LIBRARYQTU
A & M CGLLEGE,
campus.

A175-731-9M-Ll80

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR
COLLEGE STATION; BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS

BULLETIN NO. 429 JULY, 1931

DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY

The Effect 0f Cottonseed Meal and
Other Feeds on the Storage
Quality of Eggs

 

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

STATION STAFFT

ADMINISTRATION:
A. B. CoNNER, NI. S., Director
R. E. KARPER, M. S., Vice-Director
CLARIGE INTIXSON, B. A., Secretary
. . HQLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk
J. K. FRANcKLow, Assistant Chief Clerk
CHESTER HIGGS, Executive Assistant
———-i-——, Technical Assistant
CHEMISTRY:

G. S. FRAPs, PH. D., Chief; State Chemist
S. E. ASBURY, 1W. S., Chemist

J. F. FUDGE, PH. D., Chemist

E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Assistant Chemist
WALDo H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist
VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist_

T. L. OGIER, B. S., Assistant Chemist _
ATHAN J. STERGES, B. S., Assistant Chemist
JEANNE M. FUEGAS, Assistant Chemist _
RAY TREIcHLER, M. S., Assistant Chemist _
RALPH L. ScHwARTz, B. S., Assistant Chemist
C. M. PQUNDERs, B. S., Assistant Chemist

HORTICULTURE:
S. H. YARNELL, Sc. D., Chief
L. R. HAWTHQRN, M. S., Horticulturist
RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY:
J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chi
B. L. WARwIcK, Ph.D., Breeding Investigations
STANLEY P. DAvIs, Wool Grader

ENTOMOLOGY:
F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State
Entomologist _
H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist
R. K. FLETcHER, Ph. D., Entomologist
W. L. OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist '
J. N. RoNEY, M. S., Entomologist _
J. C. GAINEs, JR., M. S., Entomologist
S. E. JoNEs, M. S., Entomologist
F. F. BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist

CEcIL E. HEARD, B. S., Chief Inspector
OTTo MAcKENsEN, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector
W. B. WHITNEY, Foulbrood Inspector
AGRONOMY: _
E. B. REYNoLDs, Ph. D., Chief
. E. KARPER, M. S., Agronomist _
C. MANGELsDoRF, Sc. D., Agronomist
. T. KILLoUGH, M. S., Agronomist
. E. REA, B. S., Agronomist
. C. LANGLEY, M. S., Agronomist
BLICATIONS:
A. D. JAcKsoN, Chief

VETERINARY SCIENCE:
*M. FRANcIs, D. V. M., Chief

H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian

F. P. MATHEws, D. V. M., M. S., Veterinarian

W. T. HARDY, l). V. M., Veterinarian

F. E. CARROLL, D. V. M., Veterinarian
PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY:

J. J. TAUBENHAus,‘Ph. D., Chi

W. N. EzEKIEL, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist

W. J. BAcH, M. S., Plant Pathologist
, Plant Pathologist
FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS:

L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief

W. E. PAuLsoN, Ph. D., Marketing

C. A. BoNNEN, M. S., Farm Management
**W. R. NIsBET, B. S., Ranch Management
**A. C. MAGEE, M. S., Farm Management
RURAL HOME RESEARCH:

JEssIE WHITAcRE, Ph. D., Chief

MARY ANNA GRIIvIEs, M. S., Textiles

ELIZABETH D. TERRILL, M. A., Nutrition
SOIL SURVEY: .
**W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief

E. H. TEIvIPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor

A. H. BEAN, B. S., Soil Surveyor

R. M. MARSHALL, 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:

. C. COPELAND, M. S., Dairy Husbandman

POULTRY HUSBANDRY:

R. M. SHERwo0D, M. S., Chief
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING:

H. P. SMITH, M. S., Chief
MAIN STATION FARM:

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

H. B. PARKS, B. S., Chief

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

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

S. D. PEARcE, Secretary

J. H. RooERs, Feed Inspector

K. L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector

SIDNEY D. REYNQLDs, JR., Feed Inspector

P. A. MooRE, Feed Inspector

E. J. WILSON, B. S., Feed Inspector

H. G. WICKES, B. S., Feed Inspector

 

SUBSTATIONS

No. 1, Beeville, Bee County:
R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent

No. 2, Troup, Smith County: _
P. R. JoHNsoN, M. S., Superintendent
No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County:
R. 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
Plant Pathologist

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

SIMON E. WQLFP, M. S., Botanist; Cotton Root
Rot Investigations
No. 6, Denton, Denton County:
P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent
No. 7, Spur, Dickens County:
. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent
B. C. LANGLEY, M. S., Agronomist
No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County:
D. L. JoNEs, Superintendent
FRANK GAINEs, Irrigationist and Forest
Nurseryman
No- Q. Balmorhea. Reeves Cquntyr
J. J. BAYLEs, B. S., Superintendent

slnrff:

No. l0, College Station, Brazos County:
R. SHERwo0D, M. S., In charge
L. J . McCALL, Farm Superintendent
No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County:
. . M0RRIs, M. S., Superintendent
"Ne. 12, Chillicothe, Henderson County:
J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent _
**J. C. STEPHENS, M. A., Assistant Agronomist
No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties:
W. H. DAMERON, B. S., Superintendent
, Veterinarian _
W. T. HARDY, D. V. M., Veterinarian
**O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Entomologist
O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd
No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County:
W. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent _
SHERMAN W. CLARK, B. S., Entomologist
W. J. BACH, M. S., Plant Pathologist
No. l6, Iowa Park, Wichita County:
C. H. McDowELL, B. S., Superintendent
N0. 17,

No. 18,
, Superintendent

No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County:
E. MoRTENsEN, B. S., Superintendent

N L.2R. HAwTHoRN, M. S., Horticulturist
o. 0, ------i

 

 

, Superintendent

 
 

 

, Superintendent

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
D. ScQATEs, A. E., Agricultural Engineering
A. K. MAcKEY, M. S., Animal Husbandry

 

*Dean School of Veterinary Medicine.
**In cooperation with

J. S. IVIOGFORD, M. S., Agronomy

F. R. BRIsoN, B. S., Horticulture

W. R. HQRLAcHER, Ph. D., Genetics

J. H. KNox, M. S., Animal Husbandry

TAs of July l, 1931.

S. Department of Agriculture.

In a study during 1928, 1929, and 1930 to determine the
effect of various food materials on the storage quality of
eggs, it was found that a number 0f these materals, when
used in feeds for laying hens caused the eggs to deteriorate
in storage. Hens receiving daily 2 to 12 grams of cottonseed
meal, laid eggs in which the percentage of seconds and dis-
cards ranged from 8 to 97 per cent, after about 8 months in
storage. Hens which received mash mixtures containing 9 to
30 per cent of cottonseed meal laid eggs in which the loss
in storage ranged from 57 to 95 per cent. The yolks of the

eggs became discolored and in many cases they absorbed ma- .

terial from the white; in some cases the whites of the eggs
became discolored also. For that reason the Texas Station is
no longer recommending the use of cottonseed meal for laying
hens during the seasons when eggs are being put in storage.

In the case of eggs that were broken out and stored in a
frozen condition for a period of five months, the mixed yolk
and white of those laid by hens fed cottonseed meal became
much darker in color than did those laid by hens fed no cot-
tonseed meal but otherwise handled in a similar way.

The substance in cottonseed meal that causes eggs to dete-
riorate in storage is probably something closely associated
with the cottonseed oil. The feeding of extracted cottonseed
meal which contained a very small amount of oil caused prac-
tically no loss of eggs in storage, while the eggs from hens
fed one gram daily of either crude cottonseed oil or partially
refined cottonseed oil deteriorated in storage. Feeding the
soap stock which is secured in partially refining crude cot-
tonseed oil with sodium hydroxide and which contains a large
percentage of the impurities and coloring matter of the crude
oil, did not cause losses in storage. The eggs laid by hens
which were fed refined cottonseed oil (Wesson oil), did not
deteriorate in storage. This suggests that the later processes
used to manufacture this highly refined oil remove or change
the substance that injures the storage quality of the eggs.

Results indicate that the feeding of one gram daily of cod
liver oil, which is the equivalent of about 2 to 3 per cent in a
mash mixture, causes no injurious effect on the storage qual-
ity of eggs.

Studies were also made on the effect of raw linseed oil, lin-
seed meal, and soybean meal on the storage quality of eggs,
but further experimentation is needed to determine whether
they have any injurious elfect.

CONTENTS

PAGE
. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Method of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Stock and Method of Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Storage Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Grade of Eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Effect of Various Amounts of Cottonseed Meal on the Storage Quality

of Eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Changes in Size and Composition of Yolk During Storage . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10

Green Feed Does Not Prevent Losses from Eggs Produced by the Feed-
ing of Cottonseed Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12

The Injurious Substance in Cottonseed Meal is Associated with the Oil. . 12
The Injurious Substance of Cottonseed Oil is Not Removed by Partial

Refining with Sodium Hydroxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Effect of Cottonseed Meal on the Storage Quality of Frozen Eggs . . . . .. 16
Effect of Cod Liver Oil on the Storage Quality of the Eggs . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
Effect of Raw Linseed Oil and Linseed Meal on the Storage Quality of

the Eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
Effect of Soybean Meal on the Storage Quality of the Eggs . . . . . . . . . .. 17
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Reference;- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18

BULLETIN NO. 429 JULY, 1931

THE EFFECT OF COTTONSEED MEAL AND OTHER FEEDS
ON THE STORAGE QUALITY OF EGGS
?

ROSS M. SHERWOOD

Experiments have been conducted. at the ‘Texas Station for a number
of ‘years on cottonseed meal as a feed for laying hens. The cottonseed
meal used in these studies was 4E3 per cent protein cottonseed meal,
prime quality, unless otherwise stated. The meat and bone scraps used
was 50 per cent protein meat and bone scraps. No serious discolora-
tion of yolk or white m” the eggs, when freshly/r laid, resulted. from the
combinations of feeds used at the Texas Station, and from correspond-
ence it was learned that this was true at the Oklahoma, Missouri, Indi-
ana, Ohio, and Alabama Stations. The Texas Station did not use over
thirty-two pounds of cottonseed meal in one hundred pounds of mash.‘

Thompson (l) reported cottonseed meal spots on the yolks of eggs

‘from hens but none on the yolks of the eggs from pullets. Later the

Xew Mexico Station (2) reported as follows: “The pen which received
38 per cent of cottonseed meal in the mash, produced eggs which were
so loadlv aitected. by the cottonseed meal spots as to be tinmarketalule.
The yolk of these eggs turned black in color, as the eggs were kept for
a few days, so that when a week old the yolk was almost entirely lolack.”
It is noted that 38 per cent of the mash was cottonseed meal. The fol-
loyving description of this cottonseed meal was secured by correspond-
ence with Mr. Berry of the Yew lffexico Station: “The meal is prime
and carries a guaranteed zinalysis ot l3 per cent protein. It has a
bright greenish-_\'ellow color, and is (litterent from any that I have seen
elsewhere in this respect. It is practically all Acala cotton and is
grown under irrigation.”

In the spring of 1926, Sherwood (3) ‘found that the yolks and whites
of eggs laid by hens ted cottonseed meal did not hold their color in
cold storage. The yolks of the storage eggs ranged from salmon to
dark green, or almost black in color, and the whites varied from nor-
mal color to pink. X0 bacteriological decomposition was evident and
no abnormal odor was detected.

Later Sherwood (l) reported that the eggs laid by hens which re-
ceived a mash containing 20 or 32 per cent of cottonseed meal, or an
“all mash” teed containing 9 per cent or more of cottonseed meal, did
not store well ; the loss due to discolored yolks and whites of these eggs
was very heavy.

Walker, Berry, and Anderson (5) reported that hens receiving a mash
containing 5 per cent or more of cottonseed meal, produced eggs that
did not hold up in storge.

6 BULLETIN NO. 429, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Kempster (6) reported that hens receiving a mash containing 30 per
cent of cottonseed meal laid eggs that did not store well. He reported
a heavier loss from eggs laid in July than from eggs laid in April.
Kempster (6) also reported a small loss from eggs laid in July by hens
being fed a mash containing 30 per cent of soybean meal, and a rather
significant loss from eggs produced in July by hens fed a mash contain-
ing 30 per cent of ground soybeans. The soybean meal contained 7.4
per cent of fat and the ground soybeans contained 17.5 per cent of
fat. This would suggest that either soybean oil or something closely
associated with the soybean oil is injurious to the storage quality of
eggs.

Sipe (7) stated that when large quantities of cottonseed meal are
fed to hens, the eggs produced by them develop green or olive yolks
when in storage. Quoting from him concerning a test in 1929 as fol-
lows: “The results of this test showed no olive-colored yolks when 4
per cent of the mash ration was composed of cottonseed meal; 33 per
cent olive-colored yolks when 10 per cent of cottonseed meal was used;
and 70 p-er cent olive-colored yolks when 26 per cent of cottonseed meal
was used in the ration.”

Upp (8) reported the storage of one case of eggs laid by hens re-
ceiving an all-mash feed containing 1'7 per cent of cottonseed meal in
which the loss in storage was very light.

Thompson (9) reported that '7 per cent of cottonseed meal in a lay-
ing mash produces an egg that is excellent for storage purposes. “Thir-
ty-three and one-third per cent of cottonseed meal in a laying mash
produces an egg that develops an olive-green yolk when placed in stor-
age. Discoloration of the yolk will show without being placed in stor-
age. The maximum amount of cottonseed meal it is possible to feed
without producing olive yolk eggs has not been determined.”

METHOD OF WORK

Stflfik and Methods 0f F eediflgi Single Comb White Leghorn fowls
were used in all of these studies. In each of the experiments all of the
hens were fed the same mixture except for the variable feeds being
studied. In some cases the hens were pen-fed, while in other cases the
fowls were pen-fed a ration deficient in protein. The protein feed, in-
cluding the variable feeds, was in these cases fed each hen individually
twice daily in gelatin capsules. About two-thirds of this feed was fed
in the morning and one-third late in the afternoon. A one-half-ounce
capsule was used for the morning feeding and a one-fourth-ounce cap-
sule for the afternoon feeding.

storage Cflllditiollsi The eggs from the hens fed the various feeds
were stored in the cold storage plant at the Experiment Station. In
1928 this plant was not equipped with automatic temperature control.
The temperature normally ranged between 3O and 4-0 degrees Fahren-

EFFECT OF COTTONSEED MEAL ON STORAGE QUALTY OF EGGS 7

heit; however, on a few occasions the temperature ran somewhat higher
than this. All eggs were stored in the same room; therefore all were
exposed to these changes. The eggs were placed in storage during
February, March, and April, and were removed and graded during the
last of October, November, and early December.

In 1929 the eggs were stored in June and removed and graded in
November. The storage plant was equipped with automatic tempera-
ture control, but the range of temperature was between 35 and 42 de-
grees. This temperature is too high for this length of storage. This
temperature and incorrect humidity favored the growth of molds, which
caused a rather heavy loss of eggs. This loss of moldy eggs may have
vitiated the data slightly, on account of the number of eggs thrown out
and errors made in grading some other eggs that possibly should have
been eliminated.

In 1930 the eggs were stored in May and June and removed and
graded during November. The temperature in 1930 was the same as
in 1929, but the humidity was more satisfactory and the loss due to
molds was not excessive.

Grades 0f Eggs! All eggs, except those furnished Dr. Fraps, State
Chemist, for analysis, were broken and graded as Firsts, Seconds, and
Discards. Those graded as firsts were of normal color and consistency.
The yolks of those graded as seconds were slightly 0E color; they were-
slightly greenish-yellow or reddish-yellow, but the eggs were still used
for cooking purposes. The yolks of the eggs graded as discards
varied in color from yellowish-green to green, and in some cases were-
almost black. Some of the yolks were red in color, while others were
almost salmon-colored.

The color of a number of yolks of storage eggs was studied with a
color analyzer. Chart 1 shows the color curve for a rich yellow yolk
produced by a hen receiving meat and bone scraps, and Chart 2 shows
the curve for a dark yolk classed as a green yolk and produced by a hen
receiving cottonseed meal. This would indicate that the difference in
color between the yolks of the storage eggs from hens fed meat and bone
scraps and the dark-green ones from the hens fed cottonseed meal may
be due to a large reduction in the amount of red, orange, and yellow
pigments, and a smaller reduction in the amount of green pigment in
the ‘yolks of the cottonseed-meal eggs while they are being held in
storage.

The consistency of the yolks varied in the eggs classed as discards;
some were watery, while others were more firm and tougher than nor-
mal yolks. The size of the yolk in proportion to the white was much
greater in many discard eggs from hens fed cottonseed meal than in
eggs from hens fed meat and bone scraps. In many cases the vitelline
membrane was broken, probably because of the tension due to the
absorption of part oi’ the white by the yolk.

8 BULLETIN NO. 429, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 

WAVE LENGTH IN MILLIMICRONS
Figure 1. Color curve for rich yellow yolk.

m 01M‘ REFLECTION

 

WAVE LENGTH IN MILLIMICRONS

Figure 2. Color curve for very dark green yolk.

The color of the white of the eggs grarled as discards varied from
normal color to a distinct pink.

Elfect of Various Amounts of Cottonseed Meal. 0n the Storage Quality
of Eggs

The Work reported in Bulletin No. 376 of this Station showed that
the storage quality of the eggs was affected by the amount of cottonseed
meal fed, but the lower limit of safety was 110t established; therefore in
1928 ten different rations Were fed to hens individually and four mash
mixtures were pen-fed. Rations 1 to 10, Table 1, show the amount of

variable feeds used in the individual feeding; and Mash Blixtures 13

to 16, Table 2, are the ones studied in the pen feeding.

Table 3 gives the chemical analysis of the variable feeds used in this
study.

EFFECT OF COTTONSEED MEAL ON STORAGE QUALTY OF EGGS 9

Table 1. Grams of meat and bone scraps and cottonseed meal fed each hen daily in addition
to the basal ration

(1928)

 

Ration Number

Meat and bone scraps . . . . . . . . . . 6 5% 5 4% 4 3% 3 2 1 6
Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 . . . . . . . .
Cottonseed meal with low fat

content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Crude cottonseed oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . .

Table 2. Composition of mash mixtures fed Lots 13 to l7

 

 

(1928)
Mash Mixtures Number
13 14 K 15 16 ‘ 17*“
_ _______._______..n______
Ground kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.5 ' 21.8 22.5 n5 31a

Wheat ray shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.0 20.0 25.0 16.0 16.0

Wheat ran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 15.0 15.0 12 0 12.0

Meat and bone scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.0 14.0 7.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .0 20.0 32.0 32.0

Alfalfa-leaf meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0

Oystershell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.7 1.5 2.0 2.0

Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

*Lot 17 had free access to fresh lettuce.

Table 3. Analysis of feeds*
(1928)

_ Nitro-
Protein Fat Crude gen-free Water Ash
fiber extract

Meat and bone scraps . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51. 6.9 1.9 2.8 5.2 31.4
Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.7 6.8 8.8 28.4 6.2 6.1
Cottonseed meal with low fat con-

tent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.2 1.3 10.9 31.1 6.3 6.2

*Analysis made under the direction of Dr. G. S. Fraps, State Chemist.

A report of the number and percentage of the eggs of the three
grades from hens fed the various amounts of cottonseed meal is given
in Table 4. It is noted that a few eggs from the hens receiving as
small an amount as 2 grams of cottonseed meal daily were classed as
seconds. When 4 grams of cottonseed meal were fed daily one-third of
the eggs were either seconds or discards. The loss increased as the
amount of cottonseed meal fed increased.

10 BULLETIN NO. 429, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 4. Breaking record of eggs from various rations

(1928)
_ Number of Eggs Per cent
Ration Variable feeds
No. (Grams fed daily) Total Firsts Seconds Discards Firsts Seconds Discards
1 Meat and bone scraps 6,
’ cottonseed meal 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
2 Meat and bone scraps 51/2,
cottonseedmeall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 100.0  . . . . . 
3 Meat and bone scraps 5,
cottonseed meal 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 78 7 . . . . . . . . 91.8 8.2 . . . . . . . .
4 Meat and bone scraps 4%,
cottonseed meal 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 36 7 4 76.6 14.9 8.5
5 Meat and bone scraps 4,
cottonseed meal 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106 71 23 12 67.0 21.7 11.3
6 Meat and bone scraps 3%, '
cottonseed meal 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 22 30 18 31.4 42.9 25.7
7 Meat and bone scraps 3,
cottonseed meal 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67 28 28 11 41.8 41.8 16.4
8 Meat and bone scraps 2,
cottonseed meal 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106 1 8 97 9 7.5 91 5
9 Meat and bone scraps 1
cottonseed meal 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 1 1 95 1.0 1.0 97. 9
10 Meat and bone scraps 0, -
cottonseed meal 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97 2 5 90 2.1 5.2 92.8
11 Meat and bone scraps 6,
crude cottonseed oil 1 . . . . . . . . . . .. 55 3 6 46 5.5 10.9 83.6
12 Meat and bone scraps 0. cottonseed
meal with low fat content 12 . . . . . . . 41 34 6 1 82.9 14.6 2.4
Per cent of Variable Feeds in Rations
13 Meat and bone scraps 20,
cottonseed meal 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 Meat and bone scraps 14,
cottonseed meal 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 268 114 32 122 42.5 11.9 45.5
15 Meat and bone scraps 7%,
cottonseed meal 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 316 39 27 250 12.3 8.5 79.1
16 Meat and bone scraps 0,
cottonseed meal32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 15 17 301 4.5 5.1 90.4
17 Meat and bone scraps 0, cottonseed meal
32 and lettuce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 1 3 25 3.4 10.3 86.2

Changes in Size and Composition of Yolk During Storage

It was noted in breaking the eggs that in many cases the yolks of
the eggs from the hens fed cottonseed meal were larger in proportion
to the Whites than in eggs from hens fed meat and bone scraps. The
vitelline membranes of these eggs broke readily. The separation data
as given in Tables 5, 10, and 16 show that the size of the yolks in stor-
age eggs from hens fed cottonseed meal are larger than from hens fed
meat and bone scraps. In Table 5 it is noted that the size of the yolk
increases when the amount of cottonseed meal fed increases to 9 per
cent or more of the ration. Tables 6, 11, and 16 show that the larger
yolk has a smaller percentage of fat and a larger amount of water.
Tables 6 and 11 do not show that the percentage of protein in the yolk
varies with the water and the fat. This suggests that water and al-
buminous material may be taken up by the yolk in the eggs from hens
receiving the cottonseed meal.

 

EFFECT OF COTTONSEED MEAL ON STORAGE QUALTY OF EGGS 11

Table 5. Per cent of yolk, white, and shell in eggs from various rations*

(1928)
Ration Variable feeds Per cent Per cent Per cent
N0. (Grams fed daily) yolk white shell
1 Meat and bone scraps 6, cottonseed meal 0 . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 50.7 11.5

2 Meat and bone scraps 5%, cottonseed meal 1 . . . . . . . . . 35.4 52.5 12.1

3 Meat and bone scraps 5, cottonseed meal 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 39.4 49.9 10.7

4 Meat and bone scraps 4%, cottonseed meal 3 . . . . . . . . . 37.4 51 .9 10.7

5 Meat and bone scraps 4, cottonseed meal 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 37.7 51 .1 11.2

6 Meat and bone scraps 3%, cottonseed meal 5 . . . . . . . . . 37.8 50.1 12.1

7 Meat and bone scraps 3, cottonseed meal 6 . . . . . . . . . . . 38.0 49.9 12.1

8 Meat and bone scraps 2, cottonseed meal 8 . . . . . . . . . . . 46.0 43.4 10. 7

9 Meat and bone scraps 1, cottonseed meal 10 . . . . . . . . . . 46.6 42.0 ll .5

10 Meat and bone scraps 0, cottonseed meal 12 . . . . . . . . . . 52.4 36.3 11.3

11 Meat and bone scraps 6, crude cottonseed oil 1 . . . . . . . . 47.3 40.6 12.1
12 Meat and bone scraps 0, cottonseed meal with low fat
content 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.6 45.8 10.6
Per Cent of Variable Feeds in Rations
13 Meat and bone scraps 20%, cottonseed meal 0 . . . . . . . . 36.6 51.2 12.2
14 Meat and bone scraps 14%, cottonseed meal 9% . . . . . . 43.3 44.9 11.8
15 Meat and bone scraps 734%, cottonseed meal 20%. . . . 49.3 38.5 12.2
16 Meat and bone scraps 0, cottonseed meal 32% . . . . . . . . 52.5 35.1 12.3
17 Meat and bone scraps 0, cottonseed meal 32% and
lettuce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55.7 32.9 11.4
*Separations made under the direction of Dr. G. S. Fraps, State Chemist.
Table 6. Analysis of yolks of eggs from various rations*
(1928)
Ratio Variable Feeds Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent
No. (Grams fed daily) fat protein water ash
1 Meat and bone scraps 6, cottonseed meal 0.. 30.1 14.7 52.5 1 .5
2 Meat and bone scraps 5%, cottonseed meal 1 30.5 16.0 51.7 1.5
3 Meat and bone scraps 5, cottonseed meal 2 . . 29.6 15.5 52.7 1 .6
4 Meat and bone scraps 4%, cottonseed meal 3 . 27 .4 15.9 52 .6 1 .6
5 Meat and bone scraps 4, cottonseed meal 4 . . 29.1 16.3 51 .8 1 .7
‘ 6 Meat and bone scraps 3%, cottonseed meal5. 28.5 15.6 53.8 1.5
7 Meat and bone scraps 3, cottonseed meal 6. . 26.8 15.8 - 54.6 1.7
8 Meat and bone scraps 2, cottonseed meal 8. . 23.6 14.2 58. 8 1.5
9 Meat and bone scraps 1, cottonseed meal 10. 22.3 15. 1 60.5 1.5
10 Meat and bone scraps 0, cottonseed meal 12. 21.7 14.6 61.0 1.5
11 Meat and bone scraps 6, crude cottonseed
oil 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.1 15.4 53.3 1.6
12 Meat and bone scraps 0, cottonseed meal
with low fat content 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.6 14.7 57.3 1.5
Per Cent of Variable Feeds in Rations
13 Meat and bone scraps 20%, cottonseed meal 0 30.1 15. 1 52.9 1 .5
14 Meat and bone scraps 14%, cottonseed meal
9 o . . . . . . . . . .._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.8 14.7 58.9 1.4
15 Meat and bone scraps 7 % %, cottonseed meal
* 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.2 15.4 58.8 1.4
16 Meat and bone scraps 0, cottonseed meal 32% 20. 1 15. 1 62.2 1 .2
17 Meat and bone scraps 0, cottonseed meal
32% and lettuce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.0 15.1 61.4 1.3

*Analysis made under the direction of Dr. G. S. Fraps, State Chemist.

12 BULLETIN NO. 429, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Green Feed Does Not Prevent Losses from Eggs Produced by the Feed-
ing of Cottonseed Meal

In order to secure information as to whether the losses from eggs
produced by hens fed cottonseed meal would be lower if the hens were
fed green feed, two lots received the mash rations noted as Rations 16
and 1'7, Table 2. The only difference is that Lot 17 had free access
to green leafy lettuce, and Lot 16 received none. Tables 4, 5, and 6
do not disclose any beneficial effect from the feeding 0t the lettuce.

The Injurious Substance in Cottonseed Meal Is Associated with the Oil

During the year 1928 four rations were ted to learn whether the
injurious substance of cottonseed meal was associated with the oil.
These are shown as Rations 1, 10, 11, and 12 in Table 1. Ration 1
was a meat‘ and bone-scrap ration, while Ration 11 was similar except
that one gram of crude cottonseed oil was fed dail'_\'. The difference
“between Rations 10 and 12 are that in the one case the meal contained
6.8 per cent of fat while in the other case it contained only 1.3 per cent
of fat. The data as reported in Table 5 show a heavy loss in the eggs
from the hens fed the cottonseed meal and from those fed the meat and
bone scraps with cottonseed oil, but a very light loss in the eggs from
the hens fed the extracted cottonseed meal with a low fat content, and
no loss from the eggs from the hens fed meat and bone scraps.

‘Table 11, Ration 3 shows a very light loss caused by the feeding of
extracted cottonseed meal with a low fat content, as compared with a
heavy loss from Ration 2, in xvhich the same quantity of cottonseed
meal containing the usual amount of fat was fed.

Table 7. Grams of feed fed each hen daily in addition to the basal ration
(1929)

Ration Number

Meatandbonescraps . . . . . . . .. 7.5  7.5 7.5 7.5  7.5 7.5 '7.5 

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ether extract of C. S. M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Benzol extract of C. S. M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water extract of C. S. M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes* . . . . . . . . . .

ResidueT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Refined cottonseed oil (Wesson

 

o1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cod liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . .
Raw linseed oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . .
Soybean meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 

*The amount of water extract, ether extract, benzol extract, and residue fed is the amount
equivalent to that contained in 12 grams of 43% protein cottonseed meal.

TResidue refers to the cottonseed-meal material remaining after the ether extract, benzol
extract, and water extract were removed. These separations made under the direction of
Dr. G. S. Fraps, State Chemist.

EFFECT OF COTTONSEED MEAL ON STORAGE QUALTY OF EGGS 13

During the year 1929 cottonseed meal was treated to obtain various
extracts t0 again study: the location of the substance causing ‘the injury
to eggs in storage. First, an ether extract Was made, then a benzol ex-
tract ot the residue from the ether extract; this Was followed by a
Water extract of the benzol-extraeted residue. The material called
“residue” is the material remaining after these three extracts had been
inade. Refined cottonseed oil (Wesson oil) was also studied.

Rations 1 to 7, inclusive, Table 7, give the amount of variable feeds
fed each hen daily. 'l‘able 8 gives the chemical analysis of the variable
feeds used in this paft of the study.

Table 8. Analysis of feeds*

(1929)
v Nitro-
Protein Fat Crude gen-free Water Ash
- fibre extract
Meat and bone scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.93 8.39 1 .20 4.57 5.70 24.21
Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 .27 5.75 10.57 28.47 6.71 5.23
Soybean meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.19 56 5.83 31.20 9.03 6.19

*Analysis made under the direction of Dr. G. S. Fraps, State Chemist.

Table 9 shows definitely that the injurious substance of cottonseed
meal is associated With the oil, because the loss is heavy in the eggs
from the hens fed the ether extract, and light in the eggs from other
preparations. In this case the Wesson oil caused no trouble. This
suggests that the manufacturing processes used to manufacture this
highly refined oil removes or changes the substance that injures the
storage quality of the eggs.

Table 9. Breaking record of eggs from various rations

(1929)
Number of Eggs Per cent
Ratio Variable feeds
No. (Grams fed daily) _
Total Firsts Seconds Discards Firsts Seconds Discards
1 Meat and bone scraps 7%,
cottonseed meal 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 Meat and bone scraps 0,
cottonseed meal 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . . b 6 . . . . . . . . 50.0 50 0
3 Meat and bone scraps 7%,
ether extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 10 20 7 27 .0 54 1 18 9
4 Meat and bone scraps 7%,
benzol extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30 27 2 l 90.0 6 7 3 3
5 Meat and bone scraps 71A,
water extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 24 4 . . . . . . . . 85.7 l4 3 . . . . . . ..
6 Meat and bone scraps 0,
C.S. M. residue 8.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 25 . . . . . . .. 2 92.6 . . . . . . .. 7 4
7 Meat and bone scraps 7%, "
Wesson oil 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 33 . . . . . . . . 1 97.1 . . . . . . . . 2 9
8 Meat and bone scraps 7%,
cod liver oil 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 35 . . . . . . .. 2 94.6 . . . . . . .. 5.4
9 Meat and bone scraps 7%,
raw linseed oil 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 20 9 6 57 l 25.7 17 1
- 10 Meat and bone scraps 0,
soybean meal 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 26 6 1 78 8 18.2 3 0

14 BULLETIN NO. 429, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 10. Per cent of yolk, white, and shell of eggs from various rations*

(1929)
_ Per cent
Ration Variable feeds
No. (Grams fed daily)

Yolk White Shell
1 Meat and bone scraps 7V, cottonseed meal 0 . . . . . . . . . 33.2 57.2 a 9.6

2 Meat and bone scraps 0, cottonseed meal 12 . . . . . . . . . . 35.1 54.4 10.6

3 Meat and bone scraps 7V, ether extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 54.9 11.2

4 Meat and bone scraps 7%, benzol extract . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.8 55.1 10.1

5 Meat and bone scraps 7V, water extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34. 5 54.1 11.3

6 Meat and bone scraps 0, C. S. M. residue 8.3 . . . . . . . . . 32.9 56.7 10.5

7 Meat and bone scraps 7%, Wesson oil 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36. 9 55.1 10.1

8 Meat and bone scraps 7%, cod liver oil 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.8 53.9 10.4

9 Meat and bone scraps 7%, raw linseed oil 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 57.7 10.0

10 Meat and bone scraps 0, soybean meal 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 55. 6 11.2
*Separations- made under the direction of Dr. G. S. Fraps, State Chemist.
Table 11. Analysis of yolks of eggs from various rations*
(1929)
_ ' Per cent
Ration Variable feeds
No. (Grams fed daily) ./

Fat Protein Water Ash
1 Meat and bone scraps 7%, cottonseed meal 0. 30.0 15.0 51 .5 1.4
2 Meat and bone scraps 0, cottonseed meal 12. 28.2 15.7 53 .3 1.6
3 Meat and bone scraps 7V, ether extract. . . . . 28. 6 16.0 52.9 1.5
4 Meat and bone scraps 7V, benzol extract. . . 29.2 15.6 52.6 1.4
5 Meat and bone scraps 7%, water extract. . . . 29.2 16.4 51.7 1.6
6 Meat and bone scraps 0, C. S. M. residue 8.3 28.9 15.6 52.7 1.4
7 Meat and bone scraps 7V, Wesson oil 1 . . . . 29.0 15.8 52.2 1.5
8 Meat and bone scraps 7%, cod liver oil 1. . . . 29.4 15.6 52. 7 1.5
9 Meat and bone scraps 7V, raw linseed oil 1.. 28.8 15.9 52. 6 1.5
10 Meat and bone scraps 0, soybean meal 12. . . 29.2 16.2 51.8 1.6

*Analysis made under the direction of Dr. G. S. Fraps, State Chemist.

The Injurious Substance of Cottonseed Oil is Not Removed by Partial
Refining with Sodium Hydroxide

In 1930 a study Was made to determine Whether the substance in
cottonseed oil causing the trouble with the storage quality of eggs Was
removed by the treatment of the oil with sodium hydroxide. In this
study crude cottonseed oil, cottonseed oil which had been treated with
sodium hydroxide, and the soap stock resulting from the action of the
sodium hydroxide were tested. The soap stock was neutralized with
hydrochloric acid before it was fed.

Table 12, Rations 4, ,5, and 6 give the amount of the variable feeds
fed to hens individually, and Table 13, Rations 3, 4. and 5 give the
mash mixtures fed to the different pens.

 .. IJA-“AQAQ. lzazuilliizzdzumur 

EFFECT OF COTTONSEED MEAL ON STORAGE QUALTY OF EGGS

15

 
 

Table 12. Grams of feed fed each hen daily in addition to the basal ration
(1930)
Ration Number
1 1 2 3 4 l 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 9
Meat and bone scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7% . . . . . . . . . . 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 4

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed meal with low fat content. . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Crude cottonseed oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Partially refined cottonseed oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Soa stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Co liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . .

Linseed oil (raw) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . .

Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
l
Table 13. Rations fed in pen feeding
(1930)
Ration Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 2O 20 2O 20 2O 20

Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2O 1O 17 19% 17 17 17 16

Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 20 20 2O 2O 2O 20 20

Ground oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 2O 20 20 20 2O 20

Meat and bone scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . 20 2O 20 20 2O 12

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed oil -(crude) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Soap stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Partially refined cottonseed oil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cod liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Raw linseed oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . .

Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 14. Breaking record of eggs from hens fed individually
(1930)
Number of Eggs Per cent
Ration Variable feeds
No. (Grains fed daily) _ _ _
Total Firsts Seconds Discards Firsts Seconds Discards
1 Meat and bone scraps 7%,
cottonseed meal 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 95 2 2 96.0 2.0 2 .0
2 Meat and bone scraps 0,
cottonseed meal  . . . . . . . . . . .. 52 9 37 17.3 11.5 71.2
3 Meat and bone scraps 0, cottonseed
meal with low fat content 12. . . .. 20 17 1 2 85.0 5.0 10.0
4 Meat and bone scraps 7%,
1 crude cottonseed oil 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 16 7 49 22.2 9.7 68.1
5 Meat and bone scraps 7%, partially
l refined cottonseed oil 1 . . . . . i . . . . . . 78 27 2 49 34.6 2.6 62.8
6 Meat and bone scraps 7%,
soap stock .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98 92 3 3 93.9 3.1 3.1
7 Meat and bone scraps 7%,
cod liver oil 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77 74 . . . . . . .. 3 96.1 . . . . . . .. 3.9
8 Meat and bone scraps 7%,
raw lins oil 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85 81 . . . . . . .. 4 95.3 . . . . . . .. 4.7
9 Meat and bone scraps 4,
linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60 59 1 . . . . . . .. 98.3 1.7 . . . . . . ..

Tables 14 and 15 show definitely that the injurious substance in the
cottonseed oil is not removed by the treatment of the oil With sodium

16 BULLETIN NO. 429, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

hydroxide. The eggs from the hens fed the partially refined cotton-
seed oil deteriorated in storage almost as badly as those from the hens
receiving the crude cottonseed oil, and the loss of eggs trom hens re-
ceiving soap stock was very 10W.

Table 15. Breaking record of eggs from the hens fed in pens

(1930)
Number of Eggs Per cent
Ration Variable feeds
N0. (Per cent in ration) _
Total Firsts Seconds Discards Firsts Seconds Discards
1 Meat and bone scraps 20,
cottonseed meal 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 - 185 3 6 95.4 1.5 3.1
2 Meat and bone scraps O,
cottonseed meal 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 39 15 116 22.9 8.8 68.2
3 Meat and bone scraps 20,
crude cottonseed oil 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 30 15 119 18.3 9.1 72. 6
4 Meat and bone scraps 20,
soap stock % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 197 3 7 95.2 1.4 3 .4
5 Meat and bone scraps 20, partially
refined cottonseed oil 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 44 32 135 20. 9 15.2 64 .0
6 Meat and bone scraps 20,
cod liver oil 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 242 240 . . . . . . .. 2 99.2 . . . . . . .. ~ .8
7 Meat and bone scraps 20,
raw linseed oil 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 234 2 2 98.3 .8 .8
8 Meat and bone scraps 12,
linseed meal .12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 290 287 1 2 99.0 .3 .7

Table 16. Per cent of yolk and white. and yolk analysis*
(1930)

Per cent of Analysis of yolk

Lot Variable feeds whole egg ——i———————
No. ———————-—— Per cent Per cent
Yolk White fat moisture

1 Meat and bone scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.3 53.3 26.5 55.2
2 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.5 47.5 25.8 56.7
3 Meat and bone scraps and crude cottonseed oil. 39.6 49.8 25.3 F6. 6
4 Meat and bone scraps and soap stock of C. S. oil. 32.4 57.1 30.3 52.0

*Analysis made under the direction of Dr. G. S. Fraps, State Chemist.

Etfect of Cottonseed Meal on the Storage Quality of Frozen Eggs

In order to study Whether eggs from hens fed cottonseed meal de-
teriorate in color when frozen, sixty dozen eggs from hens receiving a
mash containing 20 per cent of meat and bone scraps, and sixty dozen
eggs from hens receiving a mash containing 32 per cent of cottonseed
meal, were broken out and stored in a frozen condition for five months.
When inspected after that length of storage, it Was found that the eggs
produced by the hens fed meat and bone scraps had kept their normal
color, but the eggs from the hens fed cottonseed meal were dark-red or
reddish-brown in color. Bacterial counts Were made after freezing, but
they showed no significant difference in the eggs produced by the two
feeds.

EFFECT OF. COTTONSEED MEAL ON STORAGE QUALTY OF EGGS 17

Effect of Cod Liver Oil on Storage Quality of the Eggs

Three studies were made on the effect of cod liver oil 0n the stor--
age quality of eggs. The rations studied are given in Tables '7, 12,
and 13. It is noted in Tables 9, 14, and 15 that the eggs from hens
fed cod liver oil in the amounts shown did not deteriorate in storage-

Elfect of Raw Linseed Oil and Linseed Meal on the Storage Quality‘
0f the Eggs

Three studies were made on raw linseed oil and two 0n linseed meal.
The rations are given in 'l‘ables T, 12, and 13. The results for the
study with the oil are somewhat in czonflict because Table 9 shows a.
loss from the use of raw linseed oil, but Tables 14 and 15 show that
the feeding of neither raw linseed oil nor linseed meal injured the stor-
age quality of the eggs.

Effect 0f Soybean Meal on the Storage Quality of the Eggs

One study was conducted on this point in 192E), the ration being
shown in Table 7. Table 9 shows that a small loss resulted from the
feeding of the soybean meal. The number of eggs in this study was
small; therefore the results are not conclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Eggs from hens fed meat and bone scraps hold up well in storage-

2. Eggs from hens fed cottonseed meal, crude cottonseed oil, par-
tially refined cottonseed oil, and ether extract of cottonseed meal de--
teriorate in storage. The color (rt the yolk varies from salmon to dark-
gieen, or nearly black. The white of the eggs vary from normal color
to pink in color.

3. Studies ot the color of egg yolk with a color analyzer indicate
that the difference in color between the yiolks of the storage eggs from
hens fed meat and hone scraps and the dark green ones from the hens
fed cottonseed meal may be due to a large reduction in the amount of‘
red, orange, and yclloxv pigments, and a smaller reduction in the‘
amount of green pigment in the yolks of the cottonseed-meal eggs while-
they are being held in storage.

it. The feeding of mash containing 9 per cent or more of cotton-
seed meal causes the yolks of the eggs to increase in size during stor-
age, and the yolks of these eggs contain a smaller percentage of fat
than do the yolks of the eggs from hens fed meat and bone scraps. As;
the amount of cottonseed meal in the feed increases the percentage of
fat in the ‘yolk decreases. The percentage of water in the yolks in-
creases as the efat decreases, but the percentage of protein remains
rather constant. This may indicate that albuminous material is ab-
sorbed by the yolk along with water from the white.

18 BULLETIN NO. 429,“TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

5. A small percentage of the eggs laid by hens receiving 2 grams of
cottonseed meal daily graded as seconds when they were removed from

storage; when 3 grams of cottonseed meal was fed daily the hens pro- '

duoed a larger percentage of eggs which graded as seconds when re-
moved from storage, and a few which graded as discards. '

6. Hens receiving 8, 10, and 12 grams daily of cottonseed meal pro-
duced eggs that did not store well. Over 90 per cent of the eggs de-
teriorated in storage, and nearly one-half of the eggs from hens receiv-
ing a mash containing 9 per cent of cottonseed meal were also deterio-
rated in storage. As the amount of cottonseed meal increased the per-
centage of deteriorated eggs increased.

7. Eggs from hens which were fed extracted cottonseed meal with
a low fat content did not deteriorate in storage to the extent of those
from hens that received the 43 per cent protein cottonseed meal. Eggs
from hens fed 1 gram daily of refined cottonseed oil (Wesson oil) and
cod liver oil did not deteriorate in storage.

8. The mixed yolk and white of eggs from hens fed cottonseed meal
when broken out and stored in a frozen condition for five months were
dark-red in color after that length of storage.

9. The substance in cottonseed meal that causes the deterioration in
quality of eggs in storage is either the oil or something closely associ-
ated with the oil which is removed in the final refining, because it is
present in both crude cottonseed oil and partially refined cottonseed

oil, but is not contained in the soap stock; neither is it found in ex--

tracted cottonseed meal having a low fat content, nor in highly refined
cottonseed oil (Wesson oil).

10. The feeding of lettuce did not correct the injurious effects of
cottonseed meal on the storage quality of eggs. ~

11. Because of the small number of eggs used and because in one
case somewhat conflicting results were "secured, conclusive evidence has
not yet been secured at the Texas Station on the effect of soybean meal,
raw linseed oil, and linseed meal on the storage quality of eggs.

REFERENCES

(1) Thompson, R. B.
1918. Poultry Feeding Experiments, N. M. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul.
117, pp. 1-22.
(2) New Mexico Station *
1927. Thirty-eighth Annual Report, pp. 63-65.
(3) Sherwood, Ross M. ,
1926. Unpublished data from the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station.
(4) Sherwood, Ross M.
1928. The Effect of Various Rations on the Storage Quality of
Eggs. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 376, pp. 1-12.
(5) Walker, A. L., Berry, L. N., and Anderson, E. E.
1929. New Mexico Egg Storage Studies. N. M. Agr. Expt. Sta.
Bul. 177, pp. 1-48.

(6)
(7)

(8)

(9)

EFFECT OF COTTONSEED MEAL ON STORAGE QUALTY OF EGGS 19

Kempster, H. L. u
1930. Missouri Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 288, pp. 1-20,

Sipe, G. R.
1931. Cold Storage of Southern Eggs. Poultry Science, Vol. 10,
N0. 5.
Upp, C. W.
1929. Storage of Louisiana Eggs. Project report, Project 214,
La. Agr. Expt. Station.
Thompson, R. B.

1931. Science Tests Poultry Practices. Reprint from 1930 Annual

Report Okla. Agr. Expr. Sta., pp. 1-78.