Bulletin (Volume 16, No. 3)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 Excerpt: ... All pear was hauled an average distance of 1 mile, and each load was weighed on the way from the held to the chopper, necessitating a little extra travel. While all that was required of the man in charge of the feeding was the care of these animals, his time was not entirely occupied. Indeed, it is Relieved he would have had little difficulty in feeding 100 head under these conditions. In actual practice much less labor would be required, both on account of greater convenience in feeding and greater economy of time. In Bulletin No. 74 of the Bureau of Plant Industry estimates are made which indicate that eight men can feed a maintenance ration to 1,200 head of cattle. Reducing this number to the extent necessary to compensate for the additional care required in the feeding of a fattening ration, it is estimated that eight men could without doubt feed 1,000 head of cattle. Assuming the figures of cost in the publication mentioned to be correct, the total expense of labor, gasoline, and interest on machinery would be in the neighborhood of 90 cents for each animal for a period of one hundred days. The value of the pear is not included in this estimate, and, as in the previous experiment, it was not possible to determine its cost. Should one ask a rancher in southern Texas to estimate upon this point, his answer would invariably be, Nothing.' In fact, it is questionable whether the pastures are not actually improved by cutting off the older, larger plants. As in all fattening experiments, the increase in weight alone does not represent the entire gain; the improvement and enhanced valuation of the whole carcass must be taken into consideration, but all of the estimates are based upon value of the increased weight alone. The relation of gain to feed cons...