104-826-1OM-Ll8O B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, muzos COUNTY, TEXAS LETIN NO.344 , JULY, 1926 DIVISION OF VETERINARY SCIENCE EDING BONE MEAL To RANGE CATTLE ON THE COASTAL PLAINS OF TEXAS PRELIMINARY REPORT AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President . TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT snnou STATION “STAFFT ADMINISTRATION : B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CoNNER, M. S., Vice-Director R. E. KARPER, B. S., Assistant Director . S. WARE, Secretary P. HoLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk J K. FRANCKLOW, Assistant Chief Clerk J. M. SCHAEDEL,EICCUIIUC Assistant C. B. N EBLE1TE, Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE: *M. FRANcIs, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian W. L. BLACK, D. V. M.. Veterinarian CHEMISTRY: _ G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist WALDo H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist J. K. BLUM, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. E. TEAGUE, B. S., Assistant Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist ADAII E. PROCTOR, B. S., Assistant Chemist N. J. VOLK, M. S., Assistant Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Assistant Chemist R. O. BRO0KE, M. S., Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: . W. B. LANHAM, M. A., Chief H. NEss, M. S., Berry Breeder RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goa Investigations J. L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman; Breeding Investigations FRANK GRAYSON, Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: F. L. TnoMAs, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist W. L. OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist S. E. McGREGoR, JR., Acting Chief Foulbrood Inspector GILLIs GRAHAM, Apiary Inspector OTTO IVIACKENSEN, Foulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: E. B. REYNoLDs, M. S., Chief F. D. ' A. B. CoNNER, M S., Agron'omist; Grain S. D. 5:211:52, Sgc-rfiiarfizhlef Sorghum Research _ J_ H_ ROGERS’ Feed In-I t B. ERKARPilzlR, B. S., Agronomist; Small Grain W. H. Wo0D ’Feed Insfiecfoi’ . esearc ' K_ L_ ’ ‘- D. TB K154011011 M. S., Agronomist; (Cotton W. D.INg:;IéIIeI3"I‘1I~3'J§q-’ ‘fgeeg I§§fl§°§°'~ R II. Igilefilglg B. S. Assistant in Cro s V' C' GLASS’ B‘ S" Feed Insflfdvr 5 . SEL, . P E. H. GARRETT, Feed jnsncto, SUBSTATIONS .r N0. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: . W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County: V E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County: H. E. REA, B. S., Superintendent Denton, Denton County: . DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent 6, B No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. JoNEs, Superintendent ‘FRANK GAINEs, Irrigationist and Forest Nurseryman No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLEs, B. S., Superintendent Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the’ Station: . W. ADRIANcE, M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture W. BILSXNG, Ph. D., Professor of Entomology _ . BUECHEL, Ph. D., Professor of Agricultural Economics M. S., Professor of Dairy Husbandry _ . LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Agricultural Economics Assistant Professor of Agronomy. . ScoATEs, A. E. Professor of Agricultural Engineering _ _ H. P. Smith, B. S. Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering . GROUT, O"U’d> . POLLOCK, A. M., UFSPWWQ 1min June so, 192s. _ _ *Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. **In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. ***In cooperation with the School of Agriculture. Q PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYT J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief " FARM AND RANCH ECONOMIPIP. L. P. GABEARD, M. S., Chie Y‘ B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., P Ranch Economist. ,. G. L. CRAWFORD, M. S., Research Y Specialist " V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Rese **T. L. GASTON, JR., B. S., Assist Records and Accounts **J. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant, and A ccounts SOIL SURVEY: **W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief H. W. HAwRER, Soil Surveyor .- E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor A T. C. REITcR, B. S., Soil Surveyor ' BOTANY: H- NEss. M. s , Chief PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JACKSON, Chief SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: ————— , Chief POULTRY HUSBANDRY: R- M- SHERWOOD. M. s., Chief ***AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING MAIN STATION FARM: G- T- MCNESS. superintendent _ APICULTURAL RESEARCH L ' San Antonio) ABOR‘ - B- PARKS, B- 5-, Apiculturisti A~ H- I-EX» B- S“ Queen Breeder n FEED CONTROL SERVICE: E No. 1o, Feeding and B d‘ 9 College Station, Brag’: élglglngtatio ' M- SHERWOOD, M. S., Animal H L Jmfi" l" Chafye of Farm_ ~ - CCAI-L. Farm Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches Co 3 H. F. MoRRIs, M. S., Superintendent- .7 **No. 12 Chillicothe, Hardeman county; HJ- R- QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent T ‘ J. C. STEPHENS, M. A., Junior Agrono_ No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counti ' E. W. THOMAS, B. S., Superintendent _ D. H. BENNETT, D. V. M., Veterinari _ V. L. CoRY, M. S., Grazing Research B ' **O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborating h Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: E. J. WILSON, B. S., Superintendent _. SYNOPSIS This Bulletin reports results obtained by feeding bone meal and salt mixtures and finely ground rock phosphate mixed with bone meal and salt to cattle in the Gulf Coast region of Texas. It was found that the bone-chewing habit exhibited by about seventy-five per cent of the range cattle in that region can be broken if each animal is fed daily about three ounces of bone meal mixed with salt. Animals getting this amount of bone meal make larger gains in weight than animals not so fed. Cows fed bone meal reared better calves. It effectually pre- vented creeps in range cattle, and greatly reduced losses from diseases other than those of an infectious character. It was found that finely ground rock phosphate when fed alone, or when mixed with salt, or when mixed with salt and bone meal in equal parts did not give satisfactory results. l Calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A. CONTENTS Cattle require minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z Common salt or sodium chloride, iodine, and iron . . . . . . , . . . . . . . Rickets or rachitis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Osteomalacia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . p Creeps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feeding bone meal to animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . ..'._l Feeding rock phosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Effect of feeding bone meal upon the animal . . . . . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . Eifect upon the bone-chewing habit. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ Eifect upon ‘the condition of the animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions from first year’s operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of second year’s operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Status of the animals in the spring of 1925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Animals lost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Influence of feeding bone meal to the cows upon the development the calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l» Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l References . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l . . . . . . . .l ULLETIN No. 344 JULY, 1926 EEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE ON ‘ THE COASTAL PLAINS OF TEXAS PRELIMINARY REPORT H. SCHMIDT '5 The results reported in this Bulletin are, in fact, a by-product of q investigational Work into the nature and prevention of 10in sease, but they are of such far-reaching significance and importance at the writer feels justified in publishing them for the guidance and gnizance of the stockmen. . p CATTLE REQUIRE MINERALS . The need of the animal body for various minerals for its upkeep id normal development has long been recognized and many facts have come known regarding an excessive or a deficient supply of minerals 4 the animal body. While not all known minerals are necessary for, r even utilized by, the animal body, still such minerals as calcium, hosphorus, magnesium, iron, potassium, sodium, sulphur, manganese, dine, chlorine, and so forth, are always found in the tissues of the imal body in varying amounts. The amount of these minerals re- uired by the animal body varies with the different minerals and de- nds upon the use to which they are put in the animal body. Thus, lcium and phosphorus, are used mainly for building up the bony ructures and hence are required in comparatively large quantities, - bile the other minerals are used more for carrying on the normal etabolism of the body and hence are needed in comparatively small ounts with the milk for the use and needs of the suckling young, 5| which reason lactating animals have need for an especially large " antity of these two minerals. If these two minerals are not sup- lied in sufficient quantity during lactation to meet the requirements f- the suckling _3’011ng, the mother animal WJJJ 230i immadiately 162825 g secreting a smaller proportion of these minerals with the milk‘ but 3 will sacrifice its own welfare and draw upon its reserves, the min- rals stored in the skeleton, in order to supply the required amount a far as she is able to do so, and thus enable the young to thrived ormally as far as possible. But data at hand indicate that the mother _’ imal, particularly the cow, cannot draw upon her mineral reserves 0 an unlimited extent but eventually answers with a decrease in the ilk flow (2) and in the amount of calcium and phosphorus in the ilk even though her ration be otherwise balanced. This cuts down ounts only. Calcium and phosphorus are also excreted in larger p’ and growth of the latter. 6 BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION - the amount of calcium and phosphorus available for the suckling yo my‘ which, indeed, interferes more or less with the normal developme Inasmuch as a large amount of calcium and phosphorus is excre -{ with the milk, it follows that the lactating animal must have availab in its food a. large amount of these two minerals, and that if it 1a them, the milk flow must decrease, That a pregnant animal, especi “ in the advanced stages, has need for large amounts of calcium, u; phorus, and other minerals to satisfy the ever increasing demand y! the developing young, goes without saying. Phosphorus, coupled with protein, is also needed by the animal bod in its normal metabolism to build up the muscles, nerves, and tissues. ‘l The animal takes up these minerals with the food. Inasmuch -i the food of the animal is, in the final analysis, derived from the so the amount of the minerals found in the food depends upon the amoun present in the soil and upon its availability to the plant. Thus, ' there is an insuflicient amount of these minerals present in the soilé there will be a relatively smaller quantity found in the plants growing upon such a soil (1, '8, 3). This is of special significancewhere only grazing is practiced or only home-grown roughage is fed. Nor do-t_ different kinds of plants utilize and store in their tissues‘ the same amount of these minerals even though they be present in the soil and} available to the plant. in sufficient quantity. Some plants normally‘, contain more of these minerals than others. Nor are the different minerals distributed evenly throughout the plant, for the stems and’, leaves usually contain more calcium than the seeds, and the seeds con-Q" tain more phosphorus than the stems and leaves. What, now, is the effect upon the animal body in case it does receive a suflicient supply of minerals with the food? Metabolism katabolism are constantly going on so that the tissues built up yeste, day may be torn down today to be replaced by new tissues if the material is available. If suitable raw material is not available, th health of the animal must suffer. I In order that the animal may be able to utilize the different m‘ L. erals to the fullest extent, they must be available in certain propo Q tions, at least as far as calcium and phosphorus are concerned, fo they combine, to a great extent, in the animal body to form cer '_ chemical compounds. A lack of one, or a lack of proper proportio between these two minerals limits the usefulness of both. The mo the amount of calcium consumed falls below the minimum require ment of the animal, the less will be the storage of both calcium If phosphorus. For the same reason, the greater the amount of pho g phorus consumed in excess of the proportionate amount of calci “.4? _ the greater will be the amount of calcium eliminated from the and l.ost to the animal. 7 a FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE 7 lCOMMON SALT OR SODIUlgNCHLORIDE, IODINE, AND _ ' IR . iChlorine is found in plants combined with other elements, but amount contained therein is not sufficient to satisfy the demands p I the animal body. It must, therefore, be supplied to the animal“ in i,“ other form and for that purpose common salt constitutes the apest source. One of the main uses of chlorine in the animal body to combine with hydrogen to form hydrochloric acid, which acid is ’ed by the animal to carry on the digestion in the stomach. That must be supplied to the animal goes without saying. It is com- n practice to place it before the animals so they can partake of it suit their individual tastes. - Many dairymen practice the addition of 1 per cent common salt to ‘ rations of their cows, and furthermore allow them free access to This practice seems to give uniformly good results. At the 1 cultural Experiment Station of the University of Wisconsin, S. M. bcock carried out some experiments to determine the effect of de- ving cows of salt. For this purpose dairy cows were used which K e liberally fed but allowed no salt in addition to what was normally tained in the feed and water. This amount was estimated to be ut three-fourths of an ounce daily. Of twenty-three cows that 3 thus deprived of salt all went for more than sixty days and eral for more than six months before any noticeable effects upon ir physical condition and milk yield occurred. After being deprived salt for three weeks the animals became very hungry for it and uld lick the mangers and walls of the stall as well as the hands 1| clothing of the attendants or dirt in order to obtain it. This dition prevailed for varying lengths of time but eventually grave ptoms set in. The cows would fail in health rapidly, showed a gh coat, generally haggard appearance, lusterless eyes, depressed _etite, a rapid decrease in milk yield, and a rapid loss in weight ounting to two to three pounds per day, which, when no salt was at this critical period,yterminated in collapse and death. If, ever, salt was allowed at this time, a gradual recovery took place. i, one instance potassium chloride instead of sodium chloride (com- n salt) was allowed, and in this case also ta gradual recovery took e1, which indicates that chlorine is the essential element needed. en such cows WGIQ again allowed free access to salt, it was found .1 the cows would eat eight ounces to one pound of salt at once. fmost cases it was found that the cows would consume three to four es the usual amount for several months. (4). ’ ' Iodine. A lack of iodine or an insufficient supply of iodine has .a idedly deleterious effectupon the health of the animal, or at least =4 its offspring. In Texas, as a rule,ythe animal finds enough ine available in the food i.t consumes, but some regions.are known Jere this is not the case, In. such regions new-born. pigs are either irless or possess a scant growth of hair, and more frequently have ' ableminerals and thereby converted into non-injurious substance ‘ments. Minerals are also present in the muscles and other tissues 8 BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION goiter or big-neck. Sheep and goats are similarly affected, while n born foals, though showing neither hairlessness nor goiter, are we seldom able to stand, and usually die. An addition of iodine to feed of the mother animal prevents the trouble (9), the amount need being two grains per day for sows and proportionately more for lard animals. Where such symptoms as enumerated above appear, it ’ advisable to try the suggested treatment. i ' Iron. The lack of or an insufficient supply of iron leads to anemi’ which in turn interferes with the oxygen-carrying capacity of the bl, and eventually ivith all the vital activities of the body. CALCIUM, PHOSPHORUS, AND MAGNESIUM The need of the animal body for calcium, magnesium, and p phorus is so great and these elements have such close chemical affini in the body that they are best considered together. The greater amoun of these elements absorbed by the body is used in building up s.‘ skeleton and it is here where the great-est disturbance is noted in where these minerals are insufficient or unavailable. Not only d“ disturbances develop in the young growing animal but also in full matured animals, although from a pathological standpointthe twoiconé; ditions are directly opposite in their development. The disturbanc referred to are such as osteoporosis, osteomalacia, rickets, legweakness, paralysis of the hind quarters, creeps, etc. Some of these conditiona are not yet fully understood, while several of them should probably T_ classed under one head. All of these conditions affect the skeleton‘ of the animal, especially when the animal-is not yet fully matur " The effects of such deficiencies need not always become manifest d rectly in the animal concerned, for frequently they come to light onl in the offspring inasmuch a_s the young is either born prematurely, 0 is insufficiently developed, and may show the diseased conditions 0 _ the bones mentioned above either at birth or develop them soon thereJ-Z after. Especially young growing animals,—and amongthese the moref rapidly growing animals,—suffer severely enough from the lack ofi calcium and phosphorus that unmistakable symptoms.may develop in; a comparatively short time. Minerals serve a number of important purposes in the animal bod It is a well established fact that animals receiving no minerals (ash at all in their feed will die sooner than if no feed at all were taken (1); This fact suggests that in the course of metabolism and katabolism. certain substances are formed in the body which are injurious to the” animal body and which, under normal conditions, _are coupled to avai But there are also other important functions which minerals serv The greater part of the bones is composed of calcium and phosphoru together with a smaller amount of magnesium, fluorine, and other ele-~ the body, where they perform important functions. They are, furthe FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE i 9 ore, essential to the body to help maintain a proper concentration 3. neutrality of the blood, assisting the body in getting rid of excess ids, etc. There is evidence to show that the phosphates also play 1| important part in the digestion and utilization of food (3). RICKETS OR RACHITIS i Without endeavoring to exhaust the fund of facts which have be- me known about the disturbances of the skeleton named above, let f consider the most important ones briefly. It is a well established "i, that rickets develops in immature animals, especially when they e still quite young. Even suckling animals sometimes develop it d, according to Dammann (11), healthy suckling animals become ill i- they are placed on a mother animal whose young is affected with kets. We have seen above that normally the milk contains enough cium and phosphorus to insure a normal development of the young, osphorus may no longer suflice to cover the needs of the young. gre recently another factor, vitamin D, or antirachitic factor, has n found, which has a decided influence upon the calcium and phos- érus metabolism. A lack of this antirachitic factor leads to the oelopment of rickets even though a sufficient supply of calcium and sphorus may be available. An insufficient ‘exposure to direct sun- J has also been shown to have a tendency to produce rickets. ‘ i; ter the young animal is weaned and becomes dependent upon etab_le food for its source of calcium and phosphorus, rickets may elop when the calcium and phosphorus content of the food is too _ This may be the case following unfavorable weather conditions, cially during sev-ere and protracted drouth when the lack of mois- e in the soil will prevent the calcium and phosphorus constituents the soil from going into solution and hence will not be available the plant. Vegetation growing on acid soil, on soil deficient in ium and phosphorus, or on low swampy marshy soils is frequently " low in its content of calcium and phosphorus, and animals forced ubsist on such vegetation for a long time very often develop rickets other disturbances of the bones. Since the metabolism of calcium ' phosphorus is to a great extent interdependent, it follows that y, elements need not be simultaneously lacking in the food, but that ' lack of one will as certainly produce these disturbances as the r of both. An excess of acid in the food, an unfavorable relative ortion of protein, carbohydrates, and fat in the food, and in some chronic digestive disturbances may also cause diseased conditions =1 bones (6). - nder such conditions the animals show a depraved appetite, will on wood such as wooden walls, partitions, fence posts, on dirt, fure, rocks, bones, etc., or may even try to consume such substances. estive disturbances may also be present. Disturbances of the nerv- _' system may also become manifest, the animals showing twitching it if the milk secretion is rather scanty the amount of calcium and "normal, and exhibit a more 0r less pronounced thickening nea. 10 BULLETIN N0. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIO‘ of the muscles or even convulsions, which may vary greatly in‘ severity and duration. The animal soon shows soreness while W and soon becomes lame. Some animals may even refuse to st ~; their feet but instead will try to support their weight on the k joints. The animal eventually becomes emaciated and unless u; tions become more favorable usually dies. * The bones, especially those of the extremities, show a lack 0 velopment in the longitudinal direction, are frequently thicker, joints. Such bones are soft and spongy and for that reason frequ bend under the‘ weight of the body and may even break. In the j severe cases such thickening and also distortion of the bones may be observed on other parts of the skeleton, especially on the head, ribs. The bones may be so soft that they can easily be cut wi _ knife. They are incompletely ossified and h-ence lighter in weight , normal bones. ' OSTEOMALACIA A disease with symptoms and lesions similar to those of rickets " also be observed in mature animals and is known as osteomalacia. y true cause or causes of this disease have as yet not been u, established in every case, but it is well known that it, too, will Q under conditions similar to those just described, although the " vTf ological lesions develop in the reverse direction. That is, the al mature bone becomes decalcified when not enough calcium and f, ably phosphorus is available to the animal to replace the amount T up in its normal metabolism, thus producing the lesions already. scribed. As a result of these disturbances of the metabolism the mals become emaciated and weak, frequently suffer fractures of bones without the application ofexternal violence, and in some se‘ and on some farms many animals may even abort. Of the young_ are born alive, some of them soon die without showing sympto" any specific disease._ _i The disease develops under conditions similar to those desc above, but it could not in all cases be shown to be due entirely to‘ lack of minerals, although this appears to be the principal cause. j disease has also been observed to persist even after an abundan mineral matter was supplied and in such cases the cause of the _l turbance in mineral metabolism is usually attributed to a derange ofthe functions of the endocrine glands, lack of vitamins, an abno , bacterial flora of the intestinal tract which produces unusually amounts of acid (10), an excessive amount of crude fiber in the an improper proportion of the minerals present in the food, anf. favorable proportion of protein, carbohydrates and fats (6), etc. i It should be emphasized here that the diseases above discussed not always terminate unfavorably, but that their course depends r the severity of the unfavorable conditions of food to which the anW, are subjected. When these conditions again become favorable the mal may make a surprisingly rapid recovery. t i ‘FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE 11 CREEPS I A condition frequently met with in the Gulf Coast region of Tezras, on the more sandy soils in other parts of the State and adjoining J states, commonly known under the name of “creeps” and not yet thor- i: oughly investigated is undoubtedly closely related etiologically to the above described conditions. It is observed especially in dry years and in all classes of cattle, though young cows with calves are most fre- = quently affected. It often causes appreciable losses. It has been ob- served only in range cattle. i The animals become thin and Weak and soon show a peculiar stiff, ‘creepy gait as though it were painful to walk. Sometimes distinct Figure 1. Bony enlargements on the distal end of the metacarpus and metatarsus; some- times observed in young animals in the area under discussion. - Eplameness and stiffness become manifest. Swelling of the joints proper lhas not been observed by the writer. In young animals distinct cir- jcumscribed enlargements at the distal end of the metatarsus and meta- acarpus are sometimes observed, although these enlargements are not characteristic for creeps (Figure 1). When the condition grows worse, the animal lies around a great deal, does not graze nor- imally, and goes to water only seldom. The animal consequently be- comes drawn and gaunt, and the feces become_hard, indicating that igthe digestive system no longer functions properly. Animals, when in this condition, no longer take a sufficient amount of food and water; Eihence they rapidly grow weaker and eventually die if left to their own frresources. If, however, the animal be taken up in time, properly 12 BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE l3 red for, and given nutritious food, especially food rich in mineral atter, a rapid recovery takes placel Animals affected with this trouble tile usually spoken of as creepy. lfBones from animals that have died from creeps have not yet been ainined to determine, the changes taking place therein or to estab- i h its relationship to osteomalacia. Such examinations are projected- this station soon. The foregoing short outline may suflice to call attention to the need _ the animal body for minerals and the conditions that may develop "h case of a lack of deficient supply of minerals. Let us now consider me results obtained by feeding calcium and phosphorus to animals the form of raw feeding bone meal. ‘ < FEEDING BONE MEAL TO ANIMALS a When the Writer undertook theinvestigation of loin disease in the ulf Coast region of Texas he was struck by the large number of ani- as observed to chew bones, which led him to suspect some relation- :'p between this habit and loin disease. In the courseof the studies was found that these so-called bone-chewers would not always stop chewing bones, but that many of them wvould also chew sticks, ather, tin cans, ropes, hair ropes, rawhide whips, cast-off horns, rags, asteboard and rocks. One animal was even observed to chew a piece terrapin to which the fresh entrails were still clinging. Since there fre no tr-ees in the Field Laboratory grounds (excepting the Woody tems of the coffee bean, Daubenton-ia longifolia’) and the other ob- 'ects mentioned above are only occasionally found on the grounds, our attle have not often been observed to chew all of such objects, but it 1s‘ as found necessary to carefully guard all ropes, saddle and harness itions were somewhat different. There are no rocks whatever on ‘ f: surface of the ground excepting along some deep- drainage ditches, wo of which cross the grounds to take offthe surface water of the ,._ oorly drained land. Among the soil removed from the deeper layers calcareous rocks can be found. Cattle are often observed to along the dumps of the ditches picking up and chewing these jyrocks. During the course of some concrete construct-ion work on the ',rounds at the main pens some gravel was left after the work was frompleted. This gravel was left on the ground in a pen in which the ~cattle were kept only a short time once every month during weighing operations. It was soon discovered that many of the bone-chewers ‘when in this pen would pick up and chew some of this gravel. When one such animal, cow No. 24, later died, seven hundred and seventy- ‘leig-ht grams (twenty-six ounces) of gravel rocks ranging in weight ffrom five grams to forty-eight grams and comprising thirty-eight pieces were recovered from the rumen of this animal (Figure 2). Undoubt- » Efedly more will later be recovered from some of the other animals still Tliving. ' ather, and particularly rawhide whips. One can truly say that the a nimals were suffering from allotriophagia. Concerning rocks, the con- - . contentedly. However, if an old bone was thrown into the pen ing around the pen in effort to get to the bones. 14 i BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION It should be stated here that not all animals manifested a desire chew these objects, nor that those that did show a depraved appeti exhibited it to the same degree. The greatest uniformity was, howeve“ shown in the bone-chewing habit; so it xvas thought well to use it as f} index to guide us in our work (Figure 3). It is indeed surprising y expert some animals get to be in locating bones in the pasture. Ti writer has often observed when cattle were being driven through pasture that one or the other animal would suddenly leave the her walk some distance away, pick up a bone and stop to chew it. It interesting to observe an old cow in this respect. The animal in :4? tion, cow No. 84¢, was a constant bone-chewer but would absolu y refuse to eat, a mixture of bone meal and salt; She was always pla . ~ Figure 3. Bone-chelwers at work. in the pen together with the other cattle to be fed the bone meal an’ salt mixture, but always would she stand off in one corner ruminatUQf some point distant from the animal and without the animal’s seem it done, it would not be many minutes till she had found it and 1;, chewing it. Another example: a. close rail pen had been placed aroug . a carcass in the pasture in order that the bones might be saved. the bones were finally collected it was observed that a deep path been worn into the gro-find close around the pen by the animals wa The animals do not always seem to exercise much discretion as the wholesomeness of the bones they chew. While some animals lchew only sun-bleached bones, others are found that will not despise foul-smelling bone or even the putrid meat still clinging to such’. FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE 15 (Figure 4.), or a piece of old hide that has not yet completely A ayed. Occasionally an animal may be seen licking on the partially osed bones of a foul-smelling carcass. The factsrelated above have probably been observed by many cattle- ‘yen. Few if any ever gave the matter a serious thought, for they d seen so many cattle chewing bones that it no longer aroused their lriosity. In fact, many consider it a normal habit of the beast. They a .>= perhaps unknowingly suffered heavy losses because of it but did “l. realize that the animals were in fact showing the usual symptoms i a lack of mineral nutrients. But thisis not surprising, for many 1 the bone-chewers were in such a good condition that one would not adily suspect a lack of anything in the feed. Figure 4. Cow N0. 11 chewing the putrid meat still clinging to an old bone. . The writer had no idea of the number of animals that wouldchew tones until the Loin Disease Field Laboratory was established near ammel, Texas, in Harris County, and eighty-eight animals put on guest. These animals were all branded with a number on the left houlder so that they could be readily identified and a careful record ould be kept. The cattle had all been bought from one owner about y n miles from the grounds of the Loin Disease Field Laboratory, here they had been kept for about a year. Since the cattle were ought in connection with our loin-disease investigation, they were divided into three lots and one-half of each lot placed upon a different jnineral mixture to observe the effect upon loin disease. The bone- . hewing habit was used as an index to determine whether loin disease was in some way related to this habit and the mineral mixtures were ‘l ed to control the bone-chewing habit. The animals were assigned to 16 BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT /STATION and placed in the different lots and upon the different mineral mixtu f" or as controls before they were tested for the bone-chewing habit , the first time. The only apparent exception to this procedure was all cows ‘with calves were placed together in pasture No. 3. The s purpose of feeding the mineral mixture thus was to definitely brel if possible, one-half of the animals of the bone-chewing habit and _ allow the other one-half to follow their natural inclination in t‘ respect but to confine them to the same pasture as the other animals -, the lot to which they had been assigned ascontrols. Once a week i, animals in each lot were tested for bone-chewing by placing them a corral together with some bones which had been picked up on if: prairie. On the first test thirty-seven of the eighty-eight animals we" r-ecorded as bone-chewers, but before many weeks passed ajtotal P (37 or 77 per cent had a bone-chewing record. It should be noted l; i the animals did not chew bones regularly, but that some animals W0 r only occasionally take a bone, others would take a bone one week _ ' for several weeks and then skip a week or two weeks or even a mon or so, while still others would chew bones at very irregular intervvf Let us now consider the mineral mixtures that the animals in l‘ different pastures had been getting. Pasture No, 4 contained thi h eight cows, twenty of which were placed on a mixture made up w] two parts of raw feeding bone meal and one part of salt. Fine s, was chosen so that the mixture would be made up of granules of nea. F equal size and thus prevent the finer bone-meal granules from sift' to the bottom and being lost. yTwenty-four cows with calves we placed in pasture No. 3, ten of which were offered straight bone me Twenty-four cows were placed in pasture No. 2 and were offered finel‘ ground rock phosphate as a carrier of the calcium and phosphorus. a cows receiving mineral were placed in a corral every morning whe the mineral mixtures were placed in small individual boxes, allowi two to three boxes more than there were cows on test in the lot‘ that each cow would have an equal chance. A few troughs fourt feet long were also used and found quite satisfactory. While the y cows were being fed the control cows had access to salt in an adjoinin corral. 2 Onlv so much of the bone meal and salt mixture or of the fine ; ’ ground rock phosphate was placed in the boxes as it was thought .af animals would consume, but in every case the maximum amount lowed was such that this amount contained three ounces of bone for each animal per day. In "this respect we were guided by thi number of animals that would eat the mixture and the probable that each animal would consume. The amount consumed varied f‘; only with the individual animal but also with the season of the :31‘ wNN M M MM MN MM M. M M MN N E »m »M NM NN NNMM L M »N NN NM NM M» T N NN N NN N »M N G NM ».w v mm w». mm ow wm M » J MM » n w o E MN MM WM NM m.» Mm WM NM NN G AMHNNM. aw MM ww ow hm aw on ow vw N NN MM NN NM MM »M NM MM NN MM A NN MN NM NM MN MM MN NN MN »M NN M NM M NM MM N» M NM NM MM MN M MN T MN NM MN NM M» »M NM »M MN NW NN MN N M M M M» » N» » NN N M» » . . N . . . x L NM NM MN NM N» »M NN M» NM N N» M , . . . , , .. A NN »M NN MM N» MM NN NM MN NM N» T, m MN h MN NW w» NW MN NM MN “NM N» MM MN av 0M 0M Mm NM NM om MN Mm AM MM . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . E NN MM o MM MM w» MM ww MN MN w». MM . . . . . . . N . . . . , . . .. N N M» NM MN MM MM MN MN N o » MM . . . , .. w NNNN MM NM NNNW N» w» NM NNNM MM MN M» WM MN N M N N» N MM M MM M NN M mfl M MN NM MN NNNN M» »N NMMN NM NN MM M» MM 1 M NM N NN » »M NN NN NM N» M» .. M MN NM M” NN NNNN »N MM MM MM NN M» NN M MN MN MN MM NNNM m MN M NNM M MNNN MN NNMN NM MM NN MW NN MN N» MM MM N»N M» M i » .NM NM MN NM NM MN N NN NM NM MM MM x MN N M MM MN M» MM M M M MN NM MN M MN M fi fl A@ 5w fi @ Aw x Z % , N . . . , . .. 4. NNN » »M NN MN NN N NM M M M MN . . . . .. » NMMN MN WM NM MM NN »M » N» M MM M MN NN . . , . . . . . , . . .. MN . m hm m w w w ». .». w». . . . , . . . , . . , . . . . , . .. M w Jv/A . MM m~ww wvmww MM Mwww NNN NNNN NN w NM MM MM NM M» NM MN WM MM MM NM MN/Mii N, v . , . , N , . N . .. N M M M M M N N N M N Z :5 m MN w% w». mm M»N.w Mv Mvww M» MNW». $0M Mflwv av MN . N N. M M M MM M M» M M M MM M: MM Mm m mm 0 mm x mm M Aw mv mm MN 4 w mm w mm v mm ». w». wv ma w Aw m MN NM NN NN NN M» MN NN » MN N N» NN MN NM MN MM »M N» MN MN M» M» NN N» 5 M M M MN M M M M M M M N M N; » » Mm? 1.5M» ..N NW NS NN N» MN , . . . fNM MN , , . . , . , . fm NM nub m». vv . , . . , . , , . . aw if. wm w” . NNQ »» Mwflmqxm. MN»N .>N M . , . , . . . , .. MM Z w . . . . . ., JUQ MN .50 3 M. , M vww w: . M N M. N h? N, NM,» / .AW0U:: ,0 NNN N? U .. M0 t 0595 . Mina U .. 7N0 , o N» z 77d: A M N , 5a . 1F iwhere the test cows were at first offered finely ground rock phospf 18 BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION it N0 difficulty was experienced as a whole with the cows in ==j;p_ No. 4 in getting the animals to eat the mixture with the exceptio cows Nos. 84 and 92. Cow No. 84 consistently refused to eat the _ ture and was the expert in finding bones when cast into the corr ferred to previously, while No. 92 would eat a little occasionally. _ a thorough trial both of these cows were later discontinued as l cows and placed with the control cows in pasture No. 4. ‘ With pasture No. 3 some difficulty was experienced in getting}, test under way. It will be-recalled that these were the cows l calves, and some of them got rather poor and seven of these devel creeps, so that it was deemed advisable to place such cows on =9 concentrated feed in order to save them. Thus, cows Nos. 19 I» of the test animals and cows Nos. 4, '7, 13, 35, 38, and 42 of the ' _ . trol animals were placed on cottonseed cake before the experiment? under way three weeks. But the other cows on test did not the pure bone meal. They would hardly touch it; however, if z: bones were thrown into the corral the bone-chewers would eagerly them and chew on them. The consumption of the pure bone meal so unsatisfactory that thirty-nine days after the beginning of the ' periment it was decided to add some salt to it. Therefore, a August 2, 1924, these cows were offered a mixture of three partai bone meal and two parts of fine salt. The cows soon got on to i change and thereafter the consumption was much more satisfac r This fact was also reflected in the condition of the test cows in early spring. iFEEDING ROCK PHOSPHATE, The greatest difficulty, however, was experienced in pasture Not alone. Ten of the twelve cows on this test were bone-chewers as also seven of the control animals. On the first day eight of the '__, cows “tasted” the rock phosphate, but on the following two days if would touchit. It was next mixed with fine salt at the rate of U parts of rock phosphate and one part of salt. This mixture was ofi during the next ten days, but the cows would not eat it. It was L mixed at the rate of equal parts of rock phosphate and salt and ofi for seven days with the same result. It was next mixed at the y; of one part of rock phosphate and two parts of salt but the cons 5 tion during the following fifteen days was still negligible. An attef was then made to increase the consumption by sprinkling a little c0 r seed meal over the mixture after the latter had been placed in i individual boxes, but now the cows would lick up the cottonseed “jg and leave the mineral mixture in the box. Three weeks later the “i ture was again changed to one part rock phosphate, one part salt, ‘_ one part bone meal. Even this mixture was refused by the cows, in order to give it a fair trial cottonseed meal was again made use}. to coax thecows into eating it. When this was done the consumpl increased and now varied between one and one—half to two pounds‘ FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE 19 the mixture per day for twelve animals and eventually to three pounds per day, but the cattle did not relish it very much, for as soon as the cottonseed meal sprinkled on top was cleaned off the cows would start ._ milling around from box to box till finally a few of the best eaters would clean up the mixture. After a thorough trial which lasted till May, 1925, the consumption Was not found satisfactory and for that reason the mixture was abandoned, for, unless it was far better relished than in this trial, it could never meet the requirements of a practical application. During January, at the time this test was still in prog- ress, all the test cows on this mixture became so weak that it was deemed advisable to place them on cottonseed cake. It was not possible with the amount of the mixture consumed by the cows to break the bone-chewing habit of a single animal. It thus appears that this mix- ture is not very effective in meeting the mineral requirements of cattle. THE EFFECT OF FEEDING BONE MEAL UPON THE ' ANIMAL ’ During the first year of these tests the bone-chewing habit and the general condition ofpthe animal as judged by the eye were the only indicators available. The latter, however, was not considered precise enough to furnish definite proof, for one’s judgment in this respect is not reliable enough to decide such a weighty question. It was, there- fore, found necessary to install scales at the beginning of the second year and to weigh the cattle at regular intervals. - - EFFECT UPON BONE-CHEWING HABIT Concerning the effect upon the bone-chewing habit but little need be said. All test cows chewing bone at the beginning of the experi- ment were eventually broken of this habit although it required-i as long as five months and longer to break up the bad ones.. The time re- quired to break an animal of this habit depends, of course, upon the amount of bone meal and salt mixture it will eat, and hence it was found that the hearty eaters could be more quickly broken than-the delicate eaters. Even after a month of bone meal feeding one can note that the desire for bones, even of the bad-chewers, has received a decided check and that bones are no longer taken so greedily, for_ a bone now thrown to an animal may not be picked iup, but the animal may play with it and roll it around on the ground-for a while, event- ually to walk off and forget it. A subsequent test may show the same result and soon thereafter the animal may no longer take notice of bones thrown to it. Other bone-chewers, howev-er, may continue to either play with the bones or actually chew them at the weekly test fora long time. It appears, however, under the conditions dealt with here, that not all animals consume enough of the bone meal and salt mixture to permanently break them of the bone chewing habit, for in the course of the experiments four animals were observed to again chew a bone during the second summer of the experiment, after they had been 2O BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION broken of the habit during the previous summer. It should be borne» in mind that not all animals will continue t0 eat the bone meal and salff mixture every day in the year with an even regularity. Some animals,» after eating the mixture with great daily regularity for a long time; will suddenly stop eating it for even as long as a period of four to six weeks or consume it more or less irregularly for a time, but such animals, as a rule, always come back and eat it regularly again. Fol», lowing the first winter, it was also observed that as soon as the green grass came out in th-e spring all test animals would refuse to eat bone‘: meal and salt mixtures almost entirely for a period of five weeks, after which time it was again consumed with great regularity. This result; was noted in all pastures alike. EFFECT UPON THE CONDITION OF THE ANIMAL is The most striking effect of the feeding of bone meal was reflected. in the condition of the animal. Thus, our records show that the ani- mals fed bone meal and salt passed the first winter in a much better condition than the control animals. Let us consider the different pas- i. tures separately. Of the thirty-one animals that survived the WIDiLBT r in pasture No. 4 seventeen were test animals and of these cows Nos. 84 and 92 would noteat the mixture. It may be stated here that cow No. 84 calved in November, 1924, got creepy i11 December, and was j placed on cottonseed cake to save her. Of the remaining fifteen test animals two were placed on cottonseed cake late in December because both had recently dropped calves and were nursing them, but neither of them showed signs of creepiness. Of the fourteen control animals in the same pasture a total of seven cows had to be placed on cotton- seed cake, three of which had young calves and were nursing them while four had no calves. If we class No. 84 and No. 92 as controls, for such they were in fact, then we would have eight out of sixteen controls on cottonseed cake during the winter while only two out of fifteen test animals had to be thus fed. And if we add control animal No. 73, which was recorded as creepy during November, 1924, and ' which perished in the severe freeze late in December, then the scales are turned still more in favor of the test animals. but three calved during the winter or early spring while of the con- trols six did not calve. “'3 Of the latter all , f It must be borne in mind that the cows with calves were placed ind pasture No. 3 and were fed bone meal alone. They did not. show a satisfactory consumption, however, until it was changed to a mixture of three parts of bone meal to two parts of fine salt. This was done on August 2, 1924. There was, therefore, not much opportunity for the effects of the bone-meal consumption to assert itself before winter was at hand andone would expect this fact to be reflected in the con- dition of the animals during the winter. Even at the time this change . "g .. was made some of the cows, both test and controls, had to be placed on cottonseed meal to which a little bone meal was added, for they were getting very thin and several of them were creepy already. Thus, of FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE . 21 Q, twenty-three remaining" cows in this pasture nine were recorded as er very poor or creepy and placed on feed on or before August 16, y To this number four more had to be added before October was rand, making a total of thirteen out of twenty-two cows now re- "ng that had to be placed on feed and this in spite of the fact there was an abundant supply of grass in the pasture. This fact ' Eld be kept in mind, for it is hardly conceivable that under such ,~'tions the cattle industry can flourish. The fact that drouth pre- ed during the late summer may have had an influence, but drouth i prevailed during the following summer when an opportunity was rded‘ to compare a larger number o-f cows on bone meal and salt p re with similar control animals, the outcome of which was very actory and in favor of the bone meal mixtures. inter was already too close at hand when the remaining cows in i re No. 3 began to show a real taste for the mixture and notwith- 'ng that by December 1 all calves were weaned, it was found sary, on December 2'7, to place the last of the cows in this pas- _' on cottonseed meal for the remainder of the winter. It should opt in mind, however, that once a cow was placed on test she re- f» her respective mineral mixture irrespective of any other change Qmight have been made. ‘- was in the following spring, however, that the consumption of »_ meal and salt mixture began to tell its story. The test cows g» sleek and began to put on flesh much sooner than did the con- cows. They now carried more belly and undoubtedly were grow- 3 rger. They soon did not look like the same cattle of the pre- summer. Since all animals in this pasture were eventually placed ttonseed meal during the winter, they~ all had an equal chance .he differences 110W apparent must be attributed to the bone meal i}; mixture. Such was the status of pasture No. 3 when, on 17, 1925, the animals were weighed for the first time, for early summer of 1925 scales were installed in order that the cattle 1 we weighed periodically and that a better presentation and ob- e demonstration of the change in condition of the animal might . already outlined, the cows in pasture No. 2 on rock phosphate, meal, and salt in equal parts did not eat this mixture very well; uence the results were not expected to be satisfactory in the end. y- therefore, finally decided to abandon this mixture entirely, and y 8, 1925, it was changed toa mixture of bone meal and salt in i parts. ‘< result of this poor consumption was, that on January 25, 1925, on test in pasture No. 2 were getting so poor that cottonseed added to their mixture at the rate of one pound per head y, and this was continued till March 6, when green grass came _> all cows on test irrespective of the mixture fed refused to eat espective mineral mixtures. But even with the cottonseed meal (four of the remaining ten cows on test, Nos. 31, 43, '76, and 82, 22 BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION developed creeps during April, 1925, and were creepy at the time mixture was changed to equal parts of bone meal and fine salt. y Of the ten control animals in this pasture that survived the winvf five were placedon cottonseed meal during the Winter and one of th‘ succumbed from poverty in the latter part of March after it had calv’ There is no doubt that ticks were a contributing factor. Of the o five control animals that were not placed on cottonseed meal, f0 Nos. 18, 45, 5'7, and 74, showed a light attack of creeps in Novem but improved later, two of which, Nos. 45 and '74, again develo creeps during the following summer after they had calved. g CONCLUSIONS FROM FIRST YEAR’S OPERATIONS In drawing conclusions from the results obtained during the |. summer, fall, and Winter it must first be decided Whether the cows A pasture No. 2 and pasture No. 3 could really be considered as ha: had sufficient time or as having consumed a sufficient amount of i mineral mixtures supplied to declare it a fair and valid test to sh, the maximum efliciency of the mineral mixture as affecting the ~ dition of the animals during the first winter. The writer is of opinion that this is not the case, for the cows in pasture No. 3 ,9 not begin to consume a satisfactory amount of it until the middle“ September, 1924, while the cows in pasture No. 2 on rock phosph bone meal, and fsalt in equal parts, did not begin to consume maximum amount of three pounds of the mixture for ten cows ‘ the middle of November, 1924,. which amount they continued to sume till March 12, 1925, when green grass came on and all vi stoppedeating their mixture. If this amount of the rock phosp bone meal, and salt mixt'ure consumed during the time indicate considered sufficient to supply the animals with the needed amoun calcium and phosphorus, then it must be concluded that the mi was a dismal failure, for the animals could be neither broken ofq bone-chewing habit nor be kept from getting. creepy. . In contrast to this the results obtained in pasture No. 4, on. parts of bone meal and one part of salt are strikingly different. Of fift-een animals on bone meal and salt mixture, only two animals ‘ to be Placed on cottonseed meal, and both of these had young ca Of the sixteen animals not eating bone meal eight had to be plac cottonseed meal. RESULTS OF THE SECOND YEAR’S OPERATIONS i _ In the spring of 1925 a large percentage of the cows in pasture l and pasture No. 4 calved, and this fact must be kept in mind, greatly increases the demand for calcium and phosphorusin such mals. Other changes were made on May 2 in so far as someyof. animals hitherto used as controls were placed on test to replace losses and No. 84 and No. 92 previously on tes_t in pasture No. 4_ I now placed in the controls because they refused to eat the mix f, ‘hirty new cows were bought from a neighbor, the numbers 111 to 43, inclusive, of which twenty-six were used as new controls. At this ‘l 1n the mineral mixture of pasture No. 2 was changed from a mixture- ff finely ground rock phosphate, bone meal, and salt in equal parts w a mixture made up of equal parts of bone meal and fine salt. It. hould be pointed out that cows Nos. 58, 59, 69, and 81, hitherto used controls, were placed on test because they were known to be bad -ne-chewers. Their future behavior in this respect should give us I jlclue as to the real value of bone meal in breaking this habit. STATUS OF THE ANIMALS IN THE SPRING OF 1925 _ Let us first briefly review the condition of the anim-als at this time, ay 1, 1925. This is, of course, the time when new gra.ss is abundant- j- cattle are expected to mend rapidly. Nevertheless there was a. '} king difference in favor ‘of the test cows in pastures Nos. 3 and 4. y a peculiar coincidence two cows on test in pasture No. 4, cows os. 41 and 48, were, on May 1, 1925, observed to chew bones again pr the first time after being broken of the habit. Cow No. 41 has “- been observed to chew bones since. Another cow on test in this ‘asture, cow No. 32, at this time also took to chewing bones again for ve weeks. That these three cows should take to chewing bones again 1; be attributed to the fact that all had young calves, for all had a od record in the consumption of bone meal. A fourth animal, No. ,, later also took to chewing bones again. Of the sixteen control imals in pasture No. 4, ten, or 62 per cent, were still bone-chewers. 10f the cows in pasture No. 3, all of which had been dry since De- _mber, 1924, two, cows Nos. 35 and '78, must still be considered as: ne-chewers. Cow No. 35 was put on test on November 4, 1924. he had a good record in the consumption of bone meal up to March 5, 925, when she stopped eating bone meal together with practically all 5| other cattle and did not start eating it again until July 1, 1925. ow N0. '78 had a rather low and irregular record in the consumption é bone meal, ate no bone meal at all from March 1 to May 1, 1925, ji continued very low till August 15, 1925, so that it is not surpris- in that she should start chewing bones again, the mor-e so since she a bad bone-chewer from the beginning. The test cows in pastur-e No. 2 were on May 2, 1925, changed from _ mixture of finely ground rock phosphate, bone meal, and fine salt in ual parts, to a mixture consisting of equal parts ofbone meal and ne salt. At this time all cows in pasture No. 2 were in poor con- 'tion; in fact, four of the test cows, Nos. 31, 43, 76, and 82, were ecorded as creepy at this time, indicating that the mixture they were etting was not effective in preventing this trouble. After these four cows had eaten their new bone meal and salt mixture for ten weeks they had entirely recovered from creeps and did not again get creepy during the following year. Soon after these cows were placed on their new mixture it became FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE 23 24 BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION possible to get a record of their Weights at" regular intervals. much as the Weights of the animals could not be obtained before I of them were placed on test, the first Weights recorded do not tell whole story. They do not give a true picture of the real diffe¢ between the conditions of the test‘ and control animals, for they us nothing of the size of the animals. Even a knowledge of thew of the animals is not enough to supply accurately the needed additi A data. It must be kept in mind that we are here dealing With ;~ cattle of every description where a pronounced lack of uniformity vails and where the weight does not indicate the real flesh-car capacity of the animal. Measurements of the size of the frame of; animals might help out inrinterpreting this flesh-carrying capaO but such measurements are not at hand at this time. The writer l!_ therefore, be pardoned for burdening the reader with’ a few remi on this point. Cow No. 88 has a rather large frame and could more flesh and fat than she does, but she is long-legged and natur does not fatt-en readily. Cows No. 49 and 79 are of rather u: stature, part Jersey, and hence not of a beef type. All the other H1 ture cows are in between these two extremes and their weights prob i reflect the maximum results obtainable under the conditions of experiment. The young, immature cows are naturally not fully - veloped, light in weight, and represent the normal weight of cows of t age on the present range. - In order that the age of the animal with its influence upon i‘ growth and condition of the same may be brought out more ole and a better comparison achieved, the following tables are presented; which th-e age of the animals is used as a basis of division into grou In reading the tables one must remember that it is palpably unfair:- compare the weights of cows nursing calves with dry cows. Since became necessary to place some of the cows on cottonseed meal to k' from losing them, this fact has been brought out in the tables as clea; as possible. ‘ l’ FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE 25 Table 2. Gain and Loss in Weight 0f Cows 0n Bone Meal and Controls 4 Years Old c E .731: 5 g é, 2 11% ‘i? .5 U 1; .2 b0 ti; ‘l’ m u‘ Q ‘g Q 0-1 -- Haw 2 E 5 §$ é § Li)“ ‘a: .2; 3 g Remarks 3 53 3 a‘: 3 T5 é?» 8'5” 5g E "-" fi 351i '5» B 5E *3 Eli z 6’ 63 E. E 5 5°. 5’ B Cows _ on 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550 630 587 80 14 .54 43 On bone meal since 5-2-25 bone 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622 717 655 95 15 .25 62 On bone meal since 6-25-24 meal 136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 800 745 138 20 .84 55 On bone meal slnce 5-2-25 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 568 *530 63 12 .47 38 Advanced pregnancy 87 2- 5-25 11-30-25 550 646 525 94 17 .09 121 111 4-29-25 2- 2-26 430 500 450 70 16 .27 50 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. m. Con- 113 5-29-25 6-17-25 407 452 412 45 1 1 .05 40 trol . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . 1g Advanced pregnancy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 465 435 43 10.19 30 122 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 540 480 78 16 .88 60 127 5-12-25 2- 2-26 450 525 470 75 16 .66 55 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. m. 137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552 630 610 78 14.13 20 142 ‘I 2- 1-26 440 530 495 9O 2O .95 35 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. m. 143 ‘I 415............ . . . . ......Diedw1thcreeps. , *This weight is explained in note under ‘_‘Remarks” in this table. Note: c. s. m. and b. m. equals two-thirds pound of cottonseed meal plus four ounces of bone meal per day. Table 3. Gain and Loss in Weight of Cows on Bone Meal and Controls 5 Years Old. g g 4a 54% O w P‘: E “'5 5.5 c: u 1;, 4: .2" no 1: "'51 '" - =8 g gm g '5 ‘a? ‘EU g Remarks 5 5 3 3°?‘ ~ E 3E '55. i“; e m 3 a‘; 3 5 is» 1°35 2= E =5 ‘f, ‘SA '5. a m 1-3 "=15 ._ ___ o o ... Z u u .5 v m .4 a. 5i 3 41 3-19-2511-30-25 530 730 555 100 15.87 5 _ “m” 93i1"n'54'5'1755 733 358 2?? 133 55%? 22W“ on — — - — . 722 o“ mea - — — - . 95 5-20-25 2-1-25 570 592 475 22 3.85 117 On bone beal since 5-2-25 15 3-17-25 . . . . . . .. 542 747 *515 105 15.19 132 N515 calving date §Z'5'5555"5"17'5* Z38 288 ‘£33 S3 53713 23D“ ‘° m“ S°°“‘ m“ m“ 1 "' - - '* J 1 . Con- 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 500 585 505 s5 14.15 so Virgin trol 92 6- 1-25 2- 2-26 532 550 510 18 . . . . .. 40 Creepy on 9-25-25 and placed - - — - . . . . .. reep on — — ; c cows 94 2 15 251130 25 400 510 475 110 ' 35cm 0' 8' 11714417125? d " c.s.ym.andb.m.pae on ’ 125 ‘Z 11-30-25 475 540 500 65 13 .70 4O Creepy on 7-17-25 and placed on c. s. m. and b. m. 132 6- 9-25 3-25-26 595 615 585 20 . . . . . . 30 Creepy on 9-11-25 and placed on c. s. m. and . m. 133 6- 8-25 2- 2-26 582 582 495 0 0 .00 30 Creepy on 8-31-25 and placed on c. s. m. and b. m. 135 ‘? 2- 2-26 510 510 485 0 0.00 25 Creepy on 8-31-25 and placed on c. s. m. and b. m. *This weight is explained in note under “Remarks” in this table. Note: With exceptions noted above cows were place on bone meal on June 25, 1924. c. s. m. and b. m. equals two-thirds pound cottonseed _meal plus four ounces of bone meal per day. Last weights considered were taken on April 29, 1926. 26 BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 4. ‘Gain and Loss in Weight of Cows on Bone Meal and Controls 6 and 7 Years Old .2‘, , . *4 v—4 c: "E, ._‘.§-cs 5 2 3 f; ‘i; ‘E3 r: Q q A .39 m :1 ~13 "‘ o y; Q ..- .... .,_. m "5 q g 53$ g g 65E s? 5m Remarks a: 8 s 3,1 1; .. as, 5% .33 J2 CG a T5“ GD g 0S1 e a - -.=| e B a: a w» 5 T“ 1; .El\ g1 o o 5 .201 Z u o .2 l.‘ .4 n. an 3 ‘ 1 3- 3-26 . . . . . . . . 822 *79O 173 21 .04 205 Note calving date .:_ 11 6-16-25 2- 2-26 687 570 0 0 .00 117 On bone meal since 5-2- 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 710 140 21.31 87 _ Cows 31 3-15-25 11-25-25 710 610 0 0.00 100 On bone meal since 5-2- ».,' on 32 2- 8-25 6-17-25 692 772 130 18 78 50 '. meal 59 4-19-25 11-30-25 662 540 O 0.00 120 On bone meal since 5-2- 67 12-27-24 10-20-25 717 . 8 _ 71 2-14-25 aborted 687 707 103 15.00 8.2 On bone meal since 5-2- 995 797 797 710 s22 . bone 4s 2-13-2511-25-25 527 22g 540 e3 11.95 50 On bone meal since 5-2- s05 790 s50 . . 11-25-24 15-17-25 702 s65 785 163 23.35 s0 On bone meal since5—2— {O 18 12-18-25 . . . _. . . . . 747 82(7) 610 80 1g .71 2&7 Note calving date C g: @4555 1043145 520 01s *595 9s 1sls4 2s Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b3 n- . : 8'01 45 2-12-25 10-31-25 .517 595 535 78 15 .08 60 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and h.‘ cows 62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652 715 600 63 9 .66 115 ' 74 3-15-25 10-31-25 445 608 580 163 36 .63 28 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b.’ 97 12-13-25 . . . . . . . . 750 878 *765 128 17 .06 113 Note calving date j . 138 5-19-25 aborted 650 755 665 :05 16 .15 90 q‘ I *This weight is explained in note under “Remarks” in this table. Note: Unless otherwise indicated _cows on bone meal since June 25, 1924. ~~: weights considered were taken on April 29, 1926. c. s. m. and b. m. equals two-thi -» . pound cottonseed meal plus four ounces of bone meal. ‘ s v . ‘E FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE . 27 Table 5. Gain and Loss. in Weight of Cows on Bone Meal and Controls 8 Years Old or Over. ‘F’ -—< B s .. ,5?» Es O so ~53 E N“ U “d f” ._ 3p e3 “w ,,, e. g -_ ° u; 6+» 3L7 w Remarks o q mo g m om cu U0 '*-' o1 --> ,_] s '5 é ' a ~ we. es. .2 J2 CQ -'l\ m ‘Um- °"~— o a - - ~37 35 é =3 U; s5 :1 '5 Q "-1- £9 o 5H1 h “Cu g Q Z u u .-. m .4 o. n. 3 8 3-19-25 6-17-25 725 .865 780 140 19.31 85 1 15 9- 9-24 11-22-25 820 892 770 72 8.78 122 On bone meal since 5-2-25 19 2-27-26 . . . . . . . . 712 850 *645 138 19 .38 205 Note calving date 21 3- 5-26 aborted 707 845 750 138 19 .52 95 Note calving date 29 7-20-25 2- 1-26 875 875 *680 0 0 .00 195 Note calving date‘ 34 4- 5-26 . . . . . . . . 722 855 760 133 18 .42 95 Note calving date 49 2-21-25 6-17-25 647 647 595 0 0.00 52 55 3-31-25 11-30-25 777 860 750 83 10 .68 110 . 58 3- 3-25 11-30-25 682 825 750 143 20 .98 75 On bone meal since 5-2-25 68 8- 9-24 9-15-25 647 707 590 6O 9.27 117 - 69 2-15-25 6-17-25 677 850 780 173 25 .55 70 On bone meal since 5-2-25 meal since 5-2-25 f 82 3-11-2511-25-25 635 650 560 15 2.36 90 Creepy on 5-2-25; 0n bone meal since 5-2-25 83 3-17-26 . . . . . . . . 857 1022 *825 165 _ 19 .28 197 Note calving date 88 4- 4-25 6-17-25 810 955 805 145 17.90 150 117 ‘I 6-17-25 722 895 802 173 24 .01 93 On bone meal since 5-‘2-25 131 3-22-26 . . . . . . . . 790 895 *740 105 13.28 155 Note calving date 4 3- 3-26 . . . . . . . . 705 .795 *62O 90 12 .76 175 Note calving date 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725 817 692 92 12 69 115 39 2-22-25 11-30-25 522 570 520 48 9 19 5 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792 852 805 60 7 .56 47 89 3-22-25 2- 2-26 610 680 655 7O 11 .49 25 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. m. 124 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642 745 617 130 16 04 128 ' 126 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560 670 63 110 19 64 4 0 . O 129 2-25-26 3- 5-26 775 825 *627 58 6.45 128 Note calving date 134 8-16-25 2- 1-26 *802 802 597 0.00 205 Note calving date 139 ? 11-30-25 802 802 655 0 O .00 247 - 141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712 775 700l 63 8 .84 75 76 3-12-2511-25-25 725 735 680 10 1.36 56 Creepy on 5-2-25; 0n bone. *This weight is eygplained in note under “Remarks” in this table. l _ _ Note: Last weights considered were taken on April 29, 1926. Unless otherwise indicated cows were placed on bone meal on June 25, 1924. g The foregoing tables would give a uniform basis of comparison if . all test cows had been on the same bone mealmixture and for the same ‘length of time. In view of the fact that this has not been the case, ‘the following tables, in which the period of lactation, the initial weight 50f the animal on July 1'7, 1925, the highest weight, the loss in weight fduring the following winter, the time the animals were on their re- spective bone meal and salt mixtures (the age of the animals can be obtained fromTables 2, 3, 4, and 5) and the condition of the animals fare recorded. Considering all these circumstances, this ‘probably gives us the fairest basis of comparison. 28 BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION _Table 6. Gain and Loss in Weight of Cows in Pasture No. 2 c E Eu fi 3 Z E —~ as E2 = ‘r L3 "c! -=‘- .3” '5: rag “'5 "‘ - w -v-1 . 7 E w N B Om e-VH ,4“ Remarks h a v - 3| ..» w :4‘ "5 .3 no 3 7.52 3 ‘i ~33 3E3” 85 5 :5 a; ==¢ s é is .3 E: "" -—~ o o o ' Z u u 5 I‘. .4 m. c. 3 I 11 6-16-25 2- 2-26 687 797 O 15 9- 9-24 11-22-24 820 892 770 72 8 .78 122 31 3-15-25 11-25-25 710 710 00 100 Creepy on 5-8-25 Cows 43 2-13-25 11-25-25 527 590 540 63 .95 5O Creepy on 5-8-25 630 54 43 Virgin bone 68 8- 9-24 9-15-25 647 707 7 meal 71 2-14-25 aborted 687 790 76 ‘3-12-2511-25-25 725 735 680 10 82 3-11-25 11-25-25 635 \l Q \I r-n O CA9 r-nr-u-A 83 .36 55 Creepy on 5-8-25 .36 9g Creepy on 5-8-25 86 6-26-25 7-12-25 627 698 103 1 _42 6 ' 95 6-20-25 2- 1-25 570 592 475 22 .86 117 17 11- 2-24 10-20-25 700 700 690 10 . 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630 690 640 60 52 50 ' . .- 84 23 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. 24 2-13-25 10-31-25 520 618 595 98 Con- 45 2-12-25 10-31-25 517 595 535 78 trol _ 57 . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792 852 805 6O cows 74 3-15-25 10-31-25 445 608» 580 163 .08 6O Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. t 56 47 63 28 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. _ .47 38 Heavy with calf a ,4». 05 40 13 22 Due to calve shortly a .33 72 '. 45 198 Note calving date l-l U-l e- c: o1 m m q h o1 w m no 0-1 mpg; @WQEMmqa;wo wmw~mwA~o 9 129 2-25-26 3- 5-26 775 825 *627 5O *This weight is explained in note under “Remarks” in this table. _ 7 Note: Cows on bone meal since May 2, 1925. c. s. m. and b. m. equals two-thirds * pound cottonseed meal plus four ounces of bone meal per day. Last weights considered’ - . were taken on April 29, 1926. FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE 29 Table 7. Gain and Lossyin Weight of Cows in Pasture No. 3. -*-> '8 a g 3 *-‘ ‘ii c. ° -* .:: '5 ‘=-- ._ ff ‘"2 f» '5’ f5’ .53 I65 a o F: 5m a ° O M E g 3N B g C) 3 GE ‘qg Remarks 0 o l ‘y’; u V1,: l: W0 a. i: g m 3 a? g 3 2.99 5'6 Si; = "a "a El‘ 39 5 i’: S? 5”" Z u u ._. .1 .4 a. m. B 1 3- 3-26 . . . . . . . . 822 995 *790 173 21 .04 205 Note calving date 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 657 797 710 140 21.31 87 _ 19 2-27-26 . . . . . . . . 712 850 *645 138 19 .38 205 Note calving date 21 3- 5-26 aborted 707 845 *750 1,38 19 .52 95 Note calving date 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 855 *760 133 18 .42 95 Due to calve shortly 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775 950 860 175 22 58 90 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 850 795 128 17 .72 55 _ 83 3-17-26 . . . . . . . . 857 1022 *825 165 19.28 197 Note calving date ' 117 ‘.7 6-17-25 722 895 802 173 24 .01 93 On bone meal since 5-2-25 131 3-22-26 . . . . . . . . 790 895 *74O 105 13.28 155 Note calymg date; on bone meal since 5—2—25 4 3- 3-26 . . . . . . . . 705 795 *620 90 12 .76 175 Note calving date 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 725 817 692 92 12 .69 115 _ 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747 827 *610 8O 10 .71 217 Note calving date 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630 715 610 85 13 49 105 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652 715 600 63 9 66 115 97 12-13-25 . . . . . . . . 750 878 _ 765 128 17 .06 113 111 4-29-25 2- 2-26 430 500 450 70 16 .27 50 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. m. 122 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 540 480 78 16 .88 60 132 6- 9-25 3-25-26 595 615 585 20 . . . . . . 30 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. m. 135 6- 8-25 2- 2-26 510 510 450 0 0 .00 60 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. m. 138 5-19-25 aborted 650 755 655 105 16 15 9O 141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712 775 700 63 .84 75 142 ‘Z 2- 1—26~ 440 530 495 90 20 .45 35 Creepy; fed c. s. m. andb. m. *This weight is explained in note under “Remarks” in this table. Note: c. s. m. and b. m. equals two-thirds pound cottonseed meal plus four ounces of bone meal per day. Last weights considered were taken on April 29, 1926. 3O BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXASAGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 8. Gain and Loss in Weight of Cows in Pasture No. 4. c! E .731: 5 3 E, z ‘<22 "i? .5 2 g i“ '5 ‘g ‘E3 :8 3°» Remarks ° 5 2 °£ 5 3 <3 ‘a; .3 - ,3 w . s o => ii a .. as 5a .2 .0 £0 3 TQv-i 2 3 25> U‘; 3 g 5 “T; "-5, EA a g g: s? an. Z u u ._. m 4 o. o. B 8 3-19-25 6-17-25 725 865 780 140 19 .31 8 29 7-20-25 2- 1-26 *875 875 680 0 .00 195 Note calving date 32 2- 8-25 6-17-25 692 822 772 130 18.78 5O 41 3-19-25 11-30-25 630 730 665 100 15 .87 65 49 2-21-25 6-17-25 647 647 595 O . 00 5 .p 55 3-31-25 11-30-25 777 860 750 83 10.68 110 ; " Cows 58 3- 3-25 11-30-25 682 825 750 143 2O .98 75 On bone meal since 5-2-25 " on _ 59 4-19-25 11-30-25 662 662 540 0 0.00 120 On bone meal since 5-2-25 i bone 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757 940 875 183 24.17 65 Virgin meal 67 12-27-24 10-20-25 717 805 717 88 12 .26 88 3 69 2-15-25 6-17-25 677 850 780 173 25 .55 70 On bone meal since 5-2-25 f 79 11- 2-24 6-17-25 630 730 675 100 15 .87 55 i 81 11-15-24 6-17-25 702 865 785 163 23 .36 80 On bone meal since 5-2-25 ~ 22 2‘ 2'22 21222 222 222 222 122 1222 222 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622 717 655 95 12 :25 62 Virgin 136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 800 745 138 20 .84 55 Viggin; (an bone meal since 16 3-17-26 . . . . . . . . 642 747 *615 105 16 .19 132 Note calving date 27 . . . . . . . ‘. . . . . . . . . 580 660 597 80 13 .79 63 Due to calve shortly 36 2-26-25 6-1 7-25 490 600 560 110 22 .49 4O 39 2-22-25 11-30-25 522 570 520 48 9 .19 5O 22 a‘ ii ‘seas 222 222 222 22 i9‘ "$2 122 “"2” ~ 89 3-22-25 2- 2-26 610 680 655 7O 11 :49 25 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. u." C0n— 92 6- 1-25 2- 2-26 532 550 510 18 . . . . . . 4O Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. ;_ trol 94 2-15-25 11-30-25 400 510 475 110 . . . . . . 35 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. cows i? . . . . . . . . . '. i9 . Died with creeps ‘5-12-25 iiiiiii: 745 130 “$.64 Died with creeps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 _ 125 ‘? 11-30-25 475 540 500 65 13 .70 40 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. - _ 127 5-12-25 2- 2-26 450 525 470 75 16 .66 55 Creepy; fed c. s. In. and b. . f 133 6- 8-25 2- 2-26 582 582 490 0 0.00 30 Creepy; fed c. s. m. and b. u 8-16-25 2- 2-26 7g 12 2% Note calving date 415.... Diedwithcreeps *This weight is ex lained in note under “Remarks” in this table. Note: Unless otherwise indicated cows on bone meal since June 25, 1924. c. s. m. and b. m. equals two-thirds pound cottonseed meal plus four ounces of bone meal per day. Last weights considered were taken on April 29, 1926. As will b-e seen from Tables 6, '7, and 8 some of the control co _ developed creeps during the rather dry summer. Such cases of creef became apparent especially during the latter half of July, and -< August 1 such cows were placed on a mixture of two parts of b0“ meal and one part of fine salt in order to observe the effects of t” mixture upon the course of the trouble. Since these cows were r accustomed to this mixture the consumption at the outset was n/ satisfactory enough to meet the emergency, and since it was very nec; sary to get such cows on a concentrated ration as quickly as possib the bone meal and salt mixture for the creepy cows was changed, _ . August 18, to a mixture of two-thirds pounds cottonseed meal pl four ounces of bone meal per day and per head. This mixture FEEDING BONE MEALi TO RANGE CATTLE 31 eadily consumed and the cows improved satisfactorily but still re- ained thin. As soon as improvement permitted the cows were taken if this mixture and allowed grazing only, although some of the cows Md not continue to improve after being taken off and had to be placed ack on again. As winter was approaching and as a supply of cotton- cake had been purchased for the winter, the above ration was anged to cottonseed cake only on December 28, 1925, and of this " pounds per head per day was fed thereafter until the last could ‘n- removed from feed on January 28, 1926. Table 9 shows the cows lhich became creepy and were fed as outlined above. able 9. Creep}; Cows Among the Controls Placed on Two-thirds Pound Cottonseed‘ Meal » Plus Four Ounces of Bone Meal Per Day. - Recorded as Number of Animal Placed on Recovered Number _of Days " Mixture fromOCreeps on Mixture n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,.......Aug. 1,19250ct. 1,1925 150 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 1, 1925 Oct. 1 , 1925 150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 1 , 1925 Oct 1 , 1925 42 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug. 1, 1925 Oct. 1, 1925 119 _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Aug. 1,1925............. Willnoteatdied 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 1 , 1925 Oct. 1 , 1925 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 12, 1925 Oct. 1 , 1925 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 12, 1925 Oct. 1, 1925 44 _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Aug 12,1925............. Willnoteatdied < 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug 12 , 1925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Will not eat; died 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 31, 1925 Oct l, 1925 18 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 31. 1925 Oct 1. 1925 48 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug 31. 1925 Oct 1 , 1925 42 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 31. 1925 Oct 1, 1925 3 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aug 31. 1925 Oct 1. 1925 103 . Note: In addition to the number of days on cottonseed meal plus bone meal as recorded n veqlgglscows, except the three that died, had to be placed on cottonseed cake during J an- ‘ The creepy cows on cottonseed meal and bone meal were kept in eir respective pastures while on this mixture so that they might con- 'ue to serve as controls. Although these cows received more bone eal per day than any of the test cows and two-thirds pounds of cotton- led meal in addition, still their gain in weight did not equal that of I e test cows in pastures Nos. 3 and 4, but equalled that of the test jws in pasture No. 2. There are probably several reasons for this. v the lFirst place, the creepy cows were not placed on this mixture till kugust 18, 1925, and hence not enough time had elapsed before winter me on for the mixture to show its greatest efliciency. In the second iiplace, the cows in pasture No. 2 had been on the rock phosphate mixture gfluring the previous year, which mixture proved a failure to the extent ; at four of the twelve cows on test with this mixture developed creeps f May, 1925, thus virtually placing these four animals on a par with e control animals that. became creepy during 1925 and that were ’placed on cottonseed meal and bonemeal and are under consideration Ijiere. It is significant that the four test cows,in pasture No. 2 which gavere reported creepy on May 8, 1925, had recovered from this affliction ' respectively, the control cow No. 92 and the test cow No. 11 were placed 32 BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION by July 1'7, 1925, without having received any concentrate in additi t0 the three ounces of bone meal allowed per head and per day. ‘ the third place, the individuality of the cow which enables‘ it to wi Lj stand adverse conditions plays an incalculable role. That such a fact, plays an important part is indicated by" the fact that the cows nil 29, 49, and 59 on test in pasture No. 4 and cow No. 31 on test '_ pasture No. 2 should not make anygains after July 1'7, 1925, and the fact that certain cows show a tendency to become creepy year afte" year. It is possible that the four cows mentioned above would hav developed creeps had they not been fed bone meal. In this» connectio it is interesting to compare the monthly record in the consumption bone meal shown in Table 1. But the very fact that such a lar 51f. number of control cows from the other two pastures developed r1? and‘ very likely would not have survived but for the additional fee allowed, in which case the gain would have been naught, is strong evidence that bone meal fed at the rate of three ounces per head and 1 per day is very effective in preventing creeps. Upon reading the notes in the column headed “Remarks” in Tables- 6, '7, and 8, one will see that during July, August, and September? fifteen of the forty-five control cows contracted creeps and had to be‘: placed on cottonseed meal and bone meal in order to relieve the 001k dition, although three of these animals refused to eat this mixture 01' even pure cottonseed meal, and died with creeps before winter was a i hand. Of the twelve remaining creepy cows placed on cottonseed mea and bone meal, two were placed on test in pasture No. 4 (cows N0. 8 . and 94) on September 14, six were taken off the mixture on October '7 a and one on October 24. Two of the cows taken oif the mixtureon‘ October '7 and the cow taken off on October 24 did not improve satis- factorily- thereafter and hence were put back on the same mixture on November 16. The two remaining cows of the creepy lot, cows Nos; 45 and '74, did not improve enough so that they could be taken off and 3 hence were kept on the mixture till December 28, 1925, and were the placed on cottonseed cake alone till January 28, 1926. The three cows, Nos. 111, 135, and 142, placed back on the cottonseed-meal and boneg meal mixture on November 16, 1925, were handled exactly like cows: Nos. 45 and 74. It should be noted, hoxvever, that these five cows not longer showed symptoms of creeps‘ on October 1'7, but were kept on be cause they were so thin. It is of interest to note their weight record As winter approached it is but natural to expect some animals to t lose in flesh, and hence it is not surprising that in December cows were getting so poor that it was deemed advisable to place them on some con ' centrated feed. Thus, on December 1'7, the formerly creepy cows Nos. ' 12'7 and 133 and the control cow No. 139, and on December 20 and 24,‘ on cottonseed cake. To these cows were added on December 28 the following: Test cows Nos. 29, 31, 43, '76, 89, 94, and 95 and control ' cows Nos. 1'7, 132, and 134. Regarding the test cows added on the above date it should be recalled that Nos. 89 and 94 were not placed i FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE ' as ‘test till the middle of September, 1925, at which time they had fady developed creeps. With the exception of test cow N0. 29, which i; grazing in pasture No. 4., all the test cows placed on cottonseed cake been assigned to posture No. 2. To further clarify the situation ‘fin be stated that the test cows Nos. 31, 43, and 76 were creepy in y, 1925, at the time they Were placed on test on the bone-meal and .» mixture and No. 95 was a young cow with her first calf. All these were kept on a daily ration of two pounds of cottonseed cake from ember 28, 1925, to January 28, 1.926. .‘ hat, now, is the final result in terms of gain in weight of the test ._" as compared with the control cows? By adding the total gain "-1 after July 1'7, 1925, by the thirty-eight animals 0n bone meal 4 salt mixture and subtracting from it the total gain made by the “y-five control cows, one will find a difference of seven hundred and , pounds’ gain in favor of the thirty-eight cows fed bone meal and . ,This is indeed a creditable showing. In analyzing the result, lever, one must consider that the greatest gain had not been attained g October and November, a time at which eleven of the forty-five trol animals had already b-een on special feed for a considerable gth of time. . ANIMALS LOST iAnyone engaged in the product-ion of live stock is not only interested rein from the standpoint of gain in weight of the individual animal, t he is also vitally interested in the loss of animals by death, for the ularly important in the particular region where the work reported j e is being carried on are those diseases which we have not let learned control or where the death is due to causes not yet thoroughly estab- ‘hed. In tabulating the losses at our Loin Disease Field Laboratory at would come under these two categories, we find that nine animals “ed of unknown causes; that is, loin disease could certainly be excluded, l ‘t no opportunity was had to make a. post-mortem examination. Since animals had been vaccinated for anthrax, the author feels safe in eluding that disease, especially since the circumstances attending the Qath of these animals would not speak for anthrax. It appears, there- re, that some other cause or causes are at work which may or may not y’ the result of a mineral deficiency. It is at least significant that in "e out of forty animals lost at the laboratory during the two yea-rs é. has been in operation no definite cause could be assigned. Of the maining thirty-one animals lost eight perished during the severe freeze j: December, 1924, fourteen died with "loin disease, two with anthrax, ree with creeps, and the remainder with other known causes. When e exclude the eight animals which perished during the freeze we find at all but five of the animals lost were control animals. Of the five iimals on test, one developed numerous tumors throughout the body id died as the result of these; two died from loin disease aft-er they Vn to chewing bones again in the summer of 1925, and two died from 1: may indeed outweigh all the gains of the surviving animals. Par- "i 34 BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION l’ 10in disease before the bone-chewing habit had been broken. Tabl shows the distribution of the control animals lost exclusive of those a perished during the freeze and those that died of anthrax. Table 10. Died of Loin Disease Creeps Unknown ’ Other Causes “ lrlglr animal upon the weight and development of the calves of such a'_ It should be kept in mind that, exclusive of calves, eighty-eightf mals were placed on the grounds of the laboratory in June, 1924, to these, thirty animals were added on May 1, 1925, making a to r, one hundred and eighteen animals concerned. Only one-half of i or fifty-nine animals, were used as controls; that is, they were n; the same pasture as the test animals under ordinary grazing condi as practiced in the region concerned. Using the figures given in T_ 10 one finds that 44 per cent of the control animals died within» years from causes we must seek to control. 7 INFLUENCE OF FEEDING BONE MEAL TO THE COi UPON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CALVES i‘ It is of interest to note the effect of feeding bone meal to the ‘moi as compared with the calves of the control animals. Unfortunately number of calves available for such a comparison is rather sm a some of the calves had been sold to a butcher before scales were at I’, Inasmuch as the calves were not all born on the same day, and '4 much as the weights were taken at regular intervals, the weights a in Figure 5 are computed at two hundred days old. A Figure 5 represents the weights graphically. In reading and Ii preting the chart one must bear in mind that test cows Nos. 43 and 82 were reported creepy on May 8, 1925. - This date, falling the two hundred days under consideration, was at a rather cri time in the life of their calves and is reflected in the daily gaHf the calves. All three of these cows were grazing in pasture if No analysis of the chart is necessary; the weights speak for themse RECOMMENDATIONS The feeding of bone meal is recommended for range cattle on? Coastal Plains of Texas and wherever cattle exhibit symptomswasi scribed herein. ‘For this purpose, mixtures with salt such as two of bone meal to one part of salt or three parts of bone meal to; parts ofsalt ar-e recommended. d FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE 35 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ;In the latter part of June, 1924, twenty dry cows were placed on a ture of two parts of bone meal and one part of salt in a pasture in rris County, Texas, and twenty dry cows acted as controls in the ‘in pasture. Two of the cows offered the bone-meal and salt mixture used to eat it and one of these developed creeps soon after she ‘i be Lbs aso_ 55o we __ sao o_ —— -q 50o 7o _' _"-_1 _2'ro _ _ —1fi 34o 21o “gig $3S$$$$£f33$$58$$§$ Figure 5. Weights of calves at 200 days of age. Left: Calves from cows on bone meal. Right: Calves from control cows. pped a calf. Three of the test animals and seven of the control "als died during the following year. I ‘On the same date twelve other cows nursing calves were placed on A e bone meal in an adjoining pasture and eleven cows nursing calves Yd one dry cow were used as controls. The cows on test refused to ytthe pure bone meal,- and on August 2, 1924, they were offered in- l salt were changed. to a mixture consisting of bone meal and sal 36 BULLETIN NO. 344, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ‘g stead a mixture consisting of three parts bone meal and two parts", This mixture is eaten readily. At the time this change was f two of the test cows were creepy. Of the control cows six cows nu , calves developed creeps during the summer. Four test animals" four control animals died during the following year. ' ‘5 Beginning early in July, 1924, twelve other dry cows were iii different mixtures of finely ground rock phosphate and salt but A refused to eat them. Better consumption was secured when ground rock phosphate, bone meal, and salt were mixed in equal ‘ but consumption is still unsatisfactory. Twelve dry ‘cows c". controls in the same pasture. One of the test cows and four of‘ control cows died during the following year. Four of the remal test animals developed creeps early in May, 1925, and one of the trol animals developed creeps. _ On May 1, 1925, thirty new cows were added to the remaining »:_ All cows except the two which refused to eat the bone meal and mixture were continued on the original mixtures and the cows on. mixture of equal parts of finely ground rock phosphate, bone meal, equal parts. New cows were added to the different test lots so = bring the number on test up to forty-four as originally planned. I, “Beginning July 17, 1925, all cows were weighed at monthly i" vals. The cows on bone meal and ‘salt made better gains than control cows a11d the cows on bone meal and salt since June, 1, made better gains than those on bone meal and salt since May, 1 The calves of the cows on bone meal and salt weighed more when 1 hundred days old than the calves of the control cows. . Five of the forty-four test cows and thirteen of the fifty control i‘ died during the following year. Fifteen of the control cows and f, of the test cows develop-ed creeps during the summer of 1925. From these results it is concluded that feeding bone-meal and mixtures as here used. _ . . - 1. Increases the gain in weight during the favorable season. f 2. Cows thus fed rear better calves. 3. Effectively prevents creeps. 1 4. Reduces the losses from diseases other than those of an infecv. character. ~' e 5. Finely ground rock phosphate cannot be used to take the of bone meal. ' . ~. FEEDING BONE MEAL TO RANGE CATTLE 37 REFERENCES (1) Kellner, O. 1907. Die Ernaehrung der landwirtschaftlichen Nutztiere. Paul Parey, Berlin. . (2) Theiler, Sir Arnold. 1924. Phosphorus in the Live Stock Industry. Reprint N0. 18, Department of Agriculture, Union of South Africa. . (3) Forbes, E. B., and Keith, M. Helen. 1914. A Review of the Literature of Phosphorus Compounds in Animal Metabolism. Ohio q Agr. Exp. Station, Technical Series Bul. No. 5. (4) Babcock, S. M. 1905. Twenty-second Annual Rept, Wiscon- , sin Experiment Station. (5) Hart, E. B., Stcenbock, H., and Morrison, F. B. 1923. Min- erals for Live Stock. Agr. Exp. Sta., University of Wisconsin, Bulle- tin 350. (6) Marek, J. 1924. Wesen, gegenseitige Beziehung und Therapie der Rachitis der Osteomalacie und der Osteoporose. Archiv fuer Wis- senschaftliche und praktische Tierheilkunde. 51. Bd., 1 Heft. Julius Springer, Berlin. (7) Meigs, E. B., and Woodward, T. E. 1922. The Influence of Calcium and Phosphorus in the Feed on the Milk Yield of Dairy Cows. U. S. D. A.,-Bul. No. 945. (8) Roberts, I. P. 1897. The Fertility of the Land. The Mac- millan Company. A (9) Welch, Howard. 1917. Hairlessness and Goiter in New-born Domestic Animals. Agr. Exp. Sta., University of Montana, Bul. 119. (10) Scheunert, Arthur and Collaborators. 1922. Studien ueber Ostitis fibrosa bei Pferden. Zeitschrift fuer Infektionskrankheiten, parasitaere Krankheiten und Hygiene der Haustiere. 23. Bd., 3./4. Heft and 24. Bd., 2. Heft. Richard Schoetz, Berlin. (11) Hutyra& Marek. Pathology and Therapeutics of the Diseases of Domestic Animals, 2nd English edition. Alexander Eger, Chicago.