a
.
l ' .
‘fr’
_ .

X94710

AEEEEEEETEELQULTUEA
“  w

:rfifl_’\ “I1 ~ %’._§ by

F" >~>  ,.;. ~. _ v '~-\‘ \
F§'F.’7EOEEK;L*<JTTE   -
its  4H

BEQERTMENTSTATTON.  

 

f’ ,

BULLETIN NC). 6,

JUNE, 1889.

FEEDING EXPERIMENT.

Agricultural End Mechanical (bllege.  

COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY,

TEXAS.

BY ORDER OF THE Couwcnu _
F. A. GULLEV, DIRECTOR.

HOUSTON§
y]. y]. PAsTorQzA, PIQNTER AND STATXONEK.

1889

OFFICERS.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A. & M. COLLEGE.

Maj. A. J. Rose, President , _ . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Salado

Hon. L. L. Foster, State Commissioner Agriculture . . . . . . . -Austin

W. R. Cavitt, Esq . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bryan

Geo. M. Dilley, Esq _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . .Palestine

Dr. J. D. Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Manor

Prof. L. L. McInnis, Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Co11ege Station

EXPERIMENT STATION COUNCIL.

L, L. McInnis _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . Chairman of Faculty
T. M. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Agent of the Board
F. A. Gulley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Director of the Station

STATION STAFF.

F. A. Gulley, M. Sc..' . . . _ . _ . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . -Director

G. W. Curtis, M. S. A . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . . .Agriculturist

H. H. Harrington, M. Sc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _Chemist

T. L. Brunk, l)’. Sc . . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "Horticulturist

J. W. Kineal)‘, D. E . . . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _Meteorologist

M. Francis, D. V. M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ve_terinarian

W. Wipprccht, B. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..AssistantChemist

J. W. Carson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant to Director

D. Adriance . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant to Chemist

J. F. Duggar, M. Sc . _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . .Assistant to Agriculturist

J. F. McKay, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant to Horticulturist

Feeding Experiment.

In planning this feeding experiment it may be well to state that
we have attempted to throw light 0n the practical, rather than on
the scientific, side of the question. It is the first of a series of
feeding tests that we expect to continue for several years, and we
have thought best to consider questions that are of immediate im-
portance to the cattle feeders of the State.

Four questions are submitted to the cattle and feed stuffs em-
ployed. A

1. Is it possible to conduct a feeding test that will be sufficiently
accurate to be of value, and at the same time make it an object
lesson to the practical cattle man and give him information which
he can make use of ‘i’

2. Is there any practicable method of sheltering range steers
in winter feeding, and will it be profitable?

3. rWhat feed stuffs that are obtainable in the State will give

the best results in proportion to cost ?

4. Can the common, unimproved Texas steer be fattened with
profit ?

The above questions may seem simple, and, it may be thought,
ought to be readily answered by any feeder who has had much ex-
perience in feeding cattle, but when such questions are submitted
to practical cattle men wide diversity of opinion is shown in the
replies, and accurate data as to gain in weight, quantity of food
consumed, and relative value of difierent feed stuffs, cannot be
obtained.

So far as the first question is concerned we decided to use 

steers, and to handle them in such a way that the number might
be increased to 500 or 1000 if desired. We have used six steers to
test each ration, knowing that men who feed on a large scale have
little confidence in feeding tests made with but one or two animals.

The variation in gain in weight of steers fed together on the same _

ration in this test shows that popular prejudice against single
animal tests is well founded. a

‘The steers were fed but twice each day, and no condi-
ments or special foods used to encourage the steers to eat large

4 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

quantities. No attempt was made to secure the largest possible
gain, as the object sought was to learn ihe effect of certain
rations fed to different lots of steers under as near similar condi-
tions as we could provide.

THE FEEDING SHED.’

A building 38x80 feet, 7 feet high from ground to plates, was put
up With a floored alleyway 1O feet wide running lengthwise in
the centre of the building, of which two feet on each side is boxed
one foot deep for feeding trough or manger. The north side and
ends of the building are boarded up tight, the remaining side
slatted sufficiently close to prevent steers from breaking through.
The spaces on either side of feeding alley are fenced off every 20
feet, thus“ making eight pens 14x20 feet. Pens have ground floor.
Partitions are made removable, and double doors are provided at
ends of building to drive wagons through and haul out manure.

A door opens from each pen into an outside open yard 20x32
feet, the yards having connecting gates to allow passage of wagon
and transfer of cattle. Water troughs are permanently placed in
the partitions between each two pens and kept full of clean water
supplied from a cistern and regulated by an automatic float valve.

The feed for each pen of steers was carefully weighed and
placed in the mangers. When any remained it was taken out and
weighed just before next feeding time. Weights of food given in
tables No. 1, 2- and 3, represents amounts eaten after deducting
quantity left in mangers from amount fed. -

Cattle were driven from pens to scales and weighed singly at
the same time each day after morning feeding. We had planned
to weigh the steers twice each week, but it was found that shifting
the cattle from pens to scales interfered seriously with the con-
sumption of food for that day. It was even found necessary to
keep the barn locked and exclude visitors for the first month to
prevent disturbing the steers, but during the latter half of the
time the cattle had become accustomed to the handling and would
not stop eating when strangers entered. the barn.

Ca

EXPERIMENT STATioN.

SHELTER.

While stockmen, generally, know that cattle will not gain Weight "

if exposed during cold, wet Weather, the opinion is common that
shelter is impracticable. In fact it has been found that range
steers will not always thrive When tied up and closely confined;
their legs stiffen‘ and swell up; they will not always eat, and as
turning out and tying up again each day is entirely out of the
question, there is reason for the common opinion.

We assume that economical feeding in 'Texas must include
shelter, and that the solution of the problem, how to make shelter-
ing practicable with range steers, is essential to an improved and
profitable method of feeding. We therefore adopted the plan of
removing the horns at the beginning of the experiment and al-
lowed each lot of six steers to run loose together in their respective
pens. .

The steers and eight old cows were simply “roped,” drawn up
to a post and the horns sawed close to the head with a light
butcher’s saw and the animals turned loose without further atten-
tion. Of the 60 head dehorned all were eating regularly after three
days, and most of the openings had closed up and ceased to dis-
charge after the third week.

While sawing off the horns of a full grown steer may seem se-
vere treatment and somewhat cruel, the fact that the operation re-
quires very little skill and time, that it is safe, that it tames the
animal to a surprising degree, and that a drove of the wildest cat-
tle may be run loose together in a building, the same as a flock of
sheep, and that they will fatten faster after dehorning than before,
leads us to believe that dehorning has solved the problem of mak-
ing sheltering practicable, and that -it will be adopted by the
Texas cattle feeder.

The comparison of gain in weight and food consumed by Pens
Nos. 8 and 9 shows strikingly the effect of dehorning and shelter
compared with ordinary out-of-door feeding.

FEED STUFFS. »

In compounding formulas for feed rations, we have thought best

‘to use cotton seed in its various forms in nearly every combination,

6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

for the reason that over a considerable portion of the State cotton
seed is one of our cheapest feed stuffs. a

We have also made use of silage largely, notwithstanding the
fact that it is practically unknown in the State. That silage is one

of the most economical and desirable feeding materials, where corn.

and sorghum thrive, has been conclusively demonstrated in every
state east of the Mississippi river and several west.

While there is much to learn in regard to the kind of crops to
grow for silage, how to handle and how to feed them, no further
experiments are required to determine that silage must be included
in our feed stuffs if we propose to use the cheapest. materials.

Lots Nos. 8 and 9 were fed on hay and corn. No. 8 dehorned,
and under shelter ; No. 9, out of doors without removing the horns,
to compare one lot with the other, and also to compare both lots
with steers on rations containing cotton seed silage.

The difierence in gain and cost of food consumed, shows that hay
and corn alone are expensive feed stufis at the prices given, com-
pared with some of the other rations.

We had planned to feed pigs with the steers, to learn the value
of the droppings and waste for pork, but were unable to carry out
that part of the work with this lot.

The silage used for feeding was (see chemist’s report of analysis)
mostly corn, harvested after the kernels became hard, and cut up
into lengths of from 1-2 to 2 inches. A layer of sorghum was

placed in the center of one of the silos and wasfed out between.

Feb. 8th and 15th.

We are not prepared as yet to say that sorghum silage is of
greater or less value than corn, weight for weight or based on cost
of production. Corn, sorghum and cow-pea vines, all make a fine
quality of silage, seem to be equally well relished by cattle and
give good results in feeding.

Pen No. 1, a lot of eight old cows were fed from the 1st of Jan-
uary, weights of cows and food consumed were taken for compar-
ison with the steers from January 8th.

CLASS OF STOCK FED.

The steers used in this experiment were mostly three and four
years old, native, Brazos Co. range cattle. They were not selected
stock, as we desired to begin our work in feeding with cattle rank-
ing below the average cattle of the State, rather than above.

EXPERIMENT STATION. A 

The assertion is often made that such cattle can not be fed with
profit ; and it is probably true in the northern states. Our experi-
ment shows that if such cattle can be procured at 2 cents per
pound gross, in ordinary condition, and sold at 2 3-4 to 3 cents
after adding from 150 to 200 pounds to the gross weight, that the
inferior native Texas steer may be profitably fed on the rations of

pens Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7, and probably 2 and 8, if dehorned and sheltered. A

At present there is profit in growing steers on the range and selling
at 2 cents gross when the steer is about three years old. Admit-
ting this to be the case there would be still more profit in breeding
and raising a good class of grades, for they would, if properly
handled weigh more at same age and the cattle feeder could afford
to pay 1-4 to 1-2 cent more per pound for graded steers to feed.
For these reasons we selected the poorest grade of Texas cattle to
begin our work, believing that if it can be satisfactorily demon-
strated that such cattle can be fed with profit, it would have a
greater influence in encouraging the improvement of native cattle
than if we had selected good grade steers.

The “scrub-stock man ” is suspicious of all results claimed to
have been made with pure-bred or graded cattle, but the introduc-
tion of feeding establishments in the State where common steers
may be sold from the range, will soon lead to discrimination in
prices in favor of good grades. When such a condition is estab-
lished, (it is in fact already in operation in several places in the

State) no further argument will be needed to convince the intelli-

gent rangeman that it is good policy to improve his cattle by using
good bulls;

PROFIT IN FEEDING.

The profit in feeding cattle depends principally on two factors :

1st. Cost of food and labor and skill in handling.

2nd. Difference in value of steers in ordinary condition, i. e.,
range cattle, and fat cattle.

The cost of food is governed by conditions peculiar to any cer-
tain locality. The food must be either purchased or grown or as
will perhaps more often be found advisable, partly grown and
partly purchased. p

Cattle feeders who put up a feeding plant in the vicinity of a
cotton seed oil mill have certain advantages over men who feed at

8 l TExAs AGRICULTURAL

other places, and the experience of men who have engaged in fat-
tening cattle on cotton seed hulls and cotton seed meal, has shown
that the business may be made profitable.

Our experiment shows however that cattle feeders, distant from
oil mills where cost of freight and hauling mustbe added to the
mill valuation of cotton seed hulls, may use cotton seed and silage,
and the silage may be grown at a cost not above $3 2.00 per ton,
which is less than the cost price of hulls at the mills ; so that with
the use of silage and cotton seed the oil mills have no advantage.
Our experiment shows that in Pen 2, silage and cotton seed meal did
not make as rapid gain nor at as low cost as cotton seed hulls and cot-
ton seed meal in Pen 6; the first making a gain of 1 7O pounds per head
in 83 days at a cost for food of 4.47 cents per pound gain; the second
a gain of 202 pounds per head a cost for food of 3.62 cents per
pound gain.

In Pen No. 7, cotton seed hulls, silage and cottonseed meal made
l78pounds gain at a cost of 3.93 cents per pound indicating that
the hulls at the price given have a higher food value than silage.
We confess we are not a little surprised with the result for it does
not look reasonable that the dry, hard, and to a large extent indi-

a gestible cotton seed hulls have a higher food value than silage.

Owing to delay from an accident while harvesting our corn, it was
not ensiloed until nearly ripe, a good deal of it quite dry. This

'may have made it less digestible or it may be that Pens 6 and 7

were better feeders than Pen 2. ,

Pen 3 on silage and boiled seed made the gain at the least cost
per pound, and Pen 4, silage and raw seed, the second lowest in
cost ; which would indicate that cotton seed at a valuation of $7 .00
per ton is a cheaper feed with silage than cotton seed meal at
$20.00 per ton with silage or with hulls.

If the gain per period of ten days, of the different pens is
studied, Table 14, it will’ be noticed that some of the rations start
the cattle off much quicker than others. As stated in another place
regular and frequent weighings were abandoned owing to the wild
condition of the cattle ; still we note that the steers fed on boiled
cotton seed and silage had made the greatest increase in weight at
the end of the period, Feb. 25th.

We have some ground for believing that boiled cotton seed will
load range cattle up with fat, while other feed stuffs tend to pro-
mote further growth, even with steers four or five years old.
Steers in Pen 3, after gaining 145 pounds each, appeared to have
gained more fat than steers of Pen 6 after gaining 200 pounds each.

EXPE ICIMENT STATION.

Cur attention has been called to this point in previous tests in feed-
ing boiled cotton seed.

In feeding to fatten, it is desirable to ripen the animal in the
shortest time, without reference to growth, provided however, that
such a method of feeding will not, produce a carcass, that while it
may be fat, may rank low in quality. .

Up to the present time the value of a steer in the markets has been
determined principally by his condition, i. e., stage of fatness. In
other words fat cattle sell well. Some distinction is made however,
butchers in certain markets objecting somewhat to cotton seed ‘fed
cattle.

The difference in quality of carcass, relative proportion of edible
meat and masses of fat, so prominently brought out at the Chicago
and other fat stock shows, is attracting the attention of the consu-
mer and of the butcher, so that while at present fatness gives
the animal value, we must begin to study the value of a feed stuff
in regard to its effect on the quality of the carcass as well as on
the fattening qualities alone. The time will soon come when the
quality of the carcass may determine value as much as fatness.

Considering the second point, relating to profit in feeding,
difference in value between thin, medium and fat cattle of the
same kind, varies in, different sections of the country and in differ-
entyears. A

The range in value of Texas steers on the Chicago market for
the past spring may be estimated perhaps at 2:1; cents per pound
grossfor thin steers, and Ziito 4 cents for same steers well fattened,
a difference of 1% to 1% cents. In this State the value 0f an 800-
pound native 3-year old steer may be estimated at 15’; cents gross
and the same steer fattened and weighting 1000 pounds 2% to 3
cents.

At 1i cents the SOO-pound steer would be worth $1400.

At 2% cents the 1000-pound steer would be Worth $27.50.

At 3 cents the 1000-pound steer would be worth $30.00.

A gain in value of $13.50 and $16.00 respectively by adding 200
pounds of fat. i

Cur experiment indicates that 200 pounds gain in weight may be
made from $6.00 to $9.00 worth of silage, cotton seed, cotton seed
meal and cotton seed hulls, leaving a good margin for profit after
deducting cost of labor, wear and tear of plant and use of capital.

Q’

1O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

EFFECT OF DEHORNING.

It will be noticed in Table 14 that with the exception of Pens 2,
3 and 6, the steers in all the pens lost weight the first Week, some
making no gain for twelve days. The loss of weight might be
charged to dehorning, but it will also be noticed that steers in Pen
9, not dehorned and running loose in a half-acre lot, lost the most in

weight the first week, and, excepting Pen 4, were the last to be-

gin gaining.

The steers were dehorned on the 8th and 9th of January. For
two days they were dumpish, lying down a good deal of the time.
and did not appear to have much appetite; still the evidence goes
to show that failure to gain in weight from the start is due more
to change in food and confinement than to removing the horns.
Experiments in Arkansas, Tennessee and Wisconsin, support this
view.

That dehorning is painful to the animal, and that serious injury
may result if the animal is in poor condition, or exposed in cold
and wet weather, or half starved, cannot be denied; but the
thousands of cattle that have been dehorned in the country within
the past two years without apparent injury, would seem to prove
conclusively that the operation may be performed as safely as

' castration, while the pain suffered by the animal for but one or two

minutes is not to be compared with injuries cattle inflict on each
other with their horns when massed together.

EEFECT OF DIFFERENT RATIONS.

A study of Table 14 shows the comparative effect of the differ-
ent rations in making rapid gain in Weight. From former feeding
tests we had been. led to believe that raw cotton seed was not as di-
gestible as cooked seed and possessed a lower nutritive value.

i If we compare the gains made in weight of steers in Pens 3
and 4 to February 25th, and note also the quantity of cotton seed
and silage consumed to that date (see Tables 1 and 2), the gain is
greater on the cooked seed in proportion to silage and cotton seed
consumed, and the gain on cooked seed much the more rapid of the

two, but we find at the close of the experiment (Table 13) that the I

cost of feed for each pound gained is practically the same. The
steers in Pen 3 made largest gain, so that from an economic stand-

EXPERIM ENT STATION. 1 1

point the cooked seed made considerably the best return, the steers
in Pen 3 having a higher value per pound, owing to their better
condition. .

Pen 6, on cotton seed hulls and cotton seed meal, made a steady
gain from the first, but not equal to Pen 3 until after seven weeks
feeding.

The high value of cotton seed hulls and cotton seed meal for
fattening cattle is shown by this experiment. it

We are informed by cattle commission men of New Orleans and
St. Louis that cattle fattened on this ration “ kill Well.” The
meat is firm, of good flavor, tallow of good color, and the
butchers make little distinction between cotton seed meal and hull,
and cornfed beeves.

Nearly the entire output of hulls from the oil mills is now used
for feeding, the hulls in some cases have been shipped several hun-
dred miles for this purpose.

Within the past two years, feeding plants with capacity for feed-
ing from 1000 to 3000 head, have been put into operation at the
largest oil mills and the business promises to enlarge until all the
hulls willbe consumed at the mills.

We have not been able to get much reliable data as to the exact
value of hulls for feeding at the mills, owing to the fact that weights
and gain of cattle are not kept, nor exact quantity of hulls and
meal consumed. Sensational reports of cattle gaining from four
to seven pounds per day per head are published in the papers, but
such statements are mere guess work or the animals are exceptional
feeders. '

Mr. R. L. Maupin, a very successful cattle-feeder at Mo-
bile, Alabama, writes that he gets best results from feed-
ing cracked corn with cotton seed meal and hulls. His
ration is 10 lbs. hulls, 5 lbs. cotton seed meal and 3llbs. cracked corn
per day to 1000-pound steers. The winter of 1888389 he fed 115
head, “twos and threes,” an average of 90 days (varying from 60 to
115). Average gain 246% lbs. per head. He states that in his ex-
perience cattle not accustomed to confinement will not do well tied
up and will sometimes not gain at all for 30 days, therefore he feeds
loose under sheds, but believes that injuring from hooking amounts
to hundreds of dollars. He will dehorn in future. Mr. Maupin
thinks that shelter is essential even at Mobile. Mr. Maupin’s skill
as a cattle feeder is shown in the gain in weight mentioned above,
and his opinions are of value. .

Mr. Albert Montgomery, cattle commission merchant of th

1 2 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

New Orleans Stock Yards, who handles a large number of beeves
and who has been feeding at New Orleans, and also has an interest

' in an extensive feeding plant at Houston, writes us that.“ cotton

seed meal and hulls make firm, sweet meat, but it is lacking in fat
to be classed prime beef; but if some starchy food such as corn or
rice, bran or meal is added the meat rates first-class.” Cotton seed
meal and hulls alone will fatten, but do not make as good meat,
and it is 20 to 30 days slower than with corn or rice meal added.”
On meal and hulls alone some of the cattle get “ off their feed”
and do not thrive.

In his experience cotton seed hulls and meal even with other feed
has been a failure with calves, yet he states that Mr. J. M. Frost,
his partner at Houston, feeds half-breed Brahmin calves, six months
old on hulls and meal alone, and they thrive splendidly. The cat-
tle referred to by Mr. Montgomery were fed in open lots with the
mud a foot deep and the same is true of one-half or more of the
cattle fed by this firm at Houston the past winter. A

a We examined the cattle at Houston at different times, and confess
to some surprise that cattle will thrive under such conditions on
any feed, yet they were doing well.

Mr. Vick fed some 3000 head, winter of 1887388 at New Orleans
out of doors standing in the mud most of the time, on hulls and
meal. Cattle doing fairly well, but we learn that he has abandoned
out of door feeding. Mr. Vick fed 1500 head at the Southern Oil
Mills at Houston the past winter, all tied up under sheds.

From our examination of the cattle fed under the system prac-
ticed at the oil mills, in open lots or tied up under sheds, we are of
the opinion that these gentlemen will get much better results with
range cattle by dehorning and feeding loose under sheds.

_ Our experiment indicates that cotton seed hulls and meal, with-
out other feed, will make as rapid gain asany other ration except
boiled cotton seed.

Pen 9, outside and not dehorned made lowest gain during nearly
the entire time. The pen as a Whole was thought to be the best
feeders in the entire lot at the start. They were larger steers, and
selected with reference to giving outside feeding on corn and hay
Without dehorning; a little advantage, if anything, so that there
might be no reason for claiming that the shelter test was not a fair
one. The pen contained six steers at the beginning, but the poorest
one in the pen, one that had been selected to bring down the
average to that of the other pens, was taken sick at the end of the

EXPERIMENT STATION. I3

second week and removed, thus making the pen average even bet-
ter than at first.

Tables 3 and 13 show that Pen 9 consumed some 1O per cent
more corn per head and three times as much hay and made only 18
pounds gain per cwt. and 150 pounds per head, as compared with
23.8 pounds per cwt. and 173 pounds per heab with Pen 8 on same
ration, but the latter dehorned aud under shelter, and this in a
winter which was exceptionally warm.

TABLES.

Tables Lto 3 give average amount of each kind of food consumed
per head per day for each period of ten days, The reduction in
quantity of silage consumed the first period in March is due to the

' silage fed at that. time being very ripe and dry. The analysis at

the same time (see page ) shows that water content dropped
to 49.37 per cent. While the average is 64.50 per cent.

Tables 4 to 12 give the weighings of the steers, average gains per
head per day, total gain, gain between weighings, and gains from
beginning to each weighing. Amount of each kind of feed con-
sumed, cost, etc., is shown at the foot of each table.

Tables 13 and 14 give a summary of the previous tables for
ready comparison.

1 4 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

 

ww
www wwa wwww ww w ww w w wwww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..............Hw-ww wowwz

“wow  A?     . - - - ~ . . . . . - - - - - . . - - - - - - - . - ¢ ¢ - ~ . . o | - . - - . .-  . - »--u - ¢ » - ¢ ¢ . on powmlua? 

   .Q%    . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . .. - . . . . . . . ..w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..@%I$~+UM.N2

wmd HmWN QC mm mm w Hwfi NQAWH . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  . . . . . . . . . . . . 1w floudglhmwnhmfluflvrm

www w wwa wwww wvw w ww w w Eww w 5w 3+ www wwe ww. w  . . . . . . . . . . . zwwfi bazwwm

ww w w w: 3 ww www w 3w wwww   “w w wwe 5w wfiww  . . . . . . . w . . . rwl fiwfiwi
ww.» w wfiw ww a wvw w www ww ww w ........ .. wwq wwe www. wwi  ....w bfizwwrwlww wwwii
ww w www E ww ww; w fiw w 3.8 w ........ .. 5w www 5w wwfi ...... ..  ....... 2.8%.; 52w:
2w www ww ww 5 w w w? ww 3   2w B w w: www . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:-w 5x522.
wmu w wmq wwi dmd w m»: w dmq ww mmq _ mmq dug ha,“ dmq

w w w }[ 1|»1I\1l> \4
QmMooO  44mg w >§M w 1:332 QwMooO mmonoh
Qmmw  ><I HU<A~W amww w ><m HO<A~W ommw w Qwmm ammw HO<A~W
ZOHHOU w ZOPPQU w ZOFPOU“ ZCHFOU ZOPPOU ZMOU

w w w

w 52 zmw wdz 2mm A dz 2mm

w

aowmww 19m mow Q<mI Enw ><Q El QmEDmZOO wmmrw |._O PZDOSZ ww<mw><

A .02 @155.

15

_
www mm m5 3.5 H co m. mwA aw m5 ma.» om m mmdH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........5m|mm A0002

omw m» m5 2:5 cab wca mm mm e55 mm m Emma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..   $45 £0532

5m.» mm m5 2:5 cob. F. 5 mw 5 m5.» and wm 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  £0.82

      M Nw    M   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   ~muflfiufivrfi

    i   .?      . . . . - u - - . - - . ¢ - - - . a u. .- .. . - - - . - - . . . .  

w$ w    w   5      .u-.......nnno....a-u Q - - | . ¢ u - u ~ . - . - u - -.©+|§ 

3w $0 5 3 ._._ m3“ ma 5 59mm $5 w: $25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .  . .. w bfizpvmlww whmscuh

m"? n?    £       . - - - . . . . . o . . . . . . . . - - - . - - . . . . .¢ ......u.gll? 

3a.. 2:5 3 w ma... m Ea B 3 m5.» 5N $65  . . . . . . .. ..  .. . . . . . . . .I...5..w 05.8202.
.34 5mg 0 6M3 . wmq dmq Q3 mmq .95
_
340E  J4EE ‘C352 A 3<M
ammw M moU 02¢. amww W >41 au<dw Qwmw ><5 @0435
ZOFPOU , 2x00 _ ZOHPOU W 20.5.00
2mm  a .05 2mm Q .02 2mm

EXPERIMENT STATION.

dOEmE 10$ mom 9m: 5Q ><Q m5 QmEDmZOO awn-E .._0 ._.z30_>_< mo<~m><

a oZ $15545.

TEX AS AGRICULTURAL

16

...@.... mm.wH »*.~m
. . . . . : 2 E é i.
E .... _ ¢w 2..
_~ m_ _ mw.~m
. . . . .. E E . 5 3
. . . . .. 3m“ m5:
M54...“ mm. dé
of. flfix ma 2
. . . . .. .2 .3 ~47. a
a5 .23 mum
‘IE2 . xusmu.
mme m,_.;>
0m .
zoh%mU >45 M wmwwm 7.:
- - M w;
OZ 2mm

v5.2 $1 m 3.» on b 5 3
w. m: I N. 5.... 3 5 5.2
E. 3 ww ~ 3 b 34$ hm a
E 2 E m w» m. w» .2 wwi:
@M..£~ ab...“ mm w E. 2 mo .2
W52 Edy ma w $2 Ma. 2
5. Z m.» w $6 E22 ww E
5&5 w.“ m 2.... mi. A333
2: .3 w. EA § w. 5.3
mm.“ $3 amq a5 MQA
 A<W~>,H @151
mm<m 7: ><E ommu nmmw mu<dw
zmoU 20.500 ZOFPOU
i .02 2mm o2 2mm

.....w~.-2ۤ2
. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . a u  
v . . . . . . . . . . .    .. . . . . ..  ixupwiwfl|‘wmk\wpmw~fluw%%
  pa“

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  ...   ..~:H|._.>pm~r~£v.m
u. ... .-..... .. -. .-.w 
 .  . . . . . .. hluw~ pmflcm

 kmhmsfld».

dOEmE 19m mom Q<mI wmi ><Q El Qmzzwzou 000m |._O ._.z30_>_< wwfimi

a. .02 HAMZFH

 

17

wwcsom v.5 ..w>.>u Sm cmnO
wwcuo 34m imam venom 3m wwoU
wwfiow wwww éwww <85.

EXPERIMENT STATION.

4w .oZ mw m3.

Gkvll  . . .. . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ..............MC@UUO.wmOHmOUTwHOmF

ma u - . - . ¢ - - a n a --. u» u! . . - - . . . .. n. . . . . - .. -oc-§£     - - . . - Q . . . . . | Q - | - - - . . . . . - ¢ - - v - . ~ -n.£?

*¢  -. . . - . . . . ~ . -. . . . . . - . ..--....... . . . . . .. . - - . . ... GQHHUQ$@.@\A-\~%HNJNUE@UUWCOHQOU...-w .......-... ....-..-..-...-.¢Q€@T~%

PM my .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ......GOu hUQ  a6 .@®¥OOU UQOw COuuOU .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. fi 

m». b. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. - ... . . . . . ......... . . . . ..  . .C©.m_.%u.Nwh®_uUO.mChOU. . . . . . . . . .. .. .... .. . . . . . . 

wAkd Q w 0 o a . - - - u - - . . - . - - | . you - - - . - - - . . - - - . - - .... w - - - . . . . - - - . . . .Q-...COE    - - - - - - Q - ¢ Q . - w- n90 ¢ . - - . - . - - ... 
n56 wwwwoa dmwwbwzoo Qoow wmzbom
.  . . . . . . .. _ www w». ww ww w 5w ww w w w . . . . . . .459: Hum mcmcfiwwn 80¢ 5am fifioh.
....   w www www www www k www www www www w .. .. wwwmwwmwawwn www .5 wSw é sww .5.
www w ww www w www www www www w www www www www www www.  _ . . . ... , wfiw 3w Ewsa wwwsi
ww ww ww www www www www w www www www www www www . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . w
w w ww ww www www www www w www www www www www www . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... ...w
ww ww www www www www www , www www www www www www . .......... . . .. .. .... ... zww
w w ww ww www www www www. www www. wS wE www www ......... ..  . ..... .  .. w...
ww ww www www www www www www www w? www www. www . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... ..w w
w. w ww www www www www www www www www www www www . ..... . .. ..... . .... . .w
ww ww www www www www www www www www www www www . ...... . .. .... . .... . . .. zww
w w. ww w: www wE w? www www www www www www ww .. ..............  ............. . www
>49 0am 220
www win ww www w www w www ww .3 ww .3 ww .3 a .51. B .3 ww .92. w .92 .02 ow?
25.0 dZ 550B
wamwwm? Hwiq
wzou o._o|._ dz 2mm
w

1 8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

A ducsom wéw J30 8w EQO
.828 bwtw 626w 3w 5mm mo wwoU
1 5mg Jcwmo? E Emu mucsoa we uvbaflz

wamwwm? mTQHQ

wmmmkm wwwlu dz zww

\O.IISYT“|III.

b .02 WAG/wk.

ww ww ..... ..... .... .. .. .. . . ..... .. ....... ........................... . Wufiwwwewwow we :8 use
 a . ... .. . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... .. ......,... . . . . . . . . . . . . llaouhom  JMUE UUUm COanOU . . . .  . . . . .. 
@fu ¢ .- - - - 0 . ...- .- -.-- . . . . . ..\ . . . . . . . . .... .... - - . - . . - - - . ...... COwHUQQE.$% H.-Wn>.Nm .. ... 
1%?»  -. ............--¢ ¢. -. - -.-. - ... a .... ...’.   . . . . .. 
m8.» 223m Qmznwzou 000w wazbom
. ... . . .. wt www m2 fi ww ww 3 5 2 w S . . . . . : wfiw 3w w?
Limos 50C 5mm Qwom.
. . . .  . ..  ww; w: 3w w: ww. www www www. www ww w! www  mwwzwwwa Fag 3w
pom wwws 5m 5% .><
www _ ww wt _ www www 2w ww» m; wE wfi wfi ww» www ww» www . w .925 8w .3, wwfiwi
ww é ww www. w; www www www www www wwh wt. ww» wE wfi. wE ... 1.2
w. w ww ww www w? wE www wwb wE . www www www 3w fiw www ...... . . . . .... .. . .2
ww ww. ww. www www www 3w www www www www w? wfi wfi www .... .. .. ..... . . .. . . ww
ww ww ww www 3w www ww» . www ww» wwb w? w? wfi. wwb www , . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . S
wa ww ww w? wfi wfi. wwb www www www www 5w www www www ... . .... . . . . . .5
ww W ww www www www www wwb wt w? wfi wE 2F ww» S» ' wwb . . . . . . . . .. ..... ww
><Q cmm 23.0 .
E: 22o a £2 S £2 ww w; w w“; w pi 5 =2 ww fie E i; a 9% 5 5% i =3 w .3 .02 o5.
23.6 .02 52.09

l9

EXPERIMENT STATION.

@2523 Nfimm r230 .222 cmuO
.3250 mmfim 62222022 .522 222mm wo wwoU
.232 .522» E 5mm wwcsom mo 232E222

  . .... . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . .. -. -. .. . . . . . . . ...-...- -. -.- . - 
m@   . . . . .  -.}. .. .. -..... . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . ... Z..Q....QQ-~OQ@©.E%uNw@Uv»OOQ@UUmQ£uU-QU.............. 
xQ mm €-.- ......  . Q - . . . . . . . . - - . OIIO . ¢¢. . . . . . . . ...-|-» . . . . . . . . .-¢.-¢-...   >.@m. 0 -¢.@....4-....:-$?.?
i:   .-| . - - - . - . . . . - . . . - . . . .. o 0:0 I000 I00 . . - . . .- a ¢¢-.¢- ‘u: u.‘   -4¢¢un- -nq.noa-i.$g?
m
£56 22222 _ dmzow zoo meow wmzoom
. z; . 22 22 22 w» 2w 2w 2w. 22 L2 ww 2 . . . . . . .. w . . . . . . wwczwwfi e22
. wmvn .622 Eww 120E
< . . . . . ..   . www w: www 3w 2w www www www www wwwl www  wwwzwsa 222.45 2%
2&2 wwos .2022 cmmw .><
www ww 22 2w www 2w www 22w www www w2w ww P? wfi E2 ...€22 3.2 .3 owwhwjw
wnw ww 2w www www www www www ww._. w? 22 ww... www wfi www . . . . .   . . . . .. ...w
#2 ww 22 22 2w2 www2 E. www 222w www www 2w www 2w www  . . . . . . .  . E2“
2 w ww E2 www www 2w w» 2w www www 2w 2w www 2w 2w . . . . . . . . . . . ww
2w ww www www 2w www www www www www www www .22 wwh wwb . . . . . . . . . . ..  .3
2.2 ww .222 2w 2w www 2w www www 2w 2w .2 wwb wwb w...» . . . . . w . ..  zw
w w ww lwm2 www www www www 2.. www 22 wz. 22 22 22 22   . ......ww
><Q Qflrm 224w . .
a; mic 2w .2222 22 .2222 wwwvw @292 w .2202 2w .52 ww .22 2w .52 2w .52 .22 5A 22 .92 w .22 .072 e42.
23.0 oZ 2222.08 _ a

222222522 QPMQ

 

wwmEw vwwlw oz zww

 

. w .02 2.222252.

20 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

 
 
 
 

dwcnom Q5 rfso 8m c120
.823 wwd 656m Hum 5mm mo 30D
bww H5303 E 5mm mwcnomwo HonEH-Z

 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

   

     

mm mm .. .. ....... .. .. . . . . . .  .............. .. .  . . . . . . . . . . . .......m=HB@mHHZmo2mHmW , ii
§¢  vain - - u . - . - . - . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . - ....-.............cowhvfi%  H“ A3NHP@UUWQQHH.OO . - . - . . . . . . . . - . . . -.¢.@§
 m ....» o . . . . -.».. 00¢: Oll - . . . . - - - . ¢ - - . . .... u.» -. - - . . ... . . - - .- ... . . . . . . . . . - . . ..soukvn%g.¢%wdm>dm....-.-..-.......Ak¢.¢§%%
£ @ ... m. . . . . . . . ... - -. . . . . . - - . . . . . . - . . . - . . . . - ¢ . - . .. -.¢.--... . . . - - . .-¢-..--.-.H~°w HUQ8.@%HQmU%Q—@w__ . . . . . . . . . .. .. ..Aka..%$@

maze £20m .Q.,mm>HDwZOO QOOh wmzoom
   
.  .¢¢-..... .            .... ... -... 
. wmos 3m 5mm 130m.

 . . mm.H m: Him mmm 3H 8m mmm m; Hm! 2.... w!  mmmzmmma Hismm mmH.

5m wan: Hon 5mm .><
wH mm m2 fim wmm mHm mmw mmm mmm mmm mmw mmm 2m mmm Em . . flaws Hon .35 ommuv><
mHH mm m2 mmm 8m m? HE HE . mm» mmm A m? m2 mmm mmm mmm ... ..... . ..... . . .... . mm
m m mm m2 £2 mmm mmm mmm 5m mmm 2m mmm mmm 2m mmm 2m ...... . ....... :m
mm mm 2H 82 2m mmm 2m mmm mmm mmm 2m mmm 5m mmm mmm .. . . .... .. . . . . H.
m H mm mmH 22 mmm mmm 2m mmm mmm mmm mmm 2m mmm Ham mmm . . . . . .. . . . ....... .2
mm mm 2 $2 22 mmm 2m 2m 2m 2m 2m 2m mmm 2m mmm ........... . . . . . .. .53
mm mm 2H 2m mmm mmm mmm 2m 2m Ham mmm ma. _ mm» mm» m2 ................ . .. .. 2
><Q Qflh Zimw V ll...
5a mid Hm H22 HH H82 mm .HH...,H m huh H bum Hm 3m mm 3H Hm .5; Hm amm S 3m 2 2m m 3m dz U<H
zH<U no dZ .H<.H.o.H

 

 

 

 

 
Iillllliillllllllllrlllalil

dfiflwmmm? 25A

 

mmmmfim xaim. .02 7mm

 

S .02 HAMZHH

21

EXPERIMENT STATION.

£53m waqm J30 Um 5x0
ducou m 656a Sm 5am o0 300

ow: Jswmo? E 5% $5.300 M08852

 

  ... . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........\... ....... ... .......@G@@OU%%Oum0Q@du0H

£@  - - , - - . . . -.. . .¢ --  . . .................aww.k.mv.mv.           .. . .--   

a a .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. y... . . . . . . . ...,..........w€@ i Ea w»: awéu ..... - 2a

§£  . . . . .. . . . - . . . . . . . . . . ...- .~ . . . - . . .. .  HUQ  w.“  . . . . . . . . . . ... -..$.@.u%§

flw.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .GOH MOQ  ad fivmd$® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
.850 $32001 6531:5200 000m ..wQZDOm
_ . - I
. . . . . . .. .  ....    I  o         8 ...  .......wfi@flfl@wvfi 80h.“
. . . W . fl . . . .... . .. . . Enos fir» swam 130E
.. . . .. .. 3a, w: _ Q m . om o om w. oo o oo can mm m mm 2| 2|» . zfiwnfimfia 2.33m Ev
. 3m one: 3Q 5mm .><
5d mw 2:  82 ma m? b?“ 5w 1% _ mmw mmw 2w 2: w? wow W . . 6mm: 3a .03 umwho><
3 mm m2 $2 ofl: $2 $2 ma 82 i mwo m8 owo 2m omo ooo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fi.
w...“ mm mfi. mow i 2% a; is . 2.x m? 2...» 2; aw. 3w ooo . . . .2
o4 ma c2 32 53 2S m8 5w ooo mmo. 2a o m8 ma“ mow Q3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
PH mw m3 W $3 £2 _ 2S moo omo 3Q m? omo w mww m5 moo omo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
o.m mw 2a W oww 2w é 2s 2a m5 mm» 2; 2.; W ANS. 8w owo omo . . . . . . . . . . a
ma. mm m8 m ma omo _ oww 2w 2s m:  o? 5b m? m8 S» . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . a.
>40 mum 23.0  _ A .
.. o I . . o . . _ . . . . . . . .
i: 9.5 a £25: g2? w. .2 w fir; o. pi a .3 mm El fi s2 a 9i a 9% .2 s; w =2 oz o5.
220 .02 i J<POP> , 2   _ 

.memww§> HPHQ

wmmfiw Xalm oz 2E

.w .02 MAM<F

.3628 mrvm rfso 3w 5x0
wEvu mww 656w 8w Eww mo wwoU
Aimfi 5&8? c“ 5mm wwcsomwo wunEsZ

 

 

 
 

   

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

@@   . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mc:vUU|w -%Q uwQU TNHOH
8   . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . .» . . - . .-...co&  HQ “TUNE fiflflw Gown-CU ... . . . . . . . - . . - 
   . . . . . . . . . . . Q . . . . . . . . - . . . -.- . . . . . . . . . - . - - . . - . - .. .¢ . . . . . . . . . . . - .-¢ .. . . . . .. cow MUQ  H“  QUUW   . . . - .. .. . 
, _ . ? r w A
wéwu Téfiom dmzonzou Qoom wczoom
_
 Ii 1 w ‘l  w y» 1 <|§1\ ‘I. I ‘I“lwllvl!\|:“\|\|!|‘I|I1:% ,‘|f!\ ‘III ||WliI\r\l.\‘|
......  . . .  8w 5 . w: w ww 8w ww ww  ww i 2 _ w ......mwswwwvaaoww
Z wan: 3w 5mm 13oF
. .  .  ..... .. www 3w ww H 8w 8w www wwe 8w! 8w wwe www . wwswwwa 552w www
w _ 1 3w v9.5 3m 3mm .><
wfiw _ ww _ www. w www www w www w bww 8w www w3 33 w3 w3 w; Q... .452 8w .2 vwwxiw
I llr I _ _ ll
w; ww 3H $3 8S _ 8w w www www 8w 8w www 8w 8w 8w _ 8w .................. . ww
ww ww =5 3w www 8w w wbw 8w 8w .33 w3 83 83 8w 8w .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . zww
ww ww 3w 8w www wwb _ ww» 83 w3 w3 www 8w www 5w 3w .... ....  . www
w; ww www www 3w 5w 3w 3w www wbw w 8w www wwww www _ 8w In. ..... www
fiw ww www 83 www 8w www 8w www www www 3w 83 33 m $3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zww
fiw ww 8w 8w 3w w3 83 www. wwb w3 wn. w3 www 8w W 8w _ .................... . aw
><Q nah 23.0 . w w
$2 .22: a =22 n fig ww .88 w 59w w 59w ww .52. ww .3 w... a2 a .92 S .93. S a2  w .52 .02 05w
Z~<U MO .02 449cm. i 

‘IIl.|\’|\|‘>\.‘|1|!1\1‘1 f|~/|'l||' ll l wll§ w l!‘

 

. § 
wemwHmB MTZQ

 

wwwfiw vwwlw .Oz 2mm

 

d .OZ HAM<P

22

23

EXPERIMENT STATION.

43H suwmHz vvwosuwrn ma? on was. wfi ow ma? wan wwvcsom com wwfiwm h dZ wflw 6a..“ 33m w

amazon wém .530 womwcHmO
.328 mmw £56m 3m 5mm Ho $00
.52 Jnmmo? E 5% 2:53 we dZ

x1 i  icooonuouaoiHl-woncuootno - w no: ¢-¢-a-¢- w... . . . - . . ..- o w». . . . . - . ..wuvww.._fiuvl%n%ofimooé-WHOH l
w w Mw ...mw.....www_w......hmfi.”HKfiwhmhHmfimfi. Mwwumnwwhhuwww...swwwwwwwwwwawuvmwowowHmw..;...fi...w.wwww
ww w w    .  .. ..  ..._...ww...wemw.mw_a_.wowwwows   was
. . ....-.COHMUQ8@%QN U.WNZH% . . . - . . ...¢........@.@§@
wwwwu wwwwwm dmwwowzou mmmw wQZDOm
 EH wwH wwH H» HH ww ww Hw w. ww ww _...............w&w5w~wawww
   . . . . . . . . wfiw aw sww wwse
3 H HH w ww w ww w H l ww H 5 w ww w ww w wwl wwl _. . . . . . .. wwwfiwwwa $2.3 wfiw
. o i 8m H33: 3m 5mm $4
w w cw RH www www www www www www w? w“; www www w www w www ...ww£.aw w; wwwwwi
l’ w
Wnw ww 5H www www www www www www w? www www www www  w; w. .. .. . . Eww
.H ww wfi www www www w? wfi www www. w; www www www w wfi .   .  EwH
m.“ ww wwH wHw www www www www. wHw >> z www www www www m www . . . . . . . . . 
wH mw \ wwH www wHw www www wHw ws www www www www www w www  ............. ..w
we wm wwH www www www www www www www www www www www w www   ..ww
www wwwHH wwHH wwHH wwwH wHwH www w wwwH www www w wHw w www A www  . . . . . . 
><Q mum 7:40       I
hwwo Mwwwwr 122w ww £2 HH £2 wwwflw wwé wwwrw HwwaiwwwwH wwtwwiHwtwwHvwiwwH 352W wai  dz ow;
h _ w
w _ _ 

.wHHH.UHmH>> mTvHQ

 

wwmmwwwwwlw oz 2E

 

5H .O.Z QAMHHH

 

 
 

 

 

 
       

dwcson wan J30 Sm ccww
.8200 .54. .950.» 3m swam mo $00
a » i} ¥ \ 1 w! .22 .283. 2 nmww wwwéwwo 8.2.52
11$ » mv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < . . . . . . . . . . . ..  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . Lwcmwvmfio wwou 130E
A - . . | - . . . . . . Q . . - .» - . . - - . - ¢ ¢ . - - . . . - .. . . . . . . . - - ¢ . . . - - - Q .1...        ..-.. - . ¢ v ~ . . - . -.xuzw§rst
% __  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  . . .GOH  H“ a>mm . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 
 || - -?:&|-i:»l1 l! vfi!
@300 E232 _ GMZDmZOO 200,2 w wQZDOm
L  w, = A  _w A _ . . . . . . . . . . .  N: wwmwwwmwwwwww-
m w: _ ww. 2: _ 3 2 W ww 2 2 2  w _ ._ 5w... MGR. Eww RE.
U ....   .... .. 8w $2 www N www m2}. www wwwl ww 2 , $2 _ www a ......  . . .....iww.....w.wa 9.5.. b»...
T _ w  Q _ w c3 wmos won 5mm >4
L w: ww w: 8w www 2w w? wE N w... w... w...» w w...» _ 2w. ww. w www .123...» .2 w .225.
U IIIIILIIII || |\|l..\||T.|l_ _| Tllll!
m w... ww w... www 2w www w...“ ww. w b ww. w... __ 2. h 2; Q2 W cw. w.mw......m.Hmwmzmwww
R w... ww m2 ww. w? .5 w... www wbw www www 8w _ www www A www . . . . .2...
G ww ww .2 2w www www w... 2.. ww. 2. wfi w... =2 2.. _ w... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i.
A w2 ww $2 .2. w... 2w 2w E... 2w. cw... w“... w»... 8w 2w mm... ww
s 2w ww www $2 ww2 £2 www 2w . w... www .2.» www 2w www 2w PM . ..... H m L . . . . . . . .. mm.
A w; ww .2 32 22 2w www Ew 2... .5... www 2w 2w www www
x till ll
><Q mum Z30
h 5.. 22a 2.2.02 2 22>. ww fir. w .5. w w»... 2w .5 ww =2 2w 5% a 5% 2 9% 2 .3 w 3 oz o5.
.246 .02 AFHOH.
wamwmm? 2.52
wmwwww v._w....w dz 2mm
.2 dz 225.4.
L.
2

25

EXPERIMENT STATION.

@3525 Q3 .950 8m s30
.856 mwd 656m Hum 53.6 wwoU

6m» .292: E 5% 225.5 mo Honfisz

mm  . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1...... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . INGmUOOMwOuwOO~NuO¢F
a . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . - . - - . . . . . . ..~.. - . . . . . - . . . . ». ¢- -.....GOHHUA%8.@§%QNaidUswvuUwfloQwoo - . . . - - - - .-.. $.$
E  . . . . ¢ - - . . - . u . ¢ . - . - . . . ¢ - - . . . . . . . . ..- | - . . . . - - . u‘. . . - . - . - . . . ..¢ » . . . . . . . . - - | - ¢ - . . ...-.  huas.$£fiuwau@flm. q u . | . . . . . - . . . 
8 wm . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1....- . . . . . . ..  . . . . . . .......~vflwflfluvfiduv©fiudwmaflvflmfluOmv..  
2.30 m§=oQ dHEDmZOO Q00.» wmzbom
. . . . . . . - . .     fi  N.  8 8 8 . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . .@Q@QC@QUQ. EOH|%
v vac: 3n wfiw #309
. . . . . . .. ....... ........     8%..“  IH   $1! wll  ......... mwfltkwwflkr Qwiruflfi ~mdwv
3Q flaw: 3m swam $4»
ww. w ww wfi wwww www www www www bww www www 3w www www 3w . . .35; 5w i» wwwwvi
ww ww 2w 32 33 ww: ww: 3: ww: ww: 33 33 wwww wwww wwww . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . ww
w; ww www wz: www www 3w www www www www www www 3w www . . . . . . . . . 3w
w. H ww www wwi www www 3w www 3w wbw www www www www 3w . . .. . Aw
3 . H ww wfi wx: www www www www www 3w www www www 3w www ................ . ww
w w ww 3H 3w w3 w? w3 33 www www w3 3w 3w www 3w ..... .. .. . ww
~F<Q Qfirm 230
fie w><Q 3w we: Q s32 wwwwm wwfiw 3.3.3 3w .5: ww .93 3 .92 E 5i 5 .3 w E .93 w di oz o3.
23.0 .02 Q4909 4
HEUEEP mfiQ
, w wwmmFw wwwlw oz zww
w

.2 .02 MAMA‘?

26 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

$.80“. “so duo E F50 Sam Q22

.53 E Eco Qmm mmw.»

Sm: was 13E 10cm cofiou 6:2: Jwamw ‘.56

.135 wuvw cofioo £22m \ imé

San was 13E moo was F80 .306 wovw cofiou Jwwmw wad
s3 wcm woow cofiou 3a.. Jwmmw ‘mmmaw

Sm: wcw wouw cofiou wvmon wwéw mmmé

if“: was 13E woow cotou “$5 *3.»

.138 woom c0300 600m cofiou womon Jowwow Eco Jmmmm ‘fiiv w
wwom .3
26m a.
mam ZOHH<M 30D
ow§o><

.. mg m5 8a i: 8w
.. . . . N»...
. 3m N8. fix 3N Q»
... 2E 8H 5m YE 8w
.. wwa mi a3 wt 5w
._ Mm wfl fi  
. . . 8w
mu 3a w»; 5Q v5 3.»
cmafl .8 ha :86 130E DWQ 3a .36 c3 Hum o 3x0 o
wwmmwwo gas: 0mm? mhwwé 
ow§o>< . wwcsofi dwauok dwcdom ow§u><

Hmmwmw>@@

 

com mo

.856. .._o >m<§z=w

 

.2 .02 mqmfiw

27

EXPERIMENT STATION.

A $.54 wan om £0.32 03:: 2.2mm»; 9.3 mo “.2225 o5 2 £29: ~22 on?

125w was we. .6 E8 52w 22 5 ww ww ww 2 b 2 w! 2| wwi wbw 12w =

20.5w 6E w8 8. E8 5mm w2 $2 5 2 8 ww 2 2 2 w .... .. w2  ..

.>ww._$a 33 =$§ £15 .53 5.9. Jwéw E wfi w2 n. 2 5 3. 2 2 8| wwl 2h i» =
4M2: 3% =..:8 £15 2.8m @280 2w 22 w: ww 3 ww 2 ww i 2 w 2E . .w ..

saw five p8 Es E8 23a we; .628 Jwsmw Q2 w2 2 ww 2 ww ww 2 2 2i 2| www ..w. =
s2 £2; =93» >5 awéw 22 22 ww 2 ww 2 ww 2 b! 2f T. 2w 5w ..

$.22 63m .333 mason swim w2 $2 $2 w» 3 E B i. 5 . . . . .. 3 B»  3

sww .32: 2.3m =§8 awéw =2 w2 N2 2 ww ww. i. 2 2 2 www 2w ..

200E wvom cofiou was “wuum coflou women C035.“ F30 Jwamw .. . . . . . . . .. mg an aw ow ma“ mm w m . . em» . :2 dZ
.2 -Hmd2
. w 2. w 2 2w 2 2 a 2 2 - as .32
Qmw 202.52 @202 $22 .5. A2 £2 .52 .52 .92 .92 .22 .52 Lwrww» B dz
_ 

Jtw >235“; 50¢ v22. ow cmwfll.wcmccmwon 50¢ wan: .52 5mm @2205.

wfimi m0 >m<§ 55w

.3 .OZ @1224?

1 28 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

Report 0f Chemist.

 

COMPOSITION OF FEED STUFFS.

The following analyses present the composition of the feed stuifs
used in the experiment, as determined by the chemical department
of the Station, average analyses of silage from other States for
comparison and of a sample of sugar cane bagasse from Georgia.

CENTER; PIT.

 
 

   

 

 
     
 

‘g Z‘
b ‘U:
0 123 £5
SAMPLE E ~ 5 0 6"‘
<1! Ln i=1 c: o» U:
3 1 E o o 5 gnu‘ s:
*-’ "U “U p U
<1 3 3 :2 3 e E =-
3 ; Q <3 o 0 c4 z B
l l l
No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 00.00; 40.00 4.00 2.00; 10.04 3.00; 12.42; 11
“ 2 ................. .. 07.42‘ 32.50 2.31 2.07 10.17 2.02; 15.41; 17
g i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 00.40. 33.54 2.47 1 50 10.00 2.37; 15.00; 24
, . . . . . . - . - - .. 1.,‘ , c) _ _ 1 _ _ ' _ i
~ 3 ................ .. 833i.‘ 33.10 3.33  13%? 3.32; 13.53; 3%
“ 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 05.00; 35.00 2.03 2.00 10.00 2.00; 10.00; 30
" 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 05.45; 34.55 1.07 1.71 0.30 2.74; 10.031201
“ 0 ................. .. 05.52; 34.40 2.73 273 0.01 3.30; 10.05; 0
“ 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 07.00 33.00 3.50 220 12.02 3.31; 11.07; 0
" 10 ................. .. 00.00 32.00 2.42 222. 10.04 2.53 11.00; 12
“ 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.00 20.20 2.01 1 22 ; 14.54 3.14 ; 0.30; 15
" 12 ................ .. 70.01 20.30 3.00 153; 13.51 2.70 0.50; 25
. -- 1 1 _---
Average 5r Pit ....... .. 00.30 ; 33.04; 2.03 l 1 00 i 11.04 3.00 l 13.05 . . . . . . ..
SOUTH PIT.
~ >4
E 4,5
i a- a: é 131%
SAMPLE § q; ,1; v file
3 4. 4. G 3g w |
1: 5 v 3 '5 '0” ==
<0 _, m H h e ____ .1:
B _ Q <1 ; u 0 a. z B
; _—w—~i—~—‘wglw~kd t V" h A flu“ A M‘ (wk
N5 1 .............  51.34; 40.00 3.00 2.51 10.17 4.35; 20.57 5 ..   
“ 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..; 66.04;‘ 33.96 2.71 3.15 9.11 2.81 16.18 8 Mostly Sorghum.
1- 3 ....  . . . . . . ..; 70.07; 20.03 2.02 1.00 12.01 1.70 10.7 21 Entirely Sorghum.
“ 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 07.20; 32.72; 2.54 2.10 13.01 2.42 12.00 15 .....  . . . . . . . . . ..
" 5 .........  02.30 37.70 3.40 2.53; 12.11; 2.00 10.00 20 ........... ..
" 0 ............. .. 05.50 34.50 2.01 1.44 12.52 2.32 15. 25 ......... ..
“ 7 ............. .. 40.37 50.03 4.30 2.70 17.51; 3.25 22.73 M0110 ............. ..
“ 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 02.00 30.00, 3.77 2.20 14.30; 3.27 14.30 14 ................. ..
" 0 ............. .. 00.11 30.00 2.74; 1.50 11.01 2.02 11.74 10 ........... ..
“ 10 ............. ‘l; 05.50 34 50 3.27; 1.47 11.20 3.07 14.01 10
l
Average ofPit......; 02.03 37.17; 3.10; 2.10; 1245; 2.05; 17.43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

EXPERIMENT STATION.’ 29

Average analyses of fodder, corn silage from Experiment
Stations 0f Massachusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Maryland

and Texas i:

e 3.?
3 t:
>4
% 5;, 2 H m
STATE = 3 g e g
<2 <9 i=- F=~ "7' H
G "L;
“<5 3 2 g g '6 2”
6 6 z~ 3 a a ‘é .3
Z 3 C1 < u o o4 Z
Massachusetts.... __  8 79.66 20.3 1.05 5.15 0.79 1.77 11.57
Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 80.59 19 41 1.37 5.82 0.69 1.49 10 05
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..   1 77.94 22.06 1.70 5.92 0.79 1.92 11.80
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 79.14 20.86 1.06; 7.20 1.05 1.25 8.70
Texas.. 22 64 59 35.41 2.991. 12.14 2.09 2.97 15.69
- ‘<3
.1 3 4, 
SUBSTANCE *8’ t; in 5m»
6 2 g g '§ $8
g a: 3 a a ‘é =36
Q <1 0 O a. Z
Cormcobandshuck............................ 7,26 9274. 265 1236 4371 663 6674
Cotton seed meal....... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 6.55 93 45 7.60 4.44 11 33 47.19 22.85
Cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 01 86 99 4.43 47.88 1.14. 4.68 28.86
Cotton seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.99 90.01 3 34 28.74 18.92 21.70 17.31
PEA-VINE SILAGE AND PEAfVINE HAY.
*6
GS
E  3 *3
SUBSTANCES 3 l» r=~ 661
H c: .
o 2 0 ” '5 go”
F; 5 .= '3 '3 *6 i: 3
a n :2 cs as a: 27'
Silage-—wet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76 91 23 09 3.96 6.36 2.13 3.05: 7.59
Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 10.01 89.99 1.0.62 22.54 5.81 12.68: 38.34
Silage-calculated to 100 parts dry matter . . . . . .. , ,_ _, _ __ 17 ()1 2754 9,181 13,20! 32,98
Hay-calculated to 100 parts dry matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.80 25 00 6 45E 14 00 42.75

SUGAR CANE BAGASSE AND SILAGE——10O RARTs DRY MATTER.

____e_ A A ‘ _ 3
3 ‘i .. 2
1;; fi <6 c; ><
SUBSTANCE <9 b“ 11* a 1:07-13-
6 2 * g g '6 o g
‘i e3 *3 1 a a ‘5 Ea:  
B Q <1 l u o i Z
s 71*?’ i 7
Sugar Cane Bagasse, from Georgia . . . . . . .. 10. 21 100. 6.20 38 58 7 85 3.67 43. 7
Si1age...... . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..   100. 8.43 34.23 589 8.37 43.08

 

, discrepancies.

3O "TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

EXPLANATION OF THE TABLES.

The fodder corn when gathered was in a nearly ripe condition,
but the quality varied very widely-some lots havingwell de-
veloped ears while other lots were made up of stalk and fodder of
comparatively poor quality. Taken all together it could be called
a fair average of drilled fodder corn, in which the kernels were not
only glazed but hard.

The samples of silage in the two pits were taken at depths of
every two feet—sometimes more frequently-so the average com-
position might be obtained.

In order that the silage from this station might be compared with
that from other stations, the average analyses are compiled separ-
ately. Just the condition of the silage from the Massachusetts
Experiment Station is not known. But from the other reports of
the station it is presumed the kernels were glazed, as reported from
other stations, except the Connecticut Station, which were “ com-
piled exclusively from the American analysis.”

Along with this analyses is reported the analysis of “Corn, Cob
and Shack, Cotton Seed Meal, Cotton Seed Halls and Cotton Seed,”
as used by the Director, in feeding experiments referred to in this
bulletin. The analysis of sugar cane bagasse sent to the Director
from Georgia is also reported upon.

When received the sample was in a well preserved condition, but
almost air dry. Only the analysis of 100 parts dry matter can
therefore be given. It was completely air dried after receiving it
and found to still contain 10 per cent. of water. For the purpose
of comparison, the average analysis of 24 samples of silage from
this station, calculated to 100 parts dry matter is also given. The
analytical work was done by Assistant Duncan Adriance.

CONCLUSIONS.

1st. There is a clear advantage from these analyses in favor of
Texas silage over that reported from Northern States. The water is
lower, while the other ingredients are all higher but the crude
fibre not sufficiently so to detract materially from the value of the
silage. We can not say if subsequent work will confirm these

2d. There seems to be little difference between the value of the
corn silage and that of the pea-vine silage. The changes in the
pea-vine silage in the silo are not truly such as would have been ex-
p ected. The nitrogenous matter in the silo decreased and the fatty

EXPERIMENT STATION. 3 1

acids increased, as would have been anticipated. But there was
also a slight increase of crude cellulose and a decrease in nitrogen
free extract.

3d. The sugar cane bagasse is not equal to silage in nutritive
value, but it makes a good showing and requires further investi-
gation. A remarkable thing about it is the large percentage of fats.

H. H. i HARRINGTON,
Chemist.

32 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

Conclusions.

We submitted four questions to the experiment. It is left with
the reader to decide as to the answer given to the first.

SHELTER

2. We believe the answer is clear as to necessity 0f shelter.
The result confirms several years experience and observation in
feeding cattle in the Southern States, but dehorning is essential to
make sheltering range cattle practicable.

The evidence in favor of shelter confirms results secured as a
rule by careful feeders, and the same is true of dehorning.

FEED STUFFS.

3. For roughness, corn, sorghum and pea-vine silage, hay
where it can be produced at low cost, and cotton seed hulls near
oil mills.

For the richer part of the ration, boiled cotton seed, cotton seed
meal, with perhaps some corn, rice meal or rice bran in sections
where they can be procured cheaply.

Corn and sorghum grown for silage should be planted thin
enough to mature ears and produce a crop of seed and not har-
vested until nearly ripe. The silage will then contain a con-
siderable amount of gr.ain, and be of more value to feed with cot-
ton seed and with cotton seed meal and produce a better quality
of beef. '

PROFIT IN FEEDING TEXAS RANGE CATTLE.

4. With a margin of 1 cent per pound gross between thin and
fat cattle, steers may be profitably fed over a large portion of
the State (see page 9).

The experiment indicates that silage and boiled cotton seed is
the cheapest and most rapid fattening ration of the feedstuffs.

2. Cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls.

3. Cotton seed meal, cotton seed hulls and silage.

4. Raw cotton seed and silage.

r5. Corn and hay at the prices given.

EXPERIMENT STATION. ~ 33

SUGGESTIONS TO FEEDERS.

Two things are essential in fattening animals:

1. To keep the animal comfortable and quiet.

2. To induce him t0 eat the largest possible amount of
nutritious food.

One is of little value without the other. To keep the cattle
comfortable, shelter from rain is indispensable. Cattle fall off as
rapidly during a cold rainy spell in Texas with the temperature at
the freezing point, or a little under, as they do in Dakota with the
temperature below zero.

Range cattle, as a rule, will not do their best under close confine-

ment, i. e., tying up by the head. They may be shut up in a build-i

ing, but need room to move around.

Wild cattle must be handled quietly. This point we wish to
emphasize, for it is entirely overlooked by too many cattlemen. A
barking dog and a noisy loud-mouthed man are two things that
should never be permitted to enter a cattle feeding-pen. It should
be remembered that when a naturally wild steer is struck with a
whip, or disturbed in any way, that he stops gaining weight for a
time, and food consumed is a loss. i

This is not a sentiment, but a business matter of working the
animal machine to its full capacity. Dehorning seems to affect a
wild steer somewhat as “throwing” the horse in the Rarey
method of breaking colts. Then the head remaining sensitive for
some time, wild steers are subdued and stand quietly together in a
way that must be seen to be believed.

We are of the opinion that steers should be dehorned but a short
time before shutting up to feed so that they may be fattened while
their heads are somewhat tender. -

FEEDING.

Cattle should be fed twice a day at a regular time, if confined in
a building, by the same persons, and strangers excluded for at least
a month‘ after cattle are shut up. Feed what the cattle will eat
and clean out mangers and troughs once every day. Cattle dis-
like feed that has been picked over and breathed on.

Vary the rations occasionally to stimulate the appetite; have
salt always before them, or better, if the feeder is careful and
skillful, sprinkle a little salt on the feed, but care must be exer-
cised not to give too much. '

34 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

With boiled cotton seed cattle relish a considerable amount of
salt. p Give free access to good water. _

If feeding to ship in the spring, after grass starts keep the cattle
ofl’ from grass unless it is proposed to finish on grass, otherwise the
cattle will lose their relish for silage and dry feed, stop gaining
and be in soft condition to ship.

SUGAR CANE BAGASSE.

Attention is called to the analysis of sugar cane bagasse in the re-
port of the chemist (page 29). _

The sample was sent to the station with request to analyize and
determine feed value from the South Georgia Live Stock and
Planting Company, Bainbridge, Ga.

It is stated that the bagasse from 10 acres of sugar cane, after grind-
ing, was piled up about 10 feet high, exposed to the winter rains
without cover, and when they commenced hauling it out for manure
in the winter the inner part of the pile had a sweet odor, and a bright
color and cattle ate it wit a relish. The analysis indicates a value
not-much below that of corn silage for feeding with cotton seed,
cotton seed meal, wheat bran, cow peas or other nitrogenous food.

Sugar cane bagasse from the small cane mills will no doubt keep
Well in silos 17f packed in closely and weighted.

SCIEN Tl FIC FEEDING.

As stated at the beginning, this experiment was designed to be
practical, rather than scientific. We desire, however, to call atten-
tion to points that need careful investigation. Through all the
Southern States cotton seed and its products have become of great
value as feedstuffs. Cotton seed meal. alone is used in other
portions of the country and abroad, and is the only part of
the seed of which the digestibility and nutritive value have been
carefully studied. i -

Almost by accident, we may say, it has been found that cotton
seed hulls, rated of no value, except for fuel, until within the
past three years, have a feeding value equivalent to that of a fair
quality of hay. A

In appearance the hulls are hard and indigestible, and from ex-
amination of the droppings of hull fed cattle we find that a large

cording to oil mill averages) would con-
. tain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

EXPERIMENT STATION. , 35

portion of the hulls passes through the animal apparently not acted
upon at all by the digestive organs.
On a dry floor, exposed to the air, the droppings make a good
bedding for the animals in dry weather.
The digestibility of cotton seed hulls should be determined.
The second point is the nutrtive value of the oil in the whole seed.
In the summary of Tables 2 and 3 it will be noticed.

Pen 2.——11306.5 lbs. silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘
1530 “ hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . émade. . . . 1020 lbs. gain
2978 “ cotton seed meal...

Pen 3.——-10054.9 “ silage . .. . . . . . . . . . .
1145 “ hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. émade. . . .1035 lbs. gain
4578 ~‘ cotton seed (cooked) ‘

Pen 4.——- 9361.5 “ silage . . . . . . . . . . ..
1174.5 “ hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. made.... 885 lbs. gain

3562.4 “ cotton seed (raw)..

The cotton seed fed to Pen 3 (ac- 573 lbs. oil,
1716 “ meal,

2289 “ hulls.
If we estimate hulls as equal to silage and hay, pound for pound,

we have 1774 pounds of hulls, with 573 pounds of oil, producing
15 pounds more gain than 1262 pounds of cotton seed meal.

* In a feeding experiment make by the writer at the Mississippi
A. & M. College, 1885:

Lot L-Five steers, average weight 602 pounds, consumed:

6524 lbs. silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
230 “ hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. émade. . . . .672 lbs. gain

1715 “ cotton seed (boiled) . . . . . . .  . .
Lot 2.—Four steers, average weight 704.5 pounds, consumed:

6863 lbs. silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
192 “ hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. made. . . . .635 lbs. gain
1114 “ cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lot L-Five steers consumed;
9.87 lbs. silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.34 “ hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. éto make.....1lb. gain
2.61 “ cotton seed (boiled) . . . . . . . . . .
_ Lot 2.—-Four steers consumed:
10.77 lbs. silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.30 “ hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. éto make  lb. gain
1.75 “ cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lot 1 contained one steer, the poorest in both lots.
Lot 2, one exceptionally good feeder, the best steer of all.
In 1882, at the same place, our first study of the value of cotton

* Report N0. 3, A. & M. College of Mississippi, 1885.

36 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

seed for fattening cattle, two very ordinary native steers were fed
all the cooked cotton seed, hay and oat straw they would eat.

Steer No. 1, 4 years old, weight 708 lbs., fed 56 days, gained 260
lbs.; average gain per day 4.64 lbs. Average daily ration, 14.4 lbs.
cotton seed, 11 lbs. hay and straw.

Steer No. 2, about 20 months old, weight 350 lbs., fed 49 days,
gained 240 lbs.; average gain per day, 4.89 lbs., and 36.5 and 65.7
per cent per cwt. respectively.

All these tests show the value of cotton seed for rapidly loading
up the steer with fat, and also show that cotton seed is a much
cheaper feed than cotton seed meal for fattening cattle, estimated
at average prices of $7.00 per ton for seed and $20.00 for meal.

Pen 2, Table 5, average weight of steers, 696 lbs.

11306.5 lbs. silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. -
1530.2 “ hay .. . . .  .  .1 . . . . . .. . . .. made. . . .1,020 lbs. gain
2978 “ cotton see mea . . . . . . . . . . 1

Pen 6, Table 9, average Weight of steers 741 lbs.
8158.5 lbs. cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . .. . d c .
3,160 “ “ “ meal . . . . . . . . . .. m“ e" ' ' 1:210 lbs: gal“
Pen 7, Table 10, average Weight of steers, 722 lbs.
6286.6 lbs. silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
4976.6 “ hulls... .  . . . . . . . . . . . . .. made. . ..1,065 lbs. gain
2814 “ cotton see mea . . . . . . . . . ..
Pen 2 required: ‘
11.08 lbs. silage . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 “ hay . . . .  . . . .  . . . . . . . .. tomake.....1lb. gain
2.91 “ cotton see meal . . . . . . . . ..
Pen 6 required:
3:33 l?“ °°??’°“ Eifiijiijiiiiiiiii l2 make- ~~~1 Ib- gain  
Pen 7 required:
5.84 lbs. cotton hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.67 “ silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. to make . . . . ..1 lb. gain

2.64 “ cotton seed meal. . . . . . . . . .
Which would indicate that hulls have a higher nutritive value

than silage.
Comparing the analysis of cotton seed hulls with silage and

medium hay we have the following table:

3

<3

E E ~ E

a" i5 1i.“ 5w

s 2 q) v q;  U09

a "U “U q) o 0

<1: >~ 11 s :1 “’ b "

> 3-1 (I) 1,‘ L‘ e "qr-Ll

. w Q <1 U O Q4 J Z

Cottonseed 1111115 . . 1 . . . . . . . . .. "$.91 89.99 4.4: 47.98 1.14 41:95 29.89
Silaiige(average),'g 5mm” analys“;   64.59 35 41 2.91s 1214 2.09 2.97 15.69
10.91 29.99, 10 s2 22.54 5.81 12.98, 9&4

Medium hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W

EXPERIMENT STATION. 37

The analysis shows that the hulls contain much more crude fibre
than hay and silage, nearly twice as much protein and nitrogen
free extract as silage, but less than hay; less than half of the fat of
silage and hay and less protein and nitrogen free extract than
hay.

Cotton seed meal supplies what is lacking in the hulls, and from
a chemical standpoint cotton seed meal and hulls should make a
ration of high nutritive value, provided a considerable part of the
hulls is digestible.

It may be that equally good results would have been obtained
from feeding a smaller quantity of cotton seed meal.

TH E GERMAN STANDARD.

According to the German standards the fattening ox should have

a ration with nutritive ratio of 1 to 5.5 and a daily feed for 1000
‘pounds live weight of 3 lbs. digestible albuminoids and 16 lbs. di-
gestible carbo-hydrates and fats.

We attempted the preparation of standard rations of the several
feed stuffs. The digestibilityof cotton seed and cotton seed hulls
not having been determined so far as We are aware, we assumed
that the digestibility of the hulls was equivalent to that of wheat
straw, both in the seed and when fed alone, and from this made up
the following table of albuminoids and carbo-hydrate equivalence.

Analysis and digestibility of cotton seed meal and corn are com-
piled from other station reports. _

Analysis of hulls and silage from work of the chemist of this
station; digestibility of hulls estimated as wheat straw, of silage
as corn fodder, by Jenkins. From this We have:

One hundred pounds of the following contain

DIGESTIBLE SUBSTANCES.
_ Carbo-Hy-
Atlilfifn" Etta; Nlgsgsive
Pounds. lence. a w‘
Pounds.

Cottonseed .............  . . . . . . . . . ..  13.79 66. 1:11.84

Cotton seed hulls. . . . . . . . . l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.79 39. 1: 49.36

Cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . - - _ - - - - - - - - - -- 35-75 53-06 11 1-45

Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.17 21.83 1: 10.05

Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.37 76.43 1: 9.13

Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.13 42.35 1: 13.50

NoTE.—-The above form of expressing nutritive values is borrowed from Whitcher, New
Hampshire Bulletin No. 3. i

38 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL

From the above formulas we have as the average nutritive ratios
of the several rations:

i

- Pounds_ i Pounds.

I
NO OF PEN Afovleneciisil i - I - Nutritive
_ _ . g t . Average Gain Average Gain Rad
I of Cattle. § per 1000 lbs.  per Day. F o’,
, l
No. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..: 741 i 27.2 2.43 ‘ :1: 4.02

7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 722 24.6 2.20 , 1; 4.17

“ 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80s § 24.4 2.37 i 1; 5.11

“ 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 696 24.3 2.05 l 1' 3.35

“ 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 728 I 23.8 2.09  1: 9.45

a ....................  777 22.2 20s 5 1. 6.60
“ 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 876 18.0 1.90 . 1:10.04
“ 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 827 17.8 1.80 1: 6.76

Two unknown factors prevent drawing a logical conclusion as to
comparative value of silage and hulls, i. e., digestibility of hulls
and difference between pens of steers.

RATIONS.

We had planned to adopt as near as could be the standard ration
with the pens of cattle, except 8 and 9, but found at once that the
cattle would not eat 3 lbs. of digestible albuminoids and 16 lbs. of
carbo-hydrates and fat per 1000 lbs. of live weight based on the
formulas given, nor would they eat suflicient silage to make a ratio
of 1 to 5.

The largest amount of silage eaten at any one time was by Pen
2, Table 1, 32.84 lbs. per head per day, While the average amount
consumed is under 25 lbs. per day. In several years experience
feeding Southern grown corn silage we have found that cows and
steers would never consume more than 35 to 4O lbs. per day to 1000
live Weight, While the average has not been above 25 lbs. The
analysis of silage given by the chemist (page 29), shows that
Southern grown silage has a higher nutritive value than Northern
grown silage by analysis, and our experience in feeding indicates
that we get same return in milk, butter and beef from a less
quantity.

Reports from stations in the Northern States are somewhat con-
flicting, but the evidence seems. to show that Southern varieties of
corn planted for silage in the Northern States yield more nutritive

EXPERIMENT STATION. 39

matter to the acre and to weight when the season is favorable to
maturity than the native varieties. ,

Not enough feeding tests and analyses have been made of the
corn and sorghum grown in the several Southern States to draw
conclusions from the comparisons. The indications are that the
climate and soil gives to these States certain advantages in the pro-
duction of silage crops.

We wish to call the attention of experimenters to this evident
superiority of Southern silage crops, hoping the matter will receive
careful investigation.

Assistant J. W. Carson had charge of the weighing and general

supervision of the work. Mr. F. Morrell fed the cattle.

F. A.   GULLEY,
Director.