LAMB FEEDING AT TEXAS TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGE THESIS. Approved: Approyed:

Transcription

1 LAMB FEEDING AT TEXAS TECNOLOGICAL COLLEGE TESIS Approved: Approyed:

2 LAMB FEEDING AT TEXAS TECNOLOGICAL COLLEGE TESIS Presented to ths Faculty of the Graduate Division of the Texas Technological College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE By azzle L. Self, B.S. Stephenville, Texas August, 1950 TD(AS TECNOLOGICAL COLLEGE LUBBOCK, T )(AS IIBRARY v^^-'...uw4'4^^'i4;u'

3 ACKNOWLE DGEMENTS The author is indebted to Professor Ray C. Mowery for making the information used in part of this thesis available to this writer and for his assistance in the selection, organization and arrangement of the material contained herein. Acknowledgement is also given arry Blenden, graduate student during the winter of , for information and pictures received in regard to Texas Technological College Lamb Feeding Project Number Sixteen. to o o "I-*- CO I o

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Present Day Recommendations 1 Introduction 10 Objectives 13 Review of Literature 14 Comparison of Lambing Down Corn to andfeeding of Corn 17 Comparison of Lambing Down Milo to andfeeding of Milo 25 Dry-Lot Roughages Used in Lamb Fattening Rations 28 Protein Supplements Used in Lamb Fattening Rations 35 Mineral Supplements Used in Lamb Fattening Rations 37 Grains Used in Lamb Fattening Rations 37 Shelter for Fattening Lambs 39 Water Temperature 40 Experiments 41 Methods and Materials 41 Initial Feeding Trials Investigations 59 Projects Nine aad Ten 62 Project Eleven 66 Project Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen and Fifteen 72 Project Sixteen 93 Comparative Feeding Value of Alfalfa and Sorghum Roughages for Fattening Lambs 104 Summary and Conclusions 109 Bibliography 114

5 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page I Average Daily Gains In Pounds by Lambs Fed in Cornfield 24 la Open Lot Compared With Shelter for Fattening Lanibs 40 II Summary of Five-Years of Feeding Alfalfa ay as the Sole Roughage of A Lamb Fattening Ration 49 III IV V VI VII Three Years Investigations on the value of Sorghum Fodder, Supplemented with Pulverized Oyster Shell. 51 Sorghum Fodder Roughage ;Jithout Oyster Shell 52 Sorghum Silage Supplemented V/ith Pulverized Oyster Shell 65 Sorghum Silage Without An Oyster Shell Supplement 56 Summary of Tables II, III, IV, V and VI on the Value of A Mineral Supplement Added to Sorghum Fodder and Sorghum Silage. 57 VIII Sumaary of 90 Days of the Lamb Feeding Experiment 60 IX Shelter vs No Shelter 63 X Average of Certain Lots of Trials 9 and XI An Average of Lots in Trials 9 ana XII Yellow Dv/arf Milo vs Martin luilo 67 XIII XIV XV Summary of Four Years Lamb Feeding Trials, Lot I, Martin Milo 84 Siimmary of Four Years Lamb Feeding Triald, Let II, Plainsman Milo 85 Carcass Grade and Per Cent for Lots I and II 86 XVI One Year of Shelter Vs No Sheltoj? 87

6 Table XVII LIST OF TABLES - Continued Title Summary of Tv/o Years Comparison of Martin and Plainsman Milo Vi/hen Sumac Sorghum Fodder is Used as the Roughage With Limited Alfalfa XVIII Summary of Two Years Feeding of Plainsman XIX Page Summary of Two Years of Lambing Down Plainsman Milo 90 XX Carcass Grade and Per Cent for Lots II and V 92 XXI Summary of 75 Day Field Feeding Experiment 101 XXII Summary of Roughage Comparison Feeding Tests

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page 1 Metal Shed and Experimental Sheep Feeding Lots on the Texas Tech Farm 42 la Scales and Crate Used to Obtain Individual Lamb Weights 43 2 Twelve Foot Feed Trough of the Type Used in Texas Tech Experimental Lamb Feeding 45 2a Diagram Showin,^ Details of Construction of the Twelve Foot Feed Trough Shown in Fig Mineral Box Used in Check Lot and in all Dry Lot Feeding Trials 48 4 Sorghum Silage Stored in a Trench Silo 54 5 Concrete V/ater Trough Y/ith Apron 71 6 Mineral Boxes of the Type Used to Supply Mineral to the Field Fed Lambs 73 7 V/ooden Tubs Used to Supply Water to the Field Fed Lambs 75 8 A Type of Feed Trough Used For Feeding the Supplementary Ration to the Field Fed Lambs 75 9 Three-Way Cutting Chute Used to Separate Lambs into Uniform Lots for Experimental Purposes The Condition and Amount of Feed in the African Millet Field Prior to the Beginning of the Grazing Period African Millet Field After Lambs ad Been Feeding 16 days African Millet Field After Lambs ad Been Feeding 35 days African Millet Field at Close of Sxperiment- A total of 75 days Lambs Being Turned into the Plainsman Milo Field the First Time 102

8 LIST OF FIGURES - Continued Figure Title Page 15 The Condition and Amount of Grain in the Plainsman Milo Field at the Beginning of the Experiment Milo Field After Lambs ad Been Grazing 17 Days Milo Field at end of Sxperiment-A Period of 47 Days in this Field 103

9 PRESENT DAY RECOMMENDATIONS Im most cases a complete review of literature is presented as the first part of a thesis. This thesis is deviating slightly from the usual procedure in order to present at the beginning certain recommendations for feeding lambs on the igh Plains of Texas. Lamb feeding trials conducted by the Animal usbandry Department of Texas Technological College show that lamb feeding in the igh Plains area of Texas is a profitable enterprise; the basis for these conclusions are covered in a later division of this publication. West Texas grade Rambouillet lambs weighing between 50 and 65 pounds (preferably 60 to 65 pounds) should be bought from an area relatively clean of parasites and diseases. The common sources available to a feeder from the plains area for buying feeder lambs are direct from the rancher or through a commission company. The usual method of buying from the rancher is to pen the lambs, weigh them and take a 3 per cent shrink of the gross weight. Grade Rambouillet feeder lambs should be tagged at both the head and tail. Results of Tech experiments indicate that vaccination and drenching is profitable. Spraying or dipping with DDT is dependent upon the tick infestation of the lambs. In some instances, depending upon the circumstances and their point of origin, it is

10 also advisable to vaccinate for sore mouth* The following commercial rates are quoted by the Mid-West Feed Yards of San Angelo, Texas. Shear (Sacks extra).25 Tag, face and tail.05 PLUS TAGS Tag and boot.06 PLUS TACTS Dip (4^ DDT), sheared.06 Dip (4^ DDT), in wool.10 Vaccinate.10 Paint Brand.01 Drench, regular Phenothiazine.075 Drench, Special Phenothiazine.085 In most instances an experienced sheepman can save money by buying the necessary supplies and performing these jobs himself. Other experienced sheepmen feel that they can also avoid doing some of these jobs and save that much extra expense. As stated above, it is the experience of Texas Technological College that these jobs are good insurance and that many times will mean the difference between profit and loss for the inexperienced lamb feeder. Freshly dipped or sprayed lambs should not be hauled until they are dry as a safeguard against pneumonia or other ill effects. The customary delivery date of West Texas grade

11 Rambouillet feeder lambs is in early October. An ordinary double deck trailer truck will carry about 200 feeder lambs. Probably the most ideal situation at delivery time would be to unload the lambs on a 20 to 30 acre pasture with a heavy growth of the native grasses for the first few days Extreme caution should be used during the first ten days to prevent death loss from overeating. Upon the arrival of the lambs at the feed lot they should have clean pens, a dry roughage (not a legume), salt and plenty of clean water waiting for them. The dry roughage may be either cottonseed hulls or dehorned sorghum bundles. Special care should be taken to see that "all the grain has been removed from the sorghum bundles. Usually one to two days elapse before the lambs show much tendency to eat. During this period and the succeeding few days two pounds of cottonseed hulls and onefourth pound of cottonseed meal per lamb per day will suffice. On the fourth or fifth day some alfalfa hay should be fed, and from a week to ten days after starting to eat they should receive a small quantity of grain. The College feels that premixing of the grain and roughage will prevent many death losses due to overeating on grain. It is extremely important that the grain ration be mixed before being offered to the lambs. The following mixture is recommended for a beginning ration.

12 4 Ground alfalfa hay 66.67^^ Cottonseed meal 3.33^ Threshed milo grain 30.00^^ By the end of the seventh day the lambs should be eating 2.2 pounds of the above mixture. This should be increased until at the end of tv;o to three weeks they are eating a total of three pounds per lamb daily. At the end of thirty days the following mixture should be substituted into the feeding schedule. This may be done slowly by feeding one mixture at the morning feed and the other at the afternoon feed. Ground alfalfa hay 50^ Cottonseed meal 5% Threshed Milo Grain 45^^ Lambs should be started on this mixture at the rate of 2.4 pounds per lamb per day and gradually increased until at the end of ten days to two weeks the lambs are consuming approximately three pounds per head daily. It is a recognized fact that fattening lambs v;ith an abundance of alfalfa is a simple procedure and a profitable one in most cases. Feeding Sorghum Silage The object of any lamb feeding program is to market farm raised feed. One of the most profitable crops to raise on the igh Plains is Sumac Sorghum--harvested and stored as a dry roughage or in a trench silo as silage. Sumac Sorghum is commonly called "Red Top Cane".

13 Silage can be fed beginning with the third to the fifth day in combination with some dry roughage. Caution to see that all grain is removed from any dry roughage should be taken. The lambs should be consuming five pounds per lamb daily by the end of the second week of silage feeding. Some milo grain can be fed on the seventh to the tenth day and increased gradually until they are consuming approximately one pound per head daily. Texas Tech investigators feel that it is an extra precaution to grind or chop the alfalfa hay and mix it with milo and cottonseed meal before placing it on the silage. Under conditions where grain is put out in the feed trough alone, lambs have a tendency to overeat on grain resulting in digestive disorders and serious death losses may occur. It should be kept in mind that from one-third to one-half of a pound of alfalfa hay,.4 ounce of limestone flour, and one-third pound of cottonseed meal is needed throughout the feeding period. One pound of the following mixture per lamb daily will supply these requirements and should be used to start the lambs on grain. Threshed milo grain 33.33^ Ground alfalfa hay 33.33< Cottonseed meal 33.33^ By the end of the fourth week each lamb should be eating 1.2 pounds of this mixture daily. From the

14 twenty-fifth to the thirty-fifth day the following ration should be fed on alternate feedings; i.e. either morning or night for the purpose of putting them on the richer grain ration slowly. Threshed milo grain 60.00^ Ground alfalfa hay Cottonseed meal 20.00^^ 20.00/^ This mixture should be started at the rate of one pound per lamb per day (.5 pound for each feeding). After the thirty-fifth day they should be switched to it altogether and by the end of the fiftieth day they should be consuming 1.25 to 1.5 pounds per head daily. This should be increased as the lambs can take it so that during the last thirty to forty days they are consviming at least 1.8 pounds daily or even more if they can handle it without any ill effects. The silage consumption will come down proportionately as the grain consumption goes up. It should be kept in mind that in order to sell as much silage through lambs as possible the grain ration should be held as low as possible to get the desired results. Feeding Sorghum Fodder When Sumac Sorghum (Red Top Cane) fodder is marketed through lambs, the same procedure for getting the lambs on feed is used except no silage is introduced into the ration. In order to get the maximum consumption of all parts of the fodder, chopping is recommended. A small feed chopper with rotary knives has been used success-

15 fully at Texas Tech to cut the fodder into one-half inch lengths. It is sometimes the case that bundles fed early in the feeding period are rather sappy and green. The type of cutter used will of course be governed by the condition of the fodder at the time of consumption. The chopped fodder is put in the feed trough and the concentrate part of the ration spread over it. The following mixture is recommended for use in starting these lambs on feed. Threshed milo grain 33.33^ Ground alfalfa hay 33.33^ Cottonseed meal 33.33^ This grain mixture should be started slowly from the seventh to the tenth day and by the end of the first week on this ration they should be consuming about one pound of the mixture per head daily. This may be increased to 1.2 pounds by the end of the fourth week in addition to all the roughage they will consume. As in silage feeding the following mixture should be slowly substituted for the beginning grain ration from about the twenty-fifth to the thirty-fifth day of the feeding period. Threshed milo grain 60.00^ Cottonseed meal 20.00^ Ground alfalfa hay 20.00;J This mixture should be initiated into the feeding schedule at the rate of one pound daily. By the seventh week this should be increased up to 1.25 to 1.5 pounds of the mixture per head daily. As the feedin^^ period

16 progresses the amount of the grain ration consumed should be increased steadily as the lambs are capable of taking 8 it. They should consu^ne from 1.8 to perhaps 2.0 pounds per head daily during the last one-half of the feeding period. As the consumption of grain goes up the fodder consinnption will come down. The lambs will eat approximately three pounds of feed daily, so any increase in one mixture v/ill automatically cause a decrease in another feed. ARVESTING SOROflUIvlS WIT LAMBS There are three main types of lamb feeding in the Texas igh Plains area; namely, the dry lot, the lambing down and the wheat field type of fattening enterprise. Only the first two have been investigated at Texas Tech. West Texas Grade Rambouillet lambs that are to be used for harvesting sorghums should be supplied 2- - pounds of cottonseed hulls and J pound of cottonseed meal per head daily for a few days to get the lambs started eating. Plenty of clean water and salt should be available at all times. After 5 or 6 days the lambs should be turned into a sweet sorghum field (African Millet has been used successat Tech) with water, salt and mineral available to them at all times. The sheep v^ill eat first the weeds along the fence rov;s, the leaves, and lastly the grain from the ST;eet sorghum heads. As long as they are on the sweet sorghum alone, no roughage supplement is required. Unless a killing frost is encountered, about 4 weeks can be spent profitably on the sweet sor^iums. This ^^ets them gradually

17 V \ on the grain ration at which time they should be introduced to the field of Plainsman milo for approximately 30 minutes the first day. This time should be Increased each day until the fifth or sixth day, the fence between the sweet sorghtim and the combine milo may be removed. The lambs will continue to graze the sweet sorghum and milo field until they are relatively clean of grain and leaves. Digestive disorders can be expected to affect approximately 8 per cent of the lambs for the first three weeks after being turned into the milo field. The feeding of 3/4 pound of ground or chopped alfalfa hay v/ith 1/4 pound of cottonseed meal per lamb daily is believed to be of great aid in controlling these digestive disorders. In order to save -labor this supplementary feed should be fed only once daily (about 10:00 AM is recommended) in trou^s placed in the field. It is a definitely known fact that lambing down grain sorghums is unsatisfactory unless the field feeding is supplemented with a protein and legume feed. Mineral and salt should be available and easily accessibly at all times. Investigations at Tech indicate that 4 acres of sweet sorghum and 7 acres of Plainsman milo Vifill carry one hundred sixty 77 pound lambs for a 75 day period if the sweet sorghums yield 10 tons of silage per acre and 1he milo will yield 2000 pounds of grain per acre.

18 10 INTRODUCTION Lamb feeding has become an industry of considerable importance in this section of Texas. It is an activity that fits well with the type of farming in this section of the state, since it usually starts in the fall or early winter when other farm work is not very pressing, and is completed in the spring before field work demands / very much time. Corn was usually considered as the basic grain in any fattening ration, but it has never been a major crop in the igh Plains area. Any used for feeding purposes must be shipped in from the corn producing areas. This made corn expensive to feed. An abundance of cheap milo grain in the igh Plains area posed the problem of whether or not it could be satisfactorily substituted fcr corn as the basic grain; and if so, in what proportions? According to Karper ejb aj. (34), the 60,000,000 bushels of sorghum grain produced in Texas in 1932 represented about one-half of the total production of the United States Tor that year. The Progress Report, Substation Number 8, Lubbock, Texas (51) reported in 1918 that "grain sorghum is probably the most valuable crop to the Plains farmer. The acreage devoted to grain sorghum in this section is almost equal to that of all other crops combined. Grain sorghums are to the Plains county of Texas what corn is to the Corn Belt." Texas has approximately as many breeding ewes as

19 as the total of the next three leading sheep producing 11 states combined. The majority of these ewes are concentrated in the Edwards Plateau region, which adjoins the igh Plains area on the south. The combination of a lamb supply each year and a supply of cheap grain created a condition that was conducive to the feeding of lambs in drylot, and of more recent years to the field harvesting or "lambing down" of combine milo with West Texas grade Rambouillet lambs, "Lambing down" is a process of turning the lambs in the sorghum field to harvest the roughage and grain. This system of lamb feeding gained some popularity during World War II because of the labor shortage. In November of 1929 the Animal usbandry Department began the first experimental lamb feeding trials ever conducted at Texas Technological College. These experiments were set up with the approval of the Research Committee by the Animal I^sbandry Department in cooperation with the Range Animal usbandry Division of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station for the specific purpose of finding out which feeds, which methods of feeding and v;hich combinations of feeds would produce the greatest, fastest and cheapest gains on West Texas lambs. This program, with certain modifications, has been perpetuated through the years. Each years* lamb feeding investigations have been called a "series", and in many cases several series have been devoted to the study of one particular problem

20 of the igh Plains lamb feeding industry. In some cases a series may overlap into two or more units of study. For the sake of uniformity and clarity in presentation, these investigations will be reviewed in units that deal with a definite problem rather than by individual series. One series is often misleading and it is felt that an average or summary of several series dealing with the same problem will give way to a more accurate interpretation and consequent conclusion. The initial series of lamb feeding trials were set up for the specific purpose of determining the value of using milo as the basic grain, alfalfa as a roughage, and the need for a mineral supplement that was rich in calcium (pulverized oyster shell) when sorghum fodder or sorghum silage were used as the sole roughage in a lamb fattening ration. Other experiments were set up to compare the feeding value of the various sorghum grains and roughages and to determine the value of adding a protein supplement to these feeds. The value of shelter for fattening lambs in the Plains area has been one of the major phases of the lamb feeding program at Texas Tech. As is the case with any well planned program the lamb feeding investigations at Texas Tech have been planned with definite objectives in mind. Many times these objectives v/ere abandoned temporarily in order to deal with specific requests of feeders in the igh Plains

21 13 area, but the overall objectives of the long range feeding program are outlined below. Objectives 1. To determine the value of sorghum fodder and sorghum silage when supplemented with ground limestone or pulverized oyster shell. 2. To determine the value of shelter for fattening lambs in the igh Plains area. 3. To determine the value of alfalfa as the sole roughage in a lamb fattening ration. 4. To compare the feeding value of sorghum fodder and sorghum silage when fed with and without a calcium supplement. 5. To compare the feeding value of Martin and Plainsman milo. 6. To determine the value of field harvesting or "lambing down" of Plainsman milo as compared with dry-lot feeding of Plainsman milo.

22 IL. 14 RBVIEW OP LITERATURE A review of literature which is the foundation for the succeeding discussion follows. So J^ar as is known this is the first series of tests f ever conducted to compare the value of Martin and Plainsman milo for fattening lambs. Therefore, the literature cited will deal with'field feeding, "lambing down", of corn or milo as compared to hand feeding of corn or milo; the value of rations with and without a mineral supple- ^ ment (ground limestone or oyster shell); the value of shelter for fattening lambs; the value of alfalfa as the sole roughage in a lamb fattening ration; and the value of sorghum fodder as compared to the value of sorghum silage. Past results show that shelled corn and grain sorgh-, 1 um grains compare very favorably in feeding value. Jones / and others (30) reported tiiat ground threshed milo, ^ feterita or kafir fed with alfalfa hay and cottonseed meal on a pound for pound basis had a feeding value practically equal to that of corn. Corn fed lambs made.371 pounds daily gain, ground threshed milo made.368 pounds daily gain, ground threshed kafir made.368 pounds daily gain, feterita made.365 pounds daily gain, and ground milo heads made.353 pounds daily gain when each was fed with alfalfa hay. Jones ^ al reported in 1920 (27) that threshed milo grain has 93^per cent the feeding value of corn. e stated that this test proved conclusively that corn

23 bm_- shipped Into Texas cannot successfully complete with the grain sorghums for fattening lambs in the semi-arid 15 'V sections of Texas. Johes and Dickson (28) reported in 1923 that all lots fattened on grain sorghums showed a noticeably greater economy of gains than did the corn fed lot, due to the higher purchase cost of corn. Lots fed ground tln»eshed kafir and/grain milo showed the greatest profit. All lots carried about the same degree of finish. / ultz and ill (25) stated that chemically the grain sorghums are very similar to corn, being somewhat f higher in protein, but lower in fat than corn* Morrison (38) stated that grain sorghums resemble corn grain in composition and in feeding value. Like corn, they contain about 70 per cent nitrogen-free extract, which is nearly all starch, and they are very low in fiber. Most of the grain sorghums are higher than corn in protein but they contain considerably less fat. As in the case of the other cereals, the proteins of sorghum grain are unbalanced in nature. Sorghum grain is also lower in phosphorus than wheat, barley, or oats. All the varieties of sorghum grain, even those which are yellow in color, are apparently low in vitamin A, resembling white corn and the small grains in this respect, Kammlade (33) reported similiar views on the value of the grain sorghums for lamb fattening. ultz and Lll (25) reported that all classes of f livestock do well on the grain sorghums but since the ' (

24 16 grains are hard, grinding is recommended. They go on / to say that the sorghums are carbonaceous and require the addition of proteins for balance in animal feeding. ( Morrison (38) stated that in the southern plains states the various grain sorghums are of much importance in sheep feeding. e also stated that milo, kafir, and feterita grain were compared with shelled corn for fat- i tening lambs in five experiments. There was no appreciable difference between any of these and corn in the rate of gain or in the feed required per one hundred pounds of gain. These five experiments were cited previously (30). Similiar results have been secured in other experiments in which kafir, darso, and Atlas sorghum grain have been compared with corn for fattening lambs. Morrison (38) also reported that several experiments have shown that it does not pay to grind the sorghums for sheep. This is in contrast to the findings of ultz and ill (25). Neither is it necessary to thresh j or grind the grain sorghum heads for sheep. The heads of unthreshed grain sorghums have proved equal to the threshed grain in feeding value, considering the actual amount of grain contained, and have produced nearly as rapid gains on fattening lambs. In wet weather there may, however, be considerable waste in feeding the unthreshed heads.

25 17 Comparison of Lambing Down Corn to the and Feeding of Corn Size of Lambs to Use. Cox (12) stated that for lambing down fields, lambs weighing at least 60 pounds are more desirable. Smaller lambs usually lack the aggressiveness. Recommendations for Starting Lambs on Cornfield Kammlade (33) stated that^in some types of field feeding, rations similar to grain and roughage combina- / tions are often used. The "lambing down of corn" that is practiced to a considerable extent in parts of the Corn Belt is essentially such feeding. The amounts of all feeds provided at any one time is of course not controlled, but the kinds of feed available are controlled within limits. Thus, in order to give the lambs a ration comparable with a dry lot ration of corn and alfalfa hay, \ the feeder may feed the lambs hay while they are harvesting the corn. e may accomplish similar results through the use of adjoining pasture, or an inter-crop of soybeans, rape, rye or v;heat. Kammlade (33) observed that when lambs are field fed on corn there is a tendency towards over-eating. The most practical method of reducing difficulties in this respect is through the use of palatable roughages. It is also good management to confine the lambs to a relatively small area of the field after they have consumed the field roughages. An area of corn that provides about two bushels of corn for each lamb is suggested by

26 18 Kaimnlade, as this is the approximate amount of corn required to fatten a feeder lamb of average weight and { condition. Since lambs harvest additional roughage from the field the amount of supplemental roughages required for lambing down is small. Consequently this \ supplemental roughage needs to be supplied only the second-half of the feeding period, and lambs will eat from about one-half to one pound of this daily during that time. In 1918 Gramlich (20) reported that there was a very marked increase in the amount of feeding done in cornfields in recent years. V/ith a desire to ascertain the efficiency of gains made by lambs in the cornfield, a lot was fed entirely under field conditions. These lambs were given access to a two-acre field of corn j that yielded corn at the rate of 40 bushels per acre. They had no additional feed other than oil meal fed once per day in an amount approximating.33 pounds per head until after the severe freezes started, at which time alfalfa was placed in a rack in the field. In 1939 Cox (12) stated that the practice of harvesting corn or grain sorghum crops with lambs was receiving increasing attention by Kansas feeders. The greatest ) advantage of this method of feeding lies in the fact that the labor of harvesting and feeding the crop is j saved. Feeders should not fail to figure in the cost of the necessary fencing or of hiring a herder if this practice is to be followed. At best it is a somewhat

27 19 wasteful method of feeding and generally can be recommended only for crops of poor yields or of low quality, where the advisability of liarvesting is questionable. Cox concluded that crops of high grain yields can be more profitably utilized if harvested and fed in the feedlot. Kammlade (32) conducted an experiment where lambs were put on fifteen acres of mixed pastures, consisting chiefly of clovers and timothy, for the ftpst 55 days of the experiment. During this period they had access to standing corn, but showed no interest in it until \ penned in a small area of the cornfield. After this was done, alfalfa hay was fed in a rack in the field. Each lamb in this lot ate pounds of corn, or a f daily average of 1.02 pounds for the 85 days. owever, all but a very small amount of this corn was eaten during the last 30 days. ov; to control the amount of corn eaten daily is one of the difficulties encountered in "lambing down" corn. In 1918 Gramlich (20) gave some recommendations for accustoming lambs to the cornfield. In order to accustom lambs to corn they were fed green fodder before being ' turned in the field. This was prior to the opening of the experiment. Gramlich stated that the lambs seemed to relish the green feed and upon turning them into the field they experienced no digestive disorders. There was considerable growth of vegetation in this field, and

28 20 the ln!»bs cleaned this up nicely before turning their attention to the corn. They acquired a gradual liking far corn, and after most of the green plant was consumed they took to the ears and then worked onto a full feed of grain* Cox (12) stated that there is always a danger of unbalanced grain and roughage consumption connected with the practice of lambing down grain crops. Generally range lambs, when turned into corn or sorghum fields, ' will.eat only weeds and the leaves and the finer stalk \ material within their reach before starting on the grain. This is especially true of the taller growing crops. As ] a result there will soon be only grain left and a sudden ch mge to this exclusive grain ration might cause sudden death losses. It is therefore necessary to take steps to insure a reasonable roughage consumption under these conditions. There are several methods by which this may be done. In many Instances some palatable roughage such as alfalfa is kept in feeders in the field near the gate where the lambs are turned in. The lambs will thus eat a considerable amount of hay, which with the roughage they glean in the field will be sufficient to keep down digestive disorders of a serious nature. Because of the fact that it is generally necessary to put lambs in a corral at night for protection from predatory animals, roughage can be fed there and usually lambs will take on a good fill in the morning before they go to the field.

29 21 Cox (12) also stated that it may be advisable to hold lambs that are intended for the field in the feed lot for several days and get them accustomed to the grain which they are to receive before they are turned out. This practice has some tendency to encourage a more uniform grain and roughage comsumption from the start. ( ( Sometimes this is accomplished by dragging do?m a rov/ or two of corn or sorghums at first so that the grain is readily accessible and lambs learn to eat it while there is still roughage available in the field. In short corn, this practice is unnecessary as they are likely to consume both grain and roughage as they go. It is always advisable, either by use of temporary fence or herders, to hold lambs on a certain portion of the field until they have cleaned up both the grain and the best of the forage before they are allowed to go to an ungrazed section. be disastrous. Molding lambs too long on one area may Ordinarily it is better to allot them an area sufficient to last a week or ten days. olding the lambs on a larger area longer than this will cause the refusal of too much feed because of their trampling and bedding down on it. Cox states that under no condition is a feeder justified in allowing lambs to run at will over a large grain field with sufficient feed to last them for many v;eeks or perhaps months. Protein for Cornfield Lambs In 1929 Kammlade (32) reported that corn alone is

30 22 not satisfactory for field feeding western lambs. Soybeans planted In the corn, an adjoining pasture of alfalfa, a mixed pasture, or dry legume roughages fed to lambs in cornfields proved satisfactory supplements. Field feeding in this way may be expected to produce ( field with alfalfa before them increased the daily gain»064 pound, decreased the cost of one hundred pounds of gain twenty-two cents and lowered-the loss per lamb from^ ( 53 cent to 8 cents, a difference of 45 cents. gains somewhat below the gains secured in dry lot feeding on corn and alfalfa hay. Gramlich (20) reported that the adding of.2 pound of oil meal to the ration of lambs running in the cornt Gramlich (20) also reported that the addition of.16 pound of cottonseed nut cake to a group of lambs ^ in the cornfield increased the daily gain.039 pound, decreased the amount of feed required to produce one pound of gain, decreased the cost of one hundred pounds of gain by 47 cents, and likewise the loss per lamb by 11 cents. In experiments run by Cox (12) at the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, results showed that protein supplement is as important for the lambs in the field as for those in the feed lots. / The same is true of ground limestone if no alfalfa is being fed. Both, 7/ ///! ^i may be fed in troughs in the field or in the lot. It is better to feed protein supplement only in the morning before the lambs go to the field.

31 23 SUMMARY OP RgSULTS OP CORNFIELD FEEDING Experiments reported by Gramlich (20) showed that fattening lambs in the cornfield with alfalfa hay in conjunction, in comparison with feeding shelled corn and alfalfa hay, increased the daily gain by.018 pound, decreased the feed requirements for one pound of gain and decreased the cost of one hundred pounds of gain $6.83. It furthermore lowered the loss per lamb from $1.96 to 63 cents. ence, from every standpoint it proved jijstifiable. Wilson and Kuhlman (64) reported that lambs do a good job of picking in the cornfield. They picked up the silks of ears, leaves of corn and shucks on ears, and made a tour of the field to find weeds for variety. The feed lambs secure for themselves in the cornfield is evidently hi^ly nutritious since the gains made were above the average reported for experiments. Table I shows a summary of some of the results secured in cornfield feeding.

32 24 TABLE I: AVERAGE DAILY GAINS IN POUNDS BY LAMBS FED IN CORNFIEID Station Illinois Nebraska Ohio Purdue Cornfield Alone Cornfield and Adjoining Pasture Corn and Soybeans, Legume ay Cornfield, Legume ay Cornfield, Protein Supplement Cornfield, Protein supplement. Legume ay ^From Sheep Science, Page 383, Kammlade, J. B. Lippincott, New York, N.Y. (33) Gramlich (21) reported that in comparison with the lambs in the field, they had those in the dry lot which were fed a full feed of corn and alfalfa hay during the same period. They found that the corn consumption did not vary materially in the tv/o lots, being slightly f greater in the field. The daily ration was 1.33 pounds in the dry lot and 1.39 pounds in the field. The average daily oil meal consumption of the cornfield lambs amounted to.3 pound and their alfalfa ration throughout the period amounted to 1.27 pounds daily, which was considerably less than that consumed by the lambs in the dry-lot, where it amounted to 1.7 pounds. The rate of daily gain of the lambs in dry lot was higher than those in the cornfield, amounting to.358 pounds

33 25 versusv,33 pounds for the field fed lambs. With new corn charged against the lambs in the field at 65, cents per bushel and oil meal at 40 per ton, their gain actually cost $5.80 per cwt gain* In contrast, it cost $7«45 In the dit* lot where old corn was charged at 75 cents per bushel. In the same experiment Gramlich (20) reported that f the cornfield fed lambs were appraised at the highest figure of any lot in the experiment. Market men who saw them pronounced them as carrying splendid condition and a uniformly choice group. Carcass men at the packing plant later graded the carcasses as prime. Gramlich (20) stated that from the results secured in this test it would seem that feeding in the corn- ' field is worthy of considerable practice. The lambs i made a very satisfactory gain with a relatively economical use, of feed, and showed by ;rar the largest profit of any lot fed. -^^ Comparison of Lambing Down Milo to and Feeding of Milo Recommendations for Starting Lambs on Milo Field Cox (12) gave the same recommendations :^or starting lambs on milo that he gave for the ones in the cornfield. e stated that the greatest advantage, and perhaps the only one, of this method of feeding lies in the fact that ' the labor of harvesting and feeding the crop is saved. Size of Lambs to Use Cox (12) stated that for lambing down fields, lambs

34 26 weighing ati 40ast 00 pounds are more desirable. Smaller \lamba may.lack aggressiveness. Protein Requirements The protein requirements for field feeding of milo are the same as for tjie field feeding of corn. Mineral Requirements Cox et^ al (10) reported that grain or sweet sorghum roughage when properly supplemented with protein rich \ concentrates and with a good source of calcium (ground limestone) may become as much as 85 per cent as efflci- / ent as alfalfa in lamb fattening rations. When alfalfa constitutes one-fourth the roughage, no benefit results \ from feeding grotind limestone. Limestone should be fed ' at the rate of approximately one-half ounce per lamb per day when the ration is sorghum roughage. Granular salt should be fed free choice at all times. Summary of Results of Lambing Down Milo Cox (12) also stated that at best it is a somewhat wasteful method of feeding and generally can be recommended only for crops of poor yields or of low quality. where the advisability of harvesting is questionable. \ e concluded that crops of high grain yields can be more profitably utilized if harvested and fed in the feedlot. Wilson and Kuhlman (64) that the average of the gains made by lambs in sorghum lots was nearly as large as the average of the gains made by the lambs in corn lots, but the waste in pasturing sorghums v/as greater

35 27 than the waste in pasturing corn. In 1937 Cox and Wagner (9) reported that their field feeding lot had to be omitted from their results because of excessive inroads of birds on the grain in the field, it became necessary to put the lambs in the j drylot for finishing after 60 days in the field. An, accurate estimate was made of the grain and forage yield but because so much grain was destroyed by birds only a rough estimate could be made of the amount the lambs consumed. Some information was obtained from this lot, however. Ihiring the time they were in the field, their gains scarcely equaled those of the lot-fed lambs. Their feed consumption and waste, while not definitely determined, was much greater than that of the lot-fed lambs. Cox t al (10) reported that in lambing down dv/arf yellow milo, lambs consumed and wasted nearly twice as^ much feed per poiind gain as was required by lambs fed / the same feeds in the feed lot. They also reported that lambing down the entire / grain and forage portion of good sorghum crops has proved to be a wasteful and expensive method of harvesting and feeding. Such a practice would probably be justified in case of very low grain yields or extremely low grain prices.

36 Dry-Let Rottghages "gsed In Lamb Fattening Rations Legumes Skinner 5^ al (55 through 61) reported that with a ration containing a non-leguminlous roughage such as a shelled corn-cottonseed meal-corn silage ration the gains are less (.22 as compared to.298) than those 28 expected when a legume hay is fed. These investigators report that a leguminious hay added to a corn-cottonseed meal-corn silage ration will increase gains from.22 to.346 pounds per lamb per day. The Nebraska station reported similiar findings (18 through 22).,. ^ J Skinner and King (59) concluded that when there is a difference In the feeding value of clover and alfalfa hay. It is the quality and not the variety of the hay that affects the results, Osland, Maynard and others (49) reported that com and alfalfa would produce an average daily gain of.286 pounds for an average gain of pounds per lamb, \ They concluded that alfalfa was entirely satisfactory as the sole roughage of the lamb fattening ration and required no mineral supplement as long as much as onefourth of the ration was made up of alfalfa hay, Colorado investigators reported (41) that one ton of alfalfa would replace pounds of corn, pounds of cut cane fodder and 7.4 pounds of salt when added to ailamb fattening ration. According to Morton and Carlyle (39) there is no

37 29 significant difference in the rate and economy of gains between lambs fed chopped alfalfa in three-fourth inch lengths and whole alfalfa in a corn and alfalfa ration. They reported considerable advantage to feeding alfalfa from a self feeder as compared to hay racks on the ground. Morton (40) reported that reducing the alfalfa hay undoubtably added to its value, the increased value being somewhat in proportion to the fineness of reduction; but the greatest possible increase in value, with the finest reduction probably is not over 40 per cent of the value of the whole hay. With ordinary grades of hay, and typical fineness of reduction, the feeder may ordinarily figure on 15 to 25 per cent increase in value. The Washington station reported (24) that 22.2 per cent of the long hay, 3.37 per cent of the chopped hay, and none of the ground hay would be refused by lambs in dry lot. The Idaho station (31) reported that per cent of the long hay, 9.78 per cent of the chopped hay, and 3.72 per cent of the ground hay would be refused. Chopping or grinding will not change the chemical composition of the hay but it may change the chemical composition of the hay actually consumed by the lambs. Ylhen long alfalfa hay is fed the leaves and fine stems are consumed and the coarser stems are rejected. Chopping or grinding increases the consumption of the coarse stems. The following relative values were given for the various processed hays.

38 30 One ton of long hay was equal to 1669 pounds of chopped hay and 52*pounds of grain* One ton of ground hay was equal to 2829 pounds of long hay and 171 pounds of grain. One ton of ground hay was equal to 2360 pounds of chopped hay and 245 pounds of grain. Maynard et_ al (37) concluded that* there was little significant difference in the feeding value of alfalfa per pound from either the first, second or third crop, provided after having been grown under comparable conditions It is cut at the same stage of maturity. Findings at other stations concur with the reported findings of the Utah station (24). Fleming (17) reported that a ration of alfalfa hay alone would not fatten lambs but would allow them to grow instead, Coffey (5) reported that a ratio of 1:1.36 for corn and alfalfa, when used as a lamb fattening ration produced the most economical results of any ratio that he tested. e reported that proportions of corn and alfalfa ranging from 1:.66 to 1:2 were about equal. The greatest comsumption of corn was when the 1:.66 ratio was fed and the lowest consumption was with the 1:3.45 ratio. Those receiving a heavy proportion of corn were hard to keep on feed. Neale of the New Mexico station (45) reported thjat when.5 pound of alfalfa hay was allowed daily in a

39 31 ration of hegarl fodder, cottonseed meal and corn, 721 pouads of roughage and 383 pounds of concentrates were required to produce 100 pounds of gain. When the daily allowance of alfalfa was increased to one pound, 729 peunds of roughage and 362 pounds of concentrates was required per cwt gain. When one and one-half pounds of alfalfa was included, 783 pounds of roughage and 364 pounds of concentrates were required. The average daily gains were,240,.254 and.253 respectively. This report indicates that.5 pound of alfalfa is tije most profitable but that a one pound allowance produces the fastest gains. Silage - Jones of the Texas station reported (26) in 1916 that silage seemed to have a place in the ration of a fattening sheep, but that it should not constitute the only roughage in the ration. Owing to the succulent nature of silage, it is quite impossible for lambs to consume enough of this feed to get the necessary amount of dry matter and are inclined to "go off feed", Maynard et al (36) reported that pounds of corn silage added to a corn and alfalfa hay ration replaced 55 pounds of corn and 427 pounds of alfalfa and increased the rate of gains from.286 to.375 pounds per day and the total gains per lamb from to 37.1 poiinds. When pounds of sunflower silage was added to a corn and alfalfa ration, it was equal to

40 399.9 pouads of corn silage and required 23 pounds less corn but 18 pounds more alfalfa hay per cwt gain than 32 a ration made up of corn-corn silage-alfalfa. They concluded that corn or simflower silage added to a corn and alfalfa ration each produced faster, greater and cheaper gains than a corn and alfalfa ration. Osland, Maynard and Brandon of the Colorado station (49) reported that pounds of corn, pounds of corn silage and pounds of alfalfa hay would produce 100 pounds of lamb at the rate of.36 pounds per day for a total gain of 39.5 pounds per lamb. When sunflower silage was substituted for corn silage^ no significant changes were noticed, but pounds of sunflower silage was required to replace pounds of corn silage, a difference of pounds. ackedorn et_ al (23) reported that pounds of corn silage would replace 27 pounds of grain and 147 pounds of hay when added to a corn and alfalfa ration. They reported that silage increased the rate of gain from.311 to.341 pounds daily and increased the total gain per lamb from 25.2 pounds to 27.6 pounds. In a comparison of corn silage and hegari silage, Stanley and Scott of the Arizona station (62) reported that corn silage produced gain 96 per cent as fast and 95 per cent as great as hegari silage at a cost of pounds more grain, pounds more silage and 42.5 pounds less alfalfa hay. Barley and dottonseed meal made up the other parts of the ration.

41 33 0slan4 jst al (49) reported that lambs fed silage 1 and chopped fodder were about equal in gains and 2.6 tons of silage replaced 1 ton of fodder. In new Mexico trials silage produced more gain per acre and cheaper trials than ground corn fodder (44). Kammlade (33) reported that while corn silage, sorghum silage, and other silages may be used to good advantage in feeding lambs, they do not combine well with farm grains alone. Thus, these materials are best used in more comples rations. In such rations they are Jii very valuable. Dry Non-Legume Roughages Morrison (38) reports that in the southern states cottonseed hulls are sometimes used as the only or the chief roughage for fattening lambs, perhaps with cottonseed meal as the only concentrate. e reported that this type of ration produced much less rapid gains than grain and legume hay, and if the feeding of only cottonseed, meal and hulls is too long continued, "cottonseed meal injury" may result due chiefly to the lack of vitamin A and of calcium. Cox and Neale of the New Mexico station reported (14 and 43) that pounds of cottonseed hulls replaced 93.6 pounds of cottonseed meal and pounds of alfalfa when fed with cottonseed meal. They reported that cottonseed hulls would make a satisfactory roughage for fattening lambs. They also reported that lambs may be fed for as long as 60 days on a ration of cottonseed

42 *(.' hulls and cottonseed meal without serious injury from "cottonseed meal poisoning". Neale (43) reported that cottonseed hulls are hard to grind and mix with other feeds. This cost of mixing 34 renders it not practicable. Grinding cottonseed hull did not seem to increase their digestibility. e also reported that the injury from cottonseed products was more than overbalanced by the cheapness of gain made by these rations. When 1.25 pounds of cottonseed meal was fed lambs they were hard to keep on feed and had a poor general appearance. Cox and Wagner (7 and 8) compared the sorghum roughages as a substitute for alfalfa hay in a fattening ration that contained a protein supplement. Alfalfa produced a total gain of pounds at the rate of.4 pound per day on pounds of grain and pounds of hay per cwt gain. Milo roughage supplemented with.25 ounces of ground limestone daily, produced a total gain of 33 pounds at the rate of.3 pound per day on pounds of grain, pounds of roughage, and 5.3 pounds of ground limestone. Ground Sumac sorghum produced pounds of gain at the rate of.3 pounds daily on pounds of grain, pounds of roughage and 5.14 pounds of limestone. Cox and Wagner concluded that grain or sweet sorghum roughage, when properly supplemented with a protein rich concentrate and a good source of calcium

43 35 fground llanestone), may become as much as 85 per cent as efficient as alfalfa in a lamb fattening ration. When alfalfa constitutes as much as one-fourth the roughage ration, no benefit results from feeding ground limestone. Neale of the New Mexico station (45) reported that hegari fodder was only about 66 per cent as effective as alfalfa hay in rate and amount of gains produced. Protein Supplements Used in Lamb Fattening Rations Skinner and King (58 and 59) reported that linseed oil meal, soybean oil meal, whole soybeans or cottonseed meal could be substituted for each other, pound for pound, in a lamb fattening ration and virtually the same results obtained. The choice of a protein supplement should be based entirely upon availability and cost per unit of nutrients. The Utah station (37) reported that one ton of cottonseed meal was equal to or replaced poxinds of whole barley, 3614*5 pounds of alfalfa and 52.1 pounds of salt in a barley and alfalfa ration in addition to increasing the amount and rate of gain and the per cent of fat lambs The Colorado station (39, 40, and 41) reported that cottonseed meal added to a barley and alfalfa ration increased the rate of gains approximately 13.5 per cent. Osland, Maynard and Morton (48) reported the value of alfalfa meal when mixed in equal parts by weight with

44 36 cottonseed meal as the protein supplement in a corn and cane fodder fattening ration. The results were almost identical for the two lots, one of which was supplemented with cottonseed meal and the other lot was supplemented by an equal mixture of cottonseed meal and alfalfa meal. Johnson et^ l (31 and 53) reported that cottonseed meal added to a barley and alfalfa ration increased the total gains from to pounds and the average daily gains from.279 to.302 pounds at a saving of 41 pounds of barley and 154 pounds of alfalfa hay per cwt gain. A summary of two years work at the Utah station (37) showed that 72.9 pounds of cottonseed meal saved 55.3 pounds of grain and pounds of alfalfa hay while increasing the rate of gains a considerable degree. The cottonseed meal fed lambs were higher in quality and market value at the end of the feeding period. Johnson et_ al (31) reported that by supplementing an alfalfa-grain-silage ration by about 10 per cent of the grain made one ton of cottonseed meal worth 4000 pounds of hay, 3282 pounds of barley and 1231 pounds of silage. Skinner and King (55, 56, and 57) found that feeding 4 parts of corn and one part of cottonseed meal produced faster gains. owever, they concluded that \mless cottonseed meal was relatively cheaper than grain it would be more profitable to feed the concentrate part

45 37 of the ration in the proportion of 7 parts of corn and 1 part of cottonseed meal. Mineral Supplements Used in Lamb Fattening Rations It is generally concluded that calcium is the main mineral to worry about in fattening lamb rations. The absence of this mineral does not directly cause trouble, but unless a ration is properly supplemented urinary calculi develop which cause the rupture of the urinary bladder resulting in a condition called "water belly". Maynard and associates reported (37) that the addition of either kelp or a commerical mineral mixture had no noticeable affect on increasing gains, reducing cost of gains or increasing the net return per lamb. Osland ejb sa concluded (49) that alfalfa hay was entirely satisfactory as the sole roughage in a lamb fattening ration and required no mineral supplement as long as much as one-fourth of the roughage was made up of alfalfa hay. Grains Used in Lamb Fattening Rations Only those grains concerned in this report will be reviewed here; namely, the sorghum grains. Cox and Wagner concluded (8) that milo and other grain sorghum grains could be substituted for corn in lamb fattening rations and virtually the same results obtained. Kansas feeding experiments have established the value of yellow milo grain for fattening lambs at approximately 95 to 97 per cent that of corn. Kafir was reported as slightly inferior to yellow milo.

46 38 Whea,^la^4«SI combine ttp^ of milo, was evaluated at 95 per.c^fltnt the value of yellow milo. Cox and Wagner also u^ed milo as the basic grain in comparing the sorghum roti. hages as a substitute for alfalfa. Idaho investigators established, the feeding value of barley as 100 per cent, corn as 104 per cent and wheat at 98.5 per cent when fed with alfalfa hay. This will give an idea of,the relative feeding value of the.t sorghum grains as compared to some of the cereal grains. Neale of the New Mexico station (45) reported that o% hegari grain produced gains much superior to shelled corn when fed with cottonseed meal and hegari fodder pounds of hegari replaced 415 pounds of corn with. the roughage comsumption about the same for both grains. Alfalfa hay and sorghum grain produced.338 pounds of gain per day for a. total gain of 32.73^ poupds per lamb. Stanley and Scott (62) found that for one hundred pounds of gain, pounds of cracked hegari grain and pounds of alfalfa were required. This combination of feeds produced a total gain per lamb of pounds at the rate of.277 pounds per day. This was 55.6 pounds less grain per hundred weight gain, and.01 pounds higher average daily gain than when a corn and alfalfa ration was fed. In comparing com silage with hegari silage they found that hegari silage produced 100 pounds of gain on pounds less grain "» * and pounds less silage but at the expense of 42.5 pounds of alfalfa hay.

47 Cox ejt l of the Kansas station (7 and 9) reported that Wheatland grain, supplemented with sumac stover 39 and ground limestone and cottonseed meal produced results that approached those obtained with milo, cottonseed meal and alfalfa in total gains and average daily gains, In determining the proper grain level for a fattening lamb, Fleming found (17) that the total gains and the average daily gains are in direct proportion to the per cent of grain in the ration. A ration of hay alone allowed the lambs to grow instead of fatten. Shelter for fattening Lambs Skinner and King (55 through 58) found that lambs fed in an open shed made slightly cheaper but slower gains than lambs fed in a closed but well ventilated barn. The shed fed lambs yielded a smoother, higher quality, and lower shrinking carcass. For all practical purposes there was very little difference in the rate and economy of gains. Dunn and Evvard (16) of the Iowa station reported similar findings. Kammlade (33) found that lambs that had access to a shelter made use of it during wet, stormy weather, but they were indifferent to the cold, dry weather, "le reported that the Purdue station found that lambs fed in an open shed returned larger profits than those that were fed in a well'ventilated barn. This was true whether the lambs were shorn or in full fleece.

48 TABLE la: OPEN LOT COMPARED WIT SliELTER FOR FATTENING LAMBS. (33) 40 Avg Feed per cwt gain Number of Lambs Lot Daily Grain : ay Gain lbs Open Shed Morrison (38) reported that in Nebraska and Idaho tests, providing an open shelter did not increase the gain or decrease the feed required per 100 pounds gain. In Oregon, lambs having access to an open shed made slightly larger gains than others fed in an open yard with no shelter, and required 3 per cent less feed per cwt gain. Size Lambs to Use Pingrey of the i^ew Mexico station (50) reported ttat lighter lambs made greater, faster and more economical gain than lambs of heavier weights. Water Temperature Buffum and Griffith (4) reported that water temperature had little effect on the economy of gains. They concluded that the extra expense of equipment and labor would not justify warm water for lamb feeding.

49 41 EXPERIMENTS Methods and Materials All lambs used in these experiments were spring lambs of predominately Rambouillet breeding; however, some contained as much as one-fourth Corriedale or other mutton type breeding. All the lambs, except those used in lamb feeding trial number sixteen, which were bought in Tatum, New Mexico, were bought in West Texas. The main sources of lambs was direct from ranchers and from commission companies. The lambs were bought straight / f ;\* across as to sex and if possible they were selected at the time of purchase for uniformity of type and size. The lambs were trucked to the feeding pens at Texas Tech Farm and unloaded. They were then separated into lots of 20 to 25 lambs and allowed to rest for several hours in pens that contained dry roughage, salt-and. plenty of clean water. The initial feedlot weight was determined by taking the individual weights of the lambs at 1:00 P. M. on two consecutive days and obtaining the average of these two weights- Figure la. A regular feeding schedule was adhered to in all trials. Unless otherwise indicated the dry lot lambs were fed under the follov/ing conditions. The experimental lots were adjacent to each other and drained to the south. These lots were 10 feet wide and 60 feet long, including about 20 feet under a metal roof shed (Figure 1).

50 42 Figure 1 Metal Shed and Experimental Sheep Feeding Lots on the Texas Tech Farm.

51 Igure la: Scales and crate used to obtain individual lamb weights. 43

52 44 Approximately 30 square feet of space was provided for each lamb that was fed in dry-lot. The feeding troughs were of the type commonly used where sheep are hand fed, and were similiar to the one shown in Figure 2. Approximately one and one-half linear feet of feed trought space was allowed per lamb to prevent crowding at feeding time. The metalrshed was closed on three sides and open to the south. This was adequate to protect the lambs during periods of stormy weather. All dry lots were supplied with fresh clean water at ^ all times from concrete troughs that were cleafted each morning. Each concrete trough supplied two lots and the \ water level was controlled from a central float box- Figure 5. The field fed lots were supplied freshwater in wooden barrels that were placed inside the field that was being lambed down. These wooden barrels were cleaned daily and refilled as needed from the same water source as the dry-lot troughs. Minerals and salt were fed in a small mineral box attached to the fence as is shown in Figure 3. The field fed lambs received minerals and salt in a similiar manner. Any variation is discussed under that particular phase of the feeding tests. I Initial Feeding Trials Beginning in the winter of , three lots of twenty lambs each were set up* Lot I received milo

53 45 Figure 2 Twelve Foot Feed Trough of the Type Used in Texas Tech Experimental Lamb Feeding.

54 8 t-i P i CO ^ OTJ E ^ u CQ (D p 0 w> C! m Ti flratj t ) pq o ps o u TT p E.Q "t CJ c? ^ m 05 r* <i o ^Tl 5 o CO ri CO 1-1 "in r-\ M t^ P -rj oj [X( ^ <«: Gnd -P +3 Q o o bo& C ^ oa S > O A 0) % E CJ ^rd top 05 ^ O P o V E ^ ra OJ «E P c; o K w CO iri r < ^ > 05 fc; > o p o CO K to bod CT a > o ^ o 03 CP^ <t; CO o 46 OS 02 O P s ^..f^z 5 -^-^.. 01 ^ NO )C «\ O Q) ^ ti QC X. ^ y <\i x - X- ~ V -.f^ 1

55 47 head chops, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay; Lot II received milo head chops, cottonseed meal, sorghum fodder and.4 ounce per lamb daily of ground oyster shell; Lot III received the same ration as Lot II with the exception of the oyster shell which was completely omitted in an effort to determine its value as a supplement to sorghum fodder in a lamb fattenijqg ration..the alfalfa lot was continued for five cohsecutive years ^ending in the fall and winter M- of '^The two sorghum fodder lots were carried for th] «^ years; ending In the fall and winter of g^ ^ "-fe/-,;:::.-#^i'-''..^ Begl'nning in the winter of two more lots were set up. One was fed sorghum silage, cottonseed meal and milo head chops, and the other lot was fed an identical ration with.4 ounce of ground oyster shell added per lamb daily. These t7/o lots were carried for a period of three years, closing in the winter of with the alfalfa fed lot. The results of the five years investigations of the feeding value of alfalfa hay at the Texas Tech farm are shown in Table II. An average of all five trials shows that milo head chops, cottonseed meal and ground alfalfa hay produced a total gain of pounds per lamb at the rate of.39 of a pound daily. This rate and amount of gain was made on pounds of milo heads, pounds of cottonseed

56 48 Figure 3: Ilineral Box Used in Dry-Lot Lamb Feeding Trials.

57 49 to a u > > - <JJ [i< ^ C- to Oi CO to * 02 0> > LO OS lo to CO 00 to 10 -^ 02. «02 C^ 00 CO 00 « OS CO "^ to to CO o CO to I to to OS to to I 02 to C5> to LO i to.. to OS O to 02.. ^ to.. OS to to 02 to OS to oa ^ to o... to CJS >- ^ ^ o> ^ CO 02 to I i-l to ^ 10 -^ to i CO OS ^ 'sj CO. CO to CO CO PQ E CO I O to r-l o to 1 OS 02 o> to O to... O OS to ^ OS LO to lo lo -^ to to to. O O OS o OS 02 LO to P d o ^ u m 05 fi CO s O qj > O < 12; p 05 P j::! fm P-i e O 05 P O Ep CQ I I O E O!> Oa 10 r to -^ "^ji CO CO P<a5 oj O <+ 1=^ o 05 TJ '^ r-l <: 05 o to 5:: o p p o pi o s o e CO,Q i 1 I Ssi < CO ft O P-i o p p:: ft W I> Cx2 O... > ^ CO OS -^ OS to to 10 '«;li to... CO to CO ^;t< OS ^ to 03 i P< O l^ x\ o 05 1^1 CO d a o a p o o O Cs u TOAS TECNOLOGKViL COUIfiE LUBBOCK, TEXAS LIBRARY

58 50 meal and pounds of ground alfalfa hay per cv/t gain. These trials proved beyond question that alfalfa hay would produce gains fully equal to any rougha.^^e reported for fattening lambs up to that time. It is significant to note that only one lamb died during the five years investigations. Death being caused by pneumonia. In comparison to this series of trials using alfalfa as the sole rougliage, a summary of three years of investigations using sorghum as the sole roughage, supplemented Ti/ith.4 ounce of ground oyster shell, show it to be only slightly Inferior to alfalfa hay as a roughage.

59 TABLE III: TREE YEARS INVESTIGATIONS ON TE VALUE OF SORGDM FODDER, SUPPLEMENTED WIT PULVERIZED OYSTER SPIELL. 51 Year Average of all 3 years Av. No. Days Fed No. Lambs per Lot Av. Initial Wt Total Gain Per d Daily Gain Per d Av. Daily Ration pounds Milo ead Chops 1.23 Cottonseed Meal.33 Sorghum Fodder 1.34 Mineral (Ounces) Feed Required per 100 Pounds gain pounds Milo ead Chops Cottonseed Meal Sorghum Fodder Mineral-Oyster Sh The average for the three years of sorghum fodder fed lambs (Table III) shows a total average gain per lamb of pounds at the rate of.37 pounds daily pounds of milo grain, pounds of cottonseed meal and pounds of sorghum fodder was required per cwt. gain. This was supplemented with 6.69 pounds of ground oyster shall. The sorghum fodder fed lambs required pounds

60 less milo, pounds more cottonseed meal, and pounds less roughage than those fed alfalfa when it was 52 used as the roughage part of the ration. The economy of gains slightly favored the sorghum fodder lot and the rate and amount of gains favored the alfalfa hay lot. Table IV shows the findings of the three years of investigations of feeding a sorghum fodder roughage, milo grain and cottonseed meal ration without a mineral supplement. TABLE IV: SORGUM FODDER ROUGAGE WITOUT OYSTER SELL. Year Three Year Average AV. No. Days Fed No. Lambs Per Lot AV. Initial V/t. Total Gain Per lid. Daily Gain Per d Average Daily Ration lbs I.Iilo ead Chops Cottonseed Meal Sorghum Fodder Mineral (oz) «. mm ^B... Feed Required per 100 Pounds Gain -- lbs Milo ead Chops Cottonseed :^eal Sorghum Fodder Mineral " ^ "" As the summary of the three years shows, the total average gain per lamb of pounds was obtained at

61 - - ' ' " '» 53 the rate of.3 of a pound per day per lamb. One hundred pounds of gain required pounds of grain, pounds of cottonseed meal and pounds of sorghum fodder. In comparing these findings with those in Table III, where.4 ounce of ground limestone was fed daily, 6.69 pounds of ground limestone was equal to or replaced pounds of grain, pounds of cottonseed meal, and pounds of fodder in addition to increasing the daily gains from.3 to.37 of a pound per lamb and the total average gain from pounds to pounds per lamb '1S^^^^^:^;v^ In thesfje comparisons.4 ounce of ground limestone per day add^^^ to a; sorghum fodder roughage increased the rate of gains 23^, the amount of gains ^^ and decreased tlmftotal feed require^ per pound gialn 17.5^. These findings establish the feeding value of sorghum s fodder without a mineral supplement as the sole roughage in a lamb fattening ration at 60 to 70^ the value of alfalfa hay as the sole roughage, and the value of sorghum fodder supplemented with ground limestone as 90 to 95^ that of alfalfa. During the ttiree years of investigations, one lamb in the unsupplemented lot died of urinary calculi. None died in the supplemented lot. In Table VI an average of three years investigations showed a sorghum silage, milo head chop and cottonseed meal ration would produce a total gain per lamb of pounds at the rate of.3 of a pound per lamb daily.

62 54 m iii»twniil»n,.-4w^i j»i ^mmm wm i^ttfr^isbl^i Figure 4: This Trench Silo has Capacity of 500 Tons of Sorghum Silage. A large lamb Feeding Enterprise V/ould be Required to Eandle a Silo of this Size.

63 55 This requlrecl pounds of grain, pounds of cottonseed meal and poiinds of silage to produce 100 pounds gain. TABLE V: SORGDM SILAGE SUPPLEMENTED WIT PULVERIZED OYSTER SELL. Year Three Year Average Av. No. Days Fed No. Lambs Per Lot Av. Initial Wt. Total Gain Per d. Daily Gain Per d Average Daily Ration lbs. Milo head Chops 1.28 Silage 2.88 Cottonseed Meal.35 Grd. Oyster Sh.---oz " \.40 Feed Required per 100 Pounds Gain lbs. Milo head chops Silage Cottonseed Meal Grd. Oyster Sh ' " <M Table V shows three years of investigations in regard to supplementing a sorghum silage ration with a calcuim rich mineral (pulverized oyster shell)..4 ounce of oyster shell daily increased the average rate of daily gain from.3 of a pound to.39 of a pound, and the total average gain per lamb from pounds to pounds. The average of 6.31 pounds of oyster shell fed per cwt. Ic

64 gain was equal to or replaced pounds of grain, 3i&.6 pounds of cottonseed meal and pounds of silage. This 6.31 pounds of mineral added to a ration of milo, cottonseed meal and sorghum silage saved 13^ of the grain, 26.8^ of the cottonseed meal, 17^ of the silage, increased the rate of gains 32^, and increased the amount of gain per lamb 32^S^. 56 it is rather significant to notice the deaths and causes in comparing these V two lots. In the mineral supplemented lots, no lamb death losses were experienced. TABLE VI: SORGUM SILAGE WITOUT AN OYSTER SELL SUPPLEI.IENT Year Three Year Average Av. No. Av. No Days Fed Lambs Per Lot Initial Wt. Total Gain Per d. Dai ly Gain Per d ,.14 25,.79, ,,36 25,,58,, ,.00 29,,98 i, ,.01 28, Average Dally Ration --- lbs.. Milo ead Chops Silage Cottonseed Meal Gnd. Oyster She 11--oz. 1,,26 2,.54 <.34 ^ mm 1,,57 2,,36,,42 "" 1,,40 2,.17,.38 1.,41 2,.36,,38 "" Feed Required per 100 pounds gain lbs. Milo ead Chops Silage Cottonseed Meal Grd. Oyster Shel. 440,»26 887,,90 120,,00 « , , Of the sixty lambs fed sorghum silage without a supplement, five lambs died and two more were removed from the

65 57 test because of unthriftiness. The deaths were contributed to urinary calculi. The two that were removed were put on wheat pasture where they recovered, but they had gone off feed and were unfit for market. Tablet VII is a summary of several years work done at the Tech farm on the value of adding a mineral supplement to sorghum silage ani sorghum fodder. TABLE VII: SUMJURY OF TABLES II, III, IV, V, AND VI ON TE VALUE OF A MINERAL SUPPLEMENT ADDED TO SORGUM FODDER AND SORGUM SILAGE. Average of TABLE II TABLE III TABIB IV TABLE V TABLE VI Av. No. Days Fed No. Lambs per Lot Av. Initial Wt. Total Gain Per d. Daily Gain Per d AVERAGE DAILY RATION lbs. 9 Milo ead Chops Silage Fodder Alfalfa Cottonseed Meal Oyster Shell-oz.. " Ci» fr FEED REQUIRED PER 100 POUNDS G AIN -- lbs. Milo ead Chops Silage Fodder Alfalfa Cottonseed Meal Oyster Shell-oz ; 849.8( These two roughages are also compared with alfalfa. Milo head chops, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay pro-

66 58 akeed 3&«86 potitids of gain per lamb at the rate of.39 of a pmiit^per day. Sorghum fodder, cottonseed meal and tello grain produced pounds gain per lamb at the rate of.s of a pound daily, and sorghum silage produced a total gain per lamb of pounds at the rate of.3 of a pound dally. These gains establish fodder and silage almost equal to each other in economy,and rate of gain. The gains produced by the unsupplemented sorghums amounted to about 77^^ of the gains made by the alfalfa fed lambs pounds of sorghum fodder replaced pounds of sorghum silage ani 20.3 pounds of cottonseed meal per cwt. gain. When alfalfa hay replaces sorghum fodder in the ration only 85.5^ as much total feed is required per cwt. gain. Column 2 of TABLE VII shows the results of adding.4 ounce of ground oyster shell to the sorghum fodder, milo chops and cottonseed meal ration. The rate and amount of gains are 95;^ as great as those lambs fed alfalfa hay as the only roughage. The difference in total feed required per cwt. gain between the two rations is slight (18.3 pounds). When.4 ounce of ground oyster shell is added to the sorghum silage (Column 4, Table VII), milo chops and cottonseed meal ration, the gains are greater and faster than those obtained when alfalfa is fed pounds of silage replaced pounds of alfalfa hay and pounds of grain at a cost of pounds of cottonseed meal. These tests indicate that sorghum

67 59 silage with oyster shell is superior to sorghum fodder with ground oyster shell, and that each is practically equal to alfalfa when each of the three roughages are fed with milo head chops and cottonseed meal, and 1he sorghum roughages are supplemented with.4 ounce of ground limestone or oyster shell daily Investigations. In the winter of a lamb feeding investigation was set up with the following objectives. 1. To compare alfalfa hay with Kafir silage and cottonseed hulls. 2. To compare kafir silage and cottonseed hulls supplemented with alfalfa hay. 3. To compare whole milo with milo chops. To obtain these objectives the following rations were fed to the various lots. Lot I Milo, alfalfa, salt free choice. Lot II Milo, cottonseed meal, kafir silage and oyster shell. Lot III Milo chop, cottonseed meal, kafir silage, and oyster shell. Lot IV Milo chops, cottonseed meal, kafir silage, ground alfalfa, and oyster shell. Lot V Milo chops, cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, ground alfalfa, and oyster shell. Lot VI -- l\!ilo chops, cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, and oyster shell.

68 60 is; w is; PQ > E 02 > > > M ^ P S J^ 4^ o 1-1 otoi> oseooa... OS CO"* io02 to I> to lo O O CO. O ^i'02 02 lo CO c;s "^ to LO CJS to CO... O t0 02 OJ lo CO lo lol> CO CJS to... O COO 02 LO CO O I> sji ^ to CO. OS '^ O lo to -sjir to OO CO... O ^ CJS oa IO02 d OS A ^ 'd» ctf P< - -p cd CJ ^ T4 (Q } 05 p <D tio g 05 P4 r! I"! (i C! OlS otf O MCU ft o > > > s<<< CD CO 00 to lo -^. «"^ lo E> lo 02 ""sj* -«!}< <?»«.... «CO ^ t- OS 01 -^ t- s CO t- 0JCV2 CV2 '^i*. * CO C3S O '^ M^ CO '^. a to o oj t^ r-ir-i O k U p4 05 «,CJ CI ra O CC OJ ^ <M p5 P^ +5 ^ ^ OS 05 fcio -P J 'd ^ 05 ^d ra ft >5 {>s O 05 - O ^ 03 oj CO ra ^ o d «i 'd c d oj O Cj JM O CJ 'd004ja5;:3t4-pd -pvi 0<-P O (Dfi'riOr-i^oSOU fctog ; 5 o <i! e w o c!3 05 t> <u 1 1 o o o. '. too to C002 O -"v i-i lo O O O o... O O I> CO O CO "^ O O O O.. tooo CJS 00 «*< to 02 OS to r4 'vl< O O O. too I> to to C! v^ O O O 05 to^- OS 02 lo to 02 ra CO to TJ rt p OO o p< -^ c- O O 02 o ^ r-l to U w Qi as a CD ^ ;i ra g ^ 4J 05 W) C -d * 05 TJ p4 r4 g O 05 ^ ^ ra 05 ra ra U O d'i'd g n O C fn O rjoo-pa5^w+3 a* -P V< O <M -P.r4T^0^^f^a5 0 ^ S S O < C! 3 W O CO TJ. 'K ra i ra ftine ter b ri OJ Si +s f un culi O OJ o ra m E* O 05 d ^s O O +5 ra +s -d S-P O o J TJ «ra -p x3 -ri o.q ri > +3 'd o ^ U ra TJ OJ ra ^ OJ 5J ^ Tl TJ 'S'S a a<m P ra fl CJ.05 o o -s

69 61 Method of Feeding The lambs were fed twice daily at regular intervals. All lots were provided salt, free choice. Lots II, III, IV, V and VI were fed.4 ounce of pulverized oyster shell, per lamb, in the grain mixttire. Fresh clean water was always available. An examination of the data in TABLE VIII shows that the lambs in Lot I -- the check lot which were fed 1.34 pounds of milo and 1.08 pound of alfalfa were excelled in economy and daily gains by Lots II, III, IV; and also in rate of gain by Lot V. Lambs fed milo (Lot II) produced 100 pounds of gain at a cost of 05.23, compared with 0^.46 per 100 pounds gain with milo chops (Lot III). There was no significant difference in the average daily gain of the two lots. The consumption of milo and cottonseed meal was the same for both lots. The "milo chop lot" consumed.018 of a pound more silage per lamb per day than the "milo lot". In a comparison of kafir silage vs cottonseed hulls (Lots IV and V) kafir silage was superior to cottonseed hulls as a roughage, both as to economy and rate of gain. Supplementing a silage lot with.47 of a pound of alfalfa hay per lamb per day (Lot IV) increased the average daily gain but it also made the feed price per 100 pounds of gain higher. In determining the value of supplementing cottonseed hulls with alfalfa hay, the lambs in Lot V, re-

70 62 ceiving 1.14 pounds of milo chops,.25 of a pound of cottonseed meal, 1.45 pounds of cottonseed hulls, and 47 of a pound of ground alfalfa hay per day, made more rapid and economical r^ains than did Lot VI, which was fed 1.18 pounds of milo chops,.33 of a pound of cottonseed meal, and 1»58 pounds of cottonseed hulls per lamb per day. The addition of.47 of a pound of ground alfalfa in Lot V produced 100 pounds of gain at less cost than was produced in Lot VI. The average daily gain in Lot V was highly satisfactory.356 of a pound. Projects Nine and Ten In determining the value of shelter for fattening lambs, six pens were set up. Three of the lots had a shed approximately 20 feet deep on the north end of the pen (Figure 1). The other three lots had no shelter. The sheltered lots were designated as Lots 1, 2 and 3, with a different ration being fed in each lot. The unsheltered lots were designated as lots 4, 5 and 6. Lot 4 received the same ration as Lot 1, Lot 5 the same as Lot 2 and Lot 6 the same as Lot 3. Silage and fodder were also being checked against each other as was the value of adding alfalfa to a silage or fodder ration.

71 63 TABLE IX: SELTER VS NO SELTER Lot Number Total No. Lambs Av. Initial Wt. Total Gain Per d. Daily Gain Per d. AVERAGE DAILY RATION Average of Lots I, II and III. (Shelter) Cottonseed meal.212 Milo chops.1.15 Total roughage 2.79 FEED REQUIRED PER 100 POUNDS GAIN Cottonseed meal Milo chops Total roughage Average of Lots IV, V and VI. (No shelter) The average daily gain per lamb of lots 1, 2 and 3 (shelter) was.2757 of a pound as compared to the average daily gain of.252 of a pound for lots 4, 5 and 6 (unsheltered); a difference of.0237 of a pound or 9.4^^ faster gains for the sheltered lots (Table IX). The sheltered lots required 87^ as much total feed to produce 100 pounds of gain as was required in the open lots. The sheltered lots required 19.0^ less cottonseed meal, 3^ less grain, and 16.7^ less roughage than was required in the open lots. The shelter saved an average of pounds total feed per cwt. gain as compared to the amount required to produce a similiar gain in the open lots.

72 64 TABLE X: AVERAGE OF CERTAIN LOTS OF TRIALS 9 and 10. Lot I I: IV Lot II 8: V Lot III & VI Av. No. of Days Fed No. Lambs Per Lot Av. Initial Vi't. Total Gain Per d. Daily Gain Per d A^/ERAGE DAILY RATION lbs. Grain Cottonseed meal Silage _'odder Alfalfa FEED REQUIRED PER 100 POUNDS GAIN lbs. arain Cottonseed meal Silage Fodder Alfalfa

73 65 o ft CJS E M OQ E O O <J X! PQ -P 15> ^^ p o> ft -p > O M ft 4^ O ft M -P O M ft +3 O ft D COO to lo CO to O lo OS 02 to 02 o C0> 00 lo lo LO CO O OS lo CJS to 02 O 00 I> CO to O CO OS 02 to O CJS COl> lo to CO O to OS 02 to 02 to ^ CJS > OS lo LO CJS O CO CJS O CJS to CO 00 CJS 02 to LO CO I> O lo CJS 02 to s TJ T^, -d o W E ft Pm P fn JL, 5,.I: ra f^ PM > ^(^ ra -^ cc 05 CJ d Q ga. '._! c< U rq -P O d 'i O c^ f <i O S JU E!si ft t>» rd 05 4^. O ra > O > O 05 Is; 3 < S < E Q. ra rq 1 1 S o E < pc; ft <J ft w ^ < «g <aj j>-o Tji to to CO LO.. 02 O LO to 00 to LO. *. 02 I> LO «;i< lo to r-\ CO 02 O lo to 00 r-{ r-\ CO lo O lo to LO r> LO.. 02 I>- lo ^ lo CO 02. CO 05 s TZl ra 05 d! <+ fl O l:!0 4^ 05 "d 05 C(5 P Tj «i ^ O. O C!^' O CO P^^ <3 ra,q 1 1 < C5 CO ft ^ o PL O o C^ w P ft M p:^ t=) 3? M s ft w &1 ^ 00 C-02 to I> 02 O. to E> to o^ OS CO '^ t- to CO 02 to to O O I> 02 to 02.. «;t< CO to CO O to 02 '^f CJS 02 CJS 02 "^ I> CO... C- 02 to CO CO 00 'sji CO to 00 coi>- O I> to CO CJS to 02 LO CO 'sj< lo CO 02 OS!> to to.. I> -^. O 00 ID ^ CO CJS > to CO O to CO OS CO ^ '<;«02 OJ S 'd ra 05 C <D U^ i O W <D r-\ ^ -P 05 TJ P XJ "^ P O T O cb o CO t^ <:

74 66 An average of Lots I and IV fed silage (Column I, Table X), cottonseed meal and milo showed a total gain of pounds per lamb at the rate of.2449 of a pound per lamb dally as compared to an-average gain of pounds and a daily gain of.2762 of a pound in lots II and V, fed a similiar ration with.5 of a pound of alfalfa hay added per lamb per day (Table X). In these trials pounds of alfalfa replaced pounds of silage and pounds of grain in addition to increasing the amount and the rate of gain. Lots III and VI fed sorghum fodder instead of sorghum silage, gained 96.3/^ as rapidly as Lots II and V. The fodder fed lots. III and VI, required 3.27c. more grain, 20^^ more cottonseed meal, and 20^ more alfalfa than lots II and V that were fed sorghum silage (Table X). Pro.lect Eleven Lamb feeding project Number Eleven was started November 12, 1943 and ran until March 13, The objectives of this experiment were as follows. 1. To compare the feeding value of Martin and Dwarf Yellow Milo when supplemented with cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. 2. To compare the feeding value of i.!artin and Dwarf Yellow!.Iilo when supplemented with cottonseed meal, sumac sorghum fodder and.25 pound of alfalfa dally.

75 67 3. To compare field harvesting or "lambing dov/n" combine milo with dry lot feeding of milo. Table XII shows the results of the four groups of lambs fed in dry lot in comparing Martin milo with Dwarf yellow milo. TABLE XII: YELLOVi DWARF MILO VS I.'IARTIN MILO Lot Number I II III IV No. of Lambs Av. Initial V/t. Av. Gain per hd. Av. Daily Gain per hd A^TERAGE DAILY RATION PER LAMB Kilo Alfalfa Cottonseed Meal Ground Sumac Fodder Limestone FEED REQUIRED PER 100 POUNDS JAIN -- Milo Cottonseed meal Alfalfa Ground Sumac Fodder Limestone Salt Total Feed per cwt gain In Table XII, Lots I and II were fed identical rations except fcr the variety of milo. Lots III and IV were fed identical rations except for the nilo variety used. Lots III and IV used sumac sorghum fodder as a roughage and Lots I and II used alfalfa as the roughage.

76 68 Lots I and II, comparing Martin milo and Dwarf Yellow milo, respectively, were supplemented with cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay as a roughage. Lot I gained.06 pounds more per head daily, made more rapid gains, required 20 per cent less feed per cwt gain, made a cheaper gain by ;! i2.39 per cwt, and 25 per cent more of the carcasses graded good or choice than did those in Lot II. Lots III and IV, comparing the feeding value of Martin Milo and Dwarf Yellow Kilo, respectively, were supplemented with cottonseed meal and sumac sorghum fodder as the roughage. Lot IV gained.01 pounds more per head daily, made 3.45 per cent more rapid gains, required 1.6 per cent less feed per cwt gain, and made a cheaper gain by ^.17 per cwt gain. There was no difference in carcass grades. V/hen Lots I and III, the Martin Milo lots, are averaged together they show a total gain of pounds per lamb at the rate of.305 pounds daily as compared to pounds total gain per lamb at the rate of.28 pounds daily in Lots II and IV, the Yellow Milo lots. Lots I and III required an average of 719 pounds of feed to produce 100 pounds of gain as compared to an average of pounds required for a like gain in Lots II and IV. Lots V and VI lambed down Plainsman milo. A comparison between the two lots showed that Lot V, supple-

77 69 mented with limited alfalfa, gained.05 pounds per head daily, made per cent more rapid gains, and made a cheaper gain by $1.31 per cwt than Lot VI, supplemented with limited sumac sorghum fodder and cottonseed meal. There was no difference in the carcass grades of the two lots. Lot V, lambing down Plainsman milo with limited alfalfa, excelled all lots in average daily gain, and in cost of gains. The tangible benefits derived from the "lambing down" project are small because the lambs were removed from the field after 91 days and fed for an additional 30 days in the dry lot. owever, this project indicated that field harvesting of grain sorghums was worthy of further consideration and investigation. This project further indicated that the field harvesting of sorghum grain would produce gains equivalent to those obtained under dry lot conditions. As a group the 80 lambs in the field gained.325 pounds per head daily, v/hile the 80 lambs fed in dry lot gained.292 pounds per head daily, which was 10.5 per cent more rapid gains and.,^.50 per 100 pounds cheaper gains for those fed in the field. In Lot V, 40 lambs "lambed down" 2.95 acres of Plainsman milo (13.5 lambs per acre). The stand was skippy. The top yield at the beginning of the experiment v;as estimated at 1600 pounds per acre with damage incurred later by birds. gained pounds per acre, the supplemental The lot feeds being pounds of alfalfa, 16*13 pounds of ground

78 70 limestone, and pounds of salt. It was felt by the Investigators that more grain was charged against the lambs than they actually consumed because of the excessive inroads by birds.

79 71 Figure 5: Concrete Water Trough With Apron. This Type Was Used to Supply Water to the Dry-Lots. Each Trough Serves Two Lots. The Viater Level is Controlled by a Central Float Box.

80 72 Lamb feeding projects number Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen were conducted over a five-year period, starting in 1944 and ending in There was no projects run in The original objectives of these projects were: 1. To compare the feeding value of Martin Milo with that of Plainsman Milo. 2. To determine the value of "lambing down" Plainsman Milo as compared to the dry-lot feeding of Plainsman milo. Materials and Methods Lots and Equipment The experimental animals were kept in adjacent feedlots 1hat drained to the south. These lots were 10 feet wide and 60 feet long, including about 20 feet under a metal roof shed. (Figure 1) This provided about 30 square feet per lamb for those in the dry-lot. Lots in which the value of shelter was being determined were identical to these except no shelter was provided. The feeding troughs were of the type commonly used where sheep are hand fed. These were 15-foot troughs. There was one trough on each side of the pen under the shed. This gave 30 feet of feeding space for twenty lambs. This factor helped to prevent crowding at feeding time. The metal shed was closed on three sides and open to the south. This was adequate to protect the lambs during periods of stormy weather.

81 73 Figure 6: The Small Box Was the Type Used to Supply Miner&l to The r^ield Fed Lambs.

82 All lots were supplied with fresh clean v/ater at all times. Each two lots had one concrete watering trough Y/hich was controlled by a central float box (Figure 5). The v;atering troughs were washed and cleaned each morning. Kinerals were fed in a small mineral box that was attached to the side of the fence as shown in Figure 3. A definite amount of mineral was placed in the box at the beginning of each week and then at the end of the week the mineral that was remaining was weighed and substracted from the first figure to give the definite amount of mineral consumed. Field and Equipment The fieu tiiat the lambs were lambing down contained approximately six acres. This field was located one-half mile west of the feeding lots. There was no shelter in the field. A small area of the lane was fenced off to furnish a lot for the lambs until they v/ere fully accustomed to the grain field. Two mineral boxes (Figure 6), the same size as the ones used in the feedlot, were attached to the fence close to the watering and bedding down area. The amount of mineral cons-umed was calculated in the same manner as for the ones in the feedlot. The lambs in the field were furnished water in two wooden tubs-fif^ure 7. Running water was available at t: field. These two tubs held approximately twenty

83 75 Picixre 7: V/ooden Tubs Used to Supply V/ater to the Field Fed Lambs. They V/ere Refilled Y/ith a Rubber ose Attached to A V/ater Main. Figure 8: A type of Feed Trough Used For Feeding The Supplementary Ration to The Field Fed Lambs.

84 76 gallons of water each. These tubs were cleaned in the morning and evening and kept full of fresh clean water. The lambs In the field were fed alfalfa hay each morning in three 15-foot troughs-figure 8. These troughs were open on both sides and furnished ample space for the lambs to eat.; The troughs were approximately 8 inches from the grouad, 6 inches deep, and 18 inches wide. Type of Lambs Used in the Experiments Spring dropped, range lambs were secured for these '' " '-* experiments. These lambs were predominately of Rambouillet breeding and when purchased on the range were selected for xuxlformity of size and type. When purchased at th% stock yard they seemed to show greater variation. All lambs used varied in weight and were of mixed sex.,,_ Preliminary Feeding Period In all cases the lambs were trucked to Texas Tech College. The lambs usually arrived in the morning. Then they were unloaded and divided into groups of from 20 to 25 and placed in feed lots where they had access to water. The remainder of the first day the lambs were allowed to rest. The second day they were fed a sorghum roughage or prairie hay. On the third day the lambs were ear tagged, so that Individual identification would be possible. At this time the lambs were also paint branded with the ear tag number for ease of Identification. This paint

85 77 Figure 9: Three-Way Cutting Chute Used to Separate Lambs Into Uniform Lots for Experimental Purposes.

86 78 brand was placed on the right side of the back. (Shown in Figur e 14). On the fourth day these lambs were started on sorghum grain. By the seventh day they were showing a strong appetite and were accustomed to.grain. V/ei^hinp; of Lambs - At 1:00 P. M. on the sixth day the lambs were weighed individually and the v;eights recorded (Figure la). At the same time on the seventh day the lambs v/ere v/eighed individually again. The weights for tlie two days were totaled and then averaged to find the feedlot initial weights. At the end of the second weighing period the lambs were broken into lots. The cutting chute in Figure 9 v/as used for this purpose. These lots v/ere divided as evenly as possible according to v;eigj.it and sex. At the end of each 28-day period the lambs v/ere weighed individually at 1:00 P. LI. on that day. The final feedlot weights v/ere arrived at by weighing two successive days at 1:00 P. M. and averaging these weights. Feeds Used The grain used in these feeding experiments was of two varieties, Martin and Plainsman Kilo. Kost of the alfalfa hay and milo used in these experiments v/as grov/n on the college Tarm.. All feeds used were produced in Lubbock County. The feeds used in these experiments v/ere not analyzed as such. In calculating the per cent of crude pro-

87 79 tein of different rations their feed values were taken from the 20th Edition of Feeds and Feeding, 1944, by Morrison. Rations and Feeding Methods The concentrate portion of the test rations was fed as a feed mix. The roughage part of this ration v/as alfalfa hay. It v/as coarsely ground in a hammer mill, using a one-inch screen. The milo v/as not ground. The feeds were mixed by placing them on the floor in layers, and they were then conveyed to an Eureka mixer. The feed treatments for the lots in this experiment was as follows. Lot I, Martin Kilo 1st period, 28 days Roughage 66.67^^ Concentrate 33.33^& Cottonseed Keal lofo Kilo 9Q^t Salt, Free Choice. 2nd period, until end of experiment Roughage 50^ Concentrate 50^ Cottonseed Keal lo^j Kilo 90/^ Salt,.Tee Choice Lot II, Plainsman Kilo 1st period, 28 days

88 80 Roughages 66.67;;^ Concentrate 33.33^ Cottonseed Meal 10^ Milo 90^ Salt, Free Choice 2nd Period, until end ol experiment Roughage 50^ Concentrate 50^ Cottonseed meal 10^ Milo 90^ Salt, Free Choice Lot III, Plainsman Milo (Projects Number 12 and 13) Ist period, 28 days Roughage 67^ Ground Sumac Sorghum Fodder 57^ Ground Alfalfa ay 10^ Cottonseed Meal 16^ Milo 17^ 2hd period, until end of experiment Roughage 50^ Ground Siimac Sorghum Fodder 80^ Ground Alfalfa ay 20?b Concentrate 50^ Cottonseed Meal 30^ Milo 70?^ Lot III, Experiment Number Fourteen. (Shelter) Fed same ration as Lot No. II above. Lot V, Lambing Down of Plainsman Milo.

89 There is no accurate way of determining the am.ount 81 of milo these lambs consumed on field feeding. In order to determine the amount of milo to charge to these lambs it was necessary to estimate the yield of grain in the field. These lambs v;ere fed alfalfa hay and minerals, free choice. The mineral mix used vvas one-half salt and onehalf limestone. Method Used to :3stimate Yield of Kilo in Field Prior to the start of the experiment in order to get an estimate of the yield of the milo in the field the following procedure was used. The field was nearly square and contained approximately six acres of land. The calculations were made by starting at the northeast corner, cutting a yard of heads from the odd-numbered rows, and then starting at the northwest corner and going in a straight line to the southeast corner, cutting a yard of heads from the even numbered rows. VJhen this was finished there had been a representative yard of heads cut from each row in the field. These heads were allowed to dry for two days and were then threshed by hand, and the grain yield for each yard calculated. After the yield per yard was calculated it was multiplied by the number of yards in the row to get the yield for each row. Then the yield per row was multiplied by the number of ro?/s to get the yield for the field. This total yield v/as divided by the num-

90 82 her of acres to give the estimated yield per acre. Starting Lambs on The Field Lambs were started the afternoon of the seventh day. They were allowed to graze on the field for only ten minutes and were then returned to thej.r pen. The following days they were fed alfalfa hay in the morning and theh grazed in the afternoons. The ler^gth of time the lambs were in the field each day was increased until they were completely accustomed to the lambing down process. At this time their feeding equipment and watering troughs were moved into the field. From this time on the lambs stayed in the field until they harvested it. An inspection of the lambs was made each day to see if any were scouring. Sick lambs were removed and hand fed until well and were then returned to the experiment. Results of Experiments with Lots 1 and II. The results of feeding experiments conducted for the four-year period are summarized in Table XIII and XIV. As is shown in these tables, there is great variation in the average daily gain from one year to another for lambs on the same type of feed. owever, there is very little variation in average daily gain for each year between Lots I and II. A four year average of the two lots shovi/s that Lot I, Martin Milo, made.005 pound greater daily gain per lamb than Lot II, Plainsman Milo. There was much greater variation from year to year of lambs on the same type of feed. There was also more variation of

91 83 average daily gain of two lots fed the same ration the same year than has ever been secured betv/een Lot I and II. The differences in daily gain here are not large enough to make any significant differences in the feeding value of the two feeds; experimental error alone could loave caused more variation in the four-year average daily gain per lamb than was shown in the actual experiments. In the experiments. Lots I and II were fed exactly alike except for the variety of milo fed. The four-year average for total feed consumed per pound gain for Lot I was 785 pounds; for Lot II, 788 pounds as is shown in Tables XIII and XIV. The difference for the two lots being 3 pounds of feed per 100 pounds gain. This difference is not significant.

92 84. o ta bo o5 U > «! LO ^ CJS lo c^ to -^J< O CO CO CO lo. «.. O > '^ J> OOO 02 to O CO lo *. 02 CO LO C- ^ coo CO "^ f-^ ^ M E D^ <; - -4 t -^ ^ M 8 I-) i 00 OS ^ 1 00 ^ OS 00 s 1 L- ^ CJS LO 02 I>- 02 to CO lo CJS CO -^ to «.. O O lo O 02 to O CO lo to lo CJS O O lo to O CO CJSt O O t- 02 > O CO lo LO COCJS 00 CJS CO CJS 02 CO ^ to CO 0 '^ ^ ^ ^ CJS O.. I a:; E u> * c5 ^ i-'eed g 1 CO cd to ^ 1 lo ^ OS to ^ 1 ^ ^ OS 00 O O ^ I> O OS "^ CO.... O 02 to CO.. CJS 02 to O ^ LO lo 00 CO lo I>- CO O CO LO CO. «. o J> 02 u:) CO J> 02 to O to -"^ ra rq ^ J J> 0.. OS > to ^0O2 C>2 ^ "<=1< LO J>- 0 ^ -^ «* to 02. I 10 OS YRA r^^ 5 "M rx< o p:^ < c^ P ( 1 X! j - 1 f:c, oj 1 u as ^ +3 CU -P o ^ o n:^ f^ P O O - ;J] -P -^^ d o -p o ^ 40 **TI 0 TJ 0 i ra -^ P^ T. J S -P TJ J ra.r? c!3 J ^ 4J E 0» QO-P JU fn ^q. jin -v. - bo d cij fu Cf ^ - ni P 0 OJ CiO bo ^ C! JI OJ '~0M 'i-i. oj d ra p oj S ' ra g ^ C^ +5?i 3 JIJ. 0 > ^? 52; P P <j; :) Q < 0 xn «s 8 O 0 0 cd W PM R a CO 0 0 p W s OJ 1 ^ - ^ >i d oj K ra 05 ^ 0 0 -P 05 4^ 4^ C ^ 0 05 S O <j; c/d a PL, p <+ O A

93 85 O i s fe < \x^ f=^ CO ^ M 3 P V E O 1^.V a <: «E ei s Q '^ e fo fc^ 3 CO Ci^ UR YEA o 54 p! o s <: t!ir-< g > X r T a PQ <! E fco 05? > <«! CJS ^ 1 00 ^i< CJS 00 '5l< 1 I> ^ CJS to ^ 1 LO '«i< CJS lo ^ 1 ^ ^ CJS U as LO "5^ O CJS t- o to t- 00 O O CO OS > CJS to ^ o to O CO coo lo 02 LO 02 O O lo CO CO '^ -^ O J> iol> to O CO LO CJS CJS lo O O 00 CO CO C0 02 t-.. «. CJS CJS to O CO LO 02 O CO 02 O '=1' CO 02 "^?> O 02 to CO O 02 to O s LO CO LO 02 -"^ to OS 02 CO "<;J< CO 02 CJS.... O J> '^ 00 I> 02 to O CO "vj< -P ^ o ^ -p 4J P O O -r i_:i4j r^ O '^A +3 O p^ -P ' fd o d ra "^ ft r-, - s +3 no 05 OJ d ra '^f^ ci! ^1 ^ -p - o g ^ -^fo t>j 05 bo-p ra C U ^ f ^ "^'. bo d a< fu < "s: T - P o oj tao QD ^ ^ 05 d U as WJ4 ri 05 d ^ P +s Oj 05 f^ -r ra S. d -P? 3 d - O > jsi ^ ^ M r- E <i; CO Q ra rq 1 1 S < CO p t=> o PL, o,:c; p:i P^ P W i ao ^ O o p PQ ^ :^ O O O lo O O O c-.... CO 00 to > '^^ CO O CO -s oooo o o o o ^ 00 CJS CO O 02 -"c oooo oooo.... CO ^ 02 CO CJS 'til CO to ^ oooo oooo.... l> to >!> CO to 02 '^^f* oooo oooo.. C^ lo 00 O '^ io ^ CO 05 f^. i>a m ra 05 iiu O O -P aj 4^ 4^ < O 05 g o <: CZl CO to. to o. ^ o. 1 to ^ «1 CO a». a s Oj h^ 5^ eu -p < O u P t^ S I

94 86 In carcass data Lots I and II were almost the same. As is shown in Table XV, Lot I shows a higher per cent of choice and good carcasses than Lot II, but Lot II shows a higher per cent of good carcasses than Lot I. Lot I also shows the highest per cent of commercial grade carcasses. owever, since there is such a small amount of differences in the carcass grades of these two lots it is not felt that one feed showed any advantage over the other in this respect. TABLE XV: CARCASS GRADE AlID FI^R CENT FOR LOTS I AND II. Grades Choice Choice-Good Good Commercial Lot I Lot , A Four Year Average Lot I Lot II ,.2 40,, In Table XVI is shovm tv/o lots. III and IV, of Texas Tech Sheep Feeding Project Number Fourteen which were set up to obtain further data on the value of shelter for fattening lambs in the Texas Pligh Plains area. The investigators reathe folloy/ing conclusions after considering the following data in the table.

95 87 TABLE XVI: ONE YEAR OF SELTER VS NO SELTER Lot II Lot III Lot Shelter No Shelter No. Lambs Per Lot Initial Weight Total Gain per Lamb Daily Gain per Lamb AVERAGE DAILY RATION -- lbs Grain Cottonseed l.leal Alfalfa ay FEED REQUIRED PER 100 POUl^DS GAIN -- lbs Grain Cottonseed Ileal Alfalfa ay Both lots were fed Plainsman milo, cottonseed meal, alfalfa and salt free choice. There was no significant difference in the rate or economy of gain in either lots Lot III, without shelter, appeared to have a little more appetite and refused slightly less feed, and eight more of the carcasses (37:.) graded choice. Lot III shrank less during transit to market. The findings in this one year did not bear out the findings of previous studies at ihis station; however, it is in line with previous literature cited from other stations. In Table XVII a summary of two years feeding of Martin Milo (Lot II) as compared to the same two years of feeding Plainsman Milo (Lot III), show that for all practical purposes the feeding value of the tv;o varieties of milo is equal.

96 TABIE XVII: StJMMARY OP TWO YEARS COMPARISON OP MARTIN AND PLAINSMAN MILO WEEN SUMAC SORGDM FODDER IS USED AS TE ROUGAGE WIT LIMITED ALFALFA. Martin Lot III Plainsman No* Lambs per Lot Average Initial Wt Total Gain Per head Dally Gain Per ead AVERAGE DAILY RATION lbs Grain Cottonseed Meal Sorghum Fodder Alfalfa ay Mineral (oz) FEED REQUIRED PER 100 POUNDS GAIN lbs Grain Cottonseed Meal Sorghum Fodder Alfalfa mj Mineral t ^ 6.35 These two lots were fed sumac sorghum fodder as a roughage with a limited amount of alfalfa hay (.3 pound) per lamb daily. The rate of gains were the same in both lots, but the economy of gains was slightly in favor of Lot III, Plainsman milo. Results of Experiments with Lots II and V. Results of feeding experiments conducted for the two-year period are summarized in Table XVIII and XIX. There was only two years of the lambing down of Plainsman milo. Lot V, Completed, so they will be compared to the same two years of feedlot feeding of Plainsman milo. Lot II. The reason for the small gains made in

97 89 were that tjie lambs were not drenched before the experiment was begun. The lambs in did not eat satisfactorily until they were drenched. This was done about mid-way of the experiment, and the lambs made good gains afterwards. Even so they could not make up what ttey had lost before being drenched. Lot II, the band-fed lot, shows a higher average dally gala for both years, as is shown in Tables XVIII and XIX. In Lot II showed.04 pound more daily gain and in Lot II also showed.04 pound more daily gain. The two-year average, as is shown in Table XVIII ani XIX, shows that Lot II has.04 pound more daily gain for feedlot weights, but this lot had only.02 pound more daily gain when the market weights were considered. This difference is due to the fact that the lambs in Lot V did not shrink as much in transit as did those in Lot II. It was concluded that the drylot lambs will gain faster than the field fed lambs as is shown in the tables concerned. In the number of pounds of milo consumed per pound of gain. Lot V in both years consumed the most pounds of milo for 100 pounds of gain. Lot V used less alfalfa hay, no cottonseed meal, and more milo to make its gains than Lot II, as is shown in Tables XVIII and XIX. Even though there was a larger amount of milo consumed in Lot V, lambing down Plainsman milo, these lambs showed an average net profit of Jl.33 per lamb while Lot II, handfed Plainsman milo showed a net profit of only $.45. I I

98 TABLE XVIII: Lot II No. of Lambs per Lot Initial weigjat, feedlot Final Weight, Feedlot Total Gain, Feedlot Average Daily Gain Shrinkage in Transit, % Dressing %, Chilled Wt. 90 SUMMARY OF TWO YEARS FEEDING OF PLAINSLIAN MILO Two-year Average FEED CONSUICED PER 100 POUNDS GAIN Milo Cottonseed Lleal Alfalfa ay Salt Mineral (limestone) " " lbs Total TABLE XIX: SUiaiARY OF TWO YEARS OF LAIsIBIlJG DOWN PLAINS- MAN MILO \ Lot V Two-year Average No. of Lambs Pex- Lot Initial Weight, Feedlot Final weight, Feedlot Total Gain, Feedlot Average Daily Gain Shrinkage in Transit, % Dressing %, Chilled Wt FEED CONSUlvISD PER 100 POUINTDS GAIN lbs Milo Cottonseed Meal Alfalfa ay Salt Mineral (Limestone Total

99 91 The price charged for the milo in the field was calculated by charging the market price at that time, less combining expense, hauling and handling expense. There was a fence already around the field, so there was no expense for fencing. Certainly this is a factor to consider when the field is not fenced. Even though the lambs in the field consumed more grain than the ones hand-fed, it is felt that the lambs wasted very little. The lambs did a very gocd job of cleaning up the field. It is felt that more grain was charged to the lambs than they actually ate, because of the heavy bird damages. This field v/as located at the edge of town and this may have influenced the bird damage. In the field feeding was carried on for only 43 days. Because of excessive inroads of birds on the grain in the field, it was necessary to put in enough lambs to harvest the field as quickly as possible. Therefore the data secured for could not successfully be compared to the other two years. Lot II shows to have a higher per cent of choice and good carcasses. Table XX shows that the dry-lot feeding produced carcasses of higher grading than field fed lambs.

100 TA3IE XX: CARCASS GRADE AND PER CENT FOR LOTS II AI-TD V. 92 Grades Choice Good Commercial Lot II Lot V Tv;o-Year Average Lot II Lot V

101 93 l^ejeet Sixteen Texas Tech Sheep Feeding Project Number Sixteen was set up In an effort to fulfill the following objectives. 1. To determine the possibilltes? of field harvesting sorghums without suffering serious death losses. 2. To determine the value of "lambing down" Plainsman milo as compared to dry lot feeding of Plainsman milo. Materials and Methods Field and Equipment The field used in the "lambing down" trial contained approximately eleven acres. This field, containing no shelter, was'located one-half mile west of the feeding lots. Two mineral boxes, the same size as the ones in the check dry lot, were place in the area where the watering troughs were located. A definite amount of mineral was placed in the box at the beginning of each week and then at the end of the week the mineral that was remaining was weighed and subtracted from the first figure to give the definite amount of the mineral consumed. Five wooden tubs were used to supply fresh clean water to the lambs. These tubs, which were cleaned and refilled each day, held approximately twenty-five gallons of water each. They were refilled during the day as needed. An ordinary rubber garden hose attached to a

102 94 high pressure water line v/as used to fill tte tubs with water. Alfalfa hay was fed each morning in eight 12-foot troughs as is shown in Figure 2. These troughs were approximately eight inches from the ground, four inches deep, and sixteen inches wide. Salt was fed free choice. At the beginning of a feeding period the salt was weighed and placed in the trough; as the salt Y/as consumed, more salt was weighed and placed in the trough. At the end of a period all salt fed was added and any remaining salt in the troughs v;as subtracted to give the total amount of salt consumed. Type of Lambs Used in the Experiment Spring dropped lambs were secured for this as in all previous trials. The. lambs used in this particular experiment were the first ever used at Texas Tech which were not of Texas origin. They were bought in Tatum, ew Mexico. Preliminary Feeding Period These lambs were handled in the same manner as in previous years. On the fourth day they were ear tagged and paint branded; on the fifth and sixth day they were weighed individually and the average of the two weights used as the initial feedlot weight; and at this time they were broken down into lots on the basis of weight, sex, and type.

103 ' " ', ^, - " ' ' - 95 Rations ^ahd Methods of Feeding The concentrate portion of the check lot ration was fed as a feed mixture. The roughage part of the ration was alfalfa hay. ^It was coarsely ground in a hammer mill, using a one - inch sol? e«h. The jjiilp w not grtoid. The * '',, T * /. > " '... feeds were mixed by placing them on the floor in layers, and then conveyed into a Eureka mixer.,/ The feed treatment for the lots in this experiment was as follows: Lot I, Check Lot. 1st period, 28 days Roughage 66.67^ Concentrate 33.33^ Cottonseed Meal 10^ Milo 90^ 2nd period, until end of experiment Roughage 50^ Concentrate 50^ Cottonseed Meal 10^ Milo 90^ ; Lot V, Lambing Down of Plainsman Milo. There was no accurate way of determining the amount of milo these lambs consumed. In order to determine the amount of milo to charge to these lambs it was necessary to estimate the yield of forage and grain in the African millet and Plainsman milo fields. Alfalfa hay was fed free choice as was the salt and mineral supplements.

104 96 MM Figure 10: The Condition and Amount of Feed in The African Millet jleld Prior to the Beginning of the Grazing Period. Estimated Yield was 10 Tons per Acre. Figure 11: African Millet Field After Lambs had Been Feeding 16 Days.

105 97 Figure 12: African Millet Field After Lambs had Been Feeding 35 days. [ r Figure 13: African Millet Field at Close of experiment--a Total of 75 Days.

106 Method Used to Estimate the Yield of African Millet 98 and Plainsman Milo in tl^ Field. The yield of African Millet was determined in a manner similar to that already described in trials of previous years. Starting at the northwest comer of the field, ten feet of fodder was cut from every tenth row across to the southeast corner of the field, and then proceeding to the southwest comer and cutting ten feet of fodder from every ninth row across to the northeast corner. This procedure gave a representative sample of the yield of each row in this field. The yield per yard was multiplied by the number of yards in the row and this by the number of rows in the field. The total was divided by the number of acres in the field to get the yield per acre..^ The yield of the milo field was determined in a similar manner. The only difference was that one yard of milo heads was cut from every fourth and fifth rows. Starting and Care of Lambs During The Experiment Twenty lambs used in the check lot were selected according to weight and body conformation to givq an overall average of the entire group of lambs in the experiment. The 20 lambs were placed in the dry lot and the remaining 161 were placed in the African Millet field with water, salt and mineral available to them at all times. The field of millet was estimated to yield ten tons of silage per acre had it been harvested.

107 -y** «-«99 The sheep ate first the weeds along the fence rows, leaves, and lastly the grain from the heads. The lambs continued in this field without supplementary feed until October 29th, when a killing frost occured. After the killing frost ths lambs were fed alfalfa hay In troughs and then turned gradually into the Plainsman milo field. The field of Plainsman milo was estimated to yield two thousand pounds of grain per acre had it been harvested. The first day the lambs were turned in the field of milo at 10:00 A. M., and allowed to remain for thirty minutes. This time was increased for each d.ay until the dividing fence was removed on the fifth day. The lambs in I'ot V, field fed, were given one-fourth pound of cottonseed meal and three-fourths pound of alfalfa hay per head daily from October 29, the date of the killing frost, until the end of the feeding trial. This supplemental feed was fed in troughs placed in the field. This was fed at 10:00 A. M. each day. For a period of three weeks after the lambs were placed in the milo field, digestive disturbances occurred in approximately eight per cent of the lambs. The add-. it ion of th6 cottonseed meal and alfalfa seemed to be of great benefit in aiding the digestive disorders. It was not necessary to give individual treatment because of the digestive troubles. The alfalfa used in this experiment was stommy. In order to get a reasonable percent of consumption, it was

108 100 gro[xod In a hammer Liill with a one inch screen. The lambs began grazing the milo field on the side next to the African Millet field and they continued to graze across from this side. They continued to graze over the African Millet to the end of the experiment and bedded down primarily in this field. The feed, water and mineral troughs were also left in the millet f i eld. A considerable anount of roighage and grain was left in the field at the close of the lamb feeding experiment This is evidenced by the fact that the college breeding flock of seventy five ewes were turned into this field for short intervals daily over a thirty day period following the removal of the lambs from the field. At the end of the field experiment all of the lambs were shorn. The 20 dry-lot lambs in the check lot averaged 5.7 pounds; the 160 lambs in the field averaged 5.9 pounds of wool. The lambs were tagged at the beginning of the experiment. One lamb in Lot V, field fed, died as a result of getting on his back in a lister furrov/. e was not included in the results of the experiment. At tie c ncluslon of this experiment on field feeding or field harvesting of Plainsman milo, 100 of the lightest lambs were selected from this group for use in a dry-lot feeding trial designed to test the comparative value of several selected roughages. The heavier lambs were "topped" out and sent to market.

109 TABLE XXI: SUIMARY OP 75 DAY PIEID FEEDING EXPERIMENT (..October 12, 1949 to December 26, 1949) Lot J^^umber Number Lambs Per Lot Average Initial Wt. Total Gain Per ead Daily Gain Per ead (Check Lot) I (Field Lot) V AVERAGE DAILY RATION lbs Cottonseed meal Threshed milo Alfalfa hay Sorghum fodder Limestone flour Salt (oz) (oz) * FEED REQUIRED PER 100 POUNDS GAIN lbs Cottonseed meal Threshed milo Alfalfa hay Sorghum fodder Limestone flour Salt Total * estimated

110 102 Figure 14: Lambs Being Turned into Plainsman Milo Field the First Time. Note The Stenciled Mark on The Back 7or Identification. Figure 15 The Condition and Amount of Grain in the Plainsruan Milo Field at the Beginning of '2:iperiment. Estii^_ated Yield v;as 2000 pounds per Acre.

111 103 Figure 16: Milo Field.ifter Lambs Grazing for 17 days. ad Been 'igure 17: Milo Field at End of Experiment, a Period of 47 days in this x'^ield. The College Breeding Flock of 75 ewes Y.'ere turned into this field for short intervals daily over a 30 day period after the la ribs were removed