FEED COST OF EGG PRODUCTION. 13 
and 2 killed by the other hens picking and eating their flesh, 
against 3.3 dead from natural causes in the other pens. The picking 
was due to the lack of beef scrap or other animal-protein feed. It 
would not appear that the beef scrap affected the mortality from 
natural causes in these experiments. No tests were made of the eggs 
from this pen used for hatching, but of the eggs hatched no differences 
in fertility or hatchability were noted between this pen and those 
fed beef scrap. 
A study of the results shows that beef scrap or some other animal 
protein, even with fowls on a good range, was an economical feed 
and that its use materially increased egg production and the market 
value of the eggs. This is especially true during the first year's pro- 
duction, which was very materially stimulated by the beef scrap; 
the second year's results were about equal in the beef scrap and no 
beef scrap pens. The difference in egg yield would probably be 
greater with fowls confined to yards. Beef scrap and fish meal 
appear to be the only feeds in these rations which very materially 
affect the egg yield. The variation in the proportions of the other 
feeds, or even the omission of any one of them, does not appear to 
affect the egg yield as greatly as do these feeds. 
COTTONSEED MEAL. 
Cottonseed meal is more readily available and is cheaper, especially 
in the South, than beef scrap. This meal has a high protein content, 
and if it would give as efficient results considering its relative protein 
content, it would be a more economical feed than beef scrap. Pens 
10 and 11 were started in November, 1914, on rations containing 
cottonseed meal. Their mash (see Table 1) was composed of about 
one-third cottonseed meal, and the protein content equaled that 
of Pen 12, which was fed beef scrap in place of cottonseed meal 
and used as a check pen. A small amount (about 3.5 per cent) 
of beef scrap was included in the mash in Pen 11 to see if this 
amount would supply the mineral matter which might be lacking 
in the cottonseed meal and make the use of the meal more efficient. 
The total cottonseed meal in the entire ration of Pens 10 and 11 
was about 13 per cent, and about 15 per cent in Pen 15. Pens 
15 and 16 were started in March, 1915, on rations similar to those 
used in Pens 10 and 11, respectively. The method of feeding was 
similar to that used in the other pens except that it was practically 
impossible to get the hens fed cottonseed meal to eat enough mash 
so that half mash and half scratch grains could be fed. The hens 
were always hungry and were very thin, so that it seemed advisable 
to feed a larger proportion of scratch grains. The average weights 
of these hens, as shown in Table 10, were very low, Pens 10 and 11 
averaging throughout the year a pound less per hen than Pen 12. 
