. I   VAAGB} EXP?’- STATIUIIFILBI A 

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

    BULLETIN No. 33.

A DECEMBER, 1894.

FEEDING} MILK cows.

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE CF TEXAS.

POSTOFFICE:

COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS CO., TEXAS.

All Reports from this Station are sent free to farmers of the State on application to
J. H. OONNELL, DIRECTOR, P. O. College Station, Texas.

 

A U S T I N:
BEN c. JONES s: 00., STATE PRINTERS.

1895 ‘ [497]

MAJ. A. J. ROsE, President ....... .; ............................... .. Salad
A HON. W. R. CAVITT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryai
DR. J. D. FIELDS...’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Mano...

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. A

OFFICERS.

GOVERNING BOARD.

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS A. 8r M. COLLEGE.

HON. JNO. ADRIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Columbi

TREASURER.

PRESIDENT L. S. ROss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. College Stations

STATION STAFF. ,
J. H. CONNELL, M. SO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .  Director.
H. H. HARRINGTON, M. SO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . .  . . . . .. Chemistf
M. FRANCIS, D.'V.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VeterinarianQ
R. H. PRICE, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horticulturistg-eleév

D. ADRIANOE. M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meteorologist, Associate Chemist;
P. s. TILSON, M. s ................................. .. Assistant in Chemistrys:
JAs. CLAYTON . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Agriculturist. 
J . W. CARSON, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant to Director.

A. M. SOULE, B. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Assistant Agriculturist. =

SUB-STATION SUPERINTENDENTS .

J. H. FERGUSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. McKinney, Collin Co. 

S. A. MOHENRY...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Beeville, Bee Con?
[498]

   
  
   
   
  
   
  
 
   
    
   
   
 
  
  
  
   
  

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

  Four Feeding Experiments with Milk Cows.

-J. H. CoNNELL, M. So.
JAs. CLAYTON.

g The farmer, the dairyman, 0r the professional stock feeder, is usually
i limited to the choice 0f one or two grains or of one or more kinds of
forage stuffs, and from these he must decide which is best suited to his
purposes, basinghis decision on the market price,.the cost of handling
and on the more important question, of intrinsic value to him. The
{farmer or dairyman usually owns hay and often wishes to buy a grain
ilthat will produce milk or beef freely when combined with it. He then
jconsiders the market prices, which are always variable.

A The farmer or professional feeder may be able to secure one kind of
jgrain or one kind of forage at a very cheap rate, and must choose some-
thing to feed with it as a companion food. In any case we must recognize
the fact the value we expect to find in a grain or hay will depend largely
iron the nature and value of the other food selected to go with it.

“A In planning this series of feeding experiments to produce milk and
butter, we hoped to answer some of the most important questions pre-

senting themselves to all who feed milk cows. We have attempted to so
iplan the experiments that the results would be of practical value to

everyone in the State feeding milk cows. We tried to decide what
iigrains were best suited to accompany certain forage stuffs or hays, and

what forage stuff is the best companion food for some of the most popu-

jlar grains. .

A portion of the experiments was devoted to a test of one grain

pound of a certain grain will be shown in pounds (or a fraction of a
ound) of the other. These are considered the most valuable and con-
 lusive results of this series of experiments, since it gives a more prac-
tical understanding of the relative values of the grains or forage stuffs
Compared than can be obtained in any other manner. By this method
[499]

against another grain, planned in such a manner that the value of one I

500 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

0f comparison we rid ourselves of the question of market prices, which
changes the face value of most experiments with every change of season.

The most important questions answered by these four experiments are
here mentioned:

How much cotton seed hulls is equal to one pound Al-
falfa hay? Ans. 1.58 pounds when combined with 3
pounds cotton seed meal and 5 pounds cornmeal. (See
page 502. Experiment No. 2.

How much cotton seed hulls is equal to 1 pound choice
prairie hay? Ans. 1.45 pounds when combined With 3
pounds cotton seed meal and 5 pounds cornmeal. (See
page 502. Experiment No. 2.

l How much choice prairie hay is equal to 1 pound Al-
falfa? Ans. 1.12 pounds when combined with 3 pounds
cotton seed meal and 5 pounds corn meal. (See page 502.
Experiment No. 2. A

Does the addition of silage to a ration of common hay
cheapen the ration? Ans. It does. (See pages 510 and 515.
Experiments 3 and 4.

Having cotton seed meal, What single forage should be
fed with it to produce largest flow of milk? (Forage tested-—
cotton seed hulls, alfalfa hay, silage, and prairie hay.) ADS. Cotton
Seed hulls. (See pages 510 and 515. Experiments 3 and 4.

Having common prairie hay, what single grain is the
best to feed With it to produce largest flow of milk ? (Grains
tested were cotton seed and cotton seed meal.) Ans. Cotton Seed.
(See page 510 and 515. Experiment 3.

Having cotton seed hulls, what single grain is the best
to feed with it to produce largest flow of milk? (Grains
tested, cornmeal and cotton seed meal.) Ans. 001513011 seed meal.
(See pages 510 and 515. Experiments 3 and 4.)

 

FEEDING MILK cows. 501

EXPERIMENT NO. 1-TEST OF FORAG-E STUFFSf
(Fed ad libitum ration of grain and forage.)

The first object 0f this experiment was to test the merits of the several
most important forage stuffs used in this State in feeding milk stock-—
cotton seed hulls, alfalfa hay, common prairie hay, and corn silage. To
do this most accurately it was thought best to feed as grain with each of
the *‘ hays ” a mixture in equal parts of corn meal and cotton seed meal.
It was further determined to feed all of the food as liberally as the cows
demanded. In selecting cows for this test, eight grade cows were taken,
four grade Jerseys and four grade Holsteins, and divided into four
groups, and for convenience numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4; each group con-
taining one Jersey and one Holstein grade. They were fed 28 days (Jan-

uary 26 to February 22). In this the grain feed given the eight cows A

was uniform; consisting of cotton seed meal and corn meal mixed in
equal parts. The different groups were fed the following different kinds
of forage: l

Group No. 1, Alfalfa, at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $16 O0 per ton.
Group No. 2, Cotton seed hulls at . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . g 6 0O per ton.
Group No. 3, Silage at $4.00 and Common hay . . . . . . 10 ~00 per ton.
Group No. 4, Common hay at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 00 per ton.

The feed was given twice daily in limited quantities for the first period
of seven days, and then gradually increased until the cows were given
all they would consume.

The first table shows amount of feed given in limited quantities for
the first seven days (January 26 to February 1, unchanged) with the
total amount of milk and butter produced in these seven days and net
receipts from sale of same, also weight of cows on February 1. In mak-
ing all calculations an average price* was taken, based on the different
commodities in this locality. _ .

The following tables show what each group was fed daily and the milk
and butter produced. Each table gives a complete record of this expe-
riment for one period of seven days.

* Corn meal (corn and cob meal) is valued at $14 per ton, and cotton seed meal
' at $20 per ton; cotton seed (boiled) at $10 per ton. - , ' _
In making estimates of profits the milk is valued at 20 cents per gallon, butter

at 25 cents per pound.

502 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Table N0. 1—F7~st Period, Preliminary Feeding.

.. s’.  .. ..£..0;..........0Iw. .10 0.0.4..» 

.J an. 26, to Feb. 1, inclusive. (A11 feed limited; same amount: of grain fed all groups.)

.000|00000.00 ma. 000.00 00000

 

2. 7. 3. 7
-000 0000000 0.000 0000000 .000 .5. m... 0.. m 0....
.00000|0000S 0000B 1. 2. .0 s. 1. 9. 4. 5
00 0000 006.00 00000. 00.00.00 0.5 0 0.. 00 0 0 0--
.00000l.0000 .0000 0. 5. 0. 2 5. 7. 2. 2
0.0000000 00000.00 00 0000000 00m 0 0 .00
.00000|0000 .0000 00000 7. 8. 5. 0. J 9. 8. 7
-0000 0000.00 00000.0 00 0000000 0 0.. .00 0 0 0 0
00000 5. 5. 1. .4 4. 4.
l0000 00 0000 00000 00000.04 ww 88 w w
. 00000001100000 8. 8 9. 7. 7. 9. 0. 8
-0000 000005 000000 00.000004 1
.00000000l0.000.0. 2. 1. 4. 4. 9 5. 1. 7.
-000 000000 00000. 00000.00 0 w w w w w m
00000000 7. 7 9. 9. 6. 6. 2. 2
100000 000.000 000000 0.0000004 4 4 5 5 w 7 7
0.0005000 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
l00000 000.00 000000 00000004
.0000000|00000 00>00 1 0. A 1. 5. 3 0. 7
000000.000 000000 0.000 0000.0. 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 5
. .0000.000|0.000. Q 0 0 0 m 0 0 m
00.000 000000.00 000000 0000B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
00000001 9 9  5. 5. 5
00000 0000 00 00000000 0000B 8 8 9 .09 W. 0 007. .07
1 1|. 1 1
. 0 0 0 0 55
.00000000l00000 .000 00000000 _ m 0 m m m». 0m M
. 00 0 m 0 m 0 0... H 0
00000 |00000 00.0mm 4 0 0 0 0 . m
00000000 0 U 5. 5. 0 0 0 m
1.00000 000000 0000 000000 H m m... M m 0 0 m
3 9o 0 0 0 0 0 0
.00000000I00000 0000004 _ 3 3 m m 0 0 m m
00000 0.000 000 .00000 0000 % % w % ww mwmm
000000 0000 0000 0000 000.00
.0 .0000 .0000 00 0000005 0w 00 00 0.0
. n0 9 7 8 6 0O 7 7
.09 0.. 00002.: 10 00 00 00..
‘J’. !\/\.’\ ‘la! l)?
L 90 0.0 5.
o. 0. o. 0
N N N N
P P P P
u u u u
O O O O
r r. r r
G G G G

Table N0. 2—Sec0nd Period.

v (Grain mixture and forage fed ad 1ibitum.)'

Feb. 2 to Feb. 8, inclusive.‘

 

.00009|0006.00 .00. 000.00 000000

9

0

 

6

 
 

3
-000 0000000 0.000 000000 00000 .05. 0 0 M 00.
.00000I0000E 0000B 00 _ 01 0000 2.6. .09
0000 000.00 >000 .0000 000000 0000.000 @900 0% % w fi WWM.
0000011000 0. 7. 5. 5 2. 0. M 2.
.0000 000000.000 0000000. 00 0000> %w ww 09.0. 2w
. .00000I.000. .000 5. 0. 7. 2. 1. s. 0. 4.
000000.000 000000 0000.0 00 0000000 00 0 0 0 0. m
8 9 4. 4. 8 2 40 3
.000l0.000 00 0000 00000. 000.005. 0 7.9. 5. 5 6. 6. 7.7.
1 11 1 4|. 1 4|. 11 1
0000000.! _ 05.9 07.9 7.9. s
000000.000 0000000 00000 0.0000004 1 1
. .0000.00 _ 4. 7.7. 91. A5.
I000000000 000000 00000. 000.0000 .0 w. 0 0 w w w .0.
00.000000 9 .02. 9.4. 1.5.
|00000 000.000 000000 00000.04 6 9 w w w w U w
  .09.... .0... .0 0.... .0
l00000 000.00 000000 00000.04 1 1 1 1 1 1
. 00000000 2. 5 2. 5. 1 A 2. 4.
|000000000 0000000. 000000000 00000.0. 9 5 5 5 5 6 7 5
.0053  m0 020% 0..
10000000000 000000 00000000 00000. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.000... 2. .2.  
[$00000 600w wO uflfiOafl 0000.0.  W. W0. 10/10 m W11
0 0 0 5 7 00
.0000000|00000 000 000000000 _ m m m M 0m 
. 0 0 5 7 . .
.000000|00000 00000m _ m m m MW.
. .0 0 46 0
.0000000|00000 000000 0000 000000 l m m 7 8
. 5
0000000100000 0000004 _ $0.0m
000000 0.000 000. 00000 0000 25 1 7 6 1 8
000000 0000 0000 0000 000.00 wm w 9 9 9 9 W
.0000 00 000000005 00 m0 0:00 00
. 1 1.. 3 90 11 2 1 3
i (J? (l! ‘J’. ‘J1’.
. o. 0. 0. a
N N N N
P P P P
u u . u u
0 0 o 0
r .1 T. r
G G G G

 

 

 

503

FEEDING MILK COWS.

Table N0. 3- Third Period.

(Grain mixture and forage fed ad libituru.)

lFeb. 9 to Feb. 15, inclusive.

 

55511555555 an E555 5555.55 7. 7. 6.
.5555. 55 x55 55?» 55953.4 W M W W
53555258 5B5» 5. s. 3. 5 1. 5
.5 55m 59G 55w >555 555554 . WA W MM W W W
525551.255 2. 2. 7. 2. 7. 7. v. 5.
.85 5555555 .5555 5 555$ W W N W W W W
555511055 5n A 7. 7. 2. 3. 9
55555955 58 5555» 5 535$ m. 5 .0. m. 4 5 5
 w... m... 3...... .....
I555 5 .555 355 555.5384 1 2 1 2 W 2
55555! 8 7. 8 J
5555555 .5555 EH55 5555i» 1 11 1 1
55565 57. 6 2. 7 1. 5.
1155855555 5E .555 55555.12. 5 W. 1 5 m w W
.5556.“ 8. 5 9. 8 8 7.
|H5p55 555.55 5555 555.5354 4 6 6 8 8 W 7 7
.5559» _ 3. 6. J 6. 6. A
|55p55 555m E55 5.5553» M W M. w W W
 6 1.. 4. v3 6 NI. 11
15555.5 .5852 2555a 5.5m. 5 7 5 5 8 7 7 7
55565 w. m. 5 Q 2 M. 5
1.5555595 x55 5:555 135B 11 1 1 1 1 1
55555 7. 5 5 A A A A 5
|55p55 5555 5 £5555 5555B .  W W w W w m %
1 1
. . u u u 7 .0 5
5555551155555 >55 555550 _ . u 1. M... 5 4
. . . 2 . .0 5
n n w! u w
.555_o@|55p55 555mm _ H n 09. . M
n H 4. 5 u u
u 5 u n u.
555555155555 555 555w 55550 _ m 2 2. u u
. 4. 6 n u
5 7 u n u H
_ 5555551155555 52534 _ 44 m H u
90 4. . u n
.5555 5.55 55 555 5555   8 M0 5
55.555 55.55 355 655.... 55.1w 9 M n B B M % M
0 0 nU O 0 0 0
.2 .555 .55 .5 255B _ 5m 55% w. 5 m5
.58 5 8585i 5% m5 mm 5w
11 3 3 11 2 1 3
i4’. (1)1 . (Jwl. ,\<!\
L 2 3. 4.
o. a 6 6
PN PN PN PN
u .u u u
0 0 0 o
r r r. r
5 e G G

Table N0. eZ-Fourth Period.

(Grain mixture and forage fed ad libitum.)

.Feb. 16 to Feb. 22, inclusive.

 

5551559555 .5. E555 5555595 . 6.  8 6.
.5355. 55 ~55 55.? 5525.5 % 8 W M
5551555 A 6. 3. A J 9.
555B 5o 22 S5 .255 55.5 m 5 m 55 .5... 5..
55551.55 5. 5. 5. 5.
.55 5585585 555.25 5 52E, 5. 5 5 5 5 m W. W
5555.155 5m 5 . 5. 5. 5. 7. 2 7.
5555595 5:5 555B 5 53S’ 5 m 5 5 55 5
.8555 14. 2.5. 53. 15
15$ .8 $8 5S. 55.5.6.5. 5 .5 w m w. 5 5
55565! 3.9 89 8W. 1.1
5555555 53:5. 555 555.53.. 1 1
55555 8 2. A 2. 5 5. J
155522.55 5.58 .252. 555.553.. .55 m 5...... 5%
@5565 55. 52 6.9. 9.5
I535 5.5.5.55 E55 5.55.5154 5 5 9 m. 7 H 5 5
55565 7 9. 5. 2. 5 5.
115555 55.5.5. E555 555.55» W M. W WW W W
5555511 4. 5. 6. 2 0. 9 J M
5555555 .5355. 555555 15.5% 9b 5 6 68 8
59555 5 m m .5 Q5 m
115555595 M55 55555 15.5% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.52.... .5  W7 5..
l1 Q 0 a 5 0 600m 05508.5 150E m W“ m m w % W
u n u n 7 4. 5 .4.
.55s:oQl55555 55 555550 _ u n 5. . .9.
H n 1 W 3
u a u 5 4 Q 0
555505115555 555mm _ m m m 7.8
. - - 3 Z0
. u n 5 5 n
555555155555 5:55 555m 55350 _ m m w U
1.. 9 n u
5555551155555 52554. _ 4 3 m
.555 n55 55. 555 555w   2 8 m fi 8 0
55355 5555 5.5 5555 55.56 mm mm MW. mm
.5. .555 E8 .5 55565 _ 5m 55 5m mm
8 9 7 9 7 U 8 8
.58 5o 5255i 5.5% m5 1m 5w
. 1.. 3 D0 AZ 11 3
!\J\'\ (4.11 1\.J\l\ (411
1.. 2. 3 A“
a 0. a 0.
N N N N
P P P P
H u u u
0 o o o
r r T. r
5 5 5 5

that could be traced to the food they consumed. The gain in the weight-l f;

4 (based on the yield 0f the first period, was as follows: The gain for the- -

504 TEXAS ‘AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

When the second, third, and fourth “ periods” of this feeding test .
were compared with the first period, the following prominent facts are ;
found worthy of mention. The feed consumed by the cows in this was 
590 pounds more during the second period, 634.} pounds more during 
the third, and’ 763 pounds more during the fourth period than was given 
them during the first period, the amount consumed in the last period being 
nearly double that given them in the first] So gradual was the increase 
madein the feed demanded by the cows (which consisted chiefly of the- 
grain given them, as there was practically no increase in the forage) that 
only three of the cows had slight attacks of indigestion, which were re- i
lieved without treatment. The other five had no trouble of any kind 

of the cows is sufficient proof of the healthfulness of the cows at the end 
of the test. The eight cows were weighed February 1st, 15th, and 22nd. 
Their total gain February 15th, was 500 pounds, and February 22nd, 
390 pounds. The gain in butter and milk for the different periods, 

second period was 93 pounds milk and 1.27 pounds butter- For the? 
third period the gain was 188 pounds milk and 5.25 pounds butter, and. 
for the fourth period the gain was 204 pounds milk and 10.16 butter.

As before stated, the money question was not considered in planning 
this experiment. However, it is interesting to note that the total value ,
of the food consumed by the eight cows during this test for 28 days was 
$36.37, while the receipts from the sale of milk were $112.59, showing a. 
net gain of $76.65 over the cost of the feed. It is but fair to suppose Y
that in feeding so freely we fed somewhat wastefully from a profit and L
loss standpoint. " 

FEEDING MILK cows. 505

SUMMARY OF RESULTS.—EXPERIMENT NO. 1.

   

The following table shows comparison of groups and feeds, including
the total amount of milk, and value of milk produced, total cost of feed
eaten by each group, total amount of money earned by group, and the
total gain or loss in the live weight of the cows:

GROUP NO. 1 MIXED GRAIN AND ALFALFA HAY.

‘S93 pounds mixed grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7 59
.337 pounds alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 69

 _ ‘i230 pounds feed consumed: total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10 28
, ‘.1226 pounds milk produced; total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 65
Total net velue .... .; .......  ................................. .. s20 s7

1820 pounds total weight two cows beginning ‘of test.
1845 pounds total weight twq, cows end of test, 28 days.
25 pounds total gain in flesh.

GROUP NO. 2——-MIXED GRAIN AND COTTON SEED HULLS.

 
 

795 pounds mixed grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6 75

485 pounds cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 45

, 1280 pounds feed consumed; total cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8 20

A a 1008 pounds milk producedytotal Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 21

Total net value . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $17 01
1620 pounds weight two cows beginning of test.
1690 pounds weight two cows end of test, 28 days.
.70 pounds gain in flesh.
GROUP No. 3—MIXED “GRAIN, COMMON HAY AND SILAGE.
T895 pounds mixed grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . $7 60

440 pounds silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

p 226 pounds common hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13

 1560 pounds feed consumed; total cost . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . $9 60

. 1108 pounds milk produced; total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 70
p ‘Botal net value ................................................ .. s18 10
_ 1510 pounds total weight two cows beginning of test.
; 1620 pounds total weight cows end of test, 28 days.
I 110 pounds total gain in flesh.
GROUP No. 4—MIXED GRAIN AND ooMMoN HAY.

' 916 pounds mixed grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7 79

_ 44-3 pounds common hay . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 22

A [1359 pounds feed consumed; total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . e. $10 01

; 1150 pounds milk produced; total value. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28 75

Total net value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18 74

‘I550 pounds total weight two cows beginning of test.
1620 pounds total weight two cows end of test, 28 days.
70 pounds total gain in flesh. ' '

 

506 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

l In studying the above statement, it will be first noticed that the group-
fed alfalfa hay and grain, produced the greatest flow of milk, followed
next by common hay and grain. The smallest flow was produced on cot-
ton seed hulls and grain ration.

We notice incidentally that the greatest clear profit was derived from-
the alfalfa hay and grain, followed next by the group fed common hay"
and grain. Because of the probable waste in feeding these cows, it is
not fair to stress the items of profit appearing in the above statements.

Though all of the groups made a gain in live weight, there was no im-
portant gain, except in the case of group 3, fed silage, hay and grain.
These made an average gain of nearly two pounds each per day. Had.
profits in feeding been a prominent point in this experiment, this live-
weight gain would be entered in all the groups as a credit, increasing
clear profits in each case.

The group fed alfalfa hay and grain cost more for their 28 day’s keep“
than any other two cows in this test. The cheapest ration fed consisted
of cotton seed hulls and mixed grain, group 3.

When silage was added to the common hay ration (group 5), as com-
pared with No. 4, we note that less grain and hay were consumed, and
the cost of total ration cheapened. The flow of milk was apparently de-
creased because of the small amount of dry matter eaten.

EXPERIMENT NO. Z-FORAGE TEST.

The chief end in view in planning this experiment was to so arrange '
‘the feeding that a fair trial of alfalfa, cotton seed hulls, silage, and ordi»

nary prairie hay would be had. To secure this trial, a fixed grain ration
was prepared for all the groups, consisting of 3 pounds cotton seed meal.
and 5 pounds corn meal daily for each cow in the test. All the forage‘
was given them that their appetites called for. This experiment began-i
on February 23, 1894, and continued 21 days until March 15. For con-
venience of study, we have divided this time into periods of seven days-
each. '

It will be seen by reference to the numbers of cows appearing on the-
next page, the same individuals were used in this experiment as were re-
ported on in “ Experiment 1,” found in the preceding pages. The cows
were not only the same, but were similarly grouped. .

The same care was exercised in taking note of milk and butter weights,
live weight of cows, waste in feed, and all essential details as was true--
of the former experiment. All calculations are based on the same prices»
of food stuffsand products as in Experiment No. 1.

The following tables show what each group was fed daily, and the» "

milk and butter produced. Each table gives a complete record of this
experiment for one period of seven days.

507

FEEDING MILK COWS.

i
O
.79
T
3
P
t
8
.5
F
2,
m.
t
n
6
.m
Z
T
5
x
E
g
n
:6
d
5..
.5
.. m
M .m
a 1,
T h
. m
w.
w
3
2
5
.F

(The same grain fed to all; forage ad libitum.)

5550011055055 50. 5555 50055 A .1 5 3
-055 505559 55.0 55E 05.5.» .0>< w w w M
.......1....... .... 5.. 5 2. 5 5..  M...
655.5 .8 05w 555 5555 .255 2 3 5 3 2 3 2
.w.._500115.55 5. 2. 5. 5. 2. 5. 7. 5.
.65 5005.50.55 505550. 50 055.35 m w m. w m w m“ w
.w5n00|55© .55 5. RN 7. 5.
555555.55 5:5 65555 5 55> m M .5 5 5 5 w Q
.0500 .5 6. 55 2W 5. A 6.
I558 5 555 5555 55.55.55 m 4 m m m n m. m
5555.51 55 m5. 55 5%
500550.55 50555 5555 0.5.5.5055 L . . . . . . .
505505 A 1 5. 4. 4.
15555555 555 5555 555.582. % w. m. w 5
555505 5 1. 4. 5. 7. 7. 2. 3.
|50500 0.0.553 5505 0.0.0505» 9 w M H R U m
.M.@.QQOQ 8 8 8 8  8 8 8
1505.50 55.5 5550 0555054 .
5555551 55 .55 ma. mm
UQQSUOMQ MQMBDQ 5.555086 330E o0 6w 5. 5. 5. i 6. nu
5555.5 55 w... 5w 5s
|5005505m 55E 55505.5 5550B 1 1 1 1 1 1
505505 6. 8 B 5. 7. B 9.
|50550 5005 55:05.5 5550B 5% mm WM MM
11 1 11 11 11 1 11 1
555555 m m m m 7.7. Q9
|n0550 55m 05555.5 005050 m m ." m %% flaw
~ u n n 2 2 .
5555051150550 055mm 5.500 _ H m m m 4 4 u .
505505 u m B 5. H u .
I n 0 5 5 0 0:55 500w 505500 m m W W... m
6 8 u u .
55Q=0QIQ0550 55554 Mm 0. m H H
7 . u
505505 Rm
1,505.50 55050 550E 5.500 %% %% M% %%
555505. 5.
155550 505 5005 555550 mm mum 5.2. mm
5 55.552 .556 5 5555i m w 0 w mm m5
. 9 9 6 8 7 8 $11
.555 5 5555551 5 5 mm .50.. mm
.1 3 3 Z 1 3 .1
i (Jl (1.111 [)1 (411
L 2 3 4“
w. 0. w. 6.. w. 0 w. 0
5m N mwuN m5 N ~mN

Table N0. 6——Feeding Experiment N0. 2, 1S’ec0nd Period.
March 2 to March 8 inclusive.

(The same grain fed to all; forage ab libitum.)

5555555555 5» 555.0 00055 6. 6. 7. fi
-055 505.55 55.5 55E ®5H£> .0>< w . W W Mw
.5555915:5 2 1. 96 4. 1
5555.5 5 555 555 555.5 55m 55.. .5 5 5mm
555051555 2.2. 25. 2.2 2.
505 50055055 50555 Ho 055.05» “New mw W %%
5550011555 .505 2. 5. 5. 8. 2W 3. 5.
55555555 5:5 05.555 5 655$ w 5 5 5 5w. 5 5
dpflmo 9 6 9 8 % 2 5
15005 50 5500 5555 0.5.5.5055 N m m. 9. n W. m
5555.5! 55 $5 5m WW
500550.55 505550. 5505 555563.. L . . . . . . .
55555 9. 6. A 1. 7. 4
|000s505Q 52E .5555 90550.54 %B W. H w N
555505 1. 5 9. 5. 5. 5. 1.
11505.00 055.5505 5555 55555.54 B B W w H w
m5nd0Q|50500 55.5 555.0 .0554 _ 9.
8 8 8 8 7 8 8 8
5555.5 5% 5m 5 m
150555555 505555 555555 5555.5 00. 6. 5. 5. 4. 5. 6. 6.
. 5555.5 m5 5w mm 5m
|0005605Q MES 555090 5550B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.555... .5 5 5 5
1.50550 500... 55:08.5 5550B MM NM w BM
5555.5 m m m m  55.
1.56555 55 5555.5 5 5 5 5 50 m m m m m 55
u n H u 2 2 u
.w5c:0Q|m05_50 050mm 5500 m u m m 4 4
555505 m m  m
11505.50 0:5: 000w 5 0 5 5 0 O u H M % n
o0 u u n
555505150550 55.554 20. u u m
9 9 5
5.55505 7.
|m0550 55050 500E E00 %% 5552a Maw %%
505205 9w
1.55550 5505 5005 55.350 mm mm wm mm
0 0 0 0 0 0
.5 55.55 .565 5 55555? Wm MM 5m 5m
. 2 2 6 8 1 9 6
>>005050n€sZ_ ww Mm WW NM
PL P95. P5 PA
mo wo wo we
r N r N r N r N
G G G G

508% TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION.
Table NmV-Feeding Experiment N0. 2, Third-Period.
March 9 to March 15 inclusive.

   

(The same grain fed to all; forage ad 'libitum.)l

.8888wo|mwq888w. Mn 8.2.88 88888

  

.88 I

. . . , . . _ . » . . . . e _ . . ‘ ..

 

 

5
8.5 888888 888 8:888 8888> .8>< $8 M on...“ M
88888|88S 8N6. 7.6 7. 7. .
288.8 88 28 888 888.88 .8888 8% 8.8 88 88
.WPHHQU|I%Q@ 5 2 2 2 2 9 7
888 888888.88 888888. .88 8888> mwm mm % fi %
8888811888 888 2. 7. 5. 2. 2. 2. 7.
888888.88 8888 8888B 88 82S, 8 8 8 .8. 88
.8888“. 3 “W 8 6 5 2
I883 88 8888 E888 88888:... mm m . n m M M
888888! 8 88 m W 8
88888888. 888888. E888 88888.84 L . . . L . .
emfigmflog 9 3 4 9 9 1 1 4
|88888888 8:88 E888 8.8888884 m“ w w w. w. w w.
888888. 5. 7. 2. 6.
188888 888888 E888 88888884 w w m W w w w w
8888881188888 8888.8 E888 .85» 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
888888! 88 8m m8 88
888888.88 888888 8888888 88888. 6 5 6.6. 15. a6
888888 88 %8 mm, 8.8%
1883.8 8:88 888888 8888B 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1
.w.©.-HD.OQ 2 6 2  1.. m m m
[88888 8888 8888888 8888B Nw WW wl 11
888888 m m m m 5
|88888 888 88.8888 8 8 8 8 8 O m m u m fi W8 m m
. H . n 2 . u n
88888Q|88888 888mm 888D m m u m 4 Q m m
888888 m m 6 M m m m n
188888 8:88 888m 888886 m m Mm n n m m
888888|88888 888834 fi m      m
.888888 %% %% 88% 83.8
|88888 88888 88888 8.880
888888 m m m m m m. m m
|88888 88888 8888 8 8 8 8 8 O
0 0 0
.8 88.882 E88 88 88888? mm 8  m m m 8
E88 88 88888.2 8.8 8w 8m 88
11 3 3 2 1 3 1
(lwl. (1).. 1).’. 1)..‘
8M 8M 8.... 8M
8N m N mN mu
G G G G

FEEDING MILK cows. 509

SUMMARY OF RESULTS—EXPERIMENT NO. 2.

The following table shows comparison 0f groups and feeds, including
the total amount of milk, and value of milk produced, total cost of feed
eaten by each group, total amount of money earned by group, and the
"total gain or loss in the live weight of the cows.

GROUP NO. I-—MIXED GRAIN AND ALFALFA HAY.

126 pounds cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 26

210 pounds corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 68

548 pounds alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 83

I 884 pounds feed consumed-total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6 77

874 pounds milk produced-total value . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 85

Total net value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14 08

1830 pounds total weight two cows beginning of test.
1840 pounds total weight of two cows end of test, 21 days.
10 pounds total gain in flesh.

GROUP NO. 2—MIXED GRAIN AND oorToN SEED HULLS.

126 pounds cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 26

210 pounds corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 68

737 pounds cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 21

1073 pounds feed consumed-total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- $5 15

736 pounds milk produced-total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . 18 40

Total net value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13 25

1700 pounds total weight two cows beginning of test.
1740 pounds total weight two cows end of test, 21 days.
40 pounds total gain in flesh. .

GROUP NO. 3. MIXED GRAIN, CHOICE PRAIRIE HAY AND SILAGE.

125 pounds cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . $1 25

209 pounds corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 67

252 pounds silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

285 pounds choice hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 42

8S2 pounds feed consumed; total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4 84

680 pounds milk produced; total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 00

Total net value . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ $12 16

.1620 pounds total weight two cows beginning oftest.
1610 pounds total weight two cows end of test, 21 days.
10 pounds total loss in flesh. -

GROUP NO. 4——MIXED GRAIN AND CHOICE PRAIRIE HAY.

126 pounds cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . A $1 26

210 pounds corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 68

538 pounds choice hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 69

874 pounds feed consumed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5 63

780 pounds milk produced; total value .. , . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 50

   n I I I I I 0 I I O I I Q I I I I O I I I I I I Q I I I I I I I I I_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i  

.1630 pounds total weight two cows beginning of test.
1630 pounds total weight two cows end of test, 21 days.
—'- pounds total loss or gain in flesh.

510 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

RESULTS COMPARED.

The greatest flow 0f milk was from group No.1, fed mixed grain and
alfalfa hay. In flow 0f milk group N0. 4 was second.

There was but little change in the live weight of the cows during this»

test. Group 2 gained 40 pounds in the 21 days, showing again the‘

.fattening tendency of hulls when fed to milk cows. i

The most expensive ration was that in which alfalfa was used. The
cheapest ration was that in which silage and choice hay appeared. The

greatest clear profit was realized from the lot fed grain and alfalfa hay;
It is interesting to note that the silage cheapened the ration, as is shown

in group 3, but gave the lowest yield of milk, evidently because the
group ate such a small quantity of food that it was impossible to keep»
up the flow of milk reported upon in Experiment No. 1. (See page 501.).

Since all these groups ate the same amount of the same grain, and
were given all the forage demanded by their appetites, it is thought that»
the difference in the yield of (milk will show the variation in the values»
of the several forage stuffs used in combination with the cornmeal and
cotton seed meal. Such values, when obtained, will only be absolute
when considering such fodders in connection with this particular grain
ration.

.When the cotton seed hull ration (group No. 2) produces 736 pounds
of milk, the ration having alfalfa (group No. 1) shows 874 pounds, or a
product in proportion of 1 (hulls) to 1.18 (alfalfa.) But since fewer
pounds alfalfa were required to produce this ratio, we should multiply
the 1.18 by 737 (pounds hulls) and divide by 548 (pounds alfalfa) to
learn the equivalent of 1 pound of alfalfa in pounds of hulls. If these-
calculations, are made as indicated, the result shows 1 pound alfalfa to be
equal to 1.58 pounds cotton seed hulls. No notice is here taken of the
40 pounds gain in live weight in the group fed hulls.

In like manner we may compare alfalfa (of group 1) with choice hay,
as fed to group 4. Here the values are more nearly the same. One

pound alfalfa is equal to 1.12 pounds choice prairie hay. They are of ‘

practically the same value when combined with this grain feed (consisting;
of three pounds cottonseed meal and 5 pounds cornmeal each per day.)

In the same way we may compare the cotton seed hulls with hay by
comparing the yield of milk from the two different groups and the
amount of forage consumed in each case as above. In this case we see

that 1 pound of choice hay produced as much milk as 1.45 pounds hulls-‘

EXPERIMENT NO. 3.

This experiment continued 28 days (January 26 to February 22). It.

was conducted at the same time as was Experiment No. 1, but was not a,
duplicate of it. This was intended to prove the worth of some of the
most common food stuffs in the production of milk and butter. To test
(1) cotton seed meal against corn meal, (2) cotton seed meal against cot-
ton seed, (3) compare cotton seed hulls, alfalfa, and common hay with
each other. To accomplish this, we fed one group cotton seed meal and.
another corn meal (both were given the same forage-cottonseed hulls).
A group was fed cotton seed to compare with another fed cotton seed

 

FEEDING MILK cows. 511

meal (both groups were given the same forage—common hay); cotton
seed meal was fed to three groups which were fed different hays, namely,.
cotton seed hulls, alfalfa, and common hay. So in the comparison of
these we hoped to find the relative value of these important forage stuffs.
The feeds given the different groups, with their values, were as follows:

Group N0. 1. Cotton seed meal, $20 per ton; cotton seed hulls $6
per ton.

Group No. 2. Corn meal, $14 per ton; cotton seed hulls, $6 per ton.

Group No. 3. Cotton seed meal, $20 per ton; alfalfa, $16 per ton.

Group .N o. 4. Cotton seed meal, $20 per ton; common hay, $10 per ton.

Group No. 5. Cotton seed (boiled), $10 per ton; common hay, $10
per ton.

For these tests fifteen grade Jersey cows were selected and divided into-
five groups with three cows in each group, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The se-
lection of the cows and placing them in their respective places required
the most careful study of the individual animals and a comparison of
the several groups with each other.

The details of this test were managed the same as in Experiment No. 1..
The cows of each group were fed all their appetites demanded, and for
this reason much of the feed was probably wasted, when looked at from
an economic standpoint. It is, therefore, unfair to say the profits shown
are maximum profits; on the contrary, a much greater gain would have:
been realized had less grain been fed some of the groups.

The following tables show what each group was fed daily and the milk
and butter produced. Each table gives a complete record of this exper-
iment for a period of seven days: '

512

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Table No. 8—Experz'ment No. 3, First Period.
Jan. 26 to Feb. 1, inclusive. (Same grain fed to all groups; forage and grain ad libitum.) '5

6

 

wpsoolwmschm .5 5E3. wccsw J J . 8

-95 .8352 E55 MES c5555 .25» w W W w w
wSwvlMES 3cm? 8 8 6 8 5 J 2 7.8 8. 4.8 2. 6. 5.
5c 25m Scfi Boo Sum 55.5w SE56 w w 5 w w m 5 M w w w m w w
dancmlhg. 557. 5.0.0. 7.5.5  5.57.
5cm 55360.5 .3555 Ho cE5> W 5 m... w M W M M M M M W. 5 m
dSocl AA6 7.51 25A 8J2 1.7.8
c5362.“ MES 2on5 Ho wfis5> .5 w .5 w W m 55 w w W w 9 w W
. wpnmc 87. 999 7.4 959 8J8
15cc“ 5c umcc 55.5w cw5hc>< 9 9 w 8 8 8 m w. H w H 8 9 9
555525! 0.0.9 96.9 590. 985 7.98
5555595 hcppsn 555w ow5hw>< 1 1 . 1 1 .
. 5555a 558 J 8 2 5 JJ7. 8.7.1
lwocsccpm MES 5E5“. 5.5.5.5554 w M m w H M 5 M H w. H .2. M H
. .5553 265  56.4 85.8 888
[Sofiwc c.5553 5525c cw5Sc>< 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 5 7 7 7 7 7 W
.555=3 8 8 8  7.
isop5o Qfinmw 535w 55555.55 8 7 8 w w w 8 8.8 8 6 8 9 w w
595cm! 72.3 957. J9A 8 1 9J8
c5536.!» .3555 SscSa 555cm. 7 7 1 6 4 6 4 6 7 4 6 4 4 7 5
55555 $5.. 5.55 55w. 5% 55.5

15952.5 MES fiScS5 555cm. . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

$555 2. 5. 5. 5. 5.

159.55 558 555585 558a 55.5. 556 555 nmn 5.5.5
<1 .1 11 1 1.. 1.. 11 1.. 1 1...

.555=3 51.5.5. 5.5.5. m m . m m m

I 55555 5S5 5555 555550 . Q .5 5 5 5 5 m . m m m
.555:cc|55555 5S ScSScO H  H     w ww w w w

dwmscmlncgo 55.554 M     5%6 

u - u 5 3 3 3 a

daiscmlncgho 25S SScO _ m m mm m H H . m
55752.55 555588 5555 55580 _ m m m m m m W. w
5555a 5. 2. m m m m H m
l S5555 EQS ccwm QOQbOU w M w m m H w w w w w w m m m
.. .................5...... 55.5 55m  555 
................z 555 555 55...... .555 555

P1 P2 D3 4 5
W5 we we We We
r N r N r N r N r N
G G G G G

Table N0. .9—Experz'vnent N0. 3, Second Period.
Feb. 2 to Feb. 8 inclusive.

(Same grain fed all groups; forage and grain ad libitum.)

iancclmmscaw .5 555w cccsu 8  A J 8.
-95 S355 cs5 MES 9:5.» .5155 w 2 w . w w
.mP.-HQQl|-MA._@AHHM 8 3 7 3 3 8 6 8 8 6 2 8 7 7
22E .6 255 Sch .555 55556 5 .55 5 .5. m. .5 5 5% 55w. 5. 5
.WQQ.QU.II%.N@ 385 575 775 527 577
5S 5555525 .6555 5 35> 5 m w m mm m % w % 5 W. 5
.M.G§QOI%.N.@ Hmwg A47 202 96.4. 252 850
5555593 M58 5655 5 35> m 5 .5 % 5 5 5 w w 5 5 55.
5S3 523 57.9 3.95 A89. 52.
luau“ “c 55cc 5E3. 55555.5. 8 H 9 w 9 w m w. m H H 9 9 w
.MU~HSOQII.@QQH~Q  o0. HI 8 6 7 2 9 0 6 0 HI O0 8 9
-95 .5355 “c 555w cw5So><  1 1
5586a!  1 5 585. 7.A7 5AA
UQOQUOMQ MES Hc 5S6 555.65. M M M M w M H 5 M H 5 m w w.
.$EEa 293 937 286 923 722
|S$5o 5.5.5.8“ Ho 555w 55.5.6.5. 6 6 8 9 7 9 3 2 3 7 7 8 7 7 8
595cm 22.7. 87.7 7.7.6. A28 AAl
I QQHQQ SE53. H5555 0.5.5.534 6 9 6 w w m 9 9 9 9 8 7 w. w. R
.w@nH5QQ||| 4.115 4.4 632 811 6116
5555595 .5555. SscS5 155cm. 6 6 5 6 4 5 8 6 7 4 7 5 6. 6. 6
. $525 55 5mm 51w. .555 55w
IcQcSccSQ MES E5035 555cm. 1 1 1 1 1 J 1
.W@H~.S.OQ 5 2 5 2 7 HI 7 2
I555... 5555 555565 5555a w... 5 5 W. 5.5 m w. 5 m 5 5 m 5.. 5
1 11 1|. 1 11 11 1 all 11 11
.w.mvQ50@ 5 5 5 2 H H H H H H H 5
|Soe5c 5E5 wccm ScficO w m w m. w H m m m . m m H
. .HH HHH ."" H4 5
wwuscmlnoefi. 55S ScSScO m m H m H m m 5.18 4 18
. . . . . . . 5 5 .0 5 5 5
. H H . H 7 7 H H H H H
wcsscmlncufi. 5E 5E4 m m H m 3 9. 5. m m H
- . . . 2 1 2 . . .
. . 5 . u n H u u u
.muswcmlnw55w 13S SS0 _ H H 6 5. 5 H H . H H H
u u 7 flu 7 . . H u n n
55.5.5 _        555
I555». 555:2: 5555 5855c H H H H H H H H H
$525 S5555. 5cS com S3 c 2 H H 2 7 7 H H
H 5 55 5.55 H3555 H55 5H
_...:...._...._5  555 555 .55 555..
1 2 3 4 5
5 0. o. o. o.
pN pN pN pN pN
5 5.. 5. 5 5.
r r r r r
G. G G G G

513

 

FEEDING MILK COWS.
(Same grain fed to a.11 groups; forage and grain ad libitum.)

 

Table N0. 10—-Experiment N0. 3, Third Period.

Feb. 9 to Feb. 15, inclusive.

 

626662.666 m8 .280 00080 6. . . 4 4 8. 9., .66666l.2s.6 .3 .300 00080 4  8
-088 80.388 080 2Z8 0880.» .0>< % B B. .9... B m -088 80380. 080 2Z8 0886.» .0>< % Mm B
.66866|28S 9 19. 66.1. 6 97 947. 99.4 n .66866|28E 421. .691 A99
626E» 8 6266 86.8 28.2. 686.0 0B8. mmB 66w  BBB m 6682 66 266 26.8 2260 696.0 0.5% Bu mum
. .66666l.62. 6 6 2 7. 5 5. 7. 6 7. 2. m .08800|§6_0 9. 2. 3. 7. 9 6.
.868 666600.88 66.8.0 .8 6.265 w. m. B B w B m m w. m m m. w. B B 6 .268 0628.68 66.860 66 602.2, 6 .6. B u. m m B w
.09.800|>00 .808 1. 2. 5. 7. 7. 5. 2. 2. 8 3. 5 7. .m . .08800I.§0 .808 7 2 7 8 7 9 6
666666.28 288 6268B 86 668$ 2 0... W. B B .6... B B B B B  0.. B B m. 66666068 282 668.2 06 688$ B B B B B B B B B
.0800 21.5 4.. . 5 81A 7.1 A52 . 7 .8800 6. 6. 596 4 6
I000“ 80. 0000 E860. 606.868 .7 9 9 B B B B B M M B B 6 7 7 M. m 11.0008 80 8000 E200 606.865» H B H B M B M B B
. . I . a . || . 3 9 3 3 7 2 9 4.
066006.28 262.50 .9226%0%0m6ww%< . . 9 9 s. 6. 9 6. 7. 6. 6. 9 5 6. 9 s m .6 -28 .6825 002.%m..w8 6wmwww< 6. 6 s 9 6. & 6 a 6
. .6688 97. 42. 4 2 2.1. 1.4.2. P m -8858!  47.2
I0008008Q 9:28 E200 00080.5» B B B M B M H M B B H H B B B M f 000800.28 258 80 D800 0208058 B B M M B M
. 83 843 895 659 235 T.S . 9 1 976
008808 . . . . . . . . . . . u P 0.08808 . . . . .
|80800 000.800 E860 08680.3» 5 5 9 B 6 9 2 2 4 6 9 8 4 3 5 wm w |80600 020808 00 E200 0m080>< 8 8 9 8 4 8
.666668 .997. 997 6.99 79.6 26.9 - 6. .6658 69 8A6
|80p00 .220 32.00 006.863. 5 7 6 . M M B B B B B 7 8 B H B 3 H 11808.00 8820 80 E200 0.00.8025. 9 9 8 B B B
.w.@ggom%|| 378 642 4.55 685 776 On M  426 5441
000800.88 806.888 688080 8680B 5 5 5 5 4 6 M 5 4 4 3 3 4 6 5. N B 100080088 80388 088086 180B 4. 6. 5. 6. 4 6.
268808 BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB m. .n 608808 BBB MB BBB
|00080088 288 08808.6 2080B 1 1 1 e m. |00080088 2:8 088080 2080B 1 1 1 1
dwdflom 7 7 7 7 7 5 . 5 2 2 5 2 2  g 0.08209 5 7 2 5 2 2
I 62.66 062 25626 2.688. 2. B m B B m 0... B B m B B m B B. 6 6 I 66666 662 666686 2.268. B B B. 6.. B m w m B.
608808 52. 2 27. m u m m m m x S 008808 52.7. 7. 7. m m m
I 86666 285 6666 60260 . B m B m B B n . m m m . E ( I 86666 6:68 6666 80.200 BBB B B B . m m
" u H u n u u u H 5 7 w! 7 . u n n u . . u
608807180000 E68 808800 m m m m m m m m m 6. 6 2. 03.9 7__ .008808l80000 >68 808800 _ m m m m m u m
... ... ...466 323 .. .. -..-
. u n n u u u 2 5 U . n 7-_ u u u . n 2 7 2
0088027180000 082.624 m m m m H n 0. 0. 2 . 0 .008808l.80800 03034 . n u n M 50.2.
. . . . " u 2 2 no . . N H u u u n 2 3 3
5 n . u u u 2 7 n u n
008808|80800 2008 8.800 B1. 6 m e w. .008808l800_60 2008 8.800 m m m 46 O. u m .
1 B 9 m N  u m m B B B m H
  .66=668 I. L. Km 91.9.6.2. a 1 .66==68 L MI I
l86666 2.6808 0666 8880 m m m m 9 m m m m m m m B. m B T    166966 066288 0666 60800 m m m . m m m
.606668 27.6. m . m 5. .65. . m . B . .2268 .65. . m m 7.5.
l. 808.00 2.008 000m 8086.00 B W H n u W. B B BBB m b. l 80800 2008 . 0000 80300 BBB m m m BMW
.. . . 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O U O . . . O 0 0 0 0 O O
2 66.6 .6662..a26>>_ .666 66m 66.6. 6.... 6 .666 w. 2 66.... 2662.66.62 6W6 2.0m 666
. 6 E  92.». 66w 06,. .62.. .6 7.66 z 666 96.2 B66
r O. r O. r O. r 0. md 6 r O. r 0 r Q
G N G N G N G N G N F G N G N G N

514 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS—EXPERIMENT NO. 3.

The following statement shows by periods the total amount and cost
~of feed consumed; the total amount and value of milk produced; net
gain in money for each period; the li-ve weights of the cows at the be-
‘ginning and end of - test :

GROUP NO. 1-—-OOTTON SEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED HULLS.

658 pounds cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6 58

612 pounds cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 83

1270 pounds feed consumed; total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8 41

i1202 pounds milk produced; total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O 45'

Total net value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22 96

1955 pounds total Weight three cows beginning of test.
1770 pounds total weight three cows at end of test, 28 days.
185 pounds total loss in flesh. .

GROUP NO. 2——OORN MEAL AND COTTON SEED HULLS.

1126 pounds corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7 88
670 pounds cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0]
1796 pounds feed consumed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9 89
1112 pounds milk produced; total value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 80
Total net value ...............  .............................. .. $17 91

2240 pounds total Weigh three cows beginning of test.
2280 pounds total weight three cows end of test, 28 days.
40 pounds total gain in flesh. a

GROUP NO. 3—-COTTON SEED MEAL AND ALFALFA.

859 pounds cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8 59

331 pounds alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 64

1190 pounds feed consumed; total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11 23

11134 pounds milk produced; total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 35

Total net value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17 12

1985 pounds total weight three cows beginning of test.

11650 pounds total weight three cows end of test, 28 days.

335 pounds total loss in flesh.
' GROUP NO. 4—coTToN SEED MEAL.AND COMMON HAY.

747 pounds cotton seed meal ........................................ .. s7 47 '
712 pounds common hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56
1459 pounds feed consumed; total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11 03
91022 pounds milk produced; total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 55
Total net value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14 52

"2030 pounds total weight three cows beginning of test.

2010 pounds total weight three cows end of test, 28 days.
20 pounds total loss in flesh. e

GROUP NO. 5—COTTON SEED (BoILEn) AND COMMON HAY.

940 pounds cotton seed (boiled) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4 70
509 pounds common hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54
1449 pounds feed comsumed; total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7 24
1053 pounds milk produced; total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 31 g

2 Total net value ....................  ....................  s18 07

"r2045 pounds total weight three cows.beginning of test.
.1970 pounds total weight three cows end of test, 28 days.

75 pounds total loss in flesh.

FEEDING MILK cows. 515

RESULTS COMP-ARED.

The greatest flow 0f milk obtained in tl1is experiment was from Group
lNo. 1, fed cotton seed meal and hulls.

The greatest loss in live weight is noticed in the group fed cotton seed
meal and alfalfa. The only gain in live Weight of any group occurred
in No. 2, which was fed corn meal and cotton seed hulls. .

The greatest clear profit was derived from Group No. 5, fed cotton

seed and common hay; followed next by Group No. 1, fed cotton seed

meal and cotton seed hulls. The poorest returns were from cotton seed
meal and common hay. -

The cheapest ration used in the experiment was cotton seed and com-
mon hay, fed Group No. 5.

The dearest ration was cotton seed meal and alfalfa hay, fed Group
No. 3.  

When the first two groups are compared (in which hulls was the for-

..age) we see that a 9O pound greater flow of milk was gotten when cotton

seed meal was fed than when corn meal was used combined with hulls.
The cotton seed meal ration also cost less--another advantage in its fa-
vor.

In comparing the groups fed common hay (Group No. 4, cotton seed meal,

and Group No. 5, cotton seed), we see that when they were fed all that

they would eat of both grains, the cows fed the cotton seed produced 31
pounds more milk. The seed cost less than the cotton seed meal, and
the cows ate less hay when fed seed than when the meal was fed. The
seed ration also cost less at the market rate used. Therefore, if prairie
hay is to be fed milk cows, and we expect to feed but one kind of grain
with it, cotton seed is far better than cotton seed meal.

Groups 1, 3, and 4 were all fed cotton seed meal as grain ration, and

‘to each group a different forage was given—hulls, prairie hay, or alfalfa. i

In studying the results, we note that of these three groups, No. 1 (fed

cotton seed hulls) gave the most milk, while Group No. 3 (alfalfa) came

next; Group No. 4, which is common hay, came last. It is interesting
to note how much more cotton seed meal (and common hay) was eaten
by Group 4 than by the cows fed the meal and hulls. If cotton seed
meal is to be fed as the sole grain ration, and a single forage stuff is
wanted as companion food, we would select hulls for the purpose (all
prices as quoted). Or if these are not available, choose alfalfa before

Icommon hay.

These conclusions are fully confirmed by a careful study of Experiment

4, which is reported upon fully in the following pages.

EXPERIMENT NO. 4.

The cows used in this experiment were the same as those reported on
in No. 3, just preceding. The only difference in the method of feeding

‘consisted in limiting the amount of forage to each group. The maxi-

mum limit for cotton seed hulls was fixed at 10 pounds per day, alfalfa
6 pounds per day, choice prairie hay 10 pounds per day. In many

cases these amounts were not eaten.

516 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Five groups were fed as in'Experiment N0. 3, with feeds assigned as
follows: A -

Group No. 1, cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls.
Group No. 2, corn meal and cotton seed hulls.

Group No. 3, cotton seed meal and alfalfa hay.

Group No. 4, cotton seed meal and choice prairie hay.
Group No. 5, cotton seed (boiled) and choice prairie hay.

It will be noticed that of the above groups three were fed cotton seed‘
meal, but each group was given a different forage--alfalfa, hulls, or
prairie hay-to show which of these hays would produce the most milk,
when combined with cotton seed meal as the sole grain ration. It will
also be noticed that two groups were given prairie hay, but each group»
was fed different grains-cotton seed or cotton seed meal--to show
which grain produced the greatest flow of milk when fed, as a comparison

to prairie hay. In the same manner cotton seed hulls was fed as forage .

to two groups, and each group was fed different grains, to test the value
of corn meal and cotton seed meal when fed in conjunction with hulls.
The experiment continued 21 days. ' i

The following tables show what each group was fed daily and the-
milk and butter produced. Each table gives a complete record of this»
experiment for one period of seven days. 2

Tabl6 N0. 12——Exper2'1nent N0. 4, First Period.

Feb. 23 to March 1, inclusive. (Forage test, with different grain.)
l S-u I
1 l I I . T‘ I I l '7 l "7 _ 2 -
= 5 ==-=2%’55985°@32§$‘
<1) a q) m q) ,_, 53 p H O ‘J CD S3 Cl
g . .5 +5 "d +3 1 c: ,3 as _._, w: .._. "c: q 5 5v
_ <0 § fl <9 5 cu '51’; g °° ‘D g a 4.. é 3 ‘*5 ET
3 -—< g E U} r11  '6 g a4 F: g1) a $4 o A‘  2 
o c6 Q '5 '5 -—~ I a) c: a) a c8 <1: +> -~ o c6 5
*9 “v55 =13 ossgéisggfiwfifi‘
g a g g a .21 3 3E '1” =14  5 o _ L‘ a sun.
’ =6 2w o .2».
54253123554225526255554
00$ 0o ¢D°> ,3 o a: c3 a g ‘g a Q$SU3QQQ§
4-1 o += .5 ‘D - '6 U - - 5 .0 :1
<0 '—' +2 t!) SI a +2 Om “U U m '5 I ‘D 9:1 0Y3
O q-i _ ¢3 Q _ c6 _ _ .~ arc _ _ _ U EH C! QCD g
;_, O c!) Q) om <19 w 51 03m 85g 001001001025; q) 549F473
83525582528 2952228282-"19455517158
g 538:» :1 g: 758:1 a Téfi T558, 3:353:53 gégfighg-Jgo
égfii 358.238 o 52.55:;s;a;s.;1;9;2255a;5*
D U O U > ‘
Grou 134 730 62.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.8 .... .. 127.9104 5.6 8.8 9.414.8 .8 9 37 20.125.3
p 210 620 63.5 ................ .. 61 .... .. 124.5 86 5.1 9.0 8.7123 .7 8.9 30.718.519
N91 356 545 68.1 ................ .. 63.2 .... ..131.3 96 6.2 9.7 9 13.7 .8 12.4 34.2 22.2 21627.1
Zr! 880 .... .. 122.7 .......... .. 46 .... .. 168.7 102 6.0 .17.5 6.5 14.6 .8 14.2 36.5 21.7 22.3
Glfigpz 282 640 .... .. 145 .......... ..212 .... .. 166.2 70 4.5 20.7 3 10 .6 15.425 16.2 9.6
‘ 97 820 .... .. 140.5 .......... .. 40 6 .... .. 181.1 93 4.7 20 5 .8 13.3 .6 15.8 33.217 17.41249“
Grou 439 640 79 .......... .. 22 8 .......... .. 101.8 71 3.7 11.3 3210.1 .5 13.9 25 .2 13 .2 11.3
Nop3 354470 77.3 .......... .. 24 5 .......... ..101.8 85 4.3 11.0 3.5121 .6 13.8 30 .2 15 .5 16 .4
' 184 720 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108 108 7.4 10.31 5.1 15.4 1.0 14.4 38_.5 26 .524.1l24 .8
Gro R64 500 70 ................ .. 35 .7 105.7 80 4.4 10 5.111.4 .6 12.5 28 .5 16 16
N311} 28s 700497 ...................... ..55.3105 100 6.0 7.1 72914.3 .6 110357217246
' 276 790 43 8 ...................... .. 58 .7 102.5 72 3.7 6.2 8.4 10.3 .5 10.4 25. 7 13.7 15.2 23. 51
Grou 274790 .... .. 16 44. .......... ..35.8 96.1 77 4.3 8.6 5.111 .6 7.3 27.5 15.5 20.2
p 360 460 .......... .. 85.6 .......... ..17.9103.5 73 5.1 12.2 2.510.4 .7 7.4 26 18219.6
No 5
' 82l820 .......... .. 80.4 .......... .. 28.6109 75 5.7 11.5 4.1 10. 7 .8 7.8 26.7 20. 5 18.9 22. ‘f?

517

(Forage test with different grains.)

 

 

FEEDING MILK COWS.
Table N0. 13—-Expe7‘i77zent N0. 4., Second Period.

 

140.5  .. 
140  
125.5  
12 49

II 5412 ILL. ...II.

770 
430  
810  .

March 2 to March 8 inclusive.

134 690 45
210 590 29
356 540 7O
277 910 
282 660  ..
97 790 
439 610 48. 5   
354 480 70
184 700 7O
364 520 7O
283 720 7O
276 780 59
274
360
82

.55555I5555.55 B 5555 55555 M m 5 55 \./ .55555l555555 .3 5555 55555
-55 555555. 55 5:555 555555 .5>4. 2 2 % . fi 5% .m -55 555:5 555 5:55 555.5 .5554
.55555|..5:555 7. 6. 2. 9. A A 1 A 9. 1 4 A 8. A m. .55555|555
55555 55 5555 55.5 55555 555 5 5 .595 5mm m 5 5mm m. 5555B 55 5555 555.5 555.55 555m
.55555l555 . 2.5.  25 5.7. 7 n .5 555155
5v rs e
5m 5555555 555.555 5o 555555. fi $5 5.55 %% 555 MMW . m 555 55555.5. 5555555 .45 555.%>
.5555 2. 5.7. 257.5. 2. .52. 2. 2. fi .55555|555 .55
I555 555 555 5555.5 55 55555, 5.55.5 555m 55% 55W.  m 555555.55 5:55 55555 55 555555
      5   
I553 5o . 5555 E555 55555.54 1 1 11 1 111 11 1 5 . d.  I555 5o 5555 E555 55555.54
.555555l 5.5.5 557.5 7.9.9. 57.5 59 7. .5 9, .555555|
555555.55 55555 5555 555.5554 5T5 w 5553555 555:5 E555 555.5554
.5552 9.9.9. 549. .59.... v. 9. 9. 9. P 5 .555555
1555:5555 555 555 55.555554 M H B 9 B 9 R B H P5 w w w w d W55 |55555o5m 5:55 .2555 5.5555554
. .5555 8 3. 0. 0. 2. 3. A A 8. A 8 3. 3. 9. 8 W m . .5555
155555 555.555 55.55 55555.54 9 7 9 6 3 4 3 4 5 6 8 8 4 1 3 m F 155555 555.55 5555 555.5554
.555555  5.5.... 559 555 555. .555555
4| 55555 555.5. E555 555.554 2 2 1 1 91, 4M, 1. 55555 5.555 E555 5.5555554
.55555Q|555:5 2. 6. A A 9. 6. A 5. 7. 2. 2. A 7 3 . .5 555i 55:
‘OIHQ HQQMHDQ .HQ QGHSOHHHQ  6 A1 6 6 4.. 5D 5 6 6 A: 5 4.. 4... nO 5 % |QHQ MQPPUQ. uHQ rVwHH5OS.N@ 
.555555| 55.75% 55w 55.55.. 55.5 555 t -55:I55555555 55 5 .55 5 5
5555555 535E 5o 55555 5555B 1 .1 m . 5:. . 5 5 E _
.5545...     .9. .5 .5599...
155555 5555.5 5o 5555555 5555B 3 81 wmw 89H H“ 40.. %%% r 155555 5555 5o 555555 5555B.
1 6
.55555o55|\55555 55 555550 _ . . . . . H   8  5%. 5555555155555 595 555550
. . . . . . . A1 n0 5 0O .1 2
555555  5.82 m H . . . . 5 _ .555fio@
I 55555 5:55 5555 555555 5 m5 5.. @5505 m m . 4 I 55555 5:55 5555 555555
.555555l55555 555:5. _       mmm . A .555555I55555 55555.5
.1 . . .  .   . . 5 0 0w . .w HMQOQ
555555 . H u u u n n . H u 5 u . N  U
I 55555 5555 555555 555m m m m m m m m m m m m m mm m. e m I 55555 5555 555555 555555
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 Z
.55555o55!55555 5.555 55D _    %.4A.45M . .    5%  W w. 55555555455555.5555 5555 550 i
.555:o@     55 7.5.  m 5 .5555
I 55555 555E 5555 555550 6.36 H H n w W 555 n H h I 5555 5555 5555 555550
. .5555 5o 5555555  %%% MAMW %%5 WWW . %%.% m .55 55.52 .5555 55 55.555? _
n] 10 . 1| I I .
.500 0.55 a5 406 W27 944 .436 422 M. .
5 5 z_ 555 5.59 555 555 .559 5 55.555.55.555:
I. I 1 . 4U
1 2 9o 4. 5 9
D n. P . n. P . h
fi O fi O % O U O u O m .
G G G G G M

N0. 11
No. 21
No. 31
No. 41
No. 51

Group
Group
Group
Group
Group

 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

SUMMARY OF RESUUPS-EXPERIMENT NO. 4.

GROUP NO. 1'—C()TT()N SEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED HULLS.

497 pounds cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . $4 97 '

526 pounds cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . 1 57

1023 pounds feed consumed; total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . $6 54

842 pounds milk produced; total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 05

Total net value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14 51
1890 pounds total Weight three cows beginning of test.
1820 pounds total Weight three cows end of test, 21 days.
70 pounds total loss in flesh.
GROUP NO. 2—OORNMEAL AND COTTON SEED HULLS.
1232 pounds cornmeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8 62
298 pounds cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
1528 pounds feed consumed; total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9 51
783 pounds milk produced, total value . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7
Total net value ............................................... .. $10 06
2240 pounds total Weight three cows beginning of test. '
2360 pounds total Weight three cows end of test, 21 days.
60 pounds total gain in flesh.
GROUP NO. 3—COTTON SEED MEAL AND ALFALFA HAY.
634 pounds cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6 34
289 pounds alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2 31 _
923 pounds feed consumed; total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8 64
756 pounds milk produced; total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 90
Total net value. ..............  .............................. .. $10 26
1830 pounds total weight three cows beginning of test.
1890 pounds total weight three cows end of test, 21 days.
60 pounds total gain in flesh. '
GROUP NO. 4—OOTTON SEED MEAL AND COMMON HAY.
541 pounds cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5 41

500 pounds common hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50

1041 pounds feed consumed; total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7 91

760 pounds milk produced; total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Total net value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $11 09
1990 pounds total weight three cows beginning of test.
2020 pounds total weight three cows end of test, 21 days.
30 pounds total gain in flesh.
GROUP NO. 5——COTTON SEED (boiled) AND OOMMON HAY.
545 pounds cotton seed (boiled) . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $2 72

241 pounds common hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1 20

795 pounds feed consumed; total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3 92

643 pounds milk produced; total value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16 07

Total net value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $12 05

2070 pounds total weight three cows beginning of test.
1910 pounds total weight" three cows end of test, 21 days.
160 pounds total loss in flesh.

O

00'

 

Fnnnmo MILK cows. 519

RESULTS COMPARED.

In all 0f the groups fed cotton seed meal_(1, 3, and 4) we see that the
largest flow of milk comes from group 1, t0 which cotton seed hulls was
fed as forage. This ration also cost less than either of those containing
common hay or alfalfa. This result was obtained in Experiment No. 3,
in testing the value of these three forage stuffs when combined with cot-
ton seed meal as grain. (See page -—.)

Groups 1 and 2 were both fed cotton seed hulls, and No. 1 was given
cotton seed meal as a grain, while No. 2 was fed corn meal to determine
which of these single grains formed the best companion food for hulls.
The cotton seed meal group (No. 1) gave more milk and cost much less.

Groups 4- and 5 were given common hay, and "cotton seed was tested
against cotton seed meal. A study of the figures shows that cotton seed
meal in this case produced more milk than did the cotton seed, but the
cost of the meal ration was so much more than in the ration where cotton
seed was used that the net profit is much 1n favor of the cotton seed
when cost is calculated at the prices stated. A

SUGGESTIONS.

Some general conclusions and opinions based on the feeding trials found
in the preceding pages may not be out of place just here. Of course, we
do not recommend for general use all of the rations used in these tests.
In fact, before feeding we had good reason to suppose that some of the
feeds given would show poor results. From the results of these experi-
ments and from much practical experience in feeding large milk herds a
variety of foods, we are fully justified in recommending the use of the
following rations for Southern milk cows:

N0. 1. 9 pounds Cotton Seed, 2 pounds Corn Jlleal, 13 pounds Prairie
Hay. ‘ a

No. 2. 5 pounds Cotton Seed, 4 pounds Cotton Seed Meal, 15 pounds
Prairie Hay.

No.- 3. 5 pounds Corn Meal, 3 pounds Cotton Seed Jlleal, 14 pounds
Alfalfa Hay.

No. 4. 6 pounds Cotton Seed Zlleal, 15 pounds Corn Silage, 12 pounds
Alfalfa Hay.

No. 5. 6 pounds Cotton Seed Meal, 6 pounds PVheat Bran, 10 pounds
Cotton Seed Hulls. '

No. 6. 10 pounds Wheat Bran, 4 pounds Corn llleal, 12 pounds Prai-
rie Hay. '

No. 7. 10 pounds Cotton Seed, 20 pounds Corn Silage, 1O pounds
Prairie Hay.

No. 8. 6 pounds Cotton. Seed llleal, 2O pounds Corn Silage, 10 pounds
Prairie Hay. -

No. 9. 6 pounds Cotton Seed Meal, 3O pounds Silage, 6 pounds Al-

falfa Hay. ~
No. 11. 10 pounds Cotton Seed Meal, 15 pounds Prairie Hay.
No. 12. 10 pounds Cotton Seed llleal, 15 pounds Cotton Seed Hulls.
No. 13. 12 pounds Wheat Bran, 15 pounds Sorghum Hay.
No. 14. 8 pounds Corn llleal, 18 pounds Alfalfa.

520 TExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.
. The number 0f these suggestions might be increased if space permit-
ted.

Although milk cows will often do well for an indefinite time 0n cotton
seed or cotton seed meal as the sole grain, yet we think best to add a
second grain in either case, such as corn meal or Wheat bran. A

As much as 16.3 pounds of grain (equal parts of corn meal and cotton

I seed meal) were fed per cow for 21 days to Group 4 in Experiment No.

1, Without injury.

We do not advise the combination of cotton seed meal with prarie hay
alone for milk cows, although there are some conditions under which it
should be fed.

Cotton seed hulls when combined with corn meal do not produce a
large milk flow, but increase the live Weight rapidly.

Cotton seed hulls should not be fed continuously as sole forage to milk
cattle. i '

Corn silage always cheapens the cost of the forage ration, but in the
experiments here reported on too little food was eaten by the groups fed
silage to permit a good flow of milk. The cows in these groups were
“ofi their feed” the greater part of the test. -

NOTE.

The feeding, milking, and immediate care of the cows was placed un-
der the charge of Mr. James Clayton and Mr. J. W. Carson. The actual
feeding ‘was done by members of the graduating class of 1894, and by
Mayes and Hutson (of second class), assisted by Students Rowe, Spears
and Ahrenbeck.

The tables presented in this report were compiled from the daily rec-
ords by Mr. Clayton.

The experiments were planned by the Director, and the manner of
conducting them was indicated by him.

 

_ t». ,¢=»5..i7»;.;»-e@.~::»;t-n -*’_  '2' ’~