• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Table of Contents
 The utilization of dried grapefruit...
 The use of blackstrap molasses...
 Alfalfa leaf meal in the ration...
 General summary and conclusion...
 Literature cited
 Acknowledgement














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 428
Title: Fattening market hogs in dry lot
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00015140/00001
 Material Information
Title: Fattening market hogs in dry lot using dried grapefruit pulp, blackstrap molasses and alfalfa leaf meal as supplements to corn
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 20 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Kirk, W. Gordon ( William Gordon ), 1898-1979
Crown, R. M ( Raymond Merchant ), 1901-
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1947
 Subjects
Subject: Alfalfa as feed   ( lcsh )
Dried citrus pulp   ( lcsh )
Molasses as feed   ( lcsh )
Swine -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 20.
Statement of Responsibility: by W.G. Kirk and R.M. Crown.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: Originally presented as: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 1939.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station)
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00015140
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000925500
oclc - 18253526
notis - AEN6151

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Front Matter
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    The utilization of dried grapefruit meal in the swine fattening ration
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    The use of blackstrap molasses in the ration for the growing and fattening pigs
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Alfalfa leaf meal in the ration of the growing and fattening pig
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    General summary and conclusions
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Literature cited
        Page 20
    Acknowledgement
        Page 20
Full Text



January, 1947


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
HAROLD MOWRY, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA









Fattening Market Hogs in Dry Lot

Using Dried Grapefruit Pulp, Blackstrap Molasses and
Alfalfa Leaf Meal as Supplements to Corn

By W. G. KIRK and R. M. CROWN


Fig. 1.-Sows and pigs eating fresh grapefruit and sweet oranges.


Bulletin 428









BOARD OF CONTROL


J. Thos. Gurney, Chairman, Orlando
N. B. Jordan, Quincy
Thos. W. Bryant, Lakeland
M. L. Mershon, Miami
J. Henson Markham, Jacksonville
J. T. Diamond, Secretary, Tallahassee




EXECUTIVE STAFF

John J. Tigert, M.A., LL.D., President of the
University3
H. Harold Hume, D.Sc., Provost for Agricul-
ture
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Director
L. O. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir., Research
W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Dir., Admin.
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editors
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor'
Jefferson Thomas, Assistant Editors
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Managers
K. H. Graham, LL.D., Business Managers
Claranelle Alderman, Accountants




MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE


AGRONOMY

W. E. Stokes, M.S., Agronomistz
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomists
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Associate
Fred A. Clark, B.S., Assistant




ANIMAL INDUSTRY

A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., An. Industrialist'1
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandmans
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologists
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarians
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.3
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist
R. S. Glasscock, Ph.D., An. Husbandman
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb.*
C. L. Comar, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist
L. E. Mull, M.S., Asst. in Dairy Tech.
Katherine Boney, B.S., Asst. Chem.
J. C. Driggers, B.S.A., Asst. Poultry Hush.
Glenn Van Ness, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist
John S. Folks, B.S.A., Asst. An. Hush.


ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL

C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agri. Economist'1
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate3
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate

Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statistician'
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statisticians


ECONOMICS, HOME
Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.1
R. B. French, Ph.D.. Biochemist


ENTOMOLOGY
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist and Act-
ing Head of Dept.
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant


HORTICULTURE

G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist'
A. L. Stahl, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Truck Hort.
Byron E. Janes, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
R. U. Dickey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Victor F. Nettles, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2


PLANT PATHOLOGY

W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist'
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist and Botanist
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist


SOILS
F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Chemist1 3
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Chemist
J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologist
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
L. H. Rogers, Ph.D., Associate Biochemist
R. A. Carrigan, B.S., Asso. Biochemist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
Geo. D. Thornton, M.S., Asst. Microbiologist"
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
Wade McCall, B.S., Asst. Chemist
J. B. Cromartie, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor


SHead of Department.
2 In cooperation with U. S. D. A.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
SIn Military Service.
5 On leave.










BRANCH STATIONS


NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY

J. D. Warner, M.S., Vice-Director in Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agron.
R. C. Bond, M.S.A., Asso. Agronomist
L. G. Thompson, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Frank D. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Hush.



Mobile Unit, Monticello
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist



Mobile Unit, Marianna

R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist


Mobile Unit, Wewahitchka
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist



CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED

A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
V. C. Jamison, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist
J. T. Griffiths, Ph.D., Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, M.S., Plant Pathologists
J. E. Benedict, B.S., Horticulturist
B. R. Fudge, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
C. R. Stearns, Jr., B.S.A.; Asso. Chemist
James K. Colehour, M.S., Research Chemist
T. W. Young, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
J. W. Sites, M.S.A., Asso. Horticulturist
H. 0. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
J. A. Granger, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asso. PI. Path.


EVERGLADES STA., BELLE GLADE

R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist
F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agron.
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Sugarcane
Physiologist
B. S. Clayton, B.S.C.E., Drainage Eng.2
W. D. Wylie, Ph.D., Entomologist
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Asso. Chemist
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asst. An. Husb.
T. C. Erwin, Assistant Chemist
R. A. Bair, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
C. C. Seale, Asst. Agronomist
L. 0. Payne, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist
Russel Desrosiers, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.


SUB-TROPICAL STA., HOMESTEAD

Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Director in
Charge
H. I. Borders, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.5
D. O. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Asso. Ento.
R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist

W. CENT. FLA. STA., BROOKSVILLE

Clement D. Gordon, Ph.D., Poultry Geneticist
in Charge2


RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA

W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Associate Agronomist
D. W. Jones, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.
E. R. Felton, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.


CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Chemist in Charge
A. Alfred Foster, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
J. C. Russell, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
Ben F. Whitner, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.

WEST FLORIDA STATION, MILTON
H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist


FIELD STATIONS

Leesburg
G. K. Parris, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge

Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist

Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Truck Horticulturist

Monticello
S. O. Hill, B.S., Asst. Entomologist2 *
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asst. Entomologist'

Bradenton
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Horticulturist in
Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
David G. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Hort., Glad. Inv.
Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.

Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, Meteorolbgist2

1 Head of Department.
2 In cooperation with U. S.
Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
'In Military Service.
6 On leave.














CONTENTS

PAGE
I. THE UTILIZATION OF DRIED GRAPEFRUIT MEAL IN THE SWINE
FATTENING RATION ................----------...... ..................... 5

Experimental Procedure .....................:................-- .. ................. 7

Experimental Results .......................-----------------............. 7

Sum m ary .....................................................-...................... 10



II. THE USE OF BLACKSTRAP MOLASSES IN THE RATION FOR THE
GROWING AND FATTENING PIG ........................................... ....... 10

Experimental Procedure ....................... ........ ..... ................. 11

Experimental Results .... ----..............--..... ---- ---- ------.. 11

Sum m ary ...................................................................................................... 13



III. ALFALFA LEAF MEAL IN THE RATION OF THE GROWING AND
FATTENING PIG ..............................................-- .. ............. 14

Experim ental Procedure ............................................ ....................... 14

Experimental Results ............-...................... ------- 15

Sum m ary .....................................................-...................... 18

GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................ .......................... 18

LITERATURE CITED ........................-- .................................-- ..----- 20

A CKNOW LEDGMENTS ............................................................. ......................... 20







FATTENING MARKET HOGS IN DRY LOT
Using Dried Grapefruit Pulp, Blackstrap Molasses and Alfalfa
Leaf Meal as Supplements to Corn
By W. G. KIRK and R. M. CROWN 1
The lack of suitable feeds in Florida during the late winter
and spring months prevents the uniform flow of well finished
hogs to market. By planning for a succession of crops a plenti-
ful supply of fattening feeds can be provided from July to
February, but during the remaining months of the year available
energy feeds for hogging off are scarce, resulting in a reduced
supply-of good market hogs. The purpose of the feeding trials
reported in this bulletin was to determine to what extent dried
grapefruit pulp and blackstrap molasses, both by-products of
Florida industries, and alfalfa leaf meal could be utilized in the
February to July period to supplement corn in the fattening
ration.
The pigs used in the 3-year period in which these trials were
conducted were raised on the Experiment Station farm at
Gainesville. They were purebred Poland China and Durocs.
All the pigs were well grown, thrifty and of good feeder type.
Age, weight, breeding, condition and sex were considered in
making the lots as uniform as possible. The initial and final
weights of all pigs represent the average of weights obtained
on 3 successive days.

I. The Utilization of Dried Grapefruit Meal in the
Swine Fattening Ration 2
- In areas where citrus fruits are grown, drops and off-grade
fruit are used as a supplementary feed for swine. Observations
by the junior author have shown that when fresh citrus was
fed free-choice, oranges and tangerines were eaten in prefer-
ence to grapefruit. Animals ate the juice, seeds, rag and part
of the peel of oranges; juice, seeds and rag of tangerines; and
mainly the juice and seeds of grapefruit. Older ,pigs quickly
learned to squeeze the smaller fruit in their mouths, discarding
the skins. When given a small quantity of corn and fishmeal
in addition to citrus fruits, pigs maintained excellent condition
as indicated by gloss of hair, smoothness of skin and fleshing.
Weanling and feeder pigs were growth and free from paunchi-
ness.
SFormerly Assistant Animal Husbandman.
2 Included in a thesis presented by R. M. Crown to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in partial fullfilment of the requirements for
the Degree of Master of Science in Agriculture, May, 1939.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Some citrus growers allow pigs to eat the dropped fruit, as
shown in Figures 1 and 2. Such animals do well when fed a
limited amount of high protein feed and given free access to
a mineral mixture. During recent years a large tonnage of
fresh grapefruit pulp has been hauled to the ranges for cattle
feed. It has been observed that pigs eat the pulp readily, even
going back to the piles several weeks after they were put out,
and eventually consuming practically all the pulp. When the
grapefruit pulp is placed in bunks for cattle the pigs eat all
the seeds, rag and peel that fall to the ground.
Within recent years dehydration of citrus cannery by-products
has been established on a commercial basis and grapefruit meal
has been shown to be an excellent feed for cattle. Neal, Becker
and Arnold (2, 3),8 using grapefruit meal in a digestion trial
with steers, found the composition to be as follows:

Total
Nitro- Digest-
Dry Crude Crude gen- Crude Ash' ible
Matter Protein Fiber Free Fat Nu-
Extract trients
percent percent percent percent percent percent percent
Composition ........ 91.77 4.94 11.94 69.60 1.06 4.23
Average
coefficient
digestibility .... 24.83 71.52 92.43 79.37
Digestible
nutrients .......... 1.23 8.54 64.33 .84 75.99
3 Italic figures in parentheses refer to literature cited in the back of this
bulletin.


Fig. 2.-Grade market hogs fed fresh grapefruit.







Fattening Market Hogs in Dry Lot


In addition to their nutritive properties, citrus by-products
were found to have a conditioning effect as shown by the general
appearance of animals given this feed.

Experimental Procedure
Three feeding trials have been completed in which grapefruit
meal 4 replaced cornmeal at 0, 5, 10 and 20 percent levels in the
control ration. The following rations were fed:

Lot No. Cornmeal Grapefruit Fishmeal
_______ Meal
pounds pounds pounds
I* (control) ............ 90 .... 10
II* ......................-.... 85 5 10
III* ............................. 80 10 10
IV* ........................... .. 70 20 10
V** .................-...-....... free choice free choice free choice
VIt self-fed .............. 80 10 10

All 3 trials.
** Trials 1 and 3.
t Trial 2.

The rations fed to Lots I, II, III and IV were mixed and hand-
fed twice daily; Lot V had free choice of all ingredients while
for Lot VI the ration was mixed but self-fed.
Yellow cornmeal was used in all trials. The Menhaden fish-
meal contained 60 percent crude protein, the usual grade sold
in Florida. All animals had access to a mineral mixture con-
sisting of steamed bonemeal 50 pounds, ground limestone 50
pounds, salt 25 pounds, red oxide of iron 25 pounds, pulverized
copper sulfate 1 pound, and cobalt chloride 1 ounce (1).
In Trial 1 weanling pigs 8 weeks of age were used while in
Trials 2 and 3 pigs were weaned from' 4 to 6 weeks before being
placed on test. Each lot consisted of 2 pigs fed individually.
The experimental rations were fed for a 1-week preliminary
period in advance of every trial to accustom the pigs to the
feed. The trial period was 105 days.

Experimental Results
The individual data for the 3 trials and averages for the 6
lots are summarized in Table 1.
Trial 1 was started in May, 1937, with 10 pigs weighing from
30 to 45 pounds each. In this trial some difficulty was encoun-
tered in getting the pigs on feed and digestive disturbances

4 Donated by the Kuder Orange Meal Company, Lake Alfred, Florida.




TABLE 1.-RESULTS OF FEEDING TRIALS* WITH GRAPEFRUIT MEAL.

Grapefruit Average Feed Consumed per 100 Pounds Gain
Lot Trial Meal in Pig Initial Final Total Daily Grape-
No. No. Ration No. Weight Weight Gain Gain Corn- fruit Fish- Total Minerals
S __meal Meal meal_
percent pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds
1 15 45.0 157.7 112.7 1.07 281.7 ...... 31.3 313.0 9.4
1 1 37.5 152.3 114.8 1.09 280.8 ...... 31.3 312.0 6.1
I 2 0 50 55.5 192.0 136.5 1.30 262.8 ...... 29.2 292.0 5.6
2 3 70.2 202.0 131.8 1.26 277.2 ...... 30.8 308.0 6.8
3 35 51.3 146.0 94.7 0.90 278.1 ...... 30.9 309.0 14.2
3 3 69.3 153.2 83.9 0.80 342.0 ...... 38.0 380.0 22.8
Average .......................................... 54.8 | 167.2 112.4 .1 1.07** 283.8** ...... 31.5**" 315.3** 10.8**
1 13 35.5 159.8 124.3 1.18 215.9 12.7 25.4 254.0 4.3
1 9 40.0 139.2 99.2 0.94 272.0 16.0, 32.0 320.0 3.9
II 2 5 51 65.2 190.0 124.8 1.19 263.5 15.51 31.0 310.0 9.5
2 13 53.8 170.0 116.2 1.11 272.0 16.0 32.0 320.0 7.5
3 4 58.3 151.0 92.7 0.88 280.5 16.5 33.0 330.0 17.5
3 34 54.0 141.3 87.3 0.83 301.8 17.7 35.5 355.0 13.3
Average .................................... | 51.1 1 158.6 107.4 1.02** | 265.0** 15.6** 1 31.2** 311.8** | 8.9**
1 14 40.0 139.0 99.0 0.94 252.8 31.6 31.6 315.0 5.0
1 2 35.0 141.2 106.2 1.01 259.6 31.2 31.2 312.0 4.2
III 2 10 46t 57.5 103.0 45.5 0.43 373.0 46.5 46.5 465.0 15.9
2 6 69.7 196.0 126.3 1.20 255.2 31.9 31.9 319.0 4.1
3 57 54.3 150.0 95.7 0.91 262.4 32.8 32.8 328.0 5.4
3 1 62.0 145.2 83.2 0.79 301.6 37.7 37.7 377.0 13.1
Average ...........:........................... 52.2 / 154.3 102.0 0.97** ) 268.0** 33.5** 33.5** 335.0** 5.6**
1 16 35.0 133.8 98.8 0.94 226.8 64.8 32.4 324.0 2.3
1 5 32.5 115.0 82.5 0.79 236.6 67.6 33.8 338.0 3.2
IV 2 20 49 56.6 177.0 120.5 1.15 216.3 61.8 30.9 309.0 8.4
2 If 64.0 110.0 46.0 0.44 332.5 95.0 47.0 475.0 18.0
3 2 67.3 149.6 82.3 0.78 273.0 78.0 39.0 390.0 -7.8
3 6 52.3 143.3 91.0 0.87 245.7 70.2 35.1 351.0 5.4
Average .......................................... 48.7 I 143.7 94.9 0.90** 237.5** | 67.9** 33.9** 339.3** 5.5**
1 26 45.0 205.2 160.2 1.54 315.0 0.0 23.0 338.0 3.1
V 1 Free choice 4t 30.0 147.5 117.5 1.22 264.0 0.0 21.0 285.0 4.7
3 all 33 60.6 223.5 162.9 1.55 338.0 0.0 25.0 363.0 3.0
3 Ingredients 36 58.0 215.6 157.6 1.50 347.0 0.0 25.0 372.0 3.6
Average ..........................................| 54.5 | 214.8 160.2 1.53** 333.3** 1 24.4** 357.7** 3.5**
VI 3 I 52 57.6 196.6 139.0 1.32 315.2 39.4 39.4 394.0 5.5
3 3 10 self-fed 5 76.0 227.0 151.0 1.44 325.6 40.7 40.7 407.0 4.8
Average ...................................... .. 66.8 | 211.8 145.0 1.38** | 320.6** | 40.1** | 40.1** | 400.8** 5.1**
Each trial 105 days.
** Weighted averages: For gain-total gain of all pigs in lot divided by total pig days; for feed consumed per 100 pounds gain-total feed eaten by







Fattening Market Hogs in Dry Lot


occurred frequently among those receiving above 5 percent of
grapefruit meal.
Trial 2 was begun in December, 1937. Due to a limited space
only 8 pigs were fed, weighing from 54 to 70 pounds each.
The pigs made little gain during the first 2 weeks of the trial.
At the beginning of the seventh week digestive upsets occurred
among pigs eating grapefruit meal and all went off feed. Animal
No. 46 in Lot III and No. 1 in Lot IV never fully recovered and
the data for these pigs were not considered in calculating the
averages for the 2 lots. Postmortem examination showed that
pig No. 46 had developed chronic gastritis.5
Trial 3 was started June 3, 1938, using 12 pigs weighing from
51.3 to 76 pounds each. In this trial the pigs in Lots III and
VI were fed grapefruit meal at a 10 percent level. The pigs in
Lot III were hand-fed, those in Lot VI were self-fed. Feed
intakes and growth rates for these 2 lots indicate that when
grapefruit meal was included in the ration self-feeding proved
more satisfactory, although the hand-fed pigs required less
feed per 100 pounds gain.
Trials 1 and 3 were conducted during the summer. Although
initial weights of the pigs in Trial 3 were higher than in Trial 1,
results obtained were similar. The 4 pigs in these 2 trials
having free choice of all feeds did not eat any grapefruit meal.
Growing gilts, litter mates to those used in Trial 1, were fed
a limited amount of a balanced ration and ate in addition 2.5
pounds daily of grapefruit meal self-fed for a 2-week period.
No digestive troubles were noted with these 2 animals.
There was no appreciable difference in average rate of gain
and feed intake per 100 pounds of gain between Lot I, the check
group, and Lot II, fed 5 percent grapefruit meal (Table 1).
Raising the level of grapefruit meal to 10 and 20 percent de-
creased the average rate of gain and increased feed intake per
unit.of gain. The ration fed Lot I contained 2.86 percent fiber,
while that of Lots II, III and IV contained 3.37, 3.86 and 4.84
percent, respectively. As the amount of grapefruit meal was
increased from 0 to 20 percent the average daily feed intake
decreased from 3.39 to 2.88 pounds and the average daily gains
decreased from 1.07 to 0.90 pounds.
As slaughter animals the check lot graded choice with an
average dressing percent of 80.2. Each increase of grapefruit

6Postmortem examinations performed by Dr. D. A. Sanders, Veteri-
narian, Fla. Agr. Exp. Station.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


meal tended to lower not only the grade of the market pigs
but also the dressing percentage, which averaged 78.7, 77 and
75.3 percent, respectively, for the lots receiving 5, 10 and 20
percent of the meal.
The mineral supplement was self-fed in each instance and
the average total amount consumed per pig in the 105 days
on trial decreased from 10.81 to 5.41 pounds as the level of
grapefruit meal was increased from 0 to 20 percent.

Summary
Field observations show that fresh citrus drops, off-grade or
surplus tangerines, sweet oranges or grapefruit are used satis-
factorily as a supplementary feed for swine in areas where avail-
able. Pigs eating citrus fruit show excellent thrift and the fruit
ripens at a time when feed crops are likely to be scarce. Pigs
consume readily the peel, rag and seeds from grapefruit can-
neries.
Three trials of 105 days each in which grapefruit meal was
fed to pigs at 0, 5, 10 and 20 percent levels have been completed.
At the 5 percent level, feed requirements and gains were
comparable with those of the control lot; however care had to
be taken to avoid digestive disturbances when grapefruit meal
was part of the ration. Higher levels reduced the feed intake
and rate of gain, increased the feed required per unit of gain
and caused more frequent and serious gastric upsets.
Increasing the amount of grapefruit meal lowered the grade
and dressing percentage of the slaughter pigs.
The pigs fed 10 percent of grapefruit meal free choice made
faster gains than did those hand-fed a similar ration twice
daily. The self-fed pigs required more feed per unit of gain,
but digestive disturbances were less frequent.

II. The Use of Blackstrap Molasses in the Ration for Growing
and Fattening Pigs 6
Blackstrap molasses, a by-product of the cane sugar industry
in Florida, is rich in digestible nutrients. The purpose of this
study was to determine to what extent molasses could be used
satisfactorily in the ration of growing and fattening pigs.

SIncluded in a thesis presented by the late George L. Clark to the
Graduate Council of the University of Florida in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Agriculture, August,
1939.







Fattening Market Hogs in Dry Lot


Experimental Procedure
Two feeding trials were conducted in which molasses was fed
to pigs under controlled conditions. Twelve feeder pigs were
used in the first trial and 10 in the second. The lots consisted
of 2 pigs each fed individually. Pigs were placed in pens 10
days before the start of the trial to accustom them to the experi-
mental ration and to being hand-fed. Six different rations were
investigated in Trial 1 and 5 in Trial 2. The rations fed in the
2 trials were as follows:


Yellow Alfalfa Black-
Lot No. Corn- Leaf Fish- Mineral strap
meal Meal meal Mixture Molasses
pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds
I* (control).. 83 5 10 2
II* .........-...-.. 73 5 10. 2 10
III* .............. 63 5 10 2 20
IV* .............. 43 5 10 2 40
V** Free choice of all ingredients, but no citrus pulp fed
VI** Free choice of ration fed Lot 1, plus molasses
VIIt ............. 43 5 10 2 20

Both trials.
** Trial 1.
t Trial 2.


Citrus
Pulp '
pounds


The dry ingredients of the several rations were mixed thor-
oughly. The molasses was heated to 1400 F. over a water bath
and then combined with the dry ingredients of the ration.
The mineral mixture included in the rations consisted of
steamed bonemeal 50 pounds, ground limestone 50 pounds, com-
mon salt 25 pounds, red oxide of iron 25 pounds, pulverized
copper sulfate 1 pound and cobalt chloride 1 ounce.
Trial 1 was started January 12, 1939, and continued for 76
days; Trial 2 began March 15, 1939, and ran for 56 days. The
shorter feeding period in Trial 2 was due to the higher average
initial weight of the pigs used.

Experimental Results
The gain and feed consumption of each pig and averages for
all lots are given in Table 2.
The pigs in the control lot receiving no molasses made the
highest average daily gains and consumed the least feed per
unit of gain. As the molasses was increased from 0 to 10, 20
and 40 percent the daily gains progressively decreased from

'Donated by Suni-Citrus Products Company, Haines City, Florida.





TABLE 2.-RESULTS OF FEEDING TRIALS* WITH MOLASSES.


Molasses
in Ration


Initial
Weight


Final
Weight


Total
Gain


Aver-
age
Daily
Gain


Feed Consumed per 100 Pounds Gain


Corn-
nmeal


Alfalfa
Leaf
Meal


percent pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds

1 33 69.0 218.0 149.0 1.96 269.1 16.2
I none 36 36.0 185.5 149.5 1.97 241.2 14.5
2 65 111.0 206.8 95.8 1.71 298.0 18.0
2 6 66.7 158.3 91.6 1.64 270.5 16.3


Average ........................... .............


Average .......................................


54.7
42.0
107.0
72.7


192.2
196.0
181.3
203.3
173.7
188.6
199.3
180.5
175.7
184.3


121.5
141.3
139.3
96.3
101.0
119.6
138.0
137.2
93.5
94.0


1.84**1 266.7**
1.86 240.0
1.83 234.8
1.72 254.0
1.80 246.9
1.81**| 252.3**
1.82 213.9
1.81 214.9
1.67 230.8
1.68 231.2


16.1**
16.4
16.1
17.4
16.9
16.9**


Trial
No.


Mo-
lasses


Fish-
meal
pounds

32.4
29.1
35.9
32.6
32.1**
32.9
32.2
34.8
33.8
33.6**


Citrus Total Minerals
Pulp


pounds pounds pounds
...... 317.7 6.5
284.8 5.8
.... 351.9 7.2
...... 319.4 6.5
...... 314.9**| 6.4**
...... 322.2 6.6
315.3 6.4
341.0 7.0
331.4 6.8
...... 336.4**l 6.7**


332.8
334.3
359.0
359.7


Average ..... .................................... 69.3 185.0 115.7 1.75** 221.2**| 17.6**| 35.1**| 70.2**| ...... 344.1** 7.0**
1 27 54.3 172.5 118.2 1.56 164.1 19.1 38.2 152.8 ...... 374.2 7.6
IV 1 40 44 43.3 157.8 114.5 1.51 155.9 18.1 36.2 145.0 355.2 7.3
2 96 84.7 167.3 82.6 1.48 179.6 20.9 41.8 167.1 ...... 409.4 8.4
2 43 90.0 177.3 87.3 1.56 169.4 19.7 38.9 157.6 ...... 386.1 7.9
Average ....................................... 68.1 168.7 100.7 1 1.53**i 166.1**| 19.3**l 38.6**| 154.6** ...... 378.6**| 7.7**
'. Free choice
V 1 all 72 52.0 161.5 109.5 1.44 323.8 0.5 15.1 4.6 ...... 343.9 2.7
1 ingredients 50 49.0 92.3 43.3 0.57 608.2 6.9 1.2 11.6 .. 623.1 5.8


Free choice
VI 1 ration fed 60
1 Lot 1 and 91
molasses
A average ............................. .......
VII 2 Citrus pulp 92
2 and molasses 42


173.0
198.8

185.9
163.7
169.0


122.7
145.1

S133.9
72.4
87.3


166.4 79.9


1.61 275.3
1.91 276.3

1.76**) 275.8**[


1.29
1.56
1.43**|


197.2.
163.3
170.5**|


16.6 33.2 4.9 ...... 330.0 6.6
16.6 33.3 7.9 ...... 334.1 6.7

16.7 33.4** 6.5 ...... 332.4**| 6.7**
22.9 45.9 91.7 91.7 449.4 9.2
19.0 38.0 76.0 76.0 372.3 7.6
20.8**| 41.6**l 83.1**| 83.1**| 399.1** 8.3**


divided by total pig days; for feed consumed per 100 pounds gain-total feed eaten by


pounds





32.9
32.2
34.8
33.8
33.6**|


II


10


III


20


* Trial 1, 76 days; trial 2, 56 days.
** Weighted averages: ,For gain-total gain of all pigs in lot
all pigs in lot times 100 divided by total gain.
A "D; lm -_ 1 n4x < 4- ---^->*.-. rl-* ----1 4.- ---..---


i


Illr )


Average ........... ---.......... .......







Fattening Market Hogs in Dry Lot


1.84 pounds to 1.81, 1.75 and 1.53 pounds, respectively, and
the feed consumption per 100 pounds of gain increased from
318.5 to 327.5, 346.5 and 381.3 pounds. Scouring was observed
in all pigs fed molasses and became more marked as the amounts
increased. At the 20 and 40 percent levels the condition was
considered to be the cause of the slower gains made by Lots
III and IV.
It will be noted in Table 2 that the pigs in Lots I, II and III
in Trial 1 made faster gains and required less feed per unit
of gain than did the pigs fed the same rations in Trial 2. There
was only a slight difference in rate of gain between the pigs
in Lot IV in each'of the 2 trials but those in Trial 1 required
less feed for comparable gains, as is usually the case with less
mature animals.
Pig No. 50 in Lot V behaved abnormally and therefore the
data for the 2 pigs in this lot were not averaged. The other
pig in Lot V, having free access to all ingredients, consumed
relatively large amounts of cornmeal and small quantities of
alfalfa leaf meal, fishmeal, molasses and minerals.
The 2 pigs on the control ration and molasses free choice
showed practically no difference in feed consumed per unit of
gain, although No. 60 made slower gains than No. 91. Average
consumption of molasses was 1.98 percent of the total feed
eaten, indicating that it was not as palatable as the control
ration.
Substituting 20 percent each of molasses and citrus pulp for
40 percent of the corn resulted in the lowest gains, 1.43 pounds,
and the highest feed consumption per 100 pounds of gain, 411.6
pounds.
Molasses seemed palatable when incorporated with the other
ingredients of the ration, even when comprising 40 percent of
it; however, even at the 10 percent level it was definitely laxa-
tive. Water consumption increased with each addition of mo-
lasses and paunchiness became more evident, the latter being
equally apparent in the lots receiving 40 percent of molasses
and citrus pulp. Pigs fed the higher levels of molasses and
molasses-citrus pulp gained less and had a lower dressing per-
centage and carcass grade than those in the control lot or getting
10 percent molasses.
Summary
In 2 trials of 76 and 56 days' duration blackstrap molasses







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


replaced yellow cornmeal in the ration of feeder pigs at 0, 10, 20
and 40 percent levels.
Pigs fed the control ration or the 10 percent level of molasses
made approximately the same gains but the molasses-fed pigs
required more feed for such gains. Increasing the molasses to
20 and 40 percent decreased the rate of gain and raised the
feed requirements per unit of gain.
When molasses was mixed thoroughly with the other parts
of the ration it was eaten readily by the pigs. However, when
2 additional pigs were given free access to the control ration
and molasses the latter comprised only 1.98 percent of the feed
eaten.
Replacing 40 percent of cornmeal with 20 percent each of
molasses and dried citrus pulp proved the least desirable of
any ration fed.
Molasses was laxative at the 10 percent level and each in-
crease was more laxative in effect.
At the 20 and 40, percent levels of molasses feeding there
was definite paunchiness. This resulted in a lower dressing
percentage and carcass grade.

III. Alfalfa Leaf Meal in the Ration of the Growing
and Fattening Pig
In 3 feeding trials with dried grapefruit meal reported pre-
viously in this bulletin great care was required to keep the pigs
on full feed, even those on the control ration of 90 parts yellow
cornmeal and 10 parts fishmeal. In 2 trials with blackstrap
molasses 5 percent of finely ground alfalfa leaf meal was used
to replace an equal weight of cornmeal in each of the rations.
The pigs on the control ration and those fed 10, 20 and 40 per-
cent molasses remained on full feed while on test, which demon-
strated the value of including the alfalfa leaf meal in the
experimental rations. The object of this group of feeding trials
was to determine the proportion of alfalfa leaf meal in the
ration which would promote the most economical gains with
growing and fattening pigs.

Experimental Procedure
Three trials have been completed in which alfalfa leaf meal
was fed to feeder pigs under controlled conditions. Thirty-six
pigs were used, 6 pigs being fed on each of the 6 experimental
rations. The rations fed were as follows:







Fattening Market Hogs in Dry Lot


Lot No. Yellow Alfalfa Tankage
Cornmeal Leaf Meal
pounds pounds pounds
I (control) ................ 90 0 10
II .................................. 88 2 10
III ............................... 86 4 10
IV .............................. 84 6 10
V .................................. 82 8 10
VI ................................ 80 10 10

All pigs were fed individually, having free access to their
respective rations and to a mineral supplement. The mineral
supplement consisted of steamed bonemeal 50 pounds, ground
limestone 50 pounds, common salt 25 pounds, red oxide of iron
25 pounds, pulverized copper sulfate 1 pound, cobalt chloride
1 ounce.
Trial 1 started July 13, 1939, and lasted for 62 days; Trial 2
began January 5, 1940 and continued for 61 days; Trial 3 ran
for 98 days beginning May 21, 1940. The average initial weight
of the pigs used in Trial 3 was 33.7 and 28.9 pounds less than
in Trials 1 and 2, respectively. Therefore a longer feeding period
was required to obtain final weights comparable with those of
the first 2 trials.
Experimental Results
Table 3 gives a summary of the individual weights, gain and
feed intake of the 36 pigs in the 3 trials and averages for the
6 lots.
In all trials the pigs remained thrifty. It will be observed
from Table 3 that there was considerable variation in gains
and feed intakes of pigs fed the same ration.
The control lot on a ration of yellow cornmeal and tankage
made average daily gains of 1.36 pounds, this being the least.
There was a small progressive increase in average daily gains
when alfalfa leaf meal replaced 2, 4, 6 and 8 percent of the
cornmeal in the rations fed the pigs in Lots II, III, IV and V,
respectively. Average daily gains per pig for Lots IV and V
fed 6 and 8 parts of alfalfa leaf meal were 1.58 and 1.59 pounds.
Substituting 10 parts of alfalfa leaf meal for cornmeal reduced
the average daily gains to 1.42 pounds, a result similar to that
shown by Lot II fed 2 parts of alfalfa leaf meal.
The total feed required for 100 pounds of gain varied only
26.6 pounds between the 6 lots, being 383.4 for the Lot III, fed

8 Donated by Jones-Chambliss Company, Jacksonville, Florida.










TABLE 3.-RESULTS OF FEEDING TRIALS* WITH ALFALFA MEAL.

Alfalfa Average Feed Consumed per 100 Pounds Gain
Lot Trial Pig Leaf Meal Initial Final Total Daily Alfalfa
No. No. No. in Ration Weight Weight Gain Gain Corn- Leaf Tank- Total Minerals
meal Meal age
percent pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds

1 28 63.0 135.0 72.0 1.16 362.0 ...... 40.2 402.2 9.0
1 57 119.0 205.0 86.0 1.39 340.1 ...... 37.8 377.9 7.1
S 2 21 0 104.7 188.5 83.8 1.37 379.6 ...... 42.2 421.8 2.6
2 12 88.3 193.0 104.7 1.72 331.1 ...... 36.8 367.9 4.9
3 10 68.0 203.0 135.0 1.38 338.3 ...... 37.6 375.9 2.8
3 17 48.7 170.0 121.3 1.23 363.6 ...... 40.4 404.0 1.4


Average .....................

1 27
1 10
II 2 17 2
2 11
3 13
3 21

Average ...................... ..............

1 22
1 1
III 2 22 4
2 14
3 11
3 16


Average


79.3
106.7
90.7
95.0
65.3
54.0

81.8

80.7
110.3
84.0
89.3
65.3
53.7


182.4

150.7
196.7
183.5
194.0
191.0
192.0

184.7

188.0
198.0
183.5
176.5
174.0
207.0

186.8


100.4

71.4
90.0
92.8
99.0
125.7
138.0

102.8

107.3
87.7
99.5
87.2
108.7
153.3

107.3


1.36** 351.0**

1.15 371.2
1.45 356.4
1.52 347.8
1.62 331.1
1.28 '354.4
1.41 317.6


1.40**


342.2**

315.1
322.6
330.2
350.1
369.5
298.8


1.46** 1 329.8**


S 39.0**

8.4 42.2
8.1 40.5
7.9 39.5
7.5 37.6
8.1 40.3
7.2 36.1


7.8**

14.7
15.0
15.4
16.3
17.2
13.9

15.3**


390.0**

421.8
405.0
395.2
376.2
402.7
360.9


38.9** 389.0**

36.6 366.4
37.5 375.1
38.4 384.0
40.7 407.1
43.0 429.7
34.7 347.4

38.3** :383.4**


4.2**

10.5
5.0
4.0
1.7
6.7
2.5

4.7**

7.7
9.0
4.0
1.9
5.5
2.1






TABLE 3.-RESULTS OF FEEDING TRIALS* WITH ALFALFA MEAL--(Concluded).

Alfalfa I Average Feed Consumed per 100 Pounds Gain
Lot Trial Pig Leaf Meal Initial Final Total Daily Alfalfa
No. No. No. in Ration Weight Weight Gain Gain Corn- Leaf Tank- Total Minerals
Smeal Meal age
percent pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds
1 25 59.0 140.7 81.7 1.32 417.8 29.8 49.7 497.3 10.0
1 4 127.7 244.7 117.0 1.89- 330.3 23.6 39.3 393.2 9.7
IV 2 18 6 77.7 167.0 89.3 1.46 346.5 24.8 41.3 412.5 3.6
2 13 86.3 192.5 106.2 1.74 302.4 21.6 36.0 360.0 1.8
3 9 63.3 216.0 152.7 1.56 305.3 21.8 36.4 363.5 6.3
3 19 54.7 206.0 151.3 1.54 306.2 21.9 36.5 364.5 2.3

Average .......................................... 78.1 194.5 116.4 1 1.58** 326.7** 23.3** 38.9** 388.9** 5.4**

1 20 74.3 188.0 113.7 1.83 291.0 28.4 35.5 354.9 7.7
1 8 116.7 217.0 100.3 1.62 349.2 34.1 42.6 425.9 10.0
V 2 20 8 83.7 176.0 92.3 1.51 333.7 32.6 40.7 407.0 2.2
2 16 80.0 170.0 90.0 1.48 336.2 32.8 41.0 410.0 1.4
3 8 62.7 216.0 153.3 1.56 302.5 29.5 36.9 368.9 3.0
3 20 58.7 210.0 151.3 1.48 314.8 30.7 38.4 383.9 3.0

Average ....................................... 79.4 196.2 116.8 1.59** 315.7** 30.8** 38.5** 385.0** 4.3**

1 26 86.7 180.7 94.0 1.52 331.7 41.5 41.5 414.7 10.4
1 3 97.3 215.0 117.4 1.90 298.6 37.3 37.3 373.2 8.8
VI 2 10 10 87.0 177.0 90.0 1.48 335.0 41.9 41.9 418.8 3.0
2 29 94.3 185.0 90.7 1.49 351.2 41.3 41.3 412.8 1.9
3 22 61.0 192.0 131.0 1.34 351.2 39.0 39.0 390.2 6.0
3 15 58.0 162.0 104.0 1.06 350.7 43.8 43.8 438.4 3.6

Average .......................................... 80.7 185.3 104.6 1.42** 324.8** 40.6** 40.6** 406.0** 5.9**


* Trial 1, 62 days; Trial 2. 61 days; Trial 3, 98 days.
** Weighted averages: For gain-total gain of all pigs in lot divided by total pig days; for feed consumed per 100 pounds gain-total feed eaten by
all pigs in lot times 100 divided by total gain.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


4 parts of alfalfa leaf meal, and 406 pounds of Lot IV, fed 10
parts. Average consumption of mineral supplement per 100
pounds gained ranged from 4.2 pounds for the control lot to 5.9
pounds for the lot fed 10 parts of alfalfa leaf meal.
Summary
In 3 feeding trials with feeder pigs of 62, 61 and 98 days'
duration yellow cornmeal in the control ration was replaced
by 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 parts per 100 of alfalfa leaf meal.
Pigs on the check ration made slightly less gains than those
fed 2 and 10 percent of alfalfa leaf meal.
The pigs fed 6 and 8 percent of alfalfa leaf meal made approxi-
mately the same average daily gains-1.58 and 1.59 pounds,
respectively.
Lot III, fed 4 percent of alfalfa leaf meal, consumed 383.4
pounds of feed for each 100 pounds gain while Lot VI fed
10 percent of the meal ate 406 pounds, a difference of 26.6
pounds.

GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
These 3 experiments deal with 2 important Florida by-product
feeds, grapefruit meal and molasses, as well as with the problem
of fattening pigs in dry lot. The purpose was to determine to
what extent grapefruit meal and molasses could be used to
replace corn, and the value of alfalfa leaf meal in the ration.
The results of these 3 experiments are summarized in Table 4.
1. The Utilization of Dried Grapefruit Meal in the Swine Ration
Feed requirements and gains of, pigs fed the control ration
and the ration in which 5 percent of grapefruit meal replaced an
equal amount of corn were similar.
Feeding more than 5 percent of grapefruit meal to growing
and fattening pigs caused frequent digestive disturbances which
decreased the rate of gain and increased feed requirements.
2. The Use of Blackstrap Molasses in the Ration for the Growing
and Fattening Pig
Pigs fed the control ration and those fed the ration in which
10 percent of the corn was replaced with blackstrap molasses
made approximately the same gain but the molasses-fed pigs
required more feed per unit of gain.
Feeding 20 to 40 percent of molasses decreased the rate of
gain and increased feed requirements.








TABLE 4.-COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF FEED CONSUMPTION AND GAINS OF SWINE IN 3 EXPERIMENTS ON GRAPEFRUIT
MEAL, BLACKSTRAP MOLASSES AND ALFALFA LEAF MEAL FED IN DRY LOT.


Number Average
of Pigs Initial
Weight
pounds
6 54.8
6 51.1
6 52.2
6 48.7
4 54.5


4
II 4
4
4


III


70.8
69.1
69.3
68.1





82.0
81.8
80.6
78.1
79.4
80.7


Experiment
Number


Average Average
Final Daily
Weight Gain
pounds pounds

167.2 1.07
158.6 1.02
S154.3 0.97
'143.7 0.9'0
214.8 1.53





192.2 1.84
188.6 1.81
185.0 1.75
168.7 1.53





182.4 1.36
184.7 1.40
186.8 1.46
194.5 1.58
196.2 1.59
185.3 1.42


Corn
* Meal
pounds

283.8
265.0
268.0
237.5
333.3





266.7
252.3
221.2
166.1





351.0
342.2
329.8
326.7
315.7
324.8


Feed Consumed per 100 Pounds Gain
Grapefruit Alfalfa Fish
Meal Leaf Meal Meal Minerals
pounds pounds pounds pounds

... 31.5 10.8
15.6 ...... 31.2 8.9
33.5 ...... 33.5 5.6
67.9 ..... 33.9 '5.5
0.0 ...... 24.4 3.5


Molasses

pounds
16.1 32.1 6.4
33.6 16.9 33.6 6.7
70.2 17.6 35.1 7.0
154.6 19.3 38.6 7.7


Tankage

pounds
...... 39.0 4.2
7.8 38.9 4.7
15.3 38.3 4.8
...... 23.3 38.9 5.4
... 30.8 38.5 4.3
.. 40.6 40.6 5.9







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Molasses was laxative when fed at the 10 percent level, more
laxative at the 20 and 40 percent levels.
3. Alfalfa Leaf Meal in the Ration of the Fattening Pig
Pigs fed alfalfa leaf meal at the 6 and 8 percent levels made
highest average daily gain.
Pigs consumed the least feed per unit of gain at the 4 percent
level, the most when 10 percent alfalfa leaf meal was fed.
These trials indicate that the optimum alfalfa leaf meal con-
tent of the fattening ration is from 4 to 8 percent.

Literature Cited
1. KIRK, W. G. The place of minerals in swine feeding. Fla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Press Bul. 507. 1938 (Revised March 1943).
2. MoRRISON, F. B. Feeds and Feeding, Ed. 20th. The Morrison'Publish-
ing Co. 954-993. 1936.
3. NEAL, W. M., R. B. BECKER and P. T. Dix ARNOLD. The feeding value
and nutritive properties of citrus by-products. 1. The digestible
nutrients of dried grapefruit and orange cannery refuse, and the
feeding value of grapefruit refuse for growing heifers. Fla. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bul. 275: 1-20, 1935.

Acknowledgments
The authors express their appreciation to Dr. R. B. Becker and Dr.
A. L. Shealy for their suggestions in conducting the feeding trials and in
the preparation of the manuscript.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Molasses was laxative when fed at the 10 percent level, more
laxative at the 20 and 40 percent levels.
3. Alfalfa Leaf Meal in the Ration of the Fattening Pig
Pigs fed alfalfa leaf meal at the 6 and 8 percent levels made
highest average daily gain.
Pigs consumed the least feed per unit of gain at the 4 percent
level, the most when 10 percent alfalfa leaf meal was fed.
These trials indicate that the optimum alfalfa leaf meal con-
tent of the fattening ration is from 4 to 8 percent.

Literature Cited
1. KIRK, W. G. The place of minerals in swine feeding. Fla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Press Bul. 507. 1938 (Revised March 1943).
2. MoRRISON, F. B. Feeds and Feeding, Ed. 20th. The Morrison'Publish-
ing Co. 954-993. 1936.
3. NEAL, W. M., R. B. BECKER and P. T. Dix ARNOLD. The feeding value
and nutritive properties of citrus by-products. 1. The digestible
nutrients of dried grapefruit and orange cannery refuse, and the
feeding value of grapefruit refuse for growing heifers. Fla. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bul. 275: 1-20, 1935.

Acknowledgments
The authors express their appreciation to Dr. R. B. Becker and Dr.
A. L. Shealy for their suggestions in conducting the feeding trials and in
the preparation of the manuscript.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs