Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1906-12-26

except during the latter part of the
feeding period, when steers usually
fail to eat as much of shelled corn
as they should in order to make the
most profitable gains. There is con-
siderable expense connected with
hauling corn back and forth to a
mill three miles distant. If our
correspondent would purchase a
grinder and do his own grinding at
times when he has nothing else to
do we believe it would pay him to
grind. With a good grinder and a
good gasoline engine to pull it, it is
quite possible to grind corn at cost
OF one-half to three-fourths of cent
per bushel, and when this can be
done there is no question but that
1t will pay, especially when corn is
az high priced as it is this year.
This does not take labor into con-
sideration, which may or may not
be very valuable during the winter
months. With the labor cost taken
INTO consideration, two to two and
one-half cents per bushcl ought to
cover the whole expense.
According to the feeding tests con.
Quoted at the Kentucky, Ohio and
Missouri experiment stations, there
is saving OF eight per cent in feed
ing ground as compared with the
whole corn to steers. The fact must
not be overlooked, however, that
when steers are fed ground corn,
hogs following them secure less
feed from the manure than when
whole corn is fed.
Prof. Henry, of Wisconsin, found
as a result OF four trials in which
seventy pigs in all were fed shelled
corn, as compared with ground corn
that the pigs that were fed seelled
corn, produced 100 pounds Of gain
from 1875 pounds of corn, while
those fed ground corn produced 100
Of gain from 459 pounds of corn.
In other words there was saving
OF eight per cent of corn due to
grinding. Itis but fair to state that:
considerable variation is the COM
parative value of shelled and ground
corn for both cattle and hogs has
been observed by different expert
menters At the Kansas station for
instance, according to one expert
ment, only six per cent Of corn was
saved by grinding, whereas in an
other instance 35 per cent was saved.
These results are extremes, of
course, but hey may serve to warn
opr correspondent that he should
make careful observations with ref
erence to his feeding and if possible
to determine for himself accurately
whether or not grinding will pay
ander his conditions. AS an aver
age of all results, it is conservative
te conclude that grinding corn for
10Th cattle and logs produces
saving of seven per cent of grain.
AS a rule steers relish corn on the
ear better than corn meal, especially
during the first part of the feeding
period, and tits doubtful that grind
ing will pay during that time ex-
cept in cases where the cattle are
fed more or less oil meal, cotton seed
meal, or other concentrates with the
corn. Corn meal serves as better
diluent for concentrates than does
shelled corn.
What has been said with ref
erence to steers and hogs does not
apply to milk COWS. A COW that
produces a large flow of milk is per-
forming severe labor, and is con
stantly under severe strain. She
should not be required to perform
the extra labor incident to grinding
her own grain ration. A mill can
do it more economically. In other
words, we would never feed whole
grain to milk COWS.
Where corn and cobs are ground
together and fed to steers in place
OF pure corn meal the former has the
same feeding value pound for pound
as the latter. This is especially
true during the first part of the feed
ing period, when steers are able to
take care Of larger amount of
roughage than they are during the
finishing period. Corn-and-cob
meal also makes a good feed for
brood sows if it is fed in connection
with feeds rich in protein; but it is
not well suited for fattening swine,
as it contains too much roughage.
Our correspondent should by all
means grind his spelz, as we feel
sure that this grain will give better
results, whether for hogs, cattle or
horses, if it is ground.-Farmer's
Tribune.