A201-1217-10m TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT Osmnom BULLETIN NO. 222 _ DECEMBER, 1917 DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY THE COMPOSITION‘ OF PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRODUCTS B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR. COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS l ’I\Ul\lbUL|lUl\t\I.¢ 111111 nluvnzrnwzvi-u vvu-a-v- v- W. B. BizzELL, A. M., D. C. L., President TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS JoIiN I. GUIoN, President, Ballinger...._. ................. .. L. J. HART, Vice President, San Antonio .............. .. E. H. ASTIN, Bryan.. . _. .. J. R. KUBENA, Fayetteville... A. B. DAVIDSON, Cuero.... . WILL A. MILLER, JR., Amarillo ............ .. JoIIN T. DICKSON, Paris ........................... .. H.- A. BREIHAN, Bartlett ............................... .. F. M. LAw, Houston ..................... ..................... .. .................................................. .. Term expires 1919 Term expires 1919 ............................................................................................. A .Term expires 1919 .. Term expires 1921 ffffffffff ..... jffjfI .'..‘...Term expires i921 Term expires 1921 Term expires 1923 “Term expires 1923- .............................. expires 1923 MAIN STATION COMMITTEE L. J. HART, Chairman WILL A. MILLER, JR. GOVERNING BOARD, STATE SUBSTATIONS P. L. Downs, President, Temple ........... .._ ................. .. CHARLES RoGAN, Vice President, Austin .............. .. eman .. ............... ............... .. W. A. JonNsoN, Memphis ...................................... .. I. E. Booo-ScoTr. Col expires 1918 ................................................... ..Term expires 1919 ............................................... .. Term expires 1923 Term expires 1923 *STATION STAFF ADMINISTRATION _ B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Director A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Vice Director CHAS. A. FELRER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary _ _ W. T. BRINK, B. S., Executive Assistant in Charge Library and Publication EDITH H. PHILLIPS, B. S., Technical As- sistant DIVISION OF VETERINARY SCIENCE **M. FRANcIS, D. V." M., Veterinarian in Charge . _ _ H. ScIiMIDT, D. V. S., Veterinarian D. H. BENNETT, V-. M D., Assistant Vet- erinarian - DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY I FRAPS, Ph. D., Chemist in Charge; State Chemist _ _ -- Assistant Chemist CHARLES BUCHWALD, M. S., Assistant Chemist _ T. B. LEITH, B. A., Assistant Chemist DIVISION OF HORTICIILTURE 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 P. V. EWING, M. S., Animai Husbandman, in Charge Swine Investigations **L. B. BURK, B. S., Collaborating Animal Husbandman, Swine Investigations DIVISION OF ENTOMOLOGY _ F. B. PADDOCK, . S., Entomologist m Charge; State Entomologist _ H. J. REINRARD, B. S., Assistant Ento- moloaist W. E. JAcxsoN, NI. S. Assistant Entomologist County Apiary Inspectors: R. C. Abernathy, Ladonia; William Atch- ley, Mathis; J. W. E. Basham, Barstow;. T. W. Burleson, Waxahachie; W. C. Collier, Goliad; E. W. Cothran, Roxton; G. F. DavidsonPleasanton; John Done- gan, Seguin; S. T. Graham, Milano: J. B. King, Batesville; N. G. LeGear,Waco; R. A. Little, Pearsall; S. H. Stephens, Uvalde; M. B. Tally, Victoria; R. . Watson, Heidenheimer; W. H. White, Greenville; F. C. Belt, Ysleta: R. A. Nestor, Buffalo; H. A. Jones, Oakville; T. A. Bowdon, Palestine; E. B. Jones, Beeville. _ DIVISION OF AGRONOMY A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Agronomist in Charge A. H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronomist “**H. H. JossoN, B. S., Agronomist LQUtIS WERMELSKIRCHEN, B. S., Agronom- is DIVISION OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J._TAUBENRAUS, Ph. D., Plant Pathol- ogist and Physiologist in Charge DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY R. 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. HUMEERT, Ph. D., Plant Breeder in Charge DIVISION OF DAIRYING W. A. DOUBT, Dairyman DIVISION OF FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chie JAMES SULLIVAN, Executive Secretary J. H. ROGERS, Inspector W. H. W000, Inspector S. D. PEARCE, Inspector W. M. VVICKES, Inspector W. F. CHRISTIAN, Inspector SUBSTATION NO. 1: Bee-ville, Bee County I. E. CowART, M. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 2: Troup, Smith County W. S. HQTGRRISS, Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 3: Angleton, Brazoria County N. E. WINTERS, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 4: Beaumont, Jetferson County H. H. LAUDE, B. S., Superintendent J. B. COCKRELL, B. S., Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. 5: Temple, Bell County D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 6: Denton,'Denton County C. H. McDowELL, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 7: Spur, Dickens County R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. s: Lubbock, Lubbock ounty RJE. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 9: Pecos, Reeves County J_. W. JACKSON, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 10 (Feeding and Breeding Substation): College Station, Brazos County E- R- sPENCE. B- S» Animal Husbandman, in Charge of Farm SUBSTATION NO. ll: Nacogdoches, Nacoz- doches County G. T. McNEsS, Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 12: Chillicothe, Harde- man County ****R. W. EDWARDS, B. S., Superintendent V. B. HAI-"NER, B. S., Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. 14, Sonora, Sutton County E. M. PETERS, B. S., Acting Superintendent CLERICAL ASSISTANTS J. M. SCHAEDEL. Stenographer DAISY LEE, Registration Clerk C. L. DURST, Mailing Clerk R. C. FRANKS, Copyist W. L. HEARN, Stenographer MAE BELLE EvANs, Stenographer *As of December 1, 1917. IRENE PEvERLEv, Copyist RUTII CAMPBELL, Stenographer 4 IVIARGARET SHELDON, Stenographer LOUISE S. BARNETT, Stenographer WILLIE BELLE FULLER. Stenographer H. L. FRAzIER, Stenographer **In cooperation with A. and M. College of Texas. ***On leave. '***In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. CONTENTS. PAGE Peanut Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Whole Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Peanut Hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1O Peanut Kernels . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Variations in Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111 Whole Pressed Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Peanut Cake and Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Pressed Peanut Kernels . . . . . . . .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Calculation of Hull. Content from the Protein Content . . . . . . . . . .. 21 Estimating the Hulls in Peanut Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 Feeding Values of Peanut Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 Peanut Hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2'7 ‘Oil and Cake from Manufacturng Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2'7 Grades of Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28 Standards for By-Products . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Definitions of Cottonseed Crushers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30 Interstate Definitions . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Peanut Cake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 Acre Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 Peanuts as Human Food. .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 Peanut Butter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Peanut Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 Mineral Constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Sugars, Starches, and Pentosans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 Ash of Hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3'7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 BULLETIN N0. 222 DECEMBER, 1917 THE COMPOSITION OF PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRODUCTS BY G. S. FRAPs, PH. D., CHEMrsT IN CHARGE; STATE CHEMIsT. a The quantity of peanuts grown in 'l‘exas has increased steadily of late years. They are grown for feeding purposes, and for the manu- facture of oil. The object of this bulletin is t0 discuss the composition of the peanut and its various by-products. PEANUT HAY. There are three varieties of peanut hay: (1) Peanut hay (mowed). Sometimes the tops are cut off with a mower, and made into hay. The product is peanut hay, and is secured in an analogous manner to other hays. (2) Peanut hay with nuts. The vines, with the nuts on them, are pulled up, and cured into hay. The product contains nuts, roots and vines. It produces a rich hay. It differs from other hay, however, by containing roots. Unless care is taken in the gathering, dirt is likely to be present, with injurious effect to the animals. a (3) Peanut hay without nuts. The vines are pulled and cured and the nuts threshed off. The hay (with some roots and a. few nuts) is baled. This, pro-duct corresponds in origin to a straw, but is a much superior feed. Unlike a straw, it contains some roots. In threshing,‘ care should be taken to separate the dust a.nd dirt from the hay. The dirt is likely to be injurious to animals, and to decrease the market value of the hay if it is sold. Composition and feeding] value. The average composition and feed- ing value of these three varieties of peanut hay (taken from Texas Bul- ietin No. 203) are given in Table 1. A few other feeds are given for the purpose of comparison. The digestible protein and the productive values show ‘most clearly the feeding value. The digestible protein is of more importance to growing animals and milk cows than it is for fattening animals or working animals, as the growing animals need protein for the produc- tion of flesh and the cows need it for elaboration of milk. All classes of animals need the productive value (expressed as fat) for the purpose of heat, energy, fat or milk formation. This is dis- cussed fully in Texas Bulletin No. 170. An examination of Table 1 shows that peanut hay without nuts has a higher productive value than alfalfa hay, but contains less digesti- ble protein. It ranks higher in productive value than almost any other hay. This means that the peanut hay (without nuts) has a high feed- ing value. Peanut hay alone would make a good maintenance ration for cattle, sheep or horses, and would put a small amount of fat on 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. cattle, or serve as a ration for horses doing light work. It is said to be somewhat too laxative for horses doing much work, to serve as the sole roughage. Table b-Percentage composition and feeding value of peanuts and other feeds. *5 o e E 1;; é’ o Q3 +1 n I .,_; 2 c’ ‘z s ‘it s 5 ~= 5 a . as *3 t. -° ‘d "a s ° 2% ‘a ‘£3 =3 E > -o-* g "g t. >< +8 £5 o 1.. 1: a 5 m 2 _..| g. u c“ m p‘ e > Z o. m u Z 3 <1 O n. Peanut hay, mowed, ave... 3 11.09 5.09 21 94 42 11 10.00 9.77 7.10 10.9 Peanut hay, without nuts, average . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 9 55 3.08 24.30 45.33 9.50 8.24 6.11 10. Peanut hay, with nuts, ave. 4 13 22 13.12 23.75 34.95 8.19 6.77 10. 15.6 Alfalfa hay, average . . . . . .. 86 r 14.76 1.93 28.42 37.35 9.12 8.39 11. 8.7 Bermuda hay . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 7.17 1.75 24.90 49.39 8.87 7.92 3.70 7.3 Prairie h_ay, Texas . . . . . . .. 10 4.38 2.13 28.97 48.79 8.16 7.57 0.50 7.1 Rough rice, ground, ave... . . . . .. 8.09 1.80 8.89 64.52 11.68 5.02 6.10 15.9 Wheat bran average . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.59 4.03 8.84 54.87 9.86 5.75 12.50 12.0 Peanut hay with nuts contains so many peanuts that it is really a: concentrate and roughage combined, rather than solely a roughage. It has higher productive value than wheat bran, and is close to rough rice. Peanut hay with the nuts contains so much oil or fat that, if fed in quantity, it is likely to impair the appetite or digestion of the‘ animal. Hence it would not be desirable to feed more than eight or nine pounds per day ‘per head to cattle, making up the balance of the rotighage with other coarser fodder, and using concentrates according‘ to the object of the feeding. ' Table 2.—Percentage composition of peanut vines, ground, commercial. Nitro- Lab. Protein . Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. N0, extract. fiber. extract. 17599 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.28 3.60 20.23 48 60 8.89 8 40 17883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.06 3.84 21.95 45 93 8.49 9 73 17885 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.69 6.61 28 37 35 25 10.18 9 90" 17963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.54 5.27 27 85 37 57 9.15 10 62 18336 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.91 2.44 20 46 46 0'3 9.33 11 80 Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.89 4.35 23.77 42 67 9.21 10.09 Average 3 nwest in fibre. , . . 10.09 3.29 20.89 46 85 8.90 9.98 Average 2 highest in fibre... . 9.62 5.94 28.10 36 41 9.67 10.26 Ground peanut hay is also sold in Texas, or used in mixed feeds. Some analyses are given in Table in crude fiber. The average of the three lowest in crude fiber is 20.89 per cent; of the two highest, 28.10 per cent. The difference may be, in p-art, caused by the amount of leaves retained in the hay; the more leaves, the better the hay and the lower the crude fiber. WHOLE PEANUTS. A number of samples of Texas peanuts were obtained for us by the Feed Control Service and subjected to analysis. The pops, sticks, etc., The five samples differ widely . w}: “ 1" COMPOSITION 0F PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRODUOTS. 7 were first separated, and the cleaned nuts separated into hulls and kernels. The hulls and kernels were analyzed separately and the re- sults combined to the whole clean peanuts. These are all Spanish peanuts. ' Table 3.—Percentage composition Spanish whole peanuts (Texas). Nitro- Per Per Per Lab. Pro- Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. cent. cent. cent. No. tein. extract. fibre. extract. meats. pops. trash. 11233— 4 . . . . . .. 22.86 35.39 18.33 12.99 5.57 4.86 74.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11236- 7 . . . . . .. 22.57 34.95 17.92 14.30 5.31 4.95 74.1 . . . . . .. . 11513- 62 . . . . . .. 24.37 36.59 16.17 14.14 5.72 3.01 76.7 2.20 7.80 11514- 63 . . . . . .. 24.87 37.97 14.77 13.53 5.64 3.22 77.6 2.40. 5.20 12433- 36 . . . . . .. 25 30 36 07 16 98 13 28 5.96 2.41 75.2 3.72 1.71 12434-- 37 . . . . . .. 24.10 37.55 17.65 11.95 6.15 2.60 72.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1244-5- 61 . . . . . .. 24.90 33.70 19.72 13.30 5.39 2.99 67.3 4.29 9.74 12446- 62 . . . . . . . 28.09 36 83 16 02 10 64 5.96 2.45 75.5 1.82 1.71 12447- 63 . . . . . . . 28.19 34.61 15.34 15.07 4.26 2.53 76.5 1.76 2.25 12448- 64 . . . . . .. 26.45 36.70 15.88 13.10 5.64 2.22 76.9 1.32 3.15 12449- 65 . . . . . .. 27.63 36.30 16.39 11.56 5.73 2.40 75.0 1.20 1.20 12450- 66 . . . . . .. 25 50 36 90 17 62 12 62 5.13 2.21 74.2 1.69 6.89 12467- 91 . . . . . .. 26 42 39 93 15 71 9 56 5.96 2.42 78.8 2.61 3.00 12468- 92 . . . . . .. 24 89 39 04 16 79 10 82 6.13 2.31 76.4 1.36 3.65 2469- 9 . . . . . .. 25 17 39 22 16 37 11 08 5.89 2.26 77.1 2.84 3.92 12605- 82 . . . . . .. 26 31 39 66 15 24 10 32 5.19 3.28 79.9 5.36 2.32 12611-709 . . . . . .. 25 66 4O 05 15 27 10 33 5.98 2.70 78.9 0.69 0.92 12612-710 . . . . . . . 26 25 37 14 16 06 11 82 5.94 2.79 77.74 0.35 1.55 12614-711 . . . . . .. 26 28 40 18 15 83 11 07 4.66 1.99 78.9 0.19 1.71 12615-712 . . . . . .. 26 88 35 74 17 24 11 31 4.87 3.96 73.1 5.92 12.19 12617-713 . . . . . .. 25 13 34 23 17 03 15 28 5.22 3 11 67.1 5.77 13.65 12618-714 . . . . . .. 26 89 35 86 18 23 10 84 5.27 2.92 73.0 4.02 3.22 12741- 81 . . . . . .. 25 60 33 39 21 52 10 42 6.73 2.33 66.9 0.80 1.01 12435- 38 . . . . . .. 23 09 37 55 17 75 12 68 6.03 2.89 72.3 5.55 7.38 12736- 82 . . . . . .. 24 50 37 47 20 60 9 53 5.85 2.05 73.2 0.00 0.20 12742- 83 . . . . . .. 24.9.3 35.55 18.90 13.31 5.18 2 12 76.4 0.00 .20 12633-784 . . . . . .. 25.86 35.35 18.67 11.49 5.92 2 69 72.2 2.03 3.41 12623-785 . . . . . .. 2.5.76 38.84 16.57 11.16 5.52 2 15 75.8 0.00 16.39 12620-786 . . . . . . . 25.93 34.02 19.12 12.01 5.75 3.15 70.4 10.54 4.11 12731- 87 . . . . . .. 26.18 36.96 17.03 10.21 6.82 2.78 76.0 1.08 2.34 12693-788 . . . . . .. 27.69 36.92 14.95 9.15 6.96 4.33 76.7 1.17 9.54 12706- 89 . . . . . . . 21.29 32.93 23.93 12.73 6.66 2.47 67.8 0.00 32.21 12734— 90 . . . . . .. 27.09 36.83 15.71 11.58 6.16 2.64 77.4 0.56 0.00 12743- 91 . . . . . .. 27.48 37.40 16.10 10.95 5.69 2.37 77.3 1.97 2.14 12694-792 . . . . . . . 23.44 37.62 18.52 13.26 5.03 2.12 72.5 0.00 1.90 12632-793 . . . . . . . 26.06 39.39 17.05 10.18 5.05 2.26 77.8 0.77 4.59 12681-794 . . . . . .. 27.35 38.72 14 90 11.52 5.18 2.33 79.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12619-795 . . . . . .. 26.55 37.84 16 76 11.12 5.21 2 53 75.6 2.69 2.78 12732- 96 . . . . . .. 24.55 35.55 18 73 12.35 6.50 2 32 74.5 1.31 0.38 12733- 98 . . . . . .. 25.73 38.05 16 44 12.08 5.58 2.13 77.2 2.09 3.04 12631-799 . . . . . .. 24.18 37.69 18 31 12.11 5.20 2.50 72.7 0.86 4.62 12735-800 . . . . . .. 27.33 36.77 18 38 9.23 6.02 2.27 74.6 1.55 3.36 12754-805 . . . . . .. 27.93 35.97 16 64 10.85 ‘ 5.42 3.17 73.3 2.54 4.57 12755-806 . . . . . .. 28.40 37.10 16 21 9.89 5.39 3.01 75.1 3.22 2.55 12756-807 . . . . . .. 25.35 36.89 16 81 12.96 5.56 2.43 76.6 0.20 .49 12757-808 . . . . . . . 25.13 34.72 17 20 13.32 5.98 3.6.5 73.0 2.45 5.01 12918- 28 . . . . . .. 26.20 36.46 14 62 14.20 5.79 2.74 77.4 3.57 4.32 12917- 29 . . . . .. 26.19 35.65 1712 13.14 5.11 2.79 71.8 3.44 3.66 12916- 30 . . . . . .. 24.54 32.94 19 62 14.06 6.00 2.84 69.4 3.62 5.23 12915- 31 . . . . . .. 27.07 34.73 16 70 12.60 6.19 2.71 75.1 2.76 4.34 12804-932 . . . . . .. 23.88 37.99 17 50 13.29 5.31 2 01 ‘76. 0 0.00 0.37 12522- 23 . . . . . .. 24.04 35.94 17 54 11.67 5.75 5 06 71.66 . . . . . . . . . . 12936- 58 . . . . . .. 23.61 3 .71 20 17 14.47 5.29 2 75 69.69 3.26 10.07 12937- 58 . . . . . .. 23.88 36.09 18 97 12.71 5.64 2 71 72.01 0.38 3.33 12938- 58 . . . . . .. 25 13 38.89 16 36 $.24 4.96 2 42 77.03 0.18 0 63 12939- 58 . . . . . .. 44 39.48 14 45 .84 5.43 2 36 79 36 0.41 1 64 12940- 58 . . . . . .. 21 89 31.98 22 01 15.50 5.48 3 12 67 17 0.00 0 14 The whole clean Texas Spanish peanuts contain, on an average, 25.54 per cent. protein and 36.63 per cent. fat. (See Table 8.) The ten highest in fat contain 39.46 per cent. fat, while the ten lowest contain 33.62 per cent, a difference of 5.84 per cent. The ten highest in fat contain 77.9 per cent. meats, while the ten lowest contain 69.5 per cent, a difference of 8.4 per cent. _ The ten highest in fiber are little higher in fat than the ten lowest in fat, while the ten lowest in fiber are only a litttle lower in fat than 8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. the ten highest in fat. That is to say, a high fiber content, which is associated with a low meat content, is also associated with a low fat content. _ There is a difference of 4.69 per cent. protein between the ten high- est in protein and the ten lowest in protein, associated with a ditler- ence of 1.6 per cent. in fat. This leads to the conclusion that, for trade purposes, an approximate opinion as to the quality of whole peanuts may be bamd upon the per- centage of meats present. For exact data, a chemical analysis is, of course, necessary, but the quantity of meats offers a rough approximate method of judging the quality of a shipment on the average, and also allowing for the trash anddirt present. This is discussed later. Digestion experiments with peanuts are reported in Texas Bulletin No. 203. Table 8 shows the average composition, and Table 33 the feeding value of the whole peanuts. On account of their high oil con- tents, peanuts have a productive value greater than corn, cotton seed meal, kafir corn or other ordinary concentrates, but on account of their high oil content they may not be fed in more than moderate amounts (except to pigs), as the oil may derange digestion if more than a mod- erate quantity is fed. Table 4 shows the analyses of some Texas peanuts as made for a Texas oil mill in the season of 1915-16. The average percentage of meats in the clean nuts is 74.4 per cent; the average percentage of pops and trash is 13.9 per cent., or nearly 280 pounds per ton. Pops are peanuts which contain no kernel. - Table 4.——Analysis of whole peanuts for a Texas oil mill. Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Total Total Date. cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. oil. oil. hulls. meats. water. oil. am_- pops. 1 trash. gals. lbs.‘.",| moma. Nov. 18, 1915 25.9 74.1 9.02 32.54 4.68 4.7 5.4 85 650 Nov. 18, 1915 28.5 71 5 7.13 32.21 4.72 6.8 9.5 86 644 Nov. 22, 1915 25.0 75.0 7.25 34.15 4.77 5.5 . 13.3 Q1 683 Nov. 22, 1915 28.6 71.4 6.87 36.41 4.97 4.1 7.5 97 728 Nov.18, 1915 22.2 77.8 6.75 33.62 4.16 0.6 10.9 89 673 Nov. 24, 1915 24.8 75.2 6.48 35.18 . . . . . .. 3.4 11.2 93 703 Nov. 24, 1915 22.8 77.2 6.91 33.00 . . . . . .. 0.6 4.3 88 660 Nov.18, 1915 25.7 74.3 7.98 34.27 4.38 4.9 10.2 91 685 Nov.13, 1915 20.8 79 2 7.30 34.73 4.69 2.0 13.0 92 697 Nov. 13, 1915 27.8 72.2 7.12 34.78 4.77 9.0 32.0 92 698 Nov.25, 1915 26.4 75.6 7.70 33.58 . . . . . .. 2.5 6.7 89 672 Nov.25, 1915 24.0 76.0 7.07 30.12 . . . . . .. 4.4 7.9 80 602 Nov. 25, 1915 24.9 76.1 7.49 31.94 . . . . . .. 1.0 9.1 85 639 Nov. 25, 1915 25.6 74.4 8.09 22.22 . . . . . .. 2.9 20.0 59 444 Nov.25, 1915 26.7 73.3 7.24 31.08 . . . . . .. 4.6 11.0 82 624 Nov. 25, 1915 26.4 73.6 7.91 31.46 . . . . . .. ’ 1.5 11.3 84 629 Nov.25, 1915 25.4 74.6 8.08 32.21 . . . . . .. 4.3 8.3 86 644 Nov. 25, 1915 24.9 75 1 7.08 31.36 . . . . . .. 1.7 6.0 83 627 Nov. 25, 1915 22.8 77 2 7.88 32.50 . . . . . .. 1.6 6.0 86 650 Nov.25, 1915 25.4 74.4 7.00 33.05 . . . . . .. 3.1 9.0 88 661 Nov.25, 1915 22.4 77.6 7.13 37.23 . . . . . .. 1.8 1.3 99 744 Nov.25, 1915 25.6 74.4 8.00 32.24 . . . . . .. 1.9 9.9 86 645 Nov.13, 1915 32.2 67.8 8.58 32.75 4.64 6.0 14.0 87 655 Nov. 13, 1915 23.8 76.2 7.96 33.39 4.75 8.0 11.0 89 667 Nov.13, 1915 33.7 66.3 7.43 32.56 4.85 8.0 5.0 87 651 Nov. 13, 1915 26.6 73 4 7.10 35.29 4.91 11.0 6.7 94 708 Nov.13, 1915 26.5 73.5 7.10 35.50 4.81 6.0 3.5 94 710 Nov. 13, 1915 27.4 72 6 7.281 36.48 4.44 12.0 1.0 97 729 Nov. 13, 1915 28.0 2 0 6.91 33.52 4.98 8.0 6.0 89 670 Nov.13, 1915 24.3 75.7 8.40 34.42 4.44 8.0 8.0 91 688 Nov. 13, 1915 22.1 78.0 7.98 31.16 4.85 4.0 8.0 83 623 Nov.13, 1915 24.2 75.8 7.07 34.06 4.87 5.0 8.0 91 681 Nov. 13. 1915 26.0 74.0 7.33 32.78 4.43 8.0 4.0 87 655 Average..... 24.9 74.4 7.47 33.08 4.69 4.8 9.1 88 662 COMPOSITION OF PE-ANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRODUGTS. 9 Table 5 contains the analyses of some different varieties of peanuts made by the Alabama Experiment Station (Bulletin N0. 193). The oil in the whole peanuts varies from 17.7 to 35.1 per cent, being high- est in the Spanish varieties. To judge from these analyses, the only variety which should be grown for oil production is the Spanish variety. This is largely due to the large percentage of hulls in the other varieties. Table 5.—Whole peanuts, Alabama analyses (Bulletin No. 193). On vines. 1911-1916. Oil. Meats. Per Per cent. cent. stems. pops. Virginia Runner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 53.3 67 33 Tennessee Red . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 56.9 62 38 N. C. Runner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.2 57.7 68 32 Virginia Bunch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 46.0 62 38 N. . Govern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.4 56.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Valencia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.6 59.5 63 37 Red Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.7 72.1 61 39 White Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.1 75.1 62 38 Jumbo... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.7 39.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. TPable 6 contains average analyses of whole peanuts, as reported by various commercial‘ laboratories. The Texas peanuts average 50 per cent. more protein than the Georgia peanuts, according to these figures. Table 6.—-Whole peanuts-averages of some commercial laboratories. Per i Oil No. Per 1 Per Per cent. gal. Avail- aver- cent. i cent. cent. am- per able i aged. water. g oil. meats. monia. ton. Oll. | i ' Fort =Worth Laboratories, 1916- 1917, Texas..._ . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 5.84. 33.7 73.9 . . . . . 89.7 . . . . . .. Houston Laboratories, 1916-1917, ‘ - Texas, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.1 38.1 77.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Picard Law Co., Georgia, 1916-1917 . . . . . . . 7.051 36.5 - 75.0 4.03 . . . . . .. 84.0 Picard Law Co., Georgia, August, a 191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9‘ 35.6| 75.5 3.96 . . . . . .. 82.4 Table '7 contains some analyses of peanuts made for a Dallas oil mill, season 0t 1915-16. Table 8 is a summary of the average composition of whole peanuts, as compiled from various sources. The Eastern peanuts here shown also contain less protein than the peanuts grown in Texas. They also contain more water; but the water content depends upon the extent to ' which the peanuts have been cured. Table 7.——Whole peanuts, as analyzed for a Dallas Texas mill. i _ Total Oll I Moisture Oil Ammonia per ton i Kernels. Hulls. Dirt. in seed. in seed. in meats. sé=.te(li. y 8 . 76.30 23.70 i 0.00 6.49 37.25 6.65 99.30 76.20 22.79 I 1.01 6.03 35.48 6.25 94.60 75.40 23.60 1.00 7.54 34.57 6.43 92.20 i 75.08 23.98 .94 7.30 39.25 6.35 98.70 72.02 24.84 .14 7.14 31.56 6.74 84.10 76.75 22.44 .81 6.01 36.40 6.38 97.00 AVE-rage i 7529+ 2355+} 0.65+ 6.75+ 35.75+ 6.46+ 94.31-1- 10 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table Sr-Average composition of whole clean peanuts. _ Nitro- Meats Protein. Ether Crude gen-free \Vater. Ash. per < extract. fibre. extract. cent. Average 57 Texas samples . . . . . . . 25.54 36.63 17.34 12.07 5.65 2.77 74 .5 Average ten highest in fat . . . . . . .. 25.91 39.46 15.96 10.76 5.47 2.41 77.9 Average ten lowest in fat . . . . . . . . 24.62 33.62 19.56 13.61 5.67 2.89 69.5 Average ten highest in fiber . . . . . . 24.10 34.17 20.45 12.80 5.79 2.65 70.0 Average ten lowest in fiber. . . . . 26.75 38 .06 15.09 11.61 5.65 2.85 78.1 Average ten highest in protein. . . . 27.75 37.01 15.94 10.97 5.60 2.72 76.3 Average ten lowest in protein... . . 23.06 35.42 19,.26 13.36 5.61 3.29 71.8 Average six Eastern samples (Texas Bulletin 170)......... 21.83 32.78 18.89 15.73 8.03 2.45 75.0 One sample. N. C. Bulletin 90B... 23.18 3-4.99 18.39 14.15 6.57 2.68 . . . . . . . ’ Average Alabama analvses (Spanish calculated) . . . . . . . . 20.23 35.35 18.86 15.96 6.67 2.94 . . . . . . . Average Houston, Texas. oil mill 24. 15 33 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.47 . . . . . . . 74.4 Average Picard Law of Georgia. . . , 20.75 36.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7:05 . . . . . . . 75.0 Average Dallas sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.75 . . . . . . . 75. PEANUT H ULLS. The composition of the peanut hulls from peanuts collected in Texas is given in Table 9. These consist of the clean hulls, free from meats. This is shown by the percentage of oil they contain. Peanut hulls free of meats have a lOW oil content; and When any meats are present the oil rises rapidly. The percentage of meats may be estimated from the oil con- tent of the hulls. Table 9.—Peanut hulls (Texas) separated by hand. Nitro- Laboratory number. Protein. Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. extract- fi her. patraet. 11233 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.38 1.59 58.56 14 53 7.07 11.87 11236 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.29 1.45 58.51 14 45 7.29 12.01 11430 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.67 5.09 51.87 23 21 8.63 2.63 11510 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.00 0.45 60.35 20 7O 8.31 5.19 11562 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.26 0.57 63.01 17 9 8.43 3.84 11563 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.66 0.96 57.07 20 08 8 67 6.56 11570 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.00 0.57 65.75 17 6 8.61 2.11 12436 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.50 0.94 61.95 20 58 7.00 3.03 12437 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.62 0.71 59.27 22 95 7.13 3.32 2438 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.81 0.81 58.14 23 35 7.15 3.66 12461 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.69 0.50 54.99 25 12 7.34 4.36 12462 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.06 0.62 58.49 22 59 8.13 4.11 12463 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.44 0.81 57.53 24 23 6.75 4.24 12464 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.50 0.73 60.76 21 49 8.34 3.18 12465 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.69 1.70 60.20 21 68 8.20 3.53 12466 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.81 0.36 61.67 20 09 6.98 3 09 12491 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.12 v0.73 63.87 18 71 7.86 2.80 12492 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.94 0.94 63.94 18 88 7.52 2.78 12493 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.56 0.86 63.88 19 61 7.42 2.67 12523 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.06 0.90 55.87 17 57 7.51 12.09 12616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.09 3.46 50.97 27 14 6.78 3.56 12625 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.35 2.64 56.93 21 48 6.58 3.02 12682 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.69 1.09 66.60 10 03 7.66 7.93 12709 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.25 0.99 63.53 18 24 7.94 4.05 12710 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.13 0.73 62.44 20 81 7.13 2.76 12711 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.88 0.89 66.46 18 97 6.39 2.41 12712 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.25 0.91 57.52 17 41 6.72 8.19 12713 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.85 1.17 47.39 30 72 6.78 4.09 12714 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.36 0.78 61.21 19 03 7.44 4.18 12781 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.88 1.68 60.72 18 22 8..71 2.79 12782 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.72 0.31 70.69 13 84 8.14 2.30 12783 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.10 0.47 71.96 12 81 6.84 2.82 12784 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.66 0.98 60.84 19 91 7.35 3.26 12785 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.62 1.64 60.80 20 9O 7.30 2.74 12786 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.94 1.21 59.34 19 20 7.51 4.80 COMPOSITION OF PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRODUOTS, 11 Table 9.—-Peanut hulls (Texas) separated by haruF-Continued. Nitro- Laborato,y nvmber. Protein. Ether Crude gen-free Water. Asq. extract. fiber. extract. ‘ 12787 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.94 0 53 62.59 17 41 7.92 4.53 12788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.75 0 5 56.30 16 16 9.46 10.48 12789 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.53 0 2] 69.66 15 85 7.69 2.06 12790 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.12 1 8O 62.47 16 59 7.68 3.34 12791 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*. 6.12 1 29 62.58 19 36 7.35 3.30 12792 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.81 1 45 61.59 2O 72 6.74 2.69 12793 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.69 0 56 67.15 16 70 6.88 3.13 12794 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.25 1 18 63.41 19 01 6.74 3.41 12795 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.56 0 74 61.81 20 86 6.55 3.48 12796 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.81 0 51 66.09 17 49 7.02 2.08 12798 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.56 0 71 64.48 18 86 6.78 2.61 12799 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.19 0 56 60.42 21 47 7.28 4.08 £12800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.00 0 55 65.52 18 42 6.16 2.35 12805 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.88 1 95 55.10 22 38 7.09 4.60 12806 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.10 1 29 57.72 2155 7.16 4.18 12807 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.44 0 59 64.50 18 01 7.41 3.05 12808 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.25 0 99 57.44 19 72 7 57 6.03 12928 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.75 1 40 56.11 23 82 8.39 3.53 12929 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.82 2 45 54.30 22 05 7.28 4.10 12930 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.19 1 29 58.31 19 44 8.23 4.54 12931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.56 0 80 60.08 20 76 8.30 3.50 12932 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.07 0 79 65.49 17 45 7.79 2.41 12958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.03 1 17 61.19 20 70 6.88 4.03 The peanut hulls vary decidedly in crude fiber content. This is shown in the table, and also in the averages of the ten samples highest in fiber and the ten lowest in fiber, given in Table 10. The fiber con- tent differs between these two groups 12.6 per cent, and differs 6 to "7 per cent. from the average. i‘, Table 10.—-Peanut hulls. average analyses. Nitro- Protein . Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. ext! act. fibre. extract. Average (58) Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.76 1.10 60.83 19.64 7.48 4.19 Average ten highest in fiber. . .. . . .. 5.64 0.59 67.55 15.95 7.31 2.96 Average ten lowest in fiber. ._ . . . . .. 7.87 2.02 54.95 21.90 7.77 5.49 Average 26, Henry and Morrison... 7.3 2.60 56.60 18.90 9.1 3.3 Average 16, Miscellaneous, Texas Bulletin 203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 10 1.29 63.47 16.18 9.03 3.92 Average of 4, some meats present, . Texas Bulletin 203 . . . . . ._ . . . . . . 8.16 3.82 55.60 19.12 9.53 3.78 Average of 5, Farmers’ Bulletin 751 7.06 2.26 71.68 9.33 5.35 4.32 (Tommcririal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.05 2.83 54.03 15 50 8.05 13 54 Peanut hullsare comparatively low in ash, and also in ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid (insoluble ash). A high ash content is due to ‘dirt adhering to the hulls or with theni. Table 10 contains the average for various samples of peanut hulls. The hand-separated hulls are lower in fat and protein and higher in fiber than commercial peanut hulls as procured from the mills. This is seen in the table. PEANUT KERNELS. The composition of the Texas peanut kernels as collected for analysis ‘is shown in Table 11. 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table IL-Peanut kerneis. (Texas) _ Nitro- Laboratory number. Protein. Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. r extract. fiber. extract. 11234 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.63 47.21 4.26 12.45 5.04 2.41 11237 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.26 46.66 3.74 14.25 4.61 2.48 11513 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.25 47.57 2.75 12.15 4.93 2.35 1151 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.13 48.65 2.57 11.63 4.77 2.25 11569 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.12 48.50 2.30 11.57 4.42 2.09 12433 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.50 47.66 v 2.16 10.86 5.61 2.21 12434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.63 51.32 2.10 7.84 5.78 2.33 12435 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.32 51.62 2.27 8.59 5.60 2.60‘ 12445 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.25 49.83 2.58 7.57 4.45 2.32 12446 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.25 48.58 2.24 6.76 5.26 1.91 12447 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.88 44.99 2.38 12.26 3.49 2.00 12448 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.75 47.50 2.39 10.59 4.83 1.94 12449 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.63 47.66 2.40 8.32 4.95 2.04 12450 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.00 49.26 2.31 10.03 4.49 1.91 12467 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.88 50.48 2.76 7.11 5.45 2.32 12468 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.75 50.81 2.23 8.33 5.71 2.17 12469 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.00 50.61 2.26 8.55 5.44 2.14 12522 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.12 49.77 2.40 9.35 5.07 2.29 12615 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.37 48.55 2.42 9.07 4.18 2.41 12618 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.12 48.83 2.33 7.81 4.46 2.45 12631 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.94 51.64 2.50 8.60 4.41 1.91 12632 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.88 50.48 2.75 8.32 4.52 2.05 12633 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.87 48.59 2.44 8.26 5.37 2.47 12685 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.87 47.38 2.20 8.64 4.86 3.05 12686 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.50 49.87 2.06 9.50 4.66 2.41 12687 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.50 48.73 2.45 7.72 5.13 2.47‘ 12688 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.62 47.26 2.37 8.07 5.02 2.66 12693 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.06 47.88 2.38 7.01 6.21 2.46 12731 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.25 48.46 2.65 7.94 6.48 2.22‘ 12732 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.62 47.55 2.52 10.59 6.32 -2.40~ 12733 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.38 49.08 2.26 10.08 5.22 1.98 12734 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.62 47.05 2.06 10.12 5.71 2.44 12735 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.25 49.10 2.33 6.10 5.98 2.24 12736 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.75 51.08 2.25 ,7.95 5.02 1.95- 12741 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.37 49.08 2.12 6.56 5.76 2.11 12742 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.06 46.39 2.51 13.47 4.67 1.90‘ 12743 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.75 48.01 2.45 8.49 5.20 2.10 12754 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.87 48.36 2.63 6.65 4.82 2.65 12755 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.13 48.97 2.45 6.02 4.81 2.62. 12756 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.12 47.97 2.24 11.42 5.00 2.25 12757 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.37 47.19 2.31 10.96 5.40 2.77 12804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.44 49.61 2.52 12.00 4.54 1.89- 12915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.87 45.98 2.32 9.90 5.48 2.45 12916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.75 46.90 2.56 11.69 5.01 2.09 12917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.62 48.69 2.52 9.64 4.26 2.27 12918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.87 46.69 2.51 11.40 5.02 2.51 12936 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.25 47.83 2.34 11.99 4.37 2.22‘ 12937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.97 49.71 2.57 9.36 5.17 2.22 12938 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.75 50.16 3.00 9.74 4.40 1.95 12939 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.00 49.41 2.31 8.50 4.81 1.97‘ 12940 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.63 47.05 2.85 12.98 4.80 2.69‘ 12706 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.25 48.46 2.21 11.25 6.16 2.67 12694 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.75 51.34 2.18 10.44 4.39 1.90" 12620 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.50 47.81 2.22 8.99 5.02 2.46 12617 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.62 50.45 2.14 7.70 4.46 2.63- 12619 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.00 49.82 2.22 7.97 4.77 2.22 11508 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.75 46.86 2.48 11.36 4.00 2.55- 12605 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.25 49.36 2.31 10.40 4.57 2.11 12611 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.12 50.49 2.37 8.21 5.47 2.34 12612 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.12 47.76 2.52 9.20 5.60 2.80 12614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.00 50.69 2.29 8.96 4.19 1.87 12623 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.87 50.71 2.45 8.05 4.95 1.97 12681 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.92 48.64 2.08 9.55 4.76 2.05 This table represents the kernels free from hulls, as Spanish peanuts collected in Texas. age of the ten highest in fat and the ten lowest in fat. shelled from the» In Table 15 is shown the aver- The difference is 4.4 per cent, and they also differ 2.2 per cent. from the average. Table 15 also shows the average of the ten highest in protein and the ten lowest in protein. 2.5 per cent. from the average. They differ 5 per cent. in protein and also- COMPOSITION or PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRoDUoTs. 13 Table 12.-—Peanut kernels (without hulls). Nitro- Laboratory number. Protein. Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. extract. fiber. extract. 17148 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.07 48 69 2.03‘ 10.65 5.26 2.30 17149 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.69 48 23 2.081 12.11 4.71 2.18 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.88 48 78 2.40 10.62 5.19 2.17 17151 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.07 47 85 2.22 9.53 6.09 2.24 17152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.63 48 10 2.07 10.83 5.22 2.15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.90 48 18 3.05 10.52 5.11 2.24 11234-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.45 46 93 4.00 13.35 4.83 2.44 11508 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.75 46 6 2.48 11.36 4.00 2.55 11513 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.25 47 57 2.75 12.15 4.93 2.35 11514 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.13 48 65 2.57 11.63 4.77 2.25 2200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.50 54 15 2.60 16.85 4.08 1.82 2201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.10 52 64 3.83] 12.78 4.38 2.27 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.45 48.89 2.67‘ 11.87 4 88 2.24 Table 13.—Peanut kernels, grown at Florence, S. C., (Farmers’ Bulletin 751). Nitro- Protein. Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. extract. fibre. extract. t l Virginia Runner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 29.60 46.58 2.73 14.98 3.35 2.76 Virginia Bunch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.52 45.73 2.84 15.52 3.28 3.11 Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.20 49.10 2.30 12.43 3.30 2.67 Valencia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.64 49.60 2.13 8.21 3.75 2.67 African . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.30‘ 45.90 2.26 14.78 3.45 3.31 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.85‘ 47.38 2.45 13.00 3.42 2 90 Table 12 contains some additional analyses of Texas peanut kernels. Table 13 contains the analyses of five varieties of peanut kernels, grown under the same conditions at Florence, S. C. (Farmers Bulle- tin No. 75L)- The Spanish variety is higher in oil than the others. Table 14 shows the analyses of some varieties of peanuts grown in Alabama. These samples contain decidedly less protein than those shown in the preceding iiEIlJlOS. They indicate that the peanuts grown in the East probably contain less p-rotein than those grown in Texas. Table 14.—-Peanut kernels, Alabama analyses. _ Nitro- Oil . 1915 Protein. Ether Crude gen-Free XVater. Ash. extract. fibre. extract. 1916 Tennessee Red........... 27.63 45.70 2.51) 15.26 . 6.45 2.45 46.06 Red Spanish..._.......... 25.44 48.60 2.62| 14.54 6.35 2.45 47.57 Improved Virginia . . . . . . . 26.06 43.68 2.98 17. 92 7.05 2.40 48.93 N. Carolina Running. . . .. 25.44 40.86 2.60 21.20 7.42 2.48 50.13 Improved Valencia . . . . . . . 28.50 47.42 2 54 13.46 5.65 2.43 48.78 Virginia Bunch . . . . . . . . . . 23.44 45.27 3 16 19.36 6.32 2.45 45.27 Jumbo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.44 45.15 2.83 18.73 6.25 2.60 . . . . . . .. McGovern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.47 White Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.03 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.85 45 23 2 75 17 20 6 50 2.47 54 32 14 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table l5.—Peanut kernels, average. _ Nitro- Proteln . Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. extract. fibre. extract. Average 63 Texas samples . . . . . . . . . 32.06 48.73 2.44 9.48 5.01 2.28 Average ten highestm fat (Texas). . 30.91 51.03 2.29 8.55 5. 10 2.12 Average ten lowest 1_n fat (Texas). . 31.41 46.59 2.79 12.07 4.75 2.39 Average ten highest 1n protein (Tex.) 34. 62 48 .07 » 2 .36 7. 56 5.08 2 .31 Average ten lowest 1n protein (Texas) 29 . 53 48 .57 2 . 79 11 . 63 5 . 12 2 . 36 Average of s1x Tenn. samples, Texas Bulletin 203. _. . . . . . ._ . . . . . .. 27.27 43.07 2 53 17.25 7 70 2.11 Average. 12 Spanish varieties, r1 Farmers’ Bulletin 751_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 9 2.4 Average 19 Virginia varieties, Farmers’ Bulletin 751 . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.1 2.7 Average of 11 Henry and Morrison 26.8 44.9 2.6 17.5 6.0 2.2 Average of 7 Alabama samples . . . 25.85 45.23 2.75 17.20 6.50 2.47 Average 0f 5 grown 1n Georgia ..... 30.85 47.38 2.45 12.00 3.42 3.90 Average of 11 Farmers’ Bull. 25 27.16 45.34 3.96 13.14 7. 5 2.55 Average 12 Texassamples . . . . . . . . . 29.45 48.89 2 67 11 .87 4 8 2.24 Table 15 contains the averages of the various analyses. These analyses show that Eastern peanuts contain less protein than Texas peanuts, on the average. The average peanuts analyzed by the Picard-Law Com- pany of Atlanta, Ga, run 20.75 per cent. protein, and the composition ‘of the kernels, calculated from this, would be about 25 per cent. pro- tein, and this is in line with other Eastern analyses shown in Table 15. The average of the five Georgia samples is 30.55 per cent, showing that some Eastern peanuts maybe as high in protein as some Texas pea- nuts; but, on the average, the Eastern peanuts are lower. VARIATIONS IN ITJANUTS. Table 16 contains analyses of shriveled peanut kernels as compared with the average of the lot, which were mostly rounded. The small and shriveled peanuts average 0.1 gram each. The shriveled peanuts are much lower in oil. The presence of many shriveled peanuts will de- crease the oil content of the lot. t Table l6.—Fat content of small and shriveled peanuts. Fat pontent, Fat content, Laboratory number. shriveled. all. 12433 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 .51 47.66 12434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.68 51 .32 12435 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.82 51.62 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.34 50 .20 COMPOSITION OF PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PnonuoTs. 15 ’ Table l7.—Protein and fat content of single peanut kernels. 12448 12449 12434 12435 12434 12435 2F. 3E1 22E ..: 5 .3 .. 23823328223823 s: up Q o O o Q m; o O w; 0d -..= ‘E g5. '5” 3B. '33P $3- ‘E g5. 6 5J3 5.9 g3 B a. B o. B e B a B n. B n. One kernel . . . . . . .. .4818 33.52 .5118 40.00 .4072 26.40 .4320 27.95 .3588 54.10 .3072 56.74 One kernel . . . . . . .. .5108 33.75 .5382 34.65 .4988 26.66 .3580 26.89 .3876 55.58 .4565 57.22 One kernel . . . . . . .. .4180 33.21 .1776 39.41 .3636 40.19 .3426 38.56 .3990 57.79 .6008 52.18 One kernel . . . . . . .. .5234 31.59 .4886 30.44 .2836 36.41 .3914 29.06 .3298 48.85 .3562 53.39 One kernel. . . .. . .. .4506 32.82 .5162 38.31 .5680 35.12 .3092 35.94 .5186 49.75 .4636 48.26 One kernel . . . . . . .. .2446 34.35 .1930 35.42 .4244 37.11 .3460 29.08 .2890 56.71 .3276 57.81 Average. . . . . . . .4382 33.21 .4042 36.37 .4243 33.65 .3632 31.25 .3805 53.90 .4187 54.27 Annl_vsis...... 32.75 34.63 30.63 29.32 51.32 51.62 1 . Table 1'7 contains analyses of single peanut kernels. The percentage of protein varies from 26.40 to- 40.19 in one lot, and in another lot from 30.44 to 40. Thepercentage of fat varies from 49.75 to 57.79 in one lot and from 48.26 to 57.81 in the other lot. There is, of course, more chance for error in the analysis when using such small amounts. But the figures show that individual kernels may vary con- siderably in composition, and emphasize the importance of preparing a suificient quantity of the kernels for analysis, to average up the in- equalities. As the peanut kernels are comparatively large, the quané tity prepared, should not be less than 10 grams, and it is b-etter to pre- pare a larger quantity. If whole peanuts are used, not less than 20 grams should be taken. WHOLE PRESSED PEANUTS. Before expellingthe oil from whole peanuts, they are first cleaned, so that sticks, trash, leaves, dirt, etc, are removed. They are then passed through the expellers. The oil is expressed, and the residue . consists of Whole pressed peanuts. If ground up, it is termed “ground whole pressed peanuts.” 16 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 18.—Commercial whole pressed peanuts (Texas). - 1 Nitro- Laboratory number. Protein. Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. extract. fibre. cxtra-"t. 16126 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.84 8.60 22.77 21.05 8.45 4.29 16289 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.33 9.64 23.01 19.65 8.89 3.48 16319 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.91 13.18 18.59 22.38 6.50 4.44 16358 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.16 10.72 20.53 19.63 8.44 6.52 1640. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.26 12.57 22.44 18.81‘ 7.42 3.50 16521 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.31 8.77 18.13 19.79 11.45 3.55 16524 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.19 7.71 20.48 20.73 7.99 3.90 16576 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.25 15.05 26.15 16.20 7.53 18.82 16594 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.10 9.94 21.55 20.92 8.76 3.73 16791 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.19 11.06 20.94 20.75 7.43 5.63 16854 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.48 7.45 24.49 20.99 8.89 3.70 1 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.73 8.65 24.67 20.88 7.23 3.84 16987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.94 9.80 22.08 21.86 6.83 3.49 17530 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 06 7.30 20.99 22. 9.13 3.91 17649 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 88 7.79 21.95 19.78 10.36 4.24 17749 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 50 8.58 22.43 20.94 9.55 4.00 17927 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 25 9.18 22.43 18.98 8.60 3.56 17903 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 16 10.81 23.89 21.62 7.44 4.08 17924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 87 7.04 23.62 21.64 7.55 4.28 17925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 00 6.79 24.74 22.39 5.00 4.08 17927 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 25 9.18 22.43 18.98 8.60 3.56 1776- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 25 9.46 17.50 20.06 8.60 11.13 18188 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 13 8.10 20.49 18.97 9.67 3.64 18199 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 19 9.70 23.74 17.84 7.53 3.00 18245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 00 8.58 22.07 21.25 7.35 3.75 18262 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 07 8.08 20.83 21.93 6.07 4.02 18277 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 54 9.11 21.98 22.76 6.57 5.04 18286 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3419 9.91 23.10 20.58 9.05 3.17 18287 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 56 9.28 24.13 20.23 9.75 3.05 18322 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 53 8.72 19.23 25 34 7.33 4.35 18326 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 75 8.28 17.57 21 67 8.10 4.63 18333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 O0 8.57 19.16 26 61 6.47 5.19 18334 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 63 9.89 19.21 24 52 6.79 4.96 18392 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 57 7.73 22.56 22 40 9.37 4.37 18393 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 29 7.81 22.08 23 52 10.10 4.20 11431 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 19 8.43 19.74 22 01 7.55 4.08 11512 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 38 8.24 18.54 22 60 7.49 3.75 12037 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 82 9.22 22.33 22 26 6.71 3.66 11277 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 27 9.64 22.76 19 60 9.34 3.39 12440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 13 9.45 22.38 21 61 6.78 3.65 17804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30 41 9.49 26.24 19 75 7.06 7.05 17846 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 3/ 7.96 22.77 21 41 7.49 4.00 17847 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 62 7.86 22.49 20 13 8.05 3.85 17903 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 16 10.81 23.89 21 62 7.44 4.08 17924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 87 7.04 23.62 I 21 64 7.55 4.28 17925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 00 6.79 24.74 22 39 5.00 4.08 16927 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 42 9.19 21.78 19 62 7.88 5.11 17550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 91 7.7 21.25 21 14 7.87 5.07 17648 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 06 9.75 22.57 22 03 6.83 3.76 17748 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 13 8.77 21.23 20 65 8.80 4.12 17916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 44 8.04 19.04 21 08 6.50 3.90 17926 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 25 9.96 22.25 20 07 7.86 3.61 17968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 72 8.17 22.34 22 13 7.73 3.91 18077 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 56 8.93 22.12 20 54 8.20 3.65 18104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 25 8.59 22.09 21 51 8.67 3.89 18142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 35 9.02 22.87 17 16 11.28 3.32 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.49 9.03 21.94 21 16 7.98 4.48 Table 18 shows the composition of some samples of Whole pressed peanuts sold in Texas. Some of these were made from peanuts not properly cleaned, and, in one or two instances, they contain some dirt. The presence of dirt is shown by the high ash content. Table 19 shows‘ the composition of Whole pressed peanuts, as made by a Texas oil mill in the fall of 1916. COMPOSITION OF PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRonUoTs. 17 Table 19.——Whole pressed peanuts as made by a Texas mill. Date. Protein. Fat. Moisture. October 23, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.72 7.69 10 39 October 24, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.95 5.48 9 79 October 26, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.83 6.93 10 50 October 27, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.83 7.00 .10 October 27, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.28 10.25 9.85 October 28, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.72 6.33 9.70 October 28, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.67 i 7.57 9.03 October 28, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.21 7.90 8.45 October 28, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.93 10.06 7.02 October 31, 1916. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.57 6.91 5.84 October 2, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.52 7.35 9 10 October 30, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.62 8.00 8 72 October 30. 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.55 10.22 7.47 October 30. 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.57 6.91 5.84 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.71 7.75 8 62 Table 20.—- Whole peanuts, products on 6 per cent. oil basis. _ Nitro- Protein. Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. extract. fibre. extract. _ I I Average. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.89 6.00 25.71 17.91 8.38 4.11 Average 10 highestln fat . . . . . . . . . . 40.23 6.00 24.75 16 78 8.50 3.74 Average 10 lowest u] lat . . . . . . . . . . . 34.87 6.00 27.75 19 26 8.03 4.09 Average 10 h1ghcst_1n fiber . . . . . . . . 34.43 6.00 29.22 18 29 8.27 3.79 Average 10 lowest 1n fiber. z . . . . . . . 40.59 6.00 22.90 17 62 8.57 4.32 Average 10 hlghcstun ptotem . . . . . . 41.42 6.00 23.78 16 38 8.36 4.06 Average 1O lowest 1n protein . . . . . . . 33.52 6.00 28.00 19 42 8. 15 4.78 Table 20 shows tl1e composition of whole pressed peanuts, if made from the whole peanuts given in Table 8, and if reduced to 6 per cent. fat. These results were calculated by subtracting the ether extract from 100, which gives the fat-free residue; as the mate-rial is to be reduced to 6 per cent. fat, the fat-free residue is 94 per cent. of What will be obtained, and is accordingly divided by this figure. Each con- stituent of the peanuts is then divided by this figure. For example, ether extract is 36.6 per cent; fat-free residue is 100—36.6=63.4 per cent.; divided by 94, the residue containing 6 per cent. fat would be 67.4 per cent., or 100 pounds of the peanuts would give 67.4 pounds residue containing 6 per cent. fat, if nothing else is lost. These 67.4 pounds contain all the protein, and fiber, nitrogen- free extract and ash of the original peanut. Thus: N. 94 P: (10041) Where P is the protein content of the product containing 6 per cent. fat, N is the protein content originally, and F is the. original fat content. The crude fiber, etc., are secured in a similar way. - Examination of the table shows that the whole clean peanuts anal- yzed, reduced to 6' per cent. fat, contain on an average 37.89 per cent. protein, 25.73 per cent. crude fiber, 8.38 per cent. Water. 18 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. The residue from the ten samples of peanuts highest and lowest in fat would contain 40.23 and 34.87’ per cent. protein, respectively. The residue from the ten peanut samples highest and lowest in fiber would contain 34.43 and 40.59 per cent. protein, respectively. The residue from the ten peanut samples highest and lowest in pro- tein would contain 41.42 and per cent. protein, respectively. According to these figures, Texas whole pressed clean peanuts (with 14 per cent. fat and water) should average 37.9 per cent. protein. Texas peanuts of better quality may yield a product as high as 41 per cent. protein, or higher, and Texas peanuts of inferior qual- ity may yield a product as low as 33.5 per cent. protein, or even a. little lower. Peanuts as purchased by the mills always contain some stems, leaves, pops, and sometimes dirt. .The pops are composed of shells only, and contain no meats. Table 3 shows the percentage of pops and the like found in some of the samples of peanuts collected. The peanuts should always be cleaned before they arc pressed, and this is usually done. Peanuts not properly cleaned will, of course, yield a product of lower quality than cleaned peanuts. It is not pos- sible to remove all the pops. On account of the variations in the composition of peanuts, it seems desirable to make two grades of whole pressed peanuts for Texas, one grade to contain 36 per cent. protein and 6 per cent. fat, the other grade to contain 33 per cent. protein and 6 per cent fat. A guarantee of 25 per cent. crude fiber could be permitted in the higher grade, and a guarantee of28 per cent. in the lo-wer grade. It is possible that in some sections of the United States the whole pressed peanuts might occasionally contain as low as 30 per cent. protein, but further inves» tigation is required to establish this point. If we compare Table 18 with Table 20, we find that the whole pressed peanuts actually on the market contain more fat and less crude fiber than those calculated. Even allowing for the higher fat and water con- tent of the commercial whole pressed peanuts, the average crude fiber content is lower than the calculated average, and is almost the same as the average of those calculated from the peanuts lowest in crude fiber. That is to» say, the crude fiber content of the whole commercial pressed peanuts is less than we would expect from the analyses of the peanuts made. So-mething similar to this is found to be the case with peanut cake and meal. Thus the peanuts actually worked up in the mills are probably better in fiber content than those we analyzed, though there may be so-me other reason for the difference. Table 21 contains the average composition of peanut cake and meal as reported by two Texas commercial chemists. The samples were to some extent composed of whole pressed peanuts, as is evident from the analyses. _ COMPOSITION 0F PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRODUCTS. 19 Table 2l.-—Peanut cake and meal (partly whole pressed peanuts). No. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. averaged. water. protein. oi . Fort Worth Laboratories, Texas 1916-17 ... . . .1 97 8.53 39.90 10.51 Houston Laboratories. Texas 1916-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 9.10 41.27 7.68 Table 22.—Average analyses of whole pressed Peanuts. _ Nitro- I Protein. Ether Crude gen- Free Water. Ash. extract. fiber. extract. English analyses, Voeleker . . . . . . . . . 28.5 7.2 19.0 28.1 11.6‘ 5.7 Frcnch,Pott..' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.0 9.0 23.5 19.5 11.0 6.0 Texas analyses, an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.5 9.0 21.8 21.2 8.01 4.5 Table 22 contains the average analyses of whole pressed peanuts, as given in the Journal 0f the British. Board 0f Agriculture, July, 1915, and also the Texas figures. The English and the French analyses both show a lower protein con- tent than the Texas samples. The crude fiber is in one case lower, the other higher. PEANUT CAKE AND MEAL. Table 23 contains the analyses of 'I‘exas peanut cake or meal, which runs about 55 per cent. protein and fat combined, corresponding to choice cottonseed meal. Table 23.——Peanut meal or rake, high grade (Texas). . . Nitro- Laboratory number. Protein. Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. extract. fiber. extract. 17139 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51.44 16 4 49 23.25 5.16 4.50 17140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.88 13.53 5 15 21.87 5.23 4.34 17141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.82 21.88 5 73 19.42 4.11 4.04 17400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.69 10.31 6 30 23.40 5.78 4.52 18038 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.87 7 45 7 O6 21.67 7.67 5.28 15120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.78 26 6 69 24.31 6.71 8.25 12040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.94 14 81 8 34 23.26 6.51 5.14 12636 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51.69 8 08 5 22 23.83 6.73 4 45 12626 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59 37 93 4 63 17.67 6.83 4 57 Table 24.——Peanut cake or meal, medium grade (Texas). Nitro- ' Laboratory number. Protein. Ether Crude gen-free YVater. Ash. extract. fiber. extract. 17142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.88 8.20 10.12 25 55 5.52 4.73 17143 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.32 8.24 10.41 25 35 [.35 4.33 17144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.00‘ 7.94 10.80 24 25 .36 4.65 17159 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.32 7.92 12.78 21 53 7.05 4.40 18039 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.00 9.58 13.56 20 27 8.14 4.45 17145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.75 8.25 12 14 23 74 5.74 4.38 17146 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.32 8.81 12 10 23 66 5.69 4.42 17147 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.57 8.62 12 06 24 47 5.77 4.51 17158 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.31 9.69 10 59 22 65 5.94 4.82 16751 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.00 9.57 30 26 40 5.58 7.55 12441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.08 8.28 18 74 23 21 6.80 3.89 12627 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.37 11.05 12 40 16 08 7.70 6.40 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..* 44.91 8.84 12.08 23.05 6.22 4.83 2O Texas AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 25.—Average analysis of peanut cake. _ Nitro- . Protem . Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. extract. fibre. extract. German analvses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.5 9.2 5.2 23.8 9.8 7.5 German (Rufisque) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.8 7.0 4.4 24'.3 9.0 4.5 English analyses, Voelcker . . . . . . . . . 48.3 8.2 4.7 23.0 10.4 5,4 English analyses, Smithson . . . . . . .. 49.3 7.7 4.7 21.7 10.6 6.0 French analyses,_Pott . . . . . . 48.0 7.3 5.0 24.5 10.0 5.2 Texas average, high grade, choice. . 49.5 11.4 5.9 22.1 6.1 5,0 Texas average, lowengrade. prime. . 44.9 8.8 12.1 23.1 6.2 4.8 Table 24 contains similar analyses running about prime, or 51 per cent. protein and fat combined. ' Table 25 contains the average analyses of peanut cake or meal. The foreign analyses are quoted from the Journal of the British Board of Agriculture, July, 1915. ‘ All these average analyses run better than prime (51 per cent. pro- tein and fat) and, some are better than choice (55 per cent. protein and fat.) With some experience, ’l‘exas mills will no doubt reduce - the fat content of this product, which is high. PRIYSSED PEANUT KERNELS. The composition of the residue left after expressing the oil from Texas peanut kernels has been calculated in the same Way, already de- scribed for whole peanuts. It was assumed that 6 per cent. fat was left in the residue. The results of these calculattions are given in Table 26. ‘ t Table 26.——Pressed peanut kernels products on 6 per cent. oil basis. _ i Nitro- Protein . Ether Crude gen- ec extract. fiber. extract. Water. Ash. Average of all (63) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.78 6.00 4.48 17.38 9.18 4.18 Average ten highest in fat . . . . . . . . . 59.33 6.00 4.40 16.41 9.80 4.07 Average ten lowest in fat . . . . . . . . . . 55.30 6.00 4.91 21.25 8.36 4.21 Average ten highestin protein. . . . . 62.80 6.00 4.28 13.70 9.02 4.19 Average ten lowest m protein . . . . . . 53.97 6.00 5.10 21.26 9.36 4.31 Average Alabama samples . . . . . . . . . 44.32 .00 4.70 29.60 11.15 4.23 Table 26 shows that the calculated pressed peanut kernels vary from 53.97 to 62.80 per cent. in protein, with an average of 58.78. They vary from 4.28 to 5.10 per cent. in crude fiber, with an average" of 4.48. The ten highest in protein average 62.80 per cent. protein, while the ten lowest average 53.97 per cent. These represent the composition of the clean kernels, with the oil brought down to 6 per cent. If the oil and moisture are higher, the protein is, of course, lower. Table 26 also contains the peanut kernel residue calculated from Alabama peanuts. This contains 44.3.2 per cent. protein, and thus is decidedly lower in protein than 'I‘exas peanuts. Eastern seed, there- fore, on an average produces lower grades of peanut cake from Texas seed. » COMPOSITION OF PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRonUoTs. 21 CALCULATION OF HULL CONTENT FROM PROTEIN CONTENT. The quantity of hulls in peanut products may be estimated from the protein content, but this method is ‘not s-o accurate as the method of using the crude fiber. Peanuts 10w in protein Will not require so many hulls t0 bring them to a desired protein content as those high in pro- tein, and hence, While the method 1's suitable for averages, it is less suitable for individaul cases. The protein content of the kernel varies in different parts of the country. The following" formula may be used: 100 M—P H: -—————— 1.05 M——-R This is derived by solving the equations: PzRH-l-MK H+K+.05H.—_—10O In these: Pzprotein content of 100 pounds of the product. Rzprotein content of 1 pound of the hulls.» Hzzquantity of hulls in 100 pounds of the product. Mzprotein content of the kernel residue in per cent. KIkernel residue in 100 pounds. Since the hulls contain only 1 per cent. oil and the final product is assumed to contain 6 per cent. oi], there is an addition of .05 pounds oil for every pound of hulls added. Let us calculate the hull content of various grades of peanut prod- ucts, assuming the average, maximum, and minimum protein content of .the kernel residue given in Table 26, and taking the average pro- tein content of l1u]l as shown in Table 9. 112.068 (protein content of hulls) 312.587 (average protein content of kernel residue) 58.7——P 5$‘.—-P then H: -————-—-—— : -—-—- 1.05><.587——.O68 .548 m:.54 (average of ten lowest in protein content of kernel residue) 54.0_—P 54-1“ H: —_: 1.05><.54——.068 .5 1112.628 (average of ten highest protein content of kernel residue) 62.8—P 62.8—P 1.0o><.e2s_.0es i‘ .591 The results are given in Tables 27, .28, 29 and 30, which follow. 22 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 27.'—Composition of peanut products, calculated from 10 lowest in protein. . Extra oil, per cent. 4 Ether extract. Crude fiber. Water. Ash. Hulls: ave. (58) . . . . . . . . . Kernel residue ave, (63).. Product 48% protein. . . . Product 45% protein. . . . Product 43% protein. . . . Product 41 .2% protein. . Product 38.5% protein. . Product 36% protein. . . . 1-1 CD O3 U1UIO1U1U1UWJM~ fibtfiiOtOlDO QJQHUIQQO lQv-n-u-n-A lOKDQUU-‘UTO OOOOOOOOOOQDLOQ Avkv-kvk-kikvbh P-*l\DlQl\Dl\DlQCJ-7** ROOI-‘Wtfldiv-‘QO 3 r2 2K5 3 2e TEE ‘g2 “i5 U’? <62 15x g> 3m. Q4 0-1 Q '87'.4 '4iI3 "i615 81.1 38.5 15.1 76.9 36.7 14.4 73.1 33.1 13.9 67.4 32.7 13.0 62.2 30.4 12.2 Table 28.——Average percentage composition of peanut products calculated from average of Extra oil, per cent. Ether extract. Crude fiber. .Nitrogen-free extract. Water. Ash. 1 Hulls, average (68).... . . Kcrnéeésresidue. average Product 48% protein. . . . Product-45% protein. . . . Product 437 protein. . . . Product 4-1 ' Product 38.5% protein. . Product 36% protein. . . . Product 34% protein. . .. Product 32% protein. . . . Product 30%- protein. . . . 0% protein. h6b@&&&bL MIOMMr-iwr-nréir-i qmmwwqwwb mmmmommmmm ~ mwmmmwmmmw Q eeueeapeea a 6 r3 1».- "é __,_ ___ ._ 5g £3 ‘Q2 "u: $2 "c7: =52 3e g> n. Q n. 5915 "131141164 73.7 14.23828 70.7 13.83692 66.3 13.134.93 61.3 12332.51 56.5 11.53027 52.6 10.92845 48 9 10326.78 450 9724.91 Table 29.—Composition of peanut products calculated from l0 highest in protein. Extra oil, Ether extract. Crude fiber. Nitrogen-free extract. Water. Ash. Per cent. kernel residue. Hulls. average (68) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kernel residue, average (63) . . . . . . . . . Product 48% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Product 45% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Product 43% protein._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . Product 41.27 protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Product 38.5 0 protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Product 36% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ww--I w~wuww- wweeeaa mw~wwwwm "r wmwwwma~ OOOOOOOOOOOOQOQ U? U1 4k [O iPrPrkikalkhi-‘MP v0 O7 C0 11F COMPOSITION or PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRonUoTs. 23 Table 30.-—Average percentage composition of peanut products (Alabama). 1:" a g g s =1; . 7?. ., . g ~' - ~ 5 Z5‘ 5'5 3 35 ‘its '6 E ,_ q, uni‘ Q '5 '-'-3--» g :1 .33 o; E cu “U E11‘ 8 . r: $2 ~51; “ s- o .5! 5 QJQ) qq .5 ' F- ling, o > 3 w-I L. -» y... -- y; 0 n-i L, a t; n. m u z B < | a a n. Hulls, average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.76 1 .10 608319.64 7.48 4.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kernel residue. averagna. . . . . . . . . .. 44.32 6.00 4.70 29.6011.15 4.23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Product 43% nrolein._. .. 3.3 .2 43.00 6.00 6.55 29.2111.01 4.23 96.5 37.0 17.4 Product 41.2% pr0te1_n.. I 7.8 .4 41.20 6.00 9.06 28.70 10.82 4.21 91.8 35.4 16.8 Product 38.5% prqtc.1n_. 14.5 .7 38.50 6.0012.8127 9110.54 4.20 84.8 32.9 15.3 Product 36% protein... .. 20.8 1 .0 36.00 6.0016.30 27 2410.28 4.18 78.2 30.8 14.5 Product 34% protein“... 25.8 1.3 34.00 6.00 19.12 26.67 10.06 4.16 72.9 29.0 13.7 Product 32% protein"... 30.8 1.5 32.00 6.00 21.9026.09 9.85 4.15 67.7 27.1 12.8 Product 30% protein..... 35.8 1.8 30.00 6.0024.7125.50 9.64 4.14 62.4 25.3 12.0 If we comp-are these tables with the analyses of peanut cake or meal actually on the Texas market, we find that the commercial peanut nrod- ucts a.re apparently made from a lower grade of nuts than oven the ten lowest in protein. 'l.'"he meal with 4S per cent. protein, calculated from the ten lowest samples, contains 6 per cent. oil, 11.76 per cent. fiber and 9.08 per cent. water. _The average of the commercial choice Texas peanuts is 49.5 per cent protein, 11.4 per cent. fat, 6 per cent. water and 5.9 per cent. crude fiber. If we reduce the commercial pea- nut cake to 48 per cent. p-rotein and 6 per cent. fat, it will contain about 8.9 per cent. fiber, or less by nearly 3 per cent. than that calcu- lated from the lowest Texas peanuts. In the same way, the calculated 45 per cent. protein peanut cake contains 6 per cent. fat, 8.94. per cent. water and 15.08 per cent. fiber, while the average commercial peanuts of this grade contain 44.9 per cent. protein, 8.8 per cent. fat, 612 per cent. water and 12.1 per cent. crude fiber. With practically the same water and fat content and the same protein content, it contains _3 per cent. less crude fiber. . A We observed a similar difference with the whole pressed peanuts. The cause of the (lifference is not entirely clear, though it may be due to the peanuts used. The difference is, however, to the advantage of the manufactured products. Table 3O shows the calculated composition of the peanut pro-ducts from the Alabama peanuts. These peanuts contain less protein than Texas peanuts and make a cake of lower grade. It would approxi- mately correspond to the German analyses. ESTIMATING THE HULLS IN PEANUT PRODUCTS. Since the peanut hulls are rich in crude fiber and the meats are low. in crude fiber, the hull content may best be calculated from the crude fiber content. The following formula may be use-d: F——100K H: ~i--— i C——-1.05K 24 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. In which F: crude fiber content of 100 pounds of the sample. K:. the average content fiber of peanut kernels, reduced to 6 per cent. fat. ("Table 26.) R: kernel residue in 100 pounds. C: .608, which is the average crude fiber content of hulls. (Table 9.) H: the approximate hull content of 100 pounds of the sample. This is obtained by solving the two equations: HC-t-RKIF H+R+.O5H-=1OO The hulls contain only 1 per cent. fat, While the product derived contains 6 per cent. Hence for each pound of hulls, .05 pounds of fat are taken up. ' The calculations would be more accurate if reduction were made to a water and fat-free basis (see Texas Bulletin No. 189, page 45), but on account of the variation in composition of the hulls, this refinement is not advisable. If we used the average for the ten samples of hulls highest and lowest in protein, the factors used would be C:.55, the average fiber content of the ten samples of hulls lowest in fiber; . C:.676, average fiber content of the ten samples of hulls highest in fiber. These three formulas are applied to 10 and 20 per cent. crude fiber samples with the following results: ' 10.()——4.5 20.0—4.5 (A) Average hulls ————— : 9.8% —-———- : 27.6% 6'O.8——4.7 60.8—4.7 10.0——4.5 20.()_——4.5 (B) Hulls lowest in fiber 210.9% -____- : 30.8% 55.0—4.7 55.0——4.7 10.0—-4.5 20.0—4.5 (C) Hulls highest in fiber ——--—— : 8.7% —————— z: 94.7% 67.6——4¢.7 67.6—4.7 Thus, the results would deviate according to the composition of the hulls present. With 1O per cent. fiber, there would be approximately '9.8 per cent. hulls present, but it might be from 8.7 to 10.9 per cent. according to the character of the hulls. With 20 per cent. fiber, there might be from 24.7 to 30.8 per cent. hulls, with an average of 27.6 cent. fat. (Table 26.) The accuracy of the factor C, the entire average of 58 samples of hulls, may be judges by considering the standard deviation of the crude fiber content of the hulls from the average. The standard deviation of p each determination is secured by the formula: Sfl/nw in which S is the standard deviation of each determination. COMPOSITION or PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRODUOTS. 25 ED? is the sum of the squares of the diflierence between each deter- mination and the average. N is the number of determinations. Applied t0 the crude fiber of the peanut hulls analyzed: S: 1232.3 = \_/———58 4.6 The standard deviation of any single‘ determination is thus 4.6 per cent. The probable error of the average is: - 132.6745“ ><5 l/ N equal to .405 in the present case. FEEDING VALUES OF PEANUT PRODUCTS. The value of a feed for feeding purposes depends upon its ability to produce energy, fat, body heat, or otherwise to supply the needs of the animal. The energy or heat value is measured by the productive, value of the feed. Its ability to form lean meat, etc., is measured by the digestible protein. Both of these factors are very important, but the relative importance in a commercial feed depends upon the kind of animal, the object of feeding, and the home-grown feed available. This matter is discussed in Bulletin N o. 1'70 of this Experiment Sta- tion, entitled TEXAS FEEDING STUFFs, THEIR COMPOSITION AND UTIL- IZATION. The productive value of a. feed may easily be calculated bv using the production coefficients described in Texas Bulletin No. 203. The pro- duction coeflicients of peanut products are given in Table 31. These are based upon digestion experiments and represent the best informa- tion available up to date. The production coefficient decreases with the crude fiber content of the peanut product, for the reason that the crude fiber represents hulls, and since the hulls have a much lower feed- ing value than the kernels, the greater the fiber content the lower the production coefficient. Table 3I.——Pr0ductive coefficients of peanut products. i Nitro- Digest- Protein. Ether Crude gen-free able extraep fibre. extract. protein. Hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 .453 —— 070 .141 611 Kernel residue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200 .550 —— 050 .200 860 Product 15.5% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199 .546 —- 065 , 187 855 Product 18.6% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198 .544 —— 066 _185 853 Product 20.6% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _198 .544 ——.067 .183 .851 Product 22.3% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197 .543 ——.067 .180 .848 Product 25.2% crude fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 .542 ——.068 .177 .844 Product 27.8% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 .542 —- 068 .174 840 Product 29.7% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195 .541 —— 068 . 171 837 Product 31.8% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 540 —— O69 .169 835 Product 33.9% crude. fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193 538 —— 069 167 830 Whole peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 557 — 060 032 808 26 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 31 contains the production coefficient of various grades of pea- nut products. These are calculated on the assumption that the kernels and hulls contained in these products have the production coefficients also given in Table 31, which are based directly on digestion experi- ments, and on the further assumption that there is no change in di- gestibility in combining the two. In applying these coefficients, the fiber content of the product should be considered if available, rather than the protein content, astthe fiber content better shows the amount of the hulls present, on account of the variation in the protein content of the kernel. ~ Table 32.—-Feeding values of Texas peanut products per 1.00 pounds. Productive Digestible value. protein. Hulls, hand separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 4.1 Hulls, commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.70 5.0 Peanut cake, choice (average) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 42.6 Peanut cake, prime (average) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 38.6 Whole pressed peanuts (Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 29.8 Whole peanuts, Texas, average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.6 20.6 Whole peanuts, highest 1n fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.3 20.9 Whole peanuts, lowest in fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.7 19. 9 - Whole peanuts, highest in fibre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.8 19.5 Peanut hay, mowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 10.9 7.1 Peanut hay, no nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 6.1 Peanut hay. with nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.6 11~.0 Cotton seed meal. prime, Texas. 1916-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 37.2 Cotton seed feed No. 4 (41.2) 1916-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.0 35 6 Cotton seed feed No. 5 (38.5) 1916-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.3 33.1 Cotton seed feed No. 6 (36.10) 1916-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.8 31.4 Cold pressed cotton seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.6 19.2 Table 32 contains the productive values and digestible protein of Texas peanut products. The analyses of cake and meal given are the average of those actually in the market. Compared with similar grades of Texas cottonseed meal, prime peanut meal or cake is slightly higher in productive, value and in digestible protein than prime cot- tonseed meal. Whole pressed peanuts are slightly lower in productive value and much higher in digestible protein than whole pressed cotton- seed. With more experience in their manufacture, the percentage of oil in Texas peanut products will be decreased, and this will decrease the productive value of the products. Tables 27 and 28 show the digestible protein and productive values of peanut products calculated from Texasanalyses of peanuts, reduced to a 6 per cent. fat b-asis. As compared with cottonseed products, pea- nut products from the average peanut would be, for choice, about 11 per cent. lower in productive value, and 1 per cent. lower in digestible protein than choice cottonseed meal; for prime, about 14s per cent. lo-wer in productive value and about the same in digestible protein as prime cottonseed meal; for r36 per cent. product, about 23 per cent. lower in productive value and about 1.5 per cent. higher in digestible protein than 36 per cent. Texas cottonseed feed. Thus the peanut product has a lower feeding value than the cottonseed product of the corresponding protein content, and this is due to the fact that the peanut hulls have practically no feeding value, while cottonseed hulls have some feeding value. COMPOSITION or PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRODUOTS. 2'?’ 1t has already been pointed out, however, that the peanut products actually in the market are, from the crude fiber content, better in feed- ing value than even the average products calculated from the peanuts lowest in protein. Also, on a preceding page, we have pointed out that the peanut pro-ducts actually in the huarket compare more favorably with the corresponding cottonseed products than the above figures would indicate. It will take several years’ experience to show exactly the feeding value of peanut products. Compared with the corresponding cottonseed products, peanut products made from peanuts lowest in pro-_ tein (Table 2'7) are as follows: . _ Choice Texas peanut meal would have about 6 per cent. less produc- tive value than choice cottonseed meal and practically the same digesti- ble protein. " l Prime Texas meal would have about S per cent. less productive value than prime cottonseed meal an.d about 1 per cent. less digestible protein. Peanut products containing 36 per cent. protein would have about 16 per cent. less productive value and about 2 per cent. more digestible protein than the corresponding cottonseed product. Thus the difference is greater as the protein content decreases. PEANUT HULLS. Table 32 shows that peanut hulls, when cleaned, containa little di- gestible protein but have no productive value. Thus clean peanut hulls have practically no feeding value. They can in no sense be considered as a concentrated feed, but must be considered as a roughage. When hay is high, they may be fed as a roughage, to give sufiicient ‘volume to the feed, the needs of the animal for protein and energy being met by some other feed. When added to a concentrated feed, they decrease the feeding value of the feed, without any corresponding advantage t0 the purchaser. If they are fed at all, they should be fed as a rough- age, or in complete rations, and not in concentrated feeds. Commercial peanut hulls contain a small quantity of peanut meats, or immature peanuts, and thus have a higher feeding value than the clean hulls, but the feeding value is still low, even lower than that of rice hulls.‘ As stated above, they may be used as a roughage to fill up an animal, but their use in a concentrated feed is not advisable. OIL AND CAKE FRO-M. MANUFACTURING PEANUTS. The quantity of oil, hulls, and other products secured from peauts will depend upon the quality of peanuts used, the grade of product made, and the success secured in extracting the oil. According to Kilgore of the North Carolina Experiment Station, a ton of Spanish peanuts yields '70 to 80 gallons of oil and 1300 to 1400 pounds of cake when the ‘whole peanuts are pressed, the by-product containing 30 to 35 per cent. protein, and 6 to 8 per cent. fat; when hulled peanuts are used, the yield is 100 to 115 gallons oil and 1100 to 1200 pounds cake per ton, containing 40 to 50 per cent. protein, usually 48 per cent. t According to Thompson and Bailey, Farmers’ Bulletin No, 751, 28 TEXAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. United States Department of Agriculture, Spanish peanuts willyield 630 pounds oil (8st gallons) per ton of farmers’ stock, and Virginia peanuts will yield 430 pounds, 0r 5'7 gallons, per ton of farmers’ stock. This is when the peanuts are shelled and a cake containing 9 per cent. oil is made. '- Table 33.—Oil and cake from clean Texas peanuts (basis of 6 per cant extraction) per ton. Protein in Pounds Gallons Pounds product oil. oil. cake‘. per cent. Peanut kernels, clean, average. . . . I . . . . . . . . . . 908 121 .1 1192 58 8 Peanut kernels, highestm fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958 127.7 1042 59 3 Peanut kernels, lowest III fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864 115.2 1136 55 3 Whole peanuts, afserage, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652 86.9 1348 37 9 Whole peanuts, highestin fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712 94.9 1288 4O 2 Whole peanuts, lowest 1n fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 78.4 1412 34 9 From whole peanuts, average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670 89.3 1030 48 0 Fromiwhole peanuts, average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666 88.8 1103 45 0 From whole peanuts, average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 88.4 1163 43 0 From whole peanuts, average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660 88.0 1222 41 2 Tab-le 33 shows the theoretical quantities of oil and product of the grade given, which may be secured from clean Texas peanuts, calcu- lated on a 6 per cent. basis. The quantity of oil from the whole peanuts varies from ‘78.4 t0 94.9 gallons per ton of clean peanuts, a difference of 16.5 gallons. The quantity of oil also decreases as the quantity of cake made in- creases. It would be, 0n a 6 per cent. basis, .8 gallons for each 100 pounds additional cake. v ' If cake is ma.de containing more than 6 per cent. oil, the yield of oil would, of course, be correspondingly decreased. Each additional per cent. of oil left in the cake would decrease the yield of oil about 1.5 gallons per ton of whole clean peanuts. The yield per ton of farmers’ stock would depend upon the percent age of whole peanuts p-resent—that is, the amount of trash, sticks and pops present, also immature nutsiand moisture. The average per cent. of pops in the nuts given in Table 3 is 2.1’per cent; of trash, sticks, et cetera, 4.4 per cent. ; or a total of 130 pounds per ton. The pops were as much as 5.8 per cent, and the trash as much as 32.2 per cent. The average amount of pops and trash given in Table 4 is 13.9 per cent. This would. be nearly 280 pounds per ton. The trash and p-ops will ‘decrease the yield of oil and cake per ton of farmers’ stock. There is also an invisible loss in manufacturing, due to loss of 1noist- ure, particles of meats, perhaps settlings in the oil, and perhaps also to trash, et cetera, in the seed, which is diflicult to estimate. The ‘total loss per ton of farmers’ stock is estimated by some to be 200 pounds per ton, or 10 per cent. Others put it at 220 pounds. - GRADES OF PEANLVFS. Farmers’ stock peanuts vary in the quantity of trash, pops and im- mature nuts contained in them, as seen in the preceding section, and ‘the oil produced and the cake produced vary likewise. It is thus fair COMPOSITION or PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRODUOTS. 29 that grades should be established so that farmers producing clean grade nuts may be paid more per bushel than farmers producing trashy poor peanuts. If both are paid the same, there is no inducement to have the nuts properly cleaned and shelled. If care is taken in the thresh- ing, most of the pops may be blown out With the hay, and the dirt and stems may largely be separated by the use of proper screens. In the opinion of the writer, the grades of peanuts should be b-ased upon the percentages of moisture and peanut kernels present in the farmers’ stock. The trash and sticks will decrease the quantity of ker- nels. A well-filled nut should command a higher price than those with a large percentage of hulls. The following is suggested for consider- ation: Choice unshelled peanuts should contain not less than 75 per cent. kernels or more than '7 per cent. moisture. Prime unshelled peanuts should contain not less than 65 per cent. kernels or more than 9 per cent. moisture. The definitions adopted by theTexas Cottonseed Crushers, 1917, are embodied in Rule 1'7, as follows: Sec. 7. Choice Unshelled Peanuts shall be recleaned, sound, dry, fully matured, free from dirt, stems, pops, trash or other foreign mat- ter, reasonably free from shelled peanuts, and must not have moisture content in excess of '7 per cent. Sea. 2. Prime Unshelled Peanuts shall be equal in grade to the average unshelled peanuts for the season of the year in which they are sold, and shall be dry, and shall not contain more than 2 per cent. of dirt and not more than 5 per cent. of stems, pops, trash or other for- eign matter, and must not contain more than 3 per cent. of damaged peanuts and must not have a moisture content in excess of 10 per cent. .'S'ec. Off Unshelled Peanuts shall be settled for on their merits and comparative value as against the value of Prime Unshelled Peanuts. Sec. '7. Weights. llnshelled peanuts shall be sold on a gross weight per 100 pounds, or a ton of 2000 pounds, whether sacked or in bulk. Sec. 8. Sampling. Bulked peanuts shall be sampled according to the rule governing the sampling of bulk cotton seed. Sacked peanuts shall be sampled by taking a. fair representative sam- ple from at least 10 per cent. of the sacks. ' The samples drawn as above directed to be thoroughly mixed and from this mixture take 100 peanuts, same to be shelled and contents graded according to the quality. All peanuts showing color darker than natural color of peanuts, or containingmold, to be classed as “Off Peanuts.” - STANDARDS FOR BY-PRODUCTS. The following standards for peanut by-products have been adopted by the Texas Feed Control, July, 1917. ' Choice Peanut Zlleal is the product from the kernels of sound pea- nuts, free from excess of hulls and other foreign materials. It must be finely ground, of sweet odor, and must contain not less than 48 per 30 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. cent. of protein, not less than '7 per cent. of fat, and not more than 9 per cent 0f crude fiber. Prime Peanut Meal is the product from the kernels of sound pea- nuts, free from excess of hulls and. other foreign materials. It must be of sweet odor, and contain not l.ess than 45 per cent. of protein, not less than 6 per cent. of fat and not more than 14 per cent. of crude fiber. Peanut Cake shall correspond to peamt meal in composition and as to standard. . Choice Whole Pressed Peanuts is the product resulting from sub~ jecting the whole, sound, mature, clean peanut, free from sticks, stems and dirt to pressure for the extraction of oil, and includes the entire peanut less the oil extracted. It must contain not less than 36 per cent. of protein and not more than 22 per cent. of crude fiber. Prime Whole Pressed Peanuts is the product resulting from sub- jecting the Whole, sound, mature, clean peanuts, reasonably free from sticks and stems, to pressure for the extraction of oil, and includes the whole peanut less the oil extracted. It must contain not less than 34 per cent. of protein and not more than 24 per cent. of crude fiber. Ground Whole Pressed Peanuts shall correspond to Whole Pressed Peanuts in composition and as to standard. I DEFINITIONS OF COTTONSEED CRUSHERS. Definitions adopted in nary, 1917, by the Texas Cottonseed Crushers - and embodied in Rule 1'7, are as follows: Sec. 4. Choice Whole Pressed Peanuts is the product resulting from subjecting the Whole, sound, mature, clean peanut, free from sticks, stems and dirt, to pressure for the extraction of oil, and includes the entire peanut less the oil‘; extracted. It must contain not less than 36 per cent. of protein and not more than 22 per cent. of crude fiber. Sea. 5. Prime Whole Pressed Peanuts is the product resulting from subjecting the whole, sound, mature, clean peanuts, reasonably free from sticks and stems, to pressure for the extraction of oil, and in- cludes the entire peanut less the oil extracted. It must contain not less than 34 per cent. of protein and not more than 24 per cent. of crude fiber. - _ _ See. 6‘. Ground Whole Pressed Peanuts shall correspond to Choice and Prime Whole Pressed Peanuts in composition and as to standards. N ote.—-All deductions on above grades for oflf quality shall be made on basis of 1 per cent. of contract price for each 1 per cent. off quality. INTERSTATE DEFINITIONS. The following definitions were adopted by the Interstate Cottonseed Crushers’ Association, May, 1917: COMPOSITION or PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PBODUOTS. 31 - RULE 24.—-PEANUT CAKE. Sec. 1. Choice Peanut Cake is a product of sound peanuts, sweet in odor, not burned in cooking, and shall contain not less than 44 per per cent. of protein or 50 per cent. of combined protein and fat. 1860. 2. Prime Peanut Cake is a product of the peanut, sweet. in odor, and shall. contain not less than 34 per cent. protein or 40 per cent. of combined protein and fat. Sec. 3. Choice Peanut Meal is a ground product of Choice Peanut Cake and by analysis must contain not less than 44 per cent. of pro- tein or 50 per cent. of combined protein and fat. Sec. 1,. Prime Peanut Meal is a ground product of Prime Peanut Cake and by analysis must contain at lea-st 34 per cent. of protein or 40 per cent. of combined protein and fat. The definition of Choice Peanut Meal, 51 per cent. protein and fat. appears to be a fair definition for Eastern peanut meal, though not for Texas meal, which should contain 48 per cent. protein. The definition for Prime Peanut Meal, 34 per cent. protein, would, however, permit the sale of Whole Pressed Peanuts under the name of Peanut Meal. Whole Pressed Georgia peanuts might run as high as 37 per cent. protein. ‘Table 34.—Analyses peanut oil meal. Ether Crude Protein . extract. fiber. Water. Bulletin 420. Geneva, N. Y., 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.8 i 10.5 3.1 . . . . . . . . .. Bulletin 420, Geneva. N. Y., 1916 . . . . . . . . . .. 30.6 9.3 7.9 . . . . . . . . . . Mass. Control Series Bulletin No. 3. 1915... . . 45.53 9.68 3.66 . . . . . . . . .. Mass. Control Series Bulletin No. 3, 1915.... . 33.36 9.03 8.40 . . . . . . . . .. Mass. Control Series Bulletin N0. 5, 1916.. . . . 48.74 7.41 4.20 . . . . . . . . .. Mass. Control Series Bulletin No. 5, 1916... . . 35.03 10.03 8.01 . . . . . . . Q . . Bulletin 283, N. J. Station, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.69 8.97 8.6-1 5.32 Bulletin 283, N. J. Station, 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.75 9.05 4.22 4.15 Bulletin 295. N. J. Station, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.56 7.90 4.46 7.92 Bulletin 295, N. J. Station, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.44 13.29 6.59 6.90 Bulletin 295, N. J. Station, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.50 10.00 9.37 7.60 Bulletin 295, N. J. Station, 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.06 . *____6.68 7.33 l On the other hand, We have compiled a number of analyses of pea- nut meal, made by the New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts Feed Controls. (Table 34.) Several of the analyses contain from 30 to 33 per cent. protein and 8 to 9 per cent. crude fiber, and would thus be classed as peanut meals. We would judge from this that there is such a wide variation in peanuts, that some whole pressed peanuts and some peanut meals would have the same protein content. That is to say, the lower grades of peanut meals. produced in some sections of the coun- try may overlap with higher grades of whole pressed peanuts. If this is really the case, the protein content cannot be used to distinguish low-grade peanut meal from whole pressed peanuts, but recourse must be had to the crude fiber content. 32 Tnxiis AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. ACRE YIELD. The peanut will do well on sandy soil not suited to corn or cotton, and stands dry weather better than corn. Peanuts also take part of their nitrogen from the air, while corn takes all it uses from the soil Ilence, in this respect peanuts are not so hard upon the soil as corn, will grow on soil poorer in nitrogen, and, if fed and the manure re- turned to the soil, will make the soil richer than it was before. Table 35.-—-Food value produced per acre by peanuts, etc. Productive Digestible Total value, protein, weight. pounds. pounds. Peanuts- 38 bushels nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1140 280 235 Hay, without nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2850 301 174 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 409 Prime peanut meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590 102 235 Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2850 301 174 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 409 Corn— 25 bushels corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 1800 371 117 Stover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 35 13 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 130 Corn (silage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 20,000 540 200 Sorghum (silage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . 20,000 540 10 Oats- 25 bushels oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750 98 67 Straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 70 8' Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16s 75 l Table 35 shows the yield of food values per acre of p-eanuts and some A other crops, compared on the basis of digestible protein and productive values. It also shows the plant food withdrawn from the soil by the crops mentioned. Peanuts thus produce a crop of high food value per acre. As they will stand dry weather better than corn, and may be grown on soil which does not produce corn well, their growth offers decided advan- tages. If the hay and nuts are removed, they add nothing to the fer- tility of the soil, but if grazed off, or hogged ofi, they add both vege- table matter and nitrogen which they have gathered from the air, thus making the soil better fitted to grow other crops. PEANUTS AS A HUMAN FOOD. Peanuts are rich in protein and oil, and for this reason have a high value as a human food. The value of a. food for human purposes is measured by the digestible protein and productive value. Table 34 compares shelled peanuts with some other foods, assuming 90 per cent. digestibility. They are seen to compare favorably with meat. The high value of peanuts as a human food is not often appreciated. Pea- nuts are one of the richest foods given in Table 36. COMPOSITION on PEANuTs AND PEANUT BY-PRoDUoTsJ 33 Table 36.—Relative value of peanuts as a human food. _ Fat digested _ including Relative Protein. carbo- productive hydrates value. divided by 2.2. Peanut kerneis (Iexas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.0 47.0 62 Peanut butter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0 48.0 61 Peanut meal (pure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.0 12.0 ' 38 .ggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.8 11.4 18 Beef flank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.0 20.0 30 Beef loin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.9 16.1 24 Mutton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.1 16.6 26 Wheat bread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 25.5 30 Cottonseed meal corn bread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 18.4 22 Corn bread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 18.4 2O Wheat flour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..'. . . . . . . . . . .. 9.7 34.5 40 Cottonseed tlour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.3 18.7 38 Butter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O 80.0 80 Cottonseed meal corn bread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 32.2 39 A bulletin entitled How TO G-Eowv THE PEANUT AND 105 WAYS or PREPARING IT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION is published as Bulletin No. 31 of the Experiment Station at Tuskegee, Alabama, and is of decided interest in‘ this connection and especially at the present time. PEANUT BUTTER. Peanut butter is made by roasting and grinding the peanuts, after the red outer bran, immediately around the kernel, has been removed. Some manufacturers of peanut butter remove the germ also. Peanut butter is easily made at home. Table 37.——-Peanut butter——percentage composition Nitro~ Laboratory number. Protein. Ether Crude gen free “Tater. Ash. extract. fibre‘. extract. 9632 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.80 53.35 1.99 10.82 1.18 2.06 9442 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.78 53.32 2.33 11.28 1.34 2.95 Peanut butter compares favorably ivith ordinary butter (Table 34) and, in addition, contains protein. Table 37 contains some analyses. Peanut butter is an excellent substitute for dairy butter on bread or- crackers or in sandwiches, and is usually much. less expensive. PEANUT OIL. Crude peanut oil has a yellow color and the odor and taste of pea- nuts. Refined peanut oil is almost colorless and has no taste or odor of peanuts but is tasteless and odorless. Peanut oil does not decompose as easily at high temperatures as some other oils, and hence is better adapted to cooking in oil, frying, et cetera, than these oils. It may be strained off, allowed to settle, and used again for frying purposes. Peanut oil is an excellent oil and has a high food value. It is equal 34 Tnxiis AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION." to olive oil or cottonseed oil in this respect. Its keeping properties should be as good as other oils. Some manufacturers of pea-nut and cottonseed oils do not thoroughly clean the presses, pipes, et cetera, of cottonseed oil before manufacturing the peanut oil; for this reason, the peanut oil may contain some cot- tonseed oil, which shows readily in a chemical test. MINERAL CONSTITUENTS. Tables 38, 39 and 40 show the mineral constituents of peanut prod- ucts. A knowledge of this is important, first, to show the draft of the peanut on the soil, and, second, to show the mineral food which the animal receives. Table 38.—Mineral constituents of peanut hay—percentage. Phosphoric _ Insoluble Laboratory number. acid. Potash. Lime. Magnesia. ash. I 4259-60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 1 .02 1 .57 1 .30 1 .94 11212-3——11213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .29 1.52 1.58 0.95 1.72 11232-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.25 1.65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .99 1.53 1.27 8.77 12920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.05 1.54 1 .23 8.29 9814 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .28 1.47 2.13 .76 2.96 9815 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .29 1.42 2.24 .72 2.79 Average}. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .288 1 303 1 765 1.038 4.41 Table 39.—Mineral constituents of peanut kerneIs-—percentage. Phosphoric _ _ Insoluble Laboratory number. ' 3'1 . Potash. Lime. Magnesia. ash 11569 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 .72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12755 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12617 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .85 .76 .12 .35 .06 12605 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .78 .78 . 13 .36 .08 12619 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .70 .89 .14 .33 .02 11237 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .84 .10 .34 .17 11513 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .79 .97 .13 .34 .06 11514 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .88 .88 .14 .35 .08 12446 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .03 .35 . 15 12447 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .11 .36 .10 12448 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .87 .11 .36 .10 12467 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09 .32 .13 12468 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .11 .34 .11 12469 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .09 .31 . 14 12735 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12756 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12757 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12611 . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .76 .90 .10 .35 .05 11508 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' . . . . . . . . . .. .90 .60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12612 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .92 .91 .11 .39 .08 12614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .60 .74 .13 .29 .05 12623 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .61 .85 .10 .35 .04 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8027 .82 .109 .34 .088 COMPOSITION OF PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRODUGTS. 35 Table 40.——Mineral constituents of peanut hulls. Phosphoric _ Insoluble Laboratory number. acid. Potash. Lime. Magnesia. ash. 12788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11233 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .15 .87 .25 .27 8.02 11236 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .15 .91 .26 .28 6.83 11563 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .20 .82 .45 .28 4.38 11570 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .11 .90 .30 .18 0.69 12436 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .12 .93 .25 .21 0.66 12437 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . .. .15 .83 .31 .26 .95 12438 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 .27 1.50 12461 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .11 1.61 .57 .29 .30 12462 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .12 1.62 .27 .18 .49 12463 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 .30 .52 12464 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .11 1.45 .27 .20 .52 12465 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.46 .24 .24 .38 12466 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .22 1.39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12491 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 .28 .58 12492 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 17 . . . . . . . . .. .28 .24 .59 12493 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .26 .27 .51 12711 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12713 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12795 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12932 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average... . . . . . . . . .15 1.16 .31 .25 1.79 SUGARS, STARUHES AND PENTOSANS. Tables 41 and 42 contain the sugars, starch and pentosan contents of peanut products. These are related t0 other investigations we are carrying" out, and are given here for reference, soWe will not discuss them further. Table 41.——Sugar, starch and pentosans in peanut hulls. Reducing Di. Laboratory number. sugar. Sugar. Starch. Pentosans. 12781 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .48 3.40 .17 - 18.44 12785 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .27 2.06 .44 18.00 12788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .06 1.24 .83 17.47 12791 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .50 2.53 .70 . . . . . . . . .. 12796 . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .47 . . . . . . . . . . 12805 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .76 17.73 12806 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.07 17.68 12808 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.08 . . . . . . . . .. 12928 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.01 . . . . . . . . . . 12931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .86 . . . . . . . . . -. 12930 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 .01 . . . . . . . . . . 11233 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .32 1.23 .97 15.90 11236 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .36 1.36 .95 15.81 11436 . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.20 11437 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.52 12438 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.13 12461 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.05 12462 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.94 12463 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 69 12464 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.04 12465 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.96 12466 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.64 12491 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.67 1.31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12492 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.53 0.98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12493 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.60 1.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12795 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.26 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09 1.55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10 .03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .07 3.61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09 0.75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .12 1.29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09 1.60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .27 1.15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.60 2.88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.76 2.84 2.37 . . . . . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .588 1.72 .737 17.82 36 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 42.—-Sugars, starch and pentosans of peanut kernels. Reducing Di. ‘ Laboratory number. sugar. sugar. Starch. Pentosans. 12619 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10 2.83 1.47 2.50 12605 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .07 3.36 1.87 2.57 12742 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10 4.93 2.66 . . . . . . . . . . 12940 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .07 4.46 1 .48 . . . . . . . . . . 12743 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .12 3.31 2.20 . . . . . . . . . . 12735 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .28 3.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12733 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .07 2.95 1.73 2.50 12694 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .06 3.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12693 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10 2.88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12681 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10 3.09 2.04 . . . . . . . . .. 12618 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09 3.12 1.63 . . . . . . . . .. 12617 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .07 2.31 . . . . . . . . .. 2.72 12755 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 2.72 12736 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.28 2.91 12623 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.56 11237 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .08 5.21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12433 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.65 12435 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.68 12445 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.58 12468 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.20 12469 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.39 12741 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.01 2.69 12757 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.18 . . . . . . . . . . 12938 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.56 11508 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10 3.48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . .._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10 3.43 1.71 2.59 ASHES OF HULLS. Table 43 contains the analyses of a sample of peanut hull ashes. Consideration of Table 38, in connection with the ash content of laea- nuts, shows that peanut hull ashes should be rich in potash. If pure, they should contain nearly 25 per cent. potash. Table 43.—Peanut hull ashes, percentage. Potash Phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lime. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magnesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Insoluble ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STEMS. Talole 44 contains some miscellaneous analyses of stems, cleanings, et cetera. As these cleanings contain leaves, et cetera, they should have some feeding value, but they are likely to contain much dirt, and this is not a giood thing to feed. Table 44.--Miscellaneous samples. ' Nitro~ Lab. Protein . Ether Crude gen-free Water. Ash. No. extract. fiber. extract. 11248 Peanut stalks and fiber along toppf nuts . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 9.47 1 .73 ‘ 24.75 49.45 10.65 3.95 12730 Cleanings from peanuts (stems, leaves and 1m- mature nuts) . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.19 2.73 12.09 48.25 7.38 14.36 12616 ‘Cleanmgs (leaves, stems, etc.) 8 .09 3.46 50. 97 27 .14 6. 78 3.56 I COMPOSITION or PEANUTS AND PEANUT BY-PRooUoTs. 37 ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Analyses and other Work connected with the preparation of this bul- letin have been made by S. E. Asbury, W. T. P. Sprott, J. W. Enochs, G. B. L. Smith, S. Lomanitz, Charles Buchwald, E. R. Harrouff, and perhaps other members of the staff. - SUMMARY. Peanut hay without nuts has a higher productive value than alfalfa but less digestible protein. Peanut hay with nuts has a high feeding value on account of the nuts present. Whole Texas peanuts average 25.5 per cent. protein and 36.6 per cent. fat from 58 analyses. They vary considerably. Texas peanuts are richer in protein than peanuts grown in the East, though some Eastern peanuts may be fully equal to Texas peanuts. a Pure peanut hulls are high in fiber and have no feeding value, though they may be used as a filler. Commercial hulls contain some kernels and have a feeding value about one-half that of rice hulls or one-third that of cottonseed hulls. Peanut kernels are rich in protein and fat, Eastern kernels averaging less protein than Texas. Individual peanut kernels may vary decidedly in protein and fat content. A sufficient number of kernels tmovercome individual varia- tions should be taken for analyses. Texas Whole Pressed Peanuts calculated from the peanuts should average 37.9 per cent. ‘protein and 25.7 per cent. fiber, but the samples on the-market average less fiber. _ " Two grades of Texas Whole Pressed Peanuts should be made, on account of the variation in the composition. - Texas peanuts can be made into choice meal containing 55 per cent. protein and fat combined, or prime meal containing 51 per cent. pro- tein and fat combined. The crude fiber content calculated from the peanuts analyzed is more than that found in the peanut cake or meal actually on the market. Methods are given for the calculation of the Whole Pressed Peanuts or Peanut Cake or Meal secured from a sample of peanuts of known analysis. A method is given for calculating the hull content of peanut by- products from the fiber content. The feeding values of peanut by-products are discussed. Choice Peanut Cake and Prime Peanut Cake actually on the Texas market are practically equal to Prime or Choice Cottonseed Cake on the mar- ket. Whole Pressed Peanuts are practically equal to Whole Pressed Cottonseed in productive value, though they contain much more digesti- ble protein. The yields of oil and cake are discussed. a F38 AGRICULTURAL AND AIEcHANIoAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS. Grades of peanuts are discussed. The kernel content is an im- rportant character.‘ ' Standards for peanut products corresponding to cottonseed prod- ucts. are desirable from a manufacturing standpoint, but, on account of the high protein content of peanut kernels, it is not advisable to adopt the lower standards for peanut products. If thedefinition of prime peanut meal as containing 34 per cent. protein proposed by the Interstate Cottonseed Crushers’ Association should be adopted, it would permit the sale of whole pressed peanuts under the name of prime peanut meal. There are some Eastern pea- nut meals that contain only 34 per cent. protein, and it is possible that a. definition cannot be made on a protein basis that will distinguish between whole pressed peanuts and the true peanut meal low in protein. Peanuts are an excellent human food. Peanut oil is excellent as a. cooking and table oil. v b Mineral constituents, starches, sugars, and pentosans, are given.