comparison of various forms of milo grain for...

--

11I1I2S10 25

w IIIII~ w IJpoundL

Il

11 w

20r I~ ~ 10Iamp 1j

11111125 1111114 1111116

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOAROSmiddot1963middotA

IIIII~~ 11112510 W ~1IJ32 I 22w L I~~ t w

I~ 2011 IUu --1111118

11111125 1111114 1111116

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOAROSmiddotj963-A

~~~~~~~~ August 1937

Technical Bulletin No 581 ~ tNlTED STATES DEPART~mNT OF AGRlClLTCRI

WASH lNGTO D C

COMPARISON OF VARIOUS FORMS OF MILO GRAIN FOR FATTENING STEERS

IN THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS I

B~ Y H BLArK senior animal husbanillllcLn Anill(1llJI~bandT1 Ditision BttrcrLU of Animal Jndusry LOnicd ilales Dcparlment of Jigricullllre T 11 JO~ES chief DilJisioTt of Range lnillwl flwb(wdry Texa~ Jlgricullvral Experiment Station and F E KEAlTNG associate agronomisl Diltision 0 Dry-Larul Agriculture Bureau of Plant [nduslry Uniled Stales Departmcnt of Agriculturc ~

~~ ~~ 1 ]CSlIltS of expcrhllents- ((nl illlJld The nrea nnd it prohlNlIs l tu12middota experinwul SExperituelltll lro(edur~ ii JUJj-a-l experIment 10I otu]lositiol1 alH] prkls of feNls i Averngc Jllsult1 orthc thttC fxp(ri1n~nt~L 12Hesults of experiment ~i ~uIllUlury- und conclusions L5W31-3~ CXllcrilllcIlL

fH E AREA AND ITS PROBLEMS

Since ahot t 1920 the production of gmin sorgllll)11S Jw shown It

Jl1tJked inoJcase rathel g(nerlll1y throughout the southern Great Plains particularly in the (St(l11 Ilnd Panhandle s(ctioJl of T(xfLs rhe l(llding Stltt(S in their Vrod uctiOll am1 the aycra~( acreage during U)29-83 were 1(x115 370)000 Old I1h onUL 1433000 Kallsas 1224000 Nrw IeolCo 324000 Coomdo 213000 Ctliforniu 05000 ivIiss01lli 87000 AIizOllfL 34000 and Drchruska 22000

Heres TIl( distribution of the glllin sorghums in 1929 ficcording to the Cnit(cl SUttes ((lnsus is shown in figure 1

The southern (reut Pinins is subject 10 considerable yltriation in tempemture During the period of the study reported in this bulshyletin the lLnge in tcmpclnture nt Big Spring Tex wus from _6

0 to

1020 F (table 1) Thn total precipitation during the months of the feeding experiments cfich year ranged from tlPl)loximtttely 5 to 13 inches

I Submitted for publication )1r ~5 1937 AcknowlcdgmcnL is IlIl1de to llrndford Knupp Ir nssociull Ilnimnl hllsbulIllrnnn Animal Husbandry

J)iyision llurenu ~f llillnlllltluslr~ or his Ilssistat1~u in thostutisUcallllnlysis of the datu

~rli]CHNl( AT BLLLI~TIN [tSl (TS D1JPT Oli AGlUCCLTUl1lt]

GRAIN SORGHUMS (929

FHak 1 -middotDistrihution or grain sorghums in 1121 Iaeh dot represenls I()(~) n((lS

TAHL~ 1-middotTcmpcra(lIrcs a1ld wlcipiacion at Hig Spring lCI during Ihe period (If Ihe experiments

1i31-32 I

-----~~------~i i TcIl1pera~ure t rOlIlperllture reIl1nerlltur~ I Premiddot I ____ Pr ______I l)~emiddot

i cipltumiddot rlpllumiddot I I Cilln

~Ionth

1~rnximiddot l-linimiddot lion ~llIxi- I 1linimiddot j lion 1~11imiddot ~lilli- lion 1 1l1UUl ~ mum mum ~ tUum mum nlUm

--------~~---------- --- o l~

I a b~ incrs ltF oJ

I 1Irampes o I~ P I i lIchcv QeU1ber i i2 i 31 IS5 iO 22 Sf lfi 00 U

__ i lt3 IDecemberbullbullbull bull ~ i ~~ I 22 j 133 74 14 10 1 17 54 Iunuar~middot _1 21 112 I 79 23 I I fI

Fcbruar)middot ~5 I 22 t 381 SO i -6 bull 9 81 ~~ JJi Murch 7 J~ i SG 26 1 IS 91 ~J I 50

U1 I lO I 2 ~~ )2 30 i 05 95 ri 1 ia~r~middot middotmiddot Si I middotW j 2061 09 3) J so I 102 gtll i [k~

Junc US tiO r 2l-) I

TollIL ------I3iSt--------4U3 500

---------~----~---~~- ~ ~-J 1020 Hm to [a) IS J032 (ISO days) 1 NOI 211932 to ]1 241933 (lS4 days) 310122 lU3l to Juno 0 1934 (191 days)

As the production of glllin sorghuIns inerellsed ill tIl( sou titem Great Plains the producers many of whom were (onsidelub]( disshytances from shipping points begllll to look fol ways and rnCiUlS o Ullllketing the crops other than tlS grain Much of the gmin was produced within the region where cattlc production was or had been the principal industry Early experiments in the feeding of grain sorghums indicated that they compared fuyombly with corn for beef production Fodder and silage made from the sorghums were likeshywise fotmd to be valuable sources of roughage in beef-cattle lation3

3 ilLCK W n JONES Jbull~I nnt KEATING F E SonGO SILAGE SORGO ~OUDEI AND COTTONSEED 11111$ AS ROUGHAGES IN nATIONS 101 IATTENING CALES IN Tilt SOITIEST U S Dcpt gr reel Bull 4324 JlJI llIus 1128 -- LANTO J IJ aml DURNIIHI I) H FTTNINli tinlns ON IJItYmiddotINlJ CIIUlS or TIlt S(llTII

EST U S Tech Rull 30 J5 pp 1Jlus HJ2i

3 MfLO FOH FNJTENTNG RT1EItS TN i-iOUTT-IERN GIUJAr ILAINH

As a result in llllllly sections there J1lltumlly deyeloped the practice of feeding much of tlus glllin to cllttle thus marketing the grain inshydirectly as beef Previous to this plnctiee the cattle had been marshyketed either ns feeders 01 liS gmss-fnt rnttle Simultaneously with grain production n new market dewloped 101 locally produced gminshyfinished cu ttle

As itis common pmctiec in the sorghum-production areas to hlllvest the gmin in helld 101111 it beeflme ndvisable to obtain through expershyinwutution information on the relatiye YlIlues of threshed grain nnd the bends in grOllnd und unground forms flS fnttening feeds for beef production

EXPERIMENrAL PROCEDURE

The experiments were begun late in the fall of 1931 I~ld continued for 3 successiye yenrs They WNe conducted cooperatively at the Big Spring Jiield Station Big Spring Ix by the Bureaus of Animal find Plfiut Industry of the enited Stntcs Department of Agriculture finct the 1exns Agricultural Experiment Station

About Koyemher 1 of (Hell )(111 130 IHlld of Hereford steers born the spring of thnt yen] w(re sc+et(] for tl1f experiments The steers

FlGlTHE 2-rYPIl of stllllrs llsed in the experiments These animols when photogrnphcd hud been fed grouud milo heads for 4 months

uycraged Good to CllOirc AS feeders find were of stlictly heef breeding They were divided into foUl groups as nenlly nlike as possible with respect to weight type und conformation und were futtened us 101shylowb Group 1 on ungrotmd threshed milo group 2 grotmd threshed milo group 3 unglound milo heads and group 4 ground milo heads (fig 2) lhese feeds were of good quality throughout the experishyments 110st of the milo WIlS produced u t the Big SpringFieldStation

Each group of steers WIIS 111150 fld aPPlOxilllllLely equllI quuntities of eottonseed meal lind roughuge For groups 1 Ilnd 2 the roughuge

4 rIJ(J-(XHI BILLEIIX iSl P ~ 1lI~l) )I (~IW lUITllI

consisted of chopped SlUlllle sorgo fodder For th~ other two groups it consisted of the same kin(L of fodder Ilnd the stemmy fibrous purt of the milo heads In the feeding of the cattle the (Oll(entrntes were thoroughly mixed Hlld then sprene and mixed with the (hopped Sumiic fodele-r whi(h wns plu(ed ill tho feed bunks first ~-ny l(fused feed WiiS rem(wCll before the next feeding and jts weight wus deducted from tho weight feel ~lodullls determinations 5how((1 the degrle of finelless of tho ground feeds to nlllge from 32 to BB

For a pleliminnry period PICyiOllS to the lxpclilllen ts ill 01lt1(1 10 get the unimnJs nclllstollled to the feeds nil ste(rs WNO [Nt nlimitCCl qunntity of n mixture of thr(shed milo glnin nnd milo hends ground and unglountl llnd cottollse(d men] iUld unlimited qunntitils of chopped Sumac sorgo fodder

Feeding= -er( mnde at 8 n 1Il and at 5 p m TIll qUlln tities of milo f(d (1( imr(1l5(d grndlmlly itS tlw experiment prolres5Cd in

FrfiliJt1~ ~-CnU Ie (ceding Slll1 nt the H~ ~llIug Field Stntion Hi ~prinJ T(x

H(cordullCo with the appetites of the steers nnd without throwing tht cattle off feed The steers were fed under sheJt( nnd encll group hnd an i)ren of nppro-imateiy 1500 square feet for feeding and exercise About onc-lwlf of the men WilS uncleI covel (fig B)

Incliyjdunl weights of =t((lS were taken on 3 sllccessie clays lIt the bCgiuuillg nnd cnd of cwh experiment and 0111 day ut 2S-dny intervnls throughout c1ch experimcnt Vcighings were begun promptly nt 1 p In und continued without interruption until eOlllpleted

Hogs followed cHch group of cattle Tho number YHried deptneling on the quantities of feed and the form in which the milo was fed Sufficient hogs folloed ench group to utilize 111 the undige5t(d f(Nt passed through the cnttc The group receiving the milo ill lIngrollnd forms required the most hogs Tho grCl1test number of hogs us(d in anyone group at one time was 18 llell ground feed WllS used the number neyer excecded 6 One-third of t pound of n mixtule of equal pnrts of tanknge und cottonseed meal wns fed per he)cl dnily to the hogs except for the lnst 28 days of the 1933-34 expeirnent when their ndditionnl feed wus limited to onc-sixth of it ponnd of cottonseed menl per head daily

At tho end of cnch experiment the steer (lp sitip]JCd to Fort ~orth Tex ~L distance of approximately 275 miles and slaughtered

COlIPOSI1ION AND PRICES OF FEEDS

The clumical composition of the feeds used is shown ill table 2 ilnel represCnts the ilY(lngc of two snmples of each [(ed for ench of the fir~~ 2 yen)s During tll( third yenr only one sllmplc of el1ch feed WI1S imnln~C(l

itIOWHa(rudlttl fnllllllwr (~1 riHt

(fltlonS(ld nW31 INcrlli jJtrrnli l jJatt Plflf1JI frmn~ bull11131middot12 l~k middotI~ 1middot1 II IS 2010 S uti1r12-al t~ J~ 11 VI i Wi H2(1 fJ2 middot1lflfl 0 i 1 ~6lS II 11

JljHII riltl fJlnmiddot11Id ulld 1I~IlrOII1111

191I 12 lm HJSI f 203 284lHl~middot1 2 OJ 12H I 07 1 1011 71al 2141~jmiddot1I I~filt) f hrt-iIHid aud grnllod JMi j 11111 1 t 72 OJ Iao

1~1 middot12 1172 201 II middotI~ l 9n I -c omiddot IJll1 n 2 iLx 51 14l II middot1 2S1 ol1 -1519t~-~middott JOTJ I 1 1111 212 - o~ 311f110 h(lu(1- tlJlJl()ttrltl IMHlt 10 I t 22 GIK ~~ 4~ 1113t-ll i~ fiJ a25 nsl (is ii IIlhll U Ii a lU nIH lIliUti Ililo hlatls Irnullcl lW-lt IUD 325 -02 07 ji 231HIl2middotmiddotl1 772 ~51 Ii II 0 liO 205lIII-H H ~j middot102 7 ~fl mxl 214~UIU~(gt fnddtrt dlClPllCd j~lI-jt middot1 sa HGG 3117 I 1 RlUJ2Ja Ii 00 ~ 20 no 53 IS 2 Sll3~11 701 ISmiddotII )It 28 221i

Tll( priers llsed for lInglound milo ]l(nds flnd Sumne Joclder W(I(

tllC Cstimnt0d pr0Yltiling flYelflge Jnnn prices in the locnlity during th0 fCeding period and nre shown in tnble 3 A unifol1ll charge of S] 2) per ton VflS mn(le for grinding threslle(l grnin and threshed IHnd8 nnd for chopping the ]mndlts of Sumnc fodder The prices for thresht( glflin wCre basN1 on the fosts of grnin in lInthreshed hpnltls CnlClllated from the percCntngn of grain in heads plus $1 ])(gt1

tOll 101 jlllCRhing Preyniling locl11 market prices for (ottons(Cd mCnl SHIt lim(-tOllt 110111 nnd pll]Ytlized oystersl)(ll wert llsCd

1Il1E 3--fiecd prices per ton (lnril the experiments

IiIo lwuls UI1~rol1nd bull Milo l1elds Ilrltiund ~ lIIllo 1 hreshed unjtrollntL l I ilo t hnltbcd jrollnd (ott()n-~ed mCllL SUIllW (odlier rhoppciLimestone ilour _ ____ ~ Pulrerilfcl oystlmiddotrth~11 ~ (flmIJHm~nlt _ ~rnnklt~

RgSULTS OJlt EXPERIMENTS 1I11-32 EXPERIMENT

The lLyernge ratiom and daily gains of s(((rs by periods ure giYen in table 4 The ayerflge weights of steers flt the end of ench l)eliod fllemiddot shown grfl)hicnily in figure 4 Table3 slImmnrizes the results of t1le first experiment Thcre wns little cliflerfl1ce in the quuntities

6 TECH~ICAL BlLLIYII-- riSl u S DI~PI OF AGHI(rI1IUHI~

of feed consumed by the groups fed threshed milo (ground and unshyground) for the first 140 dass but after that lot 1 fed unground threshed milo consumed abOlt 25 pounds morc grain per head daily than lot 2 fed ground threshed milo In this experiment and also

900 __--__ GROUP 2 GROUND THRESHED MILO S70 0 0 GROUP 4 GROUND MILO HEADS

--- GROUP I UNGROUND THRESHED MILO 0-----00 GROUP 3840

lmiddot-----tU)8 10 UNl+-A_D_S__-JA__---e-ArfI ---1---shyi 720 1-----------t~-middotmiddot-middotmiddot---lmiddot----UJ 690 middot-middotT~-~--middot-----I- If) 660 __ u I

~ 6301---middot4--I shy1 600

W 570 ~

~ 540 i

510

480

450L----~L-----~2------~3------~4------~5------~6--~

28-DAY FEEDING PERIOD ]IGl1ItE middot--hmiddotCIllgC lIe weigh Is ofslecs hy pcrlods luring Ihc 1111lt12 expcriment (ISO days)

in the 1tter ones the diflCrcn(Cs in the qunn tHiefl of chopped SUlllnc foddel (onsun1ed by the steerfl f(d tlllCshCd glnin and those fed milo heads w~fe due to the pfcs(nee of considCfnhlefollghngc in the fltems Wlllll 111110 hends WNC f(d

TAlHP 4-1I1erage JI1li()n~ and dnilll gains pel sIreI bll1Jlliotis 1931-32

(lroup no

Pound1 POIl1llS POIlitis POllltl~ POlllri~ POlIlIds Pounris 1~oncI8 lnground threshed mBo _ 515 SOI [I J9 UBS IIOS 1221 la04 ~ 60

bullbull ___fCottonseed 1Ilenl ~~w~ 15fi 200 177 173 181 200 IUl 181 ll 11 12 ]I I I US U84 781 777 1139

~~UCf~(~~le~ - 11 rr

j

01 0-1 0middot1 04 04 05 04 Limestone flour _ 00 11 II 10 12 10 10 11 A ycrngo dniJ~~ gnin 237 I 19 202 148 I 94 1 75 121 1 75 Ground threshed lIiiomiddot~_ 510 861 UW 073 IOS5 II fl9 1047 897 CotlOnseed meuL I fgtfj 200 1 77 1 i~ 181 200 I IS 181

2 Suml1c fodder _ Hl7 13 J6 12 II 1172 I6U 781 777 1132 SI1I( _ n 04 04 OS 04 10 00 00 )imcstonellonr OI bull II II 10 12 10 10 11 Axernge daily gnin~ 272 159 20U 100 250 101 LI7 202 unground mBo heads _ O SO I I middotIS 1220 13 18 1r3U J~ 29 1767 1300 Cottonsecd meaL 15U 200 1 77 17l 183 200 L US 18

10 20 S 96 S 55 007 147 139 820~ ~~n~~~Od~I~~ 13~~ 01 05 ()8 06 10 12 00 Llmestone flOUf 09 11 11 10 12 10 10 11

A yerago fuBy gain 252 I 18 181 IM 186 104 L 47 I 75 Ground mBo heads O S6 1I48 1220 1310 14114 1365 1567 1220 Cottonseed mea Sumac fodde____

I 56 1396

200176173 U 85 h 91 8 55

183 192

200 436

198 389

182f 29

SIIII___ 03 04 ()I 05 04 00 00 04 Limestone flour __ 09 11 11 10 12 10 10 11 Aycrage dally gain 284 179 I 06 ~ 25 2 OJ 181 I lU 200

7 MILO IOIl PAIllDNING STl~Ins TN SOlIJJIJltHN mU~Al PLAINS

TABLE 5-Summary of lcsulls of first test lVOV 20 1931 10 Alay 18 1932 inclusive middot180 clays

Grop ~-~_ Group 31~~0-U-IP-4- fed 11 fed fed unmiddot fed

nem ground ground ground groundthreshed threshed milo milo

milo milo hoods heods

---middot------------------1---- ----1--------Slcersfedbullbullbullbullbull _bullbull_bull _ ___ bullbullbullbullbull nUlllher bullbull I- Ii 15 15 A erage initinl weighlnl feed 10Lbullbull __ __ _bull _ _pounds bull 471 middot168 middotUl8 468 Aeragellnnl weightnLfeed lol bullbullbull ___ bull____ -do_ 780 832 78l 839 Amiddoterngelllnrkctwcl~htnt Fort Worlh bullbull bull _ ___ dobullbullbull 765 SOO i53 8iii A ernge ~nin per hend feedmiddotlot weights _ __ _ _ do I5 30middot1 115 371 Aerage shrink in trnnsitlIig Spring lu Fllrt Wurth percenL_ 207 a85 383 2 i4 10101 feed consullled per steer

_c bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbull __ c bull ___ - bullbullllilo_ bull pounds bull J i28 1615 2311 2212 Cottonseed menL _bull bull do __ bullbull 321 32l 321 322 Snmac fodder bullbull_ lt10bullbull _ 2050 201 1475 149ASlIltbullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ _ bullbull _ do bullbull 7 JO 11 UlIll)stone lIour bull bullbullbull _do bullbull 19 19 10 19

Feed required per 100 pounds of gnin~ Milo bullbullbullbullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _bullbull do bullbullbull 5~S 444 746 noo Cottonseed meni _ _ _ bullbullbullbullbull __ (10 104 90 101 88 Sumoe fouder __ do 050 [00 468 402

Value of feed per 100 potllllls of gailL __ bullbulldollnrs bull 40i 445 t 27 l90 Cnrel1ltS weights hot _ _ poundsbullbull 441 ~84 4lS 4Ui Dressing llcrcentngo __ percenL~_ 570 605 $2 lO9 Uoggnin Jlersteer_ bull __ pounds bull JOO 26 86 21 SupplementnrY Iced consume1 hy hogs

~Innknge per head dnily_ _ _ lt10 bull 017 O Ii (lI 017 Cottonseeltl melli per henltl dully bull do U Ii 017 017 n17

Hog feed cost per stcer bullbull dollnrs_ 061 ()21 om n21

Initiol COSl per steer nt fl cents per pound bullbullbullbullbullbull bull do 282 28 OS 28 10 28 (JUCost offeed pcr steer _do 1565 Hi 22 1341 144S [lIrkeling cost per steer uo 1 48 348 348 348

ToWI cost per stelr nllllnrket __ bullbulllt10 ~I~~~5 ====

Sales price per hundredweight do 5 JO 5fiO i 31 575 (lross returns per sleer bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ltIo 1902 447S 4030 41192 Profit or loss (-) per steer not includIng hog credit_ do -8 ao -2 98 -~ 71 88 Hog cre(lIt per steer less hog feed costmiddot do I 239 57 199 45 Oross returns per steer including hog credit do 41 41 4535 4221 47Ji Set profit or loss (-) per steer including hog crediL do -5 Ii -2 middott3 -middot2 i2 112

1 I steer died of bl1ckleg Based on hot curcnss and murket weights 3 Selling price of hogs wns $3 per hundredweight

The steer gains were increased about 15 percent by grinding the grain However the bog gains per steer were 74 pounds more when the feed was unground Similar differences in steer gains and feed consumption existed between groups 3 and 4 fed nnground and ground milo heads respectively 1he hog gains however were 64 pounds more per steer when the unground milo heads were fed

A comparison of the results obtained from unground threshed grain and imgrol1nd heads shows practically no diflerence in avernge steer gains or in total feed consumed over the 180-dny period However in group 1 fed ungronncl threshed grain 14 pounds more hog gain was produced per steel The feeding of ground threshed milo proshyduced steel and hog gains similar to those produced by the feeding of milo heads there being a difference of only 4 pounds in hog gains and 7 pounds in steer gains

The cost of feed per 100 pOlUlds of gain for the steers fed unground threshed milo wns more than $1 higher than for those fed ground milo hends The feed costs in the other groups were about midway between these extremes lvIilo heads in either form were more economshyical than the ground 01 unground threshed milo

8 IECHXI(AL BFLLEIIN 5st tt S DEP( OI~ A(IHHTT1IUHFJ

Except for the steers fed ground milo heads there were financial losses on nil the groups but the losses wore significantly greater stutisticnIly 4 on those 1((1 unground gmin Tn the elise of threshed milo grinding reduced the losses to the extent of $354 pel steel when hog credits were indudecl In tbe cnse of groups 3 and 4 which 1eshyceied milo heads grinding nlso wns l)(nefiein The net letulOS on group 4 exceeded those on group 3 by $404 P(gtI steClmiddot rhe losses or low returlls on the IouI groups of SttlIS WNO due almost entirely to the fnct that the prices p(r hundredweight for f((dltI cntUlt w(re highpI than prices lltclie(i for the fnL S(((IS

The avclngn mtions flnd gnins of steNs by plriods nlo given 1Il

table G The aTllfIge weights of steels lit nIl end of encll pedod arC shown glt1phicnlIy in figul( fi The 1(sults of thlt slt(OIHI (xpPIimltnt

9GOr-------r-------r-----~_----~_----__----~_~ --- GROUP 2 GROUND THRESHED MILO

930 0 0 GROUP 4 GROUND MILO HEADS 0--0 GROUP I UNGROUND THRESHED MILO

900 0-----0 GROUP 3 UNGROUND MILO HEADS

Ul870r-------+-------4-------~------_+------~---~c z ~840~------+-------~-------~------_+-------~ o ~810r-------+-------4-------~-------_+---~ rJI 5780r-------~------4-------~-------V_ w ~750r-------middot~------4-------~---~

5 720 r------------------------I-shyrJI ~ 690 r-------+-------~----___ cgtW660 f--------+-----shy~ w 630r-------~----~~

gti 600 i------f

570 r------~

540

510~------~----~L------J-------J------~------~--~ 2 3 4 5 6 28-DAY FEEDING PERIOD

IGIJIIE 5-AcrugeJic wcights or steers by periods durn( Ihc 1Ol2-J experimcnt (t84 duls)

are sumllltuized in tnblo 7 Tho q linn titi(s of fled tOl1SUIl1lc1 by all groups were lnther consistent for cnch pcriod Grinding of threshed milo inclcnscd the stem gains 10 percent and grinding of the milo heads increflsed tlle gains J81 percent

bull All slotisticol tlnolyses or the dnlo in this hulletin were mudo tlccording to the methods in the rollowlng FISHEll H STATISTICL1 fTIIOllS mit InSfIIC11 KfIl~ Ed fI )(l1lld cnl 111 pp iI1us Edlmiddot bIrgh nnd London 1931

9 MlLO FOR FATTEmNG S1EER~ TN ROl11HEHN GHEAI PU INR

rABIg 6-Auelllge lati()n~ and daily (luiilS lJCI ~tecr by perio(l~ 1JS2-88

--~--------------~--~--------~--------------------1 I j J L iFlrsL I Second Third IFourth llfth bull I~t h I n I 1 ycrngn Group I281111 128lln 28middotlIn) 1 2Smiddotdny 28middotdny lSmiddotdn)middot llltrlOI I Qf nilRntlon nnd gainno period lllcrlod perloel I pcriod period Jlltriod 1 t~i~ j pcrlods

_____________________ 1 - - --- ---1--1 -1- ( - -shy pounds POllnrJ IPOII7l~S j POIl~e~ lollll(~ i PO~71~ 10111111 POIlJlci

I middot19S S()I 810 I 0bullbull11 i II(L I_S Hmiddot(( 1Ibulls

Cot tonseed menl IIlIi 200 200 l 200 I 20 22S 22middot) 202 I Sumnc fotltler 1071 (()50 111-11 1200 1110 1 11311 Xoo mUll

t t1grottnd threSheli 11111(1

bull Oil 02 bull ()2 oa I 0( 02 01 01i tl~ieSlOmiddotlifjour 1 I~ q ~ 11 )j q )~ I ~y middotliIIAcrago tlnilr glllrJ

Ground threshed mln g~ an Sio ii 2i 1 Ii 5 1 122k la us 12 C)ttOlse~tllllellL bullbull 1un ~oo 200 200 I Oi 22S 2ZJ ~o

bull StlIlIBC foehler lOil IOW I 1middot10 1200 j 1110 UII KOIJ 1011 - SnIt bullbull bull __ ~~ n ~~ 1 I g ~~ g~ )Jrrnl(stono flour

A oruge dnlly gnln 200 I~~l middot~QI 2middot1gt1 121 ~J 171bull 22~ H~ 9[1 11 il9 lt fJl H ~~ j 1i 5 ls oS 21 -10 H II[lnground milo hentls I 66 2 00 i 200 f 2 00 I l01 228 2 21 I 202

3 ~II1lJIC (oddcr t Cottonslcd menl bullbull

S5 (U9 7281 7 II lUI I 37] IM 1Ila middotuILbullbullbull I Ilnwstonu flour rl ~l t ~~ 1 1 amp I g~ gj ~l

A crngo dnlly gnilL 152 1S IUO 1lli I I~U i 201 IHO 18i Oti1 II an 12Oi 1115 1Ii1Omiddot IS Ill 200( lamiddotlJj[orOUIlCI 111110 hentls bull Ino 200 200 200 201 QS 221 202

I lumnc fudder ~ rott OUSfl(l(i uwaL

S75 7 tH i7t i55 020 Mgt73 t S2 n [) SnIt os Oi 05 1 05 01 01 on

Limestone flour bull II bull 10 bull II bull Jl llf I bull 01 bullon bull bull () rng( tlnll) guiu 1aF 2~n 2Ml 207 trd 14S 21~

- -_---__ -----~------------------ lAIlII 7middot-SUIII-III(l11I of le~llIs of seconclle~t NOIcllliJer 21 1JI2 10 1Ia11 2middot1 9iM

illclusic 181 rlnl~ _ __------------------------------ shy1 Oroup I nroup2 Oroup 3 Oroul

red unmiddot fod fed UIImiddot re 110m I ~rund grouml ground ground

bull threshed threshed I milo milo milo milo t l1uls I hends

~middot-iC-(-rs-f(-d-------------------bull------------r-1I-1I-1I-1gt-r-I---l-14- - _ ~~ --~ I 1 --- wnge inltlnl w(ight nt rl(lllot (loUt1lIs 52() 191 ill) I fi~ crngc nllnl weight ntrced lot bull do 89(1 U13 80a UH A cragc mnrkemiddott weight lit Fort Worth do 1l18 BS iii I I ~(lSerngc gnin ncr helld feedmiddotlot weights dn liO) middot114 311 110 ern~c shrink in tmnsit BIg Spring 10 Fort orth (lcrtcnt nmiddot19 592 595 11 (J Iotnl feed (ollsumcd (lcr stcrr I

lilo bullbull pounds 1703 1Ir

l 21100 ~middotliO

COttonseed menl do Iii I lil a71 I 171 Humncfodder clo 19nO 19middot19 1104 12~ Hnll bull do 5 1 II IJimcstono lour bullbull do 9 LU I to t III

Flp r~qutr(d pcr 100 pounds of ~nln _ I tllo do 409 middot14 8 I nail cottonsecd menl do ()9 90 I lOS 05 Sumnc foddcr In 5191 471 310 l0l)

nlut) Off~NI per 100 pounds or gnln bulldollnr$ 327 a20 1 02 i 0 (nrmss wrights hot pound [11 4 542 II middot19i I I rlo i Dr~ssilJt IlCrclnlngo bull I~~r~~nt Ill 0 61 S Ill 0 U1 I lIog gnin plr steer poundSj 120 I 30 121 an UliPlcmenlllrr feed consumed h~ hogS I

runknge)lerhcmldilrbull do Oli 01 017 017 Cottonseed III(nl per heHI dnily do 017 O Ii O I O Ii

Hog fecd cost per sleer _ dollurs OOtll 011 O ~Il O ao llIitlnl cost per sleer nt5l cents Jlltr pound clo ~l-~l~t--iii74 (ost of felltl igtlr stecr _ do 121l la23 10 fl I II i7 Mnrketing cost per steer do 1middot10 amiddotHI amiddot11l I 1~11

lotnl cost per steer nlmnrket clo --4231 ----imiddottO ~~S-l~7

ffrlgsl~~i~rJ~rle~srg~~I~~~ llg~l t 4~lfmiddot- [~gltr~-~1r- b~~~ Profit p~r steer not imluding hog crcdit 7 Imiddot) 1005 S16 II Of Iior credit Illr steer less hOg feed cost 1 no 101 lbull9 105 1ross returns per stelr inliuding hog ercelit do 501 ~)~ f 5middot1 25 5221 frl 97 -et protlt per steer incluliIlR hog credit bull do 1 bull f 1IOJ 1I li I 00

I 1steer died or hlont bull Bnsml )n hot cnrcass nlllmnrkel middotcjghts 3 Helling priec of hogs WIS $1 [ per hundreelwcight

10 l)CI-IoIJ(AL BILrErrN tiSl u R DEI) OI~ AOHIIlTLlumj

The hog gains pel steel were essentially the same when unground grain was used (groups 1 and 3) and likewise there were no significant differences when ~round grain was used (groups 2 nnd 4) Howeyer the grinding of Clther the heads or the threshed grain decreased the hog gains per steer nbout 70 percent The feed cost of 100 pounds of steer gain aye raged approximately 20 cents more for the groups fed threshed milo than fOI those fed the milo heads and the feed cost pel steer ayeraged $170 more per head The steers fed milo hends had an twelage sales price of 11 cents pel 100 pounds more than the steGIs fed threshed milo On the average tIle glOups fed ground milo (gloups 2 and 4) sold for 20 cents pel 100 pounds more tluUl the groups fed ungrollnd milo (groups 1 nnd 3) With 01 without hog credit the steers fed ground milo hends were most plOfitnble and those fed Ullshyground threshed milo lenst profitnble The steels fed unground milo hends were more profitnble thnn those fed glOund gmin when the cledit fOl hog gnins was included Vhen this credit WIlS not included however the steers fed ground threshed milo letulI1cd glt-ntel profit because of grellter steel gnins nnd highCl slties price

The net Jetulllsper steel in nIl groups fOl the 1032-33 cxpeliment were considerably higher than fOl the 1031-32 cxpelimcllt The diflerences ale due largely to the fnct that feed prices wero somewhut lower in 1932-33 liS shown by table 3 llld priees pel hundledweight 101 Oil fnt tems W(r( higltPl tlInn 101 the feeder enttlc

The nvernge mtions and gllillS of stems by 28-day periods arc given in table 8 The Hvelnge weights of steers nt the end of el1eh p(Iiod

GROUP2 GROUND THRESHED MILO 900[==~~~~]g~~~~~~Lcl~C=====][==~870 0 0 GROUP 4 GROUND MILO HEADS 0- -0 GROUP I UN GROUND T~RESHED MILOI o--r- ~~s__ ~ ~7

~ c~t __-=---- ----= ~j~690 c-- middotmiddot-1-middot - - ----F------shyu ~ I ~

~ 660 _-- I -- ---1- I~ -~ --~ bull--- - ~ 630 f -- -~ -o~ ~- =~-- -----1 w600 _-- -- -0 1 - - - 1--shy~ 570 - ~-ltl--- --_- --- ~ 540 At p~_ ---bullbullbull-_-- shy

~ 510 --I----+----j----j----- -shy480 I----I----I-----I----I--~- --- shy

450 ~-----~--2---~3 4 5 6 7 28-DAY FEEDING PERIOD

FIGuln tl-A ernge lhe weights o( steers by periods during the 1933-34 experiment (196 days)

are shown graphically in figure 6 The results of the third experiment are summarized in table 9 The quantities of feed consumed by the steers in each group by periods were more variable than in the 2 preshyceding years The steels fed ground threshed milo (group 2) did

~ULO FOil l~AlnJNING ST]~ERS IN HOU1Hl~HN (HmAT PLAINS 11

not relish their feed so well as those in other groups as shown by the smaller quantities of milo consumed in nearly aU periods The only exception to this was in the fifth and sixth periods when the milo consumption of group 2 was greater thun that of group I fed unground threshed milo The groups fed milo heads averaged approximately 17 pounds greater milo consumption per steer dlLily over the 196-duy fattening period thun those fed threshed grain Grinding decreased the consumption of threshed milo nearly one-half pound per duy pel steer and of milo heads about 1 pound

lAB(E S-Allerage rations amI daily gains pel ~teer lIy ]ieriorl~ 1918-84

ThirdIFirst Second Foo Fltnh I51 I~ IA~m~~ g Hntlon RllIl gnln 2SmiddotdIlY 2Smiddotdny 28-day 2Smiddotdny 2S-dIlY Uday 2Smiddotday of all perIod period perIod period period perIod perIod periods

_1 ______

Pall nds POll nd bullbull Pou7IIL POllTlM Pounti pound~I pOllndsj Pounds tDgrounll threshed mild 515 7lS 8 (4 837 1251 la25 I lli31l 10 02 CoUollseed menl 110 1 51) 2 ~ ~ 2J---- 198 200 22 I I~Sumnc foddtc 12 ~O 1214 J1 60 1089 10 8 1 (56 10 2

Il 01 02 02 Ul 01 01 02~~fverjiero-stersileii- ~

98 11 14 11 09 10 10 1o A ernge datly gain - ]99 213 224 186 2 i 197 234 219IGround threshed mtlo 4 iiI 1)68 798 78 1289 1371 1422 9 IiO Cottonseerlmenl bullbullbull 110 11iO 197 200 220 228 22Il 19 I

2 Sumac fodder 1253 1214 1157 1091 IO2Il 861 756 1052-0

SaILbullbullbull __ 04 01 01 03 02 O) 02 01 Puhertzed oystershelL OS 1l 14 1l 09 10 10 1o A ernge tintly gain

~

181 210 196 222 291 214 233 222 Cnground mtlo hendsbullbull fl 26 881 045 1000 142i 1619 1878 11bull96 Cottonseed men

~ ~

110 1 fAi 198 200 219 22i 227 191 3 Sumac fodder e ~ 1107 lOao n71 890 740 547 a96 81

Snitbullbullbullbull bullbull _ 01 02 02 01 02 02 02 Il2 Pulerized ostershell OS 11 14 11 09 10 10 1o

-~

A erage dally gaIn - 10tI 168 17 188 22S 201 176 1 80 Grounll milo hendsbullbullbullbull 874 934 1417 1471 1557 n 00 Cottonseed menL - IIiO 107 119 219 223 22i 100

~ ~

~g I 818

4 Sumac rodder ~ 1l04 1046 984 899 743 568 460 82Il ~ 04 01 01 01 02 02 02 01 ~~neriie(omiddotsi~rsheii 08 11 14 11 10 10 10 1o

erago dally gainbull IRSl 181 181 185 255 199 100 191j

lAnl~ 9-SLlllmar1 of lmiddote~ILlt~ of third test Nov r2 1988 to Tmiddot1lne 6 1984 iudILsIve 196 days

i Group 1 Group 2 Group a Oroup 4 fell unmiddot red fed unmiddot fed

Item ground ground ground ~rount1 threshed threshed milo milo

milo milo heads heads ------------------1-----_ ~__ - __ Steers fe(I number 114 1 14 114 15 Aernge Inllllli weight at feed 101 pounltl~ 456 457 454 454 Aerago tinnl weIght at feed loL bullbull __ do 834 892 818 831 Average mnrket weight nt Fon Worth do 832 841 775 791 A ernge gain ~r head feedmiddotlot weight lt10 4~8 431 364 379 Aern~e shrin bull In transIt Ilig SprIng to Fort Worth percent 588 5 2 526 504 Total feed con~umed per steer

Milo__ bullbullbull_ poundsbull 1904 1874 2152 ~~~ CoUonseed menl do bullbull 175 371 371

Sumnc fodder do 2Or1 2062 1621 59lSnll___ __ bullbull do 4 r [ Pulerized oystershell __ dn 20 20 20 20

Feed rCfluired per 100 IlOUncls of gnln 11 110__ do 459 431 644 569 Cottonseed menL __ dobullbull 88 80 101 98 Sumac fodder do 481 474 417 430

Value offeed per IOU (loUlulS or gnin dol1nrsbullbull 5S1 582 607 5 gO CarCllSs weights hot pounds 4946 5121 4546 4779 Dressing perccntnge percenL 595 609 587 004 Hog gain per steer poundsbullbull III 27 III 16

I 1 steer was remoed from eneh of the groups I 2 and 3 on nrcount or actinomYCOSiS nenous tempern ment and stagglness respectiel

IllISCd on hot cnrCllSs nnd mnrket weights

12 IECH~TCf BILLEIIN ii1l1 U ~ J))middotnI (lli MHl(CfJIUI tI

lABlg 9-S1WIIW1middot1 of leSltll~ of thi(l test NOli 22 1988 to Jltne 6 1)84 inclu~ivlJ 19(] day~-Continllcd

Group I Group 2 Group 3 Gronp-t ofcd unmiddot fell fed tillmiddot fel

Hom ground round ~rountl groundthreshe1 threshed milo milo

milo milo heads henrls ------------~- - _--Rupplemontnr~ fee1 conslllnc1 h) ho~g

Innkage per hend dnll) pounds nImiddot1 01middot1 011 011 Cottonseed menl pur Iwnd rlnll~ till 1l1 017 n Ii 0 I

Hog fced cosio per sleor tlOllnlSII nss I) ~middotI 087 021

Inltlnlcostperslcerntrrbullbull cnlspClmiddotpl1und tlo ~5Oa 2510 2middotIU2 IUI Cost of feed per stlcr tlo _j 25 J8 ~fj nn 22H 2~ HI Mnrketln~ cost pCI shI do j amiddot10 a middot111 t2H an

I ------ -~ ------Tottll cost por sleer III mllrkll rio bull I_~I~ _~O nl_~1

SlIles prIce per 100 pouruls do j -lii2- ---050 --- fiss- - 03[ Clrossreturns pllrstcer _ do roll 011 nmiddotlfli 4j57 W21 Profit or loss (-) pcr stClr nullncludlnll hog (retllt do -158 n~ -1117 -1111 lIogcredltpersleerlessllO(feetlcQSLJrlo 180 middot1middot1 10(1 17 Gross rclurn~ per ~lecr 1r1lIlllIl1~ ho~ credlL _ dll 1118 fir II 17bullbullIi no10 Net profil or I(J~ (-J pel filllelo 11lllIllin~ hog rlldll till -I nil 1111 -10 _ II

3 SpllIng priee of hogs wns $2fiIl per hlllldrldw(l~hl

The steers fed threshed milo mllde Iln avcrnge of GO pounds mOlr

gain per steer than those fed milo hCllds with a slightly lower cosl pel pound of gain Grinding of milo headgt or tllleshed gmin did nol have any significant influence on cost of gIlUgt rhe hog gnins PCl fiteer were fiignificantly greater when unground glllin WIIS fod m wns the case in the two previous yeals

When milo heads were used feed costs worc nearly $3 pel steN less than when threshed grain was used hut in net returns pel stpCI with and without hog credit the groups fe(L threshed milo nveragecL $141 and $129 more respectively thnn those fed the milo hends

As in the first experiment there wore finandfll losses 01 vOlT low gains on all groups of steers In the 1933-34 experiment they WOIO due primarily to the high feed costs as compl1red with those of Ihepreceding experiments (table 3)

AVEnAGJ~ HESULTS OF THE rHHEE EXPEHlMEN1S

The aYerage results of the three experiments are tflbulated in table 10 and the gnins of steers by periods are shown graphically in Jigure 7

A study of tllble 10 shows that the group 2 steers fed ground threshed milo made significantly greater gains than group 3 fed unground milo hellds A comporison of the nvemge daily gain 01 the two groups fed unground milo with that of the two groups j(d ground milo shows a significltIlt difference in favor of glinding

The grinding of milo had I decided influence on the gains of hogs following the steers but threshing had no such influence In every instance in which unground gmin was compared with glolmd grnin for hogs following steOls the difference in fIW01 of unground glllin was statistically significant

480~-------1------- ------ ------~------~------~---_4

450L-----~-------2L-------3L-----~4middot-------5~----~6~--~

Z8-0AY FEEDING- PERIOO

lllUllm 7 -Alrlllll IYI lllghls of sl~~rs lJ l~rotlS (ucrng~ of 111 ~xlllrlJllellts 101-14)

fAIIIN lO-SuIlI(1middotY of 1middotISllll~ of tho three eXllcrilllcrtt~ 187 day~ -----~- j ~- ~- bull - ------- shy

(lruup I I (Iro1l112 Groupl GroUl) j CellUl) ie( fmllll Co

Hem f(rouII(I grollml groulld grllul1Il tlmshed thrcsllcd milo lIIil

mUo 11110 helllis hends ~ -~~

I-Itclrs Clt bull bullbull 1I(llIIlwr middot12 middot1middot1 HI j AIern~o ulfu wel~hL nl CIcd ot poundsbullbull 482 middot182 4S1 482 AWtIl)lo fllllli wClhtlt f~el oL lltL Iii 88(1 R2 t 8112 AIWIIgO I1Inrkl1 I(i~hl II~ Imiddotort Worth riobullbullbull H12 810 780 82[ bull 1rIl~C gill II 1)(1 IlllId flIc1middotlot 1lIthts llo 1iJ middotII amiddotlo 80 Icroge shrink I trnJlst bull pInmiddotrlll n II n18 nO middot1middottO bull lrn~l dnlr )lou pcr stNr lIIIUls bull 2 ()() 2 Hi 1 82 2 IH olnl Ceed eonsllllwd PCI Sleer

Milo 110 1818 17au 2 middotlamiddot1 ~l~~ (ottonse(d nwnl lln m~ a8 ms ar7 HUII1I1U (mlI do 2020 2(1(( 1middot111 J-HlJ RnIL (10 U 1 7 1 ttWSLottll Hour or pulverIzed o)stcrshcllbull bullbullbulldo HI IU JU HI

FI rlflurNI per JOO POiIUS or gnn1gt1110bullbullbullbullbull ltu middotI~j 42U 701 II(XI (otf(msNt IiIInL bull (10 III) 81 1Il5 11-1 HUlllllC foddlr 10 [12 11I1l middot114 tsiU

(ost oC CccIII)cr 100 ()unds ( gllili Jnrs middot17a -I un 1 47 middot127 (lInuss wcights hOI pounds bull 182 51j middotlOa r02 Dressng lcrClnll1lll P~lrtmiddotllnt~ [Ubull0 (II HI rO4f1 flO SO lIog guil pentccr poulldsbullbull lin ao lOi 21i

J nllinl osl pcr ser bull IIolllllsbull 211 til 21) III O rJi (I11I (os of feed plr stcr bull lin 1771 18 Ii lr22 1i211 )lnrketing middotOSI pur steer bullltI(L bull t middotIi uS l-II a4to ----_ --_ _--- ---_

onl cost oC sleer 11 IIlllrltet bull 110 4middoti71 middot182 45 18 4GI~ =--==

~uJes pric~u per huudrcdwllghL Iln bullbullbullbull 5 Ill) 110 5 i4 II III Gross returns PCI sleer 110 W20 nO 82 0(4 ii 50 gtJ Prollt or los~ (-) I)Or sluer (uot Including hllg ~ndlt)do -150 2511 -41 401 lIog credit ncr shcr (less hOg feed c~t) bulllt10 20 118 250 50 Net profit por steer Illclutling hog creditlt10 10 32S 2t 15 157

I Bllsed Oil h(l~ lInlIs~ lIud IIJllrkct Weight

14 TECBNlCA]~ BlJLU]1TN 581 U S DEPl OF AGRlCULTUIUJ

When the feed COnSIDled per steer as shown ill table 10 is converted into total digfstible nutrients (table 11) it is found that the steers fed the ground threshed milo made their gaills with a significantly smaller intake of nutrients and thus were ruore efficient in their utilization of feed than those receiving unground milo heads Difshyferences between the intake of nutrients wIlen ground and unground milo heads were fed were nearly significant statistically whereas other statistical comparisons among the groups showed differences far short of being cignificant It required 96 more pounds of digestshyible nutrients per 100 pounds of gain for steels fed un ground milo than for steers fed ground milo but only 24 pounds more for steers fed unthreshed milo than for those fed threshed milo

The cost of feed per steer and per 100 pounds of gain was greater 101 the groups fed threshed gmin than fon those fed unthreshed grain Although ground grain WitS more expensive than unground grain owing to the additional cost of grinding yet the feed cost pel 100 pounds of gain was lower for the steers fed ground grain because of the more efficient feed utilization Milo heads either ground or unground resulted in a lower total feed cost per steer than did threshed grain

TABLE n-Average quantities oj total digestible nutrients required per 100 poltnd~of gain made by steers fed various forms of milo

Avemgoquantity of totnl digestmiddot

Group no Form 0( milo fed ibl6nutrlmiddot ents 1 reo quired per 100 pounds

OfRin _-__-__-( -----------------1----

POU1id6J - - _ bull_ _ 1hreshed grain IIngrountL __ _ 7422 -- _ Ihreshed grain ground __ ____ I ___ __ _ Heads unground _ _bullbull i70

78U4 - _ _ Heads ground _ 682Jund2bull -bullbull _ __ 1middothreshedgrnillgroundnndunground i12lnnd J ___ _ Heads ground and unground 7362nnd4 ______ - Ground threshed grain and bfOllndheads I J nnd 3 __ --- - -- Ungrounc1 threshed grain lind unground heads __ __ f 676

i72

I Djgestibilily percentages used in tile determinnUons were 76 (or cottonseed meal 80 for threshed grain 611 for milo heads and 52 for Sumnc fodder_

In sale price per hundredweight the group 4 steers fed ground milo heads brought 36 cents more than group 3 fed unground milo heads 41 cents more than group 1 fed unground threshed milo and only 5 cents more than group 2 fed ground threshed milo The difshyference in sale price Nas statistically significant only between the groups fed unground and ground milo heads The fact that no sigshynificant differences were found between other groups may be explained by greater variations from year to year within a group than between groups In groupsfed unground and ground milo heads the differences were consistently greater from year to year Threshing of the grain had practically no effect on the sale price of cattle

The data in table 10 show that groups 2 and 4 which received ground feed made the greater profits pel steer When hog credits were included the net profit per steer in group 2 was $220 greater

MILO FOU FATTENING STEERS IN SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS 15

than in group 1 and the profit per steer in group 4 was $242 greater than in group 3 These differences are significant statistically and accordingly show a considerable advantage for grinding The threshshying of grain decreased profits somewhat as the average profit per steer not including hog credit for the two groups of steers fed threshed grain was $049 as compared with $180 for the average of the two groups fed untbreshed grain

The averago gain made by the steers fed threshed milo (groups 1 and 2) was significantly greater than that made by steers fed unthreshed milo (groups 3 and 4)

The use of ground milo was advantageous in practically all items affecting the returns from the cattle feeding with the exception of hog credit per steer which showed a significltDt difference in favor of the use of unground grain The hog credit per steer for the two groups of steers fed unground grain averaged $260 as compared with $062 for the steers fed ground grain The additional hog credit howshyever did not make up for the lower net returns per steel of the groups fed the ungrollnd grain The steers fed ground milo heads had the smallest hog credit and returned the greatest net profit per steer (inshycluding hog credit) primllrily because of lower feed costs per 100 pounds of gain and a little higher sales price per hundredweight

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Experiments to determine the Jelative feeding value of threshed milo and milo heads in both ground and llnground forms were beglill in the fall of 1931 and continued through three successive winter feedshying periods Sumac fodder and cottonseed meal were fed with milo in the various forms to four groups of Good to Choice feeder steers fol an average feeding period of 187 days for the three experiments The experiments were conducted at the Big Spring Field Station Big Spring Tex and the following results were obtained

Steers fed ad libitum on ground milo made greater gains than those fed lIllground milo Grinding of milo either as threshed grain or in heads Wl1S conducive to efficient feed utilization The higher sale prices of the steers fed ground milo lllore than offset the cost of grinding and showed that this was a profitable method of preparing tih~ grain However itdeclelLsed materially the gaL of hogs following the cattle used in the experiments

Threshing of milo heads increased the gains of steers hut these increased gains although statistically significant were not sufljcient to justify the ex])ense of threshing Differences in efficiency of feed utilization by steers due to threshing were not significant

Feed cost per steer and pel 100 pounds of gain was higher with threshed than with unthreshed grain Furthermore there was no significant increase due to tlrreshing in gains of hogs following the cattle nor in sale price of the steers

These experiments show conclusively that the grinding of milo whether in the form of milo heads 01 threshed grain is to be recomshymended for fattening young steers whetllCr or not hogs are placed in the feed lots to follow the steers They also show that the threshshying of milo heads for use in steer fattening is an added expense offset neither by significantly greater steer gains nor by net rctUTIls

ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITIm STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUt7UR~ WilEN TlIIS PUBLICATION WAS LAST PRINTED

Secretary of II(lrtculurl ____ ___ bull _____ _ l-nder SCCrCl(lTY ____ I~spoundstant Secretary Director of Bxten~ion Workbull ______ bull _ _ Director of Finance Director of l1ljOrlWioIL bull Director of PersonneL __ _

BENny A ALLACE

M L WILSON

HAHHY L BHOWN

C VVAltHUltTON

W A JUMP

M S EISENHOWEH

W V STOCKBJomOFIl

SoNcilO1 __ bull __ bullbull _ __ _ AgriwltuTrll ~ldjlstl(mt Admini8traliol_ Burclll of A (lricuitura Bcoll-omics bull Buren1 of A(lriclItural BU(Ii-nrcdu( __ Buren of Jnilllal Industry Bureau of Biolollical 8uvcll __ _ ]jur 1 of Chemistry and Soil~ COIIInoritJ Exchll1(lc Adllrlti~r(lti(lll Burc(u of Dairllllldl8lry__ Bureau of BlltoIllOO(llIlIlid Plllnt Ql(Irllulinc

Direclor of Research_ bull LulEs T JAIWINE

Oiliec of Bxp(IllIIent 8utiOIlN Food and Dru(I AdlllinislTrltiol Forest 8erlicc _bullbull _ IllrCal of lolile BconoIII irx Library___ __ Burcal of Pillut h(l~Irl_ 3urC(JL of Public ROlld~ _ R(~etllellenl A dill il1istr(lUon __ Soil COll8ervolion 8c11poundcc _ Wellther Burcal ________ bull ___ _

-

IVIASTIN G WIllTE

H R lOLLEY Arlltini~tlItor A G BLACK Cldef S H McCnony CII1rf fOIIN R MOIIIEn Chiti I itA N GARJUELSON Chief HI~NItY G JNIGHT Chief r W T DUV~JL Chili O E REED Chief L~JJoJ A STItONG Chitf bullfA~lgS T fuWINJoJ Chili VALTBH G CAMPBEII Chief F~mDINA)D A SIICOX Chitf LOUISJoJ STANLEY Chhi CLAHlIIEL R J3AltNETT Librariall FH~JD~JHlCK D RICImy Chief THOIIIAS R MACDo)ALD (Ilili V V AMJXANDEH Adlllinililrrrior H H BENNJTT Chief ILLIS R GHEGt Chief

This hlilldin i I jOillL lolliriblltiOIl frolll

Uurml of 1nillolllI~try 1ldll(ll JJlt8bandry Dhi~i(ln

UurCfl M 0 Pnllt I ndu~lry___ Division of Dry Lanci JfnCullurl ___ bull _

16

fOH) R lofOHl~JIt (hit H C lIcPlmE Prtndp(ll middot17pound11(11

Ilulib(J neiman Chief FItEDJoJIUCK D RICHEY (dli C E LEIGHTY Prtncipal Aymn

0111181 in Charge

U fOVIRrilJpa rRINfWt orltl 9)7

~~~~~~~~ August 1937

Technical Bulletin No 581 ~ tNlTED STATES DEPART~mNT OF AGRlClLTCRI

WASH lNGTO D C

COMPARISON OF VARIOUS FORMS OF MILO GRAIN FOR FATTENING STEERS

IN THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS I

B~ Y H BLArK senior animal husbanillllcLn Anill(1llJI~bandT1 Ditision BttrcrLU of Animal Jndusry LOnicd ilales Dcparlment of Jigricullllre T 11 JO~ES chief DilJisioTt of Range lnillwl flwb(wdry Texa~ Jlgricullvral Experiment Station and F E KEAlTNG associate agronomisl Diltision 0 Dry-Larul Agriculture Bureau of Plant [nduslry Uniled Stales Departmcnt of Agriculturc ~

~~ ~~ 1 ]CSlIltS of expcrhllents- ((nl illlJld The nrea nnd it prohlNlIs l tu12middota experinwul SExperituelltll lro(edur~ ii JUJj-a-l experIment 10I otu]lositiol1 alH] prkls of feNls i Averngc Jllsult1 orthc thttC fxp(ri1n~nt~L 12Hesults of experiment ~i ~uIllUlury- und conclusions L5W31-3~ CXllcrilllcIlL

fH E AREA AND ITS PROBLEMS

Since ahot t 1920 the production of gmin sorgllll)11S Jw shown It

Jl1tJked inoJcase rathel g(nerlll1y throughout the southern Great Plains particularly in the (St(l11 Ilnd Panhandle s(ctioJl of T(xfLs rhe l(llding Stltt(S in their Vrod uctiOll am1 the aycra~( acreage during U)29-83 were 1(x115 370)000 Old I1h onUL 1433000 Kallsas 1224000 Nrw IeolCo 324000 Coomdo 213000 Ctliforniu 05000 ivIiss01lli 87000 AIizOllfL 34000 and Drchruska 22000

Heres TIl( distribution of the glllin sorghums in 1929 ficcording to the Cnit(cl SUttes ((lnsus is shown in figure 1

The southern (reut Pinins is subject 10 considerable yltriation in tempemture During the period of the study reported in this bulshyletin the lLnge in tcmpclnture nt Big Spring Tex wus from _6

0 to

1020 F (table 1) Thn total precipitation during the months of the feeding experiments cfich year ranged from tlPl)loximtttely 5 to 13 inches

I Submitted for publication )1r ~5 1937 AcknowlcdgmcnL is IlIl1de to llrndford Knupp Ir nssociull Ilnimnl hllsbulIllrnnn Animal Husbandry

J)iyision llurenu ~f llillnlllltluslr~ or his Ilssistat1~u in thostutisUcallllnlysis of the datu


GRAIN SORGHUMS (929



1i31-32 I



~Ionth


--------~~---------- --- o l~

I a b~ incrs ltF oJ






TollIL ------I3iSt--------4U3 500










































~ 6301---middot4--I shy1 600

W 570 ~

~ 540 i

510

480

450L----~L-----~2------~3------~4------~5------~6--~




(lroup no



~~UCf~(~~le~ - 11 rr

j





I 56 1396

200176173 U 85 h 91 8 55

183 192

200 436

198 389

182f 29





























gti 600 i------f

570 r------~

540




























l 21100 ~middotliO
















~ 510 --I----+----j----j----- -shy480 I----I----I-----I----I--~- --- shy








_1 ______






~


~ ~



-~


~ ~

~g I 818
































480~-------1------- ------ ------~------~------~---_4

450L-----~-------2L-------3L-----~4middot-------5~----~6~--~





















OfRin _-__-__-( -----------------1----



i72
















BENny A ALLACE

M L WILSON

HAHHY L BHOWN

C VVAltHUltTON

W A JUMP

M S EISENHOWEH

W V STOCKBJomOFIl




-

IVIASTIN G WIllTE





16



0111181 in Charge



GRAIN SORGHUMS (929



1i31-32 I



~Ionth


--------~~---------- --- o l~

I a b~ incrs ltF oJ






TollIL ------I3iSt--------4U3 500










































~ 6301---middot4--I shy1 600

W 570 ~

~ 540 i

510

480

450L----~L-----~2------~3------~4------~5------~6--~




(lroup no



~~UCf~(~~le~ - 11 rr

j





I 56 1396

200176173 U 85 h 91 8 55

183 192

200 436

198 389

182f 29





























gti 600 i------f

570 r------~

540




























l 21100 ~middotliO
















~ 510 --I----+----j----j----- -shy480 I----I----I-----I----I--~- --- shy








_1 ______






~


~ ~



-~


~ ~

~g I 818
































480~-------1------- ------ ------~------~------~---_4

450L-----~-------2L-------3L-----~4middot-------5~----~6~--~





















OfRin _-__-__-( -----------------1----



i72
















BENny A ALLACE

M L WILSON

HAHHY L BHOWN

C VVAltHUltTON

W A JUMP

M S EISENHOWEH

W V STOCKBJomOFIl




-

IVIASTIN G WIllTE





16



0111181 in Charge







































~ 6301---middot4--I shy1 600

W 570 ~

~ 540 i

510

480

450L----~L-----~2------~3------~4------~5------~6--~




(lroup no



~~UCf~(~~le~ - 11 rr

j





I 56 1396

200176173 U 85 h 91 8 55

183 192

200 436

198 389

182f 29





























gti 600 i------f

570 r------~

540




























l 21100 ~middotliO
















~ 510 --I----+----j----j----- -shy480 I----I----I-----I----I--~- --- shy








_1 ______






~


~ ~



-~


~ ~

~g I 818
































480~-------1------- ------ ------~------~------~---_4

450L-----~-------2L-------3L-----~4middot-------5~----~6~--~





















OfRin _-__-__-( -----------------1----



i72
















BENny A ALLACE

M L WILSON

HAHHY L BHOWN

C VVAltHUltTON

W A JUMP

M S EISENHOWEH

W V STOCKBJomOFIl




-

IVIASTIN G WIllTE





16



0111181 in Charge





























gti 600 i------f

570 r------~

540




























l 21100 ~middotliO
















~ 510 --I----+----j----j----- -shy480 I----I----I-----I----I--~- --- shy








_1 ______






~


~ ~



-~


~ ~

~g I 818
































480~-------1------- ------ ------~------~------~---_4

450L-----~-------2L-------3L-----~4middot-------5~----~6~--~





















OfRin _-__-__-( -----------------1----



i72
















BENny A ALLACE

M L WILSON

HAHHY L BHOWN

C VVAltHUltTON

W A JUMP

M S EISENHOWEH

W V STOCKBJomOFIl




-

IVIASTIN G WIllTE





16



0111181 in Charge

























l 21100 ~middotliO
















~ 510 --I----+----j----j----- -shy480 I----I----I-----I----I--~- --- shy








_1 ______






~


~ ~



-~


~ ~

~g I 818
































480~-------1------- ------ ------~------~------~---_4

450L-----~-------2L-------3L-----~4middot-------5~----~6~--~





















OfRin _-__-__-( -----------------1----



i72
















BENny A ALLACE

M L WILSON

HAHHY L BHOWN

C VVAltHUltTON

W A JUMP

M S EISENHOWEH

W V STOCKBJomOFIl




-

IVIASTIN G WIllTE





16



0111181 in Charge









~ 510 --I----+----j----j----- -shy480 I----I----I-----I----I--~- --- shy








_1 ______






~


~ ~



-~


~ ~

~g I 818
































480~-------1------- ------ ------~------~------~---_4

450L-----~-------2L-------3L-----~4middot-------5~----~6~--~





















OfRin _-__-__-( -----------------1----



i72
















BENny A ALLACE

M L WILSON

HAHHY L BHOWN

C VVAltHUltTON

W A JUMP

M S EISENHOWEH

W V STOCKBJomOFIl




-

IVIASTIN G WIllTE





16



0111181 in Charge






_1 ______






~


~ ~



-~


~ ~

~g I 818
































480~-------1------- ------ ------~------~------~---_4

450L-----~-------2L-------3L-----~4middot-------5~----~6~--~





















OfRin _-__-__-( -----------------1----



i72
















BENny A ALLACE

M L WILSON

HAHHY L BHOWN

C VVAltHUltTON

W A JUMP

M S EISENHOWEH

W V STOCKBJomOFIl




-

IVIASTIN G WIllTE





16



0111181 in Charge





















480~-------1------- ------ ------~------~------~---_4

450L-----~-------2L-------3L-----~4middot-------5~----~6~--~





















OfRin _-__-__-( -----------------1----



i72
















BENny A ALLACE

M L WILSON

HAHHY L BHOWN

C VVAltHUltTON

W A JUMP

M S EISENHOWEH

W V STOCKBJomOFIl




-

IVIASTIN G WIllTE





16



0111181 in Charge








OfRin _-__-__-( -----------------1----



i72
















BENny A ALLACE

M L WILSON

HAHHY L BHOWN

C VVAltHUltTON

W A JUMP

M S EISENHOWEH

W V STOCKBJomOFIl




-

IVIASTIN G WIllTE





16



0111181 in Charge














BENny A ALLACE

M L WILSON

HAHHY L BHOWN

C VVAltHUltTON

W A JUMP

M S EISENHOWEH

W V STOCKBJomOFIl




-

IVIASTIN G WIllTE





16



0111181 in Charge


comparison of various forms of milo grain for...

Documents