LIBRARY. A & M COLLEGE. CAMPUS, -;j.¢;-.-.u';> ;i.m~~"“ 6000-L180 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL ExPmgwmW A. B. CONNOR, DIliECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 480 AUGUST, 1933 DIVISION OF DAIRY HUSBANDRY Wheat Versus Milo For Dairy Cows AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President _‘ _-,“ ‘L. UXPIQ) ‘JQ I g!“ STATION STAFFT Administration : A. B. Conner, M. S., Director R. E. Karper, M. S., Vice-Director Clarice Mixson, B. A., Secretary M. P. Holleman, Chief Clerk J. K. Francklow, Asst. Chief Clerk Chester Higgs, Executive Assistant Howard Berry, B. S., Technical Asst. Chemistry: G. S. Fraps, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. Asbury, M. S., Chemist J. F. Fudge, Ph. D., Chemist E. C. Carlyle, M. S., Asst. Chemist T. L. Ogier, B. S., Asst. Chemist A. J. Sterges, M. S., Asst. Chemist Ray Treichler, M. S., Asst. Chemist W. H. Walker, Asst. Chemist Velma Graham, Asst. Chemist Jeanne F. DeMottier, Asst. Chemist R. L. Schwartz, B. S., Asst. Chemist C. M. Pounders, B. S., Asst. Chemist Horticulture : S. H. Yarnell, Sc. D., Chief Range Animal Husbandry: J. M. Jones, A. M., Chief B. L. Warwick, Ph. D., Breeding Investiga. S. P. Davis, Wool Grader 1"'J. H. Jones, B. S., Agent in Animal Husb. Entomology: F. L. Thomas, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. Reinhard, B. S., Entomologist R. K. Fletcher, Ph. D., Entomologist W. L. Owen, Jr., M. S., Entomologist J. N. Roney, M. S., Entomologist J. C. Gaines, Jr., M. S., Entomologist S. E. Jones, M. S., Entomologist F. F. Bibby, B. S., Entomologist "E. W. Dunnam, Ph. D., Entomologist "R. W. Moreland, B. S., Asst. Entomologist C. E. Heard, B. S., Chief Inspector S. E. McGregor, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector Agronomy: E. B. Reynolds, Ph. D., Chief R. E. Karper, M. S., Agronomist P. C. Mangelsdorf, Sc. D., Agronomist D. T. Killough, M. S., Agronomist Publications : A. D. Jackson, Chief Veterinary Science: ‘M. Francis, D. V. M., Chief H. Schmidt, D. V. M., Veterinarian "F. P. Mathews, D.V.M., M.S., Veterinarian J. B. Mims, D. V. M., Asst. Veterinarian Plant Pathology and Physiology: J. J. Taubenhaus, Ph. D., Chief W. N. Ezekiel, 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 t"W. R. Nisbet, B. S., Ranch Management **A. C. Magee, M. S., Ranch Management Rural Home Research: Jessie Whitacre, Ph. D., Chief Mary Anna Grimes, M. S., Textiles M, Nutrition Soil Survey: "W. T. Carter, B. S., Chief E. H. Templin, B. S., Soil Surveyor A. H. Bean, B. S., Soil Surveyor R. M. Marshall, B. S., Soil Surveyor Botany: V. L. Cory, M. S., Acting Chief 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: H. P. Smith, M. S., Chief Main Station Farm: G. T. McNess, Superintendent Apiculture (San Antonio): H. B. Parks, B. S., Chief A. H. Alex, B. S., Queen Breeder Feed Control Service: F. D. Fuller, M. S., Chief James Sullivan, Asst. Chief S. D. Pearce, Secretary J. H. 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, D. V. M., Feed Inspector SUBSTATIONS No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. Hall, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Lindale, Smith County: P. R. Johnson, M. S., Superintendent No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. Bayles, B. S., Superintendent No. 10, College Station, Brazos County: R. M. Sherwood, M. S., In Charge "B. H. Hendrickson, B. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion L. J. McCall, Farm Superintendent "R. W. Baird, M. S., Assoc. Agr. Engineer No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. Stansel, M. S., Superintendent H. M. Reed, M. S., Horticulturist No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: R. H. Wyche, B. S., Superintendent "H. M. Beachell, B. S., Junior Agronomist No. 5, Temple, Bell County: Henry Dunlavy, M. S., Superintendent C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist‘ 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., Junior Civil Engineer No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. Dunkle, B. S., Superintendent "I. M. Atkins, B. S., Junior 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. No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H. F. Morris, M. S., Superintendent "No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: "J. R. Quinby, B. S., Superintendent "J. C. Stephens, M. A., Asst. Agronomist No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W. H. Dameron, B. S., Superintendent I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian 0. L. Carpenter, Shepherd "O. G. Babcock, B. S., Asst. Entomologist No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. Friend, B. S., Superintendent S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: C. H. McDowell, B. S., Superintendent L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County: E. Mortensen, B. S., Superintendent "L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist 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. Mogford, M. S., Agronomy F. R. Brison, M. S., Horticulture W. R. Horlacher, Ph. D., Genetics J. H. Knox, M. S., Animal Husbandry A. L. Darnell, M. A., Dairy Husbandry ‘(As of August 1, 1933 "In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. iIn cooperation with Texas Extension Service. Coarsely-ground wheat can replace ground milo in the dairy ration pound for pound when not more than fifty per cent 0f the grain mixture is composed of wheat and when the price of wheat justifies its use as a feed for livestock. A ration containing fifty per cent wheat was consumed with as much relish as the milo ration. Calculations made from the results of these ex- periments show that the wheat used contained 84.9 therms of energy per one hundred pounds of wheat, which compares very favorably with the productive energy content of 83.3 therms per one hundred pounds of the milo used, calculated from the chemical composition and digestion coefficients. CONTENTS Introduction "U $9 W cu Plan of Experiment Feeds Experimental Results Milk Production Feed Consumption -. Body Weight Productive Energy of Ground Wheat Summary .......... __ Literature Cited i-l OQOW®QQQQUIUY P‘ l-i i 2 l. BULLETIN NO. 480 AUGUST, 1933 WHEAT VERSUS MILO FOR DAIRY COWS O. C. COPELAND Numerous inquiries concerning the feeding value of wheat for dairy cows have been received since the price of wheat has come down to about the same level as that of other grains used in the dairy rations. Hereto- fore wheat has usually been too high in price to be used extensively as a feed for livestock and until very recently there has been little information in the literature concerning the value of wheat compared with the other grains commonly used in dairy rations. In 1895 Bartlett (1) of the Maine Station found wheat meal slightly superior to corn meal, pound for pound, when fed to dairy cows, especially when fed with other feeds low in protein. Hayden and Monroe (4) of the Ohio Station found that wheat fed dairy cows to the extent of one-third of the grain mixture was practically equivalent to corn in feeding value. They found the wheat ration to be fully as palatable as the corn ration. They.also found that cows fed continuously for seven months on a ration containing 40% wheat showed no ill effects from this feeding. They recommended that wheat be crushed or only coarsely ground for feeding to cows since finely-ground wheat has a tendency to form a pasty, gummy mass in the course of digestion. Jacobs (5) of Panhandle Station (Oklahoma) found wheat equal to milo in the dairy ration and that at least two-thirds of the grain ration could be made up of wheat without causing a decline in milk production. He concludes that “wheat did not need supplementing with bran and required less cottonseed meal”. Fitch and Cave (2) at the Kansas Station report that wheat can replace corn pound for pound up to fifty-seven per cent of the ration. However, they found some tendency for the cows to go off feed while on the wheat ration. Workers at the Kentucky Station (6) noted a slight advantage of cracked corn over cracked wheat when fed to dairy cows. The chemical composition of wheat and milo are so nearly equal that the two feeds appear to be almost equal in feeding value. However, the chemical composition is not a direct measure of the actual feeding value of any certain feed. Other things to consider besides the chemical analysis are palatability, digestibility, productive energy, vitamin content, and the effect of the feed on the health of the animal. Some of these factors can be studied only in experimental feeding trials. The object of this investiga- tion was to ascertain the value of coarsely-ground wheat as a substitute for ground milo in the ration of dairy cows. PLAN OF EXPERIMENT Two groups of six cows were used in three experiments. The cows were paired so that each pair was as nearly alike as possible as to size, previous production, stage of lactation, and age. One cow from each pair was placed in group A and her mate placed in group B. The double-reversal 6 BULLETIlN NO. 480, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION method of feeding was used. In this method group A was fed the milo ration and group B the wheat ration for 28 days. In the second period of 28 days the rations were ‘reversed with the two groups of cows, and then a third period the original ration was fed. These three 28-day periods with two groups of cows constituted one experiment. Three such experiments were completed. The first seven days of each 28-day period was used as a preliminary period during which time the animals might become accustomed to the sudden change, in the ration, and the last 21 days constituted the experimental period. Feeds Grain and silage were weighed and fed to each cow individually in the milking barn and alfalfa hay was fed individually in a large shed, during the first two experiments. Silage was fed at the rate of 30 pounds per cow per day during the first experiment and 18 pounds per cow per day during the second experiment. Alfalfa hay was fed at Table 1. Rations used Wheat ration Milo ration Feeds Pounds Pounds Coarsely-ground wheat .................................................. .. 50.0 0.0 Ground milo .. 0.0 50.0 Wheat bran , 16.7 | 16.7 43% Protein cottonseed meal ...................................... ._ 16.7 i 16.7 Ground whole oats ' 12.6 \ 12.6 Ground limestone . 3.0 | 3.0 Salt _ 1.0 l: 1.0 the rate of 12% pounds per cow per day during the first experiment, and 11 pounds per cow per day during the second experiment. Fresh water and block salt were available to the cows at all times. The cows were milked twice a day and the milk weighed to the nearest tenth of a pound. The grain rations used in this investigation are shown in Table 1. It can be seen from this table that ground wheat or ground milo made up Table 2. Chemical analysis of wheat and milo* Nitrogen- Feed Protein Fat Ciude free Water Ash fiber extract I I Wheat ............................ __| 13.26 1.62 2.70 70.34 10.26 l 1.82 Milo ................................ ..| 111a l1 2.54 I 2.45 70.00 12.42 1 1.41 I *Analysis made under the direction of G. S. Fraps, Division of Chemistry. WHEAT VERSUS MILO FOR DAIRY COWS '7 50% of the grain mixtures. Sorghum silage was used and the alfalfa hay was of choice quality. Chemical analyses of the wheat and milo used in the investigation are shown in Table 2. The wheat contained 13.26 per cent crude protein, which is about the average of soft winter wheat but lower than the hard winter wheat of the Panhandle. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The first experiment was begun November 27, 1931, and ended February 18, 1932. There were six purebred Jerseys in each group. The second experiment was started on February 19, 1932 and ended May 12, 1932. Group A consisted of six purebred Jerseys and group B consisted of four purebred Jerseys and two high-grade Jerseys. The third experiment was started May 13, 1932, and ended August 4, 1932. There were five purebred and one high-grade Jersey in group A, and four purebred and two high- grade Jerseys in Group B. Milk Production The summarized results of milk production, feed consumption, and changes in body weight are shown in Table 3. During the first experi- ment there was a difference of 2.09 pounds of milk per cow for the 21-day experimental period in favor of the milo ration in group A. In group B there was a difference of 7.32 pounds of milk per cow in favor of the milo ration, or a total of 9.41 pounds of milk per cow per 21-days in favor of the milo ration, when both groups are considered. This amounts to less than one-half pound per cow per day, which cannot be considered a significant difference caused by a superiority of one ration over the other. During the second experiment group A showed a difference of 41.22 pounds of milk per cow for the 21-day period in favor of the milo ration. However, group B showed a difference of 3.37 pounds per cow in favor of the wheat ration. A summary of the results of the two groups gives a difference of 37.85 pounds of milk per cow per 21-days in favor of the milo ration. This amounts to slightly less than 2 pounds of milk per cow per day. This difference might be considered significant if there were no differences in feed consumption or changes in body weights. An examination of Table 3 for the second experiment shows that there was no material difference in feed consumption but that the loss in body weight per cow for the 21-day period was 13.56 pounds less with the wheat ration, which would offset the difference in milk production favoring the milo ration. Milk production during the third experiment showed a difference of 4.26 pounds of milk per cow in group A in favor of the milo ration, and in group B a difference of 10.68 pounds per cow in favor of the wheat ration, or a total of 6.42 pounds per cow per 21-day period in favor of the wheat ration. This would be only about one-third of a pound per cow per day, and could not be considered as a significant difference. A summary of the three experiments shows, that the cows while on the milo ration 8 BULLETIN NO. 480, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION produced approximately three-fourths of a pound more of milk per day than while on the wheat ration. The difference is so small that it would not be ascribed to the superiority of one feed over the other. Feed Consumption Both groups of cows consumed approximately as much grain andrough- age when they were on the milo ration as when they were on the wheat ration, as" shown in Table 3. The wheat ration was consumed with just Table 3. Average consumption of feed, production of milk, and changes in body weight during first and third 21-days minus consumption, production, and changes in weight during second 21-days ' Milo Wheat ’ Hay Milk BQdY weight Experiment 1 Group A (started on milo) +110.21 ——110.21 -—88.09 + 2.09 —14.37 Group B (started on wheat) ——104.10 +104.10 -—37.09 —- 7.32 — 5.81 Difference A-B +214.31 —214.31 -— 2.00 + 9.41 — 8.56 Experiment 2 Group A (started on wheat) — 91.85 + 92.73 -—30.75 —-41.22 —22.69 Group B (started on milo) + 86.17 —- 86.60 —35.58 —— 3.37 —36.25 Difference A-B —178.02 +179.33 + 4.83 —37.85 +13.56 Experiment 3 Group A (started on wheat) —110.22 +106.72 —- 4.26 +2568 Group B (started on milo) {-105.48 -——108.48 —10.68 +44.68 Difference A-B ——215.70 {-215.20 —|— 6.42 —-19.00 as much relish as was the milo ration. In no instance was either ration refused by the cows. The concentrate ration was fed at the rate of one pound for every two and one-half pounds of milk produced per cow per day. Hay consumption for both groups of cows was practically the same, there being only a very small amount of refused hay weighed back for both groups. Body Weight Table 3 also shows summarized results of changes in body weight for both groups of cows for each of the three experiments. In the first experiment the combined results of both groups show that the loss with the milo ration was 8.56 pounds per cow for the 21-day period, or less than one-half pound per cow per day. The combined results for both groups of cows during the second experiment show a loss, with the milo ration of 13.56 per cow per 21-day period. During the third experiment the cows While on the milo ration gained 19 pounds more per cow in 21 days than while on the wheat ration, which amounts to almost a pound per cow per day. When the milo ration was used, the loss in body weight was greater during the first two experiments and the gain in body weight was greater L“; - WHEAT VERSUS MILO FOR DAIRY COWS 9 during the third experiment. An average of the three experiments for changes in body weight shows a net difference of 3.12 pounds per cow for 84 days favoring the wheat ration. Table 4 gives the equivalent of wheat consumed to milo consumed, differences in milk produced and differences in changes in body weight Table 4. Equivalent of wheat to milo, milk and body weight Wheat Milo Hay Milk BQdY weight Experiment 1 .............. _. 214.31 1 214.31 —2.00 ~— 9.42 + 8.56 Experiment 2 ______________ ._ 179.33 i 178.02 --—4.83 —37.82 {-13.56 Experiment 3 .............. .- 215.20 215.70 .... .. —i— 6.42 —-19.00 for the three experiments. The purpose of this table is to give in the form of an equation the results shown in Table 3. Productive Energy of Ground Wheat In computing the rations to be used in this feeding experiment it was assumed that the productive values of wheat and milo were very nearly the same. Although the chemical analysis of the two feeds show that wheat is approximately two per cent higher in crude protein than milo, no adjustment in protein was made for this difference in formulating the two grain mixtures, as it was the object of this experiment to ascertain whether wheat could replace milo pound for pound in the dairy ration. The assumption that the two feeds were very nearly equal in productive energy was based on the therms per hundred pounds of feed, calculated from the chemical analysis of the feed and the production coefficients given by Fraps (3) in Texas Bulletin 402. Based on these calculations the productive energy of the wheat used in these experiments was 88.8 therms per one hundred pounds compared with 83.3 therms per one hundred pounds of the milo. Table 5 gives the calculation of the productive value of wheat in therms as determined from the three experiments, the results of which are given in Table 3. Calculations were also made for the third experiment but the productive value of 74.68 therms was not included in the average because the cows were turned on pasture during this experiment and no account could be taken of the amount of pasturage consumed. The actual result of the third experiment can be used for the calculation of the productive energy of wheat only when it is assumed that the cows in the wheat ration consumed the same amount of pasturage as the cows on the milo ration, and we have no basis for such an assumption. Evidently from the results shown, the cows on the wheat ration did not consume as much pasturage as did the cows on the milo ration. 10 BULLETIN NO. 480, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Since all feed consumed was taken into account in the first two experiments, the productive energy calculated should show with a reason- able degree of accuracy the true energy value of wheat in the dairy ration. An average of the first two experiments shows wheat to have a productive Table 5. Calculation of productive value of wheat in therms (from equations in Table 4) Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3 Productive energy Productive Productive Productive Pounds value Pounds value Pounds value I Wheat x .888 214.31 190.31 179.33 159.25 215.20 191.10 Milo x .833 214.31 178.52 178.02 148.29 215.70 179.68 Milk x .300 -— 9.41 -— 2.82 - 37.85 — 11.35 + 6.42 + 1.93 Weight x 1.100 + 8.56 + 9.42 I + 13.56 I + 14.92 l —- 19.00 —— 20.90 Hay x .345 —— 2.00 — 0.69 - 4.83 — 1.67 _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ .. Total + .......... .. 187.94 163.21 181.61 Total —- .......... ._ 3.51 13.02 20.90 Productive ' energy of wheat fed 184.43 150.19 160.71 Productive energy per 100 lbs. wheat 86.06 83.75 74.68 energy value of 84.9 therms per one hundred pounds, which corresponds rather closely to the 88.8 therms as calculated from the chemical analysis and the digestion coefficients. The 84.9 therms of energy per one hundred pounds of wheat is also slightly above the energy content in terms of therms per one hundred pounds for milo, which is 83.3 as shown by the calculations using the chemical analysis and the digestion coefficients. This also corresponds with the summarized results of milk production and gains in body weight shown in Table 3, where there was a slight difference in gain in body weight favoring the wheat ration. This allowance of 1.1 therms of energy per pound of gain might be a little low, as Fraps (3) gives the average of 81 tests with fattening sheep as requiring 2.6 therms of energy per pound of gain, but the energy varies with the percentage of fat put on, which is low at the beginning of the fattening period. If a pound of gain or loss in body weight for the cows contains more than 1.1 therms of energy, the productive energy of wheat as calculated from the first two experiments would also be increased. SUMMARY Three experiments have been conducted with dairy cows, comparing a ration containing 50 per cent coarsely-ground Wheat with a ration con- taining 50 per cent ground milo. WHEAT VERSUS MILO FOR DAIRY COWS 11 The results show that wheat can replace milo, pound for pound, when not more than 50 per cent of the grain mixture is composed of wheat. The productive energy of the wheat used, as calculated from the results >f this experiment, was 84.9 therms per one hundred pounds, compared with 83.3 therms per one hundred pounds of the milo grain used, calculated from the chemical composition and digestion coefficients. The wheat ration was consumed with just as much relish as was the milo ration. LITERATURE CITED 1. Bartlett, J. M. 1895. Wheat Meal Compared with Corn Meal. Maine Sta. Annual Report 1895. - 2. Fitch, J. B. and Cave, H. W. 1932. Ground Wheat Versus Ground Corn for Dairy Cows. Kansas Station Biennial Report. 3. Fraps, G. S. 1929. Supplementary Energy-Production Coefficients of American Feeding Stuffs Fed Ruminants. Texas Agri. Expt. Sta. Bul. 402. 4. Hayden, C. C., and Monroe, C. F. 1931. Wheat as a Substitute for Corn in the Dairy Ration. The Bimonthly Bulletin No. 153. Ohio Agr. Expt. Sta. 5. Jacobs, E. E. 1931. Can Low Priced Wheat Be Fed To Dairy Cows At a Profit? Panhandle Bul. 29, Panhandle Sta. (Oklahoma). 6. Kentucky Station Annual Report, Part 1. 1931. Cracked Wheat Versus Cracked Corn for Cows.