TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT sunou

BULLETIN NO. 205 JANUARY, 1917

_ DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

Sheep Breeding and Feeding

 

I B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR,
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS.

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

I A54-2l7-12M

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 

BULLETIN NO. 205 JANUARY, 191T

DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

Sheep Breeding and Feeding

J. M. JONES, Animal I-Iusbandman, Breeding Investigations

 

B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR.
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS:
vou BOEOKMANN-JONEB 00., PRINTIBS,
1917

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS

W. B. BizzELL, A. M., D. C. L., President

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS

JoIiN I. GUION_, President, Ballinger. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1919

J. HART, Vice-President, San Antonio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1919

E. H. ASTIN, Bryan. . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1912

J. R. KUBENA, F ayetteville.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1921

A. B. Davidson, Cuero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1921

WILL A. MILLER JR., Amarillo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1921

JonN C. DICKSON, Paris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1923

T. E. BATTLE, Marlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 192E

H. A. BREIHAN, Bartlett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 192E

MAIN STATION COMMITTEE
L. J. HART, Chairman WILL A. MILLER, JR.
GOVERNING BOARD, STATE SUBSTATIONS

P. L. DowNs, President, Temple. . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1919
CnARLEs RooAN. Vice-President, Austin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1923
W. P. HOBBY, Beaumont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1917
J. E. Booo-Scorr, Coleman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1921

STATION STAFF*

ADMINISTRATION
B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Director
A. B. CQNNER, 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 _ _

W. T. P. SPRQTT, B. S., Assistant Chemist

H. LEBESON, M. S., Assistant Chemist

CHARLES BUGHWALD, M. S., Assistant
Chemist

DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE
H. NEss, M. S., Horticulturist in Charge
W. S. Hotchkiss, Horticulturist

DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
J. C. BURNS, B. S.,.Animal Husbandman,
Feeding Investigations
J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Animal Husbandman,
Breeding Investigations

DIVISION OF ENTOMOLOGY _ _

F. B. Paddock, S., Entomologist in
Charge; State Entomologist _

H. J. REINIIARD, B. S., Assistant Ento-
mologist

County Apiary Inspectors

R. C. Abernathy, Ladonia; William Atch-
ley, Mathis; J. W. E. Basham, Barstow;
Victor Boeer, Jourdanton; T. W. Burle-
son, Waxahachie; W. C. Collier, Goliad;
E. W. Cothran, Roxton; G. F. Davidson,
Pleasanton; John Donefian, Seguin; A
R. Graham, Milano; J. .- KIIIQ, Bates-
ville; N. G. LeGear, Waco; R. A. Little,
Pearsall; M. C. Stearns, Brady; S. H.
Stephens, Uvalde; M. B; Tally, Victoria;
James W. Traylor, Enloe; R. E. Watson,
Heidenheimer; W. H. White, Greenville;
W. P. Bankston, Buffalo; F. C. Belt,
Ysleta.

DIVISION OF AGRONOMY _ _

A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Agronomist in Charge

A. H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronomist _

Louis WERMELSKIRCHEN, B. S., Agronomist

DIVISION OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND

PHYSIOLOGY

J. J. TAUBENHA_US, Ph._ D., Plant Patholo-
gist and Physiologist in Charge _

A. D. JonNsoN, B. S., Graduate Assistant

CLERICAL

J. M. SEIIAEDEL, Stenographer
DAISY LEE, Registration lerk

W. F. CHRISTIAN, Stenographer
ELIZABETH WALKER, Stenographer
E. E. KILBoRN, Stenographer

*As of February 1, 1917.

'**SUBSTATION NO. l2:

DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY
R. N. HARVEY, B. S., Poultryman in Charge
DIVISION OF PLANT BREEDING _
E. P. HUMBERT, Ph. D., Plant Breeder in
Charge »
J. S. IVIOGFORD, B. S., Graduate Assistant
DIVISION OF DAIRYING
J. E. Harper, M. S., Dairgman in Charge
DIVISION OF FEED CONTROL SERVICE
JAivIEs SULLIVAN, Executive Secretary
J. H. RooEns, Inspector
W. H. W000, Inspector
T. H. ‘VOLTERS, Inspector
S. D. PEARCE, Inspector
W. M. \VIci<Es, Inspector
SUBSTATION NO. 1: Beeville, Bee Count;
E. E. BINFORD, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION'NO. 2: Troup, Smith Count}
W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 3: Angleton, Brazoria

ounty
N. E. WINTERS, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 4: Beaumont, Jetfersom
County
H. H. LAUDE, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 5: Temple, Bell County
D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION No. 6: Denton, Denton Count)
C. H. McDowELL, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 7: Spur, Dickens Count)
R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 8: Lubbock, Lubbock
County
R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 9: Pecos, Reeves Count;
J. W. JACKSON, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 10: (Feeding and Breed-
ing Substation) College Station, Brazos
County
E. R. SPENcE, B. S., Animal Husbandman,
in Charge of Farm _ _
G. F. JoRpAN, B. S., Scientific Assistant
SUBSTATION NO. 11: Nacogdoches, Nacogi
doches County _
G. T. McNEss, Superintendent
Chillicothe, Harde=
man County

R. W. EDWARDS, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 14: Sonora, Sutton

County ' _
E. M. PETERs, B. S., Acting Superintenden

ASSISTANTS

C. L. DURST, Mailing Clerk

A. T. JACKSON, Stenographer
CARL ARELL, Scientific Assistant
F. C. MARc-iULIoEs, Stenographer

**In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  
  
 
 
 
  

 

   Pese-
r Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

itljfdObject of Test.» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5

Stock Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

gitThe Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 Management of the Breeding Flock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11

The Fattening Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12

Table 1—Sho\ving Total Feed Consumed by Lambs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

‘Table 2—Showing Gains, Also Cost of Gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15

Table 3—Showing' Birth Weights, Gains, Sales Receipts . . . . . . . .. 17

able 4—Shoiwing Lambs, Gains, Sales Receipts, etc . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18

_ ' e Pen of Lambs at National Feeders and Breeders’ Show . . . . .. 20

v "ncial Statement . . . . . . . . . . .§ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21

gancial ‘Statement on Sheep Breeding and. Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 _

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

SHEEP BREEDING AND FEEDING.

 

BY

‘J. M. J ONES, A. M, ANIMAL HUSBANDMAN, BREEDING INVESTIGATIONS.

 

“Which breed of sheep shall I place upon my farm?” or “Which is
i. the most profitable breed of sheep for Texas farms?” are questions of
 much concern to the farmers of Texas who are beginning to realize the
important role that sheep production actually plays in the most suc-
l ‘cessful farm operations. Almost every tract of land in the State,
 whether large or small, has some land in the form of pasturage which
 is nat only failing to return any revenue to the farmers, but in a great
{many instances is a burden on their hands. .
. The feeding and breeding test reported in this bulletin was conducted
gfor the purpose of securing information that might be of some value to
 parties interested in the breeding and feeding of sheep in Texas.

OBJECT. 0

 

i The object of this test was to determine which of the most common
mutton breeds of rams when crossed with fine-wooled ewes would pro-
duce the most- thrifty and desirable lambs grown and fa-ttened under
Texas conditions. All items of expense were to be accurately recorded
so that it could be determined with what degree of profitableness sheep
raising could be conducted?) '

/

 
   
 
 
   

THE sroox USED.
Rams.

{The several rams used in this test with the exception of the half-blood
pKarakule-Lincoln were registered and although good individuals they
lwere not high-priced. They were just such registered rams that the
ltiordinary progressive flockmaster would usefl

   
 
 
 
   

The Raimbouiillet.

The Rambouillet ram used during this test was purchased from
Graham & McCorquodale for $20. He was two years old at the time
of the purchase, and was selected from a flock numbering approximately
one hundred head of ordinary registered Rambouillet range rams, such
as are used on our western ranges. In the selection of the Rambouillet
ram, the point uppermost in mind was to secure an individual possess-
ing some scale and a good mutton conformation. This ram weighed

r: ~ -.-<x:'  ‘watt’

6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

160 pounds in breeding condition and sheared ten and one-half pounds
of wool. t
The Shropshire.

The Shropshire* ram used in this test was purchased for $30 from
Mr. A. D. Turner, Denton, Texas. Although this individual was slightly
under size, being a late lamb, he was, nevertheless, a good representative
of the breed. This sire was active and of splendid mutton conforma-
tion, thebody being compact and close to the ground. In prime con-
dition this ram weighed 140 pounds. He proved to be a light shearer,
yielding only six and one-half pounds of wool.

Figure 1.——Rambouillet Lambs After Fattening.

The Ham pshire.

The Hampshire ram used in this test was given to the Texas Experi-
ment Station by the late James McClayfiy the former superintendent- of

the live stock farm at the Wyoming Experiment Station. This ram i

represented some of the best Hampshire blood in the United States, and
although less than one year of age at the time of delivery to the Texas
Station he showed the strong points of a desirable Hampshire sire.

On account of the Hampshire’s lack of development, due to his young

age, the fanciers of the Hampshire breed will be inclined to feel that

*The picture -of the Shropshire-Rambouillet cross failed to do justice to the pen.

TOne of the Writer’s former teachers in animal husbandry.



SHEEP BREEDING AND FEEDING.

Figure 2.—Hampshire-Rambouillet Lambs After Fattening.

 

Figure 3.—The Southdown-Rambouillet Lambs After Faittening.

 

 
 

 

8 l TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

the Hampshire lamb was at a disadvantage as compared with the rest
of the sires. Close attention upon the part of readers to the figures
and details that follow, however, will reveal that the lambs from this
side did exceptionally well. The Hampshire ram sheared seven pounds
of wool.

The‘ Southdown.

The Southdown ram used in this test Was purchased at a price of
$25 from Mr. J. A. Kuykendall, Royse City, Texas. This ram was
three years of age at the time of being placed on the Experiment
Station farm at Spur. He was of good mutton conformation, although
for a Southdownhe was  trifle leggy and the body possibly a little
light. He was a good individual, however, and the offspring resulting
from this cross exhibited strongly the characters ofthe Southdown

b‘igure_4.—The Lincoln-Rambouillet Lambs After Fattening.

breed. This Southdownin breeding condition weighed 150 pounds.
He sheared six pounds of wool.  

The Lincoln.

The Lincoln ram used in this test was presented to the Texas Experi-
ment Station by Mr. Alex Albright, Dundee, Texas. This was a good
specimen of Lincoln type, two years of age, but was lambed late and
consequently had become stunted. At his best, this Lincoln ram did
not weigh over 1'75 pounds. This ram sheared only eight pounds of
Wool with an eleven months’ growth.

SHEEP BREEDING AND FEEDING.   9

H alf-bl 00d K arakul e-Livtcoln.

The half-blood Karakule-Lincoln ram was purchased from Mr. Alex
Albright for $35. At his best this ram weighed 185 pounds; He
sheared twelve pounds of W001 after his first season at Spur. Atthe
time of the inception of the test herein reported, this ram was two
years 01d. He was a hardy, active individual, of good mutton con-
formation.

The Ewes.

The Bambouillet ewes used in this test were purchased from the
firm of Graham & lVIcCorquodale of Woodson, Throckmorton County,
Texas, at a cost of $5.00 per head delivered at the railroad at Albany.

A

Figure 5.—3Tlh\e Karakule-Rambouillet Lambs After Fattening.
Theseijewes were large-bodied individuals of uniform type and breedingit
Although they were unregistered, Mr. John McOorquodale claimed that
the entire flock was- eligible to registry. These ewes ranged between
the ages of three and five years. {They were selected from a flock
numbering above 800 head, and accordingly displayed a remarkable
degree of uniformity and type?

THE EXPERIMENT.

“One hundred and forty-eight good Bambouillet range ewes, of uni-
form type and breeding, were divided into six lots and bred to regis-
teredrams of the different mutton breeds as follows:

Lot 1., Rambouillet; Lot 2, Shropshire; Iiot 3, Hampshire; Lot 4,

 
  
     
             
   
  
 

»;+~.~1.:.~,-¢-==~.=»+.»==r»1.=~1*<:¢w - r_—..-_-_ u». -»- -

10 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Southdown; Lot 5, Lincoln, and Lot 6, a half-blood Karakule-Lincolng
The ewes in each lot were marked with a special brand designating to
which lot the respective ewes belonged. Kemp’s Australian branding
fluid wasused in marking the ewes.

The breeding season began during the latter part of October, 1914,
and the rams instead of remaining with the ewes continually were
turned with the respective lots of ewes at night and removed the next
morning. The breeding continued for a period of six weeks. During
the breeding season the six lots of ewes were grazed upon separate
pasture—no additional feed being furnished at this season of the year.

After the breeding season was over, the entire breeding flock was
again placed together and carried through the winter, no additional
feed being supplied in the fall and winter months except during periods
of almost incessant rains, when a small amount of Sudan hay was pro-
vided for them. '

QPhe lambs began to drop March 1'7, 1915, and parturition continued
until well toward the first of May.

As soon as the lambs reached the age of two to three weeks they
were given access to a “creep” wherein was provided tender alfalfa
leaves andia concentrated grain ration consisting of one part cotton-
seed meal to six parts threshed milo. The lambs had access to the
“creep” throughout the summer months; The ewe flock received one-
half pound threshed milo daily from lambing time until June 15.
During this period and throughout the summer, the entire flock grazed
the several pastures together, the managementof all being identical.
[The lambs were weaned in September and placed upo-n an increased grain
ration and upon a better pasture; Owing to the shortage of pasture
and limited feeding facilities, it was necessary to feed all of the lambs
together during the fattening period; hence the data herein presented
do not compare the cost of gains made by the several l_ots.* All of the
la.mbs were numbered individually and were weighed at regular inter-
vals from birth until the termination of the test.

*At the Iowa Station (Iowa Station Bulletin 35) Curtiss and Wilson con-
ducted a feeding test with lambs with the primary object of determining the
relative economy of production and the value of mutton and wool compared-
_and the adaptation of some of the leading breeds. 'These investigators reported
on the Southdown, Shropshire, Oxford, Suffolk, Lincoln, Cotswold, Dorset, Merino,
and a Shropshire and Merino cross. The investigation covered a period of two
years the first test extending over a period of ninety days, and the second one
hundred and six days. The average cost per pound of gain for the two tests
was as follows:

Cotswold, 2.65 cents; Lincolns, 2.88 cents; Rambouillet (one test), 2.91 cents;
Leicester, 2.93 cents; Southdown, 3.02 cents; Shropshire, 3.02 cents; Oxford,
3.15 cents, and the Suffolk, 3.16 cents.

At the South Dakota Station (South Dakota Bulletin 127) Wilson conducted
a test similar to that herein reported, averaging the results of six tests with a.
total of 344 lambs. Wilson found that the (amount of concentrates required to
produce one pound of gain for the respective crosses was as follows:

Cotswold, 5.24 pounds; Oxford, 5.43 pounds; Rambcuillet, 5.63 pounds; South-
down, 5.64 pounds; Shropshire, 5.75 pounds, and the. Hampshire, 5.87 pounds.

SHEEP BREEDING AND FEEDING. 11

THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BREEDING FLOCK.

' The sheep used in this test were taken to Spur, Dickens County, dur-
ing the latter part of September, 1914, and were grazed upon the native
grass pastures, which consisted principally of grama, mesquite and
buffalo grasses. As this pasture land had not been heavily grazed
earlier in the year and as the growing season had been most favorable,
the‘ grass was plentiful. During the fall of 1914 the rainfall in Dickens
County was excessive and upon several occasions the flock had to be
kept under the sheds and supplied with Sudan hay. These ewes having
been raised. under range conditions did not take readily to the hay and

shelter, but in the course of a few weeks they were more successfully '

managed in this respect.

During a period of two weeks previous to the inception of the lamb-
ing, the ewes due to lamb shortly were separated from the main portion
of the flock and supplied with a ration of threshed milo and Sudan hay,
one-half pound of the milo and threshed Sudan hay being supplied per
head daily. As the season progressed heavy ewes were added to the
pen a few days previous to parturition.

"During t.he latter portion of March and all through April the ewes
and young lambs were grazed for a few hours daily on a small patch
of winter wheat which had been sown between the trees in the Station
orchard the preceding fall. The ewes did splendidly on this green
forage crop and as a result of the increased milk flow the young lambs
made rapid growth during this period.

There was no more green wheat available for grazing after May 1,
and- accordingly the grazing was again limited to the native grasses.

The spring season had been a little backward and in order to keep the z

ewes in a thrifty condition so as to properly nourish the lambs, a half-
pound of threshed milo was supplied daily until June 1'7, after which
time the grain allowance was discontinued.

The lambs were given access to the lamb “creep” throughout "the
summer and were supplied with one-quarter of a pound per head daily
of a mixture of one part of cotton seed meal to six parts of threshed milo.
Thisamount- of concentrates was small, but it helped materially in
keeping the lambs in a fair growing condition during the long hot
summer months.

Salt was liberally supplied to the flock throughout the entire test.
A simple and yet novel salt trough was constructed by the writer, the
object in mind being to perfect a trough, a portion of which after having
been smeared with pine tar would leave some of this liquid on the nose
and face of the individual sheep as they came daily to the troughs to
lick the salt. The object in mind was to keep the gad-fiy away from
the nasal" cavities of the "different members of the flock by means of the
repellant odor of the pine tar. The trough above mentioned is of simple
construction, yet effective. Briefly, it was nothing more than a trough
four inches deep by six inches wide by four feet in length. At a dis-
tance of three inches from the bottom of the trough was placed a board

12 . TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

three and one-half inches wide running the entire length of the trough.

' This left a two and one-half-inch space through which to place the salt,

and the same amount of space from which to lick it. A strip of sheep
skin with the wool side out was tacked to the edge of this three and
one-half-inch piece of board and was smeared with tar every evening
just prior to bringing the sheep into the lots. This scheme seemed to
be effective as the flock did not appear to suffer from grubs, which de-
velop from the deposition of the small gad-fiy eggs at the entrance of
the nasal cavities.
THE FATTENING PERIOD.

iThe lambs were weaned during the early part of September and
placed on a field of headed milo stalks. The grain ration was at this
time increased to one-third of a pound per head daily, and the lambs
began to regain some of the flesh that had been sacrificed during- the
latter part of the hot summer.

The feeding period proper was begun October 12, 1915, at which
time the concentrated ration was increased and more liberal foraging
provided for the lambs. The lambs were grazed from October until
December 15 on the fields that had produced milo, feterita, and Sudan
crops, some splendid foraging being provided "on the headed milo and
feterita stalks as well as on the Sudan grass and the limited tract of
winter wheat that was available. Had the lambs not been managed
as above stated practically all of the roughages consumed during these
two‘ months Would have been partial Waste.

The lambs were removed fromthe fields on December 15 and placed
in the dry lot, and in addition to the concentrated ration, received all
the roughage in the form of Sudan hay, sorghum fodder and feterita
stover that they would consume}

90
1

SHEEP BREEDING AND FEEDING.

°wu.?“0IOIIlo|n-u-

||-¢~ - ~ - - v.0 - ¢ - | - - - » . n - - . . - n---¢--
226.504“ QUEEN...“ .... ..HMN.EQ.>....H.E.WEE._.EEQEE.EE

:3 hon oo.w .
d3 3a 00A: .
no» Hon c033 .
new hon 8.0m».

. . - . . . . . .  
.636.“ 55.32%
u p \ - 0  

-----n1}}>-|--nuggo.hmn@ufi@sw\fikk@5uiviw°i@2

. . . . . .  Uwfimwhfik.
. . . . JNOE wvom GOHHQU

"doom MO 390*

. . . . .w c0232 3 M2 iwnafi. 89G .2152 Beam mm .5“ ~52 .3 “moo om§$><

 -.-.............-... .......-...-...-................--........-.-..R.#ENflpQG&-QP§#H@QEO.M%WQEN@@N%HQ%tQQ%.#OPWQUUwNHQ><
    -.-.- - . . . - ... ......-...-.-.-....-.>N§Q%@N%.—<
x@-    - - - - . - - - . - . . . . - . -HQ>OPM NMZHQ€Q% tam“ HU@@°% Eflzkwhom
W“:    an. continual .¢~ uu-q-n-uW-4-..-||¢n-¢.|>w£  
. . mhé   .......wn:o.~||mwmo Ethic Ewe“ . . . . .  l.

mo. 8a 21W»; NS.  . . . .  ..................E.__w\..sEvwszwww 9." M1822 M3 25%

2x mm.» SE33. Emww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262.2 wwiwfid m...“ .635.“ Ennwkcm

“wt  |   0011010100010 » | | . - - ~ ¢ ¢ auoqonamuqu¢nnunnculu\>fls   

. -  -.@ ...... . v . . . . . . . . - . . ..-gsokllw NU NFHQQ CNQm ...-..- a

s. a.“ Qqmwfi 5.  ............ ........M.........wfweflwwwwszwww 5 z .251. sea“
w? $4.. oaaznw 2a.. . . . . . . . . . .  . ...$2zm “E83 Ea 5. o“ E: u o

EE-   TwE. .............. . . . . . . .........W... . . . . . . ....r-v.~%N§Q£NKv~QE &M%.N@ 

. a o .......-...-.-.-.....-Hmflwohlw NU NFHUQ Hmwnvm ....-.. .% ||l
a. EMS” omsmd Ea. . ..  ...3w.......w..m._wnweg..wofl=sw& a. m. E25 mEEsQo
     . . . . . .  . . . . . ..........hmJw:.m.S<
   . . . . Iliozn w?! . . . . . .  .
2.2 Nod» Ens”  ............._NQL...Q%MNO:M% .5 fisoaizmm
. Awfiuu. 5E2 hon . ,
£5: Hon .38 3 EGO dbsw wooh doonw
Ea 3 :60 Goo 12°F“, Ho éZ 602cm
dunncm fifinnnnoU wash .

énfloxhug u: 03D ZED 5.3m- Eofm man-ad o5 .3 10:55:90 much 13cm. wikcsw
A HAHFH

I
14 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Table 1 shows the total feed consumed by the lambs from birth until
the time of marketing.’ The first division of this table shows the total
amount of feed consumed by the lambs from birth until October 12
previous to fattening. The second division, from October 13 to Jan-
uary 5, 1916, shows the total. feed consumption during that period.
Thirty-six show lambs were separated from the main flock January 5,
and placed on a dififerent ration, although the total feed consumed ‘by
all of the lambs during this period has been figured together, the object
in so doing being for the purpose of figuring the total cost of feed per
lamb from the time of birth until marketing the main portion of the
flock January 20. v _

The period January 18 to March 8 shows the amount of feed con-
sumed after the first shipment of lambs had gone to market in January.
By referring to the final column of Table 1, one will observe that the
cost of feed per lamb from birth until January 17, was exactly $1.60
per head. It is also interesting to observe that during the period
January 18 to March 8, the cost of feed per lamb amounted to $1.60,
or just twice the cost of feeding the lambs from birth until January.

It will be observed by referring to Table 1 that the cost of grain
per lamb through the summer months amounted to only 44 cents per
head to October 12. Had there been more abundant grazing available
it would have been unnecessary to feed any grain prior to the fattening
period, but in view of the fact that grazing conditions were not ideal
the small allowance of concentrates supplied through the summer was
well worth the increased cost incurred.

5
1

SHEEP BREEDING AND FEEDING.

.3 uonEoooQ ma: Bum 2.3 E woufim v.53 N482 2B woioa fifiw o5 Maw-um?

Nma SN» $5 9:. RA $5 5N EWN o2 QHEN maN m3. omdm N8; New? 3 .. . . . . 1w Aohg 8
Nwmm w .252.
.86  NH; 3A 8; S;  fin RN eaNmm Nut. m3. N?» N5 N?“ ww . . . . ..2>..~==£. 8
owc h o hbwncwh
NW3 .  Se» $5» 3x2 Nfi;  ma. N: omawN Ne“ R3. wmdN 81m Nofii QN_ ...........@ESENN
N_N N 8 .2 fiomaiimvm
L W. S s w 3 W S s _ . w 0 9 v L M N
m. m Mam m  mm N, mum m .2...» mm  fim NW. mm. m
.1 w Apm u m? mm m, Apm u m? mm Wu my.“ mm mm N
q 3m w w? . s q f3 w. wnw . s . m B2 pm. .8 ..
M m} ..A . WP a M mm... ..A . m. a m“... wmhh wfiu dw. w. doiom
. uw w. p . up m p 3 m. m .. .
em. D.. 2W D.. PP u e
a .s J .s 1 m. m
4. w

.590 2.55m  5m doom MO flmOQ

4-333 P»: E Eamv u: uni-Pm Quiz-um uOQ “n00 use wooh u: @5851 o5 was maEaA
v .N H‘???

Jimmy mwcuom
oofi Nam 1085200 took...

.3 owns uu-aU ufiioam

p

16 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Table 2 shows the daily gains and the amount of feed consumed
per hundred pounds gain in live weight by the lambs from time
of being placed on feed until their disposal. The lambs had access to
a field of milo and Sudan until December 15, which accounts for the
small cost of $3.32 per hundred pounds of gain during the period
October 13 to January 5. During the period January 6 to January 1'7,
the cost of gain per hundred pounds increased to $5.03. As shown in
the final column the cost of gain per hundred pounds for the show
lambs increased to $6.32 after the disposal of the main portion of the
flock. These lambs made splendid gains, the increased cost of gains
being largely due to the high-priced alfalfa hay introduced into the
ration late in the feeding period.

N‘
1

SHEEP BREEDING AND FEEDING.

Nfiw 006 Q8. fir: 9% Y2. QR 9N0 Wmw hfiwm. mdN v.3 mam w?” wfifl 3.» . . . . . ..§m=mwfifimwwm
8w 85 6.0m 3.3 Q3 3d. 9.0 #83 v.2. mgm. 5mm 32$ Nfimh 9Q. 9mm. was . . . . . .3..._==.5%%m__
9.5 84.. 95¢ 3d 06h wmd ma. Nfiflw N.wh wmwm. mAQN 93 ma... wan 9mm N5 . . . . . . .§m=.5E~m.3
I530 5O
3w 2; <5. vb.» “.3 $6 W» 98 ma» ohfi. m? .015 Q3 Nam mam f: . . . . . ..~2:=on§~a~m m
. étswaimm
m: 2; 93 m”; WE wad ma. ma» 9% 3.2m. 98 1% 7E .35 9mm Nd . . . . . .42==...~E%m
. tuba.» 95w
22>» 85* 06¢ wad hi“: ma; 9m waw méw mmom. wam Qmw 9B mam MAN 3w .3...=_.==5E¢m Emmgm
.33 _ .23 .23 .23 .23 .23 .23 .23 23 .23 .23 .23
d d Q S V D V 9 V V V V V
dm. dw. u. m... 5%. dm rm. 1% f)%. M fm. M d9» om om m
M... m... w m 1.... 3 m.  W“... w w". m m3 5 w.“ n.
I... ... m. m. 1. I8 .d 2W .3"... S .w 8 008 1.8 o8 8
m...» Mww 3 S Woo ma. Hm 18 Iwoo 9 .9... 9 uwa QWQ m9 a
 ..m. m .3 Wm a». wm w. w...“  9m   m. m. 
W w w a rm _ M mq mm Wm A ma. w. vow 3 ma"... u.
u m e u. 8 Pr. o m s a. 8 e O 1. o 1 v.1 s 1 m
m. .us m. BB 1w. ss m. Am. f We we .8 m.
w... m an u M u ... mw m.  W an... m. w. w
. w. .0 C9 a M .u U . __.Y 8 8 1.
. m. m. m... m. c. m. a ..

iomafi-uuuoh unmmmwhfi via .m~nmooofi moim .ouux:T-m i590 dnumo3fiafl unuiosw “mo? we mhuifiaw

d. @353.

00.0 00. Z 00.00 0.0m 0.0.0 0. :0 00mm. 0.00 0.000 0800 0.00 . . .. . .:._==.5E~m-2=v_~$x
0.0.0 >0 00 00. Z 0.0m N000 0. 0N0 0:0. 0.00 0.000 0.000 0000 . . .. . . .§a=¢£=~m-:_¢o=fi
00.0 EM I 00.00 0.00 00 .0 0. :0 >000. “SN 0.30 0.000 0.00 m . . p2z=apawm|qaawfi=ow
8.... 00.00 00100 0.00 . 0.0.0 0.000 3.0m. 0.00 0.000 0S: 0.000 . . ..¢2==¢._E~m-..:EmQ=am
00.0 00.00 00.00 00w 0m 0 0.000 00$. 5mm 0.0: 0000 0 00 . .$_==o@E....m-8EwQo=5
Ea» 00.00 00.00 0 2. 00.00 0.000 08v. 5mm 0.0: 0.000 0.00 . . . . . 42==£E~m 00000.50
005x00

#00503» .00 .222 $0550 £00000 £05000 605.00 00500.0

“mp0 ~0>o 2E2 .000 J30 .000 A0003 ah .0 .002 3 02020 000 .0 .002 .00 20h .0 .52.
.2052 0020000 003003 0000000000 .0000 .000 E52 m .02. 0 .002 S. m 3E2 30am @052 30am @0802 30am .

3on0 .50 020m 02.0.0 mnmmmokfl 000000050 Beam 00 QEN- .60 .00 A52 0m .3000? 0m E0003 00 0000003 \
00010000 0o 0.00003 c000 2G0 .6 E00 00303» 000.603.. 00m~0><
000.00 0039/4 @3003‘ 000.022. ¢

6:: £00.52 .325 =85 00h 0-3 .5.“ 000.0 no 20m .353 00 .3 0002 0000.0 05:25 035.

d. 0.5:.

18 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIdN.

SHEEP BREEDING AND FEEDING. 19

WEIGHTS AND GAINS OF LAMBS.‘

The lambs were weighed at birth and numbered, weekly weights being
made of each individual lamb until eight weeks of age. The average
birth weights of all lambs as presented in Table 3 shows a com-
parison of the several cross breeds of lambs. The records show that
the Hampshire lambs averaged the heaviest at birth, weighing 10.3
pounds, with the Lincoln cross a close second with an average of 9.98
pounds. The straight Bambouillet lambs averaged the lightest at birth,
this average being 8.4 pounds. It will be observed from the table that
during the first eight weeks after the birth of lambs all seemed to make
approximately the same amount of gain, the Lincoln cross being slightly
in the lead at this age. i

As shown by Table 3, at the time of being placed on feed, October" '

12, the Lincoln cross averaged 10.9 pounds heavier than the Hamp-
shire‘ cross, which was second in weight. This is a remarkable gain
over that, made by the other lambs and is worthy of further in-
vestigation. By again referring to Table 3, it will be observed that
during the period October 12 to January 5, the Hampshire cross made
the highest daily gain, the average for the period being .34. pound,
with the Shropshire second. with a gain of .32 pound, while the South-
down cross made the smallest, or a gain of .28 pound daily. The gain
made by the Lincoln cross during the period was next above the South-
down average for the same period. - r

The lambs were divided into two lots January 5, eighty-four being
placed in one lot and thirty-six in another. The thirty-six lambs were
selected for exhibition at the National Feeders’ and Breeders’ Show at
Fort Worth in March, 1916, six representative “typey” individuals being
selected from each of the lots of cross-bred lambs.

The show lambs were fed separately after January 5, as the plan was
to ship the main portion of the flock during the middle part of Jan-
uary, and as these lambs were on full feed at that time it would not
have been the best policy to full-feed the show lambs at this time,
especially in view of the fact that the Fat Stock Show was still two
months away.

As may be seen by referring to Table 3, the eighty-four lambs
were weighed separately from the show flock after January 5. During
the period January 5 to January 1'7, the Hampshire cross still con-
tinued to make the largest daily gain, with the Karakule cross second
and the Lincoln third during the period.

At the feed lots on the afternoon of January 1'7 prior to shipment
to the Fort Worth market the Lincoln cross averaged 6.4 pounds heavier
than the Hampshires, the Southdown cross averaging the lightest at
this time. The lambs all carried heavy fleeces, which tended to reduce
the dressing percentage. The Lincoln cross-bred lambs dressed the
highest percentage of meat to offal with the Karakule cross second and
the Hampshire cross next to the lowest.

The shrinkage enroute market proved interesting. The Lincoln

20 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

cross averaged 12.3 per cent. shrinkage, While the Hampshire cross
showed a small shrinkage.

When the lambs were offered on the Fort Worth live stock market
JanuaryZO, the packers did not discriminate against any of the dif-
ferent pens of the cross-bred lambs. After handling them carefully
they declared them all to have an equal amount of finish with one kind
justas valuable to the packer as the other. The high price of $9.90
per hundredweight was paid for the entire shipment, there being only
one GO-pound Rambouillet cull taken out and sold on the market for
6 cents per pound.

The average sales receiptsof the lambs are set forth in the last column
of Table 3. In this table it will again be observed that the Lincoln
cross stood first, with the Hampshire cross 22 cents behind, the South-
down being at the foot of the list.

Table 4 is similar to Table 3, the only difference being that
the latter had to do with the weights, gains, shrinkages, dressing per-
centages, etc., of the thirty-six lambs held back for the National Feeders’
and Breeders’ Fat Stock Show in March. By referring to Table 4,
it will be observed that the Hampshire cross made the largest gain
during the period January 5 to March 8, with the Karakule cross a
close second and the Lincoln third, all three crosses showing a gain in
excess of one-half pound per head daily.

The lambs were weighed at the feed lots March 8, and the Lincoln
cross Weighed 1.3 pounds more than the Hampshire cross. It is in-
teresting to note, however, that after being shipped to Fort Worth and
placed on exhibition at the Fat Stock Show for a week the Hampshires
showed a smaller shrinkage than the Lincolns, the Hampshire show
lambs averaging five pounds more to the packers than the Lincolns.

By observing closely the tabulation in Table 4, under shrinkage,
it will be noted that the shrinkage of the Shropshire, Hampshire, and
Southdown crosses is very low. In spite of the fact that the figures in
this ‘table show such a low shrinkage, the dressing percentages of these
low shrinkage lambs are correspondingly low which only goes to show
that there must have been an error committed somewhere in the weigh-
ing of the lambs to the packers. The Lincoln cross dressed 52 per cent.,
and the judge who made the awards well knew that so far as finish is
concerned there was but very little difference between the fieshing qual-
ities of the Lincoln, Hampshire, and Southdown lots.

LINCOLN-RAMBOUILLET CROSS FIRST IN PEN OF FAT LAMBS CONTEST.

The six pens of Experiment Station lambs were entered in the pen
of five fat lambs contest, and in what was the best lamb contest ever
pulled off at the National Feeders’ and Breeders’ Show. The respective

- pens of fat lambs exhibited by the Texas Experiment Station were placed
in the following order:

First—Iiincoln-Bambouillet cross.
Second——Hampshire-Rambouillet cross.

SHEEP BREEDING AND FEEDING. 21

Third-—Southdown-Rambouillet cross.
Fourth—Straight Rambouillet.
Fifth—-Karakule-Rambouillet cross.
Sixth—Shropshire-Rambouillet cross.

The pen of Lincolns formed a. most attractiveexhibit and this pen
was the first choice of all experienced sheepmen. The Hampshires and
Southdowns were attractive and well finished, but they did not have
as" much valuable wool as was displayed by the pen awarded the first
premium. ‘ ‘F

FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Table 4 is an itemized statement showing the profit per lamb at ‘the
termination of the experiment:

36 show
T83lambs. lambs. .
Lbs. Lbs. 
Number of lambs, 120. ’ i i’
Average weight of lambs beginning of feeding test... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.8 _ 60.8

Average weight at end ofjeeding period . . . . . . . . . . . . . .r . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 .3 013.85

Value of lambs October 12. at $6 75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . $ , 4.10 $8 '4. I0»

Cost of feed consumed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.16 . 2.76

*Cost of frei ht per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 - .30

*Cost of fee per lamb on market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02 .02

*Cost of yardage per lamb on market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .05 .05.

Selling commission (single deck,‘_$8.00) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . .06 .06

Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5.69 $ 7.29

Average selling price per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.05 11 .83

Profit per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2.36 $ 4.54

Price per hundred ounds at which lambs actually sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9.90 8 10.37.

Price necessary to reak even . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.00 6.40%

*Figured on the basis of a deck load. _
TOne lamb was dressed at_the Experiment Station.

This table shows the profits per lamb based upon single deck loads.
In this particular test the total cost of shipping, yardage, feed, and
sales commission amounted to 63 cents per lamb for the eighty-three
head marketed in January, and $1.60 per head for the thirty-six ex-
hibited at the National Feeders’ and Breeders’ Show in March. It is
interesting to note that the net profits per head are $2.36 and $4.54,
respectively’, based upon carload lots. Too much significance should
not be given the comparison of the two lots as shown in this table
because the advantage is with the show lambs throughout, they having
been selected from the main flock early in January. It is interesting,
however, to observe that the show lambs were placed on a. more expensive
ration, the average cost of feed consumed by them totaling $676,03-
an increased cost per head of $1.60 over that consumed by the main
flock marketed in January. The show lambs made splendid gains from
January 18 to March 8, and as shown by the last item in Table 4,
could have been sold as low as $6.40 per hundred, while it would have
been necessary to secure at least $7.00 per hundred to have broken even
at the time of the disposal of the lambs in January. * i' '

22 TExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

EINANoIAL sTATEMENT 0N SHEEP BREEDING AND FEEDING PROJECT coN-
DUCTED AT TExAs SUBSTATION N0. 7, LOCATED
AT sPUR, TExAs.

September, 1914~—June, 1916.

_ Expenditures.
~148 ewes at $5.00 per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$ 740.00

5 rams .» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125.00

Freight and express on ewes and rams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.69

Total feed for lambs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250.13

Total feed for breeding flock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.67
$1,243.49
Receipts.

Sale 120 lambs (net), January and March, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 982.56
1915—Sale 840 pounds wool at 221530, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179.84

1916—Sale 696 pounds wool at 27c, less ag per cent. Warehouse
‘ charge . -.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A 183.23
Sale 50 ewes at $6.00 per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 300.00
Sale 2 rams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . 40.00
sPremiums Fat Stock Show (Fort Worth), 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.00
A $1,732.63
Less principal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,243.49
" ' s 489.14
lnventory*—90 head of ewes at $5.00 per head . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 450.00
Profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51; 939.14

Per cent. profit on investment, 75.5.

d The financial statement presented in this bulletin is to impress upon
the minds of the readers that when such‘ an investment on the farm
returns as high as from 50 to 100 per cent. annually it must be worthy
of "some consideration.

_The statement shows the total outlay of capital required to finance
thispsheep work, exclusive of labor, was $1243.49. Interest has not
been charged against the expenditures presented in the preceding finan-

l chiral statement. Under receipts it will be observed that the lambs re-

tu'rifed a handsome profit. The wool from the Rambouillet ewes during
twblsuccessive seasons brought high prices and the inventory carries the
ninety remaining ewes at the same price paid. for them two years ago.
This has been made possible only as a result of the upward trend of the

a sheep market generally during the past two seasons.

In the foregoing financial statement the prices of feeds charged

 

» *Although the ewes have an 80 per cent. lamb crop that will be marketable
during the winter, their value has not been estimated in the above statement.

SHEEP BREEDING AND FEEDING. _ 23-

against the account are high. Under the ordinary farm conditions it
will not be necessary to feed as-much grain as was consumed during
the test herein reported. With small flocks numbering twenty-five to-
seventy-five head, there will be enough Waste on the farm to carry them
through the Winter months in good shape. Some of the progressive»
farmers of North Texas allow the flocks to graze the winter wheat fields
during the winter months. Care is taken not to over-graze, and in.
the spring the flocks are removed to the native pasture grasses, where
they remain until the wheat and other farm crops have been harvested;
then they are given access to these harvested fields, upon whichethey
convert into flesh and fat, products that ordinarily go to waste on the
great majority of Texas farms. The preceding statement shows that
a profit of 75.5 per cent. was realized on the original investment. In
other words, the sheep in the test herein reported returned the Texas
Experiment Station $489.14 in cash, and today there are ninety ewes
on hand and 8O per cent. of them now have lambs at their side ready to-
go on feed this fall.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

The author is indebted to Mr. B. E. Dickson, Superintendent Sub-
station N o. '7, and to Mr. H. E. Evans, the sheep attendant, whose com-
bined efiorts aided materially in carrying the experiment herein reported
to a successful termination.

SUMMARY.

1. Each of the several lots of cross-bred lambs studied during the
experiment herein reported were thrifty and hardy from birth.

2. The highest average birth weight was attained by the Hampshire--

Rambouillet cross.

3. The Lincoln-Rambouillet cross made the greatest total gain.

4. The Lincoln-Rambouillet cross seemed to finish in a shorter period
than did the other crosses, although in this respect all the lambs put on
a good finish.

5. On the market January 20, 1916, the packer buyers graded the
entire offering, with the exception of one Rambouillet, as “choice.” With
the one exception above enumerated, the six lots sold at $9.90 per
hundred pounds live weight, this figure being the highest ever- paid
on the Fort Worth market at that season "of the year for fat lambs.

6. On this test the lambs made the cheapest gains during the early
portion of the feeding period where they secured a great deal of their
bulky feed in the fields. .

'7. With the choice of five of the best lambs from each of the re-
spective crosses in competition for honors in the fat lamb class at the
National Feeders’ and Breeders’ Show in March, 1916, the several pens
in competition were placed in the following order:

Lincoln-Rambouillet cross, first.

Hampshire-Rambouillet cross, second.

Southdoivn-Ramlaouillet cross, third.

24 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Rambouillet, fourth.

Karakule-Ramhouillet cross, fifth.

Shropshire-Rambouillet cross, sixth. ,

8. Summarizing the entire feeding test from October to March, the
lambs consumed 8.06 pounds of dry feed for each pound increase in
live weight.

9‘. During the several periods of the feeding test, the average cost
of feed per hundred pounds of gain was:
October 13 to January 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . ..$3.32
January 6 to January 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.03
Show lambs January 6 to March 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.32