lilttturrfilty of .Artzona College of Agriculture FEEDING DAIRY CATTLE

lilttturrfilty  of .Artzona College  of Agriculture FEEDING  DAIRY CATTLE

Bul1l:lin :\ .... 127

June 1.5,

1m

lilttturrfilty of .Artzona

College of Agriculture

Agricultural Experimenr

Stat i on

FEEDING DAIRY CATTLE IN

, \RIZOr-:A

Pt:BLISIiED BY

llnlul'rsltlJ

uf

Aritonu

Ur\IVERSITY

STAT10~ n:cso,,".

ARIZO\'.\

ORGAN1ZA'l'lON

BOARD OF H.EGENTS

EX-OFFICIO UmmEHS

IllS EXCELLENCY, GllOReE

\Y.

P. HUNT,

Go\"~nl

HONORABLE CHARLES O. C:\SE, Sta(e

SupcriIltl'Il<\cllt 1Jf

Public Instruction.

.-HrO[NTED i\11':~II:ERS

HO:-.r. ROBERT E. T.\I.,!..,\", Cham<·i1or. jIO~.

LOC'l::; It I'E:'IPF. I,L.I:"

HON. CLEVE W. V:\N DYKE._

S~l'I"L'tary lWN. CIIARLES III. L.\ YTO:.J .. liON. GEORGE M. IIl{1l)(;E.

HON. ROY Kll{KPA'1'HICI"::

I{O~.

THEODORA lIr.\RSII,

'!'rea'll1\'r. liON. FRANKLIN]. CIUDEH, ;\!.S.,

Vicl'-Cll:lllCl'll"I'

Phoenix

. )

~rOllle

_Tnt,on i\liami

_Suillerton

Clobe

.Xuf.t:lles

SU1·eJ"ior

BYRON CmUdIN(;S, .\.Tll., 1,1"1>,,

Sell

AGRICtTLTLIR.\L Ext'I':I{[i\[I':XT 8'1'.\'1'10\

JOHN]. THORNBER, .\.i\L .lle"u

;ll1,j ilirec(ur

JAMES G. BROWN, Ph.».

\VAL["::ER E. URY,\N,

~l.;-;.

PAUL S. BURGESS, I'h.I>....

WALTEI{

S.

ClTX:-:I:\(;II.\',I,

HARRY

Er.·It:lL1~'1'()N,

1\.:-1....

RALPll S. 1 1:\ \\' I" 1)1S ..

:\I.~..

Plant Palhologist l'lant ilnx.'<lcr

\:.:ril·lIltlll·al Chcmi,t

Ilair)" Ilu.,hall<iIll'll1

.1'<'llltr.l llu,l,an<im<l11

\t.:rtJllomi,t

.\LLEN F.

Kl

N:\

ISO\). :'I1.S.

I;EORGE E. P. S~[ iTI [

C.l<:..

I~RNES'l' B. S'l',\:'<LI':Y. ~LS.

CHARLES T.

\"()I{1111~S.

1'11.1).

.11"rlk111tmist

. \:.:ri,·llltl1r:tl [\n.'~;nc~r

,\lIi1l1:d

I[\l~],andllian

.I·:nlnmulog;st

"JAMES F.

BRE.'\ZE:\Ll~.

ILS,

1{~.'l''1r~h

·;-;l"·,,i:di·;( ill ,\"rinliln1"al

Ch~mi,try

\VIT,LIAM C. ?l1('I;I,"!NIES,

I~.S. ~;"a~il1~ l\;tllgc

Sl'ct'blist

),,[,\RliARE'l' C. ;-;.\11'1'11, Pit. 1>.

R~'''':irth

Sp",·i:.1ist in

[Iume

EC(lllOlnks

DAVID W. ALI]ER'1',

IllS.

RICIIAHn

N.

1).'\\lIS, n.S.

OSCAR C. /II,\C:IST.\I), I'Il.I)..

EL!AS II. PRESSI,EY, :'II.S....

Il.'\ROLTI C. SCllW.\I.E1'>.". :I.r.S..

RUnER']' B. STRSI~1'S.

Ph.D..

'\"lIri:ltc

II"rtkllitllri.st

.\",,..iatc·

11a;I'\'

111I,hamllllall

\""l';:llt '\'lril'l;ltnral

.\,sO<,';;'!,·

Chcmi~t

['Iant Breeder

" .. \,;,,,,·iatc

.\~rk"tll\ral En~il1ecr

,\~sLwiatc

Plaut PathnlO;tist

IAN A. BRJC(~S, I\I.S..

STANLEY llUHERT

(i.

HOWARD

CARLTON

CHARLES

P. CL,\RK,

WILT,TAM F.

B. \

ANDREW A. NICI10L.

(iORDON

V.

1IlALCOLM F.

T..

ARTr-HTR c. l1N])S, n.I'.... nIC["::SOl\',

1\1.;:;..

ZTNK. B.S. r.1.S... n.s...

PorH.MAN, 7II.S.

SM]Tll,

'\VH;\RTON.

C,\RNS,

P.

I\1.R

B.S.

1'1cr"::RELl" 1\.8..

..\~"Hal1\ .\~ronomist

. ..

\"i'I<111t

,\~ronomist

UOBART, l\I.S ...

Re~c<'!n·h ,\,si~ta11! in l\grnllnm)' find ITorticulture r,rORCm n. SERVTSS. lIT.S..

M.S,

\"I"lant

.\ni1\1:11

Iln~ha11[lman

.

\"i,t:l111

T'olllt,·y IIu<;b!l11dll1~n

.\~,i"lallt

En\c'm()\ngis\

,\,"i~ta"t .\,<ricl1h11r~1

Chemist

..

"\"i~t~'111 .\~rjnlli11ral

Chemist

...........

\"'i~t:mt llorticnlturist

.\,~ist:mt

,\[!riruilural

En~ineer

Yidd

:\~<ist:U1t in C"itms lrri,<ation

. .. Fit'\d

II!l~sti~~II"r in .\llimalI1mhandry

.. ........

Fidrl

.\~.~i~t.1nt in Cotton

S(ndie,

EXPERT:\fE!\'T STAT rON fOREHE:-,r

Co'\ VE ]. WOOD .......................................................... .8alt River Valkoy Fartn. Mesa

T.

LESLIE

STAPLEy .......................................... Tempe

[hte-Palm Orchard.

Tempe

JAMES G. HAMILTON.

RS ......................... yunL.1 ValIer and ilfesa Farms, Ynma r.EORr,E

H. SEAMA:-.rS ....

Asst. Foreman,

Yuma VaHey and

Mesa Farms. Yuma

CARL CLARK. B.S. .. ............................... " .............. Prescott Dl'y-Farm. Prescott

J.

RUSSEL REED... ................. .. ............. Unh·ersity of Arimna Farm, Tucson

~'In coi;pcration

Industry. with

United

States

Department of AgriculWre,

Dure:lll of Plant tin cooperation with the Xew :'I.fcx\co .\gricultl1ral F,xpnimen( Station and the

United StateR DCpllrtmcnt of

.\.~rknItl1n.\

Dnrcal1 "f .\nimal Tn<lI1.,I1')".

COOiTENTS introduction

Part

I._Dried Beet-rllip

"'ISUS

a ilhxtllrc of Dried Beet-Pulp and RolI-

('d Barley rur l).Llr~

CU'\S

Cow, l's~d ilkthod of Expcl-iment ..

I

);sl:l1.<'sio1) of

Feeds lTgC(L

]Ji'Cll';'ic11l of

R'''il11lg.

Eff~Cl of

Fecd un em,-s ..

S\1lnmnrr

Page

275

275

275

275

276

276

27,

277

Part

IT.-Corn Silage a,; a Supplement to .\lfalfa lin.'" in Feeding Dairy

Cows

Cn\\"~ Csed.

:\lethod (If E.xperimcnt ........ ," ___ .......... _ .................... __

Rati<nls L',~rl

])i,t'\1s~inn of

HC~111ts._

Effect of Fec'll on COli's ..

Resnlt" at Olilcr

~t<ltiOll'_

Sll111I11<1.1·y

,--

_0

27;-

Z7g

2m

2i0

279

279

27)

Part

Part

Part

Part lIJ.-CO(!()IlO('cri Cake and Cottonseed

~leal ns Feeds for Dairy Cow". 279

Cows lloet! ill

First Test. ____________ ....... _____ . 28() illethod of FirM

1'("t..

R;jtions llsed in First Tc'L

______ ._.........

280

2gn lliscl1.,,.ion of Experimental Result,; ill First Test...

Cows 1.1setl in 8ec()l1d Test..

280

281

. ........... __ . 282

2,'Q

Disc!1s,ion of Fceds Use,L _ r1an of

Fccrlilltl;__

Discussioll of Experimcntal Results__

Cantion ..

Summar.,·

2~

Zq2

Z}l3

283

TV.-'irccn .\Half.1

;·CJ".W.<

.\lfalfa I-lay for

Dairy

COIV~_.

:'ITC'tllOrl of EXllcriment ..

Disnlssinn of Feeds l'sed ..

])isl"u~sion of

Experimental Re~111ts __

SUIllIllary

V.--\1f<llf<l-:.,Jola~ses

7Ileal

'i'crSI(S

Alfalfa Hay fOf Dairy Cows_ ..

Cows Used ................. .

).fetll(ld of Experiment._ ..

Discussion of Feeds Used .....

DisctlSsiol1 of Experimental

R~Sl1lts

Effect of Feed 011

COWL.

8\1mmar)'

VI.-Srollnd Hi.'gari Grain ,'usus Rolled Barler as

Fed~ for Dair)'

Cows

Cows Userl

...... _

[)j~cus,ioll ni"cu~si"n of Feeds Used ... . of Results __

Z~

2"

2>14

285

285

28(,

285

286

286

ZRR

289

289

Part VII.-'";round Yellow Corn ~'CI"SIIS

Cows Used

Method o[ ExperimellL ____ _

Rolled Barle)" for Dairy Cows_ ..

Discussion of Feeds Used __

Discllssion of Experimental

Resl1lt~

..

Sl1mmary

290

N1

290

291

292

293

293

293

295

295

297

'L\BLES

Table

Tabl~

Page

I._.\lfaHa, Beet-l'ulp, ami Rolled Darky

~'asus

.\lfalia and

Deet-Pulp for )Jilk PrUUt1ctillll ._ ....... 276

IJ.- \Ifalfa llay

,,'1.\1/$

.\Ifalla flay and Cllrll Sila!!c fur Dah'}'

Cows _ .... _. 278

IIT._Sllmmar: ()f «,,·,',Is t'"~d all'! Yields of ?llilk aIH.lll\tlt~rfat_

281

IV.-C,,~t oi l'p,dl1c\i .. n

0111,[

Prulit QI'a Co,( of F('!',L _. 28\ Tahle-

Tahle

'I'able

V._Sl\lIl11lary of ?II ilk alld Duuerfat Prmlu,eu.

Vl.-l'o~l of Prmludioll Hnd Profit O"cr

Fee,l-C()~t

Table VII.-(;rccil .\Halfa i'ers".~

_\Halfa lla)' fur D:dry e,ms

Tahle VHI.--:'Ikthod "I \lterll<Ltin", Ibti,)II'

282

..... __ .. __ . 283

.... 285

.. 286

Tahle lX._.\\crage

T"laily

Rati()ll. .

Tahle

. ......

X._CllrmiC<lJ

Clllllp,,~itinil nf F"l'd, l',etl.

(E:-;:pl"es~{'d ill percentage of the fre~h

'ulht;1;llCC. \.

2&7

288

Tahle XL_.\lfalfa_:'IloI:ts.,c,

:\k;tl tTi'S/(.f

;:;tandanl .\Halfa IIIl)' ._ .......... 288

Tab[e XIL-l'r .. dllctin!1 of :'Ililk aud Ihttkrfat

Table

XIIT.-::II'ml1lary of Feeds "lTscd..

Tallie XIV.-:\Iilk Production hy P<'riods ami PercC'l1ta",C' nf Decrcast'

Tahlt'

XV.-Sltnunary of ::\Iilk and Butterfat Prntiul"t'd

......... 289

. __ ._ ...... 291

291

..... 292

Tahle XVI.-Mdhod of .\lternatin"" Rations_.

Table

XVrr.-Alerage Daily Rations per Cow

..294

........................ 294

Table

XVrrL-'I'otal

Amounts of Feed Fed ....

. .................•.•.••..• Z94

Tahle XIX.-)dilk and Butterfat Production Showing DecrC<I$e

__ ._ 2)15

Table

XX.-~\\llImary of Production of 11ilk and Butted:lt

Table :XXT.-I1ody Weights of Cows .. . .... 7[;7

FEEDING DAIRY CATTLE IN ARIZONA

INTRODUCTION

Dairying has become a well-established industry in the irrigated valleys of Arizona. The economic status of the dairyman has been good, as compared with other lines of agriculture. It has become a recognized fact, however, that to be successful, the dairyman must cull his herd and feed his cows pH'perly. The purpose of the series of experiments reported in this bulletin was to study the feeding value of various feeding stuffs and to determine their effect on milk production.

PART I.-DRIED DEET-PULP

VERSUS

A MIXTURE OF

DRIED BEET-PULP AND ROLLED BARLEY FOR

DAIRY COWS

During the spring of 1916, au experiment was conducted to determine whether

it

would be more profitable to feed dairy cows a mixture of equal parts of rolled barley and dried beet-pulp rather than dried beet-pulp as the only concentrate of the ration.

COWS USED

Ten cows were divided into two groups of five cows each, balancing the groups as nearly as possible according to breed, period of lactation, and amount of milk given.

METHOD OF

EXPERIMENT

One group of cows was fed mo1asses-dried-beet~pulp as the only con~ centrate while the other group was fed a mixture of equal parts of roned barley and molasses~dried~beet-pulp, both groups being fed at the rate of 1 pC'und of concentrate to 4 pounds of milk produced. Alfalfa hay was fed alike to both groups, and they were given an amount they would dean up well. The experiment was divided into two periods 'and at the end of the first period the concentrate part of the ration was alternated so that the lot receiving rolled barley the first period was fed

*Credit is due to Dr. R. H. Wmiams who planned and supervised some of the earlier feeding tests reported in this bulletin. Professor R. N. Davis ha~ been of material assistance in planning and supervising some of the later feedwg tests.

Appreciation is expressed for the assistance of G.

J.

Darling and]. R. Reed, foremen of the University Fann, in conducting the feeding tests.

276

E,J..PERIJtJ!,.VT sT.PlO.\ llIl.u;:n.\ /\0.127

the mixture of equal paris of rolled barley and dried beet-pulp the second period and

11ice 'l'ersa.

The actual period of the test was 68 days. In computing the results, the amount~ of 11111k produeecl hy both groups of cows while being fed a particular ration \\ere added together, so thai the data are given on the ba~is of the rations fed.

DISCUSSION OF FEEDS l'SEn

Beet-pulp and foIled barley afe similar in percentage of digestible nutrients, the barley being a little higher in dige~tjble crl1de protein and fat, but lower in carbohydrates. Since alfalfa hay i<; low in carbohydrates, but relatively high in protein, it furni<;he ... the greater part of the protein required in the ration. .\t the time this e,periment

Was conducted, the retail prices of the feeds usel\ were ao:; follows: Dried beet-pulp, $1.35 per hundred pound~; rolled barley,

$1.~O per hundred pounds: and alfalfa hay, $14.00 pcr tOll.

\L

these price~ alfalfa hay fUTIlishes the total nutrients most cheaply, the beet-rm1p 11("t. and the barley last.

TABLE I-ALFALFA. BEF.T-PULP. \:-"'n ROLLED H \\U,E\

ITN';1")

ALFALFA AND nEET-PULI' FOR \IILK l'RO])l'CT]()~ produced

C(l~t

0'

322 R 475

(jill

DISCUSSION OF HESt:r.:r:;

The am0unt of miJk produced by the group" fed th(' ration containing a mixture of equal part~ of rolled barley and

11101a~''es-dried-beet­ pulp was 7,316.2 pounds, while the amonnt of milk from the groups fed the ration containing beet-pulp as the only concentrate \\ as 6,9934 pounds, or a difference of 322.8 pounds in favor of the rolled harleybeet-pulp mixture. Darley, being higher in price than beet-pulp. increased the total cost of the ration in whkh it '" a<; fed to $1)1.75 a~

I El:DIX(; D.UR} ern

LE IV lRI7.0iYrl compared with a total

C<)~t of

$Ri

00 "here only alfalfa hay and dried hpet-pl1lp Ilere fed. Enough more milk lIas produced by the stlbstitu-

t1011

of rolled barll'Y to make the feed-co~t of 100 pounds of milk about the

~a1l1e rL"

Ilhen \>eet-pulp Ila" jhe (ml;. concentrate fed.

The Imlk produced h:, the e,roup" that \\ ere fed the rolled barley-beetpulp mi::-.ttlre. valued at

2'=; cent--. per gallon

I\as

\\orth

$~12_68 a~ compared

",ith a "nine of

~~03

2<) f"r

,lW milk produced by the groups that were fed dried bcet-pulp II ijhol1t 1'011('<1

Larler.

Feeding rolled barley re-

~t1lted in an increa<;e of $-J. ';;. in the

C(l~t of the ration. but the milk prodtlCed by the grDups that

\1 ere fed the rolled barley ration was worth

$9.39 more than "a<; thl' milk prodtlced ?y the groups fed beet-pulp only

UTFC'I' OF FEEDS OY COWS

The

COli., reli~hl'(1 th(' feed more II hen equal part~ of rolled barley and beet

1'1I1\,

\'l'rt' fed Some of the cows refuserl to eat the beet-pulp ainne af!('r

11'11 lllt; heUl fed hed-pll1p with which rolled barley had

\)eel1

\\

<l~ mi'\.cd fed than

The, aho kept

111' in \\ eight better \\'hen rolled barley

II 11l'11 onl" heet-pulp was fed.

SlT:.\L\[ \RY

The til

(I gn't1p~ (If Co\\., "hell ferl a mixture of equal parts of rolled harley and mt)la~~c<;-drjccl-beet-pt1lp produced a total of 7,316.2 pounds of milk, or 322 g rOt1l1d~ mOte than when fed beet-pulp alone as the nnly concentrate.

The fecd-co~t per gallon of milk was the same for both rations.

The sllh~tituti(\ll of harley for part of the heet-pulp increa'>ed the co'>t of the fced

$-J..7~. hut catt,>ed an increa~e cof $939 in the value of the milk produced. This gave a profit of

$..f.

('l4 more over cost of feed, than

\1 hen heet-plllp

\\a~ fed <1.<; the only concentrate

P \RT II

~C()R:\

STL

\GE .-\S \ SUl'PLEME:-.JT 'fO ALFALFA

ILW IN FEEDll\G D.\IRY COWS

\ feedlllg test lIas conducted during the spring of 1917 to determine the \'altle of

C{1rtl

<;ilage a!l a <'tlpplement for alfalfa hay when fed te> dairy

CO\I ".

COWS USED

Only ::.evel1 cm,s were available for this experiment. These were divided into two groups, four in one group and three in the other.

278

EXPERIMENT STATiON BULLETIN No.

I27

Since the groups could not be evenly balanced in number, quantity of milk produced, period of lactation, and breed, the feeds were alter~ uated so that each lot was fed each ration the same length of time

The data given are on the basis of rations fed. The production of milk and butterfat given herein represents the sum of the yields by both groups of cows when fed a particular ration.

METHOD OF EXPERIHEXT

The groups (\f cows were kept in separate lots. The hay was fed in uJangl::rs in the corrals, and accurate w<:'ights were kept of the amounts fed and of the amounts not eaten. The corn silage was fed individually at the time of milking.

The experiment was divided into two periods of 21 days each. The cows were fed for a preliminary period of 10 days to accustom them t(l the rations. At the end of the first period of 21 days the rations were reversed and an interval of 10 days was allowed to elapse before the second period of feeding began.

RATIONS USED

Ration 1 consisted of 20 pounds of alfalfa hay and

3S

pounds of corn silage, while Ration 2 consisted of 30 pounds

(If alfalfa hay. The feeds were weighed carefully, but since the hay was not fed individually, some cows in a group may have eaten more of it than did others.

The silage was rather dry, due to being quite mature when put into the silo, and was not very well relished.

The price of alfalfa hay at the time was $20 per tOil and silage was worth

$6

per ton.

TABLE n.-ALFALFA HAY

ril,N.SUS

ALF.\LF.\ HAY AXD CORN

SILAGE FOR DAIRY COWS.

Rations

Ration 1;

Alfalfa hay, 20 lbs .....

Com silage, 35 Ibs .....

Ration 2:

Alfalfa hay, 30 Ibs .....

I

Average daily yield

Milk Butterfat

Pounds Pounds

24278

24.72 i

I

.881

.846

Cost of ration per head dally

Cents

30

30

FEEDING DAIRY CATTLE IN ARIZONA

279

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The average daily milk and butterfat yields as sh(lwn in Table II were practically the same for both rations. "Vhere alfalfa hay is priced at

$20

per ton and corn silage at

$6

per ton, the cost of the rations

was

the same for each lot. This indicate5 that the two rations are practi· cal:: on a par in feeding value and economy. Ration 1 contains 20 pounds (If hay and 35 pounds of silage, while Ration 2 contains 30 pounds of hay. The experiment indicates that

1

pound of alfalfa hay is equal to 3,Vi pound" of corn silage when fed to dairy cows. A better quality of silage probably would have given somewhat different results.

EFFECT OF FEED ON COWS

All the cows lost weight while on the test, but they maintained their weights better \vhen fed 30 p(lund" of alfalfa hay than when fed

20 pounds of the hay and 35 pounds of corn silage.

RESULTS

AT

OTHER STATIONS

The New Mexico Agricultural

E~periment

Station* found that it required 3 tons of good corn silage to replace 1 ton of choice alfalfa hay. The Utah Experiment Stationt found that 250 p0unds of corn silage was equal to 100 pounds of alfalfa hay.

SUMMARY

Results of this feeding test indicate that

3;.1

pounds of earn silage are required to equal

1

pound of alfalfa hay for dairy cows.

Other stations report a value of about

2.% to

3 pounds of corn silage as equalling

1

pound of alfalfa hay for

milk

production.

PART IlL-COTTONSEED CAKE AND COTTONSEED MEAL

AS FEEDS FOR DAIRY COWS

Cottonseed meal has been fed very extensively since cotton has be· corne a major crop in Arizona. In 1918 and 1919 an experiment was conducted to test the value 0f cottonseed products as supplements to alfalfa hay and corn silage. The experiment was divided into two feeding tests, the first using cottonseed cake and the second cottonseed meal.

*New

Mexico tReported in

Agri. Exp. Sta. Bul. 122.

Henry and

Morrison's "Feeds and

Feeding."

280

EXPERIMllNT ST. UIO.\ J31'ILBTl.\"

.Yo. 127 cows

USED fN FJ

RS'r 'rF;s'r

Eleven cows were available for thi:-; test. 'j'lw<;e \\"t::re di\"icled into three groups of fottr cows in ('<leh of h'"O grpups nnd three in the third group.

~lETHOD OF !t)R~T '1'1<:8'1'

The cows were balanced in the three grottps as evenly as possible with regard to period of lactation, breed, and indi\'idtlality. Since it was impossible to balance the groups c\'cnly, the test was didded into three periods

(>f

:2R days each, and the rations werc aILe-mated so that each ration was fed to each granp of cows for lh(' same length of time.

In this way it was possible to overcome to a considerable extent allY differences of hreed, reriod of lactation, iI1l1i,·jdnality. an(] tltllllber o"f the

C(lWS.

There was a 1-week interval he-tween the periods to allow the cows to become accustomed to the change in ralion~. fn c0111pnting the results, the amonuts of milk and huttcrh! pw(luced hy the thrl't groups were added to determine the l'ff"ct (Of any of the three rations.

R \TrOKS USED IX FIRS-I' 1'ES'l'

Ration

1: 15 pOI11lCls alfalf;t hay

40 pounds C('lm ~

Ration 2: 22 pot11lcls alfalfa hay

4 pounds cotton"e('ll cake

Rntion 3: 11 pOl1nds alfalfa hay

40 pounds com sibv,c

3 pounds co1tcl11o.;ccd cak t

>

During the third period, added to each of

J

ad,Eh'1lal jllJl1l1d-. ,,[ alfalfa hay were the m(i0m.

'1'11[' rati"'I<:

('(I11j,';'1I'01

;i1I!1ut the same energy value. The price", nf tlll' [,'ell,

\\(,I'(':tr,'ll.)\\· .. : .\l[alfa hay.

$15 per ton; cl1rn silage,

$3 per t'ill:

('O)ltlltl~r'.'t1 cai-c.

~JO per 1011. nISCUSS10"\' OF EXl'ERDlI'>"I'.\T, HESt'r.T~ IX I'm:''!' '!'EST

Tahle

In

!'ihows the summary or the k",ls lIo.;('d rmd til(' production of milk anti butterfat.

The coIn g'n'('

-1-,:;Q.i

p011nl\o.; of milk :"Ind 2fi,i9 p0tmds of hutlerfnt more "hell f(·tI Ration

l

t'(lll-.i .. till<,{ u[ 111f<llfa l1ay and cottollsred cal~e than "'he]1 fed Ration 1 cnllsislilllZ of alfalfa har and corn silage, and 590.8

POll11(J..; of milk awl

2n"~ p0111H\,; o[ lmttcrfat more than when fed Ration 2 than when fed Ration 3 cou~isting of alfalfa hay, corn silage, and cottonscc(1 cake" It

I,"as llotc'(\ that the pre>duction varied directly with the narrowness of tlw ralion. Ration 3 which is the most l1early halanced with a {('('(iing- standanl gave the lowest production of milk.

r£[iD1.V(; D.UR], ClTTLE

If·;

ARIZONA

281 v.nLE: III.-S111l.\I.\RY OF l~EEDS

USED Al\"D YIELDS OF MILK AND

BUTTERFAT.

Rations

I

Tf)t~tl iced

COllsumed

Total milk yield

Total butterfat yield

Number of days in test

Rat!On

1 , .\Jialfa ha:-

Silage

..

" ' j

,

Ration 2: ,\Ifalfa hay _

COltOll",~'d

, cake ...

-

I

Pound"

- - - -

+,956

12,320

7,028

1,232

Ration 3; .\!falfo. hu)' ..

3,724

SilflQ,C

12,320 l'oltOll';eNi cake 02-1

I

Pounds

._-........

7,810.5

....

8,270.2

.-... -.

...

........

7,679.4

I

Pounds

... .

....

262,3

..

----_

.

289.1

.......

_

...

......

268.9

..

........

84

.

...........

84

.. .. _-.-....

.. ........

84

L\P.LE IV.-COST OF l'ROfrl,1CT10;.J :\Xn PROFIT

OVER

COST OF

FEED.

Rations

Ratioll 1

..

Patio'l

2 ..

Ration 3

...

....

I

.

Cost of rcc,j pel'

.~al!D!] of milk

Ccnb

."

7."

R!

Cost of Value of Profit feed per p011nd milk at 30 over or cents per cost of

!JulleTtat gallon feed

Cents

.~5.0

2~.6

26.0

Dollars

272.43

288.48

267,87

Dollars

204.46

217.29

195.28

The cost of feed j'er go.ilon of milk as indicated in Table IV was least in Ration 2, "'hich was

iA

cents per gallon as compared with 7.5 cent" fC"r Rntion 1 and RI centf; for Ration 3. Tbe cost of feed per pound ('If IlUiterht waf; 25.0 cents in Ration 1, 24.n in Ration 2, and

26.Q cents in Ration 3.

The value of the milk at 30 cents per gallon, over

COf;t of feed, was g-reatef;t in the ca!'e of R",tion 2, the profit being $117.:29 for the 84 da~'s as compared with

$?()'~A6 for

R~tion

1, and $195.28 for Ration 3.

The profit ov<'r cost

('>[ feed per day for each cnw, was as follows:

Ration 1, fin,.) cents: Ration 2. 70.7 cents; and Ration 3, 63.5 cents.

COWS l'SED TN SECOND TEST

Nil1{" cows were used in this te~t.

'1'hC'f;(' were divided into three groups of three cows each. All were giving a fairly good flow of

milk

at the heginning of the test.

282 EXPERIMENT STA.TION BULLETIN No.

12'1

METHOD OF SECOND TEST

The feeding was divided into three periods of 4 weeks each. 1 week being all0wed between periods for changing the rations. The rations were alternated so that each group received each of the three rations during one of the periods. The test proper covered a period of

84 days.

DISCUSSION OF FEEDS USED

In this test cottonseed meal was substituted for cottonseed cake.

The rations used were as follows:

Ration

1: Alfalfa hay, 22 pOlUlds

Corn silage, 45 pounds

Ration 2: Alfalfa hay, 30 pounds

Cottonseed meal, 4 pounds

Ration 3: Alfalfa hay, 15 pounds

Cottonseed meal, 4 pounds

Corn silage, 45 pounds

PLAN OF FEEDING

The

plan

of

feeding

was

as follows:

First period: Group A was fed Ration 1

Gronp B was fed Ration 2

Group C was fed Ration 3

Second period: Group A was fed Ration 2

Group B was fed Ration 3

Group C was fed Ration

1

Third period: Group A was fed Ration 3

Group

B was fed Ration

1

Group C was

fen

Ration 2

TABLE V.-SUMMARY OF !lTlLK AND BUTTERFAT PRODUCE\).

Rations

Ration 1 ...••...• _ ••.•....• __ •••...•.

Ration

2 ........ _ ......... _ ...........

Ration

3 __ ... __ ........ __

Total milk yield

Pounds

6.084.8

6,776.2

6,675.1

Total butterfat yield

Pounds

23&05

237.95

250.07

Number day, in test of

84

84

84

DISCUSSION OF EXPERUfENTAL RESUTSS

The total yields of milk and butterfat are shown in Table V. Ration

2 which consisted of alfalfa hay and cottonseed meal produced the most

FEfl.D1XG DAIR}" CATTLE /.\- ARIZONA

283 milk, the yield in 84 days being

6,7i6.2 pounds as compared with

6,084.8 pounds from Ration 1, consisting of alfalfa hay and com silage, and 6,675.1 pounds from Ration 3 consisting of alfalfa hay, corn silage, and cottonseed meal. The yield of butterfat \Vas higher, however, when Ration

.3 was fed.

TABLE Vr.-COST OF PRODUCTIOX AND PROFI'f OVER FEED-COST,

Rations

Cost of f~d

Dollars

Ration

1

........

69.93

Ration 2 ..

Ration

..

3,

....

,.

76.86

76.86

,

I

Cents

9.88

9.75

9,.,

I

Value of

Feed-cost Feed-cost milk at

I per gallon per pound

,

30cper of milk butterfat gallon

Profit over feed-cost

ern"

DaHms Dollars

29,'

32.3

30.7

21222

Z36.34

23Z.R1

142.29

159.48

155.97

The feed~ost pe-r gallon of milk was less when Ration :2 was fed. the cost being

0,i5

cents as compared with 9.88 cents for Ration 1, and

9.90 cents for Ration 3. The feed-cost per pound {'f hutterfat was greater ill Ration 2 than in either of the other rations. These results are shown in Table VI.

Valuing the milk at 30 cents per gallon. the profit over feed-cost was

$142.29 for Ration

1.

$159.48 for Ration 2, and $155.9i for Ration 3.

The narrQW ration consisting of only alfalfa hay and cottonseed meal produced the most milk and at the least cost per gallon. This indicates that for short periods of time a very narrow ration stimulates production and can be used with satisfactory results.

CAUTTON

While a narrow ration of aHal fa hay and cottonseed meal stimulates producti0n, it is a common opinion among stockmen that rations containing a great excess of protein have a deleterious effect on the breeding qualities and general health of animals, if fed to them for a long period of time. Such rations should be fed with caution. Cottonseed meal is poisonous to cows if fed in large amounts for long periocl<; of time,

SUMMARY

The narrow rations of alfalfa hay and cottonseed cake or cottonseed meal produced more milk in each trial than did alfalfa hay and silage, or alfalfa hay, silage, and cottonseed cake, where the amounts of feed given provided abQut the same amount of total digestible nutrients.

I •. \!'jlf{l 1Il!, \ 'I ,\r.lrIO\ RULU1T],\'

So. 117

'I'he co:,t of feed per gallon of milk was least and the profit over cost of

feed

was most for Ration 2. In the first trial, this ration consisted of 22 pounds of alfalfa hay and 4 pounds of c01d-pressed cottonseed cake while in the second trial it consisted

of

30 pounds of alfalfa hay and 4 pounds

of

cottonseed meal.

The ration highe-st in protein and containlng the mO'll alfalfa hay gave the largest yield.

In both trials, Rati('I1 2, consisting of alfalfa hay and cottonseed meal or cake, gave the lowest cost per gallon of milk and the greatest profit over cost of feed.

/\. narrow ration s1\ch as alfalfa hay and cottonseed meal should be fed with caution. Cottonseed meal is poisonous when fed in large amount.:; for long perioos of time.

PART

JV.~GREEN

ALF,\LFA

VER.5US

ALF.\LF.\ HAY FOR

DAIRY COWS

Recent investigations have shown the value of fre-sh grecn feeds for animals. The value of pasture for dairy cows has long- been recognized. In Arizona b(lth pasturing and soiling h.wc been rracticc<l. to a considerahle extent. \\'hile soiling i'S considered too expensive a" a

~eneral practice, the soiling of alfalfa may have some merit under conditions as found in Ariz(lna.

A feeding test was condl1cted during the summer of 1921 to compare the feeding value of green 31£a1£a and alfalfa hay.

METI [OD OF EXPERBIE:-.JT

As there were only four

C("lWS in suitable condition for a fcedillg test, they were placed in one group. The c""periment

\\'a~ divided into fOltr periods of 14 days each.

Tn orner to overcome the eITe-cts of advancing lactation period on the results, the cows were fC'd green alfalfa during the first and fourth period'S and aHa1£a h;:ty durin~ the scc()nd and third period, 'This plan will give accurate results only in ea~e the natural tendency to decline in production remain'S unifonn throughout lhe period of the test. mSCUSSION OF FERns u~F.[")

During the periods when the cow~ were fed gre~n aHalf:\.. the feed was cut once each day and they were given all they w(mid dean up well. When alfalfa hay was fed, the hay was taken from th" same field as was the green alfalfa and the cows were given all they would

<:Iean up.

FEED!JYG D.1IRl' CIT'! LE 1\ .IRl;:O Y.1

2135

In order to get a comparison of the amounts of dry matter eaten in the green alfalfa and alfalfa hay and to e<,timate the lo~s in \\ eight in curing hay, q("ycralloadq of green alfalfa \\ere wetghed and the alfalfa was then spread out to dry. ·When it was as dry a~ it ordinarily would be for haling it was f('-\\·eighecl to detennine the amollnt of iveight lo<;t during the drying process.

Tt was found that

39 percent of the original weight remained in the hay ,;\jorking on this haqis, when the cows were fed all the) would eat. ther cOllwmed 28.: pounds of alfalfa har per head daily, and tht, wCTghts of the green alfalfa eaten \\ere the equivalent of 28., ponnd<, of drr alfalfa hay per head This does not take into account the probable shrinkage that takes place in hay after it is baled. Thus, the~ ale approxlmately the same amount of dry matter. whether f('d green alhlfa or dry hay.

T\nI.£ \"ll-(;RFF.' \TY\Ll<\ II_N"[ \ \U'\LF\ 11\\ FORD-\IRY

COWS

R"t!<ltl"

- -

IIf

.--.--

11,! 11

,

(;TCP'l Gr,!l1l

,llf"lf,\

I,('r l'e-d c\llh

- - - - - ------

T'1ll11ld~ h

I"" hc.ttl

,1 ,h

P("1T1rj,

_.

P'

]J{'ad

,lalh

PO\1nd,

----1----lJ.hnn

--------

-

- - - -

Cn'LIl alf,tl r.1 ratlUll

7H,

I

I

-

2~:;

I

J.~+

I

---- ----1-

I

~

2(,

\J,ll, poe he~(l

I

I d.;tih

POl;1lI1,

(blh

- - - -

Pmlll,j,

- - - - -

214-

210

Dnth.' [,It poe he,ld

R,

- -----

&,

l)],~("\

S:,l()\"

OJ,

F\l'T'Rl\[F"\'J' \L m<:SlTLTS

\, <>ho\\l1 in

'I'i'lhk \ I1, the em\'-, ate on an average i3.G pounds of·

~ri.'('n alfalfa per head daily (Inring the period,; in which green feed

"a~ giYell nnd

'8.:; r0I111d, of alfalfa hay \\ hen confined to dry feed. The average c\nilY milk pmriudinn

\ya~

21.4 ponnds \\hen fed hay and 210

P011llCj<,

"ht·11

",I\lll

.~n·el1 alfalfa. The amollnt C'f butterfat prodnc('(\ nail) \\ a.., ah()111

Ihe

,ami.' fnr the hI"!) ratioll'; or all a\'crage of pOllnd a ll(~ad \\ hr11 tIle'

1.'0'-,

<;

,\-cre feel alfalfa h~)\ all(1

.RS

.so p(lt1wl i\hptl the} lYefC' fed grcen alfalfa.

Sll?1lUARY

\~'h('n the

C(J\\~ were gin:n all they \\ould cat, they cumt11m"1 ,tPproximately tIll' "'1.me alllount of dry mattlr \\hcther

~wen green at~ falf<l or alfalf;t hfW

The

(;\1\\ .. ga\"!:- an <lycrage of 21..+ poltnd~ of milk per head (bill

\\lll"n fcd a1i<llfa h:1\

1.nrl

_~1 pOIHHI ...

"hell fed

.~reen alfnlfa

:!'16

C"PERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 127

PART \ -.\LF.\LFA·MOLASSES MEAL VERSUS ALFALFA

HAY FOR DAIRY COWS

In Arizona, it is a common practice among dairymen to feed dairy cattle only the first and last cuttings (If alfalfa hay. This is because alfalfa in mid-summer becomes stemmy and frequently is mixed with grass and weeds. When third- or fourth-cutting alfalfa is fed, there is usualIy a large amount wasted as the coarse stems and grass are unpalatable to dairy cows. If this grade of alfalfa can be made more palatable, it is possible that its feeding value can be increased.

A manufacturer of alfalfa-molasses meal in the vicinity of Mesa,

Arizona, furnished the Experiment Station with a quantity of the meal and a supply of standard alfalfa hay of the same grade as that fre>m which the meal was made in order to compare their feeding values. A fceding test wa~ conducted dur:ing the spring of 1925 to detennine the comparative feeding values of standard alfalfa hay and alfalfa-molasses meal.

COWS USED

Six cows were used in this test. They were divided into two groups, two Holstein-Friesians and one Jersey in each group. The groups were balanced as evenly as possible, with regard to age, size of cows, and their periods of lactation.

METHOD OF EXPERIMENT

The experiment was divided into two periods of 28 days each, with 1 week intervening for the changing of rations. In Period 1, Grc>up A was fed standard alfalfa hay and Group B alfalfa-molasses meal. In

Period 2 these feeds were reversed.

TABLE VIII.-METHOD OF ALTERNATING RATIONS

Groups

I

Period 1

Group A....... ............... .... Standard alfalfa hay

Group

B. ............ _.......

Alfa1fa~molasses meal

I

Period 2

Alfalfa-molas~es meal

Standard alfalfa hay

All cows were weighed at the beginning of and at the end of each period to finn the effect of the ration on body weight. Tests for the percentage of butterfat in the milk were made about the middle of each. period.

DISCUSSION OF FEEDS USED

Both the standard alfalfa hay and the alfalfa-molasses meal were provided by the Tremaine alfalfa ranch of Mesa, Arizona. The meal

FEEDING DAIRl" C.1TTLE IX .IRIZONA

2137 was prepared at that ranch and 15 percent black-strap molasses added during the process of preparation. The standard alfalfa hay was of the same grade as that from which the meal was prepared, and contained about 15 percent grass. In addition to the hay and meal, both gr('lUPS of cows were fed corn silage and a grain-mixture prepared by mixing

210

pounds of mill-nm wheat bran,

210 pounds of rolled barley,

;\nd

100 pounds of cottonseed meal.

The two groups of cows were kept in separate lots and the hay and alfalfa meal were fed in mangers, the cows of the respective groups eating together. The three cows fed standard alfalfa hay were given

76 p0unds or

25YJ

ponnds per head daily, while the three given alfalfamolasses meal were fed

60 pounds or 20 pounds per head daily. These weights were decided upon at the heginning of the experiment, since it was evident that as much production would have to be obtained from about 60 ponnds of alfalfa-molasses meal as from 76 pounds of alfalfa hay in Clrder to justify the expense of manufacturing the meal.

The silage and grain were fed each cow separately in the barn. The

Holstein-Friesian cows were given

30 pounds of silage per head daily while the Jerseys were fed 20 pounds per head daily. The grain was fed at the rate of approximately 1 pound of grain to 5 pounds of milk produced by Holstein-Friesians and 1 pound of grain to 4 pounds

of

milk produced by Jerseys, based on the amount of milk given by the cows at the beginning of the experiment. The amounts of grain fed were not changed during the feeding test and none was refused by the cows. All feeds were weighed at the time of feeding and the silage and hay that were not eaten were weighed and removed from the mange~s.

The alfalfa-molasses meal was eaten up clean each day, but a considerable amount of silage and hay was not consumed. The hay 'was not eaten up clean, largely because of its stemmy character and the amount of unpalatable grass it contained.

TABLE IX.-AVERAGE DAILY RATION.

Rations

Grain mixture

Pounds

Ration 1._._._ .... _ ....... _._

Ration 2 .. _

.............. _ _

5.'

..

5.8

Silage

Pounds

262

26.'

Alfalfamolasses meal

Pounds

'"

Standard alfalfa h,y

Pounds

........

25~

hXPF,RJJfr\ T .'>T.'ITIO.\ BULLET]", 1\0. 127

288

TABLE X-CllE:\HC.\L CO)lPOSI'l'IOK OF

FEEl.l~ l1S1W {EXrRESS_

ED IN PERCE.\TTAGE OF THE FRESIl Sl"nST \XCE.)

Feed

.\lfalfa-mola~~L'

C-"-"--"I-;-C"C:"+-"-'-'-i

Stand,lIda1f,ilfa

I

\sh

~X~ _1_~'143_

!

I C, mi,.. i

Pl(ltUll

. I :-tlrn!,(el1hh~r' fH~

;

~'\!l.\d

Fat

-

---I-~_-

_ _

------I-:r-cc-,-,,-,t

I

PC1~;; ~l~

1 - - l'l'rnllt

I l\ll"Ull

- - - . _ - - ! - - -

21.ili

-In Oi

I

Percent

135 hay 525 hSl

C

'-,,,-;C,l c"-,,--I-:,.c,c

: - '--1-'-) -, lO

C-"-m-,-n-,-m-,-,,-,,-,-I-C";51:-

!-~b

-!

I

110'1

-)-~;-

-10.,,,---

T.\nT,E '\:[_\[Y\LF\_:\rOL\~SL;;S

'IrE\].

I

'fI'\'! \

S'r\'\])\llD

\LF\J.F\ 11\1'

Sill "

Ration 1 \molmt fc'l

,\mount refused

'RC,C';-m-,c'C-C\,-"-,,-mC,-Of.C)C---

Amnunt

! dl1sec\

(},Q;{)

-13%

565

--1-

0M

-1-

-1~~'-;

·t'3

- I - -

I

\If,,]! ,lI,n1.",,~ m,.11

1'<11!nl1~

St,mdclrd llialfa h,ll' nrSCL'ssro'\ OF 1'\.PUUl'IIJ,,\'l' \J, RESl"J,T:-:

Tahle.XI

~hows the total a111011nt~ of feed nllowC'<i and the amllunts refused The amount of grain ml1~l1m('(l hy

('nch of tIw gf()tlP,

Wft~

980 potluck In R<l.tion

1.

-I.3!J6l'nt1l1cl.:; of sila~('

\\"('1"(' aIIO\\{',1 and 51i; poumis w<'ighrd hack. 1n Ratic'll 2, 4,..1-30 prlUm1 .. of

SiJag"l 11"f('

<11·

JOlIN] and -123 llUlll1<l'o IHr" meal enten II n~ 3,J~O r(ll111d~ f('fll~('d 1'11<'

:t1llPtt11i of n1fa1fa-m"b,,~(·~

Tn Ration 2.

-1-,25

~ pntllltl" of hal 11'(,1'(' t;i\('ll nnrl

,~(,~ lH,und ... l\t'n' weighed hac!.: a'o

II ash hay.

The

~ i<'l([ nf milk while the cows

\\'cre on Ration 1

II a'o

-1-,

12..j. r(lllnd~

I)r an

<1\ l'rage of 2-1 :; p01mcl~ per head daily, a~

(,Pl11pan'd II ith 3,R.!3 R pot111(b Of an aH'ra~c of

.:'2.R pOllnris whil!' th('

CO\\S

"l'n'

Oil

Ration 2, a total diffel'ence of

300.2 pOllmls in f"-Wlf of Hn{ioll

1.

'1'11(' yit'ld flf fmtterfat

\Ia~ ahont the

~nme for the two r:ttiol1~.

'f'he

<;t1l1lman' of the prodl1dirl11 of milk and lmtterint j ... shown in Table xrI.

FEIW1.\G D.llR}' C.IT7LE

1.\

.IR170.VA

289

Rations

TARLE XII -PRODl'CT10;\' OF MILK A '\D RUTTERFAT.

Ration 1

Total foe

.. ,penmen!

Average per head dm!)

Ration 2

Total fo, c"IlCllment

Avela!1c per hNU d,lih'

:illilk

)ield

Pounds

-

I

- -

4,1140

"'5

3,823 K

228

I

Uutterfat yield

Pounds

,~~

28

.e'l

15262

.91

Number of days on test

56

56

I f we vahle the <;tandard alfalfa hay at $12 per ton, the additional yield of milk from Ration 1 would make the alfalfa-molasses meal worth

~16A5 per ton, proyided we do not deduct from the total the amount of hay which wa'> refused. The actual amount of standard alfalfa hay eatcn in tht" e,periment was

3,386 pounds or

1.69 tons. Valuing this amount of hay at $12 per ton, the alfalfa-molasses meal would

1 e \\orth $13.08 per te'11.

EFFECT OF THE FEEDS ON COWS

The cO\n maintctined their hody weights better when fed a1£alfamolasses-meal ration th:1.11 when the alfalfa hay ration. They gained an average of

14 pounds per head on that ration while they lost an average of

2 pounds on the standard alfalfa hay ration. They relished the alfalfa-mobsses meal much more than they oid the standard alfalfa hay.

SmUL\RY

Alfalfa-mob~ses meal was relished by cows much more than the standard alfalfa hay from which it was made.

The alfalfa-molasses meal was eaten t1p dean while the cows left a quantity of stems and grasses in the standard alfalfa hay.

The average daily yield of milk when on the alfalfa-molasses meal ration

\WtS

24.5 pounds per cow while the average daily yield of milk on the alfalfa-hay ration was

22.8 pounds per cow. The yield of butterfat \\"as the same from both rations.

If we value the standard alfalfa hay at

$12

per ton and do not deduct the hay left in the mangers, the alfalfa-molasses meal is worth

$16.45 a ton. On the oth<.'r h:md, if we charge the cows with only the an1(lunt of hay actually consumed, the alfalfa-molasses meal would be worth

$13.08 per ton.

2ro

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. I27

The cows maintained their body weights better when the alfalfa~ molasses meal than when fed standard hay.

PART H--GROUND HEGARI GR'dN

VeRSUS

ROLLED

BARLEY AS FEEDS FOR DAIRY COWS

Sorghum grain, in general, is looked upon with disfavor by dairy-

Inen, on account of its lack of palatability and because it is generalIy con~idered to be a poor milk producer. Hegari, however, has been creating much attention in the Southwest as a hog and beef-cattle feed.

The yield of hegari grain is higher than that of many other sorghums and the quality of its fodder and silage is good. It has become the chief grain sorghum raised in southern Arizona. This feeding test was conducted to study the feeding value of hegari grain compared with that of rolled barley.

COWS USED

Ten cows were used in this test. They were divided into tW(I groups of three Holstein-Friesians and n\'o Jerseys in each group. The groups were well balanced with respect to period of lactation, breed, age, and milk production of cows.

METHOD OF EXPERIMENT

The feeding test was divided into four periods of 14 days each with an interval 0f 7 days between the periods for changing ration.';. The groulls of cows were kept in adjacent pens and were fed as nearly as possible the same amounts of hay and silage throughout the experi~ ment. During the first period, Group A was given Ration 1. the concentrate portion of which consisted of a grain~mixture made up of 2 parts ground hegari and 1 part wheat bran while Group B was fed

Ration 2 containing a grain-mixture of 2 parts rolled barley and 1 part wheat bran. In each case, the grain-mixture was fed at the rate of 1 pound of grain to 5 pounds of milk produced by Holsteins and 1 pound of grain to 4 pounds of milk produced by Jerseys. The am0unt of grain fed was adjusted at the beginning of each period and was not changed during the periods. At the end of each of the first three periods, the rations were alternated so that Group A received the hegari ration during the first and third periods and the barley ration during the second and fourth periods, while Group B received the hegari ration during the second and fourth periods and the barley ration during the first and third periods. The milk was weighed daily and a butterfat test wa~ made of a 2-day composite sample of milk from each cow at about the middle of each period.

FEliDI!·:r.; DAIR]" CATTLE IN ARIZONA

291

DISCUSSION OF FEEDS USED

Hegari is (\ne of the grain sorghums. The rolled barley was purchased from a milling company and was of average grade. The alfalfa hay fed was of the Hairy Pentvian variety and was of No.1 grade.

TABLE XIIL-SUMMARY OF FEEDS USED

Rations

-

Ration I-Hegad ration

Total amount fed ... _ ..........•......

Average per cow daily .......... _

Ration 2-BarJey ration

Total amount fed .....................

Average per cow daily ............

Grain mixture

Pounds

1,757.00

627

Alfalfa hay

Pounds

5,012.0

17.9

Silage

Pounds

6,400.0

22.9

1,78&50

6.39

I

4,998.00

17.85

6,JA,9.0

22.7

TABLE XIV.-MILK PRODUCTION BY PERIODS AND PERCENTAGE

OF DECREASE.

Same of

'ow

I

Milk

Percent· Milk PercentMilk Percent-

Period Period age of period age of petiod age of

1 2

Pounds Pounds

Xora ......... 193.1

189.7

Noble ........ 226.4

Jessie

Theresa

254.3

189.6

204.5 decrease

1.7

162

19.$

3

- - -

Pounds

174.8 d~rease

+

7.1

201.3

6.1

212.0 3.7

4

Pounds

196.1

225.1

2M.7 decrease

-122

-11.8

+

3.4

Belle

777.1

Komdyke .. 407.$

6~.9

336.9

9.9

17.3

688.8

334.5

+

1.6 697.9

=

1.3

+

.7

363.7

.

87

"'t;roup A total ...... 1,858.4 1,620.6 12.8

1,611.4

+

.6

1,687.$ 4.7 r""

.....

265.3

Gipsy ........

373.5

Pell 74J2

DeVries ....

634.3

Dixie ........ 428.0

241.2

337.4

7152

581.9

412.0

9.1

9.7

3.8

83

3.7

229.1

326.9

646.4

4992

4lU

- -

5.0

3.1

9.6

142

.2

241.6

5.4

352.4

7.

641.6

540.6

397.3

+

.7

-8.3

+33

*Group B total

......

2,444.3 2,287.7 6.4

2,112.7

7.6

2,173.$

2'

The average daily ration per head for groups when fed Ration 1 (Table

XIII) containing grain-mixture consisting of 2 parts hegari grain and

1 part wheat bran was as follows: grain-mixture, 6.27 pounds; alfalfa hay,

17.9 pounds; and, corn silage, 22.9 pounds. The average daily ra-

·Grottp A was fed Ration 1 during periods 1 and 3, and Ration 2 during periods 2 and 4, while Group B was fed Ration 1 during periods 2 and 4, and Ration 2 during periods 1 and 3.

HXPERI.1!E.VT ST.ITION BULLETIN No. Il7

292 tion per head when the c('.vs were fed Ration 2 containing the grainmixture consisting of 2 parts rolled barley and 1 part wheat bran

was

as follows: grain-mixture,

6.39 pounds; alfalh hay,

17.85 pounds; and, corn silage,

22.7

pounds. These rations, as well as the total amount of feed used, are shown in

Table XIII. The cows seemed to like the barley ration better than they did the hegari-grain ration, but when fed

in

the above quantities both grain-mixtures were cleaned up well.

DTSCUSSIO~

or

RESl'LTS

Table XIV shows the production of the two groups of cows by periods and percentage of decrease from one period to the next. The data in this table indicate that the hegari ration is as effective as the barley ration in maintaining the milk flow. The increased production by both groups in the fourth period over that of the third h unexplainerl except, possibly, by better weather conditions.

TABLE XV.-SUlIli\L\RY OF :\llLl':: .\Xn IH;'l''l'ERF .. \T PRODUCED.

Ration

Ration 1

Tom! fo' R.Ljj"l1

,

Ration 2

Total fcc

Ration 2

Difference in

, fan)r of RHtiol1

Croup

I l'<'rkuis

.\

R

_\

Il n

.\

D

A

I

2

3

4

,

2

3

4

,

'\ink

~ichl

P"l1nd~

I n!ltt~rfat

JieM

Pr1l11lds

I

Xnmhcr

,

I of da," in artl1al test

I jl('cj()(\

1- ----

USR4

22t1.7.7 l,(ill.4

2,1735

2,112.7

74.SQ

QO.[)l

69.<,),2

R2.6-1

"

'4

"

7,031.L)

3!8.06

----- - - - - - - - -

2.#1..1 l,(0).fi

97.94

67.47

Rt.cl-l

- - -

56

1,687.5

7.,'\55.1

"

70.60

"

- - - - - - - - -

.~11).95

"

.',)

+r;s·q-I

-1.')

Table XV shows the yield or milk and hutterfat with the two ralions.

When fed ground hegari the cows produced 7,931.0 pNtnds of milk and

318.06 pounds of butterfat, and when fed the barley ration, the yields of milk and butterfat were

i,865.1

p01.1mls and 319.95 ponnds respectively, a difference of

65.9 pounds of milk in favor of the hegari ration and 1.9 pounds of butterfat in favor of the harley ration. 'I'he results

JlE/!,M.YG D.UR)" crtTLE I.V ARIZQ,Y.l

293 were so dose that the diJf"rence may result from error or uncontrolled factors. Since the amDunts of feed ginn in the two rations are so similar and the cost of the feeds are nearly identical it is useless t(\ show a comparison of the feed-costs per gallon of milk or per ponnel of hutterfat, or the profit over cost of feed. The yields of milk and of butterfat and the vahw (,f the feeds lIsed arc so nearly the same in the case of the two rations that the feed-costs per unit of prodnction are almost identical.

P.--\R1' YIL-GROUXD YELLO\\' CORN

VERSUS

ROLLED n

\RLF.Y FOR D.\IRY COWS

Tn 1Tarch and .\pri1. If)~;-, a feeding test was conducted to compare grot1nd yellow corn with rolled harley when fed with wheat hran, corn silage, amI alfalfa hay a~ a fecd for dairy cows,

COWS USED

T\\,eh'e

C('\\'S were used in the experiment, six I-101steins and six

Jerseys. These \\'('re divided into two g:rOl1PS, each of which includerl three Holsteins and three Jerseys, The groups werc balanced as nearly as possil'le in regard to period of lactation of the cow:;, a,"'onnt of milk flow, a11(1 ag-e

or

C()\\'s.

:>.1ETllOll OF I~XrE1u:\lEXT

The c"xjicrill11'l1t

\I:\S tli\'ided int0 tll'O periods of 28 da}:s each with a i-day inien'nl ilr:t\\'eel1 prriods for changing ratiolls. 'there was also a ;--day preliminary fedin~ pcriod at the beginning of the feeding test.

During the first period, the rO\\'s of Group A were given a grain-mixture consisting of

~ parts ground yellow corn and

1 part wheat bran,

\\'hilethose in Gronp D were given a concentrate mixture of 2 parts ro11c(1 brlcy aIH!

I part wheat bran. During the second period, Group n rcceiycd the yellow-corn mixturc and Grottp A the concentrate mixture containinO' rol1ed harle\'. In addition to the concentrate allowance, hath gr"ups of (""mn were fed alfalfa hay at the rate of 20 ponnds pel'

1wnd daily. Com silage was fed to hath gr0upS at the rate of 30 poum):; ]lcr hend daily for rIolstcin- Friesians and 20 pounds per head daily for Jerseys. The concentrate mixture was apportioned to each cow individtully at the rale of 1 pPllnd of grain for each

-+ pounds of milk produced daily hy ! Ipjsteins and t pound of grain for ('ach 3 pounds of milk produce(! hy Jerseys. 'the amount of grain was apportioned on the hasis of the a111011l1t of milk being given at the beginning of each

294

BXPERIJIE,VT STATION BULLE1 IN No. 127

period and was not changed during the period. This procedure was followed because it was believed that if the production decreased due tQ some temporary condition, it would not be possible for the cows to regain their former production if the rations were reduced at the time of the decrease in production.

The cows were milked twice daily and the milk weighed at each milking. At about the middle of each period, a 2-day composite sample of each cow's milk was tested for percentage of butterfat.

Group A .... _ ... __ ... _ .... _.

. Ration 1;

Period 1

Alfalfa hay

Corn silage

Corn and bran mixture

Period 2

Ration 2:

Alfalfa hay

Corn silage

Barley and bran mixture

Group B ........................ _ .. . Ration 2:

Alfalfa hay

Corn silage

Ration 1;

Alblfa hay

Corn silage

Barley and bran mixture Corn and bran mixture

TABLE XVTT

.-

,

RATTONS

PER

COW

Rations

Ration 1:

Group A, Period

1...._.

Group B, Period 2. .....

Ration 2:

GrOllp B, Period l... .•.

Group A, Period 2 __ ...

Grain mixture

Grain mixture com and barley and b,," b",

Pounds

&8

aD

.-

Pounds

....

--

9.6

7.7

Corn silage

Pounds

25.0

11.7

25.0

11.7

Alfalfa h,y

Pounds

20.0

22.5

200

22.5

Rations

Ration 1:

Group

A,

Period 1...._

Group B, Period 2._ ..

Total for Ration

1... __ ..

Ration 2:

Group B, Period 1... ...

Group A, Period L ...

Total for Ration 2._ .......

Grain mixture corn and bran

Grain mixture b,,,,

Pounds

1,484

1,344

2,828

Pounds

•...

-

•......•

•.......

._ .....

........

-

......

1,607

1,302

~""

C'm silage

Pounds

4,200

1,962

6,162

4,200

1,962

6,162

Alfalfa hay

Pounds

3,360

3,78)

7,140

3~60

3,78(}

7,140

pEEDING DAIRY CATTLE IN ARIZONA

295

DISCUSSION OF FeeDS USED

The feeding yalues of ground cC'rn and rolled ba~ley for dairy cows are quite well kn,)\vn. 'There is a tendency, however, in the Southwest to exclude alI corn from the ration in favor of lighter concentrates in the belief that corn makes too heavy a ration.

It is possible that this is overdone and is m't necessary, particularly where wheat bran, alfalfa hay, and silage are fed along with the concentrates or where the ground com is scattered over the silage at feeding time.

At the middle of the second period. the corn silage was used up and hence could not be fed during the last 14 days. When the silage was eliminated fr(1m the ration. the alfalfa hay allowance was increased to

25 pounds per head daily fC'r each group. This increase in amount of hay was not sufficient to replace the silage, but was enough to satisfy the requirements of the cows. 'Table XVII shows the average daily rations.

TABLE XIX.-MILK AND BUTTERFAT PRODUCTION SHOWING

DECREASE.

Name of cow

Milk Butterfat

PercentPercent-

Period

Period age of

Period

Period ageof

1 2 decrease 1 2 decrease

Pounds Pounds

Theresa Belle ............ 1,0812

Roxanna ............. _ ...... 987.5

Ormsby ........ _ .............. 745.5

Myrtle .......................... 1,090.1

No. 19 ............................ 482.9

Noble EminenL. ....... _ 511.1

787.4

Zl.2

855.5

13.4

668.1

902.1

440.6

IDA

17.3

8.8

396.4 22.4

Pounds Pounds

25.98

25.67

22.36

47.96

20.76

23.00

26.77

0.3

28.23

-10.0

22.77 1.8

39.69 +17.2

19.38

+

6.6

17.90 +22.2

Total, Group

A. .........

4,898.3 4,050.1

Josephine

_

Moensje

.........

'Topsy .............

_

.....

_

2,372.4

DeVries ................... _ 816.3

Lass ....... _ ..................... 327.0

No. 20 ......... _ ................ 449.1

1,1#.8

682.6

17.3

16.6

16.4

291.8 10.8

386.8 13.9

165.73 154.68

35.68

+

6.7

...

1,023.0

837.4 1&6

3325 28.89 13.1

17.96

16.35

23.31

25.18

16.38

13.71

18.95

29.4

8.8

16.1

18.7

............

9282 842.6 9.2

48.70 38.51 20.9

Total, Group B ........

4,916.0

4,186.0 14.8 175.25 141.62 19.2

DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

'Table XIX shows the amount of milk and butterfat produced by the individual cows of the two groups together with the percentage of decrease fr00l one period to the next. All of the cows of each group decreased in milk prodl1ction, the range of decrease being from about 8

296

EXPERIMENT ST.ITJOS BL'LLfiTIX So. Il7

percent to about 27 percent The average decrease for Group A was

17.3 percent and fat Group

B

1+.8 percent. This difference between the groups is not significant. The three Holstein co\\'s of Group

A increas.ed ill butterfat percentage enongh in the second period to cause an increase in the amount of butterfat in that period even though there was a decrease in the amount of milk. It is thought that there may have been some temporary condition causing a variation in the percentage of butterfat ill the milk

C'f the three cows si11ce the three Jersey cows of the same gronp showed abont the same percentage of hutterfat ill the second period as they did in the first period.

In Group D, four of six cows "howed a greater percentage decrease in butterfat than in milk. the average difference heing 4.4 percent.

This is not comidered sufficient to say that roller1 harley will cause a higher percentage of bntterfat in milk than will ground yel1()\\, corn.

TAtll.,E XX.-::W:-'fM.\R\' OF PHODI."C'l'IO."\ nF .\IIl~K .\Xl) llUT'l'ERF.\'l'.

Ratiuns

Ration 1 :

Crol1p .-\,

Period L

Group jl, Period

Z.

Total f<>r Rlltion 1 ........... .

Ration 2:

Group B. Period 1.

Group A, Period 1 ...

Total for Ratiun 2 ............................. " ...... .

Difference ill famr of Rlttion 1.. ............ .

.\[ilk yield

Puund,

4,~9~U

4.1Nri.n

4,916.0

4,0511.1

~,'-l66.t

11:-:l.2

, Ilutt!'riat i yield

Pounds

165.i

141.6

307.3

1752

15-1.i

329.9

22.6

The yields of milk and butterfat, by the two grr>ups when fed Ration

1, as sho'\"11 in

'.fable

XX, were

9,084.3 pounds and 307.3 puunds respectively. while the yields from Ration 2 were 8,966.1 pounds of milk and

329.::' pounds of butterfat. This makeR a differclIce of 118.2 pounds of milk. or 1.3 percent in favor of the com ration. The difference in yield of butterfat is in favor of the barley ration. As stated before, it is thought that the difference is due to a temporary condition that caused a wide variation in the butterfat test of three of the cows of

Group A. The results of this test would indicate that ground yellow corn and rolled barley are of about equal value ill feeding dairy cattle, provided they are fed in a reasonably well-balanced ration including alfalfa hay, corn silage. a1ll1 wheat kan.

FEEDING DAIRY CATTLE IN ARIZONA

297

T:\.BLE XXI.-BODY WEIGHTS OF COWS.

Weighillg dat<'s

Group A

Gain during

Period 1.-

Theresa

Belle

Pounds POlmds POllllds

Feb. 28.

Mar. 1, 2._ 1,271

,

1,2...79 1,123

Mar. 2H,

29,

30 __ ....

1,31.'1

I

I

1,269 1,160

47

I

Roxanna

40

Ormsby

I

Myrtle i

Pounds

37

:

1,115

I

1.161

I

I

46

April 4,

5, 6 .......

1,2Qr,

:May 2,3,4

1,305

J

.2Il3

1,ZQ3

1,153

1.167

:t\ame of Cows

1,132

1,117

No.19

Noble Group

Eminent total

Pounds

Pounds Pounds

877

914

37

898

907

942

949

7

953

924

6,557

6,771

214

6,709

6,713

Gain during

Period 2 __ 15

I

,

!O

I'

-15

9

-29

4

Group n

]o.scphl\loenDolIle sjc

Vries

La~~

No. 20 Topsy

Group total

- - -

Pounds

Pot11l(\s

Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds

Fel,.2R,

:!lIar. I, 2 .. 1,366

Mar. 28,

1.173

,

1.454

900

1,000 1,139 7,032

29, 30 ...... 1,405 1.216 1,483

'36

1,031

1,172

7,243

- - - -

Gain dUrillQ"

36 33

Period L 39 29 31 211

"

April 4,

5, 6 ..... 1,390

May 2, 3, 4 1,402

- - -

G~in durill'(

Period 2 __

12

1,182

I,l(){J

8 tARt l.515

34

I

915 1,018 1,158

7,144

"",

1,042

1,152

7,209

- 7

2.

- 6

65 su~nfARY

The average decrease in milk production for Group A when changed from ground yellow

corn

to rolled barley was 17.3 percent while the average decrease for Group n in changing from rolled barley to ground yellow com was 14.8 percent.

Gr(lup A gave 6.7 percent less butterfat when fed rolled barley than when fed ground yellow com, while Group B produced 19.2 percent less butterfat when fed ground yellow corn than when fed rolled barley.

This difference may be accounted for by an unexplained variation in butterfat percentage of the milk of some of the cows.

The combined producti(ln of milk of Group A and Group B when fed

Ration 1 was 9,084.3 pounds while the production (If milk from Ration

298

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN No. 127

2 was 8,966.1 pounds, a difference of

1.3

percent in favor of Ration

1.

The combined production of butterfat by the two groups was 329.9 pounds when fed Ration 2 as compared with 307.3 pounds when fed

Ration

1.

The feeding values of ground yellow corn and rolled barley as feeds for dairy cows are about equal.

The cows gained mQre in body weight when fed Ration 1 containing ground yellow corn than when fed rolled barley. These weights are tabulated in Table XXI.

Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement