The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1885-10-30
COST OF PRODUCING MEAT.

COST OF PRODUCING MEAT.
Researches Showing That Il Depends Upou
the Mode Of Feeding and the Preparstie.
q the Food.
When, with the aid Of science, the
farmer can 30 govern his operations as
to regulate the cost Of production, and
adapt his pastures and crops to special
objects, he win not only be enabled to
convert his produce into the most salable
commodities, but understand how to %.
cure the greatest amount at the lowest
cost. order to determine the rela-
tive value Of different feeding materials,
Professor Brown, of the Ontario expert.
mental farm. devoted nine years to care
full experiments for that purpose. and
his results show that while q greater and
more rapid increase of flesh is secured
from certain feeding materials. yet they
are not always the cheapest. The heavi-
est weight per dsy was obtained by feed
ing sugar beet, assisted with hay and 3
mixture of grain, which gave 30
pounds at cost of 12f cents per pound,
while permanent pasture produced EOS
pounds at . cost of only two cents per
pound. No doubt the difference in cost
was the labor of preparing the food, tho
pastures being ready for the stock, while
the mixed diet was prepared. There
was also difference in the quality of
the pasture. Permanent grass gave
better results than pasture from which
. crop of hay had been taken. as the
hay pastures produced only l. Is pounds,
at cost of five cents per pound.
Even when using hay its value de-
ponds upon its preparation and quality.
Hay. roots and bran, without grain,
gave daily gain Of 2.14 pounds. at q
cost OF nine cents per pound; but
the most costly food, though apparently
the cheapest, was uncut hay and roots.
with bran and corn. which produced
1.76 pounds, at . cost of fourteen cents
per pound, while cooked hay, roots anG
bran. with uncooked grain, gave $50
pounds, at cost of only nine cents per
pound. Thus it appears that cutting
the hay and using gave larger profit
than the uncut hay, roots and corn. the
difference being so great as to be easily
noticeable. Simply cutting the hay added
to the profit and lessened the cost; for
while the uncut hay and roots, with bran
and corn, gave 1.76 pounds. at cost #
fourteen cents per pound, the same
food. excepting that the hay was
cut, gave 8 gain of 210
pounds, at cost of a fraction over
eleven cents 4 pound. Here we have
more labor employed in order to cut the
hay. but the daily gain was sufficiently
large to more than compensate for the
labor and lessen the cost of production.
Although turnips and mangolds are con-
sidered cheap feeding materials, and
gave large daily gains when used in con.
nection with other foods, yet they did
not lessen the cos: to the extent expected,
for when mangolds were fed with hay
and mixture of grain. although the
daily gain was 2.3S pounds, yet the cost
per pound was 10l cents. Turnips fed
in the same manner gave nearly equal
results.
The concentrated foods gave good re-
suits on the gain. and in some cases
were cheaper than was supposed. but
much depended upon the manner in
which they were fed. Corn, with hav,
roots and bran, produced two pounds
daily, at a cost of 81 cents per pound.
As this is almost the same food that
gave 1.76 pounds. at fourteen cents per
pound, it is owing to the difference IN
proportions that the cost varied. Cats,
fed in the same manner rs corn, gave
l.64 pounds, at cost of ten cents per
pound.
From the above it is deduced that
profit does not depend upon the rapidity
of grain in weight daily, but upon the
cost per pound. and that the cost is reg
ulated not only by the labor required
and the value of the food, but upon the
mode of feeding and the preparation Of
the food. 1t must be SO varied as to at
tain the best results in the cheapest man.
ner, and the kind of food does not affect
the result so much as improperly mix
ing them or giving an excess of some-
thing not required, while emitting that
which may be very important. The
value of feeding materials should be
studied by all farmers. The expert |
ments mentioned above show that 4
farmer may have valuable amount Of
feeding material that might be con-
verified into beef, and Yet such beef
would be costly unless the materials
were fed in such manner as to cause
rapid increase at the least expense. The |
addition of single material may alter
the result, and even the character and |
quality of the stock are important fac
tors in the matter. Philadelphia Record.