LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAICN N.O.N CIRCULATING CHECK ' ! JND CIRCUL/ , 'PY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Agricultural Experiment Station Bn.LKTIN Xo. 328 SUMMKR RATIONS FOR I ATTFNINC; STEERS By RosroK R. SNAIT AND Jmix II. KNOX ffi Pi *>' <*'-'< -r m ' CONTENTS FLAX OF TIIK KXPKRIMKXT RESULTS OF THK KXPKRIMKXT .................................... 21o Amounts of Various Feeds Consumed ................................ 24o (lains Made by Various Lots ........................................ 247 Feed Consumed per Hundred Pounds (lain ........................... 240 Feed Replacement Value of Pasture .................................. 2.50 ( iains Made by the HOSTS ............................................. 252 FK1URIXG PROFIT OR LOSS ......................................... 2.12 SUMMARY.. 2.I.-) SUMMER RATIONS FOR FATTENING STEERS Hy Hosroi: R. SNAPP and .ImiN 11. KNOX Different methods for summer fattening of mature steers was the subject of an investigation carried out by the authors at the Illinois Station. While it is reali/ed that feeding trials involving the use of pa.-ture should extend over a series of years in order to average both ood and bad weather conditions, data obtained in the summer of 1923 are herewith presented for the information of cattle feeder- who feed during the summer for the fall market. The object of the experiment was fourfold: firxt. to compare the pasture and dry-lot method of fattening steers durum the summer: second, to compare bluc-uras- and second-year sweet-clover pa-ture for cattle receiving a full feed of urain; {1/ird, to compare alfalfa hay and corn silage as rotmha^es for steers, fattened durum the sum- mer in dry lots: and foi/rtti, to determine the feed-replacement value of an acre of pasture used by cattle on a full feed of strain. PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENT Number of Steers Fed. Forty steers wemhiim 1.000 pounds each were divided into four uniform lots and fed as follows: Lot 1. Shrlli (! corn on hliir-urass pasture Lot 2. Shrllrd corn on -rrond-yrar s\voet-rlovcr |>astnn Lot o. Shrllrd corn and alfalfa hay in dry lot Lot 4. Shrllrd corn, cottonseed meal, and corn silatre in dry hit Method of Feeding. All feeds were placed in bunk- in the open twice daily, at approximately 8 o'clock in the mornitm and f> in the e\'enitm'. A i)reliminary feeditm period of seven days preceded the beLnnniim of the experiment. Durum this time the cattle were ac- customed to corn by beiim fed daily pounds of -helled corn mixed with 1") pound- of cut alfalfa hay per head. Startiim the experiment with 8 pound- of corn per head, the -Tain rations of all lots were steadily increased until the -teer- wen- eatnm approximately 18 pounds of corn daily at the end of the third week. Further increases of corn were made in the different lots imm time to time as the appetites of the steers seemed to warrant. Cotton- seed meal was fed to Lot 4 at the rate of 1 pound, of meal to each 8 pounds of -helled corn. Alfalfa hay and corn silage were fed to Lots 3 and 4 respectively according to their appetite- tnr the>e leed- after thev had con-umed the desired amount ol Lira in. Startiim with 211 Bru.KTix No. 32S [June, 20 pounds of alfalfa, hay and 40 pounds of corn silage, the roughages \vt'iv rapidly reduced To approximately half these amounts by the time the cattle were eating a full feed of corn. Lots 1 and 2 which \vere on blue-grass and sweet-clover pasture respectively, received only shelled corn in addition. Chemical analyses of Kentucky blue-grass before heading and of green sweet clover indicate that these forages contain sufficient protein to meet the needs of mature cattle getting a full feed of corn. Hence no protein supplement was fed to cither of these lots. Block salt was kept in the feed bunk of each lot at all times. Xo record was kept of the amount of salt eaten. Description of Cattle. The cattle were purchased on the Omaha market on April 30- They were of Montana origin and were selected from the lighter end of a 12-car drove that had been wintered on hay in the Big Hole basin of that state. They were of mixed Shorthorn-Hereford breeding with the blood of the former predomi- nating. While their ages were unknown, a majority of the steers appeared to be approximately three years old at the time they were started on feed. Forty-five animals were purchased to permit some sorting at the end of the preliminary feeding. Feeding cattle were very scarce and much in demand in the spring of 1923, and while the price paid for the steers ($8.45 per hundredweight) represented the approxi- mate top of the market, the cattle on the whole would hardly be graded as "choice'' feeders. However, they were somewhat better than "good."' The 40 steers used in the experiment varied somewhat in size and weight, but in other respects were quite uniform. One steer in Lot 2 that was fed on sweet-clover pasture was sick at irregular intervals during the first month of the experiment. When weighed at the end of 28 days it was found to have lost 105 pounds. It was removed and another steer put in its place. The daily and total gains of this lot are therefore reported in Tables 2 and 5 both for the 10 steers and for the 9 steers that were in the lot thruout the experiment. Hogs Used in the Experiment. During the first two weeks of the test no hogs were available for following the cattle. On May 2(> six hogs averaging 135 pounds each were put with each lot of cattle. These hogs were removed on August 4 and replaced by 9 head of sprimr pigs weighing approximately 95 pounds each. The lions kept in the dry lots had access only to the corn found in the droppings of the cattle, while those in the pasture lots had in addi- tion all the green forage they cared to eat. Pastures, Dry Lots, and Equipment. The pastures used contained 5 acre- each, or one-half acre per steer. The blue-grass tract had been in pasture lor e'mht vears and contained a little red and some SI'.MMKK RATIONS mi; FATTKNIM; Si white clover. The stand of grass was good and ihe pasture was con- siderably above the average corn-belt pasture land in productive- ness. The sweet clover used by Lot 2 had been seeded in oats the previous spring and "Taxed by beef cows and calves in I he fail. The stand of clover was fair to good but no belter than the average ob- tained where inoculated seed j< sown on land that has been limed. The dry lots used for feeding Lots ;> and 4 were each one- half acre in size and were well drained. Fields of corn on (lie east and west sides shut off a free circulation of air to some extent. However, these cattle appeared to suffer less from the heat than did those on pasture. Xo equipment other than feed bunks and water tanks \\a- u-ed in ihe feeding of Lots 1, ;>, and 4. A row of maple tree- along ihe south side of the blue-grass pa-lure furnished excellent shade for Lot 1 during the middle of the day; while a lar^e. overhairjin'j; hed^e along the west sides of the two dry lots u-ave ample protection iroin the sun after ten o'clock in the morning i I- ig. It. Since nalura! shade was not available for the steers fed on sweel clover ' Lot 2'. a board sun.-hade 14 by 2S feet \vas erected. It wa- placed m the same corner of the field as the feed bunk and water tank. \\nh the high ,-ide towards the north i Fiii'. 2i. RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT Amounts of Various Feeds Consumed Little difference was ob-erved in the amount- oi corn eaten by ihe blue-grass, sweet-clover, and alfalfa-hay lots (Table h. Lot 1. how- ever, which was fed -ilau'e in dry lot. consumed approximately ID percent more shelled corn than the other lot-; or 11 i:.< coiisun UULI.KTIN Xo. 328 [June, of both shelled corn and cotton-seed meal is considered, the average daily consumption of concentrates by this lot was 20 percent more than that of the other lots. Xo difliculty was experienced in getting the steers in Lot 2 to eat sweet clover. In fact, they apparently ate more forage than did the cattle on blue-grass, as is indicated by their smaller consump- tion of corn during the second month of the experiment. After July 1 there was but little difference in the amount of grain eaten by these two lots. This was about the date that the sweet clover came TABLE 1. AVKRAGF. AMOUNTS OF Y BY FOUR LOTS OF STEERS ARIOUS FEEDS CONSUMED DAILY PER HEAD DURING 140-DAY FEEDING TEST Fed on pasture Fed in dry lot Lot 1 Lot 2 Feeds consumed Blue- Sweet- grass clover pasture pasture Lot 3 Alfalfa hay Lot 4 Corn silage First period, Mav 12-June 9 !bs - Shelled corn " 15.1 15.6 lb$. 15 8 Ibs. 15 8 Cottonseed meal ... ? Corn silage .... .... 34 6 Alfalfa hav ... .... .... 13.2 Second period, June 9-July 7 Shelled corn . 17.5 15.3 18 8 21 3 Cottonseed meal .... 7 7 Corn silage . . . 19 8 Alfalfa hav .... .... 9.9 Third period, Julv 7-Aug. 4 Shelled corn ."..... 20.4 20. 1 19.1 23 1 Cottonseed meal ... .... 2 9 Corn silage ... .... ?0 Alfalfa hav . . . 8 3 Fourth period. Aug. 4-Sept. 1 Shelled corn 23 1 ?"> 8 n 9 7 3 4 Cottonseed meal i 9 Corn silage 17 8 Alfalfa hav 6 5 Fifth period, Sept. 1-Sept. 29 Shelled corn ^3 1 ?3 6 >-> 7 71 Cottonseed meal -> 7 Corn silage 14 6 Alfalfa hav ^ " Average for entire period, May 12- Sept. 2 f ) Shelled corn 10.0 10.5 Cottonseed meal 19.7 21.1 7 6 Corn silage ?1 3 Alfalfa hav. . 8.7 SiMMKi; HATIONS ion FATTKMNI into full bloom. Apj)arently it was -omcwhat le-- palatable ;il this -tatre than when it was more succulent. An abundance of blue-trrass was available for Lot 1 until the middle of July. A rather prolonged period of dry. hot weather about this time caused the pasture to become parched and brown. Tln- -ituation was much relieved by a heavy rain on July 2S. Further rains durintr' the 1 month of Autrust resulted in a trood -econd srrowth of blue-trrass durintr late Autrust and September. The .-weet clover used by Lot 2 betran to ripen about Aiisru-t 1 and was practically worthless for pasture after Autrust 15. However. Fir;. 2. STKKKS OK LOT 2 ON SWK.KT ( 'I.OVKK This sunshade 1 was placed near the feed hunk and water tank with the liitrh side towards the north >o as to si cure the largest possible shade area during midday. the frequent rains resulted in a heavy growth of fox-tail and crab trrass all over the field. Both of these weeds wen 1 eaten by the cattle with apparent relish. Gains Made by Various Lots Larger grains we're made by the cattle fed in dry lot than by those fed on pasture (Table 2i. F-peeiallv did the lot fed -helled corn, cottonseed meal, and corn -ilatre exceed the other lots in rate of trains. The v trains made by the lot pastured on >weet clover were notice- ably lower than those made by the lot on blue-^rass prior to June 215. Thereafter the sweet-clover steers trained more rapidly than the blue-trrass cattle until September 1. on which date both lots weighed approximately the same. The relatively low grains made by the sweet- clover cattle may be at least partly accounted for by the pronounced laxative action of the sweet clover durin.tr the early summer. I mil the middle of June the cattle in this lot scoured badlv and a lar^re Bru.ETiN No. 32S Fit;. 3. THE VARIOUS LOTS AS THEY APPEARED THE DAY THEY WKKK SHIPPED TO MARKET Lot 1 was tYd shelled corn on blue-grass pasture; Lot 2, shelled corn on iid-yi :u- s\v(>ct-('lo\ cr pasture; Lot 3, shelled corn and alfalfa hay in dry I.'ii -1, shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and corn silage in dry lot. percentage of the shelled corn eaten was voided in the manure. A- the clover became more mature its laxative action was much less noticeable, and. concurrently, the '.rains of the cattle improved. l>ur- intr the last month of the experiment, the trains of the steers on the sweet clover were very disappointing, due probably, to the inferior TAHI.K 2. AVI-.KACI. I) \ii.v ( ' \INS 1-1 R HKAI> M \M. nv STKKKS Di RIM, 140-DAY KKKIUM; Ti-:sr First period, May 12- June ( ' ........ v4(> Second period, June ( )-JuIy 7 ....... 1 .'*(> Third j)eriod, July 7-Auy. 4 ....... 1.07 1.3() 1.55 Fourth period, Aug. 4-Sopt. 1 ...... 2.^5 ,v21 2.41 Fifth period, Sept. 1-Sept. 2<> ...... 1.11 Total average ain per steer ....... 2SO 'One steer in Lot 2 proved to he sick and lost 105 pounds during i lie fir-t 2S days. It was removed and another steer put in its place at the end ot tln> HIM period. Figures for this period and tor the entire test arc then-tore shown l><>tli on the basis of all 10 head (a) and on the basis of the '' animals that were in the lot ihruout the entire 140 das (bK character of the available pa>ture. As stated above, the forage in this field during late August and September consisted very largely ol wec'ds. Feed Consumed per Hundred Pounds Gain A clo>e relation cxi.-tcd between the rate at which the sleer.- 'j'ained and the amount ol teerl consume*! per uini ol nam. le.-.- teed iicmu' rc(|Uired where \\\< i Ltain wa.- more rapid. The hiu'her coii ob\ - ious that energy expended in mo\-niLi about would reduce the amount available tor the production ol iiam. Attention i- called to the fad that the feed consumption of all lots was hiu'h compared with the increase^ in live weight made. Mich ix'siilts are to be expected \vith mature cattle, the trains "I wliich I'epresent the storage of fat rather than the pi'oductioii ot trrowth. Bui. I.F.TIN Xu. 32S [June. TABLE 3.- AVERAGE AMOUNTS OF VARIOUS FEEDS CONSUMED PER 100 POUNDS OF (i,\iN BY Fork LOTS OF STEERS DURING 140-DAY FKKDING TEST Fed on pasture Fed in dry lot Roughage ration Lot 1 Blue- grass Lot 2 Sweet- clover Lot 3 Alfalfa hav Lot 4 Corn silage pasture pasture Feed per 100 pounds gain Shelled corn Ibs. 992 .4 Ibs. 1066 . 3 Ibs. 927 .1 Ibs. 824.1 Cottonseed meal 103.0 Corn silage 833.2 Alfalfa hav 410.8 Pasture, acres (.18) ('.20} Younger cattle under similar conditions would be expected to make a much more favorable showing. Feed Replacement Value of Pasture Little data are available as to the actual value of pastures in live- stock production. Pastures vary so widely in yield depending on the kind of forage plants present, the percentage stand secured, the weather conditions that prevail, and the texture and fertility of the soil that data obtained from a particular pasture during a single year should not be regarded with too much significance. Pasture tised by steers receiving a full feed of grain is regarded in the main as a substitute for the roughage that would be required were the cattle fed in a dry lot. That it should not be counted on to replace any corn, is demonstrated by this experiment, in which approximately 10 per- TABLE 4. FF.FD REPLACEMENT VALUE OF PASTURE IN MAKING BEEF Blue-grass vs. alfalfa hay. Blue-.^rass vs. corn silage. S\vcet clover vs. alfalfa ha Sweet clover vs. corn silag 'More shelled corn ^ dry lot. 1 ience the umom hut \\ ere the amounts use feedin. Feeds replaced per acre of pasture, based on feed required per 100 pounds gain pared Alfalfa Cott0 "- hav seed , meal Corn Shelled 1 silage corn tons tons 1.14 .... .29 tons bit. -6.5 2.32 -16.7 1 . 03 .... -12.4 .26 2.08 -21.6 as rcquim ts ot corn s 1 over and per hundredweight gain on pasture than in liown were not "saved" by the use of pasture above that required in the drv-lot method ol ] Sr.MMF.u RATIONS 10'; FATTF.MM, STKKHS TABI.K 5. Si MMARY OF KKSVI.TS FOR KNITRI: Ti si PKKIOD OF 110 DAYS: MAY 12 TO SKIMKMHKK 2<>, \<)21 (Figures an- averages per steer) Fed on past tire Lot 1 Lot 2 1 Hlui'- Sweet - Roughage used grass clover pasture pasture 1 Initial weight, pounds 1 006 1 006 Final weight, pounds 1 286 1 268 Total gain, pounds Average daily gain, pounds Average daily ration, pounds Shelled corn 10.85 I 1 ). 46 Cottonseed meal .... .... Corn silage .... .... Alfalfa hay Total feed consumed Shelled corn, pounds 2 778.6 2 722.4 bushels (,40.6 > (48.7) Cottonseed meal, pounds .... tons . Pork per bushel of corn fed to cattle, pounds 1 . 58 Shrinkage between feedlots and Chicago Pounds per head Percentage of home weight Pressing percentage Corn silage pounds tons Altalfa hav pounds 1 220.0 tons i .61) Feed per 100 pounds gain Shelled corn 00 > 4 1 066 ,-i 027 1 Cottonseed meal Corn silage Alfalfa hav 410.8 Pasture acres 18 20 .... Cost of gain per hundredweight-. . . Pork ner steer, nounds. . $15.06 S17.10 SIO.,-0 78 5 62 5 4o.O 821 1 IDS 8.-0 . 2 J.-)J BUU.KTIX No. 328 cent more u;ra in was required per 100 pounds of gain by the cattle on pasture than by those in dry lot. It may then be said that each acre ot' pasture used permitted the saving of approximately one ton of alfalfa hay but required an additional 10 bushels of corn, or that it permitted the saving of 500 pounds, of nitrogenous concentrate and L )! | inns of silage bur required approximately 18 bushels more of corn i Table 4). Gains Made by the Hogs Kxcept for one unthrifty hog in Lot 2 during the first half of the experiment, the hogs, in the pasture lots noticeably excelled those in the dry lots both in their appearance of general thrift and in their rate of gain. The hogs following the steers on sweet-clover pasture i lid particularly well, but the presence of the unthrifty pig in this lot caused their total gains to fall below the gains made by the hogs that ran with the cattle on blue-grass. From the general appearance of the pigs it was evident that those running on pasture had better balanced rations than those in the dry lots. The value of forage crops as sources of protein and vitamincs for growing and fattening hogs is widely recognized. A summary of the experimental data calculated on the basis of a -ingle steer is given in Table 5. FIGURING PROFIT OR LOSS Theoretically the financial outcome of a single feeding trial car- ried out by an experiment station should be of minor concern to the practical cattleman. The amount of profit made on one particular drove of cattle is the result of such a combination of circumstances and prices that it is a rather poor index of the value of any given method of feeding. On the other hand, the amount of feed required per hundred pounds gain and the rapidity of gain are directly dependent upon inherent qualities of the ration and the character of the cattle fed and they are in no way affected by changes in price levels. Hence ii i- these item< rather than the profits that constitute the most valuable data derived from feeding experiments. The best time to figure out a cattle-feeding venture is before the cattle 1:0 on feed. Knowing the approximate quantities of grain, rough- age, and pasture required to produce 100 pounds of gain and the current prices of the various feeds, it is a simple matter to calculate vvhat ration will be the cheapest under the prevailing conditions. ^ hile cos! o] iL'ain is not, as a rule, as important a factor as is margin in determining profit-, ii is unquestionably much more directly under the feeder's control. Hence it deserves careful study on the part of the man who i- considering what ration to use in fattening his cattle. The accompanying financial statement i Table (>i of ihr four lots of cattle led in this experiment is therefore given more i'or the juirpose of enabling farmers to prepare such a M aiemcni of their O\VM feeding operations than for the purpose- of showing any linancial ad- TABLF. 6. I ; INANCI.\I. STATFMFNI <>F Ki FDINC, ()ri-:u \ i i \VllH Lot K LOTS OF SlF.FKS Lot 1 Roughage used Debits Cost of rattle per c\vt. in Omaha, April 30, 1923 SS 4 Cost of rattle per cwt. in feedlot. May 12, 10J3 ( > .0 Initial value per head $9084 S8Q.Q5 $0080 $00.16 48,4') Shelled corn at 80c a bushel. . . 30.70 '30.62 S< S! Cottonseed meal at $50 a ton. Corn silage at $5 a ton .... Alfalfa hay at S15 a ton 0.15 Pasture at $10 an acre 5.00 5.00 1 JO 4 44 Total cost of cattle per head in Chicago $14118 $14008 $14505 $15468 $11 .23 Credits Sellii;;,' price per cwt Value per head at market 131 88 128 33 Profit or Loss Loss per head excluding pork . ... $030 $1175 Loss per head including pork credit.. $3 61 $7 22 $o 04 $12 68 L'.M Hn.i.KTix \o. 32S vantage of OIK' ration over another. AVith feeds or fat cattle at different prices the ranking of the lots in order of profits may be quite different. Losses were sustained in the case of all lots (Table 6). The losses were somewhat smaller on the pasture-fed cattle than on those fed in dry lot due to the lower feed costs of the pasture. The cost of trains of all lots was high in comparison with the selling price per hundred pounds so that the margin secured on the initial weight of the cattle was not sufficient to cover the losses sustained on the weight that was added during the feeding period. The steers fed on blue-grass pasture outsold those fed in dry lot notwithstanding the fact that their daily gains and dressing percent- ages indicate that they were not so well finished. This may be partly accounted for by the fact that the pasture-fed cattle had sleeker, more glossy coats and were much cleaner in appearance. Knowledge of the ways the various lots had been fed was given to the market men who bid on the cattle. This was unfortunate since they assumed that the silage-fed steers would show a poor dressing percentage. Of five buyers who attempted to buy the cattle. all except one offered more for the lot fed on blue-grass than for the lot fed on silage, stating that they believed that this lot would prove to be the best killers. That they were very much mistaken is shown by the resulting dressing percentages. Had the cattle of Lot 4 sold at a figure that would have made the beef from this lot as costly as that from Lot 1, they would have brought $10.90 a hundredweight instead of $10.40. Such an increase in selling price would have reduced the loss on them from $17.50 a head to $10.91. The pork and manure credits resulting from cattle-feeding ventures are usually sufficient to cover all expenses other than feed and market- ing costs. Hence in Table 6 no charges are made for interest on money invested in the cattle, for interest and depreciation on equip- ment. or for horse and man labor in caring for the cattle. The value ot the pork and manure would be qtiite sufficient to cover these items of expense in the case of the two pasture lots inasmuch as the hogs in these lots made very satisfactory gains and all of the manure was returned to the land. In the dry lots, however, practically no manure was saved. The absence of a shed and the size of the lots (approxi- mately i-, acre! resulted in such a scattering of the manure that it was impractical to attempt to load it into wagons and haul it to cultivated fields. Kxccpt around the troughs where the cattle spent considerable time, the droppings dried quickly and were thoroly mixed with the surface soil of the lot with the coming of the fall ram-. Hence in the case of the dry-lot cattle the combined pork and manure credits would not cover such costs as are mentioned above. Si M.MKK K SUMMARY This bulletin reports the results of one summer's feeding test with tour lots ot mature steers, two lots fattened on different pa-ture ration- and two in dry lot. Pasture vs. Dry Lot. The fattening of cattle in dry lot durum the summer months presented no serious difficult ies and. on the whole, gave results that compared favorably with those obtained from feeding on pasture. The cattle fed in dry lot gained somewhat more rapidly than those fed on pasture. Pasture did not replace any of the tirain ration. It served merely as a roughage material. Approxi- mately 10 percent more concentrates per 100 pounds of i:ain were required on pasture than in the dry lot. Pork and manure credit- were much in favor of the pasture-fed cattle. Glue-Grass vs. Sweet-Clover Pasture. The cattle fed on blue- urass pasture gamed somewhat more rapidly than those on sweet clover. No difficulty was experienced in uettiim' cattle on a full feed of m'ain to eat sweet-clover pasture. Sweet clover proved notice- ably inferior to hlue-^ra-s in the spring at which time it had a pro- nounced laxative effect on the cattle and in the late summer and fall at which time it was