“Asmara! ,

CAMPUS ,

  TEXAS AGRICULTURAL IBXPERIMENT STATION

BULLETIN NO. 28s *   I *  JANUARY, 1922

 DIVISION 0P ANIMAL INDUSTRY

AGRAIN soaenums VERSUS CORN FOR
   FATTENING LAMBS

 

AGRICULTURAL & ECHANICAL
Comm: 0r  LIBRARY

A B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEX/AS
A8-'122-15M-L

No. 3.

STATION STAFFt

ADMINISTRATION

B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S , Ph. D., Director
CHARLES A. FELKER, Chief Clerk

A. S. WARE, Secretary _ _

A. D. JACKSON, Executive Ass1stant_
CHARLES GORZYCKI, Technical Assistant
M. P. HOLLEMAN. JR.. Assistant Chief Clerk

VETERINARY SCIENCE
*M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief _
H. SCHMIDT. D. V. S., Veterinarian
J. J. REID, D. V. M., Veterinarian

CHEMISTRY

G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief: State Chemist
S. E. AsBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist

S. LOMANITZ, B. S., Assistant Chemist

J. B. SMITH, B. S., Assistant Chemist
WALDO WALKER, Assistant Chemist

HORTICULTURE

H. NESS, M. S.. Chief
W. S HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist

ANIMAL INDUSTRY

J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat
Investigations

R. M. Sherwood, B. S., Poultry Husbandrnan

G. R. WARREN. B. S., Animal Husbandman
in Charge of Swine Investigations

J. L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman
(genetics)

FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS
A. B. Cox, Ph. D., Chief

ENTOMOLOGY

M. C. TANQUARY, Ph. D., Chief; State
Entomologist

H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist

R. Watson, A. M., Apiculturist

S. RUDE, Entomologist

H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder

P. TRIcE, B. S., Assistant Entomologist

A ONOMY

B. CoNNER, B. S., Chief: Crops

H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronomist, Soils

E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Agronomist. Small
Grains

E. W. GEYER, B. S., Agronomist: Farm
Superintendent

**PEARL DRUMMOND, Seed Analyst

L.
C.
A.
W.
GR
A.
A.

PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY
J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief

COTTON BREEDING
G. F. FREEMAN, D. Sc., Chief

SOIL SURVEY
**W. T. CARTER, JR., B. S., Chief
H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor
H. V. GEIB, B. S., Soil Surveyor

FEED CONTROL SERVICE

B. YOUNGBLOOD, Ph. D., Director

F. T). FULLER. M. S , Chief Inspector
S. D. PEARcE, Inspector

J. H. RoGERs, Inspector

W. H. WOOD, Inspector

SUBSTATIONS

No. 1. Beeville, Bee County
I. E. CowART, M. S., Superintendent

No. 2. Troup, Smith County
W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent

Angleton. Brazoria County
V. ‘E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent

No. 4. Beaumont, Jefierson County
A. H. PRINcE, B. S., Superintendent

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
B. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent

TAs of January 1, 1922.

No. 8. Lubbock. Lubbock County
B. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent

No. 9. Pecos, Reeves County
V. L. CORY, B. S., Superintendent

No. l0. College Station. Brazos Counlv
(Feeding and Breeding Suhstationi

_ L. J. McCALL, Superintendent

No. ll. Nacogdoches, Nacozdoches County
G. T. McNEss, Superintendent

**No. 12. Chillicothe, Hardeman County
A. B. CRoN, B. S., Superintendent

No. l4. Sonora. Sutton-Edwards Counties

E. M. PETERS, B. S.. Superintendent
D. H. BENNETT, V. M. D., Veterinarian

*In cooperation with School of Veterinary Medicine, A. and M. College of Texas.
**In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

A Review of Previous Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5

Summary of 1919-20 Test (Table 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

The 1920-21 Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '7

Rations Fed in 1920-21 Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7

Composition of Feeds Used (Table 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Cost of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8

Threshed Yields of GrainlSorghums (Table s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

Kinds of Lambs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

WeatherConditions (Table 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

Feed Lots, Water Supply, and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Weight Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10

The Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10

Comparison of Ground Milo with Ground Shelled Corn (Table 5) . . . _11
Comparison of Ground Threshed Feterita with Ground Shelled Corn

(Table 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Comparison of Ground Threshed Milo with Ground Shelled Corn
(Table '7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Comparison of Ground Feterita Heads with Ground Shelled Corn
(Table 8) . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Comparison of Ground Threshed Kafir with Ground Shelled" Corn
(Table 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Comparison of Ground Kafir Heads with Ground Shelled Corn
(Table 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Comparison of Ground Threshed Milo and Cottonseed with Ground
Shelled Corn (Table 11) ................................  15‘
Comparison of Sorghum Hay with Alfalfa Hay (Table 12) . . . . . . . . 16

Summary of 1920-21 Test (Table 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1'7

Weight of Lambs (Table 14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Manure Voided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19

Productive Values Calculated from Feeding Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Method of Calculation of Productive Values from Feeding Tests
(Table 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . 21

Comparison of Productive Values Secured by Feeding with Sheep
(Table 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

BULLETIN NO. 285 l JANUARY, 1922

GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FiOR
FATTENING LAMBS

BY
J. M. JONES AND R. A. Biznurnnft

“Can the grain sorghums, which are produced to the extent of 1411,-
000,000 bushels annually in the United States, be substituted in the
place of corn in the rations of fattening live stock in the grain-sorghums
area?” is a pertinent question in the minds of Texas farmers and stock-
men, and one which, if correctly answered, would tend to stimulate the
finishing of an increased number of beeves, lambs, and hogs for market
in those sections annually. »

Texas has for years been recognized in live stock circles as holding
premier rank in-the production of beef cattle, but only during the past
year did she reach first place in the production of sheep. At the same
time an increasing West Texas acreage is being planted in grain sor-
ghums during each succeeding year,‘ and the farmers producing these
crops are demanding information and assistance in the direction of mar-
keting their crops via the live stock route rather than to be forced to
ship them from the farms to the elevators and other feed centers, and
thus permit the depletion of West Texas soils. Statistics indicate that
West Texas is annually producing 60,000,000 bushels of the grain sor-
ghums. This is conceded to be only a partial showing of the possible
production because the area planted in them is limited to the popular
annual estimate of the farmers as to how much production the market
will absorb.

It is an acknowledged fact the world over that live stock farming is
the most permanent and well-rounded system of agriculture; therefore
since an increasing acreage of the Southwestern range lands is annually
passing into the hands of the small farmers, the latter should be en-
couraged to feed their grain crops at home as has long been the practice
of many of the most successful farmers residing in the corn-belt section
of the United States. It is believed by many that the grain sorghums
have approximately the same feeding value as corn. At the same time
it is a well-known fact that the grain sorghums are quoted at wholesale
prices considerably under those of corn. According to the Monthly Crop
Reporter for December, 1921, the wholesale price for Texas corn De-
cember 1, was 54 cents per bushel, while the grain sorghums sold for
41 cents per bushel, or 24 per cent. lower than corn. Granting that
the grain sorghums have somewhat the same feeding value as corn,
it is then obvious that the feeding of grain sorghums in Texas Pan-
handle is due for a tremendous increase.

A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS TESTS

During the 1919-20 feeding season the first of a series of tests, the
object of which was to compare the gains and economy of gains made

*Assistant Animal Husbandman, Sheep and Goat Investigations, resigned
September 1, 1921.

6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

by lambs, fattened on milo, on feterita, and 0n corn, was conducted A
through a ninety-day period and brought to a satisfactory termination.
The following feeds were fed to a uniform lot of Rambouillet lambs:

Lot 1. Ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. a
Lot 2. Ground threshed feterita, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.
Lot 3. Ground shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.
Lot 4. Ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.
Lot 5. Ground feterita heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.
Lot 6. Ground threshed kafir, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.

In the 1919-20 lamb-feeding test, which is summarized in Table 1, it
will be observed that (1) each of the respective lots made exceptionally
good gains throughout the ninety-day feeding period; (2) Lot 4, fat-
tened on ground threshed milo, made a slightly increased gain over
Lot 3, which was fed ground shelled corn; (3) the lots fattened on the
grain sorghums made much more economical gains than the lambs fat-

. tened on corn which had been shipped into Texas; (4) corn shipped

into Texas from out-of-state points cannot compete profitably with the
locally grown grain sorghums for fattening lambs. '

Table 1. Summary of ninety-day feeding test.

'3 .-: g “l: Er: >3 g ._r g ..: g ._."

:5 cu 5ft’. cu o o “l Q cu g ,<u g my!

c, o 33o 63m ~50 ego “Go
5,2. @332. c3 U-"m-Z. wag. UasE.
3'33‘ my? .5"; .235‘ fig? W35’
55am. 58am E55 28am >'<e31'1 ;Bam
255g 255i? s a»: 25E 2555’ sTi§§
‘E55 ‘E55 “S5 ‘£55 ‘$55 ‘£55

Number of_ lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 2O 20 2O 2O

Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . 59.33 59.00 59.88 59.73 59. 96 58. 63

Average final weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . 91 .91 91.42 95.25 95.16 90.46 92.1

Average total gain, lbs. . p . . . . . . . . . . 32. 58 32.42 35.37 35.43 30. 5O 33. 5O

Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.362 0. 36 0.393 0. 394 0. 339 0. 372
Average daily ration:
1. Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08
2. Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
3. Alfalfa hay, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89
Total feed consumed per lamb:
1. Grain, lbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97.211 97.211 97.211 97.211 97.211 97.211
2. Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . 12. 588 12. 588 12. 588 12. 588 12.588 12. 588
3., Alfalfa hay, lbs . . . . . .._ . . . . . .. 170.4 17.0.4 170.4 170.4 170.4 170.4
Concentrates per 10_O lbs. gain, lbs. . 337 .01 338.66 310.43 309.89 359. 99 327.75
Hay per 100 lbs. gain. lbs. ._ . . . . . . . 523.02 525. 60 481.76 480. 94 558. 68 508. 65
Cost of feed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . .. $ 13.828 $ 15.66 95 17.284 $ 14.329 $ 14.771 $ 15.155
Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . 4. 50 5.08 6. 11 5. 08 4. 50 5.08
Initial cost per lamb at feed lot at .
I t Béélcgntsplerpounda..11.... 8.01 7.97 8.08 8.06 8.09 7.92
, an se in
n elceliargzeiis(iarershbgldingstimated. .3. 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
"Igotal- cps; peiillamb. . z 1R . .£  i. 13.71 14.25 15.39 14.34 13.79 14.20
a or
S sférllléloiathflabslig.   .  .  84. 56 84.11 87. 63 87.55 83.22 84.76
. or
e 15% pslildésgeéeirgwiai. .  . . . . . . .. 3 16.49 $8 16.40 $5 17.09 $5 17.07 $ 16.23 $ 16.53
fistimated ma": profit per lambt. .  . . 2. 78 2.15 1 . 7O 2. 73 p 2.44 2.33
er cw . o .
666618123  . . . . . . . . . .. 16.21 16. 94 17. 56 16.38 16.57 16.75

I

The Kansas Experiment Station has conducted several tests to com-
pare the feeding value of kafir and corn for fattening lambs, and in a
test conducted in 1914, the Kansas Station compared shelled corn, whole
kafir, and ground kafir, fed to three lots of fifty 56-pound lambs, fed 0.9

GRAIN SoEGHUMs VEEsUs CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS. 7

pound grain, 0.19 pound cottonseed meal, 1.4 pounds alfalfa hay, and 1..1
pounds sweet sorghum silage. In this test the lambs fattened on shelled
corn made an average daily gain of 0.4 pound during the sixty-day trial;
those fattened on whole kafir made an average daily gain of 0.35 pound;

while those fattened on ground kafir made an average daily gain of

0.36 pound.

In a similar test conducted at the Kansas Station in 1915-16 with 75
lambs to the lot, the lambs fattened on an average daily ration consist-
ing of corn 1.01 pounds, cottonseed meal 0.16 pound, alfalfa hay 0.95
pound, and silage 1.24 pounds, made an average daily gain of 0.274 pound.
The lambs fattened on an average daily ration consisting of whole kafir
1.01 pounds, cottonseed meal 0.16 pound, alfalfa hay 0.95 pound, and
silage 1.26 pounds, made an average daily gain of 0.275 pound. The
lambs fattened on an average daily ration consisting of ground kafir
heads 1.16 pounds, cottonseed meal 0.16 pound, alfalfa hay 0.993 pound,
silage 1.09 pounds, made an average daily gain of 0.247 pound.

In 1917-18, the Kansas Station conducted a test in which shelled corn
and alfalfa hay were compared with whole kafir and alfalfa hay for fat-
tening lambs. The corn-fed lot received an average daily ration of corn
1.46 pounds, alfalfa hay 1.54 pounds, and made an average daily gain
of 0.43 pound. The kafir lot received an average daily ration of kafir
1.39 pounds, alfalfa hay 1.74 pounds, and made an average daily gain
of 0.41 pound. The Kansas experiment also pointed to the conclusion

that lambs fattened on kafir, which is one of the grain sorghums, make_

almost the same gains as lambs fattened on corn.

THE 1920-1921 LAMB FEEDING EXPERIMENT
OBJECT

The object of this feeding experiment was to compare the gains and
economy of gains made by lambs fattened on the grain sorghums and
on corn.

RATIONS

The following rations were supplied:

Lot 1. Ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.

Lot 2. Ground threshed feterita, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.
Lot 3f Ground shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.
Lot 4. Ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.
Lot 5. Ground feterita heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.
Lot 6. Ground threshed kafir, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.
Lot 7. Ground kafir heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.

Lot 8. Ground threshed milo, whole cottonseed, and alfalfa hay.
Lot 9. Ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and sorghum hay.

Representative samples of the several feeds utilized in this test were
taken in accordance with instructions from the Station Chemist and
submitted to him for analyses, the composition of the several feeds being
tabulated in.Table 2 below: ~

8   TExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Table 2. Composition of feeds used during experiment. (Per cent.)

» Nitrogen .
Name Protein Fat Crude free Water Ash N0. of
fibre extract analyses

Ground corn, shelled. . . . . 9.70 4.08 2.66 71.46 10 90 1.28 2
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . 10.41 2.31 6.92 64.80 12.01 3.57 2
Ground feterita heads. . . . 11.28 2.14 6. 77 65.03 12 O0 2.79 2
Ground kafir heads... . . . . 9.45 2.47 7.43 66.42 11 25 2.99 2
Threshed milo, ground. . . . 10.40 2. 58 2. 74 70.14 12 38 1. 82 ' 2
Threshed feterita, ground. 11.82 2.73 2.11 67.27 14 33 1.76 2
Threshed kafir, ground. . . 10.19 3.05 2.02 70.33 12 95 1.48 2
Cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.08 20.51 20.66 25.14 7 99 3.63 2
Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . 42. 68 7. 56 8.86 25.75 7 04 6.11 2
Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.27 1.76 30 48 36.02 8 88 8.49 3
Sorghum hay . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.79 1.96 26 48 50.22 9 30 6.26 2

A good grade of Kansas corn consisting of a mixture of the yellow
and white varieties, selected especially for this test, was used as the
basis of the standard ration in Lot 3. This corn was practically the
same grade as that utilized in the test conducted during the season of
1919-20, and reported in Texas Experiment Station Bulletin No. 269.
The milo fed during the test reported in this bulletin Was inferior to
that used in the experiment conducted during the p-revious season. The
growing season of 1920 was unusually wet and the grain sorghums were
late in maturing, owing to a general setback sustained by the crops in
the vicinity of Substation No. 7 on account of severe hail storms. This
accounts for the high percentage of water in the grain sorghums used
in the test reported in this bulletin. The feterita and kafir utilized in
this test were grown locally at Substation No. 7, as was the milo and

the analyses show each of the grain sorghums to be about a grade below .

those fed in the 1919-20 test. A portion of the alfalfa hay utilized in
this test was grown at Substation No. 7, while one carload came from
Southern New Mexico. The New Mexico hay was a number three grade,
while that produced at the Station was a number one grade.

COST OF FEEDS

The feeds utilized during the experiment herein reported are based on
local feed prices prevailing in the Panhandle of Texas during the fall of
1920, as follows:

Ground milo heads, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.00

Ground threshed feterita, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 .50

Ground shelled corn, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.22

Ground threshed milo, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.50

Ground feterita heads, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.00

Ground threshed kafir, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 17.50

Ground kafir heads, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.00

Cottonseed meal, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.00

Alfalfa hay, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.00 g

Sorghum hay, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.50 '

Cottonseed, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.00

Threshing tests of the grain sorghums at the Spur and Lubbock Sub-
stations show representative yields of threshed grain as follows:

  
 
  
 
    
    
   
  
 
   
   
   
   
  
 
   
  
   
    
 
 

GRAIN SoReHUMs VERsUs CoRN FOR FATTENING LAMBS. 9

Table 3. Threshed yields of grain sorghums.

   

Average yield
Grain sorghums Number threshed grain, Head stems
of tests l per cent per cent
ilo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 at Spur 76.38 23.62
eterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 at Spur 76.68 23.32
fir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1O at Lubbock 75.17 24.83

   

DURATION OF EXPERIMENT

 The feeding experiment reported in this bulletin extended over a
riod of ninety days, beginning November 29, 1920, and closing Feb-
diary 27, 1921. a
 ‘THE LAMBS

The lambs used in this test were of Rambouillet-Delaine breeding.
5 hey were bred by W. C. Gay, Coleman County, from whom they were
iiurchased' at a price of $7.00 per head before the break occurred in the
pmb market in the latter part of November. They were shipped from
oleman, November 24, the shipment arriving at Spur on the 26th. The
mbs were given access to thepasture the day following delivery t0 the
tation. They were divided into nine lots of twenty head each, N ovem-
 28, and placed on preliminary feed. ,
YThese lambs averaged about fifty pounds at the Experiment Station
fter delivery. The average shipping cost per head from Coleman to
2,: Station at Spur was 44 cents. These lambs were of uniform type
Yd breeding, and were all wethers. They were in a good, thrifty con-
'tion at the inception of the test. .

WEATHER CONDITIONS DURING TEST

ble 4. Showing maximum and minimum temperatures, also the precipitation at Sub-
 1 ~ station N0. 7 during period of feeding test.

' Maximum Minimum Precipitation
Month temperature temperature inches
- degrees F. degrees F. ' "

November* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 31 - None
December. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 12 0.38
January. . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78 6 0.30
February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 18 , 1.08

y - *Including and after November 29.

 Each of the nine lots of lambs fed in this experiment had access to
i elter; hence the general weather conditions prevalent were apparently
ft a vital factor. It is true that when the temperature hovers around
p! degrees Fahrenheit the attendant must take proper precaution in feed-
g the lambs so that all will remain on feed. On unusually warm days
fhile this test was under way the attendant would delay the evening
_ding until the temperature of the prevailing atmosphere had cooled
mewhat. Such instances were few in number and the feeding was in
 instance» delayed for more than an hour. During sudden cold snaps
jorthers) the lambs did not take their normal fill of water, but they‘
   ained on feed throughout the ninety-day test and in not a single
Stance did a lamb go off feed. i

10 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

FEED LOTS, WATER SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT

The nine lots in which the feeding test was conducted were provided‘
with ample open-shed shelter of southern exposure. All lots were ap-Qi
proximately of the same size. The feed racks wereof equal dimension]
and of similar structure. Each lot of lambs was given access to water
three times daily, viz., in the forenoon, after having consumed the morn-if“
ing feed; during the middle of the afternoon; and at night after the‘;
evening feed had been consumed. The water was supplied from a shal-l
low well, and an analysis by the Station Chemist showed that it con-.
tained 124:0 parts of salt (chloride of soda) per million of water. Salt a
was accessible in each of therespective lots at all timesthroughout the;
entire test. Owing to the amount of salt in the water the lambs did not -
consume as much as they would have, had they not consumed the salt

that was in solution in the supply of stock water.

WEIGHT RECORDS

Each of the respective lots was weighed on three consecutive days at
the beginning and endof the experiment, the respective averages of the-
three initial and final weighings being considered the initial and final
weights. Each of the respective lots was weighed at regular fifteen-day
intervals throughout the test. The weighing was begun promptly at.

1 p. m. on the regular assigned weighing dates.

THE EXPERIMENT

The lambs were divided into nine lots of twenty head each, with the.
exception of Lots 8 and 9, which contained only fifteen head, the test;
proper being started November 29, 1920. The concentrated portion of?
the ration at the outset consisted of seven parts, by weight, of grain tof
three parts of choice cottonseed meal. The lambs fed in this test re-i
ported in this bulletin averaged nine pounds less in weight at the in?‘
ception of the experiment than did the Rambouillet lambs that were fed 1
during the previous season; hence there was a smaller daily consumption ‘
of feed per head in this test than in that reported in Texas Bulletin

No. 269.

The lambs were fed regularly at '7 a. m. and 5 p. m. daily, the only.

exception being that in a few isolated instances on unusually warm days,

the evening feeding was delayed approximately an hour until the atmos-

phere cooled.

The feeds for each of the respective lots of lambs were weighed in T
advance of the regular feeding periods in order to avoid any delay i117‘
the distribution of the feed to each lot promptly at the regular assigned o_
hour. Combination hay and grain racks were successfully utilized ini

each lot.

Waste hay was removed from the feed racks twice daily, a record of

all unconsumed roughage being kept.

None of the lambs had been accustomed to concentrates; therefore;

‘several days were required to get them on feed nicely. The initial ration,

consisted of a mixture of grain and cottonseed meal in a proportion of 1 »
seven parts grain to three parts cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay of choice _

   
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
    
    
   
  
   
    
   
  
  
  
  
   

GRAIN SoRoHUMs VERSUS Conn non FATTENING LAMBS. 11

i. ality. At the end of the first week on feed, the average daily ration
pr head consisted of the following: —

Concentrates (grain and cottonseed meal), in a 0'7 :3 proportion, 0.75
‘gund ; alfalfa hay, 1.50 pounds.

At the end of the fourth week the concentrated portion of the ration
a a; changed to a proportion of nine parts of. grain to each part of cotton-
 meal. a The attendant was at all times cautious to observe that the
obs were on feed, and very gradually increased the concentrated por-
 of the ration, at the same time slightly decreasing the daily allow-
‘fee of roughage until at the end of the ninety-day feeding period the
a U: which, at that time, averaged around 78 pounds, were receiving
E following daily ration: a

Concentrates (grain and cottonseed meal) in a 9:1 proportion, 1.5
‘unds; alfalfa hay, 1.3 pounds.

idle 5. Comparison of ground milo heads with ground shelled corn for fattening lambs
 November 29, 1920, to February 27, 1921. a

I Lot 1. Lot 3.

Ground milo l Ground shelled
Rations heads, cotton- corn, cotton-
 - ' seed mea’l seed meal,
 alfalfa hay alfalfa hay
a“ ber of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2O 20

 erage initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50. 633 50.283

erage weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78. 633 78.333

,1: age ain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.000 28.050

' age ally ain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..‘ . . . . . . . . . . .. a 0.311 0.312
j rage dail eed per lamb: .
 ‘Grain, l s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 877 0.877
jj Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 156 0. 156
t. Hay, s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 477 1.471
., i required per pound of gain: .

 Concentrates, lbs. . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 321 3.315

 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 750 4.719

- of feed per 100 pounds ain. . . .7 . . . . . . . . .._ . . . . . .. $ 8 86 $12.08

 cost per lamb at feed 0t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 44 7.44

~~ st, labor, selling and shipping cos per lamb . . . . . . . 1 .20 1 .20

~~ age feed cost er lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.48 3.39

_, a cost per lam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.12 12.03

‘g value of lambs per 100: lbs. at Fort Worth . . . . . . . 8. 00 8. 00

. ».- ge weight at Fort Worth, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.00 74. 00

.' per mb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $528 $6.11

  able _5 shows that the lambs in Lot 1, fattened on ground milo heads,
11» practically the same gains as were made by Lot 3, which received
 nd shelled corn, the average gain made by the former being 28.0
 ds, while that made by the corn-fed lot was 28.05 pounds per head.
Q. amount of feedarequired to produce a pound of gain was practically
same in each lot; however, the cost of the feed required to make a
 dred pounds of gain was $8.86 for the lot receiving ground milo

a s, and $12.08 for the lot receiving ground shelled corn. The aver-
i-daily gains made by the lambs of the two lots were satisfactory,
g 0.311 pound in Lot 1, and 0.312 pound in Lot 3. In a similar
p. conducted at Substation No. '7 the year previous, the lot fattened
‘l; Qund milo heads made an average daily gain of 0.363 pound per
i while the corn-fed lot gained 0.393 pound per head daily.

l".
v

12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Table 6. Comparison of ground threshed feterita with ground shelled corn for fattening
lambs. November 29, 1920, to February 27, 1921. g

Lot 2 Lot 3
. Ground threshed Ground shelled
Rations - feterita, cotton- corn, cotton-
seed meal, seed meal,
alfalfa hay alfalfa hay
Number of lambs per lot. . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 p

Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ’ 50. 516 50.283

Average final Weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78. 566 78. 333

Average gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.050 28.050

Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . 0.312 0.312
Average daily feed per lamb: '
Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 877 0.877
Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 156 0. 156
Hay, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . 1 475 1.471
Feedrequired per'pound of gain: _ -
Concentrates, lbs» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 315 3.315

Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . _ 4 733 4.719

Cost of feed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9.30 $12.08

Initial cost per lamb at feed lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .44 7.44

Interest, labor, selling and shipping cost per lamb . . . . . . 1.20 1.20

Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 61 3.39

Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.25 12. 03
Selling value of lambs per 100 lbs. at Fort Worth. . . . . . . 8. 00 8. 00
Average weight at Fort Worth, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74. 00 74.00
Loss per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .. $ 5 33 $ 6.11

Table 6 shows that the lambs in Lot 2, fattened on ground threshed
feterita, made identically the same gain in this test as Was made by
Lot 3, which received ground shelled corn, the average gain per head
in each lot being 28.05 pounds, or an average daily gain of 0.312 pound
per head. The amount of feed required to produce a hundred pounds
of gain was practically the same in each lot; however, the cost of feed
required to produce one hundred pounds of gain was $2.78 less in the
lot receiving the ground threshed feterita than in the ground shelled
corn lot. In a similar test conducted at Substation No. '7 during the
previous season the lot that received ground threshed feterita made an
average daily gain of 0.36 pound as compared to a 0.393 pound gain
made by the corn-fed lot.

Table 7. Comparison of ground threshed milo with ground shelled corn for fattening lambs‘.

November 29, 1920, to February 27, 1921

Lot 4 Lot 3
Ground threshed Ground shelled
Rations milo, cotton- corn, cotton-
seed meal, seed meal,
alfalfa hay alfalfa hay
Number of lambs per lot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20

Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.350 50.283

Average final weight at feed lots, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.633 78.333

Average gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.280 28.050

Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.314 0.312
Average dailv feed per lamb:
Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.877 0.877
Cottonseed mea, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 156 0.156
Hay, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.469 1.471
Feed required per pound of gain:
Concentrates, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.288 3.315

Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.677 4.719

Cost of feed per 100 lbs. gain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9.23 $12.08

Initial cost per lamb at feed lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.44 7.44

Interest, labor, selling and shipping cost per lamb . . . . . . 1 .20 1.20

Average feed cost per lam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 61 3.39

Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.25 12.03
Selling value of lambs per 100 lbs. at Fort Worth. . . . . . . 8.00 8.00
Average weigtht at Fort Worth, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.00 74. 00
Loss per lam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 5.57 $3 6.11

GRAIN SoReHUMs Vnnsus Conn FOR FATTENING LAMBS. 13

Table '7 shows that the lambs in Lot 4, fattened on ground threshed
milo, made a slightly increased gain over Lot 3, which received ground
shelled corn; the average gain made by the milo-fed lot being 28.28
pounds per head, while that made by the corn fed lot was 28.05 pounds,
or an average daily gain of 0.314 pound for the former and 0.312 pound
per head daily for the latter. The cost of feed per hundred pounds
gain was $2.85 less for "the lot fed ground threshed milo, than in the lot

fattened on corn. In a similar test conducted at Substation No. '7 dur- a

ing the previous feeding season, the lambs fattened on ground threshed
milo made an average daily gain of 0.394 pound as compared to 0.393
pound per head made by the corn-fed lot. r

Table 8. Comparison of ground feterita heads with ground shelled corn for fattening lambs.
- November 29, 1920, to February 27, 1921.

Lot 5 Lot 3
Rations. Ground feterita Ground shelled

heads, cotton- corn, cotton-
seed meal, seed meal,
alfalfa hay. alfalfa hay.

Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2O 2O

Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50. 483 50.283

Average final weight at feed lots, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.433 78. 333

Average gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25. 950 28.050

Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.288 0.312
Average daily feed per lamb: ’

Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 8" 0. 877

Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.156 0.156

Hay, s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.473 1.471
Feed required per pound of gain:

Concentrates, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 583 g '3.315

Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.107 4.719
Cost of feed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9. 52 $12.08
Initial cost per lamb at feed lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.44 7.44
Interest, labor, selling and shipping cost per" lamb. . . .  1.20 1 .20
Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.47 3.39

Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.11 12. 03

Selling value of lambs per 100 lbs. a1 Fort Worth . . . . . . 8. 00 8. 00

Average weight at Fort Worth, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 . 00 74 00

Loss per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 5 43 $ 6 11

Table 8 shows that the lambs in Lot 5, fattened on ground feterita
heads, made an average gain per head of 25.95 pounds, while Lot 3,
which was fattened on ground shelled corn, gained 28.05 pounds, or an
average daily gain of 0.288 pound for the former and 0.312 pound for
the latter. The amount of feed required to produce a hundred pounds
of gainwas somewhat greater in the lot fattened on the ground feterita
heads. The cost of feed required to produce a hundred pounds of gain
was $2.56 less in the lot receiving the feterita heads. In a similar test
conducted at Substation No. '7 during the previous feeding season, the
lambs fattened on ground feterita heads made an average daily gain of
0.339 pounds as compared to 0.393 pounds per head made by‘ the lot
fattened on ground shelled corn.

Lot 6 Lot 3
a Ground threshed Ground shelled
. _ . kafir, cotton- corn, cotton-
Rations seed meal, seed meal,
' alfalfa hay alfalfa hay
Number _of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2O 20

Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50. 600 50. 283

Average final weight -at feed lots, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.483 78.333

Average gain, lbs_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.880 28.050

Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.321 0.312
Average daily feed per lamb: ‘ '
rain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 877 0.877
Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 156 0.156
Hay, _lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 481 1.471
Feed required per pound of gain:
Concentrates, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.219 3.315

Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.613 4.719

C0_s_t"of feed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9.07 $12.08

Initial cost per lamb at feed lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .44 7.44

Interest, labor, selling and shipping cost per lamb . . . . . . 1.20 1.20

Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 3.39

Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 26 12. 03

Selling value of lambs per 100 lbs. at Forth Worth . . . . . . 8. 00 8. 00

Average weight at Fort Worth, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75. 5 74.00

~ Loss per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ‘.5 5 22 3 6 11

   

14 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Table 9. Comparison of ground threshed kafir with ground shelled corn for fattening lambs. 
November 29,, 1920, to February 27, 1921. I l;

Table 9 shows that the lambs in Lot 6, fattened on ground threshed
kafir, made a slightly larger gain than Lot 3, which was fattened on
ground shelled corn, although it Will be noted that the difference was
small. The average daily gain per head made by lambs receiving the
ground threshed kafir was 0.32 pound, while the average daily gain per
head in the corn-fed lot was 0.312 pound. The kafir-fed lot required
less feed to produce a hundred pounds of gain than the corn-fed lot.
In a similar test conducted at Substation No. '7 during the previous
feeding season the lambs fattened on ground threshed kafir made a daily
gain of 0.372 pound as compared to 0.393 pound per head made by th
lot fattened on ground shelled corn. "

Table 10. Comparison of ground kafir heads with ground shelled corn for fattening lambs.
- November 29, 1920, to February 27, 1921.

Lot 7 Lot 3
Ground kafir Ground shelled

Rations _ heads, ootton- corn,‘ cotton— a

- seed meal, seed meal, p.

alfalfa hay alfalfa hay i

Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 . , s

Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.200 50.283 

Average final weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.700 78. 333

Average gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25. 500 28.050

Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.283 0.312
Average daily feed per lamb: -
Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 877 0.877 '
Cottonseed mea, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 156 0.156
Hay, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . ..- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 451 1.471
Feed required per pound of gain:
Concentrates, s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.646 3.315

Roughage, lbs . . . . . .._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.122 4.719

Cost of feed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9.61 v $12.08

Initial cost per lamb at feed l_ot.._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.44 7.44

Interest, labor, selling and shipping cost per lamb . . . . . . 1.20 1.20

Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.45 3. 39

Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .09 12.03
Selling value of lambs per 100 lbs. at Fort Worth. . . . . . . 8.00 8.00
Average weight at Fort Worth, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.00 74.00
Loss per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . ..' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 5 41 $ 6.11

GRAIN SORGHUMS Vnnsus Conn FOR FATTENING LAMBS. 15

Table 10 shows that the lambs in Lot '7, fattened on ground; kafir

' heads, made an average gain per head of 25.5 pounds as compared. with

28.05 pounds gain made by Lot 3, which received ground shelled; corn.
The average daily gain made by Lot '7, fattened on kafir heads, was 0.283
pound, While that made by Lot 3, which received ground shelled corn,
was 0.312 ‘pound. The amount of feed required to produce a hundred
pounds of gain was somewhat greater in the lot fattened on ground» kafir
heads; however, the cost of feed required to produce a hundred pounds
of gain in Lot '7 was $2.47 less than in Lot 3, which received the ground
shelled corn. p ‘

Table 11. Comparison of ground threshed milo and cottonseed with ground shelled‘ corn
and cottonseed» meal for fattening lambs. November 29, 1920, to February 27, 1921i.

Lot 8 Lot 3
Rations ' Ground shelled
Ground milo, corn, cotton-
cottonseed, seed meal,
alfalfa hay alfalfa hay
Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 20

Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50. 310 50.283

Average final weight at feed lots, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80. 910 78.333

Average gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '30. 600 28. 050

Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.340 _ 0.312
Average daily eed per lamb:
Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O 363 0.877
Cottonseed mea, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 615* 0.156
Hay, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 489 1.471
Feed required per pound of gain:
Concentrates, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 878 3.315

Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 379 4.719

Cost of feed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8.04 $12.08

Initial cost per lamb at feed lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .44 7.44

Interest, labor, selling and shipping cost per lamb . . . . . . 1.20 1.20

Average feed cost er lam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.46 3.39

Total cost per lam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.10 12.03

Selling value of lambs per 100 lbs. at Fort Worth . . . . . . . 8. 00 8.00

Average weight at Fort Worth, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . 73 30 74.00

Loss per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5 24 $6.11

I *Cottonseed.

Table 11 shows a comparison of the gains made by fattening lambs
when fed on a concentrated ration consisting of ground threshed milo- and
whole cottonseed, as compared to those fattening on ground shelled corn

A and cottonseed meal. At the beginning of this test the lambs that were

to be fattened on ground threshed milo» and cottonseed were supplied
with 0.5 pound per head daily of the above ration mixed in the pro-
portion of two parts of milo to one part of whole cottonseed. The feed
was gradually increased as the feeding period progressed, and at the
end of the first month the lambs in this lot were consuming 0.9 pound
per head daily of a mixture of seven parts of milo to five parts of cotton-
seed. At the end of the ninety-day feeding period the lambs in this lot
were consuming 1.5 pounds per head daily of a mixture of one part of
ground threshed milo to seven parts of whole cottonseed.

It will be observed that the lambs in Lot 8, fattened on ground
threshed milo and whole cottonseed, made aniaverage daily gain of 0.34
pound as compared with a gain of 0.312 pound per head in Lot 3, fat-
tened on ground shelled corn and cottonseed. meal. The cost per hun-
dred pounds of gain in live weight was $8.04 for the lot fed ground
threshed milo and whole cottonseed, while the lambs in Lot 3, fattened
on corn, cost $12.08 per hundred pounds of gain in live weight, a dif-

16 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

ference of $4.04 in favor of the ground threshed milo and whole cotton- 
seed. f
» In tahis test there apparently was no ill effect as a result of feeding 
1.3 pounds of whole cottonseed t0 eighty-pound lambs at the close of the 
ninety-day feeding period. The cottonseed portion of the ration was 
gradually increased as the feeding period progressed, and there was no 
laxative tendency produced in this lot at any time throughout the ex- 
periment.  

   

Table i=2. Comparison of sorghum hay with alfalfa hay for fattening- lambs. November
29, 1920, to February 27, 1921.

Lot 9 Lot 1

Rations Ground milo Ground milo
heads, cott0n- heads cotton-

seed meal, seed meal,

sorghum hay alfalfa hay

Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 20

Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50. 080 ' 50. 633

Average final weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.200 78.633

Average gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.120 _ 28.000

Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.257 0.311
Average daily feed per lamb:
Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.822 0.877
Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 156 0.156
Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 412 1.477
Feed required per pound of gain:
Concentrate, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.809 3.321

Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 5.497 4.750

Cost of feed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5.19 $ 8.86

Initial costper lamb at feed lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.44 7.44

Interest, labor, selling and shipping cost per lamb . . . . . . 1.20 1.20

Average feed cost per lamb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 1.26 2.48

Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.84 11.12
Selling value of lambs per 100 lbs. at Fort Worth. . . . . . . 8. 00 8.00
Average weight at Fort Worth, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.60 73.00
Loss per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S; 4 35 $ 5.28

Table 12 shows that the lambs in Lot 9, fattened on ground milo
heads, cottonseed meal, and sorghum hay, made an average gain of 23.12
pounds per head, as compared with an average gain of 28 pounds made
by Lot 1, which received ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa
hay. The average daily gain made by Lot 9, which received sorghum
hay, was 0.257 pound, while that made by Lot 1, receiving alfalfa hay,
was 0.311 pound. The amount of feed required to produce 100 pounds
of gain was greater in Lot 9, which received sorghum hay, than in Lot 1,
receiving alfalfa hay , however, the cost per hundred pounds of gain was
only $5.19 for Lot 9, receiving sorghum hay; while the cost per hun-
dred pounds of gain in Lot 1, receiving alfalfa hay, was $8.86. This
is due to the wide difference in the cost of these two roughages. Alfalfa
hay used in this test cost $25 per ton, while the sorghum hay was valued
at $6.50 per ton. Lot 9, which received the sorghum hay, did not
finish as well as did Lot 1; however, they sold at the same figure on the
Fort Worth market.

 

 

 

.17

GRAIN SORGI-IUMS ‘VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS.

$5: 5s00000** . .000w00S00*
00.0 :00 :00 :00 0:.N. :N..0 00.0 :00 0:.N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I055 0m: 00005.50 500 $0

00:: 0: .0: :00: :00: 00 .0: 00.0: 00.0: 00.0: 00.0: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .520 v0.20 00 00300002 9.0m

00 0 00.0 :00 00.0 00.0 0.0.0 :0 00.0 00.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....A:50.:.6m\wm0.:

00.0 0 00 .0 0 00 .0 0 00.0 0 00 .0 0 00 .0 0 00 .0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000cm $0 00 ..? .300 05:00

00 .00 00.0N. 00 . :N. 00 0N. 00. :N. 00 . :0 00 0N. 00 0N. 00.0N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @0550 .500? 0.8m ? 000003

00.0 0:.:: 00.:: 00.: ::.:: 00.: 00.0: 00.: 0:.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . 1050.: .60 $00 130m.

00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .  . . . . .1103:
00m m00~000 05:00 000 00:05am £000.: £00.65:
0: .0 00.0 :00 N.0.0 00 .0 00.0 00.0: 00.0 00 .0 . . . . . . . . 2.500 m055m 0000000: $0 000m 00 0000
00:. 00.0 00S 00$ . 00S 00:. 00$ 00S EYN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I001: 000m H» 050.: 00:: .500 00:05:
00.: 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 N100 0 :00 0 00.0 0 :00 0 00.0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0501: $0 0000 000m 0053/4
0N. .000 h0.N.0:~ 000:0 00:00 0N. 0:0 00.000 00.:N.0 00.000 000$. . . . . . . . . . @0550 .500 w0000m 050000: .00 .35
00 .000 :0 S00 00.000 00.:00 :0.000 00.000 :0.:00 :0 . :00 0: 000 . . .w0000m .500 w0000m 0000000: .60 03000000000
0: .N.0:._c_. 00.00: 00.00: 00.00: 00.00: N000: N.0.00: 0N..00: 00 00: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . 0055a: S00:
00.0: 00.00». 00.0: 00.0: 00.0: 00.0: 00.0: 00.0: 00.0: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zm0000m .?0:>: 00050300
00.:~N. N000 00.0N. 00.0N. _00.0N. 00.0N. 00.0N. 00.0N. 00.0N. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . .w055m 5:000
2:501: 00m 0050500 000m :0:0.:.
0:0: i. 000 : :00: :00: 0N0: 000.: :N.:~.: 0N0: N.N.:~.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........m00:0m .000:
00:0 0:00.. 00:0 00:0 00: .0 00: .0 00:0 00:0 00: .0 . . . . . . . . ...........w0000m .?0:>: 000000.300
000.0 000.0 N.N.0.0 N.N.0.0 N.N.0.0 N.N.0 .0 N.N.0.0 N.N.0.0 R00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w0000m .550
50:00am >000: 000000/4
N000 000.0 000.0 :00.0 000.0 0:00 0:00 0:0.0 :0 .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Im0000m .500 .0000: 0000030.

00: .00 000 .00 000 .00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000 .00 000.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w0:00m .500 000.5050

000.0N. 0:0 .00 00N..0N. 000 0N. 000.00 000.0N. 000.0N. 000 0N. 000 .0N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w00=0m 500:0? 05...: 000.50g.

000.00 0:0 .00 000.00 000 .00 000.00 000 .00 000.00 0:0 .00 000.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655cm #0063 ?B:0: 005030

m: m: 00 . 00 00 00 00 00 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00.: 00m 5501: .:0 000507:
.62: .05: 05: .05: >5: >5: >5: .05:
5000.50 .05: 5:5? 00:5? 00:00:? 00:00? 00:5? 3:5? 00:00?
.?05 00:00? .?05 .?05 .0005 .?05 .?05 .0005 .?05
000008.000 .000w00fi00 000500000 0000000000 00050300 00050300 00050300 00050500 000000300
. £0000 .0::5 £0000 .503: 6000:: .025 .0000 £308.00 0000:: 0003mm
. 0:05 0000050. p000: 05:350. 5:08.00 05:00.23 0000mm 0003.50. 0::5 .
. 0:00.00 . 000000 0000.00 0000.00 05:000. 000000 0:00.00 0000.00 0:50.00
0 00w: 0 00.: N. 001: 0 00w: 0 00.: 0 0.0.: 0 00.: 0 0.0.: : #0.:

0000.0. .0000 .N. .07: 003000000 .:0|000: .33 050000-050: 000-00 .:0 0.35500 , .0: 030m.

18 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Table 13 summarizes the 1920-21 experiment, in which a comparison
of the grain sorghums versus corn for fattening lambs was made. It?
will be observed that Lots 2, 4, and 6, receiving the ground threshedrf
grain sorghums, made practically the same gains daily as the corn-fed ‘i,
lambs in Lot 3. In this particular test, ground threshed milo and I
ground threshed kafir proved slightly superior to ground shelled corn in .
the production of gains. The 1920-‘21 test reported in this bulletin?
substantiates a similar experiment conducted in 1919-20, in which test
ground threshed milo produced an average daily gain of 0.394 pound, 
while lambs fattened on ground shelled corn made an average daily 
gain of 0.393 pound. .2 7,

It will be observed from the foregoing table that the lambs in Lot 6, .
which received ground threshed kafir, made a slightly larger gain than :
did Lot 4, whichwas fat-tened on ground threshed milo. In the 1919-
20 test the lot fattened on ground threshed milo made a slightly larger f
giin than did the lot which received ground threshed kafir; however, p,
the difference in each instance is slight. In this test as in the 1919-20 I
experiment, the lambs “in Lot 1, fattened on ground milo heads, made a. 
more economical gain than those in Lots 4 and 6, fattened on ground 
threshed milo and kafir, respectively. The cost per hundred pounds of
gain in Lot 1, fattened on ground milo heads, was $8.86, while in Lots *
4 and 6 the cost of gains per hundred pounds was $9.23 and $9.61, re- g
spectively. The cost of feed per hundred pounds of gain was highest .
in Lot 3, fattened on corn, and lowest in Lot 9, in which sorghum hay
was substituted for alfalfa. . I 

The lambs in Lot 9 did not finish as well as did those in other lots, .
and should have commanded a lower price on the market. However, ‘
all lots sold at the same price. c

Table 13 reveals that a heavy financial loss was entailed in each of §
the several lots of lambs in the 1920-21 test. Heavy losses in lamb- a
feeding operations during the past feeding season were almost universal. *

   
    

Table 14. Showing average weights of_lambs at the regular weighing periods throughout '
' ' theiiininety day test. . -

Weighing ‘Period L081? Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8i Lot 9

Nov. 29 (Initial Weight)*. 50.63 50.52 50.28 50.35 50.48 50.60 50.20 50.31 50.08
Dec 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57 62 57.53 56.67 57.05 57.34 57.16 56.20 57.01 55.50

Dec. 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. 62.48 60.42 61.90 62.33 61.80 63.03 60.17 61.01 61,08

Jan. 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.59 66.49 66.06 64.13 65.30 66.56 63.96-63.51 63.65 _

Jan. 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.99 69.58 70.56 70.57 68.06 70.90 66.60 69.06 65.91

Feb. 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.09 75.16 75.04 74.56 73.18 75.33 72.26 77.75 68.84

Feb. 27* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.63 78.57 78.33 78.63 76.43 79.48 75.70 80.91 73.20

Gain per lamb . . . . . . .  28.00 28.05 28.05 28.28 28.95 28.38 25.50 30.60 23.12

*Average of three weighings.

An examination of Table 14 shows that with the exception of Lot 9, _
the average gains made by the lambs in the respective lots were quite
consistent throughout the test. The Lot 9 lambs showed a much smaller
total gain than did the other lots which were fed alfalfa hay. It was y
not expected that the Lot 9 lambs, which received sorghum hay as 3*

1

GRAIN SoReHUMs VERsUs CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS. 19

roughage, would make as good a showing as the alfalfa hay-fed lots.

This comparison was made for the purpose of comparing the two "rough-
ages when the concentrated portion of the ration was practically the
same for each lot. Table 12 shows that even though Lot 9 made a much
smaller gain than did Lot 1, which received the same concentrated feeds,
the gains made by the former lot were much more economical with sor-
ghum hay, valued at $6.50 per ton than Lot 1, which received ailfalfa
hay, valued at $25 per ton.

THE MANURE VOIDED

While no attempt has been made in the preparation of the data pre-
sented in this bulletin to assign a definite value to the manure voided
by the experimental lots of lambs, amateur feeders are urged not to lose
sight of the fact that sheep manure has a higher fertilizing value per
ton than either horsejcow, or hog manure. According to Henry & Mor-
rison’s “Feeds and Feeding,” page 2'78, the total daily production of
manure by sheep is 3.4 pounds per hundred pounds live weight. There»-
fore, owing to its high fertilizing value the manure should not be wasted,
but applied to the farm lands in accordance with the latest information
upon this subject.

PRODUCTIVE VALUES CALCULATED FROM FEEDING TESTS

The productive values of the feeds used in this experiment were cal-
culated by G. S. Fraps, Chief, Division of Chemistry. As stated in
Dr. Fraps’ “Principles of Agricultural Chemistry,” page 434, the pro-
ductive value of a feed is the best measure so far devised for the net
value of a feed for production of fat, heat, energy, or similar purposes.
Rations have heretofore been calculated on the assumptionthat all di-
gestible nutrients of the same group have the same value to the animal,
regardless of the origin of the material. We now know, however, that
the net value of a feed may vary widely from its value based upon the
digestible nutrients and that the value of a feed for the purpose of pro-
ducing energy is best measured by its productive value. For example,
one pound of digested material in the form of corn is worth much more
to an animal than a pound of digested material in the form of alfalfa hay.

The productive value may be expressed in terms .of fat, or as therms.
In most of our work, we have expressed the value in terms of fat, but
shall in the future express the values in therms, as proposed by the late
Dr. H. P. Armsby, for the sake of uniformity.

When the productive value of a feed is stated in terms of therms this
definite value can be compared with similar values of other feedstuifs.
To ascertain the productive value of a feed in feeding tests, it is neces-
sary to take one feed as a standard, to calculate the productive value of
the other feeds fed with this feed, and to assume a definite maintenance
requirement for the animal. In this experiment with lambs, corn was
taken as the unit, and the productive values of cottonseed meal and
alfalfa hay were calculated, the coeflicients used being those given in
Dr. Fraps’ “Principles of Agricultural Chemistry,” page 434, and Bul-
letins 185 and 203 of the Texas Experiment Station, and the mainte-

20 TEXAS tAGRlCULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

nancqé requirements given by Armsby inihis “Principles of Animal

Feedii-lng.”
Alithough the above assumptions may be claimed to lead to some un-
certainty, yet since these figures are also used in connection with the

other; feeds compared with the standard, comparative results should be a
securred. This is especially the case if there is little difference between 
the (quantity of the additional feeds fed, and no great difference in the 

average Weights of the animals.
The calculations of the productive values from the feeding tests with

sheep are given in Table 15. The maintenance requirements for a hun- a
dred pounds of the average weight were assumed, after Armsby, as i
0.9/33 therms. The therms required for one pound of gain in weight 

when corn was fed were 2.526.

The same. figure was used when the .

value of the gains with other feeds in terms of therms was calculated. a
The milo heads fed to Lot 1 had very nearly the same feeding value _

as the threshed milo fed to Lot 4. This is not What We would expect,
and introduces uncertainty into the results of Lot 9, where milo heads
were fed for the purpose of ascertaining the feeding value of sorghum

; hay. If the productive value found in Lot 1 is used for the calculations

of Lot 9, the productive value of sorghum hay is 24.22 therms, but if

the productive value of '76 therms per hundred pounds is assumed for 

the milo heads in this lot, the productive value of the sorghum hay is

30.02. We are inclined to believe that the la.tter figure is more nearly f,

correct.

21

GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS.

\-Lr ...\ u \ sv/ s
fioowcod-uoUw ..mE.~o5 on wonwswww v35; ofiwoswohmgq A MOJQEOMH~** , Qw 30A 03$» ovfiuswouawsww 50¢ uwwwifloiuni
Q05 8a 366m. 3.2 n58 $33 mmdw . . . . . . . . . .. 3 5m $6.2.» . . .  .  . . . .V . . . . . Jami Qzsvuzazéohm

$3.2" mmém mwflmofi was» mm .2 3K2. 5% . . . . . . . . . . om .3 S .3 @855. 53X 3+ NV o3w> owwuswohm

wmvd mvm .o Q3 .o wawc 9K5 SEQ mi a . . . . . . . . . . End mfipe . . 73X" UilOv mfihwi fiQfiwaiwo 033/

N24 m3 . w 5w 3 ~34 m3; mm». 3 mam w . . . . . . . . . . 8m; Qwm; AOHJ+ 3c @5333 =18?“ ~o¢no$w~3w>

.. . . . Q35 amwd 2:. wowd 55¢ ma»... . . . . . . . . . .. wwvc wig. . 213M MXUV @855 3 QQQ» “o ~28,

QOIOI QQQ . Q Q Q III IIIIIIO IOIOIOI Q ..QQQQQ-Q Q . . . Q Q OII . . . Q . . Q . II®NM~IN .......Q.............fi.....@mulhu+mv;g@flw.T.v._H.H~QQhQQ.WEQHQ§P

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I    

OIIOQIOOIO Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0Q QQQ QQ QQQQQQ coco-Q QQQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQQ  Q Q Q Q Q QQQ Q Olllvllfilhm"  
. . . . . . . . m5 .0 N190 59¢ 8w .o N8 .0 N8 .o 8w .o 8w .o mow a .22“ X >5 mzsawzavwh vuswcfinmaz
  Q Q Q Q IOI Q Q Q Q Q Q QQQ Q Q Q Q Q Q QQQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q - Q Q Q Q Q QQQ  Q . Q Q QQQ . Q Q Q Q Q Q - Q . Q Q . IOLII. Q Q Q . .., - - Q Q Q Q llllllAHv 
IIIICOO .... . . . . IOwNmIo        .............#» . . . Q Q . Q Q . ..@U@ ~%.Nm
v36 31¢ . . . . . . .. 33¢  33.0 .350  3A6 3A6 33.0 3:. . . . . .  . . . . 3.0V 13E uoumsofioU.
   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............Q@.N¢~.U. .
.. . ., nosdfi,» u>fiQsuo~m
 N33 mwvé Ev; 33A mfiifi a3; SANA mnwé Rwé . . . . .  . . . . 
. . . . . . .. $4 .o £93 m2 .o $2 mo m2 .o Q2 .0 m3 .o . m2 .c 3H ..o . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ..~@o@c wwwwaotbU
.. .. .. mmwd mwmd Rwd Rw o Rwd Rwd Ewd Rwd, Elm o . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . .:..$V Qesw
.4 , . . . , .  “boflwu EGG
. . . . . . . . .. hmmd ofizo 3N5 Qmma £2. 3nd find find 2m... .1.‘ . . . . . . . . . . :18 5% >=3Q oma$><
. ........ E . S 3.? Qwmw S 9Q Sifi. Asia 33 E .3 2Q .3 . . . . :1. . . . . . . . . . . 5,8 “nwsavwwhwké
has .92 25o: 23o: q wwwos . \
Esnupom ESSMMOW weowcogboU .33! $8M wfipfiwm 0E2 .500 1 agiogoh e22 - -
a 3A a Hod w pod h 3A w Hod m Hod w Hod 3m :5 N 3A Huoq
dwoaw s33 3R5 @353 Bob 33S, ofifswoun we coflfirnzwo .3 wofowa .43

wish.

22

in

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

nlfable 16. Comparison of productive values secured by feeding tests with sheep.

 

Kl
Productive value Productive
per hundred pounds v ue
found
, Found as compared
‘ Calculated to corn.
j Fat Therms herms as 100
GT0"; .nd corn (Standard) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.35 100

GTOII-wnd corn_(1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87. 82 100

Gfolyind feterita (1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.14 86.30 85.68 99.9

GT0’ und feterita (1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.00 77.11 88.25 87.8

GTQJ und feterita heads (1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. 54 79.46 75.88 92.0

Gréllllld feterita heads (1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.50 _ 70.68 68. 54 80. 5

G!‘ ound kafir (1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.75 88.92 72.11 102.9

GI] ound kafir (1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.80 80.53 61.68 91.7

G? round kafir heads (1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.04 77.29 68.44 89.5

G, round milo (1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.35 87.21 77.06 100.9

G ‘rround milo (1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.60 88.25 79.25 100. 5

(Ground milo heads (1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.09 '86. 07 75. 70 99. 7

’Ground milo heads (1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.00 77.11 69.82 89.2

Whole cottonseed (1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. 90 102.43 76. 61 118.6

Sorghum hay (milo heads 86, 1921) . . . . . . . . 5. 65 24.22 37.32 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sorghum hay (milo heads 76, 1921) . . . . . . . . 7. 00 30.02 ' 37.32 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alfalfa hay (1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.18 . . . . . . . . . . . .

tive values found in 1920 and 1921.

Table 16 contains a comparison of the productive values secured by
feeding tests with sheep. The first column contains the productive
value found as fat, for the tests described in this bulletin, and also the
averages described in Bulletin 269 of 1920. The second column con-
trains the same- results found as therms. The third column contains the
calculated productive values in therms. These values were calculated
from the production coefficients given in Bulletins 185 and 203. They
were based upon the average results given in digestion experiments, and
we can expect to find variations from these averages in individual cases,
especially since the average is made up from deviating figures. The
feeding tests here described give us data to correct these calculated
values, and to ascertain how nearly they represent the correct figures.
In other words, the production coefiicients secured by digestion experi-
ments can be tested by feeding tests and corrected if necessary. Table
16 also contains the productive values as found by the feeding experi-
ments of 1920.

As one could expect, there is a considerable difference in the produc-
This variation can be expected
with feeding experiments on account of variations in conditions which
can hardly be controlled, as well as variations in digestibility of different
lots of feed. ' y

Ground feterita in 1921 had 99.9 per cent. of the productive value of
corn, and only 87.8 per cent in 1920. Ground feterita heads in 1921 had
92 per cent. of the productive value of corn, and 80.5 per cent. in 1920.
Ground kafir in 1921 had a productive value of 102.9 per cent. of the
productive value of corn, and 91.7 per cent. in 1920. Ground milo in
1921 had 100.9 per cent. of the productive value of corn, and 100.5
per cent. in 1920. The corn fed in 1920 was a little better in feed-
ing value than that fed in 1921. Ground milo heads had 99.7 per cent.
of the productive value of corn in 1921 and 89.2 per cent. in 1920.

A study of these figures shows that it is not possible to secure exact
feeding values by means of a single series of experiments. Only by
conducting a number of tests, and preparing the averages, can accurate

GRAIN SORGHUMS VERsUs CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS. 23'

results be secured. The results of one test may come out decidedly
better than those of another. It can also be expected that some in-
dividual feeding tests would vary decidedly from the average productive
values calculated from digestion experiments. The productive values
can be corrected by comparison with the feeding tests. But since the
productive values are average values, and deviations from the average
may be expected, close agreement can be expected only between averages,
and not between individual tests.

The feeding value of cottonseed was considerably higher than was
expected, and that of sorghum hay was lower than was expected from
the calculated productive values. Further tests are needed on these feeds.

SUMMARY 1920-21 TEST

, 1. The nine respective lots made the following average daily gains
l per head during the ninety-day feeding period: v

5 Lot 1, fed ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa. hay. .0.311 lb.
' Lot 2-, fed ground threshed feterita, cottonseed meal and alfalfa

 hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . . . .0.312 lb.
 Lot 3, fed ground shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. .0.312 lb.
i; Lot 4, fed ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay.0.314 lb.
 Lot 5, fed ground feterita heads, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay.0.288 lb.
 Lot 6, fed ground threshed kafir, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay.0.321 lb.
Lot 7, fed ground kafir heads, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. .0283 lb.
Lot 8, fed ground milo, whole cottonseed, and alfalfa hay . . . . . .0.340 lb.
Lot 9, fed ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, sorghum hay. . . .0257 lb.

   
 
 
   
    
   
   
  
  
   

2. In this test as in that conducted during the previous season, Lot 4,
fattened on ground threshed milo, made a slightly larger average daily
gain than did Lot 3, fattened on ground shelled corn.

3. In this test Lot 6, fattened on ground threshed kafir, made a
rger gain than did Lot 4, fattened on ground threshed milo.

4. Lot 8, fattened on ground threshed milo, whole cottonseed, and
‘lfalfa hay, made the largest daily gain of any of the lots. At the close
the experiment, Lot 8 was receiving 1.3 pounds of cottonseed per
ad daily without any evidence of deleterious symptoms.

5. In this test a heavy loss was entailed on each lot due to the fact
‘an the lambs were purchased at a time when feeders were commanding
"lround $13 per cwt., but delivered to the packers at a sacrificing price
 $8.00 per cwt., after one of the most serious breaks in the history
the lamb trade had occurred. .

_ 6. The respective lots sold straight through at 8 cents per pound on
f; Fort Worth market.

17. With the exception of Lot 9, which did not finish, all lots carried‘
7‘ ctically the same degree of finish. .

h;