Llbxanr, CAMPUS , AI90-2-23-18M—L TEXAS AERICULTURAI EXPERIMENI STATIIIN AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL. President BULLETIN NO. 306 FEBRUARY, I923 DIVISION OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS THIRD EXPERIMENT B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD. M’ S . Ph. D.. Direflvf A. B. CONNER, B. S., Vice Director CHARLES A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary _ A. D. JACKSON, Executive Assistant CHARLES GORZYCKI, Technical Assistant M. P. HOLLEMAN. JP... Assistant Chief Clerk " R. N. BURROWS, M. A., Research Librarian VETERINARY SCIENCE *M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief _ H. SCHMIDT, D. V. S., Veterinarian _ V. J. BRAUNER, D. V. M., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY G S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. AsEURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist IS. LOMANITZ, B. S., Assistant Chemist WALDO WALKER, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE H. NEss, M. S., Chief W. S. Horcmuss, Horticulturist ANIMAL INDUSTRY J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief R. M. Sherwood, B. S., Poultry Husbandman G. R. WARREN. B. S., Swine Husbandman J. L. Lusrr, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman (genetics) L. M. MURPHY. Wool and Mohair Specialist J. D. SUNKEL, Dairyman ENTOMOLOGY M. C. TANQUARY, Ph. D., Chief: State Entomologist . J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist . B. PARKS, B. S., Apiculturist . S. RUDE, B. S., Entomologist . H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder RONOMY . B. CONNER, B. S.. Chief . H. LEIDXGH, B. S., Agronomist . B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Agronomist G. N. STROMAN, M. S., Agronomist; Farm Superintendent **PEARL DRUMMOND, Seed Analyst PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief COTTON BREEDING G. F. FREEMAN, D. Sc., Chief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Farm and Ranch Economist SOIL SURVEY **W. T. CARTER, LIR., B. S., Chief H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor H. V. GEIB, B. S., Soil Surveyor FEED CONTROL SERVICE B. YouNcsLoon, . . Ph. D., Director D. FULLER, M. S , Cthief Inspector D. PEARCE, Inspector H. ROGERs, Inspector . H W000, Inspector J. KELLY, Inspector IE A an» Q >0 F. S. J. W J. SUBSTATIONS No. 1. Beeville, Bee County I. E. COWART, M. S., Superintendent No. 2. Troup, Smith County W. S. Horcrnuss, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent No. 4. Beaumont, Jetferson County A. H. PRmcE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5. Temple, Bell County D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent No. 6. Denton, Denton County P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7 Spur. Dickens County R. E Dxcxson, B. S., Superintendent TAs of February 1, 1923. IOn leave. No. 8. i Lubbock. Lubbock County R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent No. 9. Balmorhea, Reeves County J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent No. 10. College Station, Brazos County (Feeding and Breeding Substationl L. J. IVICCALL, Superintendent No. 11. Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent **No. 12. Chillicothe, Hardeman County A. B. CRON, B. S., Superintendent No. 14. Sonora. Sutton-Edwards Counties E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent D. H. BENNErr, 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. 1 PAGE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A Review of Previous Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Summary of 1919-20 Experiment (Table 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '2’ Summary of 1920-21 Experiment (Table 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 The 1921-22 Experiment . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 Rations Fed in 1921-22 Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Composition of Feeds Used (Table 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Cost of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Weather Conditions During Experiment (Table 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Duration of the 1921-22 Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 The Lambs and the Preliminary Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Feed Lots and Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Weight Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . 13 The Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Ground Threshed Milo Compared with Ground Shelled Corn (Table 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1s Whole Milo Compared with Ground Shelled Corn (Table 6). . . . . '. 14 Ground Milo Heads Compared with Ground Shelled Corn (Table 7) 15 Ground Threshed Feterita Compared with Ground Shelled Corn (Table 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 Ground Feterita Heads Compared with Ground Shelled Corn (Table 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 Ground Threshed Kafir Compared with Ground Shelled Corn (Table 10) . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1s Ground Kafir Heads Compared With Ground Shelled Corn (Table 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Ground Threshed Darso Compared with Ground Shelled Corn (Table 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 Ground Threshed Sorgo Compared with Ground Shelled Corn (Table 1a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 Summary of- 1921-22 Experiment (Table 14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 Average Weights of the Lambs at the Various Weighing Periods. . . 25 Waste Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 Summary of the Three Texas Experiments (Table 1'7) . . . . . . . . . .. 1'7 Productive Values Calculated from Feeding Experiments . . . . . . . . . . 28 Method of Calculation of Productive Values from Feeding Experi- ments with Lambs, 1921-22 (Table 18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Comparison of Productive Values as Secured by Feeding Experi- ments With Lambs at Substation No. '7 (Table 19) . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 BULLETIN NO. 306. FEBRUARY, 1923. GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS THIRD EXPERIMENT BY J. M. JoNEs R. E. DIoKsoN According to reliable statistics emanating from the Federal De- partment of Agriculture, the United States is now producing ap- proximately l44,000,000 bushels of the various grain sorghums per year, of which amount 60,000,000 is attributed to the Lone Star State. The grain sorghuuns are, in fact, commonly listed among the safest and most reliable crops for West Texas and the above fig- ures accredited to this State, large though they be, epncededly repre- sent only a partial. showing of the possible production. In fact, the actual production of such grains is now controlled by the farmer’s estimate of the demand for them the following year. Meanwhile, Texas continues to import vast quantities of corn. from the cornbelt states for feeding purposes, despite the fact that such corn has, in the past, consistently sold at figures ranging fifteen to twenty per cent. higher than the market price for grain sorghum. Though Texas, by virtue of her natural resources, has for years been recognized in the livestock circles as holding premier rank in the production of beef cattle, and during the past three or four years has reached first place in the production of sheep, she- has by no means reached the pinnacle of her possibilities in the finishing of livestock, if it be true that her grain. sorghums have as great an economical feeding value as the feedstuffs which she is importing. Especially must the lamb-feeding industry surge forward in impor- tance if scientific facts indicate the greater economy of feeding the locally produced grain sorghums. In fact, if the feeding value of these grain sorghums is amply demonstrated it is only to be la- mented that Texas has not come sooner by this ~route to the place where she could claim her just position as the premier State in the production of fat lambs. It would seem, then, that the question as to whether the’ grain sorghums which are produced so bountifully throughout Western Texas can be substituted for corn as a fattening ration for livestock, must necessarily be a vital one. Its solution is naturally a matter of in- terest to both farmer and stockman. And if it be demonstrated that the grain sorghums produce as economical gains as does corn in the fattening of livestock, this fact will naturally redound to the mutual benefit of the stockman and the farmer. And the farmer who is also turning a part of his attention to the fattening of a few head of live- stock will be benefited in two ways, since by feeding the cheap and easily grown grain sorghums to his own stock, he can return the manure to the land and thus in a measure prevent soil depletion, which naturally results when a one-crop system is pursued year after year. Such a state ofaffairs must naturally encourage livestock farm- ing, which is, without doubt, the most permanent and Well-rounded system of agriculture. 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION It has been with the purpose of throwing some light on the prob- lem already outlined that a series of lamb-feeding tests has been con- ducted during the last three years by the Division of Animal Indus- try of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at Substation N0. '7, Spur, Texas. A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTS The first of these tests was conducted during the 1919-1920 feeding season with the object of comparing the gains and economy of gains made by lambs, some of which were fattened on corn and others on the different grain sorghums. The results of this test have been am- plified at considerable length in Bulletin No. 269, entitled “Grain Sorghums Versus Corn for Fattening Lambs,” issued by this Station in October, 1920. For the particulars, reference may be made to that Bulletin, but it has been thought worth While to include herein a brief review of the results. The test was continued through a feeding period of 9O days, six lots of 20 lambs each being involved in the experiment. Al- falfa hay constituted the sole roughage for each lot, and the various lots were fed‘ identical amounts of the respective feeds. The only difference in. the rations was manifested in the kinds of grains con- sumed, Lot ~3 being fed on ground shelled corn (corn chops), Lot 1 on ground milo heads, Lot 2 on ground threshed feterita, Lot 4 on ground threshed milo, Lot 5 on ground feterita heads, and Lot 6 on ground threshed kafir. Table 1 given below contains a concise summary and comparison of the showings made by the different lots involved in the test, reported in Texas Station. Bulletin 269. Table 1. Summary of ninety-day feeding test, 1919-20, Substation No. 7. u . "c "d "g _- "as;- gs: g ._~ “é i; s, T; 5 g 3'53 Egil 25$ 8m.» Ego ~3_§_ “~52, Una U-"JE. $32. 0x2. wee: “he: s‘: .2“: gm: mg: sate sate E5: zeta fits sew - j 5% s5 59 s s» s? gig s"? 5% 25.5% 555$ sis-i‘! sag 42%‘! 435i‘ ass-LI’ 207a e02 u e02 ma: e-u-n Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 . 20 2O 20 20 Average initial weight, lbs. . . . . . . . . 59.330 59.000 59.880 59.730 59.960 58.630 Average final weight lbs . . . . . . . . . . 91 . 910 91 .420 95.250 95. 160 90. 460 92. 130 Average total gain, l s . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.580 32.420 35.370 35.430 30.500 33.500 Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.362 0.360 0.393 _ 0.394 0.339 0.372 Avem e dailll) ration: 080 080 1 080 1 080 1 080 1 080 rain, s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 1. . . . . 2. Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . 0. 140 0. 140 0.140 0.140 0. 140 0.140 3. Alfalfa hay, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.890 1 890 1 .890 1 .890 1 890 1 .890 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170.400 170.400 170.400 170.400 170.400 170.400 Concentrates er 100 lbs. gain, lbs. . 337.010 338.660 310.430 309.890 359.990 327.750 Hay per 100 lbs. gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . 523.020 525.600 481 .760 480.940 558.680 508.650 Cost of feed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . .. $ 13.828 $ 15.660 $ 17.284 $ 14.329 $ 14.771 $ 15. 155 Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . 4. 500 5.080 6. 110 5.080 4.500 5. 080 Initial cost per lamb at feed lot at 13% cents per pound . . . . . . . .. 8.01 7.97 8.08 ‘ 8.06 8.09 7.92 Interest, labor, shipping and selling charges per head, estimated. . . . 1 .20 1.20 l 1.20 1.20 1.20 1 .20 Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.71 14.25 15.39 14.34 13. 79 14.20 Estimated selling weight at Fort Worth, lbs . . . . . . . . . . 84.56 84.11 87.63 87.55 83.22 84.76 Selling price per lamb at Fort Worth _at $19.50 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 16.49 $ 16.40 $ 17.09 $ 17.07 3 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 GRAIN SoRGHUMs VERsUs CoRN For: FATTENING LAMBS '7 The deductions to be made from this table are that: (1) each of the lots made exceptionally good gains throughout the 90-day feeding period; (2) Lot 4, fattened 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 fattened on corn which had been shipped into Texas; (4) corn imported into Texas from other States cannot compete suc- cessfully with the locally grown grain sorghums for fattening lambs. THE 1920-1921. LAMB FEEDING EXPERIMENT " The 1919-1920 test was followed by a similar test during the next year, conducted in the same manner and for the same purpose. The results of this test have been published in Bulletin No. 285, issued in January, 1922, and carrying the same title as the previous bulle- tin. Thei particulars of that test may be had by referring to the above-mentioned bulletin. For our present purpose it will be sufli- cient to summarize this experiment as we did, the 1919-1920 test. The feeding period extended over 90 days. The experiment was broadened so as to include seven lots of 20 lambs each, instead of six lots of 20 lambs each. Again alfalfa hay constituted the sole roughage and cottonseed meal was fed in the same amount to all of the lots. The grain rations for the different lots were as follows: Lot 1. Ground milo heads. Lot 2. Ground threshed feterita. Lot 3. Ground shelled corn. Lot 4. Ground threshed milo. Lot 5. Ground feterita heads. Lot 6. Ground threshed kafir. Lot *7. Ground kafir heads. The same grain sorghums were used in this test as in the previous year with the exception of ground kafir heads, which constituted the grain fed to the additional lot. i Table 2 is a summary showing the gains and economy of gains made by the respective lots. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 8‘; s2 .231“ .135 woomcofioo dwmwn pmtwx ©5220 N Hod 2n: @231“ awoE wvowqofioo naax woswohn» ©5650 d EA <3: abuts JNQE vwomnofioo % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6E2 no wmuxcmhnw E3 hum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .fl0>0 MNOMQ 3 Ewmwuuwc v2.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 5E2 Eon wwcq . . . . . . . ..................1656aHoaowwwoumhamcmzow . - - - - . . . - - . - . - . . - - . . - - - - - . . . . . . ..~..................-.-.-...EE.N@.~UQGWQQ§NHCF . . . . . duo: 3Q wwwhwno M553 new wig 2w Qonfi Jmohofifl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Afiflw Manson wuEEE 5a mo»; .3 EoU . . . . . .....HQ@@QQ%G.N QEN_HUQHMQO—G@w@Q@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $55: 8n Zoo woo“ owwko>< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51:50.“ .5.» 2250a wanna: :5 2am . . . . . . . . . . . 352E éfiw .2555 ufiucss 8a mowwficoucoU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............m©=:cn40am . - - . . - . . - . . . - ~ ¢ . . . . . - . . . . a . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............wu::oa.Eu._U 5E2 :5 woEswcou cvom 13cm. ~....¢--.--. . . . - - . - - - . - - ¢ - ~ - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........mwuson 43E woomcofioU . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............mwc:on 5130 “c033 zmwv omupo>< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dwqson dim hmum oma~o>< - - - _ - | . - . ¢ . - - - - - . I - n - ~ a u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:53 Jnmmv? ism omm$>< . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dwnson JsmEB Ewan“ omwwv>< . ................~o_._oamnE¢:o~onE:Z ENE 23R JNQE voowcofioo .21: wonmobi QEEEU é 3A 2am .31.?» 13E woownofiou .950 uwzvsm ucsofib .m EA <93 abuts JQOE wvomnofiaou dthowvm vosmotfi @5220 d EA swam abut.“ waoE vowwcofioo iwaon oGE wcnobmv A pod 6:03am dz =§53=w .582 .33 wnmzséa: 5Y8 m. E1625 d 2.1a GRAIN SORGHUMS Vnnsus CORN F012 FATTENING LAMBS 9 From the above table it will be observed that: (1) 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; (2) Lot 6, fattened on ‘ground threshed kafir, made an even larger gain than did Lot 4, and registered gains noticeably more satisfactory than those registered by Lot 3; (3) Lot 2, fattened on ground threshed feterita, made average daily gains and equal to the average daily gains made by Lot 3, fattened on ground shelled corn, while Lot 1 made gains per day only one- thousandth of a pound less than those accredited to the last two lots; (4) the costs per hundred pounds of gain, live weight, made by the sheep fattened on the grain sorghums were twenty to twenty-six per cent. less than the cost attributed to the lot fed on ground shelled corn; (5) in this test a heavy loss was incurred on each lot due to the fact that the lambs Were purchased at a time when. feeders were com- manding around $13 per hundred weight, but delivered to the pack- ers at a sacrificing price of $8 per hundred weight, after one of the most serious breaks in the history of the lamb trade had occurred. The Kansas Experiment Station* has also conducted several tests to compare the feeding value of kafir with corn, which substantiate the above conclusions. In the test conducted in 1914, the Kansas Station compared shelled corn, whole kafir, and ground kafir fed to three lots of fifty 56-pound lambs in the following proportions: 0.9 pound grain, 0.19 pounds cottonseed meal, 1.4 pounds alfalfa hay, and 1.1 pounds sweet sorghum silage. In this test the lambs fattene-d 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 1915-1916 with 75 lambs to the lot, the lambs fattened on an average daily ra- tion consisting of corn 1.01. pounds, cottonseed meal 0.16 pound, al- falfa 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 0.1.6 pound, alfalfa hay‘ 0.993 pound, silage 1.09 pounds, made an average daily gain of 0.247 pound laer head. In 1917-1918, the Kansas Station conducted a test in which shelled corn and alfalfa hay were compared with whole kafir a11d alfalfa hay for fattening lambs. The corn-fed lot received an average daily ra- tion of corn 1.46 pounds, alfalfa hay 1.54 pounds, and made an aver- age 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 O11 COTD. *Information to the authors from the Kansas Experiment Station. 1O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE 1921-1922 LAMB FEEDING EXPERIMENT OBJECT During the past year the experimental Work already outlined above was continued in the hope of securing reliable cumulative data as to the relative gains and economy of gains made by lambs fattened on the various grain sorghums as compared with lambs fattened on corn. This feeding test Was extended, however, over 105 days, as compared With ninety days covered by the former tests. RATION S In another respect this test was more extensive than the former tests, there being ten lots of 20 lambs each as compared with the six and seven lots involved in the tests reported in Bulletins Nos. 269 and 285. The feeds supplied to these ten lots were as follows: Lot 1. Ground shelled corn, cottonseed meal, sorghum and alfalfa hay. Lot 2. Ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, sorghum and alfalfa hay. Lot 3. Whole threshed milo, cottonseed meal, sorghum and alfalfa’ hay. Lot 4. Ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, sorghum and alfalfa hay. Lot 5. Ground threshed feterita, cottonseed meal, sorghum and ,alfalfa hay. Lot 6. Ground feterita heads, cottonseed meal, sorghum and alfalfa hay. Lot '7. Ground threshed kafir, cottonseed meal, sorghum and alfalfa hay. Lot 8. Ground kafir heads, cottonseed meal, sorghum and alfalfa hay. Lot 9. Ground threshed darso, cottonseed meal, sorghum and al- falfa hay. Lot 10. Ground threshed sorgo, cottonseed meal, sorghum and al- falfa hay. Each lot consumed identical amounts of cottonseed meal and iden- tical amounts of the respective grains. The same amounts of roughage were placed in the different lots each‘ day, but the various lots Wasted different amounts of hay. Representative samples of the several feeds utilized were taken near the beginning, at the close, and the middle of the experiment, and submitted to the Station Chemist for analyses. Table 3 contains his report as to the composition of the various feeds. GRAIN SORGHUMS Vnnsus CoRN For: FATTENING LAMBS 11 Table 3. Composition of feeds used during 1921-22 experiment. (Per cent.) Nitro- Feeds. Protein. Fat. Crude gen-free Water. Ash. N0. of _ fibre. extract. analyses. Ground shelled corn. . .. . . 9. 75 4.34 2.81 72.22 9.48 1.40 3 Ground threshed milo. . .. 10.76 2.73 2.48 72.54 9.91 1.58 3 l ‘- Whole threshed milo..... 11.89 2.99 2.83 72.03 8.69 1.57 313 Ground milo heads....... 9.90 2.32 6.98 68.34 9.37 3.09 3 Ground threshed feterita. 12. 57 2. 8O 2.80 69.25 10. 51 2. 07 3 Ground feterita heads. . . . 11.22 2.83 6.81 65.70 1 .41 3.03 3 Ground threshed kafir.. . . 11.73 2.67 1.84 71.29 10.75 1 .52 3 Ground kafir heads . . . . . . 10.61 2.58 i 6.90 65.93 10.75 3.23 3 Ground threshed darso. . . 8.95 3.03 2.73 74.72 9.35 1 .22 3 Ground threshed sorgo. . . 10.70 3. 12 2. 77 72.61 9.23 1 .57 3 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . 45.54 7.27 9.72 25.53 6.38 5. 56 3 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.98 1.57 32.40 35.31 8.34 8.40 4 Sorghum hay............ 6.52 1.87 24.48 51.31 8 38 7.44 1 A good grade of mixed white and yellow corn similar to that utilized in the first two tests was used as the basis of the standard ration fed to Lot 1. The corn was sold on the Fort Worth market as Northern corn and was graded as number one mixed. The milo, feterita, and kafir used in this test were grown locally, the bulk of this feed being produced on the Substation. The heads were well filled at the base and tip, and the grains were generally mature, large, and plump, free from smut, dust, or mold. These grain sorghums were first-class and on the whole superior to grain sorghums fed in the former tests. The chemical analyses showed that they contained one to two and a half per cent. less water than the grain sorghums formerly used. The corn also contained a noticeably smaller per cent. of water. Some of the darso and sorgo was purchased and shipped from other counties. These sorghums, however, were first-class, free of smut, dust, or mold. The grains were sound, clean, plump, and bright. The cottonseed meal was of good color and quality. The sorghum hay used during the first few days of the test was bright in color, and free from dust or mold, but contained a high per cent. of moisture. The alfalfa was obtained. from several sources and ranged in quality from choice to number two. The costs reported below are averages based on the current feed prices prevailing in the Panhandle of Texas during the period of the test. Ground shelled corn per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “$33.88 Ground threshed milo per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.39 _ Whole threshed milo per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.67 ' 1 Ground milo heads per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.42 ‘ Ground threshed feterita. per ton.‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.39 Ground feterita heads per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.42 Ground threshed kafir per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.39 Ground kafir heads per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .» . . . . 12.42 Ground threshed darso per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.39 _ Ground threshed sargo per ton . . . . . . . . ..-. . . . . . . . . .. 17.39 Cottonseed meal per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.86 Alfalfa hay per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.36 Sorghum hay per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.50 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 4. Weather conditions during test. Maximum l Minimum Year. Month. temperature, temperature, Precipitation, degrees F. degrees F. inches. I r 1921 N0vember* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.27 34.63 Trace 1921 December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.51 30. 00 . 100 1922 January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.25 25.38 .310 1922 February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66. 53 32.25 Trace 1922 MarchT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.20 19. 60 . 040 *Inc1uding November 20 and thereafter. TThrough and including March 5. As in the former tests, the lambs in this experiment had access to shelter and for that rea.son the weather conditions form a negligible factor in the final results. Fortunately there was no rain on the reg- ular Weighing dates. When the weather was unusually warm the eve- ning feedings were in a few instances delayed until the atmosphere had become cooler. During the sudden cold snaps, the lambs naturally did not drink the usual amount of water but they all remained on feed throughout the 105-day feeding test. DURATION OF THE EXPERIMENT The experiment was begun with the evening feed of November 20, 1921, and brought to a conclusion with the morning feed of March 5, 19.22. THE LAMBS AND THE PRELIMINARY MANAGEMENT On October 25th, 150 grade Rambouillet lambs were purchased from Mr. A. B. Blackwell, Girard, Texas, at a cost of $3 per head. When these lambs arrived they were placed with 71 lambs raised on the Sub- station and the whole flock was given access to a good grain sorghum stalk field and a splendid alfalfa patch for a few’ hours each day. During a week’s preliminary period the lambs were fed a concentrated mixture of about 110 pounds daily, mixed in the following propor- tions: Milo grain 1.75 parts, kafir chops 1.75 parts, feterita chops 1.75 parts, corn 1.75 parts, cottonseed meal 3.00 parts, and sorghum hay. Two hundred lambs that were involverl in this test were topped from the flock numbering 221 lambs. FEED LOTS AND YVATER SUPPLY . All of the lots utilized during this test W916 of similar size and struc- ture with a southern exposure and ample shelter as protection from in- clement weather. In the same way the feed racks were identical in size and structure. The wrater supply came from a shallow well pro- ducing what is generally known as “Gyp Water.” The lambs were given access to this water three times a day. According to an analy- sis made by the Station Chemist, it contains 12-10 parts salt (chloride of soda) per million parts of Water. Of course this served to satiate in part the desire of the lambs for salt. Nevertheless, salt was always kept in the pens and 26.5 iaounds WQTG consumed by each lot. GRAIN SORGHUMS VERsUs CoRN F011 FATTENING LAMBS 13 WEIGHT RECORDS At the beginning of the test the lambs were weighed on three con- secutive days, the average being taken as the initial weight. Weights were then taken at the close of each fifteen-day interval until the end of the test. At the conclusion of the experiment the lambs were weighed on the last three consecutive days, the average being taken as the final weight. The weights were taken at the same hour of the day. THE EXPERIMENT On the afternoon of November 19th, the 200 lambs which were at that time selected from the flock that had been on preliminary feed were divided into ten groups of 2O lambs each and placed in differ- ent lots. The division was made with due regard to size, type, and condition, so that the various lots would be as nearly uniform . as possible. At all times the different lots Were fed the respective grains on a pound-for-pound basis. At first the concentrated ration was composed of seven parts by weight of grain to three parts of cottonseed meal. After a period of three weeks the concentrated ration was changed to nine parts grain and one part cottonseed meal. That combination was then continued to the end of the experiment. During the first two weeks sorghum hay which had been passed through an ensilage cutter constituted the roughage. Alfalfa hay was then substituted for the sorghum roughage. The lambs were fed regularly at '7 a. m. and 5 p. m. daily as punc- tually as possible. When the day was unusually warm the afternoon’s feed was sometimes postponed until the atmosphere had cooled. The feeding process was so organized that by weighing out the feeds before feeding time, there was little delay in the distribution of the feed- stuffs to the various lots. The hay which was not consumed wasweighed back and an ac- curate record of the waste hay was kept. » Table 5. Comparison of ground threshed milo with groundjshelled corn. Lot 1. Lor 2. Corn chops, Milo chops, cottonseed cottonseed meal, alfalfa. meal, alfalfa. Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 Q Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54. 680 54.480 Average final weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.970 91.330 Average weight on Fort Worth market, lbs .» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.000 84. 500 Average gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.290 36.850 Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.355 0.351 Average daily ration: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 948 0.948 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.139 0.139 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 626 1 . 619 Total feed consumed per lamb: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99.530 99. 530 Cottonseed meal, lbs., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 604 14 604 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 785 169 985 Feed er hundred pounds gain: rain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.910 270.100 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.170 39.630 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457.990 461 .290 14 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION‘ Table 5. Comparison of ground threshed milo. with ground shelled corn—Continued. Lot 1. Lot 2. Corn chops, Milo chops, cottonseed cottonseed meal, alfalfa. meal, alfalfa. Cost of feed per one hundred lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . $ 11.445 $ '9.491 Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 . . . . . . . . . .» . . . . . . . $ ' 4.268 $ 3.497 Initial value per head at 6% cents per pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3.550 3' 31540’ Interest, labor, shipping and selling charges per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.260 $ 1 .260j Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9.078 $5 .297 Selling price per head at $15.10 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . $ 12. 835 ' $ 12.760 Shrinkage en route per head, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 970 6.830 Shrinkage, per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 580 7.480 Dressing per cent, basis feed lots weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.680. 43 .{ 80 Dressing per cent, basis Fort Worth weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48. 340 47. 30 Selling price per hundred pounds necessary to break even. . . . . . . . $ 10.680 9.820‘ Profit per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.757 $ 4.463, w» Table 5 shows that the lambs in Lot 2, fattened on ground threshed milo, made practically the same gains as did Lot 1, fattenedbn ground shelled corn; the average gain per head made by the former Was 37.29 pounds, while that made by the latter was 36.85 pounds. Y The amount of feed required to produce one hundred poundsof gain was slightly greater for Lot 2 than for Lot 1. Nevertheless,‘ the cost of feed per hundred pounds of gain. was about seventeen andone- half per cent. less for Lot 2, which was fed the milo, than for Lot 1, which Was fed the corn, the cost being $9.491 for Lot 2 and $11445 for Lot 1. This naturally resulted in a considerably greater profit per lainb in Lot 2 than in Lot 1. The average (lailyi gains made by the two lots were 0.355 pound for Lot 1, as compared with 0.351 pound for Lot 2. were as follows: Lot ted corn In the two former tests the average daily gains registered Lot ted ground threshed milo 1919-1920 . . . . . . . . . . . .0393 pound 0.394 pound l 1920-1921 . . . . . . . . . . . .0312 pound 0.314 pound Table 6. Comparison of whole threshed milo with ground shelled corn. Lot 1. Lot 3._ Corn chops, Whole milo, cottonseed, cottonseed, meal, alfalfa. meal, alfalfa. Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54. 680 56.460 Average final weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.970 91.370 Average weight on Fort Worth market, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85. 000 84. 500 Average gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.290 34.4910 Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.355 0.332 Average daily ration: ' ' Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.948 0 948 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.139 0 139 Roughage. lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.626 1 628 Total feed consumed per lamb: Grain, lbs. . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99.530 99 530 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.604 14 604 Roughage, lbs. . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 170.785 170 935 Feed per hundred pounds gain: a Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.910 285 100 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39. 170 4 30 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457.990 =489 640 Cost of feed per one hundred pounds gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 11'. 445 $ 772 Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4.268 $ 3.411 GRAIN SoReHUi/rs Vnnsus Conn FOR FATTENING LAMBS 15 Table 6. Comparison of whole threshed milo with ground shelled corn—Continued. Lot 1. Lot 3. Corn chops, Whole milo, cottonseed, cottonseed meal, alfalfa. meal, alfalfa. Initial value per head at 6% cents per pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ _ _ _ 3 550 $ 3.670 Interest,‘ labor, shi ping and selling charges per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 260 $ 1.260 Total cost per lam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9 078 $ 8.341 Selling price per head at $15.10 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5 12 835 $5 12. 760 Shrinkage en route per head, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.970 6.870 Shrinkage per cent. . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.580 7.520 Dressing per cent, basis feed lot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44. 680 46. 570 Dressing per cent, basis Fort Worth weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.340 50. 360 Selling price per hundred lbs. necessary to break even . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 680 35 9.870 Profit per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $5 3 757 i5 4.419 Table 6 indicates that Lot 1, fattened on the ground shelled corn, made noticeably better gains than did Lot 3, fattened on whole threshed milo, the former lot being accredited an average total gain -per head of 37.29 pounds and an average daily gain of 0.355 pound, While the latter showed an average total gain per head of 34.91 pounds and an average daily gain per head of 0.332 pound. Since this was the only test in which whole threshed milo was employed no compar- ative figures from the other tests can be offered. The amount of feed required to produce one hundred pounds of gain was greater in Lot 3 than in Lot 1. Nevertheless, it cost 15_ per cent. less to secure one hundred pounds gain in Lot 3, fed on the whole threshed milo than in the standard lot fed on corn, the cost for Lot 3 being $93772 as com- pared with $1]..445 for Lot 1. A much more handsome profit per lamb resulted for Lot 3. _ . . Table 7. Comparison of ground milo heads with ground shelled corn. Lot 1. Lot 4. Corn chops, Milo heads, cottonseed cottonseed meal, alfalfa. meal, alfalfa. Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 680 55 720 Average final weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 970 89 030 Average weight on Fort worth market, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 O00 80 000 Average ain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 290 33 310 Average aily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 355 0 317 Average daily ration: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 948 0.948 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 139 0.139 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 626 1.614 Total feed consumed per lamb: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 530 99 5'30 Cottonseed meal. lbs . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 604 14 604 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 785 169 425 Feed per hundred pounds gain: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.910 298.710 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.170 43.830 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457.990 508.480 Cost of feed per hundred pounds gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 11 .445 3 9.646 Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4.268 ‘.5 3.214 Initial value per head at 65/ cents per pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3.550 3 3.620 Interest, labor, shi ping an selling charges per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.260 3 1.260 Total cost per lam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9.078 $ 8.094 Selling price per head at $15.10 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12.835 $ 12.080 Shrinkage en route per head, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.970 9.030 Shrinkage, per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.580 e10. 140 Dressing, per cent, basis feed lot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.680 42.660 Dressing per cent, basis Fort Worth weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.340 47.470 Selling price per hundred pounds necessary to break even. . . . . . . . 3 10.68 3 10.120 Profit per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.757 $ 3.986 16 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 7 shows that Lot 1, fed on corn, made a better average gain per head than did the lot fed 0n the ‘ground milo heads. The average gain per head for Lot 1 was 37.29 pounds as compared with 33.31 pounds for Lot 4, which was being fed on ground milo heads. As regards average daily gains, Lot 1 is accredited with 0.355 pound and Lot 4 with the slightly less favorable figure of 0.317 pound per head. A comparison with the two former tests shows that the respective av- erage daily gains per head were as follows: Lot fed on corn Lot fed on milo heads 1919-1920 . . . . . . . . . . ..0.393 pound 0.363 pound 1920-1921 . . . . . . . . . . ..0.312 pound 0.311 pound . Table '7 also indicates that a noticeably greater amount of concen- trates and roughage was required per hundred pounds of gain for Lot 4 than for Lot 1. The cost, however, of the feed required to make a hundred pounds of gain was $9.646 for Lot 4 and $11445 for Lot 1. IIl-Otllél‘ words, the cost for Lot 4 was about 16 per cent. less than the cost for Lot 1. A Table 8. Comparison of ground threshed feterita with ground shelled corn. Lot 1. Lot 5. Corn chops, Feterita cottonseed chops, cot- meal, alfalfa. tonseed meal, alfalfa. Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 , Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.680 55. 900 Average final weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.970 90. 770 Average weight on Fort Worth market, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85. 000 82.000 Average gain, lbs_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.290 34.870 Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.355 0.332 Average daily rations: Grain; lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.948 0. 948 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.139 0.139 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.626 1 . 599 Total feed consumed per lamb: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99.530 99.530 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.604 14.604 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170.785, 167.880 Feed per hundred pounds gain: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.910 285.430 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.170 41.880 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457. 990 481 . 450 Cost of feed per hundred pounds gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 11 .445 $ 9.945 Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3 4.268 $ 3.468 Initial value per head at 6% cents per pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3.550 $ 3.630 Interest, labor, shipping and selling charges per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 .260 3S 1.260 Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9,078 $ 8.358 Selling price per head at $15.10 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12.835 $ 12.382 Shrinkage en route per head, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 970 8.770 Shrinkage, per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.580 9. 660 Dressing per cent, basis feed lot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44. 680 44.090 Dressing per cent, basis Fort Worth weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48. 340 48.810 Selling price per hundred pounds necessary to break even. . . . . . . . 3 10.680 $ 10.190 Profit per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3.757 $ 4.024 Table 8 shows that Lot 5, fattened on ground threshed feterita, made an average gain per head of 34.87 pounds and thus lacked 2.42 pounds of reaching the gain of 37.29 pounds, recorded by the standard lot that was being fed on corn. Or to state it differently, Lot 5 showed an average daily gain of 0.332 pound, while Lot 1 showed an average daily gain of 0.335 pound per head. This substantiates the GRAIN SORGHUMS VERsUs CoRN FoR FATTENING LAMBS 17 conclusions arrived at on the basis oif the 1919-1920 test but the showing made by the lot fattened on ground threshed feterita was con- siderably more creditable in the second test. Lot fed 0n corn . Lot ted 0n ground threshed feterita 1919-1920 . . . . . . . . . . . .0393 pound 0.360 pound 1920-1921 . . . . . . . . . . ..0.312 pound 0.312 pound Here again. the amount of concentrates and roughage required per hundred pounds of gain was greater for the lot fattened on ground threshed feterita, but despite the above fact the economy of the gains was decisively in favor of the grain sorghum. As compared with the cost for Lot 1 of 811.445 per hundred pounds of gain, Lot 5 reg- istered a cost of $9.945. In other words, with Lot 1 as the standard, the cost of producing gains in Lot 5 was thirteen and one-half per cent. cheaper. Table 9. Comparison of ground feterita heads with ground shelled corn. ' Lot 1. Lot 6. Corn chops, Feterita cottonseed heads, meal, cottonseed alfalfa. meal, alfalfa. Number of_lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2O 20 Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54. 680 55.830 Average final weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.970 88.330 Average weight on Fort Worth market, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.000 80. 500 Average ain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.290 32. 500 Average aily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.355 0.309 Average dail ration: Grain, 1 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 948 0.948 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.139 0.139 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.626 1.620 Total feed consumed per lamb: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99. 530 99.530 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.604 14.604 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170.785 170.115 Feed per hundred pounds gain: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266. 910 . 306.250 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.170 44.930 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457.990 523.430 Cost of feed per hundred pounds gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 11.445 $ 9.917 Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4.268 $ 3.223 Initial value per head at 6V cents per pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3. 550 $ 3.630 Interest, labor, shipping and selling charges per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . $5 1 .260 $ 1 .260 Total cost per lam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9.078 $ 8. 113 Selling price per head at $15.10 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12. 835 $ 12.156 Shrinkage en route per head, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 970 7.830 Shrinkage, per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 580 8.860 Dressing per cent, basis feed lot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44. 680 42.500 Dressing per cent, basis Fort Worth weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r 48.340 46. 630 Selling price per hundred pounds necessary to break even. . . . . . . . 3 10. 680 8 10.080 Profit per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3.757 3 4. 043 It will be observed from Table 9 that Lot 6, which was fattened on ground feterita heads, made an average gain per head of 32.5 pounds, while Lot 1, fed on ground shelled corn, made an average gain per head of 37.29 pounds. The average daily gain attributed to the former lot was 0.309 pound as compared with 0.335 pound per head accred- ited to Lot 1. Figures which bore practically the same ratio to each. were secured in the first two tests. 18 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Lot fed 0n corn Lot fed 0n ground feterita heads 1919-1920 . . . . . . . . . . ..0.393 pound 0.339 pound 1920-1921 . . . . . . . . . . ..0.312 pound 0.288 pound Lot 6 consumed next to the greatest amount of concentrates and next to the greatest amount of roughage per hundred pounds gain, of any of the ten lots of lambs and far outdistanced Lot 1, which held the lowest and most favorable position in this respect. Despite this fact, the cost per hundred pounds of gain was $9.917 for Lot 6 as com- pared with the 811.445 attributed to Lot 1. In other Words, the gains made by Lot 6 were about fourteen per cent. cheaper than those made by Lot 1 and the profits per lamb were 29 cents greater. Table 10. Comparison of ground threshed kafir with ground shelled corn. Lot 1. Lot 7. Corn chops, Kafir chops, cottonseed cottonseed meal, alfalfa. meal, alfalfa. Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.680 55.470 Average final weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 . 970 92.400 Average weight on Fort Worth market, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85. 000 87.000 Average‘ ain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.290 36.930 Average aily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.355 0.352 Average daily rations: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 948 0. 948 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 139 0. 139 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 626 1 . 628 Total feed consumed per lamb: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99.530 99.530 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. 604 14. 604 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170.785 170.910 Feed per hundred pounds gain: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.910 269.510 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39. 170 39.540 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457. 990 462. 790 ~Cost of feed per hundred pounds gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 11 .445 $ 9. 508 Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4.268 $ 3.511 Initial value per head at 6% cents per pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3.550 $ 3. 610 Interest, labor, shipping and selling charges per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.260 $ 1.260 Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9.078 $ 8.381 Selling price per head at $15.10 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12.835 $ 13.137 Shrinkage, en route per head, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.970 5.400 Shrinkage, per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 580 5.840 Dressing per cent, basis feed lot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44. 680 47. 110 Dressing per cent, basis Fort Worth weights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.340 50.040 lSelling price per hundred pounds necessary to break even. . . . . . . . $ 10.680 $ 9.630 Profit per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3. 757 $ 4.756 It will be seen that Lot '7, fattened on ground threshed kafir, made practically the same average gains per head as did Lot 1, fed on ground shelled corn, the former lot making a gain of 36.93 pounds per head, while the latter made a gain of 37.29 pounds. Likewise there was [scarcely any difference between the average daily gains of the lots, ' Lot '7_ making the creditable showing of 0.352 pound as compared vrith 0.355 pound per head recorded for Lot 1. These figures support the i result attained during the feeding test of the previous year and are a little more favorable for kafir-fed lambs than was the first test. GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN For: FATTENING LAMBS 19 Lot fed on corn Lot fed on ground threshed kafir 1919-1920 . . . . . . . . . . . .0392 pound 0.372 pound 1920-1921 . . . . . . . . . . . .0312 pound 0.321 pound The amount of the concentrates and roughage required per hundred pounds gain was also practically the saine iii the two lots, Lot '7 con- iuming a slightly greater amount. In the same Way Lot '7 registered zhe small cost per hundred pounds of gain of $9.508, While Lot 1 reg- Lstered the cost of 5511.445. As regards economy, the gains made by [iot '7, fed on ground threshed kafir, were 17%- per cent. cheaper than the gains made by the lot fed on the shelled corn. The table also shows that the lambs in Lot '7' netted a profit per head which was greater by $1 than the profit per head on the lambs in Lot 1. Table 11. Comparison of ground kafir heads with ground shelled corn. Lot 1. Lot 8. Corn chops, Kafir heads, cottonseed cottonseed meal, alfalfa. meal, alfalfa. Slumber of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54. 680 54.620 Average final weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91. 970 85.870 Average weight 0n Fort Worth market, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.000 79.500 Average gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.290 31.250 Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.355 0.298 Average daily ration: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 948 0.948 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 139 0. 139 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.626 1.625 Total feed consumed per lamb: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99. 530 99.530 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. 604 14.604 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170. 785 170.665 Feed per hundred pounds gain: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.910 318.500 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.170 46.730 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457.990 546. 130 Cost of feed per hundred pounds gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 11.445 3 10.340 Average feed cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3B 4.268 $ .231 Initial value per head at 6% cents per pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,550 $ 3 ,550 lnterest, labor, shipping and selling charges per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .260 $ 1.260 Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9.078 35 8.041 Selling price per head at $15.10 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12.835 $ 12.005 Shrinkage en route per head, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.970 6.370 Shrinkage, per cent. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 580 7.420 Dressing per cent, basis feed lot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44. 680 42.010 Dressing per cent, basis Fort Worth weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.340 45.380 Selling price per hundred pounds necessary to break even. . . . $ 10.680 10. 110 Profit per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. 757 $ 3. 964 Table 1]. shows that Lot 8, fattened on ground kafir heads, made an average gain per head of 31.25 pounds and an average daily gain of 0.298 pound, While the standard lot fed on. corn made an average gain per head of 37.29 pounds and an average daily gain of 0.355 pound. Results of practically the same nature were secured in the test of the previous year; but no figures can be offered for 1919-20, ground kafir heads not being used in the first experiment. ' 20 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Lot fed on corn . Lot fed on , ground kafir hea r~ 1920-1921. . . . . . . . . . . .0.312 pound 0.283 pound p ‘ Lot 8, fed ground kafir heads, made a smaller average daily gaWi than did any of the other lots in the test. The cost was, however still below that recorded for the standard lot fed on corn. The i=1! for Lot 8 was $10.34 and for Lot 1 it was 811.445. Lot 8 still showe a greater profit per lamb than did Lot 1. ' Table 12. Comparison of ground threshed darso with ground shelled corn. Lot 1. Lot 9. a Corn chops, Darso chops,’ _ cottonseed cottonseed meal, alfalfa. meal, alfalfa. Number _of_ lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 4f Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.680 54.750 q Average final weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 .970 89.870 <2‘ Average weight on Fort Worth market, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.000 81.500 i Average ain, lbs_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.290 35.120 Average aily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.355 0.334 . Average daily ration: 5 Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.948 0.948 i Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.139 0.139 . Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.626 1.619 w; Total feed consumed per lamb: v Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99.530 99.530 ‘g Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.604 14.604 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170.785 ‘ 170.035 Feed per hundred pounds gain: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . 266.910 283.400 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.170 41.580 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457.990 484.150 Cost of feed per hundred gounds gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 11 .445 3 9. 960 Average feed cost per lam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4.268 8 3.498 Initial value per li_ead at 6% cen_ts per pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5 3.550 $5 3.560 Interest, labor. shipping and selling charges per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 .260 $ 1 .260 Total cost per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9.078 3 8.318 Selling price per head at $15.10 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12. 835 3 12.307 Shrinkage en route per head, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 970 8.370 Shrinkage. per cent. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.580 9.310 Dressing per cent, basis feed lot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.680 42. 850 Dressing per cent, basis Fort Worth weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.340 47.250 Selling price per hundred pounds necessary to break even. . . . . . . . $ 10. 680 3 10.210 Profit per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3. 757 3 3.989 Table 12 indicates that Lot 9, fattened on ground threshed darso, made an average gain per head of 35.12 pounds and an average daily gain per head of 0.334 pound, as compared with an average gain per head of 37.29 pounds and an average daily gain per head of 0.355 pound on the part of the l.ambs in ithe lot fed on ground shelled corn. This was a favorable showing indeed, and it is to be lamented tha 1 ground threshed da.rso was not included in the earlier tests, so tha more data could have been available with regard to its feeding value. p It will be noted that Lot 9 consumed more concentrates and mor roughage per hundred pounds of gain than did the standard lot i3’ that its showing was rather satisfactory in this respect and more fa. vorable than the records set by a number of the other grain sorghums, The cost per hundred pounds of gain was $9.960 for Lot 9 and 811.445 for Lot 1. In other words, the cost registered for the gains in Lot 9 p "was only 8'7 per cent. of the cost of the gains in Lot 1. 3 GRAIN SoRaHUMs VERSUS 001m Fon FATTENING LAMBS 21 Table 13. Comparison of ground thrashed sorgo with ground shelled corn. Lot 1. Lot 10. Corn chops, Sorgo chops, cottonseed cottonseed meal, alfalfa. meal, alfalfa. Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 Average initial weight, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54. 680 55.950 Average final weight at feed lot, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91. 970 90.200 -Average weight on Fort Worth market, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.000 81.000 Average gain, lbs. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.290 34.250 Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.355 0.326 Average daily ration: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.948 0.948 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.139 0. 139 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.626 1.630 Total feed consumed per lamb: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99. 530 99.530 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.604 14. 604 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 785 171 150 Feed per hundred pounds gain: Grain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266. 910 290. 600 Cottonseed meal, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.170 42.640 Roughage, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457.990 499. 710 Cost of feed pei" hundred ppunds gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 11.445 3 10.260 Average feed cost per lam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4.268 $ 3. 514 Initial value per head at 6V cents per pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5 3.550 $ 3.640 Interest, labor, shipping and selling charges per lamb. . . . 35 1.260 $ 1.260 Total cost per lam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 078 $ 8.414 Selling price per head at $15.10 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12.835 $ 12.231 Shrinkage en route per head, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 970 9.200 Shrinkage, per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.580 10.200 Dressing per cent, basis feed lot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.680 42. 750 Dressing per cent, basis Fort Worth weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.340 47. 610 Selling price per hundred pounds necessary to break even. . .. . . . . $ 10.680 $ 10.390 Profit per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5 3. 757 3 3.817 Table 13 shows that Lot 10, which was being fattened on ground threshed sorgo, made an average gain per head of 34.25 pounds in comparison with the average gain per head by Lot 1 of 37.29 pounds. In the same way Lot 10 registered an average daily gain of 0.326 pound, while Lot 1 was recording its average daily gain of 0.355 pound. Since this was the first year that ground threshed sorgo was used in the experiment, no comparative figures are available from the first two tests. ' It will readily be noticed that Lot 1O consumed more concentrates and roughage per hundred pounds of gain than did Lot 1. Nevertheless, the cost of feed per hundred pounds of gain was $10.26 for Lot 10 as compared with the 9511.445 attributed to Lot 1; or in other words, about 11 per cent. cheaper. The lot fattened on ground g threshed sorgo showed a greater profit per lamb than did the lot fat- tened on ground shelled corn, though in this respect it stood lower than any of the other lots fed on the ground threshed grain sorghums. 22 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION :66 w666.6 w666.6 w666.6 w660.6 w660.6 w666.6 w6:6.6 6666.6 6666.6 w j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:52:06 0:00: 066.0: 5.52 60:0: w066.6 6060.0: 302.2 w06:.0: w0>66 w 066.6 6066.0: w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:0>0 :00: 0.: 5.3300: .06: 60:00:: .000 00E 65:06 0:656 06666 066.66 000.06 066.66 066.66 06.6.6.6 066.06 066 <16 066 .66 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .2660? . :30? ion: 20w: .6000 ~00 6530.06: 06> .66 066 .66 0:0 .66 0: 6.6 006.66 060.. 66 066 .66 06.6 .66 066 .66 066 .66 026:0? f: 6006 05.0: .300 :06 65:30.5: 006.0: 06.6 066$ 066.6 066.6 066.6 06: .0: 066.6 066.6 0666 . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . . .6000 .80 0600:0626 006.6 06.6 .6 066 .6 006.6 066.6. 06.6.6 060 .6 066 .6 066.6 066 .6 . . . . . . .0: 660: 006 06:0: 00 0960:0626 66.6: w >066: w 600.6: w m6: .6: w 66: .6: w 666.6: w 060.6: w 066.6: w 066.6: w 666.6: w .630 .000 0:65 ? 600: ~00 0:06 60:06 6:66 665.0 w:60.6 w:66.6 w6:.6 w6666 w660.6 w:66.6 wm666 w6>06 w. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:82.006 0.301000% 066.: 6066.: fa: w066.: w066A 28; w066A w066.: w066A 6066.: w ... . . . . ..........ME.£000m06H0:0 00500 us? 6E6 6:0 £21.: £60030: 066.6 w066.6 w066.6 w0:6.6 w066.6 w066.6 w066.6 w0>66 w066.6 w066.6 w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........60:0n .66 3:00 6A6 ? 6.00: ~00 0:?> 62:5 66.6 wh666 w:66.6 f5...“ w666.6 wh666 w6:6.6 w:6.6 666.6 w>666 w . . . . . . ......:E£00Q 0.000 6006 0639/4 066.0: w 066.6 w 066.0: w 606.6 w :66 w 666.6 w 666.6 w 6R6 w 66.6 w 666.: w .1122... .2: 60:00:: 660.6006 60 300 0§666 06: .666 06: .666 066.666 066.666 066. ~66 066.606 066 .666 066. :66 066 N66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h . .2: uwgwsofl 066.66 066:6 06h .66 066.66 066.66 066:6 066 .66 066.66 066.66 0m: .66 . . . . . . . . . . . . i: ?0E 6000:3000 006.066 006.666 006.616 06.666 066.606 066.666 26.666 00: .666 00: 0.6.6 066.666 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1w: 0:20 5:06 066000 60:00:: .50 600.: 06:4: 660.0: 666 0: 066.0: 6: .0: 06666: 666.66: 666M066 666.66: 666.0»: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IMIQ: 0606:6006: 606.6: 606.6: 606.6: 60616: 606.6: 606.6: 606 6H 606 6: 606.6: 606 .6: . . . . . . . . . . . . .9: ?0E 6000:0300 066.66 066.66 066 .66 066.66 066 .66 066 .66 066.66 066 .66 066.66 066 .66 . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. m: 0:000 . “:53 :00 60500.03 0006 130,6 066.: 6:6: 666 6 666.: 066.: 666.: 6:6: 666.: 6:6: 666.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IMIQ: 0356006: 66: .0 66: .0 66: .0 66: .0 66: .0 66: .0 66: .0 66: . 66: .0 66: .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%: ?0E 6000:0300 666.0 666.0 666.0 666.0 666.0 666.0 666.0 666.0 666.0 666.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . .2: 53.0 "c0300 6:30 062656. 666.0 666.0 666.0 666.0 606.0 666.0 :60 666.0 666.0 666.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . $65006 560m 3?: 066:3, 066.66 06: .66 066.6 066.66 006.66 066.66 0:666 06.66 066.66 06666 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2: £06 663056. 000.66 006 6N. 000 5 006.06 000.66 000.66 000.06 006 .66 006.66 000.66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w: J0:?E :66? ioh 00 6:660? 065036 006.06 066.66 066.66 006.66 066.66 06.6.06 060.66 066:6 066.6 06.6 . :6 . . . a: J0: 600.: 6.? E6603 :00: 060.636 066 .66 06> .66 066 .66 066.66 066.66 006 .66 066.66 066.66 066.66 066 .66 . . . . . . . . . . . .2: 6:660? 13:5 0606036 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60: .000 BEE 60 5:257: .0: 00.: .6 :0: .6 60A N Ho‘: .6 60: .6 00A .6 60A .6 Ho: .6 60A A Ho: 40:06? 0:3? .0:0:0 6:666? 40:2? .0:0:0 6660:? 6:06? .m:m.:m .0:0:0 600663“: .?0E .?0E .?0E .?0E .?0E .?0E .?0E . .?0E .?0E .?0E 600306600 600630300 600w=0fi00 600000.300 60025300 600000300 600600300 600600300 6000:0300 0000:0300 660:0 600:0 .333: 560:0 £660: 500:0 6:60: 6:5 660:0 £60? 06.006 02am: 560M .066: @6683: 06:060.: 0: 6: 20:3 0:6: FSU annoy: £00m K .02 00:33am 66:66: .306 6:600.“ :53 660-60: 60 60.05556 .6: 03E. GRAIN SoReHUMs VERsUs CORN For: FATTENING LAMBS 23 Table 14 summarizes the 1921-22 experiment in which a compar- ison of the fattening values of corn and the various grain sorghums was made. It will be noted that- with the exception of Lot 10, fat- tened on ground threshed sorgo, the various lots which were fattened on the ground thrashed grain sorghums compared very favorably, as regards the average daily gains made, with the standard lot fed on ground shelled corn. The daily gains made by Lot 9, fattened on ground threshed darso, and Lot 5, fattened on ground threshed feterita, were satisfactory in comparison with the records registered to the credit of the standard lot. But the showings made by Lot '7, fattened on ground threshed kafir, and Lot 2, fattened on ground threshed milo, were even more satisfactory, since these two lots made daily gains prac- tically identical with the daily gains attributed to Lot 1. These con- clusions are supported by the tests of the previous year where ground threshed milo and ground threshed. kafir proved slightly superior to ground shelled corn in the production of gains (see table 2). In the first test made in 1919-1920, ground threshed kafir made a satisfac- tory though not such a favorable showing; but the results with ground threshed milo again showed that the lambs fattened on it made slightly greater average daily gains than the lambs fed on corn (see table 1). It would seem then that these three tests clearly indicate that ground threshed milo and ground threshed kafir have practically the same value in the production of gains as has corn—not to mention the greater economy of gains that must be attributed to the two former grains. It would be difficult to draw a comparison between ground threshed milo and ground threshed kafir, since the former had the slight advantage in the first test and the latter the slight advantage in the last two tests, the difference at no time being very great. With the exception of the lots fed on ground threshed milo and ground threshed kafir, the lots fed on the vai-ious grain sorghums have in all three tests required noticeably greater amounts of concentrates and roughage per hundred pounds of gain than the standard lots. In the exceptions noted, however, the amounts of roughage and concen- trates required per houndred pounds of gain have hovered around the figures accredited to the lot fed on corn, sometimes falling below the latter figures. As regards economy, the grain sorghums without exception pro- duced much more economical gains than did the shelled corn. Lot 8, fed on ground kafir heads, which showed a higher cost per hundred pounds gain than any of the other lots fattened on the grain sorghums, produced a gain 10 per cent. cheaper than did the standard lot. Dur- ing the test of the previous year the lot fed on ground kafir heads had also stood at the bottom of the list of the lots fattened on the grain sorghums so far as economy of gains was concerned. Lot 2, fattened on ground threshed milo, and Lot 7, fattened on ground threshed kafir, showed the greatest economy of gains, there» be- , ing practically no difference between these two lots. The cost per hundred pounds of gain was 17% per cent. lower for these two lots than for the standard lot. It should be noticed that all percentages which have beenmentioned herein have been calculated on the basis of the corn-fed lot as the standard or 100 per cent. The percentages 24 TEXAS AGRIQULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION would be much greater if the various lots fed 0n the grain sorghums Were taken as the standards and calculations were made to show how much greater the cost for the corn-fed lot was than the cost for the lots fed on the grain sorghums. The lot fed on ground milo heads made a good showing as regards economy of gains but not so favorable as in the first two tests, Where it had claimed first place in this particular. As was to be expected, the lots fattened on ground threshed milo and ground threshed kafir produced the greatest profit per lamb, Lot“ 3, fattened on whole threshed milo also showing a handsome profit. A good profit, however, was made on all of the lambs, the lot fed on corn meeting the least profit. 25 GRAIN SORGHUMS VERsUs CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS .3 84 dwfismmw? v0.25 no 83am? 3.3 3.3 _ ... . . . . . . . . . . .53 @222... 3R2»; 13E 33 9.23 .33 3.3 S13 Q33 9.3 PM . . . . . ...............£2 3:55»; 3.3 2w? 33 O33 ~33 2.3 3.3 z“ . . . . . . . . . ...........Em Zficnum 2 .5 3.3. 3E. 3.3 Q92 .33» 3.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...£2 @253 2.1:. 33 9R3 222. 901E 3.2 .53 xx... . . . . . . . . . . . . .:.:5¢ >322 3.3 9N3 3.3 Q33 9H3 2:... g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Rpzemaoc .33.“ 2&3. 3.3 3.3 Q33 3.3 33 . ...................5m._onEoooQ $3 33.3 3.3 Q3 3Y3 $23 39E ....... .53 #55262‘. 2E2.» 2E5 s :3 .3 84 h 25 ...“ 84 .3 .5 a :5 ._ 3d .35 . éwoton mfiawmoBmmsoiwkw o5 “a 3E3 o5 we mania? omupoia us? .5 24am. 26 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 15 shmvs the average weights of the lambs at the several fifteen- day periods. It indicates that on the whole the development of the lambs was consistent throughout the feeding period. Table 16. Amount of waste hay weighrd back from each lot. » Lot 1. l 1.01 2. II Lot s. Lot 4. Lot 5. Lot e. Lot 7. Lot 8. Lot 9. u Amount per 101;. .. 111111.900 157.700 189.400 180.100 197.200 154.000 188.800 1482000157100 34 Amount per head. , 7.095‘ 7.885 0.970 8.305! 9.880 7.750 6.940 7.150 7.855 a l The above table shows that the amount of hay Wasted by the various lots was practically the same with the exception of Lot 5 fed on ground threshed feterita. This lot did not seem to have as great relish for its roughage as did the other lots. Due to the fact that conditions vary slightly from year to year and. one of the tests was 15 days longer than the other two, it is more ori less difficult to construct a table which will summarize the salient points in all three tests. Nevertheless, Table 1'7 has been compiled in such manner as to eliminate most chance variations and it is fairly indicative of the relative standing of the various lots. Because feed prices vary from year to year, all values and profits are excluded from the table. 2'7 GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CQRN For: FATTENING LAMBS .33 0:9“ . $33 025 09222.. @502“ om; .3? @6993 93w? wwmdmm Sw w? wfiwgm owwawv mmmaww wwwafi . . . .53. i: 2: 5Q Qwéwé. @923,» owwtmmm owmemm Mame?“ wfivim mfimamm gnaw» wfismm omadmm mowbém fiamfim éfiw i»: S. 5Q mwfirficuucou ou§v>< wand Ems 3N6 3nd N55 mmmmo mmmmo Nmma Ema mmmmo Ifimflwmmmmmflmiwsfiwm >12“ owmpmwlw afivmm afiafi oQam fimem wflxmm w»: mm www mm 9% 3 2w E 3A.. Y.“ E B; E51: o u < 5x221“ Mmézzw +.&_2_~ 6:21.. 32:.“ 62.32 2E? amsi.“ .4231“ 43E .135 .765 .135 .135 .135 .13:- JMQE 13E ébwtn voomcogbo... wwvwcoaaoo woumzofico woomaoficu wuvwcofic; wuvmcofiou vuuwccfioo cvowcoagoo wwowcofiou .13.: 63cm 692% .333: Ewux .233; .3132 dwmos 6:5 .21: w@@w=¢3¢... wwfiobfi wosmvbt. “aux wonwubfi wflho~w~ wwcmobfi 02E vonwohfi woamuhnd .32? wssciu wcsobw vczopw v5.30 wcsofiw wcsoib vcscfiw 20:5 vcsohw EcU Nmémafi Qmémmfi "Oflzmz: 65:3 mcmcofifi no“ Eco we.» wfisnmhom cmwpw we wo3a> 03K?! o5 ocibhnfiuv o“ Emmi 3B3 we >..~MEESW .2 Beak 28 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The above table is largely self-explanatory. It will be noted that after the averages for all three years were struck, the lot fed on ground threshed milo made the same average daily gains as did the lot fed on ground shelled corn and that thelot fed on ground threshed kafir barely fell below the high record set by the two lots mentioned above. Furthermore the lot fed on ground thrashed mi.lo consumed practically the same amount of concentrates and the same amount of roughage per hundred pounds of gain as did the standard lot, While the lot fed on ground threshed kafir required slightly more concentrates and roughage per hundred pounds of gain than did the lot fed on ground shelled corn and ground threshed milo. PRODUCTIVE VALUES CALCULATED FROM FEEDING TESTS The productive values of the feeds used in this lamb-feeding ex- periment were calculated by Dr. G. S. Fraps, Chief, Division of Chem- istry. As stated in Fraps’ “Principles of Agricultural Chemistry,” page 4341, the productive value of a feed is the best measure so far devised of the net value of a feed for production of fat, heat, en.- ergy, or similar purposes. Rations have heretofore been calculated on the assumption that all digestible 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 producing 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 the past, we have expressed most of the productive values in terms of fat, but as proposed by the late Dr. H. P. Armsby, We shall, in the future, for the sake of uniformity express these values in therms. When the productive value of a feed is stated in terms of therms this definite value can be compared with similar values of other feed- stuifs. To ascertain the productive value of a feed in feeding tests, it is necessary 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 lamb-feeding experi- ment, corn was taken as the unit. The productive values of cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay were calculated, the coefficients used being those given in Fraps’ “Principles of Agricultural Chemistry,” page 434, and in Bulletins 185 and 203 of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion, and the maintenance requirements given by Armsby in his “Prin- ciples of Animal Feeding.” Although the above assumptions may be claimed to lead to some uncertainty, yet since these figures are also used in connection with the other feeds compared with the standard, comparative results should . be secured. This is especially the case if there is little difference- between the quantity of the additional feeds fed, and no great differ- ence in the average weights of the animals. 29 GRAIN: SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN For: FATTENING LAMBS 0855 00000 . 0N m 000.00 00040 000.0“. 00080 o0w.m\. 00w .00 000.5. 00.0.00 00w.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10500:» 00wX 210K 0:000 00 0:02» 0>fir§000nw 3:. 0.5.0 0.00.0 000.0 2:. 000.0 000.0 w0\..0 w00.0 . . . . . . . . .. 1.x“ 01C £505 w: 003m 00 033w w0w.w 0ww. w 0w0 . w 000 . w 000 . w 00w . w 00w. w 00w. w 00w. w . . . . . . . . . . OH 0+ 2 0030.. .00 035/ 0.30.0 000.0 v2.0 000.0 0w0.0 0E0 00.0.0 1.2.0 0050 ow0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1...}? 0x0 0:00 00 035/ . - . . . -~.--.-unmno\m 00000.8.» 0E0 00:00 w 00 05.5: 1w. 000.0 . . . . 003.3 00000.30 000.20: 0>$0=00.wnw 000.0 00.0 .0 000.0 000 .0 0N0 .0 w00 .0 000.0 000 0 000.0 w00.0 :2" EX >9 0:080:00»! 0022020000 000.0 00.0.0 310.0 05.0 0.0.0.0 000.0 000.0 00.0.0 000.0 . . . . . . . . . Iilwfl >+0+m 000520000 .50 02E» 0>S0=00bw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..........,w.H>+D+ww+m:0.:0.w. I035» 00:00:00.5 000.0 000 .0 00o .0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 .0 000 .0 000.0 . . . .> >0: 62000901022. 0>$0:00.-nw won .0 00w.0 000.0 00m .0 00w.0 00w.0 m0w.0 000 .0 00w.0 000.0 . . . . . . D >0: flir 0233.80 wow .0 .2: .0 wow .0 wow .0 wow .0 wow .0 wow .0 wow .0 wow .0 wow .0 m 20E 000000fi00l|030> 0.050350% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000.0 ...........mw00w.~0|l0::0>0>::0:000nw Rwo “:0 02.0 R00 R00 0:0 02.0 R00 v2.0 2:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....£m E2080 00w.w 0ww.w 0wv.w w0w.w 0ww.w 00w w 00w.w wmww 0ww.w . omww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... I100: 0:024 00w .0 00w .0 00w .0 00w.0 00w .0 00w .0 00w .0 00w.0 00w .0 00w.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .N 30E 0000:0300 0w0.0 0w0.0 0w0.0 0w0.0 0w0.0 0w0.0 0w0.o 0w0.0 0w0.0 0w0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 c020 "0050: 3:00 00222. 000.0 w00.o 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 $0.0 000.0 wm0.0 000.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z0 0R0 >000 000.83.‘. 000.00 0w0 0w. 000.00 0w0 .00. 000.0“. 2.0.2 000 0m 000.0“. 20.9 000 .0“. . . . . . . . . . >PH 0\0 00060 .80 0000004 00w .0ww 000 .www 00w.0ww 00:3 00w .www 03.03 000 .www 000Hww 0w0 .03 000 .0ww . . . . . . . . . . . . .0" 0+ < 0:003 030E 000.00 000.00 000.00 00.700 000.00 000.00 000.00 0.0.0. w0 000.w0 0h0.w0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 0:000? 02:10 000.00 005$ 0004.0 021$ 000.00 000.00 000.00 00w.0m owwwm 000.w0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 0:000? i303 .ow 00A .0 30 .0 80 N 30 .0 001w .0 80 .w 004 .0 00A .0 00A .w B4 000:0 000:0 .0000: 000:0 .0000: 000:0 .0000: 20:3 000:0 0.00:0 00.5w 0000C 000M 000M 00.60% 03300.0 003w 05>: 05>: E00 .000w-w00w 6:53 :03 0008000000 05000.: E000 m 03E» 030000000 00 =0$00~00w0 .0w 01.? .w. 30 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIoN The calculations of the productive values of the sorghums utilized in the feeding test With lambs reported in this Bulletin are given in Table 18. The Inaintenance requirements for‘ a hundred pounds of the average Weight Were assumed after Armsby, as 0.933 therm. The therms required for one pound of grain in Weight in Lot 1 fed corn, were 2.309. The same figure Was used when the value of the gains with other feeds in terms of therms was calculated. The productive values calculated from this test were consistent throughout and Were about what we would expect. In this test the productive values of the ground grain sorghum heads fell consistently below those of the ground threshed grain. Whole threshed milo, fed to Lot 3, had a productive value of 82.7’ therms as compared with 86.91 therms for ground threshed milo fed to Lot Table 19. Comparison of productive values as secured by feeding experiments with lambs at Substation N0. 7. Productive value per 100 Productive value compared pounds. (Therms) with corn as 100. 1919-20’ 1920-21 I 1921-22 1919-20‘ 1920-21 I 1921-22 Ground corn (standard used) . . . . . . 87.82 86.35 87. 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99.99 Ground feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . 77.11 86.30 83.12 87.80 99. 90 94. 73 Ground feterita heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70. 68 79.46 75.42 80. 50 92. 00 85.95 Ground kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.53 88.92 87.55 91.70 102.90 99.78 Ground kafir heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.29 70.88 . . . . . . . . 89. 50 80.78 Ground milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88.25 87.21 86.91 100.50 100.90 99.05 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77. 11 86. 07 77.95 89.20 99.70 88.83 Whole milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82. 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.25 Darso chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.19 Sorgo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.49 Sorghum hay (milo heads 76) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 19 presents a comparison of the productive values in therms secured in the several lamb-feeding experiments, which have been con- ducted at Substation No. 7 during recent years. The productive values of the grain sorghums utilized in the 1919-20 test are given in terms of fat in the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulle- tin No. 269, While the results of the 1920-21 feeding experiment are presented both in terms of fat and therms in Texas Bulletin No. 285. The last three columns of Table 19 show the average productive values of these feeds as compared with corn as 100. As we could expect, the above table shows a considerable variation in the productive values found in the three experiments. This vari- ation can be expected with feeding experiments on account of varia- tions in conditions which can hardly be controlled, as Well as varia- tions in digestibility of different lots of feed utilized. By referring to the above table it will be observed that the ground threshed feterita fed in the 1919-20 test had 87.8 per cent. the value y. of corn, While in the 1920-21 test it had 99.9 per cent. theproductive value of corn. During the test conducted in 192].-22 this feed had a productive value of 94.73 per cent. of that of corn. As compared with corn as 100, feterita heads during the three tests, as indicated in the above table, had values of 80.5, 92.0, and 85.95 respectively. In the 1919-20 test, ground threshed kafir showed a value of 102.9, and in GRAIN SORGHUMS VERsUs ConN For: FATTENING LAMBS 31 ?‘the 1921-22 test a value of 99.78 per cent. of that of corn. Kafir heads were not fed in the 1919-20 test, but in the two tests following gthey showed a value of 89.5 and 80.78 per cent. of that of corn. It is interesting to observe in the above table that ground threshed milo ihas shown values almost identical with those of corn during the three tests. Compared with corn as 100, the values of the ground threshed amilo for the three tests were 100.5, 100.9, and 99.05, respe-ctively. This is a fairly reliable indication that the milo has a higher feeding value Tfthan has heretofore been assigned’, either by Agricultural Experiment ‘f Stations or livestock feeders. Ground milo heads showed a value of i892 in the 1919-20 test, 99.7 in the 1920-21 test, and 88.83 in the {1921-22 test, as compared with corn as 100; Whole threshed milo ‘showed a value of_94.25 and ground threshed milo 99.05, in the 1921- 122 test as compared with corn as 100. Darso chops (ground threshed darso) was fed for the first time during the 1921-22 test and showed a value of 93.19 as compared withcorn as 100. Sorgo chops (ground threshed sweet sorghum) showed a lower value than did any of the other ground threshed grain sorghums untilized in the 1921-22 experi- ment. This grain had '91.4c9 per cent. of the productive value of corn. These“ figures show that it is not possible to secure exact feeding values by means of a single series of experiments. Only by conduct- ;ing a number of tests and preparing the averages, can accurate re- lsults be secured. As shown by the accompanying table, the results 0f one table may come out decidedly better than those of another. It can also be expected that some individual feeding tests would vary de- lcidedly from the average productive values calculated from digestion ; experiments. The productive values of feeds can be corrected by com- 5parison with the feeding tests. But since the productive values are a average values, and deviations from the average may be expected close J agreement can be expected only between averages, and not bEtWEQH indi- 3 vidual tests. The study of the productive values of the grain sorghums is being >__continued and more complete reports will be published later. SUMMARY 1921-22 rrnsr p 1. In this test the lot fattened on ground shelled corn made the highest average daily gain of 0.355 pound per head, but it was hard pressed by the lots fed on ground threshed milo and on ground 7 threshed kafir, which made average daily gains of 0.351 and 0.352 l pound, respectively. 2. This test substantiates the results secured in the first two tests i ‘indicating that ground threshed milo and ground threshed kafir will produce practically the same gains as ground shelled corn when fed in the same amounts as corn, to fattening lambs. 3. It has so far been impossible as a result of these studies to determine much difference in the feeding values of ground threshed milo and ground threshed kafir, the slight advantage being with the latter during the last two tests and with the former during the first test. 4. All of the lots fattened on the grain sorghums showed a notice- ably greater economy of gains than did the corn-fed lot, due to the 32 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION higher purchase cost of the corn. The cost per hundred pounds of gain for the grain sorghum-fed lots varied from 10 to 1'71‘;- per cent. less than the cost per hundred pounds of gains for the standard. 5. The lot fattened on ground threshed milo and ground threshed kafir showed the greatest economy of gains, being accredited with a cost of $9.50 per hundred pounds of gain as compared with the cost of $11.45 recorded for the standard lot. 6. Though the lot fed on ground milo heads did not make as eco- nomical gains as it had done in the former tests, still its showing was satisfactory. 7. The lots fed on ground threshed kafir and ground threshed milo showed the greatest profit per lamb, while the lot fed on corn netted the least profit per lamb. The first mentioned lot netted $1 more per head than the corn-fed lot. 8. The respective lots brought the same price of $15.10 per cwt. on the Fort Worth market. 9. All of the lots carried practically the same degree of finish. 10. The productive values of the grain sorghums used have been calculated in therms. The Texas Station so far know was the first to calculate and publish these values as a r of extensive feed- ing experiments. Y’ ‘a. t \1\ ‘ ‘s/