TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION C. H. McDOWELL, Acting Director College Station, Texas BULLETIN NO. 678 FEBRUARY, 1946 a, B 5 L; i5 ,5 F ii i” F g __..‘ l‘ I-":_Y A in»: \ I A. 8. iii; CvLLiiUL 0F TEXAS COMPOSITION AND PRODUCTIVE ENERGY OF POULTRY FEEDS AND RATIONS G. S. FRAPS Division of (lhemisixry AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS GIBB GILCHRIST, President ‘it _, - 042-246-61/1-1420 . x ,' The productive energy values 0f a number 0f poultry feeds have been measured by means 0f the gains of protein and fat in grow- ing chickens. The productive energy of poultry feeds can be cal- culated by means of the energy production coefficients given in this publication. The calculated productive energy value and the digestible protein are given for a number of poultry feeds of g average composition. The productive energy was calculated fo-r a number of rations recommended by various experts. The ave-rage productive energy, in therms per 100 pounds, was 81.6 for all- mash chicken starter, 87.9 for all-mash growing diet and 91.7 for mash and grain; 83.1 for all-mash laying diet and 89.5 for mash with grain; 81.4 for all-mash breeding diet and 86.5 for mash with grain. Feeding experiments with growing fowls should include the quality of the animals produced, especially the fat content, as well as the gains in weight. Fowls making the same ‘gains in weight are not necessarily of the same degree of fatness. CONTENTS Page Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 é Determination of the Productive Energy of Poultry Feeds . . . . . 6 Observations on the Productive Energy Value 0f Poultry Feeds . . . . . . .. 7 Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '9 Energy Production Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 ‘ Composition, Productive Energy and Digestible Protein of Some Poultry u Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 " Constituents and Digestibility of the Nitrogen-Free Extract . . . . . . . . .. 23 Productive Energy and Digestible Protein of Some Poultry Rations. .. 23 ' Effect of Productive Energy, Protein and Fat on Growth and Composi- tion of Chickens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28 Relation of Fat Content of Ration to Quality of Chickens . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 Feeding Limited Quantities of Rations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 Productive Energy of Rations for Chicken Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .. 35 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 BULLETIN NO. 678 a FEBRUARY, 1946 COMPOSITION AND PRODUCTIVE ENERGY OF POULTRY FEEDS AND RATIONS G. S. Fraps Collaborating Chemist, Division of Chemistry Little attention has usually been given the total digestible constituents _ or energy contents of feeds and rations when used in feeding chickens. As explained by Titus (25) in discussing the nutritive requirements of the several classes of chickens, particular attention is given to the problem of supplying protein, minerals, and vitamins in quantities that will sustain a rapid rate of growth or of egg production. No attempt is made to control the carbohydrate intake and only in the case of chickens being i finished for market is the fat intake given any special consideration. One reason for this omission has been the deficiency of adequate data as to the energy values of chicken feeds. Such data is presented in" this publication, and should be useful in comparing the energy values of different feeds, formulating rations and studying the nutritive require- ments of chickens. Recommendations of mixtures for chicken feeds are usually based upon experimental work with such mixtures; this is the correct procedure and scientific theories should always be put to the test of practical experiment. The application of the Texas work on productive e energy to poultry nutrition and feeding will be discussed in subsequent pages. g For a number of years, a comprehensive investigation has been carried 5 on by the Division of Chemistry of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station to ascertain the energy values of foods and feeds as measured by the production of fat and flesh on growing chickens and rats. Previous publications have discussed the digestibility of some chicken feeds (6), the utilization of the energy of feeds by growing chickens (15), the energy i‘ values of corn bran, rice bran, and rye flour (14), the relation of gain in weight to gain in energy content of growing chickens (10), the metab- olizable energy of chicken feeds (16), the productive energy of alfalfa meal and some other chicken feeds (17), the productive energy values of Ea number of feeds as measured by chickens (18), productive energy of certain feeds as measured by production of fat and flesh by growing rats E (9), and the maintenance requirements of chickens and productive energy it of feeds as related to age (12). The object of the work was to measure the energy values of feeds in terms of the use made of it by chickens. The work here presented includes »methods of calculating the productive energy and digestible protein for chickens from the chemical analysis by the use of production coefiicients; 6 BULLETIN NO. 678, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION it gives average productive values and‘ digestible protein values for a number of chicken feeds and rations and discusses the application of the use of the productive energy values in the feeding of chickens. Determination of the Productive Energy of Poultry Feeds Productive energy was calculated from the gains in protein and fat made by growing chickens. The first step was to ascertain the productive energy of a standard ration (15). Day-old chickens were fed the ration decided upon for a period of about a week. The chickens were then weighed and divided into 4 groups, three groups being practically equal in total weight. One group was killed for analysis. Another group was placed upon full feed, and a third group was placed upon limited feed, the quantity fed being about half that eaten by those on full feed, and the amount fed daily being based upon the quantity eaten by the group which was full fed. The fourth group was used to ascertain the digesti- bility of the ration being fed. The chickens were fed individually in battery brooders. At the end of the desired period of time, the chickens were killed and the protein and fat in them was determined. The grams of protein was multiplied by 5.66 and the grams of ether extract was multiplied by 9.35 to secure the calories of energy contained in the chickens. The analysis of the chickens at the beginning of the experiment were used to ascertain the composition of the experimental chickens at the beginning of the feeding. The energy content at the end less that at the beginning gave the gains of the chickens. Full details of the procedure have already been published (15). The productide energy of the feed eaten by the chickens was used partly for maintenance and partly for gain. The data were used to ascertain both the productive energy of the ration, and the productive energy used for maintenance. The two lots of chickenswere fed different quantities of the same ration, at the same time and under the same conditions. Calculations were made on the assumption that the maintenance requirements vary either according to the average weight, or according to the average surface area. Algebraic equations were set up and solved to ascertain the value of the ration for productive energy and for maintenance. The equations used were, for the chickens on limited feed (1), WM+G IFX; and for the chickens on full feed, (2) VM+H=DX. Expressed in words, the average weight of the chickens, in grams (W or V) multiplied by the maintenance requirements for the period of the experiment in calories of productive energy per gram (M), plus the gain in protein and fat expressed in calories (G or H) is equal to the quantity of the feed eaten in grams (F or D), multiplied by the productive energy in calories per gram (X). After inserting the data for each experiment, the equa- tions were solved-for the value of productive energy (X), and for main- tenance (M). The productive energy value of the ration as an average of 6 experiments for 21 days and 4 experiments for 42 days was found to be 1.79 calories COMPOSITION PRODUCTIVE ENERGY OF POULTRY FEEDS & RATIONS 7 per gram of total ration and 2.78 calories per gram of effective digestible nutrients (15). The values secured in the individual experiments ranged from 1.75 to 1.83 calories per gram of total ration and from 2.60 to 3.04 ‘calories per gram of effective digestible nutrients. The values secured with the average live weights were more nearly in accord with results g; published by other workers than the values secured with the surface area g basis. ' After the productive energy values of the ration had been ascertained, f it was necessary next to ascertain the productive energy of the individual feeds used in the ration; especially for corn meal and for casein, to be used as standards. For this purpose (17) 4 groups of chickens, usually of 6 each, were fed individually at the same time, one on a standard ration containing corn meal, and the others on similar rations, in which part of the corn meal or corn meal and casein were replaced by the feed to be ' tested, to the extent of 50 percent if practical; otherwise with as high a percentage as was practical if 50 percent was excessive. By comparing the gains of energy in protein and fat made by the chickens on’ the ration ~ containing the feed to be tested, with the gains made by the chickens t fed the corn meal ration, and with due allowance for differences in live ' weights, the productive energy values of the different feeds in the standard . ration, compared with that of corn meal, were ascertained. Then, “using _ the relative productive energy values of the feeds other than corn meal, ‘the productive energy of corn meal was calculated (17). In a series of other experiments, (12, 18) the productive energy values of a number of other feeds were ascertained. ' Observations on the Productive Energy Values of Poultry Feeds - There are wide differences in the productive energy values of different ichicken feeds as ascertained by the experimental work. Typical average Tvalues are, in calories per 100 grams, 43 for alfalfa leaf meal, 204 for . whole barley, 129 for dried buttermilk, 114 for corn gluten feed, 120 for cottonseed meal, 121 for meat and bone scraps, 114 for dried skim milk, 13 for oat hulls, and 206 for whole wheat, compared with 241 for corn meal, used as a standard. g Differences in the productive energy values of the different feeds were ifound to be due chiefly to the differences in their content of digestible nutrients. When the productive energy values were calculated for 100 {grams of the effective digestible nutrients instead of for 100 grams of éthe feed, the energy values of the effective digestible nutrients of most ibf the feeds were within 10 percent of that of corn meal. "About 72 percent of the metabolizable energy of corn meal was produc- Vtive energy and could be stored as protein or fat. That is to say, the loss 40f utilization of metabolizable energy for production of protein and fat ‘from corn meal was approximately 28 percent. _ Within the same experiments, there were variations in the energy con- Tent and the live weight between individual chickens (Table 8, Bul. 571) 8 BULLETIN NO. 678, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION (15), and in the protein and fat content of the individual chickens (Table 9, Bul. 571) ( 15), as shown by the standard deviations. For the purpose of calculations, when the productive energy was assumed to be constant and the maintenance requirements calculated, there were appreciable differences in the productive energy used for maintenance by individual chickens in the same experiment (Tables 15, 16, Bul. 571) (15). When the mainte- nance requirements were assumed to be constant and the productive energy calculated, there were differences in the productive energy of the feeds as utilized by individual chickens (Tables 18, 19, Bul. 571) (15), the aver- age of the standard deviations being about 10 percent of the total pro- ductive energy of the ration. Variations in the productive energy of the same ration were probably due chiefly to differences in energy used for maintenance, especially movements of the body. Some chickens are more active than others. There are wide differences in the productive energy used for mainte- nance by chickens fed at different times on approximately the same ration (12). On a ration averaging 16.2 percent protein, the maintenance re- quirements in calories of productive energy per day per 100 grams ranged from 12.4 to 20.5 with an average of 15.8 and a standard deviation of 1.7 in ‘19 tests (12). On a ration containing 18.1 to 21 percent protein and averaging 19.5, the maintenance requirements ranged from 9.4 to 17.7 calories per 100 grams of live weight, with an average of 13.6 and a standard deviation of 2.5 calories. The data indicated that chickens fed on rations low in protein had higher maintenance requirements than those fed on rations containing high percentages of protein. Chickens on rations averaging 17 percent of protein had high average maintenance requirements of 15.8 calories of productive energy per day and 100 grams of live weight, while those on rations containing 21 to 24 percent protein averaged 12.6 calories per day per 100 grams live weight. For the purpose of calculating the productive energy of the feeds which replaced corn meal in any given experiment, it is necessary to assume that the maintenance requirements for the experimental ration average the same per period per 100 grams as for the standard corn meal ration fed in the same experiment. This assumption is not always correct (12); therefore, the differences between the productive energy values found in different experiments are due in part to differences in maintenance require- ments between the two groups compared. Hence repetitions of the work several times are necessary to ascertain the correct value. The experi- mental work has established definitely that the productive energy of the same feed is more nearly constant than the maintenance requirements of the chickens. Substitution of the feed to be compared with corn meal in quantities as high as possible has necessarily given rise to some rations widely different from those used in commercial feeding of chickens. These substitutions have resulted in some rations with wide differences in protein, fat and .. "-7"'*"‘ ‘WIWTWWI :’\‘,‘F"<"!'I‘-F" F ‘"4???’ " r . r COMPOSITION & PRODUCTIVE ENERGY OF POULTRY FEEDS 8: RATIONS 9 .fiber content, and in the production of chickens widely differing. in live weight and fat content from those on the corn meal ration (10). In spite of these differences, as pointed out above, the productive energy of 100 grams of the effective digestible nutrients in the different feeds usually were within 10 percent of that of corn meal. That is to say, in spite of some wide differences in the effects of the total ration, the portion of the . metabolizable energy of the individual feeds which could be utilized as productive energy was reasonably constant. The quantity of the effective digestible nutrients is a fairly accurate measure of the energy values of chicken feeds but the productive energy is more accurate. Now that productive energy values are available, their fuse affords more accurate measure of the energy values of rations and individual feeds. Definitions of Terms Digestible nutrients are measured by the differences between the quan- tities of protein, ether extract, crude fiber and nitrogen-free extract in the quantity of feed fed and in the quantity of solid excrement from the quantity of food in question. In the case of chickens, which excrete the undigested food and the urinary products together, correction is made for the quantity of uric acid present. The digested nutrients, therefore, repre- sent the difference between the nutrients consumed and those excreted. Except for the uric acid, correction was not made for the metabolic prod- ucts in the chicken excrements. Metabolizable energy is the energy of the food eaten less the energy of the excrement derived from it, both fecal and urinary, and, in the case , of ruminants, in gases produced by fermentation. It represents the max- Yimum amount of energy which the animal can secure from the feed in , question. The metabolizable energy of chicken feeds is discussed in Bul- a letin 589 (16). ' Net energy is the metabolizable energy less the energy used in utilizing i‘ it. The net energy may be used for maintenance, for the production of " fat, flesh, eggs or other animal products, or body movements or work. . The proportion of the metabolizable energy which can be used as net energy may depend upon the use made of it. Productive energy is the net energy as measured by the energy stored up as fat and protein in a growing or fattening animal. The percentages of loss in utilizing the metabolizable energy may differ according to the uses made of it. Net energy may be different when used for maintenance than when used for fattening and growth or when used for work. The term productive energy is used to distinguish the~ net energy as measured 1 by storage of protein and fat in a growing animal from the net energy for a maintenance, or work, or for other purposes than fattening, for which the net energy value may be different. 1o BULLETIN NO. 67s, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Maintenance requirement is that portion of the energy of the food used in the life processes of the animal, for keeping the animal warm, and for movements of the body. Some individuals are more active than others, consequently "they have higher maintenance requirements. The mainte- nance requirements are here expressed in terms of productive energy. A therm is 1,0(’)0 large calories. A large calorie is the amount of "heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water to the extent of one degree centigrade. Effective organic constituents of a feed or ration is the sum of the percentage of the protein, the fat or ether extract multiplied by 2.25, and the nitrogen-free extract. The crude fiber is considered to have no energy value for chickens. Effective digestible nutrients of a feed or ration is the sum of the percentages of digestible protein, the digestible fat or ether extract mul- tiplied by 2.25, and the digestible nitrogen-free extract. Energy Production Coefficients In our previous publications, the total energy, metabolizable energy, productive energy and the like, of poultry feeds have been discussed in terms of calories per 100 grams. For many years, however, the produc- tive energy and net energy of cattle feeds has been expressed in therms per 100 pounds of feed (2). In order to secure uniformity, the productive energy of chicken feeds will here likewise be expressed in therms per 100 pounds of feed. The productive energy of the feed or ration as measured by the experi- mental work has been reported in several different ways in previous pub- lications, namely, in calories per 100 grams of the feed, in calories per 100 grams of the effective organic‘ constituents, in calories per 100 grams of the effective digestible nutrients, and in percentage of the metabolizable energy (12, 15, 17, 18). Any one of these sets of data may be used to calculate the productive energy of a feed as may be desired or as the data available may permit, but the feeds used in the experimental work did not always have the average composition. If the composition of the feed is known or assumed to be of average composition, the effective digestible nutrients can be calcu- lated from the results of digestion experiments made on it, or from average digestion coefficients as previously given (11). Using the most probable value ascertained by experiment for productive energy of the effective digestible nutrients (18), the productive energy can be calculated in cal- ories per 100 grams. The calories per 100 grams can then be converted to therms per 100 pounds by another calculation. This series of calculation can be made much shorter by using the energy production coefficients which combine the calculations named above. The COMPOSITION & PRODUCTIVE ENERGY OF POULTRY FEEDS & RATIONS 11 productive energy coefficient of a particular feed gives the calculated therms of productive energy which will be furnished by one pound of protein in that feed. Similar coefficients are given for ether extract or fat and nitrogen-free extract. Table 1 contains a calculation of the productive energy of‘ average corn meal._ The percentages in Column 1 are multiplied by the corresponding productive energy coefficients in Col- umn 2 to secure the product in Column 3. The total of the products in Column 3 gives the productive energy of the average corn meal as 114.5 ‘ therms per 100 pounds. Table 1. Calculation of the productive energy of corn meal. Energy Product Percentage production therms per in lfeed coefficients 100 Léounds Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.9 1.17 11.6 Ether extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 2.75 11.3 Nitrogen-free extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 .6 1 .28 91 .6 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114.5 Digestion coefficients and energy production coefficients are given in Table 2. The digestion coefficients in Columns 1, 2, 3 are considered to be the most probable averages from the data in Bulletin 663 (11). The productive energy values of the effective digestible nutrients, calories per gram as given in Column 4, are the most probable values from the data in Bulletins 600, 625 and 665 (12, 17, 18). The factor .454 was used to convert calories per gram to therms per 100 pounds. The digestion coefficients in Column 1 (protein) are multi- plied by the figures in Column 4, and the products are multiplied by .435 to give the production coefficients for protein as given in Column 5. The coefiicients for nitrogen-free extract in Column 7 were secured in a similar way from the data in Column 3 and the factors in Column 4. The coeffi- cients for ether extract are secured from the data in Columns 2 and 4, but the results are also multiplied by 2.25, because ether extract was assumed to have 2.25 times the energy value of protein and nitrogen-free extract in calculating the effective digestible nutrients in the experimental work. Composition, Productive Energy and Digestible Protein of Some Poultry Feeds It is xvell known that different samples of the same kind of feed may differ in their content of protein, water, crude fiber and other constituents. On account of the impossibility of making chemical analyses of every lot 0f feeding stuffs, it is frequently necessary to use an assumed composition. The feed is frequently assumed to have an average composition, but some- times a different assumption is made. Most samples of feeds will be either below or above the average composition in some respect; this is Table 2. Digestion coefficients and energy-production eoeflicients of chicken feeds. Digestion coefficients Production coefficients Feed , Nitrogen- Factor _ Nitrogen- Protein 1 Ether free Protein Ether free extract extract extract extract Alfalfa leaf meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 .59 .37 2.40 .61 1 .45 .40 Alfalfa meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 .55 .34 2.40 .61 1.35 .37 Alfalfa stem meal (assumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 1.20 .30 Artichoke tuber, Jerusalum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 .60 .94 2.70* .82 1 .66 1 .16 Barley, no hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . .74_ .78 .80 3.00 1 .01 2.39 1.09 Barley, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 .75 .80 2.70 .90 2.07 .98 Beans, lima, raw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 .92 .69 1 .80 .29 1 .69 .57 Beans, lima, cooked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 .74 .75 3.00 1 .01 2.27 1 .02 Beans, navy, raw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .42 .64 .41 3.00 .57 1.96 .56 Beans, navy, cooked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .60 .72 .66 3.00 .82 2.21 .90 Beans, pinto, raw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .43 .97 .39 1.13 .22 1.12 .20 Beans, all kinds, raw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 .74 .41 . . . . . . . . . . .57 2.27 .56 Beans, all kinds, cooked. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 .74 .66 . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 2.27 .90 Beef, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 .97 1.00 3.00 1.17 2.97 1.36 Beets (roots) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 .74 .87 3.00 .94 2.27 1 .18 Beet pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 .54 .23 - 3.00 .37 1 .66 .31 Blood meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 .46 .48 3.00* 1 .23 1 .41 .65 Bone meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .87 .93 .34 2.60* 1.03 2.47 .40 Brewers grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 .60 .78 2.70* .98 1 .66 .96 Broom corn seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .46 .91 .82 3.00 .63 2.78 1.12 Buckwheat, rain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 .86 .84 2.80* .77 2.46 1 .07 Buckwheat our . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .86 .74 .89 2.80* 1.09 2.12 1.13 Buckwheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . .60 .67 .61 2.70* .74 1 .85 .75 Buttermilk, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 .9 .7 2.40 .75 2.34 .77 Cabbage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 .5 .8 2.40* .78 1 .40 .87 Cane seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .69 .76 .90 2.70* .85 1.90 1.11 Carrots (roots) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 .64 .93 2.40* .74 1.54 1.01 Casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .85 .48 . . . . . . . . .. 3.17 1.22 1.55 . . . . . . . . .. Citrus pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .16 .70 .42 3.00 .22 2.15 .57 Clqver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 .61 .65 2.40* .69 1.50 .71 Coconut oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .56 .92 .32 3.00 .76 2.81 .44 Collards, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 .65 .53 2.40* .76 1.60 .58 Corn bran . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .54 .89 .33 3.00 .73 2.72 .45 Corn gluten feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 .65 .44 3.00 .84 1.98 .60 Corn distillers dried solubles (assumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .10 2.00 .80 Corn gluten meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 .55 .57 3.00 1 .10 1 .69 .78 Corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .86 .90 .94 3.00 1.17 2.76 1.28 *Estimated value Z1 NOLLVLS LNCINIHEIJXEI ‘TVHILIIIIIOIHDV SVXELL ‘SL9 ‘ON NILLCPYITIIH Corn erm meal assumed ...... ... . . . . . . . . ..' . . . . . . . . . . .. .so . . . . . ..~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.11 2.15 1.2a ' Cottogaeed flour(. . . . . . . .) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 .86 .38 3.00 .99 2.63 .52 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .31 0 0 0 0 0 8 Cottonseed hulls, delinted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 .33 .5 0 0 0 0 a Cottonseed meal 43% protein, 12% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 .97 .36 2.80 .89 2.77 .46 w Cottonseed meal 41% protein, 14% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 2.50 .42 o Cottonseed meal, 38.6% protein, 18% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . .60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 2.40 .40 m Cottonseed meal, 36% protein, 22% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 2.30 .36 E Feterita, grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 .81 .91 3.00* 1.20 2.47 1 .24 7-1 Flax seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 _: 93 .60 3.00 1 .23 2.85 .82 Q Fish meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .75 .83 .35 3.00* 1.02 2.54 .48 Z Fish meal (codfish) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 .90 .65 3.00 1.22 2.76 .88 g Flour, clear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .90 .97 .99 2.74 1.12 2.72 1.23 Flour, raham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 .99 .90 2.76 .94 2.79 1 . 13 g Flour, 0w grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 .96 .89 2.77 1.05 2.72 1 .12 o Flour, patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 .97 .95 2.83 1.11 2.81 1.23‘ g Grain sorghum seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 .80 .95 3.00 1 .17 2.45 1 .29 c: Grain sorghum mill feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .00 2.20 1 .00 O Grass, young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 .55 .65 2.40* .69 1.35 .71 fi Gelatin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.90 .64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < Hegari grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .86 .77 .95 3.00 1.17 2.36 1.29 b1 Hemp seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 .90 .65 2.70* .92 2.48 .80 i,’ Hominy feed or meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.10 1.70 1.00 z Kafir grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 .80 .93 3.00 1.09 2.45 1.27 [:1 Lactose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 .46 .40 0 0 .08 '3! Linseed oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 .76 .24 3.00 .84 2.32 .33 Q Liver meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .65 .91 .45 3.00 .89 2.79 .61 '4 Macaroni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 .85 .97 2 . 80* .99 2.43 1 .23 Q Meat meal, meat scraps, meat and bone meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 .90 .60 3.00 .83 2.76 .82 ‘=1 Milk, dried skim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 .57 .66 1.88 .64 1.10 .56 n, Milk sugar feed, assumed the same as dried skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Millet seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .70 .95 .91 3.00 .95 2.91 1.24 q Milo grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .88 84 .97 3.00 1.20 2.58 1.32 l b‘ Molasses . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .74 0 1 . 10 "3 Oat hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 .74 .20 0 0 0 0 Q Oat meal (or roats) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 .93 .92 3.00 1.16 2.85 1 .25 Oat meal, fee ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 2.83 1.10 ‘=1 Oats, whole, avera e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 .92 .66 3.00 .76 2.80 .90 m oats, whole, 20% ulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 2.80 1.15 g Ditto, 30% hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .76 2.80 .96 m Ditto, 45% hulls . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 2.80 .77 011, corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .88 . . . . . . . . .. 2.40 . . . . . . . . .. 2.16 . . . . . . . . .. 9° Oil, cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 . . . . . . . . . . 2.40 . . . . . . . . . . 2.18 . . . . . . . . . . g1 Oil, medium, h drogenated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 . . . . . . . . . . 2.40 . . . . . . . . . . 2.23 . . . . . . . . . . > Oil, highly, hy rogenated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 . . . . . , . . . . . 2.40 . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 . . . . . . . . . . Lj Oil, peanut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .87 . . . . . . . . .. 2.40 . . . . . . . . .. 2.13 . . . . . . . . .. g Oil, cod liver . . . . . ..> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .64 . . . . . . . . .. 2.40 . . . . . . . . .. 1.57 . . . . . . . . .. z m *Estimated value 81 Table 2. Digestion coeflicients and energy-production coefllcients of chicken feeds—Continued. Digestion coefficients Production coefficients Feed _ Nitrogen- Factor _ Nitrogen- Protein Ether free Protein Ether free extract extract extract extract Oil, soybean . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 . . . . . . . . . . 2.40 . . . . . . . . . . 2 .21 . . . . . . . . . . Palm kernels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 .77 .77 2.80* .89 2.20 .98 Peas, canned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 .40 .70 3.00 .98 1 .22 .95 Peas, cowpeas, raw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .48 .88 .86 3.00 .65 2.70 1.17 Peas, blackeye, cooked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 .95 .83 3.00 .99 2.91 1.13 Peas, blackeye, raw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 .90 .76 3.00 .99 2.76 1.04 Peas, raw, all kinds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . .75 .75 .79 3.00 1 .02 2.30 1.08 Peanut meats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 .78 .84 3 .00 1.09 2.39 1 . 14 Peanut meal (43% protein) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 .91 .51 3 .00 1.01 2.79 .69 Peanut meal or cake, 5.1 to 10.0% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . .. .76 .74 .75 3.00* 1.03 2 .28 1 .02 Peanut meal or cake, 10.5 to 15.0% crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 .68 .67 2.70* .86 1.88 .82 Peanut hay, assumed same as alfalfa stem meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potatoes, white . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 .41 .85 2.80* .72 1.17 1 .08 Potatoes, sweet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 .74 .88 2.67 .46 2.02 1 .07 Rape seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .80 .86 .79 3.00* 1.09 2.64 1.07 Rice, polished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 1.00 .95 3.00 1.36 3.06 1.29 Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 .92 .67 2.70 .73 2.54 .82 Rice hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .41 .17 0 0 0 0 Rice polishings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 .91 .87 3.00 1.05 2.79 1.19 Rice stone bran (assumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 2 .00 .80 Rice, rough (with hulls) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 .72 .84 2.70 .91 2.00 1.03 Rye seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 .52 .76 2.80 .84 1.49 .97 Rutabagas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 .75 .90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rye flour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .65 .61 .80 2.50 .74 " 1.56 .91 Sardine meal (assumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.02 2.54 .48 Shrimp meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 .87 .56 3.00 .80 2.67 .76 Sesame cake, assumed to be the same as linseed oil meal . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sor hum seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 .88 .90 3.00 .90 2.70 1.23 Soy eans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .92 .90 .69 2.70 1.13 2.50 .85 Soybean oil meal, average fat and quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 .79 .34 2.70 .91 2.18 .42 Soybean oil meal, low fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 .38 .30 2.70 .92 1.05 .37 Soybean oil-meal, cooked at low temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 .41 .26 2.70* .66 1 .13 .32 Starch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .97 2.60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 1.14 Sugar beet, leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 .25 .89 2.40* .81 .61 .97 Sugar beet, roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 .78 .91 240* .76 1.91 .99 Sugar, sucrose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - .67 3.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 Sunflower seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 .95 .16 3.00 .90 2.91 .22 Sunflower seed cake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 .82 .86 3 .00 1.05 2.52 1 . 17 Tapioca meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 .85 .87 2.70* 1.06 2.35 1 .07 Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 . . . . . . . . . .. .55 .88 .90 2.60 .65 2.34 1.06 V! NOLLVLS LNEINIHEIJXEI TVHIIJIIQOIHSV SVXELL '8L9 ‘OM NLLEYYIIIEI Table 2. Digestion coeflicients and energy-production coefficients of chicken feed—Continued _ Digestion coefficients Production coefficients Feed Nitrogen- Factor _ Nitrogen- Protein Ether free Protein Ether ee ’ extract extract extract extract Turnip, roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 .74 .91 2.40* .74 1.82 .99 Wheat, whole grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 _ .96 .95 2.70 1 .14 2.65 1.17 Wheat, soft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . .74 .47 .89 2.70 .91 1.30 . 1.09 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 .86 .37 2.70 .73 2.39 .46 Wheat bran (human food). . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 .76 .63 2.70 .69 2.10 .77- Wheat brown shorts (assumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 2 .40 .60 Wheat mixed feed (assumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 2.40 .70 Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 .86 .63 2.80 .86 2 .46 .80 Wheat white shorts or red dog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 2.60 1 .10- Wheat germ (assumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .48 .80 -' Whale meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.76 .82 Whey, dried, assumed the same as dried skim milk .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . .69 .48 .54 .00 .63 .98 .49 *Estimated value 91 SNOIiVH i? SCIEIELI XHJIIIIOJ JO K311135115! EIALLOHGOHd 1? NOLLISOcIWOO assumed to have a composition lower than the average used for protein, are also used in calculating the composition to be guaranteed for mixtures 16 BULLETIN NO. 678, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 1 due to the nature of an average. For the purpose of making guarantees under feed laws, so as to allow margins for variations, feeds may be fat and nitrogen-free extract, and higher than the average for crude fiber. These are termed the minimum guarantees. Such minimum guarantees sold under the feed law, when the ingredients are of average quality. The average chemical compositions and the minimum guarantees of a ; number of chicken feeds are given in Table 3. Most of these are averages compiled from analyses made in this Division, from samples collected by the Feed Control Service, or for other purposes. Some of the feeds given‘; are not used in commercial feeds sold in Texas. The minimum guaranteed compositions given in Table 3 are marked i, min. The figures for minimum guarantees not marked with an asterisk are the minimum guarantees permitted by the Texas Feed Control Service (4). Those figures marked with an asterisk are the estimated minimums for the constituents so marked. i The productive energy and the digestible protein in Table 3 were cal- culated by means of the production coefficients and coeflicients of digesti- bility for protein given in Table 2. Commercial grains, especially corn and grain sorghums, often contain more water than is present in the averages of the commercial feeds shown j in Table 3, in which it is around 10 percent. Commercial grade No. 1 of it corn or grain sorghums may contain 14 percent water (21). Corn of i. grade No. 2 may contain more than 15.5 percent; Grade N0. 3 may con- f tain 17.5 percent, No. 4, 20 percent, and No. 5, 23 percent. Grain sorghums § of grade No. 2 may contain 15 percent water, Grade No. 3, 16 percent, and Grade No. 4, 18 percent. Higher percentages of water than those - shown for the averages in Table 3 correspondingly decrease the other con- stituents, and consequently the digestible protein and productive energy i is lower. Over 12 percent water in corn chops or similar feeds may cause ._p heating and consequent damage (5) especially in warm weather. Table 3 ' contains the composition, productive energy and digestible protein for l corn and grain sorghum of different water contents, calculated from the average composition. Grains such as oats and barley vary in the proportions of kernels to , hulls (3). As shown in Table 3 the kernel has a high feeding value, while J the hull has practically no feeding value for chickens, although it may furnish bulk. To a certain extent, but not completely, the weight per bushel is an index to the feeding value of such grains. Titus (24) states i that extra heavy oats are to be preferred for use of poultry, and many experts recommend the use of heavy oats when oats are used for feeding chickens. Table 3 contains the composition, digestible protein and produc- ; tive energy of oats containing 20 percent, 30 percent, and 45 percent oat hulls, calculated by means of the average composition of oat hulls and oat groats given in Table 3. Table 3. Average composition. minimum guarantee. productive energy snd digestible protein of some poultry feeds. _ Nitrogen- Productive _ _ Protein Ether Crude free Water Ash energy Digestible extract fiber extract , therms per protein % ¢ % ¢ % % 100 pounds percent Alfalfaleafmeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.3 2.6 18.4 38.2 7.5 13.0 31.4 11.4 Ellfttfijmin.‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . a a mea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . _Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.0 1.5 33.0 35.0* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.9 7.3 Alfalfa stem meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.8 1.3 36.1 34.7 8.6 7.5 18.5 5.9 Artichoke tuber, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.9 0.4 4.3 78.4 2.1 4.9 99.6 5.0 Artichoke tuber, Jerusalum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.2 0.1 0.8 14.6 80.8 1.5 18.9 1.1 Babassu oilmeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.5 6.8 11.8 46.3 6.5 5.1 50.8 14.6 Barley, no hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.7 1.0 1.0 72.0 9.6 2.7 94.7 10.1 gagey, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. H?“ 2.3 gig?” - 9.4 3.1 $7213.; 3.8 1 o, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . Beans, all kinds, raw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.0 1.2 4.5 58.0 8.3 4.0 48.9 10.1 Beans, all kinds, cooked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.0 1.2 4.5 58.0 8.3 4.0 79.2 17.8 Beets, (roots) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.3 0.4 6.9 61.9 3.4 9.1 91.2 12.6 gitetdpulpwdried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. oo mea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Blood meal, solvent process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.4 1 .4 1 .2 2.9 5.1 59.3 35.9 26.5 Bone meal, (raw) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.0 6.0 1.2 3.9 5.7 59.2 41.1 20.9 lgitto, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 (g one mea , s eame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bone meal, special steamed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 4.0 2.5 3.4 2.8 78.7 20.2 7.5 Brewers grains, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 6.5 16.4 40.1 7.8 3.9 100.5 20.2 Broom corn seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.9 2.3 12.4 61.9 7.4 6.1 82.0 4.6 guctwfieat sleed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. uc w ea our . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Buttermilk, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.1 6.3 0.4 39.5 8.0 11 .7 70.7 ~ 23.5 Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.0* 5.0 0.51‘ 35.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.0 22.1 Buttermilk, condensed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._ .. 10.6 2.7 0.2 12.8 69.4 4.3 24.1 7.3 Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.0* 2.0 0.2 l0.0* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.9 6.9 Cabbage, (dried) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.0 1.4 11.2 51.8 5.9 9.7 _ 62.6 12.4 Cane seed (red top) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.8 4.3 2.5 72.2 11.6 1.6 94.9 5.4 garrots, (roots), dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. asein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Citrus pulp, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.6 2.3 10.0 63.7 10.5 7.0 42.4 0.9 Clover (hayred)...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.8 2.6 27.3 40.1 11.8 6.4 40.5 7.4 Coconutoilmeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.5 9.4 11.1 45.2 6.7 7.1 61.9 11.5 Collards, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.0 4.5 12.5 29.0 4.5 19.5 46.8 21.0 Corn, cornmeal orchops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.9 4.1 2.1 71.6 10.9 1.4 114.5 8.5 Ditto but 13% water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.7 4.0 2.0 69.9 13.0 1.4 111.8 8.3 Ditto 15% water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.4 3.9 2.0 68.4 15.0 1.3 109.2 8.1 SNOILVH T SCSI!!! KHIIIIDIOJ JO K911511151 HAILOIICIOI-Id ? NOILISOJNOO LI Table 3. Average composition, minimum guarantee, productive energy and digestible protein of some poultry feeds-Continued _ Nitrogen- Productive Protein Ether Crude free Water Ash energy Digestible v extract fiber extract therms per protein % 0 % 0 %, % 100 pounds percent Ditto 16.5% water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.3 3.8 2.0 67.1 16.5 1.3 107.3 8.0 Ditto 19% water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 3.7 1.9 65.1 19.0 1.3 104.1 7.7 Corn, cornmealorchops, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 3.5 3.0 70.0* 10.9 1.8 114.5 8.7 Corn bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.6 7.6 8.1 61.8 9.3 2.6 56.2 5.7 Ditto,min....._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.0 5.0 12.0 60.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.4 4.3 Corn distillers dried solubles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.0 7.0 1.0 52 .0 5.0 8 .0 85.3 22.0 Corn feed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.1 4.9 2.6 69.7 10.9 1.8 114.5 8.7 Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.0 3.0 3.0 67.0* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 103.5 6.9 Corn germ meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.3 7.3 10.5 49.8 7.0 2.1 11111 20.0 Corn gluten feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.9 2.7 7.4 47.5 9.2 6.3 56.5 16.7 Corn gluten meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.6 2.7 3.0 38.8 8.8 2.1 83.9 36.1 Corn oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.8 6.2 10.4 48.1 8.6 2.9 106.5 20.5 Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.1 0.9 47.6 35.3 9.4 2.7 0 0 48% protein cottonseed meal, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.0 7.0 9.0 26.0* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.1. 33.6 45% protein cottonseed meal, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.0 6.0 10.0 22.0* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.8 31.5 Cottonseed meal 43% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.9 6.8 10.6 27.0 6.9 5.8 69.4 30.0 Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.0 5.7 12.0 24.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.8 31.5 Cottonseed meal 41% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.7 6.1 11.4 27.8 7.8 6.2 65.9 28.5 Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.0 5.0 12.0 26.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.4 28.7 Cottonseed feed 41.12% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.1 6.0 10.9 28.0 7.5 6.5 66.0 28.7 Feterita, rain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.7 2.8 2.5 69.3 10.7 1.7 108.1 11.2 Feteritac ops, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.0 2.5 3.0 68.0* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 103.7 9.7 Flax seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.5 36.4 5.9 24.2 6.4 3.0 155.5 21.2 Fish meal, 64% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.3 4.3 0.4 5.8 7-8 14.4 89.8 50.5 Fish meal, 68% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.6 4.8 0.4 5.5 7.2 13.8 92.1 51.2 Fishmeal, 72% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.6 6.0 0.6 1.9 6.8 12.2 98.3 54.4 Flour, graham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.4 1.8 1.8" 70.3 12.3 1.4 96.3. 9.3 Grain sorghum seed (milo, kafir, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 3.0 2.4 70.6 10.8 2.0 111.5 9.6 Ditto but 13% water . . . . . . . ..' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.9 2.9 2.3 68.8 13.0 2.0 108.7 9.4 Ditto 15% water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.7 2.9 2.3 67.3 15.0 1.9 106.3 9.1 Ditto 17% water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.4 2.8 2.2 65.7 17.0 1.9 103.7 8.9 Grain sorghummill feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.2 5.6 3.3 66.4 11.5 3.0 88.9 7.7 Grass, young, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.1 2.3 19.4 43.2 10.0 11.0 43.5 8.9 Hegari grain . . . . . . . ..' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.1 2.2 2.3 69.3 11.6 3.5 104.8 9.6 Hempseed oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.1 6.6 22.8 23.3 8.2 8.0 67.0 23.3 Hominy feed ormeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.0 7.2 _6.4 63.0 9.4 3.0 86.6 8.9 Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.0 5.0 7.0 60.0* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.5 8.1 Hominy feed,low fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.7 5.8 5.8 61.8 10.4 3.5 85.1 10.3 Kafir grain or chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.8 2.7 2.2 70.1 11.0 2.2 107.8 9.4 Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.0 2.5 3.0 69.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104.0 8.0 .. 1..‘......._,_|1.1 .. _.. .. .. . i l i E F l i l F SI _NOLLV_.LS LNEIWIHEIJXELTVHILIIIIIOIHSV SVXELL ‘8L9. ‘ON NLLEITIHH Linseed oil meal, 32% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linseed oil meal, 34% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linseed oil meal, 37% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liver meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meat and bone scraps, 45% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . Meat and bone scraps, 50% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . Meat and bone scraps, 55% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . Meat and bone scraps, 60% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . Meat scraps or meal, 60% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meat scraps or meal, 65% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h4eatrneaL nnn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Milk, dried skim . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milk sugar feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , hdflletseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' . . . . . . . . . . . .. Milo grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hdflo ch0p,rnin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. hdolasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Oat hufls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Oat meal or groats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oat meal or flakes, feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oat meal, feeding, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oats, whole, average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oats, whole, 20% hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oats, whole, 30% hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oats, whole, 45% hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OiL cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. OiL corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Peas,raw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Peas,c0oked...........s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peanut meal, 48% protein min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peanut meal, 43% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peanut meal, 45% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peanuthay,ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H Potatoes, white, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potatoes, sweet, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rape seed oil meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rice polished Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rice hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rice polishings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rice stone bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rice rough with hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rye chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ilye seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Sardine n1eaL 659% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Sardine n1eaL 689% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . - r eaaeeeeaeeaaaaaeeseaeeeoeseaeeeeaaeeaeeaeeeaeeasaa r-n-n v-u-n-i fitflUlUlflfifiififl [Q0903 P-‘ON-‘I-‘OOOOONOOQUIQ '68 co r-n n-n-A ms>~wwoo=woowoow~owc>q In! mwo- 66m§hQobbbFbéwwwoéboooooowomoo§a#owowq~owmmomwwmwa 1 OJ w ' QOPUJIQQ CJIQQ i-n new $0 EDCQUJ OOMOW-‘NNNP-‘Qmw lt-‘UiwhwOoOv-‘F-‘Owrhflwfi-‘WOIDOOBOOOQOQUONDOOQMOOOJOWNEONUIKDHi-‘OIFUQ aseaaaeaeeeeseeaeaeaeeeoeeeeaesasaepaeaeasseasssae =l= * "X- -X- *- UIQGIQOIQOOWMRb QDNQOCDWUVQCfiWQ r-l QQOOJUI nab-l l l-Al-lb-l qqo-m hwnwqm l NCO WC >PF~OBQQ LOO) QOJOMP p‘ h; ado-n fiUv-‘Nufitfl NIQOOQ®Q ¢&§b§bb§oQLbbb5b&LbAa§abbb§§bb&§ob6bb&&Lb§MA§&&6db stasanaeeassooseespassess UlUl l0 fiQflbOOfiidiOfiib QQOOQWOJUI NIF*-‘O5OOiUNDOCJTO5OOOO\IGQQIQ\IF-*\IU\OO 61 SNOLLVH i? SGEIELI KHJFIIIOJ d0 LDHEINEI HALLOflCIOHcI 13 NOLLISOcIWOO Table 3. Average composition, minimum guarantee, productive energy and digestible protein of some poultry feeds-Continued. Nitrogen- Productive _ _ Protein Ether Crude free Water Ash energy Digestible . extract fiber extract therms per protein % o o % % % 100 pounds percent Shrimp-meal, 50% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.3 3.2 11.8 .7 9.7 26.3 47.7 28.5 Sesame cake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.6 12.5 6.4 20.1 6.1 13.5 70.6 25.8 Soybean oil meal, 41% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.9 5.5 5. 8 29.9 9.2 5.9 64. 9 32.5 Soybean oil meal, 43% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.9 6.8 5.9 29.1 7.9 6.4 67.4 32.5 Soybean oil meal solvent process, low fat . . . . . . . . 46.0 0.7 5.7 ' 31.9 9.8 5.9 56.5 34.0 Sunflower seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.5 26.0 32.0 14.5 5.8 3.2 95.0 12.2 Sunflower seed oil cake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.8 18.3 10.9 21.8 10.0 4.2 110.0 26.8 Tankage, 40% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.4 11.8 2.5 3.3 5.4 34.6 52.5 23.3 Tankage, digester, 50% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.9 12.9 2.2 1.7 6.2 24.3 71.0 29.1 Tankage, digester, 60% protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.5 8.8 2.1 2.1 7.5 17.2 67.6 33 .3 Turnip, roots, dried....‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.3 0.8 11.7 59.8 4.8 10.6 69.4 8.4 Wheat grain, chops, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.7 1.9 2.7 66.0 10.4 2.5 101.3 15.5 Wheat, rain, U. S., average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.5 2.1 2.4 69.8 . . . . . . . . .. 1.8 102.4 12.6 Wheatc ops, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.0 2.0 3.0 68.0* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98.6 11.2 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.3 4.3 9.1 54.1 9.3 6.0 47.8 10.2 Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.5 3.0 10.0 50.0* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.8 8.6 Wheat bran and scourings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.1 4.0 9.2 52.9 10.4 6.4 46.4 10.1 Wheat bran and screenings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.2 4.3 9.4 53.6 9.5 6.0 47.5 10.2 Wheat brown shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.7 4.5 6.2 57. 10.4 4.2 58.1 10.5 Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 3.5 7.5 53.0* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51.3 9.0 Wheat brown shorts and screenings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5 4.3 6.9 56.. 10.8 4.7 56.9 10.5 Wheatmixed feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.2 3.6 6.7 56. 10.1 4.5 63.0 11.5 Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 3.5 8.5 52.0* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.8 9.5 Wheatmixed feed and screenings............... 17.7 3.9 7.0 56. 9.9 4.9 63.1 11.2 Wheatgerms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.1 .9.2 3.2 40.9 9.4 5.2 83.2 21.8 Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.0 4.4 5.7 57.0 10.7 4.2 72.0 12.2 Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 3.5 6.0 55.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.6 10.2 Wheat gray shorts and screenings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.0 4.3 5.9 56.7 10.8 4.3 71.5 12.2 Wheat white shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.2 2.9 2.2 66.3 10.3 2.1 98.3 14.6 Ditto, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.5 3.0 3.5 63.0* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94.1 13.1 Wheatred dog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.1 2.5 2.6 66.3 10.1 2.2 102.0 14.5 Wheat red dog, min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.0 2.0 4.0 66.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.0 10.8 Whey, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.8 .7 .2 70.0 5.9 10.4 49.0 9.6 Yeast, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.0 1.8 3.3 33.0 6.6 8.3 47.6 32.4 . .. __.._. .. n...__.._ a...a...._.......m OZ NOILVLS LNEINIZIEIJXH "IVHIILTIIOIHDV SVXELL ‘SL9 ‘ON NLLEFFIHH m“, i’ ‘I includes over 200 varieties. COMPOSITION & PRCDUCTIVE ENERGY OF POULTRY FEEDS & RATIONS 21 Cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls and rice hulls have no feeding values to chickens. They are present in cottonseed meal, peanut meal, and rice bran, the percentage of crude fiber being an indication of the quantity of hulls present. Such feeds should be selected with as low a percentage of crude l fiber as possible. Other factors which affect the composition and consequently the pro- ductive energy values are discussed in Bulletin 461 (8). In general it may be said that chicken feeds are not as variable in composition and produc- tive energy as are feeds for ruminants. As shown in Table 3, oils have the highest productive energy, about 210 therms per one hundred pounds and are sometimes added to finishing rations. Corn and oat groats have values of about 100 to 115 therms per 100 pounds, depending on the moisture content. Grain sorghums, including milo, kafir, feterita, and the like, have slightly lower values, and wheat, brewer’s grains and rice polishings have about 10 percent lower values than corn or oat groats. Fish meal, meat scraps and sunflower seed have productive energy values of approximately 90 therms. Barley (whole), broom corn seed, corn gluten meal, whole oats, rye, rice bran and sardine meal, have pro- ductive energy values of about 80 therms per 100 pounds. ' Dried buttermilk, sesame oil meal, cottonseed meal, tankage, peanut meal, meat and bone scraps, wheat gray shorts and ordinary soybean meal have productive energy values of about 70 therms per 100 pounds. On account of the low oil content of solvent process soybean meal, its productive energy is about 57 therms per 100 pounds. Corn gluten feed, dried skim milk, milk sugar feed, linseed oil meal and dried whey have productive energy values around 50 to 56 therms per 100 pounds. Wheat bran has a productive energy of around 46 therms, young grass and clover about 40, alfalfa meal and raw bone meal around 30, special bone meal about 20, cottonseed hulls, oat hulls and rice hulls about zero. Most of the feeds named above have feeding values in addition to their Y content of productive energy and digestible protein. The term grain sorghum is similar to the terms “corn” or “wheat”, and year, new varieties being introduced and taking the place of older ones. i‘ It is often not possible to tell from examining the seed which variety of grain sorghum it is. According to the Handbook of Ofiicial Grain Stand- I ards of the United States (21), commercial grain sorghums are divided , into five classes, as follows: Class I, White Grain Sorghums; Class II, Yellow Grain Sorghums; Class III, Red Grain Sorghums; Class IV, Brown Grain Sorghums; and Class _V, Mixed Grain Sorghums. Commercial varieties change from year to _ 2,2 BULLETIN N0. 67s, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Constituents and Digestibility of the Nitrogen-Free Extract Poultry feeds, as a general rule, contain high percentages of easily digested carbohydrates or of protein. Table 4 shows the composition of the nitrogen-free extract of certain feeds (7) and Table 5 shows the digestibility. In corn, grain sorghums, hulled barley, oat groats, rice and wheat, most of the nitrogen-free extract consists of starch, with small amounts of sugars (7). Whole oats, whole barley, rough rice and rice polish are high in starch, but contain less than the grains mentioned above, on account of the presence of the hulls or of hull particles; they also contain higher percentages of pentosans and crude fiber than the grains mentioned above. Rice bran and wheat gray shorts contain still less starch and higher percentages of pentosans, while wheat bran may contain little starch. Sugars and starches (Bul. 437, Table 5) (7) are almost completely digested by chickens. The pentosans and residual nitrogen-free extract have lower digestibilities (Table 5) but are present in comparatively small amounts in most of the chicken feeds. ' Productive Energy and Digestible Protein of Some Poultry Rations Productive energy and digestible protein of a mixed chicken feed may be calculated by use of the values for the feed ingredients given in Table 3, or, if the composition» of the ingredients used is known, the productive energy and digestible protein of the individual feeds may be calculated by use of the factors in Table 2. The values so secured may be used in the calculation of the values for the ration. An example of the calcu- lation of the productive energy and digestible protein of a ration is given in Table 6. Mixtures to be used for feeding chickens at various periods of life and for various purposes have been recommended by a number of workers. The productive energy values and digestible protein have been calculated for “a number of mixtures suggested by R. M. Sherwood, (23), Titus, Ham- mond, and Whitson (26) and by Almquist, Jukes and Newlon (1). Composition of the rations to a certain extent will, of course, depend upon the composition of the feeds selected. As a rule, the constituents of the ration were assumed to have the average composition of the feeds as given in Table 3. The whole oats used were considered better than _the average, because heavy oats is recommended, and to have the com- position of whole oats containing 30 percent hulls, as given in Table 3. The productive energy and digestible protein for the mixtures considered are shown in Table 7. In case of a mash to be fed with grain, the values of the total diet were also calculated,~using the ‘amount of grain mixture specified, with the assumed composition given in Table 3. The averages for the different rations are summed up in Table 8. The average productive energy, in therms per 100 pounds, was 81.6 for all-mash chicken starter, 87.9 for all-mash growing diet and 91.7 for mash Table 4. Constituents of the nitrogen-free extract of feeds. Reducing Polysac- Pentosans Total Pentosans Name of feed sugar charoses in NFE N pentosans in % % % % % % Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.20 2.40 9.09 25. 12.62 3.53 Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .78 1.19 9.10 11. 10.18 1.08 Corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .38 .42 2.21 12. 2.38 .17 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .89 .38 10.00 15. 11.71 1.71 Cowpeas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .09 5.80 4.33 25. 4.84 .57 Darso seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 .57 3.59 7_. 3.91 .32 Spur feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 .31 3.44 10. 3.63 .19 Standard blackhull kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 .69 4.12 8. 4.35 .23 Millet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 4.36 5.17 9'. 6.52 1.35 Dwarf yellow milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 .76 4.16 7. 4.38 .22 Dwarf yellow milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 .76 3.62 6. 3.78 .16 Oats, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .98 1.02 10.91 9. 12.31 1.40 Rolled oats, groats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 1.39 3.67 4. 3.67 0 " Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .41 .61 2.29 4.. 2.29 0 Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.20 5.39 9.14 13. 10.94‘ 1.80 Rxce polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.28 5.04 3.48 7. 3.68 .20 Rye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.56 3.39 9.63 7. 9.88 .25 Shallu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .42 .19 3.45 8. 3.45 _ 0 Soybeans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .23 8.26 4.25 8. 4. 61 .36 Sumac sorghum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 .56 3.56 16. 3.76 .20 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .66 1.52 7.83 9. 8.10 .27 Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.74 2.50 21.23 11. 22.03 .80 Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 5.34 14.03 1 . 14.48 .45 Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.12 5.32 12.79 13. 13.23 .44 82-‘ SNOLLVH Q SCIEIHH K311111041 JO XDHEINEI HAILOQGOH Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 95.8 97.2 99.1 36.0 77.2 35.6 27.9 Q Millet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 100.0 98.8 98.6 20.5 61.9 24.7 43.2 E Dwarf yellow milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 89.5 87.9 99.3 44.3 65.1 42.5 23.0 O Rolled oat groats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0* 96.4 99.5 80.3 74.7 79.2 0 C! Whole oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 85.1 85.5 97.2 18.0 45.9 20.0 34.3 ~ Whole rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 99.0 97.1 99.7 37.8 76.2 44.0 0 c: ' Polished rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 99.8 79.1 99.3 79.0 98.1 80.7 50.0 w Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 96.8 96.6 90.8 7.0 9.0 8.7 22.5 > Rice polish... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 91.5 93.4 98.5 34.6 29.5 31.0 0 r‘ Rye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 95.5 92.0 98.3 58.0 52.8 57.0 16.0 Shallu....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 91.9 100.0 99.3 39.2 81.2 34.3 33.0 a Soy beans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 50.0* 97.9 . . . . . . . . .. 60.4 78.3 56.8 13.9 ,1, Sumac sorghum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 89.7 97 .7 99 .1 53 .6 57.5 48 .4 27.7 p; Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 78.9 93.7 98.8 49.7 77.3 45.5 6.3 w Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 76.7 93.6 93.9 26.2 26.6 23.1 25.0 E Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 84.9 91.2 94.5 36.6 30.1 36.3 27.7 m Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86.5 92.6 96.5 43.4 58.7 43.0 28.5 i; 3 *This sample very low in sugar. a i=1 O Z ‘g , . 1 . . .11 Table 6. Calculation of the productive energy and digestible protein ol’ a ration. Ingredients In redients. Poun s per 100 of ration Productive energy. Therms_per one pound of ingredient Produetive energy. Therms in the quantit of the ingredient use Digestible protein. Pounds in one pound of ingredient Digestible protein. Pounds in thevquantity of the ingredient used Ground yellow corn . . . . . . . . . .. Wheat gray shorts . . . . . . . . . . .. Pulverized whole oats, 30% hull. Fish meal 864% protein) . . . . . . . Soybean oi meal, 43% protein. . Cottonseed meal, 43% protein. . Dehydrated alfalfa leaf meal. . .. Oyster shell, finely ground. . .. . . Bone meal, steame Salt. . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fortified fish liver oil . . . . . . . . . . Total——Productive energy o1‘ ration in therms per 100 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Digestible protein in pounds per 100 43 1.145 49.2 .085 3.7 20 .720 14.4 .122 2.4 10 .817 8.2 .067 0.7 6 .921 5.5 .505 3.0 6 .674 4.0 .325 2.0 6 .694 4.2 300 1.8 5 .314 1.6 .114 0.6 -2 0 0 0 0 1.5 .304 0.5 .223 0.3 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.5 93 SNOLLVH 7 SGEIEIJ LKJIIQOJ JO ADHERE! GIALLOHGOHJ Q ROILISOJKOO 26 BULLETIN NO. 678, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 7. Productive energy and digestible protein of some recommended rations. Productive energy, Digestible therms per protein, 100 lbs. All mash chicken starter a " Sherwood, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.4 14.7 Ditto, No.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.1 13.3 Titus et al., N0. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.9 18.3 Ditto, No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.5 17.5 Ditto, No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86.4 17.7 Ditto, N0. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.9 17.6 Ditto,No.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.5 19.1 Ditto, No.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85.0 17.5 Almquist et al., No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.2 17.5 Ditto, No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.6 14.7 Ditto, No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.3 15.7 Average (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.6 16.7 Grain mixture: whole oats 30%, corn 40%, grain sorghum 30% . . . . . . 104.2 9.4 Chick growing mash to be fed with grain—2 of mash to 5 of grain, Sherwood: equal weight of grain, Titus. Sherwood, No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53.6 20.5 Ditto, No.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53.6 19.5 Titus et al., No.1 . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82.9 17.3 Ditto, No 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 .2 16.8 Ditto, No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.5 18.3 q Ditto, No.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.6 18.4 ; Ditto, No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.2 20.4 1. Ditto,No.6.....- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.9 17.9 Average (s) Titus only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.2 18.2 3 Chick growing mash (above) fed with grain mixture (above) 3‘ Sherwood, No. 5 89.7 12.6 . Ditto, No. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89.7 12.3 ‘ Titus et al., No. 1.. 93.6 13.9 T Ditto, No. 2 . . . . . .. 89.7 13.1 .~ Ditto, No 93.9 13.9 ‘ D1tto,No.4..... 92.4 13.9 Ditto, No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.6 14.9 Ditto, N0. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92.6 13.6 Average (8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.7 13.5 All mash chick growing diet Sherwood, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.4 12.4 Ditto, No. 2 91.9 12.0 Titus et al., No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89.0 14.3 Ditto, No. 2 7 .0 14.9 Ditto, No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.5 15.3 Ditto, No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90.9 15.5 Ditto, No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86.7 16.7 Ditto, No. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89.1 13.7 Average (8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.9 14.4 Laying mash to be fed with grain; 1 of mash to 2 of grain, No. 9 and 10 Sherwood; equal weight, Titus and Almquist, and Sherwood No. 7 and 8. Sherwood, N0. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 .2 21.1 Sherwood, No. 10 ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59.9 16.8 Sherwood, No. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.1 15.9 Sherwood, No.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.2 13.7 Titus et al., N0. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.1 17.5 Ditto, No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.8 18.0 Ditto, No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.1 16.7 Ditto, No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.7 17.8 Ditto, No.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.1 18.1 Ditto, No. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.0 17.3 F COMPOSITION 8: PRODUCTIVE ENERGY OF POULTRY FEEDS & RATIONS 27 Table 7. Productive energy and digestible protein of some recommended rations ——Continued. ’ Productive _ energy, Digestible therms per protein, 100 lbs. % Almquist et al., No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.6 15.5 Ditto, No.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.7 15.3 Ditto, No.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85.2 18.8 i Ditto, No.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.6 15.2 Average (14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.0 17.0 Laying mash, above, plus grain mixture, above. S erwood, No. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< . . . . . .. 90.2 12.7 . Sherwood, No. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89.2 11 .6 . Sherwood, N0. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90.5 13.3 Ditto, No.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89.4 11.8 Titus et al., No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88.1 13.5 Ditto, No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 85.5 13.7 Ditto, No.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90.2 13.1 Ditto, No.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.5 13.6 ’ Ditto, No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85.1 13.8 Ditto, No.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88.9 13.4 Almquist et al., No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.9 12.5 No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 12.4 No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 14.1 No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.9 12.1 Average (14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89.5 12.9 All-mash laying ration ‘ Titus et al., No.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84.3 13.3 Ditto, No. 2 83.4 14.2 Ditto, No. 86.0 13.6 Ditto, No. 79.6 14.3 Ditto, No. 78.6 16.8 Ditto, No.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84.6 14.3 Almquist, Table 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.4 12.8 Average (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.1 14.2 Breeding diet to be fed with an equal weight of grain Titus et al., No.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.3 16.4 Ditto, No. 2 66.0 16.8 Ditto, No. 73.1 17.4 Ditto, No. 66.4 17.6 Ditto, No. 63.7 18.5 Ditto, No. 71.6 17.5 Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.7 17.4 Breeding diet fed with an equal weight of grain Titus et al., No.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.8 12.9 Ditto, N0. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85.1 13.1 Ditto, No.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88.7 13.4 Ditto, No.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85.3 13.5 Ditto, No.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.9 14.0 “ Ditto, No.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.9 13.5 Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86.5 13.4 All mash breeding diets Titus et al., No.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.5 13.0 ' Ditto, No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.5 13.5 Ditto, No.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.5 13.1 Ditto, No.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.9 14.2 Ditto, No.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.0 " 16.3 Ditto, N0. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.8 14 4 Average (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81.4 14.1 28 BULLETIN NO. 678, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 8. Summary of averages for productive energy and digestible protein in chicken diets. Productive energy, Digestible therms per protein, 100 lbs. % All mash chicken starter (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 .6 16. 7 Grain mixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104.2 9.4 Chick growing mash to be fed with equal parts of grain (6) . . . . . . . . . . 80.2 18.2 Chick growin mash and grain (8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 91.7 13.5 All-mash chic growing diet (8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.9 14.4 Laying mash to be fed with grain (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.0 17.0 Laying mash and grain (14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.5 12.9 All mash laying ration (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.1 14.2 Breeding diet to be fed with an equal weight of grain (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.7 17.4 Breeding diet and grain (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ 86.5 13.4 All mash breeding diet (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 .4 14.1 with grain; 83.1 for all-mash laying diet and 89.5 for mash with grain; 81.4 for all-mash breeding diet and 86.5 for mash with grain. These averages may be ‘considered to show the productive energy for good chicken diets. The all-mash diets have lower average energy values than the combined mash fed with grain, perhaps due to the fact that the energy values of the mixtures were not taken into consideration. The individual calculations in Table 7 for the diets are mostly remark- ably uniform. There are a few having much lower energy values than the average, chiefly due to the use of higher percentages of barley or » oats than in the other rations. Efiect of Productive Energy, Protein and Fat on Growth and Composition of Chickens In the experimental work to ascertain the productive energy, a number of rations were used which are not ordinarily tested in experiments with chickens. Since analyses were made of the chickens, some interesting results were secured (10). i The corn meal ration I (Table 9) for experiments 45, 49, 57, 58, and 60 consisted, in percentages of the total ration, of corn meal 60, wheat gray shorts 16.3, dried skim milk 10, alfalfa leaf meal 4, yeast 6, oyster shell 1.5, tricalcium phosphate 1.0, salt 1.0 and cod liver oil concentrate 0.2. The corn meal ration 2 used in experiments 19 and 25 was the same except 10 percent cottonseed meal replaced 10 percent corn meal; in corn meal ration No. 3, used in experiments 40 and 50, 10 percent casein re- placed 10 percent corn meal. Average initial weights of the chickens were from 47 to 57 grams. The duration of the experiment was 3 weeks, except for experiments 45 and 58, in which it was 12 weeks. The productive energy values shown in Table 9 for the corn meal rations are calculated from the effective digestible nutrients, and those of the other rations represent the value of the rations for the production of fat and flesh as measured in the experiments. Table 9. Elect of some nutrients upon the live weights and composition of chickens. _ Final Protein Food Protein Productive Name of ingredient compared with corn meal and live in Fat in eated per content energy. its percentage in the ration weight chicken chicken period of ration 'I‘l;31(')mlst) per s. grams % % grams % Exp. 25 Corn meal, No.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 192.3 20.9 5.4 360.8 19.9 80.4 Cottonseed oil 10% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 160.4 20.4 8.8 287.2 18.9 92.2 Cottonseed oil 20%; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 130.8 19.4 9.3 215 4 17.8 100.8 Cottonseed oil 30% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104.2 18.6 11.2 173 8 17.3 105.3 Exp. 19 - - Corn meal, No.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 187.3 20.5 8.3 327.0 20.1 83.1 Starch 44% and 6% casein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 181.7 20.8 7.0 308.1 19.9 87.2 Wheat bran<50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ’ 149.6 20.7 2.5 424.6 23.9 42.2 Cottonseed oil 15% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 172.8 18.8 13.4 280.3 18.1 99.4 Exp. 49 Corn meal, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 194.3 19.9 10.8 380.7 16.3 88.1 Cottonseed oil 20% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 144.1 18.6 16.3 288.0 14.4 99.4 Casein 30% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 197.8 21.3 4.4 308.0 37.7 96.7 Wesson oil 20% and casein 30% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 158.5 20.3 7 .5 205.2 35.9 124.4 Exp. 5O Corn meal,pNo. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 218.3 21.4 6.0 365 9 23.7 85.4 Cottonseed oil 20% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 146.3 19.4 12.3 238 8 21.9 104.0 Oat hulls30% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 179.8 22.3 2.5 416 0 21.7 58.1 Oat hulls 30% and cottonseed oil 20% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 .2 19.9 9.7 270 8 19.9 83.1 Exp. 40 Corn meal, No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 218.0 21.8 5.5 353 0 23.6 83.5 _ Citrus pulp 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 154.2 21.8 1.7 409 6 21.4 44.5 Beet pulp 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.5 19.5 1.4 147 6 22.0 44.9 Wheat gray shorts 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 215.8 21.9 2.6 430 9 26.8 60.8 Exp. 60 Corn meal,N0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 154.1 19.7 10.1 308 9 15.6 88.5 Peanut meal 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 178.7 21.5 2.7 338 1 33.8 79.5 Tankage 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 202.8 21.8 2.8 404 3 42.3 76.3 9 20.7 7.7 340 6 20.9 917 Sunflower seed 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . 182. 63 SNIOLLVH 1? SCIEIEIJ LILUIIIOJ JO LDHHNE IEIAICLOHCIOILI '2 NOLLISOdWOO Table 9. Eifect of some nutrients upon the live weights and composition of chickens-Continued. 08 _ Final Protein _ Food Protein Productive Name of ingredient compared with corn meal and live 1n Fat 1Il eaten per content energy its percentage in the ration weight chicken chicken period of ration Tlirarmfi.) per 0 s. grams % % grams % Exp. 57 Corn meal, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 161.5 19.1 10 3 343.4 16.5 85.8 Cottonseed flour 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109.9 21.0 3 3 235.7 38.8 70.8 Linseed oil meal 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.7 19.7 1 6 232.3 29 7 59.0 Soybean oil meal 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160. 5 21.2 2 2 384.1 23 2 53.6 Exp. 45, 12 weeks \ Corn meal, No.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 925.4 22.4 12.3 3,128.2 16.8 88.5 Cottonseed oil 20% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 643.0 20.9 16.7 2,312.1 15.1 90.8 Casein 30% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 991.4 25.1 5.1 3,061 8 38.3 94.9 Casein 30% and cottonseed oil 20% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,088.1 23.1 7.0 2,537 6 36.9 114 0 Exp. 58, 12 weeks Corn meal, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,001.3 21.7 12.0 3,317.3 15.8 89.0 Oat hulls30% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,004.2 24.5 6.4 4,689.6 14.0 74.5 Cottonseed meal 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,003.1 24.2 4.6 3,989.8 32.6 71.7 Wheat bran 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 754.5 25.0 4.6 3,746.7 20.7 56.8 .¢ 1.J._._‘~4nIi cminmigi... 1._.114.M_.1_1__...__..1_......._.1_......._ .- 1.... i. .... .-. NIOLLVLS LNEINIHEIJXEI TVHIIJIIDOIHOV SVXELL ‘SL9. ‘ON NLLEFYIHH COMPOSITION & PRODUCTIVE ENERGY OITPOULTRY FEEDS & RATIONS 31 F1‘ lottonseed oil, when substituted for corn meal, reduced the consump- f}: of feed, increased the percentage of fat, and resulted in smaller lkens (experiments 25, 19, 49, 50, 45, Table 9). These effects are not ely due to the increased productive energy of the ration caused by l" substitution of fats for corn meal. _ In experiment 50, when 50 percent j. meal was substituted by 20 ‘percent cottonseed oil and 30 percent oat ls, the productive energy of this ration was slightly lower ‘than that the corn meal ration, but in spite of this, the consumption of feed was the chickens were smaller and-the percentage of fat was’ higher ‘f. with the corn meal ration. The oil seems to have a specific effect in ,_:'»-: the fatness of the chickens. vecreasing the productive energy of the ration does not necessarily iult in smaller chickens. In experiment 58, replacing 30 percent corn @l with 30 percent oat hulls resulted in greater consumption of feed H practically the same live weight as_the chickens on the corn meal I “on, but the percentage of fat was lower (6.7 percent versus 12.7 per- t). A similar result was secured in experiment 40, in which wheat ‘y shorts replaced corn meal. Although’ increased “consumption of feed _ lted in experiment 50 when oat hulls replaced corn meal, and in ex- [j-fment 40, in which citrus pulp replaced corn meal, the resulting live fghts were lower as well as the percentages of fat in the chickens. T increased consumptions of feed were not sufficient to offset the lower iuctive energy values of the“ rations. A low productive energy of the , ‘on resulted in chickens very low in fat, in experiment 40 as low as to 2.6 percent. The effect of increasing the protein in the ration is shown in the sub- 1' tion of 30 percent casein for 30 percent corn meal in- experiment 49 l result in a much lower fat content of 4.4 percent compared with 10.8 ent for the corn meal ration, and a slightly higher protein content of 1 - chicken, with little effect on the live weight. In experiment 60, sub- tution of the protein feeds, peanut meal, and tankage, for corn meal 3r the corn meal ration, with lower live Weight. In experiment 57, sub- tion of the protein feeds, cottonseed flour, linseed oil meal, and soy- 7f». oil meal for corn meal resulted in fat contents of 3.3, 1.6, 2.2 percent _pectively, compared with 10.3 percent for the corn meal ration, together i‘ h slightly decreased protein. The corn meal ration No. 1, experiments 45, 49, 57, 58, 60 containing 1i percent corn meal produced chickens containing 10.1 to 12.0 percent I t, while corn meal ration 2, in which 10 per cent cottonseed meal or casein placed corn meal, produced chickens with 5.4 to 8.3 percent fat in experi- ents 19, 25. When 30 percent casein was substituted for corn meal 'periments 40-50) the chickens contained 5.5-6.0 percent fat. The substitution of feeds high in protein for corn meal, therefore, Q ulted in lower fat content of the chickens, accompanied in some cases r reduced live weight, in some by increased live weight, and in others lted in fat contents of 2.7 -and 2.8 percent compared with 10.1 percent ' 32 BULLETIN NO. 678, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION with little effect in live weight. All these substitutions of protein feeds resulted in a high protein content of the rations, and, with the exception of the casein substitution, a lower productive energy. Since the substitution of casein for corn meal reduced the fat content of the chickens, and the substitution of cottonseed oil increased the fat, it is desirable to compare both together with rations containing the two a separately substituted. This was done in experiment 49. Substitution of the cottonseed oil for the corn meal in the casein ration increased the fat content of the chickens from 4.4 to 7.5 percent, but not sufliciently to . cause it to equal the corn meal ration which produced 10.8 percent, or the cottonseed oil ration which produced 16.3 percent. The productive v energy of the casein and oil ration was higher than that of the corn meal ration. The quantity of fat stored in growing chickens, thus, can be regulated to a certain extent by adjusting the composition of the ration fed. A corn meal ration, such as that here described, can produce chickens with high fat content. Substitution of suitable feed of lower energy value may produce equally as large chickens, or even larger ones, but with lower fat content. Good growth may be secured with rations which produce thin chickens. Table l0. Suggested rations for finishing. Diet Diet Diet Ingredients 15 20 27 % % % Ground corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.4 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finely ground whole barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.0 30.4 35.2 Ground wheat.. ." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 .0 40.0 Corn gluten meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 4.0 Meat scrap (60% protein) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dried buttermilk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 10.0 10.0 Alfalfa leaf meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.0 5.0 2.5 Corn oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.5 4.0 6.0 Special steamed bran meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 1.8 Ground limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .6 2.1 0.5 Sal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . Productive energy of ration, therms per 100 pounds. 89.3 86. 1 93.3 Digestible protein of ration, percent . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.3 15.4 12.6 Relation of Fat Content of Ration to Quality of Chickens According to Titus (25), finishing diets are fed to broilers, roosters, capons, and mature fowls, especially for improving the quality of the carcass. Such diets, he states, should contain 6 to 10 percent fat, including - the fat present in the ingredients-of the ration. Corn oil, red palm oil, rapeseed oil and peanut oil may be used. Some suggested finishing diets ' are given in Table 10. Diets No. 15 and 20 are for broilers. Diet 27 is ‘ for capons, roosters and mature fowls, which require less protein than i COMPOSITION & PRODUCTIVE ENERGY OF POULTRY FEEDS & RATIONS 38 broilers. The productive energy values of these diets are 89.2, 86.1, 93.3 therms respectively and are not much higher than some of these ordinarily used, 87.9 and 91.7 for growing chickens. Substitution of corn for barley would result in higher productive energy values. As pointed out on a preceding page, oils may have a specific action in fattening. Caponizing of fowls is practiced for the purpose of securing carcasses of better quality. Feeding crates, special pens, and the feeding of wet "mixed feeds have also been used in finishing poultry. The use of sex ’ hormones or estrogens as aids to fattening or finishing is being tested at the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa, Canada, the University of California and the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station (19) and elsewhere. Other factors besides fatness are involved in quality, such as the smooth- ness and texture of the skin. While a fat fowl is not necessarily of high quality, yet unless the fowl is sufiiciently fat, it cannot be of high quality. Rations which produce equal gains per unit of live weight in feeding experiments are not necessarily of equal value, as shown by the data here presented. One ration may produce a fatter fowl than the other being tested, even though the rations compared produce equal gains in live weight. If the quality of the chickens is not of importance, then the difference in fatness may be disregarded. If quality is of importance, the difference in fatness should be considered. ' Feeding Limited Quantities of Rations Hammond, Hendricks, and Titus (20), fed seven lots of chickens all g they would eat of seven diets of different protein contents and at the same time another seven lots were fed 70 percent as much of the same diets. . The efficiency of the rations were compared by the pounds of ration A required to produce one pound of live weight. On- each diet the feed was utilized more efiiciently by the lots that was fed at the 70 percent level of feed intake. On the diet which contained the least protein (13 percent) the efliciency of the utilization of feed for growth at 70 percent level was _ only about 4 percent greater than at the full-feed level but as the per- centage of protein increased, the differences in efliciency became more and ; more pronounced. On the diet of the highest protein content, 25 percent, . the efficiency was 38 percent greater at the 70 percent level. Other data quoted by Titus (24) indicate that a ration containing 19 percent protein , was used most efiiciently for growth when the level of intake was between . 50 and 60 percent of full feed. Titus (24) states that it would not be economical to feed growing i, chickens at a level of feed intake that is only 50 to 60 percent of full ‘ feed, even though the feed is utilized more efficiently for growth at such l a level. According to the data presented, it would require more than i twice as much time with the same brooding and housing facilities to produce the same weight of chickens at the 50 percent level as it-would 34 (BULLETIN NO. 678, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION at the full feed level. Moreover, the chickens that would be produced on l this low level of feed intake would contain little fat and hence would have _ a lower market value per pound than those produced in full feed. Calculated from the percentage of ingredients in the rations and the average values in Table 3, the productive energy of the 25 percent protein ration used by Hammond et al. (HH) was 77.7 therms per 100 pounds, - and that of the 13 percent protein ration was 80.2. The digestible protein was calculated to be 19.5 percent and 9.5 respectively. The other rations were intermediate between these two. The experiments “of Hammond et al. (20) indicate that rations having 7O percent of productive energy of the rations usually recommended, eaten at the same rate, would produce as much live weight as the original rations. Such a ration would contain 6.9 percent of digestible protein and furnish 56 therms of productive energy per 100 pounds. Table 9 show that a wheat bran ration (experiment 58) furnishing 56.8 therms per 100 pounds, though eaten at a higher rate than the corn meal ration, produced chickens with a smaller live weight and lower fat con- tent than the corn meal ration having a value of 89.0 therms per 100 pounds. The same result was secured with an oat hull ration (experiment 50). AA soybean oil meal ration (experiment 45) with a productive energy value of 53 therms, produced chickens of the same live weight as the corn meal ration but with only 2.2 percent fat compared with 12.3 percent produced by the corn meal ration. The quantity of gain in live weight per pound of feed may measure the efficiency of a ration when. the percentages of fat in the chickens are disregarded, but may not measure the efficiency of a ration when the fatness of the chickens is considered. Two rations may have the (same efficiency when the live weight only is considered but one mayproduce fatter chickens than the other. The effect of feeding limited amounts of a ration may more easily be secured by reducing the productive energy of the ration by substitution of cheaper feed of lower productive energy, or no productive energy, for some of the constituents of the ration. In other words, a ration may be used which has a lower productive energy "and a lower protein content than the ordinary rations. By selecting palatable ingredients, it might be possible to secure equally as much live weight with a less expensive ration. The chickens so produced would contain smaller percentages of g fat than those in the regular rations. Productive Energy of Rations for Chicken Feeding From the foregoing discussion it appears desirable to consider the productive energy of the ration in the experimental feeding of chickens and in the formulation of rations to be recommended. Consideration of the productive energy in experimental work may reduce the variables when different feeds are compared, and help to explain some of the The data in - 1., ..___._ .\...\L|4< s_ __.4.._._.A._. COMPOSITION & PRODUCTIVE ENERGY OF POULTRY FEEDS & RATIONS 35 observations. Judging from the recommendations made as to rations (Table 8) an all-mash chicken starter should have a productive energy of about 82 therms per 100 pounds; an all-mash growing mash, or growing mash _ plus scratch grains, from 88 to 92 therms; an all-mash laying feed, or mash plus grain for laying, 84 to 90 therms; an all-mash breeding feed or mash plus grain, 81 to 87 therms per 100 pounds. If the fatness of the chickens is not of importance, rations with lower productive energy values may be used for growing chickens, perhaps with larger gains per A pound of ration. Fowls on finishing rations should receive rations perhaps higher in productive energy than the average. The productive energy of the ration should depend upon the purpose of feeding. In feeding experiments with growing chickens more attention should be paid to the quality of the chicken produced, especially their fat content, as well as to the gain in live weight per unit of feed. The gain in weight alone does not give the entire. effect of the ration. In experimental work, all available data can well be recorded. SUMMARY Values for productive energy of poultry feeds, as determined by gains of protein and fat by growing chickens, were used to prepare energy ‘production coefficients for calculating the productive energy values of poultry feeds. The average composition, minimum guarantee, productive energy and digestible protein are given for a number of poultry feeds. Oils have the highest productive energy values of about 210 therms per 100 pounds and are sometimes used in finishing rations for poultry. Corn and oat groats have values of 100 to 115 therms per 100 pounds, grain sorghums seed have slightly lower values. Wheat, rice polishings, and brewer’s grains have about 10 percent lower values than corn. Fish meal, meat scraps and sunflower seed have productive energy values of about 90 therms per 100 pounds; whole barley, broom corn seed, corn gluten meal, whole oats, rye, rice bran and sardine meal, about 8O therms; dried buttermilk, sesame oil meal, cottonseed meal, tankage, peanut meal, meat and bone scraps, wheat gray shorts and ordinary soybean meal, about '70 therms per 100 pounds. Solvent-process soybean oil meal, on- account of its low fat con- tent, has a productive energy value of about 57 therms per 100 pounds. Corn gluten feed, dried skim milk, milk sugar feed, linseed oil meal and dried whey have productive energy values around 50 to 56 therms per 100 pounds. Wheat bran has a value of about 40 therms, young grass and clover about 40, alfalfa meal and raw bone meal about 30 and special bone meal about 20 therms per 100 pounds. The average productive energy values in therms per 100 pounds for recommended rations for chickens was 81.6 for all-mash chicken starter, 87.9 for all-mash growing diet, and 91.7 for mash with grain; 83.1 for all-mash laying diet and 89.5 for mash with grain; 81.4 for all-mash breeding diet and 86.5 for mash with grain. 36 BULLETIN NO. 678, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Substitution of 10 percent or more of cottonseed oil for corn meal ini rations reduced the consumption of feed, increased the percentage of fat; in the chickens and resulted in smaller chickens. Decreasing the productive energy of the diet to a small extent may orfj may not result in smaller chickens but reduces the percentage of fat in a the chickens. Increasing the percentage of protein beyond a moderate amount may‘ increase the gain in live weight per pound of feed but decrease the per? centage of fat in the chickens. While a fat fowl is not necessarily of high quality, the fowl cannot bei of high quality unless sufficiently fat. Limited amounts of feed result in thinner fowls than those on full feed. Feeding experiments in growing fowls should include data on the quality of the fowls, especially the fat content, as yvell as the gains in weight. A 1 higher gain in weight per unit of feed may result in a fowl containing less A fat and of poorer quality than fowls making lower gains in weight. l6 n 10. 12. l3. 14. 15. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. q» U] COMPOSITION & l’l{Ol)U(J'1‘IVlC ENERGY OF POULTRY FEEDS & RATIONS REFERENCES Almquist, H. .l., Jukes, T. H., and Newlon, W. E. Extension Service. Circular 108. 1938. Feeding chickens. California Armsby, H. P. 1917. York. Bidwell, G. L. and Coe, M. R. 192.’. Oats, oat milling and oat by-products. tion sheet, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Brock, F. D., Holleman, M. P., and Fuller, F. D. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 660. Fraps, G. S. Fraps, G. S. 1928. Digestibility and production coefficients of poultry feeds. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 372. The nutrition of farm animals. The Macmillan Company, New Informa- 1944. Commercial feeding stuffs. 1912. The heating of corn chops. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 152. Fraps, G. S. extract of feeds. 1931. Digestibility by chickens of the constituents of the nitrogen-free Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 437. Fraps, G. S. 1932. Exp. Sta. Bul. 461. The composition and utilization of Texas feeding stuffs. Tex. Agr. Fraps, G. S. 1942. Productive energy of certain feeds as measured by production of fat and flesh by growing rats. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 632. Fraps, G. S. 1943. Relation of the protein, fat and energy of the ration to the compo- sition of chickens. Poultry Science 22: 421-424. Fraps, G. S. 1944. Digestibility of feeds and human foods by chickens. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 663. Fraps, G. S. 1944. Maintenance requirements of chickens and productive energy of feed as related to age. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 665. Fraps, G. S. 1945. Utilization of metabolizable energy by growing chicks. Archives Biochem. 8: 21-37. v Fraps, G. S. and Carlyle, E. C. 1939. Utilization of the energy of wheat products by chickens. J. Nutrition 18: 385-397. Fraps, G. S. and Carlyle, E. C. 1939. The utilization of the energy of feed by growing chickens. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 571. Fraps, G. S., Carlyle, E. C., and Fudge, J. F. chicken feeds. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 589. Fraps, G. S. and Carlyle, E. C. 1941. Productive energy of corn meal, alfalfa leaf meal, dried buttermilk, and casein as measured by production of fat and flesh in grow- ing chickens. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 600. Fraps, G. S. and Carlyle, E. C. 1942. gains of energy of growing chickens. Gutterige, H. S. 1945. The future of hormones as finishing and fattening agents. Egg and Poultry Magazine, September 1945. 1940. Metabolizable energy of some Productive energy of some feeds as measured by Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 625. U. S. Hammond, J. C., Hendrick, W. A. and Titus, H. W. 1938. The effect of the percentage of protein in the diet on growth and feed utilization of male chickens. Jour. Agr. Res. 5'6: 791-810. Handbook of official grain standards of the United States, U. S. Department of Agri- culture, War Food Administration, Food Distribution Administration. 1943. Kellner, O. Sherwood, R. M. graphed sheet. Titus, H. W. 1940. Practical nutritive requirements of poultry. Yearbook of Agricul- ture 1939, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Titus, H. W. 1941. 1905. Die Ernahrung des landwirthschaftlicher Nutztiere. 1944. Suggested rations for chickens. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. mimeo- The scientific feeding of chickens. The Interstate, Danville, Illinois. Titus, H. W., Hammond, J. C., and Whitman, Donald. 1943. Wartime feed mixtures for chickens. Bureau of Animal Industry, Agricultural Research Administration, U. D.