"‘ -650o EXAS AGIIIEIILTIIIIAE EXPERIMENT STATIIIN AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, President DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY NERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS ‘III; ' Iggumn II‘ I'1"'A'-"'|‘-. h" \I ‘Q ‘ff ,‘ / . "IIIFIIIIIIEFIIIIIIIII-» i‘. ll ......... -' B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS _ ILLETIN NO. s29 MARCH, 1925 STAFF (As of March 1, 1925) ' I ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph.D., Direc- tor A. B. CONNER, M. S., Vice-Director A. H. LEIDIGH, M. S., Asst. Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Assistant Chief Clerk J. M. SCHAEDEL, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE *M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief 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., Asst. Chemist WALDO H. WALKER, Asst. Chemist J. K. BLUM, B. S., Asst. Chemist J. E. TEAGUE, B. S., Asst. Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Asst. Chemist HANVEY STANFORD, B. S., Asst. Chemist K. KITSUTA, M. S., Asst. Chemist _ADAH E. PROCTOR, B. S., Asst. Chemist N. J. VOLK, M. S., Asst 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 Divis- ion; State Entomologist **‘H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist E. HOBBS, B. S., Asst. Entomologist C. S. RUDE, B. S., Chief Foulbrood In- spector H. S. CAVITT, B. S., Apiary Inspector AGRONOMY E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Ch/ief A. B. CONNER, M. S., Agronomist, Grain Sorghum Research A. H. LEIDIGH, M. S., Agronomiat, Small Grain Research G. N. STROMAN, Ph.D., Agronomiat, Cotton Breeding C. H. MAHONEY, B. S., Asst. in Cotton Breeding R. h. STANSEL, B. S., Asst. in Crops PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief 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., Asst. Farm Records and Account: ***A. S. BRIENT, B. S., Asst. Ranch Records and Accounts ***B. P. HARRISON, B. S., Collaborator SOIL SURVEY ***W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY H. NESS, M. S., Chief PUBLICATIONS A. D. JACKSON, Chief SWINE HUSBANDRY FRED HALE, B. S., Swine Husbandman DAIRY HUSBANDRY ——i————, Chief, POULTRY HUSBANDRY R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief 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 F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief S. D. PEARCE, Secretary J. H. ROGERS, Feed Inspector W. H. WOOD, Feed Inspector G. M. MORRIS, B. S., Feed Inspector W. C. GAINEY, B. S., Feed Inspector C. D. WHITMAN, B. S., Feed Inspector SUBSTATIONS No. 1, Beeville, Bee County R. A. Hall, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3, Angleton, 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 County R E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent No. 10. College Station, Brazos County (Feeding and Breeding Station) R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Animal Hus- bandman in Charge of Farm L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent 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., Veteri- narian ' V. L. COREY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist ***O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborat- ing Entomologist ' O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco-Mercedes, I-Iidalgo County W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent A. T. POTTS, M. S., M. S. C., Citricul- turist No. 16, Wichita Falls, Wichita County E. J. WILSON, B. S., Superintendent Members of Teaching Staff in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects G. W. ADRIANCE, M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture S. W. BILSING, Ph.D., Professor of Entomology F. A. BUECHEL, Ph.D., Professor of Agricultural Economics . E GARNETT, Ph.D., Professor of Rural Sociology H. V. GEIB, B. Agronomy ‘Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine "On leave for one year S., Asst. Professor of G. P. GROUT, M. S...Professor of Dairy Husbandry V. P. LEE, Ph.D., Professor of Agri- cultural Economics E. O. POLLOCK, A. M., Asst. Profes- sor of Agronomy W. L. STANGEL, M. S., Professor of Animal Husbandry (Swine) R. C. WHITE, M. A., Associate Profu- sor of Rural Sociology ‘”In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture SYNOPSIS The object of this Bulletin is to furnish digestion‘ coefficients for cal- culating the productive energy of American feeding stuffs. It contains a compilation of all American digestion experiments that could be found. Variations in the digestion coefficients are studied by statistical methods. Some of the production coefficients are corrected from the results of feed- ing tests. This Bulletin should be useful for the purpose of calculating the feeding values of American feeding stuffs when the chemical composi- tion is known. It can also serve as a basis for further work on the feed- ing values of feeding stuffs. (3) CONTENTS Page Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Use of digestible nutrients may be very inaccurate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Compilation of digestion coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Variations in digestion coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Calculation of productive energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Productive energy expressed as therms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 Definitions of therms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 Energy production coefiicients . .1‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Calculating the energy production coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 Table of energy production coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Correlation of productive energy values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 . Importance of crude fiber in calculating energy production co- efficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Production coefficients calculated for mixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Use of the production coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Variations in productive energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 Table of production coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 Table of digestion coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60 (4) BULLETIN NO. 329 March, 1935 ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN ‘FEEDING STUFFS FOR RUMINANTS G. S. Fraps The comparative feeding values of feeding stuffs were first expressed in terms of “hay units,” in which hay was used as the standard of com- parison. With the development of chemical analyses of feeds and methods of studying their digestibility, feeds began to be compared on the basis of their content of digestible nutrients, and feeding standards were based upon digestible nutrients. USE OF DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS MAY BE VERY INACCURATE It has been known for many years that the values of all feeding stuffs are not in proportion to their digestible nutrients. Practical experience has shown such to be the case. For example, the Connecticut Experiment Station, in Bulletin 43, reports in 1874, that L. W. Miller wintered cows for several years while dry on 4% pounds of corn meal, furnished only 3.5 pounds of digestible nutrients, while feeding standards call for 7.9 pounds. The Connecticut Experiment Station wintered cows on 6 pounds of corn, supplying 4.5 pounds of digestible matter, and they were in better condi~ tion than when fed 13 pounds of hay with 7.4 pounds of digestible matter. They also fed two rations containing the same amount of digestible dry matter. On one ration, the cows gained 105 pounds more in weight and gave 43 pounds more milk than on the other ration. Other feeding experiments could be collected with similar results. The work of Kellner, Armsby, and others has likewise proved that the digestible nutrients of various feeds do not have equal values. There are losses involved in the processes of digestion, and preparation of the food for the use of the animal, and these losses are different for dif- ferent feeding stuffs. The net energy, or productive energy, or net mater- ial which is available for the use of the animal after all losses consequent on digestion are deducted, varies with the nature and composition of the feeding stuff. The losses consequent on digestion are unavoidable, but only the remainder of the food value is available for the maintenance of the animal body or for the productive purposes. The digestible nutrients of different feeds, on account of these losses consequent on digestion and assimilation, have different productive values to animals. If the productive energy of one pound of digestible matter in corn is taken as 100, the productive energy of one pound of digestible matter in corn stover is about 69, of wheat bran 89, of wheat straw 20, of oats 96, of oat straw 76. These are calculated from Armsby’s figures. Productive values should be used in place of digestible nutrients. Since the digestible nutrients of different feeds have different productive values, any system of feeding based on the assumption of their equality is erron- eous. It is unfortunate that many. men of this country, some of whom (5) 5 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION seem to be really progressive in other ways, have adhered to methods which scientific progress has rendered obsolete, and which have been relegated to the scrap pile years ago in Germany and other countries. Whether due to inertia, lack of scientific training, undue conservatism, or what not, there is no doubt that this attitude has retarded the progress of scientific feeding in America. . While it will mean considerable work to adjust new feeding standards to our knowledge, science requires that old methods be superseded when more exact methods are offered for them. There is no more excuse for not using feeding standards based upon productive energy, than there would be for disregarding our knowledge of vitamines and mineral re- quirements of animals, which has been much more recently acquired. According to a note in Science (April 18, 1924) the Society of Animal Production has endorsed the Armsby conception of net energy value. Productive values should also be used whenever more exact knowledge of the value of a feed is desired, such as in comparing the values of various feeds (see Bulletin 323). COMPILATION OF DIGESTION COEFFICIENTS Digestion coefficients are important because productive values are based largely on them. Average coefficients of digestibility have been compiled by Lindsay, (Report Massachusetts Experiment Station, 1919) and by Henry and Morrison (Feeds and Feeding), but no publication since 1900 has been ' made of the individual experiments averaged. Any “one who desires to study the individual experiments, or to add to them, is under the necessity of a burdensome search of the literature. It was necessary for the writer to compile the American digestion experiments for the purpose of calcu- lating the production coefficients here given, and for other studies. It appears desirable to publish them, in a condensed form, so that they will be available to others. They are complete up to January 1, 1924. Table 8 contains the individual experiments and the average digestion coefficients. The experiments are usually averaged from two or more am- mals. The numbers in the last column of table 8 refer to the source of the test. VARIATION IN DIGESTION COEFFICIENTS Variations found in the digestion experiments detailed in Table 8 are due chiefly to three causes: the individuality of the animal, the varia- tion in the character of the feed, and the errors of the test. The individuality of the animal is, to some extent, taken care of in Table 7 by the averaging of two or more animals in each test. The number of digestion experiments which have been made on many feeds is not sufficient to furnish accurate information with respect to variations in digestibility or average digestibility. A study was made of the variations in the digestibility of all feeds in Table 8 on which three or more tests have been made. For the pur- ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 7 pose of this study, the results of each test on each animal were tabulated and averaged, and the averages are given in Table 1. These averages are different in most cases from those given in Table 8, for the reason that for Table 8 the results with each individual animal were first averaged and then these averages were averaged for the feeds. The standard deviation was calculated in the usual way, and the‘ probable error of the average obtained by dividing the standard deviation by the square root of the number averaged and multiplying by .6745. The probable error of the average is given in Table 1, after the average. The standard deviation is a measure of variation. Statisticans as- sume that, as a rule, half of all the single tests will vary from the aver- age not more than .6745 times the standard deviation. This product seems more significant for the present work than the standard deviation, and is accordingly used. It is, however, expressed in percentages of the co- efficient of digestibility, which is here called the percent error. In other words “per cent error” as used in this Bulletin is equal to .6745 times the ordinary “coefficient of variation.” The percent error is given in Table 1. It is an even chance that a single test on a single animal will vary from the average as much as the amount given as percent error. The average of two or more tests of two or more animals will vary less. It is 4.5 to 1 that the value lies, within twice the probable error, and 21 to 1 that it lies within three times the probable error. If we consider Table 1, we will find that the greatest variations occur with the nutrients found in small quantity. Thus the percent error in the digestibility of the ether extract of alfalfa is 23 to 30, while for the nitrogen-free extract it is 2.7 to 5 per cent. The large variations are due to errors in the determination of the digestibility. The Table shows that there may be considerable variations in the l’ digestibility of feeds, and consequently in their feeding values. The use of average figures in exact experimental work on animals cannot be con- sidered as safe, and this fact must also be considered in calculating rations for practical feeding. _ Variations Due to the Metliods Used: The variations in digestibility of feeds due to the methods used are, of course, apparant variations rather than real ones. They are caused chiefly by irregulations of excretion, metabolic products in the excretion, and errors of analysis. An attempt is made to reduce errors due to irregular excretion, by using a sufficiently long period for the digestion test; but this factor no doubt causes some of the error. The metabolic products in the solid excrement are chiefly bile resi- dues from the digestive juices, and material excreted through the intes- tines. Their presence would affect chiefly the protein and the fat. It sometimes happens that more protein or fat is found in the excrement than was found in the feed, especially when feeds very low in protein or fat are used. This is caused chiefly by the presence of metabolic pro- ducts. BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAI: EXPERIMENT STATION 9v m6 wQw 9w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...-o._._u~5u5n~ w 2w~¢m 510:8 wwwwaw a ofimRm o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . .. 535M525 65.50 .5350 =50 +4 o6 o6. o6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...-o.r5 0505A» v QHQQ 0.21155 25.5 w I542. o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .m=mv_=m._aflw .535“ :50 lw; m6. min wtm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T . . . ....o5o~:vu._um ¢.o+w.+» Qcwflww ¢AHNAK n A393 w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . .. 1:5 E £53m 52.01.90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...uOh.~U M500 o.o+m._\. mgfiodo 2.5.2 0. 15$ on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1525mm“ o“ =»=¢@.E:=u;~wwo_ F50 lmé. I06 wé o6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.20 fi5o5m o._+~.$ o.o+w._~ .453. A _Ho.m© a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. @5550 5: wuaofiP-Suiuwwou =50 . . . . . T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...uQhhU wflabUhflg “@150 mafiww Néflmdo o.mHm.o¢ o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. mnisv. wuaufiuknudwwwow F50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ..hQkkU HEUUMUQ o.o+o.wo o.m.+|.o.wo 53¢? oafiaow m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IVEE gwpzfiuwwwo“ F50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...uQhhU HQUUBUQ 5542...? §+H§Q QQQww Qfiflme mm . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imdo~551wuEF50 |©.O_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...uO.=U uiwUuwnm wgivfi @192 @395 QQHNb o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28E¢0 Ioé mfmw _.o_ 92 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...5.Ev~5u5m @935 @393 QQHNQ.» @385» 2 . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IQQMUKVEEOUV cabs =50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ ...~O.~.~UMCUUMUQ _ Téww w. @153 505.2. 0.45.3 w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 zofiamooo0 . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E . . _ . . . ..hOhMUM§UUMUQ w¢+e¢w N owlv; 5.43am Fowoaw 3 . . . . V . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. It»! in: 5>20 IcAL wiw w.o_ wflw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.555555 5m \..w+u.co n _Hm.o+ TMHwQo TwHwAE c_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..vma:w5>o_0 lmgm wk.- ~1§v QN- . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ihoflwuswuhvm Qoii. w T1123 9718+» 931K 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I$oCu0 lwfv m6 T: mAZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5050 55 5m §¢+@._m __H~.~w Wife... 9-HT; I . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3m mwihcum Iwé m6 9w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..._o.r5 ~soo5m $ a W’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . ..@U@k@ .Q_5Q..~UUQ to; Qmv ~.o_ win . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . 155w @505.» Q O . . . . . E . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..=@N.~N Cmwcdm . Ind Imt: 0.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,......_o..5~:oo~u.~ o _+_.o~ _m+o.oo ~._H_.om w _ . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fiwmuwruuwioaflma< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...~Oh.~UH-.~QOMUA% 993.3 3.3.2. 0x593 +53% 3. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . I 5n.» £55 “Rzmm .5>o.>m: m.:m=< lmIN O.N~ w.w. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,.....~OuuUuGUUu0@ .2192 odfifii. .9195 w OM93 N». . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~26 355 $2 0a 3 is: m=§< . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..k°hHOHGUUhU@ w. o+w fi o 0+0 Q _ 13.2.. 219E E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. “up... 355 $0». 2.4.5 b2 “:21... m Upewwvwwmmz =5 Qua“. E 5E wwwwwm Ram 5.. Qemz mucwmombwoO comumwmmfi E iOmudmH-Qwla 28C. 9 . smsN mdN. Ne +4“ : n IMMN ¢.N+NH$ 3H9? QQHQNN 8 ...:....HHHH..HHHHM.H . . . . . . ..Q....;otfa8sm s ZENQ . new 1Q 2 o. No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..£.@2:@ swTR $52M Naxfiwmm W N+ _ IMNQE w Iwav vBHNQN w . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25b» 383m .1. s. 1.: N; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . ...§Iw.:» w a Hiww o Iww w Iww vdwwmmo z ,N.§.»wwuhvow__=n uuvéofiou I i». of . w Iww a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.50am m wswmdo wgfgw ogiwwm WQNMUK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .win“.wwwofiwzwzmwumwmfioo E . . .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. u . F Qlwaw w ii . |@.~ . |@._. . . . , . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . .C»mw@.e_@w___=:.@~w=°..°@ N w 0v w 0+0 vw m o+w we w _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,-O.~.~U “moo huh Lew 9G . . N§owo~_m.=m3o~a.§w_o~ . N hi.“ , m o.~+__mo w 352 12w ZHTWN . . . . . . . . . , . . ..21W1.wmowwwwwwuwwmgaou R . LE 19% . 1N.» _ f“ :w: hfi RWTN. .__.~£€.@. w».@.~...: fi .22 Ea 13E wuuwuofioU E N. imww N. 1W5 w N118 _ ogfioxvm _ f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . Iuobo Euuuom M @4312 |Wm . 1N; _ 9N n _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~....@.w $2 aomnwwfi wvuéosau A *1“ N 1%.”? N QLLUNQ _ film? _ @ _ . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .pobm.taulom _ W mdHfdw N cacao m, Tnwww wglvmw w- ffflmfi. . . . N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..wmimflmmmw%mwummvwwmfiou s 2%.? any” _ , -2 iwqm. _ N ..:..;......HHmmwmwwwwflimfiwuhmufi8>2m=su T 7w 3mm _ w _+w.oo a ~+_ o» _ 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1mm N» MOuuOQGUUuQAH N NdHNéN 51%? _ 33mm . :95 _ A_ . . . . . A . A . . . . . . . . . . . . .:ww.z.u_..mwm.pu.cyéefcoo E 9w W. a . N. 0+0 Q _ w _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E8 5m m Qfiwrfi aané? _ qzfii - 192 ~ _ . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .amawa..m.u.wewuum.uww=m Eou W. . lmtw 9w: _ o n+m~..m*~~ _ M . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Ifimwn >5 dwnc §fivummrwuowfiuvcnvowumromwcuo ,. m N 0+“ W. Zwwmww N TILQN 5.411%? mm u¢HHEInHHN......M.WNN_NQ.....~N=§;..@LN.~ 0 0 . a . . w . . 1mm. 0.2 . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :,........%..N.w.:.. om|m~am§m=~ou c . N ciNwmN w Iwmw @ @+m.__w N.T:é..~w Nm . . . . . , . . . . . . . . .5223 N5. uomwvwhwtu mwwu 5m . “w o£w®ww oaHTNN. cdHQQQ wgwmwN N. . QT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .¢mo~hm~t$u~mm~=~o0 .1 roN 9N f ....r..fm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :8 w U w o+w i. _.w+N.oN wdHZiwN m _Hm.%o . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huofiwmwfimwmpmuflnk-QU c . L m . afiw La 2w N: A , . . . A . . ..w§. §§.. $8 535 auuam¢uwwau=hao WV NNIwmN N Iv? woixfi wqHmtmo 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuobuwuuouok . 0 N ZEN SHNN. 1f: . 1f: ............... .wfiadwwfli_wwwmq.voaw.€a.:_...@ R 6 w _+N E v _+w.ww R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85 E8 bu P _ 0.255: 8 cusow 488w Cowwou E00 V“ _ _ G uombxm _ Q uobéuwoutz “uni Qwiu 3m 539i wwmm3>< . k056i vow ou m Z N: =82 wwscmpnoOllmunwmuwtwoO iofi-mwmmfi E coflaim>ul~ was? 10 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ¢.N _ 1 _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...uOhuUuQ0OhUm w QHTS wail: ffnmaw c.1118 _ w . . . . . . . . ..=@3u.E¢o_n3@_o.1:$@ .=.E@w==m;2=2 min lwéw To NII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuobuucvuuum NIHmQw 9:93 TNHQQ W323 c . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153m QE=>>J2=H¢ w; 10.3. 0; 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135v 38.5% WQH+I0 0.o+o._~ IQHQE 0.~Hm.§ o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Eaum €E$§2=2 19m 105v o.» 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5w Hnuuhwm 0 @113 @153 filffi. fimwmaa m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153w dumzckmn. JBIQA 1min . INbI 106m 5+0 . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..._o.r5fi$ohwn~ NI+Im0 oé+wt0w o++oé+ NIHHNAZ w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . llflmoe%uo>muflgmauwo> In; IIAN 7m; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..._obu~:wuh.@. C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..wTw.M=N2 wN 1¢.m0 w.o_ +6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..kofiv~uuu.6h wdfifiww m.\.+m.o~ I.m..wm.0w 0.oHm.¢w I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..wwwuoua>>wa._m~znwuuwcmd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...uoH-Ua~kUU-Um . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..W@NU.§ Cg -HU>ouw HMQNM |@.+ fif? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..hQhhU uflUUhfig @4192. cIHmQo 01%? wIHméw 0 . . . . . . . . . . .. £332.“: comoaouwc< San 38w ccmcnc». o..m 150v ~.m o5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..ko.fioucwu.rwn~ w.oHo.o0 ~.m+o.~m o.oHo.~0 wIfiwbo I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..wu@.~>nIEoE 17w 170 0.2 05m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Qo~.$fi$u$m ~I+0R¢ .\..I++.Iw IiwHmtmw 0.~._1.».o~ w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..uiafimmwxu.ficnai 0.w w.m 0Q. 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ilkokuwazwukumv N. I H m. S M; H W3 w. I H m. mm IIH w. mm o_ . . . .EommoE E. fimcwfifim mom $9.3m 0:3 zxogcuvw 54mm l0; I». m.“ 041. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ilgolflhwwgoufiam +.o+w.3 2712.18 :39. méwfi? 2 . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133w “MBIBUZQQQ wiEgkwSwwm Iwxw 0.0 0.2 5: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..»obu acuuuvnw ©.O+W.O© M.~H~.N¢ Ofl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~m£uOEMw»m~wMud~Qmdm Inxv lob n0 5m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iihoflkuaguoumm md+§$ @4193 375.2 #011313 Nw . . . . . . . ...=685$S 2w fimmfiw wwiEémzwanIfim 1min 10.0 mfg +0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuobu 2803M I. o+o.€ @5193 “Avwljé 0.001159. E . . . . . . . . . 1582a .5 ogfiwmfiw wwihinmzwcmémm ||@.@ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..HQM-U..:RQOHQA% 213w w.o+m.0w wawmam oIHmfiom _ I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..wIEh.nIw:Eo»m~$mE In.“ 1+0.» 10.2 Iiw _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . ..dofloaaoohi o 190w w.w+~.8 210.2 04.1103 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IImuE =82o _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..hO.~kU Hauwnvuflnmm N I+o.ww ~.n+~.w\. wIHmIN. 0.o.+.o.mw ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IwouwnuusIO _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...~Oukw QQUOHUQ @0193 04+9$ 39¢? QNHQE _ w. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . imzfiwm masawmwqmwzmmwhwwcm Aw-mw I ... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...~okkU HQUUMU% NJHIIQ @5152 0.393 $31.41: __ o _\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Baum muiwuuh _ _ uouuu-fiuwwwnumwmz .25 0350 “ah 338M _ mmvwfl __ wuwh Io uEmZ _ _ wunnficoo|wanomombooO GOflwmQNMQ GM flOwvflmkfixPlllfi GIMME 11 ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS o; owv w.“ 5w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuofiouuouuom wdH5o0 0 mflmt: wimfiwto» mgfiofim o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13mm: £335.33 nwsoudumfi 0A N66 $6 mww .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............~obu~noouom o.oH~.N0 ~ ¢H0.om o.mH0.mw wdumwéw w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..............nwmoaoomwm o0 01.0w 19: lwé 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........~ofiuucuu.~um @.0Ho.w\. 0~%.G;HnwaNUm |o.w o.“ 10W: IwN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..._o.r~u.<.=uu._un~ mgiaw m 1.118. 96115.3 wdia“ m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..fi==nza.bxi=uwum mdw oAw 7Q 15am . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5812“. unoouom 91*? N Nfwaw 93w 0» 0.m+0.oo w_ . wuzwoun-hnzma 13E HmO 1m.“ 9Q 1w m; |m.0m ...._otoaauo._um ~A+5¢w m $26 0._+w 3. §~+fi8 w; .........>>mbw~wO 01¢ m0 0n 15¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iilnofiugawouam NQHQNQ *1 NHwJvw ma: we oA+m4R m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zcuwoow btwfiTnuumfmuaunu 3x0 1w.“ 00w lo 0 lwb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iihohkuugauuum o o ~ - . . - ¢ . . . ~ - . - - . - . . 4 - . . - - - ¢ - ~ ‘unu-c 10.2 10$ 1~ m0 130w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuouuounvouum o.w+0..\.w m _+m.mw ~o_+w mm 0.o+w.w_ v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........w=:numO 19+ 1m.0 10.0w 1v 0. . . . . ......3u.~o»uoouom Q._+~.% o m+0xvw fifaew _;+w 8 .\. . . . . . ma: cofitrwnmumO lmto I010 1w w fi l» w . . . . ......~o.~uw 380.3% mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....-wHwU#=.fl-A@ZHNO Em 170 10.0 lmfm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuofiuunuouuh Maegan o _+0.¢w mvfrqfi oq+mt~m 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IMmE o“ Eoazsfiimo o6 0.2 101+ |w.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuotuuaouuom ogfaw ~_Ho1_w w.o+c.mo T193 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. nwfiswo. fimfisfifiao mtm w.» 10A 19w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............~o.~.-u~uuuuoh Fowwau @193 o.o+m.0o 319$ w . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wiwwuw zinc 3 aofindowtowumO lw.m 190w 1m; 17m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ihofiwuuoupom ¢ w . - . . . . . . . . . . -, . ¢ _ - . . . . ‘u-a-u - v . ¢ - - - wtm lwJqm 10.». 1w.m . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...~o.r_o..~:uu.~on~ odfimfow ~.~+@.$ w.o+_.ww .\..o+w.t om ...u5nu ARKTQEwQmO 10.0 502 ....po.~.~wfi~oupvh -.- -|-»- ~ > - - 15w 1+0“ INA: IwJL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....~o~uufi$ouwn~ m.w+m.ww ~.0+w.mw _.¢+w.0~ ~.w+~.0o w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwmufioag _ Bafiwwwmmz new 2.20 Km =§2m % wufiays» Bum E UEQZ i Snfinz ~ mvQn~§MGQOU‘mHQUMOTtQOQ flomamvwmfi gm flOmHNMHN>I||M Uwfiflkw 12 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .hO.uu0 H500 hvnm IN.“ Iwei NA: as @ _ . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-mwGCHUUkUwFinwMW-moudwfig 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..HQHI~UH=UO.~Ufl% qoiaw ~.++w.: RQHTSW fTnéiw w . . . . . . . . . . . imtonw wwhw Una wwfiwwme 25C fimEB Io? IE9» 04L vxv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ihofivucoohvm TQIIWNB 5N+wdm mQHmdc TQHQ: ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iawdmhnuwvag Infl INJvm wto- wtm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...uo.iuuioo._wm w.¢+..e2 5292. wewaéw fiowflfi N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . ..wci%.=8nfivmi3 In; IwJvm mfo o.“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...~o.r_o~=wo$m w.o+w.mo w.w+_.\.v +.mHw.w~ TNHTQw a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zwwon?» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..kOH.uUHCUU-QA% m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~ANQQUMU>? ImJv 1.7m 04.. o.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ihofiuucwuuuk 5H??? wdivmo wdHmQm vdfiwdnw om . . . . . . . . . . ..Gwuum.EOO_DinummfluOu0wGT$R~uU10~£Uuw> I04‘, IwJL m.“ 7m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ihofiuwcwouwm Q._+¢.ww @.~+¢.E 51$...» 5.31mi 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2x5 Ea 5&8 B3 ~63 333/ I06 l_.m_ mdm 7mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuotvfihuuhum foiaw fioivr.“ W198 NQHNAZ. Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . ..EE>EQEMH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . ..kQHkUH~wUO-Un% .v._+m.~n 211% _.~Ho.$ #19:. m; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. T“: sixfiéfilfioimh 10.0 lwtcw o.» 7mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . vlhokueaiughum 011$ @4425 Mzfwfi Ewfiobv 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..%m=wb>>.é==w m8 Em wtwm Q: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuofiwunwuuwfi wQHmém Zffiwip Wwwéfiq QQHmQm mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....§£=@u=m Imfo miw 5mm 7m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ipofiuuauuhwk _._+o.w¢ @1118 wawflqm vowwww w . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . I . . . . . . , . . . . . . . iwiwwwnéwzfiwwzw lwtm v.2 vim o6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuobvuauuhwm Qdieww Fmwaew TNHEmw _._Hm.w~. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ihwaiohowfioam IEN Iwio o.m wio . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuobufiwvohuk 212K 5:08 fmwaaw $23.6 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. vwfim E0095 =§5>ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..hQhhUw50Uu®h% ~.~+m.+o o.~Hw.cm NQHmEw ofifiwqo a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuwwmwcmunmow IQA: l7: Nd o6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuofioucwouonw fimivfi main? wQHNNw NQHQmw 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..mum3m:x =m .135 fisfifnow lob I_.m 06m Tm; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..»o.~.$~n~o.5n~ o._+m.o\. W192 obHmbm mefvmd n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..&E=8m >8. . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..k°kkUM=UUk0% Woifim“ ®o+fi$ QQHNQw 213.2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. cvwumduwfiowflmonuom Iwd IE0 ‘Wm; mien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuohoucoupok Llivow 019R. mawld. “awwem 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zvvpsoiuwwowiflswuow I+.w I05: m.» oivm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ihofiwucouhum +._+o.:. ~..~+@.% QQHNQK wawmam w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QaEMTLQwflSWEELNLQm Io.N Imtw 7Q +6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iuofiuucuuuum +.:+m.wo m._+w.wo ¢QH~1w¢ odfiodc .w_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I was nozzufl oobu-fidwfiflvvnfimz pwnrm QUSuU ash £38k _ wwmwflfififlfi Uwum Lo vEmZ _ wwficmaconvllmacwmumcwoo compmowmfl E compwim>|fi “lawn. ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 13 Errors of analysis affect all the determinations, but especially the nutrients present in small percentages. An error of 0.2 per cent on 1.5 ‘fr, is proportionately much larger than 0.5% on 30%. Concentrates are fed with roughages when the digestibility of roughages by ruminants is estimated. As the concentrates are low in fiber, while the roughages are high, any error or variation in estimating the fiber, or in allowing for the digestibility of the roughage in calculating the results, will seriously affect the apparent digestibility of the fiber of the concentrate. Variations in the digestive power of animals and in the nature of feed: Variations in the digestive power of the animal and in the nature of the feed are very important from the point of view of animal nutrition. The question arises as to how much the rather large variations in the diges- tion coefficients discussed in the preceding sections are due to the indi- viduality of the animal, how much to the nature of the feed, and how much to a combination of the two. We may say at the beginning of the discussion that the data are not sufficient to give a satisfactory answer to these questions. u Table 2-——Standard Deviation for Experiments Averaged and for Each Animal Separately .2 ‘a '5. ‘a ~§ =§ %= M n ‘En E8 733x Fa H51 Din Zinlfl Alfalfa hay below 30% C. F . . . . . 5.9 13.8 6.8 3.7 Single . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.7 13.6 7.0 3.8 Alfalfa hay 30 to 33% C. F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Av. 3.8 10.6 6.5 2.6 - " Single . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 10.9 7.8 2.9 Clover hay, red, ave. all trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Av. 6.5 11.2 5.7 5.7 Single . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 12.9 6.5 5.6 Corn meal or chops... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Av. 10.4 6.5 37.1 1.4 Single . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.2 7.3 39.0 5.0 Corn silage 25-30% C. F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Av. 11.1 8.2 8.9 5.1 Single . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.2 10.0 8.9 5.6 Cottonseed meal, below 12% C. F . . . . . . . . . . . .Av. 5.1 3.9 26.3 15.9 Single . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.7 4.5 28.0 15.9 Gluten feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Av. 5.8 15.2 23.5 9.3 Single . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.2 16.3 29.9 11.5 Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Av. 3.1 4.3 13.1 3.3 Single . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4 4.7 13.9 3.8 Rice bran, 12% C. F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Av. 5.7 14.1 11.8 4.1 Single . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0 14.3 13.5 4.4 Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Av. 13.3 15.1 8.4 5.0 Single.. . . . . . . . . . .. 16.1 15.8 9.3 5.5 Wheat bran. all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.3 12.2 18.9 4.4 Single . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U] 5.0 14.4 l] 20.4 5.3 Average for experiments averaged . . . . . . . . lb’ 6.8 10.5 15.2 5.5 Average for single animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 11.3 16.7 6.5 It is usual in most digestion experiments to test the same feed on two or more animals. The average digestion coefficient is then taken to be the result of the test. The standard deviation from the averages secured in this way is compared in Table 2 with the standard deviation of each individual animal for a number of feeds. The use of the average of two or more experiments usually decreases the. deviation slightly, on 14 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION an average about ten per cent. S0 far as this shows anything, it shows that a large part of the variation in digestibility is due to varia- tions in the feed. " The standard deviation was calculated for a number of groups of animals fed on the same feed, three or more in a group, and the results are given in Table 3. An examination of the Table shows that while the standard deviation for animals on the same feed is usually less than for the entire group, there are groups in which the variations between the animals on the same feed are large. For example, the variations of the animal with the first three lots of alfalfa hay below 30% crude fiber are lower than for the entire group, but the variation between the animals on the last two lots of alfalfa are much higher. Some few other similar cases may be found in the Table. This leaves open the question as to variations in digestive power of animals, not only between individuals in a large group of animals of uniform character, but also when animals of widely differing origin and character are compared. The averages of the deviations for individual feeds and for groups are also compared in Table 3. The general tentative conclusion reached is that the variations in digestive power of different animals affect the digestibility somewhat less than do the variations in the same feed. As a guess, one could say that the variations caused by differences in the digestive power of the animals for the same feed are about 70 per cent as large as the varia- tions caused by the differences in samples of the same kind of feed. The differences due to either cause are probably greater for roughages than for concentrates. ' Table 3——Standard Deviations of Individual Feeds Compared With Groups .2 c: c *5 5’ ‘S 3g ‘ES um o“ g“ a an +> 0n ‘Ow “ma. E4 9. '5? 5:3 9:23? :1 c». mm on. zram 2'8 Alfalfa hay below 30% fiber . . . . . . . . . .N0.743 0.8 5.7 2.6 0.8 4 No. 739 3.0 6.2 2.1 2.4 4 No.811 2.0 3.2 3.2 3.7 6 No.744 21.9 19.5 3.7 11.4 5 No.833 24.9 4.8 8.3 13.8 4 1 —~— —- -— — - Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.5 7.9 4.0 6.3 For group, below 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.6 13.6 6.9 3.8 Alfalfa hay, over 38% fiber . . . . . . . . ..No. 740 0.5 5.3 1.7 0.7 4 N0.742| 1.5 3.4 4.1 1.7 4 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.0 4.4 2.9 .8 For group over 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2 13.1 8.7 5.1 Alfalfa hay 30-33% C. F . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 741 0.8 6.9 3.1 0.8 4 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 10.9 7.8 2.9 Barley grain .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No.808 3.5 5.2 19.0 1.4 6 Barley grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No.810 5.5 14.7 33.7 2.4 5 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5 10.0 26.4 1.9 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.0 12.0 29.8 2.2 Bermuda hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No.842 0.8 3.7 3.2 1.9 8 For group .. .. . . . . 7.9 7.3 5.3 3.5 zfl-x. ‘ “ flaws... ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 15 Table 3——Standard Deviations of Individual Feeds Compared With Groups—(continued) For group V-l b-l P-l 2 f: .2 ‘a g1, *5 3E i.’ $2 3g; ,2 .2 ‘E4 2 5*»? 5.8 #123? w“ :1. mm Din ZM-fl Zo Carrots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N0. 658 3.9 10.7 25.1 3.5 3 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 38.5 17.5 4.6 ~ Clover hay, red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 374 2.1 8.1 1.0 0.9 4 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 12.9 6.5 5.6. Clover silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N.468 6.6 2.4 2.2 5.3 3 Clover silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No. 698 2.8 2.8 4.0 2.8 3 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.7 2.6 3.1 4.1 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.2 17.8 6.1 17.1 Corn fodder cured dough to meal. . . . .No. 52 4.7 4.7 2.9 4.7 4 Corn fodder cured dough to meal. . . . .No. 316 3.2 7.3 2.8 2.5 4 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 6.0 2.9 3.6 ‘ For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.2 5.3- 10.1 6.9 Corn fodder, cured ears silking . . . . . . .No. 390 1.0 1.6 2.7 2.2 3 For group‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.4 14.3 10.2 3.3 Corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 121 0.8 2.0 1.2 1.5 3 Corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No. 436 10.6 7.4 17.6 2.2 3 1 Corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No.786 5.5 2.9 30.0 3.9 3 . Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.6 4.1 16.3 2.5 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.2 7.3 39.0 5.0 Corn silage 20 to 25% C. F., dry basis N0. 49 1.1 0.8 2.6 1.4 4 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.2 6.6 10.2 5.3 Corn silage 25% G. F_ . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 1013 12.5 7.0 7.5 4.9 4 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.2 6.6 10.2 5.3 Corn stover entire plant except ear. . .No.258 4.0 3.2 1.5 1.6 4 Corn stover entire plant except ear. . .No. 321 2.2 3.0 1.4 0.8 4 Corn stover entire plant except ear. . .No. 412 1.6 2.2 2.3 1.0 4 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.6 2.8 1.7 1.1 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.8 11.4 5.3 3.9 Cottonseed hulls fed alone . . . . . . . . . ..No. 366 3.4 10.1 4.2 10.6 5 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.3 8.8 8.4 9.7 Cottonseed hulls (fed with C. S. meal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. No 286 13.3 4.2 6.7 3 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.3 11.6 3.0 5.0 Crimson clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No. 11 0.7 2.3 3.2 2.0 4 or group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.7 7.5 4.7 4.4 Distillers grains 25-35% Protein. . . . .No. 542 1.0 0.1 13.3 1.8 ' 3 Distillers grains 25-35% Protein . . . . .No. 545 1.2 1.0 15.0 0.1 3 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.1 5.5 14.2 1.0 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.8 6.5 41.4 8.6 Gluten feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No.663 6.0 6.4 27.8 2.9 3 Gluten feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 664 1.8 8.7 .. . 1.9 3 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.9 7.6 13.9 2.4 ~ For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.2 16.3 29.9 11.5 Hominy feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 557 3.1 0.7 34.6 3.0 3 Hominy feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No.560 4.9 1.5 41.1 5.0 3 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 1.1 37.9 4.0 p - For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0 3.0 39.9 4.0 Johnson grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No. 831 4.6 3.1 0.7 0.8 3 or group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.2 6.6 4.5 4.2 Kafir stover, no heads . . . . . . . . . . . . .No 756 3.7 3.5 2.8 1.7 4 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.1 12.0 7.9 7.5 Oat hay milk to dough . . . . . . . . . . . ..N0. 32 2.1 2.8 2.9 1.3 4 Oat hay milk to dough . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 429 7.4 3.8 3.0 1.7 4 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.8 3.3 3.0 1.5 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 4.2 8.8 5.2 ‘Oat meal mill by-product . . . . . . . . . . . .No. 446 3.3 2.4 9.8 2.0 3 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.1 22.5 13.8 10.2 Oats 10»12% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..N0 817 2.1 3.2 8.2 2.1 6 . For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4 4.7 13.9 3.8 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No.812 12.6 4.1 3.1 3.3 4 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No.997 11.7 4.8 10.3 8.1 3 . Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.2 4.5 61.7 5.7 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.3 9.8 11.1 6.0 , Soy bean meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No. 13 1.7 2.9 2.4 3.‘? 4 Soy bean meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No. 14 1.2 0.8 5.0 3.6 4 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.5 1.9 3.7 3.4 6.9 0.0 8.4 1.7 16 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 3—Sta.ndard Deviations of Individual Feeds Compared With Groups—(Continued) 1 c: “l l a u; -o= i-‘E i l w . e is fie l s l 2b "3 Q =~ 8b E< 5-4 ,‘ +1 >4 2:2 7: s. >4 5M 1 n. e ma: on. 2mm z 8 I Speltz or emmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No.814 4.6 4.9 . . . 2.7 4 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.7 10.2 27.8 4.3 Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No. 95 3.5 1.9 5.0 3.5 4 Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No. 96 3.4 2.0 2.1 1.2 4 Average...” . . . . . .. 3.5 2.0 3.6 2.4 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.1 15.8 9.3 5.5 Velvet bean feed‘ (bean and pod) . . . . .No. 404 2.0 1.2 9.9 2.8 4 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.5 8.8 15.4 5.1 Vetch fodder, winter or hairy, bloom green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.234 1.2 2.4 3.2 2.2 5 Vetch fodder, winter or hairy, bloom green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. o237| 1.6 3.2 2.2 2.2 5 Vetch fodder, winter or hairy, bloom I green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. o 238i 0.8 | 1.7 0.9 1.1 6 Average . . . . . . . . . . ..| 1.2 2.4 2.1 1.8 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 Wheat bran spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No. 449 1.1 4.2 5.3 0.5 3 For group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I 2.6 , 17.7 22.1 3.0 Average of individuals (all) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 4.8 7.6 2.8 Average of groups (all) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 5 11 21 14.34 5.9 CALCULATION OF PRODUCTIVE ENERGY Kellner calculates productive energy in terms 0f starch, by multiply- ing the quantity of each digestible nutrient by a factor, and adding the products, with correction for crude fiber or for the nature of the feed. These factors will be given elsewhere. Armsby calculates the productive value, (or net energy), in terms of therms, by multiplying each pound of digestible organic matter in roughage by 1.588; in grains and similar material containing less than 5 per cent digestible fat by 1.796; in grains or similar material contain- ing more than 5 per cent fat by 1.814; in oil meal and materials high in protein by 1.966-2.177; and subtracting a variable quantity. The quantity subtracted is secured by multiplying the quantity of total dry matter by a variable factor (see pages 650-652-Armsby’s Nutrition of Farm Animals). Productive Energy Expressed as Therms Kellner, as stated above, states productive value in terms of starch. Armsby states his» results in terms of therms in a pound of feed. The writer has, in the past, given the productive value in terms of fat. It is entirely proper to state the productive energy of feeds in terms of matter, such as starch or fat, or in terms of energy, such as therms. It is also highly desirable to have a uniform mode of expression. As Armsby’s unit, therms, has now been extensively used in this country, the writer has decided to use it in place of fat in the future, for it” is easier for him to change than to persuade the others to change. ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 17 Definition of Therm A therm is the amount of heat or energy required to raise the tem- perature of 1,000 kilograms of water 1 degree centigrade. A large calorie is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 degree centigrade. A therm is thus 1,000 large calories. ENERGY PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS The methods of calculating productive energy outlined above are tedious to apply to any given feed. It is desirable to have a simple method of calculation by means of which the productive energy of a feed of any given chemical composition may easily be calculated. This is afforded by means of the production coefficients proposed in Bulletin 185 of this Experiment Station. In order to calculate the productive energy of any feed for which production coefficients are available, it is necessary only to multiply the quantity of each chemical constituent by the appropriate coefficient, and total the products, with due regard to the plus or minus ~value of the crude fiber, Calculating the Energy Production Coefficients A definite method is desirable for the purpose of calculating the pro- duction coefficients, so that the calculations may be repeated or checked by anyone who might so desire, or corrected when advances in knowledge make correction necessary. ' The method of Kellner was used for these calculations, for the reason that it seemed from other work more closely related to variations in the composition of feeds. The method of calculation is given on page 432 of Fraps’ Principles of Agricultural Chemistry, and in Bulletin 185, Texas Experiment Station. The method as used for the work here reported is given below. The symbols are given in the Tables to show the factors used for a particular feed. l Multiply the coefficients of digestibility of protein by 1.016. Multiply the coefficients of digestibility of nitrogen-free extract b,v 1.071. Multiply the coefficients of digestibility of ether extract in feeds (oil bearing) containing over 5 per cent fat by 2.586 (A). Multiply the coefficient of digestibility of ether extract containing less p than 5 per cent fat by 2.273 (B). Multiply the coefficient of digestibility of ether extract by 2.041 (C) . for all roughages. Multiply the coefficient of digestibility of crude fiber by 1.071, and make the following corrections: Subtract .617 for roughages not ground to a fine meal (M) Subtract .318 for the roughages ground to a fine meal (N) Subtract .380 for the green feed containing 8 per cent or less crude "fiber in dry matter (O) Subtract .431 for green feed containing 8 to 10 per cent crude fiber (P) BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION‘ 18 a Subtract .483 for green feed containing 10 to 12 per cent crude fiber (R) I Subtract .534 for green feed containing 12 to 14 per cent crule fiber (S) Subtract .597 for green feed containing 14 to 16 per cent crude fiber (T) Subtract .617 for green feed containing over 16 per cent crude fib- er (M) Subtract nothing for certain concentrates (X) In case of some concentrated feeding stuffs, multiply all coefficients by a factor depending upon the character of the feed. This factor is based upon the relation between feeds on which experiments have been run, and the feed under consideration. These factors in Table 7 are in- dicated by figures given in column headed “Factor.” The letter in the same column refers to the factor given above. Table of Energy Production Coefficients The production coefficients for ruminants calculated by the method just described are given in Table 7. This Table also’ contains some cal- culated values and some values corrected by feeding experiments as des- cribed below. Correction of Productive-Energy Values The productive-energy values as calculated by the production coeffi- cients here given represent our best information with respect to pro- ductive values, but it is hardly necessary to say that they require further study and correction. The productive values of certain feeding stuffs have been studied in connection with feeding tests on sheep by Mr. J. M. Jones, and partly published in Bulletins 269, 285, and 306 of this Experiment Station. The productive energy calculated from the results of these feeding tests and the values calculated from the production coefficients given in this Bulle- tin, are shown in Table 4. " These results have been used to correct the production coefficients of several feeds, as given in Table 7. The production coefficients of ground kafir have been increased 6 per cent, kafir heads 9 per cent, ground milo 12 per cent and ground feterita heads are given the same values as for milo heads. The production coefficients used for ground feterita, Shrock kafir, whole milo, ground milo, ground sorgo seed, and sorghum hays are confirmed by the feeding experiments. The results of thefeeding tests are different from the calculated values in cases of darso seed and cottonseed, but the number of feeding trials is not sufficient to justify changing the production coefficients. It is the intention of the writer to study other feeding experiments and make further corrections in production coefficients that appear justi- fied. Large numbers of feeding experiments have been made with var- ious feeding stuffs, and it ought to be possible to use these feeding ex- it. x» ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 19 _ P-Wm ..-. -.. -.. ..- * ~.- .-.. -..-........-.......- Qwg Eggmwknvwu; moa§ c000 -qn I011 llll i cnua -- - | u | llfinlliclllillib m4; f3 v.5. f; €w> 0J2. ~22. 56w _ >4; T: @565 JEN»: 0&2 wéqw véw fiww Héw o.mw 5g _ v13?» dmz _ _ -........-... .-...- @cH-.Q.mm Aw-agfi -.- - . -... -.- % -- .-- --..-~.... @~H§QvHw qinvo-Hsw mk€wz HQw “Yaw wéw v4; Tmw m5» oéw “WE. .. . wcsouufiwnw: ucavw 5.; v.3 v.3 véw fiéw 95 52. 9mm _ 93w mam “E25 5.2m 93 TE. “.3 m4; v.5. .15 ~75 93 M m6» ~23 Amman‘: _ _ _ _ 05E aomdfiuv wc:o.~w.mwaws muiwpwh 7% @.~w >42 mivw mfimwv i3 53L 35w v ~23 HQ» E58». ivnswm P.bw .... -.-. .... ...... »... .... _..-.........~.-.... wvnniO-aw RvwHNQ b.wb é fi.Nw -... .... .... -..- _................ 07.05% fivUQmnaORwOQ _ _ m m m m _ m _ m _ w. m 1 w m 0 n 0 n 0 _ n W. n 1 N. n a u - u u u , ~ u _ O u n. _ n. P ( P n. _ I __ > omuuw>< £3 $2 _ $2 34: éwinom o3 uon wEo-rfi E Qoosw :33 neflofimuwakmn mfiuowh 52m wofiflsfidO mmuwnfl wfiauswohmllw Spam. 20 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION periments for the purpose of testing the production coefficients. There ought to be a close relation between the practical results secured in feed- ing tests, and the productive energy of the feeding stuffs used. It ought to be possible to check our theories of feeding by means of feeding exper- g iments. If it is not possible to do this, something is wrong with our feeding experiments, or with our theories of feeding. Importance of Crude Fiber in Calculating Production Coefficients. An examination of the preceding factors used in calculating produc- tion coefficients shows the importance of crude fiber in connection with the calculation of production coefficients, and the feeding values of the feed. Although the amount of crude fiber is not always the best measure that could be had of the quality of a feed, it is the best measure that we have at the present time, and it is necessary for us to use it until we can devise a better method. The crude fiber content is indeed, a real measure of value, which may be seen by considering the nature of a number of feeds. - Peanut meats or kernels are very low in crude fiber, while peanut shells are high in crude fiber. The quantity of crude fiber in a peanut by-product is thus an indication of the quantity of peanut shells present. Peanut shells have a much lower dige-stibility, lower coefficients of diges- tibility, and lower production coefficients than peanut meats. The coeffi- cients of digestibility for a mixture of the two must therefore be adjusted as far as possible to the amounts of each present. The best present measure for this is the crude fiber content. Cottonseed kernels are very low in crude fiber; cottonseed hulls are high in crude fiber. Cottonseed hulls have a much lower digestibility and feeding value than cottonseed kernels. The coefficients of digestibility, and the production coefficients of cottonseed meal, which contains hulls and meat residues, should therefore be modified according to the amount of crude fiber present, The stems of alfalfa hay contain more crude fiber and are less diges- tible than the leaves. The amount of crude fiber also increases with the stage of growth and the digestibility decreases. The coefficients of diges- tibility, and the production coefficients, should therefore vary with the crude fiber present. v The flour and the germ of wheat are more digestible, and have a higher feeding value than the wheat bran. The more flour or germ present with the bran, the greater the feeding value of the mixture. The best present measure of this-is crude fiber content, and the coefficients of di- gestibility, and production coefficients of wheat by-products should vary with the crude fiber content. Clean rice, and rice bran have a much higher feeding value than rice hulls. Rice hulls are high in fiber, while the bran and rice are much lower. The coefficients of digestibility, and the production coefficients of rice bran, which is a mixture of these materials, should vary with the crude fiber content, ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 21 These illustrations serve to show that it is necessary to vary the pro- duction coefficients of feeding stuffs according to their crude fiber con-_ tent. It is not possible at present to do this with all feeds, and some other better measure of quality may be found in the progress of investigation. Production Coefficients Calculated for Mixtures In some cases, a feed is to be considered as consisting of one part having a high digestibility and another part with a low digestibility. In such cases, it is necessary to calculate the intermediate grade from the probable quantities of the components. In this way, production coeffi- cients were calculated for corn and cob meal, from corn chops and ground corn cobs; for corn cob and shuck, from corn chops, ground corn cobs and corn shuck; for several grades of cottonseed meal, from cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls; and for several grades of rice bran, from rice bran and hulls. A value of 5% lower than for cottonseed meal was assumed for cottonseed cake. This is purely an estimate, and awaits correction by further Work. USE OF THE PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS The production coefficients may be used to calculate the productive energy or net energy, in terms of therms, of any feeding stuff. All that is necessary to do is to multiply the composition by the corresponding pro- duction coefficient, and add the products, taking care to subtract the product secured for crude fiber in case the production coefficient for crude fiber is negative. I The productive coefficient may be used to compare the feeding values, in terms of productive energy, of two grades of the same feeding stuff; for example, two grades of cottonseed meal. The production coefficient may be used to compare the feeding val- ues, in terms of productive energy, of unlike feeding stuffs of known chemical composition. The productive coefficient may be used in feeding experiments to cal- culate the productive energy of a ration, after the analysis has been made of feeding stuffs in question. ' .VARIATIONS IN PRODUCTIVE ENERGY The study of the variation in digestion coefficients presented in a previous section was used to estimate to what extent these variations would affect the productive energy of some feeds. The results are ex- pressed in percentage of each nutrient as related to the total productive energy, in Table 5. Thus it is an even chance that the productive values of the protein will vary 1.6 per cent of the total productive energy value of alfalfa hay, the fat 1.2 per cent, and so on. The high variation in digestibility of some of the nutrients present in low proportions in certain of the feeds, due largely to imperfection of I 22 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 5-—-Approximate Variation in Productive Energy in Percentage of Total Productive Energy i , . i Y . ‘ 5 .. .5 u: v 3 '3 5 g 3 q, 3 '55 2 as is m? l ‘s n. in 0k. 1 zdim 1 a Alfalfa hay, below 30% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 (1.2) 3.8 2.7 9.3 Alfalfa hay, 30 to 33% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.1 0.7 5.1 2.2 9.1 Alfalfa hay, over 33% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.2 (1.1) 6.8 3.9 13.1 Barley grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 .4 (2.1) 1.3 4.4 Beet pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .7 2.7 4.0 7.4 Bermuda hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.2 0.6 3.3 3.9 9.0 Clover hay, Crimson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.7 2.7 3.5 7.4 Clover hay, Red (average of all trials) . . . . . . . 1.6 1.5 3.2 4.2 10.6 Clover silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.7 (3.2) 2.9 13.1 23.8 Cocoanut oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.7 0.4 4.5 1.3 6.8 Corn bran (commercial) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.3 1.3 (3.4) 3.1 9.1 Corn cobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.6 0.8 6.9 10.8 19.0 Corn germ oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.0 0.6 1.3 5.2 8.2 Corn meal or chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.0 0.5 3.1 4.6 Corn silage, 20-25% fiber—dry basis . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.4 2.8 3.8 8.3 Corn silage, 25-30% fiber—dry basis . . . . . . .. 1.4 0.8 2.7 4.2 9.2 Corn silage, over 30% fiber—-dry basis . . . . . . 1.4 1.0 2.8 4.5 9.6 Corn stover. entire plant except ear . . . . . . .. 1.6 1.1 3.4 3.5 9.6 Cotton seed, cold-pressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.7 0.5 1.0 1.8 4.0 Cotton seed hulls, (fed with cottonseed meal) 4.9 0.7 8.9 9.3 23.8 Cotton seed meal below 12% fiber . . . . . . . . .. 2.5 0.7 (3.6) 4.0 10.7 Distillers grain 25-30% proten . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.3 1.6 (5.8) 3.0 11.7 Gluten feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.8 0.1 0.2\ 5.6 7.7 Gluten meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.7 1.9 0.4 3.9 7.8 Hay, timothy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.1 0.8 3.0 3.8 8.7 Hay, English 6 to 8% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.0 0.8 3.6 4.8 10.1 Hominy feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.6 0.4 (2.0) 2.2 5.2 Linseed meal. new process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.4 0.9 (5.6) 1.5 9.4 Oats. 10 to 12% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.5 0.4 1.7 2.3 4.9 Oat ha: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.2 1.0 4.6 5.0 11.8 Oat- meal mill by-product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 2.2 8.2 11.9 25.2 Oat straw ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.9 1.2 13.7 6.4 22.2 Peanut hulls or shells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.8 8.9 9.5 44.8 83.0 Peanut hay, without nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.3 1.4 1.9 2.3 5.9 Rice bran, 12% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.9 4.1 1.8 2.1 8.8' Rice polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.1 1.5 0.2 1.3 4.1 Sorghum fodder, cured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.3 1.5 4.5 0.2 8.5 Sudan hay, all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.1 1.0 2.8 5.8 11.7 Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.1 1.6 6.1 5.3 15.2 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.9 0.4 0.8 1.3 3.4 Wheat bran. all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.9 1.5 (5.2) 3.2 10.7 Wheat flour middlings and gray shorts . . . . .. 0.8 0.5 1.1 2.1 3.5 _ methods, gives rise to some variations out of all proportion to their real value. This would apply, for example, to the ether extract of alfalfa hay, the crude fiber of barley grain, hominy feed, or wheat. The variation in the digestibility of the crude fiber of barley accounts for nearly one- half of the total variation, low as it is. i Thus the real variation in the productive energy of some feeds is not as great as it appears to be. The total percentage variation given in Table 5 is the sum of the calculated variations of the nutrients. All of these variations will not be in the same direction all the time; there will be some compensatory ac- tion; so that it is much less than an even chance that feeds will vary to the extent given. i It is at present impossible to correct for this com- -pensatory action. Table 6 gives the number of simultaneous deviations ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 23 ‘from the average found with some of the feeds. On an average, 47 per cent of the deviations are one plus or minus, and three in the opposite dir- ection; 21 per cent deviate half one way, half the other; while 32 per cent Table 6——Number of Simultaneous Deviations from the Average + I + + + + + + Alfalfa below 30% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 22 19 Clover hay Red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 l 3 18 Coin meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 i 8 14 Corn silage 20-25% c. F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 l 2 11 Corn silage 25-30% C. F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 4 6 Corn silage over 30% C. F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ 10 2 6 Foiiton seed meal .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3 f 2 Gluten Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 1 5 21 Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ 42 g 18 ' 23 Wheat Bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 , 12 4 t . . . . . . . . . ._ 179 , 79 124 10.3.‘. 0f all . . . . . . . . . . 382 j I Fe: ceit of total . . . . . . . . .. 46.9 5 20.7 32.4 all deviate in the same direction. It would be a safe estimate that this reduces the net variation to one-half of what it would otherwise be, Some feeds have a low variation in productive energy. Barley grain, corn meal or chops, cold-pressed cottonseed, oats, rice polish, wheat and wheat flour middlings or gray shorts vary approximately to the extent of 4 or 5 per cent. Most of the feeds studied vary 7 to 10 per cent, while clover silage varies 23.8 per cent, corn cobs 19 per cent, cottonseed hulls 23.8 per cent, oat meal mill by-producits 25.2 per cent, oat straw 22.2 per cent, peanut shells or hulls 83 per cent, and timothy hay 15 per cent. It is possible that a larger number of experiments would reduce these varia- tions. It is probable that ruminants vary more in their power to digest low-grade feeds, than concentrates rich in starch, suchas corn, and that other feeds occupy an intermediate position with respect to this variation in digestive power, It is about an even chance that, on account of variations in animals, and in feeds, differences in digestion will cause errors of about 3 per cent with corn, wheat, and a few similar high-grade feeds, 6 per cent with the usual run of feeds, and as much as 14 per cent with some low- grade feeds. It is about 4.5 to 1 that the variations will not be twice as large as this, and 21 to 1 that they will not be three times as large. According to this, ordinary feeds may vary as much as 12 per cent in about 18 cases out of 100. These variations refer to single animals, and will be reduced when several animals are used. To what extent such re- ductions would occur, we are not at present in position to estimate from the experimental data, though for statistical reasons it should be in pro- portion to the square root of the number of animals. The variations discussed are due entirely to variations in digestion 24 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION and not to variations in the chemical composition of the feed, except as they affect digestion. SUMMARY This Bulletin contains coefficients for calculating the productive energy or net energy of American feeding stuffs for ruminants. The use of digestible nutrients alone in calculating rations or com- paring the values of feeds may be very inaccurate and misleading, Digestion coefficients 0f all American experiments found by the writer are given in a table, and also references to the original papers. These are used for the study here presented and will serve as the basis for further work. ' Variations in the digestion coefficients were studied by statistical methods, and the table given shows that considerable variations may occur. The method of calculating the production coefficients is given in full. Production coefficients for ground milo, kafir heads, and ground fet- erita heads are corrected from feeding tests at the Texas Experiment Station. Production coefficients for ground feterita, Schrock kafir, whole milo, ground sorgo seed, and sorghum hay were confirmed by the feeding experiments. ' " The quantity of crude fiber is an important index to the value of some feeding stuffs. A Production coefficients for corn and cob meal, corn cob and shucks, several grades of cottonseed meal and rice bran, were calculated from the ingredients. It is an even chance that differences in digestion of individual animals may cause variations of about 3 per cent of the productive value wizh corn, wheat, and a few similar feeds, about 6 per cent with the usual run of feeds, and about 14 per cent with some low-grade feeds, In about 18 cases out of 200, the productive energy may vary 12 per cent. These variations would occur with single animals. Smaller variations should occur with groups of animals. 25 S F F U T S G m D E E F N A C TL R E M A F O S T N E 11 C I F F E O C N O I T C U D O R m Y G R E N E S... é. fiw. ls SSSESZZZSEZEEZSEEZEEEOE ESZSSZZSZMMNQ gooooooooooommoooomomoo oomoo4mooooo0 E 4 S... 3°...» -..-.--¢..--..-.¢».. . AmhQ . . A2212 dmuCdGOv us!» >235 no msuunO Emwswfid QEEEOV .230 3x35 a0 mnuowO nv>a£ owanauO 35w: vuwnnwO 0x390 n-uunnmO Amoumoffiunfl Emmi-NV in: dwaum 2300M ...-...-...¢.-.. Hflmwnmavmnvuum -.-u|---.o|¢-u-- QGHOU .3: .2552: usioum .-¢-.---..|-¢--.- -.-..-..-..-.¢--¢-- ..|.-.-....n¢..-¢¢-- . . Amnfiwcrmkafi msfioumC 5000M 5000mm? 693M ofioum -.-..-.-....|- -.-.~. I . 0303 mfianu woman 3033m- Ammmnouuun womv mxonunwum in: 35m 03G E A 330.5500 0on3 in: mmaum 03m . 13E 000E ha: awzniwfl uumdw 6000M v2.5 .200 $0M IQIIIOIIuQIOQOIIIIIIIGIOIO 3E0 60.0mm . . . . . . . . . .0895 .5003 .300 1:0 .835 .. . . S00E00.“ 00: wEFExv has 502mm . . . . 503m $55.3“ mwoow duwuow hoidm . . . . . . . . . . . .555 .5003 Jowwou hoinfl . . . . . . . 21E mflwmun~ 603500.51»: moiwm 52a $3.5M - .-||-a--u-¢.---. ¢-.-.--..-¢¢--o.o-.- ..-.»->¢...-n.-...- .-...|.--.--..-¢¢--- -».-..-...-¢.-.-.-u- £032.» E ..a».5£wum wfisnoiwfiam 500m 5.02am nuoo-noooucoou OnIlIulQlcOl-Iuolt 0M5? 0.2034 . . . . . . . $7.5m $3 .3>0 0.50.5 ifiafl4 . . . 55c $2.4...” .4005 @2024 . .3»... $0.» 320a 13E $10.24 . . . .225 S: ownuwi» in: $334 . .520 “o: Embazw in: $00.24 . . . . . . Luna 25.3 mmkm .530 in: 030.24 . . . . 52E 35.8 Rm» o» 10m in: 0.2034 - . ~ u n a 0 . n a - .unv.-nuu-ono-unonoa-p 20:3 £5004 .|-».| -n»n».u-u¢.uou--.o~.¢ among U83011LN 000.0 Q00. @»@.~ oww. mop. mew. .00. 0.0. -v.~ mvw. mm». bvm. $00.. mow. 00%.» wvm. mm». own. cum. flaw. wH>.~ cam. 00¢.“ mam. ‘mp. mm‘. ¢¢w._ mmw. mum. own. ‘Hm. N... 0 mom. 0 »w_. mbv.~ mww. w=~.H H00. vmw. mum. ¢c¢._ mam. »-.. om». 00w. fin». ww».~ wfiw. mHa.~ mm». mam. 0 0... 0 Hmw. mmm. ¢Q.. we». w.@. aw». mmw. Hm». M0». um». H00. co». vow. wflw. cu». mmw. 00.. vwp. mm». _ @wH.~ 0 "AH d X3 1 aw w a1 P W u 0502 mwwoh 052.354 v0 munwcihnfl now monomomuuoU comaowwoufi 0. NQN4H. BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXP-ERIMENT STATION 26 so _ _ _....-.. ........-. . . . . ..............uflnmv=mw JHQUHU .H@U@O% CHOQ so L _....-. . . . . . - . . . -...........@UEHQ% 8o: M-HNQ ~HU@@Q% nnhmvo E O 3e. m3. “.54 2E. _................wwiaom 31G 95w wEow .3025 60.50 fiwwwow cuot so é ............ . . . . .............- wvwavfiQhgm wvnufi Fawmvfinyw CMOO 2 o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- .- .@flnmwo.mw w-HQW QUHnwGQE .H0@@O% flH-MOO S O p . . . . - . . . . . . - . . . . . - . . . . . . ¢ - - .UH5#.WAMH Q9 swfipmvfi FHU.@@O% nn-MQU GOP. L ...........................-.....-..v»$8 gm -MU@@O% CMQrW N@©- i ..-........-..-..-.....---..-Mpwx@@w EH5” QHQ@.TQ% AMHQO EO mIZ c: bmmé vmw. . . . . .................uuE.~ou we: wuww iowwo.» EoO z< _ ..-... . . . . .-........-..-.-.........-..-.@.NQE @w° EMU“ nhaflou vl l'|| i ---'-n-a-o'.n--n-..n--unnncw€vw?guéwo 2 4 ‘l’ i . . . . . . . . . .. .- .. . . .- .. .. .WH§QET~QQunQ EQH% -@C5Q.H.w ‘$00 %uc..fl CHOU I’ C . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .- -. .- .. .@UFQ@5U@.QU p@cnwokm _v@nv5gm fimm“ QQQO JHRQU Z¢ wwm. o wwmim gm. powwwficuou Em gm. >~¢.| mom. mg. .. .. wnoo F30 EO pa. ETI o mp0. . . . . . .. .. omnww» muoccmu F30 cw. E < mo». c2. mové mmv. . . .. . .. .. Sfiogoifioov .595 cuou EO 2m. cwmfl wmmJ v3. .. . . .. . . . . . . owswo." owwoO Z4 owm. acw. $2.7m www. . . . . .. .. .. .. 1.2.5 mo fiEwoooO E4 52L :51 wQmQ >3. . .. mzwswsooou EO gm. Ewe.’ mwmA mam. . . . . . . . . . . . . owwmm $.36 2 O - .- .. .. -. . . . - ........ -.-..AEQO%@ .5“; HQ>QTO so . - . . ...........-...-.....-.-.-|-..¢.<.-..nwwwgw =%§£HQ>O@O E O 3E o . 2&4 mmw. ....................Eowwo~n miuu ow M5125 .558 .32.: uw>o~O so .......-..... . . . . ..-...... ....--.-|.-....CU3OH\%.N;HU>°%O z U ||| .- .. .. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . .QQ.J..Mm .EQQMO@Q ~QP.N@ Jhwaoh -HU>Q—O 2 O f¢-~..-....-.-.......-......-...E°°@£ 09.5% JHQQ-Hw -@QH ~aww>nvwo 2o ....-. . . . . . . . . . . - . ..............--|EOO@Q ~@Q>H uha; HU>O@Q so ........-...................EOO~QETmNOO@UQQQ@QH.W.W5HQ>O~O fi%P- .-.. --.-.- -. ..-.. -...M@NTMQ QwfiHU>fl .@@H uhfig HQ>°aD 2Q mummy. baa.’ i .. ... ....... ... .. ................. iOmamkO Qmflg H0>O~Q 2 U _ O ... .. .. .. . .. .. .....CQUHN JQMOAJQ UHU~ JMOWEMHU .HQ>O.—Q 2O ... .. ... .. .... . - . . . . .........-..-.-..Uqmkvhhnnfi ~RQ>QTQ so ..-.-..- -.-.--. - . -.-..-.---|- Qv@@mx@ pk‘; onw>°fixw FQMO Sm. cg wooé flu. .. . @232: E O _ 2w. 59' SEQ $5 . . . . . ....§=....:_=E wivfiopqwqv .2“; .3052: ETMO 3m. $2. 30E mum. . .. ..............................nuounaO mO 2w. oom.| mwwé mom. . . . . . . B533 M O mum. $6., wwwé uwo. .........soMo>umccunrwucfl ancsnOv iwwnwnewoa Exoia no usuowO m J m... E u. a in , m. aw w a m. mac _ 1w. e1 a l ~10? Q1 w. m. UENZ Avo~E$coOv|wuwoh cau€wE< HO wacnfifidfi QHCUMOMMwOOD COMBOQUOMQ v QQNO#M EH00 E 0 $0. :0. 3.0.5 53$ .. . . . . 1.19500 050050 v5.25 0.5550 .50>00m 5500 E0 ....-.............-...........WQUN~Q MQWUw5O QWvUZAEM RHQ>OPM EHQO 2O ........-...-................-..wvwOH:~m @nn$ MQUN~QUAO>OQWH~ROO 2o mvNP. Owa. wNb. MHN. ............................................... miOnnfim ERGO E0 :33 23. 033E 0Q. ..........................00x000 50 0055.00¢w.0u0$m 5.500 2O .-................ . . . . . .....-.......HQQ¢§QMRU>°_UM.N=WEHOU 2O .-..-.-.....-....-....-...-.-.--.-.HQ§~% ~QM“§@W Hnkoo ED 06w. NOH. ¢ww.H mwm .................................-...H0n_@ ‘Qwflim CMOU 2 o 0am. mmb.a mmfi- ... . . .. .. . .. .. .. .mmm.ND hHU _-QQ@ GNSH mmUm -0mfl~mm EH00 so Ora. vOb.H .. .................................QH5H_NE $903M JvMNZWEHOQ E 0 m3. 0:. 000.5 :0. . .. .. .. . 11100050 0530005 00.05 5005M #0030 5000a 5500 E 0 0;. $0. 03.5 2.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.100000 M53000» .5030 £0030 £0008 5.500 E 0 o5. :0. 20.5 N3. ..........................0.w00m 0E5 5005M £0030 .0003 5500 E 0 2w. 3o. 03.5 23. .. .. .............0.~5u.w55 00 c0500 .5005M..~0000w 5500 2Q H ... ... .. .... ....... . . . . . ........v=wE cw JHQUHM ~HQ@@O%E-Omw w. W um mm u _ .... . in 0w ".... w 0 _ B 0 Ia B1 3 x T w» fi P m. 05502 W u fl _ W A0055$500T|w000h 500050554 m0 005055553 50m 3500050000 5omuo50oum 0 v 55545. _ _ . .11 . . éww v Awawumnw mfinumwwmfiv .253 nor-dun Sui . _ .................TIwYEFSV A5003 @923 is: ~50“ 03A 5am - ....¢...-..»---.-.....-. mdmov flwwm. WHO. Qww. mflm- .......... . . . . .........A.mmfl2v MUHNMQG wUOCUfi .mwflhw v~Od~fi .hdm W...» N - .-....-...-.......A_NPQGGQ@TMH _N@N:5Mw ~N@@>U.Z agwnwhnx HQQ8T£ .%.Nm 0 so s... Q2. S3 s... .2a.....%._§.=...s@ I an U 5L... mvo. wmw. mmo . MQuFCF M556 winucauo? “wan 1.54 E i5 dwoxmfi .2 dwflwu fimnuC fl E O wwm. w wow. >2. .......cow.muw wcivopm “o wcw “a muuuO use éwoxwfi .02 Juana Jmmaw T E O .mmm. nwo. flaw. Zn. iommww @528»? 0£N~0£ ucisw .23. czsudwoxmfida Juan» .3450 S E O Sb. . . . . . . .. .. .195? din mwwwmfiw wwxEC 63$ iwzrou £5.20 so --......... . . . . ..-.......-.....-..ccw.m Bwvmvrmv QUHHvQW-NQ QMWQHC . T m» .2. 2a i: 2;. . . . . . . .|l . .. 13E c330 N 3 2m 5w i: 2:: 3w E . . 0mm. vmmjn haw. mfiwww CQQLIU 1 m. zm m2. .. . . .w..zsa.e.¢ m 20¢. 3w S...“ Ewfi 3m . . . . . . . mv. Own.‘ 51.x mmw. . wwism warm m - -.-¢¢-..-..-...-..u-..-~.......-.-.¢.- *mw7..% . P C fiJ. .-..-...-...-..-........-..... . . . . ... nMQ@N;CQ2 .wQ.W.~OWswTw» .. X $1 AAOV O wwm.N mfimwb. ..... . . . . . . Qwiwéflwsnwmmk E EO mmw. o2. 53A mom. uo>o¢m afipoawh L E O uvo. woof! SQA wwb. .. .. .. . Ilfi-flwuxuwmxw 2:68 503v vczoaw 6Y3: 15139; A . m O ..-.... . . . . . ......-...................~.....-. Cmdhw NHMkUQQRm - R @- 6%.] ..~...-..........-...........-...=@mvQQ-HQ Mgwfi-nm WHQ.Z@QW@Q I. w Q- .......... . . . . ....-...-.....-...Q@UGOHQ.fiEEI-W.X.-imO.fw@%whw~%@O-O%m L so 3h 2a.! 2N; 2w iii.“Hminmuuwu...... Q usau==i=s§ofiwa w 2m Mm. M... Mm; .........................e.......wwwww_.flv awn... .5... .22. I 1 . . . nnnniixwosumofi R C ........................-...nw~UEHQF=M~QUHvQ ~>VJMO-OTCNQ G m ...- . . . . ......-...»...@.....H.n-.....@..>Afl. wwNR-nw “.5 A SO wvm. wmo. www. mom. Qfinwn .. Q U - .1 . . .-..-....................... ....-.-.... QQQPWQQ S 2 o ..............................CUQHM .M~H:~Ow MO% >havflflk -W.NOQ>POQ A 2o 2w. 7.... 2N; 3P .2£_£.5a¢¢ X .3 s... WWW! Mm. m.“ _........az. m aw “MM. .2... a... .. ......=.....__..Z......§.Q 9 E O is. ~fi.| mwm; SN. . . ...2mwE wwwgcsou :33 ~63 ~33: wwwéosou 2 2O 2w. o mwnQ o ............................A.wfiwfin :33 1w: .25: wwowcoauou o0 ............................-......U§O~NUQ% W-Q§UQUW§OJBOQ O. 5 O XE. 23%| m2.» m3. ..........;E8...E Qiwwivgwv five» imfiwfi Ea .215 wowwcouaou N SH < 3.... mEi| wfia 2;. .. . .. ..;£3.:@ $9: o» v.2 H; 13:» E5 n25: 252033 N I L... O HE d T H mam i M... xm m .. E m. mam _ MO. ,. Wm m. vEmZ . 1 O 3 H 1v U U » n9 fi . ., B ,_ j __ _ AwowcficoOvltwwwoh cmu€oE€ we mgflmcihmfi new wucwnztooo nomaufiwoum p Hqmfia 28 . . . . . w p50vdmnumpnwzrqaoamoBansm / 9 E o N5. 2H 2;. .. .................a~.~.r@¢...M¢._=..E<. pwviflkmlnfiw§fls .3: 2 E0 :2. c . a3. m . .. . . . . >..:¢Esr~»u£¢3m E0 flwC. .............-...-...........mNun0B .Q“H~.NHQ .G0.OM%.MUF%G H5O fflflb.» E O N3. ES. 23} Z3 . . . . . . . . . . .6252: wwwwk swab vacuum £6 Swi S EO 25H $0. m2... Awvlu. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. mwxwHdmbnuaiwww w 2 o H __ m2. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........S8:~n Qtzz; .253: fim U E Q . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NQOMQQ QMUOW .mw.flhw gwmwnvww ->mwm £5 N; Ni.“ m3. I . . . . . . . . a . s W. E o E6. S... 3w. N2. . . . . . . wwmwwhm “wnwfimw 5mm . $~.| i; i.» A s: O . m . G E O mow. mam. wmw. . . . . . . . . TmmaEv A550 $22M A0595 vim x0: 6.2555 fiww ham N Q7 . . . -.. . . . . . . . .......................A.mm.N2v -UH-U~KWE nzfiw Jnmwm 1 2 o 2G m. n3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Awcwfifi “@5539 é§2 dafiw nwi £5 52* m “my” O _ __ _ .. . . . . . . . .. .... . . . . . $52..“ m©a>oZ duwww vim i? 9S3 Sui E S . . . . . . . Iwmfihwwvuwv iflhSwOsmwiwfim F z o _ 5. 2.. “w... Mm. .. ........... .....»....1....~...¢...WH>_..= ska. f2? :2 .5 N 2 O . ............-.......Q@N>UZ ‘mwfikw 05TH m1AQ~v~O5m ifivmfi-E -nfiw.» / A E fi mvw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aimuwnwcuw won: Qzaac éww>wz fimuuu Q53 Sui u. - C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . ..... - . - . Q flwhfig -mmNkN KO fmmfifié Qmflmafi m 2 o 2; ¢ . 2;. 2w. ...............gawwwflwgmwpnww» w? ifiw if.“ £2 s“: m 2o o5” N3. 2.... M .E O vmw owc Nmm. . .. . . . . Awmwow sfi? @055 mGwMEE» m~pmonwno»m<. dwmuoEoO £52m: Kai 2O . . 1. 64w w. 2 u fin. 3i H! 2w. .50.. . . . .. . . . . .$1.12Afifiwmmewwmaww wwgmmoomwwmmm in fi E O w; b: | _ m2. E 2h . . D _ (u. _ >, , "ME J nfi vd H mam y. XW. m l 0 _ 1191. qn M19 1 P 3 _ 4a: an. e1 a 0E6 _ o u o 1a o x. Z Y J W. fi n1 u G u R _ E N . E AwwnflfiioOvilmwwwh cmuiwfijw we wpcmcibafi .8“ muawwofiwuoO acsfiéohm v HQO

ouw pwwvm :wwMEE=Q: 6E9?“ wawn ncwvw E32 5E5 awflxa GHQ . . . . . .GO$NH wwocwiwnns €c=o~w=5 iwwos pwwvm HCQEMhUQKO NQWWUOM EO-% UQQOQHhOO JvOQQOSO ImUNOE hmwflvm -.-. 0 o ~ - --. --.--u-..-. Avwanosov .353: hcwN dcoiiwaxo Miwuwu 59G wwuowfioo 6.50pm Qcwvm . . . . . . G032 wwocainc: Java: ucwvw Q2032 vwucniwn daosu pwwfi Gomuwu wwucfiwnc: fiwxwow -Q~OS>> QCMNhN HQMVm cofiflap counflwnnn .22?» .595. ucuvm . Ammmnoaowws nomonouunlwv :35 wmubw cowcson .¢-.-.--.-.---- bPdh iwoow JHNOQ xown $294 QEESUV ‘UQHQU x525.“ OQNMOQ GNWUCM ..-.--.-.--.-. .Q>E..w§ $55935 632E Mimiohg .w>mu.w= Mflmgchy’? 6Z3: Nfimsoha 63am: Mcibohg . . . . . . . Ammfiavflm MDEOHQV QQ>MRNG NQMEOM}? Amfioawuowdoma flou>noww@H_N§ MGmEOha . SE35 Amconwa couaaoumdwv £32m not? 5 Afifliwnpcdonofl anfiwsunwwaasOv A525 03:3 Mama no uwwm mEEom . . . dmwuw ma?» 623w; Mimiohs? Sum . . . . . 3.2m anon...» dfiwnfl wfifio»? Sum . . . Ammmnuwdgwz do»: . . . . Amnumfiun mnomumv Awuwzuumnu mmuunoaflmwv Aha: mmmcwxmmunwz xwndOv . . . T25 ufiflsumuud NUHGUV Sui ..%dm ll @»w.~ mvm. ll wwm.w wvm. ll oom.N mwm. II @@v.~ wvm. mH¢. mv@.~ mfia. mflv. o Hm». >m¢. ¢@m.~ @>m. wvw. m¢v.~ emu. @¢~.|| wH¢.~ Pww. @¢¢.|1 H@~.~ mom. ~=H. @@¢.H mflw. o @~¢.~ mwu. wmo. @-.H mow. ~»~.|| owo.~ mom. mfio. >mw.H mum. m~m.|| vow. mwfl. ovo. ~ww.~ Nap. wmo. @@@.H vqw. c ~mw.~ H@>. o mum. awn. o ~v>.H bww. o = bwm. o o mvv. Nmo. mom. wvv. ow”. mmm.~ Qfim. Qwfi. m>m.H @»m. ¢vH.|| @@m.~ Maw. vwo. mmH.H bmw. @¢H. omm. wwm. mvfi. Nvw. mmw. mvfi. @¢¢.~ wwv. mmfi. ¢~=.~ Hmw. wmo. , Hmw. mew. mwfl. m>=.H mww. bvo. ~w¢.H Nwp. mvo. ~m~.~ “pp. Hwfl. owo.~ mm». mmo. @wH.~ mam. omH.|l _ m@N.~ _ “mm. ma. mm u mu nw. w 1» w; P av U 05m Z A©05imHGOOv||mUQQ'W HQOMHQE< M0 mfiinminuw HON nuiumowfiooO COwQQDUONN p HAH - . . . - . -¢.-...~v--.y.. . . Wrl C - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . .. . AN%.TN%%@ @@% \V@.W° U>w@ mU>.NU@ XQO “Wu. E O wwmé wmw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1353.8 Qflo wwucwwa no xflfm nfiwflm iwwaflioE 2Q .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................~. Swthfimmm QMmOS N ww. wmw. I! 1| m2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mowmEaE A ZN mwm. 2b.. wNQQ Hm». . . . . . . . . . . . . . w~os36=E m mHJ mmoé :5. mmmQ mmw. . . . . . . . . Iucwfimuonxw wfiuwmw 59G vwuowuuou iifiofw .o=E R zm N8. fie. S: 2.8 HmnmnimuflmunNHHHHuuufiifiufifiw.... 22: 2E E 2 o N8. E?! 2a; m; WEE» Ea; 22a AMA ....... . . . . . ...........................-.. QQQHM ..HQ@@O%OE$ a s . ~ - . ¢ - . - - - - . - - . .. . - . v I a - F aw m“. i? 2f _ i. . . . . . . . . . ..............%~2 2a 52m was :25 £2 o 2 o 2w. \ .22. 2a. 2s. .5nH“muH“H“unjamwawi1wflmawwmv =3 as i2 £52 s E o i? EH. 3:; S? . nshwwcnm >2 3E2 M ‘ ----.-e.'.->--.----|-.-¢¢a-»u-uka.-nnn~m-.mqhwsEEEOOE$ . wfio. HmmQ wwm. uwwm Tam o“ E003 89G wwuflw uh. iww» Q wow . . m a w . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . .GUUHN -:.NMOO*Q Q$NE DP QTMQU fiuc“%hfl»inh5fim . - - . . .. .. . . . - . . . . .. .- .. .. -. .nHUUH Jwfipo nHw@.NU Pwnw- Jvvm.“ c-H 5 ~ . m E O mm». mz. m2} mi“. . . . . . . . . www hum» ow Eco vmcwwnw . umhiawn 521E F E O m2. 5.. 2:. H i . 2. _ 3 m. . F 2 O i - . . . . . . . . . . . - . .. .. .. .. .AEQQ@§ %TH§Q ‘GWQ-nmw JOHQEAHHNQ E a X 1 .¢- - . - - ' . . - - - - . -.-<¢un.|cn-unuunuwpn n % o aw “m. Wm». v s? E. zi=sggsiw=mz C E m Ewm. owc. _ 53E 5m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . aoflsfi uozoouwosO Sm: QBSE N ....-....-. . . . . ...-..-...--.-..-...-- QQO§B -:w_NHw O O E .-..-...--.........-...-....-..---.. %vnhnnohw ~cwflhu H < l l] _ ............................... w>mfifi>hmwmmvhnm EQ~O£>P fi I ||. ll _ vwwiw vww. woxooo 3on3 xmE _ D o a agn M mo am u m m O M mm m. v.. w. M w. a J m. m. 0&2 G _ 1 m w R .,. _ E W N N , _ E .l 11k- z flwwscwacoOvnlwwoorm cmuiwcfiw mo mfizucihnfi you wwcomombmoO comaoflwohk r @553. BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 32 2m QON.» -..,...-.. ....--............. Aw=5§ iwflkww QSN5OhJvOmm ll S? wifl 29w $9 332.28 .§N-S.3 21E E5 ca»: 3E ll $5 $2.11 mid 2a. . . . . . . . . . . . .. v8.2.6?» évwfiéod" 2:5 ES 5P5 $52 I >3. -2.|. 37w o3. . .. . . . . . ..........@32=28 55¢ $249.2 :95 3E z 4 -... - .. ....HCQE@EUQMAQ EQH% uonw£¢ nHNHQ mwnvwm l .- . . . . - ..- -.-........-.@QH@@5Q@NO ‘HU§€ nnfi-MQ 90w“ ml m5. 36.. 37w wm». . . . . . . . . . . . .. wwufinfiwO §on¢ §o.m-o.v ca»: 3E 2O mmw. 2N2. mg. as. . .. .. mmwuu mwwosfi 2O vwm. 2m. o2... New. .. . . . . . . :uw»m.oa.wfl @@- w E -.. -¢ .~.- -. - - . ..- -....A@U>°EQH xvwwmw QMMM@XQE5Q ..- . . .- -.-..-... ..- ...-..--.-¢-UH@P:U ~wnnwxgsnam O 29m. c mwm. m3. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ........wwxoou wan 3a» 625532 2O o 5w.‘ 38.x o .. .. .. . 23m 2O 2w. wwofl MEN; aw. . .. .. . .. wuss Quasi? has uucmwm 2m $2.. 22.11 miiu at. .. .. 35c at? ma: usnmom Z4 ma. wflfill mglo. mwm. .. . mExw vacuum Z4 gm. owe. 231w we». . .. 13E uscwom 2m 23. vnvfl 3&2 van. . ...............m=o:w .8 mzssancwwm 2< -... - - .-.--..- - . - . ...-......-....-. U@°:B Qwfinwnfiflwm 2 O m2. m2.‘ m3; 3w. . .....:wo.~w $536 miuw o» E003 63¢ .3550 58m so -.u- -| n .-¢»¢.¢u-¢-¢-HMQQHM 2 O 3m. 1b.! 22.2 m3. .. . 13:0 wwzwzm mama fir.» as: .3526 .305 .>323 "E0 2 O - ..-...-....--.-.......NHNO@QW @@~H°;H~H.NQ ah“: wmflhw “Q0 2 O m3. mmafl. m2.“ 2m. . .. . . . .5222 min» dfififiw Enuwsfiwcwflfriw .25 in: wwnpw "BO 2 O wwv. o as. mwm. .. . .. .. .1502: 3.2 .ws$u_o fisuofianwnak< .23 is: 33w “HO 2 O --... .. .-...--...-.-wqkwwvvwm %@HNQ Q9 Eooéfi. qnnflwflw ~HQ@@°% “TWO Z< ulluvnnltlu .n-||n.--u-nnlvununuunuun-uu so Q -.¢--... .-..¢-..-...-..--.-...§N;gOQU>wHM@HQWvnhfiéfio umw. wmo. wwwé oww. n39» wcuwuauuuO 2 O pa». v2. vwm. 32.. . . Anumon Mcmwowu can...» E003 E 3:3 coon» £32, m5»? was $46 So -¢-..--.-.-.----.---.¢.¢..-¢-.-| xfifig ;UHQ> vfln“ &.“o FNmw~ ..-.--.-..-...»-.--¢..--.--->_N§ ;UQQ> MGTMQM van“ so -...-...._..-.--..--....-.-.-.-...-.... UMNZM “QQ $5.5 H3O so I .-..-.--...¢-.-...----nMUUHu ~E°°@£ cw HQ@@O% “QQ vmn“ Gnwo 3 H _ m. w...“ mm M. M 1. 1a.... aD. _ 1a 1 0 w m 1a , w... w. oEuZ 1 n? a _ n1 u u . M AMOQSGMQCOOVIIMWQQ@ GQOTAQE< wO mpcncihflfi v HQQFH pow wacowombwoO comuonwoum fififi- . on--¢..-¢-..¢--.-.-.-n.¢..-¢-.---..-.-..-- afiku.wnflfi%vnww 33 M®m- . -..-».-....-......-...-...-...--.....-... =.N .%.N£ nnflwufiww awflm- z .........-......-.-.......-..-........ EOO—§Z5% ~%.flnacflwvflwm bNfi- ..-.-...-...........-..-.............. wnmm@fiwfi Cmflgnnfiwvnaw _ .............-.-.-..-...-...-..§.W~MO@%TM_NQ-M~$E.\WN£ nnfiwvmww -...-.....-...............-.............-.CUUQM .mwflkmc.wwvnww I. II. III .-.-.-~........~..-....-...-.....-...-...-..-...~ fiO-Hflfim ........-.........-.........-..»-..--.r~w.WH.NHUEEQHQNH@QQ@ wmw. $2. mZiH mam. maxim wozmi was 53a. mow . . . uwsmw F30 was Enos mom cunt-nunuunoornuu-nonnulonnoJnnonnnn-uann Pfiahu. ..-..--..-..--.--.-...-.->.-..- Bwou .ww@x.mm =.NU@ Qnvm g». vwo.‘ mwaé Ham. Amnwoumvomwmm anon mow vow. mo». 3w; @277 flwwficawn mom o avnnnlcnonnououvquuua|-on.0|-¢cnununnonu-uuu-p- IIIOIIIv0illlolliIlIOQIl-QIIIQOIIIIII! IOUIIQinnllullllIIUInIIAIOIDIuIInIIIIOI nnonouuo0|uannuu-nnn-nooannnnnoactawmaiim WOP- Q ..--..--...-.--.-»-.-.-.-..-.-¢.--...-- Qmfi@ww Enwgwhnvw . . . @350 63S“! powwow Eflswuom w€§o o ‘gem-Y avian-nannnonnaunnconunoqanuu~uv-uovau Mm©. -.-.....-....-....~¢-......-.-.....- @UH§U _HU@@O% ‘Enwgwhnvw . . . . . 036w» =7: no owmmmwn EQJMMOM fifiP- Aw .-.-..-.-..--...-.....-.-.- afififi@wflnvnvgww ¢$°°H@QUBQ§°w mwwfi. Q -.-..--..-..---..........»aw@“@w QUUMwNw ~@=.N@Q,@UQanmN°@ O IIIIII¢IIIIIIICIIIIOIUIIIOIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIQ I o an; vmm. wEnmom $3.. $9] E54 2w. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5865 $5“ .8263“ “$3.34 62.6 £25 “Em fiww- -..-... - .... -. ......-..- ..-H~@Q@°HQ ;H“@@.NH@M:< -;WH:# . . . . ..........Am=wuwo:uo xflnrnfiwv 52in omum avenue.u:n.-a|c‘Iuoaanono-onuolcnouncoohw O unnwn0n¢cnuancewanna:ulnaonunnanncnolcwmniiawfe vwm. o wmv; wmw. Foivmfl mg. www. SEA 1.2.. mnmwn 53m vow. 2c. >2. omw. Bnfiwofifl wwm. wmfill omwé“ cam. smzoawuzw 3 O ¢.-.....-........-.-»....-.@@HvwUTwmgdnO gQ@R@QHQQHQQWZU.§QO@m ma“. mmwfl mam. mvo. wzcsuomfi @ CO o0 0'3 <9‘ Q Fl l‘- {D I-l b- fN <0 M VG KO O W} I?" W‘ O b- O 22EENSEEEEE§2EE2E23§S5SZ %EEEEE oozQU@ fivnkfi WEUPW -W3QZ.-\KV . . .GQUH.M .HQ.©UO% 509W? ihmfifl was HUG-Hm; 500:0’? wwfiflwwwuw 002w n0 0.000;? ha: Sea?» 05.0w wcw 0022;? 0000530 $552.08 0.00:3 IIIIIIIIIIQOII wiifiw .555 000a?» 2.0.595 0.00:5 100w 005E 0.00:3 . . . .300 $80-0...“ atoi c555 0.00:3 .3000? 22w Ufld mwflfiuuii 050w unwsa . Qwmw 009w $075 ipaosm 00E? 0.00s?» n-lnu-n-a-Hu-u-u- . . . .735 no mnosu 500mg minum fiwmocTw ©0500? .3025 2000K? 10500550 dwwzm £u0o> on-nna-u . 030.00 fi3> $5.5m in: n30> . . . . $35.00 5w San x000? . . . . . .530 ¢w>$dw umufv Qowvow £000.? .E0wm03 Shun no Him?» .3000.“ s000> Awnounmuou 25.30013 .533 440A :30? 53w duct» anon »0>_0> has 500A @030? . Amuon UGQ Gamay 000w cums 0030.? ¢n-¢¢--|--- c_lolnllianlbllonn Haw swflmcfl fiflmflhflh. .23 00.030 was E5055. ..-.--..... ~..--.....-..- ¢--..-.-.. -...»u.--.. . ¢ --»-¢---.- --..--.-. noioanm 60.50 :03 .5003 25w 0C ma: hfioirfi » ~ . . . . . . . . . 1000,30 £003 Aflwzwofi imaaw .-.-.-....-¢.....-.. hu: >§0EMH >505“? 003w £5055. Sun mmwaw dmonom. -¢---...-.-... .-- éwwdm flaw wwao an .9000 . .00 .330 Q5 _. n a 0 w 0 a m . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0M.wZm CNUQ OMMOS win JMNOO .AP§.N1H 20:30 RQ>PO@Q5W wwmzm 00300055 005500 ..~030u::m oEuZ €w==$=¢o0l25ym 0.02.0003» 00 mucufifidfi 00w mpaomumtwoo cofioswoum _. H4548 ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 35 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds ! 7 5 5 é 8 i E 0 4 0 3 g Q § .2 :3 s~ i 8.:- 3*‘ . 1 8 e5 E3 F 52*; ~35 i | m mm on. I 2mm m2 ~ Acorns, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 0 83.9 15.0 50.6‘ 938 1 Alfalfa, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.1 38.4 42.4 71.7 694 fAlfalfa hay, below 30% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.3 50.6 45.7 71.8 371 68.8 48.4 43.3 71.8 245 68.8 15 7 41.3 69.1 696 68.1 31.7 41.3 77.0 748 68.7 41.0 36.5 73.5 743 70.1 48 0 29.8 74.7 744 68.9 25.4 33.5 74.1 739 75.5 42.6 49.8 72.2 944 77.9 37.4 43.8 71.8 811 77.3 32.1 49.3 71.7 955 80.9 35.1 46.8 72.1 986 78.0 21.0 40.8 71.8 855 76.2 19.6 44.1 73.3 856 73.8 4.9 45.4 65.0 833 66.2 37.5 44.9 71.2 977 62.1 38.9 43.0 74.7 978 65.4 28.1 37.7 72.9 979 69.3 41.5 34.3 71.0 980 72.3 44.4 45.7 70.7 981 73.0 44.8 42.5 73.3 982 67.8 39.0 39.7 69.6 983 80.6 41.7 46.9 77.8 984 80.4 49.1 46.1 78.7 990 78.8 43.9 50.5 76.7 991 77.8 37.9 48.2 72.5 992 78.5 60.0 46.1 75.3 417 77.0 54.0 49.0 64.0 1 83.6 62.2 45.2 70.0 708 80.7 61.4 19.4 75.9 713 80.0 44.8 49 4 76 3 1001 83.8 56.8 36.6 78.6 709 77.7 47.1 41.8 61.4 710 82.4. 56.9 36.9 75.8 711 84.5 65.0 58.3 72.9 712 74.9 20.1 43.1 73.7 1049 Average (35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.9 40.8 42.8 72.7 Alfalfa hay, 30-33% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.3 37.9 32.8 69.8 741 73.0 47.2 46.7 72.8 949 72.8 14.8 42.9 71.0 791 67.7 14.5 41.9 72.2 881 65.6 37.9 40.4 69.8 971 74.8 32.7 40.6 71.1 993 77.1 42.8 49.3 75.6 611 69.6 41.9 58.0 69.6 408 75.1 30.4 50.4 72.0 418 72.5 29.9 49.9 72.9 381 72.9 31.3 46.8 67.2 689 ‘ 70.7 16.0 46.0 65.1 687 73.5 18.7 47.4 72.0 868 65.6 37.9 40.4 69.8 738 66.3 20.7 32.5 67.2 886 Average (15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.8 30.3 44.4 70.5 Alfalfa hay, over 33% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.9 24.5 58.9 73.6 964 - 60.8 40.1 38.0 73.2 747 71.9 33.8 24.9 72.3 742 68.3 33.1 42.0 72.2 740 70.6 32.2 44.9 71.0 933 70.4 28.2 49.7 72.7 934 62.0 35.1 40.4 59.5 935 66.8 42.8 45.1 65.6 936 36 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficienfs of American Feeds—-(Continued) BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION . A q) 1 g ° 1-‘ 1 w a.» s. "C! 61 L, a» a 1 cu E 8 5i Ea w: 3?. ‘ "a = m mm on. 2mm mZ Alfalfa hay, over 33% crude fiber (continued). . . . . 71.2 20.1 42.5 70.5 937 Alfalfa hay, over 33% crude fiber (continued). . . . . 61.8 40.1 54.1 67.8 729 67.7 15.2 53.5 69.5 900 70.7 27.7 53.2 70.8 896 67.9 39.8 51.1 66.6 891- 77.5 46.9 40.8 72.3 985 71.6 24.6 45.8 66.5 613 71.9 16.6 45.3 66.8 612 76.7 51.7 50.6 75.2 419 66.7 0 47.7 56.7 384 66.3 43.7 49.4 65.2 887 t 71.1 50.5 49.5 68.2 1039 Ayerage (20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.3 32.3 46.4 68.8 Alfalfa hay, analysis not given . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 76.4 55.9 57.6 71.9 693 167.5 38.3 53.0 64.9 406 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.9 41.1 55.6 66.4 Average all trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.4 36.4 44.5 7 .0 Alfalfa silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54.6 79.8 39.2 42.9 728 Apple pomace, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 34.3 72.2 74.8 1038 0 40.0 74.0 75.0 1068 0 34.6 63.7 77.6 1069 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 36.3 70.0 75.8 Apple pomace, fresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 43.4 67.3 84.3 .552 0 47.2 61.6 84.5 543 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. o 45.3 64.34 64.4 Balsam root, Balsamorhiza Sagittata, in flower, green 77 .3 74.2 58. 7 74.9 725 Barley, grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88.1 86.3 70.4 93.0 561 76.3 87.5 47.3 92.3 808 73.6 68.3 52.3 89.7 809 79.9 70.7 69.3 92.2 810 83.9 80.0 54.3 90.9 807 Average (s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..'| 60.6 78.6 58.1 91.6 Barley by-products, largely hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.9 9.5 38.5 62.1 1070 Barley fodder, bloom, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.4 62.2 56.3 72.8 7 73.1 57.6 65.2 69.6 27 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71-8 59.9 60.8 71.2 Barley fodder, seeds forming, green . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.7 49.1 55.9 74.0 398 Barley hay, (kernels not formed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.2 40.5 61.7 63.3 106 Barley and peas, bloom, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77.2 59.7 43.5 61.4 8 74.5 58.5 61.2 75.5 397 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.9 59.1 52.4 68.5 Beans, pinto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.2 64.8 61.6 95.7 960 Bear grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.0 0 64.7 61.8 932 II 0 84.0 68.1 939 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0 o 14.4 66.0 Beet pulp. dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 52.7 0 75.3 88.4 617 I 50.1 0 99.8 73.6 622 ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 37 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds—-(Confinued) ‘ l n 5 w a u 5 4-1‘ a’; Hg 9;, g3 3'” += 0 H ~ 'U Q R Q M w E 3 £1? ‘ 253 113*»? i "a; =1 9+ , 51m 0.4-. 2M5‘ nsZ I l I 45.4]; 0177.2 |3'1.3 931 49.4 ' 0' 34.1 33.3 éifBeets. sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.3 49.9 100.0 99.9 97 ‘QBerInuda hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.3 38.2 49.8 49.0 850 48.8 46.9 50.8 50.2 842 47.5 55.8 53.9 57.0 904 64.2 39.7 58.9 52.7 767 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51.2 45.2 53.4 52.2 ' Blood meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.0 555 Blue grass hay, Canadian, Poa Compressa, in bloom 43.1 37.0 70.3 62.5 528 -Blue grass hay, Kentucky, Poa Pratensis . . . . . . . .. 56.7 42.5 63.1 53.0 527 i 56.6 53.2 67.0 62.2 796 162.5 53.7 66.6 66.1 544 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 58.6 49.8 65.6 60.5 rewers dried grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.3 88.2 46.8 55.7 546 ‘ 79.3 91.1 52.6 57.8 161 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.8 89.7 49.7 56.8 k Brome grass, green, western, (Bromus Marginatus) 68.0 15.7 53.1 66.9 722 'Bromus inermis hav . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.7 52.6 61.9 64.9 1005 ' 5‘ 47.6 47.3 59.3 61.2 822 I48.6 27.4 59.1 68.5 823 ‘ 49.5 20.2 58.2 66.9 824 _ Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.1 36.9 59.6 55.4 i, Broom corn seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..; 33.9 91.9 33.3 59.2 133 §j__.BuCkWh€3f middlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 90.8 73.7 30.9 90.8 501 * ,|85.1 89.4 16.9 83.3 574 -» Average <2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.0 31.5 23.9 37.0 g‘ Buffalo grass hay, Bulbilis Dactyloldes . . . . . . . . . ..| 54.4 62.4 64.7 61.7 420 |I53.2 35.5 58.4 58.0 839 - Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.3 49.0 51.5 59.9 I Cabbage. entire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.1 69.7 91.0 95.9 643 K "Cabbage heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.7 42.7 100.0 100.0 634 ~Cabbage leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.8 37.4 78.2 84.3 635 rI Cactus, or prickley pear, (Opuntia lindheimeri). ..| 58.3 87.9 41.3 82.6 967 . ||71.6 65.9 43.0 71.6 976 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.9 66.7 42.2 77.1 éfiactus, or prickleypear, (Opuntia engelmannf U cyclou) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.2 77.1 37.3 79.8 737 ‘I 0 88.1 39.5 82.2 970 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..'| 5.1 32.5 33.4 31.0 ‘fGabtus or prickley pear, Opuntia laevis . . . . . . . . . 40.9 69.0 54.0 79.0 736 ‘ .. ..I 49.8 74.2 12.8 76.1 379 . . . . ..| 65.0 85.4 100.0 97.8 644 83.2 11.6 74.7 90.7 658 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 659 59.5 12.4 86.1 89.9 1034 75.5 63.9 70.1 93.6 1071 38 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds——(Continued) BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION i , ‘l p: +1 51E) u! El“ t 11 Hg 6 w g‘ wfi +> o:- ‘UEJ Se». $5 2 E19 a 753-2? “$5 9* £1151 Ola l Zhifl HZ l Carrots (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.7 90.8 100.0 96.9 1972 - I 53.3 21.1 100.0 89.3 1078 Average (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.7 55.0 90.1 94.0 Carrot, wild, (Leptotaenia multifida) . . . . . . . . . ..| 71.1 81.5 47.4 83.0 724 Cassava . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.1 59.3 79.9 55.5 400 Clover hay, alsike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.0 35.1 51.0 74.1 61 ‘ 68.2 65.2 55.9 67.3 78 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.1 50.2 53.5 70.7 Clover. burr. dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.7 5.4 64.2 75.9 836 Clover, crimson, late bloom, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77.1 66.5 56.1 74.5 6 Clover hay, crimson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . .. 68.8 46.2 45.6 70.4 267 (658.3 43.3 21.4 66.6 281 8. 9.2 3.7 60.0 11 g 69.3 34.9 46.2 61.8 12 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i 68.7 | 43.4 46.7 64.7 Clover ha)’, red, average all trials . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73g e714 61.3 49:5 761s 697 60.6 6 .0 55.0 75.2 785 44.3 51.2 51.4 67.6 787 60.0 55.4 46.3 69.4 614 63.9 52.4 59.5 67.6 615 52.6 41.7 43.9 58.0 470 49.4 42.7 47.7 57.6 374 25.2 27.2 51.8 62.9 433 7. 35. 43.6 64.3 434 63.0 55.0 59.0 71.0 315 56.3 65.9 52.6 65.1 235 59.7 48.4 56.1 58.9 228 64.1 66.1 63.4 69.6 236 Average (15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59.5 50.6 51.9 66.7 Clover hay, red, bud to early bloom . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.0 52.0 59.0 68.0 615 Clover hay. red. full bloom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.0 55.0 46.0 69.0 614 Clover, red. green, late bloom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.0 64.5 52.6 77.6 ‘ 325 Clover, rowen, late blossom, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61.9 60.8 52.5 65.3 19 Clover hay, rowen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.7 59.4 49.1 63.6 29 , 6.6.9 60.2 45.6 61.9 30 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.8 59.8 47.4 62.8 Clover, sweet, green, budding to early blossom. . .. 76.9 50.1 66.5 69.0 677 79.2 52.3 50.0 68.5 691 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.1 51.2 58.2 68.8 Clover hay. sweet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.5 30.9 33.6 72.0 1000 Clover hay, white in bloom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.2 50.6 60.6 69.5 62 Clover silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 698 . . .3 . 700 39.7 54.1 55.2 55.8 435 31.0 38.8 43.2 37.9 468 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51.5 62.3 50.0 61.7 Cocoa shells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.7 100.5 50.7 73.5 626 Cocoanut oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92.2 100.0 O 86.9 624 85.0 100.0 39.7 87.8 619 ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS TABLE 8 _ Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds--(Continued) 39 1 I I w g a 5 0 2 Q .2 o M o 1 s: s: 3:1 3.21 5E i 3 i? 2:8 1:255 "m 1 m mm 0m ~ 2mm! m2 I - I Cocoanut oil meal (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 85.0 ‘95.0 100.0 94.0 1036 Average (s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.4 99.9 47.9 89.6 oflee refuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.5 75.4 12.8 32.0 1074 orn bran, (commercial) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53.4 72.3 53.1 79.6 752 71.8 84.4 94.7 86.1 857 37.8 60.2 83.4 86.5 648 47.7 69.1 70.9 84.3 670 87.1 90.7 68.2 81.8 942 55.4 82.7 64.7 74.9 512 67.8 82.5 64.5 83.5 511 Average (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53.3 68.1 71.4 82.4 orn cannery refuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.7 0 24.4 39.9 415 (brn cobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.4 50.1 65.3 60.0 160 0 0 51.4 57.1 930 21.1 0 49.7 3 .5 291 0 1.4 52.4 43.6 1044 0 59.1 56.4 48.7 1046 Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.7 22.1 55.0 49.2 {Corn meal and chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.3 91.9 0 87.1 244 ‘ 66.9 86.7 34.1 91.9 786 64.1 88.2 60.4 90.7 790 72.9 80.6 0 91.7 436 66.1 77.4 0 91.2 393 66.9 80.5 0 94.2 288 67.9 92.5 90.5 96.5 121 67.7 98.1 93.5 95.3 123 63.2 — 56.4 88.6 472 49.2 —— 0 93.1 458 58.6 97.7 0 100.0 289 77.6 87.4 29.3 96.0 800 86.3 91.3 94.2 97.2 889 46.0 —— 0 80.3 471 50.1 —— 0 90.3 457 Average (15) . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.1 88.4 30.6 92.3 -orn and col‘. ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.2 84.6 47.7 85.8 290 I 45.9 83.5 43.6 89.4 292 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55.6 84.1 45.6 87.6 _orn germ oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.1 96.7 94.9 86.7 504 85.5 91.5 82.5 87.9 172 75.4 96.0 68.2 71.9 447 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 76.7 94.7 81.9 82.1 _r'n fodder, cured. ears not formed . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.5 67.3 72.3 71.3 111 58.1 68.8 74.6' 64.5 79 63.4 59.1 65.7 61.0 103 65.4 70.9 74.2 69.5 92 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.4 66.5 71.7 66.6 -5» fodder. cured. ears silking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.1 78.1 46.1 59.2 ass ’ 47.4 45.9 67.9 57.6 390 57.0 62.4 71.6 63.8 558 29.2 74.9 70.5 62.7 337 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.4 65.3 64.0 60.8 40 BULLETIN NO. 329. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds—(Continued) I \ i e o .5 i s a 31 E31 B * s: 3s 262i; s? 1 3 it? 5.8 1:21? ‘aw i FM ma: on. 2mm m2 Corn fodder, cured. in milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.6 79.2 74.4 66.8 358 50.2 77.2 62.9 59.6 359 44 0 79.5 71.0 67.5 335 43.1 72 1 60.6 68.9 356 44 3 74.6 50.4 69.2 350 Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.0 76.5 63.9 66.2 Corn fodder, cured, dough to mature . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 64.2 44.5 62.1 765 44.3 75.5 52.5 71.1 762 63.6 71.6 79.8 70.3 80 67.6 64.7 78.6 73.8 104 37.2 72.4 66.0 65.6 52 48.8 68.5 56.1 65.9 377 61.9 73.7 70.7 76.8 110 58.6 76.3 73.1 82.1 -316 56.9 72.3 79.8 74.4 459 61 8 70.2 75.6 72.6 93 49 0 73.0 67.0 61.0 239 57 7 78.0 42.8 77.8 353 48 8 77.8 60.2 77.0 354 37 9 75.0 71.5 63.4 252 7 56.8 77.5 75.9 64.1 370 Average £15) . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51.7 72.7 66.3 70.5 Corn fodder, cured, mature. ears finely ground. . . . 43.3 65.7 67.7 74.0 413 Corn fodder, cured. shredded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.9 72.2 64.6 55.4 134 35.0 77.5 55.9 54.0 142 36.5 74.2 69.6 59.2 135 Awerage (3) . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.1 74.6 63.4 56.2 Corn fodder, cured, sweet, some ears fully formed. . 59.0 67.4 70.2 59.4 81 Corn fodder, green, ears not formed . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.8 78.9 71.4 74.9 330 | 46.7 59.3 69.9 68.2 473 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 60.3 69.1 70.7 71.6 Corn fodder, green, silking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.0 74.3 '67.7 71.2 345 56.3 72.5 60.7 74.1 328 67.0 65.9 60.3 72.3 551 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.1 70.9 62.9 72.5 Corn fodder. greenhin milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.0 70.2 64.9 76.0 610 ’ 62.6 80.6 65.2 73.7 344 60.0 67.4 58.7 72.6 343 62.5 80.6 65.2 73.6 357 68.8 68.2 68.8 76.6 609 Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.4 73.4 64.6 74.5 Corn fodder, green. dough to mature . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.7 76.1 64.8 77.0 571 60.0 82.5 66.4 77.8 329 78.1 40.1 74.7 65.8 326 58.0 76.2 51.3 70.7 341 61.6 82.3 47.2 81.2 347 42 7 76.5 58.9 77.8 608 57 1 80.5 60.1 79.0 607 59 8 76.0 61.5 76.7 605 63.3 83.9 66.4 83.5 604 51.6 84.8 40.0 76.8 346 53.2 79.3 60.1 74.0 349 44.3 69.4 58.6 74.0 355 /. TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds-—(Continued) ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 41 c v i) 4:3 +* g3 ‘ ..< O g b); O q; ; s 2:2 3s 2.5 s? } 3 5i f 2:8 P1312 ‘$5 o. mm i 1m 2mm m2 fodder, green, dough to mature (continued). . 52.3 72.3 61.7 78.1 352 59.2 73.3 64.8 73.1 342 Average (14) . . . . . . . . . 57.4 75.2 59.8 76.1 fodden sweet green,1nflk stage . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.2 69.2 58.9 81.8 396 foden sweet green,roasfing stage . . . . . . . . .. 77.5 73.9 74.9 80.5 327 60.7 71.4 59.4 73.5 45 60.3 70.3 62.9 73.7 48 55.5 78.3 54.3 74.1 22 63.3 78.0 65.0 79.2 25 Ayerage (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.5 74.4 63.3 76.2 fodden sweet green, past roasfing stage..... 61.8 76.4 76.7 72.1 94 66.5 81.7 60.7 78.3 23 71.5 77.0 74.6 73.1 105 Ayerage (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.6 78.4 70.7 74.5 sflage. sweet znature . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54.0 83.5 71.1 71.8 84 sflage,less than 2092 fiben dry basis . . . . . . .. 48.5 85.9 33.2 75.6 348 silage, 20-25% fiber, dry basis . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.4 80.1 56.7 68.1 49 ' 58.6 89.7 73.6 74.9 776 56.7 66.4 68.3 78.4 816 53.7 82.4 47.1 71.7 378 45.2 86.0 56.0 66.5 334 58.7 86.4 68.9 71.9 253 67.4 87.2 78.5 78.9 114 45.3 76.9 72.9 81.8 208 54.0 83.5 71.1 71.8 84 38.8 76.7 58.2 71.8 1013 68.1 80.9 77.9 83.1 108 I 73.3 80.9 77.8 78.5 109 I .Average (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.0 81.3 67.2 74.7 Corn sflage, 25-3032 fiber, dry basis...~ . . . . . . . . . .. 64.8 67.8 66.7 65.4 107 . 50.9 75.5 57.8 65.0 474 46.7 68.3 67.2 64.1 461 59.2 69.7 74.7 76.3 879 63.9 84.6 71.0 72.9 562 35.0 74.1 77.6 71.4 409 60.4 89.7 79.6 72.1 360 54.4 89.6 70.3 67.3 361 45.4 86.1 59.2 71.1 312 39.4 87.2 70.3 74.7 313 46.1 86.0 63.5 66.5 333 34.4 66.0 43.2 60.5 270 56.3 72.9 72.1 75.6 119 52.8 82.6 75.2 73.3 83 53.7 77.3 77.0 78.8 460 I 23.9 69.4 69.6 64.1 405 I Average (16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.2 77.9 68.4 69.9 ayfrn sflage over 3092 fiben dry basis . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.6 65.3 73.8 65.6 82 "6 27.0 51.0 69.0 62.4 403 66.8 89.4 83.1 76.9 362 57.6 87.4 70.9 69.9 363 49.0 90.0 69.0 67.0 240 52.6 83.6 69.8 69.3 251 60 0 67,9 67.5 6! 1 113 62 8 57.3 68.6 65 5 351 42 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds—(Continued) 1 I 1 ‘ g u é 0 § “ I .~ 0 _ M 0 Q2 1%. 23 21*» 5113 :26 1 w 4.1x 5x5 --:-1>< o” fl~ 111151 om . 71414-1 Z I I l Corn silage over 30% fiber, dry basis (continued). .| 46.7 1 84.5 I 75.2 68.1 338 ‘ I 21.5 I68.3 I63.6 54.9 339 Average (10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.1 74.51 71.1 66.4 Corn silage, steamed or cooked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 5.3 79.3 63.3‘ 71.1 777 55.0 89.9 75.3 75.7 770 I 39.4 87.2 70.3 74.7 313 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “I 21.4 85.5 69.6 73.8 Corn shucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I 12.5 38.6 69.3 60.6 847 _ I 29.5 32.5 79.5 75.0 132 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0 35.63 74.4 67.8 Corn stover. blades and shucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I 47.7 58.1 72.9 66.4 144 Corn stover. pulled. chiefly blades . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 21.0 79.5 73.5 69.0 130 l 22.0 63.5 70.5 53.5 131 I 34.5 55.5 77.5 68.0 133 { 23.4 71.3 71.4 62.2 367 .3 6 . 57.4 58.0 266 I 1 1 Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 39.0‘ 66.7 70.1 l 62.1 Corn stover, entire plant, except ears . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6 74.2 64.3 56.8 258 I 51.7 52.1 66.4 63.9 321 I 3%.: 22.2 70.3 60.6 412 . . 56.7 60.6 385 l 39.9 72.2 64.6 55.4 134 l 52.5 36.3 72.1 63.7 825 l 36.5 74.2 69.6 59.2 135 I 22.3 I 22.2 58.; 52.9 580 . . 6 . 53.9 578 1 1 1 Average (9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.5 62.4 l 64.8 ' 58.7 Corn stover, without pith of stalks . . . . . . . . . . . . °0.5 72.0 l 62.7 56.6 259 ;59.7 82.8! 60.6 165.8 140 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.1 7.4] . . Corn stover, without pith, steamed . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.8 79.8 I I 143 Cotton boll refuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 9.9 55.5 I 49 8 I 46 3 768 Cotton burrs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..127.9 65.7 12316168161 929 Cottonseed. cold pressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 81.7 I 97.0 l 50.3 I 73.7 860 l 80.2 l 94.4 l 45.7 l 70.9 866 I 78.4 I100.0 I 40.3 l 78.2 563 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.1 97.1 l 45.4 l 74.3 l l Cottonseed, heated seed, cold pressed . . . . . . . . . ..l 56.0 07.5 l 32.1 l 54_9 92g Cottonseed, raw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 67.8 87.1 l 75.5 I 49.6 271 1 1 I 1 I ' Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.6 I 91.7 i1 64.0 l 58.81 1 , I (‘o‘t0nseed, roasted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I 46.9 l 71.7 l 65.7 l 51.4‘ 272 Cottonseed meal, below 12 per cent fiber . . . . . . . ..l 88.7 I100.0 I 0 l 67,8 376 187.7 1100.0155.3 134.1 927 l 85.1 l 98.8 l 11.9 l 71.9 867 l 83.3l100.0 I 0 l95.9 482 l 92.1 l 92.0 l 73.4 l 67.4 282 l 83.5 l 90.1 l 19.5 l 60.5 l 283 l 85.5 l 92.0 l 0 l 55.1 l 280 I 80.7 I100.0 I 38.3 I 73.2 I 1050 ‘Cottonseed hulls, fed with alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. " Cottonseed hulls, delinted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 43 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds—(Continued) I Cottonseed meal, below 12 per cent fiber (continued)! Protein 73. Ether k Extract Nitrogen- free Extract g GO uh <1 Reference Number 1052 Average (9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed meal, dark colored slightly fermented. . Cottonseed meal, 13.6% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed meal and hulls, 18.6% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . Cottcgifeed meal and hulls, 24-29% protein, 21% er . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84. 82. 83. 75. 77. (O O5 vii NJQOQO ("uh-Q 481 - 1035 620 479 864 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed meal and hulls, 1 1-2 to 1 (21% protein, 29% fiber) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed hulls and meal 3:1 to 2:1 (15 to 18% ‘protein) (31 to 39% fiber) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75. N Q0903 0303M vb OD ¢ was ass 6'3 cooolo cow-q 285 294 Average‘ (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cottonseed hulls and meal, 4 :1 (7 . 7 to 11.0 protein) 780 192 194 195 827 Average (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed hulls and meal, 5:1 to 7:1 (8.4-8.8 % protein) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 asaasaa 5 spa L 5 estates 8 Q65 8 L ssassa; L saa Q L &b&L&bb 6 ass 8 364 265 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cottonseed hulls, fed alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 273 264 Average ( 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864 1051 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed hulls fed with cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 43. 50. 284 =286 293 295 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cowpeas, meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cowpeas, hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23. 82. 64. I l Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I| I ‘ Cowpeas, ready for soiling, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68. w N mmwL 5 A18; Q 88 E 58; fi_bb Q m omow N w§L& E 65 8 5bL 5 85 o o mwwc N mmnw w ¢w w @§L Q Q5 h’: 46 44 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds—(Continued) BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION I o a +5 g g. g6 m g <11 ‘ Q ‘é E5 ‘ "a? E35 E5 ' .1 *1." a: 55 5E 35 - l 4 l Cowpeas, ready for soiling, green (c0ntinued).... 74.0 59.4 57.5 84.2 24 Average (2) . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.6 59.4 59.6 80.6 Cowpea silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57.5 62.6 52.0 72.5 50 I 10.7 41.9 I 41.3 35.7 1012 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 34.1 52.2 '1 46.7 54.1 i Crab grass 115;: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 42.6 53.4 51.0 311 32.0 35.6 64.4 52.8 753 i 55.1 50.9 59.7 58.0 231 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 30.3 43.0 30.8 53.0 Dandelion, wild, (Crepis intermedla) . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.9 33.1 35.9 77.5 720 Dolichos lablab hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.3 52.0 54.7 64.6 878 Darso grain, cracked, (balanced ration) . . . . . . . . .. 72.5 87.2 80.7 92.2 962 Darso grain, (unbalanced ration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.5 68.9 0 84.1 731 Dar-so silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.2 59.7 38.9 70.0 732 Distillers grains, 24-35% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.8 95.8 0 80.1 506 77.2 94.7 '0 84.0 507 73.7 92.9 0 75.4_ 508 70.7 97.7 0 78.9 509 65.3 94.1 59.0 87.9 783 76.2 80.5 53.9 66.3 669 71.7 96.5 88.8 80.1 545 70.6 95.4 77.2 70.4 542 I 79.5 93.2 16.3 70.6 647 Average (9) . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.1 93.4 39.3 78.1 Distillers grains, 16% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59.4 84.3 0 67.3 505 ' I 43.2 70.4 22.3 46.8 499 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..'1 51.3 77.3 11-.1 57.1 Feterita grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90,0 74.5 50.0 96.6 888 46.6 56.7 0 87.9 675 t 93.0 90.0 0 90.0 1037 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 76.5 73.7 13.7 91.5 Feterita stover . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.1 58.7 66.3 60.9 906 Fish meal. glue removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.1 100.0 —- —- 630 Fish scraps, Menhaden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.1 100.0 -—- -—- 631 Flax plant by-product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.4 75.0 48.3 43.0 502 Flax shives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.0 92.7 25.8 43.5 623 Garbage tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.6 100.0 93.6 89.6 671 Gluten feed, (about 20% protein) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.8 84.3 9.0 73.5 514 77.3 60.2 51.3 66.3 663 94.3 74.2 100.0 100.0 664 79.2 84.0 100.0 89.9 655 87.2 56.7 100.0 100.0 649 77.0 39.8 100.0 98.1 650 88.5 73.1 100.0 95.5 638 91.1 77.7 100.0 95.2 566 94.2 44.5 100.0 100.0 674 83.0 78.6 78.1 89.9 171 86.5 80.6 77.0 90.2 187 84.6 87.0 92.4 95.5 209 79.5 81.6 83.1 94.8 1061 83.7 80.2 82.3 85.1 1062 83.2 90.6 61.4 84.0 1063 91.5 82.9 .0 100.0 1064 ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICTENTSOF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds-—(Continued) 45 1 g a 5 +> 5 2"‘ .... Q b); 0 i q) o 8 52 85 2.2; 5E S. :5‘; 2e r: 2.1? = "8 == m mm on. 25.51 l m2 2Gluten feed, (about 20% protein) (continued). .. . . 85.8 76.2 100.0 99.2 1065 | 82.6 46.2 100.0 84.1 1066 Average (18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 84.5 72.1 85.3 91.2 _Gluten meal, (about 40% protein) . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.4 47.3 0 91.4 646 4 . 83.8 99.1 0 93.2 87.3 22.8 0 70.2 668 86.6 87.8 0 90.8 85.0 81.4 43.1 81.4 88.8 94.2 99.6 89.3 90.5 97.1 21.6 96.7 1 91.9 94.9 0 84.0 Average (8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.5 78.1 20.5 87.1 Grass. pasture, dried, Penn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.2 74.4 75.5 75.4 331 - I 71.5 60.1 76.17 72.9 323 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 78.4 67.8 76.1 74.2 _"Grass, rowen, mixed grasses and clover . . . . . . . . .. 67.4 55.2 62.6 71.6 47 Grass, range, cut in July during height of growing " season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.9 33.9 65.5 67.0 1031 Grass, range, cut in Oct, 3,at end of growing season 10.5 39.1 58.4 49.9 1032 Grass, range, cut in April after weathering during , ' 5.3 30.8 61.7 53.1 1033 . _ 65.5 54.7 74.3 72.5 322 YHay, bitter brush, (Kunzie tridentata) . . . . . . . . . .. 81.7 71.4 69.5 86.1 719 ' ;lHaY, black grass, (Juncus Gerardi) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.9 41.5 60.5 56.3 180 '_ |54.3 45.7 57.4 49.0 196 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.6 43.6 58.9 52.7 blue joint, (in bloom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.2 52.3 72.4 68.6 76 blue joint hay, (past bloom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.5 37.0 36.5 43.2 63 branch, grass (Distichlys spicata) . . . . . . . .. 62.3 31.5 52.3 53.8 182 I51.7 36.7 56.4 45.7 198 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57.0 34.1 54.3 49.8 buttereup, (in full bloom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.3 69.7 41.1 66.9 70 chess or cheat, (Bromus secalinus) . . . . . . .. 42.0 32.0 46.0 49.0 314 Colorado, upland, (Agropyron tenerum) . . . .. 62.3 20.6 55.6 51.3 387 [60.9 47.1 61.4 62.0 382 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.8 88.8 58.5 58.7 cord grass, (Spartina cynosuriodes) . . . . . . .. 39.1 50.1 56.1 49.0 798 cove mixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.9 40.3 59.7 53.2 200 fiat sage, (Spartina stricta-martina) . .8 . . . . . . 51.8 36.1 60.4 55.1 fox grass, (Spartina patens) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59.3 36.4 57.4 53.1 57.0 23.8 51.3 51.5 '62.’! 46.6 50.4 53.3 Average (8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..'| 59.7 85.8 58.0 52.5 low meadow fox grass, (Spartina iunciformis) 57.0 24.0 51.0 52.0 183 guam grass, (Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.7 57.2 57.1 53.8 846 Kansas prairie, (Sporbolus asper) . . . . . . . . .. 17.7 56.6 61.2 61.3 421 lupine, (Little Lupinus Sp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.8 57.2 55.7 75.4 718 mixed grasses, 6 to 8% protein . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.3 50.0 53.7 59.7 559 42.4 46.4 60.9 64.1 554 36.1 34.2 52.5 56.6 553 50.9 50.8 59.8 60.9 579 53.7 50.3 63.8 63.1 576 46 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds——(Continued) BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION i ~ 1 o Q u j 5 0 ‘ 25 m. t) u) O q; s as $5 A 2.2 s? 8 15*»? Ea A :21? “a: W EQH (QM ‘ Zfiafi D12 Hay, mixed grasses, 6 to 8% protein (continued). . 47.4 51.7 57.6 61.1 577 52.9 42.7 59.1 57.4 541 49.1 49.3 66.7 64.5 606 50.8 42.8 62.5 60.3 688 50.8 45.1 68.3 63.5 684 50.8 40.8 68.9 65.6 679 43.0 42.2 59.5 58.8 672 46.4 38.8 66.4 53.7 673 45.3 43.6 58.3 57.9 667 43.5 43.6 63.5 61.5 665 41.3 47.0 62.9 62.0 661 52.5 42.5 61.0 60.1 660 48.3 39.3 63.1 62.5 656 50.6 48.3 69.6 66.4 651 52.3 56.2 61.0 62.1 645 51.8 36.1 60.4 55.1 202 73.4 68.7 44.8 77.4 248 67.0 70.3 50.9 83.5 249 65.2 70.8 44.3 67.4 250 46.9 50.0 45.8 55.5 246 '47.8 45.4 62.7 60.0 1055 48.3 33.0 65.6 56.7 1056 44.7 29.0 63.8 55.1 1057 54.9 43.6 66.6 61.6 1058 57.1 49.1 64.3 60.4 1059 57.1 47.9 66.0 62.7 1060 Average (31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.4 46.8 60.5 62.2 Iiay, ldass" xnixed grasses, 8 to 119$ protein . . . . .. 61.5 50.2 73.8 64.5 568 62.3 52.4 76.3 66.4 567 62.0 54.2 72.9 64.7 564 65.0 57.5 63.0 65.0 534 65.0 57.6 62.7 64.9 535 60.8 47.1 56.8 61.5 536 61.2 49.5 65.0 63.2 537 56.5 50.2 59.2 60.5 538 62.5 53.7 67.0 64.1 539 59.8 55.9 62.0 61.9 540 55.3 44.4 59.1 57.5 532 53.9 38.6 56.0 54.2 533 64.7 45.8 67.4 67.0 625 55.2 47.9 67.8 65.1 618 53.7 54.4 66.0 64.7 616 61.5 50.2 73.8 64.5 602 61.0 52.8 70.3 67.3 628 53.2 50.7 63.0 63.9 676 51.1 38.3 61.9 63.2 639 58.6 46.9 58.2 57.2 167 54.7 47.7 56.4 55.9 166 58.2 49.6 62.4 59.3 165 57.3 46.9 57.1 57.9 157 63.5 _51.4 64.5 63.3 155 71.2 79.1 77.9 77.4 707 50.0 40.8 67.4 60.0 629 50.7 38.3 59.8 57.5 632 53.6 47.8 59.1 61.4 603 62.3 52.4 76.3 66.4 601 62.1 47.9 70.7 68.0 593 I 49.1 49.3 66.7 64.5 589 Average (18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 58.6) 50.0 65.2 63.0 Hay. nmadown swah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J 34.0 44.0 33.0 46.0 184 Hay. meadow, Fescue Festuca elatior, pratensisJ eafly bkmnm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.3 |53.8 [67.1 [59.3 I 531 IIay.1n0ih bear. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 67.1 1 10.8 4 52.3 I 64.9 J 877 (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l Average ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 47 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds——(Continued)‘ . ‘ I w g a l 5 += 2Q ~~ u w o 2 a 2 a‘; e a .. 2 5E 3 i? 2i -= 31? “a = r1» ram cm - Zara m2 _ I g Hay, red top, in full bloom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.2 56.8 61.3 64.6 75 60.4 44.2 61.2 59.1 65 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61.3 50.5 61.3 61.9 Hay, red top, mixed with sedge, Agrostis vulgaris. 37.2 49.0 55.7 45.6 199 Hay. rowen, Mass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.3 32.3 68.1 63.5 690 69.1 46.2 66.5 65.1 9 69.6 60.9 49.0 67.2 33 69.0 48.6 66.6 67.2 31 72.5 45.2 65.7 62.3 399 Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.1 46.6 63.2 65.1 Hay, salt, black grass and red top . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.9 40.3 59.7 53.2 Hay, salt, fox grass, (Spartina patens) . . . . . . . . . .. 59.3 36.4 57.4 53.1 197 Hay, blue grass, Nevada, native, (Poa Sandbergii) . 63.9 49.9 44.7 60.2 721 Hay, mostly Buckley’s blue grass, Nevada . . . . . .. 46.8 69.3 65.9 68.4 705 Hay, native, half clover .. . . .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52. 1 61.7 66.4 70.9 706 Hay, native, timothy and tickel grass, Nevada. . . . . 63.9 72. 1 74.1 78.2 704 Hay, prairie, wire grass and sedge, Nevada . . . . . .. 51.2 70.7 76.0 61.3 703 Hay, salt, high grown, (Spartina patens) . . . . . . . . 63.0 47.0 50.0 53.0 181 Hay, salt. mixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.7 29.7 60.7 54.7 201 Hay, salt mixture, fox and branch grass, etc . . . . . . 41.7 27.9 57.5 52.3 Hay, swale or swamp, Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.8 43.6 33.0 46.0 Hay, lowland, Dakota, prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.5 39.9 60.1 56.5 826 Hay, slough grass, S. Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.6 54.0 58.8 54.6 797 Hay, upland, S. Dakota, prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.0 31.7 52.7 50.7 799 Hay, Texas prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 0 34.8 69.9 53.9 870 ~ 25.4 36.9 53.4 49.3 894 32.7 50.4 48.0 45.9 922 23.0 48.0 44.4 42.6 923 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2_1.0 42.5 51.4 47.9 ' Hay, cut before frost, Texas, prairie . . . . . . . . . . . .. —8.6 3 .1 53.5 46.9 853 Hay, Texas prairie, cut after frost . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 57.3 66.7 57.1 852 Hay, largely timothy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.7 38.3 57.0 60.0 467 47.8 45.3 54.7 66.1 464 35.3 46.8 59.6 63.0 462 35.3 35.7 54.8 59.4 454 53.1 56.1 53.6 56.3 444 65.2 44.6 48.0 63.0 437 40.0 50.0 49.0 58.0 242 39.4 57.1 46.5 56.8 478 Average (s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.6 46.7 52.9 60.3 Hay, water grass, (Arizona) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.1 27.4 57.5 46.8 380 Hay, western wheat grass, (S. Dakota) . . . . . . . . .. 51.5 39.4 68.2 60.9 795 Hay, white weed, (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) 58.4 62.0 45.5 66.7 71 Hay, witch grass, Argopyron repens . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.2 60.0 67.6 62.1 69 52.9 54.4 57.9 69.0 77 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.6 57.2 62.8 65.6 "Hay, Wyoming native, (Agropyron occidentale) 74.2 52.9 68.0 62.4 1008 " Hay, Wyoming native, (Agropyron pseudorepens). 76.1 56.4 64.6 71.1 1006 Hay, Wyoming native, (Bromus inermis) . . . . . .. 75.0 53.0 62.0 65.0 1005 Q .Hay, Wyoming native, (Carex Utriculta hay)... .. 63.5 52.6 72.8 65.8 1010 1' Hay, Wyoming native, (Carex Nebraskensis hay). . 59.7 32.4 66.6 63.3 1011 .Hay, Wyoming native, (Elocharis rastellata) . . . . .. 64.1 50.3 75.8 70.0 1009 Hay, Wyoming native, (Juncus balticus). . . . . . . .. 72.3 49.4 72.3 66.1 1003 ’ 75.0 49.5 70.1 56.1 1004 .7 .5 .2 .1 48 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds-—(Continued) i ‘ 5 I Z a: g a: 5 e-I 1 g: --< o b9 o ‘ 2 . 66 66 2.2. 8E 2 * i‘; Ea . #28111 ‘6= m ma: om r zmmi m2 Hay, Wyoming native, (Poa Nevadensis) . . . . . . .. 62.2 42.7 71.0 59.8 1007 " Hay, Wyoming native, wheat grass . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.8 51.7 63.9 65.2 95 56.3 47.8 68.6 66.1 996 55.0 42.0 71.3 68.5 988 58.8 40.8 67.3 67.2 989 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 67.7 45.6 67.8 66.8 Hay, Wyoming native, wire grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.8 54.2 58.3 54.3 994 59.1 62.9 65.1 64.1 987 Average <2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 48.9 58.6 61.7 59.2 Hominy feed or meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.1 95.9 78.9 91.5 789 74.0 89.0 26.6 94.2 549 67.5 91.0 0 88.0 560 69.5 88.2 80.0 92.6 579 58.1 94.1 38.1 87.7 557 Average (s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 68.2 91.6 44.7 90.2 Indian potato fodder, cured, (Glycine Apios) . . . . .. 56.7 77.2 74.4 65.2 727 Jack bean seeds, raw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89.6 81.6 80.2 96.8 892 Johnson grass hay, (Andropogon halepensis) . . . . .. 51.8 49.3 67.6 61.0 840 41.0 52.2 65.9 52.3 831 38.1 37.2 73.5 59.3 232 44.7 39.5 57.8 54.4 276 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.9 44.6 66.2 56.7 Kafir grain, whole, unbalanced ration . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.6 0 0 47.7 759 Kafir grain, whole soaked, unbalanced ration... .. 36.1 —~ -— 38.1 755 Kafir chops, balanced ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.2 75.6 _ 52.1 92.1 862 63.9 78.1 0 85.4 828 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.6 76.8 26.0 88.8 Kafir meal, unbalanced ration ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53.3 46.1 -— 75.9 757 I 54.8 0 -—— 80.3 424 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.0 - - 78.1 Kafir heads, chopped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.4 74.4 61.1 80.4 863 Kafir heads, unground, imbalanced ration . . . . . . . .. 12.3 31.1 27.4 30.8 758 Kafir fodder, (with heads) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.7 64.8 54.1 66.9 761 ‘ 62.4 56.4 63.8 69.8 902 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 62.1 60.6 50.0 68.4 Kafir head stems, “pummies” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.2 52.9 33.1 58.4 1043 Kafir stover, (No heads) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.0 53.1 67.1 69.4 845 38.1 61.0 60.4 66.4 756 49.8 60.0 66.6 66.3 422 18.2 47.6 48.6 46.3 912 ‘$0.5 i 79.3 67 0 58.2 760 Average (s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 39.9 i 60.2 61 9 61.6 Kafir silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.5 50.3 l 57.9 60.1 1016 Kale, thousand headed, green, (Brassica Oleracea) 79.5 61.7 58.5 76.2 772 181.7! 70.0 59.5 75.4 771 Average (2) ....'soa,ss.s 69.11 75s Linseed meal, old process....-.................. 888I88.6 57.1 776i l5! ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS _ 49 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds—-(Continued) é 8 ‘ cu v c: ‘J no v w g 8 S w 2 8% 2.2 w: 2*»? ‘a: = om 2mm , m2 Linseed meal. new process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 87. 4 432 ’ 0 94 . 0 515 61.2 85.5 158 99.5 86.6 169 0 476 69.6 91.4 463 38.4 89 99.4 85.3 581 100.0 77.8 547 100.0 81.5 32.9 67.1 375 87.5 ‘93.6 636 100 . 0 96 . 0 633 I 42.8 91.3 98 , 76.8 93.6 Mesquite beans. fed with alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 58. 8 81 .3 1053 ——- ——- 486 I _ _ 487 I —— — 489 {I Iii k, whole, raw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 —- -— 483 M k, skim, sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 488 _ | _ 100.0 122 gllglk, whole, pasturized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| I —— —— 484 i 11k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I —- I — 485 11k, whole, with preservatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l —— I —— 490 | -_ J -_ 491 - i - 492 - | - 49a i —— —— 494 —— —— 495 —— —— 496 _ Average (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —- —- iuet, grain, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 . s 88.2 s01 " 0 89.5‘ 803 52.7 94.1 806 25.6 90.6 14.2 86.8 804 53 . 7 ‘ 82 . 0 805 v 0 84 . 4 802 22.6 84.4 63.2 55.5 526 68.6 56.7 524 61.6 51.6 207 .3‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s5 . 1 54.2 7”‘ Jet, barnyard, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 . o 70 . 5 525 73.9 75.7 203 70.6 64.5 204 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPElRIMENT STATION 50 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds—(Continued) g a é a 2Q ..-. u u; o s s 2 a é; s a .. *2 5E 3 £3? l 2e vi 8i “a; = 9'4 BIN l. OFY-z ZFHH m2 Millet, barnyard, green (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.2 71.7 62.8 69.4 44 47.2 71.7 62.8 68.4 44 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.0 62.9 70.3 69.8 Millet, barnyard, green, in early bloom . . . . . . . . . .. 68.1 64.4 73.9 75.7 203 72.3 61.1 ‘70.6 64.5 204 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .. 70.2 62.7 72.3 70.1 Millet, barnyard, green, bloom to early seed . . . . . .. 47.2 71.7 62.8 68.4 44 Millet, barnyard, just heading out, green . . . . . . . .. 60.3 54.5 74.0 70.5 525 Millet, Hungarian, early to late bloom . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.3 61.2 71.3 67.8 20 v 69.3 83.5 79.4 70.0 17 62.4 52.3 67.8 65.8 90 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.3 65.7 72.8 67.9 Millet, fodder, green, Japanese, from bloom to early see . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57.3 59.8 58.8 64.4 41 Millet hay, Hungarian . . . . . . . . . . . .._ . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.0 63.9 67.6 67.1 91 Millet hay, cat tail, (Pennisetum splcatum) . . . . .. 62.6 46.1 66.5 59.1 275 Milo fodder, cured, stalk and heads . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.1 70.9 72.0 78.2 903 Milo stover, stalks without heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 56.6 65.8 49.2 913 Milo fodder, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.2 53.0 50.9 64.7 766 Milo head chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.8 84.8 18.9 88.5 898 79.4 88.6 84.4 93.1 890 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.6 86.7 51.7 90.8 Milo meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61.4 72.8 30.9 80.3 746‘ 49.4 63.2 67.7 82.0 745 84.0 ‘91.2 2.3 95.9 965 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.9 75.8 33.6 86.1 Milo. Whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.9 88.2 72.3 95.6 963 65.9 90.2 0 84.5 829 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.9 89.2 ' 36.2 90.1 Molasses, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.7 -— — 100.0 830 25.3 -— —— 99.3 570 0 —— —— 95.3 569 0 -— —- 85.9 565 0 ——- —— 76.9 585 0 -.— -—- 75.8 586 0 -—- ——- 52.3 587 12.6 -—— —-— 86.8 588 39.8 —- -— 88.1 590 10.8 -— -—- 92.2 591 38.0 -—- —- 100.0 592 0 —— —— 87.9 594 0 —- -—— 85.0 595 0 -—- — 70.0 596 40.2 —- —- 94.4 ‘597 25.3 —- —- 99.3 598 0 —- ——-~ 85.9 599 0 — —- 95.3 600 Average (18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.8 —— -—- 88.7 Moss, Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .5 15.6 51.9 77.3 917 Mountain Indian Pink, or painted cup fodder . . . . . . 64.8 76.8 49.1 80.3 723 Oak leaves, live oak, (fed with alfalfa) . . . . . . . . . . 0 26.5 10.4 26.9 1054 ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 51 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefiicients of American Feeds—-(Continued) - 5 3 g u g a Z Q ... o u; 0 3 s 2 “g S 2 u: 2 i g? . 2 £1? j E-e #282 ‘ '3 = 1 m mm , om zmm mz 03:3 10-1293 fiber . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.5 79.3 49.7 35.7 321 79.3 33.2 52.1 35.0 313 73 1 33.0 21.7 33.4 319 31.0 33.2 54.3 33.3 320 73.1 92.3 32.7 73.7 317 73 9 39.3 31.2 77 3 445 75 5 30.3 77 2 433 I 79 3 39 7 59.3 34 5 959 .Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.0 33 4 41.3 31.9 Oats, unground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.9 89.3 31.2 77.3 445 75.5 30.3 77.2 433 I 79.3 39.7 59 3 34.5 959 .Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 77.9 39.5 40.5 79 7 Oats, unground, 16% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.0 92.4 60.5 82.0 1040 05: hufls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 50.0 73.7 59.9 52.7 493 1 0 0 53.0 34.0 1024 l 3.0 7.0 50.0‘ 33.0 1013 .Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 13.7 27 9 54.3 ' 39.9 "Oat hulls, treated dilute NaOH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 0 91 0 79.0 1025 Oat hull clippings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.7 57.8 76 2 68.6 957 37.5 77.4 53 0 31.3 1042 ' 39.5 73.4 43 0 57.3 1045 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .f 39.9 70.5 53.4 32.5 Oat middlings. fine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.4 93.2 48.9 95.3 573 Oat meal mill by-product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . .. 61.6 74.7 30.8 55.8 966 .1 33.2 33.1 50.9 443 .3 91.7 32.0 33.4 513 .0 110.0 20.0 32.0 1017 .0 143.0 22.0 32.0 1019 .0 45.0 50.0 49.0 1020 .0 42.0 55.0 43.0 1021 .0 32.3 29.7 40.3 1041 .3 34.7 34.1 42.5 .3 33.3 54.5 57.5 430 .5 43.3 59.9 51.2 427 .3 32.3 50.3 55.0 423 .3 57.9 54.9 54.3 .3 71.3 52.5 59.7 431 .2 31.9 43.5 52.0 32 .7 34.5 49.4 59.1 429 .5 ' 33.9 37.3 I 33.3 335 .3 33.7 53.3 59.4 .5 33.9 37.3 33.3 335 .5 43.3 59.9 51.2 4270 .3 32.3 50.3 55.0 423 .7 34.5 49.4 59.1 429 .3 33.3 54.5 57.5 430 .3 71.3 52.5 59.7 431 I .2’ 31.9 43.5 52.0 32 .Average (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ..l 54.4 I 33.0 I 54.0 I 57.3 I 52 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds——-(Continued) g a é u 8!; .._ u u; o 2 6.2 56 2.2 3‘; 3 £1? i=3 w» ¢=~ 7 ram on. z B1 m2 Oat and pea hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.2 54.4 63 o 66.7 469 74.7 64.8 51 8 57.6 443 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.5 59.6 | 57 4 | 60 7 Oat and peas, partly seeded, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.2 70.3 49.1 66.9 38 69.2 56.0 48.6 62.2 394 79.6 69.7 63.8 61 5 39 Average (3) ... . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 74.0 l 65.3 53.5 63.5 Oat and pea fodder, in bloom, green . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 81.5 | 73.6 57.5 66.4 15 ‘l 70:1 R 57.1 I 68 3 76.0 206 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 75.8 65.6 ' 62.9 71 2 Oat and pea silage . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.6 75.0 61 3 67.0 440 Oat and spring vetch hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.5 73.8 51 5 62.7 442 |59.7 18.6 66 0 54.2 168 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 64.6 46.2 52.8 58.5 Oat and vetch hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.3 62.8 49.0 59 0 441 69.5 73.8 51.5 62 7 442 59.7 18.6 66.0 54.2 168 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.8 l 51.7 55 5 58.6 Oat and spring vetch, green, just in bloom when feeding began . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.8 47.2 68.3 67.9 205 Oat and sand vetch hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.3 62.8 49.0 59.0 441 Oat and spring vetch hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.0 52.0 57.0 59.0 442 Oat groats. rolled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90.2 95.7 80.0 98.1 958 Oat fodder, green, bloom to early seeding . . . . . . . . . 75.3 69.8 60.2 63.1 16 67.8 67.5 43.5 61.1 37 72.3 70.2 54.6 63.5 40 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.5 69.2 52.8 62.6 Oat grass hay, tall, late in bloom, Arrhenatherum elatius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ 35.7 35.2 I 57.5 45.6 529 Oat grass hay, tall, early blossom, Arrgenatherum elatius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.9 55.8 54.9 57.7 530 Oat grass hay, wild, Danthonia spicata . . . . . . . . . .. 48.6 38.2 65.1 62.1 68 68.0 62.8 70.6 68.8 74 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.3 50.5 67.9 65.5 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.0 l 54.0 50.8 54.2 997 28.5 I 45.9 57.5 60.2 998 13.7 31.1 71 6 51.7 812 0 38 3 57.6 53.2 59 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.3 42 4 59.4 54.8 Orchard grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.5 65 4 63.5 56.3 243 58.5 51 2 57.5 54.4 64 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59.5 53.8 60.4 55.9 Para grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.9 45.0 52.8 46.9 844 Pea meal, (Canada) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.2 54.5 25.7 93.6 87 Pea hay, French, Lathyrus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.9 59.1 49.4 75.5 714 Pea straw,poor quality hay with peas shelled out. . 78.2 49.6 50.7 79.3 999 Peas, Canada field, before bloom, green . . . . . . . . . .. 82.0 52.4 62.4 71.0 28 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds-—‘(Continued) ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS Canada field, bloom to early ending, green. . - - Q - - - - . ¢ ~ - - - - Q . - ~ Q - - - . - ¢ . - - . . - - - - . . - . . ¢ . - - . - - - . - - | Q - - . - - . - - - | - - - . - - . - . - - . - - . . . . . - . - . . . . - - - - - - . . . . - - . . - - - . - . . . - . . - . - . - - - . - - . . . ~ - - . . - . . . . . - - . . . . - - . - . - . . - - - - - - . - . - . - . - - . - - - . - - - . ~ . - . - . . . . . . . . . - . . .. - - . . - - . . - - - . - . - . ~ - . . - . . . . - - . - . . . . . - - - - .. toes, raw and cooked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - - - - - - . - - - - - . . - . . . . . - . . . . ,» kins, seed removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . - - . . . - . . . . - . . . . . - - - . . . bran. 12% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53 . _ w C! O g u w a q “ LE» s5 %~ ‘$3.5 3g 2 e1: 2% . ~35 9* £11k"! Oh j Z5611 m2 .6 .8 44.3 76.6 518 .6 .8 46.1 73.7 519 .6 .3 45.2 75.1 .8 .0 39.0 6.7 909 .8 .6 29.9 . 18.8 873 .8 .3 .4 12.8 .6 .7 .7 49.1 176 -2 .9 .4 57.6 885 .4 .0 .7 57.6 925 .2 .7 .4 88.0 941 .5 .1 .7 42.5 1077 .6 .5 .0 _59.o .4 .5 .9 86.8 926 .1 .9 .5 80.8 1076 .8 .2 .2 83.8 .8 .8 0 15.8 1075 .5 .8 .0 73.5 872 .3 .3 .3 57.1 910 .6 .0 ,4 74.3 843 .8 .0 .9 68.3 .6 .0 .5 75.5 908 .7 .3 .6 76.8 _901 .0 .8 .2 77.1 924 .3 .9 .9 69.5 278 .5 .9 .0 ‘ 80.2 874 _.s .4 .2 75.8 0 .0 0 0 899 .2 .0 —— 90.9 60 .1 .4 .0 85.1 653 .8 .2 .5 83.8 654 .1 .5 .4 93.6 652 .6 .6 .0 89.8 642 .4 .9 .2 88.1 .3 .6 3 105.7 640 .2 .2 .0 93.8 750 .4 .8 ~0 89.9 751 .s .5 ._o 91.9 .8 .3 .9 58.0 915 .6 .6 .0 64.3 920 .2 .0 .9 61.2 .8 .0 .7 79.4 859 .8 .7 .2 74.1 921 .7 .8 .3 78.1 425 .9 .6 ..2 78.2 749 .2 .0 .3 68.3 1047 .3 .8 .6 .6 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 54 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds—(Continued) 1 1 g u l ‘ 5 u E Q ..-. u i . u; o 3 $2 l "g 5 l, Se» g 5E 3. 5i? l 5:2 3331i "5: o. ram on. ~, Zmq m2 Rice, rough, grain with husk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.3 85.0 18.1 90.9 882 69.5 69.5 13.2 90.2 883 75.0 73.9 0 90.8 884 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.6 76.2 10.4 90.7 Rice hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.9 56.0 51.3 47.6 911 Rice hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 12.0 5.0 1022 8.9 29.3 .4 30.8 919 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . _ .. 4.5 14.7 6.2 17.9 Rice hulls treated with caustic soda . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 28.0 38.0 1023 Rice polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.0 90.6 29.4 89.6 858 65.6 73.5 22.1 92.7 426 61.9 91.1 0 92.3 186 75.0 88.2 8.2 94.3 1048 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.9 85.9 14.9 92.2 Rice 57...‘... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.8 6.4 60.3 45.0 s37 26.6 36.4 58.0 47.3 848 Average (2) . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.7 21.4 59.2 46.2 Ruta bagas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.3 84.2 74.2 94.7 99 Rye meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.4 64.2 —— 91.9 178 Rye bran and middlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.3 89.7 —- 87.9 510 Rye fodder, heading, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.4 74.5 79.2 70.1 324 Sachuista grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3.9 0 943 Sage brush, (Atriplex canescans) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.2 0 0 78.8 1029 64.2 0' 4.3 62.1 1030 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.2 0 2.2 70.5 Saltbush, Australian, 20% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.7 24.5 27.3 63.8 391 Salt bush, dried, Atriplex argentea, 9.7% protein. . 66.4 52.3 8.3 49.2 389 Sesame cake .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90.9 61.2 39.5 29.6 953 Shallu forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '0 66.0 69.3 54.0 907 Soapweed plant, (Yucca elata) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.1 0 34.5 73.0 1027 ' 18.9 ' 0| 35.2 73.7 1028 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 23.5 ' o 34.8 73.4 Soapweed root. (Yucca elata) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 0 32.8 70.4 918 Sorghum bagasse. mill refuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.7 46.4 63.8 64.8 279 v 0 0 47.1 34.7 482 -Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 23.2 55.5 47.8 Sorghum fodder, cured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.1 37.1 58.2 45.6 914 43.1 64.9 49.2 61.1 388 53.4 76.7 70.8 64.1 794 13.9 54.0 55.6 55.9 851 31.6 53.5 66.8 65.0 832 38.2 62.0 62.2 63.0 876 Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.5 58.0 60.5 59.1 Sorghum fodder. green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.1 62.8 68.5 73.7 572 15.7 75.2 46.3 67.0 763 53.4 81.4 74.5 78.3 365 17.0 80.1 53.1 60.3 764 40.2 | 67.0 I 43.5 70.8 332 Average (s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' s4.917s.s';s7.2 70.0 97w; ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 55 ‘ l TABLE 8 Digestion Coefiicients of American Feeds-—(Continued) g a 5 a l §§ ..< Q u; u r q, 8 5:: 56 2.2} 5i 3 £1? E5 fl 312’ "6 = PM 5151 o5. zram l 0:2 Eorghum fodder, leaves, cured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.8 46.7 70.4 64.5 277 orghum silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 62.6 56.4 66.9 880 I 9.0 55.1 57.9 64.4 1015 Average (2) _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 16.0 58.8 57.2 65.7 rghum and cowpea sllage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.8 57.9 49.2 63.7 861 rghum seed, red top . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.5 56.4 100.0 87.4 954 bean fodder, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.2 57.7 49.8 76.4 43 77.2 50.1 47.3 70.9 42 76.2 36.0 44.3 78.6 395 83.0 65.4 38.9 77.8 550 80.3 67.5 47.6 74.6 582 78.8 54.1 50.1 72.0 18 69.3 _54.3 40.9 73.5 21 Average (7) . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77.1 55.0 45.6 74.8 , y bean hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.9 59.3 52.6 59.8 657 »§ I 71.1 29.2 60.8 68.8 274 I 70.0 54.0 58.0 82.0 241 Average (s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 71.7 47.5 57.1 70.2 8y bean meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.1 85.7 71.2 76.8 177 ‘ 77.2 74.2 60.6 66.3 13 78.2 73.1 62.0 66.0 14 89.8 98.5 0 68.3 423 91.5 93.1 100.0 82.2 556 91.1 93.5 100.0 91.2 548 y: Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86.5 79.7 65.6 75.1 bean silage, steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55.8 48.9 42.9 61.2 51 “ _ l 61.0 52.5 58.8 76.5 1014 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 58.2 52.2 51.8 68.9 y bean silage, goat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.7 71.9 54.8 52.0 269 -- bean silage, all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55.3 48.9 42.9 61.2 51 ' 61.0 52.5 58.8 76.5 1014 I 75.7 71.9 54.8 52.0 269 Average (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 64.0 57.8 52.2 68.2 ‘y bean and corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.6 90.3 65.1 76.8 477 ‘ . 56.4 66.7 61.7 80.5 465 57.7 88.3 55.1 80.0 466 65.0 82.1 64.8 74.9 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61.7 81.9 61.7 78.0 ‘ bean and millet silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.4 72.2 69.4 59.2 189 ltz or emmer grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.7 92.4 83.6 96.6 695 83.9 93.8 51.4 92.6 815 73.2 81.1 0 83.2 814 81.6 89.6 49.6 88.9 813 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 81.4 89.2 46.1 90.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95.8 792 n grass, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.5 61.6 69.4 67.7‘ 678 I 79.4 83.5 81.6 69.3 692 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.4 72.5 75.5 68.5 56 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 8 ' Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds—-(Continued) g: u é a g“ '7 no w M O Q2 1 5 5E Egg E5 . m m: Si; Z5461‘ £2 l Sudan hay, milk to early dough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.4 41.2 67.1 63.3_ 503 I 17.7 48.7 63.1 57.6 871 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..'| 26.6 ' 45.0 ;| 65.1 60.5 Sudan hay. heading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.4 28.0 68.4 51.6 682 56.6 17.7 66.5 49.5 683 59.8 35.5 73.2 53.9 680 I 58.3 45.2 58.6 41.8 893 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.2 31.6 66.7 49.2 Sudan hay, full bloom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.1 38.7 65.6 49.9 681 ' 64.2 61.2 60.2 52.6 895 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..'|| 62.1 ;| 50.4.1 62.9 51.2 Sudan hay aH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57.3 61.1 62.8 59.6 905 64.2 61.2 60.2 52.6 895 58.3 45.2 58.6 41.8 893 35.4 41.2 67.1 63.3 503 47.4 67.8 70.6 58.4 414 , 49.1 57.1 58.8 60.8 730 64.4 28.0 68.4 51.6 682 60.1 38.7 65.6 49.9 681 59.8 35.5 73.2 53.9 680 17.7 48.7 63.1 57.6 871 I 56.6 I 17.7 66.5 49.5 683 Average (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 51.8 45.6 66.0 54.5 Sudan straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.9 34.5 60.0 47.7 875 Sunflower, common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.5 63.2 54.4 61.2 726 Sunflower silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.8 73.7 .37.4 56.3 410 54.4 77.4 46.7 69.8 411 23.4 91.9 72.4 69.2 734 59.9 70.6 42.2 69.8 701 58.3 82.4 38.4 58.2 1026 .Ayerage (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..‘ 48.8 79.2 47.4 64.7 Sunflower, (whole plant) ccilrn amt!) horselbean silage 74.1 63.3 73.7 11$ Sunflower head, corn and orse ean si age . . . . . .7 76.7 6 .1 72.4 11 Tabosa grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.9 46.7 56.5 53.1 854 17.0 27.2 32.5 41.8 849 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.9 37.0 44.5 47.5 Timothy, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.1 53.1 55.6 65.8 368 Timothyfigrass, (rowen) with clover . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.7 52.9 63.8 67.8 26 Timothy, hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.3 27.3 44.8 55.8 469 53.9 57.5 57.3 55.3 191 48.6 48.2 62.7 65.6 973 41.3 49.4 54.8 58.4 974 26.1 47.7 53.7 59.4 975 58.4 31.9 54.6 62.8 383 43.4 69.3 36.1 55.0 386 45.5 38.0 58.4 63.3 372 48.5 52.4 55.8 67.8 369 33.5 17.6 48.0 58.1 297 28.4 36.2 48.9 62.2 299 32.5 53.4 47.2 59.8 301 20.8 43.6 41.6 54.5 303 3.9 55.4 42.6 56.7 305 -— 73.0 38.9 68.4 307 —- 83.0 24.8 73.0 309 ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 57 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds—-(Continued) Y I z Q G I 0 k .2 *5 E :1, s v 5» s: ‘a 2'; 3 s z . 2 a 3'; 8 fr; 2.2 r: 2t? 5 "a = m mm on. 22mm ! m2 Timothy, hay (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.1 49.2 42.2 66.1 310 48.0 61.0 53.0 -63.0 185 58.1 70.9 63.7 72.4 116 51.4 62.8 54.7 61.3 115 I 45.2 50.6 48.7 60.7 112 44.1 74.3 56.4 '63.6 95 47.6 60.8 54.8 64.7 96 51.1 60.8 56.6 57.4 88 40.8 59.7 40.5 57.8 89 58.9 56.9 57.7 63.7 72 50.0 58.3 53.3 63.9 .73 60.4 51.5 62.1 71.8 66 44.5 34.6 51.7 61.0 67 45.2 55.0 42.8 58.9 57 42.1 47.6 52.0 65.7 53 68.0 49.5 66.5 63.4 10 57.9 64.8 56.4 63.3 699 14.6 7.4 60.8 49.8 784 52.0 47.7 46.0 69.3 781 48.5 50.8 49.8 62.8 782 55.7 47.2 53.5 62.2 778 I 55.3 48.9 57.3 61.4 779 I Average (as) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.2 51.6 51.3 sofa mothy hay, (in full bloom, well cured, superior quafity) . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.2 47.3 42.6 47.3 148 'othy and clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.5 56.7 54.8 64.5 788 " 44.4 39.5 52.5 62.3 120 ;§ 53.9 57.5 57.3 55.3 191 T‘ 44.3 32.1 51.3 47.0 497 5 44.6 56.5 57.5 64.0 475 i" 7 ‘$7.7 58.0 53.3 59.5 340 Average (6)\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.9 50.0 54.4 58.8 g ips, English flat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.7 87.5 100.0 96.5 100 §~num,Swedmh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.6 66.4 81.7 96.1 637 getable ivory meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.1 55.9 72.5 89.2 666 29.0 43.7 100.0 98.6 662 ' 15.0 22.7 70.4 93.6 641 I Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 16.0 40.8 81.0 93.8 rivet bean feed, (bean andpods) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.6 76.9 64.4 86.3 404 ' 1 76.0 76.0 79.0 90.6 407 76.0 98.1 95.5 96.6 961 7 .3 79.2 58.8 83.6 1067 I 75.3 80.6 I 66.1 85.8 1078 I Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.8 82.2 72.7 88.6 et bean hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.8 78.7 78.0 75.7 402 ‘yet bean vines, green . . V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.3 81.3 59.6 82.4 401 __h hay, bitter. (Lathrvus Poriacens) . . . . .._. . 48.0 32.4 36.4 64.6 717 fodder, winter or hairy, bloom green . . . . . . . 81.1 66.7 53.3 78.2 230 ‘“~ 86.3 78.9 68.3 80.2 234 81.0 69.2 61.8 70.6 237 82.3 70.3 61.1 72.9 238 181.8 66.7 ' 65.8 82.0 517 82.5 70.4 62.1 76.8 74.2 42.4 54.5 74.5 838 69.9 71.2 57.6 71.6 769 61.1 68.0 58.2 70.7 773 58 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 8 Digestion Coelficients of American Feeds——(Continued) i ‘ . 1 - i q; = 8 F 5, 63 6* ~~ ; 1 .4: a =2 1 4461 7e 5 H +>>< n79- 7 73:42 ‘$5 ; n. mm one 7 2mm m2 I I Vetch hay, all samples (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.5 ’ 56.7 54.0 65.2 715 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 68.9 59.6 56.1 70.5 Vetch fodder, green, (Vicia sative) . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.4 58.6 44.2 76.1 229 Vetch 'hay, spring, (Vicia sativa) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.9 71.2 57.6 71.6 769 ‘ 61.1 68.0 58.2 70.7 773 Average <2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 65.5 69.6 57.9 71.2 Vetch hay, hairy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.5 56.7 54.0 65.2 715 Vetch silage, unsteamed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.4 77.3 62.9 66.9 774 Vetch silage, steamed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.6 62.9 51.5 62.8 775 Vinegar grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61.1 86.1 48.2 67.7 ,88.0 67. . Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.4 87.1 58.1 55.7 Wheat, all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90.3 86.5 88.2 96.2 951 92.2 91.0 90.1 96.0 950 67.1 80.0 20.0 92.5 583 81.8 64.3 33.2 78.1 65. 3 .8 . I Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.9 77.4 55.3 45.0 Wheandurum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.1 65.0 39.8 92.0 793 Wheat White shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92.1 86.7 50.0 98.5 916 88.0 91.5 33.5 98.9 956 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 90.1 ' 89.1 41.8 98.7 Wheat flour middlings, and gray shorts . . . . . . . . .. 90.8 85.7 0 87.7 451 82.6 95.5 0 89.5 948 88.9 82.7 51.9 90.6 946 72.7 0 98.6 ' 84.8 84.9 36.3 87.8 I Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.9 87.2 17.6 90.8 Wheat brown shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89.3 20.3 92g 78. 8 . 8 . , | | ‘ Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' 84.1 84.4 10.4 89.0 f Wheat mixed feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.0 - 72.9 - 459 75.8 45.0 18.3 64.3 373 v Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.9 45.0 45.3 64.3 g Wheat bran, all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ 77:7 80:4 12:4 7512 972 70.2 72.1 16.1 67.2 34» . 78.5 60.5 56.3 70.4 163 § 82.3 54.7 25.1 74.6 139 4' :24 19% = 78. 6 . . . 79.7 82.6 0 67.5 8s *1 82.1 54.0 36.2 64.1 102 5 73.7 78.1 25.9 76.8 455 1 75.6 41.9 68.5 73.5 449 Q Average (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 78.4 1 69.8 30.4 72.2 ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 59 TABLE 8 Digestion Coefficients of American Feeds—-(Continued) ! I 5w g g u 5 +1‘ SQ ._. u u; o 3 3s 53 262i 6'1? 8 gag 5_Q\_.,:w+* m: ,_ a i-e-wg HM Q) ~ w mm ohqzhmimz 6 VVheat bran. spflng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..V79.6 75.6 23.6 70.4 162 75.6 41.9 63.5 73.5 449 73.7 73.1 25.9 76.3 455 .3 66.2 39.0 73.6 .1 75.5 452 .6 93.9 29.9 73.5 36 .9 63.5 64.5 69.7 521 .3 63.3 64.6 66.3 523 .3 63.6 64.5 63.2 .6 90.1 0 81.3 627 .9 36.3 0 64.6 621 .5 63.6 17.5 30.6 500 .7 30.2 17.5 75.7 .9 57.9 70.5 75.1 520 .3 55.7 66.1 71.1 522 .6 56.3 63.3 73.1 .0 69.9 41.7 66.4 716 60 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION REFERENCES TO DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS ARRANGED BY NUMBERS 1-378 Compiled in Bulletin 77, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations 1 Colorado, Bulletin 8 6-10 Connecticut, Report 1894 11-28 Connecticut, Report 1895 29-77 Connecticut, Report 1896 48 Connecticut, by correspondence 49-52 Illinois, Bulletin 43 53 Maine, Report 1886 57-6-0 Maine, Report 1887 61-71 Maine, Report 1888 72-87 Maine, Report 1889 88-89 Maine, Report 1890 90-102 Maine, Report 1891 103-108 Maine, Report 1893 109 Maine, Report 1891 110-111 Maine, Report 1893 112-116 Maine, Report 1894 117-123 Maine, Report 1897 130-133 Maryland, Bulletin 20 134-139 Maryland, Bulletin 41 14-0-144 Maryland Bulletin 43 148 Maryland, Bulletin 51 155-164 Massachusetts, Report 1893 165-179 Massachusetts, Report 1894 180-185 Massachusetts, Hatch Station, Report 1895 186-191 Massachusetts, Hatch Station, Report 1896 191-195 Massachusetts, Hatch Station, Report 1897 196-202 Massachusetts, Hatch Station, Bulletin 50 203-209 Massachusetts, Hatch Station, Report 1903 228-238 Mississippi, Report 1895 239-242 New York, Report 1884 243-244 New York, Report 1888 245-253 New York, Report 1889 258-259 New York, Bulletin 141 264-265 North Carolina, Bulletin 80 C 266-273 North Carolina, Bulletin 87 d 274-292 North Carolina, Bulletin 97 293-296 North Carolina, Bulletin 118 297-311 North Carolina, Bulletin 148 312-313 Oregon, Bulletin 6 ~ 314-315 Oregon, Bulletin 47 316 Pennsylvania, Report 1886 321 Pennsylvania, Report 1887 322-326 Pennsylvania, Report 1888 - 327-335 Pennsylvania, Report 1889 336-340 Pennsylvania, Report 1890 341-344 Pennsylvania, Report 1891 345-364 Pennsylvania, Report 1892 365 Texas, Bulletin 13 366-367 Texas, Bulletin 15 368-369 Utah, Report 1892 270-373 Utah, Bulletin 54 374-376 Wisconsin, Bulletin 3 337-378 Wisconsin, Report 1889 379-380 Arizona, Bulletin 67 ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS 381-390 Colorado, Bulletin 93 391 Colorado, Bulletin 135 392-393 Connecticut, Bulletin 43 394-499 Connecticut, Report 1898 400 Florida, Bulletin 55 401-402 Florida, Bulletin 60 403 Georgia, Bulletin 109 404-409 Georgia, J. Agr. Res. Vol. 13, page 611 410-411 Idaho, J. Agr. Res. Vol. 20, page 883 412-413 Illinois, Bulletin 58 414 Iowa, Research Bulletin 46 415 Iowa, E S R 44, page 868 416 Iowa, E S R 44 page 867 417-424 Kansas, Bulletin 103 425-426 Louisiana, Bulletin 77 427-432 Maine, Report 1898 433-448 Maine, Bulletin 67 449-481 Maine, Bulletin 110 482 Maine, Bulletin 115 483-488 Maryland, Bulletin 77 489-496 Maryland, Bulletin 86 497 Maryland, Bulletin 117 498-502 Maryland, Bulletin 168 503 Maryland, Bulletin 194 504 Massachusetts, Report 1903 505-584 Massachusetts, Bulletin 33 585-603 Massachusetts, Report 1910 588 Massachusetts, Report 1910 589 Massachusetts, Bulletin XIV-XI 604-615 Massachusetts, Report 1912 616-632 Massachusetts, Bulletin 152 633-692 Massachusetts, Bulletin 181 693-694 Minesota, Bulletin 80 695-696 Minnesota, Bulletin 99 697-700 Montana, Bulletin 117 701-702 Montana, Bulletin 134 703-707 Nevada, Bulletin 64 708-716 Nevada, Bulletin 66 717-727 Nevada, Bulletin 71 728-729 Nevada, Bulletin 72 730-734 Oklahoma, Bulletin 132 735-738 New Mexico, Bulletin 69 739-744 New Mexico, Bulletin 91 745-748 New Mexico, Bulletin 103 749-754 North Carolina, Bulletin 160 755-760 Oklahoma, Bulletin 37 761-766 Oklahoma, Bulletin 46 767 Oklahoma, Bulletin 90 768 Oklahoma, Bulletin 121 769-770 Oregon, Bulletin 85 771-777 Oregon, Bulletin 102 778-782 Pennsylvania, Report 1897 783-784 Pennsylvania, Report 1903-04 785 Pennsylvania, Report 1906-07 786-787 Pennsylvania, J. Agr. Res. 7, page 381 788-790 Pennsylvania, J. Agr. Res. 10, page 600 791-792 Pennsylvania, J. Agr. Res. 15, page 270 793-826 South Dakota, Bulletin 114 827-830 Texas, Bulletin 104 61 62 BULLETIN NO. 329 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 831-848 Texas, Bulletin 147 849-869 Texas, Bulletin 166 870-916 Texas, Bulletin 203 917-938 Texas, Bulletin 245 939-966 Texas, Bulletin 291 y 967-971 U. S. Dept. Agr. Bulletin 106, Bureau, An. Ind. 972-975 U. S. Dept. Agr., Bulletin 128, Bureau An. Ind. 976 U. S. Dept. Agr. J. Agr. Res. 4-419 977-983 Utah, Bulletin 58 984-993 Wyoming, Bulletin 69. 994-1002 Wyoming, Bulletin 78 v 1003-1011 Wyoming, Report 1913-14 1012-1016 Tennessee, unpublished by station 1017-1021 Massachusetts, Bulletin 216 1022-1025 Massachusetts, Science 1922-131 1026 Washington, Bulletin 161 1027-1030 New Mexico, Bulletin 133 1031-1033 North Dakota, by correspondence 1034-1038 Massachusetts, Bulletin 216 1039-1054 Texas, Bulletin 315 1055-1078 Massachusetts, Bulletin 216