Progress Report Series No. 70
AGRICULTURAL EXPER
of The Alabama Polytechnic I
. . . . .. . E. V. SMITH, Director
March, 1958
I M E TION
nstitute bla.
USE 
q SALT 
aCONTROL 
INTAKE 
o/
PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT SELF-FED
a WINTERED 
BEEF 
COWS
V. L. Brown, Lower Coastal Plain Substation
W. B. Anthony, Department of
C. M. Martin, Department of
N MOST PARTS of Alabama, it is usually necessary
to feed a protein supplement to beef cows dur-
ing part of the winter period. Protein is common-
ly the most expensive item in the wintering ration
and, for this reason, the amount fed must be limi-
ted.
Hand-feeding cottonseed meal or cottonseed
meal pellets to the beef herd is normally done
daily or every other day. A considerable amount
of labor is involved in getting the proper quantity
of supplement distributed equally among the
herd. In an attempt to avoid daily distribution
of protein, some livestock producers have used a
diluent, such as salt, which, when mixed with
cottonseed meal in proper ratio, makes it possible
to self-feed the supplement.
The salt requirement of a cow nursing a calf is
approximately 20 grams per day. Where salt is
used to regulate the intake of protein supplement
for self-fed cattle, the amount of salt consumed
daily by a cow may be as much as 2 pounds. The
influence of this relatively large daily salt intake
on the health and productive performance of
brood cows posed important questions to livestock
producers.,
SThis study was supported in part by grant-in-aid funds
provided by Educational Service, National Cottonseed
Products Association, Inc.
' Resigned.
Animal Husbandry and Nutrition
Animal Husbandry and Nutrition
The experiment reported here was begun in
1953 to provide more information on the effects
of high daily intake of salt on health, lactation,
and reproductive efficiency in beef brood cow
and on the performance of their calves.
EXPERIMENTAL PLAN
Twenty open, grade yearling Hereford heifers
of breeding age were selected for this study and
were divided into two groups as nearly alike as
possible. For the second year of test, the number
of cows in each group was increased to 12. Dur-
ing the winter test period each group of cattle had
access to approximately 72 acres of woodland.
The two groups were rotated at monthly intervals
to minimize the effect of area differences. Two
Hereford bulls were used during the breeding sea-
son and they were rotated between the two groups
of cows on a yearly basis. The cows were exposed
to the bulls from December 1 to July 1. After the
winter test period, both groups of cows grazed
together.
Cottonseed meal (41 per cent) was fed in open
troughs, but the mixture of salt and cottonseed
meal was fed in a weatherproof feeder. 
Both
groups had access to common salt. 
Water was
readily accessible to both groups from a flowing
stream.
The ratio of salt to cottonseed meal for the ex-
perimental group was adjusted at weekly intervals
to regulate the intake of cottonseed meal to an
average of 2 pounds per head daily. The control
group was hand-fed daily an amount of cotton-
seed meal equal to that consumed by the experi-
mental group. Adjustment was made weekly as
necessary. This regulation of cottonseed meal
consumption was done throughout the test.
In addition to the protein supplement, Johnson-
grass hay or wheat straw was fed in limited
amounts to both groups of cattle.
The bases for evaluating the influence of high
salt intake were live weight changes in the test
cows (during each winter test period in each test
year and for the entire experimental period),
calving records of the cows, and weaning weight
of calves adjusted to a common basis.
RESULTS
Cow performance and daily ration data 
for the
first winter test are summarized in Table 1. Al-
though the cattle in each group were 
exposed to
bulls from December to July, only 
6 heifers calved
T'ABLE 1. COW PERFORMANCE AND DAILY RATION DATA,
FIRST WINTER, 117 DAYS (12/2/53 - 3/30/54)
Lot 1 Lot 2
cottonseed cottonseed
Item meal, meal-salt,
hand-fed self-fed
Heifers started on test, no. 10 10
Heifers calving the
next fall', no. .........---------------- 6 9
Initial average weight
of heifers, lb. ---------------- 700 730
Weight end of winter test, lb. 
676 679
Changes in live weight for wet cows
Beginning of winter test, lb.-_ 649 742
End of winter test, lb ........ 638 689
Change during winter
test, lb. --------------------- 11 -53
End of pasture season
(11/17/54)2, lb.------------775 849
Gain in live weight
on pasture, lb ...------------- 137 160
Change in live weight
during year, lb. ----- -- +126 +107
Average daily winter ration
Cottonseed meal, lb............ 1.75 1.83
Salt ----- free choice 0.50 lb.
45 days of winter test), lb. 12.00 12.00
1 4 animals in lot 1 and 1 in lot 2 failed to breed during
breeding season.
2 On this date all cows included in the averages had calved
except 1 cow in each of the experimental groups.
TABLE 2. COW PERFORMANCE AND DAILY RATION DATA,
SECOND WINTER, 112 DAYS (11/17/54-3/8/55)
Lot 1 Lot 2
cottonseed cottonseed
Item meal, meal-salt,
hand-fed self-fed
Experimental animals
Cows in test from
first winter, no .............--------------9 9
New heifers added
11/17/54, no ...........----------------3 3
Total number beginning
second winter ..--------------- 12 12
Cows bred during
winter test, no ... ..-------------- 12 12
Cows that calved, no .. . 8 11'
Changes in live weight for wet cows"
Beginning of winter
test, lb.--------------- 765 849
(3 cows) (7 cows)
End of winter test, lb...... 740 729
Change in live weight, lb. -25 -120
End of pasture season
(11/25/55), lb ..-------------823 935
Gain in live weight
on pasture, lb...--------------- 83 206
Change in live weight
during year, lb.-------------+58 +86
Average daily winter ration
Cottonseed meal, lb.-----------2.08 2.08
Salt ---------------------------- free choice 0.69 lb.
Hay (No. 3 Johnsongrass),
lb ....... ... ...---------------------- 11.54 11.54
' One poor individual was sold late in summer and her
weight is not included in the averages. She was preg-
nant.
2 Only cows that had calved and were nursing calves
when weighed are included in averages.
in the control group and 9 calved in the experi-
mental group. The average initial weight of each
group of cows is given in Table 1. Since all of
the cows did not calve, average change in live
weight of cows in each group includes only those
that were bred and calved the following fall. It
is noted that when the test animals were weighed
at the beginning of the second winter test (end of
first pasture season) one animal in each group
had not calved.
Results of the second winter test are summar-
ized in Table 2. It is noted that three new heifers
were added to each group at the beginning of the
second winter period. As was true for the first
year, breeding efficiency was better for the cows
self-fed cottonseed meal-salt.
Results of the third winter feeding test are sum-
marized in Table 3. It is noted that 5 of the origi-
nal 10 cows were present in the control group
TABLE 3. COW PERFORMANCE AND DAILY RATION DATA,
THIRD WINTER, 103 DAYS (11/25/55-3/9/56)
Lot 1 Lot 2
cottonseed cottonseed
Item meal, meal-salt,
hand-fed self-fed
Number of cows
Cows of the original
group, no. ----------- 5 8
Heifers added second
year, no ...............---------------- 3 2
Heifers added third
year, no. ----------------------- 4 2
Total number ...---------............------- 12 12
Cows bred during
winter period, no ...........-------- 12 12
Cows that calved, no ............ 12 12
Changes in live weight for wet cows'
Beginning of winter
test, lb ......................-----------------.. 899 930
(8 cows) (8 cows)
End of winter test, lb. ..... 876 833
Change in live weight, lb. -23 -97
End of pasture season
(12/12/56), lb .............. ---------- 987 1016
Gain in live weight
on pasture, lb .................. ----------- 111 183
Change in weight
during year, lb .............. ---------- 88 +86
Average daily winter ration
Cottonseed meal, lb .......--------- 2.30 2.30
Salt ------------------- free choice 0.98 lb.
Hay (wheat straw) _ _- free choice free choice
'Only cows that had calved and were nursing calves
when weighed are included 
in the averages.
(lot 1) for the third and final winter feeding test.
Eight of the original 10 were present in the ex-
perimental group (lot 2). Breeding trouble was
not experienced in the third breeding season and
of the 12 cows in each group that were bred, all
calved normally.
TABLE 4. ADJUSTED 250-DAY WEANING WEIGHTS
OF CALVES'
Lot 1 Lot 2
cottonseed cottonseed
Item meal, meal-salt,
hand-fed self-fed
Lb. Lb.
First calf crop,
weaned in 1955 ------------ 365 (5)2 358 (8)
Second calf crop,
weaned in 1956 366 (8) 392(10)
'The weaning weight data are corrected for age of dam,
sex of calf, and weaning age. The calves were not
weaned at the same age. Refer to Table 5.
Numbers in parentheses are the number of animals in-
volved.
Two calf crops were produced during this ex-
periment. The average adjusted 250-day weaning
weights of the calves are summarized in Table 4.
It was necessary to convert the calf data to
some common basis for comparison to be made
because of (1) unequal distribution of first-calv-
ing heifers, (2) male and female calves in the two
experimental groups, and (3) all the calves were
not weaned at the same age. To accomplish this,
the calf data were adjusted to weight gained per
day of age and are summarized in Table 5.
TABLE 5. ADJUSTED WEIGHT GAIN PER DAY OF AGE
FOR CALVES'
Lot 1 Lot 2
cottonseed cottonseed
Item meal, meal-salt,
hand-fed self-fed
Lb. Lb.
First group, weaned in 19552 1.24 (5)3 1.20 (8)
Second group, weaned in 19562 1.21 (8) 1.33(10)
' Weaning weights for calves of cows calving for the first
time were increased 5 per cent; weaning weights of
heifer calves we-. increased 23 pounds.
SDifference between treatment means was not significant.
SNumbers in parentheses are the number of animals in-
volved.
DISCUSSION
In this experiment, cows hand-fed cottonseed
meal lost less weight during the winter feeding
period than cows that received the same amount
of cottonseed meal diluted with salt. Yearly gains
for the two groups of cows were quite similar be-
cause the cows self-fed cottonseed meal-salt
gained more during the summer grazing period.
These findings are in agreement with other pub-
lished results". Obviously as reflected in changes
in body weight, the cows hand-fed a daily ration
of cottonseed meal maintained nutrient intake
fully comparable to the cows self-fed a cottonseed
meal-salt mixture. In addition to the hay or straw
provided, there was an abundance of pine trees
and other browse available to both groups of cat-
tle, but apparently the ingestion of an abnormally
Cardon, B. P., E. B. Stanley, W. J. Pistor and J. C. Nes-
bitt. The use of salt as a regulator of supplemental feed
intake and its effect on the health of range livestock.
University of Arizona Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 239. 1951.
* Riggs, J. K., J. C. Miller and A. J. Gee. Self-feeding
mixtures of salt and cottonseed meal to beef breeding
cows wintering on pasture. Texas A & M College Agr.
Exp. Sta. Progress Report 1276. 1950.
large amount of salt did not stimulate cows to eat
an uncommonly large amount of browse.
Although there was less breeding trouble in the
group self-fed the cottonseed meal-salt mixture,
it is believed that this represents a sampling dif-
ference and is not a result of the dietary treat-
ments. The data indicate that the high daily salt
consumption during the wintering period did not
adversely affect reproductive performance of the
cows. This is supported by other published re-
sults. '
No scouring or other abnormal physiological
function was observed among the cows self-fed
the cottonseed meal-salt mixture.
The calf performance data summarized in
Tables 4 and 5 show that there was no real dif-
ference in growth between calves suckled by cows
self-fed a mixture of cottonseed meal and salt and
calves suckled by cows hand-fed an equal amount
of cottonseed meal. It is noted, however, that the
performance of calves in both groups was less than
desired. Inadequate winter feeding of both groups
may account, in part, for the poor growth made by
the calves. Expenditure of effort to ensure ade-
quate nutrient intake is of greater importance
Weir, W. C. and R. F. Miller, Jr. The use of salt as a
regulator of protein supplement intake by breeding ewes.
Journal of Animal Science 12: 219. 1953.
than choice of method for supplying a minimum
daily ration of cottonseed meal.
The use of self-feeding methods usually results
in only periodic observation of the cattle. During
critical periods, losses from lack of attention could
easily offset any labor saved in feeding.
SUMMARY
1. Cottonseed meal containing 25 to 30 per cent
salt was self-fed to beef brood cows for three con-
secutive winter periods of over 100 days each.
2. No harmful effect was noted on the health
of cows or in performance of their nursed calves
when salt was used to regulate the daily intake of
cottonseed meal to approximately 2 pounds per
head.
3. Cows self-fed cottonseed meal-salt mixture
lost more weight during the winter feeding period
than the group hand-fed cottonseed meal at the
same level of intake. However, during the follow-
ing pasture season, cows self-fed cottonseed meal-
salt mixture gained more. Total gains for the year
were about the same for both groups.
4. Weaning weights of calves in both groups
were decidedly low. This suggests that a higher
level of nutrition was needed for both groups and,
to supply proper feed units, justified more con-
sideration than the method of supplying protein
supplement.