257-713-3OM TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS- BULLETIN N0. 159. JULY, 1913. STEER FEEDING 1 POSTOFFICE COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS 1913 VON BOECKMANN-JONES 00., PRINTERS AUSTIN, TEXAS TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. GOVERNING BOARD, MAIN STATIoN. (Board of Directors, A. and M. College of Texas.) 9E. B. CUSHING, President, Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Term expires 1915 JoHN I. GUIoN, Vice President, Ballinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Term expires 1919 E. H. ASTIN, Bryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Term expires 1919 WALTON PETEET, Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Term expires 1915 L. J. HART, San Antonio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Term expires 1919 J. ALLEN KYLE, Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Term expires 1915 R. L. BENNETT, Paris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Term expires 1917 T. E. BATTLE, Marlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Term expires 1917 J. S. WILLIAMS, Paris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Term expires 1917 PRESIDENT OF A. AND M. COLLEGE OF TEXAS. R. T. MILNER. . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .College Station GOVERNING BOARD, STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT SUB-STATIONS. LIEUTENANT GovERNoR WILL H. MAYES, President, Brownwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Term expires 1915 P. L. DOWNS, Vice President, Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Term expires 1919 " ‘CHARLES H. ROGAN, Austin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f. . . . . . . . . . . . “Termexpires 1917 -—-——-—— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1915 t STATIoN STAFF. B. YoUNcBLooD, M. D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Director A. B. CONNER, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . ..Assistant Director and Agronomist M. FRANCIS,.D. V. S . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Veterinarian ‘G. S. FRAPS, PH. D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Chemist H. NESS, M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Horticulturist J. C. BURNS, B, S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . ..Animal Husbandman WILMoN NEWELL, M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Entomo1ogist F. H. PLODGETT, PH. D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Plant Pathologist and Physiologist A. H. LEIDIGH, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agrono1nist in Charge of Soil Improvement TREK E. WILLARD, M. S. . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Agriculturist, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Management Expert W. L. BOYETT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..State Feed Inspector J. B. RATHER, M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Assistant Chemist F. B. PADDOOK, B. S. E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Entomologist H. H. JoBSoN, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Agronomist ‘WILLIAM LEVIN, A. B. . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Chemist H, B, SPAULDING, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Chemist TH. SoHMIDT, D. V. M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Veterinarian R. E. DIoKSoN, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assistant Agronomist CHAS. A. FELKER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Cl1ief Clerk A. S. WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Secretary J. M. SCHAEDEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Stenogra.pher -C. A. CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Stenographer ‘R, L, SPILLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Mai1ing Clerk SUPERINTENDENTS OF SUB-STATIONS. E. E. BINEoRn, Beeville Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Beeville, Bee County 'W. S. HoToHKISS, Troup Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Troup, Smith County iE, M, JOHNSTON, Cooperative Rice Station . . . . . . ..Beaumont, Jefferson County I.- S. YORK, Spur Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Spur, Dickens County A. K. SHORT, Temple-Belton Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Temple, Bell County 'T. W. BUELL, Denton Sub-Station; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Denton, Denton County V. L. CORY, Lubbock Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Lubbock, Lubbock County H, C, STEWART, Pecos Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Pecos, Reeves County N. E. ‘VINTERS, Angleton Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Angleton, Brazoria County "G. T. MCNESS, Nacogdoches Sub-Station. . . . .Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County *C. S. SCHAREE, Feeding and Breeding Station. . . College Station, Brazos County NOTE.—The main station is located on the grounds of the Agricultural a.nd Mechanical College, in Brazos county. The postoffice address is College Station, Texas. Reports and bulletin are sent upon application to the Director. A postal card will bring these publications. *Acting. - , ' 4 TIn cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. 4 i l 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS. iii-i SILAGE COMPARED WITH COTTON SEED HULLS, AND COTTON SEED MEAL COMPARED WITH COTTON SEED FOR FATTENING CATTLE. A PAG1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 "Cattle used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Feeds used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Plan of experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 The feeding test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Marketing i. .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1'7 Slaughter test . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Financialouteome . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Discussion iof results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Outline for arriving at the cost of producing silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 SORGHUM HAY COMPARED WITH COTTON SEED HULLS FOR FATTENING CATTLE. Object of experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Cattle used . . . . . . .- . . . . . . .i . . . . . . . , . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Feeds used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 Plan of experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 The feeding test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Marketing .d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Financial out-come . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL STEER FEEDING BY JOHN C. BURNS* SILAGE COMPAiBPID Wlilll COTTON SEED HULLS, AND COT- TOFN SEED MEAL COhiPAlYE-D WITH COTTON SEED FOR. FAfllfFE-NlNCt CANDLE. INTRODUCTION. The experiments reported in this bulletin constitute the first Work of an exyqerimental nature that has been completed on the Feeding and Breeding Station since its establishment here a little over a year ago. They were conducted here during the past fall, xvinter and spring. The experiment t0 be discussed first was in part similar to the one that the station conducted at Clarendon during the winter and spring of 1911-1912, and reported in Bulletin No. 153, the title of which wras “A Test of the Relative Values of Cotton Seed Meal and Silage, and Cotton Seed Meal and Cotton Seed ITIFrllS for Fattening Cattle.” It was, however, more extensive than the Cllarendon experiment, in that silage was fed in more combinations, thereby affording a. better oppor- tunity of ascertaining its true feeding value and at the same ‘time making it possible to compare the feeding stuffs with WlIiCh it was supplemented, viz: cotton seed meal and cotton seed. The purpose of this experiment, therefore, was to make a further comparison of silage and cotton seed hulls in conjunction with cotton seed meal-for fattening cattle, and to ascertain the relative values of cotton seed meal and cotton seed as supplements to silage. Among experienced feeders, it is a generally accepted fact that at current prices, cotton seed meal is a more economical feed than cotton seed, unless it be when the seed is fed in very limited quantity. At I i the same time, numerous inquiries regarding the relative merits of the two feeds, make it important that information be disseminated, based on actual tests with meal and seed as supplements to silage. The results of this experiment with those of the Clarendon experiment reported in Bulletin No. 153, should certainly be conclusive evidence of the great value of silage in rations for beef cattle. C-XTTLE USED. The cattle used in the experiment were purchased from the ranch of Mrs. H. M. King in Nueces county, where they had been raised under range conditions. They were well graded Shorthorn and Here- ford steers,—19 head of the former and 9 head of the latter,-and “rere- —*Assisted by C. N. Kennedy and C. S. Scharff. 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Plate I. The steers of Lot I at the beginning of the experiment. . _... l¢R..-~‘Kv Plate II. The steers of Lot II at the beginning of the experiment. STEEB FEEDING. .' i‘ - 11f >*'~ "<1 w»; a Plate IV. The steers 0f Lot IV at the beginning of the experiment. ' 8' Texas ilicnicnnrnnsr EXPERIMENT STXATIONS. two years past in age. Most of them were of average quality and of very good feeder conformation. Eight headawere rather narrow, shallow bodied and leggy, and, hence, noticeably inferior to the others, a fact xvhich made against as much uniformity in the bunch as a whole as was desirable. All were rather thin in flesh but in good thrift when the ex- periment begun. They were loaded for shipment at Kingsville the evening of October 4, 191.2, and were unloaded at College Station about 6:30 a. 111., October 7, 1912, having been en route about sixty hours. Things were not gotten in readiness for the experiment to begin until October 16, 1912, and, hence, from the time the steers arrived until this date they were fed South Texas prairie hay, and sorghum hay raised on the Station farm. During this period the 28 head consumed 1767 pounds of prairie hay valued at $8.00 per ton and 2864 pounds of sorghum hay valued at $12.00 per ton. The steers cost us $40.00 a head, f. o. b. Kingsville; the freight on them and the feed charges en route amounted to $1.37 a head; and the value of the hay they consumed a.t College Station previous to the beginning of the experiment amounted to 87 cents a head. Hence, they had cost us at the beginning of the experiment $42.24 a head. Their average weight at this time was 853 pounds, thus making the cost per hundredweight $4.95. FEEDS USED. Chemical analyses show that the greater portion of the cotton seed meal used in the experiment was below prime grade. The other feeds, viz: cotton seed hulls, cotton seed, and silage were of very good quality. Two kinds of silage were used, that fed during the first 107 days of the test being composed of sorghum and cowpeas and that fed during the re- maining- 32 (layrs being composed of Indian corn. It was estimated that the former contained about 90 per cent sorghum and 10 per cent cowpeas. The average analysis of each feed as determined by the Chemistry’ Division of the Experiment Station is shown in the following table: TABLE I. Percentage Composition FEEDS Analysis Water Ash Protein Crude Nitrogen Fat Numbers I Fiber Free Extract Cotton seed rneal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.47 5 53 41.61 10.52 25.70 9.15 fi8gggg050- Cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.34 2.39 3 .47 49.04 35.85 .88 6947-7048- 7049-6876 Cotton seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.69 3.22 22.66 25.58 25.58 15.26 6877-6945 Sorghum-Cowpea Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.34 2.12 2.28 8.70 18.59 .95 6874-6942- 6993-6998- 6999 Corn Silage‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.6 2.1 2.7 7.8 12.9 .9 The calculations as to the financial results of the experiment are based on the following prices for the feeds: “Taken from “Feeds and Feeding,” by Henry. STEER FEEDING. 9 Cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$27.00 per ton. Cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.00 per ton. Cotton seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.00 per ton. Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.50 per ton. PLAN OF EXPERIMENT. The morning of October 16, 1912, the steers were divided into four lots of '7 head each, the lots being designated as I, II, III, and IV. The division was made as equally as possible with regard to breed, conformation, quality, condition and weight. The pens in which the steers were confined and fed throughout the test were equal in all respects. They were 60 x 100 feet in area, had neither sheds nor wind breaks, and hence, were entirely unprotected from the weather. Each was provided with a. galvanized iron water trough in which water from a deep well was pumped and kept before the cattle at all times. Granular salt was kept in a small trough in the corner of each pen so that the cattle had free access to it throughout the test. - The four lots were fed as follows: Lot I. Cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls. Lot II; Cotton seed meal and silage. Lot III. Cotton seed meal, cotton seed hulls, and silage. Lot IV. Cotton seed and silage. The day’s ration for each lot was carefully weighed and divided into two equal parts, one part" being fed early in the morning and the other late in the afternoon. The feeds composing each ration were thoroughly mixed together in the feed troughs. Weights of the cattle were taken at intervals of every 30 days through- out the test, except for the last period which covered only 19 days. All weighings were made between 1O and 11 o’clock a. m. THE F EEDING TEST. The experiment covered a period of 139 days, from the evening feed of October 16, 1912, to the morning feed of March 4, 1913. The day’s ration per steer for each lot at the beginning was as follows: Lot I. Two pounds cotton seed meal, 20 pounds cotton seed hulls. Lot II. Two pounds cotton seed meal, 24 pounds silage. Lot III. Two pounds cotton seed meal, 10 pounds cotton seed hulls, 12 pounds silage. Lot IV. Three pounds cotton seed, 24 pounds. silage. After only a few days taken to get the cattle accustomed to their feed, the hulls and silage were rapidlyr increased, as much being given as was readily consumed. It was noticeable from the beginning, and in fact, throughout the experiment that Lots II and III, the former receiving meal and silage and the latter receiving meal, hulls, and silage, ate their feed with much more relish than did Lot I receiving meal and hulls and Lot IV receiving seed and silage. Hence, the rations of Lots 10 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. II and III were evidently more palatable than those of Lots I and IV. It is a Well known fact that silage, even when fed alone, is considerably more palatable than hulls fed alone. Mixed with cotton seed meal the palatability of both feeds seems to be greatly improved. Cotton seed, though a palatable feed, is evidently less so than cotton seed meal and this, together with the fact that the seed and silage could not be as thoroughly mixed together as could the meal and silage, no doubt, explain why the cattle of Lot IV did not eat their feed with quite as much relish as did those of Lots II and III. In getting the cattle to full feed, the cotton sced meal and the cotton seed were increased at a much slower rate, of course, than was the- roughage portion of the rations. Since it may be safely concluded that a larger quantity of cotton seed meal may be fed Without injurious effects in connection with silage, on account of its succulent character, than with cotton seed hulls, it is very probable that had the meal been increased somewhat more rapidly in Lot II and, possibly, in Lot III, even better results would have been obtained. In other words, it would likely have been better for these lots, had the quantity of meal been increased gradually from about 3 pounds per head daily at the start to 5 pounds by the end of 4O days; kept at this until the end of 8O days and then increased to 6 pounds for the remainder of the period. It was not considered best to increase the meal. for Lot I, receiving cotton seed hulls, quite so rapidly and since a direct comparison of silage and hulls was desired, the amounts of meal for Lots I, II, and III were kept the same. A very noticeable condition existed, especially in Lot I and to a lesser degree in Lot III and this was that, throughout the experiment both of them consumed a great deal more salt and. drank a great deal more water than Lots II and IV. Though, this it attributed, of course, to the drier character of the rations on which they were fed, it is nevertheless, a point of much importance from the fact that it very likely had much to do with the somewhat greater gains they made as well as the much greater shrinkage they sustained in shipment to market. Weather conditions were quite severe (luring much of the experiment. It rained a great deal during December and January and the wind and cold were quite severe during much of that period. The pens became very muddy and the cattle were therefore kept from lying down much of the time. It will be noted that at the end of 1.20 day's’ feeding, cotton seed meal was substituted for cotton seed in Lot IV, so that the feeding of cotton seed only lasted 120 days. A study of Table V showing the results for the fourth 3O day period, will partly explain why this change was made. It will be noted that the average daily gain per head for Lot IV during that period. was only .4’? pounds and that the cost of feed per 100 pounds of gain was $26.95. The quantity of seed had been gradually increased from the beginning until on January 15, it reached 9 pounds a head. It had been planned to continue it at this amount until the end of the experiment, but the steers began scouring and it was soon evident that they were receiving more seed than they could stand. The gains had been fairly satisfactory until the seed was increased beyond STEER FEEDING. 11 8 pounds, though not quite as good as those produced from the meal and silage in Lot II. Whether they would have been better than they were afterward, if the seed had not been increased over 8 pounds, cannot be said, but the writer does not believe that they would have been as economical as the gains from the meal and silage. As soon as the change to meal was made the steers took to their feed with better appetites, pon- sumed a larger amount of silage, and became normal in their droppings. A comparison of the gains made during the last period of 19 days with those of the previous periods will show how much more ettective was the ration of meal and silage than was that of seed and silage. The average of the rations fed each lot for each period of the experi- nient is shown as follows: First period—30 days. Lot I— 2.6 lbs. cotton seed meal. 22.6 lbs. cotton seed hulls. Lot II— 2.6 lbs. cotton seed meal. 42.3 lbs. silage. Lot IH—— 2.6 lbs. cotton seed meal. 11.3 lbs. cotton seed hulls. 32.3 lbs. silage. Lot IV—— 4.1 lbs. cotton seed. 37.4 lbs. silage. l ‘Second period—30 days. I.ot I—- 3.1 lbs. cotton seed meal. 29.2 lbs. cotton seed hulls. Lot II— 3.1 lbs. cotton seed meal. 56.1 lbs. silage. Lot III— 3.1 lbs. cotton seed meal. 15 lbs. cotton seed hulls. 41.8 lbs. silage. Lot IV— 5 lbs. cotton seed. 49 lbs. silage. "Phird period—3O days. Lot I— 4.3 lbs. cotton seed meal. 3O lbs. cotton seed hulls. Lot II— 4.3 lbs. cotton seed meal. 52.1 lbs. silage. Lot I[I— 4.3 lbs. cotton seedmeal. 15 lbs. cotton seed hulls. 39.3 lbs. silage. Lot IV- 7.2 lbs. cotton seed. 44.5 lbs. silage. 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Fourth period—80 days. seed meal. seed hulls. seed meal. seed meal. seed htflls seed. seed meal. seed hulls. seed meal. seed meal. seed hulls. Lot I— 5.1 lbs. cotton 30 lbs. cotton Lot Il— 5.1 lbs. cotton 52 lbs. silage. g_ Lot III- 5.1 lbs. cotton 15 lbs. cotton 42 lbs. silage. Lot IV-— 8.9 lbs. cotton 42 lbs. silage. Fifth period—19 days. Lot I— 6 lbs. cotton 30 lbs. cotton Lot II—- 6 lbs. cotton 52 lbs. silage. Lot III— 6 lbs. cotton 15 lbs. cotton 42 lbs. silage. Lot IV- .56 lbs. cotton seed. 5.6 lbs. cotton seed meal. 49.2 lbs. silage. The results of the experiment are shown in detail in the following tables : TABLE 2. Results for First Period of 30 Days. E 5 5 g 5'22 e, we a s Y3 g 9Y5 g =' Z s; f3’ B“; '3 g gq Q g3 3'3 3's e w e“ dim w-a “n: “L” E“ Z "6 355" ~ as s 3 i’ a: "22 33' <3 g go-i 4§m gm gm g»: g»: Q Z < E1 [-1 <1 F11 O I 7 864.2 78.6 cotton seed meal 153.5 5.11 51.2 cotton seed meal $2.23 | 677.1 cotton seed hulls 440.9 cotton seed hulls II 7 837.8 78.6 cotton seed meal 156.4 5.21 50.2 cotton seed meal $1. 69 5 1269.7 silage 811.7 silage III 7 884.2 378.6 cotton seeg fiefitl 150.7 5.02 cotton seeg gealzlzl $2.30 ‘ 39.6 cotton see u s - . cotton see u s ‘ 970.6 silage 644 silage IV i 7 825.7 124.4 cotton seed 13s 4.5 92.2 cotton seed $1.82 I 1123.3 silage 832.1 silage l STEER FEEDING. l i} I TABLE 3. Results for Second Period of 3O Days. ' l l c * IE ‘5-0 5-, _ I; l 53 E .1 .55 w-i i» u; sq 1 3 . e c. s e2- ss g5 s; .f o- ._ m Q) _ gm q; ~ up: a U PRU z , 1; 3 g t: _ ,_ J3 3 ._ E 3 t; “a u; 3 r Z.- E25 gs’ gs s6: % 55 s5 j_ <1 i m 0 I 7 1017.8 92.5 cotton seed meal 7O .33 132.1 otton d m l $6.16 i 876.4 cotton seed hulls 1252 dotton 22:4 huelils II 7 994.3 92.5 cotton seed meal 34.28 1.14 269.8 cotton seed meal $9.78 1683.9 silage 4911.4 silage III 7 1035.5 92.5 cotton seed meal 47.14 1.57 196.2 cotton seed meal $9.32 3 coltton seed hulls 29524.5 coltton seed hulls siage 2.9 siage IV 7 960.7 150.9 cotton seed 32.14 1.07 469.5 cotton seed $9.70 1469.6 silage 4572.2 silage TABLE 4. Results for Third Period of 30 Days. 5 . g s s zi FE d ‘a . 1E . s as "=8 s5 51* 3% 3E , v—1 $ Q c! g p‘ h. a c fi g . . cam cs1; on: g? “L? f =3 ggfi jg a: a 3 5e n3 is s 2 2 3 s“ E“ 52”“ 5*‘ s“ I 7 1087.8 130.7 cotton seed meal 47.8 1.59 273 cotton seed meal $10.27 900 cotton seed hulls 1880.6 cotton seed hulls II 7 1028.5 coltton seed meal 55 1.83 2323.6 coltton seed meal $6 . 76 - B1 age .5 si age III 7 1082.1 130. 7 cotton seed meal 60 2 217.8 cotton seed meal $8. 02 2 coltton seed hulls 7 coltton seed hulls - B age 1 . siage IV 7 992.8 cotton seed 70 2.33 coltton seed $5.00 . snage _ 31 age TABLE 5. Results for Fourth Period of 3O Days. .2 8 g s s“. s’ ... s‘. 5; . s’ . .3 B v? $3 g 5 b‘ E $3 33 6 "1 “"1 _ mm cb-a gum T? EC’? Z “a 5° as T6 e 3,: a s e "as 2s 3 2 i“ 5°‘ s“ 5'“ é“ i=5“ Fill" I 7 1135.7 154.2 cotton seed meal 68.6 2.28 224.8 tt . d l 7. 63 900 cotton seed hulls 1312.5 ddtt-dii Eggd fielzls s II 7 1083 .5 154.2 cotton seed meal 35.7 1.19 431.7 cotton seed meal $11.29 1560 sflase 436s silage III 7 1142.1 154.2 cotton seed meal 50 1.66 308.3 cotton seed meal $10.46 450 cotton seed hulls 900 cotton seed hulls 1260 silage 2520 silage IV 7 1062.8 267.7 cotton seed 14.3 .47 1874.2 cotton seed $26.95 1260 Silage 8820 silage 14 I rIEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Plate V; The steers of Lot I at the end of the experiment. _ l Plate VI. The steers of Lot II at the end of the experiment. STEER FEEDING. 15 Plate VIII. The steers 0f Lot IV at the end 0f the experiment. 16 TEXAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIoNs. TABLE 6. Results for Fifth Period of 19 Days. g s s 5 === "5 E * .99 * a; i? ' 13-1 5 5.. 55 2s a if g7 . 15.35’ 5s" at?’ “gs? i‘? Z °_ 5'33 T3 f5 ".3 3'3 3 33 =15’ 3.5’ +3 O gin»: gm g1.‘ gm 314 31-1 s-J Z <1 5* E-4 <1 9-4 O I 7 1204.2 114 cotton seed meal 22.8 1.2 498.7 cotton seed meal $15. 46 570 cotton seed hulls 2493.7 cotton seed hulls - II 7 1119.2 , (1)14 ccitton seed meal 37 .1 1.95 2306.9 coltton seed meal $7. 47 88 si age 660 si age III 7 1192.1 t 114 cotton seed meal 39.3 2.06 290.2 cotton seed meal $8.99 , cotton seed hulls 2735.21): coltton seed hulls s1 age 0 . s1 age IV 7 1077.1 10.8 cotton seed 62.8 3.3 17.15 cotton seed $4.31 107.5 cotton seedlmeal 171.02 cotton seed meal 935.6 silage 1488.4 silage TABLE 7. Results for Whole Period of 139 Days. . o o l .5 53 <5 t‘? w‘ a 3 l .5 in 55 c?‘ .573 § i’ I L, CD " U) ‘A n ' . s. a...» s: -55 5'5 55 35 , P ,_, o <9 co a o R46 pqw Q Y‘: g9 , . FIJI: (D's $01321 m _ ‘b! . s; 2 s55» 5s .3 E 2 é’ e3 <3 r53 8 I 7 864.2 569.9 cotton seed meal 362.8 2.61 157.1 cotton seed meal $5.90 3923.6 cotton seed hulls 1081.3 cotton seed hulls 1 II 7 837.8 569.9 cotton seed meal 318.5 2.29 178.9 cotton seed meal $5.19 13 7065.6 silage 2217.9 silage III 7 884.2 569.9 cotton seed meal 347.1 2.49 164.2 cotton seed meal $6.17 1974.6 cotton seed hulls 568.8 cotton seed hulls 5462.1 silage » 1573.4 silage IV 7 825.7 769.1 cotton seed A 314.2 2.26 244.7 cotton seed $4.98 - 107.5 cotton seed meal 34.2 cotton seed meal 6123.6 silage 1948.4 silage TABLE 8. ‘Results Showing Comparison of Lot II and Lot IV for Period of 120 Days. .8 Q O s .. <5 rn 5 5 . "El, g5 i’ 33f. 53 5i a "-1 _ U} w-q a ,.U 0 - ' m 0H iIl I will . =-~ . é a 2». 5.5 1. ~55 5.5 g 5 sQQ as 5m‘ 5e 5Q 5Q Q Z <1 E4 E-< <1 9-1 U II 7 837.8 455.9 cotton seed meal 281.4 2.34 162 cotton seed meal $4. 89 6077.6 silage 2159-5 $11329 ~1V 7 825.7 758.5 cotton seed 251.4 2.09 301.5 cottonseed 55.14 5188 silage 2063.4 silage STEER FEEDING. . 17 MARKElflI N G. As previously stated the experiment closed with the nlorning feed of March 4., 1913, the final weights being taken at the usual hour, between 10 and 11 a. m. In order to put the steers in better shape for shipping the following day, the evening feed of ‘March 41th, was reduced one-half foreach lot, making the amounts fed per steer as follows: Lot I—- 1% pounds cotton seed meal. 7% pounds cotton seed hulls. Lot II—- 1% pounds cotton seed meal. 13 pounds silage. Lot III— 1% pounds cotton seed meal. pounds cotton seed hulls. pounds silage. " L 1.0 3* 10 Lot IV— 1% pounds cotton seed meal. 13 pounds silage. loll-l H-l The morning of March 5th, sorghum hay, and this only, was supplied to all of the lots. ’I‘hey received 10 pounds per steer which was about as much as they could clean up. They had free access to water until they were started for the shipping pens, about a mile distant, about 10 :30 a. m. They were loaded about 1. p-. and shipped to the Fort Worth market, where they were unloaded about 9:30 a. m., March 6th. In order to ascertain the shrinkage that had occurred since the final weights at College Station, each lot was weighed before receiving xvater or feed, the weighing being done at 11 a.. m. a The shrinkage is shown in ‘the following table: TABLE 9. Lot No. Average Weight at Average Weight at Shrinkage. College Station March 4. Fort Worth, March 6. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1227 lbs. 1050 lbs. 177 lbs. II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1156 lbs. 1051 lbs. 105 lbs. III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1231 lbs. 1093 lbs. 138 lbs. IV ............. ......... .. 1140 lbs. 1033 lbs. 107 lbs. It will be seen that the shrinkaige in Lot I was unusually large. It was also considerably greater in Lot III than in Lots II and IV, in which it was practically the same. As was previously stated, Lot I, fed meal and hulls and Lot III, fed meal, hulls and silage, ate more salt and drank more water throughout the experiment than the other two lots. Hence, the much greater shrinkage in these lots was most likely due to this fact. In other words, Lots I and III, evidently had a greater fill of water at the "time of the final weights at College Station, which, it is reasonable to believe, would naturally cause them to shrink more in shipment. a 18' TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. As soon as the Weights to determine the shrinkage had been made the steers were given free access t0 water and hay until about 3 p. m., when they were Weighed to Armour 8t (.70., who purchased them, in separate lots as fed. The Weights of the steers, the “fill” they had taken, and the prices for which they sold are shown in the following table: TABLE 10. A Lot No. N0. of Steers. Average Average Average Price Amount Weight Fill Per Cwt. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 1103 lbs. 53 lbs. $7.37 $81.29 II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 1096 lbs. 45 lbs. 7.37 80.77 III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 1137 lbs. 44 lbs. 7.37 83.80 1v ........................ .. 7 1061 lbs. 2s lbs. ' 7.3a 78.09 It will be seen that all of the cattle, and especially Lots I, II, and III. took on a good fill. Each lot really sold in two parts on account of two steers in each that did not measure up With the others in quality and finish. The prices given in the table are, therefore, averages of the prices actually received, Which were as follows: Lot I—5 steers 5730 pounds at $7.50 per cWt.. . . $429.75 2 steers’ 1990 pounds at 7.00 per cWt.. . .. 139.30 L-ot II—5 steers 5680 pounds at 7.50 per cWt.. . .. 426.00 . 2 steers 1990 pounds at 7.00 per cWt.. . .. 139.30 Lot III—5 steers 5950 pounds at 7.50 per cWt.. . .. 446.25 2 steers 2010 pounds at 7.00 per cWt.. . .. 140.70 y Lot IV—5 steers 5350 pounds at 7.50 per cWt.. . .. 401.25 2 steers 2080 pounds at 7.00 per cwt... 145.60 The fact that all of the lots sold alike is evidence that the buyers considered that there Was practically no difference among them.» a SLAUGHTER TEST. The slaughter records of the four lots, furnished us through the kind- ness of Armour & Company, Were as follows: r Lot No. A Average Weight Dressing Average Dressing ress . Per Cent. Per Cent. Lot E I—5 steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 672 pounds 58.64 ‘ ‘ 58.03 2 steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 560 pounds 56.28 Lot II—5 steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 768 pounds 59.68 59 19 2 steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 575 pounds‘ . 57.79 A l Lot III—5 steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 702 pounds 59.00 58.92 2 steers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 590 pounds 58.70 Lot IV——5 steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 626 pounds 58.50 58.54 2 steers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 610 pounds 58.65 p STEER FEEDING. 12) The following communication from Armour & Company indicates their estimate of the cattle, dressed and in the cooler: FORT WORTH, TEXAS, March 20, 1913. Prof. J. U. B/urns, College Stair-on, Texas. ‘DEAR SIRI——R61:€1’1‘1I1g‘ to killing test on four lots of experiment steers, which we killed. In the beet Lot No. .2 seemed to be better fin- ished, smoother and best color in the beef. Your Lot No. 4 was second choice, your I.o't No. 1, third, and your Lot No. 3 fourth. There was quite a similarity in all of these lots, in that they each had one or more good individual carcasses. All of the four lots would practically grade alike on the beef market. We should be pleased to receive copy of bulletin covering feeding, 0110., on these cattle when issued. _Yours tifulyr, ARiuoUE 8i CoMPANY. FINANCIAL OUTCOME. An itemized statement of therfinancial results of the experiment is shown in the follouring table: TABLE 11. Lot 1 Lot 11 Lot 111 Lot IV Number of steers. . ..:.._. . . . . . . . . .._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 7 7 7 Average weight at beginning of exper1ment—pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864 838 - 884 826 Cost per steer at beginning of experiment, at_$4.95 per Cwt . . . . . . . . . $42.77 $41.48 $43 .76 $40 .99 Cost of feed consumed per steer during experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. 43 16 52 21.43 15 .64 Cost of feed consumed per steer preparatory to shipping . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 .10 .09 Freight charge per steer in marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 87 1 87 1.87 1 .87 Cost of yardage per steer on market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 ‘ 1 25 .25 25 Cost of hay persteer on market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 i 05 .05 05 Commission per steer in selling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 50 _ .50 50 Total cost per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $66 . 97 $60. 76 $67 .96 $59 .39 Selling price per steer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $81.29 $80. 77 $83 .80 $78 .09 Net profit per steer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. 32 20.01 15 .84 18 .70 Increase in selling price of steers, per hundred weight, above initial cost, necessary to break even . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. 12 8 59 $ 1 .02 8 .64 y It will be observed that Lot II, fed cotton seed meal and silage throughout the experiment, gave the most profitable returns and that Lot IV, first fed cotton seed and. silage and later cotton seed meal and silage, stood next in this respect. Lot I, fed cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls, was the least profitable. The returns from Lot III, fed meal, hulls and silage, were somewhat better than those from Lot I, but considerably less than those from-Lot II. In other words, though the ration of meal, hulls and silage proved somewhat more profitable than the ration of meal and hulls, it was considerably less profitable ‘than the ration of meal and silage. The cost of the labor and hauling necessary to conduct the experiment, the cost of the salt consumed, and the value of the manure were not included in the above statement. I It being necessary to weigh the rations 20 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL Exrnamrrnr STATIONS. each day and feed each lot separately, the labor was of course greater than it would be in feeding {the same number of steers under ordinary farm conditions. The manure, accumulated during the experiment, was not measured or analyzed but, according to experiments in which this was done, it is safe to say that its fertilizing value was sufficient to considerably more than oflfset the items of salt, labor and hauling. DISCUSSION OI?‘ RESULTS . Silage Compared with Cotton Seed HllllS.—Referring to Table '7, which gives the results of the experiment for the whole period of 139 days, we find that Lot I, fed meal and hulls, made the largest gain, followed by Lots III and II, in the order named. Of these three lots, however, the cost of feed per 100 pounds gain was least in Lot II, fed meal and silage and greatest in Lot III, fed meal, hulls and silage. The gains shoxvn in this table are based on the final weights at College Sta- tion. Computed on the lmsis of the final weights at Fort Worth we "find that Lot I gained 239 pounds per head; Lot II, 258 pounds per head; and Lot III, 253 pounds per head. Hence, on this basis, the meal and silage ration produced both the largest and cheapest gain of the‘ three lots, the ration of meal, hulls and silage ranking next, and that of meal and hulls ranking last. The results indicate, therefore, that the ration of meal and silage is considerably superior to the others from practically every standpoint. If one has plenty of silage, there appears to be no advantage in feeding cotton seed hulls in connection with it. On the other hand, there does appear to be quite an advantage in a ration of meal, hulls, and silage over one of straight meal and hulls. The finan- cial results would, of course, be modified in accordance with the prices for hulls and silage. Again taking the final weights at Fort Worth as a basis for computing the total gain per head, we find that in Lot I, 569.9 pounds cotton seed meal and 3923.6 pounds cotton seed hulls produced 239 pounds gain and that in Lot II the same amount of cotton seed meal and 7065.6 pounds silage produced 258 pounds gain. Therefore, 1.67 tons of silage was equivalent to 1 ton of cotton seed hulls in feeding value. With cotton seed meal at $27.00 per ton and other items of expense as already stated, Lot I paid $14.30 per ton for cotton seed hulls and Lot II, $8.16 per ton for silage. ' Cotton Seed Meal Compared with Cotton Seed-Referring to Table 8 and comparing the ration of cotton seed meal and silage, fed Lot II, with that of cotton seed and silage, fed Lot IV for 120 days, it will be seen ‘that the former produced the larger and cheaper gain. As already stated. I.ot IV, at the end of 120 days was changed to a ration of cotton seed meal and silage, this being done on account of the fact that this lot of steers had been scouring rather badly for several days. Three days were taken to make the substitution of meal for seed com- plete, and this fact accounts for the small amount of seed appearing in the last period. The large daily gain of 3.3 pounds a head and the low cost of $4.31 for feed per 100 pounds gain for the last period of 19 days, when during the previous period of 1120 days the daily gain had been only 2.09 pounds a head and the cost of feed per 100 pounds STEER Fnnnrnoe. 21 gain $5.14, show still further the superiority of the ration of meal and silage over that of seed and silage. It is evident, therefore, that cotton seed meal at $27.00 per ton, is more profitable than cotton seed at $17.00 per ton for fattening cattle, The Ration of Cotton Seed Meal and Silage.—Two experiments have been conducted by the Station during the past two years in which the value of cotton seed meal and silage was tested for fattening cattle. The results of these experiments, those obtained by other stations, and by commercial feeders along the same line, indicate this combination to be one of the most profitable rations that can be used for feeding cattle in this State. It is, also, one that is Within reach of practically every farmer. More and more in the future, the beef supply of the United States must be produced on the small farm, for large ranches and cheap grass are fast becoming things of the past. Indian corn, Kafir corn, milo maize and sorghum, some of which are best adapted to one section of the State and some to another, are all excellent crops for the silo. They rarely ever fail to develop sufficiently but that they may be converted into silage to advantage, and as a rule, at only a moderate cost of production. Furthermore, converting such crops into silage practically alivays insures saving them, provided of course, the silo is properly constructed. The time is fast approaching WhG-Il many farmers of the State will realize the necessity of doing something to replenish the fertility: of their land. It will be found, that for many of them, the most practical and profitable method of accomplishing this will be the keeping of a small, well improved herd of beef cattle on the farm. Though many kinds of feeds produced on the farm may be fed profitably to these cattle, as a rule, none will prove- more economical than silage. In purchasing cotton seed meal of good quality with which to supplement it, one is not only getting one of the hest commercial feeds that can be bought, but also one of high fertilizing value. Therefore, the farmer, who keeps a small herd of good cattle, produces silage, purchases cotton seed meal to feed with it, and saves and distributes the manure on his fields, will not only realize a direct profit on his feed through the sales of his cattle, but, at the same time, will increase the productiveness of his lands. This holds true not only for the small farm but for the large one, as well. Silage has proven to be an excellent feed not only in a fattening ration, but for growing and breeding animals also. Its succulent char- acter makes it of special value for such animals, in the absence of green pasture. It should be supplemented, however, with a small amount of cotton seed meal or some other feed rich in protein, in order to obtain the hest results. . Yearling cattle receiving from 2 to 2% pounds of meal per head daily in connection with silage should make good growth. Though it is believed that the price of $2.50 per ton for silage, which was the price used in calculating the financial results of this experiment, will cover the average cost of producing silage on Texas farms, the cost of production will, of course, vary with conditions. On this account the following statement is given to show what the financial outcome would have been in Lot II, at different prices for silage: 22 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. The net profit per head on Lot II with silage at _ $2.00 per ton would have been . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$21.77 3.00 per ton would have been . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.24 4.00 per ton would have been .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.71 5.00 per ton would have been . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.18 6.00 per ton would have been . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.65 7.00 per ton would have been . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.11 OUTLINE FOR ARRIVING AT THE COST OF PRODUCING SILAGE. . . . . . _. . . Acres Dr. ‘ Cr. Plowing (breaking) at 3 . . . . . . . . . . per acre. . . . . . . . . . . . ..'. . . . . . . . .. Discing at $ . . . . . . . . . . per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harrowing at $ . . . . . . . . . . per acre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commercial fertilizer . . . . . . . . lbs. at $ . . . . . . . . . . per acre. . . . . . . . er fertilizer . . . . . . . . lbs. at 55 . . . . . . . . . . per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Planting at 3 . . . . . . . . . . per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seed at $ . . . . . . . . . . per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First cultivation at $ . . . . . . . . . . per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second cultivation at $ . . . . . . . . . . per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ Third cultivation at $ . . . . . . . . . . per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ Fourth cultivation at $ . . . . . . . . . . per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fifth cultivation at $ . . . . . . . . . . per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harrowing at $ . . . . . . . . . . per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harvesting (row binder) at $ . . . . . . . . . . per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hauling to silo $5 . . . . . . . . . . per ton, 3 . . . . . . . . . . per acre. . . . . . . . . . . Cutting, and filling silo at $ . . . . . . . . per ton, 3» . . . . . . . . . .' per acre. Interest on investment in silo, engine, and cutter at . . . . . . . . per cent. . Depreciation on silo, engine, and cutter at l0 per cent . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . Rent of land at $ . . . . . . . . . . per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taxes on land, implements, silo, engine, and cutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depreciation of fences, at . . . . . .per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total cost of producing . . . . . . . . tons silage from . . . .acres at $ . . . . . . . . . . per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total feeding value of . . . . . . .. tons silage from . . . . . . . . .. acres at $ . . . . . . . . . . per ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total profit or loss, per ton $ . . . . . . . . . ., per acre $ . . . . . . . . . . . . N OTEI Many farmers tail to consider the value of their own‘ labor in figuring the cost of producing crops. This, as well as all other items of expense connected with the production of a particular crop should be included. The rent of the land planted to the crop, whether the land is owned by the farmer or not should be figured as an item of expense, from the fact that in working his own land he should be able to make , the amount for which it would rent. In figuring the depreciation of fences surrounding an area planted to a certain crop it is necessary to know their value and to estimate the length of time ‘they will last. For example, the depreciation of a fence estimatedto last ten years should be figured at 10 per cent. - STEER FEEDING. Plete IX. The steers of Lot v at the beginning 0f the experiment. Plate X. The steers o-f Lot VI at the beginning of th-e experiment. 24 Tnxas AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT Srarroxs. SORCHUM HAY COMPARED WITH COTTON SEED HULLS FOR FATUTENING CATTLE. OBJECT OF EXPERIMENT. The basal ration used in this test consisted of cotton seed meal, either ground Kafir corn or milo maize, and silage. The purpose, therefore, xvas to compare sorghum hay and cotton seed hulls as supplements to this ration. CATTLE USED. The cattle used were 32 head of range-bred, high grade Hereford steers, two years past in age. Thirty of them were raised in Coleman county and were purchased from Boog-ScottBros. Two were raised - in Nueces county and urere laurchased from Mrs. H. M. King, with the 28 head used in the experiment already described. They were a. fairly uniform lot, most. of them of very good feeder conformation and above the average in quality. All were rather thin in condition, but thrifty when the experiment began. The thirty steers purchased from Boog- Scott Bros. cost us $45.00 a head, f. o. b. Coleman. The two steers purchased from Mrs. H. M. King, though costing only $40.00 a head, are figured at_the same price as the others, for the sake of uniformity. Including freight charges to College Station, the cost of the cattle at the beginning of the experiment was $46.13 a head. Their average weight at this time was 776% pounds, thus making the price $5.94 a hundred weight. FEEDS USED. The feeds used during the test and the prices paid for them were as follows: _ ' Cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27.00 per ton Threshed nrilo maize (ground) . . . . . . . . .. 25.00 per ton Kafir heads ground) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.00 per ton Threshed Kafir corn (ground) . . . . . . . . .. 25.00 per ton Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.50 per ton Cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.00 per ton Sorghum hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.00 per ton f \ ‘ - lhe cotton seed meal, silage, and cotton seed hulls were of the same quality as used 1n the experiment already described, their composition being given in Table 1. The average analvses of the other feeds, also determined by the Chemistry Division of the Experiment Station are v a shown 1n the following table: STEER FEEDING. 2-3 TABLE 12. Percentage Composition _ y Analysis Feeds. ; Water ‘ Ash Protein Crude Nitrogen Fat Numbers Fiber Free Extract Tnreshed Milo Maize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 67 1.08 12.18 1.42 72.94 2.71 6873 Kafir Heads . . . . . j. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.34 2.58 10.21 5.33 66.68 1.84 6878-6946 Threshed Kafir Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.28 1.64 10.88 2.53 70.27 2.38 69égag0l0~ Sorghum Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.80 5.70 3.88 27.28 52.97 2.37 6943 PLAN O F EXPERIMENT. The morning of October 16, 1912, the steers were divided into two lots, designated as Lot V and Lot VI, each containing 16 head. The division was made very equally with regard to type, quality, condition and Weight. The two pens in which the lots were fed were each 60 x 100 feet in area. and equal in all respects. Water and salt were amply provided in the same way as described for the lots used in the other experiment. From the beginning of the experiment until January 6, the two lots had no shelter, whatever. Thereafter, each was protected by a shed, 14 x 36 feet, open. on the south side. ’l.‘he cattle were, of course, subjected to the same W6ii1h6l‘ conditions that have already been described. The two lots were fed as follows: Lot V—Cotton seed meal, ground milo maize or Kafir corn, cotton seed hulls and silage. ' Lot VL-(lotton seed meal, ground milo maize or Kafir corn, sorghum hay, and silage. The rations were carefully weighed and supplied to the cattle in two parts, one early in the morning and the other late in the afternoon. All of the feeds were thoroughly mixed together in the feed troughs, xvith the exception of the sorghum hay for Lot VI, which was placed in a rack. _ Thirty-five hogs, mixed barroxvs and sows of rather thin flesh and of various sizes, a number of them shoats weighing at the start only 50 to 65 pounds, were used to follow the steers and work over the droppings, which constituted the only feed they received. ’l‘hey were purchased in Brazos county, in ‘three different bunches and at different times during the progress of the (experiment. ’I‘hey were of mixed breeding, most of them carrying a fair percentage of Poland-China. or Duroc-Jersey blood. All of them were at liberty to go from one pen to the other. The two lots of steers were weighed at the same time throughout the experiment as were Lots I, IT, III and IV. THE FEEDING TEST. The experiment lasted 139 days, from the evening feed of October 16. 1912, to the morning feed of March 4, 1913. ‘ 26 Texas AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. The rations per steer at the beginning were as follows: Lot V.— 2 pounds cotton seed 1110a]. 4 pounds milo maize chops. 12 pounds silage. 10 pounds cotton seed hulls. Lot VI.— 2 pounds cotton seed meal. 4 pounds milo maize chops. 12 iounds sila c. l g l0 ounds sorghum ha 1'. o 3 The cattle took to their rations readily, and at no time during the test was there a steer in either lot “of? feed” or affected with scours. After only two or three days the cotton seed meal, grain and silage in both lots were gradually increased, but at no time during the experiment was the cotton seed hulls and sorghum hay more than 1O pounds a head daily. On December 16, it was found necessary to begin a gradual re- duction in these two feeds, from the fact that the other portion of the rations, especially the meal and grain, had been increased to such an extent, that the cattle could no longer eat as much roughage as they had been’ eating. After February 15, the hulls and hay were left off altogether, silage being the only roughage fed for the rest of the period.‘ Milo maize chops was fed from the beginning of the experiment until November 24, after which ground Kafir corn heads was substituted for it and used until December 4. After this, threshed ground Kafir corn for Kafir corn chops was fed, with the exception of two days, viz: De~ lcember 17, and 19, on which ground heads was again fed. The change from sorghnm-cowpea silage to corn silage took place on February 1,_ the same as in the other experiment. The following is a statement showing the weights and prices of the hogs when they were turned in the pens ‘to follow the steers: October 30- 9 hogs-— 750 pounds at $6.75 per cwt.. . . $50.60 November '7——11 hogs—‘1245 pounds at 5.00 per cwt.. . . .-- 62.25 December, 2'7—15 hogs——1150 pounds at 6.00 per cwt.., .. 69.00 Total.. ..35 hogs—3145 pounds at $5.78 per cwt... $181.85 Had all of these hogs been shoats weighing at the start from 100 to 125 pounds each, and there had been one to each steer throughout the test, they should have been of better size and finish when marketed and, therefore, should have commanded abetter price than they actually sold for. As already stated, however, many of them were very small at the start and, hence were not of sutficient size to more thanclassify as pigs when marketed. ' Special notice was taken to see if the cotton seed meal being fed to the steers would have any laad efl"ects on the hogs. Though, the meal had been gradually increased until on January’ '7 it reached 4 pounds per steer daily and so remained until the end of the experiment, at no time were there any hogs that seemed to be sick or unthrifty. Two sows of“ the lot proved to be with pig a.nd on March 25, near the time STEER FEEDING. s‘ 27 for them to farrow, they were weighed and removed from the pens. The two together weighed 350 pounds. Both of them, a few days later, farrowed strong, healthy litters. Apparently, therefore, eating the drop- pings from steers fed cotton seed meal had no bad effects on the sows and pigs, either before or after farrowing. The average of the rations fed the steers of each lot for each period of the experiment was as follows: First period—30 days. Lot V.—— 2.6 lbs. 7.1 lbs. 10 lbs. 18.3 lbs. Lot VI.— 2.6 lbs. 7.1 lbs. 10 lbs. 18.3 lbs. Second period—30 days. Lot V.—— 3.1 lbs. 13 lbs. 1O lbs. 20.3 lbs. Lot VI.— 3.1 lbs. 13 lbs. 1O lbs. 20.3 lbs. Third period—30 days. Lot V.— 3.6 lbs. 16 lbs. 6.9 lbs. 18.5 lbs. Lot VI.—- 3.6 lbs. 16 lbs. 6.9 lbs. 18.5 lbs. Fourth period—30 days. Lot V.— 4 lbs. 18 lbs. 3.2 lbs. 17.1 lbs. Lot VI.— 4 lbs. 18 lbs. 3.2 lbs. 17.1 lbs. cotton seed meal. _ milo maize chops. cotton seed hulls. silage. cotton seed meal. milo maize chops. sorghum hay. silage. cotton seed meal. gram. cotton seed hulls. silage. cottonseed meal. grain. sorghum hay. silage. cotton seed meal. grain. cotton silage. seed hulls. cotton seed meal. grain. sorghum hay. silage. cotton seed meal. Kafir chops. cotton seed hulls. silage. cotton seed meal. Kafir chops. sorghum hay. silage. 28' TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Fifth period—19 days. Lot V.— 4 lbs. cotton seed meal. 18 lbs. Kafir chops. 0.24 lbs. cotton seed hulls. 1'?‘ lbs. silage. Lot VI.- 4 lbs. cotton seed meal. 18 lbs. Iiafii‘ chops. 0.24 lbs. sorghum hay. 17 lbs. silage. The results of the experiment are shown in detail in the following tables: TABLE 13. Results for First Period of 30 Days. s 3 ° s s5 s... 3 i t; % 113A é 3'4 p“ °* :- ’ m "" ~ ' "U ' s; E“,- "gsgg s5 5s Es as a‘ t0 w- gm °‘ - w Q “U 5W5 m. as . . U-c: bflm , w . Z => sea r. a T. s a s "9 =- ‘is s s‘ a5" s“ s“ g5 s“ Q4 V 16 777 .5 79.2 cotton seed meal 150.9 5.03 52.5 cotton seed meal $3 .63 214.2 milo maize chops 141.9 milo maize chops 22g 9 ccitton seed hulls 198.; ccitton seed hulls - . si age 363. si age VI 16 775.6 79.2 cotton seed meal 133 .7 4.46 59.2 cotton seed meal $4 .66 214.2 milo maize chops 160.2 milo maize" chops 300 sorghum hay 224.3 sorghum hay 548.9 silage 410.4 silage TABLE 14. Results for Second Period of 30 Days. l C l s ... w ‘.3.’ § ‘p +1 I-i 5-1 - 5i 6*’ s? "is “Ta is 3&5 O ‘,4 g0 ' - o'U l7) , 1.... _ Z == s '52 l T s: 3g 6 s a: “E 3s 3' ' 52A i 5m on: gm 5.4 8A [-1 <5 Q4 U V 16 928.4 92.5 cotton seed meal 78.7 2.62 117.5 cotton seed meal $9.60 391.4 gram 298.6 maize & kafir chops 300 cotton seed hulls 198.4 Kafir heads (ground) 609.4 silage colgton seed hulls | . s1 ge VI 18 909.3 92.5 cotton seed meal 96.7 cotton seed meal 391.4 grain 95.6 3.18 245.9 maize & kafir chops $8.69 300 sorghum hay 163.4 Kafir heads (ground) 609.4 silage 313.7 sorghum hay 637.2 silage .-@~, -—|.__.... Q.‘ w~=._..~7_—=._w STEEB FEEDING. TABLE 15. Results for Third Period of 30 Days. Q @ © -—- o o *-" 5,8 I~ F: E é "it Lg»: gj 3-,: at m ._. _ m __ _ U . U . s Es" 2?? g5 5g 5g . ““ "" cu .. 2 i’; a 5°»? 9% 3°35’? is‘ “as <3 o- §Q5 §£i §m E6.’ g4 ‘gs Q Z < Em P‘ <1 9-4 C.) V 16 1007.1 109.2 cotton seed meal 73.4 2.44 148.8 cotton seed meal $11.98 479 gram 609.7 Kafir chops 206 cotton seed hulls 42.5 Kafir heads (ground) 556_1 silage 280.5 cotton seed hulls 757.2 si age _ VI 16 1005 109. 2 cotton seed meal 84.4 2.81 129.5 cotton seed meal $11 .04 479 grain h H 539.7 gag; fihogs( d) 233g? Seed u S 244.1 soighuiahgygroun 659.1 silage TABLE 16. . Results for Fourth Period of 30 Days. s Q o '7 2 g ° 493E I-< SB i": 25 - s» as d‘: .. as, g . e . g $9,,- "8? 6g 3'5 §g _ p H q) c» -, ‘i’ Raw g3 é fi 5s»; 5:5 8s‘ ‘as =5‘ o' 5&5 5P3 5m 2e as as .4 Z <1 B 5g‘ <1 9* O V 16 1080. 6 120 cotton seed meal 51.9 1.73 231.3 cotton seed meal $18 .01 540 Kafir chops 1041 Kafir chops 95.5 cotton seed hulls 184 .1 cotton seed hulls 512.1 silage } 987-1 silage VI 16 1089.3 120 ggtgon ieed meal i 58.4 1.95 ciotgon lsleed meal $16 .26 540 a c ops . a r c ops solrghum hay I 591131111111 hay . s1 age . s1 age TABLE 1'7. Results for Fifth Period of 19 Days. IE @ @ 5 a - 55’ m E’ ‘if . é; ggfi E é g5 s: _ a: _ é if: 21?: g5 S? 8'5 8'5 c5 "1 a" £111 U15 s51? h”. EU Z g6 cbdo-d V; -< a -—~ ‘q do p '8 "1 o V] 5s‘ a E615 5a? 8553 5e?’ 85 ‘a5 n-"l Z <1 P‘ E‘ <1 Q-c U V 16 1132.5 76 iagtgon iced meal 58.1 l 37.05 13%).: ogtgon ieed meal 89 .84 342 a c ops 58 . a c ops 4.5 cotton seed hulls 7 .7 cotton seed hulls 323 silage i 555.7 silage VI 16 1147.8 76 ggtgon lsieed meal 59.4 3.12 128 ggtgon ieed meal $9 .65 342 a c ops 576 a c ops 4.5 solrghum hay 547.6 solrghum hay " 323 si age si age 30 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS._ l g‘ . _ l TABLE 18. Results for Whole Period of 139 Days. i, 5 5 8 a ,8 "3 L, C: '53 '6 z é n“: a: "3 ' E . s Be" 55 ~55 Q5 E5 s‘? a w g," , ails: we gm m‘? E“ Z w a’ _ ,__ d E L, '6 m Q w] s 2 58% s5’ as 2i’ as as r-J Z <1 E‘ F‘ <1 Q4 U V 16 777.5 477 cotton seed meal 413 .1 2 97 115.5 cotton seed meal $8.93 318.1 m1l0 maize chops 77 I111l0 maize chops 187.5 Kg heads (ground) 112g hslalads (ground) 146 ops . c ops 906 cotton seed hulls 219.3 cotton seed hulls 2549.4 silage y 617.1 silage VI 16 775.6 477 cotton seed meal 431.6 3.1 110.5 cotton seed meal $9 .081 . 318.1 m1l0 maize chops 73.7 m1l0 maize chops 187.5 hfiads (ground) hlelads (ground) 146 c ops . r c ops 906 sorghum hay 209.9 sorghum hay 2549.4 silage 590.7 silage TABLE 19. Results for Period of 120 Days during which Cotton Seed Hulls and Sorghum Hay were Fed. .5 8 8 i a fig L, 8g E 2 L; i» s“ s: _; as g . P3 a, , ._. _ s s..- ~=§ .515 s": as Es o‘ w ° "' 5 m <5 a e :3 T” E c’ Z "5 +5 n5 _- ,_, __ d E,” L, ‘U n5 O m 8.0 d cu as <9 u a; 5J3 u-Q s a t-B A s1» 1:111 se 0Q as r4 Z < E4 F‘ <1 fJ-a V 16 777.5 401 cotton seed meal 355 2 95 112.9 cotton séed meal $8 .781 318.1 milo maize chops 89.6 milo maize chops 187.5 Kafir heads (ground) 52.8 Kafir heads (ground) 1119 Kafir chops 315.2 Kafir chops 901.5 cotton seed hulls 253.9 cotton seed hulls 2226.4 silage ' 627.2 silage VI 16 775 . 6 401 cotton seed meal 372.2 3 .1 107 .7 cotton seed meal $8 .98- ' 318.1 m1l0 maize chops 85.5 m1l0 maize chops 187.5 Kafir heads (ground) 50.4 Kafir heads (ground) 1119 Kafir chops 300.6 Kafir chops 901.5 sorghum hay 242.2 sorghum hay 2226.4 silage 598.2 silage Referring to Table 19, it will be seen that Lot VI, fed sorghum hay, gained 372.2 pounds a head (luring the 120 days and that Lot V, fed cotton seed hulls, gained only 355 pounds a. head. Each lot had con- sumed the same amount of teed. Hence, the-difference in gain in favor of Lot VI must be attributed to the slight superiority of the sorghum hay over the cotton seedhulls, 100 pounds of hay being equivalent to approximately 105 pounds of hulls. Judging from the amount of diges- tible nutrients—pi"otein, carbohydrates and fat—in the two feeds, it is reasonable to expect that, if sorghum hay were chopped or cut into small pieces, "thereby requiring‘ less energy in masticating it than when fed as hay, it would show a greater superiority over cotton seed hulls than the results of this experiment indicate. Whether, when the expense . ._'pi’v4Z-—|_. . STEER FEEDING. a 31 of cutting the hay is considered, the ditlereucc would be suflicient to make the hay at $12.00 a ton as profitable as the hulls at $7.00 a ton is a question. It will be noted that in this experiment the cost of feed per 100 pounds gain during the laeriod of 120 days was 20 cents less in Lot V, fed hulls, than in Lot VI, fed sorghum l1ay. A point of special interest and importance in connection with the ex- periment was the effectiveness of both rations that were used. The average daily gain of 2.97 and 3.1 pounds respectively for the period of 139 days may be considered unusually good. LIARKETING. The evening of March 4, the feed for both lots of steers was reduced one half, preparatory to shipping ‘them the following day. The amounts ifed per steer were as follows: . Lot‘ V.—1 pound cotton seed meal. 4.5 pounds Kafir corn chops. 4.25 pounds silage. Lot VI.-—1. pound cotton seed meal. 4.5 pounds Kafir corn chops. 4.25 pounds silage. On the morning of March 5, the. only feed given was 10 pounds of sorghum hay for each steer. At 1 p. m. the two lots were loaded for ship- rnent to Fort Worth along with the steers used in the other experiment, and were unloaded there about 10:30 a. m., March 6. As it was our purpose tomshow 15 head of these steers, selected from both lots, in the A car lot competition of the National Feeders’ and Breeders’ Show the following week, only 14 head were sold on March 6, thus leaving 18 head until Monday, March 10, when 3 others were sold. The 15 head that were held ovcr for show were sold Thursday, March'13. The following table gives an account of the sales: f Number of Steers. Total Weights [Price Per Total Amount. Average Weight Price Per _ Lbs. Cwt. Lbs. Head. 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i 14830 $7 70 $1141 91 1059 $81.56 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3375 a 8 00 270 O5 1160 90.01 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16890 9 00 1520 10 1126 101.34 32. .' . . . . . . . . . . . . 35095 $8 35 $2932 06 1097 $91.63 The 15 head of steers that were shown, dressed 66.02 per cent. Swift ‘& Company, who purchased them, stated in a letter to the writer as follows: “These cattle were very fine indeed, and yield on the 15 lot of steers is the highest yield of any of the car loads of show cattle.” A report as to the dressing percentage of the remaining 1'7 head was not obtained. FINANCIAL OUTCOME. The following table gives an itemized statement of the, financial re- sults of the experiment, hogs not included: 32 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. of Lot VI at the end of the experiment. Plate XII. The steers _ _ _ .‘ STEER FEEDING. 33 TABLE 21. Lot V Lot VI _ t Number of steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16 Average weight at beginning of experiment—pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777.5 775 .5 ; Cost per steer at beginning of experiment, at $5.94 per Cwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $46.18 $46 .06 Cost of feed consumed per steer during experiment. ._, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 .91 39.17 Cost of feed consumed per steer preparatory to Shlpplllg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 .14 Freight charge per steer in marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.99 1.99 Cost of yardage per steer on market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 .25 Cost of hay per steer on market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .05 .05 Co mmission per steer in selling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 .50 Total cost per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $86 .02 $88.16 Selling price per steer . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $90 .88 $92 .26 Net profit per steer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .86 4.10 Increase in selling price of steers, per hundred weight, above initial cost, necessary to break W‘ even. (Hogs not considered.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.96 $2 .03 The above statement is based on the assumption that the shrinkage ‘or difference between the final weights at College Station and the selling Weights at Fort Worth, was the same for both lots. The average Weight at College Station for Lot V was 1190.6 pounds and for Lot VI 1207.2 pounds. The total shrinkage on the two lots was 3270 pounds or 102.1 pounds a head. This being true, Lot V, when sold, averaged 1088.5 pounds and Lot V], 1105.1 pounds. The 33 hogs, remaining after the two “piggy” sows Were taken out of the experiment, Were shipped to Fort Worth at the same time as Were the steers. According to the final weights at College Station, the total gain made by the 35 head Was 1605 pounds. The t0ta.l Weight at the beginning Was 3145 pounds; the two sows taken out March 25, weighed 350 pounds; a.nd the remaining 33 head on March 4, Weighed 4400 pounds. The total Weight of the 33 head on the Fort Worth market March 6, when they were sold, was 3390 pounds, thus showing a shrink- age of 1010 pounds or 30.6 pounds a. head. The price received for them was $7.75 per cWt., Which, allowing for 20 pounds dock on a sow, amounted t0 $307.67. Assuming that the two “piggy” sows had been sold on the same basis and ‘allowing the same amount of shrinkage on them as on the others, thus making them weigh on the Fort Worth market 289 pounds, amounting to $22.40, the gross returns from the 35 head Would have been $330.07. After deducting the expenses of mar- keting, the net proceeds from the 33 head were $286.35. From the 35 head there Would have been approximately $308.45. The- total cost of the hogs at the start having been $181.85, the net profit was, therefore, $126.60. Credited to the 32 steers, this means that they returned $3.95 a head through the hogs, thus making the net profits from Lot V, $8.81 a head and from Lot VI, $8.05 a head. 34 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. SUMMARY. 1.0 Though all were fed profitably, the ration of cotton seed meal and silage was considerable more profitable than either the ration of cotton seed meal and hulls or the one of cotton seed meal, hulls, and silage. ' 2. One and two-thirds tons of silage was found to belequivalent to one ton of cotton seed hulls in feeding value. 3. Lot I paid $14.30 per ton for cotton seedjhulls and Lot H, $8.16 per ton for silage. 1g =fi 4. Cotton seed meal at $27.00 per ton was more profitable than cotton seed at $17.00 per ton in supplementing silage-to form a fattening ration. 5. The shrinkage in shipment to market was much greater in Lots I and III, that were fed cotton seed hulls, especially in Lot I, than in Lots II and IV, that were fed only silage as roughage. 6. Though the dressing percentages of Lots I, H, IH, and IV did not differ much, the highest yield was in Lot II, fed meal and silage, and the lowest was in Lot I, fed meal and hulls. 7. One hundred pounds of sorghum hay was equivalent to 105 pounds of cotton seed hulls in feeding value. . 8. Though yielding a slightly larger gain, sorghum hay at $12.00 a ton was not as economical as cotton seed hulls at $7.00 a ton.