TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS, DIRECTOR College Station, Texas BULLETIN NO. 685 OCTOBER, 1946 PEANUT MEAL AND COTTONSEED MEAL AS PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS IN RATIONS FOR FATTENING YEARLING STEERS Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and Texas Technological College AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS GIBB GILCHRIST, President VB28-1146-5M-L180 In six dry lot feeding trials, three at Spur, one at Stephenville, and two at Lubbock, in cooperation with Texas Technological College, peanut meal was as reliable a protein supplement in ra- tions for fattening yearling steers as cottonseed meal. In five of the six trials the steers fed peanut meal made slightly greater gains than those fed cottonseed meal. There was no diflference in carcass grades, but the steers fed peanut meal had a slight advantage in dressing per- cent. Steers fed cottonseed meal had a greater appetite for feed, while those fed peanut meal showed at the finish sleeker coats of hair. The cottonseed meal and peanut meal used were pur- chased in regular market channels and were guaranteed 43 percent protein. f >1 CONTENTS _ Page} f Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.5 ‘Eziperimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6ft First Feeding Trial, Spur Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second Feeding Trial, Spur Station’ . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Third Feeding Trial, Spur Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .> . . . . . . . . . .. Fourth Feeding Trial, Texas Technological College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Fifth Feeding Trial, Texas Technological College . . . . . d . . . . .. 11;- Sixth Feeding Trial,Steph'enville Station ..................... .. Surnmary and Conclusions _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%; Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * BULLETIN NO. s35 OCTOBER, 1946 PEANUT MEAL AND COTTON SEED MEAL AS PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS IN RATIONS f FOR FATTENING-YEARLING STEERS ii . q‘, w‘ mr- wnq-w" - ., w _ . J. H. Jones, R. E. Dickson, J. M. Jones, P. T. Marion, W. L. Stangel, and B. C. Langley . Texas Agricultural Experiment Statio-n and Texas Technological College The annual production of cottonseed meal and cottonseed cake averaged 1,790,000 tons in the United States in the five-year period, 1941 to 1946, as compared with 85,000 tons of peanut meal (1). Stockmen are more familiar ’ 1 with cottonseed meal than with peanut meal; A however, the acreage of peanuts has increased and there may be larger amounts of peanut meal l to use in the future. The results of recent feeding trials are presented to better acquaint feeders with peanut meal. Fuller, et al., (6) of the Texas Station, 1940, defined 43 percent protein Qpeanut meal as the product from the kernels of sound_ peanuts, reasonably kglfree from excess hulls and other foreign materials, Cottonseed meal of prime quality is likewise defined as the product from the kernels of cotton- Eseed which must be reasonably bright in color, not brown or reddish, flJsweet in odor and free of excess lint. h. Burns (3) of the Texas Station, in 1920, reported that choice peanut ‘pineal proved fully equal to cottonseed meal in respect to production of (fgain, but apparently was less palatable. Massey (12) of the Georgia Station, in 1941, reported a series of fou-r f5 trials between peanut meal and cottonseed meal as protein supplements in =irations for fattening yearling steers. He ‘found 39.8 percent protein cottonseed meal and. 43.4 percent protein peanut meal, also a mixture fof equal parts of the two meals fed pound for pound, to» have practically §equal value. He concluded that a choice between the supplements should ibe determined largely by price. * McComas, Douglas,-and. Southwell (11) at the Georgia Coastal Plain l. Experiment Station, in 1942, reported that ,.while steers fed cottonseed “meal made more gain, those fed peanut meal had slightly more desirable. carcasses and sold at a higher price, so that the net result was a slight. ‘advantage for peanut meal. In the series of four fattening trials with yyearling steers, 45 percent protein peanut meal and 36 percent protein gcottonseed meal supplying the same amount of crude protein were used to supplement broken corn in husk and peanut straw. J. H. Jones, Animal Husbandman, Division of Range Animal Husbandry. R. E. Dickson, Superintendent, Substation No. 7, Spur, Texas.~ J. M. Jones, Chief, Division of Range Animal Husbandry. P. T. Marion, Animal Husbandman, Substantion No. 7, Spur, Texas. W. L. Stangel, Dean of Agriculture, Texas Technological College, Lubbock, Texas. B. 1C. Langley, Superintendent, Substation No. 20, Stephenville, Texas. 992*???‘ _ crude protein, 6.31 “percent fat and 26.67 percent nitrogen-free extract ; 6 BULLETIN NO. 685, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Shealy and Gratz (13) of the Florida Station, in 1938, found practically identical gains for peanut meal and cottonseed meal when used as sup- plements to corn and silage in fattening steers. It is noted that in the two trials Shealy and Gratz reported, 45 percent protein peanut meal and l‘ 41 percent protein cottonseed meal were fed approximately pound for pound. Jacob and Duncan (9) of the Tennessee Station, in 1938, reported as a k result of three steer fattening trials that peanut meal was somewhat less eflicient in producing gains than cottonseed meal; also, that the steersf fed peanut meal had less keen appetites, and were off feed more fre-» - quently than those fed cottonseed meal. In these trials, 43 percent protein, ‘ peanut meal -and 41 percent protein cottonseed meal were fed pound for pound and at a. rate of three to seven pounds daily per head with corn A silage to two-year-old steers. > McCampbell and Aicher (10) of the Kansas Station found cottonseed f meal to be materially more efiicient than peanut meal in wintering . calves and yearlings on a full feed of sorghum silage and one pound of the protein supplement. i’ Clay (4) of the USDA, in 1941, called attention to irregularity in supply of peanut meal, also to variation of quality. He stated that both as a i feed for most animals and as a fertilizer, peanut meal is considered to _ have more value than cottonseed meal. Clay cited Holdaway, et al., (8), 'I of the Virginia Station, 1925, who found that more milk protein was i- lproduced from a pound of crude protein in peanut meal than from either 3 \ cottonseed or soybean meal protein. Fraps (5) of the Texas Station, 1932, . showed higher coefiicients of digestibility for peanut meal than for cotton- p seed meal. . Brock and Holleman (2) reported an average composition of 42.5 percent 5 for 330 samples of cottonseed meal analyzed during the fiscal year 1944-45. T The respective values for 34 samples of peanut meal the same year were i 43.59 percent crude protein, 7.69 percent fat and 22.34 percent nitrogen- l free extract. According to Guilbert, et al., of the National Research Council (7) prime cottonseed meal contained 0.19 percent calcium and ; 1.11 percent phosphorus, while prime peanut meal contained 0.10 percent - calcium and 0.50 percent phosphorus. ' s, The reports from these stations indicate ‘that peanut meal is less q palatable than cottonseed meal, but that the two meals have approximately- ' equal value as protein supplements in steer fattening rations that include i grain. The Kansas and Tennessee work indicates that peanut meal is not ‘ ‘as valuable as cottonseed meal as a supplement to silage. j \ . EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The six comparisons between cottonseed meal and peanut meal reported i‘ in this bulletin were conducted at the Spur and Stephenville stations, and, at Texas Technological College, Lubbock, between 1940 and 1946. V PEANUT MEAL AND COTTONSEED MEAL AS PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS 7 First Feeding Trial, Spur Station The yearling steers used in this trial were secured as calves in October, 1939. They were wintered and summer grazed until divided into two lots of 10 each and started on test September 26, 1940. At this time they were well grown and fleshy, and averaged 695 pounds. Lot 1 steers were fed 2% pounds of cottonseed meal daily per head, and Lot 2 steers were fed the same amount of peanut meal. The respec- tive meals wepe guaranteed to contain 43 percent crude protein but were not analyzed. Cottonseed hulls, chopped sumac fodder and ground milo heads were fed alike to each lot. Salt _was supplied free choice ‘ as a lick, and 0.1 pound pulverized limestone per head daily was mixed with the ration. The roughage was composerf largely of cottonseed hulls. This feeding trial is summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of first triak-Spur Station—Sept. 26, I940, to Feb. 13, 1941—140 days Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Number of steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8* ’ 10 Cottonseed meal Peanut meal Averages in pounds per steer: Initial weig t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693 695 Final weight at feedlot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 1038 Weight at Fort Worth market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984 988 Gain basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 343 Daily gain basis feedlot weight. . 2.49 2.45 Shrinkage en route market, %. . . 5.48 4.82 Carcass weight _(hot) . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625.0 627.4 gressing % basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.04 - 60.44 ide weight (untrimmed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.4 68. 1 Carcass grading: Choice .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 Average ration_ (consumed) pounds: Ground milo hcads (grain equivalent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .27 11.24 Protein supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.49 2.48 Roughage** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.51 ‘ 15.47 ‘Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 .10 Salt (estimated) ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 .57 Cost and returns per steer: Feed cost (feed consumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 24.21 ' $ 24. 13 Feed cost per cwt. of feedlot gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.96 7.03 Cost into feedlot @ $9 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.37 62.55 Marketing cost @ $0.494 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.86 4.88 Selling price per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.22 11.50 Amount received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110.40 113.62 Net return (no charge for labor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.96 22.06 **Consisting of cottonseed hulls, ground sumac fodder and ground milo “pommies." *Two steers dropped from trial because of tapeworm infestation. Feed prices per ton: Ground grain $13.34; cottonseed meal and peanut meal $28; roughage $8; salt and limestone $12. The steers fed cottonseed meal consumed slightly more feed and cleaned up their ration in less time than the steers fed peanut meal. Observers rated Lot 2 steers, fed peanut meal, the more desirable, and this was reflected in selling price, $11.50 per cwt. for Lot 2 and $11.22 for Lot 1. According to carcass grades and dressed yield, a difference in selling price was not warranted. Had the two lots sold at the same price, the net return would have been almost equal. I 8 BULLETIN NO. 685, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Second Feeding Trial,‘ Spur Station The 2.0 yearling steers used in this trial were s-ecured as calves from the same ranch, as those used in the first trial, and had been similarly l‘ wintered and summer grazed. -The two lots of 10 each were started on test November ‘11, 1942, at an average weight of 669 pounds. The cottonseed meal and peanut meal were fed at the approximate '2 rate of four pounds daily per head. Ground milo was fed only during the ‘last 70 days of the 196-day feeding period. Mixed sorghum silage was full fed throughout. A small amount of cottonseed hulls was fed during y the first 28-day feeding period. Granulated salt was suppliedfree choice. The silages used-—sweet sorghum (sumac) and grain sorghum (hegari) p were mixed together at feeding time. Sumac silage formed 52 percent . of the total silage fed. Nine samples of the silages drawn at intervals f during the? feeding period averaged 72 percent moisture for sumac and 61 percent moisture for hegari. Samples of the cottonseed meal and peanut ‘ meal fe-d had the following percentage composition: Nitrogen- Crude Ether Crude free Water protein extract fiber extract Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . 42.75 5.80 11.80 25.70 7.00 Peanut meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.61 8.02 11102 25.24 7.26 Table 2. Summary of second trial—Spur Station—Nov. 11, 1942, to May 26, l943——196 days “ Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Number of steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 10 Cottonseed meal Peanut meal Averages in pounds per steer: Initial weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669 669 Final weig t at feedlot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 1128 Weight a_t Fort Worth market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 1054 Gain basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 459 Daily gain basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.31 2.34 Shrinkage en route market, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.31 6.56 Carcass weight (hot) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642.6 661.8 Dressing % basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.32 58.67 Hide weight (untrimmed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.1 85.8 Carcass grading: Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 Average ration (consumed) pounds: round grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.78 1 .77 Protein supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.89 3.87 Mixed sorghum silage . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.72 49 .45 Cottonseed hulls. . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .19 Salt, ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 .58 Costs and returns per steer: ' - Feed cost (feed consumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 41.00 $ 40.79 Feed _cost er cwt. of feedlot gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.07 8.89 Cost into eedlot @ $12.00 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.28 80.28 Marketing cost @ $0.593 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.16 6.25 Amount received @ $16 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166.24 168. 64 Net return (no charge for labor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 . 80 41 .32 Feed prices per ton: Ground grain $24.60;‘ cottonseed meal and sorghum silage $4.25; cottonseed hulls $9; salt $15. \ peanut meal $41; mixed: 9 ‘.7’. W. PEANUT MEAL AND COTTONSEED MEAL AS ‘PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS 9 Both meals were below 43 percent in protein content. The cottonseed -.meal was higher in protein but lower in ether extract than the peanut eal. This feeding trial is summarized in Table 2. r Lot 1 steers fed cottonseed meal had keener appetite and consumed ‘Slightly more feed than Lot 2 steersfed peanut meal. The difference in eed consumption occurred because of feed refusals by Lot 2 and not be- cause Lot 1 was given more feed. The supply of equal amounts of feed ~ both lots did not permit full expression of the factor of appetite. Lot 2 steers fed peanut meal had the advantage over Lot 1 steers fed ~ onseed meal in gain, finish and net return. The advantage in gain . or Lot 2 is more noticeable in the comparison of average carcass weight, 661.8 pounds and 642.6 pounds respectively. I/According to chemical composition and the method of Fraps (5) for ermining productive values, the peanut meal supplied approximately .45 therms more productive energy daily per steer than the cottonseed eal. Also, since both lots received ample protein and the feeding period ended for 19-6 days, the difference in energy probably accounted for e increased gain of the lot fed peanut meal. - Third Feeding Trial, Spur Station The 20 yearling steers used in the third feeding trial were ‘again similar kind, quality and previous treatment to those used in the first two ls, but were fleshier and heavier, the average initial weight being pounds. The feeding period of 126 days resulted because of a limited e12. Cottonseed meal and peanut meal were again fed at the approx- _e rate of four pounds daily per head. Other feeds were fed in similar _ ount to both lots.‘ y, amples of the cottonseed meal and peanut meal fed showed the. lowing percentage composition: Nitrogen- Crude Ether Crude free Water protein extract fiber extract l tonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.48 7.94 11.45 25.80 8.14 ut meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.39 9.26 ' 13.25 24.14 6.91 eanut meal was slightly higher in protein and ether extract than ottonseed meal. The mixed silage fed consisted of 62 percent sweet rage moisture content of five s-amples of each silage was 68.5 percent ply of silage. A small amount of ground grain was fed from the " hum (sumac) and 38 percent grain sorghum (hegari) silage. The ’ Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 :1 Number of steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 f ’ Cottonseed meal Peanut meal Averages in pounds per steer: , Initial weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728 730 Final weight at feedlot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991 1000 Weight at Fort Worth market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939 953 Gain bas_is feedlot weight . ._ . . . . . . . . . . l . . . . . . . . . . . 263 270 ‘Daily gain basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .09 2 .14 Shrinkage en route market, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.25 4.70 Carcass weight _(hot) . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560.5 \ 572.7 Dressing % basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.56 57 .27 Hide weight _(untrimm_ed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 .0 79. 9 Carcass grading: Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4 1 Good 9 6 ; Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Average ration (consumed) pounds: Ground grain. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.23 3.23 i Protein supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 92 3 .92 ’ Mixed sorghum silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.41 48.41 Bone meal, ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 .85 Salt, ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 75 1 .61 Costs and returns per steer: Feed cost (feed consumed) . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 40. 33 $ 40.31 Feed cost per cwt. of feedlot gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.33 14.93 Cost into feedlot @ $10.50 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 .44 76,65 Marketing cost @ $0.60 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.63 5.72 Amount received @ $14.75 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138.50 140.57 Net return (no charge for labor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 . 10 17.89 10 BULLETIN N0. 685; TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION g for sumac and 63.6 percent for hegari. The grain mixture consisted of nine parts of ground milo to one part ground wheat. Salt and bone meal ‘ were supplied as separate licks during the first 28 days of the feeding’ period, but afterwards were combined in the proportion of two parts. salt and one part bone meal. In this trial the total ration was fed at a level low enough to avoid any refusal of feed by the steers. This feeding trial is summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Summary of third triaL-Spur Station—Nov. 10, 1944, to March 15, 1945-426 days h, Feed prices per ton: Ground rain $40; cottonseed meal and peanut meal $55; mixed sorghum f" silage 6; bone meal $58.12; salt $14. _ over Lot 1, steers fed cottonseed meal. Results with respect to gain are in the same direction for the three trials at Spur. Fourth Feeding Trial, Texas Technological College The 20 yearling steers used in this trial were pastured on fields of mature milo maize for 90 days before division into two lots of 10 each. In the 90-day period December 14, 1942, to March 14, 1943, the steers were; allowed one pound of cottonseed, cake and one pound of alfalfa hay daily ‘_ per head in addition to the milo pasturage. The average gain was 165 pounds per head, and the steers entered the dry lot feeding trial in goods‘ flesh. In dry lot each lot was fed equal amounts of the concentrates but’; the sumac (sweet sorghum) silage was fed according to appetite. This‘; feeding trial is summarized in Table 4. PEANUT MEAL ANl) COTTONSEED MEAL AS PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS 11 Summary of fourth trial—Texas Technological College-—March 14, 1943, to June 9, l943—87 days " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 {Number of steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 10 ~ Cottonseed meal Peanut meal >Avcrages in pounds per steer: J Initial weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 704 ~' Final weight at feedlot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926 901 Weight at Fort Worth market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860 844 Gain basis feedlot weight. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 197 Daily gain basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.55 " 2.26 Shrinkage en route market, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.13 6.33 , Carcass weight _(hot) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 .4 493. 7 3 Dressing % basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.15 54.79 i. Carcass grading: Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ‘ 9 , _ Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 _. »Average ration (consumed) pounds: \_ Ground grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.91 9.91 Protein supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.00 2.00 . Sumac silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.20 34.87 Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . 10 Salt, ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .07 1 .12 ‘Ti-Cuts and returns per steer: t Feed cost (feed consumed) . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . $ 23.66 $ 23.43 ~ Feed cost oer cwt. feedlot gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. 66 11 .89 Cost mm feedlot @ $12.06 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84.90 84.90 Marketing cost @ $0.56 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.82 4.73 Amount received @ $15.50 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.30 130.82 Net return (no charge for labor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.92 17.76 eed prices per ton: Ground grain $32; cottonseed meal and peanut meal $40; sumac silage $4; limestone $10; salt $15. , 7 In the fourth trial, the dressed yields and carcass grades were 10w, aconsidering the 9O days of feeding in the milo fields and the 87 days . dry lot. The steers fed cottonseed meal had the advantage in gain and te slightly more silage than the steers fed peanut meal. This is the nly trial out of the six in which steers fed cottonseed meal had the vantage _in gain. * Fifth Feeding Trial, Texas Technological College q The 24 short yearling steers used in this trial were started on test iebruary 15, after having been used in an 84-day test in “cattling-down” "lo. They made an average gain of 139 pounds in the 84 days on milo i ds, and were in strong flesh when started on feed. The same amounts the respective feeds were supplied both lots. The slight difference in i tions consumed resulted from feed refusals by Lot 2, fed peanut meal. _ grain ration was fed throughout. Counting the 84-day period on ‘lo fields, the steers were fed 182 days. This feeding trial is summarized Table 5. l. The steers fed peanut meal consumed slightly less feed and made slightly greater gain than the steers fedr cottonseed meal. These results {were in agreement with the three feeding trials at the Spur station. i l. 12 BULLETIN NO. 685, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 5. Summary of fifth trial—Texas Technological Colleg¢%Feb. 15, 1944, to May 233g; l944——98 days Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1 2 Number of steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 12 Cottonseed meal Peanut meal / Averages in pounds per steer: Initialweight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 626 Final weight at feedlot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816 828 Weight at Fort Worth market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769 778 Gain basis feedlot weight. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 190 202 Daily gain basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.94 2 .06 Shrinkage en route market, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .76 6.04 Carcass weight _(hot) . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462.9 466.8 Dressing % basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . 56.73 56.38 Carcass grading: Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 Good\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 Average ration (consumed) pounds: round grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.36 8.29 Protein supplement. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1.98 1 .97 Sumac silage . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 .48 27.00 Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 .24 Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p .10 . 10 Salt, ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O . 97 Costs and returns per steer: Feed cost (feed consumed). . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 3,5 27.95 $ 27.21 Feed cost per cwt. of feedlot gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.71 13.47 Cost into feedlot @ $12 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.12 75.12 Marketing cost @ $0.56 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.33 4.36 Selling price per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.13 14. 93 Amount received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 .35 116 . 16 Net return (no charge for labor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.95 9.47 Feed prices'per ton: _ _ $5; alfalfa $30; limestone $10; salt $15. Sixth Feeding Trial, Stephenville Station Nineteen Good to Choice yearling steers were. secured from the Ama- rillo Conservation Experiment Station in July. The steers were pastured - on Johnson grass fields about '70 days before being started on test, but pasture conditions were unfavorable and they did not gain. The principal feeds, ear corn with husk and Johnson grass hay, were of good quality. The cottonseed meal and peanut meal were guaranteed to contain 43 percent protein, but samples were not analyzed. The ear corn and Johnson grass hay were ground for feeding. Except that Lot 1 steers received cottonseed meal and Lot 2 steers received peanut meal, the two lots were self-fed similar mixtures. There was some waste of feed out of the self-feeders, but Waste was considered equal for both lots. -The. steers sold locally and carcass grades were not obtained. This feeding trial is summarized in Table 6. Lot 1, steers fed cottonseed meal, Vmade slightly less gain and took slightly more feed than Lot 2, steers fed peanut meal. Both lots of steers were sold at the same price, $15.44 per cwt., at the feedlot. o Ground grain $37; cottonseed meal and peanut meal $53; sumac silage PEANUT MEAL AND COTTONSEED MEAL AS PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS 13 I le 6. Summary of sixth trial—Stephenville Statioiw-Sept. 29, 1945, to Jan. 19, 1946- r _ 112 days / ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . umber of steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w .. i1 l0 Cottonseed meal 2 9 Peanut meal i verages in pounds per steer: ~ ' Initial wei ht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 735 735 5: Final weig t at feedlot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049 1060 .49. Gain basis feedlot weight. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 325 Daily gain basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.80 2.90 f. Carcass weight (hot) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600.4 604.4 “ii — Dressing % basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . 57.24 57.02 ,,_ Hide weight (untrimmed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.7 90.0 "*' - verage ration (consumed) pounds: Ground ear corn (grain equ1valent*) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 .22 10 .96 Protein supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 2.96 2.88 Dry roughage** . . . . . . . . . . . 14.32 14.05 Bonemeal, ounces . . . . . . . . . . .i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 .83 _ Granulated- salt, ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 _ .83 {a . ' 9 ts and returns per steer: ’ _ Feed cost (feed consumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 51.76» $ 50.63 Feed cost er cwt. of feedlot gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.48 15.57 Cost into eedlot @ $13.50 per cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 .22 99.22 ‘ Amount received @ $15.44 per cwt . . . . . . '1 . . . . . . . . 161.96 163.66 Net return (no charge for labor) . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. 98 13.81 I .1. ., *~Ea_r corn estimated to contain 75 percent rain. j "Principally ground Johnson grass hay wit _ Ill hay. \ I eed prices per ton: ear corn husks and cobs and small amount of Ground ear corn, $33.33; cottonseed meal and peanut meal, $63; John- son grass hay, $22 ; peanut hay, $30; granulated salt, $20; bonemeal, $70. Table 7. Average results-six feeding trifle-cottonseed meal vs. peanut meal ~ Cottonseed meal Peanut meal “ » I ber of steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 61 ays of feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126.5 126.5 verages in pounds per steer: Initial wei ht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692.5 693 .2 ’ Final weig t at feedlot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990.7 992.5 Gain basis feedlot weight. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 .2 299.3 Daily gain _basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.36 2.37 Carcass weight (hot) . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565 .5 571 . 1 Dressing % basis feedlot weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.08 57.54 verage ration (consumed) pounds: Q Ground grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.63 7.57 ~’ Protein supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 87 2.85 Dry roughage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.04 4. 99 Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.30 26.62 Mineral su plement, ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.07 1.08 Granulate salt, ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 . 95 - ts and returns per steer: ‘ 1 Feed ‘cost (feed consumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 34.82 $ 34.42 ‘ Feed _cost er cwt. of feed ot gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.68 1 1 .50 Cost into eedlot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 . 72 79 . 79 Marketing cost . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.30 4.32 Amount received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137. 79 138.91 ' Net return (no charge for labor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. 95 20.38 l ether extract. 14 BULLETIN NO. 685, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Three feeding trials were conducted at the Spur ‘station, two at Te g, Technological College, and one at the Stephenville station, to determi the comparative utility of cottonseed meal and peanut meal. The respec" ‘it protein meals were such as could be obtained from regular market outl", and were bought on guarantee of 43 percent protein content. In ~U years, peanut meal cost more than cottonseed meal largely because increased transportation costs, but in each trial for the purpose 1 comparing net returns both meals were charged at the same price. six feeding trials are averaged in Table 7. Steers fed- peanut meal had a slight advantage in gain in five out six feeding trials, and had sleeker coats of hair than steers fed co "f seed meal. The steers fed cottonseed meal showed keener appetite ate more feed. There was no appreciable difference in carcass 1 g between the steers fed the respective meals. l According to the available analyses, the two meals used were appri imately equal in" protein content, but the peanut meal was the higher/p Peanut meal was as good or better than cottonseed meal as a pro ~ supplement in rations for fattening yearling steers. , . ~ LITERATURE CITED 1. Annual Bulletins, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. 2. Brock, F. D., and M. P. Holleman, 1945, Commercial Feeding Stuffs, Texas Experiment Station Bulletin 673. 3. Burns, John C., 1920, Rations for Fattening Steers, Texas Agricultural Expe ~ Station Bulletin 263. " 4. Clay, Harold J ., 1941, Marketing Peanuts and Peanut Products, USDA Misc. Pub. 5. Fraps, G. S., 1932, The Composition and Utilization of Texas Feeding Stuffs, T l Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 461. 6. Fuller, F. D., and J. Sullivan, 1940, Commercial Feeding Stuffs, Texas Agricul ‘Experiment Station Bulletin 594. I 7. Guilbert, H. R., Paul Gerlaugh and L. L. Madsen, National Research Council, 1 Recommended Nutrient Allowances for Beef Cattle No. 4. _8. Holdaway, C. W., W. B. Ellet and W. G. Harris, 1925, The Comparative Value Peanut Meal, Cottonseed Meal and Soybean Meal as Sources of Protein for Milk ‘ duction, Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 28. 9. Jacob, M., and H. R. Duncan, 1938, A Comparison of Cottonseed Meal, Cotto Meal and Tankage, Peanut Oil Meal, and Soybean Oil Meal, Fed with Corn Silage Fattening Two-Year-Old Steers, University of Tennessee Agricultural Expea" _Station Bulletin 167. » . g 10. McCampbell, C. W., and L. C. Aicher, 1941, A Review of Stock Cattle Feeding iManagement Tests, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station 28th Annual Cattl Round-up. 11. McComas, E. W., J. R. Douglas and B. L. Southwell, 1942, Velvetbeans, Cotto Meal, and Peanut Meal as Protein Feeds for Fattening Steers in the Coastal P Area, USDA Technical Bulletin 831. 12. Massey, Z. A., 1941, Beef Cattle Feeding Investigations, Georgia Agricultural lb» ment Station Bulletin 211. 13. Shealy, A. L., and L. O. Gratz, 1938, A Comparison of Sorghum Silage, Peanut and Cottonseed Hulls as Roughage for Fattening Steers, Florida Agricultural ment Station Bulletin 310. ‘