UNIVERSITY OF 
 
 ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
 
 AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 ACES 
 
NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materials! The Minimum Fee for 
 each Lost Book is $50.00. 
 
 The person charging this material is responsible for 
 its return to the library from which it was withdrawn 
 on or before the Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books *'''l!" **'*"' 
 nary action and may result in <smissalfrom the Un.vers.ty. 
 To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 
 
 . DIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 L161 O-1096 
 
 JUN 1 6 2005 
 
 UNiVERSJTYGFjyJNOIS 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 Agricultural Experiment Station, 
 
 BULLETIN NO. 90. 
 
 FATTENING STEERS OF THE VARIOUS 
 MARKET GRADES. 
 
 BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD 
 
 URBANA, DECEMBER, 1903. 
 
SUMMARY OF BULLETIN No. 90. 
 
 OBJECT. To determine the relative rapidity, extent, nature, and cost of 
 gains with the six grades of feeding cattle, viz., fancy selected, choice, good, 
 medium, common, and inferior. Page 157 
 
 PLAN. Sixteen steers of each grade were fed alike from November 29, 1902, 
 to May 27, 1903, a period of 179 days. Four pigs followed each of the six lots 
 of steers. The feeds used were cracked corn, corn and cob meal, cotton seed 
 meal, old process linseed oil meal, clover hay, alfalfa, timothy hay, and corn 
 stover. Page 158 
 
 RAPIDITY OF GAINS. Average daily gain per steer in pounds: Fancy, 2.57; 
 choice, 2.54; good, 2.34; medium, 2.13; common, 2.21; inferior, 1.1*6. Total 
 gain in pork in pounds for each lot: Fancy, 419; choice, 500; good, 475; 
 medium, 520; common, 420; inferior, 480. Page 168 
 
 ECONOMY OF GAINS. Average digestible dry matter in pounds required 
 for producing a pound of gain in beef: Fancy, 9.95; choice, 12.09; good, 12.08; 
 medium, 13.05; common, 12.00; inferior, 12.93. Number of pounds gain per 
 bushel of corn consumed: Fancy, 9.74; choice, 7.97; good, 7.99; medium, 7.45; 
 common, 8.13; inferior, 7.61. Page 170 
 
 COST OF GAINS PER POUND, AVERAGE. Fancy, $0.067; choice, $0.082; good, 
 $0.082; medium, $0.088; common, $0i081 ; inferior, $0.087. Page 170 
 
 NATURE OF GAINS. As a result of feeding the 16 fancy feeders (lot :1 ) 
 until finished there was only one steer that would not grade as prime. This 
 steer lacked slightly in quality, but principally in condition, and graded as 
 choice. After slaughtering, the beef experts in Armour & Company's city beef 
 department graded all the carcasses as No. 1. Page 180 
 
 Of the 16 choice feeders (lot 2) fourteen finished as prime, one as choice, 
 and one as good. All the carcasses graded as No. 1 beef. 
 
 Of the 16 good feeders (lot 3) three finished as prime, five as choice, and 
 eight as good. All the carcasses graded as No. 1. 
 
 Of the 16 medium feeders (lot 4) one finished as choice, four as good, eight 
 as medium, and three as common. Four of the carcasses in this lot graded as 
 No. 1 light and the remainder as No. 2 tops. 
 
 Of the 16 common feeders (lot 5) five finished the test as good, six as 
 medium, and five as common beeves. The grading of the beef was the same as that 
 in lot 4, namely, four carcasses graded as No. 1 light, and twelve as No. 2 tops. 
 
 Of the 16 inferior feeders (lot 6) four finished as good, six as medium, and 
 six as common. Six carcasses graded as No. 1 light, nine as No. 2 tops, and 
 one as No. 3 beef. 
 
 PERCENTAGES OF DRESSED BEEF. Average percentage carcass to live weight: 
 Fancy, 61.62; choice, 61.52; good, 60.74; medium, 59.70; common, 59.88; infe- 
 rior, 59.36. Page 178 
 
 PROFIT AND Loss. Market value as feeders November 29, 1902: Fancy, 
 $4.75; choice, $4.55; good, $4.20; medium, $3.85; common, $3.60; inferior, $3.35 
 per hundred weight. Page 185 
 
 Market Value of Finished Cattle on Basis of Steady Market from November 
 29, 1902, to May 28, 1903. Fancy, $7.00; choice, $6.90; good, $6.50; medium, 
 $5.80; common, $550; inferior, $5.40. Page 190 
 
 Profit per Steer on Basis of Steady or Stationary Market. Fancy, $18.15; 
 choice, $15.67; good, $11.56; medium, $4.41; common, $4.09; inferior, $5.48. 
 
 Page 191 
 
 Actual Selling Prices per cwt. when Marketed May 28, 1903, "Falling 
 Market." Fancy, $5,40; choice, $5.40; good, $5.15; medium, $4.90; common, 
 $4.80; inferior, $4.80. Page 190 
 
 Loss per Steer on Basis of Actual or Falling Market. Fancy, $3.80 ; choice, 
 $7.44; good, $7.36; medium, $7.95; common, $5.26; inferior. $2.37 Page 191 
 
 DECLINE IN MARKET FROM BEGINNING TO CLOSE OF EXPERIMENT. Fancy, 
 $1.60; choice, $1.50; good, $1.35; medium, $0.90; common, $0.70; inferior, $0.60 
 per hundred weight. Page 194 
 
 Conclusions Page 2O1 
 
 156 
 
FATTENING STEERS OF THE VARIOUS 
 MARKET GRADES. 
 
 BY HERBERT W. MUMFORD, CHIEF IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY. 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In Bulletin No. 78 issued by this Station about a year ago, the 
 writer illustrated and described the various market classes and grades 
 of cattle as seen at our leading live stock markets. The two market 
 classes receiving the greatest share of attention were beef cattle of 
 the prime, choice, good, medium, and common rough grades: and feed- 
 ers of the fancy selected, choice, good, medium, common, and inferior 
 grades. Each grade of the fat cattle class was considered in all its 
 relations to other grades of the same class, while each grade of feeders 
 was described by comparing it with a standard grade of feeding cattle 
 whose points of excellence were most uniform and characteristic. Thus 
 it will be seen on the one hand that no attempt was madt to indicate 
 from what grades of feeders, prime, choice, good, or other grades of 
 steers are developed or on the other how inferior, common, medium, 
 good, choice, and fancy selected feeding cattle may be expected to feed 
 out or finish in the feed lot. In a general way, men who make a business 
 of buying and finishing feeders, handle largely one grade of cattle. 
 They determine approximately their grade when sold by knowing how 
 close to the top of the market they sell. 
 
 It is believed that all who finish cattle, either of their own breed- 
 ing or those purchased as feeders in the market, will become more 
 intelligent producers if they become more familiar with the possibilities 
 of the various grades of feeding cattle. There is much of pecuniary 
 value to the cattle feeder in knowing the correlation between the 
 various grades of feeding cattle and the several grades of fat cattle. 
 
 Never did the results of an experiment in cattle feeding require 
 more careful study and more serious thought than those to be presented 
 in this bulletin. The reader is cautioned not to read parts of the bulle- 
 tin and draw hasty conclusions, but to read and re-read all of it carefully 
 and thoughtfully. An effort has been made to present the facts in 
 such a manner as to avoid the possibility of the forming of misleading 
 conclusions. 
 
 OBJECT OF THE EXPERIMENT. 
 
 The object of this experiment was to secure data for the accurate 
 comparison of the six standard grades of feeding steers with respect to 
 the following points: 
 
 1. The extent or quantity of gains. 
 
 2. The rapidity of gains. 
 
 3. The economy of gains as measured by feed consumed. 
 
 157 
 
158 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 4. The nature of the gain as indicated by the different grades 
 during the feeding period and as measured by their re-grading as beef or 
 fat cattle at the end of the experiment, the percentages of dressed beef 
 and the percentages of fat. 
 
 5. The comparative quality of the beef as expressed by the grading 
 of the carcasses after slaughter. 
 
 6. The relative profit to the feeder after considering all elements 
 of outgo and income, that is, the initial cost of the various grades of 
 feeders, their relative extent and quality of gain, the cost of feed, and 
 the comparative selling price of the various grades as marketed, first 
 under normal conditions, that is, a steady market; second, under 
 abnormal conditions, that is, a falling market. 
 
 In the interest of brevity these various points will be alluded to 
 throughout the text as the "extent," "rapidity," "nature," "economy," 
 and "cost" of gain, and the "profit" or the "loss" in feeding. 
 
 TABLE 1. GRADES OF FEEDING CATTLE, BEEF OR FAT CATTLE, AND CARCASSES ON 
 
 CHICAGO MARKET. 
 
 Feeding Cattle 
 
 Beef or Fat Cattle 
 
 Carcasses 
 
 Fancy 
 Choice 
 Good 
 Medium 
 Common 
 Inferior 
 
 Prime 
 Choice 
 Good 
 Medium 
 Common Rough 
 
 No. 1 
 
 No. 1 Light 
 No. 2 Tops 
 No. 2 
 No. 3 
 Canning Stock 
 
 The practical feeder very much desires to know the relative economy 
 of production with these six different grades of feeders, and also the 
 grade of finished cattle that may confidently be expected from each in 
 order that he may calculate which will be most profitable after consider- 
 ing the greater initial cost and the relatively higher selling price of the 
 better grades. It was to answer these questions that this experiment was 
 undertaken. 
 
 PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENT. 
 
 The animals used were sixteen steers of each of the various grades of 
 feeding cattle which were placed in feed lots and fed under uniform con- 
 ditions; therefore this experiment involved the feeding of six car-loads 
 of cattle. The fancy selected, the choice, the good, the medium, the 
 common, and the inferior grades, as described in Bulletin No. 78 of this 
 Station were each represented. 
 
 Experiments have been conducted with a few animals which have 
 thrown some light on this subject, but never before have enough animals 
 been used to eliminate individuality and thus make it safe to accept the 
 conclusions reached without a certain amount of reserve. 
 
 The choice, good, medium, common, and inferior feeders used in this 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEERS. 159 
 
 experiment were purchased in the Union Stock Yards, Chicago, the 
 fancy selected in Missouri. These were all strictly grass cattle as none 
 had received grain while on grass. They were purchased in October, 
 and shipped to the University farm where they were all turned together 
 on pasture, remaining there without grain for about a month. This 
 placed all the cattle to be used in the experiment under uniform condi- 
 tions for a month and furnished us an opportunity to become more 
 familiar with the individuality of the steers. They were taken from the 
 pastures and confined in the feed lots about the middle of November, 
 when they were gradually accustomed to a light ration of broken corn 
 together with all the hay they would eat. During the last week in 
 November the various grades were selected without attempting to place 
 them strictly in the grades for which they were originally bought. 
 When the steers were purchased, sixteen or more of each grade were 
 selected. A few of the steers changed sufficiently within the month in- 
 tervening between purchasing and placing in the feed lot to change 
 slightly their grade. In the main, however, they were ultimately assigned 
 to those grades which they were bought to represent. A systematic effort 
 was made to secure native cattle in all the grades for this test. It was 
 found, however, that the offerings at the Yards, while large, were 
 still not sufficient to fill accurately the various grades without taking 
 an occasional range steer. The few range steers that were selected were 
 practically as useful for the object of the test as were the natives, since 
 they were quiet and had apparently been previously accustomed to grain 
 feeding during the preceding winter. 
 
 At the beginning of the experiment the cattle were examined by a 
 committee of experts from the Chicago Stock Yards, consisting of Mr. 
 John T. Alexander, of Alexander, Ward and Conover; Mr. George W. 
 Shannon, of Shannon Brothers, and Mr. James Brown, expert cattle 
 buyer for Armour & Co., whose judgment was asked with reference to 
 the grading and the market value of each grade. The same committee 
 visited the Experiment Station at intervals of one month for the purpose 
 of determining the improvement of each grade in value per hundred 
 pounds. The author desires to acknowledge his indebtedness to these 
 gentlemen for their faithful and efficient services. Their expert judg- 
 ment has been of the greatest value and importance to this experiment. 
 
 The market at the beginning of the experiment was fixed upon as the 
 basis for all values assigned to the cattle. This was done in order to 
 free the valuations from fluctuations in the market, thus making it pos- 
 sible to secure data on basis of a steady market. This committee contin- 
 ued their work up to and including the time of marketing. As the cattle 
 were weighed every two weeks and as a careful record was kept of the 
 rations fed, it is possible to determine at what time the various loads 
 could have been marketed to best advantage. 
 
160 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 It is advisable to give a brief description of the cattle in each grade 
 at the beginning of the experiment. For convenience the various grades 
 were given lot numbers as follows: 
 
 Lot 1. Fancy selected feeders. 
 
 Lot 2. Choice feeders. 
 
 Lot 3. Good feeders. 
 
 Lot 4. Medium feeders. 
 
 Lot 5. Common feeders. 
 
 Lot 6. Inferior feeders. 
 
 LOT 1. FANCY SELECTED. 
 
 It seemed impossible to find a car-load of fancy selected feeders on 
 the Chicago market during October, 1902, hence it was necessary to look 
 elsewhere for them. They were finally located on the farm of Wallace 
 Estill of Missouri. It was difficult to secure sixteen cattle which 
 would in every way meet the requirements of this grade. The feeding 
 qualities of the cattle selected to represent this grade fully sustained 
 judgment at the time they were purchased. They contained nearly one 
 hundred percent of the blood of the improved beef breeds. The dams 
 were high grade Shorthorn cows and the sire a registered Hereford. 
 With one exception they bore the markings of the Hereford; this steer 
 resembled his Shorthorn parentage as to markings and more so as to his 
 conformation than did the other steers in this lot. 
 
 While there was a slight lack of uniformity in size in this load of 
 steer?, they possessed the quality and conformation that accompany the 
 typical beef-bred steer. It is true that they were the youngest steers, 
 as a lot, in the test, being about two years old at the time of marketing. 
 It is also true that age, as well as quality, conformation, and condition, 
 is characteristic of the various grades of feeding cattle. Usually when 
 the hotter grades of feeding cattle are selected for feeding they are 
 comparatively young. To make this point more clear it may be said that 
 it would be impossible to secure a two-year-old inferior feeder, as infe- 
 rior steers of this age would possess neither the weight nor the flesh 
 demanded in the feeder class. In Bulletin No. 78 feeders were described 
 as follows: "As a rule, we may classify as feeders, steers weighing 900 
 pounds or more that are eighteen months old or older, and that are fleshy 
 enough so as not to render an extended period of low feeding necessary." 
 Manifestly the slower maturing, lower grades will always DC the older 
 animals when feeding weights are attained. 
 
 The_ individual steers comprising this fancy grade possessed outstand- 
 ing quality. They were the kind from which car-load show cattle are 
 produced. Those who have attempted to collect such a group of cattle 
 know how very scarce they are. Such feeding cattle are very seldom seen 
 in any of our feeding-cattle markets, for when such a bunch is known to 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEERS. 161 
 
 be for sale it is usually eagerly sought, hence it is unnecessary to ship 
 them to the market to find a buyer. While these steers had not received 
 grain on grass, they were what would be termed "fleshy" feeders. See 
 Plate 1. 
 
 LOT 2. CHOICE FEEDERS. 
 
 The steers in this group were unquestionably choice. They possessed 
 large frames and perhaps averaged six months older than the fancy 
 selected lot, though still younger than lots 4. 5, and 6. Owing to their 
 more advanced age and the appearance of being more growthy, this 
 load of steers was frequently selected by experienced feeders as the best 
 calculated to produce the largest and most rapid gains of any in the 
 test. They were the heaviest cattle entering the tost and perhaps, 
 everything considered, were carrying slightly more flesh than the others, 
 although lots 1 and 2 were similar in this regard. These were purchased 
 in the Union Stock Yards, Chicago, and were the best that had been 
 seen on the market for a considerable time. They were high-grade Short- 
 horns, uniform as to size, color, and conformation. Fed to a finish, 
 steers of such quality ought to produce prime steers of sufficient merit to 
 sell at the top on any ordinary market. See Plate 3. 
 
 LOT 3. GOOD FEEDERS. 
 
 The quality and finish so manifest in the choice and fancy-selected 
 lots were not so much in evidence in this group, although it was easy to 
 see that beef blood still predominated. While these cattle possessed a 
 strong infusion of beef blood, they did not meet the requirements of the 
 ideal feeder in type or conformation. They were inclined to be up- 
 standing, while some of the steers were rather plain in their rumps. 
 They lacked that attractive uniformity that characterized lots 1 and 2. 
 As to condition they were hardly as fleshy as the grades already 
 described. It should not be gathered from what has been said that these 
 were an undesirable lot of feeding cattle, for they were not. In fact, 
 cattle of their quality are not at all plenty in the markets of our country, 
 and can only be produced by the use of bulls of some of the beef breeds. 
 See Plate 5. 
 
 LOT 4. MEDIUM FEEDERS. 
 
 Undoubtedly the most noticeable characteristic of this group was its 
 lack of uniformity in color. This suggests their probable mixed breed- 
 ing. The lack of uniformity is not by any means the main difference 1 
 between this and the better grades. A closer study reveals a coarseness 
 and angularity not at all characteristic of those of better quality. There 
 is a plain, old style appearance about them that is very evident. The 
 cattle appeared to be close to three years old. Experienced feeders 
 would select noAv and again a steer from this lot that would be expected 
 to make large gains, and occasionally one that would finish quite smooth, 
 
162 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 but the majority would always remain rather coarse, rough, and paunchy. 
 It should be said that this lot did not contain a steer that failed to 
 show evidence of improved beef blood, although the predominating 
 blood seemed to be native or unimproved, with occasionally a dash of the 
 blood of some one of the dairy breeds. See Plate 7. 
 
 LOT 5. COMMON FEEDERS. 
 
 This group showed but a very small percentage of beef blood. 
 Native and unimproved blood predominated. There was no uniformity 
 in color and every steer showed a lack of both quality and conformation. 
 The steers were rather coarse boned and large headed, and were plain 
 ihroughout. They did not all have similar faults, but all were noticeably 
 deficient in some particular. They were the kind that result from the 
 somewhat common practice of indiscriminate breeding and the too com- 
 mon practice of breeding from inferior grade bulls. See Plate 9. 
 
 LOT 6. INFERIOR FEEDERS. 
 
 There are so many standards by which feeding cattle might be desig- 
 nated as inferior that it is well to be explicit in specifying the standard 
 employed in the selection of the cattle comprising this group. It was 
 not that they should be steers carrying a high percentage of dairy blood, 
 although two or three steers in this group were undoubtedly strongly 
 dairy bred. Nor was it that they should be beef-bred steers of faulty 
 conformation and lacking in constitution. An effort was made to select 
 cattle inferior in quality and conformation from the standpoint of 
 beef breeding, that is, those possessing very little, if any, of the blood 
 of any of the improved beef breeds. This was a more difficult task than 
 would seem to those who have not attempted it. The majority of this 
 group were selected from a consignment of Virginia grass cattle shipped 
 to the Chicago market. They showed no evidences of beef blood and 
 every evidence of being scrubs. As such they were plain cold-blooded 
 creatures, not at all pleasing to look upon. See Plate 11. 
 
 In general, the basis of selection in all these lots was quality, or beef 
 breeding. In each instance where the grade called for well-bred beef 
 steers they were selected not only with regard to their breeding, but care 
 was taken that they should possess the qualifications which should accom- 
 pany well-bred steers. In no case were steers selected to fill any of the 
 grades that showed evidence of being poor and unprofitable gainers, and 
 all were required to show equal evidence of health and thrift. 
 
 By referring to Table 3 it will be seen that the initial weights of 
 lots 1, 5, and 6 were nearly the same, although lot 1 was the lightest 
 of the three. Lot 2 was considerably the heaviest, while lots 3 and 4 
 were very similar in weight. These differences in weight were, with the 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEEES. 163 
 
 exception of lot 2, characteristic of the different grades used in the 
 test. 
 
 The fact that the steers in lot 2 were so much heavier than those 
 in the other lots should not he passed without comment. It has been 
 shown why it was impracticable to secure steers of uniform age to rep- 
 resent the different market grades of feeding cattle. This was done, 
 however, as far as practicable. By referring to the table it will be seen 
 that there was but little variation in the average weight of the steers 
 in the various lots, except that those in lot 2 were considerably heavier 
 than those of any other lot. In order that justice should be done to all 
 grades, it seemed reasonable to secure more age in the choice than in 
 the fancy lot. Differences in the ages of the different grades were inevit- 
 able, but by securing an intermediate age in lot 2 which was one of the 
 better grades, the factor of age as affecting cost of gains was largely 
 eliminated. In securing more age and the quality which characterizes 
 choice feeders it seemed necessary, to meet the requirements of this test, 
 to get steers of rather heavy weight. It was not possible to secure cattle 
 of uniform weight to represent the various grades without sacrificing 
 other and apparently more important factors. It should also be noted 
 that the differences in weight at the end of the experiment are much less 
 marked than they were at the beginning. 
 
 In selecting steers for feeding with a definite idea as to when they 
 are to be ready for the market, the cattle feeder must needs give careful 
 attention to age, condition, and weight. In this instance feeders were 
 wanted that could be finished with thirty to sixty days light and pre- 
 liminary feeding, and one hundred to one hundred and twenty days full 
 feeding. This being true, strictly grass cattle were selected. 
 
 SHELTER, FEED LOTS, AND WATER SUPPLY. 
 
 The shelter provided for the various grades of steers used in this 
 experiment consisted of a low shed open to the south, very similar to the 
 open sheds in common use for cattle feeding in the corn belt. It could 
 hardly be said that the feed lots were like those commonly seen in Illi- 
 nois, as they were all paved with brick. It is impossible to get two feed 
 lots in which conditions would be precisely the same without some 
 provision for keeping the cattle out of the mud. As, the feed lots were 
 small, 36x48 feet, with a 12-foot shed running along the north side, 
 making the total size 36x60 feet, paving with brick seemed the most 
 practicable system. The lots were not paved under the sheds, where the 
 ground was protected from all surface water. The sheds were kept 
 well bedded, but no attempt was made to bed the pavement. The lots 
 were frequently cleaned, and in wet weather the consistency of the ma- 
 nure on the pavement was such that it could have been handled more 
 
164 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 advantageously had litter of some sort been freely mingled with it. The 
 price of bedding at the time prohibited its use for this purpose. During 
 the day the steers had access to fresh pure water stored in galvanized steel 
 tanks into which it was drawn from the University plant. Late in the 
 evening of each day during the coldest weather the water was all drawn 
 from the tanks by means of a convenient device in the bottom of each 
 and carried away in a tile provided for that purpose. 
 
 METHOD OF FEEDING STEERS. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that, notwithstanding what may be subse- 
 quently said concerning the method of feeding and the feeds used in 
 connection with this test, the experiment was primarily to test the 
 feeding quality of the various grades of feeding cattle, while the feeds 
 used and the manner of feeding the same were incidental rather than 
 material and were the same for all lots. It seemed desirable to elimi- 
 nate the pork-producing factor in this experiment as far as practicable; 
 hence, the grinding of the grain seemed necessary. Corn and cob 
 meal has given such universal satisfaction for cattle feeding that the use 
 of the corn in this form promised good results. In seeking a nitroge- 
 nous roughage to supplement corn it was found that the quality of 
 clover hay was universally bad and that it was impossible to secure good 
 clover hay in sufficient quantities to warrant its use throughout the 
 experiment. While clover and timothy hay were used in considerable 
 quantities during the earlier part of the test, as soon as alfalfa could be 
 secured it was used as roughage. Many well known cattle feeders have 
 expressed the opinion from time to time that the chaffing or cutting of 
 roughage and mingling it with the grain would prove the best method for 
 economizing food. Except in a very few instances this method of feeding 
 has never been used in an extensive way. The results of this experiment 
 indicate that it is by no means an impracticable method of feeding. The 
 clover and timothy hay, and later the alfalfa, were run through an 
 ordinary ensilage machine which cut the hay into bits about two inches 
 in length. This cut or chopped hay was mixed with the grain in certain 
 definite proportions, as will be shown subsequently. During the early 
 part of the experiment, cotton seed meal, and during the latter part, 
 oil meal, were fed to supplement the corn, and these concentrates were 
 an ingredient of the mixed feed which was fed the steers twice a day at 
 six to seven in the morning and at four to five o'clock in the afternoon. 
 Great care was taken to see that each lot was fed at the same hours each 
 day. 
 
 The adoption of this system of feeding made it possible to keep very 
 accurate records of all feed, both roughage and concentrates and to 
 insure that the proportion of roughage to. concentrates was always the 
 same with all the lots. 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEERS. 165 
 
 The experiment began November 29, 1902, and for several weeks the 
 ear corn was simply run through an ensilage machine, which cracked the 
 corn and cobs. The grinding of the corn, cob and all, began about the 
 middle of February. Toward the last of the feeding of the cracked corn 
 and cobs the steers left a large part of the cobs. 
 
 The advantage of this system of feeding shows the possibility of 
 converting a large proportion of the feed consumed into beef, profit not 
 being so largely dependent upon the hog as a factor in beef production. 
 There were very few cases of scours during the feeding period, and only 
 two out of the 96 head were off' feed during the entire time. These 
 facts will at once commend this system to experienced feeders. It was 
 not necessary to take out a single steer originally selected for the experi- 
 ment, and the cattle were peculiarly free from sickness of any kind. 
 
 The cotton seed and linseed meal -were both of good quality; the 
 former was the "Dixie Brand," the latter "Old Process," pea size. The 
 clover hay used was of poor quality, the timothy hay, medium, the alfalfa 
 while not strictly choice, was good, and the stover was poor. 
 
 The cattle having been fed on broken corn for about three weeks 
 prior to the beginning of the experiment and for a few days after, did 
 not at first take kindly to the change from broken to cracked corn. In 
 less than a week, however, they ate the cracked corn greedily. The 
 grain and hay were fed separately for three weeks, after which time the 
 hay was cut and mixed with the grain. They ate the mixed feed well 
 from the start. The feeding of cotton seed meal was begun the fifth week 
 of the experiment. The cattle did not eat it well at the start. In less 
 than two weeks, however, they ate it greedily. For the first six weeks 
 the amounts of corn and hay fed were about equal. At the beginning of 
 the seventh week the proportionate weight of hay to corn was as one to 
 two. Corn stover was fed to each lot one or two days a week during 
 January and February in order to furnish variety and add the extra 
 roughage which the steers seemed to relish. The appetite was kept 
 keen by increasing the feed slowly and gradually. No indications of 
 leaving feed were seen until about the end of the eighth week, when there 
 was some tendency to leave some of the roughage part of the ration. 
 This was taken as an indication that the amount of roughage to the graiii 
 fed was too great. Consequently the proportion was reduced to three- 
 quarters corn to one-quarter hay. February 8, one-half the roughage fed 
 was clover hay and the other half alfalfa. From February 11 to the end 
 of the experiment practically all of the roughage fed was alfalfa. It 
 proved a. most excellent roughage. The droppings of the steers soon 
 began to show that their bowels were in much better condition than 
 when clover hay of poor quality was fed. By February 18 the steers were 
 getting all the feed they would take. From this time on an effort was 
 made to feed them all they would eat, care being taken not to force 
 
166 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 them off feed. Not a steer of the whole 96 head scoured until March 
 23, when one in lot 3 began scouring. In a very few days this was 
 stopped, and no more cases occurred. March 24 one-half of the cot- 
 ton seed meal was replaced by linseed oil meal. The cotton seed meal 
 in the ration was gradually replaced by oil meal. Neither the appetites 
 of the steers nor their droppings appeared to be materially different 
 as a result of this change. Their appetite fell off materially with the 
 warm days of May and they were given less feed in consequence. 
 
 On the basis of the total digestible nutrients fed throughout the 
 experiment, the nutritive ratio is 1 : 7.64. This is too wide as compared 
 with the standard nutritive ratio for fattening steers, a variation from 
 the standard which is permissible in the corn belt where the effort is to 
 use as much corn as possible, and the gains made for food consumed 
 appear to indicate that a ration having a nutritive ratio of 1 : 7.64 made 
 up of the feeds used in this experiment will produce satisfactory returns. 
 
 Table 2 shows the daily rations fed per 1,000 pounds live weight 
 in each lot by periods. This exhibit is presented because it is believed 
 that many cattle feeders will be interested in knowing just how much 
 and what kind of grain and how much and what variety of roughage 
 the steers received daily during the various stages of the fattening pro- 
 cess. 
 
 By referring to the table it will be seen that during the first month 
 the number of pounds of roughage to grain or concentrates fed per 
 thousand pound steer was as 4:3. From this time on the grain part of the 
 ration was gradually increased while the roughage was as gradually de- 
 creased until the last, when about five times as much grain was fed as 
 roughage. 
 
 Some timothy hay was fed, but for no other reason than that clover 
 was not available at the time. The change from cotton seed to old pro- 
 cess linseed meal was made to furnish greater variety. 
 
 Of the total feed consumed, a little less than 69 percent was grain 
 and a little more than 31 percent was roughage; that is to say, the weight 
 of roughage was 45 percent of that of the grain. As the same ration was 
 fed to all there was no opportunity of knowing whether a different pro- 
 portion would have been more favorable for certain of the grades. 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEERS. 
 
 167 
 
 TABLE 2. DAILY RATION PER THOUSAND POUNDS LIVE WEIGHT BY PERIODS. 
 
 T ^4- 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 Periods 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 
 Cracked corn, and corn 
 and cob meal. . . . 
 
 8 75 
 
 13 38 
 
 19 19 
 
 17.63 
 
 16.91 
 
 16.74 
 
 17.12 
 
 
 Cotton seed meal 
 
 
 1 54 
 
 2 71 
 
 2.30 
 
 .98 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 O P linseed meal . 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.23 
 
 2 34 
 
 2 39 
 
 
 Alfalfa 
 
 
 
 2.96 
 
 5.88 
 
 5.04 
 
 4.45 
 
 3.48 
 
 
 Clover hay 
 
 9.05 
 
 2.45 
 
 5.19 
 
 
 
 
 .20 
 
 
 Timothy hay 
 
 3.98 
 
 8.24 
 
 
 
 
 
 .30 
 
 
 Corn stover 
 
 
 2.50 
 
 1.10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cracked corn and corn 
 and cob meal 
 
 8.63 
 
 13.38 
 
 19.35 
 
 18.54 
 
 18.98 
 
 18.27 
 
 17.99 
 
 
 Cotton seed meal 
 
 
 1.45 
 
 2.74 
 
 2.42 
 
 1.12 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 O. P. linseed meal 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.41 
 
 2.56 
 
 2.52 
 
 
 Alfalfa 
 
 
 
 2.94 
 
 6.18 
 
 5.75 
 
 4.85 
 
 3.65 
 
 
 Clover hay 
 
 8.91 
 
 2.36 
 
 5.25 
 
 
 
 
 .21 
 
 
 Timothy hay 
 
 4.22 
 
 7.95 
 
 
 
 
 
 .30 
 
 
 Corn stover 
 
 
 2.13 
 
 .96 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cracked corn and corn 
 and cob meal . 
 
 9 43 
 
 13 90 
 
 19 35 
 
 18 58 
 
 19 10 
 
 18 11 
 
 17 89 
 
 
 Cotton seed meal 
 
 
 1.51 
 
 2.75 
 
 2.43 
 
 1.08 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 O. P. linseed meal . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.41 
 
 2 54 
 
 2 50 
 
 
 Alfalfa . 
 
 
 
 2 96 
 
 6 20 
 
 5 67 
 
 4 81 
 
 3 56 
 
 
 Clover hay 
 
 10.12 
 
 2.46 
 
 5.20 
 
 
 
 
 .21 
 
 
 Timothy hay 
 
 3.88 
 
 8.40 
 
 
 
 
 
 .31 
 
 
 Corn stover 
 
 
 2.35 
 
 1.05 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cracked corn and corn 
 and cob meal 
 
 8.76 
 
 13.72 
 
 19.53 
 
 18.86 
 
 19 02 
 
 17.90 
 
 17 08 
 
 
 Cotton seed meal 
 
 
 1 52 
 
 2 80 
 
 2 47 
 
 1 10 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 O. P. linseed meal . ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 39 
 
 2 51 
 
 2 39 
 
 
 Alfalfa 
 
 
 
 2.97 
 
 6.29 
 
 5.55 
 
 4.76 
 
 3.46 
 
 
 Clover hay 
 
 10.18 
 
 2.51 
 
 5.31 
 
 
 
 
 .20 
 
 
 Timothy hay 
 
 3.89 
 
 8.36 
 
 
 
 
 
 .29 
 
 
 Corn stover 
 
 
 2.37 
 
 1.07 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cracked corn and corn 
 and cob meal 
 
 9.01 
 
 13.81 
 
 19.50 
 
 18.35 
 
 18.37 
 
 17.11 
 
 17.60 
 
 
 Cotton seed meal 
 
 
 1.54 
 
 2.77 
 
 2.40 
 
 1.05 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 O P linseed meal . 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 35 
 
 2 38 
 
 2 46 
 
 
 Alfalfa 
 
 
 
 2 95 
 
 6 12 
 
 5 46 
 
 4.54 
 
 3 57 
 
 
 Clover hay 
 
 10 90 
 
 2 51 
 
 5.26 
 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 Timothy hay 
 
 4.03 
 
 8.48 
 
 
 
 
 
 .30 
 
 
 Corn stover 
 
 
 2.50 
 
 1.13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cracked corn and corn 
 and cob meal 
 
 7.93 
 
 13.26 
 
 19.48 
 
 17.74 
 
 17.30 
 
 16.92 
 
 16.27 
 
 
 Cotton seed meal 
 
 
 1.52 
 
 2 71 
 
 2.32 
 
 .98 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 O. P. linseed meal 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 28 
 
 2 37 
 
 2 27 
 
 
 Alfalfa 
 
 
 
 2 94 
 
 5 91 
 
 5 14 
 
 4 50 
 
 3 29 
 
 
 Clover hay .... ... 
 
 10 15 
 
 2 45 
 
 5 37 
 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 Timothy hay 
 
 4.63 
 
 8.23 
 
 
 
 
 
 .28 
 
 
 Corn stover 
 
 
 2.47 
 
 1.12 
 
 
 
 
 
 *Period 1 extended from November 29 to December 27, 1902; period 2, Decem- 
 ber 27, 1902, to January 24, 1903; period 3, January 24 to February 21; period 4, 
 February 21 to March 21; period 5, March 21 to April 18; period 6, April 18 to 
 May 16; period 7, May 16 to May 28. 
 
168 BULLETIN No. 90. \December, 
 
 TABLE 3. EXTENT AND RAPIDITY OF GAINS IN POUNDS FOR THE VARIOUS GRADES, 
 
 Lt 
 
 No. 
 
 Market grade 
 at begi.ining 
 of experi- 
 ment. 
 
 16 steers &\ 
 beginning 
 of experi- 
 ment. 
 
 Average 
 per steer. 
 
 16 steers 
 at end of 
 experi- 
 ment. 
 
 Average 
 per steer. 
 
 Average 
 gain per 
 steer 
 for whole 
 period. 
 
 Average 
 daily gain 
 per steer 
 
 f -T 
 
 179 days. 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 
 Fancy .... 
 Choice .... 
 Good 
 
 14953 
 17836 
 16305 
 
 934.562 
 1114.750 
 1019.062 
 
 22315 
 25120 
 23010 
 
 1394.687 
 1570.000 
 1438.125 
 
 460 . 125 
 455.250 
 419.062 
 
 2.570 
 2.543 
 2 341 
 
 4 
 
 Medium . . . 
 
 16355 
 
 1022.187 
 
 22450 
 
 1403.125 
 
 380.938 
 
 2.128 
 
 5 
 
 Common . . 
 
 15458 
 
 966.125 
 
 21780 
 
 1361.250 
 
 395.125 
 
 2.207 
 
 6 
 
 Inferior . . . 
 
 15448 
 
 965.500 
 
 21055 
 
 1315.937 
 
 350.437 
 
 1.957 
 
 This table exhibits the total weight of each lot, and the average 
 weight of each steer at the beginning and at the end of the experiment, 
 the average gain of each steer in each lot for the whole period, and the 
 average daily gain per steer in each lot throughout the feeding period. 
 
 Undoubtedly, the most characteristic thing illustrated in this table 
 is the variation in the extent and rapidity of gains made by the steers 
 in the various lots. With one exception it will be seen that the better 
 the grade of steers the greater and the more rapid the gains. This excep- 
 tion is lot 4. The steers in lot 4 did not gain quite as rapidly as did those 
 in lot 5 which were lower in grade. This variation in extent and rapidity 
 of gains is so gradual and regular that it is added proof of the generally 
 accepted fact that, where other conditions remain constant, the better 
 the quality cf steers the greater and the more rapid are the gains. That 
 there should be such wide differences in gains as is shown in the above 
 table adds further evidence on this point. The economic importance 
 of this factor will receive comment later. 
 
 Larger gains are frequently reported, especially in short feeding 
 period?, but at no time during the first half of the feeding period were 
 these steers crowded to their utmost capacity. During the last half 
 only were they given all that, in the judgment of those having the experi- 
 ment in charge, they could use to advantage. Attention was given to 
 economical rather than extensive production of beef. Economical pro- 
 duction of beef involves the securing of a satisfactory market finish with- 
 out overloading the animal with fat. While an over-ripe condition con- 
 tributes largely to higher averages of dressed beef and higher percentages 
 of fat, it is detrimental to the retail butcher, the consumer, and the 
 producer; to the retail butcher because it entails too much waste of 
 fat in cutting; to the consumer because he is forced to accept more 
 fat at the market than can be agreeably consumed along with the lean 
 beef accompanying the cut; and lastly, and most important of all from 
 the feeders' standpoint, this unnecessary and superfluous fatness of the 
 over-ripe bullock is the best possible evidence that the last gains have 
 been very expensive. 
 
1903.J 
 
 FATTENING STEERS. 
 
 169 
 
 TABLE 4. AVERAGE DAILY GAIN PER STEER IN POUNDS FOR EACH LOT BY PERIODS 
 AND AVERAGE FOR ALL LOTS BY PERIODS. 
 
 Lot 
 No. 
 
 Fr m 
 Nov. 29- 
 Dec. 27, 
 1902. 
 
 Fr in 
 Dec. 27, 
 1902- 
 Jan. 24, 
 
 From 
 Jan. 24- 
 Feb. 21, 
 1903. 
 
 From 
 Feb. 21- 
 Mar. 21, 
 1903. 
 
 From 
 Mar. 21- 
 Apr. 18, 
 1903. 
 
 From 
 Apr. 18- 
 Mav 16, 
 1903. 
 
 Fr m 
 May 16- 
 May 28, 
 1903. 
 
 Frcm 
 Nov. 29, 
 1902- 
 May 29, 
 1903 
 
 
 28 days. 
 
 28 days. 
 
 28 days. 
 
 28 days. 
 
 8 days. 
 
 28 days. 
 
 12 days. 
 
 179 days. 
 
 1 
 
 2.136 
 
 .959 
 
 3.024 
 
 2.812 
 
 2.968 
 
 3.303 
 
 3.125 
 
 2.570 
 
 2 
 
 2.095 
 
 .825 
 
 2.801 
 
 2.734 
 
 3.683 
 
 3.203 
 
 2.329 
 
 2.543 
 
 3 
 
 1.428 
 
 .904 
 
 2.555 
 
 2.500 
 
 3.448 
 
 2.801 
 
 3.380 
 
 2.341 
 
 4 
 
 1.484 
 
 .457 
 
 2.154 
 
 2.734 
 
 3.191 
 
 2.399 
 
 3.011 
 
 2.128 
 
 5 
 
 1.466 
 
 .424 
 
 2.232 
 
 2.714 
 
 3.538 
 
 2.544 
 
 3.039 
 
 2.207 
 
 6 
 
 1.466 
 
 .982 
 
 1.852 
 
 2.198 
 
 3.493 
 
 2.008 
 
 1.307 
 
 1.957 
 
 Aver- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 age 
 
 1.679 
 
 .759 
 
 2 . 436 
 
 2.615 
 
 3.3S7 
 
 2.710 
 
 2.698 
 
 2.291 
 
 The accompanying Table 4 shows that the greatest average daily 
 gain for the ninety-six head came during the four-week period from 
 March 21 to April IS, and the lowest average daily gain was secured dur- 
 ing the second four-week period. Barring the one exception of the 
 second four weeks in the feeding period, taking the whole number of 
 steers involved in this test, the average daily gains increased steadily 
 from the first four-week period to that of the fifth period, after which 
 the average daily gains fell off slightly for the last two periods, but 
 the gains here were still greater than those obtained during any of the 
 periods preceding period five. Tabulated records on subsequent pages 
 of this Bulletin, Table 14, show that the committee of experts from the 
 Yards, consisting of Messrs. Alexander, Shannon, and Brown, decided, 
 without knowing the gains made by the cattle month by month, that 
 during this same fifth period the steers increased in value more than 
 during any other four-week period. This is evidence of the expert 
 ability of these gentlemen and of the great care that was exercised in 
 fixing the values of the cattle from month to month. 
 
 The results tabulated have a bearing upon the possible extent of 
 gains in the various grades under study. By referring to Table 4 it 
 will be seen that the average daily gains for the last forty days of the 
 experiment were rather above than below the average for the whole 
 time, an increase which indicates that probably fairly satisfactory gains 
 could have been secured for a limited longer period. It is more than 
 probable, however, that the increase in value per hundred weight of the 
 steers of the various lots would not have been sufficient to render such 
 feeding profitable. As bearing upon this important question we publish 
 the following statement made by the committee of experts, Messrs. Alex- 
 ander, Shannon, and Brown: 
 
 EXCHANGE BUILDING, UNION STOCK YARDS. 
 
 CHICAGO, 111., September 10, 1903. 
 All of the various lots, from one to six, inclusive, of the steers mar- 
 
170 
 
 BULLETIN jSTo. 90. 
 
 [December, 
 
 keted by the Illinois Experiment Station, May 28th, 1903, were in good 
 marketable condition. Their market value would not have been profita- 
 bly enhanced by further feeding. 
 
 ( JOHN T. ALEXANDEK, 
 Signed, J GEORGE W. SHANNON, 
 [ JAMES BROWN, 
 
 Committee of Experts. 
 
 TABLE 5. ECONOMY OF GAINS AS MEASURED BY FEED CONSUMED. DIGESTIBLE 
 
 *DKY MATTER REQUIRED FOR PRODUCING GAINS IN BEEF, 
 
 COST OF POUND OF BEEF. 
 
 Lot 
 
 Total in 
 
 Total in 
 
 Total dry 
 
 Total 
 
 Dry 
 matter 
 
 fTotal 
 
 Cost per 
 
 No. 
 
 concentrates. 
 
 roughage. 
 
 matter. 
 
 gain, 
 pounds. 
 
 per pound 
 of gain. 
 
 cost of 
 gain. 
 
 pound 
 of rain. 
 
 1 
 
 50753.966 
 
 22513.674 
 
 73267.640 
 
 7362 
 
 9.952 
 
 $496.45 
 
 $0.0074 
 
 2 
 
 61393.255 
 
 26699.992 
 
 88093.247 
 
 7284 
 
 12.094 
 
 598.59 
 
 .0821 
 
 3 
 
 56236.152 
 
 24781.074 
 
 81017.226 
 
 6705 
 
 12.083 
 
 548.18 
 
 .0817 
 
 4 
 
 54977 . 196 
 
 24558.566 
 
 79535.762 
 
 6095 
 
 13.049 
 
 534.63 
 
 .0877 
 
 5 
 
 52179.942 
 
 23695.316 
 
 75875.258 
 
 6322 
 
 12.002 
 
 513.47 
 
 .0812 
 
 6 
 
 49512.307 
 
 22982.623 
 
 72494.930 
 
 5607 
 
 12.929 
 
 485.64 
 
 .0866 
 
 Total 
 
 325052.818 
 
 145231.245 
 
 470284.063 
 
 39375 
 
 11.943 
 
 3176.96 
 
 .0806 
 
 *Dry Matter. The portion of a feeding stuff remaining after the water or 
 moisture contained therein has been driven off by heat. Ordinary feeds contain 
 about 10 to 1 1 percent moisture. 
 
 fThe figures in this column represent the total cost of feed less value of pork 
 produced by the pigs following the various lots. 
 
 Table 5 exhibits not only the total number pounds digestible dry 
 matter fed each, lot, but the amount of dry matter in the roughage and in 
 the concentrates separately. It shows the pounds dry matter required 
 to produce a pound of gain in beef for each lot, the cost of gain, and the 
 cost per pound of gain in each lot. 
 
 From the totals in this table it was determined that about 69.11 per- 
 cent, or a little more than two-thirds of the digestible dry matter fed, 
 was fed in the form of concentrates, such as corn and cob, cotton seed 
 and oil meal, and 30.89 percent was fed in form of roughages, such as 
 clover, timothy, alfalfa hay, and corn stover. It will be noticed that 
 except in the case of lot 1 the total amount of dry matter consumed 
 varies directly with the grade of steers. The better the grade, or the 
 better bred the steers, the larger the consumption of dry matter. The 
 consumption of dry matter did not follow as uniformly the variations in 
 weight of the cattle. It did not necessarily follow that because one 
 lot of steers was heavier than another it would consume more feed and 
 consequently more dry matter. Weight certainly does have a marked 
 influence upon capacity and demand for feed, but the records of this 
 test appear to indicate that the possibility of large consumption is also 
 dependent upon the grade or quality of the cattle. In case of lot 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEERS. 171 
 
 1, however, there appears to be a relatively small consumption of dry 
 matter. This is the lot in which the weight of the cattle at the begin- 
 ning of the experiment was much less than in other lots, and this 
 undoubtedly was the cause of the smaller consumption of feed. 
 
 By referring to the column in the table showing the pounds dry mat- 
 ter required to produce a pound of gain in beef, it can be seen that 
 while the average number of pounds of dry matter required to produce 
 a pound of gain in beef for the whole 96 head involved in the experi- 
 ment was 11.943 pounds, the steers in lot 1 required only 9.952 pounds. 
 This shows that the steers in lot 1 were clearly the most economical pro- 
 ducers of beef of all the lots. The gains in beef in lot 4 were made at 
 greatest expense of dry matter consumed, while lot 6 is a close second. 
 That there should be so much difference in the cost of a pound of beef 
 between lot 1 and the other lots and that there should be such slight 
 differences in the otber grades should not be passed unnoticed. The cost 
 of gains in the various lots does not seem to be clearly dependent upon 
 either the age, initial weight, or breeding of the steers. In lot 1 we 
 have the highest percentage of beef blood, the youngest age, and the 
 least initial bodily weight. It is- believed that all of these factors 
 contributed to the results exhibited here. Evidence is wanting, however, 
 to make it possible to make strong claims for any one of these factors 
 as an essential above all things in the economic production of beef. 
 
 Cost of gains in beef were computed both on the basis of digestible 
 dry matter consumed and net cost of food converted into beef. This 
 will make it possible for the feeder to tell at a glance the relative cost 
 of gains in beef in the various lots under conditions prevailing during the 
 past season. Market prices of feeds used in beef production are subject 
 to great variations, hence, the dry matter table is believed to be essential. 
 
 NUMBER OF POUNDS BEEF PRODUCED PER BUSHEL OF CORN FED. 
 
 Since it is customary among feeders to use a bushel of corn as the 
 unit for figuring the possibility of securing certain gains from a given 
 amount of feed, the subjoined statement will be of interest. 
 
 The steers in lot 1 made 9.74; lot 2, 7.97; lot 3, 7.99; lot 4, 7.45; 
 lot 5, 8.13; and lot 6, 7.61 pounds of beef for each bushel of corn con- 
 sumed. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that with each bushel of corn about eight 
 pounds of some highly nitrogenous concentrate like cotton seed or 
 linseed oil meal was fed, and that in addition to beef a certain amount of 
 pork was produced. 
 
172 
 
 BULLETIN No. 90. 
 
 [December , 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 I 
 
 ft 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 fe . 
 
 o o 
 
 
 o p 
 
 s g 
 1 1 
 g I 
 
 pi ft 
 
 g a 
 
 S- 
 
 5 
 
 - 
 
 oo~ 
 ^ 
 
 CD oo~ 
 
 itilMCO 
 
 ceco . 
 
 rH i 1 CO 
 
 cT 
 ^ 
 
 ^00" . 
 C* I-H CO 
 
 . . o 
 
 I rH 
 
 J.(NCO 
 
 IN * CC O5<M O5 
 1C O5 GO ^ O M 
 
 O5 O O O O O5 
 
 00 1C 00 00 O5 CC 
 1C 00 O CO -* 1 IN 
 O CO O TF CO 1* 
 
 O3 ^ O5 O5 Ol Oi 
 
 rf t^ IM CO O5 r-i 
 <N O 00 O5 (N 'C 
 
 O CR CO CO <N CD 
 
 Tf 00 t>- C rH t^ 
 IN t^(N rH t^ O 
 
 O iM t^ CD rf kO 
 
 O (N (N CO (N (N 
 
 00 Tjl O O rH OS 
 
 O 1C 00 O5 O5 -* 1 
 rfi CO C >O O CO 
 
 X O5 OCR 00 1> 
 
 IM IM O CO 00 l> 
 
 r^ 10 as os co rH 
 
 Tt* 1C Tf Tf I> rH 
 
 o co Tti ic TJ< 10 
 
 Tff 00 rH t^ <M OS 
 
 CD t^ rH CD 00 OS 
 
 * CO CD CD OS I> 
 
 O5 rH rH O OS rH 
 
 OS t>- IM Ol> CO 
 
 CD * tXN CO rH 
 CO * X l> 00 00 
 
 rH Ttt iO 00 IV CD 
 
 Tt< rH 
 1C 00 ( 
 
 (N <** 
 00 (M OS OS rH 
 
 CD O O rH OS CO 
 
 OS (N <N * (M 1C 
 
 C *O r-l CO O3 O 
 
 co rH as * co o 
 
 CO l> C f- t^ <N 
 
 tC r-4 t>> Tt* tQ t^ 
 
 rH OS O O 00 C 
 
 OO OO C t^ 1C * 
 
 (N CC IM O tO (N 
 
 01 1^ 
 IM (M <M 
 
 . O 
 
 > S^S 
 
 IM CO O rH <M 
 
 ST}< CO OS 1C * 
 CO t> 00 Oi IM 
 
 00 O 'f CO CO CO 
 
 (N CO 1 * 1C CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 All lo 
 mbin 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEERS. 173 
 
 Important data are presented in Table 6. It shows the amount 
 of digestible dry matter required to produce a pound of gain during 
 each of the four-week periods throughout the experiment and the 
 amount required from the beginning of the experiment to the 
 end of each period. From this data some light is thrown upon 
 the question whether or not early gains are cheapest after eliminat- 
 ing the first few weeks during which time apparent gains are to be 
 partially referred to "fill/' The very large amount of dry matter 
 required to produce a pound of gain in all the lots from December 27, 
 1902, to January 24, 1903, should be noted. By referring to Table 4 
 it will be seen that the gains in all the lots during this period were much 
 smaller than the gains for the corresponding lots during the periods 
 preceding and following the one in question. The fact that the gains 
 were light during the preceding period is evidence that the small gains 
 during the second period were not due to differences in stomach 
 and intestinal contents at the beginning and end of the period. As 
 far as we are able to determine, the expenditure of relatively so large 
 an amount of dry matter to produce such small gains was due to several 
 causes. 
 
 First, the feed lots were undergoing important changes which neces- 
 sitated the frequent disturbance of the steers by workmen. 
 
 Second, visitors were numerous and the steers were frequently dis- 
 turbed on their account. 
 
 Third, feeds which the steers had not been accustomed to eating 
 were added to the ration, and the preparation of feeds used and method 
 of feeding were considerably modified. 
 
 It has been customary in reporting tests of efficiency of feeds for 
 meat production to reduce the results to the amount of feed required for 
 producing a unit of gain. Thus the gain produced is. assumed as the 
 constant quantity and the amount of feed required is calculated on that 
 basis. The author believes, however, that in discussing the efficiency of 
 a ration a fixed quantity of the ration itself is properly the basis of 
 calculations, and that the comparisons made should be between the dif- 
 ferent gains produced by this fixed quantity of the feed under the various 
 conditions of the test. In this way the producing capacity of the feed 
 is shown in simple terms, while by the other method the gaining capacity 
 of the animal is the result obtained. On this assumption the following 
 table is presented, showing the amount of beef produced per bushel of 
 corn consumed, and the amount and value of the beef produced per 1,000 
 pounds digestible dry matter when fed to each of the six grades of 
 steers. 
 
 The efficiency of the feed for producing increase in weight is shown 
 in line 3 of the table, and is computed from the increase in weight and 
 the digestible dry matter consumed by each lot of steers. The efficiency 
 
174 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 in the case of lot 1 is then made the unit or 100 percent, and the 
 results reduced to this basis, as shown in line 4. 
 
 Next the efficiency of the feed for producing increase in value per 
 hundred weight of the beef is recorded in lines 7 and 8. These figures 
 are derived as follows: Assuming a stationary market throughout the 
 experiment, the increase in value per hundred weight of the cattle as 
 fixed by the committee of experts is divided by the amount of digesti- 
 ble dry matter consumed (lines 5 and 6), giving the increase in value of 
 cattle per hundred weight per unit of feed. Eeducing the results to 
 terms of lot 1 as above, we have the eighth line of the table. 
 
 Lines 9 and 10 show the efficiency of the feed for producing per- 
 cent increase in value of cattle per hundred weight, which result is 
 obtained for each lot by dividing the increase in value per hundred 
 weight for 1,000 pounds digestible dry matter by the original cost per 
 hundred weight. 
 
 In order to determine the efficiency of the feed for increasing both 
 amount and quality of beef in other words, to find the total increase 
 in value of the cattle due to a unit of feed consumed the increase in 
 live weight per unit of feed is multiplied by the increase in value per 
 hundred weight per 1,000 pounds digestible dry matter consumed. In 
 this way lines 11 and 12 are obtained. 
 
 Taking into consideration the percent increase in value per hun- 
 dred weight of the cattle and their increase in weight, for 1,000 pounds 
 digestible dry matter consumed, the net efficiency of the feed may be 
 computed. This result is shown in lines 13 and 14, which are obtained 
 by multiplying the results in line 2 by the corresponding numbers in line 
 9. We now have the efficiency of the feed with respect to increase in 
 weight (line 4), increase in value per hundred weight (line 8), percent 
 increase in value per hundred weight (line 10); increase in value (line 
 12); and percent increase in value combined with increase in weight 
 (line 14). 
 
 It should be borne in mind that the data presented in the accom- 
 panying table are computed on the basis of a stationary market, the 
 increases in value per hundred weight in the various grades being fixed 
 by the committee of experts. 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEEES. 
 
 175 
 
 TABLE 7. 
 
 
 Lot 1, 
 Fancy. 
 
 Lot 2, 
 Choice. 
 
 Lot 3, 
 Good. 
 
 Lot 4, 
 Medium. 
 
 Lot 5, 
 Common. 
 
 Lot 6, 
 Inferior. 
 
 Line. 
 
 Lb. beef produced per 
 bu. corn consumed . . . 
 Lb. beef produced per 
 1,000 Ib. digestible dry 
 matter consumed .... 
 
 9.74 
 100 40 
 
 7.97 
 82 60 
 
 7.99 
 
 82 70 
 
 7.45 
 76 60 
 
 8.13 
 83 30 
 
 7.61 
 
 77 30 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 
 Efficiency of feed lor 
 producing quantity of 
 gain, or percent of 
 digestible dry matter 
 converted into beef . . . 
 Efficiency of teed for 
 quantity of gain on 
 basis of 100 percent for 
 lot 1 
 
 10.04 
 100 
 
 8.26 
 
 82 
 
 8.27 
 82 
 
 7.66 
 76 
 
 8.33 
 83 
 
 7.73 
 
 77 
 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 
 Increase in value of cat- 
 tle per cwt 
 
 $2 25 
 
 $2 35 
 
 $2 30 
 
 $1 95 
 
 $1 90 
 
 $2 05 
 
 (5) 
 
 Total Ib. digestible dry 
 matter consumed .... 
 Increase in value of cat- 
 tle per cwt. per 1,000 
 Ib. of digestible dry 
 matter consumed 
 
 73,268 
 $0 031 
 
 88,093 
 $0 027 
 
 81,017 
 
 $0 028 
 
 79,536 
 $0 025 
 
 75,875 
 $0 025 
 
 72,495 
 $0 028 
 
 (6) 
 (7) 
 
 Increase in value of cat- 
 tle per cwt. per 1,000 
 Ib. digestible dry mat- 
 ter consumed on basis 
 of 100 for lot 1 .... 
 
 100 
 
 87 
 
 90 
 
 81 
 
 81 
 
 90 
 
 (8) 
 
 Percent increase in value 
 of cattle per cwt. per 
 1,000 Ib. digestible 
 matter consumed 
 
 0065 
 
 0059 
 
 0066 
 
 0065 
 
 0069 
 
 0083 
 
 (9) 
 
 Ditto on basis of 100 
 percent for lot 1 
 
 100 
 
 91 
 
 102 
 
 100 
 
 106 
 
 128 
 
 (10) 
 
 Increase in total value of 
 cattle per 1,000 Ib. 
 digestible dry matter 
 consumed 
 
 $3 11 
 
 $2 23 
 
 $2 32 
 
 $1 91 
 
 $2 08 
 
 $2 16 
 
 (11) 
 
 Ditto on basis of 100 for 
 lot 1 
 
 100 
 
 72 
 
 75 
 
 61 
 
 67 
 
 69 
 
 (i?) 
 
 Percent increase in value 
 per hundred weight 
 combined with increase 
 in weight for 1000 Ib. 
 digestible dry matter 
 consumed 
 
 .652 
 
 .487 
 
 .545 
 
 .497 
 
 .574 
 
 .541 
 
 (13) 
 
 Ditto on basis of 100 for 
 lot 1 
 
 100 
 
 75 
 
 84 
 
 76 
 
 88 
 
 98 
 
 (14) 
 
 With respect to amount of gain produced the feed of lots 1, 2, 3, 
 4, 5, and 6 was effective or efficient in the ratio 100 82, 82, 76, 83, 77 
 respectively. 
 
 With respect to quality of the increase, or its increase in value per 
 hundred weight, the ratio was 100, 87, 90, 81, 81, 90. 
 
 With respect to the percent increase in value per hundred weight the 
 ratio was 100, 91, 102, 100, 106, 128. 
 
176 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 With respect to combined quantity and quality of gains, or total 
 increase in value of the cattle, the ratio was 100, 72, 75, 61, 67, 69. 
 
 With respect to percent increase in value per hundred weight com- 
 bined with increase in weight the ratio was 100, 75, 84, 76, 88, 98. 
 
 It will be observed that the most economical disposition of the feed 
 consumed was made by the fancy selected feeders, excepting as to their 
 percent increase in value per hundred weight for feed consumed. As 
 previously noted, these steers were younger, lighter, and of more uniform 
 breeding than any of the other grades. Another notable fact is that 
 the feed was clearly more efficient for increasing the value of the cattle 
 in the three higher than in the three lower grades when both quantity 
 and quality of gains are considered. The good showing made by the 
 common and inferior cattle in respect to the percent increase in value 
 per hundred weight for a given quantity of feed, and in respect to the 
 percent increase in value per hundred weight combined with their 
 increase in weight as indicated in lines 10 and 14, respectively, is due 
 to their lower original cost and consequent advantage as to relative or 
 percent increase in value. The efficiency of the feed as shown by the 
 percent increase in value per hundred weight of cattle is a more varia- 
 ble factor than its efficiency as indicated by the actual gain in weight 
 and its value per hundred weight, so that the result in line 12 can be 
 accepted as a more constant and reliable comparison of the grades than 
 can those of lines 10 and 14, because any market condition which 
 changes cost, selling price, relative increase in value per hundred weight 
 of the various grades would materially change the relative percent in- 
 crease in value of the cattle. These results as a whole may be inter- 
 preted as pointing to a relatively more economical gain by the higher 
 grades, and a widely variable relation between the various grades as to 
 the percent of increase in actual value which they will produce from a 
 given amount of feed. The feed was least efficient as to value per 
 hundred weight of gains when fed to the medium and common grades, 
 least efficient as to combined quantity and quality of gains when fed to 
 the medium cattle; and least efficient as to percent increase in value 
 per hundred weight combined with increase in weight in the case of the 
 choice and medium grades. 
 
 GAINS IN WEIGHT OF PIGS FOLLOWING STEERS. 
 
 As has been stated elsewhere it was thought advisable to eliminate 
 the pig as far as possible in this test. This end was reached by grind- 
 ing the grain. Five pigs were placed with each lot of sixteen steers at 
 the beginning of the experiment. As will be seen by referring to the 
 following statement the steers received very light grain rations for the 
 first two months and made correspondingly small increase in live weight. 
 One of the pigs in lot 5 was accidentally killed and as no other pig was 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEERS. 177 
 
 available to substitute in its place it was thought best to reduce the 
 number in each lot to correspond with that in lot 5. During the last 
 month of the experiment eight pigs were allowed to follow the sixteen 
 steers in lot 2. These eight pigs made nearly as great average individ- 
 ual gains as when only four were following the sixteen steers. From this 
 we are led to believe that from the time the steers were worked up to 
 full feed until the end of the experiment, the production of pork might 
 have been nearly doubled. It should not be assumed that the large 
 pork production of the pigs in lot 2 during the last month was due to 
 the fact that the droppings had been allowed to accumulate for a long 
 time as the pens were cleaned but shortly before the extra pigs were 
 turned into them. 
 
 The gains in pork by lots for the whole period were as follows : 
 Lot 1. 419 pounds. Lot 4. 520 pounds. 
 
 *Lot 2. 500 pounds. Lot 5. 420 pounds. 
 
 Lot 3. 475 pounds. Lot 6. 480 pounds. 
 
 It is quite remarkable that the smallest amount of pork produced 
 should be in the lot where the steers took the least number of pounds 
 of dry matter to produce a pound of beef, and that where pork produc- 
 tion was greatest the feed was apparently least efficient for beef produc- 
 tion. The relationship between the high efficiency of the feed for beef 
 production and minimum pork production is too regular to escape com- 
 ment. Referring to the table exhibiting the average number of pounds 
 of dry matter to produce a pound of gain in beef (Table 5), it will be 
 seen that for efficiency, the lots stand in the following order : 1, 5, 3, 2, 
 6, and 4, while for pork production, they have the following order, 
 beginning with the lot showing smallest production of pork: 1, 5, 3, 
 6, 2, and 4. 
 
 The steers were loaded for shipment to Chicago on Wednesday 
 afternoon May 27, care being taken to have each lot receive as nearly 
 the same treatment as possible. The Champaign weight was taken on 
 tEe morning of the 27th before the cattle had been fed or watered. 
 They were then fed their regular feed of grain and roughage, except 
 that the roughage fed on the morning of the 27th and that fed on the 
 previous day was timothy hay instead of clover or alfalfa, which are 
 liable to cause some bloating in transit. In case the roughage fed con- 
 sists of clover or alfalfa bloating can usually be avoided by the feed- 
 ing of timothy hay for the last day or two before shipment. The steers 
 were also given free access to water between 9 and 10 A. M. after being 
 grained. 
 
 *The actual amount of pork produced by the original four pigs following this 
 lot of steers throughout the experiment, thus making it possible to compare the 
 pork produced in this lot with that produced in all other lots. 
 
178 BULLETIN No. 90. \December, 
 
 TABLE 8. NATURE OP GAINS. SHIPPING AND SLAUGHTER WEIGHTS OF STEERS. 
 
 
 Lot 1. 
 
 Lot 2. 
 
 Lot 3. 
 
 Lot 4. 
 
 Lot5. 
 
 Lot 6. 
 
 Weight 16 steers, 
 Champaign, 
 May 27, 1903. 
 Pounds 
 
 22315 00 
 
 25120 00 
 
 23010.00 
 
 22450.00 
 
 21780 00 
 
 21055 00 
 
 Average weight 
 per steer, 
 Champaign. 
 Pounds 
 
 1394.68 
 
 1570.00 
 
 1438.12 
 
 1403 . 12 
 
 1361.25 
 
 1315.93 
 
 Weight 16 steers, 
 Chicago, May 
 28, 1903 
 
 21960 00 
 
 24650.00 
 
 22430.00 
 
 21980.00 
 
 21370 00 
 
 20940 00 
 
 Average w e i g ht 
 per steer, Chi- 
 cago. Pounds . . 
 Percentage of 
 shrinkage i n 
 shipping 
 
 1372.50 
 1.59 
 
 1540.62 
 1.87 
 
 1401.87 
 2.08 
 
 1373.75 
 1.64 
 
 1335.62 
 1 88 
 
 1308.75 
 54 
 
 Pounds shrinkage 
 per steer 
 
 22 18 
 
 29 37 
 
 36 25 
 
 29 27 
 
 25 62 
 
 7 18 
 
 Total dressed 
 weight of 16 
 carcasses 
 
 13532.00 
 
 15165.00 
 
 13622.00 
 
 13120.00 
 
 12797.00 
 
 12341.00 
 
 Average weight 
 of 16 carcasses. 
 Pounds. . . 
 
 846 00 
 
 947 00 
 
 851 00 
 
 820 00 
 
 799 00 
 
 777 00 
 
 Percentage of car- 
 cass to live 
 weight 
 
 61.62 
 
 61 52 
 
 60.74 
 
 59.70 
 
 59.88 
 
 59 36 
 
 Percentage of caul 
 fat 
 
 3.39 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.59 
 
 3.77 
 
 3.61 
 
 3.83 
 
 Percentage 
 of rough fat . . . 
 
 6.07 
 
 6.18 
 
 6.98 
 
 6.98 
 
 6.46 
 
 7.98 
 
 Especial care was taken to bed the cars well with straw, and for 
 convenience in keeping the lots separate only sixteen steers were put in 
 a car. The yards and loading chutes at Champaign were located about 
 a mile from the feed lots. In driving the cattle to the loading chutes and 
 in loading them, great care was exercised to handle them quietly and 
 without confusion, that they might arrive on the market with as little 
 shrinkage as possible. The cattle were all loaded between three and 
 six o'clock in the afternoon. They left Champaign at 7:30 p. M., May 
 27, and arrived in Chicago at 5 :30 A. M., May 28. 
 
 By referring to the above table it will be seen that the shrinkage per 
 steer was light with all the lots, but remarkably so with lot 6. The 
 highest shrinkage was with lot 3. The light shrink of the steers in lot 
 6 is undoubtedly due to the fact that they "filled" better in the Yards than 
 the steers in the other lots, especially much better than those in lot 3. No 
 cause is known why lot 3 should "fill" the poorest and lot 6 the best. 
 With the two exceptions noted, the percentages of shrinkage were quite 
 uniform. The light shrinkage is attributed partly to the quiet handling 
 in driving and loading, and partly to the feeding of timothy hay during 
 the last two days. No attempt was made to handle the cattle in such 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEERS. 179 
 
 a way as to secure a "big fill" at the Union Stock Yards, as it was 
 desirable that there should be nothing to interfere with the normal per- 
 centages of dressed beef in each lot and the normal relation existing 
 between the percentages of dressed beef in the various lots. 
 
 In referring to the above table it may be said that the most strik-, 
 ing fact brought out by it is that the percentages of dressed beef bear 
 precisely the same relation to each other as do the gains in live weight. 
 The steers in lot 1 gained the most, lot 2 came next, with lots 3, 5, 4, 
 and 6 following in the order named. The steers in lot 1 dressed the 
 highest, 61.62 percent, those in lot 2 came next, with lots 3, 5, 4 and 6 
 following in the order named. 
 
 These higher percentages in the higher grades were not altogether 
 due to any advantage in condition which the better grades had over the 
 poorer ones, but were due partly at least to the differences in quality 
 in the different grades. It is very doubtful whether lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 
 were really in as high market condition as were lots 5 and 6. It is 
 another question of course whether or not inferior or common steers 
 are capable of taking on as high finish and absolute fatness as the bet- 
 ter grades. 
 
 It will be noted that the percentages of caul fat were highest in the 
 poorer grades, being highest in lot 6 and lowest in lot 1. Again lot 1 
 had the least rough fat, while lot 6 had the most. The carcasses 
 showed conclusively that while the lower grades had the most internal 
 fat, the higher, or better grades, carried thicker surface fat. 
 
 While unquestionably the condition of an animal has great influence 
 upon the percentage of dressed beef it will yield, quality appears to be 
 an important factor as well. It could not be said therefore, that the 
 percentages of dressed beef were low in the poorer grades because they 
 were not as well finished, or in other words, not in as high condition 
 as were lots 1, 2, and 3, for neither the appearance of the steers on foot 
 nor their carcasses after slaughter gave any evidence of an unfinished 
 condition in these grades. If there was an advantage in the condition 
 of the steers it was in favor of lots 4, 5, and 6, which were doubtless 
 nearer their maximum limit as to finish than were the better grades, 
 lots 1, 2, and 3. 
 
 The following table shows that as a result of feeding the 16 fancy 
 feeders in lot 1 until finished, there was only one steer that would not 
 grade as prime. This steer lacked slightly in quality, but principally 
 in condition, and he graded as choice. After slaughtering, the beef 
 experts in Armour & Company's city beef department graded all the 
 carcasses as No. 1. 
 
180 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 TABLE 9. MARKET GRADES AS FEEDERS, FAT CATTLE, AND BEEF. 
 
 
 Market grade at begin- 
 ning of experiment as 
 feeders. 
 
 Market grade at end of 
 experiment as fat 
 cattle. 
 
 Market grade of beef 
 after slaughtering. 
 
 Lot 
 No. 
 
 Name of grade and 
 number of steers in 
 each grade. 
 
 Grade and number of 
 steers in each grade. 
 
 Name of grade and 
 number of carcasses in 
 each grade. 
 
 1 
 
 Fancy, 16 
 
 ( Prime, 15 ) 
 ( Choice, 1 \ 
 
 No. 1, 16 
 
 
 
 
 Prime, 14 ) 
 
 
 2 
 
 Choice, 16 
 
 
 Choice, 1 [ 
 
 No. 1, 16 
 
 
 
 
 Good, 1 ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 Prime, 3 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Good, 16 
 
 
 Choice, 5 
 
 
 No. 1, 16 
 
 
 
 
 Good, 8 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 Medium, 16 
 
 
 Choice, 1 
 Good, 4 
 
 ATpHiiim & 
 
 
 No. 1, Light, 4 
 
 
 
 
 -M I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 , O 
 
 Common, 3 
 
 
 No. 2 Tops, 12 
 
 5 
 
 Common, 16 
 
 
 Medium, 6 
 Common, 5 
 
 
 No. 1 Light, 4 
 No. 2 Tops, 12 
 
 
 
 
 Good, 4 
 
 
 No. 1 Light, 6 
 
 6 
 
 Inferior, 16' 
 
 
 Medium, 6 
 
 
 No. 2 Tops, 9 
 
 
 
 
 Common, 6 
 
 
 No. 3. 1 
 
 Of the 16 choice feeders (lot 2) fourteen finished as prime, one as 
 choice, and one as good. All the carcasses graded as No. 1 beef. 
 
 Of the 16 good feeders (lot 3) three finished as prime, five as choice, 
 and eight as good. All the carcasses graded as No. 1. 
 
 Of the 16 medium feeders (lot 4) one finished as choice, four as good, 
 eight as medium, and three as common. Four of the carcasses in this 
 lot graded as No. 1 light, and the remainder as No. 2 tops. 
 
 Of the 16 common feeders (lot 5) five finished the test as good, six as 
 medium, and five as common beeves. The grading of the beef was the 
 same as that in lot 4, namely, four carcasses graded as No. 1 light, and 
 twelve as No. 2 tops. 
 
 Of the 16 inferior feeders (lot 6) four finished as good, six as medium, 
 and six as common. Six carcasses graded as No. 1 light, nine as No. 2 
 tops, and one as No. 3 beef. 
 
 Both this and the preceding table illustrate forcibly the possibility 
 of securing reasonably high percentages of dressed beef of satisfactory 
 grades even with low bred steers if intelligently fed to as high a finish 
 as they are capable of taking. 
 
 The records of this experiment all emphasize the great economic 
 importance of condition as a factor, in marketing and in determining the 
 grade of beef. It is possible that we have not emphasized this factor 
 enough. Perhaps in the campaign that has been waged to improve the 
 quality of beef cattle, condition has failed to receive tbe attention which 
 its importance demands. This is but a natural result of confining inves- 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEERS. . 181 
 
 tigations in beef production to the live animal. It is safe to say that 
 there are more differences between the well-bred steer and the mongrel- 
 bred feeding steer when on foot in the feed lot than there are after they 
 are fed to a finish, slaughtered, and hung on the hooks. 
 
 When fat-cattle prices rule high and there is a tendency for the 
 prices for such cattle to advance, there is a wide range in values between 
 the highest grade of beef cattle, namely, prime steers, and the lowest 
 grade, common rough steers. In other words, a premium is then paid 
 for cattle possessing prime quality or a high percentage of beef blood. 
 
 THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THE EXPERIMENT. 
 
 Many feeders will be interested in the following financial statement. 
 This phase of the subject will be discussed from two standpoints on the 
 basis of: 
 
 First, a steady or stationary market, obviously the one which should 
 be looked upon as a normal one, with which other market conditions 
 should be compared. 
 
 Second, a falling or declining market. 
 
 COST OF FEEDS. 
 
 The feeds used were cracked corn (prepared by running ears through 
 an ensilage machine which cut the cobs up into small pieces and 
 cracked the com), corn and cob meal, cotton seed meal, old process 
 linseed oil meal, clover hay, alfalfa, timothy hay, and corn stover. 
 
 These feeds were valued f . o. b. cars, Champaign, Illinois, as follows : 
 Cracked corn and corn and cob meal. . . .*$12.00 per ton 
 
 Cotton seed meal 24.50 per ton 
 
 0. P. linseed oil meal 25.00 per ton 
 
 Clover hay 8.00 per ton 
 
 Alfalfa 10.00 per ton 
 
 Timothy hay 12.00 per ton 
 
 Corn stover 3.00 per ton 
 
 From the time the experiment began until the evening of February 
 15. the corn used was rather soft and chaffy; it would be called very 
 poor in quality and not well adapted for securing large gains for amount 
 consumed. For convenience, all the corn is figured at the same price. 
 
 No charge is made in the financial statement for labor in caring for 
 the steers, interest on the investment, or for bedding, nor on the other 
 hand, is any value assigned to the manure made by the steers. It i? 
 believed that the manure would more than balance these expense items. 
 
 *$12.00 per ton, or 35 cents per bushel of 70 pounds plus 10 cents per cwt. for 
 grinding. 
 
182 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 FINANCIAL STATEMENT ON BASIS OF NORMAL OR STATIONARY MARKET. 
 
 Lot 1, 16 Steers. 
 
 To 16 Steers, 14,953 lb., at $4.75 per cwt $710.27 
 
 26.447 tons cracked corn, and corn and cob meal at $12 per ton 317.36 
 
 1.914 tons cotton seed meal, at $24.50 per ton 46 .89 
 
 1.358 tons O. P. linseed oil meal at $25.00 per ton 33 .95 
 
 3.885 tons clover hay, at $8.00 per ton 31 .08 
 
 5.500 tons alfalfa, at $10 per ton 55 .00 
 
 2.810 tons timothy hay, at $12 per ton 33 .72 
 
 .845 tons corn stover, at $3 per ton 2 . 54 
 
 Freight Champaign to Chicago, commission, yardage, feed, and other 
 
 expenses 40 . 00 
 
 Total expenditures $1270 .81 
 
 By 16 Steers, 21,960 lb., at $7 per cwt $1537.20 
 
 By 419 lb. Pork, at $5.75 per cwt 24 .09 
 
 Total receipts $1561 .29 
 
 Total expenditures 1270 .81 
 
 Total gain $290.48 
 
 Profit per steer 18 . 155 
 
 Lot 2, 16 Steers. 
 
 To 16 Steers, 17,836 lb., at $4.55 per cwt $ 811 .54 
 
 31.983 tons cracked corn and corn and cob meal, at $12.00 per ton. . . 383.80 
 
 2.270 tons cotton seed meal, at $24.50 per ton 55 . 62 
 
 1.692 tons O. P. linseed oil meal, at $25.00 per ton 42 .30 
 
 4.503 tons clover hay, at $8.00 per ton 36 .02 
 
 6.769 tons alfalfa, at $10.00 per ton 67 .69 
 
 3.281 tons timothy hay, at $12.00 per ton 39 .37 
 
 .845 tons corn stover, at $3.00 per ton 2 . 54 
 
 Freight Champaign to Chicago, commission, yardage, feed, and other 
 
 expenses 40 . 00 
 
 Total expenditures $1478.88 
 
 By 16 Steers, 24,650 lb., at $6.90 per cwt $1700.85 
 
 By 500 lb. Pork, at $5.75 per cwt . . 28.75 
 
 Total receipts $1729 . 60 
 
 Total expenditures 1478 .88 
 
 Total gain, $250.72 
 
 Profit per steer 15 . 67 
 
 Lot 3, 16 Steers. 
 
 To 16 Steers, 16,305 lb., at $4.20 per cwt $684.81 
 
 29.335 tons cracked corn and corn and cob meal, at $12.00 per ton .... 352 .02 
 
 2.066 tons cotton seed meal, at $24.50 per ton 50 .62 
 
 1.530 tons O. P. linseed oil meal, at $25.00 per ton 38.25 
 
 4.372 tons clover hay, at $8.00 per ton 34.98 
 
 6.109 tons alfalfa, at $10.00 per ton 61 .09 
 
 2.999 tons timothy hay, at $12.00 per ton 35 .99 
 
 .845 tons corn stover, at $3.00 per ton 2 . 54 
 
 Freight Champaign to Chicago, commission, yardage, feed, and other 
 
 expenses 40 . 00 
 
 Total expenditures $1300.30 
 
 By 16 Steers, 22,430 lb., at $6.50 per cwt $1457 .95 
 
 By 475 lb. Pork, at $5.75 per cwt 27.31 
 
 Total receipts $1485.26 
 
 Total expenditures 1300 .30 
 
 Total gain $184.96 
 
 Profit per steer 11 .56 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEEBS. 183 
 
 Lot 4, 16 Steers. 
 
 To 16 Steers, 16,355 lb., at $3.85 per cwt $ 629 .67 
 
 28.651 tons cracked corn and corn and cob meal, at $12.00 per ton. . . 343.81 
 
 2.069 tons cotton seed meal, at $24.50 per ton 50 .69 
 
 1.470 tons O. P. linseed oil meal, at $25.00 per ton 36 .75 
 
 4.410 tons clover hay, at $8.00 per ton 35 .28 
 
 5.969 tons alfalfa, at $10.00 per ton 59 .69 
 
 2.981 tons timothy hay, at $12.00 per ton 35 .77 
 
 .845 tons corn stover, at $3.00 per ton 2.54 
 
 Freight Champaign to Chicago, commission, yardage, feed, and other 
 
 expenses 40 . 00 
 
 Total expenditures $1234 .20 
 
 By 16 Steers, 21,980 lb., at $5.80 per cwt $1274 .84 
 
 By 520 lb. Pork, at $5.75 per cwt 29 .90 
 
 Total receipts $1304.74 
 
 Total expenditures 1234 .20 
 
 Total gain $ 70.54 
 
 Profit per steer 4 .41 
 
 Lot 5, 16 Steers. 
 
 To 16 Steers, 15,458 lb., at $3.60 per cwt $556.49 
 
 27.204 tons cracked corn and corn and cob meal, at $12.00 per ton. . . 326.45 
 
 1.941 tons cotton seed meal, at $24.50 per ton 47 . 55 
 
 1.409 tons of O. P. linseed oil meal, at $25.00 per ton 35 .23 
 
 4.332 tons clover hay, at $8.00 per ton 34 .66 
 
 5.662 tons of alfalfa hay, at $10.00 per ton 56.62 
 
 2.881 tons of timothy hay, at $12.00 per ton 34.57 
 
 .845 tons corn stover, at $3.00 per ton 2 . 54 
 
 Freight, Champaign to Chicago, commission, yardage, feed, and other 
 
 expenses 40 . 00 
 
 Total expenditures $1134.11 
 
 By 16 Steers, 21,370 lb., at $5.50 per cwt $1175.35 
 
 By 420 lb. Pork, at $5.75 per cwt 24.15 
 
 Total receipts $1199.50 
 
 Total expenditures 1134 . 11 
 
 Total gain $ 65.39 
 
 Profit per steer 4 .09 
 
 Lot 6, 16 Steers. 
 
 To 16 Steers, 15,448 lb., at $3.35 per cwt $517.51 
 
 25.801 tons cracked corn and corn and cob meal, at $12.00 per ton . . . 309.61 
 
 1.871 tons cotton seed meal, at $24.50 per ton 45 .84 
 
 1.311 tons O. P. linseed oil meal, at $25.00 per ton 32.78 
 
 4.132 tons clover hay, at $8.00 per ton 33 .06 
 
 5.361 tons alfalfa hay, at $10.00 per ton 53 .61 
 
 2.983 tons timothy hay, at $12.00 per ton 35 .80 
 
 .845 tons corn stover, at $3.00 per ton 2 .54 
 
 Freight, Champaign to Chicago, commission, yardage, feed, and other 
 
 expenses 40 . 00 
 
 Total expenditures $1070.75 
 
 By 16 Steers, 20,940 lb., at $5.40 per cwt $1130.76 
 
 By 480 lb. Pork, at $5.75 per cwt 27 .60 
 
 Total receipts $1158.36 
 
 Total expenditures 1070.75 
 
 Total gain $ 87.61 
 
 Profit per steer 5 . 48 
 
184 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 From the above it will be seen that under normal conditions, that is 
 when the market remains stationary, the best grades of feeding cattle 
 return to the feeder the greatest profit. So striking is this fact that 
 in the preceding financial statement the fancy feeders, on the basis of 
 a stationary market, would have returned to the feeder over three times 
 as much per steer as the inferior feeders. It is well for the cattle 
 feeder to consider the factors which make it possible to make such a 
 showing. Such a favorable showing for the better grade of feeding cat- 
 tle could not be made if the margins between the price of choice feeders 
 and prime steers were not so large as those between inferior feeders 
 and common rough and medium steers of the beef cattle class. 
 
 Profits may be realized on smaller margins in the finishing of the 
 better than the lower grades of feeders. With the higher initial cost of 
 the better grades the cost of feed becomes relatively of less consequence. 
 This being the case it has been found to be almost an invariable rule 
 that the higher the price of feeds, the more sure are the better grades to 
 return to the cattle feeder larger profits than the feeding of the poorer 
 grades. When the cattle market is in any thing like a normal condition, 
 the margins are as great, if not on the average greater, with the better 
 than with the lower grades. 
 
 Tables 11 and 12 will be found of unusual interest to the student 
 of the cattle feeding enterprise. These tables show the financial status 
 of the various lots at the end of the first fifty-six days and every four 
 weeks thereafter, except in case of the last period which was but eleven 
 days. It will be observed that this statement is made not only upon the 
 basis of a normal or stationary market, but also on the basis of an 
 abnormal or a falling market, such as obtained during the winter season 
 of 1902-1903. It is thought that a statement at the end of the first 
 thirty days would be of little value, as no one would seriously consider 
 marketing cattle such as were used in this experiment, at the end of 
 thirty days' light grain feeding. In the several columns in Table 11 is 
 recorded the cost of the steers in the various lots up to the dates as given 
 in the marginal columns. This cost includes the initial market value 
 of the cattle, the cost of feed, and the estimated expense of marketing. 
 These items are entered separately that the reader may determine for 
 himself which are items of greatest importance in the various lots and at 
 stated intervals during the progress of the experiment. 
 
 To make the financial statements of the several periods comparable 
 in the following statement, it was necessary to use Champaign instead 
 of Chicago weights at the end of the experiment. This explains the 
 apparent discrepancy between the statement of profits shown on pages 
 182, 183, and 190, as Chicago and not Champaign weights were used in 
 computing profits shown on pages 182 and 183. 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEERS. 
 
 185 
 
 TABLE 11. FINANCIAL STATEMENT AT DIFFERENT DATES ON BASIS OF BOTH 
 FALLING AND STATIONARY MARKET CONDITIONS. CHAMPAIGN WEIGHTS. 
 
 Financial statement end of 
 56 days, Nov. 29, 1902, 
 to Jan. 24, 1903. 
 
 DISBURSEMENTS. 
 
 MARKET PRICE 
 
 PER CWT. 
 
 RECEIPTS. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Lot 1, 16 Steers. 
 To 14953 Ib. at $4.75 . . . 
 Feed, 56 days 
 
 $710.27 
 124.29 
 40.00 
 
 $710.27 
 124.29 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 16340 Ib. beef 
 
 $5.25 
 
 $5.00 
 
 $857.85 
 6.04 
 
 $817.00 
 6.04 
 51.52 
 
 105 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, loss . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 10.67 
 
 
 874.56 
 
 874.56 
 
 
 
 874.56 
 
 874.56 
 
 Lot 2, 16 Steers. 
 To 17836 Ib. at $4.55 . . . 
 Feed, 56 days 
 
 811.54 
 144.14 
 40.00 
 
 811.54 
 144.14 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 19145 Ib. beef 
 
 5.10 
 
 4.80 
 
 976.40 
 10.93 
 
 918.96 
 10.93 
 65.79 
 
 190 Ib. pork . 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, loss . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 8.35 
 
 
 . .995.68 
 
 995.68 
 
 
 
 995.68 
 
 995.68 
 
 Lot 3, 16 Steers. 
 To 16305 Ib. at $4.20 . . . 
 Feed, 56 days 
 
 684.81 
 137.56 
 40.00 
 
 684.81 
 137.56 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 17350 Ib. beef 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.40 
 
 798.10 
 
 7.48 
 
 763.40 
 7.48 
 91.49 
 
 130 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, loss . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 56.79 
 
 
 862.37 
 
 862.37 
 
 
 
 862.37 
 
 862.37 
 
 
 
 Lot 4, 16 Steers. 
 To 16355 Ib. at $3.85 . . . 
 Feed, 56 days 
 
 629.67 
 135.02 
 40.00 
 
 629.67 
 135.02 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 17225 Ib. beef 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.15 
 
 732.06 
 9.20 
 
 714.84 
 9.20 
 80.65 
 
 160 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, loss. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 63.43 
 
 
 804.69 
 
 804.69 
 
 
 
 804.69 
 
 804.69 
 
 Lot 5, 16 Steers. 
 To 15458 Ib. at $3.60 . . . 
 Feed 56 days .... 
 
 556.49 
 130.97 
 40.00 
 
 556.49 
 130.97 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight etc. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 16305 Ib. beef 
 
 4.10 
 
 3.90 
 
 668.51 
 
 7.48 
 
 635.90 
 7.48 
 84.08 
 
 130 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 Stationary market, loss . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 51.47 
 
 
 727.46 
 
 727.46 
 
 
 
 727.46 
 
 727.46 
 
 Lot 6, 16 Steers. 
 To 15448 Ib. at $3.35 . . . 
 Feed, 56 days . . . 
 
 517.51 
 
 126.89 
 40.00 
 
 517.51 
 
 126.89 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight etc. . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 16545 Ib. beef 
 
 3.85 
 
 3.65 
 
 636.98 
 6.61 
 
 603.89 
 6.61 
 73.90 
 
 115 Ib. pork . 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, loss . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 40.81 
 
 
 684.401 684.40 
 
 
 
 684.40 
 
 684.40 
 
186 
 
 BULLETIN N"o. 90. 
 
 [December, 
 
 TABLE 11 Continued. 
 
 Financial statement end of 
 84 days, Nov. 29. 1902, 
 to Feb. 21, 1903. 
 
 DISBURSEMENTS. 
 
 MARKET PRICE 
 
 PER CWT. 
 
 RECEIPTS. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Lot 1, 16 Steers. 
 To 14953 Ib. at $4.75 . . . 
 Feed 84 days 
 
 $710.27 
 216.22 
 40.00 
 
 $710.27 
 216.22 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 17695 Ib beef . ... 
 
 $5.55 
 
 $5.00 
 
 $982.07 
 10.64 
 
 $884.75 
 10.64 
 71.10 
 
 185 Ib pork . ... 
 
 
 
 Falling market loss 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 26.22 
 
 
 
 
 
 992.71 
 
 966.49 
 
 
 
 992.71 
 
 966.49 
 
 Lot 2, 16 Steers. 
 To 17836 Ib. at $4.55 . . . 
 Feed 84 days 
 
 811.54 
 250.94 
 40.00 
 
 811.54 
 250.94 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 20400 Ib. beef 
 
 5.55 
 
 4.80 
 
 1132.20 
 16.38 
 
 979.20 
 16.38 
 106.90 
 
 285 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 46.10 
 
 
 
 
 
 1148.58 
 
 1102.48 
 
 
 
 1148.58 
 
 1102.48 
 
 Lot 3, 16 Steers. 
 To 16305 Ib. at $4.20 . . . 
 Feed, 84 days 
 
 684.81 
 234.44 
 40.00 
 
 684.81 
 234.44 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 18495 Ib. beef 
 
 5.10 
 
 4.65 
 
 943.25 
 12.65 
 
 860.02 
 12.65 
 86.58 
 
 220 Ib pork ...... 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, loss . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 3.35 
 
 
 959.25 
 
 959.25 
 
 
 
 959.25 
 
 959.25 
 
 Lot 4, 16 Steers. 
 To 16355 Ib. at $3.85 . . . 
 Feed 84 days 
 
 629.67 
 231.38 
 40.00 
 
 629.67 
 231.38 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 18190 Ib. beef 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.50 
 
 845.84 
 14.66 
 
 818.55 
 14.66 
 67.84 
 
 255 Ib. pork . 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, loss . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 40.55 
 
 
 901.05 
 
 901.05 
 
 
 
 901.05 
 
 901.05 
 
 Lot 5, 16 Steers. 
 To 15458 Ib. at $3.60 . . . 
 Feed, 84 days .... 
 
 556.49 
 222.29 
 40.00 
 
 556.49 
 222.29 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 17305 Ib. beef 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.40 
 
 752.77 
 12.08 
 
 761.42 
 12.08 
 45.28 
 
 210 Ib. pork . 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, loss . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 53.93 
 
 
 818.78 
 
 818.78 
 
 
 
 818.78 
 
 818.78 
 
 Lot 6, 16 Steers. 
 To 15448 Ib. at $3.35 . . . 
 Feed, 84 days . . 
 
 517.51 
 
 217.90 
 40.00 
 
 517.51 
 217.90 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 17375 Ib. beef 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.40 
 
 755.81 
 11.79 
 
 7.81 
 
 764.50 
 11.79 
 
 205 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, loss. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Falling market, profit. . . 
 
 
 .88 
 
 
 
 
 
 775.41 
 
 776.29 
 
 
 
 775.41 
 
 776.29 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEERS. 
 TABLE 1 1 Continued. 
 
 187 
 
 Financial statement end of 
 112 days, Nov. 29, 1902, 
 to March 21, 1903. 
 
 DISBURSEMENTS. 
 
 MARKET PRICE 
 
 PER CWT. 
 
 RECEIPTS. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Lot 1, 16 Steers. 
 To 14953 Ib. at $4.75 . . . 
 Feed, 112 days 
 
 $710.27 
 302.98 
 40.00 
 
 $710.27 
 302.98 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 18955 Ib. beef 
 
 $5.90 
 
 $5.20 
 
 $1118.35 
 14.38 
 
 $985.66 
 14.38 
 53.21 
 
 250 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 79.48 
 
 
 
 
 
 1132.73 
 
 1053.25 
 
 
 
 1132.73 
 
 1053.25 
 
 Lot 2, 16 Steers. 
 To 178-36 Ib. at $4.55 . . . 
 Feed, 112 days 
 
 811.54 
 354.99 
 40.00 
 
 811.54 
 354.99 
 4.0.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 21625 Ib. beef 
 
 5.90 
 
 5.05 
 
 1275.88 
 18.11 
 
 1092.06 
 18.11 
 96.36 
 
 315 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 87.46 
 
 
 
 
 
 1293.99 
 
 1206.53 
 
 
 
 1293.99 
 
 1206.53 
 
 Lot 3, 16 Steers. 
 To 16305 Ib. at $4.20 . . . 
 Feed, 112 days 
 
 684.81 
 329.02 
 40.00 
 
 684.81 
 329.02 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 19615 Ib. beef 
 
 5.45 
 
 4.75 
 
 1069.02 
 16.39 
 
 931.71 
 16.39 
 105 . 73 
 
 285 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 31.58 
 
 
 
 
 
 1085.41 
 
 1053.83 
 
 
 
 1085.41 
 
 1053.83 
 
 Lot 4, 16 Steers. 
 To 16355 Ib. at $3.85 . . . 
 Feed, 112 days 
 
 629.67 
 326.42 
 40.00 
 
 629 . 67 
 326.42 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 19415 Ib. beef 
 
 5.05 
 
 4.65 
 
 980.46 
 17.82 
 
 902.80 
 
 17.82 
 75.47 
 
 310 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 2.19 
 
 
 
 
 
 998.28 
 
 996.09 
 
 
 
 998.28 
 
 996.09 
 
 Lot 5, 16 Steers. 
 To 15458 Ib. at $3.60 . . . 
 Feed, 112 days 
 
 556.49 
 310.49 
 40.00 
 
 556.49 
 310.49 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 18520 Ib. beef 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.50 
 
 842.66 
 13.51 
 
 833.40 
 13.51 
 60.07 
 
 235 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, loss. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 50.81 
 
 
 906.98 
 
 906.98 
 
 
 
 906.98 
 
 906.98 
 
 Lot 6, 16 Steers. 
 To 15448 Ib. at $3.35 . . . 
 Feed, 112 davs 
 
 517.51 
 302.44 
 40.00 
 
 517.51 
 
 302.44 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 183'60 Ib. beef 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.50 
 
 853 . 74 
 13.80 
 
 826.20 
 13.80 
 19.95 
 
 240 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 7.59 
 
 
 
 
 
 867.54 
 
 859.95 
 
 
 
 867.54 
 
 859.95 
 
188 
 
 BULLETIN No. 90. 
 
 TABLE 11 Continued. 
 
 Financial statement end of 
 140 days, Nov. 29, 1902, 
 to April 18, 1903. 
 
 DISBURSEMENTS. 
 
 MARKET PRICE 
 
 PER CWT. 
 
 RECEIPTS. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Lot 1, 16 Steers. 
 To 14953 Ib. at $4.75 . . . 
 Feed, 140 days 
 
 $710.27 
 390.46 
 40.00 
 
 $710.27 
 390.46 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc. . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 20285 Ib. beef 
 
 $6.25 
 
 $5.40 
 
 $1267.81 
 18.69 
 
 $1095.39 
 18.69 
 26.65 
 
 325 Ib. pork . 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 145.77 
 
 
 
 
 
 1286.50 
 
 1140.73 
 
 
 
 1286.50 
 
 1140.73 
 
 Lot 2, 16 Steers. 
 To 17836 Ib. at $4.55 . . . 
 Feed, 140 days 
 
 811.54 
 468.30 
 40.00 
 
 811.54 
 468.30 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 23275 Ib. beef 
 
 6.30 
 
 5.45 
 
 1466.33 
 21.85 
 
 1268.49 
 21.85 
 29.50 
 
 380 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 168.34 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1488.18 
 
 1319.84 
 
 
 
 1488.18 
 
 1319.84 
 
 Lot 3, 16 Steers. 
 To 16305 Ib. at $4.20 . . . 
 Feed, 140 days 
 
 684.81 
 431.97 
 40.00 
 
 684.81 
 431.97 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 21160 Ib. beef 
 
 5.95 
 
 5.15 
 
 1259.02 
 19.55 
 
 1089.74 
 19.55 
 47.49 
 
 340 Ib. pork . 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 121.79 
 
 
 
 
 
 1278.57 
 
 1156.78 
 
 
 
 1278.57 
 
 1156.78 
 
 Lot 4, 16 Steers. 
 To 16355 Ib. at $3.85 . . . 
 Feed, 140 days . . 
 
 629.67 
 427.20 
 40.00 
 
 629.67 
 427.20 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bv 20845 Ib. beef 
 
 5.45 
 
 5.00 
 
 1136.05 
 21.85 
 
 1042.25 
 21.85 
 32.77 
 
 380 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 61.03 
 
 
 
 
 
 1157.90 
 
 1096.87 
 
 
 
 1157.90 
 
 1096.87 
 
 Lot 5, 16 Steers. 
 To 154581b. at $3.60 ... 
 Feed, 140 davs . . . 
 
 556.49 
 404.63 
 40.00 
 
 556.49 
 404.63 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 20105 Ib. beef 
 
 5.15 
 
 4.85 
 
 1035.41 
 16.96 
 
 975.09 
 16.96 
 9.07 
 
 295 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 51.25 
 
 
 
 
 
 1052.37 
 
 1001.12 
 
 
 
 1052.37 
 
 1001.12 
 
 Lot 6, 16 Steers. 
 To 15448 Ib. at $3.35 . . . 
 Feed, 140 days 
 
 517.51 
 390.32 
 40.00 
 
 517.51 
 390.32 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 19925 Ib. beef 
 
 5.10 
 
 4.85 
 
 1016.18 
 18.69 
 
 966.36 
 18.69 
 
 325 Ib. pork . 
 
 
 
 Falling market, profit . . 
 
 
 37.22 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 87.04 
 
 
 
 
 
 1034.87 
 
 985.05 
 
 
 
 1034.87 
 
 985.05 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEERS. 
 
 TABLE 11 Continued. 
 
 189 
 
 Financial statement end of 
 168 days, Nov. 29, 1902, 
 to May 16, 1903. 
 
 DISBURSEMENTS. 
 
 MARKET PRICE 
 
 PER CWT. 
 
 RECEIPTS. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Lot 1, 16 Steers. 
 To 14953 Ib. at $4.75 . . . 
 Feed, 168 days 
 
 $710.27 
 483.11 
 40.00 
 
 $710.27 
 483.11 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bv 21765 Ib. beef 
 
 $6.75 
 
 $5.50 
 
 $1469.14 
 22.31 
 
 $1197.08 
 22.31 
 13.99 
 
 388 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 258.07 
 
 
 
 
 
 1491.45 
 
 1233.38 
 
 
 
 1491.45 
 
 1233.38 
 
 Lot 2, 16 Steers. 
 To 17836 Ib. at $4.55 . . . 
 Feed, 168 days 
 
 811.54 
 583.04 
 40.00 
 
 811.54 
 583.04 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 24710 Ib. beef 
 
 6.65 
 
 5.45 
 
 1643.22 
 26.45 
 
 1346.70 
 26.45 
 61.43 
 
 460 Ib. pork . 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 235.09 
 
 
 
 
 
 1669.67 
 
 1434.58 
 
 
 
 1669.67 
 
 1434.58 
 
 Lot 3, 16 Steers. 
 To 16305 Ib. at $4.20 . . . 
 Feed, 168 days 
 
 684.81 
 535.19 
 40.00 
 
 684.81 
 535.19 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc. . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 22415 Ib. beef 
 
 6.35 
 
 5.15 
 
 1423.35 
 25.01 
 
 1154.37 
 25.01 
 80.62 
 
 435 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 188.36 
 
 
 
 
 
 1448.36 
 
 1260.00 
 
 
 
 1448.36 
 
 1260.00 
 
 Lot 4, 16 Steers. 
 To 16355 Ib. at $3.85 . . . 
 Feed, 168 days 
 
 629.67 
 526.95 
 40.00 
 
 629.67 
 526.95 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 21920 Ib. beef 
 
 5.65 
 
 5.00 
 
 1238.48 
 27.60 
 
 1096.00 
 27.60 
 73.02 
 
 480 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 69.46 
 
 
 
 
 
 1266.08 
 
 1196.62 
 
 
 
 1266.08 
 
 11 (Hi. 02 
 
 Lot 5, 16 Steers. 
 To 154581b. at $3.60 ... 
 Feed, 168 days 
 
 556.49 
 500.04 
 40.00 
 
 556.49 
 500.04 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 21245 Ib. beef 
 
 5.35 
 
 4.85 
 
 1136.61 
 20.41 
 
 1030.38 
 20.41 
 45.74 
 
 355 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 60.49 
 
 
 
 
 
 1157.02 
 
 1096.53 
 
 
 
 1157.02 
 
 1096.53 
 
 Lot 6, 16 Steers. 
 To 15448 Ib. at $3.35 . . . 
 Feed, 168 days . . . . 
 
 517.51 
 479 . 69 
 40.00 
 
 517.51 
 479 . 69 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc. ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bv 20825 Ib. beef 
 
 5.30 
 
 4.85 
 
 1103.73 
 23.58 
 
 1010.01 
 23.58 
 3.61 
 
 410 Ib. pork . 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 90.11 
 
 
 
 
 
 1127.31 1037.20 
 
 
 
 1127.31 
 
 1037.20 
 
190 
 
 BULLETIN No. 90. 
 
 [December. 
 
 TABLE 11 Continued. 
 
 Financial statement end of 
 179 days, Nov. 29, 1902, 
 to May 28, 1903. 
 
 DISBURSEMENTS. 
 
 MARKET PRICE 
 
 PER CWT. 
 
 RECEIPTS. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling 
 
 Station- 
 ary. 
 
 Falling. 
 
 Lot 1, 16 Steers. 
 To 14953 Ib. at $4.75 . . . 
 Feed 179 days 
 
 $710.27 
 520.54 
 40.00 
 
 $710.27 
 520.54 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 22315 Ib. beef 
 
 $7.00 
 
 $5.40 
 
 $1562.05 
 24.09 
 
 $1205.01 
 24.09 
 41.71 
 
 419 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 315.33 
 
 
 
 
 
 1586.14 
 
 1270.81 
 
 
 
 1586.14 
 
 1270.81 
 
 Lot 2, 16 Steers. 
 To 17836 Ib. at $4.55 . . . 
 Feed, 179 days 
 
 811.54 
 627.34 
 40.00 
 
 811.54 
 
 627.34 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc. . . . '. 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 25120 Ib. beef 
 
 6.90 
 
 5.40 
 
 1733.28 
 28.75 
 
 1356.48 
 
 28.75 
 93.65 
 
 500 Ib. pork . 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 283.15 
 
 
 
 
 
 1762.08 
 
 1478.88 
 
 
 
 1762.03 
 
 1478.88 
 
 Lot 3, 16 Steers. 
 To 16305 Ib. at $4.20 . . . 
 Feed, 179 days 
 
 684.81 
 575.49 
 40.00 
 
 684.81 
 575.49 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 23010 Ib. beef 
 
 6.50 
 
 5.15 
 
 1495.65 
 27.31 
 
 1185.01 
 27.31 
 
 87.98 
 
 475 Ib. pork .". 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 222 . 66 
 
 
 
 
 
 1522.96 
 
 1300.30 
 
 
 
 1522.96 
 
 1300.30 
 
 Lot 4, 16 Steers. 
 To 16355 Ib. at $3.85 . . . 
 Feed 179 days 
 
 629 . 67 
 564.53 
 40.00 
 
 629.67 
 564.53 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 22450 Ib. beef 
 
 5.80 
 
 4.90 
 
 1302.10 
 29.90 
 
 1100.05 
 29.90 
 104.25 
 
 520 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 97.80 
 
 
 
 
 
 1332.00 
 
 1234.20 
 
 
 
 1332.00 
 
 1234.20 
 
 Lot 5, 16 Steers. 
 To 15458 Ib. at $3.60 . . . 
 Feed, 179 days 
 
 556.49 
 537.62 
 40.00 
 
 556.49 
 537.62 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 21780 Ib. beef 
 
 5.50 
 
 4.80 
 
 1197.90 
 24.15 
 
 1045.44 
 24.15 
 64.52 
 
 420 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market, profit 
 
 87.94 
 
 
 
 
 
 1222.05 
 
 1134.11 
 
 
 
 1222.05 
 
 1134.11 
 
 Lot 6, 16 Steers. 
 To 15448 Ib. at $3.35 . . 
 Feed, 179 days 
 
 517.51 
 513.24 
 40.00 
 
 517.51 
 
 513.24 
 40.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 By 21055 Ib. beef 
 
 5.40 
 
 4.80 
 
 1136.97 
 27.60 
 
 1010.64 
 27.60 
 32.51 
 
 480 Ib. pork 
 
 
 
 Falling market, loss .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stationary market profit 
 
 93.82 
 
 
 
 
 
 1164.57 
 
 1070.75 
 
 
 
 1164.57 
 
 1070.75 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEEES. 
 
 191 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ to 
 
 CO X 
 
 *i 
 (0 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 1C 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 O5 
 
 (N 
 
 00 
 
 -SO oj 
 flOSTJ 
 C^OS 
 nrT^- 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 00 
 (M 
 
 <N 
 <N 
 IN 
 
 l> 
 
 O3 
 
 t^ 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 O5 
 
 giST* 
 
 c3 **-< 
 -S >^0 
 
 85 
 
 OJ 
 
 r 1 
 
 l> 
 
 1C 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 O5 
 
 c 
 
 IM 
 
 IM 
 
 1C 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 6 
 
 O 
 
 >-3 
 
 r- 1 
 * 
 
 CO 
 O5 
 
 t^ 
 
 00 
 
 * 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 2 
 
 (N 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 03 
 
 CO ^> 
 
 -)j 
 
 y3 
 
 t~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 co 
 * 
 
 OS 
 
 * 
 
 1 1 
 
 -Jf O 03 
 
 COSTS 
 g^oo 
 
 G - -CO 
 
 2 
 
 PH 
 
 00 
 
 to 
 
 (N 
 
 wa 
 
 CO 
 (N 
 
 00 
 00 
 
 1 1 
 
 01 
 
 co 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 OS 
 
 2^ 
 
 3>?0 
 
 03 
 O3 
 
 Oi 
 O3 
 
 CO 
 
 * 
 
 (N 
 
 co 
 
 <N 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 t>- 
 
 1 1 
 CO 
 
 02^73 
 S a 
 B 
 
 O 
 hJ 
 
 CO 
 
 i-H 
 
 1 1 
 CO 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 l> 
 
 >c 
 
 * 
 
 CO 
 
 w 
 
 +J 
 
 <n 
 
 t^ 
 l> 
 
 :% 
 
 O5 
 t- 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 (N 
 
 <N-* 
 <N O 
 
 +a O c3 
 C OS-Q 
 O) i 1 
 
 a .0 
 
 e 
 
 PM 
 
 >o 
 
 * 
 
 1 1 
 
 00 
 
 co 
 
 i-H 
 
 il 
 N 
 il 
 
 r 1 
 
 CO 
 
 1 
 
 1C 
 
 t^t^ 
 
 CO 00 
 
 -+^> T-H 
 
 5 ^"8 
 
 03 
 
 ta 
 
 to 
 
 O 
 
 1C 
 
 O5 
 ^* 
 
 r 
 t^ 
 
 t>. 
 
 o 
 
 
 CC 0^3 
 
 < c 
 
 V 
 
 3 
 
 CD 
 <N 
 
 Oi 
 (N 
 
 l> 
 
 "*< 
 
 <N 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 ~ 03 
 CO >% 
 
 -1J 
 * 
 
 00 
 
 Tf 
 
 CO 
 ^ 
 
 00 
 
 S) 
 
 Oi 
 
 i-H 
 
 
 OS 
 1C 
 
 -gO 03 
 C OS 73 
 
 it 
 
 G _Ti-i 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 :g 
 
 t^ 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 c* 
 
 
 l> 
 
 ?<-< 
 03 *- 
 
 4-3 H O 
 
 03 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 <N 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 t^ 
 
 t^ 
 
 <* 
 
 r^ i 
 
 C 00 
 
 1C 
 
 os 
 
 COjj.g 
 5 
 
 O 
 
 hJ 
 
 co 
 
 1C 
 
 CO 
 O5 
 
 It* 
 
 o 
 
 1C 
 
 r 
 
 00 
 CO 1C 
 
 os 
 
 i-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 co~ >> 
 
 cC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4^0 c? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C OS -rt 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r-<~ 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c * 
 
 C Ton 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - S ? 
 ca . o 
 
 O3 
 
 o 
 
 T-H 
 
 i 
 
 00 "3 
 1C CO 
 
 <* c 
 
 00 1C 
 
 00 CO 
 (N O3 
 
 r 1 
 
 00 
 
 M e 
 
 fe 
 
 O 
 J 
 
 ^-( 
 
 l> 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 I 1 
 
 CO CO 
 00 
 
 t^ o 
 
 CO-* 
 
 1C CO 
 * 1C 
 
 t> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4-0^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^2 o3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SS" 73 
 
 PH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s .* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s * * 
 
 9C4H 
 
 03 . O 
 
 03 
 
 (N t^ 
 
 1C CO 
 
 oc 
 
 t^ CO 
 
 O5O5 
 
 Tf (^ 
 
 1C CO 
 
 CO Tjl 
 
 00 t* 
 
 o-* 
 
 O i 
 
 os oo 
 
 "41 
 
 O 
 
 ^ 
 
 1-1 O 
 C 1-1 
 
 1C 00 
 CO 
 
 ^H CO 
 O5 1C 
 
 O CO 
 00 CO 
 
 * ^H 
 
 CO 1C 
 
 CO O 
 
 l^ Tj< 
 
 
 
 f't 
 
 . 83 
 
 bC C 
 2 
 
 . 03 
 il. = 
 
 c o 
 
 , 
 
 . ei 
 
 tc c 
 c 2 
 
 03 
 bb C 
 
 a o 
 
 ng- 
 onary. 
 
 s- 
 
 . f. 
 
 bCC 
 
 c c 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 fs-OD 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 feco 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 foO2 
 
 ^3 03 
 c3 ^j 
 
 fee/} 
 
 "M =3 
 03 ^_ 
 
 feO3 
 
 :sj 
 
 feO! 
 
 
 M 
 
 i-H 
 
 (N 
 
 CO 
 
 * 
 
 1C 
 
 <p 
 
192 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 It will be seen in Table 12 that at no time during the course of the 
 experiment would it have been possible to sell any of the six lots of 
 steers profitably on the basis of a falling or the actual market except 
 in the case of the inferior cattle. These could have been marketed 
 {profitably at the close of the third or fifth four-week periods of the ex- 
 periment. Up to the end of the second period, January 24, 1903. none 
 of the grades could have been sold profitably on either the actual market 
 or a market identical with that of November 29, 1902, when the experi- 
 ment began. February 21, three months from the opening of the 
 experiment, the fancy and choice lots could have been sold at a profit 
 on the basis of a stationary market. At the end of the fourth period, 
 and thereafter, any of the lots would have sold profitably on a stationary 
 market excepting the common grade at the close of the fourth period. 
 
 These results go to show that the early months of the feeding period 
 are not of necessity the most profitable months as many feeders sup- 
 pose. Indeed in this case the opposite was true. The fact that all of the 
 cattle were given a partial grain ration during the four weeks preceding 
 the test doubtless detracted from the gains which would otherwise 
 have been shown in the first period, because the first increase in weight 
 by steers in the average feed lot is attributed largely to "fill." 
 
 Under normal market conditions, that is, when prevailing prices of 
 beef steers remain about stationary, the better grades of feeding cattle be- 
 gin returning a profit sooner than do the lower grades, as is shown by the 
 summary in Table 12. For example, the fancy and choice steers could 
 have been profitably disposed of four weeks earlier than either the good, 
 medium, common, or inferior grades, assuming a steady market through- 
 out the experiment. Further, on April 18, the earliest date at which the 
 statement shows a balance to the credit of all the grades, on a stationary 
 market, the fancy, choice, and good cattle had earned an average profit 
 relatively more than twice as great as that of the three lower grades. 
 
 That conditions were unusual and unfavorable for making it possible 
 to show that any one of the lots was fed at a profit in the feeding 
 experience, the results of which are detailed in this bulletin, in no way 
 lessens the value of this experiment. The prices prevailing for feeds 
 were normal, the unusual factor was that of the radical decline in 
 the market. However, the data derived are independent of the particu- 
 lar market conditions at this time and serve as a basis for calculating 
 profits or losses under varying market conditions. 
 
 Under the conditions prevailing at the time of this experiment, all 
 lots were fed at a loss. The records of this experiment show definitely 
 the extent and cause of such losses, which were occasioned by the decline 
 in cattle values during the six months of this experiment. It will be 
 seen that the different lots did not prove equally unprofitable. A care- 
 ful study of the various factors which affect profit and loss in steer 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEEBS. 193 
 
 feeding will reveal in each instance the factor or factors most concerned 
 in bringing about these variations in losses. 
 
 Lot 6, the inferior feeders, were fed with smallest loss under this 
 declining market. Table 13 shows that steers such as represented lot 6 
 declined least in the market. This indicates that less loss was occasioned 
 by this factor here than in any other lot. This one fact would undoubt- 
 edly account for the smaller loss, but it is not the only advantage this 
 lot possessed. Table 5 shows that these steers made the smallest 
 relative and absolute gains in beef during feeding. Notwithstanding 
 this fact they were in good marketable condition. Gains in live weight 
 of steers are generally made at a loss, that is a pound of gain in beef 
 usually costs more than it will sell for on the market, hence, that lot 
 of steers which can be increased in value per hundred weight by putting 
 on the least number of pounds gain, other things being equal, will have 
 an advantage over other steers putting on greater gains, but increasing 
 no more rapidly in value per hundred weight. There was also a very 
 slight advantage in this lot over some of the others in the amount of 
 pork produced. 
 
 Lot 1 stands second in its financial showing under the falling mar- 
 ket, Table 13. Its advantage over other lots came from the fact that, 
 as is shown in Table 5, they made by far the best gains for food con- 
 sumed. That this is an all important factor will be better appreciated 
 when it is known that in practically all other respects this lot was at 
 a decided disadvantage. The disadvantages referred to were that they 
 made larger gains than any other lot, hence sustained greater loss from 
 this factor; their increase per hundred weight during fattening was the 
 least of all lots, and they were the lightest weight at the beginning. 
 The amount of pork produced was the smallest. The importance of 
 securing gains in live weight economically is still further emphasized in 
 the showing made by the steers in lot 5, which stood next to lot 1 as 
 economical producers. A portion of what they lost in economy of pro- 
 duction was offset by the fact that they stood second highest in increase 
 in value per hundred weight during feeding. Only two other lots made 
 smaller gains. These factors account for the relatively good showing 
 of lot 5. 
 
 Lot 3 made a better financial showing than lot 2, because the increase 
 in value per hundred weight during feeding was greater; the cost of a 
 pound of gain was less, the gains smaller and the pork produced was 
 greater. 
 
 The steers in lot 2 did not make as good gains for food consumed as 
 some other lots; this was undoubtedly partially due to the fact that 
 they were the largest framed and heaviest weight steers in the experi- 
 ment. The advantage they possessed in having greater weight at the out- 
 set, which would normally amount to a considerable item in the 
 
194 
 
 BULLETIN No. 90. 
 
 [December, 
 
 increase per hundred weight on original weight, was not in this instance, 
 an important factor, as the actual increase per hundred weight during 
 feeding was small. This lot was again at a disadvantage financially in 
 making relatively large gains. 
 
 But little can be said for lot 4; they made a bad showing in a most 
 unfavorable year. Their gains in beef were expensive. They apparently 
 possessed but few of the advantages accorded either the better or the 
 poorer grades, and were possessed of some of the disadvantages found 
 to be present in each of them. 
 
 TABLE 13. ACTUAL DECLINE IN MARKET VALUE PER HUNDRED WEIGHT BY 
 
 MONTHS ON BASIS OF MARKET OF NOVEMBER 29, 
 
 1902, AND TOTAL DECLINE. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Actual 
 
 
 Nov. 29 
 
 Jan. 24 
 
 Feb. 21 
 
 Mar. 21 
 
 Apr. 18 
 
 May 16 
 
 Total, 
 
 margin 
 
 Lot 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 Nov. 29 
 
 per cwt. 
 
 No. 
 
 Jan. 24, 
 56 days. 
 
 Feb. 21, 
 28 days. 
 
 Mar. 21, 
 28 days. 
 
 Apr. 18, 
 28 days. 
 
 May 16, 
 28 days. 
 
 May 28, 
 11 days. 
 
 to 
 May 28, 
 179 days. 
 
 from 
 Nov. 29 to 
 May 28, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 179 days. 
 
 1 
 
 $0.25 
 
 $0.30 
 
 $0.15 
 
 $0.15 
 
 $0.40 
 
 $0.35 
 
 $1.60 
 
 $0.65 
 
 2 
 
 .30 
 
 .45 
 
 .10 
 
 .00 
 
 .35 
 
 .30 
 
 1.50 
 
 .85 
 
 3 
 
 .20 
 
 .25 
 
 .25 
 
 .10 
 
 .40 
 
 .15 
 
 1.35 
 
 .95 
 
 4 
 
 .10. 
 
 .05 
 
 .25 
 
 .05 
 
 .20 
 
 .25 
 
 .90 
 
 1.05 
 
 5 
 
 .20 
 
 *+.25 
 
 .10 
 
 .25 
 
 .20 
 
 .20 
 
 .70 
 
 1.20 
 
 6 
 
 .20 
 
 *+.25 
 
 .20 
 
 .10 
 
 .20 
 
 .15 
 
 .60 
 
 1.45 
 
 *The + sign here is used to signify that instead of a decline in the market for 
 such steers as represented, lots 5 and 6, there was an actual advance of twenty-five 
 cents per hundred weight during the second four weeks of the test. The market for 
 those grades therefore was practically the same on January 24, 1903, as it was at 
 the beginning of the experiment, November 29, 1902. 
 
 With the two exceptions noted there was a steady but somewhat 
 irregular decline in the market for all grades from November 29 to 
 May 28. This decline was much greater in the better grades than in 
 the poorer ones. This is due partly to the fact that the prices for 
 fancy, choice, and good feeding cattle, and those prevailing for prime, 
 choice, and good beeves were relatively high, the former because there 
 was a great demand for feeders possessing quality, and the latter because 
 just at the Christmas holiday season, prices for good fat cattle are apt 
 to be relatively higher than those for the lower grades. 
 
 As the holidays passed and the season advanced, the supply of prime, 
 choice, and good steers was so liberal that prices dropped on these grades 
 more rapidly than on others. 
 
 In the last column will be found the actual margin of selling over 
 purchase price for each grade. By comparing these margins with the 
 figures in the next column to the left, it will be seen that, except in 
 lots 4, 5, and 6, the margins of actual market transactions were not as 
 great as the actual decline in the market. To put it in another way, 
 under existing market conditions the market declined more rapidly than 
 the steers increased in value during the fattening process. This is a 
 most unusual circumstance, but one which the cattle feeder is all too 
 frequently obliged to meet. 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEEES. 
 
 TABLE 14. VALUE OF STEERS BY PERIODS ON BASIS 
 
 MARKET. 
 
 195 
 
 OF STATIONARY AND FALLING 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Av'rage 
 
 
 
 Lot 1. 
 
 Lot 2. 
 
 Lot 3. 
 
 Lot 4. 
 
 Lot 5. 
 
 Lot 6. 
 
 by peri- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ods for 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 lots. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 Actual market value per 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 29. 
 
 cwt. beginning of ex- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1902. 
 
 periment 
 
 $4.75 
 
 $4.55 
 
 $4.20 
 
 $3.85 
 
 $3.60 
 
 $3.35 
 
 
 
 Increase in market value 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 per cwt. in 4 weeks on 
 basis of stationary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 market 
 
 .25 
 
 .20 
 
 .20 
 
 .20 
 
 .25 
 
 .25 
 
 $0.255 
 
 Dec. 
 
 Market value per cwt. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 27, 
 
 basis of stationary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1903. 
 
 market 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.40 
 
 4.05 
 
 3.85 
 
 3.60 
 
 
 
 Actual market value per 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cwt. basis of existing 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 market conditions .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Increase in market value 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 per cwt. in 4 weeks on 
 basis of stationary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 market 
 
 .25 
 
 .35 
 
 .20 
 
 .20 
 
 .25 
 
 .25 
 
 .250 
 
 Jan. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24, 
 
 Market value per cwt. ba- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1903. 
 
 sis of stationary market 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5.25 
 
 5.10 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.10 
 
 3.85 
 
 
 
 Actual market value per 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cwt. basis of existing 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 market conditions .... 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.80 
 
 4.40 
 
 4.15 
 
 3.90 
 
 3.65 
 
 
 
 Increase in market value 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 per cwt. in 4 weeks on 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 basis of stationary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 market 
 
 .30 
 
 .45 
 
 .50 
 
 .40 
 
 .25 
 
 .50 
 
 .400 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Market value per cwt. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 21, 
 
 basis of stationary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1903. 
 
 market 
 
 5.55 
 
 5.55 
 
 5.10 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 
 
 Actual market value per 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cwt. basis of existing 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 market conditions .... 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.80 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.40 
 
 4.40 
 
 
 
 Increase in market value 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 per cwt. in 4 weeks on 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 basis of stationary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 market 
 
 .35 
 
 .35 
 
 .35 
 
 .40 
 
 .20 
 
 .30 
 
 .325 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Market value per cwt. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 21, 
 
 basis of stationary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1903. 
 
 market 
 
 5.90 
 
 5.90 
 
 5.45 
 
 5.05 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.65 
 
 
 
 Actual market value per 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cwt. basis of existing 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 market conditions .... 
 
 5.20 
 
 5.05 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.50 
 
 
 Apr. 
 
 Increase in market value 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 18, 
 
 per cwt. in 4 weeks on 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1903. 
 
 basis of stationary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 market . 
 
 .35 
 
 .40 
 
 .50 
 
 .40 
 
 .60 
 
 .45 
 
 .45 
 
196 
 
 BULLETIN No. 90. 
 
 TABLE 14 Continued. 
 
 [December, 
 
 
 
 Lot l. 
 
 Lot 2. 
 
 Lot 3. 
 
 Lot 4. 
 
 Lot 5. 
 
 Lot 6. 
 
 Av'rage 
 by peri- 
 ods for 
 6 lots. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 Market value per cwt. 
 basis of stationary 
 market 
 
 $6.25 
 
 $6.30 
 
 $5.95 
 
 $5.45 
 
 $5.15 
 
 $5.10 
 
 
 18, 
 1903. 
 
 Actual market value per 
 cwt. basis of existing 
 market conditions .... 
 
 Increase in market value 
 per cwt. in 4 weeks on 
 basis of stationary 
 market 
 
 5.40 
 .50 
 
 5.45 
 .35 
 
 5.15 
 
 .40 
 
 5.00 
 20 
 
 4.85 
 .20 4 
 
 4.85 
 20 
 
 $ 308 
 
 May 
 16, 
 1903. 
 
 Market value per cwt. 
 basis of stationary 
 market 
 
 6.75 
 
 6.65 
 
 6.35 
 
 5.65 
 
 5.35 
 
 5.30 
 
 
 
 Actual market value per 
 cwt. on basis of exist- 
 ing market conditions.. 
 
 5.50 
 
 5.45 
 
 5.15 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.85 
 
 
 . 
 
 Increase in market value 
 per cwt. in 11 days on 
 basis of stationary 
 market 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 175 
 
 May 
 28, 
 1903. 
 
 Market value per cwt. 
 basis of stationary 
 market 
 
 7.00 
 
 6.90 
 
 6 50 
 
 5 80 
 
 5 50 
 
 5.40 
 
 
 
 Actual market value per 
 cwt. on basis of exist- 
 ing market conditions.. 
 
 5.40 
 
 5.40 
 
 5.15 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.80 
 
 4.80 
 
 
 
 Actual total increase per 
 cwt. in 179 days on 
 basis market condi- 
 tions Nov., 1902, to 
 May, 1903 
 
 .65 
 
 .85 
 
 .95 
 
 1.05 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.45 
 
 
 
 Total increase per cwt. 
 on basis of stationary 
 market, Nov., 1902. . . 
 
 2 25 
 
 2 35 
 
 2 30 
 
 1 95 
 
 1 90 
 
 2.05 
 
 
 
 Average increase per cwt. 
 per month on basis of 
 stationary market .... 
 
 .375 
 
 .392 
 
 .383 
 
 .325 
 
 .317 
 
 .342 
 
 .356 
 
 The foregoing tabulated statement illustrates a feature of the inves- 
 tigation under study. Among the many difficult and important questions 
 which the cattle feeder must decide is, at what stage of the fattening 
 process may steers be marketed with greatest profit? How largely does 
 the answer to this question depend upon the grade of cattle fed? And 
 finally, do market fluctuations have a bearing upon the answer to this 
 question? From the above table it will be seen that on a basis of a sta- 
 tionary market there would have been a margin between the buying 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEEHS. 197 
 
 and selling price in lot 1 of $2.25 per hundred weight; in lot 2, of 
 $2.35; lot 3, $2.30; lot 4, $1.95; lot 5, $1.90; and lot 6, $2.05. These 
 margins as will subsequently be shown would have made handsome 
 profits for the cattle feeder on all the grades. Unfortunately for the 
 financial showing made in the actual transactions of this experiment 
 the margins over the cost price were very small indeed. They were as 
 follows: In lot 1, $0.65; in lot 2, $0.85; in lot 3, $0.95; in lot 4, $1.05; 
 in lot 5, $1.20; and in lot 6, $1.45 per hundred weight. 
 
 The margins recorded in the table as estimated on the basis of a 
 stationary market are somewhat unusual in that the margins for the 
 better grades are rather too large as compared with those of the lower 
 grades. It is true that the actual margins computed on the basis of 
 prevailing market conditions are much more unusual. The variations 
 in margins from the normal as based upon a stationary market are too 
 slight, however, to render a comparison of margins between the grades 
 impracticable; in fact, there is much of value that can be learned from 
 such comparison. While it is true that by using the Christmas holiday 
 market as the basis for values of beef cattle on stationary market the 
 estimated values of prime steers as compared with medium and common 
 grades of beef cattle are relatively high, it is equally true that the esti- 
 mated value of fancy, choice, and good feeding cattle was correspondingly 
 high at this season in 1902. The average increase per hundred weight 
 a month on the basis of a stationary market for the three best grades, 
 lots 1, 2, and 3, was slightly more than 38 cents. The average increase 
 per hundred weight a month on a basis of actual market conditions 
 in the three best grades was but little more than 13 cents. 
 
 Two factors contributed to make the margins exhibited in lots 4, 5, 
 and 6 characteristic. First, the market did not decline either as much 
 or as rapidly as in the better grades, and second, these grades increased 
 in value per hundred weight rather more rapidly than is common. Much 
 therefore is to be gained by making a careful study of the financial 
 statement concerning lots 4, 5, and 6. 
 
 In general, it may be said that where two-year-old steers are gaining 
 at the rate of two and one-half pounds per steer a day on rations calcu- 
 lated to produce that finish demanded in the market, and that in a rea- 
 sonably short time with feeds at average prices, they will increase in 
 market value at the rate of from $0.20 to $0.30 per hundred weight a 
 month, providing of course the market does not decline in the meantime. 
 
 Another point that should be noted in this table is that at the begin- 
 ning of the experiment the market value of the various lots was such 
 that lot 1 was $0.20 per hundred weight more valuable than lot 2. Lot 
 2 was $0.25 per hundred weight more valuable than lot 3; lot 3, $0.35 
 per hundred weight more valuable than lot 4; lot 4, $0.25 per hundred 
 weight more valuable than lot 5 ; lot 5, $0.25 more valuable per hundred 
 
198 BULLETIN No. 90. [December^ 
 
 weight than lot 6; lot 1 was $1.40 more valuable per hundred weight 
 than lot 6. 
 
 At the end of the experiment these differences were much less 
 marked; lots 1 and 2 were sold on the market at the same price. They 
 were considered only $0.25 per hundred weight more valuable for 
 slaughter than lot 3, and lot 3 $0.25 per hundred weight more valuable 
 than lot 4. Lots 5 and 6 were considered of equal value for killing 
 purposes and but $0.10 per hundred weight less valuable than lot 4. 
 When marketed lot 1 was considered only $0.60 per hundred weight 
 more valuable than lot 6. 
 
 As bearing on the financial aspect of this experiment and cattle 
 feeding in general it may be said that market values are bound to vary 
 considerably from those obtained during this experiment. Cost of gains 
 under favorable conditions need not be materially different from those 
 in this experiment. It is interesting to note that for the feeder to 
 have come out even and neither to have made nor lost by the feeding of 
 the various grades in this experiment it would have been necessary 
 to have secured margins as follows: Lot 1, $0.93; lot 2, $1.13; lot 3, 
 $1.48; lot 4, $1.63; lot 5, $1.59; and lot 6, $1.63. This illustrates a 
 fact which every cattle feeder should understand, viz., that the lower the 
 price at which feeding cattle are purchased, no matter whether this low 
 price is chiefly due to a prevailing dull and low market or to the fact of 
 the cattle being poor in grade, the larger the margin must be to secure 
 protection against loss. 
 
 The accompanying table illustrates the relative gains of about half 
 of the individual steers in the different lots. On January 19, just 
 fifty days after the experiment began, a metal ear label was inserted in 
 the left ear of each steer in lot 6; on the following day, January 20, 
 ear labels were inserted in the ears of lots 4 and 5; on January 21 in 
 lots 2 and 3; and on January 22 in lot 1. The weight of each steer was 
 taken just before the label was inserted. It was the intention to weigh 
 each steer at the end of the experiment and thus determine the indi- 
 vidual gains of each one in each lot.* This was found to be im- 
 practicable as many of the labels were soon lost and the placing of 
 duplicates would have been a constant annoying and disturbing factor 
 to be reckoned with in any results which final records might show. It 
 was thought advisable, therefore, not to attempt to secure a complete 
 record of individual gains but simply of those steers that had fortu- 
 nately retained their ear labels to the last. This question of individual 
 gains was not a part of the experiment as planned and the absence of 
 these records does not in any way affect data which will be used 
 to determine the object of this experiment. The incomplete record 
 
 *Experience at this Station goes to show that the metal ear label is much less 
 liable to tear out when placed on the upper edge than on the lower edge, as recom- 
 mended. 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEERS. 
 
 199 
 
 TABLE 15. INDIVIDUAL WEIGHTS AND GAINS OF STEERS. 
 
 Lot No. 
 
 No. of 
 steer. 
 
 Weight of 
 steer. 
 Jan. 22. 
 
 Wt. of steer, 
 Champaign, 
 May 27. 
 
 Gain in 
 125 days. 
 
 Average 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 1 
 
 101 
 
 885 
 
 1315 
 
 430 
 
 3.44 
 
 1 
 
 102 
 
 905 
 
 1315 
 
 410 
 
 3.28 
 
 1 
 
 103 
 
 1020 
 
 1285 
 
 265 
 
 2.12 
 
 1 
 
 104 
 
 1065 
 
 1455 
 
 390 
 
 3.12 
 
 1 
 
 107 
 
 1120 
 
 1600 
 
 480 
 
 3.84 
 
 1 
 
 108 
 
 965 
 
 1250 
 
 285 
 
 2.28 
 
 1 
 
 111 
 
 990 
 
 1315 
 
 325 
 
 2.60 
 
 1 
 
 112 
 
 1050 
 
 1445 
 
 395 
 
 3.16 
 
 1 
 
 113 
 
 1045 
 
 1425 
 
 380 
 
 3.04 
 
 
 
 Jan. 21 
 
 
 126 days 
 
 
 2 
 
 119 
 
 1245 
 
 1675 
 
 430 
 
 3.41 
 
 2 
 
 121 
 
 1265 
 
 1580 
 
 315 
 
 2.50 
 
 2 
 
 122 
 
 1135 
 
 1465 
 
 330 
 
 2.61 
 
 2 
 
 123 
 
 1295 
 
 1670 
 
 375 
 
 2.97 
 
 2 
 
 126 
 
 1185 
 
 1400 
 
 215 
 
 1.70 
 
 3 
 
 135 
 
 985 
 
 1295 
 
 310 
 
 2.46 
 
 3 
 
 137 
 
 1120 
 
 1380 
 
 260 
 
 2.06 
 
 3 
 
 138 
 
 1010 
 
 1440 
 
 430 
 
 3.41 
 
 3 
 
 140 
 
 1350 
 
 1730 
 
 380 
 
 3.01 
 
 3 
 
 147 
 
 975 
 
 1410 
 
 435 
 
 3.45 
 
 3 
 
 148 
 
 1030 
 
 1440 
 
 410 
 
 3.25 
 
 
 
 Jan. 20 
 
 
 127 days 
 
 
 4 
 
 151 
 
 1140 
 
 1250 
 
 110 
 
 .866 
 
 4 
 
 153 
 
 1025 
 
 1385 
 
 360 
 
 2.83 
 
 4 
 
 157 
 
 1085 
 
 1375 
 
 290 
 
 2.28 
 
 4 
 
 158 
 
 1130 
 
 1455 
 
 325 
 
 2.55 
 
 4 
 
 159 
 
 1250 
 
 1540 
 
 290 
 
 2.28 
 
 4 
 
 163 
 
 1125 
 
 1465 
 
 340 
 
 2.67 
 
 4 
 
 164 
 
 1075 
 
 1375 
 
 300 
 
 2.36 
 
 5 
 
 165 
 
 950 
 
 1300 
 
 350 
 
 2.75 
 
 5 
 
 166 
 
 1030 
 
 1350 
 
 320 
 
 2.51 
 
 5 
 
 168 
 
 1135 
 
 1500 
 
 365 
 
 2.87 
 
 5 
 
 169 
 
 1070 
 
 1460 
 
 390 
 
 3.07 
 
 5 
 
 171 
 
 1005 
 
 1285 
 
 280 
 
 2.20 
 
 5 
 
 172 
 
 1070 
 
 1340 
 
 270 
 
 2.12 
 
 5 
 
 173 
 
 985 
 
 1300 
 
 315 
 
 2.48 
 
 5 
 
 175 
 
 1030 
 
 1300 
 
 270 
 
 2.12 
 
 5 
 
 176 
 
 990 
 
 1375 
 
 385 
 
 3.03 
 
 5 
 
 178 
 
 895 
 
 1210 
 
 315 
 
 2.48 
 
 5 
 
 179 
 
 985 
 
 1400 
 
 415 
 
 3.26 
 
 5 
 
 180 
 
 1130 
 
 1475 
 
 345 
 
 2.71 
 
 
 
 Jan. 19 
 
 
 128 days 
 
 
 6 
 
 181 
 
 1060 
 
 1370 
 
 310 
 
 2.42 
 
 6 
 
 182 
 
 1045 
 
 1390 
 
 345 
 
 2.69 
 
 6 
 
 183 
 
 925 
 
 1225 
 
 300 
 
 2.34 
 
 6 
 
 184 
 
 1180 
 
 1395 
 
 215 
 
 1.67 
 
 6 
 
 185 
 
 925 
 
 1215 
 
 290 
 
 2.26 
 
 6 
 
 186 
 
 1000 
 
 1315 
 
 315 
 
 2.46 
 
 6 
 
 188 
 
 955 
 
 1290 
 
 335 
 
 2.61 
 
 6 
 
 189 
 
 1020 
 
 1425 
 
 405 
 
 3.16 
 
 6 
 
 190 
 
 1160 
 
 1445 
 
 285 
 
 2.22 
 
 6 
 
 192 
 
 965 
 
 1295 
 
 330 
 
 2.57 
 
 6 
 
 193 
 
 1055 
 
 1305 
 
 250 
 
 1.95 
 
 6 
 
 195 
 
 1110 
 
 1190 
 
 80 
 
 .625 
 
 6 
 
 196 
 
 925 
 
 1175 
 
 250 
 
 1.95 
 
200 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 illustrates a point or two worthy of notice; first, that as far as these 
 records go, the steer that made the greatest average daily gain was 
 steer No. 107 in lot 1, while the steer making the lowest average daily 
 gain was No. 195 in lot 6. The former gained at the rate of 3.840 
 pounds a day, while the latter gained only .625 of a pound per day. 
 This difference is extreme and must be looked upon as an individual 
 rather than a grade characteristic. Careful study of the above table 
 reveals the fact that the steers in the better grades were not only more 
 rapid gainers, but also much more uniform in their daily gains than 
 the steers in the lower grades. The steers with high average daily gains 
 in lot 1 were the rule while the steers with such averages in lot 6 were 
 very unusual indeed. The individual gains in the other lots indicate 
 that the better bred the steer the more uniform and consistent his gains. 
 
 Steer No. 107 in lot 1 gaining nearly four pounds per day for four 
 months, and that under carload feed lot conditions on a steer well 
 fleshed as a feeder, but shows the opportunity and illustrates the possi- 
 bilities in store for the systematic, painstaking breeder of beef cattle 
 who will continue to select his animals to improve them in this rapid 
 gaining, early maturing quality. Perhaps no other characteristic of beef 
 cattle has received greater attention at the hands of breeders than this 
 one. The fact that this one steer practically stands in a class by him- 
 self indicates that there is still opportunity for further improvement 
 along this line. This opportunity should be made the most of by breed- 
 ers of beef cattle until it can no longer be said that beef production can 
 only be engaged in by well-to-do farmers since returns are slow and 
 capital is too long tied up without cash returns. 
 
 It would indeed be interesting to know the relative cost of beef on 
 these two steers to which reference has been made, namely No. 107 in 
 lot 1 and No. 195 in lot 6. This of course could not be determined in 
 this test without seriously interfering with the car-lot conditions be- 
 lieved to be so essential as a practical feature of this experiment. In 
 general it is clear that the steer making the greatest gains consumed the 
 most feed. He was always one of the first at the trough as soon as the 
 feed was distributed and among the last to leave it; when he did, he 
 seemed satisfied and contented. He had a proud, stately carriage that 
 would become individuals of any species of the animal kingdom. On the 
 contrary, the slow gaining steer was dainty and delicate about his eating 
 and seldom showed signs of having enjoyed or made good use of his meal. 
 He had that dull "hang-dog" look that always accompanies slight 
 grudging, and inefficient expenditure of energy. 
 
 These evidences of better gaining capacit)^ seemed to stand out more 
 clearly during the feeding process or after a closer acquaintance secured 
 by actual every day contact with the steers than in the yards as feeders. 
 This suggests the importance of the great advantage of breeding the 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEERS. 201 
 
 feeders which one finishes. A system of beef production that involves 
 the breeding and finishing of the steers by the same individual gives 
 opportunity to discard the feeders which do not promise well before too 
 much expensive feed has been wasted in trying to finish them for 
 the market. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 1. More rapid and much larger gains may be secured on the better 
 than on the more common grades. 
 
 2. The results of this experiment clearly show that when the various 
 grades of beef cattle are put in the best marketable condition there is 
 a very definite relation between the percentages of dressed beef and the 
 grade of cattle involved. The better the grade of cattle the higher the 
 percentages of dressed beef. 
 
 3. Low grade cattle carry larger percentages of internal fat than 
 the better bred ones, while there appears to be a more abundant and more 
 evenly distributed layer of surface fat on the better bred steers. 
 
 4. As the differences between feeders tend to disappear as the 
 feeding process goes on, the differences in quality between the various 
 grades of feeding cattle are more pronounced than such differences be- 
 tween the various grades of beef or fat cattle. Quality is the more 
 important in feeding cattle; condition in fat cattle. 
 
 5. Primarily this experiment was outlined to determine the relation 
 between the grade of feeding steers and their "feeding qualities"; that 
 is, whether the quality of a feeder determines his capacity for making 
 gains, his ability to use feed economically, and the nature of 'the gains 
 made. However, both the market and slaughter tests of the various 
 grades as finished clearly indicate that to the packer and butcher con- 
 dition is of first importance. 
 
 6. The grade of cattle the finishing of which will return to the 
 cattle feeder the greatest profit will depend upon the following con- 
 siderations : 
 
 (a) The relative ability of the various grades to use feed for the 
 production of gain and finish as shown by the data in this bulletin. 
 See Table 7. 
 
 (b) The relative cost of the various grades of feeding cattle. 
 
 (c) Cost of feed. 
 
 (d) The method of feeding and time of marketing. 
 
 (e) The range in prices between prime and common rough steers or 
 between the highest and lowest grades of beef cattle. 
 
 7. The greater the cost of the feed used, the greater is the advan- 
 tage in favor of the better grades, both because under normal market 
 conditions, in these grades the gains and finish are put on with less 
 relative feed consumption than in the lower ones, although this dif- 
 ference is less marked in the inferior than in the intermediate grades 
 
202 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 and because the cost of feed is a larger factor in the feeding of the 
 lower than the higher grades. 
 
 8. The greater the spread in the market between the various grades 
 of feeders, the more is the advantage in favor of the commoner grades. 
 As a rule the price of common rough steers fluctuates less than the price 
 for prime steers and the price of the inferior and common grades of 
 feeders varies less than those of the choice and fancy grades. 
 
 9. A concentrated ration and shorter feeding period tend to favor 
 the feeding of the lower grades, that is, a ration with a wide nutritive 
 ratio like corn and timothy hay or straw without the addition of a 
 nitrogenous concentrate or roughage and where the concentrate com- 
 prises a large percentage of the ration would favor cattle of the lower 
 grades because they are older and the process of finishing is largely a 
 process of fattening. 
 
 Again prices for the lower grades of fat or beef cattle are more 
 or less affected by range and holiday competition and are usually rela- 
 tively low at such seasons. 
 
 10. Older cattle of the more common grades can undoubtedly be put 
 in marketable condition on a shorter full feed period than can younger 
 cattle of the same weight which would grade higher, because the older 
 the cattle the less the increase in weight required to finish them. 
 
 11. The greater the spread in the market between the various grades 
 of fat steers the more is the advantage in favor of the better grades. 
 
 12. Opportunities for larger profits, and losses as well, lie with 
 the better grades of feeders. 
 
 13. Steers containing high percentages of beef blood possess greater 
 capacity for consuming large quantities of feed than steers of a more 
 common grade, especially in the later weeks. 
 
 14. Age and condition as well as quality are important factors to be 
 reckoned with in the management of the various grades of feeding cattle. 
 Speaking generally of the offerings of feeding cattle at any of our lead- 
 ing markets it is safe to say that the better the quality and condition 
 the younger the cattle. In securing 900 to 1,000 pound feeding cattle 
 of the more common grades one is bound to get cattle of advanced age, 
 say three years old at least. Choice and fancy feeders of these weights 
 can be secured in short two-year-old cattle. 
 
 15. Steers of all grades may be finished or put in good marketable 
 condition without carrying them to a point of fatness which necessitates 
 small gains for food consumed. 
 
 . 16. The margins necessary to protect against loss in finishing the 
 various grades of feeders are dependent upon: 
 
 (a) The grade and cost of the cattle. 
 
 (b) The price of feeds. 
 
 (c) The initial weight of the cattle. 
 
 (d) The length of the feeding period. 
 
1903.] FATTENING STEERS. 203 
 
 17. The lower the price at which feeding cattle are purchased, 
 whether because of prevailing low prices for feeders or because of the 
 low grade of the cattle, the larger must be the margin between the buy- 
 ing and selling price in order to secure protection against loss. 
 
 18. The greater the cost of the feed necessary for finishing feeders, 
 the larger must be the margin. 
 
 19. Feeding cattle of heavy weights can be finished profitably on 
 a narrower margin than can light weight feeders. 
 
 20. Feeding cattle which require an extended feeding period for 
 finishing require a larger margin than do feeders which can be matured 
 in a shorter time. 
 
 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 Beef production on an extensive scale is an enterprise in which the 
 uninformed and inexperienced can not afford to engage. For several 
 years it has been developing into a more complex and difficult, and 
 therefore a more hazardous business. Conditions as to market price of 
 feeding and fat cattle and cost of feeds have never been identical 
 during any two consecutive years and seldom more than similar at 
 irregular intervals. Thus the man who masters the science and art 
 of beef production in such a way as to make it profitable is a master 
 indeed. 
 
 It is reasonable to assume that the problems confronting the men 
 who market a large part of the fat cattle of America are the problems 
 that should engage the attention of the investigator. It is estimated 
 that 85 percent of the native beef cattle marketed in Chicago have been 
 previously bought as feeders and finished by cattle feeders who do not 
 raise the cattle they feed. In most respects the improvement in beef 
 cattle has been along lines calculated to render them more valuable and 
 profitable to cattle raisers who breed and develop the cattle they finish 
 for the block, rather than to render them especially fitted for the enter- 
 prise engaged in by so many of our cattle men, namely, that of buying in 
 the market or on the range, feeders that have been grown and developed 
 to the point of finishing. To be more specific it may be said that the 
 improvement in beef cattle has been along the lines of earlier maturity, 
 refinement of form, and reduction of the percentage of bone and other 
 products of the steer less valuable than beef. Thus it may appear on 
 first thought that breeders have lost sight of their greatest opportunity 
 by not rendering their cattle pre-eminently the cattle for the feed lot 
 no matter what the varying conditions affecting this enterprise may 
 happen to be. More careful consideration of the subject, however, will 
 surely convince the student of beef production that all these years of 
 improvement in beef cattle have not been in vain, for some one must 
 breed and rear the calves that will eventually find their way to the feed 
 lot and subsequently to market. All conditions indicate that ultimately 
 
204 BULLETIN No. 90. [December, 
 
 more of the steers fed in the corn belt will be reared there. Evidence 
 of the superiority of the well bred steer for this purpose is too manifest 
 to require discussion at this time. 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact that breeders have improved the early 
 maturing quality of beef cattle to a greater extent than any other, the 
 wide variations in the gains of individual steers within the grades of 
 feeding cattle used in this experiment point strongly to the possibility 
 of still further improvement along this line. Breeders of beef cattle 
 should not be slow to take advantage of this opportunity. 
 
 Incidentally the results of this experiment show which of the six 
 grades of feeding cattle was fed with the least loss under conditions 
 which have prevailed during the winter of 1902-'03, and the data will also 
 afford a basis for computing probable profits under varying market con- 
 ditions. Experienced feeders believe that the largest factors in deter- 
 mining the relative profits in feeding the different grades of cattle 
 are local and market conditions. It is obvious that cattle feeders can 
 not control the markets for their cattle; they should understand fully, 
 however, the bearing which market conditions have upon the question of 
 what grade of feeding cattle is likely to return to the feeder the great- 
 est profits in any given year. The big questions are, of course, the 
 relative rapidity, extent, nature, and cost of gains with the various 
 grades. 
 
 When prices rule low in the beef cattle class and the market is dull and 
 has a downward tendency, the range of prices between prime steers and 
 common rough steers is narrow, and as a result, condition or fat is more 
 important than quality or beef blood. As a rule, prices of common 
 rough steers in the beef cattle class fluctuate less than the prices for 
 prime steers. Hence, it will be seen that in general there is less liabil- 
 ity to large losses from market fluctuations in the feeding of the com- 
 moner than the better grades of feeding cattle. On the other hand the 
 chances for making large profits are undoubtedly greatest with the bet- 
 ter grades. As a feeding proposition there is perhaps a larger element 
 of speculation involved in the handling of the well-bred than the com- 
 mon-bred steer. It is best for the beginner to handle a few loads of the 
 commoner kinds, as the chances for heavy losses are thereby reduced to 
 the minimum, and the capital involved is not large. It is well, however, 
 to bear in mind that cattle of common and inferior grades must be pur- 
 chased at a low price or what has been said will not be true, for under 
 ordinary conditions the margin for profit in feeding low grade cattle is 
 slight. 
 
 By reducing the corn fed to meal and mixing same with roughage the 
 importance of pork production as a factor in cattle feeding is minimized. 
 Notwithstanding this, the pig, even under such conditions, should not 
 be eliminated. Properly managed he may return a credit to each steer 
 fed of approximately $2.00. 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEERS. 
 
 205 
 
206 
 
 BULLETIN No. 90. 
 
 [December, 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEERS. 
 
 207 
 
208 
 
 BULLETIN No. 90. 
 
 [December, 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEERS. 
 
 209 
 
210 
 
 BULLETIN No. 90. 
 
 [December, 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEERS. 
 
 211 
 
212 
 
 BULLETIN No. 90. 
 
 [December, 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEEKS. 
 
 213 
 
214 
 
 BULLETIN No. 90. 
 
 [December, 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEERS. 
 
 215 
 
216 
 
 BULLETIN No. 90. 
 
 [December, 
 
1903.] 
 
 FATTENING STEERS. 
 
 217 
 
 PLATE 13. THE INFERIOR FEEDER THAT GAINED BUT 80 POUNDS IN FOUR MONTHS, 
 
 AS MARKETED. 
 
 PLATE 14. THE FANCY SELECTED FEEDER THAT GAINED NEARLY FOUR POUNDS 
 
 A DAY FOR FOUR MONTHS. PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN A FEW 
 
 DAYS BEFORE MARKETING. 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA