/Z^^f,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
E. W. HILGARD, Director
FEEDING OF FARM ANIMALS
BY
M. E. JAFFA and LEROY ANDERSON
BULLETIN 132
BERKELEY
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
June, 1901
*
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
FEEDING OF FARM ANIMALS.
PRINCIPLES OF ANIMAL NUTRITION : COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBILITY OF FOODS :
COMMENTS ON VARIOUS FODDERS AND FEEDSTUFFS, INCLUDING SUGAR=BEET PULP :
TABLES FOR COMPOUNDING RATIONS: SUGGESTIVE RATIONS FOR DIFFERENT FARM
ANIMALS: USE OF FRUITS FOR STOCK.
The great interest which is being taken in the feeding of animals
and the constant demands which are being made on this Station for
information along these lines, has made it imperative for us to issue
this Bulletin, setting forth the general principles underlying all
animal feeding, together with such data and comments as have seemed
most essential for the farmer and stockman. Notwithstanding that
the majority of the experiment stations have issued bulletins covering
the same subject, the climatic conditions obtaining in California and
the wide difference in our foods from those of the older States render
it necessary that this Bulletin be issued to deal more intelligently with
the environments peculiar to this State.
Some of the matter here presented concerning the general principles
of feeding is reprinted from the Annual Report for 1894-95, the
edition of which is exhausted. So far as possible all analyses given
are from our own laboratories, and represent foods grown in California.
We have not been able, however, to analyze all the foods used in the
State, and therefore have copied many analyses from Professor Henry's
"Feeds and Feeding," in order to present the data in a more complete
form .
OBJECTS OF FEEDING.
It is well known that the young animal body requires food to supply
the material necessary for its growth. But beyond this, and con-
tinuing during and past the growing stage, there is a constant wearing
out and breaking down of all the tissues of the body, and this loss
must be supplied in order to keep the animal in a normal, healthy
condition. Not only must the worn-out tissues be replaced, but
the material used in producing the energy necessary for carrying
on all voluntary and involuntary functions, must also be supplied.
An animal which is working hard in the plow is using up a great deal
of fatty tissue as well as muscle; but the animal which is doing
nothing, that is, making no voluntary exertion, experiences a loss of
tissue through the constant production of heat necessary for the
maintenance of the normal body- temperature, and also for the per-
formance of all the involuntary functions of the body. Hence, we
might summarize the objects of feeding as follows:
(a) To maintain bodily heat. ( e) To perform muscular labor.
(o) To repair waste of tissue. ffj To secrete various products.
fcj To reproduce young. ( g) To lay up reserve stores.
fdj To form new tissues or organs.
COMPOSITION OF FOODS.
In order to see how these objects may be best carried out, we must
understand the composition of these tissues that need rebuilding, and
also the composition of the various foodstuffs at our command.
Viewing them side by side, for the purpose of better comparison, a
general analysis shows each to consist of the same four main ingredients
— water, mineral matters, nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous material.
Water constitutes about two-thirds of the weight of the body,
entering into the composition of all its tissues and fluids. As it does
not form nearly so large a proportion of the ordinary ration fed to
stock, we can readily understand the necessity of its forming a
separate part of the animal's food.
The mineral matters comprise about five per cent, of the body-
weight, and have important functions to perform, such as entering into
the formation of the teeth and bones, and regulating the density of
the blood and other fluids of the body, such as the juice of the stomach,
etc. When estimating food values the mineral or inorganic ingredients
are generally omitted, not on account of any lack of importance of
that portion of the food, but for the reason that nearly all feedstuffs,
no matter of what description, contain a sufficient amount of these
substances, which are mainly lime, potash, and phosphoric acid, with
varying amounts of sodium, iron, magnesia, sulphuric and hydrochloric
acids, silica, etc.
The nitrogenous matters of the body, of which the major part are
called proteids, the only ones that contain nitrogen, are found mostly
in the muscle, gelatinous part of the bones and tendons, brain, nerves,
and internal organs; in short, all the working machinery of the body
is composed principally of this important material. Similarly, in the
foods, the main part of all the nitrogenous material is termed protein,
signifying, by its Greek derivation, to take first place. Another name
for the proteids is albuminoids. This important ingredient of the food
is found largely in the white-of -egg, the "myosin" of lean meat, gluten
of grains, oil-cake meals, etc. Besides the albuminoids there are
other nitrogenous matters, chief among which is the class known as
amides, which are found to a greater or less extent in all foods, more
particularly in those of vegetable origin. The physiological action of
amides is similar to that of fat and carbohydrates.
The albuminoids in the different food-materials are estimated from
the nitrogen by multiplying the figure for the latter by 6.25; nitrogen
being sixteen per cent, of the albuminoids. In England the factor
used is 6.33.
The nitrogenous compounds of the food are generally, for the above
reasons, reported as crude protein.
The necessity of the albuminoids, or protein, in the daily food of
an animal depends not only upon its important relation to such tissues
as bone, muscle, blood, nerves, tendons, etc/but also upon the fact
that, as far as we know, no albuminoids or protein matter is formed
in the body except by the transformation of similar substances pre-
sented to it from external sources. It cannot be obtained by conversion
of any other material.
The protein can be changed into fats, and thus maj' serve as a fuel
for the body, but fats cannot replace protein. Because the protein, or
flesh-forming ingredients, can serve as fuel, and in certain cases take
the place of fats and carbohydrates, it would be extremely unwise and
uneconomical to use them for that purpose, as it would always be
done at a far greater cost.
The non-nitrogenous part of the body is principally fat, the sub-
stance which is consumed in the production of heat and energy. The
source of this element in foodstuffs is comprised in all those portions
which are free from nitrogen. They are divided into two main classes
— the carbohydrates and fats — and are identical with those found in
the body, with the exception of starch and sugar, which are never
found as such to any extent in the healthy body. The carbo-
hydrates are sugar, gums, and woody fiber; the latter, in the statement
of analyses of foods, is reported separately, while the remainder of the
above are, in order to conform to the general usage, classed together
under the head of "nitrogen-free extract." The gums play only a
secondary part as regards the nutritive value of the food. The
carbohydrates are first changed into fats, and then used as fuel;
though it must be remembered that for the purpose of heat, fat is
worth 2.25 times as much as carbohydrates (that is, 1 pound of fat
is equivalent, when used as a fuel, to 2.25 pounds of starchy matter) .
When there is a deficiency in the amount of these elements in the food,
the fat of the body is drawn npon.
The fat, as might be supposed, varies in amount more than any
other substance of the animal body. The fat seldom falls below six,
or rises above thirty per cent. If the supply is cut off, the surplus
fat stored up in the body is drawn upon to keep the animal machinery
going, and if this continues the protein is converted into fat and used
as such. Thus, by having a proper proportion of fat in the food of
the stock, not only is the fat of the body protected, but indirectly,
also, the protein of the muscle and blood, which is most important.
The term fat includes the butter of milk, the fat of meats, oil of
seeds, wax of plants, etc. It is determined by treating the perfectly
dried substance with ether, the extract thus resulting being designated
as "crude fat." As might be supposed, these ether extracts have
different nutritive values — the fat from the green fodder being of
less value than that from the meals and seeds. Some authorities, in
estimating the nutritive effect of food, give to all the crude fats the
same significance. The use of fat is mainly as a fuel supply to the
animal body, although it may form fatty tissue, but not muscle.
In the following tables are given the analyses of the different foods
which have been examined at this Station, and also those of some
others, of practical interest to the feeders of this State, taken from
Professor Henry's work on "Feeds and Feeding." Credit is due
Messrs. Frank J. Snow and R. K. Bishop for assistance in the chem-
ical work here reported.
TABLE I.— Composition of Foods.
Percentage Composition.
Feed Stuffs.
Green Fodder.
Alfalfa
Alfileria
Australian saltbush
Barley*
Clover, red
Corn, Indian*
Corn Kaffir*
Cow pea*
Flat pea
Horse bean*
Hungarian grass*
Marsh ("Briston") grass
Modiola decumbens
Oats*
Orchard grass*
Peas and oats
Rye*
Sacalin, leaves..
Sacalin, stalks
Snail clover
Soya bean*
Sorghum*
Silage.
Barley
Clover
Corn
Oats
Orchard grass
Roots, Beet Pulp, etc.
Artichokes*
Beet, mangels*
Beet, sugar
Beet pulp, fresh
Beet pulp, silage
Beet molasses
Cabbage*
Carrots*
Olive pomace
Parsnips*
Pie melons
Potatoes*
Pumpkins*
Sugar beet crowns
Sugar beet leaves
Sugar beet tops
Turnips*
Hay.
Alfalfa
Australian saltbush
Barley, common
Barley, beardless ...
Clover, alsike*
Clover, bokhara
Water.
80.00
80.00
76.51
79.00
70.80
79.30
76.13
83.60
63.48
84.20
71.10
50.00
80.00
62.20
73.00
78.70
76.60
82.28
82.09
81.25
75.10
79.40
74.00
72.00
75.36
72.00
77.00
79.50
90.90
84.30
90.00
88.87
25.70
90.50
88.60
17.30
88.30
94.50
78.90
90.90
81.92
88.75
87.14
90.50
10.95
8.52
6.44
10.67
9.70
9.01
Ash.
1.72
1.72
4.75
8.80
2.10
1.20
1.75
1.70
3.18
1.20
1.70
2.83
2.87
2.50
2.00
1.70
1.80
1.21
.90
2.07
2.60
1.10
2.49
2.60
1.57
2.11
2.00
1.00
1.10
.90
.36
.45
8.80
1:40
1.00
1.75
.70
.40
1.00
.50
.81
.67
.70
.80
6.43
18.56
7.15
5.67
8.30
7.04
Starch,
Protein.
Fiber.
Sugar,
etc.
4.94
4.70
7.90
2.83
4.72
9.81
3.34
4.67
10.28
2.70
7.90
8.00
4.40
8.10
13.50
1.80
5.00
12.20
3.22
6.16
11.96
2.40
4.80
7.10
8.18
9.76
13.77
2.80
4.90
6.50
3.10
9.20
14.20
5.14
12.76
27.72
2.72 ■
3.24
10.56
3.40
11.20
19.30
2.60
8.20
13.30
3.50
6.00
9.10
2.60
11.60
" 6.80
5.02
2.41
8.09 !
1.61
7.17
7.89 i
2.85
4.66
8.41
4.00
6.70
10.60
1.30
6.10
11.60
2.56
8.96
10.76 j
4.20
8.40
11.60
2.10
6.39
13.78
2.20
9.35
13.11 i
1.87
9.12
8.64 ;
2.60
.80
15.90
1.40
.90
5.50
1.80
.90
12.00
1.15
2.11
6.25
1.50
3.55
5.40
7.30
58.20
2.40
1.50
3.90
1.10
1.30
7.60
7.61
42.67
13.11
1.60
1.00
10.20
.77
1.23
2.88
2.10
.60
17.30
1.30
1.70
5.20
1.91
1.91
13.38
1.91
1.42
7.22
1.91
1.53
8.68
1.10
1.20
6.20
17.60
22.63
39.31
12.89
18.03
40.30
11.11
22.55
50.37
8.05
21.03
51.80
12.80
25.60
40.70
13.35
22.14
45.26
Fat.
.74
.92
.45
.60
1.10
.50
.78
.40
1.63
.40
.70
1.55
.61
1.40
.90
1.00
.60
.99
.34
.76
1.00
.50
1.23
1.20
.80
1.23
1.37
.20
.20
.10
.13
.21
.40
.40
17.56
.20
.22
.10
.40
.07
.03
.04
.20
3.08
1.74
2.38
2.78
2.90
3.20
From Henry: "Feeds and Feeding.
TABLE I.— Composition of Foods. (Continued.
Percentage Composition.
Feed Stuffs.
Hay (Continued).
Clover, bur
Clover, crimson*
Clover, red*
Clover, snail
Clover, white*
Clover, wild yellow
Cow pea*
Flat pea
Foxtail (Hordeum jubatum)
Hungarian grass*
Johnson grass*
Mixed cereal
Oat
Orchard grass*
Rye grass, perennial*
Soya bean*
Vetch*
Wheat
Wild hay, oat
Other Dry, Coarse Fodder.
Alkali weed
Barley straw*
Corn fodder*
Gourd vines, "mock orange"
Lima bean straw
Oat straw*
Soya bean straw*
Wheat straw*
Grain and Other Seeds.
Barley (rolled)
Broom corn..
Bur clover seed
Corn, Indian*
Corn, Egyptian
Corn, Kaffir*
Cow pea*
Flaxseed*
Oats*
Rice
Rye*
Soya bean*
Sorghum*
Sunflower*
Wheat, plump
Wheat, shrunken
Mill and By-Products.
Brewers' grains, dry*
Brewers' grains, wet
Cocoanut oil-cake meal
Corn meal
Cottonseed meal
Gluten feed*
Gluten meal*
*From Henry: "Feeds and Feedin
Water.
Ash.
1
Protein.
11.25
6.91
10.50
9.60
8.60
15.20
15.30
6.20
12.30
10.15
9.92
13.65
9.70
8.30
15.70
9.50
5.39
15.58
10.70
7.50
16.60
10.00
7.83
20.16
12.00
5.39
7.45
7.70
6.00
7.50
10.20
6.10
7.20
7.65
5.91
7.30
10.09
7.00
7.44
9.90
6.00
8.10
14.00
7.90
10.10
11.30
7.20
15.40
H.30
7.90
17.00
8.82
5.58
5.96
10.00
5.59
5.70
13.40
9.25
12.30
14.20
5.70
3.50
42.20
2.70
4.50
13.90
12.66
11.42
10.00
9.56
10.72
9.20
5.10
4.00
10.10
5.80
4.60
9.60
4.20
3.40
10.05
2.92
12.00
12.70
3.00
10.30
6.61
8.85
21.45
10.60
1.50
10.30
12.63
1.92
9.96
9.30
1.50
9.90
14.80
3.20
20.80
9.20
4.30
22.60
11.00
3.00
11.80
12.30
11.60
.30
1.90
8.40
10.60
11.80
4.70
34.00
12.80
2.10
9.10
8.60
2.60
16.30
11.50
1.76
11.85
8.30
2.34
17.10
8.20
3.60
19.90
75.70
14.08
1.00
4.36
5.40
19.51
12.05
9.85
7.80
8.20
1.54
4.86
1.10
.90
9.40
47.25
24.00
29.30
26.19
27.20
24.80
22.34
24.10
30.28
20.10
24.05
33.53
27.70
28.50
24.80
24.80
32.40
25.40
22.30
25.40
22.48
37.19
17.30
36.00
14.30
16.92
21.14
37.00
40.40
38.10
2.30
2.20
25.08
2.20
1.93
1.40
4.10
7.10
9.50
Starch,
Sugar,
etc.
Fat.
1.70
4.80
2.60
29.90
2.45
3.48
11.00
3.80
9.53
2.00
3.19
5.30
3.30
44.92
36.60
38.10
40.29
39.30
35.25
42.20
33.94
39.79
49.00
45.90
51.59
48.22
41.00
40.50
38.60
36.10
55.15
39.25
44.25
39.00
34.70
43.06
46.66
42.40
37.40
43.40
69.63
70.40
32.66
70.40
69.70
74.90
55.70
23.20
59.70
78.60
72.50
28.80
69.80
21.40
70.40
66.78
51.70
12.50
42.12
71.34
22.64
51.20
46.50
2.23
2.80
3.30
3.65
2.90
4.00
2.45
2.60
2.10
5.20
2.30
1.81
2.28
3.50
1.50
1.60
2.04
1.92
2.30
1.70
1.30
3.12
5.00
5.35
5.00
3.86
3.00
1.40
33.70
5.00
.40
1.70
16.90
3.60
21.20
2.03
3.00
5.60
1.60
10.40
3.67
12.21
10.60
11.80
TABLE I. — Composition of Foods. (Continued.
Percentage Composition.
Feed Stuffs.
Mill and By-Products( Con t.
Linseed oil -cake meal, N. P.
Linseed oil-cake meal, O. P.
Malt spouts
Mixed feed
Palm nut meal*
Pea meal*
Peanut meal*
Rice bran
Rice hulls
Crushed barley
Rye bran*
Shorts
Wheat bran
Wheat middlings
Wheat screenings
fMiscellaneous.
Blood meal
Distillery slops*
Dried blood
Meat meal
Poultry food, Pratt's
Milk, whole
Milk, colostrum
Skim milk, gravity
Skim milk, centrifugal
Buttermilk
Whey
Water.
10.93
9.35
13.35
10.57
10.40
10.50
10.70
10.55
11.02
10.05
10.60
9.85
11.67
11.73
11.67
93.70
8.50
7.50
14.63
87.20
74.60
90.30
90.60
90.30
93.40
Ash.
4.50
5.22
5.99
3.57
4.30
2.60
4.90
6.64
16.04
2.92
3.
4.
5.
2.
2.
.20
6.19
.70
1.60
.70
.70
.70
.50
Protein. Fiber
30.70
29.75
19.53
12.00
16.80
20.20
47.60
14.96
5.36
12.00
14.70
15.20
14.05
15.22
10.06
79.60
1.90
84.40
42.90
13.52
3.60
17.60
3.30
3.30
4.00
.80
Starch,
Sugar,
etc.
8.89
6.23
14.00
9.66
24.00
14.40
5.10
4.85
37.12
2.30
3.50
5.05
8.16
4.88
5.48
.60
5.35
37.95
31.20
45.17
59.98
35.00
51.10
23.70
50.20
29.54
69.63
63.80
64.48
57.34
60.85
67.63
2.80
55.91
4.90
2.70
5.30
5.30
4.50
5.00
Fat.
7.03
18.25
1.96
4.21
9.50
1.20
8.00
12.80
.92
3.12
2.80
3.32
3.60
4.47
2.72
.90
2.50
4.40
3.70
3.60
.40
.10
.50
.30
DIGESTIBILITY OF FOODS.
The chemical composition, alone, of the different food-materials is
not of much value to the farmer or dairyman, if he does not know
how much of each nutrient (the name given to the nutritive parts of
the food — protein, fat, carbohydrates, and mineral matters) of the
feeding-stuff in question is digestible, or available to the animal.
Most of the experiments in this line have been made in Germany,
although some of the Eastern States are now carrying on this kind of
investigation.
In all foods there is always a certain portion of each nutrient,
whether it be protein, fat, or carbohydrate, which is not digested or
assimilated, but passes through the body, and is valuable only as
manure. In order to ascertain how much of each food is not digested,
the material is weighed and chemically analyzed before consumption,
and the weight and composition of the animal excrement is also
determined. The difference of the two analyses is taken as the
quantity digested or assimilated. The results so obtained are termed
digestion coefficients, and are only approximate, but, in the present
* From Henry: " Feeds and Feeding."
tThe nutrients of the foods under this head may, for the purposes of this Bulletin, be considered
as entirely digestible.
state of such researches, the best data available. For each food the
digestion coefficient may vary considerably — the more concentrated
the food, the higher, as a rule, will be the digestion coefficient. For
instance, while about 57 per cent, of the protein is digestible in oat
hay, 78 is the coefficient for grain middlings or bran, and in some of
the peas and beans we find as much as 88 per cent, of this highly
important ingredient to be digestible.
To illustrate the above statements : In every 100 pounds of alfalfa
hay (average of three analyses) there are 17.60 pounds of crude pro-
tein, 3.08 pounds of crude fat, 39.31 pounds of nitrogen-free extract,
and 22.63 pounds of crude fiber. For this hay, according to the latest
investigations, it has been found that of the protein about 70 per
cent, is digestible; of the fat, 51 per cent.; of the crude fiber, 46 per
cent.; and about 68 per cent, of the nitrogen-free extract can be
digested. Hence, in 100 pounds of alfalfa hay there would be 12.32
pounds of digestible protein, 1.57 pounds of digestible fat, 26.73
pounds of digestible nitrogen-free extract, or starchy material, and
and 10.40 pounds of digestible fiber.
Nutritive Eatio. — The different feeding stuffs vary very much in
their composition; peas and beans, and the concentrated foods in
general, contain large amounts of protein, or muscle-forming ingre-
dients, and very little of the non-nitrogenous materials; others, like
the potato, corn, etc., have much starchy matter combined with small
quantities of albuminoids; and, again, as in the case of the vege-
tables as a whole, we have small amounts of both carbohydrates, or
fat- producers, and nitrogenous, or muscle-formers.
The proportion of these two important elements of the cattle foods
is termed the nutritive ratio; in other words, the latter is the ratio of
the digestible protein to the sum of all the remaining nutrients in the
food. In estimating this sum, the figure denoting the amount of fat
is multiplied by 2.25, because it has been ascertained by experiment,
as before stated, that about 2.25 times as much heat is developed by
the consumption of a pound of fat as by the same quantity of sugar
or starch. This product is added to the weight of the carbohydrates,
and the sum divided by the figure for the protein, the quotient being
the nutritive ratio.
To illustrate this: Let us take, again, alfalfa hay, which contains,
as previously noted, 12.32 per cent, of digestible protein, 1.57 per
cent, of fat, 26.73 per cent, of digestible nitrogen-free extract, and
10.40 per cent, of digestible fiber. The fat percentage (1.57), multi-
plied by 2.25, amounts to 3.53; this added to the figure for the fiber
and carbohydrates, 37.13, equals 40.66, which -divided by 12.32, the
per cent, of protein, gives 3.3. Hence the nutritive ratio is 1:3.3; in
other words, there is in alfalfa hay 1 part of protein, or nitrogenous
matter, to 3.3 parts of non-nitrogenous, or starchy material. The
ratio is "wide," and termed a carbonaceous one, when the amount of
protein to the remaining ingredients is small. A "narrow," or nitro-
genous ratio, is one where the reverse is the case; that is, the amount
of protein is considerable when compared with that of the carbo-
hydrates, as in the example just given.
The data for the total dry matter and digestible nutrients in 100
pounds of the different feedstuffs, are presented in table II.
TABLE II.— Dry Matter and Digestible Nutrients in 100 Pounds.
Feed Stuffs.
Green Fodder.
Alfalfa
Alfileria
Australian saltbush
Barley .•
Clover, red
Corn, Indian
Corn, Kaffir
Cow pea
Plat pea
Horse bean
Hungarian grass
Marsh ("Briston") grass
Modiola decumbens
Oats
Orchard grass
Peas and oats
Rye
Sacalin, leaves
Saealin, stalks
Snail clover
Soya bean ....
Sorghum
Dry Matter
in 100 lbs.
Digestible Nutrients in 100 Lbs.
Protein.
Silage.
Barley
Clover
Corn
Oat
Orchard grass
Roots, Beet Pulp, etc.
Artichokes
Beet, mangels
Beet, sugar
Beet pulp, fresh
Beet pulp, silage
Beet molasses
Cabbage
Carrots
Parsnips
Pie melons
Potatoes
Pumpkins
Sugar beet crowns '
Sugar beet leaves
Sugar beet tops
Turnips
Hay.
Alfalfa
Australian saltbush
Barley, average
Clover, alsike
Clover, bokhara
Clover, bur
Clover, crimson
20.0
20.0
23.5
21.0
29.2
20.7
23.9
16.4
56.5
15.8
28.9
50.0
20.0
37.8
27.0
16.0
23.4
17.7
•17.8
18.8
24.9
20.6
26.0
28.0
24.6
28.0
23.0
20.0
9.1
15.7
10.0
11.1
74.3
15.3
11.4
11.7
5.5
21.1
9.1
18.1
11.3
12.9
9.5
89.1
91.5
91.5
90.3
91.0
89.9
90.4
3.7
2.1
2.5
1.9
2.9
1.0
1.7
1.8
6.2
2.2
2.0
2.6
1.8
2.6
1.5
1.8
2.1
3.8
.8
2.0
3.2
.6
1.8
2.0
1.3
1.5
1.1
12.3
6.5
5.8
8.4
8.7
7.3
10.5
Carbo-
Hydrates.
7.3
8.5
9.2
10.2
14.8
11.6
12.1
8.7
14.2
7.1
16.0
24.4
9.0
18.9
11.4
7.1
14.1
6.3
7.5
8.2
11.0
12.2
12.7
13.6
13.5
14.8
10.6
16.8
5.4
11.9
7.8
11.2
3.3
16.3
5.8
12.7
4.6
6.5
7.2
37.1
36.8
43.1
42.5
39.4
41.2
34.9
Fat.
.6
.7
.3
.4
.7
.4
.6
.2
1.0
.2
.4
.9
.5
1.0
.5
.2
.4
.8
.2
.6
.5
.4
.9
1.0
.6
.9
1.0
.4
.2
.2
.2
.1
.3
.07
.03
.05
.20
1.6
1.0
1.6
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.2
Nutritive
Ratio.
2.3
4.8
3.9
5.8
5.6
1:12.5
8.0
5.1
2.4
3.5
8.5
1:10.2
1: 5.3
8.1
8.3
4.2
7.1
2.1
1:10.0
1: 4.7
1: 3.8
1:21.8
11.7
7.9
11.7
11.0
11.4
1: 8.7
1: 5.1
1: 6.8
1: 5.1
1:10.4
1: 7.3
1: 5.4
1:18.4
1: 6.6
7.5
2.7
3.8
7.7
1: 3.3
8.1
5.5
5.0
6.2
3.6
TABLE II.— Dry Matter and Digestible Nutrients in 100 Pounds. {Continued.)
Feed Stuffs.
Dry Matter
in 100 lbs.
Digestible Nutrients in 100 Lbs.
Protein.
Hay (Continued).
Clover, red 84.7
Clover, snail 89.9
Clover, white 90.3
Clover, wild yellow 90.5
Cow pea 89.3
Flat pea 90.0
Foxtail ; 88.0
Hungarian grass ' 92.3
Johnson grass 89.2
Mixed I 92.4
Oat \ 89.9
Orchard grass 90.1
Rye grass, perennial 86.0
Soya bean ! 88.7
Vetch 88.7
Wheat | 91.2
Wild hay 90.0
Other Dry, Coarse Fodder.
Alkali weed i 86.6
Barley straw I 85.8
Corn fodder , 57.8
Gourd vine, "mock orange" 86.1
Lima bean straw 90.0
Oat straw I 90.8
Soyabean straw 89.6
Wheat straw 90.4
Grains and Other Seeds.
Barley (crushed) 90.0
Broom corn 87.3
Bur clover seed 93.4
Corn, Indian 89.4
Corn, Egyptian 87.4
Corn, Kaffir j 90.7
Cow pea 85.2
Flaxseed 90.8
Oats 89.0
Rice l 87.7
Rye | 88.4
Soya bean j 89.2
Sorghum ' 87.2
Sunflower 92.5
Wheat, plump 88.5
Wheat, shrunken 91.7
Mill and By-Products.
Brewers' grains, dry 91.8
Brewers' grains, wet 24.3
Cocoanut oil-cake meal 85.9
Corn meal 88.0
Cottonseed meal 90.2
Gluten feed 92.2
Gluten meal 91.8
Linseed oil-cake meal, N.P. 89.1
Linseed oil-cake.meal, O.P 90.7
6.8
9.6
11.5
10.1
10.8
15.
4.
4.
3.
4.
4.5
4.9
6.1
10.8
12.9
3.6
3.4
5.5
.7
2.5
5.1
5.4
1.2
2.3
.4
Carbo-
Hydrates.
Fat,
35.8
39.4
42.2
36.6
38.6
36.0
41.4
51.7
42.3
47.3
43.7
42.3
37.8
38.7
37.5
46.1
44.1
38.6
41.2
34.6
37.5
38.8
38.6
40.0
36.3
Nutritivi
Ratio.
1.7
1.8
1.5
2.4
1.1
2.4
.9
1.3
.8
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.1
2.2
.6
1.2
1.3
1.2
.8
1.1
.4
5.8
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.7
2.7
10.1
12.1
1:13.8
1:11.5
10.5
8.3
6.6
3.9
3.2
1:13.2
1:13.6
1: 7.8
1:60.8
1:15.0
1: 7.8
1: 7.7
1:33.6
1:18.4
1:93.0
9.6
63.5
2.1
1: 7.1
8.1
61.6
3.0
1: 8.4
17.2
38.7
4.3 ■
1: 2.8
7.8
66.7
4.3
1: 9.8
8.0
64.3
3.0
1: 8.9
7.5
70.5
2.6
1:10.3
18.3
54.2
1.1
1: 3.1
20.6
17.1
29.0
1: 4.0
9.2
47.3
4.2
1: 6.2
5.3
67.6
.3
1:11.8
9.9
67.6
1.1
1: 7.1
29.6
22.3
14.4
1: 2.0
7.0
52.1
3.1
1: 8.4
12.1
20.8
29.0
1: 7.1
9.5
49.9
1.4
1: 5.6
13.7
47.6
1.4
1: 3.7
15.7
36.3
5.1
1: 3.0
3.9
9.3
1.4
1: 3.2
16.4
42.4
9.7
1: 3.9
6.4
66.3
3.4
1:11.5
41.1
15.4
11.0
1: 1.0
20.4
48.3
8.8
1: 3.3
25.8
43.3
14.0
1: 2.9
26.1
38.5
6.5
1: 2.0
24.4
24.0
16.7
1: 2.5
10
TABLE II.— Dry Matter and Digestible Nutrients in 100 Pounds. (Continued.
Feed Stuffs.
Mill and By-Products (Cont.).
Malt sprouts
Mixed feed
Palm nut meal
Pea meal
Peanut meal
Rice bran
Rice hulls
Crushed barley
Rye bran
Snorts
Wheat bran
Wheat middlings
Wheat screenings.
Dry Matter
in 100 lbs.
Digestible Nutrients in 100 Lbs.
Protein.
Carbo-
Hydrates.
Fat.
86.7
89.4
89.6
89.5
89.3
89.5
89.0
90.0
88.4
90.2
88.3
88.3
88.4
15.6
9.6
16.0
16.8
42.9
10.7
2.7
9.6
11.5
12.2
11.2
12.2
8.1
35.8
47.4
52.6
51.8
22.8
41.8
30.8
63.5
50.3
47.9
42.2
53.4
48.7
2.0
3.0
9.0
.7
6.9
10.6
.8
2.1
2.0
2.9
2.5
3.8
1.8
Nutritive
Ratio.
2.6
5.6
4.6
3.2
0.9
5.9
12.1
7.1
4.8
4.5
4.3
5.1
6.6
POTENTIAL ENERGY.
The measure of food as regards its fuel value is made in terms of
"potential energy," the unit of which is the calorie, or the amount of
heat necessary to raise the temperature of a kilogram of water 1°
Centigrade, or one pound of water 4° Fahrenheit. Instead of this
unit we may use a unit of mechanical energy, the foot- ton, which is
the force that would lift one ton one foot, one calorie being equal to
about 1.53 foot- tons.
Professor Rubner found, in experiments made in the physiological
laboratory at Munich, the quantities of materials which were equal to
100 of fat to be as follows:
As determined by As deter-
Nutritive Substances, Water-Free. direct experiment mined by
with Animals. Calorimeter.
Myosin (proteid of meat) 225 213
Lean meat 243 235
Starch 232 229
Cane sugar 234 235
Grape sugar 256 235
Taking the ordinary food materials as they come, the following
general estimate has been made for the average amount of energy in
one gram of each of the classes of nutrients :
Potential Energy in Nutrients of Food.
Calories; Foot-Tons.
In one gram protein 4.1 6.3
In one gram fats .:. 9.3 14.2
In one gram carbohydrates 4.1 6.3
These figures mean that when a gram of fat is consumed, be it fat
of the food or body fat, it will, if its poteutial energy be all trans-
formed into heat, yield enough to warm 9.3 kilograms of water 1°
Centigrade, or, if it be transformed into mechanical energy, such as
the muscles use to do their work, it will furnish as much as would
raise one ton 14.2 feet, or 14.2 tons one foot. The potential energy
of the protein or carbohydrates is less than one-half that of the fat.
These figures, as stated by Professor Atwater, are not absolutely
accurate, and may be revised by future research in the subject.
11
COMMENTS ON VARIOUS FEED-STUFFS.
SILAGE AND VEGETABLES.
One of the chief requisites of a ration for profitable milk-production
is that it be succulent, by which is meant that a portion of the ration
contains a large percentage of water. This watery condition, or
succulenev, adds to the palatability of the food, and also seems to
have a beneficial physical effect upon the animal digestion. The cow,
therefore, eats a larger quantity of food, digests and assimilates it
more thoroughly, and consequently gives a larger flow of milk.
Although the major portion of California does not have the long cold
winters to which the Eastern States are subject, and where it is an
absolute necessity to store large quantities of food, both succulent
and dry, still every section of our State has a longer or shorter period
during the year when pastures are dry. The provident dairyman,
therefore, anticipates these dry months, and either lays in a store of
green food beforehand, or has some growing which he may cut and
feed to his cattle.
Roots. — Several of the vegetables are valuable in supplying succu-
lence for the. ration. Among the root class the one in most common
use is the mangel wurtzel beet, because very large quantities can be
grown per acre and because it is palatable to all kinds of live stock.
Carrots are also used in some sections, and they have the advantage
of containing a slightly larger amount of dry matter than mangels.
Of all the roots, moreover, none are more relished by horses than
carrots. Sugar beets are not found profitable to grow for feeding
stock, because they yield so small a tonnage in comparison to
mangels, and the greater cost of growing and gathering can only be
undertaken on the ground of their greater value for sugar.
Potatoes contain about twice as much dry matter as mangels and
three times as much carbonaceous material. They are, therefore, of
greater food value, but, like sugar beets, have too high a commercial
value as human food to make them profitable for stock.
Squashes. — Another class of vegetables which are useful and easily
grown is that of the melons or squashes. A very familiar example is
the so-called pie-melon, an analysis of which is found in Table I.
This, like the ordinary field pumpkin, can- be produced readily in large
quantities on most lands, and it ripens at a time when green food is
likely to be scarce. All of these vegetables when fed to dairy stock pro-
duce an increased milk yield, which is more than commensurate with their
actual content of food substance. This is because of their palata-
bility, beneficial effect upon digestion, and the addition of a wholesome
variety to the ration. Any of the vegetables named may be fed with
profit to swine and poultry when in confinement, and to sheep especially
during the nursing period.
Silage. — One of the most economical means of preparing succulent
food for seasons of drought and for supplementary feeding is by the use
of the silo. It is, no doubt, generally understood that the silo, as at
present constructed, is a huge tank having perpendicular walls and
12
being made as nearly air-tight as is convenient. The usual size for
the silo is fifteen to twenty feet in diameter and thirty feet high. Into
the silo is put the green fodder immediately after being cut fresh in
the field. The most common crop for ensiling is Indian corn, which
is, moreover, the most profitable plant to grow for this purpose.
At one harvest it furnishes a larger tonnage per acre than any other
crop. The stalks, which if cured dry would be largely wasted, are
kept in so soft a condition in the silo as to be completely eaten by the
stock. ' Other plants, such as alfalfa, barley, oats, and orchard grass,
are sometimes ensiled, but we would not recommend their general use
except in seasons' or localities where corn may not at the time be
available, or in case they might otherwise be rendered more or less
useless if cured dry; as, for example, the first cutting of alfalfa with
its usual mixture of foxtail. Almost any plant grown on the ranch
may be ensiled. The chief question is, what can be most profitably
made the main crop for the purpose ? The proof is abundant that
Indian corn is the most profitable. The sorghums and sweet corn do
not answer well for ensiling because of their high content of sugar,
resulting in too much fermentation in the silo.
No better combination of foods for feeding cows in the stable can
be imagined than alfalfa hay and corn silage, and possibly a little
grain, although a fairly well-balanced ration can be made up without
grain. In such feeding it is best to give hay and silage each once a
day. The amount of silage per head ranges from thirty-five to sixty
pounds daily, depending upon the size and appetite of the animal and
upon the supply of silage. The cattle will eat corn silage at all
seasons of the year, even when on good alfalfa or other green pasture;
but if the supply be limited it can be most profitably fed when pastures
are dry, or if the cattle should be kept off them because of heavy rains
or until the grass is of sufficient age and size to be of value. If the
dairymen will erect silos and have their cows calve in the fall instead
of spring they can secure as large a flow of milk during the season
when dairy products are usually high-priced as they now have during
the low prices of the spring months. Corn silage may be fed with
profit to sheep as well as cattle, but not to other stock. Alfalfa silage
is fed successfully to all farm stock, including swine and poultry.
Horses working hard should be given such watery food in very small
quantities; while those at light work or doing nothing may be fed
more, and will even make profitable use of some corn silage.
Soiling. — Another method of providing succulent food is to cut the
fodder green and feed immediately to the stock. This method is
known as "soiling." Any of the ordinary fodder plants may be used
in this way — the most common being any of the corns, sorghums, oats
and peas, cereal grasses and the like. If this practice is followed the
same rule would apply as in the case of silage — to raise the crop which
will produce the most and best food per acre. "Soiling" presupposes
that the stock are being kept in small pastures or in corrals, or at
least have but little feed on their range. It also calls for more labor
than is necessary if the stock could harvest their own food, but less
land is required to maintain the same number of cattle than if they
depended wholly upon pasturage. The matter then lies between
soiling on the one hand with less land and more labor, and pasture on
13
the other with more laud and less labor. With plenty of land avail-
able and labor high, we do not expect an extended adoption of the
soiling method in California for some years to come. The more
general use of the silo will also tend to reduce the soiling period,
because experience shows that it is cheaper to provide green food for
the year by one filling of the silo than by the daily cutting of standing
fodder.
ALFALFA.
The large amount of alfalfa grown in the interior valleys of the
State and its great value as a stock food render it an important
element in the development of the animal industries, and one worthy
of careful study and experimentation. Two factors make alfalfa of
great use to the farmer and stockman — one is the large yield of pasture
or hay that he can produce during the year, and the other is the high
content of protein which alfalfa contains. Alfalfa hay of good
quality carries so much of this important and usually costly element
that a glance at the tables of analyses shows that twenty pounds of
hay contains as much protein as is required in the balanced ration of
an ordinary sized milch cow. Table III also shows the relative
amount of digestible protein in a ton of material and the cost of protein
per ton of the various common feedstuffs and of the more common hays.
These comparative figures show how valuable a fodder alfalfa is.
Almost all of the coarse fodder grown upon the ranch is relatively
rich in carbohydrates and relatively poor in protein. This is particu-
larly true of the cereal hays, straw, corn fodder and the like. With
these only the feeder cannot make a good ration, and what he needs
to buy is protein. He usually buys concentrated foods because of
their richness in protein, and also pays for them on the basis of their
protein content. Were he able to raise alfalfa or to buy it at a
reasonable price, he could feed his cattle much more cheaply, and
undoubtedly with as good results. This fact is brought out by Table
III, showing the relative cost of protein per pound as furnished by
the different foods. These prices are taken to represent as nearly as
possible the market values at the time of writing. Calculations of
this kind can never be arbitrary, owing to the fluctuation in prices,
but they show how the careful purchaser may be able to compare food
values at any season of the year.
14
TABLE
III. — Cost of Protein in Various Foods as Governed by the Cost
of the Food and its Content of Digestible Protein.
Food.
Corn ...
Wheat
Barley
Oats ...
Price
per ton.
Rye
Wheat bran
Wheat shorts
Wheat middlings
Rice bran
Rye bran
Coacoanut oil-cake meal
Linseed oil-cake meal
Cottonseed meal
Mixed feed
Malt sprouts
Alfalfa hay
Wheat hay
Barley hay
Oat hay
Straw
Corn silage
Dollars.
26.00
20.00
17.00
25.00
18.00
17.00
16.00
18.00
14.00
14.50
17.00
25.00
30.00
15.00
15.00
8.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
3.00
2.00
Protein.
Pounds
per ton.
156
190
192
184
198
224
244
244
214
230
328
522
822
192
312
246
72
116
90
16
26
j Price per
pound.
Cents.
16.7
10.5
8.8
13.6
9.1
7.6
6
7,
6,
6.
5,
4
3,
7,
4
3,
11,
7.8
10.0
19.0
7.7
We are not yet prepared to say that by the liberal feeding of alfalfa,
concentrated foods may be dispensed with entirely. As a general
principle it would seem that a small amount of grain could be profit-
ably fed at all times. Much and careful experimentation is needed to
decide the often-asked question, "Does it pay to feed grain with
alfalfa?" We hope to be able to undertake this experimental work
in the near future.
SALTBUSHES.
The saltbushes have a two-fold value in that they are not only
valuable forage plants but can be cultivated in soils containing alkali
beyond the limit of tolerance for any other plant of similar food-
value. Of these the atriplex semibaccata is the only one which has
received any extended attention in this State.
It is specially worthy of mention that while the saltbushes differ
materially botanically, and are not of equal adaptation, there is
very little preference so far as chemical composition is concerned.
But much further experimentation will be required before the same
can be said of them physiologically, or with respect to nutritive values.
The choice of the best variety for a special locality would depend
on soil adaptation and the results of feeding experiments.
Hays. — An examination of the analyses of the air-dried materials
shows that the saltbushes compare very favorably in nutritive value
with the other hays mentioned in table I. The average protein
content, 12.89, is twice that noted for wheat hay, 50 per cent, more
than the figure given for oat hay, and is only exceeded by bur clover
and alfalfa. The average percentages of fat and starchy matter in
15
the saltbushes are less than those found in cereal hays. But in the
case of the latter nutrient, the average is almost identical with the
figures named for alfalfa and bur clover.
Digestibility. — As before stated, much more experimentation is
required before we can definitely assert that these saltbushes have as
high digestive coefficients as alfalfa and the ordinary hays. Feeding
experiments are called for in this direction, and in some cases
urgently so.
In making up a ration we would assign to the saltbush hay about
the same digestive coefficients as those for oat hay. The digestibility
would be greatly increased if the material were cut into small pieces,
as it is a well-known fact that much more nutriment is derived from a
given amount of fodder, more particularly by the horse and other
solipeds, if it is cut up than if fed as harvested. This has been practi-
cally proved by many of the large livery stables, both here and abroad.
Feeding. — It is not advisable to feed the saltbushes alone, particu-
larly in the air- dried state, owing to the high percentage of saline
ingredients, and the general uninviting appearance and condition of
.the saltbush hay. In cases of emergency, however, sheep and cattle
have existed altogether on this material through an entire season.
Mixed vs. Unmixed Foods. — From the large number of favorable
reports, it would seem that many of the failures were due mainly to
irrational feeding. In some cases animals which had never seen the
salt-bush were given quantities of the unmixed material and were
expected to eat it with relish. Such a method of procedure is, to say
the least, ill advised. Any alteration in the food should be slow and
gradual. It would be most unwise to substitute A. semibaccata for a
cereal hay. The better plan would be to feed a very small amount of
saltbush with considerable hay; then increase by degrees the quantity
of saltbush and decrease that of cereal hay until the proportions are
about equal. If the green saltbush were used, then the hay should
constitute about one-third of the roughage of the ration .
Utilization of Straw. — The value of straw as a dilutant is becoming
more appreciated every year. But it must be remembered that straw
is dry, fibrous, and unpalatable, and consequently requires a succulent
material to be used in conjunction with it. For this reason it is not
desirable to feed the saltbush hay with straw. The green, however,
could very advantageously be utilized, more particularly if both feeds
were cut up and well mixed. By this method the farmer is not only
able to use alkali land which has been considered worthless, but can
use in conjunction with the crop from this land another material
which has been deemed of little feeding value. The economy of this
plan is apparent without discussion.
Silage and the Saltbush. — Silage could be fed profitably with either
the green or air-dried saltbush; in the latter case, the dryness of the
saltbush would be offset by the succulency of the silage. The amount
of silage to be fed per day would depend greatly on the animals and
the supplementary materials of the ration. The succulency of the
fresh saltbush would be preserved and the digestibility of some of its
fibrous parts increased if it were siloed. With some other material a
salty relish would thus be imparted to the silage.
16
OTHER COARSE FODDERS.
Alkali Weed. — The Centromadia pungens, commonly called the
yellow-blossoming alkali weed, or tall tar-weed, grows luxuriantly,
attaining a height of from four to six feet on lands of the San Joaquin
valley which are not too strongly contaminated with alkali. In this
respect it materially differs from the Atriplex semibaccatum, or Australian
saltbush, which thrives on soils so heavily impregnated with alkali that
other cultures are not possible.
A comparison of the amounts of this fodder digestible with some
well known and commonly used hays would emphasize the value of
this plant for stock feeding. The total nutriment, as indicated by the
fuel value in one pound, 919 calories, would place this feed-stuff low
on the list. But when we compare its digestible flesh-formers, 6.15
pounds, with the corresponding content of other hays; we note that it
rates almost as high as barley hay which stands second; alfalfa rank-
ing first with 12.30 pounds, or about twice that given for either barley
hay or the alkali weed. Hence we see that the more of the alkali
weed that can be used iu the ration the more highly nitrogenous will
it be and consequently the more beneficial for the animal.
Experience has shown that stock will not eat Centromadia in the
green state. This fact may be due to the presence of an essential oil
and resin which probably disappears during the drying or curing of
the plant, or to the spiny tips on the leaves, similar to those found on
the thistle, which soften as the plant becomes older and dryer. By
siloing the green material the above objections might be overcome and
most certainly would be if the spiny tips were the trouble. If no
unpleasant flavors are imparted to the milk by the use of this weed,
then the dairyman has in the Centromadia pungens a most valuable
addition to his list of feed-stuffs.
Gourd Vines f Cucurbit a foetidissimaj. — This vine is sometimes
called mock orange. During the past dry seasons it has served in the
southern part of the State as a substitute for hay, and, according to
some reports, to good advantage. This plant admits of two or three
cuttings annually.
A glance at the analysis, given in table I, page 5, shows that,
chemically speaking, this fodder is a rich one, but we are ignorant of
its physiological value; that is, we do not know just how much of
the different nutrients are digestible by cows and horses. The
figures stated for the amounts digestible in 100 pounds have been
calculated on the assumption that these vines are as digestible as dried
corn fodder. On that basis there is as much nutriment in the gourd
vines as in any of the cereal hays.
Foxtail. — In this connection it is of interest to note the feeding
value of foxtail (barley grass), which, when considered as hay, is
found of equal nutritive value to oat hay. A ration made up wholly
of alfalfa and foxtail hays in the proportion of 15 pounds of alfalfa
to 12 pounds of foxtail, would have approximately the same compo-
sition and food value as ration No. 3 above, of alfalfa and barley hays.
Owing, however, to the disagreeableness and injury to animals from
the beards of the foxtail when dry, its chief value to the stockman is
as pasture or as silage, where the beards are so softened as to render
17
them harmless. On account of the richness of foxtail in carbonaceous
material as compared to alfalfa, the latter is made a more useful
ration by the presence of foxtail if it can be fed either in green pastures
or from the silo.
GRAINS AND BY-PRODUCTS.
Plump and Shrunken WJieat. — "Which is the better feed for lay-
ing hens, shrunken or plump wheat," is a question which has been
agitating a number of poultry men in this State, and to intelligently
answer it two samples of wheat received from Hanford have been
analyzed, with the result that in the plump wheat the percentage of
starch, etc. , is considerably higher than the corresponding figure for the
shrunken wheat; while the reverse is noted for the rating of protein,
that of the latter sample being almost 50 per cent, greater than that
yielded by the former, as is seen by the figures 17.10 and 11.70 per
cent., respectively. This fact alone is sufficient to warrant a feeder
purchasing shrunken in place of plump wheat as a food for laying
hens.
It is barely possible that the digestion-coefficient for protein in the
shrunken wheat may not be as high as that for the plump, but this
question we will settle at the earliest opportunity by a digestion
experiment with our hens. It must not be forgotten, however, that
the figure 11.70 for albuminoids in the plump wheat is a trifle below
the average; and while another example of two similar wheats would
in all probability show the shrunken sample to be richer in nitrogen,
there might not be such a marked difference as we have between the
two lots under discussion.
Wheat, Bran, Middlings, Etc. — Throughout the whole country
no grain product is used more universally for stock feeding than the
by-products of wheat, the chief of which are bran and middlings.
This is partly due to the fact that wheat is almost wholly used for
human food, and in the manufacture of the best grades of flour the
bran and middlings must be removed. Another feature which renders
them so popular is that they are relished by all kinds of live stock,
and that in the case of bran it may be fed ab libitum without injury
to the animal. Our analyses show the middlings to be slightly richer
in the various nutrients than bran, but the proportion of the nutrients
is such that bran has the narrower nutritive ratio. Bran contains
much more fiber than middlings, and is so much coarser that it is not
so well adapted to feeding pigs and very young calves. Pigs do not
relish foods as coarse as bran, oats, and the like, and it is therefore
better economy to provide them with the finer materials like middlings.
One feature of bran often overlooked is its high content of mineral
matter. This, together with its richness in protein, makes it one of
the most desirable foods for growing stock, as calves or colts, where
bone and sinew need to be developed.
"Shorts" are classed among the by-products of wheat, and are
shown by our analysis to have very nearly the same composition as
middlings. The two names, middlings and shorts, are often used
interchangeably, referring to the same article. Shorts sometimes
consist largely of ground-over bran with some of the finer portions of
ground wheat mixed in. For young pigs and calves middlings are
132—2
18
the more certain article to depend upon, while for older animals shorts
may be used instead, if the price warrants.
"Mixed feed" is a very uncertain article, and depends for its value
more upon the honesty of the manufacturer than upon the name.
It may be of good material, as our analysis shows it to be, or it may
contain large quantities of mill-sweepings, ground oat-hulls and other
matter of little value.
Gluten Feed and Gluten Meal. — These are two by-products result-
ing from the manufacture of starch and glucose from corn. The
corn grain may be roughly analyzed as follows : first is the outside
layer of bran or hull; next comes a hard, flinty layer, which is very
rich in protein, 'and which is called the gluten layer; inside this
coating we find the main portion of the kernel, consisting chiefly of
starch, and finally the germ of the seed. In the process of manu-
facturing starch and glucose the hull, gluten layer and germ are
thrown aside. When all three are mixed together we have what is
known in the market as "gluten feed." When the gluten layer is
kept separate we have what is known in the market as "gluten meal."
The hull of the corn is of comparatively little food value because of its
coarse fibrous nature. The germ is rich in protein and fat, and is
readily digested. In order to dispose of the hulls to advantage, the
manufacturer mixes and grinds them with the germs and gluten layers,
and he often does the animal no unkindness in the operation. The
gluten layer alone, or gluten meal, is a very rich and heavy material,
and should not be fed in larger quantities than three or four pounds
per day. It is therefore sometimes fed to the injury of the animal by
careless or inexperienced men. Gluten feed, however, because it
contains the hulls, is a lighter material, not so rich, and may safely
be fed in larger quantities up to six or seven pounds per day. It
contains about twenty per cent, of digestible protein, while the gluten
meal contains about twenty-five per cent. They are both, therefore,
of great value as furnishers of protein for farm stock.
While this is the general distinction between gluten feed and
gluten meal, the various manufacturers have introduced so many
private and trade names that the purchaser is not always sure of his
article until he sees it. Some of the more common names are " Chicago
Gluten," Buffalo Gluten" "Cream Gluten," and the like. The chances
are, however, that the buyer will obtain gluten feed as described above
unless he makes an especial request for gluten meal. So far as we
know, neither of these foods is in the California market, but their
value will undoubtedly lead our dairymen to call for them before
many years have passed.
Oil- Cake Meals. — The principal value of these meals lies in the
high percentage of protein which they contain. The richest of all in
this element is cottonseed meal, which, according to our analysis,
shows 41.1 per cent, of digestible protein. "New process (N.P.)"
linseed meal shows 26.1 per cent., "old process (O.P.)" linseed meal
shows 24.4 per cent., and cocoanut meal 16.2 per cent.
Cocoanut meal is a by-product resulting from the extraction of oil
from the cocoanut of commerce. So far as the United States is
concerned, it is distinctively a Pacific Coast article, as it is not much
known east of the Rockies. The present market price is about the
19
same as wheat bran, and since it contains 16.4 per cent, of digestible
protein as against 11.2 per cent for bran, the cocoanut meal is much
the cheaper to purchase as a furnisher of the nitrogenous element. It
cannot, however, be fed so freely as bran, and it is doubtful if more
than four pounds daily per head can be safely fed for any length of
time. The one objection to cocoanut meal is its lack of keeping
qualities. It is likely to become rancid if stored for several weeks, in
which condition it is not relished by the stock, and if fed to dairy
cows is apt to flavor the milk. When fresh it has a sweet and nutty
flavor, which is highly relished by all stock.
The Unseed meals are a by-product from the extraction of oil from
flaxseed. The "old process" meal is the result of such extraction by
means of pressure, while by the new process the oil is dissolved out of
the ground flaxseed by means of naphtha. The odor of naphtha is
afterwards driven off by steaming. In the new process the oil is more
thoroughly extracted, and thus less remains in the meal than by the
old process. The analysis of "old process" linseed meal in Table II
is of one sample, and can hardly be taken as an average of this class
of meals. The linseed meals have a laxative effect upon the digestion,
and thus it is not well to feed more than two pounds per head daily to
dairy cows. They tend also to make a soft butter fat. When fed in
normal quantities they are very beneficial to the animal digestion, and
impart a soft glossy appearance to the hair, and therefore become a
useful portion in the rations of all farm stock.
Cottonseed meal comes to us from the cotton -growing States as a
by-product from the extraction of oil from cottonseed. It is not
quoted in our market, but dealers in feeding stuffs tell us that they
will order it for any party or parties who will use a carload or more.
In sections where alfalfa is not grown or readily obtained, cottonseed
meal is one of the cheapest foods to buy to furnish protein, as shown
in Table III. This is true although its price in the market may be
higher than that of any of the other concentrated foods. Three
pounds of this meal furnishes nearly half as much protein as is
required in the day's ration of an average- sized cow. Thus it is not
usual that more than two pounds per head be fed in addition to the
protein which is provided by the other part of the ration. It is not
well to give more than four pounds per head, on account of the con-
stipating effect of the meal upon the animal. In feeding dairy cows it
is also found to produce a hard butter fat. Cottonseed is most
largely used for cattle feeding, both beef and dairy, and with inva-
riably good results. It has proven so detrimental to swine of all ages
and to young calves, that deaths have been reported as resulting from
feeding it to them. So far as we know it has not been experimented
with to any extent in feeding horses.
SUGAR-BEET TOPS, MOLASSES, AND PULP.
Sugar- Beet Tops. — It is stated by some feeders that sugar-beet
tops is one of the best feeds available for the production of a firm
butter. The Station expects in the near future to make some elaborate
chemical tests on such butters.
The sugar-beet tops consist of leaves and crowns of the root (all
20
that part which has a greenish tinge), in the proportion of 76 per
cent, of leaves and 24 per cent, of crown.
The analyses of leaves, crown, and tops are given in Table I.
An inspection of the figures showing the composition and nutritive
value of* the sugar-beet tops shows that water constitutes about seven-
eighths of this material. One hundred pounds of the fresh substance
is found to contain 8.25 pounds of digestible nutrients, proportioned
as follows: protein, 1.71 pounds; carbohydrates, 6.49 pounds; and
fat, .05 of a pound, with a valuation of $1.58. The analysis and
valuation previously published were obtained from an Eastern source;
our late work proves the tops to rate the same for protein, but to be
slightly richer in carbohydrates, thus increasing the value from $1.40
to $1.58. The fertilizing value is about $1.65.
From these figures we see that the material as such is worth more
as a fertilizer than as a cattle food. The above estimate of the tops
as a fertilizer does not include the vegetable matter, which as a green-
manure has considerable value. But it is said that if the tops are
used as a food and the manure saved, about three-fourths of the
fertilizing value of the original substance is still retained. While this
is true theoretically, it is hardly ever so practically; particularly with
reference to the nitrogen, the most costly of the fertilizing elements.
In very few instances, unless the animals are pastured, is the urine
saved to the soil, and this part of excreta contains the major part of
the nitrogen.
The nitrogen in the manure is not by any means all available, at
best not more than fifty per cent., and in many cases not eveu so
much; owing to the careless in handling of the dung. On this basis
the fertilizing value of the manure would be about 80 cents (three-
fourths of the potash and phosphoric acid and one-fourth of the
nitrogen) ; this added to the value as a food, $1.58, increases the net
value to $2.38, and the difference (73 cents) between this sum and the
fertilizing worth, is fully made up in the green-manurial value of the
vegetable matter in the tops.
It is thus seen that theoretically, at least, the tops are of equal
value in whichever way they are used; therefore it would be foolish
for a man who did not own cows to buy them and burden himself with
a new industry for the sake of using the beet tops economically. But
for those who have animals a wise choice could be made by considering
the general conditions of land, food, labor, etc., without regard to
figures and values.
We must not forget in this connection that the sugar-beet tops
alone will not constitute a balanced ration, or even approach it.
They can only be used as a portion of the roughage food given to the
animals.
On account of the bitter taste imparted to the milk by the beet
tops, their use as a feed is not recommended in dairies supplying milk
to be consumed as such.
It is claimed by some authorities that an excessive use of sugar-
beet tops will prove injurious to the animals on account of the oxalic
acid present; hence the conjoined use of lime in countries where the
leaves are siloed.
Beet- Sugar Molasses. — In Europe a number of "molasses feeds"
21
have been proposed. One of these, which has been used to a consid-
erable extent, is made up of bran four parts, molasses three parts,
and palm -nut cake one part. Molasses is also mixed with dried blood,
with peat*, and with beet pulp. The latter mixture is dried, and
possesses good keeping qualities.
In a number of reported European experiments molasses feeds were
tested with dairy cows. No deleterious results were noticed, even
when four to five pounds of molasses was fed daily. An extended
study of the value of molasses as part of a ration for pigs, steers,
milch cows, and horses was recently reported in a French agricultural
journal. The principal conclusions from the investigations were as
follows: When molasses formed part of the ration of sheep, pigs,
and steers, the gains in live w r eight were rapid. When molasses was
fed to milch cows the total milk yield and the amount of fat and milk
sugar in the milk were increased. The increase is not regarded as
sufficient to warrant the conclusion that molasses is a suitable food for
milch cows. Molasses is regarded as an excellent food for horses. It
was rapidly eaten, and vigor and weight were maintained when it was
added to the ration. It may be advantageously employed for render-
ing inferior hay or fodder more palatable.
As pointed out in the Canadian Experimental Farm Reports,
one-half of the ash of beet-sugar molasses is potash. It is the
presence of this, no doubt, that is the cause of the looseness of the
bowels when fed above a certain quantity per diem. ' When symptoms
of this condition are observed the quantity of molasses fed
should be reduced. Since potash is not retained by the animal, but is
eliminated by the kidneys, the urine will be especially rich in this
element, and therefore should be carefully preserved by the use of
absorbent bedding.
The reports of the Canadian Experimental Farm, already referred
to, notes briefly the successful use of sugar-beet molasses in fattening
steers. Three to five pounds was fed per day, diluted somewhat, and
poured over the cut coarse fodder. It is said that the steers developed
a great liking for it, and to all appearances it gave good results. The
test was summed up as follows:
"The most important points in favor of this new feeding stuff may
be stated as follows: (1) It contains a large percentage of sugar, the
most assimilable form of carbohydrates found in cattle feed; (2) it
stimulates the appetite, and (3) probably increases the digestibility of
the other constituents of the ration."
Sugar- Beet Pulp. — In the process of manufacturing beet sugar there
remains a by-product containing a large proportion of water and for
which no profitable use has been found thus far, except as a food for
stock. Upon the arrival of the sugar-beets at the factory they are first
washed and then run through a slicing machine which shreds
them into small strips resembling a large size of twine. The
shredded beets are placed in large cylinders through which hot water
is forced and the sugar thereby dissolved out of the beets. The
portion remaining after the sugar has passed off in solution is what is
known as beet-pulp, or residue. It is of no further use to the manu-
* When mixed with peat the digestibility is reduced, because the peat acts as so much
dead weight.
22
facturer, who is always ready to dispose of it at a nominal price.
Because of its passing through such a soaking process, the beet pulp
comes from the factory with a high content of water, which in
most cases is about ninety per cent, of its total weight. It is there-
fore heavy material to handle, and the cost of transportation is likely
to be high in proportion to its actual value, either for food or any
other purpose. The presence of so much water, however, renders the
beet residue of much value for milch cows where other succulent foods,
as green pasture, silage or soiling crops, are not available.
Several years of experience in California have proven sugar-beet
pulp of value for fattening cattle as well as for producing milk, and
the fact is that the larger portion of the beet pulp in the State is con-
sumed by cattle which are being fitted for the butcher's block. It has
been fed also to some extent to sheep. Both cattle and sheep eat the
pulp so readily that there is scarcely any difficulty about getting them
accustomed to it. So far as we are able to learn all those who have
fed beet pulp to either of these kinds of stock have been successful
except where they tried to make the pulp the sole food. This should
never be done for more than a few days at most, because the animal
cannot consume enough of such watery food to maintain life and pro-
duce milk or meat. Moreover, as a general principle, an animal
should never be expected to do its best when confined to a single
article of diet.
Storing Beet Pulp. — When a pile of beet pulp has been subjected
to the weather for some time the whole exposed surface decays to a
depth of six to eight inches, forming a crust which serves as a seal to
preserve the under-lying material. Beet pulp may be said, therefore,
to silo itself; and the chief points in arranging storage for it are to
confine the desired quantity into as small a space as possible and reduce
the exposed surface to a minimum. These points are secured by means
of silos of various kinds. Since the food value of beet pulp is so small
in proportion to its weight, there is no profit in constructing costly
storage places; therefore the silo may be cheap, but it must be strongly
built.
The silo shown in Figure 1 is used in connection with the beet-
sugar factory and dairy in Alvarado. The large trestle carries the
beet pulp from the factory, seen in the background, and drops it into
the silo below. The silo is 460 feet long, 80 feet wide, and 8 feet
deep. It is floored and sided with two-inch plank, and the sloping
sides are supported by heavy posts set in the ground and braced with
strong timbers. Three tracks run through the silo, one on each side
and one in the center, on which a car is drawn by a horse to carry
the pulp to the cattle barns several rods distant. A large amount of
pulp may still be seen in the photograph of the silo, which was taken
March 30, 1901.
Another silo built on the same principle is shown in Figure 2.
This may be made of the roughest sort of lumber and of any size to
suit the convenience of the feeder. The cut represents a silo twelve
feet wide, thirty feet long and six feet deep, and which will hold
about two carloads of pulp.
Figure 3 represents a simple and cheap way of constructing a silo
by excavating a passage through, or in a hill. The bottoms should
23
Fig. 1.— Beet-pulp Silo; Alvarado Sugar Works.
Fig. 2.
otff '-v
\' ^Aj^^w/.^^V
Fig. 3.
24
be planked iu all such cases and means provided whereby the water
draining from the pulp may be easily and quickly carried off. The
planks snould, therefore, set well up from the ground and be far
enough apart to leave a crack between them after they have swelled
with the contact with moisture from the pulp. The sides may or
may not be planked, but less pulp is lost if they are covered with
boards. This silo may also be made of any desired size. One
used by Mr. John E. Koster is 600 feet long, 50 feet deep, 20 feet
wide at the base and 80 feet wide at the top. The bottom only is
planked, and has gutterways under the floor, so as to thoroughly
drain the pulp. The silo is filled by means of carriers bringing the
pulp directly from the sugar factory to the upper part of the silo when
the carrier is dumped. In the small silo shown in the figure the
filling can be done by driving the wagon alongside the top of the silo
and shoveling the pulp into it. None of the silos for preserving beet
pulp need any roof.
FEEDING STANDARDS.
Having ascertained the composition of the feeding-stuffs and their
digestion-coefficients, the next step is to know just how much the
animals require per day to keep them in a normal and healthy con-
dition. These amounts are called rations. As might be supposed,
this differs with the purpose for which the animal is kept, whether it
is growing, being fattened, used for work, or making milk. A horse
that is working hard all day in the plow certainly requires more food
than one that is doing nothing at all; although, even in that case, the
animal needs some of each of the nutrients in order to perform the
functions of the body.
The standards commonly in use in this country are the ones set
down by the German investigators in this subject, notably Dr. E. Wolff,
by whom the following table has been worked out :
25
TABLE IV. — Feeding Standards.
Pounds per Day per 1,000 Pounds Live Weight.
1. Horse at light work
2. Horse at average work •...
3. Horse at hard work
4. Oxen at rest in stall
5. Oxen fattening, 1st period..
6. Oxen fattening, 2nd period.
7. Oxen fattening, 3d period...
8. Milch cow
9. Sheep, wool-producing,
coarser breeds
10. Sheep, wool -producing,
finer breeds
11. Sheep fattening, 1st period.
12. Sheep fattening, 2nd period.
13. Swine fattening, 1st period.
14. Swine fattening, 2nd period.
15. Swine fattening, 3d period.
Growing Cattle. Average
Age live weight
months. per head.
2 to 3 150 lbs.
3 to 6 300 lbs.
6 to 12 500 lbs.
12 to 18 700 lbs.
18 to 24 850 lbs.
Growing Sheep.
5 to 6 56 lbs.
6 to 8 66 lbs.
8 to 11 76 lbs.
11 to 15 82 lbs.
15 to 20 86 lbs.
Growing Pigs (Breeding Stock).
2 to 3 50 lbs.
3 to 5 100 lbs.
5 to 6 124 lbs.
6 to 8 170 lbs.
8 to 12 250 lbs.
Growing Pigs (Fattening).
2 to 3 50 lbs.
3 to 5 100 lbs.
5 to 6 150 lbs.
6 to 8 200 lbs.
9 to 12 300 lbs.
Nutrients.
Total
Dry
Matter.
Protein.
Carbo-
Hydrates.
Fat.
Total.
Ratio.
•
21.0
1.5
9.5
.40
11.4
1:7
22.5
1.8
11.2
.68
13.7
1:7
25.5
2.8
13.4
.80
17.0
1:15.5
17.5
0.7
8.0
.10
8.8
1:4.9
27.0
2.5
15.0
.50
18.0
1:6.5
26.0
3.0
14.8
.70
18.5
1:5.5
25.0
2.7
14.8
.60
18.1
1:6.0
24.0
2.5
12.5
.40
15.4
1:5.4
20.0
1.2
10.3
.20
11.7
1:9.0
22.5
1.5
11.4
.25
13.2
1:8.0
26.0
3.0
15.2
.50
18.7
1:5.5
25.0
3.5
5.0
14.4
.60
18.5
32.5
1:4.5
36.0
27.5
1:5.5
31.0
4.0
24.0
28.0
1:6.0
23.5
2.7
17.5
20.2
1:6.5
22.0
4.0
13.8
2.0
19.8
1:4.7
23.4
3.2
13.5
1.0
17.7
1:5.0
24.0
2.5
13.5
0.6
16 6
1:6.0
24.0
2.0
13.0
0.4
15.4
1:7.0
24.0
1.6
12.0
0.3
13.9
1:8.0
28.0
3.2
15.6
0.8
19.6
1:5.5
25.0
2.7
13.3
0.6
16.6
1:5.5
23.0
2.1
11.4
0.5
14.0
1:6.0
22.5
1.7
10.9
0.4
13.0
1:7.0
22.0
1.4
10.4
0.3
12.1
1:8.0
42.0
7.6
28.0
1.0
36.6
1:4.0
34.0
5.0
23.1
0.8
28.9
1:5.0
31.5
3.7
21.3
0.4
25.4
1:6.0
27.0
2.8
18.7
0.3
21.8
1:7.0
21.0
2.1
15.3
0.2
17.6
1:7.5
44.0
7.6
28.0
1.0
36.6
1:4.0
35.0
5.0
23.1
0.8
28.9
1:5.0
33.0
4.3
22.3
0.6
27.2
1:5.5
30.0
3.6
20.5
0.4
24.5
1:6.0
26.0
3.0
18.3
0.3
21.6
1:6.4
26
TABLE IV.— Feeding Standards. {Continued.)
Per Head per Day.
Total
Dry
Matter.
Nutrients.
Protein.
Carbo-
Hydrates.
Fat.
Total.
Nutritiv*
Ratio.
Growing Cattle. .
*» Average
Age • live weight
months. per head.
2 to 3 150 lbs.
3 to 6 300 lbs.
6 to 12 500 lbs.
12 to 18 700 lbs.
18 to 24 850 lbs.
Growing Sheep.
5 to 6 56 lbs.
6 to 8 60 lbs.
8 to 11 76 lbs.
11 to 15 82 lbs.
15 to 20 86 lbs.
Growing Pigs (Fattening).
2 to 3 50 lbs.
3 to 5 100 lbs.
5 to 6 124 lbs.
6 to 8 170 lbs.
8 to 12 250 lbs.
3.3
7.0
12.0
16.8
20.4
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
3.4
3.9
4.6
5.2
0.6
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.38
0.50
0.54
0.58
0.62
2.1
4.1
6.8
9.1
10.3
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.89
0.88
.30
.30
.30
.28
.26
.05
.04
.04
.03
.03
1.50
2.50
2.96
3.47
4.05
3.0
5.4
8.4
10.8
11.0
1.10
1.07
1.05
1.06
1.03
1.88
3.00
3.50
4.05
4.67
1:4.7
1:5.0
1:6.0
1:7.0
1:8.0
1:5.5
1:5.5
1:6.0
1:7.0
1:8.0
1:4.0
1:5.0
1:5.5
1:6.0
1:6.5
Besides the necessary amount of nutrients, the food must have a
certain bulk furnished by the coarse fodder, which helps digestion,
and tends to keep the animal satisfied and healthy. The measure of
the bulk is the amount of dry matter, or organic matter, in the ration,
as shown by the figures 24 for the ration of a milch cow; of course,
this may vary without any serious results. The kind of food a
dairyman would give depends on what is the main crop or by-product
in his section, how near he is to market, and the cost of the
different concentrated foods at his command.
Grave errors may arise by following too closely the standards and
rations set down by chemical research alone, without taking into
account the local circumstances, and the individual needs of the
animals, as well as the variation of the feeding- stuffs themselves; yet,
without any knowledge of the composition of the substance fed, the
farmer is not only in the dark as to the benefit to be derived from the
food, but is also' ignorant of the actual amount necessary; thus, at
times, wasting considerable and valuable material.
RATIONS.
From the figures given in Table IV, rations can be calculated by
having the analyses of the different foods before one. In order to
facilitate matters in this direction, Table V has been made up from
data given in Table II. It shows the total weight of dry matter, and
amounts of digestible nutrients in different weights of feeding-stuffs.
The use of this table is explained on page 31.
27
TABLE V.— Pounds of Dry Matter and Digestible Nutrients in Different
Quantities of Fodders and Feedstuffs.
Lbs.
Green Fodders.
Alfalfa 5
Australian saltbush .... 5
10
Barley J 5
10
Corn I 5
10
Marsh (" Biston") grass 5
10
Oats 5
10
Peas and oats 5
10
Sorghum 5
10
Silage.
Barley 5
10
Clover, red 5
10
Corn 5
10
Oat 5
10
Orchard grass i 5
10
Roots, Beet pulp, etc.
Beets, Mangels 5
10
Beets, Sugar i 5
10
Beet pulp, fresh | 5
10
Beet pulp, silage 5
10
Pie melons ■ 5
10
Pumpkins 5
10
Hays.
Alfalfa 5
6
7
8
9
10
13
15
18
Australian saltbush
Dry
Matter.
1.00
2.00
18
35
,05
, 1
04
.08
2.50
5.00
1.90
3.80
.80
1.60
1.03
2.06
1.30
2.60
.50
1.00
.80
1.60
.50
1.00
.56
1.11
.47
.95
.50
1.00
4.45
5.34
6.23
7.12
8.01
8.90
11.57
13.35
16.02
4.65
5.58
6.51
7.44
Proteim.
.19
.37
.13
.25
.10
.20
.05
.10
.13
.26
.13
.26
,09
,18
.06
.11
.08
.16
.05
.09
.06
.12
.03
.07
.06
.12
.62
.74
.86
.99
1.11
1.23
1.60
1.85
2.22
.44
.53
.61
.70
Carbo-
hydrates.
Fat.
.36
.73
.46
.92
.51
.02
.58
.16
.22
.44
.92
.84
.36
.72
.24
.47
.60
1.20
.37
.73
.39
.77
.17
.33
.20
.40
1.86
2.23
2.60
2.97
3.34
3.71
4.83
5.57
6.68
1.90
2.29
2.68
3.06
.03
.06
.02
.03
.02
.04
.02
.04
.04
.09
.05
.10
.01
,02
03
.61
.02
06
1.22
.04
09
.64
.04
18
1.27
.09
10
.68
.05
20
1.36
.10
06
.67
.03
13
1.35
.06
08
.74
.04
15
1.48
.09
06
.53
.05
11
1.06
.10
.005
.010
.005
.010
.006
.011
.010
.020
.010
.020
.015
.030
.08
.09
.11
.12
.14
.16
.20
.24
.28
.06
.07
.08
.10
Nutritive
Ratio.
1: 2.3
1: 3.9
1: 5.8
1:12.5
1:10.2
1: 8.1
1: 4.2
1:21.8
1: 8.2
1: 7.9
1:11.7
1:11.0
1:11.4
1: 4.5
1: 7.6
1: 8.2
1: 6.8
1: 5.4
1: 4.0
1: 3.3
28
TABLE V.— Pounds of Dry Matter and Digestible Nutrients in Different
Quantities of Fodders and Feedstuffs. {Continued.)
Lbs.
Dry
Matter.
Protein .
Carbo-
hydrates.
Fat.
Nutritive
Ratio.
Australian saltbush ....
9
8.37
.79
3.44
.11
(Continued.)
10
9.30
.88
3.82
.12
13
11.09
1.14
4.97
.16
15
13.95
1.32
5.72
.18
18
16.64
1.58
6.88
.22
Barley
5
4.57
.29
2.16
.08
1: 8.1
6
5.49
.35
2.59
.09
7
6.40
.40
3.02
.11
8
7.31
.46
3.45
.12
9
8.23
.52
3.88
.14
10
9.14
.58
4.31
.16
13
11.89
.75
5.60
.20
15
13.72
.86
6.47
.23
18
16.46
1.04
7.76
.28
Bur clover
5
4.50
.37
2.06
.09
1: 6.2
6
5.39
.44
2.47
.11
7
6.29
.51
2.88
.12
8
7.19
.58
3.30
.14
9
8.09
.65
3.71
.16
10
8.99
.73
4.12
.18
13
11.69
.94
5.36
.23
15
13.49
1.09
6.18
.26
18
16.18
1.31
7.42
.32
Clover, red
5
4.25
.34
1.78
.09
6
5.10
.41
2.15
.10
7
5.95
.48
2.51
.12
8
6.80
.54
2.86
.14
9
7.65
.61
3.22
.15
10
8.50
.68
3.58
.17
13
11.05
.88
4.65
.22
15
12.75
1.02
5.36
.26
18
15.30
1.22
6.44
.31
Oat
5
4.50
.22
2.19
.07
1:10.5
6
5.40
.27
2.62
.09
7
6.30
.31
3.06
.10
8
7.20
.36
3.50
.12
9
8.10
.40
3.94
.13
10
9.00
.45
4.37
.15
13
11.70
.58
5.69
.19
15
13.50
.67
6.56
.22
18
16.20
.80
7.87
.26
Wheat
5
4.56
.18
2.30
.05
1:13.2
6
5.47
.21
2.76
.07
7
6.38
.25
3.22
.08
8
7.29
.29
3.68
.09
9
8.20
.32
4.14
.10
10
9.12
.36
4.61
.11
13
11.86
.47
5.99
.14
15
13.78
.54
6.91
.16
18
16.41
.64
8.30
.20
29
TABLE V.— Pounds of Dry Matter and Digestible Nutrients in Different
Quantities of Fodders and Feedstuffs. {Continued.)
Lbs.
Dry
Matter.
Protein.
Carbo-
hydrates.
Fat.
Nutritive
Ratio.
Mixed
5
4.62
.22
2.36
.08
1:11.5
6
5.54
'.2Q
2.84
.10
7
6.46
.31
3.31
.11
8
7.39
.35
3.78
.13
9
8.31
.39
4.25
.15
10
9.24
.44
4.73
.17
13
12.00
.58
6.15
.21
15
13.85
.660
7.09
.250
18
16.62
.790
8.51
.300
Straw, average
1
.89
.008
.39
.006
1: 5.0
2
1.78
.016
.77
.012
3
2.67
.024
1.16
.018
4
3.56
.032
1.55
.024
5
4.45
.040
1.94
.030
7
6.23
.056
2.71
.048
9
8.01
.072
3.48
.054
Gourd J Vines.
"Mock Orange"
5
4.30
.26
1.88
.06
1: 7.9
6
5.16
.31
2.25
.08
7
6.02
.36
2.63
.09
8
6.88
.41
3.00
.10
9
7.74
.46
3.38
.11
10
8.60
.51
3.75
.13
13
11.18
.67
4.88
.16
15
12.90
.77
5.63
.19
18
15.48
.92
6.75
.23
Grain and Millstuffs.
Barley, rolled
1
.90
.10
.63
.02
1: 7.1
2
1.80
.19
1.27
.04
3
2.70
.29
1.90
.06
4
3.60
.38
2.54
.08
5
4.50
.48
3.17
.10
7
6.30
.58
4.44
.14
Oats
1
.89
.09
.47
.04
1: 6.2
2
1.68
.18
.95
.08
3
2.67
.28
1.42
.13
4
3.56
.37
1.89
.17
5
4.45
.46
2.36
.21
7
6.23
.64
3.31
.29
Wheat, whole
1
.89
.09
.50
.01
1: 5.6
2
1.77
.19
1.00
.03
3
2.66
.28
1.50
.04
4
3.54
.38
2.00
.06
5
4.43
.47
2.50
.07
7
6.27
.65
3.50
.09
Wheat, screenings
1
.89
.08
.49
.02
1: 6.6
2
1.78
.16
.97
.04
3
2.66
.24
1.46
.05
4
3.55
.32
1.95
.07
5
4.44
.40
2.44
.09
7
(5.22
.56
3.41
.13
30
TABLE V.— Pounds of Dry Matter and Digestible Nutrients in Different
Quantities of Fodders and Feedstuffs. (Continued.)
Lbs.
Dry
Matter.
Protein.
Carbo-
hydrates.
Fat.
Nutritive
Ratio.
Wheat, bran
1
.88
.11
.42
.03
1: 4.3'
2
1.76
.22
.84
.05
3
2.65
.34
1.27
.08
4
3.53
.45
1.69
.10
5
4.41
.56
2.11
.13
7
6.18
.79
2.95
.18
Wheat, Middlings
1
.88
.12
.53
.04
1: 5.1
2
1.76
.24
1.07
.08
3
2.65
.37
1.60
.11
4
3.53
.49
2.14
.15
5
4.41
.61
2.67
.19
7
6.18
.85
3.74
.27
Wheat, Shorts
1
2
.90
1.80
.12
.24
.48
.96
.03
.06
1: 4.5
3
2.70
.36
1.44
.09
4
3.60
.49
1.92
.11
5
4.50
.61
2.40
.14
7
6.30
.85
3.35
.20
Mixed feed
1
.89
.10
.47
.03
1: 5.6
2
1.79
.19
.95
.06
3
2.68
.29
1.42
.09
4
3.58
.38
1.90
.12
5
4.47
.48
2.37
.15
7
6.16
.67
2.84
.21
Corn meal
1
.88
.06
.66
.03
1:11.6
2
17.6
.13
1.33
.07
3
2.64
.19
1.99
.10
4
3.52
.26
2.65
.13
5
4.40
.32
3.31
.17
7
6.16
.45
4.64
.24
Oil-Cake Meals.
Linseed (new process)
*
.45
.13
.19
.03
1: 2.
1
.89
.26
.38
.07
2
1.78
.52
.77
.13
3
2.67
.78
1.15
.20
4
3.56
1.04
1.54
.26
5
4.45
1.30
1.92
.33
Cocoanut
*
.43
,08
.21
.05
1
.86
.16
.42
.10
2
1.72
.33
.85
.20
3
2.58
.49
1.27
.30
4
3.44
.66
1.70
.40
5
4.30
.82
2.12
.50
Cottonseed
*
1
.45
.90
.21
.41
.08
.15
.06
.11
1: 1.
2
1.80
.82
.31
.22
3
2.70
1.23
.46
.33
4
3.60
1.64
.62
.44
5
4.50
2.05
.77
.55
31
FEEDING COWS AND STEERS.
The large and rapidly increasing dairy interests of this State
render the feeding of milch cows a very important subject. No
animal responds more gratefully or profitably to careful feeding, and
there is none more willing to consume coarse foods than she. This is
due to the peculiar construction of her digestive system, which, like
that of other ruminants, includes four stomachs, three of which enable
her to prepare for digestion and assimilation of nutriment from food
entirely unsuited to non-ruminants. But because she can utilize this
roughage does not mean that this kind of food is sufficient for her
wants.
As Dr. Allen says: "The cow requires not only materials for
her maintenance, but must also have protein, fat, and carbo-
hydrates to make milk from. The milk contains water, fat, protein
(casein or curd), sugar, and ash, and these are all made from
the constituents of the food. If insufficient protein, fat, and
carbohydrates are contained in the food given her, the cow supplies
the deficiency for a time by drawing on her own body, and gradually
shrinks in quantity and quality of milk, or both. The stingy feeder
cheats himself as well as the cow. She suffers from hunger, although
her belly is full of swale hay, but she also becomes poor and does not
yield the milk and butter she should. Her milk glands are a wonderful
machine, but they cannot make milk casein out of carbohydrates or
coarse, unappetizing, indigestible swale hay or sawdust, any more
than the farmer himself can make butter from skim milk. She must
not only have a generous supply of good food, but it must contain a
sufficient amount of the nutrients needed for making milk. Until this
fact is understood and appreciated, successful, profitable dairying is
out of the question. The cow must be regarded as a living machine.
She takes the raw materials given her in the form of food, and works
them over into milk. If the supply of proper materials is small, the
output will be small. The cow that will not repay generous feeding
should be disposed of at once, and one bought that will. There
are certain inbred characteristics which even liberal feeding cannot
overcome."
How to Use Tables in Compounding Rations. — Suppose a dairyman
were feeding dairy cows and wished to make up a ration in accordance
with standard 8, viz.: 24 pounds dry matter, 2.5 pounds digestible
protein, 12.5 pounds digestible carbohydrates with .4 pounds of fat,
from oat hay, bran, middlings, and linseed meal. A general principle,
where grain is fed to cows, is to make up the ration in such a way as
to have about two-thirds of the total dry matter supplied by the coarse
fodder and the remaining one-third by the concentrated food. In this
case, then, the dairyman would need about 18 pounds of hay, which by
the table is found to contain 16.2 pounds of dry matter, or about two-
thirds of 24, the total amount required by a 1000-pound cow. Eight
pounds of dry matter is then left to be furnished by the grain, and
32
about nine pounds will be needed, since nearly all the grain contains
approximately ninety per cent, of dry matter. For a continuous diet
it is not well to feed more than two pounds daily per head of linseed
meal, and it will therefore require this amount for the ration. We will
suppose that the remaining seven pounds may be divided so as to use
three pounds of bran and four pounds of middlings. Turning to Table
V for the several quantities as above mentioned of the different
foods, the following ration can be compounded:
Lbs. Dry Matter. Protein. Carbohydrates. Fat.
18 Oat hay 16.20 .80 7.87 .26
3 Bran 2.65 .34 1.27 .08
4 Middlings 3.53 .49 2.14 .15
2 Linseed meal 1.78 .52 .77 .13
24.16 2.15 11.95 .62
Nutritive ratio, 1: 6.25.
The ration is lacking mainly in protein, which makes the nutritive
ratio wider than is called for by the standard. The total amount of
dry matter is high enough, and thus any change cannot be made by
adding other foods, but must be made by substituting some food
containing a large percentage of protein for one of the foods now
used. Cottonseed meal may be used for this substitution, and one
pound will suffice in place of one pound of middlings. The altered
ration would then be :
Lbs. Dry Matter. Protein. Carbohydrates. Fat.
18 Oat hay 16.20 .80 7.87 .26
3 Bran 2.65 .34 1.27 .08
3 Middlings 2.65 .37 1.60 .11
2 Linseed meal 1.78 .52 .77 .13
1 Cottonseed meal .90 .41 .15 .11
24.18 2.44 11.66 .69
Nutritive ratio, 1:5.4.
This ration corresponds very closely to the standard, and would
undoubtedly give better results than the first one. The pound of
cottonseed meal costs much more than one pound of middlings, but,
considering the amount of protein furnished, the cottonseed meal is
the cheaper.
As another illustration; a dairyman writes that he is feeding 9
pounds of alfalfa hay, 50 pounds of corn silage and 5 pounds of wheat
bran. Taking the sum of the various nutrients from Table V as
before, we find the ration to contain the following:
Lbs. Dry Matter. Protein. Carbohydrates. Fat.
9 Alfalfa hay 8.01 1.11 3.34 .14
50 Corn silage 12.50 .64 6.74 .28
5 Wheat bran 4.41 .56 2.11 .13
24.92 2.31 12.19 .55
Nutritive ratio, 1:5.8. Cost, 100 cows per day, $12.85.
With the exception of a shortage in protein, this is a very good
ration. It may be benefited in this respect by feeding less silage and
more bran, when a ration somewhat as follows is the result:
33
Lbs. Dry Matter.
9 Alfalfa hay 8.01
35 Corn silage 8.75
9 Wheat bran 7.95
Protein.
Carbohydrates.
Fat.
1.11
3.34
.14
.44
4.72
.20
1.02
3.81
.24
24.71 2.57 11.87 .58
Nutritive ratio, 1:5.1. Cost, 100 cows per day, $14.75.
This ration is better than the original one from the standpoint of
the protein and nutritive ratio. It also has the proportion of one-
third of the total dry matter made up of concentrated foods as men-
tioned in the first illustration. But it is more expensive than the
original by nearly two dollars per day for 100 cows. The principle
referred to, in regard to making two- thirds of the dry matter of the
ration come from the coarse fodder and one-third from the concen-
trates, is an Eastern feeding practice. It is partly necessary because
the concentrates must be used to supply the requisite amount of
protein, since most of the Eastern coarse fodders do not contain this
element in so large a proportion as alfalfa. With alfalfa, as shown
elsewhere, it is possible to provide enough protein without using any
other food. Taking the three foods in question, we may make another
ration, depending more largely upon the alfalfa for protein, as follows:
Lbs. Dry Matter. Protein. Carbohydrates. Fat.
12 Alfalfa hay 10.68 1.48 4.46 .18
40 Corn silage 10.00 .50 5.39 .22
4 Wheat bran 3.53 .45 1.69 .10
.50
24.21 2.43 11.54
Nutritive ratio, 1:5.2. Cost, 100 cows, per day, $12.20.
This is the cheapest of all three rations, and is as good as the
second as regards the total and proportion of digestible nutrients. It
contains less bran than either of the others, but is sufficient to make a
good palatable ration. The calculation of the cost of the ration is
based on prices as given in Table III on page 14.
Additional matter relating to the feeding of milch cows is given
in the body of this Bulletin.
Feeding Alfalfa. — Bulletin No. 148 of the New Jersey Experiment
Station reports experiment an comparing alfalfa protein with purchased
protein for dairy cows. They fed four cows during a period of two
months on two separate rations, one made up of corn silage, alfalfa hay,
mixed hay, and cotton-seed meal; the other of corn silage, mixed hay,
wheat bran, dried brewer's grains, and cotton- seed meal. The results of
the experiment are summarized in the table showing the food consumed,
the yield of milk and butter per head daily, and the cost for food to
produce 100 pounds of milk and 1 pound of butter with each ration.
Food consumed per cow per day.
Yield.
Cost to produce.
No. of days.
t
M
J2
xfl
Eh
o
O
<
si
A
.9
pi
U
A
■P
c3
CD
i
.5
^ si
9
a
<x>
9
B9
Pi
O
o
o
.2
ti
or,
o
o
d
s
o
ft
|
5
ft
u
pq
100 pounds milk,
cents.
u
0>
HJ
£ .
,Q CO
'CSC
PI ?
o
ft
Ration 1..
Ration 2..
60
60
35
35
11 6
4
4
2
2
12.08
15.38
20.8
21.8
.87
.92
58.0
70.7
12.0
14.3
132—3
34
This experiment shows that while the ration in which the protein
was supplied by purchased grain produced slightly more milk and
butter than the alfalfa ration, still the latter produced milk at 12.7
cents per 100 pounds and butter at 2.3 cents less per pound than the
former. It will be noticed that two pounds of cotton-seed meal were
in each ration, and that there was no comparison of rations wholly
without grain.
The usual feeding practice in alfalfa districts is to depend entirely
upon alfalfa pasture and alfalfa hay for cattle feed, except for the
vexing foxtail, which comes up every spring. That this is a cheap
method of feeding cannot be denied. That it would be cheaper to
supplement the alfalfa with other feeds, either grown at home or
purchased, is not yet proven to the satisfaction of all. The experience
of a few dairymen has shown that some straw judiciously fed with
alfalfa has lessened the cost of the ration and added to its palatability.
The few also who have fed corn silage report most satisfactory results.
The most simple rule of animal feeding is broken when a cow is
required to subsist on alfalfa alone, or any other single food, for no
animal can be expected to do its best when confined to a single food.
The question then comes, will the cow do so much better on two or
three different foods to pay for buying or raising the extra ones? On
many ranches food material goes to waste, or is burned; such as straw,
which if well preserved would be relished by the cow along with
alfalfa. And in every dairy section in California corn can be grown
in sufficient quantity to furnish silage to supplement dry pasture and
add to the cow's change of food.
A few illustrative rations will show how the cost of feeding varies
between feeding much or little grain, or little or much alfalfa. In
calculating the cost of the following rations the same schedule of
prices is used as shown in Table III. The rations are each made up
with a view to secure as nearly a standard ration as possible with the
foods used, and to have them all nearly the same in total dry matter.
The various rations follow : —
Ration 1 Ration 2
10 lbs alfalfa hay 13 lbs alfalfa hay
8 lbs barley hay 10 lbs barley hay
3 lbs wheat bran 2 lbs wheat bran
3 lbs crushed barley 2 lbs crushed barley
2 lbs corn meal
Nutritive ratio, 1:5.2 Nutritive ratio 1:5
Cost 100 cows per day $15.30 Cost 100 cows per day $13.10
Ration 3 Ration 4
13 lbs alfalfa hay 20 lbs alfalfa hay
13 lbs barley hay 8 lbs straw (average)
Nutritive ratio 1:4.8 Nutritive ratio 1:4.5
Cost 100 cows per day $11.05 Cost 100 cows per day $9.20
Ration 5
27 lbs alfalfa hay
Nutritive ratio 1:3.3 ,
Cost 100 cows per day $10.80
Feeding Beet Pulp. — We have no detailed experiment to report for
this State concerning the value of beet pulp as a stock food, nor showing
35
how it should best be fed. We have, however, the record of milk
production from a small herd of cows which were fed beet pulp for
about ten weeks. And through the kindness of several of the leading
stockmen of the State we have secured their experience in feeding it
and are able to present it here. It is interesting to note that the
results obtained from feeding the pulp in this State agree with
European experience.
The herd of cows mentioned above were owned in Berkeley by Mr.
W. B. Barber, who kept the milk record and weighed the beet pulp
which each cow consumed. The cows were mostly Shorthorn
foundation, with some infusion of Jersey blood. All but "Jersey"
dropped their calves in July, 1900, and she in April. Owing
to various circumstances, it was not possible to keep an accurate
record of the weight of hay consumed, and thus the amount required
by each cow can be given only approximately. When no beet pulp
was fed, the cows ate an average of about 20 pounds of hay per head
daily in addition to 8 pounds of grain. When eating beet pulp
the daily consumption of hay varied from 6 to 16 pounds, depending
upon the amount of beet pulp in the ration and the size of the cow.
The hay was a fair quality of oat with a slight ad-mixture of bur clover.
The grain consisted of 8 pounds per head daily of a mixture of 3
parts of wheat bran and 2 parts of cocoanut-cake meal given dry in
two feeds. Calculating this ration on a basis of 8 pounds of grain, 9
pounds of hay, and 60 pounds of beet pulp, it had a nutritive ratio of
1:6.2 and contained 21.75 pounds of dry matter.
The sugar-beet pulp was donated to the Station by the Alameda
Sugar Company of Alvarado, through the kindness of the superin-
tendent of the company, Mr. E. W. Burr. Transportation was
furnished to Berkeley free on the first car-load of pulp, and at
half rates on the second car-load by the Southern Pacific Railroad
Company.
The record of milk production, as given in the table below, began
on September 5, 1900. From that date until October 10th the feed
of the cows was hay and grain, as mentioned above. On the latter
date, which was the sixth week in the table, beet pulp was given to
all the cows in small quantities. This amount was so irregular, owing
to the freshness of the pulp and the dislike of most of the cows for it
in that condition, that a full ration of pulp was not secured until the
seventh week. For the succeeding three weeks hay was fed once a
day and beet pulp once, in amounts varying from 40 to 65 pounds per
head, according to the size and appetite of the animal. Beginning
with the tenth week, the hay, grain, and beet pulp were fed together,
each in two daily feeds. With some of the cows the quantity of pulp
given was increased 5 pounds per day until they received 80 pounds
each, and with others decreased until they received only 20 pounds
each. After a time the order was reversed; the rations for those
receiving the large amounts were decreased, and for those receiving
small amounts increased until two were receiving 90 pounds each daily.
The period of feeding beet pulp closed during the sixteenth week, after
which the cows received the former ration of hay and grain. During
the whole period the cows had the range of several small fields, but the
amount of food obtained there was of little practical value.
.36
The beet pulp seemed to impart no foreign or disagreeable flavor
to the milk. The milk was delivered daily to customers in Berkeley,
and no complaint was made as to its quality. The effect of the pulp
upon the flow of milk was on the whole beneficial. Most of the cows
were decreasing in yield up to the time when we began to feed beet
pulp, after which all increased in quantity, and continued to hold out
well until the beet pulp was exhausted, when there was a noticeable
decrease. In regard to the influence of beet pulp upon the percentage
of fat in the milk, the records do not show any material effect either
in raising or lowering the proportion of fat. The record of milk and
fat production is given below, for the study of all who are interested
therein .
The milk record was kept as follows: — Each cow's milk was
weighed at every milking as soon as drawn, and the weight recorded
on a sheet provided for the purpose. At the same time about one-half
ounce of the milk was taken as a sample to test for fat, and placed in
a bottle containing milk preservative. These composite samples were
tested for fat once a week by the Babcock test. In the record, then,
we have the weight of milk for each week, the average weekly per
cent, of fat, and the pounds of fat produced each week. This record
is given in the table below, together with the quantity of beet pulp
consumed by each cow per week.
TABLE VI.
Individual Weekly Record op Milk and Fat Produced and of
Beet Pulp Consumed.
NORMAN.
LINE BACK.
Jersey — Shorthorn.
Aryshire—
Shorthorn
Age 6 years.
Age 5
years.
No. of
Milk,
Fat,
Fat,
Beet Pulp
Milk,
Fat,
Fat,
Beet Pulp
Weeks.
Pounds.
Percent.
Pounds.
Pounds.
Pounds.
Percent.
Pounds.
Pounds.
1
156.3
4.5
7.03
174.9
3.4
5.95
2
148.2
4.2
6.22
183.4
3.3
6.05
3
154.8
3.8
5.88
185.4
3.5
6.49
4
148.1
4.2
6.22
182.3
3.4
6.30
5
138.8
4.4
6.11
172.1
3.6
6.20
6
139.9
4.6
6.44
165.5
3.6
5.96
7
154.4
4.4
6.79
365
171.7
4.2
7.21
355
8
158.4
4.4
6.97
385
169.6
3.6
6.11
455
9
142.9
4.4
6.29
385
174.7
3.7
6.46
435
10
138.2
4.1
5.67
485
185.1
3.7
6.85
545
11
128.6
4.2
5.40
560
189.1
3.8
7.19
560
12
144.6
5.0
7.23
555
170.2
4.1
6.98
555-
13
147.2
4.8
7.07
385
183.4
3.9
7.15
385
14
137.1
4.6
6.31
170
163.5
3.8
6.21
170
15
141.1
4.5
6.35
140
175.0
3.7
6.48
140
16
127.9
4.5
5.76
40
173.8
3.8
6.60
40
17
123.5
5.0
6.18
166.1
4.1
6.81
18
122.9
5.2
6.39
167.9
4.1
6.88
19
121.1
5.2
6.30
156.3
4.1
6.41
37
TABLE VI.
■Individual Weekly Record of Milk and Fat Produced and of
Beet Pulp Consumed. (Continued.)
STRUBE
JERSEY.
Jersey— Shorthorn.
High Grade Jersey.
Age 6 years.
Age 10 years.
No. of
Milk,
Fat,
Fat,
Beet Pulp
Milk,
Fat,
Fat,
Beet Pulp
Weeks.
Pounds.
Per cent.
Pounds.
Pounds.
Pounds.
Percent.
Pounds.
Pounds.
1
176.5
3.7
6.63
121.1
6.0
7.27
2
177.4
3.6
6.39
120.7
5.6
6.76
3
175.7
3.4
5.97
125.8
5.1
6.42
4
162.0
4.2
6.80
119.6
5.6
6.70
5
144.4
3.8
5.49
118.9
5.6
6.66
6
131.1
4.3
5.64
123.4
5.6
6.91
7
141.7
3.9
5.53
295
129.1
5.8
7.49
380
8
140.0
4.0
5.60
325
108.7
6.0
6.52
350
9
144.9
3.9
5.65
335
114.6
5.5
6.30
420
10
140.4
3.4
4.77
485
110.2
5.5
6.06
530
11
156.3
4.1
6.41
560
117.1
5.5
6.44
560
12
145.4
4.1
5.96
555
109.2
4.8
5.24
555
13
142.4
4.1
6.84
385
104.0
5.2
5.41
385
14
125.9
4.6
5.79
170
98.6
5.6
5.52
170
15
128.9
4.1
5.28
140
105.2
5.5
5.79
140
16
129.9
3.9
5.07
40
89.9
5.8
5.21
40
17
123.2
4.3
5.30
90.9
6.0
5.45
18
117.0
4.3
5.03
89.9
6.5
5.84
19
111.9
4.1
4.59
84.6
1
6.4
5.41
TABLE VI.— Individual Weekly Record of Milk and Fat Produced and of
Beet Pulp Consumed. (Continued.)
IRENE.
SARAH.
Grade Shorthorn.
Grade Shorthorn.
Age 6 years.
Age 6 years.
No. of
Milk,
Fat,
Fat,
Beet Pulp
Milk,
Fat,
Fat,
Beet Pulp
Weeks.
Pounds.
Per cent.
Pounds.
Pounds.
Pounds.
Per cent.
Pounds.
Pounds.
1
186.0
3.6
6.70
149.6
3.6
5.39
2
175.0
3.4
5.95
147.0
3.5
5.15
3
167.0
3.6
6.01
145.5
3.2
5.66
4
172.4
4.0
6.80
130.6
3.6
4.70
5
166.8
3.2
5.34
*99.3
3.6
3.57
6
156.4
4.0
6.26
115.4
3.8
4.38
7
180.8
3.6
6.51
295
125.5
3.8
4.77
200
8
176.6
3.7
6.53
315
125.4
4.2
5.27
350
9
186.2
3.6
6.70
340
130.0
3.6
4.68
350
10
167.2
3.1
5.18
215
110.0
3.5
3.85
215
11
163.0
3.7
6.03
140
114.9
4.1
4.70
140
12
163.4
3.4
5.56
145
112.6
3.7
4.17
145
13
177.2
3.6
6.38
315
119.9
3.6
4.32
315
14
186.0
3.6
6.70
530
132.6
3.8
5.04
530
15
194.4
3.4
6.61
560
141.4
3.4
4.81
560
16
175.9
3.6
6.33
160
119.5
3.7
4.42
160
17
153.7
3.8
5.84
104.7
4.0
4.19
18
156.3
3.7
5.78
107.0
4.1
4.39
19
144.6
3.8
5.49
98.5
4.2
4.14
Sick.
38
TABLE VI.
■Individual Weekly Record of Milk and Fat Produced and of
Beet Pulp Consumed. (Continued.)
KEOHAN.
GEORGIA.
Grade Shorthorn.
Grade Shorthorn.
Age 8 years.
Age 6 years.
No. of
Milk,
Fat,
Fat,
Beet Pulp
Milk,
Fat,
Fat,
Beet Pulp
Weeks.
Pounds.
Per cent.
Pounds.
Pounds.
Pounds.
Per cent.
Pounds.
Pounds.
1
127.4
4.4
5.60
165.6
3.6
5.96
2
112.8
4.6
5.19
169.4
3.8
6.44
3
121.3
3.6
4.37
168.0
3.6
6.05
4
102.0
4.2
4.28
152.5
3.7
5.64
5
103.8
4.5
4.67
147.9
3.2
4.73
6
107.7
4.7
5.06
145.3
4.0
5.81
7
115.0
4.3
4.95
385
164.0
3.8
6.23
390
. 8
110.6
4.4
4.87
425
163.0
3.9
6.36
455
9
115.3
4.4
5.07
420
172.6
3.8
6.56
440
10
112.3
3.9
4.38
280
150.2
3.9
5.86
230
11
101.8
4.5
4.58
140
143.3
4.1
5.88
140
12
95.6
4.5
4.30
145
140.4
4.4
6.18
145
13
96.3
4.6
4.43
315
141.1
4.4
6.21
315
14
111.4
3.9
4.34
550
162.6
4.1
6.67
550
15
109.1
3.7
4.04
630
173.9
3.7
6.43
630
16
95.3
3.9
3.72
180
144.7
3.7
5.35
180
17
80.7
4.8
3.87
120.1
4.0
4.80
18
80.9
5.0
4.05
127.0
4.2
5.33
19
81.3
4.8
3.90
124.3
4.2
5.22
California Experience in Feeding Beet-pulp. — During the past
year we submitted several questions to some of the leading stockmen
of this State with a view to gathering their experience in feeding
sugar-beet pulp. The parties who have replied are: Messrs. Henry
Miller, John L. Koster, John H. Wise, W. Mayo Newhall, all of
San Francisco; Thomas H. Silsbee, Point Conception; Fred D.
Wiegman, Alvarado, and Messrs. Vail and Gates, Los Angeles. The
questions asked and the answers of the different parties are here quoted.
Feeding Beef Cattle. 1. — How much pulp do you feed daily per
head?
Mr. Koster.— 90 to 100 pounds.
Mr. Wiegman. — About 100 pounds.
Mr. Silsbee. — An average of 112 pounds of siloed pulp.
Messrs. Vail and Gates. — A four- year old steer will eat about
80 pounds of siloed pulp.
Mr. Miller. — About 100 pounds of fresh or 60 pounds of fermented
pulp.
Mr. Newhall. — The daily average consumed per animal will vary
from 80 to 100 pounds. For animals of 1,000 to 1,100 pounds weight
the former quantity should suffice.
2. — Do you feed hay or grain with the pulp, and if so, how much
and of what kind?
Mr. Koster. — 10 to 15 pounds uncut hay and 2^ to 5 pounds finely
rolled barley— quantity regulated bv condition of the cattle and the
39
state of the weather. In cold weather a greater proportion of hay and
barley than in warm weather.
Mr. Wieg'man. — Abont 5 pounds of oat hay and 3 pounds of
mixed "chop" feed.
Mr. Silsbee. — 10 to 12 pounds of lima bean- straw.
Messrs. Vail and Gates. — About six pounds of barley hay and
straw. Have generally fed about 8 pounds of ground corn for the last
forty days of feeding. When we feed cotton-seed meal we give about
3 pounds per day.
Mr. Miller. — About ten pounds of either alfalfa hay, grain hay or
straw chopped and mixed with grain, usually ground barley, though
sometimes cracked wheat. The quantity of grain varies with the
quality of the hay or straw. The better the hay the less grain used.
Mr. Newhall. — We fed rolled barley and chevalier barley-straw.
The best result is obtained when the grain is crushed as finely as
possible, the finer the better. Mill sweepings of grains, flour, corn,
etc., are excellent. At the commencement of feeding the cattle a half
pound of grain per day should be used and a full ration would be 8 to
10 pounds daily. We were from necessity forced to use chevalier
barley- straw as a roughage, and from that experience, together with
observation in the use of hay by others, I am decidedly of the opinion
that such straw is far better; in fact, at the same price I would prefer
the straw. In this connection I would beg to say that baled straw
would have a market value of say $3.00 per ton, as against a value
for baled hay of about $10.00 per ton.
3. — How long is the period during which you feed beet pulp con-
tinuously 1 ?
Mr. Koster. — During the winter months, covering a period of 90 to
120 days.
Mr. Wiegman. — Until fat; usually four to four and a half months.
Mr. Silsbee.— 90 days.
Messrs. Vale and Gates.— From 100 to 120 days.
Mr. Miller. — About four months.
Mr. Newhall.— We fed during the season of 1900, 8000 head of beef
cattle covering a period of about four months ; but the average time in
which various lots were finished and sold was about two months.
The usual period in this State of those who have fed is from three to
four months, but this would depend upon and materially vary accord-
ing to the temperment and to the condition of the animal at the
commencement of the feeding period.
4. — What is the effect of beet pulp in the production of meat?
Mr. Koster. — On good thrifty beef cattle the production of meat
was superior to that of northern alfalfa-fed cattle. The meat was of
fine flavor, good color, marbleized, and killing very white as to fat.
Mr. Wiegman. — Makes white fat and tender and juicy meat.
Mr. Silsbee. — Horned cattle gained an average of lj pounds per
day, and dehorned cattle about two pounds per day.
Messrs. Vail and Gates. — Fattens rapidly after the first 30 days'
feed. Makes a fine quality of beef, the tallow being very white.
Mr. Miller. — Has been more remunerative as a food for meat than
for milk.
40
Mr. Newhall. — Pulp fed with grain and hay or straw, produces a
very well marbled condition of the meat; a decided effect of the pulp
is the fine white color given to the carcass when dressed. I am of the
opinion that, coupled with the result of confinement, the muscles and
sinews of the animals are softened and less in evidence upon the block,
thus making a much more acceptable article of meat for sale and use.
5. — How much per ton do you consider you can afford to pay for
pulp delivered at your ranch?
Mr. Koster. — This would depend upon the value of other food
materials.
Mr. Wiegman. — One dollar per ton.
Mr. Silsbee. — Depends on the scarcity of cattle feed and the price
of beef.
Messrs. Vail and Gates.— After being siloed and well drained, 75
cents per ton. Have never fed at ranch; have always shipped cattle
to factory.
Mr. Miller. — It depends upon the price of beef. At present prices
we can afford to pay 50 cents per ton for fresh and 75 cents per ton
for fermented pulp.
Mr. Newhall. — It would be difficult to economically feed pulp away
from the factory, as transportation and handling of pulp is quite
expensive. Factories sell pulp at from 10 to 25 cents per ton; the
former price has been the custom when taken away from the factory,
the latter when conveniences and facilities for feeding cattle have been
furnished at or near the factories. I doubt any profitable use for beef-
feediug at over 25 cents per ton for pulp. At this price, and the
usual valne of grain and hay or straw, it will cost from $9.00 to
$12.00 per head to put the animal into good marketable condition.
At the present and usual price of purchase and sale of cattle in
California these figures ($9.00 to $12.00) are the full margin of profit
when fattened on grass on the ranges and without any extra cost of
feeding. I am of the opinion that under ordinary conditions in our
State, except by small farmers, pulp, or in fact any feeding, cannot
be profitably carried on; but pulp is a most excellent thing to have
in this State to fall back on in case of emergencies, like dry years and
seasons when cattle do not properly fatten on the ranges. I believe,
however, that small farmers who do their own work can purchase
cattle, fatten them, and sell to a profit that would be satisfactory to
them, especially as lots can be turned off every three or four months.
This would be especially true of farmers in the localities where sugar
beets are raised, and a long start made by feeding beet tops, and
which would require but litle time, say one month, for finishing on
pulp with grain and hay.
Feeding Dairy Cattle. — Mr. Koster and Mr. Wiegman are the
only ones reporting any extensive practice of feeding beet pulp for
milk. Mr. Koster writes that he considers 20 to 25 pounds per head
daily a sufficient amonnt of pulp for a dairy cow. With the pulp he
feeds from 25 to 30 pounds of uncut hay and five pounds of middlings
per day. He says there was no noticeable odor in the milk when
feeding pulp, but that "too much pulp had the tendency to lessen the
yield of milk as well as to impoverish it."
41
Mr. Wiegman replies that he considers 80 pounds of pulp per head
daily a maximum amount to be fed with profit, and 20 to 25 pounds as
a minimum. His usual feed is about 80 pounds per day. With the
pulp he feeds 6 to 7 pounds of hay (oat preferred) and 6 pounds of
mixed "chop" feed. He has pulp continually and feeds it throughout
the year. If the cows are fed wholly on pulp the milk seems to
become poorer. No foreign odor or flavor is noticeable in the milk,
except occasionally when the beet-pulp is fresh, none at all when
feeding siloed pulp.
Feeding Other Stock. — Mr. Koster reports having fed beet pulp
to sheep with good success, and adds: "In feeding pulp much
depends upon the age and condition of the pulp, and upon the con-
dition of the stock and suitable grounds for feeding."
Mr. Miller reports that they have fed pulp to sheep with satisfactory
results, but do not consider it suitable to other animals than cattle.
Mr. Wise fed beet pulp to sheep only. He says: "Our experience
was not very favorable. I am perfectly satisfied that beet-pulp alone
will not fatten stock of any kind. We had to buy other food to mix
with it, otherwise our sheep would have fallen off instead of gaining
flesh."
Additional Comments. — The experience given above shows clearly
that beet-pulp should not be depended upon as the sole diet either for
producing milk or meat, the chief reason being that it does not
adequately nourish the animal. When fed in connection with other
and dry feed it not only serves to keep the digestion in a healthful
condition, but adds materially to the store of actual food substance.
The amount of pulp which can be fed profitably is reported by all who
feed for meat, as all the animals will readily consume in addition to
the portion of hay or straw and grain, as already mentioned. In the
case of the profitable quantity to feed for milk production there seems
to be a wide difference of opinion. It may be that 25 or 30 pounds
per day of pulp will induce as large a flow of milk as 80 pounds per
day when the rest of the feed is dry; the notion being that the lesser
quantity gives the cow all the succulent food and change of diet which
she really requires for the best production. Where the pulp must be
hauled a long distance and the cost of transportation is therefore
great, it would undoubtedly be unwise to feed it in larger amounts
than would give the necessary succulence to the ration, and 25 pounds
is probably sufficient for this purpose. But where the dairy is
situated adjacent to the sugar factory, as at Alvarado, it might pay
to feed the pulp in much larger quantities.
Some further notes in regard to feeding beef cattle are worthy of
consideration. Mr. Newhall writes: "I would further assume to say
that, in my opinion, the climate of our State is not the most suitable
for feeding purposes, especially in winter. I would particularly
direct caution in undertaking to feed cattle during our winter months
in small enclosures, where mud, exposure to dampness and winds
have had a decidedly detrimental effect." In this connection Mr.
Koster says: "When cattle are once started on pulp feed, particularly
when fed to be fattened foi beef, it is advisable to continue them at
that until fully fat and then to slaughter them. If cattle have been
42
ou this feed for a season, it is highly inadvisable, if they have
reached the desired stage, to take them on green pasture, as this
affects them seriously. Proper feeding grounds should be selected
where the cattle can be sheltered during stormy weather."
List of Beet Sugar Factories in California.
1. Alameda Sugar Company Alvarado
2. American Beet Sugar Company Oxnard
3. California and Hawaiian Sugar Refining Company Crockett
4. Chino Valley Beet Sugar Company Chino
5. Los Alamitos Sugar Company Los Alamitos
6. Spreckels Sugar Company Spreckels
7. Union Sugar Company Santa Maria
8. Western Beet Sugar Company Watsonville
CALF FEEDING.
The proper growth and development of the calf is equally as
important as the care of the full-grown cow, for good cows cannot be
made out of poorly fed calves. Whether the calf be destined for the
dairy or for the shambles, the true principle is to keep it in a thrifty
growing condition until the end is reached. It is not necessary that
the calf be fat — in fact, it is better not to be so. The feed should be
such as to produce bone and muscle to form a strong framework with
which to produce milk or upon which to lay fat in the time of matu-
rity. The mother's milk, if it be not too rich in fat, furnishes the
best food for the purpose, but in our commercial dairying butter fat
can be disposed of at a higher price if made into cheese or butter and
a substitute offered which is cheaper.
If the calf is to be raised on skim milk as the principal food, it
should receive fresh whole milk for the first ten days or two weeks.
Then substitute skim for whole milk,' a little at first and increase
gradually until, by the time the calf is three weeks old, it may receive
no whole milk whatever. As soon as this substitution begins add a
small [handful of wheat middlings to the ration and increase the
quantity gradually as the skim milk is increased. Induce the calf to
eat dry grain and hay as soon as possible, and give the milk simply as
a drink. It will be remembered that skim milk is highly nitrogenous,
and to make it a perfect food requires the addition of carbonaceous
material. Nothing supplies this any better than corn meal, but,
owing to its high price, rolled barley may be used, mixing barley,
wheat, bran, and middlings in equal parts and feeding from one to
two quarts per day by the time the calf is two months old.
In the case of feeding whey one may begin when the calf is about
two weeks old by adding a little to the regular ration of whole milk
and increasing the portion, as suggested above with skim milk, until
the calf is a month old, when the milk may be taken away entirely.
Unlike skim milk, whey is more largely carbonaceous, owing to the
removal of the casein as well as the butter fat. Thus the grain ration
should contain more protein than for skim-milk feeding, and for this
reason some linseed oil-cake meal should be added to the middlings as
43
soon as the whey is fed. Whenever the calf can be induced to eat the
grain dry, give a mixture of two parts each of bran and middlings and
one part of linseed meal. The calf developes a stronger digestion if it
can be early induced to eat hay and its grain dry, and drink the milk
or whey alone. The chief difficulties in feeding whey arise from
permitting it to sour before feeding and depending upon it as the sole
food. While it may be possible to raise fairly good calves on skim
milk alone, it should never be attempted with whey, because the latter
contains only about two- thirds as much food substance as the former.
Both should always be fed sweet. The amount of grain necessary
depends upon the quality of hay or pasture to which the calf has
access. The hay should preferably be alfalfa.
HORSE FEEDING
In making up rations for horses we must remember that the
digestive organs of this animal differ materially from those of the
cow, the former having but one stomach while the latter has four,
three of which are used, in the main, to prepare the food for the fourth
or true stomach, which corresponds to that of the horse. For this
reason horses cannot assimilate as much from a bulky or coarse ration
as is noted for the ruminants. Consequently when a horse is being
heavily worked intelligent care must be given to the feeding. For
instance, from thirty-five to forty-five pounds of silage can be fed
daily to the cow, but less than one-third of that amount should
constitute the daily portion for the horse.
When feeding cows it is generally considered best to have the
grain or concentrated part of the ration form about one-third of the
total dry matter, whereas, in the case of feeding horses, heavily
worked, the proportion of grain may exceed one-half the total amount
of food. One reason for using so much grain is in order to be sure
that we have in the ration a generous amount of protein, so essential
to the successful feeding of the horse.
In alfalfa sections so much protein can be supplied in green and
cured alfalfa that much less grain is required than is necessary when
the roughage consists of cereal hays only.
The following balanced rations for animals weighing 1,000 pounds
illustrate this point:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Lbs.
Material. Lbs.
Material.
Lbs. Material. Lbs.
Material.
12
11
7
itrit
Alfalfa hav 15
Wheat "* 9
Crushed Barley 6
ive ratio, 1:5.7
Alfalfa hay
Wheat ' '
Cracked corn
1:5.6
9 Alfalfa hay 10
12.5 Barley " 12
7 Crushed Barley 7
1:5.6
Alfalfa hay
Barley "
Cracked corn
1:5.9
For a horse at light work 12.5 pounds of alfalfa hay with the same
amount of cut straw forms a balanced ration. It may be mentioned
that it is more economical, and also better for the digestion, to cut
all the roughage.
If barley hay, rolled barley and cottonseed meal were the feeds in
question, the ration would consist of 15 pounds barley hay, 12 pounds
44
crushed barley, and 1 pound cottonseed oil-cake meal. This ration
would be much more expensive than either of the others quoted above.
Colt Feeding. — No general rules can be laid down for the feeding
of colts; but, as in the case of the calf, it is very necessary that
proper care should be exercised in the selection of foods. Cow's milk
may be substituted, if necessary, for that of the mare. The colt
should be taught to eat grains, any of which may be fed to advantage:
the choice would depend on ruling prices. At times, when the colts
are teething, it will be found more profitable to warm and moisten the
grain ration. Hay of first quality, preferably alfalfa, should be fed
in conjunction with the grain, so as to properly develop the digestive
svstem.
SWINE FEEDING.
The same principles hold true in pig feeding as with other animals.
Inasmuch as the largest demand is now for small pork, the aim of the
feeder should be to produce as much growth as possible in a short
time. The rations, therefore, should be rather nitrogenous, having a
high percentage of protein when the pigs are young, or as soon as
they begin to eat, and increasing the carbonaceous portion as they
grow older. This principle is illustrated in the Table IV of feeding
standards. We give two rations, one for alfalfa regions and the other
for sections where alfalfa is not grown. Both rations are calculated
for fifty pigs weighing about fifty pounds each, and can be changed in
proportion as the pigs are lighter or heavier. The age of the pigs is
supposed to be from two to three months:
Rations for 50 Pigs Averaging 50 Pounds Each.
Lbs. Dry Matter. Protein. Carbohydrates. Fat. Nutritive
30 Middlings 26.5 3.70 16.00 1.10 RaticK
50 Ground barley 45.0 4.80 31.70 1.00
20 Alfalfa hay 17.8 2.46 7.42 .32
200 Skim milk 18.1 6.60 10.60 .20
Total 107.4 17.56 65.72 2.62 1:4.1
10 Linseed meal 8.9 2.60 3.80 .70
35 Corn meal 30.8 2.24 23.17 1.19
55 Middlings 48.5 6.71 29.37 2.09
200 Skim milk 18.1 6.60 10.60 .20
Total 106.3 18.15 66.94 4.18 1:4.2
The alfalfa hay may be fed in the long state, but the most econom-
ical way is to cut it in a cutting machine and mix with the grain and
skim milk, allowing the mixture to soak twelve hours before feeding.
If feeding green alfalfa, calculate 4.5 pounds of green for one pound
of hay.
Alfalfa is one of the cheapest foods known for growing pigs, and
so far as experiments show it furnishes the only pasturage upon which
pigs may be kept without any other food. If expected to make much
growth the pasture should be supplemented with some extra food.
45
POULTRY FEEDING.
The proper feeding of laying' hens and other poultry should be
conducted on the same lines as that of other farm animals. There are
similar losses and wastes as are found in mammals, and there is the
same necessity for replacing and replenishing the tissues, fluids, etc.
of the body.
We must of necessity know the composition of the body of the fowl
and of the egg, but after that we do not have to make new laws nor found
new principles, but have merely to adapt the knowledge we have gained
from the investigations made for other animals, to the hen; modifying
rules and rations to. suit the case in question. The scientific research
called for, and urgently too, is that of ascertaining the digestibility
of the different foods fed to the hen. For the cow, sheep, horse, and
swine we have the digestive coefficient for almost every food consumed,
while for the hen we have very few reliable data with which to work;
and in view of the great value of the poultry industry it should
receive more scientific attention than is at present allotted to it.
Many of the foods used for poultry are identical with those con-
sumed by the cow, and the analysis of the remainder of the foodstuffs
necessary for poultry, shows them to have the same ingredients as the
others. Hence the principles expounded for the rational feeding of
cows and other animals apply equally well to the nutrition of fowls.
When feeding growing chickens the main object is to supply sufficient
nourishment to insure hardy growth. In the case of the mature hen,
it is a somewhat more complicated proposition. The feeder must bear
in mind the fact that the eggs are also the product of the transforma-
tion or assimilation of the food eaten, and the nature of the ingredients
of the nourishment requisite for their production is best seen by an
examination of the composition of eggs, shown in Table VII.
TABLE VII.— Analyses of California Eggs,
i. — Proximate Analysis.
Shell, 10.81%; yolk, 32.47%; white, 56.42%.
2. — Composition.
Shell.
Parts Referred
«l?inn to Entire
per 100. E
Water
Protein
Fat
Carbonate of Lime 93.75
Carbonate of Magnesia ; .95
Phosphates .95
Alkalies, etc
Organic matter and water 4.35
Undetermined
10.14
.10
.10
.47
Total 100.00 10.81
Yolk.
Parts
per 100.
49.70
15.54
33.43
i 1.04
I
I
.29
Referred
to Entire
Egg.
16.13
5.05
10.85
.34
White.
Parts
per 100.
36.48
12.07
.23
Refei-red
to Entire
Egg.
; 48.79
6.81
.13
,10
,55
.65
.31
.38
100.00 32.47
I
100.00 56.42
46
The yolk and white contain water, protein, fat, and a small per-
centage of mineral matter, while the shell consists almost entirely of
mineral matter of which carbonate of lime constitutes 94% or over
10% of the entire weight of the egg. That is, in one dozen good
sized eggs there are fully 2.5 ounces of carbonate of lime, familiar to
all under the name of marble. We thus have proved to us the abso-
lute necessity of a generous supply of lime in the diet of the hen.
In feeding other farm animals the quantities consumed per day are
termed rations and the standards calculated for 1,000 pounds live
weight; consequently, in order that the rations for fowls may be com-
parable with these standards, we will give the requirements for 1,000
pounds live weight, which for hens averaging three pounds is:
Dry
matter.
52
Protein.
S.4
Fat.
Carbo-
ydrates.
Nutritive
Ratio.
33
1:5.0
Calculating this for 100 hens, we have respectively:
16 2.52 1.2 9.9 1:5.0
The analyses of the foods available for poultry feeding and com-
pounding rations will be found in Tables I, II, and V.
From the data given there, the rations given below have been
calculated .
Kation 1
6 lbs wheat
2 lbs bran
2 lbs middlings
5 lbs crushed barley
1 lb coeoanut oilcake
meal
4 lbs alfalfa hay
.75 lb blood meal
Ration 2
11 lbs wheat
3 lbs bran
4 lbs middlings
2 lbs alfalfa hay
1 lb meat meal
Ration 4
7.0 lbs wheat
3.5 lbs bran
2.0 lbs alfalfa
4.5 lbs crushed barley
1.0 lbs meat meal
Ration 3
1 lb wheat
3 lbs bran
5 lbs crushed barley
5.6 lbs coeoanut, oil-cake
meal
5.5 lbs alfalfa hay
Ration 5
9 lbs bran
5 lbs middlings
5 lbs bran
15 lbs skim milk
Mineral Matter. — While the above-mentioned rations are balanced
with reference to the organic ingredients, they are not so when the
mineral or inorganic constituents are considered; particularly is this
true in the case of lime. If all the mineral matter in the foregoing
rations were lime it would not be sufficient to meet the requirements
for the eggs which the hens consuming the food would lay. We
therefore see that lime must be supplied otherwise than by food.
Wastes of the Ben. — The mineral matter of the food eaten is not
entirely assimilated by the body. And the composition of the hen
manure, given below, proves that this is likewise true of the nutri-
ents.
47
Composition of Hen Manure.
Water 56.00
Organic matter 25.50
Nitrogen 1.60
Phosphoric acid 1.75
Potash ." 85
Lime 2.25
Magnesia 75
Insoluble residue, etc. 11.30
Total 100.00
The un assimilated fat and carbohydrates are included in the
"organic matter", and the undigested portion the "nitrogen."
The Lime Supply. — One of the best materials that a poultryman
can use for supplying the requisite lime is oyster shell, or any other
variety of shells. An experiment in this direction was made at the
New York Experiment Station, and the result was such that the use of
oyster shells during the laying season, where they can be cheaply
obtained, was strongly recommended. It was found there that one
pound of oyster shells contained sufficient lime for the shells of about
seven dozen eggs.
Shells are not the only source for the lime necessary for egg shells.
Bones also contain a large percentage of lime as is seen from the fol-
lowing analysis of clean dry bones of oxen and sheep :
Per cent.
Carbonate of lime 6 to 7
Phosphate of lime 58 to 63
Phosphate of magnesia 1 to 2
Fluoride of calcium 2
Organic matter 25 to 30
Fresh green bones also contain, besides the lime compounds, some
protein or flesh-formers, which add to its value as a poultry food.
The best way to render the bones available is to have them broken by
means of the bone cutter. One pound of the green bones is generally
considered sufficient for sixteen hens. Besides the cut bones or
oyster shells, the hens must have a generous supply of some kind of
grit, very coarse sand or broken crockery. This grit serves as teeth
for the hens, and when they are unable to obtain it indigestion and
other ailments are sure to follow.
Necessity of Variety of Foods. — An examination of the rations
given on page 46 proves that in order to have the proper proportions
of the different ingredients, or to balance the ration, we must have a
variety of foods at our command. It would be impossible to make a
balanced ration solely from the grain feed-stuffs. If the necessary
amount of flesh-formers is obtained by the use of grain, then the fat
and heat producers in the ration will be greatly in excess; on the
other hand, if the carbohydrates or fattening ingredients are made
the standard, then when the proper proportion of this part of the food
is supplied by the grain, the flesh-formers will be lacking to a con-
siderable extent.
We have to depend on the peas, beans, different oilcake meals,
blood meal or dried blood and fresh meat or meat meal for supple-
menting the deficiency of the flesh-formers.
48
By fresh meat is meant lean meat with the minimum amount of
fat. Buyers should be careful in regard to this point, as a large per-
cent of fat would be worse than useless for the purpose of the feeder.
All of these as noted in the tables are highly concentrated foods,
the richest and most costly being dried blood or blood meal, contain-
ing about 80% protein, which is nearly twice the corresponding figure
for meat meal and approaches four times the rating of this ingredient
in the pea and bean. It probably varies less in composition than any
of the foods in question. Experience has proved that the best results
are obtained when some animal food forms a part of the ration in
about the proportions shown in the foregoing rations.
The nutritive ratio of the ration, or the ratio between the flesh-
formers and fat and heat producers, should vary according to the
maturity of the hen and the period of feeding. The nutritive ratio in
the case of growing chicks should be narrower than when the hen is
mature or when she is being fattened for the market.
When the hens are not laying they only require a maintenance
diet which is not as rich a one as that for hens during the laying
period, either in flesh-formers or fat-formers and heat-producers;
neither is there any necessity for the oyster shells or substitutes.
Foods for Growing Fowls. — The amount of food required for grow-
ing chicks and pullets is larger than that for full-grown fowls.
According to Professor Wheeler of New York State Station the
quantities of water-free food requisite for every one hundred pounds
live weight fed, is 10.6 pounds at about one pound average weight;
at two pounds live weight, 7.5 pounds; at three, 6.4 pounds; at four,
5.5 pounds; at five, 5.3 pounds; at six, 4.9 pounds; at seven, 4.7
pounds; at eight, 4.0 pounds; at nine, 3.3 pounds; at ten, average
weight, 3.2 pounds of food. The amount of green or fresh food
equivalent to the above different weights would be correspondingly
increased. Professor Wheeler further states that these are the
amounts taken by the growing fowls which normally attain to the
higher weights given, and which are still immature and growing
rapidly when at five and six pounds average weight.
Water. — The great necessity of water for the hen is shown by the
high content of this element in the body and also in the egg. In one
dozen eggs there is almost one pint of water. About four gallons of
palatable water (one that is suitable for domestic purposes) are
required per day for one .hundred hens. Too much stress cannot be
placed on the necessity of having good water, as impure water will
undoubtedly cause sickness among the poultry. The more "green"
food consumed the less will be the quantity of water needed.
49
FOOD VALUE OF FRUITS FOR LIVE STOCK.
The use of fruits as a part of the food for stock is exciting more
attention on the part of the horticulturist every year. In almost every
orchard there is some fruit which cannot be placed on the market.
The chief causes for this are (1) the "windfalls," which are generally
immature, and even if first-class, the fruit would be bruised or injured
to such a degree as to preclude its sale. (2) Freights may be so high,
and prices so low, as to leave no profit to the grower in any but the
best of the crop; and sometimes even for that he receives very small
returns.
The question, then, is what to do with the fruit? The idea naturally
suggests itself to the orchardist to feed the fruit to cattle and hogs.
But he is undecided as to its merits as a food for the animals and, as
to the comparative value of the different fruits on the one hand and
the grains and various feeding-stuffs on the other. The object of this
article is to throw some light on the subject, and the following table,
containing the analyses of some of the different California fruits, has
been prepared in a similar manner to those of cattle-foods given above.
Comparison between the grain and fruit may be made by referring to
Tables I and II.
TABLE VIII.— Composition of Fruits.
A. — Edible Portion. Percentage Composition.
Water.
Ash.
Protein
84.80
.50
.40
88.30
.41
.76
76.70
.50
1.40
83.90
.54
.56
78.40
.52
1.00
80.20
.47
.85
85.07
.48
1.04
82.90
.49
.63
79.11
.58
1.50
80.12
.50
1.26
90.25
.81
1.07
89.97
1.24
1.43
92.07
.30
.76
90.18
.66
.60
18.95
2.24
4.50
25.00
1.79
3.21
25.00
2.42
5.23
25.00
2.14
2.76
25.00
2.08
5.40
Fiber.
Sugar,
Starch,
etc.
Fat.
Apples
Oranges
Apple pomace
Pears
Plums
Prunes (all)
Apricots
Nectarines
Figs
Grapes
Watermelons
Watermelons (rind)
Watermelons (pulp and juice)
Nutmeg melon (entire)
Raisins
Dried prunes
Dried apricots
Dried peaches
Dried figs
a Chiefly sugar.
VV2— 4
1.50
3.90
2.73
12.5
10.53
16.20
11.46
20.18a
18.48a
13.41a
15.99a
18.79a
67.71a
70.00a
67.35a
70.03a
67.52a
,30
1.30
.79
7.86a
1.41
5.59
.36
.47
5.80
.60
.48
7.85
.23
50
TABLE VIII. — Composition of Fruits. [Continued.]
B. — Amount Digestible in ioo Pounds.
Apples
Oranges
Apple pomace
Pears
Plums
Prunes (all)
Apricots
Nectarines
Figs
Grapes
Watermelons
Watermelons (rind)
Watermelons (rind, pulp, juice)
Nutmeg melon (entire)
Raisins
Dried prunes
Dried apricots
Dried peaches
Dried figs ...-.
Protein.
.30
.57
1.00
.42
.75
.64
.78
.49
1.12
.95
.81
1.08
.57
.45
3.38
2.42
3.92
2.14
4.03
Carbo-
hydrates.
12.80
9.66
11.90
12.90
18.40
17.89
13.04
15.77
17.95
17.72
5.90
4.20
4.58
5.89
Fat.
1.10
.63
.28
.48
.18
65.18
67.80
65.46
68.07
64.62
Nutritive
Ratio.
1:44.2
10.9
24.7
33.7
24.4
27.9
16.7
32.2
16.0
18.6
7.3
4.5
9.7
14.0
19.3
16.7
27.9
32.2
16.0
Note. — In fresh stone fruit six per cent of the entire weight consists of pit.
In dried fruit the corresponding percentage is about doubled.
Comparisons from the Tables. — Viewing these tables side by side,
we note that the fresh fruits contain from eight to ten times as much
water as do the grains and meals. Hence, equal weights of the two
classes of foods could not be used with the expectation of obtaining
from each the same nutritive value. This is true, even if the propor-
tion of the nutrients were alike in fruits and grains; but the ratio is
far from being similar, as is shown by glancing at the nutritive ratio
of the different materials. Among the grains and meals the ratio is
much narrower, and more nitrogenous, than in the case of fruits;
that is, in the fruits there are more carbohydrates, for the same amount
of protein, than is noted for the grains.
The next question is, how to compare the two kinds of foods?
Suppose we try on the basis of the protein or nitrogenous part of the
material; and for this comparison we will take wheat on the one hand
and fresh apricots on the other. The former is a good average of the
grains, and the latter of the fruits. The following little table shows
the respective contents of the nutrients in 10 pounds wheat, and a like
quantity of apricots, edible portion, which will be about 10.6 pounds
whole fruit:
Water.
Ash.
DIGESTIBLE.
Fuel
Value
(Calories.)
Nutritive
Ratio.
Protein.
Carbo- F .
hydrates. * at "
10 lbs Wheat ..
10 lbs Apricots
(fresh)
1.14
8.51
.17
.05
.91
.08
6.42
1.31
.10
14,060
2,570
1: 7.3
1:16.7
We perceive that wheat contains over eleven times as much nitro-
genous, or flesh-forming, ingredients as we find in fresh apricots; in
51
other words, it would require 11 pounds of apricots to equal 1 pound of
wheat. The same can be said of nearly all the other fresh fruits.
Even in the case of figs, which yield, among the fresh fruits repre-
sented, the highest protein per cent., we would require 8 pounds to
equal 1 pound of wheat in respect to this highly important element of
the food. Hence we might say, in general, that the grains are from
eight to twelve times as rich in muscle-forming material as are the
fruits.
When we compare the foods as regards the carbohydrates (sugar,
etc.), or heat-producers, the comparison is not so disadvantageous to
the fruits. The wheat has only about five times the content of
carbohydrates that is given for the apricots, as is shown by the figures
6.42 for wheat, and 1.31 for apricots; 5.3 pounds of apricots will have
as much fattening ingredients as will 1 pound of wheat.
For some of the other fresh fruits, as figs, grapes, prunes, and
plums, the proportion is still more favorable — from 3 to 4 pounds only
of the fruit are equivalent in carbohydrates to 1 pound of grain,
whereas in the melons the corresponding figures are from 10 to 12.
Dried fruits make, naturally, a far better showing, as they more
nearly approach in food value the grains, meals, etc. The following
tabular statement illustrates this fact:
10 lbs. wheat contain .91 lbs. protein and 6.42 lbs. carbohydrates
10 lbs. raisins contain .34 lbs. protein and 6.52 lbs. carbohydrates
It is thus seen that the carbohydrates in the two materials are
almost identical, and that the protein in the wheat is less than three
times the amount found in raisins, which are a fair example of dried
fruits. An inspection of the figures given for the fuel value,
expressed in calories, will show the capacity of the different materials
for producing heat and energy; the grains and meals rating from
about four to twelve times higher than the fresh fruits, while the dried
fruits do not differ materially in this relation from wheat and its
by-products, and cocoanut-cake meal.
The fuel-value data alone, however, are not sufficient to determine
the nature of the food; that is, whether nitrogenous or starchy. We
must know the protein, or flesh-forming ingredients, in addition to the
fuel value, in which case we can tell the kind of material in question.
How to Use Fruit in Feeding. — It would seem, from the foregoing,
that the feeder is in a dilemma. If he wishes to give the necessary
amount of protein to the animal by means of most of the fresh fruits
in place of grain, he will have to add two or three times the requisite
quantity of fattening or heat-producing ingredients — an addition not
generally sought after. On the other hand, if the carbohydrates are
made the standard, then when the proper amount of this part of the
food is supplied by the fruit, the protein will be lacking to a consider-
able extent. It appears then, that, the best way out of the difficulty
would be to use enough fruit to supply the fattening elements of the
food, and make up the deficiency of flesh- forming material from some
concentrated nitrogenous food, as cotton-seed meal or cocoanut meal.
In this way the ration will be complete and more economical than if
no fruit were used.
To illustrate: A cow (1,000 pounds weight) requires per day about
25 pounds of dry matter, containing 2.5 pounds of digestible protein,
52
12.5 pounds of carbohydrates, and .40 pounds of fat, with a fuel value
of 30,000. If we have hays, grain, and bran, a good ration would be
12 pounds of alfalfa hay, 13 pounds of wheat hay, and 5 pounds of
bran. The 5 pounds of bran could be replaced by 15 pounds of fresh
prunes, and the deficiency in the protein resulting from the substitution
could be made up with 1 pound of cotton-seed meal; or 5 pounds of
raisins could take the place of the prunes, in which case f pound of
cotton-seed meal would suffice for the needed amount of protein.
Either of the above changes from the conventional ration would make
it complete with respect to its contents of digestible nutrients. But
the objection might be raised, and with just cause, that the ration
would prove very laxative. To obviate this, it would probably be best
to use a less amount of fruit and mix it with bran or middlings, etc.,
to prevent "scouring" the animal. A little careful experimenting on
the part of the feeder would soon settle the matter.
Equivalent Values of the Fruits, Grains, etc. — It would be almost
impossible to compare the fruits and grains by means of their nutri-
ents, because the ratios of the muscle-forming material to the fattening
matter in the two kinds of foods are so different. But what can be done
is to compute the valuation of each on the basis of 1.7 cents per pound
for protein, 3.31 cents per pounds for fat, and 0.75 cents per pound
for carbohydrate. These values are an average for those given in the
Eastern and Middle States, and are, therefore, for this State only
approximate, but sufficiently accurate for our purpose. Table IX is
calculated from Tables V and VI, with the aid of these rates. A
glance at this table gives us, perhaps, a better idea. of the relative
values of the foods under discussion, than could be obtained in any
other way.
TABLE IX.— Showing Comparative Value of Fruits, and Hay, Grains, etc.
100 Pounds Fruit Equivalent to Pounds of
-Sis
s *
|> 03
<
O
i
o
O
34
20
24
15
15
33
19
23
14
14
40
23
30
17
18
50
30
36
22
24
46
27
33
20
22
40
23
29
17
18
43
26
30
19
20
50
30
37
23
24
50
30
37
23
24
22
13
16
10
10
19
11
13
8
9
175
104
125
78
82
194
115
138
86
90
190
113
135
85
88
186
110
132
83
85
216
128
153
97
100
^2
a
£a
PS C6
sa
Fresh Fruits
Apples
Oranges
Pears
Plums
Prunes
Apricots
Nectarines
Figs
Grapes
Watermelons ...
Nutmeg melons
Dried Fruits
Dried prunes
Dried apricots .
Dried peaches .
Dried figs
Raisins
88
97
95
93
108
26 25
11 | 11
9 i 9
84
93
91
89
103
18
17
20
26
24
20
23
27
27
12
10
92
102
100
97
16
13
15
12
19
15
24
20
22
18
19
15
21
17
25
20
25
20
11
8
9
7
84
67
93
74
91
72
89
71
103
82
11
14
13
11
12
14
14
6
5
48
53
51
50
59
13
12
15
20
IS
15
17
20
20
8
7
68
76
74
72
84
53
It is seen that the least valuable of the fresh fruits mentioned in
the tables are the melons, 100 pounds being equal to only 6 pounds of
cottonseed meal, about 10 pounds of the grains, 5 pounds of hay,
and 20 pounds of straw.
Apples and oranges are practically equal in food value, rating
about fifty per cent, higher than the melons, as is seen by the figures
for the equivalents of 100 pounds of these fruits, viz., 24 pounds of
hay, 16 pounds of grains, 13 pounds of rice bran and cocoanut meal,
and 9 pounds of cotton-seed meal.
A good average of the pitted fresh fruits is represented by prunes,
100 pounds of which are equal in nutriment to 46 pounds of wheat
straw, 27 pounds of alfalfa hay, 33 pounds of oat hay, 20 pounds of
corn, 22 pounds of barley, 23 pounds of oats and wheat and its
products, 18 pounds of rice bran and cocoanut meal, and 13 pounds
of cotton-seed meal.
Hence, if wheat bran costs $15 per ton, fresh prunes would be
worth as a substitute $3 per ton; likewise, if cottonseed meal is
selling for $30 per ton, the prune value would be about $3.75. At
the market price of oat hay, the figure for fresh prunes should be
nearly $3 per ton.
The amount of nutrition found in grapes and fresh figs is identical,
both rating about equal, as fodders, with the pitted fruits.
The dried fruits, as before stated, rank far above the fresh material
as stock feed. This is amply proven by the table. Of the dried fruits
represented in the table, raisins lead in food value; containing lj to
lj times the nutritive ingredients of alfalfa and oat hays, respectively;
100 pounds of the fruit being practically equal to the same quantity of
grain, but to only 82 pounds and 59 pounds, respectively, of rice,
bran, and cotton-seed meal.
Dried apricots rank slightly lower than raisins, owing to the latter
containing less water. Apricots, however, are of equal value as a
feeding-stuff with wheat bran; that is, the unsalable, dried apricots
are worth to the orchardist about $15 per ton for feeding purposes.
It may be a difficult question at times to decide, when prices are
extremely low, which would be the better economy : To feed the fruit
to cattle, or to receive whatever small returns might be offered for it
in the market. In such emergencies, a short soliloquy and a little
arithmetic will decide the whole matter.
When there is no market for the fruit there is sometimes nothing
left to be done but to feed it to stock. Under any circumstances,
when stone fruit is used for fodder for hogs, it is be feared that when
the animals crack large quantities of pits, poisoning may occur from
the oil of bitter almonds and prussic acid present in the kernels.
Precaution in this direction is unnecessary for stock, as they do not
crack the pits. The stones or pits can be used to great advantage as
fuel in the economical management of the farm.
Feeding Test. — A practical application of the foregoing was made
by a feeder in the northern part of the State. He experimented, with
a large sow, from which a litter of pigs had just been taken, by first
feeding her a lot of dried figs and barley for about a week, to get her
accustomed to the fig diet. She then weighed 260 pounds. For 9
days following she was fed all the dried fruit she would eat, consuming
54
220 pounds, or 24.4 pounds per day. Her weight had increased to
290 pounds, showing a gain of 30 pounds in nine days, or 3^ pounds
per day.
It must be remembered that this sow was in an unusually favorable
condition for a rapid increase in weight, having just been depleted by
the litter of pigs; hence the above comparison is not fully demonstra-
tive; and unfortunately we have no data for gain on full grain ration
from the same place. But from investigations made at the Utah Agri-
cultural College (Bulletin 40) the increase in weight per day of hogs
weighing from 250 to 300 pounds, on a full grain ration, was about
lj pounds. Hence we might conclude that pigs will increase in
weight more rapidly from a ration of dried figs than from one of
grains, etc. The gain in live weight per day from the amount of dried
figs consumed (24.4 pounds) was 3h pounds — that is, 1 pound gain
required 7.3 pounds figs. This result agrees very closely with the
figure 7.13, obtained at the Utah Station, for the number of pounds
of grain necessary to produce 1 pound of gain in pigs of the same
weight as the one in question.
It must be noted that, although 1 pound gain requires the same
quantity, practically, of either the grain or figs, the pigs will consume
about three times as much of the figs as they will of grain; therefore
the gain will be correspondingly more rapid. Assuming the basis
above discussed to be correct, this is a very important point if one
wishes to place his hogs, of a given weight, in the market as soon as
possible.
The thirty pounds gain was due to the 220 pounds of dried figs
consumed. Hence at the selling price of the sow, 4j cents per pound
live weight, the amount realized for the figs was $1.35, which is equal
to about $12.50 per ton, a somewhat low figure for the fruit. But the
use of it as pig-feed saved the purchase of grain, and at the same time
added 30 pounds to the weight of the animal in less than one-half the
time that would have been necessary had grain been fed. The cost of
the cereal ration, based on the ruling price of grain at the time of the
experiment to produce the same gain, would have been about $2.00,
which, at the selling price mentioned above, would have entailed a
loss.
From the foregoing data it is seen that 200 pounds of a grain
ration would be required to produce the same gain in weight as
resulted from the experiment with figs. This corresponds quite well
with Table IX.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Objects of Feeding 1
Composition of Foods: Green, Fodder, Silage, Roots, Beet-pulp, Hay; Grain
and Seeds; Mill and By-products; Miscellaneous 2
Tables of analyses 4
Digestibility of Foods: Nutritive Ratio 6
Tables: Digestible Nutrients in various Foods 8
Potential Energy 10
Comments on various Feed-stuffs 11
Silage and Vegetables : Roots, Squashes, Pie Melon, Silage, Soiling 11
Alfalfa: Cost of Protein in various Foods: Tables 13
Saltbushes: Hay, Digestibility, Feeding: Mixed vs. Unmixed Foods;
Utilization of Straw; Silage and the Saltbush 14
Other Coarse Fodders: Alkali weed, Gourd vines, Foxtail 16
Grains and By-products: Plump and shrunken Wheat, Wheat Bran,
Middlings, Shorts; Gluten Feed and Gluten Meal; Oil-cake Meals
(cocoanut, linseed, cottonseed) 17
Sugar-beet Tops, Pulp and Molasses; Storing Beet-pulp 19
Illustrations of the Beet-pulp Silo 23
Feeding Standards: Tables 24
Rations: Tables showing pounds of digestible Nutrients in Fodders and
Feedstuffs 26
Feeding Cows and Steers 31
How to use the Tables in compounding Rations 31
Feeding Alfalfa: Tables of Rations 33
Feeding Beet-pulp 34
Experiments at Berkeley with small herd of cows 35
Tables showing weekly record of Milk and Fat produced 36
California experience in feeding Pulp to Beef Cattle 38
to Dairy Cattle and other Stock; Additional comments 40
List of Beet-sugar Factories in California 42
Calf Feeding 42
Horse Feeding; Balanced Rations; Colt Feeding 43
Swine Feeding; Tables of Rations 44
Poultry Feeding ; Analyses of Eggs ; Rations for Hens ; Wastes of the Hen ;
Analyses of Manure ; Lime Supply ; Necessity of variety in Foods ;
Foods for growing Fowls; W'ater 45
Food-value of Fruits for Live Stock 49
Tables showing composition of Fruits; Comparison with Grains 49
How to use Fruit in Feeding ; Equivalent Values of Fruits and Grains ;
Table of Analyses 51
Feeding Test 53