E.L.HARTER»

/ CAMPUS .
Tfiiiks AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT summ

GRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF T-EXAS
W. B. BIZZELL, President

BULLETIN NO. 323 September, 1924

DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY

THE PRICE OF FEED
UTILITIES

  
  
  

 
    

    

f" :' ‘A. , \\I|||||‘y||'j,||'-._: ' "“'  <Q_‘) " ‘I ' 
=I--' ' ‘ i T ."l:."!!'a ‘WV 2  K
1M‘ T  Hpwqllflié T ( 
l

 

  
    

 

*"' "ifiiiiTfFiiiiiiiiiullui. l!» ~

 

'.

      

' ' - - . - ' "

B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS

STATION STAFF (As of October 1, 1924)

ADMINISTRATION

B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director

A. B. CONNER, M. S., Vice Director
A. H. LEIDIGH, M. S., Assistant Director
CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk
A. S. WARE, Secretary
M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Assistant Chief
Clerk
J. M. SCHAEDEL, Executive Assistant
VETERINARY SCIENCE
*M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief of Division
H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Acting for Chief
. of Division
V. J. BRAUNER, D. V. M., Veterinarian
CHEMISTRY
G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief of Division;
State Chemist
S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist
WALDO H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist
J. K. BLUM, B. S., Assistant Chemist
J. E. TEAGUE, B. S., Assistant Chemist
VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist
H. STANFORD, B. S., Assistant Chemist
K. KITSUTA, M. S., Assistant Chemist
ADAH E. PROCTOR, B. S., Assistant
Chemist
HORTICULTURE
A. T. POTTS, M. S., M. S. C., Chief of
Division; Citriculturist
H. NESS, M. S., Berry Breeder
RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
J. M. JONES, A. M., Chief of Division;
Sheep and Goats
JAY L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Breeder
(genetics)
J. J. HUNT, Wool Grader
ENTOMOLOGY
F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief of Division;
State Entomologist
**H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist
E. HOBBS, B. S., Assistant Entomologist
C. S. RUDE, B. S., Chief Foul Brood
Inspector
W. R. JORDAN, B. S., Apiary Inspector
AGRONOMY
E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Chief of Division
A. B .CONNER, M. S., Agronomist, Grain
Sorghum Research
A. H. LEIDIGH, M. S., Agronomist, Small
Grain Research

SUBSTATIONS

No. 1, Beeville, Bee County

R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent
No. 2, Troup, Smith County

W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent
No. 3, Angelton, Brazoria County

V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent
No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County

R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent
No. 5, Temple, Bell County

A. B. CRON, B. S., Superintendent
No. 6, Denton, Denton County

P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent
No. 7, Spur, Dickens County

R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent
No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock Coounty

R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent
No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County

J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent
No. 10, College Station, Brazos
(Feeding and Breeding substation)

  
 
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
 

G. N. STROMAN, Ph. D., Agronom'
Cotton Breeding
. MAHONEY, B. S., Assistant
Cotton Breeding y.
R. H. STANSEL, B. S., Assistant in Cro";
PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PI-IYSIOLOG
J. J .TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief of.
Division -
FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS _,
L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief of Division‘.
B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph .D., Farm.
and Ranch Economist ‘
V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research
Botanist (Sonora)
***T. L. GASTON, JR., B. S., Assistant, Fa ‘
Records and Accounts ~_
***A. S. BRIENT, B. S., Assistant, Ranch '1
Records and Accounts ;
SOIL SURVEY
***W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief of Division ‘
H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor 
E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor

BOTANY
H. NESS, M. S., Chief of Division

PUBLICATIONS
A. D. JACKSON, Chief of Division
C. M. MITCHELL, Mailing Clerk

SWINE HUSBANDRY 1
G. R. WARREN, M. S., Chief of Division <r
DAIRY HUSBANDRY
G. R. WARREN, M. S., Chief of Division
POULTRY HUSBANDRY '
R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief of Divisi '
MAIN STATION FARM »
D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent
STATE APICULTURAL RESEARCH 
LABORATORY (San Antonio) 
H. B. PARKS, B. S., Apiculturist in Charge‘
A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder "~=
FEED CONTROL SERVICE I;
F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief of Division ,.
S. D. PEARCE, Secretary
J. H. ROGERS, Feed Inspector
W. H. WOOD, Feed Inspector
J. F. SCHULTZ, B. S., Feed Inspector
C. M. MORRIS, B. S., Feed Inspector
F. W. WILSON, B. S., Feed Inspector ,
W. G. GAINEY, B. S., Feed Inspector 3'

No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County 
G. T. McNESS, Superintendent _

***No. 12, Chillicothe, I-Iardeman County
D. L. JONES, Superintendent

No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties
E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent
D. H. BENNETT, D. V. M., Veterinarian
V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research
Botanist ‘
***O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborating En»
tomologist 
O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd 
No. 15, Llano Grande, Hidalgo County ‘
W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent
A. T. POTTS, M. S., M. S. C., Citricul-
turist
No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County

County E. J. WILSON B. S., Superintendent

G. R. WARREN, M. S., Animal Husband-

man in Charge of Farm
L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent

Members of Teaching Staff in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects;

S. W. BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of Ento-

mology

W. L. STANGEL, M. S., Professor of Ani-
mal Husbandry (Swine)

F. A. BUECHEL, Ph. D., Professor of Agri-
cultural Economics

G. W. ADRIANCE, M. S., Associate Pro-
fessor of Horticulture

*Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine.
"On leave for one year.

W. E. GARNETT, Ph. D., Professor of
Rural Sociology

G. P. GROUT, M.
Husbandry

R. C. WHITE, M. A., Associate Professor
of Rural Sociology

H. V. GEIB, B. S., Assistant Professor of
Agronomy

E. O. POLLOCK, A. M., Assistant Professor
of Agronomy

S., Professor of Dairy

***In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture.

SYNOPSIS

The object of this Bulletin is to study the relation between the selling
prices of commercial feeds and their content of feed utilities. The prices
of pounds of digestible protein, and therms of productive energy, were
calculated from certain available feed prices, on pairs of well-known feeds,
one high in protein and the other low in protein but high in productive
energy. General prices, and prices from Texas, Indiana, and Pennsylvania,
were used. The values of various feeds were then calculated from the
prices of digestible protein and productive energy and their assumed con-
tent of digestible protein and productive energy.

The calculated values were compared with the selling prices of the
feeds. With most of the concentrates, the agreement was as close as could
be expected, in view of the many factors besides the feeding utility which
enter into the selling prices of feeds. Feeders thus appear to have a fairly
accurate knowledge of the relative feeding values of well-known feeds,
and relative market prices are largely controlled by this knowledge. The
values of various concentrates calculated from the digestible protein and
productive energycan be used to aid in deciding the most economical feed
under given market conditions.

Bulk or volume is an important factor in the price of purchased hay,
fodder or roughage, although the farm price of the protein and produc-
tive energy is probably much lower in roughage than in concentrates.
The measure of bulk is assumed to be 100 less the water and therms of
productive energy. The prices of bulk were calculated for wheat bran, oats,
alfalfa, cottonseed hulls, and prairie hay.

The method was further applied by calculating the feed costs of pork,
beef, and milk, and comparing them with the market prices. There is a
considerable margin between the feed cost of milk and its selling price, the
margin for pork is much smaller, and with beef it is very small, showing
the importance of low-priced roughage for the profitable production of
beef under our present conditions. These calculations are merely intended
to illustrate the use of the method and more ‘exact comparisons must await
a thorough study of the prices to be used and is a subject for agricultural
economics rather than chemistry. i

 

til
‘i
5 .1



CONTENTS‘
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methods suggested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What constitute the feed utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

Digestible protein and productive energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Other feed utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 
Basis for calculating prices of digestible protein and productive energy 
Method of calculating prices of protein and productive energy . . . . . . . . ._ 10 
Calculating chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 
Prices of digestible protein and productive energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 A’
Relation of selling prices of feeds to value calculated from protein and
productive energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .
Selling prices nearly equal to the calculated values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . 17 
Feeds for which the selling prices are greater than the calculated money
values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cost of bulk . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 p

Other factors of feed utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20

Feed cost of hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20

Feed cost of cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22

Feed cost of milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

BULLETIN NO. 323 i SEPTEMBER, 1924
THE PRICE OF FEED UTILITIES
G. S. Fraps.

The prices of the utilities in feeding stuffs are an important problem
that is constantly coming up in different forms. The Feed Control Offi-
cial is called on to recommend rebates to be paid when feeds do not come
up to guaranteed analysis. The chemist and the animal husbandman are
called on for information as to the relative money values of different feeds,
such, for instance, as corn and barley. Very difficult questions may arise.
The cost of feed to produce meat or milk may be studied by means of the
prices of the feed utilities.

These and other problems may receive aid in their solution from the
study of the cost of feed utilities from the point of view of the chemist.

Q __ é ____f$___ °*
\  E

l l

‘L r
41A l
 //// II/II/l

tttr

//l\‘I// //I

*5/14 129/5 /9/6 .18 I l9 l9 0 l5 I l9 Z .9

Figure 1-—Prices of digestible protein and productive energy in cents a pound.

Methods Suggested

Several methods have been used for solving some of the problems
referred to above. The cottonseed crushers use the protein content alone.
If a cottonseed meal is guaranteed 43 per cent. protein, and runs 42 per
cent., a rebate-of 1-43 of the purchase price is due. Protein is not the only
constituent of feeding utility in cottonseed meal, but it is the most im-
portant one, and this method is very simple and relatively inexpensive.

Halligan in his Elementary Treatise on Stock Feeds and Feeding,
and in various bulletins of the Louisiana Experiment Station, uses the
following method for calculating rebates from the analysis of the feed:-—

6 BUL. 323 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

One pound of protein is considered to be of the same value as two and
one-half pounds of nitrogen-free extract, and one pound of fat is con-
sidered to be worth as much as two and one-quarter pounds of nitrogen-
free extract. To secure the number of units on which the value is based,
multiply the protein content by 2.50, and the fat contentby 2.25 and add
these products to the nitrogen-free extract content, and the sum is the
total unit value of a feed. The selling price of a feed divided by the guar-
anteed unit value, gives the guaranteed price per unit. The guaranteed
price per unit multiplied by the number of units delivered, gives the de-
livered price. The difference gives the rebate.

A method like the one above described, based upon the chemical analy-
sis alone, would be very desirable if approximately correct. But it is incor-
rect to assume equality of nitrogen-free extract from different sources,
or to fix an arbitrary relation between the prices of protein and non-pro-
tein. The price of protein relative to non-protein depends on trade con-
ditions. It is shown in Figures 1 and Table 3 that sometimes the price
of protein was nothing, while at other times it was relatively high. Hence
it is incorrect to assume some constant relation between protein and non-
protein. _

In some text-books on feeding, the cost of digestible protein is cal-
culated by dividing the price of a ton of feed by the quantity of digesti-
ble protein in it, disregarding the other digestible nutrients or energy.
In a similar way, the cost of digestible nutrients or energy is calculated
by dividing the price of a ton of feed by the total digestible nutrients, or
energy, disregarding the digestible protein.

If a boy in school were given a problem to find the cost of an apple and
a pear when 3 apples and 4 pears cost 29 cents, and 5 apples and 11 pears
cost 70 cents, he would be graded zero if he followed the method mentioned
above, disregarded the pears in one case and the apples in the other, and
said that the apples cost 9.2 cents in the first case and 8 cents in the
second, while the pears cost 7 1-4 cents the first time and 6 4-7 cents the
second, instead of working out the correct answer that the apples cost 3
cents each and the pears 5 cents each.

‘The same method of calculation would justify the claim that cotton-
seed meal has nearly six times the value of corn. If corn contains 6.1 per
cent. digestible protein and cottonseed meal 36.6 per cent., cottonseed
meal has 6 times the value of corn. This calculation, however, is correct
only when productive energy has no value, which never occurs, but the
method of calculation given in the text-books referred to, give an excuse
for drawing such an erroneous conclusion.

What Constitutes the Feed Utilities

The ordinary chemical analysis of a feed includes the estimation of
protein, fat, crude fiber, nitrogen-free extract, water, and ash. Some
of these determinations are indicative of the quality of the same kind
of feeds and are used in the comparison of the quality of different lots.
For example, the protein content of cottonseed meal is used to measure

THE PRICE OF FEED UTILITIES '7

its commercial value with a fair degree of accuracy. It is not possible,
however, to compare cottonseed meal with other feeds on the basis of the
protein content. Cottonseed meal cannot be directly compared with corn
because other things besides the protein content enter into the value of
both feeds.

The ordinary chemical analysis does not, however, show the feed
utilities. If the protein of one feed had the same utility to an animal as
the protein of any other feed, and if the fat, crude fiber, and nitrogen-free
extract of one feed had the same utility as the fat, crude fiber, and nitro-
gen-free extract of any other feed, the analysis of a feed would show its
value compared with any other feed, but such is not the case. Each of
these determinations is a group of substances, not definite substances
in themselves, and their nature varies with different feeds. The protein
of one feed is different in digestibility and in feeding utility from the
protein of other feeds, and the same holds true with respect to the nitro-
gen-free extract, fat, and fiber. Any method of comparing different kinds
of feeds by the chemical analysis alone is erroneous.

It might be possible to assume that the digestible constituents could
be used to measure feeding utility. It could be assumed that the digesti-
ble protein of one feed is equal in feeding utility to the digestible protein
of any other feed, and that the digestible nitrogen-free extract of any one
feed is equal in feeding utility to the digestible nitrogen-free extract of
any other feed, and likewise with the other constituents. The assumption
of the equality in feeding utility of digestible nutrients was made for a
good many years, and is still being used by practically all books on animal
feeding, but it is not correct. In calculating rations for feeding, the as-
sumption is generally made that one pound of digestible nitrogen-free ex-
tract in one feed is as good as one pound in any other feed, and so on
for the other groups of nutrients. This assumption has been tested and
found to be incorrect. The investigations of Kellner and of Armsby have
proved that the digestible constituents of one kind of feed are generally
different in value from those of another. For example, one pound of
digestible nutrients in corn is equal to five pounds of digestible nutrients
of some hays. There are always great differences in the utility of the
digestible constituents of concentrates as compared with roughages. In
the light of this knowledge, it is incorrect to assume that the digestible
nutrients of different feeds are equal in utility.

Feeding utilities consist of digestible protein, productive energy, bulk,
vitamines, and other factors.

Digestible Protein and Productive Energy

Most of the feed digested by an animal is used in two ways. Part of it
is used for material to build and repair tissue and to form secretions, and
part of it is used for energy to keep the animal warm, to carry out life
processes, for bodily movements, for work, or to be stored up as fat, or to

be secreted as milk.
Digestible protein is used for the purpose of repairing animal tissues,

8 BUL. 323 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

forming the digestive juices, and other secretions, building new tissues,
It can also be used for fa ‘Y
It is a well known fact that the digestible protein of different
feeds is different in character, but it is not yet known to what extent this
Our knowledge sol
far chiefly emphasizes the importance of using a variety of feeds in the
ration, and of exercising special care in feeding mixtures of certain feeds.
We still have a great deal to learn with respect to the differences in the :_

producing hair, bone, and milk, and so on.
or energy.

influences the feeding utility of the different feeds.

feeding utility of the proteins of various feeds.

The productive energy of a feed, expressed in therms or fat, meas- i
ures its power of furnishing heat or energy to the animal, or of furnish- 

ing material or energy for the production of fat, or for work or for

other uses to which material or energy is put. Methods for the calculation '-
of the productive energy have been devised by Kellner, and by Armsby, k
Bulletin 185 of 
this Station contains a brief discussion of the matter, and also contains j’

and have been published in their books and elsewhere.

production coefficients for easily calculating productive energy.
Other Feed Utilities

There are other elements which enter into the utility of feed in addi-
tion to the digestible protein and the productive energy, though these
two are probably the most important.

The volume or mere weight of roughage is no doubt one of the feed
utilities when roughages are purchased and is probably next in impor-
tance after digestible protein and productive energy, from the point of
view of money cost. Cows, horses, and similar animals need rations with
a proper bulk or volume, which is secured by using hays, fodders or other
roughages. The cost of protein and productive value is less in grasses
and fodders when they are pastured than in concentrated feeds. A com-
mittee of the American ‘Society of Agronomy estimates that over half
the feed of cattle is furnished by pasturage and that pasturage costs only
about one-fourth as much as harvested forage (Science News Service,
Science, Dec. 14, 1923). Farmers often have more roughage than they
need, and such roughage is a cheap feed. .

But when roughage is harvested, shipped, and sold, it often costs
more in proportion to its digestible protein and productive energy than con-
centrated feeds, so that purchasers pay a price for bulk or volume. In
bulky feeds, transportation, storage and handling charges, which are in
proportion to weight, are high for each unit of feeding utility. Thus while
feeding utilities in roughages on the farm may cost less than in concen-

trates, especially when pastured, feeding utilities in roughages when pur- '

chased by dairymen, and owners of work animals or any one else who buys
roughage, may cost more than in concentrates. To put it another way,
farmers or stockmen who produce their own roughages, may pay nothing
for bulk, while those who buy roughages usually pay for bulk.

Other feed utilities are differences in the utility of protein from dif-
ferent sources, content of vitamines, amount and composition of ash, and

-.v...x~m‘-wr- -‘ - ‘

   

THE PRICE OF FEED UTILITIES " 9

possibly others. We are not yet sufficiently informed concerning the dif-
ferences that exist between the proteins, vitamines, or ash ingredients in
various feeds, and the importance of these deficiencies, to base any dif-
ference in value upon any of them. ‘

Basis for Calculating Prices of Digestible Protein and Productive Energy

The first object of the present study is to ascertain to what extent
the content of digestible protein and productive energy may be related
to the relative prices of the feeding stuffs on the market.

The costs of digestible protein and productive energy are based upon the
contents of the feed in these elements of utility, and the selling prices
of the feed. The selection of feeding utilities and prices to be used are
both a matter of difficulty. The prices of feeds depend upon many con-

“ditions, which it is beyond the object of this Bulletin to discuss. The

farm prices are, of course, lower than the wholesale prices, for the cost
of handling, and transportation must be added to the farm prices. The
retail prices, again, must carry further handling and transportation charges,
and are still higher than the wholesale prices.

Farm prices, wholesale prices, and retail prices vary from section
to section, and from time to time, according to distances from centers of
production, supply, demand, and other conditions. All these variations
are matters beyond the scope of this bulletin to discuss. For the purpose
of this work, certain available market prices were selected with the object
of comparing the particular feeds at that particular time.

For general prices we have used the wholesale prices from 1913 to
1920 published in the Report of the Federal Trade Commission on Com-
mercial Feeds March 29, 1921. These are wholesale prices paid on large
markets. For 1921, 1922 and 1923 the prices on the Kansas City market
about March 23 were used. The Pennsylvania and Indiana prices are those
published in the Feed Control bulletins of the Pennsylvania Department
of Agriculture, and of the Indiana Experiment Station. The Texas prices
were compiled from various sources. The Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Texas
prices represent approximately the retail prices, while the other figures
represent approximately wholesale prices. The prices assumed are given
in Table 1. These prices-are selected for the purpose of comparing the
different feeds at the same time, and not for comparing prices under dif-
ferent sets of conditions. '

The costs of digestible protein and productive energy were calculated
from the market prices of two feeds, one high in protein and the other
low in protein, both being high in productive energy. The feeds selected
should be in general use, well known and of high utility. They should
have been in use for a long time, so that feeders should be well acquainted
with their feeding value through practical experience. The feeds selected
for the Northern and Central States were corn, or corn feed meal, and
linseed meal; for Texas, corn and cottonseed meal.

The chemical composition of feeds varies considerably. The average

10 BUL. 323 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

composition was taken as a basis for the comparison, and not the minimum
guarantee required by the various Feed Control officials. The average
composition for Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Texas was made up from the
averages reported in the Feed Control bulletins of these States, for the
period of years considered. The average composition of the other feeds
was made up in the same manner. The author used his discretion in se-
lecting the averages which appeared most probable.

Table 1—Assumed selling prices, per ton, used in calculations.

Wholesale , Pennsylvania Indiana Texas
l~ '~~-—~*———W  —~ A. K ~ ’~~*—*—.—U—V~
l l w
l "u '0' w: 3i
l g as 5% 2s fir,  5; gs
        v0 v5
1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l $24.96l $28.73] $32.72 $40.6 $ 9.30 39.26 $30.00 $27.00

1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.23 33.11 — —— 31.11 42 73 — -—

1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.58 34.22 -— — 31.96 41 56 —— -—

1917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.01 48 02 66.60 57.33 59.42 56 51 —— -—

1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57.37 54 73 68 00 63 05 61.80 66.58 70 00 58 00

1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.99 72 70 69.67 85 92 63.01 83.14 49 60 44.50

1921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.00 45 00 -—— — 28.60 50.91 45 20 42.30

1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.00 55.50 — —— —— — 32 50 51 20

1923 (Jam) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.00 49.50 — — — —~ 38 20 50 25

1923 (Malt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —— —— — —— — — 40.00 54.00

1924 (Jam) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — —— —— — — 38.00 42.00

The digestible protein was calculated from the chemical composition
and the coefficients of digestibility. The productive energy which is ex-
pressed in therms, was calculated by the use of production coefficients.
(See Bulletin 185). Coefficients of digestibility and production coefficients
were taken from tables compiled and calculated at this Experiment Sta-
tion, but not yet published.

Table 2——Assumed percentage composition, digestible protein and productive energy
in therms used in calculating prices of protein and productive energy.

‘ W . l 

l 3 s l l ; I\

l "7' l 2 ‘u: -:~

n 43 l 54-7  "45 h m é g ml ‘E

"a s5; w “>3 1 g s wS “is” w

4-1 w S-u l ‘U a 2 i-a l a l "U H H Q4.) 5" ‘H

a sazelsal w alafishalze "

n. Ffllfll OhlZfiJl 3 l <2 lama Qmml M
Trade Commission—Corn . . . . . . . . . 9.5 4.3 2.0’ 67.0 15.0 1.2 82.2 6.1 .002275

Trade Commission—Linseed meal 36.9 7.0 8.4 35.7 8.0 5.0 79.0 32.6 ——
Pennsylvania-—-Corn feed meal . 10.1 5.3 3.2 68.9 11.0 1.5 87.8 5.9 .002203

Pennsylvania—-Linseed meal . . . . . . 35.0 6.8 7.9 36.4 9.5 4.4 77.4 31.0 —
Indiana—Corn feed meal . . . . . . . .. 9.2 4.3 2.5 71.2 10.8 1.8 86.2 5.9 .002307

gxdi-anagLinsfied meal . . . . . . . . . .. 34.4 7.1 8.3 37.3 7.9 5.2 78.3 30.5 —-

exas orn c ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.5 4.3 2.0 67.0 15.0 1.2 82.2 6.1 ——
Texas—Cottonseed meal before 1913 45.0 8.7 9.0 25.0 7.0 5.3 77.4 39.0 .001829
Texas—Cottonseed meal after 1913. . 43.7 7.6 10.4l 25.5 7.3 5.5 73.9 37.9 .001877

 

The average composition, digestible protein, and productive energy
used are given in Table 2.

Method of Calculating Prices of Protein and Productive Energy

The difficult part of this Work is to decide upon the composition and
prices of the feeds to be used. Once the prices and composition have been

\\

THE PRICE OF FEED UTILITIES 11

decided upon, the calculation of the prices of digestible protein and
productive value is a simple matter.

Let a=price of carbohydrate feed A in dollars per ton.
b=price of protein feed B in dollars per ton.
p=pounds digestible protein in 100 pounds feed A.
t=therms productive energy in 100 pounds feed A.
n-_-pounds digestible protein in 100 pounds feed B.
c=therms productive energy in 100 pounds feed B.
x=price of digestible protein in one pound.
y=price of productive energy in cents per therm.

Then 20px+20ty=a Equation 1.
20mx+20cy=b Equation 2.

(tb —— ca) 100

Solving x=_-———-——-—- Equation 3.
(nt —- pc) 20
(na — pb) 100

y=---?-— Equation 4.
(nt — pc) 20

The values of x and y can be calculated for any given composition
and prices. It should be noted that the fraction

100
k=-————— Equation 5
(nt -— pc) 20

is constant for any two feeds of constant composition, and may conveniently
be calculated when it is to be used a number of times. The equations
then become:—

y=( tb—ca) K Equation 6.
y=(na—pb) K Equation '7.

Table 1 shows the values for K used. For any value of (a) the price
of feed A, there is a corresponding value for (b) the price of feed B, at
which (x) the cost of digestible protein is zero, and another value at
which (y) the cost of productive value is zero.

ca

If x is 0, from equation 6, b-_~ — Equation 8.
t
na

If x is 0, from equation 7, b: — Equation 9.
i P

If we use the feeds for Texas and take corn at $20.00 a ton, cotton-
seed meal would have a calculated value of $17.98 a ton, when digestible
protein is zero, or, to put it another way, if cottonseed meal in Texas

12 BUL. 323 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 

sells at 90% of the price of corn, or less, digestible protein costs nothingéi
In such event, cottonseed meal can be fed on the basis of its pro-i‘
ductive energy alone, and such has been the case at times. (Even in Octo?

ber 1924).

  
  
 

If corn is taken at $20.00 a ton, and the productive energy at zero,
cottonseed meal would have a calculated price of $130.00 a ton. This“

relation has never occurred, and is not likely to occur.

Can f:
6

/ a

r

“ .50 My?
W
0

Pr”

1 ‘ \%4ii‘r">'""'vd<wf~= E» rag, 771p”...

Z0

J78 $2.4- JZB J52 $35 .540 $96‘- 458 #152 $56

Figure 2—Prices of pounds digestible protein and therms of productive energy with
corn at twenty dollars a ton and Texas cottonseed meal at the prices given.

Calculating Chart

The prices of protein and productive value may be plotted as straight
lines when the price of one feed is taken as unity, by using the relative
price of the other feed as an ordinate and the values of x or y as abscissa.
Figure 2 shows the prices of pounds of digestible protein and therms of
productive energy when corn is taken at $20.00 a ton and Texas ‘cot-
tonseed’ meal at the relative prices given. A similar chart could be pre-
pared for any sets of two feeds, and could be used for calculating the
prices of digestible protein and productive energy at any prices given
for the two feeds of the assumed composition.

The Prices of Digestible Protein and Productive Energy

The relative prices of digestible protein and productive energy cal-
culated from the data given in Tables 1 and 2 is given in Table 3. The
value of digestible protein would be negative in some cases if the method
were strictly followed. It is hardly probable that digestible protein could

THE PRICE OF FEED UTILITIES 13

have a value less than nothing; so in these cases it is put down as zero,
and the productive energy calculated with digestible protein having no
value. The figures for Texas 1923 are the averages for January and
March.

Table 3—-—Comparative prices of therms of productive energy and pounds
of digestible protein in cents.

‘ Productive Energy Therms Digestible Protein, Pounds

i l s: l s l

4 G ' s: 3

: 2 S .2 2 1

1 t)’. a s 3 ">1 s =

I _2 l m ; S m .2 m F1 m

l m O = ‘ f2 N w o I: .5.‘ i “l

F 8 1 g 5S -—”- 5 "g l‘ 5
__ 1 1 733,, _°;‘€H___-i‘, __EE1. 9* __*'1_ F‘

1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.45 1.7 1.53 1 83 .89 2.28 2.52 0

1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.48 —— 1.61 -— 1.46 —— 2.88 —-

1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.72 -— 1.68 — 1.08 —- 2.49 -—-

1917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.58 3.77 3.41 —— 0 0 0.50 —-

1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.48 3.84 3.44 4.25 0 .60 2.07 0

1919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.35 4.23 3.58 3.78 2.20 1.60 2.38 2.25

1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.51 3.09 3.30 3.02 2.63 4.74 5.15

1921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 —- 1.32 2.73 4.46 —— 4.95 0.26

1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 —- —— 1.73 6.07 —— —— 3.39

1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1.47 -— —- 2.18 4.05 — —— 2.61

1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —— -—— —— 2.22 -— -— —‘ 1.21

The wholesale price of productive energy reaches a maximum in 1917,
varies little from this maximum in 1918, 1919, and 1920; then drops in
1921. The maximum retail prices occur in 1919 for Pennsylvania and
Indiana, 1918 for Texas, being one or two years laterthan the maximum
wholesale price. They likewise drop in 1921, but not to as great an ex-
tent as the wholesale prices, especially in Texas. This is perhaps caused
by higher freight rates and greater expense of handling due to higher
wages.

    

7- i Price
i270 E777” [a/cu/afaa/ l/a/ue
s i l I
r ‘ l 9
é E
J3 1 \ 
5* Q" E ‘ § “*3
v3 3. 5 4e L“ \ Lg * s
fi/o x K)  x "i
== . \ . ~ s, a
s s 2: i’ § s s 1:
§ B: lit Q E. <3
Q

Figure 3—-Average relation of selling prices of feeds in Texas to values calculated from
digestible protein and productive energy.

14 BUL. 323 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

The price of digestible protein varies in an entirely different manner
from the price of productive energy. Digestible protein costs nothing
wholesale in 1917 and 1918, at a time when the price of productive energy
reached a maximum for the periods studied. This means that the price
of cottonseed meal or linseed meal at that time was just equal to the
price of its productive energy. Linseed meal was selling for less than
corn. Government regulation possibly had something to do with this.

The price of protein began to go up in 1919, and reached a maximum I

in wholesale cost in 1922, when it began to fall again. This increase in
the cost of protein was caused not by prices of linseed meal and cot-
tonseed meal going up, but by prices of corn coming- down. The prices
of both linseed meal and cottonseed meal went down, but they did not
go down so much as the price of corn. It‘ is the relative prices of corn
and of the protein concentrates which govern the cost of digestible
protein.

i Price
lzzzzz: Ca/cu/afea’ l/a/ue

750

4+0 ~»-*-~~-—~~ ~~~+§-—~ ~-—%-~_—~1

1Z1
LA
LA

1530 é—-———

f!
$20 k 3Q-
3
"l. ‘ \ P» s i‘: *
é i =2 f» “f Q3 s u?
f/U ‘t x Q 5x ~ \ c;
‘l s v
x \) QQ \ .§ V’ u 5E g
B \ u \ m ‘ x o x
n ~ o E Q
fi E‘ u '2 a B ‘Q § ‘B
é 3 it ‘I x E << t \>

Figure 4——Relation of selling prices of Texas feeds in Jan., 1924, to values calculated
from digestible protein and productive energy.
Relation of Selling Prices of Feeds t0 Values, Calculated From
Protein and Productive Energy.

The selling prices of a number of feeds were compared with the
values calculated from the prices of digestible protein and productive
energy given in Table 3. It is of course impossible to assume that the
selling prices of a feed are entirely governed by the general opinion of
feeders as to its value. This is particularly the case during periods of
rapid increase or decline in price, because all feeds do not change at the
same rate. Rapid increases and declines took place during the period
studied, and there were also unusual conditions due to the war and its
after effects. These factors render more obscure the relation between
selling prices and feeding value.

THE PRICE OF FEED UTILITIES 15

There are also local conditions which affect prices, such as distance
from center of production, relative demand or scarcity, and so on. For
example, milo usually sells for less than corn, but there was a short crop
in 1922, and it sold for more than corn for a time.

Table 4—-—Assumed average composition, productive energy and digestible protein
of the feeds used.’

l d; a
5g l 3 .2
s: ‘"‘ 9 7 *5 >. "1 T9 c: w
  s9 is”? lseé 
3 $51? 5.8 :12 ‘Egfiuéfig
ll: FIJFYJ Oh ZFI-i CMHEMDD-Q
Alfalfa meal (Trade Commission) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.8 2.3 30.0 37.1 37.6 11.1

Alfalfa meal (Penn. 1909-19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1 2.1 28.7 36.5 37.3 11.3

Alfalfa meal (Indiana 1913-22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.3 1.9 28.6 36.9 38.2 11.5

Alfalfa meal (Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.3 1.7 30.9 36.4 34.9 10.1

Beet pulp (Penn. 1909-15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.2 1.2 18.2 58.0 67.3 4.6

Beet pulp (Penn. 1915-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.1 0.9 17.9 58.6 68.1 5.0

Brewers grain (Penn. 1909-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.5 7.1 14.3 41.4 43.5 21.5

Corn germ meal (Indiana 1913-22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.0 10.0 6.8 51.8 89.6 15.3

Corn gluten feed (Indiana 1913-19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.3 3.3 7.2 50.9 78.2 22.3

Corn gluten feed (Trade Commission) . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.0 4.0 7.0 55.0 70.5 17.0

Cottonseed, cold pressed (Indiana 1914-19) . . . . . . . . 25.5 9.5 20.1 33.0 68.6 20.4

Cottonseed hulls (Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.1 0.7 49.2 32.9 17.5 0.0
Cottonseed meal to 1916 (Trade Com.) ... . . . . . .. .. 41.2 8.0 9.0 26.5 73.3 35.7
Cottonseed meal 1916-20 (Trade Com.) . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0 7.0 12.0 28.5 68.3 32.0

Cottonseed meal (Penn. to 1915) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.0 8.2 9.1 28.2 74.7 35.5

Cottonseed meal (Com. Penn. 1915-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.7 7.2 11.1 26.5 71.7 36.1

Cottonseed meal (Indiana) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.4 7.4 9.9 28.0 69.0 35.0

Gluten feed (Penn. to 1915) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.4 3.8 6.8 53.0 80.0 21.5

Gluten feed (Penn. 1915-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.2 2.8 6.9 53.0 79.0 22.2

Hay, Drairie. (Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 2.1 29.7 47.2 30.0 0.5

Hominy feed (Trade Commission) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 6.0 7.0 62.0 82.0 6.4

Hominy feed (Penn. 1909-15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.2 8.0 4.2 64.0 91.9 7.5

Hominy feed (Penn. 1916-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.6 6.7 4.2 65.0 89.8 7.5

Hominy feed (Indiana) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.1 7.5 4.3 65.7 390.5 7.5

Hominy feed (Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.2 7.3 6.8 62.5 86.3 6.9

Milo chops (Texas 1911-22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.9 2.9 2.5 71.1 83.1 8.4

Oats (Trade Com. & Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.8 4.2 11.4 57.0 54.6 8.9

Rice bran (Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.4 12.4 12.9 42.0 64.4 8.4

Rice Polish (Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.3 10.6 3.0 58.6 83.5 7.6

Wheat bran (Trade Com.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0 4.2 9.5 53.0 48.9 12.5

Wheat bran (Penn. 1909-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 4.9 9.3 53.6 50.1 12.7

Wheat bran (Indiana 1913-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.0 4.0 7.8 56.5 50.3 12.5

Wheat bran (1911-22 Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.8 3.9 9.4 53.5 49.2 13.1

Wheat (flour) middlings (Penn. 1909-19) . . . . . . . . .. 17.4 5.0 5.3 57.8 76.2 14.6

Wheat (flour) middlings (Indiana 1913-17) . . . . . . .. 16.2 4.2 3.9 61.7 75.7 13.6

Wheat gray shorts (1917-22 Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . ..|18.3I 4.4] 5.6 57.7 75.8 15.4

Table 4 contains the composition and productive energy of the feeds
used.

Tables 6, 7, 8, 9 contain comparisons of the average selling prices
and the money values calculated from the assumed digestible protein and
productive energy. Table 5 contains the averages of the figures contained
in Tables 6, 7, 8, 9. The averages in Table 5 should be used only for com-
paring selling prices with calculated prices. The different sets of figures
are for different periods of time, and for this reason sliould not be com-
pared with one another. For example, the selling price of Wheat bran
may be compared with its calculated value, but the selling price in Indiana
should not be compared with the selling price in Texas or Pennsylvania,
since the periods included in the averages are different.

16 BUL. 323 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 5-—Average selling prices per ton and calculated value from protein and pro-
ductive energy for the periods studied.

 

  

g l ' f!
.2 1 5
5 | l 3
.5 1 2 2 5 5
"o f“ 1 F: Q
5 E s a s ><
h O i c 1 0 Q)
__i W ____ __ ' PU 1-4 Q4 F‘
Oats-— Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 38.12 -— — $ 42.45
Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.39 —— -—- 29.10
Wheat bran——- Price . . 42 19 37.44
Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.55 29.71
Hominy feed—- Price 52.82 41.12
Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.44 47.90

Corn gluten feed—- Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.69‘ 38.40 52.54 -

Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.06 43.85 57.32 -—-

Corn germ meal— Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. -—- 45.82 — —

Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —- 51.45 -—- —

Alfalfa meal—- Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.72 41.21 47.04 34.40

Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.20 22.25 27.52 19.67

Cottonseed meal—— Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.81 47.82 59.79 -—-

Caalculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ 42.01 53.26 61.09 -—-

Wheat middlings or gray shorts-— Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —— 29.65 47.15 45.09

Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -— 31.73 49.96 44.09

Beet pulp— Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —- -— 47.43 —-

Calculated . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —— -— 41.52 -—

Brewers grains—— Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —— —- 50.30 —-

Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —-— -— 36.64 -—

Milo ch0ps—— Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —- —— -— 42.57

Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -— -— —— 45.34

Rice bran—- Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —— -— — 29.54

Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ——- — —— 35.34

Rice Polish—— Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —- —- -—- 39.92

Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -—- — — 44.40

Cottonseed hulls—— Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — —— —- 12.75

Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -—- —— -— 8.41

Prairie hay—— Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —— —- -— 24.50

Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -— ——— —- 14.57

‘ » v
If the calculated values of certain feeds agree with the selling prices;
within the limit of error, two conclusions may be drawn. One conclusion
is that the digestible protein and productive energy represent practically
all the feed utility of the feed in question. The values of such feeds may
then be compared by means of their digestible protein and productive
energy, and the analysis and the production coefficients may be used as
means of judging whether the feed in question is selling at higher or lower
prices than is justified by the prices of other feeds.

Table 6——Sel1ing prices per ton and calculated values. Trade Commission
wholesale prices.

 

     

Wheat ‘ , Corn Gluten‘ Cottonseed
Oats Bran Hominy Feed 1 Feed  Alfalfa Meal . Meal

~ rs .-i»7gi?l"oym "o J ‘A ‘H71: l '31 . W n ‘K 75:: l‘

<9 ; <1: a: . l c» , a.» * w

I i u . +1 +1 1 ‘ +1 . u 1 +1

1  i.“ E f! ‘ ‘ .53 ‘ i?  L‘

a 5 1 5 *3 5 7 5 i3 5 ~ é‘ l 5 .3 *3 1 i

1.5135333513133315
1913 $23.48]$15.63 $18.63 $14.75 $21.66 $22.31 $20.96 $21.09 $17.97|$11.58 $25.63 $24.91
1914 26.21 17.44 21.34 16.43 24.90 24.96 23.38 23.50 17.04|12.90 24.98 7.63
1915 30 68 18 82 20.36 18.18 26.05 26.24 22.08 25.91 15.92 14.41 25.40 32.19

39.97 33.17 32.94 29.71 49.84 58.66 38.06 50.44 27.96 26.90 40.41 48.86
48.38 37.83 30.37 33.88 55.17 57.03 45.44 50.45 31.37 26.15 50.71 47.51
44.69 40.45 39.50 38.22 60.69 57.68 55.21 54.66 34.96 30.05 61.32 57.14
62.69 43.06 47.67 40 95 64.58 64.37 64.91 58.50 35 33 32.27 67 30 64.88

I
1915 }2s.'s5 20:70 20.95 19.52 27.53 29.55 23.51 27.92 17.19 15.33 30.73 32.93
Aver. |3s.12| 28.39] 25.97] 25'.45| 41.30 42.50 35.59 39.05 24:72 21.20 40151 42.01

x

THE PRICE OF FEED UTILITIES 17

Another conclusion is that the general information possessed by the
purchaser of ‘such feeds, on which he bases the relative prices he wishes
to pay, is fairly accurately measured by the digestible protein and pro-
ductive energy. In other words, the relation is quite close between the
selling prices of such feeds and their feeding values as measured by chem-
ical analysis and other investigations.

l Table 7-—Texas selling prices and calculated values per ton,
. I K
1919 1920 1921 1922 1 1923 1923 s 1924 Av.
* ‘ Jan. Apr. i Jan.
Oats—— price . . . . . . . . . . . . .[$ 51.00! -—- —- —— '3 38.80|$ 40.0013 40.0013 42.45
Calculated value . . . . . . 32.96 —— —— — 27.76 29.27 26.40 29.10
Wheat bran—price . . . . . . . 53.31 42.00 33.50 31.00 31.20 36.11 35.00 37.44
Calculated value . . . . . . 43.15 29.70 27.54 25.86 27.51 29.21 25.01 29.71
Milo chops——nrice . . . . . . . . 53.27 46.00 38.84 34.12 43.00 43.75 39.00 42.57
Calculated value . . . . . 66.71 50.16 45.80 34.37 39.72 41.69 38.93 45.34
Wheat gray shorts—-price . .| 66.40 58.20 40.00 35.40 36.33 39.30 40.00 45.09
Calculated value . . . . .| 64.33 45.75 42.18 36.60 40.03 42.33 37.38 44.09
Rice bran—— price . . . . . . . . . 43.77 -—- 26.89 28.00 25.60 31.00 22.00 29.54

Calculated value . . . . . . 52.55 —— 35.59 27.91 31.71 33.76 30.63 35.34

Rice P0lish——price . . . . . . .. 69.41 —— 40.60 30.00 33.50 34.00 32.00 39.92

Calculated value . . . . . . 66.66 -—- 45.98 33.90 39.50 41.42 38.92 44.40

Hominy feed——price . . . . . . . 63.35 — 33.40 31.75 ~— —- 36.00 41.12

Calculated value . . . . . . 68.35 — 47.48 34.54 — y —— 41.23 47.90
Cottonseed hulls-price —- 6.00 -— —— 16.00 19.50 13.00 12.75
Calculated value . . . . .. —- 10.56 —- —— 7.50 7.79 7.77 8.41

Alfalfa meal——price . . . . . . . . —- — -—- — 35.20 35.00 33.00 34.40

Calculated value . . . . . . — —- —- —- 19.91 21.17 17.93 19.67

Prairie hay——price . . . . . . . . —— 26.00 —- -—— 21.50 26.50 24.00 24.50

Calculated value . . . . . . —— 18.11 -— -— 13.10 13.64 13.44 14.59

Table 8—Pennsylvania "selling prices and calculated values per ton.

1920 3

| l
1914 J 1917 ‘ 1918  1919 I 1921 1922 I Av.

| | 7
Wheat middlings-price . . . . $ 32.05 $ 50.62 $ 57.94 $ 62.19 — $ 41.40 $ 38.68 $ 47.15
Calculated value . . _. . . . 32.77 57.81 60.2 69.12 —- 38.77 40.99 49.96
Beet pulp—price . . . . . . . . . . 27.12 40.67 54.23 56.00 65.76 45.84 41.80 47.43
Calculated value . . . . . . 25.16 51.66 52.89 59.19 46.81 27.27 27.66 41.52
Alfalfa meal——price . . . . . . . 32.40 42.33 52.60 50.67 66.20 45.44 43.67 47.04
Calculated value . . . . .. 17.93 28.30 30.00 35.17 33.75 22.78 24.70 27.52
Wheat bran——m'ice . 28.80 42.85 45.50 52.55 59.02 33.94 32.65 42.19
Calculated value . . . . .. 22.96 38.01 39.99 46.44 42.99 28.33 30.41 35.59

Hominy feed——price . . . . . . . 31.14 55.22 68.44 69.80 69.46 38.38 37.28 52.82

. Calculated value . . . . . . 34.92 68.12 69.85 78.34 62.59 36.79 37.48 55.44

Gluten feed—-—price . . . . . . .. 30.13 48.26 58.39 67.92 74.48 46.00 42.59 52.54

Calculated value . . . . . . 37.21 59.93 63.32 73.92 69.85 46.67 50.37 57.32

Brewers grain—-—price . . . . . . 27.85 46.06 59.39 58.80 69.00 48.40 42.61 50.30

Calculated value . . . . .. 24.65 33.00 35.97 43.65 47.16 34.11 37.97 36.64
Cottonseed meal——price 34.56 51.95 64.84 72.20 85.13 51.35 58.48 59.79
Calculated value . . . . . . 41.53 54.39 59.49 72.47 79.29 56.97 63.52 61.09

Selling Prices Nearly Equal to Calculated Values

Selling prices are slightly less than the calculated money values in
case of hominy feed, corn gluten feed, corn germ meal, cottonseed meal,
wheat flour middlings, or gray shorts, brewers grains, milo chops, rice
bran, and rice polish. ‘In the individual tables, fluctuations below and
above the calculated prices are found with many of these feeds.

The differences are no doubt caused in part by local conditions, in-
eluding freight rates, unfamiliarity with the feed, nearness to source of

 

wwuww wwwww». wwww wwww wwww wwww wwnwww wwuww wwnww awuww Ewmww wwnww. wwnww wwzww wwnww wwww . . . . . . . mwwwww;
Saww l. wwww | woman wwnvv mwmm wwmwm uwwm _wo.$. mwwm 3mm wfiww I wwww l . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . wwfi
23w I wwww 1| w; ww wwww wwwww Sww wwmw 3w? wwww. wflfi. www; In wfiww I. ..... . . . . . . . . . . .. Hmwww
wwww ll wwww l: 54w wwww w» ww ww ww www; wwww 3H3. wfiww wwww ~| 3...: ll ..... . . .. . . . . . .. o
3.5 I 23m mudv wwww wfiww .| WI 2.3 wwaw wwwrww wwww cfiww wflww wwwww l. 32
wwww || wwww wwww Zaww ww 3 wwww wwww wwww 3.5 wwwww 3.3 wwww wwmw wfiww WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wwww
wudm _ wwdw wwww 5.5 3.3 wwaw ow www wwww 53 wwww wwwww wwmw wwmww wwww QTMN 8.5 v13“
wfiww wwaw wwww 2.5 2.5 wNAw wwmww 3.3 wwww. _ww.ww 3.5 wwwww wwww wwmw wwww 21w . 33
wwww wwww Saw 3.3 wwww wwaww $.10. wwwrww wflww wwmw wPww wflww wfiww wwww wwmw wwwww ...... .. .. m2:
wwww w wwww w 35w w wwww w wwww w wwww w ww ww w S ww w S. ww w wywwzwww ww ww w 5 ww w-wwww w S ww w ww 3 w ww. wmlw wwfi
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwiwww w;
w w w w w w w w w w w w w , w  w. w 
a e e e e , e e w n. e
1? G1 11 Q1 17 G1 11 N1
w w w w w _ w w _ w w _
mMEEEE ‘wwwwwww 200m 13E wwiwo .8 wwwél E02  dwwg waww  55m
H.503?  UOOYW mficwomw wwowfiowwoO j 5.66 QMOO cwfizfl ERGO  wwwskw 

w wwowflofiwoO w

 
 

dow wwm $3?» wwwfinoiwu was

mQUmMQ wcEwm fi-HNWUCMIQ minim?

THE PRICE OF FEED UTILITIES 19

supply, fluctuations in prices not equalizing in averages, and preference
for certain feeds.

If we take all these facts into consideration, we can safely conclude that
the digestible protein and productive energy certainly represent the prime
factors in the values of the feeds mentioned, and may properly be used for
comparing them.

Possibly, instead of using prices of one protein feed and one carbohy-
drate feed to calculate the price of digestible protein and productive
energy, it would be better to calculate from two or more pairs of feeds,
and use the averages.

Feeds for Which the Selling prices are Greater than the Calculated
Money Values

The selling prices of oats, wheat bran, alfalfa meal, cottonseed hulls,
and prairie hay are greater than the calculated money values. The dif-
ferences are least for wheat bran.

These differences may be partly due to preference for wheat bran as
a feed for dairy cows and for oats as a horse feed, and to preference for
alfalfa meal for use in mixed feeds, as well as other causes. The bulk
or volume may be also an important factor with alfalfa meal, cotton-
seed hulls, and prairie hay. '

While prices of alfalfa hay are constantly higher than the calculated
values in the Trade Commission wholesale prices, the differences are much
smaller than the differences with Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas re-
tail prices. The farm prices would be still lower than the wholesale prices.
There is thus less difference in the prices of these bulky feeds at the great
wholesale markets, or on the farm, than at the retail market. This is
probably due in large part to the cost of transporting and handling feeds
containing small amounts of feeding utility in proportion to- weight. Thus
while the retail purchaser of hays and fodders may pay a price for bulk
or volume, the farm price, or the price received by the seller, may be less
than the price based on protein and productive energy. This point re-
quires study in connection with farm prices.

Cost of Bulk

The excess of the selling prices over the calculated prices of several
feeds is given in Table 10. Part of this excess may be due to other factors
than bulk, as pointed out above. The difference is small with Trade Com-
mission wholesale prices. Oats and wheat bran are more concentrated
feeds than alfalfa, cottonseed hulls, or prairie hay.

We have taken as a measure of bulk in 100 pounds, the difference
between 100 and the sum of the productive energy E and the moisture M.

100—(E_|_M)=B Equation 10.

The energy value of the protein is included in the productive energy.
By taking D, the excess in selling prices over calculated values in cents per
ton, the cost of one pound bulk R is calculated by Equation 11.

D+20B=R Equation 11.

20 BUL. 323 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 10 contains the cost of a pound of bulk calculated by the above
method. Wide differences occur. The price of bulk in oats is excessive,
no doubt due to demand for oats as horse and mule feed. The wholesale
price of bulk in wheat bran and alfalfa meal is practically the same. The
retail price of bulk in wheat bran and alfalfa meal is three or four times
as much as the wholesale price, and the cost is less for the more con-
centrated wheat bran. This bears out the theory that the price of bulk is
largely due to transportation and handling expenses. The retail price of
bulk in alfalfa hay and prairie hay is quite different. The price of bulk
in wheat bran is somewhat lower, while it is quite low in cottonseed hulls.

Table 10——-Average excess of selling price over calculated values, and price of a
pound of bulk.

Prices of one pound of
bulk in cents.

1

 Excess selling price per ton ‘

a» % \ w
i g . Pa 4
w u i‘ s: l w a .
,2 c: . m 8;" - v s: . m
l o g s: w: x m "d 5g s: . w.
4i T; F! >4 o-l ,.c: T; Ci ' ><
E $ f.‘ xi § l 31:3 I ? E d‘: ‘ fi
Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9.73 -— -— $ 13.35 30 1.61 ——— —— 2.23
Wheat bran . . . . . . . . 2.51 4.03 6.64 7.73 40 0.31 0.50 .83 .97
Alfalfa meal . . . . . . 3.52 18.96 19 52 14.63 50 0.35 1.90 135k 1.46
Cottonseed hulls . . . . — —— -— 4.34 75 —— -- —— .29
Prairie hay . . . . . . .. - , - - 9.93 so _ - _ i 0.8a

It is difficult to select any one feed for use in calculating the approxi-
mate cost of bulk. Oats and wheat bran are concentrates, though bulky.
Alfalfa meal sometimes has an excessive price, prairie hay varies greatly
in the amount rejected by the animal, and cottonseed hulls alone do not
seem suitable. It would probably be best to use the average of three
roughages well known in the locality. In Texas, the averages for Johnson
grass hay, alfalfa hay, and cottonseed hulls might be used.

There is no doubt that bulk is a factor in the feed utility of such feeds
as wheat bran and oats, and all roughages such as alfalfa hay, when pur-
chased at retail. On the farm where roughages are grown, bulk has no
value.

Other Factors of Feed Utility

' The three main factors of feed utility are productive energy, digesti-
ble protein, and bulk. ~Other factors no doubt take part. These would
include vitamines, nature of proteins, and amount and nature of ash. Our
present knowledge does not justify us in attempting to assign values
to any of. these. Investigations concerning their nature, use, and value
in animal feeds need to be pushed further before such calculations are
justified. - "
Feed Cost of Hogs

The feed cost of meat and milk may be calculated from the prices of
the protein and productive energy, on the assumption of requirements for
production. The requirements assumed for this purpose are given in

THE PRICE OF FEED UTILITIES 21

Table 11. These are ideal conditions. Under ordinary conditions, the
cost may be greater. These calculations are made for the purpose of illus-
trating the use of the method, and not for the purpose of comparing costs

and prices.
Table 11——Estimated requirements for production.

   

Digestible Productive
Protein Energy,
lbs. Therms
Swine for 1 pound gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 4.2

Steer for 1 pound gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .40 6.5

Cows—10 lbs. milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 7 . 6

'Cows—-20 lbs. milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.60 10.0

C0ws—30 lbs. milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 10 12 . 3

Cows—40 lbs. milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 60 14 7

Milk, per quart, (cow giving 20 lbs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Milk, per quart, (cow giving 30 lbs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Milk, per quart, (cow giving 10 lbs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .18 1:52
Milk, per quart, (cow giving 40 lbs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| I13 .74

Table 12 contains the calculated cost of feed and the selling prices of
hogs and cattle. The prices of digestible protein and productive energy
are those given in Table 3. The farm prices are taken from the Year-
book of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Table 12~—Selling price and feed cost of digestible protein and productive energy for
hogs and cattle in cents per pound if feed was purchased at prices given in table 13.

1 Q 1 g) 8
.2 o '5 Q
*-' . m’? 3c. u: w cu":
 mg‘ éww 2 ¢§ §5Ew
em egg r Sag , w. $53
5 a . ‘i’ i “‘
r-fl i o i
1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.16 5.57 8.21 8.76

1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.67 6.24 8.65 9.80

1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.02 6.46 8.43 10.24

1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.76 7.38 9.33 11.61

1917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.73 15.02 11.67 23.25

1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.82 14.61 14.60 22.61

1919 ....- . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.66 14.38 15.45 22.62

1920 . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . 8.90 15 15 13.32 23.89
1921  LL.  g __s_._52___ _ 590, _ séis 223s
Average . . . . . . . . . . .i 9.81 | 9.97 | 10.87 I 15.68

If we compare the farm prices with the wholesale feed cost, we find
the feed cost is slightly lower, excepting in.1920. There is usually a mar-
gin between the wholesale feed-cost of hogs, and the wholesale price of
hogs. This margin allows for care, interest and other expenses, and
these calculations confirm statements generally made that the feeding of
animals is one method of marketing feed. In 1920, the farm price of
hogs dropped greatly below the wholesale feed cost and the feeders lost
money.

If we examine the feed expense of hogs when feeds are bought at re-
tail prices-Texas prices- we find that the feed expense is greaterl
than the selling price in all cases. The hog grower cannot afford to buy
much feed at the prices given, though he may afford to purchase some
supplementary feed. The difference between the retail feed-expense of hogs

22 BUL. 828 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

and the farm prices of hogs seems usually to afford an excellent margin

of loss.
Feed-Cost of Cattle

The average Chicago prices of cattle are less than the wholesale feed-
cost of cattle. The difference would be still greater for farm prices.
The differences were especially great during the war period. Cattle grow-
ers cannot afford. to pay these wholesale prices for feeds excepting for
finishing periods, when there would be a margin between the selling
price of a pound of the finished cattle, and the cost 0f a pound of the
animals bought to be fattened.

The differences between the Chicago price of cattle and the retail
expense of the feed in Texas are of course greater than when the whole-

sale prices are taken.

fem‘:

   

70
Fee Q51
i:

It

Figure 5-——Illustration of use of the method.—Relati‘on of selling price of farm animals
to expense for feed calculated from requirements for digestible protein and pro-
ductive energy and wholesale calculated prices of these feed utilities and cost of
milk for different production by cows.

It has already been stated that a committee of the American Society
of Agronomy estimates that over one-half the feed of cattle is furnished
by pasturage, and that pasturage costs only about one-fourth as much
as harvested forage.

The prices of cattle must depend at present upon the utilization
of low-price range feeds, which are harvested by the cattle themselves,
and so have a farm cost much lower than the prices here given. The
growing of cattle is a method of marketing bulky feed, as has been fre-
quently pointed out by agricultural writers. The low price of cattle com-
pared with the cost of feed can continue only as long as there is a good
supply of low-cost range feed to be marketed in the form of cattle. The
larger the proportion of the feed of cattle which comes from purchased
feeds, the higher must be the selling price of the cattle in order to make
a profit.

No cost is to be assigned to bulk or volume for feed for cattle, except
where roughage must be purchased for finishing cattle. For most of the

THE PRICE OF FEED UTILITIES 23

cattle sold, bulk or roughage must have a negative value, that is, the pro-
ductive energyand digestible protein must cost less in bulky feeds than
in poncentrates, otherwise cattle could not be sold, at the prices received.
The cattleman must make a living out of his business, or he cannot con-
tinue in it.
Feed Cost of Milk

The/estimated feed cost of milk with cows of different capacity, with
feed purchased at wholesale prices, is given in Table 13.

The feed cost of milk is only one factor which enters into its cost.
The labor of caring for the cows and the expense of distribution are es-
pecially high for milk. The margin between the feed expense of milk and
its selling price must be wide.

Table 13—-Wholesale feed cost digestible protein and productive energy with cows of
different capacity, in cents per pound of milk if feed is purchased at prices given.

Feed Expense
‘H? E e2 "s e “a es a
Oz: w O_Q g l: 1T4‘ --< --1
m<’*5 m$L§o E 2 2 S
Q33?‘ . may“ , , . .
o q, . o +° n .2 42 g
‘Z323 i ‘E3933 ‘T '7 '7 '
mama. g D-JQFHQ. f3 g 3 3.
1913 . . . . . . ..| 1.296 828 2.12 1.43 1.18 1.07

1914 . . . . . . .. 1.453 887 2.37 1.59 1.32 1 19

1915 . . . . . . .. 1.486 1.458 2.52 1.72 1.42 1.29

1916 . . . . . . .. 1.719 1.083 2.81 1.89 1.56 1.41

1917 . . . . . . .. 3.577 0 5.44 3.58 2 93 2.65

1918 . . . . . . .. 3.478 0 5.29 3.48 2 85 2 57

1919 . . . . . . .. 3.345 2.204 5.48 3.70 3.05 2.76

1920 . . . . . . .. 3.514 2.634 5.82 3.94 3.25 2 94

1921 . . . . . . .. 1.007 4.461 2.33 1.72 1.45 1 33

1922 . . . . . . .. 1.010 6.005 2.62 1.97 1.67 1.53

The table shows the increase in the feed cost of milk during war condi-
"tions, and the decrease in 1921. There is also a great difference in the
cost of milk with low-producing cows as compared with high-producing
cows. The feed cost of milk for cows giving 40 pounds of milk is about
one-half the cost with cows giving 10 pounds. Table 14 contains similar
figures for retail Texas prices, which are of course greater than the whole-
sale prices used in Table 13.

Table 14—Texas Digestible protein and productive energy, feed cost of cattle, hogs,
and of milk with cows of different capacity, in cents per pound if feed is purchased
at prices given.

I o  Feed Expense W
; 8 :3 E i é‘ é IE é
l @335 *6 m 2 2 E _ E
w g $_g 0 5 ° E w - - _Q
l Bdmg gwiw g 3 £ £ § ~
1 H O6 H s<2c8£ O g 5 6 5 5
l mg‘ m mQ§>E I Y\ ~ u m v
1907.. .069 1.516 6.32 9 88 2 32 1.53 1 25 1 13
1910.. .263 1.805 7.62 11 84 2.79 1.85 1 52 1 37
1913.. 0 1.825 7.67 11 86 2.77 1.83 1 50 1 35
1918.. 0 4.252 17.86 27 64 6.46 4.25 3.49 3 15
1919.. 2.246 3.787 16.24 25 51 6.16 4.15 3.42 3 09
1920.. 0 3.018 12.68 19 62 4.59 3.02 2.47 2.23
1921.. .257 2.730 11.50 17 85 4.20 2.77 2.25 2.05
1922.. 3.391 1.725 7.84 12 70 3.26 2.29 1.91 1.73
1923.. 2.454 2.142 9.36 14 90 3.70 2.53 2.10 1.90

24 BUL. 323 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

The cost of bulk or volume was not included in the feed cost of milk.
This is an,item to be considered for many dairymen, who have to buy
roughages. When milk is produced on farms, producing their own rough-
age, there is probably no expense to be assigned to bulk or volume. Since
pasturage is a cheaper source of feed than concentrates, the feed cost of
milk may be decreased by using pasturage.

The object of calculating these feed costs is to illustrate the use of

the method.
Conclusions

A method is given for calculating the prices of digestible protein and
productive energy in feeds. The relative prices of digestibleprotein and
productive energy vary considerably from time to time.

The money values of concentrates calculated from the prices of di-
gestible protein and productive energy are closely related to their selling
prices.

Feeders have a fairly accurate knowledge of the relative utilityfvof
feed, and this is a large factor-Ni};establishing their market prices. 
Bulk or volume hébivbblstwivhen roughages are purchasedflpi‘

The farm value of  findiprodulcfltive energy in rough-
ages may be less than in concentrates, especially when the roughages are
harvested by grazing.