ﬂy If
_w’ '1.’ l '
Y.’ ’ .» ." ., "-.,.,~,V_.. ..,..-.
. ) ‘ﬁrs; E p l, --  .  km. ~ - '

' If . .
‘ >r< h

v - n “ ' \ ' ~ l

‘ r x ' .A p 4 ‘- > *'V_ - ' 1 V»!

t“ v 47'?‘ ./ I . '   a l’. .. ~ »*‘ ‘ ‘ “w "W ‘ ~"
- .

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

BULLETIN N0. 13,

DECEMBER, 1890.

SORGHUM:

VALUE AS A FEED STUFF; EFFECT ON SOIL.

TEosiNTE =

ANALYSES AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF GIZOWTH.

 

MISCELLANEOUS ANALYSES.

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS.

All Bulletins of this Station are issued free. Any one interested in any branch of aggrieulture may
have his name placed on our permanent mailing list, and secure future numbers, by application to
_ GEO. W. CURTIS, DIRECTOR,
In requesting Bulletins, write name and address plainly. CoHege Station, Brazos 00., Texas.

    

    
  
   
  
          

   
 

 

I!" ..

'-|| |
‘THAI
 l:

    
 

 
  
  

  
   
 

 

' ’i:".'i

AUSTIN:
STATE PRINTING OFFICE.
1390.

[27]

 

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL PIXPEHIMPINT STATION.

cvsFicmias. 1.1:,   i; srrAFF.   

GOVERNING fﬁlJixRD.

BOARD GT?‘ DIRECTORS A. AND M. COLLEGE.

MAJ. A.. J-fjRosm, President A o . , . . .. ~. . . . Salado.
Hon. L. L. FOSTER, State C<~ . Agriculture. .A12.stin.
Hon. W. R. CAVITT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .P1.y..-:.a.
DR.‘ J. D. FIELDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i‘Ja.r.-.;-r.
Hon. J 012m ADRIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Co1umbia..

FINANCIAL OFFICERS.

J. S. FowLKEs, Fiscal Agent . . . . . . . . . . . “Bryan.
Vwlc-PRmsT. W. L. BRINGHURST, Act. TreaswCollege Station.

STATION STAFF.

G110. W. CURTIs, M. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agriculturist, Director.

H. H. HARRINGTON, M. Sc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chemist.

M. FRANCIS, D. V. M. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Veterina.ria.n.

S. A. BEACH, B. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Horticulturist.

D. ADRIANCE, M. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Meteorologist, Assistant Chemist

J. W. CARSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assista.nt to Director.

J. M. CARSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assista.nt Agriculturist.

P. S. TILsoN, B. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assista.nt in Chemistry.
[23]

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

SORGHUM.

H. H. HARRINGTON, M. S.; DUNCAN ADRIANGE, M. S.; P. S. TILSON, B. S. A.

The following study of sorghum was begun during the session of 1889
and 1890, and much of the work done during that time. The planting and-
cultivating were done under direction of Prof. F. A. Gulley. The object of
the experiment was-

1. To discover by analysis any differences that might exist in the differ-
ent varieties of sorghum.

2. To discover any difference in the composition of sorghum between the
time of “dough state” and the time of ripening.

3. To ﬁnd its value as a feed stuff and as silage.

4. To estimate the amount of plant food removed from the soil by one
crop.

Within the past few years sorghum has received widely extended atten-
tion as a feed stuff. Previously, in some sections of the country, the heads

only were appreciated, while in other districts it was the stalk that was sup- A

posed to make up the value of the plant. Happily, farmers are now every-
where grasping the fact that the entire plant is valuable for forage. -

With the introduction of silos, the sorghum crop for silage grew rapidly
into favor. This was the case, not only because of the large yield per acre,
but upon trial because of its richness, in fattening properties particularly.
It is not, however, as a silage crop that sorghum is valuable to the average
farmer, whose means or convenience does not permit the establishment of a
silo. This can be built only by the farmer of considerable means, or one
feeding through the winter a comparatively large number of cattle. But
any man, however small his farm, or however limited his stock—whether cat-
tle, hogs, or horses--can proﬁtably raise sorghum as a forage crop. When
there is no pasture, a condition that prevails in most of the Southern States
at some time during the summer season, sorghum is valuable for soiling
milch cows. It has been found so here in the dairy work by Prof. Curtis,
and is reported as being a great stimulant for milk production in absence of
other green and succulent feed.

If it is intended for forage, two to three cuttings in this climate can be
made during- one season. From our analytical work, and from reasonable
expectation, the nearer ripe the cane can be at time of cutting the more nu-
tritive it is. But if as many as three cuttings are made in one season, it can
not be allowed to ripen at any time, and a small amount of nutritive richness
must be sacriﬁced for a considerable increase of tonnage. As a hay it is pal-
atable and readily eaten by horses and cows, and when nearly ripe, or quite
so, by hogs. If cut and fed during its growth in its green state, it becomes
a most valuable adjunct to corn. Hogs may be easily carried through the

summer months on sorghum alone, and kept in good condition for fattening A

[29]

3O

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

in the fall and winter.

plication, either from not being generally appreciated or from negligence, i8 l;

not widely extended.

In the western part of this State, where there is but little rainfall, sorghum 
makes an excellent growth, and for winter feed is frequently not housed, but»

shocked or stacked in the ﬁeld.

are spoiled, the inner ones remaining fresh and partially green.
ful if this method could be practiced where there is a considerable amount of

Many farmers are familiar with this fact, but its ap-i;

 

ﬁaclcvjng generally consists in leaning the f’?
stalks together from the opposite sides of a horizontal pole ; in this condition, Q
as in that of shocking after the manner of ﬁeld corn, only the outside stalks 
It is doubt¢

rainfall ; though, so far as I know, no experiments have been made to decide 

this point.
TABLE or ANALYSES.

In the table of analyses it will be noticed that the time intervening between 

the two analyses of the same cane is about two weeks.

collected-all being collected under similar conditions as near as possible.
The noticeable features in the table as a Whole are :

1. The increase of crude fat as the cane ripened.
2. The decrease of crude ﬁbre—-the woody material.

.. 3. The increase of protein or nitrogenous substance.
4. The increase of carbohydrates: sugars, starch, etc.

These changes are such as we should have anticipated, except as regards a

the woody ﬁbre, yet this accords with Helreigle’s experiments upon the oat
plant. We should have expected that to increase with the age of the plant.
The difference, while noticeable, is not very great. Beginning at sorghum
No. 15 in the table, this and the remaining numbers, except the last two, are
non-saccharine. Between these and the saccharine sorghums there is a great
difference. In the former there is notably a larger increase of dry matter
that gives it an apparent but ﬁctitious value over the saccharine sorghums.
The mineral matter or ash is somewhat larger in the non-saccharine, and the
carbohydrates, or nitrogen free extract, is increased, chieﬂy 1n consequence of
the increase of dry matter. The crude ﬁbre is very much increased. and it
is this fact that detracts most from its value. At the last cutting nearly all
the non-saccharine varieties were “pithy” and almost devoid of taste.

If we take the individual varieties, either among the saccharine or the non-
saccharine, there is hardly sufficient uniform difference to warrant the state-
ment that one variety is better than another. While there would be a differ-
ence in the sugar content, this difference would be so small, or be partially
neutralized by a change somewhere else, that no perceptible variation would
appear in a practical feeding test. A large part of the analytical work in
Table l was done by Mr. Walter Wipprecht. late Assistant Chemist to the
Station. Table No. 2 presents the same sorghums, except the percentage con-
stituents are calculated to one hundred parts. .

But it was the stage i
of maturity, rather than the time, that determined when a sample should be *

SORGHUM.

TABLE No. 1.
Wet Substance.

31

Q 0 _ .
2E . 8g»; 3% g 8'
Name. gé g 2g  g g“: g
Q =0 8 m <1 6 5 r11
Wambovvse cane. . . . . . . . July 26 75.43 24.57 1.82 1.15 8.00 1.06
Wambowse cane . . . . . . . . . Aug. 24 71.63 28.37 2.00 2.12 7.81 1.25
Improved Orange.. . . . . . July 26 72.07 27.93 1.54 2.44 8.16 .93
Improved Orange . . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 79.72 20.28 1.19 1.62 4.89 1.18
White African . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 72.07 27.93 1.94 1.40 7.90 1.31
White African . . . . . . .. Aug. 5 70.79 29.21 1.72 2.33 6.32 1.37
Dutch Hybrid . . . . . . . July 26 72.31 27.69 1.52 1.31 8.04 1.41
Dutch Hybrid... ..... Aug. 5 70.70 29.80 1.61 2.64 7.76 1.56
Early Tennessee . . . . . . . . July 26 73.90 26.10 1.73 .62 7.52 .87
Early Tennessee . . . . . . . . . Aug. 6 70.65 29.35 1.94 1.44 7.73 2.18
Planters Favorite. .. July 26 73.95 26.05 1.91 .53 7.62 1.12
Planters Favorite. . . . . Aug. 5 70.50 29.50 1.44 2.95 6.63 1.23
Price’s New Hybrid . . . . . . July 26 72.52 27.48 1.67 .58 8.41 . 8
Price’s New Hybrid .. . . . Aug. 6 72.77 27.23 1.71 1.94 6.84 1.62
Swain’s Early Golden.. . . . July 26 68.90 31.10 2.16 1.12 5.03 1.87
Swain’s Early Go1den.. . . . Aug. 5 74.56 25.44 1.40 2.65 6.41 1.50
Whiting’s Early . . . . . . . . .. July 26 64.11 85.89 2.25 2.00 10.96 1.87
Whiting’s Early . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 6 66.96 33.04 1.99 2.35 8.52 1.93
Kansas Orange . . . . . . . . . . July 26 77.65 22.35 1.32 1.19 7.44 1.18
Kansas Orange*.. . . . . . . Aug. . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . - . . .
Link’s Hybrid . ..... . ‘July 26 74.36 25.64 1.98 1.08 8.26 1.50
Link’s_Hybrid . . . . . . . . . .. Aug. 5 72.12 27.88 2.09 2.10 7.59 1.87

Red Liberian. . . . .. . . . . . . July 26 75.05 24.95 1.49 1.80 7.80 1.31

Red Liberian . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 74.12 25.88 1.46 2.07 6.22 1.62

Falgar’s Early . . . . . . . .. . July 26 74.24 25.76 1.66 1.68 8.57 1.18

Fa1gar’s Early . . . . . . . . . .. Aug. 6 70.50 29.50 1.59 8.18 7.14 1.41
New sugar cane . . . . . Aug. 1 72.52 27.48 1.59 1.76 7.65 1.25
New sugar cane* ... .. . . . Aug. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 70.94 29.06 1.48 2.58 7.10 1.31
Orange cane.. . . . . . . .. Aug. 5 74.34 25.66 1.39 1.95 7.09 1.50
Orange cane. . . .  Aug. 7 70.19 29.81 1.64 1.91 7.01 1.56
Sorghum No. 15 . . . . July 26 61.04 38.96 2.60 1.05 13.74 1.81
Sorghum No. 58 ... July 26 58.85 41.15 2.87 1.29 10.72 1.56
Sorghum No. 42 . . . July 26 59.99 40.01 2.84 1.14 14.23 2.37
Sorghum No. 42 . . . . . Aug. 9 57.50 42.50 2.51 1.56 14.24 2.50
Sorghum N0. 43 Aug. 1 47.43 52.57 3.09 2.42 16.84 3.12
Sorghum No. 43 . Aug. 9 56.01 43.99 2.28 1.62 15.01 1.81
Sorghum No. 27 . . . . . . . . . Aug. 1 50.99 49.01 2.83 2.28 15.98 2.56
Sorghum No. 27 . . . . . . . .. Aug. 9 52.72 47.28 2.76 1.74 18.46 2.50
Sorghum No. 38 . Aug. 9 55.45 44.55 q 3.00 2.13 15.49 3.75
Sorghum Saccoratum .. . . . Aug. 1 73.71 26.29  1.57 1.90 6.19 1.31
Sorghum Sacooratum . . . . . Aug. 5 I 75.1.2 g 24.88  1.80  1.16 6.68 1.56

Carbohy-
drates.

n Q c Q o a

* Sample lost.

32 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

TABLE No. 2.
Dry Matter.
Name. Date. Ash. I Fats. Cﬁrgge Protein. 0353,61?“
Wambowse Cane . . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 7.40 4.68 32.56 4.31 51.04

Wambowse Cane . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 24 7.05 7.47 27.88 4.40 53.18

Improved Orange . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 5.50 8.72 29.15 3.32 53.78

Improved Orange . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 5 86 7.99 24.11 5.81 56.21

White African . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 6.94 5.01 28.64 4.69 55.24

White African . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 5.88 7.97 21.65 4.69 59.80 1

Dutch Hybrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 5.45 4.73 29.03 5.09 55.65

Dutch Hybrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 5.49 9.00 26.48 5.32 54.37

Early Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 6.62 2.37 28.81 3.33 58.85

Early Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 6 6.61 4.90 26.33 7.42 54.74

Planter’s Favorite . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 7.33 2.03 29.25 4.29 57.08

Planter’s Favorite . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 4.88 10.00 22.47 6.54 56.10

Price’s New Hybrid . . . . . . . . . July 26 ' 6.07 2.11 30.60 3.38 57.82

Price’s New Hybrid . . . . . . . . . Aug. 6 6.28 7.12 25.11 5.94 55.52

Swain’s Early Golden . . . . . . . . July 26 6.94 3.60 16.17 6.01 ‘ 67.26

Swain’s Early Golden . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 5.50 10.41 25.19 5.89 52.98

Whiting’s Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 6.26 5.29 30.53 5.21 52.41

Whiting’s Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 6 6.02 7.11 25.77 5.77 55.73

Kansas Orange . . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 5.77 5.19 33.28 5.28 50.20

Kansas Orange* . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

’ Link’s Hybrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 7.72 4.21 32.21 5.85 ' 50.00

Link’s Hybrid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 7.46 7.53 27.22 6.71 51.04

Red Liberian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 5.97 7.21 31.22 5.25 50.30

Red Liberian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 5.64 7.99 24.03 6.25 56.07

Falgar’s Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 6.44 6.52 33.26 4.58 49.18

Falgar’s Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. s 5.38 10 s0 24.02 4 '18 55 01

New Sugar Cane . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 1 5.79 6 40 27.83 4 54 55 50

New Sugar Oane* . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Honduras Cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 5.09 8 87 24.43 4 50 57 08

Orange Cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 5.41 7 59 27.62 5 84 53 50

Orange Cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 7 5.50 6 40 23.51 5 23 59 31

Sorghum No. 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 6.67 2 69 35.26 4 64 50 71

Sorghum‘ No. 58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 6.97 3 13 26.05 3 79 60 04

Sorghum No. 42. . . . . . . . . . . . July 26 7.00 2 Z4 35.55 5.92 48 56

Sorghum No. 42.. . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 9 5.90 3 7 33.59 5.88 51 03

Sorghum No. 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. l 5.85 4.60 32.03 5.91 51 36

Sorghum N0. 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 9 5.11 3.69 34.12 4 11 52 90

Sorghum No. 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 1 5.77 4.65 32.16 5 22 51 74

Sorghum No. 27.. . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 9 5.83 3.68 39.04 5 28 46 15

Sorghum No. 38 . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 9 6.73 4.78 34.90 8 41 45 29
Sorghum Saccharatum. . . . . . . . Aug. 1 5.97 7.21 24.00 4 98 58 23
Sorghum Saccharatum . . . . . . . . Aug. 5 7.23 4.66 26.85 6 27 I 54 98
*Sample lost.
SILAGE.

The value of silage is now generally admitted. It can not be questioned
but that in the South at least it is a very desirable feed, both for fattening
and for milk. Its claim as a feed stuff must rest principally upon two facts:

1. It is, after cattle are accustomed to it, more palatable than the same
feed in the dry state.

2. It takes the place of green stuﬁ" as a feed to milk cows, giving a greater
increase of milk than would the same feed in the dry state.

Besides this, it may itself be more digestible than the dry feed would be,

‘ or it may increase the digestibility of other feed with which it is used.

As an economic product it enables the farmer to save or store a larger
quantity of feed than could otherwise be done. The theory of its preserva-

SORGHUM. , 33

tion is to save in its green state the plant for winter feed. It does this only
partially. Dr. T. J. Burrill has shown that at least part of the fermentation
that takes place in the silo is destructive.* While all the changes have not
been determined it is certain that in handling silage we have something quite
different from the green feed.

Some previous work at this laboratoryf indicated that Southern made silage.

was richer in nutritive matter than silage produced farther north.

Subsequent work only partially conﬁrmed these results. The diﬁerence
seemed to be particularly noticeable in the greater increase of dry matter in
Southern plants than in Northern grown plants. Prof. Gulley also called
attention to the fact that in practical feeding experiments cattle could not be
induced to eat the maximum quantity of silage that was generally fed to
them at Northern and Western stations. This fact was particularly promi-
nent during the ﬁrst feeding experiment—winter of 1888-89. As in the
analytical work, the differences in feeding were not so apparent during the
winter of 1889-9-90, but with a view of further testing this matter, at the
suggestion of Prof. Gulley, three pits were ﬁlled. One was further divided
into four apartments, each apartment containing respectively, orange cane,
dhoura, yellow corn, and kaﬁir corn; another pit contained all ﬁeld corn;
while the third pit contained a mixture of sorghums. Three samples of each
variety of sorghum and corn were taken at a vertical depth in the silo of
about two feet, with the hope of getting a fair sample of each kind. In Table
3 the analytical results are found.

TABLE No. 3.

Pit N0. 1—Divided into four apartments.
' (Parts in 100, wet silage.)

Ash. Fats. Crude ﬁbre. Proteins. lltlmloge?’ Water. Dry matter.
Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. {:13 ‘ixnp Per cent. Per cent.
Orange Cane:
Sample No. 1 . . . . . . . . 1.55 1.50 8.10 1.05 9.99 77.81 22.19
Sample N0. 2 . . . . . . . . 1.14 1.09 6.53 0.87 7.88 82.49 17 51
Sample N0. 3 . . . . . . . . 1.22 0.81 6.16 1.00 8.31 82.52 17.48'
Average . . . . . . . . . . 1.30 1.13 6.93 0.97 8.72 80.94 19.06
Dhoura 00m:
Sample N0. 1 . . . . . . . . 2.16 0.76 7.84 1.31 11.14 76.79 23.21
Sample N0. 2 . . . . . . . . 1.88 0.63 6.86 1.18 8.73 80.72 19.28
Sample N0. 3 . . . . . . . . 1.52 0.68 6.28 1.25 8.58 81.65 18.35
Average. .. .... 1.84 0.89 8.99 1.24 9.48 79.72 20.28
Yellow Field Corn .-
Sample N0. 1 . . . . . . . . 2.43 2.09 8.78 2.62 16.55 66.33 33.67
Sample No. 2 . . . . . . . . 2.17 1.91 9.11 2.75 21.06 63.00 37.00
Sample N0. 3 . . . . . . . . 1.28 2.02 8.49 2.25 15.01 70.95 29.05
Average . . . . . . . . . . 1.96 2.00 8.79 2.54 17.54 66.76 33.24
Kaﬁir Corn:
Sample N0. 1 . . . . . . . . 3.35 1.41 11.08 2.50 16.25 65.41 34.59
Sample No. 2 . . . . . . . . 2.58 1.16 10.93 2.06 17.00 66.27 33.73
Sample N0. 3 . . . . . . . . 2.73 1.63 11.59 1.75 12.28 69.921; 30.08
Average . . . . . . . . . . 2.88 1.40 11.20 2.10 15.17 67.20 32.80
IHigh.

* See Bulletin No. 7, I11. Exper. Station.
{See 2d Annual Report Texas Exper. Station.

34 . TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT swarms.

Pit N0. 2—All ﬁeld corn.

Ash. Fats. Crude ﬁbre. i Proteins. Igitroge?’ Water. Dry matter.
Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Preerecat: Per cent. Per cent.
Sample No. 1...... 1.57 1.46 5.78 2.00 18.67 75.52 24.48
Sample N0. 2 . . . . . . . . ‘ 1.63 1.30 6.45 1.62 9.05 79.95 20.05
l Sample No. 3 . . . . . . . . 1.91 2.66 6.25 2 81 17.05 67.32 32.68
Sample No. 4 . . . . . . . . 1.83 1.63 7.85 2.18 p 11.92 74.59 25.41
Average. . . . . . . .. 1.78 1.76 6.58 2.15 12.89 74.84 25.15
Pit No. 5’—Mz'xed Sorghum.
Ash. Fats. Crudeﬁbre. Proteins. i lgltroge?’ Water. Drymatter.
Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. lfgreceeii. Per cent. Per cent.

Sample N0. 1 . . . . . . . 1.78 0.931; 10.44 1.53 13.57 71.75 28.25
Sample N0. 2 . . . . .. 2.01 2.75 8.94 1.68 17.86 66.76 33.24
Sample N0. 3 . . . . . . . 1.04 2.06 5.47 1.00 12.66 77.77 22.23
Average ....... . . 1.61 1.91  8.28 1.40 14.69 72.09 j 27.91

iToo low.

From a comparison between the sorghums and the ﬁeld corn we ﬁnd a
slight difference in favor of the ﬁeld corn; not so much difference as we
anticipated. While the kaﬁir corn compares very favorably with the ﬁeld,
except for its larger percentage of crude ﬁbre, it is quite the equal of the
ﬁeld .corn. If we take the ﬁeld corn alone, it does not differ suﬁiciently from
the analysis of that reported from other stations to create noticeable com-
ment. The diﬁerence stell exists, apparently in favor of Southern grown
corn, but is not so marked here as in analytical results before obtained and

referred to.

SEPARATE ANALYSIS OF STALK AND HEAD.

Below will be found the analysis of sorghum stalks and sorghum seed
separately—No. 1 is the stalk and No. 2 the heads, collected when the cane
was ripe. The analysis of the stalk is calculated to the wet and dry substance;
the heads were analyzed from the air dry substance and calculated to water

free.

N0. 1 Dry. N0. 2 Dry. E No. 1. I N0. 2.
l
Crude ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 6.72 6.72 l 2 01 5.88

Crude fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.69 3.38 2.09 3.33

Crude ﬁbre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.67 20.68 j 6.14 18.10

Crude protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.69 8.00 . 0.84 7.00

N itrogen-free extract (carbohydrates) . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.23 60.8 é 20.14 53.19

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.79 12.5

Dry matter . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.00 100.00 l 81.21 87.5

If we take the substances in the dry state there is very little difference in
the results, except in fats and protein matter. But the larger quantity of
water in the stalks makes it much less valuable than are the heads as a feed
stuff.

The average of 70 samples of American ﬂint corn given by Dr. Jenkins,
is as follows: Ash 1.44 per cent, fats 4.96 per cent, ﬁbre 1.65 per cent, pro-
teins 10.57 per cent, carbohydrates 70.3 per cent, dry matter 88.93 per cent.

SORGHUM. 35

By a comparison of this with the sorghum heads it will be seen that corn has
much the advantage. But the sorghum tops make a good showing.

ASH ANALYSES.

Below will be found analyses of the ashes from the sorghum stalks and
from the heads. The cane having been shipped to the College, it was three
or four days from the time of cutting until the analyses were made, but the
fodder of the stalks was still green. The per cent of ash in the stalks was
2.01, in the heads 5.88. Of these quantities there was found the following
percentages of mineral ingredients and nitrogen:

Stalks, Heads,
green. green.
Anhydrous sulphuric acid, per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.04 0.140.

Calcium oxide—lime,'per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.096 0.27

Magnesium oxide, per cent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.400 0.16

Potassium oxide, per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.463 0.578

Sodium oxide, per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.247 0.29

Phosphoric acid—anhydrous, per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.137 1.03

Nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 1.12

According to our weighings the tops constituted T13. of the weight of cane,
making 11% of the whole crop consist of stalks These proportions would, of
course,_vary, but we handled average cane, allowing 10 tons to the acre as a
fair average. Reducing to hundred weight, we have 20,000 pounds per acre.
One-sixteenth of this, or 1250 pounds, will be the yield of heads per acre,
while 1f}, or 18,750 pounds, will consist of stalks.

Multiplying the weight of stalks, 18,750 pounds, by the per cent of ash, we
get the total quantity of ash removed by the stalks; multiplying the weight
of heads, 1250 pounds, by the per cent of ash in these, we also get total quan-
tity of mineral matter for the heads. By a similar method we get the total
amount of each separate constituent of the ash in stalks and heads, as tabulated
below:

Stalks, Heads,
green. green.
Total amount of ash in 1 crop of 10 tons green material . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377.0 73.50

Anhydrous sulphuric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 1.7 5

Calcium oxide.. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.0 3.37

Magnesium oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.0 2.00

Potassium oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.8 7.22

Sodium oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.8 3.62

Phosphoric acid-anhydrous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.2 12.87

Nitrogen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0 14.00

Attention is called particularly to the quantities of nitrogen, phosphoric
acid, and potash removed from one acre by a crop of l0 tons, since these
are the ingredients in which most soils are more or less deﬁcient, and the only
ones upon which the value of a commercial fertilizer is based.

i’ If we calculate the quantities of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash re-
moved by 20 bushels of wheat and its straw from one acre, and the amounts
of the same chemical ingredients removed from one acre by 30 bushels of
corn, with its cob and husks, we shall be able to construct a table as below,
comparing the total amounts of plant food removed by a crop of sorghum,

(See table.)

~ eighth of husks, we would also have 360  
husks. If there is 1.55 per cent of ash 1n the grain, and 27.93 per cent of a

potash and 45 per cent of phosphoric acid in the ash, we get, as in table. the 

as

36

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

wheat, and of corn.* The ﬁgures in the table with reference to wheat and "
corn are based upon the following calculations : Assuming 60 pounds of wheat‘
per cent of ash, 
by the grain. 
straw contain I 
ing 5 37 per cent of ash, we get the amount of ash removed by the straw. 
per cent of potash and 46.98 per cent of 
phosphoric acid. The ash of the straw contains 13.65 per cent of potash and *
4.81 per cent of phosphoric acid. Calculating, we produce in the table the i?
potash removed by straw and wheat. 

to the bushel, and taking the estimate that it contains 2.06
we have the total quantity of ash, or mineral matter, removed
In a similar manner, with 2000 pounds of straw to the acre, the

The ash of the grain contains 31.16

total amounts of phosphoric acid and

Allowing 56 pounds to the bushel of corn, we have 1680
to the acre. If one~ﬁfth in weight of the grain consists of cobs and one-

pounds of cobs and 210 pounds of

total amounts of phosphoric acid and potash removed by the grain proper.
Calculations for the cob and the husk are made in a similar way; upon the
basis for cobs of 1.29 per cent of ash containing 2.82 per cent of phosphoric

acid and 51.16 per cent of potash; and for husks 4.12 per cent of ash con- 

taining 0.86 per cent of phosphoric acid and 40.76 per cent of potash. The
nitrogen would. of course be represented in the organic matter in both plants.
In the grain of wheat the average percentage of nitrogen is 1.54 per cent;
in the straw it is .05 per cent. In the grain of corn it is 1.66 per cent, in the
cob 0.49 per cent, and in the husks 0.70 per cent.

The ﬁgures in the table below for sorghum are gotten from the last table,
the amounts of phosphoric acid in stalks and heads being added together;
the same thing done with reference to the potash and nitrogen.

TABLE No. 4.

Showing amounts of plant food removed by crops of sorghum, wheat, and com from one acre.
Sorghum, at the rate of 10 tons green material to the acre; wheat, 20 bushels; corn, 30 bushels.

 

Sorghum. Wheat. Corn.
Phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.5 16.77 11.91
Potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 22.4 13.3
Nitrogen . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 28.5 31

 

From the table, it seems the quantities of nitrogen removed by the three
crops is nearly the same. The amount of phosphoric acid in the cane is con-
siderably in excess, while the potash is four or ﬁve times as large. The cane
was grown upon an alluvial gypsum-very fertile. Tlie estimates for the corn
do not include the stalk, since, according to the almost universal Southern
practice, these are left upon the ﬁeld. The quantities in the sorghum would
be decreased somewhat if the‘ leaves were left upon the ground.

DIGESTIBILITY OF GREEN SORGHUM.

The value of a feed stuff is inﬂuenced not alone by its composition, but also
by its digestibility. With a view of determining this for sorghum in the dough
state when fed to milch cows, an experiment was conducted» with two cows
from the College farm. One of the cows had been in milk three months,

*Most of these ﬁgures in corn and wheat are taken from Pro. A. A.
seq" and Bul. No. 9, Mo. Expt. Station, pp)? 5-7 6.

A. S., 1886, p. 125 et.

   
 
  
 
  

pounds of grain f

 

SORGHUM. 87

the other in milk two months. The feeding was supervised and conducted
by Mr. J. W. Carson, assistant to Director. The method of making a digest-
ive experiment is simple in principle, but tedious, and requiring much care
in detail. A known weight of feed of known composition is given each day.
The residue of feed uneaten, and which should be small, is collected, weighed,
and subtracted from the weight given at the feed; the difference is the
amount eaten by the animal. The manure is also collected, weighed, and
analyzed. The difference between the weight and composition of the feed
eaten and the weight and composition of the dung excreted, both weights
being reduced to the water-free substance, represents the amount of material
appropriated or digested by the animal.

ANALYSIS OF FEED.

The average analyses of the green sorghum as fed to the cattle are given
below, both in wet and dry state.

TABLE No. 5.

Wet. Dry.
Per cent. Per cent.
Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.6 . . . . . . . .

Crude ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.97 6.72

Crude fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13 3.85

Crude ﬁbre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.56 29.13

Nitrogen, free extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.93 54.12

Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.81 6.18

Dry matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.4 100.00

TABLE No. 6.

Digestibility.
f. 8 ~ 8 e d m 3 = <=> 8 ‘*3’ w s w‘ 7*
go go 5135 go ‘m5 i338 :15 o
00w N0. 1.
Water drunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736 736 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Green sorghum eaten . . . . . . . 3408.0 240.6 100.2 38.57 291.88 542.28 61.92 67.33

Dung excreted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2134.5 186.7 26.7 7.07 72.59 117.77 27.36 42.19

Green sorghum digested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.5 31.50 219.29 424.51 34.56 25.14

Coeﬂicients of digestibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.3 81.6 78 78.2 55.7 48.8
00w N0, 2.
Water drunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952 952 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Green sorghum eaten . . . . . . . 3200 2259.2 940.8 36.22 278.3 509.16 58.14 63.20
Dung excreted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1800 1547.2 252.8 6.77 72.2 108.40 27.3 38.22
Green sorghum digested . . . . . . . . . .- . . 688.0 29.45 206.1 400.76 30.84 24.98
Coeﬂicients of digestibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.1 81.3 74 78.7 51.1 39.5
Mean coefﬁcient of digestibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.2 81.4 7 4.5 78.4 53.4 41.6

The above table shows large percentages of digestible material, except for
the protein, and it is rather peculiar that this should be low compared with

the other material.

38 i TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

CONCLUSIONS ON SORGHUM.

1. It is better, so far as nutrition is concerned, to let it nearly mature be- 
fore cutting, but ifintended for hay it should be sown thicker and cut earlier. 
2. The saccharine varieties are to be preferred to the ‘nonsaccharine, but

between the saccharine there seems to be little difference’ in nutritive ratio.

 

3. It is an exhaustive crop, removing more mineral matter from the soilff

than is removed either by corn or wheat.

4. It is a good milk producer when fed in the green state with other dry 
feed. Its digestibility compares favorably with that of corn except for the 

nitrogenous matter.

TEOSINTE.
With a view of determining the value of teosinte as a feed stuﬁ, and its

relative value during different stages of growth, beginning the lst of August, 

samples were collected every ten days up to October 20th. The next and last
sample was taken November the 10th. The whole stalk was collected and
analyzed. The plant scarcely reached maturity at any time, the season be-
ing too short. Mr. Walter Wipprecht did part of the analytical work.

AnaZyses-JOO Parts Dry Matteo".

l v- l
No. Water. Fats.   Agglilgl hélfrtréezgif  Ash. l
August 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 1 80.23 2.63 29.12 5.37 52.29 f 10.59

August 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 83.45 2.93 31.92 4.93 49.00  11.22

August 20 . . . . . . . .. . 3 81.38 2.16 33.41 5.93 47.42 l 11.08

August 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 80.60 2.25 32.91 6.25 48.01 l 10.58

September 10 . . . . . . . . . .., 5 78.79 1.88 88.10 7.12 45.78 l 12.02

S6pt8mb8I‘ 20 . . . . . . . . . . . 6 83.06 1163 35.44 6.81 44.35 . 11.77
September 80.... . . . , 7 78.85 1.20 82.11 5.18 l 52.00 . 9.51
October 10 ...... . . . . . .. 8 78.89 2.51 88.92 5.87  47.12 a 8.07
l QCtObGI‘ 20 . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73.52 3.17 36.28 5.18  47.96 ; 7.41
November 10. . . . . . . . . . . l0 69.77 3.99 34.60 356*  50.03  6.92
Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.63 2.41 33.61 5.57  48.49 j 9.91

=F Low. -

The quantity of moisture varied considerably with the rainfall, being
greater if gathered after a recent rain. After September 30th the plant
seemed to reach no further development. The bottom leaves began to die,
and there seemed to be little more growth. While there is no great diﬁer-
ence in the analytical work, we believe that about the last of September in
this climate would be the best time for harvesting the crop. For compari
son as to value the following analyses of corn were made during the same
season, the corn being collected during June and July, before the grains had
become hardened.

 

l  l l - lNitro en-i

l Water  Fats. l girl‘)???  1111113215?”  exfaeject. Ash.

l 1"""""~r w,
Sweet Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 77.22 l 8.75 l 20.80 l 9.50 l 59.82 8.88
Yellow Corn . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 79.89 l 2.49 l 27.50 l 8.75 58.07 5.19
Yellow Dhoura . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.15 l 8.99 l 28.80 8.91 l 58.88 l 9.82
Mosby Corn . . . . . . . . .  87.54  8.81 l 28.05 l 8.25 l 81.27 l 8.12

These are all more valuable than the teosinte as a forage crop, and if
gathered later, when the grain had become glazed, the difference would have
been still more apparent.

MISCELLANEOUS ANALYSES. a 39

MISCELLANEOUS ANALYSES.
COTTON SEED MEAL.

1n many instances unfavorable results have been gotten when feeding

spoiled cotton seed or cotton seed meal. We have in Such cases suspected the .

presence of ptomains. But as an opportunity was not offered for examina-
tion of ptomains in known cases of poison, we procured a sample of meal
from spoiled seed, and subjected it to an ordinary feed stuff analysis, and to
examination by the Stas-Otto method for ptomains. The feed stuff analysis
was about the same as that of good meal, and we could not obtain the tests
for ptomains. But in many instances we believe these to be present, and it
is quite probable that the bad effects following the use of meal is sometimes
due to their poisonous inﬂuence. Fresh cotton seed meal from good seed
has a bright yellow color. a fresh, pleasant smell, and granulates readily. As
the meal becomes older, or fresh meal if made from spoiled seed, it has a
darker color, something of a musty odor, and is inclined to adhere in lumps.

COTTON SEED HULLS.

Since cotton seed hulls came into use as a feed stuff many analyses of them
have been made. We have found it exceedingly diﬁicult to make concordant
analyses, for two reason: (1) The hulls will vary considerably in composition;
(2) because of the amount of lint remaining, and of mechanically enclosed
particles of meal or parts of seed. Below are the analyses of three samples:

I. II. III.
Water.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.96 10.03 9.98

Crude ﬁbre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.95 55.15 52.71

Crude fats . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.27 2.25 2.28

Albuminoidsl   ..  . . . . . . . . . .. 5.06 5.37 5.37

Nitrogen, free extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.41 22.19 26.74

Ash . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  3.35 4.01 2.92

Nos. 2 and 3 agree very closely, while the crude ﬁbre in No. 1 is largely in
excess. i ' '

- MUCK.
From Palestine, Texas.
Water and volatile matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.69 per cent
Organic matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.65 per cent
Nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.94 per cent
Phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.16 per cent

This shows a good muck, and would yield most excellent results upon a
soil not already rich in vegetable matter. The quantity of phosphoric acid
is too small to be of value. But the quantity of nitrogen is large, and the
organic matter present would improve either heavy or light soils that were
not already rich in humus.

GREEN SAND MARLS.

From Greenville, Texas.

Phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 0.43 per cent.
Potash. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  0.42 per cent.

A green sand marl must be of value chieﬂy for the amount’: of potash it
contains. In the New Jersey marls this runs as high as 4 ‘or 5 per cent,

40 mxxs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

.with  :1»:  ar cent of phosphoric acid. The marl, when applied to land,

spreads its eﬁect over several years, and when approximating the richness of

 

the New Jersey marls can be transported considerable distances for use as a »

fertilizer, but when containing a little less than one-half of 1 per cent as
above of potash and phosphoric acid, while of value, it would not pay for
application except upon adjacent farms.

BRICK.
From Dallas. '
The bricks are manufactured from the alluvial mud of the Trinity River.

Silicic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.25 per cent.

Combined silicic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.24 per cent.

Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.42 per cent.

Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.96 per cent.

Iron and alumina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.08 per cent.

Leaves a red clay after burning.

WATER.
From Velasco.
No. 2. N o. 1.
Grains per gallon. Grains per gallon.
Total solids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130.69 69.5

Silica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.04 . . . . . .

Iron and alumina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.44 2.00

Calcium carbonate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.35 3.60

Sodium chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117.60 47.42

Potassium chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15 . . . . . .

' _ Magnesium oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.66

Sodium bi-carbonate ..... . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.12
IRON ORE.
From Calvert.
' Ferric oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 per cent.

Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.247 per cent.

Sulphur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.048 per cent.

Alumina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.055 per cent,

Silica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.04 per cent,

This ore was supposed to be valuable, but its analysis needs no explanation.