LQU'I\I'II\ I
3 A 8: M COLLEGE;
CAMPUS -

A67-740-8M-L180

"v w “v-q--—--w—-.wv~v-rw-~ww-w-‘

I

 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

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

BULLETIN NO. 588 AUGUST 1940

DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY

Values of Various Protein Feeds for

Growing Chicks

 

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

¢ RARE  
 mmwa fnimQa QM “‘ m“
  TEAEQQBWQWI"”'

P?

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

This bulletin contains a report of six experiments which were conducted
t0 learn more about the supplemental value of fish meal, meat and bone
scraps, cottonseed meal, soybean oil meal, peanut meal, liver meal, and
linseed meal in chick rations.

Neither mortality nor perosis (slipped tendon) was a factor in these
experiments. The rations were not extreme enough to cause losses; they
were also fortified by wheat gray shorts and the proper mineral balance,
so perosis (slipped tendon) did not develop.

In all experiments, 6 per cent of vacuum-dried fish meal proved to be
a valuable protein concentrate in chick rations. The gains in live weight
were more rapid, and the gains were made with less feed than when the
fish meal was not fed.

Soybean oil meal and cottonseed meal were about of equal value when
fed with the other protein supplements used.

Liver meal gave poorer results than did vacuum-dried fish meal when
fed in a ration along with soybean oil meal and cottonseed meal.

Neither peanut meal nor old process linseed oil meal gave as good results
as soybean oil meal or cottonseed meal.

Dried whey, a rich source of vitamin G, produced more rapid gains in a
ration containing no vacuum-dried fish meal, but did not cause more rapid
gains with a ration containing 6 per cent of vacuum-dried fish meal.

_ Both of these rations contained 5 per cent of choice dehydrated alfalfa

leaf meal.

From 3.0 to 3.6 units of feed were required to produce a unit of gain
in live weight. These figures are of value in helping a prospective producer
in estimating the feed cost of growing chicks to ten or twelve weeks of
age. Similar results should be secured from the better commercial feed
mixtures and formulas given in this bulletin.

 

CONTENTS

Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5

A Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5

Methods of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14

Fish Meal as a Substitute to Other Protein Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14

Liver Meal as a Protein Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14

Meat and Bone Scraps as Compared with Cottonseed Meal and
Soybean Oil Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Peanut Meal as Compared with Cottonseed Meal and Soybean
Oil Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
Soybean Oil Meal and Cottonseed Meal as Supplements for Chicks 16
Linseed Oil Meal as a Partial Substitute for Soybean Oil Meal or
Cottonseed Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
Adequacy of the Control Ration in Meeting the Vitamin G Re-

quirements of Chicks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 20

BULLETIN NO. 588 AUGUST 1940

VALUES OF VARIOUS PROTEIN FEEDS FOR
GROWING CHICKS

R. M. Sherwood, Chief, and J. R. Couch, Poultry Husbandman,
Division of Poultry Husbandry

Poultrymen and farmers are making many changes in their selections
of enterprises for cash crops. A number have turned to the production
of chickens. Many of these are carefully studying markets and expenses,
including the costs of feed.

As a result of changes in farming, the amount and proportions of many
feed crops are changing. Feed manufacturers are seeking more informa-
tion on the value of the feeds available. They also want to know if the
addition of some other feedstuif to their feed mixtures will improve them.
It is with all of these problems in mind that this station conducted this
series of experiments which are a continuation of the work reported in
the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 569.

In the studies reported in Bulletin 569, sardine meal was used. In this
study the product used was fish meal. The sardine meals and the fish
meals used in the different studies were all vacuum-dried. The sardine
meals were guaranteed to contain 67 per cent protein, and the fish meals
were guaranteed to contain 64 per cent protein. The chemical analyses
by the Division of Chemistry of the station showed that the sardine meals
used in the first studies contained from 67 to 72.6 per cent protein and the
fish 'meals reported in this publication contained from 67.5 to 67.8 per
cent protein. The ash content of the fish meals reported in this study is
very similar to that reported for the sardine meals in Bulletin 569.

A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A rather comprehensive review of literature on the value of protein feeds
for chicks and protein requirements of chicks has been given by Sherwood
and Couch (12). The results of subsequent work are given in this publi-
cation. Smuts and co-workers (13, 14, 15) found that the protein of cotton-
seed meal has approximately 12% per cent higher biological value than
the protein of peanut meal. They report further that protein of peanut
meal might be deficient in methionine, one of the amino acids and one
which Rose (10) has shown to be essential. The studies of Smuts and
co-workers and Rose were with rats used as the experimental animal. We
have no information to show whether or not these findings will hold true
with chicks.

Christiansen and co-workers (3) have found that for maximum efficiency
the proteins of grains and soybean oil meal require other protein feeds as
supplements.

6 BULLETIN NO. 588, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Mussehl and Ackerson (7) and Ackerson and co-workers (1) reported
that cottonseed meal produced more rapid gains, greater gains per unit
of feed consumed, and better retention of nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus
than linseed oil meal. They also reported that neither of the above feeds
was equal to dried butter milk or soybean oil meal when used in the
rations studied by them.

Sherwood and Couch (11) found that rations containing sardine meal,
meat and bone scraps or dried skimmed milk were more satisfactory than
rations that did not contain these protein feeds. They reported that cotton-
seed meal and soybean oil meal may be used interchangeably in chick
rations containing as much as 6 per cent of the protein feeds mentioned
above.

' METHODS OF PROCEDURE

The chicks used in experiments 91 and 92 were White Leghorns of
similar breeding. They were fed in batteries for ten weeks from hatching
time. Fifty-two chicks were fed each ration in each of these experiments.
The chicks used in the other experiments reported in ‘this bulletin were
New Hampshires of like breeding, also fed ten Weeks., Fifty chicks were
fed each ration in experiments 95, 105, and 113, and fifty-two chicks were
fed each ration in experiment 101. All chicks were weighed individually
at the beginning and close of the experiments and at two week intervals
during the experiments. All groups were rotated in the batteries every two
weeks during the experimental period. Therefore, no group occupied the
same relative position in the batteries or building for more than two weeks.
Lights were so supplied that the chicks had a fourteen-hour feeding period
daily. Feed and tap water were before the chicks at all times.

At least three feeds rich in protein were used in each ration. Substi-
tution of one protein feed for another, either as a whole or in part, is
made where any one of these feeds is used with at least two other protein
feeds. It is thus the supplemental value of one high protein feed with
another that is studied in these experiments rather than the value of
these feeds as the chief source of protein.

Samples of all feeds were analyzed by the Division of Chemistry. Table 1
gives the analysis of the feeds. The percentage of the different feeds used
in the different rations of the various experiments and the calculated chem-
ical analyses of different rations are given in Tables 2 to 7. The percentage
of protein ranged from 18.38 to 20.09. These differences in the percent-
ages of protein in the different rations are not wide and were due largely
to the substitution, pound for pound, of protein feeds containing different
amounts of protein. Unpublished data at this station secured at the time
these experiments were being conducted with rations similar to those used
in these experiments showed that 18 per cent of protein was adequate.
Therefore, differences found by the substitution of the‘ protein feeds studied

Table 1. Percentage composition of feeds
Feed Nitrogen- _
Feeds identifi- Protein Fat Crude free Water Ash Calcium Phos-
cation fibre extract phorus
number
% % o % % % '70 o

Dried whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 587 11.74 0.82 .40 70.49 7.17 9.38 0.81 Z71
65% Protein fish meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 67.48 3.53 0.27 6.33 8.35 14.04 4.37 2.55
65% Protein fish meal . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 596 67.84 5.50 0.52 5.61 5.96 14.57 4.50 2.74
50% Protein meat and bone scraps. . 579 51.11 9.70 1.87 1.40 4.29 31.63 10.92 5.27
43% Protein cottonseed meal . . . . . .. 583 44.63 6.95 10.21 25.87 6.48 5.86 0.17 1.10
43% Protein cottonseed meal . . . . . .. 667 44.02 7.13 9.42 27.17 6.34 5.92 0.17 1.10
41% Protein soybean oil meal . . . . . . . 469 42.94 4.48 6.33 30.60 9.39 6.26 0.34 0.73
41 % Protein soybean oil meal . . . . . .. 615 43.80 4.34 5.49 27.63 12.23 6.51 0.28 0.58
43% Protein peanutmeal........... 597 41.91 8.35 11.91 27.66 5.43 4.74 0.21 0.40
34% Protein linseed meal . . . . . . . . . .. 613 37.10 5.03 8.18 34.42 9.72 5.55 0.44 0.88

63.6% Protein liver meal . . . . . . . . . .. 635 63.60 18.71 0.95 4.30 7.73 4.71 0.19 0.89

Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 575 17 .85 4.53 5.76 57.39 10.55 3.92 0.14 0.86

Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 600 17.30 4.43 6.66 56.49 10.73 4.39 0.16 0.74

Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 663 18.99 4.55 6.81 54.06 10.50 5.09 0.16 0.97

Raw bone meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 449 27.91 3.84 0.65 2.44 6.67 58.49 22.37 10.43

Raw bone meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 578 25.41 3.65 0.48 1.66 5.00 63.80 24.21 10.36

Chick s'ze oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.66 0.02

Chick size oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.54 . . . . . . . . . .

Ground whole oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 577 10.44 5.57 11.50 59.68 9.39 3.42 0.11 0.34

Ground whole oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 601 9.61 5.40 12.96 59.23 8.69 4.11 0.16 0.29

Ground wh<le oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 664 11.06 5.36 10.31 61.48 8.47 3.32 0.11 0.31

Ground mlo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 589 11.46 3.16 2.46 70.77 10.55 1.60 0.03 0.27

Ground mio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 638 11.35 3.23 1.91 71.76 10.03 1.72 0.07 0.23

Ground ye low corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 574 9.58 4.51 2.39 72.33 9.94 1.25 0.04 0.24

Ground yeilow corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 581 9.45 4.48 2.37 72.01 10.32 1.37 0.06 0.27‘

Dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal . . . . . . . . 582 22.02 3.00 16.29 43.15 6.82 11.72 1.37 0.30

Dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal . . . . . . . . 584 23.24 3.30 16.97 42.66 2.83 11.00 1.29 0.27

Dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal . . . . . . . . 662 22.77 3.19 20.69 . 36.66 5.16 11.53 1.77 0.31

1.-

SXOIHO- DNIMQHE) HOeI SCIEIEIJ NISLLOHJ SIIOIHVA e10 SEIIYIVA

8

BULLETIN NO. 588, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 2. Percentage of ingredients and calculated chemical analysis of rations
‘ fed in Experiment 91
Feed
Identifi- Percentage ingredients of rations
Feed cation j

number* Ration 1 Ration 2 Ration 3 Ration 4 Ration 5

65% Protein fish meal . . . . . . . . . . 596 6 6 3 6 . . . . . . . .

- 50% Protein meat and bone scraps 579 6 6 3 . . . . . . . . 6

43% Protein cottonseed meal. . . . 583 . . . . . . . . 6 6 6 6

41% Protein soybean oil meal. . . . 469 6 . . . . . . . . 6 6 6

Raw bone meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 0.40 . . . . . . . . 2 2.50 1.10
Chicksizeoystershell........... 227 1.50 1.75 1.65 ‘ 1.75 1.75
Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 20 20 20 20 20
Ground whole oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 5 5 5 5 5
Dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal. . . . . 582 5 5 5 5 5
Fortified cod liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Ground yellow corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 49.35 49 .50 47.60 47.00 48.40

Nutrient

Calculated chemical analysis of rations

Ration 1 Ration 2 Ration 3 Ration 4 l Ration 5

Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nitrogen-free extract . . . . . . . . . . .

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

% % %
75 19.14 19.72 18.
90 4.72 4.58 4.
47 4.76 4.70 4.
24 54.55 54.26 54.
85 9.04 9.07 9.
28 5.43 5.19 5.
75 1.72 1.67 1.
88 0.88 0.85 0.

*For analysis of these feeds, see Table 1.

Table 3.

Percentage of ingredients and calculated chemical analysis of rations

fed in Experiment 92

Feed
Identifi- Percentage ingredients of rations
Feed cation
number* Ration 1 Ration 2 Ration 3 Ration 4 Ration 5
65% Protein fish meal . . . . . . . . . . 596 6 6 3 6 . . . . . . . .

50% Protein meat and hone scraps 579 6 6 3 . . . . . . . . 6

41 % Protein soybean oil meal. . .. 469 6 . . . . . . . . 6 6 6

43% Protein cottonseed meal. . . . 583 . . . . . . . . 6 6 6 6

Raw bone meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 449 0.40 . . . . . . . . 2 2.50 1.10

Chick size oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . 227 1 .50 1.75 1 .65 1 .75 1 .75

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

Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 20 20 20 20 2O

Ground whole oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 5 5 5 5 5
Dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal. . . . . 584 5 5 5 5 5
Fortified cod liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Ground yellow corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 49.35 49.50 47.60 47.00 48.40

Calculated chemical analysis of rations
Nutrient Ration 1 l Ration 2 Ration 3 Ration 4 Ration 5
_ % % % % %

Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.81 19.81 19.20 19.78 18.53

a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.79 4.92 4.74 4.60 4.85

Crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.28 4.51 4.80 4.74 4.85

Nitrogen-free extract . . . . . . . . . . . 54.55 54.36 54.67 54.38 55.10

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.84 8.65 8.84 8.87 8.81

Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.50 5.24 5.39 5.15 5.38

Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.74 1.74 1.71 1.66 1.74

Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.88 0.87 0. 87 0.84 0.86

*For analysis of these feeds, see Table 1.

a A454 1414.. ..._...s.....»_

VALUES OF VARIOUS PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 9
Table 4. Percentage of ingredients and calculated chemical analysis of rations fed in
Experiment 101
Feed* Percentage ingredients of rations
identifi- _ _ _ _
Feeds cation Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration
number 1 2 3 4 5 6
65% Protein fish meal. . . . 588 6 6 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50% Protein meat and
bone scraps . . . . . . . . . 579 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6
43% Protein cottonseed
meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 6 6 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . .
41% Protein soybean oil
meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469 6 . . . . . . . . 6 6 . . . . . . . . 6
43% Protein peanut meal. 597 . . . . . . . . 6 6 . . . . . . . . 6 6
Chick size oyster shell. . . . 227 2 2 2 2 2 2
Raw bone meal . . . . . . . . . .' 449 1 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . 600 20 20 20 2O 2O 2O
Ground whole oats . . . . . .. 601 10 10 10 107 1O 10
alt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Dehydrated alfalfa leaf
meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 5 5 5 5 5 5
Ground milo . . . . . . . . . . . . 589 20 20 20 20 2O 20
Ground yellow corn . . . . . . 581 23.375 23.375 23.375 24.375 24.375 24.375
Fortified cod liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
Calculated chemical analysis of rations
Nutrient
Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration
1 2 3 4 6
_ % % % o % %
Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.67 19.60 19.50 18.50 18.43 18.33

Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.22 4.45 4.30 4.59 4.82 4.67

Crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.54 5.87 5.64 5.65 5.98 5.75

Nitrogen-free extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.12 53.94 54.23 54.52 54.34 54.63

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.20 8.97 9.14 9.00 8.77 8.94

s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.63 4.53 4.56 5.12 5.02 5.05

Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.41 1.40 1.41 1.59 1.58 1.59

Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . .  0.66 0.64 0.61 0.74 0.72 0.69
*For analysis 0f these feeds, see Table 1.
Table 5. Percentage of ingredients and calculated chemical analysis of rations fed in
Experiment 113
Feed* Percentage ingredients of rations
identifi-
Feeds cation Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration
number 1 2 3 4 5 6
65% Protein fish meal. . . . 588 6 . . . . . . . . 6 6 6 6
63.6% Protein liver meal. 635 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43% Protein cottonseed
mea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667 6 6 6 6 4 2
41% Protein soybean oil
mea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 6 6 4 2 6 6
34% Protein linseed meal. 613 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 2 4
Raw bone meal . . . . . . . . . . 578 1 1 1 1 1 1
Chick size oyster shell. . . . 616 2 2 2 2 2 2
Dehydrated alfalfa leaf
meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 5 5 5 5 5 5

Ground milo . . . . . . . . . . . . 638 20 20 20 20 20 20

Ground whole oats . . . . . . . 664 10 10 10 10 10 10

Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . 663 20 20 20 20 20 20

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

Fortified cod liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

Ground yellow corn . . . . . . 581 23.25 23.25 23 .25 23 .25 23 .25 23 .25

10

BULLETIN NO. 588, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 5. Percentage of ingredients and calculated chemical analysis of rations fed in
Experiment Hit-Continued

     

Calculated chemical analysis of rations
Nutrient Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration
2 3 4 5 6
_ % % % % % %
Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.09 19.86 19.95 19.82 19.95 19.81

at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.24 5.15 4.25 4.27 4.20 4.15

Crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.28 5.32 5.33 5.39 5.25 5.23

Nitrogen-free extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.57 53 .45 53.71 53.84 53.72 53 .86

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.28 9.24 9.23 9.18 9.34 9.42

Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.82 4.26 4.80 4.78 4.81 4.80

Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.43 1.18 1.43 1.44 1.44 1.44

Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.70 0.60 0.71 0.72 0.69 0.69

*For analysis of these feeds, see Table 1.

Table 6. Percentage of ingredients and calculated chemical analysis of rations fed in
Experiment 95

Feed* Percentage ingredients of rations
identifi-
Feeds cation Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration
number 1 2 4 6
65% Protein fish meal. . . . 588 6 6 6 6 6 6
43% Prote;n cottonseed
meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 6 6 6 6 6 6
41 % Protein soybean oil
meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469 6 6 6 6 6 6
Raw bone meal . . . . . . . . . . 449 1 .25 1.25 1 .25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Chick size oyster shell. . . . 227 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . 575 20 20 2O 20 2O 20
Ground whole oats . . . . . . . 577 5 5 5 5 5 5
Dehydrated alfalfa leaf
mea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 5 5 5 5 5 5
Fortified cod liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
Ground yellow corn . . . . . . 581 47.625 46.625 45.625 44.625 43.625 42.625
Dried whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587 0 1 2 3 4 5
Calculated chemical analysis of rations
Nutrient Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration
1 2 3 4 5 6
_ 0 % % % % o
Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.41 19.44 19.45 19.48 19.50 19.53

Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.44 4.41 4.37 4.33 4.29 4.26

Crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.73 4.71 4.69 4.67 4.65 4.63

Nitrogen-free extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.68 54.66 54.65 54.63 54.62 54.60

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.16 9.13 9.10 9.08 9.04 9.01

Ash._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.45 4.53 4.62 4.69 4.78 4.85

Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.67 1.67 1.69 1.69 1.70 1.71

Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.72 0.73 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75

*For analysis of these feeds, see Table 1.

VALUES OF VARIOUS PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 11

Table 7. Percentage of ingredients and calculated chemical analysis of rations fed in
Experiment 105

 

       

Fced* Percentage ingredients of rations
identifi-
Feeds cation Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration
number 1 2 3 ' 4 5 6

50% Protein meat and

bone scraps . . . . . . . . . 579 6 6 6 6 6 6
43% Prote.n cottonseed

meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 6 6 6 6 6 6
41% Protein soybean oil

meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 6 6 6 6 6 6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Chick sizeoystershell.... 227 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Raw bone meal . . . . . . . . . 449 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ground whole oats.. .. 601 l0 10 10 10 10 10
Wheat gray shorts. . . . . . . 600 20 20 20 2O 20 20
Grtund milo . . . . . . . . . . . . 589 20 2O 2O 2O 20 20
Dehydrated alfalfa leaf

meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 5 5 5 5 5 5
Fortified cod liver oil . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
Ground yellow corn . . . . .. 581 23.875 22.875 21.875 20.875 19.875 18.875
Dried whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5

Calculated chemical analysis of rations
Nutrient Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration Ration
1 2 3 4 . 6
' ‘V0 % % % % %

Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.79 18.81 18.83 18.85 1888i 18.90

Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.60 4.56 4.53 4.49 4.45 4.42

Crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.60 5.57 5.56 " 5.53 5.52 5.50

Nitrogen-free extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.00 53.98 53.97 53.95 53.94 53.92

ater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.18 9.15 9.12 9.09 9.06 9.03

Ash._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.71 5.78 5.87 5.95 6.03 6.11

Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.62 1.62 1.64 1.64 1.65 1.66

Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.82 ' 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.85

*For analysis of these feeds, see Table 1.

is not thought to be caused by the differences in the total amount of
protein present, but by the quality of the protein or by other factors not
accounted for.

The calcium and phosphorus content of the rations in each experiment
varied only slightly, and the calcium-phosphorus ratio was practically
constant in the different rations of the experiments.

The average gain in live weight of both cockerels and pullets, the amount
of feed required to produce a unit of gain in live weight, and the per cent
mortality were used as criteria in judging the efiiciency of a protein
supplement. When a feed is said to be better or superior, these criteria
are considered. The only experiment in which the mortality was high
enough to be considered was experiment 101, Table 9. Here there may be
an indication that fish meal is slightly more satisfactory than meat and
bone scraps. This difference was not noted by Sherwood and Couch (12)
in their previous publication on a similar subject. In fact, the feeding
of meat and bone scraps resulted in slightly lower losses than sardine
meal in their previous work.

\/

Table 8. Experiments 91 and 92. A comparison of the effect of various amounts of protein concentrates on the gains in live weight, feed
efliciency, and mortality in chick rations

ZI

Proteih concentrates and percentages used in each ration

Ration 1 Ration 2 Ration 3 Ration 4 Ration 5

_ 3% Fish meal,
6% Fish meal, 6% Fish meal, 3% Meat and 6% Fish meal, 6% Meat and

6% Meat and 6% Meat and bone scraps, 6% Soybean bone scraps,
bone scraps, bone scraps, 6% Soybean oil meal, 6% Soybean
6% Soybean 6% Cotton- oil meal, 6% Cotton- oil meal,

oil meal seed meal 6% Cotton- seed meal 6% Cotton-
seed meal seed meal

Average gain in live weight in grams

Cockerels
Experiment 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899.0 915.0 875.9 890.7 804.2
Experiment 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851.2 864.7 847.2 908.5 798.1
Experiments 91 and 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 874.7 889.9 860.7 900.6 801.2
Pullets
Experiment 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722.4 735.5 722.0 750.7 672.5
Experiment 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687.4 680.4 672.7 731.0 684.7
Experiments 91 and 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 705.6 709.0 699.4 741.9 678.6
Grams of feed required to produce one gram of gain
Experiment 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.41 3.22 3.35 3.43 3.57
Experiment 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.29 3.41 3.33 3.12 3.58
Experiments 91 and 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.35 3.31 3.34 3.28 3.58
Percentage of chicks that died during the experiment
Experiment 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.0 1.96 0.0 0.0 0.0
Experiment 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.0 2.04 0.0 0.0 0.0
Experiments 91 and 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.0 2.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

NOLLVLS CLNIEINIHHJXEI TVHILLTIIOIHSV SVXELL ‘$89 'ON NI-LEYYIHH

 
 

Table 9. Experiment 101. A comparison of various protein concentrates on gains in live weight, feed elficiency, and mortality in chick rations
Protein concentrates and percentages used in each ration
Ration 1 Ration 2 Ration 3 Ration 4 Ration 5 Ration 6
6% Fish meal, _ _ 6% INTeat and 6% Meat and 6% Meat and
6% Cottonseed ,6% Fish meal, 6% Fish meal, bone scraps, bond scraps, bone scraps,
mea, 6% Cottonseed 6%_ Soybean 6% Cottonseed 6% Cottonseed 6% Soybean
6% _Soybean mea , Oll meal, meal, ' mea , oil meal,
011 meal 6% Peanut meal 6% Peanut meal 6%_]Soybelan ~ 6% Peanut meal 6% Peanut meal
oi mea
Average gain in live weight in grams
Cockerels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990.0 898.8 888.1 765.2 1 676.7 766.6
Pullets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 775.2 778.9 719.7 633.8 1 572.8 558.6
Grams of feed required to produce one gram of gain
Cockerels and pullets . . . . . . . .. 3.20 3.20 3.20 g 3.53 i 3.64 3.60
Percentage of chicks that died during the experiment
l l
Cockerels and pullets . . . . . . . .. 0.0 6.12 0.0 l 4.08 6.52 7.84

   

SI SHOIHO DNIMOHO HOeI SCICICMI NIELLOHJ SIIOIHVA i210 SEIIYIVA

14 BULLETIN NO. 588, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Fish Meal as a Substitute for Other Protein Feeds

The fish meal used in this series of experiments was a vacuum-dried
product which has been found to be of a higher biological value and con-
tains more vitamin A and vitamin G than meals cooked and dried at high
temperatures.

In this series of experiments, fish meal was a better protein supplement
along with soybean oil meal and cottonseed meal than meat and bone
scraps as shown in Table 8, rations 4 and 5. In Table 9, rations 1 and 4,
the same results are shown. Fish meal was also superior to meat and
bone scraps when used as a supplement along with peanut meal and
cottonseed meal or soybean oil meal. These figures are shown in Table 9,
rations 2 and 5 and rations 3 and 6. In all cases with these combinations
of feeds studied, the gains in live weight were higher and the units of
feed required to produce a unit of gain in live weight was lower when the
fish meal was fed than when the beat and bone scraps was fed.

It is also noted in Table 8, ration 3, that the substitution of 3 pounds
of meat and bone scraps for 3 pounds of fish meal in ration 4 gave gains
about midway between those produced by ration 4 which contained fish
meal and ration 5 which contained meat and bone scraps. The units of feed
required to produce a unit of gain in live weight for ration 3 was less
than for ration 5 and more than for ration 4. These results for fish meal
are in line with those reported by Sherwood and Couch (12) in a previous
publication using sardine meal.

A comparison of ration 1 with ration 5, Table 8, shows that chicks fed
fish meal along with meat and bone scraps and soybean oil meal gained
faster and made gains with less feed than when cottonseed meal was used
along with meat and bone scraps and soybean oil meal.

Fish meal, when fed with meat and bone scraps and cottonseed meal,
also produced greater gains with less feed than did soybean oil meal when
fed with meat and bone scraps and cottonseed meal. These figures are
shown in Table 8, rations 2 and 5.

Liver Meal as a Protein Feed

In one experiment, liver meal was compared with fish meal as a sup-
plement along with soybean oil meal and cottonseed meal. It is shown in
Table 10, rations 1 and 2, that the gains were less for the liver meal
and feed required per unit of gain was more than for fish meal.

Meat and Bone Scraps as Compared with Cottonseed Meal and
Soybean Oil Meal

Cottonseed meal, soybean oil meal, and fish meal gave as good or slightly
better results than meat and bone scraps, soybean oil meal, and fish meal.
These results are shown in Table 8, rations 1 and 4.

 

Table 10. Experiment 113. A comparison of the efie

and mortality in chick rations

ct of various amounts of protein concentrates on the gains in live weight, feed efiieciency

Protein concentrates and percentages used in each ration

 

 

Ration 1 Ration 2 Ration 3 Ration 4 Ration 5 Ration 6
6% Fish meal, 6% Fish meal, 6% Fish meal, 6% Fish meal,
6% Fish meal, 6% Liver meal, 6% Cotton- 6% Cotton- 4% Cotton- 2% Cotton-
6% Cotton- 6% Cotton- seed meal, seed meal, seed meal, seed meal,
seed meal, seed meal, 4% Soybean 2% Soybean 6% Soybean 6% Soybean
6% Soybean 6% Soybean oil meal, oil meal, oil meal, oil meal,
oil meal oil meal 2% Linseed meal 4% Linseed meal 2% Linseed meal 4% Linseed meal
Averagergain in live weight in grams
Cockerels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955.9 838.5 930.8 908.7 929.9 924.3
Pullets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774.2 755.9 741.4 739 .1 774.9 766.7
Grams of feed required to produce one gram of gain
Cockerels and pullets . . . . . . . . . . 3.00 3.16 2.99 3.29 ‘ 3.18 3.10
Percentage of chicks that died during the experiment
Cockerels and pullets . . . . . . . . . . 2. l3 0.0 , 0.0 I 0.0 ‘ 0.0 0.0

91 SXOIHO DNIMOHE) ‘HO-i SCIEIELI NIELLOHcI SIIOIHVA eIO SEIIYIVA

16 BULLETIN NO. 588, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Soybean oil meal, cottonseed meal, and fish meal gave as good or slightly
better results than meat and bone scraps, fish meal, and cottonseed meal.
These results are shown in Table 8, rations 2 and 4.

Peanut Meal as Compared with Cottonseed Meal and Soybean Oil Meal

In these experiments, the chicks receiving the cottonseed meal, soybean
oil meal, and fish meal or meat and bone scraps made more rapid gains
than those fed peanut meal, soybean oil meal, and fish meal or meat and
bone scraps. It required about the same amount of feed to produce the
gains on the different combinations of feed. These results are shown in
Table 9, rations 1 and 3, and Table 9, rations 4 and 6.

Soybean oil meal, cottonseed meal, and meat and bone scraps or fish
meal produced somewhat greater gains with chicks than did peanut meal
with cottonseed meal and bone scraps or fish meal. Only a slight differ-
ence was shown in feed required for these gains. The results are shown
in Table 9, rations 1 and 2, and in Table 9, rations 4 and 5.

Soybean Oil Meal and Cottonseed Meal as Supplements for Chicks

The data in Table 8, rations 1 and 2, show that there is no significant
difference between soybean oil meal and cottonseed meal as protein feeds
for chicks when fed along with meat and bone scraps and fish meal.

When fed with fish meal and peanut meal, Table 9, rations 2 and 3, the
results are also about the same. There is a slight difference favoring the
cottonseed meal over the soybean oil meal.

When meat and bone scraps and peanut meal are used, the cockerels
made better gains and the pullets slightly poorer gains with soybean oil
meal as compared with the cottonseed meal. These results are shown in
Table 9, rations 5 and 6. »

Linseed Oil Meal as a Partial Substitute for Soybean Oil Meal
or Cottonseed Meal

The data given in Table 10, rations 3 and 4, as compared with ration 1
show that with rations containing fish meal, soybean oil meal, and cotton-
seed meal the gains were lower when either 2 and 4 per cent of linseed
oil meal was used as a substitute for a like amount of soybean oil meal.
In the same table, Table 10, rations 5 and 6 as compared with ration 1, it
was apparent that there was no advantage gained by substituting 2 or 4
pounds of old process linseed oil meal for 2 or 4 pounds of cottonseed meal
when fed in rations containing fish meal and soybean oil meal. In fact,
with cockerels, there was a slightly lower gain with 2 or 4 per cent linseed
oil meal substituted for a like amount of cottonseed meal. The feed re-
quired for a unit of gain in live weight was higher with the linseed oil
meal than with the cottonseed meal. These results are in line with results
of Mussehl and Ackerson (7) and Ackerson and co-workers (1).

VALUES OF VARIOUS PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 17

Adequacy of the Control Rations in Meeting the Vitamin G
Requirements of Chicks

Norris and co-workers (8) stated that chicks need approximately 290
units of vitamin G per 100 grams of feed in order t0 attain normal weight
at eight weeks of age. In a later study, Heuser, Wilgus, and Norris (5)
reported that the ration should contain approximately 350, 290, 240, 200,
160, 130, and 100 units of vitamin G per 100 grams of feed for normal
growth and feed consumption for chicks from 2 to 8 weeks of age, re-
spectively.

In the studies reported in this bulletin, rations containing 6 per cent of
either fish meal or meat and bone scraps were used as control rations.
These rations (ration 1, Tables 6 and 7) have given good results at the
Texas Station for the feeding of growing chickens from hatching time
until they are ten to twelve weeks of age (11). It seemed advisable, how-
ever, to check the adequacy of these rations to see whether they meet
the vitamin G requirements of chicks.

Two experiments were conducted. In the first one, a basal ration con-
taining 6 per cent of fish meal (ration 1, Table 6) was fed together with
similar rations (Table 6, rations 2 to 6) containing 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 per
cent of dried whey, a feed which is widely used by feed manufacturers
and poultrymen as a carrier of vitamin G. The vitamin G content of
rations 1 to 6, Table 6, is approximately 280, 310, 340, 360, 400, and 430
units of vitamin G per 100 grams of ration, respectively, as calculated

ifrom the values given by Norris and co-workers (8) for the vitamin G
‘content of all feeds except cottonseed meal and from that given by Levine

and Remington (6) for the vitamin G content of cottonseed meal. The
latter workers report their results as Borquin-Sherman units of vitamin G
or flavin per gram. Norris and co-workers (8) reported their results in
chick units, and they state that a chick unit is appoximately equal to a
microgram of flavin. A conversion factor of three is used in converting
the Borquin-Sherman flavin units to Norris chick units, according to the
work of Booher (2).

There was no increase in gains of live weight of the chicks or reduc-
tion of units of feed required to produce a unit of gain when 1 to 5 per
cent of dried whey was used with fish meal, Table 11, rations 1 to 6.
The small mortality noted in the experiment is not thought to be related
to the feed. The calculated vitamin G content of the basal ration used
in this experiment is slightly lower than that reported by Norris et al. (8),
and also by Heuser and co-workers (5) for the first three weeks of the
chick’s life. After three weeks, the vitamin G contained in the basal ration
of this experiment is considerably higher than that reported by the latter
workers to be adequate for normal growth and food consumption.

In a study conducted by Sherwood and Couch (11), it was observed that
a ration similar to the basal ration used in these studies failed to sup-

18 BULLETIN NO. 588, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table l1. Experiment 95. The eflect of the addition of varying amounts of dried whey to a
ration in which 6% Fish Meal, 6% Cottonseed Meal, and 6% Soybean Oil Meal
' constitute the protein concentrate components of the ration

Ration 3 Ration 4 Ration 5 u Ration 6

 

Ration 1 I Ration 2

 

Percentage of dried whey used in each ration

O 1 2 I 3 4 ‘ 5

Average gain in live weight in grams

1121.0
888.6

1096.2 1061.8
906.1 896.5

Cockerels . . . . . . . . . . .. 1218.7 1065.0 1110.3
Pullets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918.0 873.2 899.6

   

Grams of feed required to produce one gram of gain

   

Cockerels and Pullets. 2.99 3.23 3.15 3.11 3.31 3.24
Percentage of chicks that died during the experiment
Cockercls and Pullets. 4.35 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 l 0.0 _2.27

     

port growth when the dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal was reduced to ap-
proximately 1 per cent. It is Well known that dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal
is a potent source of vitamin G.

In the second experiment, 6 pounds of meat and bone scraps were used
in the place of the 6 pounds of fish meal used in the first experiment.
Table 7, ration 1, is the basal ration for this experiment, and Table 7,
rations 2 to 6, are those containing 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 per cent dried whey.
The fiavin content of the rations in Table 7 range is approximately 270,
300, 330, 360, 390, and 420 units of vitamin G per 100 grams of ‘feed.
Table l2.7Experiment 105. The efiect of the addition of varying amounts of dried whey to a

ration in which 6% Meat and Bone Scraps, 6% Cottonseed Meal, and 6% Soy-
bean Oil Meal constitute the protein concentrate components of the ration

       

 

Ration 1 l Ration 2 Ration 3 Raftion 4 Ration 5 Ration 6
Percentage of dried whey in each ration
0 l 1 I 2 I 3 4 i 5
Average gain in live weight in grams
Cockerels . . . . . . . . . . . . 753.8 821.9 857.5 805.7 759.4 834.2
Pullets . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 662.8 724.3 714.8 675.1 658.4 716.3

         

Grams of feed required to produce one gram of gain

       

Cockerels and Pullets. 3.31 3.30 ' 3.23 3.15 3.49 3.23
Percentage of chicks that died during the experiment
Cockerels and Pullets. 0.0 6.12 0.0 l 1 .96 I 0.0 4.08

     

VALUES OF VARIOUS PROTEIN FEEDS FOR GROWING CHICKS 19

The addition of 1 per cent of dried whey produced an increase in the gains
in live weight of the chicks without any effect upon the units of feed
required to produce a unit of gain. The small mortality noted in this
experiment was not thought to be related to the feed. The data presented
above show no evidence that the difierences in the gains made with the
rations containing fish meal or meat and bone scraps are related to the
vitamin G content.
CONCLUSIONS

Q

The data presented in this bulletin indicate that under the conditions of
these experiments the following.conclusions are warranted:

1. Vacuum-dried fish meal gave the best results of any of the protein
feeds studied when used as a supplement to any two other protein
feeds used in the study. The chicks grew more rapidly and produced
gains with a smaller amount of feed when the fish meal was fed than
when it was not fed.

2. Liver meal did not prove to be a satisfactory substitute for vacuum-
dried fish meal.

3. When vacuum-dried fish meal is used to make up 6 per cent of the
chick ration the remaining 12 per cent of the prot 'n concentrates
may be made up of meat and bone scraps, soybean oil eal, or cotton-
seed meal using 6 per cent of each feed.

4. Peanut meal was not a good substitute for cottonseed meal or soy-
bean oil meal in the chick rations studied.

5. Old process linseed oil meal, when used as a partial substitute for
soybean oil meal or cottonseed meal, produced poorer gains and the
amount required to produce a unit of gain in live weight was higher
than when the linseed oil meal was not used.

6. Rations containing 6 per cent of vacuum-dried fish meal and 5 per
cent of choice dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal were not improved by
the addition of vitamin G supplied by dried whey.

7. The use of a ration containing 1 per cent of dried whey and 6 per
cent meat and bone scraps, 6 per cent cottonseed meal, 6 per cent
soybean oil meal, and 5 per cent choice dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal
resulted in greater gains than did the same ration not containing
dried whey.

10.

11.
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

BULLETIN NO. 588, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

REFERENCES

Ackerson,  W., Blish, M. J., and Mussehl, F. E. 1938. The utilization of food /

elements by growing chicks. V. A comparison of cottonseed meal and linseed oil
meal as portions of the protein concentrate.
tin 1

Booher, Lela E. 1939. The vitamins.
born Street, Chicago, Ill., page 267.

Christiansen, J. B., Deboald, H. J., Halpin, J. G., and Hart, E. P. 1939. Further
studies on the nature .of the effective supplements of soybean oil meal in chick
rations. Poultry Sci., 18:481-485.

Hammond, John G., Hendricks, Walter A., and Titus, Harry W. 1938. Effect of per-
centage of protein in the diet on growth and feed utilization of male chickens.
Jour. Agri. Research, 56, No. 11, 791-810.

Heuser, G. F., Wilgus, H. S., Jr., and Norris, L. C.
requirement of chicks. Poultry Sci., 16:367-368.

Levine, H_., and Remington, R. E. 1937. The vitamin G content of some foods.
Nutr., 13:525-542.

Mussehl, F. E., and Ackerson, C. W. 1931. Utilization of proteins by the growing
chick. Nebraska Agri. Exp. Station Bulletin 55.

Norris, L. G., Wilgus, H. S., Jr., Ringrose, A. T., Heiman, V., and Heuser, G. F. 1936.
The vitamin G requirement of poultry. Cornell Bulletin 660.

Ringrose, R. C., and Morgan, C. L. 1938. The use of cottonseed meal in the chick
starting ration. Poultry Sci., 17:109-113.

Rose, W. C. 1938. The nutritive significance of the amino acids. ‘Physiol.
18:109-136. .

Sherwood, R. M., and Couch, J . R. Unpublished Data. Texas Agri. Exp. Station.

Sherwood, R. M., and Couch, J. R. 1939. Comparative values of various protein feeds
for growing chicks. Texas Agri. Exp Station Bulletin 569.

Smuts, D. B. 1938. Plant proteins. I. A comparative study of the growth-promoting
properties of the proteins of peanut meal, sesame meal, copra meal, lucerne meal,
and cottonseed mgdl. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. and An. Ind., 10:193-205.

Smuts, D. B., and Malan, A. I. 1938. Plant proteins. II. The biological values of
lucerne meal, sesame meal, peanut meal, copra meal, cottonseed meal, and oat meal.
Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. and An. Ind., 10:207-219.

Smuts, D. B., and Marias, J. S. C. 1938. Plant proteins. VI. The amino acid defi-
ciencies in certain plant proteins. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. and. An. Ind., 11:407-
416.

American Medical Association, 535 North Dear-

1937. The quantitative vitamin G

J our.

Rev.,

Tomhave, A. E. 1939. Protein levels of rations for white leghorn pullets. Delaware

Agri. Exp. Station Bulletin 219.

 

Nebraska Agri. Exp. Station Bulle- ‘_