^1b^ 
 * 
 <& 
 
 : , University of Illinois 
 
 I ihrarv at 
 
 C> |F dlFT: b^*K / > Liuicaiyai tiflr^ 
 
 ^g x Vv- ^ Urbana-Champaign - 
 
 m^W ACES Jj A < 
 
 /a . B- -" / <^_ .'JU 'SI'TO* v\ x / ;t, - 
 
 
 teg 
 
 Cc,< 
 
 ,/J ^ 
 
r4' 
 
 UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 ^ UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 The person charging this material is responsible for its 
 
 renewal or return to the library on or before the due 
 
 date. The minimum fee for a lost item is $125.00, 
 
 $300.00 for bound journals. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons 
 
 for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from 
 
 the University. Please note: self-stick notes may result 
 
 in torn pages and lift some inks. 
 
 Renew via the Telephone Center at 217-333-8400, 
 
 846-262-1510 (toll-free) or circlib@uiuc.edu. 
 
 Renew online by choosing the My Account option at: 
 
 http://www.library.uiuc.edu/catalog/ 
 
 __ 
 
 
 &Z 
 mF, 
 
 >s 
 
 
 ' 
 
 ^ ^ V ~O 
 
 feero' 
 
 ^* ^f 
 
-.* 
 
 J 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 Agricultural Experiment Station 
 
 BULLETIN No. m 
 
 MAINTENANCE RATIONS FOR BEEF 
 BREEDING COWS 
 
 BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD 
 
SUMMARY 
 
 1. The development of the range country changed the center of production 
 of feeding cattle from the corn belt to the west. In view of the present agri- 
 cultural development of the range renewed interest attaches to the breeding cow 
 and her offspring and methods for feeding them in the corn belt. Page 325. 
 
 2. The object of this experiment was to compare feeds readily available on 
 Illinois farms for maintaining beef breeding cows during the winter season. 
 
 Page 326. 
 
 3. Silage, shock corn, and corn stover, respectively, proved to be economical 
 feeds for the maintenance of cows when fed in connection with clover hay and 
 oat straw. Pages 328 and 329. 
 
 4. The average daily gain per cow in lot i was 1.07 pounds. The average 
 daily ration per cow consisted of corn silage, 16.64 pounds ; clover hay 3.5 
 pounds ; and oat straw, 9.56 pounds. Pages 329 and 330. 
 
 5. The average daily gain per cow in lot 2 was .758 of a pound. The aver- 
 age daily ration per cow was shock corn, 8.7 pounds ; clover hay, 3.5 pounds ; 
 and oat straw, 10.83 pounds. Pages 329 and 330. 
 
 6. The average daily gain per cow in lot 3 was .41 of a pound. The average 
 daily ration per cow in this lot during the time the cows were confined to stover 
 and oat stray, was corn stover, 21.67 pounds; oat straw, 5.15 pounds; and when 
 clover hay was used, stover, 10.28 pounds; clover hay, 1.56 pounds; and oat 
 straw, 8.19 pounds. Pages 329 and 330. 
 
 7. Under the conditions of this experiment, silage produced 41 percent 
 greater gain in live weight than an equal acreage of shock corn. Page 329. 
 
 8. The cows in this test would not eat as much shredded stover as un- 
 shredded, and clearly preferred the latter. Page 331. 
 
 9. The yield of crops used in this test was 57.9 bushels corn and two tons 
 stover per acre ; and for crops purchased, viz., clover hay and oat straw, yields 
 of 1^4 and one ton respectively were assumed. Page 331. 
 
 10. On the above basis approximately one acre of land is sufficient to pro- 
 duce the crops necessary to support a breeding cow 140 days in winter, and this 
 acreage should produce a considerable amount of grain in addition to that nec- 
 essary for the maintenance of one cow. Page 332. 
 
 11. The product of one-third acre of land is sufficient to maintain a cow 140 
 days in winter, if we regard the surplus <?rain produced as offsetting an acreage 
 proportionate to its market value. Page 333. 
 
MAINTENANCE RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING COWS 
 BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD, CHIEF IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 The question of the economical maintenance of beef breeding 
 cows has received but little attention by live stock investigators. 
 The exact place of the corn belt cattleman as a factor in producing 
 the world's future supply of beef is a matter of conjecture only. 
 
 Formerly Illinois farms were well stocked with high grade beef 
 cows from which were produced the feeding cattle that were subse- 
 quently fattened to furnish a profitable outlet for the large acreages 
 of corn grown. This was when land and corn were cheap. As land 
 became more valuable and corn was used for other purposes than 
 making meat it was found that there was but small profit, if any, in 
 keeping a cow a year for the beef calf she would produce. During 
 this transition period extensive breeding herds were formed on the 
 western ranges. The breeding of feeding cattle as a common prac- 
 tice on high priced lands has passed at least temporarily. The supply 
 of feeding cattle has come more .and more largely from localities 
 where land is cheaper. Range-bred feeding cattle are becoming 
 yearly a large factor in corn belt feed lots. 
 
 The passing of the range and its extensive herds of cattle has 
 been freely predicted and no doubt will eventually take place; that 
 vast acreages of range country are being transformed into farms is 
 a matter of common knowledge. That the southwestern cattleman 
 is becoming more familiar with the value of his available feeds for 
 fattening cattle is evident, which no doubt will result in more feed- 
 ing or finishing of cattle in that section of the country. Notwith- 
 standing these facts, there is more or less uncertainty surrounding 
 the extent and the nature of the future cattle business on the num- 
 erous farms resulting from the subdivision of the extensive ranges. 
 
 The question of where the future supply of feeding cattle will 
 be bred and reared is a pertinent one. Many predict that ultimately 
 a much larger proportion of cattle fattened in the corn belt will be 
 bred 'there. It is not our present purpose to discuss this question, 
 but enough has been said to suggest to the reader the reasons for in- 
 vestigating the subject in hand, namely, that this has been a neg- 
 lected question among investigators, and some conditions point to 
 
 325 
 
326 BULLETIN No. 111. [August, 
 
 more universal interest in this subject in the future. The breeding 
 of beef cattle on high priced land presupposes the economical main- 
 tenance of the cows from which such stock is bred. 
 
 OBJECT 
 
 The object of this experiment was to compare cheap feeds read- 
 ily available on Illinois farms for maintaining beef breeding cows 
 during the winter season. In the selection of the feeds to be fed, 
 an effort was made to use such as are not looked upon as cash crops 
 of the farm but more in the nature of by-products of low commercial 
 value. Also, to study the effect of these various rations upon the 
 general thrift of the cows, in order to determine to what extent such 
 feeds may be used, observations were made of birth weight and 
 gains of offspring calved during the progress of the test. The corn 
 plant in some form was used as the basal part of the rations fed. 
 
 In this connection it might be stated that the author's interpreta- 
 tion of maintaining a pregnant cow is to have her gain sufficiently 
 to account for the growth of the foetus, which at birth weighs fifty to 
 ninety pounds. 
 
 PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENT 
 
 Thirty grade Aberdeen-Angus cows, similar in size, conforma- 
 tion, and breeding were secured for this experiment. In breeding 
 they were from one-half to three-fourths Aberdeen-Angus blood, 
 and in age from three to six years. The cows were the result of one 
 or two crosses of choice Aberdeen-Angus bulls on native Missouri 
 cows which contained varying quantities of Short-Horn blood. 
 
 They arrived at the Experiment Station farm December 20, 
 1904. These cows had nursed their calves during the summer and 
 having but recently weaned them, they were thin in flesh, yet thrifty, 
 and by no means emaciated. Perhaps a better idea of their condi- 
 tion may be secured from a reference to Plate i from a photograph 
 which was taken of one of the lots at the beginning of the test. 
 From the time they arrived until the experiment began all received 
 the same feed ; namely, corn stover. 
 
 The thirty cows were divided into three lots of ten each a few 
 days after their arrival at the farm. Great care was exercised to 
 make the lots fully comparable in age, condition, conformation, and 
 size, to insure that whatever differences occurred would be directly 
 referable to the differences in the rations fed. The cows in lot I, 
 received ear label numbers from 471 to 480 inclusive, those in lot 
 2 from 481 to 490 inclusive, and those in lot 3, from 491 to 500 in- 
 
1906.] RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 327 
 
 elusive. Corn silage, shock corn, corn stover, clover hay, and oat 
 straw were the feeds used. These were charged to the cows at the 
 following rates : 
 
 Corn silage $3.34 per ton. 
 
 Shock corn 5.59 per ton. 
 
 Corn stover 2.25 per ton. 
 
 Shredded stover 2.25 per ton 
 
 Clover hay 8.00 per ton. 
 
 Oat straw 1.50 per ton. 
 
 Each lot was fed a ration made up of the following feeds : 
 
 Lot i. Corn silage, clover hay, and oat straw. 
 Lot 2. Shock corn, clover hay, and oat straw. 
 Lot 3. Corn stover and oat straw, (to March 8, 1905), corn 
 stover, oat straw, and clover hay, (March 8 to May 16, 1905.) 
 
 In order to determine whether or not siloing the corn made 
 the corn plant more valuable for wintering these cows, the amount 
 of corn and its accompanying roughage fed in each instance was 
 the same. This calculation was made on the basis of the amount of 
 corn in a given amount of silage and shock corn respectively. The 
 silage was 28.09 percent, and the shock corn 53.68 percent ear corn. 
 Oat straw was used for bedding the cows and since this roughage 
 constituted a portion of their feed some precaution was necessary 
 to prevent the cows consuming straw of which no record could be 
 secured. This point was guarded by keeping good fresh oat straw 
 where the cows could eat it at will. The rejected portions only 
 were used for bedding. 
 
 The amount of corn stover fed was regulated by carefully noting 
 the amount the cows would clean up well without material waste. 
 The corn stover reserved for feeding lot 3 was all used by Febru- 
 ary 7 and it was necessary to substitute in its place some shredded 
 stover. The shredded stover available at the time was apparently 
 too dry when shredded, and as a consequence the cows did not relish 
 it as well as they did the natural stover. However, the cows in lot 3 
 were fed shredded stover and oat straw until March 8. By this 
 time they would not consume to exceed four or five pounds of 
 stover each daily. This was not sufficient to maintain them, so in or- 
 der to prevent them from losing in weight three pounds of clovei 
 hay per cow per day were added to the ration. March 1 5 an excel- 
 lent lot of shredded corn stover was secured. This was liked better 
 by the cows in lot 3, but there was no mistaking the fact that the 
 cows preferred the stover in its natural rather than its shredded 
 form. 
 
 The quality of the silage, shock-corn, and straw was choice; 
 
328 BULLETIN No. 111. [August, 
 
 the clover hay, only medium. The larger part of the stover was 
 choice, but the shredded stover fed from February 7 to March 15 
 was of poor quality. 
 
 From the beginning of the test until January 28, salt was fed 
 each lot at regular intervals after which time it was kept before 
 them at all times in order to determine the relative amounts the 
 different lots would consume. 
 
 SHELTER AND FEED LOTS 
 
 Each lot of cows was provided with the same sized feed lot and 
 open shed. The lots were paved with brick except under the sheds 
 which were open their whole length to the south. These sheds 
 were 12x36 feet. The feeding was done in racks or bunks outside 
 except the straw which was fed in a manger under the shed to pre- 
 vent it from getting wet and thus unfitting for bedding what was 
 not eaten. The sheds were bedded daily so that the cows always 
 had a clean dry place on which to lie. Each lot had access to clean 
 water at all times except the night before weighing when the water 
 was shut away from them. 
 
 Each lot was fed twice daijy, during the winter months at 7 
 a. m. and 4 p. m., but in the spring earlier in the morning and at 5 
 p. m. The clover hay in each instance was fed at night. All other 
 feeds were divided equally between the two feedings. The silage- 
 fed cows were started upon ten pounds per cow per day. This was 
 increased at the rate of one pound per cow every other day until the 
 daily ration of each cow reached twenty pounds. The amounts 
 fed were varied from time to time in an effort to feed enough 
 and not too much to maintain the cows. 
 
 The cows were weighed at intervals of one week. They were 
 weighed before being fed in the morning and the water was with- 
 held for twelve hours previous to taking the weights. The initial 
 and final weights were secured by taking the average weights on 
 three consecutive days at the beginning and end of the test, respec- 
 tively. 
 
 The table shows that the silage-fed cows did much the best. 
 Since the cows were weighed individually as well as by groups it was 
 determined that, aside from the cows which calved there were three 
 cows in lot 3 that actually lost in live weight, one losing as much as 
 one hundred pounds. Another cow in this lot gained as much as 
 one hundred thirty-six pounds. In lots i and 2 no cows lost in 
 weight except those which calved before the end of the test. 
 
1906.] RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 329 
 
 WEIGHT OF Cows AT BEGINNING AND END OF TEST 
 
 Lot i, silage-fed 
 
 Average weight of each cow at the beginning 860.33 Ib. 
 
 Average weight of each cow at the end 1010.43 Ib. 
 
 Average gain of each cow for 140 days 150.10 Ib. 
 
 Average daily gain of each cow for 140 days 1.07 Ib. 
 
 Lot 2, shock corn-fed 
 
 Average weight of each cow at the beginning 858.50 Ib. 
 
 Average weight of each cow at the end 964.69 Ib. 
 
 Average gain of each cow for 140 days 106.19 Ib. 
 
 Average daily gain of each cow for 140 days 758 Ib. 
 
 Lot 3, corn stover-fed 
 
 Average weight of each cow at the beginning 859.83 Ib. 
 
 Average weight of each cow at the end 916.36 Ib. 
 
 Average gain of each cow for 140 days 57-53 Ib. 
 
 Average daily gain of each cow for 140 days 41 Ib. 
 
 From these records it will be seen that the average daily gain 
 for each cow in the various lots is as follows : 
 
 Lot i, silage-fed 1.070 Ib. 
 
 Lot 2, shock corn-fed. . . ( 758 Ib. 
 
 Lot 3, corn stover-fed 410 Ib. 
 
 As the experiment progressed even a casual observer could see 
 that the cows in lots i and 2 were in much better thrift and spirits 
 than those in lot 3. The staring coats of the cows in lot 3 indicated 
 that they were "out of condition," while the hair of the cows in 
 lots i and 2 was as sleek and as glossy as could be desired. There 
 was a dull sluggishness about the cows in lot 3 that did not exist 
 at all in the other lots. As to the consistency of the droppings 
 of the cows in lot 3, we quote the feeder, "The droppings 
 from the corn-stover cows were very irregular, especially be- 
 fore the clover was added, it often being the case that from one cow 
 they would be very dry and offensive, while that of another cow 
 might be of such a thin consistency that it could almost be properly 
 designated as scours." This showed that the feed which lot 3 was 
 receiving was not ideal to keep the digestive tract in order. The 
 digestion of the cows in lots i and 2, judging from the droppings, 
 seemed to be in excellent condition throughout the trial. 
 
330 BULLETIN No. 111. [August, 
 
 FEED CONSUMED BY EACH LOT 
 
 Lot I, silage-fed. 
 Feed eaten daily per cow (average for the whole time) 
 
 Silage 16.65 Ib. 
 
 Dover hay 3-5 Ib. 
 
 Oat straw 9-56 Ib. 
 
 Lot 2, shock corn-fed. 
 
 Feed eaten daily per cow. 
 
 Shock corn .' 870 Ib. 
 
 Clover hay 3-SO Ib. 
 
 Oat straw 10.83 Ib. 
 
 Lot 3, corn stover-fed. 
 Feed eaten daily per cow. 
 
 Corn stover (first 42 days) 21.67 Ib. 
 
 Corn stover, shredded, (last 98 days) 10.29 Ib. 
 
 Clover hay (average for 140 days) 1.56 Ib. 
 
 Oat straw 8.19 Ib. 
 
 The average amount of ear corn fed each cow in lots I and 2 
 was 654.14 pounds, or in other words the cows in lot i were fed 
 the same amount of corn per cow as were those in lot 2, the differ- 
 ence being in the method of preparation. The cows in these two 
 lots also received the same average amount of clover hay, namely, 
 3.5 pounds per cow daily. Since lots i and 2 received practically the 
 same amounts of corn and clover hay, they must necessarily have 
 consumed the products from equal acreages of these feeds as it is 
 known that the yield of corn and hay, respectively, was the same in 
 each instance. 
 
 As elsewhere stated, the cows in each lot were permitted to con- 
 sume as much straw as they wished. It soon developed that the 
 different lots of ,cows consumed unequal amounts of straw. In 
 lot i, silage-fed, the average amount of straw consumed daily was 
 9.56 pounds; in lot 2, shock corn-fed, 10.83 pounds; and in lot 3, 
 corn stover'-fed, 8.19 pounds. 
 
 It will be noted that more oat straw was consumed by lot 2 than 
 by lot i. This seems explainable from the fact that there was prac- 
 tically no waste of any part of the corn plant where it was fed in 
 the form of silage, while there was considerable waste of stalk 
 where shock corn was fed. Stated in exact terms, 1290 pounds of 
 the coarse stalks of the stover were left uneaten by lot 2 while there 
 was no waste of silage in lot i. Silage may be fed liberally enough 
 to cause some waste but it was not done in this case. Lot 2 con- 
 sumed 1466 pounds of oat straw more than did lot i. Thus it will 
 
1906.] RATIONS FOR BEEP BREEDING Cows. 331 
 
 be seen that the extra amount of oat straw practically took the place 
 of the wasted stover. The two lots therefore consumed practically 
 the same amounts of feed. There was, however, a very important 
 difference in effect, namely, that the feed fed lot I produced in 140 
 days an average of 44 pounds gain per cow more than did the 
 feed fed lot 2. This warrants the conclusion that the mere act of 
 siloing the corn plant increases to a considerable extent its value for 
 wintering cows. 
 
 During the period in which lot 3 received only corn stover and oat 
 straw, the first forty-two days of the experiment,- the cows in this 
 lot consumed an average of 21.67 pounds of corn stover and 5.15 
 pounds oat straw daily. Upon this ration the cows made an aver- 
 age daily gain of close to .7 of a pound each. When the shredded 
 stover of poor quality was substituted, the cows ate less of it and 
 more of oat straw. Notwithstanding the latter however, it was 
 soon necessary to add three pounds of clover hay to the ration to 
 secure satisfactory results. The total amount of oat straw con- 
 sumed by this lot was less than that consumed by either lot I or 
 lot 2. 
 
 SAI/T 
 
 From February 18 to the end of the test all the cows were al- 
 lowed free and constant access to loose salt and a record kept of the 
 amount consumed by each. The average daily consumption of salt 
 per cow in the various lots was as follows: Lot I, .08 of a pound; 
 Lot 2, .12; and Lot 3, .10. 
 
 COMPARISON OF ACREAGES 
 
 In order to make a further comparison of the three rations used 
 in this test, we may calculate the number of acres required to winter 
 cows by each of the three methods used. The exact acreages of sil- 
 age, shock corn, and corn stover used were known. As indicated on 
 page 330, lots i and 2 received equal acreages of corn in the form of 
 silage and shock corn respectively. The corn crop yielded 57.86 
 bushels of corn and two tons stover (cured basis) per acre. Since 
 the other crops used were purchased on the market it is necessary 
 to assume the yield of each. We may assume that the yield of oat 
 straw was one ton per acre, and that of clover hay i^ tons, which 
 are believed to be in keeping with the yield of corn mentioned above. 
 Expressing the average amounts of feed consumed per head 
 (page 330) in terms of the acreages required to produce these feeds, 
 we have the following : 
 
332 
 
 BULLETIN No. 111. 
 
 [August, 
 
 ACREAGE CONSUMED PER Cow 
 
 
 Tons consumed. 
 
 Yield per 
 acre, tons. 
 
 Acreage 
 consumed. 
 
 Lot 1. 
 
 Silage 
 Clover hay 
 Oat straw 
 
 Total No. acres 
 
 1.165 
 .245 
 .669 
 
 8.109 
 1.750 
 1.000 
 
 .1436 
 .1400 
 .6692* 
 
 .9528 
 
 Lot 2. 
 Shock corn 
 Clover hay 
 Oat straw 
 
 Total No. acres. 
 
 .609 
 .245 
 
 .758 
 
 4.327 
 1.750 
 1.000 
 
 .1407 
 .1400 
 .7581* 
 
 1.0388 
 
 Lot 3. 
 L Stover 
 Clover hay 
 Oat straw 
 
 Total No. acres. 
 
 1.009 
 .109 
 .573 
 
 2.000 
 1.750 
 1.000 
 
 .5045* 
 .0624 
 .5733* 
 
 1.1402 
 
 *The grain produced in addition is not here considered. 
 
 The above total acreages, however, are not a criterion of the rel- 
 ative efficiency of the three rations, because the areas which pro- 
 duced the oat straw and corn stover fed yielded also a certain 
 amount of grain. In order to express the acreages of oat straw 
 in terms comparable with the acreages of other crops used, we may 
 reduce the straw and oats to their money values, determine the per- 
 centage which the value of the straw constitutes, based on the total 
 value of both straw and oats, and regard this percentage as the 
 proportion of the acreage of oats which is represented by the straw 
 grown thereon. 
 
 Thus assuming a yield of fifty bushels per acre of oats, at 32 
 cents per bushel, the value of oats per acre is $16.00; value of one 
 ton straw, $1.50 (page 327). The straw, then, makes up 8.908 per 
 cent of the value of the crop, and that percentage of the acreages of 
 straw indicated in the above table may be considered as representing 
 the amount of. land actually chargeable to the straw which the cows 
 consumed. 
 
 Similarly, our records show that the corn crop yielded 57.86 
 bushels of grain and two tons stover per acre. Calculating the corn 
 at 35c per bushel and the stover at $2.25 per ton, we find the value 
 of corn to be $20.25 an d stover $4.50 per acre, from which we de- 
 termine that 1 8. 1 8 percent of the value of the crop consists of 
 stover. Computing the percentages of straw and stover thus deter- 
 
1906.] RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 333 
 
 mined, upon the acreages given below, we have the following com- 
 parable results : 
 
 Lot i. Acreage consumed. 
 
 Silage 1436 
 
 Clover hay 1400 
 
 Oat straw 0592 
 
 Total 3428* 
 
 Lot 2. 
 
 Shock corn 1407 
 
 Clover hay 1400 
 
 Oat straw . .0668 
 
 Total 3475* 
 
 Lot 3. 
 
 Stover 0917 
 
 Clover hay 0624 
 
 Oat straw 0505 
 
 Total ; 2046* 
 
 *For actual amount of land involved see statement on p. 332. 
 
 RECORD OF THE Cows THAT CALVED 
 
 Cows about to calve were removed from their respective lots, 
 usually a few days prior to calving and individual records kept 
 both of the feed consumed and the increase or decrease in weight of 
 cows and calves. As the oldest calf at the end of the test was onl> 
 seventy days old the calves in no case received any feed other than 
 the milk of their dams. It is true that some of the calves began to 
 pick at the bedding when no more than a week old but what they 
 consumed was so slight that this factor was immaterial. 
 
 When a cow was removed, her ration was made up of the same 
 kind of feeds to which she had previously been accustomed. Soon 
 after calving the amounts were greatly increased in order to insure 
 a good flow of milk for the calf and not permit the cow to run down 
 in condition to any great extent. 
 
 The accompanying tables present the important data concerning 
 gains and losses in weight, feed consumed, and cost of feeds : 
 
334 
 
 BULLETIN No. 111. 
 WEIGHT, GAIN, AND COST OF FEED 
 
 [August, 
 
 No. 
 cow. 
 
 Wt. cow 
 after 
 birth 
 
 wt. 
 
 cow 
 May 16 
 
 Birth 
 weight 
 calf, 
 
 Wt. 
 calf 
 May 16, 
 
 Total 
 gain 
 calf, 
 
 Daily 
 gain 
 calf 
 
 Length 
 test 
 days, 
 
 Daily 
 cost of 
 feed 
 
 Cost 1 
 Ib. gain 
 on 
 
 
 calf, 
 
 1905, 
 
 Ib. 
 
 Ib. 
 
 Ib. 
 
 Ib. 
 
 or age 
 
 per cow, 
 
 calf. 
 
 
 Ib. 
 
 Ib. 
 
 
 
 
 
 calf. 
 
 cents. 
 
 cents. 
 
 486 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (lot 2) 
 
 935 
 
 835 
 
 58 
 
 1 170 
 
 112 
 
 1.69 
 
 66 
 
 6.831 
 
 4.044 
 
 487 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (lot 2) 
 
 945 
 
 848 
 
 72 
 
 200 
 
 128 
 
 1.83 
 
 70 
 
 6.843 
 
 3.731 
 
 478 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (lot 1) 
 
 920 
 
 . 893 
 
 66 
 
 191 
 
 125 
 
 1.98 
 
 63 
 
 7.489 
 
 3.789 
 
 471 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (lot 1) 
 
 945 
 
 885 
 
 74 
 
 165 
 
 91 
 
 1.49 
 
 61 
 
 7.630 
 
 5.121 
 
 FEED EATEN DAILY PER Cow 
 
 No. cow. 
 
 Corn silage, Ib. 
 
 Shock corn,lb. 
 
 Clover, Ib. 
 
 Oat straw, Ib. 
 
 486 (lot 2) 
 
 
 17.0 
 
 4.79 
 
 2.23 
 
 487 (lot 2) 
 
 
 16.9 
 
 4.90 
 
 2.12 
 
 478 (lot 1) 
 
 32.5 
 
 
 4.83 
 
 1.73 
 
 471 (lot 1) 
 
 32.8 
 
 
 4.85 
 
 2.83 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact that the cows were fed much more 
 after calving than before, they fell off very materially in weight. 
 This loss of weight was not as marked with the cows in lot i, where 
 silage was fed as it was in lot 2 where shock-corn was fed. Obvi- 
 ously the data are not available to determine whether this difference 
 was due largely to the difference in the rations fed or whether it 
 was due to the varying quantities of milk produced by the individ- 
 ual cows involved. If the amount left by the calves for a time after 
 calving be taken as an indication of milking qualities, it would seem 
 that in general the shock corn-fed cows were naturally heavier milk- 
 ers than the silage-fed cows. 
 
 Other things being equal, it would be expected that the calves 
 from cows giving the largest flow of milk would make the most 
 rapid gains. If so, and if the shock corn-fed cows gave more milk 
 than the silage- fed ones, why did the calf or cow number 478 (sil- 
 age-fed) gain most and the cow suffer the least loss in live weight? 
 In order to determine this matter accurately it would require that 
 the cows be milked and a careful record kept of the yield. Enough 
 is already known to satisfy the writer that if the cows in lot i (sil- 
 
1906.} RATIONS FOR BEEP BREEDING Cows. 335 
 
 age-fed) did not give as much milk as the cows in lot 2 (shock corn- 
 fed) it was because of a non-milking tendency in the silage-fed cows 
 for which the ration was in no way responsible. 
 
 The feed of each cow, as soon as she calved, was increased a 
 third from what had been found approximately a maintenance 
 ration when she was dry. This amount, however, was inadequate 
 to maintain the cow while suckling a calf. The amount was there- 
 fore quite rapidly increased until the shock corn-fed cows received 
 twenty pounds shock corn and five pounds clover hay, and the sil- 
 age-fed cows received a daily allowance of thirty-eight pounds of 
 silage and five pounds of clover hay. This amount seemed about 
 right to keep the cows from shrinking in weight while nursing their 
 calves and was approximately twice the amount necessary to main- 
 tain the same cows while dry. It might be added that none of these 
 cows were heavy milkers. 
 
 The cost of feed for the shock corn-fed cows was not as great at> 
 for the silage-fed cows. Reference to the table will show that cost 
 of gains on calves was also computed. The high priced gains on 
 the calf of cow number 471 were apparently due to the fact that 
 this cow was a poor milker, apparently never giving milk enough 
 for the calf. 
 
 It has been stated elsewhere that there was but little difference 
 in the thrift of the cows in lots i and 2 before calving. A few days 
 after calving, however, it was manifest that there was a marked 
 difference between the cows wintered on silage and those wintered 
 on shock-corn. The former ration was clearly superior. 
 
 The data derived from this experiment are of value also in add- 
 ing weight to the evidence which has been accumulating the last 
 few years, that the German maintenance standard should be revised. 
 
 The table shows that in no case was the amount of protein fed 
 as large as the German standard calls for to maintain a one thou- 
 sand pound animal, but as far as the general appearance of the 
 cows in lots i and 2 were concerned no one would doubt that they 
 were sufficiently supplied with all the nutrients. It is again inter- 
 esting to note in this connection that, although lot i received a 
 smaller ration per cow throughout the test, they made larger aver- 
 age daily gains than did the animals in lot 2. The different results 
 which these two rations produced can be ascribed only to some in- 
 definite property which one contained that the other did not; we 
 might call this the difference in palatability of the two feeds. The 
 silage-fed lot received feed which was more palatable than that 
 given to lot 2, which had shock corn. 
 
336 BULLETIN No. 111. [August, 
 
 DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS, CALORIES, AND NUTRITIVE RATIOS 
 
 
 Ave. 
 
 Ave. 
 
 Dry mat- 
 
 Digestible nutrients 
 per 1000 lb., live wt. 
 
 Energy 
 per 
 
 Nutri- 
 
 
 weight, 
 
 daily 
 
 ter per 
 
 
 
 
 1000 lb. 
 
 tive 
 
 
 cows. 
 
 gain. 
 
 1000 lb., 
 
 
 Carbo- 
 
 Ether 
 
 live wt., 
 
 ratio. 
 
 
 
 
 live wt. 
 
 Pro- 
 
 hy- 
 
 ex- 
 
 calories. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tein. 
 
 drates. 
 
 tract. 
 
 
 
 Lot 1, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Silage 
 
 930 
 
 1.07 
 
 16.2 
 
 .567 
 
 7.44 
 
 .27 
 
 16047 
 
 1:14.2 
 
 Lot 2, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Shock corn 
 
 910 
 
 .75 
 
 19.2 
 
 .631 
 
 9.05 
 
 .25 
 
 19354 
 
 1:15.3 
 
 Lot 3, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stover (42 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 days) 
 
 880 
 
 .95 
 
 17.8 
 
 .456 
 
 9.74 
 
 .18 
 
 19716 
 
 1:22.1 
 
 Lot 3, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Shredded 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 stover (69 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 days) 
 
 895 
 
 .29 
 
 17.8 
 
 .557 
 
 8.54 
 
 .21 
 
 17837 
 
 1:16.2 
 
 Wolff's 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 standard. 
 
 1000 
 
 .00 
 
 18.0 
 
 .700 
 
 8.00 
 
 .10 
 
 16000 
 
 1:11.7 
 
 FINANCIAL STATEMENT 
 
 The following statement forms an interesting study. The corn 
 involved in the rations of the cows in lots i and 2 is figured at 35c, 
 4OC, 45c, and 5oc per bushel. No account is taken of the labor in- 
 volved in the care of the cattle nor the fertilizer produced. 
 
 LOT 1, (Silage-fed.) 
 
 Price of corn 
 
 $ 35 
 
 $ 40 
 
 $ 45 
 
 $ 50 
 
 Average cost of keeping one 
 cow for 140 days 
 
 6 873 
 
 7.263 
 
 7 679 
 
 8.095 
 
 Average cost of keeping one 
 cow one month 
 
 1 470 
 
 1 556 
 
 1.646 
 
 1.735 
 
 Average cost of keeping one 
 cow one day 
 
 049 
 
 .052 
 
 055 
 
 .058 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LOT 2, (Shock corn-fed.) 
 
 Price of corn 
 
 $ 35 
 
 $ .40 
 
 $ .45 
 
 $ .50 
 
 Average cost of keeping one 
 cow for 140 davs 
 
 6 504 
 
 6.911 
 
 7.318 
 
 7.725 
 
 Average cost of keeping one 
 
 1.390 
 
 1.481 
 
 1.568 
 
 1.655 
 
 Average cost of keeping one 
 cow one day 
 
 .046 
 
 .049 
 
 .052 
 
 .055 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1906.] RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 337 
 
 As no corn was fed in lot 3, no statement involving variation in 
 price of corn is possible. The stover, straw, and clover hay used 
 throughout the test are figured at the one price stated in the early 
 pages of the bulletin without any reference to the change in price of 
 corn. 
 
 In lot 3 the total average cost of keeping one cow for 140 days 
 was $4.374, the average cost of keeping one cow for one month was 
 $0.937, and the cost of keeping one cow for one day was $0.031. 
 
 By referring to the data given it will be seen that figuring corn 
 at 35 cents per bushel, it cost practically 37 cents more to keep a 
 cow on silage for 140 days than it did to keep one on shock corn, 
 the same supplements being used in both instances. Since the silage- 
 fed cows gained in this 140 days 150.10 pounds to the shock corn- 
 fed cows, 106.19 pounds, it strikingly emphasizes the superiority of 
 silage for this purpose. 
 
 1. It is assumed that the maintenance ration of a pregnant 
 breeding cow should be regarded as the ration necessary to permit 
 of sufficient gain in weight to account for the weight of the foetus. 
 
 2. Breeding cows of the beef type may be wintered without 
 grain provided they are given all of the corn stover and oat straw 
 they will consume during the early part and supplemented with a 
 small amount of clover hay during the latter part of the season. 
 While the cows in lot 3 used in this test were so fed, and while 
 they weighed 57.53 pounds more per head at the end than at the 
 beginning of the test, this metriod is not recommended because the 
 cows so fed lacked thrift at the end of the test. 
 
 3. The corn plant fed either in the form of shock corn or silage 
 supplemented with a limited amount of clover hay proved satisfac- 
 tory rations for wintering beef breeding cows. 
 
 4. Although the rations fed the cows receiving silage were 
 smaller than those given the ones receiving shock corn, the gains 
 were larger. 
 
 5. Before calving the general condition of the cows in lots i 
 and 2, the lots receiving silage and shock corn respectively, was 
 about the same; however, those cows in lot I which gave birth to 
 calves during the experiment showed more thrift than did those of 
 lot 2 under like conditions. 
 
 6. The amounts of feed consumed in terms of the acreages in- 
 volved in producing these feeds were as follows: Lot i (silage 
 fed), .9528 acre; lot 2 (shock corn), 1.0388 acres; lot 3 (corn 
 stover), 1.1402 acres. 
 
338 BULLETIN No. 111. [August, 
 
 7. A comparison of the three rations in terms of relative effi- 
 ciency of the acreages involved by taking- into consideration the 
 money value of the grain grown on the acreages involved but not 
 fed the cows, is as follows: Lot I, (silage), .3428 acre; lot 2, 
 (shock corn), .3475; lot 3, (corn stover), .2046. 
 
 8. Figuring corn at 35 cents a bushel, clover hay $8.00, shock 
 corn $5.59, corn stover $2.25 and oat straw $1.50 per ton, it cost 
 4.9 cents a day per head, or $1.47 a month or $6.873 f r : 4 days to 
 maintain lot I (silage fed) ; $.046 a day or $1.390 a month or $6. 504 
 for 140 days to maintain lot 2 (shock corn fed) ; $.031 a day or 
 $.937 a month, or $4.374 for 140 days to maintain lot 3 (corn 
 stover fed). 
 
 9. It cost 37 cents more to winter a cow fed silage for 140 days 
 than it did one fed shock corn. However, the cows fed silage, lot i, 
 gained 150.10 pounds while those in lot 2 gained but 106.19. 
 
 10. In this test it took approximately twice as much feed to 
 maintain a cow when suckling a calf as it did during her preg- 
 nancy. 
 
 11. The average daily cost of keeping the cows that calved in 
 lot i was 7.56 cents while the average in lot 2 was 6.84 cents. Be- 
 fore calving the average daily cost of keeping a cow in these lots 
 was 5.8 cents and 5.5 cents, respectively. 
 
 12. The data with reference to the relative efficiency of rations 
 fed lots i and 2 for the maintenance of cows and gains on calves 
 after calving, are not based on a sufficient number of animals to 
 eliminate individuality, hence should not be regarded as conclusive. 
 
 13. The cows in lot i, (silage-fed) ate less oat straw than did 
 either of the other two lots which may be accounted for by the 
 fact that they were eating the whole of the corn plant. That is to 
 say there was, practically no waste. 
 
 14. Corn plant fed in the form of silage is more palatable than 
 if fed in the form of shock corn, which may be the cause of its being 
 more efficient for the maintenance of beef breeding cows. 
 
 15. The amount of feed required for maintenance is apparently 
 less than that given in the German standards. 
 
 1 6. The experimental data presented will materially aid in a 
 study of the practicability of raising calves and producing our own 
 feeding cattle in the corn belt. 
 
1906.] 
 
 RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 
 
 339 
 
340 
 
 BULLETIN No. 111. 
 
 [August, 
 
 - 
 
1906.] 
 
 RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 
 
 341 
 
342 
 
 BULLETIN No. 111. 
 
 [August, 1906 
 

 
 r\" v ^o v i^mr&^-y. &? 
 
 xis>-:^_ J3aP\ ^^-^ r v a&L^VpO' >r\_ v -