LIBRARY, A 8: M COLLEGE, CAPAPUS. A227-1 131-7M-L18O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR College Station, Brazos County, Texas BULLETIN NO. 436 NOVEMBER, 1931 DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY Productive Energy 0f Feeds Galen? lated from Feeding Experiments with Sheep AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION: A. B. CoNNER, M. S., Director R. E. KARPER, M. S., Vice-Director CLARIcE MIxsoN, B. A., Secretary M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk J. K. FRANcKLow, Assistant Chief Clerk CHEsTER HIGGS, Executive Assistant HowARD BERRY, B. S., Technical Assistant CHEMISTRY: G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist E. ASBURY, M. S., emist . F. FUDGE, Ph. D., Chemist . C. CARLYLE, M. S., Assistant Chemist . H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist ELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist . L. OGIER, B. S., Assistant Chemist A. J. STERGES, B. S., Assistant Chemist JEANNE F. DEMoTTIER, Asst. Chemist RAY TREICHLER, M. S., Assistant Chemist R L. ScHwARTz, B. S., Assistant Chemist C. M. PoUNDERs, B. S., Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: S. H. YARNELL, Sc. D., Chief **L. R. HAWTHORN, M. S., Horticulturist H. M. REED, M. S., Horticulturist J. F. Wo0D, B. S., Horticulturist L. E. BRooKs, B. S., Horticulturist RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JoNEs, A. 1\I., Chief _ B. L.WARwIcK, Ph.D., Breeding Investigations S. P. DAVIS, Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: F. L. THQMAs, Ph. D., Chief: State i Entomologist . . REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist . FLETcHER, Ph. D., Entomologist . _O wEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist . RoNEY, M. S., Entomologist . GAINEs, JR., M. S., Entomologist . JoNEs, M. S., Entomologist . BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist . CLARK, B. S., Entomologist . DUNNAM, Ph. D., Entomologist _ . MoRELAND B. S., Asst. Entomologist . HEARD, B. S., Chief Inspector DDALL, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector . McGREcoR, B.S., Foulbrood Inspector N OMY: . REYNOLDS, Ph. D., Chief KARPER, M. S., Agronomist _ . IVIANGELSDORF, Sc. D., Agronomist . KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist . REA, B. S., Agronomist _ . LANGLEY, M. S., Agronomist CATIONSP. . JACKSON, Chief A<€m~¢ mm RF“ é w-i WOZ "1160 21 [IjC/J 52 22 [T1 DO Eh 3v C) P! 0mm Edwwm manww "é >ww U50 No. 1, Beeville, Bee County_: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Lindale, Smith County: P. R. J0HNsoN, M. S., Superintendent _ **B. H. HENDRIcKsoN, B. S., Sci. in SoilErosion **R. W. BAIRD, B. S., Assoc. Agr. Engineer No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County: . . STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent H. M. REED, M. S., Horticulturist No. 4, Beaumont, Jeflerson County: R. H. WYcHE, B. S., Superintendent **H. M. BEAcHELL, B. S., Jr. Agronomist No. 5, Temple, Bell County: HENRY DUNLAVY, M. S., Superintendent . RoGERs‘, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist H H. E. REA, B. S., Agronomist S. E. WOLFF, M. S., Botanist _ **H. V. GEIB, M. S., Sci. in_Soil Erosion **H. O. HILL, B. S., Jr. Civil Engineer No. 6, Denton. Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent **I. M. ATKINs, B. S., Jr. Agronomist No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent B. C. LANGLEY, M. S., Agronomist No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. JoNEs, Superintendent FRANK GAINEs, Irrig. and Forest Nurs. VETERINARY SCIENCE: FRANcIs, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian **F. P. MATHEWS, D.V.M., M.S., Veterinarian W. T. HARDY, D. V. M., Veterinarian —-—-—-——--—, Veterinarian PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYfSIOLOGY: J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chie W. N. EzEKIEL, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist W. J. BAcH, M. S., Plant Pathologist C. H. RoGERs, Ph. D., 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 GRIMES, M. S., Textiles _ ELIZABETH D. TERRILL, M. A., Nutrition SOIL SURVEY: **W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chie E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soi Surveyor A. H. BEAN, B. S., Soil Surveyor R. M. MARsHALL, B. S., Soil Surveyor **M. W. BEcK, B. S., Asst. Soil Surveyor BOTANY: V. L. CoRY, M. S., Act. Chief S. E. WOLFF, M. S., Botanist SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: O. C. COPELAND, M. S., Dairy Husbandman POULTRY HUSBANDRY: R. M. SHERwooD, M. S., Chief J. R. CoUcH, B. S.,Asst. Poultry Husbandman AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: . P. SMITH, M. S., Chief MAIN STATION FARM: G. T. McNEss, Superintendent APICULTURE (San Antonio): H. B. PARRs, B. S., Chief A. H. ALEX, B. _S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: F. D. FULLER, M. S.,_Chief JAMEs SULLIVAN, Assistant Chief S. D. PEARcE, Secretary J . RoGERs, Feed Inspector K. L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector S. D. REYNoLDs, JR., Feed Inspector P. A. MooRE, Feed Inspector E. J. WILsoN, B. S., Feed Inspector H. G. WIcKEs, B. S., Feed Inspector SUBSTATIONS No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLEs, B. S., Superintendent No. l0, College Station, Brazos County: R. SHERwooD, M. S., In charge L. J, McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. 11. Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H. F. MoRRIs, M. S., Superintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeinan County: J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent **J. C. STEPHENS, M. A., Assistant Agronomist No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W. H. DAMERoN, B. S., Superintendent —-—-——-———-——, Veterinarian W. T. HARDY, D. V. M., Veterinarian O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd _ **O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Asst. Entomologist No. l5, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent . W. CLARK, B. S., Entomologist . J. BAcH, M. S., Plant Pathologist . F. Wo0D, B. S., Horticulturist N . 16. Iowa Park, Wichita County: . H. McDowELL, B. S., Superintendent . E. BROOKS, B. S., Horticulturist No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County: E. MoRTENsEN, B. S., Superintendent **L. R. HAwTHoRN, M. S., Horticulturist rn°~gw 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. ScoATEs, A. E., Agricultural Engineering A. K. MAcKEY, M. S., Animal Husbandry *Dean School of Veterinary Medicine. J. S. MQGFQRD, M. S., Agronomy F. R. BRIsoN, B. S., Horticulture W. R. HoRLAcHER, Ph. D., Genetics J. H. KNox, M. S., Animal Husbandry A. L. DARNELL, M. A., Dairy Husbandry fAs of November 1, 1931. **In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. The productive energy of feeds for ruminants was calculated for 336 tests in 81 feeding experiments with sheep made by various Experiment Stations. Feeding experiments can be used for this purpose when feeds are compared with a standard feed in a check ration, with few or no other variables. Many feeding experiments examined could not be used for this cal- culation on account of the presence of two or more variables. The productive energy calculated from the feeding experi- ments agreed reasonably well with the productive energy cal- culated from analyses and production coefiicients previously published, for alfalfa hay, corn, corn silage, corn gluten feed, native hay, hominy feed, kafir, oats, oat and pea silage, peanut meal, roots, rutabagas, soy bean oil meal, soy bean hay, sugar beets, and timothy hay. Revised production coeflicients, based upon the feeding experiments, are given for alfalfa hay, bean straw, dried beet pulp, clover hay, corn fodder, corn stover, emmer or spelt, molasses, oat straw, rye, soy bean straw, sun- flower silage, whole wheat, ground wheat, and wheat bran. The productive values of corn fodder and of oat straw were greater in balanced than in unbalanced rations. Cottonseed meal and linseed meal had higher productive values, which was 50 per cent higher with cottonseed meal, when they were added to and compared with an unbalanced ration, than when compared with another protein feed fed in a balanced ration. CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Productive energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Disposition of energy of feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Measurements of productive energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Production coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Calculations from feeding experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Method of calculation here used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . 9 Selection of the feeding experiments used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Productive values used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Comparison of productive energy With feed for 100 pounds of gain. . 16 Calculation of digestible nutrients for a pound of gain . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 The productive energy calculated from the feeding experiments. . . . . 18 Effect of balancing the ration with protein feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Discussion of the individual feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . 26 Corrected production coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54 BULLETIN NO. 436 NOVEMBER, 1931 PRODUCTIVE ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS WITH SHEEP By G. S. FRAPfS Exact methods for estimating the feeding values of feeds are needed for agricultural and for commercial purposes. For agricultural purposes they are needed in formulating standards for feeding animals, in decid- ing on rations to be used for feeding purposes, and in studies of the relative economy of various feeding stuffs. For commercial purposes they are needed for aid in comparing the values of different lots of the same feed, or different kinds of feeds with one another, for compounding commercial mixed feeds of the highest possible nutritive value at the lowest possible cost, and for comparing different kinds of commercial mixed feeds with one another. A number of factors enter into the value of a feed for animal pro- duction; these include the productive energy, the digestible protein, the constituents of the proteins, the vitamins A, B, C, D, E, G, the minerals, especially lime and phosphoric acid, and the bulk, or volume. The palatability also appears to be an important factor in inducing the animal to eat liberally of the mixture. The relative importance of these factors in the individual feed depends upon the kind of feed, the kind of animals, and the possible deficiency of the ration to be fed. For ruminants it may be said that the productive energy, the digestible protein, and the bulk, or volume, are the most important factors in the feeding value of the feed. The commercial value of unmixed feeds is measured by other factors, presumably closely related to the feeding value, but perhaps assigned commercial significance out of proportion to the feeding value. The only one of the factors mentioned above which Will be discussed in this Bulletin is the productive energy. PRODUCTIVE ENERGY It was formerly assumed that the digestible nutrients of one feed were as good as those of another, pound for pound; thus, one pound of digestible nutriment in straw was assumed to be equal in feeding value to one pound of digestible nutriment in corn. It has been shown by Kellner, Armsby, and others, that this assumption is not correct. The losses consequent on digestion are much greater for each unit of digesti- ble nutrient in straw, than in corn, so that the net energy which the animal could secure from a pound of digestible material in corn is much greater than that which it could secure from a pound of digestible material in straw. Kellner (14) determined the quantities of fat which could be put on a fattening steer, fed on a slightly fattening ration, by 6 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT _STATION additions of protein, of fat, of starch, of crude fiber, and of sugar. Using the values so secured, he calculated the values of certain feeds from the digestible constituents, and compared the calculated value with the actual quantity of fat put on a fattening steer, by additions of the feed to the ration. With cottonseed meal, peanut oil meal, palm oil meal, and linseed oil meal, the experimental values were practically the sameas those calculated, but with other feeds the value found by actual test was decidedly below that calculated. Some of these results are given in Table 1. It is seen from this table that the assumption of equal value for the digestible nutrients would be only about 20 per cent correct in case of wheat straw, 63 per cent correct in case of meadow hay, 69 per cent correct for clover hay, and 77 per cent correct for wheat bran. To put it another way, the assumption of equal value for digestible nutrients would be five times the actual value found by experiment with the wheat straw, nearly 50 per cent too high with meadow hay or clover hay, and 30 per cent too high for wheat bran. Table 1. Productive value in calories per 100 grams of food found by experiment compared with productive value calculated on the assumfition that digestible nutrients have equal value. (Ke ner) Calculated ~ from Found on Per cent digestible experiment found of nutrients calculated Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190.4 186.9 98 Peanut oil meal. . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 179.5 179.8 100 Wheat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.9 20.1 20 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 103.6 40.8 61 Meadow hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.8 77.1 63 Clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118.3 81.1 69 Wheat bran_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146.5 113.3 77 Brewers grains, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146.9 123.9 84 Beet pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.6 135.3 78 After establishing the diversity in the feeding value of the digestible nutrients of different classes of feeds, Kellner (14, 15) devised methods for estimating and for calculating the productive values of feeds, and proposed feeding standards based upon them. Kellner expressed pro- ductive value in terms of starch. Armsby (1) also proposed standards and devised methods for estimating the productive values of feeds, expressing the value in terms of therms, a therm being 1,000 large calories. Kellner’s system has been extensively used in Europe, but the system based on equal value of digestible nutrients is still used in this country. Forbes and associates (2, 3, 4, 16) have continued the work of Armsby. It has been objected that the data on which the systems of Kellner or of Armsby are based are too limited to permit the general application of the results. If one examines the evidence, however, he will find that in spite of the data being not as extensive as might be desired, they are not so limited after all but are sufficient to serve the basis of the system, and that the productive energy comes much nearer to express- ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 7 ing the correct nutritive value of the energy of the feed, than does the content of the digestible nutrients. ' Dispflsitifln 0f energy 0f feed- A portion of the material and energy fed to an animal appears as undigested materials in the solid excrement. Some metabolic products (Waste material of the animal body) also appear in the excrement. The difference between the amount of each nutrient fed and the corresponding amount in the excrement, is said to be digested. Quantity fed —— quantity excreted = quantity digested. However, this is not strictly correct, both on account of the presence of metabolic products in the excrement, and for the further reason that fermentation takes place in the stomach or intestines of some animals, producing in addition to marsh gas and carbon dioxide, soluble products which may be absorbed and utilized by the animal. This fermentation is especially noticeable with horses, and with ruminants, such as sheep and cows. It does not occur to a large extent with chickens, hogs, or dogs. Quantity digested (so-called) — quantity 10st as gases = quantity absorbed. A portion of the energy in the nutrients absorbed by the body is not utilized but is excreted in the urine, some of it in compounds of nitrogen, and some in other compounds and some also is evolved as marsh gas. After the energy in the urine and the energy in the gases are sub- tracted from the energy absorbed, the remainder is termed the metab- olizable energy. Energy of food eaten——energy in solid excrement—energy in gases-energy in liquid excrement I metabolizable energy. The metabolizable energy does not, however, represent the net energy . available to the animal from the food. There must be deducted from it the loss of energy in the fermentation inthe intestines, in addition to that contained in the marsh gas, and the energy used up in the processes of digestion, including chewing of the feed, moving the material through the body, and all other energy required to place the material of the food in condition for use by the animal. When the consumption of energy is deducted from the metabolizable energy, the result is the net energy or productive energy available for the use of the animal body. The energy consequent on the digestion of food is evolved as heat. Whether or not this heat is of any service to the animal depends upon conditions. If the animal receives a ration near or below its mainte- nance requirements and if the temperature is below that of the animal body, the heat of digestion may aid in maintaining the temperature of the animal, thereby taking the place of food or body material which would otherwise be oxidized to provide heat and permitting it to be used for other purposes. At higher planes of nutrition or at higher stall temperatures, the heat of digestion is of no value to the animal, and with heavy rations, the disposal of the heat of digestion may be a burden to the animal in hot Weather, and. may cause the animal to go off feed. s BULLETIN NO. 43s, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION _MEASUREMENTS OF PRODUCTIVE ENERGY Measurements of the productive energy of feeds have been made by Kellner, i11 Germany, and by Armsby, Forbes and associates, in this country. The method of Kellner consisted in first measuring the pro- duction of fat and flesh on a fattening steer, fed a basal ration suffi- ciently above maintenance to avoid any possible utilization of heat of digestion. The food or ‘material to be studied was then added to the basal ration, and the production of flesh and fat again measured. The difference between the two experiments gave the gain inflesh and fat due to the additional feed, and from this the productive value of the feed tested Was calculated. Corrections were made for any change in weight of the animal, conversion of flesh to fat, 0r differences in the amount of the basal ration eaten. It is to be noted that Kellner measures the productive energy of the food by the additional quantity of fat secured, and makes no allowance for the energy used in the chemical changes involved in the trans- formation of the productive energy in the nutrients into the form 0f fat or flesh. It is hardly conceivable that the transformation occurs without consumption of energy. The productive energy measured b Kellner is not, therefore, the actual productive energy but should be approximately in proportion to it. The actual productive energy is the productive energy of the fat stored up, plus the energy involved i11 the transformation. Likewise, the percentage of the productive energy used for work, or milk, may be different from that used for fat. Since, how- ever, there is at present no method of measuring the energy consumed in transforming the material of the food to flesh and fat, we can do no better than to take the energy in the fat and flesh stored up as a measure of the productive energy of the feed. The method of Armsby and of Forbes and associates (1, 2) for net energy is based upon the increased elimination of heat due to the inges- tion of the food. As pointed out by them (3, 4), the net energy varies xvith the conditions of the test. The productive energy must be estimated under standard conditions, as was done by Kellner. Based upon the methods referred to above, Kellner (111, 15) and Armsby (1) have devised feeding standards for various classes of ani- mals, calculated the productive values of feeds, and discussed the theo- retical aspects of the problem. The term productive energy as used in this Bulletin is confined en-i tirely to the amount of net energy which can be used for the produc- tion of fat and flesh. If measured in terms of maintenance or milk, it may have a different value. PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS The procedure for calculating the productive energy of feeds used by Kellner (15) is somewhat complicated. That proposed by‘ Armsby ( 1) ’ is not closely related to the chemical composition of the feed. The cal- ENERGY OF FEEDS cALcULArpfi FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 9 culation of the digestible nutrients (except the digestible protein) is not necessary if the productive energy is t0 be used. By combining the Cllffererlf eelelllafiells (irlellldillg the coefficients of digestibility) it is possible to secure factors by eans of Which the productive energy may be calculated directly from t e chemical composition of the feed. The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station has published some factors for ruminants (5, 6, 8) and for poultry (*7), CALCULATIONS FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS The respiration or calorimetric experiments to ascertain the productive energy 0f feeds referred to above require expensive apparatus, including respiration chambers or animal calorinreters, involving considerable eXperldlfllres 0f time and money, and are difficult to carry out. For this reason the data régarding the productive energy of feeds and of their constituents areflimited in amgunt, _ It should, however, be possible to calculate productive energy from feeding eXPerimerltS- »'_ That this can be done has already been shown (10, 11, 12, 13), 811d preelfuctive values for ground kafir, kafir heads, ground milo and ground ffirita heads have been corrected by means of these feeding experime g (6), THOD OF CALCULATION HERE USED The metho of calculation used for the work here reported is outlined in Tables I and 3. In Table 2, the comparison is made for a roughage; lrl Table Z, for a concentrate. One of the rations in the lot (Lot 2 in Table 2 Lot 1 in Table 3) which comes the nearest to containing feeds 0f Sfarfiard feeding value, was selected as a standard. The productive energy fed in the standard ration was calculated from the productive Vellleelj of the various feeds contained in it (Total T for Lot 2 in Table, 2). The productive energy used in the calculations, in therms Per ,.pound, is given after the name of each feed. The weights of the arllrluals at the beginning and at the end were added and divided by 2, l and" the result was assumed to represent the average weight during the eXEeriment The average weight was multiplied by the maintenance IQlquire-ment for one pound (H) using Armsbfs values) to secure the fetal productive energy used for maintenance. The total productive l ergy fed in the ration less the energy for maintenance gave the energy eft for production (B), and this divided by the gain in weight gave a the therms required for one pound of gain in weight, on the standard ration (B+G:K). One of the feeds was selected as the unknown in each of the other rations. The productive energy of the remainder (T) was calculated from the other ingredients. The energy for maintenance was cal- eulated as stated above (WXHIM). The energy in the gain in weight (L) was calculated from the therms per one pound of gain as found in the standard ration (KXGIL). The value of the ration was the energy required for maintenance added to that required by the gain V /.. 10 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS EXPERIMENT STATION owmzw =50 . ma: Qiwfim $3.2 fluO-U ma: mom .6>o_o “Qua/m v.8 Uifiuw ha: wfimfiw cwfiofim w . m: 3+ M" 25.5w???» .mn%%o~ we hmhocv QIUQSUOEM omw. . . . .3“, BIO 68 #:oEw_ um we >396 “z/Sosuoam 0mm. 1- - - - - - u - - ¢ - u-ao“ ..... . . . . . . . . . . JJNW m0 MNhQGQ 0>muO5UOhnm . gfinnn NibHHuw..aflfimewwqsr==wma_§ms.==; m“ JHmNW %Q ouwr/Qwflozucum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2" a iehfifld OOnuGQOQAIGE . . . . . . . . . .................QrwEHQ§.w~NQQH . . . Amivvlwfi 33:4 ..-....-.....a@q@.wlllm€fio - . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . - ¢ . . . . . . . . - - . . . . - - - - - - n . . . Sm: oiifim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ifihouuo Eco wwwmxfinm . - . . - - . . . - » . - . . . - ¢ . - . - . . . » 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.52:“. ~oo3m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m: wbmfi< ...........w~mO . - - . . - - - . . . . . - - . . - . - . . . - . . . _ . - . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wwvnmflnvnm Qfimflm fimfihQ>< ...... . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . wUGUOQ JSMMQ? UMNMQ>< ...........oZ QQA dowwfiw fiBEiQQxM un-oxwfl fsom 63 ufimiam igcofitonwo mnmwuvm Eoh ufifisoio $.03 Ho wmhoco wfifiivohm d QEFH ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 11 in weight (M-l-LzO). The productive energy (E) of the feed con- sidered was the productive energy of the ration, as measured by gain in Weight of the animal (O) less the productive value of the ration (T) fed in addition to the feed tested (O——T:E). The productive value of the feed in therms for 100 pounds is E divided by the weight fed multiplied by 100. The method does not measure the absolute productive value of the feed tested, but compares it With a standard feed of known feeding value. There is no more objection to this method of calculation than to the other methods used for stating the results of feeding experiments. If the feeding experiment is well planned and properly conducted, so that all variables are eliminated except those due to a single feed being studied, there is no reason to believe it will not give reasonably accurate results. Chemical analyses of the feeds used are desirable on account of the variable character of feeds and the necessity of calculating their productive values from the analysis. Errors in the assumed productive energy of the supplementary feeds would be eliminated if practically the same quantities of these feeds are fed’ to each lot. The same applies to the assumed maintenance requirements of the animals and to the calculated energy requirements for one pound of gain in weight, if the animals average nearly the same in weight and make nearly the same gains. If there is much difference in the average weights of the animals, an error in the assumed maintenance requirements could affect the results of the calculation. If there is much difference in gain in weight in the several lots of animals on experiment, there may be differences in the energy required to make the gain, for it has been shown that the energy stored up for each pound of gain increases as the animal becomes fatter. The composition of the gain in weight in fattening depends upon the kind of animal and the degree of fatness attained. The percentage of fat in the gain is much larger near the end of the fattening process than at the beginning. The composition of the gain near the beginning of the fattening depends upon the condition of the animal at that time and also on the stage of growth. Thin animals will put on material of lower fat content than those in better condition. The gains of young animals contain more water than those of mature animals. According gto Armsby (1), the energy per pound of increases in weight (excluding g some doubtful results) may vary from 2.49 to 4.00 therms with an average of 3.25 (page 362) for various animals. For sheep the energy 3? content of the gain (page 352) varied from 1.4 to 4.0 therms. I Thetherms required per pound of gain, as found in the calculations of the standard lot in the experiments, are tabulated and summarized in Table 3. The average is 2.60 therms per pound, which is somewhat lower than the average for various animals (3.25) given above. It varies from 1.124 to 4.136, which is a wide distribution, and there is a somewhat even spread in the distribution. Variations in maintenance requirements and in the fill taken in by the animal, of course, affect N 0 I T A T S T N E M I R E P X E L A R U T L U 0 T1 R G A S A X E T e, 3 4 0 N N I T E L L U B 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VA fimwQ-w m“ a=QE®~QQ5w M@CSOQ %Q %W.~UCU ®>@>~O5@Q.~n% . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .@O.w u-MQEQTMQUW %O \mwhfii0 ®>iwnvgwvnvhm % w w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 hinvwwfih %Q ~%w.~UQU Q>.@HO5@Q.~Q . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Hiflm %Q %W.~QEQ Ok/wanvgwvnvhm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U+ m @.~W@H~MJM H~% C@WW ~ .10.“ wahQgr? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jhaww %O \@@.~Qi0 ®>wwO5@Ohfi% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .me.m0zfi Q0 N UHQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “MEMOSH @GQOFC i . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AM~©%.YIIQMQQ EWEMQSH .wm:,;mw> Q>@\~O:@Ohfi% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..mw~wc . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W~QCDOQ Jiflw OWGMO>< AL.@ . . . . . . ..n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mwvimwomm QWGMQ>< aw m“ § ~ ll . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1oz MOA mwflo >oimm H5058 wbwwcfim II. dofifim Hcoflzionxm cogmismmk/ .5: cfiwzsm dwciciwmxo 89C wofiflsoio $63 Mo mmpoco ofifiiwoum .m 22mm. ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 13 the therms required for a pound of gain. These tables are of interest in connection with the establishment of economical rations, but this Bulletin deals with the productive energy of the feeds. Table 4. Therms required for one pound gain. Number of tests Therms 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.1 ~15 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.6— 1.8 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.8 ——2.1 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.1 -—2.3 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.3 ——2.5 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.5 —2.7 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.7—2.9 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.9 -—3.1 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.1 ——3.3 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.3 —3.7 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.8—4.2 Total 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Average 2.6 SELECTION OF THE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS USED A large number (over 168,) of feeding experiments were studied in connection with the work here reported. It Was found that many of the experiments were unsuited for calculating the productive energy for one particular feed, for various reasons, some of which will be mentioned. The method of calculation involves comparing the productive energy of a feed of known productive energy, with the unknown, as illustrated in Tables 2, 3, and others and as already described. In addition to the assumed productive value of the standard feed, productive energy must be assumed for the other feeds fed with it in the ration, and for the maintenance requirements of the animals. These assumed values are necessarily not exactly correct, even when chemical analyses of the feeds were made. If the quantities of the supplemental feeds eaten by the different lots_ of sheep are the same in each lot, if the sheep average the same in weight at the beginning of the experiment, and make the same gain, any error in the assumed productive energy of the supplemental feeds, or in the assumed maintenance requirements, would be canceled out. The result would be a direct comparison between the standard feed and the feeds studied, expressed as therms. The only variable would be the two feeds being compared. The number of experiments which exactly meet the requirements given above is low, especially With regard- to an equal gain in weight. Experiments were selected which were reasonably close to the require- ments, and all the experiments were carefully scrutinized. Experiments were excluded when there were too Wide variations in the quantities of feedeaten in the supplemental ration or when no direct comparison could be made of any particular feed with a standard feed on account of the presence of two or more large variables. Many experiments which make comparisons of the effect of mixtures or rations or other condition-s upon the growth of animals, cannot be used to compare individual feeds 14 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION used in the ration 011 account of the many variables between rations fed the different lots. Some experiments were used in Which there were wide variations in the gain in weight of the animals, although this condition is not desirable; these variations must be considered in connection with the conclusions. Feeding experiments in which a standard feed is compared with several other feeds, in rations in which the quantity of all other feeds is kept constant (as illustrated in Tables 2 and 3) are few in number. The usual procedure is to make several comparisons in the same experi- ment, instead of comparing all the lots with a single one. For example, Lot 1 may be compared with Lot 2, Lot 2 with Lots 3 and 6, Lot 4" with Lots 5 and 6. The same method of procedure, of course, could be used in comparing the productive energy of the variables, but the use of a single standard is preferable. Another procedure involves the use of one of the roughages or con- centrates in two or three of the rations, but not in the others. It is sometimes possible to calculate the productive energy of the variable addition from one of the experiments and use this calculated value in calculating the others. a Experiments in which two or more new feeds are introduced into one ration, or in which there are decided variations in the quantities eaten of two or more of the feeds, or into which two or more variables are introduced, are unsuitable for comparing the productive values of indi- vidual feeds, or estimating the productive energy. They may give infor- mation regarding the value of the ration as a whole, or the palatability of the mixture but all the effect of the ration cannot be ascribed to one variable selected from two or more variables. Experiments in which two feeds are fed in variable quantities are not well suited to calculate productive energy. In the first place, one of the two variables must be selected from which to calculate the pro- ductive energy. In the second place, an error in the assumed productive value in the other feed will result in too high or too low a productive value for the feed calculated. This is illustrated in Table 5, in which the calculated productive energy of the alfalfa increases from 32.8 to 45.7 therms per hundred pounds as the quantity fed increases. PRODUCTIVE VALUES USED When analyses of the feed used were given, the productive values were calculated from the analyses, using the production coefficients already published (6, 8), and these values were used in the calculations. In many cases the analyses were not given, and for these, average productive values were used, calculated from the production coeflicients and the ordinary analysis of the feed, either of the Texas Station or of Henry and Morrison (9). Many of the productive values used are given in Table 6. These values no doubt deviate in many ca.ses from the pro- ductive values of the feeds actually used, but since the experiments were conducted and conclusions drawn with no knowledge of the com- 15 ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS Omwm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uniafiyfla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G@WQOOM@3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JZQHT»? .>%N@ HMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qz/Nhwm MNUZB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (~50 .>%N§ HMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H5OQ5 Rnr/OHW Chou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QWN>@NM wflnwgg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H®>Owm QMCU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .@UQQQ§O Rwflmwfi? . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WQmWNTUE . . . . . . . . . .®Wmwiw CNQQ NmOm was“ QHOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q.®.~Q HNUHTK/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .@C5Oh@ .mUNU§ . . . . . . . . . , . . . .. . . . . . .. .®wflzw QkQU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .#N@.§B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .@NQE GHQU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MQ@GM5H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WQQMHNU @QN WTOWQNE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U@N@@m Hxfix wqfl chQU avxm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >%N§ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w.@@@ifig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~OQ@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @QZU5M ¢.:%Nm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .#@U>$w ~>fl§ hmz/AZU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . éflnwa QNUQ>Q@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w@mwUg h€fim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . »%N£ H®>QQ~U ®%..@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @UQQQEU ~U>m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .wmfl.m® Og§% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UWN@@W QHHNU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .mflwflfiflwfim . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4%Ua* WE:\COT* . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . .UOO.~ EUQQ—W O fltfi-m @@§. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .»@N§ @T~@NHL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CU>>>QM »~@NT% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >flg wwmwh mvfizm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WQQ.~N\~OQ . . . . . . . . . . . ..~Q>Q@O IT fUigiz .>\@WE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fmflwfiw “wwvwmvm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .@NUE Nmvm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._NO:M ifidfllo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £00m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nmwm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cmvwflzw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .h0wv@c% gfiwm @%§. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .@W@E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0%N:w Qwhfic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..@@QQQ§U .~%@Tmflm $@@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .>?Nh.ww aflo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..QwhNQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .%®7~Nm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ffluflo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NQQZIUU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..unfl.m< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .@%N@@w NUQ @H~N QNO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @fl@~: wumwnwwcoflanvu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vnsom 5Q voob ucson :5 wwvh wcson 3Q ugh 2:55P QFSFH @2225. 656a .6.» mfiponPrlwgcoEmgwnxo wfiwvuw mnfifisfiwo E v3: $53 we $.65. ofiaosccbm .w Benn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . . . ..C@QW UGUOQ Mk0.“ mEHQSrW N. vw 3mm 9mm w. 7m .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ..mtm.:w 2350a o2 5Q @555 03E, ofidonwoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W@QH~OQ .fl.:fl.:< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .....M@QH~OQ JMHOOUwvUQ @@@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M@QSQQ JZN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..w@C5OQ UWNMQ>< mfi w w m n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........oZ~oA @237» mfimfi< mbmfi< §@:< wawisw dvfiicmsv QGQHQWIU Gm v8 m“ UQQw 086w 0J9 i053 Qcvuwbmw 0Q ~ANHG %W.~UGO ozaoswoga UOQM~BO~NO 0GP. “ZQNF 16 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION position of the feeds tested, it was considered permissible to study the results in the same irvay’; but of course the matter must be considered in the final interpretation of the results. These assumptions are not greater than the assumptions made by those Wl1O originally carried out the experiment. COMPARISON OF PRODUCTIVE ENERGY WITH FEED FOR 100 POUNDS OF GAIN The results of feeding experiments are frequently compared in terms of pounds of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain. The feed used by the animal for maintenance and for fattening are both included, so that the greater the cost of maintenance, the greater the number of pounds of feed required per hundred pounds of gain in Weight. The chief items entering into the cost of maintenance are the Weight of the animal and the length of the period of the experiment, Which vary in different experiments. The proportion of the total ration used for gain in Weight materially affects the Weight of the feed required for 100 pounds of gain; if one lot uses one-fourth of the ration for pro- duction, While another lot uses one-third, it is obvious that the pounds of gain for 100 pounds of feed could be correspondingly influenced. The largest gains in Weight are secured when the animal eats daily a ration containing the largest amount of productive energy which it can handle to advantage. The quantity of productive energy consumed depends upon the proportion of concentrates to roughages, the adequacy of the ration, and the appetite of the animal, influenced by palatability. If the ration is deficient in any respect, the appetite of the animal is likely to fall off. The palatability of the mixture is an important factor, since heavy rations must be especially attractive. Different amounts of the same ration would cause differences in gain in xveight; consequently a difference in the pounds of feed for 100 pounds of gain is thus not a measure of any particular factor or feed in the ration, but it is the measure of the ration as a unit, and is especially related to the palata- bility of the mixture. The calculation of the productive energy’, on the other hand, attempts t0 eliminate the other factors, and confine the results entirely to the therms of productive energy in a unit of feed. Variations in the composition of the gain in weight, uncertainty With respect to the composition or feeding value of the feeds used, and the presence of several variables, affect the interpretation of results by means of feed required for 100 pounds of gain, just as they affect the results of the calculation of productive energy. CALCULATION OF DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS FOR A POUND OF GAIN The same method of calculation used for productive energy could be applied to digestible nutrients, provided they Were of equal value to the animal. A comparison of such a calculation With that of productive 17 ENERGY OF‘FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 3w 9:. Em $5 »»» MN... c? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . éaw $5202 8H 8H EH52 3m Sm 2H. Q»N NNN 23 2H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5am $555 8H SH =80 N5 N. ccafi NENN QNH... N. HEN. N. m»? H. »£.N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QHH w+ m EN H525 H H8 EHHQEHHHZ m; Q2... 3N. .5? S». 2w. Sm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AH .358 5% 8H 2.652. wzswwflm »H». 3N. i». i». i». ».~>.». .5». . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :2" H25. x 3 SHHNHBHENE N9: Ham: w»? H. ...»N..H Hi. H HEN. H NEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1H BHHQCHHHHH QESmQmHH. 139w Haw. ma». H2... 3N. ma. »H». HNw. ............T.....TT.IT......T.T.@Amom.v>NHHNHHNHH< 8». HE. s3. H HQ. Sm. N2. H3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANN»; Eou Imwsson dHHHoCHHHHH vzfimwmmQ HanN é». N wSN iHN QNN. N amHwN HE... N H H H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QHu 0+ m Hfim .5 H 8H WEE? 2w. ww». H»? QNN. 8.... 5w. N»». 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .. ........mu HZIJH. Q5? Qzifizzm QB. mm? H8. m3. 25 Nww. 8». . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2u 96¢. x 3 wucmcwHHHHmz »HH......H HQH NNQH 26H EHH mfiwH NEYH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1H ESP 3w. 3.... <3. 3w. Q5. 02.. N3. H..fir................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INHHNHZ MN». $5. wHH . H 3%. E3. mww. NS. H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ééuloflw.’ wfifiswoi w».H 2H »H.H »w.H H».H NHEH mmH AHxxxHAJJJJHMJQH.U...48.325 . . . . UWNMU>< ww» 92 mHw 9w» ».@» oHw Qmw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q5 W953 Ems; 09.53» m N H N m N H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 57H H5 2% $5.3 ooH Non ~53 can Hzwm wcsom Hofl mHHHoCHHHHH 03:53. .5: 5mm $95G E0 b Hcvfiiwmxfl NIH? 5% UGHHOQ 5Q wHHEvsH we HHowiwncHoU H 05mm. 18 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION energy is given in Table '7. The requirements for maintenance are based upon the figures of Max Kriss (16). The experiment used Was selected because the animals were fed variable amounts of roughages and concentrates, between which there are Wide differences in the productive energy per pound of digestible nutrients. In both the experiments, it is seen that the therms of productive energy for each pound of gain decreases as the gain in weightrdecreases. This is in accordance With the fact that the thinner animals put on material containing less heat units than do the fatter animals. On the other hand, the total of digestible nutrients required for a pound of gain increases as the gain in weight decreases and as the quantity fed of alfalfa. increases, and of corn decreases. This shows clearly that the digestible nutrients of alfalfa have lower values than those of corn. It is in accord with the evidence that the productive energy of the digestible nutrients of alfalfa is lower than that for corn. THE PRODUCTIVE ENERGY CALCULATED FROM THE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS A summary of the results of the calculation of the productive energy from the feeding experiments with sheep is given in Table 8. Detailed calculations of a number of the experiments are given in Tables 2, 3, and 9 to 38, inclusive. The calculations were made by the method already described. In Table 8 the feeds are listed in alphabetical order. In Table 8 the productive energy calculated from the feeding experi- ments is given in the column headed “Therms productive energy from feeding experiments”. The column headed “Therms calculated from analysis” contains the productive energy calculated from the analysis of the feed used in the particular experiment, where such analysis is given, by means of the production coeflicients (6, 8). The column headed “Gain in weight” shows Whether the average gain in Weight Was 10 per cent or more higher (H) or lower (L) ‘than the gain in the lot used for the standard. Two columns give references to the bulletins or reports in which the experiments were published. The last column gives the numbers of the tables in which the experiments are given in detail in this Bulletin, if they are given. In general it may be said that the results of the feeding experiments agree With the productive energy calculated from the production coefli- cients. There are some unusually high results secured from protein supplements, especially cottonseed meal. Some of the calculations indi- cate the need for correcting the production coefficients previously given for some of the feeds, such as corn fodder, in which case the production coefficients seem to give too high a productive value. On the whole, the results show that the productive values coincide reasonably Well with the results of the feeding experiments, and show the usefulness of the method. ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 19 Table 8. Productive energy in therms per hundred pounds calculated from feeding experiments with sheep . Therms productive Therms Name of feed energy from calculated Gain in State Bulletin Table No. feeding from weight or report experiments analysis Alfalfa hay, Siberian (alfalfa 34 .5) . . . . . . 29.7 29.7 L S. D. 143 Alfalfa hay, second cutting (first cutting 36.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.4 35.3 L Wash. 170 9 Alfalfa hay, second cutting (first cutting 35.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.3 35.3 M Wash 185 . . . . . . . . .. Alfalfa hay, third cutting (first 36.8).. . . 32.4 29.9 M Wash 170 9 Alfalfa hay, third cutting (first 35 .5).. . . 32.8 29 .9 M Wash 185 . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa (clover hay 38 .0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.4 0 M Ind. 179 . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa (clover hay 35 .4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0 0 M Mich. 136 29 Alfalfa hay (timothy hay 34.0) . . . . . . . . 42.9 0 H Ohio 245 25 Alfalfa hay (timothy hay 34 .0) . . . . . . . . 45.1 0 H Ohio 245 25 Alfalfa hay, long (compared with cut, 35.4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 0 H Idaho Cir. 19 10 Alfalfa hay, long (cut 35.4) . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.5 0 'H Idaho Cir. 19 10 Average (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.4 32.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Alfalfa, chopped (long 34.5) . . . . . . . . . . . 36.8 0 M Ohio 179 . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa meal (hay 35.4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.0 0 H Idaho Cir. 19 10 Alfalfa meal (hay 35 .4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.7 0 H Idaho Cir. 19 10 Alfalfa meal (native hay 42.0) . . . . . . . . . 42.2 39.6 M Wyo. 12 Alfalfa and molasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 .7 0 M N eb. 197 . . . . . . . . . . Mangel beet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .4 0 H Iowa 110 33 Mangel beet, calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.4 0 M Mich 136 29 Bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.6 0 M Mich 136 29 Bean straw, calculated, coefficient soy- bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.9 79.8 L Wyo 109 . . . . . . . . . . Barley, Scotch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57.4 81.7 L Wyo 89 12 Barley, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.4 0 M Iowa 210 . . . . . . . . .. Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 .3 80 .3 L Wyo 85 . . . . . . . . . . Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.6 O L S. D 86 32 Barley, cracked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.4 82.4 L Wyo. 103 11 Barley, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.7 76.0 M Colo. 266 . . . . . . . . .. Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.0 0 M Colo. 75 . . . . . . . . . . Barley, soaked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.5 82.4 M Wyo. 103 11 Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.8 0 M Mont. 59 . . . . . . . . . . Barley, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.1 0 L Kan. Cir. 88 . . . . . . . . . . Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 .2 0 M Neb. 211 27 Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 .2 79.8 M Wash 185 3 Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.2 0 L Okla. 146 . . . . . . . . . . Barley, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.9 0 M Iowa 210 . . . . . . . . .. Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 .5 0 M Ore. 195 34 Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.6 82.4 M Wyo. 103 11 Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.4 0 M Mont. 47 . . . . . . . . . . Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.8 0 M S. D. 86 32 Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.4 77.5 M Wyo. 73 . . . . . . . . . . Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.7 0 H Neb. 211 27 Barley, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.2 82.0 M Iowa 210 . . . . . . . . .. Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.8 79.5 M Wyo. 73 . . . . . . . . . . Barley, Scotch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.3 0 L Wyo. 81 . . . . . . . . .. Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129.3 0 M Mont 47 . . . . . . . . . . Average (25) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.7 80.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Barley meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.2 82.4 M Wyo. 103 11 Bald barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2 84 .3 L Wyo 89 12 Bald barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.7 84.7 L Wyo 79 . . . . . . . . . . Beet pulp, wet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 0 L Colo. 75 . . . . . . . . . . Beet pulp, wet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.0 7. M Colo. 266 . . . . . . . . . . 5. Beet pulp, wet, average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ®® 20 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 8. Productive energy in therms per hundreél pounds calculated from feeding experiments with sheep — ontinue . Therms productive Therms Name of feed energy from calculated Gain in Bulletin Table No. feeding from weight or report experiments analysis Beet pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.7 66.2 M 13 Beet pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.8 66.2 M 1906 . . . . . . . . . . Beet pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.6 66.2 M 220 13 Beet pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.7 66.2 M 220 13 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.7 66.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Beet pulp average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Molasses beet pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.5 61.9 M 266 . . . . . . . . . . Molasses beet pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.0 61.9 M 266 . , . . . . . . . . Molasses beet pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.6 61.7 M 220 13 Molasses beet pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.1 61.9 M 261 . . . . . . . . . . Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.6 61.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed cake, cold-pressed. . . . . . . . . . 100.0 0 H 173 20 Clover hay, sweet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 0 M Cir. 109 24 Clover, sweet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .4 38.2 L 143 2 Clover hay, sweet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .8 0 M Clr. 109 24 Clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .0 29. 9 L 245 16 Clover hay, sweet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0 0 M Cir. 109 24 Clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.8 0 H 179 . . . . . . . . . . Clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2 37.1 L 79 . . . . . . . . .. Clover hay, red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28. 6 29.9 M 245 17 Clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.7 0 M 192 21 Clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 O M 202 23 Clover, sweet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 .5 0 L 1921 . . . . . . . . . . Clover hay, sweet, first cutting . . . . . . . . . 32.8 35.4 M 185 . . . . . . . . . . Clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35. 9 0 M 179 19 Clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.7 38.1 M 245 18 Clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 0 M 184 22 Clover, sweet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.1 34.5 H 170 9 Average (16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.9 34.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Corn, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.7 0 M Cir. 88 . . . . . . f . . . Corn, ground (.82 whole) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.3 0 M 257 38 Corn, ear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.6 0 M 196 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 0 M Cir. 19 10 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .1 0 L Cir. 79 26 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 0 M 179 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . 6 0 M 197 14 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 0 M 110 33 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 0 M 47 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 0 M 211 27 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 0 M 162 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .6 0 M 162 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.7 13 . 9 M 197 14 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.9 13.9 M 197 . . . . . . . . .. Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0 0 L 202 23 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3 0 L 202 23 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12. 7 13.9 L 197 . . . . . . . . .. Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .8 0 M 197 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 0 M 197 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 0 M 162 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.6 0 M 162 15 Corn silage (barn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 0 M 179 19 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1 0 M 197 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage (barn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4 0 L 192 21 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 0 M 162 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 17.1 L 143 2 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.5 0 M 192 21 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.6 0 L 107 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.4 0 M 162 15 ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 21 Table 8. Productive energy in therms per hundred pounds calculated from feeding experiments with sheep —Continued. Therms productive Therms _ _ _ Name of feed energy from calculated Gain 1n State Bulletin Table No. feeding from weight or report experiments analysis Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2 0 M Ind. 168 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4 0 M Ohio 179 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 0 M Ind. 168 . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20. 9 17.0 M Wash. 185 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , r Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 0 H Ind. 162 _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 0 H Neb. 173 20 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.7 0 M Ind 179 19 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.7 0 L Kan 1921 4 _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.3 0 M Ind. 179 _ , , _ , , , _ _ _ Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.6 0 M Ind. 162 15 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .4 0 H Ind. 102 _ _ , _ , _ _ _ , _ Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .9 0 H Ind. 184 22 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 0 H Ind. 184 22 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.9 0 M Ind. 162 _ , _ , , _ , , _ , Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 .2 15.1 H Wash. 170 9 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 .9 0 H Mo. 115 _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.8 15 .1 H Wash. 170 _ _ , _ , , _ _ __ Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.8 15 .1 H Wash. 170 9 Average (44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 15.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ Calculated immature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Calculated well matured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corn stalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .3 0 M Mich. 136 29 Corn stalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 .9 0 M Mich. 136 29 Corn stover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .4 27 . 9 L Ohio 245 17 Corn stover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 .0 27.9 L Ohio 245 16 Corn stover. . 15 .9 27 . 9 L Ohio 245 17 Corn stover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.1 27 . 9 L Ohio 245 18 Corn stover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.5 27.9 L Ohio 245 16 Corn stover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.6 0 M Okla. 78 . . . . . . . . . . Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 27.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . .. Shredded corn fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 37.0 L S D 143 2 Corn gluten feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.6 75 .5 M Iowa 210 . . . . . . . . . . Corn gluten feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.0 0 L Kan. Cir. 79 26 Corn gluten feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.2 74.4 M Iowa 185 . . . . . . . . . . Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78.6 75.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.4 0 M Ind. 102 . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.7 0 L Ind. 184 22 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 .5 0 M Ind. 162 15 I Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.7 0 M Ind. 168 . . . . . . . . . . g Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.5 0 L Ind. 192 21 i Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.2 0 M Ind. 168 . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.2 0 M Mo. 115 . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.2 0 H Ind. 179 19 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.2 73 .7 H Wyo. 130 . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 .2 0 L d. 179 19 =._ Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 .0 0 M Ind. 162 . . . . . . . . . . l Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.3 0 M Ind. 168 . . . . . . . . . . f Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.0 0 L Ind. 168 . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . 106.0 0 M Ind. 192 21 r» Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 .0 0 M Ind. 202 23 f Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107.2 0 M Ind. 202 23 i Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . 108.6 0 H Ind. 179 19 E Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 .5 73 .1 M Wash. 185 . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . 110.2 0 H d. 184 22 ‘ Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116.0 71.5 H Wash. 170 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116.9 0 H Ind. 184 22 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 .2 0 L Ind. 202 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.0 0 L Kan. Cir. 79 26 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 .0 0 H Neb. 3 20 22 BULLETIN N O. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 8. Productive energy in therms per hundred pounds calculated from feeding experiments with sheep ~—Continued. Therms productive Therms Name of feed energy from calculated Gain in State Bulletin Table N0. feeding fr0m_ weight or report experiments analysis Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . j . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149.3 0 L Ind. 162 15 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170.0 0 H Ind. 162 . . . . . . . . . . Average (26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.7 72.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cow pea hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.4 0 M Okla. 78 . . . . . . . . . . Darso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.0 0 . . . . . . . . . . Okla. 146 . . . . . . . . . . Darso silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0 0 I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hay, native, Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.4 43.2 L Wyo. 85 . . . . . . . . .. Hay, prairie, South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .3 25.5 L S. D. 143 2 Hay, native, Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26. 7 37.7 L Wyo. 79 . . . . . . . . . . Hay, native, Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.1 0 L Wyo. 51 . . . . . . . . . . Hay, native, Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 36. 7 L Wyo. 73 . . . . . . . . . . Hay, prairie, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.1 0 L Okla. 78 . . . . . . . . . . Hay, prairie, Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 0 L Neb. 66 35 Hay, native, Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.8 37.7 L Wyo 79 . . . . . . . . . . Hay, native, Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.1 0 L Wyo 47 . . . . . . . . . . Average (9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.3 36.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Hominy feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.6 0 L Kan Cir. 79 26 Hominy meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.4 0 M Ind. 221 . . . . . . . . . . Hominy feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 . 5 0 M N eb. 173 20 Hominy feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.5 87.2 M Iowa 210 . . . . . . . . . . Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.0 87.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Kafir heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.7 0 M Kan Cir. 109 24 Kafir, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77. 6 0 M Kan. Cir. 109 24 Kafir, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..‘ . . . . . . . .. 77.8 0 M Kan. 1921 . . . . . . . . .. Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.1 0 M Okla. 146 . . . . . . . . . . Kafir, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.3 0 L Okla. 146 . . . . . . . . .. Kafir, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.8 0 M Kan. Cir. 109 24 Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Average Texas Feed Control samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.9 73 .9 M Neb. 197 . . . . . . . . . . Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 .3 72 .2 L Ohio 245 17 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . M Neb. 197 . . . . . . . . . . Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.1 73 . 9 M N eb. 197 . . . . . . . . . . Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 .1 73 .9 H Neb. 197 14 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.9 0 L N eb. 66 35 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.8 72 . 2 L Ohio 245 16 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.2 72 . 2 M Ohio 245 16 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.7 0 M Ind. 221 . . . . . . . . . . Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.7 73 .2 H Iowa 185 . . . . . . . . . . Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.9 76.5 L Ill. 260 31 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.3 71.4 L Ill. 260 3O Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2 0 L Wyo. 73 . . . . . . . . . . Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 .8 72.2 M Ohio 245 17 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.7 0 H N eb. 211 27 Linseed cake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.0 76.8 M Wyo. 89 12 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.8 0 H Neb. 211 27 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 .2 O L Kan. Cir. 79 26 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.7 73.9 H Neb. 197 14 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.0 0 H Neb. 173 20 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 .2 0 H Ohio 245 25 Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124.0 0 M Mo. _ 115 . . . . . . . . .. Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 .0 0 M Kan Cir. 79 26 Average (23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.1 73.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. r ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS Table 8. Productive energy in therms per hundr 23 ed pounds calculated from feeding experiments with sheep Continued. Therms productive Therms Name of feed energy from calculated Gain in State Bulletin Table No. feeding ' from weight or report experiments analysis Millet hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.0 0 L Mich. 136 29 Millet hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.9 » 0 M Mich. 136 29 Millet (grain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.5 0 M S. D. 86 32 Molasses, corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 .6 0 H Iowa 215 28 Molasses, cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.0 0 M Iowa 215 28 Molasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.5 0 M Neb. 197 . . . . . . . . . . Molasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.5 0 M Neb. 197 14 Molasses, beet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 .5 0 H Iowa 215 28 Molasses, beet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.2 0 M Iowa 215 28 Molasses, cane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.9 0 H Iowa 215 28 Molasses, beet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.7 0 H Idaho Cir. 19 10 Molasses, beet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.2 0 H Iowa 215 28 Molasses, cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.9 0 M Ind. 192 21 Molasses, beet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.0 51.7 M Colo. 266 . . . . . . . . . . Average (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Molasses, cane, calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Molasses, beet, calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ . . . . . . Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.9 0 L Neb. 66 35 Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63 .5 0 L Mont. 47 . . . . . . . . . . Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.0 0 L Ind. 168 . . . . . . . . . . Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.0 0 M Ind. 179 19 Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.5 0 M Mich. 107 . . . . . . . . . . Oats (whole) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.4 0 M Mich. 107 . . . . . . . . .. Oats (whole) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.6 70.9 M Colo. 266 . . . . . . . . . . 67.6 0 L Ind. 168 . . . . . . . . . . 69.2 0 M Iowa 210 . . . . . . . . . . 70.1 0 M Iowa 210 . . . . . . . . . . 71.8 O M Mich. 59 . . . . . . . . . . 71.9 75.4 L Wyo. 73 . . . . . . . . .. 73 .5 O M S. D. 86 32 73 .9 74 .3 L Wash. 185 3 74.3 75 .4 L Wyo. 73 . . . . . . . . . . 81.5 0 M Ore. 198 34 85.7 71.9 M Iowa 210 . . . . . . . . .. 88.8 0 M Neb. 66 35 89.4 O M Ind. 184 22 91.2 0 M Mich 107 . . . . . . . . . . Average (20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 .3 73.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Oat and pea silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .8 15 . 8 M Wyo 130 . . . . . . . . . . Oat and pea silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1 15.1 L Wyo 109 . . . . . . . . . . Oat and pea silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 . 6 15 . 1 M Wyo 109 . . . . . . . . . . Oat and pea silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 15.8 L Wyo 130 . . . . . . . . . . Oat and pea silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.5 15.8 M Wyo 130 . . . . . . . . . . Average (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0 15.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 24 .2 L Ohio 245 17 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .8 0 M Ind. 179 . . . . . . . . .. Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 0 L Ind. 192 21 Oat straw. . .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.8 25.8 L Ohio 245 16 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 25 .8 L Ohio 245 17 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ 13 .7 25 .8 L Ohio 245 16 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1 0 L Ind. 179 19 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.4 26.3 L Ill. 260 30 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.8 0 L Mich 136 29 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.2 0 M Mich 136 29 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26. 6 O M Ind. 184 22 Average (10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.6 25.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Peas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8 0 L Idaho 89 . . . . . . . . .. 24 BULLETIN N O. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 8. Productive energy in therms per hundred pounds calculated from feeding experiments with sheep —Continued. Therms productive Therms Name of feed energy from calculated Gain in State Bulletin Table No. feeding ‘from weight or report experiments analysis Pea hay (Canadian field) ............ . . 12.0 42.0 L s. D. 143 2 Pea hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.9 0 L Wyo. 79 . . . . . . . . . . Pea hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.3 0 L Wyo. 79 . . . . . . . . . . Pea and barley silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 O M Ore. 184 . . . . . . . . . . Pea and bald barley silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1 0 M Ore. 198 . . . . . . . . . . Peanut meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.7 71.6 M Iowa 185 . . . . . . . . . . Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 0 M Mich. 113 . . . . . . . . . . Roots . . . . . . . . 8.7 0 M Mich. 113 . . . . . . . . . . Rutabagas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . Mich. 107 . . . . . . . . . . , Rutabagas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 0 L Mich. 107 . . . . . . . . . . Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rye, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77.3 O M eb. , 256 37 Rye, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.1 0 M N eb. 256 37 Average, calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Soy bean oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.5 79.0 L Ill. 260 31 Soy bean oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.0 0 M Ill. 296 . . . . . . . . . . Soy bean hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.9 41.7 M Ill. 260 31 Soy bean hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0 0 M Ind. 296 . . . . . . . . . . Soy bean hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.7 34.5 M Ill. 260 30 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.9 38.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Soy bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .0 5 .5 L III. 260 31 Soy bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 .0 8 .3 L Ill. 260 30 Soy bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22. 7 11.9 L Ohio 245 18 Average (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.9 8.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Soy beans, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.4 0 M Ill. 296 . . . . . . . . . . Soy beans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.4 0 L Wis. 1904 . . . . . . . . . . Soy beans, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.0 0 M Ind. 221 . . . . . . . . . . Soy beans, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.4 85.2 L Ill. 260 31 Soy beans, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.2 0 M Ind. 192 21 Soy beans, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.0 0 M Ill. 296 . . . . . . . . . . Soy beans, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.1 85.2 L Ill. 260 30 Soy beans, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141.1 0 M Ind. 202 23 Average (8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.4 85.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Stock tonic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . Kan Cir. 88 . . . . . . . . . . Emmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 .0 0 L Wyo 81 . . . . . . . . . . Emmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 .8 78.9 L Wyo 85 . . . . . . . . . . Emmer or spelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.5 80.8 L Wyo 79 . . . . . . . . . . Emmer or spelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.6 0 L S. D. 86 32 Emmer or spelt . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. 73 .4 0 M S. D. 86 32 Emmer or spelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.0 0 H Colo. 75 . . . . . . . . . . Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.9 79.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Sugar beets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.8 0 L Mich 128 . . . . . . . . .. Sugar beets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 0 H Iowa 110 33 Sugar beets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .0 0 L Colo. 75 . . . . . . . . . . Sugar beets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .7 O M Neb. 173 20 Average (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.3 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM. F Table 8. Productive energy in therms "per hu EEDING EXPERIMENTS 25 ndred pounds calculated from feeding experiments with sheep —Continued. Therms productive Therms Name of feed energy from calculated Gain in State Bulletin Table No. feeding from weight or report experiments analysis Sunflower silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 8.3 H Wyo. 130 . _ . . . . . . . . Sunflower silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 0 M Ore. 198 . . . . . . . . . . Sunflower silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .4 0 M Ore. 184 . . . . . . . . . . Sunflower silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 8.5 M Mont 131 . . . . . . . . . . Sunflower silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 9 .0 L Wyo. 130 _ . . . . . . . . . Sunflower silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .7 8 .3 M Wyo 130 _ _ . , . . . . . . Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.7 8.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ , . . . . . . .. Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.3 0 M Neb. 211 27 Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .4 0 L Ind. 162 _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.3 0 L Ind. . . . . . . . . . . , _ _ _ . , _ _ , _ Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.6 0 L Ind. 162 15 Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.9 0 L Ind. 162 _ . . . . . . . . . Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 .3 0 L Ind. 162 _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.7 0 L Ind. 162 _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.5 0 M Mo. 115 _ _ . . . . . . . . Average (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ Velvet bean feed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.8 70 .0 M Iowa 185 , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ Wheat screenings . . . . . j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.8 0 M Mont. 59 _ _ , _ _ , , , , , Wheat screenings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.7 0 M Mont 47 _ _ , _ , . , _ , _ Wheat screenings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 .3 0 M Mont 47 _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ Wheat (macaroni) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.3 0 L S. D. 86 32 Wheat (macaroni) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.3 0 M S. D. 86 32 Wheat (bread) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 .9 0 M S. D. 86 32 Wheat, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.4 0 M Neb. 257 _ _ , _ , , _ _ _ _ Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.7 0 M Mich. 128 . . . . . . . . . .. Wheat, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.1 0 L Neb. 257 36 Wheat, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2 0 L Neb. 257 38 he . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 .0 0 M Colo. 75 . . . . . . . . . . Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 .8 86.0 M Wash. 185 3 Wheat, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 .2 0 M Neb. 256 37 Wheat, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.8 0 L Neb 275 36 Whe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.3 0 M Mich. 128 . . . . . . . . .. Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 .0 0 M Mich. 128 . . . . . . . . . . Wheat, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.0 0 M Neb. 257 38 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.1 0 M Ore. 198 34 Wheat, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.4 0 M Neb. 256 37 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.0 0 L Mich. 113 . . . . . . . . . . Wheat, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.5 0 M Neb. 257 . . . . . . . . . . Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 .3 0 M Mich. 128 . . . . . . . . . . Wheat, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 .6 0 M Neb. 257 . . . . . . . . . . Average (20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.3 86.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 .3 0 M Mich. 128 , _ , _ , , _ _ _ , Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.7 0 L Mich. 113 _ , , , , _ _ , _ _ Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.9 0 L Mich. 113 _ _ . . . _ . . . _ Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2 0 L Mich. 107 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.5 0 L Neb. 66 35 Wheat bran .9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.9 0 M Mich. 107 . . . . . . . . . . Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.3 0 L Idaho 89 . . . . . . . . . . Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 .4 0 M Neb. 66 35 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.7 0 M Neb. 66 35 Average (9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION EFFECT OF BALANCING THE RATION WITH PROTEID FEEDS When the productive energy of a carbonaceous feed is calculated in a ration low in protein, and the calculation is also made for a correspond- ing ration high in protein, the results are higher in the latter case. Thus, corn stover (Table 16) has a productive energy of 12.0 therms ‘when fed With corn, 18.5 therms when fed with corn and linseed oil meal, 4.4 therms (Table 17) when fed with corn, and 15.9 therms per 100 pounds when fed with corn and linseed oil meal. Millet hay in a ration Without clover (Table 29) had a productive energy of 22.0 therms ; With clover it Was 40.9 therms. Oat straw likewise gave higher results with linseed oil meal (Tables 16, 1'7) or clover hay (Table 29), than in rations containing less protein. Cottonseed meal and linseed oil meal, when used in such a way as to supply protein to a ration otherwise deficient in protein, have higher productive values than calculated ordinarily, as can be seen by reference to the discussion in connection with these feeds. The addition of a proteid feed to an unbalanced ration increases the utilization of the energy of the entire ration. The productive energy of a feed in an unbalanced ration is lower than it is in a balanced ration. The measurement should be made in a balanced ration, since in an unbalanced ration, another factor than the productive energy of the feed is depressing the results. A proteid feed added to an unbalanced ration has an effect greater than its own productive energy, since it increases the utilization of the other feeds to which it is added. The productive energy of a proteid feed will be higher when it is compared in a balanced ration with an unbalanced ration, than when it is compared in another ration with a ration balanced with some other proteid feed. The excess productive energy of the supplemental proteid feed is a real benefit, which should be take-n into consideration when supplemental protein is added. The quantity of the excess will depend upon conditions, such as the extent of the deficiency of the ration to which it was added. DISCUSSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL FEEDS The feeds are listed in alphabetical order in Table 8. Detailed calcula- tions are given in tables referred to in Table 8 and mentioned in the text. Alfalfa hay- A number of experiments were made with alfalfa hay, but it was usually used as the standard. Table 8 contains the results of a few comparisons of second and third cuttings of alfalfa with the first cutting, and of alfalfa. hay with clover or timothy hay. Some detailed calculations are given in Tables 2, 9, 10, 20, 25, and 29, as shown in Table 8. The results are about what could be expected, and agree quite well with the calculated values. The high productive energy of alfalfa hay (42.9 and 45.1) obtained 27 ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS N.mm w.~¢ >.¢¢ N.@m m.wm @.Hm ~.~¢ ¢.~m ¢.=m I omv. wafi. >@m. w>¢.~ www. am». mhm. mfim. mmh. mwc. . . ~mm.H w_m._ how.“ m@>.H @wm._ @@m._ w@N.H . . . . . . .. m~@. van. mam. @@~.~ whm. ow“. MM». .... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... . ...... . . . . ... ..... . ~mm.m .. ... . . . . . . . . ... ... . hfiw. wmw. ¢~@. mvw. @_@. “am. wan. ¢_@. @N@. Qfiw. @H@. “mm. _~@. ~w¢.H ~w¢._ ww>.H mm~.H Cam. / Nmq. wow. @~w.H mhw. mhw. mh@. wm¢._ .. . .. ... . wwv. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... .. owe. ........ ..... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... wnm. mmw. mwfi. mmw. . . . . ... . . .. . ¢-.H awn. _»¢._ m»@. own. Nmw. www. 9mm. N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulwmoum . . . . . . .. fig 3N. as; T. w?“ RN. Q3. 9.5. mi fie m2 3N. m3. 2a. m? 3w. 3m. 3.3. $46 3Q Q93 E23. 32 $2 21R a NH |v? 3 .2 w my ... w. m N H 13B @223 Q52; wwwzm Qwfifi ~63 wmnzm >2 .23 5E b2 .52.? v50 EH8 v.5 F60 EoO E500 e80 Q28? @:.~:< “:83. §§< sea EB b2 £55m . Q23? @283 o2 X E8 ABim H fiSEBQQEw an: o3 0o >926 Sfiuswohm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q HH|O v8 Qcwiw-nnzm mo 3.65 Qifiswohm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OHA+E new?“ Mo >EQE gsoswohm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AHUXM 5% .8 >326 vfiausfizm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MH0+m wkfizéum E swam .2 fi .60 @555. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IEQHEIB 5mm 0o wfifi» wfiauswohm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2H mwco. X >> mqiwna ooaacofiaafi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. @584. Ruck ..... .3200 25% E8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322v 13E vwwmcofio 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AwwmQ Awfifiso $3 was @223» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26m .0 chov|wflhz$ .03.? ofiauswohm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .§o=_ swam , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 35022.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ass wowmafioo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . AME? Es >2 §£< . . . . @528 Es r2 2E2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @558 a: a2 éaz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q5 mwsson .329; owfitw>< 1.1.02 3A domafiw iSEEQQxQ wfiflo»? 6E cflozsm ivnufliwaxw mfiwvfi 89a uwfixsflao mmhEw Qfiaoscohmld QEQP v 28 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in two tests (Table 25) may have been due to the fact that too high a productive value (34.0) Was assigned to the timothy hay with which it is compared. The average productive energy calculated from the eleven feeding experiments is What would be expected. In the experiment calculated in Table 9, corn to alfalfa were fed in four ratios, and these Were calculated for the productive value of alfalfa. As previously pointed out, tests of this kind are likely to give inaccurate values for productive energy, on account of error in the estimated pro- ductive energy of the other feed. In this case, the comparison can be made only against alfalfa itself; so these results were omitted from Table 8. Chopped alfalfa and alfalfa meal. Long alfalfa compared With cut alfalfa, gave in tWo tests 4 and 8 per cent higher productive energy; in another experiment it gave 8 per cent less. Detailed calculations for one experiment are given in Table 10. Table 10.-Productive energy calculated from feeding experiments, Circular 19, Idaho Experiment Station. Stand- Corn Alfalfa Long Long Alfalfa Beet ard silage meal alfalfa alfalfa meal syrup Lot No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.46 82.22 87.45 83.79 83.17 87.04 85.69 Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2211 .2380 .2683 .2970 .2979 .2518 .3052 Daily feed, pounds, barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .362 .357 .357 .357 .357 .362 .368 Long alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .76 4.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cut alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.26 3 .40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Alfalfa meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 32 2 66 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264 256 256 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beet syrup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .666 Productive value, therms, barley (.760) . . . . . . . . .275 .271 .271 .271 .271 .275 .280 Cut alfalfa (.354) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.154 1.204 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa meal (.354) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .942 Corn silage (.030) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .008 .008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.429 1.475 .279 .279 .271 .275 1.222 Maintenance therms, WX.0085=M . . . . . . . . . . . .701 .699 .743 .712 .707 .740 .728 Productive value of gain T-M =B . . . . . . . . . . . . .728 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B+G=K. . . .. 3.293 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Productive energy of gain KXG=L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .784 .884 .978 .981 .829 1.005 Productive energy cf ration M+L=O. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 1.483 1.627 1.690 1.688 1.569 1.733 Productive energy of supplement fed O—T=E. . . . . . . . . . .008 1.348 1.411 1.417 1.294 .511 Productive energy of 100 lbs. supplement =E+wt.feed><100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.0 41.7 37.5 34.0 39.0 76.7 Alfalfa meal gave in one test 3.6 therms, or about 11 per cent higher value (Table 10) than alfalfa hay; in another test, 6.3 therms, or about 17 per cent (Table 10) ; in the third test, the comparison is made with native hay and not alfalfa (Table 12). Some uncertainty (Table 10) is introduced by the use of corn silage in one of the tests, though the productive value of the corn silage is that calculated from this par- ticular experiment. If the average of the two tests is accepted, grinding to a meal would add 14 per cent to the productive energy of alfalfa hay. ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDI NG EXPERIMENTS 29 Table 11. Productive energy of feeds calculated frgm feeding experiments, Bulletin 103, Wyoming Experiment tation. (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average weight, pounds ' (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average daily gain, pounds Daily feed, pounds—corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ar y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soaked barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracked barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barley meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive value, therms-—corn (.822) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa hay (.345) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maintenance therms W X 00933 = M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive value of gain T—M=B Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B+G=K . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of gain K>(100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.7 49.5 9.7 63.1 96.7 Beet P1111), dried- Detailed calculations of one of the experiments with beet pulp is given in Table 13. Other variables than the dried beet pulp are present and in this respect the experiment is not a good basis for calculating the productive energy. The four results in Table 8 are all higher than those calculated from the production coefficients. The average calculated from the feeding experiments is 83.7 therms per hundred pounds While that calculated from the production coefficient is 66.2. This is a deficiency of 26 per cent. The results appear t0 justify a change in the production coefficients but more tests are needed in which beet pulp is the only variable. The corrected production co- efficients are given in Table 30. Mfllflsses beet Pulp, dried- This feed is composed of dried beet pulp and molasses. Like the dried beet pulp, the productive energy calculated from the feeding experiments are higher than those calculated from the 32 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION production coefficients. One calculation is given in Table 13, in which test there are too many variables. Clflvel‘ hay- The productive energy for clover hay calculated from the feeding experiments varies from 20.3 to 41.7 with an average of 30.’? therms per 100 pounds for the nineteen tests. Detailed calculations are given in Tables 18, 19, 22, and others cited in Table 8. The variations are wide but there are no doubt wide variations in the composition and quality of clover hay. The results are about What might be expected, considering the variations in the composition of the hay, and the sources of error in the feeding experiments. The average productive energy in the seventeen tests is lower in seven tests than that calculated from the analysis and previous production coefficients, and with one exception, the value found is lower than that calculated in the individual tests. The average values would indicate that the production coefficients may be about 10 per cent too high. (See corrected coefiicients, Table 39.) Table 15——Productive energy calculated from feeding experiments, Bulletin 162, Indiana Experiment Station. Corn Corn Timothy Cott0n- Stand- Cotton- Corn silage silage hay seed ard seed silage (once (twice meal meal daily) daily) Lot N0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.4 68.9 70.8 71.6 71.5 71.2 71.7 Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198 .294 .327 .343 .342 .334 .339 Daily feed, pounds——she1led corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.008 1.055 1. 118 1.055 1 . 118 1.055 1.055 Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .066 .066 .066 .066 .066 .066 .066 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .146 . . . . . . .. .146 . . . . . . .. .146 . 146 Clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.39 1.39 .96 .97 .76 Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 .91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 .80 1.07 Productive value, therms—shelled corn (.822). . . .829 .867 .919 .867 .919 .867 .867 Oats .546) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 036 .036 036 .036 036 .036 .036 Cottonseed meal ( .717) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 .105 Clover hay (.354) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .492 .492 .340 .343 .269 Timothy hay (.310) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .865 1.185 1.447 1.395 1.295 1.351 1.277 Maintenance therms WX .0085=M . . . . . . . . . . . . .547 .586 .602 .609 .608 .605 .609 Productive value of gain T—M =B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .845 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B+G=K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.584 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of gain KXG=L . . . . . . . . . .512 .760 . . . . . . . . .886 .884 .863 .876 Productive energy of ration M +L=O . . . . . . . . . 1.059 1.346 . . . . . . . . 1.495 1.492 1.468 1.485 Productive energy of supplement fed O—T=E. . .194 .161 . . . . . . . . 4 .100 .197 .117 .208 Productive energy of 100 lbs. supplement = E+wt.feedX100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.0 110.3 . . . . . . .. 68.5 24.6 14.6 19.4 Ground cflrn- The evidence of these two tests (Table ,8) is that grind- ing the corn did not increase its productive energy for sheep. C0111 Silage- The productive energy of corn silage, calculated from the feeding experiments, varies from 3.0 to 41.8, with an average of 18.4 therms per 100 pounds for the 44 tests. Many of these experiments given 33 ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS ma: wofi mnn won o.m~ vo wow .........................oo~Xovoo.o3+m~ H Evie???» $5 oo~ oo >926 oioonoohm mom. NI. Q2. $1 m3. ooo. . .. . . . .. $8 ...MH BIO o8 Eofiwiasm a. zmkono @5325 mam; 3: 39H 8m; 3AA ~84 mum; ..........0112=fiwkwo>whofiizou=wohm nno. mE. 5w. own. noo. $3. omn. ...........Juoxm=smoawmhogow>so=qokm ...-.- a - . . . - .-¢- -.-- .-...-. . . - . .-»¢-. .-.-.- - .--- ~ ... . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. ... . . m5. . . . . . . . IQHglnfifiwwooondw>o>fionooum wE. N5. moo. moo. moo. wnm. moo. moo. . . .. . . . . . . . . .2“ owoQX >P £8.55 oéwauoiwi m3; m3; mow; fin; oooA Nno. mnw; 8o; .. ..............FwE$£_Eo.n ~ p ¢ a - - - u ... ~a- -¢ .-»-~ --nn>i>-¢ua-uu-%omfln%hwgPO>OJU . - c o a - . - . - - . . . - ~ . - - . - . . . . . - . . u - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - . . > 0 . n - - - - KT¢?- - - - . . . - . ~ . - . . . - . . . . - . . . - n u n g q - - . - u » - - ¢ . » - - . . . - - - - - a c - oow. oow. oow. oow. ooo. fi mno. a3. _ ooo. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . Aoowo Eco £2505 03$, Qzoaeoi . . . . . . . . .. wo; no; . ...................IzfibmowO omA . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....$>o~wc~oU 1-... . - . ¢ . - . ... ~ ¢.- .-.¢-u - 0 --.-.-¢- | | - - - - . - - . . ¢ - - . . ~ - . . - . - . - - . - . - . - - -¢-¢--u -.¢-»- u u . - . - . . . . . . . .-u o ~ - ...-... . - . - ' - . ... ...-- - . . . - . - - . . . . . .--v~hflafi%éx%é< now. now. oom. now. .. . .. . . . . . . .........._wwE_.moouowao.q .5: m8; mi: m2; nfl; mflA NNA $4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.4200 W253 msarac woo. 5N mom... mom. Mam. omw. Nnm. mom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6o @953 58w 38o oww$>< on.mn wofln mmnn no.on 33 mooo 3R 21K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CE 5.2a iwsa vmm$>< w n o o w m m fi .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........oZooA “wk/o? 255w owui _NQE $53» Bmbm oumocfim has =30 $0 :0 2o E00 $0 QQ>O~U ouumcfi ovumcfi dofimow ocwiiuaxm oEO dwm aioznm docuiionxo mfiowuo 89G ouflflnflwo hmhio oloosooum ...: oEmP 34 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in Table 8 have a productive value near the average. A few give very lOW values, While a few others give very high values. Some details are given in Tables 2, l0, 141, and others. In some of the experiments With corn silage, the animals seemed to take a greater fill than on the roughage, which would, of course, increase the apparent gain in Weight and give too high a productive value. There is also a Wide variation in the composition of corn silage. The calculated productive energy per 100 pounds of immature corn silage, Henry and Morrison’s average, is 11.03 and for well matured corn silage it is 15.48, but the maximum and minimum vary considerably from these figures. The Iowa Experi- ment Station (Bull. 210) gives an analysis which calculates to a pro~ ductive energy of 29.93. No change in the production coefficient for corn silage seems to be necessary. Corn Stalks- These have a higher productive energy in the one experi- ment (Table 29) than would be expected. The comparison was made with alfalfa. The production energy was higher in the test in which it was fed with clover hay (32.9) than when it was fed alone (25.3). C0111 stover and 00m ffldder- Seven calculations from feeding tests With these materials are given in Table 8. Detailed calculations are given in Tables 2, 16, 17, and 18. With one exception, the productive energy for corn fodder or corn stover, calculated from the feeding test, is much less than that calculated from the analysis and production co- eflicients previously used. The average calculated from the six feeding tests is 17.2 therms compared with 27.9 calculated from production coefficients, a deficiency of about 38 per cent. It is a question hoW much of this difference is due to a low productive value of the feed consumed, and how much due to Waste in feeding, or refusal of the animal to eat the feed. The production coefiicients are based upon the digestion co- eflicients for feed eaten. Waste in feeds is a separate consideration, and should be allowed for separately. The calculated productive energy is higher when it is fed with linseed oil meal and corn than when it is fed With corn alone (see, Tables 16, 17), increasing from 12.0 to 18.5 in one case, and 4.4L to 15.9 in the other. Corrected production coefficients for corn stover and corn fodder are given in Table 39. Since some of the tests were in unbalanced rations, the factor 0.75 was used instead of 0.62. Con! gluten feed- The productive energy calculated from the feed- ing tests was about what was expected. A detailed calculation is given in Table 26. Cvttollseed meal- The productive energy of cottonseed meal was calculated from 26 tests With sheep, as given in Table 8. Details of some of the calculations are given in Tables 9, 15, 22, and others, as listed in Table 8. A One of the tests gave a low productive value, and a number gave values about What would be expected, but most of the experiments gave 35 ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS N? HwHH waw mNm H; o . . . . . . . . .. QNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zooHxHzwoHHa+m H HHSHHHQHQQHHN .9: 00H Ho hwHwHHv ofifiswoHm mwH. NNH. HwH. mHH. H8. NSI . . . . . . . . . . Nvm. Emu Bio EH HHHQEQHHHHHHZ Ho HHNHQE Qzxivoi 3N. H wHN. H NE. H Ham. H EH . H $0. H . . . . . .. N3. H . . . . . . . . . .ou A+ H>H HSHHS Ha >926 oZHuHHwoHm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mwo >wh0imv ®>@HU.D@O.~@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... .. .......... .Q@#HQ%MEHQEP a . v . - . - . ¢ . ¢ . p ~ . . - - - - - - . . . - - . . . . . . . . - - . - . ~ - - ~ - - ¢ - . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . - » m" NQ. 5H2 R9 Nmz. o5. HE. 3w. R5. . . . . . . . . . . . zH>Hu 36.x >> MESH: NQHHNHHQHHHHNE HNQ. H :6 H hmmH HKNH HBHH NEH mmmiH NQHH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H EH2: HNHoP .. . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . - - . - - . - . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N2. N2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..H.\..@N.VH~@EHH¢H5%=H1H N2. NQ... N3. N3 8H . H NEH wHHH NH: . H . . . . . . . . . . HHawH E8 £8.65 a2? vfiHuHHwoHm . . . . . . HH.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..BEHmH@o 2H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wmH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :85: =80 . - . - - . . . . - . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .......... .-.....-.- .......... - - . - . - - . . . , - . » . . ifl. ? . - . . . . . - . . . . . - . . - . » . . . . . . . . - . . 1N. .? 4 - . . . . - . - . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - 8N. 2N. 8N. 2N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 H6 HsqéHwH x3. H $6. H $8. H wwoH NN. H NN. H 3. H NN. H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .58 mHEHHEH H58 ram HEN. wmN. wmm. 8N. mNN. NwH. min. wHm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 2.56m 56w 2H2. wwfiwi Qwfi omHR NQNN 8.? E. E mm. E Nwfi HEN» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:5 @258 HHHmEB @9222 w N w ... N N N H . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dz H5 H253 35.5w fiwwa Qua QQH/Oum >23? Uuwfiimww %m£ GMOU QNQ Z0 IO HFHOU ado i520 uovmcHA wvowcfi HHoSmHm HHHoEHHwNHxH 0E0 dvw HHHHozHHm dHHHwHHHHHoQxo mivofi Eob HHQHNHHSHNQ zwHoco oZHoHHwoHh NH Q33. 36 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION high results. These high results Were secured with small additions of cottonseed meal, when a small difference in gain would make a large difference in productive energy, but the fact that the results are con- sistently high, indicates that they are not due to errors. The average productive energy in the 36 tests on sheep Was 100.7, compared with 72.8 calculated from the production coefficient, or about 49 per cent €XC6SS. Table 18. Productive energy calculated from feeding experiments, Bulletin 245, hio Experiment Station. Soy Corn bean Clover stover straw hay Standard Lot N0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 .96 83.04 85 82 85.38 Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 .277 .359 .329 Daily feed, pounds, corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.15 1.15 1.38 1.34 Linseed oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 .23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .35 Clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.28 . . . . . . . . . . Corn stover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soy bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive value, therms, corn (.860) . . . . . . . . .989 .989 1 . 187 1.152 Linseed meal (.737) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170 .170 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa hay (.314) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .424 Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.159 1.159 1.187 1.576 Maintenance therms, W ><.O085 =M . . . . . . . . . .697 .706 .729 .726 Productive value of gain T—M =B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .850 Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B +G =K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.584 Productive energy of gain K XG =L . . . . . . . . . .669 . 716 .928 . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of ration M +L =0 . . . . . . . 1.366 1.422 1 .657 . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of supplement fed O——T =E_ .207 .263 .470 . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of 100 lbs. supplement = +wt. feed X100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.1 22.7 36.7 . . . . . . . . .. It appears probable that the supplementary action of the protein in cottonseed meal either increases the digestibility of the mixture or the capacity of the animal to utilize the productive energy of the other feeds, or else it decreases the maintenance requirements of the animals, perhaps by making them more quiet and less restless, so as to leave more of the productive energy of the feed to be used for productive purposes. In either case, the net result is that cottonseed meal added in small amounts to supplement a ration, has an effect upon fattening higher than its own productive value. This effect may appear not only when the cottonseed meal is fed with roughage low in protein (Table 15) but also when it is added to a ration containing alfalfa and corn silage (Table 26) or clover hay and corn silage (Tables 19, It occurs only when fed in moderate amounts; when fed in large quantity, the productive value is lower and apparently the same as that calculated from previous production coefficients (Table 19, Lot 8). 87 ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 43+ M" wcugviazw an: oofi “o >325 Q/floswohm mm: 22 mm; mom . . . . . . . . . .m~H PIC v3 pcofifinnsm we hmhwco wfigusvoum fiNm. ? .? - .? . Y . . . . . - - . - . - . . - . . . o" 2 aw . . .. wwi. .. .69 i. .. mi...” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i? ox m 5% S $35 Qztfixzm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QT 0+ m wéwcmz E 5% E w Ea 2E2? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1m" 21H 5mm Ho 0:19,. @>So:@o.~n_ omw. Se. F5. wmw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42H mwoqx >9 £555 uucmcficmmz @mm; 2?; Q9“; fin; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . IPwEZf 130M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nwm. S? B? mwm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Awmmq ha: .$>o_U . 4 - . . - . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . » . - . . . . . v . - . . . . . . . - . ¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IASPV 13E woowcofioU iwui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wflfio 0N0 :21 2w NE . . . . . . . . . . . . Ammwq Eou W552i 652:3 635/ ufiuuswogfl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..>>m,SwQmO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .>mw; . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NN. ? - . NN..7 , NN-.P 7N.7 . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - » . . . . . .. mm. 3. ........................IgmoEuuomcofioU §O. §o. §c. §o- . . . . . - . - . . - » . . . . . - . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . - . ~ - - m% . % Amfiw. @ @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .QPOU wvnvznvzw fimwucsOa évOnya 2%.. m3“ Em. m3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0V $5.3 Jimw 223v omm~u>< _ $1 w E it we» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A25 wwcion Jswmo? omw$>< Aw W M. my Am W m a w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OZ wag 2.55 13E 13E 235w 12.5 ommzw. meow woow =38 395w Em ~22 3x6 v03 F60 A5300 éoSoU omfii KO Avnmww i520 éofioU E50 dofifiw Eoaioawfl @5235 dh~ 2323M “Esoiioaxw 3:52 Eob wfifisu-xo $85 ...>So:wo~n~ .2 03x5 38 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 93.. v.2 mtnw o moofi 9mm“ odmfi oém . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....oo~Xo@£ . JB+ NH ocuifimmsw .2: o2 we >525 MXIQUSUOQHM mm». m3. m2 A £91 mum. RN. wow. omm. . . . . . . . . . . . Jan H1O we ~=2=2.E=w Ho @225 022.32?» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QQHWNH %Q gHUQQ U>@QU:@Q.HH% ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~° ~hmh®=® Q>fiwO5wv°hm . . . . . . . . . .. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... . . . . . . . . . ..v%nw|ulmwuhfi@iflww H: flifiwH~émknflwweh®zk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _H@Nm %Q U5~N> nflfiwQfiwvOh-mm <5. 8w. 5o. o5. a2. 3%. 3o. 3w. omo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2“ mwooX >> .2523 woamnfiimz 2H; “on; vi... 8a; Sm; HQ; Em; mom. ~ Maul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ho @2223 130B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ..W@%. . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . ..< -. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-.@@%§J@NUE@@O mmm w 8Q H . . . . . . .. 25; woo; m2: N2: omo 2 moo M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33o E8 £2223 63$» ozfiizzm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....®wN=m=H°U %§O % . . . . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UTiNHm . . 5o; . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . I325 hmwsm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....-.-..@Uw.%>gwaom HTIZJ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..918ouumcofiouovmmmfinAzoU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iowa. m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._w@Eou@w:ooH_oU . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zbvo; . . . . . . . . . . . wow. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................_woEzO @ . . fl % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .=H°U »W@A~H—QQ -t@mv% RF ma». i... S. Q. 5w B? £9 Sm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3o @325 dam 2E. »w@$>< E fi s? wmzfi 5. fi 24R 22K amzfi om m“ 8a“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..§o 2.55m 2&5; oww~u>< I o“ o w N. o m. v H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................oZooA Qxmo an: $25 wwfl has owwm 122: 13E vwmmw wbwb< Emaw >552; oimmhm éofiou v23 m0 E00 ohwonwom owmmoha éofioU -200 53.33% ocwEiomxm mxmmhnoz d: cflvzsm docvfiiuaxw mioofi 59G ufiwixzwu >225 ofioosogm om ‘flash. 39 ENERGY EOF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 0.03 0.300 3.003 0.03 32w . . . . . .. 3.00 0.300 0.03. 03.3. 000. 303. 3.00. 000. . . . . . . .. 000. 003. 3000. 000.3 000.3 3000.3 300.3 000.3 . . . . . . 1000.3 000.3 003.3 3.00. 000. 30>. . 3003i . . . . . . .. 000. 003.. 000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000.0 . . . . . . .. I . .. 11.13.00. 000. 000. 0300M 3300. 3000~ 0300. 000. E00. 000. 33303.3 0300.3 030 3 E3 3 0300 3 000:3 000. 000.3 000.3 . . . . . . . . . . . 000. 000. 000. 003.. 3.30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 030.. 000. 111K003. 003. 111K030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I003. 030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 033.. 3300. 300. 3N0. 30. 300. 3300.. 3300. 3300. 33.0. 3.00. 0H0. 000. 3003. 000 3003. 3003.. 300. 000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1R0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........003..3 . 03.3.3 003.3 003.3 03.3 3 0300. 000.3 003.3 003. 000.3 .. 003.3 003.3 003.3 03.0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . .. @033 03.0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 . .. I333. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . I333. .. 033. . . 333. 3.03. 000. 000. 000. 03.0. 03.0. 03.0. 03.0. 000. 000. 000. 030. 030. 000. 00w. 000. 000. 000. 03.0. 000. 03.0. 000. 3.300. 03.3. 000. 0300. 000. 03.3. 0.00 3X00 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 30.00 0.00 0.3.0 0 0 a 0 0 0 3\ 0 0 3 000:0 .5000 3005 000330 30030 .0033 300000 3005 0000 >00 3.000 33.3OU 300 3.003000% 000/030 000003032 30000 35:00.0 503300 503300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 003X 30003 33+ m3" 300503333300 .0333 003 00 00.3000 001300300003 . . . . . . . . . 03H 3.110 3.0.3 35050303300 30 0300050 0>$00300b3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0" 13+ 3>3 00330.3 00 000050 001300300003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m MINE f0 %w.303.3® ®>@.~O5@O.~fi% . . . . . . . . . . . 03H 0+ m 35035030 E 50w .333 3 000 05000.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .03" 3>3.l.3. 50m 30 0:300, 02300300003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3>3H mm000.X 2/ 05.30333 000000530323 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33. 0500333 3000.3. . - . . . . - . . . . - . - - . . . - . . . . - . n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0000 >0: 000/030 . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . > . . - . . . . . . - ¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13000.0 3005 3000503300 . . . . . . . . . .........................303~0.0$0C . . . . . . . . . . A0000 0.300 00330300 0500330 .0303» 02000300003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3050 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q3033 0330034. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300000 000003032 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5000 >00 3035000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3005 3000503300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 030C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0000 0020330 0350033 000.3 0:003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C00 055033 .0300 03:03. 0000033 . ~ - ~ . . . . . . . v . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I073 0013 5030i 300530033030 0003353 .003 530333.53 .0.5053000x0 0530003 5003 3003050300 20000.0 030033300003 .30 03330.3. 40 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A similar high supplemental value is observed in some experiments with linseed oil meal (Table 9) and with soy beans, but it does not occur in so many of the feeding experiments here reported as with cotton- seed meal. The supplemental value of cottonseed meal varies so it does not seem to be advisable to give corrected production coefficients for cottonseed meal when it is used to balance a ration. He)’, IletiVe 01' Prairie- The productive energy varies from 19.4 to 39.1 therms. These results are approximately What could be expected. Native hay varies so much in composition and constituent grasses that it is difficult to» decide on the digestion coefficients or production co- efficients to be used for the particular hay. On an average of the eleven tests the productive value of the native hay was about ten therms lower than the value calculated from the assumed production coefficients, which is about 30 per cent. If digestible nutrients were used, the discrepancy would be still greater. Hominy feed- The productive energy calculated from the results of the feeding experiments with the sheep, check with the productive energy calculated from the production coefficients. The average of the four tests agrees quite well with the calculated result from the analyses. Detailed calculations are given in Tables 2O and 26. Kafir, graill- There seems to be little difference in the productive energy of the ground and the whole kafir. The average productive energy agrees closely with the value calculated from the production coefficients. Linseed meal- Linseed meal, like cottonseed meal, gives a higher productive value in many of the feeding experiments than would be expected from the calculated value, no doubt due, as with cottonseed meal, to the supplemental value of the protein. The difference is not so great as with cottonseed meal. The average productive energy cal- culated from the 24L feeding experiments with sheep was 88.3, while calculated from the production coefficients it was 73.6, a difierence of 14.7 therms or nearly 20 per cent. The average difference with cotton- seed meal was about 40 per cent. Millet hay- There is a. Wide difference between the results calcu- lated from the two tests in the same experiment (see Table 29f). The difference is due to supplementing the ration with clover hay. The pro- ductive value without clover hay was 22.0 therms," with clover hay it was 40.9 therms. MOIaSSeS- The productive energy calculated from the feeding experi- ments in four tests is approximately the same as that calculated from the production coefficients, in two tests it is materially lower, while in five tests it is materially higher. The average is about 17 per cent higher for the feeding experiments than for the calculated. It seems that a 41 ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS aha mwHH mdHH 5mm 9mm . . . . . . .. wBw Hfimw 5H5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IooHXHEQH 4.3+ mHH Hcuiwfimsw .2: 00H Ho hwhocv v>HHusHvopnH wmw. mvm. HHNH. N3. HHNH. . . . . . . . . mww. wmw. owo. . . . . . . . . . AH" ,H.||O HBH HHSEQHHHQHHN Ho hmHozw QZHQHHHSHNH wNw. H HNHN. H m? H 5w. H m3. H . . . . . . . . Nfi. H Q51 H mwm. H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0" 1H+ H>H c033 Ho wwkwcv NZHBHHEHNH m; 35. H 3N. NS. mNw. . . . . . . . 8N. NHN. 5N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iHn 0x M 5% Ho >326 gsuizzm . . ¢ . . | . . . - . . . . . - . - - - . a . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ¢ . . . . . . - . ¢ . - . . - - I u - . - » . . . . a - . x“ m 1Q? é . . . . . . - . . . - . . - - - - - . - - - - . . - . . - - . . . - . ~ - . u » . . - . . - . . . ¢ . ¢ - . u - . - . > . l - . . . . . - - - - - . . . . . - . - -m" N3. v8. $9 m3 Haw. NE. 3w. wmw. Haw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H>HH wmmooX >9 £555 wocwcwHcHww/H wwN. H an? H Hwmm. H wwN H N3. H N3. H 31w. 3N. H N3. H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KH. NESHHH HNHPH. . . . - . . . . . - ..........}~.-....>.-......Z....€N@. . ..i-.......-....'...-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hmf/niu . - - - - » . - . . . - . - - - . - . 1 . . - . . - . . . - - ~ - . . - . - . - - - - - - - - - . - - . . . - . . - ¢ v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IHHNH. .......................€H.HvHmwiwwowcoHHoU aw§@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . wfiflo mew. 26. N32 mi. NHR. 2w. New. wNm. m3 . . . . . . . . . . . AmmwQ Eco HVNHHQHN|NEHNHHH 638/ SIHHSHHUEAH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iomm. ................................IBNBNHNO . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . - . . . . . . . - . . .-.-...-v...--..-...... .-.-.........-...-........-..-.hfiam%éfiii< . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....>NH.~H®>O@U _. @ a. M . . % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fl . § . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uwflzm QMOU . . . . . . 15m. wmH. wmH. .........................IgwoicvwmcofioU mmo. mm . wmom wmom wmom wmom wmo. owm. wmo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . 5K0 wmo. H 3N. N8 wmc H N? wmo H wmo. H OE. 3N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 3:2: 252a 45$ 3RD NNN. 3N NNN. haw. SN. 3N. Ham. Ne»: HEN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 2.56m aaww 21% 3222/4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M@HM5QQNPSWHQ3Q®NHQ>< a w h w m. w w m H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .oZ HoA omwzm HmoE HwoE wmmmw Bwbm has HwoE CHOU H53 H53 E00 HNO HYHNGHHHNHW H956 3N0 H53 £330 éosou e880 doHHwHw HHEHEHNVHHxmH NENHHVHHH .H~wH EHQHHHHmH dgbofiioaxo mEHEQH 50.5 HuoHmHsoHmo wwécw mz/Soswohm dm QHNHPH. 42 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION . . . . . . .. 2.3L NR2 NB: 0&2 mAm Em v22 43+ HM 2552235 .2102: Mo >325 Qigoswopm . . . . . . .. ........ %v®% HCQEQTMmQH-W .~o %wh0imv Q>wfilvg@ohm . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - - . - . . . ~ . . - . » - - ¢ ¢ . - . . ‘ . - - . - . . . . - - - . . - - - - . ~ . . . . . . . . - . . < . .x“ m 7 m . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .mnH i@flm %Q Q:@N> nz/fifugfi-ohm N3 Em. :5. am? Ea. m5. m3. m5. m2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ H mmcqx .5 $5523 §a=2=:..2 fin; oil $2.12 m8; wmm; Ew. Ea. o3; N2. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H wEhzi 13oF . - . . . - . - . - n - . - .-».-.-..--n-..wNm. .~.¢..-..---.¢.->»..~ .....-...........-........-.@£%.Nm-Qhmaw%?wvky< . - . ~ . . . - - - - - . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . OwY. .---.. -u--.- . ¢ - . . - ». ...-.... . - . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . - . - - mac. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zmmo. wwo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..§§..:wvEwuow:oSoU one. wmo. wmo. one. one. wmo. wmo. wmo. “mo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Awvmzv EmO m2. m2. mow. Q2. ma. 2w. Maw. S». N3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8N3 E8 25:2: £535 .252, gsnzéfim - . . . . . ..-.--...-.Z-...-.-....N£$. ..¢...'....¢--..-.-.... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . knz/miu . . - - . - .. .--..-. . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - \ - . - ..®N.F. .-.u-..-»¢-.....-.|-.-.-.¢...-.-¢..-..»-¢-.-.-.-.-.. ul-vnl-nl-pu-up-nnuu-vu-nnnwgmoflhowfizgoho an“. wmfi. vmfi. . . . . . . .. IIIIQIInmNHI m2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._moEwo@m=oSoU wwo. wvo. wvo. wee. wvo. wvo. wvo. wwo. omo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13x0 f? 2m. Rm. E5 m8. H E2: 35.2 2m. 8w. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC2. 56% 6225a flow.“ ERG EN. 3w. 2%. 3N. 2N. mom. 5N. ma. m3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10v 2.53m “Emw >22. ommhw>< 9E m8“ w? 04$ Q2 5R v.2 0.5. w? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ICKC $2.58 .32»? vmm$>< m w m o m w m m ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... oZ Hod 22% 5m Ema 2:25 E22 >225 E v2 >3 wouw .5228 vwmaw ha: A352 ommmw 2E ucsohU lcofioU E22 E50 wkwwcfiw .3520 SuOJWV E00 skim “Bow 15.3.2.0 dofimi wavEiomxm @5225 flow 2523M finoiiuaxo M25392 Eob “$2222.13 >925 o>fiusuokm 4N 22mm. ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 43 higher productive value is justified, and a change in the production coefficient is made, as given in Table 39. Oats- The productive energy calculated from the feeding experiment on an average agrees Well With that calculated from the production coefficients. In the 20 tests, the productive energy calculated from the feeding experiments averaged 7 3.3 therms, while the value calculated from the production coefficients was 73.6 therms, or practically the same. Silage, Oat and Dea- The productive energy calculated from the feed- ing experiment agrees well with the productive energy calculated from the production coefficients. The average productive energy calculated from the five tests with sheep was 16, compared with 15.5 calculated from the production coefficients. Table 24. Productive energy calculated from feeding experiments, Circular 109, Kansas Experiment Station. Sweet Sweet Sweet Stand- Whole Ground Kafir clover clover clover ard ka fir kafir heads hay hay hay _--_______--_- Lot No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daily feed, pounds-shelled corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whole ka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kafirheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 .16 .16 .16 . Sweet clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.44 1.50 2 .77 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.02 1.02 1.02 .96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cane silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 .91 .89 .79 1.34 1.20 . . . . . . . . Productive value, therms-shelled corn (.822). . . 1.069 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.060 1.060 1.060 ottonseed meal (.717) . . . . . . . .. .... .115 115 115 115 .115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa hay (.345) . . . . . . . . . . . Corn s1lage(.103) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 I I093 I094 I092 I081 .138 .124 ...... . . Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.629 .561 .559 .527 1.313 1.184 1.060 Maintenance therms WX .0085=M . . . . . . . . . . . . .639 . 635 . 622 . 652 . 665 . 639 . 632 Productive value of gain T—M =B . . . . . . . . . . . . .990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B+G=K. . . . . 2 .750 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of gain KXG=L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .935 .935 .935 .990 .935 .990 Productive energy of ration M+L=O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.570 1.557 1.587 1.655 1.574 1.622 Productive energy of supplement fed O——T=E . . . . . . . . . . 1.009 .998 ' 1.060 .342 .390 .562 Productive energy of 100 lbs. supplement =E+wt. feed X100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77.6 76.8 51.7 23.8 26.0 20.3 Oat StraW- The productive energy calculated from the feeding experiments varies widely, from 0 to 26.6 therms per hundred pounds, but is on an average lower than that calculated from the production coefficients. The average of the ten tests with sheep was 15.6 therms per 100 pounds, while that calculated from the production coefficient was 25.6 therms, a difference of 9.1 therms, or about 35 per cent. How much of this is due to failure to eat the straw cannot be stated. Higher production values were obtained when linseed meal (Tables 16, 17) or 44 Tab le 25. Productive energy calculated from feedi hi0 Experiment Statio _____ Lot No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average weight, pounds, (W) Average daily gain, pounds (61).... .' I I i I Daily feed,_ pounds, corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linseed meal Timothy hay Alfalfa hay Productive value, therms, gorn (.860) . . Linseed meal (1 2 Timothy hay (.340) . f f I I f I I If Total therms T Maintenance Productive value of gain T—M =B Therms for 1 ' Productive energy of ration M +L =0 . Productive energy of supplement feed O——T =E Productive energy of 100 lbs. supplement = —:—wt_ feed X100 Table 26. Lot No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daily feed, pounds, shelled corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hominy fe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corn gluten feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . falfa hay Corn silage (a) Productive value, therms, shelled corn (.822). . . . Alfalfa hay (.345) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corn silage (.041) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maintenance therms, WX.0085=M . . . . . . . . . . . Productive value of gain T——M =B . . . . . . . . . . . . Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B+G=K. . . . Productive energy of gain KXG=L . . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of ration M+L=O . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of supplement fed C—T=E. . Productive energy of 100 lbs. supplement= E+wt.feed><100 therms, W X0085 i=iM .. lb. gain in standard B. .6 Productive energy of gain K >(10 . . . . . . .. 84.7 11.3 87.8 48.3 72.2 80.7 Table 28. Productive energy calculated from feeding experiments, Bulletin 215, Iowa Experiment Station. Cane Cane Cane Beet Beet Beet Standard molasses molasses molasses molasses molasses molasses Lot No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.6 72.7 75.3 74 .5 73 .1 75.6 i 74.9 Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .290 .313 .366 .355 .323 .391 .384 Daily feed, pounds, shelled corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.182 1.120 1.050 1.033 1.116 1.048 1.042 Linseed oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 .150 .150 .150 .150 .150 . 150 Cane molases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250 .504 .713 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beet molasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250 .504 .716 Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.504 1.537 1.539 1.533 1.537 1.531 1.537 Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .180 .179 .179 .178 .179 .180 .178 Block salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .005 .005 .006 .003 .003 .002 .001 Productive value, therms, shelled corn (.822). . . . .972 .921 .863 .849 .917 .861 .857 Linseed oil meal (.606) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .091 .091 .091 .091 .091 .091 .091 Corn silage (.161) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242 .247 .248 .247 .247 .246 .247 Hay (.330) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .059 .059 .059 .059 .059 .059 .059 _ Total thermsT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.364. 1.318 1.261 1.246 1.314 1.257 1.254 Maintenance therms, WX.0085=M . . . . . . . . . . . . 609 .618 .640 . 633 .621 . 643 .637 Productive value of gain T——M =B . . . . . . . . . . . . .755 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B+G=K. . . . 2.603 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of gain KXG=L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .815 .953 .924 .841 1.018 1.000 Productive energy of ration M-l-L=O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.433 1.593 1.557 1.462 1.661 1.637 Productive energy of supplement fed O—T=E. . . . . . . . . . .115 .332 .311 .148 .404 .383 E.wt . . . . . . .. 46.0 65.9 43.6 59.2 80.2 53.5 Productive energy of 100 lbs. supplement = * . feedX100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N 0 YL T A T S T N E M I R E P X E L A R U T L W: C I R G A S A X E T 6. 3 4 0 N N I T E L L U B 46 HwNN NNN NNN N.NN NNN NNN NNN N2. NNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..::8Hx Ba .21 mu wiwegflfliw NH: oofi No NAWAQGQ NESQHHHHQNQ NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNH. NHN. NNN. ENE . . . . . . . . NHu HIO EH HNNENEHHE HQ NNLNHB oL/Soswoum NHN. H NNNH EN. H HNN. H HHN. H NNN. H NHHw H E5. H NNNH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:0“ A+ H>H =2?“ m. NNNNHH... oH/Soswopm NNN. HNN. NNN. NNN. HNN. NHN. NNN. NNN. NHN. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . in ox M HEN a. 35H; Qztfixzm -||-o¢-.---..-.~.-»- .--- .-.--...-¢o¢---n¢ .--- -..-.-%Nm&.§ -¢-n-----.- - ..- .- .1. ¢--» .--n-¢.--.- lhllbll -.-.-.-@£x- . - - . NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NR. NNN. . . . . . . . . ...H>Hn NNNNXB NEE: NQNNEEHNE NNN.H wmvA EN. H Hmv. H NHNH NNHwH vow; wmEH NNNH NEH . . . . . . . . . . . 1...? 2:2: H28. -.-. - on - ¢- ..-»»-|- .--.- ---.~ - . . . . - ..---¢.@%A%m-Q HNo. HNN. HNN. HNQ. NNN. HNo. HNN. NNN. HNN. NNN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 NNmHNHHNHHHfl NE . NNHH NEH NE.H NEH NEH NNHH NEH NNHH NEH . . . . :....HNNN.V E8 £5.55 s39, Nzzfizzm . NNN. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:.......aNHNNE.sNH . . . . . . . . . NNNH NNN. .. . ........................9HHNHmHHNou .. . . . . . . . . . . . HNNH NNN. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......e....aN§NNo --- - - . . - .- on ¢u.-.-- ...-.¢- .-. - ¢-- . nu . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - ~ . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........NNH§< o-u¢-u-§.?@. -.-¢- -»-.- -.-»-» »----@@§-§ . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . HNH.H HNH.H HNHH HNHH NNH.H HNH.H HNH.H NNNH HNH.H NNN.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......mmwmnw~:w~ NNNH NNNH NNNH HNNH HNNH HNNH NNNH NNNH NNNH NNNH .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....H:8 NvHHHHoHH NENTNHHNQ HNN. NNN. NNN. 3N. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 NwHHHHoNH dam NHHNH. www$>< NNN NNN Eom NNN NNN NNN NNN E3 N.HN HwHN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5E 2:53 HHHNHNa NNEQZH NH N N N N N H. N N H . . . . . . . . . . . . .:....¢z8q 395w >322 NENJN 3mm? BHNSN Babb has ha: wfimb< wunwcwww Havm HHHNNM EH6 E5 3o Q0 $52 8E2 AHOUMHW Ncoaiwawm HHNwEQQ/H d2 qfivzsm dgsoaionxo mumwwo.“ Eob wofizsfimo >928 ozuosuoufi 6N Nznmu. ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 47 clover hay (Table 29) was present. In Table 17 the value increased from 0 to 11.4. Detailed calculations are given in Tables 16, 1'7, 19, 22, 29, and 30. Revised production coefficients for oat straw are given in Table 39. Since unbalanced rations were used in some of the tests, the factor used is .7 5 instead of .65. Peas and Pea bay- The value for peas is low; it is low for one of the experiments with pea. hay, but the other two are about what could be expected. Pea and barley Silage- The results are about what could be expected. Table 30. Productive energy calculated from feeding experiments, Bulletin 260, Illinois Experiment Station, Soy bean Whole Oat Soy bean Linseed Standard hay soy bean straw straw oil meal Lot No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . Daily feed, pounds-corn, shelled . . . . . . . . . . . Soy bean oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soy bean hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whole soy bean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soy bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linseed oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive value, therms—corn shelled (.822) Soy bean oil meal (.79) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa hay (.345) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soy bean straw (.14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maintenance therms w>< .0085=M . . . . . . . . I643 I s33 I615 I610 Productive value of gain T——M=B . . . . . . . . . .773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B+G=K. . 2.416 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of gain KXG=L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .749 .580 .580 .628 .604 Productive energy of ration M +L=O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.382 1.195 1 190 1.243 1 219 Productive energy of supplement fed O—T =E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478 196 .260 305 187 Productive energy of 100 lbs. supplement= E-i-wt. feed X100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.7 89.1 18.4 15.0 81.3 Peanut meal- The results are a little high. ROMS and rlltabagas have values about what would be expected. RYe- The results average about 11 per cent lower than the calculated. Corrected coefficients are given in Table 39. 30y bean meal and SOY beans, whole or ground. The average of the results checks as closely as could be expected with the calculations. There are some Wide variations. SOY bean bay» The results calculated from the three feeding tests average somewhat lower than those calculated from the production co- efficients, but the results do not seem to justify a change. 48 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SOY bean flraw- Soy bean straw averages better than was calculated, and corrected production coeflicients are given in Table 39. Detailed calculations are given in Tables 18, 30, and 31. The results justify a change in the production coefficients. Emmel‘ 01' SDelt. The average productive energy calculated from the seven feeding experiments is about 25 per cent lower than that calculated from the production coefficients. A correction of the production co- efficients seems to be justified, and is made in Table 39. Table 31. Productive energy calculated from feeding experiments, Bulletin 260, Illinois Experiment Station, Soy bean Soy bean Ground Soy bean Linseed Standard hay straw soy bean oil meal oil meal Lot No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.65 74 .45 71.20 71.00 70.85 70.90 Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 .33 .26 .25 .27 .27 Daily feed, pounds-corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.09 1.12 .88 .87 .90 .90 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.45 . . . . . . . . . . Soy bean hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whole soy beans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soy bean straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground soy beans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soy bean oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linseed oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive value, therms—corn (.822) . . . . . . Alfalfa hay (.345) . . . . . . . . . . . . Whole soy beans (.83) . . . . . Soy bean straw (.13) from 3. . Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maintenance therms WX . 0085=M. . . . . . . . Productive value of gain T-M =B . . . . . . . . . Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B+G=K. . Productive energy of gain K>32; Qzéflxzm NNN; NNN; NNN; . . . . . . .. NNN; “NN.; NN.; N2; . NNN; NNN; . . . . . . . ..ou;+2=oswio 2S5 fisofiak; NS. NN.? N2. . . . . . . : NNN. EN. N5. NE. NNN. NNN. . . . . . . . . . 1;“ oxMENNE NNHHEN NZSNNQNN; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imwgm ..zzuw+mfiuwmviflwwfliaiflwfizfiHOwwE-wflfivw; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........QHEIPQ@NW%OUU—N>QV@QO5@CHQ NNN. N2. NE. N». NN. NE. ;NN. EN. <2. N». . . . . . . . . . . .2" NNNQX 5 .255; NQEEBENE EN. NNN. ;NN. 3N. ; 2N. 2N. 2N. 2N. 2N. 2N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F N655 28H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwflw. wwfl.w. NNN. NNN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49ml 28w. 2N. 2N. 2N. 2N. 2N. NNN. 2N. NNN. NNN. 2N. IIAQNNQ >2 NENE NE._.2:.NN;N> Nzfizvor; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..V@N. .............................f-HHQU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1N2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . IAiMOHNU-wew HQQS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..N;N; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..€N@._.;ZN2;3 NNN ; NNN; NNN; NNN; NNN; NNN; NNN; NNN; NNN; NNN; . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52; 225.; 255;; .U00w%1.wQ ;N. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15v 2:52; .52 $2. @222‘; NNN NNN NeN NNN v.2 NNN New N;N NNN NNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 2:52; 2N6; 02:34 2 N N N N N N N N ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5735 Iilllllllllllll MGOuwQNE k075i :25 vEwcfiw N222 :25 woimm 3N0 ENZNQNE v2.5a 225B. 235$ 135$ doifim fisaiuaxm NNQxNQ £15m 6w cfio=flm igofiiomxu N532 50$ woiisuiwu $2.3 $222102; Nm 0E3. 50 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 33. Productive energy calculated from feeding experiments, Bulletin 110, Iowa Experiment Station. Corn Sugar Standard silage beets Mangels Lot No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . 100.7 102.1 106.3 102.2 Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 .29 .39 .37 Daily feed, pounds, corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.37 1.33 1.32 1.34 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .17 .15 .16 .16 Mixed hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.89 1.43 1.51 1.5:) Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar beats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.40 . . . . . . . . . . Mangels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.37 Productive value, therms, corn (.822) . . . . . . . . 1.126 1.093 1.085 1.101 Cottonseed meal (.855) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 .128 .137 .137 Mixed hay (.330) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .624 .472 .498 .512 _ Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .895 1 . 693 1 .720 1 .750 Maintenance therms, W X.0079,=M . . . . . . . . . .796 .807 .840 .807 Productive value of gain T—M =B . . . . . . . . . . 1 .099 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B —:-G =K. . 3.663 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of gain K XG =L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .062 1.429 1.355 Productive energy of ration M +L =0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.869 2.269 2.162 Productive energy of supplement fed O—T =E . . . . . . . . . . . .176 .549 .412 Productive energy of 100 lbs. supplement =E +wt. feed X100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.4 12.5 9.4 Table 34. Productive energy calculated from feeding experiments, Bulletin 198, ' Oregon Experiment Station. Standard Wheat Oats Barley Lot No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.5 68.8 68.6 65.5 Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .366 .348 .332 .334 Daily feed, pounds, alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.42 2.38 2.13 2.17 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 . . . . . . . . . . Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Productive value, therms, alfalfa hay (.345).. . .835 .821 .735 .749 Corn (.822). . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .781 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.616 .821 .735 .749 Maintenance therms, W X00933 =M . . . . . . . . .658 .642 .640 .611 Productive value of gain T—M =B . . . . . . . . . . .958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B —:-G =K. . 2.617 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of gain K XG =L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .911 .869 .874 Productive energy of ration M +L =0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .553 1.509 1 .485 Productive energy of supplement fed O—T =E . . . . . . . . . . .732 .774 .736 Productive energy of 100 lbs. supplement =E —:-wt. feed X100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77.1 81.5 77.5 51 ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS wimw 06m mdw awn wwm 5w“. w.ww . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .............oowXw5@wAB+mwH wnwfiowmnsw Aw: oow .wo .222.» oflwuswvokw o: . oNw. $2 . mww . wéN. N: . NNN. . . . . . m“ BIO E anvfioiwasm B hwhoco ..E€_68m wow. w mm? 3A“. S? w ta. mwN. w RN. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0" 4+ 2 moi?“ we >325 fisusizm x5 r5. Em. 2a.. 0mm. own. wNw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {wfl UX M 5am wo zwpoco wzsfizcm -.. -. ..- - . - - .. ---.- . - . . - . - - .. --¢ - -.-- - .--- ~ -.. - -x" -Q.? -. - -¢- . - - . -. -.- . - . . - . ' - - -.. nu; ~ -.--¢. --|-¢- . - . . . . . - . . . -m" S? N3. m5. Now . 5m . hNw. 5w . 3%. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2H mmgqx >P @855 QQEBERE wmw . w 2w. 2w. wmm. 8.... :5. w m3. w wmN. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1P W555 139w. . - - -¢- - 0 -.-. --¢- - - - - - - - . . . . . - . . ¢ . . . . - . . . . . . ~ omwfl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%. wmv. mwv. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M . Amwmw mrwbw» as. m3. m3. wmw. .25 Nam. >3. NNw. ZZANNWV Eco @312? wziofi 03$, uzaizxzm . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . ww. .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._mwEwwwwawww - . - - - - . -. §w- ww. wm- mw‘ . - . - . - - - . - . - . -.- .--. . ¢ - ' . - - ¢ . . . - - . . . . - . . . - - .-¢>“: wN. NN. . . . . . . . . . .. wN. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Icmpnwmonk/ NN. . . . . . mN. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIZBHWO Nwflw . . . .. . . . . . . . .. ommw .~.N.w wmmw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......m:mfi%. w». 8. 3. ow. 9w. Nb. m». S. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC8 Ezfi wEEa Ea ERG Sm. 2:. 2:. 8am woN. mom. hNm. $5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0V @325 dam r5. omw$>< ma? 2.3 mm. E 3E mNNw 2.3 m»? 3% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1C5 2.56.. 2E?» omw~o>< w N. w m w m N w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .oZ woww . 52s 5W5 EmO 13E ma: ~85 8E0 whwwifim E v55 an on? c325 oiwwbw Q v55 dowwfiw wcwEioaxmw wxwmunwZ 60w Ewmzflmw rficocwiuaxo wiwov w 50G wvuwwiwfimo >965 oZfivw-wvofw .3 wink. 52 BULLETIN NO. 436, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Timothy hay- The results are about What would be expected. Wheat Sereenillgs- These screenings, consisting chiefly of broken grains and some Wee-d seeds, have a high productive value. Wheat The productive energy of Wheat is less than would be expected. The average productive energy in the 20 tests, including both Whole and ground Wheat, is 76.3 as compared With 89.8, calculated from Henry and Morrison’s averages and the production coefiicients. As only one analysis of the Wheat used in the feeding tests Was made, it is not pos- ‘ sible to say Whether it averaged poorer or better than the average. If We assume that the Wheat Was a little poorer than the average (86 therms), there Would be an average deficiency of 10 therms, or about 11 per cent. A change in the production coefficients of Wheat seems to be justified. It is made in Table 39. Detailed calculations of the tests with Wheat are given in Tables 3, 34, 36, 3'7, and 38. Whele versus grelllld Wheat Comparisons of ground Wheat With Whole Wheat are given in Tables 36, 37’, and 38. Grinding slightly increased the productive energy of Wheat, on an average of three tests, 3.9 therms, or 5 per cent of that of the Whole Wheat. Wheat brfln- The average productive energy of Wheat bran from the nine tests Was 57.4. N o analyses Were reported in connection With any of the experiments, but the average productive energy of Wheat bran calculated from Henry and Morrison’s averages and the production co- eflicients is 49.1. Wheat bran seems to have about 16 per cent higher value than has been assigned to it. Corrections are made in the pro- duction coefficients in Table 39. ‘ Table 36. Productive energy of feeds calculated from feeding experiments, Bulletin 257, Nebraska Experiment Station. Whole Ground Standard wheat Wheat Lot N0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.55 78.80 77.65 Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .330 .278 .249 Daily feed, pounds, shelled corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Who wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.18 . . . . . . . . .. Ground wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.31 1.32 1.31 Productive value, therms, shelled corn (.82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa hay (.354) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .464 , .467 .464 Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.440 .467 .464 Maintenance therms W X .0085 =M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .685 .670 .660 Productive value of gain T—M =B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .755 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therms for .1. lb. gain in standard B +G =K . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.288 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of gain K XG =L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .636 .570 Productive energy of ration M +L =0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .306 1 .230 Productive energy of supplement fed O——T =E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .839 ' .766 Productive energy of 100 lbs. supplement =E +wt. feed X100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.1 75.8 ENERGY OF FEEDS CALCULATED FROM FEEDING EXPERIMENTS Table 37. Productive energy of feeds calculated 53 frog: feeding experiments, Bulletin 256, Nebraska Experiment t . ation. Whole Whole Whole Whole Standard wheat rye wheat rye Lot No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76. 60 75.10 75 .35 75.75 75 .50 Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252 .231 .237 .246’ .238 Daily feed, pounds——shelled corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 .525 Whole wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.06 . . . . . . . . . . .53 . . . . . . . . . . Whole rye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.05 . . . . . . . . . . 525 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.39 1.39 1.40 1.39 1.39 Productive value, therms, shelled corn (.82) . . . . . . . . . . . .869 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .435 .431 Alfalfa hay (.354) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .492 .492 .496 .492 .492 Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.361 .492 .496 .927 .923 Maintenance therms WX .0085=M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .651 .638 .640 .644 .642 Productive value of gain T—M =B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .710 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B+G=K . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.817 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of gain KXG=L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .651 .668 .693 .670 Productive energy of ration M+L=O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.289 1.308 1.337 1.312 Productive energy of supplement fed O——T=E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .797 .812 .410 .389 Productive energy of 100 lbs. supplement=E+wt. feed X10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.2 77.3 77.4 74.1 Table 38. Productive energy 0f feeds calculated from feeding experiments, Bulletin 257, Nebraska Experiment Station. Ground Whole Ground Standard corn Wheat wheat Lot N0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 Average weight, pounds (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.80 74.30 73.15 73 .75 Average daily gain, pounds (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .304 .294 .267 .284 Daily feed, pounds, shelled corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.05 . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whole wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.05 . . . . . . . . . . Ground wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.044 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 Productive value, therms, shelled corn (82).. . .861 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa hay (.354) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .510 510 510 .510 Total therms T . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.371 .510 .510 510 Maintenance therms, W X0085 =M . . . . . . . . . .636 .632 .622 .627 Productive value of gain T——M =B . . . . . . . . . . .735 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard B -:—G =K. . 2.418 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Productive energy of gain K >