IBRARY, 8: M COLLEGE. CAMPUS. A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR I iTEXAS Acnmuuunm EXPERIMENT snmnu i COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS ZEfBULLETIN NO. 530 SEPTEMBER, 1936 DIVISION OF DAIRY HUSBANDRY iii Ground Versus Unground Grain for Lactating Dairy Cows AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President Cows in these series of experiments consumed more grain when ey were fed a concentrate mixture consisting of ground grains l~ = I when 50 to 75 per cent of the concentrate mixture was com- jyosed of whole grains. Less of the whole oats and barley was re- ; -.. by the cows than of corn or milo fed as whole grain. Greater y r production, especially with high producing cows, was obtained QR» all of the experiments when ground grains were fed. Most "E- this greater amount of milk produced when ground grain was could be accounted for by the greater amount of grain con- - ed in each of the experiments with the exception of "barley. owever, since greater amounts of milk were obtained by feeding und grains, even though more grain was required to produce | s milk, and since the ratio of milk produced to grain consumed as practically unchanged, it seems advisable to grind grains for g - y cows in order to induce consumption of feed in proportion f ' their level of milk production. There was found considerable variation between cows in the ount of whole corn or milo grain that was masticated. It as also found that more whole corn was masticated than whole o, indicating that the size of the grain is a factor in the amount j whole grain masticated. Apparently very little, if any, food ‘ Vlue was removed from the unmasticatcd whole grains passing I ough the cow’s digestive tract. CONTENTS Introduction Method of procedure -_ Experimental results _ Results of whole versus ground corn -_- Results of milk yield, body weight changes, and feed consumption Results of whole versus ground oats ______________________________________________ __ Results of milk yield, body weight changes, and feed consumption Results of whole versus ground milo ____ __ Results of milk yield, body weight changes, and feed consumption Results of whole versus ground barley Results of milk yield, body weight changes, and feed consumption 11 11 13 13 15 15 Effect of feeding whole versus ground grains on high versus low v producing cows Productive values of whole grains Mastication of grain by dairy cows 47 _ Discussion Summary and conclusions Literature‘ cited 17 18 21 22 24 BULLETIN NO. 530 SEPTEMBER, 1936 GROUND VERSUS UNGROUND GRAIN FOR LACTATING DAIRY COWS* A. L. Darnell, Professor of Dairy Husbandry, and O. C. Copeland, Dairy Husbandman, In Texas there is produced annually about 200,000,000 bushels of carbohydrate grains used principally for feeding livestock. These grains consist largely of corn, oats, barley, and many varieties of grain sorghums. With different feeders in this state, the method of preparing these grains for livestock feeding varies from feeding the entire plant cured in the shock to feeding the ground threshed grain. A number of livestock men Ivieed large quantities of these feeds not only as whole threshed grain but as ear corn, grain sorghum heads, and sheaf oats. These methods of Qjfeeding are most commonly found in the sections where the facilities for fthe preparation of feedstuffs are limited. §_ Rather extensive research (4, 5, 6, and 8) has shown that the value 5,0! grinding roughages is not as great as was once believed. Most of ithese results indicate that there is very little advantage in grinding or “Fchopping high quality roughage for dairy cows but that it sometimes pays Fto grind or chop poor‘ quality roughages, in order to increase palatability Znnd reduce waste, provided the cost of grinding is low. Textbooks in general have advocated the grinding of grains for most asses of livestock. In studying the value of grinding grains for dairy aifiows, Wilbur (7) of the Indiana Station found that medium finely ground Rom and oats were superior for milk production to the same grains when ted whole, coarsely ground, or pulverized. The cows produced 11.2 per ent less milk when fed whole grain, 5.8 per cent less milk when fed .goarsely ground grain, and 5.4 per cent less milk when led pulverized A ain, than when fed a similar mixture containing medium ground grain. .A_It is known from observation that when cows are fed whole grain of lmost any kind, a certain amount of it will pass through the digestive Astem of the cowtand be voided in the feces as whole grain. Becker ind G-allup (1) reported on the utilization of the grain of kafir and cane lage by dairy cows. They found that one-third of the cane seed and ‘m two-fifths of the kafir grain contained in silage made from the two pective sorghums, were voided in the feces. They report that “chemi- 1 analyses showed little utilization of nutrients from these whole ker- Eels during passage through the cow’s digestive tract. Some ether ex- act was digested, whereas only a small percentage of the crude protein In cooperation with the School of Agriculture of the Agricultural and * Mechanical College of Texas. I 6 BULLETIN NO. 530, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION was utilized.” Cave and Fitch (2) found that as high as 90 per cent of the seeds in sargo silage passed through the cow unmasticated. The results of previous investigations seem to indicate that it pays to grind corn for dairy cows. There is practically no information avail- able concerning the value of grinding the grain sorghums and other small grains, which are produced and fed extensively to livestock in Texas and ‘the Southwest. The object of these experiments was to measure the value of grinding certain small grains as well as corn for milk ‘pro- duction. METHOD OF PROCEDURE These experiments were conducted by the Department of Dairy Hus- bandry in cooperation with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. The double reversal method of feeding lactating dairy cows was used in comparing whole versus ground shelled corn, whole versus ground threshed oats, whole versus ground threshed milo, and whole versus ground threshed barley. ' A total experimental period of 84 days divided into three periods of 28 days each was used in each experiment. The first seven days of each 28-day period was considered as a transition period from one ration to another and the data were disregarded, since the entire change from whole to ground grain feeding, or vice versa, was made in one feeding at the end of each 28-day period. The last 21 days constituted the true experimental period. Three to six purebred Holstein and Jersey cows were used in each group with the exception of the first oat experiment, in which one Ayrshire was also used in each group. These groups were balanced as nearly as possible as to breed, milk production, body weight, age, stage of lactation, and persistency of production. All the cows were fed their concentrate ration in the milking barn while they were being milked. ‘ The grain mixture was fed at the rate of one pound for each two and one-half pounds of milk produced per cow per day by Jerseys, and one pound for each three pounds of milk produced daily per cow by Hol- steins. The amount fed per cow each week was determined from the previous week's production. This grain mixture, balanced so as to prop- erly supplement the nutrients supplied by the roughage, consisted of a variety of concentrates readily available in any of the feed markets of Texas. The analyses of these feeds are given in Table 1. The grain being tested in each of the experiments made up from 50 to 75 per cent of the total grain mixture. After the grain mixture was balanced, one per cent of salt and one per cent of either steam bone meal or oyster shell were added. GROUND VERSUS UNGROUND GRAIN FOR LACTATING DAIRY COWS 7 Table 1. Average Analyses‘ of Feeds Used in Experiments. Crude Crude Crude Name No. of Protein Fat Fiber N.F.E. Water Ash Analyses % % % % % % Cottonseed meal . . . . . . .. 3 44.31 6.97 1O 00 26.12 6.94 5.66 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 16.91 4.11 9 25 53.33 10 46 5.94 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 13.81 1.42 33 0O 35.25 8 69 7.83 Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 13.52 2.02 6 21 65.75 9 73 2.77 Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 10.81 5.62 11 55 59.68 8 44 3 90 “Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 10.34 4.40 2 31 71.16 10 53 1 26 M110“... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 11.19 2.77 2 26 72.01 10 07 1.70 l_Hegan_s1lage . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.45 0.94 6 31 18.75 67 22 4.33 ‘;_Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 2.07 0.56 6 86 12.29 76 28 1 94 jMolasses-Beet pulp. . . . 1 9.01 0.31 17 16 59.99 8.97 4 56 istatgfilnalyses made by Division of Chemistry, Texas Agricultural Experiment (A The roughages consisted of either sorghum silage or wet beet pulp and alfalfa hay. Roughage was fed at the rate of one pound of alfalfa hay and three pounds of either silage or wet beet pulp per hundred Ewpounds live weight per cow daily. The roughages were fed to each group iiaieparately in mangers in the feed barn, and the refuse was gathered and gweighed after each feeding. Each group of cows was kept in a. separate dry lot where water, block salt, shade, and shelter were available actual weight of the cows. The scale used for weighing the cows was ‘graduated to one pound and was carefully balanced at each weighing period. In analyzing the results of body weight changes, only three- fourths of the actual weight differences were used because data concern- g feed consumption and milk production were disregarded for the first seven days of each 28-day period. The cows were milked three times daily by hand in the regular milk- g barn with the balance of the dairy herd and the milk was weighed n a regular milk scale graduated to one-tenth pound. The milk weights ere kept on separate records as well as on the regular barn record. f‘ All of the experiments were conducted with the College dairy herd der the direct supervision of the senior author. Senior and graduate * udents were in immediate charge of the experimental animals and re- ponsible for weighing, milking, and feeding the cows. .* In addition to the above experiments, tests were conducted to determine per cent of whole corn and whole milo would pass unmasticated ‘grough the digestive system of the cow. It was found difficult to iparate the masticated from the unmasticated whole grains of oats and garley, so that tests of mastication were discontinued. EXPERIDIENTAL RESULTS The effect, if any, of grinding grain upon milk yield, changes in body eight, and feed consumption should be shown by the difference between 8 BULLETIN NO. 530, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the average results of the first and third 21-day experimental period and those of the second 21-day experimental period. By employing the dou- ble reversal method of feeding experiments, involving two groups of cows, the influence of unfavorable climatic conditions and difierences in inherited ability to produce milk were eliminated. Furthermore, in order to eliminate the possible influence of seasons of the year, the _ experiments were repeated at different periods during the year. In all of the experiments, group “A” was fed ground grain during the first and third periods and whole grain during the second period, whereas group “B” was fed the whole grain ration the first and third period and the ground grain ration the second period. Different cows were included in both groups for each experiment. Results of Whole Versus Ground Corn The first corn experiment was started in the spring of 1932. Six cows consisting of one Jersey and five Holsteins were used in each group. The second corn experiment was started in the fall of 1932, and again one Jersey ‘and five Holsteins were used in each group. The results from these two experiments of feeding whole versus ground corn were very unsatisfactory because of the extreme difficulty of secur- ing consumption of the Whole corn, so that there was a much greater consumption of grain during the periods the cows were fed the ground corn ration, as shown in Tables 2 and 3. This was especially true in the first corn experiment when whole corn comprised 75 per cent of the entire grain mixture. During the second corn experiment whole corn comprised only 50 per cent of the grain mixture; this resulted in more nearly equal consumption of whole and ground corn than during the, first experiment, but with still a considerable difference in the total quantity of each consumed. Another method used in attempting to solve the problem of inducing the animals to eat whole corn was to raise- heifer calves up to calving time on a. mixture containing considerable whole corn, and then to place them on an experiment. However, once these animals were placed on the ground corn mixture, they showed the. same dislike for the whole corn as the cows in the two previous experi- ments when changed from ground to whole corn, and the experiment was therefore discontinued. Results of Milk Yield, Body Weight Changes, and Feed Consumption The differences in milk yield, body weight changes, and feed consump-Q tion between the average of the first and third experimental period and: the second period, as well as the combined results of both groups, are‘ shown in Table 2. Average differences for each group are shown rather-i than total differences. The first two columns of the table represent they“ total consumption per cow for each group during the 21-day period of“ whole and ground corn feeding respectively, because whole and ground}, 9 m.“ + 9Q. | m6 l 9o l 7o + we + Q2 + “.52 H W9: . . . . ..~zssukim 89E N-§@ I I w-R l- .|| ll + + Ill ---.--..wH-kUE@HQQNm 80km HE»? v52 2.5 ~33 G02 83m >vimm F80 F30 >uom mwcsom “Bum .830? wvvwnofionv “c055 E530 .9590 2on3 _ m.~.| 9$+ ma! odl 0.0+ 0.5+ 0.2+ 0.311 n52! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iml. <~Q=2au5 0.31 92! 028+ H$+ 9n! ~..m| ~.§| ~43! 0.3+ . . . . . . . . . 33o 03:3 so @3533 m 9.30 9%! 92+ Q2+ md+ _ .~+ ¢.»+ 53+ n31 Q31 . . . . .. . . E08 H.565 .8 @883 < 9.20 .~ uGoQ-iufiufl fi bola .......... ..-.- . . . - .-.-........-.m|l000 030% 003m 020mm n30 3x0 000m w0::o.m 000m vwmmw @0083» 03w 035$ 00:30 00:30 000003 A8300 0.0+ 0000+ . . . . . . . 1000+ 0.0+ 000+ 0000+ 0000+ 830+ 300ml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2m] 430300000 050l- 3.0+ . . . . . . . .. 30+ 0.0+ 00.0|. N0 0| 0w.0| 0m.~.00| 00.000+ . . . . . . . 10300 20003 :0 03533 0 0:30 000+ 8.2+ . . . . . . . . 000+ 0.0+ 00.0+ 3.0+ 0000+ 00.0~0+ 0.0.~00| . . . . . . . . A300 0.53m no 03033 4 0:30 .0 3033030 000+ 0000+ 0.. 0|. . . . . . . . .. 00.¢I 0.0+ 000+ 000+ $000+ 800ml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 I. < 000330000 $.00] $.31 000+ . . . . . . . 000+ 00.] 00.0] 0N0] om 0001 0503+ . . . . . . . 103.06 2on3 no 00333 m 0:30 3.0+ 5200+ 0.2+ . . . . . . . .. 000+ 0~.0+ 000+ 0~$+ 0003+ 00 .w~0I. . . . . . . 303:3 00:000. co 03:33 < 0:30 .0 050050000000 . . . . . - - -. c . . . . . . - .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . ..@|.0om m0::on0 000m ummmw @0002 cflmmmnv 0x903 0:06.00 00:30 200:5 ih-STHN. 050350 M50050 #000003 50 00055000 055 5050:0920 .5Q0Z0~55m5¢0 M55005 mhfiwunfl 0.50.5 05: wmafl 050.050 $055.05 5- 0.000035 M020 50 3.050200 05w Q5005 n0 505050950 000w m0 50305-53000 v0.0.8.5... . .0100 000Gb? m5muv> .055Q.~0 -$ Qmnmuwa GROUND VERSUS UNGROUND GRAIN FOR LACTATING DAIRY COWS 13 Average weight differences per cow in 21 days favoring ground grain flanged from one pound in the third experiment to 3.45 pounds in the Eifsecond experiment“ Weight differences between the periods of feeding gggjwhole and ground oats were much more uniform than those between the jtwo experiments of whole versus ground corn. » I! Table 5. Ground Versus Whole Oats. Group A (3 cows) Group B (3 cows) Experiment 1. . Average of Average of First and Second First and Second Third Period Period Third Period Period ;l""=~~ Ground Grain Mixture Consumed. . 681.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503.0 - ds Whole Grain Mixture Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . 499.7 513.0 . . . . . . . . v »unds Milk Produced... .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982.9 1710.8 1516.6 1483.1 l=- Milk Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:2.91 1:3.42 1:2.96 122.95 Experiment 2. Group A (6 cows) Group B (6 cows) "- ads Ground Grain Mixture Consumed. . 1596.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1580.5 ' nds Whole Grain Mixture Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . 1462.4 1537.2 . . . . . . . . nds Milk Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4875.6 4577.4 4646.3 4835.4 'n Milk Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:3.05 1:3.13 123.02 1:3.06 Experiment 3. Group A (5 cows) Group B (S cows) _ unds Ground Grain Mixture Consumed. . 1135 . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011.1 ' unds Whole Grain Mixture Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . 1061.7 1004.6 . . . . . . . . ‘unds Milk Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3291.5 2906.4 2768.8 2761. 1 = .- Milk Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:2.90 122.74 1:2.76 1:2.73 Results of Whole Versus Ground Milo The first experiment comparing whole versus ground milo was con- ducted during the summer of 1932, with three Jerseys and two Holsteins Q each group. The second experiment was conducted during the late fiinter and early spring of 1933, and the third experiment was conducted Curing the winter of 1934. There were two Jerseys and four Holsteins in a h group in the second experiment and three Jerseys and two Holsteins each group in the third experiment. In each of the three experiments grain mixture included 60 per cent of milo. g Results of Milk Yield, Body Weight Changes, and Feed Consumption j Table 6 shows the average differences in feed consumption, milk pro- Suction, and changes in body weight between the periods of whole and ound milo feeding for the three experiments. During the first ex- riment there was a difference of 2.12 pounds of milk per cow daily voring ground milo, while in the second and third experiments the i 14 BULLETIN NO. 53-0, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 3.8 1. 0.00 .| 00.000 .l 0.0. | 00.0 + 00.0 + 00.00 m0. 0w H . . . . . . . . . . . .. 00.0 + 0.000 11 + 0.0 11 0H .0 + 0H .0 + 00.04 0&3 H . . . . . . . . . . $m%fiwmmumfl 53h 0.3 + 0.00 1. 0.0 + 0.0 + 00.0 + 00.0 + 00.0 0.000 H 0.00m . . . . . . . . . . .4 QEQEVQE~% wamflm E083 v52 03m > I 032 cfim >280 Q02 002 >0om m0nsom 03m 0:22 000E330 00003 0:230 0:030 u_o.0>> 0000+ 0003+ 0.001 00.01 000+ 000+ 00 00+ 00. 0N . l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .l . 0000+ 00.0011 0.0+ 000+ 004i. 00.01 00.0| 3 .w_l@.. . . . . . . . . .AO1E 0303 Eomwwfimmmmvmvunflmwmfl 00.00+ 0000+ 0.021 50+ 1.0+ 1.0+ 000+ 0703+ 00.0071 . . . . . . . A008 056.00 no 08803 w~m:.nfi% w m _ . rw .0 055E030 00.0.1 0000+ 0 .~.0| 0.0+ 0.0+ 000+ 0000+ 0000+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1m < 028.6 . 11 . l . . . .1 . l . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. w. 00.00| 0.00 0.0~+ 0.0+ 0.0 0.0 0.0.1 0.0:| 0000+ . . . . . . 30E 2on3 no 03.530 m 9540C 8 v0 0 000+ 0 00+ 0 0+ 0 0+ 0 0+ 0 0+ 0 000+ 0 N311 . . 30E 0550M no 03000.3 < 000.1% .0 ufiwiiuwnufl 0.001. 000+ 0.0+ 0.0+ 000+ 000+ 050+ 0 000+ 000ml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1m . . . 1 . 1 .1 .1 .1 . . ....... .. 1 < v2.2.0. 0.~0+ 0.0+ 0.0 0.0011 00. 00. 00. H 000i 002+ . . . . . . 000E 2on3 no 080030 m 960% 0 NH+ 5 00+ 0 0+ 0 0N 0 0+ 0 0+ 0. 0+ 0 03+ 0 #0011 IAOIE 0:00.00 no 03.223 < 0:000 A ufioiionnfi E000?» M004 03m 0mm G02 52m 02.5w 0:2 Q02 1lll/ll 36m 0056.0 03m 0:3? 0326300 000:3 00:30 056.6 v3.05 ihuwunfl 0.25am Win50 wnwmob» Gm mum-lav 0:: 30mg? hwcn i“ mowflaio 0:: 5030:0910 icmwfiii-mflcu 525E 6:05 m0 icioflm-Oafi £00m m0 iQmwfiflnn-UEQQ QMFEPPQ. mwwuéu 0.5-5 0i.» wmafi Win50 3255i 0:2 £055 mflmao? 0:50.19 .0 .3: E a8. GROUND VERSUS UNGROUND GRAIN FOR LACTATING DAIRY COWS 15 differences were greater, amounting to 4.60 and 3.66 pounds respectively for the two experiments. The consumption of concentrates was greater during the periods of ground milo feeding, amounting to 0.70 pounds per cow daily in the first experiment and 1.45 and 1.20 pounds per cow per day respectively during the second and third experiments. It can be seen from Table 7 that the ratio of concentrates fed to milk produced was practically the same between Whole and ground milo feeding for all three experiments. From Table 6 it will be observed that the changes in body weights were rather inconsistent, ranging from 10.3 pounds per cow in 21 days favor- ing whole grain in the first experiment to a similar change of 10.3 pounds favoring ground grain in the third experiment. i Table 7. Ground Versus Whole Milo. Group A (5 cows) Group B (5 cows) Experiment 1. Average of Average of First and Second First and Second Third Period Period Third Period Period Pounds Ground Grain Mixture Consumed. . 1239.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867.3 Pounds Whole Grain Mixture Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . 1094. 8 865.7 . . . . . . . . Pounds Milk Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3722.1 3243.4 2488.5 2455.8 Grain Milk Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 23.08 1 :2.96 1 :2.87 1 :2.83 Experiment 2. Group A (6 cows) Group B (6 cows) Pounds Ground Grain Mixture Consumed. . 1651.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1785.2 Pounds Whole Grain Mixture Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . 1423.4 1649.0 . . . . . . . . Pounds Milk Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4786.0 4145.3 4832.8 5351.4 Grain Milk Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 22.90 1 :2.90 1 12.93 1 13.00 Experiment 3. Group A (5 cows) Group B (5 cows) Pounds Ground Grain Mixture Consumed. . 1209.7 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1176.1 Pounds Whole Grain Mixture Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . 1053.9 1079.1 . . . . . . . . Pounds Milk Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3303.2 2811.5 2921.9 3198.3 Grain Milk Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 :2.73 1 :2.67 1 :2.71 I 1 :2.72 Results of Whole Versus Ground Barley The first barley experiment was conducted in the winter of 1934-35; three Jerseys and two Holsteins were used in each group. The second experiment was conducted during the spring of 1935, with three Jerseys and three Holsteins in each group. In both of these experiments the concentrate mixture fed included 50 per cent of barley. Results of Milk Production, Body Weight Changes, and Feed Consumption Table 8 shows the average differences of milk yield, feed consump- tion, and changes in body weight between the periods of feeding whole and ground barley for the two experiments. The differences in milk 16 BULLETIN NO. 530, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 2H3 || 3K2 .|. Nd + 3. | 9w + 9w + #6“ + fmwu H adflu pnoEfiunxfi Eofim m3 | 3 m8 .| w u I. 0.: .| Q.“ + w.» + 5o + oafi H 53m 2.1.1....““cvcrhvaxufiopm 23E?» “E2 25 Qm R02 cfim F30 >235 >2$m 3am mwfiom $5 . w=¢=< wmaéozoo “wars E506 US$0.10 $58 , \ 2.01 ¢.~2+ ~.~+ 3.1 9w+ 9w+ 12+ 12$ 063i . . . . . . . . . <8q~zv _ mflj. PS1 HUT RT 9N1 9N! ¢_u| @..\.:| 121 . . , . . . ..§2$@ 22a no wufifiwv m Qkww o 3 w 81. a HI h ml. o 0+ o w+ o w+ “.31 92:1 . . . . . A519“. unsohm no wwfifiwv 4 965 fi ufloaioanfl 93+ 2.31 .3! 9S| .:+ f; 55+ 93$ :31 . . . . . . . . . ..........ml<8¢8~_ fi .0?! w»?! wuw+ ofiml h»! fml Nmwl wé§| 062+ . . . . . . ZQQEWQ 2on3 no @323» m Qswwfi a. 3+ 3 3+ w m+ o $1 h n+ 5 m+ m m+ ¢a$+ “dfil . . . . . Afiimn cnnohw no wwfifim 4 Qsokw _ A ufloasuoaufl 322$ M52 25 Sm 52 82m E5 .622“ 32mm 36m @258 flaw £23» wveéfifiu amass v5.20 @520 2on5 ihflflunfl Uflooom M5256 wflwwosw i“ mow-SE? ma: iAlwn-fim-Qai iomwfifli-u c0 h | w. wfiH-Q? .325 in EQHGHGQ ma: Jim-E u: Hcfioim-cnh £50m u: ====E=m=¢w vwwu-m-QQWQ mfiumvwinw$nwwwmoiginmzfimwfl~rm wwhnm-finwmh-v mamim-vmrmafi GROUND VERSUS UNGROUND GRAIN FOR LACTATING DAIRY COWS 17 ijproduction favoring ground barley were 3,89 and 4.34 pounds per cow gflfiaily for the first and second experiment respectively. The consump- siion of concentrates while the cows were on the ground grain ration for he two experiments was 1.20 and 1.33 pounds greater per cow per day Iggrespectively. It can be seen from Table 9 that the ratio of concentrates ‘ii-fed to milk produced was practically the same between the periods of Yeiwhole and ground barley feeding for both experiments. Table 9. Ground Versus VVhole Barley. Group A (5 cows) Group B (5 cows) Experiment 1. Average of Average of First and Second First and " Second Third Period " Period Third Period Period {Pounds Ground Grain Mixture Consumed. . 1404.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1417.2 Qounds Whole Grain Mixture Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . 1260.6 1303.7 . . . . . . . . _.Pounds Milk Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3918.4 3429.3 3680.4 4007.3 ilirain Milk Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 :2.79 1 :2.72 1 2 82 1 :2 83 Experiment 2 Group A (6 cows) Group B (6 cows) QPounds Ground Grain Mixture Consumed. . 1476.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1409.8 flounds Whole Grain Mixture Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . 1220.1 1329. 3 . . . . . . . . §P011nds Milk Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4164.9 3501.8 3702.9 4134.6 éfitain Milk Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 :2.82 1 :2.87 1 2 9 1 :2 93 . 4,4. The average of body weight changes for the two experiments showed a. difference of 23.4 pounds per cow in 21 days favoring ground barley. Efiect of Feeding Whole versus Ground Grains on High versus Low Producing Cows ~ ivy]. ,5.»- gafg J-rvmmmiqrrgrs. rm,“ In analyzing the results of milk production tin the several experi- ments on whole grain, it was observed that there was a greater decrease in that of the higher producing cows in the experiments than in that of the lower producing cows. Therefore, the cows in the several experiments were divided into two groups on the basis of their milk production for the first 21-day period of each experiment. Cows producing an average i-of 34.4 pounds or four gallons or more of milk daily were placed in the r-High Producing group and the cows producing less than four gallons i: daily were placed in the Low Producing group; the results were analyzed ‘as shown-in Table 10. The lowest producing cows used in any experi- ment produced not less than one and one-half gallons per cow daily. It can be seen from Table 1O that in every experiment comparing whole versus ground grains, the effect on milk production was much greater 4m the high producing cows than on the cows classified as low producers. ‘The average differences for all experiments concerning any particular iigrain showed that the greatest differences in milk production between lhigh and low producing cows was found for barley and the smallest dif- 18 BULLETIN NO. 530, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ference for oats. The difference in favor of the ground grain ration was greater by approximately one-half gallon per cow daily for the high pro- ducing than for the low producing cows in both the corn and barley experiments, whereas the difference between the high and low producers in the oats and milo experiments was only about one quart per cow daily. Table 10. Effects of Feeding Ground versus Whole Grain on High versus Low Producing Cows. High Low Difference Average Producing Producing between High and Low Cows Cows Producing Cows Average Difference Experiment Numbers Av. Lbs. Av. Lbs. per Day Milk Pro- Milk Pro- for All duced in 21 duced in 21 Lbs. in Lbs. per Experi- days favor- days favor- 21 days Day ments ing ground ing ground grain gram Corn Experiment No. 1 . . . . . . 252.30 104.88 147 .42 7.02 . . . . . . Corn Experiment N0. 2 . . . . . . 38.33 11.33 27.00 1.29 4.15 Oat Experiment No. 1 . . . . . . . 92.65 13.58 79.07 3.76 . . . . .. Oat Experiment No. 2 . . . . . . . 52.43 17.08 35.35 1.68 . . . . .. Oat Experiment No. 3 . . . . . . . 72.48 22.85 49.63 2.36 2.60 Milo Experiment No. 1 . . . . . . 86. 72 16.52 70.20 3.34 . . . . . . Milo Experiment No. 2 . . . . . . 107.12 44.20 62.92 3.00 . . . . .. Milo Experiment No. 3 . . . . . . 101.00 66.44 34.56 1.65 2.66 Barley Experiment N0. 1 . . . . 115.49 47. 70 67. 79 3.22 . . . . .. Barley Experiment No. 2.... 147.40 34.97 112.43 5.35 4.28 Productive Values of Whole Grains Because different feedstuffs, milk, and body weight, each have differ- ent energy values, these three items have been reduced to a common term, “Productive Energy," in the analysis of these data. The pro- ductive energy of the feeds used was calculated from the analyses of the feeds as shown in Table 1 by the Division of Chemistry as illustrated in Texas Station Bulletin No. 329 (3). The productive energy of the milk and gain in weight was also calculated by the Division of Chemistry on the basis of the estimated therms of energy required to produce one pound of average milk and one pound of average gain in body weight. The calculated productive value of the ground grains was multiplied by the pounds of ground grain fed to obtain the total productive energy supplied by the ground grains. Similar calculations were made for’ the other feeds, milk productions and changes in body weights on the basis of the differences between the periods of whole and ground grain feed- ing. These differences in productive energy were added to or subtracted from the productive energy contained in the ground grain. Finally, this remainder of productive energy was divided by the total amount 0f whole GROUND VERSUS UNGROUND GRAIN FOR LACTATING DAIRY COWS 19 .Ii:grain consumed per cow to obtain the productive value for the whole grain expressed as “therms per hundred pounds.” s _ There was a wide variation and often much inconsistency in change in body weight in the experimental animals in these experiments as shown ‘in Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8. Because of this inconsistency, calculations of fthe productive values were made including and omitting the changes in {body weights. The productive values of the whole grains used in the various ex- periments are given in Tables 11 to 14 inclusive. Each table includes the results of all experiments conducted with any one grain. Table 15 lives the average of all experiments pertaining to each of the whole grains ested, as well as the calculated values for the ground grains. It can be en from Table 15 that the calculated energy value of whole corn was gigh; this was probably caused by the wide difierence in the amounts p: "whole and ground grain consumed. In the two barley experiments the lculated productive values were practically the same. There was con- derable variation in calculated productive values of whole oats between e three experiments with a difference of about 10.75 therms per one Iaundred pounds between the first and third experiments. There was very "lose agreement between the second and third milo experiments. How- ‘ver, the first milo experiment showed a productive value of whole grain bout 3.5 therms per one hundred pounds greater than that of the‘ other wo experiments. » w: Table 11. Calculation of Productive Value of Whole Corn in Therms (from equations in Table 2.) 0 Productive Productive 5 Factor Pounds Value Pounds Value h Whole Corn 234. 2 185.5 . . und Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .871 442.5 385.42 223.6 194.76 v-Bran‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .490 +34.5 +1691 +7.6 +3.72 ' -: tonseed Meal . . . . . . . . . . . .744 +34.5 +25.67 +6.1 +4.54 und Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +22.9 +18.18 ._f' Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .330 --88.5 —29.21 .6 .20 ~ t Pulp (Dry) . . . . . . . . . . .. .629 -7.s —4.91 -0.s —o.31 , y» Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.10 —57.2 -62.92 +7.5 +8.25 _ iv Lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .30 —381.7 —114.51 —-42.6 —12.78 Total + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 428.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 229.45 -v Total ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 211.55 . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.29 'nder.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. +216.45 . . . . . . . . . . .. +216.16 Total Thermal Therms per Value of Pounds of 100 lbs. of ~ Whole Corn l Whole Corn Whole Corn _, I: in Weight Included 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 216.45 + 234.2 92.42 , 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 216.16 + 185.5 116.52 " l‘ garding Weight Changes ~ 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 279.37 + 234.2 119.29 "2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 207.91 -Z— 185.5 112.08 . . ..up.mfi 20 BULLETIN NO. 530, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 12. Calculation of Productive Value of Oats in Therms (from equations in Table 4). Pro- Pro- Pro- Factor Pounds ductive Pounds ductive Pounds ductive : Value Value Value Whole Oats Ground Oats . . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed Meal . . . . . . . Wheat Bran . . . . . . . . . . . Ground Barley . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beet Pulp (Dry) . . . . . . . . . Body Weight . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . Milk (Lbs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . Total + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 184.33 . . . . . . . .. 211.15 . . . . . . . .. 171.00 Total —- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ 27.93 . . . . . . . . . 33. 10 . . . . . . . .. 24.64 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. +156.40 . . . . . . . .. +178.65 . . . . . . . .. +146.16 _. Total Thermal Therms per Value of Pounds of 100 lbs. of Whole Oats Whole Oats Whole Oats Changes in Weight Included 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156.40 + 205.5 I 76.11 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 178.65 -;- 262.86 67.96 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 146.16 —2- 219.28 66.65 . Disregarding Weight Changes . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 160.36 + 205.5 78.03 " 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186.24 + 262.86 70.85 3...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 148.56 —:- 219.28 67.75 Table 13. Calculation of Productive Value of Whole Milo in Therms A (from equations in Table 6). ,; Pro- Pro- Pro- Fa_ctor Pounds ductive Pounds ductive Pounds ductive Aj Value Value Value .= l: Whole Milo 235.4 301.3 256.02 Ground Milo . . . . . . . . . . . .857 252.9 216.74 343.9 294.72 286.32 245.3895‘? Ground Barley . . . . . . . .. . 794 +5.78 +4.59 +12 .00 +9.53 +10. 13 +8.04} Wheat Bran . . . . . . . . . .. .490 +2.96 +1.45 +6.10 +2.99 +5.06 +2.48 ‘i Cottonseed Meal . . . . . . . .744 +2 .96 +2.20 +6.10 +4.54 +5.06 +3.76 i Alfalfa Hay . . . . . . . . . . .. .330 +2.60 +0. 86 ——0. 10 ——0.03 —2.50 —0.83 3 Beet Pulp (Dry) . . . . . . . . .629 +5.40 +3.40 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .249 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —10.0 —2.49.§ Body Weight . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 +20. 6 +22 . 66 +6.09 +6.70 -——20. 63 —22.69 Milk (Lbs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —89 2 —26 76 —193.2 —57 96 --153 62 -—46.09 Total+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 251.90 . . . . . . . .. 313.48 . . . . . . . .. 259.667; Total- . . . . . . . . . . .." . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.76 . . . . . . . .. 57.99 . . . . . . . .. 72.10 I Remainder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . +225 . 14 . . . . . . . . . +260.49 . . . . . . . . . +187.56 Total Thermal Value Pounds Therms per 100 lbs. > of Whole Milo of Whole Milo of Whole Milo i; Changes in Weight Included .- 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.14 + 235.4 95.64 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 260.49 v+ 301.3 34.76 - 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187.56 -:— 256.02 73.26 ‘if Disregarding Weight Changes 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 202.43 + 235.4 36.01 =3 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.79 + 307.3 82.59 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 210.25 -1- 256.02 82.12 GROUND VERSUS UNGROUND GRAIN FOR LACTATING DAIRY COWS 21 Table 14. Calculations of Productive Value of Whole Barley in Therms » (from equations in Table S). Productive Productive Factor Pounds Value Pounds Value Whole Barley 261.7 216.9 ound Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794 288.0 228.67 245.4 194.85 -und Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .871 +9.7 +8.44 +10.4 +9.06 .744 +7.4 +5.51 +8.6 +6.40 eat Bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .490 +7.4 +3.63 +8.6 . +4.21 _~ alfa Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .330 —11.6 +3.83 —4.1 +1.35 Pulp (Dry) . . . . . . . . . . .. .629 —2.4 --1.51 +2.2 +1.38 , y Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.10 -—64.5 —70.95 --29.25 -—32. 17 * ‘k (Lbs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30 -163 19 —4s.96 —1s2.40 —s4. 72 Total + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246.25 . . . . . . . . 215.90 Total — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.25 . . . . . . . . 88.24 ainder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +121.00 . . . . . . . . +127.66 Total Thermal Value Pounds Therms ‘per 100 lbs. of Whole Barley of Whole Barley of Whole Barley 1h - nges in Weight Included -, 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 121.00 -:- 261.7 46.24 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 127.66 + 216.9 58.86 a ' egarding Weight Changes i‘ 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 191.95 -I- 261.7 73.35 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 159.83 + 216.9 73.69 Table 15. The Average Productive Values of Whole Grains in each Experiment. Total Calculated Experiment and Productive Value Pounds T herms per 100 lbs. Feed of Whole Grain Whole Grain Fed Whole Grain . Corn L riment 1 . . . . . . . . .. 234.20 —Z- 279.37 119.29 riment 2 . . . . . . . .. 185.50 —:— 207.91 112.08 Ground Corn 87. 10 Average = 115 . 68 160.36 + 205.50 78.03 186.24 -Z— 262.86 70.85 148.56 + 219.28 67.75" Ground Oats 72.20 Average = 72.21 202.48 + 235.40 86.01 253.79 —Z- 307.30 82.59 210.25 —2— 256.02 82.12 Ground Milo 85. 70 _ Average = 83 .57 191.95 + 261.70 73.35 159.83 —:- 216.90 73.69 Ground Barley 79.40 Average = 73 .52 Mastication of Grain by Da-iry Cows Immediately following the first experiment with milo, two Holstein ‘ws used in that experiment were kept in box stalls for six consecutive léi-= and fed a ration containing 60 per cent of whole milo, and the nmasticated grain was recovered from the feces daily by Washing 22 BULLETIN NO. 530, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION through a screen. The recovered grain was then dried to an air dry basis and weighed. One cow consumed 36 pounds of milo, of which 17.4 pounds were recovered in the feces; therefore 51.7 per cent was masticated. The other cow was fed 15 pounds of whole milo, of which 13.1 pounds was recovered, so that 12.7 per cent was masticated. A similar test was conducted with two Holstein cows at the close of the first corn experiment, with a ration containing 75 per cent of whole corn. One cow consumed 40.65 pounds of whole corn and 9.1 pounds was recovered in thefeces, showing that 77.6 per cent was masticated. The other cow consumed 55.5 pounds of whole corn and 21.5 pounds were recovered in the feces, showing that 61.3 per cent was masticated. A second trial was conducted with two Holstein cows following the second corn experiment. In this trial the ration consisted of only 50 per cent of whole corn instead of 75 per cent as in the first trial. One cow consumed 26.8 pounds of whole corn and 17.7 pounds were recovered in the feces, so that 24.0 per cent was masticated. The other cow was fed 14.6 pounds 0f whole corn and 8.5 pounds were recovered in the feces, so that 41.8 per cent was masticated. Table 16 shows the chemical analyses of the corn and milo grain as fed and as recovered. Table 16. Analysis of Corn and Milo Grain as Fed and as Recovered. Crude Crude Crude Protein Fat Fiber N. F. E. Water Ash % % % % % % Corn as Fed . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.97 4.40 2.15 71.12 11.05 1.31 Corn Recovered . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. 72 4.61 2.53 71.56 8. 77 1.81 Milo as Fed . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.17 2.73 2.28 72.24 9.68 1.90 Milo Recovered . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.07 2.41 2.47 70.30 11.56 2.19 DISCUSSION Experiments are reported in this bulletin on the results of feeding whole as compared with ground grains to dairy cows, using the double reversal method of feeding. These tests were conducted in triplicate to compare whole threshed milo with ground milo and whole threshed oats with ground oats, and in duplicate to compare whole shelled corn with ground corn and whole threshed barley with ground barley. The ground grains used in these investigations were ground to a medium fineness. In all of the experiments greater milk yields were obtained from the cows when they were fed the ground grain ration.“ At the same time these cows consumed more grain than when fed the whole grain ration. It was found that much more whole corn was refused by the cows than any of the other whole grains tested; especially GROUND VERSUS UNGROUND GRAIN FOR LACTATING DAIRY COWS 23 was this true in the first corn experiment. Whole milo grain was second to corn in the amount refused, with barley third and oats fourth. Corn was the largest in size of the Whole grains tested and possibly the hardest to crack or crush, whereas milo was the smallest grain and would pos- sibly rank close to corn in crushing strength. Oats was much the softest grain and of intermediate size. Thus it would seem that hardness as well as size of the whole grains had an influence on the palatability of the grains as indicated by the relative amounts of the various whole grains refused by the cows. There were two reasons why the groups of cows consumed more total concentrate feed during the periods of ground grain feeding, namely, less ground grain refused and greater milk pro- duction on the ground grain ration. No doubt a part of the greater milk yields obtained during the periods of ground grain feeding was due to the fact that more concentrate feed- was consumed. In fact, nearly all of the higher milk yields obtained on ground grain could be accounted for by the greater consumption of concentrate feed except in the case of the barley experiments, as shown in Tables 11 to 14 inclusive. Therefore, it seems advisable to grind such grains for dairy cows, espe- cially high producing animals, in order to increase the palatability of the grains to the extent of obtaining consumption of such feeds in pro- portion to their level of milk production. It was intended at the outset of these experiments that approximately equal amounts of ground and whole grains would be fed to the cows. However, it can be seen from the results of-feed consumption and milk yields shown in Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8 that greater differences in feed consumption and milk production were always shown in group “A,” which group was started on the ground grain mixture in each experiment and therefore had two periods on ground and one on whole grain feeding. The reverse procedure applied to group “B.” Perhaps a better method for this type of experimental feeding would be to use four periods instead of three. This would give each group of animals an equal number of periods on the two types of rations, which we believe would help to eliminate differences in feed consumption by either group of cows when changed from the more palatable to the less palatable ration. It was found by analyzing the results of milk production between the high and low producing cows in these experiments that the low pro- ducers did not decline as much in milk production as the high producers when fed the whole grain mixture. The high producing group, because the total amount of grain refused was greater in proportion to milk pro- duction, naturally showed a greater reduction in milk yield than did the low producing group when on whole Stain: The differences in changes in body weight between the periods of whole and ground grain feeding were wide and inconsistent, especially in the experiments with corn, milo, and barley. These extreme variations between one experiment and another on the same feed indicate that other factors than the difference between whole and ground grain feeding influenced changes in body weights. It can be observed‘from Tables 11 24 BULLETIN NO. 530, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION to 14 inclusive that the results, expressed in therms of energy per one hundred pounds of whole grain, were more uniform when body weight changes were disregarded. Hence it is the opinion of the authors that the energy values calculated when body weight changes were disregarded more nearly represent the actual values of the whole grains. The.pro- ductive energy value of ground and whole oats were the same. The productive energy value of ground milo was 2.13 therms greater per one hundred pounds than that of whole milo, or 100 pounds of ground milo was equal to 102.55 pounds of whole milo. The productive energy value of ground barley was 5.88 therms greater per one hundred pounds than whole barley, or one hundred pounds of ground barley was equal to 108.0 pounds of whole barley. Tests were conducted to determine mastication of whole shelled corn and whole threshed milo by dairy cows. The results indicate that there was a wider variation between individual cows in the mastication of grain than there was between the mastication of different grains. by the same cow. However, there was a greater percentage of corn than of milo masticatéd by the cows in these tests, indicating that the smaller grains are more likely to escape mastication than the larger grains. According to the chemical analysis of the grain before and after feeding, as shown in Table 16, the cows obtained very little, if any, energy from the unmasticated grain as it passed through the digestive tracts of the cows. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Experiments were conducted with dairy cows to compare the value of whole versus ground corn, whole versus ground oats, whole versus ground milo, and whole versus ground barley for milk production. In all experiments there was a greater consumption of concentrates by both groups of cows during the periods they were on ground grains. This difference in consumption was probably due to the fact that the ground grains were more palatable than the whole grains. Greater milk production was obtained during the periods of ground grain feeding. When the results of whole versus ground grain feeding were analyzed on the basis of productive energy, considering the results of milk pro- duction and feed consumption, it was found that with the exception of barley the greater amount of milk produced during the period of ground, grain feeding was probably due to greater consumption of concentrates. The results of this series of experiments indicate that ground grain when mixed with other concentrates is more palatable than the same grain unground in a similar mixture of concentrates, and in these experi- ments the cows ate more of the concentrate ration containing the ground grain. This indicates that the greater palatability of the ground grains u‘ ;L>.,. .~. j4~ GROUND VERSUS UNGROUND GRAIN FOR LACTATING DAIRY COWS 25 i has a great influence upon the results of feed consumption and milk production in these experiments. The analysis of the results of feed consumption and milk production indicate th-at it is more profitable to grind feed for high producing cows . than for low producing cows. The amount of whole grain masticated by the cows in these experiments 2 was influenced more by the individuality of the cows than by the kind i, of whole grain fed. a greater per cent of the whole corn than of the whole milo. K cated grain yielded very little if any energy while passing through the s i However, the cows in these experiments masticated Unmasti— digestive tract of the cows. LITERATURE CITED 7 1. Becker, R. B., and Gallup, Willis D. 1927. Utilization of the Grain in Kafir and Cane Silage bIy Dairy Cows. Jour. of Agri. Res. 35:3. 2. Cave, H. W., and Fitch, J. B. 1925. Ground Sargo Seed as a Feed for Dairy Cows. Kans. Agri. Exp. Sta., Circ. 110:8. Fraps, G. S. 1925. Energy-Production Coefficients of American Feeding Stuffs. Texas Agri. Exp. Sta. Bul. 329. Hayden, C. C., Monroe, C. F., and Perkins, A. E. 1932. Preparation of Feeds for Dairy Cows. Ohio Agri. Exp. Sta., Bul.‘ 502. 5. Morrow, K. S., and LaMaster, J. P. 1929. Ground Hay for Milk Production. S. C. Agri. Exp. Sta., Bul. 255. 6. Reed, O. E., and Burnett, J. E. at 1926. Grinding Alfalfa Hay for Dairy Cows. Mich. Agri. Exp. Sta., Bul.» Quarterly Bul. 9:3. .7. Wilbur, J. w. 1933. Grinding Grains for Dairy Cows. Purdue Univ. Agri. Exp. Sta., Bul. s72. <8. Wilson, James W. 1930. Value of Grgdivng Grains and R-oughage for Livestock. Aifigfiilailgri. xp$qq1§41fi5§l r31 & p,“