EC 15
Progress Report Series No. 59 November, 1955
AGRICULTURAL EXPEI.... T STATION
of The Alabama 
Polytechnic Institute, 
Auburn,. Ala.
. . . E. V. SMITH, Director . .
Fattening Rations for Finishing Steers
After Summer Grazing
W. B. ANTHONY
2
, J. G. STARLING
3
, C. M. MARTIN
2
, C. A. BROGDEN and W.D. SALMON
2
M ANY BEEF CALVES and cattle sold on Alabama
markets. are light in weight and are lacking in
finish. Mainly as a result of this, average prices
received for animals, per 100 pounds and per head, in
Alabama compare unfavorably with average prices
received in the best beef-producing states.
Some of these calves are too lacking in quality to
justify further pasture or feed. Many of them, however,
show sufficient beef breeding to indicate the possi-
bility of profitable utilization of additional pasture
and feed. Experiments are in progress at the Wire-
grass Substation on utilization of pasture and feed to
carry such calves to heavier weights and higher finish.
Bahiagrass, Coastal Bermudagrass and common Ber-
mudagrass are being compared as grazing crops for
this purpose. On such pastures these young cattle
have gained in weight but have not had sufficient
finish to grade higher than Utility to Commercial by
end of the first summer grazing season. In order to
increase the grade to High Good or Choice, they have
been placed in feed lots for feeding periods of 113 or
132 days.
Several different rations have been compared for
this purpose. Although the grazing data are not suf-
ficiently complete for publication and the feeding
trials are being continued, 2 years' feeding trials have
been completed. A summary of the results is pre-
sented here as a progress report on this phase of the
exp eriment. The data point the way to the finishing
of steers as a profitable practice to supplement
present slaughter calf and steer grazing programs.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Stocker calves were purchased in the late fall, and
were wintered on oat grazing supplemented as needed
with hay and concentrates. From April until Septem-
ber the cattle grazed pasture grasses consisting of
Pensacola Bahiagrass and Coastal and common
Bermudagrass. For the first test, most of the cattle
were purchased in the fall of 1952, and all were sold
for slaughter on March 8, 1954. This group consisted
of 120 animals, of which 80 were selected from an
exceptionally good commercial herd in Alabama, 10
were grown on the Substation, and 30 were shipped
from Texas in June, 1953. The second group of cattle
was purchased at Alabama auction markets in the fall
of f953, and were sold direct to packer buyers March
1, 1955. The first group was well-bred and consisted
of good to choice feeders. The second group was
purchased as medium stockers and lacked the superior
breeding of the first group. No culling was done on
the first group of cattle before they were allotted to
feed lots for finishing. Of the 95 animals in .the
second group, 81 were selected for the fattening
test.
The animals were bunk fed on small Bermuda sod
paddocks. The amount of forage obtained by grazing
was inconsequential. After becoming accustomed to
feed, each group was full fed one of the experimental
rations described later.
4 
The animals were fed once
a day by groups and accurate feed records were kept.
They were weighed at 28-day intervals.
Before the steers were placed on feed, they were
graded by a committee; the market value set was
based on the opinion of a packer buyer (slaughter
and feeder value). At the end of the feeding period,
the animals were again graded by a committee; packer
buyers were invited to the Substation to bid for purchase
of the steers, which were sold to the highest bidder.
Changes in slaughter grade in the feed lot, rates
of gain, efficiency of gain, feed costs of gain, selling
price of animals, carcass grades, and dressing per-
centages are the chief criteria for evaluating the
several test rations.
1
This study was supported in part by Federal grant funds made available under the provisions of Section 5 of
the Bankhead-Jones Act.
2
Department of Animal Husbandry and Nutrition, Agricultural Experiment Station of the Alabama Polytechnic
Institute, Auburn.
3
Wiregrass Substation (Headland, 
Ala.), Agricultural Experiment 
Station of the Alabama Polytechnic 
Institute.
4
The blackstrap cane molasses used in 
the feeding tests was supplied by J. 
H. Leftwich & Co., Inc., Mobile,
Ala.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
First Experiment, November 1953- 
March 1954
Five experimental rations were tested 
in the first
trial. The more important facts 
are summarized in
Table 1. It should be noted that diet 
ingredients fed
in Lots 1 and 2 were not 
mixed, whereas, in each of
the rations for Lots 3, 4, and 
5, all ingredients were
ground and mixed.
Increases in Slaughter Grade Due 
to Feeding. At the
start of the feeding trial, 
the animals graded Utility
and Commercial, with about 
equal numbers in each
group (Table 1). As a result 
of full feeding these
animals in dry lots for a period 
of 113 days, the
slaughter grade was improved an 
average of two
grades for each animal.
The animals in Lots 3 and 5 appeared 
to finish
more uniformly as groups than 
did the animals in
other experimental lots. Twenty-two 
of the 24 animals
in Lot 3 graded Choice at the end 
of the test. The
remaining two graded High 
Good. In Lot 5, 20 of 24
animals graded Choice or better.
Carcass Grades and Dressing Percentages. 
Carcass
grades and dressing percentages 
are given in Table
1. The carcass grades agreed quite 
well with the live
grades designated by the grading 
committee. The
uniformity of finish obtained with ration 
of Lot 3 is
attested by the fact that 21 animals in 
this lot yielded
choice carcasses. Carcass grades 
for Lots 2, 3, 4,
and 5 were quite satisfactory. Unfortunately, 
carcass
grades could not be obtained from the 
purchaser of
Lot 1.
The dressing percentages of cattle 
in Lots 3 and
5 averaged over 61 per cent. The 
yield in dressed
carcass weights of Lot 2 (high molasses) 
and Lot 4
(ground oats) averaged approximately 3 
per cent below
those of Lots 3 and 5.
Rate and Efficiency of Gain. Gain and feed consump-
tion data are summarized in Table 1. Cattle 
in Lot 3
made the highest average daily gain, followed 
in
order by Lots 5, 2, 4, and 1. The average gains in all
lots were quite good, ranging from 2.54 to 1.96 
pounds
per day after shrink.
The feed required per hundred weight of gain 
was
lowest for cattle in Lot 5 (cottonseed ration). 
Palat-
ability of all rations was quite satisfactory.
A few cases of founder occurred in Lot 1. 
In all
probability this unfavorably biased the results 
from
that lot, but to what extent is not known. No 
trouble
was experienced in bringing cattle to full feed 
and
keeping them on feed with the mixed rations (Lots :3,
4, and 5).
Where oat grain was used to replace all the ground
snapped corn in a balanced ration (Lot 4 vs. Lot 
3),
the average daily gain of the group of cattle 
was
reduced 0.53 pound and the cattle were not 
as well
fini sh ed.
Financial Aspects of the First Experiment. The 
data
on returns for feeding are summ arized at the end 
of
Table 1. The returns (in crease in value of cattle less
feed cost) for feeding were considerably greater 
from
Lots 2, 3, and 5 than from Lots 1 and 4. Lot 
4 (oat
ration) made the smallest return for feeding. A 
comn-
parison of the oat ration (Lot 4) with the corn ration
(Lot 3) shows that the oat ration produced 
smaller
gains and less finish than the corn ration. Oats
would have had to be valued at $36.06 per 
ton or 58
cents per bushel, to be on 
a par with corn at $32.04
per ton, even though the oat-fed cattle sold 
for a
slight premium over the corn-fed group, which was
not justified by the dressing percentage 
and the car-
cass grades.
These data illustrate that, under the conditions
existing during the test, it was sound practice 
to
finish good quality, beef-type steers in the feed 
lot
at the end of the summer grazing period and prior 
to
marketing for slaughter. The carcass grade 
was
greatly improved through feeding. As a result more
edible meat of better quality was produced. The
market value of the cattle after deducting feed costs
was increased an average of $49.64 per steer on the
best ration or $42.00 per steer for the average of all
rations.
Second Experiment, October 1954- March 1955
In the second experiment five lots 
were used.
However, certain changes were made in the compo-
sition of some of the rations. The composition for
lots 3 and 5 remained the same. In the second ex-
periment ration for Lot 1 differed from that fed Lot 1
in the first trial in that all of the ingredients were
ground and mixed. Therefore, in the second trial,
performance data of cattle in Lot 1 may be compared
directly with performance data of cattle in Lot 3. The
only difference in treatment between these two groups
is the 10 per cent addition of molasses in the Lot 3
ration; no molasses was fed in Lot 1. Grain sorghum
(milo) grain was included in the second test 
(Lot 2).
The amount of oat grain fed in Lot 4 was 
decreased
by one-half and ground snapped corn was added in
like amount (Lot 4).
Results for the second trial are summarized in
Table 2.
Increases in Slaughter Grade Due to Feeding..At 
the
start of the feeding trial, the animals graded Utility
and Commercial, with about equal numbers in 
each
grade (Table 2). As a result of full feeding 
in dry
lots for 132 days, the slaughter grade was 
improved
an average of almost two grades. It should 
be noted,
however, that cattle in the second trial were 
fed 19
days longer than those in the first trial but 
had less
finish at the end of the period. This difference may
reflect superiority in the breeding of the cattle 
used
in the first trial.
Carcass Grades and Dressing Percenages. Carcass
grades and dressing percentages are given in Table 
2.
The carcasses were graded by U.S.D.A. official
graders. However, it is pointed out that different
graders were used, since the cattle were killed 
in
three plants. Lots 1 and 4 were graded by the same
grader. Because all carcases were not graded 
by
the same grader, it is not possible to draw any con-
dlusions in respect to differen ces in carcass grades.
In dressing percentages from highest (61.11 
per
cent chilled carcass) to lowest (59.50 per cent chilled
carcass) the lots ranked 5, 3, 2, 4, 1.
Rate and Efficiency of Gain. Gain and feed consump-
tion data are summarized in Table 2. The average
daily gain was quite close for all lots, Lot 3 showing
a slight advantage over the others and Lot 4 falling
slightly behind.
Considerably less feed was required for gain in
Lot 1 of second test than of the first. In the first
test, the feed ingredients were hand fed, whereas in
the second trial the ration fed Lot 1 consisted of the
same constituents ground and mixed. Mixing increased
the proportion of hay consumed and lowered 
the cost
of gain (i.e. when feed prices are held constant for
the two trials). There was not the trouble from founder
it Lot 1 of the second trial as was experienced in Lot
1 of the first experiment. It shouldbe recognized that
the founder in Lot 1 of the first trial probably biased
the results from this lot unfavorably. It emphasizes
that more caution is required in feeding cattle where
the corn is fed separately, as in Lot 1, first trial,
than where the corn is mixed with roughage, as in Lot
1, second trial. The mixing of these roughage-contain-
ing rations, however, requires expensive equipment
for mechanical mixing. The most practicable solution
for the small feeder is to get the grinding and mixing
of his home-grown feeds done by a local feed mill on
a custom basis, provided such service is available
at reasonable cost.
It is of interest to compare Lots 1 and 3 in the
second experiment with respect to the value of adding
10 per cent molasses to a mixture of ground snapped
corn, cottonseed meal, and peanut hay. The molasses-
fed cattle (Lot 3) ate more feed daily, made slightly
greater daily gain, weighed an average of 24 pounds
per head more at theend, and sold for $4.77 more per
head than cattle in Lot 1. Nevertheless, cattle in
Lot 1 (no molasses) required less feed per hundred
pounds of gain and returned for feeding $2.33 more
per head, The use of molasses was not profitable in
this trial.
In this trial where oat grain was used to replace
one-half of the ground snapped corn in a balanced
ration, the daily gain was lowered by 0.25 of a pound
and more feed was required to produce a hundred
pounds of gain (Lot 4 vs. Lot 3, Table 2).
Grain sorghum grain was substantially less valu-
able than ground snapped corn (Lot 2 vs. Lot 3). Lot
2 cattle (grain sorghum) required considerably more
feed per hundred pounds of gain, made 25 pounds less
total gain per head, and the animals showed less
finish than the corn-fed cattle (Lot 3). It should be
noted, however, that many studies have shown grain
sorghum grain to be more nearly equal to corn for fat-
tening cattle than was indicated in this trial. This
comparison must be repeated before definite conclu-
sions can be drawn regarding the relative values of
grain sorghum and ear corn.
How Final Slaughter Weight was Attained: The cattle
used in the 1954-55 study were purchased in the fall
of 195.3 as light stocker calves weighing around 350
to 425 pounds. They were wintered on oat grazing
and limited amounts of other feeds and attained an
average weight of 530 pounds at the beginning of
summ er grazing. They were on permanent pasture
from March 15 until they were placed in feed lots.
They gained an average of 231 pounds per head on
summer grass and 281 pounds in the feed lot. The
cattle attained approximately 51 per cent of their
final slaughter weight prior to summer grazing, 22 per
cent on summer grass, and the final 27 per cent in the
feed lot.
Normally, feed-lot gains cost more per pound than
what the finished cattle sell for at the market, a fact
clearly evident in the data in Tables 1 and 2. Finan-
cial gain in feeding cattle usually comes from in-
creased value on the original weight of the feeder
cattle. In this connection,it is pertinent to point out
that winter and summer gains of stocker cattle can
be made largely on roughages that can be economic-
ally produced in abundance on most Alabama farms.
It appears, therefore, that most operators who grow
out and finish, stocker cattle can profit by developing
management practices that will ensure adequate sup-
plies of high quality forage and pastures for winter
and summer feeding of stocker cattle. Furthermore,
these data show the importance of proper utilization
of roughage in fattening rations.
Financial Aspects of Second Experiment. The returns
for feeding are summarized at the end of Table 2. The
steers were valued as feeders at $15 per hundred
weight when placed in the feed lot. This is the same
value as was placed on the feeder cattle in the first
trial. Feed costs were a little higher in the second
trial.
or the second consecutive year, steers fattened
on a ration consisting of 44.6 per cent ground snapped
corn, 14.4 per cent ground whole cottonseed (gin run),
10 per cent cane molasses, .30 per cent ground peanut
hay, and .1 per cent common salt showed slightly more
increase in value after paying for the feed than com-
parable steers fed a similar ration containing cotton-
seed meal. The average feed replacement value per
hundred pounds of cottonseed in terms of gain pro-
duced for the 2 years of this study is 68 pounds
of ground snapped corn, 60 pounds of 41 per cent
cottonseed meal, 5 pounds of cane molasses and
14 pounds of ground peanut hay. These data indi-
cate that, for the farmer who has cottonseed aild
intends to feed cattle, the decision whether to sell
seed at the time of ginning cotton should be made
with reference to the value of the seed as feed.
As in the first trial, oat grain was not an economic-
al feed at the price charged. Also grain sorghum grain
did not prove to be as valuable as ground snapped
corn. The grain sorghum fed group (Lot 2) required
more feed per hundred weight of gain than any other
group and the cattle carried the least finish of all
experimental groups. The returns for feeding were
relatively unsatisfactory for the oat and grain sorghum
fed cattle on the basis of the feed prices prevailing
on farms of the Wiregrass Area in the fall of 1954.
SUMMARY
1. At the end of the grazing seasons of 1953 and
1954, yearling steers grazing on Coastal Bermuda-
grass, Bahiagrass or common Bermudagrass at the
Wiregrass Substation graded Utility or Commercial.
They were placed in feed lots for finishing; after 11.3
TABLE I. SUMMARY OF DATA FROM FIRST FEEDING EXPERIMENT, NOVEMBER II, 1953-MARCH 5, 1954,
WIREGRASS SUBSTATION, HEADLAND, ALABAMA
Lot numbers
Itern Lot I Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot14 
Lot 5
Steers, number........
Length of feeding period, days.
Composition of ration:
Ground snap corn, .
Ground oats, ......
Cottonseed meal (41%),
Ground cottonseed, %
Blackst'rap molasses (cane), %.
Peanut hay,
1 
%...... ......
Salt, %.................
Average weight per steer:
Initial weight, lb.............
Final feed lot weight less 5%, lb.
Total gain, lb................
Av. daily gain, lb.............
Changes in live grade feed lot:
Prime.............
Choice........................
Good..........................
Commercial
Utility......................
Carcass grades:
Choice........................a a 2 a
Good .......................... a a a9 6a a2
Dressing percentages ....'a.......ma
Total feed consumed per animal:
All feed i ncl udin g extra hay?-,Ilb.
Ground snap corn, lb.......
Ground oats, lb.........
Cottonseed meal (41%), lb....... a
Ground whol e cottonseed, l b .
Cane molasses, lb..............nn
Peanut hay
1
,lb.........
Salt, lb............
Extra hay 
fed at start 
of trial2
l b..........................a aa aa aa aa
214
113
214
113
fullI fed -L full fed
11 lb. per
free choice
free choice
781
I ,7002
221
I.96
Start End
I
14
12
12
head da ilIy
Sfull fed
free choice
free choice
769
1,019
250
2.21
Start End Start End. Start End Start End
114
9
11
13
19
5
58.8
3,1458
2,2141
I52
598
free choice
3,y978
1,94014
I52
I 2 238
717
free choice
1467 1467467
2'4
113
5I
8
10
30
778
1,065
287
2.514
113
5-1
8
1O
30
777
I1,0014
227
2.01
214
113
44.6
14.14
10.0
30.0-
1.0
775
I 7035
260
2.30
12
12
19
4
13
11
21
3
61.6
3,969
I19786
280
350
1 ,051
35
22
2
11
13
16
8
58.3
3,1215
1 7402
220
275
8214
27
11
13
17
7
61.14
3,75614
1,y381.
446
310
929
31
467
TABLE I (Continued)
Lot numbers
Item
Lot I Lot52 Lot3 Lot4 Lot5
Feed per cwt. gain:
All feed, lb, .................... 1,565 1,591 
1,383 1,416 1,371
Ground snap corn, lb. ........... 1,014 562 622 -- 
531
Ground oats, lb................... - -- -. 618 --
Cottonseed meal (41%), lb ........ 69 61 98 97 --
Ground cottonseed, lb , ........... - - -- -- 172
Blackstrap molasses, lb......... -- 495 122 121 119
Peanut hay', lb. .. a............. 270 286 366 363 357
Salt, lb ........................ free choice free choice 12 12 12
Extra hay,
2 
lb ................... 212 187 163 205 
180
Feed cost per steer
3 ................  
$ 56.95 $ 60.17 $ 66.97 $ 74.98 $ 60.78
Feed cost per cwt. gain
3 . . . . . . . . . . .
. 25.77 26.40 23.33 33.03 23.50
Initial value per cwt. for feeders.. 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00
Initial value per steer............. 117.15 115.35 116.70 116.55 116.25
Feed cost per steer
3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
56.95 60.17 66.97 74.98 60.78
Initial value plus feed cost per
steer............................ 174.10 175.52 183.67 191.53 177.03
Selling price per 100 lb. ........... 21.05 21.79 21.714 22-.00 21.90
Price received per steer............ . 210.95 221.80 231.55 220.87 226.67
Increased value per steer over cost
of feed.......................... 36.85 416.28 417.88 29.34 49.64
Ilt should be noted that lots I and
5 were fed ground peanut hay.
2 were fed loose peanut hay (free choice) while lots 3, 14 and
2
"Extra hay" refers to loose hay hand fed to steers while bringing them to full feed.
3Feed costs per steer and per 100 
pounds gain, include cost of grinding 
and mixing but does not
include labor for feeding. The total grinding and mixing 
charges for each animal for lots I, 2,
3, 4 and 5, were $5.60, $3.51, $8.76, $6.87 and $7.74, respectively. 
The prices of feed ingredi-
ents and expense of grinding and mixing were as follows: 
snapped corn, $32.04 per ton; oats,
$1.00 per bushel; cottonseed meal (41%), $63.20 per ton; molasses, 
$29.17 per ton; peanut hay,
$20.00 per ton; whole cottonseed, $514.00 per ton; salt, 
$1.30 per cwt.; grinding and/or mixing
$0.25 per cwt. These prices represent 
local purchase prices existing at the 
beginning of the
feeding trial.
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF DATA FROM SECOND EXPERIMENT OCTOBER 20, 195-FEBRUARY 28, 1955,
WIREGRASS SUBSTATION, HEADLAND, ALABAMA
Lot numbe'rs
I tern
Lot I Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5
Number of steers... ............. 17 16 16 16 
16
Length of feeding period, days ...... 132 132 132 132 132
Composition of ration:
Ground snap corn, %............... 61 -- 51 25.5 
44.6
Ground grain sorghum (grain), -- 51 ......
Ground oats, ...................- ..... 25.5 --
Cottonseed meal (411%), %.......... . 8 8 8 8 --
Ground cottonseed, %o.......... 1.4
Blackstrap molasses (cane), % -- 10 10 10 10
Ground peanut hay, %.............. 30 30 30 30 30
Sa It, %ao..........................I I I I
Average weight per steer:
Initial weight
1
, lb.s.............. 707 706 706 707 707
Final feed lot weight, lb......... .981 983 1,008 976 
997
Total grain, lb.................... 277 277 302 269 290
Av. daily gain, lb................. 2.09 2.10 2.29 2.0 
2.20
Changes in live grade feed lot: Start End Start End Start End Start End Start End
Choice................................8 3 7 3 
7
Good'................................8 12 i 9 12 8
Comm erc i a I ......................... 8 i 9 1 6 9 I 8 I
Utility................... ......9 7 9 7 
8
Carcass grades:
Choice............................ .II 3 
6 I! 6
Good...............................5 12 
10 4 10
Commercial m aa......................... .I I -- i --
Dressing 
percentages:
3
Basis hot carcass...................61.34 61.92 
62.112 61.42 62.99
Basis chilled carcass.............. ..59.50 60.07 60.56 59.58 61.11
Total feed consumed per animal:
All feed, lb ......... ...... 3,597 3,916 1,053 3,77 
3,509
Ground Snap corn, lb...............2,194 -- 
2,067 955 1,565
Ground grain sorghum (grain), 
lb -- 1,997 
--....
Ground oats, lb. .....................- ..... 955 --
Cottonseed meal (11), lb ........... 288 313 3211 300 --
Ground cottonseed, lb ................- .......- 505
Cane molasses, lb.................. -- 392 1105 375 351
Ground peanut hay., lb .............. 1,079 1,175 1,216 1,1211 1,053
Salt, lb ............................ 36 39 111 37 35
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Lot Numbers
Iter
Lot I Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5
Feed per cwt. gain:
All feed, lb . ................... 
1,299 1,414 1,342 1,393 
1,210
Ground snap corn, lb. ............ 792 
-- 684 355 540
Ground grain sorghum, lb. ........ -- 721 -- -- --
Ground oats, lb. ................. -- 
-- -- 355 --
Cottonseed meal (41%), lb. ....... 104 113 
107 III --
Ground cottonseed, lb. ........... -- -- 
-- -- 174
Blackstrap molasses, lb.......... -- 141 
134 139 121
Ground peanut hay, lb. ........... 390 424 
403 418 363
Salt, lb. ........................ 13 14 
13 14 12
Feed cost per cwt. gain
4 
............ $ 26.90 $ 29.98 $ 26.71 $ 34.55 
$ 24.40
Initial value per cwt. for feeders.. 15.00 15.00 15.00 
15.00 15.00
Initial value per steer............. 106.05 105.90 105.90 106.05 
106.05
Feed cost per steer
4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
73.41 83.04 80.66 92.94 70.18
Initial value plus feed cost per
steer............................ 179.46 188.94 186.56 198.99 176.23
Selling price per 100 lbs. ......... 21.63 20.70 21.59 21.42 
21.89
Price received per steer............... 212.84 203.48 217.61 209.06 
218.24
Increase in value per steer over
cost of feed..................... 33.38 14.54 31.05 10.07 42.01
1
Actual shrunken weight - off feed and water overnight.
2
Adjusted weight - final feed lot weight less 5%.
3Carcass weights expressed as a percentage 
of adjusted feed lot weight (final feedlot 
weight less 5%).
4
The prices of feed ingredients were as follows: 
snapped corn, $40.00 per ton; grain sorghum, 
$45.00
per ton; oats, $1.25 per bushel; cottonseed meal (41%), $65.00 per ton; blackstrap molasses, $29.20
per ton; peanut hay, $20.00 per ton; whole cottonseed, $55.00 per ton; salt, $1.45 per cwt.;
grinding and mixing, $5.00 per ton. Feed costs per steer and per cwt. gain include cost of grind-
ing and mixing feeds but not the labor for feeding. The total grinding and mixing charges per
steer for lots I, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were $8.99, $9.79, $10.13, $9.37 and $8.77, respectively. Prices
are local purchase prices existing at the beginning of the feeding trial.
or 132 days' feeding, they graded as follows: 55.2 per
cent Choice, 41.8 per cent Good and 3 per cent Com-
mercial. During the 2 years, 10 lots of these steers
consisting of a total of 201 head were employed to
test eight different fattening rations.
2. The highest average rate of gain was produced
by a ration (Lot 3) consisting of ground snapped corn
51 parts, cottonseed meal (41 per cent protein) 8,
blackstrap cane molasses 10, ground peanut hay 30,
and salt 1. Only slightly below this in rate of gain
was a similar ration (Lot 5) in which the ground
snapped corn was reduced to 44.6 parts and the cot-
tonseed meal was replaced by ground cottonseed to
furnish an equivalent amount of protein (14.4 per cent
of cottonseed in the ration). Steers fed the cotton-
seed ration required slightly less feed per 100 pounds
of gain; at the feed prices prevailing in the Wiregrass
Area in the falls of 1953 and 1954, they showed more
increase in value after deducting the cost of feed
than did steers fed the cottonseed meal ration.
3. During the 2 years, a ton of ground cottonseed
was worth more than a ton of 41 per cent cottonseed
meal in a balanced ration for fattening steers.
4. or one lot (Lot 1) in the first experiment
unground peanut hay was self-fed in racks and the
concentrates (ground snapped corn and cottonseed
meal) were fed in troughs. The same method of feed-
ing was followed for Lot 2, except that one-half of
the ground snapped corn was replaced with blackstrap
molasses. Lot 2 showed higher rate of gain and a
larger net increase in the value of steers after paying
for feed. Some of the steers in Lot 1 showed symp-
toms of founder, however, and this comparison is of
questionable significance. More skill is required in
the feeding of a ration like that fed Lot 1 than of
rations where the roughage and concentrates are
ground and mixed together as in rations for lots 3, 
4,
or 5.
5. In the second experiment, 
the addition of 10 per
cent of blackstrap molasses to replace an equal 
weight
of ground snapped corn in 
a mixed ration increased
daily gains 0.2 of a pound and 
the cattle were 25
pounds per head heavier at the end of the trial. How-
ever, molasses-fed cattle ate more feed for 100 pounds
of gain, resulting in greater feed cost and less net
return per steer.
6. Results from the two experiments indicate that
a ton of oat grain is worth less than a ton of snapped
corn for feeding steers, when used to replace allthe
snapped corn or one-half of the snapped corn in the
ration.
7. In one trial, ground grain sorghum grain was
less valuable pound for pound than ground snapped
corn. This is a surprising result in view of the more
favorable results obtained from feeding grain sorghum
at other experiment stations. The test on the grain
sorghum grain ration must be repeated before definite
conclusions can be drawn.
CONCLUSIONS
%Under market prices 
for cattle and farm 
prices of
feeds existing during the fall and winter periods of
1953-54 and 1954-55, it was substantially moreprofit-
able to finish yearling steers to Choice and Good
grades in the feed lot than to market them asCommer-
cial and Utility grades direct from grass. The. average
margin (market price of finished steers over market
price of feeder steers) for the best lot of steers (Lot
5) for the 2 years was $6.90 per 100 pounds. The
average increase in value from feeding in this lot was
$45.82 per steer after paying for the cost of feed.
Rations mixed from home-grown feeds (snapped
corn, peanut hay and ground cottonseed or cottonseed
meal) produced satisfactory gains and market finish
in 113 to 132 days on yearling feeder steers weighing
around 700 pounds.
The production of 1,000-pound choice steers from
feeders, raised on Alabama farms to yearling age
primarily on good quality pastures and roughages and
finished on homegrown feeds, offers excellent oppor-
tuniti'es for increasing the income of Alabama cattle-
men.