A183-1017-lOm TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT smnom BULLETIN NO. 220 ' OCTOBER, 1917 DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY EGG-PRODUCING VALUES OE SOME TEXAS FEEDING STUFES B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS W. B. BIzzELL, A. M., D. C. L., President TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS JOHN I. GUIoN, Ballinger, President ......................... ................................................. ..Term expires 191 L. E. . AsTIN, Bryan ......... .. . HART, San Antonio, Vice-President... Term expires 191 - J H _ J. R. KURENA, Fayetteville ................. .. A. B. DAvIosoN, Cuero ............ .. WILL A. MILLER, JR., Amarillo ......... .............. .. k O HN T. DICKSON, Paris ................................ .. H. A. BREIIIAN, Bartlett ............................ .. F. M. LAW, Houston ............................................... .. L. J. HART, Chairman P. L. DowNs, Temple, President ........................... .. CIIARLEs RooAN, Austin, Vice-President ....... .. J. E. Booo-ScoTT, Coleman .......................... .. W. A. JOHNSON, Memphis ...................................... .. I *STATION STAFF ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Director A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Vice Director CIIAs. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary W. T. BRINK, B. Executive Assistant in Charge Library and Publication EDITH H. PHILLIPS, B. S., Technical Assistant DIVISION OF VETERINARY SCIENCE **M. FRANcIs, D. V. S., Veterinarian in Charge _ _ H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian DI/VISION OF CHEMISTRY 'G. S. FnAPs, Ph. D., Chemist in Charge; State Chemist W. T. P. SPROTT, B. S., Assistant Chemist CHAS. BUCHWALD, M. S., Assistant Chemist T. B. LEITH, B. A., Assistant Chemist DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE NEss, M. S., Horticulturist in Charge \V. S. IIOTCHKISS, Ilorticulturist DIVISION OF ANIMAL I-IUSBANDRY J. CKBUIINS, B. S., Animal Husbandman, Feeding Investigations J. M. J0NEs, A. lVl., Ani Breeding Investigations _ P. V. EWING, M. S , Animal Husbandman in Charge Swine Investigations **L. B. BURK, B. S ,_Collaborating Animal Ilusbandman, Swine Investigations DIVISION OF ENTOMOLOGY F. B. PAoDocK, M. S., Entomologist in Charge; State Entomologist H. J. REINIIARI), B. S., Assistant Ento- mologist V E. JACKSON, M. S., Assistant Ento- motogist County Apiary Inspectors R. C. Abernathy, Ladonia; William Atcb- ley, Mathis; J. \V. E. Basham. Barstow; T. W. Burleson, ‘VGXZIIISCIIIB; W. C. Col- lier, Goliad: E. W. Cothran, Roxton; G. F. Davidson, Pleasanton; John Donegan, Seguin; A. R. Graham, Milano;J. B. King, Batesville; N. G. LeGear, Waco; R. A. Little, Pearsall: S. H. Stephens, Uvalde; M. B. Tally, Victoria: R. E. Watson, I-leidenheimer; W. H. White, Green- ville; F. C. Belt, Ysleta; R. A. Nestor, Bilffalo; H. A. Jones, Oakville: T. A. Bowdon, Palestine; E. R. Jones, Bceville. DIVISION OF AGRONOMY _ A. B. CONNER, B. S., Agronomist in Charge A. H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronorriist ***H. H. JOBSON, B. S., Agronornist Louis WERMELsKIRcII EN, B. S., Agronomist DIVISION OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Plant Patholo- gist and Physiologist in Charge malt H usbandman, CLERICAL ASSISTANTS J. M. SCHAEDEL, Stenogra her DAIsY LEE, Registration Clerk C. L. DURsT, Mailing Clerk R. C. FRANKS, Copyist W. L. HEARN, Stenographer *As of October 1, 1917. **In cooperation with A. & M. College of Texas. _ ***On leave. ****In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. _ . ..................................................... ..Term expires 1921i .................................................... ..Term expires 1923 . MAIN STATION COMMITTEE GOVERNING BOARD, STATE SUBSTATIONS ‘ ..................................................... ..Term expires 19194" ..Term expires 1923! .....Term expires 1923‘ WILL A. MILLER, JR. _' ................... .. ..Term expires-1923. ..Term expires 192i . ..Term expires 1918 3 DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY -. R. N. HARvEY, B. S., Poultryman in Charge v DIVISION OF FORESTRY ' J. H. FosTER, M. F., Forester in Charge, » . State Forester _ DIVISION OF PLANT BREEDING ' E. IIUMBEHT, Ph. D., Plant Breeder in Charge 7 DIVISION OF DAIRYING W. AIDOUBT, Dairyman DIVISION OF FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief JAMES SULLIVAN, Executive Secretary J Romans, Inspector W. H. Wool), Inspector S. D. PEARcE, Inspector \V. M. WIcKEs, Inspector W. F. CIIRIsTIAN, Inspector SUBSTATION NO. 1: Beeville, Bee County I. E. COWART, M. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 2: Troup, Smith County W. S. HoTcIIKIss, Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 3: Angleton, Brazorla County N. E. WINTERS, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 4: County H. ll. LAUDE, B. S., Superintendent J. B. COCKRELL, B. S., Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. 5: Temple, Bell County D. T. KILLoUoR, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 6, Denton, Denton County C. H. McD0wELL, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 7: Spur, Dickens County R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 8: Lubbock, Lubbock County R. E. KARFER, B. S., Superintendent _ SUBSTATION NO. 9, Pecos, Reeves County ' J. W. JACKSON, B. S., Superintendent , SUBSTATION N0. 10: (Feeding and Breeding Substation), College Slation, Brazos County E. R. SPENcE, B. S., Animal Husbandman, in Charge of Farm. SUBSTATION N0. ll: Nacogdoches, Nacog- doches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent A SUBSTATION NO. 12: Chillicothe, Harde- man County ****R. W. EowAnos, B. S., Superintendent V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. l4, Sonora, Sutton County E. M. PETERS, B. S., Acting Superintendent Beaumont, Jetferson M. B GARDNER, Stenographer MAE BELLE EvANs, Stenographer IRENE PEvERLEY, Copyist RUTH CAMPBELL, Stenographer H. L. FRAzIER, Stenographer CONTENTS ———_ PAGE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Date of Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 V Yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6i Rafions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '6 _ Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '7 »1 Care and lfanagenlent of Flock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. .. '7 6 Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ¢ Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 PREFACE. This bulletin presents the results of a poultry feeding experiment carried out in order to, determine the relative egg-producing values of pertain feeds produced in this State. BULLETIN No. 220 \ OCTOBER, 1917 EGG-PRODUCING VALUES OF SOME TEXAS FEEDING STUFFS BY R. N. HARVEY, POULTRYMAN IN CHARGE. INTRODUCTION. The annual egg production in Texas, figured in proportion to the average number of hens found on the farm and poultry plants o-f the State, is much lower than it should be if poultry raising is to be engaged in as a money-making enterprise. The average yield per hen has been variously estimated at from fifty to seventy eggs a year. From records kept on several farms during the year 1916. figures from which were avail- able for this bulletin, it is shown that the lowest averaged 47.6 eggs to the hen; the highest giving a yield of 134.12. The average yield to the individual for all the farms was 76.71. Two of these farms, it may be noted, made a specialty of poultry; but eliminating these, we have the others averaging 65 eggs per hen. This may be accepted as typical of the whole state, since the farms here considered are widely scattered, no two of them, in fact, being in the same county. The reasons for the low egg yield are obvious and are readily pointed out. Indifferent housing, lack of attention, careless breeding, and im- p-roper feeding methods are the causes chiefly responsible for the poor showing. But, on the other hand, by keeping well-bred fowls, by pro- viding good houses for them, and by giving their feed even moderate attention, the possibilities of poultry raising as a source of income are surely greatly increased. OBJECT. The object of the experiment with which this bulletin deals was to determine whether or not rations composed entirely of vegetable feed can be fed as profitably as rations consisting in part of meat feeds and also to determine the relative feeding values of skim-milk, cottonseed meal. meat-scrap and peanut meal. Meat-scrap has long been recognized as an important source -of pro- tein, but lack of a good local supply has prevented its use on the aver- age farm. Cottonseed meal is advocated as a poultry feed by manu- facturers but has not been regarded as a meat substitute by poultry raisers. The recent development of the peanut industry in this state has led many to hope that the relatively inexpensive peanut meal could take the place of the higher priced meat-scrap. Sour skim-milk is known as a valuable source of protein, but has never been given the recognition it deserves. 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. DATE OF EXPERIMENT. The experiment was begun on December 20, 1916, and was con- tinued through a period of twrenty-four weeks, being brought to a close on July 5, 1917. As at first planned, it was intended to carry the test on for a full year, but erratic fluctuations in prices of feed and the impossibility of securing certain of the ingredients of the rations with which the experiment was begun, rendered it necessary to bring the test to an end. HOUSING. The experiment was conducted in permanent colony houses, desig- nated as houses 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, beginning at the house nearest to the egg room. Each house is 14 feet by 14 feet in size, with con- crete fioors and open front. Solid doors are hinged horizontally along the sides. The houses are equipped with Cornell trap nests. YARDS. Each house has a. yard 80 feet by 90 feet, divided longitudinally through the center. For convenience, the yards are numbered consecu- tively from 1 to 8, inclusive, the odd numbers denoting the yards at the rear of the houses and the even numbers representing the yards at the front of the houses. The yards were managed as follows: When plowed, harrowed, or planted, all even or all odd numbers were tilled the same day. X o charge was made for the pasturage and no credit given for fertility accruing from the droppings of the fowls while in the yards or in the houses at night. STOCK. The stock was standard-bred single-comb White Leghorns of a good strain. This stock, however, was no better than that which could be placed on any farm in this state at a very reasonable expenditure for a few settings of eggs. The chicks were hatched during the preceding spring from Experiment Station stock. They were divided into four lots of forty females each, with two cockerels, of the same breeding and age as the pullets, placed in each lot. All the birds were range- raised and in good condition; and none of them were forced Wl1ll€ growing. At the beginning of the experiment, they were evenly divided as regards vigor and maturity. RATION S. The rations were composed of feeds that can be secured without difl ficulty, with the possible exception of meat-scrap, which is the only feed not easily available to Texas farmers. Eee-Pnootcnvc VALTJES OF SOME TEXAS FEEDING STUFFS. 7 Table 1.—Rations. Lot l i Lot 3 Skim-milk lVIGGt-SCTQD 400 pounds milo 45 pounds bran 55 pounds shorts 750 pounds skim-milk 400 pounds milo 50 pounds meat scrap 50 pounds bran 6O pounds shorts 40 pounds milo chops Lot 2 Lot 4 Cottonseed Meal Peanut Meal 400 pounds milo 400 pounds milo 60 pounds cottonseed meal 53 pounds eanut meal 70 pounds bran 57 pounds ran 5O pounds shorts 49 pounds shorts 2O pounds milophops 41 pounds milo chops With meat-scrap as a basis, the rations were calculated to supply as much protein from milk, cottonseed meal and peanut meal as the meat- scrap supplied, using an equal amount of feed. The milo was utilized as a scratch feed. The other feeds were mixed and hopper-fed. The milk was fed in a tin pan. ‘PRICES. There had been an increase in the cost of all feeds, some, in fact, nearly doubling in price during the twenty-four weeks of the experi- g ment. The prices charged here represent the average for the year, I; computed as folloxvs: The amount of each constituent of the ration was determined at the end of each four weeks and charged at the price j of the feed at that time. Then, at the end of the twenty-four Weeks, ~ the total number of pounds of feed consumed and the cost of the feed f: were used in compiling costs. 1 The egg prices were compiled in the same manner, being based on the price of eggs for each week. CARE AND lVIANi/XGEMENT OF THE FLOCK. The whole milo was placed in a galvanized container in each house f and fed morning and night. About one-tenth of the daily portion was qffid in the morning and about two-thirds in the evening. The dry mash was fed in hoppers, which were always kept open. The skim-milk was ‘ always before the iiowls. Green feed was secured only from the yards. One yard of each house being pastured at a time, it was thus possible Lto keep a crop growing in the other one. _ Fresh water was given every morning, and during warm weather a {fresh supply was placed in the receptacles for them at noon. The thinking‘ dishes were rinsed out regularly every day. A Records were kept of all feed weighed out to each house and at the tend of each seven-day period that which was not consumed was weighed fback. The records of feed consumed were totalled and the amount 8 . Texas AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT Srarron. recorded at the end of each four weeks. The number of eggs frof each house was recorded daily and weekly. Trap nest records were made in December, January, and again early May. N0 weights of the hens were recorded. ' ' -‘ LABOR. The labor charged against each flock is the actual number of hou required to care for a production flock of equal size. i ‘ Table 2 presents the average consumption per individual of eaci feed tor each ration fed. ’ 2. Table 2.-—Average Amount in Pounds Per Hen of All Feeds Consumed. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Cottonseed Skim Milk. Meal. Meat Scrap. Peanut Me 1;‘. Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l. 19.57 18.82 19.30 19.5 . Bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.5 3.09 2.54 2.3 ' Shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.27 2.21 3.05 1.9 Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 2.03 ‘ 1.84 Sour milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Meat scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.54 . . . . . . . . . . Peanut meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.41 Oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 - 1 .07 1 .02 .8 n. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.71 28.72 30.49 28.95 i It is shown by Table 2 also that the birds in the meat-scrap skim-milk pens ate more teed per bird than those in the peanut an cottonseed meal pens. It will be noted, however, that the birds - _ the meat-scrap pen ate but little more (1% to 1% pounds) ‘than t; peanut meal or the cottonseed meal pens. Milk, being about 90 a} cent. water, had to be consumed in large quantities in order to_ H equivalent to the other protein feeds. At the rate used, one hen w' consume about 90 pounds of milk a year, or one-fourth of a pound a da The cost of feed, litter, and labor per hen, and the cost of ~ litter, and labor required to produce one dozen eggs, are given _‘ Table 3. ‘Table 3 is a corrollary to Table 2, and shows, as wo ;_ be expected from an inspection of Table 2, ~that the cost per hen w‘, less for the peanut and cottonseed meal pens, the birds in this w" having consumed a. slightly smaller amount of feed than those pens 1 and 3. Table 3.-—Cost of Feed, Litter, and Labor. \ Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 '._ Cottonseed Peanut ~ Skim Milk. Meal. MeaT Scrap‘. M Lw". Part 1 per hen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.24 $0.99 $1 .08 Part 2 per 1 dozen eggs . . . . . . . . . . .. $0.166 $0.199 $0.172 Eec-Paonuome VALUEs OF SOME TEXAS FEEDING STUFFS. 9 Table 3, however, shows that although the cost per hen in the cotton- seed and peanut meal pens was less than that in the meat-scrap and skim-milk pens, the cost a dozen for eggs was greater. It is apparent, as will be shown in a later table, that the meat-scrap and skim-milk Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Fig. 1.——Cost of producing one dozen eggs. l pens must have produced a greater number of eggs for an equal ex- penditure of feed, litter, and labor than did the cottonseed and peanut rreal pens. This tends to indicate that, so far as producing eggs ' cheaply is concerned, a ration containing some meat feed is better than one consisting wholly of vegetable feeds. Table 4.——Number of Pounds of Feed Required to Produce One Dozen Eggs. Lot 1 l Lot 2 Lot‘ 3 l Lot 4 Skim Milk. l Cottonseed lWeal. I Meat Scrap. l Peanut Meal. 9.41 | 5.75 4.86 5.8 3.71 l It will be noted (Table 4) that the milk-fed penarequired a greater number of pounds of feed to produce one dozen eggs than was needed , meal pen did slightly better than the peanut meal pen but yielded thirty . 1O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. to produce an equal number of eggs in any of the other three pens. The large quantity of milk required t0 supply as much protein as =1 supplied by the smaller amounts of peanut meal, meat-scrap, or cotton- seed meal explains the use of the apparently exorbitant: amount of feedr Aside from the milk, only 3.71 pounds of grain were required to pro: duce one dozen eggs in that pen. The meat-scrap pen required about one pound less- feed to produce one dozen eggs than did eitherrth) peanut meal pen or the cottonseed meal pen. ’ Table 5.——Average Number of Eggs Per Hen and the Per Cent Production. Lots. 1 2 3 4 ' _ Cottonseed Peanut Rations. ' Skim Milk. Meal. Meat Scrap. Meal. Average number of eggs per hen. . . . . 89.95 . 59.95 75.31 56,80 Per cent production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.9 35.68 44.7 33.8 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 ‘ Lot 4 Fig. 2.—-(1) Return over cost of feed, litter, and labor; ,(2) cost of feed, litter, and labor; (3) gross return. ' Table 5 shows that the hens composing the skim-milk pen laid thet» greatest number of eggs each and those making up the peanut meal pen produced the smallest number of eggs per individual. The cottonseed EGG-PRODUCING VALUES OF SOME TEXAS FEEDING STUFFS. 11 eggs less per bird than the milk-fed pen. The two pens (Lots 2 and 4), which received only vegetable feeds, made but mediocre records. The meat-scrap pen made a creditable showing—about half way between the cottonseed. meal pen and the milk-fed pen. Inspection of the part of the table giving the per cent. production willscrve to emphasize the observation noted in the foregoing paragraph. ' Table 6.—Average Income Per Hen and the Average Profit Per Hen Over the Cost of Feed, - Litter, and Labor Are Here Shown. ‘p. Lots. < 1 l 2 t 3, 4 _ Cottonseed Peanut Rations. Skim Milk. Meal. Meat Scrap. Meal. : Average income per hen . . . . . . . . . . .. $2.09 $1.41 $1.79 ‘ $1.40 ._ Average profit per hen over feed, "' litter and labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 .42 .70 .39 , The most striking fact to be noted is the cost and profit over feed, litter and labor per hen in Lot 1. The cost is greater for each hen f; than in any other flock in the test, but also the profit is considerably j larger. Conversely, the pen (Lot 4) which cost the least made the . smallest profit. The cottonseed meal pen did slightly better than the i‘ peanut meal pen. The meat-scrap pen did much better than either the cottonseed meal pen or the peanut meal pen, though not so well as lithe milk-fed pen. if SUMMARY. 1. The pens which cost the most in feed per hen gave the greatest freturns per hen. _' 2. The hens receiving some animal feed were more profitable than those receiving vegetable feed only. _ 3. Vegetable feeds with high protein content seemed unable to re"- iplace animal feeds in the ration. 4. The fowls preferred the ration containing animal feed and ate lit in larger quantities. i 5. Sour skim-milk appears to be more profitable than meat-scrap ' - s a source of protein, when it can be obtained at a reasonable cost. 6. The number of pounds of feed required to produce one dozen eggs Js- ‘akes it evident that the fowls receiving some meat feed were able to akc a more efficient use of their feed than the hens receiving only egetable feeds.