M TEXAS Asmcununu EXPERIMENT smmN AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, President BULLETIN NO. 317 FEBRUARY, 1924 DIVISION OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY COMPARATIVE INFLUENCES OF VARIOUS PROTEIN FEEDS ON LAYING HENS B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SYSTEM AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL/COLLEGE OF TEXAS COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS STAFF: (As of February 15‘, 1924) ADMINISTRATION: AGRONOMY: B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Chief A. B. CONNER, M. S., Vice Director. G. N. STROMAN, Ph. D., Cotton Breeder A. H. LEIDIGH, M. S., Assistant Director C. H. MAHONEY, B. S., Ass’t. in Cotton C. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk Breeding A. s. WARE, s t M_ R HOLLEMA"§',‘J‘I‘{A8S.t_ Chief Clerk PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: J. M. SCHAEDEL, Executive Assistant J‘ J" TAUBENHAUS" Ph‘ D" Chief C. J. GORZYCKI, Technical Assistant FALRLZ/El) AliqggflqlfflMEcolxévglyaclcs: . . . G R , {S., hie Chief V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research H. SCHMIDT, D. _v. s., Veterinarian B°“"""’* . v. J. BRAUNER, 1). v. M., Veterinarian H- E- REA’ B- S~ Assiswm CHEMISTRY: SOIL SURVEY: G. s. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist **W- T- CARTER» B- S» Chief s. E. ASBURY, M. s., A ' t t Ch ' t H- W~ HAWKER- 5°” Survey"? w_ H_ WALKER_ Assistffiscflimistem“ EDWARD TEMPLIN, B. s., sen Surveyor A. G. PETERSON, B. S., Assistant Chemist BQTANY: ' J. E. TEAGUE, B. S.,A_ssistant Chemist H_ NESS, M_ S” Chief J. K. BLUM, B. S., Assistant Chemist PUBLICATIONS: HORTICULTURE: - A. T. POTTS, M. s., Chief A‘ D‘ JACKSON’ Cm” a STATE APICULTURAL RESEARCH ANIMAL INDUSTRY: . ‘L M- JONES» A~ M" Cue-f Apiculturist in Charge J- IIS-Ir-egrgsgi- Ph- D» Animal Husbafldmwn, A. H. ALEX, B. s., Queen Breeder G. R. WARREN, B. S., Swine Husbandman MAIN STATION FARM: R. M.dSHERWOOD, B. S., Poultry Hus- D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent ban man FEED CONTROL SERVICE: ‘L J" HUNT' WM‘ Gmd" B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. s., Ph. 1)., Director ENTOMOLOGY: F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief M. C. TANQUARY, Ph. D., Chief; State S. D. PEARCE, Sedretdfll Entomologist J. H. ROGERS, Inspector H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist W. H. WOOD, Inspector C. S. RUDE, B. S., Entomologist J. J. KELLY, Inspector W. 0. VICTOR, JR., Apiary Inspector J. D. PREWIT, B. S., Inspector W. R. JORDAN, B. S., Apiary Inspector T. C. DAVIS, B. S., Inspector SUBSTATIONS: No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: No. I0, College Station, Brazos County: W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent (Feeding and Breeding substation) No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria. County: ~L. J . McCALL, Superintendent V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: G. T. McNESS, Superintendent R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe, I-Iarcleman County: No. 5, Temple, Bell County: D. L. JONES, Superintendent A. B. CRON, B. S., Superintendent No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: No. 6, Denton, Denton County: E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent D. H. BENNETT, V. M. D., Veterinarian No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: O. L. CARPENTER, B. S., Shepherd R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent No. 15, Llano Grande, I-Iidalgo County: No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent Teachers in the School of Agriculture carrying cooperative projects on the Station: +8.‘ W. BILSING, Professor of Entomology W. E. GARNETT, Professor of Rural W. L. STANGEL, Professor of Animal Hus-_ Sociology ' bandry, Hogs G. P. GROUT, Professor of Dairy Husbandry F. A. BUECHEL, Professor of Agricultural R. C. WHITE, Associate Professor of Rural Economics Sociology G. W. ADRIANCE, Associate Professor of Horticulture ‘In cooperation with School of Veterinary Medicine, A. and M. College of Texas. “In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. +On leave. CONTENTS 14' Page Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Experiment L-Comparative Value of Meat Scrap, Tankage and Cotton- _ seed Meal for Laying Hens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Time, Objects, Stock Used, Feeds Used. . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Prices of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Results of the Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Mortality . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 7 Feeds Consumed and Eggs Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Discussion 9 Experiment 2—Comparison of Fish Meal and ‘Tank-age with Cottonseed Meal for Laying Hens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . 10 Time, Object, Stock Used, Feeds Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Prices of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Results of the Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Mortality‘ . . l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Feeds Consumed and Eggs Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Experiment 3—Comparison of Tankage with Cottonseed Heal for Lay- ing Hens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time, Object, Stock Used, Feeds Used, Prices of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Results of the Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Feeds Consumed and Eggs Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Experiment 4—Comparison of Meat Scrap with Cottonseed Meal For Laying Hens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 Time, Object, Stock Used, Feeds Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Prices of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Results of the Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1'7 Feeds Consumed and Eggs Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 . . 18 Experiment 5—Va1ue of Meat Scrap, Cottonseed Meal, and Alfalfa Meal for Laying Hens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Time, Objects, Stock Used, Feeds Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Prices of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2O Results of the Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . 20 Health of Fowls and Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Hatchability of Eggs . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Egg Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Feed Consumed and Cost of Eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ' Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 This bulletin embodies the data secured in the experi- periment of using cottonseed meal instead 0f animal pro- ducts as a source of protein for laying hens. The results Warrant the recommendation of freshly ground cotton- seed meal as a substitute for meat-scrap and tankage in rations for laying hens. The ration in which cottonseed meal gave the best results was: wheat bran 125 pounds, gray wheat shorts 75 pounds, corn meal 75 pounds, and cottonseed meal 120 pounds. Data are also given showing that with hens given feeds containing only limited quantities of fat-soluble A for a period of seven months and three weeks, the mor- tality was very high and the egg production was low. The greatest mortality and the lowest egg production oc- curred during the last seven weeks of the experiment. Bulletin N0. 317 February 1924 COMPARATIVE INFLUENCES OF VARIOUS PROTEIN FEEDS ON LAYING HENS By R. M. SHERWOOD Poultry raisers have, for some time, been aware of the neces- sity of feeding protein feeds to laying hens. Experiment Stations have proved that milk, meat scrap, tankage, and fish meal are valuable feeds for egg-production. Early experiments showed that protein feeds from animal sources gave better results than those from vegetable sources. Later experiments showed that if certain deficiencies in some of the vegetable rations were cor- rected they gave good results. In the studies with cottonseed meal, the New Mexico Stationl and the Texas Stationz found that l cottonseed meal gave satisfactory results. The Mississippi Sta- tionfi (in the case of the lots which were comparable), reports similar results. The Oklahoma Stationf did not find cottonseed meal as satisfactory as the other stations named. ~ In the tests at Northern stations, cottonseed meal gave poor results. Conditions are somewhat different in these different sec- tions. In the South, fresh cottonseed meal is readily available, while in the North, the supply will have been milled several months, and in some cases it may have been milled over a year before it reaches the feeder. The condition of freshness alone may have its effect upon the palatability, which, in turn, affects the amount consumed and eggs produced. In the South, green feed is available at all times. This is not always true in the North. Possibly, green feed may correct the deficiencies in the cottonseed meal and this may account for the discrepancies in results in the difierent sections of the country. . The series of experiments reported in this bulletin were started at this Station in January, 1920, and have been carried on continuously since then. Experiments 1 to 4 deal with various quantities of cottonseed meal as substituted for meat scrap, tank- ; age, and fish meal. In these experiments, the hens were allowed i range at all times. The experiment reported in part 5 of this lipublication was carried on with the fowls in a building, without f access to the ground at any time. In half of the lots, screened éalfalfa meal was fed in the mash ration; in the other two lots, f none was given. ‘New Mexico Experiment Station Bulletin No. 117. zTexas Experiment Station Bulletins No. 206 and No. 220. “Mississippi Experiment Station Bulletins No. 162 and No. 1T5. ‘Oklahoma Experiment Station Bulletin No. 112. 6 Bulletin N0. 317 EXPERIMENT 1 Comparative Value of Meat Scrap, Tankage, and Cottonseed-Pl; Meal for Laying Hens Time of test-This experiment started January 6, 1920 and a continued 244 days, ending August 31, 1920. Objects—The principal object 0f this work was to test the value of varying quantities of cottonseed meal as a substitute a for either meat scrap 0r tankage in a ration for laying hens. Another object was to test the value of tankage as compared with ‘ meat scrap, when fed with varying amounts of cottonseed meal. Stock Used-Eight pens of nineteen S. C. White Leghorn pullets, each, were used in this work. They were of similar age and breeding and had received similar feed and care up to the time they were started on this experiment. When the pullets were divided to make up the various pens, customary precautions were taken to make all pens alike. Feeds Used-Pens 1, 3, 5, and 7 received meat scrap, while Pens 2, 4, 6, and 8, received tankage. Pens 1 and 2 received no cottonseed meal; Pens 3 and 4 received enough cottonseed meal to supply the protein removed by the omission of 15 per cent. of the meat scrap and tankage from the mash rations fed Pens 1 and 2. Pens 5 and 6 received enough cottonseed meal to supply the protein removed by the omission of 30 per cent. of the meat scrap and tankage from the mash rations fed Pens 1 and 2. Pens 7 and 8 received enough cottonseed meal to supply the protein removed by the omission of 45 per cent. of the meat scrap and tankage from the mash rations fed pens 1 and 2. The meat scrap used in this test Was purchased from one of the packers and was guaranteed to contain 50 per cent.‘ protein. The tankage was secured from the same source and was guar- anteed to contain 60- per cent. protein. The cottonseed meal was purchased from a local oil mill and was guaranteed to contain 43 per cent. protein. All pens received milo for their grain feed. This was fed in litter twice a day. Oyster shell and water were before the fowls at all times. Growing oats were available for green feed during the Winter and early spring; the balance of the year Sudan grass was used. All of these mash rations contain more bran than is usually fed with meat scrap, at this Station. This is used to improve the physical condition of the cottonseed meal rations and thus make them more palatable?“ Their mash rations were made up as shown in Table 1. —_***In_other rations where meat scrap is used, at this Station, the proportion of the va- rious feeds in the mash is as follows: wheat bran 100 lbs.; shorts 200 lbs.; corn meal 100 lbs.; or milo meal 100 lbs.; and meat scrap 100 lbs. Comparative I nflnences of Various Protein Feeds on Laying Hens 7 TABLE 1 Composition of Mash Rations l l Feeds Used in Pounds H ’ N m a, m .9 b. w c: a d l c: :1 c: c c d.) Q) d) d) 0 q) i) 0 a. n. n. m n. m n. m Wheat Bran .... . . . .. . . .. .... 125 125' 125 125 125 125 125 125 Wheat Shorts .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Milo Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 100 | 10o 100 100 100 100 100 100 Meat Scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 100 0 s5 0 70 0 55 0 Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 83 I 0 71 0 58 0 46 Cottonseed Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. o I 0 ’ 2o 2o 40 4o so so Prices of Feeds. This experiment was carried on during the year 1920, when feed prices were very high. The prices, per 100 pounds, used in figuring the results of the experiments are as follows: Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$2.50 Milo meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.75 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.25 Gray wheat shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.50 Meat scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.50 Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.00 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.50 It is not uncommon, on the local market, for meat scrap and tankage to cost more than twice as much as cottonseed meal. In such cases, the rations for Pens 1 and 2 would cost more as com- pared with the others than is shown in this table. At these prices the mash mixtures for the different pens cost per 100 pounds as follows: Pen 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$3.99 Pen 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.77 Pen 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 387 Pen 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 369 Pen 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 375 Pen 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 Pen 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.67 Pen 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.52 Results of the Test Mortality—Five hens died during this experiment. Two died from Pen 2 that received tankage and no cottonseed meal. One died from Pen 7 that received meat scrap and cottonseed meal, while two died from Pen 8 that received tankage and cot- tonseed meal. This death rate is no greater than could be ex- pected, and it is not thought that it was caused from the feeds used. . 8 Bulletin N0. 31?‘ Feeds Consumed and Eggs Produced—Table 2 gives the amounts of the feeds consumed and the eggs produced during this experiment; it also gives the value of the feed and costs of the eggs produced. TABLE 2 _ Feeds Consumed and Eggs Produced, January 6, 1920, to August 31, 1920——244 Days PoiII-Indsfof Ilgeed (per g w?‘ l E?‘ Amt. protein supplement ad- I . . in “(Lrerlrg ,, ‘H g3 3w: m l p: 3 g ! ded basal mash consisting of l l ‘E; c: l bu: h g 2g “g w l Wheat Bran 125 lbs., Gray _ l a, w l at? "3 girl l ° 0B1 l Wheat Shorts 75 lbs. Milo E "“ T: 5m - H" l #7 5E Meal 100lbs. ’ E 3 l *5 "a; $3 25$‘ 8:3 ml . c: E l a l>a QQlr-JOQlU-o-IQ "7 | Meat scrap . . . . . . . . . . . .100 lbs.l 1 l25.4 22.2 47.6 $1.52 10.7 4 4 $.14 l Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 lbs l _ l 2 0.0 l 17.8 42.8 1.30 8.6 5 0 l .15 11. ._- ,__ _ . |,_ Meat scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 lbs. l w l "l_ _~ Cottonseed 25 0 18.5 43.5 1.34 l 8 6 5 1 l 16 >s__|_ Meal . . . . . L. . .__go_13s_ _ l _ W l__ 4 l l Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 lbs.‘ l l l Cottonseed 25.4 18.9 44.3 1.33 10.2 4 3 , 13 4 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 lbs. iiiii n _ V» >_ _W‘ iAl __l Meat Scrap . . . . . . . . . .. 70 lbs. ' l l Cottonseed 4.8 17.3 l 42.1 1.27 8.8 4 8 , .14 5 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 lbs. W _* n l _ l l l Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 lbs. l l l Cottonseed 25.5 l 16.4 41.9 1 23 8 4 | 5 0 .15 6 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40 lbs. | H _ _‘ __ k 7 V’ _l i i Tl" __ Meat Scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 lbs. l I I l l Cottonseed l 25.4 l 16.7 l42.1l 1.25 I 8.6 l 4.9 15 7 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 lbs.l l l l l l _ Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 lbs. l l l l | l Cottonseed ‘ 25.2 | 16.4 41.6 1 21 8 6 l 4.8 14 8 Meal l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60lbs.| l l l l ' l I l l l l l From table 2 it is seen that the different pens ate approxi- mately the same amount of grain. They vary in the amount of mash eaten from 16.4 to 22.2 pounds. They vary in the total feed consumed per hen from 41.6 to 47.6. The egg-production varied from 8.4 dozen to 10.7 dozen per hen with the amount of feed-consumed to produce one dozen eggs varying from 4.3 pounds to 5.1 pounds at a cost per dozen of $.13 to $.16. These differences are all small and there is no regular graduation in these figures as the per cent. of cottonseed meal increases or de- creases. Table 3 shows that the tankage-fed hens gave as good re- sults as those fed meat scrap. This is in agreement with the results of similar experiments at the Indiana Experiment Sta- tion.‘ ‘Indiana Experiment Station Bulletin No. 227. - Comparative Influences of Various Protein Feeds on Laying Hens 9 TABLE 3 Meat Scrap and Tankage Compared for 244 Day Period. Cost of Feed No. Dozen Eggs Cost of Eggs Pens per Hen per Hen per Dozen llfleeit iSpcrappM_ W $1.35 1 9.2 $.148 Tankage " 1.27 I 9.0 . .143 Table 4 seems to show that hens fed cottonseed meal do not lay as well as those not receiving it. By turning back to table 2, however, one will notice that Pens 5 and 6, also 7 and 8, which received cottonseed meal, laid as Well as Pen 2, which did not receive cottonseed meal. It will also be noted that Pen 4, Which received some cottonseed meal, laid much better than Pen 2, which received no cottonseed meal. TABLE 4 Value of Varying Quantities of Cottonseed Meal for 244 Day Period. Amt. cottonseed meal‘ substituted for meat, Cost of Feed No. Dozen Eggs scrap or tankage in! per Hen per Hen Cost per Dozen the mash ration l No cottonseed meal $1.41 9.7 $145 i‘ 15 per cent. cotton- _ Wseed miei W_ 1.34 9.4 .145 30 per cent. cotton-~ ‘ ' 363g, meal 1.25 , 8.6 .145 45 per cent. cotton-i seed meal l 1.23 8.6 .145 DISCUSSION 1. Tankage gave as satisfactory results as meat scrap when fed in the proportion of 83 pounds tankage to 100 pounds meat scrap. 2. Rations with tankage and meat scrap and no cottonseed‘ meal did not give uniformly better results than similar rations with varying quantities of cottonseed meal replacing part of the meat scrap or tankage in the rations. 10 Bulletin N0. 317 EXPERIMENT 2 Comparison of Fish Meal and Tankage With Cottonseed Meal for Laying Hens Time of Test-This experiment started November 2, 1920 and continued 334 days, ending October 1, 1921. Object-The object of this experiment was to test the value of varying quantities of cottonseed meal in rations for laying hens. The rations contained fish meal from November 2, 1920 to February 4, 1921 and tankage from February 4, 1921 to October 1, 1921. ‘ ‘ Stock used-Four pens of forty S. C. White Leghorn pullets, each, were used in this work. They were of similar breeding and had received similar feed and care up to the time they were started in this experiment. In dividing the pullets to make up the various pens, cus- tomary precautions were taken to make all pens alike. Feeds Used-All pens received milo for their grain feed. This was fed in litter twice a day. Oyster shell and water were before the fowls at all times. Growing oats were available for green feed during the winter and early spring; for the remainder - of the year Sudan grass was used. Their mash rations were as shown in Table 5. TABLE 5 Composition of Mash Rations. Feeds Used in Pen I Pen I Pen Pen Pounds * 1 2 1 3 1 4 Wheatrfiran 10° L. 10° l?1_9(?__ 10° r iliyrllyiLsrhvrtsrrlw 1w 11,199-. .100 A 100 Mriklllealrfi ‘Z00 n. 12.90. QQ_,_Q_MZEL_ FIlTZfiZagIQQT 1-491;; 85 70 50 Cottonseed Meal 0 19 5 38 633 *Fish meal was fed before February 4, 1921, and tankage after that date. It will be noticed that Pen 1 was fed fish meal the first part of the test and tankage the last part, but at no time was cotton- seed meal given. Pen 2 received enough cottonseed meal to sup- ply the protein removed by the omission of 15 per cent. of the fish meal and tankage from the mash as fed Pen 1. Pen 3 re- ceived enough cottonseed meal to supply the protein removed by the omission of 30 per cent of the fish meal and tankage from the Comparative Influences of Various Protein Feeds on Laying Hens 11 mash as fed Pen 1, and Pen 4 received enough cottonseed meal to supply the protein removed by the omission of 5O per cent. of the fish meal and tankage from the mash as fed Pen 1. The fish meal used in this test was manufactured in Texas and was guaranteed to contain 55 per cent. protein. The tank- age was secured from one of the packers and was guaranteed to contain 60 per cent. protein. The cottonseed meal was purchased from a local mill and was guaranteed to contain 43 per cent. protein. Prices of Feeds—The prices of feed per 100 pounds used in figuring the results of this experiment are as follows: Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1.25 Milo Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.35 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.35 Gray wheat shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.50 Fish meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.25 *Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.00 **Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.00 Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.50 *Before February 4. **After February 4. At these prices the mash mixtures for the different pens cost per 100 pounds as follows: From November 2, to Feb- ruary 3, Pen 1, $2.16; Pen 2, $2.10; Pen 3, $2.04, and Pen 4, $1.96. From February 4, to October 1, the cost was for Pen 1, $1.81; Pen 2, $1.77; Pen 3, $1.72, and Pen 4, $1.67. Results of the Test Mortality-The mortality in this experiment was not high. One hen died from Pen 2 and two died from each of Pens 3 and 4. Feeds Consumed and Eggs Produced-Tables 6a, 6b, and 6c show the amount of feed consumed, the value of the feed, the number of eggs laid, the nu-mber of pounds of feed consumed to produce one dozen eggs, and the cost of feed to produce one dozen eggs. It will be noted in Table 6c that the feed consumption of the different pens is very close, the difference being only .8 of a pound, or less than 2 per cent. The difference in the cost of feed was only $.04 per hen. The difference in egg-production shown in this table is only .9 of a dozen or less than 8 per cent. The feed consumed per dozen eggs produced shows a variation of .4 of a pound or less than 9 per cent. None of these differences is large and there is no regular graduation from one pen to the other except in the case of pounds of feed consumed per dozen eggs produced. Here the differences are not in proportion to the differences in the ration. The cost of feed to produce one dozen eggs varied from 7.4 to 7.8 cents. This difference amounts to only about 6 per cent. l2 Bulletin No. 317 Feed Consumed and Eggs Produced TABLE 6A November 2, 1920 to February 3, 1921——94 Days l Feed in Pounds per '8 '8 '3" . 3 Hen Q m o o o m Amt. protem supplernent ad- _ W5 In‘? _ Inga, ded basal mash conslsting of \ "35 m3: was “who Wheat Bran 100 lbs., Gray , F. ; a I ,_. on: 51;§ °5Q ‘>253 s. Wheat Shorts 100 lbs., Milo 1 1; f a; f; 3 p N-"g H u; g H an. s s.’ Mea‘ 2°° ‘bs- l a ; s é’ £3 5s: a S52. 8.28 I Fish Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 lbs. - gaottfanseed 11.3 5.9 17.2 $ 27 1 4 12.3 I $.19 ea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n0ne Fish MeaL-I . . . . . . . . . . .. 851bs. Cottonseed 91b 11.3 5.6 16.9 .26 1.4 12.0 .19 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 s. Fish Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70 lbs. ' ‘a F’ Cottonseed 11.3 5.8 17.1 .26 1.2 14.3 .22 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 lbs. ‘ Fish Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 lbs. Cottonseed 11.3 ‘ 5.3 16.6 .25 1.1 15.1 23 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 lbs.‘ I TABLE 6B February 4, 1921, to October 1, 1921—240 Days Feed in Pounds per g l Pu E g . Hen F: \ m 3 o v N Amt. protem supplement ad- ?1_____»j_ wt, g3 _ Fags; ded basal mash consisting of ‘as: i 008g 5g H1; _ Wheat Bran 100 lbs., Gray g s ,_. 05E 5 53 5m "5' 5Q ° 2 g Wheat ‘Shorts 100 lbs., Milo ~-- m 3 :1 a "U m “n. 5 Meal 20~01bs. 3 s <> Ts: 52$ J38: 8°C‘ n. c: 2 H > q ma. o. .40 n. 03H Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 lbs. gaottfnseed 18.4 19.3 37.7 $ 58 10 0 $.058 ea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n0ne Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 lbs. Cottonseed A 18.8 18.6 37.4 .56 9.7 .058 2__Mea.l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 lbs. Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 lbs Cottonseed 19.5 18.5 38.0 .56 9.3 .060 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 lbs. - Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 lbs Cottonseed 19.7 18.6 38.3 .55 9.5 .059 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 lbs. Comparative Influences of Various Protein Feeds on Laying Hens 13 Table 6C November 2, 1920, to October 1, 1921—334 Days Pounds of Feed per E | '3 g f, Amt. protein supplement ad- _ . #_.' F“ 5,, dig , i gt: ded basal mash consisting of ~ ‘g5 £35 .,_, E g “q _ Wheat Bran 10o 1bs., Gray n g _. mil-i w; ° an ° 3 g Wheat Shorts 100 lbs . Corn -—~ m g r: "O - "1 Pp,‘ 5 Meal 20o lbs. 3 ‘“ ‘r <= '35:, 58$ 35%.: 30g n. w E § 5"‘ > n. ma. n. AU o. ops Fish Meal or Tankage . . . . 100 lbs. Cottonseed 29.7 25.2 54.9 $.85 11 4 4 8 $.075 1 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l .none _’ Fish Meal or Tankage. . . . 85 lbs. 7 Cottonseed 30.1 24.2 54.3 .82 .11.1 4.9 .074 2“ _'_‘_J_'_Z,Z;_LLLLT_ i 19.“??- ,__,,_,_ M, ___ ,1 Fish Meal or Tankage. . . . '70 lbs. Cottonseed 30.8 24.3 55.1 .82 10.5 5.2 078 §_/_Meal . . . . . . . . l.) . . .“_._. _ _ Fish Meal or Tankage. . . . 50 lbs. I Cottonseed 31.0 23.9 54.9 .81 10.6 5.2 .076 4 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 lbs. Observations were taken on the earliness of the molt of the hens in each of the pens and there seemed to be no difference in the molt of the fowls getting the different amounts of cottonseed meal. » . DISCUSSION 1. Rations containing either fish meal 0r tankage, with varying quantities of cottonseed meal were practically as good as the rations containing fish meal or tankage Without cottonseed meal. 14 _ Bulletin N0. 317 EXPERIMENT 3 Comparison of Tankage With Cottonseed Meal for Laying Hens Time ‘of Test-This experiment started November 1, 1921 and continued 325 days, ending September 21, 1922. Object 0f Test-The object of this test, as of.that reported in part two of this Bulletin, was to study how much cottonseed meal could be substituted for tankage in rations for laying hens. Stock Used-Three pens of forty S. C. White Leghorn pul- lets, each, were used in this work. They were all of similar breeding and had received similar feed and care up to the time they were started on this experiment. When the pullets were divided to make up the various pens, customary precautions were taken to make all pens alike. Feed Used-All pens received milo fed in litter twice a day for their grain feed and had growing oats for green feed dur- ing the winter and early spring. Sudan grass furnished the green feed for the remainder of the year. Oyster shell and water were kept before the fowls at all times. The mash rations of the different lots were as shown in Table 7. TABLE 7 Composition of Mash Rations. Feeds Used in Pen Pen Pen Pounds § 1 l 2 3 V, L t W __ W W555? -3255 . 125 5 125 i M125 _(_}ray Wheat Shortswi 7i5__ 75 75 fi Milo “Meal. _ L 7 5 ‘ _ 75. _l5 1 Tankage I 60 so _wwo Cottonseed Meal j 0 l 60 i 120 The tankage used in this test was secured from one of the packers and was guaranteed to contain 60 per cent. protein. The cottonseed meal was purchased from a local oil mill and was guaranteed to contain 43 per cent. protein. Prices of Feeds-The following prices per 100 pounds rep- resent the average prices during the time of this experiment: Comparative Influences of Various Protein Feeds on Laying Hens 15 Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$1.25 Milo Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.35 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.30 Gray wheat shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.60 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.00 Tankage . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.50 With these prices as a basis, the mash for the various pens :;cost per 100 pounds as follows: Pen 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1.77 Pen 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.67 Pen 3 1.59 ' ' ' ' iiégiiligkliiiiil-"régi """ ' ' Mortality—Seven hens died during this experiment. Two died from Pen 1 and five from Pen 3. r TABLE 8 'Feed Consumed and Eggs Produced, November 1, 1921, to September 21, 1922—325 Days l Pounds of Feed per 8 l '8 l "5 m < Hen w l m i Q l g Q u, - Amt. protein supplement ad- _ ,,,, __ ," F‘ 1 m...’ l h‘? _ ‘ in gé’ * ded basal mash consisting of ‘*3 c l. W8 g I a. E g saw Wheat Bran 125 lbs., Gray p. A ,__ QE i m gm ' ° 5g 2 n’ ~ Wheat Shorts 75 lbs., Milo ~ m g3 5 g“ - w "n4 ° Meal751bs. 2 ‘q O "E5; 92$ 35$ g°n m c: 2 H | > n. mam-i A0 a. o..>-~ " Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 lbs. g Cottonseed 33.5 28.5 62.0 $ 92 10.6 5 8 $ 087 1 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .none Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 lbs. Cottonseed 33.2 20.5 53.7 76 10 0 5.4 0'76 2 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 lbs. n f Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .none ‘Y 3 glottltanseed 20 lb 30.4 27.4 61.8 .82 12.0 5.2 .068 Y ea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 s. Feed Consumed and Eggs Produced-Table 8 shows that aPen 1 ate slightly more feed than Pen 3 and about eight pounds or 13 per cent. more than Pen 2. Pen 2 laid nearly as many eggs gas Pen 1 but two dozen less than Pen 3. The pounds of feed re- §quired to produce one dozen eggs and the cost of feed to produce one dozen eggs are in favor of Pen 3 with Pen 1 most ex- Epensive. ] Observations were taken on the earliness of molt in the different pens, but there seemed to be no difference in the molt ‘of the pullets getting the difierent amounts of cottonseed meal. DISCUSSION ; 1. Under the conditions of this test, the chickens receiving ottonseed meal and no tankage produced more eggs at a cheaper rice per dozen than those receiving tankage and no cottonseed eal The mortality was slightly higher in the cottonseed if. eal pen than in the tankage pens, but was higher in the tank- gyge-fed pen than in the pen receiving the 50 per cent. cotton- eed meal. 16 Bulletin No. 317 EXPERIMENT 4 y Comparison of Meat Scrap With Cottonseed Meal for Laying He g Time of Test-This experiment started October 1, 1922 ané continued 335 days, ending August 31, 1923. < Object-The object of this test was to secure more data onfi the value of cottonseed meal for laying hens, when used to re-ij place part or all of the meat scrap in the ration. = Stock Used-Three pens of twenty-four S. C. White Leg‘- horns, each, were used in this test. They were of similar age L? and breeding and had received similar feed and care up to the 1 time they were started on the experiment. When the pullets were divided to make up the various pens customary precautions were taken to make all pens alike. Feeds Used--All pens received corn for their grain ration, fed twice a day in a straw litter. Oyster shell and water were . before the fowls at all times. Growing oats furnished greenf feed during the winter and early spring; for the remainder of the year Sudan grass was used. The mash rations for the dif-g ferent pens-were as shown in Table 9. TABLE 9 Composition of Mash Rations. Feeds Used in Poundsg Pen Pen ; Pen I "lg _g_ 2____;w_t 3 Wheat Bran H 113.5%, W M W325” 12_LH_ Gray Wheat Shorts \_ 7Q 1A if H W g 7Q“ Corn Meal _ 75 75 H75 A Meat Scrap 60 __3_0___ _ ____0____ Cottonseed Meal 0 60 120 The cottonseed meal used was of good quality during the first seven months of the experiment but became slightly rancid during the last four months. No data are available to show that rancid cottonseed meal is less digestible than fresh meal but it is certainly less palatable and it is not possible to induce the hens to eat enough of this rancid meal to give good results. It may be that the meal that has been milled for some time is less palatable than the fresh meal even though it may not be noticeably rancid. In Bulletin 227 of the Indiana Station, results are given to show that cottonseed meal is of little value. In this experiment enough meal was purchased to last two years. No mention is made as Comparative Influences of Various Protein Feeds on Laying Hens 17 o how long this meal had been milled before it was purchased. the freshness of the meal is one of the limiting factors, it may e found that it can be recommended only in sections where it i n be secured soon after being milled. ~ i .~. The meat scrap used was richer in protein than that usually to poultry. Table 10 shows the percentage composition of eat scrap and cottonseed meal as analysed by Dr. G. S. Fraps, station Chemist. . TABLE 10 Percentage Composition of Protein Feeds Compared , l i l . l l gé l s-l l 3 l g“ °o l 3 = 2 a l 2% l == i l m l n. l on. l m. l 3 < ~ l I l l l lttonseed meal ..... .ll 40.95 l] 6.08 l 11.59 27.15 ! 9.05 5.18 ‘peat scrap . . . . . . . . 74.41 i 7.36 l 2.17" 2.06 l 6.92 7.0a Prices of Feeds-The prices of feeds per 100 pounds repre- __nt the average prices during the time of the experiment. Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1.'7 5 Corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.85 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.80 Gray wheat shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.00 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.25 Meat scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.50 __ With these prices as a basis, the mash rations for the va- ious pens cost per hundred pounds as follows: Pen 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$216 Pen 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 207 Pen 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. 198 Results of Test _. M ortality-Six hens died during this experiment. One died om Pen 1, which received meat scrap; two from Pen 2, which eived meat scrap and cottonseed meal; and three from Pen 3, hich received cottonseed meal. The loss was not high in any 3 the pens, and the difference in loss of the different pens is not nsidered significant. 18 Bulletin N0. 817 TABLE 11 Feed Consumed and Eggs Produced, October 1, 1922, to August 31, 1923-4535 Days l Pounds of Feed per i g J ‘g '1: n a . l en I " o " o u Amt. protein supplement ad- i ___, F" a” , Lug Q v 5° ded basal mash consisting of i 1 "5 i‘- bow t! I H a pi W5“ K Wheat Bran 125 lbs., Gray l c 4: ,__ ma F‘: 3g l ° g3 ° 3 a Wheat Shorts 75 lbs., Corn ~53‘ w i 4'2 3 ,5” i $94G i w Meal75lbs. * >-< w i o s: oflsipor, 0° o. i c: 2 g F‘ >¢= Qmagqoapo.” 1 Meat Scrap . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60 lbs. 41.6 15.3 56.9 $1.06 12.3 4.63 $.086' Meat scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 lbs. Cottonseed 43.1 12.0 55.1 1.00 10.8 5.10 .093 2 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 lbs. Cottonseed 41.7 12.3 54.0 .97 10.9 4.95 .089 3 Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 lbs. Feed Consumed and Eggs Produced-The results of this test, as shown in Table 11, were slightly in favor of the meat- scrap pen. In this test the cottonseed meal used the last four. months of the feeding period was not as palatable as was that used earlier and the fowls did not eat it as Well. This may have caused the poorer results toward the close of the test. Comparative I nfluences of Various Protein Feeds on Laying Hens 19 EXPERIMENT 5 ‘ Value of Meat Scrap, Cottonseed Meal, and Alfalfa Meal for g Laying Hens Time of Test--This experiment started October 1, 1922 and l? continued 233 days, ending May 21, 1923. Objects—The objects of this test were to determine the value of cottonseed meal as compared with meat scrap and to determine the effect of the substitution of a small quantity of i, alfalfa meal for an equal quantity of wheat bran in rations for laying hens when not supplied With other green feed. Stock Used-Four pens of 12 yearling S. C. White Leghorn " hens, each, Were used in this test. Four hens in each pen had 1 been fed a meat-scrap ration the preceding year, four had been a fed cottonseed meal ration without any meat scrap, and four had ; been fed a ration with both meat scrap and cottonseed meal. The j average egg-production of all pens for the first year was the same. Feeds Used-All hens were kept in pens 10 feet square, with concrete floors. They were given no green feed except the alfalfa j meal given Pens 3 and 4. The rations without alfalfa meal were lacking in the vitamin, fat-soluble A. All pens received cracked ~ white corn fed twice a day in litter. Oyster shell and water were before the fowls at all times. The mash rations for the various ;§ pens were as shown in Table 12. TABLE 12 Composition of Mash Rations. l Feeds Used in Pounds E Pen Pen Pen Pen _g g_ 1 1n, gmwl 3 W4 1V,11¢aXtB;-*qn____ _A 125 125 1 100 100 Gray Wheat Shorts v5 l 75 75 75 flhits Carries Meal ; 75 175 1 75 s75 y, Meat Scrap 60 E 0 l QQ 0 a Cottonseed Meal, _ _ h W 2 A7 if *0 i; 120 i 7 0 120_ _ __ Alfalfa Meal o 0 _ L p25 l 25 Salt (ozs.) 26 t 32 l 25 l s2 The meat scrap used in this test was richer in protein than that usually fed to poultry. It was secured from a Texas pack- ' 20 Bulletin No. e17 ing house. The cottonseed used was of good quality. It wi secured from a local oil mill. The alfalfa meal was bright gree but was screened to remove some of the stems, because of thei high fiber content. Table 13 gives the analysis of the meat scrap 5 cottonseed meal, and screened alfalfa meal, as analyzed by Dr; G .S. Fraps, Station Chemist. All other feeds were the same in; each pen; therefore they were not analyzed. ‘l TABLE 13 Percentage of Composition of Protein Feeds I I ‘ 4 s" 1 l ,._ , egg ' ' --~ i b!) H a s‘: %s l a.» i 2 _,, i 8 ! a 2e 3 :2 s m 1 a. i a. on. 1 2m l 5 <2‘ I Meat scrap . . . . . . . . . 74.41 7.36 2.17 I 2.06 6.92 7.08 Cottonseed meal . . . . 40.95 6.08 11.59 i 27.15 9.05 5.18 Alfalfa meal . . . . . . . 15.51 1.95 24.48 i 38.18 l 11.01 7.87 Prices of Feeds—The following prices per 100 pounds rep- resent the average local prices for the various feeds during the _ time of this experiment: ' .. Cracked corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$1.85 Corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.85 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.80 Gray wheat shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.00 Alfalfa meal _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.50 Meat scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.50 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.25 Using these prices, the value of the mash per 100 pounds for l. the various pens was as follows: l‘ Pen 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$2.16 Pen 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.98 Pen 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.21 Pen 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.03 Results of the Test Health of the Fowls and Mortality-—Seventeen hens died _ during this experiment and one was killed. Seven died from Pen 1 1 and seven from Pen 2, one was killed from Pen 3, and three a‘ died from Pen 4. Those that died from Pens 1 and 2 all showed 4' nasal discharge and throat lesions; one that died from Pen 4 c. also showed these lesions but the other two which died from Pen 4 died because of a broken egg in the oviduct. The hen killed from Pen 3 had canker and would not yield to treatment. On April 26, observations were taken on the health of the hens as shown in table 14. ~ Comparative Influences of Various Protein Feeds on Laying Hens 21 TABLE 14 Health Observations, April 26, 1923. I Pen Pen Pen , Pen 1 §_ 2m 3 L 4 f_ lhens__ _]; 10. I I, n 8W _,_A__V_1g_fi,_t,, _ 11‘ . showing throat lesions i l ' nasal discharge 1 7 6 l 3 3 _ ‘On May 21 observations were again taken on the healthof hens. The results are shown in Table 15. TABLE 15 Health Observations May 21, 1923. Pen Pen Pen Pen 2 3 ‘L1- A | "l hens i_ 6* 6* f 11 7 _ showing throat lesions‘ F ‘ nasal discharge I 5 4 3 3 ‘itglne hen died from Pen 1 and Pen 2 on May 21, but after these observations r It is noted that very few of the hens in Pens 1 and 2, those ich received no alfalfa meal, were healthy either on April 26, {May 21, while most of those in Pens 3 and 4, those receiving ;lfa meal, were normal. The unhealthy condition of the eye, often found when rations are deficient in fat-soluble A, was as pronounced as were the throat lesions and the nasal dis- rge. Table 16 shows the mortality for the different pens. 22 _ Bulletin N0. 317 TABLE 16 _ Mortality. I ) Pen Pen Pen Pen i’ r_g Afiuéw _ _ 1 2 ___ 3 ~ _ 4 - October l 0 __i 0 g 0__ 0 '2 November 0 0 i 0 0 December g u" *_0 _ _O__A__ w___0 _ v_ 0 @192x_22r_2_;__!2” _ * 1 0 0: February ' 0 0 0" __ _ 0 March W ___fl “J g 0 W 1* ‘ April f ~ 2 3 0 2*! 1g; l 3 z 3 1*** 0 i *Caused by broken egg. **One caused by broken egg, other by nutritional troubles. ***Killed because of canker. It is noted from this table that no deaths resulted until * the hens had been on the experimental feed for over t" months. This could be due to the small quantity of the _ soluble A present in the rations for Pens 1 and 2. Hatchability of Eggs ' All eggs laid by these hens for three consecutive w were incubated. Table 17 gives the summary of the t _g hatches. The variation of the hatchability of the eggs from v various pens was not very great. This may be due to the that the hens in the poorest health were not laying; therefe eggs for the healthiest hens were set. The rations of Pens 1 _ 2 were not absolutely free of fat-soluble A, which may g helped in the hatch. a TABLE 17 Hatching Record. Pen Eggs No. No. Dead No. tal Which “ W incubated fblnfirtiile W In Shell __Hatched Hatched T '2 ‘ A I Per Cent of t: F l 1 27 W_u____ 2 __fig1g1W_H N 14_ s2 2 __ N36 F_9m_ _ mlqwwMnmgegngvg“ 72 gifimflw 104 25 g x as as 65 l - 66 Comparative Influences of Various Protein Feeds on Laying Hens 23 Egg-Production V Table 18 gives the egg-production for the pens for the en- t» time. It is noted that the egg-production for Pens 1 and eld up for five months and then dropped rapidly. It is also d that, except for the first three months, the cottonseed meal s laid practically as well as the meat-scrap pens. During i, in months the cottonseed meal pens laid more than the scrap pens. TABLE 18 Egg-Production by Months. Month Pen 1 Pen 2 Pen 3 Pen 4 918 1 a 112 111215 eg_gL"_ _ 40 _ ____4_1_0____ 76 g K 611151;? H 129 i 73 l 15o W“ Aw 103 ber A__ 155 g W? 9s t 169 1 139 H1119». -11<11_1 __ 1.5111, 1 i 115 . 55152? >143. 160 N? 156 11f 153 156 l 194‘ _ __ 204 115 l 1.31mi. ,,1g__ 3 weeks ~ _ 33 l 26 l 9s 111 Feed Consumed and Cost of Fggs if Table 19 gives the feed consumed and its value together 3d the eggs produced per hen and the cost of feed to produce LdOZGII eggs. In both cases the results are in favor of the . receiving alfalfa meal. The loss was too great to compare i111 with Pen 2, but it will be seen that Pens 3 and 4 are almost i Here, Pen 4, the cottonseed meal pen, laid about as_ many produced them cheaper per dozen than did Pen 3, which re- 1 d meat scrap. 24 p Bulletin No. 317 l TABLE 19 Feeds Consumed and Eggs Produced Feed in Pounds per l i. i % a ‘ Hen h g,” £5‘: . P l “S5 , fig g3 . e“ s e s g" l F =51? s: 3 l ‘s s: l s; l 8 Q <5 , 2 l B l, :>c. , ma. l mBH 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6 16.5 42.1 i s 8s 7.3 s 7'1 I I ‘I 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 25.8 14.9 41.5 | w | e o e 92 t; . . . . . . . . 26.7 18.8 45.5 91 8.5 5 s5 4 . . . . . . . . . 24.4 17.8 -, 48.3 8a 8.1 a as DISCUSSION 1. Under the conditions of this experiment, the pens ceiving screened alfalfa meal* gave satisfactory results, those that did not receive it gave unsatisfactory results. 2. The pens receiving cottonseed meal gave results w, equal to the pens that received meat scrap. a i 1 SUMMARY Rations containing tankage were as palatable as those containing l‘ scrap. There was no high mortality from the tankage-fed pens and egg-production was as good as in the meat scrap pens. - 7 Rations containing cottonseed meal were palatable in all cases t the cottonseed meal was fresh. One ration containing cottonseed ‘X which had become slightly rancid was not palatable. '8 With fowls fed rations in which varying quantities of cottonseed = replaced part of the meat scrap, tankage, or fish meal the egg-prod ~ was slightly lower and the mortality was slightly higher in the lots ceiving cottonseed meal, but these differences were not in proportion »~_ quantities of cottonseed meal in the rations. Hens receiving cottonseed meal and no tankage, in Experiment 3, a more eggs than those receiving tankage and no cottonseed meal. In periment 4, the hens fed meat scrap and no cottonseed meal laid more ' than those receiving cottonseed meal and no meat scrap. The average production for the cottonseed meal pens in these two experiments taken gether was practically the same, as that for pens receiving meat scrai tankage. » i ; The pens receiving cottonseed meal and either meat scrap or tan laid fewer eggs than did those getting either cottonseed meal, meat sc or tankage alone. a ~ _ . g {g ‘~ » In Experiment 5, hens receiving alfalfa. nieal laid well and few of ~!_ died. The mortality from nutritional troubles was only 4 per cent. "i ~ hens receiving the same treatment, except that no alfalfa meal was I the mortality was 58 per cent. 'No check was available to show the eff -i of giféen feedon-range gynpon the mortality. a 8 ‘ . *Fat-soluble A, which is found in choice alfalfa meal, is also found in such f as grasses, lettuce, clover, egg yolks, and milk. .