LIBRARY, A 8: M COLLEGE, CAMPUS. A82-1238-6M-L1 80 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNEIR, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 569 JANUARY 1939. DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY Comparative Values of Various Protein Feeds for Growing Chicks AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President é 7'7: r K; .2 ' ¢¢ J4; 9 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] vvv .....,_,-.ww..wm_m., . . This bulletin is a report 0f five experiments conducted for the purpose of comparing five protein feeds to determine their rela- tive supplemental values in chick rations. In each of nine rations employed, three of the five protein feeds-sardine meal, dried skimmed milk, meat and bone scraps, soybean oil meal, and cotton- seed meal-—were used in combination. Thus the supplemental values of the various feeds were readily measured. Since all rations contained wheat gray shorts and satisfactory amounts of calcium and phosphorus, little or no trouble from slipped tendons or perosis was encountered. The relative value of the various protein feeds was judged by the average gains in live weight of the chicks, the grams of feed required to produce a gram of gain in live weight, and the per- centage of chicks that died during the experimental period. In practically all cases, rations containing sardine meal pro- duced larger gains in live weight and required a smaller amount of feed per gram of gain than other rations not containing this feed, regardless of whether dried skimmed milk was a constituent of the ration or not. However, a slightly larger percentage of the chicks died in groups receiving sardine meal, with the exception of the group fed sardine meal, dried skimmed milk, and soybean oil meal. This mortality was not excessive except when sardine meal was fed in combination with meat and bone scraps and soybean oil meal. It was found that soybean oil meal and cottonseed meal could be used interchangeably in chick rations without alfecting the results appreciably. Moreover, it was learned that dried skimmed 'milk and meat and bone scraps could be used interchangeably in chick rations in combination with soybean oil meal and cottonseed meal. Though the mortality in groups fed these combinations was very low, the gains in live weight were slightly lower and the amount of feed required to produce a gram of gain was slightly higher than that of groups fed rations containing other combinations reported in this bulletin. From the data reported here it is seen that chick rations should contain either dried skimmed milk, sardine meal, or meat and bone scraps. Dried skimmed milk may be used in combination with sardine meal or meat and bone scraps, but sardine meal and meat and bone scraps should not be used in the same ration because of the high mortality associated with this combination when soybean oil meal is used also. However the same high mortality is not asso- ciated with the meat and bone scraps-sardine meal combination when these two feeds are fed with cottonseed meal. Further work should be done on this point. As a result of these experiments, any of the rations reported in this bulletin, with the exception of ration 7, which contained sardine meal, meat and bone scraps, and soybean oil meal, are recommended to give satisfactory results. Cost per hundred pounds, results expected, and availability of ingredients should determine which one to use. CONTENTS PAGE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Method of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Sardine Meal as a Supplement to Other Protein Feeds . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Soybean Oil Meal as a Supplement to Other Protein Feeds . . . . . . .. 17 Cottonseed Meal as a Supplement to Other Protein Feeds . . . . . . .. 22 Dried Skimmed Milk as a Supplement to Other Protein Feeds. . . . 23 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 BULLETIN NO. 569 JANUARY 1939 COMPARATIVE VALUES OF VARIOUS PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS R. M. Sherwood, Chief. and J. R. Couch, Poultry Husbandryman, Division of Poultry Husbandry Commercial feed manufacturers and poultrymen are anxious to learn how to make their various rations more efficient. In some experimental work protein feeds have been compared, using only one in each ration. In the experiments published in this bulletin, three protein feeds were used in each ration so. that the comparison of one protein feed with another was made by means of feeding it with two others. The protein feeds compared were sardine meal, soybean oil meal, cottonseed meal, dried skimmed milk, and meat and bone scraps.‘ Protein feeds contain various growth factors; some of the best known are the essential amino acids of the proteins, certain vitamins, and miner- als. If the growth factors of one protein feed are adequately supplied by the other protein feeds furnished in the ration, the supplemental value of this feed will be less than if fed alone. REVIEW OF LITERATURE It has been shown by various workers (5, 16, 24, 27, 28) that rations for growing chicks should contain 18 to 2O per cent protein for most rapid growth and efficient utilization of the feed during the first 8 to 12 weeks of age. - Roberts and Carrick (25), in a study of the amounts of protein sup- plements in rations for broilers, reported that the rate of growth increased as the level of protein was increased up to 20 per cent. Their ration which gave best results contained 1O per cent meat scraps, 1O per cent soybean oil meal, and 5 per cent dried milk. ' Roberts and Carrick (24) reported that there was apparently little difference in the relative feeding value of dried buttermilk and dried skimmed milk. Dried milk was slightly superior to dried whey when an equal amount of each was fed; but when each supplied an equal amount of protein, they produced practically the same rate of growth. Dried milk, meat and bone scraps, meat meal, fish meals, cottonseed meal, and soybean oil meal are the most commonly used protein supple- ments in chick rations. Many different combinations of these feeds have been used in tests with chicks and varying results have been reported. Prange, Carrick, and Hauge (19, 20) obtained optimum growth with meat and bone scraps and unsatisfactory growth with a commercial meat meal. They concluded that meat and bone scraps from various manufacturers did not give the same rate of growth and that nitrogen x 6.25 is not an index of protein value. Johnson and Brazie (11) fed a 14 per cent level of protein and reported that Alaska herring meal was ‘I COMPARATIVE VALUES OF PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 00. N 000 0N0 v0~ : 000: 00v when 00m :N 000 0N~0N v00 . . . . . . . :35 000: 00:3? 030000000: N0.: 00.0 0N0 0: : v0 0: v0 0 0:.00 00.0: 00 0 00 0N 00N . . . 1:005 000: 00:3? 0300:5000: 000 ::.0 0N.0 00.0 00m: NOMN: 0N.00 00.N Ea v00 00N . ......m......0000 30:9» 00050 00.0 ::.0 0N0 ::.0 00 : 00 N:.. 00.00 . 00 0 . :0 0 :0N .. . . . 0000 30:00 0005.0 v0.0 0:0 N00 v0.00 . . . vNN .............::00w003w.»005mx500 00.0 0N0 :0.0: 00.NN v0.:0 00.0 :v.0 000 00.0 00.0N 000 . .......:m05 0000 500cm 0:0 :N.0 00.0: 0:.0N 0:m:0 5F N0 0 0N : vNmN ::.vN 00N ..........~.m.:m05 0000 5:00.“: 0:0 N00 00.0 0:.0 00 0 :: :: :0.00 N00 00 0 :0.0: 0N0 . . . ..3000m 550 00003 0:.0 00.0 00.0 ::.0 N00 00.N: :0.00 00.0 0:0 00.v:. 00N .........3000w>503m00>/ ::.0 00.0 000 ::.0 N00 0N.0: 00.v0 00.0 0:0 00.v: NON ................3000w>m0w0000>P 00.0 00.0 000 00.0 00.0 00.0: 00.00 0v.0 00.: v0.00 :00 . . . . . :35 :0 000005 535m 00:0 0v.0 vN.0 :v.0 :N.0 00.0 0N.0: 00.0N 00.0 00.0 v0.00 00N . .. . :35 :00 0000.05 535m 00:0 0:.0 0N.0 00.0 :N.0 00.0 00.v N:.00 00.0 00.0 00.N0 00N 11100500 0000.000 535m 00:0 0:.0 0N.0 Nv.0 0N.0 0N.0 0v.0 vN.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00N 11.0005 :0 0000000 535m 0 :0. 0:.0 00.0 00. : NN.0 00.0 0v.v 00.0N 00.0: 00.v :v.00 0vN ... . . . . .0005 00050300 535m .000 0:.0 00.0 0:.: v:.0 :N.0 0N.v v0.0N ::.0: 00.0 00.00 00N ........:m05 00050300 535m @000 00.0 0N0 v0.0 :00 0: .00 0v.0 0: .0 00.N N00 00.00 0vN 1.555 0000 :50 0005 535m $00 000 0:0 00. 0 0v.0: 0000 00.0 00.0 00.N 0N0 00. :0 0NN .. .0055 0000 00m 0005 535m 0000 0:0 0:0 0v.N N00 00.0: N0.v 00.0 :v.0 0v.0 N0.v0 :vN ...........:005 05:55 535m $5 00.0 00.0 00.N 00.0 00.0: 00.0 00.0 0v.0 0v.N v00v 00N . . . . . . . . :35 05:55 535m .50 v0.0 0:0 00.N v0.0 00.N: 0v.0 00.0 00.: v0.N 00.Nv 00N ........:005 0500mm 535m 00$ 00.0 00.0 00.0 :0.: :v.v 0:.v 00.00 N00 00.0 v:.00 00N . . . . 10:5 0055.00? 050D. 0w< 55000 @5000 000.506 500 500500 0:00 -032 000m 55500 030. 035$ 00.0 0:00.00 00m 535m 000m $0.0m A000: 0000307: rntrkiiliiaf... “EIFLLF... Firs: . 1 Sr vhf... 0000...: .:0 022000500 amnion-om‘: 0:00P Fuilirirlinrrir 8 BULLETIN NO. 569, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION METHOD OF PROCEDURE The chicks used in these experiments were New Hampshires of like breeding that were fed in battery brooders. All groups were kept under as nearly uniform conditions as possible. Experiments 24 and 25 were conducted during the late fall and early winter. Experiments 41 and 42 were conducted during the late spring and early summer. and experiment 49 during the following fall. Experiments 24, 41, and 49 were run in duplicate with 25-26 chicks in each group. Experiments 25 and 42 were not run in duplicate and had 40 and 28 chicks, respectively. The experi- mental period for experiments 24, 25, and 49 was ten weeks and for experiments 41 and 42 was eight weeks. All groups were rotated in the cages every two weeks, so that no group occupied the same position in the building for longer than this period of time. The chicks were weighed individually at the beginning and at the close of the experiments and at intervals of two weeks during the experiments. They were weighed early in the forenoon after the feed had been withheld since 6 o’clock the pre- ceding afternoon. The feed was weighed to the chicks daily. Lights were supplied and the chicks were fed as much as they would consume in a 14-hour feeding period each day. Tap water was before them at all times. Samples of all feeds used in these experiments were analyzed by the Division of Chemistry. These analyses are given in Table 1. It may be noted from this table that there is a wide variability in the chemical composition of different lots of the same feed. To‘ illustrate this, sardine meal lot No. 271 contained only 67.02 per cent protein while lot No. 243 contained 72.56 per cent. Wheat gray shorts lot No. 242 contained only 17.44 per cent protein while lot No. 324 contained 19.51 per cent protein. Such differences in the chemical composition of the same feeds may account for some of the variations between the results of workers using similar formulas. The percentage of the different feeds used in the rations and the chemical composition computed from Table 1 are given in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5. i It is noted from these tables that these experiments were studies of the supplemental action of one protein feed when used with two other protein feeds rather than a comparison of one protein feed with another when used alone. Six pounds of three different protein feeds were used in each ration. It is noted from these tables that the ‘difference in the amount of calcium and phosphorus in the various rations of each experi- ment was very small; no effort was made to balance the organic nutrients. Average gain in live weight in grams of cockerels and pullets, grams of feed required to produce a gram of gain in live weight, and percentage of chicks that died during the experimental period Were used as criteria in arriving at the values of the different feeds in the various rations. Statistical constants were figured on the average gains in live weight and consulted while the bulletin was being written, but in order to simplify it these were not included in the bulletin. Since there were no outbreaks » A. .,_<...._ 4...“. COMPARATIVE VALUES OF PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 9 of disease and all comparable lots were fed in the same season, percentages (from 0 to 7.5) of chicks that died were considered as normal and not caused by the feed; and those above 7.5 per cent were considered as ex- cessive and caused by the ration fed. Table 2. Percentage of Ingredients and Calculated Chemical Analysis of Rations Fed in Experiment 24 Percentage Ingredients of Rations Feeds Feed* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dried skimmed milk . . . . . . . 239* 6 6 6 6 6 . . . . . . . . 67% Protein sardine meal. .. 243 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 . . . . . . . . 6 50% Protein meat and bone i scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 43% Protein cottonseed meal 236 6 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 41% Protein soybean oil meal 244 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 6 6 6 Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . 242 3O 3O 3O 30 3O 30 Poultry bone meal . . . . . . . .. 235 . . . . . . .. 2.7 1.5 1.8 .3 1.7 Chick size oyster shell . . . . .. 227 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.5 Ground yellow corn . . . . . . . . 241 46.37 43 .67 44.77 44.67 46.27 44.67 Dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal 200 3 3 3 3 3 3 g Sal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ Cod liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .13 .13 ‘ .13 .13 .13 . 13 Calculated chemical analysis of rations Nutrient 2 3 4 5 6 Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.25 18.25 19.78 19.72 18.19 20.32 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.51 3.92 4.09 3.70 4.13 4.05 Crude fiber . . . . . . . . .. 4.32 4.47 4.19 3.94 4.07 4.52 Nitrogen-free extract. . 54.91 55.18 54 .08 54.69 55 .52 53 .21 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.31 10.34 10.27 10.37 10 41 10.37 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.07 5.22 4.87 5.05 5.26 4.90 Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.43 1.42 .38 1.38 1.43 1 33 Phosphorus . . . . . . . . .. 0.86 0.87 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.85 Magnesium . . . . . . . . . . 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.20 0 20 0 22 Insoluble ash . . . . . . .. 0.14 0.12 0 13 0.13 0 15 0 13 *For analysis of these feeds, see Table 1. Table 3. Percentage of Ingredients and Calculated Chemical Analysis of Rations Fed in Experiment 25 Percentage Ingredients of Rations Feeds Feed* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dried skimmed milk . . . . . . . . 239T 6 6 6 6 6 . . . . . . . . 67% Protein sardine meal... 245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 . . . . . . . . 6 50% Protein meat and bone scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 43% Protein cottonseed meal 236 6 6 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 41% Protein soybean oil meal 246 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 6 6 6 Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . 242 30 30 30 30 3O 3O Poultry bone meal . . . . . . . .. 235 . . . . . . .. 2.7 1.5 1.8 .3 1.7 Chick size oyster shell . . . . .. 227 1.5 1.5 1.6 1 .4 1.3 1 .5 Ground yellow corn . . . . . . . . 241 46.37 43.67 44.77 44.67 46.27 44.67 Dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal. 200 3 3 3 3 3 3 Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cod liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 10 BULLETIN NO. 569, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 3. Percentage of Ingredients and Calculated Chemical Analysis of Rations Fed in Experiment 25—Continued Calculated chemical analysis of rations Nutrient 1 2 3 4 5 6 Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.25 18.17 19.65 19.52 18.11 20.11 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.51 4.19 4.08 3.97 4.40 4.32 Crude fiber . . . . . . . . .. 4.32 4.51 4.17 3.96 4.11 4.54 Nitrogen-free extract. 54.91 55.05 54.15 54 63 55.39 53.16 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.31 10.27 10.28 10 31 10.34 10.31 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.07 5.18 4.94 5.08 5.22 4.93 Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.43 .42 1.41 .40 1.43 .35 Phosphorus . . . . . . . . .. 0.86 0.86 0.84 0 84 0.86 0.85 Magnesium . . . . . . . . . . 0.22 0.22 0.21 0 19 0.20 0.22 Insoluble ash . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.12 0.13 0 13 0.14 0 13- *lt may be noted that the percentage of ingredients in this experiment is the same as that of Experiment 24 but different lots of sardine meal and soybean Oll meal were used in these experiments. TFor analysis of these feeds, see Table 1. Table 4. Percentage of Ingredients and Calculated Chemical Analysis of Rations Fed in Experiments 41 and 42 Percentage Ingredients of Rations Feeds Feed* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dried skimmed milk . . . . . . . . 239T 6 6 6 6 6 . . . . . . . . 67% Protein sardine meal. . . 271 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 . . . . . . . . 6 50% Protein meat and bone scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 43% Protein cottonseed meal 236 6 6 - 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 41 % Protein soybean oil meal 260 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 6 6 6 Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . 269 30 3O 30 30 30 30 Poultry bone meal . . . . . . . .. 235 . . . . . . .. 2.7 1.5 1.8 .3 1 .7 Chick size oyster shell . . . . . . 227 1.5 1 .5 1.6 1.4 1.3 1 .5 Ground yellow corn . . . . . . . . 258 46.37 43.67 44.77 44.67 46.27 44.67 Dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal 200 3 3 3 3 3 3 Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V . . . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cod ‘liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 Calculated chemical analysis of rations Nutrient 1 2 3 4 5 6 Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.51 18.48 19.70 19.62 18.43 20.40 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.08 4.80 4.82 4.76 5.02 5.11 Crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . 4.22 4.38 4.07 3.83 3.97 4.41 Nitrogen-free extract. 53 . 75 53 .61 52 . 89 53.10 53 .95 51 . 62 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.85 10.98 10.88 11.07 11.04 11.07 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.96 5.12 4.90 5.10 5.16 4.94 Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.39 1 .39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1 34 Phosphorus . . . . . . . . .. 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0 87 Magnesium . . . . . . . . . . 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.21 0 24 Insoluble ash . . . . . . .. 0 17 0.18 . 0.14 0.18 0.20 0 18 *It may be noted that the percentage of ingredients in this experiment is the same as that of Experiments 24 and 25 but different lots of sardine meal, soybean oil meal, wheat gray shorts, and ground yellow corn were used in these experiments. TFor analysis of these feeds, see Table 1. COMPARATIVE VALUES OF PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 11 Table 5. Percentage of Ingredients and Calculated Chemical Analysis of Rations Fed in Experiment 49 Percentage Ingredients of Rations Feeds Feed* ~ 2 i 4 6 7 8 9 Dried skimmed milk . . . . . . . 2391' 6 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41% Protein soybean oil meal 331 6 6 6 6 6 . . . . . . . . 43% Protein cottonseed meal 270 6 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 6 6 67% Protein sardine meal. . . 271 . . . . . . . . 6 6 . . . . . . . . 6 50% Protein meat and bone scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 6 Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . 324 3O 3O 30 30 3O 30 Dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal 307 3 3 3 3 3 3 Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cod liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 Poultry bone meal . . . . . . . . . 308 3.37 2 .70 2 .44 0 .38 1 . 13 . . . . . . . . Chick size oyster shell . . . . . . 227 1 .76 1 .50 1 .76 1 .53 1 .73 1 .75 , Ground yellow corn . . . . . . . . 258 42 .74 43.67 43 . 67 45 . 96 45 .01 46 . 12 Calculated chemical analysis of rations Nutrient 2 4 6 7 8 9 Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.04 20 35 20.79 20.90 19.61 20.73 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I 4.30 25 4.60 4.80 4.86 5.16 Crude fiber . . . . . . . . .. 4.20 3 65 4.23 3.80 4.35 4.06 Nitrogen-free extract. . 53.38 52 .79 51 .35 51.45 52 .03 51.18 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.59 10.67 10.69 10.78 10. 70 10.60 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.73 5.80 5.59 5.74 5.72 5.53 Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.65 1 64 1.62 1.63 1.63 1.62 . Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . 0.92 0 93 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.94 Magnesium . . . . . . . . . . 0.23 0 20 0.24 0.21 0.24 0.23 Insoluble ash . . . . . . .. 0.18 0 18 0.18 0.21 0.20 0.21 *It may be noted that rations 2, 4, and 6 have the same percentage composition as those of Experiments 24, 25, 41, and 42, except that different lots of sardine meal, soybean oil meal, wheat gray shorts, and ground yellow corn were used. Rations 7, 8, and 9 have a difierent percentage composition from that of any previous ration. TFor analysis of these feeds, see Table 1. EXPERIMENTAL. RESULTS Sardine Meal as a Supplement to Other Protein Feeds The sardine meal used in this series of experiments was a vacuum-dried meal. As pointed out in the “Review of Literature,” fish meals manu- factured by this process have a higher biological value and contain more vitamin A and vitamin G than meals cooked and dried at higher tem- peratures. Sardine meal was a more desirable supplement to soybean oil meal and dried milk, cottonseed meal and dried milk, or soybean oil meal and cot- tonseed meal in chick rations than was meat and bone scraps. Sardine meal produced larger gains in live weight in both cockerels and pullets, with the exception of the pullets in experiment 24, and required a smaller amount of feed per gram of gain than did meat and bone scraps when these feeds were supplementing soybean oil meal and dried skimmed milk (Table 6). A smaller percentage of the chicks died in the groups receiving 12 BULLETIN NO. 569, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table No. 6. Sardine Meal as Compared with Meat and Bone Scraps when Fed with Soybean Oil Meal and Dried Skimmed Milk _ Ration 5 Advantages Ration 4 Meat and bone 0 Sardine meal scraps Sardine meal Average gain in live weigh t in grams COCKERELS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1186.2 1142.0 44.2 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1176.3 1036.9 139.4 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1181 .7 1090.8 90.9 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624.9 600.4 24.5 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657 .9 587 .5 70 .4 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 635.1 596.3 38.8 PULLETS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983 .3 1007 .0 —-23'.7 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993.1 954.7 38.4 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 987 .3 986.8 0.5 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579.6 521.8 57.8 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629.2 476.0 153.2 Mean of Experiments 41 and 32. . . 599.7 502.5 97.2 Grams of feed r equircd to produc e 1 gram 0f gain Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.23 3 .32 .09 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.41 3.50 .09 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 3 .31 3 .39 .08 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.18 3.44 .26 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.95 3 .49 .54 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 3.10 3 .44 34 Percentage of ch icks that died dur ing the experiment Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 4.0 4.0 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 5.3 2.8 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1.1 4.5 3.4 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.9 4.2 2.3 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42 . . . 1.3 2.7 1 .4 sardine meal than in the groups receiving meat and bone scraps in the above comparison, with the exception of experiment 42, where there was no difference. When sardine meal and meat and bone scraps were used to supplement cottonseed meal and dried milk or soybean oil meal and cottonseed meal, sardine meal produced larger gains in live weight in both cockerels and pullets and required less feed per gram of gain than COMPARATIVE VALUES OF PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 13 Table No. 7. Sardine Meal as Compared with Meat and Bone Scraps when Fed with Cottonseed Meal and Dried Skimmed Milk _ Ration 1 Advantages Ration 3 Meat and bone of Sardine meal scraps Sardine meal Average gain in live weigh t in grams COCKERELS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207 .6 1102.8 104 8 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1178.4 1075.4 103 0 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25 . . . 1196 .3 1090.5 105 8 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650.1 543.7 106 4 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695.8 595.9 99 9 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42 . . . 666 .6 562.7 103 9 PULLETS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990.1 888 .8 101 .3 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966.5 900.2 66.3 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 978 .5 893.6 84.9 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587.7 444.5 143.2 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591.1 434.7 156.4 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42 . . . 589 .0 441 148.0 _ Ii Grams of feed r equired to produc e 1 gram of gain Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .23 3.30 .07 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.40 3 .87 .47 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 3 .30 3.55 .25 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 13 3 .48 .35 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .02 3 .48 46 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42 . . . 3 09 3 .48 39 Percentage of ch icks that died dur ing the experiment Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g2 0 .0 ——2 .2 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2.3 —3.0 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 3.6 1.1 —-2 .5 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 0.0 —4.l Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 2.6 0.0 ——2.6 Table No. 8. Sardine Meal as Compared with Meat and Bone Scraps when Fed with Soybean Oil Meal and Cottonseed Meal _ Ration 8 Advantages Experiment 49 Ration 6 Meat and bone of Sardine meal scraps Sardine meal COCKERELS _ _ _ _ Average gain in live weight in grams 1158 .6 1002 .4 156 .2 PULLETS _ _ _ _ _ Average gain in live weight in grams 874.9 778 .1 96. 8 Grams 0f feed required t0 produce 1 gram of gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.43 3.56 .13 Percentage of chicks that died during the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.0 -—2.1 did meat and bone scraps (Tables 7 and 8). However, a slightly larger percentage of the chicks died in the groups receiving sardine meal than in those receiving meat and bone scraps, with the exception of experiment 42, where there was no difference. The mortality, though not excessive, was consistently higher in all groups receiving sardine meal, with the ex- 14 BULLETIN NO. 569, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table No. 9. Sardine Meal as Compared with Soybean Oil Meal when Fed with Cotton- seed Meal and Dried Skimmed Milk Ration 3 Sardine meal Ration 2 Soybean oil meal Advantages of Sardine meal COCKERELS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experiments 24 and 25 . . . Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean 0f Experiments 41 and 42. . PULLETS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experiments 24 and 25 . . . Experiment 41 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experiments 41 and 42 . . . . . . - . - . . . . - - . . . - Experiment 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experiments 24 and 25 . . . Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experiments 41 _and 42. . . Experiment . . . . . .. Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experinlients 24 and 25. . . Experiment 4 . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . Average 1207 . 6 w 0 m w wwwwww Q @___ a " Qwqmmw mmwwp Percentage of ch MQrRO-JUIN) GOHONJOM gain in live weigh U1 O0 U\ IP$>FQOOB\IOIO5\I Table No. 10. and Bone Scraps and Cottonseed Meal Sardine Meal as Compared with Soybean Oil Meal when Fed with Meat Experiment 49 Ration 9 Sardine meal Ration 8 Soybean oil meal Advantages o Sardine meal COCKERELS _ _ Average gain in live weight in grams 1018 .2 1002 .4 15 .8 PULLETS _ _ _ Average gain in live weight in grams 876 .4 778.1 98.3 Grams of feed required to produce 1 gram of gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.36 3.56 .20 Percentage of chicks that died during the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0 .0 ——2. 1 ception of experiment 42 (Table 7) in which this feed was supplementing cottonseed meal and dried skimmed milk or soybean oil meal and cotton- seed meal (Tables 7 and 8). Sardine meal proved to be a better supplement t0 cottonseed meal and dried skimmed milk or meat and bone scraps and cottonseed meal than did soybean oil meal. Sardine meal produced much larger gains in live _..i _ mi._._i.._n_..._,..1.'i_.... ~ COMPARATllfE VALUES OF PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 15 Table No. l1. Sardine Meal as Compared with Cottonseed Meal when Fed with Dried Skimmed Milk and Soybean Oil Meal l Advantages Ration 4 Ration 2 0 Sardine meal Cottonseed meal Sardine meal F E i" Avera e gain in live weigh t in grams l COCKERELS g Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1186.2 1040.9 145.3 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 176.3 1050. 8 125 . 5 Mean 0f_Exper1ments 24 and 25 . . . 1181.7 1044.7 137 .0 if Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624.9 585 .4‘ 39 .5 F’ Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657.9 571 .4 86.5 Mean of_Exper1ments 41 and 42 . . . 635. 1 580.4 54 .7 ' Experiment 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1145.1 1001 .0 144 . 1 PULLETS Experiment 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983.3 879.4 103.9 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993.1 877.8 115.3 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25 . . . 987-3 878.6 108.7 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579.6 478. 1 101.5 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629.2 409.7 219.5 Mean 0f_ Experiments 41 and 42 . . . 599.7 454.2 145 .5 Experiment 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 841 .0 780.7 60.3 Grams of feed r equired to produc e 1 gram of gain Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .23 3 .44 .21 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .41 3 .49" .08 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25 . . . 3 .31 3.46 .15 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.18 3.25 .07 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.95 3.37 .42 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 3. 10 3 .29 .19 Experiment 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.41 3.64 .23 Percentage of ch icks that died dur ing experiment Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . 0.0 0.0 0.0 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.3 -—0.2 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1.1 1 .1 0.0 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .9 0.0 —l.9 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 1 .3 0.0 —1.3 Experiment 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 2 .0 2 .0 Table No. 12. Sardine Meal as Compared with Cottonseed Meal when Fed with Soybean . Oil Meal and Meat and Bone Scraps _ Advantages Experiment 49 Ration 7 Ration 8 of Sardine meal Cottonseed meal Sardine meal COCKERELS Average gain in live weight in grams 1057.7 1002 .4 55 .3 PULLETS _ Average gain in live weight in grams 873 . 4 778 .1 95 .3 Grams of feed required to produce 1 gram 0f gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.39 3.56 .17 Percentage of chicks that died during _ the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7 0.0 ——16.7 16 BULLETIN NO. 569, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION weight in both cockerels and pullets, with the exception of the cockerels in experiment 49 (Table 10), and required from 0.09 to 0.35 grams less feed to produce a gram of gain than did soybean oil meal (Tables 9 and 10). However, a larger percentage of the chicks died in the groups receiving sardine meal than in those receiving soybean oil meal, with the exception‘ of experiment 42 (Table 9). This is unexplainable from the data available. Sardine meal was superior to cottonseed meal when these feeds were used to supplement dried skimmed milk and soybean oil meal or soybean oil meal and meat'and bone scraps. Sardine meal produced significantly larger gains in live weight in both cockerels and pullets than did cotton- seed meal. The advantages of sardine meal varied from 39.5 to 145.3 grams in the cockerels and from 60.3 to 219.5 grams in the pullets. Sardine meal required from 0.07 to 0.42 grams less feed to produce a gram of gain than did cottonseed meal when these feeds were used to supplement dried milk and soybean oil meal or soybean oil meal and meat and bone scraps (Tables 11 and 12). The percentage of the chicks that died in the groups of this comparison varied from 0.0 per cent to 2.5 per cent in the sardine meal and cottonseed meal groups when these feeds were used to supplement dried skimmed milk and soybean oil meal (Table 11). This mortality probably could not be attributed to either of these feeds. However, when these feeds were used to supplement soybean oil meal and meat and bone scraps, there was a mortality of 16.7 per cent in the sardine meal groups as compared with 0.0 per cent in the cottonseed meal groups (Table 12). The high mortality of the sardine meal group in this case occurred when this feed was used in a ration with meat and bone scraps. The gains in live weight and grams of feed per gram of gain were satisfactory in this group, but the percentage of chicks that died was too high to recommend the use of six per cent sardine meal and six per cent meat and bone scraps in the same chick ration when soybean oil meal is the other protein feed used to make up the ration. When sardine meal and dried skimmed milk were used as supplements to cottonseed meal and soybean oil meal, the results were somewhat conflicting. Sardine meal produced larger gains in live weight in both cockerels and pullets, with the exception of the cockerels in experiment 41 (Table 13), and required less feed to produce a gram of gain in experi- ments 24, 25, and 49. On the other hand, the groups receiving dried skimmed milk required less feed to produce a gram of gain in experi- ments 41 and 42, and a smaller percentage of the chicks died in the groups receiving dried skimmed milk than in those receiving sardine meal, with the exception of experiment 25, in which these feeds were used to supple- ment cottonseed meal and soybean oil meal. The percentage of chicks that died varied from 0.0 to 7.1 per cent in the sardine meal groups and from 0.0 to 2.3 per cent in the dried skimmed milk groups (Table 13). .. -......___lum COMPARATIVE VALUES OF PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 17 Table N0. 13. Sardine Meal as Compared with Dried Skimmed Milk when Fed with Cottonseed Meal and Soybean Oil Meal Ration 2 Advantages Ration 6 Dried skimmed of Sardine meal milk Sardine meal Average gain in live weigh t in grams COCKERELS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1183.4 1040.9 142.5 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1144.8 1050.8 94.0 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1161.2 1044.7 116.5 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585.0 585.4 ——0.4 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620.9 571.4 49.5 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 597.0 580.4 16.6 Experiment 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1158.6 1001.0 157.6 PULLETS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951.8 879 4 72.4 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 963.5 877 8 85.7 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 955.5 878 6 76.9 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 523.7 478 1 45.6 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 549.3 409 7 139.6 Mean 0f Experiments 41 and 42. . . 533.7 454 2 79.5 Experiment 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874.9 780.7 94.2 Grams of feed r equired to produc e 1 gram 0f gain Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.26 3.44 .18 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.44 3.49 .05 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 3.34 3.46 .12 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.55 3.25 —.30 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .49 3.37 ——. 12 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . %51 3.29 —.22 Experiment 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.43 3.64 .21 Percentage of ch icks that died dur ing experiment Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.0 ——2.1 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 .3 2.3 Mean 0f Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1.2 1.1 —0. 1 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 0.0 ——4.3 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 0.0 ——7.1 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 5.3 0.0 —5.3 Experiment 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.0 -—0. 1 Soybean Oil Meal As a Supplement to Other Protein Feeds It Was the plan of these experiments to test soybean oil meal against other protein feeds in chick rations. In all cases, as in the experiments already reported, two other protein feeds were used. It may be noted from Tables 14, 15, and 16 in the comparison of soybean oil meal with cottonseed meal that the data are not consistent. The results seem to indicate that the supplementary action of these feeds is controlled somewhat by the protein feeds which they are supplementing. For» example soybean oil meal produced larger gains in live weight in the pullets with very little difference in the cockerels, required less feed per unit of gain in experiment 25, and gave a higher mortality than did cottonseed meal, with the exception of experiment 42 (Table 14), in which these feeds were used to supplement dried skimmed milk and meat and bone scraps (Table 14). There was very little difference in the results produced by soybean oil meal and cottonseed meal when these feeds were supplementing dried skimmed milk and sardine meal, except that a smaller 18 BULLETIN NO. 569, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table No. 14. Soybean Oil Meal as Compared with Cottonseed Meal when Fed with Dried Skimmed Milk and Meat and Bone Scraps ' _ _ Advantages Ration 5 Ration 1 0 Soybean 011 meal Cottonseed meal Soybean oil meal Average gain in live weigh t in grams COCKERELS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1142 .0 1102 .8 39.2 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 .9 1075 .4 ——38 .5 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1090.8 1090.5 0.3 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600.4 543 .7 56.7 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 587.5 595.9 — 8.4 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42 . . . 596.3 562.7 33.6 PULLETS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007.0 888.8 118.2 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954.7 900.2 54.5 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 986.8 893.6 93.2 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . .. 521.8 444.5 77.3 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476.0 434.7 41 3 Mean 0f Experiments 41 and 42. . . 502.5 441 .0 61 5 Grams of feed r equired to produc e 1 gram of gain Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.32 3.30 —.02 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.50 3.87 .37 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25 . . . 3 .39 3.55 l6 Experiment 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.44 3.48 04 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.49 3.48 — 01 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 3.44 3 .48 04 Percentage of ch icks that died dur ing experiment Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .0 0 . -4 .0 Exper ment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 2.3 —3.0 Mean 0f Experiments 24 and 25. . . 4.5 1.1 —3 .4 Experiment 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 0.0 —4.2 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42 . . . 2.7 0.0 -—2.7 percentage of the chicks died in the groups receiving soybean oil meal, with the exception of experiment 42, where there was no difference (Table 15). When these two feeds were used to supplement sardine meal and meat and bone scraps, 16.7 per cent of the chicks died in the groups receiving soybean oil meal and only 2.1 per cent of those in the cotton- seed meal groups died (Table 16). The mortality in the first case is excessive. Again it probably is not desirable to use meat and bone scraps and sardine meal in the amounts used in these tests in the same ration for chicks; but if these two feeds are used in the same ration, cottonseed meal. is a much more desirable supplement to them than is soybean oil meal. Soybean oil meal did not produce as rapid gains in live weight as did dried skimmed milk when these feeds were used as supplements to sardine meal and cottonseed meal (Table 17). There was very little difference in the grams of feed required to produce a gram of gain in experiments 24 and 25, but in experiments 41 and 42 the groups receiving dried skimmed milk required almost one half of a gram less feed to produce a gram of gain than did the soybean oil meal groups. The results on the percent- age of chicks that died in these two groups are conflicting. In experi- ments 24 and 25, there was a higher mortality in the dried skimmed milk COMPARATIVE VALUES OF PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 19 Table No. 1 5. Dried Skimmed Milk and Sardine Meal Soybean Oil Meal as Compared with Cottonseed Meal when Fed with Ration 4 Soybean oil meal Ration 3 Cottonseed meal Advantages of Soybean oil meal COCKERELS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . PULLETS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean 0f_ Experiments 24 and 25. . . Experiment 4 . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean 0f Experiments 41 and 42. . . Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experiments 24 and 25 . . . Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . Average n-l {O b-l O0 O0 CDNICAJCAJQOCAJ \l r-A ‘c; flhifiwl-‘OO i-WDQDQUJN! Percentage of ch 0.0 2.5 r-lQn-n-A UJOtOI-l gain in live weigh )—l U! i-l O0 <8 \l G9 OlifiUlUli-‘l @OO>-‘0J>PO3 icks that 'ed dur D- w lOOrhwUflO GJOv-AGOJM t in grams -21. —- 2 -14 -25 _s7 -31 . O0 Lil-L-bohbo mesa» I101 -.01 ing experiment n-IOMNJMN OJONLNOON Table No. 16. Soybean Oil Meal as Compared with Cottonseed Meal when Fed with eat and Bone Scraps and Sardine Meal Experiment 49 Ration 7 Soybean oil meal Ration 9 Cottonseed meal Advanftages o Soybean oil meal COCKERELS - Average gain in live weight in grams 1057.7 1018 .2 39.5 PULLETS Average gain in live weight in grams 873 .4 876 .4 —3 .0 Grams of feed required to produce 1 i gram of gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.39 3.36 —.03 Percentage of chicks that died during the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7 2.1 ——14.6 groups, while in experiments 41 and 42 there was a higher mortality in the soybean oil meal groups (Table 17). impossible to explain this inconsistency. When soybean oil meal and meat and bone scraps were fed as supple- ments to dried skimmed milk and cottonseed meal, the meat and bone scraps produced larger gains in live Weight in both cockerels and pullets, LlBRARY Agricultural & MB College Slaliun, TERES- From the data available it is chanical Ballegfl “l 19"‘ 20 BULLETIN NO. 569, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table No. 17. Soybean Oil Meal as Compared with Dried Skimmed Milk when Fed with Sardine Meal and Cottonseed Meal Ration 3 Advantages Ration 6 Dried skimmed 0 Soybean o1l meal milk Soybean oil meal Average gain in live weigh t in grams COCKERELS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1183.4 1207 6 —24.2 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1144.8 1178 4 —33.6 Mean 0f Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1166.2 1196 3 —30. 1’ Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585.0 650 1 -—65.1 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 620.9 695 8 ——74.9 Mean 0f Experiments 41 and 42. . . 597.0 666 6 ~—69.6 ' k1 PULLETS I? I» Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951.8 990.1 ——~38.3 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 963.5 966.5 — 3.0 Mean 0f Experiments 24 and 25. . . 955.5 978.5 -—23.0 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523.7 587.7 —64.0 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549.3 591.1 —41.8 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 533.7 589.0 ~55.3 Grams of feed r equired t0 produe e 1 gram of gain Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.25 3.23 —.02 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.44 3.40 ——.04 Mean 0f Experiments 24 and 25. . . 3 .34 3 .30 —.04 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.55 3.13 ——.42 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.49 3.02 —~.47 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 3.51 3.09 ——.42 Percentage of ch icks that died dur ing experiment Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.2 0.1 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 5.3 5.3 Mean 0f Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1.2 3.6 2 .4 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 4.1 —-0.2 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.1 0.0 ——7 1 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 5 .3 2.6 ——2.7 with the exception of experiment 41, than did soybean oil meal. The soy- bean oil meal groups required a smaller amount of feed to produce a. gram of gain than did the groups receiving meat and bone scraps, with the exception of experiment 24. The mortality in these groups was low and the difference probably could not be attributed to either of the two feeds under comparison (Table 18). When soybean oil meal and meat and bone scraps were fed with sardine meal and cottonseed meal, the soybean oil meal produced much larger gains in live weight in the cockerels than did meat and bone scraps (Table 19). The average gains in live- weight of these two groups were 1158.6 and 1018.2 grams, respectively. In comparing the group fed soybean oil meal and that fed meat and bone scraps, there was practically no difference in the gains in live weight of the pullets and in the grams of feed required to produce a gram of gain (Table 23). There was no difference in the percentage of chicks that died between the groups receiving soybean oil meal and those receiv- ing meat and bone scraps when these feeds were supplementing sardine meal and cottonseed meal. From the data given above, it may be noted that soybean oil meal is satisfactory as compared with cottonseed meal and meat and bone scraps COMPARATIVE VALUES OF PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 21 in chick rations. It may well be used to replace either of these feeds provided the ration contains either dried milk or vacuum-dried sardine meal. This is in line with the work of Roberts and Carrick (25). Table No. 18. Soybean Oil Meal as Compared with Meat and Bone Scraps when Fed with Dried Skimmed milk and Cottonseed Meal Ration 1 Advantages Ration 2 Meat and bone 0 _ Soybean oil meal scraps Soybean 011 meal Avera e ain in live wei h t in grams COCKERELS g g g Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040.9 1102.8 ——61 .9 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050.8 1075 .4 -—24.6 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1044.7 1090.5 —45.8 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585.4 543.7 41.7 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571.4 595.9 —24.5 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 580.4 562.7 17.7 PULLETS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 879.4 888 8 —9.4 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 877.8 900 2 —22.4 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 878 .6 893 6 ——15 .0 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478.1 444 5 33.6 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 409.7 434 7 ——25.0 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 454.2 441 0 13.2 Grams of feed r equired t0 produc e 1 gram of gain Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.44 3.30 —— 14 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. a 3.49 3.87 38 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 3 .46 3 .55 09 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.25 3.48 23 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.37 3.48 11 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 3.29 3 .48 19 Percentage of ch icks that died dur ing experiment Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .3 2.3 0.0 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1.1 1.1 0.0 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 0 .0 0.0 0.0 Table No. 19. Soybean Oil Meal as Compared with Meat and Bone Scraps when Fed " with Sardine Meal and Cottonseed Meal _ Ration 9 Advantages Experiment 49 Ration 6 Meat and bone of Soybean oil meal scraps Soybean oil meal COCKERELS _ _ Average gain 1n live weight in grams 1158 .6 1018 .2 140.4 PULLETS _ Average gain in live weight in grams 874.9 876 .4 ——1 .5 Grams of feed required to produce 1 gram of gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.43 3.36 -—-—.07 Percentage of chicks that died during the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.1 0.0 22 BULLETIN NO. 569, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Cottonseed Meal As a Protein Supplement to Other Protein Feeds When meat and bone scraps and cottonseed meal were used as supple- ments to soybean oil meal and dried milk or soybean oil meal and sardine meal, the results were not consistent. With the exception of experiments 24 and 49, there was very little difference in the average gains in live weight of the cockerels in the groups receiving cottonseed meal and those receiving meat and bone scraps (Tables 20 and 21); there was a larger gain in live weight in the pullets of the groups receiving meat and bone scraps, with the exception of the pullets in experiment 49 (Table 21). The meat and bone scraps groups required less feed per gram of gain than did the cottonseed meal groups in experiment 24. The group fed cotton- seed meal required a smaller amount of feed to produce a gram of gain in experiments 41 and 42 and there was practically no difference in the grams of feed per gram of gain in live weight between the groups fed cottonseed meal and those fed meat and bone scraps in experiments 25 and 49 (Tables 20 and 21). The mortality was consistently higher in the groups fed meat and bone scraps, with the exception of experiment 42 (Tables 20 and 21). Table No. 20. Cottonseed Meal as Compared with Meat and Bone Scraps when Fed with Soybean Oil Meal and Dried Skimmed Milk _ Ration 5 Advantages Ration 2 Meat and bone of Cottonseed meal scraps Cottonseed meal Average gain in live weigh t in grams COCKERELS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040.9 1142.0 —101.1 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050.8 1036.9 13.9 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1044.7 1090.8 -—46. l Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585.4 600.4 —15.0 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571.4 587.5 —16.1 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 580.4 596.3 ——15.9 PULLETS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879.4 1007.0 —127.6 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877.8 954.7 -— 76.9 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25 . . . 878 .6 986.8 —108.2 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 478.1 521 8 —— 43.7 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 409.7 476 0 — 66.3 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42 . . . 454.2 502 5 -—— 48.3 Grams of feed r equired to produc e 1 gram of gain Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-44 3-32 — 12 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49 3-50 01 Mean 0f_ Experiments 24 and 25. . . 3-45 3-39 — 07 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25 3-44 19 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-37 3-49 12 Mean Of Experiments 41 and 42 . . . 3.29 3.44 15 Percentage of ch icks that died during experiment Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 0 4-0 4-0 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 5-3 3 0 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1-1 4 -5 3 -4 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0-0 4-2 4-2 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . O-Q 2-7 47 I» E E e COMPARATIVE VALUES OF PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 23 Table No. 21. Cottonseed Meal as Compared with Meat and Bone Scraps when Fed with Soybean Oil Meal and Sardine Meal Ration 7 Advantages Experiment 49 Ration 6 Meat and bone of Cottonseed meal scraps Cottonseed meal COCKERELS _ _ Average gain in live weight in grams 1158 .6 1057 .7 100. 9 PULLETS _ . . - . . Average gain in live weight in grams 874.9 873 .4 1 .5 Grams 0f feed required to produce 1 gram of gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.43 3.39 -—.O4 Percentage of chicks that died during the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 16.7 14.6 It may be noted from Table 22 that dried skimmed milk produced larger gains in live weight in both cockerels and pullets, with the exception of experiment 49, than did cottonseed meal when these feeds were supple- menting soybean oil meal and sardine meal. The advantages of the Table No. 22. Cottonseed Meal as Compared with Dried Skimmed Milk when Fed with Soybean Oil Meal and Sardine Meal Ration 4 Advantages Ration 6 Dried skimmed o Cottonseed meal milk Cottonseed meal Average gain in live weigh t in grams COCKERELS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1183.4 1186 2 — 2.8 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1144.8 1176 3 —31.5 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1161.2 1181 7 -—20.5 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 585.0 624 9 —39.9 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 620.9 657 9 -37.0 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 597.0 635 1 —38.1 Experiment 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1158.6 1145 1 13.5 PULLETS Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951 .8 983 3 —31.5 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 963.5 993 1 ——29.6 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 955. 5 987 3 —31.8 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523.7 579 6 ——55.9 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 549.3 629 2 —79.9 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 533.7 599 7 -—66.0 Experiment 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874.9 841.0 33 .9 Grams of feed r equired to produc e 1 gram of gain Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.26 3.23 ———.O3 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.44 3.41 ——.O3 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 3.34 3.31 ——.03 Experiment 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.55 3.18 ——.37 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.49 2.95 ——.54 Mean of Experiments 41 and 42. . . 3.51 3.10 —~.41 Experiment 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.43 3.41 ——.O2 Percentage of ch icks that died dur ing experiment Experiment 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.0 -—2.1 Experiment 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 2.5 2.5 Mean of Experiments 24 and 25. . . 1.2 1.1 ——O.1 Experiment 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 1.9 -—2 .4 Experiment 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 0.0 —7.1 Mean of_ Experiments 41 and 42. . . 5.3 1.3 -—4 .0 Experiment 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.0 —2.1 24 BULLETIN NO. 569, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION dried skimmed milk over cottonseed meal in the pullets of experiments 41 and 42 were 55.9 and 79.9 grams, respectively (Table 22). The ad- vantages of other groups receiving dried skimmed milk over those fed cottonseed meal as regards gains in live weight were of a rather small magnitude, ranging from 2.8 to 39.9 grams. Between the groups fed cottonseed meal and those fed dried skimmed milk, there was practically no difference in the grams of feed required to produce a gram of gain in experiments 24, 25, and 49; but a decided advantage appeared in favor of the dried skimmed milk groups in experiments 41 and 42. The percentage of chicks that died in groups receiving dried skimmed milk was consistently higher than that of the groups receiving. cottonseed meal, with the excep- tion of experiment 25 (Table 22). It should be noted here that both of these rations contained sardine meal, which in some cases has been associated with a slight increase in the percentage of chicks that died. However, in this case the use of dried skimmed milk, soybean oil meal, and sardine meal resulted in a low mortality. This would seem to indicate that a combination of these three feeds in a chick ration will give very satisfactory growth at low feed cost per gram of gain in live weight and with a low mortality. Dried Skimmed Milk As a Supplement for Other Protein Feeds for Chicks Dried skimmed milk and meat and bone scraps were of equal value as regards average gain in grams of live weight, grams of feed required to produce a gram of gain, and percentage of chicks that died during the experimental period when these feeds were supplementing soybean oil meal and cottonseed meal (Table 23.) However, dried skimmed milk produced larger gains in live weight and a smaller percentage of deaths than did meat and bone scraps when these feeds were supplementing soy- bean oil meal and sardine meal. The mortality of the groups receiving meat and bone scraps was excessive. This is the group where this feed was fed in a combination with sardine meal and soybean oil meal (Table 24). . _.... . Mfl.....;.._.._'._._...x.. imam... Table No. 23. Dried Skimmed Milk as Compared with Meat and Bone Scraps when Fed with Soybean Oil Meal and Cottonseed Meal Ration 2 Ration 8 Advantages Dried skimmed Meat and bone _ of_ ' milk scraps Dried skimmed ' milk COCKEREIiS Average gain in live weight in grams 1001.0 1002.4 —1.4 PULLETS _ _ _ Average gain in live weight in grams 780.7 778 .1 2 .6 Grams of feed required to produce 1 gram of gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.64 ' 3.56 ——.08 Percentage of chicks that died during the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 0.0 —2.0 z... .. u. _.__ .i_‘...~_..._.....___...;__x.....i..~4..ur._-. m.-. .. .;_-.,_v.a¢.._.. _ . &lm;4__At__.4u1x.» COMPARATIVE VALUES OF PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 25 Table No. 24. Dried Skimmed Milk as Compared with Meat and Bone Scraps when Fed with Soybean Oil Meal and Sardine Meal Ration 4 Ration 7 Advantages Experiment 49 Dried skimmed Meat and bone of milk scraps Dried skimmed mi COCKERELS _ _ _ _ Average gain in live weight in grams 1145.1 1057 .7 87 .4 PULLETS _ _ _ _ _ Average gain in live weight in grams 841.0 873 .4 —32 .4 Grams of feed required t0 produce 1 gram of gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.41 3.39 —.O2 Percentage of chicks that died during the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 16.7 16.7 DISCUSSION From the data discussed earlier, it is seen that chick rations should contain either sardine meal, dried skimmed milk, or meat and bone scraps. Dried skimmed milk may be used in combination with either meat and bone scraps or sardine meal but meat and bone scraps and sardine meal should not be used in the same ration in the percentages fed in these experiments because of the high mortality that was associated with this combination when these feeds were used with soybean oil meal. When sardine meal and meat and bone scraps were used with cottonseed meal, this high mortality was not encountered. In tests reported in this bulletin, sardine meal proved to be an outstand- ing feed for use in chick rations as regards rapid growth and eflicient use of the feed consumed. In practically all cases, rations containing sardine meal produced larger gains in live weight at a smaller feed cost per gram of gain regardless of whether dried skimmed milk was a constituent of the ration or not. These results are in line with those reported by Daniel and McCollum (8), Asmundson and Biely (4), Johnson and Brazie (11), and Record and co-workers (21, 22). However, with the exception of ration 4—Which contained sardine meal, dried skimmed milk, and soy- bean oil meal—a slightly higher mortality was associated with the use of sardine meal in every case. (The use of “slightly higher mortality” here refers to a death rate of 0 to 7.5 per cent). No explanation for the increased death rate with the feeding of sardine meal is given. If sardine meal was fed in combination with soybean oil meal and dried milk, the percentage of the chicks that died was very low. The slight increase in the death rate when cottonseed meal was substituted for soybean oil meal in the above combination, is also unexplainable (Ration 3). With this exception, cottonseed meal and soybean oil meal may be used interchangeably or in combination in chick rations. This is in line with the work of Ringrose and Morgan (23) and Roberts and Garrick (25). The data given in Table 23 indicate that meat and bone scraps and dried skimmed milk may be used interchangeably in combina- tion with soybean oil meal and cottonseed meal. Both of these combina- 26 BULLETIN NO. 569, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION tions gave satisfactory growth, though not as rapid growth as some other combinations used in these tests, at a reasonably economical feed cost per gram of gain and with a very ‘low mortality. An explanation for this fact might be that certain factors contained in milk and required by chicks are also found in cottonseed meal and soybean oil meal and also that if there is a slight deficiency of these factors in the meat and bone scraps ration, it is offset by the meat and bone scraps. CONCLUSIONS From the data secured under the conditions of the experiments herein reported, the following conclusions seem warranted: 1. Chick rations should contain either sardine meal, meat and bone scraps, or dried skimmed milk in combination with other protein feeds. 2. Vacuum-dried sardine meal is an excellent protein feed to use in chick rations to supplement other protein feeds. A slightly higher mor- tality is associated with the use of this feed in chick rations except when it is used in combination with dried milk and soybean oil meal. 3. Dried skimmed milk and meat and bone scraps are of about equal value as regards growth, efficient use of the feed, and percentage of the chicks that die when these feeds are supplementing soybean oil meal and cottonseed meal. 4. Cottonseed meal and soybean oil meal may be used interchangeably in chick rations. 5. Sardine meal and meat and bone scraps probably should not be used in the same ration with soybean oil meal in the amounts fed in these experiments because of the high mortality associated with this combination. Further work is needed to substantiate this point. REFERENCES 1. Ackerson, C. W., Blish, M. J., and Mussehl, F. E. 1937. The Utilization of Food Elements by Growing Chicks. II. A Comparison of Protein Concentrates from Single and Multiple Sources. Neb. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 94. ' 2. Allardyce, W. J., Henderson, W., and Asmundson, V. S. 1933. Fish Meal Supple- ments for Chicks. Poul. Sci., 12: 163. 3. Almquist,- H. J., Stokstad, E. L. R., and Halbrook, E. R. 1935. Supplementary Values of Animal Protein Concentrates in Chick Rations. J. Nutr., 10: 193. 4. Asmxndson, V. S., and Biely, J. 1932. Fish Meal Supplements for Chicks. I. Sci. gr. 13: 236. 5. Carver, J. S., St. John, J. L., Aspinall, T. E., and For, I. H. 1932. Protein Requirements of Chickens. Poul Sci., 11: 45. 6. Carver, J. S., St. John, J. L., Miller, M. Wayne, and Bearse, G. E. 1935. The Comparative Efficiency of Various Proteins for Growing Chicks. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 321. 7. Curtis, P. B., Hauge, S. M., and Kraybill, H. R. 1932. The Nutritive Value of Certain Animal Protein Concentrates. J. Nutr., 5: 503. 8. Daniel, E. P., and McCollum, E. V. 1931. Studies on the Nutritive Values of Fish Meals. U. S. Com., Bur. Fisheries Invest. Rpt., 2, Vol. 1. 9. Ingvaldsen, T. 1929. Fish Meals. I. The Effect of High Temperature Employed for Drying on the Nitrogen Partition in Fish Meals. Can. Chem. Met., 13: 97. 10. Ingvaldsen, T. 1929. Fish Meals. II. Comparative Analysis of Meals made from Non- putrid and Putrid Materials. Can. Chem. Met., 13: 129. 11. Johnson, O., and Brazie, D. 1934. Comparative Value of Some Commercial Protein Supplements in the Ration of Growing Chicks. J. Agr. Res., 48: 183. 12. Maynard, L. A., Bender, R. C., and McKay, C. M. 1932. Vitamin A and Protein Content of Various Fish Meals. J. Agr. Res. 44: 591. 13. Maynard, L. A., and Tunison, A. V. 1932. Influence of Drying Temperatures upon Digestibility and Biological Value of Fish Proteins. Ind. Eng. Chem., 24: "1168. . ....u_..- infiinnn~ n.4,‘; k-n>_,~4yqlgplnn _ .. n.2,. _ 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23'. 24. 25. 26 27. 28. 29. 30. COMPARATIVE VALUES OF PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 27 Morgan, A. F. 1931. Proteins and Casein. The Effect of Heat Upon the Biological Value of Cereal J. Biol. Chem., 90: 771. Morgan, A. F., and Kern, G. E. The Effect of Heat Upon the Biological Value of Meat Protein. J. Nur., 7: 367. Norris, L. K., and Heuser, G. F. 1930. The Relation of the Protein Requirements of Chicks to the Rate of Growth. 1. The Quantity of Protein Required by Chicks During Early Growth. Poul. Sci., 9: 378. Osborne, T. B., and Mendel, L. B. 1916. The Effect of the Amino-Acid Content of the Diet on the Growth of Chickens. J. Biol. Chem., 26: 293. Prange, R. W., Garrick, C. W., and Hauge, S. M. 1928. Growth Value of Proteins from Commercial Animal Products. I. Poul. Sci., 7: 95. Prange, R. W., Garrick, G. W., and Hauge, S. M. 1928. Growth Value of Proteins from Commercial Animal Products. II. Poul. Sci., 7: 186. Prange, R. W., Garrick, G. W., and Hauge, S. M. 1928. Growth Value of Proteins from Commercial Animal Products. III. Poul. Sci., 7: 233. Record, P. R., Bethke, R. M., and Wilder, O. H. M. 1934. Effect of Method of Manufacture on the Nutritive Value of Fish Meals as Determined by Growth Studies with Chicks. J. Agr. Res., 49: 715. Record, P. R=, Bethke, R. M., Wilder, O. H. M., and Kennard, D. C. 1934. The Comparative Nutritive Value of Different Fish Meals for Chicks. Poul. Sci., 13: 259. Ringrose, R. C., and Morgan, G. L. 1937. Fiftieth Annual Report of the South Carolina Experiment Station, page 69. Roberts, Roy E., and Garrick, G. W. 1937. Meat Scraps and Dried Milk in Rations for Starting Chicks. Ind. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 421. Roberts, Roy E., and Garrick, G. W. 1937. Amounts of Protein Supplements Rations for Broilers. Ind. Exp. Sta. Bul., 524. Schneider, B. H. 1932. Nitrogen Balance Studies with Various Fish Meals. J. Agr. Res., 44: 725. St. John, J. L., Carver, J. S., Helphrey, J. P., Miller, Wayne, and Gassell, L. W. 1930. The Effect on Growth of Various Protein Levels of Dry Skimmed Milk in a Ghick Mash. Poul. Sci., 9: 320. Swift, R. W., Black, Alex, Le Roy, Voris, and Funk, E. M. 1931. Protein Content of Rations for Growing Chicks. Poul. Sci., 10: 288 in The Optimum Tepper, A. E., Charles, T. B., and Reed, F. D. 1933. Protein Levels in Battery Brooding Chicks. N. H. Exp. Sta. Gir., 40. Titus, H. W., McNally, E., and Hilberg, F. G. 1930. A Comparison of Shrimp Bran and Two Kinds of Fish Meal. Poul. Sci., 9: 219. Wilder, O. H. M., Bethke, R. M., and Record, P. R. 1934. Effect of Method of Manu- facture of the Nutritive Value of Fish Meals as Determined by Nitrogen Balance Studies with Rats. J. Agr. Res., 49: 723.