A1 3-111 8-8m TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS ‘ W. B. BIZZELL, President BULLETIN NO. 238 NOVEMBER, 1918 DIVISION OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY DAIRY CATTLE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS B. YOUNGBLOOD, Dnuwron COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. STATION STAFF T ADMINISTRATION _ B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S.,_ Director A. B. CONNER, B. S., Vice Director J. M. JoNEs, A. M.. Assistant Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE. Secretary _ _ _ W. T. BRiNK, B. S., Executive Assistant in Charge of Library and Publication .................................. .., Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE _ *M. FRANcis. D. V. M.. Chief _ H. SCHMIDT, D. V. S., Veterinarian _ D. H. BENNETT, V. M. D., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. ASBURY. M. S., Assistant Chemist S. LOMANITZ. B. S., Assistant Chemist FRANcEs SUMMERELL, B. S., Assistant Chemist WALDQ WALKER, Assistant Chemist TOMMIE FRANKLIN, Laboratory Assistant GUssiE BROCKMAN. Laboratory Assistant VELMA GRAHAM, Laboratory Assistant HORTICULTURE H. NEss. M. S., Chief _ W. S. HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist ANIMAL INDUSTRY _ J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations. . C. BURNS, B. S.. Animal Husbandman in Charge of Beef Cattle Investigations (on leave) P. V. EWING. M. S., Animal Husbandman in Charge of Swine Investigations . M. HUBBARD, B. S., Assistant Animal Husbandman W. A. DOUBT, Dairyman YENTOMOLOGY F. B. PADDOCK, M. S., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist .............................. .., Assistant Entomologist AGRONOMY A. B. CQNNER, B. S., Chief A. H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronomist E. W. GEi ER, B. S., Agronomist .................................. Assistant Agronomist PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief FORESTRY E. O. SEICKE, M. F., Chief; State Forester PLANT BREEDING E. P. HUMRERT, Ph. D., Chief FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief J AMES SULLIVAN, Executive Secretary FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS THE DiREcToR, Chief SOIL SURVEY **W. T. CARTER. JR., Chief J. F. STROUD, Soil Surveyor NEAL GEARREALD, Soil Surveyor T. M. BUSHNELL, B. S., Soil Surveyor SUBSTATIONS No. l. Beeville, Bee County _ I. E. CowART, M. S., Superintendent N-o. 2. Troup, Smith County i W. S. Horciikiss, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Superintendent No. 4. Beaumont, Jelferson County H. H. LAuoE, M. S., Superintendent AARON HARMON, ‘Scientific Assistant No. 5. Temple, Bell County D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent No. 6. Denton, Denton County C. H. McDowELL, B. S., Superintendent No. 7. Spur, Dickens County _ .R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent TAs of December 1, 1918. No. 8. Lubbock, Lubbock County R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent D. L. JONES, Scientific Assistant J. W. PRESTON, Forestry and Nursery Foreman No. 9. Pecos, Reeves County_ J. W. Jackson, B. S., Superintendent No. l0. (Feeding and Breeding Substation), College Station, Brazos County J. W. JENNINGS, B. S., Superintendent H. G. WARE, Scientific Assistant No. l1. Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent No. 12. Chillicothe, Hardeman County A. B. CRON, B. S., Acting Superintendent V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Scientific Assistant No. 14. Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent *In cooperation with the School of Veterinary Medicine, A. & M. College of Texas. **In cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. CONTENTS. Page Cottonseed meal vs. peanut feed for milk production . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . 9 Comparison of. methods of preparation of velvet beans for dairy cows. 10 Conclusions . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] BULLETIN No. 238. NOVEMBER, 1918. DAIRY CATTLE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS BY P. V. EWING, ANIMAL HUSBANDMAN. J. W. RIDGWAY,* PROFESSOR on DAIRY HUsBANnRY, A. AND M. COLLEGE. W. A. DOUBT, DAIRYMAN. This report covers two experiments in dairy cattle feeding conducted during the spring of 1918. They were calculated to answer questions pertaining to feeding value for milk production of important Texas feedstuffs. Cottonseed meal is, of course, the most commo-nly used pro- tein concentrate for dairy cows and is hence in many instances used as a standard by which to compare the milk-producing value of feeds to be tested. The peanut feed used was the ground pressed peanuts, which had a part of the hulls removed. Peanut products are coming rapidly into more general use as feed because of a rapidly increasing produc- tion of peanuts. Velvet beans constitute a new dairy cattle feed of growing importance. While only the eastern and coastal regions of the State are adapted for velvet bean production, the beans are being used extensively in all sections where feeding stuff must be imported. Part _I of this report covers a feeding experiment in which peanut feed was used, while Part II involves the question of the most suitable method of preparation of whole velvet beans for dairy cattle feeding. PART I. COTTONSEED MEAL vs, PEANUT FEED FOB. MILK PRODUCTION. The object of these tests was to compare the relative values of pea- nut feed and cottonseed meal for milk a.nd butter fat production. In addition to the factors of production, observations were made on ques- tions of palatability and general suitability of the feed used for dairy cows. Eighteen selected cows were divided into three lots of six cows each, care being taken to divide them as equally as possible with respect to age, production, size, feeding capacity, stage of lactation, and natural productive capacity. Table 1 shows the divisio-n and condition of the cows used in these tests. . I These cows were all treated alike in regard to pasture and basal rations and the only variable permitted was in the case of the protein supplements fed. Since the conclusions were to b-e based upon results by lots, the lots were balanced so far as total feed consumption was con- ‘ 12?‘; *In cooperation with Schoq] of Agriculture, Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. 6 TExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 1.—Condition of cows in experiment. At the beginning A At the close Cow No. y , ' _ Days in Average Average Days_1n lactation weight weight gestation Lot 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 15 840 868 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 222 760 830 222 42 3 507 582 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 9 575 635 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 102 625 740 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 101 517 598 55 Average. J . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . . s2 631 709 Lot 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 a ’ 144 665 a 745 100 26 181 710 718 69 27 99 723 790 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 88 615 682 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 52 370 448 . . . . . . . . . . . . . p, 76 43 747 825 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ ~ Average . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . 101 631 701 Lot 3 . . . . . . . . . 6 16 s30 s20 . . . . . . . . . .. ' 22 191 880 953 24 1O 625 622 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 195 505 603 121 46 0 480 557 37 48 185 753 838 166 Average. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 679 732 cerned, and the individual cows of each lot were fed according to feed- ing capacity and production. The test covered a period of twelve weeks divided ‘into four equal periods of three Weeks each. The feeding scheme shown in table 2p indicates the feeding plan. Lots 1 and 2 alternated on cottonseedmeal and peanut fee-d as the protein concen- trates, while lot 3 acted as a check lot and was fed a mixture of cotton- seed meal and peanut feed in the same proportion as to the other lots through the entire period. At the end of each period the feed was shifted abruptly in the afternoon and the records began on the next period the following morning. This was done to secure information on the“ relative palatabilities of the feeds. No cow ever refused her feed and both the peanut feed and the cottonseed meal were relished at alltimes. There were indications that the cows would not have taken’ as much cottonseed meal as they did of peanut feed. This method of changing feed abruptly is a disadvantage to the better feed, which loses credit for the good condition of the cows at the end of a period and receives them in poor. condition at the beginning of a period. ' The rations used were designated as A, B, and C, the rations con- taining peanut feed, cottonseed meal and, the mixture of the. two re- spectively. During this test the cows ran throughout the day on the best pasture available and hadaccess at night to. all ‘of the wheat. straws they would clean up. From April 14 to May 18 they were on diflfer¢ ent plats of oats, wheat, barley, and rye. Until July 1 they ran in a Wood pasture of native grasses and towards the close of the experiment they were on a Sudan pasture. Lot 3 was used as a check on the effects of the changes resulting from the method of feeding. Theconcentrate. mixtures fed in the barn at milking time were made up as follows: DAIRY CATTLE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. '71 Ration A. 100 lbs. corn chops 100 lbs. peanut feed 1 l6 lbs. salt Ration B. 300 lbs. corn chops 200 lbs. cottonseed meal 3 lbs. salt Ration C. 600 lbs. corn chops 300 lbs. peanut feed 200 lbs. cottonseed meal 7 lbs. salt Chemical analyses of composite samples of the two feeds used gave the following results : Ppanut Cottonseed e ed me Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.19 42.38 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.46 7.98 Crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.54 11 .31 Nitrogen-free extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.61 25.95 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.19 7.26 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 .01 5 . 12 Henry and Morrison give the digestible nutrients of peanut cake with hulls as 58.7 per cent., with a nutritive ratio of 1 :1.9, while the total digestible nutrient of cottonseed meal amounts to 78.2 per cent, with a. nutritive ratio of 121.1. This would give peanut feed a value a little more than two-thirds that of cottonseed meal. These feeds were, therefore, fed in the proportion of three to two. Comparison of the analyses of the peanut feed with the average analyses given by Henry and Morrison, shows the peanut feed used to be intermediate between pure peanut meal and ground whole-pressed peanuts. If it is assumed that it is intermediate also in digestibility, it is found to con- tain approximately 69.0 per cent. of digestible nutrients with a. nutri- tive ratio of 1 to 1.4. The results secured in this test indicate that these figures come most nearly to expressing its true value. It may be noted that the concentrated mixtures fed have a nutritive ratio of approximately 1 to 3. This seems at first to be very narrow, but when it is considered that the feeds obtained in the pasture were practically all rich in carbohydrates, it will be seen that the total rations were no narrower than are justified by Texas conditions, where protein is generally cheaper than carbohydrates. It would appear that the proper basis of comparison of feeds for our conditions would be the total percentage of digestible ‘nutrients rather than the percentage or proportion of protein. In order to compare the relative values of the protein in two feeds, it would be necessary to feed them in a ration which would have a nutritive ratio as wide as the feeding standards advise. Such a ration would be unnecessarily expensive and impracti- cal under Texas conditions. ‘ Table 2.—Fe»eding plan employed. I Period 1 I L Period 2 ‘ Period 3 t Period 4 Lot 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B A B A Int 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A B A B Lot 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C C C C Following out this general feeding plan, each cow’s milk was weighed at each milking and a weekly composite sample Was made up from the 8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. individual milkings on which butter fat tests were made. In addition ' to production records teed records were kept and from these the figures in table 3 have been calculated. Table 3.—-Results 0f the experiment. _ Daily production record Daily feed record in pounds. Period _ _ Test Corn P. N. C. S. Ration Milk, lbs. per cent Fat, lbs. chops feed meal Lot 1 1 . . . . .. B 15.32 4.35 0.666 2.88 . . . . . . . . .. 1.92 2 . . . . .. A 13.72 4.61 0.632 3.14 3.14 . . . . . . . . .. 3 . . . . .. B 14.41 4.51 0 649 3.21 . . . . . . . . .. 2.14 4 . . . . .. A 13.97 4.30 0 601 3.22 3.22 . . . . . . . . .. Lot 2 1 . . . . .. A 14.79 4.53 0 669 2.88 2.88 . . . . . . . . .. 2 . . . . .. B 13.04 4.72 O 615 3.14 . . . . . . . . .. 2.09 3 . . . . .. A 13.95 4.74 O 662 3.22 3.22 . . . . . . . . .. 144.3. B 12.45 4.60 0 573 3.22 . . . . . . . . .. 2.14 o 1 . . . . .. C 15.88 4.18 0 664 2.88 1.44 96 2 . . . . .. C 14.28 4.32 0 617 3.14 1.57 1 05 3 . . . . .. C 15.03 4.33 0 651 3.22 1.66 1 07 4 . . . . .. C 14.01 4.14 0 580 3.22 1.66 1 07 From table 3 can be secured comparative figures on production for the feeds being tested. Condensing the results given i,n table 3, the results given in table 4. are secured. Table 4.—Results of experiment in condensed form. Production record. I Feed record. Ration Milk, lbs. Test Fat, lbs. Corn chops P. N. feed C. S. meal A 8297.8 4 55 377.11 1831.5 1831.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. B 8119.1 4 52 368.26 1831.4 . . . . . . . . . . .. 1221 6 C 8702.9 4 24 369.34 1830.7 915 2 610 1 From these results, it is seen that ration A, the peanut feed ration, produced 178.7 pounds or 21 gallons more milk and 8.85 pounds more fat than ration B, the cottonseed meal ration. As is noted later, this increased production was not justified by the increased cost of produc- tion. It may also be noted that ration C produced 583.1 pounds, or 68 gallons more milk and 1.08 pounds more fat than ration B. The same superiority of ration A over ration B is shown by comparing the production of each lot by periods when the production of each period is expressed as a percentage of the production of the same lot in the previous period. These percentages are shown in table 5 as follows: Table 5.—Percentage changes in milk production due to changes in ration. Lot 1 Lot 2 . L01 3 Ration Change Ration Change Ration Change Priod 1to2 . . . . . . .. BtoA 89.5 AtoB 88.2 CtoC 89.9 Pidriodz2to AtoB 105.0 BtoA I 107.0 CtoC 105.3 Periods3to4 . . . . . . .. BtoA 97.0 AtoB 89.2 CiOC 93-1 DAIRY CATTLE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 9 From these figures it is found that the average change resulting from the change of ration A to B amounts to 94.1 per cent. When the change is from ration B to A. the average percentage change is. 97.8. On this basis, ration A appears to be superior to ration B. The cottonseed meal used in these tests was purchased in Novem- ber, 1917, and cost, delivered, $2.93 per hundredweight. The peanut feed was bought in March, 1918, and cost $2.96 per hundredweight. It should be noted that the two feeds cost approximately the same, with the peanut feed costing but three cents more per hundred than the cottonseed meal. As previously noted, the cows on ration A pro- duced 21 gallons more milk and 8.85 pounds more fat than when fed on ration B, the increased cost of ration A over ration B being $18.43, or 88 cents per gallon of milk and $2.07 per pound of fat. The cows of lot 3 on ration C produced 68 gallons more milk and 1.08‘ pounds more fat than the cows on ration B at a greater cost of $9.18, the in- creased milk costing 13.5 cents per gallon. From these figures, it ap- pears that the greatest economy of production came from ration C‘ con- taining both cottonseed meal and peanut feed. This is in accord with previous work* with cocoanut meal, where a mixture of cottonseed meal and cocoanut meal was found to give greatest yield and economy of production. In studying the results of this test,,note should be made from table 1 that lot 1 gained in Weight during the experiment an average of 72 pounds per cow, while lot 2 gained an average of '70 pounds per cow. Considering the condition of the cows at the beginning of the test, some gain in weight was desirable but it is not possible to tell how much feed was required for these gains. Conclusions. The results of this test indicate that 1. This commercial peanut feed did not prove quite so valuable for milk and butter fat production pound for pound as the cottonseed meal. 2. The most economical ration fed was the one containing both cot- tonseed meal and peanut feed in the proportion of two to three, when both feeds cost approximately the same. 3. Under most conditions in the State total digestible nutrients offer a better method of comparing feeds for dairy cows than does the protein content. 4. There were evidences of some differences in the palatabilities of the rations. Ration C, containing both peanut feed and cottonseed meal, proved most palatable, while ration A, containing peanut meal, was more palatable than ration B, containing the cottonseed meal. *Bulletin 225, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 1O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. PART II. COMPARISON OF METHODS OF PREPARATION OF VELVET BEANS FOR DAIRY COWS. The velvet bean is comparatively a new crop which in two or three years has attained great prominence in all the southeastern and gulf States. There are many varieties of velvet beans, which vary a great deal in amount of ‘foliage, yield of beans, and other hab-its of growth. Among the chief varieties are the Early Speckled, Florida, Yokahoma, Chinese, Lyon, Osceola, and Georgia. Of. these the Early Speckled is the most generally grown and was the kind used in the experiment -herein reported. Nearly all velvet beans are grown in connection with corn, corn being planted as early as possible and the velvet beans being planted as soon as all danger of frost has passed. The beans are either planted in alternate rows with corn or planted in the same rows. In either case, the corn acts as a support for the beans. Velvet beans do very well on even the poorest soils. While they secure an abundance of nitrogen from the air, they frequently require some mineral fertiliz- ers in order to secure a maximum yield. It should be borne in mind, however, that the velvet bean is a sub- tropical plant, adapted only to conditions of abundant moisture. Ex- periments have shown that it cannot safely be planted in other than the extreme southeast portion of the State. In East Texas it should be planted only on the advice and under the supervision of the county agent. While the most common practice of feeding is to turn cattle and hogs in the field to graze off the crops, the practice has grown of hand- picking the best of the beans before the stock are turned in and of using these picked beans in the hulls for feeding purposes. The beans as they come from the field are readily eaten by the cattle. They are, of course, nitrogenous in nature and it has been found that they can be fed in indefinite quantities to cows without injury. Their high feeding value has created a great demand in those sections where a lack of feed, especially protein concentrates, prevails. The advantages of crushing the beans because of greater economy in shipping and storage soon be- came quite apparent, and certain difficulties were met with in the grinding of velvet beans which necessitated special grinding machinery. While probably most of the velvet beans have been shipped out as vel- vet bean feed, which is composed of the ground whole beans, large quantities have also been shipped of the unground beans in the bulk. These beans, in many instances, have constituted a new feed in the localities where they have been shipped in, which has given rise to questions concerning the best methods of preparation of beans for feed- ing purposes. Because of the demand for information along this liiae, this Station undertook to conduct some feeding experiment-s with velvet beans with the following objects in view: First, to compare the influ- ence of methodsof preparation of velvet beans on milk and butter fat production; second, to study the influence of methods of preparation of velvet beans on palatability; third, to study the influence of methods of preparation of velvet beans on economy of production. - 1'Iru-I§r-" WNW-av». _ .. DAIRY CATTLE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 11 For this workltwelve cows were selected, and. divided into four lots. After giving due consideration to the size of the cows, their productive capacity, ‘period of lactation, previous feeding, and other factors, they were divided into four lots. Each lot of three head was then fed ghrough four periods of twenty days each. on daily rations made up as ollows: - a Pasture Corn bran C. S. meal Whole Gvelvet/beans ts Ration A 4 parts 2 parts par Ration B “ “ “ Cracked velvet beans parts , , Ration C “ “ “ Cracked and soaked velvet beans, ,6 parts Ration D “ “ “ Ground velvet beans, 6 parts, , No record was kept o-f the amount of feed which the cowsconsumed on pasture. The pasture was at lea.st average in quantity and quality and was a common Texas woods pasture. The corn bran and cotton- seed meal were fed in the quantities indicated above as the basal con- centrates, while the velvet bean feed was fed at the rate of six pounds per head per day, and the variable was constituted by the method of preparation of this six pounds of velvet beans as indicated in the rations given above. '.l‘he feeding, schedule employed was according to the following: Periods Lots 1 . 2 3 4 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A B C D 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C D A B 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D A B C 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B C D A For reference, the following average analyses* of thejifeeds used is herewith given: Table 1.—Average analyses-d‘ of concentrates used. Nitrogen- ' l . Crude Crude Crude free Water Ash i protein fat fiber extract Corn bran . . . . . . . . . .. 9 .82 .03 10.79 59.31 10.63 i .42 v,- Gottonseed meal. . . . . 43.55 7.86 10.23’ 26.29 6.73» 5.34 l Velvet bean feed. . . . . 17.21 .44 14.26 49.90 9.50 i .69 . *Supplied by Texas Feed Control Service. The analyses of the concentrates used indicated that they were ade- quate to supply the requisite quantities of digestible crude protein and total digestible nutrients. The experiment wasj-run so that there were four five-day periods in each of the twenty-day periods. Atthe end of each five-day period a complete report was made of the total Afeeds con? sumed, total milk production, average butter-fat percentage from com- posite samples, and pounds of butter-fat production. In addition, notes Were made on relative palatabilities of the rations used. From these reports we are enabled to calculate the results of thelexperiments as shown in tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 as follows: ’ '6 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 2.—Showing feeds consumed and milk and butter-fat production on the several rations by five-day periods for period 1. Corn C. S Velvet bran meai beans Milk Test Fat Period la ' 1 Ration A. . . . . . . . . . 60 30 80% 507.5 3.35 17.043 Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 6O 3O 90 460.2 3.4 15.845- Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 89 540.3 3 .2 17.447 Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 89% 483. 1 3.6 17 .233 Period lb Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 100 495.0 3.3 16. 120 Ration C . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 433.5 3.2 13.997 Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 491.6 2.9 14.075 Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 6O 30 90 439.2 3.4 15.104 Period 1c Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 473.7 3 .4 16.298 Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 405.5 3.5 14.329 Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 60 3O 90 488. 8 3.2 15.398 Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 6O 3O 9O 434.0 2.7 15.863 Period 1d Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 6O 3O 90 512.5 2.9 14.702 ~ Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 6O 30 9O 466.6 3.0 14.198 Ration D . . . . . . . . .. 6O 30 9O 510.2 3.0 15.400 Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 6O 30 90 457.5 3.2 14.456 Table 3.—Showing feeds consumed and milk and "butter-fat production on the several rations by five-day periods for period 2. Corn C S. Velvet bran meal beans Milk Test Fat Period 2a - l Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 6O 3O 90 495.8 2.7 13 .297 Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 60 3O 9O 460.5 2.8 12.782 Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 6O 30 90 499.8 2.8 14.220 Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 60 3O 90 459.9 3.1 14.013 Period 2b Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 9O 458.6 3.0 13.674 Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 449.5 2.9 13.068 Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 457.9 3.0 13.720 Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 451.7 3.2 14.407 Period 2c Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 427.2 3.4 14.221 Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 421.3 3.0 12.759 Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 449.2 3.2 14.388 Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 411.6 3.2 13.280 Period 2d Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 400.5 2.9 11.729 Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 368.0 3.0 11.140 Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 60 3O 90 398.6 ' 3.2 12.802 Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 6O 30 90 388.9 3.4 13.360 Table 4.—Showing feeds consumed and milk and butter-fat production on the several ' rations by five-day periods for period 3. a Corn C. S. Velvet bran meal beans Milk Test Fat Period 3a Ration C . . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 418.2 3.1 12.605 Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 383.2 2.9 11.060 Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 402.5 3. 1 12.594 Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 6O 30 9O 379 .3 3.4 12.814 Period 3b Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 396.3 3.2 12.816 a Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 350.9 2.9 10.318 " i Ration B . . . . . . . . .. 6O 30 90 401 .4 2 .9 11.901 Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 375.1 3.4 1.2.659 Period 3c Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 400.3 3.5 13.815 Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 347 .2 3.5 12.289 Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 391 . 1 3. 3 12.880 Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 6O 30 90 399.8 3.5 13.854 Period 3d Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 9O 382.5 3.4 12.915 Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 6O 30 90 333.8 3.5 11 .473 Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 60 370.6 3.2 12.087 Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 6O 30 90 352.0 3.6 12.676 DAIRY CATTLE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 13 Table 5.—Showingsfeeds consumed and milk and butter-fat production on the several rations by five-day periods for period 4. Corn C. S. Velvet bran meal beans Milk Test Fat Period 4a Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 365.0 3.1 11.146 Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 302.5 3.1 9.450 Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 326.3 3.4 11 .082 Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 308.0 3.8 1 .651 Period 4b Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 341 .3 3.4 11 797 Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 288.0 3.4 9 225 Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 331 .6 3.5 11 483 Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 282.1 3.4 601 Period 4c Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 360.5 3.5 12.600 Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 296.1 3.4 9.981 Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 324.4 3.5 11.265 Ration A . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 267.1 3.4 149 Period 4d Ration D . . . . . . . . . . 60 3O 90 386.9 3.4 13.137 Ration B . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 297.2 3 . 5 10.458 Ration C . . . . . . . . . . 60 30 90 340.9 3 . 5 11.823 Ration A . . . . . . . . .. 60 30 90 270.2 3.7 9.912 From tables 2, 3, 4 and 5, it is possible to construct table 6, which offers a direct method of comparison of the yields of milk and butter- fa-t on the basis of method of preparation of the beans. Table 6.—Showing feeds consumed and milk and butter-fat produced on the four rations being compared. Corn C. S. Velvet I bran meal beans Milk Test Fat Ration A . . . . . . . . . . . . 960 480 1440% 6,336.7 3 .23 204.746 Ration B . . . . . . . . . . . . 960 480 1439M; 6,345.3 3 .22 204.153 Ration C . . . . . . . . . . . . 960 480 1440 6,398.4 3.30 211.233 Ration D . . . . . . . . . . . . 960 480 1440 6,690.1 3.18 212.752 From the standpoint of production, several points of interest are- to be noted from table 6. So far as milk production is concerned, it should be noted that the more cracking of the beans was not justified by the increased yield which for 1440 pounds of beans amounted to but 1 gallon of milk. The increase over Whole beans was only .13 per cent. At 40 cents per gallon, one ton of beans cracked would be Worth but about 55 cents more than Whole beans. Since it is practically impos- sible to handle and crush or crack beans at these figures, it is safe to assume that in this case it did not pay to merely crack the beans. It was found that by cracking and soaking, an increased yield of 0.96 per cent. or 7.2 gallons for 1440 pounds was secured. This would be at the rate of 10 gallons increased production per ton of cracked soaked beans. At 40 cents per gallon this Would make the additional value of milk secured as a result of cracking and soaking $4.00 per ton. If the beans could be cracked and soaked for less than this figure per ton the operation would be profitable. Under most conditions it could not be done for this figure and would usually not be found justifiable. The extra labor and trouble involved, not only in the cracking, but in the soaking, would not be justified. When the beans are ground an in- ‘l4 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. creased production of 5.57 per cent or 41tgallons per 1440 ipoundrslor ~57 gallons per ton was secured, which is worth $22.80 at 40 cents per . gallon. Since regular feed mills ordinarily grind at a cost of $2.50 to $3.00 per ton and since on most farms Where the equiment is avail- able the cost does not usually exceed $5.00 per ton, it is quite evident that the grinding of velvet beans for cows is quite a profitable operation. So far as the butter-fat production is concerned, at leastjsimilar re- sults were secured. The cracking resulted in a fraction of a pound production decrease, which is negligible. The cracking and soaking yielded an increased milk production of 3.14 per cent. OI“6% pounds for 1440 pounds of beans. At 50 cents per pound this would be worth but $3.25, which would, as has been noted, not justify the extra. labor and .trouble involved. lVhen one comes to the grinding, there is found an increased production of 3.98, or practically 4 per cent. due to the grinding. For 1440 pounds the milk increase was 8 pounds, which for one ton would amount to 11.1 pounds. At 50 cents per pound this would amount to $5.55, which, as previously noted. would be justified. Yet the increased production of fat is not so marked asthe increased milk production. _ j When one considers the percentage of butter fat. there are no wide variations. The difference on all the rations is within a range of 0.12 per cent. With the increased milk production where the beans were ground, there naturally occurs the lowest percentage of butter-fat. One of the objects of this test was to ascertain the influence of method of preparation of the beans on palatability. Careful observa- tion through the period of the experiment showed that the method of preparation apparently exerted no influence on palatability. When first started on the experiment, several. of the cows at first refused to eat all of their feed, but cows on all the rations left some feed. j After they became accustomed to the beans, which were a new feed to them, they ate the full amount with relish. The method of preparation therefore seemed to exert no influence on the palatability. Conclusions. As a result of these tests the following conclusions seem justified: 1. Extra preparation of the velvet beans always resulted in increased milk production. 2. Cracking" and soaking and grinding of the beans always resulted in increased butter-fat production. l 3. Cracking of the beans alone was not justified from the stand- point of increased production. 4. Cracking and soaking had a doubtful value when considered from the standpoint of increased production of milk and butter-fat. 5. Grinding proved very profitable from the standpoint of increased milk production and was justified by increased butter-fat production. 6. The method of preparation exerted no apparent influence on ‘pal- atability. l i