A11-2s0-10MiL1so TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR College SEati0n, Brazos County, Texas BULLETIN NO. 410 MARCH, 1930 DIVISION OF SWINE HUSB N I COTTONSEED MEAL AS A FEED 1 FOR HOGS AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFFf ADMINISTRATION: A. B. CQNNER, M. S., Director R. E. KARPER, M. S., Vice-Director CLARicE M1xs0N, B. A., Secretary M. P. HoLLEMAN, JR., _Chief Clerk J. K. FRANcKLow, Assistant Chief Clerk CHESTER Hiocs, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant CHEMISTRY: _ G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist J. F. FUDGE, Ph. D., Chemist —i—-—~, Chemist S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Assistant Chemist WALDo H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist T. L. OGIER, B. S., Assistant Chemist ATRAN J. STERGES, B. S., Assistant Chemist JEANNE M. FUEGAS, Assistant Chemist RAY TREICHLER, M. S., Assistant Chemist J. K. FARMER, M. A., Assistant Chemist RALPH L. SCHWARTZ, B. S., Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: HAMILTON P. TRAUB, Ph. D., Chief i, Horticulturist RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief _ _ B. L. WARwicK, Ph.D., Breeding Investigations STANLEY P. DAvis, Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. REINRARD, B. S., Entomologist R. K. FLETCHER, Ph. D., Entomologist W. L. OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist FRANK M. HULL, M. S., Entomologist J. C. GAiNEs, JR., M. S., Entomologist C. J. ToDD, B. S., Entomologist F. F. BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist CEciL E. HEARD, B. S., Chief Inspector OTTO MAcKENsEN, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector W. R. JoRDAN, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: E. B. REYN0LDs, Ph. D., Chief . E. KARPER, M. S., Agronomist . C. MANGELsDoRE, Sc. D., Agronomist T. KILLOUGI-I, M. S., Agronomist E. REA, B. S., Agronomist , Agronomist B. C. LANGLEY, B. S., Assistant in Soils SUBSTATIONS N0. l, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: P. R. JOHNSON, M. S., Act. Superintendent No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: R. H. WYcRE, B. S., Superintendent N0. 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 Rot Investigations No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: R. E. DicKsoN, B. S., Superintendent , Agronomist No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. J0NEs, Superintendent FRANK GAiNEs, Irrigationist and Forest Nurseryman No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLEs, B. S., Superintendent PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JAcKsoN, Chief VETERINARY SCIENCE: *M. FRANcis, D. V. M., Chief_ _ H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian E. JUNGRERR, D. V. M., Veterinarian , Veterinarian . F. E. CARROLL, D. V. M., Veterinarian . PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chie _ W. N. EzEKiEL, Ph. D., Plant athologist W. J. BACH, M. S., Plant Pathologist 3 B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief , W. E. PAULsoN, Ph. D., Marketing C. A. BpNNEN, M. S., Farm Management =1 J. F. Criswell, B. S., Assistant f . N. TATE, B. S., Assistant RURAL HOME RESEARCH: JEssiE WRiTAcRE, Ph. D., Chief MARY ANNA GRiMEs, M. S., Textiles EMMA E. SUMNER, M. S., Nutrition SOIL SURVEY: ’_"*W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chie E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soi Surveyor T. C. REiTcH, B. S., Soil Surveyor A. H. BEAN, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY: V. L. CoRY, M. S., Act. Chief _ SiMoN E. WOLFF, M. S., Botanist SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: ‘ ‘ O. C. COPELAND, M. S., Dairy Husbandmaiy POULTRY HUSBANDRY: . M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief ***AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: MAIN STATION FARM: i G. T. McNEss, Superintendent APICULTURE (San Antonio): H. B. PARKs, B. S., Chief A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief S. D. PEARcE, Secretary J. H. R0GERs, Feed Inspector W. H. W001), Feed Ins ector K. L. KIRKLAND, B. ., Feed Inspector W. D. NORTHCUTI‘, JR., B. S., Feed Inspector SIDNEY D. REYNoLDs, JR., Feed Inspector P. A. MooRE, Feed Inspector H No. l0, College Station, Brazos County: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., In charge L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdophes County: H. F. MoRRis, M. S., Superintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent _ **J.|C. STEPHENS, M. A., Assistant Agronomist No. 14, Sonora, SUIIOIl-EdW8IdS_C0ll!ltl6S2 ~ W. H. DAMERoN, B. S., Superintendent E. JUNGRERR, D. V. M., Veterinarian -—-—-———-——-, Veterinarian **O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., 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. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita. County: E. J. W1LsoN, B. S., Superintendent No. 17, —————--——-—— —-———————-, Superintendent No. 18, —-—————— ————————Y~, Superintendent No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County E. MQRTENsEN, B. S., Superintendent —-——, Horticulturist —, Superintendent N0. 20, Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: G. W. ADRiANcE, Ph. D., Horticulture S. W. BILSING, Ph. D., Entomology V. P. LEE, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance 1 D. ScoATEs, A. E., Agricultural Engineering H. P. Smith, M. S., A ricultural Engineering R. H. WILLIAMS, Ph. *Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. ., Animal Husbandry 'J. F. F. W J. A. K. MAcKEY, M. S., Animal Husbandry S. IVIOGFORD, M. S., Agronomy S. JAMisoN, M. S., Horticulture R. BRisoN, B. S., Horticulture . R. HORLACHER, Ph. D., Genetics H. KNox, M. S., Animal Husbandry TAs of March 1, 1930. **In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. ***In cooperation with the School of Agriculture. This Bulletin contains the results 0f the study of cottonseed meal as a feed for hogs. The period of this study was from 1924 to 1928, inclusive. Eight brood sows and two hundred and seventy-nine pigs were used during the four and one-half years’ study on various phases of the subject of feeding cotton- seed meal to hogs. The work was divided into eight experi- ments, which included studies of cottonseed meal in brood-sow rations, boar rations, and rations for suckling pigs; the use of minerals in cottonseed-meal rations for pigs; the feeding of raw cottonseed to fattening pigs; feeding cottonseed meal, free choice, in self-feeders; the feeding of varying amounts of cottonseed meal to find the optimum amount that can safely be used in swine rations; and the feeding of a cottonseed-meal- tankage mixture, half and half, versus tankage alone as a protein supplement for fattening hogs. Cottonseed meal is a good protein feed for hogs of any age, but like many other feeds, cottonseed meal must not be fed in too large quantities. The results obtained from the experi- ments reported in this Bulletin lead to the conclusion that where not more than 9 per cent of cottonseed meal is included in the ration, there will be no ill effects whatever resulting from the cottonseed meal. A ration for hogs containing only 9 per cent of cottonseed meal is not balanced in protein; there- fore, the equivalent of 4 per cent of tankage should be added to the ration, or one-half gallon of skim milk per pig per day should be fed in order to provide enough protein. ' In the two tests reported in this Bulletin for feeding fatten- ing hogs in self-feeders, free choice, a protein mixture of one- half tankage and one-half cottonseed meal gave better results in both tests than did tankage alone. Swine rations containing cottonseed meal may be improved by adding salt and limestone. A ration containing not more than 9 per cent of cottonseed meal may be fed to brood sows, boars, growing pigs, fattening pigs, and suckling pigs without any ill effects from the cotton- seed meal. Cottonseed meal alone should not be fed in self-feeders, free choice, but a mixture of one-half cottonseed meal and one-half tankage, by weight, can be fed free choice in self-feeders with good results. Raw cottonseed is a dangerous feed for pigs. It is doubtful, however, whether it would be considered economy to feed raw cottonseed to fattening pigs even if the seed were safe to feed. The sows that-were properly fed cottonseed meal did not fail to conceive, but bred regularly. The cottonseed-meal-fed sows, even in the second generation, gave birth to large litters of normal and well-developed pigs. The cottonseed-meal-fed sows did not become constipated, blind, or over-hot in summer. CONTENTS 1 PAGE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan of Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ Average Composition of Feeds Used t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Experiment I——Cottonseed Meal in the Ration for Brood SoWs. . 6 z Experiment IL-Cottonseed Meal in the Ration for Roars . . . . . . . 11 Experiment III——Cottonseed Meal in the Ration for Suckling Pigs 114 Experiment IV——Feeding Cottonseed Meal in Self-feeders, Free g Choice, to Fattening Pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 l‘ Experiment V--The Use of Minerals in Cottonseed Meal Rations for Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Experiment VL-Feeding Ground Cotton Seed to Pigs . . . . . . . . . . 181 it Experiment VII——Feeding Varying Amounts of Cottonseed Meal to Find the Optimum That Can Be Safely Used in Swine Rations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Experiment VIII—Cottonseed-Meal-Tankage Mixturey Half and Half, Versus Tankage Alone as a Protein Supplement for Fattening Hogs . . . . . . . . . .. 27 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 l i, BULLETIN NO. 410 MARCH, 1930 COTTONSEED MEAL AS _A FEED FOR HOGS FRED HALE A review of the literature relating t0 the feeding of cottonseed meal to hogs shows in general that conclusions drawn are to the efiect that cottonseed meal is an unsafe feed for hogs. Usually the recommenda- tions for feeding state that one can feed the meal for short periods with good results, but not for a very long period of time. The rations used in the tests reported in the past (27 ) (23) contained 15 to 50 per cent of cottonseed meal. It is, therefore, entirely possible that the trouble pro- duced in these early tests with cottonseed meal was due to the feeding of too much meal in the ration. lt is known that too much salt in the hog ration will kill the hogs, but that a certain amount of salt is beneficial when fed in the hog ration. Likewise, it is possible that a certain amount of cottonseed meal may be profitably and safely included in rations not only for fattening hogs, but in rations for brood sows, suckling pigs, and for breeding animals. N o work has been reported where suckling pigs, brood sows during gestation and lactation periods, and growing breeding animals have been fed cottonseed meal. The hog feeder would like to know how much cottonseed meal he can safely and profitably use in his hog rations, including rations for suckling pigs, brood sows, and fatten- ing hogs, for an indefinite period of time. . The protein part of the hog ration is about the only part that the . breeder or feeder is required to purchase, and since cottonseed meal is rich in protein, and since it is a feed that is available in almost any 1 needed quantity at all times, it is important that We should know more about cottonseed meal as a feed for hogs. It was for the purpose of obtaining definite information on cottonseed meal as a feed for brood sows, boars, suckling pigs, and for growing and fattening hogs that the experiments reported herein were begun. PLAN OF EXPERIMENTS , .. _ 4 .gwglw-quvsg»~r~wwvr~'wsv~.~w . These experiments were planned to study the feeding of cottonseed 3 meal in the rations for brood sows, boars, and suckling pigs; to study the " results obtained when cottonseed meal is fed to hogs in self-feeders, free * choice; to study the use of minerals in cottonseed-meal rations for hogs; .:to study the effects produced when ground cottonseed is fed to fattening pigs; to feed varying amounts of cottonseed meal to find the optimum Eamount that can be safely used in swine rations; and to study a cotton- ;seed-meal-tankage mixture, half and half, versus tankage alone as a protein supplement for fattening hogs. = The sows used in this test were purebred Duroc-Jerseys, and were of 6 BULLETIN NO. 410, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION average type. The three original sows that were started on the cotton-if, g seed-meal ration were two years old when the test started. The sows the tankage-fed group were of similar type to the cottonseed-meal-fed’ sows. ' The cottonseed-meal-fed sows received a grain ration15 per cent off which was 43’pe1*'cent protein cottonseed meal, prime quality. The check ration contained 10 per cent of 60 per cent protein tankage. Num-' ber 2 yellow milo was used in these experiments. Representative samples of the feeds used in these experiments were submitted to the Station§ Chemist for analyses. Table 1 contains his report as to the composition? of the various feeds. The milo was ground as needed. To each 100.’, pounds of the cottonseed-meal ration was added 1 pound of salt and one!‘ and one-half pounds of limestone. i" Table 1.—Average composition of feeds used N f Average percentage composition of feeds used 0. 0 Feeds Analyses Nitro- . Crude Fat Crude gen-free Water Ash 1;, Protein Fiber Extract z i I .y Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 11.01 2.51 2.22 71.65 10.75 1.86 Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 60.89 7.76 1.55 2.90 8.30 18.60 a Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . 10 43.04 6.49 10.90 26.46 7.67 5.44 » Analysis by Dr. G. S. Fraps, State Chemist, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. EXPERIMENT I k The Use of Cottonseed Meal in Rations for Brood Siows i The question of whether one can safely use cottonseed meal to furnish protein in the brood-sow ration, is important since most protein feeds p, are usually high in price as compared to cottonseed meal. If cottonseed meal, a feed which is readily available, rich in protein, palatable, and , conducive to production of firm pork, can furnish a part or all of this protein with good results, the fact is well worth knowing. Some ques- i’ tions considered important in this study of cottonseed meal for brood sows were as follows: l 1. Will cottonseed meal in the brood-sow ration have any ill eifects on the breeding ability of the sow? v 2. Will the pigs produced from sows on a ration containing cotton- g seed meal be defective as a result of the cottonseed meal? z 3. Will the "sows fed on a ration containing cottonseed meal develop blindness, barrenness, chronic constipation, suffer in summer from heat, or develop udder troubles? A Three two-year-old purebred sows from the Experiment Station Duroc- j Jersey herd of hogs were selected for this test (Figs. 1 and, 2). These sows’ were bred in November, 1923, and immediately placed on a ration g 15 per cent of which was 43 per cent protein cottonseed meal, prime f quality. The other feeds in the ration varied, but contained '75 parts i - COTTONSEED MEAL AS A FEED FOR HOGS a 7 of milo and 10 parts of wheat gray shorts the greater part of the time. Three days before and after farrowing, the daily ration was reduced one- half, and one pound of Wheat bran was added, but the content of cotton- seed meal in the grain ration always remained the same, viz, 15 per cent. One and one-half pounds of limestone and one pound of salt were added to each 100 pounds of the grain ration. These sows had access to Sudan grass pasture from June until October and were on oats pasture from January until April, or May. Alfalfa meal was included in the ration when no pasture was available. At times the pastures were short and almost Worthless, but such periods were of short duration. Fig. 1. Type of sows used. The above group of sows were fed a grain ration supple- mented with tankage. FFig. 2. The above group of sows are of the same general type, size, and quality as the nkage group shown 1n Figure 1. These sows were fed a ration supplemented with l ttonseed meal. a 8 BULLETIN NO. 410, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The following table shows the farrowing record of the ‘three sows receiving theration containing 15 per cent of cottonseed meal: Table 2.—Number of pigs farrowed by sows receiving a ration 15 per cent of which was cotton- see meal. Total Sow number March, Sept., March, Sept., March, Sept., No. pigs. j 1924 1924 1925 1925 1926 1926 farrowed Y; 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6 5 12 12 12 57 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 5 15 9 11 55 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5 8 Missed 15 12 49 Average number pigs farrowed . . . . . . . . . . . . 1O 5 6 135* 12 11.66 . . . . . . .. *Average of the two sows that farrowed. It will be seen from Table 2 that these sows bred regularly, tWo of i them producing six consecutive litters, and that the sixth litter from each ‘ sow Was even larger than the first litter. During this same three-year period 15 tankage-fed soWs in the Experiment Station herd farroWed 84 litters that averaged 10.8 pigs per litter. The average size of the 17 Fig. 3. One 0f the continuously cottonseed—meal-fed sows with her sixth consecutive litter of pigs. This sow had consumed over 700 pounds of cottonseed meal previous to the farrowing of this litter. Note the ruggedness, large bone, and good type of the pigs. litters farroWed by the cottonseed-meal soWs Was 9.5 pigs. The average birth Weight of the pigs farrovved from these cottonseed-meal-fed-sows was 2.75 pounds. The average birth Weight of pigs farroWed from tankage-fed soWs was 2.74 pounds. COTTONSEED MEAL AS A FEED FOR HOGS 9 The pigs Were weaned when 60 days old. The average weight of the pigs from sows fed the ration which contained 15 per cent of cottonseed meal was 35.1 pounds. The average weight of the weaned pigs from the tankage-fed sows was 38.24 pounds. During the three-year period that these sows received a ration which contained 15 per cent of cottonseed meal, the total consumption of cotton- seed meal per sow was 845 pounds, or an average daily consumption of 0.77 pounds per sow per day for three consecutive years. This amount of meal did not cause the sows to develop barrenness or to be shy breed- ers, and the pigs they farrowed were normal and vigorous at birth (Fig. 3). These sows did not appear to suffer in summerfrom heat any more than did the tankage-fed sows. The cottonseed-meal-fed sows were as free from constipation throughout this experiment as were the tankage- Fig. 4. First generation and second generation of cottonseed-meal-fed hogs. These .;gilts were farrowed by the sow shown in Figure 3. They were fed a ration containing per cent of cottonseed meal from the time they began eating from creeps until they were three years old. These gilts farrowed 11 pigs each for their first litter and supplied plenty of milk for their pigs. sows. No blindness, or eye trouble of any kind showed up among he sows receiving the ration containing 15 per cent of cottonseed meal. All of these sows had well developed udders at farrowing time (Fig. 4), A nd gave plenty of milk for their pigs. i_ Four gilts were saved from these sows receiving 15 per cent of cotton- ted meal in the grain ration, and were developed on their dam’s ration. ; wo of these gilts produced three consecutive litters and two produced consecutive litters of pigs. The following table gives the farrowing gecord of the second generation of pigs farrowed from sows receiving a ain ration containing 15 per cent of cottonseed meal. 1 The ration of the four gilts was changed from 15 per cent of cottonseed , yeal to 9 per cent of cottonseed meal and 4 per cent of tankage just fore they were bred in November, 1927. They farrowed two consecu- ve litters on this ration. Table 4 shows the farrowing record of these me gilts on the ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal. 1O BULLETIN NO. 410, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 3.-——Showing number of pigs farrowed in second generation by sows receiving a grain ration which contained 15 per cent of cottonseed meal. Sow number Sept., 1926 March, 1927 Sept., 1927 Total 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9 14 35 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7 10 28 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6 15 1O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 5 _ 1O Average number of pigs farrowed . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.5 7.5 8.75 8.8 This change in ration from 15 per cent of cottonseed meal to 9 per cent of cottonseed meal and 4 per cent of tankage Was made after our Work with fattening pigs, which is reported on page 19 of this Bulletin, showed that optimum results were obtained when not over 9 per cent of cottonseed meal Was included in the ration. Since 9 per cent of cotton- seed meal in the ration is not enough to furnish the required protein, 4 per cent of tankage was added. It Was noticed that the sows had slightly s . better appetites on the ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal and 4 per cent of tankage than they did on the ration containing 15 per cent of cottonseed meal. No difference, however, could be seen in the pigs at birth, whether the sows Were on the ration containing 15 per cent ' i or 9 per cent of cottonseed meal. Table 4.——Farrowing records of sows receiving 9 per cent of cottonseed meal in the grain ration. Number of pigs farrowed Sow number March, 1928 Sept., 1928 Total 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8 19 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 16 28 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1O _10 20 1O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 . . . . . . . . . D1ed*- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average number of pigs farrowed . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 11 .3. 10.3 *Post mortem by Dr. A. Lenert, Associate Professor of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A. 8c M. College, showed that this sow died from an ulcerated stomach. - The pigs on the ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal averaged 2.62 pounds at birth, While the tankage-fed pigs averaged 2.59. pounds at birth. iAt Weaning time, 6O days after farrowing date, the pigs on the ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal averaged 33.40 pounds live-Weight, and the pigs from the tankage-fed sows aver- aged 32.65 pounds live-Weight. These results in general show that brood sows, when they have access to pasture, breed regularly and have practically just as large litters when fed a grain ration containing not over 15 per cent of cottonseed meal (simple mineral mixture of limestone and salt added), as will sows on a tankage ration. The sows also appeared to have a better appetite when fed the ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal and 4 per cent of E. i. L’ i. n: P. 1' feed s0 that the pigs had free access to it at all times. protein cottonseed meal. of alfalfa meal was included in the above mixture. _ COTTONSEED MEAL As A FEED FOR Hoes 11s tankage than they did when fed the ration containing 15 per cent of cottonseed meal. - EXPERIMENT II i The Use of Cottonseed Meal in Rations for Boars This part of the cottonseed-meal study was included because expres- sions are heard from time to time that cottonseed meal is detrimental to breeding qualities of male animals. In this experiment, two boar pigs Were saved from the original sows that were on the ration 15 per cent of which was cottonseed-meal. These boar pigs were farrowed in March, 1926, and were fed on the cottonseed- meal ration from the time they were three weeks old until they were old enough for service the following November. One of the boars Was used to breed a gilt that was also farrowed by one of the cottonseed-meal- fed sows. The other boar pig was not used, but was kept to replace the one used should accident or death occur. Nine pigs were farrowed in March, 1927, from the above mating. All of these pigs were normal and very strong. This part of the test was not carried on any longer. The boar pig used in this experiment had eaten 124 pounds of cottonseed meal during the period of his development from three weeks of age to the time he was first used for service, 225 days later. Although this boar proved to be fertile and sired strong pigs after being developed on a grain ration containing 15 per cent of cottonseed. meal, he was not as growthy or as well developed an individual as our- tankage-fed boars of the same age. Pages 19 to 27 in this Bulletin con- tain information to the effect, however, that where the ration contains only 9 per cent of cottonseed meal, together with 4 per cent of tankage, the growth and individual development is very satisfactory. The point; of importance here is that this boar proved fertile after having consumedl 124 pounds of cottonseed meal. ' ' EXPERIMENT III Cottonseed Meal in the Ration for Suckling Pigs From 1924 to 1927, inclusive, 2'7 litters containing 199 pigs were weaned from sows that had been fed a grain ration containing 15 per cent of cottonseed meal. The sows were the same ones used at the start of these experiments. Creeps were constructed in one corner of the lots where the sows and pigs were kept, and as soon as the pigs were approximately three weeks old, they-were started on the sow ration, 15 per cent of which was cotton- seed meal. The troughs in these creeps were kept partly filled with this The complete ration used was milo '7 5 parts, wheat gray shorts 10 parts, limestone 192- parts, and salt 1 part, by weight, together with 15 parts of 43 per cent At times when pastures were dry, 5 per cent From 1O to 15 per cent of ground oats was at times substituted for the same amount of 12 BULLETIN NO. 410, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION milo, but regardless of any change that was made, the grain portion of the ration contained at all times 15 per cent of cottonseed meal. These pigs did not have any digestive troubles, nor were they far behind the weights of the tankage-fed pigs at weaning time. The pigs were weaned at 60 days of age. The cottonseed-meal-fed pigs averaged 35.1 pounds live-weight, and the tankage-fed pigs averaged 38.24 pounds live-weight the day they were weaned. The tankage-fed pigs had a slightly more rugged appearance at weaning age than did the cottonseed- meal-fed pigs. During 1928, 50 pigs were weaned from sows that were getting a ration composed of only 9 per cent of cottonseed meal. The complete ration was as follows: milo 75 pounds, wheat gray shorts 1O pounds, cottonseed meal 9 pounds, tankage 4 pounds, limestone 1 pound, and salt ,1 pound. The pigs were creep-fed the above ration from three weeks of age to a weaning age of 60 days. These pigs were closer to the quality and ruggedness, and size of the tankage-fed pigs at weaning age than were the pigs that previously got 15 per cent of cottonseed meal in their ration. No sickness, nor digestive troubles, however, developed among the pigs regardless of whether they got the 15 per cent of cotton- seed meal, or the 9 per cent of cottonseed meal in their ration. These pigs ate an average of 25 to 4O pounds of feed from the creep during the suckling period of 60 days. They usually started eating from creeps at 18 to 21 days after they were farrowed. It will sufice here to say that the results of this experiment show that one can include cottonseed meal to as much as 9 per cent in the ration for suckling pigs and obtain normal gains. The pigs from the sows on this ration averaged 33.4 pounds at weaning time, and the pigs from the tankage-fed sows averaged 32.65 pounds live-weight at weaning time. The general health and appearance of the pigs on this ration were in no way inferior to the general health and appearance of the pigs on the tankage ration. EXPERIMENT IV Feeding Cottonseed Meal in Self-Feeders, Free Choice, to Fattening Pigs On November 24, 1926, 20 purebred Duroc-Jersey pigs were divided into two lots of 1O pigs each, and fed a ration of ground milo, cottonseed meal, and minerals, each separately in self-feeders, free choice. One lot of pigs had access to oats pasture, and the other one was fed in a dry lot. The results of this test are summarized in the following table. One pig out of Lot I died on the 37th day of the test, and a second pig died on the 41st day of the test. On the 50th day of the test, three more pigs had lost weight, and were thumping so badly that they were removed from the test. These three pigs died, however, four days later. Practically one-third of the total feed consumed by the pigs in Lot I was cottonseed meal. In other words, they selected to eat oneppound of cottonseed meal every time they ate two pounds of ground milo. This COTTONSEED MEAL AS A FEED FOR HOGS 13 \ \ \. l. large amount proved fatal to the pigs. Post mortem showed that these pigs died from “cottonseed-meal poisoning” (see page 21). Table 5.—Summary of results of feeding cottonseed meal in self-feeders, free choice, to fattening pigs. This test began November 24, 1926; closed March 24, 1927. (120 days.) Rations Lot I Lot II Ground milo, cottonseed Ground milo, cottonseed meal, minerals, self-fed, meal, minerals, self-fe free choice, dry lots free choice, oats pasture Number pigs at beginning of test. . . . . 10 10 Number pigs at close 0f test... .. . . . . . Taken ofi’ test 9 , Jan. 17, 1927 i“ Average initial weight of pigs, lbs. . . . . 35.80 35. 55 _ Average final weight of pigs, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224. 56 ‘ Avera e daily gain, lbs. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.57 Total eed per 100 lbs. gain, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400.20 Table 6.——Consumption of grain and cottonseed meal by 10-day periods in Lot II, corrected to 9 pigs. Test began November 24, 1926, closed March 24, 1927, (120 days). Cottonseed Per cent Milo, Meal. Cottonseed pounds pounds Meal 1st 10-day period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 14 5.53 2nd 10-day period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 21 6.75 3rd 10-day period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 25 6.92 4th 10-day period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 52 13.40 5th 10-day period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423 102* 19.40 6th 10-day period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 71* 14.60 7th 10-day period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 26 5.59 8th 10-day period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672 81 10 75 9th 10-day period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _620 16 2.51 10th 10~day period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768 40 4 54 11th 10-day period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842 50 5 60 12th 10 day period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 20 3 15 Total feed consumed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,289 518 7.61 *The oats pasture became short 36 days after the test started and the pigs were held off the pasture dllflfilg the 5th period and for four days of the 6th period in order to let the oats get more growt . In Lot II the pigs had access to oats pasture. The oats had been planted in late September and they furnished tender, green pasture for the pigs. While the oats Were good, the pigs ate only ‘7.61 per cent of the test started, and the pigs were held off the pasture for 14 days in order to let the oats get more growth. During this two-weeks period these pigs ate on the average of 19.4 per cent of cottonseed meal; that is, l one-fifth of the total feed consumed Was cottonseed meal. One pig died f‘ during this period of no pasture. After two Weeks the pigs were placed A >~ back on the oats pasture and finished the 120-day test Without exhibiting i‘; further trouble of any kind. This experiment indicates that it ‘is not cottonseed meal, on the average. The oats became short 36 days after - 14 BULLETIN NO. 410, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION advisable to feed cottonseed meal and grain in self-feeders, free choice ‘ to hogs. Although the pigs in this test that had access to good oats. pasture made good gains and were otherwise in good condition, they?! consumed harmful quantities when the oats pasture was short. These " results indicate that cottonseed meal and grain should not be fed in self-h feeders, free choice, even when pasture is available, for there is danger j that the pigs will consume too much cottonseed meal, especially when; the pasture gets short or unpalatable. a 3 Table 6 shows the choice of feeds as consumed per each 10-day period f throughout the 120-day test. During the 5th and part of the 6th period, the pigs were off pasture and their cottonseed-meal consumption in- creased. EXPERIMENT V The Use of Minerals in Cottonseed Meal Rations for Hogs The object of this experiment was to study the effects of adding min- , erals to a cottonseed-meal ration for fattening hogs: first, as to rate of gain; and second, as to economy of gain ('7). Calcium and sodium 4 chloride were added to the ration used in this study. Four lots of 10 uniform, purebred, Duroc-Jersey pigs each were used in the first test. These pigs were farrowed in March, 1926, and were placed on test May 28, 1926. This test was run in dry lots, for a 120- day period. The pigs were hand-fed twice daily, the feed being wet with‘ water to a thick slop at feeding time. The pigs were fed in a concrete trough, and after they cleaned up their feed the trough was filled with water. Table 7 gives a summary of the results obtained in this test. . Table 7.—Results of feeding minerals in cottonseed-meal rations for hogs, first test. Test began May 28, 1926, closed September 25, 1926, (120 days) Rations fed—Pounds of feed in rations Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV Milo chops. .85 Milo ch0ps.. .85 Milo chops.. .85 Milo chops. . 85 C. S. Meal. . 15 C. S. Meal. .15 C. S. Meal. .15 C. S. Meal..15 Limestone. . 1.5 No mineral Salt . . . . . . . . . 1 Limestone. . 1.5 Salt. . . .. . . . 1 No. pigs er lot. . . 9* 10 1O 10 Length o test- ays . . . . . . . . . . . 120 120 120 120 Average initial we1ght——lbs.. . . . 54.0 52.8 52.9 52.9 Average final weights . . . . . . . .. 168.1 177.0 177.1 174.2 Total gains—lbs. . . 114.1 124.2 124.2 121.3 Avera e daily gain per ead . . . . . . .. .95 1.03 1.03 1.01 Feed per 100 lbs. of gain. . . . . . . .. 389.1 381.5 383.8 - 384.0 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 3990 4739 4768 4656 *Ten pigs were started ind Lot I but one pig was removed on account of sickness on August 6, 1926. ' COTTONSEED MEAL AS A FEED FOR HOGS 15 It will be noted from the foregoing table that the pigs in Lots 2, 3, and 4, made almost identical daily gains, and required practically the same amount of feed per unit of gain. The pigs in Lot I, without min- erals, made slightly smaller daily gains, and required 5 to 8 pounds more feed to produce each 100 pounds of gain than was required by the pigs receiving minerals. (See Table 8 for individual gains, and Probable Error* of the difference for the various lots.) Table 8.—Individual gains of pigs, and probable errors of the difference in gains for Lot I with Lots II, III, and IV. Lot I Lot II _ Lot III _ Lot IV No minerals S_al_t 1 lb.* Limestone 1% lbs.* Limestone 1% lbs.* Individual total Individual total Individual total S_al_t 1 lb.* ;,Gain—Lbs. Gain-—Lbs. Gain——Lbs. Individual total i Gain—Lbs. 114 101 9 133 130 146 138 97 136 137 132 141 81 163 139 142 85 117 132 103 122 98 125 120 117 127 104 111 94 110 119 101 147 123 9O 132 119 , 168 133 Total. . . .1026 1241 1245 1213 i I l ‘ Average. . 114 lbs. 124. 1 lbs. 124.5 lbs. 121.3 lbs. 1 l‘ 2-. *Nurnber of pounds added to each 100 pounds of the grain ration. Probable error of difference Lot I and Lot II = 10.1 ;1; 6.34 lbs. Probable error of difference Lot I and Lot III = 10.5 ;|; 6.72 lbs. Probable error of difference Lot I and Lot IV = 7.3 ;1; 6.27 lbs. Probable error of difference Lot III and Lot IV = 3.2 =1; 6.80 lbs. In Lots I and II the odds are only about 2.6 to 1 against the occur- rence of a deviation as great as or greater than the one obtained due to chance alone. It must be remembered, however, that in group feeding it is impossible to know how much feed each pig eats, and unless we know this we cannot know how much of each pig’s gain is due to the amount of feed eaten. There is a correlation between gain and amount of feed eaten. If we could calculate the correlation existing between possible to reduce very materially the probable error obtained. In this experiment, if we had individual feeding data, the probable error of the difference between Lots I and II might have been reduced 50 per cent. The odds would then be 30‘ to 1 against the occurrence of a deviation as great as or greater than the one obtained. Such odds would make us reasonably sure that this difference must have resulted from the imposed condition, viz: the salt added to the cottonseed meal ration in _j result was caused by the conditions of the experiment or was accidental. Figures which exceed three times their probable errors are generally considered as indi- cating an effect genuinely caused by the conditions of the experiment. gain and amount of feed eaten and the resulting gains, it would be‘ “Probable Error” (P. E.) is a technical term used to indicate whether a given " 16 BULLETIN NO. 410, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Lot II produced this difference. The ration of Lot IV containing both limestone and salt did not produce quite as large gains as did the ration in Lot II with only salt added. The ration in Lot III with only lime- ‘stone added produced a trifle larger gain than did the ration in Lot IV. This difference is insignificant, the P. E. in this case being twice as large as the difierence; therefore it is safe to say that this was a chance difference. About all that We can say here is that our method of feeding in this experiment was not refined to the point where we can account by sta- tistical methods for certain uncontrolled factors. The differences ob- tained, however, point to the fact that larger gains are obtained when salt and limestone are added to a ration containing cottonseed meal for hogs. Furthermore, each of the three lots receiving minerals in addition to the cottonseed-meal ration exceeded the check lot in gains produced and required less feed per hundred pounds of gain. In November, 1926, 30 uniform Duroc Jersey pigs were selected for further study of the use of minerals in cottonseed-meal rations for hogs. In this second test, the pigs had access to oats pasture. This test started November 24, 1926, and ended after a 120-day period, on March 24, 1927. The rations for the three lots were as follows: Lot I—Ground milo 85 pounds, cottonseed meal 15 pounds. Lot II—-Ground milo 85 pounds, cottonseed meal 15 pounds, salt 1 pound. Lot IIL-Ground milo 85 pounds, cottonseed meal 15 pounds, limestone 1i: pounds, salt 1 pound. Table 9.——Sum,n1ary of data on the use of minerals in cottonseed-meal rations for hogs, second test. Test began November 24, 1926, closed March 24, 1927, (120 days). Rations fed——Pounds of feed in rations Lot I Lot II Lot III Milo chops. . . .85 lWilo chops. . . .85 Milo chops. . .85 C. S. Meal.....15 C S. Meal.....15 C. S. Meal....15 No minerals al . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Limestone. . . . 1.5 Oats pasture Oats pasture Salt. . . .. . . . . . 1 Oats pasture No. pigs at start of test . . . . . . . 10 10 10 N0. pigs at close of test . . . . . . . 1O 9* 7* Length of test-—days . . . . . . . . . 120 120 120 Average initial we1ghts——Lbs.. . 41.5 41 .7 43 Average final we1ghts—~Lbs.. . . 184. 6 192.8 200.3 Total gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 143.1 151.1 157.3 Average daily gain per head. . . 1.19 1.26 1.31 Feed per 100 pounds ga1n—— s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 391.5 386.8 394 *One sow ig died in Lot 2 70 days after test began. This pig got sick and was removed from test. he did not show symptoms of cottonseed meal poisoning. he died soon after being dosed with a tonic; the liquid medicine passed into the lungs as shown by post mortem examination, thus causing her death. Two pigs died in Lot 3 from cottonseed_ meal poisoning. The cause of the death of the third pig that died in Lot 3 could not be definitely determined, owing to the swollen condition of the pig when post mortem was made. f the 2 pigs that dicd in Lot 3 from cottonseed meal poisoning, one died on the 107th day of the test and the other pig died on the 112th day of‘ the test. .. “want-m den“ COTTONSEED MEAL AS A FEED FOR HOGS .17 The pigs were hand-fed twice daily all the feed they would clean up in about 30 minutes. Shade, shelter, and water were provided. Table 9 summarizes the results of this test for the rations fed, Weights of pigs, and feed required for 100 pounds of gain. As was the case in the dry-lot test, the pigs receiving the salt, and the limestone-salt mixture made slightly faster gains than did the pigs in Lot I Without minerals. The feed requirements for the several lots, per 100 pounds of gain, were practically the same. The pigs getting the limestone-salt mixture weighed 16 pounds per pig more than did the pigs in Lot I, where no minerals were fed. (See Table 10 for indi- vidual gains of pigs in each lot and the Probable Errors of the difference between Lots I and II, Lots I and III, and between Lots II and III.) Table 10.—~Individual gains of pigs and probable error of the difference in gains in Lots I with Lots II and III. Lot I Lot II Lot III Salt 1 lb.* No_mineral_s Salt 1 lb.* Limestone 1V2 lbs.* Individual gains, Individual gains, Individual gains, Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 159 154 162 163 161 143 134 127 162 116 144 176 153 145 168 129 178 140 127 170 149 139 145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total. . .1434 1360 1100 Average. 143.4 151.1 157.1 *Number of pounds added to each 100 pounds of the grain ration. Probable error of difference Lot I and II = 7.7 i 5.20 Probable error of difference Lot I and III = 13.7 :1: 5.04 Probable error of difference Lot II and III = 6.0 3; 5.83 In Lots I and II of this test the odds are about 2.2 to 1 against the possibility that a deviation as great as, or greater than, the one obtained was due to chance alone. In other words, there is some evide-nce that the ration in Lot II was improved by adding 1 per cent of salt. In Lots I and III the odds are about 14 to 1 against the occurrence due to chance alone of a difference as great as, or greater than, the one obtained. It seems reasonably safe to conclude that the greater gains obtained in Lot III are due in part to the salt and limestone. These results indicate that the cottonseed-meal ration may be improved by adding salt and limestone. 18 BULLETIN NO. 410, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION EXPERIMENT VI Feeding Ground Cotton Seed to Fattening Pigs The object of this experiment was to study the use of raw cottonseed in fattening rations for pigs (5), (21). It is generally thought by hogmen "that raw cottonsee will kill hogs when fed as a part of the ration, but one hears the statement once in a great while that hogs will thrive on raw cotton seed. To get some definite information concerning the feeding of cotton seed to pigs, 5 pigs, averaging 34.2 pounds initial weight, Were placed on a dry-lot test November 24, 1926. These were pure-bred Duroc Jersey pigs, farrowed in September, 1926, and weaned ' November 1, 1926. These pigs were started on a ration of ground milo 60 parts and ground cotton seed 40 parts, by weight. A mixture of 2 parts limestone and one part salt was kept before the pigs at all times. The ration was hand-fed twice daily. During the first 5 days of the test, the pigs ate only 1 pound of feed per day. They went off feed on the sixth day of the testf _ The ration was then changed to ground milo '70 parts and ground cotton seed 30 parts, by weight. One pig scoured badly on the seventh day of the test. The pigs did not have very good appetites; so the ration was changed on the eleventh day of the test to milo '75 parts and cotton seed 25 parts, by weight. This change did not help much; so the ration was changed finally to ground milo 80 parts and ground cotton seed 20 parts by weight. The pigs would eat only a part of the feed given them, and never did eat more than 1.6 pounds of feed per pig per day. ' Three pigs were scouring badly on the eighteenth day of the test. Twenty days after the test started, the pigs were taken off the cotton seed entirely and the test discontinued, with the conclusion that cotton seed are not suited as a feed for fattening pigs of the age and weights of the pigs used in this test (Table 11). One of these pigs died six days after being taken off test, from cottonseed poisoning, and one pig died 8 days after the test closed, on account of cottonseed poisoning. Table 11.—Summary of data on feeding ground cottonseed to fattening pigs. Test started November 24, 1926. Ground milo, Ration raw cotton seed Number pigs in lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Length of test. . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 days Average initial weight in pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 .2 Average final weights in pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.2 Total gains—pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Avera e daily gain—pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.21 Total eed eaten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 lbs. From the figures in the__above table, it is seen that raw cotton seed did not prove to be of any value as a. feed for growing fattening pigs. COTTONSEED MEAL AS A FEED FOR HOGS 19 The cotton seed was not palatable, and although the pigs never ate over i pound of the cotton seed at any time they developed bad cases of scours. The appetites of the pigs were very abnormal while on the cottonseed ration. Two of the pigs were thumping at the close of 20 dafys, and although these pigs were taken off the cottonseed ration December 14, 1926, one pig died December 31, 1926, and another pig died January 2, 1921* EXPERIMENT VII Feeding Varying Amounts of Cottonseed Meal to Find the Optimum That Can Be Safely Used in Swine Rations The object of this experiment was to determine the optimum amount of cottonseed meal that can safely be used in swine rations. Recom- mendations are made by some authorities to the effect that cottonseed meal may be fed to hogs provided that the ration is fed for only 60 days, or 90 days. Others have recommended that rations containing cottonseed meal be fed alternately for 28-day periods. All of these recommendations j include the warning that it is not safe to feed rations containing cotton- seed meal to hogs except for short periods, and some prefer not to feed Q rations containing cottonseed meal to hogs longer than about 6 weeks. . These former conclusions that rations containing cottonseed meal should not be fed to hogs except for short periods of time seem to have resulted from the feeding of too much cottonseed meal in the ration- . (23), (27). The hogman has to feed his hogs 365 days in the year, and he does not want to use a ration that he can feed for only a. few weeks l knowing if he uses such ration too long that he stands a chance of losing some of his hogs as the result of certain feeds contained in the ration. If it can be found that one can feed a ration containing a certain amount . of cottonseed meal to hogs for a very long period of time without pro- 1 ducing any ill effects, such a finding will be of much importance to the- hog industry. This experiment was planned, therefore, to find out the per cent of cottonseed meal that can safely be included in rations for . a hogs. The pigs used in this experiment were purebred Duroc Jersey pigs, i; bred by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. They were placed Ton test about 30 days after weaning, or as soon as they recovered from 5 cholera inoculation and worm treatment. This experiment was con- ducted in dry lots, and the rations were mixed and fed in self-feeders {placed on concrete feeding floors in the feeding barn. Water was avail- ‘ able for the pigs at all times. This experiment, being run in dry lots, and using pigs weighing 55 to 65 pounds live weight, is a. seve-re test, A for many of the deficiencies of a feed may never come to the attention ‘i of the investigator where the pigs weigh from 90 to 110 pounds live weight before being placed on test, orwhen they are fed on green pasture. ‘r *Post mortem by Dr. R. C. Dunn, Associate Professor of Veterinary Medicine _ iand Surgery, Texas A. and M. College, showed that these pigs died from “cotton- seed poisoning” (see page 21). 2O BULLETIN NO. 410, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Previous to going on experiment, the pigs in this experiment Were fed _ a mixture of milo 75 parts, Wheat gray shorts 15 parts, and tankage 10 ' parts. , Tables 12 to 17, inclusive, give summaries of the two duplicate tests with the above ration. Table 12.———Summary of data of the first test on the feeding of varying amounts of cottonseed meal to find the optimum that can be safely used in swine rations. This test began June 1, 1927, closed September 29, 1927, (120 days). Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV Lot V Lot VI G3 Tankage 10 Tankage C. S. Meal 3 C. S. Meal 6 C. S. Meal 9 C. S. Meal 12 No. of pigs at l "beginning . . . . .. ’ 10 1O 10 10 10 10 No. of pigs at close . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 10 10 10 8 Average initial weight-lbsnm. 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 Average final . _ weight-Jbs. . . . 266.5 272.6 248.7 241.6 238 .0 200.6 Average daily gain-lbs . . . . .. 1.74 1.79 1.59 1.53 1.50 1.19 Average total gain-lbs . . . . .. 209.2 215.3 191.4 184.3 180.7 143.3 Table 13.—Pounds of feed required per 100 pounds of gain Cottonseed Lot No. Ground Milo Meal Tankage 338 Check lot 37.5 328 11.0 29 5 331 22.5 22 5 328 34.0 15 0 311 43.3 7 0 343 60.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 14.—Pounds of milo and tankage saved per 100 pounds gain by using cottonseed meal. Lot I—Check lot. _ Lot II—11 pounds cottonseed meal saved 10 pounds milo and 8 pounds tankage. Lot III—22.5 pounds cottonseed meal saved 7 pounds milo and 15 pounds tankage. Lot IV——34 pounds cottonseed meal saved 10 pounds milo_ and 22 pounds tankage. Lot V—43.3 pounds cottonseed meal saved 27 pounds milo and 30 pounds tankage. Lot VI—The 2 pigs that died in this lot make this ration impracticable. One pig died in Lot VI on the sixtieth day of the test from cottonseed- meal poisoning. Another pig was taken from Lot VI on the ninetieth day, on account of loss of Weight and a marked thumping condition, both of which are external symptoms of cottonseed-meal poisoning (see page 21). ' The second test started December 9, 1927, and closed April '7, 1928, a period of 120 days. a Rations Fed——Pounds of Feed in Ratioiis ~ Milo chops 90 Milo chops 89 Milo chops 88 Milo chops 87 Milo chops 86 Milo chops 85 f Tankage 6 Tankage 4 Tankage 2 C. S. Meal 15 ~ COTTONSEED MEAL AS A FEED FOR HOGS 21 Table 15.——Summary of data of the second test on the feeding of varying amounts of cotton- seed meal to find the optimum that can be safely used in swine rations. This test began December 9, 1927, closed April 7, 1928, (120 days). Rations Fed-Pounds of Feed in Rations Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV Lot V Lot VI Milo chops 90 Milo chops 89 Milo chops 88 Milo chops 87 Milo chops 8 6 Milo chops 85 Tankage 10 Tankage 8 Tankage 6 Tankage 4 Tankage 2 C. S. Meal 15 C. S. Meal 3 C. S. Meal 6 C. S. Meal 9 C. S. Meal 12 No of pigs at beginning . . . . . . 10 10 10 10 10 10 No. of pigs at close . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 10 10 10 9 Average initial o weight-—lb3.... 63.1 63.2 63.1 63.1 63.1 63.3 Average final weight-lbs. . . . 299 294 _266 270 241 230 Average total gain—lbs . . . . . . 236 231 203 207 178 167 Average daily gain-lbs . . . . .. 1.96 1.92 1.69 1.72 1.48 1.39 Table 16.——Poiiiids of feed required per 100 pounds of gain. _ Cottonseed Lot No. Milo Tankage Meal I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 41 O II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 31 12 III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 25 25 IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 17 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 9 54 IVI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 O 62 h- Table 17.—Pounds of milo and tankage saved per 100 pounds of gain by using cottonseed meal Lot I——Check lot. _ Lot II—12 pounds cottonseed meal saved 23 pounds milo and 10-pounds tankage. Lot III—25 pounds cottonseed meal saved 8 pounds milo and 16 pounds tankage. Lot IV——38 pounds cottonseed meal saved 2 pounds milo and 24 pounds tankage. Lot V——54 pounds cottonseed meal and 14 poundsmilo saved _32 pounds tankage. Lot VI—-The pig that died in this lot made this ration impracticable. One pig died in Lot VI on the ninety-second day of the- test. This pig had the symptoms of cottonseed-meal poisoning. Dr. R. C. Dunn, Associate Professor of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, Texas A. & M. College, gives the following description of lesions due to cottonseed-meal I poisoning: “Macroscopic lesions on postmortem examination: pleural and peritoneal cavities, excessive quantities of a serous fluid; heart, dilated and flabby; lungs, congested and ede-matous; liver, enlarged and passive congested; spleen, congested; kidneys, congested; lymph glands, when aiiected, congested and swollen.” This second test, like the first test, indicates that losses are likely to occur where the pigs are fed as much as 15 per cent of cottonseed meal in their ration. Although no losses occurred in the lot of pigs receiving 12 per cent of cottonseed meal in their ration, the pigs did not look as 22 BULLETIN NO. 410", TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION good as did those where only .9 per cent of cottonseedrmeal was fed. In other words, when comparing these two lots of pigs, one would infer _ from their physical appearance that the lot of pigs where only 9 per cent of cottonseed meal was fed were getting a better ration than were those on the ration containing 12 per cent of cottonseed meal. (See Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8.) mifisma Fig. 5. Pigs which received a ration containing all tankage as the protein supp1e-' ment. Very little difference is noticed in the pigs fed 9 per cent of cottonseed meal as compared with those fed all tankage as the protein supplement. The pigs that were fed 12 and 15 per cent of cottonseed meal in the ration were lacking in condition and quality. Larger gains were obtained with fattening pigs when not over 9 per cent of cottonseed meal was contained in the ration. ‘ Statistical Study of Individual Gains of Pigs in Lots IV and V The results of the two tests were combined and the probable error of the difference obtained with Lot IV pigs getting 9 per cent of cottonseed meal in the ration and Lot V pigs getting 12 per cent of cottonseed meal in the ration. (See Table 18* for these results.) The probable error of the difference here shows that the odds are about 9 to 1 against the possibility that a deviation as great as, or greater than, that obtained was due to chance alone. Therefore it is fairly safe to conclude that the ration containing only 9 per cent of cottonseed meal Ch*See Fishers’ book——Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 2nd edition, . 8. COTTONSEED MEAL AS A FEED FOR HOGS 23 Fig. 6. Pigs which received a ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal and 4 per cent of tankage as the protein supplement. Fig. 7. Pigs which received a ration containing 12 per cent of cottonseed meal and 2 \ per cent of tankage as the protein. supplement. 24 BULLETIN NO. 410, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION is a better ration than the one containing 12 per cent of cottonseed meal, according to the results obtained in this experiment. The lot that got no cottonseed meal in the ration was the check lot, with tankage as the protein supplement. The gains were practically the same for the pigs getting 6 per cent and for the pigs getting 9 per cent of cottonseed meal in the ration (see Tables 12 and 15), but the gains decreased materially When as much as 12 per cent of cottonseed meal was included in the ration. ' Fig. 8. Pigs which received a ration containing 15 per cent of cottonseed meal as the protein supplement. Table 18.—Individual gains of pigs in Lots IV and V and the probable error of the difference Lots getting 9% of cottonseed meal Lots getting 12% of cottonseed meal First test Second test First test Second test June 1-Sept. 29, 1927 Dec. 9, 1927- June 1-Sept. 29, 1927 Dec. 9, 1927-- April '7, 1928 April 7, 1928 Total _ Total _ Total Total Pig No. gain Pig No. gain Pig No. gain Pig No. gain 10-S 157 45-5 225 68-B 234 402-S 144 89-B 231 160-B 265' 90-B 214 59-B 165 69-B 197 357-B 245 106-S 177 164-B 265 22-S 225 185-S 213 24-S 183 96-S 180 25-S 206 148-B 259 43-B 175 170-B 239 122-S 176 183-B 170 112-S 152 182-S 167 109-S 161 132-B 159 107-S 161 194-S 149 7-B 188 63-8 188 101-S 1 84 52-S 114 130-B 170 177-S 154 82-S 175 301-B 190 136-B 176 27-B 193 132-B 152 79-B 168 Total 1887 . . . . . . . . . . 2071 . . . . . . . . . . 1807 . . . . . . . . . . 1781 Average gain 188.7 . . . . . . . . .. 207.1 . . . . . . . . .. 180.7 . . . . . . . . .. 178.1 d2=5920.2 d2=14911.8 d2=6080.0 d2=17921.0 Grand mean gain 9% cottonseed meal lots = 197.9 d; 5.13 lbs. Grand mean gain 12% cottonseed meal lots = 179.4 i 5.50 lbs. P. E. Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. = 18.5 A; 7.52 lbs. ~COTTONSEED MEAL AS A FEED FOR HOGS 25 Nine per cent cottonseed meal is safe amount in rations for hogs: Twenty pigs, farrowed in September, 1927, from sows that received a ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal during their gestation and lactation periods, were divided up into two lots of 10 pigs each on December 9, 1927, to further study the amount of cottonseed meal that can safely be included in the ration for hogs. These pigs had access to a ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal from the time they started eating until they were placed on test December 9, 1927’. On December 9, the 2O pigs were equally divided into two lots of 10 pigs each. Lot I was kept on the ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal, while Lot II was fe-d a ration containing 12 per cent of cottonseed meal. This test ran 120 days. The pigs were on the 9 per cent cotton- seed-meal ration for '70 days before the test started; therefore, these pigs were on this ration for a total of 190 days. The test was conducted in ra dry lot. Table 19 gives average weights, gains, and amount of feed required per 100 pounds of gain for these two lots of pigs. Table 19.—Summary of test on the feeding of 9 per centof cottonseed meal as compared to the feeding of 12 per cent of cottonseed meal in rations for growing and fattening pigs. Test started December 9, 1927, closed April 7, 1928, (120 days). Rations fed——Pounds of Feed* Lot I - Lot II Ground Milo. . .87 Ground Milo. . . .86 C. S. Meal..... 9 C. S. Meal . . . . ..12 Tankage . . . . .. 4 Tankage . . . . . .. 2 Number pigs at beginning of test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1O Number pigs at close of test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9 Average initial weight——pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.2 57. 1 Average final weight—pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 240.0 206.2 Average daily gain—-—pounds . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.52 1.43 ‘Total feed required per 100 pounds gain—pounds. . . 368.6 396.0 *The ration was mixed and fed in self-feeders. A mineral mixture of salt and limestone, equal parts, was self-fed. These pigs were fed a ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal for 70 days previous to the 120-day test lIl dry lot. One pig died in Lot II on the 100th day of the test. This pig was swelled up the next morning after dying; so a post morten could not reveal the cause of his death. Although this pig was slightly thumping a few days before he died, one could not be certain that cottonseed meal was the cause of his death. The pigs in Lot I looked much better all during the test and had better appetites than did the pigs in Lot II. It would seem from the results of this test that for best results as much .as 12 per cent of cottonseed meal should not be» included in the ration for hogs, but that it is entirely safe to include as much as 9 per cent of cottonseed meal in the ration for hogs, even when the ration is to be fed for an indefinite period of time. This conclusion is derived from the fact that in the experiment with brood sows the ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal proved entirely safe, and the pigs from the sows fed 9' per cent of cottonseed meal, after receiving this same 26 BULLETIN NO. 410, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ration for 190 days, 120 da.ys of which were in a dry lot, made normal gains, maintained excellent health, and were in general appearance equal t0 the tankage-fed sows and tankage-fed pigs. On June 12, 1928, another lot of 10 pigs out of the sows getting 9 per cent of cottonseed meal in their ration during the gestation and lactation periods were placed in a dry lot on a ration 9 per cent of which was cottonseed meal. These pigs received a ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal during the period beginning about 3 Weeks after a they were farrowed in March, 1928, and closing June 12, 1928, about 73 days. This dry-lot test lasted 100 days; therefore, these pigs were on a ration containing 9 per cent of cottonse-ed meal for a total of 173 days. They made excellent daily gains and looked uniform, healthy, and had good appetites throughout the test period. Table 20 gives the weights, gains, and feed required per 100 pounds of gain for these pigs. Table 20.——Results of feeding a ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal to pigs for‘ a total of 173 days. Dry-lot test began June 12, closed Sept. 20, 1928 (100 days). Ration fed* Ground Milo . . . . . .87 lbs- Cottonseed Meal.. . 9 lbs. Tankage.......... 4 lbs. Number pigs in Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1O Average initial weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.7 lbs. Average final weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.2 lbs. Average ain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 173.5 lbs. Average aily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.735 lbs. Feed required per 100 pounds gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369.4 lbs. *Ration was mixed and fed in self-feeders. A mineral mixture of half limestone and half salt was kept before the pigs in a box during the test. These pigs received a ration containing 9_ per cent of cottonseed meal for a total period of 1'73 days, the last 100 days being in a dry lot. This makes a total of forty pigs fed on a ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal in four different tests with no ill effects Whatever developing. Some of the pigs on the ration containing 12 per cent of cottonseed meal made unsatisfactory gains, while one Pig died. The pigs fed on a ration containing 12 per cent of cottonseed meal were not very thrifty after they had been on their ration for six months. The pigs getting the ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal, hovv- ever, were as good in general appearance, appetite, and thriftiness as were the tankage-fed pigs. The tankage-fed pigs, however, gained on the average 0.23 pounds (see Tables 12 and 15) per pig per day more than did the pigs on the ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal. COTTONSEED MEAL AS A FEED FOR HOGS 27 EXPERIMENT VIII Cottonseed Meal-Tankage Mixture, Half and Half, Versus Tankage Alone as a Protein Supplement for Fattening Hogs It is generally known that self-feeders are labor-savers in hog pro- duction. Hogs also make faster gains when fed from self-feeders than they do when hand-fed twice daily. It is not a safe practice to feed cottonseed meal, free choice, in self-feeders, to hogs (Table 4). There- fore, an experiment was planned to study the effect of feeding a mixture of one-half cottonseed meal and one-half tankage, by weight, to hogs in self-feeders, free choice, and to compare the cottonseed-meal-tankage mixture to tankage alone (16). One test was started December '7, 1928, and closed March '7, 1929 (90 days). A se-cond test was started June 5, 1929, and closed Sep- tember 3, 1929 (90 days). The pigs used in these tests were uniform Duroc Jersey pigs bred by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Both tests were run in dry lots. The test was conducted in pens 20 by 60 feet with a shed 10 by 20 feet at one end of the pen. The feeds used were fed in self-feeders, free choice. The pigs had access to water at all times. The self-feeders and water troughs were placed on the concrete floor under the shed. Table 21 gives a summary of Test I. Table 22 gives a summary of Test II. Table 21.—Summary of test I; began Dec. 7, 1928, closed March 7, 1929, (90 days) Lot I Lot II Ground milo; mixture V,» Ration Ground milo; tankage; . S. Meal % tankage; Salt; Self-fed, Salt; Self-fed, Free choice. Free choice. Number pigs to Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 Average initial weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67. 5 68 Average final weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238. 5 252.87 Average total gain per pig . . . . . . . . . . . 171 184. 87 Average daily gain per pig . . . . . . . . . . . 1.90 2.05 Feed per 100 pounds gain: Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380.0 342.68 Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4 23.70 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.70 Total . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411.4 390.08 The total gain of each pig for both the first and second tests, the mean gains of each lot, and the probable error of the difference between Lots I and II for both years combined are given in Table 23. The difference of 8.37 i 4.66 pounds per pig in favor of Lot II (cottonseed-meal lot) is 1.79 times its probable error. This represents odds of about 3.5 to 1 against the occurrence, due to chance alone, of a deviation as great as, or greater than, the one obtained. In other words, the difference obtained in favor of the cottonseed-meal-tankage mixture 28 BULLETIN NO. 410, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION is not altogethe-r a chance difference. If we could calculate the cor- relation existing between the amount of feed eaten and the resulting gains, it would be possible to reduce very materially the probable e-rror obtained. It would seem that since the difference in gains in this ex- periment was in the same direction in both tests that it would be fairly safe to conclude that the greater gains obtained in the cottonseed-meal lot were due in part to the cottonseed meal in the ration (see Figures 9 and 10). A Table 22.—Summary of test II, began June 5, 1929, closed September 3, 1929, (90 days) Lot I Lot II Ground Milo; Mixture % Ground Milo; Tankage; C. S. Meal—~% 'I‘ankage; Salt; Self-fed, Salt; Self-fed, Free choice. Free choice. Number of pi s to Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 Average initia weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.25 72.12 Average final weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226.0 228.8 Average total gain per pig . . . . . . . . . . . 153.7 156.6 Average daily gain per pig . . . . . . . . . . . 1.70 1.74 Feed per 100 pounds gain: Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 301.0 315.0 Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.43 23.32 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.32 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340.43 363.64 Table 23.—Individual gains of each pig; mean gain for each lot; and probable error of difference between Lots I and II for first and second tests combined. Lot I——Test 1 Lot I——Test 2 Lot II—Test 1 Lot II—Test 2 Total gain per pig, Total gain per pig, Total gain er pig, Total gain per pig, pounds pounds poun s pounds 194 150 228 149 179 135 185 175 191 187 166 145 155 145 161 179 185 143 188 157 183 185 184 153 144 139 193 139 137 148 174 157 Total . . . . . . .1368 1232 1479 1254 Average... . . 171 154 185 156.75 Grand Mean Lot I = 162.5 d; 3.6 Grand Mean Lot II =170.87 :1; 2.97 P. E. of Difference = 8.37 d; 4.66 An average of two tests shows that the pigs receiving the cottonseed- meal-tankage mixture weighed 8.3 pounds per pig more at the close of the tests than did those receiving tankage alone. Feed required per hundred pounds gain: In the first test, 2&7 pounds of cottonseed meal saved 7.’? pounds of tankage and 27 pounds of milo for each 100 pounds of gain. In the second test, 24.3 pounds of cotton- COTTONSEED MEAL AS A FEED FOR HOGS 29 seed meal and 14 pounds of milo saved 15.1 pounds of tankage for each 100 pounds of gain. An average of the two tests shows that 24L pounds of cottonseedmeal saved 11.4 pounds of tankage and 6.5 pounds of milo for each 100 pounds of gain. Tables 24 and 25 show the consumption of cottonseed meal for each ten-day period in each test. It will be note-d that the pigs at no time in either test consumed as much as 9 per cent of cottonseed meal where the protein supplement was a. mixture of one-half cottonseed meal and one-half tankage and was fed in self-feeders, free choice. The average Fig. 9. These pigs were fed milo and tankage, free choice, in self-feeders. Fig. 10. These pigs were fed milo and a protein mixture of one-half cottonseed meal and one-half tankage by weight, free choice, in self-feeders. 3O BULLETIN NO. 410; TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION cottonseed meal consumption was 6.01 per cent in the first test and 6.68 per cent in the second test. These amounts of cottonseed meal are Well Within the limits of safety, 'and the practice of feeding such a mixture e in self-feeders, free choice, saves labor and time. Table 24.—Feed eaten, by 10-day periods First test; 8 pigs to lot—Dec. 7, 1928, to March 7, 1929, (90 days). Lot I——Feed eaten, lbs. Lot II—Feed eaten, lbs. Ten-day periods i’ _ E g9 ‘Q’ E 5a F‘ P" Q-w-o-w F‘ U l" Q-ua Q-1U Dec. 7 to 17 . . . . . . 401 42 443‘ 9.48 385 41 41 467 8.78 8.78 Dec. 17 to 27 . . . . . . 435 71 506 14.00 432 45.5 45.5 523 8.70 8.70 Dec. 27 to Jan. 6... 538 73 611 11.94 487 49.5 49.5 586 8.44 8.44 Jan. 6 to 16 . . . . .. 576 43 619 6.94 529 49 49 627 7.81 7.81 Jan. 16 to 26 . . . . . . 586 52 638 8.15 553 39.5 39.5 632 6.25 6.25 Jan. 26 to Feb. 5.. 618 38 656 5.79 654 37.5 37.5 729 5.14 5.14 Feb. 5 to 15 . . . . .. 630 39 669 5.82 684 31.5 31.5 747 4.21 4.21 Feb. 15 to 25 . . . . . . 702 41 743 5.51 708 28 28 764 3.66 3.66 Feb. 25 to Mar 7. . 708 3O 738 4.06 698 29.5 29.5 757 3.89 3.89 Total for test. . . . 5194 429 5623 7.62 i 5130 351.0 351.0 H3832 6.01 6.01 Table 25.——Feed eaten, by 10-day periods; ~, v Second test; 8 pigs to lot—June 5 to September 3, 1929, (90 days). Lot I—Feed eaten, lbs. Lot II—Feed eaten, lbs. Ten-day periods ‘Q9 E % é’ ‘a 6i: ‘E2 o x 7'3 °§ o x T; F 8i’ 3:15 E é s s g é "ig *5 s g su- b‘ F‘ Q-t-H 1"‘ U 1*‘ I14 a 9-4 June i i5lto 15 . . . . . . 298 47 345 13.62 295 23 23 341 6.74 6.74 June 15 to 25 . . . . . . 359 63 422 14. 92 397 38 38 473 8.03 8.03 June 25 to July 5. . 398 60 458 13.10 426 36 36 498 7.23 7.23 July 5 t0 15 . . . . . . 473 62 535 11.58 473 45. 5 45.5 564 8.06 8.06 July 15 to 25 . . . . .. 411 38 449 8.46 514 27.5 27.5 569 4.83 4.83 July 25 to Aug. 4,. . 399 51 450 11.33 427 29.5 29.5 486 6.07 6.07 Aug. 4 to 14 . . . . . . 460 62 522 11.87 439 38.5 38.5 516 7.46 7.46 Aug. 14 to 24 . . . . . . 494 39 533 7.31 508 26 26 - 560 4.64 4.64 Aug. 24 to Sept. 3.. 408 63 471 13.37 458 4O 40 538 7.43 7.43 Total for test. . . 3700 485 4185 11 58 3937 304.0 304.0 4545 6.68 6.68 . SUMMARY On the basis of the experiments .reported in this Bulletin, a ration containing not over 9 perjcent of cottonseedm-ealcan be fed to fattening hogs and to breeding hogs Without producing any ill effects due to the cottonseed meal. A ‘ ” - Three sows fed a cottonseed-meal ration farrowed 1'7 litters of pigs in three years that averaged 9.49 pigs per litter. The litters farrowed from the tankage-fed sows during the same period averaged 10.82 pigs per litter. The average birth weight of the pigs from the cottonseed- p k L-i B H A R Y Wrvcuitural & Mechanical College o! Tera COTTONSEED MEAL AS A Feemllfififlxsllllflfl, IQXQSQ“ meal-fed sows was 2175 pounds. The pigs from the tankage-fed sows averaged 2.74 pounds at birth. Two gilts out of the cottonseed-meal-fed sows were fed continuously and farrowed three consecutive litters each of second-generation cotton- seed-meal-fed pigs that averaged 10.5 pigs per litter. The pigs getting a ration containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal gained on the average .23 pounds per pig daily less than did the pigs that got a straight tankage ration. The fattening pigs receiving minerals in addition to the cottonseed- meal ration exce-eded the check lot in gains produced and required less feed per hundred pounds of gain. ' An average of 36 pounds of cottonseed meal replaced 6 pounds of grain and 23 pounds of tankage for each 100 pounds of gain produced with pigs averaging 6O pounds initial live Weight when placed on dry-lot tests and fed for 120 days on a ration containing 8'7 pounds of milo, 9 pounds of cottonseed meal, and 4 pounds of tankage. The check ration was‘ milo, 90 pounds, and tankage, 10 pounds. Raw cotton seed did not prove to be satisfactory as a feed for hogs. The pigs scoured badly and died. The feeding of cottonseed meal, free choice, in self-feeders as a protein _ supplement did not prove to be a safe practice, but the feeding of a mixture of one-half cottonseed meal and o11e-half tankage, by weight, free choice, in self-feeders, gave better results than did the tankage alone. The pigs getting a one-half cottonseed meal and one-half tankage.» mixture, fed in self-feeders, free choice, with milo chops, gained on the average .095 pounds more per pig per day than did the pigs that got only the tankage and milo chops. - REFERENCES (1) Cary, C. A. 1896. Pig Feeding Experiments. Ala. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 68. (2) Gray, Dan T., Duggar, J. F., and Ridgeway, J. W. 1908. Feeds Supplementary to Corn for Southern Pork Production. Ala. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 143. (3) Duggar, J. F. 1903. Grazing and Feeding Experiments with Pigs. Ala. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 122. (4) Dinwiddie, R. R. 1903. Pig Feeding Experiments with Cottonseed Meal. Ark. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 76. (5) Dinwiddie, R. R. A 1904. Cotton Food Products in Hog Feeding. Ark. Agr. Expt. Sta. . Bul. 85. (6) Curtiss, C. F. 1895. Feeding Cottonseed and Other Meals to Hogs. Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 28. (7) Evvard, John M., Culbertson, C. C., and Hammond, W. S. 1922. Minerals and Cottonseed Meal for Dry Lot Pig Feeding. Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Leaflet D-81. (8) Georgeson, C. C., Burtis, F. C., and Otis, D. H. 1895. Feeding Experiments with Pigs on Corn, Wheat, Kafir, and Cot- tonseed Meal. Kan. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 53. 32 (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) BULLETIN NO. 410, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Connell, J. H. p 1889. Experiments in Pig Feeding. Ky. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 19. May, D. W. . 1902. A Comparison of Feeds for Pigs. Ky. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 101. . Edgerton, C. W., and Morris, H. 1912. Sta. Bul. 134. Weaver, L. A. ‘ 1927. Solving Farm Problems by Research. Mo. Agr. Expt. Sta. 1 Bul. 256. " Moore, J. S. 1' 1899. Value of Cotton Seed to the Farmer. Miss. Agr. Expt. Sta. A Bul. 60. Walker, G. B. 1916. Some Experiments and Practical Demonstrations in Hog Feeding at the Delta Branch Experiment Station. Sta. Bul. 177. Barnett, E., and Goodell, C. J. " 1923. Grazing and Feeding Trials with Hogs. Miss. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 218. Loeffel, Wm. J. 1927. Protein Supplementary Mixtures for Feeding Pigs in Dry Lot. Neb. Agr. Expt. Sta. Hog Leaflet 229. Curtis, R. S. 1909. Feeding Fermented Cottonseed Meal to Hogs. Sta. Bul. 200. McDonald, W. T., and Malone, J. S. N. C. Agr. Expt. 1908. Rations for Fattening Hogs. Okla. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 80. Malone, J. S. 1918. Feeds for Fattening Hogs. Okla. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 120. Bohstedt, G., Bethke, R. M., and Edgington, B. H. _ 1927. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bi-Monthly Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 5, Sept.- Oct. 128. Curtis, Geo. W., and Carson, J. W. 1892. Effect of Cotton Seed and Cottonseed Meal in Feeding Hogs. Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 21. Harrington, H. H., and Adriance, Duncan. 1893. 'Efi'ects of Cotton Seed and Cottonseed Meal on Butter, Beef Tallow, Lard, and Sheep Suet. Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 29. Marshall, F. R. 1905. Feeding Fermented Cottonseed Meal to Hogs. Sta. Bul. 78. Cruse, J. T. 1910. Feeding Experiments with Steers and Hogs. Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 135. Burk, L. B., and Ewing, P. V. 1919. Hardening Peanut-Fed Hogs. Warren, G. R. Tex. Agr. Expt. Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 242. Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 305. 1923. Swine Feeding Experiments. Gray, Dan. T. 1917. Feeding Hogs in the South. U. S. Dept. of Agr. Farmers Bul. 411. Sheets, E. W., and Thompson, E. H. Feeding Cottonseed Meal Products to Livestock. U. S. Dept. of Agr. Farmers Bul. 1179 (Revised). Some Studies on Cottonseed Meal Poisoning. La. Agr. Expt. = Miss. Agr. Expt. i“