UBQARYI COLLEGE OF‘ "?”;;..» . ‘- ‘P Assé-lozo-lsM-L TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, President BULLETIN NO. 269 I OCTOBER, I920 DIVISION OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY GRAIN SORGHUMS VS. CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS B. YOUNGBLOOD, Dmncron common smmon, BRAZOS coumrz, rams STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk . A. S. WARE, Secretary _ A. D. JACKSON, Executive Assistant CHARLES SOSOLIK, 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. LOMANITI, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. B. SMITH, B. S., Assistant Chemist WALDO WALKER, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE H. NESS, M. S., Chief _ _ W. S. Ilowcniuss, Horticulturist ANIMAL INDUSTRY J. M. Jonas, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations R. M. SHERWOOD, B. S., Ppultryman J. B. McNULTY, B. S., Dairyman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. ., Animal Husband- man in Charge of Swine Investigations B. A. BREWER, B. S., Assistant Animal Hus- ENTOMOLOGY M. C. TANQUARY, Ph. D., Chief: State Ento- mologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., A piculturist C. S. RUDE, B. S., Assistant Entomologist AGRONOMY A. B. CONNER, B. S., Chief A. H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronomist E. W. Gavan, B. S., Agronomisi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., A gronomist PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENBAUS, Ph. D., Chief FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief S. D. PEARCE, Executive Secretary FORESTRY” . E. O. SIECKE, B. S., Chief; State Forester PLANT BREEDING E. P. Huuaizm‘, Ph. D., Chief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS A. B. Cox, Ph. D., Chief SOIL SURVEY **W. T. CARTER, Jn., B. S., Chief T. M. BUSHNELL, B. S., Soil Surveyor bandman H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor SUBSTATIONS No. 1. Beeville, Bee County _ No. 8. Lubbock, Lubbock County I. E. COWART, M. S., Superintendent R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent No. 2. Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Superintendent No. 4. Beaumont, Jeflerson County A. H. Pnmciz, B. S., Superintendent No. 5. Temple, Bell County D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent No. 6. Demon, Denton County C. H. MCDOWELL, B. S., Superintendent No. 7. Spur, Dickens County R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent TA! of October 31, 1920. No. 9. Pecos, Reeves County V. L. Conv, B. S., Superintendent No. 10. (Feeding and Breeding Substation), College Station, Brazos County L. J. MCCALL. Superintendent L. J. FISHER, Scientific Assistant No. 11. Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County G. T. MCNESS, Superintendent "No. l2. Chillicotlie, Hardeman County B. non, B. S., Superintendent V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Scientific Assistant No. l4. Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent *In cooperation with the School of Veterinary Medicine, A. étlMlCollege ‘of Texas. _"In cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. BULLETIN No. 269 _ a OCTOBER, 1920 GRAIN SORGHUMS VS. CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS J. M. JoNEs, RoY A. BREWER, R. E. DroKsoN. Lamb-feeding in Texas has never been engaged in extensively,— probably on account of the fact that stockmen interested in this par- ticular industry have not as yet come to appreciate fully the value of the grain sorghums in the lamb-fattening ration. The grain sorghums are numbered among West Texas’ safest crops. There is some hesitancy, however, on the part of the farmers residing in those sections of Texas adapted to their production, to engage ex- tensively in the propagation of these crops owing to the limited market demand for them. According to the 1919 December estimate of the United States Department of Agriculture Crop Report, the production of grain sorghum in Texas, for the year 1919, was 59,333,000 bushels. According to digestion experiments conducted by Fraps at the Texas Station* it has been shown that threshed milo grain has a productive value of 19.1 as compared with 20.63 for corn, or a feeding value of approximately 93 per cent. of that of corn. According to reliable information, twenty different shipments of corn chops, inspected by the Texas Feed Control Service, since Sep- tember 1, 1919, were sold in Texas at an average wholesale price of $63.09 per ton, while a like amount of milo chops sold at an average wholesale price of $50.66 per ton, a figure twentyper cent. lower than corn, which according to investigations previously conducted by the Texas Station, represented a loss to the producers of approximately thirteen per cent. of its actual market value. Any crop that sells at thirteen per cent. below its actual worth or market value is almost certain to meet with curtailed production. The market for the grain sorghums has not as yet been standardized, a lack probably due to the fact that feeders operating outside the grain sorghum producing areas have not come to realize that these grains have productive values almost equal to that of corn. Extensive feeding investigations in which the grain sorghums have been compared with corn for fattening lambs have not as yet been reported. Livestock feeding tests have been reported by the Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas Experiment Stations; but although interesting and valuable results have been obtained, it would seem that further research with these feeds in the lamb-fattening ration is warranted. p In several feeding tests in which cross-bred lambs were being com-. pared at the Texas Experiment Substation No. 7, those fattened on ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay, made gains aver_- *Texas Station Bulletins Nos. 170 and 203. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. aging between 0.4 and 0.5 pound daily throughout ninety to one hun- dred-day feeding periods. Such gains are regarded as phenomenal, since lambs fatte-ned on standard corn-belt rations very seldom make daily gains equaling or surpassing those figures. Five years ago the Texas Experiment Station, Substation No. '7, dis- covered that ground milo heads have a valuable place in the ration of the fattening lamb. Gross-bred lambs were being fattened on ground milo, cottonseed meal, and hay. Toward. the end of the experiment the supply of the threshed grain becameexhausted and as a threshing ma- chine was not immediately available to thresh out the necessary amount of grain With which to complete the feeding test, it Was decided to grind the entire milo heads. This was done, and much to the surprise of the authors, the daily gains made by the lambs after the substitution of the ground heads for the threshed grain was almost as satisfactory as those made previously to the substitution. It was with the View of throwing additional light upon this subject that a more elaborate experiment in the feeding of grain sorghums to fattening lambs was planned and initiated in November, 1919. OBJECT. The object of this test was to compare the gains and the economy of gains made by lambs fattened on milo, on feterita, on kafir, and on COTD. RATIONS FED. The following rations were supplied: Lot I. Ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot II. Ground threshed feterita, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot III. Ground corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot IV. Ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot V. G-round fe-terita heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot VI. Ground threshed kafir, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. DURATION OF EXPERIMENT. The feeding test herein reported extended over a period of ninety days, beginning November 26, 1919, and closing February 24, 1920. THE LAMBS. The one hundred and twenty lambs used in this test were of Ram- bouillet breeding, and with the exception of twenty head, which were bred by the Experiment Station at Substation No. 7 (the Station at which this test was conducted), were purchased from a neighboring ranchman in Dickens County. The lambs were of uniform type and breeding, and aside from being rather thin, no criticism could be made. These lambs were purchased early in. November, 1919, at $8.00 per head, and the average weight was 59.42 pounds. Figured on a pound basis, the purchase price of these lambs averaged about 13.5 cents, which was C}! GRAIN SORGHUMS vs. CoRN FOR FATTENING LAMBS. the price being paid for feeders on the Kansas City market at that season. The lambs were divided equally, so far as such a division was possible with respect to uniformity of type and Weight. The six lots were numbered consecutively from left to right. In order to assure fairness and impartiality in the assignment of rations, slips designating the six different rations were prepared and drawn from a hat by a dis- interested party. The respective rations were assigned to each lot in consecutive order as designated by the slips as they were drawn from the hat. ~ Representative samples of the respective feeds utilized during the test were taken at thirty-day intervals throughout the experiment. All samples were selected in accordance with instructions issued by the Station Chemist and submitted to him for analyses, the respective results being set forth in Table 1 below. Table I.-——Composition of feeds used during experiment. Nitro- Protein Fat Crude gen-free Water Ash Kinds of Feed. per cent. per cent. fibre extract per cent. per cent. . per cent. per cent. Milo heads, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.53 2.91 7 12 64.97 11 15 3 32 Feterita heads, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.95 2.87 6 37 65.44 12 63 2 74 Threshed feterita, ground... . . . . . . . 12.58 3.74 2 28 67.00 12 75 1 65 Threshed milo, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.94 2. 88 2 29 68. 83 12 24 1.82 Corn, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 69 4.59 2 72 70.66 10 96 1.38 Threshed kafir, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.01‘ 3. 64 2 82 69.44 11 31 1.87 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.38 8.38 9 04 24.96 8 25 5.99 Alfalfa hay grown in New Mexico. . 15.23 1.43 27 37 37.92 10 02 8. 03 Alfalfa hay grown at Spur . . . . . . . . . 16. 30 1.57 27 98 35.07 9 41 9. 67 It was deemed advisable to utilize Kansas corn for the particular lot of lambs which was to receive that concentrate since the investigators were desirous of feeding a grade of corn that would assure a fair and impartial test. Yellow corn was ordered, but unfortunately the white corn had to be utilized since the former kind was not available at the time the test was started. The milo that was utilized during this test represented a No. 1 grade and for the most part was grown on Sub- station N o. 7, the balance, which was also of the same grade, was pro- duced on an adjoining farm. The feterita that was fed was produced on the Station and was of excellent quality, representing a No. 1 grade. The kafir utilized was purchased at a point on the plains some thirty miles from the Station, and, although slightly inferior to the milo- and feterita above referred to, it was easily classified under the No. 1 grade. COST OF FEEDS. The following prices for the feeds utilized during the experiment herein reported are considered fair and equitable, in so far as it has been possible to determine them: Ground milo heads, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $30.00 Ground threshed feterita, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.77 Corn chops, per ton; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . 63.09’ Ground threshed milo, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.77 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Ground feterita heads, per ton . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ..$30.00 Ground threshed kafir, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.77 Qottonseed meal, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.00 Alfalfa hay, per ton . . . . . .i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.00 The value assigned to the corn crops used. during this test conforms with the wholesale price on a large shipment of corn into Texas in September, 1919, and is considered as being a fair figure upon which to base calculations. The actual price paid by the Station for the small amount of corn utilized during ‘this test was $77.00 per ton. In the making of calculations, however, the figures are based on the Wholesale figure of $63.09 per ton. ' During the early fall months, milo, feterita, and kafir heads Were available in the Plains country at a figure averaging around $25.00. although many tons of milo and feterita heads Were disposed of at cheaper figures. Some choice milo heads Were purchased for this test at $14.00 per ton. In the calculations, however, all figures are based on a price of $30.00 per ton for ground heads. In calculating the values of the threshed ground grain sorghums utilized in this test, it Was estimated that the milo, feterita, and kafir heads would thresh out seventy-five (75) per cent. grain. Assessing a charge of $4.45 per ton for threshing an.d $4.00 per ton for grinding, the ground threshed sorghums Were valued at $41.77 per ton. WEATHER CONDITIONS. Table 2.—Showing maximum and minimum_temperati_ires and precipitation at Substation . No. 7 during period of feeding -test. Maximum Minimum Year. Month. temperature, temperature, Precipitation, degrees F. degrees F. inches. 1919 . . . . . . . . . . . November* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 16 0. 8 1919 . . . . . . . . . . . December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 9 trace 1920 . . . . . . . . . .. January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 18 " 1.31 1920 . . . . . . . . . . . February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 80 18 trace *Aftei' November 26, beginning of experiment. All the lambs included in this test had access to shelter; therefore, the feeding experiment was not ‘affected by inclement weather. For- tunately there was no precipitation on the regular weighing dates and the weighing was done according to schedule throughout the test. During the extremely cold Weather the lambs did not consume a nor- mal amount of Water, but they remained on feed throughout the test and in not a single instance did a lamb get “off feed” throughout the entire test. A FEED LOTS AND WATER SUPPLY. The six pens which were utilized during this test were of southern exposure and of similar size and structure. Each lot was provided with ample shelter, thus protecting the lambs from inclement weather. All feed racks were of the same size and of similar structure. Each lot GRAIN SoRoHUMs vs. CoRN FOR FATTENING LAMBS. 7 Was given access to Water three times daily: viz., in the forenoon after feeding, during the middle portion of the afternoon, and after the evening meal had been cleaned up, just before dark. The water con- sumed was supplied from a shallow well and is what is commonly designated as “gyp Water” in that particular section of the Panhandle. Salt was accessible to each of the respective lots at all times through- out the entire test. ' WEIGHT RECORDS. Each of the respective lots Was weighed on three consecutive days at the beginning and end of the experiment, the averages of the three Weighings of the respective periods being considered the respective initial and final Weights. Each lot was weighed at regular fifteen-day intervals throughout the test. I MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO TEST. During the Week preceding the inception of the feeding test the A lambs had access to good pasture grass and were all fed together on a concentrated mixture of equal parts of ground corn, ground threshed feterita, ground threshed milo, and cottonseed meal. Since these lambs were not accustomed to grain, they were supplied with an initial feed of only ten pounds for the 120 head, but during the course of the Week the concentrates Were increased to forty-eight pounds daily to the entire number. THE EXPERIMENT. The lambs were divided into six lots of twenty head each, and the test proper Was begun November 26, 1919. The concentrated ration at the outset consisted of seven parts by Weight of grain to three parts of choice cottonseed meal. The alfalfa hay consumed during this test was of a No. 1 grade, a portion of it having been grown on Substation No. 7, and the balance being purchased in New Mexico. The lambs were fed regularly at '7 :00 a. m. and 5:00 p. m. daily. The rations for each of the respective lots were weighed in advance of the regular feeding periods in order to avoid any unnecessary delay in distributing the feed to each lot promptly at the regular assigned period. Combination hay and grain racks were utilized in each of the lots; therefore, it Was necessary to remove the unconsumed hay from the feed racks twice daily. An accurate record of the hay weighed back from each lot was kept, as follows: i Lot I . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..323.50 pound Lot II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...306.50 pounds Lot III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £328.25 pounds Lot IV ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .306.00 pounds Lot V . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “£306.75 pounds Lot VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i.~ . . £362.50 pounds This rejected hay was supplied to the breeding flock; therefore, it could not be considered as being Waste. 8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 3.—Summary of ninety-day feeding test. "2 E’ “,- . E1 g» ‘é g . "S . a -~‘ :1 "" :1 z: -“ "' r: '-' 2 a 2E? séi 23% §g$ egg 5.2. 0,32 05.5 veg. v6.2. omE. 131:5’ firs“ 87% 2115f fro?‘ xvii cu --H__ . I . ~=$§= =52 >s§I see? me. -E:1¢s “new "‘ "Base _~_-;=a an“ ‘J o=~ “wow *-*-._~ “wow ‘Hx-Q"°-' “wow- OQq-va 004g?“ 0C1“ 0035'?’ Ow-QR 024a? 6T5: 4E8: 4S” 4.28:: 438: 94:82: 2w: eu< o2 mm L=3’ _Wort_h, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84. 56 84.11 87.63 87.55 83.22 84.76 Sell1 ng £1166 per lamb at Fort Wort _at 19.50 per cwt . . . . . . . . .. $ 16.49 $ 16.40 $ 17.09 $ 17.07 $ 16.23 $ 16.53 Estimated net _profit_per lamb. . . . . . 2. 78 2. 15 1.70 2. 73 2. 44 2. 33 Necessary selling‘ price per cwt. to break even . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.21 16.94 17. 56 16.38 16.57 16.75 By referring to Table 3, which is a summary of the feeding test, one will observe that the lambs in each of the respective lots received . the same amount of concentrates and alfalfa hay. The investigators realized that Lots 1 and 5, which were fattened on ground heads, cotton- seed meal, and alfalfa hay, received a larger amount of roughage and a smaller percentage of grain than did ‘Lots 2, 3, 4, and 6. This method of feeding Was considered as essential, however, since one of the main ob- jects of the test was to determine the feeding values of ground heads as compared with the ground threshed grains on a pound for pound basis. At the beginning of the test the lambs were supplied with one-half pound of concentrates and approximately one pound of alfalfa hay per head daily. The concentrates and roughage were increased gradually as the. lambs’ appetites warranted it. At the end of the fourth week the lambs were consuming 1.1 pounds concentrates and 2.2 pounds alfalfa hay per head daily. After the lambs had been on feed four weeks the concentrated portion of the ration was changed from seven parts grain and three parts cottonseed meal to nine parts of grain and one part of cottonseed meal. The concentrates were increased gradually throughout the test until during the final period the lambs were receiving 1.6 pounds per head daily. As the concentrated portion of the ration was increased it be- came necessary to decrease the amount of roughage from a. maximum of 2.2 pounds to 1.6 pounds per head daily. GRAIN SORGHUMS vs. CoRN roe FATTENING LAMBS. .9 Table 4.——Showing average weights (lbs.) of t_he lambs at the regular weighing periods through- out the ninety-day test. ' t Average Weighing periods. | Lot 1 p Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 weights é *Initial weight Nov. 26. . . 59.33 59. 00 59. 88 59.73 59.96 58. 63 59.42 Dec. 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.00 61 00 66 5O 68.00 66.50 64 75 65.45 Dec 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.50, 72 50 73 00 75.20 72.00 70 90 72 85 Jan 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76 10 6 40 77.95 80.50 75.60 74 80 76 89- Jan. 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.20 1.30 83.50 84.10 80.50 80.10 82.11 Feb. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.90 85.00 87.80 87. 50 86.00 82.10 85.7} *Final weight Feb. 24.. .. 91.91 91.42 95.25 95.16 90.46 92.13 92.72 Gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . 32.58 32.42 35 37 35.43 30 50 *Average three weighings. From a cursory examination of Table 4, it will be observed that the- average gains made by the individual lambs in the respective lots were‘ fairly consistent throughout thetest. The uniformity of gains in Lots 3 and 4 in which ground corn and ground threshed milo were com- pared, are interesting, especially in view of the fact that there was a difference of $21.32 per ton in the purchase price of these two con» centrates. . The lambs in Lot 4 required less feed per hundred pounds of gain- than did any of the other lots. The difference in this respect, however, between Lots 3 and 4 was negligible, as can be observed by referring to» Table 3. In this test the cost of feed per one hundred pounds of gain varied from $13.83 on Lot 1 receiving ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay to $17.28 on Lot 3 receiving corn chops, cotton- seed meal, and alfalfa hay. The average daily gains made by the lambs in the respective lots were all considered as being good. In fact, all gains were above the average expected in extensive feeding operations. The smallest average gain was made by the lambs in Lot 5, fattened on ground feterita heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay, at a cost of $14.77 per one hundred pounds of gain in live-weight, while the largest average gain was made by the lambs in Lot 4, at a cost of $14.33 per one hundred pounds of gain. In the test herein reported ground milo heads proved to be the most economical grain. In corroboration of the foregoing statement, a representative of Swift & Company recently informed the senior author that in their sheep feeding operations during the 1919-20 season a grain ration consisting of ground milo and feterita heads properly sup- plemented proved to be the most economical form of feeding these grains to fattening sheep and lambs. It will be observed by referring to Table 3 that the interest, labor, shipping, and selling charges per head were estimated at $1.20,—a figure which appears rather high. This figure, however, has been ar- rived at as follows: i Shipping charges per head, Spur-Fort Worth (basis single deck 100 head) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$0.46 Selling commission per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .12 Yardage charge per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .05 Labor in feeding ninety days (estimate-d) . . . . . . . . . .50 Interest i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .07‘ $1.20 710 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. A valuation was placed on each of the six lots of lambs at the feed lots at the termination of the experiment by Mr. H. J. Butz, one of Swift & Company’s sheep buyers from their Fort Worth plant. This expert handled the lambs in the respective lots very carefully and stated that each lot would have topped the Fort Worth lamb market on that date at $19.50 per hundred pounds. When asked to designate the lot carrying the most uniform finish, Swift’s representative designated Lot 2, which had been fattened on ground threshed feterita, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay, as being the most uniformly fleshed, although he stated that each of the lots carried almost an equal degree of finish. ' Reference to Table 3 Will reveal that Lot 2 made second to the small- est daily gain during the ninety-day test. It is an interesting fact to know, however, that this particular lot carried the most uniform finish. That lambs can be properly fattened on a basal ration consisting of any of the grain sorghums substituted for corn has been clearly demon- strated by this test. While the test herein reported can hardly be con- sidered as being final and altogether conclusive, it does throw some valuable light upon the subject of feeding the grain sorghums to fatten- ing lambs. Further study of these feeds is contemplated during the feeding season of 1920-21. i Owing to the fact that there is yet no standardized market for the grain sorghums in the areas where this crop is produced, it would be far more remunerative to the farmers producing these crops to market them via the livestock route. In the test herein reported, the profits on the lots rece-iving the grain sorghums were actually larger than shown. The best grade of milo available anywhere was purchased locally at the rate of $14.00 per ton in the head, although in summarizing the results of this test all prices were based on what was considered actual market values. All the grain sorghums were valued at $25.00 in the head with an extra $5.00 added for grinding, this being the actual charge made for grinding heads in that section o-f the country during the past winter. In this ninety-day test the lambs fattened. on ground threshed milo made practically the same total gain as those fed on corn, the average gain per lamb receiving ground threshed milo being 35.43 pounds, while that of the corn fed lot was 35.37 pounds. PRODUCTIVE VALUES OF FEEDS UTILIZED IN TEST. The productive values of the feedstuffs utilized in this lamb feeding experiment have been calculated by Dr. G. S. Fraps, Chief, Division of Chemistry of this Station, from the results of this feeding test as shown in Tables 5 and 6. These productive values, calculated from chemical analyses of the, several kinds of grains fed, are also given in Table 6, as are the average daily gains made by the respective lots of lambs. According to Fraps, productive value, stated in terms of fat, is the’ most advanced method of measuring the value of a feedstuif. This author is quoted from Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 170, entitled “Texas Feeding Stuffs; Their Composition and Utiliza- tion,” pp. 10 and 11, as follows: “The value of feed, for building Or repair of flesh, is measured by means of its content of digestible protein. - GRAIN SORGHUMS vs. CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS. 11 “The value of feed for heat, bodily movements, or energy, or for pro- ductive purposes, is not so easily measured. The best measure that we have at present is the quantity of fat that it will produce upon a fatten- ing animal. This we call the productive value of the food, or its fat- producing value, and it indicates not only the quantity of a fat that the food may be able to produce, but the relative value of the food for other purposes, such as for work, for energy, for uses of the animal body, etc. “The productive" value of a food is experimentally ascertained by first feeding an animal a ration which should produce a little fat and estimating exactly how much fat is produced from this ration. Then to this_ration the food to be tested is added, and the quantity of fat a produced is again estimated exactly. This cannot be done by weighing the animal, as such a method is too crude for exact work. The differ- ence between the first quantity of fat produced and the second quantity of fat produced, shows how much fat the food is’ capable of producing, when it is fed to an animal that is already receiving enough food to A take care of its bodily needs. It is then a simple matter to calculate the fat-producing value or productive value of the feed tested. “The productive value, stated in terms of fat, is the most advanced method of measuring the value of a feed stuff. In the calculation of rations for animals, it was formerly assumed that the digestible nutrients of one food are equally as good as the digestible nutrients of any other food. As a matter of fact, that is not true. Different feeds vary con- siderably in the value of the digested nutrients contained in them, due to differences in losses and the work involved in chewing and digestion. The use of the productive value is a decided step forward in the cal- culation of rations for feeding animals.” Table 5 contains the calculation of the gain produced by one pound productive value in corn, and shows how the calculation is made, the productive value of each feed being calculated from the analyses given in Table 1, by the method described in Bulletin 185. The ration fed had a productive value of .408 pounds fat per day and per head. When the estimated productive value required for maintenance, calculated for the average live weight, is subtracted, 0.255 pounds productive value is left for the production of gain in weight. This produced 0.393 pounds gain in weight, so that one pound productive value fed in excess of maintenance, made 1.37 pounds gain in the sheep. - . Table 5.——Calculation of gain produced by one pound productive value in corn. _ _ Productive Average feed supplied per head daily. value in Pounds. terms of fat. Corn, 1.08 lbs. (calculated productive value 0.203) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.219 . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed meal, 0.14 lbs. (calculated productive value 0.179). . . . 0.025 . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa hay, 1. 89 lbs. (calculated productive value 0.087) . . . . . . . . 0. 164 . . . . . . . . . . Total fed, productive values of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.408 . . . . . . . . . . Used for maintenance (average 8O lbs. liveweight) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 123 . . . . . . . . . . Used for prpduction . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.285 Daily gain in weight (corn fed lot) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.393 Gain for one pound productive value used for production in corn.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .37 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 6.—Productive values calculated from feeding test. l s 5 E '5 a 2 v4 ,5; J: f‘: J: 5-4 m ' V} L‘ I0 o a E S.’ 3 2 :1 J; _ o a 0 4: "a "as "a "a >2 .5 >22 n6 4-1 ""‘ 4-3 4-1 , #4 1h‘ ‘ 5 E 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 u Us. o o2 o: om Average daily gain in weight . . . . . . . 0.360 0. 360 0.393 0. 394 0.339 0.372 Productive values required 1_n form of _c0rn to produce gain 1n weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . 0.263 0.263 0.287 0.288 0.247 0.272 Productive values used for mainten- ance daily . . . . . . .._ . . . . . . . . . .. 0.120 0.120 0.123 0.123 0.120 0.120 Total productive value 1n feed. . . . . 0.383 0.383 0.410 0. 411 0. 367 0.392 Productive value in cottonseed meal fed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 025 0.025 0. 025 0. 025 0.025 0.025 Productive value in 1.89 lbs. alfalfa ay_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.164 0.164 0.164 0.164 0.164 0.164 Productive value in 1.08 lbs. grain d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.194 0.194 0.221 0.222 0.178 0.203» Productive value of 100 lbs grain fed 18. 000 18.000 20. 500 20.600 16. 500 18. 800 Calculated productive values . . . . . . 16.300 20.600 20.300 18.500 16.000 14. 400' Table 6 contains the productive values calculated from the feeding test. From the average daily gain in Weight, the productive value re- quired to produce it is calculated, assuming that 1.37 pounds gain in Weight is produced by one pound productive value. To this is added the maintenance requirement, based on the average weight, and the total gives the productive value required for maintenance and gain in Weight. From this is subtracted the productive value of the alfalfa and cottonseed meal, and the balance is the productive value of the grain fed. The productive value of 100 pounds grain is then calculated from this. The productive values secured from the feeding test, are com- pared with the productive values calculated from the analyses given in- Table 1. - After a careful analysis of the productive values actually obtained in this test. it will be observed that there was a wonderful consistency in these values throughout. Ground corn was taken as the standard, with a productive value of 20.5; ground threshed milo had a productive value of 20.6 in this test as compared with a calculated productive value of‘ 18.5; ground milo heads had a productive value of 18 or 2.6 less than that of the ground threshed milo. Ground threshed feterita had a pro- ductive value of 18, while the feterita heads had a value of only 16.5. Ground threshed kafir in this test had a productive value of 18.8 as compared with a calculated value 0f 14.4. The productive values cal- culated from this test are, so far as the authors are aware, the first that have been calculated and published as a result of an extensive feeding test. SUMMARY. 1. Lot 4, fattened on ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay made a slightly larger but a much more economical gain than Lot 3, receiving corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. The net profit per head in Lot 4 was $2.73, while that of Lot 3 was only $1.70- 2. Lot 1, fattened on a ration consisting of ground milo heads, GRAIN SORGHUMS vs. CoRN FOR FATTENING LAMBS. ' 13 cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay made the most economical gain of any of the lots. ' 3. The lambs receiving the ration consisting of ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay made a smaller gain than those receiv- ing ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. The ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay, however, proved to be more economical than the ration consisting of ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. 4. In this test Lot 1, receiving ground milo heads, made a slightly larger and a much more economical gain than Lot 5 fed ground threshed feterita. - 5. This test prove-d conclusively that corn shipped into Texas can- not successfully compete With the grain sorghums for fattening lambs in the semi-arid sections of Texas so Well adapted to the production of these non~saccharine sorghums. 6. The results obtained in this test serve as a source of valuable in- formation with reference to the feeding values of the grain sorghums. Further investigation is contemplated in the feedingof the grain sorghums at the Texas Station. '