1,
311' '* . ~ I I ‘
w eeLLBGE OF TEXAS [LIBRARY

A124-829-6,000-L18O

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR
College Station, Brazos County, Texas

BULLETIN NO. 402 OCTOBER, 1929

DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY

Supplementary Energy-Production Coefficients
0f American Feeding Stuffs Fed
Ruminants

 

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

STATION STAFF’;

ADMINISTRATION:
A. B. CONNER, M. S., Director
R. E. KARPER, M. S., Vice-Director
CLARIcE MIxsoN, B. A. Secretary
M P. HoLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk
J. K. FRANcKLow, Assistant Chief Clerk
CnEsTER Hiccs, Executive Assistant
C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant
CHEMISTRY:
G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist
J. F. FUDGE, Ph. D hemist
S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist
E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Chemist
WALDo H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist
VELMA GRAnAM, Assistant Chemist
T. L. OGIER, B S., Assistant Chemist
ATRAN J. STERGES, B. S., Assistant Chemist
JEANNE M. FUEcAs, Assistant Chemist
RAY TREICHLER, M. S., Assistant Chemist
J. K. FARMER. M. A., Assistant Chemist
RALPH L. ScnwARTz, B. S,. Assistant Chemist
HORTICULTURE:
HAMILToN P. TRAUE, Ph. D., Chief
RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY:
J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat
Investigations
J. L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman:
Breeding Investigations
STANLEY P. DAvIs, Wool Grader
EN TOMOLOGY:
F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State
Entomologist _
. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist_
. K. FLETcRER, Ph. D., Entomologist
. 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
CECIL E. HEARD, B. S., Chief Foulbrood
Ins ector
OTro AcKENsEN, Foulbrood Inspector
AGRONOMY:
E. B. REYNoLDs, Ph. D., Chief _
R. E. KARPER, M. S., Agronomist; Grain

mnewgmm

Sorghum Research _

P.  ANGELSDORF, Sc. D., Agronomist,’
in charge of Corn and Small Grain Investi-

ations

D. . KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist; Cotton
Breeding

H. E. REA, B._S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot
Investigations

W. E. FLINT, B. S., Agronomist
B. C. LANGLEY, B. S., Assistant in Soils
PUBLICATIONS:
A. D. JAcKsoN, Chief

VETERINARY SCIENCE:
"'M. FRANcIs, D. V. M., Chief
H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian
F. E. CARROLL, D. V. M., Veterinarian

PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY:
J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., hie
W. N. EzEKIEL, Ph. D_., Plant Pathologist and

Laboratory Technician

W. J. BAcII, M. S., Plant Pathologist
B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist

FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS:
L. P. GABBARD, M. S., ie _
W. E. PAULsoN, Ph. D., Marketing Research
Specialist
C. A. BoNNEN, M. S_., Farm Management
Research Specialist _ _
V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Bola/ml
J. F. CRIswELL, B. S., Assistant; Farm Records
and Accounts _
"J. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant: Ranch Records
and Accounts

RURAL HOME RESEARCH:
JEssIE WHITACRB, Ph. D., Chief
MARY ANNA GRIMES, M. S., Textile and
Clothing Specialist _
EMMA E. SUMNER, M. S., Nutrition Specialist
SOIL SURVEY:
"W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chie
E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Sol Surveyor
T. C. REITcn. B. S., Soil Surveyor
L. G. RAGSDALB, B. S., Soil Surveyor

BOTANY:

-———-——, Chief
SIMoN E. WoLFr, M. S., Botanist

SWINE HUSBANDRY: _

FRED HALE, M. S., Chief
DAIRY HUSBANDRY: _

O. C. COPELAND, M. S., Dairy Husbandman
POULTRY HUSBANDRY: _

R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief
***AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING:
MAIN STATION FARM:

G. T. McNEss, Superintendent
APICULTURE San Antonio):

H. . PARKs, . S., Chief

A. H. ALEx, B. S., Queen Breeder
FEED CONTROL SERVICE:

F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief

S. D. PEARcE, Secretary

J. H. RocERs, Feed Inspector

W. H. WooD, Feed Inspector
K. L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector
W. D. NoRTucUTr. JR., B. S., Feed Inspector

SIDNEY D. REYNOLDS, JR., Feed Inspector
P. A. Mo0RE, Feed Inspector

SUBSTATIONS

No. 1, Beeville, Bee County:
R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent
No. 2, Troup, Smith County:
P. R. JoRNsoN, M. S., Act. Superintendent
No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County:
H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent
No. 4, Beaumont, Jeflerson County:
R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent
No. 5, Temple, Bell County:
HENRY DUNLAVY, M. S., Superintendent
B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist
H. E. REA, B. S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot
Investigations
SIMoN E. WOLFF, M. S., Botanist; Cotton Root
‘S Rot Investigations
No. 6, Denton, Denton County:
P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent
No. 7, Spur, Dickens County:
R. E. DIcKsoN, B. S., Superintendent
W. E. FLINT, B. S., Agronomist
No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County:
D. L. JoNEs, Superintendent
FRANK GAINEs, Irrigationist and Forest
Nurseryman
No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County:
J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent

No. 10, 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, Nacogdoches County:
H. F. MoRRIs, M. S., Superintendent

"*No. l2, Chillicothe, Hardeman County:
J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent

"J. C. STEPHENS, M. A., Assistant Agronomic!

No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwardsfiounties:
W. H. DAMERoN, B. S., Superintendent
E. A. TUNNIcLIPF, D. V. M., M. S.,
Veterinarian _ _
V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist
"O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborating
Entomologist
O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd

No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County:
W. H FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent _
SHERMAN W. CLARK, B. S., Entomologist
W. J. BACH, M. S., Plant Pathologist

No. l6, Iowa Park, Wichita County: "
E. J. WILsoN, B. S., Superintendent

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

5%

. BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of Entomology

.<"‘@
m’?

"U

. WILLIAMs, Ph.

~>w:o
“Rm

. . IVIOGFORD, M.

‘T1
U!

. ADRIANcE, M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture

. LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Marketing and Finance

c0ATEs, A. E., Professor of Agricultural Engineering _

. SMITH, M. S., Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering
D., Professor of Animal Husban ry

. MAcKEY, M. S., Associate Professor of Animal Husbandry
S., Associate Pr/iyessor o Agronomy

. . JAMIsoN. M. S., Associate Pro essor o Horticulture

TA: of October 1, 1929.

*Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine.

"In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture.
"**In cooperation with the School of Agriculture.

p’ ‘Pa.

Digestion experiments numbering 41 are given in this Bulle-
tin, together with a compilation of other American digestion
experiments published since Bulletin No. 325 was issued. Re-
vised production coeflicients are presented based on the new
data. The digestion experiments reported are for alfalfa,
barley, broom-corn seed, cotton burs, cottonseed hulls, cotton-
seed meal, flax plant by-product, guar hay, linseed meal, milo,
peanut hulls, prairie hay, rice bran, rice hulls, rice polish,
wheat, wheat bran, wheat gray shorts, and wheat brown shorts.

CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Digestibility of feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Digestion experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Ooefiicients of digestibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '7

Comparison of feeds used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Digestion coefficients, Texas experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

Other digestion experiments and corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Revised production coefficients . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15

Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . ._ 17

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17

Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18

BULLETIN. NO. 402 OCTOBER, 1929
  -——?i-—-—"

mu,“-

SUPPLEMENTARY ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS
OF AMERICAN FEEDING STUFFS FED RUMINANTS

G. S. FRAPS

Digestion coefficients and energy-production coefficients calculated
from 1078 American digestion experiments were given in Texas Bul-
letin No. 325 of March 19, 1925. Since that time additional digestion
experiments have been conducted at this and other Agricultural Experi-
ment Stations and some errors have been found in the bulletin referred
to. This Bulletin contains a report on 41 experiments con.ducted at the
Texas Experiment Station, a compilation of other American digestion
experiments with ruminants, and revised production coefficients based
on the new data. The feeds studied include alfalfa, barley, broom-corn
seed, cotton burs, cottonseed hulls, cottonseed meal, flax plant by-prod-
uct, guar hay, linseed meal, milo, peanut hulls, prairie hays, rice bran,
rice hulls, rice polish, wheat, wheat bran, wheat gray shorts, and wheat
brown shorts. The composition, coefficients of digestibility, and pro-
duction coefficients are given for the samples studied.

This is the eighth bulletin in a series presenting work the object of
which is to ascertain the feeding value of Texas feeding stuffs by means
of digestion experiments with ruminants. Previous bulletins in the
series are Nos. 104, 147, 166, 203,, 245, 291, 315. Bulletin No. 329
contains a compilation of American experiments with ruminants.

DIGESTIBILITY OF FEEDS

The digestibility of a feeding stuff is one of the most important
factors in the productive value of a feed, since only the feed which
can be digested is utilized. Our knowledge of the digestibility of many
feeds is not yet entirely sufficient as a basis for estimating their pro-
ductive energy. The object of the digestion experiments here presented
is to secure information with respect to productive values, so far as
digestion experiments may aid, and to secure more complete informa-
tion with respect to feeds concerning which more data are needed. The
digestibility of sugar, starches, and other constituents of these feeds is
being studied, with the same object in view.

The value of feeding stuffs for feeding purposes depends upon several
things. These include bulk, palatability, ash, suitability to the animal,
mineral constituents, vitamine content, digestible protein, and productive
energy. The most important of these from the standpoint of animal
nutrition are the digestible protein and the productive energy.

6 BULLETIN NO. 402, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Qmasiihiemmein

Protein is that group of constituents of the feed which is used to form

muscle, skin, hair, and similar portions of the body, and secretions of '

the body which are necessary for life, and to replace and repair animal
tissue. The protein is equal to nitrogen multiplied by 6.25.

The digestible protein is that which is digested and absorbed during
the passage of the food through the body of the animal. The amount of
digestible protein in the food represents the capacity of the food to
furnish material for the production of lean meat, or for the repair or
replacement of the tissues of the animal body.

Protein is made of a variety of constituents and varies in character
in the different feeding stuffs. In the same feeding stuff it usually
consists of several different kinds of chemical compounds. The proteins
of some feeding stuffs appear to lack part of the essential constituents
for the proper replacement or the repair of the animal tissues, and for
this reason are not as effective as other proteins.

Productive Energy

Pr0dll¢tive energy is a measure of the capacity of the feeding stuff to
furnish animals the material for heat, for bodily energy, for Work, or
for the production of fat or other carbonaceous material. Protein, when
digested, may be burned for the production of heat, or energy, or may
be stored up as fat. The same is true of the constituents of the nitrogen-
free extract and for that portion of the crude fiber which is digested.

The Work of digestion consumes a certain amount of energy. Energy
is also used for metabolic changes consequent on the digestion of the
food. The energy remaining after these losses are deducted may be used
for productive purposes. That is to say, it may be used for movements
of the body, beating of the heart, breathing, other bodily actions, for
the production of fat, of milk, or of Work. Energy is, no doubt, con-
sumed in the production of milk, fat, Work, etc., so that the energy
remaining for productive purposes does not reappear entirely in the
final products, milk, fat, Work, etc. There is yet no reason to believe
that the available energy is utilized to the same extent for milk as it is
for work, or that the same proportion may be used for maintenance as
for other purposes. Thus, the net energy or productive energy as
measured by one product may be quite different from that when
measured by another. The utilization of the productive energy, how-
ever, is a function of the animal, and not of the feed. It is quite pos-
sible that although the relative amount of available energy utilized for
different purposes is different, it may be in the same proportion for
different feeds. The productive energy referred to in this Bulletin is
measured by the amount stored up as fat. It is the value of a feed for
the purpose of producing fat or energy after all the requirements con-
sequent on the consumption of the food have been deducted.

Feeding stuffs vary considerably in the amounts of energy lost in

SUPPLEMENTARY ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS 7

the processes consequent upon digestion. For example, the digested
constituents of high-grade cottonseed meal have full value for the pro-
duction of fat, but one pound of the digested constituents of wheat
straw has only one-fifth the value of one pound of those of cottonseed
meal. Feeding stuffs high in crude fiber suffer great losses in digestion,
and the productive energy is consequently lowered.

The productive energy is calculated from the results of tests with
various feeds, in which the animal is first fed a measured ration sufiicient
to form a little fat and the quantity of fat formed is exactly determined.
Then the animal is fed the same ration. with the addition of the feed to
be studied, and the quantity of fat produced is again measured. The
additional quantity of fat produced is due to the addition of the feed to
be studied and represents its fat-producing power. The productive
energy may be stated in terms of matter, such as fat, or in terms of
energy, such as therms. In the United States it is commonly stated in
terms of therms. Productive energy may also be calculated from feed-
ing experiments (see Texas Bulletins Nos. 306, 3'79).

Ash

Ash constituents of feeding stuffs are particularly important to
growing animals, as they are necessary for the formation of bones, and
certain portions of the ash are also required for the blood.

THE DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS

The productive coefficients and the coefficients of digestibility given
in this Bulletin have been calculated from the results of digestion ex-
periments with sheep. The method of conducting the experiments is
described in Bulletins Nos. 147 and 166 of this Station. The production
coefficients were calculated as described in Bulletins Nos. 185 and 3'75.

COEFFICIENTS OF DIGESTIBILITY

The coefficients of digestibility are used to calculate the digestible
constituents of a feeding stuff, and until fifteen or twenty years ago the
digestible nutrients were used exclusively for calculating rations in the
feeding of animals. Developments in scientific knowledge concernng
feeding stuffs have rendered the use of digestible constituents an anti-
quated method for calculating rations, although many people are still
using them. The digestible nutrients do not show the real feeding value
of the feeding stuffs, for the reason that the nutrients digested from
different feeds have different values to the animal body. The use of the
digestible nutrients for comparing the values of different feeds is correct
only when one pound of ‘digestible nutrient in one feed is equal in
productive energy to one pound of digestible nutrient in other feeds.
When these digestible nutrients are known to have different values, the
use of the digestible constituents as a basis of calculation in feedin’

 

8 BULLETIN NO. 402, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

experiments, on the assumption of the equality in value of the nutrients,
is of course no longer permissible. '

COMPOSITION OF FEEDS

Table 1.—Average percentage composition of feeds used in Texas experiments.

Nitro-
Lab. N0. Feed D. E. Protein Ether Crude gen-free Water Ash
No. extract fiber extract

24154-5 Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 15.26 1 .94 31 .05 36 31 6.92 8.52
21948-49 Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 14.31 1 .73 29.65 37 71 8.35 8.25
21948-49 Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 14.31 1 .73 29.65 37 71 8.35 8.25
26282 Alfalfa hay (leafy). . . . 194 20.30 1.67 21.06 39 54 7.35 10.08
26312 Alfalfa hay (stemmy). . 195 15.48 1.82 29 22 38 37 8.45 6.66
21824 Alfalfa meal . . . . . . . . . . 153 17.45 1.69 23 52 40 06 7.79 9.49
25789 Barley . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 188 10.22 1.70 06 70 6O 10.22 2.20
26152 ‘ Brazos county prairie

hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 191 6.15 2.80 29.69 47 29 6.17 7.90

22924-25 Broom corn seed . . . . . . 169 10. 17 1 .91 14.17 59 73 7.00 7.02

25952 Cotton burs . . . . . . . . . . 189 9.80 2.19 31.23 40 00 8.89 7.89

22146-7 Cottonseed feed . . . . . . . 158 39.63 6. 64 15.74 26 38 6.49 5. 13

22166-7 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . 164 3.50 .43 51 .33 34 15 7.97 2.62

22801 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . 168 3. 92 1 . 19 47.00 38 21 7.35 2.36

22131-2 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . 157 43.08 10.47 11.91 22 80 5.98 5.77

22187-8 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . 160 44. 67 9.23 11.33 21 73 7.01 6.04

22719-20 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . 166 44.35 6.90 11.36 25 39 6. 17 5.86

24872 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . 187 46.81 7.55 10.39 23 13 6.26 5.86
22215-1 Flax plant by-product.. 163 6.27 1.23 45.75 32 43 7.65 6.68
21798- Goose grass . . . . . . . . . . 152 3.24 1.03 32.98 45 75 7.86 9.15
26050 Guar hay . . . . . . ... .. 190 16.55 1.34 19.30 41 21 9.25 12.35

26246 Harris county prairie
ay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 193 4.20 2.48 31 93 48 64 6.62 6.13

24732 Linseed meal (old pro-
ces . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 185 32 22 6.53 9.66 36 78 7.66 7.15

22115-16 Linseed meal (old pro-
» ces . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 161 35.62 6.78 9.14 35.35 7.91 5.22

21964 Mesquite grass . . . . . . . . 155 5.15 1 . 59 27. 86 42.26 6. 73 16.41

23160 Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 176 ‘ 11.91 2.58 1.83 71.21 10.95 1.52

24414 Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 186 . 10.44 2.38 2.69 71.63 11.10 1.76

24547 Peanut hulls . . . . . . . . . . 182 10.41 5.01 47.33 26.02 6.53 4.70

23087-8 Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 14.64 14. 58 13.59 37.08 8.64 11.47

24303-4 'Rice hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2 .29 .48 44.85 27.30 6.11 18.97

23115-6/ Rice polish . . . . . . . . . .. 174 14.34 13.73 2.61 55.67 7.93 5.72

24706 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 184 13.91 1.50 3.13 70.53 8.74 2. 19

23183 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . .. 177 17.50 4.09 9.48 54.37 8.43 6.13
24671 Wheat brown shorts. . . 183 18.32 5.08 6.48 56.74 8.83 4.50
23158-9 Wheat gray shorts... . . 175 19.87 4.61 4.69 57.22 10.01 3.60
24383-4 Wheat gray shorts. . . . . 181 19.24 5.34 5.07 57.00 8.96 4.39

The composition of feeds used in the Texas digestion experiments
reported in this Bulletin are shown in Table 1.

The leafy alfalfa hay has a content of_ crude fiber a little higher than
that in alfalfa leaf meal. The stemmy alfalfa hay has a crude fiber
content lower than the average. The alfalfa meal was of very good qual-
ity, the crude fiber being low and the protein high.

The cotton burs were the ordinary mill-run burs taken from seed
cotton at a cotton gin. They contained a small amount of seed.

The goose grass came from Galveston County and is the predominant
grass in prairie hay in some sections of the State.

The guar was grown at substation No. 5, Temple, Bell County.

The Harris County prairie hay came from a pasture of the Loin
Disease Field Laboratory of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
in Harris county.

 

SUPPLEMENTARY ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS‘

DIGEST 

Table 2.—-Individual coefficients of digestibility, Texas experiments.

_ Nitro- Refer-
Lab. No. Feed D. E. No. Prote1n Ether Crude gen-free ence
extract fiber extract No.
24154-5 Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . .. Sheep 1 178 74.63 42.16 52.95 73.07 1134
“ 2 178 74.26 39.71 50.64 70.47
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.45 40.94 51 . 80 71.77
21948-9 Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . Sheep 3 170 69.90 23.37 49.36 67.62 1128
“ 15 170 65.15 29.67 51.08 66.96
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . 53 26. 52 50.22 67 .29
21948-9 Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . .. Sheep 3 154 71.26 31.49 52.85 73.62 1112
“ 13 154 60.61 30.80 50.30 70.20
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.94 31.15 51.58 71.85
26282 Alfalfa hay (leafy). Sheep 3 194 81.47 33.66 58.25 80.93 1149
“ 15 194 78.85 30.04 52.20 78.18-
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.16 31 . 85 55.23 79. 56
26312 Stemmy alfalfa hay Sheep 13 195 71.49 31 .43 42.56 66.28 1150
“ 15 195 74.31 39.22 48.03 69.90
Ave rage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72. 90 35.33 45 .30 68.09
21824 Alfalfa meal . . . . .. Sheep 13 153 66.55 23.49 40.48 69.29 1111
“ 15 153 61.07 28.52 53.03 71.99
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.81 26.01 46.76 70.64
25789 Barley (fed with
alfalfa). . . -. . . . .. Sheep 3 188 83.76 93. 19 35.65 96.51 1144
“ 15 188 72.81 80.69 81.87 89.39
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.29 86.94 58.76 92.95
26152 Brazos county
prairie hay. . . . . Sheep 3 191 36.08 48.63 61.02 57.79 1147
“ 15 191 36.05 49.28 59.89 58.99
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.07 48.96 60.46 58.39
22924-5 Ground broom corn
seed, d with »
alfalfa . . . . . . . . . Sheep 3 169 54.52’ 78.84 34.84 63.99 1127
“- 15 169 50.24 82.72 37.56 62.31
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.38 80.78 36.20 63 . 15
25952 Cotton burs . . . . . . . Sheep 3 189 24.95 61 .55 58.03 51 .93 1145
“ 15 189 22.36 62.86 49.42 48.37
Average.‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.66 62.21 53.73 50.15
22146-7 391% cottonseed
eed . . . . . . . . . . . Sheep 3 158 85.37 98.17 53.46 81.77 1116
“ 15 158 83.89 100.00 69.48 93.11
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84. 63 99 . 09 61 . 47 87 . 44
22166-7 Cottonseed hulls
(fed with cotton-
seed meal) . . . . . . Sheep 3 159 0 62.40 55.69 53.30 1117
“ 15 159 0 56.20 52.24 64.95
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 . 30 53 . 97 59 . 13

10 BULLETIN NO. 402, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Table 2.—Individual coefficients of digestibility, Texas experiments.
Nitro- Refer-
Lab. No. Feed D. E. No. Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence
extract fiber extract N0.
/22166-7 Cottonseed hulls... Sheep 3 164 0 51.49 46.82 50.42 1122
“ 13 164 0 50.21 50.50 60.41
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 50. 85 48. 66 55.42
22166-7 Cottonseed hulls... Sheep 15 165 0 100.00 46.45 40.61 1123
22801-2 Cottonseed hulls... Sheep 3 171 0 74.12 57.57 80.02 1129
/ “ 15 171 0 83.43 45.24 44.04
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 78.78 51.41 62.03
22801-2 Cottonseed hulls
(fed with alfalfa) Sheep 3 168 0 100.00 58.49 61.61 1126
“ 15 168 0 98.18 59.22 67.86
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99.09 58.86 64.74
22801-2 Cottonseed hulls
(fed with cotton-
seed meal). . . . . Sheep 3 167 0 74.09 58.72 64.18 1125
heep 15 167 0 88.23 54.92 57.16
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.16 56. 82 60. 67
22131-32 Cottonseed meal
(fed with alfalfa) Sheep 13 157 73.85 97.39 65.00 82.14 1115
“ 15 157 74.95 98.83 62.37 82.47
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.40 98.11 63.69 82.31
22187-8 Cottonseed meal
' (fed with alfalfa) Sheep 3 160 80.63 97.12 45.67 65.61 1118
“ 13 160 78.49 96.67 42.98 79.85
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.56 96.90 44.33 72.73
22719-20 ‘Cottonseed meal
(fed with alfalfa) Sheep 3 166 82.55 90.81 27.49 66.15 1124
“ 15 166 81.09 97.87 47.43 71.48
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.82 94.34 37.46 68.82
24872 Cottonseed meal
(fed with alfalfa) Sheep 3 187 84.95 98.26 79.67 83.01 1143
“ 15 187 82.01 96.21 57.91 74.82
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.48 97 .24 68.79 78.92
22215-6 Flax plant by-
product . . . . . . .. Sheep 163 35.41 61.92 21.77 40.19 1121
“ . . . . . . .. “ 3 162 0 .20 0 22.85 1120
“ 15 162 9.47 50.00 10.61 31.49
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.74 25. 10 5.31 27 . 17
21798-9 Goose grass . . . . .. Sheep 13 152 O 100.00 43.69 34.09 1110
26050 Guar hay . . . . . . .. Sheep 3 190 74.29 13.60 45.80 72.63 1146
“ 15 190 75.14 19.06 44.33 73.02
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.72 16.33 45.07 72.83
26246 Harris county
prairie hay. . . . . Sheep 3 193 38.32 72.37 78.39 70.36 1148
“ 15 193 40.85 70.38 75.45 72.54
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 . 59 71.38 76.92 l 71.45

SUPPLEMENTARY ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS

11

Table 2.—Individual coefficients of digestibility, Texas experiments——continued .

Nitro- Refer-
Lab. N0 Feed D. E. No. Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence
extract fiber extract N0.
24732 Linseed meal (fed
with alfalfa).. .. Sheep 3 185 88.75 73.91 45.27 80.00 1141
“ 15 185 86.16 98.48 63.41 82.25
‘Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.46 86.20 54.34 81 . 13
22115-6 Linseed meal (fed
with cottonseed
hulls) . . . . . . . . .. Sheep 3 161 75.93 94.29 100.00 79.71 1119
“ 15 161 74.73 97.81 99.34 97.67
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.33 96.05 99.67 88.69
22115-6 Linseed meal (fed '
with alfalfa).... Sheep 13 156 84.78 97.63 34.09 82.89 1114
“ 15 156 83.16 97.42 19.01 80.05
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.97 97.53 26.55 81.47
21964 Mesquite grass (fed
with alfalfa). . . . Sheep 3 155 8.41 63.37 . 47.43 38.85 1113
“ 13 155 0 71.96 41.59 33.95
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.21 67.67 44.51 36.46
23160 Milo (fed with
alfalfa) . . . . . . . .. Sheep 3 176 74.15 86.14 100.00 97.75 1132
“ 15 176 81.75 92.89 100.00 100.00
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.95 89.52 100.00 98.88
24414 Milo (fed with
alfalfa) . . . . . . . .. Sheep 3 186 59.29 87.08 79.06 89.96 1142
“ 15 186 63.17 81.93 100.00 94.91
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.23 84.51 89.53 92 .44
24547 Peanut hulls (fed
with alfalfa) . . . . Sheep 3 182 55.27 90.77 19.79 50.16 1138
“ 15 182 49.52 93.54 25.39 49.44
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.40 92.16 22. 59 49.80
23087-8 Rice bran (fed
with alfalfa).... Sheep 3 180 70.26 86.09 34.43 66.75 1136
“ 15 180 63.02 83.09 50.76 61.75
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.64 84. 59 42.60 64.25
24303-4 Rice hulls (fed
l‘ with alfalfa).. . . Sheep 3 179 0 27.72 23.31 31.26 1135
“ 15 179 0 0 0 0
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.86 11 .66 15.63
23115-6 Rice polish (fed
with alfalfa) . . . . Sheep 3 174 86.21 92.92 81 .06 94.81 1130
“ 15 174 79.65 87.49 60.76 93.99
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.93 90.21 70.91 94.40
24706 Wheat, whole (fed
with alfalfa) . . . . Sheep 3 184 83.78 60.28 86.13 93.98 1140
“ 15 184 69.17 80.07 100.00 96.73
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.48 70.18 93.07 93 .36
23183 Wheat bran (fed
with alfalfa).. .. Sheep 3 177 29.02 7.69 10.42 51.69 1133
“ 15 177 79.17 84.06 92.97 83.86
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.10 45.88 51.70 67.78

12 BUIiLETIN NO. 402, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 2.—Individual coefficients of digestibility, Texas experiments-wontinued.

_ Nitro- Refer-
Lab. No. Feed D. E. No. Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence
extract fiber extract No.

23158-9 Wheat gray shorts '
(fed with alfalfa). Sheep 3 175 84.60 88.11 64.81 88.69 1131
“ 15 175 88.11 93.35 100.00 93.59

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86.36 90.73 82.41 91.14
24671 Wheat gray shorts
(fed with alfalfa) . Sheep 3 183 76.49 89 .11 30.85 80.49 1139
“ 15 183 79.92 87.51 81.75 83.89
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.21 88.31 56.30 82. 19
24383-4 Wheat gray shorts
(fed with alfalfa) . Sheep 3 181 84.01 92. 62 61.83 86.45 1137

“ 15 181 82.23 89.90 96.40 86.72

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.12 91.26 79.12 86.59

The digestion coefficients secured from the feeds listed in Table 1 are
given in Table 2 for each of the animals used in the experiments. The
concentrates Were fed With the roughages as shown in Table 2 and the
digestion coefficients Were calculated in the usual Way, using digestion
experiments for the roughages from the other experiments here reported.

Table 4 contains the digestion coefficients from which the averages
used in this Bulletin are derived with the exception of alfalfa hay and
alfalfa meal. The number of experiments conducted With alfalfa hay
is large and the coeflicients have not been repeated from Bulletin N0.
329. '

The six digestion experiments With cottonseed hulls, fed alone, with
cottonseed meal, and fed with alfalfa gave digestion coefficients which
are much closer together for crude fiber and nitrogen-free extract than
is the case with the digestion experiments previously reported with
cottonseed hulls. The digestion coefficients for cottonseed hulls are for
this reason now on a more satisfactory basis.

OTHER DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS AND CORRECTIONS

Other digestion experiments made in America are listed in Table 4
with the references at the end of this Bulletin. This table includes the
Texas experiments mentioned above, experiments made at other Stations
since Bulletin No. 325 was published, and some repeated from Bulletin
No. 325 for the purpose of calculating the average coefficients of digesti-
bility.

SUPPLEMENTARY ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS 13
Table 4.—Digestion coefiicients of American feeds, supplementary to those in
Bulletin No. 329.
Nitro- Refer-

Feed Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence

extract fiber extract No.

llfalfa hay, below 30% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . 67.3 19.0 26.3 71 .0 1080

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.0 51.0 48.0 76.0 1104

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.9 31.2 51.6 71.9 1112

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.5 26.5 50.2 67.3 1218

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.9 35.3 45.3 68.6 1150

Average (40) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.3 39.8 43.0 72.4

llfalfa hay, 30—33% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.5 40.9 51.8 71.8 1134

Average (16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.1 31.0 44.9 70.6

Xlfalfa hay, over 33% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . 66.0 0 45.0 65.0 1085

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.0 0 48.0 66.0 086

“ . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.0 0 42.0 64.0 1086A

Average (23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.4  1 46.2 68.3

Klfalfajhay, leafy, 21% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . 80.2 31 .9 55.2 79.6 1149

Xlfalfa meal, 24% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.8 26.0 46.8 70.6 1111
*4
Apple pomace, fresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 43.4 67.3 84.3 552

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 47.2 61.6 84.5 543

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.6 31.9 45.9 74.0 1088

“ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 32.3 55.8 77.7 1087

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.2 31.5 54.1 80.1 1089

Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 37.3 52.9 80.1

Barley, grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88. 1 86.3 70.4 93.0 561

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.3 87.5 47.3 92.3 808

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.6 68.3 52.3 89.7 809

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.9 70.7 69.3 92.2 810

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.9 80.0 54.3 90.9 807

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.3 86.9 58.8 93.0 1144

Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.0 80.0 58.7 91.9

Broom corn seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.7 91.9 33.3 69.2 733

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.4 80.8 36.2 63.2 1127

Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.1 86.3 34.8 66.2

Corn-stover silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.5 55.8 65.0 53.5 1098

Cotton burs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.9 65.7 23. 6 68.6 929

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.7 62.2 53.7 50.2 1145

Average (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 64.0 38.7 59.4
39% proteintcottonseed feed (15.7% fiber). . 84.6 92‘. 1 61.5 87.4 1116
Cottonseed hulls, fed alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 78.1 52.1 30.4 366

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.8 87.8 45.9 36.9 273

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.6 80.6 24.6 40.3 264

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E 0 50.9 48.7 55.4 1122

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 78.8 51.4 63.0 1129

Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 75.2 44.5 45.0

Cottonseed hulls, fed with alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . 0 61.8 61.9 63.3 864

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 93. 52.5 71 .0 1051

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 100.00 46.5 40.6 1123

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 99 58.9 64.7 1126

Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 88.6 55.0 59.9

14 BULLETIN NO. 402, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 4.—Digestion coefficients of American feeds, supplementary to those in
“f”? Bulletin No. 325.

i§:.""'
' Nirto- Refer-
Feed Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence
extract fiber extract No.

Cottonseed hulls fed with cottonseed meal. . . 0 79.4 46.5 51.2 284
“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 72.8 47.1 48.4 286

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.5 78.‘4 46.2 51.8 293

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.0 79.7 45.2 53.5 295

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 59.3 54.0 59.1 1117

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O 81.2 56.8 60.7 1125

Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.6 75.1 49.3 54.1

Cottonseed hulls, all (15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.7 78.8 49.2 52.7
Cottonseed meal, below 12% crude fiber. . . . . 88.7 100.00 O 67.8 376
“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.7 100.00 55.3 34.1 927

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85.1 98 11.9 71.9 867

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.3 100.00 0 95.9 482

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92.1 92.0 73.4 67.4 282

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.5 90.1 19.5 60.5 283

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85.5 92.0 0 55.1 280

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.7 100.0 38.3 73.2 1050

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.3 94.7 53.5 53.3 1052

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.4 98.1 63.7 82.3 1115

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.6 96.9 44.3 72.7 1118

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.8 94.3 37.5 68.8 1124

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.5 97.2 68.8 78.9 1143

Average (13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.0 96.5 35.9 67.8

Goose grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 100.0 43.7 34.1 1110

Guar hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.7 16.3 45.1 72.8 1146

Hay, Harris county prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.6 71.4 76.9 71.5 1148

Hay, Brazos county prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.1 49.0 60. 5 58.4 1147

Hay, native (New Hampshire) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.0 49.0 53.0 58.0 1079

Lemon pulp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.2 27.4 60.3 92.0 1094

Linseed meal (old process) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.8 88.6 57. 1 77.6 159

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.5 86.2 54.3 81.1 1141

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.3 96.1 99.7 88.7 1119

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84.0 97.5 26.6 81.5 1114

Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.9 92.1 59.4 82.2

Mesquite grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.21 67.7 44.5 36.4 1113

Milo, grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.9 88.2 72.3 95.6 963

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.9 90.2 0 84.5 829

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...-. 78.0 89.5 100.0 98.9 1132

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61.2 84.5 89.5 92.4 1142

Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.3 88.1 65.5 92.9

Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 54.0 50.8 54.2 997

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.5 45.9 57.5 60.2 998

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.7 31.1 71.6 51.7 812

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O 38.3 57.6 53.2 59

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.3 23.3 57.3 45.1 1101

Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.9 38.5 59.0 52.9

Olive pulp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 86.0 0 20.3 1096

Orange pulp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.5 48.9 83.7 95.4 1091

Peanut hulls or shells (commercial) . . . . . . . . . 70. 6 89.7 11.7 49. 1 176

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.2 95.9 16.4 57.6 885

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.4 82.0 7.7 57.6 925

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.2 60.7 34.4 88.0 941

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.5 84.1 4.7 42.5 1077

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.4 92.2 22.6 49.8 1138

Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.7 84.1 16.3 57.4

SUPPLEMENTARY ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS 15
Table 4.—-Digestion coefficients of American feeds, supplementary to those in
Bulletin N0. 329—continued.

_ Nitro- Refer-

Feed Protein Ether Crude gen-free ence

extract fiber extract No.

Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.0 77.2 42.7 74.6 945

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82.6 84.1 44.1 80.3 947

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77.7 80.4 12.4 75.2 972

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.2 72.1 16.1 67.2 34

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.5 60.5 56.3 70.4 163

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82.3 54.7 25.1 74.6 139

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.6 75.6 23.6 70.4 162

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.2 66.7 14.3 71.9 179

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.7 82.6 0 67.5 86

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82.1 54.0 36.2 64.1 102

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.7 78.1 25.9 76.8 455

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.6 41.9 68.5 73.5 449

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54.1 45.9 51.7 67.8 1133

Average (13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.5 67.2 32.1 71.9

Wheat brown shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.3 83.6 20. 7 83 .4 952

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.9 85.1 0 82.6 85

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.2 88.3 56.3 82.2 1139

Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82.1 85.7 25.7 82.7

Wheat flour middlings and gray shorts . . . . . . 90. 8 85.7 0 87.7 451

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82.6 95.5 0 89.5 948

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88.9 82.7 51.9 90.6 946

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.7 0 0 98.6 450

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84.8 84.9 36.3 87.8 164

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86.4 90.7 82.4 91.1 1131
“ 83.1 91.3 79.1 86.6 1137
.2 .5 7 .3

Average (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35.

As pointed out by Hamilton, Mitchell and Kammlade in Bulletin No.
303, Illinois Experiment Station, two errors Were made in the digestion
coefficients given for soy bean meal in Bulletin No. 329. Number 13
and number 14 in Bulletin No. 329 are coefficients for soy bean meal
with hay and not soy bean oil-meal alone. These are accordingly omitted

from the revision here given.

REVISED PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS

Table 3.——Revised production coefficients for ruminants.

Nitro-
Name of feed Factor Protein Ether Crude gen-free
extract fiber extract
Alfalfa hay (below 30% crude fiber) . . . . . . . . CM .755 .812 —- 152 .776

Alfalfa hay (30—33% crude fiber) . . . . . . . . . . . CM .722 .633 —— 136 .756

Alfalfa hay (over 33% crude fiber) . . . . . . . . . CM . 695 .574 — 122 .732

Alfalfa hay, leafy (21% crude fiber) . . . . . . . . . CM .814 .650 -— 025 .852

Alfalfa meal (24% fiber) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CN .648 . 531 .193 .757

Apple pomace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CN .083 .848 .291 .858

Barley, grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BM .813 1.82 .011 .984

Broom corn seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AN .438 1.963 .0 .709

Corn stover silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM . 391 1. 139 .079 . 573

Cotton burs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .262 1 . 305 —-.203 .636
39% protein cottonseed feed (15.7% fiber). . CM .860 2.563 .041 .937
Lottonseed hulls, all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .088 1 .608 —.080 . 564
LCottonseed meal (below 12% crude fiber). . . . AN .843 2.496 .066 .726

 

16 BULLETIN NO. 402, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Table 4.——D igestion coeflicients of American feeds, supplementary to those in
Bulletln No. 325—cont1nued.
_ Nitro- Refer-

Feed Proteln Ether Crude gen-free ence

extract fiber extract No.

Pineap le pulp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20. 7 Neg. 69. 6 79.7 1093

Pinto gean culls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.6 41.0 Neg. 84.0 1081

Pinto bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.4 29.8 51 .5 66.9 1084

Pinto bean straw and roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.6 22.7 44. 5 63.8 1082

Raisin pulp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24. 1 90.2 18. 5 52. 1 1090

Rice bran, below 12% fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.8 89.0 33.7 79.4 859

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.8 92.7 4.2 74.1 921

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.7 54.8 13.3 78.1 425

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.9 88.6 29.2 78.2 749

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.2 89.0 32.3 68.3 1047

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.6 84.6 42.6 64.3 1136

Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.8 83. 1 25.9 73.7

‘ce hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 12.0 5.0 1022

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.6 29.3 .4 30.8 919

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.9 11.7 15.6 1135

Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.9 14.4 8.0 17.1

Rice polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.0 90.6 29.4 89.6 858

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.6 73.5 22.1 92.7 426

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61.9 91.1 0 92.3 186

“ . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.0 88.2 8.2 94.3 1048

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82.9 90.2 70.9 94.4 1130

Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.9 86.7 26. 1 92.7

Soy bean hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.9 59.3 52.6 59.8 657

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.1 29.2 60.8 68.8 274

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.0 54.0 58.0 82.0 241

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.0 61.9 34.7 64.1 1099

Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.3 51.1 51.5 68.7

Soy bean meal and whole soy beans . . . . . . . . 91 . 1 85.7 71 .2 76.3 177

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89.8 98.5 0 68.3 423

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.5 93.1 100.0 82.2 556

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.1 93.5 100.0 91.2 548

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90.1 84.1 0 44.7 1102

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88.0 94.0 19.0 82.0 1106

Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.3 91 .5 48.4 74. 1

Soy bean oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88.0 94.8 100.0 111.8 1103

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90.0 74.0 55.0 82.0 1105

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.0 64.0 100.0 81.0 1107

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.0 82.0 0 86.0 1108

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.0 96.0 86.0 88.0 1109

Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.4 82.2 68.6 89.8

Soy bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14..5 14.6 31.8 53.8 1100

Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.3 86.5 88.2 96.2 951

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92.2 91.0 90.1 96.0 950

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.1 80.0 20.0 92.5 583

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.8 64.4 38.2 93.5 584

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.1 65.0 39.8 92.0 793

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.5 70.2 93.1 93.4 1140

Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.0 76.2 61.6 93.9

SUPPLEMENTARY ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS 17
Table 3_-Revised production coefficients for ruminants-continued.

_ Nitro-

Name of feed Factor Protein Ether Crude gen-free

extract fiber extract
.1 Flax plant by-product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .204 .888 -— 472 .361

Goose grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM 2.041 -— 150 .365

Guar hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .759 .333 — 134 .780

Hay, Harris county prairi_e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .402 1 .457 117 .765

Hay, Brazos county prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .367 .999 030 .625

Hay, native (New Hampshire) . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .427 1.000 — 050 . 621

Lemon pul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .469 .624 029 .985

Linseed meal (old process) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM .852 2.382 019 .880

Mesquite grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .043 1.381 -—-. 150 .390

Milo, grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .745 2.000 085 .995

Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM . 162 .786 025 .567

Olive pulp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM 0 2.22 —— 617 .217

Orange gulp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .798 1.111 280 1.022

Peanut ul s or shells (commercial) . . . . . . . . . CM .525 1 .717 —.442 .615

Pineapple pul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .211 0 129 .854

Pinto bean_cu ls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 4 . 545 .931 0 .900

Pinto bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .685 .607 —-.066 .717

Pinto bean straw and roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM .362 .463 —. 150 .683

‘Raisin pulp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BN .245 2.33 —. 110 .557

Rice bran (below 12% fiber) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AN .699 2. 149 ——.040 .789

/Rice hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CN .029 .294 --.232 . 183

Rice polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AN .720 2.243 —-.038 . 993

Soy bean hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . CM .724 1.043 -— 065 .736

Soy bean meal and whole soy beans . . . . . . . . A .917 2.367 0 .794

Soy bean oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM .847 2,126 .117 .962

Soy bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM . 147 .298 —.276 .576

Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BM .823 1 .732 .043 1 .066

Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.77 59.84 117.62 26.47 59.29

Wheat brown shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . 85 70.90 165.58 23.39 75.28

Wheat flour middlings and gray shorts . . . . . . B . 93 79.56 187.08 35.55 89.94

Revised energy-production coefficients are given in Table 3. The addi-
tional experiments made little change in these coefficients for some of
the feeds. With other feeds where few experiments had previously been
made, the changes are larger. It should be pointed out that the basis for
making the calculations of production coefficients for lemon pulp, orange
pulp, and pineapple is unsatisfactory and additional data are needed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Laboratory and other work involved in this study Was taken part in
by S. E. Asbury, W. H. Walker, E. C. Carlyle, Mrs. Velma Graham, and

other members of the staff.

REFERENCES TO DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS

NUMBERS

1-1078 See Texas Bulletin 329.

1079 New Hampshire Bulletin 152.
1080 Illinois Bulletin 283.
1081-1084 New Mexico Bulletin 143.

1085-1086A Washington Station, Jour. Agr. Res. 35, p. 4.
Virginia Technical Bulletin 32.
California Bulletin 409.

1087-1089
1090-1096

18 BULLETIN NO. 402, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

NUMBERS

1097-1103 Illinois Bulletin 291.
1104-1109 Illinois Bulletin 303.
1110-1150 Texas, this Bulletin.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Digestion experiments numbering 41 are reported and include
tests 0n alfalfa, barley, broom-corn seed, cotton burs, cottonseed
hulls, cottonseed meal, flax plant by-produet, guar hay, linseed
meal, milo, peanut hulls, prairie hay, rice bran, rice hulls, rice
polish, Wheat, Wheat bran, Wheat gray shorts, and Wheat brown
shorts.

2. The composition, coefficients of digestibility, and production eo-
eflicients are given for the samples studied.

3. Digestion experiments made at other American Experiment Sta-
tions are referred to, and corrections made in some figures previ-
ously published, especially for soy-bean products.

4. Production coeflicients are given supplementing those in Bulletin
N o. 329, based on the new data published in this Bulletin.