TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR College Station, Téxas BULLETIN NO. 622 OCTOBER 1942 SILAGE AND COTTONSEED MEAL FOR FATTENING YEARLING STEERS J. H. JONES, R. F. DICKSON, J. K. RIGGS, AND J, H. JONES Division of Range Animal Husbandry LIBRARY Aaliuultesrai Staiian, AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE 0F TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President >7 B23—1142-7500-L180 Feeding experiments conducted at Substation N0. 7, Spur, Texas, have shown that heavy yearling feeder steers of about 700 pounds initial weight can be reasonably Well fattened on rations 02f cottonseed meal and sumac silage without additional grain in about 200 days. The feeding of silage with cottonseed meal may afiord a profitable means of marketing large amounts of silage per steer when grains are scarce and high in price and silage is abundant. It was more profitable to feed approximately 5.5 pounds of 43 percent protein cottonseed meal per head daily in addition to a full feed of silage than either 4 or 7 pounds. The smaller amount did not produce ade- quate finish. The larger amount increased both gain and finish, but these advantages were expensive. Cottonseed oil, fed for experimental purposes, was not laxative to yearling steers, when fed in amounts up to 1 pound per head daily. It had high energy value as shown by the gains resulting from its inclusion in the ration, but its cost prohibits its use in cattle fattening. In one trial, cottonseed fed at the rate of 6.4 pounds per head daily, with cottonseed meal and silage to yearling steers did not have laxative effect. Its protein and fat was nearly as efficient in the production of, gain as the protein and fat supplied by cottonseed meal and cottonseed oil. CONTENTS Page Introduction 5 General Plan of Experiment 7 Cattle Used __ 7 Feeds Used 7 Plan of Rations g Experimental Results 9 Results 1935-36 ____ __ 9 Results 1936-37 10 Results 1937-38 _ 12 General Discussion of Results“. _ 14 Fattening on Silage and Cottonseed Meal ___________________________________ 15 Comparison of Different Amounts of Cottonseed Mealmw t 16 Comparison of Different Amounts of Cottonseed Oil _____ n Summary SILAGE AND COTTONSEED MEAL FOR FATTENING’ YEARLING STEERS J. H. Jones-l, B. E. Dickson2, J. K. Riggs3, J. M. Jonesri It became evident during the course of feeding trials conducted at Substation No. 7'from 1931 to 1934 that the trench silo affords a prac- ticable means of storing sorghum roughages in the Spur area. The quality of the sorghum roughages stored in the trench silo was maintained to a degree not possible with stacking in the open. Rodent damage and the hazards of fire were eliminated. The low cost of the trench silos provided not only economical storage but permitted the saving of sur- pluses of roughages for use in following years. Texas cattle feeders often have supplies of roughages, silage and bundle feeds, when fattening grains are comparatively scarce and high in price. The protein supplements such as cottonseed meal and peanut meal are usually available at a fair price. This situation often results in the use of fattening rations consisting of cottonseed meal and silage. In these instances the main question has had to do with the amount of cottonseed meal which should be fed per head daily in addition to th full feed of silage. ' In feeding rations high in roughage feeds, very good results in gain and finish and gloss of hair coat have been noted when limited amounts of cottonseed were included in the rations. It has been suggested that the high fat content of cottonseed, approximately 18 percent, may be responsible for such favorable results. A laxative efiect which has been reported from the feeding of large amounts of cottonseed has also been ascribed to the high oil or fat content of the cottonseed. l Most of the feeds used in West Texas are comparatively low in fat. Milo heads contain approximately 2.5 percent, threshed milo 2.9 percent, sumac silage .8 percent, and cottonseed meal the most readily available protein supplement has a guaranteed analysis of 6 percent minimum fat content (5). Cottonseed meal, however, may contain 7 percent to 9 per- cent fat, but such meals, usually ground from screenings, may fall slightly below 43 percent protein content. The situation in regard to the fat content of West Texas fattening rations and the fat content of cottonseed and cottonseed meal has prompted questions concerning the value of fat in the common feeds. With refer- ence to the slightly variable fat and protein content of cottonseed meal lAnimal Husbandman. zSupt. Substation No. 7, Spur, Texas. sAssoc. Prof. An. Husb. (formerly Asst. An. Husb., Substa. 7, Spur). ‘Chief Division Range Animal Husbandry. . 6 BULLBYIIL NO. 622, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION it is reasonable for the silage feeder to ask, “Is a cottonseed meal con- taining 41 percent protein and 8 percent fat as valuable for fattening with silage as one containing 43 percent protein and 6 percent fat, the total percentage of protein and fat being equal in each case?” The feeder has also asked whether cottonseed are laxative and if the protein and fat in cottonseed will give the same results in fattening as the protein and fat supplied in the form of cottonseed meal and cottonseed oil. With the situation of an abundance of silage feeds, limited amounts of grain feeds, available cottonseed meal and in instances cheap cotton- seed, work was undertaken to gain additional information in regard to the place of silage in fattening rations and to determine (1) the relative value of different amounts of cottonseed meal when fed as the only con- centrate With silage for fattening, and (2) the value of difierent amounts of fat (fed as crude cottonseed oil) in rations of silage and cottonseed meal for fattening yearling steers. (The cottonseed oil was fed for ex- perimental purposes and not with the idea that it would be profitable.) The use of silage and cottonseed meal rations for fattening yearling steers is something of a departure from usual procedure for most year- ling steers placed in dry lot for fattening are fed some grain. Armsby (1), wrote in 1917 as a general conclusion that under ordinary condi- tions mature or nearly mature fattening animals should be fed about as heavily as the capacity 0f the animals and the skill of the feeder will permit. He further stated that such intensive feeding can be accom- plished only by the free use of concentrates and that unless concentrates are very evpensive as compared to roughages they should be used to the largest practicable extent. Morrison (2) has also stated that it is ordinarily profitable to feed grain liberally throughout the entire la:- tening period unless the price of grain is unusually high in comparison to the roughage or unless the local market pays no premium for well fattened cattle. Such cautions were understood in planning the work at Spur and it was realized that gains necessarily would not be as high as could be obtained with rations high inconcentrates. The literature, however, affords many instances in which reasonably good gains have been secured in feeding rations limited in concentrates. Smith (3) found that 2-year- old steers fed cottonseed meal and corn silage averaged 2.18 pounds daily gain for a period of 102 days. Curtis (4) reported gains of l 23 to 1.69 pounds per head daily for 2-year-old steers fed corn silage With 6.77 to 8.14 pounds of cottonseed meal for 112 to 122 days. Burns (5) (6) secured gains of about 2 pounds per head daily in feeding rations of cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls and silage to aged steers during feeding periods of about 140 days. Jones et al (7) also secured reason- ably good gains and satisfactory finish in feeding rations high in rough- age to yearling steers in periods of about 200 days. .1 SILAGE AND COTTONSEED MEAL FOR FATTENING YEARLING STEERS 7 GENERAL PLAN OF EXPERIMENT The feeding trials were conducted during three consecutive feeding seasons, 1935-36, 1936-37, and 1937-38. The results are discussed separ- ately by years and are then summarized. Cattle Used »Lots of 10 head each of well bred Hereford steer yearlings were used in each of the three tests. Those used in 1935-36 were of good to choice quality and were in good grass flesh when received. They were fed an average of 17 pounds cottonseed hulls and 2 pounds cottonseed meal for a period of 30 days, after which they were divided into 5 lots and en- tered the test weighing 676 pounds valued at $6.32 per hundred. The steers used in 1936-37 were of lower quality and were purchased on May 29, 1936, at a weight-of 525 pounds. They were maintained 0n the station farm on pasturage and various feeds for a period of 194 days during which time they gained 217 pounds per head, and entered the feedlot weighing 742 pounds valued at $6.50 per cwt. The steers used in 1937-38 were good choice in quality. They weighed an average of 679 pounds when received October 7, 1937 at $50.00 per head. They were fed various farm feeds on the station for 42 days and entered the test November 17 at an average weight of 754 pounds valued at $6.85 per cwt. Feeds Used The feeds used were of good quality and were representative of the feeds available in the region. The silage was of sumac sorghum produced on the station farm, and the cottonseed meal was purchased under a guar- antee of 43 per c-ent protein and 6 per cent fat. The silage was as uni- form in composition from yeaf'ta"yéaréi§"a0u1a be expected under the vary- ing conditions of growth, harvesting and storage which were encountered. The available analyses of the feeds which were used are shown in Table 1. Table 1. *Compos1tlon of feeds used No. of 1 Nitrogen Kind of feed samples Protein Fat Crude free Water Ash analyzed fiber extract COTTON SEED MEAL 1955-36 ________________ -- 2 45.01 7.51 11.96 29.21 7.12 5.18 1936-3’? ---------------- _- 1 41.70 8.52 11.75 24.87 7.65 5.51 1937-38 ................ -_ 1 43.05 8.02 10.75 25.07 7.64 5.47 Average ______________ -_ 4 43.25 8.02 11.49 24.38 7.47 5.39 SUMAG SILAGE 1936-37 ________________ _- 1 1.56 .36 3.39 11 36 81.21 2.12 19437-38 ---------------- -- 1 2 62 .83 7.04 17 35 69.72 2.44 Average .............. -- 2 2.09 .59 5.12 14.35 75.46 2.28 *Analyzed by Division of Chemistry, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 8 BULLETIN N O. 622. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Prices‘ charged for the feeds used in each of the years were the esti- mated farm prices for the region and are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Peed prices per ton Feeds l 1965-36 l mas-av I waves Cottonseed meal $ 26.80 $ 35.00 $ 27.00 Cottonseed hulls 6.50 10.00 7.00 Cottonseed oil 190.00 200.00 130.00 Sudan hay 5.00 . A . _ _ . _ _ . -- Sumac Billie“ 2.00 4.00 4.00 Sorghum fodder ................................. __ 10.00 ____ __ Salt- 17.50 25.00 17.00 Cottonseed . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _- 18.00 Plan of Rations The plan of feeding was as follows: Lot 1——Cottonseed meal, 4 pounds; cottonseed oil, .18 pound; silage Lot 2-—- “ “ ', 5.5 “ ; “ “, .09 “ ; “ Lot 3—- “ “ , 7 “ ; “ / Lot 4— “ “ , 4 a “ ;cottonseed oil, .58 pound; “ Lot 5— “ “ , 4 “ ; “ “ .98 “ - “ i 3 The plan was designed to make direct comparison of 4, 5.5, and 7 pounds of cottonseed meal in Lots 1, 2, and 3, and of .18, .58, and .98 pound of cottonseed oil in Lots 1, 4, and 5, or, in short, to split the cot- tonseed into its two major constituents, protein in form of cottonseed meal and fat as cottonseed oil, to study the feeding value of each. Table 3 shows the percentage composition of the mixtures as fed to each lot during the three feeding trials. These mixtures were made up daily and sacked for morning and evening feeds, at which time they Table 3. Concentrate mixtures used, 1935-1938 Feed Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 4, Lot 5, l Lot 6,‘ % % % % % l % i I Cottonseed meal ____________________ -_ 77.22 82.20 87.7 71.68 66.89 ‘ 13.5 Cottonseed oil ______________________ _- 3.47 1.36 --___ 10.39 16.39 ....- Cottonseed hulls .................... -.. 19.31 16.44 12.28 17.92 16.72 E ---- Cottonseed* . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . _- 86.5 *Fed in 1937-38 only were spread over the silage and mixed in. A small amount of cotton? seed hulls was used in the mixtures as a carrier for the cottonseed oil in order to get it more evenly distributed through the feed mixture. In the 1936-37 trial some additional cottonseed hulls were fed as roughage. SILAGE AND COTTONSEED MEAL FOR FATTENING YEARLING STEERS 9 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Results 1935-36 A summary of the first feeding trial is shown in Table 4. Table 4. Summary first feeding trial, November 14, 1935 to May 8, 1936 176 days I I I Lot number | 1 [ 2 u 3 4 5 l Number of steers ............................. __ 10 10 l 10 10 10 Variables when on full feed All lots fed silage and cottonseed hulls 1. Amount cottonseed meal fed daily ____ __ 4.0 5.5 7.0 4.0 4.0 2. Amount cottonseed oil fed daily- _____ __ .13 .09 ___ .58 .98 Averages in pounds per steer Initial weight 675 677 676 676 676 Final weight at feedlot ....................... _- 988 1005 1013 1015 1040 Final weight at Ft. Worth market __________ __ 927 944 956 958 990 Gain basis feedlot weight _____________________ __ 313 328 337 339 364 Gain basis market weight ____________________ __ '2 267 280 282 314 Daily gain basis feedlot weight _____________ __ 1.78 1.86 1.91 1.93 2.0’? Daily gain basis market weight .............. __ 1.43 1.52 1.59 1.60 1.78 Shrinkage enroute to market, % ____________ __ 6.17 6.07 5.63 5.62 4.81 Carcass weight (hot) ......................... __ 582 598 614 612 622 Dressing % basis hot carcass and market wt. 62.8 63.3 64.2 63.9 62.8 Dressing % basis hot carcass and fdlt. wt.-_ 58.9 59.5 60.6 60.3 59.8 Carcass grades-Swift 11’s—choice__ 1 4 5 1 2 12’s—-strictly good to choice ________________ __ 4 6 3 8 5 13’s—top medium to good __________________ -_ 5 -___ 2 .1 3 Total feeds consumed Cottonseed meal ____________________________ -_ 683 920 1190 679 679 Cottonseed oil 30.4 15 __-_ 98 165 Cottonseed hulls___"_ ________________________ __ 209 223 206 209 209 Silage- ____ __ 65% 6563 6563 6566 6563 Sudan hay 133 136 113 118 119 Salt- __ 7.4 8.0 8.1 6.1 6.8 Average ration consumed Cottonseed meal ____________________________ __ 3.88 5.23 6.76 3.86 3.86 Cottonseed oil _______________________________ __ .173 .086 ____ .56 .94 Cottonseed hulls- ___________________________ __ 1.19 1.27 1.17 1.19 1.19 Silage- 37.29 37.29 37.29 37.29 37.29 Sudan hay _ 755 .77 .64 .67 .67 S8115, ounces .73 .74 .55 .62 Cost of feed per cwt. gain (feed consumed) I . Basis feedlot weight ....................... -- $ 6.29 $ 6 54 $ 6.98 $ 7.67 $ 8.89 Basis market weight ________________________ __ 7.81 s o3 8.40 9.22 10.31 Cost into feedlot at $6.323 per cwt .......... -_ $ 42.689 42.81 $ 42.74 $ 42.74 $ 42.74 Feed cost (feed consumed) ___________________ __ 19.68 21.45 23.53 26.00 32.37 Marketing cost at $0.441 per cwt ............. -- 4.09 4.16 4.22 4.22 4.97 Total cost_ _ 66.45 68.42 70.49 72.96 79.48 Sellmg price per cwt __________________________ __ 7.50 7.75 7.51 7.75 7.75 Amount received- 69.53 73.16 72.75 74.25 76.73 Profit (no charge for labor) ................. -- 3.08 4.74 2.26 1.29 2.75 10 BULLETIN NO‘. 622, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Comparison of Different» Amounts of Cottonseed Meal Lot 2, fed 5.23 pounds of cottonseed meal per head daily, made 4.8 percent greater gain and yielded 2.7 percent more dressed beef than Lot 1, fed only 3.88 pounds of cottonseed meal. It also had an advantage of 25 cents per cwt. in selling price, which was warranted by higher finish. Lot 3, fed 6.76 pounds of cottonseed meal per head daily, made 2.7 percent greater gain and 2.7 percent more dressed beef than Lot 2, fed 5.23 pounds. It made 7.7 percent greater gain and 5.5 percent more dressed beef than Lot 1, fed only 3.88 pounds of cottonseed meal. The greater gain and higher yield of dressed beef indicates that the larger amount of meal was beneficial as a source of energy. It would have been profitable to feed the larger amount of cottonseed meal had it not been that two steers in the lot were of inferior type and reduced the average price of the lot. Comparison of Difierent Amounts of Cottonseed Oil There was a consistent increase in gain with increase in the amount of cottonseed oil fed. Lot 4, with .56 pound of cottonseed oil added to the ration of 3.86 pounds of cottonseed meal and a full feed of silage made 8.3 percent greater gain and 5.2 percent more dressed beef at a saving of 8.25 percent in cottonseed meal required per hundred pounds gain than Lot 1, fed .17 pound of oil. Lot 5, which received .94 pound of oil per head daily made 16.3 per- cent greater gain and 6.9 percent more dressed beef at a saving of 14.2 percent in cottonseed meal required per hundred pounds gain than Lot 1, fed only .17 pound of oil. It also gained 7.4 percent more and yielded 1.6 percent more dressed beef at a saving of 6.5 percent in cottonseed meal required per hundred pounds gain than Lot 4, which received .56 pound of cottonseed oil. These two lots sold. at the same price and both had a 25 cent advantage per cwt. over Lot 1 fed .17 pound of cottonseed oil. This feeding trial showed that yearling steers can be fattened on rations of cottonseed meal and silage without added grain, and that about 200 days of such feeding are required to make good finish. It was more profitable to feed the medium amount of cottonseed meal, 5.23 pounds per head daily with silage, as fed in Lot 2 than either 3.88 pounds as fed to Lot 1 or 6.76 pounds as fed to Lot 3. Results 1936-37 A feeding period of 122 days,‘ which was not long enough to produce high finish, was necessitated by a shortage of roughage feeds. Chopped sorghum fodders were fed with the silage in order to extend the feeding period, but the other feeds were the same as for 1935-36. A summary of the second feeding trial is shown in Table 5. SILAGE AND COTTON-SEED MEAL FOR- FATTENING YEAR-LING STEERS 11 table 5. Summary second feeding trial, December 9, 1936 to April 10, 1937 122 days I Lot number ___________________________________ __| Number of steers _____________________________ __| I Variables when on full feed 1I 10% QI 10% 3 10 I 41 1o; I 5 10 All lots fed silage, cottonseed hulls and sorghum fodder I I I 1. Amount of cottonseed meal fed daily_--l 4.0 l 5.5 7.0 4.0 I 4.0 2 Amount of cottonseed oil fed daily ____ __% .181 .09 _-_ .5811 .98 I I Average in pounds per steer Initial weight _ _______________________________ __ 743 742 743 742! 742 Final weight at feedlot ______________________ __ 976 990 10-06 973 995 Final weight at Ft. Worth market _________ __ 885 899 907 880 901 Gain basis feedlot weight ____________________ __ 233 248 263 , 231 253 Gain basis market Weight_ __________________ __ 142 15/7 164 I 138 159 Daily gain basis feedlot Weight _____________ __ 1.91 2.03 21.16" 1.89 2.07 Daily gain basis market weight ............. __ 1.16 1.29 1.341 1.13, 1.30 Shrinkage enroute market, % ________________ __ 9.32 9.19 9.84; 9.56 9.45 Carcass weight (hot) ____________________ -_-_____ 535 545 561 547 552 Dressing % basis hot carcass and market Weight _______________________________________ __ 60.5 60.6 61.9 62.2 61.3 Dressing % basis hot carcass and feedlot Weight _______________________________________ __ 54.8 55.1 55.8 56.2 55.0 Carcass grades—S-wift I 13’s—top medium to good __________________ _- 7 8 8 I 5 5 14's—medium_ _______________________________ __ 3 2 2 ' 5 5 Total feeds consumed Cottonseed meal ____________________________ __ 484 646.6 829.6 481 476 Cottonseed o-il _______________________________ __ 21.6 10.7 _-_- 69 116 Cottonseed hulls- ___________________________ __ 261 270 2577 I 260 266 Silage ________________________________________ __ 4219 42109 4197 4202 4167 Sorghum fodder _____________________________ __ 568 565 561 562 555 Salt __________________________________________ __ 4.77 3.74 3.61 3.55 3.95 Average ration consumed Cottonseed meal_ ___________________________ _- 3.97 5.310 6.80- 394 3.90 Cottonseed oil _______________________________ __ .177 .088 ____ .57 .95 Cottonseed hulls‘- ___________________________ -_ 2.14 2.21 2.11 2.13 2.13 Silage ________________________________________ -_ 34.58 34.50 34.40 34.44 34.16 Sorghum fodder _____________________________ __ 4.66 4.68 4.60 4.61 4.55 Salt, ounces __________________________________ -_ .63 .49 .47 .47‘ .52 Cost of teed per cwt. gain (feed consumed) I Basis feedlot Weight ________________________ __ $ 9.99 $ 10.09 10.29'$ 12.07 $ 12.80 Basis market weight _______________________ -_ 16.39] 15.94 16.49 2020i 20.37 Cost into feedlot at $6.50 per cWt ___________ -_ $ 48.306 48.2355 48.30 $1 48.2313 48.23 Feed cost (feed consumed) ___________________ __ 23.27 25.03 27.05 27.88 32.39 Marketing cost at $0.434 per cWt _____________ __ 3.84 3.90‘ 3.93 3.82 3.91 T-Qtal cost _____________________________________ __ 75.41 77.16 79.28 79.93 84.53 Selling price per cwt __________________________ -_ 9.25 9.06 9.25 9.41 9.27 Amount received- _____________________________ __ 81.86 81.45 83.90 82.81 83.52 Profit or loss (no charge for labor) _________ -- 6.45 4.29 4.62 2.88 -—1.01 Comparison of Different Amounts of Cottonseed Meal Lot 2, fed 5.3 pounds of cottonseed meal per head daily made 6.4 per- cent greater gain and yielded carcasses 1.9 percent‘ heavier than Lot 1. 12 BULLETIN NO. 622, TEXAS‘ AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION which received 3.97 pounds of cottonseed meal. Lot 3, fed 6.80 pounds cottonseed meal per head daily made 12.9 percent more gain and 4.9 percent heavier carcasses than Lot 1, fed 3.97 pounds of cottonseed meal. It also made 6.0 percent greater gain and returned 2.9 percent heavier carcasses than Lot 2, fed 5.3 pounds of cottonseed meal. The steers used were of lower quality than those used in the first trial, and the feeding period was too short for any of the lots to become well finished. Lots 1 and 3 fed 3.97 pounds and 6.8 pounds cottonseed respectively sold at $9.25 per cwt. with Lot 2, fed 5.3 pounds, selling at $9.06. The selling prices tend to confuse interpretations based on net returns per steer, for with cottonseed meal at a» high price and with no difference in selling price, the net return favors the lot fed the least cottonseed meal. On the basis of carcass weight and carcass grade, how- ever, the lost fed the two larger amounts of cottonseed meal were worth more per cwt. than Lot 1 fed only 3.97 pounds, and had they sold that way, Lot 2, fed 5.3 pounds would have made the greatest return. Comparison of Different Amounts of Cottonseed Oil Lot 4, fed .57 pound of cottonseed oil per head daily made prac- tically the same gain based on both feedlot and market weights as Lot 1, fed .18 pound of oil, but the beneficial effect of the larger amount of oil was reflected in glossier hair coats and somewhat heavier carcasses. Lot 5, fed .95 pound of oil, however, gained 8.6 percent more than Lot 1, fed .18 pound and 9.5 percent more than Lot 4, fed .57 pound with corresponding increases of 3.2 percent and .9 percent in yield of dressed beef. For s'ome reason the lot fed the mid-amount of oil had an advan- tage in uniformity and apparent finish which resulted in an advantage in selling price; however, this price was not justified on the basis of the comparative carcass weights and grades. Lack of finish as a result of the short feeding period decreased the value of this trial. The results were clearly much more favorable to the addition of cottonseed oil in the first trial, but the results from feeding difierent-amounts of cottonseed meal were about the same for both trials. Results 1937-38 Whereas cottonseed meal and tzottonseed oil were fed as the only supplemental feeds in the first two trials, cottonseed was fed to one lot in this trial because it provided energy at low cost and enabled a com- parison between the cottonseed and cottonseed meal plus cottonseed oil, as sources of protein and fat. The supplements for Lot 6, cottonseed and cottonseed meal, were calculated to supply the same amount of protein and fat as was fed to Lot 5 in cottonseed meal and cottonseed oil. This, the third feeding trial, is summarized in Table 6. SILAGE AND COTTON-SEED MEAL FOR FATTENING YEARLING STEERS Table 6. Summary third feedfnglgaéiaé 5Y8 13 , November 17, 1937 to June 1, 1938 Lot number _________________________ —-\ ‘ 1 J 2 i 3 ll 4 I] 5 6 l Number of steers ___________________ -- 10 10 10 10 10 10 Variables when on full feed All lots fed silage and cottonsed hulls 1. Amount of cottonseed meal fed daily .................... _- 4.0 5.5 7.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 2. Amount of cottonseed oil , fed daily- ___________________ -_ .18 .09 --_- .58 .981 cseed Averages in pounds per steer Initial weight ....................... _- 755 755 754 751 753 755 Final weight at feedlot ............ _- 1080 1109 1117 1089 1113 1111 Final weight at Ft. Worth market 996 1024 1028 1000 1022 1016 Gain basis feedlot weight _________ -_ 325 354 363 338 360 356 Gain basis market weight; _______ __ 241 269 274 249 269 261 Daily gain basis feedlot weight__--_ 1.66 1.81 1.85 1.72 1.84 1.82 Daily gain basis market weight---_- 1.23 1.37 1.40 1.27 1.37 1.33 Shrinkage enroute market, % ..... _- 7.78 7.66 7.97 8.17 8.18 8.55 Carcass weight (hot)- ............. __ 626 653 666 639 650 645 Dressing % basis hot carcass and market weight .................... -_ 62.9 63.8 64.8 63.9 63.6 63.5 Dressing % basis hot carcass and feedlot weight ____________________ -_ 58.0 58.9 59.6 58.7 58.4 58.1 Carcass grades-Armour 32’s—strictly good to choice_-____- _-_- 2 2 1 4 2 33’s—top medium to good _______ -- 7 7 7 6 5 6 34’s—medium ______________________ _- 3 1 1 3 1 2 Total feeds consumed Cottonseed meal __________________ __ 784 1062 1364 780 780 196 Cottonseed oil ____________________ _- 35 17.6 ___- 113.7 192 ____ Cottonseed ........................ -- ---- ---- ___- ____ -_-_ 1252 Cottonseed hulls ........... -- ___ 196 212 192 196 196 ____ Silage- ____________________________ __ 9441 9398 9294 8663 8579 7656 Salt 12.1 8.56 8.88 9.50 9.06 7.19 Average ration consumed Cottonseed meal .................. -- 4.00 5.42 6% 3.98 3.98 1.00 Cottonseed oil .................... -_ .18 .09 ---- .58 .98 ____ Cottonseed --_- ---- ---- -_-_ -___ 6.39 Cottonseed hulls .................. -- 1.90 1. .98 1.00 1.00 ____ Silage- ............................ -- 48.17 47.95 47.42 44.20 43.77 39.06 Salt, ounces- ..................... -- .99 .70 .72 . . .59 Cost of feed per cwt. gain (feed consumed) Basis feedlot weight ------------- -- 10.01 9 9.91 9 10.40 $ 10.65 $ 11.37 $ 8.23 Basis market weight ------------- -- 13-50 13.04 13.78 14.46 15.22 11.22 Cost into feedlot at $7.54 per cwt._- 56.939 56.938 56.85$ 56.638 56.789 56.93 Feed cost (feed consumed) ........ __ 32.53 35.09 37.75 36.01 40.93 29.2.9 Marketing cost at $0.43 per cwt._--_ 4.28 4.40 4.42 4.30 4.39 4.37 Total cost- ------------------------- -- 93-74 96-42 99.02 96.94 102.10 90.59 Amount received at $9.25 per cwt.-- 92.13 94.72 95.09 92.50 94.54 93.93 Profit or loss (no charge for labor) —1.61 —1.70 —3.93 —4.44 —7 .56 3.39 14 BULLETIN NO. 622, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXrERIMENT STATION Comparison of Diflferent Amounts of Cottonseed Meal Lot 2, fed 5.42 pounds of cottonseed meal per head daily, made 8.9 percent greater gains and 4.3 percent more dressed beef than Lot 1, fed 4 pounds of cottonseed meal. Lot 3, fed 6.96 pounds‘ of cottonseed meal made gains 11.7 percent greater than Lot 1, fed 4 pounds, and 2.5 per- cent greater than Lot 2, fed 5.42 pounds, with corresponding increases in dressed beef of 6.4 and 2.0 percent. The differences in finish among the 6 lots were slight, and in order to avoid possible wide discrepancies in sale price all lots were sold together. The lots which received the more expensive rations and which also had slightly higher finish did not receive credit for their finish; however, Lot 2, fed 5.42 pounds of cottonseed meal made the best financial show- ing. It was definitely not profitable to feed the larger amount of cotton- seed meal, or 6.96 pounds and this was in accord with results of the first 2 trials. Comparison of Difierent Amounts of Cottonseed Oil The addition of cottonseed oil to the ration resulted in increased gain and greater carcass Weight. Lot 4, fed .58 pound of oil per head daily, made 4 percent greater gain, 2.1 percent more dressed beef than Lot 4, fed only .18 pound. Lot 5, fed .98 pound of oil made 10 8 percent greater gain than Lot 1, fed .18 pound and 6.51 percent greater gain than Lot 4, fed .58 pound, with attendant increases 0t‘ 6.8 and 1.7 per cent in yield of dressed beef. Protein and fat supplied to Lot 6 in cottonseed and cottonseed meal as measured by gains and yield of dressed beef were nearly as efficient as the same levels of protein and fat‘ supplied to Lot 5 in cottonseed meal and cottonseed oil. With cottonseed at $18.00 per ton it was much more economical to feed the fat through the medium of cottonseed than through the medium of cottonseed oil. The use of cottonseed oil at $130.00 per ton, increased the feed cost and decreased the net return. General Discussion of Results The resuws of the three trials aresummarized in Table 7. SILAGE AND COTTONSEED MEAL FOR FATTENING YEARLING STEERS 15 Table 7. Summary of results for three trials. Average 164.7 days i I l i i Lot number ____________________________________ "I 1 i 2 i 3 4 i 5 l I l l X11111be s °‘ o . o» p Q f0 +1 "* vow ‘E9 ° 40o . 5v.‘ -eoo w ’ vs»: ~ 3 990% g i -|-1 ».Q‘0.4 ‘n H 9.0.0. m 9.0;‘ c! g 50.0 0 0 "“ Q q < > 0 0 < 90¢‘: i? 5 sis -'~=:== ° q h k2...‘ ,...Q.q ' o 903% 90:03 - ,0 .4 zoo i 0° 4 5% 1 Cottonseed meal per head daily, pounds Figure 2. Gains and carcass weights of cattle fed 4, 5.5 and 7 pounds of cotton- seed meal in addition to a. full feed of sumac silage. Beyond supplying the protein needed to balance the rations, cottonseed meal fed beyond protein needs served as a source of energy in these trials. Under such circumstances, the question of how much can be fed econom- ically dep-ends entirely upon the price of cottonseed meal as compared to grains or other concentrates (8). When cottonseed meal will supply energy at a cost no higher than grain sorghums or corn it may be used in excess of amounts needed to meet the protein requirements. Comparison of Diiferent Amounts of Cottonseed Oil Lots 1, 4 and 5 (Table 7) are involved in this comparison since they were fed different amounts of cottonseed oil but similar amounts of the other feeds. Lot 4 received approximately .4 pound more cottonseed oil per head daily than Lot 1, and Lot 5 .4 pound more than Lot 4; or .8 pound more than Lot 1. On the basis of feedlot gains adjusted to agree with dressed yields Lot 4 made 32 pounds more gain per head than Lot 1; and Lot 5, 14 pounds more gain per head than Lot 4. The value of cottonseed oil in the fattening ration is also shown in the comparison between Lots 2 and 4 (Table 7). These lots returned carcasses of the same average weight and there was only slight difference in their average gains on the basis of both feedlot and market weights. Their average rations differed mainly in the amounts of cottonse-ed meal and cottonseed oil. Lot 2 consumed 1.39 pounds more cottonseed meal per head daily than Lot 4, and therefore received approximately .50 pound more of digestible protein than Lot 4; however, Lot 4 consumed .48 pound more cottonseed oil per head daily than Lot 2. Under the condition of BULLETIN NO. 622, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Figure 3. Steers fed 4 pounds (top), 5.5 pounds (center), and 7 pourrls (bottom) of cottonseed meal per head daily in addition to a full feed of sumac silage. Those fed 5.5 pounds gave the greatest net return in all years. SILAGE AND UOTTONSEED MEAL FOR FATTENING YEARLING STEERS l9 Gain Carcass weight soo’ voo l!) 97 - a c: j O o o. n‘ Q 0 +1 u‘ 4 O wwgw 60o .2 .2 99A ‘=11 i4’ »'o'o'4 "‘ er1 g Q y‘ d.) S, > O O. 3 $ U) Q; (O > a ‘H U a I» soo 50o a c o o o Q H a o O 4 fo‘o'< ‘i 930% ~~ o v o °‘ VQV o Vfo‘ Vie‘ 5§4§ 20° ' 40o .18 .58 .98 Cottonseed oil per head daily, pounds Figure 4. Gains and carcass weights of cattle fed .18, .58 and .98 pounds of cot- tonseed oil per head added to a daily ration of 4 pounds cottonseed meal and a. full feed of sumac silage. the supply of adequate protehiin the rafion these ainounts of the two nutrients were apparently equal in the production of gain, and this being the case, the feeder could easily afford to use a cottonseed meal of a lower percentage of protein if that percentage were made up with an equal per- centage of faL Average cottonseed meal of 43 percent protein content has a productive value of 74.9 therms per hundred pounds (5). The average composition of the cottonseed meai used in this experiment (Table 1) shows it as hav- ing a productive value, calculated according to the method of Fraps (8), of 73.91 therms per hundred pounds. On a comparative basis the cotton- seed ofl as fed to Lot 4 had a producfive value of approxhnatehr 214 therms per hundred pounds. On this basis one pound of cottonseed oil contains as many therms of productive energy as about 2.5 pounds of milo grain or 2.75 pounds of average 43 percent protein cottonseed meal. A one percent increase in the fat or cottonseed oil content of cottonseed meal is equivalent to 20 pounds of cottonseed oil per ton of cottonseed Ineal. Consequently a cottonseed meal of 8 to 9 percent fat content is t0 be pre- ferred to one of only 6 percent fat content——4vhen.the cottonseed rnealis fed as a source of energy. Cottonseed oil was not laxative to steers when fed in amounts up to 1 pound per head daily, an amount which would be supplied by about 5.6 pounds of cottonseed. Cottonseed as a feed, contains only about 43 per- cent as H1UCh digestible protein as 43 percent protein cottonseed noeal but has approximately the same productive value and is only slightly lower in producfive value than nfllo grain. The quesfion as to when cottonseed Figure 5. Steers fed .18 (top), .58 (center) and .98 (bottom) pound of cottonseed oil added to a daily ration of 4 pounds cottonseed mead’ and a full feed of sumac silage. Cottonseed oil had high feed value and improved appearance of the hair coats but is too high in price for practical feed- ng. SILAGE AND COTTONSEED MEAL FOR FATTENING YEARLING STEERS 211 can be fed economically depends upon the prices of cottonseed meal or other protein suppl-ements and grains; however, it can be fed to fattening steers whenever it does not cost more than ground threshed milo and cot- tonseed meal costs more than either cottonseed or the milo. With such price conditions it may be used to replace part of the cottonseed meal and part of the grain in fattening rations because it is comparatively high in both protein and energy. Palatability of Rations. Palatability of the rations was measured by observations of the length of time required for the various lots to clean up their morning feed as well as by their apparent likes or dislikes. In general, the lots fed the least total nutrients cleaned up the quickest. Lots 1, 2, and 3, fed cottonseed meal with none, or only a very small amount of cottonseed oil added, cleaned up in an average of 3.4 hours as compared to 4.4 hours for Lots 4 and 5, fed the larger amounts of cotton- seed oil. Although the rations containing the larger amounts of oil were consumed more slowly than those containing little oil, they were not particularly unpalatable and all rations were consumed in nearly equal quantities. Loo-semess or Soouring. Daily records, kept of the number of loose or scouring steers in each lot, showed that the lots fed the largest amounts of cottonseed meal had the most looseness. The amounts of cottonseed oil and of whole cottonseed which were fed did not appear to have laxative effect. The records also show that silage may be a factor in causing loose- ness if it is excessively wet and acid. In the instances in which such silage was fed the inclusion of small amounts of dry fodder or cottonseed hulls in the ration was effective in controlling looseness. Just how serious a moderate degree of looseness is in fattening cattle was not determined, but within lots it was evident that gains were not reduced because of it in these trials. As between lots most feeders would have concluded that there was too much looseness in the lots fed approximately 5.5 and 7 pounds of cottonseed meal per head daily. Efiect of Cottonseed Oil on Hair Coats. The steers which were fed 7 pounds of cottonseed meal without added cottonseed oil were somewhat rougher and duller in hair coat than those fed even as little as .09 pound of oil. The lots which were fed .56 and .98 pound of oil daily per head showed glossier hair coat than those fed smaller amounts. SUMMARY In these feeding experiments yearling steers were reasonably well fattened on rations of sumac silage and cottonseed meal in periods of about 200 days. The feeding of silage with cottonseed meal, or with cot- tonseed meal plus cottonseed (when low in price) may afford a profit- able means of marketing large amounts of silage per steer when grains are scarce and high in price and silage is abundant. The method has the disadvantage of producing only ‘moderate gains because it is im- 22 BULLETIN NO. 622, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION possible for cattle fed limited concentrates. to consume enough silage to secure the nutrients required to make high gain. Low gains in dry lot feeding are accompanied by high cost of gain unless the feeds are very 10W in price. Considering the factors of gain, costs of gain, degree of finish, selling price, carcass weight and grade, and net return,_ the feeding of approxi- mately 5.5 pounds of cottonseed meal per head daily in addition to a full feed of silage, gave better results than the feeding of either 4 or 7 pounds. These amounts of cottonseed meal were greater than were neces- sary to meet the protein requirements of the cattle, and whether such amounts can be fed economically depends upon the price of cottonseed meal as compared to grains. When cottonseed meal will supply energy at a cost no higher than grain sorghums or corn, it may be used in ex- cess of amounts needed to meet the protein requirement (8). The price of crude cottonseed oil as in this experiment prohibits its use for cattle feeding, but the difference in gain and yield of dressed beef between lots which received different amounts of cottonseed oil show that the oil has high feed value. The similarity in gain and finish between a lot fed cottonseed and cottonseed meal and a lot fed to receive the same amounts of protein and fat as supplied by cottonseed oil and cottonseed meal in a single test indicates that the protein and fat, respectively, have approximately the same value whether supplied by cottonseed meal and cottonseed oil, or by cottonseed. Cottonseed oil was not laxative to yearling steers when fed in amounts up to 1 pound per head daily, an- amount larger than would ordinarily be fed in cottonseed. Cottonseed was not laxative to yearling steers when fed at the rate of 6.4 pounds (one trial) per head daily for 196 days. The results also indicate that with adequate protein in the ration, the feeder may feed a cottonseed meal of slightly lower protein content if the loss of protein is" compensated by an equal increase in the percentage of‘ fat or oil. LITERATURE CITED 1. Armsby, H. P. The nutrition of farm animals; The McMillan Company, New York, 1928. 2. Morrison, F. B. Feeds and feeding. Twentieth edition. The Morrison Pub- lishing Company, Ithaca, New York, 1936. 3. Smith, Archibald. Feeding beef cattle in South Carolina. South Carolina. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. N0. 169, 1912. 4. Curtis, R. S‘. Cottonseed meal and corn silage feeding experiments with beef cattle. North Carolina Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 222, 1912. 5. Burns, John C. 1913. Steer. feeding. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. No. 159. 6. Burns, John C. 1915. Steer feeding. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta., Bul. No. 182. 7. Jones, J. H., Jones, J. M. and J. J. Bayles. 1941. Utilization of home grown feeds in fattening steers in the Trans-Pecos region. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. No. 604. 8. Fraps, G. S. 1932. The composition and utilization of Texas feeding stuffs- Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. No. 461