389-1127-5500-L180 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR WLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS fl’ BULLETIN \N§$,;372‘,_,}'{j>r JANUARY, 192s I \/ _/' " w "A, v V. YvA l ‘z, w . f "a / , DIVISION CHEMISTRY (‘<2 n55“. ‘(m/Cf . “Raj?” N "~_‘_y,_. f. DIGESTIBILITY AND EETTIQDTUCTION 0012m- CIENTS OF POULTRY FEEDS AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION ADMINISTRATION: *B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CONNER, M. S.,Acting Director R. E. KARPER, B. S., Acting Vice-Director J. M. ScHAEDEL, Secretary \/I. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk J. K. FRANcKLOW. Assistant Chief Clerk CHEsTER HIGGS, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant CHEMISTRY: _ 4 _ G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Chemist S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist WALDO H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist R. O. BROOKE, M. S., Assistant Chemist T. L. OGIER, Assistant Chemist J. G. EvANs, Assistant Chemist _ ATHAN J. STERGEs. B. S., Assistant Chemist G. S. CRENsHAw, A. B., Assistant Chemist JEANNE M. FUEGAs, 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. LUsH, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman; Breeding Investigations W. H. DAMERON, B S., Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. REiNHARD, B. S., Entomologist R. K. FLETCHER, M. A., Entomologist W. L. OWEN. JR., M. S., Entomologist FRANK M. HULL, M. S., Entomologist J. C. GAiNEs, JR., M. S., Entomologist C. J. TODD, B. S., Entomologist F. F. BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist S. E. IVICGREGOR, JR., Acting Chief Foulbrood Inspector A. B. KENNERLY, Foulbrood Inspector GiLLis GRAHAM, Foulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Chief _ A. B. CONNER. M. S., Agronomist; Grain Sorghum Research R. E. KARPER, B. S., Agronomist; Small Grain Research v- P. C. MANOELsDORE, Sc. D., Agronomist; in charge of Corn and Small Grain Investi- gations D. T. KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist; Cotton Breeding A H. E. REA. B. S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations E. C. CUsHiNG, B. S., Assistant in Crops P. R. JOHNsON, B. S., Assistant in Soils SUBSTATIONS '1 No. l0, Feeding and Breeding Station, near?" No. l, Beeville, Bee County: A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: W. S. HOTcHKiss, Superintendent No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent FRANK M. HULL, M. S., Entomologist No. 4, Beaumont, Jetferson County: R. H. WYcHE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County: HENRY DUNLAvY, M. S., Superintendent B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist H. E. REA, B. S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: . E. DicKsON, B. S., Superintendent No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. JoNEs, Superintendent FRANK GAiNEs, Irrigationist and Forest Nurseryman No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLEs, B. S., Superintendent F” 2U Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station! ADRiANcE. 1W. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture G. S. V. D. H. P. SMITH, M. S., Associ TAs of December 1, 1927. *On leave. W. W. BiLsiNG, Ph. D., Professor of Entomology v P. LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Marketing and Finance ScOATEs, A. E., Professor of Agricultural Engineering _ _ ate Professor of Agricultural Engineering **Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. _ _ ***In_ cooperation with U. ****In cooperation with the School of Agriculture STAFFT VETERINARY SCIENCE: **M. FRANcis, D. V. M., Chief H. SciiMiDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian J. D. JONEs, D. V. M., Veterinarian PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGYI hi J. J. TAUBENHAUs, Ph. D., C ef L. J. PEssiN, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist r Laboratory Technician W. J. BAcH, M. S., Plant Pathologist J. PAUL LUsK, S. M., Plant Pathologist B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GABBARD, M. S ‘ ' ., ej ~ *B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Farm an, Ranch Economist G. L. CRAWFORD, M. S., Marketing Resear Specialist ,C. A. BONNEN, M. S., Farm Management, ‘_ Research Specialist _ V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botan ***T. L. GASTON, JR., B. Records and Accounts ***J. N. TATE, and Accounts RURAL HOME RESEARCH: JEssiE WHiTAcRE, Ph. D., Chi IVIAMIE GRiMEs, Specialist SOIL SURVEY: ***W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor E. H. TEMPLIN. B. S., Soil Surveyor T. C. REiTcH, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY: H. NEss, M. S., Chief PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JAcKsON, Chief SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: ———~——————, Chief POULTRY HUSBANDRY: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., hief ****AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: MAIN STATION FARM: G. T. McNEss, Superintendent APICULTURE (San Antonio): H. B. PARKsjB. S., Chief A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chi S. D. PEARcE, Secretary J. H. ROOERs, Feed Inspector W. H. WOOD, Feed Inspector K. L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector » W. D. NORTiicUTT, JR., B. S., Feed Inspect SIDNEY D. REYNOLDS. JR., Feed Inspector P. A. MOORE, Feed Inspector College Station, Brazos County: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. s., Animal Hiisba ‘_ man in Charge of Farm k L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: 1. H. F. MORRis, M. S., Superintendent ***No. l2, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. R. QUiNBY, B. S., Superintendent ***J. C. STEPHENs. M. A., Junior Agronom' No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: E. W. THOMAs, B. S., Superintendent — ——-, Veterinarian V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botan ***O. G. BABcOcK, B. S., Collaborating i: Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent —<—-—~—————-', Entomologist _ W. J. BAcH, M. S., Plant Pathologist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: E. J. WILsON, B. S., Superintendent _ J. PAUL LUsK, S. M., Plant Pathologist S., Assistant; Far B. S., Assistant; Ranch Recori ‘f ’. M. S., Textilf: and Clothi S. Department of Agricult SYNOPSIS Sixty-three digestion experiments, on poultry, are reported, with a compilation 0f all other digestion experiments on poultry that could be found. Poultry have little power to k digest crude fiber, and feeds containing much crude fiber have a low digestibility. Energy-production coefiicients for poultry are given, although the basis for such figures is not very satisfactory. The Bulletin gives the approximate average and minimum chemical composition, digestible protein, and productive energy for a number of poultry feeds. It also tells how to calculate the composition and feeding values of mixtures of feeds. » CONTENTS PA Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Digestion experiments with poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. The three methods used by investigators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , Method used in the experiments here reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Time required to excrete feed residue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feeds used in the digestion experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. / Compilation of digestion experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Variation in digestion coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Relation of digestion coeflicients of poultry to those of ruminants. . . Energy-production coefiicients for poultry feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Composition and productive values of poultry feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of the production coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1': Calculation of composition and feeding values of mixed feeds for. poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 1t References to digestion experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I BULLETIN NO. 372 JANUARY, 1928 DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF POULTRY FEEDS G. S. FRAPS The object of this Bulletin is to present information regarding the feeding value of poultry feeds. It contains a tabulation of all digestion experiments that could be found, with averages, and studies of their - tion coefficients are given, also digestion coeflicients for protein, and the calculated productive energy and digestible protein for average feeds and for the minimum guarantees permitted by the Feed Control Service. DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS WITH POULTRY The number of digestion experiments which have been made with g poultry is considerably less than those made on ruminants, but feeds are i used in greater variety for ruminants than for poultry. Texas Bulletin ‘.329 contains a tabulation of 1078 American digestion experiments on ruminants. This Bulletin contains 39 foreign experiments and 112 ‘American experiments, a total of 151. Sixty-three of these are» here reported for the first time by the Texas Experiment Station. THE THREE METHODS USED BY INVESTIGATORS Digestion experiments with poultry are made more diflicult by reason of the fact that the undigested residue and the urinary products are ‘xcreted together. Three different methods are used to overcome this ifliculty. i * The first method consists in estimating the uric acid and ammonia f. the mixed excrements, and subtracting the amount from the total. » ._ his method assumes that the urinary products consist entirely of uric A .-cid and ammonia, which is not correct. A It is the method used to the gieatest extent, and Was used in the work here presented. ~ The second method consists in operating on the birds to make an rtificial anus, so that the urinary products could be kept separate from ‘V he undigested residues. This method Was used by Paraschtschuk, . ehmann, Voltz, and partly by Katayama, and the results are designated by the letter O in the table of digestion coeflicients (Table 8). * The third method was proposed by Katayama, and Was also used by Falnon. It consists in correcting the results securedby analysis of e mixed excreta by means of average factors from analyses of the "xcreta secured by the operative method. While the average of a umber of feeds was used for these factors, only one bird Was used if: the experimental Work. It is a question, therefore, whether there j sufficient basis for this method. Results secured by this method are signated by the letter C in the table of digestion coeflicients (Table 8). variability compared with such as were fed ruminants. Energy-produc-. _ feed residues. hours. e BULLETIN NO. s72‘, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION METHODS USED IN EXPERIMENTS HERE REPORTED The animals Were fed 3 days in the preliminary period, and 5 days for the collection of excrement. One gram of alfalfa meal Was usually fed at each meal, as this Was found to aid in preventing irregular ' excretion. The excrements were collected in bags attached to the ani- mals for the first 30 experiments. After that, the animals Were placed in cages With Wire bottoms, and the excrement collected in pans. method Was more satisfactory than the use of bags. The uric acid and ammonia Were estimated by Bartlett’s method (Bull. 184, Maine) and subtracted from the mixed excrements. The digestibility of the alfalfa meal Was determined in an experiment in Which it was fed in large quantity With corn meal. The material digested from the alfalfa meal Was subtracted in cases where it Was used. of the supplementary feed Was determined in another test, and the results calculated as usual. ' ‘ TIME REQUIRED TO EXCRETE FEED RESIDUES An experiment Was made to ascertain the time required to excrete tWo meals of oats, then cracked corn. Crude fiber determinations were made on the dried excrement. The results are in Table 1. Table 1.——Percentage crude fiber in chicken excrement after feeding oats. Crude Fiber Per Cent ' Dec. 5 Before feeding oats——morning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.34 Fed oats 11 a. m. and 4 p. m. Dec. 5 Afternoon collection; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 96 Dec. 6 _ Morning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.66 Dec. 6 Afternoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.76 Dec. 7 Mornin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .02 Dec. 7-8 Afternoon and morning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .00 Dec. 8 Afternoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.47 Dec. 9 Morning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.93 Dec. 9 - Afternoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.93 Dec. 10 Morning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , ~ 3.77 Dec. 11 Morning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.85 The crude fiber of the oats afiected the excrement 24 hours after the first meal and reached a maximum 24 hours after the second meal. Three days after the second meal of oats, the crude fiber of the oats no i i longer had any effect on'the excrement. Kaup and Ivey made some experiments using lamp black’ or dyes; This p As the quantity eaten Was small, variations in digestibility of A the alfalfa would not affect the digestion coeflicient to a material extent. _ Some of the feeds Were fed in mixtures, in Which case the digestibility - A cock that had been a Week on a dietof corn Was fed . -: j in the feed, and found the material to appear in the excrement in about 4 hours With laying birds and pullets. took 8 hours to begin to pass the additions and the broody hen took 12 The hen which Was not laying, ‘i a DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUC-TION COEFFICIENTS OF POULTRY FEEDS 7 the other feeds is shown in the table. A given in Table 8. FEEDS USED IN THE DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS The chemical composition of the feeds used are given in Table 2. The brown rice used was rice from which the husk had been taken off, but the bran had not been removed. The polished rice Was rice from. xvhich both the husk and the bran had been removed. The character of The digestion coeflicients are Table 2.———Composition_of feeds used in digestion experiments. ‘h’ E5 L1 8 5B ‘E r: ‘is fi ‘i’; g LT-l L“ 5D‘: 5 w H "a t, 0 +4 P Lil-l O 5 3 c: "c: g >< 3 E g2 e f E jjf-fl m: f) ;;.E 4 a. m ' u Z 5 < Z 24427 Alfalfa leaf meal, D. E. No. 56... . . 22.80 2.19 15.21 38.70 7.95 13.'15 105 19813 Alfalfa meal (low grade) D.E. N0. 9. 11 .18 1 .55 34.51 38.77 6.59 7.40 58 24286 Barley, whole, D. E. No. 52 . . . . . .. 11.21 1.84 5.49 67.43 11.20 2.83 101 22186 Barley, Whole, D. E. No. 33 . . . . . .. 10.66 1.58 6.56 69.74 8.33 3.13 82 21958 Barley, whole, D. No. 26 . . . . . .. 10.98 1 .70 6.61 68.16 10.31 2.24 75 20820 Barley, whole, D. E. No. 18 . . . . . .. 13.83 1 .61 12.33 59.96 9.27 3.00 67 22818 Blood meal, Red, D. E. N0. 40 77.95 1.08 2.16 2.99 10.14 5.68 89 22246 Buckwheat, whole, D. E. No. 36. . . 11.42 2.27 13.88 61.59 9.06 1.78 85" 20833 Buckwheat, whole, D. E. N0. 19.. . 10.64 2.38 11.85 62.75 10.80 1.58 68 19466 Corn chops, D. E. No. 3 . . . . . . . . .. 9.15 4.19 2.89 72.86 9.56 .34 52 19868 Corn chops, Mexican, D. E. No. 7.. 11.50 5.95 2.97 69.59 8.68 1.31 56 19918 Corn meal, D. E. No. 8 . . . . . . . . . .. 9.15 3.02 1.24 74.50 11.08 1 .01 57 23922 Corn meal, D. E. N0. 51 . . . . . . . . .. 10.38 3.24 1.66 73.44 10.12 1 .16 100 22765 Corn meal, D. E. No. 38 . . . . . . . . .. 10.09 3.15 1.03 74.43 10.11 1.19 87 Cottonseed meal, D. E. N0. 11.. . .. 45.45 8.92 8.15 23.70 7.50 6.28 60 —20 Cottonseed meal, D. E. No. 39.. . .. 44.35 6.90 11.36 25.39 6.17 5.85 88 23040 Cowpeas, D. E. No. 45 . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.17 1.52 4.93 59.02 7.72 3.64 94 24782 Darso, D. E. N0. 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 .43 3.34 2.38 73.24 8.13 1 .48 109 22123 Darso, D. E. No. 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.14 3.31 2.69 70.65 9.53 1.68 78 19851 Darso, D.E.No. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.25 ‘3.77 3.30 71.50 8.85 1.33 55 24807 Feterita, D. E. No. 61 . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.03 3.42 2.48 69.47 9.78 1.82 110 24711 Feterita (Spur), D. E No. 59 . . . . . . 12.86 2.88 2.25 70.40 9.96 1.65 108 22145 Feterita (Spur), D. E. No. 30 . . . . .. 13.44 3.67 2.46 69.65 9.13 1 .65 79 21766 Feterita (Spur), D. E. No. 22 . . . . .. 13.78 3.59 2.35 67.58 11.19 1 .51 71 19830 Feterita (Spur), D. E. No. 5 . . . . . .. 12.49 3.42 2.60 70.91 9.22 1 .36 54 22114 Kafir (black hull), D. E. No.28... . 11.05 2.90 2.19 71.55 10.92 1.39 77 24854 Kafir (black hull), D. E. No. 63... . 12.12 3.07 2.24 71 .21 9.81 1.55 112 21049 Kafir (Dwarf), D. E. No. 21 . . . . . . . 11 .27 2.70 2.05 72.75 10.24 .99 70 22815 Meat meal, D. E. No. 41 . . . . . . . . .. 61.00 9.13 3.39 3.15 7.61 15.72 90" 22196 Millet, D. E. No. 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.45 3.77 9.54 62.33 9.62 3.29 83 24414 Milo, D. E. No. 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.44 2.38 2.69 71.63 11.10 1 .76 104 23160 Milo, D. E. N0. 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.91 2.58 1 .83 71 .21 10.95 1.52 98 22168 Milo, D. E. N0. 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.60 1.73 22.95 38.92 '9.20 9.60 81 24846 Milo (Dwarf yellow), D. E. N0. 62.. 11 .21 2.65 3.05 70.43 10.58 i 2.08 111 21825 Milo (Dwarf yellow), D. E. N0. 24. 10.69 3.30 1 .79 72.63 10.20 1.39 73 19823 Milo (Dwarf yellow), D. E. No. 4. . 9.53 3.02 2.59 74.24 9.38 1 .24 53 22909 Milo (Dwarf yellow), D. E. No. 42 10.75 3.27 2.40 72.75 9.47 1.36 91 19426 Oat groats, D. E. No. . . . . . . . . . .. 16.59 6.09 2.03 65.18 8.25 .86 51 24655 Oat, whole, D. E. N0. 57 . . . . . . . . .. 13.29 3.97 10.25 60.92 8.44 3.53 106 Oats, whole, D. E. N0 1 . . . . . . . . . . 11.93 4.25 10.59 60.99 8.87 3.37 50 230g? Rice bran, D. E. No. 53 . . . . . . . . . .. 14.65 14.58 13.60 37.08 8.64 11.47 102 20588 Rice bran, D. E. No. 46 . . . . . . . . . .. 14.65 16.58 13.60 37.08 8.46 11.47 95 -6 Rice bran, D. E. No. 15 . . . . . . . . . .. 13.21 13.86 15.91 37.65 7.60 11 .78 64 Rice (brown), D. E. No.20 . . . . . . .. 10.08 2.13 1.16 76.55 9.26 0.82 69' -6 Rice polish, D. E. No. 47 . . . . . . . . .. 14.35 13.73 2.61 55.67 7.94 5.72 96 20577 Rice polish, D. E. No. 16 . . . . . . . . .. 12.47 10.40 2.53 60.86 8.26 5.48 65 20540 Rice grain (polished), D. E. N0. 14. 8.48 0.14 0.40 81.06 9.54 0.38 63 20102 Rice (whole Japan), D. E. No. 12. . 7.78 1.96 8.84 66.74 10.15 4.53 61 8 BULLETIN NO. 372, TEXAS AGRICULTUEAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 2.——Compositi0n of feeds used in digestion experiments—(continued). ‘E3 o >>,_ g g .34 O L1 ,-»-> -< 2B g3 i: = a d a E g0“ $- oi“ ‘6 = ° 23 3 O3? => ‘a i2 ‘é s a 5w ‘i s 5E A o. u: u Z 3 < Z 22218 Rice (whole), D. E. No. 35 . . . . . . .. 12.50 1 79 2.54 71.96 9.21 2.00 84 22991 Shallu, D. E. No. 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.11 3 86 2.33 70.14 7.91 1.65 93 21969 Shallu, D. E. N0. 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.53 3 11 2.53 67.63 12.00 2.20 76 21787 Sorghum seed (Sumac), D.E. No. 23 . 10.45 3 62 2 .09 71.75 10.65 1.44 72 22161 Sorghum seed (Sumac),D.E.N0.31. 11.82 3.58 2.71 71.43 8.97 1.49 80 22964 Sorghum seed (Sumac), D. E. No.43. 10.35 3 .28 2.59 73.14 8. 90 1.7 - 92 24681 Sorghum (Sumac), D. E. No. 58.... 10.20 3.49 2.40 72.43 9.89 1 .59 107 22257 Soy beans, D. E. No. 37 . . . . . . . . .. 38.90 17.83 7.79 22.43 7.92 5.13 86 20713 Tankage, D. E. No. 17 . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.15 12.50 1.94 2.76 7.17 5.48 66 21930 Wheat, D. E. No. 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.37 1.78 3.79 68.22 9.74 2.10 74 20015 Wheat, D. E. N0. 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.03 1.65 3 .28 68.75 10.35 1.94 59 23183 Wheat bran, D. E. No. 50 . . . . . . . .. 17.50 4.09 9.48 54.37 8.43 6.13 99 20193 Wheat bran, D. E. N0. 13 . . . . . . . .. 16.83 3.51 9.64 52.37 11.76 5.89 62 Wheat gray shorts, D. E. N0. 48 . .. 19.87 4.61 4.69 57.22 10.01 ‘ 3.60 97 -4 Wheat gray shorts, D. E. N0. 54. . . 19.25 5.35 5.07 57.00 8 96 4.39 103 COMPILATION OF DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS Table 8 contains a compilation of all digestion experiments with poul- try that could be found by the author, up to May 1, 1927. The indi- vidual experiments and the averages are given, with reference numbers and designation of the method of calculation. VARIATION IN DIGESTION COEFFICIENTS The probable error and the per cent error of numbers of the experi- ments is given in Table 3. The probable error is the standard deviation divided by the square root of the number of determinations and multi- plied by .6745. The per cent error is .6745 times the ordinary co- eflicient of variation, which is secured by dividing the standard deviation by the average coeflicient of digestibility and, expressing the results in per cent. Table 3.——Variation in digestion coefficients of poultry. Nitrogen- Name of Feed Number Protein Fat free Averaged Extract Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 72.0;!;1.3 58111.7 82.13; .5 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.2 13 .0 2.7 Buckwheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 61.2;1;1.7 86.35; .7 83.91 .6 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.7 2.8 2.5 Corn and corn meal . . . . .. 43 73.6;l;1.4 86.93; .6 90.25; .3 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.2 4.7 2.7 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76.1 ;!;2 .6 86.2 ;|;2.5 85.7 ;|;1.4 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 .8 8.1 4.7 Fish scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 90.75; .5 95.75; .7 15.4;1;6.8 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 2.4 99 .0 Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 66.8;1;2.8 78.1;b .9 91.75; .9 Percent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5‘ 5 .0 4.0 DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF POULTRY FEEDS 9 Table 3.——Variation in digestion coefficients of poultry-e-(continued). ; _ Nitrogen- ’ Name of Feed Number Protein Fat ee f Averaged Extract t l Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 83.311.7 77.512.3 91.51 .8 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 10.3 3 .0 Oatgroats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 76.711.6 88.611 0 90511.3 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0 3.9 4.7 Oats, wh e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 74.11 .7 81.71 9 69.31 .6 er cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4 4.8 4.0 Peas and cowpeas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 59.214.2 86.111 5 86.41 .9 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3 5. 6 3.5 Ricebran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 57.912.8 87.11 6 52.312.1 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.3 w 2.0 12.1 Rough rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 74.21 .8 72.215.0 83811.1 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 21.8 4.1 Tankage and meatmeal....'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 86211.6 94.111 0 45.61813 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 3.4 62.2 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 74.011.1 47.111 4 88.91 .3 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.6 17.6 2.0 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 59913.3 50.012 0 54.112.0 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.3 13.3 12.1 Wheat flour middlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 50 .0 11.8 52.6 1 9 49.7 11.0 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.6 5.0 5.8 Wheat standard middlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 76.2 1 .5 52.6 13.2 59.6 1 .6 Per cent error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 18.1 2.8 - for the feeds compared. indigestible for poultry. There is more variation with poultry than with ruminants, with protein and fat; there is no great difference with nitrogen-free extract RELATION OF DIGESTION COEFFICIENTS OF POULTRY TO THOSE OF RUMINANTS Table 4 compares the coefficients of digestibilityfor poultry and for _ ruminants. Ruminants have, on an average, a higher digestive power ‘ than poultry. The difference is greater for crude fiber, which is almost Table 4.——Comparative digestion coefficients for poultry and for ruminants. Nitro- No. Protein Ether Crude gen-free Aver- Extract Fiber » Extract aged ‘ Alfalfa, 35% fiber, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.4 21.8 1.4 34.4 2 Alfalfa, over 33% fiber, Ruminant . . . . . . . . . . 69.3 32.3 46.4 68.8 20 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -———5.9 —10.5 -—45.0 ———34.4 jBarley (whole), Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.0 58.1 10.8 82.1 21 arley, grain, Ruminant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.3 78.6 58.7 91.8 . . . . . . . . Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —8.3 ——20.5 ———47. 9 —-9.7 a rn and corn meal, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.6 86.9 13.2 90.2 43 g orn meal and chops, Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . . 64.1 88.4 30.6 92.3 15 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 ———1.5 ——l7.4 —2.1 ttonseed meal, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.1 86.2 11.9 85 .7 8 ; Rumlnants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.4 96 .4 28.0 64.4 9 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. —8.3 -—10.2 —16 .1 21 .3 10 BULLETIN NO. 372, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 4.—Comparative digestion coefficients for poultry and f0 r rurninants—( continued) . .._.__..._,. r» Mm '0“ Nitro- No. Protein Ether Crude en-free Aver- Extract Fiber xtract aged. Feterita, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 .8 80.7 33 .2 91 .3 10 ‘ Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.5 73.7 16.7 91.5 3 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.3 7 o 15.5 - .2 Kafir (grain or meal), Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.8 7s . 1 1s .0 91.7 ' 17 Kafir, balanced ration, Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . 72.6 76.8 26.0 88.8 2 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —-5.8 1 .3 —8 .0 2.9 Millet, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.1 77 .9 16.9 87.0 2 ' Ruminants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,3 87,3 25.6 90,6 3 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 —9.4 ——8.7 —3.6 Milo, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s35 77.5 51.2 91.5 12‘ Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.9 89 .2 36.2 90.1 2 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 .4 ——11 .7 -—-5 .0 1 .4 Oats, whole, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.1 81.7 7.1 69.3 21 Oats, 10—12% fiber, Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.0 86.4 41.6 81.9 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —4.9 —4.7 —34.5 —12.6 Peanut meats, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.3 78.4 4.1 84.2 5 Peanut meal, Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88,8 95.2 37 ,2 83,8 . . . . . . , , Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ——8,5 —16.8 —33.1 -4 Rice bran, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57.9 087.1 5.0 52.5 9 Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.3 82 .8 22.6 75.6 5 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ——11 .4 4.3 --19.6 ——23.3 Rice polish, Poultry . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80,9 94,8 4,3 89.3 4 Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,9 85,9 14,9 92.2 4 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ' 13.0 8.9 —10.6 -—2.9 Rice, rough, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.2 72.2 5.1 83.8 » 10 Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.6 r 76.2 10.4 90.7 3 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —1_4 -—4,0 ——5_3 -6.9 Wheat gray shorts, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 .2 85 .2 13 .0 71.0 4 ‘ Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 .9 87 .2 17.6 90.8 5 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —~14.7 —2.0 —-4.6 ——19.8 _ Wheat bran, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.9 50.0 7.9 54.1 11 Ruminants . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.4 69.8 30.4 72 .2 12 Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -—18.5 ——19.8 —i—22.5 ——18.1 Wheat, Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.0 47.1 8.7 88.9 34 Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.9 77 .4 55.3 45.0 5 F, ' Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -7 ,9 -30.5 -45.5 45.9 Average difference +poultry larger. . _ . . . . . . . . 9.6 5 .'4 16.5 14.0 Average—ruminants larger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 11 .8 21.7 12 .2 Number difference +poultry larger . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 1 5 Nun1ber——ruminants larger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12 15 11 Average algebraic difference of all ruminants . larger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.98 10.18 21.40 12.72 DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF POULTRY FEEDS 11 The table includes 16 comparisons. For protein the digestibility is higher for poultry in 5 cases, lower in 5, the average algebraic difference being 2.9 per cent, in favor of ruminants, which is comparatively small. For fat the digestibility with poultry is higher in 4 cases, lower in 12, the average difference being 8.2 per cent in favor of ruminants. "For crude fiber the digestibility with poultry is higher in one case, lower in 15, with an average difference of 19.4 per cent in favor of ruminants. - For nitrogen-free extract, the digestibility with poultry is higher in 5 cases, lower in 11, with an average difference of 4.4 per cent in favor of ruminants. ' The differences are chiefly in the fat and crude fiber. The differences are less for feeds which contain little fiber, such as corn, milo, kafir, than they are for materials containing crude fiber, such as alfalfa, barley with hull, oats with hull, rice bran or wheat bran. This means that poultry do not have the ability to digest well such substances as alfalfa meal, oat hulls, barley hulls, rice hulls, and wheat bran, which are low in starches and sugar, and contain more woody material than the grains and similar concentrates. Table 5.—Comparative variation in digestion coefficients of poultry and ruminants (per cent error). i Nitrogen- Protein Ether free Extract Extract Barley: ' ' Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.2 13.0 2.7 Ruminant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.2 10.2 1.6 Corn and corn meal. Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.2 4.7 2.1 Ruminant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.4 5.5 3.7 Cottonseed meal: Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.8 8.1 4.7 Ruminant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5 3 .2 17.1 Oats, whole: ' Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4 4.8 4.0 Ruminant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.8 3.6 3.2 Rice bran: Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.3 i 2.0 12.1 Ruminant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.8 11.6 4.0 Rice, rough: Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.6 21.8 4.1 Ruminant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.7 7.4 1.0 Wheat: r Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.6 17.6 2.0 Ruminant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.6 9.5 1.5 Wheat bran: Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.3 13.3 12. 1 Ruminant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4 14.0 4.9 Table 5 compares the per cent error in experiments with poultry and with ruminants. There is more error with poultry than with ruminants. 12 BULLETIN NO. 372, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS FOR POULTRY FEEDS The basis for calculating energy-production coeflicient for poultry feeds is very small, and the author hesitated for some time before under- taking to do so. It was finally decided to calculate them, for while they are not exact, they would be more nearly correct than estimates from the digestible materials alone, and they could serve as a starting point for more exact coefficients. Table 6.——Productive coefficients for poultry. Nitro- Protein Protein Fat Crude gen-free Factor (Digest- Fiber Ex tract ible) Alfalfa meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .644 .445 0 368 C .634 Barley, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .695 1 .255 0 835 B.95 .720 Blood meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .929 1.052 O .511 B .914 Buckwheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .622 1 .962 0 .899 B .612 Buttermilk, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .829 1.787 0 .869 B .816 Clover and corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .729 1 .523 0 .660 B .718 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .761 1.934 0 .965 B .749 Corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .729 2 .082 0 .984 B .718 Corn meal (bolted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .752 1.962 0 .945 B .740 Corn meal (unbolted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .747 1.921 0 .939 B .735 Corn, corn meal, bolted and un- te . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .748 1.975 0 .966 B .736 Corn meal, 7 parts; beef scraps, 1 pa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .836 1.680 0 .982 B .823 Corn meal and beef scraps . . . . . . . . . .914 2 .148 0 .829 B .900 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .773 2 .229 0 .918 A .761 Peas and cowpeas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .601 1 .957 0 .925 B .592 Darso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .366 1.946 0 .952 YB .360 Feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .892 1 .834 0 .978 B .878 Fish meal, dried fish. fish meal. . . . . .922 2.475 0 .165 A .907 Getrocknete Gemuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . .666 .442 0 .594 C.8 .819 India wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .724 1.810 0 .848 B.95 .750 Kafir (grain or meal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .679 1 .775 0 .982 B .668 Meat meal, meat and bone meal. . . . .881 2 .408 0 .364 A .867 Millet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .773 1.771 0 .932 B .761 Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .846 1.762 0 .980 B .833 Oat groats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .779 2 .291 0 .969 A .767 Oats, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .753 1.857 0 .742 B .741 Peanut meats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .816 '2 .027 0 .902 A .803 Peas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .895 1.846 0 .933 B .881 Potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .477 0 0 .905 B .469 Potatoes and oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .555 1.123 0 .991 B .546 Potatoes, rye and starch . . . . . . . . . . .488 .759 0 .894 B .480 Potatoes (sweet).................. 0 .561 0 .828 B 0 Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .529 2.027 0 .504 A.90 .579 Rice (brown) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .854 1 .998 0 1 .051 B .841 Brown rice andclover. . . . . . . . . . . . .790 .882 0 .952 B .778 Rice polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .822 2 .452 0 .956 A .809 Rice, polished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804 .119 0 1.053 A .791 Rice, rough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .754 1.641 0 .897 B .742 ye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .663 .714 0 .921 B .653 Shallu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .790 1.923 0 1.005 B .778 Sorghum seed, Sumac . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163 1.912 0 .942 B .160 Soy beans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .710 2.405 0 .818 A .699 Soy bean oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .846 2.105 O .891 A .833 Soy bean oil cake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .846 2.131 0 .859 A .833 Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .867 2.180 0 .466 B .853 Tankage and meat meal . . . . . . . . . . . .862 .941 0 .456 B .862 Wheat middlings 6.25% fiber. . . . . . .432 1.017 .082 .452 B85 .500 Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . .633 1.743 .125 .684 B.90 .692 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .499 .932 .070 .475 B.82 .599 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .752 1 .071 0 .952 B .740 Wheat middlings 8.5% fiber . . . . . . . .658 1.017 .075 .542 B.85 .762 DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF POULTRY FEEDS 13 The energy-production coefficients Were accordingly calculated (Table 6) by the method given on page 17 of Bulletin 329, except that the correction for crude fiber was omitted. The factors used for fat, and for correcting all the values, if used, are given in the last column. These values are calculated from average digestion coefficients given in Table 8. USE OF THE PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS The digestible protein can be calculated by multiplying the percentage of protein in the feed by the factor given in the next to the last column of Table 8. The productive energy can be calculated by multiplying each constituent of the feed by the factor given in the table, and adding the product. The result Will be in therms for 100 pounds. If the feed concerned is not listed in the table, the best that can be done is to select the factors of the feed that resemble it the closest. COMPOSITION AND PRODUCTIVE VALUES OF POULTRY FEEDS The average composition, productive energy, and digestible protein of a number of Texas poultry feeds are given in Table 7. The average composition assumed is based upon analyses made for the Feed Control Service for the past two years, upon other analyses made in the labora- tory, and upon other data. Table 7.—Average composition and minimum guarantee for Texas and productive values of poultry feeds. 4-5 Z3 n. 8 g 3 1%.. g, o ""‘ U "-4 F" c: ii h‘ 55.‘ ' ‘SE’ F9: ~53 s- v °°-»-= ‘— ==> '27P; e °> *1 935 i’ . w“. =>-> s 5 E .2“ g 3 s“ g2 I34 IL‘. U CL 9-1 Alfalfa chopped, Min . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.0 1.5 32.0 35.0 11.5 7.0 10.5 13.0 Alfalfa leaf meal, Av . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.0 1.5 20.0 43.0 10.0 7.5 28.1 18.0 AlfalfarncaLAvHH... . . . . . . . . .. 14.6 1.8 31.0 33.5 10.7 8.4 22.6 9.3 Alfalfa meal or hay, Min . . . . . . . .. 13.0 1.5 30.0 35.0 13.5 7.0 21.9 8.2 Barley, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.0 1.5 7.0 65.0 12.5 3.0 63.8 7.9 Barley, whole, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.0 2.2 6.6 66.0 10.3 2.9 66.2 8.6 Bean meal, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.0 1.4 6.0 60.0 10.0 1.6 70.9 12.4 Blood meal, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82.3 0.9 .0 3.8 3.3 9.7 79.4 75.2 Blood, dried, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 11.0 3.0 76.9 73.1 Bone meal, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 63.0 35.7 19.6 Bone (poultry),Av . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.5 5.0 .0 2.4 6.1 61.0 35.1 22.1 Buckwheat, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.7 2.2 11.0 62.0 12.3 1.8 66.7 6.6 Buckwheat, whole, Min . . . . . . . . .. 10.0 2.5 10.0 62.0 13.5 2.0 66.9 6.1 Bur clover, young, dried, Av- . . . . . . 24.0 3.2 17.0 38.1 7.5 10.2 40.0 19.7 Buttermilk, dried, Av . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.6 6.5 0.5 33.4 13.0 14.0 67.7 26.6 Buttermilk, dried, Min . . . . . . . . . .. 32.0 6.0 1.0 35.0 18.0 11.0 67.7 26.1 Clover, red (green) (dry basis),Av. 14.1 3.4 25.1 40.6 9.6 7.2 35.0 11.6 Cocoanut cake or meal, Min . . . . .. 20.0 6.0 14.0 43.0 11.0 6.0 68.3 15.2 Cod liveroil meal, Av . . . . . . . . . .. 52.0 25.0 1.0 10.0 9.0 3.0 105.1 39.6 Corn, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.0 3.8 2.3 71.0 11.3 1.6 83.5 7.5 Cornchops, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 3.5 3.0 70.0 13.0 1.5 67.2 6.7 Corn feed meal, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.2 4.1 2.9 71.0 10.2 1.6 85.8 7.3 Corn feed meal, Min . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.0 3.0 3.0 70.0 14.0 2.0 77.5 5.9 Corn germ meal, Min . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.0 7.0 10.0 50.0 11.0 4.0 76.9 12.9 .0 1.0 4.0 40.0 11.0 4.0 70.6 28.7 Corn gluten feed, Min . . . . . . . . . . . 40 14 BULLETIN NO. 372, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 7.——Average composition and minimum guarantee for Texas and productive values of poultry feeds—-(continued). d) ° $- 8 g 2 4.. ~ c: i‘ y; é" ~53 55 .5 “l q, $15 ,._ v; '53 2 i: w: 21? 2 %= e2 2 f E :51 cw: fi ‘all £55k , o. u: u Z B <1 c. Q Corn gluten feed, Min . . . . . . . . . .. 23.0 2.5 7.0 50.0 13.5 4.0 71.2 16.5 Corn meal,_bolted,Av . . . . . . . . . .. 8.5 3.5 2.0 73.0 11.5 1.5 82.3 6.3 43% protein cottonseed meal, Av.. 43.0 7.5 11.0 27.0 6.2 5.3 74.8 32.7 43% protein cottonseed meal or cake, in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.0 6.0 1210 23.0 10.5 5.5 67.7 32.7 Cowpeas, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 1.5 4.9 58.0 9.0 3.6 70.4 13.6 Emmer, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.0 1.5 10.0 63.0 10.0 4.5 64.9 4.0 Feterita,Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.7 2.8 2.4 69.1 11.2 1.8 84.1 11.2 Feterita,Min._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.0 2.8 3.0 69.0 12.2 2.0 82.5 9.7 Fish meal (variable), l\lin . . . . . . .. 45.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 26.0 22.0 54.0 40.8 Fish meal or scraps, 60% protein, b- Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.9 14.1 0.5 2.6 7.1 14.8 91.5 55.2 Flour, red dog, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.5 4.0 3.5 62.5 10.4 3.1 60.6 11.4 Flour,_red dog, Min . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 4.5 4.0 63.0 11.5 2.0 76.1 11.1 Hegari, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.0 1.5 2.0 69.8 13.4 1.3 81.2 10.0 Kafir, Min . . . . . . . . -|~/ . . . . . . . . .. 10.0 2.5 3.5 69.5 13.0 1.5 79.5 6.7 Kafir, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.6 2.7 2.3 69.9 12.8 1.7 80.6 7.1 Linseed meal, old process, Min... . 32.0 ' 6.0 9.0 35.0 12.5 5.5 70.2 24.4 Linseed meal, 34% protein, lWin... 34.0 6.0 9.0 35.0 11.0 5.0 71.8 25.9 Linseed meal, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.0 6.7 8.2 36.4 8.5 5.2 75.7 26.9 Meat and bone meal, 50%, Av.... 50.5 10.0 2.2 5.0 9.2 23.1 70.4 43.8 Meat and bonescraps, Av . . . . . . .. 52.3 9.7 2.0 7.3 5.2 23.5 72.1 45.3 Meat and bone scraps, Av . . . . . . .. 50.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 14.0 22.0 58.8 42.7 Meat scraps, Av._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.0 10.0 3.0 3.1 3.9 14.0 83.4 57.2 Meat scraps (variable), Min . . . . .. 50.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 18.0 18.0 58.8 42.7 Milk, dried skim, in . . . . . . . . . .. 20.0 1 .0 ~1.0 59.0 14.0 5.0 69.6 16.3 Millet, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.1 4.1 8.4 61.0 10.8 3.6 73.5 9.2 Millet seed, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.0 4.0 10.0 57.0 13.0 5.0 68.7 8.4 Milo, Av....._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.1 2.9 2.5 71.4 10.3 1.8 84.5 9.3 Milo chops, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.0 2.5 3.5 70.0 12.0 2.0 81.5 8.3 Oat groats, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.4 5.9 1.9 66.0 8.0 1.8 90.3 12.6 Oat groats, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 6.0 1.0 65.0 11.0 2.0 88.4 11.5 Oats, whole, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.0 4.0 12.0 58.0 10.5 4.5 58.8 8.2 Oats, Whole, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.2 4.7 11.5 59.1 8.7 3.8 61.8 9.0 Orange peel and pulp (dried), Min. 8.0 1.5 10.0 65.0 11.5 4.0 33.4 4.8 Peanut meal, 43% protein, Av... . 43.0 7.8 6.2 30.7 5.0 7.3 78.6 34.5 Peanut meal or cake, 43% protein, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.0 6.0 15.0 23.0, 7.5 5.5 68.0 34.5 Peanut meal, fat not extracted, Av. 32.0 48.7 2.4 9.5 5.1 2.3 133.0 25.7 Peanut meats, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.0 45.0 2.5 10.0 10.0 2.5 124.7 24.1 Peanut vines without nuts, Min. . 10.0 3.5 24.0 44.0 9.5 9.0 34.4 8.2 Peas, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.8 1.1 5.7 57.8 9.2 3.4 76.4 20.1 Peas, Canadian.1\4in............. 24.0 ‘ 1.2 5.0 55.0 10.0 4.8 75.0 21.1 Pepper seed (chili), Av . . . . . . . . . .. 17.1 25.0 30.0 18.0 6.6 28.8 10.8 Potatoes, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.1 0.1 0.6 16.3 79.9 1.0 15.8 1.0 Rice bran,Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.8 12.5 12.1 43.4 8.6 10.6 54.0 7.4 Rice bran, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.0 10.0 15.0 42.0 12.0 10.0 47.3 6.4 Rice, brown (hull removed),Av... 9.1 2.0 1.1 74.5 12.2 1.1 90.1 7.7 Rice, clean, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.0 0.5 0.5 78.0 12.0 1.0 88.6 6.3 Rice, clean and polished, Av . . . . .. 8.7 0.4 0.4 77.4 12.4 0.7 88.5 6.9 Rice, ground rough, Min . . . . . . . .. 7.0 1.8 10.0 63.0 13.2 5.0 67.7 5.2 Rice polish, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.8 11.6 3.2 58.0 8.5 94.4 10.4 Rice polish, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.0 6.0 4.0 60.0 12.5 81.1 8.9 Rice,rough orunhulled,Av... 8.1 1.8 8.9 64.5 11.7 5.0 66.9 6.0 Rye, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.1 1.7 2.1 73.7 9.5 1.9 76.5 7.3 Rye, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.0 1.5 2.0 72.0 12.5 2.0 74.0 6.5 Sesame cake or meal, Min . . . . . . .. 36.0 7.0 8.0‘ 29.0 10.0 10.0 70.3 30.0 Shallu, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.2 3.8 2.0 71.0 11.0 1.0 87.5 8.7 Sorghum seed, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 2.5 3.0 69.0 14.5 2.0 71.3 1.4 Sorghum seed, Av; . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.8 2.9 3.2 72.4 10.2 1.5 75.3 1.6 Sorghum seed, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 2.5 3.0 71.0 12.5 2.0 73.1 1.4 Sunflower seed, Min . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.0 21.0 30.0 2110 9.0 3.0 70.0 9.8 Soybeans, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.1 18.7 5.2 25.8 6.4 4.8 93.8 27.3 Soybean meal, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.0 15.0 5.0 31.6 10.0 5.4 87.7 27.5 Soybean oil meal, Av . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.70 7.8 5.7 27.7 6.2 5.6 80.2 39.2 15.9 24.0 28.6 21.1 6.2 4.2 28.7 10.1 Sunflower seed, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF POULTRY FEEDS 15 Table 7.—-Average composition and minimumguarantee for Texas and productive values of poultry feeds—(cont1nued). ‘5; ‘ . s := s h- a .,, -- ' _,_.>> -. s L5 e 5,5 es gs E 8 1%’ s? F: ~33 e2 2 :5 E rim e fi 8'4 3°“ a. m u Z B < n. C: Tanlliageiiligester, an age, igester, in . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Tankage. 60% protein, Min . . . . .. 60.0 8.0 3.0 4.0 10.0 15.0 71.3 51 2 Wheat, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.3 1.8 2.4 71.1 10.6 1.8 78.9 9.1 Wheat, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.0 2.0 3.0 70.0 11.0 2.0 77.8 8.9 Wheat bran, Av . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.8 4.3 9.4 53.5 Y 9.7 6.3 38.5 10.1 Wheat bran, Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.5 3.0 10.0 54.0 13.0 5.5 36.4 8.7 Wheat brown shorts, Av . . . . . . . .. 18.5 4.8 6.3 55.5 10.3- 4.6 38.5 9.3 Wheat brown shorts, Min. ._ . . . . .. 17.5 4.0 7.5 53.0 13.5 4.5 38.2 10.5 Wheat flour (low grade),M1n..... 14.0 1.5 2.0 70.0 10.5 2.0 78.8 10.4 Wheat gray shorts, Min . . . . . . . . .. 17.0 4.0 6.0 60.0 9.0 4.0 59.5 11.8 Wheat gray shorts, Av . . . . . . . . . .. 18.0 4.5 5.8 57.0 10.4 4.3 59.0 12.5 Wheatmixedfeed, 17.5 4.1 7.5 55.5 10.5 4.9 37 4 8.8 Wheat mixed feed, Min . . . . . . .. 16.0 3.5 8.5 54.0 12.5 5.5 44 0 12 2 Wheat white shorts or red dog,M1n. 14.5 3.0 3.5 65.0 11.0 3.0 76 O 10.7 Wheat White shorts or red dog, Av. 16.5 3.1 2.9 64.3 10.3 2.9 76 9 12.2 The minimum guarantees used by the Feed Control Service are also given in the tables, and the productive energy, and digestible protein calculated for them. In some cases, the nitrogen-free extract is made a. little higher than the minimum guarantee, in order to avoid assuming too high content of Water and to come nearer giving the correct pro- ductive energy. Commercial feeds made by the manufacturers are fre- quently sold With the minimum guarantee given in this table. The composition of mixed feeds is calculated from the percentage of the ingredients and their minimum guarantee. CALCULATION OF COMPOSITION AND FEEDING VALUES OF MIXED FEEDS FOR POULTRY The guaranteed composition of mixed poultry feeds is usually calcu- lated from the minimum guarantee of the ingredients. The actual com- position of the mixture should be somewhat above this calculated com- position, for all the ingredients should not be of the minimum com- position at the same time. The minimum composition given in Table 7 may be used for such calculations, though the nitrogen-free extract in some of these is a little above the minimum guarantee, as previously explained. A The digestible protein and productive energy may be calculated in the same way from the values given in Table '7. This would give an approximate idea of the feeding value of the mixture. A The calculation is very simple. The percentage of each material used in the feed (such as corn, milo, etc.) is multiplied by its percentage content of protein, crude fiber, fat, digestible protein, or productive energy, etc., expressed decimally, and the products totaled. 16 Table 8.—~Digestion coefficients of poultry feeds BULLETIN NO. 372, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Nitro- Refer- Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence Extract Fiber Extract Number Alfalfa leaf meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . 99.7 O 0 0 105 Alfalfa leaf meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 0 6.9 0 105 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99.7 O 3.5 0 Alfalfa meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.9 29.3 0 31.9 58 Alfalfa meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.8 14.3 2. 36.9 58 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.4 21 .8 1 . 34.4 Barley (Whole), Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.7 64.7 0 87.9 1 F Barley (whole), Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.8 71.8 0 90.5 1 F Barley (Whole), Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.4 67.4 0.2 81.1 7 F Barley (whole), Japan-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.6 57.6 0 80.1 18 F Barley (whole), Japan-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.0 63.0 0 80.5 18 F Barley (whole), Japan-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.0 49.2 0 81.3 18 F Barley (Whole), Japan-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.6 60.7 0 81.6 18 F Barley (whole), Japan-C . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 73.4 46.9 0 80.3 19 F Barley (whole), Japan-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.8 50.8 0 79.4 19 F Barley (whole), Japan-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.7 36.1 4.0 86.0 20 F Barley (whole), Japan-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.8 33.3 1.0 84.5 20 F Barley, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.4 66.8 4.7 83 .1 48 Barley, North Carolina . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.1 61.9 4.0 79.9 48 Barley, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.6 52.4 38.1 74.5 67 Barley, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.5 57.6 48.7 78.8 67 Barley, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.0 50.6 23.8 83.0 75 Barley, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.3 67.1 24.1 82.9 75 Barley, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.7 76.9 20.1 83.1 82 Barley, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.1 73 .4 9.6 83.5 82 Barley, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.8 62.0 16.2 81.5 101 Barley, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.8 50.8 31.9 81.4 101 Average (21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.0 58.1 10.4 82.1 Bran, corn meal, gluten feed, beef scraps, aine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.9 73.8 O 43.3 15 Bran, cprn meal. gluten feed, beef scraps, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.4 69.9 0 65.3 15 Bran, corn meal, gluten feed, beef scraps, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.6 67.1 0 44.9 15 Bran, corn meal, gluten feed, beef scraps, aine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.0 83.0 0 53.6 15 Bran, corn meal, gluten feed, beef scraps, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84.0 79.9 0 50.0 15 Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.6 74.7 . . . . . . . . 51.4 Bran, corn meal, linseed meal, beef scraps, aine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.0 73.2 O 47.3 16 Bran, corn meal, linseed meal, beef scraps, aine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.2 81.1 0 47.5 '16 Bran. corn meal, linseed meal, beef scraps, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.6 81.1 0 45.2 16 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.3 78.5 0 46.7 Bran, corn meal, linseed meal, gluten feed, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.1 71.5 0 32.6 17 Bran, corn meal, linseed meal, gluten feed, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.8 73.3 0 39.9 17 Bran, corn meal, linseed meal, gluten feed, aine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77.7 61.3 O 40.9 17 Bran, corn meal, linseed meal, gluten feed, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.5 66.6 0 41.9 18 Bran, corn meal, linseed meal, gluten feed, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.7 75.7 0 38.7 18 Bran, corn meal, linseed meal, gluten feed, aine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.8 64.1 0 43.7 18 Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.3 68.8 . . . . . . . . 39.6 DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF POULTRY FEEDS 17 Table 8.—Digestion coefficients of poultry feeds-—(continued). Nitro- Refer- Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence Extract Fiber Extract Number Blood meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.3 79.2 0 71.3 36 Blood meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.2 17.3 0 73.1 36 Blood meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.6 80.5 0 70.2 36 Blood meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.3 76.5 0 71.6 36 Blood meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.2 16.0 34.9 0 89 Blood meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.4 0 0 89 Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9? 46.3 17.5 47.7 ' Buckwheat, Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 93.5 1.1 87.5 4 F Buckwheat, Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /65.9j w.’ 84.9 3.0 86.5 4 F Buckwheat, North Carolina . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 56.23 ),§6.2 6.8 83.2 45 Buckwheat, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.1 _ .0 7.1 81.1 45 Buckwheat, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.? "1 ’_2 6.7 81.0 45 Buckwheat, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 .j' _~ ‘8 £0 6.1 79.8 45 Buckwheat, North Carolina . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 56.4 I A 82.23. 6.0 82.1 45 A Buckwheat, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.4 81 .5 5.1 80.4 45 A Buckwheat, whole, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.7 . 2 91.1 8.1 86. 9 68 Buckwheat, whole, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.4 87.4 . 9.8 87.0 68 Buckwheat, Japanese, Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53.3 85.9 30.5 88.1 85 Buckwheat, Japanese, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.0 90 .8 ._30.7 83 .0 85 Average (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61.2 86.3 10__.,l~ 83.9 Buttermilk, dried, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 78.2 79.1 ' _;0 g. 83.1 37 Buttermilk, drled, North Carolina . . . . . . . . .. 80.2 77.2 D v .=81.6 37 Buttermilk, dried, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 81.7 80.5 - Tl ‘g: .2 37 Buttermilk, dried, North Carolina . . . . . . . . - . 83.0 76.2 0i’ .0 37 Buttermilk, dried, North Carolina . . . . . _ . . . . 84.7 80.1 0 78.8 37 A Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 .6 78.6 . . . . . . ..T,- '1‘ 81 . 1 ,_..\_, Clover and corn meal, Maine . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 69.4 66.0 8.5 " "61 .3 6 Clover and corn meal, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.0 66.1 7.2 761.9 6 » Clover and corn meal, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.1 68.8 15.5 61.7 6 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71 .8 66 .7 10 .4 61 .6 Corn, Paraschtscuk,-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.2 82.1 20.0 90.5 8 F Corn, Paraschtscuk,-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.9 83.4 27.7 94.1 8 F r Corn, Paraschtscuk,-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.6 84.2 35.7 92.1 8 F Corn, Paraschtscuk,-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.3 84.0 41.4 90.4 8 F ; Corn, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2 85.2 5.6 89.5 30 ; Corn, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.5 80.0 6.1 89.5 30 r Corn, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.6 74.8 5.4 86.6 30 - Corn, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.1 69.4 6.3 91.6 30 Corn chops, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.7 67.0 6.0 89.8 30 A Corn, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.6 93.4 35. 1 88.4 52 Corn, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.0 88.2 5.8 90.2 52 orn, - aine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.3 87.0 0 91.6 2 Corn U. S.D A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.4 85.8 17.0 89.9 27 Corn, U. S. D A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86.6 86.6 20.2 88.2 27 Corn. U. S. D A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.3 86.0 24.7 88.3 27 “Corn, U. S. D.A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~ 82.1 81.1 .7 90.8 27 ,Corn, U. S. D.A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.4 87.2 10.0 89.2 27A Corn, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.5 88.3 0 89.9 21 jCorn, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.6 95.2 0 95.7 21 -Corn, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.4 91.7 0 91.8 21 iCorn chops, Mexican, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.1 93.8 40.6 89.8 56 Corn chops, Mexican, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.8 93.5 47.5 91.1 56 ‘Corn, cracked, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.9 86.7 O 86.9 3 . _Corn, cracked, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.5 87.6 0 87.6 3 Average (24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.9 85.1 14.8 90.1 Corn meal. Mame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.0 88.3 0 84.0 4 Corn meal, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.1 86.9 0 87.9 4 orn meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.3 95.8 59.8 96.2 57 orn meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.3 95.5 55.9 95.9 57 rn meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84.7 91.4 11.7 92.9 87 rn meal Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.8 92.1 10.7 96.3 87 rn meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.9 91.0 27.7 91.2 100 rn meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.2 88.6 1.2 92.1 100 18 Table 8.—Digestion coefiicients of poultry feeds—(eontinued). BULLETIN NO. 372, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A _ Nitro- Refer- Prote1n Ether Crude gen-free ence Extract Fiber Extract Number Corn meal, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.7 94.1 0 92.1 22 Corn meal, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.6 92.2 0 91 .1 22 Corn meal, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.9 92.2 0 _ 91.2 22 Average (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.8 91.6 115.2 91.9 Corn meal (bolted), North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 73.9 87.4 2.0 86.5 33 Corn meal (bolted), North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 72.4 86.2 4._2 87.7 33 Corn meal (bolted), North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 74.3 86.0 13.6 90.5 33 Corn meal (bolted), North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 76.1 86.9 4.0 87.1 33 Corn meal (bolted), North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 73.5 84.9 0 89 .2 33 A Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.0 86.3 4.8 88.2 Corn meal (unbolted), North Carolina . . . . . 73.6 85.2 7.0 87 .9 41 Corn meal (unbolted), North Carolina . . . . . . . 72.9 84.7 6.9 88.1 41 Corn meal (unbolted), North Carolina . . . . . . . 73.9 83.6 6.5 87.0 41 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.5 84.5 6.8 87.7 Corn and corn meal, bolted and unbolted, average (43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.6 86.9 13.2 90.2 Corn meal 7 parts, beef scraps 1 part, Maine. 79.9 10.0 0 90.4 1O Corn meal 7 parts, beef scraps 1 part, Maine. 70.9 87.5 0 86.8 10 Corn meal 7 parts. beef scraps 1 part, Maine. 85.7 93.4 0 96.3 10 Corn meal 7 parts, beef scraps 1 part, Maine. 87.8 86.7 0 91.6 10 Corn meal 7 parts. beef scraps 1 part, Maine. 87.4 91.7 0 93.2 10 Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 82.3 73.9 . . . . . . . . 91 .7 Corn meal and beef scraps, Maine . . . . . . . . . . 89.0 93.8 0 77.3 7 Corn meal and beef scraps, Maine. . . . . . . . ... 90.9 95.1 0 77.4 7 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.0 94.5 . . . . . . . . 77.4 Cottonseed meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 81.1 78.0 6.3 79.6 41 Cottonseed meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 80.2 70.2 5.1 89.3 41 Cottonseed meal. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 84.3 80.1 5.6 83.2 41 Cottonseed meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 82.1 79.0 5.0 79.8 41 Cottonseed meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 92.9 20.1 79.9 60 Cottonseed meal. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.3 89.7 0 86.3 60 Cottonseed meal, Texas. . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.9 100.0 22.0 89.3 88 Cottonseed meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.5 100.0 31.3 98.0 88 Average (s) . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.1 86.2 11.9 85.7 Cowpeas, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 87.5 10.0 88.3 23 Cowpeas, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.9 88.9 42.9 86.0 23 Cowpeas, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.5 89.6 2.2 86.9 23 Cowpea meal, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.8 92.6 9.9 84.0 24 Cowpea meal, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1 98.4 11.3 88.5 24 Cowpea meal, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.1 75.0 7.6 90.8 24 Cowpea meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.6 84.9 1.9 ‘ 81.8 94 Cowpea meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 .8 86.2 1.0 82.9 94 Average (8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.4 87.9 10.9 86.2 Darso, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.1 86.7 35.4 88.6 78 Darso, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 87.3 44.0 91.5 78 Darso, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.7 88.4 17.1 89.4 109 Darso, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.6 72.5 0 85.9 .109 Darso, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . 36.3 89.6 65.1 91.9 55 . Darso, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.3 89.1 64.5 85.9 55 Average (s). ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.0 85.6 37.7 88.9 Feterita (Spur), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.7 84.7 50.6 93.6 54 Feterita (Spur), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 .0 81.9 37.3 91.5 54 Feterita (Spur), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.6 82.1 50.7 93.1 71 Feterita (Spur), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . 92.9 81.2 17.4 89.6 71 DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF-POULTRY FEEDS 19 Table 8.—Digestion coefficients of poultry fecds— (continued). Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nitro- Refer- Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence Extract Fiber Extract Number Feterita (Spur), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.5 85.8 37.6 90.9 79 Fcterita (Spur), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.2 82.4 32.1 90.7 79 Feterita (Spur), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.4 79.5 28.9 97.8 108 Feterita (Spur), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.6 71.0 27.1 88.8 108 Feterita (Spur), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.2 75.5 45.2 85.5 110 Feterita (Spur), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.9 82.5 5.1 91.0 110 Average (10) . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.8 80.7 33.2 91.3 Fish scraps, Japan O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.0 99.3 0 58.2 30 F' Fish scraps, Japan O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.9 99.0 O 0 30 F’ Fish scraps, Japan O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.8 95.7 0 18.8 31 F Fish scraps, Japan O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.9 99.7 0 0 31 F Dried fish, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.0 98.1 0 0 32 F Dried fish, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.8 100.0 0 0 32 F Fish meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.5 92.3 0 0 40 Fish meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.2 92.0 0 0 40 Fish meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90. 9 93.0 0 0 4O Fish meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.7 91.1 0 0 40 Fish meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91. 1 92.7 0 0 40 A Average (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90.7 95.7 . . . . . . .. 15.4 i Getrocknete Gemuse, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.3 44.1 0 62.3 17 F Getrocknete Gemuse, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.5 10.0 0 76.2 17 F Average’ (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.9 27.1 0 69.3 India wheat, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . 74.9 78.8 5.0 79.3 9 India wheat, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.5 86.6 29.1 85.5 9 India wheat, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.6 85.9 28.6 85.4 9 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.0 83.8 20.9 83.4 Kafir (grain or meal), North Carolina . . . . . . . 68.4 83.7 4.2 87.6 47 Kafir (grain or meal), North Carolina. . . . . . : 70.2 72.9 5.1 83.8 47 Kafir (grain or meal), North Carolina . . . . . . . 67.2 71.9 4.8 81.6 47 Kafir (grain 0r meal), North Carolina . . . . . . . 68.3 70.2 4.0 80. 1 ‘47 Kafir (grain or meal), North Carolina . . . . . . . 69.5 79.9 4.2 0 47 A Kafir (whole grain), Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.4 73.9 17.3 97.9 19 Kafir (whole grain), Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.3 71.2 21 .8 93.8 19 Kafir (whole grain), Oklahoma . . . . . . 53 .0 75. 9 21 .1 97.1 19 Kafir meal, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 .8 81 .8 29 .7 97 .5 20 Kafir meal, Oklahoma, . . . . . . . . . . .-. 42.3 84.1 35.1 ‘ 95.0 20 Kafir meal, Oklahoma. . 43. 6 82 . 1 41.7 97 . 1 20 Kafir (dwarf), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . '96.4 84.9 40.7 93.3 70 Kafir (dwarf), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.8 81.5 20.3 93.2 70 Kafir (dwarf), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.3 84.1 5.7 93.3 77 Kafir (dwarf), Texas. .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.3 85.2 20. 1 94.1 77 Kafir (dwarf), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . 59.3 76.6 29.7 90.6 112 Kafir (dwarf), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . 92.7 ' 67.4 0 . 90.5 112 Average (17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.8 78.1 18.0 91.7 Average for Texas only (6) . . . . . . . . . . . 84.1 80.0 19.4 92.5 i Meat meal, meat and bone meal, Maine. . . . . 92.6 95.6 0 0 ‘ Meat meal, meat and bone meal, D. A 90.5 86.0 0 0 25 Meat meal, meat and bone meal, U. S. D. A.. 89.9 86.9 O 0 ' 25 Bone meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.9 94.3 3.5 76. 34 Bone meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.5 92.0 3.0 77.1 34 Bone meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.5 100.0 61.8 84. 90 Bone meal, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 .1 97 .0 100.0 0 90 Average (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.7 " 93.1 24.0 34.0 Millet, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 .1 13.9 14.2 87.5 s3 ' Millet, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . 77.0 81.9 19.5 86.4 83 76.1 77.9 16.9 87.0 20 Table 8.—Digestion coefficients of poultry feeds——(continued). BULLETIN NO. .372, TEXAS. AGRICULTUEAL EXPERIMENT STATION _ Nitro- Refer- Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence Extract Flber Extract Number Milo (dwarf yellow), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.4 86.4 45.8 95.0 53 Milo (dwarf yellow), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.6 82.8 0 96.0 53 Milo (dwarf yellow), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.7 83.4 26.3 94.4 73 Milo (dwarf yellow), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 .7 85.7 0 83.0 73 Milo (dwarf yellow), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.8 85.6 41.9 91.7 91 Milo (dwarf yellow), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 79.1 34.3 84.0 111 Milo (dwarf yellow), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.7 84.0 49 .0 93.1 81 Milo (dwarf yellow), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.3 83.6 37.1 92.7 81 Milo (dwarf yellow), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.5 75.6 65.0 95.6 98 Milo (dwarf yellow), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.5 55.4 5.3 91.1 98 Milo (dwarf yellow), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.3 79.9 29.4 90.9 104 Milo (dwarf yellow), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.2 48 .7 40.5 90.0 104 Average (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.3 77.5 31.2 91.5 Oat groats, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.2 93.3 68.7 97.0 51 Oat groats, Texas . . . . .._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.7 91.1 56.1 95.6 51 Oat groats, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.1 86.8 5.2 89.7 44 Oat groats, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.9 87.5 5 .0 89 .0 44 Oat groats, North CEIFOlIIIEL- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.1 85.0 4.4 87.5 44 Oat groats, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.3 82.3 5.2 83.2 44 Oat groats, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.7 81 .4 5 .0 81.8 44 A Oat groats, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.0 86.2 0 84.8 12 Oat groats, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.9 100.0 0 86.8 12 Oat groats, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.9 91.8 0 100.0 12 Oat groats, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.5 89.0 0 100.0 12 Average (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.7 88.6 13.6 90.5 Oats, whole, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.3 84.0 0.5 60.8 5 F Oats, whole, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.1 82.2 1.5 66.0 11 Oats, whole, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.5 89.3 0 65.6 11 Oats, whole, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.3 84.5 1.9 63.1 11 Oats, whole, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.7 87.0 \ 0 61.8 11 Oats, whole, U. S. D. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.5 82.0 11.2 67.3 28 Oats, whole, U. S. D. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77.4 82.3 6.5 70.0 28 Oats, whole, U. S. D. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.2 79.5 9.8 74.8 28 Oats, whole, U. S. D. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.8 77.2 10.6 65.2 28 Oats, whole, U. S. D. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.5 85.4 8.8 73.2 28 A Oats, whole, U. S. D. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.7 83.4 4.3 71.0 28 A Oats, whole, U. S. D. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.8 81.4 5.0 71.9 28 A Oats, whole, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.7 70.4 19.8 68.4 32 Oats, whole, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.8 75.1 13.2 74.2 32 Oats, whole, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.2 76.5 6.9 75.4 32 Oats, whole, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.8 76.2 13.1 71.4 32 Oats, whole, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 75.1 74.7 7.4 69.5 32 A Oats, whole, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.4 73.5 9.8 72.0 32 A Oats, whole, Texas . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.1 89.1 19.0 70.9 50 Oats, whole, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.4 89.8 0 72.6 106 Oats, whole, Texas . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.8 91.2 0 70.0 106 Average (21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.1 81.7 7.1 69.3 Peanut meats, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.2 80.2 4.4 83.2 39 Peanut meats, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.4 78.2 5 .0 83.3 39 Peanut meats, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.6 76.4 4.0 86.1 39 Peanut meats, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.2 77.0 4.9 85.2 39 Peanut meats, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.1 80.3 2.2 83.0 39 A Average (5). ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.3 78.4 4.1 84.2 Peas, Kalugin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.0 91.2 12.2 95.0 3 F Peas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89.7 76.1 15.3 88.3 3F Peas, Lehmann O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.6 76.3 0 78.0 10 F Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.1 81.2 9.2 87.1 Peas and cowpeas, average . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.2 86.1 10.4 86.4 DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF POULTRY FEEDS 21’ Table 8.—Digestion coefficients of poultry feeds-(continued). * Nitro- Refer- Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence 5 Extract Fiber Extract Number _ Potatoes, Voltz O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.9 0 0 84. 6 11 F Potatoes, Germany O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.7 —47.5 5.6 89.5 11 F Potatoes, Germany O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.0 ——95.0 6.5 84.3 11 F Potatoes, Germany O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.6 (—127) 4.8 87.1 12 F Potatoes, Germany O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.0 (———35) 7. 5 77.0 12 F Potatoes, Germany O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.1 (—l02) 5.5 85.1 13 F Potatoes, Germany O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.2 (—117) 8.5 83.8 13 F Average (7) . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.9 0 6.4 84.5 Potatoes and oats, Germany O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.5 67.0 6.2 96.0 14 F Potatoes and oats,Germany 55.6 31.8 7.3 89.0 14 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54. 6 49.4 6.8 92.5 Potatoes, rye and starch, Germany . . . . . . . . . . 50.9 -—13.2 5.8 88.3 Potatoes, rye and starch, Germany . . . . . . . . . . 45.1 ——53.5 6.8 78.7 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.0 —33.4 6.3 83 .5 Potatoes, sweet, Japan o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. o 5.6 12.9 80.9 28 F Potatoes, sweet, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 39.2 0 73.0 29 F _ Potatoes, sweet, JapanC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 29.2 _ 0 78.0 29 F Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 24. 7 4 .3 77 .3 in Rice bran, Japan o . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . 71.1 88.4 0 63.7 26 F ' Rice bran, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.0 84.6 0 54.8 27 F Rice bran, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.5 90.2 0 56.0 27 F Rice bran, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.3 88.5 9.7 63.1 64 Rice bran, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.2 89.7 17.1 62.7 64 ~Rice bran, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.6 89.1 0 47.7 95 fRice bran, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.5 86.4 0 42.8 95 Rice bran, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.0 83.9 0 41.5 102 Rice bran, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.5 83.0 0 38.8 102 ' Average <9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.9 87 . 1 3.0 52.3 . 'ce (brown), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.0 88.0 9.7 97.9 69 ; 'ce (brown), Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.1 87.8 3.2 98.2 69 A Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.1 87.9 6.5 98.1 rown rice and clover, Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.4 23.4 5.6 90.5 rown rice and clover hay, Japan C . . . . . . . . . 77.4 45.2 0 88.5 "- wn rice and clover hay, Japan C . . . . . . . . . 77.6 47.8 0 87.8 23 F Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.8 38.8 5.6 88.9 - A polish, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79. 9 95 . 1 0 92.8 65 <= e polish, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.0 96.1 13.5 94.5 65 j e polish, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.8 94.7 2.3 82.9 96 _~ e polish, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.0 93.4 1.3 87.0 96 i Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.9 94.8 4.3 89.3 I - polish, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.5 4.3 0 97.4 63 ‘ polish, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.7 4.8 66.1 99.1 63 Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.1 4.6 33.1 98.3 '- ‘rough, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.2 64.0 0 88.2 21 F ’~ , rough, Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.0 70.8 0 88.5 21 F rough, JapanO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.5 5.8 4.6 88.0 22F rough, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.4 81.6 5.8 81.2 46 , rough North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.2 78.5 6.1 80.3 46 rough, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.7 80.2 6.0 79.2 46 ' rough, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.1 81 .0 5.5 76.3 46 - rough, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.0 79.3 5. 9 77.8 46a - rough, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.1 90.8 4.8 91.8 61 » rough, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 78.1 89.5 12.6 86.5 61 Average (10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.2 72.2 5.1 83.8 22 Table 8.——Digestion coefficients of poultry feeds—(continued). BULLETIN NOV. 372, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Nitro- Refer- Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence Extract Flber Extract Number Rye, Germany _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.7 16.6 2.4 87.8 6 F Rye, Voltz O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.9 22.6 O 86.7 15 F Rye, Germany O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.0 28.5 0 85.6 16 F j Rye, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.5 27.8 4.6 85.2 43 . Rye, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.1 28.2 5.0 83.9 43 1 Rye, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.9 27.1 4.4 81.9 43 Rye, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.6 57.5 32.7 89.7 84 ; Rye, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.0 42.7 36.0 86.8 84 i Average (8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.3 31.4 12.2 86.0 Shallu, Texas... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 85.5 28.5 93.2 93 Shallu, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.6 82.3 40.6 94.8 76 . Shallu, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . .. 82.0 85.1 49.2 93.5 76 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.8 84.6 39.4 93.8 Sorghum seed, Sumac, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.0 87 .2 .6 88.4 72 Sorghum seed, Sumac, Texas. . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . 23.4 84.4 14.5 88.6 72 Sorghum seed, Sumac, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.9 86.6 20.5 91.4 80 Sorghum seed, Sumac, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 87.0 33.6 87.7 80 Sorghum seed, Sumac, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 82.0 18.7 86.7 92 f3 Sorghum seed, Sumac, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 79.8 18.5 84.1 107 Sorghum seed, Sumac, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 °°1.4 0 89.0 107 31 Average (7) . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . .. - 15.0 '84.1 15.2 88.0 4 Soy bean, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.1 92.9 37.3 80.5 86 Soy bean, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.6 93.1 67.8 72.3 86 k Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.9 93 .0 52.6 76.4 I‘ Soybean oi_1 meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 85.1 79.3 2.2 83.2 38 Soybean o1l meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 83.8 81.5 2.5 81.8 38 Soybean 01_l meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 82.3 82.2 2.0 83.6 38 Soybean 01_l meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 84.6 81.0 2.0 82.0 38 Soybean o1l meal, North Carolina . . . . . . . . , . . 80.8 83.2 2.2 85.2 38a ,- Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.3 81.4 2.2 83.2 Soy bean 01:1 cake, Japan-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.9 89.0 0 79.7 24 F -, Soy bean o1l cake, Japan-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.3 81.2 0 79.7 25 F1‘ Soy bean oil cake, Japan-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.9 82.1 0 66.4 25 F Average (s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.3 82.4 o 80.2 Tankage, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.5 100.0 0 0 66 Tankage, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.1 100.0 0 100.0 - 66 Tankage drgester, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 90.3 93 .2 4.0 82.0 35 Tankage dlgester, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 91.1 90.3 3.9 81.8 35 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.3 95.9 4.0 43.5 Tankagc and oil meal, average (11).. . . 86.2 94.1 19.6 45.6 Wheat mjddlings 6.25% fiber, North Carolina. 49 .3 49.5 9 .1 43.9 29 Wheat mrddlrngs 6.25% fiber, North Carolina. 45.9 52 .0 11.0 44.1 29 "a Wheat m1_ddl1_ngs 6.25% fiber, North Carolina. 45.5 52.9 9 .0 45 .2 29 . Wheat mrddlrngs 6.25% fiber, North Carolina. 38.7 52 .2 8 .2 56.0 29 . Wheat mrddlrngs 6.25% fiber, North Carolina. 44.8 49 .4 8 .0 54.4 29a l; Wheat mrddlrngs 6.25% fiber, North Carolina. 44.6 45.9 10 .0 48.9 29a 5 Wheat mrddhngs 6.25% fiber, North Carolina. 59.9 56.9 8.2 52.1 29a :- Wheat mrddlrngs 6.25% fiber, North Carolina. 62.7 59 .1 8.0 52.7 29a ‘ Wheat mrddllngs 6.25% fiber, North Carolina. 58.9 55.9 9.1 49.8 29b Average (9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.0 52.6 9.0 49.7 Wheat gray shorts, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.0 78.7 12.3 ‘ 71.7 97 Wheat gray shorts, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.0 87.1 8.6 74.3 97 Wheat gray shorts, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.8 89.4 20.1 65 .2 103 . Wheat gray shorts, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.9 85.6 11.0 72.9 103 V; Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.2 ' 85.2 13.0 71.0 A DIGESTIBILIJTY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF POULTRY FEEDS 2s Table 8.-—Digestion coefficients of poultry feeds—(continued). Nitro- Refer- Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence Ex tract Frber Extract N umber Wheat bran, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.6 61.1 0 60.8 33 F Wheat bran, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.9 69.8 0 59.4 33 F Wheat bran, Japan O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.1 49.4 9.5 67.1 34 F \Vheat bran, Japan O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.3 43.6 O 63.2 34 F Wheat bran, Maine....., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.3 37.1 13.1 46.2 1 Wheat bran, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.2 38.4 13.6 45.7 l‘. Wheat bran, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9 35.4 13.9 46.0 1'1 Wheat bran, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.3 50.4 8.6 55.9 621 g‘ Wheat bran, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.9 52.0 10.0 67.4 62 g Wheat bran, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.2 58.6 3.1 39.3 99 l Wheat bran, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- 48.5 64.7 7.4 43.6 99 Average (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59.9 50.0 7.9 54.1 Wheat, Kalugin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.8 51.1 25.1 92.8 2YF' Wheat, Kalugin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.1 59.3 31.9 93.8 2}}? Wheat, Lehmann, Germany, O . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.1 39.1 0 86.6 93F Wheat, JapanO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.2 40.3 5.6 90.5 35F Wheat, Japan O. .- . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . .. 76.5 39.0 9.0 90.9 35F Wheat, JapanO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84.3 41.2 9.8 91.7 35F Wheat, Japan O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.3 51.6 5.4 92.2 35 F Wheat, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.2 30.9 0 89.0 .36 F Wheat, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.7 44.5 3.1 88.3 36 F Wheat, JapanC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.9 30.0 0‘ 86.2 36F Wheat, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.6 34.6 0 87.3 36 F t Wheat, Japan c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.6 34.6 0 89.4 37 F ‘ Wheat, Japan C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.4 54.5 0 89.4 37 F Wheat, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . 62.1 52.6 15.1 88.4 31 Wheat, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.9 28.3 0.4 87.3 31 Wheat, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.1 25 .2 12 .2 83.9 31 ~ Wheat, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.5 47.6 4.9 85.4 31 1 Wheat, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 62.5 44.9 3 .8 88.8 31a Wheat, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.2 28.0 1.4 86.8 31a». " Wheat, whole, U. S. D. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77.4 58.8 _ 0 88.9 26 ,| Wheat, whole, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.1 62.2 36.8 92.4 59 -Wheat, whole, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.0 58.5 27.9 92.9 59* " Wheat, whole, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.5 67.6 46.1 90.2 74 Wheat, whole, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.6 70.8 29.0 88.0 74 ~., Wheat, Halsian C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.2 53.5 0 89.4 38 F’ I Wheat, Halsian C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.8 52.1 0 89.1 38 F , Wheat, Little Joss C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.9 34.9 - 6.7 89.3 39 F Wheat, Little Joss C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.5 35.8 4.8 89.3 39 F _j Wheat, hard Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.3 56.9 0 80.8 13 fl; Wheat, soft, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.7 60.2 17.1 90.3 14 ‘_ Wheat, soft, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.0 68.6 0 89.6 14 , Wheat, soft, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.8 50.6 0 87.0 14 aWheat, soft, Mame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.3 45.1 0 88.1 14 fl Wheat, soft, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.7 47.7 0 87.7 14 __ Average (34) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.0 47.1 8.7 88.9 ,Wheat middlings 8 5% fiber, North Carolina. 79.3 42 .2 11 .1 59 .0 42 ,Wheat mlddlings 8.5% fiber, North Carolina. 75.2 41.3 10.0 57.2 42 Wheat middlrngs 8.5% fiber, North Carolina. 72.0 43.2 10 .2 58.1 42 Wheat middlings 8.5% fiber, North Carolina. 76 .1 45 .2 10.] 63 . 1 42 Wheat middlings 8.5% fiber, North Carolina. 74.9 42.2 9.9 57.3 42a heat middlings 8.5% fiber, North Carolina. 75.1 42.0 10.1 56.9 42a heat mjddhngs 8.5% fiber, North Carolina. 75 .2 69 .6 3.7 59.1 49 I heat mlddlings 8.5% fiber, North Carolina. 79.8 73.2 4.3 63.1 49 p heat middlings 8.5% fiber, North Carolina. 77.8 74.3 4.1 62.9 49 Average (9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.2 52.6 8.2 59.6 2-1 BULLETlNiNO. 372, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION‘ ACKNOWLEDGMENT Chemical analyses and other work involved in the preparation of this Bulletin were done by Messrs. Joh11 B. Smith, W. H. Walker, N. J. Volk, E. C. Carlyle, and other members of the staff. REFERENCES TO DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS Numbers. 1F- 4F I. Kalugin (1896). Haly, Jahresbericht, 810. 5F- 7F W. Von Knierem (1900). Landw. Jahrbucher, 29, 518. 8F S. Paraschtschuk (1902). Journ. Fur Landwirtschaft, 15. 9F-10F F. Lehmann (1904). Centralblatt fur Agriculturchemie, 417. 11F-16F W. Voltz (1909). Landw. Jahrbucher, 38, 553. 17F-37F T. Katayama (1924). Bulletin of the Imperial Agric. Exp. Station, Japan, 3, No. 1. 38F-39F E. T. Halnan (1926). Journ. Agric. Sci., 16, 451. 1 -18 J. M. Bartlett (1911). Bulletin 184, Maine Agr. Exp. Sta. 19 -24 Fields and Ford, Bulletin 46, Oklahoma Experiment Station. 25 -28 E. W. Brown (1904). U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Bulletin N0. 56. 29 -49 B. F. Kaupp and J. E. Ivey (1923). North Carolina Agr. Exp. Station, Technical Bulletin No. 22. 50 -112 Texas Experiment Station, this Bulletin. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS (1) This Bulletin contains a report on 63 digestion experiments with poultry, With a compilation of all other digestion experiments with poultry that could be found. . (2) Poultry have little power to digest crude fiber, and the digesti- nbilituv of feeds which contain much crude fiber is low. (3) Poultry have lower digestive power than ruminants for feeds containing crude fiber, such as whole oats, Whole barley or wheat bran. There is little difference between the digestive power of ruminants and poultry for feeds low in crude fiber, such as corn, milo, or oat groats. (4) The digestion coeflicients for protein and ether extract vary more for poultry than for ruminants for the feeds compared. The difference in the variation with nitrogen-free extract is small. (5) Although the basis for calculating the energy-production co- efiicients for poultry feeds is not satisfactory, such coefficients are given since they probably more nearly express the feeding value than do the digestion coeificients, and they can serve as a basis for further work. (6) The approximate average composition, assumed minimum guar- antee, digestible protein and productive energy are given for a number of poultry feeds. i (7) The composition and feeding values of mixed feeds for poultry may be calculated from the data given. .