The twice=a=week herald. (Amarillo, Tex.) 1887-1906, 1906-09-14
-A.-- ..-- -.--- ~ ~ ~ d

..l' oI
,...I 600. 90 art
~ ...... f'
Hfn3 u .H# p..a #.
,euouJ &c 5Giutrwas"E tde eI..
.y,o .yr l.e .u.k le u.s not ,oh-
,aa .Ded ml january 20 "sta.. 90.
Noye@ber /, as planned ~ H.l
tllo the steers hyd passed, on tGo
open range, ore OF ta- worst month5
~ tie winter and A,i taken a de-
ciGed start on the down grade, THIS
late start also threw considerable
portion Of the feeding period into
the hottest part of the year whom
the roughase n poor and when the
flies are a very great annoyance TO
cattle, With the steers at hand II
was impossible to get az mach unit
formity In either quality or condl-
ton as is desirable in lot OF steers
that are to be fed and marketed to-
gether. This was a decided handi-
cap, as was also, from financial
standpoint, the very light weight Of
the steers. The financial outcome
was further effected by a consider
able advance that had taken place
In the price OF that class Of cattle
since the first OF November, Owing
to the presence OF mango amongst
the cattle Of the neighborhood these
cattle we're dipped the second month
Of the experiment.
The advantage of n heavier weight
in the steers at the start is well
illustrated by the results of the
above two lots OF steers ascompared
with another lot fed at the same
time, and that weighed n couple Of
hundred pounds more at the start,
The steers in this lot were some
that had been cut back from a bunch
that had been stalled on cake and
consequently were not in condition
to feed to good advantage, 1t was
over two months before they could
be gotten over the effects of the
injudicious cake feeding. As a re-
suit the average gain for the six
months was much less than for the
other lots, being 1.95 pounds per
head per day. The cost of grain per
100 pounds Of gain was S6.31 as
against $4.j6 for lot one and S475
for lot 2.
Notwithstanding this handicap, the
net profit per steer was, for this lot,
1897 per cent greater than for lot
/ and 26.4S per cent greater than
for lot 2. professor Mumford es-
Inmates that with corn at soc It's
costs about IS per 100 pound gain.
This includes roughage, but do not
remember If labor is includedO The
cost OF grain per pound OF gain for
beef and pork combined was: Lot
/, $50, lot 2, S.s9 and lot 3, 4.44.
These cattle we're entirely dry
fed, which is probably the most
practical method of feeding in this
country even If the feeding is con-
tinued when grass is good. Graz
ing in this country, at its best, re-
quires much walking which uses
muscular energy and a consumption
of feed that would otherwise so to
the formation Of flesh and fat. Along
with the above lots was fed heller
calf, that will give a little light on
this point, as she was turned to
grass after three months dry-lot
feeding and the grain feed continued.
The first month on grass the calf
made no gain at all. The amount.
OF grain required per 100 pounds OF
gain while in dry-lot was 449 while
7O7 pounds were necessary to pro-
duce a 100 pound gain on grass, The
cost of grain per pound of gain was:
3.74 in dry-lot and 5.S1 on grass.
The gains for the two steers calves
when turned to grass were about the
same have referred only to the beifer
as she was the only one marketed
Her dressing per cent was 60.46.)
The grain for these steers was
ground. The small size of the milo
and kaffir make grinding imperative
where they are to be fed to either
cattle or hogs, In the case Of milo
grinding is not so big proposition
as II is where corn is the grain to
be ground as the grain is softer and
requires less power to crush It.
In conclusion / may say that
there is no good reason why the
Panhandle of Texas should not be-
come as noted as a feeding ground
as It has been as a breeding ground,
This too with feeds produced on its
own soil. The dry winters are GER
tainly great boon in that direction
as is also the lack of much severe
cold Cold wet weather is what the
experlenced cattle feeder breads to