TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS.

BULLETIN NO. 41.

DECEMBER, 1896.

STEER FEEDING.

POSTOFFIOE:
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS CO., TEXAS.

A11 Reports from this Station are sent free to farmers of the State on application to
J. H. OONNELL, DIRECTOR, P. O. College Station, Texas.

   

 
 
 

 
    
 

 fifilil.
if” 

1 4f“
‘L 11"}! 3"“ ~\ .
d” l‘)  jlviuujzlflrw I Q‘

   
 
  

‘Iii


'11”

\
x
5.;
.—.===_—_sn.
_-_==§'
, 4
h

  
   

           
     

      

1 Ext-KEEN‘ I,

  

 

   

E \
o'-

o-
“wow.

4%;

    

 _§/t,g.'l)ll “mt 
w-zw ~ ' ‘My:

l1
.1
gm

      

AUSTIN:

BEN C. JONES 8: CO., PRINTERS, AUSTIN.
1897 [8753

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS.

‘OFFICERS.

GOVERNING BOARD.

(BOARD OF DIRECTORS A. s» M. COLLEGE.)

MAJ. A. J. ROSE, President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Austin.

HON. W. B. CAVITT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Bryan.

HON. D. A. PAULUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Hal1ettsvi11e.

HON. G. W. BOWMAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..P1ano.

HON. JOHN B. LONG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Rusk.
TREASURER.
PRESIDENT L. S. Ross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . College Station.

STATION STAFF .

. J. H. CONNELL, M. SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . ..Direct0r.

H. H. HARRINGTON, M. SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Chemist.

M. FRANCIS, D. V. M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Veterinarian.

R. H. PRICE, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horticulturist.

*JAs. CLAYTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Agricu1turist.

°" D. ADRIANCE, M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meteorologist, Associate Chemist.

°"J. W. CARSON. B. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant to Director.

P. S. TILSON, M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant in Chemistry.

A. M. SOULE, B. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Assistant Agriculturist.

B. C. P1TTUCK. B. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Agriculturist.

I-I. C. KYLE, B. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foreman of Farm.

SUPERINTENDENT OF‘ sUR-sTATION.

S. A. MCHENRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..BeeviI1e, Bee Co.

* Resigned.

TWO STEER EEEDING EXPERIMENTS.

J. H. CONNELL.

J. W. CARSON.

Any suggestions that can be made having a general application, and
effecting a saving of a few cents per head in the feeding and management
of the thousands of Texas cattle, will amount to a vast sum in the aggre-
gate annually. The Texas Experiment Station has for years devoted a
large part of its time and energy to the solution of those problems that
affect the welfare of the cattle interests, because it is agreed that this is
IIIOW the primary livestock investment of the State. (a) Economy in
method of beef production lends value and shows a profit finally to the
breeder, the grazer, and the trader, no less than to the feeder who pre-
pares the animal for final market. Bulletins numbers 2, 6, and 10, pub-
lished in 1888, 1889, and 1890, bore upon the value of different stock
foods of the State for fattening steers. This line of investigation was
continued in 1892 and 1893 and reported on in Bulletin 27, and for the
past two feeding seasons we have labored to establish clearly rules for a
proper combination of cotton seed meal with cotton seed hulls for best
results in fattening steers, as reported on in this publicationfl’)

By far the greater part of Texas stallfed steers are fattened on a ration
of cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls. Much diversity of opinion
exists as to the best manner of feeding hulls and meal for this purpose,

(a) Publications issued by the Texas Experiment Station relating to cattle in-
terests. and now out of print: Bulletin No. 2, “‘ Steer Feedingi’ Bulletin No. 3,
“ Grasses z" Bulletin No. 5, “ Creameries in Texas?’ Bulletin No. 6. “ Steer Feed-
ingz" Bulletin No. 10, "Steer Feedingf’ Bulletin No.12, “ Screw Worm g” Bulle-
tin No. l3, ‘“ Sorghum g” Bulletin No. 14, "' Cotton Seed in Dairy Bationsf’ Bul-
letin No. l8, “Liver Flukesg" Bulletin No. 20, “Grasses and Forage Plants ;”
Bulletin No. 21, “Cotton Seed for Hogs?’ Bulletin No. 24, “ The Cattle Tick ;”
Bulletin No. 27. “Steer Feeding,” Bulletin No. 29, "Effect of Cotton Seed on
Butter, Tallow, Lard and Suetf’ Bulletin No. 30, “Veterinary Science,” Bulle-
tin No. 33. " Feeling Milk Cowsg” Bulletin No. 41, “ Steer Feeding.”

(b) Under this report is included some early studies of steer feeding prob-
lems as reported on by this Station in the bulletins now out of print, (See ptges
898 to 910). A reprint of some of this matter will enable the reader to com-
pare the results obtained here with several lots of steers under feeding trials,
using many of the important foods of -the State. Each of these tests throws
some clear light upon new beef feeding problems, and when closely compared
show results of marked consistency and value.

In another report. soon to be issued, We will discuss the results of the experi-
ments in beef feeding conducted by this Station and by Stations in other States,
for the purpose of showing clearly both their practical and scientific value. The
report will also include a discussion of the most profitable forage crops grown
in the Southwest.

[s17]

878 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

but upon n0 one point is there so much contrary evidence as that of best
proportion 0f cotton seed meal to cotton seed hulls. This becomes a mat-
ter of primary importance when we consider the fact that wasteful feeding
has in many cases absorbed the possible profit on a large investment. 1t
is generally conceded that hulls should be fed ad libitum, and asufficient
quantity of meal used with the hulls to create an appetite and cause the
animal to feed freely on hulls. But the necessary amount of meal has
not been agreed on, and few definite experiments have been planned to
test this matter. Practice varies the use of meal from three pounds per
day per head to as much as twelve pounds. Some feeders practice heavy
meal feeding in the early part of the fattening period, while others prefer
to reverse this, and feed the meal freely only while finishing the stock for
market. Every man consulted can give fair reasons for the method he-
pursucs, but only in rare cases can weights of cattle be had, weight of‘
feed, proportion of meal to hulls, and cost of ration per steer be obtained.
In many cases the waste food has been charged against steersthat receive
no benefit, and, upon the whole, accurate information may be said to be
entirely lacking concerning the best proportion in which to mix the meal
and hulls.

OBJECTS OF THE EXPERIMENTS.

The two experiments were instituted for the purpose of answering"
clearly three important questions:

1. In what proportions should cotton seed meal and hulls be»
fed for cheapest gain in flesh for long and for short fattening
periods ‘P

2. What combinations of meal with hulls fed to steers give-
the largest daily gain in live weight when fed for long and for
short periods ‘?

3. Can sound meal and hulls be so proportioned or fed as to
produce blindness or “fat sickness” in good cattle and with
healthful surroundings ‘P

Very clear answers were received to these questions, and further in-
formation was gained as to the amount‘ of feed per day required by
steers of one thousand pounds weight to secure satisfactory gains.

PLAN OF EXPERIMENTS.

Feeding experiments, when carefully planned, are always complex,

and therefore do not yield clear information and offer nice distinctions-
to the careless reader. Real study is necessary to bring out differences.

clearly.

(l) It was our intention to feed to one pen of steers as much hulls as:
possible, combined icith as little meal as we could feed to insure fair appe-
tite. lVe succeeded in feeding 1 pound of meal to 6.3 pounds of hulls»
w ith good results.

(2) We attempted to reverse this first ration with another pen, and feed
as nearly all meal and no hulls as the health of the steers would permit.
lVe succeeded in feeding 1 pound of meal to 1.7 pounds of hulls, and’
health remained good.

TWO STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS.- 879

(3) We also combined the meal and hulls in ordinary proportions of 1
pound rneal t0 3 or 4 pounds 0f hulls.

(4) We tested one pen of steers on a changed ration, beginning with a
light ration of meal, and during the middle part of the fattening season
changed to a heavy feed of meal-feeding halls freely and continuously.

(5) It was thought that *‘ fat sickness” ortight result from some of the
combinations of rneal and hulls, and zuith this object in view the steers were

not only fed 120 days, but were kept on full feed for 60 days longer and
then turned on pasture.

THE CATTLE USED

"in this test were selected from a buncl1 of one hundred head of
lsmooth Leon county threes and fours. Nearly all of this stock showed
clear Short Horn markings, and while they were not large they
"were blocky and good feeders. All of the steers had been upon the
same range for some weeks before they were taken up, weighed, and as-
sorted. The pens were made up of steers having Similar form, age, ap-
petite, and live weight.

THE INITIAL WEIGHTS

were secured by three weights of each steer taken in as many days. All
of the stock received regular feeding, watering, and weighing under
exactly similar conditions. All steers were dehorned at beginning of
test. Each animal was fed separately, and the feed was given as» de-
manded by appetite, but the ration intended for each pen was carefully
kept in view and the proportion of meal to hulls was widely different
in the several rations. I

By reference to pages 893 and 894 of this report the reader will find that
in the second experiment the normal ration of meal and hulls (combined
in proportion of 1 to 3) gave approximately the same gains per one
thousand pounds live weight as did that ration in the first test.

THE “FEEDING PERIOD’,

ior the time required to prepare cattle for market, necessarily varies
with many conditions silrrounding the individual lot or “ bunch.” To
definitely fix upon a certain length of time as best suited to the majority
of cases is, therefore, entirely arbitrary and unwarranted. The two pe-
riods used in this experiment (70 and 120 days) have been chosen as

1a matter of convenience, and because that on these dates the steers were
-.ishowing the effects of the feed clearly (in the shorter period) and were

fully ripe at the close of the longer period. The reader can, however,
irefer to the tables shown in these pages and cast up the account against

any of the lots or pens under experiment for periods of 80 days, 90, 100,

or periods of any desired length. See pp. 888 and 895.

THE Fmsr EXPERIMENT was conducted during the winter season of
1894-5. This was followed by another during the next winter, for the
purpose of verifying the peculiar results obtained from the first experi-
ments. A glance at the four charts found on succeeding pages will show

clearly the prominent results of the two experiments. Each experiment

is divided into long and short time periods, thus presenting results in
four charts.

 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

FIRST EXPERIMENT.

The conclusions drawn from these experiments are here briefly stated?
under the head of (l) “Cheapest Gains,” (2) “ Greatest Gains,” and
 “ Efiect on IIeaZt/z.”

Where the item of cost of food is involved in these conclusions, it
must be remembered that the prices stated only are used. The method»
of calculating the cost of the several rations here shown can be intelli-
gently applied to the prices of foods i11 any part of the State, and the
expected prolits can thus be approximately adjusted to local feed market
conditions. lt is not claimed for these results that all steers when upon
these rations under any conditions will gain exactly as did those here re-
ported on, but that the results to be secured will approach these most
closely if conditions of cattle, food, prices, and treatment are similar to»
these stated. It is necessary that the notes here presented bearing on-
the class of cattle fed, methods of feeding, system 0t weighing, etc.,
should be carefully studied.

CHEAPEST‘ GAINS IN 120 DAYS.
TIIE CHEAPEST POUND

of live weight gained per period was made by pen “D,” fed 1 pound"
0f cbttorz seed nzeat t0 4.8 gaounds cotton seed hulls—(ininimum of meal and
maximum of hulls). Cost per pound gained, 3.54 cents.

The second cheapest pound gained was from pen “A,” fed a changed=
ration of light meal feed for titty days and changed to heavy meal with
hulls. For details of ration see page 884. Cost per pound gainedwas
3.88 cents.

THE DEAREST POUND

I

gained was made by pen “ C,” on a ration of nearly equal parts meal and
lau/lls. Cost per pound gained was 6.51 cents.

REMAnus-Regardless of the scale of prices here assumed in calcu-
lating the cost of rations, the mixture fed pen ‘* D,” consisting of a
maximum of hulls and a minimum of meal, proved most profitable.
(l) If meal is rated at $15 per ton (moderate) and hulls at $3.50
(motlerate), the cost of a pound gained from this ration is 3.54 cents.

(2) If meal is rated at $12 (low) and hulls at $4 (high), the cost of a..-

pound gained is 3.52 cents. (3) If meal sells at $18 (high) and hulls-
at $3 (low), the cost of the pound gained is 3.61 cents. While these-
figures show the cost of the pound gained with this ration to be greater
than when these steers “ D ” were fed for 70 days, it must be borne in
mind that their riper conditions adds value to each pound of the body
over and above the value of the steers fattenetl for a short period.
Straight steers are valued at 2 cents per pound, half fat at 2% cents, and
fat at 3 cents.

BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL

dofiww coo“ we QPHO? co ww wgnomwpmo; n05 Qoafl 3v

snwwo? w>fi 5 Efiw d5 Xmm mpqmwwfifii moi nodfi GWTLHHQZ *

dmsw "e80
i .m .0 d5 m? o» .2 m .O .5 w “cowam dos“ "WHN "fiflmmv
Id 2mm!
mwsa "p30
.m .w .0 .2: 3 8 .2 m .0 .2 H $2.33» ma: mfii. "nwmw
.I.o 2mm!
wadw "p.80
Aw .m .6 ma: m  o... .2 m .0 a: ~ Hqofinfi £05 MMHN 336.5
IQ 2mm] §II[
.33 "p26
i m o i: 3. S .2 m .0 .2 ~ "moué Q: Haw “flaw
Id 2mm!

vw émsv QWN ii. $8M. .$% Qnmwokfi ~52 “o Q26 was 3:3 wfigafii mfitonw 8.250

i: .5 @951; .3 egimulq azfipammmwm

.0300 0000 0o 2.20? 000% 000000.220» s05 2002 3V
0:06.; 0>S 5 23.0w .05 fimm 0020000200 Q05 £05m 2014222202 0..

20.00 52.0
AH .0 .0 .00; 7m. o... .2 .0 .0 .5 _ 2650i dos“ QMH "A363
IQ 207$!
20.00 “$50
.2 .0 .0 .22.. S .2 .0 .0 .2 _ 522E .05. mdm "$.90
1.0 20ml
$0.00 £25
.2 .0 .0 0.5010 8 .2 .0 .0 .2 _ 2:530 .05 00H . "506
IQ ZHQI liiwi.
.360 52.0
.0 .0 ..0 .350 S .2 .0 .0 .02 28:00 do: 00H 522.0
Ia. 22ml

vw .0000 on 00.x 000?. 00% 020002 0.22 0o 300 020 0.2.300 0.23300 0580mm 0.350

32.5 A; .50 307.0 .02 0032012 020222520

BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL

BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL

v doaso woo“ Mo mic? co aw mgnwwwpmwp n2: seam 3v
.339,» ~53 5 swam d5 Xmm wgmwmwpmw» m2: swarm Qulfiao Z *

dmdfiw $26

.m.w.o.wpi.mofz.w.052 "gsqam .2: w.mm.u "smsw

|.o 2mm!
dmww x300
 .m .0 d5 m .@ 3 .2 m .0 a: _ "nosdm d9; QQMN 356.5

I.m 2mm]
Mafia £80
d .m .0 i: m." 8 .2 ..m .0 5.2 yncsfim fin: Qmmfl "anew

1.4 2mm!

vw J53» 3w .8\ $8M. 3% Qnmwokfi 9»: we E3 was .253 wigs?! wfitomm ppszw

A.@:~= =2 .5 .551; dz EM<HQIA~ azmazfimwm

dofiww coo“ we @203 coma manwmmgmwp n2: noafl 3v,
Awnmwm? ~53 E 5am m5 Xmm wamomopno» moi seam AQIQHOZ ..

wmsw 58o

i .m .0 .31; op .2 m .0 A: ~ "Exém d3." Q.$Q.n "fimdmv

Id 2mm!
58w 5&5
HH .w .0 .w£m.@ 8 .2 .m .0 .2 H “flssdm .2: odwfl "sfiw
[m 2am! .  
. .$m.w% 58o
mm.o.mnwv._ofz.m.o.nfifi “gosfim .2: umH 5E6

I4 2mm! -

vw 53% am 3x .83» $2M anwfio? o>fi Mo 33 was 3.28 wfigafiwp mfikonm 9:30

Adhafi 2W .5 351$ .02 efimwid azEimm-mwm

BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL

TWO STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 881

CHEAPEST GAINS IN 7O DAYS.
TIIE cmstuuasr POUND

0f live weight gained per period was by pen “ D,” fed 1 pound cotton
seed meat to 5.1 pounds cotton seed hulls (minimum of meal and maxi-
mum of hulls). Cost per pound gained was 2.89 cents.

The second cheapest pound gained was from pen “A,” fed a changed
ration averaging for the period of 7O days 1 pound of cotton seed meal
to 3.2 pounds of cotton seed hulls. Cost per pound gained was 3.24-
cents.

THE DEA REST POUND

gained was from pen “C,” fed a ration of l pound cotton seed oneul to
1.6 pounds cotton seed hulls. Cost per pound gained was 4.95 cents.

REMARKS.—If the prices of the foods be varied and calculated for as
shown in tables on page 884 and following, the relative position of the
rations for first place will not be materially changed. Thus: (l) If
meal is valued at $15 per ton and hulls at $3.50, the greatest profit is
realized from a ration of 1 pound meal to 5.1 pounds hulls, producing 1
pound gained at 2.89 cents. (2) If meal be valued at $12 and hulls at $4,
the same proportion of meal and hulls stands first at a cost of 2.86 cents
per pound gained. (3) If meal be valued at $18 and hulls at $3, the
ration “ D” still holds first place, producing a pound of gain at cost
of 2.93 cents. See page 888, Pen D.

We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the steers fed returned
a greater profit when fed 1 pound of meal to about 5 pounds of hulls
than when fed less hulls in proportion to meal. This conclusion applies
to both 7O and 120 days fattening periods. It will also prove true if
other probable prices than those assumed be used in calculating the cost.
See also results of experiment II.*

GREATEST GAINS IN 120 DAYS.

THE GREATEST GAIN

made by any pen was from steers fed a “changed ration,” composed
of 1 pound cotton seed meal to 2.4 pounds cotton seed hulls. Cost of ration
per head for period was $8.97; gain per steer for period was 231 pounds.
See Pen “A.” i

The next greatest gain was made from a ration composed of 1 pound
cotton seed meal to 4.8 pounds cotton seed hulls (pen “ D ”). This was a
minimum of meal and a maximum of hulls. Cost of ration per head for
period was $7.59; gain per steer for period was 214 pounds.

THE LEAST GAIN

was made in pen “C,” fed a ration composed of 1 pound cotton seed
meal to 1.7 pounds of cotton. seed hulls (nearly equal parts meal and

* Grass cattle are rated in the tables at 2 cents per pound on foot. Steers fed 120 days are '

valued at 3 cents per pound, and half-fat steers at 2% cents.

882 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

hulls). Cost of ration per head for period, $7.64. Quantity eaten
indicated good appetite and health. Gain per steer for period was only
117; pounds.

GREATEST GAINS IN 70 DAYS.
TlIF. GREATEST mus‘

was made by pen “ D,” fed a ration of 1 pound cotton seed meal to 5.1
pounds cotton seed hulls. (A minimum of meal and a maximum of hulls.)
Cost of ration per head for period was $4.61. Gain per steer for period
was 15E) pounds.

Second best gain was made by pens “A” and “B,” fed rations of 1
pound cotton seed meal to 3.20 pounds hulls. Both pens made gains of
1443 pounds per head (luring period. Ration per steer for pen “A” cost
$4.74- per period, while that for pen “B” cost $5.34.

THE LEAST GAIN

was made by pen “C,” from a ration consisting of 1 pound cotton seed
meal to 1.6 pounds cotton seed halls. Cost of ration per head for period
was $4.81. Gain per steer for period was only 92.5 pounds.

RE.\I.-\RKS.-—Ii3 is highly important that the reader examine closely the
meaning of the results obtained from these short periods of feeding.
1t is evident that those rations that showed quickest results upon the
body gain of the animal will be found most marked and prominent in this
“TO-day period.” If fed for a period as long as 120 days, it may happen
that the best rations will ripen steers at 1.00 days, and steers will continue
to eat for 20 days without showing satisfactory returns in live weight
gained. This tendency was clearly observed in some of the cattle
under test and reported on.

Ordinarily, a thin but healthy steer is expected to make the largest
daily live weight gain (luring the first half of the feeding trial, but we
should bear in mind the fact that these early gains are somewhat decep-
tive, because a large per cent of such gain is merely paunch and intes-
tinal load carried by the full fed animal. Just where the line should be
drawn between real and apparent flesh gains (live weight) cannot be ex-
actly stated, as many inspections of carcass are necessary to demonstrate
this matter with any degree of clearness for a particular breed. But, re-
gardless of this matter, we should bear i11 mind the fact that the cost of
a pound gain in flesh is relatively higher the further we feed beyond the
half-fat condition.

An inspection of the following tables will bring out more clearly the
objects aimed at in the above remarks. In footing up the gains of pen
“‘ I) ” for 70 days, we find that a gain of 159 pounds per head was made
on a ration of 1 pound cotton seed meal to 5.1 pounds hulls. This was
the largest gain per head made by any pen for 70 days. But pen “ A”
gave larger yields for the latter portion of the 120-day period than did
pen “ D,” although it was made at greater cost per pound, etc. These
tables show the weight of the steers reported, their gains, feed consumed,
cost of fed steer, profit per head, average gain per head and per hundred
weight, and cost of each pound gained during the first 7O days and the
120 days test reported on under Statement I.

TWO STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. ‘ 883

EFFECT ON HEALTH.

In some cases cattle fattened on cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls
have sickened and died as a result of the ration. This abnormal result
is known among feeders as “fat sickness,” and is often accompanied by
inflamation of the eye or total loss of sight. This trouble is not fre-
quently met with, but seems most prevalent during certain seasons. For
years a case may not be noticed among thousands of cattle fed a hull and
cotton seed meal diet, while during other seasons a large percent of eer-
tain bunches are affected.

The thrifty fat cattle are most subject to this trouble, and it has been
stated by some reliable feeders that fattening cattle upon hulls and meal
and then turning them upon pasture had invariably resulted in “fat
sickness,” in their experience and observation. Some have attributed
this trouble to a damaged or spoiled condition of the foods used; others
have assumed that indigestion was the cause; and others still have ex-
plained it upon the theory of mal-nutrition.

It was expected that under the var_ying rations of hulls and meal, the
extended fattening period, and the warm weather prevailing during the
close of the feeding period, some abnormal and unhealthy results would
develop in some of the twenty-eight steers under experiment. But no
sickness occurred at any time, if we except the [Jassing attacks of indi-
gestion resulting from feeding an excess of cotton seed meal to some of
the pens of steers. It should be stated in this connection that no eases
of sickness in hull and meal cattle were reported in this section during
either of the feeding seasons here referred to.

884 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

FIRST EXPERIMENT: WINTER 1894-95.
STATEMENT I-120 DAYS.

PEN “A.” TWO STEERS: Fed minimum meal and maximum
hulls for 50 days, and maximum meal and minimum hulls for 70 days.
(Itatiort: 1 pound cotton seed meal to 2.4 pounds hulls for 120 days.)

Consumed per head in 120 days: ,
761.4 pounds cotton seed meal at $15 per ton. . $5

, _ 71
(ma: i 1862.9 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton

5

3 26 $8 97

(2) j 761.4 pounds cotton seed meal at $18 per ton.. 6 85
l 1862.9 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3 per ton.. 2 79 9 64

(3) 761.4 pounds cotton seed meal at $12 per ton. . 4 57
1862.9 pounds cotton seed hulls at $4 per ton. . 3 72 8 29
Average total cost of feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8 97

Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 764 pounds
at2cents....., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $15 28
Total cost of steers per head after feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21 25
Average weight of steers after feeding, 995 pounds at 3 cents. $29 85
Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5 6O

Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

Gain For hundred weight, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.2

Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . 3.88

Average (lat/y ration. per head, 6.34 pounds cotton seed nzeal, 15.52‘
pounds cotton seed hulls.

PEN “ B.” TlVO STEERS: Fed “ normal ration” of meal and
hulls ad Ztbttum. (Ration 1 pound of cotton seed meal to 2.9 pounds hulls. )-

Consumed per head 120 days:
(l) 706.4 pounds cotton seed meal at $15 per ton. . $5 30
l 2139.8 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton. 3 74 $9 04
(2) 706.4 pounds cotton seed meal at $18 per ton. . 6
2139.8 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3 per ton... 3 17 9 53
<3) 706.4 pounds cotton seed meal at $12 per ton. . 4 24
2139.8 pounds cotton seed hulls at $4 per ton. . . 4

23 8 47'

Average total cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9 04
Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 754

pounds at 2c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 08-

Total cost of steers per head after feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 12

Average weight of steers after feeding, 967.5 pounds at 3c. . . . 29 02

Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4 90
Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 213.5
Gain per hundred weight, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3
Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . . 4.23

Dally ration per head averaged 5.88 pounds cotton seed meal and 17 .83
pounds cotton seed hulls.

*For the purpose of showing the effect of variable cost of foods upon the rations used, we
have assumed three cases: (1) When prices of meal and hulls ztre moderate ($15 and $3.50 per
ton respectively): (2) When meal is high ($18 per ton) and hulls are 10w ($3 per ton); (3) When
meal is low ($12 per ton) and hulls are high ($4 per ton).

TWO STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 885
i‘

PEN “ C.” TWO STEERS: Fed maximum of meal and minimunt
of hulls. (Ration: l pound cotton seed meal to 1.7 pounds Itulls.)

Consumed per head in 120 (lays:

(l) 717.7 pounds cotton seed meal at $15 per ton. . $5 38
1293 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton . 2 26 $7 64
<2> l ii557tiilliiilsciflllill518C631iillilli?iefiéiiiotf“ " i 3i 8 A 40
. t (h _ .

<3) j 717.7 pounds cotton seed meal at $12 per ton. . 4 30
l 1293 pounds cotton seed meal at  per ton. . . . 2 59 6 89
Average total cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >557 64

Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 762.5
pounds, at 2 cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 25
'1‘otal cost of steers per head after feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22 89

Average weight of steers after feeding, 880 pounds, at 3 cents 26 40

.i_____-i_.

Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117.5
Gain per cwt, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.7
Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . 6.51

Daily ration per ltead averaged 5.98 pounds cotton seed meal and 10.77
pounds cotton seed hulls.

PEN “ D.” TWO 'S'I‘EICRS.: Fed minimum of meal and maximum
of hulls. (Itatton: l pound of cotton seed meal to 4.8 pounds cotton seed
hulls.)

Consumed per head in 120 days.

(l) { 480 pounds cotton seed meal at $15 per ton. . . . $3 6O
2283 pounds of cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton 3 99 $7 59>

(2) ‘z 480 pounds cotton seed meal at $18 per ton. . . . 4 32
2283 pounds of cotton seed hulls at $3 per ton. . 3 42 7 74
(3) g é203pounds cotéton seed meal at $l2$per ton. . .- 2 88 7 44
‘ 8 pounds o cotton seed hulls at U4 per ton. . 4 56 ~
Average total cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7 591

Average Weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 756
pounds at 2 cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12‘
Total cost of steers per head after feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22 71

Average weight of steers after feeding, 970 pounds at 3 cents, 29 10~

iii-i.

Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $56 39
Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Gain per hundred weight, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.3
Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . .. 3.54

Daily ration per head averaged 4 pounds cotton seed meal and 19.02
pounds cotton seed hulls.

886 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

STATEMENT II—7O DAYS?“

PEN “A.” TWO STEERS: Fed “normal” quantities of meal and
hulls. (Ration: 1 pound cotton seed aneal to 3.2 pounds cotton seed hulls.)

Consumed per head i11 70 days:

(l) g 361.4 pounds cotton seed meal at $15 per ton. . $2 71
1162.9 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton 2 03 $4 74

<2) g 361.4 pounds cotton seed meal at 818 per ton. . 3 25
1162.9 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3 per ton. . 1 74 4 99

(3) j 361.4 pounds cotton seed meal at $512 per ton. . 2 17
Q 1162.9 pounds cotton seed hulls at $4 per ton. . 2 32 4 49

Average total cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4 74
Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 764 A

pounds, at 2 cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 28
Total cost of steers per head after feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20 O2
Average weight of steers after feeding, 910 pounds, at 2.750. . 25 02
Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5 00
Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Gain per cWt., pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.1
Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . . . 3.24

TDatly ration. per head averaged 5.16 pounds cotton seed meal and 16.6 Z
pounds cotton seed Izulls.

PEN “B.” TWO STEERS: Fed “normal” amounts of meal and
hulls ad libitum. (Ration: 1 pound cotton seed meal to 3.2 pounds cotton
seed hulls.)

Consumed per head in 70 days:

(l) g 409.7 pounds cotton seed meal at  per ton... $3 07

1298 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton. . 2 27 $5 34
<2) ‘g 409.7 pounds cotton seed meal at $18 per ton. .. 3 69

1298 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3 per ton . . . . 1 94 5 63

(3) 409.7 pounds cotton seed meal at $12 per ton . . . 2 46
1298 pounds cotton seed hulls at $4 per ton . . . . 2 59 5 O5
Average total cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 754
pounds at 2c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 08
Total cost of steers per head after feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20 42
Average weight of steers after feeding, 900 pounds at 2.750.. . 24 75
Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4 33
Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Gain per huntlred weight, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .36
Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . . 3.68

Dally ration per head averaged 5.85 pounds cotton seed meal and 18.90
pounds cotton seed hulls.

*'l‘he results of the 70-day test can be more closely studied by referring to the summarized
statement of feeding by 10-day periods found on pages 888 and 889.

léfhissputtion was revised for the latter portion of the 120-day fattening period. (See pp. 884
an 88 .

TWO STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 887

PEN “C.” TWO SFEERS: Fed maximum meal, minimum hulls.
(Ration: 1 pound cotton seed meal to 1.6 cotton seed hulls.)

Consumed per head in 70 days:

(l) g 467 pounds cotton seed meal at $15 per ton. . . . $3 5O
751.5 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton 1 31 $4 81

(2) j‘ 467 pounds cotton seed meal at $18 per ton. . . . 4 2O
' 751.5 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3 per ton . . 1 13 5 33

,, j 467 pounds cotton seed meal at $12 per ton. . . . 2 80
(o) Q 751.5 pounds cotton seed hulls at  per ton . . 1 50 4 30
Average total cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4 81

Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 762.5
pounds, at 2 cents . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . 15 25
Total cost of steers per head after feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2O 06

Average weight of steers after feeding, 855 pounds at 2.750. 23 51

A)?

Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3 45
Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 92.5
Gain per cwt., pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1
Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . . 4.95

Daily ration per head averaged 6 .67 pounds cotton seed oneat and 10.7 3
pounds cotton seed hulls.

PEN i‘ D.” TWO STEERS: Fed minimum meal and maximum
hulls. (Ration: 1 pound cotton seed meal to 5. l cotton seed hulls.)

Consumed per head in 7O days.
(l) g 280 pounds cotton seed meal at $15 per ton. . . . $2 10

1437.5 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton 2 51 $4 61

(2) 1% 2ig7pgunds cotton seed meal at $18 ‘per ton. . . . 2 52

. pounds cotton seed hulls at $3 per ton. . 2 15 4 67

(3) % 280 pounds cotton seed meal at $12 per ton. . . . é 68

1437.5 pounds cotton seed hulls at $4 per ton. . 87 4 55
Average total cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4 61
Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 756

pounds, at 2 cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12
Total cost of steers after feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19 73

Average weight of steers after feeding, 915 pounds at 2.75c. . 25 16

_-___-_.-__

Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5 43
Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Gain per hundred weight, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . . 2.89

Daily ration per head averaged 4 pounds cotton seed meat and 20.54
pounds cotton seed hulls.

888

EXPERIMENT I.

PEN “A;" 2 STEERS; FED 120 DAYS.
(Ration, 1 pound C’. S. M110 2.1, pounds C’. S. H.)

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

 
    

  
  

* At; $15 per ton. 1 At; $3. 50 per ton.

30st of food for each pound gained, 4.23 cents.

'6 c - w’
Q u, "c! u:
$3,; $55 m’ jEi 13
‘Ten day period. 5,‘ g $ g g";  Q
O - 0.1-1 -
e  2 1* *5“  5 5
53 o 9- 0 m 111
Dec. 1 to 10. inclusive ..................................... .. 80 $0 60 352. 5 $0 62 17
Dec. 11 Lo 20. inclusive  80 60 409. 1 72 50
Dec. 21 10 30, inclusive  80 60 401.1 70 25
Dec. 31 Lo Jun. 9. inclusive   80 60 397.7 70 ~ 105
Jun. 1010 19, inclusive ...... .: ........................... .. 80 60 316. 4 55 .......... .. 85
Jun. 20 Lo 29. inclusive ................................... .. 162. 8 1 22 169 30 135
Jun. 30 to Feb. 8, inclusive. ............................ .. 160 1 20 280 49 45
Feb. 9 to 18, inclusive ..........  ......................... .. 160 1 20 280 49 .......... ..
Feb. 19 to 28. inclusive .................................... .. 160 1 20 280 49 45
March 1 L0 10, inclusive ................................. .. 160 1 20 280 49 75
Man-ch 11 Lo 20, inclusive ................................ .. 160 1 20 280 49 25
March 21 to 30, inclusive ................................. .. 160 1 20 280 49 25
Total ......................................................... .. 1522.8 $11 42 3725. 8 $6 53 5:7 85
0
Nets gain ........................................................................................................... .. 462
* A1; $15 per ton. ‘r At $3.50 per ton.
Cost of food for each pound gained, 3.88 cents.
PEN “B;” 2 STEERS; FED 120 DAYS.
(Ration, Ipound C. S. M. t0 2. Eipounds C’. 1S‘. H.)
e e g e;
Ten day period. 5 g fi é g; Q3 g
‘>22 a ° 3:21 p" =' =1
°* Q e °* Q e é’ s‘
i? o $3 o an n.
Dec. 1 to 10, inclusive ..................................... .. 116. 3 $0 87 322.2 $0 56 17
Dec. 11 to 20, inclusive .................................... .. 116.2 87 386. 3 68 25
Dec. 21 L0 30, inclusive ................................. .. 113. 9 85 389. 1 68 100
Dec. 31 to Jain. 9, inclusive................  120 90 388 68 15
Jun. 10 to 19, inclusive ................................... .. 120 90 392 68 60
Jun. 20 to 29, inclusive ....... ..  120 90 359 63 85
Jun. 3O to Feb. 8, inclusive 113 85 409. 5 72 ......... .. 10
Feb. 9 LO l8. inclusive ........ ..  115 86 338. 5 59 20
Feb. 19 to 28, inclusive ................................... .. 119 5 90 330 58 .......... .. 20
March 1 Lo 10, inc1usive......................  119 89 3'25 57 90
Murch 11 no 20, inclusive.  120 9O 336 59 20
March 21 to 30, inclusive ................................. .. 120 90 304 53 25
'l‘otnl ......................................................... .. 1412. 9 $10 59 4279. 6 $7 49 457 30
30
Net gain ............................................................................................................. .. 427

"TWO STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS.

PEN “C;” 2 STEERS; FED 120 DAYS.
(Ration, Ipound C’ S. III. to 1.7 pounds C’. S. H.)

889

 

 
 

 
  
 

'15 w: .5 +5
w 3 m 3 . 2 g
Ten day period. g g z? . g5; _ fig; é
“g2 ‘i “"5” ‘é 5 a
3'3 8 9 o m m
JDec. 1 to 10. inclusive .................................... .. 139. 5 i151 05 160 $0 2 .......... .. 50
Dec. 11 to 20, inclusive   158.7 1 19 216 38 115
Dec. 21 to 30, inclusive .................................... .. 132 .9 1 O0 240 42 35
Dec. 31 to Jun. 9. inclusive .............................. .. 138. 4 1 O4 240 42 70
Jan. 10 to 19, inclusive .................................... .. 121. 3 91 220 39 .......... .. 40
Jan. 20 to 29. inclusive ................................... .. 138. 5 1 O4 218 38 95
-Ja.n. 3O to Feb. 8. inclusive ............................. .. 104. 8 79 209 37 .......... .. 3O
Feb. 9 to 18. inclusive ..................................... .. 123 92 242 42 15
.Feb. 19 to 28. inclusive... 108. 5 81 216 38 .......... .. 15
March 1 to 10, inclusive. . 90. 5 68 197 34 40
.Ma.rch 11 t0 20. inclusive  . 92. 5 69 235 41 30
IMarch 21 t0 30, inclusive ................................ .. 87 65 193 34 .......... .. 3O
Total .......................................................... .. 1435.6 $10 77 2586 $4 53 430 165
1 5
Net gain ................................................... “I 235
* At $15 per ton. '1 At $3.50 per ton.
Cost of food for each ound ained 6.51 cents.
7
PEN “D;"- 2 STEERS; FED 120 DAYS.
(Ration, 1 pound C. S. 21f. t0 11.8 pounds C. 1S’. H.)
'15 c: ' +5
., 3 y; s E» e
c511,; rot/lg .8 Q
Ten day period. g g 3 é g; $5 {Q
m E2 ti} n? Em z; é‘ 5
o ° o ° ° °
i» O + O Q4 I11
De; 1 to 10. inclusive ..................................... .. 80 $0 60 401 $0 70 53
Dec. 11 t0 20, inclusive ................................... .. 8O 60 422 74 65
iDec. 21 to 30. inclusive ................................... .. 80 60 392. 6 68 6O
Dec. 31 to Jan. 9. inclusive ........................... .. 80 60 359. 8 63 30
Jan. 10 to 19, inclusive ...................  ............ .. 80 60 429. 7 '75 55
Jan. 20 to 29, inclusive .................................. .. 80 60 430. 9 75 55
Jan. 30 to Feb. 8, inclusive ....................... .. . 80 60 439. 1 77 .......... ..
Feb. 9 to 18, inclusive ....... .. 80 60 373 65 .......... .. 40
Feb. 19 to 28, inclusive . 80 60 346 6O 35
March 1 to 10, inclusive... .................... .. 80 60 320 56 75
.Murch 11 to 20, inclusive ................................. .. 80 60 339 59 - .......... ..
March 21 to 30, inclusive ................................. .. 8O 60 313 55 40
Total ......................................................... .. 960 $7 20 4566. 1 $7 97  40
I _i
Net gain   ........................................ .. 428

* At $15 per ton. 1' At $3. 50 per ton.

Cost of food for each pound gained, 3.54 cents.

890 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

SECOND EXPERIMENT.

In duplicating the work of the preceding winter we were fully as care-
ful in the selection 0f steers for the feeding trial, and the results were in
almost perfect harmony with those secured during the winter of 1894-5.

The Steers used were selected from a bunch of 100 Brazoria county
fours and up. The individual steers were much larger than the Leon
county stock used the preceding winter, and were unlike them i11 form
and color markings. All of the Brazoria cattle were tall, “rangy” steers,
frequently known as the “ Shanghai type.” They were hardy and fat-
tened profitably under good conditions. In killing these steers the pres-
ence of liver flukes (distommn hepaticuvn) was very noticeable. All of
the steers were quite wild and had been upon the same range for some
months before the feeding ‘trial began. The experiment was not begun
until all of the cattle had been broken to small enclosure and had begun
eating freely. _

The conclusions drawn from the second experiment are here distinctly
stated under the three heads, “Cheapest Gains,” “ Greatest Gains,” and
“ Iiffeet on Health,” as was the case in our discussion of the first experi-

ment, reported on in these pages. .
CHEAPEST GAINS IN 120 DAYS.

TH E CH EAPEST POUND

of live weight gained per period was made from the ration combining
the minionunt 0f meal with the vitazvlnzuvn 0f hulls as fed to pen “B.”
Cost per pound gained 3.58 cents. Cost per head per 120 days $8.59.
The next cheapest pound gained was from the normal ration of hulls
and meal fed pen “ C.” Cost per pound gained 4.55 cents. Cost per

head for 120 days $10.90.
THE GREATEST COST PER POUND

of live weight gain was from pen “A,” fed a ration consisting 0f mama'-
munt (tonouni of meal and minimuvn amount of hulls. Cost per pound
gained 6.49 cents. Cost per head per 120 days, $11.38.

REuARks: The meal and hulls fed to pen *‘ B” were in proportion of
1 pound meal to 6.4 pounds hulls. It will be noted that this is practi-
cally the same combination of meal and hulls as were fed pen “ D” the
preceding year and reported upon page 885. It is also equally evident
from this experiment that an increase 0f cotton seed meal beyond the point
of 1 pound cotton seed meal to some 5 pounds of hulls is usually a waste of

a costly stock food.
GREATEST GAINS.

THE GREATEST GAIN

per day was made by the steers fed the ration of 1 pound meal to 6.4
pounds hulls. See statement for pen “B.”

TWO STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 891

THE NEXT GREATEST GAIN

was from the normal ration fed pen “ C:” 1 pound cotton sced meal to
3.4 pounds cotton seed hulls.

TH E LE A ST G A l N

was from the heavy meal ration of 1 pound meal to 1.5 pounds hulls as
fed to pen “A” for 120 days.

EFFECT ON I-IEA LTH.

In no ease did the steers under experiment appear to be sick, though
at times the pen fed the larger proportion of meal to hulls lost appetite.
By reference to page 895 it will be noted that for ten days at a time these
steers made no gains, indicating the disturbed condition of the digestive
system.

At no time did blindness or symptoms of fat sickness alapear. The

loss of appetite above referred to seemed to be due entirely to passing
attacks of indigestion caused by a very heavy grain ration, consisting‘ of
cotton seed meal, which is known to be very laxative. Fora short while,
as much as 17 potinds of cotton seed meal was fed per day to the steers
in pen “A,” without unusual results.

THE STATEMENTS

here presented are accurate accounts of how much was eaten, and show
the resulting gain or loss clearly for each pen for 120-day fattening pe-
riod and an 80-day period. The reader is referred to page 895 for a.
summarized statement of the progress of steers by 10-day periods.

2—Bnl1etin

 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

SECOND EXPERIMENT: WINTER 1895-96.
STATEMENT I—120 DAYS.

PEN “A.” 'I‘HREE STEERS: (Fed meal and hulls in proportion of
l to 1.5.)
Consumed per head in 120 days :

1125.6 pounds cotton seed meal at $15 per ton. $8 44

(l)  1681 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton. 2 94 $11 38
(2) 1 1125.6 pounds cotton seed meal at $18 per ton. 10 13
Q 1681 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3 per ton. . .. 2 52 12 65
(3) j 1125.6 pounds cotton seed meal at $12 per ton. 6 75
i 1681 pounds cotton seed hulls at $54 per ton. . . . 3 36 1O 11
Average total cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11 38-
Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 992 pounds,
at 2 cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 84
Total cost of steers after being fattened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $31 22s
Weight of steers after feeding 1167.3 pounds at 3 cents . . ... 35 02
Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3 80~
Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.3
Gain per ewt., pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.67
(lost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . . 6.49

Average daily ration per head 9.38 pounds cotton seed meal and l4
pounds cotton seed hulls.

PEN “B.” THREE S'I‘EERS: (Fed meal and hulls in proportion of
1 to 6.4.)

Consumed per head in 120 days:

(l) é 456.6 pounds cotton seed meal at $515 per ton. . $3 42
2958 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton 5 17 $8 59‘

(2) t 456.6 pounds cotton seed meal at $18 per ton . . 4 11
l 2958 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3 per ton. . . . 4 49 8 60-

(3) . t 456.6 pounds cotton seed meal at $12 per ton. . 2 74
l 2958 pounds cotton seed hulls at $4 per ton. . . . 5 99 8 73

Average total cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8 59-
Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 994.3

pounds, at 2 cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 88»
Total cost of steers after being fattened . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . $28 48-
Average weight of steers after feeding, 1233.9 pounds, at 3

cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 ()1

Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8 53

Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239.6

Gain per ewt., pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.09

Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . . 

Average daily ration per head, cotton seed meal 3.8 pounds, and 24.65
pounds cotton seed hulls.

TWO STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 893

PEN “C.” THREE STEERS: (Fed meal and hulls tn proportion. o]
1 to 3.4.)

Consumed per head in 120 days.
(l) g 847.8 pounds cotton seed meal at $15 per ton . . $6 36

2601.3 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton 4 54 $10 90

(2) 847.8 pounds cotton seed meal at $18 per ton.. 7 63
2601.3 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3 per ton. . 3 90 11 53-

(3) 847.8 pounds cotton seed meal at $12 per ton. . 5 O9
2601.3 pounds cotton seed hulls at $4 per ton. . . 5 20 10 29*
Average total cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10 90

Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 1022
pounds, at 2 cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 44
Total cost of steers after being fattened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $31 34
Weight of steers after feeding, 1261.6 pounds, at 3 cents. . . .. 37 85
Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6 51

Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239.6

Gain per hundred weight, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.44

Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . . 4.55

Average (laily ration per head 7.06 pounds cotton seed meal and 21.6 7
pounds cotton seed hulls.

SECQND EXPERIMENT: WINTER 1895-96.
STATEMENT II—80 DAYS.
PEN “A.” THREE STEERS: (Fed meal and hulls in proportion of

1 to 1.4.)

Consumed per head in 80 days:

(l) é 859.4 pounds cotton seed meal at $15 per ton. . $ 44

6

1198.8 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton 2 1O $8 54

(2) j 859 .4 pounds cotton seed meal at $18 per ton. . 7 73
l 1198.8 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3 per ton. . 1 80 9 53

(3) é 859 .4 pounds cotton seed meal at $12 per ton . . 5 16
1198.8 pounds cotton seed hulls at $4 per ton. . 2 39 7 55
Average total cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8 54

Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 992
pounds, at 2 cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 84
Total cost of steers after being fattened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $28 38
Average weight of steers after feeding, 1144 pounds, at 2.750 31 46
Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  08

Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Gain per cWt., pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.32

Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . . 5. 62

Average daily ration 10.74 pounds cotton seed meal and 14.98 pounds
cotton seed hulls.

894 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

PEN “B.” THREE STEERS: (Fed meal and hulls tn proportion of
J to 6.5.)
Consumed per head in 80 days:

(1 304.1 pounds cotton seed meal at $15 per ton.. $2 28
) 1978.3 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton 3 46 $5 74

(2) 304.1 pounds cotton seed meal at $18 per ton. . 2 74
~ 1978.3 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3 per ton. . 2 97 5 71
(3) 304.1 pounds cotton seed meal at $12 per ton. . 1 83
-- ~ 1978.3 pounds cotton seed hulls at $4 per ton. . 3 95 5 78
fAverage total cost of feed per head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5 74
.. Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 994.3
pounds, at 2 cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 98
" Total cost of steers after being fattened . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . $25 72
LWeight of steers after feeding, 1169 pounds, at 2.75 cents. . . . 32 07
Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6 35
Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.6
Gain per cwt., pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .. 17.67
Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . . 3.27

Average daily ration, 3.8 pounds cotton seed meal and 24.7 2 pounds cot-
ton seed halls. '

PEN “C.” THREE STEERS: (Fed meal and ltulls in proportion of
.1 to 3.1.)

Consumed per head in 80 days.
.1. 569.7 pounds cotton seed meal at $15 per ton. . $4 27
l l 51 1769 pounds cotton seed hulls at $3.50 per ton 3 O9 $7 36
569.7 pounds cotton seed meal at $18 per ton. . 5 13

42) l 1769 pounds cotton seed hulls at s3 p61't011.... 2 65 7 7s

569.7 pounds cotton seedmeal at $12 per ton. . 3 42

  1769 pounds cotton seed hulls at $4 per ton. . . . 3 53 6 95

Yiiii

_ Average total cost of feed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7 36
. Average weight of steers at beginning of experiment, 1022
‘pounds, at 2 cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 44
Total Icost of steers after being fattened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27 80
‘Weight of steers after feeding, 1216.6 pounds, at 2.75 cents. . 33 45
Profit and to pay labor, per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5 65
Average gain per head, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.6
Gain per hundred Weight, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.04
‘Cost of food for each pound gained, cents . . . . . . . . . . 3.78

Average daily ration per head 7.12 pounds cotton seed meal and 22.11
pounds cotton seed lmtlls.

TWO

EXPERIMENT II.
PEN “A;" 3 STEERS; FED 120 DAYS.
(Ration, Ipound C. S. 1V1 to 1 5pounds C. 8.11.)

STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS.

8'95

   

  
 
 

w: U - d»
w: _: '0 u} .2.
Ten day period. 5g 8 5g? $8 i Q
O 0-12 a; O dim G- p: g
°* ‘<5 8 °* ‘5 e 5 5'
$3 o 9- o m rm
Dec. 41.0 13. inclusive .................................... .. 290. 75 $2 18 350 $0 61 .......... .. l?
Dec. 14 t0 23, inc1usive....... .. 315.5 2 37 428. 25 75 145
Dec. 24 to Jan. 2, inclusive. 340 .5 2 55 472. 5 83 13-1
Jan. 3 L012, incluslvem... .. 345. 5 2 59 518. 75 91 21
Jan. 13 t0 22, inclusive .................................... .. 341 2 56 486. 4 85 70
Jan. 23 to Feb. 1. inclusive .............................. .. 349. 75 2 62 497. 2 87 2
Feb. 2 to 11, inclusive .................................... .. 324. 5 2 43 476. 3 83 28
Feb. 12 to 21, inclusive ................................... .. 270. 5 2 03 368.7 64 .......... .. 13
Feb. 22,10 March 2, inclusive ......................... .. 204. 5 1 53 325. 1 57 .......... .. 33.
March 5 L0 12. inclusive ................................ .. 189 1 42 305. 5 53 9
March 13 to 22, inclusive ................................. .. 186. 5 1 40 349. 4 61 32
March 23 to April l, inc1usive......................... 219 1 64 467.7 82 59
Tonal...  3377 $25 32 5045.8 $8 82  5T
1 I
Net. gain ................................................... .. 523
Cost of food for each pound gained, 6.49 cents,
PEN "B;" 3 STEERS; FED 120 DAYS.
(Ration, Zpound C. S. M. to 6. 3 ounda C. S. H.)
P
m?) mg 
cn,_; u; ' w.
'l‘en day period g i=1 =9 g :12 m d
- 5s w 82 =~ . wwi
g2 d gm a g
Q4 Q g 5-1 Q g 70-1
9 O i‘ 0 m
Dec. 4 to 13. inclusive .............................................. .. 94. 5 $0 71 618 $1 08 5T
Dec. 14 to 23, inclusive  102 76 703. 20 1 23 135/
Dec. 24 to Jan. 2, inclusive   115 86 725. 75 1 27 85-
Jan. 3 t0 l2. inclusive ............................................... .. 113. 5 85 745. 75 1 30 45
Jan. 13 to 22, inclusive  115.75 86 799. 8 1 40 81
Jan. 23 to Feb. 1, inclusive ....................................... .. 125. 5 94 800. 2a 1 40 76
Feb. 2 to 11. inclusive.....................................  126 94 779.75 1 36 23
Feb. 12 to 21, inclusive ...............................  .......... .. 121.75 91 752 1 32 15
Feb. 22 to March 2, inclusive .............. ..; ................... .. 121.25 91 778. 25 1 36 70
March 3 to 12. inclusive ........................................... .. 103. 25 77 649. 15 1 14 5
March 13 to 22, inclusive ..... .. . .. 119 89 788. 50 1 38 103‘
March 23 to April 1, inclusive ................................. .. 112. 25 84 733 1 28 14
Total ................................................................... .. 1369. 75 $10 24 8874 $15 52 7G?!-

*At $15 per ton. l At $3. 50 per ton.

Cost of food for each pound gained, 3.58 cents.

896

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL\EXPERIMENT STATION.

PEN “C;” 3 STEERS; FED 120 DAYS.
(Ration, 1 pound 0.18’. 21f. to 8.Lp0unds C. S. II.)

 

"a w: ~ p‘
o cu ‘U w
%$ ~ 3%’ Us g >3
Ten day Period. 55g _ 5g? g5‘; g
a +3 am #3 m q
°* Q e i“ Q e é a
i’ o 9 o m n.
Dec. 4 L0 13. inclusive ..................................... .. 180 $1 35 545 $0 95 69
Dec. 14 to 23, inclusive ............................... .. 195 1 46 663.5 1 16 110
Dcc. 24 to Jun. 2, inclusive ............................. .. 218 1 63 649 1 14 122
Jun. 3 L0 12. inclusive ..................................... .. 215. 5 1 62 698 1 22 60
Jun. 13 t0 22, inclusive ..................................... .. 208.5 1 56 690 1 20 80
Jam. 23 w Feb. 1. inclusive  234.5 1 76 721. a 126 74
Feb. 2 Lo 11, inclusive .................................... .. 2;. 1 7O 677 1 18 39
Feb. 12 L0 21, inclusive ................................... .. 230. 5 1 73 663 1 16 30
Feb. 22 L0 March 2. inclusive ..... .. 222 1 66 663. 5 1 16 54
March 3 t0 12. inclusive .............. .. .. 215.5 1 62 643. 5 1 13 61
March 1.‘! L0 22, inclusive ............................... .. 209 1 57 625. 5 1. 09 67
March 23 L0 April 1, inclusive   188 1 41 565 99 .......... .. 47
 2543. 5 $19 07 7804. 5 $13 64 766 47
47
Net gain ........................................................................................................... .. 719

*At. $15 per ton. '1 At, $3. 50 per ton.

Cost 0f food for each pound gained, 4.55 cents.

TWO STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 897

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.

(1) In answer to the question, “In what proportions should cotton. seed
meal and hulls be fed for cheapest gain in flesh for long and short fattening
periods?" the answer given by both experiments seems clear: At cur-
rent or probable prices of meal and hulls, it pays best to feed some 5 0r
6 pounds of hulls to every pound of meal eaten.

('2) The largest daily gain in live weight can be secured by feeding
meal and hulls in a very common proportion of 3 pounds of hulls to 1
pound of meal. The quicker gain, secured by increasing the amount
of meal fed daily from some 4 pounds to 6 pounds, increases the cost of
feeding each steer $1.25 or $1.50 for every 100 days.

(3) Changing the amount of cotton seed meal from a light feed of
meal for first 50 days to heavy meal feed for last 70 days gave results of
no marked value, although the change of ration clearly added to the cost
of maintenance.

(4) We were totally unable to cause “fat sickness” in steers fed on
sound, dry cotton seed meal and hulls when combined in various propor-
tions and fed for 150 days, continuing into hot weather.

(5) When less than 2g pounds of hulls is fed to 1 pound cotton seed
meal the appetite is disturbed and indigestion is produced, resulting in
light feeding and slow gains.

(6) From the trials here reported, we may safely conclude that when
the price of a ton of cotton seed meal as compared with a ton of hulls i.s
as 5 to 1, then a pound of meal fed should be accompanied by at least 5
pounds of hulls. When the difference in price widens, then the hulls
should be correspondingly increased. Thus, if meal be worth $15 per
ton and hulls $3, at least 5 pounds of hulls should be fed to each pound
-of meal; if meal be worth $15 and hulls $2 per ton, 7% pounds of hulls
should be fed to every pound of meal-provided the steers eat freely of
the foods mixed in this proportion.

REMARKS: These experiments were planned and conducted by the au-
thors, and the feeding was done by post-graduate students W. D. Clay-
ton, B. S., and WY F. Hutson, B. S., to whom is due much credit for
careful feeding, watering, and weighing, and a watchful interest exercised
throughout the two experiments.

SUMMARY 0F STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS BY
’I‘EXAS EXPERIMENT STATION.

BULLETIN NO. 2, MAY, 1888, 14: pages.
(Out 0f print.)

“To test the value of cob and shuck, in cattle feeding; corn, cob and shuck being
ground together. An experiment designed to test the value of cob and shuck
meal, which has been carried out by students of the second class under the
immediate supervision of Assistant Professor Duggar.

“Six head of steers, each coming two years old the present spring, were
selecled and divided into two lots of three each, as shown in annexed tables.

“To Lot 1 was fed shelled corn ground coarsely; an amount which was en-
tirely eaten up was fed twice daily, each steer in the lot receiving the same
amount.

“To Lot 2 was fed an amount of corn, cob and shuck ground coarsely to-
gether, which (eontatined a weight of clear corn equaling the amount fed to
LOT 1; or since shelled corn weighs 56 Tbs. per bushel, and corn in the ear
with shuck attached averages 72 lbs. per bushel, the amount fed to LOT 2
was always compared with amount fed to LOT 1 in the ratio of 72 to 56, or
as 9 to 7 by weight.

“Considering the foregoing in brief, it is found that the lot fed on ‘chops’
alone made a gain in 7O days of 465 pounds, an average gain of 2.21 pounds
per day and head, and requiring 4.008 pounds of feed to produce one pound
of gain.

“The lot fed on an equal amount of ‘chops,’ with the cob and shuck added,
as already noted, made a gain in 70 days of 480% pounds, an average of 2.29
pounds per day and head, and requiring but 3.883 pounds of ‘chops,’ with
cob and shuck added, to produce one pound of gain. The excess, although
slight, shows in favor of a certain value in the cob and shuck, but it is a
question as to whether the gain observed will pay for the extra tiime and
power required to grind corn, cob and shuck together, at least when the
small sweep mills ars use-d. GEO. W. CURTIS, Agriculturist.”

BULLETIN NO. 6, JUNE, 1889, 39 PAJGE‘SQ
(Out of print.)

STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENT.

“Four questions are submitted ‘to the cattle and feed stuffs employed.

“1. Is it possible to conduct a feeding test that will be sufliciently accurate
to be of value, and at the same time make it an object lesson to the practical
cattle man and give him information which he can make use of?

“2. Is there any practicable method of sheltering range steers in Winter
ifeetling: and will it be profitable?

“:3. What feed stuffs that are obtainalble in the State will give the best
results in proportion to cost?

‘*4. Can the common, unimproved Texas steer be fattened with profit?

“fUicItcr.—\Ve assume that economical feeding in Texas must include shel-
ter, and that the solution of the problem. how to make sheltering practicable
with range steers, is essential to an improved and profitable method of feed-
ing. “'0 therefore adopted the plan of removing the horns at the beginning
of the experiment and allowed each lot of. six steers to run loose together in
their respective pens. The steers and eight old cows were simply ‘roped,’

[s9s]

SUMMARY or STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 899

drawn up to a post and the horns sawed close t0 the head with a light
butchefis saw, and the animals turned loose Without further attention. 0t
the 60 head dehorned, all were eating regularly after three days, and most
of the openings had closed up and ceased t0 discharge after the third week.

“I/‘ct-(Z St'u./7"s.-—In compounding formulaes for feed rations, we have thought
best to use cotton seed in its various forms in nearly every combination, for
the reason that over a considerable portion of the State cotton seed is one
of the cheapest feed stuffs.

“We have also made use of silage largely, notwithstanding the fact that it
is practically unknown in the State. That silage is one of the most econom-
ical and desirable feeding materials, where corn and sorghum thrive, has
been conclusively demonstrated in every State east of the Mississippi river
and several west. While there is much to learn in regard to the kind of
crops to grow for silage, how to handle and how to feed them, no further
experiments are required to determine that silage must be included in our
feed stuffs if we propose to use thecheapest materials.

“Lots Nos. 8 and 9 were fed on hay and corn. No. 8 dehorned, and under
shelter: No. 9, out of doors without removing the horns, to compare one lot
with the other, and also to compare both lots with steers on rations contain—
ing cotton seed silage.

“The difference in gain and cost of. food consumed shows that hay and.
corn alone are expensive feed stuffs at the prices given, compared with some-
of the other rations. ~

“Profit in Feeding._—Our experiment shows that in Pen 2, silage and cotton
seed meal did not make as rapid gain nor as low cost as cotton seed hulls-
and cotton >eed meal in Pen 6; the first making a gain of 170 pounds per
head in 83 days, at a cost for food of 4.47 cents per pound gain; thesecond,
again of 202 pounds per head, at a cost for food of 3.62 cents per pound gain.

“In Pen No. 7, cotton seed hulls, silage and cotton seed meal made 178
pounds gain. at a cost of 3.93 cents per pound, indicating that the hulls at
the price given have a higher food value than silage. We confess we are not
a little surprised with the result, for it does not look reasonable that the
dry, hard, and to a large extent indigestible, cotton seed hulls have a higher
food value than silage. Owing to delay from accident while harvesting our
corn, it was not ensiloed until nearly ripe, a good deal of it quite dry. This
may have made it less digestible, or it may be that Pens 6 and 7 were better-
feetlers than Pen 2.

“Pen 3 on silage and boiled seed made the gain at the least cost per pound,
and Pen 4, silage and raw seed, the second low-est in cost; which would in-
dicate that cotton seed, at a valuation of $7 per ton, is a cheaper feed with
silage than cotton seed meal at $20 per tons with silage or with hulls.

“Our experiment indicates that 200 pounds gain in weight may be made
from $6 to $9 worth of silage, cotton seed, cotton seed meal and cotton seed

hulls. leaving a good margin for profit after deducting cost of labor, wear

and tear of plant, and use of capital.

“Jlflrct of Dehorniny/u-It will be noticed in table 14 that with the exception
of Pens 2, 3 and 6, the steers in all the pens lost weight the first week, some
making no gain for twelve days. The loss of weight might be charged to
dehorning, but it will also be noticed that steers rin Pen 9, not dehorned and
running loose» in a half-acre lot, lost the most in weight the first week, and,
excepting Pen 4, were the last to begin gaining. The steers were dehorned‘
on the 8th and 9th oi’ January. For two days they were dumpish, lying
down a good deal of the time, and d'id not appear to have much appetite;
still the evidence goes to show that failure to gain in weight from the start
‘is due more to change lin food and confinement than to removing the horns.
Experiments in Arkansas. Tennessee and Wisconsin support this view.

“Iffiecl of Different Itutiovnm-If we compare the gains made in weight of
steers in Pens 3 and 4 to Feb. 25, and note also the quantity of cotton seed
and silage consumed to that date (see tables 1, 2), the gain is greater on the
cooked seed in proportion to silage and cotton seed consumed, and the gain
on cooked seed much the more rapid of the two, but we find at the close of
the experiment (Table 13) that the cost of feed for each pound gained is prac-
tically the same. The steers in Pen 3 made largest gain, so that from an
economic standpoint the cooked seed made considerably the best return, the

900 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

steers in Pen 3 having a higher value per pound owing to their better condi-
tion. Pen 0, on cotton seed hulls and cotton seed meal, made -a steady gain
from the first, but not equal to Pen 3 until after seven Weeks’ feeding. The
high value ot‘ cotton seed hulls and cotton seed meal for fattening cattle ‘is
shown by this experiment.

SUMMARY OF 121151.155.

Live Weights, Gains and Cost of Rations.

g  a  "as “a ,
w»  .- 2 - E p? he
r e t’ 9» 1: S’ a ‘f’ J1 3
dizizezd 8e 8:1 .
e03 l; M13 |'§ w; o5 RationFed.
Qanigawfiag“ are. an.
“5 ES Eglgg 15?: fig 3g
e2‘   38
1 724 17.72 o7 1283.14ets. $4 02* Silage, corn fodder, boiled cotton seed, cotton seed meal.
2 090 24. 3 2 05 170 ~1.47ets 7 61* Silage, cotton seed meal and hay.
3 777 22. 2 2 08 173 2. 85cts 4 95* Silage, boiled cotton seed and hay.
4 827 17.8 l 80 148 2. Beets 4 22* Silage, raw cotton seed and hay.
F} 808 211.4 2 .37 107 5. 00cts g 94 Silage, cotton seed meal, corn and cob meal and hay.
0 741 21.2 2 43 202 3. b3ets. r 31* Hulls. cotton seed meal.
g     17g     gilage, hulls, cotton seed meal and hay.
- 1' :.. ... . 7‘ '. re  L; ay,eorn 1n ear.
9 876 18. 0 1. 90 158 6. 83cts. 10 79 Hay, corn in ear, out doors.

SUMMARY OF TABLES.

Average Gain per Head from Beginning. Gain to Date from January 8.

 

god
1»:
dif-a i:_'+as-'-.=wéii
wfnw; l 222251;» g _, ,_' RationFed.
g-giaLchPFlF-fF-lggtgsgg
° F i‘, 3 3 E3 53 g E‘ F- =~ e g g
ideaéi §§£€§$53i3a ==
Z 4i w r-l '1 w v1 r1 k1 [=4 h 2 2
1 724 .... .. 5 8 32 45 60 62 79 128 .......... .. Silage, corn fodder, boiled cotton seed, and cotton
seed meal.
2 096 12 .... .. 12 27,44 59 65 72 122 138 170Silage, cotton seed meal, hay.
3 777 lb .... .. 15 41,51 61 64 79 1~16 161 l73,Silage, boiled cotton seed, hay.
4 827 —-1 -15 -7 1226 32 36 45 86 111 l48iSilage, raw cotton Seed, hay.
5 808 -13 -18 11 27,35 53 13 69 127 158 l97lSilage, cotton seed meal, corn and cob meal, hay.
6 7 3 15 14 35:52 0'2 64 80 118 171 202,Cotton seed hulls, cotton seed meal.
7 722 ~30 -20 4 21140 37 45 71 123 153 177 Silage. cotton seed hulls, cotton seed meal, hay.
1% 72H .... .. (i 11 1514i25 20 45 111 134 173 Hay, corn 0n cob with shuek.
‘J 876 20 —l8 —6 13‘ 7111 22126 89 117 158 Hay, corn on cob With shuck.

The last weight is the average of two weighings made March 30 and April 1.

“C01.clusicns.—'l.‘here is a clear advantage from analysis in favor of Texas
silage over that reported from Northern States. The water is lower, While
the other ingrediténts are all higher, but the crude fibre not sufliciently so to
detract m-aterially from the value. of the silage. lVe can not say if subse-
quent Work will confirm these (liscrepancies.

“There seems to be little difierence between the value of the corn silage
and that o1’ the pea-vine silage. The changes in the pea-vine silage i11 the
silo are not truly such as would have been expected. The nitrogenous mat-
ter in the silo decreased and the fatty acids increased, as would have been
anticipated. But there was also a slight increase of crude cellulose and a
decrease in nitrogen free extract.

“The sugar cane bagasse is not equal to silage in nutritive value, but it
makes a good showing and requires further investigation. A remarkable
zthirg about it is the large percentage of farts.

SUMMARY OF STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 

“lVe believe the answer is clear as to necessity of shelter. The result con-
firms several years’ experience and observation i11 feeding cattle in the
Southern States, but (lehorning is essential to make sheltering range cattle
practicable. The evidence in favor of shelter confirms results secured as a
rule by careful feeders, and the same is true of dehorning.

“For roughness, corn, sorghum and pea-vine silage, hay where it can be
produced at low cost, and cotton seed hulls near oil mills.

“For the rich-er part of the ration, boiled cotton seed, cotton seed meal,
With perhaps some corn, ri-ce meal or rice bran in sections where they can be
prodrced cheaply.

“Corn and sorghum grown for silage should ‘be planted thin enough to ma-
tare ears and produce a crop of seed. and not harvested until ripe. The silage
will‘ then contain a considerable amount of grain, and be of more value to
feed with cotton seed and with cotton seed meal and produce a better qual-
ity of beef.

“With a margin of 1 cent per pound gross between thin and fat cattle,
steers may be profitably fed over a large portion of the State (see page 9).

"The experiment indicates that silage and boiled cotton seed is the cheap-
est and most rapid vfattening- ration of the feedstuffs.

“2. Cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls.

“3. Cotton seed meal, cotton seed hulls and silage.

"4. Raw cotton seed and silage.

“5. Corn and hay at the prices given.

“F. A. GULLEY, Director.”

BULLETIN NO. 10, MAY. 1890, 31 PAGES.
(Out of print.)

This experiment is a continuation of the feeding experiments inaugurated
last winter, and reported in Bulletin No. 6.

Fifty-five head 0t’ cattle were fed on different rations, made up of hay,
corn, cotton seed, raw an-d cooked, cotton seed hulls, cotton seed meal, and
silage. The results showed that range steers may be dehorned and fed loose
under a shed, crowded together like sheep, Successfully, and that cost of cer-
tain food consumed is much less than increased value of steers from gains
made in weight at selling prices of food and steers.

In regard to comparative results from different feed-stuffs, silage and cot-
ton seed hulls for roughness, and cooked cotton seed and cotton meal, with
or Without corn, made more rapid gain than hay and corn, and at less cost.
Cattle not sheltered consumed more ‘food, and made less gain in weight, than
cattle fed under sheds. ~

From the result of this a11d other experiments,~vve assume that, except in

a favored and exceptional hay-producing sections, cotton hulls in the vicinity

of the oil mills, and corn a11d sorghum silage elsewhere in the State, supply
rough fodder in the cheapest form to the cattle feeder as the basis of food
rations. and we also assume that the best method of handling the cattle is
to saw the horn-s off close to the head, and feed the cattle under shelter, un-
less the winter is exceptionally dry.

An examination of the tables i11 Bulletin No. G will show that ste-ers de-
horned and fed- tinder shelter made larger gains than steers no-t dehorned
and. not sheltered, and at less cost for food.

Several questions are put to the cattle and feed-stuffs in this experiment,
but the two leading questions are:

I. What is the best to feed with cotton hulls?

2. IVhat is best to feed with silage?

Incidentally, we ask:

a. If sweetening the ration will make it more palatable to cattle?

b. Is corn silage a better cattle food than dry corn fodder‘?

i 0.9 What ‘is the comparative value or cotton seed and cotton meal for feed-
ng.

:1. Is corn the best grain to feed with corn silage?

f. Will changing the ration stimulate the appetite and cause cattle to fat-
ten more rapidly“?

 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

y). Will hogs do as well running after silage and cotton meal fed cat-tle as
after hay, corn, and cotton seed fed cattle‘?
h. XVill cotton seed improve the corn and hay ration?
t. Is cotton hulls and cotton meal a good food" to fatten sheep?

CATTLE USED.

T wo lots of cattle were used. Lot 1, 50 head raised in Williamson county,
twos and threes, all having some Shorthorn or Hereford blood, and in good
condition, but never having been handled, nor had extra care or feed.

Lot 2, 22 head, was purchased in Waller county, with the expectation of
getting native range cattle to compare with steers having a dash of improved
blood. The cattle were ordinary, in rather thin condition, as is shown by
the weights, Pens 12, 13 and 14, but they were not so wild as the Williamson
county steers, having, as we learned later, grazed around the settlements
and learned to eat. They were from 4 to 6 years old.

As soon as received, the cattle were dehorned and put into the pens to feed.
The three and four steer lots occupied pens 10x14 feet, with an outside open
yard twice as large. The six and eight steer lots, pens 14x20 feet, outside
yards same proportion. The ten steer lots, in pens 10x30 fee-t, with outside
yards 30x30 feet. Pen 14 was 11ot dehorned, and the steers were fed in an.
open dry yard. The cattle were not tied.

Lot 1 was fed 90 days; lot 2, 79 days. At the end of this period of feeding
there was considerable difference in the gains made by the different pens
from different rations. (See tables 6 to 20.) To even the cattle up for ship-
ment; the divisions between the pens were removed, the cattle turned to-
gether, and all fed alike, but with a combination of feed-stuffs different from
that of the first period.

The effect of greater freedom, change and variety of food is shown in the
rapid increase, ercn after the cattle had been fed 79 and 9O days, and made an
average gain of over 200 pounds per head. See gains, Tables 6 to 19, and
Summary 1. i

This feeding experiment was planned with special reference to testing the
principal available feed-stuffs of the State under as near similar conditions
as may be provided by men feeding for pro-fit as possible.

ln testing a number of different rations, however, we can not avoid artifi-
cial conditions to some extent, but they are such as interfere with securing
the best results in increase in weight. Oonfining steers in small pens is not
the best method of handling them; nor is it desirable to use the same feed-
stuffs without change for the entire period of feeding.

An examination of the weights of the cattle, after having been fed 60
days, will show that the gain per day as a rule decreased the longer time
they were fed, and some of the pens lost in weight from the 80th to the 90th
day (see Table No. 21), yet, as soon as the steers were given opportunity -to
move around, and a greater variety of ‘food, they commenced to gain in
weight at once, making in some pens a larger gain per day from the 90th to
the 110th day than during the first period of feeding.

The frequent weighing of cattle disturbs them and interferes with rapid
gain. Nevertheless, the increase in weight of the two lots, an average of
246.5 pounds in 110 days with one, and 286.1 pounds in 90 days with the

other. is very good, and especially so where some ten different rations have
been fed.

FIRST LOT O1" STEERS.

Pen 1-6 Steers.

Consumed per head in 90 days:

279.68 lbs. corn fodder, at $5 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 7O
826. Tbs. silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83
717.72 lbs. cotton seed, cooked. at $7 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 51
27.84 Tbs. hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 08

$4 12

SUMMARY OF STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 903

Average Weighl, 793.33 lbs. AVGTHQB gain, 161.6 lbs. Gain per cWt., 21
lbs. Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 2.55 cents.

Pen 2-4; »S'teers.
Consumed per head in 90 days:

2159.75 lbs. silage. at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $2 15
380.27 lbs. corn and cob meal, at 4O cents per bushel for the corn... 2 17
323.75 lbs. cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 23

$7 55

Average weight of steers, 692.5 lbs. Average gain per head, 163.75 lbs.
Gain per cWt., 23.9 lbs. Value 0t‘ food consumed per each pound gained,
4.6 cents.

Pen 3—6 Steers.
Consumed per head in 90 days:

2018 lbs. silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $2 02
685  cotton seed, cooked, at $7 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 39
359 lbs. hay, at $6 per ton . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11

$4 52

Average Weight of steers, 755.8 lbs. Average gain per head, 164.1 lbs.
Gain per c\vt., 21.8 lbs. Value of food consumed per pound gained, 2.7 cents.

Pen. /;—~/; Steers.
Consumed per head in 9O days:

3401.6 lbs. silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $3 40
507.55 lbs. cotton meal. at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 08
3.62 gallons molasses, at 2O cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72
$9 20

Average Weight, 731.25 lbs. Average gain, 200 lbs. Gain per cw|t., 27.3
pounds. Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 4.47 cents.

Pen 5-1; Steers.
Consumed per head in 90 days:

3822.47 lbs. silage. at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $3 82
496.4 lbs. cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 96
$8 78

Average weight of steers, 737.5 lbs. Average gain, 228.75 lbs. Gain per
cwt., 31 lbs. Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 3.83 cents.

Pen 6—3 Steers.
Consumed per head in 90 days:

1387. lbs. silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $1 39
1306.9 lbs. cotton l1ulls, at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 96
531.5 lbs. cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 31

$8 66

A\ erage Weight, 780 lbs. Average gain, 233.33 lbs. Gain per cwt., 29.9 lbs.
Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 3.71 cents.

Pen ’7—/; Steers.
Consumed per head in 90 days:

1564 lbs. cotton lmlls, at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $2 34
534 lbs. cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 34
$7 68

Average Weight of steers, 713.75 lbs. Average gain. 206.25 lbs. Gain per
cwt, 28.8 lbs. value of foo-d consumed for each pound gained, 3.72 cen-ts.

901 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATHHL

Pen 8—4 Steers.
(Jensuiiietl per head in 00 days:

1403. lbs. cotton hulls, at $3 per to11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $2 22
31:13.85 lbs. cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 67
447.45 lbs. corn and cob meal. at 40 ets. per lbushel for the corn. . . .. 2 56

' $8 45

Average‘ weight ot‘ steers. 785.5 lbs. Average gain, 206.25 lbs. Gain per
cwt., 23.0 lbs. Value of food (fOIISUIIIOLl for each pound gained, 4.09 cents.
Pen- 9——8 Steers.
Consumed per head in 90 days:

1245.27» lbs. cotton hulls, at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $1 89
52’»2.12 lbs. cotton 1110111. at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 32
£368.26 lbs. mixed hay, at $6 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 69

$8 9O

Average weight of steers. 725.6 lbs. Average gain, 215 lbs. Gain per cWt.,
20,7 lbs. Value of food consumed f-or each pound gained, 4.13 cents.

P011 10-1; Steers.
(Yonsumetl per head in 90 days:

1677.7 lbs. cotton hulls, at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $2 51
5210.5 lbs. cotton meal, at $20 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 31
5.57 gallons 111olasses, at 20 cents per gallon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 12
$8 94

Average weight of steers, 727.5 lbs. Aver-age gain, 238.75  Gain per
cu"... 32.8 lbs. Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 3.73 cents.

Pen 11—3 870cm.
Consumed per head in 90 days:

1884.73 lbs. cotton l1ulls. at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $2 83
500.63 lbs. cotton meal. at $20 per to11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 00
7.48 gallons molasses, at 20 cents per gallon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 50
$10 33

."\\'0l.'fl{.,"€ weight of steers, 8138.33 lbs. Average gain, 251.6 lbs. Grain per
c\vt., 28.0 lbs. Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 4.1 cents.

SECOND LOT OF STEERS.

Pen 12-10 Steers.
(“onsuiriecl per head in 70 days:

17518.7 lbs. silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .. $1 76
1010.]. lbs. cotton hulls, at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 53
4310. lbs. cotton meal, at $20 per t011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 3O

$7 59

Average weight of steers, 671 lbs. Average gain, 279 lbs. Gain per cwt,
41.5 lbs. Value of food consumed ‘for each pound gained, 2.72 cents.

Pen 13-9 Steers.
Consmiied per head in 79 days-

02207 lbs. silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 92
370.533 lbs. hay. at $6 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 11
485.8 lbs. (6.07 1.111.) corn in ear. at. 40 cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 42'
4350.51; lbs. cotton seed, raw, at $7 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 50

$5 95

Average weight of steers. 662.8 lbs. Average gain. 222.2 lbs. Gain per
cwL. f-lilfi lbs. Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 2.67 cents.

SUMMARY OF STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 

Pen 11-5’ Steers.

Consrnietl per head in 79 (lays:

591.53 lbs. hay, at $6 per to11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $1 77
1211. lbs. (15.13 bu.) corn in ear, at 40 cents iper bushel . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 05
312.51 lbs. cotton seed, cooked, at $7 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 19

$9 01

rkverage Weight of steers. 636.6 Ibs. Average galin, 233.3 lbs. Gain per
cwip, 36.4 Ibs. Value of food consumed for each pound gained, 3.86 cents.

COST OF FOOD.

’l‘he values given to the different feed-stuffs are fully one-fourth higher
than actual cost the past year t0 cattle feeders and farmers, 0r at the oil
mills i1: Texas. Throughout the corn belt of the State, on the farms, corn

Was Worth less than 30 cents per bushel; hay on the farm not above $4.50 -

per ton; cotton meal at the mills $16, and hulls $1.50 per ton and less. Hav-
ing assumed the values given, With the first feeding experiment, it is thought
best to retain the same to facilitate comparing one year’s Work With another.
’l‘he values of feed and cost of one pound gained in Weight may be easily
calculated for any portion of the State.

HOGS WITH COTTON SEED FED C.-\'I"I‘I.IE.

Pigs Were put in With the cattle in Pens 12 and 13, one pig to each steer,
and the intrrease in Weight tleteirminetl from January 26 to March 16, fifty
days.

Verv little food W-as scattered on the ground in feeding the cattle (the man-
gers Were constructed so that the steers could not throw it out), and the pigs
Were mactically confined ‘to the droppings of the cattle and corn fed to
them direct.

lt Was thought best to feed each lot of pigs suflicient corn to keep them
quiet and in good g'l‘O\Vi11g condition, but not enough to keep them from get-
ting hungry.

In I'en 12. cattle "fed silage, cotton hulls, and cotton meal: Pounds.
Jzlhlltlfy 26, average Weight of pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57

March l6, average Weight of pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.5

Average gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.5

Potintls corn per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 132

Pounds corn fed per pound gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.39
Pen 13, cattle fed silage, hay, corn in ear, and raW cotton seed:
January 26, average Weight of pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52

March 16, average Weight of pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86

Average gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34

l-‘ounds corn fed per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108.3

Pounds corn fed per pound gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.18
In Pen 12, one bushel corn, in addition to cattle Waste, made 12.75 pounds
gain.

1n Pen 13, one bushel corn. i11 addition to cattle Waste, made 17.61 pounds
gain.

The Waste from silage, hay, corn. and cotton seed fed steers gave approxi-
mately 36 per cent more increase in Weight than the Waste from silage, cot-
rton meal. and hull fed steers.

'l.‘he: low increase in Weight made as compared With the usual gains made
by hogs rimming after fattening; cattle may be accounted for, perhaps, by the
croxvdetl condition of the pens, and the fact that laractically none of the food
given to the cattle Was thrown on the ground Where the pigs could get it.

ln the usual manner of feeding corn and hay in racks in open lots, a con-
sitleraible quantity of the corn is dropped on the ground in filling the troughs,
and the cattle throw out a good deal. so that [rigs are by no means confined
to the undigested corn voided by the cattle.

906 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

’.l‘he:re is no question but that in feeding dehorned cattle under shelter,
with properly arranged troughs, even with whole corn and hay, that the
"value of the waste for hog food will be decreased 30 to 50 per cent compared
with the ordinary method of feeding, and that when whole corn is replaced
partly; or wholly by corn meal, cotton seed, and cotton meal, that the value
‘of the waste will again be reduced to a considerable extent.

The cattle and qiigs were in too close quarters for the best welfare of the
pigs, and this single test, no doubt, does not fairly represent the full value
ol‘ the waste from the two rations fed to cattle. The two lots of pigs had an

equal chance, and it may, therefore, represent the comparative value of the
two rations.

SILAGE AND COTTON sEED HULLS FOR SHEEP.
Two lots of common native sheep, nine i-n each, were put in pens, and one

fed on silage and raw cotton seed, the other on cotton hulls and cotton meal.
The sheep were fed all they would eat for 64 days.

Pen 1, 9 sheep, fed silage and cotton seed: Pounds.
Average weight January 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62

March 6., average gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.4

Average gain per head per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .193

‘Silage consumed per head per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.62

Cotton seed consumed per head per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .814
Food consumed per head:

169.75 pounds silage, at $2 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 cts.
52.17 pounds cotton seed, at $7 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 cts.

Cost of food for 64 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35

Cost of food per pound gain (cents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.82
Pen 2, 9 sheep. fed cotton hulls and cotton meal: Pounds.

A verage weight January 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61.5

March 6, average gain per head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.8

Average gain per head per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .278

Cotton hulls consumed per head per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .97

Cotton meal consumed per head per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .97

Food consumed per head:

'62; pounds cotton hulls, at $3 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.2 cts.
62.2 pounds cotton meal, at $8 per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .622 cts.
Cost of food for 64 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71.4
Cost of food per pound gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 cts

The foregoing test was made preliminary to feeding several pens of sheep
to compare the effect of different rations on sheep, and returns made by cat-
tle and sheep for food consumed.

The sheep seemed to take their food regularly, but they did not eat enough,
and did not gain in xveight, as they should.

It retuiired 13.75 pounds silage and 4.20 pounds cotton seed to produce 1
pound gain in weight. and 3.49 pounds cotton hulls and 3.49 pounds cotton
meal to produce 1 pound gain in weight.

Sheep have been successfully fattened on cotton hulls and cotton Imeal,
and we must, therefore, charge our lack of success to poor quality of the
sheep or to unskillful feeding.

CONCLUSIONS.

l. The experiments for the two winters show that of our different cattle
foods, a ration made up of cotton hulls and cotton meal is equal, if not supe-
rior, to a ration of any other two feed-stuffs used for fattening cattle, but a
cheaper ration may be compounded of silage and cotton seed, or of corn,
hay, and cotton seed, at the prices given.

2. That the addition of some other feed-stuff to the cotton hull and cotton

SUMMARY OF STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 907

meal ration makes it more palatable t0 cattle, and produce-s better results in
gain in Weight. Corn meal, hay, silage, and molasses, each one added in
cotton l1ulls and cot-ton meal, made larger gains than hulls and meal alone, in
the order named, molasses giv-ing the best result.

3. Of the several rations containing silage, silage, cotton hulls, and cotton
meal gave the best gains. Silage and cotton meal second. Silage a.nd boiled
cotton seed third. Silage, corn and cob meal, and cotton meal fourth. Silage,
corn and cob meal fifth. Dry corn fodder did not give as large grain as sil-
age. Molasses did not improve the ration containing silage.

4. Cotton hulls and cotton meal with hay, corn, silage, and molasses gave
larger gains than silage and cotton meal, or silage and cotton seed.

5. Cotton seed meal, with other feed-stuffs and fodders, gave larger gains
than cotton seed with other feed-stuffs and fodders.

6. Cotton seed, with other feed-stuffs and fodders, made gains at less cost
for food per pound gain than cotton meal with other feed-stuffs and fod-ders.

7. After feeding any of the rations used without change for 60 days, the
daily gain diminished until finally, in some pens, it ceased entirely; but with
a change of ration, the daily gain in all of the pens was largely increased, in
some pens exceeding the average of the first period of feeding.

8. Conn and hay alone is more costly, and will not fatten cattle so rapidly
as rations containing cotton seed and cotton ‘meal, with cotton hull-s or silage;
and boiled cotton seed added to th-c corn and hay ration makes more rapid
gain than corn and hay alone, and at considerable less cost per pound for
food consumed.

9. The waste from cattle fed hay, corn, sillage, Ian-d raw cotton seed was
worth considerable more for hogs running after the steers than the waste

from cattle fed silage, cotton hulls, and cotton seed meal.
F. A. GULLEY,
J. W. CARSON.

BULLETIN NO. 27, JUNE, 1893, 16 PAGES.
(Out of print.)

STEER FEEDING .

The practice of feeding boiled cotton seed to both dairy and beef cattle has
long been in vogue, but the feeding of roasted cotton seed is of much more

recent date.
First: In this experiment, a test is made of the relative feeding values

of cotton seed, roasted, bo-iled and raw.
Second: Also to compare cotton seed, corn and hay rations with a ratio-n

of corn and hay only.
Third: To test a ration of cotton seed meal, hulls and silage with the other

r-a ti-ons fed.
STEERS FED.

For conducting this test, a lot of twenty natirve steers was purchased in
the month of February, 1892, and are known as “Lot A.” These steers were
each -coming two years old in the spring, and though very thin in flesh were
carefully selected with reference to evenness in size, weight and general
feeding qualities, reducing individual variation to the minimum. They were
d-ehorn-ed and fed in groups of four, under shelter in pens measuring 10x14
feet, opening info an outside enclosure 20x32 feet. Each pen was given a
ten days’ preliminary feeding. -in order to accustom them to the food before
the weights were taken, and the average of three daily Weighings was taken
to represent the weight of each steer at the ibeginning of the experiment.

In order to arrive at the most accurate conclusions possi-ble, another test
was planned, and these steers, “Lot A,” at the termination of the fifty days’
feeding, were put to pasture and used again the following winter in making
a duplicate test. Wh-en fed the second winter they are klnown as “Lot

' A. ~A.,” to distinguish them from another bunch of twenty steers, which

were fed at the same time and known as “Lot B.”
3—Bulletin

908 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Lot A, fed (March 2d to April 20th, 1892) 5O days.

Lot A. A., fed (December 1st, 1892, to March 10th, 1893) 100 days.

Lot B., fed (December 1st, 1892, to March 10th, 1893) 100 days.

Lot B consisted of twenty native s-teers coming three years old in the
spring and averaging slightly younger than -those of “Lot A.” They were
purchased just before the second test was begun and were immediately de-
horned. The first “Lot A” (fed the preceding spring) was iin much better
condition as to flesh than was Lot B, in which all were thin, but apparently
in good health.

These steers of “Lot A. A.” having been tagged the previous spring, were

grouped exactly as in first experiment and were fed on same rations as
before.

COST OF FOOD STUFFS.

It will “be noted that cotton seed boiled is rated at $2 and roasted seed $3
per ton higher than raw seed to cover the actual cost of preparation. It will
also be noted that -a table appears, in which the cost of food is calculated at
a higher rate than that before used to indicate prese-nt market values. See
page 320.

The hay used in all of the tests was a poor quality of prairie hay, valued at
$6 per ton. The corn was ground in the ear and fed as corn and cob chops,
valued at 40 cents per bushel in the ear. The silage fed was pure corn silage
cut and put into silo at the ordinary stage, too hard for roasting ears.

Weights of roasted and boiled cotton seed are given in tables from the dry
raw seed, which were treated and fed after being weighed.

The following statements are conveniently arranged to show for each pen
the total cost of food consumed, average weight of steers at beginning of
test, average gain per head, gain per cwt. and cost of food per pound gained:

For easy reference and comparison of results, we give the following sum-
maries:

SUMMARY No. 1.

Lot “AP Fed 50 Days. March 2 to April 20, 1893.

Q U; q) 7-4 L: L4 7-
as ed s a ad s
5'5 g i=5 '63 <6 E E‘- w: Q "c!
~ 23% 2% a “ s5 s
a .
g | 25 1 =5 | L? t u» t Ration fed 5O days.
0-4  ‘g n‘ g g _ 0% o6
o n-H Q mg c: >3 c: u a g a d
o" é‘ Es é‘ a é‘ a é’ E s ° ‘e s’
z o. a a.“ a o °‘ o
1 462 118 2 36 \ 27. 7 2. 94cts. $3 48 Cotton seed meal, hulls and silage.
2 31 131 Q2 30.4 61ots. 3 42 Roasted cotton seed, corn and hay.
3 4.1:» 136 2. 12 31. 2 2. 51ets. 3 40 Boiled cotton seed, corn and hay.
4  11%    2. 36ets. 2 79 Raw cotton seed, corn and hay.
D l . u L 7. 14

3. 71cts. 2 82 Uorn and hay.

From this table we have the following results:
(a) The cheapest pound ga-ined was by Pen 4; second, Pen 3.
(b) The dearest pound gained was by Pen 5; second, Pen 1.

(c) The cheapest feed per day was fed Pen 4.; second, Pen 5.
(d) The dearest feed per day was fed Pen 1; second, Pen 2.
(e1 The greatest gain was made by Pen 3; second, Pen 2.

(f) The least gain was made by Pen 5;"second, Pen 1.

SUMMARY OF STEER FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 909

SUMMARY N0. 2.

Lot “AA," Fed 100 Days, December 1, 1892, to March 10, 1893.

 ii» . E a é. . E.

e s a =~ E3 =1 =1 s

gwfl fig '8 ‘E gm 3
3 T55‘ ‘f 3; C? (f "9 3. *9 Ration fed 10o days.
Q mgfi; w p, w w ‘H U ‘-‘
3 gww gm E. E. °n °d
.- 355 as a? s5 3?. 
z m ‘i o. °° o.“ o. ° o o
1 638 186 1. 86 29.1 4.32cts. $8 O5 Cotton seed meal, hulls and silage.
2 625 199 1.99 31.8 3. 7lcts. 7 40 Roasted cotton seed, corn and hay.
3 630 207 2.07 32. 8 3. 70cts. 7 66 Boiled cotton seed, corn and hay.
4 576 192 1. 92 33. 3 3 29ots. 6 33 Raw cotton seed, corn and hay.
5 615 203 2. 03 33 4. 95cts. 10 05 Corn and hay.

IPr-on. this tiable we have the followingresults:

(a) Th-e cheapest pound gained was made by Pen 4; second, Pen 3.
(b) The dearest pound gained was made by Pen 5; second, Pen 1.

(c) The cheapest feed per day was fed Pen 4; second, Pen 2.
(d) The dearest feed per day was fed Pen 5; second, Pen 1.

(e) The greatest gain was made by Pen 3; second, Pen 5.
(f) The least gain was ‘made by P-en 1; second, Pen 4.

SUMMARY No. 3.

Lot “B,” Fed 100 Days, December 1, 1892, to March 10, 1893.

  a a a. a l
L4 Q) hi, Hg Q a ‘U
cD U‘; g q.) o) .,_. .,-< rd u) r5
_ P ,,_, I>Fq c6 c6 Q5 Q
g ‘Vs Cl 4 H L? C5 ,8 e5 8 . O0
q; | +25 | w | a, Ramon fed 1 days.
Q1 mg gm u: p, m m “sq ‘*5 _
w ‘C! we) “U g 'Ci _ "C! _ g r-U
° 3s” S-g . S g» i‘; a 3 :2 3
0' o ‘g o o o ‘
Z “Be mm mu mo gm Sn
1 513 266 2. 66 52. 04 2. 99cts. $7 81 Cotton seed meal, hulls and silage.
2 513 222 2.22 43.3 3.3 cts. 7 33 Roasted cotton seed, corn and hay.
3 509 223 2. 23 43. 8 3.27cts. 7 31 Boiled cotton seed, corn and hay.
4 511 208 2. 08 40. 7 2. 84cts. 5 92 Raw cotton seed, corn and hay.
5 522 193 1. 93 36.9 4. 77cts. 9 21 Corn and hay.

From this table We have the following results:
(a1 The cheapest pound gained was made by Pen 4; second, Pen 1.
(b) The dearest pound gained was made by P-en 5; s-econd, Pen 2.
(c) The cheapest feed per day was ‘fed Pen 4; second, Pen 3.
(d) The dearest feed per day was fed Pen 5; second, Pen 1.

(e) The greatest gain was made by Pen 1; second, Pen 3.
(f) The least gain was made by Pen 5; second, Pen 4.

CONCLUSIONS.

As a result of this series of experiments, we conclude that:
First: Roasted cotton seed do not have the laxative qualities of raw seed,

and are more palatable.

Second: Faster gains [are made by feeding the Boiled Seed, but at a greater

cost per pound gain.

910 . TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Third: The advantages to be gained in -the use of Roasted Seed hardly
justifies its general use.

Fourth: Boiled Seed are more palatable than Raw Seed, less laxative and
make faster gains. May continue t0 be used with profit.

Fifth: Steers fed on raw seed, eating a less quantity of seed, a-te slightly
more hay in consequence.

Sixth: Cotton Seed, at usual prices, is a good and cheap addition =t0 a corn
and hay ration.

Seventh: The Ibest beef ration found by previous experiments—Gott0n Seed,
Meal, Hulls and Silage is not here 1Jr-o-ven the best, when calculated at for-
mer prices—RaW Seed, Corn and Hay being better. (See table 3, page 320.)

Eighth: When value of lRaw Seed is raised to near market present prices,
$10 per ton, the Meal, Hulls and Silage is again the best ration (see bulletin
10, page 28): Raw Seed, Corn and Hay being next best.

Ninth: The average cost of gain per pound in all Lots at present price of
foods was 3.64 cents. "

Tenth: The cheapest feed ‘per pound gained for all steers fed, when raw
cotton seed is valued at $10 per ton, was raw seed, corn and hay.

J. H. CONNELL,
J. W. CARSON.