A236~616—20m TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN NO. 189 JUNE, 1916 DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY TheComposition of Cotton Seed Meal and Cotton Seed BY G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chemist in Charge; Stare Chemist POSTOFFICE: COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS wfi» AUSTINTEXAS vow BOECKMANN- rourzs con PRINTERS 1916 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] A236—616—20m TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN NO. 189 JUNE, 1916 DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY TheComposition of Cotton Seed Meal and Cotton Seed BY G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., ' Chemist in Charge; State Chemist POSTOFFICE: COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS "fie AUSTINLTEXAS VON BOEGKMANN~ ropgzs c0., PRINTERS I9] AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, A. M. D. C. L., President TEXAS AGRICULTURAL IBPERIMENT STATION BOARD or DIRECTORS JOIIN I. GUioN, President, Ballinger ..................... .. L. J. HART, Vice-President, San Antonio .......... .. E. H. AS'rIN, Bryan .............................................. .. J. S. WILLIAMS, Paris ......................................... .. T. E. BATTLE, Marlin .......................................... .. W. C." BREIHAM, Bartlett .......................................... .. ..................................................... ..Term expires 1919 ............... ..Term expires 1919 ............... ..Term expires 1919 .................. ..Term expires 1917 ............... ..Term expires 1917 .................. ..Term expires 1917 J. B. KUBENA, Fayetteville ........................................ ....................................... ..Term expires 1921 W. A. INIILLER, JR., Amarillo ................................. .. A. B. DAVIDSON, Cucro ........................................... .. ..................................................... ..Term expires 1921 .................................................... ..Term expires 1921 MAIN STATION COMMITTEE L. J. IIART, Chairman J. S. WILLIAMS W. A. MILLER, JR. GOVERNING BOARD, STATE SUBSTATIONS P. L. DowNs, President, Temple ........................... .. CHARLES BOGAN, Vice-President, Austin .. W. P. IIOBBY, Beaumont .......................... .. J. E. Booc-ScoTT, Coleman ................................... .. ................................................... ..Term expires 1919 Term expires 1917 fIIIIfflfIfffjIijfjffIfffjffiIfiffffIIfIiffIITerm expires 1917 ..................................................... ..Term expires 1921 *STATION STAFF ADMINISTRATION B. YoUNoBLooD, l\’I. S., Director A. B. CONNER, B. S., Vice Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary DIVISION OF VETERINARY SCIENCE _ M. FRANcIs, D. V. S., Veterinarian in Charge _ _ H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY _ G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chemist in Charge; State ' Chemist B. H. BIDGELL, B. S., Assistant Chemist W. T. P. SPROTT, B. S., Assistant Chemist II. LEBESON, B. S., Assistant Chemist DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE _ NESS, M. S., Horticulturist in Charge W. S. HoTcHRIsS, Horticulturist DIVISION OF ANINIAL HUSBANDRY J. C. BURNS, B. S., Animal Husbandman, Feeding Investigations J. l\I. JONES, A. l\I., Animal Iliisharulnran, Breeding Investigations DIVISION OF ENTOMOLOGY F. B. PADpocK, B. S. E., Entomologist in Charge: State Entomologist O. K. COURTNEY, B. S., Assistant Ento- mologist County Apiary Inspectors B. C. Abernathy, Ladonia; WilIianIAtch- ley, lvlathis; J. W. E. Basham. Barstow; Victor Boeer, Jourdanton; T. \N. Burle- son, “laxahachie; W. C. Collier, Goliad; E. W. Cothran, Boxton; G. F. Davidson, Pleasanton: John Donegan, Seguin: Geo. J. Elam, Marlin; A. B. Graham, Milano; H. Grossenbacher, San Antonio; J. B. King, Batesville; N. G. LeGear, Waco; B. A. Little, Pearsall; H. L. Mofield, Hondo; M. C. Stearns, Brady: S. H. Stephens, Uvalde; M. B. TaIIv, Victoria: Jas. W. Traylor, Enloe: B. E. Watson, Heidenhcimer; W. H. White, Greenville: W. P. Bankston, Buffalo: E. B. Jones, Beeville. DIVISION OF AGRONOMY A. B. CONNER, B. S., Agronomist in Charge A. H. LEIDIoH, B. S., Agronomist LoUIS “lERix/IELSRIRCHEN, B. Agronomisl DIVISION OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Plant Patholo- gist and Physiologist in Charge ( LERICAL J. l\/I. ScIiAEDEL, Stenographer DAISY LEE, Registration Clerk W. F. CHRISTIAN, Stenographer ELIZABETH WALKER, Stenographer J. L. COTTINGHAM, Stenographer *As of June 1, 1916. **DIVISION OF FARM MANAGEMENT BEx E. WILLARD, M. S., Farm Manage- ment Expert in Charge DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDARY B. N. HARvEY, B. S., Poultryman in Charge DIVISION OF FORESTRY J. H. FoSTER, M. F., Forester in Charge: State Forester DIVISION OF PLANT BREEDING E. P. HUMBERT, Ph. D., Plant Breeder in Charge DIVISION OF FEED CONTROL SERVICE JAMES SULLIVAN, Executive Secretary J. H. BooERS, Inspector W. H. Wool), Inspector T. H. WoLTERS, Inspector S. D. PEARcE, Inspector W. M. WIcREs, Inspector T. B. BEESE, Inspector SUBSTATION NO. 1: BeeviIIe, Bee County E. E. BINFORI), B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 2: Troup, Smith County W. S. HoTcnxiss, Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 3: Angleton, Brazoria County N. E. VVINTERS, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 4: Beaumont, Jefferson County _ II. H. LAUDE, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 5: Temple, Bell County D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Acting Superin< tendent SUBSTATION NO. 6, Denton, Denton County V. L CORY, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 7: Spur, Dickens County B. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 8: Lubbock, Lubbock County _ B. E. KAHFEH, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 9, Pecos, Reeves County J. W’. JAcxsoN, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. l0: (Feeding and Breeding Substation), ColIege Station, Brazos County T. M. BEDDELL, Superintendent G. F. JQRDAN, B. S., Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. 11: Nacogdoches, Nacog- doches County _ G. T. McNESs, Superintendent “SUBSTATION NO. 12: Chillicothe, Harde- man County B. W. EDWARDS, B. S., Superintendent ASSISTANTS E. E. KILBORN, Stenographer IVI. P. IIoLLEIvIAN, JR., Stenographer C. L. DURST, Mailing Clerk WILLIE JoHNSoN, Tag Clerk **In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. CONTENTS. PAGB Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Products from Cotton Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '7 Composition of Texas Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '7 Changes in Quality in Other States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Causes of the Decrease in Quality’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Description of Processes of Oil lVIilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Another Description . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A Superintendenfis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Eflibiency’ of the Machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1'7 Composition of Intermediate Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Improvements in Milling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Analytical Control of Milling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .. 20 Relation of Crude Fiber to Extraction of Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Relation of Crude Fiber to Feeding Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Standards for Cottonseed Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28 Changes in the Texas Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 Definitions of Cottonseed Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 Feed Control Officials of U. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Interstate Cottonseed Crushers’ Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 Texas Feed Control Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 Texas Cottonseed Crushers’ Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 Protein Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 Crude Fiber Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3'7 Water Content of Texas Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Estimation of Hulls in Cottonseed Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Calculation of Hulls from Composition of Seed and Cake . . . . . . . . . 49 Factors for Calculating Hull Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51 Calculating Excess of Hulls in Texas Cottonseed Meal and Hulls. . . 52 Composition of Cotton Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53 Calculating the Yields from the Analysis of the Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Effect of Conditions on Composition of Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Eastern and Western Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57 Composition of Pure Kernel Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58 Composition of Texas Cotton Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Compositon of Seed from Different Texas Localities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67' Relation of Composition of Seed to Composition of Meal . . . . . . . . . . 74 Estimation of Lint on Cotton Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '75 Quantity of Lint Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '78 Dirt with Cotton Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '78 Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] THE COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED BY (l. S. lihzxes, (‘nlciirsrr 'ro TILE ExricuixiiinT STFATION. 'l‘his bulletin contains a (iiscussion ot’ the composition of cotton- seed meal sold in ‘Tlexas and in other States, with a description of the method ot milling and with some discussion of the ettect of mill- ing 0n the composition of the meal. Some work 0n the composition of cotton seed is also given. ltceording to Bulletin 131, Bureau ot the Census, in 1914 there were 885 cottonseed oil mills in the United States, of which 233, or 27 per cent, were in Texas. They crushed a total of 4,847,628 tons of cotton seed, of which 1,191,508, or 26.5 per centg, were crushed in 'l‘e.\eas. 'l.‘he comparative amounts and values of the products are given in Table 1. TABLE 1 .—COTTONSEED STATISTICS. United Texas States Texas Per Cent Seedcrushed, tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,847,628 1 ,191,508 26.5 Oil, gallons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 193,333,019 41,349,603 21.4 Meal and cake, tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,217,378 538,752 24.3 Hulls, tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,402,909 . 367,090 26.2 Linters, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334,116,513 92,970,687 27.8 Oil, value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Si; 81,024,372 $ 16,296,643 20.4 Meal and cake, value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56,093,519 13,348,620 20.4 Hulls, value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11,206,774 2,793,628 24.9 Linters, value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,711,752 1 ,749, 180 22. 7 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 156,036,417 55 34,188.071 Although oil is the chief product of cotton seed crushing, yet its value is little more than 50 per cent. of the total value of the prod- ucts in the Ivnited States, taken as a whole, and less than 50 per cent. in Texas. Cottonseed cake or meal has over one-third the value of the total output: so that it must be_ regarded as one oil’ the main products of the industry. rather than a by-ivroduct. DEFINITION OF TERMS. The ordinary analysis of a efeeding stuff gives its content of pro- tein. ether extract (which is very often called tat or oil), crude fiber, nitrogen-free extract. water, and ash. The terms nitrogen and _am~ monia are also used frequently in connection with cottonseed meal. These terms are defined. briefly in the following paragraphs: Protein is an important constituent of the teed, containing 16 per cent. nitrogen, which is used largely to form flesh, muscle, and other similar portions of the animal body. When protein is fed in excess, it may also be used for fattening purposes, or for the production of heat. 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. ~ Nitrogen is a constituent of protein, and protein is calculated by multiplying nitrogen by 6.25. The statement of the nitrogen content of a feed, or of cottonseed meal, is thus equivalent t0 stating the pro- tein in different terms. By multiplying the protein by 0.16 it is eon- verted into terms of nitrogen. . Ammonia as such is not contained in protein or in (:()it()I1S(PQ(l meal, but nitrogen in protein may be expressed in terms of ammonia by multiplying nitrogen by 1.215. Ammonia may be converted into terms of nitrogen by multiplying by .882, or into terms of protein by mul- tiplying by 5.15. Fat, or oil, is the term usually applied to the ether extract of cot- tonseed meal. This sulastance is extracted by ether and is composed mostly of fats and oils. For factory-control purposes, the oil is ex- tracted by means of petroleum ether. This method gives somewhat lower results than the method of extracting with ethyl ether, which must necessarily be used by Feed Control Officials. Fats and oils are used in the animal body as a source of body heat and to furnish heat and energy. Fat contains more heat or energy per pound than nitrogen-free extract or carbohydrates, having about 2.25 times the value of the digested portions of these. Afitrogen-free Eartmct is a group containing a number of substances of widely different properties. In the case of cottonseed meal, it con- tains pentosans, a sugar known as raffinose, and some other substances. In the case of cottonseed hulls, it is composed of less valuable and less easily digested substances. The nitrogen-free extract that has been digested is used by the body for the purpose of Silppiylng heat and energy, and for the production of fat. Crude Fiber is that portion of the feed which is left after it has been subjected, first to the action of boiling 1;} per cent. sodium hy- droxide, and then to the action of boiling 1% per cent. sulphuric acid. The pure kernel of cotton seed is low in crude fiber, while the hull is high in crude fiber. The digested crude fiber has some value to the. animal for producing heat, but the work involved in digestion is so great that in many cases the animal really secures no benefit from the digestion of crude fiber. The more crude fiber a feed contains, the poorer is its quality, compared with other feeds of the same character. Ash is the residue left when the substance is burned. It consists largely of lime, magnesia, and other non-volatile constituents, as well as some carbon held in the form of carbonate. Waiter is present in all feeding stuffs. A high water content is liable to cause damage to the feed by heating or fermentation, espe- cially in Warm weather. The greater the percentage of water, the lower are the percentages of other ingredients. Productive Value. The productive value of. a feed is the quantity of fat. it will produce 011 a fattening animal, when added to a ration already sufficient to support the animal. By fat, we do not mean gain in Weight, but actual fat. Feeding Value. The feeding value of a feeding stuff may be ex- pressed in terms of its content of digestible protein and its productive value. The former represents its value for the production or repair COMPOSITION OF CorroNsEEn MEAL AND OoTToN SEED. 7 of flesh, the latter its value as a source of heat, energy, 0r fat. An animal requires much more productive value than it does digestible protein. (For discussion, seeBulletin 1'70.) PRODUCTS FROM COTTON SEED. ifable 2 contains the quantities of the various products secured from cotton seed, as calculated from the United States Census Reports and from Bulletin 131, Bureau of the Census. The report in the tenth census (1880) is evillenttv only an estimate. TABLE 2.—PRODUCTS FROM A TON OF COTTON SEED. Nlcal ‘ Oil l Hulls Lint. Loss Oil lbs. I lbs. s. lbs. lbs. gal. 1 . l y I l l l U. S. Tenth Census, 1879. . . . . 750i‘ 250 978 22 0 . . . . . . .. U. S. Twelfth Census, 1899. . . . .; 713‘ 288 943 23 33 38.0 U. s». _ 1904. . . . .l 813i 30o 725 35} 127 40.0 U. S.,Th1rteenth Census, 1909. . . . .l 875i 301 663 416i 115 40.1 . .1‘ . 1914. . . . .1 915 299 579 69| 138 39.9 Texas 1899 (U. S. Census) . . . . . . . . .5 730l 264 948 231 35 35.2 Texas 1904 (U. S. Census) . . . . . . . . . 788,‘ 280 780 39 113 37.3 Texas 1909 (U. S. Census) . . . . . . . . . 864i 224 743 51 68 36.5 Texas-1914 (U. S. Census) . . . . . . . . . 904l 261 616 78 141 34.7 I The table shows an increase in the quantity’ of meal, and of lint se- cured since 1880, and a decrease in the quantity of hulls. There is no evident increase in the quantity of oil since 1899 for 'l‘exas, and since 1904, for the entire country. This is not What We should ex- pect from the results of the chemical analysis of the cottonseed meal, as it contains less oil than formerly. The lower quantity of oil is, however, offset to some extent by the larger yield of meal. The increase in lint due to its more thorough removal from the seed. The increase in meal is due partly to changes in methods, partly to the manufacture of products of lower grade. The decrease in hulls is chiefly due to the fact that more of them get into the meal but also to the fact that they are more closely delinted. COHPOSITION OF TEXAS lWIEAL. The average cottonseed meal on the Texas market has decreased in feeding value since 1907, when the amended feed law went into effect. This is shown in Table 3, which contains the average composition of Texas cottonseed meal, as shown by analyses made for the Feed Con- trol from .111ly 1, 1907, to January’ 1, 1916, averaged in periods of six months. These averages include both cottonseed cake and cotton- seed meal. 8 TnxAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE 3.——AVERAGE PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF TEXAS COTTON SEED MEAL SAMPLES, COLLECTED BY FEED INSPECTORS. 1.. 8 "1 s. s. . =» r: _ r: 3 c, Lu 5:5 E 8'5 gs; '6 =9 8°; s 5'5 ‘~33 =1; ~: .. ‘l "S 2:6; a: e - 8i '~l’> E :1 s; <- v: Q -- I m 2. u Z 3 <2 Z Q m | July 1,1907-—Jan. 1,1908. . 47.65 9 73 6 50 23.74 6.62 5 76 266 41.01 19 28 Jan. 1, l908—July 1, 1908.. 47.89 8 94 6 91 23.79 6.86 5 61 158 41.28 18 87 July 1, 1908—.Ian. 1,1909. . 47.42 8.99 6 78 25.05 6.05 5 71 159 40.88 19 04 Jan. 1, 1909-July 1, 1909. . 44.86 9.09 7 65 26.34 6.24 5 81 8 38.67 18 78 July 1, 1909—Jan. 1,1910. . 47.41 9 13 7 66 23.37 6.90 5 53 212 40.87 18 78 Jan. 1, 1910—July 1, 1910. . 45.75 8.91 7 85 25.15 7.09 5 25 74 39.44 18 63 July 1, 1910—Jan. 1, 1911. . 46.54 8.98 7 66 25.07 6.49 5 26 223 40.12 18 83 Jan. 1, 19l1~July 1,1911. . 45.55 8.87 8 15 25.22 6.97 5 28 112 38.95 18 39 July 1,1911—Jan. 1, 1912. . 46.59 8.79 7 78 24.60 6.76 5 48 184 40.16‘ 18 63 Jan. 1, 1912-July 1, 1912. . 45.21 8.33 8 79 24.77 7.42 5 48 163 38.65] 17 92 July 1, 1912—.Ian. 1,1913.. 44.87 8.57 8 91 25.64 6.66 5 35 174 38.361 18 13 Jan. l, 1913—July 1,1913. . 44.79 8.37 9 22 25.13 7.15 5 34 189 38.30 17 87 July 1,1913—.Ian. 1, 1914. . 45.14 8.51 9 52 24.05 7.33 5 45 140 38.59 17 86 Jan. 1, 1914—.Iuly 1, 1914. . 44.46 8.50 10 05 23.52 7.90 5 57 130 37.70 17 46 July 1, l9l4—Jan. 1, 1915.. 45.42 8.08 8 61 25.14 7.07 5 68 208 38.85 17 89 Jan. 1, 19l5-July 1,1915.. 44.19 7.86 9 39 25.46 7.34 5 76 185 37.78 17 56 July 1, 1915—Jan. 1,1916. . 43.71 7 38 10 62 25.35 7.41 5 53 257 37.01 16 98 I An examination of the table shows a decrease in protein and in fat, and an increase in nitrogen-free extract and crude fiber. The ash content is little variable and the water content shows a slight increase. There is a general tendency for the protein and fat to be higher and the crude fiber to be lower (luring the first six months of the season. The lower per cent. ot protein and fat found during the second six months is accompairied b'_v a. higher amount of.crude fiber, but this increase in crude fiber is not alwavs in, proportion to the decrease in protein over the first six months. In 1908-9, for example, during the fir st six months of the season, cottonseed meal averaged 47.42 protein and 8.99 fat: while, during the second six months, the average was 44.86 protein and 9.09 fat. In the first period, the aver- age percentage of crude fiber was 6.78: while (luring the second period it was 7.65. Thus a decrease of 2.56 per cent. in protein is accom- panied by an increase of only 0.87 per cent. crude fiber. This indi- cates that the seed worked (luring the second period contained a smaller per cent. of protein than the seed worked during the first period. A similar difference in the seed is indicated in some of the other periods. _ An increase in the crude fiber in cottonseed meal means an increase in the quantity of cottonseed hulls present. An examination of the table shows a steady increase in crude fiber. There has thus been, on an average, an increase of cottonseed hulls. present in. cottonseed meal sold in Texas. The average Texas feeders in 1915 received cottonseed meal that contains considerahlv‘ less protein and more hulls than was received by the feeders in 1907. The guaranteed value is also less, since most of the meal is now sold as prime. rather than 0717017019. The decrease in quality is, of course, accompanied by a decrease in feeding value. This is also shown in the table. The digestible pro- tein decreases from 41.07 to 37.07, and the prod11(-ti\'e value. expressed as fat, decreases from 19.28 to 16.98. The decrease in quality is due (Jomrosrrioiv or Cotrfiroivsnnn MEAL AND Corcron SEED. 9 to improved methods of manufacture, and to the retention of hulls in the meal for the purpose of manufacturing prime rather than choice meal. That is to say, in 1907-8 a large proportion of the mills were making choice meal, containing about 55 per cent. protein and fat combined; but in 1915-16, only a. small number of mills were mak- ing choice meal, while most of them were endeavoring to make prime meal, containing 51 per cent. protein and fat combined. The tendency is for cottonseed meal to decrease in feeding value until it reaches the minimum permitted by the State laws, or other controlling influences. (HIANGES IN QUAIJTY IN OTEUH1STATES The decrease in ‘AVQTEIgG quality of cottonseed meal observed in Texas also may be found to occur in other States when a sufficiently long period of time is taken into consideration. TABLE 4.-AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF SOUTH CAROLINA COTTONSEED MEAL. No.M Ammoma Season— Samples Per Cent 1890-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '30 8.37 1891-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 8.21 1892-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 8.40 1893-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 8.64 1894-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 8.19 1895-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 8.45 1896-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40 8.69 1897-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 8.39 1898-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40 8.25 1899-1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52 8.73 1900-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60 8.55 1901-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49 7.93 1902-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 8.08 1903-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57 7.92 1904-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62 7.42 1905-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71 7.51 1906-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99 7.32 1907-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 114 7.40 1908-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 115 7.27 1909-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 7.20 1910-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 177 7.26 1911-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 153 7.54 1912-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 171 7.37 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 188 7.28 1914-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90 7.21 South Cktrolintn-Tnlile No. 4 shows the average composition of samples of South Carolina cottonseed meal collected under the fer- tilizer law, as given in Bulletin N0. 181 of the South Carolina EX- periment Station. TPhe average composition from 1890-1 to 1900-1 shows no (leer-ease, but varies irregularly from 8.19 per cent. ammonia (42.17 protein) in 1894-5 to 8.73 per cent. ammonia (44.96 protein) in 1899-1900. After 1900-1, when the average ammonia was 8.55 per cent, there was a (leerease until approximately 1908-91727 per cent. ammonia, or 37.44 per cent. protein), after which year the average is again somewhat irregular. To judge by other States, the decrease will continue until the average is very near the minimum permitted by the State law, namely, 7.0 per cent. ammonia or 36 per cent. protein. 10 TEXAS Aonroctrunar. lllXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE 5.-AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CfilgIPOSITION OF LOUISIANA COTTONSEED ALS. _ t t Nitrogen i Year. Proteln i Fat t Crude * Free 1 Water t Ash a I Fiber Extract I l l 1906-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.22 887i 8.05 25.72 8.121 7.02 1907-08 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.88 9.84] 9.22 24.58 8.75! 6.73 1908-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.96 8.96 8.87 25.56 8.14 6.51 1909-10 . . . . . . . . . _ . .. 42.12 8.30 9.47 26.19 7.26, 6.66 1910-11 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.74 8.16 9.29 27.43 7.71 6.67 1912-13 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.26 8.06 11.16 27.68 7.51 6.43 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.07 8.25 12.04 26.54 7.82 6.28 L0uisiana.—Table N o. 5 shows the average composition of Louisiana cottonseed meal, compiled from Feed Control bulletins of the Experi- ment Station, or of the Department of Agriculture. The average pro- tein content of Louisiana meal decreases from 42.32 per cent. in 1906-7 to 39.07 per cent. in 1913-14. The crude fiber increases from 8.05 in 1906-7 to 12.04 in 1913-14. During this period there has been an average increase of about 4 per cent. crude fiber or about 9 per cent. hulls. It is to be expected that the decrease in quality will continue until some effective checlz is interposed. Massachusetts.—tl‘able No. 6 shows the average composition of cot- tonseed meal sold in Massachusetts as given in Bulletin No. 158 of the Massachusetts Experiment" Station. There is a very large decrease in protein, from 46.02 in 190'?’ to 40.2 per cent. in 1914, and an in- crease in crude fiber from 5.08 per cent. in the first period to 9.04 per cent. in the last p-eriod. This is an increase of 3.06 per cent. crude fiber or about 8 per cent. hulls. Unless some other check is inter- posed, the decrease in quality may continue until the Interstate min- inium of 36 per cent. protein is nearly reached, when the crude fiber would average about 13.4 per cent. The demand for prime or choice meal may also interpose a check. TABLE 6.—COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED MEAL SOLD IN MASSACHUSETTS. No. of Protein Fat Fiber Year Samples Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent 1897-1902 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9st 46.2 11.2 5.8 1902-1906 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 190 45.4 9.0 6.4 1906-1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85] 42.0 9.2 7.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8o 41.0 8.2 7.7 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s4! 41.0 7.7 8.4 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87g 40.2 7.7 9.2 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5o, 40.2 7.6 9.4 Other 1S‘tates.—Table No. '7 shows the average composition of vari- ous cottonseed meals sold in other States. We have not attempted to collect averages for a sufficiently long period to show the changes dis- cussed above. The average composition of cottonseed meal quoted from the “Qfotton Plant” represents analyses made before 1900. They show a. high protein and fat content and a. very low crude fiber con- tent as compared with the ‘recent analyses given in the table. The CONIPOSTIION or COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 11 high fat content (14.23 per cent.), of course, means a great loss of valuable oil due to incomplete extraction, and. the decreased oil con- tent shown by recent analyses shows decided improvements in the methods of extraction. The increase in crude fiber shows the pres- ence of an increased quantity of hulls. TABLE 7.—COMPOSITION OF VARIOUS COTTONSEED MEALS. l t s é 5/2 2 l 2 E b l é l; ab? '. o o e l s s as a a s i Z n. l , cu u Z n. B <1 The Cotton Plant (to 1890) . . . . . ..I . . . . .. 44.09‘ . . . . .. 5.16 20.85 14.23 8.621‘, 7.05 The Cotton Plant all Meal 400. . . . . . . .. 43.26 . . . . .. 5.44 22.31 13.45 8.521 7.02 New York, 1911 for 1910 . . . . . . . . .1 26 40.25 8.03 9.11 5 New York, 1912 for 1911 . . . . . . . .. 36 41.16 8.29 6.99 ‘ New York, 1913 for 1912 . . . . . . . .. 34 40.70 8.26 8.31 l New York, 1914 for 1913 . . . . . . . .. 17 39.81 7.55 9.89 New York, 1915 for 1914 . . . . . . . ..‘ 23 40.65 7.71 8.97 New Jersey, 1909-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.12 8.08 8.61 New Jersey, 1910-11 . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 . . . . .. 40.05 8.49 7.83 . New Jersey, 1911-12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.70 7.98 8.25 , New Jersey, 1912-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.30 7.98 8.86 l New Jersey, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . ..; 14 40.40 7.86 8.55 r Pennsylvania, 1906 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 41.21 9 .09 . . . . . . Pennsylvania, 1907 . . . . . . . . . . . . .: 11 39.16 9.55 10.16 Pennsylvania, 1908. . . . . . . . .‘ . 8 8.39 Pennsylvania, 1909. . . . . . . . . f 8 8.15 Pennsylvania, 1910. . .... . .‘ 8 8.73 Pennsylvania, 1911. . .... . 8 8.65 l Pennsylvania, 1912. . . . . . . .. 8 9.53 , Pennsylvania, 1914.... ..... 7 10.11 i Kentucky, 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.95 l North Carolina, 1906-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l N0rthCarolina,1908—9................ . . . . North Carolina. 1912-13.... . .... - . . . . . .. Georgia, 1913-14 (fertilizer). . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Georgia Feed, 1911-12 . . . . . . . . . ..g 17 38.11 7.64 10.46 30 221 Georgia Feed, 1912-13 . . . . . . . . . . .1 27 38.43 8.62 9.92 28.231 * Georgia Feed, Nov., 1913-1915.. . .1, 32" 38.34 7.65 9.36 31.51‘ ; i . l The average New York analyses, average from the Experiment Sta- tion bulletins, show an almost stable condition with regard to protein and crude fiber. These are quite similar to the analyses averaged from the New Jersey’ Experiment Station bulletins. The analyses made in Pennsylvania. from bulletins of the Department of Agricul- ture, with the exception of 1907, show an increase in crude fiber. In the case of North Carolina, with the exception of 1906-7, the aver- age composition reached several years ago the minimum of 7.5 per cent. ammonia permitted by the fertilizer law. The average Georgia analyses made under the fertilizer law are somewhat above the mini- mum of 7.5 per cent. ammonia permitted by the fertilizer law, but the averages made under the foregoing law are below the minimum of 7.5 per cent. ammonia or 38.63 per cent. protein. Table No. 8 shows the average composition of cottonseed meal made in some Georgia millsduring August and September according to a statement of the Picard-Law Company, Atlanta, Georgia, printed in the Oil Miller, October, 1915. The analyses do not represent the larger mills, which have their own chemists. The number of mills that were represented in August and September. 1915, was 54; while 12 ’J.‘e>:.»xs AGRICULTURAI; EXPERIMENT STATION. the number represented in previous vears Was not given. A decrease in the quality; of cottonseed meal as shown by the 311111101118. content is clearly shown. Meal sold in Georgia may not contain less than 7.5 per cent. ammonia. 'l‘hese analyses show that considerable quantities of a product below the Georgia requirements have been made in Georgia during August and September for a number of _vears. This meal may have been exported to foreign countries or to States that have a lmver protein rerpiirement than Georgia, and not sold as: cottonseed meal in Georgia contrary to Georgia law. TABLE 8.—COMPOSITION OF GEORGIA (‘IOTTONSEED MEAL IN AUG.-SEPT. l . Nloisturc i Oil Aug-Sept. Per Cent i Per Cent Ammonia ' | 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.18 8.36 t 7.25 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.13 7.96 t 7.12 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.46 7.51 l 7.39 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.17 7.38 1 7.46 z 9.40 6.61 7.05 l (fAlfSES OF DIKIREASE IY QUALITY. '.l.‘he decrease in qualitv of cottonseed meal is due to two causes. First. It is due to improvements in the process of oil milling, leading‘ to a better sleparation of meats from the hulls and. a better extraction of oil from the cake. . Second. It is due to the control of the hull content of the meal for the purpose of making meal of the desired protein (nitrogen or ammonia) content, or protein and fat content. These two topics will be discussed in subsequent pages. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESSES OF OIL MILLING. In order to discuss properly the improvements in the processes of oil milling, it is necessary to have a description ot’ the process of oil milling. 101w Description.-~The following is one outline of the process 0t crushing cotton seed: ' v The seeds are "unloaded from the cars and placed in piles upon the floor of the warehouse. In some cases, they are distributed in several places, and thus mixed with other seeds: in other cases. the different kinds are piled separatelv. The seeds are taken first to machines, which remove (lust. dirt, cotton bolls, trash, loose lint. etc.. the valuab-le portions being saved. The amount of dirt and trash is, in some cases, considerable. Dirt and trash removed from the cotton (luring the process 0t ginning are sometimes mixed with the seed bv the ginner. This is now prohibited in Texas b_v the warehouse law. The seeds are then regti-nned, once or more, for the purpose of re- moving some of the short lint adhering to them. Ilnder ordinar_v' conditions this lint is worth to .1 cent per pound, but during‘ war conditions, it has been worth as much as '7 cents per pound, as it is used in the manufacture of gun cotton. lllhe seed may be reginned COMPOSITTIOX or COTTONSEED l-VIEAL» an) Corrox SEED. 13 moderately; or closely, or several times. The lint secured in the close reginning‘ is so shoit that it is ordinarily of low value, and under normal conditions its removal is not often profitable. The seed next go to the huZZers. Tllhey consist of a series of knives revolving‘ on a disc or cylinder against a fixed knife. The lnillers cut the seed so that the kernels may drop out. ’l.‘wo hullers are usually used, but sometimes only one. When two hullers are used, the first one cuts most of the seed. The second one cuts the remainder‘ and grinds tl1e hulls so that the desired amount of hull-bran goes in with the kernels. The adjustment of the knives is varied to shit the size of the seed, the cut (lesired in the first huller, and the amount of grindingg desired in the second. lVith three hullers, the introducthiii of hull-bran is still more easily regulated. With only. one huller, it is difficult to cut all the seed properly; either there is a loss of oil, by absorption by the lint or hulls, or loss of. meats, due to uncut seed. _ 'l.‘he first huller should cut the hull only, so that the entire kernel drops out, but of course a certain proportion of. the kernels are cut. l f the kernels are cut too much or are mashed. by dull knives or wrong‘ adjustment during‘ the hulling, oil is absorbed by the hulls or the lint on the hulls,-and fine particles of the kernels stick to the hulls or are maxshed. into them or the lint. The result is a loss of oil due to (resell/lifter. Close (lelinting is said to reduu? loss of oil by absorp- tion. The mixture of the hulls, kernels, and uncut seed from the first huller go to the first shiaker, which carries perforated metal screens. which are usually fiat and vibrate by slraking‘. ln going' over the screens, the hulls felt together, and the kernels drop thicugfh the perforations and are conveyed t0 the rolls. The sizes of the pt>1'foi'a- tions are éNljHSfQd to the kind of seed and the gratle of meal desired. The Atlanta Utility Works, on page 7 of the ()il Miller for Felirn- ary, 191.5, and elsewhere. advertise Sl1&1l\'(‘I'S with “i lemovalile sash to regulate the ammonia.” “Then the seed are closely (lelinted, there- is difficulty in separat- ing, which sometimes overcome by the use of imperfoieaterl metal before the screens in the first shtiker, which permits the hulls to felt together before they reach the perforations. The hulls and uncut seeds from the first shakers go to the first heaters. lllhese are a cylindrical screen Pfillitlllllllgl‘ revolving paddles which beat the material, knock out the kernels 2nd permit them to fall through the perforations of the screen. The kernels irsuallv fall upon 'a second fiat screen, which makes a further separation of ker- nels from hulls. The kernels go into the conveyor to the rolls. The tailings from the first beater go to the second huller. The knives of this huller are set sufficiently close to cut all the seed that pass the first huller, and also to grind the hulls, so as to put a sufficient quantity’ of hulls in with the kernels to make the desired eon1pe.sition. The Carver Company make the following statement in regard to second hullingw “In the process of Cotton Seed Oil Milling where it is (lesired to do double hulling, or regrind the hulls to obtain hull-bran, the Disc Huller is the proper machine for this work. At this point in the progress of the product through the mill there should he very little 14- Texas AGRTCIILTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. of the cottonseed meats or meals in the hull; in fact, if the previous operations have been performed efficiently, the amount of meats should not be above 1 or 2 per cent. -This, therefore, allows for the effi- cient use of the disc huller, its abrasive action being just what is desired to grind the hull to a fine state, thus producing a product that allows of a separation giving hull-bran and‘hull; but, due to the low percentage of meats, the absorption loss becomes negligible.” The product of the second huller falls upon the second shaker, consisting of vibrating screens like those of the first shaker, but With different perforations. The kernels and hull-bran go into a. conveyor " to the rolls. The hulls go to a second beater similar to the first beater. The hulls from this machine go to the hull. house and the product. consisting of hull-bran, with very little kernels, goes to the rolls. The mixture of kernels and hull-bran from the first and serond shaker and the first and second beater go to the rolls, where they are crushed into thin flakes, for the purpose of rupturing the oil cells. They then go to the cookers, where they are cooked by steam under a pressure varying from 100 pounds to 30 pounds, for about forty minutes. In case of a. very dry seed, some water may be added be- fore the kernels are cooked. In case of damp seed, there a loss of moisture during the cooking. The cooked product is then formed into» cakes, covered with cloth made of camel’s hair and placed in hydraulic presses. The oil is then expelled by means of hydraulic pressure in presses usually holding 16 press boxes, and the residue consists of a hard slab of cottonseed cake about % inch thick, 32 inches long, and 14 inches wide, weighing about 13 pounds. When meal ‘is desired, the cake is first broken up in a cake breaker, and then ground to a fine meal. The above is known as the ltydraztkic process, which is the usual process. In the escpeller process (sometimes called cold-pressed pro- cess), the keinels and hull-bran are separated as described above; and then, without previous cooking, the oil is expelled by’ passing the mix- ture through the expeller, where it is subjected to intense pressure by means of rolls. The rolls and the product become hot during the expression. This product is in the form of flakes, but is similar in chemical composition to hydraulic cottonseed cake or meal. It should not be confused with cold pressed cotton seed (so-called), which is made from. the entire seed from which the hulls have not been re- moved, and therefore contains a large percentage of hulls. Another Description. The following is a description of another modification of the process, as given in Catalogue No. '75 of the Bauer Bros. Company: “'I."he illustration on pages 22 and 23 shows a complete hulling and sei-parating plant in connection with which the ‘scientific’ hull retain- ing process is used. It will require but little explanation to enable the practical Oil Mill man to understand the process as shown. Tllhe eonveyjor bringing the seed from the linters is continued over the top of all machines, dropping and passing the seed through the huller, which is the first machine in the installation, and it must be so ad- jested that the hulling plates will cut all the seed as in a11 ordinary COMPOSITION or CorToNsEEn MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 15 single hulling plant. This adjustment is quickly accomplished by means of the temper screw at the end of the shaft. The ‘scientific’ patented deflecting valve is located above the top screen, which must be so adjusted that 50 per cent of the product from the huller is immediately passed to the bottom screen, the remaining portion being evenly distributed over the top screen. “The meats from both screens are delivered to a 9-inch conveyor located on the floor, and passing under the discharge of all the sepa- rating machines in the system. The tailings from the double shaker are dropped into another 9-inch conveyor located on the floor and run- ning parallel with the meats conveyor referred to above, and by this conveyor delivered into the boot of the elevator which returns them to the conveyor above the separator. The meats recovered by this machine are also delivered into the meats conveyor, joining the meats from the first double shaker. The tailings from this beater are de- livered into the outside hull conveyor, and carried to the boot of the second elevator and again returned to the conveyor above the ma- chines, and by it delivered to the second disc machine, which is equipped for retreating the hulls, “The purpose of this retreating process is threefold: ‘"1. To produce just the right amount of good, clean hull-bran to control the ammonia content of the meal. “2. To remove from the hulls all meats that may be adhering to them by reason of imperfect hulling. “3. To recover any whole seed that may, by accident, have escaped the huller. “The steel frame shaker beneath removes a large percentage of the hull-bran, which product is discharged into the meats conveyor, join- ing the meats recovered by the preceding machines. The tailings are dropped into the outside conveyor and delivered into the boot of the third elevator, which again returns them to the conveyor above the machines which delivers them to the finishing beater, where all the remaining hull-bran and fine floury meats are recovered and dropped into the meats conveyor on the floor, then passing on to the rolls, the finished hulls being conveyed to the hull house, or to the extinguisher.” A Superintendents Outline. The following outline of cotton seed manufacture is taken from a paper read by F. E. Voorhees in the Proceedings of the Oil Mill Superintendents’ Association, June, 1913: “l. Character 0f Seed and Its Influence [Tpen the Yield and Qual- ity of the 0iZ.-—WQ all know the cotton plant requires from five and a half to six and a half months for maturity. The various conditions prevent a uniform quality of seed. Thus We have from the picking, uripe, half ripe, and ripe seed. The three kinds make it a study to store seed for oil. Quality of se-ed is a most important consideration in an oil mill, for the quality of the raw material determines not only the quality of oil expressed, but the percentage yield of oil as well. Inferior seed usually produces inferior crude oil, and it takes skill to work inferior with good seed and it involves great danger to the qual- ity. Seed ought to be graded and milled separately. Diiferent loca- tions furnish more or less moisture to the seed, but seed obtained from 16 TEXAs AGRICULTURAL EXPICRIBIJENT STATION. the first picking contain more moisture than seed picked later in the season. “2. C‘Zassi,"ficati0n.—Seed should be classified according to its dc- gree of maturity. The riper seed is the superior; as the unripe seed is inferior, so is wet, musty, and rotten seed; it is composed of unstable organic compounds, and when in bulk it has a great in- fluence on heating. To have prime seed, it should be sacked. - “3. St0rage.——Seerd that has undergone any amount of heating will not produce prime oil. For this reason, in storage, seed sacks ought to be used. Many places do not sack the seed on account of storage capacity. In sacks it requires from 90 to 95 cubic feet per ton and inbulk or loose only 85 cubic feet, and when packed, only 65 cubic feet, but no matter, seed must be kept cool and dry. “Al. Handling Seerl-Jllhe drier the seed, the easier it is to handle them and less apt to clog the spouts and passagexvays. “o. Charting-This is the foundation for the proper handling of the material for the press room. The seed is received contaminated with various amounts of foreign matter, such as bolls, flocks of lint, pebbles, sand, twigs, leaves, nails, bolts, metal, etc., which must be removed: all oil mills must be equipped with ample cleaning machin- ery. In the preliminary mechanical treatment of the raw seed, the loss in weight arises from two sources, viz.: separation of mixed for- eign matter and separation of material. Moisture of the seed is about 6 per cent. of the weight of the original seed, but conditions will in- crease the loss. “6. Regriivzrlrirzvg or I)cZ/inting.——\l'e must have the linters- well set with sharp saws, for a good delinting helps the hulling and the sepa- ration. “HuZZing.—Hulling is a very ditfikzult process, the_dryer the seed is the better the hulling is done, for when thoroughly dry and free from all excess of lint. it is not so hard to accomplish. The hull is easily broken and the meat is loose- and drops out of the cracked hull: ‘but when the seed is not well matured, damp and soft, the hull will not break but mashes. It is hardly possible to get the meats from the hulls. Seed must be cut but not mashed. It is Why in the new oil mill practice We use with such effectual results, 1 mean the use of ‘the disc huller, which the cutting edges of the plates have the proper method of cutting, instead of mashing the seed, and eliminate a great deal of that oil absorption, and after that process is gone through, some well-built shaker receives the mess of cut seed which is treated in its travel and causes the meats to fall through perforations of a mesh 3-16-inch for 8 feet and i-inch the last 2 feet for a first treat- ment. “'7'. Separating ZVIeats and H-uZZs.—When seed is hulled, enough lint must remain on it; the lint adhering to the hulls that remain with the meats causes them to felt together in wads. “llhey are tossed ' upon the shaker, which prevents them from falling through with meats when sifted out. Many mills are installed with a regrinder: that is. a second disc huller is installed and receives the hulls and unsepa- rated seed from the first shaker treatment. This process is acknowl- edged to be of great value, for it positively reduces the oil in the hulls COMPOSITION or COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 1'7 to less than 1 per cent., and clears the hulls of practically all meats; it produces a maximum cake and meal free from objectionable lint, and it furnishes the desired percentage of hull-bran, and regulates the ammonia content of the meal. It enables you to manufacture a- cakc to any class you desire it——choice, prime, or a very low grade of protein meal. “8. Crushing.—The purpose of crushing is to rupture the oil cells and to so break down the structure of the kernel that all parts may be equally exposed to heat in the cooking process, whereby the mass is thoroughly and uniformly softened to permit the freest egress of the oil in the press. Crushing rolls must be ground true and even; it is important to operate them properly and uniformly and always keep an uninterrupted feed on the rolls; a hasty, irregular, or intermittent feeding affects materially the yield of oil in the press. A common practice in many mills is that the sweepings of uncrushed kernels are put in the rolls. Under no circumstances should it be done. Let it be returned to the separator shaker and not allowed to go in With the crtished meats when the meats are uniformly soft and crushed. The cooking is more efficiently done and the oil separation in the press easily done and in large quantities. Improperly crushed meats mean inefficient cooking. Inefficient cooking means a low ‘yield of oil of inferior quality and wasteful use of press cloths. Inferior oil means large waste on refining and reduces yields of refined oil. Too much stress cannot be laid upon the care with which each step in the manipulation of the seed is performed. “9. Cooking ll[eats.-—If the efficient performance of one step in the preparation of cottonseed oil is more important than another, or if there is one in which the character of the seed has a greater deter- mining influence upon the yield and quality of the product, it is cook- ing. Cooking" is modifying the consistency of the meats through heat, that the maximum yield of oil may be expressed. The coagulation of the albumin expels the excess of natural moisture by absorption and reduces the meats to the consistency desired ffor the best results.” EFFICIENCY OF TI-IE IVIACHINERY. Walter Leonard, in the Proceedings of the Oil Mill Superintend- ents’ Association, June, 1913, states: “In our modern press rooms, with improved and scientific methods, we are able to make from 800 pounds to 1000 pounds of cake of any desirable chemical analysis. It is possible to regulate the ammonia content, protein and fat, and other constituents to a point that will deviate but a small percentage from an agreed-upon standard.” J. C. Newberry, in the Proceedings of the Oil Mill Superintend- ents’ Association, 1913, says: “By having your perforations graded closely, you can regulate ‘your ammonia, protein, and fat very closely. As I have stated before, I have my equipment so arranged that if the oflice sees fit to sell any- thing from 45 to 55 per cent. meal, I can make the necessary‘ changes within a short time.” By ‘Q15 to 55 per cent. meal,” he means that which contains 45to 55 per cent. protein ‘and fat combined. 18 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. COMPOSITION OF INTERMEDIATE PRODUCTS. Table No. 9 shows the composition of some intermediate products obtained during the process of oil milling. No attempt has been made to collect a large number of these products. The products of the first huller and shaker consist almost entirely of cottonseed ker- nels; while products of the second huller, which come from the second shaker and the second beater, contain a large‘ quantity of hulls or hull-bran. TABLE 9.—COMPOSITION OF INTERMEDIATE PRODUCTS. CV | s 5s ‘d? s f‘ ill ‘a =1 '2 3 g 2 § "£2 E a E m“ g a r-J CL Lu U Z 4 | 1 . T 11124 Product of first shaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i 3563i 29.62 5.50 17.98 6.80 4.47 11129 Product of first shaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.75‘. 30.94 4.67 17.03 5.77 4.84 11991 Product of Second shaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.19‘ 14.48 23.74 31.43 7.68 3.48 11125 Product of second shaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .! 17.721 9.03 25.23 33.77 7 34 6.91 11130 Product of second shaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 31 .19t 24.91 10.91 21.96 6.55 4.48 11126;Product of second beater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.38"‘ 5.99 33.27 37.61 9.63‘ 3.12 11131iPr0duct of second beater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 16.53‘ 11.63 26.78 33.51 8.26} 3.29 IMPROVEMENTS IN PROCESSES OF LIILLING. Improvements _in recent years in processes of manufacture, leading to a better separation of meats from the hulls and better extraction of oil from the cake, have caused a, decrease in the oil content of cot- tonseed meal, and perhaps, to a limited extent, an increase in its hull content, with a consequent increase in crude fiber. The improvements are due largely, if not entirely, to control exer- cised by means of chemical analysis over the final products, and, when necessary, over the operation of the various machines. The improve- ments relate to absorption of oil, separation of kernels, and extraction of oil. Abs0rpti0n.—Consitlerable quantities of oil were formerly lost through absorption by the hulls. This was largely due to the mash- ing of the seed during the hulling, through the» use of hullers withi knives not properly set or not sharp enough. It was also due to the use of only one huller. When only one huller is used, it must be set close enough to cut practically all the seed, and as the seed vary ‘somewhat in size, the huller must be set somewhat close. When the huller is thus set, all the kernels are cut, and oil is absorbed from the cut surfaces, and some of the material is rubbed into the lint or hulls. Thus with seed not uniform in size, cut on a single huller, there is likely to be either losses by absorption, or losses due to incomplete separation of the hulls from the sec-d. At present, in mills where the ‘amount of absorption is-ascertained often by chemical analysis of the hulls, it has been reduced to prac- tically zero. This is due not only to the use of the second huller but COMPOSITION or COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 19 to experience in the details of adjusting the hullers, the screens, and the beaters to suit the character of the seed being worked. Some- times an estimation is made of oil in the hulls from each of the various machines t0 ascertain at what stage oil is 10st by absorption. The principle involved in preventing absorption is to cut the mini- mum amount of kernels and to separate the bulk of the kernels from the hulls as quickly as possible. This is done in the first huller and through the first shaker. In many cases, a large proportion of the kernels are not cut at all, the hull.s being cut in such a Way as to allow the whole kernel to fall out. When lint is closely removed, it is often advisable to have the mixture of kernels and hulls fall first on unperforated metal, so that the hulls may felt together before reaching the perforations. iSleparati0n.—\/’Vhen the separation is incomplete, uncut seeds and parts of kernels go into the hulls. Hulls now made contain practi- cally’ no whole seed. This is partly due to the use of two hullers in- stead of one, and partly to attention to details of setting the huller knives and other machine adjustments. On account of better separation, cottonseed hulls, as now made, I contain much less protein and fat, and more crude fiber, and nitro- gen-free extract, than those formerly made, and analyses made~ several years ago no longer represent the cottonseed hulls on the market. On account of thecloser adjustment of the second huller required to cut all the seed, and make a complete separation, somewhat more hulls must necessarily go in with the meats than was formerly the case. The recent reduction of the quantity of lint of the hulls reduces the percentage- of crude fiber in the hulls. Extra(widow-Cottonseed meal as made before 1890 contained, on an average, 13.45 per cent. oil. (Table No. 7.) Cottonseed meal made in Texas from July 1 to January 1, 1907-8 (Table No. 3) con- tained 9.73 per cent. fat, or oil. This is a decrease of 3.72 per cent., or 74.4 pounds per ton of meal, or nearly 10 gallons of oil per ton of meal, or about 4.4 gallons per ton of seed. If the oil is worth about 6 cents a pound, and the meal 1%- cents, the gain in oil and the loss in meal at 4-} cents per pound would represent about $3.35 per ton of meal, or about $1.45 per ton of seed. The average oil content of the Texas meal from July 1 to January 1, 1907-8, was 9.73 per cent., and from January 1, 1915, to July 1, 1915, it was 7.86 per cent. This is a decrease of 1.87 per cent. fat, v nd is an increase of 37.4 pounds per ton of meal, or about 5 gallons t‘ per ton of meal, or 2.2 gallons per ton of seed, or $1.63 per ton of meal, or $0.81 per ton of seed at the prices given above. It is said that some mills controlled by frequent chemical analysis of the meal have averaged 5.7 per cent. fat during the past year. If one allows 0.3 per cent. for the difference in extraction with petro- leum ether used in mill control work, the amount of oil will be 6 per cent. according to Feed Control methods, or a further possible aver- age decrease of 1.86 per cent. This would be a gain of 37.2 pounds of oil per ton of meal, which is about the same as the average de- crease which occurred from 1907-8 to 1915; and, at the prices given, 20 Texas AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. would amount to $1.63 per ton of meal or $0.81 per ton of seed. In a crush of 1,191,508 tons of seed in Texas, this would be over $960,000.00. The value of the increase due to the reduction of oil would, of course, vary with the relative prices secured from meal and oil. In some cases, these are materially below the figures used. iThe possibility of such a result is shown in Table No. 10, which contains daily analyses which a mill in Tllexas had made for control purposes. The average fat content during the period given is 6.10. It requires, however, frequent analyses to secure such results. TABLE l0.-—PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF CAKE OF AN OIL MILL ON DIFFERENT DAYS. Date Protein Oil Moisture October 20,1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.20 8.29 11.00 ‘October 21, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.87 5.24 8.75 October 22, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.38 5.63 8.04 October 25, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.90 5.62 8.76 ‘October 28,1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.07 6.08 9.00 "October 29,1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.80 5.90 8.15 November 1, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.56 6.38 8.65 jNovember 2,1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.31 6.55 9.90 November 3,1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.33 6.11 8.58 November 20, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.92 6.78 8 50 - November 27, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.84 6.06 8 70 ' ‘December 1, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .. 45.65 6.47 8.42 December 6,1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.20 5.77 10.75 December 11,1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.92 5.50 9.30 December 14, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.23 5.98 9.25 December 17, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.90 5.88 9.30 December 23, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.97 5.95 8.60 December 31,1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., . . . . .. 45.59 5.64 9.00 Average (18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.70 6.10 9.03 The improvement in the extraction of oil shown above may be ascribed to better attention to all the details of manufacture, includ- ing the rolling, cooking, and pressing, as well as other processes, due largely to the check or pressure produced by’ the chemical analysis of the products, upon the carefulness and attention of the superintendents. This is emphasized by H. G. Hawk in an article read before the "Oil Mill Superintendents’ Association, June, 1913, as follows: “So lastly we just want to notice the fact that for scientific press room work such as getting a high grade of oil, 7-} per cent. ammonia cake or any standard we desire, and a cake that will only contain 2% per cent. or 3 per cent. of oil will require the troll-trained eye, the touch and all that go to make up scientific press room work; will require about all the energy, close observation, and practice most of us care to put out.” It is claimed by some oil mill men that the presence of a certain amount of hulls with the meal insures better (lrainage and a more complete extraction of the oil. This is dis-cussed in a later section. ANALYTICAL CONTROL OF OIL BTILLING. ignalytical control of oil milling is exercised through analysis of the seed, the cake or meal, the hulls, and, when necessary, the inter~ mediate products of the manufacture. COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED MEAL AND CoTToN SEED} 21 ‘S'eed.-—Anal_xjsis of the seed is made for the purpose of ascertaining the possible yields of oil, cake, and hulls of the desired composition so as to adjust the machinery as may be necessary. It is also made- for the purpose of ascertaining the localities which produce seed of a high oil content. L-int may be estimated on the seed before and after reginning to test the efficiency of the delinting process. Claire 01' rllealf-Cake or meal is analyzed for protein, fat, and moisture, to see that it comes up to the necessary guarantee, to check the processes of manufacture, and to see that as much oil has been secured as is possible. If the cake or meal is below guarantee, it may be brought up to the guarantee by mixing it With a product of higher analysis. If the oil is running high, it shows that the superintendent must exercise more care in the press room Work. Hu.ZZs.——Htills are analyzed for uncut seed, for kernel particles, and for oil. The object is to see if any seed or kernel p-articles have escaped the machinery, or if any absorption of oil has taken place, and to make the necessary changes in such event. Intermediate Prod/nets. When losses by absorption of oil, or by escape of meats or uncut seed cannot be checked, analysis may be made of the tailings from the various machines to test their efficiency and to ascertain Where the trouble occurs. By prop-er means such loss may be then checked. OiZ.—Oil is sold on analysis, and. the analysis is made for trade purposes rather than for control purposes. _ lVeights 0f Pr0ducis.—A Well controlled mill Will have arrange- ments tor Weighing‘ the oil and cake secured from each period’s run of seed. A decrease in oil output may then be quickly ascertained, and checked, if not due to the low oil content oi. the seed. - RELATIOX OF CRUDE FIBER TO EXTRACTION OF OIL. It is claimed by some oil mill men that the presence of hulls or hull-bran makes the cottonseed cake more porous and permits a bet- ter extraction of oil in the hydraulic presses. This claim Was ad- vanced in justification of the addition oi’ hulls to cottonseed meal in excess of a limited amount. Granting that a certain amount of hull-bran is needed "for drain- age, the pertinent question is Whether the quantity needed exceeds the equivalent of. 9 per cent. crude fiber, and, if so, to What extent? Beyond the assertions of the oil mill men referred to above, little evidence has been oFFered in regard to this matter. Mr. Law, President of 'l‘he _Picard-L~aur Company, in the Oil Miller, October, 1915, has the following to say: “Press room work, especially in Georgia, is excellent. Twelve of the fiftyr-four mills rendering meal. samples shoW an average oil left in the cake WhiClI is less than 80 per cent. of the ammonia percent- age, and the total average is 92 per cent. This strengthens our con- tention that the best press room Work is obtained in the Southeast under modern milling methods xvhen the meal shows between 7 and 7.25 per cent. ammonia. Herc is a comparison of September Work for the past five years.” (See Table No. 8, page 12.) 22 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. An examination of the table referred to shows that the average oil content of the meal decreases regularly from 8.36 to 6.61; whereas, the ammonia content of the meal varies irregularly from 7.46 to 7.05. The highest ammonia content is associated with next to the lowest oil content, and the highest oil content with the third from the lowest ammonia content. Thus the. decrease in oil from 8.36 to 6.61 per cent. is not associated regularly with decreased ammonia, but is _due to other causes (better control). The following is contained in an editorial in The Oil Miller, Octo- ber, 1915: “Hulls, or fiber, so-called, in the meal or raw meats enter mate- rially into the determination of economical manufacturing of cotton- seed oil. There is a point somewhere around '7 per cent. ammonia meal at which the cost of producing oil reaches the minimum. Just at what point has not been definitely determined, but it requires a given amount of hull or hull-bran in the meats to insure the highest degree of drainage in the mass being pressed.” The '7 per cent. am- monia refers to meal made in Georgia, which is made from seed con- taining less protein than the seed grown in Texas. B. W. Oouch, President of the Texas Cottonseed Crushers’ Associ- ation, stated, in reply to a question, at a public hearing on cottonseed products November 2, 1915, that equally as good yields of oil could be secured when making Texas choice meal as when making Texas prime meal. He went on to explain that while the percentage of oil in the choice meal might be a little higher, the yield of cake would be" less; so that the total yield in gallons of oil would be the same. He also stated that an excess of hulls caused a loss of oil. A number of other oil millers have returned a similar reply to this question, and have stated that they secure equally as good yields of oil when making choice meal as when making prime Texas meal. The fact that the cake may contain a smaller percentage of oil, but the yield of oil may be the same, or less, due to a larger total production of cake, is explained as follows by Thomas O. Law, of Atlanta, Georgia, in an article in The Oil Miller, September, 1913: “Our standard on meal reports is figured so as to put all mills on an equal basis. The only way of doing that is to figure as near as pos- sible the pounds of meal made per ton of seed from the ammonia which the meal contains. Of course, the higher the ammonia the smaller the yield of meal, and vice versa. We adopted for a standard 900 pounds of meal, showing 7% per cent. ammonia per ton of seed. We adopted for a standard press room efficiency 6 per cent. of oil in meal when ammonia is 7% per cent; in other words, the oil per cent. should be 80 per cent. of the ammonia per cent. “Now take, for example, two reports on meal; one shows 6.85 per cent. ammonia and 6.26 per cent. oil, the other 8.22 per cent. ammonia and 7.42 per cent. oil. The last is the best press room work. Its standard is 0.90, while the first is 0.91. Here is the reason: First our standard which shows that 900 pounds of '7»;- per cent. meal con- taining 6 per cent. oil, means that 54 pounds of oil is left in cake per ton of seed. If you get 900 pounds of 7% per cent. ammonia meal, you should get 985 pounds of 6.85 per cent. ammonia meal. COMPOSITION 0F COTTONSEED MEAL AND CoTToN SEED. 23 This meal contains 6.26 per cent. oil, which means that there are 61.66 pounds of meal left in cake per ton of seed. By the same method meal running 8.22 per cent. ammonia will produce 821 pounds. This meal contains 7.42 per cent. oil, which means that 60.91 pounds of oil is left in cake per ton of seed, more in the latter case than the former.” The meal referred to above is Eastern meal, and of lower quality than that made in Texas. The method is not strictly correct, as it assumes that all seed have the same composition. Landon C. Moore, a commercial chemist of Dallas, Texas, stated at the hearing held at College Station on November 2, 1915, by the Feed Control Service that While one mill made cake containing 4.3 per cent. protein and 11 per cent. crude fiber, another mill, in another section, made, from poorer seed, cake containing 43 per cent. protein and 4 per cent. crude fiber. He was asked particularly if the separation and extraction were good, and replied that they were good in both cases. According to this statement, a difference of '7 per cent. in the crude fiber made little or no difference in the extraction of the oil. This illustration also shows how Well a mill can remove hulls from the cake if it is necessary to do so. i Table No. 11 shows the comparative average composition of Texas and Louisiana meals. TABLE ll.-—COMPARATIVE FAT AND FIBER CONTENT OF TEXAS AND LOUISIANA MEALS. t Louisiana _ Fa corrected Crude Fiber for ex- i———-i-—-—- Texas I Louisiana ‘ cess hulls Texas I Louisiana 1907-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 9.40 .84 10.40 6.70 9.22 1908-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.03 8.96 9.32 7.10 8.87 1909-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.08 8.30 8.57 7.76 9.47 1910-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.93 8.10 8.35 7.90 9.29 1912-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.47 8.06 8.44 9.07 11.16 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.50 .25 8.65 9.77 12.04 . 1914-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I}! 8.06 l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.00 . . . . . . . . .. The Texas meals averaged a higher percentage of fat and a lower percentage of crude fiber, except in 1907-8. In 1914-15, however, the Texas mills made meal with 9.0 per cent. crude fiber and 8.06 per cent. fat, doing as troll as the Louisiana mills in 1912-13 or 1913-14 with a higher average of crude fiber. The Louisiana mills also made a larger quantity of cake due to the larger amount of hulls present, the additional quantity of cake con- taining an additional quantity of fat and reducing the yield of oil. This correction is made in the following way: Let us assume that one pound crude fiber equals 2-}; pounds of hulls. In 1907-8, Louis- iana meal contained 2.52 per cent. more crude fiber than Texas meal, which is equal to 5.6 per cent. of more hulls. These hulls, however, contain the same quantity of fat as the meal, namely, 9.84 per cent, which is equal to 0.56 per cent. This correction should be added to the fat content of the Louisiana meal. The other corrections are made by the same method. ‘ 24 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. When this correction is made, it may be said that the extraction of oil was better in Texas than in Louisiana, in three of the six years, and nearly the same in 1912-13. In 1913-14, the Texas meal, with a much lower crude fiber content, averages a better extraction. The evidence shows that the increased fiber content of Louisiana meals over Texas meals is not accompanied by a better extraction of oil. An examination of Table N o. 3, containing the average composition of Texas meals, shows a decrease in fat content for the season of 1914-15, and this decrease is accompanied by a. lower average crude fiber content than during the previous seasons. 1n other words, the average decrease of fat in 1913-14 is not accompanied by an average increase in crude fiber. TABLE 12.—COMPOSITION OF TEXAS COTTONSEED MEAL ARRANGED IN GROUPS ACCORDING TO FIBER CONTENTS 1907-1912. *5 I .5 * 2 B ... Q m S“ it; C.‘ 5 a é’? E. .22 E E 5 '2“ é‘ l? é“ To 6% average (432) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.02 9.87 5.14 23.62 6.33 5.69 0.201 6—7% average (350) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.28 9.34 6.48 24.15 7.01, 5.63 0.193 L.- 7-8% average (315) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.88 8.74 7.46 24.50 7.65 5.55 0.186 [- 9—10% average (173) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.81 8.24 9.57 25.32 6.85 5.39 0.184 [A r 10-11% average (122) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.86 8.15 10.30 25.66 7.00 5.42 0.186 " 11-12% average ( 71) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.66 8.02 11.27 26.46 7.01 5.29 0.192 Over 12% average ( 42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.19 7.45 13.48 27.37 7.27 5.06 0.190 Table No. 12 contains the composition of Texas cottonseed meal from 190'?’ to December 31, 1912, averaged in groups according to the crude fiber content. In considering this table, one must bear in mind that the period is one of transition, in which decided improve- ments were made in the extraction of oil, both in Texas and in other States, and further that the proportionate quantity of prime meal (47 to 51 per cent. Ibrotein and fat) is greater (luring the latter parts of the period, while the proportion of choice (51 to 55 per cent.) is greater during the earlier part. Hence the association of reduced oil content with higher crude fiber content may be due to improved man- ufacturing conditions and to better chemical control, rather than to the fiber content. The lower fat content is associated with a higher fiber content. Ilourever, the table does not show a better extraction as the fiber increases, as increased fiber means more cake, which contains oil. The ratio of protein to fat decreases to 0.184 per cent., then increases, showing a loss of oil due- to the additional hulls. Table No. 13 shows the number of samples in the groups. COMPOSITION 0F COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 25 TABLE I3.—~NUMBER OF SAMPLES OF TEXAS COTTONSEED MEAL, IN GROUPS ACCORDING TO FIBER CONTENTS 1907-1912. Below 7 to 8 to 9 to Over 7% Fat 8% 9% 10%- 10% To 6% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 I 96 112 168 6—7% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 80 88 99 7—8% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 81 I 97 55 57 9-10% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 59 5O 19 10 10—11% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 19 48 25 20 1O 1l-—12% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 20 12 7 7 Over 12% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 12 5 2 3 l TABLE 14.—AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF TEXAS COTTONSEED MEAL IN GROUPS ACCORDING TO FAT CONTENTS. Q . g 2 --' cm ‘H? L: -E p, "a "=1 3 2 >- 3 h U $11 2”’ r E a a“ a‘ 52 July 1,1914t0 Dec. 31,1914. I 5—6% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 5.68 10 48 44.56 25 28 8.46 5.54 Pt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 8—9% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53 8.46 7 87 46.16 24 89 6.89 5.73 Over 9% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.56 O8 44.69 24 37 6.65 5 65 Jan. 1,1915 to July 1, 1915. 5—6% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 5.76 13.02 41.04 26.52 8.15 5.51 6-57 fiat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7- g at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8—9% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54 8.37 8 79 44.71 24 99 7.22 5 92 Over 9% t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 10.22 80 44.17 24 16 6.90 5 75 July 1,1915 to Dec. 31, 1915 ‘>4 % fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 5.53 13.16 41.31 26.61 7.96 5.39 6—7% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84 6.49 11.22 43.44 25.55 7.61 5.51 7—8% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97 7.48 10.09 44.30 24.87 7.26 5.57 8~9% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 8.36 9.71 44.16 24.94 7.43 5.56 Over 9% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 9.97 9.80 43.44 24 58 6.71 5.51 Table No. 14 shows the composition of Texas cottonseed nical from July 1, 19141, to December 31, 1915, arranged and averaged accord- ing to the fat content. It will be noted that a fat content of 5.68 per cent. is secured with 10.48 per cent. crude fiber in the period from July 1 to December 31, 1914; whereas, in later periods more crude fiber is associated with the low fat content. The second group’ (6 to 7 per cent. fat) is associated with 9.79 per cent. crude fiber one year, and with a higher content in later years. TABLE l5.—AVERAGE CONTENTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA COTTONSEED MEAL (1913-1914). No. of Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Groups Samples Protein Fat Crude I Fiber 6—7% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 36.80 6.52 12.79 7—8% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 38.23 7.52 10.50 8—9% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 38.72 8.39 9.60 Over 9% fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 39.26 10.97 8.31 26 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table N0. 15 shows the composition of South Carolina cottonseed meal as given in their bulletin for 1913-14, arranged and averaged in groups according to the fat content. The lower fat content is asso- ciated with a higher crude fiber content. TABLE 16.—~AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF LOUISIANA COTTONSEED MEAL IN GROUP ACCORDING TO FAT CONTENTS 1913-14. No. _ _ Nitrogen Groups Average Protein Fat Fiber EFtree t Water Ash x rac l l l l 6—7% fat . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 39.401 6.68 11.20 27.63 8.09 6.94 7—8% fat . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 40.91 7.52 12.08 27.35 7.94 6.20 8—9% fat . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 38.16 8.38 12.18 27.13 7.75 6.30 Over 9% fat . . . . . . . . 14 4003i 10.09 11.95 23.71 8.04 6.18 | Table No. 16 shows the composition of Louisiana cottonseed meal as given in the bulletin for 1913-14, arranged and averaged in groups according to the fat content. There is no relation between the fat content and the fiber content of the groups. The group with the lowest fat content has the lowest fiber content. ’l‘h_e fiber content varies little, from 11.20 to 12.18. Consideration of the data mentioned leads to the conclusion that it is possible to secure a low oil content of the cake when the crude fiber content is around '7 to 9 per cent, by means of a proper control of the manufacturing processes. 1t seems to be somewhat easier, however, to secure a lower oil con- tent when a somewhat larger percentage of crude fiber is present. That is to say, mills which do not exercise such rigid bontrol of their work, reduce the oil content to a greater extent, when a larger amount of crude fiber is present. Under the ordinary manufacturing condi- tions, somewhat more crude fiber than 9 per cent. may lead to better extraction of oil in many cases. Thus while some mills are able to reduce the oil. content to 5.5 per cent. with a fiber content of 8 to 9 per cent. (or even less), other mills seem to get b-etter results when 9 to 11 per cent. is present. This accounts for the differences in opin- ' ion of the millers. The difference appears due to manufacturing conditions rather than to crude fiber. Nevertheless, the fact must be taken into consideration that 9 to 11 per cent. crude. fiber in some mills appears to give a better extraction of oil. More evidence along line is needed. g Some oil millers state that the amount of oil left in the cake de- gpends upon the water content of the seed when it is crushed, and is findependent of the quantity of hulls present. If the water content _! is high (8 to 12 per cent.), flinty cake is produced, which is low in oil (5 to 6 per cent.). If the water content is low, a "soft cake is produced, which is high in oil and of good color. The water content is to some extent regulated by the conditions of cooking. COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 27 RELATION OF CRUDE FIBER CONTENT TO FEEDING VALUE.~ Since the fertilizing value of cottonseed meal depends upon its content of nitrogen, available phosphoric acid, and potash, and since the hulls contain little nitrogen, the presence of hulls affects the fer- tilizing value of cottonseed meal in proportion as it decreases the nitro- gen content. The case is, however, different with the feeding value. The di- gestibility of the protein and other constituents, except the crude fiber, decreases as the quantity of crude fiber increases. Cottonseed meal may be considered as being composed of the kernel residue and of the hulls. The kernel residue contains about 3 per cent. crude fiber and the hulls about 45 per cent. The amount of crude fiber is an indication of the amount of hulls present. Bulletin No. 166 contains digestion experiments with cottonseed meal, also with cold-pressed cotton seed and cottonseed meal and hulls. The average cottonseed meal used contains 7.5 per cent. crude fiber. The average quantity of crude fiber in the meal rich in hulls was 26 per cent. Table No. 1'7 shows the coeflicients bf digestibility for these separate products. _ TABLE l7.-—EFFECT OF CRUDE FIBERMgNL PRODUCTION COEFFICIENT OF THE A . Nitrogen Protein Ether Crude ree Extract Fiber Extract Meal, coefficient of digestibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 95 15 72 Meal and hulls coefficient of digestibility... . . . 73 91 37 62 Difference for 18.50 0 crude fiber. . .- . . . . . . . 13 4 —22 l0 Difference for 1% cru e fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.7 0.2 1.2 0.5 Difference in production coefficient for 1 % crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . .A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —.0016 —.0012 +.O03 —‘. 0013 The differences in the coefficients of digestibility are also given. By dividing the differences in digestibility by the differences in the crude fiber, We get the effect of 1 per cent. crude fiber upon the coefiicient of digestibility, which is also given in the table. This may be calculated to the productive value. Thus an increase of 1 per cent. crude fiber gives the differences in the table. There is an in- crease in the productive value of the crude fiber. Using these fig- ures, we have calculated the production coefficients of the various grades of cottonseed meal as given in Table No. 18. (For a discus- sion of the production coefficients, see Bulletin No. 185.) 28 ’I‘nx.1s AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE 18.—PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON- SEED MEAL AND HULLS. ..> ‘B’ ‘H ;>, =3 s E =52 ‘>1 g5 ca? est’ g m 49 0 v: 3-4 I L‘ g Dong) a 1° g =1 5Q v15“ 2 --> r- m O o ' Flt l-Yl U Z U With 7% crude fiber (6-8) . . . . . . . 0.203 .567‘ —.033 . 181 86.2 With 9% crude fiber (8-10) . . . . . . .200 .565 ——.027 .178 85.5 With 11% crude fiber (10-12). . . . .197 .563 ——— 021 175 84.8 With 13% crude fiber (12-14). . . . .194 .560 —— 015 172 84.1 With 15% crude fiber (14-16). . . .. . 190 .558 — 009 170 83.4 Not only does the digestibility of the constituents decrease, but also the actual value to the animal decreases, on account of the increased expenditure of energy involved in the digestion of the crude fiber. The decrease in productive value is estimated at 1.3 per cent. for each per cent. crude fiber. An increase of crude fiber from 9 to 11 per cent. With no change in the other constituents will thus decrease the digestibility of the protein 1.6 per cent., and the productive value 2.6 per cent. Thus if two cottonseed meals have the same protein content, the one with the higher crude fiber will contain less digestible protein and have a lower fat-producing value. It is of some interest to inquire, what proportion of the value of cottonseed meal comes from the different constituents. All the di- gestible protein, of course, comes from the protein. Table No. 19 contains the productive values calculated from the constituents of two grades of cottonseed meal. The negative value of the fiber is sub- tracted from the nitrogen-free extract in calculating the percentages. TABLE 19.——COMPARATIVE PRODUCTIVE VALUES.OF CONSTITUENTS. OF TWO COTTONSEED MEALS. Meal A t _ Meal B Pro- Pro- l Compo- ductive % 0f Compo- ductive l % of sition Value Total sition Value l Total Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.0 8.66 51.6 36.0 7.09l 44.1 at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0 3.94 23.5 7.0 3.94} 24.5 Crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0 _.21 . . . . . . .. 11.0 _.23\ . . . . . . .. Nitrogen free extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0 4.37 24.8 30.0 5.251 31.3 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.05% It is seen that from 44 to 51 per cent. of the value of these two extreme grades is in the protein, and. that from 69 to '75 per cent. is in the protein and fat combined. STANDARDS FOR COTTONSEED MEAL. Standards for cottonseed meal adopted bv the different States are as follows: The standards for North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. have been in use for a number of years. p’! COMPOSITION or OoTroNsEEn MEAL AND OoTroN SEED. 29 North Ca.1'0Zina.—Cottonseed meal must contain not less than 7.5 per cent ammonia. This is practically the fertilizer law. South Car0Zinia.—Under the fertilizer law, cottonseed meal must contain not less than 7 per cent. ammonia. Under the South Carolina feed law, cottonseed meal must contain not less than 36 per cent. pro- tein, 3 per cent. fat, and not more than 10 per cent. crude fiber (7.5 per cent. ammonia equals 36 per cent. protein, closely). Georgtafillnder the fertilizer law, cottonseed meal must contain not less than 7.5 per cent. ammonia. Under the feed law, the stand- ard adopted for cottonseed meal is 38.62 per cent. protein and 4.00 per cent. fat. The standard for crude fiber as published in the bulle- tins in 1911 to 1915 was 12 per cent, but in the bulletin published November, 1915, the requirement for crude fiber in cottonseed meal was eliminated. A7abarrta-.—Under the fertilizer law, cottonseed meal must contain not less than 7.5 per cent. ammonia. When it contains less, it must sold as cottonseed meal and hulls, or low-grade cottonseed meal. Texas. From 1907 to 1916, cottonseed meal had to contain not less than 4-3 per cent. protein, or 50 per cent. protein and fat combined, and not more than 9 per cent. crude fiber. This has now been changed to not less than 4.4 per cent. protein, 51 per cent. protein and fat combined, and not over 11 per cent. crude fiber. (See below.) r Oklahoma.»--According" to a circular of the Oklahoma State Depart- ment ot Agriculture, October 1, 1915, choice cottonseed meal must contain at least 4-2 per cent. protein and 5.5 per cent. fat and not more than 9.5 per cent. crude fiber: prime cottonseed meal must con- tain at least 38 per cent. protein and 55 per cent. tat, and not more than 11 per cent. crude fiber, and these standards have been approved by representatives of the Oklahoma Cottonseed Crushers’ Association. Pennsg/Zoarz/ia.—-'1‘h<2 Pennsylvania State law does not permit more than 9 per cent. crude fiber in cottonseed meal. CHANGE IN THE TEXAS~ STANDARD FOR COTTONSEED BIEAL. The Texas standard for cottonseed meal from 1907 to 1916 was that it should contain not less than 4.8 per cent. protein, not less than 50 per cent. protein and fat combined, and not more than 9 per cent. crude fiber. A hearing on cottonseed products was held by the Feed Control Service on October 2, 1915, and was supplemented by letters submitted later. On February 15, 191.6, the agreement given below was made between Director Youngblood and a committee of the Texas Cotton- seed Orushers’ Association. This agreement practically changes the emphasis in the Texas standard from crude fiber to protein, or pro- tein and fat. The following memorandum of understanding was agreed to by a _ committee of the Texas Cottonseed Crushers’ Association and accepted by Director B. Youngblood: “We, the undersigned, acting for and in behalf of the Texas Cot- tonseed Orushers’ Association, have come to an understanding with 3O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. the Feed Control Service, on this the 15th day of February, 1916, at College Station, Texas, as follows: “It is agreed that the definition and standards for cottonseed meal shall more nearly coincide with the rules of the Texas Cottonseed Crushers’ Association, as follows: “Cottonseed meal is composed of decorticated kernels of cotton seed, free from excess of hulls and other foreign materials. It must con- tain not less than 4L4 per cent. of protein, or not less than 51 per cent. of protein and fat combined, and not m.ore than 11 per cent. of crude fiber. “Cottonseed cake shall correspond to cottonseed meal in composi- tion and as to standard. “It is agreed that any deficiency in percentage of fat may be offset by additional percentage of protein, as, for instance, in cottonseed meal guaranteed to contain 5 per cent. of fat, 4L6 per cent. of protein would be required. “It will be observed that the 51 per cent. of protein and fat com- bined coincides identically with the rule of the Texas Cottonseed Crushers’ Association, and that the increase of 2 per cent. crude fiber gives the millers greater latitude in holding the standard for protein and fat. “It is agreed that the standard for choice cottonseed meal shall re- main as heretofore.” ' This committee consisted of Mr. B. W. Couch, President of the Texas Cottonseed Crushers’ Association; Mr. Ed. Woodall, of Hills- boro, Texas, and Mr. W. F. Pendleton, of Farmersville, Texas, and Durant, Oklahoma. While We have reason to believe that the majority of Texas cotton- seed crushers are in favor of the agreement given above, and are satis- fied with the definition now adopted, as shown by the definition adopted at their meeting in May, 1916, yet there are some few cottonseed crusher-s who desire to put on the Texas market a decidedly inferior product, containing less than 44 per cent. protein and correspondingly more hulls, under the name of cottonseed meal. and are not satisfied with the standard agreed upon. The Feed Control Service does not attempt to regulate what shall or shall not be manufactured in the t State, but merely insists on the right of the purchaser to know what he is buying‘. Those desiring the lower standard, say that if the low grade product is sold under the name of cottonseed meal and hulls, that they cannot get as much for it as if it were sold as cottonseed meal. If this argument means anything, it means that the buyer will not pay as much for the goods if he knows what he is getting, as he would if he thought he was getting cottonseed meal. This is, thus, an argument in favor of the proper naming of the product, and not against it. COMPOSITION or CorroNsEEo MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 31 DEFINITIOXS OF COTTONSEED MEAL. UNITED STATES FEED CONTROL OFFICIALS. The following definition of cottonseed meal has been adopted by the Feed Control Oflicials of the United States: Cottonseed Meal is a product of the cottonseed only, composed principally of the kernel with such portion of the hull as is necessary in the manufacture of oil; provided, that nothing shall be recognized as cottonseed meal that does not conform to the foregoing definition and that does not contain at least 36 per cent. of protein. Choice Cottonseed Meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, yellow, not brown or reddish, free from excess of lint, and must contain at least 41 per cent. of protein. Prime Cottonseed Meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, yellow, not brown or reddish, free from excess of lint, and must contain at least 38.6 per cent. of protein. Good Cottonseed Meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, and must contain at least 36 per cent. of protein. Cottonseed Feed is a mixture of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls containing- less than 36 per cent. of protein. INTERSTATE COTTONSEED CRUSHERS, DEFINITIONS. The definitions (1915) adopted by the Interstate Cottonseed Crush- ers’ Association are as follows: Cottonseed Meal is a product of the cottonseed only, composed principally of the kernel, with such portion of the fiber or hull and oil as may be left in the ordinary course of manufacture, or as may be indicated by the analysis thereof, and shall be graded and classed ' as follows: Provided, that nothing shall be recognized, traded in or sold as cot- tonseed meal that does not conform to the requirements above set forth, and that does not contain at least 36 per cent. of protein. Choice Cottonseed Meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, perfectly sound and sweet in odor, yellow, free from excess of lint, and by analysis must contain at least either 8 per cent. of am- monia, or 49 per cent. of combined protein and fat. Prime Cottonseed Meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, yellow, not brown or reddish, free from excess of lint, and by analysis must contain at least either 7.5 per cent. of ammonia or 46 per cent. of combined protein and fat. - Good Cottonseed Meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, and by analysis must con- tain at least either '7 per cent. of ammonia, or 43 per cent. of com- bined protein and fat. 32 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Cottonseed cake not coming up to contract analysis shall be a good delivery if within one-quarter of 1 per cent. of ammonia, or within 1% per cent. of combined fat and protein, guaranteed by contract or of sale sample, but the settlement price shall be reduced at the rate of one-tenth of contract price for each. 1 per cent. and proportionately for fractions of deficiency in ammonia, or one fortyr-ninth, one forty- sixth, or one forty-third, as the case may be, for deficiency in protein and fat. , Where cake is sold on sample, to be a good delivery it must rea- sonably conform to the sale sample in color and texture and analysis. TEXAS FEED CONTROL SERVICE DEFINITIONS. . The definitions of the Texas Feed Control Service are now as fol- lows: Cottonseed Meal is composed of the decorticated kernels of cotton seed, free from excess of hulls and other foreign materials. It must contain 11ot less than 4L4 per cent. of protein, not less than 51 per cent. of protein and fat combined, and not more than 11 per cent. of crude fiber. Prtnte Cottonseed jlleal is composed of the decorticated kernels of cotton seed, free from excess of hulls and other foreign materials. Must be finely ground, of ‘SWGGJC odor, reasonably bright in color, and must contain not less than 4-4 per cent. of protein, 7 per cent. of fat (not less than 51 per cent. of protein and fat combined), and not more than 9 per cent. of crude fiber. Choice Cottonseed Zlleal is composed of the decorticated kernels of cotton seed, free from excess of hulls and other materials. Must be finely ground, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, and must contain not less than 4L8 per cent. of protein, 7 per cent. of fat (not less than 55 per cent. of protein and fat combined), and not more than 9 per cent. of crude fiber. . Cottonseed Cake should correspond to cottonseed meal in composi- tion. Cottonseed Meal and Hulls is any mixture of cottonseed meal and hulls containing not less than 9 per cent. and not more than 20 per cent. of crude fiber. _ Jlltzred Cottonseed Zlleal and fIruiZZs is any mixture of cottonseed meal and hulls containing not less than 20 per cent. and not more tpan 40 per cent. of crude fiber. The percentage of hulls must be s ated. TEXAS COTTONSEED CRUSHERS, ASSOCIATION DEFINITIONS. The definitions of the Texas Cottonseed Crushers’ Association are as follows: Cottonseed Cake is a product of the cottonseed only, composed prin- cipally of the kernel, with such portion of the fiber or hull and oil as may be left in the ordinary course of manufacture, or as may be in- ‘i CoMPosrrroN on COTTDONSBIED lVIEAr. AND CoTToN SEED. 3o dicated by the analysis thereof, and shall be graded and classed as follows: Provided, tha.t nothing shall be recognized, traded in or sold as cottonseed cake tl1a.t does not conform to the requirements above set forth, and that does not contain at least 36 per cent. of protein; and further provided, that no cottonseed cake shall be offered for sale, for consumption in Texas, that does not comply With the State pure feed laws. C710/ice Cottonseed Cake must be reasonably bright in color, sweet in odor, friable in texture, not burnt in cooking, free from excess of lint and hulls, and shall contain by analysis of a competent chemist 55 per cent. of protein and fat combined; provided, that it shall not be rejected it if contains as much as 51 per cent. of protein and fat combined; but an allowance shall be made by seller of one-fifty-fifth of the contract price less freight when sold delivered for each de- ficient unit of protein and fat combined. lhinze Cottonseed Cake must be of good color, yelloxvish, not brown or reddish, sweet in odor, firm in texture, free from excess of lint, and shall contain by analysis of a competent chemist 51 per cent. of protein and fat combined; provided, that it shall not be rejected if it contains as much as 4:7 per cent. of protein and fat combined; but an allowance shall be made by the seller of one-fifty-first of the con- tract price less freight when sold delivered for each deficient unit of protein and fat combined. , Sec. Cottonseed cake where sold for consumption in ‘Pexas shall contain not less than 41 per cent. of protein, or 51 per cent. of protein and fat combined, and must not contain more than 11 per cent. of fibre. No claim for deficiency of protein and fat combined shall be made by buyer unless the variation shall equal or exceedone-half of one unit. Cottonseed Meal is a product of the cottonseed only, composed prin- cipally of the kernel, with such portion of the fiber or hull and oil as may be left in the ordinary course of manufacture, or as may be in- dicated by the analysis thereof, and shall be graded and classed as follows: Provided, that nothing shall be recognized, traded in or sold as cottonseed meal that does not conform to the requirements above set forth, and that does not contain at least 36 per cent. of protein; and further provided, that no cottonseed meal shall be offered for sale, for consumption in Texas, that does not comply with the State pure feed laws. Cottonseed meal shall be graded as follows: Choice Cottonseed Meal must be the product of sound cottonseed cake, finely ground, reasonably bright in color, not brown or reddish, free from excess of lint and hulls, and shall contain by analysis of a comp-etent chemist 55 per cent. of protein and fat combined; pro- vided, that it shall not be rejected if it contains as much as 51 per cent. of protein and fat combined; but an allowance shall be made by seller of one-fiftyf-fiftli of the contract price less freight when sold delivered for each deficient unit of protein and fat combined. Choice Bolted Cottonseed Men-l must be the product of sound cot- 3-41 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. tonseed cake, finely ground and bolted, of bright yellow color, not brown or reddish, and shall contain by analysis of a competent chemist 55 per cent. protein and fat combined; provided, that it shall not be rejected if it contains as much as 51 per cent. of protein and fat com- bined; but an allowance shall be made by seller of one-fifty-fifth of the contract price less freight when sold delivered for each deficient unit of protein and fat combined. Meal to be choice bolted must be ' ground and bolted sufficiently fine for the contents to pass through a Wire mesh of one-twenty-sixth of an inch in diameter. Prime Cottonseed ilical must be the product of sound cottonseed cake, finely ground, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, not brown or reddish. reasonably free from excess of lint, and shall con- tain by analysis of a competent chemist 51 per cent. of protein and - fat combined; provided/chat it shall not be rejected if it contains as much as 417 per cent. of protein and fat combined; but an allowance shall be made by seller of one-fifty-first of the contract price, less freight where sold delivered, for each deficient unit of protein and fat combined. Prime Bolted Cottonseed Meal must be the product of sound cot- tonseed cake, finely ground and bolted, of bright yellow color, not brown or reddish, and shall contain by analysis of a competent chem- ist 51 per cent. of protein and fat combined; provided, it shall not be rejected if it contains as much as e17 per cent. of protein and fat combined; but an allowance shall be made by seller of one-fifty-first of the contract price, less freight when sold delivered, for each de- ficient unit of protein and fat combined. Meal to be prime bolted must be ground and bolted sufficiently fine for the contents to pass through a wire mesh of one-twenty-fourth of an inch in diameter. Sec. 4B. Cottonseed meal, where sold for consumption in Texas, shall contain not less than 4.4 per cent. of protein or 51 per cent. of p-rotein and fat combined and must not contain more than 11 per cent of fiber. N o claim for deficiency of protein and fat combined shall be made by buyer unless the variation shall equal or exceed one-half of one unit. PROTEIN REGULATION. The valuation of different cottonseed meals by means of the pro- tein, or protein and fat content, was adopted for the purpose of dis- tinguishing between different grades of cottonseed meal, made by pro- cesses which had for their primary object the extraction of the oil. The meal varied in composition, both on account of differences in the seed, and differences in the hull content, due to imperfections in manufacturing. With the development of this method of valuation, and with the development of chemical methods of mill control, the manufacturer found that, though he was in many cases penalized for meal running below the guarantee, he received no extra payment when meal was above guarantee. He thus formed the impression that the ammonia (or protein) and fat was the only valuable constitutent of the feed, and the remainder of the feed had little or no value. In other words, he was selling protein or protein and fat. These con- (ZoMPosITIoN or COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 35 siderations lead naturally to introduction of hulls during the process of manufacture, Where needed to run the protein content down t0 the minimum guarantee. Where the protein, 0r protein content served only as a basis for judging the quality of meal, questions as to the hull content, or whether the product was really a cottonseed meal, did not often arise. The rules of the Interstate and other Cottonseed Crushers’ Associations in fact permit the addition of cottonseed hulls or hull-bran, either during the process of manufacture or otherwise. This attitude is further brought out in the following statement: H. E. Hawk, in Oil Mill Superintendents’ Association, June, 1913, says: l “As in our State we have a standard of 7.50 per cent., and the mill sells on that basis, we should be able to control the ammonia, within 10-100 per cent. of the 1 per cent. Otherwise the man that buys the meal or cake, if over 10-100 per cent. short will have a. kick coming to him, and will be entitled to a reduction. On the other hand, if the mill sells meal for 7%; per cent. ammonia, and it runs anywhere 7.60 per cent. to 7.75 per cent, the mill will be the loser of 30 cents for 7.60 per cent. up to 75 cents for 7.75 per cent. per ton of meal. This will be, as you can readily see, either a loss to the mill in getting its final settlements on meal sold if the ammonia runs too low, and, if on the other hand, the ammonia runs high it will be a great loss in running a higher value than it is sold for. In view of these facts, it is best to have the analysis often and to get a basis of stand- ard in operation, then run to the standard constantly. This is ac- complished by seeing that the linting is uniform, the hullers are kept sharp so that the hulling will be constantly uniform. That is, they must do their work constantly the same, then the separation to get the proper proportion of hull meal and. this la.tter must be fine and free of lint, with the proper percentage to obtain, say, in amount of cake that will run the per cent. of ammonia just where you want it (and this, I say, can be done very easily if the equipment is right), "then to take your samples of cooked meahwatch very closely’ the time, the temperature, in the progress of your cooking, get the smell, the feel, and the color the exact shade.” ~The Picard-Layv Company, in The Oil Miller, December, 1914, states: “Georgia shows an average of 7.16 per cent. ammonia. in spite of the fact that a large percentage of the mills are shipping 7 per cent. cake. As near as we can figure it, the meal from this State has aver- aged 0.20 per cent. in ammonia above guarantee. At $2.50 per unit- this is 50 cents per ton excess value. Basing the meal sold during this time at 50,000 tons, the Georgia mills have given away $25,000.00 worth of protein in an elfort to keep their product up to the standard.” . The Picartl-Laxv Company, in The Oil Miller, February, 1914, states: “The time is coming and coming fast when the mill that does not have daily analyses made of meal cannot keep up with the procession. It is the only way to regulate ammonia. It would surprise many mill managers to know that we can pick out nearly any day in the season 5 ~6 TFExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. C. and show that the seed handled in our laboratory that day would pro- duce meal varying as much as 1 per cent. in ammonia xvhen exactly the same number of pounds are made per ton. This might happen in your mill any time that you change from one car to another. “This may sound like taking advantage of our opportunity to pull for business, but if you Will. consider the matter carefully ‘you will be convinced that you and not the chemist will be the big gainer. By regulating ammonia within ten points a two-press mill can often save enough in a. couple of Weeks to pay for analytical work the whole season. That the big companies realize this is proven by the fact that over thirty independent mills in Georgia, besides the corporation mills, have their products analyzed each day that they operate.” D. C. Picard, Alabama Cottonseed Crushers, in The Oil Miller, ‘September, 1915, states: ' “Most of you think, l am sure, that the sum total of ‘getting results’ isgood separation and a low standard of press work, but to my mind one of the most important factors of all in making profits is close. control of the ammonia. Of course, with seed of variable ani- monia content, it is rather difiicult to keep the ammonia constant by regulation at the second huller. Of late, a third huller has been in- stalled in some mills for the sole purpose of controlling ammonia, which makes it somewhat easier; but, even with this, daily analyses of the cake is necessary. ‘ “I wonder how many realize how large a loss this is; sometimes it is greater than allowing excess of oil to remain in the cake. One ton of 7% per cent. meal contains 150 pounds of ammonia, which is worth (since the value of the meal is in its ammonia), when meal is selling for $28.00 per ton, very close to 2O cents per pound. If the meal is sold on this guarantee, but actual delivery runs 7.75 per cent., five extra pounds of ammonia are thrown in with each ton, making the customer a present of $1.00 per ton. This is very nice for the customer, but downs the mill’s profits quite a lot. It does not hit the bank-balance directly‘, like reclamations, but, nevertheless, when the books are closed several thousands of dollars are usually debited to ex- cess values. Much of this can be prevented by the daily analyses above mentioned so that when shipments are made high and low am~ monia meal can be mixed to make a close average. This has been done; it is entirely practical. Of course, if meal could always be sold, as it should be, on its ammonia, this would not be necessary, but we must meet conditions as we have them. “To show you how excess ammonia figures in comparison with ex- cess oil: The average oil mill tries to keep oil in the cake down to 6 per cent., or 120 pounds to the ton. If the oil runs 7 per cent., this will be 140 pounds. The extra 20 pounds of oil at 5% cents per pound is worth $1.10 per ton, so you see the giiring away of one- qzzarter 0f n per cent. of excess acln/monria is prracticalli/ equivalent t0 (JNOYIYi/Itg 1 7787' cent. eaicess oil remain in the cialre. “Some of you may say: ‘Vile cannot control our ainmonizi.’ But, COMPOSITION or COTTONSIBIEI) lyhsar. AND COTTON SEED. 37* yes you cant If you will use your chemists p-roperly you soon get ‘results.’ ” The manufacturer of cottonseed oil has sometimes to contend With seed loW in protein (or ammonia), or delinted so closely that sepa- ration is difficult, and has trouble in producing meal of the standard, if it is not too low. Sometimes separation of kernels from seed must, to some extent, be sacrificed, to produce the grade of meal desired. While the manufacturer may be Willing to sacrifice separation to come up to his guarantee in protein, When necessary to do so, he is not Willing to sacrifice it to come up to a guarantee in crude fiber When it is not necessary to come up to his guarantee in protein. Pro- tein, or protein and fat, is undoubtedly the most valuable constituent of cottonseed meal, and the manufacturer feels that When he suffers the burden of low protein seed, he should receive the recompense of high protein seed when it comes hisivay. CRUDE FIBER STANDARD. The definition of cottonseed meal adopted by the Feed Control Offi~ cials of the United. States is as folloivs: “Cottonseed meal is a product of the cotton seed only, composed principally of the kernel With such portion of the hull as is neces- sary in the manufacture of the oil; provided, that nothing shall be recognized as cottonseed meal that does not conform to the foregoing definition and that does not contain at least 36 per cent of protein.” We Will inquire how much crude fiber represents “such portion of the hull as is necessary to the manufacture of the oil.” This point is (lifficult to decide on the basis of analytical results alone. Tllhe analyses given in Tables Nos. 3, 5, 6 and '7 show the average crude fiber content. Standards, however, must be above rather than below the maximum. 1n the case of cottonseed meal, samples With low crude fiber may have had it reduced for the purpose of raising the protein. On the other hand, those With high crude fiber may have had it added, dur- ing the process of manufacture or otherwise, for the purpose of re- ducing the protein. i _ Then, also, there are certain "varieties of cotton of Which the seed are partly bare, like Sea Island seed. The hulls do not felt together, and are not easily removed. Some millers also claim that a rather large amount of hulls is necessary to give (lrainage and reduce the oil; While other millers say that only a. much smaller quantity is needed. This has been already discussed. Apparentlfv a better extraction of oil is often accompanied by a higher percentage of hulls. 38 TEXAS AQRICULTIIRAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE 20.——-DISTRIBUTION OF FIBER CONTENTS OF COTTONSEED MEAL. Louisiana, 1913—14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .1 10.1 i 11.1 Below to t0 ' t0 Over Total -9.1 10.1 11.1 i 12.1 12.1 l South Carolina M 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . 37 16 22 i 20 14 109~ Georgia, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10 5 l 2 1 43 Pennsylvania 265-1914 . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2s 24 ; 14 I 9 94, New York, 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 8 2 S 2 f . . . . . . .. 26 New York, 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 2 . . . . . . . .L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 New York, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 8 2 l . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 New York, 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 10 4 I 2 . . . . . . .. 1s New York, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 11 . . . . . . ..| . . . . . . . .1 1 23 New Jersey, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 6 . . . . . . .. 1 . . . . . . .. 14 New Jersey, 1914-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 4 1 1 . . . . . . .. 20 Kentucky, 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 26 13 11 9 80 Georgia, 1911-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 Georgia, 1912-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4 2 0 l‘ 11 31 Georgia, 1913-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11 5 2 1 3 45 22 26 3 23 E 4 78 Table No. 20 shows the distribution of the fiber contents of cotton- seed meals as analyzed in several States. content were omitted. A large proportion of the samples contained 9 per cent. crude fiber, or less. TABLE 2I.—GUARANTEES OF CRUDE FIBER IN COTTONSEED MEAL. Samples illegal in protein l9.l—10 10.1-ll 11.1—12 Over ‘ 12.1 Kentucky, 1914 (185) . . . . . . . . . . . . . New York, 1915 (404) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indiana, 1914 Louisiana (1913-14) (17 South Carolina, 1915 (52) . . . . . . . . . . O5UWJQJ>'-‘ hOtfllQfl Table No. 21 shows the guarantees of crude fiber made in five States. antees is far less than 10.1 per cent. crude fiber. With the exception of South Carolina, the bulk of the guar- TABLE 22.—AVERAGE FIBER CONTElgTLglvjwCOTTONSEED MEALS (CALCULATED Pound Animo- Fiber Pound Arnmo- Fiber per ton nla % % pier ton ma % September- 1911 1912 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943 7.25 11.10 888 7. 12 7.60 October—- 1911 1912 0t ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 888 7.66 10.40 842 7.33 7.68 Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865 7.73 9.88 833 7.30 9.22 North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904 7.75 9.78 853 7.35 8.70 South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950 7.37 12.32 830 7.55 8.19 bama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 855 7.66 9.18 820 7.32 7.91 N0vember— 1911 1912 Total ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880 7.71 10.23 838 7.62 8.59 Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851 7.79 9.33 809 7.75 7.77 North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915 7.85 8.90 852 7.60 7.53 South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920 7.45 11.46 859 7.43 9.05 bama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883 7.48 10.84 837 7.56 10.04 December— 1911 1 912 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 884 7.78 10.39 884 7.50 10.95 Geor 1a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 865 7.84 9.96 882 7.46 11.15 Nort Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 7.93 10.13 859 7.70 11.06 South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950 7.42 10.50 933 7.46 11 .34 Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865 7.77 9.93 859 7.50 10.80 COMPOSITION ‘or COTTONSEED ll/IEAL AND COTTON SEED. 89 TABLE 22.—AVERAGE FIBER CONTENT OF )COTTONSEED MEALS (CALCULATED BY LAW . l 1 l l Pound A_mmo- ‘ Fiber Pound f Arnmo- Fiber l per ton ma % I % per ton 1 ma % % s l ' 1 \ l 1 Janufltryv-l- 885 197281? 9 82 900 197344 11 44 0t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . ‘ . . . . Geoilgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851 7 .88 8. 58 900 7.40 11.85 ou aro ma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; . .5 ; . . . Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 860 7 .84‘ 9.20 890 7.38 11 92 February~ l 1912 1913 gotal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H; eorgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 7 . . . North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903 7.85 10.66 888 7.63 9.88 South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 904 7.62 10.98 8831 7.42 10.57 M rilabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; 860 197282 9.68 885} 1917358 11.20 arc —— 1 ' ‘gotal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 eorgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 1 . 1 . North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902 7.92 9.66 911l 7.57‘ 10.46 South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 955 7.52 12.34 25! 7.31 11.50 Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860 7.75 9.72 585 7.59 9.13 A 892 197271 10 22 869 197348 9 98 verage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Highestjn fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955 7.62 12.34 900 7.40 11 .86 Lowest 1n fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851 ~ 7.88 8.58 852 7.50 7.53 Table No. 22 shows the estimated yield, the average protein, and the calculated crude fiber, averaged by months for several States of the Southeast as presented by Mr. Law in The Oil Miller, June, 1913. The crude fiber was calculated on the basis of 3 per cent. in the ex- pressed kernels, and 50 per cent. in the hulls. 000 3.00 N000 5.0 90w 4O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. ..........ww.> Ewwmw: ow 00.0 oo w 0.0.00 ww ww ww o mo w . . . , .. ow ww.w ow w ww w: wm: hw ww 6:. mm Emwmw: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ww::>: 00E0§2> IKHII 0x0. ow w wowm 0W0: 0.0.00 wwom .00 :0 03:00 0030M: .. ww w oo w 21H 0m w: :0 w wwww 0000000 F? $0 00.0 0mm? “mew 0x0 Z 0... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ww w ow w 00.2 00.0 mmnww 2.. mm Eowmw: . _ . . 02¢ 2.00m . . . . . .. . . :w.w ww.w mw .5 hww: ww :0 ow. :N .00 :0 000300 00000002 . wo.w oo.w $.00 wow: wow :w ww 0000mm: ww :w~N oo.w 00.0w Saw :w o 00.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ . . .:..w . ww w ow w wm w: aw: 8 .5 ww ww Ewmmw: . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 07: W600 1ST. . www ww.w .225 0:00: 0m 0m wmom .00 0002300,: :50 00: :0 056w . . . :w.w oo w 2.0m 00.2 :N w w: 0m E0000 w.:w $0 oo.w wmww wN.:w ww.o £0 .- . . . .m.ww 5w ow w :N h: 00.: 00.0w mm 0m Cwmmw: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02 050m . . . . . . m . J 00.0 ww w 8 wm wmw: wm mm ww 2 .00 :0 c0300 020000: .. ww.w oo w 00.0w. Nww: w:.w 5 ww 002%: Nw 5.0 oo w ow Nw Saw ww o :0 m . . . . . 00w ow.w o: 0.: 00.: wh 5 ww ww 000300 . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . ITII00 0333/ . . www ww w ww R 00.2 w: N0 0w om .00 :0 000300 00:05:: .. . :N.w oo w mo ow 2.2 om w ww ww E::Nw: P00 0.0.0 oo w ww :w :w.ww ow o :: w . . . .w 0w .. Sw ow w N: .2 ww: wh ww mm mm 000000: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I00 000503.00 . . m . m . m . . :w.w ww w 002R :o.om ww mm ww 0: o .00 :0 000300 000.02% . . . . omw oo w wm mm wow: ow.w 0» ww 0000mm: W? 00.0 oo w mo ww 000w aw o ww N . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. www ow w $.00 ww : oo ow ww ow Iwomw: . . . ¢ . . r . . . . . . . . .0 .0 03:50:00 . . . . . . . ww.w ww w ww wm www: ww mm m: 2 00 :0 000300 0000:0000 505w m . oww oo w ww mm SQ: ww w ww ww 008%: w.ow 000.0 oo.w omww 00.0w ww o 3 N 0 .w 0m. . . .. www ow w w:..:.: 00a: 00 wm wo mw Iwomw: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 .m 00.000300 . . . . . . . . .. ww.w :w w N: wm wo.w: mwwm 0N om .00 a 00am .. wo.w oo w 8.5 www: mw w w: ww Ewomw: mw $10 oo w ww :w owww ww o m: w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ww . . .. www ow.w 00x2 wh: w:.ow ww 0m Ewomw: .. . . M . . . . .0 .7: 000:m00::00:>/ . .. . . . . . 5.0 ww w 09R 8x0: 00 mm i}: .00 :0 000300 0050000 0:007: . . 5.0 oo.w 0.: ow 00.00 mm.» ww ww E0000: . mw wwfl oo w S mw mwww ow o 3.0 . . . . . . . . . .. _ www ow.w wow: 5.0 0m ow ww 5 008%: . . . I... . . . . . . . . . . . ..0 .7: 0:00:03“: . 00.0 ww w 5.0m www: o: m0 mw 2 00 :0 00300 0030000 5002* 000w c: 00000000 000:0: 0:00 00m: 00:35 000w: 0:500 :00: E0000»: .07: .0000500:::0:>: :0 0000304 :00 0E0 Z , 00000002 000m .:0 0:03.22: .0003: 32:50 Tn .7: $000500 Tam 000:3: T0w< 000D .w .D .::03:0:m "0000? .0000’: .3005: U55 m=im MO Emfiaiw. EOhu UQQBQEOQ 003.3054 0.0-2.: 5032M d: :0 m: 00:00:00 .0036 QHHQZOFHOO QZ< 0000200060 0o 00000005000 m0<00><1u2 0.55:. 4.1 COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED. . 000m .0000 :03 0000mm 00 000A .000m 003mm 00W," do 00 030 00.0 3.000000 53 A353 @0000 000w 3x000 E00 $0.5 03000 00030003“ 000m; . . . . . .. $0 oo.w 038 NN.w oww wwNv _:....,.u0u 083.0 m N0 8.0 oo.w 00.0w 00.0% 8.0 Ea. 4.....W:0E . @-N.@ ,. ....waflmv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .H=~QP .M@SQEQE . . . . . . .. v0.0 wm w oo.wN . oN.oN ww oN I NN _ . . . . 108m _ :00 :0 00300 000m 0Q . . . . . .. 0N w oo.w wwow 3 N0 mm w m» ww m. IIMUEU EEQNMZ m 00 3 N oo.w 00.3 00.3 ww o mo N i .1233 0.00 m; 00.0 2.5 n»; 3 0m mm 0.. W. 138.002 00002 . . . . . . . E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 .Z .0002.0w00 . . . . . . . mw m. 5.0 woSN 00.2 n. wN m0 2 _ . . . . . 08m :00 :0 00300 0000000m . $6 oo.w mm ow 2.: 2.0 Nw 00 111.0000 03mm: m0 NwN oo.w 00 m0 00$ F, o 0N w E 1.21%: §HL- q. ....wPNU§o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . .NU 0H~5Q§@NU . . . . . . . . .. 00.». wmiw $.00 00.2 00. 0N wN. 0N _. . . . . 0.8m :00 000230000 00m =0 0:00:00 . . . . . . . . .. 2am. oo.w mowN ~52 wfifl wm. Q i . 1.0000 000mm: 9N0 3a oo.w $.00 30.3w ‘$20 wow 0.5 00.0 00.0 01: on 0 00.0w ow mm iwwNwfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0000‘ 60100003000 . . . . . . . . . . 5.», wmw wwwN 00.2 oN ~N 3 0N r00 miiwom 000x000 . . . . . . . . .. wow oo.w m» 5 Now 0:. 0. ww 00$: 0.00 mwN oo.w ow 0v 00x3 3 o wo w . . w . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fflo JhQHwCt/QU . IIK Z. 0.0m 00.0 .500 5.2 SAN R. 0N ..00 :0 00300 50000 03302 . . . . . . www oo.w wo ww 00.2 mN w 2 0m 5N0: 9S0 22m oo.w w“ 0v 00.00 $0 aw w mwm $0.0 001m 0R 8 ww; 000m ww 0m 0mg: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02 $00000m~00§ . . . . . . . . . Nmw 3.0 m0 wN .80: w». 0N ow 0N 0 :00 :0 00300 0000024 . . . . . . . . .. 00.0 oo.w 00.5 00.2 E w wh ww EHNNwH N0 EN oo.w ww S» 0N3 wv o 00 m E .. . 00.0 0H0 0w 2 ,5; ow 0w E ww EoNNwfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 $00000m0002 p. 00.0 £0 mmsm 032 ww 0N S 0N :00 0o 00300 0.60005 I . . E0 oo w 2.0m 05E 5.0 00 ww 02mm: N0 and oo.w 3N0 00.3 wwo Na N .00 $20 ommm ww S. £0 oo wm ww Nw 02mm: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0 .0~0m$< . . . . . .... $0 mm w howN S. 2 0N NN 2 .oN :00 a 00am $5 oo.w wo 0m 2.2 8 m mm ww 0200 0.00 Nw.N oo w Nm m0 S»? 00 o 2 N . 0.0m 3.0 00.0 2.2 2.. 0 oo ww 5 5 02mm: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E . . . . . . . . . 100 000054 . . . . . . . . . . 05w 00.0 m0 wN 45.2 0m wN 0R 2 :00 0O 00300 0000mm 02.82 . . . . . . .. 5.0 oo.w m0 ww wNoN NH N. 5 wN 0S0: 9S» mwN oo.w mm 3 vwww om o wm w .. . . .. mwm 0N0 8.0 0N 2 8.0 00 ww wmwN 030: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 0E 000002 . . . . . . 3.0 0m w $0.0m “NEH wwNN 0.0.2 00 m0w050£00m§ “E0000 :0: oo w 00 wN 0.0.0 £5 wo 00 05mm: 0.00 3a oo w .2 N0 wwwv 00.0 00 w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 0.00 3.0 ow m ow wfl £0 Hm ww oN Nm 00002 . . . . . .. 000m.» 0000062 ..... . 0N0 E w ww wN 0:0 2 wN mwoN 00 =0 200.00% . . . . . E0 oo.w w» wN 00.00 Nw w mm m». r500: Q NQN oo.w 0w 00 00.3 $0 >0 m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . on 0.010 om m. Diwfi No.N 00.0w 00.0w 0000.0 . r 0000. M50802 . . . . . . . . .. :0 mmw wwwN 00.2 fioNN ,3 . 0N 00 :0 00300 =$£=0m 42 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. .2 .00 000m. . M00 00 WWO. 0.00. .......m._.....h..w. 005 L .000 00.0 00.0 00.2 00A 00.00 v0.00 . . . . 000020 0:030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .030 5:0 0:0 . . . . .. 00.0 5.0 $.00 Q20: 00. ~m 0.0.00 ......08m :00 :0 00300 3:0 0:0 00 M00 00 0w 03... 0 %%%%%% ..M.._.....w. 0m 00.0 00.0 00.2 00A 00.00 00.00 113002 0230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0E0 .8005 . . . . . . . ... 00.0 00.0 000m $.00 0:: 00mm ......000m . . :00 :0 00300 000.50 . . . w 00.0 0m .....m:0E . . .00. . . . 00H 50.0 8.2 w: 00.00 >000» 33002 0230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .030 5:0 0000:0100 . 2.. 0 v0.0.0 >000 R200 $.00 00.00 . . . . . 000m :00 :0 00500 0509:0060 00 0W 00 00.0 Mm 0m. .100. . .. 00.0 00.0 00.00 m0. ~ 00.00 0.5.0.0 11.3002 0.03.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .030 $.20 00000020 . 00.0 00.0 000m 00.00 00. 00 00.00 . . . . . 000m :00 :0 000 000 00200000. .........._..wmmm 00 00 00 fi 0.0 00.0.00 .100. . . . . 0Y0 00mm 00.2. 00% 00.00 00.00 . 12000020 0.03.0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101:0 S30 0.000030 . . . . . . . . mm m 00 0 R00 2 00 00.00 000m I0o0m :00 :0 00300 00000030 ...: .. 0m “W3 00 W? W?» .00.. 0.0.0.000 _ 5E L . .-...W@@@2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....v#h<_x@flai°u . . . . . . . . .. 00.0 00.0 0.0.00 00. 00 2.00 >0. 00 Ziiwoom r00 :0 00300 >0B000 00.0-1000 00 00 .000 00 0.00 00.0 00.0 8.2 00. 0 00.0.0 :00 . . B002 08030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .000. 03:02.3: . . . . . . . . .. 2 .0 00.0 00.0.0 00 .00 0700 00.0m I ....Eam :00 :0 00300 0000:0002 0W 00 00 00 00 _........_0....w. 00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00A 2.00 00.00 12.00002 083.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .004 .0000 05:0 . . . . . . . . .. v0.0 00.0 00 s0 00.00 000m wmmm ......0o0m :00 :0 00300 0000050 00 03 .000 00 0... 0mm. . 0.0.0. 0 . . . . . 0m. 00.0 00.0 00.00 00m 00.00 00.00 . 1.00002 000000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JT< 000M 05:0 . . . . . . . . . . 00.0 00.0 050m $.00 00.00 8.00 . . . . . .0000 r00 :0 00300 08m 03:0 0m 00 0x0 00 .0 00 . . . ....WH@N@Ufi0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . <. .. .H:HQP_w@5QEQE . . . . . . . . .. 0H .0 00.0 000m 310m 000m m0. 00 . . . . . 000m :00 00023000 000 000m 00:03 000m 0: 000.500 000E 0000 00m 00¢. 00003 000m 00000 000 0000mm .02 .00.:500 0002 0 0000 0. 000 00002 000.0502 . 0 0 E0 000m .00 0:03.004 .3002 000 0:0! 00 £03530 50C 00000500 .0002 .0305 T». .2 .0000€00 Tam 0020M “.030 400G .0 .0 5030a “munch. .000.E "00m>_0:< :52: 5033M .0 .0 .3 000oo=00 .B0::3=e0||.m~um<0 QHHMZQBHQQ QZ< DHHMZQHBOU HO 00000073 0w<00><|s~ Hflflaflfi 4-3 COLIPOSITION OF COTTONSEED MEAL AND Conroy SEED. .003 c0300 00000.5 0x003... . . . . ... . Q4. ooo 8N.» SwNN 2N EQN . ......0xm0 08.0.8 m? SUN oo.w No.3» N13 woo hm m ffli 23E 0.0m hw m omim 30 hw ho m hm w». mN wm f . 3002 x0008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000014 06.250 . . . . . . . . . . 2e 1.10 2 0N 0N ow omdm 0N 2 x . . . 020w *..00 =0 c0300 =§0>mm N=0N€< w . =0 mfi WW N mm w. ma. ME. n. . . . awn 00:0 hm ohé omim ow hw hw w 20.3 0w om W. .2353; vwhwvvhm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .0 .Z S30 fieifim . . . . . . . . .. 5.». N00 Q hm whom INN 0N ww W......=8w :00 :0 c0300 >30 xwonmuwxmw .?.=....... MK 0N 0 N 00 mm N . 0.3 N3 3m é 2 8 N Nix“ maNN W ....2$2+ x038 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 .za:..=2=0 . . . . . . . . . . 0h...“ 5.0 mo hm 0:: 05mm mh 0N .. . 000w :00 =0 00300 0.00.3031. N0 i m. N W? .0... N M. oo Nwe 00.0 3 hw N0 w $0.0m wwflm . 123.33% vwmwvwhm . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w .55 x006 . . . . . . . . .. $0 00.0 3 hm hm ww omtmm Q 0N ......=£w r00 . .22 ii 050205 N... 0m MW 0 WM 0 Mm 0 - L @ . . . . .M.@NUE0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -GJ NMQNQTMO aQz . . . . . . . . .. 2am N00 NN 0N N... w: NwdN m0 0N : . . . . .800 .52 =0 =§ou 2,025 fi 0m N N N N fi N . 0N . wm 00.0 3.0 5 mw 0w w Rim mwhm . 3002+ xNmwhN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2008. .=82§ . . . . . . . . . . 00.0 £0 0N 0N N0 _N wNeN 03mm . . . . . 000W :00 :0 c0300 “E5902 i N N N W... Mm M... 3 2Q 0.0.0 8 E fi 0 5mm S Nm .....€.....2x mNNEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....:2use .8260 . . . . . . . . Ea 00.0 N0 0N NN. 0N 3.2 mQNN . . . . . 03w o .60 =0 53.6 $40250 =5... 25.5202 m3 i 0N M? mm Qmxwm on 0N0 $5. 0h mw m0 w 00.0.0. ow N» . . . . 5302+ vBNEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 086w. 02304 fiw . . . . . . . . . . N00 3.0 0N 0N wm _N :1: m». mm . . . . . .800 . :00 =0 c0300 005200 =$w=m m3 MM M. fi 0.0. L 0 - S 8e 00.0 Q 2 0w H Sam m0 3 ....B82+ M308 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..mmvse 6EB=< 0am . . . . . . . . .. S.» 00.0 00.8 om mm owhw 0w mm . . . . 100cm r00 =0 c0300 0:87» fi i N N N mm N L % . . . . .w.w@mv24% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WQunQP -MN=NQ . . . . . . . . .. .80 $0 m: 0N 5 ow mmdN oh mm ......E...w_ .=8=_< ...’? e . . . . . . . . I £0 00.0 0m 0N wwow 00.0 N0 3 0x00 vSNEN om 3N 8w 8 m0 oh m0. hmo mad .....§=: wo 3N 00.0 00.2 hh.w owimm ohhm . 113N002 xNNEN r . . . . . . . . .. 3N $0 0N 0N hh 2 xzN NN 0N ......=8w ou =0 .8030 vflwhwzm . . . . . . . . .. 00.0 00.0 ww 0N 3 0 8s mh .3 ;.....oxm0 vwwNEN 0v NxwN 00¢ S 3 N0 3 3.0 N10. 2:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 J20 0mm. hwimw mm. w 8H3 wh N0 W . .. . .3002 mhNEN . . . . . . .. wwxoh. £00000 . . . . . . . . .. N00 8.0 0h 0N No.2 N0 0N N.“ 0N n. . . . . 000w ¢u =0 E500 .5530 w? E .... m w. w. WWO. W30 ........_._..._.N 05a ...... Nmw 0%..“ Hm M0 NN _ 2.0;... =0 NM .....2_.s2+ vBNEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........wwx..w_. £2952 . . . . . . . . .. 00.0 N00 3H 0N 0w NH $0N Nm 0N ......=3w o0 =0 0880 E0802 . . . . . . . . . . 0N0 00.0 wm 0N mo o 0N0 m0 3 . . 0x00 vwvNvhN a. 6N 3w é a. a Q a; No m m... “i: .......... .... . 00 I .0 00.0 m0 2 NN. 0 sham N000 .. . . .1082 vwmNwhN .. mflsh 0.2.0520 . . . . . . . . .. Si». 8.0 00.0N 0m M: _N0. 0N moéN 08w cu =0 0880 02865 44 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table No. 23 contains average analyses of cotton seed, and cotto11- seed cake, the samples being collected by G. E. Bidwell of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, for a committee of the Association ‘of Feed Control Officials. The seed are those from which the corre- sponding cake Was made. The analyses reported are the averages of those made in several laboratories. The cake does not represent that which could be made if all the hulls possible Were eliminated, but rep-l resents that made by the mills at the time of the collection of the samples, some of it on contract for specified ammonia content. “HATER CONTENT OF TEXAS COTTOXSEED MEAL. Table N o. 24 shows the distribution of the Water content of Texas cottonseed meals as compiled from our analyses for three years. The total number tabulated is 1107. Of these, 10, or 0.9 per cent, contain less than 5 per cent. Water, and the same number contain over 10 per cent. Water. The group '7 to 8 per cent. Water contains the largest number of samples. About two-thirds of the samples contain 6 to 8 per cent. Water. ' TABLE 24.——DISTRIBUTION OF WATER CONTENT OF TEXAS COTTONSEED MEAL. Less Over i thgn 5t06 6to7 7to8 8to99to1O 10 July 1, 1915 to Dec.31, 1915. . . .. 2 17 73 96 55 12 2i Jan. 1, 1915 to July 1, 1915... 1 14 56 68 39 5 2 Jan. 1,1914 to July 1, 1914. .. . . .. 0 6 16 46 47 13 2 July l, 1914 t0 Jan. 1, 1915... 3 18 76 78‘ 27 4 1 July 1, 1913 to Jan. 1, 1914....... 2 38 57 28 7 1 Jan.,1913 to July, 1913 . . . . . . . . .. 2 11 69 73 23 8 2i Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 73 328, 418i 219 49 1O 1107 Per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.9 6.6 29.6i 37.8i 19 8 44 0 91 VIZDTIBIAATION OF HULLS IN COTTONSEED IIEAL. A method for the estimation of hulls in cottonseed meal may be based upon the use of a solvent which has little effect upon cotton- seed hulls, but has a. great efliect upon cottonseed meal. A method based upon this principle was described. in Bulletin No. 109 of the Texas Experiment Station. Since the hulls are rich in crude fiber, While the meal contains only a small percentage, the quantity of hulls may also be calculated approximately from the quantity of fiber present in the meal. A method based on this fact was described by the xvriter in Bulletin No. 166, May, 1914, of the Texas Experiment Station. In the calcula- tions, 5 per cent. crude fiber Was assumed to be present in the pure kernel residue. and 45 per cent. crude fiber in the hulls. The figure used for the fiber in the kernel residue is too high. A method has been published by P. S. Tilson in a paper read be- fore the National Oil Mill Superintendents’ Association, July, 1915. This method is based upon the crude fiber, the calculations being made upon the basis of water and oil-free substance in meal, meats, and in hulls. The figures used are the average of his analyses of sixteen sam- (Tonirosrrrox or LYYETONSEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED. A5 ples of cottonseed hulls and sixteen samples of cottonseed meal prepared from reginned cotton seed, as used by the cottonseed oil mills in the man- ufacture of cottonseed meal. His maximum, minimum, and average per- centages of etude fiber contained in the oil and Water-free meats and hulls are shown in Table No. 25, the average (corrected) for crude fiber in oil and water-free hulls being 54.61 per cent. TABLE 25.——PERCENTAGE OF CRUDE IN OIL AND WATER FREE MEAL AND w Hull l Meal ' I Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 59 . s3 2 . e9 Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 51.97 l Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 54 . e1 The method is described as follows: “Determine the moisture, oil, and crude fiber contents of the cot- tonseed cake or meal sample by the usual methods. Next calculate the factors 54.39 an.d 2.46 to the basis of the moisture and oil con- tents of the sample analyzed. Then by algebraic equations the total amount of hulls in the sample of cottonseed. cake or meal is obtained. “Suppose the cottonseed cake or meal analyzed as follows: Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.93% Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.059% (frude Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.00% l00——(8.93-+’7.09):S3.98%. 54.39_\~s3.9s—4.5.es%. 2.<1s.\'s:s.s>s:2.o¢='%. Let X 1-. amount of hulls in sample. Let Y : amount of hull-free meal in sample. Then X-l-Yzl00. 1;<5.68X+2.07Y:9.0;2&700. 45.68X-{-2.0’7Y:900. 2».07X-{—2.07Y:_-P0’7. 4-3.61X.:.693. X:15.89%. Total hulls in sample. “NOT15.—Since this method is based on the crude fiber content of pure cottonseed hulls and hull-free meal obtained from the average reginned seed, it is evident that the method Would not be, as correctly applicable to cottonseed cake and meal made from cottonseed which have not been previously reginned.” This method may be reduced to the following formula: X : Percentage of hulls in meal or cake. ' W : Percentage of water in meal. O I Percentage of oil in meal. F : Percentage of crude fiber in meal. X __ 100F—2.46 (100—W—O) " — .5439 (ioo-W-ow-Itialéi (ioolxtiffi Y __ 100F—.‘2.46 (100—-W—O) _ .5193 (100-W-0). 46 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. The hulls secured by this method of calculation would contain the same percentage of oil as the meal. The excess of oil over that naturally in the hulls really belongs to the meal; so that the calcu- lated results ‘are to this extent too high. If the hulls are assumed to contain 0.7 per cent. ether extract (oil), the calculated percentage of hulls is to high by W-—0.‘7 per cent. of the amount of hulls present. Cottonseed hulls may be regarded as being composed of two things, namely, lint, Which is the cotton fiber on the outer portion of the hull, and hull-brawl, which is the name given to the hard woody por- tion of the hull by manufacturers of cottonseed oil. Some analyses of these constituents of the hull are shown in Tables Nos. 26 and 27. It will be noted that the lint is very high in crude fiber, averaging nearly 84- per cent. The hull-bran or husk contains a much smaller quantity of crude fiber, averaging 41.3 per cent. This hull-bran Was prepared by delinting with acid, though one analysis of hull prepared mechani- cally is also given. TABLE 26.——COMPOSITION OF DELINTED HULL. Nitrogeni Lab, Protein Fat (érgde FFtree t I Water Ash N0, 1 er . 2x rac . l I 122332655315 as --------- ~ it? a 22.5 a a e221 1 e acl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10501 Dgliiited b; acid . . . . . . . . . . . 4 81 57 42.29 40 761 9.03 2.54 10502 Delinted by acid . . . . . . . . . . . 4 06 38 41.18 38 72' 13.23 2.43 10503 Delinted by acid . . . . . . . . . . . 4 89 6O 41.33 41 60 9 .05 2.53 10504 Delinted by acid . . . . . . . . . . . 4 31 5'3 41.07 43 071 8.50; 2.52 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 52 571 41.28‘ 41 4o, 9 7e! 2.48 7988 Bare hulls (fiber pulled off).. 3 33 19‘ 38.361 43 80' 11 374 2.95 TABLE 27.——PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF MIDDLING COTTON. l Lab, l Nitrogen N0_ y Protein Ether Crude Free Water Ash y Extract Fiber Extract l 11111‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 163 0.46 83.66 6.40 6.53 1.32 11112 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 69 0.49 85.32 5.12 6.18 1.20 11113; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 129 0.57 83.66 7.51 5.41 1.56 11114: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 54 0.43 83.51 7.81 5.25 1.46 11115? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 150 0.34 84.01; 6.88 5.75 1.52 111161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 63 0.36 83.47 7.81’ 5..21 1.52 iAverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.55 0.44 83.94! 6.92] 5.72] 1,43 The composition of cottonseed hulls will. therefore depend upon the relative quantities of lint and hull-bran present. The manufac- turer keeps down the quantity of lint going into the meal as much as possible, and tries to regulate the composition of the meal with the hull-bran. This being the case, the cottonseed hulls that go into the cottonseed meal should contain a smaller proportion of lint and thus a smaller percentage of crude fiber than the hulls cut from the seed by hand. The cottonseed hulls manufactured likewise carry a larger proportion of lint and consequently a. higher percentage of crude fiber than the hulls cut from the reginned seed by hand. COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 47 TABLE 28——COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED HULLS. , ‘ 0 , I a? t . E’ 6 '3 t: “S: ‘a’? A E Ill l fi g2 L. 5 5 .53 5 ‘ "a 3 >< 3 QZ o .41 , =8 HQ] a A m s. a , r- --~ m .1 n. m , u z B _< 6013 Animal Husbandary Dept: College . . . . . . . 5.07 1 68 46.05 . . . . . . 10.97 2 50 6979 Central Texas Cotton O1_l Co., Temple, 6729 5 .31 1 . 95 50.22 . . . . . . 6 .66 4 34 6980 Central Tegcas Cotton Q1] Co., Temple, 6730 4.08. . 97 52. 72 . . . . . . 7.07 2 50 6981 Farmers Gm and Mlllm Co., 6761 . . . . . . . 4.21‘ .78 53.60 . . . . . . 6.87 2 48 6982 Brazos Valley care _Co., aco, 6762 . . . . . . 4.57 1 .07 53 07 . . . . . . 6.88 2.81 6983 Lagrange Cotton O1] Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.12 .99 53 00 . . . . . . 7. 13 2.96 7701 Prof._J. C. Burns.._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.711 1.26‘ 47 03 37.28 7.19 2.53 7982 Feedlng and Breedmg Statlon . . . . . . . . . . . 3.89, 1 .16 46.35 35.89 10.36 2.35 8031 Agronomy Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.66 .50 51.52 . . . . . . 10.52 . . . . . . 8033 Agronomy Department, see 8032. . . . . . . . . 4.13‘ .42 49.47 . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . 8035 Agronomy Department, see 8034 . . . . . . . . . 3.83 .22 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.61 2.95 8039 Agronomy Department, see 8038 . . . . . . . . . 4.151 1.50 47 26 32.93 11 .15 3.01 8041 Agronomy Department, see 8040... . . . . . . 3.62, .42‘ 43 15 38.36 11 63 2.22 8043 Agronomy Department, see 8042... . . . . .. 3.21, . . . . ..1 52 54 . . . . .. 10 80 2.38 8045 Agronomy Department, see 8044. . . . . . . . . 3.79, 14 50 39 32 41 10 83 2.44 8049 Agronomy Department, see 8048. . . . . . . . . 4.05, 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.53 8051 Agronomy Department, see 8050. . . . . . . . . 3.35 46 54.61 27.61 9 94 3.71 8053 Agronomy Department, see 8052... . . . . . . 4.69 61 51.84, 28.46 10 71 3.69 8055 Agronomy Department, see 8054... . . . . . . 3.41 43} 53.18’ 29.11 11 23 2.64 8057 Agronomy Department, see 8056 . . . . . . . . . 3.26 30, 49.69 32 55 11 .38 2.82 8059 Agronomy Department, see 8058 . . . . . . . . . 4.16 49, 43.42 37 62 11.26 3.05 8061 Agronomy Department, see 8060... . . . . . . 3.64 55, 48.04 33.53 10.87 3.37 8063 Agronomy Department, see 8062 . . . . . . . . . 3.51, 32 53.50 28 99 10.80 2.88 8065 Agronomy Department, see 8064. . . . . . . . . 3.52, 32 49.78 31 49 12.36 2.53 8067 Agronomy Department, see 8066 . . . . . . . . . 6.58 1 03 36.16 42 19 10.48 3.56 8069 Agronomy Department, see 8068 . . . . . . . . . 3.59 32 45.49 34.96 12.31 3.33 8071 Agronomy Department, see 8070... . . . . . . 3.25 24 54.41 29.05 10.76 2.29 8073 Agronomy Department, see 8072 . . . . . . . . . 3.55 50 .86 35 94 12.39 2.76 8075 Agronomy Department, see 8074. .. . . . . . . 4.15‘ 62 49.22 32 06 11 . 16 2.79 8077 Agronomy Department, see 8076 . . . . . . . . . 4.05 60 49.02 32 50 10. 15 3.68 8079 Agronomy Department, see 8078 . . . . . . . . . 6.31 1 34 50.04 30 27 9.10 2.94 8081 Agronomy Department, see 8080. .. . . . . . . 3.96 79, 52.06 29 44 11.22 2,53 8082 Agronomy Department, see 8082... . . . . . . 3.62 58 52.48 30 32 10.39 2.61 8085 Agronomy Department, see 8084... . . . . . . 3.17 36, 51.58 31 69 10.59 2.61 8087 Agronomy Department, see 8086 . . . . . . . . . 3.21 32 49.55 32 85 11 .32 2.75 8089 Agronomy Department, see 8088. . . . . . . . . 3.70, 46 49.63 32 50 11 .28 2.43 8091 Agronomy Department, see 8090... . . . . . . 4.17} 9. 50.42 31 11 11.34 2.37 8093 Agronomy Department, see 8092. .. . . . . . . 3.41s 46, 49.95 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.47 8095 Agronomy Department, see 8094... . . . . .. 3.21, . . . . . .\ 46.48 . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.59 8097 Agronomy Department, see 8096... . . . . . . 3.89 21‘ 51.43 29 02 12 77 2.68 8099 Agronomy Department, see 8098. . . . . . . . . 3.62 40 49.66 31 61 12 01 2.70 8101 Agronomy Department, see 8100 . . . . . . . . . 3.46 . . . . . . 47.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.63 9534 Feedgng Statlon, Coleman: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.43 1 27‘ 44.48 36 12 10 21 2.49 9583 Feedlng and Breedlng Statxon, see 9545. . . 4.29 1 12 45 82 35 40 10 34 3.03 9635 J. M. Jones, Coleman, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.39 1 05 46 31 36 45 9 27 2.53 9726 9688 D. E. 65, Sample 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.20 57 51 82 32 9 7 88 2.84 9727 9689_D. E. 65, Sample 2. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.96 51 51 91 32 89 7 53 3.20 9948 Feedmg and Breedlng Statlon . . . . . . . . . . . 5.21 1 37, 47 34 31 91 10 54 3.63 10990 Bryan Cotton O11 Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.82 45, 44 39 38 36 l0 6O ‘ 2.38 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 OSI 69, 49 20 32 93 10 26 2 84 I Table No. 28 contains hull analyses. A These hulls were mostly cut by hand from seed not reginned, and so contain an excess of lint, and thus an excess of fiber. =18 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. .woE:mw<* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... aaw.§ §~.o . .. ...->--.mw%wkmv>mfl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..%.E . 2 H. .=om=:¢...w@$>~==m . . . . . . . . .. aw? ofimm 5N 3.2 3am 8.? $5 M64. Q ....@ssev mim 225/ . . . . . 8. 3 M3? 3a 8w 2G. $3 E5 N2.“ 3 5N 26$. 002E609 2-82 E3 wiig . . . . . . ... Q42. 3;... 3N Ed “v9.5 3m... 3. H Se § ........ .9: in 85% 2:5 wwaqasau _ an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3. 3m 2.2 .5. H 3.5 wmam mm . . . . . . . . 3N sfie wfizeaouv “was... Efiém o. - | - - . . ~ - a 0 ¢ . . ~ . - I . . m. < QCQQ MOQ QQHN; USN MQQG? DQMOHZZ M03852 no hxmrm co “warm owF-U ouwiU JADQ 92¢ AHZMHM QHHMZOHHOO hO ZOMBMMOAEOO HUAMH>1 (‘oilrosrrron or (ioTToNsEED MEAL 11x11 COTTON SEED. o7 TABLE 34.—VARIETY OF SEED———AVERAGE 1909-1910-1911. GARNER, ET AL. Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Meats Oil in Meats Oil in Seed Northern Georgia. King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59.5 36.54 . . . . . . . . . . .. Runnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 57. 5 37.40 . . . . . . . . . . . . .hine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 58.7 37.52 . . . . . . . . . . .. Toole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.3 37.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . Dixie . . . . . . . 59.4 38.06 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hawkin . . . . . . . * 57.8 36.72 . . . . . . . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ 58.9 37.26 21 85 South Carolina Central Plain. i Kin’ 58.2 39.14 . . . . . . . . . . .. Runnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.7 40.73 . . . . . . . . . . . . Shine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 55.9 41.23 . . . . . . . . . . .. Toole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.9 40.87 . . . . . . . . . . . . Dixie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.3 42.07 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hawkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.6 40.83 . . . . . . . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 56.4 40.81 23.02 l 1T,OI0aZiig/.—'l‘alole No. 33 and also 'l.‘ablc Ho. 34 show some effects of localitv on the conlposition oi’ the seed. The seed grown in Northern Georgia arc poorer in oil than those growrn in the South Carolina coastal plain. presumablvr‘ with fertilizer, the difference being 1.17 per cent, or 34 gallons of oil per ton. l7ariet/ies.—'l‘able No. 34 shows some effect of varieties upon the composition of the seed, though the locality approximately has a greater effect. Table No. from (f‘. B. Willianfs éiugust, 1906, Bulletin of the North Carolina Board of Agriculture, shows great variations due to varieties. lllhe seed were all grown on the Edgeconrbe North (Taro- lina test farm. TABLE 35.—COMPOSITION OF NORTH CAROLINA COTTONSEED (WILLIAMS, 1904). Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Minimum in Nitrogen (Hodge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meat in Meat Nitrogen in Meat l Average of 25 varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.40 39.66 4.86 Maximum in oil (Peterkin) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.73 42.02 4.64 Minimum in oil (Excelsior Ralifre) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54. 94 37.26 5.06 Maximum in Nitrogen (Toole) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.35 39.84 5.76 56.10 41.90 4.37 EiXSTEILN-‘iAND “WESTERN SEED. Seeds from the Eastern States contain more oil and "less protein than those from the Western States. Table No. 36 contains average analyses as reported lrv several eonunercial chemists. A (liiterence of‘ nearly 3 per cent. oil, or 8 gallons per ton of seed, is shown between average seed analvzed in Atlanta and in Fort Worth or Houston. The figures given are the averages for the seasons indicated. 58 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE 36.——ANALYSIS OF SEED BY COMMERCIAL CHEMISTS. i T= 5 2 "» | g =0 g _ u gt/ .2 ‘a Q Q c" Q3?“ ‘P’ s. gs i g3 v U 2 <> =0 .2 ~ S.’ .-'< 8 g5 | 5U 3 ff‘ Q a» fig V; l\ E v3 a w 23 °* = b 71$ o g o - o E v 2 t ‘So. =- gn. 3h Em 8 g< in. v 2 O <2 [- < 2 u u Picard-Law, Atlanta, Ga., 1912-13 10.44 19.90 43.9 53.1 3.38 54.8 856 . . . . . . Picard-Law, Atlanta, Ga., 1913-14 10.37 20.40 45.2 54.4 3.45 55.0 874 . . . . . . Picard-Law, Atlanta, Ga., 1914-15 10.00 20.20 44.7 . . . . . . 3.49 . . . . . . 884 . . . . . . Houston Laboratory, Houston, Tex. 1914-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.. 10.23 17.29 35.2 46.2 4.24 53.8 . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston Laboratory, Houston, Tex. In 1915-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.08 18.04 38.1 . . . . . . 4.12 53.3 . . . . .. 894 Fort Worth Laboratory, Fort Worth, Tex., 1913-14. . . .- . . . . . . . . . . 16.71 . . . . .. 44.6 . . . . . . 53.9 . . . . . . . . . . .. Fort Worth Laboratory, Fort Worth, Tex., 1914-1 . . . . . . . . 9.48 16.91 . . . . .. 45. 1 4.24 55.8 . . . . .. 970 Fort Worth Laboratory, Fort \Vorth, Tex., 1915-16 . . . . . . .. 10.05 18.12 . . . . .. 48.3 . . . . . . 54.2 . . . . . . . . . . .. COMPOSITION OF PURE KERNEL RESIDUE. Table N0. 45 shows the average composition of the pure kernel resi- due, free from hulls, that would be secured if the water and fat con- tent should be reduced to 15 per cent. On an average there is 5 per cent. difierence in the protein con-- tent of the residue of Eastern and Western seed. COMPOSITION OF TEXAS COTTON SEED. A study of the composition of Texas cotton seed was made for two years, the samples used being from varieties grown in the various sub- stations, and kindly furnished by Mr. H. Jobson, Assistant Agron- omist. The objects of the study were to ascertain the relation of variety, and soil or season conditions to the composition of the seed, as well as to secure information as to Texas seed. - The seed were ginned in a hand gin. In some cases, this left more lint upon the seed than the ordinary ginning process. For this rea- son, in the second year of the experiment, we devised and used a method for lint on the seed, which is described on another page. The excess of lint would, of course, affect the relative proportion of hull to meats. iTable No. 3'7 shows the composition of the cottonseed kernels for the two years, arranged by localities. COMPOSITION or Corcronsman MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 59 TABLE 37.—CO1\IPOSITION OF COTTONSEED KERNELS ARRANGED BY LOCATION. i 1 . *3 U >, E s: E E3 5 Z5 =2 2% a E E "E: m q)‘ L1 0 E o‘. g I3 B i‘; q 2 >< 3 U 0 g2 Q -= E 9B1 o: J5 QM F-u-J .4 o. u: u z 3 <1 o. o. From College Station, 1913. 8088 Unknown, L. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.71 28.57 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.27 . . . . . . 50.8 . . . . . . 8090 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.23 30.13 2.12 . . . . .. ‘ 9.15 . . . . .. 50.1 . . . . .. 8092 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . 40.04 29.09 1 .69 . . . . . . 9 09 . . . . . . 53.4 . . . . . . 8094 Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.95 30.54 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.42 . . . . . . 57.9 . . . . . . 8096 Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.18 29.07 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 19 . . . . . . 54.8 . . . . . . 8098 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.69 30.05 1 94 . . . . . . 9. 11 . . . . . . 54.4 . . . . . . 8100 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . 42.34 28.85 2.32 . . . . . . 8.77 . . . . . . 53.2 . . . . . . 8102 Mort age Lifter . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.36 28.98 2.15 . . . . . . 6.52 . . . . . . 51 4 . . . . . . 8104 Row en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.75 30.05 1.89 . . . . .. 7.26 . . . . .. 54.6 . . . . .. 8106 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.90 29.90 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.86 . . . . . . 54.5 . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.42 29.56 2.02 . . . . .. 8.76 . . . . .. 53.5 . . . . .. From College Station, 1914. 9316 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 . 16 31 .24 2.18 14.65 6.38 4.39 51.2 10.4 9317 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.58 31 .54 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.98 . . . . .. 51.8 10.9 9318 Cleveland B1 Boll . . . . . . . . . . 41 .95 30.59 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.95 . . . . . . 49.8 14.5 9319 Mortgage Liter . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.44 29.21 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.16 . . . . . . 50.0 13.7 9320 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.63 31.28 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.40 . . . . . . 52.0 12.2 9321 Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.47 33.26 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.34 . . . . . . 58.4 7. 1 9322 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.07 31.60 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.26 . . . . .. 52.4 12.4 9323 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.20 32.94 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.23 . . . . . . 54.4 15.1 9324 Hendricks . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . 39.97 32.36 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.97 . . . . . . 54.4 . . . . . . 9325 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.22 32.84 2.18 15.72 5.83 4.21 54.8 13.7 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.56 31.68 2.18 15.13 6.15 4.30 52.92 12.2 From Lubbock, 1913. 8145 Lone Star, No. 11 . . . . . . . . . . . 36.90 33.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.70 . . . . .. 54.2 . . . . . . 8146 Crowder, No. 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.95 35.28 1 .78 . . . . . . 6.62 . . . . . . 55 8 . . . . . . 8147 Mortgage Lifter, No. 152. . . . 36.16 35.93 1 .96 . . . . . . 5.66 . . . . . . 54.5 . . . . . . 8148 Half an Half, No. 443 . . . . .. 36.15 35.53 1.94 . . . . .. 6.01 . . . . .. 54.7 . . . . .. 8149 Bank Account, N0. 130 . . . . .. 36.34 35.57 2.47 . . . . .. 5.46 . . . . . . 56.2 . . . . . . 8150 Rowden,No. 77 . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.61 35.51 1.73 . . . . .. 5.55 . . . . .. 55.6 . . . . .. 8151 Bank Account, N0. 130 . . . . .. 38.25 33.25 2.25 . . . . . . 6.59 . . . . .. 54.8 . . . . .. 8152 Black Rattler, No. 34 . . . . . . 35.20 36.88 1 .99 . . . . . . 5.40 . . . . . . 58.8 . . . . . . 8153 Mortgage Lifter, No. 152. . . . 38.95 33. 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.98 . . . . . . 53.7 . . . . .. 8154 Cleveland Big Boll, No. 485. . 38.26 33.83 2.31 . . . . . . 6.64 . . . . . . 52.6 . . . . . . 8155 Mebane Triumph, No. 128. . . 38.20 34.22 1.95 . . . . . . 6.41 . . . . .. 55.4 . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.00 34.75 2 04 . . . . .. 6.18 . . . . . . 55 1 . . . . . . From Lubbock, 1914. 9782 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.22 35.20 . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ 5.74 . . . . . .‘= 56.1 10.7 9783 Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.18 35.91 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 . . . . . 60.5 7.7 9784 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . 37.96 34.55 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 . . . . . .‘, 52.2 15.4 9785 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.51 34.88 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.81 . . . . . .‘ 56.1 14.6 9786 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.56 33.75 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.57 . . . . . . 56.1 10.7 9787 Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . 37.29 34.53 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.97 . . . . .. 56.0 6.0 9788 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.01 33.75 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 47 . . . . . . 54.0 12.7 9789 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . 37. 17 34.23 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 55 . . . . . . 54.5 12.1 9790 Mort age Lifter . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.21 35.88 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 52 . . . . . . 52.0 12.1 9791 Row en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.34 34.58 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 79 . . . . .. 56.2 14.2 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.34 34.72 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.22 . . . . .. 5.53 11.6 From Pecos, 1913. " 8138 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . 32.59 38.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .85 . . . . . . 53.2 . . . . . . 8139 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . 36.22 36.37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.4 . . . . . . 8140 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.85 35.57 . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.52 . . . . . . 56.0 . . . . .. 8141 Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.57 38.58 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.49 . . . . . . 61.2 . . . . .. 8142 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.69 37.95 2.80 . . . . . . 5.86 . . . . . . 55.3 . . . . . . 8143 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.64 39.01 . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.66 . . . . . . 55.3 . . . . .. 8144 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.87 36.03 2.13 . . . . . . 5 95 . . . . . . 55.9 . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.06 37.36 2.47 . . . . .. 5.72 . . . . .. 56.0 . . . . .. 6O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT Smrrox. TABLE 37.—COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED KERNELS ARRANGED BY LOCATION ——Continued. a Q} . U :- 2 ‘ CU i; 3; B L“... m 3Q >< E 5 8 *5? ‘E =“ E E. ° ooh h v i w» ‘a == <> s é’ c‘; => v b u = '44 L1 q-l "‘ QZ o -= 5 will cu -= r-M r-i-l 9.4 1-3 L1 "" V2 QJ U) q n. m u z B < n. n. l From Pecos, 1914. I‘ 9361 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . .., . . . . .. 33.54 36.49 2.25 17.15 5.66. 4.91 53.4 18.6 9362 Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.85 31.36 2.27 14.73 6.261 4.53 56.4 6.9 9363 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.31 34.02 4.15 14.88 5.84 4.80 53.8 10.5 9364 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.92 33.38 2.29 14.50 5.42 4.49 53.6 13.2 9365 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.81 32.06 2.50 15.12 5.68 4.83 50.2 13.9 9366 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.54 33.26 2.10 17.00 5.42 4.68 52.2 7.7 9367 Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.32 34.55 2.74 17.41 5.58 4.40 59.0 7.7 9368 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . 41 .06 31.77 1.99 13.84 6.40. 4.94 51.2 . . . . . . 9369 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.06 35.61 2.03 16.10 6.22; 4.98 50.8 15.2 9370 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.90 37.01 2.13 16.48 7.413 5.07 54.8. 13.3 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 13 34.00 2.44 15.69 5.98; 4.76 53.5 11.8 From Beeville, 1914. 9398 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.87 29.88 2.16 13.24 8.05 3.80 48.4 15.8 9399 Black Rattler . . . . ..‘ . . . . . . . .. 37.81 32.53 2.10 17.47 6.49 3.60 54.4 11.3 9400 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . .. 41.95 31.84 1.93 15.19 5.16 3.93 50.2 12.3 9401 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.44 32.88 1.98 16.02 6.17 3.51 50.6 16.1 9402 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.42 31.78 2.15 17.48 6.46 3.71 52.0 16.6 9403 Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.56 32.66 1.87 16.76 6.42 3.73 54.7 12.0 9404 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.21 30.94 1.85 15.61 ,6.80 3.59 49.5 15.2 9405 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.51 33.23 2.05 15.28 6.41 3.52 51.0 . . . . .. 9406 Mort age Lifter . . . . .. 41.73 31.82 2.11 13.52 7.12 3.70 51.4 13.3 9407 Row en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.23 32.73 1.84 16.86 7.57 3.77 52.5 10.7 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.87 32.02 2.00 15.77 6.66 3.68 51.4 13.7 From Nacoggrigzghes Station, 8050 Crowder, N0. 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.72 36.44 2. 6. 52.5 . . . . . . 8052 Mebane Triumph, No. 12. . .. 37.01 34.53 1. 6. _ 53.0 . . . . .. 8054 Rowden, No. 77 . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.22 37.06 1. 6. 53.5 . . . . .. 8056 Lone Star, No. 11 . . . . . . . . . .. 37.41 34.06 . . . . .. 7. 55.0 . . . . .. 8058 Black Rattler, No. 348 . . . . . . 34.97 36.49 2. 7. 55.0 . . . . . . 8060 Bank Account, No. 130 . . . . .. 36.65 33.89 2. 7. 52.5 ...... 8062 Cleveland Big Boll, N0. 485. . 40.23 32.01 2. 7. 51.0 . . . . . . 8080 Half and Half, No. 443 . . . . . . 35.97 34. 75 1. 7. 53.5 . . . . . . 8082 Mortgage Lifter, No. 152. . . . 38.67 33.14 3. 7. 52.5 . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.76 34.71 2.20 . . . . .. 7.25 . . . . .. 53.2 . . . . .. From Nacogdoches, 1914. 9443 348—Black Rattler. . .. . . . . .. 37.02 34.82 2.13 15.69 6.20 4.14 60.9 7.6 9444130——Bank Account . . . . . . . .. 36.63 35.05 1.86 16.15 6.06 4.25 54.9 12.5 9445 485——Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.81 33.17 2.22 16.41 6.18 4.21 52.8 13.8 9446 16—Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.07 35.56 1.64 16.43 6.05 4.25 55.5 14.4 9447 443*Half and Half . . . . . . . . . 39 . 53 33 . 55 2 . 3O 14. 38 5 . 99 4.25 56 . 9 1O .8 9448 70—Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.06 33.61. 1.61 15.36 6.11 4.25 58.2 9.1 9449 11—Lone Star . . . . . . . 39.95 33.95 1.82 14.58 5.37 4.33 54.4 12.9 9450128—Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.73 34.10 1.30 17.14 5.55 4.18 54.6 12.8 9451 152—Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . 38.08 34.04 2.20 14.61 6.60 4.47 55.8 16.0 9452 77———Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.90 34.35 1.74 16.05 6.37 4.59 55.0 17.1 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.87 34.22 1.88 15.70 6.04 4.29 55.9 12.7 From Spur, 1914. 9453 130——Bank Account . . . . . . . . . 39.06 35.09 2.02 13.83 5.58 4.42 57.4 9.3 9454 3534—Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . 37.44 35.59 1.71 15.68 5.36 4.22 59.7 8.6 9455 485—B. B. Cleveland . . . . . . .. 39.64 33.05 2.02 13.34 7.63 4.32 50.5 14.9 945 16—Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.09 34.66 1.97 14.69 6.24 4.35 55.7 14.9 9457 443-——Half and Half . . . . . . . .. 37.63 34.55 2.02 14.69 6.71 4.40 52.0 11.6 9458 79—Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.28 32.86 2.61 14.74 7.15 4.36 58.6 7.1 9459 11—Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.25 32.51 2.10 17.88 5.00 4.26 53.2 11.3 9460128—Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.35 33.35 2.71 13.41 8.01 4.17 55.4 10.8 9461 152-—Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . 38.48 33.18 2.87 13.45 7.64 4.38 54.8 11.9 9462 77Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.80 34.03 2.45 14.64 7.50 4.58 55.7 14.4 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.20 33.89 2.24 14.64 6.69 4.34 55.3 11.4 0o1n>os1'r10:< or CUETONSEED M1511. AND COTTON SEED. 61 TABLE 37.———COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED KERNELS ARRANGED BY LOCATION —Contmued. l r #4 O o g. s I 2 £5 '3 i’ l ‘l: ~47? .. *5 = 3 =5 .3 . S‘; @- u o Q5 ~32 . a 5 i’ i § *5 s“ s4 A LL lr-l U l Z w <1 Ch G- From Angleton, 1914. 9463 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.58 33.77 2.23 12.01 7.03 4.38 53.9 12.4 9464 Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.00 34.36 2.46 12.75 7.32 4.11 57.5 9.8 9465 Cleveland B. B . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.88 32.13 2.45 10.58 8.39 4.57 50.0 15.8 9466 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.35 32.93 2.40 11.39 7.60 4.33 53.5 13.8 9467 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . .., 39.83 33.72 2.56 12.32 7.13 4.44 54.5 12.8 9468 Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.00 33.66 2.45 13.88 5.61 4.40 55.6 10.0 9469 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.48 32.69 2.21 12.49 6.83 4.30 53.6 10.8 9470 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.63 33.33 2.38 13.02 7.18 4.46 51.6 10.7 9471 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.38 32.60 2.09 11.78 7.78 4.37 52.4 14.0 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.58 33.25 2.35 12.25 7.20 4.37 53.6 12.2 From Troup, 1913. 8006 Cleveland Big Boll, No. 485.. 41.30 29.69 2.47 . . . . .. 8.41 . . . . .. 49.4 . . . . .. 8032;»Lone Star, No. 11 . . . . . . . . . .. 38.97 30.53 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.27 . . . . .. 49.3 . . . . .. 8034,Hendricks,No. 40.59 31.61 2.34 . . . . .. 8.40 . . . . .. 54.6 . . . . .. 8036gMebane Triumph, No. 128. .. 41.36 31.08 2.39 . . . . .. 8.54 . . . . .. 51.8 . . . . .. 8038fHalf and Half, No. 443 . . . . .. 41.20 30.94 1.95 . . . . .. 7.79 . . . . .. 54.0 . . . . .. 8040Black Rattler, No. 348 . . . . . . 38.25 32.26 2.28 . . . . . . 7.73 . . . . . . 56.8 . . . . . . 8042 Crowder, No. 16 . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.56 31.14 1.98 . . . . .. 7.66 . . . . .. 55.0 . . . . .. 8044 Mortgage Lifter, N0. 152.... 41.72 29.63 1.98 . . . . .. 7.78 . . . . .. 52.2 . . . . .. 8046 Rowden, No. 77 . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.76 31.55 1.77 . . . . .. 7.62 . . . . .. 54.0, . . . . .. 8048 Bank Account, N0. 150 . . . . .. 40.41 31.61 2.23 . . . . .. 7.58 . . . . .. 55.0‘ . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.31 31.00 2.15 . . . . .. 7.98 . . . . .. 53.2 . . . . .. From Troup, 1914. . 9716 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $57.37 34.60} 1.86 15.44 5.90 4.83 56.7 9.0 9717 Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.95 33.751 1.95 15.41 5.97 4.97 61.6 . . . . .. 9718 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . .. 37.84 33.44 2.09 16.12 5.33 5.18 52.7 13.7 9719 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.37 35.39» 2.08 14.11 6.14 4.91 55.8 14.6 9720 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.98 33.423 3.10 16.97 5.86 4.67 56.0 10.9 9721 Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.40 31 .431. 2.43 14.06 6.99 4.69 58.8 5.7 9722 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.50 33 .001 2 .23 14.45 6.08 4.74 55.9 9.8 9723 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.57 32.06 2.45 14.41 6.70 4.81 55.2 10.9 9724 Mort age Lifter . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.20 32.41 2.30 13.28 5.78 5.03 53.6 12.9 9725Row en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.80 32.71 1.61 13.61 6.10 5.17 56.3 16.2 [Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.79 33 23 2.21 14.78 6.09 4.90 56.2 11.5 .. From Denton Station, 1913. 8064 Lone Star, No. 11 . . . . . . . . . .. 39.69 30.73 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.61 . . . . .. 53.5 . . . . .. 8066 Hendricks, N0. 78 . . . . . . . . . . . 39.86 30.48 2.38 . . . . . . 8.63 . . . . . . 55.0 . . . . . . 8068 Bank Account, No. 130 . . . . .. 40.06 32.39 1.96 . . . . .. 6.89 . . . . .. 54.8 . . . . .. 8070 Crowder, No. 16 . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.61 32.75 1.87 . . . . .. 8.30 . . . . .. 54.7 . . . . .. 8072 Black Snake, No. 348........ 37.98 33.37 2.07 . . . . .. 8.53 . . . . .. 58.4 . . . . .. 8074 Half and Half, No. 443 . . . . .. 40.16 31.87 2.22 . . . . .. 8.33 . . . . .. 54.6 . . . . .. 8076 Mortgage Lifter, N0. 152.... 41.01 30.96 . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.98 . . . . .. 52.5 . . . . .. 8078 Rowden, No. 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.84 32.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.77 . . . . . . 54.7 . . . . .. 8084 Mebane Triumph, No. 128. .. 39.86 31.20 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.55 . . . . .. 53.4 . . . . .. 8086 Cleveland Big Boll, N0. 485. . 40.42 30.63 2.32 . . . . . . 7.54 . . . . . . 51.9 . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.45 31 69 2.14 . . . . .. 7.18 . . . . .. 54.4 . . . . .. _ From Temple, 1913. 8320gM1llers Long Staple . . . . . . . . . 39.87 32.29 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.46 . . . . . . 53.4 . . . . . . 8321lH0gins Long Staple . . . . . . . . . 37.75 34.73 1 .89 . . . . . . 6.22 . . . . . . 54.9 . . . . . . 8322 Cleveland Big Boll, N0. 485. . 39.37 32.86 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.85 . . . . . . 51.5 . . . . . . 8323;Bank Account, No. 130 . . . . .. 38.49 34.48 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.21 . . . . .. 54.0 . . . . .. 832411.. S.,No . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.49 32.33 1.93 . . . . .. 5.75 . . . . .. 55.2 . . . . .. 8325Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.33 33.94 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.13 . . . . . . 56.2 . . . . . . 8326lCrowder, No. 16 . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.63 33.81 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.04. . . . . .. 53.6 . . . . .. 8327lMortgagc Lifter, No. 152. . .. 40.13 32.29 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.52‘ . . . . .. 53.3 . . . . .. 8328 Lone Star, N0. 11 . . . . . . . . . .. 37.95 32.46 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.61 . . . . .. 52.0 . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.56 33.24 1.91 . . . . .. 6.31 . . . . .. 53.8 . . . . .. 62 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table No. 38 shows tl1e average composition of the cottonseed ker- nels, arranged by localities for the two years. From seven to ten varieties were taken from each locality, and as nearly as possible the same varieties were secured from each station, but this was not always possible. ‘ TABLE 38-—-AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED KERNELS FROM VARIOUS LOCALITIES. l '75 o» Q l a 2s 6 ,1 l 9 ~‘= *5 3 i .42 .. i’ e i? e 5,3 2 33’ 3,. "1 E 3 45 31? g g o6 v.5 o" a s a as =1 a e 6“ 3-4 Z o. m u Z 3 l <2 n. an College Station . . . . . . . . . .. 10 40.42 29.56 2 02' . . . . .. 3.76l . . . . .. 53.5 . . . . .. College Station, 1914 . . . . .. 10 40.56 31.63 2 13 15.13 6.15 4.30 52.9 12.2 Lubbock, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 37.00 34.75 2.04 . . . . .. 6.13 . . . . .. 55.1 . . . . .. Lubbock, 1914 . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 36.34 34.72 2.47 . . . . .. 6.22 . . . . .. 55.4 11 6 Pec0s,1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 34.06 37.36 2.44 . . . . .. 5.72 . . . . .. 56.0 . . . . .. Pecos, 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1o 37.13 34.00 2.00 15.69 5.93 4.76 53.5 11.3 Beeville,1914 . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 39.37 32.02 2.20 15.79 6.66 3.63 51.4 13.7 Nacogdoches, 1913 . . . . . . .. 9 36.76 34.71 1.33 . . . . .. 7.25 . . . . .. 53.2 . . . . .. Nac0gdoches,1914 . . . . . . .. 10 37.37 34.22 2.24 15.70 6.04 4.29 55.9 12.7 Spur, 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 33.20 33.39 2.35 14.64 6.69 4.34 55.3 11.4 Angleton,1914 . . . . . . . . . .. 10 40.53 33.25 2.15 12.25 7.20 4.37 53.6 12.2 Troup,1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 40.31 31.00 2.21 . . . . .. 7.93 . . . . .. 53.2 . . . . .. Troup,1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 33.79 33.23 2.14 14 73 6.09 4 90 56.2 11.6 Dent0n,1913 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 39.45 31.69 . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.13 . . . . .. 54.4 . . . . .. Temple, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 33.56 33.24 1.91 . . . . .. 6.31‘ . . . . .. 53.3 . . . . .. The highest fat content is shown at Pecos, in the western part of the State, in 1913. The lowest is at College Station, in 1913. Col- lege Station, Beeville, Troup, and Denton show a. smaller fat content; Nacogdoches, Lubbock, Pecos, Spur, Angleton, and Temple show a larger fat content. Nacogdoches is in the eastern part of the State; while Lubbock, Pecos, and Spur are in the‘ western part. The differ- ences here shown are thus not altogether due to climatic conditions, but are partly due to the soil. TABLE 39.—AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF SEED AND YIELD BY LOCALITIES. Percentage Oil Meal Gallons Protein Fat Lbs. Per Available Ton Per Ton College Station, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.54 15.97 979 33.3 Lubbock, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.28 19.21 922 42.5 Pecos, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.51 19.55 887 43.9 Beeville, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.49 16.46 932 35.2 Nacogdoches, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.38 18.82 926 41.5 Spur, 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.12 18.74 960 41.1 Angleton, 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.75 17 82 989 38 3 Troup, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.63 17 56 984 37 6 _Denton, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 .46 17.24 976 36.9 Temple, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.75 17.88 943 38.9 Table No. 39 shows the average composition of the seed and yields by localities, '7 to 10 varieties from each locality being grown two years. The yield of meal is based upon 44 per cent. protein,- and the yield of oil upon 7 per cent. oil in the meal, with no manufacturing loss. The yields are seen to vary from 33.3 to 41.5 gallons oil'per ton, and the COMPOSITION or COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 63" yield of meal from 887 to 989 pounds per ton. The lowest yield of oil is at College Station, and the highest at Pecos; where the cotton was g-rown under irrigation. The the differences are due largely to seasonal conditions. writer is inclined to believe that the soil, and to a less extent to TAQLE 40.—AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED KERNELS OF VARIOUS VARIETIES. _ +- u: I | ° 5i I- 3 i’ 1: .5 ' ‘m. .. >< --' o -»-I-—~ a 2 s m i=- l 5 g g 2 5 <1 '8 '~ ° ' 5°“ 6 u ‘" u? .1.» Q) "U L‘ >< ,9 o v-n o‘ 2 e a =9 a a s“ s9 z n. m u | z 3 <1 o. o. l Bank Account, 1913 . . . . . .. 7 38 56 33 05 2 154‘ . . . . . 7.07 . . . . .. 54 . . . . . . Bank Account, 1914 . . . . . .. 9 38.10 33 98 2.06 14.70 6.60 4 56 54 3 11 7 Black Rattler, 1913 . . . . . .. 7 36.75 34.58 2 11 . . . . . . 7.12 . . . . .. 57 . . . . . . Black Rattler, 1914 . . . . . .. 8 37.27 34.35 2.18 15 79 6.17 4 24 59.1 8 5 Cleveland Big Boll, 1913... 7 39.22 32.27 1.89 . . . . .. 6.33 . . . . .. 51.8 . . . . . . Cleveland Big Boll, 1914.. . 8 40.01 32.57 2.12, 14.31 6.43 4 56 51.2 14 3 Crowder, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 36.854 34.74 1.92; . . . . . 6.86 . . . . .. 54.5 . . . . . . Crowder, 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 38.49, 34.08 2.06; 14.69, 6.28 4 37 54.4 14 6 Half and Half, 1913 . . . . . .. 6 38.38 33.17 2.04; . . . . 7.38 . . . . .. 54.5 . . . . .. Half and Half, 1914 . . . . . .. 8 38.11 33.29 2.71; 15.32 6.19 4 38 54,1 11 9 Hendrick, 1913 . . . . . . . . . .. 3 39.54 30.39 2.36’ . . . . .. 8.74 . . . . .. 54 8 . . . . . . Hendrick, 1914 . . . . . . . . . .. 8 39.30 32.81 2.21l 14.92 6.43 4 33 56.6 7 1 Hogins Long Staple, 1913.. 1 37.75 34.73 1 .89l . . . . . . 6.22 . . . . .. 54.9 . . . . . . Lone Star, 1913 . . . . . . . . . .. 7 37.43 32.36 2.12 . . . . . . 7.50 . . . . .. 52.9 . . . . . . Lone Star, 1914 . . . . . . . . . .. 8 39.73 32.52 2.12 15.21 6.08 4 34 52.9 12 4 Mebane Triumph, 1913.... 6 38.78 32.82 1.99l . . . . .. 7.46 . . . . .. 53.9 . . . . . . Mebane Triumph, 1914.... 7 38.71 33.12 2.12l 15.37 6.41 4 27l 53.6 11 1 Mortgage Lifter, 1913. . . .. 7 39.86 32.01 2.33l . . . . .. 7.01 . . . . .. 52.9 . . . . . . Mort age Lifter, 1914. . . . . 8 38.98 33.19 2.32l 14.26 6.70 4 55 52.5 13 2 Row en,1913 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 136.98 3410 2.02] . . . . .. 6.93 . . . . ..l 54.6 . . . . .. Rowden,1914 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 37.78 33 79 2.021 15.20 6.70 4 51y 54.5 14 9 Table N o. 40 shows the average nels, arranged by varieties. TABLE 4I.—AVERAGE COMPOSITION composition of the cotton seed ker- OF SEED AND YIELDS BY VARIETIES. Percentage Oil _ Meal Gallons Protein l Fat Lbs. Per Available l Ton Per Ton l Bank Account, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.85 18.24 948 39.8 Black Rattler, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.65 l 20.17 984 44.6 Cleveland Big Boll, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.40 l 16. 0 928 35.6 Crowder, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.53 l 18.76 933 41.3 Half and Half, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.77 18.05 944 39.3 Hendricks, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.96 17.60 999 37.6 Hogins Long Staple, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.73 18.62 942 40.9 Lone Star, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.41 17.16 928 36.8 Mebane Tripmph, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.85 18.01 948 39.2 Mortgage Lifter, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.77 17.18 944 37.0 Rowden, 1913-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.41 18.54 928 40. 1 Table No. 41 shows the average composition of the seed by varieties, and yields of the different varieties of the individual seed, arranged by varieties. . Table No. 42 shows the analyses This is printed in full in order that the different varieties may be compared locality by lo- cality, if desired. 64 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT ST.-\'1‘10.\'. TABLE 42.-—-COMPOSITION OF CO'I‘TONSEED KERNELS, ARRANGED BY VARIETIES. __, i) o L, ‘d c: is z: é "w 2 S-Q 5 u. 58 ‘E v ‘E 2 E "E 1.. o 99:3 H o E 0": o =1 B o "t: E >< g U v U: 22 2 5 2 2e‘ .== a s“ s-l ,_1 2. :1 U Z $ < L L Bank Account, 1913 ’ 8048 Trou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.41 31 61 2.23 . . . . .. 7.58 . . . . .. 55.0 . . . . .. 8060 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.65 33 89 2.03 . . . . . . 7.63 . . . . . . 52.5 . . . . . . 8068 Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.06 32.39 1.96 . . . . . . 6.89 . . . . .. 54.8 . . . . .. 8098 Main Station . . . . . . . . . . . 40.69 30.05 1.94 . . . . . . 9.11 . . . . .. 54.4 . . . . .. 8149 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.34 35.57 2.47 . . . . . . 5.46 . . . . . . 56.2 . . . . .. 8151 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.25 33.35 2.25 . . . . .. 6.59 . . . . .. 54.8 . . . . .. 8323 Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.49 34.48 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.21 . . . . . 54.0 . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 56 33.05 2.15 . . . . .. 7.07 . . . . .. 54.5 . . . . .. Bank Account. 1914. . 9316 Main Station . . . . . . . . . .. 41.16 31.24 2.18 14.75 6.38 4.39 51.2 10.4 9782 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.22 35.20 . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.74‘..;... 56.1 10.7 9370 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.90 37.01 2.13 16.48 7.41 5.07 54.8 13.3 9398 Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.87 29.88 2.16 13.24 8.05 3.80 48.8 15.8 9444 Nacogfoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.63 35.00 1.86 16.15 6.06 4.25 54.9 12.5 9453 Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.06 35.09 2.02 13.83 5.58 4.42 57.4 9.3 9463 Angleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.58 33.77 2.23 12.01 7.03 4.38 53.9 12.4 9716 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.37 34.60 1.86 15.44 5.90 4.83 56.9 9.0 -Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 10 33.98 2.06 14.70 6.60 4.56 54.3 11.7 Black Rattler, 1913. 8040 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.25 32.26 2.28 . . . . .. 7.73 . . . . .. 56.8 . . . . .. 8058 Nacogdochcs . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.97 36.49 2.10 . . . . .. 7.11 . . . . .. 55.0 . . . . .. 8072 Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.98 33.37 2.07 . . . . . . 8.53 . . . . . . 58.4 . . . . . . 8094 Main Station . . . . . . . . . . . 39.95 30.54 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.42 . . . . . . 57.9 . . . . . . 8141 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.57 38.58 . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.49 . . . . .. 61.2 . . . . .. 8152 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.20 36 88 1.99 . . . . . . 5.40 . . . . . . 58.8 . . . . . . 8325 Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.33 33 94 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.13 . . . . .. 56.2 . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 75 34.58 2.11 . . . . .. 7.12 . . . . .. 57.8 . . . . .. Black Rattler, 1914. 9321 Main Station . . . . . . . . . . . 38.47 33.26 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.34 . . . . . . 58.4 7.1 9783 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.18 35.91 . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.74 . . . . .. 60.5 7.7 9367 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . 35.32 34.55 2.74 17.41 5.58 4.40 59.0 * 7 9399 Beeville . . . . .. 37.81 32.53 2.10 17.47 6.49 3.60 54.4 11.3 9443 Nacogdoches.. 37.02 34.82 2.13 15.69 6.20 4.14 60.9 7.6 9454 Spur . . . . . . . .. 37.44 35.59 1.71 15.68 5.36 4.22 59.7 8.6 9464 Angleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.00 34.36 2.46 12.75 7.32 4.11 57.5 9.8 9717 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.95 33 75 1.95 15.41 5.97 4.97 61.6 . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.27 34 35 2.18 15.79 6.17 4.24 59.1 8.5 Cleveland Big Boll, 1913. 8006 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.41 . . . . . . 49.4 . . . . . . 8062 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.79 . . . . . . 51.0 . . . . . . 8086 Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.54 . . . . . . 51.9 . . . . . . 8100 Main Station . . . . . . . . . . . 8.77 . . . . . . 53.2 . . . . . . 8138 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.85 . . . . .. 53.2 .8 8154 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.64 . . . . . . 52.6 . . . . . . 8322 Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.85 . . . . . . 51.5 . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.22 32.27 1.89 . . . . .. 6.33 . . . . .. 51.8 . . . . .. Cleveland Big Boll, 1914. 9318 Main Station . . . . . . . . . .. 41.95 30.59 . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.95 . . . . .. 49.8 14.5 9784 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.96 34.55 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.14 . . . . . . 52.2 15.2 9368 Pecos_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.06 31.77 1.99 13.84 6.40 4.14 51.2 . . . . .. 9400 Becville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.95 31.84 1.93 15.19 5.16 3.93 50.2 12.3 9445 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.81 33.17 2.22 16.41 6.18 4.21 52.8 13.8 9455 Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.64 33.05 2.02 13.34 7.63 4.32 50.5 14.9 9465 Angleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.88 32.13 2.45 10.58 8.39 4.57 50.0 15.8 9718 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.84 33.44 2.09 16.12 5.33 5.18 52.7 13.7 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.01 32.57! 2.12 14.311 3.431 4.561 51.2 14.3 COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 65 TABLE 42.——COMPOSITION OF ‘COTTONSEED KERNELS, ARRA-NGED BY VARIETIES ——Continued. _._, O o ;_, ff E’? g *5 ‘Z: A .. >< ‘i? E Z 3 3.? 4 5 5 5» o 5 .12 o "o 2 >< 3 U =9 UE fiz 2 i a =6‘ === a s“ s“ .4 n. u: u Z B < n. n. Crowder, 1913. 8042 Troup.... . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.56 31 14 1.98 . . . . .. 7.66 . . . . .. 55.0 . . . . .. 8050 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.72 36.44 2.04 . . . . . . 6.90 . . . . . . 52.5 . . . . . . 8070 Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.61 32.75 1.87 . . . . .. 8.30 . . . . .. 54.7 . . . . . . 8143 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.64 39.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.66 . . . . . . 55.3 . . . . . . 8146 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.95 35.28 1 .78 . . . . . . 6.62 . . . . . . 55.8 . . . . . . 8326 Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.63 33.81 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.04 . . . . . . 53.6 . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.85 34.74 1.92 . . . . .. 6.86 . . . . .. 54.5 . . . . .. Crowder, 1914. 8323 ain Station . . . . . . . . . . . 39.20 32.94 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.23 . . . . . . 54.4 15. 1 9785 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.51 34.88 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.81 . . . . . . 56.1 14.6 9364 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.92 33.38 2.29 14.50 5.42 4.49 53.6 13.3 9401 Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.44 32.88 1.98 16.02 6.17 3.51 50.6 16.1 9446 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 .07 35.56 1.64 16.43 6 .05 4.25 55.5 14.4 9456 pur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.09 34.66 1.97 14.69 6.24 4.35 55.7 14.9 9466 Angleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.35 32.93 2.40 11.37 7.60 4.33 53.5 13.8 9719 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.37 35.39 2.08 14.11 6.14 4.91 55.8 14.6 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.49 34.08 2.06 14.69 6.28 4.37 54.4 14.6 Half and Half, 1913. 8038 roup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.20 30.94 1.95 . . . . .. 7.79 . . . . .. 54.0 . . . . .. 8080 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.97 34.75 1 .97 . . . . . . 7.33 . . . . . . 53.5 . . . . . . 8074 Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.16 31 .87 2.22 . . . . .. 8.33 . . . . .. 54.6 . . . . . . 8106' Main Station . . . . . . . . . .. 41.90 29.90 ..* . . . . . . . . .. 8.86 . . . . . . 54.5 . . . . . . 8144 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.87 36.03 2.13 . . . . .. 5.95 . . . . . . 55.9 . . . . . . 8148 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.15 35.53 1.94 . . . . .. 6.01 . . . . .. 54.7 . . . . . . Y Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.38 33 17 2.04 . . . . .. 7.38 . . . . .. 54.5 . . . . .. iHalf and Half, 1914. t 9317 Main Station . . . . . . . . . .. 40.58 31.54 . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.98. . . . . .. 51.8 10.9 9786 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.56 33.75 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.57 . . . . . . 56.1 10.7 9363 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.31 34.02 4.15 14.88 5.84 4.80 53.8 10.5 ‘9402 Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.42 31.78 2.15 17.48 6.46 3.71 52.0 16.6 9447 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.53 33.55 2.30 14.38 5.99 4.25 56.9 10.8 9457 Spur . . . . . . . . . .._. . . . . . .. 37.63 34.55 2.02 14.69 6.71 4.40 52.0 11.6 9467 Angleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.83 33.72 2.56 12.32 7.13 4.44 54.5 12.8 9720 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 98 33.42 3.10 16.97 5.86 4.67 56.0 10.9 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.11 33.29 2.71 15.32 6.19: 4.38 54.1 11.9 Lone Star, 191s. A 8032 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.97 30.53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.27 . . . . . . 49.3 . . . . . . 8056 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.41 3406f . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.64 . . . . . . 55.0 . . . . . . 8064 Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.69 30.73; . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.61 . . . . .. 53.5 . . . . .. 8090 Main Station . . . . . . . . . .. 35.23 30.13‘ 2.12 . . . . .. 9.15 . . . . .. 50.1‘ . . . . .. 8140 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.85 35.57‘ . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.52 . . . . .. 56.01 . . . . .. 8145 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.90 33 .03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.70 . . . . . . 54.2 . . . . . . 8328 Ternple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.95 32.46 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.61 . . . . . . 52 .0 . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.43 32.36 2.12 . . . . .. 7.50‘ . . . . .. 52.9 . . . . .. Lone Star, 1914. 1 9320 Main Station . . . . . . . . . . . 40.63 31.28 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.401 . . . . . . 52.0 12.2 9788 Lubb0ck....... . . . . . . .. 37.01 33.75 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.47\ . . . . .. 54.0 12.7 9365 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.81 32.06 2.50 15.12 5.68‘ 4.83 50.2 13.9 9404 Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.21 30.94 1.85 15.61 6.80 3.59 49.5 15.2 9449 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.95 33.95 1.82 14.58 5.371 4.33 54.4 12.9 9459 pur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.25 32.51 2.10 17.88 5.001 4.26 53.2 11.3 9469 Angleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.48 32.69 2.21 12.49 6.83 4.30 53.6 10.8 9722 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.50 33.00 2.23 14.45 6.08‘ 4.74 55.9 9.8 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 73 32 52 2.12 15.21 6.08% 4.34 52.9 12.4 Hendricks, 1913. i 8034 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.59 31.61 2.34 . . . . .. 8.40l . . . . .. 54.6 . . . . .. 8066 Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.86 3 .48 2.38 . . . . .. 8.631 . . . . .. 55.0 . . . . .. 8096 Main Station . . . . . . . . . . . 38.18 29.07 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.191 . . . . . . 54.8 . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s9 54 30.39! 2.36 . . . . .. 8.74} . . . . .1 54.8 . . . . .. 66 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE 42.—COMPOSI_TION OF COTTONSEED KERNELS, ARRANGED BY VARIETIES ——Continued. U 4-1 0 o o >1. 1 5 5 ‘:5 L. Q -\-' Q ..> r12 8n 1 Li E 8 ‘S? E’ E E 1 h. c: a”: F~ o E u” o =1 2 6 -: $5 >< g U w (-7.5 fiz 2 1 r’: E := s ‘F. s“ 1:14 .4 o. 1 u Z 1 4 < o. o. Hendricks, 1914. 9324 Main Station . . . . . . . . . . . 39.97 32.361 . . . . . . . . . .. 5.97 . . . . .. 54.4 . . . . .. 9787 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.29 34.531 . . . . ..1 . . . . .. 6.95 . . . . .. 56.0 6.0 9362 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.85 31.361 2.271 14.73 6.26 4.53 56.4 6.9 9403 Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.56 32.66 1 871 16.76 6.42 3.73 54.7 12.0 9448 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.06 33.611 1.611 15.36 6.11 4.25 58.2 9.1 9458 Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.28 32.861 2.611 14.74 7.15 4.36 58.6 7.1 9468 Angleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.00 33.66‘ 2 45; 13.88 5.61 4.40 55.6 10.0 9721 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.40 31.431 2 431 14.06 6.99 4.69 58.8 5.7 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.30 32.811 2 211 14.92 6.43 4.33 56.6 7.1 Mebane Triumph, 1913. 1 1 8036 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.36 31.08 2.39 . . . . .. 8.54 . . . . .. 51.8 . . . . .. 8052 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.01 34.53 1.94 . . . . . . 6.71 . . . . . . 53.0 . . . . . . 8084 Dcnton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.86 31.20. . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.55 . . . . .. 53.4 . . . . .. 8092 Main Station . . . . . . . . . . . 40.04 29.491 1.69 . . . . . . 9.09 . . . . . . 53.4 . . . . .. 8139 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.22 36.371 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55.4 . . . . .. 8155 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 38.20 34.221 1 95 . . . . .. 6.41 . . . . .. 55.4 . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.78 32.82 1.99 . . . . .. 7.46 . . . . .. 53.7 . . . . .. Mebane Triumph, 1914. 8322 Main Station . . . . . . . . . .. 41.07 31.60 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.26 . . . . .. 52.4 12.4 9789 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.17 34.23 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.55 . . . . .. 54.5 12.1 9366 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.54 33.26 2 10 17.00 5.42 4.68 52.2 7.7 9405 Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 .51 33.23 2 05 15.28 6.41 3.52 51.0 . . . . .. 9450 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.73 34.10 1.30 17.14 5.55 4.18 54.6 12.8 9460 Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.35 33.25 2.71 13.41 8.01. 4.17 55.4 10.8 9723 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.57 32.06 2.45 14.41 6.70 4.81 55.2 10.9 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 38.71 33.12 212 15.37 6.41 4.27 53.6 11.1 Mortgage Lifter, 1913. ‘ 8044 roup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.72 29.63 1.98 . . . . .. 7.78 . . . . .. 52.2 . . . . .. 8082 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.67 33.14 3.24 . . . . . . 7.60 . . . . . . 52.5 . . . . . . 8076 Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.01 30.96 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.98 . . . . .. 52.5 . . . . .. 8102 Main Station . . . . . . . . . .. 42.36 28.98 2.15 . . . . .. 6.52 . . . . .. 51.4 . . . . .. ‘ 8147 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.16 35.93 1.96 . . . . .. 5.66 . . . . .. 54.5 . . . . .. 8153 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.95 33.17 . . . . . . . . . . .. _6.98 . . . . .. 53.7 . . . . .. 8327 Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.13 32.29 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.52 . . . . .. 53.3. . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..: 39 86 32 01 33 . . . . .. 7 01 . . . . .. 52 9 . . . . .. Mortgage Lifter, 1914. 1 9319 Main Station . . . . . . . . . ..1 43.44 29.21 . . . . . . . 6.16 . . . . .. 50.0 13.7 9790 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 34.21 35.88 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.52 . . . . .. 52.0 12.1 9369 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 35.06 35.61 2.03 16.10 6.22 4.98 50.8 15.2 9406 Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 41.73 31.82 2 11 13.52 7.12 3.70 51.4 13.3 9451 Nacogdoches............. 38.08 34.04 2 20 14.61 6 60 4.47 55.8 16.0 9461 ur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..138 48 3318 2 87 13.45 7.64 4.38 54.8 11.9 9470 Angleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 39 63 33 33 2 38 13.02 7 18 4.46 51.6 10.7 9724 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 41 20 32 41 2 30 13.28 5.78 5.03_ 53.6 12.9 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 38 98 33 19 2 32 14 261 6.70 4.55 52.5 13.2 Rowden, 1913. ‘ - 8046 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..140.76131.55 1.77 . . . . .. 7.62.. 54.0 . . . . .. 8054 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.221 37.06 1.92 . . . . . . 6.53 . . . . . . 53.5 . . . . . . 8078 Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 35.84 32.50 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.77 . . . . .. 54.7 . . . . .. 8104 Main Station . . . . . . . . . .. 41.751 30.05 1.89 . . . . .. 7.26 . . . . .. 54.6 . . . . .. 3142 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..132.69137.95 2.80 . . . . ..1 5.86 . . . . .. .55.3 . . . . .. 8150 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..135.61135.51 1.731 . . . . ..1 5.55 . . . . ..1 55.6 . . . . .. 1 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 98‘ 34 10 2.021 . . . . .. 6 93 . . . . .. 54 6 . . . . .. Rowden. 1914._ 1 1 9325 Nlain Station . . . . . . . . . 39.221 32 84 2 18 15 72 5.83 4 21 54.8 13.7 9791 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.341 34.58 . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.79 . . . . .. 56.2 14.2 9361 Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 33.541 36.49 2.20 17.15 5.66 4.91 53.4 18.6 9407 Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.231 32.731 1.84 16.86 7.57 3.77 52.5 10.7 9452 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.90’ 34 351 1.74, 16.05 6.37 4.59 55.0 17.1 9462 Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 801 34 03‘ 2.45 14.64 7.50 4.58 55.7 14.4 9471 Angleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 38 32 60 2.09 11.78 7.78 4.37 52.4 14.0 9725 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40 801 32 711 1.611 13.61 6.10 5.17 56.3 16.2 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.78133.791 2.02 15.20 6.70 4.511 54.51 14 9 Coitrosrrioiv OF OorToNsEEn IVIEAL AND CorroN SEED. 6'7 There is an average difference in the varieties, and also differences in the same variety when grow_n in ditterent places. Some of the dif- ferences are due to soil conditions, climatic conditions, soil fertility, and the degree of maturity of the cotton when picked, as Well as to the variety of the seed. The proportion ot hull to kernel, however, atltects decidedly the yield of oil. The seed richest in oil is the Black Rattler. This seed also contains the highest percentage of kernel, but the kernels are also. rich in oil. The Cleveland Big Boll is poorest in oil, and contains the lowest percentage of kernels. In 1914, it car- ried 14.3 per cent. lint, or nearly 6 per cent. more than the Black Rattler, and with closer ginning should show up better in percentage of hulls and oil. The next lowest is the Lone Star, and the percent- age of kernels is likewise low. The seed of the Black Rattler and the Cleveland Rig Roll were grown two years at seven or eight (litterent substations, and showed, on the average, the differences given above. Table No. 43 shows that a comparison of the individual lots grown in the (lifiiereiit stations shows the Black Rattler in every case to produce seed richer in oil and with a larger percentage of kernels than the Cleveland Big Boll. It is thus clearly rgavident that some varieties of cotton naturally pro- duce seed combining more oil than other varieties. The average (lit,- ference between these two varieties is 9 gallons per ton, which, at 40 cents per gallon, would be $3.60 per ton difference in value. It ought, therefore, to be possible to select varieties 0t cotton which produce a seed rich in oil. Cotton is, however, primarily grown for its lint, since the lint is much more valuable tha.n the seed. Yield or quality of lint could not be sacrificed to yield of oil. It would be possible, however, to select seed which would at the same time produce a high quality and quantity of lint, and a high quantity of oil. Apparently the proportion of kernels to meats offers a crude method for approximately judging extreme difierences in the quantity of oil produced from different seeds. This requires further study. COMPOSITION OF SEED FROII DIFFERENT TEXAS LOCALITIES. Table No. 43 contains the analyses of a. number of samples of seed as made by a Texas oil mill from seed secured from various parts of the State. The available yields are calculated on a basis 0t 44.6 per cent. protein and 6.8 per cent. fat in the meal, and a milling loss of '7 per cent. ’.l_‘he mill can, of course, attord to pay a higher price for y seed that contain larger quantities of oil,+or, to take it the other way, they cannot afford to pay so much for seed low in oil. The table shows that difiierent lots of seed from the same locality may vary con- siderably in oil content. At Goliad, for texample, there is the diiter- ence between 37 and 44 gallons, or '7 gallons oil per ton in two dif- ferent shipments. The average for Goliad (seven lots) is 39 gallons, and for Robstown 36 gallonsgcrfii ditlicrence ot 3 gallons per ton, or $1.20 at 40 cents per gallon. 68 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 000 0I> 000 00 .. . .. 0>.0 00U>I 00.> 00.00 >N00.II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203:0 0IOI M00003. 000 I00 00N 00 ... . I.0. . NN.0 0> >I 00.> 00. I0 >>>N. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03:0 0IOI .0N 400w 000 00w 00N 00 . I.0 0N.>I 0>.> N000 >0I0.II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0$:00I0I I .30 ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....O.~®D.U .HUO 0>0 I0w 000 00 . .. N 000 0w_0I 00.> N>.00 00I0.NI m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ...:obw@m 0IOI .0I .0000 000 00> 00N 00 N 0 00 0 00 0I 00.> 00.00 >0N>.II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 023mm 0IOI .0I .0000 000 000 00N 00 N N IN.0 00.>I 0>.> 00.N0 0>00.NI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:0b£...m 0IOI 0 .30 NNO 000 00N 00 N N 0N.0 00.0I 0N.> I000 0000.II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005.200 0IOI .0N .30 000 0N0 00N 00 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. >00 N0.>I 0I.0 N000 0N>>.II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:..0::Imm 0I0I .0 .>0Z 000 00w 00N >0 w. > NI.0 00.0I 00.> 00.00 0000. II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 000E200 0IOI .NN .30 0N0 00> 000 00 .NN 0 00.0 N0.0I . 0I.> N000 c000.II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2=>08m 0IOI MOI .30 000 N00 0>N 00 .. 0. IN.0 I>.wI 0I.> N0.N0 >>0I.0I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2=>8m 0IOI 0I ..w:< 000 000 0>N 00 . . . . . .. 0 0I.0 0w.wI 00.0 00.00 >>00.0I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0_:>00m 0IOI MOI 0:0. 0I0 000 000 00 . . . . N 0N0 NN.0I 00.0 0I.00 >I00.0I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....._=>3m 0IOI NI 0:00 I00 I>0 00N 00 . . . . . . .. w 0N0 Iw.>I 00.0 00.I0 00>0.0I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0E>00m 0IOI .NI 0:00 0I0 0N> >I0 N0 . . . . . . .. w I0.0 0w.0I N0.0 I0.00 >0>I. II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2=>R.m 0IOI .0I 0:0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w5< 000 I00 000 I0 . ... ... 0I.0 >0.0I N00 00.00 0000.0I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2:>2.m 0IOI .0I 0:00 0I0 000 00N 00 . . . . . .. 0 >N.0 N0.>I 0I.> 00.00 I000. II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2=>8m 0IOI . IN .0000 I00 00w 0I0 N0 . . . . . . . . . . .. 0I.0 0>.0I 00.> >000 0N00 II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z3054 :00 0IOI .0N .0000 wI0 >00 >0N 00 N N 0N.0 00.>I 0I.0 00.I0 IOIN.0I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101350 0IOI .00 .30 I00 N00 >0N 00 ... . . . . . . . .. 0I.0 N0.>I 00.0 I0. I0 00>0. II . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .520 0IOI .00 .30 0N0 000 N00 00 N 0 N00 0>.0I 0>.w 00.00 000I.0I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Em€0£m 0IOI 0N .30 0N0 0N> 00N 00 . . . . . . .. 0 00.0 0I.>I 00.0 >0.N0 >0>0. II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:o~0EE00_mI 0IOI .0I .0000 000 00> 00N >0 w w N00. I0.0I NI .0 00.00 0000 II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500.500 0IOI .00 .30 N>0 00w 0I0 N0 . . . . . . .. N 00.0 00.0I 00.> 00.00 ION0.II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:80:30 0IOI .0N .30 >00 00w 00N 00 0 w 00.0 N0.>I 00.> 00.00 00N0.II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8£§¢o:m 0IOI .0I 30 .. . . . . .. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..=N\%hm aw fiwOo I00 000 000 00 I w 0I.0 0N.0I 00.0 00.00 0000.0I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0000 0IOI .NN .30 000 0>w ION 00 . . . . . . .. N 0I.0 00.>I 00.0 00.00 00I0.II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 035:0 0IOI .00 .30 IN0 00> 000 00 . . . . . . .. 0 N00. >0.>I 00.> N000 00>w. II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03:00:10. . . . . . . . . . . . .. N00 I0> >0N 00 . .. 0 00.0. 0I.wI 00.0 NI.00 NONI.II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..>00_00< 0IOI .00 .30 >00 000 00N 00 . . . . . . . . N NN.0 00.wI 00.0 00. I0 >00>.0I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202:0 0:00. 0IOI .0I .0000 >00 >>0 00N 00 . . . . ... 0I 0I.0 0>.>I 0I.w 00.00 0000.0I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20:4 0IOI .00 .30 >00 000 0I0 I0 I . . . . . . .. 00.0 00.0I 00.0 00.00 0000.II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:$m:< 0IOI .N .30 000 00w NON >0 . . . . . . .. 0 00.0 NN.>I 00.> 00.00 000>.II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:$w:< 0IOI .0 .30 0.I>0 >000 0.00N 00 0.I I.0 0I.0. N0.>I 0N.> 00.00 NON>.II . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I00w3><0 M0000. 300 0IOI .0I 00G 000 0.Nw0 I.NON 00 0. 0.N IN.0 0w.>I 00.> 00.N0 0000.I . . . . . . . . . . 0020300 wwxurI. I0b:00 0IOI .0I 00G 0.000 0.0>w 0.00N 00 0. I.0 0I.0 0w.>I 00.> I0.N0 00N0.II . . . . . . . . . . . ..A0w@.6><0 233.0 5:00 0IOI .0I 00G 000 0.000 N.ION 00 0. 0.N IN.0 Nw.II 00 > 00.00 N00>.I . . . . . . . . . . . . A0003><0 0000.0 03>? 0IOI .0I 00D 000 0.000 0.00N 00 ..... . . 0 IN.0 N0.wI N>.> N>.N0 _0000.0I ........swms>? 00:00 0IOI .0I 00D and 000.... S: . 000m .000 0:5 .3: w:0=00 530G LIED -0554 . =0 33>? 3002 00I 500:0 30G I002 0:0 I00 =0 0:00 EnifiBU .80 0:00 5m 0:00 $0 0:00 SnI 0:00 $0 E033 23E . QEI: flmO Z4 Ni GZDOh m< dwmmzoaeoo M355v3 w33 .v .335. 3mo ovw oom ww m . om.v ww.>3 ow.w woww ovwo 33 ..M.....H...33.2ax w3o3 .3 .92. 3ww 3oN. wom ow . .. 5v 3K3 3.... owmvw m3ww 33 . . . . . . ....r§sw w33 .w3 .934 vww w3> 33w 3v v www ww.w3 ww.N. wmow woww o3 . . . . .. >3a=$3 w3o3 .w3 £30m v3o 3ww wom ow ... .. v wmv ow.N.3 wmN vw vw Nwvw 3 ... 5:0 $533 w33 .w3 45w wvw wmN owm ww . . . . . . .. v wow w 3 3w.w w3.vw o3ww 33 . . . . . . ..=8$3E@33 w3o3 .mm .60 2N 2N 2a a.“ . . . . . . .. w 3m m. 2 3N 22.... 2; : $22.5: £2 ... 3o mmw 3N mow ov .. m www mo.N.3 wow ww.ow wmww33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q5202: w33 .w .60 N.vw oow mmw wv . . . . . . .. v wow wo.w3 w3.w $3.... vvov.m3 ..............E . . . . ....._=>$2_~: w3o3 .w $073 v3o who owm vw . . . . . . .. w wmv o3.w3 mo.N. vv 3w $21: . . . . Iwwwwmuowt w33 .m3 .30 m5 wfi NlNm ww v . m3.v 2.2 m3.N. v3.vw wmoo. 33 Z3630 3ow www 3wm Nw . wo.N.3 ww . N. 3v . vw wwww. 33 5E0 www m8 Em om . . . . . . .. m3 v 9:3 3o N. w3 mw mww3 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w3o3 om 30w ovo wvw _vNm ww m N2. N.w.w3 “o8 o vw owow 33 ..............~ . . . . ..3..cm3@o@.~0 33 .wm .80 2a .5. 3.. mm m . . . . . .. N a... 2w: 3N 8 s. Ra. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..§_..E..w £2 ...... do 5w N5 ...... mm . . . . . . .. ... .2... 3: 3N 3......“ 5a.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..§.2o... 22 .3 .5. 3w i. m m. m .21.. 82 s3 m2... $52 H . . . . . .s_...=..u £2 .2 ...... 3ww mow Sm ov . . . . . . . . ... . .. 3o.v vm.w3 wN..w N.m.mw Rv3.m3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w@_3§=o0 w3o3 .wm 333w S... mmw ma... .2. . . . . . . .. v 3v 3a.: 5w ma... E3: ...s_...§u $2 ... do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......“ NI. $5: 2S F5 smw: ...m....fiv..=ouwfim_...._....=< m2 N8 2m z. of. m3: 3.. 5.... 82...... . . . . . . . . . ..€=..w £2 .2 v5. ovo www Nwm ww wwv mwB3 oo.w N.o 3w wovw.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13823.0 w3o3 .m3 .m:< oww 3vw oww vv v3.v wv.o3 w3.N. N.3..vw N.3w3.m3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 13:23.0 L33 .m3 .3}. moo www oom ww om v ow >3 o3.w mw 3w mwwo.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3§:o0 w33 .w3 .w:< mww S... 3wm 8 33v wo w3 ww.N. 3m vw w3wv33 . . . . . . 13033.0 w3o3 K .30 vow oww Rm N.w w3.v N.w w3 ww w 33 vw Nvww 33 . . . . . .. 3.2300 .33 .wm .30 8w vwN Em w». 8v mN S 8 w 3 vw vmwmi Ewwsm :2 om éc mwo w3w mom ow wv.v 3w N.3 o3 w 33 ww E833 .w_.:.>.w.:c_r.3 w3o3 Mw <62 mww www wow ov . o3.v mm w3 wo N. ow 3w vNow o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >233 w3o3 .om 33.0w 3o 3ow mwm m». . 8.3. ww.w3 mo w wo ow v>vwo3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. c0353 w33 .m3 .30 3w 30$ fim 3 v3.v w... S S w S. wv 82.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..__.2§_...w £2 .N. .35 www vow wN.m S. m3 v ww w3 mw N. 3v mw omw333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333330 w3o3 .wm .80 ooo oww 3om ov o3.v wo w3 vo N. mw ww o3mw.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;=...:...e...u w33 wm .30 vNw _vww mmw vv N.o.v N.w o3 ow w oo ww mwww.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wwwfwn0 w3o3 How .30 wwo ._www owm vw wwv o3.w3 wh w mm 3w momw.o3 . . . . . . . . . . ..3.ww3.:w_.m3. mmww w3o3 .ow .30 8o oN.w wwm N». mmv mm N.3 wm m wN. 3w vv3v.o3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. bzcww w3o3 .wm .30 voo .mww vNm ww 3m.v hm w3 3w w ow ww 3.35.3: . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..@.~.3w_.b..33"0 w3o3 .wm 43w 3o Kw Em ww wm.v wm w3 ww N. vo 3w wNww33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. >330 w33 Mm $0 vww wwN. oom ow www wm 3 vw w wv mw ovN.3.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.30 w3o3 .ow 30 vN.o 3w owm ww . wwv om w3 wo N. ww vw wwww. 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . $580230 w33 .m3 3.00 wwo wow Nom ow vv.v vo w3 mo N. ow vw wmwv.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wmmwuwwwom w3o3 .wm .30 ooo3 oww 3om wm ww.v w» m3 w“ w wN. vv ovmww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I.» 42:0 w3o3 .ow .80 3mo _www Em ww wm.v ww w3 vm w w3 mw wovo.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 253350 w3o3 .ow .30 oow ovw 3mm mv v3.v wo o3 ow.w v3 vw v33wm33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13330000 w3o3 .wm .30 2o 38 mwm v». 5v om m: N.w.N. om 3w wowoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138C E2 .m3 fio 3w EN wwm ww oo w vo .3 ow N. v3 mw 3wN.w.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205:0 w3o3 w3 333m wvw wmN owm ww wow. 3w N.3 wo w ov ww Nmwv 33 ch50 mmw 3vN. 8m ow www 3w N.3 wo.w wwmw Nww3.m3 ooo Now N.wm ww o3.v ow w3 www oN..mw ovvw.33 vNw Kw oow 3v 8v ow.w3 wv.N. mw3w w3vw 33 70 'l‘ExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. .~:.:::>: ‘UO Z< W»: QZDOH mw RHFQmZOBHOO woZ 1E hmm mmm hm . . . . . . .. m mmw mm.: hm.h 8 :m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :8.t%wo8Z m5: .m 3O amm ooh :om ow w m oow mmh: moh 3 :m . . . . . . . . . fiéoowmogwz m5: .mm 3O mam m8 mam mm m . . . . . .. w E4. mmh: mmh ohmm . . . . . . . .. . ¢2Ha~2¢m .::>: E2 .m: 3O hmm m:h :mm hm . . . . .. m wow mam: mmm mm.mm .>3.:ow:uo:>: m5: .om .30 mmm omm wmm mm U . . . . . .. m . . mw.w 32S wo.h mm. :m .....mt8:>: m5: b: .30 - . . . . . - ~ . . . - - ~ - - . - - - - . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . v aw? mom mmm hmm mm . .. J m :m.m mmh: mmh M53. 28.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .¢E:m:>: m5: .m: 32w mam whm 5m mm I... w m: w hmh: com 5mm omww. :: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..::b».:>: m2: .om .3O 5w ::h mmm mm ......m. m 5w mmh: mmm wwmm ommh.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5252 m2: .mm 3O mmm omh wmm mm . . . . . . . m 8w m:.: mw.h :m.wm hm:m.m: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:oCw:>: m2: .m: 15w mmm ::h wmm hm . . . . . . .. m. mow m:.h: omh mm. :m w:mm.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.65:2 m5: .h .3O a5 mmm mom ow : : mm w hmm: mh.h omwm $2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..._.o=@2 m5: .mm .30 0mm hoh mmm mm Tifli wi 3w m2: mam mwmw . . . . . .3511: £2 b: :54 wmm mmm mom mm .. ...T.I. :: w 5.: om.h mhmm . . . . ..w=:=1:£2 ...:.E$. mwm m:h mam mm W . . . . . . . . mam mwh: :o.m mwmm . . . . . $.55 2:: .m .>oZ mmh :mh 5m mm . . . . . .. m hmm 2.2 0mm mmmm . . . 2:59:31: 22 E. 3O hmm wmh mmm hm . . . . . . I m mam 8.2 hah mmmm .....e=:vz5 m5: .m 3O mom mwh mom ow w . m mhm m:.m: :: .h ww.mm hmmm. :: .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:o:ww::>:w: m5: .h 3O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mmm mmm mom 2. m . . . . . .. m m:.w mwm: mm.h :m.mm :mm:.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..=o:mm::>:1: £2 .mm .3O mmw mmm m:m :w w 2w mmm: mmm momm mhmw.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..¢@=%=:1:m:2 .0: .w:< o8 mhm mmm hm : m m: w 2.2 hmh 2mm mmwm.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....::: >321: m2: .mm 3O hmm mhm :mm wm . . . . . . .. m :m.w h:.m: omm m:.mm mwwmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ifiowmu: m5: .om .3O m; :mm m:m mm m . . . . . . .. mmm 0mm: 2.2 omdm mohom: .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125$ m1: m5: om 30w an: mama E: mowm .31: :51: .21: 23:30 553w: -82: 55E’: ::O 33>? @332 co: EwCO 8mm: :33: :28 zO ::O H3O 3n: :30 3n: :50 3m :30 hon: E30 :3»: fiBU 3n: E335 23W: . '71 CONIPOSPITION OF COTTONSEQD MEAL AND COTTON SEED. +2.42%"aQ222eaasw;w<22;<24+22222222222421242242224222242424 hfiuiziélédlécméockbli '$06506limdmélwéodliafioélixiléléldzfliqéldréléuéoaéuildbébhod L”. Y-l 22.2 H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2552 22 .2 23m 2222.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282262. 22 .2 .80 0222.22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2~2.=8_22. 22 .2 .30 2222.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..=3£EQ22H 22 .2 .25 2N2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..=8£E2F 22 .2 .22 28.2 . . . . . .. aoaméfie 22 .2 .22 22.2.2 ....=Sw....Eo.F 22 .2 .22 $2.12 . .....62£Eo22.2.222 .2. .200 22522 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.222.92.22 a. 2.2 22.22 J3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:2..P...22 .2 .25 222.20 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I222 22 .222? 2.2.2.02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....:_...2. 22 .2 25v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..N@.MCPU@> ~@% .m:< 222.222 H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~co§> 22 .2 .22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..N@HOQU@> »@@ 22.22 AH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2=a2$w=w 22 .2 .60 N292 ffinmuqpn . . . . . . . . . ..Eo22§.wm22..2 .0 22am ....wxnnnnw2..o2...wsm2 523$ 25228.0 22 .> .30 ....96E2.2._m 22 d .222 . . . . . . .. ........82_2m 22 .2 .30 22.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2...=2.2w 22 .2 2:2 £2. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1225mm. 2 .2 .2822 2.252 3%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:=2_2w...222 .2 25w $2 22 . . H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:526 22 .2 23w @262 pp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.52.5 22 .2 .60 2.2.2.2 .. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._0.a._._22w 22 .2 .60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .=@5%mv% 2% IwQUZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H~C~NQ% .@fi . M“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5322 22 .2 .22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..=2=.»aw....22 .2 .222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..=2=w@m.222 .2 2% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E=w@m 22 .2.N 32v. .2222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E=w@w 22 .2 .223. 02.2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E=..$w 22 a .200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:@:W.Q@ .§~4» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..OC:m5w-#< 56% 2W. 2.6.22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.52% @@@m.Q2 .. . . . . . . . .. . 2222.2 . . . . . . . . . .. 2 n32 E252 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2.:..=2=%o~2 22 a. .52 22.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2522332 22 d~nzam mm2wm2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2:5@mom 22 a. .572 222.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..ES22¢m 22 .2 222v. . p=ao2n2cmm22 .2 .252 m 2230EQ0E 22 .02 200m .=>52m22$2 22 .8 2%» . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.62232 22 523$ Q2222 .H.H.............HHH....2:>SEQ~222.2 .30 2222.2 ....................HHHH..2_2:a.222 522.2% £2 2 ...=2.§2 22 .3 .30 72 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. JAIZ AIO Z< um QZDOh m< .QHHmZO.HHOD M< vmw oIw how ov . . . . . . .. w www 2.2 oIo hNom oomw I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Bofiio> 22 m: .m:< oww www Sm Nv . . . N oIv IhwI oo.h Nhww owoN I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..=aot2¢w52 .NI $54 omw hww mvw wv .. ..w wow .32 3a ovov NoIwoI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..=a¢t:o>£2 .2 .w:< mow voh IwN mm . . . . . . .. v whw mwwI 3a NwIw 83.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530330? 2.: .2 $54 ooo hmw wow ov . . . . . . .. v oIv 2.2 oo.h wwNw wvowoI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5Bo3io> £2 .2 fivw Nww mww 2m Nv . . . v Iv owwI vh.w 8.3 $3.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E§~Qw £2 .2 .m:< - . - . - . - . . . - . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . www woh owN mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. NIv wvwI oo.w mhww hhhh I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z5530? £2 .2 55w ooo whw vwN hm . . . . . . .. N wIv INhI No.h ovIw wNNo I . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155353 22 .h .30 who ohm wow ov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wwv omwI vow mvvw ooww I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.0.953 £2 .ow .30 wIo Nww NIw Iv . . . . . . .. N hN.v wwwI hv.h mwvw mmoooI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.5%@Q.§ 22 .3 43m hNo oww vwN mm . . . . . . .. w c: omiwI _N.w 2.5 vwwo.I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E2wwQo.§ 22 .2 3% whw wow owN wm w v oo.v NvhI wow £3 vwho I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..m::>> 22 .w .30 www Nhw Mo». ov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. NIv NIwI www oovm whoo I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1395:3353 22 .om .30 mww hoh ooN wm . . . . . . .. N Nov ovhI IN.h wINm whwI I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...w.::$>> 22 .2 53w ooo whw vwN ww . . . . . . .. v oIv INhI www wwIm 5% I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5258? 22 .v 3% www vmh wwN wm. . . . . . . .. v oow vNhI ww.h wo.ov woow I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320583 £2 .v flaw hww mmh ohN ww . . . . . . . . . . . . ... oow wmwI vo.w wmwm NIwooI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52:85 22 .wN 03m Iww www voN ow . . . . . . .. v 2 .v vwhI Iwh mm. Iw whwo. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @0533 £2 .oN 53w hhw ooh mwN hm . . . w wo.v INhI oo.h IvNm IwwoI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .352»? 22 .o .30 wow wvh wow ov N . . . . . .. whw 32 oo.h mmNm owoooI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Itofmuk/ £2 .oN .30 wow mow owN mm . . . . .. NI hI.v wvwI wow ow.ov owmvNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1353.2’ £2 .8 53w .oww whw woN om . . . .. . . . . . . .. vI.v wh.hI wwh mwww wfimfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3533 n85 .vN .33. oow Now whN hm v v vI.v 8.2 wvh ooow hwwIzNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...353>> £2 .w .30 ohw Nww oow ov . . . . . . . . . .. oo.v vohI vo.h whwm hNhhoI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .522“? 22 . IN .590 oow www NwN hm . . . . .. . . . . vIv 2.2 owh hw. Im hIo.NI . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1323a?» £2 .w .30 hIo hvw woN ow N w hN.v hw.hI hm.h vNww vwNm. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....%_..a>>.22 mN .30 and wwww m5 133w . .25 55 .35 523.0 .3305 |5mQ -0554 =0 .333 3x32 2: 5330 33C 332 v5“ :0 m0 530 3L 230 pmniwcwU 3m 2.30 3m 2.30 3m 530 3m E93,? _ . 25$ . CoMPosrnoN OF CorroNsEEn MEAL AND CoTroN SEED. 73 Since the shipments from the same town may come from different localities in the tributary district, and since soil, season, variety, and ripeness affect the composition, a. number of analyses from each local- ity, averaged for several years, would be required to bring out clearly the locality differences. Seed from Bryan, for example, may come from cotton on the upland, or from cotton grown in the Brazos bot- tom. The table, however. is very valuable, and the writer hopes that other oil millls in the State will supplement this data. from analyses made for them. COMPOSITION OF SELECTIONS. Table No. 4.4- contains analyses of a number of selections of the same variety of seed, grown under similar conditions at College Station by Mr. Jobson. In order to avoid the influence of varying quantities of lint, the seed were delinted by acid before they were cut. ‘The ave-r- age oil content of the seed is 30.66 per cent, and the variation is from 28.34 to 32.50 per cent, or 4.16 per cent. oil in the kernels. Eight of the samples, out of the 26, contain more than 31 per cent. oil. The average percentage of oil in the seed is 18.1 per cent. The highest is 20.64 and the lowest is 16.58 per cent. The highest oil is associated with the highest percentage of kernels. TABLE 44.—COMPOSITION OF SEED KERNALS 1915 DELINTED BY ACID. Per_ Cent. Lab. Description Protein Ether Water Per Cent O11 1n No. Extract } Kernels Seed 10157|Exp. 729 B165 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.80 30.35 5.37 57.1 17.33 10158 Exp. 729 B164 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.19 32.50 4.72 63.5 0.64 10159 Exp. 729 B 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.27 29.75 5.78l 60.1 17.88 10160 Exp. 729 B 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.56 28.34 6.04. 58.5 16.58 10161lExp. 729 B123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.88 30.25 5.76. 58.7 17.76 10162 Exp. 729 B 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.93 31.31 5.385 60.6 18.97 10163 Exp. 729 B217 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.06 31.08 5.23 59.4 18.46 10164}Exp 729 B206 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., 42.28 30.94 4.75 58.5 18.10 10165‘Exp 729 B 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 51 30 63 4.94 58.4 17.89 10166,Exp 729 B205 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40 57 31 40 4.90 60.5 19.10 10167;Exp 729 B118 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 30 31 21 4.70 58.8 18.35 10168 Exp. 729 B 79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 41.62 30.77 5.13‘ 59.4 18.28 10169 Exp. 729 B215 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..j 41.74 30.47 4.66 57.9 17.65 10170 Exp. 729 B175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.18 31.20 5.08 58.5 18.25 10171 Exp. 729 B 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.00 30.50 5.57 60.6 18.48 10172 Exp. 729 B135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.55 29.72 5.58, 60.7 18.04 10173 Exp. 729 B211 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..‘ 41.75 30.23 5.1.0 58.7 17.75 10174 Exp. 729 B126 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.19 30.47 5.13‘ 59.1 18.01 10175 Exp. 729 B149 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.04 32.18 5.43; 57.0 18.34 10176 Exp. 729 B124 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.51 30.57 5.83. 59.0 18.04 10177_.Exp. 729 B201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\ 42.56 30.20 5.48 55.6 16.79 10178 Exp. 729 B214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.31 30.52 5.46 58.4 17.82 10179 Exp 729 B129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.48 30.97 5.64 61.1 18.92 10180 Exp 729 B171 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43 07 30 37 6.16 59.8 18.16 10181lEXp 729 B130 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.69 31.44 5.90‘ 58.4 18.36 10182 Exp. 729 B183 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~ 40.97 29.81 5.82 56.6 16.87 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.34 30.66‘ 5.36 59.0 18.11 The following selections contain over 18.6 per cent. oil: B 164, B '78, B 205, B 129. The folloxving selections contain less than 17.6 per cent. oil (0.5 per cent. less than the average): B 165, B 3, B 201, B 183. Some o1’ these selections will be planted by the Division of zlgronomv to see what character of seed they will produce. 74 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. t RELATION OF COBIPOSITION OF SEED TO COMPOSITION OF MEAL. While the composition of the seed affects the yield of meal and cake, as manufactured. rather than the composition on a protein basis, there is yet a relation between the composition of the seed and the com- position oi’ the meal made from it. This is reflected in the standards adopted for cottonseed meal al- ready given, which vary somewhat from State to State, being highest of all in Texas. There is also a relation between the protein and crude fiber con- tent of the meal, and the quality’ of the seed from xvhich it is made. Thus if two meals of the same protein content are made, one from seed of high protein content, and one from seed of low protein content, the crude fiber content will be higher in the meal made from seed of a. high protein content, and lower in the meal made from seed with a. lower protein content. By taking the protein and crude fiber into consideration together, one may get an idea as to the quality of the original seed as regard protein. The varying amount of lint present affects the accuracy of the estimate. Of course, it is not possible to form an opinion as to the amount of oil present in the original seed. Table No. 45 shows the average composition of the kernel residue from a number of seed, based on 14 percent. fat and water content, and also the average composition 0t cottonseed hulls on the same basis. TABLE 45.—AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF COTTONSEED KERNELS ON 15% WATER AND FAT BASIS. c5 1-‘ 8 3 i? s. .,. U S a 25 Lu 5 g <1 "* 1.. o °°~ P _ 3 e "v 2 >< i3 o E 5 5 3m ‘“ "F, Z c. m u Z 3 < ¥exas geeg, £13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Z g 8 O0 exas ee , 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas and Oklahoma Seed Committee. . . . 14 54.36 7 O0 2.55 22 08 8.00 6.01 Eastern Seed, Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 49.80 7 00 2.79 25.24 8.00 7.20 Cottonseed Hulls, from as named, average . . . . . . 3.30 6 00 42.35 36.91 .00 2 4 l If one pound of cottonseed hulls replaces one pound kernel residue in the residue of the composition given in Table No. 3'7, we would have from Texas seed, fat and water remaining constant, on an aver- age, 0.033 pounds protein, taking the place of 0.543 pounds of pro- tein, or a decrease of 0.51 pounds protein. We would also have 0.424 pounds crude fiber taking the place 0t 0.03 pounds crude fiber, or an increase of 0.39 pounds crude fiber. Thus for a decrease of one pound protein Wewould have an average increase of 0.76 pounds crude fiber. Proceeding in the same way with the kernel residue ironrEastern seed, we find that 39 :- 84 pounds crude fiber takes the place of .465 one pound protein. COMPOSITION OF CoTToNsEEn MEAL AND OoTToN SEED. 75 Thus, the protein content of the original kernel residue could be approximately calculated from the following formula: .F—3 N : 134-41? Where N r: protein in seed residue. P :: protein in meal. F -—-: crude fiber in meal. L z 0.84 for Eastern seed and .76 for Texas or Oklahoma seed. If the fat and water content of the meal is far from 15 per cent., it should be calculated t0 this basis for accurate results. However, on account of the variation of relative proportions of lint and kernel in meal, this is not necessary. For rapid and approximate calcula- tions, we may use the following formula: N I P+(F-—3) 1.2. For a still more rapid and approximate check, the protein and crude fiber may be simply added. This is a useful rough check on analyti- cal work, since the sum of the protein and crude fiber is fairly con- stant in a given locality. The fact must be recognized that seed vary in composition. The preceding formula gives a method by which the protein content of the original kernel residue may be estimated from the analysis of the meal. ' The same method may also be used in estimating the protein con- tent of the meal that would have a desired crude fiber content. Thus suppose a meal from Eastern seed contains 36 per cent. pro- tein and 11 per cent. crude fiber. What per cent. of protein would it contain with 9 per cent. crude fiber? N I P+(11—9) 1.2 ': 364-24 1: 38.4 per cent. protein. A meal contains 42 per cent. protein and 6 per cent. crude fiber. What percentage of crude fiber will it contain with 36 per cent. protein? (4‘3—36) .8 : 4.8 6-4-48 : 10.8 per cent crude fiber. If the probable maximum crude fiber, and not the average, is to be considered, as is necessary in making a. guarantee under feed control laws, the safest plan is to estimate that 1 per cent. crude fiber re- places 1 per cent. protein. 'l.‘hus the guarantee on the meal contain- ing 42 per cent. protein above cited would be 12 per cent. crude fiber. ESTIMATION OF LINT ON COTTON SEED. The writer has seen no published method for the estimation of lint on cotton seed, though he is aware of the fact that methods, involving the use of sulphuric acid. are in use by some commercial chemists. Prelim-Mary W 07‘k.—Tl1€ preliminary work included a study of the 76 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. strength of acid, the time and manner of drying, and the effect of the acid on the hulls themselves, Without lint. The general method used in the preliminary tests is described as follows: Weigh about 5 grams seed into a dry beaker, add about 10 c.c. con- centrated sulphuric acid, and stir continuously With a. glass rod until all lint except that on the tip of the seed has dissolved. This will take about one minute. Pour acid and seed on a perforated porcelain plate in a funnel; drain and Wash thoroughly, adding a quantity of water at once so as to avoid heating the acid. Wash the seed thor- oughly, spread on filter paper, dry in steam oven for thirty minutes and Weigh. . a Efiect of Strength. 0f Acid.—This Was tested by adding 10 c.c water to 100 c.c. acid, allowing to cool, and then using it to delint 5 grams cottonseed. The delinted seed Were dried in a steam oven for twenty minutes, exposed to the air over night, and Weighed. A similar test Was made with 20 c.c. water to 100 c.c. acid. TABLE 46.—EFFECT OF STRENGTH OF ACID IN AMOUNT OFiLlNT. 10 c.c Water to 2O c.c Waterfto Cone. Acid 100 c.c Water 100 c.c. Water . Laboratory Number _ Time Per Cent Time Per Cent Time Per Cent l l minutes 9319 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.16 13.5 25.l 19.1 3 17.6 9320 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.0‘ 12.9 29 15.9 2% 16.6 9321 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.33 7.8 13 9.9 1% 11.1 9322 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.66 12.6 26 15.2 2 16.3 9323 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.0 15.3 30 17.9 2% 17.9 9325 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.0 15.5 30' 18.1 3 19.6 The results, compared writh concentrated acid, are shown in Table No. 46. The concentrated acid delints the seed much morequickly and gives lower results. Hence its use is preferable. Jlfethtod 0f Drg/iwgh-Jlle here studied the differences found by dry- ing thirty minutes, drying four hours, and allowing to remain exposed to the air over night. The results are in Table No. 4'7’. TABLE 47.—EFFECT OF METHOD OF DRYING SEED ON AMOUNT OF LINT. l Gain in I L0ss_ in Laboratory Number standing over Drying‘ Night Four Hours 9317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.85 l 6.37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 5.76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.92 l 5.62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .05 1 5.43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.97 ~ 5.23 9325 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 l 5.23 This is a gain of 0.85 to 1.00 per cent. in exposure over night. This consists of ‘rater taken up by the seed and is near the original Water content. It would, of course, be possible to base the method upon Water-free seed. " COMPOSITION OF CoTrroNsEEn MEAL AND COTTON SEED. 7'7 ‘Slolutliovz of HulZ-Branvw-It is obvious that the solvent action of the sulphuric acid upon the hull-bran is an error in this method. Tn order to ascertain the possible magnitude of this error, several experiments were made. In bne series of experiments the seed already delinted by acid were subjected to a further treatment with acid, for two minutes in one case, and for four minutes in another. The seed were then dried thirty minutes and then exposed to the air over night. In another experiment, seed carrying little lint were selected, and the lint present was removed, with the exception of a small amount at the tip. The seed were then treated for one minute with concen- trated sulphuric acid, dried thirty minutes, and exposed to the air over night.‘ The results are given in Table No. 48. i TABLE 48.—-—HULL DISSOLVED BY ACID. Delinted by Acid Delinted Laboratory Number ' _ by Hand 4 Mm. 2 Min. 1 Min. . . . . . . . . . . . . The results show that about per cent. hull are dissolved by the acid in one minute. A larger quantity is dissolved during a longer period. We suggest a correction of 2.5 per cent. WIETHOD PROPOSED.’ The method finally' proposed by us is described as follows:- Weigh nearly 10 grams whole cotton seed, record exact weight,» place in a dry beaker, add about 15 c.c. of concentrated sulphuric acid, and stir continuously and thoroughly with a glass rod until all of the lint, with the exception of a very little on the tip of the grain, has dissolved. This will take about one minute. Note the time taken. Pour the acid with seedon a perforated plate or porcelain crucible top in a funnel so that theacid will run off quickly. Wash quickly with a quantity of tap water; next, spread on ordinary paper and dry for thirty minutes in the steam oven ;' then allow to remain exposed to the air over night but protected from mice. Weigh and calculate per cent. and report percentage of “Dissolved lint,” giving also time of contact. Care must be taken to select average seed, which are not broken and which carry no trash; and to allow contact between acid and seed as long as needed. 78 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. QUANTITY on LINT FOUND. Percentages of dissolved lint on different varieties of seed ginned with a. small gin are given in Tables Nos. 38, 39, and 40. The per- centages vary more when av raged by variety (Table N0. 41) than by locality (Table No. By locality, the averages varied from 11.5 to 13.7 per cent; by variety from 7.1 to 14.9 per cent. These aver- ages are not corrected by allowing tor the amount of hull dissolved, which is about 2.5 per cent. If this correction should be made, the seed Would carry 9 to 11.5 per cent. lint, averaged by locality, or 180 to 230 pounds per ton. TABLE 49.—PERCENTAGE OF DISSOLVED LINT ON SEED, U. S. D. A. Per Cent Laboratory Number U. S. D. A. N0. Lint I 27401H 7.2 27403 6.0 I 27405 8.6 27407 6.5 27409 10.2 9418 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27411 8.5 9419 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27413 7.8 9420 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27415 6.3 9421 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27417 7.0 9422 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27419 10.5 9423 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27421 8.3 9424 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27423 6.2 9425 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27425 7.1 Table No. 49 shows the percentage of lint on some of the seed col- lected by Mr. Bidwell of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, analyses of which are given in Table No. 23. These seed had been reginned and were ready to have the hulls removed. TPhey carry, after. a de- duction of 2.5 per cent. for dissolved hull, from 3.7 to 7.7 per cent. lint, with an average of. 5.4 per cent, or from 74 to 154 pounds, with an average of 112 pounds per ton. At the time these seed were col- lected, the oil mills were not ginning as closely as they have been doing in 1915-16, and the reginned seed xvoultl now carry much smaller percentages of lint. DTRT WITH COTTON snnn. During the process of ginning, the dirt and trash are removed sep- arately, but in a number of cases they are mixed With the ginnerl seed by the ginner. This practice has been prohibited by the Warehouse Law of Texas, passed in 1915. . he practice is, howrever, still followed in other States. The dirt and trash must, of course, be removed be- fore the cotton seed can be passed through the oil mill machinery. The addition of trash or dirt which has been ifcmoved during the process of ginning merely involves extra work on the part of the oil mill. It increases the operating cost and decreases the output per ton of seed. This is usually distributed over the entire amount of seed purchased and decreases the price paid for the seed: so that there is no gain to the farmer due to this addition of dirt and trash, but there is really a loss, due to the additional cost of its removal. The COMPOSITION OF CoTroNsEEn MEAL AND CorroN SEED. 79 practice of adding dirt and trash should be prohibited by the laws of all States, as has been done in Texas. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Analytical and other Work involved in this bulletin has been done by Messrs. ;-\Sl)1l1'_\~‘. Rather, Ogier, Hodges, Hudgins, Sprott, Weaver, Roark, Buchwald, Enochs, and others. SUIIIL-KRY AND CONCLUSIONS. 1. Cottonseed meal on the Texas market has, on an average, de- creased in feeding value until it has reached the minimum permitted by the Feed Control Service. , f2. Cottonseed meal has also decreased in feeding value in other States. " 3. The decrease is due to changes in the method of milling and to regulation of the hull content for the purpose of making meal of the desired protein, or protein and fat content. 4. A description of the process of oil milling is given. 5. Chemical control of oil milling has increased the efficiency of i oil extraction. 6. It is possible to secure a. low oil content of the cake when the crude fiber is 7 to 9 per cent, though, under ordinary conditions, 9 to 11 per cent. appears to lead to a better extraction. '7. Tables. are given showing the relation of crude fiber content to the production eoetficients of cottonseed meal. 8. Standards for cottonseed meal are 7 per cent. ammonia (equiv- alent to 36 per cent. protein) in South Carolina, 7.5 per cent. am- monia (equivalent to 38.62 per cent. protein) in North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, 38 per cent. protein and not over 11 per cent. crude fiber in Oklahoma, and 51 per cent. protein and fat and not over 11 per cent. crude fiber in Texas. 9. Definitions of cottonseed meal are given. 10. Cottonseed meal may be regulated by its protein content, or protein and crude fiber content. 11. Methods for estimating hulls in cottonseed meal are discussed. 12. Methods for calculating yield of oil and meal from the com- position of the seed are discussed. 13. Composition of cotton seed is affected by maturity of seed, locality, variety, and weather conditions. 141-. The same variety grown in diiferent localities has a different composition.‘ 15. Different varieties grown in the same locality have a different composition. 16. Oil millers can afford to pay more for seed yielding larger quantities of oil. 1'7. The composition of the seed is related to the composition of the meal made from it. A method of calculating the original protein ‘ content of the seed residue is given. 18. A method for estimating lint on cotton seed is given.