i 1 BUlLDING.%.

"4. ~'H*wr.r:a.-_.~q _., .___.____v

A287-627-2OM-L180

   TEXAS AORiCULI%[1kA L ilsxmzlmlawr snmou

_ B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR
 COLLEGE STATION, BRAZQS COUNTY, TEXAS

i-gigvBULLETlN NO. sea JULY, 1927

wgav . ; w-   ‘l, “_  y. .,

 

TONSEED HELLS AS ROUGHAGES IN
RATIONSjIEOR FATTENING CALVES

   

  

  
 
   
    

",r)'.|" 1 ‘ MHWQ!‘ 
 with ‘buy ' ' ~rmqln~ * ~
. Tim" '4" m Eu“ '
‘ Ymmlxrn m‘ WM" 1 K
w» = -‘ ,
 “ _n’

w} v  
w g  
. i§_lkl!""w,fn~' M
1 1:  '
“u; 77x1‘

WW v
,‘  “TH

    

 AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS
T. O. WALTON, President

STATION STAFF 1'

ADMINISTRATION: _

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

. B. CoNNER, M. S., Acting D_irecto_r

. E. KARPER, B. S., Acting Vice-Director

. M. SCHAEDEL, Secretary

. P. HOLLEMAN, J R., Chief Clerk

. K. FRANCKLOW, Assistant Chief Clerk

HESTER Hiees, Executive Assistant

. B N EBLEITE, Technical Assistant

EMISTRY: _ _

. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist

. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Chemist _ _

. E. ASBURY, S., Assistant Chemist
WALno H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist
VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist _
AnAR P. STuRms, B. S., Assistant Chemist
R. O. BRooxE, M. S., Assistant Chemist
T. L. OGIER, B. S_., Assistant _Chemist
J. G. EvANs, Assistant Chemist

HORTICULTURE: _

,Chief

H. NEss, M. S., Berry Breeder
RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY:
J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat
Investigations _
J. L. Lusn, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman;
Breeding Investigations
. H. DAMERON. B. S., Wool Grader
ENTOMOLOGY: _
L. TnomAs, Ph. D., Chief; State
Entomologist _
. J. REiNnARn, B. S., Entomologist
. K. FLETCHER, M. A., Entomologist
. L. OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist
. C. GAINES, JR., M. S., Entomologist _
RANKLIN SHERMAN, III, M. S., Entomologist
. F. BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist
. COFFIN, B. S., Entomologist _
. ADKINS, B. S., Assistant Entomologist
. . CUNYUs, B. S., Assistant Entomologist
. . McCoy, B. S., Assistant Entomologist _
. . Tonn, B. S., Assistant Entomologist
. E. McGREeoR, J R., Acting Chief Foulbrood
Ins ector
Orro ACKENSEN, Foulbrood Inspector
GiLLis GRAHAM, Foulbrood Inspector
AGRONOMY: _
E. B. REvNoLns, M. S., Chief _ _
A. B. CONNER, M S., Agronomist; Grain
Sorghum Research _ _
R. E. KARPER, B. S., Agronomist; Small Grain
Research _
P. C. MANGELSDORF, Se. D., Agronomist:
in charge of Corn and Small Grain Investi-

ations _
D.  KiLLoUGR, M. S., Agronomist; Cotton
Breeding _ _ -
E. C. CusmNc, B. S., Assistant in Crops
P. R. JonNsoN, B.S., Assistant in Soils

e
wmm=no~g~w>

 

F1

rmm~gwm

wn<w5
~o>wm

VETERINARY SCIENCE: '
"M. FRANcis, D. V. M., Chief _
H. Scmmrr, D. V. M., Veterinarian
J. D. JoNEs, D. V. M., Veterinarian

PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOG‘
J. J. TAuEENnAus, Ph. D., Chief i
L. J. PEssIN, PH. D., Plant Pathologist i

Laboratory Technician _ .
W. J. BAcR, M. S., Plant Pathologist
J. PAUL LUsK, S. M., Plant Pathologist
B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist

FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS:
L. P. GARRARn, M. S., iefi _‘
‘B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., P . D., Farm - '
Ranch Economist a
G. L. CRAwyoRn, M. S., Marketing Rese ,
Specialist '
V. L. CORY, M. S. Grazing Research Bot I i
"*'I‘. L. GASTON R., S.,Assisiani;l" _
Records and Accounts

"U. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant; Ranch Recor.

and Accounts

RURAL HOME RESEARCH:
J EssiE WHITACRE, Ph. D., Chief
SOIL SURVEY:
'**W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief
H. W. HAwKER, Soil Surveyor
E. H. TEuPLrN, B S., Soil Surveyor
T. C. REITCI-I, B. S., Soil Surveyor
BOTANY:
H. NEss, M. S., Chief
PUBLICATIONS:
A. D. JAcxsoN, Chief
SWINE HUSBANDRY:
FRED HALE, M. S., Chief
DAIRY HUSBANDRY:
——i——i Chief

POULTRY HUSBANDRY:
R. M. SnERwoon, M. S., hief
'“"*AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING:
MAIN STATION FARM:
G. T. McNEss, Superintendent

APICULTURAL RESEARCH LABORATOII

(San Antoni

H. B. PARKs, B.OS.:, Apiculturist in Charge

A. H. ALEx, B. S., Queen Breeder

FEED CONTROL SERVICE:
F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief
. D. PEARcE, Secretary
. H. RoeERs, Feed Inspector
. H. W000, Feed Inspector
. L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector
. D. NoR-racm-r, JR.,

SIDNEY D. REYNOLDS, JR., Feed Inspector

  
   

€w€um

SUBSTATIONS

No. I Beevllle Bee County:
R.  HALL, B. S., Superintendent
No. 2, Troup, Smith County:
W. S. Horcmnss, Superintendent
No. 8. Angleton, Branorla County:
R. H. STANSEL, M. S., Superintendent
No. 4 Beaumont Jefferson County:
R.  WvcnE,  S., Superintendent
No. 5, Temple, Bell County: _ _
HENRY DUNLAVY, M. S., Acting Superintend-

ent
H. E. REA, B. S., Botanist; Cotton Root Rot
Investigations i
Ne. 6 Danton, Danton County:
P.  DUNKLB, B. S., Superintendent
No. ‘I S ur, Dickens County:
R.  ICKSON, B. S., Superintendent
No. 8 Lubbock, Lubbock County:
D. L. JoNEs, Superintendent
FRANK GAINES, Irrigationist and Forest
Nurseryman
No. 9, Belrnorhea, Reeves County:
J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent

No. 10, Feeding and Breeding Station, ~

Colle e Station, Brazos County:

R. M. riERwoon, M.
man in Charge of Farm

L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent

Ne?! ll, Nucogdochesé Nacogdoches County: '5

. F. MoRRis, M. , Superintendent

'"No. 12, Chilllcothe, Hardeman County:
J. R. QSuiNRv, B. S. Superintendent

"U. C. TBPHENS, NI

No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties:
E. W. TnonAs B. S. Superintendent
W. L. BLACK, i). V ., Veterinarian

V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botan 

"*0. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborating
Entomologist
O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd
No. l5, Weslaco, Hldnlgo County:
W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent
M. McPnAiL, B. S., Entomologist
No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County:
E. J. WrLsoN, B. S., Superintendent

Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station:

<9"?

. W.
.  BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of

EU

. P. Sun's, B. S., Associate Pro

$115 of July l, 1927.
‘On leave

AnRlANcE, M. S., Associate Pro essor of Horticulture
ntomology
LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Marketing and Finance
. SCOATEI, A. E., Professor of Afflfltillllllffll Engineerin
essor of Agricultural

ngineering

"Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine.
"finicooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture.

""In cooperation withjthe Schooljof Agriculture.

B. S., Feed Inspect

S., Animal Husb Y

. A., Junior Agronomlst 

SYNOPSIS

Livestock production or feeding is an enterprise that has not
been generally practiced by Texas farmers to the present
time, although past experience in the corn-belt section of the
United States and in some of the older European countries
has shown that the inclusion of livestock in the farming
program is the most permanent and profitable system of
agriculture. As a result of a properly balanced system of
farming, the soil is enriched and maintained at a higher
degree of fertility than is possible or practical where livestock
are not included in the general scheme of farm operations.

The agricultural development has been so recent in West
Texas that as yet there is available only a limited amount of
reliable experimental information with reference to problems
of fattening livestock. This Bulletin covers a series of three
baby-beef feeding experiments conducted during the feeding
seasons 1923-25 in cooperation with the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture at the Big Spring Field Station located
near Big Spring, Texas.

A comparison of sorgo silage, sorgo fodder, and cottonseed
hulls when fed in conjunction with ground milo heads and
cottonseed meal to fattening calves was made. The average
initial weights of the three groups of calves were as follows:
1923 test—429 pounds; 1924 test—506 pounds; 1925 test—309
pounds; thus providing an opportunity to compare the gains
made by the calves of different ages.

The calves receiving sorgo silage and sorgo fodder made
larger gains and put on a higher finish than the calves re-
ceiving cottonseed hulls. On account of their lower finish, the
calves receiving cottonseed hulls sold on the market for lower
prices than the others. Which ration would prove most
profitable in the future would depend largely on the relative
prices of feeds. At the prices paid in these tests the silage
ration proved the most profitable in two instances and the
fodder ration was most profitable in one test. Hulls were the
least profitable in all three tests. The lower gain in weight
of the lot receiving cottonseed hulls is attributed chiefly to the
fact that the feeding value of this ration was considerably
less than that supplied the sorgo silage and fodder lots.

CONTENTS

  
    

9i

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 

Some Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Object of Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Plan of the Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .

Equipment of Feed Lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Method of Feeding and Handling the Calves , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .

Calves Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Feeds Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Feed Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Weather Conditions During Test . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10"
The 192394 Test: ' 5
Rations and Gains by Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Quantity and Cost of Feed Required to Produce 100 Pounds T
of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 a
Marketing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 
Hogs Following Steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1,
The 1924-25 Test: 
Rations and Gains by Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 
Quantity and Cost of Feed Required to Produce 100 Pounds 
of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16'
Marketing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
The 1925-26 Test: _
Rations and Gains by Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Quantity and Cost of Feed Required to Produce 100 Pounds
of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
Marketing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
Summary:
Average Gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28

Average Amounts of Feed Consumed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Salt Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30»

Shrinkage and Slaughter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., . . . . . .. 30o

Productive Energy Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32

Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

 

lpULLETliN NO. 363 JULY, 1927

  
 
    
 
    
  
  
 
   
  
   
   
 
   
 
   
  
   
 
  

: RGO SILAGE, SORGO FODDER, AND COTTONSEED HULLS
3 AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES*

J. M. JONES,
Division of Range Animal Husbandry, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.

W. H. BLACK,

Animal Husbandry Division, Bureau of Animal Industry.

F. E. KEATING,
Big Spring Experiment Station, Bureau of Plant IndustryT

 Thousands of acres of tillable West Texas lands formerly utilized
_r grazing purposes only are being placed under cultivation during
I h succeeding year. Vast areas are being planted to cotton, grain
rghum, sorgojj and other crops. A considerable readjustment in
‘riculture is under way in West Texas. New or additional informa-
fl is needed by those Who are engaged in feeding or finishing live
‘i > k or who may be considering using live stock to market these crops.
i Live stock production or feeding is an enterprise that has not been
ynerally practiced by Texas farmers to the present time, although past
by erience in the corn-belt section of the United States and in some
“the older European countries has shown that the inclusion of live
 k in the farming program is the most permanent and profitable
 of agriculture. .As a result of a properly balanced system of
i ing the soil is enriched and maintained at a higher degree of fer-
_'ty than is possible or practical where live stock are not included in
 general scheme of farm operations. The agricultural development
 been so recent in West Texas that as yet there is available only a
‘ited amount of reliable experimental information with reference to
_ gblems of feeding live stock. ‘

Some Previous Work

' ,~

_ QIn a feeding test conducted by Burns and Metcalf of the Texas
5 tion at Clarendon in 1911-12 (Texas Station Bulletin 153) a com-
Qfson was made of cottonseed hulls and silage composed chiefly of
ill, when fed to three- and four-year-old steers. The results of that
riment indicated that a ration of cottonseed meal and silage may
 sed far more profitably than a ration of cottonseed meal and cotton-
1 hulls for fattening cattle. The silage-fed cattle finished better
' sold at a slightly higher price.

ubmitted for publication April 9, 1927.

lg» i. V. V. Parr of the Bureau of Animal Industry assisted materially in the
ping and supervision of these experiments.

rgo is the name given the sweet sorghums by the U. S. Department of
f lture that they may be distinguished from the grain sorghums. The
ac” variety Wa-s used in this experiment.

   
  
   
   
   
  
  
   
   
   
    
 
   
   
   
  
 
 
   
   
  
   
   
  

e BULLETIN NO. 363, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

In a feeding test conducted by Burns of the Texas Station in 1912-9
(Texas Station Bulletin 159) in comparing unchopped sorgo hay wit,
cottonseed hulls when fed with silage to two-year-old steers, he fo l;
that those receiving sorgo hay made a slightly larger gain and finish
better than those receiving cottonseed hulls. In another test by Bu -_
(Texas Station Bulletin 198) in a comparison of cottonseed hulls a
Sudan grass hay when supplemented with silage in the ration of fa
tening calves during the 1915-16 feeding season, the Sudan grass i
was found to be superior to cottonseed hulls. In the feeding seas_
1919-20, Burns (Texas Station Bulletin 263) conducted a test wi
Hereford yearlings with a view of determining whether any advan 
would be gained in substituting sorgo silage for a part of the cotto
seed hulls in a ration composed of cottonseed meal, ground corn -
milo, black strap molasses, and cottonseed hulls. In this test no a
vantage was gained by substituting sorgo silage for a portion of 
cottonseed hulls. ' ..

At the North Carolina Station, Curtis (North Carolina Bulletin 222
compared corn silage and cottonseed hulls for fattening steers avera
ing from two and one-half tothree years of age. The results of Curti
investigation showed that although cattle fed on cottonseed hulls ma 1f
good daily gains during the first 60 days on feed, the rate of g",
declines rapidly during the latter part of the feeding period at t;
expense of the proper finishing of the cattle. ‘ In the lots that receive
corn silage either as a part or the entire roughage portion of 
ration, the average daily gains were more uniform throughout th ‘
the gains made by the lot receiving cottonseed hulls. '1

In a cooperative steer feeding experiment between the Bureau u;
Animal Industry, United States Department of Agriculture and t‘
North Carolina Station, 1914-15, Ward, Curtis and Peden (U. S. D. "
Bulletin 628) when comparing corn silage and cottonseed hulls fe
to tW0— and three-year-old steers found that the steers which receive
corn silage as the entire roughage portion of the ration made muc
more eflicient and economical gains than when cottonseed hulls co.
stituted the entire roughage portion. 7

In a comparison of corn silage and cottonseed hulls at the Tenness
Station by Willson and Robert (Tennessee Station Bulletin 104) Whe
fed to 231 two-year-old steers in 23 experiments the results showe
that “much better gains may be made through the use of silage wi 5;"
cottonseed meal than through the exclusive use of cottonseed hulls f0‘.
the roughage portion of the ration. When silage is fed, however _,
greater gains may be made by the addition of a small amount of som
dry feed, such as hulls.” Steers fed silage and cottonseed meal mad
7.3 per cent better gains than steers fed cottonseed hulls and meal.
Steers fed a combination of cottonseed meal, corn silage, and. cottonseed
hulls made 18.9 per cent better gains than steers fed a ration of cotton-
seed meal and hulls. It was further concluded from the Tennessee

1
SORGO SILAGE, ETC, AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 7

experiments that a wider margin is necessary when cottonseed hulls
are fed than when corn silage is fed.

Obiject of Experiment

This experiment was planned for the purpose of determining the
relative feeding values of sorgo silage, sorgo fodder, and cottonseed
hulls, respectively, as sources of roughage in the rations of fattening
calves. The region in which this experiment was conducted is well
adapted to the production of cotton and the morecommon varieties of
the. sorgos; consequently stockmen interested in finishing cattle are
anxious to have more information with reference to the comparative
feeding values of sorgo feeds and cottonseed hulls. The method of
preservation and, preparation of the sorgo roughages is also of impor-
tance, hence the reason for comparing sorgo silage and sorgo fodder.

General Plan of the Work

Comparisons were made in three consecutive years, 1923 to 1925,

inclusive, of sorgo silage, sorgo fodder, and cottonseed hulls, when fed

in conjunction with milo heads and cottonseed meal, to fattening calves.
The experiment was conducted cooperatively by the Bureaus of Animal
Industry and Plant Industry of the U. S. Department of Agriculture
and the Agricultural Experiment Station of the Agricultural and Me-
chanical College of Texas, at the Big Spring Field Station, located
_11ear Big Spring, Texas.

L7 In each of the three tests representative groups of well-bred Here-
iord calves of weaning age were fed. Individual fire-brand or ear-tag
numbers were given to each calf as a means of identification. The
ipalves were weighed individually on three consecutive days at the be-
‘ginning of each experiment, afterwards being divided as equally as
lpossible with reference to size and type into three groups. The aver-
Qges of the three initial and final weighings, respectively, constituted
f,» initial and final weights. The individual weights were taken at
'gular 28-day periods throughout the respective experiments, all
eighings starting promptly at 1 p. m. The respective periods of
eding varied from 168 to 203 days in the three tests. The following
tions were fed in each of the three tests:

    
  
  
  
   
   

jLot 2.‘ Ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and cottonseed hulls.
pLot 3. Ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and sorgo fodder.

_Eqllipmellt 0f Feed LOtS- An open shed 20 feet deep by '78 feet in
fgth (south exposure) provided shelter to protect the calves during
if lement weather. Each lot had an area of 60 feet by 26 feet. The
,1 bunks were made of 2-inch plank and were 18 feet long, 3 feet
e, and 12 inches deep, and the base stood at a height of 1 foot
ve the ground. A fresh supply of water was available at all times.

  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
   
  
    
  
   
    
  
    
  
  
  
   
  
  
 
 
  

8 BULLETIN NO. 363, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

A_ liberal supply of granulated stock salt was available in boxes und
the shed throughout the feeding period. The feed lots were situatt
on a sandy loam soil and mud was not a serious factor even dur'
wet weather. 5

Method of Feeding and Handling the Calves. The Qalvgg were fed twi q
each day, the morning feed being given about 8 a. m. and the eveni‘
feed about 6 p. m. The concentrates, consisting of ground milo hea
and cottonseed meal, Were Weighed and then thoroughly mixed befo f.
being spread over and carefully mixed with the respective roughag
in the feed bunks. f

The sorgo fodder which was supplied to Lot 3 was run through L
silage‘ cutter before being fed. Sudan grass hay was fed once daili
to Lot 1, this roughage being placed in the feed bunk after the calv
had consumed the bulk of the silage-concentrate mixture. In the 1:;
test, all lots received the same amount of cottonseed meal. Howeve
during the second and third tests Lot 2, receiving cottonseed hull
Was fed a slightly increased amount of meal as compared With the
other two lots for the purpose of determining whether this would ten
to offset the lower feeding value of the cottonseed hulls fed to Lot 2

Calves USed- The calves used in all three tests were high-grad
Herefords. Those used in the first and third years were raised ne
Stanton, Texas, and those of the second year in the vicinity of Bi
Spring. 

The calves used the first year (1923-24) were delivered to the y;
Spring Field Station November 24 at an average cost of $27.50 pe
head. As these calves had not been weaned previously, they were- give c.
a preliminary feeding until December 5 on a ration of 2 pounds o
ground milo heads, 4 pounds of sorgo silage, 2 pounds of sorgo fodde
and2 pounds of cottonseed hulls. The calves weighed an average o
429 pounds at the time of going on experiment, December 5. 
' The steers used the second year (1924-25) were late Winter and earl "
spring calves and were delivered to the station on November 9 at 
cost of $32 per head. They averaged 506 pounds, or about '75 poun
heavier than those used the year preceding. These calves were de
ilorned and branded on November 12 and placed on experiment Novemi

er 15.
' The calves used the third year (1925-26) Were late-spring and early-
summer calves,_ and weighed 120 and 197 pounds less than those used
in 1923-24 and 1924-25, respectively. They were delivered to the sta-
tion on November 11 and placed on test November 13. 3

Forty-five head of calves were purchased each year and divided" 
evenly as possible into three lots. One steer in Lot 2 of the last year’s;
test was removed from the experiment shortly after starting, due j.
impaction of the rumen. ,

Feeds Used- The feeds used in all of the tests were of good quality;
The cottonseed meal used sold under a guarantee of 43 per cent pro-

SORGO SILAGE, ETC., AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 9

tein. However, two analyses made each year by the Texas State Chemist
showed only 40.6 per cent protein the first year, 40.2 per cent the
second, and 41.7’ per cent the third year. A large portion of the milo
heads used the first two years were shipped in from the Panhandle
region of Texas, Whereas during the last year they were all produced
locally. The milo heads were finely ground and there was practically
no waste either of grain or ground-head roughage. The sorgo silage
was made from the first. cutting of the sumac variety of sweet sorghums,
and was of good quality. The sorgo fodder was also of the first cutting
and was of good quality. The cottonseed hulls were of a fair to good
quality. The Sudan grass hay fed to Lot 1 was of good quality.

The analyses of the various feeds used as determined by the Texas
State Chemist are given in Table 1.

Table 1.-—Composition of feeds used during experiment (based on two analyses of each feed).

Nitrogen
Protein Water Ash Fat Crude Free
Kind of Feed Year Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Fiber Extract
Per Cent Per Cent

1923-24 4O .61 7 .83 5 .20 6.14 12 .95 27.27

Cottonseed Meal 1924-25 4O .20 6 .71 4 .85 8.62 11 .15 28.47
1925-26 41.74 6.43 5.17 8.18 11.33 27.15

1923-24 9 .67 12.67 2 .62 2 .29 5 .52 67 .23

Ground Milo heads 1924-25 9 .47 10 .68 3 .74 2 .46 6.37 67 .28
1925-26 9 .28 10 .25 3.53 2 .33 7 .77 66.84

l 1923-24 5 .60 32.12 6 .84 2.18 14.33 38 .93

Sorgo Fodder 1924-25 5 .03 27 .45 4 .79 1 .71 14 .75 46 .27
1925-26 5 .04 30 .41 6.26 1.48 14 .43 42 .38

1923-24 2 .23 70 .80 2 .24 .69 6 .21 17 .83

Sorgo Silage 1924-25 2.03 72 .89 1.65 .72 5 .36 17 .35
1925-26 1.30 78.60 1.97 .53 5.77 11.83

1923-24 4 .27 9 .26 2.62 1 .00 48 .39 34 .46

Cottonseed Hulls 1924-25 4.54 8.41 2 .50 1 .37 43.60 39.58
1925-26 4.25 9.19 2.91 1.02 45.98 36.65

1924-25 7.50 9 .31 6.77 2 .08 26 .42 47 .92

Sudan Grass Hay 1925-26 8 .23 7 .44 7.14 1 .80 30 .55 44.84

Prices 0f F eedSL The prices of milo heads, cottonseed meal, and cot-
ton seed hulls are listed at actual cost, while the values assigned the
sorgo silage, sorgo fodder, and Sudan grass hay which were produced
on the Station were based on a conservative estimate of the price values.
In this experiment the feeds were valued as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.-—Prices of feeds used in experiment.

Years
Feeds -
1923-24 l 1924-25 I 1925-26
Ground milo heads, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 27 .40 $ 30.00 $ 25.00

Cottonseed meal, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.30 42.00 33.00

Sorgo silage, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 6.00 6.00

Sorgo fod er, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 12.00 10.00

Cottonseed hulls, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.50 10.50 10 .00

Sudan grass hay, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 15.00 12 .00

Maximum l Minimum precipitation i
Temperature, Temperature, Inches ' 
Degrees F. Degrees F.
Month w .5 .6
E2‘; § 5  5 ‘i 5 5 T: Til‘; ‘é E 55
Lu?‘ <2?‘ [-.I>* F-Y-<>< (2% f?‘ In?" $7
November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '71 65 . . . . . . 39 34 . . . . . . .05

, December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 57 53 33 27 25 1 .69 .13

January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ 54 56 51 24 22 26 .03 .15

February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 7O 68 30 34 33 .50 .00

March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . 63 78 63 35 45 37 .62 .00

April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 83 69 47 54 45 91 4 4'3

May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 81 87 55 56 61 2 85 1 02

June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9O . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .60 5 78

10 BULLETIN NO. 363, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

   
 
  
      
    
   
  
 

Weather Conditions During Test. Table 3 shgws the maximum =-
minimum temperatures as well as the distribution of rainfall dur’
the experiment. ‘

Table 3.—Weather data _for period of experiment.

   

THE 1923-24 TEST
Rations and Gains by Periods for First Test (1923-24)

During the first 28-day period, as may be observed by referring 
Table 4, the calves in each of the respective lots consumed an averal
of 4.47 pounds of ground milo heads and 1.08 pounds of cottonse
meal per head with all the roughage that they would clean up dail
The average daily increase in weight per head during the first peri
as shown in Table 4 was 1.51 pounds for Lot 1 receiving sorgo silag
1.49 pounds for Lot 2 receiving cottonseed hulls, and 1.3 pounds i.
Lot 3 receiving sorgo fodder. 5

The rations were gradually increased throughout the entire fatten‘
ing period until during the final period of seven days the halves we 
receiving an average of 13.3 pounds of ground milo heads, 2 poun
of cottonseed meal per head and all the roughage that they would con.
sume daily. "

The average daily rations as well as average daily and total gains b
periods are shown in Table 4.

Quantity and Cost of Feed Required to Produce 100 Pounds of Gain

The manner in which the calves responded to sorgo silage, cottonsee
hulls, and sorgo fodder is illustrated in Table 5. This table shows the
amount of feed required to produce 100 pounds of gain in the respectivei
lots by 28-day periods. The average feed requirement per one hundred;

 

SORGO SILAGE, ETC., AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 11

.0330 0.500 .00.“ 50w 1000,70

 

       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....Q.@flm  fimflkfl><

om. 000* 00. S» 00. .3 00. 00 00. 3 00. 00 N0. 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £00 .60 50m 030M.

       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............H®@_TQ% °@.~O@

mo. fi ooh. 5Q 0h ~ mo. ~ on; we. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . 400E 0000:0390 m

mo. a m0 Nfi 0w .2 mo. m Ciw mo. N. “v.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60000 00E 00:00.0

§m. .% §@. .%dw. % §¢..€ awx. x xx. @-v¢. % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   Q@NQU><

8. 00$ 00. 00 00. 00 A >0. 00 E. 5 00. 00 00. g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £00 .50 50m 030B

3.2 H52 wméfi $0.2 mwé wfim and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10:0: 0000:0300

m0. ~ oom N 5. fi 0h. fi mm; on; we. fl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400E 000200390 m

mod mm NH 00.2 mod Dim N08 v0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....m000z 02E 0:00.00

       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   Qwfihfl><

0.0000. .2. 00 hm. 00 5. 00 “N. E N. 5 9N0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1200 .80 50m 130B

       . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........~m&fi~mwflhwfl.mfifl.@

       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  OmgOw M

m0; oofi an; AKA mo; omé we. M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103E 0000000000

mod mo mfi v0.2 N05 n00 No.0 v0.0 . . . . . . A . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . .... .0000: 0:5 0:030
005.0% 0 a 0m 250cm 005.0% 000:0.» 0055A 00.50%
0025i w 0O mm 200m 300m 0Com 2.5m 010m .0Z
:4 00 026m 00-00 00-00 00-00 00-00 00-00 0030M 00A
@0822 000A 08E 0050b 000.05 0=000m 02E

.uO— JONQ i" E030 003mb

émémmfi .200 mi £00060 hm 050m 000 000300 >000 0m0$><|+ 030E

, . i,r._?_\:§h£=§??v.€. ,

 

::.§i>_§.xv._.,.

 

"ness of the three lots (based upon the dressing per cents and the amounts .

   
   
  
  
   
   
  
   
 
  
 

12 BULLETIN NO. 363, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

pounds of gain for the 175-day period is also shown at the end of t,
table. 1
The cheapest gain was made in Lot 1, which received sorgo silag
the average feed cost per 100 pounds of gain being $12.03, as co
pared with $16.37 and $12.50 for Lots 2 and 3 receiving cottonsee
hulls and sorgo fodder, respectively. The cost of gain is not alway
a criterion as to What the final profits will be. Although the ‘cost 0
gains is generally important in the determination of the financial out
come of the feeding operation, other factors such as degree of finis
must also be given proper consideration. If the most costly gains a -.
accompanied by a proportionately higher degree of finish, the mor
costly gains will in a large measure be offset by the proportionatel.
higher selling value of the cattle on the market; on the other hand
if the more costly gains do not increase the final selling value, th
feeder is very likely to sustain a severe loss on the animals fed 0__
such rations. ‘ 
In this test the cottonseed hulls were charged against the calves 
$12.50 per ton, this being the actual purchase price for the 1923-24
experiment. This price was unusually high for cottonseed hulls an.
fis no doubt considerably higher than the average Texas feeder usually
pays. It was necessary to ship the cottonseed hulls to Big Spring;
hence the transportation charges were included in the cost. Feeders:
or prospective feeders should bear in mind that prices of feed are
likely to vary considerably over a period of years. Therefore, when l
prices paid for feeds during a particular period are low, costs per 100
pounds of gain are also correspondingly lower than when prices of
feeds are high. The data in regard to the gains made by the calves
and the relative market desirability of the lots fed on different rations.
are not affected by the fluctuations in the prices of the feeds with vary- “

‘mg seasons.
Marketing Data

The calves were sold on the Fort Worth market June 2, 1924, at
prices in line with the Chicago market for that day, Lot 1 bringing *
$9.91 per hundredweight, Lot 2, $7.87, and Lot 3, $8.94. Live stock“
commission salesmen and packer buyers pronounced Lots 1 and 3, _’
which had received sorgo silage and sorgo fodder, respectively, as being 
good uniform cattle, but lacking slightly in finish. The calculated* fat- a

of internal fat) was 20 per cent for Lot 1, 14 per cent for Lot 2, and a
22 per cent for Lot 3. .

The cost of feed per calf was $40.24, $39.30, and $36.30, respectively, i

‘for Lot 1 receiving silage, Lot 2 receiving cottonseed hulls, and Lot 3
receiving sorgo fodder. Lot 1 made 94.4 pounds more gain than did
Lot 2 receiving cottonseed hulls at a total cost of only 94 cents in

excess of the total feed cost for Lot 2, while Lot 1 gained $43.9 pounds '2

 

‘See Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 32, page 754, for formula. I

. 3
1
S
m is. .2... .0002“. 030*
L .
A
m 0.00m 3&0 . . . . . . . . .. 00m. . . . . . . . . . . . . U H U . . .. 00 0E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0002 m m00000

N 0.00m $.13 . . . . . . . .. .... .. 3R a: $0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23: m =0

m    . . . . . . . . . . . . .    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qwwflzw fl ®wflhw><

E $30 owém  . . . . .. 0N0. . . . . . . IIIHMII mm: E2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I0w000wm

W.   ... . . . . .     . . . .  . . . . .  vw@

A ~00 ~05 0Q . .. NNE . m3 0mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 00000 fi

F

R MUM.“ Wmmm uni.....fi.......Mmw...£HHHHHHHH WW mm. H»UHMHHHHHHHiémwhwM m
m 0% 3Q R . . . . . . . . ..  8m 5 8m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $020 H

S 1|

w MHMM wwnw mxmmm..£@........WWN . . . . imnmfi  MM“ mpmmmmHffnmmwdfiwmmm 0
n     . . . . . . . . ..  MG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....QMflZm m

A , I

R 0.00 mmd .. . . . . . . .. gm ... . . . . . . .......m.m.m.ww nwm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.000000%“

N v.20 00.0 . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . .  .w~0......... .. aw 0mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 1015a m

M. m6“. wNnw F, . .. . . . . . . . . .. ha“. Ho hmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I10 0:0 ~

w   .  . . . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . .  W N

m. . . . . . . . . . .. ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

% N40 and mo . . ..  . 02.. m0 awn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000i w

m Mm.“ M200 Hmfimw...mm@.. .&.....HHHHHHHH MM wwm HUHmHimmimumwnnmwwwflmm _
R   %  . .... ..-. ....    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..nwmfliww §

S

A w 0:0

0., Afimowfinnmw mm0=0Q m 000m . 000.5% .m0::0.m .0 000m mflfln-Onm 0.055%

T . mEEQ . 08G 0E 000%0.m 0:05 0 0mm, 0002 00005

E 000E EA o2 000.00 0 00w 000m 090m 000m 0E2

E, . .%wm.vbflw%ww .%% 0mmwhvh 0000w 50.500 50300 0:00.00 .02 00A 0200a
m c006 0055A 02 6m 00§5D 0000b

L I .

v1

w 0.3-002 .08 02E

mm“ 0E0 mm 00 000100 3 000: .60 080003220 0.00 .3000 000w .500 00 0055a o2 000005 00 000E000 000.“ 00 hfiaamsdllg» 030E

S

BULLETIN NO. 368, TEXAS AGRI-CULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Figure 1.——Upper—Lot 1, fed sorgo silage, 1923-24.
Middle——Lot 2, fed cottonseed hulls, 1923-24.
Lower—Lot 3, fed sorgo fodder, 1923-24.

 

Y more than Lot 3.

~19. 1.

 

Silage, Hulls, Fodder,
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
Number of steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 15 15

Average initial vveight at feed lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .pounds 428 .9 433 .02 425 .17

Average final weight at feed lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 763 .33 673 .07 715 .67

Average final wei ht at Fort Worth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 723.33 638 .66 696.00

Average gain per ead, feed lot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 334 .4 240 .00 290 .50

.. Average gain per_head, selling wei hts. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 294,43 205 ,66 270,83

1 Average daily gain per head, feed ot weights . . . . . . . . . . . “ 1 .91 1.37 ' 1 .66

‘i Average daily gain per head, selling weights . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 1 .68 1 .18 1 .55
Average daily ration:
 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 9 .05 9 .06 9 .06

7 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . “ 1 .62 1.63 1 .63

a Sorgo silage (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 19.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

‘ Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . 10.16 . . . . . . . .

’ Sorgo fodder (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.30

I Sudan grass hay . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 1.56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,5. Feed required per 100 pounds gain:
 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 473 .55 660 .75 545 .77

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 8. .03 118.69 98.05

Sorgo silage (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 1003.23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . 741 .08 . . . . . . . .

Sorgo fodder (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560 04

 Sudan grass hay . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 81.56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. _ Cost of feed per 100 pounds gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .dollars 12 .03 16 .37 12 .50
f’ Total feed consumed per head:
i Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pounds 1583 .47 1585 .80 1585.40

 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 284 .33 284.87 28 .82

“ Sorgo silage (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 3354.63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed hu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . 1778 .60 . . . . . . . .

Sorgo fodder (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1626 .87

< Sudan grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 272 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
< Financial Statement:
Initial cost per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .dollars 27.50 27.50 27 .50

Cost of feed per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 40 .24 39 .30 36 .30

Shipping and marketing cost per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 3.77 3.77 3.77 _

Total cost of steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 71 .51 70 .57 67.57

. Price received per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 71 .71 50 .23 62 .22
-_ Necessary selling price to break even (per hundred

F‘ pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .. 9.88 11.05 9.71
g Selling price per hundred pounds, market weights. . . “ 9 .91 7.87 8 .94
i Profit or loss per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 20.34 5 .35

Profit Loss ~ Loss

 
  
   
 

 

SORGO SILAGE, ETC., AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 15

more per head during the 175 days’ feeding period at a cost of $3.94
Lot 1 sold for $21.48 more per head than Lot
2, and $9.49 more than Lot 3. The increased return of Lot 1 is
attributable to the seemingly higher finish carried by the calves in this
lot before slaughter. Lot 1 sold for $2.04 more per 100 pounds live
weight than Lot 2, and 9'7 cents per 100 pounds live Weight above Lot 3.

:I‘able 6.——Summary of results of first test, 1923-24. December 5, 1923, to May 28, 1924,
inclusive, 175 days.

 

Hogs Following Steers Made Small Gains

. Two hogs averaging about 100 pounds Were placed in each of the
gthree lots at the beginning of the experiment for the purpose of utiliz-
Fling Wasted and undigested grain. However, they Were removed at the
fiend of the second 28-day period on account of their failure to make satis-
ifactory gains. Even when fed 2 pounds of milo heads and one-fourth of
9 a pound of tankage per head during the second 28 days, the average
fdaily gain was only 0.83 pound per head.

i‘ Although cattle feeders have almost always found it profitable to

 

   
   
   
   
  
    
   
    
    
   
  

16 BULLETIN NO. 363, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

have hogs follow older cattle in the feed lot, the experience with ho
following young steers in this experiment tended to confirm the concl 
sions\ reached in previous work. In a test conducted by the Tex
Experiment Station at Substation No. 7, 1921-22 (Texas Bul. 296)»
hogs following calves receiving ground milo and feterita heads an
ground ear corn lost weight and were removed. The results indica
that young cattle especially utilize ground grain so efliciently that b A
very little undigested grain is available for hogs following the cattl

THE 1924-25 TEST
Rations and Gains by Periods for Second Test (1924-25)

During the first trial, cottonseed meal was supplied to each lot =1
a similar basis. However, during this (the second) trial, Lot 2 receivj a
ing cottonseed hulls received an average of 0.27 pound more cotton,
seed meal per head daily throughout the entire 168 days than was su I '
plied in Lots 1 and 3 receiving sorgo silage and sorgo fodder, respec,
tively. This increase in cottonseed meal was allowed Lot 2 for "-':I
purpose of ascertaining whether or not it would tend to ofiset the lowe
feeding value of the hulls in this ration. However, as may be observe -
by referring to Table '7, the average daily gains made by Lot 2 receiv‘
ing cottonseed hulls as the roughage portion of the ration were 0.,
pound less per head daily or 68 pounds less during the entire 168 days‘
than the gains of Lot 1 which received sorgo fodder. p.

The maximum amount of concentrates utilized at any time by the
calves was 16.3 pounds of ground milo heads per head daily fed to
each of the three lots, while Lot 2 receiving cottonseed hulls, consumed?
as high as 3.3 pounds of cottonseed meal per head daily as compared;
with 3 pounds for Lots 1 and 3 receiving sorgo silage and sorgo
fodder, respectively. .’

Quantity and Cost of Feed Required to Produce 100 Pounds 0f Gain

Table 8 illustrates the manner in which the cattle responded to the;
respective rations fed to the three lots throughout the 168-day feeding »
period in 1924-25. Lot 1 required 452 pounds of ground milo heads, i
83 pounds of cottonseed meal, 766 pounds of sorgo silage, and 86 pounds a
of Sudan grass hay to produce 100 pounds of gain. The average cost 
per p100 pounds of gain for Lot 1 was $11.46. Lot 1 made more eco- 2
nomical gains than the other lots. 

Lot 2 required 555 pounds of ground milo heads, 116 pounds of cot? --
tonseed meal, and 542 pounds of cottonseed hulls to produce 100 pounds l
of gain at a cost of $13.60 or an increase of $2.14 above the cost of
gains made by Lot 1. 

Lot 3 required 461 pounds of ground milo heads, 84 pounds of cotton- 
seed meal, and 480 pounds of sorgo fodder to produce 100 pounds of 7
gain at a cost of $11.57 or a. cost of only 11 cents above "the cost of -»
gains made by Lot 1. .

It is illustrated quite clearly that there was a general tendency for the I

602.2022 9222220 k0.“ 256m ~flwGr~i2

SORGO SILAGE, ETQ, AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 17

NN. N 2N wmfl 2N. N 20.2.. N 8. 2 8. N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2228 222.2. 2.2.2.292

2.22.2. m»? 8N. 8 QN. 8 .8. 22. 2 . 8 8. E 8. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222.. 22.22 2222.» 222.2.

8.2 222....» 2.2.. 2.8.: 2.2.22 28.2 N822 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......2...2.2.2.22.22.22.w

8. 2 8. N 2N 2. N 8. 2 8. 2 8. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2236 828.222.2222. 2N

8N2 8. 2.2 22...N2 8N. 2.2 2.2 8. w 8.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2.22 2.22222 2.2.25.6

 M  w  M  @  @  w  fi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H;.N@  Umflh®><

2.. 22222.. 82.18 8. 2.2.2 8N. 8 8. N2. 2N. N2. 222.18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2228 22.22 2.2.222 22.8.2.

2.2.. 2 8. h N2.2.. N2... 2 NN. 22 8. 2 2.». 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2222222 2.02.22.22.28.

2.2.N 22. m m2» N S. N 2.2... 2 8. N 28.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.22.222 22282222222. N

8N2 222...: 22.. N2 8N. 22 2. 2 28.22 8.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2.22 2.22222 222222.20

       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   

8. 2222...... 22.. 8 N. 2.... 2.2.. 2.2.. 5. 2.2. 8. 8 8. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 22.22 2222.22 282.2.

       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  wmflhw fifiwu§@

NN. >2 2N. 2 8. 2 8. 2.2 22.12 8. 2N 8. 2N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...:2.2222.w 85w 2

8. 2 8. N 2N 8. N 8. 2 8. 2 8. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8322. 2....2..222.222.u

2.2 8. 2. 8. N2 8. 2 2.2 8. w 8.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2882 2.22222 222222.20
2.56m $5220.22 mwnncnm wvcsom $2225.22 mfiflflOnw mwnwom
dwoiofi 2 22o.» . 229m . 02.5% 2 0Com . 02.22am. 6022mm 2203mm dz

22. 2.2.-wN 2.2.-22N 2.2.8 2.2.8 2.2.-22N 22.2.8 22.2
282.5322 5.22m 222222 2222.22.22 2.222? 2.22288 22.2222

.22 some 222 2222003 2252a fifluflflmm .9922. wow 22.602222 >22 22222.22 2.22m 33292 322% omN2o><|lN 05mm.

 

L Vkwgku-EEF-LBL 5L2?

N . 1 
O

 ammmm “mm:  bww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ww 5w ...........................$uvoNm
A W2». 32 . . . . . . .Q.HMHHHT.Q.~W..: . . . . . . . . .. w: m2 HHHHHnHH“HHHmm¢¢¢£....m_=._Nwwéma
M m m8 8. I ww 2K 8 m? o s: _ =4
T Nmow 5mm: Kflflflfifmmw . . . . _ . . . . . .....MII.T. oNfi wNo IJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......6uwo..m

N m2 s:  .... ....§ .... .  2N é Lhp .....  ........... 12...; my

fi m 3 3 E 2: 5w . m3 .3» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Io 2i _

m Ndw Nomfi . . . . . . . . .. wow  . . . . .. mm Nhm . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . Ijfiavvoum

E omwm 2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N5  wNfi o5  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iwziN m

H NE. hwofi i. .. . . . . . .  NE on w? . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . .  ¢=w_

E Q3 mwNfi . . . . . . . . .. m5 .. . . . . . .  mm 0E  . . . . . ......$vuo~m

L Nmoo new: . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . .. N?  o2 w?  . . . . . . . . . . . ImEEN w

m Q     ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..    . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . ...0mww—@mw

U   ....._.....  ...........-....-...   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........Hnw o -
w ms .5:  ..... flinmur.ma...  a “E ..................... ........h._w....._m m.
U    ..     . . . . . . . . . . . . 

w wém Ea: .. . . . . . . .. Em  . . . . .  Nw wow . . . . . .  . . . . . ......$wu2m

R   .... . . . . .  . . . . . . ..  ..........   ...... . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . ....w=H-SN Q

m    .... . . . .  . . . . . . . ..    .. . . . . . .....................QmNZw—.

.S méo wow  m?  ..   um m2  . . . . . . . . . ............6 c

m m? m;  ........ .. m:  s ma  _
E mow 3h ww  5m mm m2  . . . . . . . . . . . . .............o@=w-

T . .

3..

M» mwE-om wmwsofl mwnsom E 1.55m mwusom muqsom mwcsom mvanom

. wuoivm . EEO ~35 .6 wot 23E owmzw E32 dwwom

O @552 EA o2 mmmaw o Em g3 omhom meow 2:2 .

N vwmfimwvm hwwfia Qmmwvm nwvsm éoSoU éofiou ucsoew dZ 3A notum
w vmwwv>< aRU munsom o2 Sm uwnzfiD mwvum

E .

L

L . > mNéNi .33 wizom N

a w S. wN .3 muotua an ma»: :5 5% vm§o>m wan 39. 83 5mm .3 wan-Sn co“ @033...» 3 uuhsvoh woo.“ “o fifinwsOlaw Emma.

18

Figure 2.—~l."pper——~L0t 1, fed sorgo silage, 1924-25.
Middle-Lot 2, fed cottonseed hulls, 1924-25.
L0wer—L0t 3, fed sorgo fodder, 1924-25.

20 BULLETIN NO. 363, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

amount of concentrates required per 100 pounds of gain to increase as the h‘
fattening period advanced, the only exception in the 1924-25 test being 

for Lot 1 during the fifth 28-day period. This table serves to em-
phasize that when both sorgo roughages and cottonseed hulls are avail-
able as feeding stufis, it is important that the prospective feeder take
into consideration the productive values and the cost of the respective

roughages per ton laid down at the feed lots. In each of the three i,

feeding trials reported in this Bulletin, cottonseed hulls were necessarily
charged against the cattle at prices somewhat higher than usual in
Texas due to the fact thatfreight charges Were included in the cost
of thecottonseed hulls. The cottonseed hulls fed in the 19-24-25 test
were purchased at an actual cost of $10.50 per ton, a figure apparently
considerably above their actual worth. The cheapest gain was made
in Lot 1,iwhich received sorgo silage, the average feed cost per 100
pounds of gain being $11.46 as compared with $13.60 and $11.57 for
Hots 2 and 3 receiving cottonseed hulls and sorgo fodder, respectively.

Marketing Data

The calves were sold on the Fort Worth market May 18, 1925. Live
stock commission salesmen and packer buyers pronounced the calves
in Lots 1 and 3, which received sorgo silage and sorgo fodder as the
roughage portion of the respective rations, as being the best and most

uniformly finished cattle, and stated that Lot 1 carried. a slightly higher it 

finish than the fodder-fed lot. The calves in Lot 2, which had received
cottonseed hulls, were not so highly finished as were Lots 1 and 3, al-
though there seemed to be much less difference in finish this year than
in the preceding year or in the following year. The estimated amount
of fat in the live animals at the close of the experiment (estimates
based on dressing per cents and on weights of internal fat) was 25
per cent for Lot 1; 26 per cent for Lot 2 ; and 25 per cent for Lot 3.

Table 9 shows that the Lot 1 calves gained 68 pounds more than did
those in Lot 2, but only 5.3 pounds more than Lot 3. The additional
68. pounds gain of Lot 1 over Lot 2 was effected only at an additional
feed: cost of $1.13 over that of Lot 2. However, reference to Table 9
shows a profit of $11.43 per head for Lot 1 as compared with a 9-cent
loss per head on Lot 2. Lot 3 showed a profit of $6.77 per head. In
this test the larger profit returned by the calves in Lot 1 is attributable

to the larger gain and their higher selling value on the market. This

serves to emphasize the importance of properly finishing commer-
cially fed cattle before offering them on the market as killers.

Lot 1 sold at $11.00 per 100 pounds straight through; fourteen
calves in Lot 3 sold at $10.75, and one at $8.00 ; while eleven of Lot 2
sold at $10.50, and four at $9.50. The calf in Lot 3 which sold at $8.00
per 100 pounds was a large rough animal that presented a staggy ap-
pearance and the fact that this individual sold at a lower figure than
the others of the lot was probably not due at all to the ration fed.

SORGO SILAGE,"ETC., AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 21

Table 9.——Summary of second test. November 25, 1924, to May 12, 1925, inclusive, 168 days.

Silage, Hulls, Fodder,
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
Number of steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 15 15

Average initial weight at feed lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .pounds 506 .58 504 .45 506 .65

Average final weight at feed lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 885.44 815.20 880 .20

Average final wei ht at Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 823 .33 760 .00 812.00

Average gain per ead, feed lot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 378 .86 310.75 373 .55

Average gain per head, selling wei hts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 316 .75 255.55 305 .35

Average aily gain per head, feed ot wei hts . . . . . . . . . . . “ 2 .26 1 .85 2 .22

Average dai\y gain per head, selling weig ts . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 1 .88 1 .52 1 .82
Average daily ration: .
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 10.19 10 .26 10.26

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 1 .86 2 .14 1 .88

Sorgo silage (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 17 .27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . 10 .04 . . . . . . . .

Sorgo fodder (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 .68

Sudan grass ha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 1 .94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Feed required per 1 0 pounds gain:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 451 .78 554.65 461 .44

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 82 .72 115.86 84 .47

Sorgo silage (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 765 .77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . 542 .46 . . . . . . . .

Sorgo fodder (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480.44

Sudangrasshay...“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. “ 85.96 . . . . . . ..

Cost of feed per 100 pounds gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .dollars 11 .46 13 .60 11.57
Total feed consumed per head:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .pounds 1711 .63 1723 .63 1723.63

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 313 .38 360 .03 315 .51

, Sorgo silage (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 2901 .20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . 1686 .07 . . . . . . . .

i, Sorgo fodder (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1794.60

 _ Sudan grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 325 .67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Financial Statement:
" Initial cost per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .dollars 32.00 32.00 32.00

 Cost of feed per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 43 39 42 .26 43 .25

" Ship ing and marketing cost per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 3.75 3.75 3.75

Tota cost of steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ _ 79.14 78 .01 79.00

Price received per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 90.57 77 .92 85.77
Necessary selling price to break even (per hundred

pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 9 .61 10.26 9.73
Selling price per hundred pounds, market weights. . . “ 11 .00 10.25 10 .56
Profit or loss per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 11 .43 0 .09 6.77

' Profit Loss Profit

THE 1925-26 TEST
Rations and Gains by Periods for ThirdTest (1925-26)

  
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
  

The third year’s test was a part of the cooperative meat project, “A
Study of the Factors Affecting the Quality and Palatability of Meat.”
The steers were graded as feeders at the beginning of the test, as fat
steers at the end, and their carcasses graded after slaughter. The meat
phases of this project Will be published. in connection With the results
of other meat studies.
~ Since the purpose of this test Was that of comparing sorgo silage,
a cottonseed hulls, and sorgo fodder, it was planned to feed ground milo
 heads to each of the three lots on an equal basis. However, there Was
L, a slight difference in the average amount consumed by Lot 2 and that
. consumed by Lots 1 and 3 due to the fact that one steer in Lot 2
r" suffered a severe attack of digestive trouble in the early part of the
j third 28-day period and had to be removed from the experiment. This

BULLETIN NO. 363, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Figure 3.—Upper——Lot 1, fed sorgo silage, 1925—26.
Middle—Lot 2, fed cottonseed hulls, 1925-26.
Lower———Lot 3, fed sorgo fodder, 1925-26.

T‘ Hmxtmqrw, _,,,,. .._. .,..,. M3,. g

SORGO SILAGE, ETC., AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 23

steer Was figured out of the experiment from the beginning, Which
accounts for the slight discrepancy in the average amounts of ground
milo heads consumed.

The average rations consumed per head and the average total and
daily gains are given by periods for the respective lots in Table 10.
The concentrates in the rations Were increased gradually throughout
the feeding period until during the last period When Lots 1 and 3
consumed an average of 13.9 pounds of ground milo heads and 2.4
pounds of cottonseed meal as compared With 12.33 pounds of ground
milo heads and 2.33 pounds of cottonseed meal in Lot 2.
average daily consumption of concentrates and roughage in Lot 2 dur-
ing the final period Was no doubt due in a measure to the long feed-
ing period and to the high temperature prevailing during the latter
part of the feeding period. i -

The maximum amount of concentrates utilized by the calves at any
time Was 14.66 pounds of ground milo heads by Lots 1 and 3, and 15
pounds of ground milo heads by Lot 2 during the early part of the last
feeding period. Lots 1 and 3 consumed a maximum of 2.4 pounds
of cottonseed meal during the last period as compared With a maxi-
mum of 2.57 pounds per head daily by Lot 2.

. Quantity and Cost of Feed Required to Produce 100 Pounds of Gain

The amount and cost of the rations required to produce 100 pounds
of gain are given by periods as Well as for the entire 203-day period
in‘ Table 11. The average feed consumption per 100 pounds of gain,
including costs, is given at the foot of Table 11 in the last three lines.

Although there are some apparent inconsistencies in the amounts of
feed consumed per 100 pounds of gain by 28-day periods, Table 11
serves Well to illustrate in a general Way that the amount of feed re-
quired per 100 pounds of gain increases as the feeding period advances.

It is observed that the amount of concentrates required per 100
pounds of gain was much higher during the seventh period than in
any of the preceding periods. In this particular test, one of the prin-
cipal reasons for such small gains during the last period may be at-
tributable to the increased temperature prevailing at that time. In
this, as Was true in the 1924-25 test, the gains in the cottonseed hull
lot dropped oif much more in the last period than those in the other

 two lots Which received sorgo silage and sorgo fodder, respectively.

Marketing Data
The calves Were sold on the Fort Worth market June 14, 1926, and

. did not show as much finish as did those fed in 1924-25. This is
l probably due to the younger age of the animals.
i sion salesmen and packer buyers pronounced Lots 1 and 3, which had
g been fed sorgo silage and sorgo fodder, respectively, as being the best

Live stock commis-

The smaller '

N
0
I
T
A
T
S
T
N
E
M
I
R
E
P
X
E
L
A
R
U
T
L
U
C
I
R
G
A
S
A
X
E
T
3
6
3
0
N
N
I
T
E
L
L
U
B

24

QHOMMQQ vhwqo hOm 5mm ._GHOQ.\.*

mm. H E. H w”. N Ho. N ma. H E. H H6. H Hw. H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15mm >HH~H. wmmb><

NN. HE? E. NH“ NE. E 2.. E. E. Q 8. Q om. Q E. E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 ma Hfiw HHNHQH.

3; . and a; 2Q SE EH; 3w 8w . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . zswHsH oméw

Ha. H oHiN HHNN 8N 9H. H HH» H Nfi H EH. . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H88 H§€QH8u m

2a NHYNH 2Z2 H8 HH HHH a EE EN w Hal“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230; oHHHHH H.555

E. H fine 8. N S. N E. H NH“. H E. H mo. N . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . aim 28w “E222

E. fiflmvw 3. ww E an mm. E 21% HE. E, HE. NH» NHH. E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HHS ma 5% HHNHPH.

E. w NN. m S. w wm. H. E. E E. E H6. w Ha. E . . . . . A 4 . . . H . . . . . . . . . . . . aHHHHHH BQESHQQ

E. H m». N NH“. N HN.N .3. H E. H EN. H mwé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H88 Hxzzsfiou N

B. a N». NH mN. mH EN. HH on. m E. E mm. w mme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aHaeH 2H5 H.565

ma. H S. H NN. N .3. N .5. H ma. H EN. H Hw. H . . . . . . . . H . . . . . dimw r5. @9234

8. E9. S. 2 2. NH. E. E 5. .3 . 5 Ha 8. mm Q. E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 5H 5% H58.

$5 NHHH. EH. wwno $6 wwmo Nwmc NH; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.22 $2» H325
no.2 EHH mPNH NHHHH 8.3 mNHH Afis: NHHH ...........m.....@r........&2HmomHow
EH 3N HHNN 8N 3H HHNH NH.H Rno  .... . . . . .. HHsE wvwwcofioU H
$5 32 E NH 8 HH H: a E E EN H. 3 H“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wHawHH oHHE H.565
mfifln-Onm wUQHHONM mUGH-Onm mUHHDOAH . wUGHHOnm mfliflQHm wwHHHHom wwHHHHom
iwcivm dhww mm . 2.8m . oiwm . 010m . 25m . oHHonH . 2.6m cofiwfl .oZ

H2 Ho wocwm wHvwN . aHvwN NHYwm wHvwN SHAWN fivwN H5
@9223. H25 5am HHHHE HHEam EHHF 988m HEE

.N Ho.» HHH 303m flovwufiOw d van H Bod H: m5»? noofiwm dm-mmi 65%. mom dwoiwn H3 38m HEN wHHoHHwH >23. vmwHo><lko~ QEFH

sonao SILAGE, ma, AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 25

.222. mm 62.9. 2255mm.»

.222. wN .5 mwomhom .3 2.52 5m 5% ommhzvm was .263

* $-52 J25 2.225

 

Nmhm wodm . . . . . . . . .. wow  . . . . . . . . .. mm mNm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zldowwomm

 x.  - . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -m§%:: x 

Aw.  §¢.   . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - -  % 

wiw $52 . .. o3.  .. . . . . . . .. N: ooom . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . .Qo22.om m

TwN mmdN . . . . . . . .  v3. . . . . . . . . .. uwmm ma:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......mmssN .1.

qmm wmflwm ow   I hi. wmm mom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z5 mmwm

5mm mwé . . . . . . . .. wwN  mm mwm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1535mm

win 3.: . . . .  . . . . . .  mom .. . . . . . . .. w: Nmw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . I25: N w

.1.    ~ - ~ . ~ . - - - . . - -    . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -  .3

miwm mmdm  .Nh.m . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. mom 0mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.25.“ m

mfim mmwom . . . . ... . . . .. . mmm . . . . . . . .. >02 mwm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252 N m

$1  xamv. x  - - . . . . . . . . . .    . . . . < . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . ~  §

wfim firm . . . . . . . . .. $2.2m. .  . . . . .. ww mfi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1335mm

ode woNm . . . .   wow  2N2 mow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZmEEN w

   . . . . - . . . . . .    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0wN:w w

e82. omfim . . . . .  m5.  ..  . . . . .. mw m9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..h2.2.omm

5mm 2%.:  .  . hNm . . . . . . . . .. o: omm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . I21EN m

   . . . . . . . . . . .    . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .fimfl.zw M

NR2. mN.w . . . .Nm.w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. no Nhm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535cm m

nNw 2N6 . .. . . . . . . . . .. omm  mm b3» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . IdSEmN N

@.    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Qwflzm M

.502“ Nod  .. m3. . . . . . . .  mm» wwN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....522.omm

9mm wmh . . . . .  .   wnm .. . . . . . . .. ow mNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IQEEN H

mw.  @m. mw  - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .QmN.=W é

2.55m 225C 2.55m 2.55m wwnsom 2.55m 2.55m 2.55m

datum ERG Sum n6 25m 25mm 692mm .132 625mm

mcismm .222 com $3.0 o 5m 2.3m ow5w 2.3m 0E2 dZ 51m 5022mm
2.5mm 5m 5m 2.05m. 525m L525". #5300 2.5550

5R0 . .5 H50
vwmuu>< EQO 2.55m com 5m wousfiD 2.3m

.5 25o 68m .5 2.55m c2 ooswoum 3 2.523.»... 2.0mm mo bfiawsdlkmm omnwm.

26 BULLETIN NO. 363, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 

Figure 4.——View of cattle feeding pens at Big Spring.

and most uniformly finished, all agreeing that Lot 3 carried a slightly
better finish than the silage-fed calves. Lot 2, fed cottonseed hulls,
showed considerably less finish than Lots 1 and 3. Lot 3 sold at $9.75
per 100 pounds straight through; Lot 1 sold at $9.50 per hundred
pounds straight through. In Lot 2, one calf sold at $10.00 per 100
pounds, this being, in the opinion of the cattle buyer, the highest fin-
ished steer in any lot; nine head sold at $9.25 per 100 pounds; two
sold at $8.00; and two at $7.50 per 100 pounds. The calf in Lot 2
which sold at $10.00, a figure 25 cents higher than was paid for the calves
in Lot 3, was a smooth individual but the dressed carcass grades did
not bear out the previous judgment of the buyer, since the dressed car-
cass of this steer graded only medium. The estimated percentages of
fat in the entire live animals at the close of the experiment (estimates
based upon dressing percentages and upon weights of internal fat)
were 22 per cent for Lot 1, 17 per cent for Lot 2, and 22 per cent for
Lot 3.

Table 12 shows that the calves in Lots 1 and 3 gained on an average
46 pounds more per head during the 203-day feeding period than those
in Lot 2. This additional 46 pounds was made at an additional cost
of only $1.67. Although Lots 1 and 3 made similar gains, the feed
cost per head was $1.38 higher for Lot 1 than for Lot 3. Lot 1 showed
a loss of $12.06; Lot 2 a loss of $17.77; and Lot 3 a loss of $9.54 per
head. These severe losses are accounted for by the fact that calves
were purchased as feeders at a higher price per 100 pounds than the
market paid for them after having been fed 203 days. Only small

 

  
   

 

SORGO SILAGE, ETC., AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 27

Table 12.—Summfiirfi of third experiment in comparing sorgo (Sumac)
u s

and sorgri-(Sumac) fodder.
June 4, 1926, inclusive (203 days).

November 13, 1925, to

silage, cottonseed

    
   
  
  

Silage, Hulls, Fodder,
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
Number of steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 14 15

Average initial weight at feed lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .pounds 310 .89 310 .23 306 .80

Average final weight at feed lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 681 .85 634 .93 678.02

Average final wei ht at Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 640 O0 599 .30 635.33

Average gain per ead. feed lot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 370 .96 324 .70 371 .22

Average gain pcr_head. selling wei hts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 329.11 289 .07 328 53

Average daily gain per head, feed 0t weights . . . . . . . . . . . “ 1 .83 1 .60 1 .83

Average daily gain per head, selling weights . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 1.62 1 .42 1 .62
Average daily ration:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 9 .52 9 .51 9 .52

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 1 .69 1 .83 1 .69

Sorgo silage (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 13.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . .  . 6 .76 . . . . . . . .

Sorgo fodder (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . .  . . “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .46

Sudan grass hay . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . “ 0 .84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Feed required per 100 pounds gain:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 521 .24 594 .83 520 86

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 92 .69 114.34 92 62

Sorgo silage (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 713 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . 422 63 . . . . . . . .

Sorgo fodder (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 A16

Sudan grass hay . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 45 .95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cost of feed per 100 pounds gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .dollars 10.47 11 .44 10.08
Total feed consumed per head: _
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .pounds 1933.57 1931.42 1933.57

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 343.83 371 .26 34 .83

Sorgo silage (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 2645 .20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . 1372 2 . . . . . . . .

Sorgo fodder (Sumac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1515 20

_ Sudan grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 170 .47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Financial Statement: -
Initial cost per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .dollars 30 .00 30 .00 30.00

Cost of feed er steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 38.80 37.13 37.42

Shipping an marketing cost per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 4 .06 4.06 4.06

Total cost of steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 72 .86 71 .19 .71 .48

Price received per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ 60.80 53,42 61 94
Necessary selling price to break even (per hundred

pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.38 11.88 11.25
Selling price per hundred pounds, market weights. . . “ 9 .50 8 .91 '9 .75
Profit or loss per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ i 12.06 17 .77 9 .54

- _ Loss Loss Loss

gains were made during the last 35 days of the feeding period, which
factor also exerted considerable influence in increasing the final loss
sustained. As during the first and second tests, no labor chargewas
made against the steers; neither was any credit given for the manure
produced, it being considered that the manurial value would offset the

if labor costs in feeding the cattle.

.28 BULLETIN NO. 363, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

SUMMARY
Average Gains

The average gains made by the calves during 28-day* intervals
throughout the three experiments are shown by the weight curves 1n
Figure 5. In these experiments the cottonseed hulls fed to Lot 2
constituted 49 per cent of the ration in the 1923-24 test and 45 per cent
in the 1924-25 test, as compared with only 3'7 per cent in the final test.
This probably explains why the hulls ration supplied to _Lot 2 gave
results more nearly equal to the silage and fodder rations 1n the final
test than it did in the first and second tests; namely, that the roughage
constituted a smaller part of the ration in the third test.

Average Amounts of Feed Consumed

During the first two tests the average concentrates consumed per
head daily averaged approximately 2.5 per cent of the initial weight of
the calves, while in the third trial the concentrates averaged 3.6 per
cent of the initial weight of the calves. The average daily gains per
1000 pounds of live Weight were also calculated, and as shown in
Table 13 the light Weight calves fed in the third trial made consider-
ably. larger gains than did_the heavier calves fed in each of the preced-
ing tests. This is probably accounted for by the fact that the lighter
calves consumed considerably more concentrates daily in proportion to
their Weight than did the calves fed in the first two tests. The rough-
age portion of the rations of the lighter calves fed in the third trial
averaged considerably less than the daily roughage consumption in
the two preceding trials.

In averaging the concentrate requirements per 100 pounds of gain
by a simple arithmetic average in order to give equal emphasis to each
of the three experiments, it was found that the silage fed calves re-
quired 20 per cent less ground milo heads and 25 per cent less meal
per 100 pounds gain than did the calves fed cottonseed hulls, and 5.4
per cent less ground milo heads and 5.5 per cent less cottonseed meal
than the calves fed fodder.

It required an average of 482 pounds of ground milo heads, 8'7
pounds of cottonseed meal, 82'?‘ pounds of sorgo silage, and '71 pounds
of Sudan grass hay to produce 100 pounds of gain for the calves in
Lot 1, as compared with 604 pounds of ground milo heads, 116 pounds
of cottonseed meal, and 568 pounds of cottonseed hulls in Lot 2, and 509
pounds of ground milo heads, 92 pounds of cottonseed meal, and 483
pounds of sorgo fodder i11 Lot 3.

 

*Except the final periods in the first and third tests, which covered a 35-day
period.

SORGO SILAGE, ETC., AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 29

   . . . . . . . . . . mum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. §..€ @.@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..QmNHQ><

mmam mwH mom . . . . . . . . .. m8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5H m6 wmlmmmH .

mm. m mm. N “on . . . . . . . . .. n. oH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. m. H m.oH mNiNNmH . . . . . . . .. .6H.HvonH m

Hmfi wwH mmw . . . . . . . . .. m6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wH H5 HwmlmmmH

   . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - . . . .. 0.1 - . . . . .~ w-f £.® ¢u-.-¢.-- 

an.”   . » . - . . - . . . - . . - . - . ~ . . w-w . - . ~ ~ . - ‘ . . w»? m-m  \

owd mw. H mom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 06H . . . . . . . . .. H.N mzoH mNLvNmH . . . . . . . . . 16:51 N

wHim hm. H m? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. mdH . . . . . . . . .. w. H H. m wmlmmmH

xm.£   ¢-.% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  §..? @.$ ..---. V . . . - 

mwgm mwH HHm w.o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 06H HnH m5 wmlmmmH .

 m  N  @.w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  PM  a   . . . . . . . . . . .  w

om. m Hm. H 3. w. H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N. 2 w. H o. m filmmi

1E6?
63A and H663 6m wHEH-om wHisonH mccsonH mucnom mwcsonH wwnsom wHEHSnH
oooH 6m 6E»? QQHH .6 HSnH .233 dmmmm H662 .2263 b6? cofiwfl HowH .
IIII [»!|»|.|\| EHHQH $3.0 o HOW H66w owHom H63 oHHH>H

wHEsonH 6 w6>< aawsm éoSoU éoSoU
.560 2RD 66263..

HnmHoBQ/HH wUHHHHOQ oooH 6Q Haw QHmo 6Q mfimw hHHaHv QHmo 6n >13. UQEHHmHHOO H68 omw6><1l.mH 63mm.

30 BULLETIN NO. 363, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 14.—Feed required per 100 pounds gain.

Cotton- Cotton- Sudan

No. Milo seed Sorgo seed Sor o Grass

Lot Year Days on Heads, Meal, Silage, Hulls, Fod er, Hay,
Feed Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds

1923-24 . . . . . . . . . . 175 474 85 1003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

1 1924-25 . . . . . . . . . . 168 452 83 766 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

1925-26 . . . . . . . . . . 203 521 93 713 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482 87 827 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

1923-24 . . . . . . . . . . 175 661 119 . . . . . . . . 741 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

2 1924-25 . . . . . . . . . . 168 555 116 . . . . . . . . 542 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1925-26 . . . . .  . . . 203 595 114 . . . . . . . . 422 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604 116 . . . . . . . . 568 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1923-24 . . . . . . . . . . 175 546 98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560 . . . . . . . .

3 1924-25 . . . . . . . . . . 168 461 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480 . . . . . . . .

1925-26 . . . . . . . . . . 203 521 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 . . . . . . . .

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483 . . . . . . . .
Salt Consumption
Granulated salt was kept before the calves at all times. Table 15

shows the daily consumption of salt per head.

Table 15.—Average daily consumption of salt per head.

Ounces
Number
Days on Lot 2
Feed Lot 1 Cottonseed Lot 3
Year Silage Hulls Fodder
1923-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 .76 1 .83 .76
1924-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 .67 1.13 .86
1925-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 1 .13 1.33 .97
Average for three years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .85 1.43 .86

Shrinkage and Slaughter

It is shown in Table 16 that shrinkage varied from 2.75 to 7.75
per cent of the weight of the animal. In the first year, shrinkage was
lowest with Lot 3 fed fodder as a roughage, and highest with Lot 1
fed silage. In the second test Lot 3 had the heaviest shrinkage, and
Lot 2, fed hulls, the lowest. In the third year Lot 2 was lowest again,
but on an average of three years Lot 3, fed fodder, had the lowest
shrinkage. The variation in shrinkage for each of the three years
indicates, however, that three tests are not nearly enough to give sig-
nificant results on shrinkage. The cattle were shipped a distance of
267 miles. I

The dressing percentage as shown in Table 16 was a trifle higher
in case of the lot fed silage for the first and third years. All lots
killed out about the same—60 per cent—in the second test. The lot
fed cotton seed. hulls was considerably lower in the first and third years.

' .~.m.|...‘.~.~;ai...»

 

S“. 8 m. wm mw. S hm. mm on. 3m mm. w 2.. Q. mvwémfi
mm. 3 o. 3 Q. 8 9. mm hm. N? mh. h m. 8 mmémfi
m”. mm. w. om ow. E. om. mm mm. Em mh. w. h. 2 $132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qvmzam m
Z . 3 h. fin when flhm E mm. wmm 5. m ma. mm wwlmmfi
wh. hm 3. wm. we. 3 S. 3 mm. w? hh. w N. mm $13.2 .
Q2. 3.2 2am 2 3. 3. hmm 25 we». Eumfi: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235 N
Q . mm 3. hm mo. hm 2H .3 2. 3m 3 . w mm. S. 3L5:
5m mm. 3 w. ow 31E E. w? s. h I . Q. mmémi
6w...“ 3mm wmwem 8 fin 2&3 3...... 0.0% wmémi f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . amém _
.260 Sm fiSU Hum
mwnsom mwcsom d338,? a233,? mwasom wwnsom
Jammw?» Jam fiviwz 3A wuvb dowmmofiU .250 3m imam 5m .
v32 1wc~3=~ minm imam- wummokfi . 53V cofimfl ~04
wwm$>< E33,? |I|||l| 3E»? |l||||ll|l||l|
_omw.~o>< omficoohofi mfimmoufl owmpo>< ommxcinm .

.GHNU .6235“? UGN £255 HM QUNMQmMJWIJMvw 0119B

SORGO SILAGE, ETC., AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 31
o0
N

L...» FLY. Ia... [ufnvPihwwlvPp-E.

 
  

i
L
e

32 BULLETIN NO. 363, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Lot 3 fed fodder had a noticeably greater amount of internal fat in
every test, followed by Lot 1, fed silage. The internal fat in this in-
stance is the ruffle and caul fat, and the amount of this is considered
a partial index to the fatness of the carcass as a whole.

Table 17 shows the grading of the dressed carcasses as determined
by a committee of three beef men from the packing industry. A study
of this table shows clearly that the carcasses of Lot 2 fed cottonseed
hulls did not possess the finish or degree of fatness found in those of
Lots 1 and 3. The carcasses in Lot 1 graded somewhat higher than
those in Lot 3 for the first two years, but Lot 3 showed considerable
advantage in the last test. ~

Table 17.—l_\Iumber of beef carcasses in various grades.

Crades
Year Lot ' Good to Medium
Choice Choice Good to Good Medium
1923—24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 6 4 . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 2 4 7 . . . . . . . . . . 2

1924-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 3 s , 1 . . . . . . . . . . 3

3 8 5 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1925-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 l

2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 5

3 4 4 5 2 . . . . . . . . . .

Productive Energy Values

A comparison of- the productive energy values secured in the feeding
tests with calves at Big Spring, Texas, in the three tests are given in
Table 18. Sorgo fodder was used as the standard. The “calculated”
values in this table were calculated from the actual chemical composition
of the feeds fed and the production coefiicients given in Texas Station
Bulletin No. 329, “Energy-Production Ooefficients of American Feeding
Stuffs.”

Table 18.—Comparis0n of productive values of sorgo silage and cottonseed hulls expressed in
therms of net energy per 100 pounds of feed. (Calculated from compositions of
feeds used and actual gains made in the Big Spring feeding tests.)

1923-1924 1924—1925 1925-1926
Found Found Found
Calculated From Calculated From Calculated From
Test Test Test
SEQ} fodder used as a
‘-' standard . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 .5 . . . . . . .. 33.0 . . . . . . .. 31.0 . . . . . . ..
Sorgo sila e . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.7 16.8 13.4 17.7 9.2 15.7
Cottonsee hulls . . . . . . . . . .. 15.6 14.8 19.7 17.0 17.1 17.4

In calculating the value of a feed in actual experimental feeding
work, it is necessary’ to take one feed as a standard to calculate the

SORGO SILAGE, ETC., AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 33

productive energy of the other feeds to be compared, and to assume a
definite maintenance requirement for the animal. In this calf-feeding
experiment* sorgo fodder was used as the standard. The productive
values of the concentrates used Were calculated, using the coefficients
given in Texas Bulletin 329, and the maintenance requirements given
by Armsby in his “Principles of Animal Feeding.”

Although the above assumptions may be claimed to lead to some un-
certainty, yet since these figures are also used in connection with the
other feeds compared with the standard, comparative results should be
secured. This is especially the case if there is little difference between
the quantity of additional feeds fed and no great difference in the aver-
age weights of the animals.

The method of calculation of the productive energy of the sorgo
silage and cottonseed hulls used in the first experiment (1923-24) are
givenin Table 19. The maintenance requirements of 100 pounds of
the average weight Was assumed after Armsby as .75 therms. The
therms required for one pound in gain of weight when ground milo
heads and cottonseed meal were fed was 3.92 in the 1923-24 test. The

yalues of the gains with the other feeds in terms of therms were calcu-

lated for 1923-24 using this figure (3.92 therms). The therms re-
quired for one pound gain in weight for 1924-25 was 3.78 and for
1925-26 was 3.90. In the tests reported in this Bulletin, the sorgo
silage had a higher feeding value than did. the cottonseed hulls, and
evidently a somewhat higher value than is indicated by the productive

i - value calculated from the information which has heretofore been avail-

able. The results of this work will be used to aid in securing the
correct feeding value of sorgo silage as has already been done with
ground kafir grain and kafir headst Cottonseed hulls have apparently
the same feeding value as calculated but the value found is no doubt too
high because the cost of gain in therms was really less than the value
assumed. That is to say, the lot of calves receiving cottonseed hulls
carried less finish at the end of the feeding period than the sorgo silage
fed lot, which means that the gain in weight contained a smaller per-

 centage of fat than for the silage fed calves, and this was produced at

a lower cost in productive energy. The lower gain in weight of the lot

i; receiving cottonseed hulls was due chiefly to the fact that the feeding

 value of the ration eaten by the calves was considerably less than that a

l‘ supplied the sorgo silage and sorgo fodder lots.

*Similar calculations covering experiments in lamb and steer feeding l1ave

u’ been reported in Texas Station Bulletins Nos. 269, 285, 296, 305 and 309.

fTexas Station Bulletin No. 329.

34

BULLETIN NO. 363, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 19.—Calculation of productive value of sorgo silage and cottonseed hulls used in

first test, 1923-24.
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
Sorgo Cotton- Sor 0
Silage seed Fod er
Hulls
Initial Wei ht of animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429 429 425
Final Weig t of animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763 673 716
Average weight of animal, W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596 551 571
Average daily ain of animal, G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .91 1 .37 1 .66
Average daily eed:
Miloheads . . . . . . . . . . . ..'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9 9 9

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .6 1 .6 1 .6

Sorgo silage, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sudan hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sorgo hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .4

Cottonseed hulls, H2 . . . . . . . . . .> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 .0 . . . . . . . . . .
Productive value: .
Milo beads, 9 X .769 =R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.92 6.92 6.92

Cottonseed meal, 1.6 X .699 =S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 1.10 1.10

Sorgo hay, 9 .4 X .295 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .77

Therms total, T. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.79

Maintenance required per animal, W XH* =M . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .47 4.13 4 .28

Productive balance, T— = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .51

Therms for 1 pound gain, B +G =K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .92

Value of gain, K XG =L.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 .49 5.37 . . . . . . . . ..

Total energy value of ration, M +L =0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .96 9 .50 . . . . . . . . . .

Value of grain fed, R + = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02 8.02 . . . . . . . . . .

Sudan hay fed, 2 X .328 =U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .656 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Value of cottonseed hulls, O-—P =V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .48 . . . . . . . . . .

Value of silage, O-—(P +U) =X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Productive energy of silage (X -:—Z) X100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 .8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Productive energy of cottonseed hulls (V -:—H2) X100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .8 . . . . . . . . . .
l

*H = .0075, or the maintenance requirement in’ therms for each pound of live-weight.

(Armsby)

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Sorgo silage and sorgo fodder produced in each of the three tests

larger gains than cottonseed hulls when fed to fattening calves.

The

average gain per head for the calves fed silage was 361.4 pounds; for the

calves fed cottonseed hulls 291.8 pounds;
fed chopped sorgo fodder.
The calves fed silage on the basis

and 345.1 pounds for those

of three years’ average gained 23.9

per cent more than the calves fed ‘on cottonseed hulls and 4.7 per cent

more than the calves fed on sorgo fodder.
The average daily gain made by

the calves fed silage was 2 pounds

per head or 3.38 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight; for the calves

fed cottonseed hulls,

1.61 pounds per head o

r 2.89 pounds per 1000

pounds live Weight; and for the calves fed fodder, 1.9 pounds per head

or 3.29 pounds per 1000 pounds live weight.

The calves fed on silage and fodder, respectively, made larger and
more uniform gains throughout the feeding period than those fed on
cottonseed hulls.

The calves fed cottonseed hulls through feeding periods ranging
between 168 and 203 days made reduced gains during the latter part
of the feeding period, which factor tended greatly to increase the feed
requirement per 100 pounds of gain.

SORGO SILAGE, ETC, AS ROUGHAGES IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING CALVES 35

The calves fed cottonseed hulls did not possess the finish that was
found in the calves fed silage and the calves fed fodder. There was
little difference in finish between the calves fed silage and those fed
fodder. The lot fed silage seemed before slaughter to possess a slight
advantage in this respect in the first two tests while the calves fed fodder
showed a slightly higher finish in the third experiment. However, the
carcasses from Lots 1 and 3 on a three-year average were about the same
in quality. Those from Lot 1 fed silage had a slight advantage the first
year, and Lot 3 a considerable advantage the last year. Judging from
the internal fat, Lot 3, fed fodder, showed more finish in each test.

This experiment shows conclusively that sorgo silage and fodder are
more satisfactory roughages than cottonseed hulls when fed along with
ground milo heads and cottonseed meal to fattening calves.

In total cost of feed per head there was little variation between lots,
the cottonseed hull ration being slightly cheapest the last two years.
There was no relation, however, between the total cost of feed per steer
and the cost of 100 pounds gain and the net returns, as Lot 1, fed
. silage, had the highest total feed cost, yet the lowest cost per 100 pounds
f gain and accordingly made greater returns. On the basis of a three-
’ year average, Lot 1, fed silage, had a cost of $11.33 per 100 pounds
 "gain; Lot 2, fed cottonseed hulls, $13.80; and Lot 3, fed fodder, $11.38.
 The economy and rate of gain and sales price are the factors directly
I affecting the net returns. Cattle making the greatest gains, other
~ things being equal, have the highest finish, and bring higher prices.
< Eggher sales prices on such cattle usually offset any increased cost
j o gain.

WWW”JIIW*7!Ww-vr-w=w-wn : ~ ' i

 
 
    
  
  

36 BULLETIN NO. §63, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

mes-z‘ was)
S/fizyz —-—-—-
Edd e -—--—-

 

2.8 f6 84 " m. we x75
L e nyfé of Feed/fly Per/vi aba/s

w
§

£9.34 ‘V35 Tesf
S/Yay e
Padder—~—

s
‘é

Co
0
o

‘a

Wc/jfifg 0]‘ Cw/ues-loaowd
0 ‘g ‘a a ‘a E‘

 

84 nz no I68

2s 56 _ _
ban}??? o/‘FeeaZ/nffir/od — Days

70o

0'0 4925-26 7251“

h/e/jfifii 0f (‘z/r s ~fi0I6\A9
a ‘é a 1:? 5;» a

 

Q
8

0| l l v T T l J
Z8 6'6 64 ' 1/2 _ 2/40 /68 205
L e nffb 0/‘ Peed/ w] Per/a a! - 24y;
Figure 5.-—Upper—Showing gains made by calves, 1923-24.

M1ddle—Sh0wing gains made by calves, 1924-25.
Lower—Showing gains made by calves, 1925-26.