TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

BULLETIN N0. 170 XQVEMBER, 1914

DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY

Texas Feeding Stuffs; Their Com-

position anci Utilization

 

POSTOFFICE:
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS

' VON BOECKMANN~JONES 00., PRINTERS, AUSTIN, TEXAS

1915

BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL

A19-1214-20mi

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

BULLETIN N0. 170 NOVEMBER, 1914

DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY

Texas Feeding Stuffs; Their Com-

position and Utilization

BY

G. S FRAPS, PH. D., CHEMIST

 

POSTOFFICEI
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS

E

VON BOECKMANN-JONEB co., PRINTERS, AUSTIN, TEXAS
1914

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS

‘W; B. BizzELL, A. 1\vl., D. C. L., President.

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Ii. B. CusmNc, President, H0ust0n._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1915

JniiN I. (itnoN. Vice-President, Balhngci" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1919

li. H. ASTiN, Brynn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1919

L. J. IIART, San Antonio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1919

R. L. BENNETT, Paris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1917

T. IE. BATTLE, Marlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1917

J. S. WILLiAMS, Paris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1917

.I. ALLEN KYLE, Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1915

\VALToN PETFJET‘, \Vac0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . .Term expires 1915
GOVERNING BOARD, STATE SUBSTATION
P. L. D0wNs, President, Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'l‘ern1 expires 1919
(liiAixLi-Ls RucmN, Vice-President, Austin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1917
W. A. TvNi-ts, (Zoopcr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1915
Q. ll. WATSON, Ciddings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Term expires 1915
STATION STAFF*
ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF FEED CONTROL SERVICE

B. YouNuuLoon, M. S., Director

A. B. CQNNER, B. S., Assistant Director
CnAs. A. FELEER. Chief Clerk

A. S. WAnE, .S”ecretar_i}

DIVISION OF VETERINARY SCIENCE _
M. FRANCIS, I). V. S., Veterinarian in

vV. L. BoYETT, Supervisor in Charge
J. H. ROGERS, Feed Inspector

\V. H. W001), Feed Inspector

T. H. WoLTERS, Feed Inspector

S. D. PEARCE, Feed Inspector

J. 1\/I. SCHAEDEL, Feed Inspector
JAMES SULLIVAN, Feed Inspector

Charge _ \V. NI. \V1ci<ES, Feed Inspector
H._ ScnMwT, D. V. M, Assistant Velcr-
marla" SUBSTATION NO. 1: Beeville, Bee County

DIVISION OF CHEIHISTRY
(i. S. FRAPS, Ph. I)., Chemist in Charge
J. W. CIIEWNING, B. S., Assistant Chemist
FRANK IIODGES, B. S., Assistant Chemist
B. H. RIDGELL, B. S., Assistant Chemist

DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE
H. NESS, M. S., Horticulturist in Charge
W. S. IIOTCHKISS, Horticulturist

DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
J. C. BURNS, B. S., Animal Husbandman
in Charge Feeding Investigations
J. M. J0NES, M. S., Animal Husbandman
in Charge‘ Breeding Investigations

DIVISION OF ENTOMOLOGY
WILMON NEwELL, l\’l. S., Entomologist in
Charge
l". B. PADDOCK, B. S. E., Entomologist-

DIVISION OF AGRONOMY
A. B. CoNNEn, B. S., Agronomist in Charge
A. H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronomist in Charge
of Soil Improvement _
H. H. JoBSoN, B. S., Assistant Agronomist

, Assistant Agronomist

DIVISION OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND
PHYSIOLOGY
F. H. BLODGETT, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist
and Physiologist in Charge

TDIVISION OF FARM MANAGEMENT
REx E. VVILLARD, M. S., Farm Jllanage-
ment Expert in Charge _

DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY
T. _J. CONWAY, B. S., Poultry Husbandman
in Charge

h. "E. BINFORD, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 2: Troup, Smith County
\V. S. HoTcmuSs, Superintendent
J. W. JACKSON, B. S., Assistant Superin-
tendent

SUBSTATION NO. 3: Angleton, Brazoria
County
N. E. \VINTERS, B. S., Superintendent

*SUBSTATION N0. 45 Beaumont, Jefierson
County
H. H. LAUDE, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 5: Temple, Bell County
A. K. SHORT, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 6: Denton, Denton
County _
T. W. BUELL, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 7: Spur, Dickens County
B. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 8: Lubbock, Lubbock
County _
V. L. CORY, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 9: Pecos, Reeves County
' H. C. STEWART, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 10: Feeding and Breeding
Substation, College Station, Brazos
County

T. M. REDDELL, Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 11: Nacogdoches, Nacog-
doches County _
G. T. McNEss, Superintendent

CLERICAL ASSISTANTS

STATION ‘
C. A. CASE, Stenographer
MATTIE THOMAS, Stenographer
C. L. DURSLYIIailing Clerk

 

FEED CONTROL SERVICE
. DAISY LEE, Registration Cleric
T. C. STROETER, Stenographer
C. L. DURST, Tag and Shipping Clerk

Tln cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture.

*As of November 30, 1914.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Page.
Constituents of Feeding Stuffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5

Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ . . . . . . . . . . .. 5

Compositon of Texas Feeding Stuffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8

Digestion of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S

Utilization of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

Mineral Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11

Maintenance Ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12

The Fattening Ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13

Ration for Working Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l4

Ration for Growing Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15

The Feeding of Milk Cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16

Weights of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17

Description of Feeding Stuffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17

Animal ‘Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18

Corn Products ..; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19

Grades for Commercial Corn . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l!)

Moisture in Corn Chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21

Cottonseed Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21

Quality of Texas Cottonseed Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .. 22

Brewing Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23

Buckwheat Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23

Grades of Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23

Kafir Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24

Milo Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24

Rice Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24

Oat Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25

Straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25

Wheat Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Feeding Standards and Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26

Exact Calculation of a Ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27

Improving a Ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28

Reducing the Cost of a Ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29

Variation in the Composition of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30

Table 2, Composition of Texas Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30

Table 3, Coefiicients of Digestibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32

Table 4, Feeding Values of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34

BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL

THE COMPOSITION OF TEXAS FEEDING STUFFS AND THEIR
UTILIZATION.

BY e. s. FRAPS, PH. 1)., OHEMIST.

‘The object of this Bulletin is to give information concerning the
chemical composition, and the utilization of Texas feeding stuffs. The
information is based partly upon analyses, digestion experiments, and
other work done at this Station, and published in special bulletins from
time to time, and partly upon general principles of feeding animals,
and information secured elsewhere.

CONSTITUENTS OF FEEDING STUFFS.

For the purposes of a chemical analysis, the constituents of feeding
stuffs are divided into several groups; namely, protein, ether extract,
crude fiber, nitrogen-free extract, water, and ash. With the exception
of the Water, each of these groups comprises a number of separate and
distinct substances which vary in their digestibility and their value to
the animals. All vary in the relative quantities in which they occur
in different feeding stuffs. Hence the chemical composition alone is
not a suitable basis for compo/ring difie/revzt lt-inds of feeding stuffs, al-
though it furnishes a good basis on which to compare different samples
of the same kind of feeding stuff. While, for example, the chemical
analysis alone is not a fair basis on which to compare the relative value
of corn and cottonseed meal, it is a good basis on which to compare
several samples of corn with one another, or several samples of cotton-
seed meal with one another.

DEFINITION OF TERMS.

Protein is the constituent of food which forms fiesh, muscle, hair,
ligaments and other portions of the animal body, and is of great im-
portance. It replaces the wear and tear of the animal tissue and fur-
DlSl1€S'Il18.t6I‘I&l for additional flesh. Besides furnishing material for
tissue, protein may be burned in the body to produce heat, or it may

serve as a source of fat in case of a deficiency in carbohydrates and
fat in the food, accompanied by excess of protein. It is, however. a

costly source of heat and fat as a rule, though, under special condi-
tions, as will be pointed out later, protein may profitably be used for
such purposes.

T7aZz1e of Protein: Protein is the most expensive portion of a feed,
and feeds rich in protein usually sell for a higher price than feeds low
in protein, though the difference is not as great in Texas as in the
Northern States. With a given feed, the more protein it contains the
better its quality, compared with other feeds of the same kind. For
example, cottonseed meal containing 48 per cent. protein is of better
quality than cottonseed meal containing 4:5 per cent. protein. A low
protein content, accompanied by a high content of crude fiber, indicates

6 ’l‘nx.xs itcicrcurrcnxr. EXPERIMENT Srarronh

that the cottonseed meal contains an excessive amount of hulls. Pro-
tein alone, however, is not a suitable basis for comparing feeds of the
same kind. We must consider the fat or ether extract, and also the
water and ash to a certain extent. Neither can we justly compare the
values of feeds of different kinds on» a protein basis only. For example,
a cottonseed meal containing 45 per cent. protein does not have five
times the value of corn chops containing 9 per cent. protein. There
are other constituents of both cottonseed meal and corn chops (fat and
nitrogen-free extract), which are of value to the animal, a.nd corn chops
contains much more nitrogen-free extract than cottonseed meal. The
digestibility of the constituents is also of importance. This will be dis-
cussed on another page in this bulletin.

Fat (or Ether Elm-tract) is composed mainly of fats and oils in the
case of concentrated feeding stuffs, but, with fodder and hays, it is
often composed to a considerable extent of xvaxes, coloring matter, and
other substances (see Bulletin No. 150 of this Station). Fat is used
in the animal body as a source of body fat, and to furnish heat and
energy. The animal requires heat to keep its body warm and energy to
run the animal mechanism or to do outside Work. The beating of the
heat, chewing, movements of the intestines, and the voluntary and in-
voluntary muscular movements, require energy, which is furnished by
the oxidation of fats, carbohydrates or protein. One pound of fat is
equal to 2.25 pounds of carbohydrates.

Value of Fat: Fat ranks next to protein in its value as a feeding
stuff. The more protein and fat a given food contains, the better its
quality compared with other feeds of the same kind. Cottonseed meal
in which the percentage of protein and fat together make a total of
55 per cent. is of higher value than cottonseed meal containing a total
of 50 per cent. protein and fat added together. Cottonseed meal is
indeed often sold on the basis of its protein and fat content, as deter-
mined by chemical analysis, but this nrethod of comparison does not
sufiiciently consider the quantity of hulls present, as shown by the crude
fiber.

Protein alone is not a suitable standard for comparing feeds, and
protein and fat combined is also not sufficient. Two feeds of different
kinds should not be compared on the basis of their contents of protein
and fat, since other factors enter into consideration, which will be dis-
cussed later. _

Crude Fiber is that portion of the plant which resists the intense
action of certain acids, and alkalies. It consists mostly of the cell
walls and woody fiber of the plant, and is the most indigestible part of

the feed stuff. By means of fermentation in the intestines, crude fiber'

is digested to some extent in animals which chew the cud. The opera-
tion, however, consumes so much energy that a large proportion of the
value of the crude fiber is taken up by the process of digestion. Hogs
have little digestive DOWGI’ for crude fiber. Ha rs and fodders and other
5 . . .

roughage. generally contain much crude fiber, but concentrated feeding
stuffs compamtively’ small quantities of it.

Value 0f (Jrude Fiber: Crude fiber is the woody and less digestible
portion of the feeding stuff. The more crude fiber a feed contains,
the poorer its quality compared with other feeds of the same kind.

TEXAS FEEDING Srurrs: Courosirrox IKND UTILIZATION. '7

Feeding materials of low commercial value, and of low value to the
animal, such as straw, cottonseed hulls, rice hulls, oat hulls, corn cobs,

'etc., contain large quantities of crude fiber, and their addition to the

concentrated feeding stuff increases its content of crude fiber. Thus,
if the crude fiber in cottonseed meal exceeds certain limits, it means
that the meal is adulterated with cottonseed hulls. In a similar way,
crude fiber in excess of a given quantity may indicate corn cob or corn
bran in corn chops; rice hulls in rice bran, wheat bran in wheat shorts.
etc. The amount of crude fiber is a. muchmore sensitive indication of
low quality or of adulteration than is the protein and fat, since the
adulterants generally contain large quantities of crude fiber.

To repeat, the more crude fiber a feeding stuff contains, the poorer
its quality compared with other feeds of the same kind. This also
holds good to some extent in comparing feeds of different kinds, but
not entirely. In these cases, we must also consider the protein and fat
contents of the two kinds of feed. Thus, xvhczit bran contains consid-
erably more crude fiber than corn chops, but may have a higher feed-
ing value when protein. is worth more than fat and nitrogen-free extract.

lVitrogen-free Eartract is composed of. starches, sugars, dextrin, and
other substances of similar nature. These substances are mostly car-
bohydrates; that is, they contain carbon, and hydrogen and oxyrgen in
proportions to form water. Crude fiber is also composed largely of
carbohydrates. There are, however, other substances than carbohy-
drates in the nitrogen-free extract.

Value ‘of Nitrogen-free Extract: The nitrogen-free extract of con-
centrated feeding stuffs, such as corn chops, wheat bran, cottonseed
meal, kafir corn, is composed largely of sugars and starches, which are
readily digested and have considerable value to the animal.

The nitrogen-free extract of wheat skins, corn bran, corn cobs, rice
hulls, hays and straws, and similar feeds, is composed mostly of other
substances than the sugars and starches, and has a lower value to the
animals. The nitrogen-free extract of these two kinds of feeds, there-
fore, cannot he compared directly.

In general, we may say that the more protein, fat and nitrogen-free
extract, and the less crude fiber, ash and water, a given feed contains,
compared with other feed stuffs of the same kind, the better the quality
of the feeding stuff.

The same statement also holds in comparing feed stuffs of different
kinds, but not altogether; since, in comparing feeds of different- kinds,

~we must consider their digestibility and the productive value of the

digested materials.

Ash  the residue left when the plant is burned. It represents
mostly the mineral portion of the plant and the portion which comes
from the soil. although a part of the ingredients withdrawn from the
soil are volatilized during combustion. Nitrogen particularly is driven
out completely. Ash is valuable to the animal, inasmuch as it fur-
nishes the material for bones, a.nd some constituents of it, particularly
phosphoric acid and sulphur, are essential constituents of the animal
cell.

Value 0f Ash: Ash is necessarily present in feeding stuffs. An ex-
cessive amount of ash indicates contamination with dirt, sand, or other

,8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

mineral matter. Too little ash in the ration may give rise to disor-
ders, especially in young animals.

Water (moisture) is always ‘contained in feeding stuffs, but since it
is _furnished for the most part in liquid form, it cannot be considered
as having any special nutritive value. .

Value 0f lVater: The more water a feeding stuff contains, the less‘

of the other nutrients it contains, and the more liable it is to be in-
jured by heating, mold, etc. The water content of feeds varies. In
concentrates it runs from 7 to 12 per cent., but may be larger in fresh
grain. . -
Nittritive Ratio: The nutritive ratio- is the proportion of digesti-
ble protein to digestible non-protein. In calculating the nutritive ratio
of a feed or a ration, the percentage of digestible fat (ether extract)
is multiplied by 2.25, the product is added to the percentage of digesti-
ble nitrogen-free extract, and digestible crude fiber, and the sum is
divided by the percentage of digestible protein. The quotient is the
nutritive ratio. If we say the nutritive ratio of a feed is 1.8, it
means that the feed contains one part digestible protein to eight parts
digestible nitrogen-free extract. -

The fat is multiplied by 2.25, for the reason that it is a more con-
centrated form of nourishment than crude fiber or nitrogen-free ex-
tract, and has 2.25 times as much value to the animal.

COMPOSITION OF TEXAS FEEDING STUFFS.

The table near the end of this bulletin gives the average composi-
tion of Texas feeding stuffs based upon our best present knowledge.
The figures for the concentrated feeds are, for the most part, based
upon analyses made for the Texas Feed Control for several years past.
The figures for the hays and roughages are based partly upon Texas
analyses, partly on analyses made at other stations.

DIGESTION OF FEEDS.

Digestion converts food into forms which, dissolved in water, pass
through the digestive organs, and can be utilized by the animal body.
Digestive organs of different animals have diflierent sizes and capaci-
ties and are adapted to varied kinds of food. The digestive organs of
cows, sheep, goats, etc., are comparatively large and are suited for the
utilization of large quantities of feeds containing comparatively small
quantities of nourishment. The digestive organs of the dog, pig, and

' similar animals, are much smaller and are not suited to work over

bulky feeds, such as hays, fodders or straws. The digestive organs of
the horse, while of largecapacity, do not have the capacity of the
ruminants such as the cow _; and, for this reason, the horse has a lower
digestive power and is less well suited forthe utilization of the coarser
feeding stuffs. The horse is also unable to chew his food over again.
The differences in the digestive power of the horse and ruminants is
most marked for crude fiber, for which the horse has only a low di-
gestive power.
A number of losses occur in the process of digestion.

TEXAS FEEDING STUEEs: COMPOSITION AND UTILIZATION. 9

.In the first place, that part of the food that is not digested passes
through the body and is eliminated in the solid excreta.

In the second place, a. portion of the food is converted into gases,
such as marsh gas, and carbon dioxide. Since the food converted into
gases disappears during the process of digestion, it obviously has no
value to the animal organism.

In the third place, there is a loss due to the work required for the
digestion. The chewing of the food, movement of the body, secretion
of the digestive juices, and the various operations involved in digestion,
consume a portion of the value of the food. '

After all these losses have been deducted, what remains is the net
value of the food to the animals. As stated above, animals vary some-
what in their ability to digest food. There are also differences in in-
dividuals, due to bad teeth, the condition of the digestive organs, etc.
The composition of the ration also has some efiect on the digestion.

If the proportion of non-protein to protein is excessive, the digesti-
bility of the ration is decreased. With pigs, the nutritive ratio may
be 1:12 with no decrease in digestibility, but, with other animals, an
increase in the non-proteids which increases the nutritive ratio be-
yond 1:10, results in decreased digestibility of the ration. The addi-
tion of feed rich in digestible protein, increases the digestibility of such

a ratio, until the nutritive ratio becomes 1 :10, or, in the case of pigs, _

1:12, after which additional quantities of protein are of no_ advantage
in increasing digestibility.

UTILIZATION 0E FOODS.

As stated above, when food is digested, there are considerable losses,
due to undigested food, to losses as gases, and to the work involved in
digestion or metabolic processes consequent to the digestion. The re-
mainder of the food represents the net value of the food to the animal.
The net food value may be defined as the nourishment that is secured
from the food after deducting all losses involved in the digestive pro-
cesses or digestive metabolism, including the work of digestion.

This net nutriment must, first of all, be used for taking care of the
bodily needs of the animal and then the excess, if any, may be used
for productive purposes.

The animal must have a certain amount of food with which to build
up the muscular tissues which are wasted away through life’s processes.
The animal must also have food supplies to keep the body warm and
to maintain heat. The quantity of heat required will depend to some
extent upon the temperature of the surroundings, and some of the heat
may be furnished by the energy used in digestion, which appears as
heat. The animal must also have food to take care of the various
bodily movements of the lungs and body organs, and movements of the
body which are essential to the life and well being of the animal.

The needs of the animal may be grouped into two classes.

First, tissue-building‘ materials or food needed for building of tissue
or for the repair of tissue consumed during the life processes of the
animal. '

10 Texas AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Second, energy-forvn/ing nzaierials, which may be used for heat,
energy, or stored up as fat, or in the non-protein constituents of milk.

’l‘he protein of food is its only constituent which can be used for
the repair oi’ the animal tissue or for the building of lean meat. It is,
l1o\ve\i'er, required only‘ in comparatively small amounts by full-grown
animals. Growing animals, that are building tissues rapidly, require
large quantities 0t protein. Animals giving milk also require quan-
titics of protein, on account of the protein contained in milk.

The other constituents of the food. provide energy for heating the
animal, for digestion, for bodily movements, or for the production of
milk or fat. The nitrogen-free extract, the fat, and the crude fiber,
may all be used for energyr, fat, etc., in this way. If an excess of pro-
tein is fed beyond the needs of the body for the other purposes men-
tioned above, the protein may also be used for production of energy.
Protein, including the tissues of the body, may also be used for energy
when the ration fed does not supply a sufiicient quantity. The animal
then loses flesh.

It is usually not economical to feed protein to be used for energy
purposes, since protein is, ordinarily, somewhat more expensive than the
other forms of feed. There are, however, conditions under which it is
profitable to feed protein for energy purposes. This is particularly
tho case in some parts of the South, including 'I‘eX-as, where cottonseed
meal may be fed for its productive value or value for producing fat or
energy, rather than for its content of protein. In fact, the price of
cottonseed meal is a.t times such that its protein value may be disre-
garded.

PRODUOTIVE VALUES OF FEEDS.

The value of a feed, for building or repair of flesh, is measured by
means of its content of digestible protein.

The value of a feed for heat, bodily movements, or energy, or for
productive purposes, is not so easily measured. The best measure that
we have at present is the quantity of fat that it will produce upon a
fattening animal. This we call the productive value of the food, or its
fat-producing value, and it indicates not only the quantity of a fat that
the food may be able to produce, but the relative value of the food for
other purposes, such as for work, for energy, for uses of the animal
body, etc.

The productive value of a food is experimentally ascertained by first
feeding an animal a ration which should produce a little fat and esti-
mating exactly how much fat is produced with this ration. Then to
this ration the food to be tested is added, and the quantity of fat pro-
duced is again estimated exactly. This cannot be done by weighing
the animal, as such a method is too crude for exact Work. The differ-
ence between the first quantity of fat p-roduced and the second quan-
tity of fat produced, shows how much tat the food is capable of produc-
ing, when it is fed to an animal that is already receiving enough food
to take care of its bodily needs. It is then a simple matter to calcu-
late the fat-producing value or productive value of the feed tested.

The productive value, stated in terms. of fat, is the most advanced
method of measuring the value of a feed stufl’. In the calculation of

TEXAS FEEDING Sfrurrs: COMPOSITION AND UTILIZATION. 11

rations for animals, it was formerly assumed that the digestible nutri-
ents of one food are equally as good as the digestible nutrients of any
other food. As a matter of fact, this is not true. Different feeds vary
considerably in the value of the digested nutrients contained in them,
due to differences i11 losses and the Work involved in eheiving and di-
gestion. The use of the productive value is a decided step foiwvard in
the calculation of rations for feeding animals.

According to Kellner, 100 pounds of ether extract of roughages will
produced 47.44 pounds of fat on a fattening animal; 100 pounds starch
will produce 24.8 loounds fat; 100 pounds of protein will produce 24.8
pounds fat; 100 pounds crude fiber will laroduce 24.8 pounds of fat.
These, then, are the productive values of the constituents of feeds.

If we assume that the digestible nutrients of all feeds have an equal
value, we can calculate, from the above figures, that a certain wheat
straw should produce 10.4 pounds of fat. But, by experiment, it was
found that 100 pounds of this particular wheat straw produced only
2.1 pounds of fat. Hence the value calculated merely from the pro-
ductive value of the nutrients without correction is Iitterly incorrect.
On the other hand, the fat produced from cottonseed meal was found
to be equal to that calculated. For this reason, it is plain that the di-
gested constituents of wheat straw are quite different in productive
value from the digested constituents of cottonseed meal, and correction
must be made for the nature of the feed.

Other tests have given similar results, and proven conclusively that
the digested nutrients of one feed may have a different value to the
animal, pound for pound, from ‘the digested nutrients of another feed.

It is quite possible that different animals may have different powers
of utilizing the digested net nutrients of feeds, and that some animals
may put on a. different quantity of fat from the steers used by liellner
in ascertaining the Productive values. This has indeed been found to
be the case with pigs, which produce a larger amount of fat, than the
steers, from the same digested nutrients; but the quantities of fat pro-
duced were in proportion to the productive values as determined on
steers.

It is also possible that, for other energy uses, the value of a feed
may not be equal to its productive value, but more probably would be
in proportion to it. That is to say, the quantity of fat that the feed
may produce on a fattening animal, may not represent the absolute
value of the feed to animals for other purpose, but its value may be in
proportion to the productive value, or fat formed.

MINERAL MATTER.

The full-grown animal does not need much mineral material, but
growing animals require certain quan'tities of ash, for the production
of bone, and also for storing away as part of the constituents of their
flesh. Animals giving milkirequire ash for the purpose of milk forma-
tion. The most important constituents of the ash are phosphoric acid
and lime.

Salt is found in digestive juices, and a certain quantity of salt ap-
pears to be very necessary to the welfare of animals. A moderate
amount of salt increases the retention of protein by the animal body,

12 TExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

which results in an increased production of flesh. Steers of average
weight require about one ounce of salt per day, and horses from one-
half to one ounce. Steers on a fattening "ration may require as much
as two ounces of salt per day or even three ounces of salt per day. An
excess of salt is undesirable.

Growing animals Which do not receive sufiicient lime and phosphoric '

acid, in their food, suffer from the deficiency. The bones become Weak,
the limbs and spinal column bend, and the animal does not develop
properly. Pigs especially are liable to suffer in this way, because the
food ordinarily fed to them in many cases does not contain a sufficient
quantity of lime.

In restricted localities, the food ordinarily fed to animals does not
contain sufficient lime, and the bones of the animal are poorly de-
veloped. In addition, the animals suffer from various diseases, which
diseases, on investigation, have been found due to the deficiency of lime
or phosphoric acid in the food fed.

A deficiency of lime in the food may be supplied by the use of pre-
eipitated chalk.

Lime and phosphoric acid together may be supplied bymeans of
ground bone, or phosphate rock. We expect to discuss this matter fur-
them in subsequent bulletins.

MAINTENANCE RATION.

The maintenance ration is a ration which provides for the bodily
needs of the animal, without supplying any excess to be used for fat,
milk, Work, or other productive purposes.

Horses may be placed upon a maintenance ration during periods of
idleness.

Cattle may be placed upon a maintenance ration between the end of
the fattening period and the time of sale; also during periods before
the fattening period begins, if, for any reason, it is desirable to delay
the fattening process.

Breeding stock may at times be placed on a maintenance ration.

The maintenance ration is also a basis for the other rations, since it
is important to be able to calculate the portion of the ration which may
be used for productive purposes.

Young animals may not normally be placed upon maintenance rations,
since growth is a normal condition of the young, and the maintenance
ration does not allow for growth.

The amount of food required for maintenance depends, to a consid-
erable extent, upon the temperature. The maintenance ration is usu-
ally based upon a temperature of 64° F. At this ‘temperature, a con-
siderable portion of the needs of the animal are for heat to keep up the
body temperature. As the temperature of the surroundings rise, less
heat is required, until at 95° F. no heat from ‘the food is needed to keep
up the body temperature. As the temperature becomes lower than 64°
F, on which the maintenance ration is based, the requirements of the
animal increase, and a decided decrease in the temperature of the sur-
roundings may cause a great increase in maintenance requirements.

This explains the great suffering which comes among the range ani-

 
 

TEXAS FEEDING Strurrs: COMPOSITION AND UTILIZATION. 13

ma-ls, when snow at the same time decreases available forage, and in-
creases the requirements of the animal.

The temperature of the drinking Water has the same effect. Its
temperature must be raised to that of the animal body, and the amount
of heat required to do this is easily calculated. Suppose that an ox
drinks his usual quantity of water, but at a temperature of 41° F.; the
amount of feed required to heat this Water to body temperature is equal
to about 25 per cent. of his maintenance ration. That is to say, the
needs of the animal are increased to this extent. Animals which are
kept at a. comfortable temperature, but drink colder water, thus need
additional food for maintenance, for the purpose of Warming the water.

A fat animal requires for maintenance more food, in proportion to
its weight, than a thin animal.

THE FATTENING RATION.

4
The gain in Weight during the process of fattening is largely fat in
the chemical sense. The nutritive ratio of the gain of full-grown ani-
mals is about 1:20; that is, there is almost 1 pound of protein gained
for every 20 pounds of non-protein including fat x225). On an aver-
age, the gain in weight is two-thirds fat, the remainder being water,
protein, ash, etc. Growing animals put on more protein (flesh) than
full-grown animals, and have greater requirements for protein.

Only the excess of food over the quantity; necessary for maintenance-

can be used for the actual increase in Weight of the fattening animal.

Anything Which increases or decreases the quantity of food required for

maintenance will thus decerase or increase the quantity available for
gain in Weight. .

For the processes of digestion, animals use energy, which is finally
liberated as heat. This heat may be used for Warming the animal
body, if needed for that purpose. Since fattening animals digest a
larger ration than animals on maintenance, they have a. larger excess

of heat resulting from digestion of the larger ration, and may be kept.

in quarters having a lower temperature, Without an increase in mainte-
nance requirements. -

In warm Weather, fattening animals may have trouble in disposing-

of the excess of digestive heat. Instinctively, they then consume less
food, which explains why the fattening process is not successful, as a
rule, during hot Weather.

On the other hand, if the fattening animal is exposed to too cold
a temperature, or has too cold drinking Water, his requirements for

maintenance will be increased, less food will be available for fattening,
and the result Will show in a decrease in the gain of Weight. In“

cold climates, it has been found desirable to Warm drinking Water,
especially for hogs.

The fatter the animal, the more food is required for maintenance,
and the les-s the proportion of the ration that is available for fat.
Hence the cost of the gain increases With the fatness of the animal.

As has just been said, only the excess of food over that required for
maintenance can be used for fattening. The larger this excess within
the limit of the ability of the animal to utilize it, the larger is the-

14 'l‘nx.»xs Aearounrunim EXPERIMENT STATION.

proportion of the ration which may be used for fattening, and the less
is the cost of the gain in Weight per unit of food.

Thus it is more economical to feed a heavy ration to a given animal
than a light ration. The production of fat is proportionally greater.
For example, if a steer whose maintenance requirements are 1.5 pounds
productive value, is fed a ration equal to 2 pounds productive value,
only .5 pound of food is available for production and hence only one-
fourth of the ration produces fat. But if this animal should be able
to use 3 pounds of productive value, the amount in excess of the main-
tenance requirement would be 1.5 pounds and this is one-half of the
ration used in actual production of fat. Thus the gain produced by
the second ration would be three times the gain by the first, and the
cost of the gain produced by the first ration would be nearly twice the
cost of that produced by the second. In other words, the cost of fat-
ttening may be reduced by feeding a ration which is as heavy as the
animal ca11 profitably utilize. Too heavy a ration, on the other hand,
reduces the production of fat, since the excess interferes with the
normal processes of the animal and makes the fattening process less
successful. _

The nutritive ratio is usually considered to be of considerable im-
portance in calculating the ration for feeding. As a matter of fact,
this ratio may vary between wide limits without affecting the process
of fattening. The nutritive ratio should not be wider than 1 to 10
for cattle or 1 to 12 for swine, because in such a case the digestibility
of the food is lowered. It should not be higher than from 1 to 4,
Imecatise such excess of protein is not good for the welfare of the
body. Between these limits, the nutritive ratio may vary.

As protein is expensive, it is usually better to figure the ration for
the lowest quantity of protein. In Texas, however, the price of cotton-
seed meal is often so low that one should use narrow nutritive rations
and more protein.

This matter may, however, be taken care of in the feeding ration,
in a different way, not by the nutritive ratio, but by regulating the
total quantity of protein.

The quantity of fat fed is not of importance, provided that it does
not exceed one pound fat per thousand pounds of live weight per day.
Any excess over this quantity is liable to cause digestive disturbance-s
and so interfere with fattening. Pigs can use larger quantities of fat
than this amount, but even with these animals the quantity of fat
should not exceed one and a half pounds per 1000 pounds of live
weight.

WORKING ANIMALS.

The energy used for work comes directly or indirectly from the food.
Food or body material is burned in the animal whenever work is done
as coal is burned in an engine. The working animal should. be fed
such quantity of food as will maintain the body, and, in addition, the
quantity that will supply the necessarv energy for the quantity of
work required. The ration must, therefore, depend on the amount and
kind of work. '

We have seen that only the excess of food over that required for
maintenance can be usedfor the process of fattening. The same is

TEXAS FEEDING STUFEs: COMPOSITION AND UTILIZATION. 15

true for working animals. It is, therefore, more economical to feed a
heavy ration and secure a large proportion of it in Work, than to feed
a light ration and secure only a small proportion in work. Also, the
animal, when working, should receive a heavier ration than during
periods of idleness.

Animals vary considerably in their capacities to do work. The confor-
mation of the animal determines how much energy he will have to use
to do a particular kind of work. For this reason, different types of
animals are better adapted to the different kinds of Work. Those
adapted to the work can use the energy of the food better than the
other types not so well adapted.

GROYVING ANIMALS.

Growth is a normal condition for a young animal. It is not nor-
mally possible to put a _young animal on a maintenance ration. The
animal must secure enough food to provide for the proper growth of
the flesh and enough mineral matter for the bony skeleton. A young
animal gains more weight in proportion than an older animal, evcn on
a. fattening ration. Young animals do not require less food for main-
tenance, but they eat more in proportion to their weight, and they
are thus able to store a greater proportion of the food eaten. It thus
follows that the greatest gain in weight for the quantity of food eaten
occurs with the younger animal, and the production of flesh requires
more food as the animal grows older. This is shown by the following
table, giving the quantity of food required for pound of gain at different
weights:

PIGS. .
weight Zifniflofffisf 235??‘
Below 100 lbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400
100 to 150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .482
2-00 to 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OI498

250 to 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .511

Similar results could be given for other animals.

The young animals intended for fattening purposes should be fed
more liberally than those to be used for milk or xvork. Young animals
are very sensitive to injurious influences and they require careful feed-
ing, good food and protection from injurious influences. The food
should be furnished often and regularly, clean vessels should be used
for drinking water, and stalls should be dry and well ventilated. The
animal should be supplied with clean dry bedding. Cold, Wet and
drafts should be avoided.

The calf requires from forty to sixty grams of phosphoric acid per
day. The pig requires about twelve grams each of lime and phos-
phoric acid per day. These are needed to build up the skeleton. If
not supplied in sufficient quantities, the animal will not develop healthily.
The mineral matter deficient in the food may be supplied by means
of pho-sphate rock, finely ground; by ground bone; or, if lime only is
needed, by precipitated chalk.

16 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

THE FEEDING OF MILK COWS.

Milk cows are fed for the purpose of producing milk or butter fat.
As is the case with other animals, only the excess of feed over that
required for maintenance can be used for productive purposes. There-
fore, the greater the quantity of the excess, within the capacity of the
animal to utilize it, the greater is the return per unit of feed stufi
consumed. In other words, heavy rations, within the capacity of the
animal are more profitable than light rations. Furthermore, animals
that can utilize heavy rations and can work them into milk, are more
profitable than animals that can utilize only a small excess over the
maintenance ration.

There is a. great difierence in the power of cows to utilize the pro—
-ductive values of feed stuif. Different individuals differ Widely. Some
cows are unprofitable and do not give sufficient milk or butter fat to
pay for the feed which they consume. Other cows are highly profitable.
Both kinds of cows may be found in the same herd. It is, therefore,
important‘ that the dairyman and the butter manufacturer should
test the individual members of the herd and weed out those which 3T6
unprofitable or give only a small profit. They should be replaced with
cows which have better abilities to utilize the feed stuff or to consume
a larger quantity of food in excess of the maintenance ration and to
turn it into milk or butter fat.

The composition and quantity of milk depends on the breed, the i11di-
vidual animal, the period of lactation, frequency of milking, and other
conditions. Milk cows may be divided into two groups; the members
of one group give relatively large quantities of milk with a moderate
fat content; and the members of the other group give less milk but it
contains a higher percentage of butter fat. The amount and composi-
tion of milk given by the same cow varies considerably from day to» day.
"The amount of milk given. decreases with the time that the animal has
‘been giving milk, but the decrease varies with the animal. With some
cows, the dcrease is regular and gradual; while others give the same
-quantity for a long time and then fall off rapidly.

The milk-secreting organs are closely related to the nervous system.
Thus rough treatment, insufficient bedding, exposure to cold tempera-
tures, and other unfavorable conditions, will decrease both the quantity
and the quality of the milk. ‘

The quantity of milk and its composition depends on the individual
capacity of the animal, but it also depends on the quantity and quality
of the food fed. It is not possible to push the production beyond the
limits conditioned by the nature of the animal, but a deficiency of food
will decrease the quantity of milk, shorten the period of lactation and
may permanently injure the productiveness of the animal. When an
animal is fed on a sufficient ration, and is changed to a ration con-
taining insufiicient food, there will be a reduction in the quantity and
the quality of the milk.

Feeding standards for milk cows are based on the quantity of milk
given and the maintenance requirements of the animal.

Milk contains lime and phosphoric acid. Ten pounds of milk re-
quire twenty-five grams each of lime and phosphoric acid and the cow
requires about forty-five grams of lime and twenty-two grams of phos-

TEXAS FEEDING Srurrs: COMPOSITION AND UTILIZATION. 1'7

phoric acid per thousand pounds for Inaintenance. A deficiency in lime

and phosphoric acid may be supplied by a precipitated phosphate of lime,

or by ground bone, or by finely ground phosphate rock.

In feeding milk cows the concentrate may be adjusted by having
different size measures for the different animals or by giving different
numbers of the same measure of the concentrate to the different animals.
The roughage remains constant. It is thus possible to adjust the food
to the capacity of the animal and not to feed an excess. An excess
is also injurious to milk cows, since the excess may go into fat and
decrease the period of lactation.

WEIGHTS OF FEEDS.

The following table, from Farmers’ Bulletin No. 22 of the U. S.
Department of Agriculture, shows the weights of certain feeds per
quart:

Corn, cracked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 lb. 12 oz.

Corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 lb. 8 oz.

Corn and cob meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 lb. 6 oz.

Oats, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 lb. . . . . .

Oats, ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 oz.

Wheat, whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 lb. 14 oz.

Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 oz.

Wheat bran, co-arse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 oz.

Wheat middlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 lb. 2 oz.

Wheat middlings, coarse ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 oz.

Rye bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 oz.

Gluten meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 lb. 11 oz.

Gluten feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 lb. 3 oz.

Linseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 lb. 2 oz.

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 lb. 8 oz.

k \

Come of these materials, especially by-products like wheati bran,

.vary considerably in Weight, and the above figures can not be regarded

as strictly accurate for all case-s. Weighing is, of course, always the
safer way where it is desired to feed quite definite amounts.

DESCRIPTION OF FEEDING STUFFS.

The average composition of Texas feeding stuffs are given in Table
No. 2. The coefficients of digestibility are given in Table No. 3. The
feeding values of the various feeding stuffs are given in Table No. 4:.
There is a considerable variation in the composition of feeds, and it is
necessary to recognize this fact in applying the tables to feeding condi-
tions. We will not- discuss these variations in detail in this bulletin.
It is also not our intention to discuss all of the feeding stuffs, but we
shall make some observations upon some of the more important feedr
used in Texas.

ALFALFA MEAL.

Alfalfa meal is defined by the Association of Feed Control Officials
as the entire alfalfa hay ground, and it should not contain an admix-
tare of ground alfalfa straw or other foreign material. -

' 18 Texas AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Strictly speaking, alfalfa meal should be ground to a meal, so that
there are no long pieces of the alfalfa stems. Some of the alfalfa meal,
so-ealletl, on ‘the market should be designated as chopped alfalfa rather
than alfalfa meal.

According to the investigations of Kellner, grinding a hay decreases
the labor of chewing, and increases the feeding value left available to
the animal. We have attempted to bring out this difference in the
feeding values shown in the table. The difference is not in the digesti-
ble protein, but in the productive value.

The National Hay Association, July, 1914, adopted the following
grades for alfalfa hay:

“Choice Alfalfae-Shall be reasonably fine, leafy alfalfa, of bright
green color, properly cured, sound, sweet, and Well baled.

“No. 1. Alfalfa—Shall be reasonably corase alfalfa of a. bright green
color, or reasonably fine leafy alfalfa of a good color and may contain
two per cent. of foreign grasses, 5 per cent. of air bleached hay on
outside of bale allowed. but must be sound and well baled.

“Standard Alfalfa—-M.ay be green color, of coarse or medium texture,
and may contain 5 per cent. foreign matter. Or it may be green color,
of coarse or medium texture, 2O per cent. bleached and 2 per cent. for-
eign matter. Or it may be greenish cast of fine stem and clinging
foliage, and may contain 5 per cent. foreign matter. All to be sound,
sweet. and WGll baled. a

“No. 2. Alfalfa—Shall be of any sound, sweet, and well baled al-
falfa, not good enough for standard, and may contain 10 per cent.
foreign matter.

“No. 2. Alfalfa—May contain 25 per cent. stack spotted hay, but
must be dry, and not contain more than 8 per cent. of foreign matter.
Or it may be of green color, and may contain 50 per cent. of foreign
matter. Or it may be set alfalfa, and may contain 5 per cent. foreign
matter. All reasonably well baled.

“N o Grade Alfalfa—Shall include all alfalfa not good enough for
No. 3.” '

Alfalfa hay graded as No. 3 would not be suitable for the manufac-
ture of alfalfa meal.

ANIMAL PRODUCTS.

The following are some definitions of animal products adopted by the
Association of Feed Control Officials:

Blood Meal is ground dried blood.

Oraclclings are the residue after partially extracting the fats and oils
from the animal tissue. If they bear a name descriptive of their kind,
composition or origin, they must correspond thereto.

Digested Tankagc is the residue from animal tissue exclusive of 1100f
and horn specially prepared for feeding purposes by tanking under live
steam, drying under high heat, and suitable grinding. If it contains
any considerable amount of bone, it must be designated Digested Meat
and Bone Tankage.

Meat Scrap and Meat Meal are the ground residue from animal tis-
sue exclusive of hoof and bone. If they contain any considerable
amount of bone, they must be designated Meat and Bone Scrap, or Meat

TEXAS FEEDING Srrurrs: CoIIrosIrIoN AND UTILIZATION. 19

and Bone Meal. If they bear a name descriptive of their kind, com-
position and origin, they must correspond thereto.

CORN PRODUCTS.

The following definition and standards for corn products have been
adopted by the Texas Feed Control (Bulletin No. 164) :

Corn Chops consists of the pure grain of corn from sound seeds and
good quality, chopped. It should contain not less than 9 per cent. of
protein, 3.5 per cent. of fat, and not more than 3 per cent. of crude
fiber.

Far Corn Chops is husked corn and cob chopped, with not a greater
proportion of cob than occurs in the ear corn in its natural state. It
must contain not less than 8 per cent. of protein, 3 per cent. of fat,
and not more than 8 per cent. of crude fiber. The percentages of grain
and cob must be shown on the tax tag.

Ear Corn Meal corresponds to ear corn chops. The percentages of
grain and cob must be shown on the tax tag.

Corn Bran is the outer covering of the corn grain, and must contain i

no less than 8 per cent. of protein, 3 per cent. of fat, and not more
than 12 per cent. of crude fiber.

Hominy Feeds, Hominy Meal 0r Hominy Chops, is a Inixtuife of the
bran coating, the germ and a part of the starchy portion of the corn
kernel, obtained in the Inanufacture of. hominy grits for human con-
sumption. It must contain net less than 1O per cent. of protein, 10
per cent. of fat, and not more than 7 per cent. of crude fiber.

Corn Feed Meal is the sifting obtained in the manufacture or’ cracked
corn and table meal made from the whole grains. It must contain not
less than 8 per cent. of protein, 3 per cent. of fat, and 1Iot more than 4
per cent. 0f crude fiber.

The following definitions of corn products not sold at present to any
extent in Texas have been adopted by the Association of Feed Control
OrTicials of the United States:

Corn Germ Meal is a product in the manufacture of starch, glucose
and other corn products and is the germ la'__yer from which a part of the
corn oil has been extracted.

Grits are the hard, flinty portions of Indian Corn Without hulls and
germ.

Corn Gluten Meal is that part of commercial shelled corn that re-
mains after the separation of the larger part of the starch, the germ
and the bran by the processes employed in the manufacture of corn
starch and glucose. It may or may not contaiin corn solubles.

Corn Gluten Feed is that portion of commercial shelled corn that
remains after the separation of the larger part of the starch and the
germ by the processes employed in the manufacture of corn starch and
glucose. It may or may not contain corn solubles.

D GRADES FOR COMMEERCIAL CORN.

The Secretary of Agriculture fixed and promulgated the following
grades of corn to take effect on July 1, 1914:

2O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Maximum Percentage of—
rs-o ' ~33 -' w»
2 3 __ _ . a) C! 2
51"$-%El Moisture. Damaged Corn.  é g? 
F‘ W O 3 _,_, Q
'3  E g3” '01! UR
o m C1 ° 5 i?
ca?» 5B5 s2 fi-i 3
ass sgss 3:356
EVE Qion P@QU@
No. 1 . . . . . . . 14.0 2 Exclusive of heat-damaged or mahog- f 1 2

I¢o.2 . . . . . .. 15.5 4 any kerneb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 3

Nm3 . . . . . .. 115 2 4

110.4 . . . . . .. 19.5 8 hday indude heabdanb (5 percent 2 4

I€0.5 . . . . . .. 21.5 10 aged orrnahogany ker- 1 percent 3 5

110.6 . . . . . .. 23.0 15 new notto exceed..... 3-percent 5 7
“Sample”. . . See Genera Rule No. 6 for sample grade.

GENERAL RULES.

1. The corn in grades N0. 1 to No. 5, inclusive, must be sweet.

2. White corn, all grades, shall be at least 98 per cent. white.

3. Yellow corn, all grades, shall be at least 95 per cent. yellow.

4. Mixed corn, all grades, shall include corn of various colors not
coming within the limits for color as provided for under white or yellow
corn.

5. In addition to the various limits indicated, No. 6 corn may be
musty, sour, and may also include corn of inferior quality, such as im-
mature and badly blistered.

6. . All corn that does not meet the requirements of either of the siX
numerical grades by reason of an excessive percentage of moisture, dam-
aged kernels, foreign matter, or “cracked” corn, or corn that is hot, heat
damaged, fire burnt, infested with live weevils, or otherwise of distinctly
low quality, shall be classed as sample grade.

7. In No. 6 and sample grade, reasons for so grading shall be stated
an the inspectofs certificate.

8. Finely broken corn shall include all broken particles of corn that
will pass through a perforated metal sieve with round holes nine sixty-
fourths of an inch in diameter.

9. “Cracked” corn shall include all coarsely broken p-ieces of kernels
that will pass through a perforated metal sieve with round holes one-
quarter of an inch in diameter, except that the finely broken corn, as
provided for under Rule No. A8,. shall not be considered as “cracked”
corn.

10. It is understood that the damaged corn; the foreign material,
including pieces of cob, dirt, finely broken corn, other grains, etc. ; and
the coarsely broken or “cracked” corn, as provided for under the various
grades, shall be such as occur naturally in corn when handled under
good commercial conditions.

11. Moisture percentages, as provided for in these grade specifica- -

tions, shall conform to results obtained by the standard method and
tester, as described in Circular No. 72, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S.
Department of Agriculture.

TEXAS FEEDING STUFrs: COMPOSITION AND UTILIZATION. 21

MOISTURE IN CORN CHOPS.

It has been pointed out in Bulletin No. 152 of this Station that corn
or corn chops containing an excess of moisture is very liable to heat
under Texas conditions, and the consumption of such heated corn tor
corn chops is dangerous to horses or mules. If corn chops contains
over 14 per cent. moisture, it is almost certain to spoil in Texas during
the warm months. As the differences in the grades of corn specified in
the preceding table depend chiefly upon the quantity" of water in them,
and all exceed 14 per cent. except No. 1, it follows that No. 1 corn
should be purchased for the Texas trade, or lower grades should be
dried, or so stored that they will dry out, before being manufactured
into corn chops, or exposed to warm temperatures. Corn chops con-
taining over 10 percent. of moisture should be well ventilated, or
handled, if in bulk, so that it can dry out, especially during warm
periods, otherwise it is likely to heat.

COTTONSEED PRODUCTS.

Cottonseed meal is composed of the kernels of the cottonseed after
the oil has been extracted and the resulting cake ground up. As the
separation of the kernels and hulls in the manufacturing process is not
complete, cottonseed meal will contain some hulls, but any intentional
addition of hulls or manipulation to allow hulls to enter the kernels,
should be regarded as. an adulteration. Some manufacturers make
different artificial grades of cottonseed meal, by changing the screens
so as to allow more or less hulls to enter with the cake. ‘Some manu-
facturers also attempt to make a cottonseed meal uniform in protein
or nitrogen content, by varying the separation of hulls and kernels
with different lots of seed. This practice is clearly an adulteration
of cottonseed meal, since the hulls are intentionally added for the
purpose of reducing the quality or strength of the cottonseed meal.
States ivhich permit the sa.le of cottonseed meal upon a protein and fat
basis alone. do not protect their citizens from this form of adultera-
tion, and the cottonseed meal placed upon such markets is usually the
lowest in protein allowed by the law, and therefore contains as much
hulls as allowed. A moderate limit to the crude fiber allowed, limits
the quantity of hulls which the manufacturers can introduccgand pro-
tects the consumer against excessive adulteration with hulls. It must be
said, however, that some manufacturers will put in the maximum amount
of hulls possible under the laws.

The following definitions and standards for cottonseed products have
been adopted by the Texas Feed Control. (Bulletin 164.)

Cottonseed M gal is composed of the decorticated kernels of cottonseed,
free from excess of hulls and other foreign materials. It should contain
not less than 43 per cent. of protein, '7 per cent. of fat (not less than
50 per cent. of protein and fat combined) and not over 9 per cent. of
crude fiber.

Cold Pressed Cotton Seed is the product obtained by subjecting un-
decorticated cottonseed to the cold pressure for the extraction of the
oil, and includes the entire cottonseed, less the lint and oil extracted.

Ground Cold Pressed Cotton Seed is cold pressed cottonseed, ground.

22 TExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

According to the rules of the Texas Cottonseed Crushers Associa-
tion Chotce Cottonseed Zlleal or cake must contain 55 per cent. com-
bined protein and fat, and must be reasonably bright in color, sweet in
odor, and free from excess of lint and hulls.

Prime Cottonseed Cake or meal shall contain 51 per cent. of pr0—
tein and fat combined, of sweet odor, variably loright in color, reason-
ably free from excess of lint.

No cottonseed meal or cake may be sold or offered under the rules
of the Texas Cottonseed Crushers Association for sale for consump-
tion in Texas which does not complywith the State Pure Food Law.

The following definitions have been adopted by the Association of
Feed Control Officials of North America. The definition of prime,
choice, and good meal are practically those of the "Interstate Crushers
Association. The definition of cottonseed meal was endorsed by a
committee representing the Interstate Association.

Cottonseed Jlleal is a product of the cottonseed only, composed prin-
cipally of the kernel with such portion of the hull as is necessary in
the manufacture of oil; provided that nothing shall be recognized
as cottonseed meal that does not conform to the foregoing ‘definition
and that does not contain at least 36 per cent. protein.

Choice Cottonseed Zlleal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted,
perfectly sound and sweet in odor, yellow, free from excess of lint,
and must contain at least 41 per cent. of protein.

Prime Cottonseed Meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted,
of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, yellow, not brown or reddish,
free from excess of lint, and must contain at least 38.6 per cent. pro-
tein.

Good Cottonseed Meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted,
of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color and must contain at least
36 per cent. of protein.

It will be noted that the definition of the Association of Feed Control
Oflicials do not permit the adulteration of cottonseed meal with hull.
If the meal contains any more hulls than is necessary in the manufacture
of the oil, it is no longer cottonseed meal under the definition given,
but is cottonseed meal and hulls. That is to say, this definition de-
clines to recognize the addition of hulls or manipulation of screens,
which has for its object the introduction of hulls to lower the grade
of the meal.

QUALITY 0F TEXAS COTTONSEED MEAL.

As pointed out in Bulletin '70 of this Station, Texas cottonseed meal
is richer in protein than meal from other states. This is recognized by
the Texas and the Interstate Crushers’ Associations in the definitions
just given, as the Texas standards are materially higher than the inter-
state. The composition and relative values of choice, prime, and average
Texas cottonseed meals a.re given in the tables.

UTILIZATION OF COTTONSEED MEAL.

Cottonseed meal is undoubtedly a cheap feeding stufi, and gives the
South great advantage, which have not yet been well utilized. Its price
is very often such that a feeder may dtsrega-rd its protein value and

TEXAS FEEDING Srurrs: COMPOSITION AND UTILIZATION. 23

feed it as a fat producing feed in competition with corn. It is often
of advantage when feeding cottonseed meal in Texas, to feed the maxi}
mum quantity of protein consistent With the health of the animal,
rather than the minimum advocated in most feeding standards or recom-
mendations.

Cottonseed meal, in proper combination Wltll other feeds, is an ex-
cellent feed for cattle, horses, mules, and poultry. At present prices
of corn, it should be used more extensively for horses and mules. Two
pounds per day per head may be fed with advantage.

According to Prof. W. A. Withers, of the North Carolina Experiment
Station, cottonseed meal may be fed safely to hogs if an addition of
copperas be made to the ration. He used one pound copperas dissolved
in one barrel (50 gallons) water, and one gallon of this was mixed
with one pound cottonseed Ineal, or in this proportion. Copperas changes

on exposure to the air, and the solution should be freshly prepared,

or not exposed to the air.

BPEYVING PRODUCTS.

The following are some definitions of brewing by-products, as adopted
by the Association of Feed Control Officials.

Brewers’ Dried Grains are the properly dried residue from cereals
obtained in the manufacture of beer.

Distillers’ Dried Grains are the dried residue from cereals obtained
in the manufacture of alcohol and distilled liquors. The product shall
bear the designation indicating the cereal predominating.

Malt Sprouts are the sprouts of the barley grain. If the sprouts are
derived from any other malted cereal, the source Inust be designated.

BUCKWHEAT PRODUCTS.

Buchwolzea-t Shorts or BZLClCYUlZéZClt flficl-dlings are defined as that por-
tion of the buckwheat grain immediately inside of the hull after separa-
tion from the flour.

HAY GRADES.

The following are the grades of hay adopted by the National Hay
Association, July, 1914. They are here printed as a matter of informa-
tion: .

“No. 1. Timothy I{a._1/—Sl1all be timothy with not more than o-ne-
eighth (i) mixed with clover or other tame grasses, may contain some
brown blades. properly cured. good color, sound and well baled.

“No. 2. Timothy Hark-Shall be timothy not good enough for No.
1, not over one-fourth (i) mixed with clover or other tame grasses,
fair color, well baled. '

“No. 3. Timothy Hark-Shall include all timothy not good enough
for other grades, sound and reasonably well baled.

“Light Clover Missed FIay/—Shall be timothy Inixed with clover.
The clover mixture not overrone-third (J3) properly cured, sound, good
color and well baled.

“No. 2. Clover Zllirced H air-Shall be timothy and clover mixed with
at least one-fourth Q) timothy and clover reasonably sound and well
baled.

24 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

“No. 1. Clover H ay——Shall be medium clover not over one-twentieth
(1/20) other grasses, properly cured, sound, and Well baled.

“No. 2. Clover Hay—Shall be clover sound and reasonably well
baled, not good enough for No. 1.

“Sample Hay—Shall be sound, reasonably well baled, mixed grassy
or hay not covered by other grades:

“N0 Grade H ay-—Shall include all hay musty, threshed or in any Way
unsound. ‘

“Choice Prairie H ay—Shall be upland hay of bright, natural color,
well cured, sweet, sound, and may contain 3 per cent. Weeds.

“N o. 1. Prairie H a~y——Shall be upland and shall contain one-quarter
midland, both of good color, Well cured, sweet, sound and may contain
8 per cent. weeds.

“N o. 2. Prairie H ay_Shall be upland, of fair color and may contain

one-half midland, both of good color, well cured, sweet, sound and.

may contain 12%; per cent. weeds.

“No. 3. Prairie Hai—Shall include hay not good enough-for the
other grades and not caked.

“No. 1. Midland Hay—Shall be midland hay of good color, well
cured, sweet, sound and may contain 3 per cent. weeds.

“N o. 2. Midland H ay-—Shall be of fair color, or slough hay of good
color, and may contain 12% per cent. weeds. ~

“Packing H ay—Shall include all wild hay not good enough for other
grades and. not packed.

“Sample Prairie H ay—Shall include all hay not good enough for other
grades.”

KAFIR PRODUCTS.

The following definitions and standards have been adopted by the
Texas Feed Control:
Kafir Chops Qonsists of the entire grain removed from the head and

chopped. It must contain not less than 9 per cent. of protein, 2.5-

per cent. of fat, and not more than 3.5 per cent. of crude fiber.

Kafir Head Chops consists of the entire head chopped. It must con-
tain not less than 8 per cent. of protein, 2.5 per cent. of fat, and not
more than 8 per cent. of crude fiber.

The seeds of kafir and milo are hard, and if not crushed or ground,
are liable to escape mastication or digestion.

MILO PRODUCTS.

The following definitions and products have been adopted by the
Texas Feed Control:

Milo Chops consists of the entire grain removed from the head and
chopped. It must contain not less than 9 per cent. of protein, 2.5 per
cent. of fat, and not more than 3.5 per cent. of crude fiber.

Milo Head Chops consists of the entire head, chopped. It must
contain not less than 8 per cent. of protein, 2.5 per cent. of fat, and
not more than 8 per cent. of crude fiber. ‘

RICE PRODUCTS.

The following definitions of rice products have been adopted by
the Texas Feed Control:

TEXAS FEEDING STUEEs: COMPOSITION AND UTILIZATION. 25

Rice Bran is the cuticle of the rice grain, and must contain not
less than 11 per cent. of protein, 10 per cent. of fat, and not more than
12 per cent. of crude fiber.

Rice Polish is the finely powdered Inaterial secured in polishing rice.
It must contain not less than 11 per cent. of protein, 6 per cent. of

. fat, and not more than 4 per cent. of crude fiber.

Rice bran sometimes contains an excess of rice hulls, and sometimes
quantities of broken rice. In either case, it is no longer properly
labeled as rice bran.

OAT PRODUCTS.

The fOllOW111g definitions of oat products have been adopted by the
Association of Feed Control Officials of North America:

Oat Greats are the kernels of the oat berry With the hulls removed.

Oat Hulls are the outer chalfy coverings of the oat grain.

Oat Zlltddttngs are the fioury portion of the oat groat obtained in the
milling of rolled oats.

Oa-t Shorts are the covering of the oat grain lying immediately inside
the hull, being a fuzzy material carrying with it considerable portions
of the fine fioury part of the groat obtained in the milling of rolled
oats.

Clipped Oat By-Product (term oat clippings not recognized) is the
resultant by-product obtained in the manufacture of clipped oats. It
may contain light, chaify material broken from the ends of the hulls,
empty hulls, light, immature oats and dust. It must not contain an
excessive amount of oat hulls.

STRAW.

The following grades of straw were adopted by the National Hay
Association, June, 1914:

“No. 1. Straight Rye Straw—Shall be in large bales, long rye straw,
clean, bright, pressed in bundles, sound and well baled.

“No. 2. Straight Rye Straw—Shall be in large bales, long rye
straw, pressed in bundles, sound and Well baled, not good enough for
No. 1. '

“No. 1. Tangled Rye Streak-Shall be reasonably clean rye straw,
good color, sound and well baled.

“No. 2. Tangled Rye Straw-—Shall be reasonably clean, may be some
stained, but good enough for No. 1.

“No. 1. Wheat Straw-Shall be reasonably clean wheat straw sound
and well baled.

“No. 2. Wheat Straw—-Shall be reasonably clean, may be some
stained, but not goodenough for No. 1.

“No. 1. Oat Streak-Shall be reasonably clean oat straw, sound and
well baled.

“No. 2. Oat Straiw-—Shall be reasonably clean, may be some stained,
but not good enough for No. 1.”

WHEAT PRODUCTS. -

The following~definitions and standards have been adopted by the
Texas Feed Control:

Pure Wheat Bran is the outer covering of the wheat grain, with or

26 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Without shorts, and must contain not less than 14.5 per cent. of protein,
3 per cent. fat, and not more than 10 per cent. of crude fiber.

Wheat Bran and Screenings is pure wheat bran with screenings not
to exceed mill run, or 8 per cent.

Mixed Wheat Bran and Screenings includes all mixtures of Wheat
bran and screenings containing more than 8 per cent. of screenings.

Wheat Shorts is the starchy portion of the wheat seed, and must
contain not less than 15 per cent. of protein, 3 per cent. of fat, and
not more than 5 per cent. of crude fiber.

Wheat Chops is the entire grain of sound wheat, chopped. It must
contain not less than 14 per cent. of protein, 2 per cent. of fat, and not
more than 5 per cent. of crude fiber. ~

The following additional definitions have been adopted by the Asso-
ciation of Feed Control Officials:

Red Dog is a low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles
of bran.

Wheat Bran with Mill Run Screenings is pure Wheat bran plus the
screenings which were separated from the wheat used in loreparing said
bran. ‘

Wheat Bran with Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run is either Wheat
bran with the whole mill run of screenings or wheat bran with a portion
of the mill run of screenings, provided that such portion is not an in-
ferior portion thereof.

FEEDING STANDARDS AND FEEDING.

Table No. 1 gives the standards which seem advisable for use for
various feeding purposes, based on 1000 pounds live weight. These
standards have been calculated: First, upon the basis of exact experi-
ments to ascertain the needs of the animal; secondly, on feeding experi-
ments with various rations, carried on in large number and in various
parts of the world in which the effects of the rations were determined,
and thirdly, on the experience of practical feeders of large numbers
of rations. The standards here used are those given in Fraps’ Principles
of Agricultural Chemistry.

The standards represent the rations, which should, as a rule, give the
best results. The individuality of the animal should be considered
and the ration changed or modified as may be necessary. The standards
must not be regarded as fixed rules but are merely intended to enable
a. feeder to start with a. Well based average ration. He should then
modify or change the ration to suit the requirement of his animals.
This is particularly necessary in View of the fact that the feeding stuff
used may differ materially from the average given in the table of
analyses, and used in the feeding standards. There is undoubtedly a
considerable variation in the composition and feeding values of different
feeding stuffs of the same kind, a11d the feeder must take this fact
most carefully into consideration.

The suitability of the feed to the animal to which it is given must
also be considered. Some animals are only able to utilize Well small
quantities of certain feeding stuffs The palatability of the feed is
also to be considered. ‘

TEXAS FEEDING STUFrs: COMPOSITION AND UTILIZATION. 27

Every change in the food, whether it is a new food or a change in '
quantity, should be gradual, covering a period of four to seven days.

The feeding standards and the tables of analyses may also be used
to great advantage 1n studying the rations which are being fed to animals,
and to ascertain Whether they cannot be improved in feeding value,
or lowered in cost. This is a very important and significant use of the
table. As has been pointed out in other parts of this bulletin, it is
very often of advantage to feed higher quantities of protein than are
called for in the standards on account of the comparatively low cost
of such feeds at various times in this state. That is to say, the protein
could be fed for its productive value, and not for its value as material
for forming flesh. In other words, greater advantage should be taken
of the cottonseed meal, and cottonseed meal should be used at a greater
extent in rations.

Table 1. Feeding Standards Per Day and Per 1000 Pounds Live Weight.

Total Productive Phosphoric
weight, Proteids. value. Nutritive Lime. acid.
dry matter. Pounds. Pounds. ratio. Grams. Grams.
Pounds,

Steers, maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . 12-21 0.6-0.8 1.50 1:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sheep, coarse breeds . . . . . . . . . . 18-23 1.0 2.08 1:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sheep, fine breeds- . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-26 1.2 2.25 1:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fat steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-24 1.0-1.5O 1.75-2.25 1:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pigs, fattening-

Preliminary period . . . . . . . . . . 33-37 3.0 6.8 1:55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fattening period . . . . . . . . . . . 28-33 2.8 6.5 1:6.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Final period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-88 ' 2.0 5.0 1265' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fattening sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-32 1.6 3.6 124.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fattening oxen-

Preliminaryperiod.......... 22-30 1.8 3.0 1:6.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Main period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-32 1.6 3.0-3.6 1:5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Finishing period . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-30 1.4 2.8-3.4 1:6.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Horse, light work . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-23 1.0 2 .3 6.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Horse, moderate work . . . . . . . . . 21-26 1.4 2.9 6.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Horse, heavy work . . . . . . . . . . . 23-28 2.0 3.8 6.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ox, light work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-25 1.1 1.9 10.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ox, moderate work . . . . . . . . . . . 22-28 1.4 2.4 7.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ox, heavy work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-30 1.8 3.2 6.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Milk cows giving-
Ten pounds milk . . . . . . . . . . . 22-27 1.3 2 .1 1:6.8 70 47

Twenty pounds milk . . . . . . . . 25-29 2 . 0 2.7 126.8 95 72

Thirty pounds milk . . . . . . . . . 27-33 2.8 3.5 1:6.5 120 97

Forty pounds milk . . . . . . . . . . 27-34 3.7 4.2 1:6.5 145 122

For maintenance only . . . . . . . 15-21 0.7 1.5 1:0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For each 10 pounds milk. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.55 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

EXACT CALCULATION OF A RATION.

Before beginning to calculate a ration, it is necessary to decide on
the ration desired, the feeds available, and their probable composition.
In calculating the ration we must consider:

1. The desired productive value.

2. The desired bulk.

3. The desired proteid content.

All these vary somewhat, especially the bulk and the proteids.

We will term the method of calculation given below, the method of
substitution. It is best illustrated by an example. Suppose we desire
a ration with a bulk of about 28 pounds, proteids 2.0 pounds, and
productive value of 2.8 pounds, and wish to use corn chops, cottonseed
meal, and cottonseed hulls, having the composition given below. As
these feeds all contain about ten per cent. water, for which allowance

28 ‘luzxas AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT Smrrorv.

has been made in considering the total bulk to be fed, it is not necessary
to calculate to dry matter.

First, let us assume that the 28 pounds fed is entirely cottonseed
hulls. This quantity of cottonseed hulls has productive value of 0.84
pounds, and the value desired is 2.80 pounds, leaving a deficiency of
1.96 pounds. If now We replace cottonseed hulls having a productive
value of 0.03 a pound, by corn chops, having a productive value of
0.206, for every pound of cottonseed hulls replaced, we gain 0.206——
0.0320176 pounds productive value. Dividing 1.96 by 0.176 We have
11.1 pounds corn chops, which should replace an equal amount of cot-
tonseed hulls. -

Cottonseed hulls 17.9 pounds and corn chops 11.1 pounds contain
0.86 pounds proteids, while 2.0 pounds is desired, a deficiency of 1.14
pounds proteids. Since cottonseed meal has nearly the same productive
value as corn chops, it can replace corn chops without materially alter-
ing the productive value of the ration. If one pound average cotton-
seed meal containing 0.352 pounds digestible protein replace one pound
corn chops containing 0.065 pounds digestible protein, the digestible
protein increases 0.352—0.065:0.287 pounds, so that to increase the
ration 1.14 pounds, we require 1.14 divided by 0.287240 pounds
cottonseed meal in place of an equal quantity of corn chops. The ration
would then consist of 17.9 pounds cottonseed hulls, 7.1 pounds corn
chops, and 4 pounds cottonseed meal. The substitution of 1 pound
cottonseed meal for 1 pound corn chops decreases the productive value
0.206—0.195:0.01, or 0.04 pounds for the 4 pounds substituted; and
this can be adjusted by adding 0.25 pounds corn chops, making a total
of 7.35 pounds corn .cho-ps in the ration. This finally gives the ration
desired. _

The method of calculation used above may be stated as follows:

1. Assume the bulk desired is composed of the roughage to be used
and calculate its productive value.

2. Calculate the quantity of concentrate which would give the de-
sired productive value if it replaced a portion of the roughage.

3. Calculate the proteids in the mixture having the composition
ascertained above, and then calculate the quantity of a concentrate,
rich in proteids, which must replace a portion of the other concentrate
in order to give the desired quantity of proteids. The calculation is
easier if the two concentrates have nearly the same productive value.

4. Adjust the ration by increasing or decreasing the quantity of
one of the concentrates slightly, so- that the change in the productive
value caused by the second concentrate may be allowed for.

IMPROVING A RATION.

Suppose a horse weighing 1,000 pounds is at hard xvork, plowing
for example, and is receiving 7 pounds corn, 6 pounds wheat bran, and
12 pounds timothy hay. How does this ration compare with the
standard and how can it be improved? First, calculate the digestible
proteids and productive value of the ration.

TEXAS FEEDING STUEEs: COMPOSITION AND UTILIZATION. 29

Digestible Proteids. Productive Value.
Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7x0.068—'0.48 lbs. 7x0.206—-1.44 lbs.

Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6x0.12 —O.72 6x0. 12 ——0.72

Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12x0.021—0.25 12x0.078—0.94

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1.45 3.10

Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-28 2.0 3.8

The ration is too 10W in proteids and in productive value. Pro-
ductive value may be increased by substituting corn for timothy hay.
One pound corn substituted increases the productive value 0.206-
0.0'78:0.128; so to gain the 0.7 pound desired would take 5.5 pounds
corn chops. ‘Each pound of corn chops substituted would increase
the proteids in the ration 0.068—0.021:0.04'7 pounds, or 5.5 pounds
would increase it 0.26 pound. This would increase the total proteids
to 1.71, but would still leave a deficiency of 0.29 pounds proteids.
If we replace corn by cottonseed meal to supply this protein, we require
0.29+(0.352—0.068):1.0 pound cottonseed meal.

The calculated ration would then be as follows:

Pounds.
Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7+ 5.5—l.0:11.5

Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _—_ 6.0

Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 —5.5: 6.5

Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. : 1.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

REDUCING THE COST OF A RATION.

The commercial prices of feeding stuffs are often not in proportion
to their feeding values, and rations may often be modified so as to
reduce the cost of the ration. There are four things to be considered
in re-ducing the cost of a ration: (1) the suitability of the feed to the
animal; (2) the cost of the productive value; (3) the cost of the diges-
ible proteids per pound; (4) the cost of the bulk or volume of the feed.

The three last factors can be calculated fro1n the known selling
price, and the proteid content and productive value of the feeds. The
bulk of the feed is of course measured by the total amount of dry
matter. It often happens that hays cost more per unit of feeding value
than concentrated feeds. In such cases, the cheaper bulky feeds should
be used, and the difference in nutritive value compensated for by
increasing the concentrates.

Suppose a feeder who is using 6 pounds wheat bran at a cost of $30.00
a ton, can secure corn at $30.00 and cottonseed meal at $40.00. Would
it pay to substitute? Six pounds wheat bran contains 0.72 pound
proteids and 0.72 pound productive value. Three and one-half pounds
corn would contain 0.72 pound productive value and 0.241 pound pro-
teids, or a deficiency of 0.48 pound proteids. Replacing corn by cotton-
seed meal, 0.48-I—(O.352——0.068):1.4 pounds. That is, 1.4 pounds
cottonseed meal and 3.5 pounds corn are equivalent to 6. pounds wheat
bran. The cost would be 6X1.5:9 cents for wheat bran; and for the
mixture, 1.4><2.0:°.8 cents for the cottonseed meal, and for the corn

30 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

3.5><1.5:5.25 cents, a total of 8.05 cents for the mixture or a difference
of 0.95 cents, nearly one-ninth, in favor of the mixture. The difference
in bulk of the ration should be adjusted when such substitutions are
made, unless it comes Within the range of the variations allowed.

The preceding illustration shows the method which may be followed
in reducing the cost of a ration. In substituting for proteids, a. suit-
able feed providing the proteids at the lowest cost per unit should be
used. In substituting for productive value, a. suitable feed productive
value, a suitable feed providing the most productive value for the money
should be used, and the same remark applies to- substituting. for bulk.

IC-XILIATIONS IN THE COMPOSITION OF FEEDING STUFFS.

Variation in the composition of feeding stuffs. is due to both natural
and artificial causes. Feeding stuffs naturally vary somewhat in com-
position. The character of seed, the kind of soil on which they are
grown, the kind of season, the fertility of the soil, and other factors,
affect their chemical composition. Methods used in curing hays, states
of growth at which they are cut, and the quantities of water contained
in them, cause hays to vary. Manufactured products vary according
to the methods of manufacture, and, sometimes, according ‘to the addi-

tions which are made to them, or which a.re allowed to go into them,-

during the process of manufacture. It thus follows that the composig
tion of a given feeding stuff may be materially different from the aver-
age composition, shown in the table of analyses. The variations in
feeding values are indeed quite large at times, and this fact must be
borne in mind when preparing rations for feeding, or otherwise arrang-
lng to make use of the nutriiiire value of feeding stuffs. Concentrated
commercial feeding stuffs are sold under a guaranteed minimum anal-
ysis for protein, fat and nitrogen-.free extract and a guaranteed maxi-
mum ercenta e of crude fiber. If the feeding stuff falls below the
g e
guarantee of protein, fat or nitrogen-free extract, or above the guaran-
tee for crude fiber, or, if ‘the feed 1n any iva-y is not as represented, then
the seller is liable to a. fine, under the feeding stuff law. Inquiries con-

cerning this matter should be addressed. to the Feed Control, College

Station, Texas.

TABLE OF THE AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF FEEDING STUFFS.

The average composition as given in this Table No. 2 is "taken from
the publications referred to in the columns, ivhieh are as follows:

Farmers’ Bulletin No. 22, United States Department of Agriculture.

Bulletin No. 95, Texas Experiment Station.

II Compilations from analyses at the Texas Experiment. Station, or
analyses not previously published.

Bulletin Ne. 147, Texas Experiment Station.

Bulletin No. 154, Texas Experiment Station.

Bulletin No. 166, Texas Experiment Station.

Bulletin No. 102, Bureau of Animal Husbandry, U. S. Department
of Agriculture.

Some few analyses from Henryfs Feeds and Feeding.

The same references apply to-Table No. 2, coefficients of digestibility.

TEXAS FEEDING STUrrs: COMPOSITION AND UTILIZATION. 31

The ones marked Mass, taken from tabulation of the Massachusetts Ex-
periment Station.

Table No. 3 shows the average coefficients of digestibilit_y* of various
feeds, and Table No. 4 shows the productive values of feeds, calculated
from the values given in Tables Nos. 2 and 3.

Table No. 2. Average Composition of Feeding Stuffs.

 

ifitner Crude N itro- Numb er lteference
Protein. extract. fiber. gen free Water. Ash. aver- Number.
extract. aged.
Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.42 1.97 29.98 35.81 9.61 8.41 34 166 Texas

Alfalfa meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.81 1.90 27.54 38.48 8.80 8.38 52 166 Texas

Alfalfa (green) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.8 1.0 7.4 12.3 71.8 2.7 23 22 U. S.

Acorns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.5 1.9 4.4 34.8 55.3 1.0 . . . . .. ..Henry

Bermudagrass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.2 0.9 5.9- 17.2 71.7 2.1 . . . . .. ..Henry

Bermuda hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.17 1.75 24.90 49.39 8.87 7.92 11 166 Texas

Barley chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.4 1.8 2.7 69.8 10.9 2.4 10 22 U. S.

Beet pulp (dried) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 0.7 17.5 60.8 8.4 4.5 7 Henry

Beef scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.05 14.43 2.17 2.75 7.09 13.51 4 U

Bone, fresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.6 20.5 . . . . . . .. 1.9 34.2 22.8 . . . . .. ..Henry

Beef meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53.24 9.86 2.92 12.91 7.59 13.48 4 U

Broom corn seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.9 3.2 7.0 64.3 12.8 2.8 4 Henry

Brewer's grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.84 6.20 17.61 41.91 6.31 3.74 12 U

Blood meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82.85 0.46 1.48 2.16 9.87 3.18 4 U

Burr clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.43 2.12 20.81 31.83 9.73 12.10 2 147 Texas

Buffalo grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.85 1.83 26.13 45.29 7.57 11.34 3 147 Texas

Careless weed (dry) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.57 1.27 19.47 42.13 9.07 18.49 1 U

Carrot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.1 0.4 1.3 7.6 88.6 1.0 8 22 U. S.

Corn, Argentine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.36 4.75 1.96 71.39 10.09 1.45 1 U

Corn bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.98 4.92 11.03 63.11 10.17 1.79 38 166 Texas

Corn chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.23 3.85 2.32 70.97 12.82 1.37 245 154 Texas

Cornand cob meal...; . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.92 3.44 7.93 68.35 9.75 1.53 30 U

Corncob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.4 0.5 30.1 54.9 10.7 1.4 18 22 U. S.

Corn fodder, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.5 5.0 12.2 79.3 1.2 126 22 U. S.
Corn fodder, field-cured (entire plant" 4.5 _ 1.6 14.3 34. 7 42.2 2.7 35 22 U. S.
Cornsilage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.2 1.1 5.8 1.3.0 74.4 1.5 62 22 U. S.
Corn shucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.77 0.60 30.08 55.14 8.37 3.03 4 147 Texas
Corn stover field-cured (left after

harvesting ears) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 1.1 19.7 31.5 40.5 3.4 60 22 U. S.
Cold pressed cotton seed . . . . . . . . . . . 26.47 7.31 24.58 29.53 8.11 4.10 73 166 Texas
Cotton seed (whole) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.6 20.1 18.9 28.3 9.1 4.0 11 22 U. S. _
Cottonseed meal, Texas averaged
1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.84 8.66 9.08 25.29 6.76 5.37 259 164 Texas
Cottonseed meal, Texas choice 1913. . 47.14 9.19 7 .63 23.79 6 .86 5 .43 80 U
Cottonseed meal, Texas prime 1913.. 43.37 7.71 10.34 25 . 94 7.31 5.31 52 U
Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11 1.46 45.27 37.09 9.51 2.56 24 166 Texas

Cowpeas (seed). ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.5 1.7 3.8 55.7 11.9 3.4 17 22 U. S.

Cowpea hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.56 2.72 23.31 41.53 10.04 7.82 17 147 Texas

Cowpea vines, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.4 4.8 7.1 83.6 1.7 10 U. S.

Crimson clover, green . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.1 0.7 5.2 8.4 80.9 1.7 3 22 U. S

Crimsoncloverhay... . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.2 2.8 27.2 36.6 9.6 8.6 7 22 U.S

Clover, sweet (green) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 0.6 6.3 7.4 80.0 1.9 4 Henry

Ear corn chops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.92 3.44 7. 93 68.35 9. 75 1.53 30 U

Ear corn chops with shucks . . . . . . .. 7.45 3.53 11.55 64.96 11.15 1.36 3 U

Fererita seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.95 2.89 2 .04 6) . 66 10.83 1.64 4 U

Fish, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.4 11.6 . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . 10.8 29.2 6 Henry

Forney hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.00 2.27 24.40 52.84 7.96 8.53 1 95 Texas

Egyptian wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.25 3.78 2.47 72.09 9.52 0.89 1 U

Guam grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.43 1.73 26.00 49.40 7.66 6.79 1 147 Texas

Johnson grass (green)..' . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.99 1.16 5.60 8.12 78.78 1.92 7 . . . . . . . . ..

Johnson grass roots (fresh) . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.20 4.19 12.85 80.11 1.73 2 U

Johnson grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.22 1.90 30.00 44.06 9.70 7.12 11 147 Texas
Jack beans (seed) Convolvia ensi-
jormia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.82 3.52 8.05 50.79 11.06 2.77 2 U

Kaffir chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.84 3.00 2.46 70.88 11.22 1.65 1.56 166 Texas

Kaflir head chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.03 2.67 7.07 67.07 9.82 3.17 29 166 Texas

KafI-ir fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.10 4.15 22.37 40.18 8.37 11.83 7 147 Texas

Kaffirsilage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2.1 1.4 11.2 15.2 -67.2 2.9 3 Henry

Milk (whole) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.6 3.7 . . . . . . .. 4.9 87.2 0.7 793 22 U. S.

Milk (skimmed) (separator) . . . . . . . . 3.2 0.3 . . . . . . . . 5.2 90.6 0.7 9 22 U. S.

Mangelswurzels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.4 0.2 0.8 5.4 91.2 1.0 16 22 U. S.

Meat meal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.20 13.60 3.08 2.65 7.05 15.42 4 U

Molasses (cane) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.05 24.69 5.41 5 U
Mesquite beans (in pod green from
trees) (dried) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.77 3.15 25.84 45.29 7.53 4.42 1 U

Mesquite beans, windfalls . . . . . . . . . . 10.47 1.67_ 28.28 48.89 6.37 4.32 1 U

Millet hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7.75 2.25 28.72 43.19 10.21 7.88 20 147 Texas

Milletseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.9 3.5 8.1 62.6 12.1 2.8 6 enry

Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.21 2.95 2.34 72.24 11.28 4.51 46 154 Texas

Milo head chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.75 2.64 5.54 68.48 10.39 3 .01 17 154 Texas

Milo fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.54 5.17 19.37 42.84 9.54 11.55 3 95 Texas

32 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.
Table No. 2. Average Composition of Feeding Stu fl's—Continued.
_ Nitro- Number
Protein. Ether Crude gen free Water. Ash. aver- Reference
extract. fiber. extract. aged. Number.
Milo silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.2 0.7 7.9 12.7 74.6 1.8 1 Henry

Orchard grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.1 2.6 32.4 41.0 9.9 6.0 10 22 U. S.

Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.8 5.0 9.5 59.7 11.0 3.0 30 22U.S.

Oats (green) . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . .. 3.4 1.4 11.2 19.3 62.2 2.5 6 Henry

Oat hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.72 2.89 27.80 42.16 13.44 5.99 11 147 Texas

Oatstraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 2.3 37.0 42.4 9.2 5.1 12 22 U. S.
Para grass hay .................. . . 3.34 0.91 33.80 40.74 8.30 7.10 ...... .. 147 Texas
Poultry bone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.04 0.40 1.89 3.17 7.22 63.22 2 U
Prairie hay (South Texas average) .. 4.04 2.10 29.74 47.18 8.93 8.05 2 166 Texas
Prickley pear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.73 0.34 2.41 9.04 84.26 3.06 . . . . . . . . 102 U. S.

Palmettoseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.13 3.19 14.41 71.02 1.38 2.87 1 95 Texas

Peanut kernels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.27 43 .07 2.53 17.25 7.7 2.11 6 Tenn. Bull.

Peanuts with hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.83 32.78 18.89 15.73 8.03 2.45 6 Cale.

Peanut cake (cold pressed) . . . . . . . . . 30.88 11.00 22.52 23.28 6.28 3.75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Peanut hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.99 7t98 24.61 39.38 8.82 7.22 4 147 Texas

Peanut straw (no nuts) . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 4.6 23.6 42.7 7.6 10.8 6 22 U. S.

Potatoes . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.11 0.1 0.6 17.3 78.9 1.0 12 22 U.S

Rape (green) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.2 0.5 2.1 7.0 85.7 2.5 5 Henry

Rice (rough) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.31 1.34 7.73 67.68 11.07 3.87 7 U

Rice bran... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.21 11.59 11.82 44.73 10.10 9.66 158 166 Texas

Rice hulls.¢.; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.07 1.12 36.17 34.66 8.62 15.38 14 95 Texas

Rice polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.22 9.74 2.89 60.38 9.55 5.07 97 166 Texas

Rice straw.. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.11 1.54 31.56 41.37 6.57 14.85 6 147 Texas

Red clover, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4 1.1 8.1 13.5 70.8 2.1 43 22 U. S.

Red cloverhay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.3 3.3 24.8 38.1 15.3 6.2 ' 38 . . . . . . . . ..

Ryechops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.6 1.7 1.7 72.5 11.6 1.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Ryestraw... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.0 1.2 38.9 46.6 7.1 3.2 7 22 U.S

Sorghum seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.1 3.6 2.6 69.8 12.8 2.1 10 Henry

Sorghum silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.60 1.03 6.16 12.40 77.29 1.31 7 166 Texas

Sorghum (green) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.3 0.5 6.1 11.6 79.4 1.1 11 Henry

Sorghum fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.38 2.80 28.52 48.77 8.89 5.67 6 166 Texas

Sudan grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.11 1.49 - 30.64 45.37 10.00 6.40 4 U

Sunflower seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.3 21.2 29.9 21.4 8.6 2.6 2 Henry

Sugar cane (green) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.5 4.0 9.0 84.2 1.1 2 Henry

Sugarbeet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.8 0.1 0.9 9.8 86.5 0.9 19 Henry

Tallow weed (dried) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.25 1.80 22.46 32.29 6.38 28.82 1 95 Texas

Tankage (feeding) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.68 14.60 6.29 4.84 6.76 17.83 3 U

Timothy grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.1 1.2 11.8 20.2 61.6 2.1 56 22 U. S.

Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.9 2.5 29.0 45.0 13.2 4.4 68 22 U. S.

Turnips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.3 0.2 1.2 5.9 90.6 0.8 4 22 U. S.

Vetch hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.72 2.30 23.33 35.94 13.18 7.53 14 147 Texas

Water lilies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.09 0.35 1.72 6.33 88.17 1.34 1 U

' Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.9 2.9 , 1.8 71.9 10.5 1.8 310 22 U. S.

Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.59 4.03 8.84 54.87 9.86 5.75 71 154 Texas

Wheat screenings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 .71 2 .34 5.15 63 .49 9.69 3.57 35 U

Wheat shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.22 4.04 4.39 61.05 9.58 3.52 68 154 Texas

Wheatstraw...; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.4 1.3 38.1 43.4 9.6 4.2 7 22 U. S.

Whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.6 0.1 . . . . . . .. 5.1 93.8 0.4 46 22 U.S

Table No. 3. Average Coeflicients of Digestibility.
Ether Crude Nitro- Number Reference
Protein. extract. fiber. gen free Ash. aver- _ Number.
extract. aged.

Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 .29 38.40 46.77 68.83 49.17 18 166 Texas

Alfalfa (green) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74' 39 43 72 _ . . . . . . . . 1 Mass.

Bermuda hay. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53.10 41.60 53.17 50.63 33.73 3 166 Texas

Buffalo grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.8 49.0 61.5 59.9 15 .2 2 147 Texas

Barley chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 78 56 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mass. '

Brewer's grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 90 49 57 89 . . . . . . .. Mass.

Blood meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Mass.

Burr clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.7 5.4 64.2 75.9 62.6 1 . 147 Texas

Corn bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.20 76.63 59.56 77.21 8.48 4 166 Texas

Corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 90 . . . . . . . . 92 . . . . . . . . 12 ass.

Corn and cob meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 84 45 88 l . . . . . . . . 1 Mass.

Corn cob. . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1_7 50 65 60 . . . . . . . . 1 Mass.

Corn fodder green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 75 59 75 . . . . . . . . 12 Mass.

Corn fodder, dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 65 67 62 . . . . . . . . 6 Mass.

Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 77 65 69 . . . . . . . . 17 Mass.

Corn shucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 38.6 69.3 60.6 21.5 2 147 Texas

Corn stover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 37 69 64 59 . . . . . . . . 12 Mass.

Cold pressed cotton seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.28 85.98 39.55 63.23 54.22 4 166 Texas

Cottonseed (whole) row . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 87 76 50 . . . . . . . . 1 Mass.

Cotton seed (roasted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 72 66 51 . . . . . . . . 1 Mass.

TEXAS FEEDING STUFFS : COMPOSITION AND UTILIZATION. 33
Table No. 3. Average Coeflicients of Digestibility-Continued.
Ether Crude Nitro- - Number Reference
Protein. extract fiber. gen free Ash. aver- Number.
extract aged .

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1 68.9 49.0 47.7 25.2 8 166 Texas

Cottonseed meal, rich in hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.9 90.9 37. 3 61.8 . . . . . . . . 12 166 Texas

Cowpea meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 74 64 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Mass.

Cowpea hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.5 40.2 46.7 67.9 30.3 . . . . . . . . 147 Texas

Cowpea vines, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 59 60 81 . . . . . . . . 2 Mass.

Crimson clover, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 66 56 74 . . . . . . . . 1 Mass.

Crimson clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 44 45 62 . . . . . . . . 3 Mass.

Ear corn chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 87 48 83 . . . . . . . . 1 Mass.

Guam grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.7 57.2 57.1 53.8 28.4 1 147 Texas

Hominy meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 92 67 89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mass.

Johnson grass hay . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.9 44.9 66.2 56.8 27.1 . . . . . . . . 147 Texas

r chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.2 47.2 27.4 68.8 43 .4 6 166 Texas

Kafiir head chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.41 74.35 61.08 80.41 36.15 . . . . . . . . 166 Texas

Kaflir fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . 63.0 53.1 67 .1 69.4 43.6 1 147 Texas

Milk (whole) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Milk (skimmed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 100 . . . . . . . . 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mangels wurzels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 . . . . . . .. 43 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Mass.

Molasses (cane) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Texas

Millet hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2 49.6 64.4 56.7 54.3 . . . . . . . . 147 Texas

Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 90 100 _ 85 92 . . . . . . . . ass.

Orchard grass hay: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 55 61 55 . . . . . . . . 2 Mass.

Oats (grain)... y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 89 31 77 25 2 Mass.

Oat hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54.4 62.9 52.7 56.7 37.2 . . . . . . . . 147 Texas

Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 42 61_ 55 . . . . . . . . 4 ass.

Para grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 45.0 52.8 46.9 23.2 . . . . . . . . 147 Texas

Prairie hay (Texas average) . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - 39-1 53.5 46.9 4.9 3 166 Texas

Peanut cake (cold pressed) . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . 99 90 9 * 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. German

Peanut hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.0 78.0 52.2 71.9 20.9 . . . . . . .. 147 Texas

Potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44 13 . . . . . . .. 91 1 . . . . . . .. Mass.

Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94-35 89-85 19.95 89.92 15 .98 4 166 Texas

Rice hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 97 . . . . . . .. 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. German

Rice polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.3 82.1 25.7 91.1 30.0 2 166 Texas

Rice straw (Japan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-8 9-4 60.3 45.0 12.1 1 147 Texas

Rice-straw (Honduras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.6 36.4 58.0 47.3 15.0 1 147 Texas

clover, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 63 53 72 . . . . . . . . 12 Mass.

Red clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 56 54 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mass.

Rye meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 94 . . . . . . . . 92 ' . . . . . . . . 1 Mass.

Rye fodder (green) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 74 80 71 . . . . . . . . 1 Mass.

g _rghum ' age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9 59 58 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Texas

Silage, sorghum and cowpea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-8 57-9 49.2 63.7 19.8 2 166 Texas

Sorghum fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-5 92-2 60.6 61.5 . . . . . . . . 3 166 Texas

Sudan grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Salt bush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 52 8 49 . .  . . . . 1 Mass.

Tabosa grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-9 37-9 54.5 50.4 19.9 2 166 Texas

Timothy grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 52 56_ 66 . . . . . . . . 1 Mass.

Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 59 50 62 39 24 Mass.

Turnips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73 - - - - - - - -- 51 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. German

Vetch hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97-9 55-2 56.4 72.6 44.1 . . . . . . .. 147 Texas

Wheat chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 71 . . . . . . .. 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Mass.

Wheat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ' 77 63 39 71 . . . . . . .. 4 Mass.

Wheat middlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 88 39 78 . . . . . . . . 2 Mass.

Wheat screenings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 94 65 85 . . . . . . . . 1 Mass.

Wheat shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 86 36' 88 . . . . . . . . 2 Mass.

Wheat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 31 50 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . German
Table No. 4. Average Digestible Protein and Productive Values.
Digestible Productive
protein. value.
Alfalfa hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.04 8.18

Alfalfa meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 10.9

Alfalfa (green) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 3.3

Bermuda grass. .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bermuda hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .-81 7 .32

Bar ey chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .5 19 .2

Brewer’s grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 12.9

Burr clover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.9 11.2

Buffalo grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 8.6

Corn bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.23 13 .3

Corn chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 20.63

Corn and cob meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .1 18 .1

 u
34 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Table No. 4. Average Digestible Protein and Productive Value.—Continued.

Digestible Productive
protein. value.
Corncob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.4 10.1

Corn fodder, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 5.4

Corn fodder, dry (average) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .25 7.0

Corn fodder (estimated 10 per cent water, Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 10.0

Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 2 .7

Corn shucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .4 9 .6

Corn stover (average) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 5.8

Corn stover (estimated 10 per cent water, Texas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 9.7

Cold pressed cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.7 12.0

Cottonseed (whore) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 17.9

Cottonseed meal (Texas average) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.7 18.5

Cottonseed meal, Texas prime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.3 18.1

Cottonseed, Texas choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.8 19.2

Cottonseed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.06 4.08

Cowpeas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 18.6

Cowpea hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.0 9.5

Cowpea vines, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 2.2

Crimson clover, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .2 2 .6

Cromson clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 9 .4

Ear corn chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 16.3

Bulialo grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .2 8. 6

Guam hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.3 8.3

Johnson grass (green) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 2 .2

Johnson grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .2 8 .2

Kaflir corn chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .0 18.2

Kaflir head chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.36 16.3

Kaffii fodder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.3 10.8

Milk (whole) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 3.1

Milk (skimmed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 2.2

Mangels wurzels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.4

Molasses (cane) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . _2.2 12.2

Millet (hay) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 8.3

Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.7 19.1

Orchard grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 7. 9

Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 14.4

Oats hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 7.7

Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.8 7.0

Para grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .3 6.1

Prairie hay (Texas average) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0

Peanut cake (cold pressed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 17.7

Peanut hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 .5 12.1

Potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.9 4.1

Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .88 17.2

Rice hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 3 .2

Rice polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.22 20.67

Rice straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 5 .4’

Red clover, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 3.9

Red clover hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 9.0

Sorghum silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 2.69

Sorghum and cowpea silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .53 3 .6

Sorghum hay . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.9 9.7

Tabosa grass hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 5.7

Timotny grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 4.5

Timothy hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .8 8.8

Turnips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 1.2

Vetch hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 .0 10.2

Wheat chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 18.4

Wieat bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 12 .0
‘ Wheat shorts ................................................................... .. 15.1 18.9
Wheat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 7 4 .9
Whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 1.5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

This Bulletin contains a discussion of the composition of Texas feeds,
their utilization, their values, the calculation of balanced rations, and
tables showing composition, coeliicients of digestibility, and feeding
values.