U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
 
 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY— BULLETIN No. 47, HART II. 
 
 D. E. SALMON, D. V. M., Chief of Bureau. 
 
 THE HOG INDUSTRY 
 
 SELECTION, FEEDING, AND MANAGEMENT. 
 RECENT AMERICAN EXPERIMENTAL WORK. 
 STATISTICS OF PRODUCTION AND TRADE. 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE M. ROMMEL, B. S. A., 
 
 EXPERT IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 
 1904. 
 
TIIK BOG INDUSTRY. 
 
 ( .>7 
 
 CORN AND CORN SUBSTITUTES. 
 
 To the fanner <»!' the com bell those experiments with grains which 
 may lake the place of corn for feeding purposes in times of scarcity 
 are always interesting. In seasons such as thai of L901, when a sum- 
 mer of extreme heal and Little or no rain follows a spring of normal 
 conditions, the short corn crop is frequently counterbalanced by a 
 bountiful supply of small grains. .Many farmers at such times rely 
 on wheat, barley, oats, and rye to carry their stock to marketable 
 condition. Outside the corn-growing districts such experiments are 
 of even more importance, for the small grains are often grown in 
 great abundance and form the basis of all rations. 
 
 Wheat compared with corn. — At the Indiana Station" Plumb and 
 Anderson fed four lots of 4 Chester White pigs to study the rela- 
 tive value of feeding wheat and corn, both alone and in combination. 
 The pigs were farrowed late in October, and the experiments began as 
 soon as they were weaned, which was early in January. They were 
 out of two sows that were litter sisters. Lot I received whole corn; 
 Lot II received dry whole wheat; Lot III received a ration consisting 
 of equal parts of corn and wheat ; Lot IV received soaked whole wheat. 
 
 Up to March 6 they received 10 pounds of separator milk as a noon 
 feed and after that date 12 pounds of the same dairy. They were fed 
 one hundred and five days. The results were as follows: 
 
 Wheat compared with corn for pigs. 
 
 Lot. 
 
 I.... 
 
 II... 
 III.. 
 TV.. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 wJS height at Weight at 
 pig? ^ginning, 
 
 close. 
 
 Num- T-i j 
 
 ber Average Fee 1 l per 
 
 Corn 
 
 Wheat (dry) 
 
 Corn and wheat, equal parts 
 Wheat (soaked) 
 
 i Pounds. 
 
 4 185 
 
 4 175 
 
 4 174 
 
 Pounds. 
 673 
 
 646 
 
 105 
 1()5 
 105 
 105 
 
 Pounds. 
 1.16 
 1.02 
 1.12 
 1.05 
 
 Pounds. 
 312 
 355 
 323 
 355 
 
 a Digestible dry matter. 
 
 At the Utah Station, Foster and Merrill 6 conducted similar work in 
 comparing ground wheat with corn meal. Two lots of 3 pigs each 
 were fed, in covered pens, all the ground grain they would eat. The 
 results follow: 
 
 Ground wheat compared with corn meal for pigs. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 pigs. 
 
 Weight at 
 beginning. 
 
 Weight at 
 close. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 davs 
 fed. 
 
 Average 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Feed per 
 
 100 
 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 Corn meal 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 290 
 291 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 519 91 
 
 Pounds. 
 0.85 
 1.20 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 55s 
 
 Ground wheat 
 
 615 
 
 91 
 
 4t»4 
 
 «Bul. No. 67 
 8396— Xo. 47—04 
 
 *> Bui. No. 70. 
 
98 
 
 I'd REAU OF A MM A 
 
 MM - I Rl . 
 
 At the usual price of corn ami wheat, 7."> <-cni> per hundredweight, 
 ili<- cost <>f gai . r i he corn-fed lot is L r i\ «-ii as $4.18 per LOO pounds, 
 and that <>t' the teat-fed Lot at 13. 18 per LOO pounds. 
 
 Ai the close of this test a second one \^h made, but the ration <>f 
 the first lot was made equal parts of corn meal ami pea meal after the 
 middle of the test. The results follow: 
 
 On >ii, ai wheat compared with <-<>/n and y,<</ meals for pigs. 
 
 Nuni- 
 
 Pounds 
 
 
 Corn and pea meals 
 Ground wheal 
 
 £™5 Weightat Weightat ber of A ™ r »P f«dper 
 
 ber <>! 
 
 beginning. 
 
 Pound*. 
 880 
 
 close 
 
 /'•muils. 
 
 
 l.-l 
 
 daily 
 
 gain. 
 
 . hi nils. 
 116 LU 4<i7 
 
 U6 4«« 
 
 Wheat compared with various other grains. — At the Nebraska 
 tion, Smith ' fed eight lots of ( '> pigs each to study the comparative 
 feeding value of wheat, rye, and corn, both alone and in combina- 
 tion. Charcoal and Lime were fed occasionally. Four pigs in each 
 lot were of the bacon type — Tamworth and Yorkshire — and two were 
 of the fat, or lard, type, or " block " type, as the author expresses it. 
 Each lot had an 8 by 12 foot cement-floored pen in a closed shed, with 
 an 8 by L6 foot yard adjoining. The ground feed was mixed into a 
 thick slop after being weighed; the soaked wheat was weighed before 
 being soaked. The first cost of the pigs was $4. 50 per LOO pounds and 
 they \\<-re sold on the farm at 15. 52^ per 100 pounds. Coin and wheal 
 were charged at 55 cents per bushel, rye at 50 cents per bushel, and 
 shorts at $1 B per ton. Grinding was charged at 8 cents per LOO pounds 
 lor wheat and rye and 6 cents per LOO pounds for coin. A statement 
 of the results follows: 
 
 Wheal compared with otfu r grains for pigs. 
 
 Ration 
 
 Whole wheat, dry 
 
 Whole wheat, soaked L8 
 
 to '-'i hours 
 
 
 
 (;r<>un<l wheal and corn, 
 
 eqnal parts 
 
 Ground wheal and rye, 
 
 • ■•iiiiii parts 
 
 . ad w heal and 
 shorts, equal pa 
 
 • l corn 
 
 Ground rye 
 
 v nni Average Avpr ., Num A.ver- T ,. 
 
 , N, ! m ;. weight ,,: ; w Total ber of age V , perlOO 
 
 atbSgin- . V.^ gain, days daily ** /,-unds 
 
 ning. ted. gain. ,u "• gain. 
 
 01 
 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 
 
 .70 
 
 8,817 
 
 01 
 
 .ii 
 
 
 01 
 
 .71 
 
 
 '.'1 
 
 
 
 8U 
 
 Profit 
 per lot. 
 
 . 
 
 7.81 
 
 
 
 »Bul. No. re 
 
THE HOG INDUSTRY. 
 
 99 
 
 In this experiment ground wheat gave the greatest returns for the 
 least amount of grain, but did not return so large a profit as whole 
 soaked wheat, owing to the expense of grinding. The nndesirabiiity 
 of feeding whole wheat dry seems to be indicated by these results. 
 Ground wheat and corn gave considerably better returns than ground 
 Wheal and rye or ground wheat and shorts. Ground corn and rye 
 alone do not appear to advantage. 
 
 These results show wheat to have a feeding value fully equal to 
 that of corn, and are in line with the work that has been previously 
 published on this subject. In the first Utah test, wheat showed a 
 very much better and cheaper gain than corn, but when pea meal 
 was added to the corn-meal ration, wheat did not have so great an 
 advantage. The Nebraska results are specially favorable to wheat 
 feeding. 
 
 Feeding frosted wheat. — Nine experiments with wheat that had 
 been more or less damaged by frost were conducted at the Central 
 Experimental Farm of Canada. 05 The grain was fed alone, ground, 
 unground, and in combination with other grains and skim milk. 
 
 The following shows the results and conclusions from the experi- 
 ments : 
 
 Frosted wheat for pigs. 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 H 
 
 Ration. 
 
 How prepared. 
 
 'Pi 
 
 ! 
 
 pi 
 
 +3 
 rfl • 
 
 SB 
 
 ©•£ 
 ci © 
 
 •a 
 1§ 
 
 © 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 d 
 
 '3 
 
 +3 
 
 © 
 
 3 
 P 
 
 g 
 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 «! 
 
 <B 
 
 ©£< 
 
 s 
 
 '3 
 ©.s 
 
 © 
 > 
 < 
 
 a 
 
 3 . 
 
 2 a 
 
 as 
 
 © © 
 g © 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 o . 
 
 ^H 3 
 
 © O 
 
 © a 
 fa 
 
 1 
 ? 
 
 Wheat 
 
 do 
 
 Ground, soaked 12 
 
 hours. 
 Whole, soaked 42 
 
 hours. 
 do 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 4 
 5 
 4 
 
 Lbs. 
 185 
 
 186 
 
 18T 
 
 61 
 
 104 
 
 Lbs. 
 275 
 
 273 
 
 278 
 165 
 192 
 
 Lbs. 
 90 
 
 86 
 
 92 
 
 104 
 
 88 
 
 77 
 77 
 77 
 120 
 56 
 
 Lbs. 
 1.17 
 
 1.11 
 
 1.19 
 
 .87 
 
 1.57 
 
 Lbs. 
 479 
 
 570 
 
 557 
 
 441 
 
 233 
 
 1,011 
 
 442 
 
 326 
 
 53 
 
 207 
 
 268 
 250 
 
 L6s. 
 530 
 
 659 
 
 3 
 
 Wheat, barley, and 
 
 pease. 
 Wheat 
 
 607 
 
 4 
 
 Ground, soaked 12 
 
 hours. 
 do 
 
 423 
 
 
 J do 
 
 [Skim milk... 
 
 265 
 
 b 
 
 ... 
 
 1,251 
 526 
 
 445 
 
 85 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 Wheat Ground, soaked 18 
 
 hours 
 f Wheat and barley.. Ground, soaked 30 
 < hours. 
 [Carrots 
 
 12 
 
 21 
 
 103 
 117 
 
 187 
 IT, 
 
 84 
 62 
 
 84 
 84 
 
 1,00 
 .73 
 
 8 
 
 Barley, wheat, rye, 
 
 and bran. 
 ("Barley, rye, wheat 
 
 Ground, soaked 12 
 
 hours. 
 do 
 
 36 
 31 
 
 54 
 
 108 
 
 108 
 191 
 
 54 
 
 83 
 
 105 
 83 
 
 .51 
 1.00 
 
 385 
 323 
 
 9 
 
 •1 and bran, 
 [skimmilk 
 
 
 300 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « Bui. No. 33. 
 
LOO 
 
 BURI \i 01 \MM \1. CNDUSTItt . 
 
 The fact that this wheat had been injured by frost does doI seem i<» 
 bave bad a serious effect <»n its feeding value. In the majority of 
 Instances the gains made were satisfactory, and tin se cases in which 
 a large amount of grain was required for i" 11 pounds of gain were 
 generally \\\\\\ bogs <>f considerable maturity and consequently 
 expensh e feeders. 
 
 Barley compared with corn. -The following results were obtained 
 with barley alone in comparison with corn alone in South Dakota, 
 
 Colorado, and Canada : 
 
 Hurl, a compared with corn for pigs. 
 
 
 Num- 
 
 Num- 
 
 weight 
 
 begin- 
 ning. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 
 
 : per 100 poo 
 
 Bation. 
 
 
 ber of 
 
 daily 
 
 Corn. 
 
 Barley. 
 
 Milk. 
 
 Colorado: a 
 
 Whole oon 
 
 5 
 S 
 
 
 Lbt. 
 71 
 80 
 
 38 
 
 68 
 112 
 
 
 
 Sfi 
 
 u*. 
 
 380 
 430 
 
 - lln 
 
 
 
 
 • llll 
 
 Whole bald barley 
 
 
 
 • ia 
 
 
 
 '80 
 
 
 
 
 . (9 
 
 
 Ground common bar- 
 ley 4 
 
 
 
 • 1M 
 
 South Dakota:'- 
 Corn meal . . 
 
 1 B 
 
 - 
 
 56 
 
 L53 
 
 1 . 58 
 
 .70 
 
 1.17 
 
 1.30 
 
 n 
 
 LIS 
 L00 
 
 (16 
 
 
 Barley 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 ( Ontario Agricultural Col- 
 lege: ■■ 
 
 Corn 
 
 
 Barley 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Central Experimental 
 
 Farm. ( >tta\va: & 
 Whole corn 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 n 
 74 
 
 954 
 
 MO 
 
 in 
 
 0] 
 112 
 
 M 
 112 
 
 
 < t round com 
 
 
 Whole barley 
 
 
 
 Ground barley 
 
 
 "TV 
 
 »Bul. No. 
 All. Rpt.s 
 
 41 1. 
 68. 
 .. 1890 a 
 
 id una 
 
 
 
 
 dBuL 
 
 - Qua 
 
 
 
 
 This table does nol present an accurate comparison between barley 
 and corn, as skim milk enters into the results in five instances when 
 barley was fed, as against only three instances where corn was fed, 
 l)iu the results command interest in showing that the value of barley 
 for hog feeding compares very favorably with thai of corn. 
 
 Barley compared with corn, in combinations. — The South Dakota 
 Experiment Station and the Ontario Agricultural College have 
 reported tests with barley in combination with such feeds as shorts 
 and middlings. 
 
 [End of Part 
 
THE HOG INDUSTRY. 
 
 101 
 
 The following table shows the results: 
 
 Barley compared with corn, with shorts <>r middlings for pigs. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 South Dakota: a 
 
 Corn and shorts equal 
 
 parts 
 
 Barley and shorts 
 
 equal parts 
 
 Ontario Agricultural (_'< >1- 
 lege: & 
 Corn and middlings... 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Barley and middlings. 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Num- Num- 
 ber of ber of 
 
 test.; 
 
 pigs. 
 
 ,\\ erage 
 weight 
 at be- 
 
 ginuing. 
 
 I.hs. 
 
 Ill 
 
 115 
 
 as 
 
 42 
 
 Num- 
 Total ber of 
 gain, days 
 
 fed. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 840 
 
 1,561 
 
 501 
 
 140 
 
 140 
 
 Average 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 1 . 67 
 1.64 
 
 .79 
 
 .817 
 
 .841 
 .639 
 
 I'Ycd ]«■]■ 100 
 
 pounds gain. 
 
 Corn. ] Barley. 
 
 Lbs. 
 413 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 480 
 432 
 C424.55 
 
 456 
 
 - 490 
 430 
 c430. 
 
 a Bui. No. 63. 
 
 & An. Rpts., 1899 and 1900. 
 
 c Dry matter. 
 
 These results are not so favorable to barley as those of the preced- 
 ing table, but it can also be said, in the light of these figures, that 
 barley is nearly if not quite equal to corn for feeding pigs, judging it 
 solely from the standpoint of rate and economy of gain, and if we 
 take into consideration its effect on the carcass, it far surpasses corn 
 as a high-grade pig feed. An experiment with purebred hogs at the 
 Ontario Agricultural College, which is not included in the foregoing 
 table, compared barley and corn. Some middlings and skim milk 
 were given, but during the last month the grains were fed alone. 
 While receiving middlings and skim milk the pigs on corn made the 
 most economical gains, but after the middlings and skim milk were 
 withdrawn the pigs on barley made the most rapid and economical 
 gains. The experience of this institution places barley at the head of 
 the list of American bacon-producing feeds. 
 
 Ground wheat and barley compared with shelled corn. — At the Colo- 
 rado Station Buffum and Griffith a fed two lots of pigs to compare the 
 feeding value of home-grown Colorado grains with corn, which must be 
 imported from States further east. The pigs used were rather ordinary 
 grade Poland Chinas and Berkshires, about eight months old at the 
 beginning of the experiment. One lot was fed shelled corn ; the other, 
 a mixture of equal parts of ground wheat and barley. The wheat and 
 barley were grown on the college farm. " The wheat was the com- 
 mon Defiance variety and was grown in a field producing 34 bushels 
 per acre. The barley was of the common hulled variety and was 
 grown in a field that produced 25 bushels per acre." 
 
 The pigs were kept in pens of equal size, each pen with a yard 
 
 a Bui. No. 74. 
 
102 
 
 Bl BEAT] OF AMM \L inm - \\:\ . 
 
 adjoining^ The pens were well bedded with straw. Water was given 
 in abundance and occasionally coal and ashes. The following table 
 viiow ^ i be results: 
 
 Ground wheat and barley compared with shelled corn for pigs. 
 
 
 L 
 
 - 
 
 y. 
 
 - . 
 bf M 
 
 '. — 
 
 < 
 
 d 
 1 
 
 e 
 
 - 
 < 
 
 ! 
 
 9 
 
 K 
 
 - E 
 
 M 
 
 ► 
 
 amotu 
 
 per 100 
 DOtmdt 
 
 s 
 - = 
 
 a 
 
 si 
 
 D 
 
 
 Katinll. 
 
 
 ami 
 
 Corn. 
 
 and 
 barley. 
 
 •- a 
 I 
 
 ( 'crn 
 
 4 
 1 
 
 Lb*. 
 
 94.5 
 
 Lb*. 
 
 3 1 . 26 
 
 liil 
 
 Lfc». 
 
 
 640 
 
 
 
 
 Wheal and barley. 
 
 KM 
 
 LIS 
 
 
 This experimenl shows a mixture of wheal and barley to be much 
 more valuable than corn alone for pig feeding. It also speaks very 
 well for the econony of pork production in those States where corn 
 is not a staple crop. Buffum and Griffith state that it is a com- 
 mon practice in the neighborhood of Fort Collins for farmers to 
 exchange barley or wheal for corn on even terms, and even when 
 corn is high in price and wheat and barley cheaper, they will sell the 
 cheaper home-grown grains and buy the expensive one. They give 
 the average price for ten years of these -rains in Colorado as 
 cents per LOO pounds for corn, '.•'. , .") cents per LOO pounds for wheat, 
 and 55,3 cents per LOO pounds for barley. They ask, very pertinently, 
 whether Colorado feeders have not the solution of the problem of a 
 supply of concentrates for pork production when home-grown grains 
 sell on the farm for less money per 100 pounds than corn can be 
 purchased in town, and especially when either wheat or barley is 
 equal to corn tor this purpose and in combination are superior to it. 
 
 Oats compared with corn. — Grisdale a reports a comparison of <>ats 
 and corn. The grain was fed whole and was soaked fifty-four hours 
 before feeding. Both Lots received skim milk in addition. The 
 
 results were as follows: 
 
 Oats compared with corn for pigs. 
 
 ■* ^Lt^ A stasrfeh^ 
 
 P*«* nut ■**•»■ ' «5S *"»■ 
 
 Feed per HKtiM.uiuls 
 gain. 
 
 Corn 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 91 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 170 
 190 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 lis 
 
 Pound*. 
 L90 
 
 
 Pound*. Pound*. 
 
 1.11 •»!-. 
 
 
 
 P.ul. No. 88, Central Expt. Farm. 
 
THE BOG INMSTKY. LOS 
 
 The results of this test are qo1 very favorable fco oats as a pig feed. 
 To get even as economical a gain as could be had from corn a feeder 
 would have to get nearly twice as good gains as from the oats; for, 
 
 pound for pound of nutrient material, oats is about twice as expen- 
 sive as corn. 
 
 Corn and Kafir corn. — The Oklahoma Station" compared Indian 
 corn and Kafir corn as follows : 
 
 Six pigs, averaging about 135 pounds at the beginning of the test, 
 were ted six weeks on Kafir heads, and made an average daily gain of 
 1.11 pounds, requiring about 665 pounds of grain for 100 pounds of 
 gain. 
 
 Three pigs, averaging 220 pounds at the beginning, made an average 
 daily gain of 1.53 pounds for thirty-five days, and required the equiva- 
 lent of 494 pounds of shelled corn for 100 pounds of gain. These 
 same pigs were then fed Kafir meal for two weeks and made 1 pound 
 of gain per head daily, eating 921 pounds of meal for each 100 pounds 
 of gain. 
 
 Four pigs, averaging 105 pounds, were fed thirty-five days on Kafir 
 meal. They made an average daily gain of 1.21 pounds, eating 508 
 pounds of meal for 100 pounds of gain. For the next two weeks they 
 were given soaked shelled corn. They made a total gain of only 30 
 pounds, eating 707 pounds of corn for 100 pounds of gain. For the 
 next four weeks a daily supply of green alfalfa was given with good 
 effect. A total gain of 140 pounds was made, requiring 365 pounds 
 of grain for 100 pounds of gain. 
 
 Kafir corn. — The value of Kafir corn for hogs has been studied 
 extensively at the Kansas Station. Kafir corn was found to have a 
 feeding value considerably below that of corn when both grains were 
 fed alone. In Bulletin No. 95, Cottrell states that the average of a 
 number of trials shows that 527 pounds of Kafir corn and 468 pounds of 
 Indian corn, respectively, are required per 100 pounds of pork made; 
 the yield of pork per bushel of grain being 10. 6 pounds in case of 
 Kafir corn and 11.9 pounds with Indian corn. On upland soil, how- 
 ever, the average of eleven years on the Kansas Agricultural College 
 farm shows returns of 46 bushels per acre for Kafir corn and 34^ 
 bushels for Indian corn. Such returns, with gains as noted above, 
 indicate a pork yield per acre of grain at 487 pounds for Kafir corn 
 and 410 pounds for Indian corn. The great value of Kafir corn is its 
 ability to resist drouth. 
 
 Soy beans in a Kafir corn ration. — In addition to the lighter returns 
 from Kafir corn than from Indian corn, this grain is very constipa- 
 ting when fed alone, and hogs, especially young ones, tire of it sooner 
 than they do of Indian corn. To remedy these difficulties a mixture 
 
 «An. Rpt., 1898-99. 
 
ll'l 
 
 i:i i:i: \ l OF \.MM M. ENDU81 \i\ . 
 
 is advised, especially with feeds of a laxative nature. One of the 
 most convenient nitrogenous concentrates at the bands of the Kansas 
 fanner is the boj bean. In a E experiments ' the effed of such 
 
 an addition to both Indian corn and Kafir corn rations was studied. 
 The following summary of five experiments shows thai soy beans 
 increase gains and diminish the amount <»t* feed required for LOO 
 pounds gain: 
 
 ■1 of soy Indus iii 11 Kafir corn ration for pigs. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Pint experiment: 
 
 Kafir corn meal 
 
 Kafir oorn meal | 
 
 - 
 Beoond experiment : 
 
 Kafir cotd meal. 
 
 Kafir corn meal | 
 
 Boy bean meal | 
 Third experiment: 
 
 Kafir corn meal. 
 
 Kafh rn meal 
 
 Soy bean meal 
 
 c>rii meal 
 
 Corn meal { 
 
 Boy bean meal 
 Fourth experiment: 
 
 Kafir corn meal. . 
 
 Kafir oorn meal | 
 bean meal J . 
 Fifth experiment: 
 
 Kafir corn meal. 
 
 Kafir corn meal \ 
 bean meal | 
 
 Lnfrom 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 ■ 
 
 108 a 
 
 108.0 
 ] 16. 7 
 
 129.2 
 120.4 
 
 44.1 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 
 
 r*.i 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 100 pounds 
 
 Bar 
 
 471 
 
 
 :*74 
 
 
 
 
 81.0 
 
 
 
 The effect of feeding soy beans is good. Hogs receiving them 
 "fatten rapidly, look thrifty, have strong appetites, and the hail 
 and skin arc gleBsy, like those of animals fed oil meal." 
 
 The following Bummary gives a more elaborate comparison of the 
 relative values of Kafir corn or Indian corn meal alone and in com- 
 bination with soy beans." The results are arranged in order of 
 economy of gains, the total Bhowing the number of pounds of feed 
 required for LOO pounds of gain. 
 
 • Bui. No, 95, Kansas Expt Sta. 
 
THE lioa INDUSTl^ 
 
 105 
 
 Value of soy heats in a Kafir corn or Indian com ration. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Peed per 
 LOO 
 
 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Peed per 
 
 LOO 
 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 909 
 
 374 
 108 
 
 4(H) 
 435 
 456 
 457 
 468 
 471 
 477 
 479 
 484 
 512 
 540 
 542 
 
 Pounds, 
 
 Kafir corn meal, soaked fori y-eight 
 
 Kafir corn meal }, soy bean meal 
 Kafir corn meal £, soy bean meal \. . . 
 Kafir corn meal g, soy bean meal ', ... 
 Kafir corn meal $, soy bean meal J... 
 Kafir corn meal }, corn meal .1 
 
 hours 
 
 Kafir corn, whole, soaked forty- 
 eight hours 
 
 Kafir corn meal, wet 
 
 Kafir corn, whole, soaked forty- 
 eight hours. 
 
 642 
 
 550 
 559 
 
 632 
 
 Kafir corn meal g, soy bean meal £.. . 
 
 
 638 
 
 Kafir corn, whole, wet -- 
 
 640 
 
 Kafir corn meal -i, corn meal J, wet.. 
 
 Kafir corn meal, wet . 
 
 653 
 
 Kafir corn, whole, dry 
 
 655 
 
 Corn meal, soaked forty-eight hours. 
 
 Kafir corn meal, wet . 
 
 691 
 
 
 749 
 
 
 Average 
 
 
 Kafir corn meal and cotton-seed meal 
 
 52S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " The six lots of hogs having soy beans as part of their ration required an average 
 of 411 pounds of grain for 100 pounds of gain, while the 19 lots not fed soy beans 
 required an average of 564 pounds of feed for 100 pounds of gain, an increase in 
 food required of over 37 per cent." 
 
 Pease compared with wheat. — The Utah Station a compared the val- 
 ues of pease and wheat during two years. The pigs were confined in 
 yards and the grain was given whole and dry. The average of results 
 
 was as follows: 
 
 Pease compared with wheat for pigs. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Total 
 weight at 
 beginning. 
 
 Total gain. 
 
 Feed per 
 
 100 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 Pease 
 
 Pounds. 
 147 
 136 
 
 Pounds. 
 303 
 
 282 
 
 Pounds. 
 452 
 
 Wheat. 
 
 476 
 
 
 
 Cowpeas alone compared with corn alone. — At the South Carolina 
 Station 6 Newman and Pickett fed to compare cowpeas with corn. 
 The pigs were from eight to eleven months old and were fed in pens. 
 There were 3 pigs in each lot. 
 
 The cowpea-fed lot ate 6.7 pounds of cowpeas per head daily and 
 made an average daily gain for the lot of 3.38 pounds. They required 
 491 pounds of cowpeas to produce 100 pounds of gain. 
 
 The corn-fed lot ate 9.2 pounds of corn per head daily and made an 
 average daily gain for the lot of 4.17 pounds. They required 602 
 pounds of corn to produce 100 pounds of gain. 
 
 With pork at 5 cents per pound and corn and cowpeas yielding 15 
 bushels and 10 bushels, respectively, per acre, the value of an acre of 
 corn in this experiment was $6.97 and that of an acre of cowpeas $6.12. 
 
 « Bui. No. 70. 
 
 b Bui. No. 52. 
 
L06 
 
 1M RE \i OF ANIMAL [NDU8TRY. 
 
 i, xmnd cowpeas and corn meal compared with corn meal, — Ai the 
 Alabama Station Duggar fed ( wo Lots of pigs to compare the relative 
 value of a ration of half corn meal and half ground pease with an 
 exclusive corn-meal ration. The piga used were placed in covered 
 pens, with small yards ad joining, and, after a preliminary period of a 
 week, put into the experiment which lasted sixty days. The results 
 are as follow - : 
 
 Ground cowpi as and corn m al compan d with corn m< alfor j*. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Oronnd corn alone 
 
 Corn i, cowpeas i.. 
 
 
 days 
 
 Found*. 
 
 H 
 
 108 
 
 go 
 60 
 
 LOO 
 eaten. ]*>unds 
 
 
 Pounds, 
 
 1 '<>u mis. 
 
 908 
 
 In this experiment the cowpea and corn-meal ration made gau 
 percent more economical than, corn alone. The quality of the pork 
 made was as good as that of corn-fed pork. 
 
 P anuts compan d with corn meal. — Duggar a placed in pens the pigs 
 used t" compare the values of peanut pasture and corn meal (see 
 j). L60) to make a more accurate study of the nutritive values of 
 Spanish peanuts and corn meal The lots received the same rations, 
 except that the peanuts were dry and fed unhulled. The test lasted 
 six weeks with the following results: 
 
 Peanut 8 compared with corn meal for pigs. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Peanuts I, corn meal i 
 
 Peannts only 
 
 Corn meal only 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 pigs. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 days 
 fed. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 wf" 
 
 dailv 
 gain. 
 
 Pounds. Pound. 
 M 0.91 
 
 .47 
 .10 
 
 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 
 This experiment shows the best daily gains from the combination of 
 peanuts and corn meal, and shows the best returns for lVcd eaten by 
 the pigs on peanuts alone. This Lot made verymuch better gains 
 than the pigs fed exclusively on corn meal, which \'vd verypoorly. 
 The pigs on peanuts alone made a gain of 9 pounds per bushel of pea- 
 nuts. "This gives a value of 27 cents to a bushel of Spanish peanuts 
 when pork is worth 3 cents per pound gross, and 31-J cents when pork 
 is worth :;■. cents per pound." The unthrifty appearance of the 
 fed on corn meal only was commented upon 
 
 At the South Carolina Station, New man and Pickett ' \'vd two lots of 
 grade Berkshire and Duroc Jersey pigs, from eight to eleven months 
 old, in pens, to study the relative values of peanuts and corn. On land 
 of similar character they estimated the corn yield at L5 bushels per acre 
 and peanuts '■' ,| bushels, and in their investigations they found that, 
 
 r.ui. N 
 
 l Bui. No. 62, 
 
THE HOG LNDUSTBY. 
 
 107 
 
 with exclusive corn feeding, 602 pounds of corn were required for LOO 
 pounds of gain and with peanuts 443 pounds for l<><» pounds of gain. 
 On this basis, an acre of corn will produce L40 pounds of pork and an 
 acre of peanuts 488 pounds, worth, respectively, when pork is 5 cents 
 per pound, $6.97 and $24.37. 
 
 COMMERCIAL BY-PRODUCTS. 
 
 One of the prominent features of modern industry is the develop- 
 ment of the possibilities of the by-product — the waste and offal of 
 manufacturing establishments. Farmers have long appreciated the 
 value of the by-products of flour mills, but of recent years many 
 other materials have come into the market as valuable feed for farm 
 animals. Rice mills, oil mills, and packing houses all have their 
 by-products, which are useful in supplementing the products of the 
 farm. 
 
 MILLING PRODUCTS. 
 
 The by-products of the flour mills have for years been bought by 
 farmers for use in the feed box, and one of these — middlings — has 
 come to have an unsurpassed reputation for hog feeding, especially 
 for young animals in the early stages of fattening. With the devel- 
 opment of milling the ingenuity of the manufacturer has enabled him 
 to throw a host of new foods upon the market. In consequence, we 
 have, in the first place, a by-product more completely deprived of its 
 nutrient material, perhaps, than formerly, but more uniform in 
 quality; and, in the second place, a greater variety of feeds with 
 which to supph' the bins. It is not alone the products of the flour 
 mills that have value for feeding purposes. The rice mills, glucose 
 factories, and oil mills all have by-products that are useful adjuncts 
 to feeding operations. Indeed, most of the experimental work of 
 recent years deals with the value of the by-products of these indus- 
 tries. In the majority of instances these feeding stuffs are best used 
 as adjuncts to corn or corn meal, although often the proximity of 
 feed yards to a mill cheapens the by-products sufficiently to enable 
 the feeder to use them as the main part of the ration. 
 
 Bran and corn meal compared with corn meal. — Burkett* fed two 
 lots of 3 pigs each, one receiving a ration of equal parts of bran and 
 corn meal and milk and the other corn meal and milk. The object 
 was to compare the value of bran in such a ration and have the corn- 
 fed lot as a check. The results follow : 
 
 Brail and corn meal compared ivith corn meal for pigs. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 pigs. 
 
 Average 
 weight 
 at begin- 
 ning. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Number Average 
 of davs daily 
 
 Feed per 100 
 pounds gain. 
 
 
 fed. gain. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Milk. 
 
 Bran and corn meal 
 
 3 
 
 Pounds. 
 47.6 
 47 
 
 Pounds. 
 227 
 
 Pounds. 1 Pounds. 
 99 0.7fi 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 308 
 263 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 882 
 
 Corn meal 
 
 3 
 
 3:23 
 
 663 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a Bui. No. 66, New Hampshire Expt. Sta. 
 
L08 
 
 i:i BEAU OF ANIMAL [NDU81 \:\ 
 
 This experiment gave much better returns for a oorn-meal and 
 skim miiu ration than for one where bran was added. Bnrkett < l< >«s 
 not \ a I in- lii-an highly as a pig feed either alone or in combination with 
 
 coin meal. 
 
 Shoris compared with corn. — At the Colorado Station, Bnffum and 
 Griffith r<-(l purebred Berkshire pigs about 5 months <>1<| to com- 
 pare the feeding value of corn meal and shorts in combination with 
 
 wheal, barley, and <>ais. One Lot received shorts, wheat, <>,iiv, and 
 barley in rotation shorts with wheat and oate one day. with wheat 
 and barley the next, with oats and barley the next, and so on. The 
 Lot on corn had the same method of feeding and the same ration, 
 except that corn was fed in place of shorts. Feed was charged at the 
 following prices: Corn. 83 cents per LOO pound-: shorts, 75 cents per 
 LOO pounds; wheat, '■>'> cents per LOO pounds; oats. $1.20 per LOO 
 barley, $1.20 per LOO pounds. The experiment Lasted from March 23 
 to May 31, L90] — sixty-nine days— the results being as follow-: 
 
 Shorts compared with corn in mixed rations forpigs. 
 
 
 Num- 
 berof 
 pigs. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 weight 
 at Be- 
 gin- 
 ning. 
 
 Aver- 
 galn. 
 
 Num- 
 
 
 amountfeed 
 
 ■ ii. 
 
 
 Ration. 
 
 ber of 
 davs 
 fed. 
 
 age 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Corn. 
 
 Shorts. 
 
 Other 
 
 per 100 per 100 
 
 pounds pounds 
 
 gain. gain. 
 
 
 :; 
 
 3 
 
 U.S. 
 
 112. 6 
 96 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 69 
 
 Lbs. 
 1.31 
 
 1 . 27 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 809.1 
 
 581 
 
 ( 'urn ;in(l other grain 
 
 
 At the Indiana Stat ion Plumb and Anderson fed two Lots of 3 high- 
 grade Chester White gilts, each five and one-half mont hs old, to com- 
 pare i he value of a ration of corn meal and wheat shorts with a ration 
 of corn meal only. The mixture was equal parts by weight of corn 
 meal and shorts. The pigs were fed in pens with small shelter houses 
 attached. Shorts were valued at $j 1 per ton ami corn meal at $13.50 
 per ton. The results were as follows: 
 
 Feeding value of wheat shorts. 
 
 Elation. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 
 Average 
 weight 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Num- 
 ber oi 
 
 A\ ■■■!• 
 
 age 
 
 . f.M-(l 
 
 eaten. 
 
 *sstr isr 
 
 ning. 
 
 days dally 
 fed. gain. 
 
 Shorts. 
 
 Corn 
 meal. 
 
 Shortsandcorn meal 
 ( lorn meal 
 
 8 
 
 } 'oil II lis. 
 
 129 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 854 
 
 TO 
 
 Lbs. 
 L.69 
 1.66 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 I.hs. 
 
 718 
 1,418 
 
 Pounds. Dollars. 
 
 
 
 The mixture of corn meal and shorts gave Larger, more rapid, and 
 more economical gains than a ration of corn meal only. In the Colo- 
 
 B d. No, : i. 
 
 Bui. n... n. 
 
THE HOG INDU8TBY. 
 
 109 
 
 rado experiments the pigs fed on a ration of shorts made Larger and 
 more rapid gains than those on corn meal, but they required more 
 feed per LOO pounds gain. 
 
 Com meal compared with rice meal. -The South Carolina Station 
 compared rice meal and corn meal. "The rice meal is a by-product 
 of the rice mills and consists Largely of rice flour, rice polish, and rice 
 bran. As yd the mills have do uniform way of putting it on the mar- 
 ket, and, in order that the reader may understand what is meant by 
 rice meal, as used in this experiment, it may be said that it is all the 
 by-prod net obtained in cleaning the rice grain for the market. Its 
 chemical composition shows that it has about the same amount of 
 protein, carbohydrates, and fat as corn meal." 
 
 The pigs used were Berkshires, about five months old, weighing about 
 90 pounds each. They were given a ration consisting of 1 part meal 
 and 4 parts skim milk, the milk being mixed with the meal, and were 
 confined in pens 20 by 40 feet, with plenty of shade. 
 
 The experiment was divided into two periods. During the first 
 period of thirty-nine days Lot I was fed the corn-meal ration and Lot II 
 the rice-meal ration; during the second period of twenty-two days the 
 feed was reversed, Lot I having rice meal and Lot II corn meal. 
 
 The results during the first period were not decisive, but during the 
 second they were somewhat favorable to the rice meal. 
 
 The results for each kind of grain for the entire experiment are as 
 follows : 
 
 Rice meal compared with corn meal for pigs. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 days 
 fed. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Feed eaten. 
 
 Feed per 100 
 pounds gain. 
 
 Cost of 
 
 feed per 
 
 100 
 
 pigs. 
 
 Meal. 
 
 Milk. 
 
 Meal. 
 
 Milk. 
 
 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 Rice meal 1 part, skim 
 milk 4 parts 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 Lbs. 
 314.5 
 303 
 
 61 
 61 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 1.72 
 1.66 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 779 
 779 
 
 Lbs. 
 3,116 
 3,116 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 248 
 257 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 991 
 
 1,028 
 
 Dollars. 
 3.84 
 
 Corn meal 1 part, skim 
 milk 4 parts 
 
 4.63 
 
 
 
 
 
 The corn meal was valued at 820 per ton, rice meal at $15 per ton, 
 and skim milk at 20 cents per 100 pounds. This experiment shows 
 that rice meal, such as was used in this test, is fully as valuable as 
 corn meal in pig feeding and corroborates previous work along this 
 line. 
 
 Feeding value of rice polish. — Owing to the high price of corn dur- 
 ing 1902, Duggar b devoted considerable attention to the investigation 
 of the value of those feeds whose composition seemed to indicate that 
 
 «Bul. No. 55. 
 
 &Bul. No. 122, Alabama Expt. Sta. 
 
no 
 
 I'.i 1:1 \i OF \nim \ 
 
 NTDUSTB1 . 
 
 thej oould be used as substitutes for corn meal in pig feeding. In 
 this connection pice polish was fed to a number of pigs under different 
 conditions. Rice polish is a by-product of the rice mills and \a <liili- 
 cull to obtain in Borne sections of the country, as millers often mix it 
 with Less valuable by-products and sell the mixture under the name 
 of " rice meal.' 1 For this reason rice meal is said to be a variable and 
 uncertain quantity and all samples do not have equal feeding value. 
 In L902 rice polish was quoted by a Savannah mill ai 117.90 per ton, 
 delivered at Auburn, Ala., in Less i nan carload Lots. Two \ ears before 
 the same firm ha<l been paid 126 per ton Tor it delivered at Auburn. 
 
 It is stated that some of it kept in g 1 condition for more than 
 
 a \ ear. 
 Duggar reports seven tests with this by-product. Be compared it 
 
 with corn meal with and without the addition of skim milk, and 
 in a mixed ration of cow pea meal and wheat bran; with a ration of 
 one-half cowpea meal, one-fourth corn meal, and one-fourth rice bran, 
 with the addition of skim milk; and in different proportions with 
 other feeds without skim milk. The pigs used were generally recently 
 
 weaned and the meal was led dry. 
 
 The following table summarizes the results: 
 
 /•'< i ding valiu of rid polish. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Corn meal and skim milk 
 
 tish and skim milk 
 
 Corn meal 
 
 IJSD 
 
 Corn meal 
 
 sh 
 
 ( 'urn meal 
 
 Bice polish 
 
 Corn meal 8, cowpea meal :.'. wheat 
 
 bran l 
 
 Ush :.'. cowpea meal 8, wheat 
 
 bran 1 
 
 Oowpea meal :.'. corn meal l. r 
 
 ish 1. and skim milk 
 
 B ilish and skim milk 
 
 Oowpea meal 8, corn meal L, rice pol- 
 ish] 
 
 Corn meal l. rice polish l 
 
 Nam- T(iT , 
 
 berof 
 
 pigs. 
 
 Lb». 
 
 90 
 
 109 
 
 54 
 
 m 
 
 66 
 
 ]lt . r(it Average 
 
 days ,1;ul >' 
 ted. B^un 
 
 :> 
 
 
 
 0.86 
 1.04 
 
 .64 
 
 .40 
 
 .79 
 
 Feed per 100 poum I 
 
 
 Bicepol- other 
 ish lots. 1< »ts. 
 
 ; 
 
 ITO 
 
 BIO 
 
 810 
 
 i-n i 
 
 Lbs. 
 810 
 
 SOU 
 
 
 L78 
 
 
 Lbs. 
 465 
 367 
 
 418 
 174 
 
 In every instance where data were furnished, the pigs on rice polish 
 show more rapid gains than those on corn meal or mixed grain rations. 
 In only two eases did rice polish tail to prove more economical, one 
 of these was the second test with corn meal, where 670 pounds of feed 
 were required by the pigs on both rations. The other was a test with 
 
THE Hoc [NDUSTRY. 
 
 Ill 
 
 a mixed ration, where 2 parts cowpea meal, l pari corn meal, and 1 
 part rice polish, with skim milk, gave gains a1 an outlay <>f L78 
 pounds grain and 413 pounds skim milk, as compared with L93 
 pounds grain and 474 pounds skim milk by the ration of rice polish 
 and skim milk. 
 
 Duggar summarized the results where rice polish and corn meal 
 were compared directly, and found that an average of 373 pounds of 
 tfce polish were required to produce LOO pounds gain, as compaied 
 with 474 pounds of corn meal. "At this rate, 78.6 pounds of rice 
 polish were equal to 100 pounds of corn meal, a saving of 21.4 per 
 cenl of the grain by the substitution of polish for corn meal." 
 
 Glut( a meal compared with com meal. — Pigs that had been fed 
 without success on a potato ration at the Cornell Station were given 
 a "rational ration" of corn meal and skim milk for a week and then 
 they were employed in a test to compare gluten and corn meal. Skim 
 milk was fed, the proportion to meal being about 3 pounds of milk to 
 1 of meal. Lots I and III received gluten meal and milk, and Lots II 
 and IV corn meal and milk. 
 
 Gluten meal was charged at $11.75 per ton, corn meal at $14 per 
 ton, and skim milk at 15 cents per 100 pounds. 
 
 The following were the principal results: 
 
 Gluten meal compared with corn meal for pigs. 
 
 Ration . 
 
 Gluten meal and milk. 
 Corn meal and milk . . 
 Gluten meal and milk . 
 Corn meal and milk . . 
 
 or at begin- 
 
 pigs. 
 
 nmg. 
 
 founds. 
 87.25 
 90.5 
 47.5 
 48.5 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Pounds 
 214 
 297.5 
 157.5 
 219 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 days 
 fed. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1.07 
 
 1.49 
 
 .79 
 
 1.10 
 
 Dry 
 matter 
 per 100 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 Pounds. 
 319 
 264 
 252 
 151 
 
 Cost 
 per 100 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 Dollars. 
 2.70 
 2.50 
 2.40 
 1.90 
 
 weight. 
 
 Nutri- 
 tive 
 ratio. 
 
 Percent. 
 77.40 
 80.20 
 
 1:2.7 
 1:5.8 
 1:2.7 
 1:5.8 
 
 The use of gluten meal in combination with skim milk in this 
 experiment did not give results so satisfactory as where corn meal 
 and milk were fed. Both corn meal lots made better gains and the 
 average of dry matter consumed, and cost per 100 pounds gain were 
 much lower than with the pigs on gluten meal and milk. 
 
 Hominy meal compared with corn meal. — In Massachusetts the 
 Hatch Station 6 compared hominy meal and corn meal. The latter is 
 described as consisting of "the hulls, germs, and some of the starch 
 and gluten of the corn ground together. This separation is said to be 
 brought about solely by the aid of machinery. The hard flint part of 
 the corn is the hominy, which is used as a human food." 
 
 Seven Chester White grades were fed on a grain and skim-milk 
 ration, 7 to 10 quarts of skim milk being fed daily with a grain allow- 
 
 "Bul. No. 199. Cornell Univ. Expt. Sta. 
 6 Eleventh An. Rpt.. Hatch Expt. Sta. 
 
11 'J 
 
 Bl RE \r OF \MM \I. [NDUS1 Bl . 
 
 ance of 3 to ,; ounces to each quart of milk, depending on appetite 
 and size. One lot reoeii edoorn meal and milk, and the other hominy 
 meal and milk. The results are > 1 1 « » \\ n in the follow Ing table: 
 
 Hominy meal compared with <•"/•// m>ni forp 
 
 
 ( 'orn meal 
 Hominy meal 
 
 Nun. \\.r 
 , "V, weight Total ber of . I M,,i; 
 
 beroi 
 (rigs. 
 
 at I..- gain, dayi 
 
 ding 
 
 
 no 
 
 
 gain 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.41H 
 
 
 These figures show hominy meal, as !'<-<l in this experiment, i<> have 
 a feeding value equal i<> that of corn meaL In t hi^ <»n«- test corn • 
 failed to give quite so good results as the hominy meal, showing 
 average daily gain of L.28 pounds i<> L.39 pounds for hominy meal, and 
 320 pounds dry matter tor LOO pounds gain t<> 306 pounds dry matter 
 for LOO pounds gain in tin* case of tin- hominy meal. 
 
 Corn nit nl compared with cerealim feed. — Two i<->'^ were made at 
 the Hatch Station a to compare corn meal and cerealine feed. Like 
 hominy meal, cerealine feed "consists also of the hull and a portion 
 of the starch of the corn. It contains rather Less of the starch than 
 the hominy meal. It is the by-product resulting from the preparation 
 of the breakfast food known as cerealine flakes. It iv very coarse 
 Looking and appears very much like onground coin hulls." 
 
 In the first tesl 6 grade Chester White pigs about five weeks old 
 were used. They were fed 6 to :i quart* of skim milk per head daily, 
 and the -rain fed at the start was :! ounces for each quart of milk; 
 the grain was increased with age ami weight. The nutritive ration 
 was 1 : '■'> at the beginning and 1:7 at the eloe 
 
 In the second test 6 piu>. "a cross between the Poland China and 
 the Chester White," about live weeks old. were fed. skim milk was 
 fed in connection with the cerealine feed, which was "eaten with 
 seeming relish at all iime<.*" The following iai>l<' shows the results: 
 
 Cerealim feed compared with corn meal for pigs. 
 
 Elation. 
 
 Cerealine f<H-<i 
 Cent meal 
 
 Av.r- 
 Num-' 
 ber freight Total 
 
 at t>« 
 
 
 cam. 
 
 gin- 
 ning. 
 
 418 
 15 
 
 BIS 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 days 
 
 108 
 
 108 
 
 > 
 
 \v.-r 
 
 ten 
 
 daily 
 
 ^ :iin - Grain. Milk. 
 
 L80 
 
 1.84 
 
 Lb*. 
 781 
 
 r.u 
 
 Lot 
 
 8,081 
 
 th An. Bpt, Hatch Expt Sta, 
 
 Dry 
 
 pounds gain, matter 
 
 per l<«i 
 
 poundi 
 
 [ilk. gain. 
 
 Lb*, 
 
 1" 
 \M 
 816 
 
 1,041 
 
 
 80S 
 
THE BOG ENDU8TB5 . 
 
 113 
 
 In these tests cerealine feed showed considerable valne as a pig 
 feed, bin failed to give as good results, either in rate or economy of 
 gain, as corn meal. Digestion experiments at the Batch station with 
 
 sheep have shown that cerealine feed contains as much digestible 
 matter as corn meal. The station authorities surest that the coarse 
 nature of cerealine feed lessens its value as a pig feed. 
 
 Value of corn hearts. — Duggar fl fed three lots of 3 pigs each to com- 
 pare corn hearts with corn meal and cowpea meal. These feeds con- 
 stituted half the ration, the other half being rice bran. The follow- 
 ing table shows the results : 
 
 Value of corn hearts. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 pigs. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Corn hearts 1 .\ 
 
 Rice bran 1 / 
 
 Cowpea meal 1 1 
 
 Rice bran 1 J 
 
 Corn meal 1 II 
 
 Rice bran 1 I 
 
 Pounds. 
 65 
 
 81 
 
 l^f A FailT Feed 
 *£» gain 7 ! ^en. 
 
 Pounds. Pounds. 
 0.62 ! 480 
 
 479 
 540 
 
 Feed per 
 
 100 
 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 738 
 
 550 
 
 Analyses at the Alabama Station indicated that the corn hearts 
 used in this experiment contained 8.9 per cent protein and the rice 
 bran 9 per cent protein. 
 
 Gluten meal compared with linseed meal for balancing rations. — Pat- 
 terson, at the Maryland Experiment Station, 6 fed four lots of 5 high- 
 grade Poland China pigs each to compare gluten meal and linseed 
 meal as the nitrogenous components of a ration. Lots I and II received 
 hominy chop three-fifths, linseed meal two- fifths; Lots III and IV 
 received hominy chop three-fifths, King gluten meal two-fifths. Both 
 lots had skim milk in the proportion of 1 pound of milk to 1 of grain. 
 The results were as follows : 
 
 Gluten meal compared with linseed meal in a carbonaceous ration 
 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 pigs. 
 
 Average Num- 
 weight at Total ber of 
 
 Average 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Feed per 100 
 pounds gain. 
 
 Cost per 
 
 100 
 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 
 ning. 
 
 fed. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Milk. 
 
 Hominy chop f, lin- 
 seed meal § 
 
 Hominy chop %, Un- 
 seed meal § 
 
 5 
 5 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 37 
 
 36 
 
 Pounds. 
 298 
 
 294 
 
 60 
 
 60 
 
 Pounds. 
 0.99 
 
 .98 
 
 Pounds. 
 242 
 
 242 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 242 
 
 242 
 
 Dollars. 
 2.71 
 
 2.70 
 
 Average 
 
 
 
 
 
 242 
 
 242 
 
 2.70 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hominy chop f , glu- 
 ten mealf... 
 
 Hominy chop j, glu- 
 ten meal § 
 
 5 
 5 
 
 36 
 37 
 
 241 
 256 
 
 60 
 60 
 
 .80 
 .85 
 
 233 
 
 220 
 
 233 2.20 
 220 : 2:07 
 
 Average 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 226 226 2.13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «Bnl. No. 122, Alabama Expt. Sta. 
 8396— No. 47—04 8 
 
 &Bul. No. 63. 
 
1 1 \ BUREAU OF AMMAI. IN Di 3TB3 . 
 
 Thia table shows advantages in favor of gluten meal. Both rate 
 and economy of gain favor the corn by-product. The oosl of the 
 gluten-meal ration was much Leas than the one Into which Lint 
 meal entered. 
 
 [TON-SEED Mi. \l.. 
 
 No t I <>f the South has so wide a range of Interesl as cotton- 
 seed meal. It is a concentrated feed of high value for cattle and 
 sheep, and ii^ effect on the fertilizing value <>f the manure is Dearly 
 as great as its effect <>n the feeding value of tin- ration. 
 
 The influence of cotton-seed meal extends far beyond tin- states 
 where it i^ produced, and farmers over the entire country have come 
 to depend upon it to balance their rations and enrich their fields. 
 
 Danger of ust of cottonseed until in pig feeding, — For some reason 
 as yet unexplained this by-product is usually fatal to pigs in from 
 three t<> ten weeks after feeding has commenced, tin* mortality being 
 at least .")i» per cent. In two tests conducted by the Texas Experi- 
 ment Station boiled cotton seed gave the Least serious results, while 
 
 Soaked raw sm\. roasted seed, and raw meal proved more serious. 
 
 In one test, i () of the lot of 15 pigs \'<'<\ cotton seed or cotton-seed meal 
 died. At the Iowa Experiment Station, of 6 pigs that were on a 
 rat ion of cotton-seed meal, corn-and-cob meal, and buttermilk, 3 died. 
 At the Kansas Experiment station,' I young pigs on a ration com 
 i of one-sixth cotton-seed meal and five-sixths corn meal died 
 within forty-six days after feeding commenced. At the Arkansas 
 Station, d three lots of :! pigs each were fed mixed rations, the cotton- 
 seed meal constituting one-third of the grain. All died. 
 
 The time intervening between the beginning of feeding cotton Beed 
 Or cotton-seed meal and the first appearance of trouble varies some- 
 what. Curtis' gives six to eight weeks; Lloyd/ in one test, lost the 
 first pig at the end of the fourth week: in another test, deaths began 
 after forty days; CuEtiss* losl the first pig fifty-one days after feeding 
 commenced. Dinwiddie's* first pig died thirty-five days after feed- 
 ing commenced, and Duggar lost the first pig thirty days after 
 feeding commenced. It therefore appears that there is no very defi- 
 nite period of time that is required for the poison to manifest itself. 
 However, ( ottrell slates that cotton-seed meal may be fed for three 
 to foni- weeks before danger is imminent, and Bnrtis and Malum* ; 
 
 stat.- that no ease has come under 1 heir experience "where a pig has 
 
 died if the cotton-seed meal mixture has not been continued Longer 
 than three weeks." 
 
 Bnl. N<>. 81. Bnl. No. 88, Eowa Expt. Sta. 
 
 B N *BnL No. ;»'-. Arkansas Bxpfc Sta. 
 
 : Nb. 58. 'Bui. No. 122, Alabama Expt. Sta. 
 
 Bnl. N Bn] N< , 95, Kansas Ex] Sta. 
 
 Bnl. No. 31, Texas Expt. sta. An. ftpt L901 OS, Oklahoma Expt Sta. 
 
 • I'.ul. No. 60, Mississippi Expt. Sta, 
 
THE BOG INDUSTRY. 1 1 5 
 
 Symptoms of poisoning. -Poisoning is manifested in a peculiar man- 
 ner. In many cases pii;s thai are apparently well in the evening are 
 found dead in the morning, and often the most careful watching fails 
 to show any indications of indisposition. Where symptoms are pres- 
 ent those most characteristic seem to be disorder of respiration, which 
 is manifested by quickened breathing, coughing, or hiccough. Fail- 
 Log appetite usually calls the attention of the feeder to the approach 
 of danger. Seldom more than two days intervene between the first 
 symptom and death. Francis a gives the following symptoms of the 
 trouble with the Texas pigs : 
 
 The attack was sudden, as a rale; in fact, in a majority of cases an animal was 
 found dead that had been apparently well twelve hours before. In those cases 
 which we were fortunate enough to witness the symptoms were those of a sudden 
 contraction of the diaphragm, producing a sound similar to hiccough in man. 
 The animal stood with head near the ground, the flanks tucked up, the ears hang- 
 ing pendulous, and the tail straight and limp. Some would lie flat on the belly — 
 never on the side — while others would assume a sitting-up posture with the fore 
 legs well apart. In several cases there was a marked elevation of temperature, 
 the thermometer registering 106" F. per rectum. The circulation seemed very 
 weak and rapid. * * * As a rule they were dead in an hour. * * * The 
 gaspings became more and more frequent and violent, and after a few straggles 
 the animal was dead. In the last moments great quantities of foam or froth would 
 come from the nose or mouth. 
 
 The symptoms observed by Dinwiddie b are described as follows : 
 
 The disease in all cases was of a type which might be described as acute. In 
 several instances the animals were said to be ' ' off feed ' ' for one or two days 
 before other symptoms were observed. Every animal which exhibited any symp- 
 toms at all died within twenty-four hours. It would remain by itself, standing, 
 disinclined to move, breathing with extreme rapidity and jerking or '"thumping "' 
 in 'the flanks, and before death frothing at the mouth and nostrils. Fever was 
 absent or but slight; eyes dull and sometimes bloodshot. Coughing occasionally 
 occurred. 
 
 Pathological features. — Francis a states: "On postmortem examina- 
 tion the digestive organs appeared normal throughout. The other 
 abdominal organs appeared normal. The respiratory organs were 
 full of foam. The lungs themselves were bright red and very much 
 congested and doughy." Mayo c pronounced the death of the Kansas 
 pigs to be due in all cases to "congestion and inflammation of the 
 intestines, lungs, and heart;" but Mles rf could find no assignable 
 cause of death in the case of the Iowa pigs. 
 
 Dinwiddie, b in the Arkansas experiments, made postmortem exam- 
 inations of 8 of the 9 pigs which died, and found a very constant con- 
 dition of disorder. He says, in describing the first examination, the 
 description of which applied to all cases : 
 
 The body presented no external changes. Subcutaneous tissue showed blood 
 extravasations in streaks and points. Blood engorgement of lymph nodes of neck 
 
 "Bui. No. 81, Texas Expt. Sta. ^Bul. No. 53, Kansas Expt. Sta. 
 
 6 Bui. No. 76, Arkansas Expt. Sta. (1 Bui. No. 28, Iowa Expt. Sta. 
 
1 I 6 Bl BE \i OF \MM\l. imh BTB1 . 
 
 and jaws. Respiratory and bnocal muoons membrane dusky red. Pleural cavi- 
 
 :it;iin a large quantity of yellow, oloody fluid, compressing the lunu r - 
 than half their normal bulk, in tin- pericardia] sac there is a similar dropeica] 
 effusion, part of which haa formed into a soft, yellowish-white cl rident 
 
 plenritis. Lung «lark red, c ami collapsed. Cavities of heart contain 
 
 dark, soft i»l<»<xi clots; slight petechial extravasations on the epicardinm. No 
 obvions peritonea] effusion. Liver is dark in color, friable, and deeply blood- 
 rged, the lobular boundarieson section being unusually prominent, with <lark- 
 red depressed centers. Kidm tion appear congested throughout, capsule 
 
 nonadherent. * * * 
 
 Tli.- stomach ami Intestines often Bhowed abnormal feataree. The 
 small intestine (jejunum) frequently Bhowed hyperemia patches <>n 
 both the serous ami mucous surfaces, ami the large intestine ami 
 stomach in several cases contained considerable quantities of graveL 
 The urine was slightly albuminous in two cases. In <>m- Instance, 
 where the brain was dissected, iln-re was engorgement of the veins 
 and sinuses of the dura mater, which extended "backward into the 
 \ essels of the neck." 
 
 The histological examination is described as follow-: 
 
 tdons of the liver tissue reveal an intern -tion of the portal By stem, the 
 
 intralobular capillaries especially being enonuously engorged throughout and the 
 livercells compressed and shrunken. There is, however, no marked degeneration, 
 and tin- nuclei take the stain in the normal manner. Sections of the kidney 
 exhibit a similar capillary engorgement, though less intense. The glomerular 
 tufts art- compressed by edematous effusion into their capsules. A degenerative 
 
 — in the cells of the urinary tubules or other marked pathologic changes 
 were not demonstrated. In the spleen no distinct pathologic changes are found. 
 Lung sections show a marked congestion of the capillary vessels, with edematous 
 effusion and occasional hl<> ><1 extravasations, but without cellular proliferation or 
 infiltration. There is no evidence of pneumonia or pleru 
 
 7 atment.—As a rule, hogs suffering from the effects of cotton- 
 poisoning, if taken from the cotton-?eed ration ami placed on 
 rich green pasture, become apparently well in a week. A similar 
 result follows when they arc simply deprived of the cotton 
 meal of the ration ami given an ordinary grain ration. However, 
 Burtis * reports a ease where a pig died during the winter after a 
 week's feeding on a straighl corn diet that followed four weeks" feed- 
 in a ration of one-fifth cotton-seed meal ami four-fifths corn meal: 
 ami Dinwiddie and Duggar bad similar experiences, [n some 
 
 may pass through a Beason of cotton-seed meal feeding ami 
 thereafter be indifferent i«> it. Curtis c found thai if a pig lived 
 thirty days after the first appearance of trouble it could be regarded 
 as immune from the effects of cotton seed, but the experience of others 
 >cem^ to contradict this. Dinwiddie d gives two months as the time 
 
 80, M pi Bxpt Sta.; An. Rpts., 1900-01 and 1901-03, Oklahoma 
 
 Brpt. sta. 
 
 . ftpt 1901 03, Oklahoma Bxpt Sta. 
 
 .1. X... 81, T< cae Bxpt Sta ''Bui. No, :»">. Arkansas Bxpt sta. 
 
 1. 
 
the hog IXDISTKV. 117 
 
 required fora hog to be on cotton-seed meal before L1 ean be regarded 
 
 as immune. 
 
 Tfu causi of poisoning nothnown. — The poisonous agent of cotton 
 seed has not yet been determined. So far chemical and bacteriolog- 
 ical examinations have revealed nothing to which can be attributed 
 
 its dangerous character. The injurious action lias been variously 
 attributed to the lint on the seed, the large fat content, the highly 
 nitrogenous composition, the sharpness of the hulls, the presence of 
 a toxin, supposititious chemical or bacteriological changes in the meal, 
 formation of poisonous crystals by metabolism, etc. Up to a certain 
 period the amount of cotton seed or cotton-seed meal fed does not 
 seem to have any influence on the health of the pigs, but the evidence 
 on the subject is so meager that one is not justified in drawing con- 
 clusions as to the amount of meal that can be fed safely. Curtiss a 
 inclines to the toxin theory; he found the amount which proved fatal 
 in his investigation to be from 27 to 33 pounds of cotton-seed meal. 
 Dinwiddie b holds that the belief that there is a toxic principle in the 
 seeds of the cotton plant is the most reasonable one, and one that has 
 not been disproved. The action seems to be more virulent with j^oung 
 than with older animals, which is characteristic of poisons. He points 
 out that the amount fed to pigs is much larger in proportion to their 
 body weight than that fed to cattle and suggests this as a reason for 
 the supposed greater immunity of cattle. With a 1,000 pound steer, 4 
 pounds of cotton-seed meal is an amount equal to 0.4 per cent of the 
 body weight. In the case of the pigs in the Arkansas experiments 
 the proportion was about 1.5 per cent of the bod} r weight at the begin- 
 ning of feeding. The amount of cotton-seed meal eaten per head was 
 23, 25, and 15 pounds, respectively, in the three experiments at that 
 station. Dinwiddie c calls attention to the fact that other animals are 
 susceptible to cotton-seed poisoning and states that guinea pigs, to 
 which he fed small quantities of cotton-seed meal along with bran, 
 died in from two to three weeks. He also admits the possibility of 
 ptomaine poisoning. 
 
 At the Alabama station two of DuggarV experiments resulted 
 fatally. In the first experiment the smaller pigs were the first to die. 
 They averaged about 61 pounds, and 12.20 pounds of cotton-seed 
 meal were eaten by each before death ensued. This was 0.25 pound 
 daily per head, or 0.1 pound daily per 100 pounds live weight for 
 forty days, and a total of 18.90 pounds per 100 pounds average live 
 weight. Larger pigs in this experiment, averaging a little over 70 
 pounds, died when 16.60 pounds of cotton-seed meal had been fed per 
 head. These pigs were fed 0.41 pound per head daily, or 0.53 pound 
 
 « Bui. No. 28, Iowa Expt. Sta. & Bui. No. 122, Alabama Expt. Sta. 
 
 cBul. No. 76, Arkansas Expt, Sta. 
 
1 IS BUREAU OF animal l NM 9TBY, 
 
 per LOO pounds live weight daily, for forty-three days; the total 
 amount of cotton-seed meal fed was 21.60 per <-«-ni <»t* the average live 
 weight. In the second fatal experiment one of the pi.L r s died "after 
 having appeared gaunt and weak for two days." This pig averaged 
 about 60 pounds in weight and up to the time of death ha<l been fed 
 5, i pounds of ootton-seed meal. This was a total of 9.2 pounds per ion 
 pounds live weight. The pig had not had more tliah 0.25 pound cotton- 
 seed meal dailj per LOOpounds live weight. The other pig in tin- same 
 l(»i showed an unthrifty condition and the ration u;h changed. 
 i he Kansas experience on page 1 22, where a similarly small amount of 
 ootton-seed meal produced fatal results.) The ration in both experi- 
 ments \\a>. cotton-seed meal one-fifth, corn meal four-fifths. 
 In another test wit h a ration of corn meal three-fouii as, cotton-seed 
 
 meal one-fourth, the pigs were noticed to be out of condition toward 
 
 the thirty-fifth day, bui uo deaths occurred. They averaged about L18 
 pounds in weight, and the amount of ootton-seed meal which made 
 
 t hem sick was 25.5 pounds. This was 21.4 pounds per LOO pounds live 
 weight, or 0.61 pound daily per LOO pounds live weight. 
 
 The causes of death are regarded by Dinwiddie a>> being both 
 essentia] and contributory, the essential cause being the toxic princi- 
 ple supposed to be present. He describes the immediate cause of 
 death as follows: 
 
 In all our cases the immediate cause of death was obviously asphyxia, doe to 
 pressure on the longs by the dropsical effusion into the pleural cavities. In its 
 final manifestations the disease was an acute dropsy of the pleural and pericar- 
 dia] Baca The congestion of the abdominal organs, and especially of the portal 
 system, can be attributed to obstructed circulation through the collapsed lungs 
 
 damming the blood back in the venous system, and hence a pi "lidary to 
 
 the pleuritic effusion. That this portal engorgement was secondary to the pleural 
 effusion. I infer from the absence of degenerative or other changes in the liver 
 Which could account for it and hum absence of any marked peritoneal effusion. 
 Ascites would be the firjtf result of such extreme portal congestion if it were pri- 
 mary. All of these conditions, however, are necessarily the result of Borne fun- 
 damental cause, the nature of which is yet to be discovered. An acute hydro- 
 thorax and hydrops pericardii, unaccompanied by ascites and without any 
 antecedent pleuritis. is a condition rarely met with in human pathology. Non- 
 inflammatory dropsical effusion maybe due to mechanical obstruction, cardiac 
 disease, degenerative changes in the kidney or liver, or to physical or chemical 
 changes in the blood itself. Neither of the first three can-.-; appears to be in 
 operation here. Further researches will probably show some grave alteration in 
 the composition of the blood as the primary effect of acute cotton-seed meal poi- 
 soning. In hogs, at least, nervous derangements are not manifested, so fai 
 have seen. 
 
 Points thai may in time lead to the discovery of the trouble are 
 that old meal seems to be more fatal than fresh, that COttOU-seed meal 
 is more fatal than COttOU seed in any condition, and that the poison- 
 ous agent is not in the oil. but seems to be entirely left in the cake 
 
 a lml. \. . r6, Arkansas Bxpt Sta, 
 
 / 
 
THE BOG CNDU8TRY. 11 ( .> 
 
 when the oil is expressed. It is also well known t hroughoul I lie Soul li 
 that decomposed cotton Beed lias little, if any, dangerous character, 
 and it has been pretty clearly established by the studies of Curtiss 
 
 and by the experience of practical feeders that the meal La BO changed 
 by tin 1 processes of digestion that hogs following steers which arc 
 being fed a heavy cotton-seed meal ration are not, injured by the 
 droppings. 
 
 Feed'uuj value. — Disregarding, for the moment, the fatal effects of 
 this product, let us consider its feeding value. The results from 
 feeding either the whole grain or the meal have not been uniform, 
 and have given rise to three opinions regarding its value as a pig 
 feed — (1) that it is both worthless and dangerous; (2) that it is only 
 fairly valuable and hardty worth the risk of feeding, and (3) that it 
 is extremely valuable if means can be devised to feed it without fatal 
 results. 
 
 The Kentucky Experiment Station b fed a ration of 1 part cotton- 
 seed meal, 1 part wheat bran, and 2 parts corn-and-cob meal for 
 twenty-eight days, when ship stun replaced the cotton-seed meal, 
 because the pigs refused it, whether fed wet or dry. No fatalities 
 were reported, but the gains were unsatisfactory and the station came 
 to the conclusion that, in Kentucky, "cotton-seed meal could not be 
 fed profitably to hogs, whether for growth or fat." 
 
 Curtis c expresses himself in a similar tone, that, "After two years 
 successive tests in feeding cotton seed and cotton-seed meal to hogs 
 with a definite aim in view, and after practical attempts to use these 
 products in a similar manner for the past ten years, we do not hesi- 
 tate to express our candid opinion that there is no profit whatever in 
 feeding cotton seed in any form or cotton-seed meal to hogs of any 
 a g e . * * * that it is practically impossible to prepare cotton seed 
 or cotton-seed meal in any manner so that hogs will eat it greedily." 
 
 Lloyd's d opinion, from his experience at the Mississippi Station, is 
 somewhat similar. He had losses from raw cotton-seed meal, but 
 none from those getting cooked seed, although these pigs became 
 very sick and refused to eat. His gains were "neither satisfactory 
 nor profitable." With one bunch of pigs the average daily gain was 
 about 1 pound for the first two weeks, after which the gains were 
 small, although the pigs did not lose their appetite and continued to 
 eat with relish. The after effects of feeding in this case were detri- 
 mental, as the pigs never got into good condition. 
 
 At the North Carolina Station, Emery 6 fed an 88-pound pig for 
 sixty-one consecutive days on a cotton-seed meal ration, the amount 
 of cotton-seed meal varying from one-fourth pound daily at the 
 beginning to 2 pounds daily at the close. Skim milk was fed during 
 
 a Bui. No. 28, Iowa Expt. Sta. <* Bui. No. 60. 
 
 8 Bui. No. 19. e Bui. No. 109. 
 
 cBul. No. 21, Texas Expt. Sta. 
 
1 20 Mi; i. \r OF \ mm \ I. in in'- i RV5 . 
 
 the first three weeks and preen feed daring i h<* first Bii weeks. Two 
 pounds «>!' cotton-seed meal daily made the pig sick, and for twenty- 
 two days the meal was dropped from the ration. Then the feed was 
 made one-fourth cotton-seed meal, three-fourths wheat bran, with 12 
 pounds Bkim milk dailj for ten days, after \\ 1 1 i « - 1 1 corn meal was 
 substituted for the cotton-seed meaL The feeding was unprofitable, 
 hut i be pig did not die. 
 
 Amongthe instances where feeding was fairly profitable, the results 
 at tin- N<-w Fork (State) Station ma\ Denoted. The intention was 
 uoi bo uote the effects of cotton-seed meal feeding. Cotton-seed meal 
 in amounts varying from one-thirteenth to three-tenths of the entire 
 ration was fed, with good results, covering periods of from fifty-six to 
 one hundred and thirty-nine days. Two pigs in a lot fed on wet feed 
 were troubled with Indigestion, and after the close of the trial one <>f 
 them died from " congestion oi the Liver, following indigestion." This 
 may have been cotton-seed meal poisoning. The pigs were on a ration 
 in which there was I hree-tenths pound daily for sixty-t hree daj s. 
 
 Cary's* results in Alabama are remarkable because of the Large 
 quantities of cottonseed fed. He conducted three experiments in 
 which cotton seed or cotton-seed meal were fed to L3 pigs. Prom 1.1 
 pounds of crushed cotton seed were w^i per head daily. In two 
 instances cotton-seed meal was fed, bul in small amounts (three- 
 tenths pound daily in one case and three-lift lis pon ml in the other). The 
 receiving cotton-seed meal did not thrive. Losing appetite; one 
 of them received bran, the other corn meal in addition to the cotton- 
 seed meal, and both had green feed. When they were taken from 
 cotton-seed meal and placed on corn and pasture they recovered 
 rapidly. 
 
 In the first tesl the pigS OD crushed cotton seed made fairly g i 
 
 gains. They had some grain in addition, and all received green or 
 succulent \\'i'i\. In the second test :; pigs were \'^^\ rations oi corn 
 meal and crushed cotton seed or ground cowpeas and crushed cotton 
 seed. The rations were heavy — 6 pounds when corn meal was fed 
 and &j pounds when cowpeas were fed; the amount of cotton 
 
 was more than half the ration. Pair gains were made and the after 
 effect does not seem to have been SeriOUS, as the pigs did well when 
 placed on pasture and U'i\ corn. One pig in this lot had crushed COt- 
 !uii seed alone, being fod -4.1 pounds daily. He Lost in weight, but 
 gained in size of frame. When turned on pasture and given corn lie 
 did well. Another pig that had -)\ pounds crushed cotton seed and 
 :;' pounds green rye daily lost 28 pounds in twenty-eight days. After 
 the rye was discontinued the pig failed to thrive, hut recuperated 
 rapidly on past lire with corn. 
 
 In three Oases where •"> pounds Of Crushed cotton seed were \\'<\ 
 
 daily, with ground cowpeas and green ryeorcorn meal and green rye, 
 
 Eleventh and Twelfth An. Rpts. . Alabama Expt Sta. 
 
 
THK BOG LNDUSTBY. 121 
 
 nominal gains were made. N*o disastrous effects followed when green 
 feed was discontinued; subsequent treatment on pasture and corn 
 gave good gains. 
 In a third test 2 pigs were fed for forty-nine days on a daily ration 
 
 of G pounds of separator milk and :>\ pounds crushed cotton seed, 
 then for fifty days on 6 pounds of whole milk and 34 pounds crushed 
 cotton seed. Their appetites failed twice, but they gained slightly in 
 weight. 
 
 The length of time that cotton seed or cotton-seed meal was fed in 
 these experiments was one hundred and five days in the first, ninety- 
 one days in the second, and one hundred and nine days in the third. 
 Although the pigs were occasionally off feed there were no fatalities. 
 
 Duggar's a experiments did not show very favorable results for 
 cotton-seed meal as part of the pig's ration. In no case did the pigs 
 so fed make so great an average daily gain as 1 pound, and the gains 
 were usually expensive, whether the grain was fed alone or with 
 green feed. Rations of corn meal only gave better results. One lot 
 of 2 pigs, averaging 68 pounds, fed a ration of cotton-seed meal one- 
 fifth, corn meal four-fifths, and grazed on sorghum, made an average 
 daily gain of 0.53 pound for thirty-four days, at an outlay of 380 
 pounds of grain for 100 pounds gain. Another, averaging 68 pounds, 
 on the same grain ration, but grazing peanuts, made an average daily 
 gain for thirty-eight days of 0.94 pound, requiring 185 pounds grain for 
 100 pounds gain. Another lot made an average daily gain of 0. 8 pound 
 for twenty-eight days on a ration of cotton-seed meal one-fourth and 
 corn meal three-fourths, requiring 384 pounds grain for 100 pounds 
 gain, while a lot on corn meal only in the same test made an average 
 daily gain of 1.1 pounds, but required 531 pounds grain for 100 pounds 
 gain. Duggar found corn meal alone a more palatable ration than 
 one to which cotton-seed meal had been added, and had difficulty in 
 inducing pigs to eat a full allowance of a cotton-seed meal ration. 
 
 The Kentucky, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma experi- 
 ment stations have published results that show cotton-seed meal to 
 have considerable feeding value for pigs. 
 
 In Kentucky May b fed cotton-seed meal at intervals of one week as 
 part of the ration to 20 grade Berkshire pigs during a three weeks' 
 finishing period with very good results. 
 
 At the Wisconsin Station/ Henry fed two lots of 5 pigs each for 
 thirty-five days on a ration of which one-half pound daily was cotton- 
 seed meal. The feeding was alternated, one lot receiving oil meal 
 while the other had cotton-seed meal. The rest of the grain ration 
 was a mixture of equal parts of wheat shorts and corn meal. Skim 
 milk and whey were fed, and the feeding was done in the fall and 
 
 «Bul. No. 122, Alabama Expt. Sta. c Eleventh An. Rpt. 
 
 b Bui. No. 101, Kentucky Expt. Sta. 
 
122 BUREAU OF ANIMAL QCDUBTRY. 
 
 winter. The pigs were never sick nor off feed, and made their gains 
 economically. The tabulation of results shows thai while on cotton- 
 seed meal the pigs required 5 per cent Less feed than while on oil 
 meal. 
 
 At the I<>\\;i Experiment Station, Curtiss* fed two lots of 3 Poland 
 china pigs each on a ration of corn-and-cob meal, cotton-seed meal, 
 and buttermilk. One lot received one-half pound cotton-seed meal per 
 head daily and the other l pound per head daily. The grain fed 
 was soaked for twelve hours before feeding. Salt and ashes were 
 also given. Everything went well until tin- sixth week, when the 
 droppings of the pigs on the heavj ration became dark in color and 
 somewhat hard. However, the appetite was not affected. The first 
 pig died fifty-one days after feeding commenced, and a second went 
 the day following. Thej had been on the heavy ration, but showed 
 no signs of sickness, and their gains had been steady. Sixty-three 
 days after the start a pig in the lot receiving one-half pound of cot- 
 tonseed meal per head daily died, l>m not without symptoms of 
 trouble. For a day or two before death he had shown a u failing 
 appetite and quickened breathing.' 3 The rest of the pigs in tins lot 
 showed the same symptoms, but survived, although their gains were 
 Light. The station veterinarian could find no assignable cause of 
 death. 
 
 In this experiment the fatal quality of cotton-seed meal seemed to 
 depend, to a certain extent, on tin- quantity fed. The first pigs to 
 die were those in the lots receiving the heavier ration of cotton-seed 
 meal. These pigs also made tin- better gains. 
 
 'Idic Kansas Station b fed 4 small pigs a ration of one-sixth cotton- 
 seed meal and five-sixths corn meal. The meal was stirred in water 
 at feeding time. It was not relished at first, but when it was once eaten 
 rapid gains were made. The first pig died twenty-three days after 
 the feeding began, and "could not have eaten more than 5 pounds of 
 cotton-seed meal altogether," a fact which st-em^ t<> Lessen the weight 
 of the theory that the quantity eaten has an influence on the fatal 
 property of the feed. This pig weighed about L8 pounds at the time 
 of its death. The last pig died on the forty-sixth day of the experi- 
 ment. (See Duggar's experiments, pp. 117, 118.) 
 
 Two sows weighing, respectively, L35 and 308 pounds were pot on a 
 ration of one-fourth cotton-seed meal and three-fourths corn meal for 
 forty-five days; they gained 89 pounds each without signs of poisoning. 
 
 In a second test, 6 pigs that bad been stunted by exclusive corn 
 meal or ground wheat feeding were divided into two Lots of 3 each 
 
 and put on rations composed Of One-fourth COtton-seed meal and three- 
 fourths corn meal for one lot, and equal parts of these meals for the 
 
 other lot. The change of condition is described as " magical " and 
 Bui N &Bol.No.58. 
 
THE EOG IND1STUV. L23 
 
 immediate; the pigs began to gain Inweighl at once, and those receiv- 
 ing the greater amount of cotton-seed meal made the Larger gains. 
 No other feed was given. The first pig died on the forty-fifth day of 
 the experiment, the second on the forty-eighth day, the third on the 
 fifty-third day, and the fourth on the fifty-sixth day from the begin- 
 ning of the cotton-seed meal feeding. Two pigs were left in each lot; 
 they were placed on green oats and then thrived nicely. 
 
 A later bullet in" from the Kansas Station mentions a lot of pigs 
 that had done poorly in another experiment; 1 hey were fed cotton- 
 seed meal, and were "ready for market, well finished, in twenty-two 
 days." At the Kansas Station cotton-seed meal is very highly regarded 
 to put pigs in high condition, if fed for a short time in small quanti- 
 ties. The beginning ration is one-fourth pound cotton-seed meal to 
 each 1,000 pounds live weight per day, which is increased in ten days 
 to make the amount 3 pounds per 1,000 pounds live weight. 6 The 
 meal is mixed with the rest of the grain. 
 
 The Kansas and Iow T a results show that a cotton-seed meal ration is 
 valuable if the cotton-seed meal is used in a moderate amount and 
 for a limited time. The proportions of cotton-seed meal used in the 
 Iowa test were about one-eighteenth and one-ninth of the total grain 
 rations at the start and about one-tenth and one-fifth at the close. Up 
 to the time the pigs began to die the gains of those on the heavier 
 cotton-seed meal ration were the larger and more economical (1.4 
 pounds average daily gain and 343 pounds meal and 250 pounds milk 
 per 100 pounds gain). The lighter ration was about equal in results 
 to one of corn-and-cob meal, gluten meal, and buttermilk, that stood 
 second to the heavy cotton-seed meal ration. The two lots returned 
 in pounds of gain per 100 pounds of dry matter in the feed (before 
 deaths began) 31.1 pounds and 26.4 pounds, respectively, for the pigs 
 on the heavy and the light rations. In the Kansas tests the gains 
 before deaths commenced were also very economical; they varied in 
 cost from considerably less than 300 pounds grain per 100 pounds 
 gain in the case of the pigs that had been previously on the single- 
 grain rations to 350 pounds grain per 100 pounds gain in the case of 
 the sows. 
 
 Pigs following steers on cotton-seed meal. — Evidence of the danger- 
 ous properties of cotton-seed meal for pigs, when they are following 
 steers whose ration is made up wholly or in part of cotton-seed meal, 
 is conflicting. In the Iowa test c a lot of 3 pigs followed steers for 
 seventeen weeks that were receiving from 4 to 7 pounds of cotton- 
 seed meal daily. They had very little feed except what they picked 
 up behind the steers, yet there were no noticeable injurious effects. 
 
 « Bui. No. 95. 
 
 &This is about the ration furnished dairy cow t s in milk. 
 
 ^Bul. No. 28, Iowa Expt.Sta. 
 
1 24 BUBEAtJ OF a mm \ l. in in BTRY. 
 
 The Kansas Station 'states thai the meal used in their earl} experi- 
 ments was shipped in from Texas during the previous winter by a 
 Local feeder, t<> i><- r<-<i to Bteers. 1 Ee turned about W hogs after them, 
 and all died In the course of sii or seven weeks. Considerable evi- 
 dence that pigs ma) not Buffer after steers thai are fed on cotton-seed 
 meal has recently been presented in the columns of the agricultural 
 
 {tie — . 
 
 i in i >KL vim m \ i xri.KiMi.N i-. 
 
 The Oklahoma Station has made an extensive study of the possi- 
 bility of feeding I his by-product bo I hal good pel urns may be obtained 
 with Little <>r do danger from poisoning. The conditions under which 
 ii has been found thai cotton-seed meal maj generally 1m* fed safely 
 are (l) where pigs have access to range and plenty of green pasture, 
 and (2) where periods of cotton-seed meal feeding of three to four 
 weeks' duration without pasture are alternated with a period on pas- 
 tureoron a ration from which the cotton-seed meal has been omitted. 
 
 Following up this system the Oklahoma station has conducted 
 three experiments. In the first trial, in L900, the alternating method 
 was tried with 17 thrifty shoats of various sizes. They were put on a 
 ration composed of one-fifth cotton-seed meal and four-fifths Kafir- 
 corn meal and had the run of a la rge paddock, where they got a little 
 greenstuff. The trial began March. 22. For twenty-seven days the 
 cotton-seed meal ration was \'<'i\\ then for fourteen days Kafir-corn 
 meal alone, next fourteen days on one-fifth cotton-seed meal, and 
 four-fifths Kafir-corn meal, then seven days without the cotton 
 meal, closing with five days on the original rat ion. "None of the pigs 
 had, died, and all made very fair gains on a moderate amount of grain. n 
 
 At the (dose of i his trial part of the pigs were sold and the rest con- 
 tinued on the cotton-seed meal rat ion, with which the trial closed (one- 
 fifth cotton-seed meal and four-fifths Kafir-corn meal). They were fed 
 on this ration without change until July 14 with the loss of l pig only. 
 In the second trial of the same year L6 stunted shoats, about a year 
 old and averaging 79 pounds were used. For twenty-six days from 
 April L2, they were hurdled on wheat and d'd a light ration of one- 
 fifth cotton-seed meal ami four-fifths Kafir-corn meal. There wasno 
 ill effect from the -rain ration. The gains averaged 0.96 pound per 
 
 head daily and were made economically. <>n May 8 the pigs were 
 
 taken from the wheat and fed the same -rain ration in a lot for 
 
 twenty-one days with no serious results making an average daily 
 gain of 1.71 pounds ai the expense of 307 pounds of grain lor loo 
 pounds gain. Five of the Largest were sold after forty-» ven days 
 continuous feeding on a cotton-seed meal ration. 
 
 «Bul. X... 58. An. Kpt.. L900-01. 
 
THE H< HI INDUSTRY. 125 
 
 The ll pigs remaining were then given range and green f<'< i <l and 
 the same grain ration continued. The gains made were satisfactory. 
 There were no losses, and they were sold on .Inly 14, after ninety-three 
 days' continuous feeding on a cotton-seed meal rat ion. 
 
 In 1001, 16 uniform Poland Chiua sheats, farrowed late in the pre- 
 vious fall, were used." The} 7 were about 11 weeks old at the begin- 
 ning of the experiment and averaged about 47 pounds in weight. 
 The experiment began January 11. The pigs were divided into four 
 lots of 4 each. Each lot was given an open pen 9 by 24 feet, and had 
 a space 8 by 8 feet in an inclosed piggery. Cob charcoal, wood ashes, 
 and salt were always accessible; water only was given to drink, and 
 the grain was mixed with water into the form of a thick slop just 
 before feeding. From July 14 to April 1, 2 pounds of sugar beets were 
 allowed each pig daily. The pigs were fed as follows: Lot I received 
 corn meal only to April 5, then a mixture of one-fifth cotton-seed 
 meal and four- fifths corn meal for four weeks, closing with two weeks 
 on corn meal; Lot II received one-third corn meal and two-thirds 
 wheat middlings; Lot III received one-fifth cotton- seed meal and 
 four-fifths corn meal. Lot IV received one-fifth cotton-seed meal 
 and four-fifths corn meal for four weeks, then corn meal for two 
 weeks, next the cotton-seed meal mixture for four weeks, then back 
 to corn meal only for two weeks, and alternating in this manner 
 until the experiment closed. 
 
 The onty signs of lack of appetite were in Lot I, where exclusive 
 corn-meal feeding proved rather severe for such young pigs, and in 
 Lot III, where a dullness of appetite was noticed for about two 
 weeks. This was only temporary. One pig in Lot IV died on Feb- 
 ruary 15, one week after it had been taken from the cotton-seed meal 
 ration and placed on corn meal, and 2 pigs in Lot III died on Feb- 
 ruary 20, after they had been on a cotton-seed meal ration continu- 
 ously for forty days. 6 " No further losses occurred, * * * and the 
 pigs thrived and made good gains." One pig in Lot IV showed 
 symptons of sickness, but recovered. 
 
 After April 5, Lot I was given the same management and feed as 
 Lot IV, but there were no injurious results. On the contrary, their 
 gains increased. This was also noticed with Lot IV. During the 
 periods that the hogs were on a straight corn-meal ration, except dur- 
 ing the closing period, when their greater maturity enabled them to 
 make use of a more carbonaceous ration, the gains were light and 
 expensive, but when the cotton-seed mixture was resumed the gains 
 were large and economical, disregarding the effect of loss by death. 
 
 « An. Rpt.. 1901-02. 
 
 &Din\viddie had a similar experience. See Bui. No. 76, p. 147, Arkansas 
 Expt. Sta. 
 
126 
 
 i:i READ OF ANIMAL INM 3TB1 
 
 The following table shows the results of the one hundred and 
 twenty-six days feeding for the pigs thai survived: 
 
 ling pig* on cdtton-* • d nu al rati 
 
 
 A- 
 
 Nuiii- weigh! 
 nary n. 
 
 weight 
 
 1 'on mis. 
 
 
 
 amount 
 
 per 100 *** i,I M,r 
 
 Lot 1: I '■.!,,, ,1s. 
 
 
 I'on nils 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 .lid rs. 
 
 D in. -ill ID 
 
 125 
 
 
 
 
 470 :.\»;i 
 
 Lot II: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m meal i 1 
 
 Wheat middling f. J 
 
 »•-. 
 
 l'.H 
 
 146 
 
 LI.". 
 
 
 
 
 Lot III: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ootton-eeedmoal 
 ■n meal i | 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 LOT 
 
 
 
 
 Lot IV: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Alternate i 
 
 3 
 
 ii 
 
 178 
 
 184 
 
 LOB 
 
 
 368 
 
 
 Burtis and Malone suggesl that had the cotton-seed meal lots been 
 running on greeu pasture from the beginning of the experiment n< 
 Losses would have occurred. They also suggest the probability thai 
 a ration of one-tenth to one-fifth cotton-seed meal may be fed for an 
 Indefinite time if pigs have the run of green pasture. 
 
 THK ARKANSAS EXPERIMENTS. 
 
 In addition to throwing Light on the pathological features of cotton- 
 seed poisoning, Dinwiddie lias corroborated the results of those sta- 
 tions, which have shown that, when properly fed, cotton-seed meal is 
 a valuable pig feed, if Losses can be avoided. In the experiments in 
 which all the pigs died, Lot I received a ration of cotton-seed meal l 
 part and corn chops 3 parts; Lot II received cotton-seed meal 1 part, 
 and corn meal 3 parts, with roots; Lot III received cotton-seed meal 1 
 part and wheat bran 3 parts, and Lot [V received bran l part and corn 
 Chops 3 parts. There were three pie;s in each pen, and feeding began 
 January l. L9Q2. The pigs were confined in pens with an open shed 
 tor shelter, were watered and \\'i\ t wiee daily, ami had a mixture of 
 hard-wood ashes and salt supplied constantly. The results are tabu- 
 lated as follows: 
 
 ling pigs on cottonseed meal rai 
 
 Number 
 
 ofdaye Eaten ,.; U \ T '" . dailvto 
 untilfirst'perhead . '> ' ' initial 
 
 death. ne * a 
 
 Lot 
 
 Lot I 
 
 Lot ill 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 I 
 
 L6 
 
 l ■> 
 
 Dailv 
 
 Initial ','; l 1 , i: T . gatato 
 weighl ! initial 
 
 Founds. 
 
 41 
 
 Pound*, 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 8.1 
 LI 
 
 "Bui. No. Sta. 
 
THE HOG [NDUSTRY. 
 
 L27 
 
 Dinwiddie points out particularly thai a corn-meal and cotton-seed- 
 meal ration, which one would naturally selecl as giving the proper 
 proportions between nitrogenous and carbohydrate constituents, 
 proved the most fatal in his experiments, and that tin* bran and cot- 
 ton-seed meal ration, the most nitrogenous of the three, required the 
 most time for the dangerous property to asserl itself. Contrary to 
 what one would expect from the Oklahoma results, roots did not have 
 so good an effect as the wheat bran. 
 
 The pigs received from 0.64 to 0.8 pound of cotton seed per head 
 daily, which was from 1.5 to 1.6 per cent of their initial body weight. 
 The first death occurred in the case of the pigs on corn and cotton- 
 seed meal thirty-five days after the feeding commenced, an average 
 of 23 pounds cotton-seed meal being eaten per head. In the case of 
 the pigs fed corn, cotton-seed meal, and roots, the first death was 
 forty days after the beginning, an average per head of 25 pounds of 
 cotton-seed meal being eaten. The first death in the case of the pigs 
 on bran and cotton-seed meal occurred sixty-one days after the begin- 
 ning, 45 pounds of cotton-seed meal being eaten per head. Up to the 
 time of death the gains of the pigs on cotton-seed meal were as good 
 or better than those of the pigs on corn chops and bran (Lot IV). 
 
 Following the experiment in which all the pigs on cotton-seed meal 
 died, Dinwiddie a fed 4 native pigs, averaging about 50 pounds in 
 weight, on various rations, cotton-seed meal being a prominent factor, 
 constituting one-fourth of the ration. Turnips were fed for eighty 
 days, after winch rye, oats, and alfalfa were given for two months. 
 The pigs were fed from Februaty 26 to November 6, 1902. Onlj 7 1 
 received cotton-seed meal throughout the experiment, and for a small 
 part of the time none was given to it. The other pigs received rations 
 of equal parts of bran and corn meal or ear corn after being taken 
 from the cotton-seed-meal ration. 
 
 Dinwiddie presents the following tabulation of the results of this 
 experiment: 
 
 Feeding pigs on cotton-seed meal rations. 
 
 Designation of pig. 
 
 N umber 
 of days 
 fed cotton- 
 seed meal. 
 
 Weight of 
 
 cotton- 
 seed meal 
 eaten. 
 
 Weight of 
 cotton-seed 
 meal eaten 
 daily in first 
 period (80 
 days). 
 
 Daily con- 
 sumption of 
 cotton-seed 
 
 meal to in- 
 itial weight. 
 
 Weight of 
 cotton-seed 
 meal eaten 
 daily in sec- 
 ond period 
 (59 days). 
 
 Weight of 
 cotton-seed 
 meal eaten 
 daily for re- 
 mainder of 
 test. 
 
 A . 
 
 139 
 
 248 
 198 
 198 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 80 
 
 242 
 
 137 
 
 137 
 
 Pound?. 
 0.58 
 .58 
 .58 
 
 .58 
 
 Per cent. 
 1.4 
 1.4 
 1.4 
 1.4 
 
 Pounds. 
 o0.55 
 .55 
 .55 
 
 .55 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 B 
 
 b\ 5 
 
 C 
 
 c\ 
 
 D 
 
 c\ 
 
 
 
 a Decrease probably due to a lar-er supply of green feed. 
 b One hundred days. (Cotton-seed meal 1. corn meal 3.) 
 c Fifty-nine days. 
 
 A third test a was made in which rations of cotton-seed meal 1 part 
 and bran 3 parts and cotton-seed meal 1 part and wheat chops 3 parts 
 
 fl Bui. No. 76, Arkansas Expt. Sta. 
 
L28 
 
 i:i 1:1 \r OF \.M\l \l. [NDU8TBY. 
 
 were fed. The former ration was fed for ninety-five days to 6 pigs, 
 which averaged about 50 pounds in weight. The latter was given for 
 ninety- nine days to I Tamwortfa pigs, averaging about 50 pounds in 
 weight. The following table shows the results: 
 
 / ■'. i ding pigs on cotton-* • drtm ol rations. 
 
 ■ Ion. 
 
 Num- 
 ber «'f 
 
 Tun.' ted 
 
 cotton- 
 
 seed 
 
 in. -ai 
 
 amounl 
 
 COttOll- 
 
 ■eed 
 meal 
 
 .•at. -ii. 
 
 ■ 
 amount 
 cotton- 
 seed meal 
 :. dur- 
 ing Aral 
 month. 
 
 bton- 
 seed meal 
 esti- 
 
 1 ini- 
 tial body 
 ight 
 
 amotmt 
 
 • .n- 
 seed meal 
 
 daily 
 
 • first 
 month. 
 
 tton- 
 
 • ii. -ill 
 daily 
 
 (In:- 
 
 i me*] 1. 
 
 6 
 4 
 
 06 
 00 
 
 M 
 
 scb. 
 0.4 
 
 10 
 
 nds. 
 
 1'onnds. 
 
 Cotton-seed meal l. 
 
 wheat chops -i 
 
 ■' Firs! half <>f period. 
 
 
 There were no Losses from these rations, and the pi.L r > made small 
 gains. 
 
 Effect of cottonseed meal on pregnant sows. — Dinwiddie* fed a 
 native SOW carrying her third litter on a ration of cotton-seed meal 1 
 part and bran .'5 parts for eighty days before farrowing. She ate a 
 total amount of 1 12 pounds of cotton-seed meal, which was L.39 pounds 
 daily and 0.8 per cent of the estimated initial body weight. The 
 ration agreed with her and there appeared i«> be no harmful effects on 
 the fetal liner, it being farrowed safely, with no stillbirths. 
 
 . ct of crucU cotton oU. — Dinwiddie fed •'{ pigs on a rat ion of corn 
 meal 1 part, wheal bran 2 parts, and crude cotton oil 0.1 to 0.4 part. 
 The amounl of cotton oil fed (estimating the fat content of cotton 
 meal at L4 percent) was equivalent to that contained in from 0.25 to 
 L8 pounds of cotton-seed meal, the smaller amount having proved 
 fatal in the Arkansas results, already discussed. These pigs were on 
 the cotton-oil ration one hundred and forty-four days. The amount 
 of oil fed for the entire time to each pig was 21 pounds, equivalent to 
 L50 pounds of cotton-seed meal. The average daily amount of oil 
 consumed varied from 0.06 pound (meal equivalent, 0.4 pound ) to 0.24 
 pound (meal equivalent, 1.6 pounds). The average daily amount of 
 oil fed for the entire test was 0.14 pound (meal equivalent, l pound). 
 r ldie pigs made an average daily gain of 0.6 pound, and suffered no 
 serious effects from the oil. 
 
 / 's, of cotton-set d meal in fh< fi > d lot. —The ase of cotton-seed meal 
 in the feed lot must be very carefully guarded, especially until the 
 conditions under which it may be used without danger and the cir- 
 cumstances which govern the demonstration of its poisonous proper- 
 ties are more thoroughly understood. The feeding of the cotton-seed 
 meal which the South produces is one of the ureal" st problems of agri- 
 
 ■■■ Bui. No. 76, Arkansas Expt. Sta. 
 
THE BOG INIM'STKY. 129 
 
 culture in thai seel ion yet to be solved satisfactorily. [t is not diffi- 
 cult to appreciate whal maybe gained if some of this by-product, 
 which has such high feeding and fertilizing value, and which is 
 exported in such enormous quantities, can be converted into pork 
 products, which are now largely imported from other Stales. 
 
 PACKING-HOUSE PRODUCTS. 
 
 The frugality of the modern meat packer has become almost pro- 
 verbial. Less than twenty years ago the disposal of the offal of slaugh- 
 tering was a problem, but at present there is very little waste, and the 
 packer has actually come to regard the by-products as the principal 
 source of profit in his business. The preparation of these by-products 
 for use as animal feed is one of the later developments of this branch 
 of the industry. Fertilizers have long been prominent in the sales, 
 the material that enters into their composition being meat scraps, 
 blood, bone, hair, intestinal contents, etc. The use of tankage, a by- 
 product that has had its sale entirely as a fertilizer, is growing among 
 pig feeders, and has been studied by Plumb and Yan Norman at the 
 Indiana Station, and by Kennedy and Marshall at the Iowa Station. 
 Beef meal is also a packing-house product, whose feeding value was 
 studied along with that of tankage in the Iowa experiment. 
 
 Character of packing-house by-products. — Plumb and Yan Xorman a 
 state that tankage may contain scraps of meat, intestines, and their 
 contents, hair, etc. It is classed as concentrated and crushed tankage. 
 Concentrated tankage is not used for animal food. Crushed tankage 
 is said to be of several grades, being graded according to the ammonia 
 and phosphoric-acid content, although it is probable that the tankage 
 graded as No. 1 is free from the contents of intestines- 
 Kennedy and Marshall 6 used two brands of tankage made by Chicago 
 packers. One of these is described as follows : 
 
 Digester tankage is made from, meat scraps, fat trimmings, and scrap bones. 
 These are taken up as fast as taken from the animals and put into a large steel 
 tank and cooked under a live steam pressure of 40 pounds to the square inch, 
 which cooks out the tallow. After the steam is turned off it is allowed to settle, 
 when the grease rises to the top and is drawn off. After the grease is drawn off 
 the tankage is kept agitated, and by evaporation the water is extracted until the 
 tankage contains about 8 per cent moisture. It is then taken out of the tank, 
 allowed to cool, is ground, and stored ready for shipment. This tankage is sup- 
 posed to contain about 60 per cent protein and 10 per cent fat. 
 
 The manufacture of the other tankage is thus described : 
 This product, like the one just described, is made from meat scraps, scrap bones, 
 eta Quoting the words of the manufacturer, it is as follows: u Tankage is the 
 product which drops to the bottom in our rendering tanks when we are rendering 
 out grease, tallow, etc., at our various packing houses. It has been thoroughly 
 cooked iinder 40 pounds pressure for several hours, which thoroughly destroys 
 any disease germs which might possibly be in the raw meat. This product is 
 
 «Bul. No. 90, Indiana Expt. Sta. & Bui. No. 65, Iowa Expt. Sta. 
 
 8396— No. 47—04 9 
 
L30 
 
 BUREAU 01 ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 
 
 ■ \ and then dried In steam driers at a high temperature. Ir Is then ground 
 and shipped In LOO and 300 pound Backs." 
 
 The beef meal, used in the [owa test, is described a^ follows: 
 
 This product is made From scraps of meal and bone from which the groaoo has 
 ctracted and the liquors concentrated by cooking. These are then pn 
 dried, and ground in preparation for the market, [tis claimed to contain from 40 
 nt of protein. 
 
 Analyses of packing housi by-products. — The analysis of tankage 
 reported by ih<- [ndiana station Is as follows: 
 
 Per ■•<.nt. 
 Moisture 
 Protein 19.81 
 
 Ether extract 
 
 Crude fiber 
 
 Nitrogen free extract 
 
 Ash 15.94 
 
 100 
 
 The Iowa Station analyses, Including thai of the corn meal used, 
 
 ar<- as follows: 
 
 Analyses off* eding stuffs. W& ms.) " 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Corn meal. 
 Beef meal - 
 
 Tan k 1 1 
 
 Do 
 
 Water. 
 
 Ash. Protein, 
 
 /'. ro nt . /'. r i • nt. /'< ret nt. 
 LI. 06 
 6.10 
 
 9.06 
 
 1.66 
 16.60 
 12.85 
 
 Crud. «* 
 
 tract. 
 
 fiber. 
 
 ■ 
 6L10 
 80.10 10.80 
 
 15.60 
 
 Ether 
 
 16.80 
 
 11. To 
 
 "Bui. No. fM. Iowa Expt. Sta. 
 
 F> < ding tankagi in a corn-im "I ration. — In the Indiana : ' experiment 
 16 young pigs were fed bo determine the value of tankage. The pigs 
 Were purebred Poland chinas and Berkshires. There were 1 Lots, 2 
 of each breed in each lot. The tankage was specially prepared by the 
 packers who furnished it to the experiment station, and was "made 
 from hones and meat taken from the cutting room, tanked immedi- 
 ately, and pressed and dried." 
 
 The conditions of the experiment were equal for all lots: all bad an 
 opportunity for getting exercise and each lot was in a separate Lnclos- 
 nre. There was do sickness and Lot III was the only one Bhowing 
 lack of appetite at any time. The pigs were \'<-<\ a-* follows: Lot I. 10 
 parts corn meal and l part tankage; Lot II, 5 parts corn meal and l 
 pari tankage; Lot III. corn meal; Lot IV, L0 parts of a mixture of 
 equal parts of corn meal and shorts and l part tankage. 'The U-i^l was 
 weighed out and then mixed with tepid water in the proportion of 
 about 2 parts of water to l part of (<-<<\. a slop of medium thinness 
 being made. Bach lot of pigs had access to ashes and salt. The 
 
 a BnJ towa Bxpt. Sta, 
 
 BnL No. 90, [ndiana Bxpt Sta, 
 
TH>: HtXJ INDlsTRY. 
 
 131 
 
 of feed used was as follows: Com meal, $20 per ton; shorts, $16 per 
 ton; tankage, $30 per ton. 
 
 At the Iowa station" five Lots of 6 pigs each, averaging 205 pounds, 
 were fed for forty-nine days, to note the value of packing-house prod- 
 ucts. "Each lot contained 3 crossbred Poland China-Yorkshires, 
 2 Poland China-Duroc Jerseys, and 1 Poland China-Berkshire." Corn 
 was used as the basis of comparison and the pigs were fed as follows: 
 Lot I received corn meal alone; Lot II received about 5 parts of corn 
 meal and 1 part of beef meal; 6 Lot III received about 5 parts of corn 
 meal and 1 part of digester tankage; Lot IV received about 5 parts of 
 corn meal and 1 part of tankage. 
 
 The market prices of the corn meal and tankage are given as 
 follows: Corn meal, $22 per ton; digester tankage, 832 per ton; 
 tankage, 825 per ton. 
 
 The Iowa pigs were shipped to Chicago and the lots were sold 
 separately. They brought $7.55, the extreme top of the market for 
 the day of sale. 
 
 The following table shows the results of these experiments : 
 
 Tankage in a corn-meal ration for pigs. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Aver 
 
 Num- : age 
 ber weight Total 
 of at be- 
 pigs. | gin- 
 ning. 
 
 Feed per 100 
 pounds gain. 
 
 Cost per 
 
 100 
 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 Indiana: 
 
 Corn meal 10. . . 
 
 Tankagel 
 
 Corn meal 5 
 
 Tankagel 
 
 Corn meal 
 
 Corn meal and 
 
 shorts 10 
 
 Tankagel. 
 
 Iowa: 
 
 Corn meal 
 
 Corn meal and 
 digester tank- 
 age 
 
 Corn meal 
 
 Tankage. 
 
 Dollars. 
 3.80 
 
 4.00 
 5.20 
 
 3.60 
 
 5.10 
 
 4.50 
 4.90 
 
 These experiments seem to show that tankage has a great deal of 
 value for balancing a pig's ration. 
 
 In the Indiana test the use of tankage lessened the amount of grain 
 required per 100 pounds gain from 203 pounds to 175 pounds — from 
 38.9 to 33.5 per cent — showing tankage to be very profitable with the 
 prices that were charged for grain in this instance. 
 
 « Bui. No. 65. 
 
 & One lot of pigs in this experiment were fed to note the value of condimental 
 feeds. (See pp. 133, 134 for the results.) 
 
132 
 
 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDI STRY. 
 
 silkier coats, and ate 
 The oorn-fed lot was 
 
 Ln the Iowa test L40 pounds and 96 pounds, respectively, were saved 
 i»\ the use of tankage 30.4 and 20.8 percent nol so good a record 
 as obtained in Indiana. The difference between the money cost per 
 LOO pounds <>f the oorn-fed and tankage-fed Lots was also much Less 
 than in Indiana. 
 
 The condition of the pigs in the Indiana test was remarked upon. 
 The tankage-fed pigs handled better, had fine 
 with much more relish than those <>n corn alone 
 conspicuous by reason of its poor condition. 
 
 At the conclusion of their experiments, Plumb and Van Norman 
 gave tin- pigs that had been <>n corn meal a ration of 5 parts of corn 
 meal and l part tankage \'o\- forty-nine days. There was immediate 
 improvement in their appetites, the hair softened, and the skin handled 
 better. There was a marked improvement in growth, which con- 
 trasted Btrongly with the gains made while on corn meal only. 
 
 Experimenters caution stockmen to use that tankage only which 
 has been specially prepared for feeding purposes. 
 
 Beef meal in a corn meal rut ton. — The results of the lot of pigs that 
 were fed beef meal at the Lowa Station are compared below with those 
 on corn meal. The price of the beef meal used in this test was $22 
 
 per ton. 
 
 Beef mail in <> cortirmeal rut ion for pigs. 
 
 
 Num- 
 ber 
 
 Average 
 weight 
 
 Total 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 
 Feed eaten. 
 
 i per 100 
 pounds gain. 
 
 perlOD 
 
 
 of 
 
 pigs. 
 
 at begin- 
 ning. 
 
 gain. 
 
 davs 
 fed. 
 
 dailv 
 
 gain. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Beef 
 
 meal. 
 
 Grain 
 
 IHUHKLS 
 
 gain. 
 
 Corn meal.. 
 
 6 
 
 Lbs. 
 197 
 
 197 
 
 Lbs. 
 596 
 
 7i '7 
 
 49 
 49 
 
 U.S. 
 
 8.40 
 
 Lb*. 
 8,741 
 
 
 
 Urn. 
 
 m 
 
 DoO*. 
 
 :>.i" 
 
 Corn meelSparta, 
 
 beef meal 1 part. 
 
 4.80 
 
 Beef meal, like tankage, seems to be valuable in the pig's ration. 
 The amount of grain saved per 100 pounds gain by the use of beef 
 
 meal was 1 16 pounds, or 24.9 per cent. 
 
 8UGAE BY-PRODUCTS. 
 
 /" ding beet molasses. — Clinton fed 5 pigs averaging s 7 pounds <>n 
 a ration <>f corn meal 8 pounds, beet molasses L2 pounds, and >kim 
 milk 20 pounds. " This quantity was given in two daily feeds, and 
 the pi.u r > apparently did not relish the molasses, yet they ate it." 
 Three days after feeding commenced they ate the morning feed well, 
 
 but within an hour 1 pig was dead and another died a few hours 
 later. Postmortem examination indicated poisoning. The surviving 
 pigs were then placed on a corn meal and milk ration, but made 
 expensive gains, the cause assigned being the effect of molasses 
 feeding. 
 
 "13ul. No. LW, Cornell dniv. Expt. Sta. 
 
THE HOG INDUSTRY. 
 
 133 
 
 This experiment had results similar to those of German investi- 
 gators with beet molasses. It may be that this by-product is not a 
 safe feed for pigs. However, oilier molasses by-products in sugar 
 production, such as cane molasses, are valuable for feeding horses, 
 cattle, and sheep, and many farmers value highly the "skimmings" 
 from sorghum vats as a fattening feed for pigs. There are very few 
 experimental data on the feeding value of the by-products from sugar 
 refining. 
 
 CONDIMENTAL FEEDS. 
 
 Two experiments are noted which deal with the value of condi- 
 mental stock feeds in pork production. These feeds have quite gen- 
 eral use over the country, and, on account of strict legislative regula- 
 tions and the supervision and analyses by the experiment stations, 
 they are generally of high feeding value, having a high nutrient con- 
 tent. They are prepared with palatability in view and often contain 
 some harmless drug that increases the attractiveness of the feed and 
 may have a good effect on the digestive functions. They are thus 
 frequently found valuable where animals are being crowded or are 
 suffering from the effects of improper feeding. Oil meal usually 
 forms the basis of these feeds and is supplemented by bran, bean 
 meal, cotton-seed meal, ginger, fenugreek, etc. These feeds range in 
 price per ton from $30 to $500. The manufacturers generally direct 
 that they be used in very small amounts. 
 
 Feeding experiments. — At the Indiana Station Plumb a fed two lots 
 of 4 pigs each to determine the value of American stock food. The 
 pigs were gilts, four months old. There were 3 Poland Chinas and 1 
 Chester White in each lot. The experiment lasted one hundred and 
 twenty-two days. Lot I was fed a mixture of equal parts of shorts 
 and hominy feed and a small amount of American stock food; Lot II 
 received the same ration without the stock food. At the Iowa Station 
 Kennedy and Marshall 6 fed two lots of 5 crossbred pigs each averag- 
 ing 205 pounds. One lot on corn meal and Standard stock food was 
 compared with a lot on corn meal alone. The following are the 
 results of the two tests: 
 
 Feeding pigs ivith and ivithout stock food. 
 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 pigs. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 weight 
 at be- 
 gin- 
 ning. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Num- 
 ber 
 of 
 days 
 fed. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 daily- 
 gain. 
 
 Feed eaten. 
 
 Feed per 100 
 pounds gain. 
 
 Cost 
 per 100 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 Profit 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Stock 
 food. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Stock 
 food. 
 
 per 
 Pig. 
 
 Indiana: 
 
 Stock food 
 
 No stock food. 
 Iowa: 
 
 Stock food.... 
 
 No stock food. 
 
 Lbs. 
 4 
 4 
 
 5 
 5 
 
 Lbs. 
 66 
 65 
 
 197 
 
 197 
 
 Lbs. 
 682 
 689 
 
 655 
 596 
 
 122 
 122 
 
 49 
 49 
 
 Lbs. 
 1.42 
 1.43 
 
 2.23 
 
 2.08 
 
 Lbs. 
 2,547 
 
 2,581 
 
 2,858 
 
 2,747 
 
 Lbs. 
 64 
 
 14 
 
 Lbs. 
 373 
 375 
 
 436 
 461 
 
 Lbs. 
 9.38 
 
 2.14 
 
 Dolls. 
 3.00 
 2.60 
 
 5.00 
 5.10 
 
 Dolls. 
 c9.66 
 ^13.94 
 
 2.64 
 2.39 
 
 a Bui. No. 93. 
 
 ft Bui. No. 65. 
 
 c Profit per lot. 
 
i:;i 
 
 BUREAU OF animal INDUSTRY. 
 
 The Indiana results show that nothing was gained by the use of 
 
 the prepared feed; in fact, there was indicated a decided disadvan- 
 
 as more feed was required per LOO pounds of gain and the profits 
 
 were \«-iv much Leas than with the lot not having the prepared feed. 
 
 The [owa results show a saving in cost of 10 cents per LOO pounds 
 gain for the pigs receiving Standard stock food and a del profit per pig 
 of -•"• cents in favorof I ids lot as compared \\ i 1 b pigs onicorn meal alone. 
 Ii is needless to point out that the results of these/two experiments 
 Bhould not be too closely compared. In addition bo the stock food 
 given one lot, all the Indiana pigs were on a mixed ration; whereas 
 in tin- Iowa tost the stock food was the only variation from corn 
 meal that was permitted. The results from adding any palatable feed 
 to a straight corn-meal ration will be greater than the addition of the 
 Same <>!• a similar feed to a mixed fat ion, because in tin- one case vari- 
 ety is the greatest necessity of the ration, while in tin- other it is 
 already present. The same, if not very much better, results would 
 have been seen had pigs on a ration of corn meal and green or suc- 
 culent feed or dairy by-products been compared with pigs on a ration 
 of corn meal only; and oil meal would probably have had a similar 
 effect. While some of the difference in results may have been due to 
 a difference in the quality of the two stock foods, it would naturally 
 be expected that not onty a better showing in rate and economy of 
 gain for the stock food when conditions resemble those of the Iowa 
 i<-st would be made, but it would also be expected that there would be 
 a relatively greater showing from the standpoint of total feed eaten. 
 Both of these results are manifest; indeed, in the Indiana test the 
 stock food seems to have had no effect whatever on the appetite. 
 
 Plumb" mentions a test by a student at Purdue University where 
 Kauh's stock food was fed to 3 pigs for thirty-live days, after which 
 they received Standard stock food for forty-nine days. They had 
 equal pads of corn meal and shorts, and were compared with a lot of 
 3 pigs On coin meal and shorts only. There was a total gain of 2.5 
 pounds in favor of the prepared food first mentioned. The total 
 balance was 21 pounds of gain in favor of the condimenial feed. 
 The results were as follows: 
 
 /■'. i ding pigs with and without stock food. 
 
 Ration 
 
 Average 
 weight 
 ;it begin- 
 ning. 
 
 Total 
 
 gain. 
 
 X u n 
 
 ber 
 of 
 
 Av.-r 
 
 daily 
 
 eaten. 
 
 Peed p 
 pounds 
 
 per l'"' 
 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 Total 
 
 Grain. 
 
 St.M'k 
 
 Grain. 
 
 si.K-k 
 
 profit 
 
 Stock t 1 
 
 NO St.x-k f«M»«l 
 
 68 
 
 J',,u,t<ls 
 
 
 Bound*. 
 
 l :.t 
 l i:, 
 
 /'..)', Ills. 
 
 1,858 
 
 1 . B86 
 
 LOO 
 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 B60 
 
 
 Dollar*. 
 
 4. l-.l 
 
 Dollar*. 
 I H 
 
 .; .50 
 
 [ndiana Expt Sta, 
 
THE HOG I mm BTR1 . LOO 
 
 These reYolts favor the stock food in aboul the same proportion as 
 in the IowaYest. 
 
 DAIRY BY-PRODUCTS. 
 
 The use of the by-products of the dairy and creamery (skim milk, 
 buttermilk, and whey) is one of the most interesting subjects of 
 study in pork production. The value of the milk is known on every 
 farm, although it may Dot !>»' fully appreciated, and anyone who has 
 fed pigs knows tin 4 keen appetite that these animals have for milk 
 and its products. In the neighborhood of many large dairies pork 
 production has become a very prominent and lucrative branch of the 
 dairy industry. 
 
 Regarding solely their chemical composition, the by-products of 
 the dairy contain most of the indispensable feeding constituents of 
 the milk from which they are produced. 
 
 The residue from the separation of cream (skim milk) and that 
 from churning (buttermilk) leave two products that contain practi- 
 cally all the protein and carbohydrates of the whole milk. In cheese 
 making, the whey that is left is the least valuable of the dairy 
 by-products, the greater part of the casein and fat of the milk being 
 retained in the cheese. While whey is by no means worthless for 
 feeding purposes, it can readily be seen that if skim milk and butter- 
 milk have higher feeding values for pigs than whey, butter making 
 and pig feeding will more profitably accompany each other than will 
 cheese making and pig feeding. These bj^-products supply growing 
 material to young animals and provide an excellent nitrogenous 
 balance in the fattening ration. The constituents that remain in the 
 milk after skimming and churning are the most expensive ones, con- 
 sidered from the standpoint of feeding and fertilizing value, and it is 
 largely due to this fact that dairy farming is so often a profitable 
 business when conducted in a thorough manner. 
 
 The value of dairy by-products is not alone in their nitrogenous 
 character. They have an effect on the digestion that brings results 
 out of all proportion to their nutritive value. Where pigs have been 
 for a long time on a monotonous ration, such as corn meal alone, they 
 lose appetite, become listless, and sick, and so make very unsatis- 
 factory gains. If skim milk is given, even in very small amounts, 
 an immediate change for the better is noticed — appetite returns and 
 the pigs begin to gain rapidly in weight. As already stated, the gain 
 in weight is out of all proportion to the actual amount of nutrient 
 material in the milk, and this peculiarity has been remarked upon, 
 not only when pigs are fed as indicated above, but also when pigs are 
 fed a varied grain ration and skim milk in comparison with others 
 on the grain ration only. Just why dairy by-products have this 
 effect is not exactly known, but the suggestion has been made that 
 
L36 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDU8TBY. 
 
 ili.-\ keep the digestive system in better order, and thus enable the 
 animal actually to digest a greater percentage of his feed. The same 
 fact has been noticed when roots and green feed are fed. Pasturing 
 on rape, alfalfa, <>!• th<- grasses probably has a similar effect. 
 
 The effect of dairy by-products on the carcass i*> oneof the most 
 Important results <>f such feeding. Ii is generally admitted that, 
 while excellent hams ;ui<1 hat-on may be produced without dairy 
 by-products, the use of these by-products will result in pork of a 
 more nearly uniform high quality. 
 
 NIK ll.KMV. VALUE OF DAIRY BY-PRODUCTS, 
 
 Comparing grain and milk rations iviih rations of grain atom <iml 
 milk alone, — Linfield* reports the results of a series of investigations 
 at the I'tali station. In all, seven distinct experiments are given. 
 Except in one experiment, the pigs were confined <>n the north side of 
 a barn, were furnished plenty <»r bedding, and allowed a small run. 
 When grain alone was fed it was mixed with water to form a thin slop. 
 and when milk was fed with grain it was mixed in the same manner. 
 The milk was never given sour. The hogs had access to pure water. 
 had charcoal and ashes in the pens, and were fed twice daily. These 
 experiments were conducted primarily with the object of comparing 
 the value of feeding a combination of grain and skim milk with both 
 grain alone and skim milk alone. They varied somewhat in details. 
 and some difficulty seems to have been experienced in obtaining as 
 much milk as the circumstances required. 
 
 The grain was fed in various combinations with the milk, and was 
 usually that which was available in that section for feeding purposes. 
 Ii consisted of equal parts of barley and bran, corn and wheat, wheat 
 and bran, and corn meal and bran, and in t wo experiments ground 
 wheat. Whey was fed in the fifth, sixth, and seventh experiments; 
 ii formed not over l_ percent of the by-product in the* fifth, but was 
 as much as W percenl in the last two. it was a matter of remark 
 that the results i;i these experiments were fully equal t<> those where 
 skim milk was fed throughout the entire feeding period, winch shows 
 that whey has quite a high feeding value/' The quantity of skim 
 milk in the lots fed milk and grain in comparison with grain alone 
 oi- milk alone varied from I to 6 pounds of milk per pound of grain 
 fed at the beginning of the experiment, the amount of milk being 
 gradually decreased with the age and weight of the pigs. The pigs 
 ih<'<l were well bred, usually being Berkshires, Berkshire grades, or 
 Poland China grades. The following table is a summary of these 
 experiments. 
 
 .:. N<>. 57. 
 
 • Ontario Agricultural College experiments with Bweet and bout whey, 
 
 PI-. t »;. l iv 
 
T1IK HOG INDUS'! \[\ . 
 
 137 
 
 Economy of 8kim-milk feeding. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Milk and grain 
 
 Grain 
 
 Milk 
 
 Number 
 of tests. 
 
 Number 
 of pigs. 
 
 Average 
 weight at 
 beginning. 
 
 l'oii mix. 
 40 
 63 
 
 Average 
 gain. 
 
 /'oil II ( Is. 
 
 no 
 
 74 
 
 Number 
 of days 
 
 fed. 
 
 L33 
 
 121 
 108 
 
 Average 
 daily gain. 
 
 /'omuls. 
 1.27 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Milk and grain. 
 
 Grain 
 
 Milk 
 
 Feed eaten per Dry mat 
 100 pounds gain, ter per 
 100 
 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Pounds 
 292 
 
 470 
 
 Milk. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 3.312 
 
 Pounds. 
 334 
 421 
 
 Diges- 
 tible dry 
 matter 
 per 100 
 pounds 
 gam. 
 
 Pounds. 
 258 
 319 
 
 100 
 
 pounds 
 milk 
 equal 
 
 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 Pounds. 
 23.2 
 
 14.2 
 
 Average amount 
 
 feed eaten per 
 
 day. 
 
 Grain. Milk 
 
 Pounds. 
 9.74 
 
 a Bui. No. 57, Utah Expt. Sta. 
 
 These results indicate that, in rate of gain, an average of eight tests 
 with a grain-and-milk ration shows gains made one-third faster than 
 in five tests with grain alone, and nearly twice as rapidly as in four 
 tests with milk alone. The least amount of dry matter required for 
 100 pounds of gain was that with the pigs on milk alone, but the pigs 
 on grain and milk required the least digestible dry matter per 100 
 pounds gain. The returns from skim-milk feeding are estimated by 
 Linfield at 17 cents per 100 pounds of skim milk when grain and 
 milk were fed and 10 cents per 100 pounds of skim milk when milk 
 alone was fed, grain being valued at 75 cents per 100 pounds. 
 
 These experiments show that pigs fed on grain and milk are enabled 
 to eat much more feed than those on grain alone; those on grain and 
 milk ate 4.21 pounds of dry matter per head daily; the pigs on grain 
 alone 3 ; 93 pounds of dry matter per head daily, and the daily average 
 of the pigs on milk alone was only 2 pounds of dry matter. This is 
 a point of great importance, and, with the figures showing rate and 
 economy of gains, illustrates the fact that skim milk fed to pigs with 
 grain enables them to eat more feed and to make more gain than pigs 
 on grain alone. 
 
 The unsatisfactory character of the gains made by the pigs on skim 
 milk alone is very apparent. This method of feeding should never 
 be resorted to. 
 
 Com and dairy byproducts. — At the Tennessee Station Soule and 
 Fain a fed four lots of pigs to compare a corn-meal and water ration 
 with others, in which skim milk and whey were used. The pigs were 
 high-grade Chester Whites and were confined in pens. The rations 
 were as follows: Lot I was fed 6 pounds of corn meal and 10 pounds 
 of water at the beginning of the experiment, increasing to 8 pounds 
 of corn meal and 16 pounds of water toward the close. Lot II had 6 
 
 "Vol. XV. Bui. No. 1. 
 
L38 
 
 BURE \i OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 
 
 pounds of corn meal and L8 pounds of >kim milk at tin- beginning, 
 increasing pounds of corn meal and 10 pounds of Bkim milk 
 
 toward the close. Lot III had i pounds of oorn meal and L2 pounds 
 of Bkim milk for tin- [irsl fifteen days and L.75 pounds of wheat meal, 
 pounds of corn meal, and 10 pounds of whej toward the close. 
 Lot IV waa f ed 2.66 pounds of corn meal, I pounds of cowpea hay, 
 and 8 pounds of skim milk at the beginning, which was changed to 
 5.5 pounds of corn meal, L.5 pounds of chopped cowpea hay, and 
 26.75 pounds of skim milk toward the close. 
 
 These rations were the amounts of feed thai each Lot received at a 
 Bingle feed, >«> that the daily rat i<»n for one lot of pigs was double the 
 amounts given above. The feeds were valued as follows: Corn meal, 
 $17 per ton; pea hay, $13.50 per ton; wheat meal, $25 per ton; >kim 
 milk, 22 cents per LOO pounds; whey, 11 cents per 100 pounds. The 
 results were as follow s: 
 
 Economy of skim-milk ft eding. 
 
 oil. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 
 Nuin- 
 Total berof 
 train. days 
 fed. 
 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Total dry 
 
 matter 
 eaten. 
 
 Dry 
 
 ter ]H-r lui 
 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 ( Jorn meal 
 
 8 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 188 80 
 
 414 80 
 
 80 
 
 848 80 
 
 I'm/mis. 
 
 1 
 
 8.8 
 8.0 
 
 nds. 
 
 1,811 
 1,080 
 
 1.H17 
 
 418 
 
 Corn meal ami skim milk 
 
 8 
 B 
 
 2 
 
 
 Mixed grain, skim milk, ami vrhej 
 Oorn meal, cowpea hay, and -kim milk . 
 
 871 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 Slaughter 1 
 
 Ration. 
 
 of feed. 100 pounds fit." 
 
 gain. 
 
 Dr«- 
 
 —'lit. 
 
 tinal 
 
 
 DoUart. 
 7.38 
 
 Dollars. DoUart. 
 
 3.90 ; 
 
 1.80 12.08 
 
 3.40 14.88 
 
 4. 18 
 
 Per 
 
 n s 
 
 uds. 
 13 
 
 Corn meal and skim milk 
 
 1 grain, skim milk. and wh>-\ 
 ( lorn meal, cowpea hay. and skim milk 
 
 17.81 
 13.84 
 18 89 
 
 16 
 16 
 
 1 
 
 • 
 
 Blue of manure and O Dflddered. 
 
 The pigs were bought on t hie Knoxville market at 41 cents per pound 
 and weighed from L30 to L40 pounds at the time of purchase. They 
 a ere Bold at .v. cents per pound. 
 
 The great advantages to be gained by feeding dairy by-products 
 with carbonaceous concentrates arc brought out in the results. The 
 pigs on coin meal alone ate Less than any others, and although their 
 cost of iced was low they were not so profitable as those fed milk and 
 grain, which ate very much more. An exception to the general rule 
 is seen in Lot IV. which were fed very anprofitably. 
 
 With the pigs selling at 5 1 cents per pound live weight, the authors 
 estimate that this experiment returned, for the corn fed, 66.7 cents per 
 
 bushel of 56 pounds, which is said to be 26.7 cents per bushel more 
 
 than Tennessee farmers usually get for their corn. The feeding value 
 of skim milk in this test was, approximately, 28.3 cents per 100 pounds 
 
THE HOG [NDU8TRY. 
 
 139 
 
 During the two years following the above experiment Sonle and 
 Fain ' studied the value of skim milk in a corn-meal ration and in a 
 mixed-meal ration. The pigs of the first year were of Chester White 
 and Berkshire blood, some being Chester grades and others said to 
 be Chester White-Berkshire crosses. They were above the average 
 in quality. Those of the second year were Berkshire grades, below 
 the average of the preceding year. The pigs were confined in pens 
 and fed twice daily. Feeding was carried on through the winter. 
 'Hie first winter "was cool and bracing and uniformly dry;" the 
 second "was raw and damp, with an excessive rainfall, and this no 
 doubt had an influence on the general health of the hogs." 
 
 The lots which were used to compare a straight corn-meal ration 
 with a corn-meal and skim-milk ration received, respectively, rations 
 of corn meal only and corn meal and milk in the proportion of 1 to 8 by 
 weight at the start, the milk being decreased toward the close so that 
 the proportion of meal to milk was about 1 to 7. 
 
 Corn meal was charged at 828 per ton during the first year and at 
 $19 per ton during the second year. Skim milk was charged at 84 
 per ton during both years. 
 
 The following table shows some of the results of this investigation. 
 The findings of the two years were averaged, from which average 
 these figures are taken : 
 
 Economy of skim-milk feeding. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Corn meal 
 
 Corn meal and skim milk. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 pigs. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Pounds. 
 7 119 
 
 7 309 
 
 Average Total feed eaten. 
 
 daily 
 
 gain. Grain. Milk. 
 
 Pounds. Pounds. 
 0.50 488 
 
 1.35 481 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Feed per 100 
 pounds gain. 
 
 Cost of 
 Total cost feed per 
 of feed. 100 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 Profit per 
 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Milk. 
 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 410 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Dollars. Dollars. 
 5.75 5.80 
 
 Dollars. 
 1.05 
 
 Corn meal and skim milk 
 
 160 
 
 1.190 
 
 12.95 4.60 
 
 4.96 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 « Value of manure and cost of care not considered. 
 
 The favoraDle results from the feeding of skim milk with corn meal 
 are very noticeable in these results. Although the addition of skim 
 milk added to the cost of the total feed and the feed per 100 pounds 
 gain was accordingly higher, the profit for the pigs on skim milk was 
 83.91 more than that of those on corn alone. 
 
 Value of skim milk in a mixed ration. — As part of the investigation 
 of the years just mentioned, Soule and Fain a studied the value of 
 
 « Vol. XVI, Bui. No. 3, Tennessee Expt. Sta. 
 
140 
 
 i;i RE \r OF A.NIMAL tNDUSTBY. 
 
 skim milk in various proportions with a mi\<-<l ration <>f corn meal 
 ami wheal meal or corn meal ami soy-bean meal. The proportions 
 of these grains was l part of wheal or soy-beau meal to 2 parts of corn 
 meal. The following prices per ton were charged for the feed: 
 
 
 . 
 
 Dollar*. Dollars. 
 
 Corn :nitl wheal tneaJ 
 ( Jorn and soy-bean meal 
 Corn meal 
 
 Skim milk 
 
 The conditions were those described in the foregoing paiagraph. 
 The following table shows Borne of the results of the averages for the 
 two years as published by the station: 
 
 Value of skim milk in a mixed-grain ration. 
 
 Grain 
 Milk 3 
 (J rain 
 Milk 6 
 Grain 
 Milk 8 
 Grain 
 MilkS 
 Grain 
 Milk 1: 
 Grain 
 Milk 8 
 
 Elation. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 pigs. 
 
 T.-tal 
 
 gain. 
 
 {'•minis. 
 
 814 
 BOS 
 804 
 881 
 
 Average Total f< 
 daily 
 
 gain. Grain. Milk. 
 
 Pounds. /'<>",,</>. Pound*. 
 2,046 
 
 L86 
 L30 
 L80 
 
 1.4H 
 1.40 
 L80 
 
 .v.. i 
 187 
 
 8,808 
 
 517 4.ti.V4 
 
 481 
 
 Grain l 
 
 Milk:( 
 Grain 1 
 
 Milk 6 
 (irain I 
 Milk 8 
 Grain l 
 Milk it 
 (train 1 
 Milk 12 
 
 Milks 
 
 Ration. 
 
 per LOO 
 pounds 
 
 Grain. Milk. 
 
 NO 
 L60 
 160 
 140 
 
 /'.<(',, (Is. 
 
 1,160 
 1,220 
 1,410 
 1,640 
 1.220 
 
 -: of 
 per Profii per 
 ed. lOOpounda group. '■ 
 gain. 
 
 Dollars. 
 12.46 
 
 14,86 
 
 13.64 
 
 15.65 
 
 11. 19 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 4.4(1 
 
 5.M 
 5. l" 
 5.10 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 7.68 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.77 
 3.38 
 
 a The grain to this lot was corn meal 2 parts, soy-bean meal l i>art That to all the other lota 
 waa corn meal 2 parte, wheal meal l part. 
 
 due of manure and cost <>f can- not considered. 
 
THE HOG INDUS] KV. 
 
 141 
 
 The most economical ration is seen to be one in which the propor- 
 tion of grain to skim milk was as 1 to •'!. Beyond a certain point, it 
 was fonnd to be expensive to give the pigs a Large amount of skim 
 milk. However, all the lots receiving the dairy ration made good 
 
 gains; the only one of the two years' tests which made an extremely 
 poor showing was that on corn meal alone. 
 
 Shim milk compared with nitrogenous concentrates. — In order to 
 compare the value of skim milk as a balance with that of a mixture 
 of gluten and linseed meals Patterson a fed two lots of pigs of each 
 at the Maryland Station. Lot I received a ration as follows: Hominy 
 chop, 300 pounds; ground corn fodder (new corn product), 100 pounds; 
 skim milk, 2,100 pounds. Lot II received : Hominy chop, 300 pounds; 
 ground corn fodder, 100 pounds; King gluten meal, 100 pounds; and 
 linseed meal, 200 pounds. The grain was fed as a slop. Results were 
 as follows : 
 
 Skim milk compared with nitrogenous concentrates. 
 
 
 Average 
 weight 
 at begin- 
 ning. 
 
 Average 
 gain. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 days 
 fed. 
 
 Average 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Feed eaten per 100 
 pounds gain. 
 
 Nutri- 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Grain 
 
 and 
 
 fodder. 
 
 Milk. 
 
 tive 
 ratio. 
 
 Grain, fodder , and milk 
 
 Pounds. 
 66 
 57 
 
 Pounds. 
 187 
 136 
 
 121 
 121 
 
 Pounds. 
 1.54 
 1.12 
 
 Pounds. 
 300 
 
 407 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1,272 
 
 1:3.52 
 1 : 3. 61 
 
 
 
 
 This experiment seems to bear out the contention that skim milk 
 has more value as a feed than is indicated by the digestible nutrients 
 it contains. The use of milk effected a saving of practically 25 per 
 cent of grain in the feed required for 100 pounds of gain. The rations 
 fed were identical in nutritive ratio, and they were made up of the 
 same feeds, except that one was balanced with skim milk and the 
 
 other with gluten and linseed meals. 
 
 The great difference between the 
 
 feeding values of the two rations must be ascribed to the effect of skim 
 milk on the digestive system, and it would seem that a ration may be 
 balanced in other ways than by the addition of certain proportions 
 of nutrients with certain fuel values — a "balanced ration" being 
 regarded as the one that gives the best results when fed for a certain 
 purpose. 
 
 A comparison of skim milk and green clover in a pig's ration. — At 
 the Maryland Station, Patterson, a fed Uvo lots of Duroc Jersey and 
 Berkshire grades of 6 pigs each on rations, one of which was balanced 
 with skim milk and the other included cut green clover instead of 
 milk. The grain was corn-and-cob meal, 8 parts, and 1 part each, of 
 gluten meal and linseed meal. The clover was given only in such 
 
 « Bui. No. 63. 
 
1 12 
 
 BUBEAU OF ANIMAL [NDUSTEY. 
 
 amount a> the pigs would eat. It was not possible to get them to eat 
 enough to balance 1 1 1 * * ration completely. The feeding period Is 
 one hundred and sixty-five dai s. 
 
 Skim milk compared with green clover for pigs. 
 
 
 weight 
 
 ginning. 
 
 gain. 
 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Feed fa- I pcmndt 
 
 Lble dry 
 
 ixjunds 
 
 Xutri- 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Milk. 
 
 ( 'lov.-r. 
 
 ratio. 
 
 Grain and skim milk 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 Pound*. 
 OB. 80 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 l .80 
 .80 
 
 /'..///.</>. 
 
 1.47H 
 
 
 Pounds, 
 «06 
 
 1:4 
 
 (Jrain ami cloT6T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 This experiment does Qot show profitable results from the feeding 
 of green clover as compared with skim milk. The returns for the 
 green clover arc not at all satisfactory, very much less so than the 
 results of other tests thai have been made. 
 
 ■>, meal and a mixtwn of corn meal and middlings in a shim-milk 
 ration. — Clinton" reports the results of four years' experimenting at the 
 Cornel] University Experiment station to study the value of certain 
 proportions of skim milk to grain in the ration and the relative value 
 of corn meal and a mixture of coin meal and wheat middlings in such 
 a ration. In two experiments the best results were obtained when 
 the rat Los of main to milk were as L:3 and 1:2.5; in the other two the 
 best results were with a ration in which the ratios <>t' grain to milk 
 were as L:6.7 ami 1:6*2. There were L33 hogs fed in these tests. 
 The following table has been compiled from the results, and shows 
 the- feed required for LOO pounds gain tor the two feeds: 
 
 Econon y of : slim-mill- feeding. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Xum- 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 
 i'»i pounds - 
 
 
 
 
 
 ( '"in unal ami milk 
 
 17 
 12 
 
 ffl 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 Pounds, 
 
 l.i Hf, 
 
 
 
 
 
 "Thr p ropor ti on oft] rai 4:1 in three testa. In tin- fourth it was not stated. 
 
 drain values of shim milh. — The following figures show the grain 
 values of skim milk as obtained under various methods of feeding at 
 Ottawa. b The results are combined in the following table: 
 
 « Bill. No. 199. 
 
 ''Bui. No. 88, Central Experimental Farm. 
 
THE BOG INM'STKY. 
 
 1 i:>> 
 
 drain values of skim milk. 
 
 Number of pigs. 
 
 Ski in milk 
 
 consumed 
 
 per head 
 
 daily. 
 
 Milk 
 
 valueoflOO 
 
 pounds 
 
 grain. 
 
 Kind of grain. 
 
 < iniin 
 
 value of 100 
 
 pounds 
 
 milk. 
 
 4 . 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 5.4 
 5.41 
 13.6 
 15. 7 
 15.7 
 17.1 
 17.14 
 23.7 
 32.41 
 
 Pounds. 
 L83 
 
 L88 
 354 
 323 
 
 538 
 534 
 
 791 
 699 
 734 
 882 
 882 
 776 
 834 
 
 ('urn 
 
 do 
 
 I '<nt it (Is. 
 
 54. 64 
 
 7 
 
 54.64 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 Mixed grain 
 
 do 
 
 30.98 
 
 4 
 
 18.69 
 
 4. 
 
 .do 
 
 18. 72 
 
 4 
 
 Frosted wheat. . . 
 
 Mixed grain 
 
 .do.... 
 
 12.64 
 
 5 
 
 14.30 
 
 5. 
 
 13.62 
 
 2 
 
 do 
 
 11.33 
 
 2 
 
 .do 
 
 11.33 
 
 2 
 
 do 
 
 12.88 
 
 4... 
 
 ...do 
 
 11.99 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 
 604 
 
 16.55 
 
 
 
 
 The average of results obtained by Danish experimenters is a value 
 of about GOO pounds of milk for 100 pounds of grain, but the greater 
 amount of work of this nature in America has shown a higher value 
 for skim milk. The average of nineteen trials in Wisconsin with 
 proportions of milk ranging from 1 to pounds for each pound of 
 grain fed, with hogs of all ages, was that 475 pounds of skim milk 
 were equal to 100 pounds of meal. a In Utah b Linfield found the value 
 of 100 pounds of milk in terms of grain (that is, the amount of grain 
 replaced by 100 pounds of milk) to be 23.2 and 26.3 pounds, respect- 
 ively, in two series of experiments. Grisdale c values milk at from 
 one-fifth to one-sixth as much as mixed grain. In all experiments 
 the large return where the proportion of milk to grain is small is par- 
 ticularly noteworthy. Milk should never be given to pigs in unlimited 
 amounts except while with the sow, or immediately after weaning, up 
 to the weights of 75 or 100 pounds. At this earty age, much grain 
 will disarrange the digestion and best results can be expected from a 
 ration that is largely milk. 
 
 Gram required for 100 pounds gain when feeding skim milk and 
 grain as compared with grain alone and milk alone. — The following 
 table is adapted from one compiled by Linfield d from the results of 
 various stations for the purpose of showing the cost in grain of feed- 
 ing rations of grain and skim milk, grain alone, and skim milk alone. 
 
 '''Henry: Feeds and Feeding, p. 572. 
 
 & Bui. No. 57. 
 
 c Bul. No. 33, Central Experimental Farm. 
 
 tf Bui. No. 57, Utah Expt. Sta. 
 
1 11 
 
 BUREAU OF animal [NDU8TB1 
 r, i d /» r too pounds gain. 
 
 Station. 
 
 Dry matter tor 100 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 drain 
 
 andinilk 
 
 Grain 
 
 alone. 
 
 Milk 
 
 alone. 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 BIS 
 
 an 
 m 
 m 
 
 161 
 
 676 
 
 8M 
 
 m 
 
 I'ound.s. 
 
 ISO 
 
 ( Solorado 
 
 
 X< -w Hampshire -• 
 
 
 Utah' J 
 
 
 
 
 a The results In New Hampshire and t he seoond line of Utah results show estimated digestible 
 dry matter. 
 
 These figures show what can be regarded as representative values 
 of these three methods of feeding, and emphatically demonstrate the 
 economy of the grain-and-milk combination. Linfield calls attention 
 
 to the fact thai none of the pigs fed milk alone attained a weight of 
 o\ er loo pounds, whereas some of those in the other columns reached 
 nearly 300 pounds. It does not always mean profitable feeding for a 
 hog to require a small amount of feed to make a certain gain. 
 
 VoLva of miCk at cm-ions prices for (/rain. — Using as a basis the 
 results obtained in the investigations already mentioned, Linfield 
 makes the following estimates of the value of skim milk as a supple- 
 mentary feed in a ration at various prices for grain: 
 
 Value of skim milk for pigs. 
 
 
 Num- 
 
 ( irain 
 equal to 
 
 LOO 
 
 pound's 
 
 skim 
 
 milk. 
 
 Value of skim milk per 100 pounds when grain is worth, per 
 100 pounds— 
 
 Ration. 
 
 ber of 
 pigs. 
 
 40 cents. 
 
 50 cents. 
 
 80 cents. 
 
 70 cents. 
 
 80 cents. 
 
 90 cents. 
 
 %h 
 
 Milk and grain. 
 Milk 
 
 87 
 
 11 
 
 I'll II it lis. 
 
 14.2 
 
 ( '< n ts. 
 
 0.8 
 5.7 
 
 11.:, 
 7.1 
 
 Cents. 
 L8.9 
 
 16.2 
 
 y.9 
 
 16.6 
 
 11.4 
 
 80.8 
 
 ( '- ,1 ts. 
 
 86. 2 
 
 14.2 
 
 A similar study was made by Lindsey* and others from the results 
 
 al the Hatch Slat ion. except that the figures do not include the results 
 Of feeding (.a milk alone. The averages of their experiments are 
 
 given in the following table. "Starchy feeds' 1 refer to such substi- 
 tutes for corn meal as hominy meal, cerealine U'i'd, rye meal, wheat 
 meal, etc. ; "o1 her grains " are I he nit rogenous feeds, such aa wheal 
 bran, gluten meal, linseed meal, etc.: 
 
 "Bui. No. 57, Utah Expt, Bta. & Eleventh An. Rpt, Hatch Exjrt. sta. 
 
THE Hoc CNDU8TBY. 
 Value of skim milk for pigs. 
 
 145 
 
 ( 1 ost of feed 
 
 With corn meal and other starchy 
 feeds at §15 per ton, "other 
 grains" at $17.50 per ton 
 
 With eornmeal and other si archy 
 feeds at {17.60 per ton, 'other 
 grains*' at $20 per ton 
 
 With corn meal and other starchy 
 feeds at $20 per tun, ''other 
 grains " at $22.50 per ton 
 
 With dressed pork at With dressed pork at 
 
 6 cents per lb., 6 cents per H>., 
 
 skim milk is worth skim milk is worth— 
 
 Per Per LOO 
 
 quart. pounds. 
 
 Cent. 
 
 0.50 
 
 ( 'ents. 
 
 23.07 
 
 80. < 
 
 18. 08 
 
 Per Per LOO 
 
 quart. pounds. 
 
 Cent. 
 
 0.67 
 
 .61 
 
 .56 
 
 ( 'ents. 
 
 30. 73 
 
 28.14 
 
 25. *2 
 
 With dressed pork at 
 
 is per li».. 
 skim milk is worth 
 
 Per 
 quarl 
 
 Cent. 
 
 0.83 
 
 .78 
 
 Per LOO 
 pounds. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 38. 10 
 
 35. 86 
 
 35. 70 
 
 Cost of feed when feeding skim milk. — The following shows the cost 
 of feed per 100 pounds of live and dressed weight produced as esti- 
 mated from the Massachusetts a experiments at various prices for 
 grain and milk : 
 
 Cost of feed per 100 pounds of growth produced. 
 
 Cost of f eed- 
 
 With corn meal at $15 per ton, " other grains " at $17.50 per ton, and milk at 
 
 i cent per quart 
 
 With corn meal at $15 per ton, " other grains " at $17.50 per ton, and milk at 
 
 i cent per quart _. 
 
 With corn meal at $17.50 per ton, " other grains " at $20 per ton, and milk at 
 
 i cent per quart . _ 
 
 With corn meal at $17.50 per ton, "other grains " at $20 per ton, and milk at 
 
 i cent per quart 
 
 With corn meal at $20 per ton, ''other grains' 1 at $22.50 per ton, and milk at 
 
 cent per quart. 
 
 With corn meal at $20 per ton, " other grains " at $22.50 per ton, and milk at 
 
 i cent per quart 
 
 Cost per 
 
 100 
 pounds 
 
 live 
 weight. 
 
 Dollars. 
 2.78 
 
 4.00 
 
 3.04 
 
 4.25 
 
 3.63 
 
 i. 51 
 
 Cost per 
 
 100 
 pounds 
 dressed 
 weight. 
 
 Dolla rs. 
 
 3.47 
 
 4.99 
 3.79 
 5.31 
 4.53 
 5.63 
 
 The labor cost of feeding. — In experiments in pork production 
 investigators almost invariably disregard the expense of care and 
 labor, estimating that this will be covered b}^ the value of the manure 
 made and the saving in expense of marketing crops. This is always 
 
 a Eleventh An. Rpt., Hatch Expt. Sta. 
 8396— No. 47—04 10 
 
1 46 BUREAU OF animal IMH 81 B1 . 
 
 more or Less of an obstacle in applying tin* results of experiments to 
 actual farming conditions, for the manure is not always carefully 
 Baved <>n the farm. Linfield,* of the [Jtah Station, Btudied the tabor 
 cost as shown bj the experience of some of the creameries in his State 
 that were feeding large numbers of hogs, and states the result of his 
 inquiries as follow b: 
 
 One creamery reports thai one man would feed 1,000 hogs, clean all the pem 
 each day, and draw the ed from the mill 2 miles distant. Another says 
 
 that one man does all the work of feeding and cleaning ont U I h«..u r - 
 
 in five hours each day. The wages paid in each case was about $1 per day. 
 
 At both creameries the hogs are purchased when weighing from 50 t«» LOO pounds 
 each, though some few are heavier. The hogs are crowded from the start, and at 
 most not more than 100 days are required to fit the hogs for market, and in this 
 time 100 t«> L25 pounds have hern added to the live weight of each hog. 
 
 By putting all of the above figures together we find that it costs five hours 1 
 lal»or or 50 cents to look after 500 hogs for one day, or $50 to look after 500 hogs 
 for one hundred days. This is 10 cents for l h'-u r lor on.- hundred days, or for LOO 
 pounds gain, which gives one-tenth of a cent as the labor cost of prodoc 
 pound of live weight of hog. It is thus evident from the results of these practical 
 men that when handled in large number-, as In igs may be at a creamery, the labor 
 ie .i \'-ry small item in growing the hogs. If the value of the gain was reckoned 
 at 4 cents per pound the labor cost of producing the pork was but -'; per cent of 
 its Belling price. 
 
 Lesl these results be misleading, Linfield calls attention to the fact 
 
 that the conditions were almosl ideal for the greatest economy, the 
 
 were "shorl fed," and all feeding appliances ami pens were so 
 
 arranged as to have in view the greatest possible saving of labor. At 
 
 another creamery, where the hogs were raided on the place ami fed 
 until they were lilt ecu months old and the accommodations were not so 
 good, the cost reported was as large tor 300 hogs as t lie others reported 
 for 1,000 head. It is pointed out that, on the average farm, where the 
 number of animals is much smaller, and milk must usually be hauled 
 bach to the farm, the labor cost will be very much greater. 
 
 Skim-milk rations for growing pigs. — The Hatch station' recom- 
 mends the following rations for pigs weighing from 20 to L80 pounds 
 when the feeder has an unlimited supply of skim milk at hand: 
 
 Hations for growing pigs. 
 
 Weight <»f pigs. 
 
 Rations. 
 
 80 to 60 pounds Bounces of corn meal to each quart of milk. 
 
 00 t<> LOO pottndfl »'» ounces of corn meal to each quart of milk. 
 
 L80 pounds. ' corn meal to each quart of milk. 
 
 "Bui ^ Eleventh An. Rpt. 
 
The follow-in; 
 limited amount 
 
 THK HOG INIM'STKY. 147 
 
 rations may be used where tln k milk supply is in 
 Ra I ions for growing pigs, 
 
 Weight <>f pigs. 
 
 Rations. 
 
 20 to 180 pounds :> ounces of corn meal, wheat, rye or hominy meals to each quart of milk, 
 
 and then gradually increase meal to satisfy appetites. 
 80 to 60 pounds ... Milk at disposal, plus mixture of one-third corn meal, one-third wheat 
 
 bran, and one-third gluten meal to satisfy appetites. 
 60 to 10!) pounds Milk ;it disposal, plus mixture of one-half corn meal, one-fourth wheat 
 
 bran, and one-fourth gluten meal to satisfy appetites. 
 100 to 180 pounds Milk at disposal, plus mixture of two-thirds corn meal, one-sixth wheat 
 
 bran, and one-sixth gluten meal to satisfy appetites. 
 20 to 00 pounds 3 ounces of corn meal to each quart of milk, and 4 ounces of gluten feed 
 
 as a substitute for quart of milk. 
 60 to 100 pounds Milk at disposal, and mixture of one-half corn meal and one-half gluten 
 
 feed to satisfy appetites. 
 100 to 180 pounds Milk at disposal, and mixture of two-thirds corn meal and one-third 
 
 gluten feed to satisfy appetites. 
 
 Sweet compared with sour whey. — At the Ontario Agricultural Col- 
 lege, Day a conducted five experiments to compare the feeding values 
 of sweet and sour whey. Each experiment was preceded by a pre- 
 liminary period of from one to two weeks and the experiments proper 
 varied in duration from twenty-nine to sixty-four days. In each one 
 as a check a group of pigs was fed on meal only mixed with water. 
 The group receiving whej T had it mixed with the grain, and both lots 
 received the same quantity of whey, which was about 2 pounds to 
 each pound of meal. All lots had as much feed as they would eat 
 readily. The sour whey fed in 1897 "was kept in a tank which had 
 not been cleaned since early in the summer of 1896." The meal was 
 a mixture of equal parts of pease, barley, and oats. 
 
 The following table shows the amount of grain saved bj r feeding 
 whey for each experiment and for the average: 
 
 Grain saved by feeding sweet and sour whey. 
 
 
 Experiment. 
 
 Amount 
 of meal 
 saved by 
 100 pounds 
 of sweet 
 whey. 
 
 Amount of 
 
 meal 
 
 saved by 
 
 lOOpounds 
 
 or sour 
 
 whey. 
 
 No. 1 (1896) 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 13.32 
 
 Pounds. 
 13.61 
 
 No. 2(1896) 
 
 
 13.32 
 
 13.81 
 
 No. 3(1897) ■ 
 
 
 14. 88 
 
 7 87 
 
 No. 4 (1897) 
 
 
 . No test. 
 
 10.07 
 
 No. 5 (1897) 
 
 
 6 08 
 
 9 34 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 11 90 
 
 10.94 
 
 1 
 
 
 «An. Rpts., 1896 and 1897. 
 
148 
 
 BUREAl OF \.M\I\I. [NDUSTEY, 
 
 \\ 'iii-v feeding la often attended with difficulty, as ii caihfs a stiff- 
 ening of the joints and serious lameness. This condition occurred 
 in the experiments of L896; and in 1897 the group fed sweet whey in 
 experiment No. L was so seriously checked by this trouble that they 
 were Left out of the comparison. Day calls particular attention 1<> the 
 fact thai the lots receiving sour whey were not at all affected. 
 
 [f experiment No. I is omitted in the preceding table, the average 
 amount of meal saved by LOO pounds of sour whey is L1.15 pounds. 
 The \ alue of whey in pork feeding is, according t<> these figures, about 
 half that of skim milk. 
 
 The following shows the results of six analyses of whey made dur- 
 ing these experiments by the chemical department of the Ontario 
 Agricull ui-al College: 
 
 ( 'ninpnsitimi of U'Ju //. 
 
 
 whey. 
 
 
 
 0.920 
 
 ■ 
 
 Sugar. 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 Day suggests that the higher percentage of nitrogenous substances 
 in the sour whey was perhaps due to evaporation of the original 
 samples. 
 
 PASTURE AND PASTURE SUBSTITUTES. 
 
 PASTURE. 
 
 Vahu of pastun with a grain ration, — The Utah Station has 
 devoted considerable study to the effect and value of pasture for pigs 
 
 that are on a grain ration. The pastures used were made up of 
 mixed grasses and alfalfa. The Utah problem in pork production is 
 defined as the use of "a minimum amount of grain and a maximum 
 amount of alfalfa, milk, and whey, or oilier cheap foods." The fol- 
 lowing table shows the results of four seasons" st udy of I his problem, 
 where rations <>f grain and pasture and grain alone were compared: 
 
 VaXui of pasture with grain. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Total 
 Ihuiy. *■**■ 
 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 eaten 
 per i<»> 
 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 
 Pounds. Pounds. 
 
 ■:\: 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1.21" 
 
 I'm: 
 
 (train 
 
 480 
 
 
 
 These results Btrongly favor the ase of pasture when feeding i > i lt^ 
 under conditions similar to those that exist in rtah. In every respect 
 the pigs on pasture show better results than those that had no pas- 
 ture; the total gain per head averaged 33 per cent greater for the 
 
 "Bui. N 
 
THE HOC IN'DI'STKV. 
 
 14<) 
 
 pigs on pasture than for those <>n grain alone; the average daily gains 
 were nearly 29 per cent greater, and there was a saving of more than 
 lOpereenl in t.he feed per LOO pounds gain for the pigs on pasture. 
 
 I'alin of a grain ration with pasture. — The converse of the Utah 
 experiments is shown by two experiments by Morrow and Bone a in 
 Oklahoma. 
 
 Two lots of -4 pigs each were placed in half-acre alfalfa Lots, one 
 being given a full feed of grain and the other receiving none. Tn 
 eight weeks the lot without grain had gained only 68 pounds, or 17 
 pounds each, and those having grain gained 324 pounds, or 81 pounds 
 each. 
 
 A sow with a litter of o pigs was in the same lot with the grain-fed 
 pigs. The sow gained 61 pounds in thirty- five days, when she was 
 removed. Her 5 pigs made a total gain of 146 pounds in the first five 
 weeks and 96 pounds during the succeeding period of three weeks. 
 The grain fed these pigs amounted to only 221 pounds per 100 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 Pasture in addition to dairy by-products. — Four tests were made in 
 Utah 6 to determine the value of pasturing pigs that are receiving a 
 ration of grain, milk, and whey. One test was made with pasturing 
 pigs that were receiving milk and whey, but no grain. The ratio of 
 milk to grain by weight was 5 : 1 at the start and 3 : 1 at the close in the 
 second and third tests. In the fourth test the grain was limited to 
 one-half the quantity fed the other lots, but all the milk and whey 
 was given that the pigs would take. 
 
 The pigs that received the grain and dairy by-product ration were 
 fed in pens. 
 
 The following table shows the results for each test and the average 
 
 of all: 
 
 Value of pasture with dairy by-products. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Average 
 daily- 
 gain. 
 
 Feed eaten daily. 
 
 Milk. Grain. 
 
 Feed per 100 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 Milk. Grain. 
 
 Milko and pasture. 
 
 Milk 
 
 Milk, grain, and pasture 
 
 Milk and grain _ 
 
 Milk, grain, and pasture. 
 
 Milk and grain 
 
 Milk, grain, and pasture . 
 Milk and grain 
 
 Pounds. 
 218 
 202 
 350 
 366 
 324 
 351 
 
 Pounds. 
 0.69 
 .64 
 1.11 
 1.16 
 1.25 
 1.35 
 1.05 
 1.10 
 
 Pounds. 
 21.00 
 23.54 
 9.56 
 10.71 
 10. 11 
 11.52 
 15.65 
 18.12 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 3.34 
 3.13 
 3.38 
 3.24 
 
 1.09 
 1.62 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 3,034 
 
 3,672 
 
 859 
 
 921 
 
 805 
 
 879 
 
 1, 479 
 
 1,837 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 300 
 
 238 
 139 
 147 
 
 Average with pasture 
 
 Average without pasture 
 
 291 
 301 
 
 1.03 
 1.06 
 
 2.60 
 
 1,544 j 
 1,827 | 
 
 236 
 218 
 
 a By '• milk " is meant both milk and whey. 
 
 The results of the first test bear out previous experience with 
 attempts to make pork on pasture without grain, although the gains 
 
 « An. Rpt. 1898-99, Oklahoma Expt. Sta. &Bul. No. 70, Utah Expt. Sta. 
 
L50 
 
 i:i i:i- \r OP animal [NDU8TRY. 
 
 given are fairly good and better than might be expected on a pasture 
 containing only a small amonnl of alfalfa. The addition of Bkim 
 milk did n<>i prove beneficial in anyway. In the experiments where 
 grain \\ as fed no advantage accrued i hrough (he use <>f past are, except 
 thai the pasture lots consumed nearly 300 pounds less milk per i ( »" 
 pounds gain than those in pens. At L5 cents per LOO pounds, this 
 means a difference of r> cents per LOO pounds of pork made The 
 difference in grain fed was nearly 20 pounds per LOO pounds of pork 
 
 made in favor of 1 he pen-fed Lots. 
 
 These results are <*\ idence in support of the idea that the effect of 
 dairy by-products and succulent feed In the ration is similar, and that 
 to get the greatest amount of gain at tin- Least expenditure of feed 
 only one of the supplementary feeds is necessary; that tin* addition of 
 
 pasture boa ration which already contains a Large amonnl of dairy 
 
 by-products is superfluous; and that the only advantage to be gained 
 
 by such a method of feeding is the exercise obtained l>y the pig 
 
 past lire. 
 
 r> a com/pan d with pastun fet ding. — At t he Utah Stat ion, Linfield " 
 fed six Lots of 3 pigs each, in two tests, to study the value <>f rations 
 composed of grain and milk, grain alone, and milk alone. Both teste 
 were conducted during the summer and fall of the same year. In 
 one icst the pigs had the run of a pasture <>r mixed grasses in which 
 was a large amount of alfalfa. The following table shows a compari- 
 son between pen and pasture feeding: 
 
 Pen compared with pasture feeding. 
 
 Method of feeding. 
 
 Estimate] 
 Dry mat- digestible T)rvmat 
 A vera-'.- terperlOO ■ 
 daily gain, pounds 
 
 .tram. 
 
 L"t> ted <>ii milk: 
 
 on pasture 
 
 In pen 
 
 Lot-- fed on milk and grain: 
 
 t >n pasture 
 
 In pen 
 
 Lota ted <>n grain: 
 
 On pasture 
 
 In pen 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 0.7 
 
 .66 
 
 1.1:.' 
 
 1.17 
 
 .81 
 
 ■■"" 
 
 Pounds. 
 810 
 
 
 dry mat 
 tar per l'«i 
 
 pounds 
 pain. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 m 
 an 
 
 834 
 
 tar eaten 
 
 per day. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 l.T'.t 
 
 
 i K 
 
 The only pigs thai showed better results in pens than on pasture 
 were those on grain and milk. Those receiving grain alone on pas- 
 ture gave very much Larger gains, required Less feed per LOO pounds 
 gain, and ate more feed than those receiving grain alone in pens. 
 Linfield suggests that i ither bhe exercise or the feed obtained by the 
 run on pasture gave these pigs greater appetite ami enabled them to 
 digest a greater amount of iced daily. The fact that neither of 
 
 " r.ul. N« 
 
TIIK IIO(J INDl'STHY. 
 
 151 
 
 the other lots Bhowed a marked advantage from pasture might be 
 explained by the skim milk in the ration. Ii isperhapsa safe propo- 
 sition that in feeding pigs bho besl results will followthe use of dairy 
 by-products, roots, or pasture, in connection with grain, but thai it 
 is superfluous to combine two of these supplementary feeds, as their 
 action on the digestive system seems to be similar. When attempts 
 are being made to prevent disease, however, the advantage of ample 
 exercise must not be overlooked. 
 
 Corn compared with wheat on alfalfa pasture. — At the Nebraska 
 Station/' Burnett and Smith placed three lots of 6 pigs each on alfalfa 
 pasture lots one-fourth acre in area. The pigs were Tamworth- 
 Duroc Jersey crossbreds. Lot I was fed ground corn; Lot II, a ration 
 composed of 95 per cent ground corn and o per cent dried blood, and 
 Lot III received ground wheat. In addition to the pasture, all the 
 pigs had one week on rape. The experiment lasted forty-two days. 
 The results follow : 
 
 Com compared with wheat on alfatf a pasture. 
 
 ■N-iiTTi Average Avpvasre Aver- Aver " ^ae?" Feed Cost 
 SSt I?®* ^3£ MP £!f y amfuV'-rinO'perlO 
 
 — * I d- 1 Ue ~ a 4- olnm era in Uctliy f aD H 
 
 Ration. 
 
 ties at h - e ' 
 ginning 
 
 Average Aver- A J£ m agT \J*% LSlOO Proflt 
 
 Ground corn.. 
 
 Ground corn 95 per cent. 
 Dried blood 5 per cent . . 
 Ground wheat 
 
 Lbs. 
 146 
 
 145 
 
 147 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 223 77 
 227 82 
 229 82 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 
 77 1.22 308 
 
 1.30 
 1.30 
 
 308 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 400 
 
 376 
 376 
 
 Dolls. 
 4.00 
 
 4.04 
 
 4.13 
 
 Dolls. 
 3.77 
 
 3.88 
 
 3.83 
 
 a Expense of pasture and labor considered. 
 
 The cost of feed in this experiment was, for corn, $1 per hundred- 
 weight; wheat, 81.10 per hundredweight, and dried blood, $2.50 per 
 hundredweight. The results are so close together that a slight 
 change in the prices of feed would change the relative rank of these 
 rations. The value of pasture is apparent when these results are 
 compared with those of the experiment at this station with wheat and 
 other grains. (See p. 98.) 
 
 Maintaining pigs on pasture alone. — At the Utah Station Foster 
 and Merrill 6 conducted two tests to observe the effect of maintaining 
 pigs on pasture alone. 
 
 According to Henry/ no station has shown that pigs can be success- 
 fulty maintained on pasture alone if the test reported from the Utah 
 Station is excepted. The further investigations at this station on this 
 line are therefore of much interest. 
 
 In 1898 a comparison was made of mixed pasture and alfalfa pas- 
 ture. The pigs were about five months old at the beginning of the test, 
 had been fed grain and milk, and were in a very thrifty condition. 
 Both lots had access to running water. 
 
 a Bui. No. 11 
 
 &Bul. No. 70. c Feeds and Feeding, pp. 578, 579. 
 
1.VJ 
 
 1:1 BEAU OJE ANIMAL INDUSTRY, 
 
 The experiment in L899 vras in some ways a continuation of that of 
 
 Two Lots of pigs were used; both were on alfalfa pasture, but 
 
 they differed in age. Lot I consisted of 3 pigs about four months old, 
 
 .•Hid Lot 1 1 of 3 pigs about seven mont lis old and nearly i wioe as heavy 
 as those iii Lot I. The following table gives the results of the experi- 
 ments: 
 
 Pig* on pcutun without grain or mill:. 
 
 
 L89& 
 
 Lol I. Mixed pasture 
 Lot 1 1 Alfalfa pasture. 
 
 Loi I. Alfalfa pasture 
 Lol II. Alfalfa pasture 
 
 KTr.™ 
 
 " at b 
 
 pigs. 
 
 ning. 
 
 Pound*. 
 261 
 
 166 
 
 Total 
 
 U.iu'llt 
 
 at close 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 m 
 
 B80 
 
 828 
 
 
 Pound*. 
 70 
 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 
 106 
 
 mi 
 
 
 Pound. 
 0. L89 
 .0121 
 
 . I M 
 
 "Loss. 
 
 These experiments do not change one's opinion regarding the value 
 of pasture alone for pigs. The two lots gained in weight— one on 
 mixed pasture and the other on alfalfa pasture. The effect of this 
 method of feeding on the appearance of the pigs was very marked; in 
 the L898 test this was particularly commented upon. "The plump 
 rounded forms gave place to Large coarse frames and large stomachs. 
 At the end of the experiment they looked very much Larger thanat 
 the beginning, but the scales failed to show any gains. What is said 
 above would also apply to the mixed past are set , only in thai case the 
 eye was not so badly dec* tved — small gains were made." 
 
 In L899 pigs that were receiving small amounts of \\'i'(\. either milk 
 or grain in addition to pasture, were found to have made gains very 
 nearly in proportion to the amount of extra feed given, which Foster 
 and Merrill regard as evidence that the pasture supplied enough feed 
 for maintenance onlv. 
 
 (.im:i:\ SUBSTITUTES FOB PASTURE. 
 
 Pasturing on rape. -At the Utah station Poster and Merrill pas- 
 tured 6 pigs on a plot of rape that had been seeded August LI, after 
 having been irrigated and plowed. The pigs were hurdled in pens L6 
 feel square and without shelter from rain or snow. They received 
 a ration of l pound daily of a mixture of equal parts of bran and 
 
 chopped wheat. 
 
 At the Canada Centra] Experimental Farm, Grisdale '' pastured 6 
 
 on a plot three-sixteenths acre in extent that had been drilled to 
 
 rape, the drills being 30 inches apart. These pigs received a daily 
 
 Bnl. n . 10. 
 
 An. Bpt., L900. 
 
TIIK HOG INDUS'! 1^ . 
 
 1 53 
 
 grain ration of 1 pound per head at the beginning, which was increased 
 to 5 pounds at the close. At the Alabama Station, Duggar a hurdled 
 
 pigs, which had been weaned three weeks, on rape drilled on sandy 
 upland the previous October. They received about a half ration of 
 corn meal in addition. 
 
 The results are as follows: 
 
 Pasturing on rape. 
 
 Where fed. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 pigs. 
 
 Total 
 weight 
 at begin- 
 ning. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 days 
 fed. 
 
 Average 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Grain 
 eaten. 
 
 Grain 
 
 p...' ]IHI 
 
 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 Utah 
 
 6 
 6 
 4 
 
 Pounds. 
 296 
 358 
 130 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 60 
 
 869 
 
 181 
 
 49 
 
 114 
 
 81 
 
 Pounds. 
 0.204 
 1.27 
 .56 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 294 
 
 2,067 
 
 524 
 
 Pounds. 
 490 
 
 Canada 
 
 238 
 
 
 290 
 
 
 
 At the close of the Alabama test, the pigs were placed on second- 
 growth rape for three weeks. They grazed one-sixth acre, eating 168 
 pounds corn meal and making a gain of 82 pounds, which was an 
 average daily gain of 0. 98 pound, at a cost of 205 pounds meal for 
 100 pounds gain. Assuming that 500 pounds of grain alone are 
 required for 100 pounds gain, Duggar" estimates the amount of the 
 pork produced per acre from the first and second growth rape 
 together at 512 pounds, worth at that time $20.48. 
 
 Seven shoats, averaging 41 pounds in weight, were on rape at the 
 same station for four weeks during the late spring. The} T received 
 some corn meal in addition. During the first two weeks the rape was 
 fed to the pigs in the pens; during the remainder of the time they 
 were hurdled. They ate 318 pounds of corn meal. The total gain in 
 weight for the four weeks was 103 pounds, an average daily gain of 
 0.53 pound, 310 pounds of grain and 4,050 square feet of rape being 
 required to produce 100 pounds of gain. 
 
 Rape compared tvith clover. — The Wisconsin Station 6 has reported 
 two experiments comparing rape and clover as pasturage for hogs. 
 In the first, 20 purebred or high-grade Poland China pigs between five 
 and six months of age were used. Lot I was hurdled on rape, had 
 access to water, and had the run of a blue-grass lot. Their grain feed 
 was a mixture of 2 parts of corn meal and 1 part shorts twice daily 
 as slop. Lot II was on a 10-acre lot of second-growth clover, and 
 received the same grain ration as Lot I. In the second experiment 
 the pigs used were purebred and high-grade Berkshires and Poland 
 Chinas. Their grain ration was the same mixture as that used in 
 the first experiment, mixed into a thick slop. Lot I was hurdled on 
 
 «Bul. No. 122. 
 
 b Sixteenth and Seventeenth An. Rpts. 
 
L54 
 
 i:i BEAU OF ANIMAL [NDU81 BY. 
 
 rape: Lot II ha«l the inn of an 8-acre ftel l of second-growth clover. 
 The results were as follows: 
 
 Rapt oompan d with <-h,r, r. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 N'uui- 
 ber <'t 
 
 Total 
 
 \V.-lV,'llt 
 
 jit Ix-^in 
 
 ning. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 days 
 fed 
 
 ■ 
 daily 
 
 3rain 
 eaten. 
 
 Oram 
 per 100 
 pounds 
 
 . and rape 
 
 80 
 
 a 
 
 Pounds, 
 8,111 
 
 Pounds. 
 1,048 
 
 i . m 
 
 68 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 1.-7 
 
 • 
 1,865 
 
 /'.<-'/,./> 
 
 ( train and rape 
 
 BBS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :«.' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n and oloyer 
 
 80 
 
 2,091 
 8, 186 
 
 '.Ml 
 
 1 . 486 
 
 63 
 
 66 
 
 > 
 
 i . a 
 
 1,868 
 
 434 
 
 
 :u<; 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 880 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 These experiments give rape a greater value for pigs than clover 
 pasture. Rape lias an advantage of over 7 per cent in grain required 
 per 100 pounds of gain. 
 
 Tlu influeno of rapi on grain eaten. — At the Wisconsin Station 
 Carlyle" fed two lots of pigs — one lot hurdled on rape pasture and the 
 Other fed in a roomy yard without any kind of green feed. Both lots 
 received the same grain ration, which was a mixture of equal parts of 
 corn meal and shorts made into a slop immediately before feeding, 
 and had coal ashes at all times. The experiment began August 4, 
 when the rape was about 20 inches high. The pigs used were about 
 four months old at the beginning of the experiment, and represented 
 the Poland China, Berkshire, and Yorkshire breeds. The following 
 is a summary of the results: 
 
 Value of rape with grain. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Total 
 
 Total 
 
 niST a, '' 1 ""'■ 
 
 Pounds 
 Lot I, without rape 1,017 
 
 Lot II, with rap.' 1,001 
 
 Pound*. 
 2,811 
 8,412 
 
 Grain 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Pounds, 
 1,184 
 
 1,411 
 
 Avi r- 
 gain. 
 
 Pounds. 
 70.2 
 88 
 
 Aver- Aver- 
 daily daily 
 Sain gain 
 rst 
 six 
 wok-, weeks. 
 
 I'nHml. 
 
 0.71 
 98 
 
 1'ounds. 
 
 L08 
 
 L88 
 
 Grain I 
 
 jK-r mo grain 
 
 pounds 
 gain 
 
 4:{7 
 420 
 
 per LOO 
 
 pounds 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 :i. 78 
 8.86 
 
 Exclusivt rapi feeding. — At the Wisconsin station Carlyle*fed two 
 lots of pigs on rape alone for two weeks. Twolotsof L8 pigs each were 
 taken from rations composed of grain exclusively, grain and clover, 
 and grain and rape. They were given nothing but rape. They i'vt] 
 nearly all day, appeared contented, and scoured but little, but 25 of 
 
 a Eighteenth An, Rpt. 
 
 3< renteenth An. Rpt. 
 
T1IK HO(} INDUSTRY. 
 
 155 
 
 the 3G lost in weighl during the two weeks. They were on rape, and 
 only 4 made gains. The total loss on 36 pigs was 60 pounds, or al the 
 rale of 1| pounds per pig. The 6 pigs that had been on an exclusive 
 grain diet lost 18 pounds, or 3 pounds each. The 8 pigs thai had been 
 
 on grain and clover lost L9 pounds, an average of nearly 2^ pounds 
 each, and the 22 pigs that were taken from a grain and rape diet lost 
 3o pounds, or 1| pounds each. 
 
 Soiling. — The Utah Station a reports the results of seven tests of the 
 value of green feed to pigs in pens and yards on full grain and one- 
 fourth grain rations. In four tests the pigs were in pens and in three 
 they were in open j^ards. The green feed was mainly alfalfa, but 
 some waste garden products were also fed. 
 
 During the first two years of these tests, embracing four experi- 
 ments, the dry matter in the grass was estimated and included in the 
 figures for feed eaten; but in the last three tests only the actual 
 weight of grain fed was taken into account. The following table 
 shows a summary of the results: 
 
 Value of soiling pigs on grass. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 
 tests. 
 
 Average 
 daily- 
 gain. 
 
 Feed 
 eaten 
 daily. 
 
 Feed per 
 
 100 
 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 Average of all: 
 
 Full grain 
 
 Full grain and grass 
 
 One-fourth grain and grass 
 Average of pens: 
 
 Full grain 
 
 Full grain and grass. 
 
 Pounds. 
 1.04 
 1.13 
 
 .94 
 1.17 
 
 Pounds. 
 4.42 
 4.74 
 
 4.05 
 4.75 
 
 Pounds. 
 424 
 414 
 
 442 
 402 
 
 These results show a considerable advantage in daily gains for the 
 pigs that were soiled and a similar saving in feed. The pigs in pens 
 show a very marked advantage for soiling. There was an average 
 daily gain of 0.23 pound more for the soiled pigs than for those on 
 grain alone, and the feed required for 100 pounds gain was nearly 10 
 per cent less. It is suggested that these good results were due as 
 much to the healthful action of such feed on the digestive system as 
 to their nutrient content. 
 
 The Ontario Agricultural College b conducted an experiment to 
 compare pasturing on such feeds as vetches and rape with their feed- 
 ing in pens. Disregarding the item of labor, these results show that 
 soiling is very economical. The average daily consumption of feed 
 by pigs in the pens was approximately -1 pounds of green feed and 
 
 « Bui. No. 70. See page 93 for explanation of ; ' partial 
 &An. Rpt., 1901. 
 
 and ' ; full ' ' grain rations. 
 
156 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 
 
 ounds of meal. This experimenl was part of a breed test, and 
 generally the best pigs were in the outside Lota. YeA the meal required 
 for LOO poands gain was. For all breeds, 510 pounds with the outside 
 Lots and ill for those in the pens on grain and green feed. At the 
 close of the experimenl the pigs were sold, and the packer's report 
 showed nothing unfavorable to the method of feeding. The bacon 
 produced was firm and of good quality in other ways. The pigs that 
 were soiled required twice as much time for attention and feeding as 
 
 those outside. 
 
 I'ii rslnm . I M umb" re polls a 1 rial in I nd iana wit li two Chester White 
 
 sows confined in small pens and fed for twenty-one days a mixture of 
 
 equal parts shorts and hominy meal with all the purslane they would 
 
 eat. Purslane was not eaten with the relish that was expected, but 
 
 the pigs made fairly good gains at a COSt of 2.2 cents per pound. 
 
 Grazing chufas. — Duggar* hurdled 9 Berkshire pigs from November 
 in to I December 17 on chufas, with some grain, and a mix! ore of corn 
 meal and eowpea meal in addition. They gained i_l pounds, grazed 
 7,986 square feet of chufas, and ate 262 pounds of grain, thus requir- 
 Lng only 234 pounds of grain for LOO pounds gain. With the usual 
 allowances for the gain due to the grain fed, the return per acre for 
 the chufas, estimating pork at :>.l cents per pound, was $13.09. 
 
 Grazing peanuts, chufas, and soy beans. — At the Arkansas station, 
 Bennett fed four lots of half-bred Berkshire pigs to compare the 
 grazing values of i hese I hree crops with pen feeding on corn. The soil 
 on which the crops were grown was a sandy loam with an estimated 
 capacity of 30 bushels of corn per acre. The crops named were planted 
 in rows :\ feet apart — the peanuts 14 Inches apart in the rows, the 
 chufas'' \- inches apart in the rows, and the soy beans drilled. The 
 stand was estimated at 87 per cent for the peanuts, 75 per cent for the 
 chufas, and only good for the soybeans. The corn was fed dry on 
 the ear, and the grazing was done by using hurdles. The feeding 
 
 "Bui. No. 82. 
 
 &Bul. No. \22. Alabama Expt. Sta. 
 
 '•Bui. No. 54. 
 
 ''Chufas are coarse plant- belonging to the Bedge family. Two species are used 
 in the manner here mentioned'— < 'yperus rotundtu and L\ eseuU ntus. According 
 to Gray. O. rotundas is found in sandy fields from Virginia to Florida and Texas, 
 and is occasionally met with in the neighborhood of Philadelphia and New York 
 City. C esculentus is found in low grounds, along rivers, etc., from New Bruns- 
 wick to Florida and west to Minnesota and Texas. This is the species more com- 
 monly used BjS feed for fa 
 
 These plants form small tubers which enable them to spread rapidly and form 
 a thick, matted growth, each tuber being capable of producing B plant. The 
 
 tuhers are relished by hogB, hut the plants are of questionable value, as it is almost 
 
 impossible to eradicate them when once established, especially in Bandy soils. 
 
 Botanists do QOt advise planting them in soil that can be used for any other 
 
 purp< 
 
TIIK HOC 1 N 1)1 STK1 . 
 
 I.", 7 
 
 lasted forty-six days, excepl for the soy beans, which gaveoul sooner 
 
 than expected. The results were as follows: 
 
 Peanuts, chufas, and *<>// beans compared with corn. 
 
 Kind «>f feed. 
 
 Peanuts . . 
 Chufas . . . 
 Soy beans 
 Corn 
 
 beHf Wf »« hi Total 
 1 at begin- gain. 
 
 ning. 
 
 pigs. 
 
 Pound*. Pounds. 
 
 116.5 104.5 
 
 121.3 66 
 
 124.75 
 
 139 112.3 
 
 Average 
 daily 
 
 gain. 
 
 Pound. 
 0.57 
 .85 
 o.24 
 
 .81 
 
 a Thirty-two days. 
 
 The areas of peanuts and chufas grazed were one-twelfth acre and 
 one-ninth acre, respectively. To produce 112.3 pounds of pork with 
 the corn-fed lot 7.6 bushels of corn were eaten. From these data the 
 yield of pork per acre was estimated as follows : a Peanuts, 1,252 
 pounds; chufas, 592 pounds; corn, 436 pounds, estimating the corn 
 yield at 30 bushels per acre. 
 
 The quality of the pork from pigs grazed on chufas and soy beans 
 was about the same as that from corn-fed pigs; the peanut-fed lot 
 produced a soft, oily quality of fat, but no deleterious results could 
 be detected in cooking. 
 
 In the following two years Bennett b grazed pigs on peanuts and 
 chufas, the results being noted below. In addition to the study of 
 the feeding value of these plants, their effect on the quality of the 
 pork was studied. When hogs are grazed on peanuts or chufas the 
 lard has quite a low melting point; and, as nearly all such feeding is 
 conducted in the Southern States, this condition gives rise to consider- 
 able trouble during the summer months. To obviate this difficulty the 
 common practice of farmers is to use corn in finishing hogs that have 
 had peanuts as the principal component of the ration. The results 
 of the study of the effects of these feeds on the quality of pork are 
 presented elsewhere in this bulletin. 
 
 Bennett's feeding results in 1899 and 1900 follow : 
 
 In 1899 Lot I grazed a crop that was alternately three rows of 
 peanuts and one of chufas; Lot II grazed peanuts; Lot III grazed 
 chufas; Lot TV grazed chufas; Lot V grazed as Lot I. The grazing 
 lasted sixty days, except for Lots TV and V, which grazed ninety days. 
 Lots III, IY, and Y had no finishing period on corn. Two pigs were 
 slaughtered in both of the first two lots at the expiration of the graz- 
 ing period, the melting point of the fat determined, and the remaining 
 pigs put on a full feed of corn. At intervals of two weeks 2 more 
 
 a Soy beans not estimated. 
 
 b Bui. No. 65, Arkansas Expt. Sta. 
 
L58 
 
 lUKKAl OF ANIMAL I MM 8TR^ 
 
 were slaughtered and the melting point of the fat determined, 
 continuing in this manner until all tin- pigs were slaughtered, bo thai 
 the last pi.u r s to !><• slaughtered had been on corn eight weeks. 
 
 The pigs used in tin- 1899 experiment were natives, not over one- 
 fourth of improved i>l<>od. They were from ten t<» twenty months old 
 and a\ eraged about 1 15 pounds in weight. 
 
 In L 900 the feeding was as follows: Lot I grazed on a field of alter- 
 nate rov< a of peanuts and ohufas for seventy-five daj s, receii ing some 
 corn in addition. Lot II grazed a field of alternate rows of peanuts 
 and chufas for fifty days, and for twenty-five days received a quan- 
 tity of com equivalent to that fed the above lot. Lot III grazed 
 peanuts for seventy-five days and had corn as Lot I. Lot IN' grazed 
 peanuts as above for fifty days and had corn for twenty-five days as 
 the preceding lots. Lot V grazed on peanuts and had corn at the 
 same time for seventy-five days. Tin- pigs of this lot were purebred 
 Berkshire*, and were used to determine the effect of improved blood 
 on the melt ing point of lard. 
 
 The quality of these pigs was somewhat higher than in the experiment 
 of i^:»".». The pigs of Lots I to IV were from eight to twelve months old 
 at t he beginning; the purebred pigs were from six to eight months old. 
 
 'The gains of the pigs, while incidental to the main purpose of the 
 experiment, arc of much interest. Those for L899 are as follows: 
 Comparativi gains in feeding pigs on i» minis, chufas, and corn. 
 
 Lot. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 
 gh1 at 
 
 beginning. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Xum- . 
 
 I 
 
 Hi 
 4 
 B 
 
 •> 
 
 Pounds. 
 116. 1 
 116.2 
 
 111.:. 
 11.-..:. 
 lie,.:, 
 
 I 'mi, ids. 
 
 061 
 888 
 881 
 
 888 
 
 80 
 
 80 
 80 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 l 68 
 
 II - 
 
 m - 
 
 IV 
 
 - 
 
 1.66 
 
 LSI 
 
 1.47 
 
 The following irains were made during 1900: 
 
 ( Comparative gains in /< • ding pigs on y< limits, chufas, and com. 
 
 Lot. 
 
 I.. 
 
 II 
 
 III 
 
 IV 
 
 V 
 
 Nam- .\\ 
 i>«'i- of weight at 
 i>iu r -. beginning. 
 
 Pound*. 
 86 
 
 86 
 
 88 
 
 Total 
 
 gain. 
 
 J 'oil mis: 
 
 518 
 
 no 
 
 717 
 
 Nam- 
 
 days 
 
 fea. 
 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Lit 
 
 l 80 
 
 i n 
 
 1.7(i 
 
 l 88 
 
 ( 1 'azingpt mints. At the Alabama Station, Duggar a grazed 6 Poland 
 china pigs on peanuts, with some corn in addition. The Lot madea 
 
 r.ui. No. '.'•■'•. 
 
THE HOG INDUSTRY. 159 
 
 gain of 380.7 pounds in six weeks on an area of about one-sixth acre 
 and ate 373 pounds of corn. Estimating corn at 40 cents per bushel 
 and pork at 3 cents per pound this is a return of $18.34 per acre for 
 peanuts from this method of feeding, somewhat less than the Arkansas 
 experiment previously mentioned. 
 
 On a portion of the field which was not pastured the peanuts were 
 dug and yielded at the rate of 62. G bushels (1,5G5 pounds) of dry nuts 
 per acre. From this the total feed required to produce 100 pounds 
 gain was estimated as 140 pounds of peanuts and 100 pounds of 
 corn — a total of 330 pounds of concentrates, with vines eaten not 
 estimated. 
 
 Duggar estimates the value of the return from peanuts in pork at 
 $18 per acre, and states that the same land with the same fertilizers, 
 would not produce over 200 pounds of lint cotton per acre, which 
 would be worth 810 or 812, with cotton at 5 or 6 cents per pound, while 
 the expense of cultivating the cotton would be much greater. 
 
 In a later experiment Duggar a penned a litter of 9-weeks-old pigs 
 on a two-thirds stand of Spanish peanuts just after weaning. They 
 were on this pasture from November 4 to December 23, and ate 162 
 pounds of corn meal for 100 pounds gain in addition to grazing about 
 five-sixths of an acre of peanuts. At 4 cents per pound for pork, 
 and making allowances for the grain eaten, the return per acre for 
 the peanuts was $10.04. 
 
 In another test a a sow and her litter of 9 pigs were fed from Sep- 
 tember 30 to November 4 on corn meal, skim milk, and Spanish pea- 
 nuts from one-fourth acre of land. They ate 355 pounds of corn meal 
 and 921 pounds of skim milk. The sow and pigs gained a total of 
 236 pounds. At 4 cents per pound for pork, valuing corn meal at $1 
 per 100 pounds and skim milk at 25 cents per 100 pounds and esti- 
 mating 325 pounds of skim milk to be worth 100 pounds corn meal, 
 the return per acre for the peanuts was $17.28. 
 
 In another test a 7 shoats, averaging nearly 100 pounds, were penned 
 on Spanish peanuts from October 11 to November 2 and fed some corn 
 meal. They made a total gain of 225 pounds, eating 286 pounds of 
 corn meal and grazing the peanuts on 0.47 acre, requiring only 127 
 pounds of corn meal for 100 pounds gain. With the usual allow- 
 ances, the return per acre for the peanuts in this test was $18.02. 
 
 In another test a 7 shoats were taken from corn meal, cowpea meal, 
 and sorghum and placed on Spanish peanuts and corn meal for four 
 weeks. They ate 333 pounds of corn meal and grazed 10,593 square 
 feet of peanuts, making a gain of 121 pounds, which was at a cost of 
 273 pounds grain for 100 pounds gain. The value per acre of the 
 peanut pasture was estimated, by the usual method, at $9. 
 
 Some of these pigs were continued by hurdling on peanut pasture 
 and were given some grain in addition for five weeks longer. In this 
 period the return per acre for the peanuts was estimated at $9.88. 
 
 « Bui. No. 122. Alabama Expt. Sta. 
 
L60 
 
 BUREAU 01 ANIMAL [NDU8TBY 
 
 In another test* a Litter of 7 Poland China pigs, averaging 28 
 pounds in weight, were hurdled on Spanish peanuts just after wean- 
 ing. The pasturing continued su weeks and no grain was fed. The 
 total gain was L57 pounds, an average daily gain of 0.53 pound. The 
 area grazed was L 3, 887 square feet, and the return per acre, with pork 
 at i cents per pound, was $20. L2. 
 
 Pea/nut pashm compared with corn meal. — The Alabama Station 
 
 led one lot <>l' pigs OB B jn-anut field which was a poor Stand, giving 
 
 some corn meal additional; another Lot had nothing inn the peanut 
 past ore, and a third Lot porn meal only. There were 3 pigs in each lot, 
 and they were of rather ordinary feeding qualities. In four weeks 
 tli** lot on peanuts and corn meal gained 38.6 pounds, those on 
 peanuts alone gained 21.1 pounds, and those on corn meal lost 5.1 
 
 pounds. The lot on peanuts and corn meal ate 206 pounds of eorn 
 
 per LOO pounds gain and grazed 2,025 square feet planted in peanuts. 
 
 "This is at the rate of 840 pounds Of growth from 1 acre of pea- 
 nuts (with less than half a stand) and 1,710 pounds (36.6 bushels) of 
 corn meal. With pork at 3 cents per pound and corn meal at 40 
 dents per bushel of 48 pounds, this is a gross return of $25.20 and a 
 net return (alter subtracting the value of the meal) of $10.94 per 
 acre of peanuts." 
 
 The pigs on peanuts only "pastured an area of 3,517 square feet, 
 and the gain made was 21.1 pounds, which is at the rate of 261 pounds 
 of pork per acre. At 3 cents per pound gross for pork, this gives a 
 value of $7.83 to the acre of peanuts on which there was only half a 
 stand of plants." 
 
 Duggar estimates the value of peanuts in pork production at si 2 to 
 $20 per acre, the higher returns being made where corn meal supple- 
 ments 1 he peanut past ure. 
 
 Peanuts and chuf as compared with grain. — Duggar''' fed four lots 
 of 3 pigs each for eighteen days to compare the values of peanut 
 and chuf a pasture with grain alone. Lot I grazed Spanish peanuts 
 and had a half ration of a mixture, by weight, of corn meal - parts 
 and cowpea meal 1 part: Lol II grazed Spanish peanuts without grain ; 
 Lot III grazed chuf as, with the same half grain ration as Lot 1: Lol IV 
 was \\n\ in a hare lot and given all the mixture i'^\ Lot I that the pigs 
 would eat up (dean. The following table shows the results: 
 
 Peanut and chuf a pasturt compared with grain. 
 
 i 
 
 Average 
 weighl at 
 beginning. 
 
 Spanish peanutc grased, one-half grain ration 
 
 Spanish peanuts grased j 
 
 Ohufas grased, one-half grain ration 
 
 Pull grain ration 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 108 
 
 181 
 
 Number 
 of pigs. 
 
 Number 
 
 Of <la\s 
 
 fed. 
 
 ^ ani - gain! 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 l .60 
 
 .41 
 
 1 . i*i 
 
 LSI 
 
 BtlL No. 08, Alabama Expt. Sta. 
 Mini. No. L22, Alabama Expt. Sta. 
 
THE HOG [NDUSTRY. 1<>I 
 
 Peanut andchufa pasture compared with graii Continued. 
 
 Total feed eaten 
 
 Area grazed and ra1 Ion. 
 
 Spanish peanuts grazed, one-half grain ration 
 Spanish peanuts grazed 
 
 Chut' as grazed, one-half grain ration.. 
 
 Full grain ration. 
 
 Area 
 grazed. 
 
 Sq. /< et. 
 8,344 
 12,448 
 7,937 
 
 ( iiiiin 
 eaten, 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 152 
 
 152 
 304 
 
 Grain per 
 
 LOO pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 I 'oil lllls. 
 
 L88 
 
 L92 
 
 4:51 
 
 Pasturage 
 on I acre 
 
 lor a UNI. 
 pound 
 shoat. 
 
 Day 8. 
 
 850 
 163 
 
 827 
 
 This experiment shows the best returns when grain was fed with 
 these crops. Grazing peanuts alone was very unsatisfaetor} 7 . The 
 return per acre of peanuts and ehufas, with pork at 4 cents per pound, 
 was estimated, where grain was fed, at $9.50 and $9.G2, respectively. 
 The pigs on peanut pasture alone returned only $3.03 per acre for the 
 crop. Those on pasture with grain made much more rapid and eco- 
 nomical gains than those on grain only. 
 
 The last column of the table is especially interesting. With a small 
 amount of grain it is evident that pasture will be available for a much 
 longer period than when no grain is fed. 
 
 Grazing sorghum and cowpeas. — Duggar rt fed four lots of 3 pigs 
 each for five weeks to compare the value of sorghum and cowpea pas- 
 ture with a grain ration. Lot I was hurdled on drilled sorghum which 
 was in the dough and ripening stages and received a half grain ration 
 of a mixture, b}^ weight, of corn meal 2 parts and cowpea meal 1 part. 
 Lot II was placed in a pen in which sorghum was growing and had, 
 in addition, enough ripe Spanish peanuts to constitute a half ration 
 of peanuts. Lot III was hurdled on drilled Whip-poor-will cowpeas 
 on which part of the pods were ripe and received no grain. Lot IV 
 was confined in a bare pen and given the grain mixture given Lot I 
 in such amount as the pigs would eat up clean. The following table 
 shows the results : 
 
 Grazing pigs on sorghum and cowpeas. 
 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 pigs. 
 
 Average 
 weight at 
 beginning. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 days 
 fed. 
 
 Average 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Total feed eaten. 
 
 Grain 
 per 100 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Area 
 
 grazed. 
 
 Grain 
 eaten. 
 
 Grain 1 
 
 Grazed sorghum J 
 
 Spanish peanuts 1 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 59 
 
 59 
 
 57 
 64 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 75 
 
 54 
 
 51 
 - 124 
 
 35 
 
 35 
 
 35 
 35 
 
 Pounds. 
 0.71 
 
 .51 
 
 .48 
 1.18 
 
 Sq. feet. 
 
 4. 872 
 
 4.872 
 17,964 
 
 Poll nils. 
 244 
 
 Pounds. 
 328 
 
 Grazed sorghum J 
 
 Grazed ripe cowpeas. 3 
 
 
 
 Grain. 
 
 464 
 
 374 
 
 
 
 
 
 "Bui. No. 122. Alabama Expt. Sta. 
 8396— No. 47—04 11 
 
!<' 
 
 Ill RE M 01 AMM AI. I N Dl-l BY. 
 
 These results are not verj satisfactory for grazing on sorghum or 
 on oowpeas without a supplementary grain ration. The waste of feed 
 in the eowpea lot was \ ery great, large numbers of the ripe pease fall- 
 ing i'» the ground and sprouting. Previous worlj at the Alabama 
 Station has shown more satisfactory results when grain was fed in con- 
 junct Ion wit Ii i he eowpea past are. 
 
 Duggar notes another < tperimenl with sorghum grazing, In which 
 there was a large waste of feed, although grain was fed. Seven shoats 
 were »(ii the sorghum from June 24 to September 2, L899, and received 
 at the same time about L-J pounds per bead daily of a mixture of equal 
 parts, by weight, of eowpea meal and corn meal The piu r > grazed 
 1.5,374 square feet of sorghum and 8,380 square feet of second-growth 
 sorghum; They ate 812 pounds of grain, or •'; , '< 11 pounds of grain per 
 100 pounds of gain. Making allowances for the value of the grain 
 fed, ilic I'd urn per acre of sorghum, with pork at I cents per pound, 
 was estimated at 17.80. The second-growth sorghum produced only 
 about one-half as much feed a> the first growth. Large quantities of 
 the sorghum were trampled under foot, and when some of it was cut 
 and carried to the pigs a given area Lasted much Longer than when 
 they were turned in to graze. Duggar suggests that when labor is 
 cheap and abundant or a corn harvester is available soiling sorghum 
 will l»e the more profitable method <>f feeding. 
 
 Coivpea pastu/rt with corn. — Duggar 6 fed 6 Esses shoats from the 
 same litter to invest Lgate the pasture value of cowpeas. Lot I received 
 corn only. Lot II was hurdled on cowpeas that were about half 
 matured at the beginning of the experiment. The field tested L3.2 
 bushels per acre of peas, on an anpastured portion. Both Lots 
 received hard-wood ashes and salt. The results were as follows 
 
 < low 
 
 d corn compart d 
 
 with corn aloru . 
 
 
 Kind of feed. 
 
 Nun'.- Average T , 
 *»?<* weight at Tog 
 pigs, beginning. *~ 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 
 daily 
 
 Corn l<»> 
 eatei 
 
 Corn alone 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 Pounds. P<»i wis. 
 
 12 
 
 Pound. 
 
 
 i pasture and corn. .. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The pigs were pastured on an area of 7,280 square feet, or about 
 one-sixth of an acre. Valuing pork ai 3 cents per pound and corn at 
 40 cents per bushel, the return for cowpeas per acre is $10.65, not 
 Including the value of the manure made. By pasturing, 277 pounds 
 of corn were va\ ed per LOO pounds gain, and therefore an acre of cow- 
 peas would replace 1,662 pounds of corn, using this test as a basis. 
 
 The Maryland station fed a number of pigs on eowpea pasture 
 and concluded that cowpeas are well adapted bo pigs about three 
 
 Bnl NO. 132, Alabama Expt. Sta. 
 
 Bui. No. 98, Alabama Expt Sta. BnL 
 
THK BOG [NDU8TBY. 
 
 L63 
 
 months old. The older pigs that had been highly fed and had always 
 been kepi in a pen evidently had lost their rustling ability and did 
 no! thrive so well on cowpeas. 
 
 PUMPKINS AND APPLES. 
 
 Feeding pumpkins ran- and cooked. — At Ottawa, Grisdale fed 
 pumpkins to pigs in considerable numbers. A field was specially pre- 
 pared, the seed being planted in hills 8 feci apart each way. The 
 yield was about 9 tons per aero and the cost 90 cents per ton. In feed- 
 ing one lot received raw pumpkins and grain (a meal mixture of one- 
 half corn meal and one-half a mixture of equal parts of oats, peas, and 
 barley). The other lot received cooked pumpkins and the same meal 
 mixture. 
 
 At the Oregon Station, French* took 6 Berkshires, eight months old, 
 from a stubble field where they had been for six weeks and placed 
 them on a ration of pumpkins and shorts. The pumpkins were the 
 common yellow field variety, and were prepared by cutting up, remov- 
 ing the seed, and cooking or steaming, after which shorts were mixed 
 with them. 
 
 At the New Hampshire Station, Burkett c fed pigs to compare cooked 
 and raw pumpkins. Lot I, consisting of 3 pigs, received skim milk, 
 corn meal, and cooked pumpkins; Lot II, consisting of 3 pigs, received 
 milk, corn meal, and raw pumpkins. The following table shows the 
 result of these experiments: 
 
 Value of pumpkins as feed for pigs. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 GO 
 
 A . 
 
 
 >> 
 
 ft 
 
 'S ^ 
 
 
 c3 
 
 O 
 
 *s 
 
 d 
 
 Oirj 
 
 © 
 
 -a 
 
 a 
 
 erage 
 
 t begi 
 
 & 
 ? 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 > ofl 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 & 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 fc 
 
 Feed eaten. 
 
 Feed per lOOpounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 g M Grain. ' Milk. P ™£P' Grain. 
 
 < 
 
 Milk Pump- 
 Mllk - kins. 
 
 Ottawa : 
 
 Raw pumpkins. 
 Cooked pump- 
 kins 
 
 Oregon: 
 
 Cooked pump- 
 kins ... 
 
 New Hampshire: 
 Raw pumpkins 
 Cooked pump- 
 kins 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 
 
 1,981 
 
 . 745 ] 
 . 706 
 
 6 171.5 499 1.49 
 
 3 142 170 25 2.26 
 
 3 138.6 166 25 2.21 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 
 2,090 I 26' 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 1,602 
 
 924 
 514 
 
 ,500 
 
 227 
 
 185 
 
 ,523 
 630 1,348 302 
 
 630 742 309 
 
 379 
 
 Lbs. Dolls. 
 281 3.08 
 
 1,062 2.96 
 
 1,508 
 
 2.99 
 3.31 
 
 447 3. 32 
 
 Averaging these results, the raw pumpkins rations show 273 pounds 
 of grain and 37G pounds of pumpkins for each 100 pounds of gain, 
 and the cooked pumpkins rations, 222 pounds of grain and 1,150 
 pounds of pumpkins for each 100 pounds of gain. 
 
 An. Rpt. , 1900, Central Experimental Farm. b Bui. No. 54. c Bui. No. 66. 
 
uu 
 
 1:1 Kl \i OF \NIM \l. [NDUSTE'J . 
 
 Raw pumpkins alone. — Burkett* fed <>ne lot of ln^s on a ration <»r 
 uncooked pumpkins \n it 1 1 no other feed i mi skim milk with the fol- 
 lowing results : 
 
 
 number 
 
 8 
 
 Pumpkins pounds 
 
 A\ i ragi weight 
 
 at begin- 
 
 
 Milk per 100 pounds gain d< i 
 
 ning 
 
 pounds 
 
 i n 
 
 Pumpkins per LOO pounds 
 
 Total gain 
 
 do ... 
 
 S4 
 
 ^ain pounds 1,530 
 
 Days fed. 
 
 Dumber 
 
 26 
 
 Cos! of feed per LOO pounds 
 
 Average daily gain 
 
 pounds 
 
 1.19 
 
 gain dollars 2.89 
 
 Milk consumed 
 
 do 
 
 680 
 
 
 Feeding pumpkins and apples. At the sane time with tin* test 
 outlined in the preceding paragraph, Burketl fed a l<»i of 3 pigson a 
 ration of apples an<l pumpkins, half and half, cooked. The pumpkins 
 in all the New Hampshire experiments were raised at a cost of 40 
 cents per ton; tin- apples were common cider apples, or windfalls, 
 ami were valued ai L0 cents per bushel/ The results are as follows: 
 
 Pigs number 
 
 Average weight at beginning, 
 
 pounds L40 
 
 Total gain pounds 116 
 
 Days fed number 25 
 
 Average daily gain pounds L.54 
 
 Milk consumed do 680 
 
 'A Pumpkins and apples pounds 
 
 Milk per 100 pounds gain do 545 
 
 Pumpkins and apples LOO pounds 
 
 gain . pounds 8,848 
 
 Oosl of feed 100 pounds gain, dol- 
 lars L65 
 
 The higher cost of gain in this tost is attributed to the apples, and 
 it is questioned whether it pays to feed them at a cost equal to or 
 exceeding L0 cents per bushel. 
 
 BOOTS AND TUBERS. 
 
 Feeding roots t<> live stock is comparatively recent in the United 
 Mate>. Corn, wiih hay and ensilage, has been the principal mainte- 
 nance during the winter months when pasture was not available. In 
 hog feeding ii is safe to say that, until very recent years, almost the 
 only substitutes for past are wore pumpkins, artichokes, and clover <>r 
 alfalfa hay in certain sections. In England and Canada, however, 
 much depends nee is placed on roots, and. while we may never reach 
 the point in this country generally of fattening animals almost 
 entirely on a root diet, the peculiar advantages to be gained by them, 
 their great palatability, and the good effect on the health and thrift 
 of the animal commend roots i<» the stockman. 
 
 A number of experiments have been reported recently on feeding 
 roots i«> h< 
 
 At the Indiana Station, Plumb and Van Norman' conducted two 
 experiments to compare a ration composed solely of grain with one 
 
 r,ul. X... r.f,. New Hampshire Bxpt. Sta. 
 
 N- iw Hampshire has no Legal weight per bushel for apples, and this bulletin 
 did not state the weight used. The legal weight in other States varies from Jt to 
 
 50 ] ion nds. 
 
 Buls. X'-. :'.' and 82, 
 
THE HOG INDUSTK\ . 
 
 L65 
 
 where roots were added. in both experiments tin- grain ration was 1 
 pari coin meal, 2 parts shorts, fed as slop. No drink other than water 
 was given. In the firsl experimenl mangels were fed; Ln the second 
 the roots were sugar beets sliced and fed in the slop, and they were 
 relished more than the mangels. 
 
 At the Ontario Agricultural College, Day" fed four lots of pigs in 
 pens as follows: 
 
 Lots I and II were made up of 4 grade Yorkshire pigs each from the 
 same litter, about seven weeks old; Lots III and IV contained 5 grade 
 Yorkshire pigs each from the same litter, about 9 weeks old. Lot I 
 received barley and middlings; Lot II received barley and middlings 
 with an equal weight of raw pulped mangels; Lot III received coin 
 and middlings; Lot IV received corn and middlings with an equal 
 weight of raw pulped mangels. The proportion of grain to middlings 
 was 1 : 2 in all lots at the beginning of the experiment, and was grad- 
 ually changed as the pigs increased in weight and age until it was 2 : 1 
 toward the close. 
 
 At the Utah Station, Foster and Merrill 6 conducted two experiments 
 to compare a ration of bran and sugar beets with rations of corn meal, 
 ground wheat, and corn meal and peas. In the first experiment Lot 
 I received corn meal, Lot II received ground wheat, and Lot III 
 received sugar beets with a one-third ration of bran. In the second 
 experiment Lot I received a mixture of equal parts of corn meal and 
 ground peas, Lots II and III being fed as in the first test. The pigs 
 were fed in covered pens, and were given all the}' would eat. There 
 were 3 in each lot. 
 
 At the Montana Station, Shaw c fed one lot of hogs on grain only 
 and another on the same grain ration with sugar beets added. The 
 following table shows the results of these experiments: 
 
 Value of roots as feed for pigs. 
 
 
 Num- 
 ber 
 of 
 
 pigs. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 weight 
 at be- 
 gin- 
 ning. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 Num- 
 ber 
 of 
 days 
 fed. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 daily 
 
 gain. 
 
 Total feed 
 eaten. 
 
 Feed per 100 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Roots. 
 
 Grain- 
 fed 
 lots. 
 
 Grain-and-root 
 fed lots. 
 
 
 Grain. Roots. 
 
 Indiana: 
 
 Grain 
 
 Grain and roots 
 
 Grain 
 
 6 
 6 
 4 
 4 
 
 4 
 4 
 5 
 5 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 46 
 44 
 60 
 60 
 
 42 
 42 
 55 
 55 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 443 
 356 
 444 
 382 
 
 501 
 672 
 664 
 744 
 
 77 
 
 98 
 98 
 
 196 
 196 
 196 
 196 
 
 Lbs. 
 0.96 
 
 1.13 
 
 .77 
 
 .64 
 .86 
 .68 
 .76 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 1,643 
 1.320 
 1,697 
 1,186 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 
 
 .514 
 
 1,568 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 371 
 
 382 
 
 
 439 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. 
 
 371 1 145 
 
 Grain and roots 
 
 Ontario Agricultural 
 College: d 
 Grain. 
 
 310 
 
 410 
 
 Grain and roots 
 
 
 
 380 
 
 
 Grain 
 
 
 
 455 
 
 
 Grain and roots 
 
 
 
 404 
 
 
 «An. Rpt,, 1901. 
 ?' Bui. No. 70. 
 
 t'Bul. No. 27. 
 
 (l The grain per 100 pounds gain in the Ontario results is dry matter. 
 
166 
 
 BUREAU OF animal [KDURTRY. 
 Value of roots i forpiga—ContintLecL 
 
 
 Nu m 
 
 
 Total 
 
 Nuin 
 
 ber 
 
 daily 
 
 .. reed 
 
 eat«Mi 
 
 
 >. r 1i«i i».iiiik1s 
 
 • .11. 
 
 ber weighl 
 at be- 
 
 
 
 Iota 
 
 md-root 
 fed 
 
 
 
 tungr. 
 
 38 
 
 111 
 
 li:. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 I'tali: 
 
 ( torn meal 
 
 8 
 
 ■A 
 
 :\ 
 
 167 
 
 41M 
 
 880 
 
 667 
 
 91 
 9] 
 .... 
 LS8 
 128 
 188 
 
 88 
 68 
 
 i.i:; 
 
 80 
 
 .7(1 
 
 1.80 
 
 1,606 
 
 
 4-C{ 
 
 Lb*. 
 
 
 c (round wheel 
 
 
 
 in ;iinl roota 
 Oornmealand pease 
 
 
 
 1,068 
 
 < tround wheat 
 
 
 
 >M and roots 
 
 : oa: 
 
 
 o 1,771 
 
 
 
 < train and roota 
 
 
 148 
 
 .\\ erase 
 
 
 
 
 44,> 
 
 
 
 a Includes ill pounds of potato * 
 
 In the experiments tabulated here roots were fed in seven tests to 32 
 pigs, and in comparison grain was fed in aine tests to 38 pigs, making 
 a total of sixteen lots and 70 pigs. In six of the seven tots where 
 roots were (v(\ there was a saving of grain. In one instance (in 
 Indiana) nothing was gained by feeding roots. Tin- average of feed 
 per 100 pounds gain shows that feeding -i-7 pounds of roots saved 83 
 pounds of grain, or L9 per cent, which is a very high value for roots. 
 
 This teal lire of root feeding has previously been remarked upon 
 in this bulletin. Attention is called to it in nearly every instance 
 where experimenters have fed roots successfully. Plumb and Van 
 Norman " do not regard their results as showing great value for roots, 
 but think that they have an effect on the appetite, digestion, and gen- 
 eral health that is beneficial, particularly in winter. In the Ontario* 
 experiments the equivalent for L0Q pounds <>f meal was 319 pounds of 
 roots in the first and 564 pounds in the second. Day calls attention 
 to the fact that both figures- are very high values for roots, and points 
 out that, "according to analyses and digestion experiments, there is 
 approximately about nine times as much digestible matter in a mix- 
 ture of corn and middlings as there is in mangels. Ii is difficult to 
 explain, therefore, how 564 pounds of mangels should prove equal to 
 !<»<> pounds of meal." The pigs receiving mangels showed the effects 
 of their feed in more growth and thrift than the others. They had 
 Less tendency to become fat, and the root ration was reduced for this 
 reason. Day'' explains this effect of root feeding to be due to a 
 "beneficial effect <>n the digestive organs of the animals, causing 
 them to digest their food better than did the others; for there is Little 
 doubt that hogs closely confined in pens are likely to suffer from 
 indigestion.' 1 Shaw explains the marked effect of roots in similar 
 
 r.ul. No. 79, Endiana Expt Bta. 
 
 Bui. No. 27, Montana Expt Sta. 
 
 Bpt., LW1, Ontario Agricultural College. 
 
THE BOG INDU8TR5 . 
 
 16 
 
 words, stating thai fche value for sugar beets for pigs is "derived 
 imt so much from the nutrients in the dry matter which they contain 
 as from the influence they exerl on digestion and assimilation." 
 
 'This action of roots in the ration is undoubtedly similar to what lias 
 already been noted in the case of dairy by-products and pasture. 
 The improvement that roots bring about in the condition of the diges- 
 tive system must also affect indirectly the entire system and thus 
 promote the general health. 
 
 Henry found the results at three American stations to be that about 
 G15 pounds of roots saved UK) pounds of grain. The Danish experi- 
 ments give 600 to 800 pounds of mangels and from 400 to 800 pounds 
 of fodder beets as the feeding equivalent of 100 pounds of grain." 
 
 The average of the results here given indicates that about 515 
 pounds of roots saved 100 pounds of meal, a somewhat higher value 
 for roots than that given in previously published work. 
 
 An experiment conducted by Shaw 6 at the Montana Station, the 
 results of which were published since the foregoing figures were com- 
 piled, showed an average daily gain for pigs of 1.58 pounds, at a cost 
 of $4.60 per 100 pounds gain on grain only (9.11 pounds of grain per 
 head daily); a second lot, on grain and sugar beets (6.65 pounds grain 
 and 4.58 pounds sugar beets per head daily) made an average daily 
 gain of 1.64 pounds, at a cost of 83.80 per 100 pounds. There were 4 
 pigs in each lot and they were fed 50 days. As a sidelight on the pos- 
 sibilities of pork production in the irrigated Northwest, it is interest- 
 ing to note that Shaw found his net profit from feeding these 8 pigs 
 to be $14.12, "or '53 per cent on the investment in fifty days." 
 
 Cow/paring various roots. — At the Central Experimental Farm in 
 Canada, Grisdale c fed four lots of pigs to compare the feeding value 
 of turnips, mangels, and sugar beets. In each case the meal mixture 
 fed consisted of one-half corn, the other half being equal parts of 
 oats, pease, and barley. In addition each pig was given 3 pounds of 
 milk daily and all the roots he would consume. The roots were fed 
 as follows: Lot I, turnips fed pulped; Lot II, mangels fed pulped; Lot 
 III, sugar beets grown for forage, fed pulped; Lot IV, sugar beets 
 grown for sugar production, fed pulped. The results were as follows: 
 
 Value of various roots for pigs. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 Lot I, turnips 
 
 Lot II. mangels 
 
 Lot III. forage beets. 
 Lot IV. sugar beets . 
 
 ary 7. 
 
 Lbs. 
 101.25 
 96.75 
 76. 75 
 57.00 
 
 Lbs. 
 363 
 
 500 
 rf528 
 
 N bT" A ^' 
 
 of »Sf 
 
 d "i. daily 
 
 fed" *™- 
 
 106 
 106 
 106 
 138 
 
 a Feeds and Feeding, pp. 570, 571. 
 
 bBul.No.37. 
 
 0.85 
 .90 
 
 1.18 
 .95 
 
 Feed eaten. 
 
 Feed per 100 
 pounds gain. 
 
 Meal. Roots. Milk. Meal. Roots. Milk 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. 
 
 780 
 
 793 
 
 l.i 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 
 
 3,808 
 
 5,930 
 4,298 
 4.266 
 
 1,284 
 1 . 284 
 1,284 
 1,680 
 
 215 
 202 
 159 
 195 
 
 Lbs. Lbs 
 
 1,049 
 1,524 
 
 '■An. Rpt.. 1901. 
 
 d Feeding ceased May 2.'). 
 
 354 
 330 
 257 
 318 
 
1 68 B1 BEAU OG \MM.\l. [NDUHTB1 . 
 
 < »n Lots I ami II do deleterious results are mentioned in either 
 i»u\ ers' or pack fix" reports. < >n Lot III the buyer reported '■> "select" 
 and l ■■ fat," and the packers 1 report was oof so favorable to this lot 
 as to Lots I and II. < >n Lot I V the buyer reported all "select;" there 
 was no packer's report on carcasses of this lot. 
 
 In this experiment the pigs on forage beets made the greatest aver- 
 age daily gains and required the Least feed for LOO pounds gain, the 
 <»ilicr Lots standing in tin' order <>!* sugar beets, mangels, and turnips. 
 Tin' results arc remarkably low in iv<m| requirements and would seem 
 Lo >ln>\\ that roots and milk may be more advantageously combined 
 than pas! are and milk. 
 
 Daj at Guelph and Shutt at Ottawa have found that the effect of 
 roots on the carcass is not detrimental, but produces a firm bacon of 
 good quality— a very essentia] matter to Canadian pig feeders. In 
 this experiment neither buyers nor packers criticised adversely the 
 fed on turnips and mangels, and the carcasses of the sugar-beet 
 pigs were all "select" (there was no packer's report on this Lot); but 
 the buyer found onecarcass too fat in the Lot fed on forage beets, and 
 the packer's report was not so favorable as on the others. 
 
 Sugar beets alone. — At the Colorado Station, Buffum and Griffith* 
 U'(\ \ pigs on sugar beets alone. There was some difficulty at first in 
 inducing the pigs to eat beets, but after they bad become accustomed 
 to such a diet they took to it readily. At no t ime were i he pigs able to 
 eat beets enough to approach the conventional feeding standards; 
 12.50 pounds daily was the greatest amount they would take. Pora 
 brief period at the close (two weeks) forage beets were fed, the sup- 
 ply of sugar beets giving out. The results were as follows: 
 
 Average weight at beginning .pounds 100 
 
 Total gain do 67 
 
 Days fed 99 
 
 Average daily gain pound .17 
 
 Average amount of feed eaten do 1,027 
 
 Feed per 100 pounds gain do 6,130 
 
 Cost per 100 ponnds gain dollars 12.80 
 
 rage profit with pork at ? cents per pound cent . L8 
 
 Dressedweight percent 7? 
 
 Sugar beets alone are thus seen to be only a very expensive main- 
 tenance rat ion. 
 
 .1 comparison of sugar-beet pulp and sugar beets. — In Colorado, 
 Buffum and Griffith fed one Lot of pigs on a ration of sugar-beet pulp 
 and equal parts of wheat and barley; another on the same ration, 
 except that sugar beets were fed instead of pulp; the results with a 
 third lot, on equal parts of wheat and barley, are compiled in the 
 table below as a check. 
 
 Bui. No. ; i. 
 
Tin-: i:<m; inm'stp.y. 
 
 \(\\) 
 
 The pulp cost, laid down al the college, $1 per ton. It was piled 
 on well-drained ground and kept well without an undue amount of 
 fermentation. The beets fed were grown on the college farm. Their 
 cost was estimated a1 s l per ton. During the Las1 two weeks of 
 the experiment the supply ran out and forage beets were substi- 
 tuted for Bugar beets. The change is not thought to have influenced 
 results. 
 
 There was some difficulty in inducing the pigs to eat the pulp, but 
 the sugar beets were eaten from the start, although they were appar- 
 ently not relished at first. The following table shows the results: 
 
 Sugar-beet pulp compared with sugar beets. 
 
 
 r. 
 
 S^ 
 
 
 <M 
 
 >> 
 
 Average amount 
 feed eaten. 
 
 Feed per 100 
 pounds gain. 
 
 © Lh 
 
 
 13« 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 CD 
 
 
 I 
 
 CD 
 
 o 
 . >d 
 
 <B«M 
 _2 * 
 
 "3 
 
 bcce 
 
 -fl |& 
 
 Ration. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 2 
 
 > eg 
 
 2 
 
 CD 
 
 > 
 
 B 3 
 
 it 
 
 CD 
 
 > 
 
 
 P. 
 
 15 
 
 CO 
 
 -M 
 
 CD 
 
 A 
 
 
 P. 
 
 "3 
 
 w 
 -m 
 
 CD 
 
 ost 
 poun 
 
 vera 
 at 7 
 pout 
 
 
 fc 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 fc 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 eu 
 
 o 
 
 fc 
 
 o- <l 
 
 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 L6s. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 £6s. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 Z)o//.s. Dolls. 
 
 Grain 
 
 4 
 
 95 
 
 120 
 
 104 
 
 1 16 
 
 546.50 
 
 
 
 450 
 
 
 
 4.50 3.90 
 
 Beet pulp and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 grain 
 
 4 
 
 97 
 
 88 
 
 99 
 
 .89 
 
 343 
 
 706 
 
 
 390 
 
 800 
 
 
 4.30 
 
 3.35 
 
 Sugar beets 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 and grain . . 
 
 4 
 
 101 
 
 98 
 
 104 
 
 .94 
 
 416 
 
 
 391 
 
 420 
 
 
 400 
 
 5.00 
 
 2.93 
 
 Potatoes. — Clinton a reports an unsuccessful attempt at Cornell to 
 feed potatoes raw and cooked. Some grain and skim milk were given in 
 addition, but, while over 400 pounds of potatoes were eaten, the pigs 
 made no progress and were getting out of condition when the experi- 
 ment was brought to a close. The low temperature while the pigs 
 were being fed, ranging between 29° and 30° F., is suggested as a 
 reason for the poor results. 
 
 At the Central Experimental Farm 6 very satisfactory results were 
 obtained from cooked potatoes, but raw potatoes produced little gain. 
 In one experiment the pigs were given all the raw 7 potatoes the} 7 would 
 eat, but made no gain and the tubers were discontinued. In a sec- 
 ond test a similar experience led to a change to cooked potatoes. 
 The opinion of investigators at this station is that raw potatoes are of 
 little value for feeding pigs, but when cooked they are worth about 
 one-fourth as much as mixed grain. 
 
 The following table shows the results of three tests where cooked 
 potatoes were fed with success. The meal fed was a mixture of equal 
 
 aBul. No. 199. Cornell University Expt. Sta. 
 & Bui. No. 33. 
 
17<) 
 
 HI 1:1 \l 01 AM MAI. IN hi BTR1 . 
 
 pari- !»\ weight of ground barley, ground rye, ground frozen wheat, 
 
 and bran : 
 
 i 'ok/.* 1/ potato* 8 for pigs. 
 
 
 - 
 
 — 
 
 < 
 
 > 
 
 •-- 
 1 
 
 d 
 
 - 
 4 
 
 mount 
 
 Peed per 100 
 poui 
 
 Ration. 
 
 
 a 
 
 u. 
 
 Potaf 
 
 
 Potatoe meal 
 
 
 
 U.S. 
 
 U.S. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 kiin milk 
 
 :< 
 
 
 171 
 
 11.-, 
 
 140 
 
 
 177 
 
 81* 
 
 
 
 
 Potato* meal, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >kim milk 
 
 :\ 
 
 
 IK 
 
 140 
 
 140 
 
 LOO 
 
 
 7 1".' 
 
 106 
 
 
 
 74 
 
 Potatoes i Iced i, meal. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >kim milk 
 
 
 :a) 
 
 198 
 
 It:.' 
 
 140 
 
 1.01 
 
 140 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sweet potatoes. — The Alabama, South Carolina, Maryland, ami 
 Florida stations have experimented with sweel potatoes with some- 
 whal varying results. 
 
 Ai the Alabama Station, Duggar fed <>n<' lot of pigs on a ration of 
 three-fourths sweet potatoes and one-fourth ground cowpeas an 1 
 another on a ration of equal parts of corn meal and cowpeas. After 
 four weeks they were pu1 through an intermediate period <»f <>n.- week 
 and the rations were reversed, the lot that had formerly been on corn 
 meal and cowpeas receiving the sweet potato ration. This was con- 
 tinued for four weeks longer, so that in all there were eight weeks 1 
 feeding on a sweel potato ration. 
 
 The ration of sweet potatoes and cowpeas proved very inferior to 
 the ration of corn meal and cowpeas; the increase in live weight was 
 Dearly twice as great in the case of coin meal and COWpeas, and the 
 dry matter pei- loo pounds of gain was est imated at 600 pounds where 
 sweet potatoes were fed to .'Mo pounds where com meal was fed. 
 Duggar refers to the difficulty of inducing the pigs to eat enough dry 
 mailer when sweet potatoes made up 80 much of the ration, and sug- 
 gests a ration of equal parts of cowpeas and sweet potatoes as being 
 more palatable and nutritions. He questions whethei sweet pota- 
 toes can be profitably grown, stored, ami fed to hogs unless the 
 feeding value per bushel would he more than l<» or L5 cents. Where 
 the pi°;s do the harvesting, especially on sandy soils, where the yield 
 of sweet potatoes is ten or fifteen times thai of corn, they may he an 
 economical feed. 
 
 The results at 1 he Sont h Carolina Stat ion were much more favorable 
 to sweet potatoes. Newman and Pickett * U^\ a lot of :; pigs, averag- 
 ing 162 pounds in weight, on sweet potatoes only for forty-three days, 
 beginning November 23. Ai the same time corn was U^\ to •'! pins. 
 averaging L56 pounds in weight. Two pigs in each lot were high- 
 • !<• l'.erkshires and the third was a grade Duroc Jersey. 
 
 r.ul. X->. 93. 
 
 r.ui. n 
 
THE BOG INDUSTRY. 171 
 
 Tli pigs on sweel potatoes ate 26.2 pounds per head daily and made 
 an average daily gain of 0.86 pound. They ate 3,247 pounds of sweel 
 potatoes for LOO pounds of gain. 
 
 The pigs on corn ate an average of 9.2 pounds of grain daily, and 
 made an average daily gain of L.39 pounds, requiring 602 pounds of 
 corn for LOO pounds of gaiu. 
 
 It was estimated that, at 200 bushels per acre, sweet potatoes would 
 produce 369.5 pounds of pork per acre, worth sis. 47 when pork is 
 worth 5 cents per pound. The gain from corn was 139.5 pounds of 
 pork, and the corn yield was 15 bushels per acre on land similar to 
 thai on which the sweet potatoes were grown. At 5 cents per pound 
 tor pork, the money return for the corn was $6.97 per acre. 
 
 The Maryland Station" reports an attempt to maintain pigs exclu- 
 sively on sweet potatoes. A lot of rather mature pigs was put on a 
 ration of small sweet potatoes and "strings" that were fed raw twice 
 a day for thirty-one days. It required over 5 tons of these potatoes 
 for 100 pounds of gain, and the return from them was only about $1.60 
 per ton. 
 
 The value of this feed when given with grain was tested with a 
 younger lot of pigs for thirty days. With this lot, 593 pounds of sweet 
 potatoes, 277 pounds of milk, and about 60 pounds of grain were 
 required for 100 pounds of gain, and the value per ton of the potatoes 
 was estimated at $2.40, showing sweet potatoes to be more valuable 
 when fed with grain and milk. 
 
 The Florida Station b fed a lot of 1 native hogs on a ration of equal 
 parts by weight of sweet x^otatoes and wheat middlings, the ration 
 being 3.5 pounds of each per 100 pounds live weight of hog. They 
 were confined in an open pen and fed twice daily. The hogs aver- 
 aged 101.5 pounds at the beginning of the test and increased in weight 
 31. 1G per cent, or 126.5 pounds, at a cost of 5.6 cents per pound of 
 gain for feed eaten. 
 
 At the Alabama Station, Duggar c penned 2 shoats, averaging 116 
 pounds, on sweet potatoes for thirty-five days. They were given, in 
 addition, 2 pounds of ground corn and 1 pound of ground cowpeas 
 per head daily. In the time specified they gained 67 pounds, an aver- 
 age daily gain of 0.93 pound, thus requiring 313 pounds of grain in 
 addition to the sweet potatoes for each 100 pounds gain. Duggar 
 states that the sweet potatoes were not relished greatly and that there 
 was much waste of them, due probably to the relatively large amount 
 of grain fed. 
 
 Artichokes. — At the Oregon Station ^ French took 6 Berkshire pigs 
 from wheat stubble on October 22 and placed them on a field of 
 artichokes that had been planted in April on deep-plowed ground, 
 prepared, as for potatoes, in rows 3 feet apart, with the seed 18 
 inches apart in the row. The growth was vigorous and the yield 
 abundant, the tops growing to a height of 7 feet during the season, 
 
 "Bui. No. 68. h Bui. No. 55. 'Bui. No. 122. <i Bui. No. 54. 
 
L72 
 
 BUREAU OF ANIMAL l.MH BTBT . 
 
 ;iik1 a trial plot showing a yield of 740 bushels per acre. The pigs had 
 f ree access to the held and did all the harvesting. An attempl to 
 Biistain them entirely od the tubers failing, some shorts were fed in 
 add if inn. 
 
 Ai Ottawa, Grisdale* sowed a plot of one-sixteenth acre with aboul 
 70 pounds of tubers on May L9, planting in rows 24 inches apart, 4 
 inches deep, and 20 inches apart in the rows. >i\ pigs were turned 
 in I October :;. Although the tubers were immature at that time, the 
 tope were from LOto L3 feet high. The pigs wrere allowed a daily grain 
 ration <>f 1.5 pounds of a mixture composed <>i" one-half corn meal and 
 one-half of a mixture <>r equal parts of ground oats, pease, and barley. 
 
 In both experiments the Jerusalem artichoke { Hdianthustuih rosus) 
 was lived. The following table shows 1 1n- results: 
 
 Artichoh a tufi • dfor pigs. 
 
 Station. 
 
 ( tttuwa 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 102. t; 
 104.6 
 
 Total 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 -.'14 
 
 UR 
 
 Num- . , , 
 
 u'iiin". 
 
 
 
 per WO Bfra Sy* r 
 fed. pounds pW 
 
 gain 
 
 gain 
 
 Is. Found*. 
 1.67 US 
 
 ['•mulls. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tin' cost of the meal in the Oregon experimenl was estimated at 
 $12 per ion; that in the Canadian one al $18 per ion. Valuing the 
 meal made al $6.25 per K><» pounds, Grisdale estimates that, after 
 deducting tin- cost of the meal fed, a balance of $10.61 is left for the 
 artichokes fed, and deducting from this the cost of seed, planting, 
 renl of land, etc., the one-sixteenth acre used gave a nel return of 
 pork worth $8.7( 
 
 ROUGHAGE. 
 
 Hogs are generally regarded as animals whose peculiar function is 
 the conversion of concentrated feed into meat. Although the capac- 
 ity f<»r bulky U-in\ that we find in the stomachs of cattle and sheep is 
 lacking in hogs, a reasonable amount of bulk in the form of roots or 
 hay is palatable ami profitable. In many parts of the country, where 
 concentrates are costly feeds, stockmen are forced i<» use substitutes 
 for at least a part of the grain ration, both for fattening and mainte- 
 nance, and over the entire country the winter ration is a problem. 
 To solve these problems many western farmers have resorted to the 
 !' alfalfa hay. and outside alfalfa districts clover hay is osed. 
 Considerable si ndj lias been devoted to this subject by the experimenl 
 stations. 
 
 Alfalfa h'ii/. The Kansas Experimenl station has reported a 
 series of experiments with drouth-resistant crops. Three of these 
 
 An. Rpt 1900, Centra] Experimental Farm. 
 
 /'Bnl. No. 05. 
 
THE HOG INMSTKY 
 
 173 
 
 experiments had to do with alfalfa hay. In the first, the hogs used 
 were of mixed breeding — Berkshire and Poland China representing 
 about tin' average of Kansas farm hogs. The alfalfa was of good 
 quality. 
 
 Two lots were fed — one receiving the hay whole in greater quantity 
 than it would consume, the other having ground hay. In the second 
 test the meal-fed Lo1 received some cotton-seed meal — 0.16 pound to 
 each pound of Kafir corn, which did not affed the hogs seriously. 
 This test was conducted during the most severe weather of the winter, 
 the thermometer registering 32° F. below zero February 12, ten days 
 after the experiment began. 
 
 In the third test the grain was wet with water at the time of feed- 
 ing. The alfalfa hay had been cut late and was rattier woody. 
 
 The Utah Station " fed one lot of hogs on a mixture of equal parts 
 by weight of chopped wheat and bran, wet. Another lot had the same 
 grain ration with chopped alfalfa hay added. " The alfalfa used was 
 well cured and was prepared b} T running through an ensilage cutter, 
 the blades of which are arranged for cutting into half -inch lengths." 
 The pigs were thrifty grade Berkshires. 
 
 The .Montana Station 6 fed three lots of hogs to compare the feeding 
 values of a grain ration with sugar beets and alfalfa hay as roughage 
 with a ration of grain only. The results of the lots that were fed on 
 grain alone and on grain and alfalfa hay are presented herewith. The 
 lot on grain alone received a ration consisting, during the early part of 
 the experiment, of 2 parts of damaged Avheat and 1 part oats, barley 
 taking the place of the wheat during the latter part of the experiment. 
 The hay-fed lot had the same ration with alfalfa hay added. The 
 alfalfa hay was run through a cutting box, moistened, and mixed 
 with meal. The hogs were by a Berkshire boar out of high-grade 
 Poland China sows. They had previously had the run of a stubble 
 field, with some clover pasture. 
 
 The following table shows the results of these experiments : 
 
 Value of roughage for pigs. 
 
 Ration. 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 pigs. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 weight 
 
 at be- 
 ginning. 
 
 Total 
 gain. 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 days 
 
 fed. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Feed eaten. 
 
 Feed per 100 
 pounds gain. 
 
 Grain. Hay. Grain. Hay. 
 
 Kansas: 
 
 Kafir corn meal, dry . 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 Lbs. 
 126 
 
 127 
 
 127 
 
 161 
 
 164 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 :>24 
 
 909 
 833 
 126 
 117 
 
 63 
 63 
 63 
 22 
 22 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 0.83 
 
 1.44 
 
 1.32 
 
 .96 
 
 .88 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. 
 3.925 
 
 4.679 «K0 
 
 Lbs. Lbs. 
 749 
 
 Kafir corn meal, dry, and 
 whole alfalfa hay 
 
 515 72. 4 
 
 Kafir corn meal, dry, and 
 ground alfalfa, hay 
 
 4,479 
 681 
 629 
 
 656 
 
 538 7H 7 
 
 Kafir corn meal, and cotton- 
 
 540 
 
 
 Kafir corn meal, wet, and 
 wholealfalfa hay... 
 
 6 
 
 251 538 
 
 214 
 
 Bul. No. TO. 
 
 & Bul. No. 27. 
 
171 
 
 m BE \i OF ANIMAL QTDUS1 Rl . 
 
 i 'iiin, of roughage for pigs < kmtbraed. 
 
 1 v;it i. .!i 
 
 A\.-r 
 
 
 . Total 
 
 £8 
 
 l\;iii->;i- ( '• 'fit in ii«-« 1 . 
 
 Katie .-.pi-ii. \vli..|.- 
 Kafir OOCTI im-al 
 Kafir «•< >rn. wh«>].-. ami al 
 falfa hay 
 
 Kafir oarn meal ami alfalfa 
 
 hay 
 
 Utah: 
 
 i hopped wheal and bran 
 
 Chopped wht-at and bran 
 
 and chopped alfalfa hay 
 Montana: 
 
 ( train only 
 
 ( train and alfalfa haj 
 Avers 
 
 Por lota fed grain only 
 
 Por Lots ff<l hay 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 
 I 
 1 
 
 ginning. 
 L8B 
 
 1 IS 
 140 
 
 
 Ml 
 
 GO '.'l 
 
 BO .88 
 
 60 1.87 
 
 E0 L8I 
 
 889 186 
 
 567 
 
 186 1.19 
 
 m 1.20 
 88 1.19 
 
 
 ;.r Kll 
 
 1*1 
 
 IKlUIKl 
 
 
 
 11,., 
 
 
 
 
 ."-•I 
 
 
 181 
 
 
 
 :»i»; 188 
 
 
 
 
 186 
 
 
 II. 
 
 The feeding value of alfalfa hay, as indicated in i he foregoing tables, 
 does not in the least warrant a claim that it can be used economically 
 as the sole ration. In all but two instances a considerable saving of 
 feed was found to be effected by its use, but the statement that its 
 feeding value is almost equal to that of corn is true only within 
 certain Limits. Where hogs arc confined to an exclusive grain rat i<>n, 
 and especially where this is made up of a single main, the addi- 
 tion of a moderate amount of hay 1<> the ration will l>e relished and 
 Less grain will l>e required. At the same time, better and cheaper 
 gains are usually made by hogs so fed than by those on grain alone, 
 inn the value of the grain saved is out of all proportion to the value 
 of i he hay fed, and t he hay in t he rat ion can not be used economically 
 in more than very moderate amounts. This is a similar fact to thai 
 which has been found by many investigators with such bulky feeds 
 as green clover, rape, roots, and skim milk. That it is had economy 
 to attempt the maintenance of hogs on alfalfa hay alone is shown by 
 the experiment noted below by McDowell in Nevada, 
 
 A consideration of the approximate proportions of hay to grain (>'*\ 
 in these experiments isof interest. The greatest proportion of hay 
 bo grain was fed al the Kansas Station and the ratio was L: 2.5. Willi 
 this ratio the Least daily gain was made. The gains were the most 
 expensive of any of the lots, and no advantage accrued from the use 
 of hay. The Least proportion of hay (1:11) was U^\ at CTtahand gave 
 the most economical gains. 'The greatest daily gain and the greatest 
 amount of -rain saved was in a Kansas lot [\-([ whole alfalfa hay and 
 
THE HOG [NDU8TR1 . 
 
 175 
 
 dry Kafir corn meal in the proportion of 1:7. The following table 
 shows the effecl of these rations in greater detail. The best results 
 seem to come from the use of hay in the proportion of from one- 
 seventh to one-fourth of the ration when hay makes up all the 
 
 roughage: 
 
 Utitio of hay t<> grain in feeding hogs. 
 
 Ratio of hay to grain. 
 
 Average 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 ■ I per LOO 
 pounds tfain. 
 
 (Jrain 
 saved. 
 
 
 Grain. Hay. 
 
 Kansas: 
 
 L2.5 
 
 I'oii nils. 
 
 0.88 
 1.37 
 1.37 
 
 1.44 
 1.32 
 
 1.19 
 
 1.19 
 
 Pounds. Pounds. 
 
 214 
 501 131 
 
 516 12:3 
 515 72. 4 
 
 538 78. 7 
 
 486 (57 
 
 455 41.7 
 
 I'd" il'ls. 
 
 1.8 
 
 1:4 
 
 139 
 
 w 
 
 137 
 
 " 
 
 234 
 
 1-7 
 
 211 
 
 Montana: 
 
 1:7 
 
 46 
 
 Utah: 
 
 1:11 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 Feeding alfalfa hay alone. — There is very little experimental work 
 work on this phase of the subject. The opinions of experimenters 
 and of stockmen generally seem to be that whenever hay alone is 
 resorted to it is no better than a maintenance ration. In the alfalfa- 
 growing districts hogs are frequently run through the winter at the 
 haystacks owing to the scarcity and expense of a grain ration. At 
 the Nevada Station, McDowell fed two lots of 2 pigs each on a 
 ration of alfalfa hay. The two lots ate in twenty-one days 99.12 
 pounds and 99.14 pounds, respectively, and lost in weight 33.25 
 pounds and 51 pounds, respectively, an average daily loss of 0.79 
 pound and 1.21 pounds, respectively. "While feeding hay alone 
 the pigs spent much time curled up in the bedding, but when about 
 the stalls were restless, and even in eating it was done in a ravenous 
 way unlike that of a hearty, well-fed pig." After the hay-feeding 
 period both lots were given grain and roots and made satisfactory 
 gains. 
 
 Sugar beets compared with alfalfa hay. — The Utah Station. 6 con- 
 ducted three experiments, which give valuable data on the relative 
 feeding value of sugar beets and alfalfa as winter roughage. In the 
 first experiment Lot I had all the alfalfa hay they would eat and 2 
 pounds of corn meal per head daily. Lot II received all the beets 
 they would eat and 2 pounds of bran per head daily. 
 
 In the second experiment Lot I had all the alfalfa hay they would 
 eat and 2 pounds of bran per head daily; Lot II had all the alfalfa 
 hay the}' would eat and 3 pounds of bran per head daily; Lot III had 
 all the sugar beets they would eat and 2 pounds of bran per head 
 
 « Bui. No. 40. 
 
 l> Bui. No. 70. 
 
176 
 
 Bl i:i \i «»i ANIMAL in hi - I \i\ 
 
 *\-a\\\ ; l.«»i iv had all t 1m* sugar beets they vrould <-ut and 3 pounds of 
 bran per head daily. 
 
 In the third experiment Lot I had all the alfalfa hay they would 
 eat and - pounds of a grain mixture of equal parts bj weight of bran 
 and chopped frozen \v heat per head dailj ; Lot 1 1 w as fed all i he alfalfa 
 hay they would eat and ; ; pounds of the same grain mixture afl I 
 per head daily; Lot III lia<l all the sugar beets they would eat and 
 the same grain ration as Lot I: Lot IV was fed all the Bugar beets 
 they would eat and the same main ration us Lot II. 
 
 The Montana Station 4 fed our lot <>f 7 pigs on a grain ration con- 
 sisting of - parts of damaged (frosted) wheat and l part oats, with 
 raw sugar beets; another lot of 7 pigs had the same grain mixture, 
 with chopped alfalfa hay. Barley replaced the wheat during the 
 latter part of t he experiment . 
 
 'The following table combines the results of these experiments: 
 
 Alfalfa hay compared with sugar I"' is for pigs. 
 
 
 5 
 
 - 
 
 3. 
 
 - 
 
 : 
 ■- 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 to 
 
 lail y 
 
 Peed eaten. 
 
 Peed iH-r LOO pounds 
 
 Ration. 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 i 
 
 - 
 
 Average <n 
 at beginni 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Bay 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ttali: 
 
 Alfalfa :in<l oorn meal 
 Sugar beets and bran . . 
 
 Alfalfa and :.' pounds 
 bran per head daily 
 
 Alfalfa and 'A pounds 
 
 bran per head daily 
 Sugar beets and :.' 
 pounds bran dot head 
 daily 
 
 Sugar i be and 8 
 
 pounds bran per 
 daily 
 
 Alfalfa and 8 pounds 
 
 grain pet head daily 
 Alfalfa and :t pounds 
 grain per head daily 
 :• beets and 8 
 pounds grain per 
 head dail] 
 
 :\ 
 :\ 
 
 :\ 
 
 5 
 
 :» 
 
 ■"> 
 1 
 
 Lbs. 
 LOB 
 
 96 
 
 LOB 
 108 
 LOB 
 
 81 
 61 
 
 111 
 
 111 
 
 Lbs. 
 L96 
 
 m 
 
 85 
 
 121 
 
 l.v. 
 211 
 
 801 
 
 75 
 75 
 
 :.t 
 
 54 
 
 :.» 
 71 
 71 
 
 71 
 
 71 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 . \: 
 . 7."> 
 
 38 
 
 1.08 
 
 11'.' 
 L.26 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 751 
 
 815 
 
 TOO 
 1,060 
 
 700 
 
 1,060 
 
 Lbs. 
 [46 
 
 21fl 
 
 Lbs. 
 L.100 
 
 1,870 
 1,848 
 
 U.S. 
 
 U4 
 
 861 
 806 
 
 181 
 170 
 
 L88 
 
 Lbs. 
 1,641 
 
 m 
 
 1 n72 
 
 and -\ 
 pounds grain per 
 bead dailj 
 
 till 
 
 na: 
 
 Alfalfa and grain 
 
 '•■ 1 ts and 
 
 142 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 423 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t',17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■•Hul. N 
 
 b Includes '-.':;.*> poui n meal 
 
TIIK llnil INDI'STRV. 
 
 177 
 
 This table shows mm average for pigs fed on grain and alfalfa of 423 
 pounds of grain and \-2:\ pounds of hay per l<><> pounds of gain, and 
 an average for pigs fed on grain and sugar beds of 358 pounds of 
 grain and 617 pounds of beets — a difference of 05 pounds of grain, or 
 over 15 per cent in favor of sugar beets. 
 
 .'J t\ilf<i hay and sugar beets in a grain ration. — Since the foregoing 
 results were compiled the Colorado Station" has reported results 
 unfavorable to either hay or sugar-beet feeding. Nine Berkshire 
 pigs, averaging about 150 pounds, were fed. Lot I received a mix- 
 ture of approximately 2 parts barley and 1 part corn, and about 
 one-half pound alfalfa hay daily; Lot II had the grain ration only; 
 Lot III had the grain ration and about 1 pound of sugar beets daily. 
 There was some difficulty at first to get the pigs in Lot I to eat 
 alfalfa, but when it was cut fine and mixed with barley slop they 
 would take it. The results were as follows : 
 
 Alfalfa hay compared with .sugar beets for pigs. 
 
 
 m 
 6p 
 ft 
 
 *o 
 t-, 
 
 0> 
 
 a 
 
 S3 
 
 ^3 • 
 ^60 
 
 "S.S 
 
 o>.g 
 
 60 60 
 
 S3 
 
 o> 
 60 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 02 
 
 a 
 
 >> 
 
 '£ 
 
 ©.a 
 
 60 cS 
 cS 60 
 
 3 
 > 
 < 
 
 Average amount feed 
 eaten. 
 
 Feed per 100 
 pounds gain. 
 
 3 
 
 . 60 
 
 ll 
 
 ,03 
 
 on a 
 
 88-g 
 
 Ration. 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 o> 
 
 w 
 
 02 
 
 5 
 
 >> 
 
 o: 
 
 0> 
 o 
 pq 
 
 h s Jh 
 
 Grain and al- 
 falfa hay 
 
 Grain only 
 
 Grain and 
 sugar beets... 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 162 
 155 
 
 148 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 101 
 
 105 
 
 96 
 
 97 
 97 
 
 97 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 1.13 
 
 LOS 
 
 .99 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 410 
 381 
 
 350 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 191 
 174 
 
 184 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 55 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 L6s. 
 
 544 
 528 
 
 555 
 
 Lbs. 
 49 
 
 L6s. 
 
 Dolls. 
 
 4.90 
 4.60 
 
 5.20 
 
 1.73 
 1.94 
 
 
 99 
 
 
 103 
 
 1.26 
 
 In this experiment neither the feeding of beets nor hay gave eco- 
 nomical results. Grain feeding was cheaper than either, although 
 the gains from grain and hay were somewhat larger than those from 
 the pigs on grain only. The proportion of hay to grain fed in this 
 experiment was approximately 1: 11; that of beets to grain was a little 
 wider than 1: 5. 
 
 Corn fodder. — The Maryland Station has conducted a number of 
 experiments with ground corn fodder, or "new corn product," as it is 
 otherwise called. This product is the ground residue of cornstalks 
 from which the pith has been removed. It was fed to pigs varying 
 in age at the beginning from eight to twelve weeks. All rations con- 
 tained milk, and the fodder was fed in different proportions to note 
 any possibly advantageous results from such a practice. No special 
 advantages could be observed from feeding the corn fodder, either in 
 
 8396— No. 47—04- 
 
 «Bul. No. 74. 
 ■12 
 
L78 
 
 li 1.1 \ i OS \M M \I. INDUSTRY. 
 
 uing the amount of grain required for LOO pounds of gain or in 
 lowering the cost, except after the pigs were Bis months <»1<1. For 
 fairlj mature pigs the " new corn product " probably would have an 
 effect in a ration somewhat Bimilarto that of alfalfa hay. 
 
 BREED TESTS. 
 IM- i.i BN( i: I 'i BREED ON FEEDING Pi >\\ BBS. 
 
 In the foregoing pages attention has been called i<> the fact that 
 there is very little difference in the standards of excellence for the 
 various breeds of what has come to be designated the "lard," "fat," 
 "block," or "corn-belt" hog. Tests of the different breeds made in 
 different parts of the count ry show t hat , with standards t hat are simi- 
 lar to a large extent, their is very Little difference in the cost of pork 
 product ion by the best represents ives of any of the established breeds. 
 Indeed, these experiments show rather more, for they indicate that 
 the breeds of the bacon type rank well in economy of gain with those 
 of the "corn-belt n lard type. Curtiss and Craig quote Hayward of 
 the Pennsylvania Station to the effect that the results obtained in 
 .Maine, Massachusetts, and Ontario show the feed eaten per LOO pounds 
 gain by various breeds to l>e as follows: Poland China. i"7 pounds; 
 Berkshire, 419 pounds; Tamworth, 420 pounds; Chester WTiite, 
 pounds; Duroc .Jersey, 522 pounds. 'The writer has averaged results 
 Tor six Leading breeds obtained by various experiment stations when 
 there were a sufficient number of tests and a total number of pigs 
 Large enough to make the averages thoroughly representative. Te- 
 stations whose figures weir used are Maine, Vermont, New York 
 State, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa, in the United States, and the 
 Ontario Agricultural College and the Central Experimental Farm, in 
 Canada. The following table Shows a variation in teed per 1"" pounds 
 of gain from 344 to 418 pounds: 
 
 /'. i '/ required for 100 pounds gain by differ* uf !>!■■ ■ 
 
 Tamworth 
 Chester White 
 Poland China 
 Berkshire 
 Largi Yorkshire 
 
 
 Number Number per H«i 
 - pounds 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 a 
 
 71 
 
 
 
 
 ua 
 
 n 
 
 89 
 
 it 
 
 
 Bui. No. W, p. lit. [< 
 
 Expt. Sta. 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 m 
 as 
 
THE HOG rNDUSTRY. 
 
 179 
 
 Towa experiments. Curtiss and Craig have reported the results of 
 three years' feeding of purebred pigs of six leading breeds, includ- 
 ing representatives of the Tamworth and Yorkshire breeds. WTiile 
 bhe pigs were with the dam, records were kepi of all feed consumed 
 
 and the loss or gain, and the loss or gain in weight of the sows was 
 entered in the accounts of the total pork production before weaning. 
 Benry reports the results of trials with 8 litters of pigs at the Wiscon- 
 sin Station," when he found the feed required for 100 pounds gain by 
 both sows and pigs before weaning to be little more than that required 
 by the pigs alone after weaning. In the Iowa tests there was a very 
 marked variation in the maintenance of flesh by the sows, which was 
 perhaps due rather more to individual than to breed differences, and 
 which had much to do with the economy of the feeding before wean- 
 ing. The average cost of 100 pounds of gain for the three years' 
 experiments, both for the sows and pigs before the latter were weaned, 
 and for the pigs after weaning, was as follows : 
 
 Cost of 100 pounds of gain before and after weaning.** 
 
 Sows and 
 Breed. pigs before 
 weaning. 
 
 Pigs after 
 weaning. 
 
 Breed. 
 
 Sows and 
 
 pigs before 
 
 weaning. 
 
 Pigs after 
 
 weaning. 
 
 Berkshire. fA 29 $2.33 
 
 Duroc Jersey 
 
 $5.61 
 1.83 
 2.22 
 
 $2.27 
 
 Poland China 3. 15 
 
 2. 23 
 2.46 
 
 Yorkshire 
 
 2.14 
 
 Chester White 3.27 
 
 
 2.42 
 
 
 
 
 a Bui. No. 48, Iowa Expt, Sta. 
 
 According to these figures, sows of the bacon breeds (Yorkshire 
 and Tamworth) onty made cheaper gains with their pigs before wean- 
 ing than the pigs alone after weaning. The Poland China sows showed 
 the cheapest gains among those of the lard, or fat, type. 
 
 After weaning the pigs, the Iowa Station b put on feed those that were 
 in thrifty condition and compared the same breeds from this stand- 
 point. The conditions of feed and management were as nearly alike 
 as possible for each breed in each year's feeding. The nutritive ratio 
 was 1 : 5.8 for all breeds in the first experiment, from 1 : 5.5 to 1 : 5.7 in 
 the second, and from 1:7.1 in the third. The first year's work was 
 nearly wrecked by hog cholera, so that the results of only a limited 
 period, of time were published. The following table has been arranged 
 from the results, to show the feeding record of each breed in each 
 experiment and the average of each breed for the three years' feeding. 
 
 « Feeds and Feeding, p. 541. 
 
 &Bul. No. 48, Iowa Expt. Sta. 
 
L80 
 
 M 1:1 \i 01 AMMAl. [NDUS1 Rl . 
 
 Breed /. >v.s- ofpigt — tlnii years' experiment* 
 
 Bn 
 
 1 
 
 I. 
 
 - - 
 
 ©J 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 - 
 
 -. q 
 
 h 
 - 
 - 
 < 
 
 
 i »i\ matter per 
 LOOponnda 
 
 - d 
 
 1 
 
 - - 
 
 Berkshire: 
 
 First experiment 
 
 ad experiment 
 Third experiment 
 
 ;:: 
 
 in 
 
 
 :il 
 
 90 
 192 
 
 88] 
 1,711 
 
 158 
 164 
 
 1.68 
 1.04 
 
 6,058 
 
 lb*. 
 
 hull*. 
 .'Mil 
 
 Average 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .98 
 
 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 107 
 801 
 
 884 
 1,606 
 
 
 
 Poland < 'hina: 
 
 First experiment 
 
 ml experiment 
 Third experiment 
 
 68 
 64 
 
 to 
 
 158 
 L64 
 
 LOO 
 
 1,418 
 
 Ml 
 
 
 Average 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 419 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chester White: 
 
 First experiment 
 Second experiment 
 Third experiment 
 
 in 
 in 
 
 9 
 
 66 
 66 
 
 88 
 
 80 
 
 108 
 LT9 
 
 1,651 
 
 1 . 388 
 
 158 
 L64 
 
 .74 
 L01 
 .98 
 
 6,118 
 
 894 
 508 
 
 B. il 
 
 Average 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .89 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dnroc Jersey: 
 
 • experiment 
 
 Mil experimi at 
 Third experiment 
 
 in 
 9 
 in 
 
 58 
 80 
 58 
 
 84 
 
 88 
 
 11.-) 
 187 
 
 388 
 
 1,517 
 1,575 
 
 153 
 
 hi » 
 
 .90 
 
 l.Ki 
 
 6,184 
 
 837 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .98 
 
 4111 
 
 2.27 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Yorkshire: 
 
 • experiment 
 ad experiment - 
 
 Third experiment 
 
 6 
 9 
 5 
 
 89 
 
 88 
 
 86 
 
 i»; 
 
 109 
 836 
 
 tt; 
 
 L64 
 
 a 
 i.if, 
 Lie 
 
 1,788 
 
 505 
 
 8.04 
 
 A\ erage 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.04 
 
 
 
 8.14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1<>4 
 
 
 Tamworth: 
 
 First experiment 
 Second experiment . 
 Third experixm 
 
 7 
 10 
 
 IB 
 
 80 
 
 ;-. 
 
 58 
 
 L04 
 
 -.'in 
 
 m 
 
 508 
 
 1,589 
 1,854 
 
 LOO 
 1.08 
 
 
 
 8.81 
 
 Aver 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .93 
 
 IV, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iL No. 48, Iowa Bxpt Sta. 
 
 These figures show thai the Yorkshires averaged highest in average 
 daily gains, with th<' Berkshires and Dnroc Jerseys tied for second 
 place, and the Tamworth i>i,u r s next. In feed (digestible dry matter) 
 required for LOO pounds gain, the Dnroc Jerseys were first in Least 
 requirement, with the Poland Chinas next, the Forkshires third, and 
 the Tamworths Last. In cost of LOO pounds gain the Forkshiree were 
 first, the Poland chinas second, the Dnroc Jerseys third, and the 
 Tamworths fifth. This evidence seems to disprove the charges some- 
 times made against the bacon breeds, namely, that these pigs make 
 Bmaller and more expensive gains than those of other breeds. 
 
THE HOG [NDUSTRY. 
 
 181 
 
 Ontario eocperimenin. — From the Ontario Agricultural College, Day 
 has reported a number of experiments with six Leading breeds. The 
 pigs were i\'(\ for comparative purposes. Atthe close of each feeding 
 period carcasses were examined for their suitability for the export 
 trade, and reports were made thereon by the packets who killed the 
 pigs. The following table shows the results of the feeding tests for 
 five years, with the average of four: 
 
 Breed tests of pigs— five years' experiments.' 1 
 
 Breed. 
 
 Xearoi 
 
 test. 
 
 Average 
 weight at 
 beginning. 
 
 Average 
 
 weight at 
 
 close. 
 
 Num- 
 ber of 
 days 
 fed. 
 
 Average 
 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Feed 
 eaten. 
 
 Meal per 
 
 loo pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 Berkshire 
 
 1896 
 1897 
 L898 
 
 1899 
 
 Pounds. 
 66 
 
 50 
 
 Pounds. 
 185 
 
 145 
 170 
 
 117 
 
 90 
 
 112 
 
 Pounds. 
 1.010 
 
 1.020 
 1.070 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 475 
 301 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 398.00 
 327.17 
 369. 79 
 
 
 
 ''318.28 
 
 
 1900 
 
 
 
 
 .803 
 
 
 409.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . '.17s 
 
 
 378. 74 
 
 
 1896 
 1897 
 1898 
 1899 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 52 
 69 
 
 190 
 
 128 
 187 
 
 117 
 
 90 
 
 112 
 
 1.030 
 
 .840 
 1.050 
 
 507 
 253 
 
 417.00 
 332.89 
 383 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 b 349. 99 
 
 
 . 1900 
 
 
 
 .701 
 
 
 474.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average of 4 tests 
 
 
 
 
 .905 
 
 
 401.78 
 
 
 ■ 1896 
 1897 
 1898 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Duroc Jersey 
 
 62 
 65 
 59 
 
 199 
 149 
 179 
 
 117 
 
 90 
 
 112 
 
 1.160 
 . 940 
 
 1.070 
 
 580 
 302 
 
 424.00 
 358.05 
 376.04 
 
 
 1899 
 1900 
 
 
 
 6 337. 10 
 
 
 
 
 . 883 
 
 
 426.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average of 4 tests 
 
 
 
 
 1.014 
 
 
 396.02 
 
 
 1896 
 1897 
 
 1898 
 L899 
 
 1900 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chester White 
 
 62 
 52 
 56 
 
 185 
 127 
 175 
 
 117 
 
 90 
 112 
 
 1.050 
 
 .830 
 
 1 060 
 
 557 
 255 
 
 452.00 
 340.00 
 
 377 77 
 
 
 
 
 b 336. 68 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 666 
 
 
 433. 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average of 4 tests 
 
 
 
 
 .902 
 
 
 400.69 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Yorkshire „ _ >_ 
 
 1896 
 1897 
 1898 
 1899 
 . 1900 
 
 50 
 60 
 52 
 
 177 
 
 144 
 176 
 
 117 
 
 90 
 112 
 
 1.080 
 
 .930 
 
 1.100 
 
 589 
 285 
 
 468.00 
 340.62 
 a50.10 
 
 
 
 &334.85 
 422.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 .930 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average of 4 tests 
 
 
 
 
 1.010 
 
 
 395.18 
 
 
 1896 
 1897 
 1898 
 1899 
 1900 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tarn worth. 
 
 54 
 52 
 
 48 
 
 171 
 139 
 167 
 
 117 
 
 90 
 112 
 
 1.000 
 
 .970 
 1.060 
 
 469 
 
 289 
 
 400.00 
 
 330.92 
 
 377. 77 
 
 & 331. 16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .642 
 
 
 462.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average of 4 tests 
 
 
 
 
 .918 
 
 
 390.17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a An. Rpts., 1896-1900, Ontario Agricultural College, b Dry matter, not included in averages. 
 
182 
 
 BUREAU OF ANIMAL [NDU8TBY. 
 
 These figures show thai the Duroc Jersey averaged first in avei 
 <lail\ gains with L.014 pounds, the other breeds following in thi> 
 order: Yorkshire, Berkshire, Tamworth, Poland China, ami Ches 
 ter White. There is, however, eery Little difference between the 
 I > 1 1 1 « ►<• Jersey, Yorkshire, and Berkshire in respect of av< 
 daily gains, and the Tamworth, Poland China, and Chester White 
 form a second group, with average daily gains of -lightly more than 
 0.90 pound. In the economy of gain the Berkshire stands first with 
 378.74 pounds as the amount of meal required for LOO pounds <>f gain, 
 the oilier breeds following in this order: Tamworth, Yorkshire, 
 Duroc Jersey, Chester Wnite, and Poland china. In this respect 
 the Berkshire is quite a Little in the Lead. The Yorkshire and 
 Duroc Jersey form a group around 395 pounds and tin- Chester 
 White and Poland china another group at LOO pounds. The Tam- 
 worth required 390.17 pounds meal for LOO pounds gain -somewhat 
 Less than the Yorkshire and Duroc Jersey. 
 
 Minnesota experiments. — At the Minnesota Station, Shaw fed pigs 
 of the Tamworth and Yorkshire breeds in comparison with Poland 
 China. Like the Iowa 1 rials, this was really a comparison of the 
 
 feeding ability of pigs of the bacon type with those of the Lard type. 
 They were fed in pens 8 by L2 feet, with access to yards, lnit with- 
 out past ore. The grain fed consisted of shorts, corn meal, and ground 
 
 barley in varying proportions, and in the first experiment skim 
 milk was fed. In both experiments green and succulent feed, such as 
 pease, <>at>. corn, rape, and roots, was led. I >uring t he first experiment 
 one lot of Poland China pigs was on a ration that was mainly of corn 
 meal, some shorts being fed in add it ion. The pigs in the fust experi- 
 ment were sold at $4 per 100 pounds and those of Hie second at - 
 pei- loo pounds, 'fhe following are the results for the purebred lots: 
 Bn • d t< sts <>/ pigs— two i xpt rim* nU. 
 
 
 Ntim- 
 ber 
 
 
 
 Num- 
 
 Av.r- 
 
 dailv 
 gain. 
 
 ed eaten. 
 
 
 
 Breed. 
 
 begin 
 ning. 
 
 ber 
 
 of 
 
 days 
 
 fed. 
 
 M.al. 
 
 Milk. 
 
 
 i:,:;,::;: ***■ 
 
 First experiment: 
 
 Poland china 
 
 Poland China 
 rn-fed > 
 
 Tamworth 
 
 Large Yorkshire . 
 
 l experiment: 
 
 Tamworth 
 
 Yorkshire . 
 
 Poland China 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 3 
 B 
 
 B 
 B 
 
 8 
 
 Lb*. 
 
 H 
 
 :»l 
 
 41 
 
 n 
 
 Lbs, 
 
 B8 
 
 s 
 
 119 
 
 184 
 Iffl 
 
 un 
 
 UM 
 UK 
 
 UM 
 UM 
 
 Lbs. 
 0.70 
 
 .96 
 
 ,M 
 LOB 
 
 - 
 
 Lb*. 
 BBS 
 
 4 is 
 
 419 
 
 41.") 
 UM 
 
 Lb*. 
 M 
 
 ;i 
 
 44 
 58 
 
 U.S. 
 
 148 
 
 144 
 
 lf.l 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 8.93 
 8.01 
 
 8.U 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 a 44» 
 
 Wisconsin experiments. — The Wisconsin station' tabulated the 
 results of feeding for the different breeds and crosses used in an 
 
 I 
 
 hteentb An. Rpt.. p. 57. 
 
THE H<><; [NDU8TRY. 
 
 188 
 
 experimenl with pease and corn meal. The following table shows the 
 averages: 
 
 R< sk/Is of feeding }>i</* of carious breeds a ml crosses. 
 
 Breeding:. 
 
 Xuin 
 
 berof 
 pigs. 
 
 Average 
 
 amounl 
 
 nf grain 
 
 eaten 
 
 dally. 
 
 Average 
 daily 
 gain. 
 
 Total 
 
 gain 
 
 per pig. 
 
 Peed 
 per im 
 pounds 
 
 gain. 
 
 ( 'nst )).T 
 
 LOO 
 
 pounds 
 gain. 
 
 Inter- 
 nal fat. 
 
 Thick- 
 ness oi 
 surface 
 fat. 
 
 Etasorback-Poland China 
 
 Razor back-Berksh i r, • 
 
 :.' 
 2 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 4.: 27 
 
 a 52 
 
 Pound. 
 0.985 
 
 .57 
 .875 
 . 52 
 
 Pounds. 
 166 
 
 11 '.i 
 148 
 
 no 
 
 /'omuls. 
 433 
 505 
 400 
 547 
 
 Dollars. 
 4.987 
 
 5. 772 
 4.556 
 6. 227 
 
 1 'on nils. 
 
 13.85 
 
 9.52 
 
 9.07 
 10.378 
 
 Inches. 
 
 2 705 
 2. 32 
 2.21 
 
 Rav.< >ri );tck 
 
 1.99 
 
 
 
 Particular attention is called to the low gains of the Razorbacks, 
 the Large amount of feed thej^ required for 100 pounds gain, and the 
 large amount of internal fat. 
 
 In the Wisconsin a experiment to compare pease and middlings with 
 coin meal the Berkshires made an average gain in one hundred and 
 twenty-six days of 169 pounds — an average of 1.34 pounds daily for 
 each pig. The Poland Chinas gained 153 pounds each — an average 
 of 1.21 pounds each daily. The Yorkshires, leaving out of considera- 
 tion a pig that fed poorly, made an average gain in one hundred and 
 twenty-six days of 137 pounds — an average daily gain each of 1.08 
 pounds. The authors of the Wisconsin report state that this should 
 not be regarded as a breed test. 
 
 These experiments, taken in connection with the evidence of inves- 
 tigators over the entire country, undoubtedly show that representative 
 pigs of the different breeds do not differ materially either in the rate of 
 gain or the economy with which the gains are made. Any marked dif- 
 ferences in the breeds will be manifested in the suitability of the fat- 
 tened animals for market and the quality of the carcass on the block. 
 A very notable feature is the showing of the bacon breeds when 
 compared with the lard breeds. The fact that a pig is a Yorkshire 
 or a Tamworth can not be taken as prima facie evidence that it will 
 make slow and expensive gains. 
 
 Value of different crosses. — At the Minnesota Station, Shaw 6 fed 
 four lots of pigs to determine the relative value of Yorkshire pigs of 
 first and second crosses. The pigs of the first cross were by a pure- 
 bred Large Improved Yorkshire boar out of a high-grade Berkshire 
 sow. Those of the second were sired by the same Yorkshire boar, 
 out of a sow whose dam was the grade Berkshire that was the dam of 
 the first litter and whose sire was a purebred Yorkshire. The four 
 lots were therefore as nearly identical in breeding as possible without 
 extreme inbreeding. 
 
 Lots I and III were first-cross pigs and Lots II and IV second cross. 
 Lots I and II received a corn-and-oats diet and Lots III and IV a 
 
 "Seventeenth An. Rpt.. p. 10. 
 
 h Bui. No. 60. 
 
L84 
 
 i:i 1:1 \r OF animal [NDUSTB1 , 
 
 barlej and oats ration; and each lot had an 8 by i_ foot pen in a pig- 
 gery, with a small paddock adjoining, where they ran for an hour or 
 two dail\ . 
 
 The corn and-oats ration was l pari corn to 3 parts oats during the 
 first period; during the second, 2:2; during the third, 3 : 1 ; and dur- 
 ing the fourth, corn only. Iii the barley-and-oats rations barley 
 substituted corn in the same proportion. Grain was ground, soaked 
 twelve hours, and a Little salt given at each tVo<i. The pigs received 
 all they would cat with relish. Some green feed, such as corn, second- 
 growth clover, rape, and cabbage, was given. 
 
 l'< < ding t< sis of different crosses. 
 
 Breeding. 
 
 s 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 = 
 
 1 
 
 •g 
 
 I 
 
 it 
 
 II 
 11 
 
 2-2 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 - 
 
 c 
 
 i 
 
 s 
 
 - 
 c 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 >. 
 t 
 
 Dfl 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 « 
 a 
 
 = 
 
 : 
 
 - 
 
 If 
 
 E 
 
 - | 
 c § 
 
 I : 
 
 4 
 1 
 
 
 A 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 - 
 
 E- 
 
 y- 
 
 " 
 
 •_• 
 
 
 
 _- 
 
 
 
 
 Days. 
 
 U.S. 
 
 L6«. 
 
 L6*. 
 
 
 /./,*. 
 
 L6». 
 
 
 /./,s 
 
 Dolb. 
 
 
 :: 
 
 L08 
 
 847 
 
 60] 
 
 354 
 
 112 
 
 1 06 
 
 L,8M 
 1,488 
 
 
 111 
 
 l 61 
 
 Lo1 ! I. second cross 
 
 3 
 
 MM 
 
 m 
 
 808 
 
 
 11:.' 
 
 
 
 
 
 I...i III. tit--: cram 
 
 3 
 
 108 
 
 
 
 
 I1SI 
 
 
 1,178 
 
 
 
 
 Id >1 IV. Becond cross 
 
 :; 
 
 in. 
 
 878 
 
 587 
 
 
 112 
 
 
 l . 28 1 
 
 
 KH 
 
 L88 
 
 Other comparative results were as follows: 
 
 Average daily gain of first-cross. pound 0, M 
 
 rage daily gain of second-cross do .92 
 
 Cost of 100 pounds gain of first cross dollars 1.74 
 
 Cost of 100 pounds gain v of second cross do 1.93 
 
 Comparing differing crosses.— Shaw a conducted two experiments 
 io compare crosses of different breeds. The pigs were iv<1 in 8 by L2 
 fool pens, wit li access to yards and Lots ad joining for exercise, but no 
 
 pasture. They'were fed eighteen weeks. 'The teed was a mixture of 
 shorts, com, and barley, some green and succulent U-vd in Beason, 
 such a> peas, oats, rape, corn, and roots was given in each experi- 
 ment, and all conditions were similar, except that during the first 
 experiment the pigs bad skim milk. 
 
 The pig8 of tli** first experiment were sold at $4 per 100 pounds: 
 
 those of the second, at $4.85 per i (,(l pounds. 
 The breeding was as follows: 
 
 First experiment : 
 
 Tamworth Poland China cross. 
 
 nd cross, Larue [znproved Yorkshire on Berkshire. 
 Third cr unproved Yorkshire on Berkshire. 
 
 Large Unproved Yorkshire Poland China en 
 
 «Bul. No. 78, Mini Ixpt. Sta. 
 
THE BOG [NDUSTRY. 
 
 185 
 
 Second experiment : 
 
 Third cross, Large Improved Yorkshire on Berkshire. 
 
 Large Improved Yorkshire Poland China cross. 
 
 Tamworth Poland China cross. 
 
 Large Improved Yorkshire Poland China cross (Minnesota-bred dam). 
 
 Large Improved Yorkshire-Berkshire cross. 
 
 In the first experiment "The Tam worth-Poland China and Large 
 Improved Yorkshire— Poland China crosses were obtained similar to 
 those above described" and from a, pure Tamworth and pure Large 
 Improved Yorkshire sire, respectively. The second cross, or grade, 
 of Yorkshire on Berkshire was from a dam the progeny of a Large 
 Improved Yorkshire sire and a dam essentially Berkshire, but not reg- 
 istered. The third cross of Yorkshire on Berkshire was of breeding 
 similar in kind, but once removed further from the original Berkshire 
 dam." 
 
 In the second experiment there were some slight changes; the pigs 
 of one Yorkshire— Poland China lot were out of a dam reared in the 
 corn belt, while those of the other were out of a Minnesota-bred dam. 
 "In several instances, however, the blood lines were not only the 
 same, but the animals in the experiment were from the same sire and 
 dam, as were those of the previous year." The results follow: 
 
 Feeding tests of crossbred irigs. 
 
 Breeding. 
 
 First experiment : 
 
 Tamworth-Poland China 
 
 Second cross, Yorkshire-Berk- 
 shire 
 
 Third cross, Yorkshire-Berk- 
 shire 
 
 Yorkshire-Poland China 
 
 Second experiment: 
 
 Third cross, Yorkshire-Berk- 
 shire 
 
 Yorkshire-Poland China. 
 
 Tamworth-Poland China 
 
 Yorkshire-Poland China (Min- 
 nesota-bred dam) 
 
 Yorkshire-Berkshire 
 
 ©.H 
 is. it. 
 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 Lbs. 
 47 
 
 56 
 
 
 02 
 
 
 >> 
 
 
 05 
 
 
 'C 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 °d 
 
 © 
 
 
 a. 
 
 © 
 
 cS 
 
 & 
 
 
 a 
 
 > 
 
 E3 
 
 < 
 
 £ 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 
 118 
 
 126 
 
 181 
 
 126 
 
 104 
 
 126 
 
 128 
 
 126 
 
 12<j 
 
 126 
 
 166 
 
 126 
 
 147 
 
 126 
 
 158 
 
 126 
 
 152 
 
 126 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 0.<>4 
 
 1.02 
 
 1.00 
 1.32 
 1.17 
 
 1.25 
 1.21 
 
 Feed eaten. 
 
 T3 
 
 
 p. 
 
 3 .a 
 
 Til 
 
 Grain. Milk 
 
 Lbs. 
 456 
 
 1.04 499 
 
 527 
 564 
 
 Green Pi 
 ■ feed. - 
 
 8 
 
 Lbs. 
 83 
 
 410 47 
 
 483 44 
 
 427 
 577 
 
 482 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 80 
 
 108 
 
 142 
 145 
 
 252 
 
 252 
 
 252 
 
 252 
 196 
 
 Dolls. 
 2.24 
 
 2.1' 
 
 2. 28 
 2.16 
 
 2. 25 
 2.28 
 2.16 
 
 2.18 
 2.43 
 
 Dolls. 
 1.61 
 
 1.84 
 
 1.46 
 
 1.87 
 
 2.98 
 3.86 
 3.64 
 
 3.89 
 3.38 
 
 Among Shaw's conclusions are the following remarks : 
 
 That the experiments do not sustain the view that the results will be less satis- 
 factory from each succeeding cross of Yorkshire on Berkshire. 
 
 That the cross of Large Improved Yorkshire and Tamworth breeds upon the 
 
 a See experiments with crossbred swine, pp. 183, 184. 
 
i:i REATJ 01 \ MM a I. [NDU9TB> . 
 
 Poland China bows of the corn-reared type* producer animals at onot 
 Bhapel) . of better growth, and relatively more profitable than pigs from the 
 Hunt i< med bows, 
 
 im- i.i ENi I. < »i BREED « >M THE I \l:« 488. 
 
 For the sake of coin enienee the term "slaughter test" is used in 
 this bulletin i<> include everything from weighings on the floor of a 
 packinghouse to a chemical analysis. Sufficient attention has not 
 been paid to the effect of feci and conditions of management <»n the 
 carcass, but the present drift of sentiment among workers in animal 
 husbandry |»«»ini> to a more thorough Btudyof the carcass in detail as 
 a means of solving the problems that still confront the student and 
 the feeder. No one can doubt that such investigations will have a 
 high value when applied under feed-lot conditions. 
 
 At the close of the Last two [owa experiments most of the hogs 
 shipped to Chicago and sold on the open market. In both experi- 
 ments the different breeds lia<l been fed on practically the same 
 rations, and all conditions of feeding ami management were similar; 
 so that whatever differences might be found in tin- carcasses could 
 verj properly be ascribed t»» breed influence. In the packing house 
 where the hogs were killed careful records were kept of the slaugh- 
 tering, ami slaborate reports made of these records. The following 
 table has been arranged from these results. It shows the percentage 
 of dressed weight of each breed ami the total and average weights of 
 the heads and viscera for each breed: 
 
 NOTES OS Tin: HU.i.i.w im, i \MI.K. 
 
 Xiitk. — The writer is under obligations to Swift & Co.. Chicago, who killed the I 
 following explanation of terms used in these slaughter testa that are not self-explanatory: 
 
 Hi nils, i/ross. — The gross weight of the heads it from the hogs, with tongues and lean 
 
 meal In. 
 
 Head*, net. The same heads trimmed for tank— -tongues, cheek meat, and cheek-mi 
 
 taken out. 
 
 Chet kmeat. Refers to the lean meat in the cheek of the hog. Scientifically expressed, Includes 
 masseter pt< rygoidt us .<//< mus and extt rnus) muscles. 
 
 Cae< k-meatfat. The fat trimmed off in saving the lean meat. 
 
 Hum im ,, - to the facing of fat which is taken off the inside of the hams In order to 
 
 give them a lean appearance and is taken off in all eases where American cut hams are made 
 Where English Long-cut ham- are made this facing of fat is left oil, accounting for the fad that 
 in some of the tests ham facings are shown; in other tests they are not. 
 
 Plucks. The liver, heart, and lungs comprise what is called the pluck. Total weight of the 
 livers, hearts, and lungs added together should agr ee with the total weight of the plucks 
 differences in l s, .c test, but weights balance approximately in 1886 test. 
 
 Bladders, grot. The weight of the bladders as taken from the hogs filled, more or less, with 
 urine. 
 
 Bladdt ,s. ui C— Weighl of the same bladders with the urn rat. 
 
 Out fat. — \ Large Intestines washed out. 
 
 Caul f'ut. < Mnentum. 
 ', fat. Mesentery' 
 
 Floating colon and rectum combined is called the bung u'nt. and bung 
 . is weight before being cleaned 
 
 Bung guts, net. Same as above, but cleaned. 
 
 Pauncket w : • macht is taken from the hogs 
 
 Paum ><• i, in t . Weight of stomach- cleaned 
 iter! 
 
 Bui, No. 18, 
 
THE 1 1<><; INDUSTRY. 
 
 187 
 
 © 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 s 
 
 
 s 
 
 $5 
 
 r~. 
 
 r: 
 
 M 
 
 3 S 
 
 ^2 
 
 so 
 
 = s 
 
 « 
 
 E 3 
 E S 
 
 C 1! 
 
 
 i 
 % 
 
 - 
 
 4 = a 
 
 8 
 
 -' ?i 
 
 7 
 
 S £ 
 
 r.' us 
 
 1- 
 
 i- CO 
 
 E 3 
 
 s 
 
 ai 
 
 >■ 
 <D 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 ■§ - •" 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 = = 
 
 id cc 
 
 
 5 S 
 
 CC ~r 
 
 - 
 
 E E 
 
 Js 
 
 S = 
 
 35 
 
 CC g 
 
 s 
 
 3* 
 
 •3 S .8 id 
 
 8 8 
 
 =5 
 
 CO 
 
 8 8 
 18 4 
 
 5 
 
 »c 
 
 E 5 
 
 - 38 
 
 
 E E 
 
 
 8 8 
 
 s si 
 
 ■ c 
 
 0> ® c3 
 
 P2 
 
 a 
 
 8 8 
 
 § 
 
 8 § 
 
 c-i p-i 
 
 5j 
 
 8 S 
 
 OQ iH 
 
 os 
 
 8 5S 
 
 §3 
 
 8 J2 
 
 eo 
 
 i— i 
 
 II 
 
 4 s g 
 
 S ©" oo" 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 8 8 
 
 oo' CO 
 
 V 
 
 8 S 
 
 CO SO 
 
 22 
 
 8 8 
 
 «o* 1- 
 
 ^ 
 
 8 S 
 
 x' t^ 
 
 S 
 
 8 JS 
 
 oo" cc 
 
 
 aj 
 
 0) 
 
 5b 
 
 2 
 
 H 
 
 .§88 
 
 S od x" 
 1 
 
 3S 
 
 '8 8 
 
 t- CO 
 
 g 
 
 8 8 
 
 s 
 
 8 . 8 
 
 iO ?o 
 
 - 
 
 8 ^ 
 
 X SO 
 
 e 
 
 8 IS 
 
 00 CO 
 
 ED 
 
 +3 
 
 ^88 
 
 00 
 00 
 
 Q O 
 
 5 c 
 o? $ 
 
 28 
 
 8 8 
 52 S 
 
 00 
 
 8 8 
 5' g 
 
 1- 
 
 8 8 
 
 53 
 
 x' 
 
 8 8 
 ol S 
 
 s 
 
 35 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 3 8 8 
 
 00 
 
 ©" 
 
 8 £ 
 
 iei co 
 
 i— < •>* 
 
 to 
 
 8 52 
 
 3 ; 8 S 
 
 S 8 ;* 
 
 
 8 8 
 
 o 
 
 8 & |S 
 
 "© CD 
 
 | 8 8 
 
 gec^" 
 
 ^ 
 
 8 S 
 
 W3 r-i 
 
 s 
 
 8 S 
 
 ■J iH 
 
 3 II 8 S 
 
 CC CM 
 
 (M 
 
 CC 
 
 8 S 
 
 n5 *i 
 
 eS 
 
 8 ol 
 
 -^H r-i 
 
 5 
 
 
 18 8 
 
 3 
 
 S 8 
 
 od 
 
 5 8 
 
 od i- 
 
 O 
 X 
 
 8 8 
 
 
 S 8 
 
 
 E 2 
 
 38 -' 
 
 
 
 o os 
 
 
 
 o -# 
 
 
 
 09 X 
 
 
 
 X OS 
 
 
 
 os ~ 
 
 
 
 OS -P 
 
 
 
 < 
 P 
 
 3 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 
 cc 
 
 v - 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 > 
 
 -" 
 
 ) 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 Eh 
 
 
 $ 
 
 e- 
 a 
 
 s 
 < 
 
 ) 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 
 i 
 
 s 
 
 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 P 
 K 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 > 
 
 CC 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 = 
 
 i 
 
 CC 
 01 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 > 
 
 ) 
 
 CD 
 
 
 : 
 
 a 
 
 
iss 
 
 1:1 i:i \r OF AM \] \l. in DU8TE1 . 
 
 : 
 c 
 
 »*1 
 
 <: 
 &B 
 
 1 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 - 
 
 ri 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 1 
 
 S* 
 
 5 = 
 
 
 
 
 :: 
 
 ad 
 
 2§g 
 
 - 
 
 - ■ 
 
 5 
 
 s = 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 Tr 
 
 
 M 
 
 - B, 
 
 
 
 
 s j 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 s 1 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 - 
 
 i 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 = 
 
 ed 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 : ■ 
 
 
 E 
 
 M 
 
 
 E 
 
 - 
 
 PQ 
 
 - 
 
 4 s 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 E 
 
 — 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 E E 
 
 ^ — 
 
 = 
 
 i 5 
 
 3 
 
 
 a 
 
 I E 
 
 £ £ 
 
 S 
 
 — 
 
 E i 
 
 i - 
 
 £ 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 jj E 
 | - •- 
 
 1 
 
 S 
 
 E ;: 
 
 s 
 
 g ©1 
 
 •- - 
 
 2 
 
 = - 
 
 fe 
 
 8 8 
 
 - - 
 
 s 
 
 E 5 
 
 S 
 
 ■ 
 
 : 
 
 > 
 
 3 
 
 ■3 8 8 
 
 I p. si 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 ed 
 
 
 3 
 
 si 
 
 E E 
 
 3 
 
 8 i 
 
 ed 
 
 E 5 
 -" i 
 
 8 
 
 ©i 
 
 E E 
 
 K S3 
 
 ! 
 
 CO 
 
 c 
 
 
 - 
 
 1 - ^ 
 
 i 
 
 
 se 
 
 ed 
 
 E £ 
 
 BQ 
 
 — 
 
 t6 
 
 E £ 
 
 S 5 
 
 - 
 
 = s 
 
 a 4 
 
 
 E E 
 5 S 
 
 3 
 
 il 
 
 = - 
 
 — 
 
 | 8 ; 
 
 
 Is 
 
 
 E 
 - : 
 
 
 8 S 
 
 - £ 
 
 SB 
 
 E E 
 
 - a 
 
 ■i 
 
 8 j 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 j 
 
 j 
 
 Q 
 
 ■ 
 
 - 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 < 
 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 E 
 
 (5 
 
 i 
 
 "7 
 it 
 
 ■- 
 
 > 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
THE IKKi INM'STKY. 
 
 L89 
 
 1 
 > 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 ire 
 
 i- 
 
 
 
 
 •re 
 ire 
 
 i- 
 
 
 
 
 i - 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 i - 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 A 
 
 i 
 
 © 
 
 3 S 8 
 
 1 s 3 
 
 s 
 ft, 
 
 .— i 
 
 8 8 
 
 1-H 
 
 s 
 
 8 8 
 
 C rH 
 
 i—i i— I 
 
 * 
 
 8 8 
 
 / 
 
 r-i 
 
 E E 
 
 rH DO 
 
 l—l rH 
 
 B 
 
 E E 
 
 rH 
 
 3 
 
 S 
 
 ^88 
 
 8 
 
 £ 
 
 8 5 
 
 SO rj 
 
 rH ire »6 
 
 rH rH 
 
 
 3.8 
 
 o >re 
 
 
 00 i~ 
 
 
 55 iJ 
 
 ej 
 
 +-> 
 Pi 
 bo 
 
 1 
 
 GO 
 
 © 
 
 o* 8 8 
 
 1 S £i 
 
 1 
 
 3 5 5 
 
 S H CO 
 
 s 
 
 8 8 
 
 8 
 
 ci 
 
 8 § 
 
 ed *-^ 
 
 8 
 
 8 8 
 
 CM ©S 
 
 cc 
 ci 
 
 8 8 
 
 CO 00 
 
 8 
 
 ce 
 
 3 
 
 s 3 5 
 
 s 
 
 CO 
 
 E E 
 
 8 
 
 8 8 
 
 rH >re 
 
 CO CM 
 
 8 
 
 CO 
 
 8 8 
 
 cm <m 
 
 CO 
 
 3 
 
 8 8 
 
 CO §3 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 8 8 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 bo 
 
 &0 
 
 ri 8 £ 
 
 "2 CO N 
 
 8S 
 
 8 S 
 
 oi cm 
 
 8? 
 
 s s 
 
 CO 
 
 8 S 
 
 CO 
 CI 
 
 8 £ 
 
 CO C! 
 
 a 
 
 s s 
 
 (M 
 
 ? 
 
 
 to . 
 
 its 
 
 pi 
 pq 
 
 oj 8 
 
 is 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 © 
 
 1—1 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 ire 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 Pi 
 bO 
 60 
 Pi 
 
 P) 
 
 pq 
 
 
 * 8 8 
 i 
 
 
 £§ 
 
 8 8 
 
 «o cc 
 
 s 
 
 8 8 
 
 ** 
 
 8 8 
 
 cc 
 ire 
 
 8 S 
 
 t^ cd 
 
 g 
 
 g 8 
 
 •«*' CO 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 
 « 8 8 
 
 1 ^ S 
 s 
 
 tH 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 8 8 
 
 GO t- 
 
 rH 
 rH 
 
 8 8 
 
 * 
 
 8 . ^ 
 ire ire 
 
 
 8 £ 
 
 cc" >* 
 
 cl 
 
 8 8 
 
 ire l- 
 
 « 
 
 < 
 < 
 f 
 
 P 
 
 3 
 
 ) 
 ) 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 ) 
 
 a 
 
 Eh 
 
 
 
 CD 
 id 
 
 --. 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 ) 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 CD 
 t( 
 US 
 
 < 
 
 
 B 
 
 ,F 
 ic 
 
 O 
 
 p 
 
 cc 
 
 o 
 Ph 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 < 
 
 
 > 
 
 CD 
 
 £ 
 
 CD 
 
 ■-a 
 
 h 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 r 
 
 
 CD 
 
 a 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 > 
 
 <1 
 
 
190 
 
 i:i i:i M "I \ MM AI. I N DU81 Rl . 
 
 The .i\ <m-.il:<' <»t these teste shows the Yorkshire i<> be in the lead in 
 dressed weight, the other breeds following in this order: Poland 
 China, Tamworth, Chester WTiite, Doroc Jersey, and Berkshire, ili<* 
 variation being from 79.18 per cent i«» 77.' >\ | >« * r « -• *n i . 
 
 Relativi weights of vital organs. -The \v<-iL. r lii <>!' vital organ 
 highly important. To ascertain whal variations the Iowa test showed 
 in this respect the table 1>»-1<>\\ lias been arranged. Ii ^h<>\\> the per- 
 centages of the weights of iln- vital organs i<» live weight for each 
 breed in each experiment, with the average of l><>th. 
 
 The average live weights of I he hogs al the abattoir were as follows: 
 
 . ighU of hogs of differ* nf breeds— Iowa '<i» rinu rtf*\ 
 
 
 \\v 
 
 
 | Lbs. 
 
 Berkshire ISO 
 
 Tamworth 
 
 
 Chester White ... . 1" 
 
 1-1 
 
 IMand China 
 
 101 
 
 Dnroc Jersey 
 
 IX) 
 
 Yorkshire 
 
 
 
 
 Helat 
 
 ■llits oj 
 
 vital <>r 
 
 1 /I ins of 
 
 /iiifi Inn 
 
 / hogs.* 
 
 
 
 Breed. 
 
 Nnm- 
 
 Melts 
 
 i spleen i. 
 
 Tongues. 
 
 Kidneys 
 
 Gullets. 
 
 Plucks. 
 
 
 
 Berkshire: 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 .". /• cent. 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 Fir-i experiment 
 
 IO 
 
 0.16 
 
 
 .1 16 
 
 
 
 1 . 88 
 
 
 Second experiment 
 
 •■• 
 
 .09 
 
 
 •M 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 .13 
 
 
 Z\ 
 
 .46 
 
 3.08 
 
 L50 
 
 .81 
 
 
 
 
 Tamworth: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 First experiment 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 86 
 
 
 • 
 
 1 :*i 
 
 .30 
 
 •lid experiment 
 
 ) 
 
 Lfl 
 
 .41 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 Chester White: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 si experiment 
 
 ii 
 
 .25 
 
 
 .19 
 
 .00 
 
 
 l.:,7 
 
 
 »nd experiment 
 
 - 
 
 .10 
 
 . in 
 
 .Ml 
 
 .:*; 
 
 
 LSI 
 
 
 Average 
 
 
 
 .18 
 
 
 
 
 8 n 
 
 1.45 
 
 .30 
 
 Poland ( 'hina: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pint experiment 
 
 - 
 
 
 .38 
 
 
 }.-, 
 
 
 l.:.-. 
 
 
 ml experiment 
 
 9 
 
 .i:» 
 
 
 80 
 
 .85 
 
 
 l .:,: 
 
 
 
 
 .17 
 
 .34 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dui' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pirst experiment 
 
 8 
 
 
 . »i 
 
 .18 
 
 .60 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 •ml experiment 
 
 '.• 
 
 .13 
 
 
 .81 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 .a 
 
 Average 
 
 18 
 
 .41 
 
 .25 
 
 .45 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 Yorkshire: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -> experiment 
 
 ;i 
 
 » 
 
 41 
 
 a 
 
 
 :i]n 
 
 L.40 
 
 
 nd experiment 
 
 t 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .is 
 
 
 
 
 2.87 
 
 1.40 
 
 
 
 
 
 o Bui. No 18, Iowa Bhq 
 
THE HOG [NDU8TBY. 191 
 
 Relative weights of vital organs of purebred hogs — Continued. 
 
 Breed. 
 
 Lungs. 
 
 0.78 
 L10 
 
 Blad- 
 ders 
 
 Blad 
 ders, t i . • t 
 
 Total 
 weight of 
 
 Bung 
 guts, net. 
 
 Small 
 guts, net . 
 
 St,,,,. 
 
 achs, net . 
 
 Berkshire: 
 
 First experiment 
 Second experiment 
 
 ; 
 
 0.05 
 
 /•■ r a a/ . 
 L0.79 
 LI. 99 
 
 Percent. 
 0.26 
 
 P> rcent. 
 1.32 
 
 l.m 
 
 /'< / <i ni . 
 0.68 
 
 0.08 
 
 
 
 
 
 .92 
 
 
 
 11.19 
 
 . 29 
 
 L.16 
 
 . »;'.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tamworth: 
 
 First experiment 
 
 Second experiment 
 
 .'.HI 
 
 1.28 
 
 
 05 
 
 111. (XI 
 
 10.58 
 
 .30 
 .35 
 
 L.55 
 
 .93 
 
 .70 
 
 .06 
 
 .si 
 
 
 
 Average — 
 
 1.01 
 
 
 
 L0.19 
 
 .31 
 
 1.37 
 
 .74 
 
 
 
 
 Chester White: 
 
 First experiment 
 
 Second experiment . 
 
 .62 
 .97 
 
 .(17 
 
 .06 
 
 10.89 
 10.77 
 
 28 
 
 1.2.") 
 1.04 
 
 .(12 
 .76 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 .79 
 
 
 
 10. 83 
 
 .26 
 
 1.15 
 
 .69 
 
 
 
 
 Poland China: 
 
 First experiment 
 
 Second experiment . 
 
 .65 
 
 .73 
 
 '"m 
 
 .03 
 
 8.32 
 
 10.17 
 
 9.30 
 
 .26 
 .29 
 
 1.17 
 1.02 
 
 .46 
 .75 
 
 
 .69 
 
 
 
 .28 
 
 1.09 
 
 .61 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dttroc Jersey: 
 
 First experiment 
 
 Second experiment . 
 
 .83 
 
 .80 
 
 .41 
 
 .11 
 
 10. 44 
 
 11.98 
 
 .39 
 
 .42 
 
 1.10 
 1.36 
 
 .60 
 .80 
 
 Average 
 
 .82 
 
 
 
 11.14 
 
 .40 
 
 
 .70 
 
 
 
 
 
 Yorkshire : 
 
 First experiment 
 
 Second experiment . 
 
 .93 
 1.03 
 
 . 06 
 
 .20 
 
 10.03 
 
 8. 84 
 
 .32 
 
 .93 
 
 .SH 
 
 .(i7 
 .64 
 
 Average 
 
 .96 
 
 
 
 
 .27 
 
 .91 
 
 .66 
 
 
 
 
 
 In the relative amounts of spleen there are only two variations from 
 a general average — the Tamworths, with 0.23 per cent, and the Berk- 
 shires, with 0.13 per cent. 
 
 In weight of kidneys the Poland Chinas lead, with 0.31 per cent, 
 the Berkshires being lowest, with 0.23 per cent. 
 
 There does not appear to be any particularly constant influence due 
 to breed or type in the relative weights of those vital organs that con- 
 si itute the pluck. The combined weights of liver, heart, and lungs 
 should approximate that under the head of pluck; if, therefore, there 
 is any influence of breed on the development and Aveights of these 
 organs we should expect to find evidences of it in uniform and con- 
 stant differences in weights. In the weight of plucks the Berkshires 
 lead in the average, with 3.03 per cent, the Tamworth, Yorkshire, 
 Poland China, Chester White, and Duroc Jersey following in the order 
 named, the lowest weight being 2.86 per cent of the live weight. Yet, 
 in relative weights of the organs that are included in the pluck, the 
 Berkshires are but once in the lead — in the weight of the heart, where 
 less variation is seen than in the weights of livers and lungs, the 
 
L92 BUREAU OF \MM.\I. [NDUBTRY. 
 
 Yorkshire being the only breed iliai shows mnch variation from the 
 general average. The variation in. weights of Livers and Inngs i*> 
 quite erratic. Poland Chinas Lead in relative weight of Livers, with 
 L.66 per cent, the other breeds following thus: Berkshire, Chester 
 While, Duroc Jersey, Yorkshire, and Tamworth, the least amount 
 being L.28 per cent of the Live weight. The Tamworths Lead in rela- 
 tive weight of lungs, w it li 1 . (| 1 per cent, the other breeds following in 
 this order: Yorkshire, Berkshire, Duroc Jersey, Chester White, and 
 Poland China, the Lowest weight being 0.69 percent of the live weight. 
 
 We find some appearance of uniformity in the weights of stomach 
 and intestines. The heading '"Total weight of guts" includes, among 
 others, the three items that follow it. Tin- Berkshires lead in this 
 respect, with LI. 19 per cent, the breeds following thus : Duroc Jersey, 
 Chester White, Tamworth, Yorkshire and Poland china, the Lowest 
 weight being 9.3 percent of the Live weight. The Duroc Jerseys lead 
 Ln net weight of bung guts, with 0. 1 per cent, the breeds following in 
 this order: Tamworth, Berkshire, Poland China, Yorkshire, and 
 Chester White, the lowest weight being 0.26 per cent of the live 
 weight. The Tamworths Lead in net weight of small guts, the weight 
 being 1.37 per cent; the other breeds stand thus: Duroc Jersey, Berk- 
 shire, Chester White, Poland China, and Yorkshire, the Lowest weight 
 being 0.9] percent. In net weight of stomachs the Tamworths lead, 
 the breeds following in this order: Duroc Jersey, Berkshire, Chestei 
 White, Yorkshire, and Poland China, the weights ranging from 0.74 
 per cent to 0.61 per cent of the Live weight. The record of the Berk- 
 shires and Duroc Jerseys is seen to be fairly uniform. Definite con- 
 elusions can not bedrawn from these figures and it may be questioned 
 whether, in the Light of the fads concerning the feeding possibilities of 
 the differenl breeds on similar rations, the improved breeds will show- 
 any marked and uniform differences in the relative weights of the 
 internal organs when U-<\ on the same feed. 
 
 Lard yii Id ofdifft n ntbn < ds. — By common consent, the name " lard 
 hog "has beeii applied by many people to that type of animal the 
 development of which lias very Largely been brought about on Amer- 
 can soil, in cont radisl inct ion from the "bacon " type of hog winch has 
 been brought to us from Great Britain and Canada. 
 
 The writer is under obligation to Swift & Co., Chicago, who killed 
 the hogs used in the Iowa experiments, for the following information 
 regarding the lard yield of the different breeds in the test of L898, 
 Concerning their figures, they say: 
 
 We did not, on any of the testa made, tank the fata of each Lot separately, the 
 amonnta being too small. However, we know approximately what theai 
 should yield in rendered lard, and we have attached herewith a statement show- 
 ing the different test lota slaughtered by us during November, i s '. ,s . and what we 
 estimate the fata, etc., shonld yield in lard. 
 
 Pot your information we beg to say thai the ham facings, heads, cheek-meat 
 tat . u'ull.t fat, gat fat . can] and raffle fat, bonea, tails, feet, and fat trimmings are, 
 
■ 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 
 
 3 1262 09216 6056 
 
 i 
 
 .%