A238-3 1 8-7500h

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT snmorl?

BULLETIN NO. 225 ' MARCH, 1918

DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

COCOANUT MEAL vs. COTTON
SEED MEAL FOR DAIRY cows

 

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

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS

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

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS

 

Jomi I. GUION, Ballinger, Preside. f Term

L. J. HART, San Antonio, Vice-Pi *' ‘ Term

E. H. AsTIN, Bryan _ Term

J. R. KUBBNA, Fa ettevflln Term

A. B. DAVIDSON, uern _ Term

WiLL A. MiLLER, JR., Amarillo Term

JonN T. DICKSON, Paris Term 1

H. A. BREinAN, Bartlett Term expires 1923

'11

. M. LAW, Houston ................................................ ..

................................................... ..Tei'm expires 1923

MAIN STATION COMMITTEE

L. J. HART, Chairman

WILL A. MiLLER, JR.

GOVERNING BOARD, STATE SUBSTATIONS

P. L. DOWNS, Tem le, President

Term expires 1919

Ci-iARLEs RooAN, ustin, Vice-Pi "' ‘
J. E. Booc-Scorr, C ‘ --

Term expires 1923
Term expires 1923

W. A. Joi-iNsoN, Memphis....

Term expires 1918

*STATION STAFF

ADMINISTRATION _

B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S.,_Director

A. B. CoNNER, B. S., _Vice Director

CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk

A. S. WARE, Secretary - _ _ _
W. T. BRINK, B. S., Executive Assistant in

Chargle Library and Publication
Emrn . PmLLiPs, B. S., Technical

Assistant
DIVISION OF VETERINARY SCIENCE _
"M. FRANcis, D. V. S., Vtttftlidfldll in
Charge _ _
H. Sciiuinr, D. V. M., Veterinarian
D. H. BENNETT, V. M. D., Assistant
Veterinarian
DIVISION or CHEMISTRY _ _
. S. FRAPS,_PI1. D., Chemist in Charge;
State Chemist _ _
T. B. LEITH, B. A., Assistant Chemist
Scorr PowELL, B. S._, Assistant Chemist
E. EICK, B. S., Assistant Chemist
DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE _
H. NEss, M. S., Horticulturist in Charge
W. S. HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist
DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
J. . BuRNs, B._S.,_Animal Husbandman,
Feeding Invest! ations _
J. M. JoNEs, A. ., Animal Husbandman,
Breeding Investi ations_
P. V. EwiNo, M_. ., Animal Husbandman
in Charge Swine Investigations _
"L. B. BURK, B. S., Collaborating Animal
Husbandman, Swine Investigations
DIVISION OF ENTOMOLOGY _ _
F. B. PADDOCK, . S., _Entomologist in
Char e; State Entomologist _
H. J.~ _EINHARD, B. S., Assistant Ento-
mologist _
W. E. JAcKsoN, M. S., Assistant Ento-
mologist
County Apiary Inspectors
R. C. Abernath , Ladonia; William Atch-
ley, Mathis; . W. E. Basham, Barstow;
T. W. Burieson, Waxahachie;W. C. Col-
lier, Goliad: E. W. Cothran, Roxton; "G.
F. Davidson, Pleasanton; John Done an,
Seguin;A.R. Graham Milano;J. B. ing,
Batesville; N. G. LeGear, Waco; R. A.
Little, Pearsall; S. H. Stephens, Uvalde;
M. B. Tally, Victoria; R. E. Watson,
Heidenheimer; F. C. Belt, Ysleta; R. A.
Nestor, Buffalo; J. E. Bush, San An-
tonio; H. A. Jones, Oakville; T. A.
Bpwdon, Palestine; E. R. Jones, Bee-

vil .
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY _ _
A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Agronomist in Charge
A. H. LEinian, B. S., Agronomist
"*H. H. JoBsoN, B. S., Agronomist _
Louis WERuELsmRcHEN, B. S., Agronomist
DIVISION
PHYSIOLOGY
J. J_. TAuEENnAvs, _Ph. D. Plant Patholo-
gist and Physiologist in Charge

OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND_

DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY
R. N. HARVEY, B. S., Poultrgman in Charge

DIVISION OF FORESTRY
J. H. FOSTER, M. F., Forester in Charge,
State Forester
DIVISION OF PLANT BREEDING
E. HUMBBRT, Ph. D., Plant Breeder tn
Charge

DIVISION OF DAIRYING
W. A. DOUBT, Dairyman
'***SOIL SURVEY
T. H. BENTON, Soil Surveyor
J. F. STROUD, Soil Surveyor

DIVISION OF FEED CONTROL SERVICE
F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief
JAuEs SULLivAN, Executive Secretary
H. RoaERs, Inspector
H. Woon, Inspector
D. PEARcE, Inspector ,
M. WICKES, Inspector
F. CHRISTIAN, Inspector
. W. SNELL, Inspector
. J. KELLY, Inspector
W. I. HAMPSTON, Inspector

SUBSTATION NO. 1: Beeville, Bee County
I. E. COWART, M. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 2: Troup, Smith County
W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 3: Angleton, Brazorin

ounty _
N. E. WINTERS, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 4: Beaumont, Jetferson

County _
H. H. LAUnE, B. S., Superintendent
G. PURvis, Scientific Assistant
SUBSTATION NO. 5: Temple, Bell County
D. T. KiLLovon, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 6: Denton, Denton County
C. H. McDowELL, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 7: Spur, Dickens County
R. . DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 8: Lubbock, Lubbock
County
R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 9: Pecos, Reeves County
J. W. JAcxsoN, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 10: (Feeding and Breeding
Substation), College Station, Brasol

County
E._R. SPENCE, B. S., Animal Husbandman,
in Charge of Farm. _
. C. WARE, Scientific Assistant
SUBSTATION NO. 11: Nacogdochen, Nicol-
doches County _
G. T. McNEss, Superintendent .
SUBSTATION N O. 12: Chiilicothe, Harde-
man County _
""13. W. EnwARns B. S., Superintendent
V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Scientific Assistant
SUBSTATION NO. 14, Sonora, Sutton County
E. M. PETERS, B. S., Acting Superintendent

uuégwgy

CLERICAL ASSISTANTS

DAISY LEE, Registration Clerk
C. L. DURST, Mailing Clerk
R. C. FRANxs, Stenographer
W. L. HEARN, Stenographer

‘As of March 1, 1918.

MAE BELLE EvANs Stenographer
IRENE PEVERLEY, '
RUTH CAMPBELL, Steno rapher »
MARGARET SnELnoN,

Copgist

J. B. FRANKS, Copgist "

Burn LoRn, Stenographer
EMMA CAuPnELL, Stenographer
tenographer H. L. FRAziER, Stenographer

"In cooperation with A. 8c M. College of Texas.

‘"*Ou leave.

""In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture.

CONTENTS

 

PAGE.
Analysis of cocoanut meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

Digestibile nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Prevailing prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

‘Records of lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '2"

Feed cost of production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u . 8

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

BULLETIN No. 225 MARoH, 1918

COCOAN UT MEAL VS. COTTON SEED MEAL FOR DAIRY COWS

P. V. EWING, ANIMAL HUSBANDMAN
AND
E. R. SPENCE, ANIMAL HUSBANDMAN

tllhis report covers an experiment made to compare the relative feed-
ing values for dairy cows of coeoanut and cottonseed meals. Ten cows
from the Experiment Station herd were grouped into two lots after
due consideration had been given to their previous feeding and per-
fOfllizlllCQ. The feeding began October 11, 1917. The experiment Was
on a seven-day basis and continued for sixteen weeks. This time wa_s
divided into five DQTlOIlS. The rations consisted of 25 pounds of silage
and a variable quantity of straw as the roughage, plus a quantity of
concentrate consisting of three parts wheat bran and two parts peanut
meal, plus a supplemental concentrate consisting of either cocoanut
meal, cottonseed meal, or a mixture of equal parts of these, according
to the feeding schedule, which was as folloxvs:
Table 1.——Feeding schedule. Explanation—“C. N. .”=cocoanut meal, “C. S. M.”=cotton.

seed meal, “Conc.”=concentrates, “ ”=check showing whether or not feed
indicated at top of column was fed on date mentioned.

Lot 1. Int 2.
é Dates. a    Q   2
B E” s E z. ”? E” s: § Z e
<2 E u u u <2 <73 u u d
1 Oct. 14 t0 Oct. 21 . . . . .. X X X X X X X ‘X X‘ X

2 Oct. 21 to Oct. 28 . . . . . . X X X- X X X X X X X

Y‘ on. 2s m Nov. 4 . . . . . . X X X X X X X X X

4 NOV. 4 t0 Nov. ll . . . . . . X X X X X X X X

5 Nov. 11 to Nov. 18 . . . . .. X X X X X X X X

6 Nov. 18 to Nov. 25 . . . . . . X X X X X X X

7 Nov. 25 to Dec. 2 . . . . . . X X X X X X X X

8 Dec. 2 to Dec. 9 . . . . . . X X X X X X X X X X

9 Dec. 9 to Dec. 16 . . . . . . X X X X X X X X X X

l0 Dec. 16 to Dec. 23 . . . . .. X X X X X X X X

11 Dec. 23 to Dec. 3O . . . . . . X X X X X X X X

12 Dec. 30 to Jan. 6 . . . . .. X X X X X X X X

13 Jan. 6t0 Jan. 13 . . . . .. X X X X X X X X

14 Jan. 13 to Jan. 20 . . . . .. X X X X X X X X

15 Jan. 20 t0 Jan. 27 . . . . .. X X X X X X X X X X

l6 Jan. 27 to Feb. 3 . . . . .. X X X X X X X X X X
n

Each lot was fed on the basis of an average ration for each cow of
that lot. The cows within the lots were fed according to production,

6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

but the total feed for the two lots remained practically stationary. This
necessitated an individual feeding schedule for each cow, as well as
individual production records. Only the summaries and totals by lots
are included in this report.

Analysis of Cocoanut Meal

The analysis oflthe cocoanut meal fed, as compared with the average
analysis of cocoanut meals, as given by Henry and Morrison, was as

follows:
Table 2.—Analysis of cocoanut meal.

 

Nutrients. Sample. i H. & M.
Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.94 20.90

Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.35 8.10

Crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.86 11.20

Nitrogen-free extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . 47.19 45.30

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .98 9.60

Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.68 l 4.90

The similarity of the two analyses shows plainly that the figures as
given by Henry and Morrison are entirely applicable in calculating
the adequacy of this feed in the ration in supp-lying its quota of total
digestible crude protein and total digestible nutrients.

Digestible Nutrients

Table 3.-—Probable digestible crude protein and total. digestible nutrients
per 100 pounds of feed.

   

Total
Feed. Crude protein. digestible
nutrients.
Wheat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 36.9

Silage (immature) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 13.3

Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. 5 60.9

Peanut meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 20.2 ‘ 58.7

Cocoanut meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8 79.0

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0 78.2

By the use of these figures the adequacy of each ration fed was cal-
culated. In this connection it should be noted that the cocoanut meal
and cottonseed meal were compared on the basis of their total digestible
nutrients and not in proportion to or on the basis of their digestible
crude protein. This was advisable from several standpoints. The cocoa-
nut meal is not capable of being fed in sulficient quantity to supply the
bulk of the required protein and in the ration as planned an adequacy
of protein was guaranteed, so that any excess of nutrients went for
production. Since the cocoanut meal and cottonseed meal approxi-
mated each other closely in total digestible nutrients (79.0 and 78.2)
they were arranged in the test on the pound-fo-r-pound basis.

COOOANUT MEAL vs. COTTONSEED MEAL FOR DAIRY Cows.

1

7 i r
Prevailing Prwes

7‘

Tlllie prices obtaining for the feeds used at the time of starting this

test are given in the following table:

Table 4.—-Pric es of feeds used.

Feed. Per ton Per pound.
Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5.00 ' $00025

Straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00 .0040

Bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.00 .0190

Peanut meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.00 .0200

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.00 .0260

Cocoanul meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.00 .0195

Records 0f Lots

The following table shows the Weekly record for each lot during the
test. It is from this table that we obtain the data upon which con-

clusions are drawn.

Table 5.—Weekly record of each lot during test.

Per

Lot. Silage. Straw. Cone. C.N.M. C.S.M. Milk. cent Lbs. Weights.

‘ fat. fat.
1. . . .. 875 201 182 52.5 52.5 549.5 5.65 31.08 3902
 875 201 182 52.5 52.5 525.8 5.43 28.57 3945

 875 198 182 105.0 . . . . . . .. 533.8 5.69 30.37

1... .. 875 218 220 83.5 . . . . . . .. 441.8 6.53 28.86

1. 875 231 238 70.0 . . . . . . .. 463.0 5.76 26.67

1. 875 195 238 70.0 . . . . . . .. 441.4 5.96 26.31

 875 206 238 70.0 . . . . . . .. 511.5 5.79 29.59
1. . . .. 875 220 238 35.0 35.0 508.6 5.54 28.18 4235
2. . . . . 875 450 238 35.0 35.0 397.2 6.39 25.40 4125
2..... 875. 410 238 70.0 . . . . . . .. 376.0 6.28 23.61

 875 365 238 70.0 . . . . . . .. 359.5 6.08 21.85

2.. 875 380 218.5 64.5 . . . . . . .. 354.7 6.43 22.81

 875 390 238 70.0 . . . . . . .. 339.7 6.32 21.47

2..... 875 390 207 60.0 . . . . . . .. 321.2 6.46 20.75 4150
 8'75 390 238 35.0 35.0 325.6 6.33 20.62
2..... 875 400 238 35.0 35.0 332.8 6.27 20.86 ' 4065
2..... 875 201 182 52.5 52.5 549.7 5.54 30.48 V3935
2. . . .. 875 201 182 52.5 52.5 498.7 5.63 28.06 3975
2..... 875 198 182 . . . . . . .. 105 504.7 5.85 29.51

 875 218 225.5 . . . . . . .. 87.5 446.1 6.23 27.78

 875 231 238 . . . . . . .. 70.0 412.5 5.53 23.81

 875 195 238 . . . . . . .. 70.0 400.7 6.29 25.21

 875 - 206 238 . . . . . . .. 70.0 446.7 5.75 25.78
2. . . . . 875 220 238 35.0 35.0 452.4 5.75 26.056 4125
1. . . . . 875 450 238 35.0 35.0 444.6 6.09 27.07 4235
 875 410 238 . . . . . . .. 70.0 446.9 5.76 25.75

 875 365 238 . . . . . . .. 70.0 437.3 5.99 26.19

 875 380 238 . . . . . . .. 70.0 448.2 5.98 26.81

. . . . .. 875 390 238  70.0 423.0 5.96 25.22

l . . . . . 875 390 238 . . . . . . . . 70.0 429.2 5.79 25.84 3990
1.. 875 390 238 35.0 35.0 416.7 6.06 25.26
1. . . .. 875 400 238 35.0 35.0 425.1 6.15 26.15 3845

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL Exrnnnicxr STATION.

From Table 5 we procure the figures for Table 6, which shows the
average food consumption on the cocoanut meal ration, on the cotton-
seed meal ration and on the mixture of the two.

Table 6. Total and average records pa r lot of five cows, according to supplemental concentrate.
t Sil- I C. N. C. S. _ Per Lbs. Cost of
‘ age. Straw. Cone. M. 1\ . Milk. (Fiftlt fat. _ feed.
e a .
10 weeks C. N. M. .  .. 8750 2983 2255.5 733 . . . . .. 4142.6 6.09 252.29 9Z3 91.858

10 weeks. C. S. 1V1 . . . . . .. 8750 2983 2311.5 . . . . . . 752.5 4395.3 5.96 261.90 98.215

12 weeks both . . . . . . . . . . 10500 3724 2632 490 490 5426.7 5.86 317.79 114.502

1 week C. N. M . . . . . .. 875 298322555 73.3 . . . . .. 414.26 6.09 25.23 9.1858‘

1 week C. S. M . . . . . . .. 875 2983 231.15 . . . . .. 75.25 439.53 5.96 26.19 9.8215

1 week both . . . . . . . . . .. 875 3103 219.3 40.8 40.8 452.22 5.86 26.48 9.5418

Elecd Cost 0f Production

§From these tables it is possible to calculate the feed cost per pound
of milk and per pound of butter fat. We find that for the cocoanut
meal, cottonseed meal, and mixed rations, the feed cost per pound of
milk is 80.0222, 550.0223, and 80.0211, respectively, and for pounds of
butter fat, $0.364, $0.375, and $0.360, respectively.

From these results it is apparent that so far as economyof pro-
duction was concerned there was not a great deal of difference between
the three kinds of rations compared. The ration containing both cocoa-
nut and cottonseed meals proved the most economical, while the milk
produced on. the cottonseed meal ration was slightly more expensive
than that produced on cocoanut meal. So far as the feed cost of a
pound of butter fat was concerned, on the cocoanut meal ration the
cost per pound was over one cent less than on the cottonseed meal
ration, while the cost was least on the mixed ration.

So ifar as percentages of butter fat vvcre concerned, here again the
cocoanut meal feeding produced on the average through the entire
experiment about .2 per cent. more of butter faflaverziging 6.1 per
cent, while both the cottonseed meal and mixed ration yielded on the
average of 5.9 per cent. of butter fat. Thus from the standpoint of
production the rations containing both cocoanut meal and cottonseed
meal proved most economical. .

The weights of the cows remained practically constant from start
to finish, each lot weighing at the close of the experiment within a few
pounds of the weight at the beginning. We can, therefore, consider
any gain or loss in weights as negligible.

 

COCOANUT MEAL vs. COTTONSEED BIEAL FOR DAIRY Cows. 9

Conch/serious

In general, our results correspond with previous experiments con-
ducted to test the feeding value of cocoanut meal. Of this feed, Henry
and Morrison* have the following to say:

“Cococmut .l[eaZ.-—'l‘he residue from the manufacture of oil from
the cocoanut, Cocos Alucifera, known as cocoanut meal, is lower in
crude protein than the oil meals previously discussed but it contains
somewhat more crude protein than Wheat bran and much more fat
and has a higher feeding value. It is used to some extent by the dairy-
men in the Pacific Coast States and produces butter of good quality
and firmness, therefore being well adapted to summer feeding. Euro-
pcan experience shows that cocoanut .meal may be fed with success to
horses, sheep, and swine. On account of its tendency to turn rancid
it can be kept but a few weeks in warm weather.”

This last point, rancidiiiyr, was a decidedly noticeable factor. Some
sacks were sweet and palatable, while others were decidedly rancid and
unpalatable, the cows frequently refusing to eat the feed containing the
meal. The worst (liffictilty met in conducting the experiment was to
get the cows to eat the required amounts of cocoanut meals, which
caused a change from the original plans.

As a general conclusion, it seems as though some cocoanut meal can
profitably be added to (lairy rations in the place of a part of the cotton-
seed meal, but, owing to lack of palatability, two pounds per head per
day is probably' the extent of substitution possible.

*Feeds and Feeding, p. 179.