A6-228-1 5 ,O00-L1 8O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY. TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 379 APRIL, 1928 DIVISION OF RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY Grain Sorghums vs. Corn for Fattening Lambs FOURTH AND FIFTH EXPERIMENTS AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFF T ADMINISTRATION: *B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CoNNER, M. S., Acting Director R. E. KARPER, M. S., Acting Vice-Director J. M. SCHAEDEL, Secretary M. P. HoLLEMAN, JR., _Chief Clerk J. K. FRANCKLOW, Assistant Chief Clerk CHESTER HIGGS, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLErrE, Technical Assistant CHEMISTRY: _ G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. AsBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Chemist WALDO H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist . O. BROOKE, M. S., Assistant Chemist T. L. OGIER, B. S , 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: HAMILToN P. TRAUE, Ph. D., Chief H. NEss, M. S., Berry Breeder RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JoN_Es,_A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations J. L. Lvsri, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman; Breeding Investigations STANLEY P. DAvis, Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: F. L. TnoMAs, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomolo ist . K. FLETCHER, M. A., Entomo ogist . 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 Ii.I.Is GRAHAM, Foulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: E. B. REYNoLns, M. S., Chief A. B. CoNNER. M. S., Agronomist; Grain Sorghum Research R. E. KARPER, M. S., Agronomist; Small Grain Research C_. MANeELspoRF, Sc. D., Agronomist; in charge of Corn and Small Grain Investi- o> wmnhmgw ations D. . KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist; Cotton Breeding H. E. REA, . S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations E. C. CUSHING, B. S., Assistant in Crops P. R. JonNsoN, B. S., Assistant in Soils 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, Jefierson County: 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, S ur, Dickens County: R. E. ICKSON, 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 '***T. L. GASTON, JR., B. VETERINARY SCIENCE: **M. FRANcis, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian J. D. JONEs,.D. V. M., Veterinarian PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: __ J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief _ L. J. PEssIN, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist and Laboratory Technician _ W. J. BAcII, M. S., Plant Pathologist_ J. PAUL LUSK, S. M., Plant Pathologist B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GAEEARI), M. S., Chief ‘ *B. YOUNGBLOOD, S., Ph. D., Farm and Ranch Economist _ G. L. CRAwFoRI), M. S., Marketing Research Specialist BoNNEN, M. S., Farm Management Research Specialist L. CoRY, M. S., Grazinsg Research Botanist , ., Assistant; Farm ,- Records and Accounts *- ***J. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant; Ranch Record: 3 and Accounts ; RURAL HOME RESEARCH: _ » J EssIE WHITACRE, Ph. D., Ch_ief _ F MAMIE GRiMEs, M. S., Textile and Clothing . Specialist _ _ _ _ _ MMA E. SUMNER, M. S., Nutrition Specialist SOHISURVEY: _ ***W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor T. C. RErrcIi, B. S.. Soil Surveyor HARVEY OAKES, Soil Surveyor BOTANY: ' H. NEss, M. S., Chief . PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JAcxsoN, Chief SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: _ ——-———-—-—-——i-—. Chief POULTRY HUSBANDRY: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., hief ****AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: MAIN STATION FARM: G. . McNEss, Superintendent APICULTURE San Antonio): . PARKS, . S., Chief . . x, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: . D. FULLER, M. S., hief . D. PEARcE, Secretary . H. RosERs, Feed Inspector . H. Woon, Feed Inspector . L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector . D. NORTHCITIT, JR., B. S., Feed Inspector SIDNEY D. REYNoLns, JR., Feed Inspector P. A. M0oRE, Feed Inspector r-l éxfiwm i’. ma: n» 5i SUBSTATIONS No. l0, Feeding and Breeding Station, near Colle e Station, Brazos County: R. M. HERWOOD, M. S., Animal Husband- man in Charge of Farm_ _ L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdqches County: H. F. MoRRIs, M. S., Superintendent ***No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent _ ***J. C. STEPHENS, M. A., Junior Agronomist No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W. H. DAMERON, B. S.. Superintendent E. A. TUNNIcLIFF, D. V. M., M. S., Veterinarian _ V. L. Conv, M. S., Grazin Research Botanist ***O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., ollaborating Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. FRIEND. B. S., Superintenden SHERMAN W. CLARK, B. S., Entomologist W. J. BAciI, M. S., Plant Pathologist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: E. J. W1LsoN, B. S., Superintendent _ J. PAUL LUSK, S. M., Plant Pathologist Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: W. VPV. BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of Entomology S. WPWEU NNN. N.NN NNN NN NN V ....NN2 dz . NN2 2NN NNN .... . NNN 2N NN2 ... . . . .. NN. . .252 ENM NNN. NN NNN NN NN 5.2222 5222220 ........NNN .. ..NNN NN2 . . . . . .. N2N ..2§22NNN2 NN. NNN 2.2. NN NN 2 NNN .. .. 2N NN2 ...... .. NN2 2N2 NEE NN. NNN NNN NN NN N ....NN2 dz NN..NNN2 . SN 2NN $2 . .. NN.2 ..ENNNN=N2N NN. NNN 2.2 NN NN _ 22520 2252 NNN NNN NN NNN 2. NN. N2. NN. N .2222 2.22 NN. NNN NNN NN NN N NNN 6N NN NNN NN. NN2 N2. N2 .2202» GNM NN. NNN 2NN NN NN v . . . N2 dz NN..NNN2 NNN NNN NN NNN 2N. NN2 N2. N2 .222 N222 NN. NNN N. NN NN NN .2220 3222.2 NNN NNN NN NNN N. NN. 2 N2 . N. 2 15.; 2.020%. NN. 2 NN N NN NN NN N ........ .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .......%§.fi ...... . ..£NM@Q@OE fifi. N ......Q.~OQQZ . . NNN .. . NNN .... ...... ... NN2 : .. NN2 E8 NNNNNN NN. NNN NNN NN NN NNNNNBNEN @2232 NNN RN NN NNN NN2 .. . . . . NN. N2. N22 .....2.NN2 N .682 2.2220 NNN. NNN NNN NN E. 2 ..... Nsaé N2..N2N2 NNN NNN NN NNN NN2 .... .. . . .. NN. N2. 2N2 JNNN N222? NNN. NNNN N . NN NN NN 2 N222a=22 $282 NNN NNN NN 3N NN2 ... . . . . . NN. N2. 2N2 E8 8222a NNN. NNN NNN NN E. N NNN NNN NN NNN NN2 QNNMMMMNN NN.2 2. . N. ......N~.fiw0 NN. 2.2 NNN . NN NN . NNN NNN NN NNN No.2 e292 NN2 2. N. . . . . .222 . . . . .2332 N.2N2 NNEN N222? NN. NNN N. NN NN NN 222252222 NNNENM 2N NNN NN NNN NN2 aENMwwN NN2 2. NN. ... . WON N N NN N N . 2 =22 . N. N. N N NN N =32 .222 2.22M .222 .22 .222 N262 . .32 NNNB NN22N N=N=< N .0 220 llllii 2N2 22x22 IIIIIIIIII 2N0 .222 .82 N255 23222222 322212200 NwN=m 22.2.22 N .0 2&0 2N5 NNNNNB NNNNNR 25o dz =2NN222$2 NNNNNN mmwno>< 15mm TNEEH auoaioflxmm ENG Nah o3 52 322 nofifiw QNQ NmN~N>< dnNéENw Nflonfixo v28 NNQQNM N5 2N 38B M23322 8 v0.2 HEB 2282223225 58m v22 F23 cofifiwn NncBNNQEoN N83 N0 N0r§82u=w|2 NENB GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 11 Equipment of Feed Lots All of the feed lots utilized in these experiments were of similar dimensions, an open shed 18 feet in depth serving to provide shelter during inclement Weather. Slatted combination grain and hay racks of identical size and general structure were used in each of the respective lots. The water was supplied from a shallow well and according to the analysis made of a sample by the Station Chemist in 1916 it contained 390 parts of carbonate of lime, 231 parts ofsulphate of lime, 548 parts of sulphate of magnesia, 325 parts of sulphate of soda, and 1240 parts of chloride of soda per million parts of water. Such a source of water supply is ordinarily referred to as “gyp” water among the residents of that particular area in West Texas. All groups of lambs were watered regularly three times daily throughout the respective feeding periods. A supply of granulated stock salt was kept before the lambs throughout the entire period. Method 0f Feeding and Handling the Lambs The lambs were fed twice each day, the morning feed being given about '7 a. m. and the evening feed about 5 p. m. The feed racks were cleaned before each feeding, all waste or refuse feed being reweighed in order to obtain as accurate a record as possible of the actual feed con- sumption. All unconsumed feed weighed back was deducted from the original amount supplied. This accounts for the slight differences in the consumption of feed between the respective lots in the 1922-23 test, since in supplying the feed all lots of lambs receiving the sorghum grains and corn were fed concentrates and hay on a pound for pound basis, the corn lot being taken as the standard. Increases were made as this lot was able to stand an increase in the concentrate portion of the ration. The grain and cottonseed meal were mixed in the designated proportions in quantities suflicient to last over a period of several weeks. In the 1922-23 experiment, the proportion of grain to cottonseed meal at the beginning was '7 to 3, the rather high proportion of cottonseed meal being used to stimulate growth since the lambs only weighed about 50 pounds at the outset. After a period of approximately four weeks, the proportion was changed to 9 parts of grain to 1 part of cottonseed meal, which was continued on this basis until the termination of the experi- ment. In the 1924-25 experiment, larger, fleshier, and better developed lambs were utilized and the proportion of grain to cottonseed meal was kept at a 9 :1 ratio for the lambs receiving grain, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay throughout the feeding period, since they already had plenty of frame or scale. During the 1924-25 experiment, the respective lots of lambs receiving grain sorghum and corn were fed on a pound for pound basis during the first 5 weeks, after which time each lot was fed according to appetite, irrespective of what the others were capable of consuming. 4’ r <0 } r I ‘ 3 5P 12 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Lambs Used The lambs used in each of the two experiments were high grade Rambouillets With the exception of Lot '7 in the 1921-25 test, which were cross bred lambs. Part of the lambs Were raised 0n Substation No. 7 ; the others were raised in that vicinity. In the 1922-23 experiment, the lambs were placed on a preliminary ration November 16, during which period they were fed .5 pound of a 7:3 mixture of grain and cottonseed meal and two pounds of chopped sorghum hay. At the end of the preliminary feeding period of 13 days, they were receiving .67 pound of a '7 :3 mixture of grain and cottonseed meal and 2.6 pounds of chopped sorghum hay. The lambs used in the 1924-25 experiment showed a wider range between the heaviest and lightest ones than during the previous test. They were, however, better developed lambs and were all in a good thrifty condition at the beginning of the preliminary feeding period November 12. At the beginning of the preliminary period, while they yet had access to pasture, they received .2 pound per head daily of a mixture of equal parts of ground milo heads, and cottonseed meal. The concentrates were increased gradually until at the beginning of the test proper, December 22, they were practically on full feed and were receiv- ing 1.2 pounds of a 9 :1 mixture of grain and cottonseed meal and 1.5 pounds of alfalfa hay per head daily. Twenty lambs were assigned to each of the respective lots at the beginning of the 1922-23 and 1924-25 experiments. In the 1922-23 experiment one lamb in Lot 9, receiving ground kafir heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay, died January 12th from un- known causes. He had not previously been off feed. This was the only loss that occurred in any of the lots receiving corn or grain sorghum in the series of five tests. In the 1924-25 experiment, one lamb was re- moved from Lot 7, receiving ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and cottonseed hulls, January 5, 1925, on account of a digestive ailment that continued without improvement. On February 8, 1925, another lamb was removed from this lot on account of an enlargement of the sheath and an apparent abdominal rupture. A lamb was removed from Lot 8, re- ceiving cottonseed meal and hulls in the 1924-25 test, January 5, 1925. This lamb had suffered from a screw-worm infestation previous to the beginning of the test and had not entirely recovered. A lamb in Lot 9, receiving cottonseed, cottonseed meal, and cottonseed hulls died January 3, 1925, after a digestive derangement which lasted several days. Feeds Used The corn fed in each year’s feeding test was No. 2 yellow shipped from Kansas. Dwarf yellow milo and blackhul kafir were fed in each of the respective tests. An unimproved variety of feterita Was-fed in the 1919-20 test, while in each of the four later ones Spur feterita was GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 13 fed. Schrock-kafir, darso, and sumac sorgo (cane) seed were each used in one test. The grain fed Was of good uniform quality, the bulk of the milo and feterita used having been grown on the Station. The kafir was purchased locally while the schrock and darso Were shipped in from South and Central Tegras. The cottonseed meal used was sold under a guarantee of 43 per cent protein, the analyses of representative samples by the State Chemist bearing this out. The grain sorghum heads used in this experiment were finely ground and there was no waste either of the grain or the ground head pomace. The cottonseed and cottonseed hulls were produced locally, the hulls being shipped from J ayton, a distance of about 30 miles from Spur. * The analyses of the feeds used as determined by the Texas State Chemist are given in Table 2. Table 2.—Composition of feeds used during five experiments. N't - Protein Water Ash Fat Crude ged-llgee No. of Kind of Feed Year Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Fiber Extract Analyses . Per Cent Per Cent Ground shelled 1919-20 9.69 10.96 1.38 4.59 2.72 70.66 1 corn 1920-21 9.70 10.75 1.28 4.15 2.66 71.46 2 1921-22 9.75 9.48 1.40 4.34 2.81 72 22 3 1922-23 9.71 10.83 1.38 3.80 2.52 71 76 7 1924-25 10.24 10.24 1.46 3.66 2.44 71 96 2 Average... . . . . . . .. 9.82 10.45 1.38 4.11 2.63 71 61 Ground threshed 1919-20 11.94 12.24 1.82 2.88 2.29 68 83 1 milo 1920-21 10.40 12.32 1.82 2.58 2.74 70 14 2 1921-22 10.76 9.91 1.58 2.73 2.48 72 54 3 1922-23 11.42 10.12 1.70 3.48 2.31 7 7 3 1924-25 11.66 9.62 1.76 3.24 2.21 71 51 2 Average.... . . . . . . .. 11.24 10.84 1.74 2.98 2.40 70.80 Whole milo 1921-22 11.89 8.69 1.57 2.99 2.83 72.03 3 1922-23 11.34 10.23 1.51 3.06 2.54 71.32 3 Average... . . . . . . .. 11.62 9 46 1.54 3.02 2.68 71 68 Ground threshed 1919-20 12.58 12.75 1.65 3.74 2.28 67.00 l feterita 1920-21 11.82 14.33 1.76 2 .72 2.10 67.27 2 1921-22 1 .57 10.51 2.07 2.80 2.80 69.25 3 1922-23 13.67 10.36 1.72 3.52 2.18 68.55 4 1924-25 13.88 9.60 1.82 3.16 2.05 69.49 2 Average... . . . . . . . .. 12.91 11.51 1.80 3.19 2.28 68 31 Ground threshed 1919-20 11.01 11.31 1.78 3.64 2.82 69.44 1 kafir 1920-21 10.18 12 94 1.48 3.05 2.02 70.33 2 1921-22 11.73 10 75 1 .52 2.87 1.84 71.29 3 1922-23 11.60 l0 42 1.54 3.19 2.55 70.70 3 1924-25 13 45 53 1.79 3.14 2.23 69.86 1 Average. . .. . . . . . . .. 11.59 10.99 1.62 3.18 2 29 70 33 Ground threshed a schrock. . . . 1922-23 10.17 10.96 1.69 2.97 3.40 70 81 3 Ground milo 1919-20 10.53 11.15 3 32 2.91 7.12 64.97 1 heads 1920-21 10.40 12.00 3.57 2.31 6.92 64.80 2 1921-22 9.90 9.37 3 09 2.32 6.98 68.34 3 1922-23 10.05 10.20 2.99 2 69 7.16 66.91 3 1924-25 9.93 8.78 3.08 2 43 6.61 69.17 3 Average. . . . . . . . . . .. 10.16 10.30 3.21 2 53 6.96 66.84 14 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 2.—-Composition of feeds used during five experiments—Continued. N't - ' Protein Water Ash Fat Crude geri-lgee No. of Kind of Feed Year Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Fiber Extract Analyses Per Cent Per Cent Ground feterita 1919-20 9.95 12.63 2.74 2.87 6.37 65.44 1 heads 1920-21 11.28 12 .00 2.78 2.14 6.77 65.03 2 1921-22 11.22 10.41 3.03 2.83 6.81 65.70 3 1922-23 10.74 10.52 3.40 2 90 7.89 64.55 3 Average... . . . . . . .. 10.80 11.39 2.99 2 68 6.96 65.18 Ground kafir 1920-21 9.45 11.25 2.98 2.47 7.43 66.42 heads 1921-22 10.61 10.75 3.23 2.58 6.90 65.93 3 1922-23 9.95 10.06 3.52 2.58 9.85 64.04 Average... . . , . . . . .. 10.00 10.69 3.24 2 54 8.06 65.47 Ground threshed darso . . . . .. 1921-22 8.95 9.35 1 22 3 03 2.73 74 72 3 Ground threshed sorgo . . . . .. 1921-22 10.70 9.23 1 57 3 12 2.77. 72.61 3 Whole cotton- 1920-21 22.08 7.99 3 63 20 50 20 66 25.14 2 seed 1922-23 22.89 6.90 3 81 18 21 22 09 26.10 2 1924-25 22.10 6.05 3 44 19 O2 23 48 25.91 2 Average. . . . . . . . . . . . 22.36 6.98 3 63 19 24 22.07 25 72 Cottonseed 1919-20 43.38 8.25 5.99 8.38 9 04 24.96 1 meal 1920-21 42.68 7.04 6.11 9.56 _ 8 86 25.75 2 1921-22 45.54 6.38 5.56 7.27 9 72 25.53 3 1922-23 43.21 6.46 5.30 8.01 11 51 25.51 4 1924-25 42.76 6.61 4.94 6.67 11 38 27.64 3 Average... . . . . . . .. 43.51 6 95 5 58 7.98 l0 10 25 88 Alfalfa hay 1919-20 15.76 9.71 8.85 1.50 27 68 36 50 2 1920-21 14.36 8.88 8.49 1.77 3O 48 36 02 3 1921-22 13.98 8.34 8.40 1.57 32 40 35 31 4 1922-23 15.03 8.05 8.61 2.15 29 20 36 96 4 Average. . .. . . . . . . .. 14.78 8 74 8.59 1.75 29 94 36 20 Sorghum hay 1920-21 5.79 9.30 6.26 1 .95 26.48 50 22 2 (sumac) 1921-22 6 52 8.38 7.44 1.87 24.48 51 31 1 Average... . . . . . . .. 6.16 8.84 6.85 1.91 25 48 50 76 Cottonseed hulls 1924-25 3.95 7 12 2 45 85 45.61 40 02 3 Prices of Feeds The prices of all feeds used are listed at actual cost. These figures include the cost of grinding. In this experiment the feeds were valued as shown in Table 3. A charge of $3.25 per ton was allowed to cover the cost of grinding the grain. Weather Conditions During Test The Weather conditions including maximum and minimum tempera- tures, as well as the distribution of rainfall, during the experiment, are shown itu Table 4. . As shown in Table 4, less than one inch of rain fell duringeither of the tests. N0 rain fell on regular weighing dates and the regular routine of the feeding trials was not interfered with or delayed. GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 15 Table 3.—Prices of feeds used in experiments. Years Feeds —i—-—--i———- 1922-23 1924-25 Ground shelled corn, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $36.06 $53.00 Whole threshed milo, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.66 . . . . . . . . . . Ground threshed milo, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.91 41.50 Ground threshed feterita, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.91 41.50 Ground threshed kafir, er ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.91 41.50 Ground threshed schroc . per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.91 . . . . . . . . . . Ground milo heads, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.40 30.00 Ground feterita heads, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.40 . . . . . . . . . . Ground kafir heads, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.40 . . . . . . . . . . Whole cottonseed, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.00 30.00 Cottonseed meal, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.60 42.00 Cottonseed hulls, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.92 10.50 Alfalfa hay, per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.00 30.00 Table 4. Weather data during 1922-23 and 1924-25 experiments. Maximum Minimum Temperature, Temperature, Precipitation, Month Degrees F. Degrees F. Inches 1 922-23 1 924-25 1922-23 1 924-25 1 922-23 1 924-25 November (after 28th) . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 . . . . . . . . 36 . . . . . . . . 0.11 . . . . . . . . December (1924-25 test, after " December 6th) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 78 21 -—2 0.03 Trace January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 76 18 11 0. 10 0.34 February (1922-23 test to Feb. 26). 73 84 12 20 0.72 0.16 March, to March 2nd (end of 1924- 25 test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . . 0.00 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.50 THE 1922-23 TEST Rations and Gains by Periods During the 1922-23 Test The following rations Were fed: Lot 1, ground shelled corn, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. Lot 2, Whole threshed milo, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. Lot 3, ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. Lot 4, ground threshed feterita, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. Lot , ground threshed kafir, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. O Lot 6, ground threshed schrock, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. Lot 7, ground milo heads, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. v Lot 8 ground feterita heads, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay; Lot 9, ground kafir heads, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. Lot 10, ground threshed milo, cottonseed, and alfalfa hay. .During the first 30-day period, as may be observed by referring to Table 5, the lambs in Lots 1 to 9, inclusive, consumed an average ofi .56 pound of grain, .24 pound of cottonseed meal, and approximately 1.6 pounds of alfalfa hay per head daily. Alfalfa hay was supplied in accordance with appetites. The grain was increased gradually as ithe 16 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION feeding period advanced until during the second 30-day period when the lambs consumed an average of 1.1 pounds of grain, .12 pound of cottonseed meal, and around 1.5 pounds of alfalfa hay per head daily. During the third or final 30 days on feed, the average feed consumption per head daily was 1.33 pounds of grain, .15 pound of cottonseed meal, and about 1.5 pounds of alfalfa hay. ' The average gains per lamb for the respective lots as Well as the average daily gains per lamb are also shown by periods in Table 5. It may be observed by reference to this table that in practically every instance the average gains by periods made by the several lots of lambs were remarkably uniform and consistent throughout the 90-day feeding period. Table 5.-—Average daily rations and gains by periods, 90 days, 1922-23. Twenty lambs in each lot First Second Third Avera e LOt _ 30-day 30-da 30-dav for 9_()- ay No. Ration Period, Perio , Perio , Period, Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Ground shelled corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 1.06 1.33 .98 1 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 .12 .15 .17 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.64 1 .58 1.40 1 . 54 Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.09 12.50 11.47 *36.06 Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 .42 .38 .40 Whole threshed milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 1.06 1.35 .99 2 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 .12 . 15 . 17 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.65 1 .54 1.45 1.55 Totalf gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.98 11 . 15 11 .94 *36 . 06 Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 .37 .40 y. 40 Ground threshed milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {so 1 .06 1.32 .98 3 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 . 12 . 15 .17 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.64 1.49 1.35 1.50 Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .61 11.25 11.82 *34.68 Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 _ .38 .39 .39 Ground threshed feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 1.06 1.35 .99 4 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 . 12 . 15 .17 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1.66 1.55 1 .46 1.56 Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. 11 11.48 12.93 *36.51 Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 .38 .43 .41 Ground threshed kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 1.06 1 .35 .99 5 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 .12 .15 .17 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.62 1.59 1.54 1.58 Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.85 11.60 12.10 *36.55 Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 .39 .40 .41 Ground threshed schrock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 1.06 1.35 .99 6 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 .12 .15 .17 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.67 1 .58 1.56 1.60 Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.52 10.35 11.78 *34. 65 Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 .35 .39 .39 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 1.06 1 .35 .99 7 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 .12 .15 .17 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.66 1.52 1.42 1.54 Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.63 11 .25 10.57 *34.45 Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 .38 .35 .38 GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 17 Table 5.——Average daily rations and gains by periods, 90 days, 1922-23. Twenty lambs in each lob-Continued. ‘ First Second Third Average Lot SO-da 30-da 30-da for 90-day No. Ration Perio , Perio , Perio , Period, Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Ground feterita heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 1.06 1.35 .99 8 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 .12 .15 .17 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.66 l 1.62 1 .45 1.58 Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.27 11.10 11.49 *32.86 Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 .37 .38 .36 Ground kafir heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 1.06 1.35 .99- 9 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 .12 .15 .17‘ Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.60 1 .47 1.50 1.52 Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.50 10.18 9.61 *31.29~ Averageda1lygain................ .38 .34 .32 .35 Ground threshed milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 .65 .54 .57‘ 10 Cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 .53 .96 .58. Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.56 1.42 1.40 1 .461 Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.97 11.45 11.29 *34.71‘ Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .40 .38 .38 .39~ *Total gain for entire period. The lambs in Lots 1 to 9, inclusive, received grain and cottonseed’ meal in a proportion of 7 parts of grain to 3 parts of cottonseed meal from November 29 to December 28, when the ration was changed to 9 parts .of grain to 1 of cottonseed meal, and fed in this proportion until the termination of the 1922-23 test. Lot 10 received a mixture of two parts of ground threshed milo to one part of Whole cottonseed during the first four weeks of the experiment. On December 28 the ration was changed to 1.75 parts of grain to 1.25 parts of cottonseed. The ration Was changed to equal parts of grain and cottonseed January 18. The proportion of cottonseed was gradually increased as the experiment progressed until at the end of the feeding period the lambs Were receiv- ing 6 parts of ground threshed milo to 11 parts of whole cottonseed; or, stated on the basis of concentrates consumed, the lambs in Lot 1O were consuming 1.1 pounds of whole cottonseed and .6 pound of ground threshed milo per head daily at the end of the 90-day feeding period- There Xzvas more of a tendency toward laxativeness on this ration than in any of the other lots. This was due to the high oil content of the- cottonseed. At one time or another as the feeding period advanced, there was a slight tendency toward laxativeness in most of the lots, in- eluding Lot 1 receiving corn. The only two exceptions noted by Mr. J. H. Jones, the feeder, were Lots 6 and 8, receiving ground threshed schrock and ground feterita heads, respectively. It was observed also- that the appetites of these two lots were always slightly above the average of the others. 18 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Quantity and Cost of Feed Required to Produce 100' Pounds 0f Gain Table 6 illustrates the manner in which the lambs in the respective ‘ lots responded to the different kinds of grain.‘ This table shows the i average amount of feed required to produce 100 pounds of gain during - the 90-day feeding period. The largest gain was made by Lot 5, Which received ground threshed . kafir, although there was less than .5 pound difference in the average total t gain per head (feed lot basis) in Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5, receiving ground i shelled corn, whole threshed milo, ground threshed feterita, and ground i threshed kafir, respectively, during the 90-day period. The cheapest 1 gain in any of these four lots was made by the one receiving corn. This is accounted for by the fact that corn was available during this particular ~ year of drouth at a cost of $3.85 per ton less than the ground threshed i grain sorghums, all of Which were charged to the experiment at actual i cost figures. The average consumption of feed per lamb during the 90-day period - was about 89 pounds of grain, 15 pounds of cottonseed meal, and 140 A pounds of alfalfa hay. The feed requirement per 100 pounds of gain ' was remarkably low in each of the respective lots. Lot 4, which was .- slightly lowest in this respect, required 244 pounds of ground threshed feterita, 42 pounds of cottonseed meal, and 383 pounds of alfalfa hay at ’ a cost of $11.96 as compared with 244 pounds of ground threshed kafir, ‘ 42 pounds of cottonseed meal, and 389 pounds of alfalfa hay in Lot 5, - at a cost of $12.09. Figured on a basis of feed lot gains, Lot 5, "receiv- '- ing ground threshed kafir, made slightly the best showing, the total gain per lamb being 36.56 pounds as compared with 36.51 pounds and 36.06 . pounds for Lots 4 and 1, receiving ground threshed feterita and ground _ shelled corn, respectively. However, reference to Table 6 shows that Lot 1 receiving ground shelled corn had a very slight advantage in the average total gain per head figured on the basis of market weights. -Lot 1 6 receiving ground threshed schrock made an average total gain per lamb , of 34.65 pounds as compared with 34.68 pounds made by the lambs ' receiving ground threshed milo. One important point of observation h, worthy of mention in connection with the feeding of ground threshed schrock to this lot was that it was the only lot receiving the ground l, threshed grain that did not at any time throughout the experiment show any tendency toward laxativeness. The lambs receiving the ground grain sorghum heads were fed on a pound for pound basis with those being fed the threshed grain. On this basis, it is obvious that these groups (Lots '7, 8, and 9) received approxi- . mately 25 per cent less grain than the respective lots receiving the ground threshed kind and consequently required an increased amount of feed to produce 100 pounds of gain. Lot '7 stood first in point of gains among l‘ i the lots receiving ground grain sorghum heads. This lot required 259 ‘ pounds ground milo heads, 44 pounds of cottonseed meal, and 401 pounds of alfalfa hay to produce 100 pounds of gain as compared with 2'71 pounds of ground feterita heads, 46 pounds of cottonseed meal, and 432 GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 19 pounds of alfalfa hay, and 284 pounds of ground kafir heads, 49 pounds of cottonseed meal, and 438 pounds of alfalfa hay in Lots 8 and 9, respectively. The cost of feed per 100 pounds of gain in Lot '7, receiv- ing ground milo heads, was $11.10 or 86 cents less than in Lot 4, receiv- ing ground threshed feterita, which made the most economical gain of any of the lots receiving ground threshed grain sorghum. Reference t0 Table 6 will show that Lot '7' also returned the largest net profit per lamb. The Lot 2 lambs, which received whole threshed milo in the 1922-23 test, required practically the same amount of feed per 100 pounds of gain as did Lot 3, fed ground threshed milo. There was but very little difference in the finish carried by these two lots; however, the lambs which were fed the ground threshed grain seemed to be more evenly fleshed. Further work will have to be done in a comparison of feeding whole and ground threshed grain sorghums to lambs before a definite recommendation can be made as to the most desirable method of preparation. Lot 10, receiving whole cottonseed in place of cottonseed meal, re- quired 149 pounds of ground threshed milo, 151 pounds of whole cotton- seed, and 179 pounds of alfalfa hay per 100 pounds of gain. This lot consumed as high as 1.1 pounds of whole cottonseed per head daily during the latter part of the 90-day feeding period. Although there was a general disposition on the part of the lambs in this lot toward a laxative tendency when the maximum allowance of cottonseed was be- ing fed, it will be observed from Tables 5 and 6 that the gains and feed requirements of this lot were consistent with the other lots. The amount of concentrates required per 100 pounds of gain increased quite consistently in all lots as the feeding period progressed. This might well be expected since the amount of concentrates fed is grad- ually increased as the feeding period progresses in practically all feeding enterprises. Gains late in the feeding period consist more largely of fat than do gains made early in the feeding period, and therefore require more concentrated feed to produce them. Table 5 illustrates very clearly that the lambs in each ofthe re- spective lots receiving the shelled or threshed grain made practically equal gains; hence the cost is the most important factor for the prospective feeder to take into consideration before purchasing a supply of one of these grains with which to feed out a band of lambs. \ Marketing Data The lambs were sold on the Fort Worth market March 5, 1923. Livestock commission salesmen and packer buyers pronounced the sev- eral lots of lambs which had received corn and the ground threshed grain sorghum as being quite uniformly finished, although they were of the opinion that the Lot 5 lambs which had received ground threshed kafir carried slightly the highest and most uniform finish. The lambs in Lots 7, 8, and 9, which had received ground milo, feterita, and kafir 3O BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION each: awe: mac: E92: mac: mac: wwo: .392: wcoh: 2.6:»: omo. w mam“! w $91 w mmm. w :5 .1 w R91! w $0.] w mm:. w R9 w 2m. w .082 :00 $0: kw EBA: 5:. w B: w a3. w m3. w mm:. w a3. w a3. w 3:. w 0:. w m3. w ... . 0000:: :00 00>... . sags 0: Eammaoa: 002.: 2:: w wmo: w 0.0.0: w wmo: w m9: w mo.:: w mo.:: w m9: w 2:: w wm.: w . . . . . 13000 m»: 0a sEa: :2: 03000.: 00in: w9: w £0: w mwo: w .000: w m9: w 2:: w m9: w m:.:: w 00:: w 8.: w 300520 38130:. 0:: w 0:. : w 0:: w 3.: w 0:: w 0:2: w 2.: w 3.: w 0:: w 0:: w ....§~E%e%@2: . :00 mombaso ma: ass” $053 dosa: .:wa:0:::: ma: w 0a: w aaa w mwm w 30:» w 0:1. w 5.... w 0m: w 5:. w 0:4: w 052:0 008:0 0000 a: ... w ma a w $4.. w ma: w £0 w 0M0 w mag: w ma: w 3h w 0.0.0 w . . . . .......a:::00 :: . :a sEa: :2: $00 REE: 126E330 3:285”: mmm: w 3a: w m9: w o:.:: w :w.m: w wom: w 00:: w wmm: w 00:: w 3:: w 11.15am 30:00:: oo: :0: :60: 1.0 $00 0S a? ma: :3 h? aaa $5 awn 0am 8a . . . . . . . . .2530 0am :0? a: 0:. 3 aw mw ma i» mw mw . . ..a:::::0:: .32: .w .0 m: 5a §m mmm Em 3m 3m fin Em 3a . . . . . . . 00000.: .:::a:0 . l. . "Eam 0:05:00 II oo: :0: 00:500.: 000...: 5.5: 8.0m: 09:: 3am: 3:0: 0mm: 0:03 093:: mmmm: o:.mm: . . . . . . . 2m s02: saw: 00m.aa* 000...: 00am: 03.0: 00am: womb: 08.2 :0:.@: 03.2 a3 b: . . 100000 Ream a .0 00:... oomw oo mm oomw oo mw oo mw oo mw p: aw 00.0w 3% . . . . . . ..a:::::0:.:s:::::%::0 E . ll 00:: 00:55:00 00o: :a:0,:. 0:2: ma: an: E: 00.: 0a.: 00.: 0a.: 0a.: S: . . . . . . ..m:.:=§: s2: $5.0.“ 00:. mo:. 00:. 3:. a3. mo:. 3:. 00:. a2. ...m:.::::0.: :85 w .0 hm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. wm. . . . . . . . 0:00:00 .530 Eofia: 38:0 0:02:03: :mm. 8m. Em. Ea. 08. 30m. mmm. wmm. mwm. mmm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0:00:00 500:6? mcssaw . aas :2: 5am E80 o a.:0>< 0mm. fia. mom. awa. ma»... a3. 00:0. awa. :00. :00. .. . . . . . . . . . . . ..m:0.::::0:: 8006B :0 :50: aos :9: Eaw mam 0 a.:o>< 5.0m mm.:m momm :.mm “mam 3.0a 3.0a 2.0a ooom Y: om .13: flaws; 3E3 flaws :2: 5am 0ma$>< Sea mm. 5 owmw 91$: $42 an? 5.0m a0 . :0». 00.0w. 00.0w . . B: @2002 :..:-:.8: dams :2: 5am 0wa.:o>< 8a: E2 00.2. 0m...» @500 man? fir: ps0» 00E 00.0.: 0:05:00 .0083 P: . . wa 3E0? Raw: 0056.05. 00.3: 3&2. 3% waaw mama mmbw ma 3 om :0 amzaw moow . . 0:00:00 0.2.000: 0a 0:383 R5,: 0wa.:0>< $0.2. 0:10. wmmom 0W3 0:0... Ea: w»? wmom 00a: ommv . . . $500.: do: 000.: sa .3903 ESE: vma.:0>< om m: om om om om om om om om . . . . . .382 :0 $0802 >2: >2: has >2: >2: was has .02: has >2: 2022 aéai 22:: a.::a::< a::a::< 3:37: a::a::< amara. 4:37: aha :4 saws: saaF: saws: saws: saai: saws: saws: saws: :a0::: 000E: 0:00 0002:0300 00300300 0000:0300 00.3.0330 0000:0300 0002:0300 0002:0300 0002:0300 oavaccwwono . 65>: 00a»: 00am: 00am: 0:00.22 .53: .aw::0:0r.: 65>: 05>: .500 0212:? £3: £00.: 20>: 0212:? 02108:? 0200:? 02005:. :a_:m...:.::. 02:..::w _ @0020 055:0 0000.00 00030 055:0 000000 :0:::0.:0 :0::::0.:0 20s? 000000 o: :04 .m :0: a :0: .0 3.: .0 :01: 0 :01: .0 :0: a :01: .m :01: .: ~01: GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 21“. heads, respectively, did not show quite as high a finish as did the other lots; however, all lots Were sold at 14.75 cents per pound straight through without any cut-backs. The average dressing records as reported by Swift & Company for the respective lots were as follows: Per cent Lot 1, receiving shelled corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49.3 Lot 2, receiving whole threshed milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.2 Lot 3, receiving ground threshed milo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48.9 Lot 4, receiving ground threshed feterita . . . . . . . .< . . . . . . . . . . . . .48.0 Lot 5, receiving ground _threshed kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.2 Lot 6, receiving ground threshed schrock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .480 Lot 7, receiving ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .482? Lot 8, receiving ground feterita heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.1 Lot 9, receiving ground kafir heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.2 Lot 10, receiving milo chops and whole cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .501 THE 1924-25 TEST Rations and Gains by Periods for Second Test (1924-25) Lot 1, ground shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 2, ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 3, ground threshed feterita, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 4, ground threshed kafir, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 5, ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 6, (yearling wethers) ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 7, (cross bred lambs) ground milo heads, cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls. Lot 8, cottonseed meal, and cottonseed hulls. Lot 9, whole cottonseed, cottonseed meal, and cottonseed hulls. During the first 14-day period of the 1924-25 test, as is shown in Table 7, the lambs in Lots 1 to 5, inclusive, consumed an average of 1.14 pounds of grain, .13 pound of cottonseed meal, and approximately 1.5 pounds of alfalfa hay per head dailyf The alfalfa hay was fed in accordance with the appetites of the respective lots. The rejected hay- was reweighed and deducted from the original amount supplied. The figures in Table 7 show the actual consumption of alfalfa by the re- spective lots. The concentrates were increased gradually as the feeding» period advanced and during the second 14-day period the lambs in Lots 1 to 5, inclusive, consumed a11 average of 1.3 pounds of grain, .14 pound of cottonseed meal, and approximately 1.3 pounds of alfalfa hay per head daily. Beginning with the third 14-day period, the‘ lambs in the respective lots were fed concentrates in accordance with their appetites. This was the first departure from the original plan of‘ basing increases of concentrates upon the ability of the standard or corn- fed lot to take an increase. This plan was followed in the 1924-25 test 22 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Fig. 1. The Lot 1 lambs fed in the 1924-25 test received ground shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay during a 70-_day period. They gained 28.2 lbs. per head and weighe 94.5 lbs. at the end of fattening period, feed-lot basis. E Fig. 2. The Lot 2 lambs fed in the 1924-25 test received ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay during a 70-day period. They gained 28.5 lbs. per head and weighed 93.4 pounds at end of fattening period. Fig. 3. The Lot 3 lambs fed in the 1924-25 test received ground threshed feterita, cotton- seed meal, and alfalfa hay during a 70-day period. They gained 30.7 lbs. per head and weighed 96.4 lbs. at the end of the fattening period. 4. The Lot 4 lambs fed in the 1924-25 test received ground threshed kafir, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay during a _70-day_ period. They gained 27.7 lbs. per head and weighed 94.5 lbs. at the end of the fattening period. GRAIN SORGHUMS’ VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 23 Fig. 5. The Lot 5 lam_bs fed in the 1924-1925 test received ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay during a 70-day period. They gained 28.7 lbs. per head and weighed 94.9 pounds at the end of the fattening period. Fig. 6. The Lot 7 crossbred sheared lambs fed in the 1924-1925 test received ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and cottonseed hulls during a 70-day period. They gained 24.7 lbs. per head and weighed 101.4 lbs. at the end of fattening period. Fig. '7. The Lot 8. en of heavy lambs fed in the 192_4-1925 test received cottonseed_meal and cottonseed hulls uring a 70-day period. They ga1ned_21.7 lbs. per head and weighed 103.2 lbs. at the end of the fattening period. These lambs failed to put on a good finish. Fig. 8. The Lot 9 en of light lambs fed in the 1924-1925 test received whole cottonseed and cottonseed hulls uring the first few weeks on feed. _Cottonseed meal was later added to the ration, which enhanced their gains considerably during a 70-day period. They gained 17.5 lbs. per head and weighed 64.25 lbs at the end of the fattening period. They sold as feeders. 24 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in order to give all lots full opportunity to make maximum gains With- out being handicapped by any other group’s performance in this respect. Table 7 shows the amount of feed supplied to the respective lots by 14- day periods throughout the 70-day feeding period. This table further- more shows that a great amount of emphasis should not be placed on gains made by the lambs during such short intervals since too great an opportunity is afforded to allow outside influences such as weather con- ditions, etc., to affect the Weights at the beginning or at the end of the period. The data in Table 7 are presented in the present form, how- ever, since it is believed that they will prove useful for inexperienced feeders to follow in increasing the concentrate portion of the ration gradually as the period of feeding progresses. The last column at the right of Table 7 includes figures showing the average daily ration per head, also the average daily and total gains per head during the 90-day period. The average daily gains made by the lambs in this test compare very favorably with those made in the 1922-23 experiment as shown in Table 5, also in general summary Table 6. The lambs in Lot 5, receiving ground milo heads, consumed an average of 1.48 pounds of grain, .16 pound of cottonseed meal, and 1.31 pounds of alfalfa hay per head daily during the 70-day feeding period and made an average gain of 28.71 pounds per lamb. This compares with an average daily ration of 1.39 pounds of ground threshed milo, .15 pound of cottonseed meal, and 1.29 pounds of alfalfa hay and an average gain of 28.46 pounds made by the Lot 2 lambs. Lot 3, receiving ground threshed feterita, made the best gain of any of the lots during the 1924-25 test, showing a gain of 30.65 pounds per lamb during the 90-day period. Feeding Grain and Cottonseed Hulls Cottonseed hulls constituted the roughage portion of the ration of the cross bred lambs comprising Lot 7, which were fed ground milo heads and cottonseed meal in a proportion of 7 parts of grain to 3 parts of meal. These lambs made the most inconsistent gain of any of the lots fed in the 1924-25 test. This was possibly due to the liberal allowance of cottonseed meal, since a maximum of .69 pound per head daily was fed during the fifth 14-day period. As previously reported, two lambs were removed from Lot 7 during the progress of the experiment, one on account of a serious digestive ailment and the second on account of a continued swelling of the sheath and a condition, apparently an abdominal rupture, which appeared simultaneously. The high dress- ing percentage of this lot is partially explained by the fact that they were sheared at the beginning of the feeding test. A Ration of Cottonseed Meal and Cottonseed Hulls The Lot 8 lambs, which received a sole ration of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls, made rather inconsistent gains also. The average daily feed allowance per lamb throughout the 70-day period was .58 pound GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 25 » of cottonseed meal and 2.6 pounds of cottonseed hulls. This group of lambs was a vigorous lot and not once during the period did a single lamb show any indications of any ill effects of the cottonseed meal and hull ration. One lamb which had been infested with screw worms previous to the beginning of the test Was removed at the end of the first 28-day period. The average daily gain per head made by this lot was .31 pound. The lambs made good growth but did not put on much fat. The shrinkage in shipment to market as well as in dressing was higher in this than in any of the other lots. The lambs which received cotton- seed meal and cottonseed hulls sold at a figure of $1.50 per hundred- weightbeloW the price brought by the grain-, cottonseed meal- and alfalfa-fed lots. Feeding Whole Cottonseed as Sole Concentrate The lambs in Lot 9 which received whole cottonseed and cottonseed hulls at the outset were dependent upon this feed combination during the first 14 days of the test. During this initial period this combina- tion of feed proved very unpalatable. One lamb died during this inter- val. It was therefore decided that the ration would have to be supple- mented. A small allowance of cottonseed meal was introduced at the end of the first 14 days. The meal was sprinkled over the cottonseed hulls at each subsequent feeding and the palatability was greatly ~ improved. Table 7 shows that this lot made satisfactory gains during the second, third, and fourth 14-day periods; however, they seemed to lose their appetites during the final period and showed an actual loss in weight. Cottonseed as a sole concentrate cannot be recommended upon the basis of this trial. The lambs did not finish and were disposed of as feeders on the market. Feeding Yearling Wethers The yearling Rambouillet Wethers in Lot 6 were fed the same feed combination that was supplied to the lambs constituting Lot 5. During the 70-day period this lot consumed an average of 1.72 pounds of ground milo heads, .19 pound of cottonseed meal, and 2.12 pounds of alfalfa hay per head daily. The Lot 5 lambs consumed 14 per cent less grain, 15 per cent less cottonseed meal, and 38 per cent less alfalfa hay, and made practically the same gain per head, that for the lambs being 28.71 pounds as compared with 28.96 pounds for the Wethers. Quantity and Cost of Feed Required to Produce 100 Pounds of Gain The average feed requirements per 100 pounds of gain for the several lots during the entire period of '70 days are given in Table 8. In the 19211-25 test the concentrate requirement was slightly higher than in the 1922-23 test, while on the other hand the alfalfa necessary to produce 100 pounds of gain was considerably less than in the 1922-23 test. The cost of feed per 100 pounds of gain was approximately the same in each of the two tests, the greatest difference being in the cost 26 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 7. Average daily rations and gains by periods, 70 days, 1924-1925. First Second Third Fourth Fifth Average Lot _ 14-day 14-da 14-da 14-da 14-da for No. Ration Period, Perio , Perio , Perio , Perio . 70-da Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Perio , Pounds Ground shelled corn . . . . . . . . . 1 . 14 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.53 1.34 1 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . .. .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.44 1.32 1.20 1.28 1.22 1.29 Total gain per lamb..... 7.65 2.90 8.43 3.87 5.36 *28.21 Average daily gain . . . . . . . . .55 .21 .60 .28 .38 .40 Ground threshed milo . . . . . . . . 1 . 14 1 .30 1 .39 1 .48 1 .62 1 .39 2 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 .14 .15 .16 .18 .15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.46 1.33 1.21 1.27 1.19 1.29 Total gain per lamb..... 5.36 5.03 6.32 5.03 6.72 *28.46 Average daily gain . . . . . . . .38 .36 .45 .36 .48 .41 Ground threshed feterita. . . . . 1 . 14 1.30 1 .43 1 .58» 1.71 1.43 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . 14 . 16 .18 . 19 . 16 3 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.46 1.35 1.24 1.26 1.23 1.31’ Total gain per lamb. . . .. 8.38 4.45 7.30 5.83 4.69 *30.65 Average daily gain. . . . . . . .60 .32 .52 .42 .34 .44 Ground threshed kafir. . . . . . .. 1.14 1.30 1.39 1.48 1.62 1.39 4 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . .. ,13 _ 14 _15 _16 _ 18 _15 Alfalfahay . . . . . . .., . . . . . . .. 1.43 1.31 1.21 1.28 1.19 1.28 Total gain per lamb. . . .. 5.22 4.25 8.15 4.80 5.28 *27.70 Average daily gain . . . . . . . .37 .30 .58 .34 .38 .40 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 14 1 .30 1.43 1.62 1.89 1.48 y 5 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . .. .13 .14 .16 .18 .21 .16 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.47 1.35 1.25 1.28 1 .21 1.31 Total gain per lamb . . . . . . 6.85 4.18 7.05 5.82 4.81 *28.71 Average daily gain. . . . . . . .49 .30 .50 .42 .34 .41 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . .. 1.29 1.48 1.76 1.89 2.16 1.72 6 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 .16 .20 .21 .24 .19 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.47 2.34 2.05 1.98 1.79 2.12 Total gain per lamb. 8.18 4.73 4.32 9.25 2.48 *28.96 Average daily gain . . . . . . .58 .34 .31 .66 .18 .41 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . 1.03 1.22 1.32 1 .47 1.62 1.33 7 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 .52 .57 .63 .69 .57 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.46 2.60 ' 2.39 1.68 1 . L4 2.09 Total gain per lamb . . . . . . 7. 67 1.45 3.80 8.56 3.26 *24.74 Average daily gain . . . . . . .55 .10 .27 .61 .23 .35 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 .53 .63 .63 .63 .58 8 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.48 2.61 2.59 2.62 2.74 2.61 Total gain per lamb. . . . . 7.93 T100 5.45 4.34 4.99 *21.70 o s Average daily gain . . . . . . . .57 $.07 .39 .31 .36 .31 loss Cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 .53 .53 .53 .53 .52 9 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . **. 19 .24 .26 .26 ***. 19 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 1 .23 1 .43 1.56 1 .42 1.32 Total gain per lamb. . . .. l‘ 3.42 4.50 5.16 4.45 —l-0.04 *17.49 Average daily gain . . . . . . . .24 .32 .37 .32 13:: .25 *Total for entire period. **Fed only during last 56_ days. ***Average for 70-day period. GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 27 of feed in Lot 1. This is accounted for by the fact that the corn Was available at a cost of $36.06 per ton in the 1922-23 test While in the 1924-25 experiment it was charged against the lambs at the rate of $53.00 per ton. The largest and most economical gain made by lambs receiving ground threshed grain sorghum was made by the Lot 3 lambs, receiving ground threshed feterita. However, Lot 5, receiving ground milo heads, made a total gain of 28.71 pounds as compared with the gain of 30.65 pounds made by Lot 3 at a feed cost of 99 cents less per 100 pounds of gain. It is obvious that the Lot 5 lambs utilized their feed to better advantage than did any of the other lots receiving grain and alfalfa hay. This lot consumed 361 pounds of ground milo heads, 40 pounds of cottonseed meal, and 320 pounds of alfalfa hay per 100 pounds of gain as com- pared with a feed requirement of 327 pounds of ground threshed feterita, 36 pounds of cottonseed meal, and 299 pounds of alfalfa hay in Lot 3, which had the lowest requirement of any of the lots receiving ground threshed grain. Assuming that 25 POI‘ cent of ground milo heads con- Fig. 9. The Lot 6 pen of yearling wethers fed in the 1924-1925 test received ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay dur1ng_a 70-day period. They gained 29 lbs. per head and weighed 118.2 lbs. at the end of the fattening period. sists of head stems or pomace, Lot 5 actually consumed 17 per cent less grain, 11 per cent more cottonseed meal, and 7 per cent more alfalfa hay than was consumed by the Lot 3 lambs, which received ground threshed feterita. The cost of feed per 100 pounds of gain is not always a criterion as to the financial outcome of the feeding enterprise as is well illustrated by referring to the record made by the Lot 8 lambs receiving cottonseed meal and hulls. The cost of feed per 100 pounds of gain in this lot was $8.36. These lambs made a fairly satisfactory gain (.31 pound daily) throughout the feeding period; however, they failed to attain a desirable finish and sold at 1.5 cents per pound below the, price received for the grain-fed lambs and consequently returned a smaller profit. The Lot 7 lambs receiving ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and cotton- seed hulls required 377 pounds of grain, 162 pounds of cotton- seed meal, and pounds of cottonseed hulls to produce 100 pounds of gain at a feed cost of $12.16. The gains were rather incon- sistent ; however, the average daily gain of .353 pound per head through- 28 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 5. ; . .. .. .¥Q..m.....5 5.5:... 55555.15... Qxromnomacnv. Q 35.50 w Qm 55:5 31c... .Q.i:0Q 5Q .Q.55m0030U* . . . . . . . . .. 5.... w w... w 5Q: w 55.5 w 5.5 w 5.5 w SEN w QQ.N w.................Q.5: 5Q 5:05“: . . . . . . . . .. 00.3 w 2...: w 8.5. w 5.2 w 3.2 w 05...: w 55...: w 5...»... w ...............m::mQ5B 55:55 dwcnoQ ooQ 5Q 55€Q mQQQQ5m . . . . . . . . .. 55... w E5: w 8.: w £5: w 55.5. w 5.5: w QENQ w 5...... w ...................mQ.::0Q 8. wow: w mm m: w i. m: w o0 w w w w 5Q .55 5:55: oQQhh55o5a 55in: . . . . .. . . m m Km: 55m: .55.... 5.2 55.2 w ...........Q.55:..5 Q.5>Q555:5QQ...Q 5:3. w NQ.QQ w 5.2 w 8.5: w 21.: w 2...: w QQ..QQ w 5.2 w 5... w . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Q.5: 5Q 59:50:. m: Q w m: Q w m: Q w m: Q w 2.: w 2.: w m... w 3.: w 2.: w . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Q.5: 5Q 555:5 Qw . Q w N5. Q w .5... w Qm Q. w h w w w mEQQEw .mcQ::5m .k~.::w: $5.3m: . #.@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- 5Q HQ WU Qfimo 55... w 2.5 w $8 w 3.9.2: w 5.5 w 55.5 w 5m... w M w . . . . . . . . . . ..Q...:....:...QQ..%50QU 5Q 355 o: :5 Q.5: 5Q 505 153:0: . 5:555:55 Q5Q5EWcQ~Q ES w w». 5 w 2.5: w 55.... w mo. QQ w 55.5: w 3.5. w RYNQ w 3.4: w .1455 mQEsoQ ooQ 5Q Q55: Q0 :50 5S 5w m? m... o5... .5 2.5 5S 5m . . . . . . . . . . . . 5556.. 55552.: wh . . . wwQ. m: 5.. 0.. 5m 5m w» .5 . . . . . . .wQ.::oQ .155 Q.55wQ0Q..Q0U 5N... . . . . . Rm m... 5m S... Rm NE. 5m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w:.c:0Q 5:50 . . E5 5:: ooQ 5Q 555305.. Q.55n: 55.55 mPww. Q. w... 5.5.53 5.5 of... Q15 @105 55.2. . . . . . . . . . ......Q.E:... .55§:5.5m 5H2 55 .... . 555m 55.»... 8. QQ 5.2 m: . QQ 5.2 5.22 . . . . . . 5QE=0Q :58 5555:0335 mm 5m... . . . . . . . . mm .5 55.5w. 5... mo: 5.5 $.52 5.5 3:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .mQ.Q:0Q 4:550 . . . . . . . QUMQJ 5Q 555:0“. Q55: 130:. N». Q . 5.5 2. m N: N Qw Q 55 Q Qw Q 5. Q 5N. Q . . . . . . . . . .m:.::oQ .5w5:m:om: z... QC 5.. “h. 5:. 5:. i... mmQ. QNmQ. m3. . . . . . .wQ.::0Q :55 Q.55ma0.._:0U %§nm.. * . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ..,...W@CH~QQ Tgwfl-mw . E035 ~nfimfi 5mm5>4 . . . . . . . . .. Q: 0mm. 5m. in. mQm. mmm. >5. 5mm. ...............m:.::oQ 6:55:58 . 55:3 .Q.5: 5Q =85 E5: 5m55>4 $5. oQm m9... 3:5. 0:5. 59... 5... 2.... 8.x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .wQ.E:0Q .m::mQ5B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :0: Q55: .Q.5: 5Q =5 ~AZQU 5wm5>4 S QQ m: w: 5N mm mm mm .8 5 9.5 55 5.5.55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ImQ0c00Q . . .wQ:mQ5? 555% .Q.5: 5Q 5:5 5m55>4 2. 5 E QN 3.5 55.5w $55 Qhflm @555 $.55 5.55 . . . .5 . . . . . . . . . IwQEQSQ .w::wQ5B . .:o:.Q.55Q .Q.5: 5Q 5mm 5wm5>4 . . . m . . . . . . N5. m5 w» . mm om . QQ: S . 5w m» . 5w om . 2.. 5... . 55 8. 8 5:: .::..0>> ...: :5 ::m..5>> :55: 5m55>4 55...... w: . mo: 0:... QoQ w: . wQQ 55.2. mm .5 $.55 5.5.55 3.5 5:: .55: Q55: :5 “EH53 :53: 5wm5>4 QK Q? 3. Qw 55 5... 5.2. .29. 5.2. 515w 55.3 @555 5:130: :55: Q5 5:353 QQQQQQQ 5m55>4 mwfl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MQEN@ .@O M05552 2:0: >5: >5: ha: >5: ha: ha: 2:5: Q.55.w=0QQ0U 5.35:4 m:m:4 5:554 5:5:4 5:m:4 215:4 2:0: Q.55.w:o.::0U :55 :55 :55 :55 :58 :55 :55 w55mc8boU :55 :.5ww:030U Q.55w=0.::0U Q.55mco.$0U Q.55m:0QQ0U Q.55wE.30U Q.55m:0:w0U Q55wc030U Q.55m=0.$0U Q.55w:0:Q0U 55:1: .wQ.55:.Q .535: QQQwvQ 43:55:55: .0:Q:>: .500 05>: o:Q:>: 0:QQ>: Q.5:w5..:.Q. Q.5:w5::P 5:53P Q.5::5:m 9505.0 QEQSEU Q5036 @5550 Q2536 Q5080 Qisobw d :0: .5 :0: S :0: ._..w :0: .5 :0: :5 :0: w :0: d :0: .Q :0: dhaQ. on .5>Qm=:oQQ .55. d :95Q>: 0.: .552 fin .5:E555O J5: 5Q: Q0 bmafiumlw 535k. GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 29 out the 70-day period was considered satisfactory. This pen of lambs which were sheared at the beginning of the test carried a fairly good finish, as is indicated by the slaughter record in Table 13 ; however, they were very growthy, did not possess the bloom that a fat lamb- should show, and sold at 1.5 cents per pound less on the market than the lambs receiving grain, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. The Lot 9 lambs, which received whole cottonseed, were an uneven lot, some of them being far from finished. The packers did not desire this lot for killing pur- poses; hence it was not possible to secure the killing data on them. That it is far less economical to feed wethers than lambs is well illustrated by a comparison of Lots 5 and 6 in Table 8. The wethers required 15 per cent more grain, 15 per cent more cottonseed meal, and 60 per cent more alfalfa hay to produce 100 pounds of gain than did the lambs fed a similar ration in Lot 5. The average daily gains were practically the same for each lot; however, the daily feed requirement was so much higher for the wethers that they failed to make economical gains. ' Marketing Data The lambs constituting Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, receiving ground shelled corn, ground i threshed milo, ground threshed feterita, and ground threshed kafir, respectively, sold at $15.50 per hundred pounds live- weight; the Lot 5 lambs receiving ground milo heads brought $15.25; while Lots 7 and 8 receiving ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and cottonseed hulls, and cottonseed meal and hulls, respectively, went over the scales at $14.00. The yearling wethers constituting Lot 6, sold at $12.00 per hundred pounds. y The average dressed yields for the respective lots in the 1924-25 test were as follows: Per cent Lot 1, receiving ground shelled corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48.5 Lot 2, receiving ground threshed milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49.8 Lot 3, receiving ground threshed feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..49.5 Lot 4, receiving ground threshed kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..49.2 Lot 5, receiving ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..48.5 Lot 6, receiving ground milo heads (wethers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 u Lot 7, receiving ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls 51 Lot 8, receiving cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . .44.3 SUMMARY OF FIVE YEARS’ WORK The importance of summarizing the five lamb-feeding tests conducted by this Station, in which a comparison between corn and the grain sorghums was made, is obvious. In all, five groups of lambs were used in carrying this work to the present stage. There are as yet several phases of this general problem upon which no study has been made. The primary object in planning the study of a comparison of corn and the grain sorghums was to secure some reliable information which 3O BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION might be made available to farmers and stockmen interested in the A production and feeding of the grain sorghums, which are so well adapted to West Texas conditions. At the time the first experiment was y planned‘ in the fall of 1919, milo (which is the most extensively grown a grain sorghum in Texas) Was selling on the Texas market at a price f twenty per cent lower than that of corn, a figure which according to ' investigations previously conducted by the Texas Station* represented a A loss to the producers of grain sorghums of approximately 13 per cent" : of what should have been the actual market value of these feeds. - Previous to beginning this project, only a limited amount of experi- . mental work had been done by the Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas Sta- tions. However, this work only included one or two of the grain I, sorghums. l The first 90-day experiment, which was reported in Texas Station ' Bulletin No. 269, was conducted during the feeding season 1919-20. It f- was begun November 26, 1919, and closed February 24, 1920. Six 1 lots of 20 lambs each were fed upon the following rations: Y‘: Lot 1, ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 2, ground threshed feterita, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 3, ground shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay (standard -._ lot). Lot 4, ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 5, ground feterita heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 6, ground threshed kafir, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. The second 90-day experiment (reported in Texas Station Bulletin A No. 285) was begun November 29, 1920, and closed February 27, 1921. ,_ Nine lots, seven of which included 20 lambs and two lots 15 each, were i‘ fed upon the following rations: Lot 1, ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 2, ground threshed feterita, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 3, ground shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay (standard lot). Lot 4, ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 5, ground feterita heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 6, ground threshed kafir, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 7, ground kafir heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 8, ground threshed milo, whole cottonseed, and alfalfa hay. Lot 9, ground threshed. milo, cottonseed meal, and sumac fodder ' (sorghum hay). The third experiment of 105 days’ duration (reported in Texas Sta- tion Bulletin N o. 306) was begun November 20, 1921, and closed March 5, 1922. Ten lots of 20 lambs each received the following rations: *Texas Station Bulletins Nos. 170 and 203. GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 31 Lot 1 ground shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay.* Lot 2 ground threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 3, Whole threshed milo, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 4, ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 5, ground threshed feterita, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 6, ground feterita heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 7, ground threshed kafir, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 8, ground kafir heads, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 9, ground threshed darso, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay. Lot 10, ground threshed sorgo (sumac), cottonseed meal, and alfalfa The fourth and fifth experiments Which were conducted during the feeding seasons 1922-23 and 1924-25, and which extended over periods of 9O and 70 days, respectively’, are reported in full in this Bulletin. Average Gains and Feeds Consumed The average daily gains and the amount of feed consumed by the re-_ spective lots are presented in Table 9. In analyzing these data, Weighted averages Were used in calculating the average gains and daily rations for the respective lots. A comparison of the average daily gains made by the lambs Which received corn, ground threshed milo, feterita, kafir, and ground milo heads respectively in five tests, is also graphically illus- trated by the horizontal bar chart in Figure 10. An illustration of the average daily gains made by the lots receiving corn, ground threshed G/POZ/IVO COR/V, C5. NFAL, AND ALFALFA my ~57’ L55- ifcc/iii/Aifli/ifl/g/ir/i/Zirl 0225/5 '56s L55‘ ffzalffiéwiiijfiilfiziyf J“ m ifalwgffjgiirifg/Z/iii’ '5“ L55" 6R /‘7/L0 HEADS, CJ/VML 555 L55 {ALF/MFA HA)’ Fig. 10. Comparison of average daily gains made by lambs receiving ground shelled corn, ground threshed milo, ground threshed kafir, ground threshed feterita, or ground milo heads, supplemented with cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay, during five tests, 1919-1925. milo and milo heads, ground threshed feterita and feterita heads, and ground threshed kafir and kafir heads, respectively, over a period of three tests——1920-21, 1921-22, and 1922-23—is presented graphically in Figure 11. *A11 lots received chopped sumac fodder during first few days. 32 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 9.—-General summary. average daily ration and average daily gains. Five tests at Substation No. 7. Cotton- Average Average Average _ N0 Kind of Grain Pounds seed Alfalfa Dai_ Initial Final Year Lambs Meal. Hay, Gain, Weight, Weight, Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 1919- 20 20 Corn, ground shelled . . . . . . 1.08 .14 1.89 .39 60 95 1920-21 20 Corn, ground ed . . . . . . .88 .16 1.47 .31 50 78 1921-22 20 Corn, ground shelled . . . . . . .95 .14 1.63 .36 55 92 1922-23 20 Corn, ground shelled . . . . . . .95 .17 1.55 .40 50 86 1924-25 20 Corn, ground shelled. . . . . . 1.34 .15 1.29 .40 66 94 Average (weighted). . . 1.03 .15 1.58 .371 56 89 1919-20 20 Milo, ground threshed. . . . 1.08 .14 1.89 .39 6O 95 1920-21 20 Milo, ground threshed. . . .88 .16 1.47 .31 50 79 1921-22 20 M110, ground threshed. . . . .95 .14 1.62 .35 54 91 1922-23 20 Milo, ground threshed. . . . .98 .17 1 .50 .38 50 85 1924-25 20 Milo, ground threshed. . . . 1.39 .15 1 .29 .41 65 93 Average (weighted). . . 1.04 .15 1.57 .368 56 89 1921-22 2O Milo, whole threshed . . . . . . .95 .14 1.63 .33 56 91 1922-23 20 Milo, whole threshed . . . . . . .99 .17 1.55 .40 50 86 Average (weighted). . . .97 .15 1.59 .364 53 88 1919-20 20 Feterita, ground threshed.. 1.08 .14 1.89 .36 59 91 1920-21 20 Feterita, ground threshed.. .88 .16 1.48 .31 51 79 1921-22 20 Feterita, ground thrashed. .95 .14 1.63 .33 56 91 1922-23 _20 Feterita, ground threshed.. .99 .17 1.56 .41 48 85 1924-25 20 Feterita, ground threshed.. 1.43 .16 1.31 .44 66 96 Average (weighted). . . 1.05 .15 1.59 .365 56 88 1919-20 20 Kafir, ground threshed. . . . 1.08 .14 1.89 .37 59 92 1920-21 20 Kafir, ground threshed. . . . .88 .16 1.48 .32 51 79 1921-22 20 Kafir, ground threshed. . . . .95 .14 1.63 .35 55 92 1922-23 20 Kafir, ground threshed. . . . .99 .17 1.58 _ .41 49 85 1924-25 20 Kafir, ground threshed. . . . 1.39 .15 1.28 .40 67 95 Average (weighted). . . 1.04 .15 1.59 .368 56 89 1921-22 20 Darso, ground threshed. . . .95 .14 1.62 .334 55 90 1921-22 20 Sorgo, ground thrashed. . . . .95 .14 1.63 .326 56 90 1922-23 20 Schrock, ground threshed. . .99 .17 1.61 .385 50 85 1919-20 20 Milo heads, ground. . . . . 1.08 .14 1.89 .36 59 92 1920-21 20 Milo heads, ground . . . . . . . .88 .16 1.48 .31 51 79 1921-22 20 Milo heads, ground . . . . . . . .95 .14 1.61 .32 56 89 1922-23 20 Milo heads, ground . . . . . . . .99 .17 1.54 .38 49 84 1924-25 20 Milo heads, ground . . . . . . . 1.48 .16 1.31 .41 66 95 Average (weighted). . . 1.05 .15 1.58 .353 56 88 1919-20 20 Feterita heads, ground. . . . 1.08 .14 , 1.89 .34 60 90 1920-21 20 Feterita heads, ground. . .88 .16 1.47 .29 50 76 1921-22 20 Feterlta heads, ground. . . . .95 .14 1.62 .31 56 88 1922-23 20 Feterita heads, ground. . . . .99 .17 1.58 .36 50 83 Average (weighted). . . . . .97 .15 1.64 .325 54 85 1920-21 20 Kafir heads, ground . . . . . . . .88 .16 1.45 .28 50 76 1921-22 20 Kafir heads, ground . . . . . . . .95 .14 1.63 .30 55 86 1922-23 19 Kafir heads, ground . . . . . . . .99 .17 1 52 .35 48 80 Average (weighted). . . .94 .15 1.59 .308 51 80 GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 33 The average initial Weight of the lambs included in the five tests Was about 56 pounds. The average daily feed consumption throughout the feeding periods Was grain 1 pound, cottonseed meal .15 pound, and alfalfa hay 1.6 pounds. It Will be observed by reference to Table 9 that only one test Was made in a comparison of darso, schrock-kafir, and sorgo With corn. In other instances the number of tests ranged from two to five. Accordingly, then, the reader is reminded When making comparisons between the various lots that the record made by darso, for example, in 1921-22 is comparable only to the 1921-22 test covering corn and the other grain sorghums studied during that particular year. One of the most outstanding facts presented in Table 9 is that the average daily gains made by the lambs in the series of experiments Were in the main uniform andquite consistent. In the series of five feeding GROUVD THRESHED K/lF/R C5. 559 L56 MEAL, AND ALFALFA HA)’ 6R cos/v, c5. MEAL, at ALFALFA HA)’ '55‘ L55 §§AZH§EZY§§LZ”ZACYS' W’ L55- §§ Mfiftiigfpiiiff/Z? J49 we fat/fit; lffifkfyiiy 556 we i’? ZilififiF/Zfi-Zsé/AY 5w we GR. KAF/R HEADS, c. a. J09 L56‘ MEAL, ¢ALFALFA HAY Fig. 11. Comparison of average daily gains made by lambs receiving ground threshed kafir, ground shelled corn, ground threshed milo, ground threshed feterita, ground milo heads, ground feterita heads, or ground kafir heads, supplemented with cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay, during three tests, 1920-21, 1921-22, and 1922-23. tests, the lot receiving ground threshed milo stood first With the highest average daily gain per head in the 1919-20 test; the lots receiving ground threshed kafir stood first With the highest average daily gains in the 1920-21 and 1922-23 tests, respectively; the lot receiving ground shelled corn stood first in point of gain in the 1921-22 test; and the lot receiving ground threshed feterita stood first With highest honors in 1924-25. Figured on the basis of the Weighted average daily gains in- cluding the five tests, corn ranked first, ground threshed milo and kafir tied for second place, ground threshed feterita ranked third, and ground milo heads fourth. The standard deviations of the relative gains as shoWn in Table 10 Were calculated and the probable error of the differences between the several lots figured. This analysis shoWed that there Was no likelihood 34 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION .:s2ws>?: . - . - . . - . . . - - - - . . . . . . - - - . . ¢ . - - . - ' . - - - . - . . . . v - ~ ¢ . . . - - . - . . - . - . - .. --..u..@mwk@>< Q. H215 Q2: :5 ag 9% m? Sm. :5. mwm. Sm. 2m. 8m. 85.8w .252: 2:2 2. H82: ma.“ mfi: W»: ma: .15 wwm. .3». S? mm»... S». NB. . . . . . . . Qaizm . . . wwfiflzn: ha“: 3. 3H :52: ma: 9Q: W8 m? v.3 m3. 5:. w? N3. 2m Qwm. . . .:.v...z.:ww.._.%wfl._w:.wmzum Q. “I32: 9% NS ad: Q2: F2: wwm. 8:2 Q»... 5m. Em. 2%. 252w Réwfifiai: mw. H3. z: $3 N. 2: :4»: m2 2:: Em. m3. S? mmm. NS. mam. eizzm 8:22 .55 Qmwsi mgfi: n28: ~32: 3-82 $.22 t§s>< wig: 3mm: $-32 3-82 :52: 260s =5“. Hifimv h0fi@ WHIMU uzanfiwm mfiin-OQ .352 we 32 2:.“ >2 QUQE 38m >23: vmm.:o><|.o~ 03mm. GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 35 Table 1l.—General summary, average amount of feed required per 100 pounds gain, five tests at Substation N0. 7. No. Days Grain Cottonseed Alialta Year on —-- Meal, Hay, Feed Kind Pounds Pounds Pounds 1919-20 9O Corn, ground shelled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 36 482 1920-21 90 Corn, ground shelled . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . 281 50 472 1921-22 105 Corn, ground shelled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 39 458 1922-23 9O Corn, ground shelled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 42 386 1924-25 7O Corn, ground shelled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 37 321 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 41 426 1919-20 9O Milo, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 36 481 1920-21 90 Milo, ground threshed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 50 468 1921-22 105 Milo, ground threshed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 40 461 1922-23 90 Milo, ground threshed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 44 388 1924-25 70 Milo, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 38 318 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 41 426 1921-22 105 Milo, whole threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 42 490 1922-23 90 Milo, whole threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 42 386 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 42 437 1919-20 90 Feterita, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 39 526 1920-21 90 Feterita, ground threshed . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 289 50 473 1921-22 105 Feterita, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 42 490 1922-23 90 Feterita, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 42 384 1924-25 70 Feterita, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 36 299 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 42 434 1919-20 9O Kafir, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 38 509 1920-21 9O Kafir, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 49 461 1921-22 105 Kafir, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 4O 463 1922-23 9O Kafir, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 42 389 1924-25 7O Kafir, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 39 324 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 41 432 1921-22 105 Darso, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 42 484 1921-22 105 Sorgo, ground threshed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 43 500 1922-23 90 Schrock, ground threshed . . . . . _ . , . . . . . . 257 44 417 1919-20 9O Milo heads, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 39 523 1920-21 9O Milo heads, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 5O 475 1921-22 105 Milo heads, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 44 508 1922-23 90 Milo heads, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 44 401 1924-25 70 Milo heads, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 40 320 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 43 448 1919-20 9O Feterita heads, ground . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . 319 41 559 1920-21 9O Feterita heads, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 54 511 1921-22 105 Feterita heads, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 45 523 1922-23 9O Feterita heads, ground. . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 46 432 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 46 505 1920-21 90 Kafir heads, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 55 512 ‘ 1921-22 105 Kafir heads, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 47 546 1922-23 90 Kafir heads, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 49 438 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 50 499 36 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION that any one of the thrashed grains fed had any distinct advantage over the others in producing gains. Furthermore, this analysis reveals that the gains to be expected for lambs receiving ground milo heads on a pound for pound basis With threshed grain will nearly always be smaller than for those receiving the threshed grain. Feed Required per 100 Pounds of Gain The feed requirement per 100 pounds of gain for the corn lot, which was used as the standard in each of the five comparisons, was as follows: 1919-20 test, corn 2'75 pounds, cottonseed meal 36 pounds, alfalfa hay 482 pounds. 1920-21 test, corn 281 pounds, cottonseed meal 50 pounds, alfalfa hay 472 pounds. 1921-22 test, corn 267 pounds, cottonseed meal 39 pounds, alfalfa hay 458 pounds. 1922-23 test, corn 246 pounds, cottonseed meal 42 pounds, alfalfa hay 386 pounds. 1924-25 test, corn 334 pounds, cottonseed meal 37 pounds, alfalfa hay 321 pounds. The average feed requirements per 100 pounds of gain for the five tests were: corn 2'78 pounds, cottonseed meal 41 pounds, and alfalfa hay 426 pounds. Table 11 shows that the feed requirements of the respective lots that stood first in point of gain during each of the years, were only very slightly below the feed requirement per 100 pounds of gain for the other lots which did not make the bestgains. In the 1922-23 test, Lot 4, receiving ground threshed feterita, made only a slightly smaller gain than did Lot 5, which stood first that year in point of gain; yet this lot required 5 pounds less alfalfa hay per 100 pounds of gain than did the Lot 4 lambs. The standard deviations of the relative amounts of concentrates con- sumed per 100 pounds of gain by the lots which received ground shelled corn, ground threshed milo, feterita, kafir, and ground milo heads, re spectively, in the 1919-20, 1920-21, 1921-22, 1922-23, and 1924-25 tests ' were calculated from Table 12 and the probable errors of the differences between the several lots figured. This analysis showed that there were no significant differences in the concentrate requirement per 100 pounds of gain between the respective lots receiving ground shelled or threshed grain. The probable error of the difference was lowest between the ground threshed milo and kafir lots, it being only .38 times the differ- ence while the highest, which was between the lots receiving corn and milo heads, showed the difference to be 6.8 times the probable error. The differences in the concentrate requirements between the milo heads lot and those which received ground shelled or threshed grain was significant. A comparison of the feed requirement per 100 pounds-of gain for the lambs receiving corn in the five Texas tests with results reported by 37 GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS .02 mm 3W3 viauuawwp 3/: we wmnhrfiw cc cw .wm* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iifiwm mdmm wdfim wdmm mum ......H............vwm~v>< w». H 2 Q2 N9: Th2 mus: #2: vmi mmwm z; mom m3 mmm >3 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 . . . . . . womcguoo was 2:3: 01E wnsobw C. H3 2w w mofi m 8 M g w E Q52 . m. m . m _ . 1m 3 . o2 m. mo a . .8 v m N2 m . m2 m . s: “WM Mafia wvwmmwvgqwo. v.14 wmwwrWowflrwwhnh. . . . . . . . . . oowcoaaoo cw m i»? E. Hmfi. w». N. 2w o m2 H R. m .3 q g w mmm owm Maw 3m mum 2m . . . . . . . . w. . . . .~._mo~~: flhnmohne . . . . . . . . éofiou was 01E EDOQM o w“: 2 HE .8 w 8 w we a ma H 2: N. mm q 8m Em www mom Em 2m ..._woE mavéfipoowwaw Eofl wszwm uww$>< @253 mTNQ: mmimfi Hméfl: @122 .>< mméwfi m~|~§._ wmifi: EAE: owlfii ._.vmwfi$o~‘wm 255cm QEUC 55G dmmw Mo .2253 o2 3Q wofiswcoo wofiwbcooconvlldfi 03w? 38 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Henry and Morrison* covering the work of eight stations with 26 lots including 527 lambs fed an unlimited allowance of shelled corn and either alfalfa or clover hay over periods averaging 90 days, shows that the feed requirement per 100 pounds of gain Was 12 per cent larger than it was in the Texas experiments. The average daily gain made by the Texas-fed lambs ranged from .04 to .05 higher per head daily than the N orthern-fed lambs, which accounts in part for this difference. The average gains made by the lambs constituting the several lots in the five experiments and the feed consumed in producing them during the 70- to 105-day periods are shown in Table 13. A good feeder lamb receiving a properly balanced ration should gain between .3 and .4 pound daily throughout the entire feeding period. This table shows that the total gains ranged between 17.5 pounds (made by the small lambs fed cottonseed and cottonseed hulls in the 1924-25 test) and 37 pounds. The total gain made during the 90-day periods by lambs fed grain, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay averaged around 33 pounds per head, feed-lot basis. The feed required to produce a gain of 28 to 35 pounds according to these tests ranged from 79 to 100 pounds of grain, 10.5 to 15 pounds of cottonseed meal, and 90 to 170 pounds of alfalfa hay. With the excep- tion of the 1919-20 test, when the waste hay was not deducted, the amount of alfalfa hay represented in Table 13 is that which was actually consumed. In all other instances the waste, or rejected hay which averaged 3 to 27 pounds per lamb during the feeding period, was deducted from the original amount fed. Ground Heads and Ground Threshed Sorghum Grain Compared The prospective feeder is frequently confronted with the question as to whether the ground threshed grain or the ground grain sorghum heads can be most economically utilized in his lamb-feeding operations. Since there is approximately 33 per cent more grain in a ton of threshed milo, for example, than in a ton of well matured milo heads, the price per ton for the threshed grain should figure about 33 per cent above the actual value of.a ton of milo heads,,provided the pomace is quite worth- less. As an illustration, if threshed milo is worth $40 per ton, the headed grain should not be priced higher than $30. In the five tests conducted by this Station, the average total amount of feed consumed by the lambs receiving ground milo heads was 789 pounds as compared with 749 pounds by the lot receiving ground threshed milo per 100 pounds of gain. The lambs fed milo heads con- sumed approximately 5 per cent more grain including pomace ; however, if 25 per cent, which is the approximate amount of head steams or pomace, is deducted from the total weight of ground milo heads con- sumed per 100 pounds of gain, it will be observed that the lambs re- *Feeds and Feeding, by Henry & Morrison, 18th Edition, page 550. GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 39 Table 13.—-General summary showing average amount 0f feed consumed per lamb in making gains ranging from 17 pounds to 37 pounds during feeding periods of 70 to 105 days, at Substation No. 7. Grain Roughage Average No. —-— -— Cotton- Gain Per Year Days _ seed _ Lamb, on Kind Pounds Meal. Kmd Pounds Feed-lot Feed Pounds Basis. Lbs. 1919-20 90 Ground shelled corn . . . . . . 97 13 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 35 1920-21 90 Ground shelled corn . . . . . . 79 14 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 28 1921-22 105 Ground shelled corn . . . . . . 100 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 37 1922-23 90 Ground shelled corn . . . . . . 89 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 36 1924- 25 70 Ground shelled corn . . . . . . 94 10 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 28 1919-20 90 Ground threshed milo. . . . . 97 13 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 35 1920-21 90 Ground threshed milo. . . . . 79 14 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 132 28 1921-22 105 Ground threshed milo. . . . . 100 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 37 1922-23 90 Ground threshed milo. . . . . 88 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 35 1924-25 70 Ground threshed milo. . . . . 97 11 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 28 1921-22 105 Whole threshed milo . . . . . . 100 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 35 1922-23 90 Whole threshed milo . . . . . . 89 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 36 1919-20 90 Ground threshed feterits.. . 97 13 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 32 1920-21 90 Ground threshed feterita. . 79 14 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 28 1921-22 105 Ground threshed feterita. . 100 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 35 1922-23 90 Ground threshed feterita. . 89 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 37 1924-25 70 Ground threshed feterita. . 100 11 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 31 1919-20 90 Ground threshed kafir. . . . . 97 13 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 34 1920-21 90 Ground thrashed kafir.. . . . 79 14 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 29 1921-22 105 Ground threshed kafir. . . . . 100 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 37 1922-23 90 Ground threshed kafir. . . . . 89 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 37 1924-25 70 Ground threshed kafir. . . . . 97 11 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 28 1921-22 105 Ground thrashed darso. . . . 100 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 35 1921-22 105 Ground threshed sorgo. .‘ . . 100 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 34 1922-23 90 Ground threshed schrock. . 89 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 35 1919-20 90 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . 97 13 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . 170 33 1920-21 90 Ground milo heads. . . . . 79 14 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 28 1921-22 105 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . 100 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 33 1922-23 90 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . 89 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 34 1924-25 70 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . 104 12 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 29 1919-20 90 Ground feterita heads. . . . . 97 13 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 30 1920-21 90 Ground feterita heads. . . . . 79 14 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 26 1921-22 105 Ground feterita heads. . . . . 100 15 Alfalfa hay. . . 170 32 1922-23 90 Ground feterita heads. . . . . 89 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 142 33 1920-21 90 Ground kafir heads . . . . . . . 79 14 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 26 1921-22 105 Ground kafir heads . . . . . . . 100 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 31 1922-23 90 Ground kafir heads . . . . . . . 89 15 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 31 1920-21 90 Ground threshed milo. . . . . 33 55* Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 31 1922-23 90 Ground threshed milo. . . . . 52 53* Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 35 1920-21 90 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . 74 14 Sorghum hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 23 1924-25 70 Ground milo heads“. . . . . 120 14 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 29 1924-25 70 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . 93 40 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . 147 25 1924-25 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . 183 22 1924-25 70 Cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 13 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . 92 17 ‘Cottonseed. “Yearling wethers. 4O BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ceiving the ground threshed milo consumed 33 per cent more actual grain than did the lambs which received the milo heads. In the feeding of grain sorghums to fattening lambs, these experi- ments herein reported point to the conclusion that milo heads finely ground can be more economically utilized than the ground threshed grain. The lambs receiving ground feterita heads and kafir heads failed to make as economical a gain as those which received the milo heads but did better in proportion to the actual amount of grain they received than did the corresponding lots which received the ground threshed feterita and the ground threshed kafir. These results indicate clearly that the ground head stem or pomace has considerable actual feeding value. Whether that is due entirely to the feed nutrients in the pomace, or partly to the action of the ground pomace in improving the physical character of the ration, or to other causes may still be open to speculation. Shrinkage and Slaughter Table 14 shows that the shrinkage of the lambs in shipment from Spur to Fort Worth, a distance of about 343 miles, varied from 9.7 to 12.6 per cent at the conclusion of the 1922-23 test. The shrinkage dur- ing shipment of the lambs fed in 1924-25 varied from 4.7 to 9.4 per cent. This difference is attributed to the fact that the 1922-23 lambs were late in arriving on the market and were sold and weighed before they had an opportunity to take a fill, while on the other hand the 1924-25 lambs arrived in time to take a good fill. The yearling wethers in the 1924-25 test shrank only 3.1 per cent in shipment. Of the lambs in the 1922-23 test, the lot which received ground threshed milo had the smallest shrinkage in shipment while the ground kafir head lot shrank the high- est. Of those in the 1924-25 test, the corn-fed lot had the lowest shrink- age, while the cottonseed meal and hull lot shrank the heaviest in ship- ment. The standard deviations of the relative shrinkages of the lots which received corn, ground threshed milo, feterita, kafir, and ground milo heads, respectively, in the 1920-21, 1921-22, 1922-23, and 1924-25 tests were calculated from Table 15 and the probable errors of the difierences between the several lots figured. This analysis showed that there did not seem to be any tendency for any group receiving any kind of threshed or shelled grain to shrink any more than any other in shipment to market. The dressing percentages of the respective groups are also shown in Table 14. The lambs in the 1922-23 test which received ground threshed kafir and ground threshed feterita dressed 49.3 and 47.9 per cent, respectively. These two lots tied for second place in the grading of the carcasses of all lots—Lot 1, which received ground threshed milo, standing first according to the packer’s rating. The lambs which re- ceived ground kafir heads showed the lowest dressing record among the lots fed in 1922-23. In the 1924-25 test, the lambs which received GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 41 Table 14.—Shrinkage in transit and slaughter data. Four vears' experiments. Shrinkage in Average Dressing. Per Cent Shipment Weight .?—-————-— Average Average Grain Year —-——-—-—-— Dressed Basis Basis Weight Weight Per Carcasses, Feed-lot Market Internal Pelts, Head, Per Pounds Weights Weights Fat, Lbs. Pounds Pounds Cent Ground shelled corn . . . . . . 1920-21 4.33 5 .53 32.4 41.4 43 .8 Ground shelled corn . . . . . . 1921-22 6.97 7.58 41.1 44.7 48.3 Ground shelled corn . . . . . . 1922-23 9.52 11.07 37.7 43.8 49.3 Ground shelled corn . . . . . . 1924-25 4.46 4.7 43.6 46.1 48.4 Ground threshed milo. . . .. 1920-21 7.63 9.7 31.1 39.6 43.8 Ground thrashed milo. . . . . 1921-22 6.83 7.48 40.2 44.0 47.6 Ground threshed mio. . . . . 1922-23 8.21 9.66 37.56 44.2 48.9 Ground threshed milo.. . . . 1924-25 4.85 5.2 44.1 47.2 49.8 Whole thrashed milo . . . . . . 1921-22 6.87 7 .52 42.6 46.6 50.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whole thrashed milo . . . . . . 1922-23 10.06 11 .76 37.16 43 .4 49.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground threshed feterita. . 1920-21 4.57 5. 82 32.3 41.1 43. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground threshed feterita. . 1921-22 8.77 9.66 40.0 44.1 48.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground threshed feterita. . 1922-23 10.1 11.90 35.80 42.2 47 .9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Ground threshed feterita. . 1924-25 5.92 6.1 44.8 46.5 49.5 2.15 16 75 Ground threshed kafir. . . .. 1920-21 3.98 5.01 32.9 41.4 43.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Ground threshed kafir. . . . . 1921-22 5.40 5.84 43.5 47.1 50.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground thrashed kafir. . . .. 1922-23 10.08 11.81 37.07 43.4 49.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Ground threshed kafirn. . . . 1924-25 5.78 6.1 43.7 46.2 49.2 2.10 15 75 Ground threshed darso. . .. 1921-22 8.37 9.31 38.5 42.8 47.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground thrashed sorgo. . .. 1921-22 9.2 10.2 38.6 42.8 47 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground threshed schrock. . 1922-23 10.38 12.19 35.89 42 2 48 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground milo heads . . . . . . . 1920-21 5.63 7.16 31.1 39.6 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground milo heads . . . . . . . 1921-22 9.03 10.14 38.0 42.7 47 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground milo heads . . . . . . . 1922-23 9.34 11.14 35.89 42.8 48 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground milo heads . . . . . . . 1924-25 6.36 6.7 42.9 45.2 48 5 2.00 14 90 Ground milo heads, yr. ' wethers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1924-25 3.68 3.1 57.3 48.5 50 0 2.68 17 05 Ground feterita heads. . . . . 1920-21 5.43 7.1 30.0 39.3 42.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground feterita heads. . . . . 1921-22 7.83 8.86 37.5 42.5 46.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground feterita heads. . . . . 1922-23 10.24 12.30 35.11 42.2 48.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground kafir heads . . . . . . . 1920-21 4.70 6.21 34.4 45.4 48.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground kafir heads . . . . . . . 1921-22 6.37 7.42 36 .1 42 .0 45.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground kafir heads . . . . . . . 1922-23 10.00 12.54 32.89 41 .2 47.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground threshed milo and cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . 1920-21 7.61 9 41 33.2 41 0 45.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground threshed milo and cottonseed . . . . . . . . . 1922-23 8.56 10 18 37.80 45 0 50 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milo heads, cottonseed meal and sorghum hay 1920-21 4.60 6.28 29.5 40.3 43.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground milo heads and cottonseed hulls . . . . . . 1924-25 8.62 8.5 48.1 47.4 51.8 2.47 10.50 Cottonseed meal and hulls. 1924-25 9 .74 9.4 41.4 40.1 44.3 1.59 17. 58 42 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ~ . - - . - - . - .. - - - - . . . . . . -u . - . - - . . . . - . - - . . . . . . - - v -.%§€-m q-§~ . . - - - . . . .¢.-..¢--¢.u~¢@m$-E@>< S. wH wm. ::: w:: 2.. mm: ww: ww H N. wwuw ww . w www www . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..::52w awwé. 2:2 wflwfl www ww: S: w» w» :w w w“ w www: 3w www . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . ........w:5w::w wwfi: $41“ wflww: ww: B: 2: 5 wwk Nww :.w: 3w 5+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:E=8w wwmwaa: wwwfi www: ww 5 Q w: www wwe 8w www wws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wizzw .2§: wfiwfi wwww :w S: :5 ww Nw w www N2: www wwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .ww::w::w E5 wwwbi: wmeww: wfimww: $5.: awmw: wwfiw>< wig: wig: 33w: :~..-w~w: :50 Sm dwwxcwim oifixwm wwoi Sm Qwmxcwfim 22:55 5.3.0 Jwwimc: OH HGUEGMSM WCESU ommxcwimllh: 03mm. GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 43 ground threshed milo dressed 49.8 per cent, while the cottonseed meal and hulls group only dressed 44.3 per cent. The cross bred lambs which received ground milo heads, cottonseed meal, and cottonseed hulls showed a dressing record of 51.8 per cent, but this is not com- parable with the other lots owing to the fact that this was a lighter- pelted group, since they were sheared at the beginning of the feeding test. The yearling Wethers dressed 50 per cent. The dressed yield of the respective lots with the exception of the lot which received ground threshed feterita in 1922-23 were remarkably uniform in the 1922-23 and 1924-25 tests. The weight of internal fat, comprising caul and ruffie, were recorded for the first time in the 1924-25 test. In this test the lambs which received corn carried 14 per cent more internal fat than those fed on ground threshed milo and, feterita, respectively. These data including pelt weights are recorded in Table 14. The heavier weight of the pelts of the lambs fed cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls over those from the yearlings is accounted for by the fact that the lambs were dropped not later than February, 1924, and were carrying approxi- mately 12 months’ growth of wool, whereas the yearling Wethers were carrying only approximately nine months’ fleeces. Productive Energy Values of Sorghum Grain The productive values of the grain used in this series of five lamb- feeding experiments were calculated by Dr. G. S. Fraps, Chief of the Division of Chemistry. According to Fraps,* the productive value of a feed is the best measure so far devised of the net value of a feed for the production of fat, heat, energy, or similar purposes. Rations have here- tofore most generally been calculated under the assumption that all digestible nutrients of the same group have the same value to the animal regardless of the origin of the material. It is now known, however, that the net energy value of a feed may vary widely from its value based upon the digestible nutrients and that the value of a feed for the purpose of producing energy is best measured by its productive value. As an illustration, one pound of digested material from corn is worth more to an animal than one pound of digested material from alfalfa hay. The productive value of the grain sorghums was expressed in terms of fat in the first lamb-feeding testgfr however, in the later trials these values have been expressed in therms. To ascertain the productive value of a feed from feeding experiments, it is necessary to take one feed as a standard, to calculate the productive value of the other feeds compared with this feed, and to assume a definite maintenance requirement for the animal. In these lamb feeding experi- ments, corn was taken as the unit. The productive values of cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay were calculated, the coefficients used being those given in “Principles of Agricultural Chemistry” by Fraps, page 434, *Principles of Agricultural Chemistry, page 434. TTexas Station Bulletin 269. 44 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Texas Station Bulletins Nos. 185, 203, and 329, and the maintenance requirements given in Armsby’s “Principles of Animal Feeding.” Al- though the above assumptions may be claimed to lead t0 some uncer- tainty, yet comparative results should be secured since these figures are also used in comparing other feeds with a standard. This is especially true if there is little difference between the quantity of the additional feeds fed, and no significant diiference in the average Weights of the animals used. A comparison of the productive energy values secured in the five feed- ing experiments with lambs at Substation 7, Spur, is given in Table 16. The “calculated” values in this table were calculated from the actual chemical composition of the feeds fed and the production coefficients given in Texas Station Bulletins Nos. 185 and 329. The calculated productive values based on the composition of the feeds used in these experiments are shown for each year in the column to the left of those showing the therm values actually found from the experiments. These calculated values were based upon the average results found in digestion experiments, and we can expect to find variations from these averages in individual cases, especially since the average is made up from deviating figures. The feeding tests herein described give us data to correct the calculated values, and to ascertain how nearly they represent the correct figures. In other words, the production* coefficients secured by digestion experiments can be tested by feeding trials and corrected if necessary. The method of calculation of the productive energy of the grain sorghum used in the 1922-23 experiment is given in Table 17. The maintenance requirement of the lambs was assumed (after Armsby) as .933 therms per 100 pounds of average live weight. The therms required for one pound of gain in weight in Lot 1, which received ground shelled corn, were 2.294. The therms required for one pound of gain in weight for the corn lot in the 1924-25 test were 2.63. The productive values calculated for the grain sorghums utilized in the 1922-23 test were quite consistent for the ground threshed, grain but somewhat inconsistent for the ground grain sorghum heads. Statistical analyses by Fishefst modified method were employed in a study of the productive values of the grain fed as calculated by Dr. Fraps from the actual feed-lot gains. These analyses showed that the productive values calculated for the same feed in different experiments were slightly more consistent than were either the daily gains or the feed required per hundred pounds of gain. This seems to show that the productive value is a more accurate indicator of the real feeding worth of a feed than is either the daily gain or the economy of gain, this in spite of the admitted fact that several assumptions in regard to main- *Certain corrections based on. the results of these feeding tests have been published in Texas Station Bulletin No. 329 entitled “Energy Produc- tion Coeificients of American Feeding Stuffs” by Fraps. "tStatistical Methods for Research Workers. 45 GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS vw wdh Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iovdw méw wwdh Tww m”? oflw . . . . . . . . . . . ........wvawn . uvwx vcsobw 5 fiE 92. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13E fifi mvbw 5E. ma»? w? £9 ebb ........%@...= . . . . . . . “SE33 vE-obw mm m E w R. g R. m E. S. ow n R mm E. fiwh .215 Nd“. ZEN. “.3 . .%§5 . . 0:8 v5.8a N1 . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . - ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .-¢-.-omvmow vonmov Q. cs3 a i... 3w .............. .. was o2 .............................................. .. ....n_owzoww . w m3 a cs3 g w: Em .............................. Qw; vs .............................. ;........._...w:s.@ o m3 H cs2 a w; 3w .............. .....Q.Qw 3w 2w Os .............................. .;........._......=e@ . . . vvnmobfi 2on3 w.“ N. é @.S w» 3 ha» i. é vAw 35 #5 mm ww Nhmh mmiow m3 . . . . 1G2 . . . . . . . vwswuvzw v5.3.0 2.. m Q m Nw am w» N 3 Q 2w w mm NH 3 m? om S v2. 3.2. 2w .. . ....w._.iv~$ . . . .. . . . . . . . v3.2.2: @565 mm m mw m R. 3 2 w E wm 5 ~ 2. 3 3 w M; Hm S o w“. mm ww m?» . . . . .28. . . vwnmwvnu vcsovw o2 . . . . . . lIwl®w . . . . . . .. I ww . . . . . . Iho ow . . . . . . IE. hw . . . . . . Immdw . . . . . . INwSw . . . . . . . IE8 vvzoam vcsoaw Qmom. v32 Hmou. v32 3.5. v32 76H v32 29H. v82 39H. v33 o2 mm 69C LKJNU Eob A630 Eob 52x0 Eob -2030 Gob 53x0 Eoh 52x0 EoU HEB vcsoh vcsoh vasoh vcsoh vcsoh vqsoh UPZwQEOU . wmtwi vmw$>< 3L5: mmlmfi: $18.2 E182 omlifi “Fiosvovm wntunm. . @393 mfivoowiifi E ovmE mfimm v2.52“ vnw v3: wvwow we noEmoQEoo 89¢ voflfisovwUv v3“ .3 mvcsoa oofi .8.» >926 Qua mo mflion» E vommovano 53m Esnmhow “o mosi». Pwfiosvohn Ho GQwEQQEOUILm: 03am. 03.6330 00000. 0U 3A 00.0w 00.0w 30.00 00.0w 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..003XZ+N 08.6330 .300 0000033 003 03E, 0>$o0000n3 0N. 0 0h 0 0.320 0h 0 00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0m“ wlo 05633 3 003m 0o 035w 00. 3 00. 3 00. 3 30. 3 00.3 00. 3 30.3 00.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . ION 3+ 3>3 05.6.3.0 E. 00500 00 0300130093. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....13H0Xv~.:iw >360 000 08633.0 . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . - - . . . . . . - . . . - - . . . . ... ......-. ....-..-. ....-.-..-M"U+m:@@w u . - - | ¢ » - - . - - . - - - 1 . . . . - - . - - a 1 - - - . - . - n - - . - - - - . . . - - . . - . \ | . . . - - - - . - . - - . - - . o - - | - | - - . u . - ‘ - - v . . - p 030030.300 00500 3303.030 000300 0>S03000m 00.0 N0 0 00.0 00 0 00.0 m0 0 00.0 00 0 00 0 . . . . . . . . ..3>3H3F3X>P 0003003000 000036033003 0w 0 N50 30.0 0N. 0 0.0.0 m“. 0 00.0 3.0.0 0h 0 .. . . . 0HD+M3 060630000 00 03$, 0>E03300~n3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 003 i.I....wfifluD+m3+m300300/00/300000030093. >0 0 00 .0 00.0 00 . 0 00 0 00.0 00 .0 00.0 00 .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .D 00313 003334 00.3000 0302.080 003 0 0N3 .0 0N3 .0 003.0 0N3 0 003.0 003 .0 003 .0 0N3 .0 . . . . . . . . . 1M3 3000/3 .0 .0 00.600 0>B00000n3 ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .....- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. @ .... . . . . ..mfl@.flh.olulwahfinmfi WmHUQO U>3.QO:@QH@ . % ...-. ' . . . - . - - - ¢ - -.-.g-...-%an 003.0 003 0 003 0 003.0 003.0 003.0 003 0 003.0 003 0 . . . . . ...~........300E 000000.300 00 0 00 0 00.0 00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 3050 “E0353 >003. 000.630. 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 300.0 300.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 30w >000 000.630 03.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 00.00 00.00 N050 00.00 001.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .>>H~+ 0 03.60 .300 000.6>< 00.003 00003 00003 30.003 03 .003 03 .003 00.003 00.003 00.003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10H 03+ 4 030303 330.3. . 00.0w 00.00 00 00 03.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 m6? =25 00.00 00 00 00.00 00.00 E200 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. 033 0.03 333:3 .0 003 .0 003 .0 00.3 .0 .003 .0 003 0 0013 0 .0013 m 00.3 .3 0013 03.00313 000003 03.00313 00030 000330 £0030 £0030 .0032 000330 000M 00.6603 000/3 000.300 000M 0000000..» 000/3 03003 E00 .2353 HGOEMAUQNQ 030000 3.3% U005. 05:00.50 33w m0 M0510? 0300:0000 m0 GOSGTKJNU-ILPH DTQGP. N O I T A T S T N E M I R E P X E L A R U m U N0 3 00 3 00 C I R G A S A X E T 9, 7 3 O N N I T E L L U B 46 GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 47 tenance requirement, composition of the increase, etc., must be made in order to calculate net energy values by Dr. Fraps’ method. LAMB-FATTENING HINTS FOR BEGINNERS The most desirable weight of feeder lambs at the time of being placed in the feed lot ranges between 55 and 65 pounds. Since normal feeder lambs will gain around 10 pounds per month or 30 pounds during a 90-day feeding period, the inexperienced feeder should, before pur- chasing his lambs, take an inventory of his feed supply. If an ample supply of feed is available to carry the lambs over a period of 90 to 100 days on full feed, the feeder should endeavor to purchase lambs aver- aging around 55 pounds. There is a tendency on the part of the con- suming public to discriminate against heavy-weight lambs; therefore, the safest plan for the beginner to pursue is to figure on placing the finished lambs on the market at a weight averaging not over 85 pounds. When the lambs average 90 pounds and upwards there is a general tendency for the buyers to discriminate against them, in such instances paying $1.00 to $2.00 per ‘hundred pounds liveweight under the price paid for the more desirable lighter weights. The Type of Feeder Lamb Desired Since the finewool breeds (Rambouillets and Delaines) constitute up- wards of 90 per cent of all sheep within the State of Texas, the finewool type of feeder lamb will be considered. The most desirable feeder type is comparatively free from skin folds or wrinkles. Feeder buyers and packer buyers discriminate against a type of lamb with many skin folds because as a general rule these dress out a lower percentage of carcass due (1) to the heavy pelt, and (2) to the fact that this heavy-folded type does not usually finish as highly as do the smoother-bodied, lighter- pelted kinds. Time Required to Fatten The length of the fattening period will vary, depending upon two main factors: (1) the size and general condition of fieshing of the lambs at the time they are placed on feed, and (2) the ability of the feeder to supply a ration that will produce maximum gains upon the lambs over the feeding period, whether it be 40 days or 90 days. Inexperienced feeders are inclined to confuse size and finish. Many of them are in- clined to mistake an 85-pound half-fat lamb as being more nearly ready for the killer than the highly finished one weighing between 70 and '75 pounds. Finish is indicated by depth and uniformity of fieshing over the ribs and back. In handling the back and ribs of the half-fat or unfinished lamb, it will be readily observed that there is but very little fieshing between the hide and the ribs and backbone. The successful lamb feeder has learned to distinguish between a lamb that is ready for the shambles and one that is only well warmed up. He has had this to do since ultimate success or failure in the lamb-feeding business depends 48 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION very largely upon knowing when the lambs are ready to sell. Lambs marketed 30 or 40 days before they are ready for the killer most usually entail a loss of $1.50 to $2.50 per hundred pounds liveweight based on current market quotations. Supplementary Grazing Experienced lamb feeders have achieved considerable success in giving the feeder lambs access to the corn or grain sorghum field during the first several Weeks of the fattening period. This method can well be practiced by those who are familiar with the best methods of managing the lambs in the fields, but it is not recommended that this method be followed on a large scale—at least by the beginner—-until the most successful methods of management have been more fully determined. Feeder lambs will make some very economical as well as substantial gains in the grain sorghum field providing a suitable high protein supplement is supplied. In the corn belt soy beans or peas which have been planted between the rows supply the necessary protein. However, the practice of planting these legumes between the grain sorghum rows has not yet become at all general in West Texas, and possibly will not unless a drouth-resistant variety can be developed. Pea-size cottonseed cake should by all means be supplied to lambs having access to the grain sorghum fields, the average daily allowance per head being between .15 and .25 pound. Shelter should be provided to protect the fiock from inclement weather, during which time the fiock should not have access to the fields. Method of Adjusting Ration In fattening lambs on dry lot it has always been the practice of the Texas Station to feed them on a minimum amount of concentrates during the first ten days of the feeding period, at the same time supply- ing them with all the hay they will consume. Then after being on a preliminary ration for a week or ten days, the concentrates are gradually increased in accordance with the appetite as the feeding period pro- gresses. Ordinarily, cottonseed meal should constitute approximately 12 per cent of the concentrates when a leguminous kind of roughage such as alfalfa hay is being fed; however, when a non-leguminous kind such as kafir, milo, or feterita stover is being fed, the proportion of cottonseed meal should constitute 15 to 20 per cent of the concentrate portion of the ration. Cottonseed meal should not constitute the entire concentrate feed, but should always be supplemented preferably with grain sorghums or corn in order to get the best results. Oats may be fed in limited quantities during the early part of the feeding period and especially if the lambs are stunted or undersized. However, oats cannot be recom- mended as a substitute for corn or the grain sorghums for fattening purposes and these last-named feeds should entirely replace the oats dur- ing the last 50 days of a feeding period. The lambs should be fed concentrates twice daily at regular intervals. They will clean up their . . a... fmkwwknnll...n1_nj.lcr.uax u“. than. ... GRAIN SORGHUMS VERSUS CORN FOR FATTENING LAMBS 49 grain in a period of 20 minutes to one-half hour. Any lambs that fail to go to the trough are probably off feed and the feeder should not fail to be observant as to the number that do not eat their grain. Over- feeding is likely to be one of the causes of this condition. The feeding yards should be located on sloping land in order to afford good drainage. Figure 3 is an illustration of a feeding plant that will accommodate 2000 lambs and will perhaps serve a useful pur- pose as a guide for prospective feeders in planning their feeding yards. Those who plan to feed only one hundred to two hundred and fifty lambs need not go to much expense in fitting up a feeding yard. The chief item of expense in such an instance would be the construction of grain IL‘ .500‘ ‘ l Hay iazl fli’ 1 59g 549,19 JCa/e. /"=Z5' i‘ " Wahr J,” ‘ i 4’ i‘, - x flay facl . § k i ‘EU n U +_ 2 —’ f J00 J/Ieef g Wafer ,5,” | Gram lo} _ He; Fact Era/n P!!! yum Q \ E’, ' H 50o J7me’: rv-r” _s¢/r| H U |_ § a h, m“; k [I x s . Wafer .5,” t; i?» J00 Jfiee/r E U E i an» r-i-r -a'- ‘ | ' m” a“; ' 1 “ t ‘I0’ —t— :0’ Jca/e.‘ /"=/l' Fig. 12. Sample plan of feeding yards and grain troughs adapted for two thousand lambs. )ne pen at a time is glven access to the troughs for 15 or 20 minutes, the approximate time equired for the lambs to consume the concentrate feed. roughs. Ordinarily one linear foot is allowed per lamb when figuring 1p0I1 the number of grain troughs to make. A trough twelve or fourteen nches wide and 20 feet long will accommodate 40 lambs. In instances vhere a large number of lambs are fed, the grain feeding pen as illus- rated in Figure 12 need only be of sufficient size to accommodatqfor xample, 500 lambs at one time, since the customary plan is to alternately give the lambs from the respective hay lots access to the grain lot. The lay racks, which need not be more than three feet in height, may be con- tructed of inexpensive material with sufficient space between the two ower boards to allow the lambs to put their heads through to get access o the hay. The hay which should be accessible at all times should be >ushed toward the racks by the feeder several times a day. An ample 50 BULLETIN NO. 379, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION supply of fresh water should be accessible at all times. Salt shouldi also be available throughout the entire feeding period. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are appreciative of the eflicient service rendered by Mr. 4 J. H. Jones, now of Swift & Company, Fort Worth, Texas, in the feed- , ing of the lambs in the 1922-23 experiment; the helpful assistance- rendered by our colleague, Dr. J. L. Lush, in the statistical analyses of feeds involved; the assistance given by Professor A. K. Mackey of the~§ Department of Animal Husbandry in helping to summarize the five~ experiments; and the helpful contribution of Dr. G. S. Fraps, Station f Chemist, in the analyses of feeds used and in the calculation of the i productive values of the grain fed. CONCLUSIONS 1. Ground shelled corn, ground threshed milo, ground threshed kafir, and ground threshed feterita utilized in the five tests had approxi- mately the same feeding value. Figured on the basis of average daily gains the grains ranked in the following order: corn first with an average daily gain of .371 pound; ground threshed milo and ground threshed kafir tied for second place with an average daily gain of .368 pound; while ground threshed feterita ranked next with an average daily gain of .365 pound. 2. Ground milo heads ranked highest among the ground head grains, producing an average daily gain of .353 pound per head over the five- year period; ground feterita heads and kafir heads stood second and third, respectively, with respect to rate of gains produced. 3. Ground threshed n1ilo when compared with whole threshed milo in two tests_(1921-22 and 1922-23) proved slightly superior, the average daily gain per head made by the lambs receiving the ground grain being .367 pound as compared with .364 pound per head daily made by those receiving whole threshed milo. This phase of the study must be con- tinued further. 4. The lambs receiving corn gained .79 per cent more than those fed ground threshed milo, .86 per cent more than those fed ground threshed kafir, 1.53 per cent more than those fed ground threshed feterita, and 5.05 per cent more than those fed ground milo heads. 5. The lambs receiving the ground threshed or shelled grain made on the average larger daily gains than those receiving the ground heads.- However, in the 1924-25 experiment when the ground milo heads were fed in accordance with appetite, the lambs receiving the ground milo heads made a slightly larger gain than those receiving corn, ground threshed milo, and ground threshed kafir. 6. Although the lambs receiving ground heads required“ more pounds of both ground heads and roughage to produce 100 pounds of gain than did the lots receiving the ground shelled or threshed grain, after the