,_..__

,2 5*’ g

CAMPUS .

LIBRARY
A 3:1: i:

CJ°

V

Y
1.1%‘

 =uixp A -»-~

rExAs AGRICIJWLTURAL EXPERIMENT smnou

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

KULLETIN NO. 563 l AUGUST 193s

DIVISION OF RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

(In cooperation with Division of Agriculture,
Texas Technological College)

Effect of Calcium Supplements on Gains of Lambs
Fed Sorghum Fodder or Sorghum Silage as the
Roughage Portion of the Fattening Ration

 

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

t- uaAéfizlifi-BM-Ll 80- -

  "'l“\‘."\‘\."=r"'=-v-vvv-=""  ~

Alfalfa hay is generally regarded as one of the most desirable
and eflicient roughages for use in lamb fattening rations, but it
is not produced extensively in Texas and is not generally available
for lamb feeding purposes in many areas. The grain sorghums are
extensively produced, ranking third among the important crops of
Texas, but feeding investigations of the Texas Station for many
years have indicated that lambs fed sorghum roughage in place of
alfalfa hay made considerably lower gains and did not finish as
well as those fed the alfalfa hay. Alfalfa contains much more
calcium than the sorghum. In order to ascertain whether the low
calcium content of the sorghum roughages is responsible for the
lower gains of fattening lambs fed these roughages, feeding experi-
ments were conducted for six years beginning in 1928-29, testing
the effect of calcium in the form of pulverized limestone or pulver-
ized oyster shell when used as an addition to chopped or ground
sorghum fodder or sorghum silage used as roughage in the fatten-
ing ration. The first test was conducted at Substation No. 7, Spur,
and the remaining five tests at Lubbock in cooperation With the
Division of Agriculture, Texas Technological College.

The calcium supplement ranged from 0.2 ounce to 0.47 ounce
per head daily; however during the last three years, a standard
amount of 0.4 ounce of the supplement was used inasmuch as this
addition brought the calcium level of the sorghum roughage to
approximately that of the alfalfa hay fed to the check lot. The
check lot receiving alfalfa hay in all six of the experiments made
decidedly more gains than those fed the sorghum roughage to which
no calcium supplement had been added, but when the calcium
supplement was added to the sorghum roughage the gains in prac-
tically all cases were significantly similar to the gains produced
by the alfalfa roughage.

Results of these experiments indicated that lamb feeding rations
in which sorghum roughage is used without a calcium supplement
are unbalanced and therefore inefficient. Approximately 0.4 ounce
pulverized limestone or pulverized oyster shell per head should
be added to these sorghum roughages for lambs.

CONTENTS

General plan of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .. 

Lambs used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . 

Feeds used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ‘

Feed prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 

Weather conditions during test.- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _’

Experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i

Results 1923-29 (first test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Results 1929-30 (second test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 

Results 1930-31 (third test) . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i

Results 1931-32 (fourth test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .......... .. '
Results 1932-33 (fifth test) .................................. .. a
Results 1933-34 (sixth test) . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 
Productive energy of feeds used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i;

Literature cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,_

BULLETIN NO. 563 AUGUST 1938

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENTS ON GAINS OF

LAMBS FED SORGHUM FODDER OR SORGHUM SILAGE

AS THE ROUGHAGE PORTION OF THE FATTENING
RATION

J. M. JONESC) and W. L. STANGEU‘
(Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Division of Range Animal
Husbandry, in Cooperation with Division of Agriculture,
Texas Technological College)

The problem of the efficient utilization of the sorghum roughages inU
lamb fattening rations is important to feeders in Texas because of the

tremendous acreage devoted to these crops. Possibilities for expansion are
practically unlimited. One of the major obstacles that has in the past
tended to retard the feeding and finishing of lambs in Texas has been
the lack of a suitable roughage to be used in place of alfalfa hay. Though
alfalfa hay is generally regarded as one of the most desirable and efficient
roughages for use in lamb fattening rations, it is not produced extensively
in Texas, and is not generally available for lamb feeding purposes in many
areas. On the other hand the grain sorghums are extensively produced,
ranking third among the important crops of Texas (1). In 1935, the
Texas alfalfa acreage harvested was 72,000, as compared with 6,155,000
that had been planted to sorghum crops (2).

Earlier feeding investigations at this Station had indicated that fatten-
ing lambs fed sorghum roughage in place of alfalfa hay made considerably
lower gains and did not finish as satisfactorily as those fed the leguminous
hay (3). It was with full realization of the importance of gaining some
further definite information covering the more efiicient utilization of sor-
ghum roughages in the lamb fattening ration that the series of six tests
herein reported were initiated.

Analyses of the sorghum roughages for a determination of the mineral
content showed that the calcium content of the fodder is only about one-
fourth of that of good alfalfa hay. Naturally in consideration of this
problem, the question arose as to whether the low calcium content in these
roughages could in any way be associated with the lower gains of fatten-
ing lambs'on such rations.

In 1927 the Kansas Station reported a feeding test in which fattening
lambs fed sorghum fodder and sorghum silage supplemented with 0.016
pound pulverized limestone per head daily during a 60-day period made
increased gains over groups similarly fed without limestone (4).

(1)Chief, Division of Range Animal Husbandry, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.
*Professor of Animal Husbandry, Texas Technological College.

6 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

GENERAL PLAN OF WORK

This experiment was planned to determine the influence of 0.2 to 0.4
ounce per head daily of pulverized limestone or pulverized oyster shell,
each of high calcium content, on the gains made by lambs fed chopped or
ground sorghum fodder _or silage as the roughage portion of the fattening
ration. Tests were conducted during six consecutive feeding seasons be-
ginning in 1928-29 and ending in 1933-34. The first test was conducted at
Substation No. 7 located at Spur and the latter five at Lubbock in coopera-
tion with the Division of Agriculture, Texas Technological College. Nine
lots of 30 lambs each were used in the first test, which study included a
comparison of, several of the leading grain sorghum fodders. Six lots of
20 lambs each were used in the five subsequent tests.

In each test duplicate ear tags were placed in the ears of each lamb as a
means of identification. The lambs were weighed individually on three
consecutive days at the beginning and end of each trial and the average
of the three weighings, respectively, constituted the initial and final
weights. Individual weights were also taken at regular 30-day intervals
during each trial except in the 1932-33 and 1933-34 tests. In 1932-33, the
first, second, and third periods were of 28 days’ duration while the fourth
lasted only 14 days. In 1933-34, the first two periods were of 30 days’
duration while the final period extended over 33 days. All weighings
started at 2 P. M. on the respective weighing dates and proceeded without
interruption until all lambs had been weighed.

The actual periods of feeding for each of the respective tests were as
follows:

1st test, 1928-29, from Dec. 2, 1928 to March 2, 1929, 90 days
2nd test, 1929-30, from Nov. 26, 1929 to Feb. 24, 1930, 90 days
3rd test, 1930-31, from Dec. 1, 1930 to March 1, 1931, 90 days
4th test, 1931-32, from Jan. 1, 1932 to March 31, 1932, 90 days
5th test, 1932-33, from Jan. 25, 1933 to May 3, 1933, 98 days
6th test, 1933-34, from Dec. 30, 1933 to April 2, 1934, 93 days.

In the first test at Spur, all of the lots were of similar dimensions, and
an open shed 18 feet in depth served to provide shelter for the lambs dur-
ing inclement weather. Slatted combination grain and hay racks of
identical size and the same general structure were used in all of the lots.
Water was supplied from a shallow well which provided “gyppy” Water.
A supply of granulated stock salt was kept before the lambs at all times.

At Lubbock, the same pens were used in each of the five tests conducted
there. Each lot had access to an open shelter 10 feet by 16 feet in addi-
tion to an outside pen 10 feet by 50 feet. Feed troughs similar in design
to those used at Spur and of the same dimensions were used. Salt and
water were kept before the lambs continuously.

The lambs were fed twice each day, the morning feed being supplied
about 7 A. M. and the evening feed at 5 P. M. The feed racks were cleansed
with a broom before each feeding, any waste or refused feed being weighed
in order to obtain as accurate a record as possible for the actual feed

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS . 7

consumed. All unconsumed feed was weighed and deducted from the
original amount supplied. The grain and cottonseed meal, except in the
check lots, were mixed together in definite proportions for each test. The
proportions varied slightly from year to year, but insofar as possible they
were kept constant for all lots fed sorghum roughages. The check lots,
fed alfalfa hay, were fed less cottonseed meal in proportion to the grain,
since alfalfa is much higher in protein content than are the sorghum rough-
ages. The amount of concentrates fed was increased in accordance with
the ability of the respective groups to consume more.

Lambs Used

In the 1928-29 test, high grade smooth-bodied Rambouillet wether lambs
were used. They were divided into nine lots of 30 lambs each. Lots 1 to 7
inclusive were fed during a 90-day period. They were uniform in type,
size, and condition when the experiment started, the average weight being
about 63 pounds. Lots 8 and 9 were fed during an 88-day period. They
were heavier lambs, the average Weight at the beginning of the test being
71 pounds. They were unifonn in type and condition. A lamb in Lot 2
receiving ground sorgo (Red Top) fodder died on January '7, 1929. Two
lambs in Lot 3 receiving ground feterita fodder died before being slaugh-
tered in Fort Worth. One lamb was removed from Lot 4, fed ground kafir
fodder on January 26, 1929, and one died in the Fort Worth yards after
selling. Three lambs were removed from Lot 5, fed ground hegari fodder,
due to uremic poisoning-one on February 12, 1929; one on February 26,
1929; and one in Fort Worth before the lambs were sold. On February 21,
1929, one sick lamb was taken out of Lot 6, fed ground milo fodder. One
sick lamb was taken out of Lot 7, fed ground milo fodder with pulverized
limestone, just before shipment to market, and one died en route.

The lambs used in the 1929-30 test were high grade Rambouillets. The
average weight when the test started was approximately 60 pounds. They
were divided as equally as possible as to type, size, and condition into six
lots of 20 lambs each. Pneumonia caused the death of one lamb in Lot 4,
fed ground hegari fodder with pulverized oyster shell, on February 4, 1930.
On February 13, 1930, a lamb died in Lot 6, fed ground hegari fodder,
caused by occlusion of urethra due to a deposit of urinary salts in bladder.
One lamb in Lot 3, fed a mixture of ground alfalfa hay and ground hegari
fodder, did not respond to the ration and Was therefore not included in the
analyses of the data.

High grade Rambouillet lambs were used in the 1930-31 test. They
had been grazed on wheat pasture for a three weeks’ period immediately
preceding purchase. After delivery, they were placed on a preliminary
feed of bundle hegari fodder during a five-day period until the feeding
period began. Only one weight was taken at the conclusion of the test as
a severe snow storm prevented the taking of the other two weights. Their
average initial weight was 53.6 pounds and they were divided as equally as"
possible as-to size, type, age, and sex into six lots of ~2O7lambs1 each. One

8 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

lamb in Lot 1, fed ground alfalfa hay, died on February 7, 1931, and
another in Lot 3, fed ground hegari fodder with pulverized oyster shell,
died February 9, 1931.

High grade smooth-bodied Rambouillet lambs averaging 54.3 pounds
at the time of going on feed, were used in the 1931-32 test. At time of
purchase the lambs were being fed Red Top sorgo fodder and were con-
tinued on this feed during a five-day period until the feeding test began on
January 1, 1932. They were divided into six lots of 20 lambs each. One
lamb in Lot 2, fed sorgo silage, was ofl‘ feed for several days and died on
March 11, 1932.

Smooth-bodied Rambouillet lambs averaging 62.6 pounds at the time
of going on feed were used in the 1932-33 test. They were delivered at
Lubbock, January 17, 1.933 and after an eight-day preliminary feeding
period, were divided as equally as possible into six lots of 20 lambs each.
Three lambs either died or were removed from each of Lots 2 and 4, fed
sorgo silage and sorgo fodder, respectively. A lamb died in Lot 2 on April
10, one on April 28 from urinary calculi, and one on May 1. The causes
of the deaths of two of the lambs are unknown. One lamb was taken
out of Lot 4 on February 15, due to a broken leg; one died on March 6
because of urinary calculi, and one died May 3, the cause of which was
unknown.

The lambs used in the 1933-34 test were good to choice feeder lambs
of Rambouillet breeding, and averaged 59.5 pounds at the time of being
placed on feed. They were divided equally with respect to type, con-
formation, and weight into six lots of 20 head each at the beginning of
the test. One lamb in Lot 2, fed sorgo silage, died on February 28,
1934, and two were not marketed due to having been off feed for several
days. In Lot 4, one lamb was removed and one died on March 20, 1934.
On March 20, 1934, two lambs were taken out of Lot 5, fed cotton-
seed meal and hulls with milo head chop during the last 63 days, because
they had gone ofi’ feed. Another one was not marketed for the same
reason.

A lamb in Lot 6, fed cottonseed meal and hulls (without grain) died on
April 3, 1934 because of an extreme case of “water belly” or uremic
poisoning.

Feeds Used

The feeds used in each of the six tests were of good quality. The cotton-
seed meal was purchased under a guarantee of 43 per cent crude protein
content; however, three analyses by the Division of Chemistry, as given
in Table 1-A, showed a protein content of only slightly over 41 per cent in
cottonseed meal used in the first test. Analyses of feeds used in the
second and third tests, 1929-30 and 1930-31, were not made. However,
analyses of feeds used in the last three tests are shown in Table 1-B.
Good leafy fine-stemmed alfalfa hay from second and third cuttings was
used in the first test. Alfalfa hay of similar quality was used in the
five tests at Lubbock. With the exception of the final test in 1933-34,
the alfalfa hay fed in connection with the tests at Lubbock was ground.

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS

.2:;.E..#51 k3 $62725 use 320*

  

. . Nihzmm _ .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..   S132 .. . . . . . ..25.:9=_

. .1 . . . . . . . . ._ @322, s
mm?“ mwm. m WWW mwww fibm m. 3 9: E m m awlwm? :32 39w 85 38 “Eirm
  N   “m a w. W" Mi wwuw m  ......   

.. . . .\.  L .. ... WI ._  ...$vwo~fi_mx UZDOQ
m: x. m E i MIN f“ m2  m  HWWEVA;  
Mam. m5; _ NM; m5». .33 $3.. 5a .52 m @»Hw~m_ ....¢_.Q.@.w...i.._»w 9:55

. . , . . . .. . . . . = £2

 W“. m  mm.m_ “was Rm flu 3.2 m fivxwi . . . fiaé 2E. wsawhww»

h > hm 3 0H f. N. fi Q m amiwfl: . . . . . ._m@E vowwcogfioU
on. “x. x fix. w» 9 “m. Q
E . _ > i . .8 m.

Qzorfionm EM. mumdmfiw fi< 52>» u m z Qmmmv 2E =58; wfimmsw 28> wfii
y h

23cc“. 19652.

noiioaE 0U EBEMEU

“m3 9558 £5: .=:_m mmémi E wwm: 2Z8 we E353 7205i rcu cozianiou IwEEQp-Q .<- Baum.

10 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

. . 3:56 x6662 68626 66:30

o2. hoN. 6 6h6 NN.NN NN66 066N N6.N N6.6 6 66|6N6N
|--»--  .- - ¢ - -u ~ . ¢ - - .--‘4 u.» - ~¢-- »u--¢-¢-|-- qlnnonnluntniunolullllommmhv><u
..-.......  M ..... . . . . ... . . . . .-.. . . . . . . . . . . . .... -.. ..... ......“Vm|mm@fl .......=U5m.u0¢w~finv@®NTnQ\/~5@
llulI-ntlu  ? n»: u; 000i u Ilica ~ I000 Quaint u-cnua- ullillc  
660. 66N . N 66.6 06.6 66,. 66 N6.N6 66. N 66.6 N 66I666N . . . . . . . . . . .265 6oomco3oU
AE-#o.  ~ - - - - - u-       --- --uu~¢-u -u-pqunuo-uo-wmfia%w><
N60. 8N. N hN .N 6686 66.6N N6.6 66.0 66.N N 66|666N m m . . U m “@622 Eo.N. 85 06.86
660. 66.0. N 6h. N #6.? 6N .NN N6.6 050 6h. N N 66|N66N . . . .. @626 Eo,N. 6oxN0 063m
660. 660. N 8N 6666 6N. NN 66.6 66.0 N6.N N N6|N66N . . . 663$ EPN. 625 @686
  u a IOI       --o.- ---u- p. . lnaiuolnowwflho>l<
660. 66N. N 0N S 6N6N 66.66 6N .6N 06. N N6.6 N 66|N66N $663 E3. N55 o6~om 65650
N60. 6NN. N 06.6 666N 66.66 00.6N 6N .N 06.6 N N6|N66N .6663 Eon. 8E 06.8w 6555B
.?%xq  - -n-.       .-\--- -¢--..- .- - - - - ---¢-Q@QHQ><
0NN. 6N.N.N N 0N.0N 66R 6666 666N 06. N 066N N 66|666N ....~. . . m Em: 369:6 655.60
60N~ 660 m N N 66.6 66.6 2.6m 66.06 Nu. N 60.6N N 66|N66N . . . m . m m m . $2 .531... 655.10
6NN N60 N N 00.6 $6 6N.N.6 mNSN 66. N nN .6N N N6|N66N .. . ha: x336“ 65650
  ¢».-.-o-       -.-- -¢u-o-- ----¢¢caa-Qw@¢%@><
06N. 660. N v6.6 66.6 6666 6N S 66.N 66.0N N 66|666N . . . . . . .   M636 oNNE 65550
66N. 660. N 6N6 0N.6 NN.66 056 60.N 6m.0N N 66|N66N . . . . . . . M636 2:: 655.10
NON. 660. N 66.6 N6.6 66.66 66.6 66.N 06.6 N N6|N66N . . . . . . . . . @636 26E 65.550
  -¢-¢---       --.-- .-|-¢- ---¢--|uu¢-Q@@.HU><
:6. 00N. N 66.6 N6.6 N6..\.N , 66.6 66.6. N6.66 N 66|666N . . . . . . . . .  m .635 632330
:6. 66N. N 06.6 06.6 NN.6N 6N6 6N .6 66.66 N 66|N66N . . . . . . . . . . MNwoE 6oomoo5oU
60m. 66N . N N66 66.6 00.6N 66. NN 6N6 66.66 N N6|N66N . . . . . . . . . NmoE 6oomno3oU
NR. NR. maniacs 66 “N. 66 “N. .866 Q. “N. wowfiwmw
BEQEmoNNnN NNNNJQNMU .o7N i6. 63w? .mN.nN.Z @650 NwnN omoNobnN .o7N “mo? 63m
Qcowcoo NFNQENZ coEWoEEoo 332660
66-66.! 6:.» .66.N66N .N6..N66N 6E2 656mm.“ 6E2 oNooNNNNN-N E Noom: 258 .No Nzofi-oo Nakoci: 6cm aocioafioo NuoMEQNNO AN-N 2.2a

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS 11

The sorghum fodders used in the first trial, namely sorgo of the
Red Top variety, feterita, kafir, hegari, and milo respectively were bright
in color (with the exception of the milo fodder, which was of a brownish
color), well matured, and comparatively free from mold. All bundles
that showed mold-were discarded at the time of grinding. The sorghum
roughages used in connection with that portion of the trial conducted

cat Lubbock were of good quality and bright in color. The sorgo silage

which was utilized during the period 1931-32 to 1933-34 inclusive was
made from first cutting sorghum and was of good quality; however,
that fed during the 1932-33 feeding season was high in moisture content.

The chemical composition of the feeds used in the first test, including
calcium and phosphorus content, is presented in Table 1-A. These deter-
minations were made by the Division of Chemistry. The amounts of
calcium and phosphorus as presented in this table were used in the cal-
culation of the amounts of these minerals in the rations of the fattening
lambs during the period of the first test.

Analyses of samples of water utilized by the lambs both at Spur and
Lubbock, when considered on an estimated consumption of two quarts
per lamb daily, indicated a wide difference in the calcium consumed be-
tween the two sources of supply. The water at Spur provided approx-
imately 0.786 gram of calcium per head daily as compared with 0.168
gram provided at Lubbock.

Analyses of feeds utilized in the tests conducted at Lubbock during the
period 1931-32, 1932-33, and 1933-34 are presented in Table 1-B. In cal-
culating the average amounts of calcium and phosphorus in the average
daily ration for each of the five tests conducted at Lubbock, it was decided,
in consultation with the Chief of the Division of Chemistry, to use the
average calcium and phosphorus contents, respectively, contained in the
feeds utilized by the lambs during the three tests 1931-32, 1932-33, and
1933-34. Since no analyses of the hegari fodder fed at Lubbock during
the 1929-30 and 1930-31 tests were made, the average calcium and phos-
phorus content of six samples analyzed from the Spur Station-two in
1928-29, two in 1931-32, and two in 1932-33—was used in making these

calculations. Feed Prices

The prices used for the feeds utilized in this experiment are shown in

Table 2' Table 2. Prices per ton of feeds used in experiments
Years
Feed
1928-29 1929-30 1930-31 1931-32 1932-33 1933-34
Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 43.00 $ 43.00 $ 31.00 $ 19.00 $ 14.00 $ 26.00

Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.00 22.00 13.50 6.75 5.00 14.00

Ground m1lo.fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ground feterita fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ground kafir fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . 50 12.00 11 .00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ground sorgo (Red Top) fodder.. . . 9.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 . . . . . . . .

Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.00 22 5O 2O 00 14.50 11 50 18 00

Sorgo (Red Top) silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.00 2.00 3.00

- Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.00

Pulverized limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.00 27.00 25.00 14.00 17.00

Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 00 14 00 14.00 14 00 14.00 14.00

12 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

I

Weather Conditions During Test

The maximum and minimum temperatures as well as the distribution
of rainfall during the period of the experiments are shown in Table 3.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Alfalfa hay was supplied to a check group of fattening lambs in each
of the six tests as a standard for the comparison of gains made by the
lambs fed sorghum roughage in the form of fodder or silage with and
without the calcium supplement. The conclusions from the several tests
were based on (1) gains, and (2) finish as determ-ined by carcass grades.

Results 1928-29
(First Test)

The average daily rations and gains by 30-day periods are presented in
Table 4. A summary of the first year’s test including initial and final
weights per lamb, both at feedlot and at market, average daily gain basis
feedlot and market Weights, average daily rations, total feed consumed

‘per lamb, feed per 100 pounds of gain, cost of feed per 100 pounds of

gain, dressing percentage, and profit per lamb is shown in Table 5.
Slaughter data are shown in Table 5A. The lambs in the check lot, fed
alfalfa hay as roughage in addition to a concentrate mixture consisting
of approximately 9 parts ground milo heads to 1 part of cottonseed meal,
made an average daily gain of 0.36 pound per head, feedlot basis, or an
average total gain of l1ds. The lambs fed the different sorghum
roughages were supplied with ground milo heads and cottonseed meal in
a proportion of about 4 to 1 in order to bring the protein to» approximately
the same level as in the check lot. The gains made by the lambs fed (1)
ground sorgo fodder, (2) ground feterita fodder, (3) ground kafir fodder,
(4) ground hegari fodder, and (5) ground milo fodder respectively without
the calcium supplement during the 90-day period ranged from 5 to 7 pounds
below the gains of the check group, fed alfalfa hay.

13

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS

mH.~ ..... ... m@.~ ..... ..... @¢.~ .... ..... ¢w.¢ .... .... ww. ..... ..... Hw. ..... ...
HHHHHHH.H..HHH .HHH.%@...m@.. HH...H..H.H.HHHHHHH.H .. UH. H.H.HHHHH H.H. H..H.HHH. UH
.... mv mw ......... ... ............................ ... ..... ... ............
..... ..... .... we. wm ww ... ... ..... ..... .... .. . .... .... ... .. .... ..
.......... ... ......... ..... ... ... ....¢~.~ mm mm .... ... ... ........ .
.... ..... ... .... ... ... ........ H ... ... ........... ............. ....m~ mh
w@._ mfi hm Na. mm mm we. mfl ww .... .... ... .. . ......... . . ........
............. .............. .................... ........ .....¢~ ow ........ ..:
@@H..@....@m.. m@H..m%|| MW @@H@ @@...N@...w@ M @fl.. @@.. .HH.HHHHHHHHH..@wH..“....@@:
@¢. NH wv .. ............m@. mfl aw mm. wfi ww Hw. ofia» ww “N. Q M5
ma. am aw .... .... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... .... ..... ..... . ... ..... .... ....
.............. .... . .... . ... ... ... .... .. ... .... .. .....mm. wfi fiw
..... ........ ... ... ... .... ... ... v¢.~ Nfi N@ Eo. w wfi ...... ......
HHHH.HHHH..HHH .HHH. “NH. . H. HHH..HH.. HUN .HH.H.H.HHHH.H..HHHUmw...@@.. .HHHH.HHH. Hm

. cofimfifiuwun 13cm.

HMw»M»¢_»@MHw¢m.:~=-

.532

.H~@»m¢@=:.@@~@:=-

.=~Q<

. . 629:3: Jm~ ZQCD

. 529:2;
éfimfioi

623.35 55m .614
. Awfiwflzocw JQGN 5C4

.-..-.....

.25 12D
. . . . £9232
iSNN $33

. . Sbwanoh
dfijrgwm new.“ §2

. Shannan

. . hQQEUQQQ

. wZmEQHZ. 43mm .334

JEQEw>OZ

saqaul
‘uopendgoaxd

.I/\I
W

OJITJBJQCIUJQL
umuxgul

almeladulal
umwgxe

seqoul
‘uoneudgaold

QJIHEJQCIIUQL
wmmww
QJIHBJQGUJQL
umuqxem

SQqQuI
‘Horwudmld

.I/\I
W

I alnwmaduxal
umuxgux
anmamduxal
umuxgxew
salpu]
‘uoplngdgaald
amwxaduxal
umuxgul
almmaduxal
umuqxew
saqou]
‘uogmgdgoaxd
QJIHBJQGUIQL
umxugug

QJIUBJZNIUIQL

.l/\I

Iunwgxew

saqaul

‘uoplngdgaald
umulgul

emigeaadmual

slmexadlual
wnuqxew

xuangaq
¢m|mm@_

x@¢@@=4
mm|~m@H

x8824
E132

xUQ@@=4
Nmlimmfi

fionifi
omlwmmfi

gsnm
@N|w~@~

meGQ-BT-QGNQ 5m us» war-nu 3am. uwfiaukw

é Q33.

14 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Table 4. Average daily rations and gains by periods, basis feed consumed——Spur lamb
feeding test, 1928-29, 90 days (Lots 8 and 9—88 days)

Average

Lot 1st 30-day 2d 30-day 3d 30-day for 90-day
N0, Ration period, period, period, period,
pounds ** pounds pounds pounds

Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.089 1 .552 2.232 1.624

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136 .172 .248 . 185

(30 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 541 1 . 507 .932 1 .326

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 .27 .22 .26

Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . 9. 19 10.78 12.75 3272*

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .306 .359 .425 .364

2 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .861 1 . 183 1 .801 1.282

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .287 .352 .289 .309
(29 Ground sorgo (Red Top) fodder . . . . . 1.580 1.510 .957 1 .349
hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 .50 .32 .37

Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . 10.38 6.19 10.36 26.93*

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .346 .206 .345 .299

Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .861 1.183 1 .801 1.282

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .287 .352 .289 .309

(30 Ground feterita fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .703 1.643 .830 1.392

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .35 .30 .29

Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . 9.24 7.57 8.64 25.45*

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .308 .252 .288 .283

4 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .861 1 . 183 1 .801 1 .282

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .287 .352 .289 .309

(29 Ground kafir fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .631 1 .425 .672 1 .243

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 .45 .32 .34

Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . 9.54 7.31 8.42 25.27*

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 .244 .281 .281

5 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .861 1 .183 1.801 1.282

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .287 .352 .289 .309

(27 Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.660 1.500 .741 1.301

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .27 .21 .22

Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . 8. 63 9.76 8.85 27.24*

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .288 .325 .295 .303

6 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .861 1.183 1.801 1 .282

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .287 .352 .289 .309

(29 Ground milo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .635 1 .532 . 706 1 .291

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .45 34 .32

Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . 9.84 9.84 7.62 27.30*

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .328 .328 .254 .303

7 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .861 1. 183 1.801 1 .282

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .287 .352 .289 .309

(28 Ground milo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.641 1.567 .971 1.393

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 .45 .45 .38

Pulverized limestone, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242 .250 .250 .247

Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . 10.31 10.58 10.30 31 . 19*

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .344 .353 . 343 .347

s Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .925 1.331 2.122 1.471

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .308 .396 .340 .349
(30 Ground sorgo (Red Top) fodder . . . . . 2.039 1 .804 1.103 1 .640
hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 .35 32 .29 |

Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . 10.02 10.30 9.45 29.77*

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 .343 .315 .338

9 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .925 1.331 2.122 1.471

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .308 .396 .340 .349
(30 Ground sorgo (Red Top) fodder . . . . . 2.032 1.808 1.291 1.703

hd.) Salt, oz. . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .19 .35 .34 .30
Pulverized limestone, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267 .267 .267 .267
Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . 10.91 10.55 10.19 31 .65*
Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .390 .352 .340 .360

*Total gain for entire period.

**1S

t period——28 days for Lots 8 and 9.

15

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS

603005: uouivfiua @0111.

.32 261E, 23 E 00mm“: 23 wnnouum 3E 0x3 won 30w :32? amok?

84m Nwd ww.m $4 ma; Nwé ma; 2a 3N ..............Hwww.........._.w82:5:::m
.34; Si: wmfi gfi mmw; .3 .2 3Q ~92 52 . . “~52 $0 002003 02E
n52 mvfi $22 00...: .52 3B £9 mwfi g2     wwim 35$
.5: 3.2 2.2 52 8.2 mag: 5.2 $3 5.2 . . . . “$.00 1:8.
2.; 2.; 2.4 2.; 9.4 2.; 3.; 0...; 9.; ...............3o mcEQEw .253 20000.5
owzm Qmzm Nma 3N 3m 3N owtm mmzm 3N ....................b.0230 wovfioaou
s: 3s w wow w $0 w Q1. w 8a w wmw w .50 w wow w  .50 8.000 3 2w £53.80 0801.25
"wsofiofifim ifionwnwm
38. owe... £2. ma? ...@....._. 8.3 wwé. 2...? £5. .51”.Mnm“guw...finwsaaxzwamwwwm
$4.“. 8.4% 09$ 3.2. wwwv w»? win. wmfi. 3.2. . . . . . . . . . flaws; Hoéfiwmmmwm
"omficofiwo wEmwvMQ
~98. 3.4%. ww. S. 3% $5M wvww wmww woww $1? . 381.1% xfis Ems; 3x980 E00 0m0$><
$3 I... S w ~62 w ow. I w S... 3 w fiwfi w S. Z w 32 w ww. Z w .. .. .. flaws.» 0.00755 Hwsiis v30 Ewm
3S wmw w 8.» mi. w S.» w S; w ww .w w wow w www w . . . . . . . $6.22,» 3:003 0085000 100w wiwm
2.8m A30 .52 v08 0 30G
Mal“? owéwv 8&2. x15. 3.3. 9&3. .32“. wwowv wwgwww  :05
3.8 .2404: wwtmw 3:: 8&2 5.0: “WW2: wwwow wmow  13E u$2S8u
~26... mafia. wwwww 3g. 3m? H90? wmwww hwwmv Qwi. 2:3: 0:5 353G
33B 0.02.003 50m J30 .80 “Uni-don wowh
“ANA  mwé  ..........................MIT...UH.HKHHNmvcowwufiwwwwwmkvfism
$4 $4 5a 34 NNA m: £4 3a 2.4 
wwé: $4.3 wmmmfi omw: 2E2 mag: Qwmfi $42 wwhm: .. . . .   ewfigom
2.6m 2.0m 5S xwsm .58 fiwsm 3R .55 3E    .  . 400E Evéogu
2. a2 2.58 wmai 3m: Maw: www: www: 0%.“: 3.8; . . . . . . . . .  . .255 2G: @5550
"$0550 v00: .50 wofismcoo v03 130M.
wwm. .........D.N.  ......................................................N0dnowwwakmwouwhufism
oww mm. ww. mm. mm. ww. mm. ww. wm. .................................N05am
         -¢-.--.¢-¢¢¢o.anouu-onuonon-.u@mzxsom
fin 3m. mow. mow. wow. oow. oow. wow. 9:.  woowiiou
$4 n: wmé w“; ma; ma; wmA wNA $4 .......................%$._ 0:5 953G
“$0550 Awoiswnouo c033 >130 0wm~o><
ma.» wow 32 Sim wmw $5 Nww Nvfl 3w . . . . . . . hm. 55.59am @526 2.2 .50 Qwfiifim
omw 3 a £5 2.x Q .w w“ .w 2Q www 5w . . . . . . .2: $00501? mama. 9.2 .30 Qwfisfiw
wwm. 3N. “ma. mom. NE. 2: . 5m. wmm. “RN. . . . . . . .9: aims; woimfi 58w >23. 0ww$><
oww. www. S»: wow. wow. SN. wwm. mom. x5. . . . . . . . .2: afiwsa 3:52 diam >10 0wm$><
mwla ww .8 ww. E 5.2 N72 $5.: 3.2 owom wwém . . .2: JEEP,» wwviwi 600: $0 Em 0mm$><
ma?“ Eda 2 . 5 omsw fism ...~......~ 3mm wwwm fiam . . . d“: 63E?» 3:003 .93: .60 Ewm 0mw00><
wwéw o... . S wwéw w... 5 5.3 MW? 59w whww .$....w . . . . . . . . . d5 .0.3iwE i». Emma? :25 “$0.154
3M2 3 .9: 20.2w 8.8 wig 5 . ww wmww owww v.18 . . . . . . . . . . . .9: Joéwow 8 2E0? 12E owmhu><
wm. C. 50... wdiww 8.2 2 .2 flaw... Q? $2 moww . . . . . . . . . .2: 50:62 0.0 2W6; Q51: 0m§0><
ow ow ww mm “w. an ow on ow .......................0.0_.$nmnEmT6nEsZ
whowwow .8 wow +0035.“ .8303 00w 0w .5303 $3.0m .5 wow has
033 o wow 01E 01E in on uwwx 00.10%; 0 3m mbwb< E03
352G UCSOMU 953G 353G UGDOuU 353G 352G 353G .
a 8A w 3A N. ~04 w 3A w Hod w. 60A w woq m :5 w wed

3D... $1» E2 Q 3...: 25. 3 5~$~3 .32 v5.53 £5: 50m 0.. 25.25am a Q55.

1i BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 
 
 

  . fi ..  N fi ..  . . . . . . . ...Amc~nc2oQuME95vvozEvwcoU
2 2 ....P.. ...w...   . . . . . .   h   . . . .  . . . . ..¢.A:@.fi@¢.w¢¢:w
   . H . . . . . . . .. ... ....Q=@=@.m.=¢ms>.z:
w m m H? mfiw . ..  . . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . Ibmh
I 0H a m  . . .. .225!»
  .12. 5a.. a 2 e e .. .. . ..  . .. 
.  w m m   ..........u.:osU
. . . . . nmuwwhm wmmnZwU
~53 wAl v.3 w 2 w .2 >42 T»; 0;: T: ... . .. .3193: SQ ion 1E6? owm$><
N} ¢._ m; #4 ofl Tfi o; _.~ w; . . . . . . ........m~__..~m:wc,5.=:smm@3 uwrdo><
m? W? #2 my? o? W? i? 0.3» wRv .........B:m._..;> 315?: fizmn 2N. wEmmoQQ
P3 PM? “w? f9». mam m a». mam 7mm m. 3N . . . 18:20 £23k? Ewflfiv 2M6? vmm~c><
N.w To m6 m w 5w Nb a5. f“ 5w ........£:.mE._Q:7, c236: 3a ommxcism
W; m 2.. w w» W5 Maw w? o2 waw New . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IfUEnE “m Qaméz/
hm o use: mad use: one: one: use: occc ucoc . éo 6:33.52 UONTFZLDQ Jcochzaasw _m.6..:._\4
$3.3 .632; HQUUOH MQUMVO.“ 33X: $3.2 1.3K: $35k
omhow omkow o=E 02.: Emma: 5.12 2S3.“ owuov. n.:a.:< E03
wcaofiU wcsoib wcsofiO $5520 v5.20 3:220 v5.9.0 ca. EU
w ~04 w ~04 n “c4 c do: .... ~04 v ~04 w. go; m go; _ do;

33 “PE 43-33

...-Em “a to» mnEE ._o 52. Logmumi ecu 295.5 E Qmaxcvim wcmfiocm 37m 4.3a?

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS 17

It will be noted, however, that the inclusion of 0.25 ounce pulverized
limestone per head daily in the ration of Lot 7, fed ground milo fodder
as roughage. and with the concentrates in the same amount and pro-
portion as fed to Lots 2-6 inclusive, produced basis selling weight an
average gain of 21.35 pounds, or only 13.4 per cent less gain than that
made by the check group, Lot 1, fed alfalfa hay. The average gain made
by Lots 2 to 6 inclusive was approximately 23 per cent less than the
check group, Lot 1. In a comparison of the dressed carcass weights be-
tween the various lots, it is observed that those produced by Lot 7, fed
the calcium supplement, were slightly heavier than those produced in the
alfalfa group, also 2.5 pounds heavier than those in Lot 6, which with the
exception of the mineral, were similarly fed. The carcasses, chilled basis,
groups 2 to 6 inclusive, of lambs which did not receive the mineral sup-
plement, averaged 38.9 pounds each, or 7.2 per cent lighter than those in
Lot 7, which received milo fodder and the calcium supplement. In the
comparison between the two heavier groups (Lots 8 and 9), fed during an
88-day period, the lambs in Lot 9, fed 0.27 ounce of the calcium supple-
ment per head daily, gained approximately 2 pounds more per head dur-
ing the 88 days than did Lot 8, which did not receive the calcium supple-
ment. (See Table 5.) a

Table 5 illustrates the manner in which the respective lots responded
to the different kinds of sorghum roughages. Lots 7 and 9, fed pulver-
ized limestone, also check lot, fed alfalfa hay, each required less con-
centrates to produce 100 pounds of gain than did any of the lots fed the
various sorghum roughages without the calcium supplement. With feeds
charged at the prices for the 1928-29 period as shown in Table 3, the
cost of feed per 100 pounds of gain in Lot 7, fed ground milo fodder
with pulverized limestone, was $7.06, which was the most economical gain
made by any of the groups and was $0.79 less than in Lot 6, fed ground
milo fodder without the calcium supplement. The inclusion of 0.27 ounce
pulverized limestone per head daily also reduced the cost of gain in Lot 9
as compared with Lot 8 which did not receive the calcium supplement.
’l.‘he cost of feed per 100 pounds gain, feedlot basis, for the check lot, fed
alfalfa hay, was as high as similar costs for the groups fed sorghum rough-
age or higher, due to the fact that the alfalfa hay was charged at $20.00
per ton as compared with $9.50 per ton for the sorghum roughage.

The advantage in finish as indicated by dressing percentages, and cold
carcass weights, Table 5A, was in favor of the lambs fed the calcium
supplement. The carcasses of the Lot 8 lambs, which received the sorgo
fodder without the calcium supplement, averaged approximately 5 per
cent lighter than Lot 9, which received this supplement.

Lot 7, receiving the calcium supplement, showed practically the same
amount of internal fat as did Lot 1, fed alfalfa hay. As between the two
heavier groups, Lots 8 and 9, the former lot, which did not receive the
calcium supplement, showed a slight advantage in internal fat. In a
comparison of pelt weights between the various lots, as shown in Table
5A, it is observed that the two groups fed the mineral supplement

18 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

yielded heavier pelts than did those fed sorghum roughages without the

mineral. The check group, Lot 1, produced pelts of the same weight,

as those of Lot 7, which indicates that the weight of pelt is highest when
sufficient calcium is provided in the ration.

Results 1929-30
(Second Test)

The following comparisons were made in this test: (1) ground alfalfa
hay in Lot 1; ground alfalfa hay and ground hegari fodder, approximately
equal parts, in Lot 2; and ground alfalfa hay and ground hegari fodder
fed in approximately 2.6 parts of alfalfa to 1 part of hegari fodder in
Lot 3. (2) Varying amounts of pulverized oyster shell, Lots 4 and 5, as a
calcium supplement to ground hegari fodder.

The average daily rations and gains by 30-day periods are shown in
Table 6, while other important summary data are presented in Table 7.
Slaughter data were not available in the 1929-30 test since fifty head of
top lambs were selected from the 120 head fed, and exhibited at the
Southwestern Exposition and Fat Stock Show.

The Lot 1 (check) lambs fed alfalfa hay as the roughage portion of
the ration received ground milo heads and cottonseed meal in a propor-
tion of 9 to 1 throughout the 90-day feeding period. Lot 2, which received
a roughage mixture of approximately equal parts of alfalfa and hegari
fodder, were fed ground milo heads and cottonseed meal in a proportion
of 7 to 1 during the first 30 days and 5.7 to 1 during the second and third
30-day periods. Lot 3, which received a roughage mixture of approximately
2.6 parts of ground hegari fodder to 1 part alfalfa hay, was fed a mixture
of 4 parts ground milo heads to 1 part of cottonseed meal during the
first 30 days, after which time the proportion was changed to 5.7 to 1.
Lots 4, 5, and 6, fed ground hegari fodder as the roughage portion of the
ration, each received ground milo heads and cottonseed meal in a pro-
portion of 3 to 1 during the first 3O days, and 4 to 1 during the second
and third periods.

Gains for the respective groups basis final feedlot weights, as shown in
Table 7, ranked in the following order: First, Lot 5, fed hegari fodder
as roughage supplemented with 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell per head
daily; second, Lot 1 (check), fed alfalfa hay as the sole roughage; third,
Lot 4, fed hegari fodder as roughage supplemented with 0.2 ounce pulver-
ized oyster shell per head daily; fourth, Lot 2, fed approximately equal
parts alfalfa hay and hegari fodder; fifth, Lot 3, fed approximately 2.6
parts hegari fodder to 1 part alfalfa hay; and sixth, Lot 6, fed hegari
fodder as roughage without the calcium supplement.

In this test, Lot 5, receiving 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell per head
daily, made a slightly larger and cheaper gain than Lot 4, which received
0.2 ounce of this mineral per head daily. These differences were not sig-
nificant, however, when compared with the gain by Lot 6, which did not
receive the calcium supplement. The differences were highly significant

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS 19

in favor of the addition of 0.2 to 0.4 ounce of pulverized oyster shell per
head daily.

In a comparison between Lots 2 and 3 as indicated in Table 7, gains
favored theifeeding of equal parts of alfalfa hay and hegari fodder by
2.1 pounds per head.

An appraisal of the selling values of the respective lots, based on the
Kansas City market (February 26, 1930) was made by one of the reliable
Fort Worth commission firms. As shown in Table 7, Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5
were appraised at $10.25 per 100 pounds liveweight as compared with
$10.15 and $10.00 for Lots 3 and 6 respectively, which lacked the uniformity
and finish of the other groups.

Table 6. Average daily rations and gains by periods (basis feed consumed) Lubbock,
1929-30. 90 days

Avera e
Lot ' _ 1st 30-day 2d 30-day 3d 30-day for 90- ay
N0. Rations period, period, period, period,
pounds pounds pounds (entiretest)
pounds
l Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.08 1.35 1.80 1.41

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .12 .15 .20 .16

(20 Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.49 1.39 .90 1.26

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .67 .53 .11 .43

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 10.75 9.88 9.72 30.35

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . .36 .33 .32 .34

2 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.02 1.31 1.75 1.36

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 .19 .25 .21

(20 Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .75 .75 .52 .67

hd.) Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 .66 .42 .61

Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .67 .53 .43 .54

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 10.33 7.87 11.68 29.88

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 .26 .39 .33

3 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .96 1.28 1.70 1.31

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 .22 .30 .26

(19 Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 .38 .26 .34

hd.) Ground hcgari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12 1.00 .54 .89

Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 .53 .53 .58

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 10.65 8.92 8.23 27.80

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 .30 .27 .31

4 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 1.20 1.66 1.25

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 .30 .41 .34

(19 Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 1.43 .95 1.29

hd.) Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . . .20 .20 .20 .20

Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 .53 .54 .58

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . .. 10.46 9.66 10.15 30.27

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 .32 .34 .34

,5 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 1.20 1.60 1.23

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 .30 .40 .33

(20 Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 1 .43 .95 1.29

hd.) Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . . .40 .40 .40 .40

Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .67 .53 .51 .58

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 10.45 9.47 11.22 31.14

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 .32 .37 .35

6 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 1.20 1.41 1 . 17

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 .30 .35 .32

(19 Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .50 1.41 .74 1.21

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 .53 .40 .53

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . 9.95 7.89 4.47 22.31

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 .26 . 15 .25

20 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 7. Summary of Lubbock lamb feeding test—l929-30, 90 days

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
Ground Ground
. Ground alfalfa alfalfa Ground Ground Ground
Item alfalfa hay and hay and hegari hegari hegari
hay hegari he ari lodder* fodder* fodder
fodder fo der
Number lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 19 19 2O 19
Av. initial weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . 59.35 59.20 59.46 60.38 59.35 59.58
Av. final weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . . 89.70 89.08 87.26 90.65 90.49 81.89
Av. gain per head, feedlot weights. . 30.35 29.88 27.80 30.27 31.14 22.31
Av. daily gain, feedlot weight . . . . . . .34 .33 .31 .34 .35 .25
Av. daily ration, consumed, pounds:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.41 1.36 1.31 1.25 1.23 1.17

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 .21 .26 .34 .33 .32

_ Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.26 .67 .34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 .89 1.29 1.29 1.21

Salt. oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 .54 .58 .58 .58 .53

Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . .20 .40 . . . . . . . .
Feed consumed per head, pounds:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . .. 126.90 122.48 118.05 112.68 111.00 105.38

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.10 18.52 22.95 30.42 30.00 28.60

Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.26 60.45 30.23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.04 79.72 116.33 116.34 109.30

Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 45 3 06 3.25 3.28 3.21 3.01

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .12 2.25 . . . . . . . .
Feed required per cwt. gain:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418.12 409.91 424.64 372.25 356.45 472.34
Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.46 61.98 82.55 100.50 96.34 128.19
Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373.18 202.31 108.74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.20 286.76 384.31 373.60 489.91
Cost of feed per cwt. gain, feedlot
weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 9.8635 930$ 9.463 868$ 8.383 10.99
Cost of feed per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.08 2.81 2.69 2.65 2.63 2.52
Appraised selling value per 100 lhs.,
(basis Kansas City) . . . . . . . . . .. 10.25 10.25 10. 15 10.25 10.25 10.00

*Fed pulverized oyster shell.

Results 1930-31
(Third Test)

Comparisons in this test were alfalfa hay as the roughage portion of
the ration, Lot 1, and ground hegari fodder supplemented by varying
amounts of pulverized oyster shell in Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. The pulverized
oyster shell supplied to Lot 2 was mixed with equal parts salt and supplied
free-choice. Lot 6 received ground hegari fodder without the calcium
supplement. Average daily rations and gains by periods are shown
in Table 8, while summary data are presented in Tables 9 and 9A.

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS

21

Table 8. Average daily rations and gains by periods (basis feed consumed), Lubbock,
1930-31, 90 days
. Avera e
Lot lst 30-day 2d 30-day 3d 30-day for 90- ay
No. Rations period, period, period, period,
pounds pounds pounds pounds
1 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.29 1.50 1 .72 1 .50

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 . 17 . 19 . 17

(19 Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .20 1 .05 .98 1 .08

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 .67 .56 .67

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . .. 14.61 8.89 10.53 34.03

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 .30 .35 .38

2 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .08 1 .41 1.55 1.35

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 .35 .39 .37

(20 Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .21 1 .20 1.15 1. 19

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 .40 .32 .48

Pulverized oyster shell, oz. ._ . . . . . . . . . .70 .40 .32 .476

Total gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . 12.10 11 .40 10.57 34.07

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 .38 .35 .38

3 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.08 1.41 1 .61 1.37

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 .35 .40 .37

(19 Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.22 1 .19 1.20 1.20

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.17 .67 .56 .80

Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . . .20 .20 .20 .20

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 12.80 10.52 11.04 34.36

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 .35 .37 .38

4 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.08 1 .41 1 .55 1 .35

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 .35 . 39 .37

(20 Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .22 1 . 17 1.14 1 . 18

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 17 .67 .53 .78

Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . . .30 .30 .30 .30

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 12.64 10.55 10. 07 33.26

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 .35 .34 .37

5 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .08 1 .41 1.55 1.35

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 .35 .39 .37

(20 Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.22 1 . 16 1.15 1.18

hd.) Salt. oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 17 .67 .53 .78

Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . . .40 .40 .40 .40

Total gain per head . . . . . . :. . . . 12. 17 11.42 10.14 33.73

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 .38 .34 .37

6 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.08 1.35 1 .48 1 .30

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 .34 .37 .36

(20 Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .21 1.04 1 .01 1.09

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 .53 .40 .58

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .32 8.97 6.26 26.55

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 .30 .21 .30

   

22 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Table 9. Summary of Lubbock test, 1930-31, 90 days
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground
Item alfalfa hegari hegari hegari hegari hegari
hay fodderT fodderT fodderT fodderT fodder
Number lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 20 19 20 20 20
Av. initial weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . 53.21 53.30 53.65 53.71 54.61 53.21
Av. final weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . . 87.24 87.37 88.01 86.97 88.34 79.76
Av. final weight at market, lb_s.. . . . 81.58 79.75 81.05 79.50 83.50 76.00
Av. gain per head, feedlot weights. . 34.03 34.07 34.36 33.26 33.73 26.55
Av. gain per head, market weights. 28.37 26.45 27.40 25.79 28.89 22.79
Av. daily gai_n, feedlot weights, lbs. . .38 .38 .38 .37 .37 .30
Av. daily gain, market weights, lbs. .32 .29 .30 .29 .32 .25
Shrink. per hd. during shipment, lbs. 5.66 7.62 6.96 7.47 4.84 3.76
Shrink. per hd. during shipment, %. 6.49 8.72 7.91 8.59 5.48 4.71
Av. daily ration, consumed, pounds:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.50 1.35 1.37 1.35 .35 1.30
Cottonseed meal. . . . . .17 .37 .37 .37 .37 .36
Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.19 1.20 1.18 1.18 1.09
Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 .476 .80 .78 .78 .58
Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .476 .20 .30 .40 . . . . . . . .
Total feed per lamb, lbs; (consumed) '
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . .. 135.36 121.29 122.94 121.29 121.29 117.05

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.04 33.01 33.42 33.01 33.01 31.95

Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 107.00 108. 35 106.01 105.88 97.86

Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.74 2.675 4.49 4.45 4.45 3.20

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.675 1.12 1.69 2.25 . . . . . . . .
Feed req. per cwt. gain feedlot wts.: -
round milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397.77 356 00 357.80 364.67 359 59 440.87
Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.20 96 89 9 .26 99.25 97 87 120.34
Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . .. 284.84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Ground hegari fodder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.06 315 34 318 73 313 90 386.59
Cost of feed per cwt. gain:
Basis feedlot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6.30 $ 5.80 8 5.79 $ 5.913 5.86 3 6.96
Basis market weights . . . . . . . . . .. 7.55 7.46 7.26 7.62 6.83 8.10
Av. cold carcass wt. (2}§% shrink.) . 39.21 37.83 38.59 37.64 39.83 36.03
Dressing percentage:
Basis feedlot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 93 43.31 43.85 43.28 45.08 45 17
Basis market weights . . . . . . . . . .. 48 06 47.44 47.61 47.34 47.70 47 40
Financial Statement:
Initial cost per head . . . . . . . . . . .. 293$ 2.933 2.953 2.9555 3.003 2.93
Cost of feed per head (feed fed). . 2.18 1.99 2.00 1.98 1 1.88
Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06
Shipping and marketing costs. . . . .70 .70 .70 .70 .70 .70
Total cost per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.87 5.68 5.71 5.69 5.75 5.57
Selling price per lb., cts . . . . . . . . . 7.25 7.25 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50
Price received per head . . . . . . . . . . 5.91 5.78 6.08 5.96 6.26 5.70
Profit* per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .04 .10 .37 .27 .51 . 13

*Profit does not take into account loss of one lamb in each of Lots 1 and 3.

TFed pulverized oyster shell.

Table 9-A. Showing shrinkage in transit and slaughter data on lambs fed at Lubbock,
1930-31

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground
Item alfalfa hegari hegari hegari hegari hegari
hay fodder fodder fodder fodder fodder
Pulverized oyster shell, oz. . . . . . . . . none 0.48 0.20 0.30 0.40 none
Weight at market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.6 79.8 81.1 79.5 83.5 76.0
Shrinkage per head in shipping, lbs. 5.7 7.6 7.0 7.5 4.8 3.8
Av. weight dressed carcass, chilled. . 39.2 37.8 38.6 37.6 39.8 36.0
Dressing %, basis market weights. . 48. 1 47.4 47.6 47.3 47.7 47.4
Av. weight internal fat, lbs . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 ‘ 1.6 1.4
Av. weight pelts, per head, lbs. . . . . 13.6 14.1 14.4 14.2 14.2 12.7
Carcass grades:
11 13 9 11 14 10
8 6 10 8 6 7
. . . 1 . . . 1 . . . 3

 

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS 23

The check group, Lot 1, fed alfalfa hay as the roughage portion of the
ration, received ground milo heads and cottonseed meal in a proportion
of 9 to 1, while Lots 2 to 6 inclusive, fed ground hegari fodder as the
roughage portion of the ration, received ground milo heads and cotton-
seed meal in a proportion of approximately 4 to 1.

Gains made by the respective groups, basis market weights, ranked in
the order listed: First, Lot 5, fed hegari fodder as roughage supple-
mented with 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell per head daily; second,
Lot 1 (check), fed alfalfa hay as roughage; third, Lot 3, fed hegari
fodder as roughage supplemented with 0.2 ounce pulverized oyster shell
per head daily; fourth, Lot 2, fed hegari fodder with mineral supplement
mixed with equal parts of salt and fed free-choice; fifth, Lot 4, fed hegari
fodder as roughage supplemented with 0.3 ounce per head daily; and
sixth, Lot 6, fed hegari fodder as roughage without the pulverized oyster
shell. l

Lot 5, which received 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell per head in the
daily ration, made during the 90-day period an average gain of 28.9 pounds
basis selling weight as compared with 28.4 pounds, or approximately 1.8
per cent more than that made by Lot 1, the check group fed alfalfa hay as
the roughage portion of the ration; and 27 per cent greater than Lot 6,
the group receiving hegari fodder without the calcium supplement. Lots
2 to 5 inclusive, fed ground hegari fodder as the roughage portion of the
ration, with different amounts of pulverized oyster shell, each required
considerably less feed per 100 pounds gain in liveweight than did Lot 6,
which was fed like these four except that pulverized oyster shell was not
included. Lot 6 required 81 pounds more milo heads, 22 pounds more cot-
tonseed meal, and 73 pounds more hegari fodder per 100 pounds gain in
liveweight, feedlot basis, and at a cost of $1.10 more than did Lot 5,
which received 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell per head daily.

As shown in Table 9A, the advantage in finish as indicated by weight
of internal fat andicarcass grades, was slightly in favor of Lot 5, fed 0.4
ounce pulverized oyster shell per head daily. The Lot 5 carcasses weighed

" 0.6 pound heavier than those produced in Lot 1, check group, and 3.8

pounds or 10.5 per cent heavier than those produced in Lot 6, fed hegari
fodder without the calcium supplement.

As indicated by carcass grades and internal fat, all groups should have
sold at the same price per 100 pounds liveweight on the market. As in
the 1928-29 test, the pelts yielded by the hegari fodder groups receiving
pulverized oyster shell, averaged approximately 1.5 pounds or 12 per
cent heavier than those produced by the Lot 6 lambs, which did not re-
ceive the calcium supplement. ‘ ‘

24 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Results 1931-32
(Fourth Test)

Important in the 1931-32 test was the comparison between alfalfa hay,
Lot 1 (check), as the roughage portion of the ration, and sorgo silage
and ground sorgo fodder respectively as roughages, when the latter were
fed with and without pulverized oyster shell.

Lot 2 received sorgo silage without the mineral supplement; Lot 3
received sorgo silage with 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell per head
daily. The roughage portion of the ration of Lot 4 was ground sorgo
fodder, the mineral supplement being available as a lick free-choice
mixed in equal parts with salt. The average daily consumption of
pulverized oyster shell for this group was 0.44 ounce per head daily.
Lot 5 received ground sorgo fodder as the roughage portion of the ration
supplemented with 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell per head daily. Lot 6
received ground sorgo fodder as the roughage portion of the ration with-
out the pulverized oyster shell. The average daily rations and gains by
30-day periods are shown in Table 10. Summary data are shown in
Table 11, while some of the more detailed marketing and slaughter data
are available in Table 11A.

During the first 30-day period, Lots 2 to 6 inclusive, fed ground sorgo
fodder or sorgo silage, were fed ground milo heads and cottonseed meal
in a proportion of 3 to 1. The proportion was changed to 4 parts milo
heads to each pound of cottonseed meal during the final 60 days. Lot 1
(check), fed ground alfalfa hay, received ground milo heads and cotton-
seed meal in a proportion of 9 to 1 throughout the 90-day period.

Gains made by the respective groups, basis market weights, ranked
in the order listed: First, 33.9 pounds, Lot 1 (check), fed alfalfa hay
as the roughage portion of the ration; second, 32.3 pounds, Lot 3, fed
silage as the roughage portion of the ration supplemented with 0.4 ounce
pulverized oyster shell per head daily; third, 31.3 pounds, Lot 4, fed sorgo
fodder, the calcium supplement being supplied free-choice with an equal
part of salt; fourth, 31.1 pounds, Lot 5, fed ground sorgo fodder supple-
mented with 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell per head daily; fifth, 27.8
pounds, Lot 6, fed ground sorgo fodder; and sixth, 22.6 pounds, Lot 2,
fed sorgo silage. Neither of the latter two lots received the mineral
supplement.

Lot 3, fed sorgo silage and 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell per head
daily, gained about 43 per cent more, basis market weights, than Lot 2,
which was similarly fed, except for the mineral. The Lot 1 lambs (check
group), as compared with Lot 3, showed a weight advantage of 1.6 pounds,
or about 4.9 per cent, basis market weights. In a comparison between
Lots 5 and 6, the former fed the mineral supplement, showed, basis market
weights, an advantage of 3.26 pounds or approximately 11.7 per cent
per head.

As indicated by carcass grade and weight of internal fat, Table 11A,
Lots 1, 3, and 5 carried the highest finish and should have commanded

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS

25

Table 10. Average daily rations and gains in pounds by periods (basis feed consumed).
Lubbock, 1931-32, 90 days
Average
Lot _ lst 30-day 2nd 30-day 3d 30-day for 90-day
No. Rations period, period, period, period,
pounds pounds pounds pounds
1 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.05 1.35 1 .64 1 .34

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 .15 . 18 .15

(20 Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.22 1 .40 1 . l0 1.24

hd,) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 .48 .80 .64

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 14.50 11.77 9.60 35.87

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 .39 .32 .40

2 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.02 .28 1.48 1.26

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 .32 .37 .34

(19 Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.59 2. 67 1.77 2.34

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 .80 .80 .80

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 12.94 8.45 4.40 25.79

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 .28 .15 .29

3 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.02 1.28 1 .52 1.28

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 .32 .38 .35

(20 Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.64 2.96 2.92 2.84

hd.) Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . . .40 .40 .40 .40

Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 .48 .96 .80

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . .. 14.10 11.92 10.09 36.11

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 .40 .34 .40

4 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 1.20 1.45 1.18

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 .30 .36 .32

(20 Ground sorgo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.20 1.39 1.09 1.23

hd.) Pulverized oyster shell,* oz . . . . . . . . . . .53 .40 .39 .44

Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 .40 .39 .44

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 12.74 10.52 10.16 33.42

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 .35 .34 .37

5 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 1 .20 1 .45 1 . 18

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 .30 .36 .32

(20 Ground sorgo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.21 1 .40 1.10 1 .23

hd.) Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . . .40 .40 .40 .40

Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .80 1.12 1.28 1.07

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 13.35 9.80 11.02 34.17

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 .33 .37 .38

6 Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 1.20 1.45 1.18

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 .30 .36 .32

(20 Ground sorgo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .20 1 .39 1 .08 1 .23

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 .80 .80 .80

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 14.34 8.85 8.86 32.05

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 .30 .30 .36

*L0t 4 had free access to a mixture of equal parts oyster shell and_salt.

26

BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table l1. Summary of Lubbock test, 1931-32, 90 days
Lot 1 Lot 2** Lot 3 Lot 4* Lot 5 Lot 6
Ground Ground Ground Ground
Item alfalfa Sorgo Sorgo sorgo sorgo sorgo
hay silage silageT fodderT fodderT fodder
Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . 20 19 20 20 20 20
Av. initial weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . 53.88 55.14 53.70 54 .21 54.93 53.94
Av. final weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . . 89.75 80.93 89.81 87.63 89.10 85.99
Av. final Wei ht at Ft. Worth, lbs. . 87.75 77.75 86.00 85.50 86.00 81.75
Av. gain per ead, feedlot weights. . 35.87 25.79 36.11 33.42 34.17 32.05
Av. gain per head, market wts., lbs. 33.87 22.61 32.30 31.29 31.07 27.81
Av. daily gain, feedlot weights, lbs. . .40 .29 .40 .37 .38 .36
Av. daily gain, market weights, lbs. .38 .25 .36 .35 .35 .31
Shrink. per hd. during shipment, lbs. 2.00 3.18 3.81 2.13 3.10 4.24
Shrink. per hd. during shipment, %. 2.23 3.93 4.24 2.43 3.48 4.93
Av. daily ration, consumed, lbs.:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.34 1.26 1.28 1.18 1.18 1.18

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 .34 .35 .32 .32 .32

Roughage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.24 2.34 2.88 1.23 1.23 1.23

Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 .44 .40 . . . . . . . .

Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 .80 .80 .44 1.12 .80
Total feed consumed per head, lbs.:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121.05 113 55 114.75 105.85 105.85 105.85

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.45 30.95 31.25 28.65 28. 65 28.65

Roughage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111.50 210.98 258.85 110.62 111.04 110.36

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.25 2.48 2.25 . . . . . . . .

alt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.99 4.42 4.45 2.48 5.98 4.45
Feed required per cwt. gain, feed-
lot weights:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337.47 440.29 317 78 316.73 309.77 330.27
Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.50 120. 01 86 54 85.73 83.85 89.39
Roughage . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . .. 310 84 818.07 708 53 331.00 324.96 344.34
Cost of feed per cwt. gain:
Basis feedlot weights . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 383$ 3.9835 3.128 3.01 $ 3.028 3.09
Basis market weights . . . . . . . . . . . 4.06 4.53 3.50 3.23 3.32 3.56
Av. cold carcass Wts. (hot less 2% %) 40. 27 36.90 40.12 39.15 40.12 37.54
Dressing per cent, feedlot weights. . 44.87 45.59 44.67 44 68 45.03 43 66
Dressing per cent, market weights. . 45.89 47.46 46.65 45 79 46.65 45 92
Financial Statement:
Initial cost at $4.94 per cwt . . . . .. 35 2.663 2.723 2.653 2.6855 2.71 $ 2.66
Cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . 1.38 1.04 1.14 1.01 1.03 .99
Interest, 3 mos. at 8% . . . . . . . . . . .05 , 05 .05 .05 .05 .05
Shipping and marketing costs. . . . .64 .64 .64 .64 .64 .64
Total cost per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.73 4.45 4.48 4.38 4.43 4.34
Selling price per pound, cts . . . . .. 5.50 5.25 5.75 5.50 5.75 5.50
Price received per head . . . . . . . . . . 4.83 4.08 4.94 4.70 4.94 4.50
Profit per head** . . . . . . . . . .  . . . .10 —.37 .46 .32 .51 . 16

*Lot 4 had free access to mixture of salt and oyster shell.
**Does not take into account loss of one lamb.

TFed pulverized oyster shell.

Table 11-A. Showing shrinkage in transit and slaughter data
~ 1931-32

on lambs fed at Lubbock,

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
Ground Ground Ground Ground
Item alfalfa Sorgo Sorgo sorgo sorgo sorgo
hay silage silage fodder fodder fodder
Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . none none 0.40 0.44 0.40 none
\Veight at market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.8 77.8 86.0 85.5 86.0 81.8
Shrinkage per head in shipping, lbs. 2.0 3. 3.8 2.1 3.1 4.2
Av. weight dressed carcass, chilled. . 40.3 36.9 40.1 39.2 40 .1 37.5
Dressing %, basis market weights. . 45.9 47.5 46.7 45.8 46.7 45.9
Av. weight internal fat, lbs . . . . . . . . 1.6 0.8 1.2 2.0 1.5 1 .0
Av. weight pelt, per head, lbs . . . . . . 15.6 14.4 15.5 15.5 14.7 15.0
Carcass grades:
Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i1 . . . . 
Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8 16 14 15 13
Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10 4 6 3 7
Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 . . . . . . ..

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS 27

the same price on the market. In this test, pelt weights were heaviest in
Lot 1, fed alfalfa hay, and with the exception of those produced by Lot 5,
in the groups fed the mineral supplement. The pelts produced by the Lot
5 lambs averaged 0.3 pound lighter than those produced by the Lot 6 lambs,
which received sorgo fodder as roughage without the mineral supplement.

Results 1932-33
(Fifth Test)

In the 1932-33 test, alfalfa hay as the roughage portion of the ration,
Lot 1, was compared with (1) sorgo silage with and without pulverized
oyster shell in Lots 3 and 2 respectively; (2) a combination of sorgo silage
and sorgo fodder with and without pulverized oyster shell in Lots 4 and 3
respectively; and (3) sorgo fodder with pulverized oyster shell.

The average daily rations and gains by 28-day periods are shown in
Table 12. Summary data are shown in Table 13, While some of the more
detailed market data, including carcass grades, are available in Table 13A.

Lot 1, fed ground alfalfa hay, received ground milo heads and cotton-
seed meal in a proportion of 9 to 1 throughout the 98-day fattening period.
During the first 28-day period, Lots 2 to 6 inclusive were fed milo heads
and cottonseed meal in a proportion of approximately 3 to 1, the propor-
tion being changed to 4 to 1 at the beginning of the second 28-day period
and continuing on that basis. The amount of concentrates fed was grad-
ually increased as the feeding period progressed.

As shown in Table 13, Lots 2 and 3, fed sorgo silage, consumed slightly
more concentrate feed than Lot 6, fed sorgo fodder. Concentrates and
roughages were fed according to appetite in the respective lots. The lots
fed pulverized oyster shell consumed slightly more feed than groups which,
with the exception of this mineral, were similarly fed. Lot 1, fed alfalfa
hay, and Lot 3, fed sorgo silage with pulverized oyster shell, each made
0.37 pound per head average daily gain, which was higher than gains made
by the other lots, basis feedlot weights. Comparing gains, basis market
weights, Lot 1, fed alfalfa hay as the roughage portion of the ration,
showed anadvantage of 2.3 pounds, or 8.4 per cent, over Lot 3, fed silage
with the pulverized oyster shell, and an advantage of 7.5 pounds or 33.6
per cent over Lot 2, fed sorgo silage without the mineral supplement.

Comparing gains between Lots 2 and 3, basis market weights, the latter
group which received 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell per head daily showed
an advantage of 5.2 pounds, or 23.3 per cent. On a similar basis, Lot 5,
fed sorgo silage and sorgo fodder with 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell
per head-daily, showed an increased gain of 5.6 pounds or approximately
28 per cent more than that made by .Lot 4, which was similarly fed, with
the exception of the mineral supplement. The check group, (Lot 1) basis
market weights, when compared with Lot 6, fed sorgo fodder with 0.4
ounce pulverized oyster shell per head daily, showed an advantage in gain
of 4.7 pounds, or approximately 19 per cent.

28 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Table 12. Average daily rations and gains in pounds by periods (basis feed consumed),
Lubbock, 1932-33. 98 days
Average
_ 1st 2nd 3rd 4th - for
Lot Rations 28-day 28-day 28-day 14-day 98-day
No. period, period, period, period, period,
pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds
1 Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.17 1.64 1.94 2.07 1.65

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 . 18 .22 .23 . 18

(20 Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .1.22 1.35 1.12 1.10 1.21

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 .58 .58 .32 .53

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 12.52 11.62 10.30 1.83 36.27
Average daily gain per head. . . .45 v .42 .37 . 13 .37
2 Nlilo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .12 1.58 1.79 1.88 1.55

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 .40 .45 .47 .42

(17 Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.71 2.96 1.99 1.41 2.39

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .99 .58 .58 .61 .70

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 10.93 9.80 6.79 1.07 28.59

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 .35 .24 ~ .08 .29

3 Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.12 1.58 1.80 1.92 1.56

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 .40 .45 .48 .42

(20 Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.75 3.00 2.98 2.62 2.87

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .86 .86 .72 .26 .74

Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . .. .40 .40 .40 .40 .40

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 11.63 10.43 10.90 3.32 36.28

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . .. .42 .37 .39 .24 .37

4 Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.05 1.54 1.80 1.90 1.53

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 .39 .45 .47 .41

(17 Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.09 2.14 1.50 1.06 1.79

hd.) Sorgo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 .45 .32 .30 .41

Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 .29 .16 .14 .35

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . .. 11.22 8.73 5.30 2.21 27.46

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . .. .40 .32 .19 .16 .28

5 Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.05 1.54 1.80 1.90 1.53

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 .38 .45 .47 .41

(20 Sorgo sila e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.12 2.35 1.81 1.26 1.98

hd.) Sorgo fod er . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 .45 .32 .30 .41

Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 .29 .56 .00 .40

Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . .40 .40 .40 .40 .40

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . .. 12.68 9.00 8.88 2.62 33.18

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . .. .45 .32 .32 .19 .34

6 Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .98 1.46 1.80 1.92 1.48-

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 .36 .45 .48 .39

(20 Ground sorgo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.21 1.25 .96 .83 1.10

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .58 .58 .43 .22 .48

Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . .40 .40 .40 .40 .40

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . .. 11.10 8.38 9.60 3.38 32.46
Average daily gain per head . . . .40 .30 .34 .24 .33

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS 29
Table 13. Summary of Lubbock test, 1932-33, 98 days
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
_ Sprgo Sorgo
Ground Sorgo Sorgo silage silage Ground
Item alfalfa silage silage* and and sorgo
hay ground ground fodder*
sorgo sorgo
fodder fodder*
Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . 20 17 2O ‘ 17 20 20
Av. initial weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . 62.76 62.36 62.87 62.93 62.47 62.22
Av. final weight at feedlot, lbs.1. . . . 91.40 83.30 91.47 82.63 87.98 86.08
Av. fleece weight per head . . . . . . . . . 7.63 7.65 7.68 7.76 7.67 8.60
Av. final weight at Ft. Worth, lbs.1. 85.00 77.06 82.75 75.28 80.50 78.75
Av. gain per head, feedlot wts., lbs.2. 36.27 28. 59 36.28 27 .46 33.18 32.46
Av. gain per head, market _wts., lbs.2. 29.87 22. 35 27.56 20.11 25.70 25.13
Av. daily gain, feedlot weights, lbs. .37 .292 .37 .28 .339 .331
Av. daily gain, market Weights, lbs. .305 .228 .281 .205 .262 .256
Shrinkage during shipment, lbs. . .. . 6.40 6.24 8.72 7.35 7.48 7.33
Shrinkage during shipment, per cent 7.00 7.49 9.53 8.90 8.50 8.52
Av. daily ration consumed, bs.:
Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.65 1.55 1.56 1.53 1.53 1.48

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184 .415 .417 .407 .406 .394

Ground alfalfa ha_y . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

fSumac sorghum silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.39 2.87 1.79 1.98 . . . . . . . .

Sumac sorghum fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .407 .407 l. 10

Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 .70 .74 .35 .40 .48

Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 . . . . . . . . .40 .40
Total feed consumed per head, lbs.:
Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 161.91 152 17 153.02 149 58 149.51 145.46

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.99 40 67 40.88 39 84 39.83 38.64

Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sumac sorghum silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234.51 281.22 175.43 193.91 . . . . . . . .

Sumac sorghum fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.88 39.88 107.45

Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.28 4.28 4.48 2.17 2148 2.95

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.45 . . . . . . . . 2 .45 2.45
Feed required per cwt gain, feedlot
Weights:
Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446.40 532.25 421 78 544.72 450.60 448.12

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.60 142.25 112 68 145.08 120.04 119.04

Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328.09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sumac sorghum silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820.25 775 14 638.86 584 42 . . . . . . . .

Sumac sorghum fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145.23 120 19 331.02
Cost of feed per cwt. gain:
Basis feedlot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3.42 3 3.25 $ 2.76 $ 3 44 $ 2.95 $ 2.89
Basis market weights . . . . . . . . . . . 4.15 4. 15 3.62 70 3.81 3.75
Av. cold carcass weights (2%%
shrinkage), lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.73 39.28, 42 88 39.25 41 97 40.90
Dressing percentage (out of wool):
Basis feedlot weights . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.84 47.15 46.88 47.50 47 70 47.51
Basis market weights . . . . . . . . . . . 51.45 50.97 51.82 52.14 52 14 51.94
Financial Statement:
Initial cost per head . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.89 3 2.89 2.89 $ 2.89 $ 2.89 $5 2.89
Cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . 1.23 .93 1.00 .95 .99 .94
Interest on investment, 3 mos.
at 8% . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .. .06‘ .06 .06 .06 .06 .06
Shipping and marketin cost. .. . . .57 .57 .57 .57 .57 .57
Total cost per head, inc . 14 cents
per head shearing costs . . . . . . . . 4.89 4.59 4.66 4.61 4.65 4.60
Selling price per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.85 4.85 4.85 4.85 4.85 4.85
Amount received per head . . . . . . . 4.12 3.74 4.01 3.65 3.90 3.82
Amount rec’d for wool, per head3. 1.73 1 .79 1.80 1.88 1.74 2.04
Total amount received per head.. 5.85 5.53 5.81 5.53 5.64 5.86
Profit per head4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 .94 1 . 15 .92 .99 1 .26

‘Out of wool.

?Basis final feedlot weights, including fleece weight. _
373 cents per clean pound, less freight to and from College Station.
‘Profit shown does not take into account the losses in the various lots.

*Fed pulverized oyster shell.

30 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 13-A. Showing shrinkage in transit and slaughter data on lambs fed at Lubbock,
1932-33 .

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
Sorgo Sorgo
Ground Sorgo Sorgo silage sila s Sorgo

Item alfalfa silage silage and an fodder
hay ground ground
sorgo sorgo

fodder fodder

O
5 -
O
D
(D

Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . none none 0.4 0.40 0.40
Weight at market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85.0 77.1 82.8 75.3 80.5 78.8
Shrinkage per head in shipping, lbs. 6.4 6.2 8.7 7.4 7.5 7.3
Av. weight dressed carcass, chilled .. 43.7 39.3 42.9 39.3 42.0 40.9
Av. dressing %, basis market wts. .. 51.5 51.0 51.8 52.1 52.1 51.9
Carcass grades:
Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7 14 4 11 11
Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10 5 13 7 4
Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 2 5

All six lots, which were sheared before shipping, were sold at $4.85 per
100 lbs. liveweight on the Fort Worth market, May 4, 1933. However, as
indicated by carcass grades, Table 13A, Lots 2 and 4, fed sorgo silage, and
sorgo fodder and silage respectively without the calcium supplement,
graded considerably below the other four lots. Shorn fleece weights in
this test showed no indication of any advantage in fleece growth for the
groups fed the mineral supplement.

Results 1933-34
(Sixth Test)

In the sixth and final test of the series, comparisons in the original
problem were limited to (1) alfalfa hay (Lot 1) as the roughage portion
of the ration vs. sorgo silage with and without pulverized oyster shell in
Lots 3 and 2 respectively; (2) sorgo silage with pulverized oyster shell vs.
sorgo silage without pulverized oyster shell.

A preliminary study of the utilization of cottonseed meal and cotton-
seed hulls in the lamb fattening ration was undertaken (1933-34) at the
urgent request of interested feeders. Comparisons were made between
a straight feed mixture of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls and a
similar mixture to which ground milo heads were added (1) after the
first 30 days. and (2) after sixty days on a cottonseed meal and cottonseed
hull ration. These gains were all checked against that made by Lot 1,
fed ground milo heads and cottonseed meal in a proportion of 9 to 1, and
alfalfa hay as the roughage portion of the ration.

The average daily rations and gains by periods are shown in Table 14.
Summary data are given in Table 15, while additional market data, in-
cluding carcass grades, are shown in Table 15A.

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS

31

Table 14. Average daily ration and gains by periods (basis feed consumed), Lubbock,

1933-31, 93 days
Average
Lot 1st 30-day 2d 30-day 3d 33-day for 93-day
No. Rations period, period, period, period,
pounds pounds pounds pounds
1 Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.125 1.53 1.85 1.51

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 125 . 17 .21 .17

(20 Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.32 1.50 1.27 1.36

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 .53 .61 .56

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . .. 15.40 14.25 13.11 42.76

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .513 .475 .397 .46

2 Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.05 .52 1.60 1.40

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .35 .38 .40 .38

(17 Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.40 2.49 1.67 2.17

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .30 .45 .35 .37

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 12.29 10.47 7.22 29.98

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .410 .349 .219 .322

3 Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.05 1.52 1.74 1.44

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .35 .38 .43 .39

(20 Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.40 ' 2.72 2.53 2.55

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 .48 .56 .53

v Pulverizcd oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . . . .40 .40 .40 .40

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . .. 13.43 13.13 12.50 39.06

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .448 .438 .379 .420

4 Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.12 1.58 1.36*

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .451 .38 .39 .41

(18 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.37 2.40 2.19 2.32

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 .51 .53 .51

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 16.13 6.25 9.03 31 .41

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .538 .208 .274 .338

5 Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.54 1.541’

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .451 .576 .39 .47

(17 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.37 3.02 1.88 2.40

hd.) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .43 .53 .46 .48

Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 14.65 9.73 5.44 29.82

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .488 .324 .165 .321

6 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .451 .555 .605 .54

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.37 2.91 2.92 2.74

£119) Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 .53 .46 .53

' Total gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . 14.42 8.16 2.75 25.33

Average daily gain . . . . . . . . . . . . .481 .272 .083 .272

*Average for 63 days.
TAverage for 33 days.

32 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 15. Summary of Lubbock test, 1933-34, 93 days

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
Cotton- Cotton- Cotton-
Item Alfalfa Sorgo Sorgo seed seed seed
hay silage silagel hulls hulls hulls

Number of lambs per lot . . . . . . . . . . 20 17 20 18 17 19

Av. initial weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . 59.15 60.00 59.39 59.45 59.44 59.42
Av. final weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . . 101.91 89.98 98.45 90.86 89.26 84.75
Av. weight at Ft. Worth, lbs . . . . . . . 94.00 84.12 89.75 80.56 79.71 77.11

Av. gain per head, feedlot wts., lbs. 42.76 29.98 39.06 31.41 29.82 25.33
Av. gain per head, market wts., lbs. 34.85 24.12 30.36 21.11 20.27 17.69

Av. daily gain, feedlot weights. lbs. .46 .322 .42 .338 .321 .272
Av. daily gain, market weights, lbs. .375 .259 .326 .227 .218 .19
Shrink. per hd. during shipment, lbs. 7.91 5.86 8.70 10.30 9.55 7. 64
Shrink. per lid. during shipment, %. 7.76 6.51 8 84 11 34 1O 70 9 01
Av. daily ration consumed, l s.:

Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.51 1.40 1 44 1.36* 1.541’ . . . . . . ..

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 38 39 .41 .47 54

Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sorgo (Red Top) silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.17 2.55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.32 2.40 2.74

Salt, oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .56 .37 .53 .51 .48 .53

Pulverized oyster shell, oz. . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total feed consumed per lamb, lbs:
Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 140.85 129.94 134.38 85.75* 50.96T . . . . . . ..

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.65 35.11 36.24 37.79 43.56 50.14

Alfalfa hay . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sorgo (Red Top) silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201.81 237.15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215.31 223.61 254. 71

Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.23 2.14 3.11 3.00 2.76 3.03

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Feed consumed per cwt. gain, feed-
lot weights:
Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329.40 433.42 344.03 273.00 170.89 . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.60 117.11 92.78 120.31 146.08 197.95

Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 295.84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Sorgo (Red Top) silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673.15 607.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685.48 749.87 1005.57

Cost of feed per cwt. gain: _
Basis feed fed, feedlot weights.... $ 5.50 3 5.63 $ 4.64 $ 5.98 $ 5.82 $ 6.23
Basis feed fed, market weights. . . 6.74 7.00 5.95 8.90 8.57 8.93

Carcass wts., cold (hot less 21/§%

shrinkage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.24 40.09 43.24 36.40 36.08 35.04
Dressed yield, feedlot weights . . . . . . 44.39 44.55 43.92 40.06 41.25 41.72
Dressed yield, market weights . . . . . . 48.13 47. 66 48.18 45.18 46. 19 45.86

Financial Statement:
Initial cost per head at 5 cents

per pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 2.96 $ 3.00 $ 2.97 $ 2.97 $ 2.97 $ 2.97
Cost of feed per head, feed fed... 2.35 1.69 1.81 1.88 1.74 1.58
Interest on investment, 3 mos.

at 8% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06
Shipping and marketing cost per

head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 .63 .63 .63 .63 .63
Total cost per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 5.38 5.47 5.54 5.40 5.24
Selling price per cwt., mkt. wts. . 8.25 8 25 8.25 8.25 8 25 8.25
Amount received per head . . . . . .. 7 76 6 94 7 40 6.65 6 58 6.36
Profit per headI . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.76 1.56 1 93 1.11 1 18 1.12

*Average for 63 days.

TAverage for 33 days.

IDoes not take into account death losses in the various lots.
lFed pulverized oyster shell.

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS 33

Table 15-A. Showing shrinkage in transit and slaughter data on lambs fed at Lubbock,
1933-34

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lbt 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
Cotton- Cotton- Cotton-
Item Alfalfa Sorgo Sorgo seed seed seed
hay silage silage hulls hulls hulls

Pulverized oyster shell, oz . . . . . . . . . none none 0.40 none none none
Weight at mrracl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94.0 84.1 89.8 80.6 79.7 77 1
Shrinkage per ne.d in shipping, lbs. 7.9 5.9 8.7 10.3 9.6 7 4
Av. wt. dressed carcass. chilled. . . .. 45.2 40.1 43.2 36.4 36.8 35 4
Dressing %, basis market weights. . 48.1 47.7 48.2 45.2 46.2 45 9
Av. \\ eight pelt, per head, lbs . . . . .. 17.0 14.7 15.5 13.8 13.8 13 5
Carcass grades:

Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Slri tly good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 17 20 5 9 9

Medium to good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 8 10

During the first 30-day period, Lots 2 and 3, fed sorgo silage, received
ground milo heads and cottonseed meal in a proportion of 3 to 1, this
being changed to a 4 to 1 basis at the beginning of the second 30-day
period, and continued on that basis. As in previous tests, the concentrate
feed Was increased in accordance with appetites as the feeding period
advanced. Lot 3, fed sorgo silage with 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell
per head daily, as in previous tests, made a larger gain than Lot 2, which,
with the exception of calcium supplement was similarly fed. Basis market
weights, Lot 3 showed an increased gain of 6.24 pounds or 26 per cent
more than Lot 2, fed silage without the calcium supplement. Comparing
Lots 1 and 3, basis market weights, the former showed an advantage in
gain of 4.5 pounds per head or 14.8 per cent.

In a comparison of the several methods of feeding cottonseed meal and
hulls, as shown in Table 15, gains per head, basis market weights, for
the respective lots were as follows: Lot 4, 21 pounds; Lot 5, 20.3 pounds;

~ and Lot 6, 17.7 pounds. In Lot 4, ground milo headsawas added to the ration

after the lambs had been on feed 30 days, while in Lot 5, the inclusion
of milo was deferred until 30 days later. The lambs in each of the three
cottonseed hull lots failed to make the expected gains. Lot 1, check
group, fed alfalfa hay as roughage, gained 100 per cent more (market
basis) than Lot 6, fed cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls, and 13.7

e pounds or 65 per cent more than Lot 4, which received 1.4 pounds milo"

heads daily after the first 30 days on feed.

As indicated by carcass weights and grades, in Table 15A, Lots 1, 2,
and 3 finished much better than any of the three lots fed rations in which
cottonseed hulls without the calcium supplement was used as roughage.

34 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 -¢--¢-» -o---- -.¢--.-    a0Innloioco.ncnol‘louvmmn%o><

 ~ ~ - u q n . 0 - - - 1 u . - - - - . . - I - n - - - - - -    - - . u - - - - - a -      £
 -¢-¢a--. 2a.... - ¢- .-»--. u    0I0Olu - - - H      @
 . c I 0 ~ 1 . o - - - - - ~ I . 0 u - . - I . a - - - . - -    ¢ n a o - l . - - a      n
wmbm  wmAMHH 3Y5 mwHHH ...............~w©H.oH.HcmxE2650 om mmlwmaH Q
“mam **HH~.H   3m: Ewsm fiwmfi .............;s3=¢ oHHE @580 om mmlwmaH N.
09mm  wmhHH HQwSN oNbHH ...............~owwoHo:EHvcnokw om mwlwwmH o
mflwmw   . .   . . mm mHH 3w R $52 ...........$2.Q~ “E82 Hvcsofib om Hfiémi m.
  N -4-¢~¢- -|u»--¢|-    |-a-n-uoqunn-oaa-@mmafi®><

  N - - u - - - - - . - - - - ~ - - - -    ¢ - - - 1 -}-. n - -      £
2.3 mma   mwé: mwxm 3.5 . . . . .....HHHH§.E¢ omhow H.565 om $133 m
flwmm wHiN   mwgwi mwww N90:  .......a..wwow owhom HEEZU om mmlHmmH w
3.5 “Hf? H . . . . . 35$ HHmom wwafi . .. 53x; omhom HvcsohU ww mmlwmaH a
 -¢-¢--- .-¢|-¢-- -¢----.    IIUIQlIIIIIIlUIIlIl®mflkQ><

 - ¢ - » - - - -¢ . - -~¢- - .- . . -¢.¢- - .    - . - - - -      n9
 . . - n - - - Q - - . - - - ~ - - H. - - 3 - H - - u    - - . i .>i-»- H u      X
 . - -a- ¢ - - - . ~ - ~ - . - ~ - - u - - - - - - ~    - - - -      N
 .--n-- --.--.. ---.--    --.-¢-¢~».¢-o.-»mwx@-H@><

3.?  £53 mwa: H53;  @5550 .3 HxmlmmmH H
hmém    . Hm m: 2x2 8a: ...............>m: was? 252w mm mmlmmmH H
5.9m   84$ fir»: om HHH ...............>m.H3H3? $52.6 8 mmlHmmH H
maém   wmmmmH “v0.2 n93 ...............>2wrfl? H5236 8 Hm|omaH H
mmdm    .. .. 8 wfi 2 HQH 8 mHH 52H EH3? ©5550 8 31%? H
Nwhmw  wHdHH wwbH wmdHH .....................SmswHHmHH< om mm|wmmH H
wvcsonH mucsofi mwnsonH mwasonH wuqsonH mvcsom mwczom HEUH H33

‘"553 fivnw Quwwow ioguow dwmoz Java co 53V 67H

3m H393 39H. HBMC imwws 01E H63 Qmmw H04
5mm $4 .>H:nH omkom 35050 H5520 éoHHoU vmwnmsom .02

$3255 .3.~-$2 8 mwémfiv 22. 2Z5 .3 meat»;
H.512: M525» 5am 6.: adv 3 .5: Hmdu 59¢ uEVHnE E n53 .35 woiumuau H58 Ho win-QEN owahoia mi??? mum-Gaga -d.~®iQw 6H Baum.

35

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS

.w=o~wvEM_ 0oniu>_sm**
-WPS@@Q3-QO@€UU% wmwwmr"

 

3mm 00d wwam .. . . .. . 5.2: 3.2.” $.02 .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . swam» owkom mm mmlmmmfi m
 ...-. ..  - - ....    ...... ... ..........mv@.®@..~w Q®HQZ   ¢
 . o ¢- 1.... -     - . - - - - -u.---.-ww$»fi_w><

cwsm  ..   N50“. 00.0: 20mm mmdm ..........:;€= “=22 wizzo 00 3A5: m.
£3    000m Mzwmfi Nmhfi 00.00 ............;§~ mbmbw 952w 00 oméwi N
 u-u anon '-¢--.~ . --    .-.-l-v-.-u-'.n-mwmfl-m®><

mwdm . .  ..   00.0w wmdv 3.0mm  ...........w=:0 0wum=o3oU m0 wmlmmmfi m
$0.1m .     .. 050w 055m $3.2m ...............w=:s 0wwwno3oU m0 001003 0
 . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    . .Q@Nhw  .m=5§ fiumwnwwfiowwnvu   @
  n: - -.~ . .-    --.--¢ ..-.umwmw%@><

  .... .... ..... .     .. . ... .........UmNzw O%.~Q@   fi
  .... ... -.-.-.. .     .. ... . . . . .....-.-O%N@@w QWHQ@   ‘Mm

  ... ..-.. ... ...     . . . . . . . ........Q@N@@w Q@Ho@   fi

 u--¢-- -¢-..-¢- ¢-..-.--    -.-¢- . - - - - - - --@1W¢M@><

 w-n-u... ¢--. -~ 1 - - - - - '-    - . - - - . . ..--- -. - .     N

00.0w  ..   .. . .. . . 5.02 v0.00 Eqqmm  . . . . . ........wmw:w owkow 00 mmimmmfl N
 c000 no a-aa-n an n-|--.-    u -oo.--.u-uaa--®mmir@    N
  ~.. - .-.- . .     .............'...U@NHU>< .

8.3. 00d . . . . . . . . ... $.50 20mm 00 n2 ........... #00000 Wham»: 005.50 00 56.2: m
05mm mma . . . . .. . . .. . 0N. “NH fioém 00.02 ... . . . . . . £60000 @330 0050.10 00 S182 m
M53 00A  .    $.50 8.3 5.02 ...........800o~ Eamon 00:00.9 00 5A5: v
Mai .2 A . . . . . . . . . . . . Xfimfi N050 00.00“ . . . . . . . . . $60000 ism»: 00:30 00 $792: m
3.5 $4..   00A: 00.0w. w». 0S ..........$00o0 Came: 0Q=Q~U 00 omimmmfl m
8.8 N:   .. 00d: N000 mm 0:  ...800o0 zwwmé 0n:o.:U 00 omammmfi 0
235cm. 3.55m m0csom w0csom w0csom m0csom m0nsom 03M 003

i053 500w .5008 r5003 £03m 4x05 no use? dZ

$0 .8093 E0 035 imwmfl 00E 03w 2300 god
swam $4 slum o pom F520 0020.10 E0300 omwamnoww dZ

3:68 3:50 Emu d5 gnaw 3

uu==s=eol€zm=§s .3-fi...w~ 8 34320 23.. 00-00 .... @023;

da- 10mm 59G main-i E n55 .50 005-555 003 we

2:05: mush?!“ M533? muuiizm 12052.0

.2 ~35.

36 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Productive Energy of Feeds Used

The productive energy of the feed used was calculated from the feeding
experiments by the same methods that have been used and described in
Bulletin 461 and other previous Texas Station publications. The energy

value of the gain in weight of the standard lot, which received alfalfa,».

was calculated with the ‘use of the productive energy of the feeds used
ascertained from the analysis of the feeds, where available, and the
corresponding production coefficients from Texas Station Bulletin 461.
The energy required by the gain in therms per pound secured from these
calculations was assumed to be the energy required for each pound of the
gains made in the other tests. This is not strictly correct, as when the

gains per day are appreciably lower, the percentage of fat in the gain is

also lower, so that the therms of productive energy required per pound
of gain are lower. At present, however, there is no method for correcting
for this difference. The calculations for productive energy from the
feeding experiments are given in Tables 17 to 22, inclusive.

r:

37

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS

-........-..@@@ X  @U.* fw>>+ m

H owwsmso: f: 0o: :0 >325 oifiswobm
. .m“ PIC v3 gwEoiEsw we >526 ofifiiwfirf:
. . . . . . . .OH 4+ 2 c052 we >325 Pifiswobm
. . . . . . . . 14H UX M c6»: .3 >205 o>fiusw9rn~
. . JMH U+ m wbwvcmfi E 5am Afi _ :2 mciwsrr
1.1.1»: H 2 | fr 5mm we aim». mfifisufitm
. . . . . . . . . . . . 1:2 H mwoo. X >P oacwcfifimwn
 Hwciwfi 13oF

 mfimfi<
.. .. . . . . IIANAKQ 16E wowmcofioU

. . . . 36>; 2:3: ozEl>mhEw Q>$QDUOMAM
. . . . . . . . ............o:o:mvE: ©@N€@>_:m

 

 

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42m
         .....-......~ . . . - ..-.~....m ®wflfi%gom
:2». fim. 8m. 8m. mo»... 8m. mom. 8m. £2. . . . . . .  w82asou
S: S: mm: w“: ma: w“: mm: wm: 8.:  2:: 3:26
fiwfi 6052250 aofiw: >23: .><
3m. wmm. Sm. m3. m3. 5N. mwm. 2N. 2%. . . . . . . . .0 .2: .322,» 3:5: 5am 2:2. .3:
5.5 3% we? $3 5.5 x22“: 5? 24k :33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :3 .2: .222» 0:22;:
82: 3.2: 2.92: 3.8 3Q: S? $2: 25.9w 3:: . . .. . . . . .. . .2: JQEQ: E 22312.: .3:
2m. E 5.0» £22: 5.2 2.2: SQ 3m: 3Q mo. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2: :28: 8 22$» REE .><
.4»
s22: “Q22: $25: $22: $32: 6E2: $22: $.22: w.:@:< .
omsw ovflom 252.: 0:2 @532 has! mfififiuh omicm
m S: w S: h 8: w S: m. S: w S: m. B: m S: : B:

:22. 3|: B; w 59C 2% .5

AWN-mum: Jmo: mfiwwou n53 55m 59C >u.-Q:o ofiwomwoha uo iota-so-unv

.2 03a?

38 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Table 18. Calculation of productive energy from Lubbock lamb feeding test, 1929-30
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
_ _ Hegari Hegari
Alfalfa Hegari Hegari fodder fodder Hegari
fodder fodder with with fodder
lime lime
Av. initial weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . 59.35 59.20 59 .46 60.38 59.35 59.58
Av. final wei ht at feedlot, lbs. . . . . 89.70 89.08 87.26 90. 65 90.49 81.89
Av. weight, l s. W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.53 74.14 73.36 75.52 74.92 70.74
Av. daily gain, feedlot weight, lbs. G .34 .33 .31 .34 .35 .25
Av. daily ration, consumed:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.41 1.36 1.31 1.25 1.23 1.17

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 .21 .26 .34 .33 .32

Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.26 .67 .34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ground hegari fodder F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 .89 1.29 1.29 1.21

Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .027 .034 .036 .036 .036 .033

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .013 .025 . . . . . . . .
Prod. energy——milo head (.772). . . . 1.089 1.050 1.011 .965 .950 .903
Cottonseed meal (.743) . . . . . . . . . . 119 .156 .193 .253 .245 .238

Alfalfa hay (.413) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .520 .277 .140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total therms =T . . . . . . . . . .. 1.728 1.483 1.344 1.218 1.195 1.141

Maintenance W X.0085 =M . . . . . . . .634 .630 .624 .642 .637 .601

Productive value of gain T—-—M =B. 1 . 094 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard 3 218
Productive energy of gain  XG =L . . . . . . . . 1.062 .998 1.094 1.126 .805
Productive energy of ration
M +L =0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.692 1.622 1.736 1.763 1.406
Productive energy of supplement
fed O — = E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .209 .278 .518 .568 .265
Productive energy of 100 lbs.
roughage =E +wt. fed (F) X a
100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.3 31.2 40.2 44.0 21.9
Table l9. Calculation of productive energy from Lubbock test, 1930-31
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground
alfalfa hegari hegari hegari hegari hegari
hay fodder fodder fodder fodder fodder
Av. initial weight at feedlot. lbs. . . . 53.21 53.30 53.65 53.71 54.61 53.21
Av. final wei ht at feedlot, lbs. . . . . 87.24 87.37 88.01 86.97 88.34 79.76
Av. weight, l s. W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.23 70.34 70.83 70.34 71.48 66.49
Av. daily gain, feedlot wts., lbs. G. .38 .38 .38 .37 .37 .30
Av. daily ration, consumed, lbs.:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 1.35 1.37 1.35 1.35 1.30

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 .37 .37 .37 .37 .36

Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ground hegari fodder F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.19 1.20 1.18 1.18 1.09

Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .042 .031 .050 .049 .049 .036

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .031 .013 .019 .025 . . . . . . . .
Productive energy:
Milo heads (.772) . . . . . . . 1 . 158 1.042 1.058 1.042 1.042 1.004
Cottonseed meal (.743) . . . . . . . . 126 .275 .275 .275 .275 .267
Alfalfa (.413) . . . . . . . .446 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total therms =T . . . . . . . . . .. 1.730 1.317 1.333 1.317 1.317 1
Maintenance W X .0085 = M. . . . .597 .598 .602 .598 .608 .065
Productive value of gain T—M =B. 1 . 133 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard
B + = K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _.
Productive energy of gain K XG =L . . . . . . . . 1 . 133 1 . 133 1 . 103 1 . 103 .895
Productive energy of ration
M = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.731 1.735 1.701 1.711 1.460
Productive energy of supplement
e -— = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .414 .402 .384 .394 .189
Productive energy of 100 lbs.
roughage = E + wt. fed (F)
X 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.8 33.5 32.5 33.4 17.3

. - - - - - - - - - - - ¢ - Q - - - - . o -

' EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS 39
Table 20. Calculation 0f productive energy from Lubbock test, 1931-32
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
Alfalfa Sorgo Sorgo Sorgo Sorgo Sorgo
l1 ay silage silage fodder fodder fodder
Av. initial weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . 53.88 55.14 53.70 54.21 54.93 53.94
Av. final weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . . 89.75 80.93 89.81 87.63 89.10 85.99
Av. weight, ljbs. W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.82 68.04 71.76 70.92 72.02 69.97
Av. daily gain, feedlot wt., lbs. G. . .40 .29 .40 .37 .38 .36
Av. daily ration, consumed, lbs.:
Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.34 1.26 1.28 1.18 1 . 18 1.18

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 .34 .35 .32 .32 .32

Roughage F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.24 2.34 2.88 1.23 1.23 1.23

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| . . . . . . . . . . . .025 .028 .025 . . . . . . . .

Salt...._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .04 .05 05 .44 .07 .05
Productive energy:
Milo heads (.764) . . . . . . . 1.024 .963 .978 .902 .902 .902
Cottonseed meal (.759) . . . . . . . .114 .258 .266 .243 .243 .243
Alfalfa (.428) . . . . . . . .531 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total therms =T . . . . . . . . . .. 1.669 1.221 1 244 1.145 1.145 1 . 145
Maintenance W X .0085 = M. . . . .610 .578 .610 .603 .612 .595
Productive value of gain T——M =B. 1 .059 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Therms for 1 lb. gain standard
1 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.648 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Productive energy of gain
K X = L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .768 1.059 .980 1.006 .953
Productive energy of ration
M = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.346 1.669 1.583 1.618 1.548
Productive energy of supplement
fed O — T = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .125 .425 .438 .473 .403
Productive energy of 100 lbs.
roughage = E + wt. fed (F)
X100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.3 14.8 35.6 38.5 32.8
Table 21. Calculation of productive energy from Lubbock test, 1932-33
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 I.ot 5 Lot 6
Sorgo Sorgo
Ground ' silage silage Ground
alfalfa Sorgo Sorgo and and sorgo
hay silage silage ground ground fodder
sorgo sorgo
fodder fodder
Av. initial weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . 62.76 62.36 62.87 62.93 62.47 62.22
Av. final weight at feedlot, lbs. . . . . 99 91 99 90 96 95
Average weight. lbs. .. . .. . . . . . . 80.88 76.68 80.94 76.47 79.24 78.61
Av. daily gain, feedlot wt., lbs. G. . .37 .292 .37 .28 .339 .331
Av. daily ration consumed, lbs.:
Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.65 1.55 1.56 1.53 1.53 1.48

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184 .415 .417 .407 .406 .394

Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sumac sorghum sila e F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.39 2.87 1.79 1.98 . . . . . . . .

Sumac sorghum fod er F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .407 .407 1.10

Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .033 .044 .046 .022 .025 .030

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .025 . . . . . . . . .025 .025
Productive energy:
Milo head chop (.781).. 1.289 1.211 1.218 1.195 1.195 1.156
Cottonseed meal (.800) . . . 147 .332 .334 .326 .325 .315
Sumac sorghum fodder (.254). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 .103 . . . . . . . .
Alfalfa hay (.381). .461 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total therms =T. . . . . . . . . . . 1 .897 1.543 1.552 1 .624 1 . 624 1.471
Maintenance 2a X .0085 = M . . . . .687 .652 .688 .650 .674 .668
' Productive value of gain T—M =B. 1.210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard
B + G = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Productive energy of gain K XG =L . . . . . . . . .955 1 .210 .916 1 . 109 1 .082
Productive ener of ration
M + =5?’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.607 1.898 1.566 1.783 1.750
Productive ener of su lement
fed — g3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .064 .346 —- 058 .160 .279
Producthlrle energlyi o: 100i lgsa?)
rou a e = W . e
><1g00g . . . . . . .. 2.7 12.1 0 3.1 25.4

40 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 22. Calculation of productive energy from Lubbock test, 1933-34

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
Cotton- Cotton- Cotton-
Alfalfa Sorgo Sorgo seed seed seed
hay silage silage hulls hulls hulls
Av. initial weight at feed-lot. lbs. . . . 59.15 60.00 59.39 59.45 59.44 59.42
Av. final weight at feedlot, lbs. . . .. 101.91 89.98 98.45 90.86 89.26 84.75
Av. weight, lbs. W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.53 74.99 78.92 75.16 74.35 72.09
Av. daily gain. feedlot vzt., lbs. G. . .46 .322 .42 .338 .321 .272
Av. daily ration consumed, lbs.:
Milo head chop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.51 1.40 1.44 1.36 1.54 . . . . . . ..

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 .38 .39 .41 .47 .54

Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Sorgo silage wt. F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.17 2.55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Cottonseed hulls F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.32 2.40 2.74

Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .035 .023 .033 .032 .03 .033

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Prodvctive energy:
Milo head chop (.771) . . . . . .. 1.164 1.079 1.110 1.049 1.187 . . . . . . ..
Cottonseed meal (.771) . . . . . .. .131 .293 .301 .316 .362 .416
Alfalfa hay (.43) . . . . . .. .585 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Total T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.880 1.372 1.411 1.365 1.549 .416
Maintenance W X .0085 == M. . .. .685 .637 .671 .639 .632 .613
Productive value of gain T-M =B. 1.195 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Therms for 1 lb. gain in standard
+ G = K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.598 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Productive energy cf gain K XG =L . . . . . . . . .837 1.091 .878 .834 .707
Productive energy of ration
M L = O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.474 1.762 1.517 1.466 1.320
Productive energy cf supplement
fedO—T =E... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .102 .351 .152 0 .904
Productive energy of 100 lbs.
roughage = F. + vxt. fed (F)
X 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4.7 13.8 6.6 0 33.0

The values for the productive energy and digestible protein calculated
from Tables 1A and 1B are summarized in Tables 23 and 24 respectively and
are compared with values calculated from the chemical analyses and the
production coefficients in Texas Station Bulletin 461. These values are
for the feeds fed in a balanced ration, and for this reason should be com-
pared with the results obtained when pulverized oyster shell was included
in the ration, since most of the rations in which sorghum fodder was in-
cluded as the sole roughage are clearly unbalanced with respect to calcium.

The productive values found for sorgo fodder, as given in Table 25,
are close to those calculated. Those found for the hegari fodder are some-
what lower than that calculated from the composition. It is possible that
the hegari fodder did not contain as much grain as was present in previous
samples. The value found for milo fodder (1928-29) is higher than the
calculated value. Two of the values for sorgo silage are lower and an-
other higher than the calculated values.

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS 41

Table 23. Productive energy and digestible protein, calculated from analyses in Table 1

Productive Digestible
Name Year energy protein
Therms per Per cent
100 lbs.
Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1928-29 70.73 34.68

Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1928-29 76.41 7.86

Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1928-29 40.97 11 .86

Ground milo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1928-29 51.16 2.78

Ground feterita fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1928-29 47.93 2.79

Ground kafir fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1928-‘2 44 .31 3.94

Ground hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1928-29 48.71 2.32

Ground cane (Red Top) fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1928-29 36.09 1.78

Pulverized limestcne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1928-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 21. Productive energy and digestible protein calculated from analyses in Table 2

Productive Digestible

Name Year energy protein
Therm-s per Per cent
100 lbs.
Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1931-32 75.91 36.70

Cottonseed meal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1932-33 80.00 36.66

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1933-34 77.15 37.15

Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1931-32 76.41 7.48

Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1932-33 78.09 8.15

Ground milo heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1933-34 77.11 8.05

Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1931-32 42.84 12.11

Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1932-33 38 11 9.95

Ground alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1933-34 43.01 12.58

Ground sorgo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1931-32 39.55 1.73

Ground sorgo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1932-33 34.73 1.70

Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1931-32 16.53 .40

Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1932-33 9.71 .28

Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1933-34 15.49 .40

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1933-34 20.90 .47

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1931-32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pulverized oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1933-34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ground hegari fodder (Spur) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1928-33 46.81 2.48

The productive energy of feeds, as calculated from these feeding tests,
was greater when pulverized oyster shell or pulverized limestone was
included in the ration, than when it was absent. The difference was ‘not
great for sorgo fodder in 1928-29 or 1931-32, but the differences were large
with milo fodder, hegari fodder, and sorgo silage. With hegari fodder
(1929-30) the productive energy was 21.9 therms per 100 pounds without
the pulverized oyster shell, as compared with 40.2 and 44.0 with this
mineral. For hegari fodder in 1930-31, it was 17.3 without and 34.8,
33.5, 32.5, and 33.4 with pulverized oyster shell. With sorgo silage, it was
5.3 and 2.7 without and 14.8 and 12.1 with pulverized oyster shell included in
the ration. The productive energy secured with the addition of the pul-
verized oyster shell was closer to the calculated productive energy than the
productive energy without this mineral.

This means that the rations in question are unbalanced with respect to
calcium, and under such conditions, the ration is not efficient, so that the
feed tested has apparently a productive energy much lower than normal
because the ration is not well utilized by fattening lambs. When the
ration is balanced by the addition of pulverized oyster shell or pulverized
limestone, the ration is used more efficiently and the productive energy is

42

BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 25. Productive energy of roughages, in therms per 100 pounds, and eflect of oyster
shell (calcium carbonate) on productive energy
Productive energy Calcu- Oyster
lated shell
Name of roughage \Vithout \Vith from fed per
oyster oyster analyses day, oz
shell shell
1928-29 Sorgo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 35.1 36.0 . . . . . . . . . .

Milo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.8 47.3 41.0 . . . . . . . . ..

Feterita fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.9 . . . . . . . . . . 47.9 . . . . . . . . . .

Kafir fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.4 . . . . . . . . . . 44.3 . . . . . . . . . .

Hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.6 . . . . . . . . . . 48.7 . . . . . . . . . .

1929-30 Hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.9 40.2 48.7 .2

Hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.0 . . . . . . . . . . .4

Hegari fodder (with alfalfa) . . . . . . . 31.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hegari fodder (with alfalfa) . . . . . .. 34.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

1930-31 Hegari fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.3 3 .8 . . . . . . . . .. .5

. . . . . . . . .. 33.5  .2

. . . . . . . . .. 32.5  .3

. . . . . . . . .. 33.4  .4

1931-32 Sorg) fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. 35.6 . . . . . . . . .. .44

Sorgo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38. 5 . . . . . . . . . . .4

Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5. 14.8 16.5 .4

1932-33 Sorgo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.4 . . . . . . . . .. .4

Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.7 12.1 9.7 .4

Sorgo silage and sorgo fodder . . . . . . 0 8.1 . . . . . . . . . . .4

1933-34 Sorgo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.7 13.8 15.5 .4

Cottonseed hulls (with meal and

milo heads) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cottonseed hulls (With meal and

milo fo der) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cottonseed hulls (With cottonseed

meal - one) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

normal.

Alfalfa contains enough calcium to balance the rations in which
it was used in these experiments.

It is possible that the lambs used in

these tests did not have sufficient calcium stored in their bodies to over-
come the adverse effect of a ration unbalanced in calcium, and that lambs
which had received liberal quantities of calcium before they were put on
experiment might not require as much calcium as did those lambs used in
this work. However, the fact remains that the productive energy of a
ration low in calcium may be greatly increased by the addition of cal-
cium in the form of pulverized oyster shell or pulverized limestone.

The total amounts of calcium and phosphorus based on analyses of feeds
utilized in these tests are shown in Table 26. It is noted that the calcium-
phosphorus ratio in the standard lots ranged from 1:0.45 to 1:0.92, as
compared with a ratio of 1:1.21 to 1:2.01 in instances where the calcium
supplement was not included in the sorghum roughage.

43

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS

.¢ 4 - - . - -...   O  %   -.¢»- .---. -¢-¢--Q@©@O.%  iw
fi-o    N   a ||n---o- - --.¢-o%®U@o-%  m.
mo owNo womo M5? ~ we...“ Sin  . . . . . . ........§%Qo E32 w
N.o owNo ~35 Noon ~ 8Q Sb   ...HHH..HH$3.¢~ 53E m
Rio . wwNo oNmo 31o“ fl 8Q 8.2 . .. . . . . . .  .12.?“ imwvi N
 woNo Nwwo omoufi oné hmiw . . . . . . .    15m: wbfiz, fi ~m|omo~
- - - . - .-¢ -¢   N   IvinIlllnnllilblubllnhwwto“  w
3o fiwa wfil. 2.? w S; 3w   ..........;sE.Q::~.m@m m
    %   . . . - -¢..--.----»--M@w.©o%  é
.... . . . . . ..      .........-.....~...-.. ...AH.~GQ 
. $2.2 cam»? Gian 9s 5w: “:22 m
.  moNo mmmo mhoufl No? mfio . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  Iflwfiwc
1283 pwwwov. Eamon wnw was what/w N
.. ...      . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . .........%NS  M 
wNo Ems ommo $5“ fi mob i; .. .. .  . .......s€£ Q35 o
n.-.- c      . - - - -¢- a - onauIo-nhwvqoa?  w
mNo . Ema hiio m9? ~ 5w 2S .  .......a..2:¢ 2S2 b
.. . . . . . . .. ohNo ~mN4o fiNAufi oné wok.  . . .. .........~ow©oo 0E2 o
. .. .. hnNo v2.0 hmiHufi mné Nogm   .. .......8wwo.~ imwom m
 wwNo aoflo ohéu~ fioé owN   ..........$cwo-owv~ v
.. . . . . .. .. NwNo HoNo ow.~.~ ooé wmim .  ..  I.IIID~@U“VO% wfihroh m
.-. n: a.      ~uv .-- . . . . . - . -n-¢--v%@wfio¢€  N
..   ohNo oEo wmon~ moé mflo  . . . . .  .........>m: mbfliw w oNlwNofl
Amvucsov AwEEwv Amciflmo
r5. b5. >=~w
v3: Sm c033 E EwBBP/z EEQBQE
=2? EH98 ccfiwk E c032 Biosnwonn an: oofl 5Q $2 oofi pom woo ommsmsou o0 on“! dZ 23>
wwnivlsn wzhosawosa E E323 3 E329. wofisvdou ovEswcoo uoq
.5 mEoGwE: E3 .6.» goo 3m ofiwfi wSAO£QmOQQ E339.
fla2$>€m 130B 130k

Buoimzo vmofi .3 $8.622. was e33 o:

mam: uQQ wok Ewfiozaum ifiw-JE Ezofiu cm? "E55 E
a dzwmw3o>z mwinon o2 .5.» 3E1 wuiumnoo mEF-w E mEuOJQmOGQ via E323 2:30am

6N .0118

44 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 . . . . . . .. mend wjd aw; U ~ E4“ wogm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I215 wvomcofioU o
 . . . .  fimmd mNTo mnénfi wad mwrm  . . . . . . . . . . . ....w::E cwwwcofioU m
.. I  mfimd wwfio Nhqufi nab woh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121E uwvwcofioU w
fi-o    .7   .-'- . . ~ . . .-.--.-»'}-i.®m$ir@  m
. ........ .. a2. $2.6 :2; am? w? HHHmHHufifiih...m.wm=m02a N
..  $2. nmmto 3N6“ w 3e 2 a was @522 H wmlmmmfl
   %   . . - - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....HU€€Q%  @

   a   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  OmhOmv

. . . v - . - - - - - ‘ - - - . V » . . . . - .   m

-..-...   %   -. . - - - - ¢ . . . . ~ - - . - . - . .  

- . - - . v - - . v . t . - . ~ - - . . . .   w

v.0 R50 mmmd owd“ w mm? oo.w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..@mm:m owEm m

00in -...   %   -..- . - . . . . . . . . - ~ - -.--.-.@m$?r@  N

. . - ~ - . . - .   U fi   w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . .>N£  § 

----- .    §   . . . . . . . - . . . - . . ..- . . - - . .   @

    o“ H   . - - . . . . . . - . ¢ . - . . - . . . .   f1

      . . . . . .....................~U_UUO.w OMhOm Q

fl-o   ?   . » - - . - - . . - . . . n.¢-'--¢.-»@m@§r@  m

-- n . - - . - ..   Y   --. . - - - - - . - ¢ 1-000 . - - - -   N

- . . . . . . . . . ..      .~........................~%N£  é 
Awoocsov AmEEmv AmEmEmv
r5 25v 2:2.
was: Sm EQSE E gzmwo>>o>m~ 39:2,:
=3? E393 cofifi E c032 waonnwosa .wn_ o2 3Q .2: o2 Eva E2 uwmnmsn; we EEK dz E3?
339,15 wsponanona E E223 3 E328 wwEswsou woEzwcco EA
.5 QESmwE: E3 5m Ewe Em BEE wshonnwosm E339.
wvuivism 13cm. REF

wwacflcoO|uaws 6.. v3 Eoifiansm 335E EacEs om-a 253E E r
3:050? onus“ we oufinwohon via 23.. on. J:mmo.$o>m_ mwczca E: :5 32% woEnmcou mEfluM E mF-osamosm 1:: E3913 wfiiezm 6N 03am.

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS 45

DISCUSSION

Tests to determine the influence of pulverized limestone or pulverized
oyster shell, leach of high calcium content, on gains and finish of fatten-
ing lambs on several different kinds of sorghum roughage in the form of
chopped fodder or silage were conducted at Substation No. 7, Spur, dur-
ing the 1928-29 feeding season and at Lubbock in cooperation with the
Division of Agriculture, Texas Technological College, during the 1929-30
to 1933-34 feeding seasons. The average total gains per lamb for the
‘various groups, basis feedlot weights, classified as to the kind of sorghum
roughage fed either with or Without the calcium supplement during the
several tests, are shown in Table 16. Each of the respective feeding
periods lasted approximately 90 days.

A good feeder lamb, fed a properly balanced ration, should gain from
28 to 30 pounds during a 90-day period. Table 16 shows that the lambs fed
rations properly balanced, with respect to digestible protein, energy, and
mineral matter, made satisfactory gains. On the other hand, those groups
fed either sorghum fodder or sorghum silage without the calcium carbonate
supplement failed in a number of instances to make the normal or ex-
pected gain.

The summary data_covering feedlot performance for the respective
tests by years are shown in detail in Tables 5 and 5A, 7, 9 and 9A, 11 and
11A, 13 and 13A and 15 and 15A.

These results, covering gains and finish on the respective rations fed,
clearly indicate the superiority of alfalfa as the roughage portion of the
fattening ration over sorghum fodder or sorghum silage fed without the
pulverized limestone or, pulverized oyster shell supplement. They show

 further the distinct advantage of using a supplement high in calcium

‘r when a sorghum roughage rather than a legume, such as alfalfa hay, is

 fed. The gains and finish made by the lambs fed the mineral supplement

i compared favorably with those receiving alfalfa hay as the roughage
portion of the ration.

f] Pelt weights generally averaged heavier in the alfalfa hay and the sor-

 ghum groups receiving the mineral supplement than those produced by

 . the sorghum non-mineral groups; however, there were some inconsistencies
in this respect.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors make grateful acknowledgment to Doctor G. S. Fraps,
Chief, Division of Chemistry, for analyses of feed samples and the cal-
§ culation of the productive values of roughages fed; to R. E. Dickson,
Superintendent of Substation No. 7, who supervised the first tests in
1928-29, and to Paul G. Homeyer, for a statistical analysis of certain data.

46 BULLETIN NO. 563, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

SUMMARY

1. The influence of pulverized limestone or pulverized oyster shell, each
of high calcium content, on the gains made by lambs fed sorghum roughage
in fattening rations was studied during the period 1928-29 to 1933-34
inclusive. Sorghum silage was not fed in connection with this study until
1931-32. However, lambs fed sorghum silage supplemented with pulver-
ized oyster shell in that and two subsequent tests made feedlot gains
comparable to those made by lambs fed alfalfa and showed a desirable
finish at the end of the feeding period.

2. Lambs in the check groups fed alfalfa hay as roughage in fattening

rations made significantly greater and more consistent gains than those
receiving sorghum fodder without a calcium supplement. Furthermore,
the alfalfa-fed lambs showed a lower death loss while on feed and a lower
shrinkage in shipment to market than lots that received sorghum fodder.
No death losses resulted in the lots fed sorghum silage supplemented with
0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell per head daily.

3. In each of the six tests of this series, fattening lambs fed sorghum
fodder or sorghum silage as the roughage portion of the ration and sup-
plemented with pulverized limestone or pulverized oyster shell, consumed
larger amounts of roughage, made considerably larger gains, finished
better, and yielded heavier carcasses than those that did not receive the
calcium supplement. These differences in gains were barely significant in
the first test (1928-29) at Spur; however, with the exception of Lot 6
(1931-32) at Lubbock, the differences were highly significant each year.

4. These tests have rather definitely indicated that sorghum silage made
from properly matured feed crops, and when supplemented with approx-
imately 0.4 ounce pulverized oyster shell, is more desirable in the lamb
fattening ration than sorghum fodder. Sorghum fodder, which often be-
comes moldy or spoiled in curing, is believed to be particularly fatal to
lambs.

5. Since definite calcium and phosphorus requirements in rations for
fattening lambs were not known, the levels of these minerals in the
check group fed alfalfa hay were used as an empirical standard. In these
tests, pulverized limestone or pulverized oyster shell was fed in varying
quantities ranging in amounts from 0.2 to 0.47 ounce per head daily. The
calcium level for sorghum-fed groups receiving 0.4 ounce of pulverized
oyster shell per head daily very closely approximated that of the check
groups fed alfalfa hay. Likewise carcasses of lambs that had been fed
0.4 ounce of this supplement per head daily graded practically as high as
those produced in the alfalfa-fed groups.

6. The average calcium content in the sorghum fodders used in these
studies ranged from 0.21 to 0.34 per cent and in the sorghum silage from
0.07 to 0.11 per cent before supplements were added as compared with
1.01 to 1.18 per cent in the alfalfa hay fed.

7. The productive energy of the feeds used in these tests was calculated
from the experiments by the same methods used in previous tests at the
Texas Station. The productive energy secured with the addition of pul-

EFFECT OF CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT ON LAMBS 47

verized limestone or pulverized oyster shell in these tests was closer to the
calculated productive energy than the productive energy without the cal-
cium supplement (Texas Station Bulletin 461). This means that lamb
fattening rations in which sorghum is used as the sole roughage are un-
balanced with respect to calcium and are therefore inefficient.

8. In this series of tests, the total daily intake per 100 pounds live-
Weight for the check or alfalfa-fed groups ranged from 8.30 to 9.37 grams
of calcium and 4.50 to 4.95 grams of phosphorus. In the groups fed
sorghum fodder or sorghum silage as the roughage portion of the ration
Without the pulverized limestone or pulverized oyster shell supplement,
the average daily intake per 100 pounds liveweight ranged from 2.36 to
3.94 grams calcium and 4.39 to 5.52 grams phosphorus. When pulverized
limestone or pulverized oyster shell was added to the ration in which
sorghum fodder or sorghum silage had been included as the roughage,
the average daily intake per 100 pounds liveweight ranged from 5.51
to 10.03 grams calcium and 4.27 and 5.46 grams phosphorus.

9. The average daily consumption of sorghum fodder per lamb during
the fattening period ranged between 1.1 and 1.7 pounds as compared with
2.2 and 2.9 pounds of sorghum silage. The inclusion of the calcium supple-
ment increased the daily consumption of fodder by approximately .1 pound
while the silage consumption was increased approximately 0.5 pound.

LITERATURE CITED

Bul. 459.

Crops and Markets, December 1936, pp. 415 and 418. Vol. 13, No. 12.

Jones, J. M. and Brewer, R. R. 1922. Grain Sorghums vs. Corn for Fattening Lambs.
Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 285.

Reed, H. E. 1927. Lamb Feeding Investigations (Mimeographed summaries, unnum-
bered). Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station.

PFN!“

Karper, R. _E., et a1. 1932. Grain Sorghum Varieties in Texas. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta.