Rx

I
.1

TEXAS AGRICULTURR  

0

. College Station, Brazos County, Texas. A 

  

m-‘

BY ORDER OF THE COUNCIL: F. A. GULLEY,,D1RmcT0R.
,5 - f _ A ' wwwwmq,
‘ .- ' i!’  ' f! ' ‘ if? _
. 1' ‘A: “f, l p i a '_   sir? V

h,’
in 5Q .0:
,

, a,’ 
I: r r ~l bUQ ,
‘a @- I’
L \_-
1

 

- AIISTINHV
STATE PRINTING OFFICE.
1890. _'

 

   
  
   
 
 
   

OFFICERS.

 . _ _ -    oF DIRECTORS OF A. a M. COLLEGE.
sident. . . . . . . . . . . . . Salado.

  State C0111’. Agriculture . . Austin.

‘l: . . ..   .. . . . .  .. . .Bryan.
.............,.........Manor.

ti: . . . .  . . . . .  . . . . . . . .O"olumbia.

 NNIS, Secretary. l. . . . . . . . . . College Station.

 EXPERIMENT STATION COUNCIL.
    ........Ohairmanof‘Faculty.
 ....................Agent ofthe Board.
EY.  ...'.....Director ofthe Station.

Pi

STATION STAFF.

A. GULLEY, M. Sc.... ................Director.
s G .W. CURTIS, M. S.A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agriculturist.
H. HARRINGTON, M. Sc. . . . . . . . . . . .. . Chemist.
L. BRUNK, B. Sc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .Hortioulturist.
FRANCIS, D. M. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .Veterinarian. -
W. WIPPREoHT, B. S.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .As_sistant Chemist.
J W. CARSON . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . ._.'..‘Assistant to Director.
V, DRIANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .  . . Asst. Chemist and Meteorologist.
M. CARSON“ . . ..     . Assistant to Agriculturist.

K.FUQUA..............,....=.‘..A....S11g'&r01181111813.

»

F.
H‘.
T.
M.
n‘.
J.
o.

‘W!’
‘*1
‘m. -

 

THE CATTLE INTERESI  l  

The general improvement of the cattle business of the ¢a§ntqattér‘sé’g§m1
years of depression, estimated by a Chicago livestock reporlil" as being;  al
t0 one dollar per head gross weight in that market over ruling°lég§ear
ago, and the fact that cattle slaughtering plants are soon to begin operafilon in
this State, from which beef will be exported direct, are matters of  im-
portance to the cattle men of Texas. 1: Y 

1t is admitted by stockmen of the country that Texas surpasses’ all other
States in its advantages for breeding cattle, but the idea is common with Texas
cattle men that Texas cattle must b_e grown and fed in some other State.

The establishment of slaughtering houses in the State calls ‘for a constant
supply of fat cattle during the year. The amount of beef thatthe trade will
take from the Texas houses will be governed by the number of good beeves
the stockmen will supply them.

In the feeding experiments begun at the Experiment Station a year ago

\

'we have attempted to show that cattle may be fattened as successfully and at

as low cost in Texas as in any part of thegcountry.

In this Bulletin we give the result of our work for the past winter, and
place it before our readers in the simplest form, free from technical expres-
sions and all discussions not of interest to the practical cattle feeder.

We append letters from several States relating to cattle feeding.

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

FEEDING EXPERIMENT NO. 2.

BY F. A. GULLEY AND J. W. CARSON.

é

 This experiment is a continuation of the feeding experiments inaugurated

ién winter, and reported in Bulletin No. 6. y a

; Three questions were asked of the cattle and feed-stuffs employed in the
a st made last winter:  at}, _

 1. Is it profitable and practicable to shelter range cattle in feedi ?

I 2. What feed-stuffs that can be supplied in the State give bestigreturns M

qor cost? g
 3, Can the native Texas steer be fed profitably?  "

m Fifty-five head of cattle were fed on different rations, made up of corn, hay,
ftton seed raw and cooked, cotton seed hulls, cotton seed meal, and silage.
g e results showed that range steers may be dehorned and fed looseunder a
,1 ed, crowded together like sheep, successfully, and that cost of ascertain food
nsumed is much less than increased value of steers from gains made in
eight at selling prices of food and steers.

 In regard to comparative results from different feed-stuffs, silage and cot-
‘ln seed hulls for roughness, and cooked cotton seed and cotton meal, with or
'thout corn, made more rapid gain than hay and corn, and at less cost. Cat-
e not sheltered consumed more food, and made less gain in weight, than cat-
 fed under sheds.

 From the result of this and other experiments, we assume that, except in
rvored and exceptional hay producing sections, cotton hulls in the vicinityof
he oil mills, and corn and sorghum silage elsewhere in the State supply rough
‘der in the cheapest form to the cattle feeder. as the basis of food rations;
‘g we also assume that the best method of handling the cattle is to saw the
forns off close to the head, and feed the cattle under shelter, unless the win-
,r is exceptionally dry. i

; An examination of the tables in Bulletin No. 6 will show that steers de-
rned and fed under shelter made larger gains than steers not dehorned and
at sheltered, and at less cost for food.

[SeveraPquestions are put to the cattle and feed-stuffs in this experiment,
;~ the two leading questions are:

i 1. What is the best to feed with cotton hulls ?

 2. What is best to feed with silage?

 Incidentally we ask:

V f; a. If sweetening the ration will make it more palatable to cattle?

f b. Is corn silage a better cattle food than dry corn fodder?

jlc. What is the comparative value of cotton seed and cotton meal for feed-
 ?

j d. 4 Is corn the best grain to feed with corn silage ?

7 f. Will changing the ration stimulate the appetite and cause cattle to fat-
 more rapidly ?

ijg. Will hogs do as well running after silage and cotton meal fed cattle as i
M r hay, corn, and cotton seed fed cattle ?

ih. Will cotton seed improve the corn and hay ration ?

g‘. Is cotton hulls and cotton meal a good food to fatten sheep ?

" once, making in some pens a larger gain per day from the 90th to the 110th 

' gain. Nevertheless the increase in weight of the two lots, an average of 246.5 

6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

   
  
  
  
   

CATTLE USED.

Two lots of cattle were used. Lot 1, 50 head raised in Williamson County,
twos and threes, all having some Shorthorn or Hereford blood, and in good-
condition, but never having been handled, nor had extra care or feed. i,

Lot 2, 22 head, was purchased in Waller County, with the expectation of§§
getting native'_range cattle to compare with steers having a dash of improvedf;
blood. A The cattle were ordinary, in rathen thin condition, as is shown by the‘.
weights, pens 12, 13, and 14, but they were not so wild as the Williamsong
County steers,  as we learned later, grazed around the settlements and?
learned to eat.'fl Thley were from 4 to 6 years old.   

As soo *‘as_receiyed the cattle were dehorned, and put into the pens to feed._1§
The thr ,4 andjur steer lots occupied pens 10x14 feet, with an outside open
yard t  as The six and eight steer lots, pens 14x20 feet, outside;
yards same prvbortion. The ten steer lots in pens 10x30 feet, with outside?
yards 30x30 fleet. Pen 14 was not dehorned, and the steers were fed in ani
open dry yard.’ The-cattle were not tied. y 

Lot Lpwas fed 90 days; lot 2, 79 days. At the end of this period of feedJ
ing there  considerable difference in the gains made by the different pens l;
from differelnt rations. (See tables 6 to 20.) To even the cattle up for ship-iii
ment the divisions between the pens were removed, the cattle turned together, 
and all fed alike. but with a combination of feed-stuffs different from that of
the first period. . ~ t a

The effect of greater freedom, change and variety of food is shown in the
rapid increase, even after the cattle had been fed 79 and 90 days, and made an
average gain of over 200 pounds per head. See gains, Tables 6 to 19, and
Summary 1. ' 

This feeding experiment was planned with special reference to testing the 
principal available feed-stuffs of the State under as near similar conditions 
may be provided by men feeding for profit as possible. 

In testing a number of different rations, however, we can not avoid arti- 
ficial conditions to some extent, but they are such as interfere with securing é
the best results in increase in weight. Confining steers in small pens is not 
the best method of handling them; nor is it desirable to use the same feed- ~
stufis without change for the entire period of feeding. ‘

An examination of the weights of the cattle, after having been fed sixty
days, will show that the gain per day as a rule decreased the longerftime they 
were fed, and some of the pens lost in weight from the 80th to the 90th day i
(see Table No. 21), yet, as soon as the steers were given opportunity to move 
around and a greater variety of food, they commenced to gain in weight at '1

k

day than during the first period of feeding.
The frequent weighing of cattle disturbs them and interferes with rapid ‘

pounds in 110 days with one, and 286.1 pounds in 90 days with the other, is".
very good, and especially so where some ten difierent rations have been fed.

 

» FEEDING EXPERIMENT. 7

FIRST‘ LOT 0F STEERS. '

   
  
  
  

Pen 1-6 Steers.

.~ Consumed per head in 90 days: _ "

2279.68 lbs. corn fodder, at $5 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . $ 70
826. “ silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
17.72 “ cotton seed, cooked, at $7 per ton.. . . . . . .' 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 2 51
2284 “ hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ...... 08

$4 12
 Average weight, 793.33 pounds. Average gain, 161.6 lbs. Gain per cwt., 21 lbs. Value
"of food consumed for each pound gained, 2.55 cents. ‘
l,’ ' - . _ 

Pen 2-4 Steers.   

 
 
 
  
  
  
 

2:. Consumed per head in 90 days:

159.75 lbs. silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . $2 15
 380.27 “ corn and cob meal, at 40 cents per bushel for the corn . . . .   * . . . 2 17
323.75 “ cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _  3 23

 ' $2 s5

 Average weight of steers, 692.5!‘ lbs. Average gain per head, 163.75   per cwt.,

3.9 lbs. Value of food consumed per each pound gained, 4.6 cents.

i Pen 3—6 Steers.
 Consumed per head in 90 days: '

ifo lbs. silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2 02
1,685 “ cotton seed, cooked, at $7 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2 39
‘359 “ hay, at $6 per ton . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   $4 52

iii-i Average weight of steers, 755.8 lbs. Average gain per head, 164.1 lbs. Gain per cwt.,

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
    
    
   

1.8 lbs. Value of food consumed per pound gained, 2.7 cents.
3'
 Pen 4-4 Steers.
 Consumed per head in 90 days:

 01.6 lbs. silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'~. . . . $3 40
.507 .55 “ cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 08
 _ 3.62 “ gallons molasses, at 20 cents . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
  i $9 20

 Average weight, 731.25 lbs. Average gain, 200 lbs. ‘ Gain per cwt., 27.3 pounds. Value
ffood consumed for each pound gained, 4.47 mnts.

 Pen 5-4 Steers.
 Consumed perhead in 90 days: ' -
22.47 lbs. silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3 82
f; 96.4 “ cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 96

A.‘

3 $8 78
. Average weight of steers, $737 .5 lbs. Average gain, 228.75 lbs. Gain per cwt., 31 lbs.
alue of food consumed for each pound gained, 3.83 cents.

~_ _ “Pen 6-3 Steers.

Ti Consumed per head in 90 days. ’

a’ 87 lbs. silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 39
_ 6.9 lbs. cotton hulls at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 96
31.5 lbs. cotton meal at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . 5 31

 I ‘ _ $8 66
 Average Weight, 780 lbs. Average gain, 233.33 lbs." Gain per cwt., 29.9 lbs. Value of
_,n consumed for each pound gained, 3.71 cents. "2 p

8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Pen 7-4 Steers. ' , '

Consumed per head in 90 days. _
1564 lbs. cotton hulls, at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2 34
534 “ cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 34
$7 681

Average weight of steers, 713.75 lbs. Average gain, 206.25 lbs. Gain per cwt., 28.8
lbs. Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 3.72 cents.

Pen 8-4 Steers.
Consumed per head in 90 days:

1493 lbs cotton hulls, at $3 per ton. . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2 22
366.85 lbs. cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67
447.45 “ corn and cob meal, at 40 cts. per bushel for the corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56

f»? . - __i_,

  a $3 45-
Average gveight of steers, 785.5 lbs. Average gain, 206.25 lbs. Gain per cwt., 23.6 lbs.

Value of fobd consumed for each pound gained, 4.09 cents.

Pen 9——8 Steers.
Consumed per head in 90 days:

1245.25 lbs. cotton hulls, at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 89
532.12 “ cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 32
568.26 “ mixed hay, at $6 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 69

$8 90'

Average weight of steers, 725.6 lbs. Average gain, 215 lbs. Gain per cwt., 29.7 lbs.
Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 4.13 cents. -

Pen 10-4 Steers.
Consumed per head in 90 days:

1677.7 lbs. cotton hulls, at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2 51
530.5 “ cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 31
5.57 gallons molasses, at 20 cts. per gallon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 12

$8 94

Average weight of steers, 727.5 lbs. Average gain, 238.75 lbs. Gain per cwt., 32.8 lbs.
Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 3.73 cents.

 

Pen 11—3 Steers. ~ - '
Consumed per head in 90 days:

1884.73 lbs. cotton hulls, [at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2 83
599.63 “ cotton meal, at $20 per ton. . . .._.-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 00
7.48 gallons molasses at 20 cts. per gallon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 50
$10 33

Average weight of steers, 868.33 lbs. Average gain, 251.6 lbs. Gain per cwt., 28.9 lbs.
Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 4.1 cents.

SECOND LOT OF STEERS.

_ r Pen 12-10 Steers.
Consumed per head in 79 days:

1758.7 lbs. silage, at $2 per ton. . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 76
1019.1 “ cotton hulls, at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 53
430 s “ cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 30

'8 $7 59

. Average weight of steers, 671 lbs. Average gain, 279 lbs. Gain per cwt., 41.5 lbs.
Valueof food consumed for each pound gained, 2.72 cents.

FEEDING EXPERIMENT. 9

Pen 13-9 Steer-Q.
Consumed per head in 7 9 days:

 ' 922.97 lbs. silage. at $2.P9r ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 92
370.53 “hay,at$6perton . . . . . . . . .  . . . . .  . . . . . ..  111
485.8 “ (6.07 bu.) corn in ear, at 40 cts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 42
430.56 “ cotton seed, raw, at $7 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 50

' $5 95

Average weight of steers, 662.8 lbs. Average gain, 222.2 lbs. Gain per cwt., 33.5 lbs.
Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 2.67 cents.

- _ Pen 14—3 Steers.
Consumed per head in 79 days:

591.53 lbs. hay, at $6 per ton . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 . . . . . .._ . . . . . . . .. $1 77

T 1211 “ (15.13 bu.) corn in ear, at 40 cts. per bushel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,_ . . . . . . . 6 05
342.54 “ cotton seed, cooked, at $7 per ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . ....“*.§ . . . . . . 1 19

  $9 01

c Average weight of steers, 636.6 lbs. Average gain, 233.3 lbs. Gain per Fewt, 36.4 lbs.
’ . Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 3.86 cents. 1
  o

COST OF FOOD.

The values given to the different feed-stufis are fully one-fourth higher than

. actual cost the past- year to cattle feeders and farmers, or at the oil mills in Texas.
Throughout the corn belt of the State on the farms corn was worth less than
30 cents per bushel; hay on the farm not above $4.50‘ per ton; cotton meal
at the mills $16, and hulls $1.50 per ton and less. Having assumed the values
given, with the first feeding experiment, it is thought best to retain the same

_ to facilitate comparing one year’s work with another. The values of feed and

 cost of one pound gained in weight may be easily calculated for any portion

y of the State.

TABLE No. 1. ’ a
Average Amount of Food Consumed per Day for each Period 0f Ten Days.

Pen No. 1-Six steers. Pen No. 2—Four steers. Pen No. 3—Six steers.
‘ Q . . 1: ' . 51 '
=.: 3 a5 w _ w '3 as a a5 w 3 a5 _
é’ _ ‘g3 5 a 5 3S 12S 5 ‘g5 a
g B w: _ . "J . " ‘=1 _ _ . "c; _ '4
Q“ g Q ,6 Q7 O) g r-< a v—4 Q) OJ ,0
i 5‘ Q Se” >2 is” 5‘ 3 3 3 °° M w >1
- s 8 3 z s —:. S g *8 a é’ 8 3 s
o o cn m m o o ‘m o I11
9 December m to January 4...... 4 5s 4.65 ...................... .. .68 7.10 .......... .. 15.38 3.29 .......... ..
 January 5 to January 14...  6.51 6.75 ...................... .. 9.51 8.51 0.1 25.24 5.67 .......... ..
 ZEEEZLX l? £3 13331223311111: 213i 3:33 :::f:::::::: :::::::::::: 13:33 a 5:33 3:8 33:3? 3:3 ::::::::::::
 lFebruary 4 to February 13..... 6.62 9.28 ..................... .. 23.94 8.0 2.0 421.71 9.2 .......... ..
 gegruary i: itzo Flciebrllilagy  .......... ..   .......... ..  .......... ..    .......... ..
= . e ruary o arc ................... .. . . .......... .. ~ . .......... .. . . . .......... ..
; March 6 t0 March 15 ........................ .. 7.51 21.62 .......... .. 38.66 .......... .. 6.5 20.94 7.50 .......... ..
 March 16 t0 March 27 ...................... .. 7.94 19.88 2.29 33.07 .......... .. 6.21 17.95 7.73 2.99
 Total amount food consumed
in 90 days ......................... .. 1678.1 4306 31 4956 164 9 8639 1521 1 1295 0 12,108.‘! 4110.15 215.4

V

1O

TABLE N0.

2.

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT.- STATION.

Auerage Amount 0f Food Consumed per Day for each Period of Ten Duys.

Average Amount of Food Consumed per Day for each Period of Ten Days.

Pen No. 4—F0ur steers. gen No‘ 5f’ Pen No. 6—-Three steers.
our steers.

. g; _ . '6 . _ 1: _ .

3 L g2 B g5’ 2 g5 5

Q m Q g); Q m Q Q m Q Q

O . m n 9 g I F; I

5 89 2 5 5 m 0 5
December 28 t0 January 4. ............................ .. 21.4 4.43 0.5 19.04 2.53 13.21 ' 3.77 13.41
January 5 to January 14 29. 5.64 0.5 31.62 4.02 15.51 5.16 12.08
January 15 to January 24 36.18 5.82 0.5 40.71 5.73 16.19 5.91 13.43
January 25 to February 3. .............................. .. 40.41 5.86 0.5 42.13 5 54 14.39 5.97 13.16
February 4 to February l3 ............................ .. 36.52 6.00 0.5 41.61 5.99 14.41 6.00 14.06
February 14 t0 Febgfnary 23 ........................... .. 43.08 6.00 0.5 44.35 6.00 14.99 6.00 17.32
_ February 24 to Mireifi - * . 39.41 5.88 .......... .. 41.97 6.32 13.56 6.43 17.03
March 6 t0 March 15  ................................. .. 48.18 6.00 .......... .. 51.47 6.5 14.26 6.66 20.01
March 16 t0 MarQh 27 . 41.52 6.00 .......... .. 40.14 6.21 14.01 6.66 16.81
Total food consumed in 90 days. ................ .. 13,606.4 2,030.2 116 14,290.9 1,985 6 3,920.8 1,593 6 4,161.20

I
TABLE N0. 3.

Ave/rage Amount of Food Consumed per Day for each Period of Ten Days.

BFOeSEEéZQ Pen No. 8—Four steers. Pen No. 9—Eight steers.
s '35 g 3s ‘£5 . g i»;
v4 S.) *4 A f: '4 w '4 é >1 g v4
c:

2 §z 5 gs 22 . 2 52

E g g E *3 ‘a’ g g 5 "5 g g

tr: o II.‘ o o III _ hi‘ o
December 2s to January 4 .............................. .. 14.01 4.51 15.11 2.75 4.51 5.21 10.45 4.22
January 5 to January 14 ..........................  .... .. 17.43 5.79 13.24 4.04 5.20 7.97 14.02 5.51
January 15 to January 24 18.39 5.96 16.17 4.27 5.54 5.27 15.59 6.00
January 25 to February 3 16.02 ‘ 5.97 15.70 3.96 4.95 5.62 12.93 5.99
February 4 to February 13 17.57 6.00 17.73 4.00 5.00 5.69 14.57 6.00
February 14 to February 23 .......................... .. 17.44 6.00 17.25 4.00 5.00 6.73 13.45 6.00
‘February 24 to March 5 . .............................. .. 17.74 6.32 17.52 4.32 5.00 6.37 14.55 6.32
March 6 to March 15 19.62 6.5 19.57 4.5 5.00 6.77 15,14 6.5
March 16 to March 27 17.89 6.21 15.89 4.48 4.67 6.17 15.33 6.25

Total amount of food consumed in 90 days... 6,276.00 2,138.00 5,932.09 1,467.04 1,789.08 4,546.01 10,162.0 4,257.00,
TABLE N0. 4.

Pen N0. 10—Four steers.

Pen Noll-Tbree steers.

. ‘v w- . g d
CD Q) U}
'5 $5 es T3 $5 a5
. 3 . E3
5 5g s5 s 53g e e
'5 += 39-1 '5' -~= T: F“
m 35 2 m 85 2
December 28 to January 4 11.84 3.85 . 0.48 19.12 5.19 0.64
January 5 to January 14 17.39 5.85 0.5 20.77 5.98 0.66
_ January 15 t0 January 24  18.29 5.94 0.5 23.59 6.60 0.66
January 25 to February 3 18.24 5.91 0.5 20.34 6.66 0.66
February 4 t0 February 13 19.97 6.0 0.5 22.35 6.66 0.66
February 14 t0 February 23 19.95 6.0 0.5 20.38 6.66 0.66
February 24 to March 5 20.03 6.32 0.5 19.90 7.1 0.66
March 6 to March 15 ......... .. 21.19 6.5 0.5 21 14 7.33 0.66
March 16 to March 27 . 19.35 6.21 0.5 20.50 7.33 0.66
Total amount of food consumed in 90 days ........................... .. 6710 8 2122.1 179.5 5654.2 1798 9 179.5

1 FEEDING EXPERIMENT.

TABLE No. 5.

Average Amount of Food Consumed .1902" Day for each Period of Ten Days.

11

   
   
      
 

 

 

  
  
 
 

 

  
 

Pen N0.’12—Ten steers. Pen N0. 13—Nine steers. Pen No.14—Three steers.
- "c . s: ‘*-
m v5 <1> m ,3 5' . o ' ' . 3 '
'5 r3 $5 e é g‘; g5 52 a; 5%
Q5 o g ,-: Q5 O n g '6'
é” é 52 é” é 5 :5 5 5 5 5
E75 lII o ‘c5 0 III 0i. °° o II! 0
 January 17 to January 24 ..... .. 13.21 8.09 3.05 3.58 4.58 3.71 2.45r 15.79 7.32 .......... ..
f January 25 to February 3 .... .. 15.23 11.21 4.14 4.67 6.73 4.22 4.44] 22.96 13.07 .......... ..
 February 4 to February 13..... 17.45 12.93 4.91 .35 6.93 4.62 4.93 16.74 6.21 .......... ..
t; February 14 to February  21.22 11.88 4.98 13.36 6.21 3.83 5.3 12.91 5.99 3.68
El February 24 to March 5 ....... .. 21.07 11.49 5.73 13.60 5.99 4.30 6. 14.73 6.35 5.21
 Iltlarch 6 t0 March 15 ............ .. 24.68 13.21 5.45 14.97 5.09 5.94  .74 6.84 6.95
 March 16 t0 a March 25 .. ....... .. 20.81 11.04 5.45 15.09 6.58 6.50 . 6.66‘ * y 6.58 8.72
.1 March 25 to April 5 ............. .. 24.4 12.36 5.45 18.52 6.5 6.2 6.541 £10. A " 7.5 8.65
 Total amount of food con- , Y1  '
 sumed in 79 days ........... .. 17,587.2 10,1908 4302 8306.8 4372.1 3347 8 3875.1  1774 6 1027.63
4 ~
TABLE N0. 6.
Pen No. 1.—Lz've Weights.
1 3“ a Ration a5
,q . Z changed. L?
any, w: - "c:
'5 _ ~58 . . Q
B 9% . . - <2 e a =5 s; ‘i. S
No. of steer. “fig oi ‘i i E, g 2 _ <5 “S:  '2 _ é 
<c> -< ¢> o u: q, . u: a G
hi) d H H a d d 03 ‘s: rd h!) H an Q m v-c m)
a d c: e :1 s s a a ,_. ,.. .
:- ‘1? p: 5 g: a a u <9 0 r-t 2 ‘a q --. w. q "3
‘l? Q q g q r9 '0 Q g g Q a --4 "‘ "' --~ a
l> Us a ,3 o o o k> o c8 Q Q- d o
<1 ». >-= >1 a. m w. S 2 <4 a e < <1 <5 a
 ........................... .. 745 780 790 820 840 870 890 890 910 930 185 2.05 .... .. 955 25 210
_ 32.. ............................ .. 930 945 980 1000 960 995 1000 1000 1020 1020 90 1. 11020 1020 ..... .. 90
‘:83. ............................ .. 810 790 820 870 885 930 950 970 985 1000 190 2.11‘ .... .. 1060 60 250
134.. ............................ .. 725 695 750 760 775 805 810 855 880 890 165 1.83 .... .. 960 70 235
‘B5 ............................. .. 770 825 825 880 890 920 885 905 940 955 185 2.05 985 1010 55 240
 ............................ .. 780 785 800 840 845 840 865 890 900 935 155 1 72 965 55 210
i‘? - verage. w’t ner head. 793.33 803.33 82 8 853.3 866. 893.3 900. 918.3 939. 955. 161 6 1.79? .... .. 999.16 44.16 205.7
Gain per head per day
 between Weighings.. ....... .. 1 2.3 2.53 1.26 2.73 .66 1.83 2.06 1.6 ................... .. 2.20 ..... .. ..
Gain per head from
 begmning ...................... .. 10 34.66 60 73.66 100 106.66 125 145.66 161.66 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
TABLE N0. 7.
Pen No. 2.—Lz'oe Weights.
g g“ a; Ration m‘
g . g _ 1;» changed. f;
3E5 .9."&i w '°
0 . u _ OJ __ Q  m‘ 2
E5 ...- ..- <1 :1 a 55’ °‘. d 5 "1
No. of steer. o...“ o6 -~ o: >_ M h ©- “5 Q f} T’ w c:
5°‘ t‘ 5 -=~ a a a w‘ a ~ 5° e ‘<5 ~ '5 a T
~ n4 i-l O0 Q‘ “5 I-i Q1)
3 8 g 3 g E 3 E '3 '8 5; g q m r: q“ 7;
QQ q q g v-Q FD Q g a a) '1 a -—1 b‘ 7"‘ "-4 4:-
: :2 .2 .2 a: at’ é.’ 2 2 Z a i»? i‘ S‘ e .8
730 730 735 780 785 830 840 890 890 900 170 1.88i 965 985 85 255
645 640 620 690 680 715 750 765 795 820 175 1.94 830 87 0 50 225
650 670 665 710 690 735 730 750 765 770 120 1.33 805 805 35 155
745 780 800 830 850 895 0 900 965 935 190 2.12  980 45
" verage weight per head 692 5 705 705 752.05 751.25 793.75 800 826.25 853.75 856.25 163.75 1.82 “ 910 53.5 217.5
i? in per head per day
; between Wei h1nge....... ..... .. 1.25 ..... .. 4.75 \$.12 4.25 . 72 2.62 2.75 . 27 ............. .. 2.18 .......... ..
1:, n_ per hea from be- '
f ‘ginning . .......................... .. 13.5 13.5 60 58.75 101.25 107.5 123.75 161.25 163.75 ........................................ ..

 
 

12

TEXAS

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIME1VT ‘STATIDN.

TABLE N0. 8.

Pen N0. 3.—Li've Weights.
3' B“ ,5 Ration e5
,q . ,1: _ Q changed. Z,‘ V
.3597: .993‘, v '5
(Dd v d) '_ @ - m; S
o 3m . . . w? w? 8g ‘:1 g? >.. --
No. 0t steer. “£21: o0’ 3 § a ‘f;  fl _ w. ‘B: 5 E _ Q 5'
a 5 5-1 5-1 H a P‘ g -.- G q T,
37 770 775 795 845 860 890 920 930 950 925 155 . 990 1000 75 320
38 800 820 840 860 900 915 930 935 935 135 . 940 1000 65 200
39 830 860 870 950 975 1000 1025 1025 1020 190 2.11 1050 1055 35 225
40 ...... .. 725 800 -800 830 880 885 885 890 880 155 1.72 900 905 25 180
41 710 705 755 815 840 835 870 890 860. 150 1.66 850 895 35 185
42 700 715 760 795 835 815 850 860 900; 200 2.22 .... .. 9 55 255
Average weight per head .....  755.8 779 802.8 85888515 885.5 895 915 925 92011541 182 .... .. 958.88 4.8.88 212.4
Gain per head per day between
vyeighings ......  ...................... .. 2.3 3.33 5 6 .66 3.6 .83 2 1 . ..... .. 2.41 ............ ..
Gain per head from beginning ..... .. 23.2 46.5 102.5 95.8 130.8 139.2 159.2 169.2 164.1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
TABLE N 0. 9.
Pen N0. 4.—Live Weights.
yo? g“ d Ration 
 g0‘; 5 changed. g
c6 '~ '6 N“ Q . m. Q
F°§ . . . w? w? 3g °°_ :1’ :>. 5
N0. of steer. “S-er 0o‘ 5 § 1 "‘ c; . "5 c: ‘t’ Q q“
w“ >= =>= >= e 5‘ H <5 3 9V3 '55 3 . 95 o '3
8w 8 8 8 8 8 8 s: 5 88 w e 8 ~ 8' =9
a Q) 5 g g3 :-< s-< a  a r6 2 ‘a g   d“ "if
S“ g g g 8 8 8 g e > 8  e. e. "8 *5
<2 »-.. w -.. h m 5.. 2 2 <8 a <5 I <1 <8 c: a
1' .................................. .. 780 820 845 875 860 890 900 910 915 920 140 1.55 940 965 45 185
2 . ................................. .. 800 860 910 950 975 1000 1045 1045 1045 1085 285 3.15 1100 1090 5 290
3 . ................................ .. 635 660 645 685 710 760 760 780 780 815 180 2 j 835 835 20 200
4 .................................. .. 710 740 760 820 805 5 865 885 880 905 195 2.15 930 950 45 240
Average wt. per head... 731.25 770 790 832.25 837.5 871.25 892.5 ‘ 905 905 931.25 200 . I .... .. 960 28.75 228.75
Gain per head per day .
between weighings..... ....... .. 3.87 2.85 4.22 .52 3.37 2.12 1.25 ....... .. 3.12  .... .. 1.37 .............. ..
Gain per head from be- A
ginning ............................. .. 88.75 58.75 101 105.25 140 151.25l178.75 178.75 200   .......................... 
TABLE N 0. 10.
Pen N0. 5.—-—Live Weights.
3' 3' ,3 Ration 
fir; ,5” _ f;- changed. g
  g - a; 2
55 - 8 9 2i 1i E8 °i 5‘ :- '1
No. of steer. “Se; w‘ 3 w h h ‘h 1 ' - cg =1 '8 '6 c:
w" >. >. >. 5- =~ e <5 3 w o '3 3 - m5‘ c> '5
35° =5 S? Z3 S 3 3 3 =1 #1 38° i? °° °~ ‘° "" N. °°
a. Q) 5 5 g a a a. 2  5-12 '3 q Z "I3 q Q
3“ 8 8 8 +5 - 8 8 == 9 i’ 8 '8 ‘:1 ‘a "8 8
<1 a +5 a F11 r1. tn 2 2 <1 a :5 <1 <4 <5 5-1
9 ............................... .. 685 715 755 820 850 890 895 915 910 225 2.5 935 945 35 260
10 725 765 790 835 895 900 905 950 930 205 2.28 .... .. 974 45 250
11 725 735 770 795 830 890 895 930 925 200 2.22 960 965 40 240
12 815 900 50 960 1060 1040 1100 1100 1100 285 3 16 1110 1120 20 305
Average w’t per head... 787.5 778.75 815.25 852 5 881.25 908.75 980 948.75 978.75 955.25 228.75 2 54 1001.25 85 258.75
Gain per head ger day '
between wei ings... ...... ._ 4.12 5.35 3.62 2.75 2.12 1.87 2.5 .75 ....... .. 1.75  ....... ..
Gain per head tom be-
ginning .... ... ................... .. 41.25 78.75 115 143.75 171.25 192.5 211.25 236.25 228.75 .................... ..

 

FEEDING EXPERIMENT.

TABLE N 0. 11.

13

Pen N0. 6.——Lz'72e Weights.

 

33' B“ ,5 Ration 
2:4 ,5 _ g» changed. a
s6 ..  6 ~—— g
B23 . . . 3 <6 6g;  5* I ‘B. P:
No. of steer. ‘S; 66 194 $1 ‘” "' N . “<5 c. "-1 Q c:
w“ >. >4 >4 5 5' t‘ 4:5 c’ 6'5 "65 "' o‘ o '5
3% s s s s S s s 2 :33 s» s. w‘ N q w
63 s s = s s s s’ 8 6s "6 a E T1 a Ié
> 7,3 a f. a: w a) °3 ' °3 r> . ‘S '63 Q- Q- '6: o
<4 e »-. >4 r=. s. s. 2 2 <4 a w <1 < w a
25 ’ 760 825 850 890 895 915 950 955 1000 985 225 2.5 1010 1005 20 245
a?    . S80 390 930 1920 1955 19g?) 1380 220 2g 1050  75 
35 60 995 025 070 0 75 255 2. 11 0 0 35
average wgight per 15666.8... 7s0 s46 s60 901.66 916 946.66 966 993.33 1026 1013.33 233.33 2.69  1066 6 43.33 276.6
am per ead per ay e- '
tween weighings .................. .. 6. 5 2. 14 4.17 1. 32 3.17 1. 82 2.82 3. 17 1.17  ............. .. 2.16 ............ ..
Gain per head from begin- '
ning .........................  .......... .. 65 80 121.66 135 166.66 185 213.33 245 233.33 ................ ..‘.. .................. ..
TABLE N0. 12.
Pen N0. '7.——-Li0e Weights.
B“ 3“ ,5 Ration a5
-.= . ,q _ >= changed. f?
.203 291g, 1°18 ——~—?—~ ‘v
E06 . . 2.5 g IQ. ‘5 2
~ N . . . <91 <1 N (g >6 P4
N 4 m _ . E3 no <91 1-4 N . w ~ v c8 ~
0. 0t steer. o‘, 6o . 1 >3 g} k w on 5 w :1
. 09°! >6 >1 >~. M 6-1 6-. w‘ ,_, <1) Q g g . m’ Q 
34% 2 i; S Z3 8 3 -= n $2 °° ==~ E I °‘. °°
36s 663663 
<1 f3 é‘ i? s. s. m 2 . 2 <6 6-1 w <1 <1 w e4
800 765 785 810 840. 865 890 910 910 180 2. i960 985 75 255
775 795 815 805 840_ 845 870 885 910 185 2.051915 950 40 225_
720 740 7s0 790 530: s46 s70 ss6 900 220 246M940 926 26 246
750 795 815 845 869§ 895 930 950 960 240 2.66 980 1005 45 295
Average weight per ' — '
Gnead  ....  . 713.75 761.25 773.75 798.75 812.5 844.75! 860 890 907.5 920 206.25 2.29 .. 966.25 46.25 252.50
am per ea pr ay A
between Wfhing.  4.75 1.78 2.5 1.32 3.22 1.52 3 1.75 1.25  2.31 .............. ..
Gain per hea from F
beginning ................... .. 47.6 60 s6 93.26 131 146.26 176.261s3.26 206.26 .............  ............................ ..
1
TABLE N0.‘ 13.
Pen N0. 8.—Lz've Weights.
3“ f; d  Ration a
,5: . ,4; _ g;  changed. .6
.235 - 2% "<1 4 '°
Q) a Q) '_ 3 >2 d 2
5g 4s ' w? 2i iii E33 m» °= 5‘ '1
N0. of steer. 0g; w‘ -< 3 ‘h k _E,_ _ w» on 5 E _ -w g
* 
63 z i; i; s s s j? i’ s2 T; s E. E é '6
6 s 6 s s.’ s: s’ 2 s I. s 6 f? i?" 3 s
13 885 885 935 925 1000 990 1010 1030 1015 180 2 1045 1090 75 255
14 835 865 900 915 920 975 985 1000 1030 1010 175 1.94 1040 1030 '20 195
15 725 780. 815 845 845 890 .910 925 950 920 195 2.16 960 985 65 260
16 735 800i 850 870 870 910 950 975 1010 1010 275 3.05 1025 1015 5 280
, Average weigdht peg heid. 782.5 832.5i862.5 891.25 895 943.75 958.75 977.5 1005 988.75 506.25 2.29 .... .. 1030 41.25 247.5
i; Gain e hea er a e-
* twegnrweighyngsufir. .......... .. 6 4.28 2.87 .37 4.87 1.06 1.87 2.76 _-1.62 ................. .. 2.06 ........... ._
G ' h d om be-
alilllinggr  ....  ........... .. .  50 80 108.75 112.5 161.25 176.25 195 222.5 206.25 ................................... ..
H. 8

14

TABLE N 0. 14.
Pen N0. 9.—-L2'0e Weights.

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

 

 

g f; ,5 Ration 16
.::_; ,1: _ g changed. 3*;
.2066 .993‘, w: ~——-- ‘<5
<9 » Q) “ - ~ @
- E320 11s 11s <1 i‘ 3' E3  g’ g2‘ r‘
N0. of steer. o‘: o6 .-1 o: ‘ . o :1 '° 1'33 q“
gJDN >1 >. >. z’ 33 t‘ eo ‘.3 w?» ‘G 3 . 5 o Ea‘
68552525663523.2221"
i“ =4 = == 8 8 8 8 6 2 *3 .1 a s. 8 8
<1 - é‘ 2 i‘; n. w. m 2 S <1 a <6 <1 ~< c6 a
43 685 710 725 750 760 785 810 835 855 855 170 1.88 895 910 55 225
44 665 710 735 780 790 815 830 840 5O 5 190 2.11 890 905 50 240
45 735 ' 750 790 840 840 875 890 920 950 955 220 2.44 960 980 25 245
46 780 840 850 905 920 960 990 1000 1030 1035 255 2.83 1070 1075 40 295
47 685 740 755 785 845 860 890 0 930 25 240 2.66 950 935 10 250
is ' 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 1333 1333 1333 m’ 1'33 1333 1 5 33 333
9 265 2. 060
50.  715 745 785 820 820 880 890 910 915 925 210 2.33% 920 960 245
_-.. - i i i _i i i i i i - I i i
Average weight {>81 11.1111... 726.6 766.26 788.76 829.87 848.12 878 896 919.87 987 940.6 216 2. 1 .... .. 976 84.87 249.8
Gain per day bet. Weighings. .... .. 4.42 3. 4.16 1.37 2.98 2.2 2.43 1.75 .36   ..... .. 1.71 ............ ..
Gain per head from begin- .
ning .._ ..... .; ........................... .. 40.65 63.15 103.77 117.52 147.3 169.3 193.77 211.3 215  ................................ ..
TABLE N0. 15.
Pen N0. 10.—L2ve Weights.
g“ 3“ ,5 T llltation g
.2 . _ >- c anged.
.2926 .398.- 8 1 3
°’ *' - ‘I’ - o ' 1s S
E6‘ . 1.- ..- ..- 9 8 1 68 =1 8 z.» ~
No. of steer. oi 6o .-< o: h x,’ h _ o. "5: E "<3 .1, 5
a’. . r» 6 z» 8 8 8 == - 8.2 8, i? - 9' a '6
6e g 1e 6s 11s s: s 5 Q | F1 6s 6s 9' 2 "‘ _ °°
5" § Q 5 5-4 #4 H a . 9 Pg a g 41-1 I q '3
2Q g g g '55 *3 8 6 1 5 i’ 8 '6 a ‘a. '8 +5
<1 1-.. 18 >8 6. 6. 61 E  2 <1 e1 cb <1 <1 r6 6-1
___ ___ i ___ I ____ __ ___ ____ __._ __
17 775 880 900 940 950 1000 1010 1050 1070 1050 275 3 05 1050 107 0 20 295
19 ................................. .. 700 750 785 800 805 860 875 885 900 895 195 2.16 920 940 45 240
20 ................................. .. 700 735 740 780 790 840 850 875 900 915 215 2.38 920 935 20 235
23 7 740 825 850 870 915 935 965 995 1005 270 3.00 1015 1065 60 330
Average wt. per 1166a... 727.6 776.26 812.6 842.6 868.76 908.76 917.6 948.76 966.26 966.26 288.76 2.66‘ .... .. 10026 8626 276
Gain per head per day
between weighings..." ..... .. 4.87 5.17 3 1.12 5 1.37 2.62 2.25  ........................ .. 1.81 ........... ..
Gain per head from be-
ginning ........................... .. 48.75 85 115 126.25 176.25 190 21625123875 238.75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
TABLE N 0. 16.
Pen N0._11.—L2"ve Weights.
3g“ 3“  i Illtationd 1i
s1 - :1 , - c ange .
.2966 29;. 8 1 -_-_- ~31‘
$81 . . . .1 .1 66 8 .6 l t 1; E
N0. 0f steer. “Se? °5 53 § 1 T; a w- “8: g: '° i .3,‘ q“
0'2 {>8 >1 >6 H 1-1 s-1 e5 ,4 d.) Q '3 ‘a _ m‘ o 
2,00 S 3%‘ S 3 § § .11 .c: is”; ‘=9 n. ‘Q '-< N an
s; a :5 5 1'3 S B 6-1 8 a a; 2 T3‘ q I‘. J1 q“ Ts
> g g i‘. c» o '8 °3 °3 :> ‘S E‘ S. a '3 *5
<4 11 11 a i=1 i=1 In 2 2 <1 a c9 <1 <4 (b a
28 ...................... .. 1020 1110 1150 1205 1235 1280 1285 1335 1345 1345 325 3 61 i140!) 1369 15 340
g ...................... .. 67g 1338 1320 10g?) l’??? léég légg légg  légg   11530 1210 50 295
...................... .. ~ 2. 5 885 30 215
Average weight -__ —___ n—_ -__ -__ _-—- —_ —_
per ead. ....... .. 868.33 953.33 976.66 1033.33 1035 1065 1070 1096.66 1120 1120 251.6 2.79 .... .. 1151.66 31.66 283.3
Gain erhead per
Gday et’n wlrlvghg .' ...... .. 8.5 3.33 5.66 .16 3 5 2.66 2.33 ............. .. 1.58 ............ ..
am er ea
trompbeginning ....... .. 85 108.33 - 165 166.66 106 66 201.66 228.33 251.66 251.66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

FEEDING EXPERIMENT.

TABLE N0. 17.
Pen N0. ZZV-Live Weights.

15

   

  

 

  
   

 

 

g“ 3” ,5 Ration a;
in;  . 5 changed 5
OJ i929 - '
e1} . w. 2- ...- F-a ‘i1 i? g. a,
No. of steer. “S” Z91 ,>, 1 1 - m; 15.": f} '° w: f,
21w 2: a a ta e 3 N $.21 a, F» 2 a a,
mi‘ c6 s .: s Q I! 4'4 d4 ,_ Q‘ ... . ,_,
a g :-< :2 :4  g  H c3 g t q as
2 g i’. e e Q == a 2 s e p. a s
<1 »-= m n. in 2 2 2 <1 a cs <1 . <5 a
620 660 720 765 745 ‘ 815 860 870 870 250 3.16 930 60 310
650 665 760 770 815 870 865 900 920 270 3.41 940 20 290
...... .. 595 640 710 740 740 800 835 845 870 275 3 48 890 20 295
665 715 760 810 860 900 915 955 975 310 3.91M 990 15 325
600 660 700 735 770 825 840 870 900 300 3.781 900 ..... .. 300
635 675 750 780. 810 850 870 880 910 275 3.48M 950 40 S15
600 660 700 7 795 83. 835 87 885' 285 3.6 ‘E 900 15 300
 950 1020 1050 1085 1100 1170 1200 1235 1235 285 3.6 1270 35 320
T10 705 740 790 850 875 935 940 980 1000 295 3.73 .................... ..
l. 690 700 755 790 820 875 890 905 935 245 3.1’ 1005 70 315
- verage weight per head  ............... .._. ...... .. 671 713.5 769.5 807.5 6.5 905 941 950 279 3.53 975 30.55 307.77
31.1‘ in per head per day between weighmgs .. .... .. 5.43 5. 3. . 65 5.35 1175 3. 6 .95 .......... .. 2. 05 ............ ..
ain per head from beginning ......................... .. 62.5 98.5 136.5 162 216.5 234 270 279 ............................... ..
TABLE N 0. 18.
_ Pen N0. 15’.—Live Weights.
,5 g m- Ration a;
E ,5; g» changed g-
gfl B." . '5 '6
-~ ow . -
No. of steer. SP‘ g >, >, E w; .5 w- gE .2 '2 , ‘g .5
w >. =~ e .-< o: g q) w.
éi§ééééeeeé°<g°g~éli§
8 =1 2 ‘<3 ‘<3 i? '5 i? 2 w: "a: ‘a. e *5
< é‘ w. a. F14 2 2 2 <1 a c: <1 c: a
725 735 780 810 840 865 865 885 920 195 2.46) 1000 80 275
2 675 690 730 810 865 890 920 960 970 295 3.73. .................... ..
720 745 750 810 860 870 885 905 915 195 246i 960 45 240
660 600 590 635 670 720 7 790 785 125 1.58 840 55 180
830 845 850 885 970 1030 1065 1110 20 290 3.68’ 1180 60 350
670 705 740 790 790 860 880 905 900 230 2.9_1 945 45 275
570 575 585 640 665 700 710 755 775 205 2.591 795 20 225
560 620 635 690 760 790 825 875 875 315 3. 98! 950 75 390
555 575 665 695 635 660 700 715 705 150 1.89 740 35
‘ierage Wei ht per head ..................... .. 662.8 676.6 702.7 751.7 784 820.5 844.4 877.7 885. 222.2 2.81 926.25 51.87 265
 in-per hea per day bet. weighings .......... .. 1.72 2.61 4.9 3.23 3.65 2.39 .33 .73 ........... .. 5.1 ............ ..
, ‘n per head trom beginning ..................... .. 13.8 39.9 88.9 121.2 157.7 181.6 204.9 222.2 ................................ ..
TABLE N 0. 19.
' Pen N0. Zh-Live Weights.
~ a; Ration -
:3) ,5) changed g-
 , . w? . c5 g 5i _ é‘  5i
‘H ‘Q w]! v-l 1-4 Q-IF‘ a P5 g
No. of steer. oP‘ N >, >, >, >, _ .5 .5 W; .... a , “<5 ....
o ' |>, r-~ a H H co v-l o: Q r3 Q no o <3
m)‘: in 0S e s: c8 w“ an g, -~ v—< an
.233 S E E E E '5 E '3 S‘: '3 q a e; '3
2 g *5: 2 +3 i3 3 5 E 2 s e S. a *5
<1 .1 a. r=. h. a. 2 2 2 <1 a cw <1 d: a
55 690 680 745 760 795 865 .880 920 930 275 3.48 970 40 315
595 625 645 670 710 730 765 800 830 240 3.03 890 55 295
660 0 695 625 655 690 750 790 835 845 185 2. 885 40 225
 V ' ht h d .................. .. 636.6 655 673.3 680 708.3 738.3 793.3 823 3 861 6 870 233.3 2 95 915 45 278.3
‘3131111313 gfldaytaabet. weighings ..... .. 2.28 1.83 .66 5.66 6 ,5.5 3 3.83 1.03 .......... .. 4.5 ........... ..
A. ~ per head rom beginning ................ .. 18.3 36.6 43.3 71.7 101.7 155-7 186-7 225 233-3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

 

16 , TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

\

TABLE No. 20.
SUMMARY NO. 1.
First Lot of Cattle.

Q

‘e s- - - Ration chang’dr
o a. 2 f; '5 g steers fed 20
fig Q< H
“NJ ‘$3,; . - a e O .
- g . °° _ E E '85 "c: Ration fed—90 Days. '2 .§ ‘c. g‘
8 3 "c! ° =3 2,}, 8 w“ i s: '°
m 3,3 30g Ea t: ... =-— e S“ ‘s; E. s
". s °° s .2 s a a as s‘ =
o > > "° "‘
z <1 <1 c? 8 8 8 Z 5 8
1 7933.3 161 6 21.0 1.79 2.55 4.12 Silage, corn fodder, hay, boiled cotton seed ..................... .. 44.1 205.7 2.20
i‘ 692.3 4 7 23.9 1.82 4.6  Silage, fiorn ‘and ciobmeal; cottion meal part of the time .... ..  217.5 2.1
755. 1b 1 21.8 1.82 2.8 .5 Si a e, ay, oi e cotton eee . 212.4 2.4
4 731.2 2000 27.3 2.22 4.47 9.20 Silage, cotton meal, molasses ......... .. 28.7 228.7 1.3
5 737.5 2287 31.0 2.54 3.83 8.78 Silage, cotton meel 35. 263.7 1.7
6 780.0 2333 29.9 2.59 3.71 8.66 Silage, cotton hulls, cotton meal 43.3 276.6 2.1
7 713.7 2062 28.8 2.29 3.72 7.68 Cotton hulls, cotton meal 46.2 252.5 2.3
8 875.5 206 2 23.6 2.29 4.09 8.45 Cotton hulls, cotton meal, corn and cob meal ................... .. 41.2 247.5 2.0
9 725.6 215 0 29.7 2.38 4.13 8.90 Cotton hulls, cotton meal, mixed hay ............................... .. 34.3 249.3 1.7
*6 780.0 2333 29.9 2.59 3.71 8.66 Cotton hulls, cotton meal, silage ............................................................. ..
10 727.5 2 7 32.8 2.65 3.73 8.94 Cotton hulls, cotton meal, ""‘"""“" 36.2 275.0 1.8
868.3 251 6 28.9 2.79 4.1 10.33 Cotton hulls, cotton meal, '“'*‘""""" 31.6 283.3 1.5

* Pen 6 is repeated to include it with the cotton hull fed pens.

Second Lot 0f Cattle. -
- t. - - Ration chang’d
o , 2; a5 a5 5 g steers fed 10,
-= - _ 3  a g days.
.=: ‘e m F‘ w
-sfis:..-“§ .»».
d B . 3° B :3‘ g5 "c! Ration fed—79 Days. '8 . oo~ L?
an - o "U O o3 o qgm 5 “C!
o 1" T’ t-t a- 9" m) '3 >> "‘ a5 a
9* ‘D 35 Q 3 a: c» a. ‘*' ‘D c3 §0;>, a:
u gnu 230g Q Q1 O ‘s gnfi <3 Q-
° e m *-* c: =1 ..-. a ‘*¢ 1%“ c:
s 23 i’ use s s s i" z; s
Z 4 <4 c‘: ct: o 0 <1 a <5
12 671.0 279.0 41.5 3.53 2 72 7.59 Silage, cotton hulls, cotton meal 30 5 315. 3 0
13 662.8 222 2 33.5 2.81 3 1 7.00 Silage, hay, corn in ear, raw cotton seed  51 8 265. 5 18
14 636.6 233 3 36.4 2.95 3.86 11.61 Hay, corn in ear, boiled cotton seed last 7 weeks ............... .. 45 0 278.3 4 5
TABLE No. 21.. .
SUMMARY NO. 2.
first Lot 0f 0attZe.—Ave/rage Gain in Weight from Beginning t0 Date.
s .5
uofl . . U5 v3 v3
OJ ‘ . w m .0 .0 _
i? 5 L? I3 S “J '7' n" .8 .3
ssfi 1'3 _ . . . Q A H
,5 2 <5 . id n5 8‘ 3 § "q _ Ration fed-90 Days.
o we °° "‘ N .9. >. >. . w g
°* '55‘ 2 i‘ Z‘ 8 . S 33 ‘° "'
“a e g1» s s s 2 2 - a "5 f» '5
<5 >'-: g g g 8 8 8 == 5 35
Z <4 "‘ '—.. *1 >1 #4 E4 F11 2 2 E
793.3 10.0 34.6 60.0 73.6 100.0 106.6 125.0 145.6 161.6 Silage, corn fodder, hay, boiled cotton seed.
692.5 13.5 13.5 60.0 58.7 101.2 107.5 123.7 161.3 163.7 Silage, corn and cob meal, cotton meal. "
755.8 23.2 46.5 102.5 95.8 130.8 139.2 159.2 169.2 164.1 Silage, hay, boiled cotton seed. 1

FIN-l
l-‘Ofifiwfififififllififilér-l
‘<1
oo
Q
Q

731.2 38.7 58.7 101.0 106.2 140.0 161.2 173.7 173 7 200.0 Silage, cotton meal, molasses.

737.5 41.2 78.7 115.0 143.7 171 2 192.5 211.2 236.2 228.7 Silage, cotton meal.
. 65.0 80.0 121.6 135.0 166.6 185.0 213.3 245.0 233.3 Silage, cotton meal, cotton hulls.

713.7 47.5 60.0 85.0 98.2 131.0 146.2 176.2 183.2 206.2 Cotton hulls, cotton meal.

875.5 50.0 80,0 108.7 112.5 161.2 176.2 195.0 222.5 206.2 Cotton hulls, cotton meal, corn and cob meal.
725.6 40.6 63.1 103.7 117.5 147.3 169.3 193.7 211.3 215.0 Cotton hulls, cotton meal, mixed hay.

727.5 48.7 85.0 115.0 126.2 176.2 190.0 216.2 238.7 238.7 Cotton hulls, cotton meal, molasses.

868.3 85.0 108.3 165.0 166.6 186.6 201.6 228.3 251.6 251.6 Cotton hulls, cotton meal, molasses.

FEEDING“ EXPERIMENT. l7

Second Lot of Cattle.

., , _.. .  ~ y - . -,".» ., .._,._,,. . H‘
,,;-.~..r.,._- _,..i »_.» ~h _.-.y y,»  

E ,5 . . . v3 ,3  ' .
_ P°§ 3 zfi .3 .3 fi >4 >4 .3 ' -
. s: 3 A 5 >4 Q _ (d A _

a at: 6 Q l‘: ‘g t: E g 6 j Ration lfed—79 Days.
781 g d N. 1 ‘*1 "1 “l .=> 3 g z a

o P‘ 3"
[2 3:3 g I 3 3 3 g § § i‘ l
é-_ _~ ____I___ ___ ____ __ _._ _- ___|,
y‘ '» I
‘l2 671.0 62.5§ 98.5!l36.5 162.0 216.5 234.0 270.0 279.0lSilage, cotton hulls, cotton meal. _
l. 13 662.8 13.81 39.9 88.9 121.2 157.7 181.6 204.9 222.2lSilage, hay, corn 1n ear, raw cotton seed.
 l4 636.6 18.3 36.6‘ 43.3 101.7 156.7 186.7‘ 233.3 ..... uiHay, corn in ear, boiled cotton seed last seven weeks.

 

COTTON SEED HULLS AND SILAGE.

  
   
  
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
   
  
  
   
  
   
  
 
  

p Estimating the annual cotton crop of the State for the next decade at 1,7 50,“-
‘2000 bales, there would be produced some 875,000 tons of cotton seed; ._ If one-
fl half of the seed crop is converted into oil, meal, and hulls at the “oil mills, there
= will be something like 200,000 tons of hulls as the yearly output, which, with
cotton meal and other concentrated feed-stuffs, will fatten, as shown by our
experiments and results obtained from feeding at the oil mills, 200,000 head
of cattle.

i The use of all the hulls at the mills for feeding will increase the value of
potton seed and supply a home market for range cattle not in a condition to
the slaughtered, and thus benefit both cotton planter and cattle grower.

_' SILAGE "  f _. j
 used to but a limited extent as yet in the State for feeding cattle, but it has
,een tested sufliciently to have passed the experimental stage. More than
' 0,000 farmers, dairymen, and cattle feeders in the country have decided that
Silage is one of the cheapest and best cattle foods they can procure.

 Silage is similar to hay, except thatin place of drying a forage crop by ex-
osure to the sun and air after cutting, the crop is stored at once in a tight
_oom in the green state; and when fed out it still retains its succulent condi-
ion, and is therefore eaten cleaner and with more relish by stock than dry
odder. .

t The ensilage process enables the farmer to utilize coarse and rank growing
irops, such as corn and sorghum, which are cured as hay in the dry way with
ifficulty, and with considerable uncertainty and loss. Even at the best, if a

fy: ttle. But no matter how heavy the crop of corn and sorghum, if it is passed
rough the feed cutter and packed in the silo before becoming fully ripe, the
1 lks and ears are softened, and the entire plant is consumed without loss, if
id with care. y

 Land that will produce 30 to 35 bushels of corn to the acre will make 15
f of silage from either corn or sorghum. Sorghum thrives in any place in
exas where any farm crop will grow, and on the light soils and in dry years
p yields more to the acre than corn; '20 to 25 tons is not an unusual yield on
$1 best lands. Estimating man and horse labor at $1 per day each, the crop
‘pr silage, either corn or sorghum, may be grown, cut down, run through the

2 — B111. 1O

eavy crop is grown, the stalks are coarse and woody, and are rejected by the '

18 TEXAS A£HHCULTURAL EXPERIMENT STAJTON.

I

cutter, and stored in the silo ready to feed at a total cost of less than $1.50
per ton.*

O

COST OF SILO AND MACHINERY.

A 200-ton double silo, each room 1821182120 feet deep, built after the model
of the Station silos, will require some 12,000 feet of lumber, 10,000 shingles,
350 square yards of tarred paper, and 650 pounds of nails, spikes, and bolts;
and any man who can use a saw, square, and hammer can build it. A silo,
however, can be built on a cheaper plan that will answer every purpose. A
200-ton silo will hold sufficient silage to feed 100 steers for more than 100 days.

Thecost of feed cutter and horse power, with capacity for cutting up 20
tons of corn or sorghum forage per day is not above $17 5 laid down at any
railway station in the State, and with careful handling the outfit would last
ten years.

The larger the silo the less the cost of building in proportion to capacity.
The silo is not adapted to the needs of. the small farmer, as the cost of build;
ing and machinery is too large an investment to be supported by a few cattle.
The dairyman with 20 or more cows, and the farmer who fattens 30 to 50
steers, will find it profitable; while the extensive cattle feeder will find it al-
most indispensable to reduce the cost of feeding to the minimum.

For the reasons set forth we have paid especial attention to silage and cotton A

hulls in our feeding experiments, and from the foregoing it will be observed
that we have in cotton hulls; for cattle feeders in the vicinity of oil mills, cheap
rough fodder for feeding a large number of cattle; and by growing silage we
can produce cheap feed in almost any part of the State, and in unlimited quan-
tity, which in addition to our corn, hay, and other forage crops should enable
11s to fatten all cattle before they are slaughtered or leave the State.

FEEDING MOLASSES.

In looking over the different rations fed to different pens of steers it will be
‘noticed that we have included molasses in three of the pens. It was thought
that a little sweetening added to cotton hulls and meal might make the food
more palatable, and thus induce the cattle to eat more and gain faster. The
molasses was diluted with three parts water to one of molasses, and sprinkled
over the food at the rate of one-half pint of molasses per head per day.

Pens 10 and 11, fed cotton hulls and cotton meal with the molasses, ate
18.64 and 20.94 pounds of hulls per head per day; while pen 7, fed cotton
hulls and cotton meal, and pen 8, cotton hulls, cotton meal, and corn and cob
meal, ate 17.29 and 16.58 pounds hulls per head per day, showing a greater
consumption of hulls with molasses.

*John Gould, of New York State, who has had considerable experience in growing silage
crops, figures the cost of corn silage per acre as follows in a recent letter to the American

Dairyman: .
For the use of an acre of land . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . .$ 1 80

- Plowing and planting. . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 20

Rye sowed the fall before and plowed under for manure, 2 bushels . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . 90

Seed corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ 25

Taxesonland...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 2'7

Cultivation of crop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 25

Cutting, hauling, and running through cutter into silo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 50

$14 22

Yield, 1'7 loads of 2400 pounds, or 20.4 tons, at a cost of 7 cents per ton, which would

make the cost of a 50-pound ration per day L} cents. From this we see that an acre of fairly
good land will supply the rough forage to feed" one steer 500 days and over.

FEEDING EXPERIMENT. ~ l9

  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
   
  
  
  
  
   
   
   
  
   
   
  
  
 
  
    
  
    
   
  

 Pens 10 and 11 made the largest gains in weight of any of the lot of fifty
..illiamson County steers--237 .7 pounds and 251.6 pounds per head; and the
st of food per pound gain for pen 1O is as 10w as any of the cotton meal and
‘rn meal fed cattle, while in pen 11 it is a little higher, but still under the cost
1| four other pens of the lot.

 The same quantity of molasses per head was fed to pen 4 with silage and
lotton meal for 58 days. Comparing increase in weight of pen 4 with that
 pen 5, fed silage and cotton meal alone (Summary 1, Table 2.0, and Tables
L1 and 12), we notice that pen 4 made average gain of 200 pounds, while
r n 5 made 228. 7 pounds, a loss of 28. 7 pounds per head from feeding molasses.
Q The two pens were nearly of the sarneaverage weight. pPen 4 consumed
i 7.99 pounds of silage and 5.63 pounds cotton meal with the molasses, and
en 5 consumed 39.69 pounds of silage and 5.55 cotton meal per head per
Z ay-a little more silage, but not quite so much cotton meal—not sufficient dif-
erence in the amount of food consumed byeach pen to account for the dif-
erence in increase in weight, unless it is held that the molasses lowered the
utritive value of the ration.

' The figures in Tables 9 and 10, pens, 4 and 5, may account for the lesser
ain made by the molasses fed steers. Steer No. 1, pen 4, was a wild, raw-
ned animal, and gained but 140 pounds, while the average gain of the
ree other steers in the pen was 220 pounds.

f‘ In pen 5, the lowest gain made was 200 pounds, and the average gain of
he pen 228 pounds. If steer No. 1 had been as good a feeder as othe
i‘. ers in his pen, pen 4 would compare more favorably with pen 5. -
 We are inclined to believe that molasses does not improve a ration made
‘p largely of silage, and that it may be injurious to some slight extent. . The
w left uneaten soured at once, and the manger had a sour smell while the
[volasses was used, which was not the case with the hulls, meal and molasses
=tion. We are led to conclude that cheap molasses may be profitably added
_' cotton hulls and meal, but not to silage, which is alreadysweet orhas an
j id flavor which makes it palatable to -the animal.

SILAGE V. DRY CORN FODDEiR.

f Pen 1 was fed dry corn forage with boiled cotton seed to February 14,
rty-eight days. Silage was then substituted for corn. The average gain of
'5‘. pen to February l4, was 100 pounds. See Summary 2, Table 21.

 Pen 3 was fed silage and boiled cotton seed during the same time, and the
‘erage gain was 130.8 pounds.

 Pen 1 steers had some advantage in weight, averaging 37 pounds heavier
an pen 3 at the beginning.

i, The corn fodder was the same as the silage corn, except that when cut in
Ie field it was shocked, allowed to cure, and then hauled in and stored in the loft
 the barn without loss of leaves or ears. The silage corn was cut in the field,
guled at once to the cutter, and run into the silo. The forage was fed whole,
_i cattle eating the ears, shucks, and leaves, but refusing the stalks. Of the
rn forage placed in the mangers, 47 per cent was consumed by the cattle,
L 53 per cent refused. Yet this corn was cured and stored under the best
nditions, much better than could be expected on the average farm with a
gge crop ; 8.2 per cent of the silage fed to pen 3 during the same time was
iected, and 91.8 per cent consumed.

The steers in the difierent pens were fed in the same way, twice a day,
rning and night. The troughs were swept out clean each time before feed-
Q; and if any of the last feed remained, it was carefully weighed, and

2O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

if much remained, the quantity of the next meal was decreased. When
the steers cleaned out the troughs and seemed inclined to eat more, the quan-
tity was increased at the next meal.

Pen 1 consumed more cotton meal than pen 3. The steers in the two pens

were quite uniform, and gains in weight made in each pen did not vary widely,
except with steer No. 32, pen 1. This steer gained but 90 pounds in the 90 days
feeding, while the next lowest gain was 135 pounds. Steer No. 32, however,
was a round, smooth steer, in the highest flesh of any in entire lot of 50 at
the beginning, and a light eater, so that while he gained less than the average,
he consumed less also.

COTTON SEED V. COTTON MEAL.

Summary 1, Table 20, first lot of cattle, shows that cotton seed in pens 1
and 3 made increase in weight of steers at considerable less cost per pound
than the cotton meal in all the other pens of the first lot of steers. -

Pens 1 and 3, fed cotton seed; value of food for 1 pound gain, 2.55 to 2.8
cents.

Pens 2, and 4' to 11, fed cotton meal; value of food 3.71 to 4.6 cents for 1
pound gain. _

_ In the experiment of the previous winter}

Pens 3 and 4 fed, cotton seed; value of food per pound gain, 2.85 to 2.86
cents.

Pens 2, 6 and 7 , fed cotton meal; value of food per pound gain, 3.63 to 4.47

' cents.

The total gain in weight, however, is in favor of the cotton meal fed steers.

Pens 1 and 3, 1890, gained 161 and 164 pounds in 90 days.

Pens 4 to 11, 1890, gained from 200 to 251 pounds in 90 days.

In 1889 the largest gains were also made by the cotton meal fed steers.

Our two experiments seem to show quite conclusively that cotton seed at
$7 per ton is a much cheaper feed-stuff than cotton meal at $20, if calculated
on cost of food per pound gain made by steers; but, on the other hand, steers
fed on cotton meal gain so much more when fed 80 to 90 days, that the extra
cost is partly made‘ up in increased value of the steers due to- better condi-
tion.

SILAGE AND CORN.

Pen 2 was fed silage, corn, and cob meal, to compare with silage and cotton
seed, and silage and cotton meal. ..

Judged from a chemical analysis of the silage and corn ration, accord-
ing to the German standards, it would not be equal to silage and cotton seed
or cotton seed meal.

Silage and corn cob meal were fed for fifteen days. ~ The steers ate less than
half as much silage as pens 3, 4, and 5, that were getting silage, cotton seed,
and cotton meal. y

Two pounds of cotton meal were then added until February 14, 48 days.
The average gain in weight to this date was 1 02 pounds, but two pounds more
than the gain made on dry corn fodder and cotton seed in pen 1 ; while the
gain in all of the other pens ran above 130 pounds. See Summary 2, Table 21.

Sixipounds of cotton meal was then substituted for the grain part of the
ration, and better results were secured.

FEEDING EXPERIMENT. » 21

COTTON SEED ADDED TO CORN AND HAY.

Pen 14. second lot of steers, was fed hay and corn 30 days (see Tables 7
and 21), and steers gained 43.3 pounds-1.44 pounds per day each. In the
same time the steers of pen 12, fed silage, cotton hulls, and cotton meal, gained
136.5 pounds; and steers in pen 13, fed silage, hay, corn, and raw cotton seed,

gained 88.9. Boiled cotton seed was then added to the corn and hay, starting

with 3% pounds and increasing to nearly 9 pounds per day of dry seed. After
adding cotton seed, the steers made an average gain of 3.22 pounds per day,
more than either pens 12 or 13.

The steers of pen 14 were not dehorned, nor fed under shelter, as were the
other steers; but this would not have any special influence on the change in

the ration.

HAY AND CORN V. SILAGE, COTTON HULLS, COTTON SEED, AND COTTON MEAL.

The cattle in pen 14, fed hayand corn, gained 43.3 pounds in 30 days,
while the steers in pens 12 and 13, fed on silage and hulls, cotton seed, and

cotton meal, gained 136.5 pounds, and 88.9 pounds of-the second" lot of steers.

In the first lot of steers two pens gained 60 pounds, one pen gained 85 pounds,
and the remaining eight pens 102 pounds and over.

In our first feeding experiment, 1889, six steers in each pen:

Pen 8, fed hay and corn under shed 83 days, gained 173 pounds.

Pen 9, fed hay and corn in open lot 83 days, gained 158 pounds.

Pen 2, fed silage, hay, and cotton meal under shelter 83 days, gained 170

gpounds

Pen 3, fed silage hay, and boiled cotton seed under shelter 83 days, gained
173 pounds. - '

Pen 5, fed silage, hay, corn and cob meal, and cotton meal 83 days, gained
197 pounds. _ A ,

Pen 6, fed cotton hulls and cotton meal under shelter 83 days, gained 202

"pounds.

Pen 7, fed silage, hay, and cotton meal under shelter 83 days, gained 178
pounds.
Comparing the gain in weight of pens of steers fed hay and corn under

shelter with steers of pens fed silage, cotton hulls, and cotton meal rations, it

and hay for cattle.

will be noticed that one is 3 pounds less, one the same, while three are above

the gain made from corn and hay. ,
The results of the two years’ feeding experiments bear strong evidence as

to the superior feeding qualities of cotton seed products and silage over corn

O
EFFECT or VARYING THE RATION.
With the exception of pens 1, 2, 4, and 14, no change was made in the

feed-stuffs from which the rations were compounded in the first lot of steers
for 90 days, and in the second lot for 79 days. In pens 1, 2, 4, and 14 the

change made consisted simply in dropping and adding a single substance.

Summary 3, Table 22, shows that in nearly all of the pens the largest gains
in weight per day was made during the first 50 days’ feeding, and that after
that time the gains per day decreased gradually to the last ten days before

‘the ration was changed, after which the gain per day increased with all the
‘pens, except No. 4. .

After the cattle were turned together they were fed silage, cotton hulls,

22 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

hay, corn, boiled cotton seed, and cotton meal. The exact amount-of foodr
consumed was not kept. I

The importance of varying the ration after cattle have been fed some time
is shown in the gain made after changing the ration:

- ' Pounds.
The average daily gain of the first lot of 50 steers for '90 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5

From the 80th to the 90th day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

From the 90th to the 110th day, with change of food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . 1.9

The average daily gain of the second lot of cattle for 79 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . 3.09-

From the 69th to the 79th day .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .7

From the 79th to the 89th day... ... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f. . . . . . .. 4.22

_ Summary 3, Table 22, gives the daily gain of each pen for each ten days,
and the average gain of all the pens divided into groups. In pens l, 2, 4
and 14 the ration was changed during the first period, but in the other pens it
was the same for 90 days with the first lot of cattle, and 79 days with the
second lot of cattle. See Tables 1, 2. 3, 4, and 5. ‘

TABLE N0. 22.
_ SUMMARY NO. 3.
Gain in Weight per Head 1034" Day for Each Period of Ten Days.

 

E l 6 . w: 3. w" ‘ - i i
.29 3 .2 ‘” Z‘ w‘ w‘ =3 S‘ ‘i. l "2 2
g5 g» l 2 5‘ *2 6 3* 2 3 3  a;
N0. of pen. 9J3 '6 S‘ Q 2 E Z F: S Q  5.:
 -°~ 3 I; j i P‘ : E . 3 3 66.
is O t? o f: ‘5 f5 '5 3 ‘=56 ‘E P‘ 2
> 31‘ 8 a l c Y‘: .5 c: -— -~ l * <1’
<1 h. w E1 ‘ in F11 an cn Q Z l '5
___i___. km. ._‘.ii .___i_ . ________ _ i_.__.*__ _i__. m _._____ | . _
1 793.3 1.0 23 2.63 1.26 2.73 .66 1.33 2.06 1.6 I 2.201
2 ~ 692.6 1.26 ....... .. 4.76 _.12 4.26 .72 2.62 2.76 .27! 2.13
4 731.2 3.37 2.36 4.22 .62 3.37 2.12 1.26 ....... .. 3.12; 1.37
Average for the 3 pens ....... .. 2.04 1.71 3.83 .52 3.45 1.16 1.9 1.6 1.66,’ 1.91.
3 766 3 2.3 3.33 6.6 -.66 3.6 .33 2.0 1.0 -_.6 l 2.41
6 737.6 4.12 6.36 3.62 2.37 2.76 2.12 1.37 2.6 .76, 1.76
6 ..................... .. 730.0 6.6 2.14 4.17 1.32 3.17 1.32 2.32 3.17 1.171 2.16
7 713.7 4.76 1.73 2.6 1.32 3.22 1.62 3.0 1.76 1.261 2.31
3 ............ .. 732.6 6.0 4.23 2.37 .37 4.37 1.6 1.37 2.76 1.62] 2.06
9 726.6 4.42 3.21 4.16 1.37 2.93 2.2 2.43 1.76 .36; 1.71
10. 727.6 4.37 6.17 3.0 1.12 6.0 1.37 2.62 2.26 .....  1.31
11 _ ‘3633 3.6 3.33 6.66 .16 3.0 .6 2.66 2.33 ....... ..l 1.63-
Average for 8 pens ........................................... .. 5.05 3.57 3.95 .98 3.57 1.48 2.41 2.18 .28, 1.97
12,  6.71 6.43 6.6 3.3 2.66 6.36 1.76 3.6 .96 3.061 ....... ..
13 ........ .. ~ 662.3 1.72 12.61 4.9 3.23 3.66 2.39 3.33 .73 6.13, ....... ..
Average for 2 pen ....... .. 3.57 4.10 4.35 2.94 4.5 2.07 3.46 .84 ....... ..l ....... ..
14. 636.6 2.23 1.33 .66 6.66 6.0 3.0 3.33 1.03 4 6 I ....... ..

* Feed changed on tenth 10 days for pens 1 to ll, inclusive; on ninth 10 days for pens 12, 13, and l4—last three
pens fed 79 days. , .

Referring to the two leading questions submitted to the feed-stuffs and

cattle, we will consider, first,

9 WHAT IS BEST TO FEED WITH‘ COTTON HULLS?

Summaryil, Table 20, shows that in 90 days feeding-

Made Av. Cost of Food

Gain, lbs. per lb. Gain,

Pen 7, féd cotton hulls and cotton meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206.2 3.72 cts..

Pen 8, fed hulls, corn, and cob meal; . . . . . .3116. 0.011716231116511 . . . . . 206.2 4.09

Pen 9, fed hulls, cotton meal and hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 4.13

Pen 6, fed hulls, cotton meal, and silage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.3 ' 3.71

Pen 10, fed hulls, cotton meal, and molasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238.7 3.73

Pen 11, fed hulls, cotton meal, and molasses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251.3 4.1

In 1889, feeding 83 days: .
Pen 6, 6 steers, feed cotton hulls and cotton meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 3.63 cts
Pen 7, 6 steers, fed cotton hulls, cotton meal, and silage.. . . . . . . . . . . . 178 - 3.93
Pen 5, fed cotton hulls, cotton meal, corn and cob meal, and silage . . . . . . 197 5

FEEDING EXPERIMENT. 

The latter does not agree with the experiment of the present year, but we

consider the results of the last test of more value than those of the first, for.

the reason that the steers in the several pens were of more uniform quality
than in the first experiment, having all come from‘ the same pasture, while

the others were a mixed lot picked up over the country, and therefore liable .

to greater individual variation.

The experiments indicate thatcotton meal is the best and cheapest concen-
trated food to use with hulls, but that the cotton hull and meal ration may be
supplemented with something else and improved.

In the experiment just finished hay, silage, and molasses added to the cotton

hulls and meal increased the gain made, but corn and cob meal made no dif- '

ference except to increase the cost. An inspection of Summary 2, Table 2, will

show, however, that in this experiment corn does improve the cotton meal and,

hull ration.

Comparing the gains made by pens 7 and 8 from the beginning to the end
of each l0 days, it will be seen that the steers of pen 8 after the first 2O days
were from 20 to 30 pounds ahead in gain of the steers in pen 7 until the 80th
day, whe'n pen 8 had gained 222 pounds and pen 7 had gained but 183 pounds.
For some reason pen 8 lost in weight the last l0 days, shrinking to 206 pounds,
while pen 7 kept on increasing and reached the same weight. The gains made
by the pens after changing the ration are nearly alike, pen 7 having a slight
advantage.

The experiment seems to indicate that all the materials added to the cotton
meal and hull ration improved it, but when the value of increased gain, of the
ration, and cost is taken into consideration, molasses and silage give the best
results. "

It is well known that sugar is a fat producer. and that domestic animals
easily learn to relish sweets. That a little sweetening makes food more palat-
able to stock is by no means new, but we believe the use of cheap molasses for
this purpose has not been practiced to any extent in this country. We are
informed by the proprietor of one of the largest sugar houses in the State that
a cheap grade of molasses suitable for feeding purposes may be procured at
the sugar houses at from 12 to l4 cents per gallons,_ f. o. b., if forwarded in
tanks or return packages. At this rate molasses could be laid down at feed-
ing plants at the oil mills at 16 cents or less per gallon, and half a pint per
day would add only 1 cent to the cost of the day’s rations, exclusive of the

. additional quantity of food that the animal would consume. We would sug-

gest a trial of molasses to men feedingycotton- hulls_and meal at the oil mills.

WHAT TO FEED WITH SILAGE. . ' ,

‘Summary 2, Table 21. shows in 90 days feeding without change o_f ration:

Made Av. Cost of Food
Gain, lbs. per lb. Gain.

Pen 3, fed silage and boiled cotton seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.1 _ 2.8 cts.
Pen 5, fed silage and cotton meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228.7 3.83
Pen 6, fed silage, cotton meal, and cotton hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.3 3.71
Pen l, fed corn fodder 50 days, then silage 40 days, xvith boiled cotton

seed.  . .. .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . ..»...‘.....16l.6 2.55
Pen 2, silage, corn and cob meal atfirst, which was gradually replaced

by cotton meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . 163 7 4.6

In the second lot of’ steers-
Pen 12, silage, cotton hulls, and cotton meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 2.72
Pen 13, silage, hay, corn in ear, and raw cotton seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 3.1

The value of corn fodder, compared with silage, and corn to feed with si-
lage, has been referred to. Page 19. ' '

24, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

In 1889, as reborted in Bulletin N0. 6, feeding 83 days :

a Made Av. Cost of Food

Gain, lbs. PM 1h. Gain.
Pen 4, ted silage, raw cotton seed, and hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 2.86 cts.
Pen 3, fed silage, boiled cotton seed, and hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 2.85
Pen 2, fed silage, cotton meal, and hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 4.47
Pen 5, fed silage, cotton meal, and hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 5 ,

The experiments show a decided advantage of cotton meal over cotton
seed to combine with silage, so far as increase in gain is concerned. The
cost per pound gain, however, is the lowest with the cotton seed.

' Comparing pens 12 and 13, the former made the larger gain, which we are
inclined to“ believe would not have been the case if cooked instead of raw
seed had been fed to pen 13.

In the experiment of 1889 it will be seen that cooked cotton seed with si-
lage made 25 pounds more gain per head in pen 3 than raw seed with silage
made in pen 4, but the cost of food per pound gain was the same. Pen
2, with cotton meal instead of cotton seed, made 3 pounds less gain than pen
3, but at a cost of food per pound gain of 4.47 cents, while the seed made the
gain at a cost for food of 2.85 cents. i

Pen 2 included an inferior steer, which may account for cotton meal in
this pen making less gain thanicotton seed, which is contrary to the results
obtained in other pens in the experiments of both years.

The steer referred to gained but 60 pounds in 83 days, the next lowest
gain being 135 pounds, and the average gain of the other five steers in the
pen 192 pounds. .

The experiments of the two years seem to show quite conclusively that
cotton seed meal excels cotton seed to feed with silage, but while the gain
for the time is greater, the cost of food per pound gain is also greater.

COTTON SEED V. COTTON MEAL

As feed stuffs in the early part of feeding.

It having been shown that a change in the ration led to increased gains in
all the pens, after feeding more than two months, regardless of the ration the
cattle had received, it becomes a matter of interest to know if cotton seed,
costing less than cotton meal, will answer the same purpose for the first half
or more of the time the cattle are fed.

Itshould be remembered that as cattle gain in fat the gain per day decreases,
and the amount of food consumed for one pound gain increases, other things
being equal. Therefore, at the end of 90 days feeding the steers which had
made the largest gains should not be expected to take on weight with a dif-
ferent ration as rapidly as cattle that made lower gains.

Pens 1 and 3 fed silage and cotton seed: Pgundg,
"Totalaveragegainfor90days....  . . . .  ... .~ . . . . . . .. 162.6
Gain per day for 90 days.. . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.85
Gain per day from 90th to 110th day, ration changed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.3
Total average gain for 110 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211.6

Pens 2, 4, 5 and 6'fed silage and cotton meal: .

Total average gain for 90 days . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206.4
Gain per day for 90 days . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 . . . . . . .' . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. 2.29
Gain per day from 90th to 110th day, ration changed . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8

Total average gain for 110 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246.6

FEEDING EXPERIMENT. 25

Pen 7, fed cotton hulls and cotton meal: Pounds,
. Average gain for 9O days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206.2
Gain per day for 90 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.29
Gain per day from 90th to 110th day. . . .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . 2.1
Total average gain for 110 days. .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.51
Pens 6, 8, 9, 1.0, and 11 fed, cotton hulls, cotton meal and corn meal, silage, hay and molasses:
Total average gain for 90 days . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230.
Gain per day for 90 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . 2.51
Gain per day from 90th to 110th day, ration changed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.82
Total average gain for 110 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . 266.3

The silage and cotton seed fed cattle make the lowest total gain, 211.6
pounds; lowest for the first period and highest for the last.

Silage and cotton meal and_ cotton hulls and cotton meal make 246.6 and
252.5 pounds ; total gain respectively the same gain per day for first period,
but hulls and meal fed cattle do better on the changed ration. -

The pens fed cotton hulls and cotton meal, with some other food, make
the largest total gain, 266.3 pounds; the largest gain per day for first period,
but same gain as silage and cotton meal fed cattle on the changed ration.

The cotton hull and meal ration, with some additional food, gives the best
results as a single ration, or to prepare the animal for finishing on some other
ration, but the lower cost of the cotton seed and silage rations places the
farmer who desires to feed cattle on a par with the oil mill men.

HAY AND CORN. v

It is not the aim of this investigation to discourage the use of corn and hay
for fattening cattle.

Texas has a large area of land specially adapted to corn growing, and on
which corn is the most certain and reliable crop the farmercan grow. At
present a great deal of this corn will not sell for more than 20 cents per bushel,
after paying cost of moving to the station and railway charges for transporta-
tion to market. ' ~

This corn should be converted into beef and pork, and with the present
and prospective prices for cattle and hogs, corn may be made to bring more
than 20 cents a bushel, if fed under the best conditions.

In the. experiment of 1889, estimating corn at 40 cents per bushel and hay

at $6 per ton, six steers made average gain of 173 pounds, at cost of 4.16 ~-

cents. and five steers made average gain. of 158 pounds, at cost of 6.83 cents
per pound gain for food consumed; the former fed under shelter, the latter
in open lot.

The result obtained with pen 14 the present year in adding boiled cotton
seed to corn and hay indicates that we could have lowered the cost for food

from 25 per cent to 30 per cent, by adding boiled cotton seed to the hay and \ “

corn rations referred to.

Pen 8, 1889, fed under shed, consumed per head in 83 days, 16.17 bushels
corn and 256 pounds hay, and gained l7 3 pounds.

Pen 9, fed in open yard, consumed per head in 83 days, 18.01 bushels corn
and 1200 pounds hay, and gained 158 pounds. _

Pen 11, 1890, fed in open yard, consumed per head in 79 days, 15.13
bushels corn, 591.5 pounds hay, 342.5 pounds cotton seed, and gained 233.3
pounds.

26 “TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Year. _ . Average Daily Ration. Food per Pound gain. ‘éaggfipflfgg Gsggrpgéa%éy
1889-—Pen 8.. 3.09 lbs. bay. > 1.47 lbs. hay. 44 cts. 2.09 pounds.
10.91 lbs. corn. 5.22 lbs. corn. 3.73 cts.
4.17 cts.
1889-—Pen 9.. 14.1 lbs. hay. 7.4 lbs. hay. 2.26 bbs. 1.9 pounds.
12.15 lbs. corn. 6.38 lbs. corn. 4.54 cts.
I 6.80 cts. fl
1890-—Pen 14. 7.49 lbs. hay. 2.57 lbs. hay. .75 bbs. l 2.95 pOuDdS.
' , 10.72 lbs corn. 3.63 lbs. corn. 2.59 cts. 
4.46 lbs. .cotton seed. 1.46 lbs. cotton seed. n .52 cts. l ‘
3.86 cts. l

There was considerable hay wasted in pen 9-, although the feeding was care-

fully done. The steers. in pen 14 were better eaters than the steers in pens‘

8 and 9, but the more rapid gain is largely due to adding boiled cotton seed
to the corn and hay ration- The fact that in feeding this pen of steers corn
and hay for thirty days they made the least daily gain in weight of any of
the pens, and that after adding cotton seed they gained as rapidly as any of
the pens (see page 21), supports this view.

The cost of food per pound gain with corn, hay and cotton seed is below
that of several pens on cotton hulls and cotton meal, and if we estimate the
value of corn, hay, and cotton seed at'average farm prices in the corn belt,
it will reduce the cost per pound gain nearly to that of the cheapest foods, and
to a figure that can not be reached in the Northern States.

HOGS WITH COTTON SEED FED CATTLE.

Pigs were put in with the cattle in pens 12 and 13, one pig to each steer, and
the increase in weight determined from January 26 to March 16, fifty days.
Very little food was scattered on the ground in feeding the cattle (the man-

p, gers were constructed so that the steers could not throw it out), and the plgs

were practically confined to the droppings of the cattle and corn fed to them
direct. A l

It was thought best to feed each lot of pigs suflicient corn to keep them quiet . .
and in good growing condition, but not enough to keep them from getting,

_ hungry. I .
In pen 12, cattle fed silage, cotton hulls, and cotton meal: Poumm
January 26, average weight of pigs . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57

March 16, average weight, of pigs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.5

Average gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.5

Pounds corn per head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 132

Pounds corn fed per pound gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.39
Pen 13, cattle fed silage. hay, corn in ear, and raw cotton seed:
January 26, average weight of pigs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52

March 16, average weight of pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Average gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34

Pounds corn fed per head . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108.3

Pounds corn fed per pound gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.18

- In pen 12 one bushel corn, in addition to cattle waste, made 12.75 pounds gain.
In pen 13 one bushel corn, in addition to cattle waste, made 17.61 pounds gain.

FEEDING EXPERIMENT. 27

The waste from silage, hay, corn, and cotton seed fed steers gave approxi-
mately 36 per cent more increase in weight than the waste from silage, cotton
meal, and hull fed steers.

The low increase in weight made as compared with the usual gains made by
hogs running after fattening cattle may be accounted for perhaps by the
crowded condition of the pens, and the fact that practically none of the food
given to the cattle was thrown on the ground where the pigs could get it.

In-the usual manner of feeding corn and hay in racks in open lots, a con-

siderable quantity of the corn is dropped on the ground in filling the troughs,

and the cattle throw out a good deal, so that pigs are by no means confined
to the undigested corn voided by the cattle. a

There is no question but that in feeding dehorned cattle under shelter with
properly arranged troughs, even with whole corn and hay, that the value of
the waste for hog food will be decreased 30 to 50 per cent compared with the
ordinary method of feeding, and that when whole corn is replaced partly or
wholly by corn meal, cotton seed, and cotton meal, that the value of the waste
will again be reduced to a considerable extent. ,

The cattle and pigs were in too close quarters for the best welfare of the
pigs, and this single test, no doubt, does not fairly represent the full value of
the waste from the two rations fed to cattle. The two lots of pigs had an
equal chance, and it may therefore represent the comparative value of the two
rations.

SILAGE AND COTTON HULLS FOR SHEEP.

Two lots of common native sheep, nine in each, were put in pens, and one
fed on silage and raw cotton seed, the other on cotton hulls and cotton meal.
The sheep were fed all they would eat for 64 days.

 

Pen 1, 9 sheep, fed silage and cotton seed: ~ Poundg_
Average weight January 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; 62

March 6, average gain per head... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4

Average gain per head per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193

Silage consumed per head per day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.62

Cotton seed consumed per head per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .814
Food consumed per head: i A

169.75 pounds silage at $2 per_ ton... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 cts.

52.17 pounds cotton seed at $7 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Cost of food for 64 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Cost of food per pound gain (cents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.82
Pen 2, 9 sheep, fed cotton hulls and cotton meal: Pounds.

Average weight January 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.5

March 6, average gain per head . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.8

Average gain per head per day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278

Cotton hulls consumed per head per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

Cotton meal consumed per head per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

Food consumed per head: v

62.2 pounds cotton hulls at $3 per ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 cts..
62.2 pounds cotton meal at $8 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2
Cost of food for 64 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.4
Cost of food per pound gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 cts.

The foregoing test was made preliminary to feeding several pens of sheep
to compare the effect of different rations on sheep, and returns made by cattle
and sheep for food consumed. '

 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

The sheep seemed to take their food regularly, but they did not eat enough,

i and did not gain in weight as they should.

It required 13.75 pounds silage and 4.20 pounds cotton seed to produce 1
pound gain in weight, and 3.49 pounds cotton hulls and 3.49 pounds cotton
meal to produce l pound gain in weight.

Sheep have been successfully fattened on cotton-hulls and cotton meal, and
we must therefore charge our lack of success to poor quality of the sheep, or
to unskillful feeding. -

CONCLUSIONS.

l. The experiments for the two winters show that of our different cattle
foods, a ration made up of cotton hulls and cottonmeal is equal, if not superior,
to a ration of any other two feed-stuffs used for fattening cattle, but acheaper
ration may be compounded of silage and cotton seed, or of corn, hay, and
cotton seed, at the prices given.

2. That theaddition of some other feed-stuff to the cotton hull and cotton
meal ration makes it more palatable to cattle, and produces better results in
gain in weight. Corn meal, hay, silage, and-molasses, each one added to
cotton hulls and cotton meal, made larger gains than hulls and meal alone,.in
the order named, molasses giving the best result.

3. Of the several rations containing silage, silage, cotton hulls, and cotton

i meal gave the best gains. Silage and cotton meal second. Silage and boiled

cotton seed third. Silage, corn and cob meal, and cotton meal fourth. Silage,
corn and cob meal fifth. Dry corn fodder did not give as large gain as silage.
Molasses did not improve the ration containing silage.

4. Cotton hulls and cotton meal with hay, corn, silage, and molasses gave
larger gains than silage and cotton meal, or silage and cotton seed.

5. Cotton seed meal, with other feed-stuffs and fodders, gave larger gains
than cotton seed with other feed-stuffs and fodders.

6. Cotton seed, with other feed-stuifs and fodders, made gains at less cost
for food per pound gain than cotton meal with other feed-stuffs and fodders.

7. After feeding any of th-e rations used without change for 6O days, the
daily gain diminished until finally, in some pens, it ceased entirely; but with
a change of ration, the daily gain in all of the pens was largely increased, in
some pens exceeding the average of the first period of feeding.

8. Corn and hay alone is more costly, and will not fatten cattle so rapidly

i as rations containing cotton seed and cotton meal, with cotton hulls or silage;

and boiled cotton seed added to the corn and hay ration makes more rapid
gain than corn and hay alone, and at considerable less cost per pound for food
consumed.

9. The waste from cattle fed hay, corn, silage, and raw cotton seed was
worth considerable more for hogs running after the steers than the waste
from cattle fed silage, cotton hulls, and cotton seed meal.

FEEDING CATTLE IN OTHER STATES.

A copy of the following letter was sent to several cattlemen and persons
interested in stock, in Texas and in other States: ‘

DEAR SIR-I want to get estimates of the cost of fattening cattle in different sections of
the countr . I shall be under obligations if you will give me the benefit of‘ your experience
and observations in replying to the following questions, referring to your State:

1. What feed-stuffs are used by your cattle feeders?

2. Average value past winter; average value past five years.

FEEDING EXPERIMENT. 29

3. What is the daily ration; how long are cattle fed, and what is the gain made and cost
of same‘?
4. Is it believed by cattlemen_that it pays to shelter cattle while feeding?

Many replied that they could not give the desired information, as weights
of cattle and quantity of food consumed were so seldom kept; and others stated
they would reply as soon as data could be secured.

We extract from several of the replies received:

Flrom R. L. Maupin, Mobile, Alabama: .

Fed 7 00 head this winter; sold 500 to date; 40 steers cost 2% cents gross, remainder 2 cents;
500 sold averaged 650 pounds weight when put up and 850 pounds when sold, and averaged
100 days feeding.

I
Average daily ration: ~ l ' a Cents,
l8 pounds cotton hulls, worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3.5

5 pounds cotton meal, worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4 pounds cracked corn, worth.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Cost of labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5

Cost per day per head (cents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Which would make the average gain in weight cost 6 cents per pound.
Sold 100 head early at 3 cents; a little later 100 more at 3% cents, and still later 300 head
at 31} cents; expect to do better on the remaining 200 head.

From Mr. Maupin’s figures we have for the 500 sold:

 

To 460 steers, 299,000 pounds, at 2 cents per pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,980
To 40 steers, 26,000 pounds, at 2% cents per pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635
To 100 days food and care 500 head, at l2 cents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,000

$12,613
By l00 beeves, 85,000 pounds, at 3 cents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . $ 2,550
By 100 beeves, 85,000 pounds, at 31} cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,975
By 300 beeves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . ..  . . . . . . . . .. a  8,925.

$14,450

Not allowing for losses, profit of $1837.

Mr. Maupin writes that he dehorned 200 head, but the winter was so warm '

that the worms gave ‘him a great deal of trouble- so much so that he-lost a
good deal of time and food with the dehorned steers, and four of the steers
died. In replying to a second letter, Mr. Maupin states that the bad effects
were due to the worms, and not to the dehorning direct.

Flrom C. L. Ingersol, Director af the Colorado Experiment Station, Fort Cbllins, Colorado:

Most feeders use alfalfa alone and feed in racks. They build sheds open to east and south,
give fresh water, and allow the steers to run loose all the time. If a few seem weaker than
the rest they are separated in a smaller corral and given alittle better chance. Rubbing posts
are erected, and salt boxes fastened between stakes, and lumps of rock salt placed in them.
I will get some data, from a feeding farm just west of here, where alfalfa alone is being and
has been fed for five years. They make the hay net them about $6 per ton, however, year
by year, after paying all expense. They buy steers or bring their own in ofi the range for
this purpose. Hope to get the data Within a weekfor you.

You will understand, however, that nearly all Colorado beef is cut out at the round-ups in
June and November, and shipped to Chicago and Kansas City.

It is well attested that shelter is valuable, and no corral is built without some shed shelter,
often made of poles, brush, and earth only.

From l/V. A. Henry, Director of the l/Wsconsin Experiment Station:
Your questions about steer feeding are very diflicult to answer, because there is no care-

fully collected data at hand. Our best feeders usually rely on “shock corn,” i. a, corn which »

has been cut and shocked in the field, and from which the ears have not been husked. This,
shock corn is drawn directly from the field as needed, and thrown into large feeding boxes.

3O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

The cattle are supplied in great abundance, the corn being in front of them most of the time.
A great deal of the corn passes unmasticated, and is picked up from the droppings by hogs,
which gain rapidly therefrom. You can easily see that figures are ‘difficult to obtain, under
the circumstances. An average of two feeding trials by us gives the following: To make
100 pounds of gain, steers ate 677 pounds of grain, which was one-third bran-and two-thirds
shelled corn, together With 518 pounds of hay. Hogs following these steers required 154
pounds ‘of corn for 100 pounds of gain, showing that the hogs got the equivalent of 350
pounds of corn from the droppings of the steers. Our feeders doubtless get from 6 to l0
pounds of gain from a bushel of corn and the fodder which goes with it, while the hogs
probably gain about 3 pounds for the same. Shelled corn was worth about 30 cents this
year; 35 to 40 past years. The daily ration is all the cattle will eat, which amounts to
enough to put on a gain of about 2g- pounds a day. Our cattlemen do not believe in tying
up cattle in warm barns, but rather in having an open shed, under which they can run to
get out of the storms, with a part of the yard left uncovered. The system is to feed heavily,
with hogs following. It seems very crude, but after all it is the proper way, judging from
the results; Many feeders get all their profits from what the hogs gain; indeed, without
the hog adjunct, I think steer feeding would be almost entirely given up at the West, with
present prices for cattle.
The above is not very satisfactory, but the best I can do.

Front Samuel Johnson, recently President of ZVIichigan Shorthorn Breeders’ Association, and

Professor of Agriculture, Jlfiehigan Agricultural College, Lansing, Zllichigan:

1. Corn and oats ground in equal parts is the principal grain fed in Michigan. A good
deal of wheat bran and some oil meal and other grains are used to some extent, but the main
dependence is the corn and oats. Straw, corn fodder, and hay are the rough fodders used.

2. Oats, 25 cents per bushel; corn, 4O cents per bushels; wheat bran, $11 per ton; hay,
$8. The average for five years would not be materially changed from those figures, except

- corn, which has ranged higher.

3. The daily ration depends on age and weight of cattle fed, of course. I mail you two of
my college bulletins that will help to answer this inquiry.

4. The majority of our cattlemen and all of our best feeders believe in shelter. Cattle can
not be profitably fed in Michigan without protecting in the winter season.

From George E. Morrow, Professor of Agriculture, Uhampaign, Illinois:

Most of the beef cattle in Illinois are fattened on Indian corn as the sole grain ration, with
grass in summer; grass or clover hay, corn fodder, and perhaps some straw in winter.

For the whole State the corn was worth last winter from 20 to 25 cents per bushel on the
farms; the hay about $5 per ton. For the past five years the average value of the corn may
be placed at 28 to 30 cents per bushels, 5- cent per pound for shelled corn; with the hay at
$5 to $6 per ton, % cent per pound.-

It is difficult to give the average daily ration. In the majority of cases the feeders give the
cattle practically all they will eat of corn, feeding the ears, or more rarely the shelled corn in
boxes, in fields or yards; or feeding stalks and ears together, either in racks or on the ground.
From one-fourth to one-third of a bushel per day roughly approximates the ration per day of
corn.

There is great variation in practice as to length of time cattle are fed. Many commence
grain feeding in early fall, with new corn fed to the cattle still on pasture, continuing this
until winter is fairly established—three months or more. Others, and in large numbers, com-

mence full feeding in late winter or early spring, continuing until cattle are well fattened after _

being turned on the grass. Still others full feed fora year or more. Usually the largest gains
in proportion to the grain fed are made by the cattle under the first described system; under
favorable circumstances as much as 90 pounds per month each for three months. It is diffi-
cult to make a satisfactory estimate of the cost of this gain. Feeders expect a profit, in part,
from the increased value of the whole carcass, and also from the pork made by the pigs, which
almost always have access to the droppings of the cattle. My belief is that with good cattle
and good management, good beef cattle can be sold at the farms in Central Illinois at 4 cents
per pound live weight, and give a small profit.

The older class of feeders rarely put a belief in the value of shelter for fattening cattle
into practice. The percentage which have sheds while being fattened is increasing some-
what rapidly. In Northern Illinois sheds or stables are the rule. I

It will be understood that thousands of cattle are fattened in the State under very different
management from any indicated above. In connection with the large distilleries many cattle
are fed. In the aggregate many cattle are fed in stables, with ground grain, oil cake, etc.,
butthese make but a small percentage of the whole number annually fattened.

FEEDING EXPERIMENT. 31

Front R. P. Spear, Director 0f Iowa F/icperintent Station."

In answer to your letter, I will say that I have not had as much experience in feeding cattle
as many other Iowa stockmen. I have given‘ most attention to the feeding of dairy cows; but
I can answer most of your questions. Corn has been worth from 16 to 20 cents per bushel

in Iowa during the past winter. Average value during the past five years, about 25 cents

per bushel.

Corn is the feed used in fattening cattle and hogs. There is no daily ration. Generally the '

cattle are allowed all the corn that they will eat. But little attention is given to daily gain.
When the market is favorable the cattle are shipped that are in shipping condition, and the
poorer ones are allowed to run longer on the feed. Corn is generally fed in the ears. For
fully grown cattle, the only shelter required is a good grove.

If feed was more costly it would pay better to give better protection.
~ What I have said applies to the large feeders. The small feeders do give shelter to their
steers, but generally the small feeders have made no money during the last ten years.

It don’t pay to feed less than a car load, and then the owners should ship their own steers.

From William Saunders, Director Central Experimental Station, Ottawa, Canada:

Yours of the 27th received. I am not very familiar with the subject of cattle feeding gen-
erally, my work confining me very close to the Experimental Farm here; but I understand
-our cattle feeders are getting to use ensilage very generally, and supplementing it with hay,
bran. ground oats, peas, and roots. I can not say what the average value of fodder has been
in Canada, as the price varies so much in different sections of country. Hay in this vicinity
has been worth $11 per ton, but in some parts of Canada it is worth more, and in other sec-
tions only $7 or $8. Roots are estimated to be worth about $4 per ton. Bran costs about
$12 per ton here, and ensilage costs us on the Experimental Farm $1.80 per ton in the silo.
I can not say what the average has been during the past five years. The daily ration fed to
our cattle here (we have only had them in stock a few months) is 25 pounds ensilage, 20
pounds of roots, 4 pounds of bran, and 2 pounds of ground oats, with -§~ peas, and 10 pounds
of straw; this _is the ration for a cow weighing 1000 pounds; for heavier cattle there is an
increase ‘in proportion. Under this ration some of our cattle have gained as much as three
pounds per day, others gained a pound or a pound and a half; much depends on the breed of
the animal and the constitution of the individual. Our best cattlemen here stallfeed their
cattle, and give them good warm stables in the winter.