The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1902-04-01
Live Stock.
8EFF PRODUCTTOF I'm THE SOUTH.
Iv-Fssding Problems.

without shelter for the feed boxes or
cattle, is the extreme opposite Of the
once popular method of stall feeding.
The former, which is frequently praC-
ticed in the South, has the advan-
tages of oheapness and that the ma
nure is deposited where needed with
out waste or post for handling, but
much food is wasted and the exposure
TO rain and wind above, and mud be-
meath frequently detracts materially
from the gains which would other
wise be made.
The modern feeder sees the disad-
vantages of filthy stalls and lack of
exercise on the one hand and the ok
posure and waste of food on the
other end ~prof1ting thereby, feeds
in large large lots with sheds for the
protection of feed and cattle.
In reference TO this matter Gulley,
at the Texas Station, in a climate
milder than ours, found shat '~steers
dehorned and fed under shelter
made larger gains than steers not de-
horned and not sheltered and at a
less cost for food"
Lumber is cheaper than grain, for
actual tests as we'll as the experience
of feeders point oonolusively to the
fact that it will pay to provide shell
ter from the wind and rain, but this
is all thatis needed or profitable. Con-
finement in stables is not good, prac.
tioal feeders agreeing almost unani-
mously that feeding in the open,
with shed for protection from the
weather, is the best.
REGULARITY IN FEEDING
There is no more potent factor in
determining results in the feed-lot
than regularity in all operations re.
lating thereto. Few recognize it's
full force and many disregard it's
Importance entirely.
By regularity is meant not only
feeding at stated intervals, but also
feeding the same quantity and quail
ity of food. An animal that is ex
peoted TO make the best gain must
be fed at the same time each day,
and after he has once been put on
full feed, should also receive the
same amount each time.
The practice Of placing large guam
titles of food before fattening animals
and keeping il there all the time, is an
expensive one begot by carelessness
or ignorance and, so far as 1 know,
extensively practiced nowhere ex.
Dept in the South, where there is the
least necessity for it owing to the
oheapness of labor. A keen appetite
is conducive to good digestion and
usually r indications of it there
fore, an animal should be given no
more food than he will readily eat
up clean at the time, if a good appe.
tite and satisfactory gains T to be
maintained. Of course, this requiress
more labor and attention on the part
of the feeder, but labor is cheap in
such cases and the extra attention is
what makes the difference between
success and failure in feeding opera.
tions. Here, again, the advisability
of feeding a smaller number of better
cattle and doing it better, is sharply
acc~entuated.
FREQUENCY OF FEEDING.
This is a point upon which there
is some diversity of opinion. Many
feed but once a day, but even then
feed no more than will be eaten up
clean at the time. Others prefer
feeding the older animals twice a
day and the real young ones three
times. This is probably the better
plan, but much depends upon cir
cumstances, such as the cost of labor
and ~oonveniences for feeding, and
the animal becoming accustomed 80
whatever system is prAoticed. If
the supply of rough forage is abund-
ant and constant, grain feeding once
a day seems TO give good results.
GETTING TO FULL FEED.
This is a much more important
and difficult matter than is usually
supposed. Not Less than thirty days
should be taken for the purpose, as
the quantity of feed must be slowly
and gradually increased in order to
prevent any arrangement of diges-
ton, which always means a loss in
feeding. In fact, an animal that is
fed in the beginning, so as to impair
the appetite and digestion seldom