14 BULLETIN 561, U. S. DEPABTMEXT OE AGBICULTTJBE. 
The weights of the hens in all of the cottonseed pens "were far below 
those of hens of the same breeds in beef -scrap pens. 
These pens were all on free range and thus were able to secure 
considerable feed from the range. Several times during the year 
the hens in Pens 10, 11, and 16 were found to be going to other 
feeding pens and eating their mash. Their ration apparently was 
deficient in some desired element, so that they would go long dis- 
tances to secure other feed. This mixing at least partly accounts 
for the variable results secured in these pens. 
The results with the cottonseed meal, as shown in Table 2, first year, 
pens 10 to 16, were not satisfactory. Pen 12, fed beef scrap, laid about 
66.5 more eggs per hen, produced eggs 2.4 cents per dozen cheaper, 
and gave a profit over feed cost $1.68 per hen greater than in Pens 
10 and 11. The results in Pens 15 and 16 were even more decisive 
against the use of cottonseed meal as an economical feed, Pen 15 
averaging only 33.2 eggs per hen during the year and showing a 
net loss over feed cost alone of 4 cents per hen for the year. The 
feed cost of eggs in this pen was 31.9 cents per dozen. The hens 
fed cottonseed meal also failed to lay many eggs during the winter, 
and those produced in two of these pens (Nos. 15 and 16) were 
small (see weight of eggs in Table 5b). 
In addition to proving an uneconomical feed, the cottonseed meal 
affected the appearance and firmness of the eggs, making a con- 
siderable percentage of them unmarketable. (See PI. VII.) Dark- 
greenish spots of varying sizes were produced on the yolks of the 
eggs, while the contents in most cases lacked firmness and they 
would not poach like eggs produced from beef-scrap rations. Dur- 
ing warm weather about half of these eggs were classed as unfit 
for food as judged by appearance, although no disagreeable effects 
were noted from eating eggs discolored in this maimer. During cool 
and cold weather the quality of these eggs was considerably better 
than in warm weather. 
Comparing the cottonseed pens (Nos. 10 and 15) with those fed 
about 3.5 per cent of beef scrap hi the mash in addition to the 
cottonseed meal (Nos. 11 and 16), the results were inconsistent, 
owing at least partly to the fowls mixing. The egg yield in Pens 
10 and 11 was about the same, but Pen 16, fed this small amount 
of beef scrap, laid twice as many eggs as Pen 15, which was without 
any beef scrap. No material difference was noted in the quality 
of the eggs from any of the pens. The egg yield and quality of 
eggs in all these pens were unsatisfactory, and cottonseed meal, either 
with or without a very small percentage of beef scrap, is not an eco- 
nomical feed for poultry. It is possible that a part (perhaps half) 
of the beef scrap could be replaced by cottonseed meal to better 
advantage. 
