Al—l28 _ , Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: F L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist Ilsll. J. REINHARD, B. S.. Entomologist . K. FLETCHER, M. A., Entomologist W. L. OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist RANK M. HULL, M. S., Entomologist . C. GAINEs, JR., M. S., Entomologist . J. TODD, B. S., Entomologist . F. BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist E. McGREGOR, JR., Acting Chief Foulbrood Inspector . B. KENNERLY, Foulbrood Inspector ILLIS GRAHAM, Foulbrood Inspector RONOMY: . B. REYNOLDs, M. S., Chief . B. CONNER, M. S., Agronomist; Grain Sorghum Research . E. KARPER, B. S., Agronomist; Small Grain Research C. MANGELsDORE, Sc. D., Agronomist; in charge of Corn and Small Grain Investi- gations . T. KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist; Cotton Breeding . E. REA, B. S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations . C. CUSHING, B. S., Assistant in Cro s R. JOHNSON, B. S., Assistant in Soi s wnn~m new A WIPE F‘ U I 1UP‘! VETERINARY SCIENCE: **M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief H. ScHIvIIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian J. D. JoNEs, D. V. M., Veterinarian PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: J. J. TAUBENHAUs, Ph. ., 'e L. J. PEssIN, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist and 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., Chief *B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Farm and Ranch Economist _ G. L. CRAWFORD, M. S., Marketing Research Specialist C. A. BONNEN, M. S., Farm Management Research Specialist _ _ V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist ***T. L. GAsTON, JR., B. S., Assistant; Farm Records and Accounts ***J. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant; Ranch Records and Accounts RURAL HOME RESEARCH: _ JEssIE WHITAcRE, Ph. D., hief _ MAMIE GRnvIEs, 1\I. S., Textiles and Clothing Specialist SOIL SURVEY: ***W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor T. C. REITcH, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY: H. NEss, M. S., Chief PUBLICATIONS: v A. D. JAcKsON, Chief SWINE HUSBANDRY: _ FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: Chief POULTRY HUSBANDRY: _ R. M. SIIERWOOD. M. S.. Chief ****AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: MAIN STATION FARM: G. T. McNEss. Superintendent APICULTURE (San Antonio): H. B. PARKs, B. S.. Chief A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief . D. PEARcE, Secretary . H. ROGERs, Feed Inspector . H. WOOD, Feed Inspector . L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector . D. NORTHCUTT, JR., B. S., Feed Inspector SIDNEY D. REYNOLDs, JR., Feed Inspector P. A. MOORE, Feed Inspector zxéum SUBSTATIONS No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: W. S. HOTcHKIss, Superintendent No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent FRANK M. HULL, M. S., Entomologist No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson 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 6,'Denton, Denton County: No. P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent ‘No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: I15 . 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 No. l0, Feeding and Breeding Station, near College Station, Brazos County: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Animal IIusband- man in Charge of Farm_ L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H. F. MORRIS, M. S., Superintendent ***No. l2, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. R. QUINBY, B. S.. Superintendent _ '**J C. STEPHENS. M. A., Junior Agrorwmlsl No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-EdwardsCounties: W. H. DAMERON, B. S.. Superintendent _~_-——-€~——--, Veterinarian _ V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist ***O. G. BABcOcK, B. S., Collaborating Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER. Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent -——i-—-———-—, Entomologist _ W. J. BAcH. M. S., Plant Pathologist No. l6, Iowa Park, Wichita County: E. J. WILs0N, B. S.. Superintendent _ J. PAUL LUsK, S. M., Plant Pathologist Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: G W S’; W. BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of Entomology . ADRIANcE. M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture . LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Marketing and Finance D cOATEs, A. E.. Professor of Agricultural Engineering _ _ H. P. SMITH, M. S., Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering TAs of January 1, 1928. *On leave. **Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. _ ***In_ cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. ****In cooperation with the School of Agriculture SYNOPSIS Earlier work at the Texas Station showed that cottonseed meal and alfalfa leaf meal were useful feeds for the economical production of eggs. The eggs when newly laid showed no discoloration of yolk or white, but in 1926, it was found that some feeds fed laying hens caused eggs in cold-storage to show discolored yolks and in some cases discolored whites. A study of the effect of feeding various mixtures of feeds on the storage quality of the eggs produced was begun, and from the results of the first year’s work, the Station recom- mends not over nine per cent of 43 per cent Protein Cottonseed Meal, Prime Quality, in the mash and not over six per cent in an “all-mash ration” during the months when eggs are going into storage. So far as the first year’s work shows, the pos- sibility is not eliminated absolutely that bad effects result even from these amounts. Cottonseed meal has been proven to be an economical poultry feed and at times of the year when eggs are not going into storage larger proportions of cotton- seed meal may be fed. aiaat BULLETIN NO. 3'76 JANUARY, 1928 THE EFFECT OF VARIOUS RATIONS ON THE STORAGE QUALITY OF EGGS ROSS M. SHERWOOD This Bulletin is submitted as a report of the results secured the first year in a project to determine What effect various amounts and combina- tions of feeds fed laying hens, had on the storage quality of the eggs produced. The Work is not completed, but it is thought sufficient data were secured to Warrant this publication. Work has been carried on for a number of years to determine the value of cottonseed meal as a feed for laying hens. The Texas Station has been actively engaged on this project since 1912. N o serious discoloration of yolk or White of the eggs resulted from the combinations of feeds used at the Texas Station and, from corre- spondence, it Was learned that this Was true also at the Oklahoma, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, and Alabama Stat s. The Texas Station used 4.3% Protein Cottonseed Meal, Prime uality, and did not use over thirty-tWo pounds of cottonseed meal in 100 pounds of mash. In Annual Report No. 37' of the New Mexico Station, it Was reported that, With the combinations of feeds used there, off-colored yolks re- sulted. This Work is described as follows: “The pen Which received 38 per cent of cottonseed meal in the mash, produced eggs Which Were so badly affected by the cottonseed meal spots as to be unmarketable. The yolk of these eggs turned. black in color, as the eggs Were kept for a, few days, so that When a Week old the yolk Was almost entirely black.” It is noted that 38 per cent of the mash Was cottonseed meal. The following description of this cottonseed meal Was secured by cor- respondence With the NeW Mexico Station: “The meal is prime and carries a guaranteed analysis of 43 per cent protein. It has a bright greenish-yellow color, and is different from any that I have seen else- Where in this respect. It is» practically all Acala cotton and is groWn under irrigation.” In the spring of 1926, the Texas Station placed eggs from cottonseed- meal-fed hens in cold-storage and noted that the yolks and Whites of the eggs did not hold their color in storage. No decomposition seemed present, and the ddor Was practically normal. A large per cent of the eggs produced during the spring are nor- mally placed in cold-storage to be consumed in the autumn and Winter, and it is necessary that eggs produced for storage be of such a quality that they Will store Well. For these reasons, the Texas Station undertook this experiment on the effect of feeding various feeds onthe holding quality of the eggs produced. 6 BULLETIN NO. 376, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE EXPERIMENT 0111611151 The object of this experiment was to determine whether cottonseed meal, cottonseed oil, and alfalfa leaf meal, fed to laying hens in varying proportions in the mash, have any effect on the storage quality of eggs laid by these hens. Stofrk Used! In this experiment the rations designated as Rations 1, 2, 3, and 4, were fed to Single Oomb White Leghorn pullets. Rations designated as Rations 5, 6, '7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, were fed to Single Comb White Leghorn yearling hens. Ratiollsr The pullets receiving Rations 1 to 4, inclusive, were fed milo and kafir for their grain and mash as given in Table 1. They were allowed liberal range. During the early spring they had winter oats for green feed. On May 1, the lots were plowed up and sowed to Sudan grass and the pullets were not allowed to range on this until May 25. During the time between these dates each pen was allowed to range on a rather poor Bermuda grass range every fourth day. Hens receiving Rations 5 to 12, inclusive, received no grain other than the ground grains in the mash, as shown in Table 1. They were not allowed Table 1—Num1')er pounds ingredients used in each ration. Ration Number Feed Ingredients r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12 Ground Milo and Kafir.......... 36.5 27.8 22.5 31.5 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Ground Feterita. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.0 . . . . . . . . . . Ground Yellow Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.0 70.0 Wheat Gray Shorts 20.0 25.0 25.0 6 0 14 5 14 5 14.5 14 5 14.5 14 5 18.5 18.5 Wheat Bran . . . . .. 15.0 15.0 15.0 12 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Alfalfa LeafMeal.. 8.0 8.0 8.0 0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 .0 5.0.._.. Meat Scrap . . . . . .. 20.0 14.0 7.5 10.0 8.5 7.0 5.5 4.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 43 Per Cent Protein Cottonseed Meal. Prime Quality... 9.0 20.0 32.0..... 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Crude Cottonseed Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.0 1.0 Salt.............. .5 .5 .5 .5 ~ .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 Finely Ground Oyster Shells... .7 1.5 2.0..... .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Total . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 100 100 102 104 106 108 100 100 100 Grain . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No , No Range . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No to range, but were held in houses 10x10 feet in size with yards 6x10 feet in size which were floored with cement. It will be noted from Table 1 that the chief differences in the Rations 1 to 4, inclusive, are the amounts of meat scrap and cottonseed meal they contain. Ration 10 is a dupli- cate of Ration 5 except that feterita is used in Ration 10 and milo and kafir are used in Ration 5. Rations 11 and 12 are meat-scrap rations with one per cent crude cottonseed oil added. In the case of Ration 11, EFFECT OF VARIOUS RATIONS ON THE STORAGE QUALITY OF EGGS 7 alfalfa leaf meal is added, and in Ration 12, no alfalfa leaf meal is given. Crushed oyster shell was available to all the hens in shell hoppers. Stflrflge 0f the Eggsr Beginning March 12, 1927, eggs were collected and beginning on March 15, 1927, they were shipped to a commercial cold-storage house* in Houston, Texas. A case Was placed in storage every second Thursday following this date until nine cases Were in storage. Each case contained eggs from each of the rations, the exact number depending on the eggs laid by the hens receiving the various rations. None 0f the eggs had been laid longer than four days when they were placed in storage. Candling of Eggs and Grades These eggs were candled on July 1st, July 27th, September 9th, and October 5th, by a commercial egg candler. He graded them as firsts, seconds, and discards. Eggs graded as seconds showed a slight dis- coloration of the yolk. In some cases, this appeared slightly red and in other cases, the yolk showed a green tint. The eggs graded as discards contained discolored yolks, Whites, or both. In some cases the color of the yolks was a mottled yellow; in others the yolks appeared more red than the seconds; and in other cases they were of a greenish brown, sometimes called black. The white varied from normal color to a light pink. The yolks were spongy in consistency and in some cases when cut with a knife, they resembled gelatin. It is very probable that a number of the eggs would have graded poorer if broken, due to the consistency of the yolk and colors that did not show up to the candle. More Work will be done on this subject later. Notes were taken of the number of eggs in each grade from each lot at each candling. Tables 2 to 10, inclusive, give the final candling of the nine cases, and Table 11 gives a summary of the final candling of all of these cases. Table 2—Candliug record of Case A in storage from March 24 to October 5, 1927. Number of Eggs Per Cent Ration Variable Feeds No. Total Firsts Seconds Discards Firsts Seconds Discards 1 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 51 47 1 3 92 .1 2 .0 5 .9 2 9% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 52 1 . . . . . . . . 98 .1 1.9 . . . . . . . . 3 20% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 40 2 11 75 .5 3 .8 20.7 4 32% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 21 1 30 40.4 1 .9 57.7 5 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 11 10 . . . . . . . . 1 90.9 . . . . . . . . 9.1 6 3% cottonseed meal, all-mash. . . . . . . . . 30 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 31 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 8 9% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 27 10 2 15 37 .0 7 .4 55.6 9 12% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . 23 10 6 7 43 .5 26.1 30.4 10 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 12 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ *The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance rendered by the Morn- ing Glory Creameries of Houston, Texas, in placing their facilities at our disposal and in furnishing an expert candler to grade these eggs Whenever desired. BULLETIN NO. 376, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION It is noted that no firsts Were left in Ration 4 in case E at the close of the period. This case of eggs Was collected during the time that very little green feed Was available. Whether green feedis a factor which affects quality. Table 3—Candling record of Case B in storage from April 7 to October 5, 1927. More data will be secured to learn Number of Eggs Per Cent Ration Variable Feeds N0. Total Firsts Seconds Discards Firsts I Seconds | Discards 1 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 50 49 . . . . . . . 4 1 98.0 . . . . . . . . 2 .0 2 9% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . 4 4 . . . 4 53 51 . . . . . . . . 2 96.2 . . . . . . . . 3 .8 3 20% cottonseed meal mash . . . . 4 . . . . . . . 58 39 10 9 67.2 17.2 15.5 4 32% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . 4 . . . . 59 13 4 42 22.0 6.8 71.2 5 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 12 12 . . . . 4 . 4 . . . . . T . . 100.0 . . . . . . 4 . . . 4 . . . . . 6 3% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . 4 . 31 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . 4 26 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . 4 . . . . 27 15 4 8 55.6 14.8 29.6 9 12% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . 4 . 4 . . . 29 14 8 7 48.3 27.6 24.1 10 Meat scrap. no cottonseed meal . . . . . . 4 . 12 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4—Candling record of Case. C in storage from April 21 to October 5, 1927. Number of Eggs Per Cent Ration Variable Feeds —~ No. Total Firsts Seconds Discards Firsts l Seconds Discards 1 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 58 55 3 . . . . . . . . 94.8 5 .2 . . . . . . . . 2 9% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 59 2 1 95 .2 3 .2 1.6 3, 20% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 47 9 7 74.6 14.3 11.1 4 32% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 11 8 40 18.6 13.6 67.8 5 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . 4 11 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '7 6% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 21 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 100.0 . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . 78 9% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . l4 7 5 2 50.0 35.7 14.3 '9 12% cottonseed meal, all-mash . 4 . . . . . . . 21 10 7 4 47.6 33 .3 19 .0 10 eat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 17 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5-—Candling record of Case D in storage from May 5 to October 5, 1927. C‘ “T ' 4Q Number of Eggs Per Cent Ratior Variable Feeds i _ _ N0. Total I Firsts l Seconds I Discard; Flrsts l Seconds I Dlscards 1 Meat- scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 54 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.6 . . . . . . . . 3.3 3 cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 42 8 2 80.8 15 .4 3.8 4 32% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 6 16 37 10.2 27. 1 62.7 5 eat scrap. no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 11 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 21 20 1 . . . . . . 4 . 95. 4.8 . . . . . . . . 7 6% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 13 12 4 . . . . . . . 1 92 .3 . . . . . . . . 7.7 78 9% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 13 11 1 1 84 .6 7 . 7 7.7 9 12% cottonseed meal. all-mash . . . 4 . . . . . 12 10 2 . . . . . . . . 83.. 16.6 . . . . . . . . 10 eat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . 4 10 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lav: W" c ' r .. I w... _ ,. EFFECT OF VARIOUS RATIONS ON THE STORAGE QUALITY OF EGGS 9 Table 6-Candling record 0f Case E in storage from May 19 to October 5, 1927. Number of Eggs Per Cent Ration Variable Feeds o. Total Firsts Seconds Discards Firsts Seconds Discards. 1 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 57 56 1 . . . . . . . . 98.2 1.8 . . . . . . . . 2 9% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 65 . . . . . . . . 3 95.6 . . . . . . . . 4.4 3 20% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 2O 21 36 26.0 27.3 46.8 4 32% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 . . . . . . . . 2 66 . . . . . . . . 2.9 97.1 5 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 9 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ 6 3% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . 9 5 2 2 55 .6 22.2 22.2 10 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 13 12 . . . . . . . . 1 92 .3 . . . . . . . . 7.7 11 1% crude cottonseed oil, alfalfa and meat scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 26 1 . . . . . . .. 96.3 3.7 . . . . . . .. 12 1% crude cottonseed oil and meat scrap, no alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 7——Candling record of Case F in storage from June 2 to October 5, 1927. Number of Eggs Per Cent Ration Variable Feeds No. Total Firsts Seconds Discards Firsts Seconds Discardk 1 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 67 66 . . . . . . . . 1 98.5 . . . . . . . . 1.5 2 9% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 61 5 2 89 .7 7. 4 2 .9 3 20% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 36 23 11 51 . 4 32.9 15 .7 4 32% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 8 13 41 12.9 21.0 66.1 5 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 8 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 6 3% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 2 . . . . . . . . 60.0 40.0 . . . . . . . . 9 12% cottonseed meal all-mash . . . . . . . . . 10 7 2 1 70.0 20.0 10.0 10 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 11 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1% crude cottonseed oil, alfa a and meat scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1% crude cottonseed oil and meat scrap, no alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 8——Candling record of Case G in storage from June 16 to October 5, 1927. Number of Eggs Per Cent Ration Variable Feeds No. Total Firsts Seconds Diseards Firsts Seconds Discards 1 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal. _ . . . . . . 68 67 1 . . . . . . . . 98.5 1.5 . . . . . . . _ 2 9% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 83 2 . . . . . . . . 97.6 2.4 . . . . . . . . 3 20% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 49 31 5 57.6 36.5 5.9 4 32% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 21 18 27 31.8 27 .3 40,9 5 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 6 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 6 3% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ ‘8 9% cottonseed meal. all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 .0 . . . . . . , . 9 12% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . 8 1 3 4 12.5 37.5 50.0 10 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 11 1% crude cottonseed oil, alfalfa and meat scra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 8 3 . . . . . . .. 72.7 27.3 . . . . . . ,_ 12 1% crude cottonseed oil and meat scrap, no alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 1O BULLETIN NO. 376, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 9——Candling record of Case H in storage from June 30 to October 5, 1927. Number of Eggs Per Cent Ratio Variable Feeds ' o. Total Firsts Seconds Discards Firsts Seconds Discards 1 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal. . . . . . 99 94 3 2 94.9 3 .0 2 0 2 9% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 90 2 1 96.8 2.2 1 1 3 20% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 35 7 2 79.5 15 .9 4 5 4 32% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 15 4 18 40.5 10 . 8 48 6 5 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '6 3% cottonseed meal, all-mash. . . . . . . . _ 15 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6% cottonseed meal, ell-mash . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 1 . . . . . . . . 66.7 33.3 . . . . . . . . 9 12% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . 5 1 2 2 20.0 40.0 40.0 10 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1% crude cottonseed oil, alfalfa and ' meat scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 * 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1% crude cottonseed oil and meat scrap, no alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Table 10—Candling record of Case I in storage from July 14 to October 5, 1927. Number of Eggs Per Cent Ration Variable Feeds N0. Total Firsts Seconds Discards Firsts Seconds Discards 1 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 77 76 1 . . . . . . . . 98 .7 1.3 . . . . . . . . 2 9% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 67 1 . . . . . . . . 98 .5 1.5 . . . . . . . . 3 20% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 51 13 . . . . . . . 79.7 20.3 . . . . . . . . 4 32% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 19 19 18 33 .9 33.9 32 1 5 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 6 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3% cottonseed meal, all-mash. . ., . . . . . . . 9 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "8 9% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 1 . . . . . . . . 75. 25.0 . . . . . . . . 9 12% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . 8 6 1 1 75 .0 12.5 12.5 '10 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 9 9 . . . . . . . . . . . » . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '11 1% crude cottonseed oil, alfalfa and meat scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1% crude cottonseed oil and meat scrap, no alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 11—Summary of candling records of nine cases of eggs. Number of Eggs Per Cent Ration Variable Feeds _ No. . Total Flrsts Seconds Discards Firsts Seconds Discards 1 Meat scrap. no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 581 564 10 7 97 .1 1 7 1.2 2 9% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 586 13 11 96.1 2 1 1.8 3 20% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 566 359 124 83 63 .4 21 9 14.7 4 32% cottonseed meal mash . . . . . . . . . . . . 518 114 85 319 22 .0 16 4 61.6 5 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 76 75 . . . . . . . . 1 98.7 . . . . . . . . 1.3 , 6 3% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 152 151 1 . . . . . . . . 99.3 .7 . . . . . . . . 7 6% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 98 97 . . . . . . . . 1 99.0 . . . . . . . . 1.0 8 9% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . . 95 52 17 26 54.7 17.9 27 .4 9 12% cottonseed meal, all-mash . . . . . . . . . 125 64 33 28 51.2 26.4 22 .4 10 Meat scrap, no cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . 94 93 . . . . . . . . 1 98.9 . . . . . . . . 1.1 11 1% crude cottonseed oil, alfalfa and meat scrap . . . . .._ . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. 100 96 4 . . . . . . .. 96.0 4.0 . . . . . . .. 12 1% crude cottonseed or] and meat scrap, no alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two chemical analyses were made from Ration 1 and Ration 4, these ~containing meat scrap and cottonseed meal, respectively. ‘The eggs in analysis 1 were cold storage eggs. Those in analysis 2 for Ration 4 were EFFECT OF VARIOUS RATIONS ON THE STORAGE QUALITY OF EGGS 11 cold-storage eggs, While those for Ration 1 in this case were freshly laid eggs. Dr. Fraps reported greater difficulty in separating yolks from whites in the case of the cottonseed meal eggs than from the meat scrap eggs, due to the fact that the yolks ruptured more readily. He stated that, for that reason, the proportion of white to yolk in the cottonseed meal eggs may have been reported slightly greater than it really was. Table 12.——Analysis of eggs.* _ Eggs from Ration 1. Eggs from Ration 4. Containing Meat Scrap. Containing Clottonseed ea . Analysis 1 | Analysis 2 Analysis 1 I Analysis 2 Per cent yolk in egg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.4 34. 7 38.4 40.0 Per cent white in egg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.4 54.0 48.7 48.8 Per centshell in egg . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.1 11.3 12.9 11.2 Per cent protein in yolk . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.7 16.0 13.4 15.6 Per cent fat in yolk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.9 29.5 24.8 22.7 Per cent water in yolk . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.2 53.0 57 .2 57. 5 Percentashinyolk . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 *Analyses made by Dr. G. S. Fraps, State Chemist. From Table 12 it would seem that these rations have an influence on the proportion of yolk and white as well as the chemical composition of these parts of the egg. More analyses of eggs from hens fed these rations will be made to supply more data on this point. CONCLUSIONS 1. None of the eggs in this experiment showed any serious discolora- tion of yolk or white when they were first laid. 2. Little or no change in color of yolk or white Was noted with any of the rations used until eggs had been held in cold-storage as long as four weeks. 3. Eggs laid by hens receiving a mash containing 20 or 32 per cent of 43% Protein Cottonseed Meal, Prime Quality, began to deteriorate in color at the end of four weeks in cold-storage. 4. Hens receiving a mash containing 9 per cent of 43% Protein Cottonseed Meal, Prime Quality, laid eggs that seemed to keep a good color as long as twenty-eight weeks in cold-storage, as determined by candling. More work should be done on this ration since candling will not always detect all the undesirable eggs. - 5. Hens receiving an “all-mash ration” containing approximately 9 or 12 per cent of 43% Protein Cottonseed Meal, laid eggs that began to deteriorate in color after being held four weeks in cold-storage. '6. Hens receiving an “all-mash ration” containing approximately 3 or 6 per cent of 43% Protein Cottonseed Meal, Prime Quality, laid eggs that seemed to keep a good color, as shown by candling, as long as twenty-eight weeks in storage, but more work should be done on these rations, as candling will not always detect all the undesirable eggs. 12 BULLETIN NO. 376, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION '7. Eggs produced by hens receiving 1 per cent of crude cottonseed oil seemed to hold their color as long as twenty weeks in cold-storage as determined by candling. 8. The data seem to show that the feeding of a liberal supply of fresh, succulent green feed will improve the storage quality of the eggs, but more Work is necessary to determine this point conclusively. 9. Egg producers in Texas should be careful of the feeds their hens receive during the season when eggs are being stored so that the eggs will retain their color and texture in cold-storage.