Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1908-02-18
FINISHING CATTLE.
What Every Feeder Wants to Kno"
About Methods.

About Methods
Two methods of finishing beef cattle
which stand out most prominently are
those known as stall feeding and graz
ing. In one instance the cattle are
placed on feed in the early autumn and
pushed vigorously until ready for mar
ket. In the other case they are fed a
little more than maintenance ration,
the idea being to carry them through
the winter as cheaply as possible and
finish them on grass the next summer.
This method finds favor in all sections
where grazing is abundant, while stall
feeding must be resorted to in those
localities where grass is difficult to
obtain.
The relative merits of these two sys-
TENS Of finishing cattle is a matter
of grave economic Importance at the
present time. The stall feeding of cat
tie can only be successful from fnan-
cial standpoint when the animals are
handled on a minimum grain ration
and fed some form of roughness that
will be highly palatable and act as a
satisfactory substitute for grass.
Stall Feeding Versus Grazing.
At the Virginia experiment station
stall fedacattle were given silage, hay
and stover, with different forms Of
corn combined with cottonseed meal,
the object being to determine the eff
feet of a succulent ration on the fat
tening process and the best form in
which to feed corn with cottonseed
meal. Grazed cattle were fed on diff
ferent forms of roughness, some of
and some Of a nOnsucculent
nature, for the purpose of comparing
the residual effects of these foods
where animals are finished on grass.
It has been thought by many that cat
tie fed on a succulent ration and
grazed would not do well, belief
which is not borne out by the expert
ence of the past year. The expert
ments in this instance were so planned
that comparison of the cost of feed
ing cattle in the stall and on grass
could be made, and the deductions Jus
tilted by the experiments cannot fail
to be of special value to all who are
Interested in the production of beef.
Some Of them are as follows:
Results of Experiment.
1t appears that cattle can be handled
ldvantageously as stockers and finish
I'd on grass on a margin of % cents
where silage or stoyer or other mex
oenslye forms of roughness are used
Turing the winter. Mixed hay proved
10 expensive that there was a loss with
t on a margin of so cents.
The cost of pound of grain with the |
tall fed cattle varied from 7.33 to 9.O1 |
ents; with the stocker cattle from
~ or G.G4 cents. 1t cost, therefore |
learly twice as much to make pound |
II gain on the stall as where the ami |
nails were finished on grass.
The cost Of maintaining stocker !
Trough the winter varied from S7.9G
With the stover fed group to $16.24
With the hay fed group. The average
or all groups was S10.91.
The cost Of finishing a feeder varied
rom $22.33 to $25,S2, or more than
vice as much as it cost to carry over
stOcker The difference in food cost
J largely offset, however. by rent of
md.
The deductions to be drawn from the
experiments with feeders are as fol-
'ws: Feed a small grain ration, not
yer two pounds per head per day to
Ommence with, and increase it grad
ally until the cattle are ultimately
onsuming fifteen pounds per head per
ay, A liberal ration of silage should
e fed throughout the test, decreasing
lie amount consumed toward the close
the feeding period. Only a mini
lum amount, not over two to four
ounds, of stOyer or other dry mex
ensive forms of roughness need be
d.
1t would appear that silage may CON
itute the chief source of roughness
# stockers; that a grain ration of two
'unds per head per day is sufficient to
sure their making substantial and
ohtable gains during the winter; that |
e best results will be obtained when
e ration consists of equal parts of
I'm and cob meal and cottonseed meal
some other food rich in protein.