-2 . »v ‘v u 3 ‘.4 'y4,"by l? :2” ‘ 1H?- ‘ <75) TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. BULLETIN NO. 15. MAY 1891. m INFLUENCE 0F CLIMATETIN COMPOSITION 0F 001m. Digestibility of SOIIIITIITII Food Stuffs: COTTON SEED HULLS; CORN FODDER. mm ASH ANALYSES. ROASTED COTTON SEED. AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OFT TEXAS. I r A11 Bulletins of this Station are issued free. Any one interested in any branch 10f agricuh ture may have his name placed on our permanent mailing list, and secure future numbers, 11y application to GEO. W. CURTIS, DIRECTOR. . _ _ College Station, BrazosjCo. Tex. In requesting Bulletins, write name and address plainly. 11' ‘I'M 53%‘ "ART! A EIEEAIIIIII?"L§EAIIIAAQ..<.IIAIIIE}R M‘ A III-EA” "TIIIAIAMT';I§ 11h v V‘ TIEILIIIII; I; 1 l i .1‘ IE,‘ II, I | ‘ TQM’; ,1, I .11.‘. o AI 0 . .11!’ BRYAN, TEXAS: COX, “THE NEAT PRINTER,” 1 8 9 1 . (76) l. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OFFICERS AND STAFF. GOVERNING BOARD. BOARD OF DIRECTORS A. AND M. COLLEGE. MAJ. A. J. RosE, President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salado. Hon. J NO. E. HOLLINGSWORTH. State Com. Agr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Austin. HoN. W. R. CAVITT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bryan. DR. J. D. FIELDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Manor. HoN. J NO. ADRCIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Co1umbia. FINIANCIAL OFFICERS . J. S. FoWLKES, Fiscal Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Bryan. PRES. L. S. Ross, Treasurer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Co11ege Station. STATION STAFF. GEo. W. CURTIS, M. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculturist, Director. H. H. HARRINGTON, M. Sc. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemist. M. FRANcIs, D. V. M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Veterinarian. S. A. BEAcH, B. S- A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Horticu1turist. D. ADRIANcE, M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Meteoro1ogist, Asst. Chemist. J. W. CARSoN, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’ . . . . . . . . .* . . .Assistant t0 Director. J. M. CARSON, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant Agriculturist. P. S. TiLsoN, B. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant in Chemistry. (77) TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE ON COMPOSITION OFPLANTS. (H. H. EARRING/DON, M. so.) With a view of finding if the composition 0f the same plant would vary according to the locality 0f its growth, a co-operative experi- ment was begun in 1890 with stations at Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Connecticut, New York, \Visconsin and Kansas. Previous work and observation had lead to the belief that such a variation would be found to exist at least between the plants of the more southerly states and those grown far removed on the north. To decide this question, if possible, and to determine also the varia- ction from east to West, was the object of the experiment. THE GENERAL PLAN was to send out samples of maizeflgrown in different parts of the country to the stations in each of the above states. The seed corn to be analyzed, and the crop in each state including both forage corn and the mature grain to be Weighed and analyzed. The analytical work to be conducted at two stations. Here, and through the kindness of Dr. Jenkins, at New Haven, Conn. station. The plan of having the green forage corn analyzed at each station as at first contemplated, had to be abandoned because it entailed too much work upon the chemists at the several stations. Owing to drouth, and other unavoidable causes, reports have been received from but three stations. That of Connecticut, Georgia and New York. Of the corn grown in Connecticut 1890 but two samples, that of ‘vVisconsin Pride of the North, and the New York C. U. Im- proved, were analyzed in duplicate (see page 81.) In Connecticut I two of the southern corns failed to mature, Georgia and Texas. It is thought best to embody the reports from Connecticut and Georgia just as received with a few minor changes of arrangement. Names of varieties of seed corn will be found in Connecticut report(page 80). THE EXPERIMENT A.T THE CONNECTICUT STATION. i History of the land. For five years previous to 1888 the field had been a meadow in fairicondition as regards fertility. In 1_888 it was ploughed and received adressing of one ton of fertilizer to the acre. The fertilizer was mixed according to the following formula: 287 pounds sulphate of ammonia. 217 “ dried blood. 287 “ muriate of potash. 1209 “ dissolved bone black. 2000 The piece after harrowing was planted to White Edge Dent maize as described in our report for 1889, page 11, plots M to R, Where yields, etc., are given. In 1889 this field was ploughed, a ton to the acre of fertilizer was applied at last year, made according to the following formula: ' 119 pounds nitrate of soda. 169 “ . sul hate of ammonia. 598 “ tan age. 309 “ dissolved bone black. 805 “ double sulphate of potash. 2000 78 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. The field was then planted t0 potatoes. . They were badly blighted and the yield was only about 200 bushels tothe acre. A Preparation of Land and Planting. In 1890 the field was plowed 7 inches deep the third week in April and Sanderson’s Formula was broadcasted at the rate of 1000i pounds to the acre and harrowed in. On the 21st. of May the field was harrowed a second time. The soil was very mellow and moist, in excellent condition for planting but perhaps rather colder than is usual at this season. The separate plots each contained exactly two square rods and - were separated by a strip eight feet wide in which was grown one row of maize of a variety distinct from the others. The prescribed distances of planting were exactly followed, the- seed being all dropped by hand and by a measuring line. Extra seed was used to make allowance for the failure of some to germinate and the seed was covered about an inch and a half deep. The maize came up evenly and at the same time 0n all the plots. On June 17th. the surface was stirred with a “hoop” cultivator which stirs the soil to the. depth of an inch or an inch and a half and cuts off weeds. . June 17th. and 20th. the rows were thinned leaving the stand al- most perfect. At this date the Maryland corn is 7 inches high, the others about 6 inches high with the exception of the New York corn which is ten inches high and thicker at the butt than any of the» others. Notes During Growth. To get a comparason of the rate of growth the distance from the- ground to the tip of the longest leaf was measured at different dates on stalks in the middle row of each plot, the same stalks being . measured on each date. The average of the ten measurements was taken as the average height, or more properly, length of the corn in each plot. The results of these observations: Height of Maize in Inches. g July 8 ‘July 22 Aug. 1 iAug. 14 I v l Wi Onsin gplOt planted for ears . . . . . . . . 46 71 I 88 i 91 SC " plot planted for forage . . . . . .. 43 69 l 89 y 87 New York tplot planted for ears . . . . . . . . 44 67 ’ 86 z 86 * ' ' lplot planted for forage . . . . . . 51 86 ; 90 l 88 Mar 1am d yplot planted for ears . . . . . . . . . 41 68 l 91 123 ‘ y ' ' plot planted for forage . . . . . .. 39 64 96 122 Kansas tplot planted for ears . . . . . . . . . 31 . 55 ! 77 108 a ' ' ' ' lplot planted for forage . . . . . .. 33 i 52 87 116 _Kentuck jplot planted for ears . . . . . . . .. 34 59 92 122 ' _ y" ' (plot planted for forage. . . . . .. 34 58 89 114 T plot planted for ears . . . . . . . .. 31 51 74 99 exas ' ' ' ' ' " lplot planted for forage. . . . .. . 34 51 7 101 - lot lanted for ears . . . . . . . .. 84 54 i 81 106 Georgla’ ' ' ' ' iglot glanted for forage . . . . . . . 34 62 I 88 104 July. 8., The New York thickly planted plot has a good many tassels visible in the folds of the leaves. The corresponding thin planted plot has very few. The \Visconsin thick planted plot has only a few tassels showing. CORN EXPERIMENTS. j 79 July 10., The plots were hooped a second time. July 21., The plots Were hoed. July 22., The New York maize plots are Well tasselled and the anthers are showing quite generally. The silk does not show yet. The Wisconsin maize plots are a little less advanced in develop- "ment. No tassels showing on any other plots. . August 1., The New York and Wisconsin maize is in full bloom. {The pollen is falling and the silk is beginning to dry. The New York maize suckers badly where thin planted. The Georgia and ‘Texas maize show no sign of tassel. All the others are beginning to show tassels. August 14., The Wisconsin and New York maize is past bloom, i. silk dry. The kernels on the thin planted stalks are in milk; on the "thick planted stalks in the last stages of milk. The Georgia and Texas maize plots are just showing their tassels above the leaves. . No silk appears. The other plots are pretty even in development and are in full bloom. ‘HARVEST. ~ September 19., Clear weather after two weeks of continuous wet weather. The Wisconsin maize, thin planted, is ripe; leaves no longer green, kernels dry and hard and tips of ears opening. Cut A and stacked. The New York maize is in exactly the same state as that from Wisconsin and is also cutand stacked to day. The Maryland maize foliage is entirely green, kernels glazed. The Kentucky maize foliage is also green, kernels in late milk, where thick planted a little past the milk. r The Kansas maize foliage is still green and kernels in full milk. The Georgia maize is green. The kernels in early milk, The Texas maize is in full milk. In every case the thick planted plots are a little further developed than the corresponding thin planted plots. September 22., Cut exactly one square rod of the forage plot of Maryland maize, the kernels being just past the dough state, weigh- ed and analyzed. The average height of stalk was 118 inches. Also cut one rod of Kentucky maize, weighed and analyzed. Average height 132 inches. ' September 30., The kernels are just past the dough state on the forage plots of the Kansas, Georgia and Texas maize and one square "rod of each was cut, weighed and analyzed. The average height of ‘the Kansas stalks was 116 inches, of the Georgia stalks 122 inches _ and of the Texas stalks 132 inches. . The following night a severe frost ruined the maize that was still standing and cut off that part of the experiment. It was apparent earlier in the season that the Southern varieties could not ripen in Qour latitude. On Oct. 3rd. the stacked maize on thethin planted Wisconsin and iNew York plots was husked and weighed, and on the 16th. the maize on the corresponding thick planted or forage plots. ~ Results 0f the Experiment. We confine ourselves to a report of the analytical work and weights 8O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 0f crops. N0 discussion of them is possible till the results 0f all the experiments. have been compared. The methods of the Association of Oflicial Agricultural Chemists ere followed in the analytical work. Starch was determined by Sachsse’s ethod, the dextrose found being multiplied by the factor 0.9. The following table shows the composition of the seed maize when received at the Station in the spring of 1889: Composition of the Seed Maize used in the Experiment-Connecticut Station. Fresh. Q w: .44: 5 3 is 354 3 3; 3 .6 "53? E5 3E5. 3E 55 3Z3 H: 32 5% 952 E 6 g3 s5 E *3 32 5Z3 :5 B“ m Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.75 14.00 13.52 12.98 14.56 12.45 13.20 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . .. , . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.16 1.46 1.40 1.26 1.30 1.20 1.16 Albuminoi s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.44 12.00 10.25 9.75 9.56 9 75 8.63 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.48 1.30 1.53 1.77 1.49 1.84 1.82 Nitrogen-free E}; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.79 66.31 68.09 69.89 68.71 70.19 70.30 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . 4.38 4.93 5.21 4.35 4.38 4.57 4.89 - 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Starch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.76 65.76 67.19 69.02 67.35 68.73 69.08 Recko-ned water-Free. ' Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .* . . . . . . . . . . 1.34 1.69 1.62 1.44 1.52 1.37 1.32 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . 10.94 13.96 11.85 11.(2)0 11.13 11.13 Fiber . . . . . ..' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 2 1.51 1. 7 2. 2 1. 6 2.1 2. i Nitrogen-free EX . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.92 77.12 78.74 80.35 80.44 80.17 0.99 Fat. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.08 5 72 6.02 4.99 5.15 5.21 5.66 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Starch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.76 276.46 77.68 79.33 78.86 78.54 79.58 These analyses show the composition of selected corn of the varieties named. The one flint variety, C. U. Improved, from New York differs from the dents by its higher per-centage of albuminoids and lower per-cent of starch. The following table gives the composition of the thick-planted fodder maize of the several varieties, both in the fresh state and calculated water-free. It also gives the total weights of the crops reckoned to pounds per acre. viding these results by ten the yield in ouncesper square rod can be ascertained. In each case the fodder was cut when the kernels were just past the dough state. Exactly one square rod was measured off in the middle of the two rod plot in order to avoid the unequal growth which sometimes appears on the edges of such plots, and from this central plot the harvest was taken. Cowvposition of the Crops of Fodder M aize and yield of each. Ingredient per Acre. Fresh. air-gt; a; . . . ,,, :>. +-* c3 H o3 i‘ v51 c: 0+1 g ,3 8 ‘i2 w OM E é‘, $64 @537 as g2 95 a“ “i water . . . . . . . . . ..n . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.33 73.52 74.33 77.62 76.3077‘ _ Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.10 .98 1.13 .93 .99 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.33 1.26 1.30 1.43 1.22 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.48 6.58 5.98 5.05 6.13 ' Nitrogen-free Extract . . . . . . . . . . 15.19 17.15 16.24 14.54 14.42 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .57 .61 .62 .43 .44 r 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 By di» CORN EXPERIMENTS. ’ . 81 Water-Free. “n a” d w o 5 Q d O "‘ fig 53' § g f‘? c: :4’ '3 8 sis 3“ E9 3* 2” Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . 4.64 3.68 4.49 4.14 4.29 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.62 “ 4.91 5.14 6.38 . 5.257 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.13 24.81 _23.78 22.54 26.43 Nitrogen-free Extract . . . . . . . . . . 64.19 64.66 64.50 65.11 62.14 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.42 1.94 2.09 1.93 1.89 l 100.00 100.00 100.00 1 100.00 l 100.00 Yield 0f each Ingredient in Pounds per Acre. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25013 21050 30735 20577 20029 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 316 . 281 313 318 258 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 361 360 490 318 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1796 1885 1657 1729 1599 Nitrogen-free Extract. . . . . . . . . . 4978 4912 4500 4979 3761 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 146 144 147 . 115 32770 23040 33709 34240 20030 Water Free Substance. . . .- . . . . . 7713 7585 ‘6974 7663 6051M‘ Owing to the continuous wet weather and pressure of othér work the thick planted plots of Wisconsin and New York maise were not cut when just past the dough stage but ripened along - with the thin planted plots of the same varieties. Their results are given in the following table. Composition and Yield of the Field Cured Crops of 'Wisconsin. and New York Maize. _ _ ____ _ _ ‘m. Fresh. _W__J__ PRIDE OF THE NORTH. I C. U. IMPROVED. Wisconsin. New York. i a3 '33 .51’; 1 e 51? 5% is‘? i 3 Q4 Q4 04 f :4 _ Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.51 39.92 it 52.07 l Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.93 2.31 2.02 ! 1.99 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.24 4.32 ~ 4.02 I 4.07 Fiber. . . . ..-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.57 10.35 1 7.55 j 10.49 1 Nitrogen-free EX. . . . . . . 37.31 41.20 ; 32.64 ' 43.26 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .... 1.30 1.90 1.70 ¢ 2.24 "i," 100.00 100.00 9i 100.00 l 100.00 . Water-Free. . Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.53 3.30 4.22 :3."i‘3' Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A 7.37 7.17 3.33 7.40 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.92 17.23 15.75 10.75 Nitrogen-free EX . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 09.29 03.59 03.11 09.03 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.34 3.15 3.54 3.53 l 100.00 100.00 H 100.00 100.00 Yield of each I ngredient in Pounds per Acre. _ _____ Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4397 4375 0319 33311 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 253 245 207 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 474 487 486 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. a 909 1134 915 1091 Nitrogen-free EX . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3959 4510 ' 3950 4449 Fat. . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . 191 203 200 233 10010 10900 I 12120 10400 1i? 82 The kernels from the 1890 crop of theWisc maize had the following composition: TEXAS AGRLCIIJLTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. onsin and New York PRIDE OF THE NORTH. C. U. IMPROVED. Wisconsin. New York. F} 5-4 ‘g l $4 C1 3 Q C1 3 ' £5 fir» s? <1 a - " _ Ali “F” Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.04 . . . . . . . . . .. 1 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.37 1.46 .39 1.55 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.87 10.51 .37 11.53 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.55 1.65 1.48 1.64 Nitrogen-free Extract . . . . . . . . . . 76.23 81.12 71.67 i 79.72 Fat. . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.94 A 5.26 5.01 5.56 100.00 | 100.00 100.00 100.00 REPORT FROM GEORGIA-BY DR. R. J. BEDDING. ' History of the Land. Clay loam-clay subsoil—planted in cotton the previous year-fertilized with .200 pounds of ammonium superphosphate; producing 350 pounds lint cotton. Preparation of Land and Planting. Plowed with a one-horse turning plow, one-horse sub-soil plow, depth ten inches_harrowed until the soil was thoroughly pulverized. Fertilized at therate per acre, 180 pounds cotton seed meal, 160 pounds acid phosphate and 80 pounds muriate of potash applied in the furrow and well mixed with the soil with cultivator. Planted April 12th, three inches deep and prescribed distance ex- actly followed, dropped by hand and covered with cultivator. Came up evenly, and near the same time. April 20th. harrowed with a smoothing harrow. May 3rd. plowed with a scooter plow. May 10th. plowed with a cultivator. May 20th. reduced to astand, nearly perfect. - Rows were 1-2 acre long and three in each plot. May 20th., hoed, and plowed with cultivator. June 10th. plowed with cultivator. June 20th. hoed, and plowed with cultivator. June 30th. lowed with cultivator. P . . Jul l8th.-Plowed with Cultivator. Y ' Notes Daring Growth. HEIGHT OF MAIZE IN INCHES. d May 10_ May 20 May 30 June 10 June 20 June 30 . l '- f plot planted for ears . . . . .. 11 22 43 60 80 84 Plantefi?’ ~~ a :2 s2 a a - , v potpane'orears . . . . .. 80 Ne“ Ork l plot planted for forage . . . 15 27 42 58 80 8O Mar land {plot planted for ears. . . . . 1 25 46 68 90 102 ‘ y plot planted for forage . . . 12 25 44 68 90 102 -Kans.aS- y plot planted for ears . . . . . . 12 2O 40 62 84 102 ‘ ' ‘ '1 plot planted for forage . . . 12 20 38 62 81 96 Kentuck _(plot planted for ears . . . . .._ . 13 25 50 69 96 114 a Y (plot planted for forage ... 1s 25 49 e9 9e 10s Texas gplOt planted for ears . . . . . . 11 21 36 62 78 96 ' ' ' ' plot planted for forage . . . 11 21 36 60 78 96 F e01, m gplot planted for ears . . . . . . 11 24 42 62 84 108 m’ 8 " plot planted for forage 11 24 42 62 84 108 ' plots in full tassel an CoRN EXPERIMENTS. ' 83 May 30th, the New York samples showed their first tassels; June 10th, the Wisconsin plots showed tassels; June 20th, plants of Kentucky, Maryland and Kansas, showedffirst tassels; June 30th, Texas and Georgia had begun to tassel; June 10th, New York lot was in full tassel and silk; June 20th, the Wisconsin d) silk; and on June 30th, those of Kentucky, Maryland and Kansas; July 10th, Texas and Georgia in full tassel and silk. Dough state-New York, on June 20th; Wisconsin, June 30th; Kentucky, Maryland and Kansas, August 1st; Texas and Georgia August 5th. H arvest- Yield Per Acre. EORAGE CORN IN DOUGH STATE-—GREEN—-IN LBS. Wisconsin. New York. Maryland. Kansas. Kentucky. Texas. Georgia. 11252 8120 16864 14364 13716 17892 16224 CURED—FODDER MAIZE. 9828 8100 7776 9984 8840 FORAGE CORN——GRAIN HARD-YIELD PER ACRE. _ 5184 3564 9720 1614 6588 12852 11880 Wisconsin and New York were cut June 20th and July 20th; Kentucky, Mary- land and Kansas were cut Aug. 1st and Sept. 1st; Texas and Georgia were cut Aug. 5th and Sept. 15th. . FIELD CORN—HARD IN EAR—LBS. PER ACRE. 2088 928 2268 2106 2160 2704 2496 STALKS ANDnLEAVES PER ACRE-LBS. PER ACRE. 2668 1740 4806 4104 2754 6240 » 7124 Calculated at same time as last dates above. _ \Ve can not reach any conclusions from the work on forage corn, because only that of Connecticut was analyzed. A comparison might be made of the yield, with that of Georgia, (See Reports of the Sta- tions) but this could 11ot be of any value. It is published to give a better understanding of the nature of the Work, and because such com- pilations may be of use at some future time. In the following table will be found the results, reproduced, on analysis of seed corn as con- ducted at Connecticut Station, compared to that done here by Mr. Duncan Adriance. The large discrepancy in water content is due in '1 part to the fact that in Connecticut the analyses were made some months before being made here--our samples having dried out very materially,and analyzed from different bottles at the two stations,so that the comparison will properly come between the water-free substances. Composition of the Seed Maize Used in the Experiment, Connecticut Report. Itlresh. ins E1 s as? s?» =11 -22 “i? 58>; .255, g5‘. 35 5&3 "88 ' p; as: s“ is is F? 5’ 0 Z e _ é as s Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 14.00 13.52 12 98 14 56 12 45 $13.20 Ash.‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 16 1.46 1.40 1 36 1 30 1 20 1.16 ' Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.44 12.00 10.25 9.75 9.56 9.75 8.63 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.48 1.30 1.53 1.77 1.49 1.84 1.82 N itrogen-free Ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.79 66.31 68.09 69.89 68.71 70.19 70.30 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.38 4.93 5.21 4.3 4.38 4.57 4.89 100.00;l00.00_fi100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Reckoned Water-Free. Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.34 1.69‘ 1.62 1.44 1.52 1.37“ 1.32 Albuminoids . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.94 13.96 11.85 11.20 11.13 11.15 9.94 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.72 1.51 1.77 2.02 1.76 2.10 2.09 Nitrogen-free Ex .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.92 77.12 78.74 80.35 80.44 80.17 80.99 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.08 5.72 6.02 4.99 5.15 5.21 5.66 s» . 100.001 100.001100.001 100.001100.001 100.001100.00 84 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Composition of the Seed Maize used in the Experiment-Texas Station. . .9 Pd . ,5‘ . g H ' (D Q V} _§ 9.5 53 5g 3 5 i? 5° E w 2 é 9 é’ £3 £3 Nos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 _2 3 4 5 6 7 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 32 12 20 12 51 12.26 12.77 11.32 10.72 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.22 1.49 1 “4 1.38 1.30 1.45 1.54 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 9.90 11.34 9:77 9.37 9.68 9.53 8.65 Flber . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11 1.51 2.15. 2.39 1.92 2.42 2.42 Nitrogen-free Ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.26 68.34 68.94 69.97 69.59 70.58 71.08 Fats . .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4.18 9.12 5.29 4.63 4.70 4.74 5.59 'Rekconed Water-Free. . Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.39 1.70 1.53 1.57 1.48 1.62 1.75 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.29 12.91 11.18 10.68 11.08 10.74 9-79" Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.41 1.71 2.46 2.74 2.20 2.73 2.7]. Nitrogen-free Ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.15 77.85 78.78 79.74 79.81 79.61 79.53‘ Fats . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . 4.76 5.83 6.05 5.27 5.30 5.43 6.22 Water-Free Analysis. 4 Comparing the above it will be noticed that the New York sample is richest in Albuminoids, and lowest in tender Fiber, while the fat is highest except in Georgia and Maryland. The Nitrogen-free Extract is lowest in New York sample. Composition of Georgia Grown Corn 1890, N 6's. 1 to 7 inclnsire. Seed obtained fronz the severally named States. CONNEELQHT ANALYSES’. _ >> g F?‘ ' E Pg? ‘f: ‘gt; S’. =1 a ° 5"‘ é ‘E ‘i r r1 5 Q» Q ¢3 . Q 2J4 ‘S z 2 M >4 s» w Nos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 '\Vater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 12.89 18.52 12.84 12.91 18.85 18.88 18.52 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.18 1.32 1.26 1.24 1.26 1.36 1.38 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.50 11.06 10.00 8.19 9.31 8.62 10.43 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.45 1.07 1.65 1.50 1.39 1.52 1.38 Nitrogen-free Ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.40 69.19 69.19 72.79 69.83 70.39 68.45 Fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.58 3.84 5.06 4.37 4.56 4 86 . New Yvrk 94mm COW-Seed 844114191-54139411/3”M-____ Nos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 Water . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.88 14.37 15.49 15.84 18.72! 15.28 19.80 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.41 1.33 1.24 1.35 1.16 1.25 1.24 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.44 10.81 8.50 9.31 8.31 9.44 8.50 Fiber .. .» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.25 1.06 1.39 1.61 1.25 1.39 1.63. Nitrogen-free E)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.97 ‘ 68.41 69.29 68.24 68.83 69.85 66.77 Fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10 4.02 4.09 3.65 3.73 3.67 2.06 Reckoneol W ater-_free, Georgia Grown, 1890. _ Nos . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 l 2 3 4 j 5 6 a 7 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 1.52 1.44 1.42 1.45 1.52 1.59 Albuminoids . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.05 12.78 11.49 9.40~ 10.76 9.95 12.06 Eiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.66 1.23 1.89 1.72 1.60 1.75 1.59‘ Nitrogen-free Ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.66 80.00‘ 79.38 83.50 80.86 81.26 79.15 Fats . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.251 4.44 5.801 5.01 5.28. 5.61 5.59 New York Grown, 1890. Nos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l. . . . 8 9 10 A 11 l 12 13 14 4 Ash, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.65 1.55 1.46 1.60 1.39 1.47 1.54 Albuminoids . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . 12.25 12.62 10.05 11.06 9.97 11.13 10.59" Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.42 1.23 1.64 1.91 1.50 1.64 2.03 Nitrogen-free Ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.80‘ 79.76 81.99 81.08 82.64 82.39 83.25 Fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.81 46915.43. 4.33. 4.47 4.32 CORN EXPERIMENTS. 85 SAME AS ABOVE, BUT TEXAS ANALYSIS. As Analyzed-grown in Georgia, 1890. ' m? ‘*5 .5 i? _ pa’ $703 cu s3 c3 o if; 3 N a z 2 M M a w os . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.91 11.97 10.22 10.32 11.75 12.02 12.32 Ash. . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.90 1.33 1.57 1.54 1.60 1.38 1.49 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 10.22 10.88 10.25 8.75 9.29 10.18 10.18 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.62 1,35 1.92 1.67 1.85 1.82 1.80 Nitrogen-free Ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.59 70.47 70.95 73.38 71.01 69.40 69.14 Fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.76 4.001 5.09 4.31 4.52 5.20 5.05 Grown in New York, 1890. Nos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14- Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I 13.48 13.15 13.96 14.33 15.489 13.45 17.90 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . 1.48 1.49 1.44 1.65 1.28 1.28 1.41 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.48 10.97 8.75 9.87 8.31 8.53 8.30 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.29 2.06 2.16 2.35 2.03 2.09 1.97 N itrogen-free Ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.31 69.97 69.51 67.98 68.88 70.38 67.20- Fats . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.96 4.36 4.18 3.82 4.02 4.27 3.22 Texas Analyses Reckoncd water-free, N os. 1 to inclusive, grown in Georgia, 1890. Nos. . .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1 2 3 4 5 s 7 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . .. 1.02 1.51 1.74 1.71 1.81 1.56 1.65 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.60 12.35 11.41 9.75 10.52 9.73 11.62 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.83 1.53 2.13 1.86 2.09 , 2.06 2.07 Nitrogen-free EX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.12 $0.07 .79.06 81.84 80.46 81.74 78.87 Fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.43 4.54 5.66 4.84 5.12 5.91 5.76 ' Water-frec—g1*own in N cw York, 1890. Nos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.. . . . . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13. 14 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.71 1.71 1.67 1.92 1.51 1.47 1.72 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.24 12.48 10.16 11.52 9.83 9.85 10.10 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.67 2.34 2.57 2.51 2.40 2.42 2.39 Nitrogen-free Ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.76 78.51 80.80 79.60 81.51 81.31 81.87 Fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.62 4.96 4.86 4.45 4.75. 4.93 3.92 WISCONSIN AND NEW YORK CORN GROWN IN oonNEoTIcUT, 1890. Nos. 1- and 2, Connecticut Analyses; Nos. 3 and 4, Texas——Duncan.Adriaoicc. I. 31' - .4 "i? _. A i=3 . ._'. i - Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.04 . . . . . . 10.08 . . . . . . 10.69 . . . . . . 12.96 . . . . . . Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.37 1.46 1.39 1.55 1.36 1.53 1.56 1.79 Albuminoids . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.87 10.51 10.37 11.53 8.10 9.07 9.69 10.99 Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.55 1.65 1.48 1.64 2.05 2.29 1.90 2.17 Nitrogen-free EX . . . . . . . . 76.23 81.12 71167 79.72 72.80 81.52 69.39 79.56 Fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.94 5.26 5.01 5.56 5.00 5.59 4.80 5.49 ' CONCLUSIONS. One years work is not suflicient to decide the object of the experi- ment; but as several of the stations could not spare the time, or did not deem the matter of suflicient importance, t0 continue‘ the Work for another season, it is thought best to report progress for this year. At the same time, some facts are indicated Which may prove of in- terest and value. If We examine the analytical results on the Georgia and Maryland corn as grown in that state, and as grown i. . A . 86 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in New York the same season, we find the albuminoids and the fat decreased in the New York grown s_ample. Texas and Kentucky also diminished in fat content; the albuminoids remaining about the same. i Kansas and Wisconsin corn grown in New York increased their albuminoids over that of same corn grown in Georgia. The fat of Kansas remaining about the same, but an increase for Wiscon- sin in Georgia. If we compare southern corns Georgia, Texas, Kentucky, and Maryland grown in New York 1890 with analyses of seed corn from same states, we find they all lost in albuminoids and fat; except Georgia albuminoids, which remains about the same, while there is some discrepancy between the same seed corns, and that grown in Georgia 1890, there is no uniform or‘ regular difference. The experiment simply indicates, without proving, the southern grown corns to be richer in albuminoids and fats with a correspond- ing diminishing in the less important ingredients. DIGESTIBILITY OF FOOD STUFFS. COTTON SEED HULLS. Within the last few years large quantities of cattle have been fat- tened for. market in the South on a ration of cotton- seed meal and hulls mixed. It has proven itself a great economical feed and at the same time, a most desirable one for fattening purposes. Farmers in the South have long been accustomed to “winter” their range cattle upon the husks or shucks from corn, with cotton seed, or sub- stituting straw for the corn shucks. ‘Fed in this way regularly to cattle, there is no trouble from scours, and it is a cheap valuable food. Mixed with. a little corn meal, slops and scraps from the kitchen, or particularly with-sweet potatoes or pumpkins, it makes an excellent feed for milk cows. But while this gives good results when fed to cattle, it is a Waste, because of the large Ciuantity of oil in the seed, that cattle are unable to appropriate. It was, and is, an empirical way of feeding. Not much more so, however, than the common method at present of feeding meal and hulls, which has in so many instances proved satisfactory. It has been comnuonlyr sup- posed that the hulls were digested in great part; and that they added materially to the nutritive value of the meal." With a view of better observing the appearance of the hulls as they came from the animal, the dung both from sheep and steers was well washed, and the hulls “somewhat the Worse for wear” broken intopieces of all sizes, were recovered. The tables of hull digestion show that scarcely any of the albuminoids or nitrogenous matter is digested; while about one- ‘ half of fiber and three-fourths o_f fat appear to undergo digestion. This makes a poor showing for the digestibility of cotton seed hulls, exept for the fat, and shows that their effect must be largely mechani- cal, whatever that may be. With the meal, they certainly give most satisfactory results in a practical way. In a carefully conducted ex- periment at this station (see Bulletin No. 10.) by Profs. Gulley and Carson J. W. where the weight of steers, cost of feed, and gain of flesh on a variety of steers were accurately kept, cotton seed meal and hulls, with or without silage, was the most desirable of the sev- eral rations. Q DIGESTIVE EXPERIMENTS. The analysis of the hulls is li COMPOSITION. kely to vary considerably, because the quantity 87 0f broken seed and parts of kernel remaining attached, will- differ widely in different samples. Even in analyzing from the same sample, great care must be taken that these parts are properly mixed with the lint and shell of the hull. The following is fihe average analysis as fed in the experiments. No. 1 in the first test No. 2 in t e secon . . ’ . HULLS, WATER FREE No. 1. _ No. 2. gags. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Per-‘cent. Per-cent. 1 er . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . ‘ . . “ Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.24 “ 3.85 “ Carbhydrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3g.81£> 37.37 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 3.46 DIGESTIVE EXPERIMENT. STEERS FED ON COTTON SEED HULLS. Analysts: j _ ' g _ >233 d HARRINGTON . a £9 § ‘g .5- g 215 ‘g s‘ WIPPRECHT. 3g ‘Q >32 In _ § 3'6 3 l? ADRIANCE. é‘. E‘; Q F" Steer No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lbs Lbs Lbs Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs Hulls eaten in pounds.. . . . _ 53.0 5.29 47.71 1.07 27.80 14.71 2.504 1.63 Dung excreted “ . . . 89.9 61.4 28.5 .447 12.78 11.26 2.42‘) 1.60 Hulls digested “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.21 .623 15.02 3.45 .082 .03 Coeflicient of digest’, pr. ct. . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.2 58.2 .54 23.4 3.28 1.84 Steer No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Hulls eaten in pounds. . .. 50.5 5.04 45.46 1.02 26.48 14.02 2.386 1.554 Dung excreted “ 108.8 79.29 29.51 .244 13.57 12.20 2.324 12174 Hulls digested “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.95 .876 12.91 1.82 .062 .380 Coefficient of digest’, pr. ct. . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0 85.8 48.7 12.9 2.59 24.4 SteerNo.3.._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , . . . . . . . . .. Hulls eaten in pounds. . . . 56.5 5.7 50.8 1.14 29.6 15.67 2.66 1.73 Dung excreted “ . . 98.2 71.51 26.69 .224 12.54 9.75 2.35 1.63 Hulls digested “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.11 .916 17.06 5.92 .31 .10 Ooeflicient ofdigest’, pr. ct. . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,4 80.3 57.6 37.7 11.6 5.77 Mean coefficient of the _ . three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . 45.4 74.7 53.4 24.6 4.78 10.6 At another time, two steers Were a gain fed on hulls, and degestibiiity, deter- mined. The feeding in all these tests was conducted by J. W; Carson, Assis- tant to Director. TABLE or DIGESTIBILITY. ~ I ANALY ST-—-DUNCAN ADRIANCE. V» . r8 =4 w v5 r5 “"1 n6 C; a n6 sis £5 E55 255 $5 s53 5 a éi a: s‘ s‘ 2 Steer No. 1 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Hulls eaten in pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.16 0.638 21.605 15.046 1.547 1.377 Dung excreted in pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.57 0.103 11.601 9.406 1.490 0.928 Hulls digested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.59 0.535 10.004 5.640 .057 0.449 Coeflicient digestibility, per-centage. . . 41.4 83.8 46.3 37.4 3.6- 32.6 Steer No. 2 . . . . . . . .- . . . . ..' . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Hulls eaten in pounds p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.29 0.624 21.135 14.677 1.512 1.348 Dung excreted in pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.63 0.110 9.484 8.670 1.401 0.830 Hulls digested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.66 0.514 11.651 6.007 .111 ~ 0.518 Coefficient of digestibility, per-centage. 47.5 82.3 54.1 40.8 7.3 38.4 Mean Coeflicient of the two steers. . . . . 44.4 83. 50.2 39. 5.4 35.5 Mean Coefficient of the two tables . . . . . 42.4 73.8 51.8 31.8 5.0 23. 88 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Of course in a digestive experiment the hulls were fed alone. In an actual feeding test with cotton seed meal, their digestibility would appear still less than the above figures show. Particular attention is called to the tact that the fat of the hulls is largely digestible; and that the Protein, which has been supposed to have a digestive coefficient (see Bulletin No. 3. Tenn. Ex. Sta.) of 26, really has one of about 5. That is to say, in every one-hundred pounds of hulls there would be only about 5 per cent of the total protein available to the animal. If we feed 2O pounds of hulls a day containing .9 pounds of protein, we could expect that the animal would assimilate about 1-2 of 1-10 of a pound of protein, practically none. Corn fodder analysis, water free,as fed to steers in digestive experi- ment below; This is the fodder such as frequently gathered in the South, consisting of the blades and tops of the stalks. ANALYSTiADRlANCE. Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.65 per cent Fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.11 “ _ Fibre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.70 “ Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.72 “ Carbhydrates . . . . . . .. 48.82 “ DIGESTIBILITY 0F CORN FODDER. HARRINGTON AND ADRIANCE. g v3 é; v2 Q v5 2B Egg é) a5 ,4: iii’ g“ 5.33 £55 E5? g6“ g3 i=1: . i=4 Q O Q4 Steer No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . _ g Fodder eaten . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.19 6.38 47.81 1.4860 14.6770 22.340 3.6909 4 61 Dung excreted . . . . . . . . . . .. 106.8 87.22 19.58 .4175 4.2292 8.8731.6877 4.35 Fodder digested . . . . . . . . . . 28.231.0685 10.4478 14.467 2.0032 0.26 Digestive coefficient pr.-ct. a 59.0 71.9 71.1 61.9 54.2 .056 Steer No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ Fodder eaten . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.53 5.48 41.05 1.27612.602 20.03 3.169 3.9613 Dung excreted . . . . . . . . . . . 81.67 65.42 16.18 3.75 3.566 7.476 1.375 3.4042 Fodder Digested . . . . . . . . .. 24.87 0.901 9.036 12.554 1.794 .5571 Digestive coefficient . . . . .. 60.5 70.6 71.7 62.6 56.6 0.140 Awge coefiicient of the two 59.7 71.2 71.4 62.2 55.4 .098 This makes a good showing for the fodder. The well known fondness that stock l1ave for it, with its digestibility, makes it very desirable for feeding. _ PTOMAINES. An exhaustive attempt has been made again to separate these by the Stas-otto method, and modifications with different solvents. Of some , hogs being fed by the Station on cotton seed meal with other feed, several died. The blood and contents of the stomach from 2 or 3 of these was extracted with acidified alcohol, ether and chloroform, and tests carefully made for alklaoids, but with negative results only. ' COMPARATIVE ASH DETERMINATIONS. With the view of finding the effect of sulphuric acid on the ash of different food stuffs, and comparing the oificial method with that of the muffle method, the following work was done by assistant Duncan Adriance. The substances were moistened with sulphuric acid, a11d then burned off over the direct flame. The mufiie turnace used was such as shown in catalogue of Eimer & Amend p 146 No. 6440;a low red heat was used,in most cases securing complete whiteness. ASH ANALYSES. f 89 TABLE OF ASH DETERMINATIONS. N0. 1. No. 2. c? *6 '6 . Po‘ Pd c? GRAIN. fig _ é 3.3 £3 .3 73.3 o w: q.» 6E3 *8 c1? ‘SE3 g ‘F! "-1 as is ‘S? £5 ii‘ 32 Missouri Maize——per-cent . . . . . . . . . . .. ' 1.68 1.80 1.71 1.32 1.44 1.02 Maryland “ “ . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.38 1.40 1.67 1.37 1.44 1.74 . Kentucky “ “ . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.37 1.38 1.51 1.51 1.52 1.81 Kansas “ “ . . . . . . 1.55 1.53 1.92 1.40 1.52 1.71 ‘Texas “ “ . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.47 1.46 1.47 1.43 1.53 1.56 Georgia “ “ . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.57 1.77 1.72 1.59 1.57 1.69 New York “ “ . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.86 1.75 1.71 1.46 1.64 1.51 Wheat Bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.00 3.11 3.59 . Corn Fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.12 12.54 9.67 Cotton Seed Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.22 6.34 6.58 Linseed Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.76 6.68 6.64 Bermuda Grass—-—Green . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.19 5.74 4.75 Bermuda Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.04 17.03 12.70 Paspalum Dilitatum Grass . . . . . . . . . . 8.95 10.75 9.27 Pea Vine Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.51 15.09 10.29 Cotton Seed Hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10 3.24 2.30 A noticeable thing with the grains is, that the official method al- most uniformly gives higher results than that obtained by burning off with sulphuric acid. The same is true of wheat bran, but with the grasses and hays, the ofiicial method is very much lower. With cotton seed meal and linseed meal there is little difference among any of the methods. The Work clearly shows that the methods are not comparable; only in exceptional cases. ANALYSIS OF WATER. Hempstead, Texas., Analyst, P. S. Tilson. Examined to see if it could be used for boilers. Grains per gallon: Total mineral matter as sulphates, . . . . . . . . . . 115 .00 “ Suspended matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.90 “ Suspended mineral matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.59 “ Insoluble mineral matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.00 Carbonate of Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.40 Sulphate of Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . 12.30 Oxide of Lime, held as Bicarbonate . . . . . . . . . . . 13.76 Soda and Potash, as chlorides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.59 Magnesium chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.70 The water contains a very large amount of mineral matter, While thequantity of soluble mineral matter is also comparatively large. It would be condemned for the purposes intended. But the large quantity of alkalies present would tend to counteract the effect of the scale forming substances, and because of this the water might be used. FERTILIZERS. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were done for the Horticultural Dept. by Mr. Adriance. No. 6. for a manufactory, just started in the state. The name of the firm is with held because of a promise to improve the fertilizer, rather to make a commercial fertilizer. As yet, the state has no fertilizer control. It should have, because of the growing use of fertilizers by the farmers of the state. Especially by the hor- i 90 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. ticulturists and market gardeners. Without an analysis, the farmer is likely to be imposed upon by the manufacturer; at the same time, it would be a protection to the honest manufacturer, against spuri- ous and worthless goods in the market. It would be a saving to the farmers simply upon the analysis. That is, when a fertilizer was analyzed for the manufacturer, the goods showing the analysis offered for sale in different parts of the state, no second analysis would be necessary, as is now so frequently the case. Each farmer that may happen to buy a fertilizer paying for his individual analysis: a Nos . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total phosporic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.06 6.56 0.61 21.59 0.93 0.448 Water soluble Phosphoric acid . . . . . . . 12.22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.041 Insolv. phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.71 0.63 . . . . .. 4.00 . . . . .. 0.384 Reverted phophoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.13 5.93 . . . . .. 17.57 . . . . .. 0.024 Total potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ 13.58 1.52 . . . . .. 0.50 0.12 1-2 Total nitrogen. . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.07 3.64 0.99 0.40 Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.1- 8.10 No. 1 is an acid phosphate; No. 2 cotton seed hull ashes; No. 300t- ton seed meal; No. 4 ground bone; No. 5 barnyard manure. . ROASTED COTTON SEED. i Within the last year considerable attention has been. attracted to these as a feed stuff. It has been claimed that a part of the oil has been expelled by the roasting, and that the remaining oil has other- wise been changed; so that no ill effects result from feeding alone, or with a small amount of “roughness,” as is so frequently the case when the raw seed are fed. ANALYSIS 0F ROASTED SEED. Fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..32.70 per-cent. Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..16.81 per-cent. Albuminoids—-Nitrogenous Matter . . . . .17.75 per-cent. Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.72 per-cent. Carbhydrates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..21.l0 per-cent. Hygroscopic Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.92 per-cent. This analysis does not indicate that any of the oil has been volati- lized during the process of roasting; the fats may have undergone some chemical change that would make them less laxative to the animal than fats in raw seed. But it is probable that any heat that was suf- ficient to drive off the fats, or change their chemical character, would also drive off some nitrogenous matter. However, a little of this could be sacrificed, if the seed could be gotten in a condition to feed without being mixed with other less concentrated feed. It certainly is the case, that in the process of roasting, the seed are much improved in appearance, and apparently in flavor. The separated kernels have very much the odor and taste of roasted maize. One difliculty attend- ing the practical use of roasted seed, would be some device to roast them cheaply and conveniently. They must not be heated too high, yet evenly. Until some means is provided by which this can be done economically on the average farm, they are not likely to displace the - raw seed for general feeding purposes. And in fattening cattle, hulls and meal makean excellent combination, that will not be easily sup- planted by any other feed.