$21.35 FEED COSTS PER 100 LBS. GAIN *24.51

[Article from the Progressive Farmer, February 1973]

PLAIN WATER REPLACES DES

(These cattle feeders do not worry about the ban on DES, they have their own "additive")

Now that DES in rations is a thing of the past, cattle feeders are looking for other ways to increase efficiency. Some are feeding bulls that manufacture their own hormones, and others are trying substitute additives.

If you ask any one of several feeders scattered across Oklahoma what the best additive is, they will tell you with a straight face that it is water. The recent loss of DES has not affected their operations, because they have been getting comparable gains for several years with high-moisture, or reconstituted, grain. The results speak for themselves-more than 3 pounds average daily gain for steers with a feed-to-beef conversion rate of about 8 to 1, and carcasses consistently yielding more than 60%.

"We sell 95% of our cattle over the phone," says Hal Ferguson, part owner of the Hutchison Cattle Co. at Waynoka, Okla. "The buyers know how good our cattle grade, so they don't even bother to come out."

Other feeders throughout the state are getting similar results from nature's most abundant additive. The Semrad Feedlot at Enid, Okla., finishes cattle on a 60% grain ration that can pour more than 30 pounds of wet milo into a steer each day. The roughage is supplied by alfalfa haylage. A ration of 20% protein haylage and 11% protein milo topped with a mineral supplement is all the cattle get-no extra protein.

Under this regimen, Semrad heifers gain 2.76 pounds per day, and steers go up to 3 pounds. But even more impressive are carcass yields higher than 60% at a cost of 18 to 20 cents per pound of gain. And to top off the benefits, Semrad Feedlot has virtually no bloat problem, even with the high amounts of grain consumed.

Both these lots reconstitute and keep the grain in Harvestore sealed storage units. While the initial investment might scare many potential high-moisture feeders away from the high-moisture route, the feeders say their records show it to be more economical than dry feed rations.

Don Smith, Erick, Okla., finishes about 5,000 cattle per year. He is convinced the wet grain system is much better for beginners than a large investment in steam-flaking equipment.

"I think that high-moisture grain is just as efficient as steam flaking, and much cheaper," he explains.

Nelson Brensing, Jr., from a family of cattlemen at Pawnee, Okla., says that while prices of sealed units may seem like a lot of money for storage, they are really more than that. They are actually for feed processing.

The cattle feeders are convinced there are advantages in high-moisture grain, and cite a 15% increase in feed efficiency to prove it. Even though the initial investment may be high, they enjoy the benefits that include better palatability, less bloat, and reduced dust problems.

Senator HUDDLESTON. You referred to the salvage of the grain that is in the field now. What will happen to that grain if this program is not made available to you?

Mr. FONDA. Well, I am sure some of it will be salvaged when the farmers can get in. But they will be docked when they attempt to sell it, as Mr. Kennedy pointed out.

Senator HUDDLESTON. They are going to have to dry it?

Mr. FONDA. They are going to have to dry it and take energy to dry it, and if they can store it, from the high moisture condition, they eliminate that drying cost.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Is there any other source of funds available to the farmer for this type of loan?

Mr. FONDA. There are conventional sources like banks and production credit associations, but as I mentioned, they are sometimes a little reluctant because the farmer's limit on his loan is used for

buying his cattle and other operating needs. The grain facility loan program has been very important, and as you know, it was only very recently disqualified in what I suppose may have been termed "the interest of economy." However, this really isn't a cost program inasmuch as these are loans that are paid back at a reasonable rate of interest.

Senator HUDDLESTON. I am sure the loss ratio will be very small. Mr. FONDA. I can tell you it is less than one-half of 1 percent, and that is not loss; it is some delayed payments.

Senator HUDDLESTON. If any other members have questions, they will be forwarded to you before the record is closed, and you will have an opportunity to respond. Thank you, sir.

I believe that is all of our witnesses for today. So the committee will stand in recess until 10 a.m., Monday.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, February 5, 1973.)