred weight for lot 1 than for lot 3. Experienced judges too would have been hard to find, who would have even suspected that the steers in lot 1 would dress a higher percentage of beef and fat than the steers in lot 3. The steers in lot 3 certainly appeared to be more nearly finished when marketed than either of the other lots, but the slaughter test proved that as a matter of fact lot 1 was the more nearly finished. This but corroborates the statement made by the writer some- time since that the intelligent feeder may know more as to the per- centage of beef and fat, and the quality of the beef produced in the cattle he markets than does the buyer who must base his judge- ment upon the external appearance of the bullock. So far as the mottling or grain of the beef showed when the carcasses were ribbed, there was no appreciable difference between lots 1 and 3. Lot 3 seemed to be slightly better covered with fat over the rib cut, but the filling of the thighs and covering of same did not seem to be superior to the carcasses in lot 1. The higher percentage of beef and fat may be accounted for in case of the corn and clover hay lot when we remember that they made greater gains throughout the feeding period than did either of the other lots. This gain must have been either a gain in flesh or a gain in fat, or both. It is evident that it was both as shown by higher percentages of fat and dressed beef and thicker flesh. At the packing house it was considered that all these lots as 562 BULLETIN NO. 83. [January, bought were worth the money paid. It is seen too, that the packer paid for lot 1, $1.78 per steer more than the dressed beef, hide, and fat were worth and that he paid for lot 2, $5.72 more and for lot 3, $7.36 more per steer than the same parts were worth. Hence, it is seen that lot 3, the steers getting- corn, gluten meal, timothy hay, and corn stover was certainly the least profitable of the three to the packer. Assuming that lot 3 was handled at a profit, it would seem that the packer could have afforded to pay for lot 1, $5.58 and for lot 2, $1.64 more per steer than the price paid. This would have brought lot 1 up to $97.86 and lot 2 up to $83.67 per steer, as the prices which the packer could have paid for these lots and still have handled them at the same profit as lot 3. If lot 3 was bought at a profit at $7.45 per hundred weight, lot 1 should have brought $7.70 and lot 2, $7.13 per hundredweight. These figures show that lots 1 and 2 sold for at least 55 and 20 cents per hundred weight respectively, less than their value because they lacked those superficial evidences of a finished condition which were pos- sessed by lot 3, the gluten meal steers. These are strong arguements in favor of the use during the finishing period of some oily and nitrogenous food which will pro- duce upon the steer that bloom which sells the animal to advan- tage. THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THE EXPERIMENT. It is believed that many feeders will be interested in the follow- ing financial statement. The prevailing conditions during the feeding period covered by this experiment were manifestly unusual. Grain and forage could only be had at prices seldom reached by such products . All grades of fat cattle and more especially the choice and prime grades were correspondingly high. Owing largely to prevailing drouth and a prospect for a short corn crop, stock cattle and feeders were in liberal supply during the late sum- mer and early fall and cattle feeders in the corn belt did not buy liberally even though prices for such stock were at times very rea- sonable. In short, as conditions finally adjusted themselves the opportunity was offered to farmers to buy stockers and feeders at a discount, feed them on high priced grain and roughage, and sell them at a premium when finished at a price which was corre- spondingly high as compared with the prices for food-stuffs. In submitting the financial statement of each lot it will be pos- sible to call attention to some important facts connected with cattle feeding by the use of these rations in particular. I 93-] FEEDS SUPPLEMENTARY TO CORN FOR FATTENING STEERS. 563 FINANCIAL STATEMENT. LOT I, 13 STEERS. DR. To 13 Steers 12528 Jb @ $4.60 per cwt $ 576.29 To 7 Pigs 908 Ib @ 5.75 per cwt 52.21 To 3 Pigs 425 flb @ 6.50 per cwt 27.63 To i Pig 140 Ib @ 6.00 per cwt 8.40 Feed as follows: To 235.48 bu. Corn @ 6oc 141.29 To 9.51 tons Clover hay @$ii 104.61 To .46 tons Corn meal @ 23.03 10.59 To 8.09 tons Corn and cob meal $19.14 154.84 Freight Champaign to Chicago, commission for selling and other expenses 30.00 $1105.86 Expense of feed in holding last week , 23.81 Total expenditures $1129.67 CR. By i Steer 1025 fib 25 Db @ $4.60 per cwt $ 46.00 By 12 Steers 15170 Bb @ $7.30 per cwt 1107.41 By 7 Pigs 1355 Db @ $6.50 per cwt 88.08 By 4 Pigs 660 Bb @ $7.00 per cwt 46.20 Total receipts $1287.69 1129.61 Profit $158.02 Average profit per steer $13.16 LOT 2. 13 STEERS. DR. To 13 Steers 12570 flb @ $4.60 per cwt $578.22 To 7 pigs 903 Ib @ $5.75 per cwt .' 5I-9 2 To 3 pigs 430 Ib @ $6.50 per cwt 27.95 To i pig 140 flb @ $6.00 per cwt 8.40 Feed as follows: To 225.7 bu. corn @ 6oc 1 35.42 To 5.37 tons Timothy hay @ $14.00 75.18 To 7.59 tons Corn and cob meal @ $19. 1 4 1 45.27 To .41 tons Corn me il @ $23.03 9.44 To 3.17 tons Corn stover @ $6.50 20.61 Freight Champaign to Chicago, commission for selling and other expenses 30.00 $1082.41 Expense of feed in holding last week 22.03 Total expenditures $i 104.44 CR. By i Steer 985 flb -25 flb @ $4.60 per cwt $ 44.16 By 12 Steers 14063.04 flb @ $7.00 per cwt 984.41 By 7 Pigs 1300 Db @ 16.50 per cwt 84.50 By 4 Pigs 655 Db @ $7.00 per cwt 45.85 Total receipts $1158.92 IIQ444 Profit $54.48 Average profit per steer $4-45 564 BULLETIN NO. 83. {January, LOT 3. 13 STEERS. DR. To 13 Steers 12662 Ib @ $4.60 per cwt 582.45 To 7 Pigs 933 Ib @ 5.75 per cwt 53.65 To 3 Pigs 430 ft @ 6.50 per cwt 27.95 To I Pig 140 ft @ 6.00 per cwt 8.40 Feed as follows: To 138.27 bu. corn @ 6oc 82.96 To 5.96 tons timothy hay @ $14.00 83.44 To 6.62 tons corn and cob meal @ $19.14 126.71 To .64 tons corn meal @ $23.03 14.74 To 3.18 tons corn stover @ $6.50 20.67 To 2.09 tons gluten meal @ $28.00 58.52 Freight Champaign to Chicago, commission for selling and other expenses 30.00 $1089.49 Expense of feed in holding last week 22.47 Total expenditures $i 1 1 1.96 CR. By i Steer 985 ft - 25 Ib @ $4.60 $ 44.16 By 12 Steers 14880 Ib @ $7.45 1 108.56 By 7 Pigs 1295 ft @ $6.50 84.18 By 4 Pigs 630 ft @ $7.00 44.10 Total receipts $1281.00 1111.96 Profit $169.04 Average profit per steer $14.08 After the "filling- up" process, lasting- some weeks and taking into account all expenses such as freight, commission and feed, it is found that the steers cost in the feed lots, February 8th, prac- tically $4.60 per hundred weight, or just what they cost us in Chi- cago; hence, the purchase price is figured on the basis of their weights at the beginning of Ihe experiment proper and at $4 60 per hundred weight. No charge is made in the financial statement for labor in caring for the steers, nor on the other hand is any value assigned to the manure made by the steers. It is believed that the manure would more than balance the cost of labor involved. The cattle were not full fed during the season best calculated to secure the greatest or most economical gains. They were not pur- chased when stockers and feeders were cheapest. The same grade of feeders could have been bought earlier in the season for at least $1.00 per hundred weight less. Hay and other roughage was bought in the bale, hence more expensive than it would otherwise have been. That one of the steers proving an unprofitable feeder made the sale at a low price of two other steers necessary simply multiplies by three the loss wh ich would have been sustained under ordinary feed lot conditions. 1903.] FEEDS SUPPLEMENTARY TO CORN FOR FATTENING STEERS. 565 These facts are enumerated not in the way of an apology for existing- conditions, but rather that the reader may not mis- interpret certain items appearing- in the financial statement. By referring- to the statement it will be seen that under current mar- ket conditions slightly the greatest profit was secured with lot 3, the one getting- corn, gluten meal, timothy hay, and corn stover; the next greatest profit being- secured with lot 1, the lot getting- corn and clover hay. This difference is so slight that a repetition of the same experiment even under like market conditions for food- stuffs and fat cattle might show an advantag-e in favor of the lot receiving- a ration of corn and clover hay. Ag-ain it should be said that any condition which would change the relative prices for glu- ten meal, corn, timothy hay and clover hay prevailing during- the experiment would give the advantage to the one or the other ra- tion. It is but fair to the corn and clover hay ration to state that the prevailing- price for gluten meal during- this experiment was much closer to the price of corn than is usually the case, and that the price at which clover hay is figured, (clover hay being the chief source of nitrogen in the ration for lot 1) is higher accord- ingly than the price at which gluten meal is figured. It is alto- gether probable therefore, that from the financial stand point alone the use of a ration of corn and clover hay would prove more profit- able to the feeder than a ration of corn, gluten meal, timothy hay, and corn stover fed in the proportions used in this experiment par- ticularly because clover hay can be grown on the farm. The far- mer would be obliged to pay the same for gluten meal that was paid in the experiment, but would not have to pay the same for clover hay. The financial statement but emphasizes the importance on the one hand of securing a finish on the steers that is demanded in the market, since twelve steers weighing but 14880 pounds sold on the same day in the Chicago market within $1. 15 as much as an- other twelve steers weighing 290 pounds more. On the other hand notwithstanding the fact that twelve steers sold for fifteen cents per hundred weight more than another twelve steers the latter re- turned to the feeder practically as great a profit, largely because they made greater and more rapid gains on less expensive food- stuffs. The ideal ration should combine the good features of both the rations fed to lots 1 and 3. For purposes of reference in connection with weights of indi- viduals, their gains and the character of the dressed carcasses, notes were taken on each of these animals at the beginning of the exper- 566 BULLETIN NO. 83. [January, iment, at the termination of the fattening- and after the slaughter. On March 8th and June 21st the following- notes on individual steers were taken by E. B. Forbes, an assistant in the department. In the preliminary notes taken on March 8th, only such char- acteristics were noted as were thought to have some connection, TABLE 5. INDIVIDUAL WEIGHTS OF STEERS. No. of steer. Average weight, Mar. 20, 21. 22. Average weight June 12 and 14. Gain during twelve weeks. Average daily gain. Dressed weight. I 1041.66 1252.5 210.84 2.51 ~734~ 2 1030. 1207.5 177-5 2. II 732 3 1 020. 1262.5 242.5 2.89 752 4 1136.66 I3I7.5 180.84 2.15 767 5 998.66 II47-5 148.84 1.77 702 6 | 1115. 1340. 225. 2.68 790 7 1180. 1372.5 192.5 2.29 815 9 1153-33 1402.5 249.17 2.97 829 10 1180. 1362.5 182.5 2.17 808 ii 1105. 1217.5 112.5 1-34 705 12 1155. 1357-5 202.5 2.41 814 13 973-33 1212.5 239.17 2.85 670 14 1046.66 1260. 212.34 2-53 695 16 1073-33 1232.5 159.17 1.89 710 17 1016.66 II57-5 140.84 1.68 693 18 IIOO. 1302.5 202.5 2.41 744 19 988.33 1187.5 189.17 2.25 665 20 1095. 1237-5 142.5 i .70 720 21 1056.66 1227.5 170.84 2.03 22 896.66 1045. 148.34 1-77 556 23 1052. 1 220. 168. 2.OO 694 24 1055. 1205. 150. 1.79 680 25 1041 .66 1150. 138.34 1.65 678 26 1066.66 1235- 168.34 2.OO 692 28 1155. 1345- 190. 2.26 Sio 2 9 1136.66 1335- 198.34 2.36 761 30 1073-33 1247-5 174.17 2.07 74o 31 I 100. 1332.5 232.5 2-77 762 32 1126.66 1337-5 210.84 2.51 780 33 1058.33 1275. 216.67 2. 5 8 710 34 991.66 1167.5 175.84 2.O9 653 35 986.66 1225. 238.34 2.84 717 36 1043-33 1232.5 189.17 2.25 37 996.66 1210. 213-34 2-54 680 38 980. II77-5 197-5 2-35 692 39 1175- 1347-5 172.5 2.05 765 either direct or remote, with the capacity of the steer as a beef producer. The notes taken after the close of the experiment on June 21st, considered the condition of the animal as regards fatness, the style and the degree of the finish attained. After the animals were slaughtered in Chicago the carcasses were judged by Mr. J. E. Maurer, of the Schwarzsch ild & Sulzberger Co., and Mr. John Irwin of Chicago. Their comments with some slight additions constitute the notes on carcasses. 1903.] FEEDS SUPPLEMENTARY TO CORN FOR FATTENING STEERS. 567 The following- are the individual notes with numbers to cor- respond to those of the animals: 1. March 8th. Red Shorthorn. This animal is light; lacks breadth and depth, and is coarse-boned throughout. Face, long; eye, dull. Crops, high and thin; loin, low; tail-head, high; lacks capacity and depth ot flanks; chest, narrow; shoulder-points, rough; quarters, a little light; skin, soft and of medium thickness; coat, thin. June 2ist. Sh oulders, bare; crops, not filled; back, bare; hip-bones and tail- head, bare; thin in thighs; far from fat. 2. March 8th. Red Shorthorn with touch of Jersey blood. This steer is thin-fleshed, narrow and rough-boned, but is fairly deep. Face, long, marked with black streaks; muzzle, black; neck, short; shoulders, high; back, low; ribs, flat; crops and quarters, light; hips, rough; coat not thick nor especially fine; skin, loose, elastic, and of medium thickness; the Jersey back is the poorest fea- ture of this steer and its depth of body is its best character. June 2ist. Shoulders, smooth; crops, nearly full; back, smooth; hips, nearly covered; rump, not well fleshed; cod, beginning to fill. June 2$th. Carcass. A profitable cutting bullock; very evenly and smoothly fatted with fairly thick rib and loin. 3. March 8th. Red Shorthorn. Depth of body, good; breadth, average; head, rather small; neck, short; fore flank of average development; chest of av- erage width; paunch, capacious; hind flank, fairly low; thighs and twist, deep; back and crops, smooth; rump, rough. June 2 1 st. Shoulders, crops, back and loin thickly covered: animal not very fat; thighs, strong; buttock would finish up deep and full. June 25th. Carcass. Good medium bullock; has taken on seam-fat well; begins to be lumpy. 4. March 8th. Shorthorn; very light yellowish-red, shows Jersey blood; breadth, average; depth, good; head, thick and heavy with dull eyes; muzzle, white and surrounded with dun and black hair; chest, rather wide; top-line, a little high at shoulder and low at crops; hip bones, a little high and prominent; fore flank, full; skin, hard. June 2ist. Shoulders, rough; crops, not full; back, not covered; hip-bones, prominent; rump, not fleshed. June 25th. Carcass. An old steer, not at all well covered; sunken in loin; shows age in flinty character of bones. 5. March 8th. Red Shorthorn ; a fine, smooth, nicely shaped animal of fairly good conformation and quality, but too light; has good lines and will make a trim carcass; head shows breeding; eyes, bright; ears, small, neat; hide of me- dium thickness, elastic; a nice handler; lacks depth and capacity of paunch. June 2ist. Shoulders fairly well covered; crops, smooth; hip-bones and rump a little bare; thighs, light below. June 25th. Carcass. A chunky bullock with very little waste ; proportion of plate and chuck is small. 6. March 8th. Roan Shorthorn; an upstanding animal; depth fair; breadth, deficient, has plenty of scale; bone, strong and a little rough; head and ears, large; forehead, broad; face, narrow; muzzle, broad; tail-head, high; chest, a little nar- row; ribs, flat; paunch, capacious; hide, thin and hard. June 2ist. Shoulders, bare; crops not full; back not covered; hip-bones very prominent; rump, bare; cod only beginning to fill; a coarse growthy steer. June 25th. Carcass. A plain bullock; not heavily covered; has a little too much belly. 568 BULLETIN NO. 83. {January, 7. March 8th. Red Shorthorn with possible touch of Hereford blood, nar- row and deep in front; broad and high behind; shoulder, high; back low; middle of rump, high; hip-bones a little high; brisket, heavy; fore flank, deficient; paunch, heavy; hide thick. June 2ist. Shoulder, crops and back half-covered; hip-hones and tail-head still a little rough; thighs, heavy, but not very deep; cod, half filled. June 25th. Carcass. A good bullock; a good cutter; fat well distributed; good rib and loin; not wasty. 9. March 8th. White Shorthorn, good feeder, but lacks quality; head, broad, coarse; eyes, mild, clear, small; neck, a trifle too long; chest, full; back, broad, level; hips, smooth; point of shoulder, rough and prominent; top of shoul- der, compact; tail-head, a little high; body, deep; paunch, capacious; flank and twist, too much cut up; skin, somewhat hard, medium thickness; bone, coarse. June 2 ist. Shoulders not smooth; ribs still show; crops and back not fully covered; hip bones nearly smooth; buttock, heavy; cod only begins to fill; a growthy, muscular bullock, but not yet ripe. June 25th. Carcass. A good bullock; could have been made choice; carcass well proportioned and evenly covered. 10. March 8th. Red Shorthorn; light and narrow, but smooth except for rough shoulder; attractive head, but face too long; neck, long; fore and hind flanks, light; chest narrow; heart-girth deficient; body deep; paunch, capacious; bone, fine; skin, thin; coat, very fine. June 2ist. Crops and back smooth, but not fat; hip-bones, too prominent; rump tapers off behind; buttock, meaty; cod, half filled. June 25th. Carcass. Not the best color; a good medium steer, but thin and lengthy in rib and loin; is a trifle staggy. 11. March 8th. Red; good depth; good top-line, but high in flanks and twist; head, small, with Roman nose; dun hair and dark spots about muzzle; has a projecting lower jaw; eyes, close together; fore ribs, flat; paunch, capacious; skin, medium thick, not very elastic; coat, crisp like that of a buffalo. June 2ist. Shoulders, crops and back just beginning to cover; ribs and hip- bones not well covered; thighs, full and deep. June 25th. Care ass. A very desirable carcass; short, thick, not wasty; color good; carries just a little too much belly. 12. March 8th. Shorthorn with some Hereford markings; will be a big steer; heavy and deep in front; breadth only average; head, fine; neck, long; back and crops, smooth; tail-head, smooth and low but rump high in middle; quarters, fairly deep and full, but legs long; gaskins, very long; hocks, very crooked; paunch, adequate; skin, thin; coat, short, soft, mossy, deep red. June 2ist. Shoulders, crops and back half fat; hip-bones and tail-head still prominent; buttock heavily fleshed; animal looks thick fleshed, but rough. June 25th. Carcass. A bit rangy; carcass fairly well covered; fat enough for handy block beef. 13. March 8th. Red Shorthorn with Hereford markings on forehead, with- ers, feet and underline; average depth, breadth and smoothness; face, long; eyes, clear; ears, fine; neck, a trifle long; crops, deficient; back, narrow; tail-head, high; chest, neither very full nor deep; belly, paunchy; flank and quarters, medium de- velopment; hide, hard, thin; coat, short, thick, fine and mossy June 2ist. Shoulders, crops and back have no covering of fat; tail-head, high; buttock, fairly well filled; cod, not at all filled. June 25th. Carcass. Steer lias big belly and very thin rib and loin. I93-] FEEDS SUPPLEMENTARY TO CORN FOR FATTENING STEERS. 569 14. March 8th. Spotted Shorthorn; deep and compact with short neck, but narrow in face, shoulders, back and loin; fore-ribs, fairly well sprung; top-line, good except for high'tail-head; under-line, fair, high behind; bone, rather smooth and fine; hide of average thickness and elasticity. June 2ist. Shoulders bare; crops, half filled; back, hip-bones and buttock smooth and half fat; a very trim animal. June 25th. Carcass. Has big belly; not evenly covered on rib and round, especially the latter. 16. March 8th. Red Shorthorn; face and rump streaked with black; the thin-fleshed sort; lacks depth and breadth; neck, long; light thighs and flank; tail-head, high; heart-girth, deficient; paunch, average size; hide, thick. June 2ist. Shoulders bare; crops, full; back and loin not fat; rump fairly fleshy, but bones prominent; cod, only begins to fill. June 25th. Carcass. Good rib and loin, but not very fat; not as well covered as some others. 17. March 8th. Dark-red Shorthorn; good top and under-lines; a little nar- row, but has full floor of chest; head, narrow; neck, long; heart-girth, very good; bone, hair and hide of good quality. June 2ist. Shoulders and crops not fat; back, rump, and buttock smooth, but light; cod begins to fill; a fine butcher's steer; too fine for a good feeder. June 25th. Carcass. Evenly fat; chunky; well shaped; a good seller; well covered, fairly thick chine and fair sized kidney. 18. March 8th. Light-red Shorthorn; deep, but a little narrow, light and upstanding; good top-line and under-line; chest broad and deep; heart-girth and capacity of body above avarage; quality of bone, hair and hide, all that could be desired. June 2ist. Shoulders and crops half fat; back begins to flesh up; hip-bones and rump lightly fleshed, but covering up. June 25th. Carcass. A good meaty bullock; compact in rib and loin; even, symmetrical and well covered. 19. March 8th. Red Shorthorn with possible Hereford admixture; neck, long, thin; shoulders, prominent, high; crops and loin, low and narrow; tail- head, hip-bones, high; chest, narrow; body, fairly deep; paunch, average size; flank, high; hocks, crooked; hide, thin, not elastic; coat, soft and kinky; a thin- fleshed animal. June 2ist. Shoulders, crops and back bare; hip-bones prominent; thighs, light; twist, badly cut up. June 25th. Carcass. Lacks thickness of rib and loin; is better than No. 14, but not so good as No. 17. 20. March 8th. Roan Shorthorn; a coarse growthy, big-boned fellow, good depth; average breadth; a little narrow at shoulders and crops; tail-head high, but hips smooth; brisket, heavy; skin elastic; hair, very fine and soft. June 2ist. Shoulders, crops and back heavily covered; hip-bones prominent; rump, rough; thighs, heavy; a rough, growthy animal. June 25th. Carcass. Evenly covered with fat; lacks thickness of flesh. 21. March 8th. Light-red Shorthorn; breadth, average; depth, deficient; head, neat, fine, with high poll and lump on jaw; neck, long; back, low; flank, high; twist, light; skin thin, not elastic; hair, fine. June 2ist. The light sort; long legs; high behind; does not begin to be fat. June 25th. Steer held by State Board of Health because of suspected lumpy- jaw. 57 BULLETIN NO. 83. {January, 22. March 8th. Dark-red Shorthorn; a little light, fine steer; body narrow and lacking in depth; good top-line; head, very neat and trim; neck, short; back- bone, high at crops; fore ribs, flat; barrel, not well ribbed up to hip bones; thin- fleshed; thighs, light; lacks paunch; looks stunted. June 2ist. Very thin and light in flesh; all bones show; back-bone high and sharp; ribs show plainly; no flesh in twist; has done poorly. June 25th. Carcass. A very poor bullock; is much like No. 14; has much plate and is very deficient in thickness of rib and loin; is the least desirable car- cass in the lot. 23. March 8th. Roan Shorthorn; average breadth; depth, a little deficient; ribs, fairly well sprung; head, large, plain; face prominent; hips, rough; rump, steep; tail-head, high; rather good thighs; paunch, capacious, bone and hair, coarse. June 2ist. Growthy; half covered all over; would in time flesh up into a good carcass; is fleshing up evenly, but is only half fat. June 25th. Carcass. Short, chunky; fairly well covered in rib and loin; is shorter and heavier than No. 24. 24. March 8. Dark-red Shorthorn; long, deep and rather low set; head, neat,, broad; forehead, square with heavy mat of hair; neck, trim, medium length; back- bone, high at crops, low at back, narrow at loin; fore ribs, flat; heart-girth, slightly deficient; skin, thick and not elastic. June 2ist. Shoulders, crops and bac^c not heavily fleshed; hip-bones cover- ing up; rump not quite covered, but would finish smooth; buttock heavy, but not very deep and not fat; cod not filled. June 25th. Carcass. A meaty, evenly fatted bullock, but has no fat on in- side of ribs as in Nos. ig and 25. 25. March 8th. Dark-red Shorthorn with one horn; a light, thin fellow, lacking depth and breadth; face, neck and legs, long; hip-bones, high; rump, peaked; buttock, narrow; heart-girth, deficient; paunch, deficient; flank high. June 2ist. Thin fleshed all over; does not begin to be fat; has done very poorly; very light and high in twist; all bones show. June 25th. Carcass. Much like No. 19; has a little heavier kidney, but is very thin in rib and loin. 26. March 8th. Roan Shorthorn; upstanding, growthy, smooth-boned, nar- row at shoulders and crops; face, a bit long; jaw, not deep; rump, peaked; flank and twist, high; depth of chest, good; heart-girth, fair; paunch, capacious; skin, thin, not elastic; coat silky; bone, strong. June 2ist. Shoulders and crops not smooth; hips nearly smooth; thighs heavy, but twist high; cod half filled. June 25th. Carcass. Fairly thick rib and loin; is well covered, but not as good in quality as some others. 28. March 8th. Roan Shorthorn; good breadth throughout; has excellent colors and shows good breeding; head, just a bit rough; chest and shoulders very broad; shoulders, a little rough; brisket, very broad, trim and smooth; crops, a little slack; back, smooth and of good breadth; paunch, capacious; rump does not carry width to tail-head; thighs, thick and meaty; twist, full, but not especial- ly low; bone, medium; coat and hide constitute this steer an elegant handler. June 2ist. Shoulders not yet smooth; crops, nearly full; back thickly cov- ered; inclines to wrinkles; hips nearly covered; buttock, fleshy; a broad, thick- fleshed, paunchy steer. June 25th. Carcass. A good profitable carcass; heavy rib and loin; charac- 1903.] FEEDS SUPPLEMENTARY TO CORN FOR FATTENING STEERS. 571 terized by thickness of flesh and tendency to be lumpy; not as good as No. 29. 29. March 8th. Red Shorthorn; a narrow strong-boned, flat-ribbed steer; head, broad with Roman nose; withers and crops, high; rump, sloping; tlrghs^ full; paunch, ca pacious; barrel, not closely ribbed up to hip-bones; hind flank rather low. June 2 ist. Shoulders and crops half fat; back is taking on flesh, but hip- bones are prominent; thighs, heavy; twist, deep, a paunchy steer. June 25th. Carcass. A very desirable carcass; very thick rib and loin; a choice bullock. 30. March 8th. Dark-roan Shorthorn; a leggy steer, lacking in breadth throughout and depth behind; has plenty of depth through brisket, but lacks paunch and development of hind parts though he has good crops and back; bone, coarse; hide hard. June 2ist. D eep in front; bare shoulders, crops, back and hip-bones; light behind; cod only begins to fill. June 2$th. Carcass. A rough, undesirable steer; is gobby and not well covered. 31. March 8th. Red Shorthorn with white spots; a very deep steer in pro- portion to length; low-set, narrow and flat-ribbed; head, long, narrow; ears small; back and rump, narrow; paunch very large; bone and hide medium; coat, fine. June2ist: Shoulders nearly smooth; crops, nearly full; back and rump rather bare though smooth; buttock, fat; twist, well filled; cod, nearly full. June 25th. Carcass. Ideal shape; fine color; a good handy bullock, but has a little too much plate. 32. March 8th. Light-red with white spots, shows Jersey blood; broad; aver- age depth; head, heavy; back straight; tail-head, high; not square behind; cuts in below buttock; hips, rough; breadth of chest, heart-girth, fairly good: has plenty of capacity and is thick-fleshed. June 2ist. Shoulders rough; crops and back are covering up smoothly, but are not thickly covered; twist, high; cod begins to fill. June 25th. Carcass. Steer is heavy in chuck and looks staggy; is light in round and not good in color. 33. March 8th. Dark-roan Shorthorn; deep, but narrow in front though floor of c jest is fairly wide; broad, but high and light behind; not closely ribbed up to hip-bones; crops, fair; paunch, capacious; heart-girth, good. June 2ist. Shoulders nearly smooth; crops, full; back, smooth; hips, nearly covered; loin not covered; twist not full. June 25th. Carcass. Just a medium bullock; loin not thick. 34. March 8th. Red and white Shorthorn; lacks depth and breadth; is light- smooth, thin-fleshed and leggy; head, hair, hide and bone medium to fine; back bone, high and sharp, high in middle of rump; chest and paunch lack depth. June 2ist. Has taken on some flesh, but is thin all over; back bare; twist not filled. June 25th. Carcass. Just a medium steer with no particularly bad points; not heavily covered in rib and loin. 35. March 8th. Reddish-yellow and white animal with Jersey appearance; narrow, lacks depth; the thin-fleshed sort; medium sized head; puffy, watery eyes; much dewlap; crops slack; fore ribs, flat; high dairy hook-points; average heart" girth and paunch. June 2ist. Shoulders prominent; crops begin to be full;back and loin getting pretty well covered; hip-bones very prominent; twist, high. June 25th. Carcass. Just an average steer. 572 BULLETIN NO. 83. \January, 36. March 8th. Red Shorthorn; high, narrow, gaunt, light, coarse-boned; hind pasterns knuckle over badly; head, fair; fore ribs, flat; paunch lacks capaci- ty; flank, high; thighs and twist light and high; skin, fine. June 2ist. Shoulders, rough; crops, loin, hips and rump bare; twist not at all filled out. June 25th. Carcass. An undesirable carcass; did not fatten very well; has not much loin; is a "mean" one, on the "rain-back" order. 37. March 8th. White Shorthorn; average depth; lacks breadth of back, light behind; head and legs, coarse; good top-line; chest of average breadth; has plenty of paunch; coat, coarse; skin, pliable. June 2ist. Crops filling up; back loin and hips pretty well covered; twist not filled. June 25th. Carcass. A tidy, evenly covered, good cutting buttock. 38. March 8th. Dark-red Shorthorn: a light steer, but rather well formed; just average depth and breadth and length of leg; head, refined; ears, small, fine; nose, prominent; rump, tapers; flank, low; quarters, deep; bone, fine enough; paunch and heart-girth of average development. -n -'.- June2ist. Is smoothing up nicely all over, but is. not yet thickly covered with fat. June 25th. Carcass. A good loin, but would get gobby; is a little on the rough order. 39. March 8th. Light-red Shorthorn; depth and breadth, average; head, large, but well proportioned, rather smooth; top-line straight, but tail-head and hips a little high; chest and heart-girth just fair; legs, medium long; paunch, fairly capacious; coat and skin, fine and soft; bone medium. . . June 2ist. Shoulder would cover smoothly, but animal is only half fat; crops and back, smooth, but not thickly covered; loin, bare of fat; twist, high. June 25th. Carcass. This is a rangy steer; is long and light; never would be good; is gobby; has big belly and long shanks. Throughout the experiment the good spirits of lot 1, the sluggish disposition of lot 2 and the capricious appetite of lot 3 were noticeable. By consulting Table 5 it is seen that No. 11, reported as being off feed four times made the poorest gain in lot 1. Turning to the notes on individuals we see that the steer had a capacious paunch, but was an ill-shaped animal, slack in the heart-girth, and with evidences of poor breeding. It is worth while to note in this connection that a capacious paunch without other evidences of beef form is of little consequence as indicating a capacity for beef pro- duction. No. 24, reported as off feed eight times was one of the poorer producers in lot 2, but several which did not gain quite so well were not reported as off feed. This steer evidenced his poor char- acter by being high in the crops, low in the back, deficient in heart-girth, flat in fore ribs and lacking in elasticity of hide. No. 34, reported as off feed six times was one of the poorest producers in lot 2 though two others made slightly smaller gains 1903.] FEEDS SUPPLEMENTARY TO CORN FOR FATTENING STEERS 573 per day. This steer lacks depth and breadth and capacity of paunch. No. 37, reported as off feed seven times made g-ains somewhat above the average in lot 3. There is nothing- especial in the notes on this steer's conformation to show that he might be expected to be a poor feeder. A study of these individual notes serves to emphasize a few points of importance to feeders of fattening- cattle. The animal most desirable from the butcher's standpoint is not necessarily the most desirable from the feeder's point of view. It may be too fine to be hearty and vigorous, and may not have that capacity of barrel which is requisite to either larg-e or economical g-ains in live weight. Indeed, the butcher desires a type of animal of more restricted capacity than that one in which the beef pro- ducer finds greatest profit in feeding and his best interest is also favored by the animal of most refined bone and extremities. This refinement may be accompanied by a delicacy of habit which renders the animal an unprofitable feeder. In fact, among- animals which are not hig-hly improved by careful selection the fine individual is very apt indeed to be the delicate one. Among- such unimproved animals the somewhat coarse, growthy individ- ual with unimpaired vigor, strong- bone and a capacious paunch is the more profitable type to fatten. A profitable feeding- steer con- forming- to these requirements is, of course, an old one. This means that some one grew him either at very low cost or at very little profit. While it would be absurd to consider growing- such steers from calf hood to maturity on Illinois land there are circumstances under which it seems profitable to fatten such steers in Illinois, the one great point in their favor being- their capacity to make larg-e gains in a given time. There can be no doubt but that this type of animal, especially if well grown before fattening- begins, will make larg-er g-ains in live weight in a given time than finer and younger animals of the same breeding-. Whether or not these gains are produced as economically as in the case of the more refined type of animal is a question, but it seems entirely probable that the matter of economy of production is more closely connected with breadth of chest and capacity of paunch than with coarseness or refinement of bone and extremi- ties. It should be borne in mind that capacity in an animal to make larg-e g-ains in live weig-h t in a given time may under certain con- ditions be of greater importance to the producer than the highest degree of capacity in the animal to make economical g-ains, 574 BULLETIN NO. 83. [January, though, of course highly improved beef animals posessing both these characteristics to a marked degree are in general much the most profitable to all concerned in their production, handling, and consumption. In this experiment as the animals were fed in lots of twelve there was no way of determining which were or were not economi- cal producers, but the individual weights do show which of the animals were the largest producers. While the system of study and record of the characters of these steers was very crude, the notes do show in a general way that the large producers were the conspicuously paunchy steers, and that the poorest producers were those steers which were lacking in ca- pacity of the barrel. It seems altogether likely, however, that there is in the fat- tening beef animal a marked individuality in respect to the econ- omy and perfection of its physiological activities, aside from that which is indicated by easily discernable external characteristics. After the slaughter test it was said by Mr. J. E. Maurer of the Schwarzchild & Sulzberger Co., that lots 1 and 3 were as fat as it is desirable to have beef of this quality. Lot 2 was decidedly lacking in fat. The steers as a lot were criticized as being paunchy. This seems to have been due more to the method of rearing than to the method of fattening these animals. As to the covering of the carcasses with fat, lot 3 was a little more completely and thickly covered than lot 1, the difference be- ing noticeable on the ribs; but this difference appeared very slight, not nearly so pronounced as would have been supposed from the appearance of the two lots on foot. Lot 2 was not so completely or thickly covered with fat as lots 1 and 3. The flesh in lot I proved to be thicker than in lot 3 and much thicker than in lot 2. The kidney fat in lot 1 was also heavier than in lots 2 and 3. The color of the carcasses in the three lots was with the ex- exception of one steer invariably excellent. The color of lot 3 was very slightly superior to that of lots 1 and 2. In value per pound lot 1 was rated at 10^ cents, lot 2 at 10 cents, and lot 3 at 10^ cents. Lot 1 was rated above lot 3 because the carcasses in this lot were heavier and were thicker fleshed, this in spite of the fact that the price paid for lot 3 was decidedly greater than that paid for lot 1. As the prices at this time were much higher for heavy weight cattle than for lighter stuff, lot 1, the heaviest lot, was on this account alone more valuable per 1903.] FEEDS SUPPLEMENTARY TO CORN FOR FATTENING STEERS. 575 pound than lots 2 and 3. It should be borne in mind that this ad- vantage in weight of lot 1 over lots 2 and 3 was attained during the fattening- period. The desirable carcasses in each lot were the thick-fleshed ones, some of those acquired this thickness of flesh during- the fattening period, notably those in lot 1; some were comparatively thick- fleshed at the start. Both the desirable and undesirable characteristics of the car- casses were quite g-enerally noticeable even to a comparatively untrained eye not only in the dressed beef and in the fatted ani- mal on foot, but even in the thin steer at the beginning- of the fattening period. Fortunately for the beef producer the charac- teristics which a steer must possess in order to make a carcass which will be satisfactory to the butcher and the consumer are neither far to seek nor difficult to recognize. By referring to Table 5 it will be seen that only two steers in lot 1 failed to make an average daily gain of two pounds; in lot 2 six steers fell short of the two-pound per day record, while in lot 3 every steer made gains of two pounds per steer per day or better. CONCLUSIONS. 1. This experiment indicates that corn may be supplemented with clover hay, a nitrogenous roughage, in such a way that its influence will be practically as beneficial as the supplementing of corn with a nitrogenous concentrate such as gluten meal. 2. That where clover hay, or some other nitrogenous rough- age is not available for supplementing the corn crop in fattening steers a nitrogenous concentrate like gluten meal is highly advan- tageous. 3. That neither the corn ration supplemented by the use of a nitrogenous roughage on the one hand nor of a nitrogenous con- centrate on the other proved to be an ideal ration. It is believed that some judicious combination of the two yet to be determined will be found more satisfactory and profitable than either. 4. A ration of corn, timothy hay, and corn stover has little to recommend it for beef production. It is not favorable for the pro- duction of large, rapid, or economical gains; nor is the beef pro- duced by the use of such a ration desirable. It required 1.5 pounds more grain and .7 pounds more roughage to produce each pound of gain where timothy hay supplemented corn than where clover hay was used. 5. The corn and clover hay ration possessed the following 576 BULLETIN NO. 83. {January, 1903. advantages: (a) Available on Illinois farms; (b) Produced large gains; (c) Considered either from the standpoint of total beef produced or the cost of such beef it was a large and econom- ical producer; (d) The beneficial effects of the clover hay in the ration of lot 1 appeared to extend to the pigs as not only were greater gains in live weight of pigs made in lot 1 than in the other lots, but also more economical gains. 6. This experiment emphasizes the importance of the rough- age part of the ration for fattening steers. 7. The slaughter test of this experiment showed that the corn and timothy hay ration had a tendency to produce a high percen- tage of internal fat without securing a relatively high percentage of dressed beef, thickness of flesh or covering of surface fat; all of which are very important from the standpoint of a profitable ani- mal for the butcher, and hence its value on the open market. 8. It is impossible to determine whether the corn and clover hay ration or the corn, gluten meal, timothy hay, and corn stover ration had the greater tendency to produce lean beef, or flesh as greater gain of the steers fed corn and clover hay would naturally be followed by thicker flesh provided their lean beef making ten- dencies were the same. It is evident, however, that both the corn and clover hay ration and the corn, gluten meal, timothy hay, and corn stover ration had an advantage over the corn, timothy hay, and corn stover ration in this respect. 9. It appears that the ration, where gluten meal is the con- spicuous nitrogenous factor, has the ability to produce the finish demanded by the market with the least expenditure of both quan- tity and cost of food-stuffs of any ration used in this experiment. The fact that there was more profit to the producer in the use of the ration containing gluten meal, notwithstanding the somewhat expensive nitrogenous concentrate used, is due to the combined facts of its being an equally effective ration as corn and clover hay to the securing of better finish without the necessity of putting on the maximum amount of unprofitable gains in live weight, and to the current prices of corn, gluten meal, and clover hay. 10. The value of the manure made by the steers in lot 1 would be much more valuable per ton than that made by either of the other lots. 11. The condition of the feed lots is an important factor both in the extent and economy of gains. 12. In practice the feeder must determine for himself the best ration for fattening steers by knowing the effectiveness of various rations and their availableness. ~ v^ ui v% xl *> * r *v-i ' ~S ' '^^X*-*- -m PJlMfeftiS r C*rt J -> ^VWT O 4^- /v^/v* jJm4 .s&s - iiii'ir,. <>F^** ,C4)>i" . r> W^ . ^^f^pji'^'