TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT sfifiiziilm“ A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR a COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 465 DECEMBER, 1932 DIVISION OF RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY Fattening Lambs 0n Corn, Milo, Hegari, Wheat, and Oats, with Cottonseed Cake and Alfalfa AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. 0. WALTON, President K. Mackey, M. STATION STAFFT Administration: ‘ A. B. Conner, M. S., Director R. E. Karper, M. S., Vice-Director Clarice Mixson, B. A., Secretary M. P. Holleman, Chief Clerk J. K. Francklow, Asst. Chief Clerk Chester Higgs, Executive Assistant Howard Berry, B. S., Technical Asst. Chemistry: G. S. Fraps, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. Asbury, M. S., Chemist J . F. Fudge, Ph. D., Chemist E. C. Carlyle, M. S., Asst. Chemist T. L. Ogier, B. S., Asst. Chemist A. J. Sterges, M. S., Asst. Chemist Ray Treichler, M. S., Asst. Chemist W. H. Walker, Asst. Chemist Velma Graham, Asst. Chemist Jeanne F. DeMottier, Asst. Chemist R. L. Schwartz, B. S., Asst. Chemist C. M. Pounders, B. S., Asst. Chemist Horticulture : S. H. Yarnell, Se. D., Chief "L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist H. M. Reed, B. S., Horticulturist J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist ~ Range Animal Husbandry: J M. Jones, A. M., Chief B. L. Warwick, Ph. D., Breeding Investa. S. P. Davis, Wool Grader IJ. H. Jones, B. S., Agent Animal Husbandry Entomology: F. L. Thomas, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. Reinhard, B. S., Entomologist R. K. Fletcher, Ph. D., Entomologist W Owen, Jr., M. S., Entomologist J. N. Roney, M. S., Entomologist J. C. Gaines, Jr., M. S., Entomologist S. E. Jones, M. S., Entomologist F. F. Bibby, B. S., Entomologist S. . Clark, B. S., Entomologist "E. W. Dunnam, Ph. D., Entomologist "R. W. Moreland, B. S., Asst. Entomologist C. E. Heard, B. S., Chief Inspector C. Siddall, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector S. E. McGregor, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector Agronomy: E. B. Reynolds, Ph. D., Chief S. D. Pearce, Secretary R. E. Karper, M. S., Agronomist J. H. Rodgers, Feed Inspector P. C. Mangelsdorf, Sc. D., Agronomist K. L. Kirkland, B S., Feed Inspector D. T. Killough, M. S., Agronomist' S. D. Reynolds, Jr., Feed Inspector H. E Rea, B. S., Agronomist P. A. Moore, Feed Inspector B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist E. J. Wilson, B. S., Feed Inspector H. G. Wickes, B. S., Feed Inspector SUBSTATIONS No. 1 Beeville, Bee County: . . Hall, B. S., Superintendent No. Lindale, Smith County: P. Johnson, M. S., Superintendent "B. H. Hendrickson, B. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion "R. W. Baird, B. S., Assoc. Agr. Engineer No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. Stansel, M. S., Superintendent H. . Reed, M. S., Horticulturist No. Beaumont, Jefferson County: R. Wyche, B. S., Superintendent "H. M. Beachell, B S., Jr., Agronomist No. 5, Temple, Bell County: Henry Dunlavy, M. S., Superintendent C. H. Rodgers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist S. E. Wolff, M. S., Botanist "H.V. Geib, M. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion "H. O. Hill, B. S., Jr. Civil Engineer No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. Dunkle, B. S., Superintendent "I. M. Atkins, B. S., Jr. Agronomist No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: R. E. Dickson, B. S., Superintendent B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. Jones, Superintendent Frank Gaines, Irrig. and Forest Nurs. sf» s’! Apiculture (San Antonio): Publications : A. D. Jackson, Chief Veterinary Science: ‘M. Francis, D. V. M., Chief H. Schmidt, D. V. M., Veterinarian I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian "F. P. Mathews, D. V. M., M. S., Veteri W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian R. A. Goodman, D. V. M., Veterinarian Plant Pathology and Physiology: , J. J. Taubenuhaus, Ph. D., Chief , W. N. Ezekiel, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist 1 C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist , Farm and Ranch Economics: 1 L. P. Gabbard, M. S., Chief W. E. Paulson, Ph. D., Marketng ‘HG. A. Bonnen, M. S., Farm Management ' "W. R. Nisbet, B. S., Ranch Management '7 A. C. Magee, M. S., Farm Management i Rural Home Research: ‘ Jesse Whitacre, Ph. D., Chief Mary Anna Grimes, M. S., Textiles Elizabeth D. Terrill, M. A., Nutrition Soil Survey: "W. T. Carter, B. S., Chief E. H. Templin, B. S., Soil Surveyor A. H. Bean, B. S.,Soil Surveyor R. M. Marshall, B. S., Soil Surveyor Botany: V. L. Cory, M. S., Acting Chief S. E. Wolff, M. S., Botanist Swine Husbandry: Fred Hale, M. S., Chief Dairy Husbandry: O. C. Copeland, M. S., Dairy Husbandry Poultry Husbandry: - v R. M. Sherwood, M. S., Chief J . R. Couch, B. S., Asst. Poultry Husbandma Agricultural Engineering: _ H. P. Smith, M. S., Chief Main Station Farm: G. T. McNess, Superintendent H. B. Parks, B. S., Chief A. H. Alex, B. S., Queen Breeder Feed Control Service: F. D. Fuller, M. S., Chief James Sullivan, Asst. Chief No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. Bayles, B. S., Superintendent No. 10, College Station, Brazos County: R. M. Sherwood, M. S., In Charge L. J. McCall, Farm Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H. F. Morris, M. S., Superintendent "No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: "J. R. Quinby, B. S., Superintendent "J. C. Stephens, M. A., Asst. Agronomist No. 14. Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties " W. H. Dameron, Superintendent g I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian O. L. Carpenter, Shepherd “O. G. Babcock, B. S., Asst. Entomologist No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. Friend, B. S., Superintendent S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: C. H. McDowell, B. S., Superintendent L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County: E. Mortensen, B. S., Superintendent "L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: G. W. Adriance, Ph. D., Horticulture S. W. Bilsing, Ph. D., Entomology V. P. Lee, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance D. Scoates, A. E., Agricultural Engineering A. S., Animal Husbandry *Dean School of Veterinary Medicine. "In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. TOn iIn cooperation with Texas Extension Service. J.‘ S. Mogford, M. S., Agronomy F. R. Brison, B. S.,~ Horticulture W. R. Horlacher, Ph. D., Genetics J. H. Knox, M. S., Animal Husbandry . b A. L. Darnell, M. A., Dairy Husbandry fAs of December 1, 1932. leave. Four feeding trials were conducted to compare lamb-fatten- ging rations using difierent common grains with alfalfa hay as the roughage. Cottonseed cake in rations with either threshed milo or oats and alfalfa produced greater gains and effected a considerable saving of grain and alfalfa. Grinding the threshed milo or threshed hegari did not in- crease the efficiency of the ration. The oats-fed lambs made satisfactory gains but they did not attain as high a finish as the milo-fed lambs in the same feeding period. Ground ear corn with husk, threshed milo, wheat, and threshed hegari gave satisfactory results when fed with cottonseed cake and alfalfa. The lambs fed shelled corn, cottonseed cake, and alfalfa hay made greater gains and had more finish than any other lot in these trials. Light feeder lambs made more economical gains than the medium-weight lambs, but on account of less flesh at the be- ginning, they did not have as much finish as the medium-weight lambs. CONTENTS Page Introduction Purpose Lambs used Management Feed lots and shelter Preliminary feeding and management Method of feeding Feeds Financial considerations Results obtained Cottonseed cake in a ration with threshed milo and alfalfa hay ______ __ 7 Cottonseed cake in a ration with oats and alfalfa hay ______________________ __ 8 Ground threshed milo compared with whole threshed milo ______________ __ 9 Ground threshed hegari compared with whole threshed hegari ________ ._11 Comparison of shelled corn and ground ear corn _____________________________ __12 Oats compared with threshed milo 13 Shelled corn compared with threshed hegari 13 Shelled corn compared with wheat 14 Equal parts Wheat and threshed hegari 14 Light lambs compared with medium-weight feeder lambs __________________ __14 Average daily ration in relation to the length of feeding period ______________ __14 Changes in daily amount of feed 15 Productive energy calculated from feeding ‘experiments __________ __________________ M16 Acknowledgments 18 Summary 18 Literature cited 19 -:| <1 -q a o: c‘: o: o>_ an o1 ‘y-_,,~,-..;~»‘,x.'\- - i A1 l ULLETIN NC. 465 i DECEMBER, 1932 ATTENING LAMBS ON CORN, MILO, HEGARI, WHEAT, a AND OATS, WITH COTTONSEED CAKE AND ALFALFA A. K. MACKEY and J. M. JONES fl The lamb-feeding trials reported in this Bulletin were made to gain iditional information on the value of Texas-grown feedstuffs for fat- ning lambs. Five trials (11) at the Spur Substation (Texas Bulletin 9) developed feeding data on the value of ground threshed milo, i, ound threshed kafir, and ground threshed feterita as compared with ound shelled corn, when each is fed with cottonseed meal and alfalfa ___,= Ground heads were compared with the ground threshed grain of ch of these three grain sorghums. (‘The trials conducted by the Department of Animal Husbandry in co- ration with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station were to ob- "n additional information for Texas feeders on the preparation of threshed '0 and threshed hegari; to compare the feeding value of oats with l= of threshed milo; and to compare ground ear corn (with husk), ari, and wheat with shelled corn. jFeeders interested in fattening lambs have considered a protein sup- ‘ment necessary to balance rations where legume hay is used as only rt of the roughage. The need for a protein supplement where legume By is the only roughage has been a matter of question. Feeding at other stations (2, 5, 6, 9, 1o, 1s, 14, 1s) have indicated that addition of cottonseed meal toshelled corn and alfalfa will increase ‘lily gains, produce- more finish, and reduce the amount of grain and required for 100 pounds of gain. f eeders become interested in the feeding value of oats and wheateas A pared with corn when prices for these grains are considered low. ults of feeding trials at other stations which compare oats (1, 6, 7, 12, 13) and wheat (1, s, '7, 10, 15, 17) with shelled corn indicate ‘L, they may have a place in lamb-fattening rations. f4: A PURPOSE l e ‘four experiments reported in this Bulletin were planned to determine: i; The feeding value of cottonseed cake in a ration with whole thresh- gilo and alfalfa (Tables 3, 4, and 5) and in a ration with whole oats alfalfa (Table 5). )‘ The feeding value of ground threshed milo (Tables 3, 4, and 5) Iof ground threshed hegari (Table 6) compared with the whole threshed i I 5 The feeding value of oats and of- a combination of oats and Whole 5 BULLETIN NO. 465, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION threshed milo compared with milo as the grain when each is fed with cottonseed cake and alfalfa hay (Table 5). (4) The feeding value of threshed hegari; wheat; equal parts hegari and wheat; and ground ear corn with husk as compared to shelled corn (Table 6). (5) The comparative amounts of feed required to produce 100 lbs. of gain on “light” and on “medium weight” feeder lambs (Table 4). LAMBS USED Rambouillet wether lambs were used in all trials. They were fairly uniform and practically free from skin folds with the exception of a few small folds on the necks of some. All of the lambs were healthy and had fairly dense fleeces. The lambs used during the 1927-28 trial ranged in weight from 54 to 69 pounds and averaged 61 pounds. Those used in the 1928-29 trial ranged from 40 to 71 pounds. From these, lambs ranging from 40 to 55 pounds were selected to make three lots of “light” lambs with an average weight of 49 pounds. Those ranging from 55.5 to 71 pounds were grouped into three lots of “medium weight” lambs averaging 60 pounds. The lambs used in the 1929-30 and the 1930-31 trials had a range in weight from 42 to 79 pounds and averaged 59 pounds. MANAGEMENT Feed Lots and Shelter The lambs were fed in well-drained lots. The feed troughs were covered to protect the feed during rainy weather. The only shelter in each lot was a 12'X12’ shed that was open on all sides. Preliminary Feeding and Management A few days previous to the start of each trial, the lambs were fed alfalfa hay in quantities similar to those used during the early part of the feeding trials. The lambs used in each of the last two years reported were given two treatments for stomach worms previous to the start of the trials. Method of Feeding Hand feeding of concentrates and hay was the method used in each trial. Half the daily ration of both concentrates and hay was fed at each of the two feedings. The pebble-size cottonseed cake was mixed with the grain in all rations in which it was fed. In all cases where cottonseed cake was fed, a proportion of one part of cake to“ nine parts of grain was used during the entire feeding period. Whenever a ground grain was fed, not over ten days’ supply was ground at one time. All lambs were fed as nearly as possible according to appetites. FATTENING LAMBS ON GRAINS, WITH COTTONSEED CAKE AND ALFALFA 7 Feeds All of the grains except the corn graded N0. 2. The corn was light weight and white. Both shelled corn and ear corn were taken from the same lot. One hundred pounds of the ear corn produced 63.7 pounds of shelled grain. The alfalfa was fairly fine-stemmed and leafy. It was of such quality that it was completely consumed at each feeding. The cake was the standard 43% protein pebble-size cottonseed cake consisting of fine particles and small pieces capable of passing through a 94-inch round perforation. The analyses of the feeds used are given in Table 1. Table 1. Composition of feeds used in experiments (Analyses made by Division of Chemistry) Nitro- Protein Fat Crude gen free Water Ash fiber extract 1927-28 test: % % % % % % 7 Threshed milo ______________________ _. 10.74 2.82 2.06 72.85 10.12 1.42 . 43% Protein Pebble-size i cottonseed cake ................. __ 46.06 7.57 9.03 25.29 7.26 4.79 ‘ Alfalfa hay .......................... _. 14.35 1.35 28.01 40.62 9.00 6.67 j 1928-29 test: * Whole threshed milo .......... .. 9.89 2.16 2.23 71.29 12.51 1.92 . Ground threshed milo ........ .. 9.76 1.23 2.24 71.53 13.67 1.57 43% Protein Pebble-size cottonseed cake ................... .. 41.28 7.52 11.83 28.55 6.19 4.63 Alfalfa hay .......................... .. 15.01 1.41 25.84 39.81 10.15 7.78 Q 1929-30 test: ' ' Threshed milo ...................... .. 10.16 3.12 2.08 71.79 11.22 1.63 Oats ........................................ ._ 10.30 4.12 10.81 61.51 9.73 3.53 43% Protein Pebble-size cottonseed cake .................. __ 42.88 7.04 11.65 26.65 6.95 4.83 Alfalfa hay .......................... _. 14.70 1.84 29.32 37.40 9.86 6.88 ‘- 1930-31 test: ’ Whole threshed hegari ...... -. 10.85 2.55 2.53 71.31 11.42 1.34 Ground threshed hegari ____ ._ 11.75 2.53 2.38 71.57 10.29 1.48 Ground ear corn with husk 9.94 2.66 11.90 63.79 9.82 1.89 Shelled corn .......................... .- 12.13 3.93 2.69 70.46 9.38 1.41 Wheat .................................... _. 13.49 1.44 2.55 70.23 10.59 1.70 43% Protein Pebble-size cottonseed cake .................. .. 45.07 6.90 8.40 26.11 7.73 5.79 Alfalfa hay .......................... .. 14.44 1.52 31.50 37.06 8.32 7.16 Financial Considerations .; Feed costs or other financial figures have not been included in this i-tBulletin because feed prices change constantly. In each of the summary ‘tables the total average feed consumed per lamb is given so that the feeder with current prices may "calculate his own feed bill. The feed which was required for each 100 pounds of gain is also given in order that a eeder may figure the cost of gain based on current prices. RESULTS OBTAINED Cottonseed Cake in a Ration With Threshed Milo and Alfalfa Hay p In the 1927-28 trial, the lambs that were fed 43% protein pebble-size Cottonseed cake with whole threshed milo and alfalfa hay made an aver- 8 BULLETIN NO. 465, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT‘ STATION age daily gain of .29 pound, which was .03 pound greater than that made". by those that received whole threshed milo and alfalfa hay. The results? of this trial show that 42 pounds of cottonseed cake reduced the amount of grain and hay required for 100 pounds of gain by 35 and 34 pounds" respectively (Table 3). I In the 1928-29 trial (Table 4), the lambs in Lot 2 that received cotton-f seed cake with the whole threshed milo and alfalfa hay made an averagel daily gain of .32 pound, which was .06 pound greater than that made in” Lot‘1, which did notlreceive cottonseed cake. The lighter lambs in Lots; 5 andl4 that received rations of the same feeds showed exactly the same difference in rate of gain. Both groups of lambs received concentrates and hay in approximately the same proportions. In Lot 2, forty pounds of cottonseed cake replaced 74 pounds of the milo and 84 pounds of the Li. alfalfa required to produce 100 pounds of gain in Lot 1. In Lot 5, in which l; ' cottonseed cake also was fed, 35 pounds of cake replaced 67 pounds of the milo and 62 pounds of the alfalfa required in Lot 4 for 100 pounds , of gain. The lambs with cottonseed cake in their rations had carcasses of a higher average grade as a result of a better finish. * In the 1929-30 trial (Table 5), the addition of cottonseed cake to a ra- ? tion of whole threshed milo and alfalfa increased the average daily gain a from .30 pound to .36 pound. Comparing the amounts of feed required to produce 100 pounds of gain in Lots 2 and 1, forty-three pounds of cake _-f replaced 29 pounds of the milo and 45 pounds of the alfalfa. The use of cottonseed cake in this trial also resulted in carcasses of higher grade. Cottonseed Cake in a Ration With Oats and Alfalfa Hay The lambs in the 1929-30 trial (Table 5), that received cottonseed cake with oats and alfalfa hay made an average daily gain of .35 pound, which was .06 pound- greater than that made by those that did not receive cake. The carcasses also were graded higher because of more finish. The lambs receiving cake required 98 pounds less oats and 49 pounds less al- falfa for each 100 pounds of gain. . Ineach of the above trials the greater daily consumption of feed was most likely due to the increased appetites produced by the cottonseed cake. Table 2. Replacement value of cottonseed cake when fed with milo and alfalfa or oats 1 f 7 . ' " _ and alfalfa. i ' '6 - "Year of Trial ' " 1927-28 1928—29 1928-29 - 1929-30 1929-30 Length of feeding ‘period’ (days) .... .. 84 109 109 112 112 Grain fed’ with cottonseed cake and alfalfa‘ .... -.‘.; .................... -- Milo Milo Milo Milo Oats Average initial weight of lambs, lbs. 61.6 60.3 49.4 58.8 58.8 increased daily gain due to the addition of cottonseed cake ........ _. 12% 23%’ 22% _ 20% _ 21% Feed replaced by 1 lb. of cotton- seed cake in thearpount required _ _ for"j100. lbs. ‘of ‘gain: ‘ - 1‘ ‘ ‘ Milo _________________________________________ “lbs. .83 1.85 1.91 1.84 ...... _. ~ Oats - _________________________ _--lbs. ______ ........ -_ _ ..... ,.- . , ______ _- 2.04 I” -»"Alfalfa'hay .............. ..... ..-.-....1bs. l v.81 2.10 1.77" 1.05 1.02 ma“ 411.6% 1nnl0fl$aul-.1;-..1.1;.... . FATTENING LAMBS ON GRAINS, WITH COTTONSEED CAKE AND ALFALFA V 9 y This in itself would account for the higher finish of the lambs that re- i received cottonseed cake. In the four pairs of lots the differences in ap- petites were particularly noticeable during the latter part of each feeding period when the lambs were receiving a fairly liberal allowance of grain. These results are summarized in Table 2. Ground Threshed Milo Compared With Whole Threshed Milo ‘wiriwv we -. 1». In the 1927-28 trial (Table 3), the lambs that received ground threshed imilo made an average daily gain of .30 pound, which was only .01 pound 5 greater than that made by those that received the whole grain. In this A trial the grinding of the grain resulted in 23 pounds less grain,p3 pounds less cottonseed cake, and 26 pounds less alfalfa hay being required for each 100 pounds of gain made by the lambs. No difference in appetites l; between these lots was noticed at any time during the entire feeding j, period of 84 days. i, Table 3. Effect of grinding the milo and of adding cottonseed cake in a ration of milo ' and alfalfa hay (84 day period-December 9, 1927 to March 2, 1928.) Lot No. 1 2 3 Whole threshed Ground Ration: Whole threshed milo, cotton- threshed milo, - milo, alfalfa seed cake, al- cottonseed cake, hay falfa hay alfalfa hay No. of lambs 25 25 25 ,, Weights, lbs. . _ - IAV. initial 61.1 61.6 61.5 Av. final 82.9 85.5 87.1 ‘ Gains, lbs. , Av. gain _ 21.8 23.9 25.6 ’- Av. daily gain .............................................. .. .26 .29 .30 Av. daily feed: lbs. ‘ ' Grain ._ ;. 1.07 1.07 1.07 ' 43% protein, pebble-size cottonseed cake ...... ._ .12 .12 1. Chopped alfalfa hay .................................... .. 1.12 1.13 1.13 Total feed per lamb: lbs. _ ................................. .. ‘ » I5 Grain . . 89.4 89.8 89.9 _ 43% protein, pebble-size cottonseed cake“ ______ -- 10 10 T Chopped alfalfa hay _______________________________ _. 93.9 95 95 ‘Feed for100 lbs, gain: lbs. . ‘ ' Grain 410 . 375 352 . 43% protein, pebble-size cottonseed cake. ...... .. 42 39 3 -- Chopped alfalfa hay ..... -1 .............. _.L ...... 431 397 371 .: - ¢ fln the 1928-29 ptrial'(Table 4), both lots‘ of lambs receiving whole 3 hreshed milo made .02 pound greater daily gain than those that received “h ground threshed milo. For the medium-weight lambs, 8 pounds pesos grain, 1 pound less cottonseed cake, and l9 pounds less hay were re- uired for 100 pounds of _gain when‘ whole grain was fed. Likewise i; he light-weight lambs that received the whole grain required 8 pounds hess milo, 1 pound less cottonseed cake, and 20 pounds less alfalfa hay for 0.0 pounds- of gain. The average grade of the carcasses for both lots of mbs that were fed the whole milo. was ~a'little higherthan for those frtf received the" ground grain. The "lambs one the whole grain were ually a little more eager at feeding time. , i ' ' * 10 BULLETIN NO. 465, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 4. Effect of grinding the milo and of adding cottonseed cake in a ration of milo and alfalfa hay. Light and medium weight lambs. (109 day per1od—Nov. 3. 1928 to Feb. 20, 1929.) Medium Weight Light Weight Lot No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 :>. "c! >. "as-u >. >. w: >. "we >. Q9 Q) Q) s s‘ s s? =5 2E’ s a“ s gs g g2 -=¥ s g s: c cu c w -= a -== e a w c: w 3 E @311 E331‘. 3 i.‘ 333E E3‘: Ration: 523g §§§ t§§ gig E343 "3313 c6 ed q :6 a QT; .5 ° a i.’ ' 2 ‘ ‘ ‘i ‘a? 2 ‘ 2 ' * i ‘ ' 2 s. 2 g S g E o 6 5 o a E B E Q 6 E u Number of lambs ................................ -- 24* 25 25 25 25 25 Weights: lbs. Av. initial __________________________________________ _. 60-5 60-3 60-7 49.1 49.4 49.3 Av. final ........................ _- 88-9 94-6 93 8 78.9 84 9 82.9 Gains: lbs. Av. gain .............................................. __ 28-4 34-3 33-1 29.8 _ 35.5 33.6 Av. daily gain .................................. -. .26 -32 -30 .27 .33 .31 Average daily feed: lbs. Grain 1.12 1.12 1.11 1.04 1.02 .99 Cottonseed cake** ........................... . 1.13 ______ __ 11 ,11 ay .12 . 1 1O 1 11 1.11 Total feed per lamb: lbs. Grain 122.3 122.4 120.9 113.8 111.6 108.4 Cottonseed cake** ................................... .. 13.6 13.4 ______ __ 12.4 12,0 ay 125.2 122.4 121.3 120.0 121.2 121.3 Feed for 100 pounds gain: lbs. I | Grain ! 431 l 357 365 382 315 323 Cottonseed cake** .................................. .- 40 41 ______ _- 35 36 Hay .|| 441 ‘I 357 II 366 403 341 361 Weight in Fort Worth, lbs. 86.0 89 4 89.0 76.0 79 2 78,2 Shrinkage in marketing, lbs. 2.9 2 4.8 2.9 5 7 4.7 Dressing percentage? .......................... .. 48.4 49 1 48.5 46.4 47 3 46,6 Carcass grades1‘* I rime __________________________________________________________________ ._ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Choice 5 12 10 ...... .. 3 1 Good .................................................... -. 13 7 10 11 12 11 Medium ........................................... _. 6 6 4 14 10 12 Cull . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ , __ 1 * One lamb was removed on Nov. 7 because it was sick _ - ** 43% protein, pebble-size cottonseed cake was fed i‘ Based on selling weights, and warm weights of carcasses with a shrinkage of 2.3% 1* The slaughter data were secured through the courtesy of Swift & Co., Fort Worth The results of the 1929-30 trial (Table 5) are in agreement with those of the 1928-29 comparisons. In this trial the lambs that received the whole threshed milo made .04 pound greater daily gain. They also required 15 pounds less milo, 2 pounds less cake, and 27 pounds less alfalfa to produce 100 pounds of gain. This is a greater difference in the amount of feed required than was found in the 1928-29 test. The grades of the carcasses did not show a significant difference. The lambs that received the whole grain had keener appetites than those that were fed ground milo. The results of the 1928-29 and 1929-30 tests, in which whole thresheh milo was compared with the ground grain, point toward the conclusion that the whole grain has some advantages. In these three tests, a little less feed was required for 100 pounds of gain. The lambs ate the whole r_\.».£L.L1.;4..-A..... . ...<_..._.,..,.1...._ .... s... "m. ....,......|._._........_n FATTENING LAMBS ON GRAINS, WITH COTTONSEED CAKE AND ALFALFA 11 , grain more readily and it was easier to keep the troughs clean. While Q the 1927-28 a test did not agree with the later tests, the difference in amount of feed required for 100 pounds of gain was small. l" Table 5. Effect of grinding the milo and of adding cottonseed cake and of substituting _ oats as the grain in a ration of grain and alfalfa hay (112 day period, November 7, 1929 to February 27, 1930.) i Lot No. 1 2 3 4 6 w g, '1: 3 3% £3 A 36 33 s s e .. z; a s s .= a . . 3H 3 cJS a :13} . a s, w m2 _ _ a1‘; no-—~ .c:o-- w“>. 30¢ 5233- .- Ratlon: 3E‘; E343 ‘"335’. 1:32 as '9 13.: o3 ‘i 3?: e 87¢ <= °3 w o“ °T€ 3Q». 353s 55.». “"3 93% "$5.1m 52:06 span 35.1w T515 3E2 Ffimxw as“ sass 053'“ gr gm“ §s§8"‘ fNo. of lambs ...................................... -. 25 24* 231' 25 25 24** Weights, lbs: ~ Average initial .................................. .. 59.0 58.8 58.1 58.8 58.8 59.5 Average final .................................... .. 92.7 98.7 94.4 91.8 98.0 94.9 ins, lbs: p Av. gain .............................................. 33.7 39.9 36.3 33.0 39.2 35.4 7 Av. daily gain __________________________________ _. .30 .36 .32 .29 .35 .32 i.verage daily feed: lbs. Milo 1.41 1.38 1.31 . . _ . _ _ . . . . . _ . . -_ .54 i_ Oats _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . _ _ . . . .- 1 56 1.50 .89 Cottonseed cakeH .................................. .. .15 .15 ...... .. .17 .16 - Hay 1 14 1 19 1 17 1.06 1 08 1 01 l feed per lamb: lbs. _ ................. .. _ ilo 157 8 155.0 146 3 _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ . .. 60 8 " Oats _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ __ 174.2 168.3 99.3 _. Cottonseed cakefi‘ .................................. .. 17.2 16.3 ...... .. 16.8 17.8 Q ay .. ................................................... _. 128 1 133 7 131 3 118 5 121 3 113 1 eed for 100 lbs. gain: lbs. j Milo 468 389 404 _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- 172 ‘Q. Oats . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . __ 528 430 281 ‘Cottonseed cake“? .................................. __ 43 45 ______ .. 48 50 1; Hay 380 335 362 359 310 320 ight in Fort Worth ...................... .. 86.8 91 0 86.3 84.8 89 4 87.9 ~_ 'nkage in marketing, lbs. 5.9 7 7 8.1 7.0 8 6 7.0 ~* sing percentage: .......................... _. 47.8 49 0 48.4 47.1 47 6 47.5 ass gradesii oice -— Medium _______________________________ ._ 1 _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . __ -..--_.- . .~ Heavy _ . . . _ _ _ _ _. 1 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ .. ' Good — Light _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , , , _ . __ 2 7 3 6 5 ‘ Medium . .. 13 9 9 6 10 8 Heavy -. _ 1 2 1 2 2 1 edium ~— Light . . . _ _ . . . -. 7 6 5 10 9 f edium . ___________ _. 2 1 1 . . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . _. q mmon— Light ____________________________ __ 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 3 ...... .. 1 One lamb had leg broken. Two lambs died. Post-mortem- showed fluid in the abdomen. _ One lamb died from pneumonia.» » 43% protein, pebble-size cottonseed cake was fed. _ Based on selling weights of lambs and warm carcass weights with a shrinkage of 2%%. Grades recorded on killing floor. ‘ NOTE :—Lot 6 was fed one pound of oats and cake each day. Increases in ration < made with milo and cake. slaughter data were secured through the courtesy of Armour and Company, Fort Worth. Ground Threshed Hegari Compared Wlith Whole Threshed Hegari _ e lambs that were fed the ground threshed hegari made .42 pound i.» age daily gain, which was only .01 pound greater than that made 12 BULLETIN NO. 465, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT ‘STATION by those that were fed the Whole grain. higher average grade of carcass (Table 6). groups of lambs were the same. Comparison of Shelled Corn and Ground Ear Corn In the 1930-31 trial (Table 6), the lambs that received shelled corn ‘l made a slightly greater daily gain than those that were fed ground ear f corn with husk, and more of the carcasses were in the higher grades g, because of better flnlSll.“ The 387 pounds of ground ear corn with husk required for 100 pounds " Table 6. Comparison of hegari, corn and wheat in rations with cottonseed cake and alfalfa and of grinding the hegari and ear corn. (92 day period, December 3, 1930 to March 4, 1931.) Lot No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ' '0 ' c: I . ' * . '6 "“ w "’ "’ cu " “a “Am gé§ géQ §8qs s»; s2 g-=<,'§-=_ m Q cg q’ O ‘g #4 5.4 u N Q “"5 N 22%. 3%. ggfi>= 8 :>. .3”, gfie a Ration: 55g veg 656g fig B32 Egg-g} - “i >‘ "u - “l '05 o ‘C’ g o ‘l’ s: q’ 3W aw 3.155% '5' Q 3 Q 5: £6 +> <6 +1 c8 - +> N No. of lambs ........................................ _. 24* 25 25 25 25 25 Weights, lbs. Av. initial ......................................... _. 59.4 59.1 59.5 59.4 59.4 60,0 Av. final ............................................ .. 97.3 ‘ 97.4 96.0 97.7 97.1 99,1 Gains, lbs. ‘ ‘ Av. gain ............................................ .. 37.9 38.3 36.5 38.3 37.7- 39.1 Av. daily gain .................................. .. .41 .42 .40 .42 .41 _.43 Average daily feed: lbs. ‘ Grain 1.28 1.28 1.54 1.29 1.30 ~ 1.33 ICIo onseed cake? .............................. -. 1.14 .13 .414 .14. ‘.15 ay . . 3 1.3 1. 2 1.52 1.52 Total feed per lamb: lbs. ' Grain 117.7 117.9 141.4 118.3 119.6 122.3 Cottonseed cake? ............................. _. 13.1 13.1 15.7 13.2 133 13.6 ay 131.8 131.8 119.4 131.0 139.8 139.8 Feedvfor 100 lbs. gain: lbs. v - Grain 311 307 387 309 317 313 Cottonseed cake? 35 34 43 34 35 35 Hay 348 344 327 342 371 357 Weight in Fort Worth, lbs. 86.7 86.4 84.4 88.0 86.6 89.0 Shrinkage in marketing ...... -- 10.6 11.0 11.6 9.7 10.5 10.1 Dressing percentagei .......................... .. 50.5 49.8 49.2 50.7 . 49.9 49.5 Carcass grades: Choice — Light _—_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _. » __ , <2 ______ __ ~ K -Medium ____ ._ . ...... -- _ 2 10 4 1 ' Heavy 1.. .... -- 1 ______ .. . _____,,__ 3 1 GQOd --r __>._.- u» . _. .14.. ,. ._ r 7 7 4 ' _ Medium‘; 8 ‘ 9 6 f 1 5 8... Medium -— Li t =.-_.-. 8 1~ 7 ' 2 . 4 4' ' Medium -- 1 4 . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1' ...... _- Common -— Light . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1 " One lamb removed on account of abnormally thin condition at close of trial. 43%? protein,_pebblé_-size cottonseed cake‘ was fed. I i ' ' _ ' * FBasedon selling weights of lambs, and warm carcass _weights withra shrinkage of 216% Theslaughter data were secured through the courtesy of Armour land-Company, Fort Worth. The lambs that were fed groundf; v grain required a little less feed for 100 pounds of gain, and had a little‘ The appetites of the two’ L‘=rev;li.a.su..uwiluiihmaniaklariisie.mi.s .1. .. I FATTENING LAMBS ON GRAINS, WITH COTTONSEED CAKE AND ALFALFA 13 .p of gain, consisted of 247 pounds of grain and 140 pounds of cob and husk. When the latter figures are compared with the amount of feed ' required for 100 pounds of gain made by the lambs in lot 4, which required 309 pounds of shelled corn, they show that 140 pounds of cob and husk and nine pounds of cottonseed cake replaced 62 pounds of shelled corn and 15 pounds of alfalfa. _ fairly good. They preferred the corn which was finely ground to that which was coarse. The daily feed of ground ear corn with husk and Y: cottonseed cake was gradually increased during the entire feeding period. As much as 25 to 3O minutes at a feeding was required for them to eat l. the ground ear corn with husk and cake during the latter part of the l“ feeding period. Oats Compared With Threshed Milo _ In the 1929-30 trial (Table 5), the lambs that received the milo and lalfalfa made .30’ pound average daily gain, which was only .01 pound greater than that made by those that were fed oats and alfalfa. The {grain was increased and hay decreased during the feeding period ac- cording to the appetites of the lambs in the two lots. This method igave the lambs fed oats more grain and less hay than the milo-fed ;lambs. As a result, 60 pounds more oats than milo and 21 pounds less flfalfa were fed to produce 100 pounds of gain. The average carcass ‘Pgrade was a little higher because of better finish for the lambs fed milo. In Lots 2 and 5 of this trial, in which the lambs were fed milo and ~- respectively with cottonseed cake and alfalfa, the milo-fed lambs ade .36 pound average daily gain, which was only .01 poundgreater an that made by the oats-fed lambs. Again in this comparison the an the milo-fed lambs. This increase in grain and cake caused a ecrease in consumption of hay. In this case, 41 pounds more oats ' 5 1- milo, 5h pounds more cake, and 25 pounds less alfalfa were fed to lake 100 pounds of gain. About the same difference in the average rcass’ grade existed between the lambs of Lots 2 and 5 as was found tween Lots 1 and 4 of these trials. fThe lambs in Lot 6 (Table 5) were quickly raisedto 1 pound of oats ,- cottonseed cake, and after that all increases in concentrates were ia-de with a mixture of milo and cake. This method of feeding did in ‘this trial, produce as satisfactory results as either of the single h". ins fed with cottonseed cake and alfalfa hay. Shelled Corn Compared With Threshed Hegari The lambs fed shelled corn made .42 pound average daily gain, which was y .01 pound greater than that made by those receiving whole threshed .;.1_:i_~,and the same gain as those that received ground threshed hegari. _ amounts of the different feeds required for 100 pounds of gain The appetites oflthe lambs fed the ground ear corn with husk were. -fed lambs were given a more rapid increase in daily concentrates. 14 BULLETIN NO. 465, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION were practically the same in each of the three lots. The carcasses of the lambs that received the shelled corn had better finish, and the packer grader preferred the color of the carcasses of these lambs (Table 6). Shelled Corn Compared With Wheat The lambs fed shelled corn made only .01 pound greater daily gain than the wheat-fed lambs. They required 8 pounds less grain, 1 pound less‘ cottonseed cake, and 29 pounds less alfalfa hay for each 100 pounds of gain. The carcasses from the shelled-corn lot showed more finish and on the average were graded a little higher. The wheat-fed lambs had better appetites. They were started on 1.52 pounds of alfalfa and this amount was never lowered, while they were gradually raised on wheat and cake to 2.16 pounds daily for each lamb by the end of the period (Table 6). Equal Parts Wheat and Threshed Hegari The lambs in Lot 6 (Table 6) were fed equal parts of" wheat and threshed hegari. This mixture was used to determine the advantage, if any, of such a combination as compared with either of the grains fed separately. This group of lambs made an average daily gain of .43 pound, which was .01 pound greater than that made by those that received shelled corn. They made .02 pound greater daily gain than the lambs fed wheat or threshed hegari. The difference in the amount of feed required for 100 pounds of gain was small. The average carcass grade for these lambs was higher than it was for the lambs of Lot 1 fed whole threshed hegari, but not as high as it was for those of Lot 5, that received wheat alone as grain. The lambs of Lot 6 were always more eager for their feed than any other lot of lambs in this trial. They started on 1.52 pounds of alfalfa hay and this amount was not reduced, While the concentrates were gradually increased to 2.16 pounds daily for each lamb at the close of the trial. Light Lambs Compared With Medium-Weight Feeder Lambs Rambouillet feeder lambs coming ofl’ the range vary in weight because of differences in age, size of frame, and fleshing. For the lambs used for this comparison in the 1928-29 trial (Table 4), the diiference was largely a matter of fleshing. In the three pairs of lots where the feeds were the same, the light lambs made .01 pound greater daily gain for each comparison and required less feed for 100 pounds of gain than the medium-weight lambs. The carcass data show that the average grades for the medium-weight lambs were higher. This was a result of better finish, probably due to the fact that medium-weight lambs had more flesh at the beginning of the trial. Average Daily Ration in Relation to the Length of Feeding Period A study of these results shows that an average daily ration of 1.25 to 1.30 pounds of shelled corn, wheat, threshed milo, or threshed hegari, FATTENING LAMBS ON GRAINS, WITH COTTONSEED CAKE AND ALFALFA 15 .14 to .15 pounds of cottonseed meal or cake, and 1.4 to 1.5 pounds of good alfalfa hay for a 90 to 100 day feeding period should give satisfactory results for Rambouillet feeder lambs averaging about 60 pounds. All lambs were fed as nearly as possible according- to their appetites. Gradual increases in concentrates were made according to the eagerness of the lambs. Care was taken not to make such rapid increases that all the lambs would not stay at the trough and eat their grain in a relatively short time. They were started on a rather liberal allowance of alfalfa with gradual reductions at times when they did not seem eager for the increase in grain. When the rates of feeding or the average daily rations for the four years are studied, it is apparent that in the 1927-28 trial the average daily consumption of concentrates (1.19 lbs.) and hay (1.12 lbs.) was not sufiicient to produce good gains or satisfactory finish in 84 days (Lot 2, Table 3). During the 1928-29 trial the medium-weight lambs consumed an average . of 1.24 pounds of concentrates daily and 1.12 pounds of hay. These lambs made .03 pound greater daily average gain and were fed 25 days longer than those in the first trial. In the 109-day feeding period this group of lambs made more efficient use of their feed and showed a satisfactory finish (Lot 2, Table 4). In the 1929-30 trial of 112 days a comparable lot of lambs received an average daily feed of 1.53 pounds of concentrates and 1.19 pounds of hay. This lot made an average daily gain of .36 pound, which was .04 pound greater than that made by the group in the second trial. However, they did not make more economical gains nor have any higher finish (Lot 2, Table 5). In the 1930-31 trial of 92 days a similar lot of lambs consumed an average daily feed of 1.42 pounds of concentrates and 1.42 pounds of hay. ‘They ad .4 ' Table 7. Average rations for Lot 4 of 1930-31 m e 1 pound average dally test by weeks gain, which was higher than that made in any of the Week. °l Shelled w" 9 Alfalfa ha.» first three trials. These lambs feeding parts, cottonseed pounds daily _ period cake, 1 part, required less total feed for 100 pounds daily pounds of gain than either of é é? the above lots and had a good 3 1:06 1:52 finish (L013 1, Table 6). 4 1.19 1.52 5 1.35 1.52 6 1.44 1.45 CHANGES IN DAILY g 1g; {g3 AMOUNT OF FEED 13 11$? 1132 The amount of concentrates l; gig; 113g and roughages, together with 13* 1-79 1-32 the changes made in each during 1 the feeding period, is generally - Average 1-43 L42 recognized as being an import- l 1 ant factor in securing satisfac- ‘There were a few warm rainy days during p» this week and the feed was reduced. tOTY gains and finish in fatten" 16 BULLETIN NO. 465, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ing lambs. presented by weeks in Table 7. average daily gain for the entire feeding period. This group of lambs made .42 pound They showed more ‘finish than any of the other lots during the four series of tests reported in this Bulletin. PRODUCTIVE ENERGY CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS The productive energy of the various feeds compared in the feeding experiment was calculated by the Division of Chemistry using the method described fully in (3) Bulletin 436. of a feeding stuff of well established value was used as a standard for comparing the other feeds. The results of the comparison are given in Table 8. The productive values calculated from the analysis for the feed used, as given in Table 1, by means of the production coefficients (4) given in Bulletin 461, are also stated in the Table. Cottonseed cake. The productive value calculated for cottonseed cake added to a ration of threshed milo and alfalfa is appreciably greater than when the cottonseed cake is compared with another protein feed fed in a balanced ration. This fact was brought out in Bulletin 436. The supplementary action of the protein in cottonseed meal increases the di- gestion of the mixture or the capacity of the animal to utilize the productive energy of the other feeds, or else it decreases the maintenance require- ments of the animals so as to leave more of the productive energy for the production of fat and flesh. In any case, the efiect of the cottonseed meal and other high-protein feeds when added to certain rations is to cause a gain in the weight greater than that which can be ascribed to the cottonseed meal itself and must be due to the increased utilization of other feeds in the ration. However, the feeding value of the cottonseed meal is actually the higher value assigned to it in such experiment, since the increased value of the other feeds must be credited to the action of the cottonseed meal. The productive energy of cottonseed meal calcu- lated in this way is somewhat variable as can be seen both in Table 8 and in the calculations given in Bulletin 436. Ear Corn with Husk. The productive value of this feed calculated from the feeding experiment is very nearly the same as that calculated from the analysis of the feed used and the production coefficients already referred to. ' Hegari. The productive value of the ground threshed hegari compared with corn was the same as that calculated from the analysis and the production coefficient. The productive value of the whole threshed hegari is slightly less than that of the ground threshed hegari, but the dif- ference is small. Whole Versus Ground Threshed Milo. ground threshed, milo is slightly lower than that of the whole milo The average daily ration fed to Lot 4 of the 1920-31 test is i In this method the productive value The productive value " of the . u. .1. 1M1: .:\.mA4‘ FATTENING LAMBS ON GRAINS, WITH COTTONSEED CAKE AND ALFALFA 17 w ............... .. o? F80 WE. 3w cnowon n25 2on5 down? w ..................................... .- onw onoo m5. QR. ononB soon? m Mm ............................... .. #3 2E: onon>> >5. Qmfi ....... .. Aomfi n35 wnonB anwO m .- .H ............................ .. 7% omE onon>> >5. 5:. . fi no.5 2on8 wnoo m .H.... ................................ .. Rmw 2:: 2on3 >5. N2. q. 85 ononB .33 m ................................. .. anon? o» o; 5% v.3; ....... 312$ ono omfi oonmonno on woooo onoo ooomnooooo n. w...-m ................................ .- @283» Q 2E NE. onwn 8 no.5 ofionnn» ES omfi oonmonn... on oonnoo 8:8 ooomnonooo n. -.H H ............................ .. @233 a 232 N2. Now 8 no.5 @282. ono omfi oonwonnn on oonooo onoo woomnofioo m m ................................... .. anon? Q 0E5 9E. wan. .............. 1 orofio woo omE oonmonn... on 2.22:. onoo oooononooo o Mm ......................................... z 9mm F50 YE. msw ......................................................... .. wcsonm Jinn n33 Fnoo 52m o .............................................. ,. 9mm F60 maw Nmw wonmonno wnuonw nnowom o ............................. .. 9% F60 .... .. mnw oonmonnn ononB iomom m .................................... .. fimw omfi onon? .... .. 1E. . onuonm .22: oonwonna n. ............... .. 3w 2:: 2on3 .... -- W3 .................................................. .. S 35 onsonw .228 uonoonnh n. .................... . .. .............. .- 3w 2:: onon? .... .- ~22. .................................................. -. G 35 wcsonw 6:5 oonmonnfi m ...................................... .- on...“ o3: 2on3 .... -- W5 onoonw .22.: oonwoone momfimnm anon» 59G Aammxm 59G .02 MJQGH. wwuwnsonwu wwnmnmonwu f?» wwnwmfiou wwwh win.» wines“. d»: 00a i“ wow» MO @932 -93 wfinwnm. >985. wfinonw 5.2» mEnwsH wncwivnwaxo @2363 Eon“ wwfifisonwo >326 ofinoswonm n. onnon. 18 BULLETIN NO. 465, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION with which it was compared in three of the four tests. The differences are probably within the limits, of error of the experiment. Oats. The whole unground oats compared with whole milo had a slight- * ly higher value when calculated from the feeding experiments than when 4 calculated from the production coefficients and the chemical analysis. The i whole oats fed with "milo seem to have some supplementary value, as ‘ the productive energy calculated from the feeding experiment was com- l paratively high. Wheat, Whole. The productive value of the Whole wheat calculated A from the feeding experiment is practically the same as that calculated from its chemical composition by means of the production coefficients. Fed with h.egari, the wheat seemed to have some supplementary value. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to express their appreciation to the Educational Service of the Texas Cottonseed Crushers’ Association for furnishing the pebble- size cottonseed cake used in the 1927-28 trial; and to Dr. G. S. Fraps, Station Chemist, for the analyses of feed and the calculation of the productive values of the feeds. SUMMARY 1. The addition of one part of cottonseed cake to nine parts of grain in a ration of alfalfa and grain resulted in a considerable reduction of the amounts of both grain and hay required for 100 pounds of gain. (a) In the 1927-28 trial, one pound of cottonseed cake replaced .83 pound of threshed milo and .81 pound of alfalfa. _ (b) In the 1928-29 trial with the medium-weight lambs, one pound of cake replaced 1.85 pounds of threshed milo and 2.10 pounds of alfalfa. In the case of the lighter lambs fed at the same time, one pound of cake replaced 1.91 pounds of milo and 1.77 pounds of alfalfa. (c) In the 1929-30 trial, one pound of cake replaced 1.84 pounds of milo and 1.05 pounds of alfalfa. (d) In the 1929-30 trial, one pound of cake replaced 2.04 pounds of oats and 1.02 pounds of alfalfa. 2. The addition of cottonseed cake to a ration of whole threshed grain and alfalfa produced greater gains than rations of grain and alfalfa alone. (a) In the first trial of 84 days, a 12 per cent greater daily gain was made by the lambs that received cottonseed cake. (b) In the second series of trials with a 109-day feeding period, the medium-weight group of lambs receiving cottonseed cake FATTENING LAMBS ON GRAINS, WITH CQTTONSEED CAKE AND ALFALFA 19 made a 23 per cent greater daily gain and the lighter group 22 per cent. ' (c) In the third series of trials with a 112-day feeding period, the lambs fed milo with cottonseed cake made a 20 per cent greater daily gain, and those fed oats with cottonseed cake made 21 per cent more than those that did not receive cottonseed cake. 3. The productive value calculated for cottonseed cake added to a ration of threshed milo and alfalfa is appreciably greater than when it is evaluated in a balanced ration. 4. The carcasses of the lambs that received cottonseed cake graded higher because of more finish. 5. The lambs that received cottonseed cake were always more eager for their concentrates. During the latter part of each trial, it was possible to increase the concentrates much more rapidly in the lots where the cottonseed cake was fed. p 6. Ground threshed milo and ground threshed hegari showed no advantages as compared with the whole threshed grain. ‘ 7. Light feeder lambs required less feed for 100 pounds of gain thank the medium-weight lambs. They did not show as much finish as the medium-weight lambs. This indicates that the same finish on lighter lambs would require a longer feeding period. 8. Oats produced satisfactory gains when cottonseed cake was added to the ration. The feeding of oats according to the appetites of the lambs effected a saving of alfalfa. p \ 9. Although the lambs fed ground ear corn with husk did not show,‘ as much finish as those fed shelled corn, they made good gainsq and required less actual grain and hay for 100 pounds of gain. A 10. The gains made by the lambs that were fed wheat, or hegari, or a 7' combination of both were practically the same as those produced by shelled corn. However, the carcasses of the lambs fed shelled l corn showed a better finish than those fed wheat. The carcasses i from the wheat-fed lambs in turn showed a better finish than those fed hegari. 11. Productive energy values calculated from the feeding experiments agreed well with those calculated from production coefficients and i the analyses of the feed. LITERATURE CITED 1. Brown, G. A. August, 1931. Make Tests of Rations for Lambs. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quarterly Bulletin. Vol. XIV No. 1. 2. Darlow, A. E. 1930. A Comparison of Whole Roughages vs Cut Roughages—Carbonaceous Roughages vs. Protein Roughages. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Mimeograph Report. 3. Fraps, G. S. 1931. Productive Energy of Feeds Calculated from Feeding Experiments with Sheep. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 436. 20 10. 11. 12.‘ 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. BULLETIN NO. 465, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Fraps, G. S. 1932. The Composition and Utilization of Texas Feed- ' ing Stuffs. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 461. Gramlich, H. J. 1919. Neb. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 173. Hackedorn, H., Bean, R. P., and Sotola, Jerry. Experiments. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 258. Harper, Claude. 1929. Fattening Western Lambs. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 333. l Holden, J. A. 1923. (Purdue) Ind. raska. Nebr. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 194. Johnson, R. F., Rinehart, E. F., and Hickman, C. W. 1931. Lamb Feeding Investigations. Idaho Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 176. Jones, J. M., and Dickson, R. E. 1928. Grain Sorghums vs. Corn for Fattening Lambs. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 379. Jordan, P. S., and Peters, W. H. 1930. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 272. Kammlade, W. G. 1930. Feeding Texas Lambs. Mimeograph Report. Reed, H. E. 1927. Lamb Feeding Investigations. Expt. Sta. Mimeograph Report. Saunderson, M. H., and Vinke, Louis. 1931. Wheat to Lambs. Montana Agr. Exp. Sta. Weber, A. D. 1928. Lamb Feeding Experiment. Sta. Sheep Circular 322. Weber, A. D., and Loefel, W. J. 1931. Neb. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 257. Fattening Lambs. Minn. Ill. Agr. Exp. Sta. Kansas Agr. Feeding Low-Priced Bul. 249. Neb. Agr. Exp. Wheat for Fattening Lambs. Supplementary Feeds in Fattening Lambs. :7 1924". Lamb Feed- " ing Experiments in 1922-23 and 24. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 185. < Hackedorn, H., Sotola, J ., and Singleton, H. P. 1931. Lamb Feeding a Lamb Feeding Experiments in Western Neb- i: