Bound with "What price feed efficiency for hogs" by H. G. Russell

Kammlade, W.G.

English

IDEALS @ Illinois

Feeding western lambs. no. 340, no. 1614

Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository

|635|U64ano. 340ho. 1614UNIVERSITY OF iLLINOiS LiBRAnYAT URBANA-CHAMPAIGNSTACKS\Digitized by tine Internet Arciiivein 2011 witii funding fromUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaignhttp://www.archive.org/details/feedingwesternla340kamm6 3 ^/^-^niversity of IllinoisExtension Service in Agri-culture and Home EconomicsCollege of AgricultureAnimal Husbandry DepartmentSheep DivisionProject J'^-OFEEDH^G WESTERN LAMBSOctober 20, 19^U, to January 20, 19i)-5W. G. KammladeHE l.iHH/b\sm ^ I'UI*Feeder lamb prices were high in relation to fat lamb prices in the fall ofV^W. This was especially true of lambs from the Northwestern ranges. Since Texasfeeder lambs were selling at a considerable discount compared with the lambs from theNorthwest, Texas lambs were bought for the feeding project during the winter of 19^^-U5. There is always much discussion of the relative merits of lamba from these twoareas. The project did not involve a comparison of lambs, but experience at this Sta-tion shows that there are other matters in profitable feeding of more importance thanthe district from which the lambs come, although the place where the lambs were raisedhas some bearing on their management in the feed lot. In general lambs from the North-west are more shapely because medium-wool, mutton-typo rams are used in that section.Texas lambs are still chiefly of fine-wool breeding, but they are of more desirablequality than was true a few years ago. Body shape, however, may not be the mostimportant thing that influences the rate and economy of gain. The lambs this yeargained faster than some lots of Northwestern lambs, but they did not gain so fastas the best lots of Northwestern lambs that have been fed experimentally at thisStation.The lambs cost $10 per hundredweight and were bought at and shipped fromDel Eio, Texas. Ten lambs died before arrival here. The average purchase weight of28i)- head was 6I+.5 pounds. They were on route eight days. They were driven from thecars to the barns and placed on an aero of pasture. The next day the average weightwas 58.6 pounds. There was an average shrink of 5.7 pounds on route. All of thiswas regained on pasture during the next ten days.When unloaded the lambs appeared to have had a very hard shipment, and anrjnber had been injured. Others were scouring. Three days after arrival all weredrenched with phenothiazine for the removal of internal parasites. Some fecal exami-nations showed this treatment advisable.After resting and grazing on pasture for ten days the lambs were returnedto the feed lots where, after being ear-tagged, they underwent the usual three days'consecutive weighings -as a basis of dividing into lots. During those three days allof the lamba were fed on corn silage and were given no other feed. At the start ofthe feeding tho lots looked uniform with respect to range in size and othor features.The average weight of all lambs was 61;. 3 pounds, and no lot differed greatly from thisaverage weight. At tho start of the test Lots 1 and 2 had 40 lambs each; all others14-5 lambs each.During the past summer some yearling wethers and some breeding ewes hadbeen fed rather large amounts of soybean oil meal. It was thought that the use of aliberal quantity of soybean oil meal at the beginning of the feeding period might bea good method of starting lambs on feed. This was tried with the lambs of Lots 2and h. In addition to earlier tests some further studies with urea as a source ofprotein were made with the lambs of Lot 6. In this case ten pounds of urea were addedper ton of corn silage as the silage was made. A year ago two lota of lambs were fedon soybean oil meal as the only concentrate. This was repeated with one lot (Lot 5)In the test now reported.tea 1 ijj. .J. J. J.- .< u ,j.am'''/ not so3/'i.Ave2.Sunmary of Data for Lamb Feeding Project 5^0October 20, 19hk, to January 20, I9U5--92 days''All data on single lamb liasis. All weights and gains in pounds unless otherwise shown.)Wo. lambs on whichdata are basedAverage final weightAverage initial weightAverage gainAverage daily gainDaily feedShelled cornSoybean oil mealAlfalfa hayCorn silageLimestone, oz.Feed for 92 daysShelled cornSoybean oil mealAlfalfa hayCorn silageLimestonePercent roughage refusedFeed per cwt. gainShelled cornSoybean oil mealAlfalfa hayCorn silageLimestoneLot^ 1 Lot 2 Lot 5 Lot h Lot 5 Lot 657 37 1^2 k3 h3 h395.9 99.5 89. i+ 9h.k 95.9 85.961^.5 6k.6 6h.2 6h.6 6U.0 61+. It51.6 5J+.9 25.2 29.9 51.9 21.50.5*^ 0.58 0.27 0.52 0.55 0.231.05 0.99 0.95 0.95 ... 0.95-- 0.3k 0.1I+ 0.55 0.95 0.061.75 l.kl -- -- -- __-- -- 2.75 2.70 5.80 2.72-- -- 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.596.9 91.5 87. ii 85.6 • ^ 87.1-- 51.6 12.9 50.2 85.7 6.0159.^ 155.2 -- -- -- ---- -- 251.7 2k8.6 5^^9.5 250.5— -- 5.5 3.2 5.1 3.2h.3 h.9 l.k 6.0 2.1 7.2506 262 3h6 286 1+05-- 90 51 101 269 2830k 387. -- -- ---- -- 995 852 1095 1165— -- 13 11 10 151/Feed cost per100 pounds gain-Cost per lamb (^ $11per cwt. 2/17Feed costi'Total cost inc. 75^per lamb marketingSelling wt., ChicagoShi-ink in shipp:^ngValue tier head^' .Profit per lamb^'Dressing percentagesCarcass gradesChoice or AAGood or ACommercial or B$ 11.76 $ 11.86 $ 11.20 $ 10.82 $ 11.02 $ 12.267.085.727.08k.ik7.082,827.085.257.085.527.082.61+11.55 11.97 10.65 11.06 11.35 10.1+792.5k.S$ 15. '52.2895.85.7$ lU.l+o2.1;589.75.2$ 12.952.2891.0h.3$ 15.752.6790.2 86.56.1 2.8$ 15.75 $ 12.1+'+2.1+0 1.97k&.k 1+8.5 U9.6 k9.k ' 1+8.9 1+6.01517h72915223182155011+2822/Feed costs used: com, $1.00 bu.; soybean oil meal, $52 tnn; alfalfa; $25 ton;corn ailage, $7.25 ton; limestone, $1.25 cwt.; urea, no charge.Includes phenothiazine treatment, commission charges, freight and feed to Champair"and is based on buying weight.All lambs sold brought $15.35 per cwt.; a few lambs from each lot, except Lr'not sold because of lack of finish. They were valued @ $13 per cwt. Aveshrinkages and marketing costs were deducted for all Ian* ! not sol ^.5.Throughout the trial the lambs were in dry lot. All were hand-fed twicedaily, and all had free access to salt and water. The com was No. 2 grade yellow.The soybean oil meal was labeled as containing '+1 percent protein. The silage wasof good quality, although it was not all from one field nor was it all stored in onesilo. Most of the com from which the silage was made would have yielded 85 or 90bushels per acre. The silage was hauled from the feed storage plant to the sheepbarns. During cold weather much of it was frozen before the lambs ate it. Silagefrozen in that way has never caused any trouble. Apparently there is much unfoundedsuspicion of some feeds.ResultsA study of the table will reveal many of the details of the project. But.there arc some matters which are not shown. In all lots except Lot 5 scano lambsdied or wore removed. The cause of removal was an ailment not previously observedhere in any experimental lambs. The lambs became very stiff, and any movement waspainful and difficult. They were unable to stand, although they ate and dranlc.Studios by the Department of Animal Pathology and Hygiene showed the trouble was aninfectious arthritis or rheumatism (streptococcic arthritis and pericarditis). Mostof the affected lambs recovered, and the disease did not appear especially contagious.No treatment used seemed to be helpful. The lambs were removed from the project, asthe trouble had no relation to the feeding. The cause of death of one lamb from eachof Lots 2, h, and 6 was described as enterotoxemia or overeating.The lambs of Lot 1 were fed the standard ration of shelled com and alfalfahay. They responded about the same as lambs always have to this ration, although theaverage daily grain consumption of I.05 pounds was less than in most previous experi-ments. This was probably duo as much to the manner of feeding as to the lambs. Onthe basis of feed lot weights, 506 pounds of corn and 50U pounds of hay were requiredfor 100 pounds' gain. The lambs of this lot wore not evenly finished. This wasundoubtedly duo in part to the fact that some were slightly affected by rheumatism.At the prices used (see footnote to table) the feed cost per 100 pounds' gain was$11.76. The lambs in this lot returned a profit of $2.28 per head above all costswith the exception of interest and labor.The lambs of Lot 2 wore also fed shelled corn and alfalfa hay. In additionthey were fed soybean oil meal. The soybean oil meal was very liberally fed at thestart of the test and was gradually replaced with corn. Many feeders have assumedthat liberal amounts of soybean oil meal are harmful, but there was no evidence tothat effect in this or a previous test. These lambs were fed one-half pound of soy-bean oil meal per head daily for the first three days. For the next eleven days theywere fed from 0.75 pound to 1.0 pound daily per head. A quarter pound of corn perhead was fed daily beginning six days after the experimental period had begun. Afterten days the com was increased to 0.75 pound daily, and the soybean oil meal wasthen reduced as the corn was further increased. Only 0.1 pound of soybean oil mealwas fed per lamb daily during the last 56 days.Compared with the lambs of Lot 1 those of Lot 2 gained 5.5 pounds more perhead. The feed cost of 100 pounds' gain was $11.86 in Lot 2 compared with $11.76 inLot 1. The profit was $2.1^5 per head, or 15 cents more than in Lot 1. The lambs ofLot 2 were a little better finished than those of Lot 1, although the dressing per-centage was almost the same for both lots. The dressing percentages and carcassf-rades were secured through the cooperation of the purchaser of all the lambs.iiiaaj!I a.JUN 6194/Extension Service in Agriculture and Home EconomicBDepartment of Animal Husbandry uNIVFRSirv Of litUniversity of Illinois College of AgricultureILLINOIS LIVESTOCK TIMELY TOPICS FOR FAEM ADVISEESi/What Price Feed Efficiency For HogsSome hog producers manufacture 100 pounds of pork vith less feed than oth-ers. In the Three-Year Report of the Illinois Valley Farm Bureau Farm Management Serv-ice covering the years 19^5; 19^^/ and. 19^5> actual farm records hear out this fact.For the l65 farms reporting, the average amount of feed required to produce 100 poundsof pork was 14-52 pounds of grain and h^ pounds of protein and mineral feeds. Fifty-four farms vith the high returns for feed fed to hogs used 38? pounds of grain andkO pounds of protein and minereil feeds to produce 100 pounds of pork, whereas the 5^farms with the low returns for feed used U89 pounds of grain and i(-8 pounds of proteinand mineral feeds.If we assume that ail the grain waecorn and that all the feed classed asprotein and mineral was a good supplement including minerals, we can arrive at com-parative cost figures. Com xraa worth $1.6? a bushel, average farm price for April,and supplement about $100 a ton. On the basis of these assumed prices and the amountsgiven above, the most efficient producers used $13.52 worth of feed in producing 100pounds of pork and the least efficient group $l6.l8 worth of feed. The average forthe entire group was $15.10. Generally speaking, feed cost makes up about 80 percentof the total cost of producing hogs. If we increase the above-listed figures one-fourth to allow for other costs, we get a total cost figure of $l6.90 a hundred poundsfor the most efficient group of feeders, $20.22 for the least efficient group, and anover-all average of $18.87.Producers manufacturing pork at a cost of $2.00 per 100 pounds below the av-erage of 162 of their good neighbors should be better able to withstand the impact ofcost increases or a decline in the price of hogs.What's Time to a Hog?During the past three years, feeding trials carried on at Purdue Universityhave shOT/n the value of alfalfa pasture for spring pigs. Seventy-five -pound pigs wereself-fed shelled com and a simple mineral mixture on good alfalfa pasture. Lot I re-ceived no supplement, Lot VI a 35 percent home-mixed supplement free-choice. Each lotwas taken off experiment at 200 povinds in weight. Lot I made the weight in 78 daysand used 329 poimds of com per hundredVelght gain. Lot VI made the weight in 67days, using 283 pounds of com and 55.8 pounds of supplement per hundredweight gain.It took 55.8 pounds of the supplement to replace U5.9 pounds of com, when the pigswere simply given 11 days more time. These results emphasize the fact that hogs canget their protein from good legume pasture but while handling the necessary bulk todo it do not eat enough grain to gain so rapidly as pigs fed supplement in a more con-centrated form.1/ Prepared by H. G. Russell, Associate Professor, Animal Husbandry Extension, Depart-ment of Animal HusbandryCooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home EconomicsUniversity of Illinois College of Agriculture and the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture cooperating. H. P. Rusk, DirectorActs approved by Congress May 8 and June 30, 19l|-l.HGR:gc5/l9/i^7AHI614mm istam,

Feeding western lambs. no. 340, no. 1614

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

IDEALS @ Illinois

Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository