• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Credits
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Rational feeding
 Experiments in fattening steer...
 Experiments with hogs
 Determination of the digestibility...
 Summary














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ; 55
Title: Feeding with Florida feed stuffs
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027700/00001
 Material Information
Title: Feeding with Florida feed stuffs
Series Title: Bulletin - University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ; 55
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Stockbridge, Horace E.
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Publication Date: 1900
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027700
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 213
        Page 214
    Credits
        Page 215
        Page 216
    Table of Contents
        Page 217
        Page 218
    Introduction
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
    Rational feeding
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
    Experiments in fattening steers
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
    Experiments with hogs
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
    Determination of the digestibility of feedstuffs
        Page 299
        Page 300
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
    Summary
        Page 306
        Page 307
        Page 308
Full Text


SEPTEMBER, 1900.


FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.




Feeding with Florida Feed Stuffs.


BY H. E. STOCKBRIDGE, PH. D.






VANCE PRINTING CO.
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA,
19go.


BULLETIN 55.




































The Bulletins of this Station will be sent free to any address in the
State upon application to the Director, Lake City, Florida.















BOARD OF TRUSTEES.



HON. GEO. W. WILSON, President .......................Jacksonville
HON. F. E. HARRIS, Vice-President.................. .............Ocala
HON. J. D. CALLAWAY, Secretary............. ...............Lake City
HON. C. A. CARSON......... ............. ............. Kissimmee
HON. E. D. BEGGS .. ......... ..... ........... ....Pensacola
HON. L. H ARRISON................ .. ......... .. Lake City
HON. J. R. PARROTT..... ..... ........... Jacksonville






STATION STAFF.



W. F. YOCUM, A. M., D. D ..... ... ........... .Director
H. E. STOCKBRIDGE, Ph. D. .. ......... Agriculturist
H. K. MILLER, M. S..... .. ....... .. ............Chemist
H. A. GOSSARD, M S ...... .. .. ...... ....... ...Entomologist
H. HAROLD HUME, M. S....... .....Botanist and Horticulturist
A. W. BLAIR, A. M. ....... ............ ... .Assistant Chemist
W. P. JERNIGAN ............................. ..Auditor and Bookkeeper
JOHN F. MITCHELL...... ... ...........Foreman of Station Farm
JOHN H. JEFFERIES ........Gardener in Horticultural Department
LUCIA MCCULLOCH ......................Librarian and Mailing Clerk
MINNIE HELVENSTON .................... ................Stenographer









217







CONTENTS.


Page
Introduction ............................ ....... ..... ........... 219
Florida Conditions...... ........ ................. .......... 219
Soil and Climatic Adaptations ........ .... .. .............. 219
Natural Ranges.................. .... .... .......... 219
Forage Crops ...... ................ ..... .. .. ... .. 220
Principles Involved..... ....... ...... ....... ............ 220
Two Classes of Feedstuffs ........... ...... ........ ... .. 221
Combined Rations... ... .................. ................... 221
Definite Proportions in Rations..... .. ............. 221
Rational Feeding'. .................................. .......... 223
Uses of Food....... ... ... .... ......... .... .......... .. 223
Nutrients ................................. .. ... .............. 223
Classification of Foods...... ........ ......... ... ... 223
Examples of Flesh-forming and Fattening Foods.. .... ...... 223
Composition of Foods .............................................. 224
D division of Foods. ..... .... .. .......... .... ... ........ 224
Economy in Use of Foods ...... ... ....... 224
Digestibility of Foods .... .... .... .. 225
Digestion Coefficients.. ..... ......... .... ...... .. ..... .... 225
Nutritive Ratio.............. ..... ...... ...... .............. 225
Wide and Narrow Rations......... .. .. ................. 226
R elative V alue of Fat............... ..... ........................... 226
Feeding Standards ................... ....... .... ....... ....... 226
Using Feeding Tables ......... ....... ..... .. ......... .. 227
Feeding Tables ....... .. ....... ...... 229
Sample Rations for Cattle ...... ... 239
Sample Rations for Cows ....... ........... ....... .... 210
Sam ple Rations for Hogs. ........... ................... ........ 243
Sample Rations for Horses and Mules .............. ........... 243
Experiments il Fattening Steers........ .................... 244
Character of Animals Used ...................... .. .......... 246
Adaptation to Average Florida Conditions .................. 249
M ethod of Care and Feeding. ................ .............. ....... ... 249





218

P lan of E xperim ent ............................................................
Rations Fed ..................................... ... .. .. ..... .....
Quantity and Cost of Daily Rations .............................
Feeding Periods ................................ .......
Food Consumed and Gains................. .................. .........
Duration of Profitable Feeding Period..........................
Record of W eighings................................................
Length of Feeding in Florida and the North.......................
Value of Food Consumed........ ................................
Relative Cost of Different Rations ................................


Daily and Percentage Gains ..................


........ 264


Slaughtering Test................ ......... .... .....
Proportion of Dressed W eight....... .........................
Fore-quarters and Hind-quarters....... .....................
Quality of Beef ......... ..................
Financial R results .... ........................
M market Value of Product ........... ........... .......
Actual and Percentage Profits ...... .......................
Relative Profits..........
The M ost Profitable Ration .............. .... ..............
Som e Com p arisons....... ........................ ..........
Experim ents W ith H ogs ................. .............
Character of the Animals.............. ................. ...
Method of Care and Feeding................... ............ ...
Plan of Experim ent ........... .............. ...... .. .....
R nations F ed........ .... ...............
Live W eight Gains.. ........... ......... ....
Cost of Gains .......... .. ..
Slaughtering Test......... .... ...................
Relations Between Live and Dressed Weights ..............
Determination of Digestibility........... .......
Lack of Knowledge of Southern Feedstuffs ...............
Digestibility of Cassava .......... .....










INTRODUCTION.



FLORIDA CONDITIONS.-The State of Florida, as a
whole, possesses very exceptional natural advantages
for most forms of stock husbandry. There are millions
of acres of cheap or free range covered with natural
grasses and forage plants, furnishing excellent pastur-
age for all classes of animals, and our climatic condi-
tions are such that this pasturage is available at all
seasons of the year. The natural range is mostly tim-
bered sufficiently to furnish protection against storms
in winter and against sun in summer. It is watered
abundantly with never-failing supplies of the best and
purest water either from springs, streams or lakes,
and the climate is so mild that shelter, except from
rain, even during the severest weather, is super-
fluous. These conditions have long been recognized
by residents, and the stock industry has for many
years been one of the leading resourc'-s of the
State. There are hundreds of thousands of cat-
tle grown and pastured on Florida ranges, and
many more could be easily accommodated. The in-
dustry as heretofore followed, however, has been con-
fined almost exclusively to the mere ranging of droves
of comparatively inferior animals, which have been
mostly marketed in the West Indies, or have furnished
low-priced raw material for the stock feeders of the
corn States. The soils and climate of Florida are per-
fectly adapted to the successful growth of cultivated
grasses and forage crops adapted to the fattening of
animals. These facts suggest the economy and ad-







vantages of a radical change in the form of stock
husbandry followed, namely, the substitution of better
animals and more systematic care, and finally the feed-
ing and fattening of .the animal when grown, and the
supplying of local and outside markets with a finihed
product instead of the low-priced raw material hereto-
fore produced. These conditions are fully recognized
by the more progressive stockmen of the State, partic-
ularly as new conditions become more and more prom-
inent, and the day of smaller land holdings and
fenced proprietorship approaches. The object of this
bulletin is not so much the calling of attention to new
conditions and new facts, as it is the furnishing of evi-
dence of the correctness of opinions already entertained;
reasons for the faith of many people in the superior
advantages possessed by our State for the profitable
production of fat beef and pork for the best markets.
It is believed that many of our local conditions are such
as to render successful competition from other sec-
tions of the country impossible, and it is thought that
the experiments, the results of which are here re-
corded, will lend additional data for the support of
such opinions. Economical or rational stock feeding
has heretofore been almost unknown in Florida. No
systematic experiments along these lines have before
been undertaken by this station, and no bulletin upon
the subject of the principles involved has been pub-
lished here. It seems, therefore, that a review of the
principles on which the practice of economical meat pro-
duction rests should precede any detailed account of our
own experiments conducted in accordance with such
principles.
PRINCIPLES INVOLVED.-This bulletin is not intended
for those who already know all about stock.feeding, but is
intended as an actual means of practical assistance to
those desiring to follow the business with economy and







profit. Such people, it is believed, will appreciate a
simple statement of the principles involved.
It is known to all intelligent observers that
animal food consists primarily of two different classes of
materials performing two distinct offices in the animal
organism. These are classified as protein, or flesh-form-
ing substances, and carbonaceous or fat-forming sub-
stances. The former supply the material for muscular
oxidation and waste, and the latter for maintaining
animal heat. Even the most casual observer recognizes
the fact that a single food or a single class of foods can-
not supply all the demand of any animal, and that the
best results from feeding are only possible when both
these different forms of material are supplied in certain
proportions. In the daily life of human beings this fact
is constantly recognized in practice, even though fre-
quently with no actual recognition of the underlying
principle or reason. We demand pork with beans, peas
with side meat, macaroni with cheese, potatoes with beef,
and fish with rice, not simply because custom justifies the
practice, but because custom is founded on the natural
demands of the animal organism for both flesh-forming
and fat-forming food, and the demand or craving is
supplied by combining the two different foods in the
cases mentioned. If it is true that the best results in
animal nutrition are only secured by associating in the
food or ration proportions of these two different kinds of
material, the conclusion is inevitable that some propor-
tion between the different constituents must be better,
more economical, more productive, more successful than
others. The combining of proportions to give best re-
sults cannot be at random or haphazard, sometimes in
one proportion and sometimes in another; for best results
a fixed relation must exist between the proportion of each
of these ingredients consumed by any given person or ani-
mal. This relation has been thoroughly and systematic-
ally studied for many years and has been carefully worked







out for each class of live-stock under each of the varying
conditions of existence, so that today it is known positively
what proportions of protein and carbonaceous matters
must be combined in the ration of any animal to result
in the greatest degree of success under any condition,
age or surrounding of the animal in question. The
practice of this economical or scientific compounding or
proportioning of foods is appropriately called rational
feeding, and the experiments here recorded were under-
taken in the line of such feeding, as applied to native
Florida animals and the use of native Florida feed stuffs,
in the hope of establishing the conditions under which
our animals and feeds could be utilized with the greatest
profit to the feeder.


Field of Velvet Beans in Bloom.












I.

RATIONAL FEEDING.

USES OF FooD.-The purpose of food is to supply the
animal with necessary nutriment. The different con-
stituents of the food supplying essential ingredients to
the animal organism are, therefore, called nutrients.
Their office is, briefly speaking, to sustain the animal
body and enable it to transform food into other valuable
products, such as flesh, wool, milk, and energy or work.
The general purpose of nutriment is to furnish the
animal organism with the material of which it is made,
that is, to form muscle, blood, bones, fat and tissue. A
very considerable portion of the food, however, is utilized
to supply the wastes of animal existence, provide muscu-
lar oxidation, and to maintain animal heat by keeping
up the high temperature of the body.
CLASSIFICATION OF FOODs.-Food is classified according
to composition, or really according to the function it per-
forms in the animal organism. The simplest classifica-
tion is that which separates nutritive substances into car-
bonaceous, or fat and heat-forming materials, and pro-
tein, or muscle-forming materials. In addition to these,
however, all foods contain water, which is also a large
constituent of animal bodies, and ash, or mineral matter,
which enters not only into the composition of all animal
tissues, but is the chief constituent of the bones. The
carbonaceous foods are subdivided into carbo-hydrates,
of which starch, sugar, and fiber are illustrations, and
fats, which are simply oils stored up in the animal
tissues. Protein foods include several different classes of
chemical compounds, the important characteristic of







which is the presence of nitrogen in one or another of its
combined forms. This is, therefore, the predominating
constituent of muscle, of blood, of eggs, and of the casein
of milk.
COMPOSITION OF FOoDs.-From what has already been
stated, it is readily seen that the food must furnish to the
animal body the material of which it is formed, and
that, therefore, the foods consist of the elementary con-
stituents of which the body is composed.

Food is (Dry Matter
divided into ( W and
( Water,
Dry Matter Organic Matter
into and
o Inorganic Matter,
r Protein
Organic Fats and
Matter nto Carbo-hydrates.

Few foods contain these different constituents in the pro-
portions required by different animals, so that the com-
pounding of rations from materials of different composi-
tions is essential if the greatest degree of economy is to be
secured. Knowledge of the function performed in the
animal organism by the different nutrients is essential
to economy in ration-making. Protein is the basis of
blood, muscle, tendons, ligaments, hide, skin, marrow,
horns, and hoofs. It is converted into fat and is a
source of heat and energy. Fats are animal fuel for the
maintenance of heat and energy. They are also stored
in the tissues of the body. Carbo-hydrates and fiber are
converted into fats and are sources of heat and energy.
Mineral matter is the chief constituent of bones and
enters into the composition of all parts of the animal or-
ganism. Carbo-hydrates are the most abundant and the
cheapest of nutrients, while the proteins are the most
expensive. It, therefore, follows that, although protein
may be converted into heat and energy, carbo-hydrates







are a more economical source and should be utilized as
far as possible for this purpose. It must, therefore,
appear that the economical use of feedstuffs and their
effect upon the animal system depend chiefly upon the
composition of the materials to be used.
DIGESTIBILITY OF FOODS.-Not all of any food is actually
assimilated by the animal or is really nutriment; only a
portion of the contents of any article of diet is actually di-
gestible, and, therefore, performs any vital function in
animal sustenance. The remainder, which is not digestible
and not used by the system, is excreted. The amount
or proportion of digestible matter in every food has been
carefully investigated and determined for all classes of
animals under all the various conditions to which they
are subjected. The digestible portion of any food ex-
pressed in the form of percentage is known as the
digestion ..i.. ..' of that food. In the compounding of
rations and the use of tables offood constituents only
the digestible portion of the food should be considered.
For the sake of convenience the digestion coefficient of
foods is eliminated from further consideration here, and
in the following table of the composition of feedstuffs
only the actual constituents of the food are considered,
though for comparison both the, entire composition and
the actual amount of digestible material are given.
NUTRITIVE RATIo.-As the digestible portion of most
foods contains both carbonaceous and protein constituents,
and as the effect of the food and its feeding value depend
chiefly upon the proportion existing between these two
classes of nutrients, a knowledge of which is essential to
the intelligent and economical use of foods in compound-
ing balanced rations, this relation is expressed in the
form of a simple ratio, known as the "nutritive ratio", of
the food in question. Tables of feedstuffs and feeding
standards usually include this item, and the term nutri-
tive ratio simply means the relation, proportion, or ratio
between the protein and carbonaceous constituents of the







food; for instance, the nutritive ratio of corn fodder is ex-
pressed as 1: 12. This expression means that in the di-
gestible portions of corn fodder there are twelve parts of
carbonaceous food to one part of protein. In other
words, that there is twelve times as much fat-forming
as of flesh-forming nutriment present. So also the nutri-
tive ratio of the food required by any given animal under
different circumstances is known; for instance, for feed-
ing steers the ratio should be 1: 6.5. By this term is
meant simply that in the ration for fattening steers the
best results are secured when the proportion between its
protein and carbonaceous parts is as 1: 6.5. The nutri-
tive ratio is found by dividing the total amount of digesti-
ble protein found by analysis to be present in the food
by the amount of digestible carbo-hydrates. To the
carbo-hydrates, however, must be added the fat that is
present in the food. Experiment has shown that fat is
2.25 times as effective as is the same quantity of other
carbonaceous matter in the food. Therefore, the amount
of fat stated in the analysis is given 21 times as much
value as is given to the same quantity of carbo-hydrates.
In determining the nutritive ratio of the food the quantity
of digestible fat is first multiplied by 2.25; the product
is then added to the amount of carbo-hydrates present,
and the total digestible protein is then divided by this
product. The ratio is called "narrow" or "wide", as the
proportion of protein is large or small. 1: 3 is a narrow
ration, while 1: 10 is wide.
FEEDING STANDARDS.-The composition of the differ-
ent foods available for feeding all classes of live stock being
at hand, the question next presenting itself to the feeder
is the quantity or proportion of the different ingredients
which should be brought together in any ratio to most
economically supply the requirements of the animal to
be fed. The quantities or proportions adapted to the re-
quirements of the different classes of farm animals have
been carefully worked out by different investigators and







are known as feeding standards. The standards thus
universally adopted are of German origin; the one first
largely adopted, and which has until recently been the
nearly universal standard, was that proposed by Prof.
Wolff of the Hohenheim Experiment Station, in Wurt-
temberg. This original table has been recently consid-
erably modified by both German and American investi-
gators, and, as now adopted, is properly called the Wolff-
Lehmann Standard, Prof. Lehmann, of Berlin, having
suggested the chief modifications in the former table. As
now arranged and adopted, it includes, for each class of
animals under the various conditions to which it is sub-
jected, a statement of the total dry substance, digestible
protein, carbo-hydrates, fat, and total nutritive matter
required to meet the conditions of each animal to be fed.
The amount of food to be consumed by any animal being
dependent upon the size or live weight of that animal,
the figures comprising the table are made to apply to a
definite weight rather than to a mere individual, the
weight adopted, unless otherwise specified, being one
thousand pounds of each kind of animal. It should be
added that these feeding standards are not absolutely de-
finite, inasmuch as they necessarily fail to take into con-
sideration individual idiosyncrasies, characteristics, or
temperament. However, they meet the average require-
ments of normal animals and give by far the nearest ap-
proach yet attained to definite and positive control of the
assimilation and utilization of animal food.
(See Tables I and II, pp. 229 to 237, inclusive.)
USING FEEDING TABLES.-Tables I and II, with the ex-
planations before made, furnish all the data necessary for
the compounding of rations to meet the requirements of
any individual animal. Their actual use, however, is best
illustrated by the working out of a sample ration. Let
us suppose, therefore, that it is desired to fatten steers.
Reference to Table II shows that the total quantity of






228

the nutrients forming the standard for the first period
for fattening steers, for each one thousand pounds of live
weight is as follows :
D ry m atter............. ........ .. .. .. .......... 30. lbs.
P protein .... .......... ....... ............ ..... .. ............. 2.5 "
Carbo-hydrates.. ........... ......... .. ...... .......... 15.
Fat ................. ............. .... .. ... ... ...... ... 0.5 "
N utritive ratio...... ..... ..... .. ... ........ ........... 1: 6.5
The materials on hand for compounding the ration to be
fed are as follows: hay, cotton-seed hulls, bran, and
corn meal. Reference to the percentage composition of
each of these foods, as given in Table I, gives the number
of pounds of each of the nutrients in one hundred pounds
of the foods mentioned. One pound, therefore, contains
one hundredth as much as the quantity stated in the
table. Let us, therefore, mix a trial ration consisting of-
H ay ... ...... .............. ......... ........... 12 lbs.
Cotton-seed hulls ..... .. .............. ....... .. 9 "
W heat bran ..... ...... .. ............ .... ......... 8 "
C orn m eal.............. ....... ... ....... ... ... ............ 7 "

By multiplying the amount of each nutrient ascertained
to exist in one pound of these foods we have the follow-
ing composition of the ration :



cdC o r, Fat.
SPounds.
I 0 2 C I


Hay .. ...... ..... 12 5.842 .921 4.749 .154
H ulls ....... ..... ....... .... 9 3.272 .219 2.908 .208
Bran....... .... 8 4.152 .956 2.946 .224
M eal......... ..... ......... 7 4.996 .3721 4.141 .252
-- ----- --I-- ---(--
Total .......... ........ .. 36 18.262 14.744 .838
1.887 X 2.25
2.468. 16.631 1.887
Ratio, 1: 6.7.
By dividing the sum of the carbo-hydrates and fats shown
to be present by the total protein we obtain a quotient










TABLE I.
AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF AMERICAN FEBJDINJ; STUFF'S.


Percentage Composition.


FEEDING STIFFS.


Green Fodders and Silage.
A lfalfa (lucern)... ........... ........
Alsike clover, in bloom. ...........
Blue-grass .........
Clover silage ..........
Clover ... ... ..... ..
Corn silage. ....
Corn, green fodder........... .....
Oat fodder .........
Prickly comfrey .. .....
Red top, in bloom .. ..
Rye fodder ..
Soja bean ensilage
Sorghum fodder ... ........ ..
Sorghum silage


Per Cent. Digestible
Matter.


0 E
a, ""2 O 1Z (D xr
"ji, ~ wF~ 23 94
da Ca bD r i f0


71.8 2.7
74.8 2.0
65.1 2.8
72 0 2.6
70.8 2.1
79.1 1.4
79.3 1.2
62.2 2.5
88 4 2.2
64.8 2.3
76 6 1.8

79.4 1.1
76.1 1.1


7.4 12.3 1.0 25.5 3.6 11.4 .4
7.4 11.0 .9 23.2 2.7 13 1 .6
9.1 17.6 1.3 32.1 2.9 19.2 .8
8.4 11.6 1.2 25.4 2.0 13.5 1.0
8.1 13.5 1.1 27.1 2.9 14.1 .7
6.0 11.1 .8 19.5 .8 11.6 .7
5.0 12.2 .5 19.5 1.3 11 8 .4
11.2 19.3 1.4 35.3 2.7 22.7 1 0
1.6 5.1 .3 9.4 1.4 4.6 .2
9.4 19.1 1.2 32.9 23 20.5 .7
11.6 i 6.8 .6 21.6 2.1 1 14.1 .4
8.9 1.5
6.1 11.6 .5 19.5 .8 i 12.7 .4
6.4 15.3 .3 22.8 .6 14.9 .2











TABLE I.-Continued.

AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS.


FEEDING STUFFS.





Green Fodders and Silage-Cont'd.
Tim othy .......... .. ............ .. 61.6
Velvet-bean vines ........ ....... ......... ... .
W ire-grass ................. ....
Hay and Dry Coarse Fodders.
Alfalfa (lucern) ............ ...... 8.4
Alsike clover... ...................... 9.7
Barley straw ...... ..... ... ... .... ... 14.2
Beggar-weed............ .......... .
Buckwheat straw ........ ....... 9.9
Corn fodder (pulled leaves) ....
Corn tops ........ .......... ...
Corn stalks (stover), field cured... 40.1
Cow pea-vine hay....... .................. ... .
Crab-grass ay .... ..... ............. 10.3


Percentage Composition.

w -







2.1 3.1 11.8 20.2 1.2 36.3

3.28


7.4 14.3 25.0 42.7 2.2 84.2
8.3 12.8 25.6 40.7 2.9 82.0
5.7 3.5 36.0 39.0 1.5 80.1
11.85 ... .. . ..
5.5 5.2 43.0 35.1 1.3 84.6
6.63 ... .. ........ ....... ...... ........ .
. .. ... 6.63
6.30
3.4 3.8 19.7 31.9 1.1 56.5
9.30 .. .
7.3 6.9 32.9 41.0 1.6 82.4


Per Cent. Digestible
Matter.









2.2 23.0 .7


53.19 1.72


10.3
6.8
.9
11.85
2.3

........ ...
2.0

2.2


41.4
36.8
41.3
42.06
37.7
39.41
45.77
33.4
38.38
42.8










Fodder corn (maize), field curedE
Hungarian grass ............ .........
Mixed meadow grass................
R ed clover.. ...........................
M arsh hay ... ........ ........
O at h ay ... ..... .. ... ... .... ... ... .
Oat straw ........ ..........................
Rye straw.. .......
W heat straw ... ............
Velvet-bean hay ..................
Roots and Tubers.
Artichoke ...................
Carrots ...... ... ...
Cassava. .......
Mangel-wurzels............ ... ..
Potatoes (Irish ........... .......
Potatoes (sweeti........... ...........
Rutabagas........ .............
Sugar beets .......................
Turnips. ............ ..
Grains and Mill Products.
Barley .........
Barley screenings ................
Broom-corn seed. .........
Buckwheat ....... ...........
Buckwheat bran .......................
Buckwheat shorts ... .
Buckwheat middlings........
Corn (m aize) .... .... .................
Corn and cob meal..... ...
Corn cob........... .................... ......


2.7
6.0
4.6
6.2
5.2
6.2
5.1
3.2
4.2
5.9


1.0
1.0
0.7
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.2
.9
.8


2.4
3.6

2.0
3.0
5.1
5.1
1.5
1.5
1.4


4.5 14.3
7.5 27.7
6.4 29.9
12.3 24.8
7.8 30.1
7.6 29.3
4.0 37.0
3.0 38.9
3.4 38 1
14.0 37.7


0.8
1.3
1.6
.9
.6
1.3
1.3
.9
1.2


2.7
7.3

8.7
31.9
8.3
4.2
2.1
6.6
30.1


34.7 1.6 55.1 2.6
49.0 2.1 86.3 4.5
41.0 2.1 79.4 3.6
38.1 3.3 78.5 6.5
46.3 2.7 86.9 3.5
45.1 2.9 84.9 4.3
42.4 2.3 85.7 1.6
46.6 1.2 89.7 .8
43.4 1 3 86.2 .8
30.6 1.8 ......


19.5
10.4

8.0
20.1
27.9
10.2
12.6
8.7


86.7
84.2

85.4
86.5
83.8
82.2
87.6
83.4
87.9


2.0
1.0
0.2
1.1
1.4
.9
.9
1.1
.6


9.5
9.3

7.7
7.4
21.1
22.0
6.3
65
1.6


33.3
46.4
42 7
34.9
44.7
46.4
41.4
42.7
37.9



16.8
7.1
17.0
4.8
16.1
22.2
7.1
9.3
5.5


66.1
57.3
60.8
49.2
30.4
33.5
33.4
64.8
56.3
43.9


1.2
1.8
3.0
1.8
1.9
5.5
5.4
5.0
2.9
.3


Average of analyses of samples taken at four periods of growth, beginning when the fruit was set and ending
when the beans were mature.










TABLE I.-Continued.

AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS.


FEEDING STUFFS.





Grains and Mill Products-Cont'd.
Corn bran (hulls).......................
Cow pea ................ .. .... .
O ats.... ............ .. .. .....
O at shorts.................. ..... ....
O at feed.............. ...... ... ..
O at hulls .............. ..........
Pea m eal ................. ......
R ice ... ...... ........ . .
Rice bran.. .................. ......
Rice hulls...... ..
Rice polish ..........
Rye ...... ........ .......
R ye bran.. ................ .......
R ye shi..rt, .....................
Soja beans...... .... ....... .. .........


Percentage Composition.


Per Cent. Digestible
Matter.


L* t I." ,1
me rLO

Q zi4 o 0 cA i


7.4
18.3
9.1
12.6
12.5
1.3
18.0
4.8
5.3
1.6
9.0
8.3
9.7
11.9
29.6


59.8 4.6
54.2 1.1
44.7 4.1
45.7 5.4
46.9 2.8
40.1 .6
56.0 .9
72.2 .3
45.1 7.3
44.5 .6
56.4 6.5
65.5 1.2
48.0 1.6
45.1 1.6
17.9 15.9











Sorghum seed .. ................ .. 12 8 2.1 9.1 2.6 69.8 3.6 85.1 7.0 52.1 3.1
Velvet beans ......... ... ... 17.9 .... ........ 53.50 6.3
W heat ........ .......... ... ...... 10.5 1.8 11 9 1.8 71.9 2.1 87.7 9.2 64.9 1.4
Wheat bran-roller process ....... 12.0 5.6 16.1 8.4 53.7 4.2 82.4 12.6 44.1 2.9
W heat shorts..... ........ ...... 11 8 4.6 14.9 7.4 56.8 4.5 8 3.6 11.6 45.4 3.2
Wheat middlings.. ........ ... 12.1 3.4 13.7 4.7 60.2 4.0 84.5 12.2 47.2 2.9
Wheat screenings ............... 11.6 2.9 12.5 4.9 65.1 3.0 85.5 9.8 51.0 2.2
Miscellaneous Feeds.
Apples.............. .. ....... 84.8 .5 .4 1.5 12.5 .3 14.7 .3 12.8 .2
Apple pomace ........... ....... 76.7 .5 1.4 3.9 16.2 1.3 22.8 1.0 11.9 1:1
Beet molasses .................. 20.8 10.6 9.1 59.5 .......... 68.6 9.1 59.5
Beet pulp .. .......................... 89.8 .6 .9 2.4 6.3 9.6 .6 7.3
Brewers' grains, wet................. 75.7 1.0 5.4 3.8 12.5 1.6 23.3 3.9 9.5 1.3
Brewers' grains, dried .. .... .... 7.7 3.6 22.2 12.3 47.9 6.3 88.7 16.2 35.5 5.3 M>
Buttermilk...... ......... .. ... 90.1 .7 4.0 .. 4.0 1.1 9.2 3.9 4.0 1.1
Chicago gluten meal... ..... ........ 9.5 .9 35.8 1.5 46.8 5.6 89.6 32.2 44.1 5.1
Corn oil-cake ............................ 9.0 2.4 24.8 6.7 43.6 13.5 88.6 22.3 42.6 12.3
Cotton-seed meal ..... ............... 8.2 7.2 42.4 5.6 23.8 12.9 84.6 36.9 18.1 12.3
Cotton-seed hulls.. ................ 9.9 2.9 4.2 47.4 33.2 2.2 87.2 1.0 26.2 1.8
D ried blood..... .... ............ ....... 8.5 4.7 84.4 ............ ........ 2.5 86.8 58.1 ..... 2.3
Germ meal (corn germ) ............. 10.4 3.6 10.0 5.0 64.2 6.8 86.0 9.0 61.2 6.2
Gluten ed. ... ......... ............ 8.3 .9 21.6 6.8 49.6 12.7 90.8 18.6 48.3 11.1
Grano-gluten ..... ......... 5.7 2.7 31.0 11.4 34.8 14.2 91.6 26.7 38.8 12.4
Hominy chops (meal)...... .. 10.9 2.5 9.9 3 7 64.4 8.5 86.6 8.9 61.0 7.8
Linseed meal, new process......... 10.1 5.8 33.2 95 38 5 3.0 84.1 27.2 32.9 2.7
Linseed meal, old process...... 9.2 5.7 32.9 8.9 35.4 7.9 85.1 28.3 32.8 7.1
Malt sprouts.......... ................... 9.6 5.9 24.8 11.0 47.0 1.7 84.5 19.8 36.2 1.7
Meat scraps. .......................... 10.7 4.1 71.2 ...... .3 13.7 85.2 68.4 .3 13.5
Palm-nut meal.. ..................... 10.4 4.3 16.8 24.0 35.0 9.5 85.3 16.0 52.6 9.0













TABLE I.-Continued.

AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS.


Percentage Composition.


FEEDING STUFFS.


Per Cent. Digestible
Matter.


I I IS .s| |
4- 0
E ; bd 2 1
0 ,Z 0 C, H


Miscellaneous Feeds-Continued.
Pum pkins ..... ............ ..... 90.9 .5 1.3 1.7 5.2
Rape........ ................ ........ 84.5 2.0 2.3 2.6 8.4
Skimmed milk.. ....... ..... .... .. 90.4 .7 3.3 4.7
Sugar-beet leaves.................. 88.0 2.4 2.6 .2 4.4
W hey ......... .......... ...... 9 .4 .7 .9 ............ 44.8


8.6 1.0 5.8
13.5 1.5 8.1
8.9 3.1 4.7
9.6 1.7 4.6
5.9 .8 4.7









TABLE II.
FEEDING STANDARDS FOR FARM ANIMALS.
(Per day and per 1000 lbs. live weight.)


L Oxen at rest in stall.......... ........
Oxen slightly worked
Oxen moderately worked ......
Oxen heavily worked .. ...

2. Fattening steers, 1st period ...
2d ..
S 3d .. ....

3. Milch cows, daily milk yield 11 lbs .......
165 lbs ....
22 lbs ...
27.6 lbs...

4. Wool sheep, coarser breeds ... ......
finer breeds ....

5. Breeding ewes, with lambs ....

6. Fattening sheep, 1st period ...............
4C" 2d "


Nutritive (Digestible)
Substances.


Total Dry
Substance.


lbs.
18
22
25
28

30
30
26

25
27
29
32

20
23

25

30
28


Fat (Ether
Extract).

lbs.
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.8

0.5
0.7
0.7

0.3
0.4
0.5
0.8

0.2
0.3

0.5

0.5
0.6


Total Nutritive
Nutritive Nutrtive
Substances. at


Crude
Protein.

lbs.
0.7
1.4
2.0
2.8

2.5
3.0
2.7

1.6
2.0
2.5
3.3

1.2
15

2.9

3.0
3.5


Carbo-
hydrates.

Ibs.
8.0
10.0
11.5
13.0

15.0
14.5
15.0

10.0
11.0
13.0
13.0

10.5
12.0

15.0

15 0
14.5


lbs.
8.9
12 1
14.7
17.7

18.7
19.2
19.4

12.3
14.0
16.7
18.2

12.2
14.2

19.1

19.2
19.4


1:11.8
1: 7.7
1: 6.5
1: 5.3

1: 6.5
1: 54
1: 6.2

1: 6.7
1: 6.0
1: 5.7
1: 4.5

1: 9.1
1: 85

1: 5.6

1: 5.4
1: 4.5










TABLE II.-Continued.

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR FARM ANIMALS.

(Per day and per 1000 lbs. live weight.)


Nutritive (Digestible)
Substances.

Crude Carbo- Fat (
Protein. hydrates. Ext


Total
Ntitive Nutritive
Ether Substances. Ratio.
ract).


7. Horses lightly worked..... ...... .. ..
Horses moderately worked
Horses heavily worked .

8. Brood sows, with pigs........... ......

9. Fattening swine, 1st period ..... ..
2d .
4" 3d ... ........ ..

10. Growing cattle-Dairy breeds:
Age, Months. Aver. Live weight
per Head.
2-3 154 lbs... ........... ...
3-6 309 ". .... ......
6-12 507 ...... ....... .........
12-18 705 ........ ... .. ..
18-24 882 ........ .... .......


Total Dry
Substance.


1:7.0
1:6.2
1:6.0

1:6.6

1:5.9
1:6 3
1:7.0


lb .
12.0
14.5
17.7

19.0

31.2
29.2
22.0




21.8
18.2
15.7
15.3
14.2









11. Growing cattle-Beef breeds:
2-3 165 lbs...
3-6 331 .
6-12 551 "
12-18 750 ..
1824 937 ........ ..


12. Growing sheep-
4-6
6-8
8-11
11-15
15-20


-Wool breeds:
6- lbs.........
76 "
84
90 ...
99 .. ..


13. Growing sheep-Mutton breeds :
4-6 66 lbs ..... ....
6-8 84 ...
8-11 101 .. ..
11-15 121 .
15 20 154 ...

14. Growing swine-Breeding animals:
2-3 44 Ibs .
3-5 99 .. .........
5-6 121 .............
6-8 176 .. ...
8-12 265 ......... .

15. Growing fat pigs:
2-3 44 lbs ......... ...........
3-5 110 .. .. .
5-6 143 ...... ... ...
6-8 198 ....... ........
8-12 287 ..... ... ......


.... 23
.... 24
25
... 24
24


25
25
23
22
.... 22


26
S 26
S 24
23
22


13.0
12.8
13.2
12.5
12.0


15.4
13.8
11.5
11.2
10.8


15.5
15.0
14.3
12.6
12.0


28 0
23.1
21.3
18.7
15.3


28.0
2:.1
22.3
20.5
18 3


44
S 35
33
..... 30
26


1:4.2
1:4.7
1:6.0
1:6.8
1:7.2


1:5.0
1:5.4
1:6.0
1:7.0
1:7.7


1:4.0
1:4.8
1:5 2
1:6.3
1:6.5


1:4.0
1:5.0
1:6.0
1:7.0
1:7.5


1:4.0
1:5.0
1:5.5
1:6.0
1:6.4







of 6.7; in other words, the nutritive ratio of the ration
thus made up is 1: 6.7. We find, therefore, that the ra-
tion is slightly "wide", that is, it contains a small excess
of carbo-hydrates. Therefore, it must be slightly modi-
fied, that the carbo-hydrates may be reduced and the pro-
portion of proteins increased. This is best done by in-
creasing the quantity of hay one pound and diminishing
the quantity of cotton-seed hulls two pounds. As the
result we have the following ration, the nutritive ratio of
which is 1 : 6.5.


Cd |1 I 0 Fat.
Q. .

z -o g Pounds.
0 0 0


Hay ......... .. ............. 13 6.329 .988 5.155 .167
Hulls.......... ........ 7 2.545 .170 2.262 .172
Bran....... .................... 8 4.152 .956 2.946 .224
Cornmeal........... ........ 7 4.996 .372 4.141 .252
Total...................... -
35 18.022 2.486 14.504 .815

Ratio, 1:6.5.
Any and all rational rations are arranged in this same
manner and by the same process. It must be remembered,
however, that the cost of the ration will determine the
advantage or profit from its use, and that therefore the
cost of all the constituents in any ration should be
determined before the final ration is decided on. The
market value, moreover, does not necessarily have any
relation whatever to the nutritive value of any food or
ration; for instance, the price of wheat bran fluctuates
but very little with the rise or fall in the market value
of wheat, being dependent entirely upon the supply and
demand of bran itself. Therefore, a ration of low cost
may easily be fully as valuable for feeding purposes as
one of higher cost, and an expensive ration on the other
hand may be no more valuable as food than one costing






239

less money, so that the actual market value of the con-
stituents and the actual cost of the total ration must be
estimated before its constituent parts are decided on if
the greatest degree of economy is to be secured.

SAMPLE RATIONS.*-Although it is believed that the
principles here enumerated and the data furnished will
enable any feeder of ordinary intelligence to select and
arrange economical and satisfactory rations from avail-
able foods to meet the requirements of different classes of
animals, the element of time involved is frequently im-
portant, so that as further assistance and practical aid to
stock owners a few sample rations compounded of the
different available Florida feedstuffs are here presented
to meet the requirements of each different class of farm
stock.

RATIONS FOR FATTENING CATTLE, PER 1000 POUNDS
LIVE WEIGHT.
1. Pounds.
Sw eet potatoes. . ........ ........ .... ....... .. 25
Corn fodder .. ... ...... ........ 10
Cotton-seed meal .. ......... .. .... 5
Corn meal.. .. ... ....... ... ................ .... 10
2.
Corn fodder.. .... ..... ......... ....... 20
Corn and cob m eal .. ............ ....... ..... 12
Cow peas (seed)... .... ... ..... ... 8
3.
Cotton-seed hulls...... ... ... .. ........................... .... ....... 25
Corn m eal. .... ... ..... ................... ........... 8
Cotton-seed m eal...... ........... ............ .. 5
4.
Corn-cob m eal ................. ... ....... .. .. .. .. 15
Cow peas .................. ... ..... ..... .. 10
Crab-grass hay ......... .... .. .... .... ..... 10


*Most of these rations have actually been in successful use.
Several of them were originally suggested by other experiment
stations.






240

RATIONS FOR MILCH COWS, PER 1000 POUNDS
LIVE WEIGHT.
1. Pounds.
Corn meal............ ... ....... ............................ 4
W heat bran ........................... .. ......... ..... .. ... 4
Cotton-seed m eal ..... ............. .... .. .. ................. 4
Pea-vine hay.............................. ............ ... .. 15
2.
R ice b ran ...... ............ ........ ............... ...... .............. 10
Cotton-seed meal........................ .. ...................... ....... 2
Cassava .................. .............. .............. ........... 12
Crab-grass hay .... ............... ................................ 15
3.
Cow -pea hay .... ......... ... ....... ........ ............. 20
W heat bran ..... ..................... ... ... ... .. .... 6
Sweet potatoes..................... .......... ................ 10
4.
Cow-pea hay ..... ...... ...................................... 20
Cotton-seed hulls............ ......................... .......... 15
Cotton-seed m eal ............. ................. .. ...... ..... .... 2
5.
C rab-grass hay ..... .. ... ........................... ....................... 20
C orn stover.............. ....................... ............... ........... 12
Cornmeal ........................... ......... .................I ... ...... 3
Cotton-seed m eal............................... ...... ... ..... 3
6.
Cow-pea hay...... .... ........ ....... .......... ........... 25
Corn m eal ............... ...... ........... ......... ...... 4
7.
Sweet potatoes.......... ........ .......... ..... ... ......... 25
C orn fodder........................ .. .......... .... .............. 10
Cotton-seed meal. .......................... ............ ........... 4
Corn meal........... ................... ............... 8
8.
Corn fodder. ....... .......... ..... ... ............... .... ... 18
W heat bran...................... .................. ............. .......... 4
Cotton-seed meal...................... .. ..... ..... .. ...... 4
Corn m eal.............. ... .............. .... ......... ...... .. 6
9.
Rye fodder.... ................... .. ................ ..................... S
W heat bran .... ...... .................. ................... .. .. .... 6
Cotton-seed meal...................... ..... ......... .............. 2
10.
Pea-vine hay............ ....... .... .................... .. ............... ... 12
Cotton-seed meal.... ....... ................... .. ... ........... 2
W heat bran ............ ............ ........ ....... .............. ....... 4
Cassava. .. .... ................... ....................................... 22








































Cassava Plants Showing Foliage, Stalks and Roots.









243

11. Pounds.
Beggar-weed hay. ... ........ ........ ............ ......... 6
Velvet-bean meal ..... .. .. .................. ........... ... 10
Cassava............. ............ ......... .......... 30

FOR FATTENING HOGS.
1. Pounds.
Sw eet potatoes...... .............. ... ......... ............ .. ... 30
Cow peas............... ... ..... ......................... 9
Corn meal ........... ........... ... ........ 10
2.
Cassava...... ........... .. .................. .................. 40
Wheat middlings ............ ................ .................. 20
Cow peas ... ......... .. ...... ...... ... .... .. ........... 15
3.
C orn ... .......... .......................... .. 20
W heat middlings ................... .............. 40
4.
Sw eet potatoes ...... ....... ........ ........ ....... 30
Cow peas..... .. .... .... ... ....... ... 30

FOR HORSES OR MULES AT HARD WORK, PER 1000
POUNDS LIVE WEIGHT.
1. Pounds.
Cow -pea hay.......... .............. ....... ........ ... 15
O ats (grain ) ...... .... ....... ..... .. .......... ....... 13
2.
Corn fodder................... .... ..... ..... ..... . 10
Oats (grain) ....... ..... ..... ........ ... ..... 15
Cow peas (grain) .......... ......... 4
3.
Corn fodder......... .............. .... .. ........... 13
Corn m eal ........ ........ ......... 11
Cotton-seed meal. ......... ...... ..... ..... .......... 3
4.
Pea-vine hay......... ................ ........... ........ ........ 16
Cotton-seed m eal.................................... ...................... 3
C orn ... ............. .............. .... ...... ....................... .... ... 2
Cassava...... .............. .... ........ .. .. ........... .. 22

In using these rations it must be remembered that the
quantity of each article mentioned and the total ration
in each case is sufficient to furnish a balanced ration
with the suitable quantity and proportion of nutriment
to meet the requirements of animals of one thousand
pounds live weight. For animals weighing either more







or less than this the quantity of food fed must be cor-
rected in proportion to the weight of the animals; for in-
stance, if the animal weighs five hundred pounds, the
quantity of each article in any ration should be one-half
of the amount stated. This correction for any weight of
animal is easily made by the use of a simple proportion.




II.

EXPERIMENTS IN FATTENING STEERS.

OBJECTS OF THE EXPERIMENTS.-Four different ques-
tions were experimentally investigated in the hope of
securing facts which would settle four points of great im-
portance not only to the cattle owners, but to the State of
Florida at large. These were:
First. Can native Florida range steers be successfully
fattened and the product be placed upon the market at a
profit?
Second. What ration composed of native Florida feed-
stuffs is most profitable?
Third. What length of feeding period would give the
most profit, or in other words, how long could the feeding
of steers continue under Florida conditions before the
cost involved exceeded the value of the product?
Fourth. Would improved cattle or the introduction
of blood from the beef breeds give any advantage over
the feeding of native stock ?
The three first questions may be answered by one in-
vestigation, as a single series of experiments may be made
to bear equally upon the three injuries raised. There-
fore, two series of tests were sufficient to furnish replies to
all four questions, inasmuch as the question of the possi-
bility of feeding and the ration found to be most profit-
able easily form different divisions of the same inquiry.



















































































1/ ~


C1


I S- 1O -
I)OT


m

a
a
m
a

Fs
ba
F
B
a,
F



3
PI


I

I


I


I
I
I

I
I

I


7\


r2erh

~OO'r\







The other point, that is, of the relative success or profit
from the feeding of native stock and of improved beef
animals, is covered by a parallel test made in connection
with the first inquiry.
CHARACTER OF THE ANIMALS USED.-For the purpose
of this experiment nine average Florida steers were pur-
chased at the Jacksonville stockyards, having been removed
from the range about thirty days previous to coming into
our possession. The animals ranged in age from four
to seven years and were selected by one of the most ex-
perienced stock men in the State as being typical Florida
steers, such as exist on the ranges of the State in thou-
sands, and might, therefore, be accepted as fair average
representatives of this class of native cattle. They were
purchased from the stock yards rather than directly from
the range, in order that by selection from a large number
an even lot of animals might be secured, and further, that
they might already be somewhat used to feeding, so that
less time would be lost in getting them accustomed to
their rations, and, therefore, on to full feed. On arriv-
ing at the Station farm, they were fed together for two
weeks, that they might entirely recover from the effects
of travel, and that by careful observation any individual
peculiarities might be detected which might possibly in-
terfere with the success of the experiment, or a knowledge
of which might be useful in dividing the animals into
feeding lots. At the end of this preliminary feeding, the
nine steers were divided into three lots of three steers
each. They were previously weighed, and the division
was made as evenly as possible according to weight, age,
and temperament, so that in character each lot might be
fairly compared with each other lot. The lots were then
separated into feeding pens adjoining the barn, each pen
being eight feet wide and twenty-four feet long, with a
manger and feeding rack at one end of the pen, with an
opening into the barn; the feeding end of each pen was
under a shed cover. In addition to' the three lots thus




















- ..
*. o'


FT


bi

~i~k ..U


Grade Steers (Lot IV).


r


u


. ^**^'t


. c 1










described, consisting of native Florida steers, three steers
were selected expressly for the purpose of making a com-
parison between the native Florida animal and animals
containing improved beef blood, by means of which the
relative merits of native and of grade animals might be
tested. The three steers selected for this purpose and
placed in Lot IV consisted of one grade Short-horn ox,
seven years of age, and a pair of grade Red-poled steers,
six years old. That these animals possessed very per-
ceptible characteristics of these two beef breeds is dem-
onstrated by the accompanying illustrations taken from
photographs. The amount of beef blood possessed by
these animals, however, was probably not above one-half
and quite probably less. Nothing could be learned of
their actual breeding, so that this matter is pure supposi-
tion based on the appearance of the animals themselves.
The care and feeding of the different lots were as
natural and as applicable to average Florida conditions
as was possible with suitable control over results. Noth-
ing was attempted which could not be successfully
carried out by any stockholder in Florida with sufficient
intelligence to utilize the established principles of animal
nutrition and sufficient interest in his business to adopt
common business methods.
METHOD OF CARE AND FEEDING.-Theanimals were con-
fined in the pens described, but were let into the yard twice
a day for water and additional exercise. They were fed
twice daily; namely, at 7 A. M. and 5 P. M. Their
rations were computed so that little waste or unconsumed
food was expected; yet it was intended that when hay
formed a part of the ration it should be always before
them in the feeding racks. The quantity discarded from
each ration was carefully weighed and deducted from the
quantity of food charged against each lot of steers. The
amounts of food thus wasted are not enumerated in the
present record and are not charged against the steers fed,
as this was not a natural expense of normal feeding, but







was one of the incidents of experiment. The steers were
watered at 7 A. M. and 4 P. M., the water supplied being
spring water. They were weighed every ten days during
the feeding period, and the amount of food was varied
with the variation in the weight of the steers, so that the
quantity of f,,o, consumed bore a standard relation to the
live weight of the animals fed upon each ration. The
rations were carefully weighed at each time of feeding,
the writer being personally present as a rule at one or
both feedings daily, and making constant check weigh-
ings to verify the accuracy of the work. Each indivi-
dual animal was weighed separately, but the rations were
compounded for the different lots, as circumstances did
not admit of individual feeding of each steer in the dif-
ferent lots.
PLAN OF EXPERIMENT.-It was intended that each
lot of steers should be fed, in proportion to its
live weight, exactly the same quantity and pro-
portion of each nutrient. In other words, every steer
was to receive exactly the same form and quantity of
nutriment, the only difference being that the source of
supply of fattening material was to be different for each
lot of steers. This condition was strictly true of Lots 1,
III, and IV, but with Lot II it could not be absolutely
complied with by using the ration desired. That is, it
was not possible by the use of cotton-seed hulls and meal
alone to compound a ration absolutely identical with the
balanced rations furnished the other lots. The difference,
however, was comparatively slight, and by using this
ration for one lot of steers opportunity was furnished for
comparing the recognized standard ration of the South
with the other rations fed. The four lots of steers were given
rations in which the predominating constituent, or really
the material being tested was as follows: Lot I cassava;
Lot II cotton-seed products; Lot III corn meal; Lot IV
grade steers as compared with natives. The total feeding
time was divided into three different periods, during each









of which the standard ration, respectively for the first,
second and third periods, was fed. The steers, however,
were weighed every ten days, and the actual amount of
food fed was varied with the live weight of the animals
consuming the ration. The rations fed were as follows:

RATIONS FED.

LOT I.

Per 1000 Pounds Live Weight.


| 6
C s
5. Q': e


H ay ...... .............
Cotton-seed meal
Cassava* ..

Total.. .. ...


4.380
3.589
8.391


50 16.3(
Ratio, 1: 6.5.


.691 3.569 .116
1.681 1.152 .480
.133 10.098 .072

2.505 14.819 .668


60


LOT II.
Per 1000 Pounds Lirve Weight.


g ~ "2
C) cc
W 6

P-4 .fl'


Cotton-seed hulls .........
Cotton-seed meal .........

Total ..


15.18


.732
2.017

2.749


9.696 .696
1.382 .576

11.078 1.272


Ratio, 1:5.18.


The digestibility of cassava in lieu of actual digestion coeffi-
cients was based on the digestibility of Irish potatoes.
t It is probable that the actual nutritive ratio of this ration is
wider than appears from the accepted digestion coefficients of the
constituents of its two ingredients, inasmuch as experiment has
shown, as recorded in the North Carolina Experiment Station
Bulletin 92, page 122. that the digestibility of the protein in the
cotton seed meal is retarded by the carbo-hydrates of the hulls.






252

LOT III.
Per 1000 Pounds Live Weight.

C0

i d



Hay*. ........... ........... 3 6.329 .998 5.155 .167
H ulls.............. ............ 7 2.545 .170 2.252 .172
Bran............... .... ... 8 4.152 .956 2.947 .224
Corn meal......... ...... ... 7 4.9961 .372 4 141 .252

Total..... .............. 25 18.022 2.496 14.495 .815

Ratio, 1:6.5.
LoT IV.
Same as Lot I, per 1000 pounds live weight.
The actual amount and cost of the food fed to the dif-
ferent lots of steers for the three different feeding periods,
after being computed to correspond to the live weight of
each lot, was as follows:

QUANTITY AND COST OF DAILY RATIONS.
FIRST PERIOD.
Lot L
lbs. ozs. Cost of Feed
per Day.
H ay........ ........................... 17 4 6.9 cts.
Cotton-seed meal .... ....... ........ 5 8 7.2
Cassava ................... ........... 68 10 10.2


Total............ ........................ ...... ..
Lot II.
Cotton-seed hulls .......... .. .. 57
Cotton-seed meal............. .......... 11

T o tal....... ......... .. .. .
Lot III.
H ay ... ........ .... ... .. .. ...... ... 24
Cotton-seed hulls.. ........ .. ... 12
Wheat bran .............. ... .... 15
Corn m eal........... ... ........ ... 12

Total............


......... 24.3 cts.


6 29.8 cts.
8 15.1

........ 44.9 cts.


9.8 cts.
6.3
15.3
13.9

45.3 cts.


Hay, where not otherwise specified, was a mixture of crab-
grass, beggar-weed and cow-pea.






253

Lot IV.

H ay...... .. .......... ......... 27
Cotton-seed meal. ............... 15
Cassava...... .. .. ... .. 106

T otal................ ...


10.8 cts.
19.8
4 15.9

........ 46.5 cts.


SECOND PERIOD.
Lot L


Pea-vine hay ..................
Cotton-seed meal
Cassava...... ..... ..


............... 23
........ .. 13
......... 78 12


Total......................


9.2 cts.
18.1
11.7

39.0 cts.


Lot II


Cotton-seed meal ......
Cotton-seed hulls .........

T otal ...... ........ .. ..

1

Pea-vine hay....................
Cotton-seed hulls...... .. .
W heat bran. ......... ...
Corn m eal ........ ............


T o tal.. ...... .. .............. .

Lot IV.

Pea-vine hay.......... ... .........
Cotton-seed meal..... ...............
Cassava ..... ....... ........... ........ .

Total............... ................ ......


H ay ..... ..... ..... .
Cotton-seed meal.........
Cassava ..


17 12 22.4 cts.
.. 70 12 36.7

.... .......... 59.1 cts.


4 12.1 cts.
6.2
12 21.7
15.8

... 55.8 cts.


2 8 13.0 cts.
9 12 26.0
1 16.6

.. ...... 55.6 cts.


THIRD PERIOD.

Lot I.

....... .. 21 8
13 2
78 4


T o tal .......... .. ........... .
Lot II.


8.6 cts.
17.3
11.7

37.6 ets.


Cotton-seed hulls.............. ..... .. 72
Cotton-seed meal........................... 16

Total............. ... ..........


37.4 cts.
8 21.7

.......... 59.1 cts.







Lot III.
H ay ............ ....... .. .................... 31 8 12.6 cts.
Cotton-seed hulls............. ............... 15 8 8.0
W heat bran ...... ............................ 18 18.0
Corn meal .......... ..... ........... 15 12 15.8
Total.............. ....................................... ..... 54.4 cts.

Lot IV.
Hay............ ....... ......... .. .... 29 8 11.8 cts.
Cotton-seed meal......... ................ 18 23.7
Cassava ......... ....... ............... 111 8 16.7
T otal............ ............... ............................. 52.2 cts.

The first and second periods consisted of forty days
each. The third period, because of the lateness of the
season, was limited to ten days. The full feeding period
would have otherwise continued one hundred and twenty
days, consisting of three periods of forty days each. The
ration above described as constituting the feed of each
lot of steers was the actual quantity of food fed for
each twenty-four hours. From the final summary, how-
ever, the hay rejected by the animals is subtracted. It
must be remembered, moreover, that during the entire
time of feeding the animals were all weighed every ten
days and the rations above described were then recalcu-
lated to meet the live-weight requirements of the steers
fed, so that the total quantity of food consumed as given
in the final summary was not the actual quantity here
enumerated multiplied by the number of days in each
period, but was corrected or modified, first by the sub-
traction of discarded hay, and second by the variation in
the live weight of the animals, which necessitated a revis-
ion of the ration for each ten-day interval. The final
summary, therefore, and charges against the different lots,
include simply the food actually consumed and not
the theoretical ration provided.






255


FOODS CONSUMED AND GAINS FOR THE DIFFERENT
PERIODS.
FIRST PERIOD.
Lot I.



,. -( m
g -S B.
U1 D 0 Q .^
Q P~i


Hay... .......... ..
Cotton-seed meal.. ..
Cassava ................ ....

Total.... .............


(otton-seed hulls... ...
( otton-seed meal.......

T otal...... .....


.. 762
. .... 423
... .. 1569.5

.... .. ............


Lot II.

2516.-12$
512. -4

L t...........$

Lot III.


3 04
5 58
4 70

$ 13 32


13 08
6 74

19 82


20.30


450 23.60


H ay .. ....... .......
Cotton-seed hulls....
B ran ............ ... ..
Corn meal.............

T otal .............


H ay ...... ............ ..
Cotton-seed meal.
Cassava ...........

Total ...... .


.. 1010. -8 $ 4 04
............. 535 2 98
... ..... 646 6 46
........... 522 3 94

.. ... ............... 17 42
Lot IV.
.. 1046 S 4 18
... 723 9 53
....... 4432 6 64

S .......... $ 20 37


SECOND PERIOD.

Lot I.


-'C
.,
e


H ay ....... ....................... 839
Cotton-seed meal.... ....... 550
C assava ....... .... ................. 920

T otal .... .. ... ..... ......... .


i 3 35
7 26
4 68

.$ 15 29


272 14.34


322 10.92


90 3.92






256

Lot II


Cotton-seed hulls................
Cotton-seed meal ...............

Total....... ... ........


H ay.................. .. .. ....... .
Cotton-seed hulls...............
B ra n ............ ....... .......
Corn meal ........... .......

Total.......... ....... ........ .


0 1o 1,


2830 $ 10 71 48
647 8 54

. ........ $ 19 25


Lot IIL
1163
480
820
600


$ 4 651
2 49
8 20
6 07


............... $ 21 41


Lot IV.
Hay............ ...................... 1080 $ 4 32
Cotton-seed meal.............. 790 10 42
Cassava... ............... 4440 6 66

Total...... .... ....... .. ........ $ 21 40


10 0.30


THIRD PERIOD.
Lot L


30 4
8 ro
wO .


Hay............... .......... ......... 192
Cotton-seed meal................. 131
Cassava ........ ....... ............. 391

T otal ......... ............ ... .........

Lot II.
Cotton-seed hulls.............. 720
Cotton-seed meal................. 165


$ 76
1 72
58

.... $ 3 06


| 3 74|
2 17


Total.................. ........ $ 5 91


H ay ......... .................. ........
Cotton-seed hulls.................


Lot III
135
155


$


in .............. ...... ......... 180 1
n meal......... ............... 157 1

Total. ........... ........... ........... $ 4


541
79
80
60

73


- 5






-4





26 1.10


3.4



3,03


Bra
Cor







Lot IV.


I be


Hay .................. ........ 140 $ 56 26 0.79
Cotton-seed meal...... ..... 180 2 37
Cassava...... ... ........ .. .. 115 1 67
Total ... .... ... .. .... $ 4 60

It takes but a cursory glance at the figures in the
above table to show that profitable feeding ceased during
the second period, and that there came a time when the
cost of the food consumed by the steers exceeded the
market value of the live-weight gain. This is always
the case when animals are kept beyond a certain point
in their fattening process, but are still fed expensive fat-
tening rations. The demonstration of this fact was an
essential feature of the experiment. From the constant
weighing of the animals we knew ,within a very few
days, exactly when the feeding was no longer profit-
able; and had the animals been fed simply for profit,
they would have been marketed when this point was
reached, with very great advantage so far as pecuniary
results were concerned. It was desired, however, to as-
certain the length and lateness of season which would
admit of profitable feeding, and, therefore, the experi-
ment was continued until these points were demonstrated,
although the financial loss from so doing was fully under-
stood. The exact bearing of these points, however, and
the facts demonstrated by this portion of the experiment
are best shown by the detailed record of the different
weighing of the animals, showing the fluctuations in
weight and the actual time when profitable increase in
weight came to an end.






258


RECORD OF WEIGHING.
LOT I.
Steer No. of Live Gain or Loss Gain or Loss
No. Weighing. Weight. per Head. per Lot.
10 1 680
11 1 602
12 1 624
10 2 710 30
11 2 640 78
12 2 634 10 118
12 3 662 28
11 3 652 12
10 3 748 38 78
12 4 676 14
11 4 695 43
10 4 776 28 85
12 5 726 50
11 5 746 51
10 5 822 46 147
12 6 738 12
11 6 736 -10
10 6 778 -44 -42
12 7 744 6
11 7 779 43
10 7 818 40 89
12 8 741 -3
11 8 828 49
10 8 850 32 78
12 9 744 3
11 9 793 -35
10 9 852 2 -30
12 10 728 -16
11 10 832 -20
10 10 824 31 5

LOT II.
1 1 604
8 1 628
5 1 674
1 2 634 30
8 2 628 0 112
5 2 756 82
1 3 634 30
8 3 674 46 116
5 3 796 40
1 4 620 -14
8 4 716 32 37










Steer
No.
5
1
8
5
1
8
5
1
8
5
1
8
5
1
8
5
1
8
5


3
9
4




3
9
4
3
9
4
3
9
4
3
9
4
3
9
4
3
9
4
3
9
4


LOT II-Continued.
No. of Live Gain or Loss
Weighing. Weight. per Head.
4 815 19
5 714 94
5 746 30
5 896 81
6 694 -20
6 744 2
6 886 -10
7 676 -18
7 751 7
7 871 -15
8 692 16
8 782 31
S 940 69
9 706 14
9 74 -18
9 934 6
11 708 2
10 748 -16
10 944 10

LOT III.
1 592
1 688
1 616
2 636 44
2 740 52
2 674 58
3 550 -86
3 748 8
3 670 4
4 552 2
4 760 12
4 682 12
5 612 60
5 806 46
5 750 68
6 604 8
6 802 4
6 762 12
7 632 28
7 808 6
7 744 -18
8 662 30
8 836 28
8 806 62


Gain or Loss
per Lot.


202


-32



-26


11,i



-10


--4









152


-82



26



174


00



40



120






260

LOT III-Continued.
Steer No. of Live Gain or Loss Gain or Loss
No Weighing. Weight. per Head. per Lot.
3 9 672 10
9 9 804 -32 -50
4 9 778 -28
3 10 666 8
9 10 822 18
4 10 794 16 26

LOT IV.
2 1 1148
6 1 840
7 1 960
2 2 1210 62
6 2 862 22 134
7 2 1010 50
2 3 1228 18
6 3 894 32 66
7 3 976 16
2 4 1232 4
6 4 908 12 68
7 4 1028 52
2 5 1324 92
6 5 942 34 102
7 5 1004 -24
2 6 1280 -44
6 6 888 -74 -134
7 6 1014 -14
2 7 1262 -18
6 7 914 32 14
7 7 1014 0
2 8 1348 86
6 8 940 26 134
7 8 1034 20
2 9 1312 -36
6 9 942 2 -42
7 9 1026 8
2 10 1310 2
6 10 952 10 26
7 10 1044 18

Examination of the above record of weighing shows
that, although there was more or less fluctuation in
the weights of the animals, there was as a whole
a constant gain in live weight sufficient to more
than compensate for the food consumed up till the







ninth weighing, after which there was considerable
falling off in gains, and even frequent losses in weight
with all the different lots, so that the eighth weighing
may be accepted as the last one showing a profitable
increase in weight. As the weighing were made at
ten-day intervals, the eighth weighing was a the end
of seventy days of f.- -.li!-_. the first weighing having
been made at the beginning of the feeding period. It
m'ay, therefore, he accepted as demonstrated that, for
steers in tle condition of the animals under experi-
ment, the feeding of which did not begin until mid-
winter, a seventy-day feeding period carrie, t le ani-
mals to the point nf Ilnximuml gain and profit. Prob-
ably for animals taken directly from the range a nine-
ty-day feeding pe iihd would show the greatest profit.
On this 1pint the experiments indicate that after the
animal has become accustomed to his feed and is,
therefore, placed on fill feed, an interval of from sixty
to seventy -five days is sutficient to bring him to the
point w here his slaughtering would result in greatest
profit to the feeder. This is a consideration of very
great importance, and is contrary to the accepted
practice among northern feeders, where 120 days upon
full feed is usually accepted rs the minimum time for
securing best results.
It therefore seems that the time during which an
ainial must be fed in order to be finished off for mar-
ket with greatest profit is probably at least one-third
less than is required for accomplishing the same re-
sults in the beef-producing sections of the North. In
other words, Ihe Fli-rida feeder is obliged to feed for
a very much less time than is the northern feeder,
and therefore, other things being equal, he possesses
this very great advantage over stock-feeders else-
where. Accepting the fact that seventy days covered
the period of profitable feeding of the steers in ques-
D







tion, and that their subsequent feeding was for experi-
mental purposes solely, and that at the end of seventy
days they should have been slaughtered, if profit was
the sole object of their feeding and they had been in
the hands of the average Florida stock-owner under
similar conditions, it is important ,that we study the
financial side of the experiment; that is, the cost of
the feeding and the returns from the same for this
period.
The quantity of food consumed has already been re-
corded and is known. The basis adopted for estimat-
ing the cost of the rations consumed was as follows:
MARKET VALUE OF FOOD CONSUMED.-In determining
the value of the different articles entering into the
rations fed, the wholesale prices per ton of commer-
cial feed stuffs in Jacksonville with the freight to Lake
City added, was accepted as a fair basis, giving results
applicable to average Florida conditions. The price
of hay was based on the market value of native baled
hay, from which the cost of baling, hauling and differ-
ence in conv nience of handling were deducted, result-
ing in what was thought would furnish a fair estimate
of the value of hay on the farm. The value of the cas-
sava fed was estimated at half-way between our esti-
mate of the actual cost of production and the market
value delivered on board cars for starch manufacture,
an average allowance of one dollar per ton being made
for hauling to the cars. Upon the foregoing basis the
value of the different articles fed was as follows:
H ay.. ............. ...... ....... ... ...$ 8 CO per ton
Cassava. ........ .. .......... .. 3 00 "
Cotton-seed hulls .......... ........ 10 50 "
Cotton-seed meal........................ 26 50 "
W heat bran .. ....... ... .. 20 00 "
Corn m eal.... ...................... ....... 20 50 "
Upon the above basis it is important to next present
in form for comparison the relative cost of the differ-








ent rations fed. The actual cost of the different ra-
tions has already been discussed by itself. The rela-
tive cost of the amount of food furnished in the differ-
ent rations, as obtained from the different materials
utilized, is here presented.

RELATIVE COST OF RATIONS FED,
Cassava Cost per Day
Ration. Per 1000 lbs.
Lot. Period. Live Weight; Average.
I. 1st $0.09
I. 2d .12
I. 3d .11 11 cents.

Cotton-Seed
Ration.
II. 1st $0.21
II. 2d .24
II. 3d .24 23 cents.

Corn Ration.
III. 1st s0.23
III. 2d .27
III. 3d .26 25.3 cents.

Beef Steers.
IV. 1st S0.15
IV. 2d .17
IV. 3d .15 13.6 cents.*

Before considering the final results of the slaughter
test and studying the financial results of the experi-
mients, it is necessary that the actual live-weight gains
for the seventy-day interval, accepted as the period
of maximum profit, be considered, that the d'ta per-
taining to the actual increase in weight as the result
of the feeding be made available.

Lots I and II were fed exactly the same rations per 1000
pounds of live weight, and, therefore, theoretically the cost
of the ration should have been the same for each lot. The
cost, however, is not based on the food fed, but upon the actual
quantity consumed, which fact explains the slight difference in
the relative cost of the rations for these two lots.








LIVE-WEIGHT GAINS FOR 70-DAY PERIOD.
LOT I.
Gain per Lot. Per Cent. of Gain. Daily Gain per Heid.
513 lbs. 26.86 2.43 lbs.
LOT II.
503 lbs. 26.66 lbs. 2.41 lbs.
LOT III.
408 lbs. 21.52 1. 95 lbs.
LOT IV.
384 lbs. 18.02 lbs. 1.83 lbs.

The facts presented in the above table require L few
words of comment or explanation, that their actual
bearing upon the results of the experiments may be
fully understood. Mere casual observation might
lead to the supposition that the actual gain in weight,
either per lot or per head, was comparatively small,
and that, therefore, the feeding resulted in compara-
tively small gains as returns upon the cost of the food
consumed. Upon this point it must be remembered
that the actual gross increase in weight is not the
basis upon which the degree of success of the result of
the feeding depends. The actual number of pounds
of increase does not tell the story. The proportion or
percentage of increase is the true ba.is for comparison.
In Lot 1, for instance, 513 pounds gross gain or in-
crease in weight for three animals for seventy days
time might not be exceptionally large; so also in the
same lot an average gain in weight of 2.43 pounds per
head per day might inadvertently be considered com-
paratively small. Both of these suppositions or con-
cliusions would be correct in the case of large, heavy
steers weighing 1200 pounds or more. It must, how-
ever, be remembered that we were feeding small na-
tive steers; that the average weight of the steers in
Lot 1 at the beginning of the experiment was only 635




















FI


ii:1C


Dressed Carcass from Lot I.











pounds, and that, therefore, the actual gain of 2.43
pounds per day was gratifyingly large. The percent-
age of gain, therefore, is the true basis of comparison
and furnishes actual means for showing the relative
gains made by the different lots in this experiment,
as well as for comparison with results obtained else-
where.
SLAUGHTEIING TEST -Having now presented the
matter of the live-weight gains of the steers in the
different lots, it is necessary to consider briefly the
actual results of the slaughtering of the animals. It
was not possible to slaughter all the animals at one
time, inasmuch as the available market could Lot util-
ize so large a quantity of beef at one time. Moreover,
the conditions under which the beef was sold, which
included the reservation of certain parts for experi-
mental purposes, and the utilization of a considerable
portion of the beef in the College mess hall, necessi-
tated sale considerably below the maximum market
price of such beef, so that the final estimate of profit
and loss is necessarily made upon a Eve-weight ra i. in-
than a dressed-weight basis. From a practical stand-
point, however, as this meets the actual condition of
sale with most Florida feeders, these circumstances
were probably no disadvantage. The animals were
slaughtered three at a time, one steer frcm each of the
first three los. anid the three steers from Lot IV
made a single slaughtering by themselves. The kill-
ing was all done b-: the same butchers at the same time
of day, and with identical preliminary treatment, so
that the comparisons and results as to relations be-
tween live-weight and dressed-weight furnish no var-
iation or inequality.






268


PERCENTAGE OF DRESSED WEIGHT.*

LOT I.

Live Weight. Dressed Weight. Per cent. of
Dressed Meat.
824 479 57.57
814 441 54.19
728 412 56.86

Average .... 56.23

LOT II.


54.62
56.59
52.49


Average .. .54.55


LOT III.


54.62
53.88
.53.44


Average 54.31


LOT IV.


Average.


58.15
53.45
55.70
55.78


The mere gain in weight or percentage of waste, as
determined by slaughtering, does not necessarily
prove the relative value of different carcasses, which
must depend to a considerable degree upon the loca-
tion of the better or higher priced mea s. In our ex-
periments no effort was made to separate the differ-
ent portions of the carcass, except so far as the quar-
ters were concerned. These weights, however, furnish
information as to the position of the heaviest portion
of the carcass .s follows:

*Animals were deprived of food and water for sixteen hours
previous to slaughtering.






269

LOT I.


Fore Quarter.
130
128
116
116
113
111

...... 715


Percentage of
Hind Quarter. Hind Quarters.
111 46.36
110
103
106
94
94

618


LOT II.


49.39


130
130
114
102
97
99

.. 676


LOT III.


Totals


LOT IV.


46.78


Totals.


QUALITY OF THE BEEF PRODUCKD.--The mere fact of
the economical, production of beef, if established, was
not sufficient for the object in view, since the quality
of the product, and consequently its position in the
market, was considered as of equal importance.
Meat from all of the different lots was placed on


No.
10

11

12


Totals...


Totals







sale in the Lake City market in competition with Chi-
cago dressed beef, and was retailed at the same price
demanded for the latter. It is an important and grat-
ifying fact that while the Station beef was available,
it was demanded in preference to Chicago beef and
that during the two weeks while it was available,
Western beef was entirely excluded from our market.
This fact would seem to demonstrate that the quality


Diagram Showing Location and Relative Value of Different Cuts of Beef.
of Florida fat beef is equal to that of the best pro-
duced elsewhere.
For the purpose of establishing the relative merits
of the beef produced from the feeding of the different
rations used, and consequently the comparative value
of the ililt.i1n ri. rations as affecting the quality of pro-
duct, samples of beef from each lot were sent to three
unbiased persons, who were requested to make com-
parative table tests of the different samples and Ito


j 1 1 ,























-~~ U
r~ P


AM

"Porter House" Cuts from Lots I, II and III-
Cassava-Cotton-seed Products-Corn.
Corn-Cotton-seed Products-Cassava.




































"iPorter House" Outs from Lot IV.
Rib Roasts-Lot I, LotJII, Lot III.


Ma l,4


~










mark them as to relative superiority, being meanwhile
ignorant of the origin of the different samples. The
result of the test was that in every case by all three
judges the beef of Lot No. I, fed on cassava, was
marked first choice, while Lots Nos. 3 and 2, fed upon
corn meal and cotton-seed products, respectively, were
given second and third choice. This judgment was
demonstrated as meeting practical approval in the
market, where purchasers invariably called for the cas-
sava fed beef and preferred the same in preference to
that from the other two lots whenever it was availa-
ble. It would seem, therefore, that not only is the
possibility of profitable beef production with native
stock and feed stuffs established, but furthermore,
that the quality of the product thus produced ranks as
first-class and can be successfully "old in competition
with the best corn-fed product, which is the accepted
American standard of excellence.
FINANCIAL RESULTS.-The experiment itself having
been finished and two of the four questions under con-
sideration having b, n answered, namely, first, that
native steers could be fed profitably upon Florida feed
stuffs, and second, that the seventy-day period of feed-
ing gave the most profitable returns, the results of the
experiment must be examined individually from a
financial standpoint, that the actual degree of profit
may be learned, and further, that the two other ques-
tions under consideration, namely, the relative profit
from the feeding cf different rations and the compar-
ative merit of native and grade steers may be pre-
sented. The seventy-day period already considered
and the live-weipht basis of value fcr the finished
product were adopted. The matter of the basis for
determining the value of the beef produced was pre-
sented to Messrs. Hart & Co., of Jacksonville, from
whom the steers were originally purchased. They are
the largest feeders and slaughterers of cattle in Flor-







ida, their slaughtering for the Jacksonville market
amounting annually to nearly 4,000 head. They sug-
gested two bases for estiman'ng the increased value of
the animals as the result of feeding. First, an esti-
mate of 5c per pound upon the actual increase in
weight, this estimate being based upon the well-known
fact that a fat animal not only consists of a greater
weight of meat than the same animal in an unfettened
condition, but that the quality of the meat of the en-
tire carcass is so improved by the fattening process
that the value of the original weight of the carcass is
increased by the feeding. Second, an estimate of
3 5-Sc per pound as the actual market value of the an-
imals on a live-weight basis. As Messrs. Hart & Co.
actually Nll', ,-.d this price for the animals delivered
in Jacksonville, this second basis was adopted as the
real value of the animals and the fairest possible basis
for determining the financial results of feeding the
steers.*

FINANCIAL STATEMENT ON LIVE-WEIGHT BASIS.


> t;. .



lbs. lbs. lbs 8 -
11906241951338.12 87.62121.25 .66.37 $28.75 $9.58 75.41 48.42
II1906241450838.12 87.42 25.49 61.73 23.81 7.93 62.43 37,43
III1896230440837.92 83.52i34.03 49.49 11.57 3.85 30.54 14.69
IV2948332238458.96120.4136.04 84.37 25.41 8.17 43.09 26.73

The above table of the financial results of the feed-
ing presents in graphic form several facts of such im-

"The value of the manure produced is allowed to off set the
care of the animals. The actual manurial value of the food con-
sumed is sufficiently important and complicated a matter to re-
ceive more extended consideration than was deemed advisable
here.








portance that detailed consideration seems necessary.
The basis on which the estimate of cost and value of
the animals is that furnished by Messrs. Hart & Co.
of Jacksonville, the criminal value placed on the steers
at 2 cents per pound live weight is the actual cost of
the animals delivered in Jacksonville. The value of
the finished animals, estimated at 3 5-8 cents per
pound, is the market value of the steers when slaugh-
tered, and the price offered for the same by Messrs.
Hart & Co. It is believed that for small numbers
local markets are fully as good as the Jacksonville
market. For large numbers, however, the cost of
transporting the fattened' steers to Jacksonville would
necessarily be deducted from the estimated profits.
In car-load lots for average Florida points this cost
of transportation would not exceed 75 cents per head;
as it varies from different places, however, and in
many cases would not be necessary at all, this point
has not been considered in my estimation of the finan-
cial results of fattening. As a prime object of the
experiments was a comparison of different Florida
feed stuffs, ,the point demanding first attention is that
of the relative results shown from the feeding of the
different rations used. The four different lots show
profits over and above the cost of the steers and the
cost of the feed consumed for the respective lots as
follows: I, $28.75; II, $23.81; III, $11.57; IV,
$25.41. The important point demonstrated by these
figures is the fact that cassava as a profitable ration
stands at the head of the list, with a profit f $4.94 in
excess of that obtained from the feeding of the same
number of animals on the cotton-seed ration, and
$17.18 more than resulted from the feeding of corn.
In this connection, as the single animal is the proper
unit for estimating profits and costs, it will be noticed
that the average cost of the native steers per head is








$12.68. It seems, therefore, that the profit of feeding
a single animal on cassava is *..', upon cotton seed
mixture $7.93, and upon corn $3.85. There is noth-
ing exceptional in this showing to people actually
familiar with the possibilities of stock feeding in Flor-
ida. Messrs. Hart & Co., at the time t'he feeding of
these steers began, prophesied that their feeding would
result in a profit of from $7 to $10 per 'head. How
(lose this estimate came to the actual fact in the case
of the cassava and cotton-seed lots is easily apparent.*
The actual profit on the feeding of the cas-ava steers
wavs 418.42 per ce; t. on the investment. The cotton-
seed steers returned a profit of 37.43 per cent. and the
corn-fed steers 1.4.98 per cent. The difference bet-s een
Lots I and II is decidedly apparent and shows cassava
tc be very materially the cheapest and best ration
which can be used for fattcnirg purposes. The most
astonishing fact, 'however, is the very great diIi.' I-i'-
demonstrated between the cost and the results of feed-
ing corn and feeding cassava, the difference being
almost two-thirds in favor of the latter. Bef r( pro-
ceeding, to a further consideration and application of
the results thus demonstrated, the fact should be
briefly noticed that Lot IV showed v compa alively
small profit and a comparatively hlgh cost tf feeding,
as compared with Lot I, although both lots were
given the same ration. I believe, however, that
the result is easily explained and is not adverse
to the advantage of the introduction of better blood
into our herds of range cattle. I interpret the

SMr. O. J. Hill, of DeLand, has kindly placed at my disposal
the data secured by him from feeding 113 head of native steers
last winter on cassava and one small feed of corn in the ear
daily. These steers had access to a small supply of standing corn
fodder and wire-grass for roughage. The steers were marketed
as fat beef in DeLand, and showed a handsome profit on cost and
expenses.









A~t


V


- -Clo


.7. vir-ex^-
A, A
Ins
-j^rya,


Steer No. 10, Lot I.


~;J~b~
Z
r:


d















































































Steer No. 5, Lot II.



-;i .















































C- i


Steer No. 9, Lot III.











result as simply showing that Lot IV, from its
natural propensity to take on fat, made propor-
tionately a larger gain during the short interval of
preliminary feeding in Jacksonville and after they had
been brought to the station, so Ithat when the actual
experimental feeding began these beef steers were
more nearly finished, and that, therefore, they after-
wards took on a smaller proportion of increased
weight and show correspondingly small gains and
profits.
RELATIVE PER CENT. OF PROFIT.-In the tast column
of the foregoing table the total percentage of profit
on the investment resulting from the feeding of the ,
four different lots of steers is presented as follows:
I. 48.42 per cent.; II, 37.43 per cent.; III, 14.69 per
cent.; IV, 2G.7-3 per cent. These data, as well as the
actual profits recorded per 1head, in which Lot I stands
at .'9.58 as against s3.S3 for Lot III, give abundant
evidence of the actual relative profits of the different
rations fed. For convenience of comparison, how-
ever, and as an actual measure of the relation between
the success of the different rations, it is best to accept
the results obtained with Lo: No. I, fed on the cas-
sava. ration, which h'Ads tle list in profits returned
as 100, and on this basis compare the results in each
other case upon this same scale. By thi, means, we
have the following results:

Cassava ........ .... .. .. ..... ..... .. 100
Cotton-seed ration. ........... 77.53
Corn-meal ration. ...... ......... 29.79
Grade steers.. .... .... .. 55.40

On the same basis, therefore, the cotton-s4oeed eal
and hulls ration retar'ned a profit of 77.53 per cent.
of that from the cassava ration, the corn meal
ration 29.79 per cent., and the grade steers 55.41
per cent. The relative or comparative value of the







three different rations, and the grade steers, as com-
pared with the native, are thus graphically presented,
and require no further comment.
The questions propounded at the beginning of the
investigation, viz.: "Can native Florida steers be
fed at a profit?" "What is the most profitable ration
of Florida feed stuffs?" "What is the most profitable
length of feeding period?" and "Do grade steers give
better results than natives?" have been answered so
far as this inquiry is concerned.
It, therefore, remains simply to apply the results
secured, and make such comparisons as seem applica-
ble as further demonstrating the bearing of the re-
sults.
TIrE MOST PROFITABLE RATION.-As the determination
of this point was one of the chief objects of the ex-
perimlent, the bearing of the data before recorded upon
the question of the relative economy of the different
rations fed should now be collated for reference and
convenient consideration. In this connection it should
be remembered that no ration used was as economical as
could have been arranged with Florida feedstuffl. Velvet
beans in forage and ground as meal furnish the cheapest
source of proteins, and would have given far more
profitable returns. Thelr composition is, however,
not sufficiently determined to fit them for the pur-
poses of this experiment. It is demonstrated that
from every point of consideration the cassava ration
furnished the most economical food and returned the
greatest net product for the cost involved; that, there-
fore, the cassava ration, or rations in which cassava
forms the predominating carbonaceous constituent,
are the most p1.rlil.lie for Florida feeders. The
points of superiority, as demonstrated by comparison,
are as follows:















Lot I.
Cassava ration .... ...... ... 2.43 26.86 Ile. 4.14e.
Lot II.
Cotton-seed product ration. 2.41 26 66 23c. 5 .
Lot II.

Corn-meal ration ......... 1.95 21.52 25.3c. 8.34c.
The cassava, ration being demonstrated to be the
most profitable ration used, and, therefore, to be the
best ration for Florida purposes, it may be accepted
for the present as a standard Florida ration, and as
sucL used for the purpose of cotmpa:'ing the results
thus obtained in Florida with those obtained under
similar conditions elsewhere.
SOME C(,MPARISOxs.-The degree of success in the
fattening of beef in Florida can be best measured by
actual comparison with typical results secured in sec-
tions of the county recognized as beef-producing sections,
in which the fattening of cattle is successfully practiced
for profit.
COMPARISONS.

Average
Weight of Daily Gain Cost of Gain
Steers at I per Head. per Lb.
Beginning.


Texas 616 lbs. 1.97 Ibs 5.99c.
Fljrida .... 635 b1 \ 2.43 lbs 4.14c.







Nebraska .. ....... 180 days. 22 64 1.26 8.76
Florida ............. 70 days. 26. 2.43 4.14
Q




Nebraska ........... ...0ays. 22 6 e 1.26 8.146
Florida ............1... 2. das. .26. 8..34.







The above data from Texas are the results of feed-
ing experiments conducted at the Texas Experiment
Station and recorded in Bulletin No. 27.* It is an ac-
cepted fact that Texas is a great feeding State, that
her stock owners grow, fatten and ship hundreds of
thousands of head of cattle annually, and that they
are in the business for the profit it brings them. By
comparison, however, we see that Florida range steers
can be as easily fattened as Texas animals, and will
in a given time make a gain of 23.35 per cent above
Texas animals under identical conditions.
The Nebraska comparison is even more important.
The Standard Cattle Co., which owns large ranges
in Colorado and Montana, has been engaged for sev-
eral years in fattening several thousand head of its
range steers for the Chicago market upon its own
farms at Allen, Nebraska.
It has found this business profitable. For the
past eleven years the average number of animals
thus taken from the ranges and fattened has been
about five thousand head. The careful accounts kept
by the company have recently been published in his
work on "Feeds and F,:.-'.lii ." by Prof. W. A. Henry.
By comparison of the results obtained by our own
feeding in Florida and those recorded above from Ne-
braska, the first point presented is the apparent fact
that Florida produces a gh en result in seventy days
of feeding, while in Nebraska 180 days and propor-
tional expense are required for corresponding results. Nev-
ertheless, the total percentage of gain in Florida is
much greater than in Nebraska, while our average
daily gain is nearly double that of Nr-l.r;-k;i, and the

"In this comparison the cost is based on present values of feed-
stuffs.
t "Feeds and Feeding," second edition, Madison, Wisconsin,
1900.







cost of our beef per pound is less than one-half of that
produced in Nebraska.
It would seem that, from the facts presented, not
onul are the possibilities and advantages possessed by
Florida for profitable beef production demonstrated,
but her superiority is proved over sections of the coun-
try where the industry is already established and suc-
cessful.




III.

EXPERIMENTS WITH HOGS.

OBJECT OF THE EXPERIMENTS.-The experimental feed-
ing of hogs was undertaken for the purpose of estab-
lishing the relative value of different rations in the
fattening of hogs for market. It was believed that
the general adaptation of Florida to the production
of fat hogs needed no demonstration. It was thought,
however, that far better results could be secured if
feeding of hogs was followed in accordance with scien-
tific principles. It was believed, moreover, that among
the very many hog foods of accepted value some doubt-
less could be used with greater economy than others,
and all could be utilized with greater advantage if
compounded into rations more perfectly adapted to
the requirements of the animals to be fed.
CHARACTER OF THE ANIMALS.-That the results of the
experiments might be applicable to average Florida
conditions, the feeding with 'hogs as with steers was
undertaken with native animals. It was desired that
the results obtained should be applicable not especi-
ally to improved breeds of hogs and the somewhat ex-
ceptional conditions under which such animals are







maintained in Florida; for the purpose of experiment,
therefore, native hogs of the common "razor-back"
family were selected. That they might fairly repre-
sent this great type, the animals fed were purchased
for the purpose from the "flat woods" range and had
never been either confined or artificially fed until they
were brought to the Station farm.
METHOD OF CARE AND FEEDING.-When first pur-
chased by us these hogs were entirely unaccustomed
to any food except such as was secured as a result of
their own "rustling." The first step, ,therefore, in the
experiment was to place them upon a preliminary
feeding until they became sufficiently accustomed to
the lI i 11.-Ii i native foods to take rations regularly and
thrive thereon. This preliminary feeding continued
for twenty days, at the end of which time it was be-
lieved the experiment might be successfully under-
taken. The animals were then w .:i-,.:.1 and divided
into lots of four each, each lot being placed in a co(m-
modious pen without shelter end provided with a con-
stant supply of running water. Their rations were
given them in troughs morning and night.
PLAN OF EXPERIMENT.-Essentially the same system
was followed with the hogs as before described for the
steers. Each lot of native hogs was given a ration ap-
portioned to the live weight of the animals consuming
the same. All the different rations were compounded
so as to furnish practically identical quantities and
proportions of nutriment, the only variation being
in the source of supply, and each ration was so pro-
portioned as to furnish the quantity of each con, itu-
ent and a nutritive ratio conforming to the accepted
feeding standard for the class of hogs fo- which it was
prepared. As with the steers, so also with the hogs,
in addition to the test of the effect of different rations
upon native animals, a comparison of improved stock















































Hogs of Lots I and II, Cross-bred and Native.











with the native was made, for which purpose a lot of
four cross-bred Duroc-Jersey Poland-China shoats
was selected and given the identical ration fed to the
comparable pen of native hogs. The hogs were divided
into lots and devoted to the following tests: Lot I,
grade hogs as compared with native; Lot II, cassava ra-
tion ; Lot III, corn ration ; Lot IV, sweet-potato ration;
Lot V, corn alone. The corn used, wherever fed, was
native shelled corn, dry and uncooked.

RATIONS FED.
LOT I.
Per 100 Pounds Live Weight.







Cassava ................. ... 4 0.002 lbs. 0,996 lbs. 1.000
Wheat middlings......... ...... 2 0.244 0.844 0.058
Cow peas. .. ................. 1.5 0.274 0.813 0.016
Total. .................... ....j0.520 lbs. 2.753 lbs. 0.074
Nutritive ratio, 1: 5.2.

LOT II.
Per 100 Pounds Live Weight.
Native hogs same ration as Lot I.

LOT III.
Per 100 Pounds Live Weight.




P*I Cl P

Corn. .... 2 .145 lbs. 1.258 lbs. .077
Wheat middlings 3 .355 .105 .184
Total...... .. .......... .. .500 bs. 2.363 bs .261
Nutritive ratio, 1 : 5.9
F







294


LOT IV.
Per 100 Pounds Live Weight.


02


12
12


Sweet potatoes....... ......... 3.5 .031 lbs. 0.777 lbs.
Wheat middlings. .. ......... 3.5 .427 1.652

Totals ........ ............... 0.459 lbs. 2.429 bs.

Nutritive ratio 1 : 5.8.
LOT V.
Per 100 Pounds Live Weight.
Fed all the corn the hogs would eat.


6 ) 0
.0
c* '-
6tv
-1i 12
S SN


Average daily amt. of corn.


6.03 0.379 lbs 3.907 lbs.


0.301


Nutritive ratio, 1 :10.3.
LIVE-WEIGHT GAINS.


02
t4X
'-4
12o
$.


bfl


A
12;.


Feed.


I. 4 526. 817. 291. 55.32 Cross-bred, on
( cassava ration.
II. 1 86.5 119. 32.5 37.57 Cassava ration.
III. 4 452. (12. 160. 35.39 Corn ration.
IV. 4 406. 533.5 126.5 31.16 Potato ration.
V. 4 381. 484.5 103.5 26.90) Corn alone.
RATIONS FED AND COST OF LIVE-WEIGHT GAINS.


12 .8 --~
oC ,o A
0.c 12 U O


639.45


S8 64' 291. 2.9c.
2 12 32.5 3.1c.
406.80 9 13 160. 5.6c.
i. ... 10 02 126.5 5.6c.
1033 84 7 31 103.5 7.0c.


0.010
0.101

0.111


0a

a aa
cC
g .
02r C)10


56.38
I-


56.38


I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.


946.80
155.70


473.40
77.85
610.20
639.51





































Native Hogs (Lots II, III, IV and V), Killed April 20th, with the Atmospheric Temperature
at 84 Degrees, and Cured by Use of 1,000 Pounds of Ice.












The above table shows the actual amount of the dif-
ferent feed stuffs fed to the separate lots of hogs, and
consequently shows, in connectiGn with the actual
gein in weight, the real cost of the product.
SLAUGHTERIxG TET.--On April 20th the hogs were
all slaughtered, having been without food for the pre-
vious sixteen hours. They were weighed individu-
ally immediately before killing, and afterwards on the
afternoon of the same day the dressed carcasses were
weighed for the purpose of ascertaining the relation
between the live and dressed weights. The dressed
carcasses, as weighed. were in the ordinary market
condition, i. e., the viscera and internal organs were
all removed, but the head and feet were not removed.
The results of these weighing are presented in the
following table
RELATION BETWEEN LIVE AND DRESSED WEIIGHTS.
LOT I.

Dressed Per Cent. of
No. Live Weight. Weight. Dressed Weight.


1 210. 153.
2 185 148 5
3 197.5 157.5
4 224.5 174.5
Total ......... 817.0 6:,3.5 77.53
LOT II.
1 119. I 82.5 69.32
LoT III.
1 129.5 85.5
2 156.5 110.5
3 158. 116.5
4 168. 121.0
Total 612.0 433.5 77.51
LOT IV.
1 141. 88.
2 115. 79.
3 154.5 106.5
4 123. 86.5
Total ....... 533.5 360.0 67.29








LOT V.

No. Live Weight. Dressed Per Cent. of
Live Weight. Weight. Dressed Weight

176. 49.
2 119. 82.5
3 94.5 58.5
Total........... 289.5 190.0 65.63
Several facts presented in the Pbove table are
worthy of special consideration. Attention, however,
is first called to the absence in the enumeration of
three hogs from Lot II and one hog from Lot V. Two
of these animals were known to be unwell, had been
suffering from some chronic disease during the entire
latter part of the feeding period, so that, although
their feeding was continued, they were excluded from
the final test. Two were found to be with pig, and,
therefore, were not killed.
Lots I and II, consisting respectively of (-oss-bred
and of native hogs, returned an almost identical per-
centage of dressed weight.,It is apparent, therefore,
that whatever may be the facts concerning the rela-
tive fattening propensity, and early maturity of the
two different classes of hogs, the native "rasor-back"
may be made to retu-n when slaughtered an actual net
proportion of meat equal to that of the best fattening
breeds. Among the lots of native hogs, the highest
pei centage of dressed meat was produced by Lot III and
the Mowest by Lot V, fed respectively upon the corn
ration and upon corn alone, a fact which emphasizes
very emphatically the advantage of utilizing corn as
a constituent of a ration, but the disadvantage of feed-
ing it as an exclusive food for fattening purposes. The
returns from Lots I and II furnish additional proof of
the fattening propensity of the blooded hog, as com-
pared with the native one fed upon the same ration.
These facts, though interesting ond important, sl.ould







be considered in connection with actual cost of the
different rations fed, which furnishes 'the key the
actual financial results of the feeding.





IV.

DETERMINATION OF THE DIGESTIBILITY OF
FEEDSTUFFS.

As stated in the introduction, the value of any food or
feedstuff does not depend entirely upon its composition,
but is determined by the amount or proportion of the
different ingredients which are digestible; that is, the
value of the food in the animal economy depends not on
the material present as shown by analysis, but on the
actual amount of nutriment which the animal is able to
extract from the food. No animal is able to take up
all of any article of food, and the part which is
actually assimilated is the digestible portion of the food.
The proportion of any food constituent actually digested
by the animal is called the dicestion .. i,, .' of that
food; for instance, of cotton-seed meal 89 per cent. of the
protein present is digestible, and, therefore, the digestion
coefficient of the protein in cotton-seed meal is 89. The
same fact in varying degree is true of every different
article of animal consumption, and the digestion coeffi-
cients of most feedstuffs have actually been determined,
so that in the compounding of rations the part of the
food constituents actually digested or utilized by the
animal is the portion really considered in arranging the
ration and determining the nutritive ratio of the same.
The method for determination of the digestion coefficients
of different feedstuffs is comparatively simple, although
based on strictly scientific principles and necessitating







the greatest care in manipulation. The method in brief
simply consists in analyzing all of the food an animal eats
and all of the refuse or excrement discarded, or excreted,
and the difference is the portion actually ulitized, consumed
or digested by the animal. The practical details consist in
carefully analyzing all the food fed to the animal used
for the experiment, and, if a mixed ration is used, incor-
porating with the same a portion of the article the di-
gestion coefficient of which is to be determined, and then
placing the animal in a harness so arranged that all ex-
crement is collected and subjected to analysis, so that the
actual amount and proportion of the food eaten and the
part excluded can be compared. The difference has been
digested, that is, assimilated by the system of the
animal.
It so happens that most of the digestion experi-
ments and determinations of digestion coefficients in this
country have been conducted by Experiment Stations in
the Northern States, where many of the foods used are
unlike those common to the South, and, moreover, where
Southern feedstuffs are unknown, and, therefore, not avail-
able for experimental purposes. The natural result has
been that a very considerable number of the more com-
mon Southern feedstuffs have not been thus investigated,
and that, therefore, the digestion coefficients of many
articles fed to animals in the South are unknown, or in-
sufficiently determined. This is true of even so common
an article of human and animal food as the sweet potato.
The desirability, therefore,'of determining the digestion
coefficients of common Southern feedstuffs must be
apparent, and this work has been inaugurated by us with
the intention of continuation until the actual facts as to
the digestibility of all our feedstuffs are established, so
that rations for Southern animals may be compounded
with the same degree of scientific accuracy as is to-day
possible) with the commerical feedstuffs of the North.
This investigation has but just begun, and the results of


















P'1 A1


Steer Used for Digestion Experiments, Showing Arrangement
of Harness.











digestion coefficients with but two feedstuffs, namely,
cassava and velvet beans, are incorporated herewith.
Other feedstuffs of nearly equal importance, however,
such as sweet potato, rice by-products, cow-peas, crab-
grass, wire-grass, cow-foot grass and beggar-weed will be
subjected to careful inquiry in the near future. It
is intended that sheep, as well as steers, be utilized in
these experiments, although thus far the work has
been confined to a single animal; namely, a two-year-
old native steer, whose appearance in harness is shown in
the accompanying illustration.
The arrangement of this harness was similar in
essential features to that commonly used for similar work,
though in simplicity of detail and effectiveness it is believed
to be an improvement over any heretofore in use. It con-
sisted of a collar buckled about the neck of the animal and a
sack, for the catching and retaining of the excrement,
held in place by four cords, one following the line of the
back, one the stomach, and one upon each side. There
was also a girth surrounding the animal, to assist in hold-
ing the different lines in place. The sack itself was
made of strong canvas lined with oilcloth, so that it was
impervious to moisture. Gatherings of the excrement
voided were made four times a day and immediately taken
to the laboratory for analysis.
DIGESTIBILITY OF CASSAVA.-For the purpose of deter-
mining the digestibility of cassava the following daily
ration was used:
RATION.


C I f i|


Cassava.................. 15 526.65 0.11 5.00 ... 1.02
Cotton-seed hulls ...... 6.39 ............ 0.06 1.67 ......I 0.11
Cotton-seed meal ...... 1.27 ...... 0.46 0.22 .. 0.15
Totals ............. 526.65 0.63 6.89 0.28
Nutritive ratio 1 :12.








The animal was kept upon this ration twelve days, the
last five of which constituted the collection period from
which the excrement was all collected and subjected to
analysis. The cassava fed during this period was dug
and cut fresh daily and samples were subjected to analysis.
The grain constituents of the ration were weighed and
thoroughly mixed at the beginning of the feeding period
and sampled for analysis. The quantities constituting
the single feedings were then carefully weighed into
Manila sacks, in which they were placed aside, the con-
tents of each sack constituting a single grain feeding to
which the ration of cassava was added at the time of
feeding. Analysis of the excre nent showed the following
composition.

COMPOSITION OF THE EXCREMENT.

Dry Extract
Matter. I rotein. Fat. Fiber. Ash. atct
Matter. i Matter.

27.53 2.96 0.18 12.61 1.43 10.35

This analysis, together with the composition of the
ingredients of the ration, furnishes the data for determin-
ing the digestibility of the cassava fed.
(See table on next page.)
The difference between the digestible nutrients of the
other constituents of the ration and the total of the
digested constituents is the proportion of each nutrient
digested from cassava, which, reduced to percentages as
shown in the above table, forms the so-called digestive
coefficient, so that the result of this experiment shows

The steer had been feed upon a ration of the same ingredients
in somewhat varying proportions for two weeks previously, that
the proportions which he would consume with least waste might
be learned. A comparatively short final period was therefore
adopted.















DIGESTIBILITY OF THE RATION.


Amount of Food and d s. Dry Matter, Extract
Excrement. Pounds. Protein, Ozs. Fiber, Ozs. M


Cassava...... .......... 67.50 379.18 31.96 136.18 111.78
Cotton-seed hulls 28.75 419.00 13.34 217.04 352.72
Cotton-seed meal..... 5.62 89.54 38.02 5.03 2 .59
Total ration... ...... .. ...... 811.08 83.32 358.25 1 288.09
Excrement...... ........ 1380.5 ozs. 379.91 40.84 164.01 142.83
Ai + t + A 217 A9 AS 19424 136 26


mount gese .
Amt. digested from
hulls and meal........ ....... 234.52
Amt. digested from
cassava .................. .... 197.65
Per cent. digested
from cassava.......... 52.12


3478
7.70

24.0G


85.33
108.91

79.S7


74.25
62.01

55.47


Fat, Ozs.


15.44 1.94
12.34 10.12
6.47 11.59
:4.25 23.65
19.73 2.48
14.52 20.17

4.49 19.02
10.03 1.15

(64.996 59.28







the digestive coefficients of cassava to be as follows:
Protein 24.06, Fiber 79.87, Extract matter 55.47, Ash
64.96, Fat 59.28, Dry matter 52.12.
The digestion coefficients of Irish potatoes, used in
the absence of determinations for cassava, are as follows:
Protein 44, extract matter 91 and fat 13. The va-
riation thus shown is very considerable, and the neces-
sity for determining the coefficients for each feed-stuff is
apparent. The proportioning of the cassava rations if
based on the real coefficients would have been materially
different from the proportions actually used.





SUMMARY.

1. Florida possesses all the requirements of a natural
stock country in an exceptional degree.
2. Economical stock feeding requires the combination
of both flesh-forming and fat-forming foods in certain
proportions, varying with the class and condition of the
animal. The proportions for any requirement, however,
are fixed, and must furnish definite amounts of protein
and carbonaceous materials.
3. Florida produces numerous and economical feed-
stuffs of each of these classes in abundance; two of the
former, namely, beggar-weed and the velvet-bean, and
one of the latter, cassava, are almost distinctively
Florida crops. In addition to these we produce the
typical forage and feed-stuff crops of the Southern States.
4. The feeding value of any feedstuff depends on the
digestibility of the constituents fully as much as upon
the mere composition of the article.
5. Experiment has shown that there are definite "feed-
ing standards for each class of life-stock, and that by
means of the composition of the digestible part of differ-








ent foods it is possible to so proportion the ingredients of
rations as to meet the actual requirements of any animal.
6. The amount of food which may be economically
consumed by any animal varies with the weight of the
animal in question, and should be proportioned to the
live weight of the individual.
7. The experiments recorded were with average native
animals, fed native feedstuffs under natural conditions.
8. The three rations f(d to steers gave percentage
of gain and the greatest daily average gain in the
following order: Cassava, cotton-seed products and
corn meal. The percentage of dressed weight shown
as the result of slaughtering was in the same order.
9. In the comparison of native steers with grade ani-
mals the former made the largest gain, but the latter
the largest proportion of hind-quarters, and heaviest net
weight.
10. The quality of the beef produced was fully equal
to the Western beef offered in our markets.
11. The result of feeding showed a profit on the in-
vestment as follows: Cassava 48.82 per cent., cotton-seed
products 87-43 per cent., corn-meal 14.69 per cent. The
grade steers gave a profit of 26.73 per cent. as compared
with 48.82 per cent. from the natives on the same ration.
12. Velvel-bean (pod) meal is believed to be the
natural protein food for Florida feeders, and the neces-
sary complement to cassava. It could not be used for
experimental rations, however, until its digestion coeffi-
cients had been thoroughly established. Its use with
cassava would have very materially reduced the cost of
the ration and the resulting product.
13. After being placed on full feed 70 days of feeding
seems to bring Florida steers to their maximum gain
and most profitable point. For animals taken directly
from the range about 30 days are required for getting
upon full feed.







14.' By comparison with the results of actual feeding
experiments in Texas and Nebraska, two great cattle
feeding States, our Florida steers gave a profit of 23.35
per cent. over the results in the former State, while our
average gain per day was double that of the latter and
our actual cost per pound of product was less than one-
half as much. Our results, moreover, were secured in
one-half the time required in Nebraska.
15. The rations tested with hogs showed results in the
following order of merit: Cassava ration, corn ration,
potato ration, corn alone.
16. The native hogs, gave a higher proportion of
dressed meat than the cross-bred animals.
17. The determination of the "digestion coefficients"
of each feed-stuff is shown to be necessary to the most
economical feeding. The coefficients as actually deter-
mined for cassava are materially different from those
used as a substitute.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs