The hog industry


Material Information

The hog industry selection, feeding, and management : recent American experimental work : statistics of production and trade
Series Title:
Bulletin / U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Bureau of Animal Industry ;
Physical Description:
298 p., 3 leaves of plates : 3 maps ; 23 cm.
Rommel, George M ( George McCullough )
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Swine   ( lcsh )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Statement of Responsibility:
by George M. Rommel.
General Note:
Issued in three parts.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029629735
oclc - 15586755
lcc - SF395 .R65
System ID:

Full Text


4, dlj

.... ... . ...



.; Tx, -






Avill 01.


vt.4 Vw

Zw f

W", of 'A:

lo 94









"ItE c

.. . ......

4, . .....




'OK 't'..

tot K


%*t t t* t,

...:.. ..: . .. . "
" ""* ... .




To the farmer of the Corn belt those experiments with grains which
may take the place of corn for feeding purposes illn times of scarcity
are always interesting. In seasons such as that of 19(11, when a. sum-
mer of extreme heat and little or no rain follows a spring of normal
conditions, the short corn crop is frequently coulltnterl)alanced 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 daily. They were fed
one hundred and five-days. The results were as follows:
Wheat compared with corn for pigs.


Corn .-- - --------..---- ....- ---. -
W heat (dry) ---. -- ------ .
Corn and wheat, equal parts --.....
Wheat (soaked) .--.-...--- ..........

Num- Weight at Weight at
berof beginning.' close.
pigs. I

4 185
4 175
.1 174
4 189


ber Average
of daily
days gain.

105 1.16
105 1.02
105 1. \2
liL') l. 115

a Digestible dry matter.

At the Utah Station, Foster and Merrill b 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:


Corn meal ......--
Ground wheat - -

Ground wheat compared with corn meal for pigs.

um Num- Average Feed per
Nbe um- Weight at Weight at ber of da I e 100O
tion. bero '. ls.1al
Pio igs beginning. close. ddays d pounds
fed. gain. gain.

Pounds.. Pounds. Pounds. Pon li .
. ..... ............... 3 290 519 91 0.8.5 558
..----....... ..-... ... 3 291 615 91 1.20 46i4

SBul. No. 67.

b Bul. No. 70.

8396-No. 47-04-- 7


II- -
Iv~ -

Feed per
gain. a


***- 5.'



At ltie usual price of corn and wheat, 75 cents per hundredweight,
thit, (.st iof" gai:i 'r the corn-fed lot is given as $4.18 per 100 pounds,
anul tliat oif t he wheat-fed lot at. $3.48 per 100 )pounds.
At thi close, of this test a second one was made, but the ration of
thi, lirst lot was niade equal parts of corn meal and pea meal after the
inidhle of the test. The results follow:

(; rui nul hI eat conpa red with corn and pea nwals for pigs.


Curn and pui' meals ...................
C4r uId wheat .............. .... ........

ber of


Num- POnd
Weight at Weight at ber of Average l Jp
beginning, close, da dail y
Md gIn. gain.

Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. APunde.
200 670 ,15 1.1 i 407
257 587 115 .96 4(0

Ificut conmp )(red with various other grains.-At the Nebraska Sta-
tion, Smith"' fed eight lots of 6 pigs each to study the comparative
feeding value of wheat, rye, and corn, both alone and in combina-
tion. charcoal l 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 16 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 84.50 per 100 pounds and
they were sold on the farm at $5.521 per 100 pounds. Corn and wheat
were charged at 55 cents per bushel, rye at 50 cents per bushel, and
shorts at$18 per ton. Grinding was charged at 8 cents per 100pounds
for wheat and rye and 6 cents per 100 pounds for corn. A statement
of the results follows:

lWieat compared with other grains for pigs.


N'n- Average
Num- wigt
ber of, weight
be atbegin-
Spigs." ning.


WhoIQ wheat, dry ......
Whbo1. wheat. soaked IX
ti 1 '24 iur ............
Ormind WhtLMLt ..........
(Trotl ld whtilit zirln ri1n.
OqUalparI ----
*'q al art ..... ......1
(4 ri ,l whlrat and rye,
tqual liirt ...........]
Griunil and
sh,1i ,rt. (quIal arts -....
Ground cnr ii ............
Or' iinim l rye ...........

Average Num- Aver.
weight Total her of
weTight gain- clys 6 y
at close, gain. days daly
fed. gain.

Lbs. i l-.42s. Lbs.
167.0 342 91 0.63

110 174.1
HI 177.0


111 178.0 411

li7 17o.7





- I

.70 2.
. 76 2,

91 .74 2,351

91 .70 2,.76

91 .71 2.3754
91 .71 2,356
91 .67 2,290

tal Feed
el per 100 Profit
en. pounds per lot

bs. Lbs. Dol.
178 1 637 5L1

.210 575 7.81
.317 559 &.4








SBnl. No. 75.



In this experiment ground wheat gave the greatest returns for the
least amount of grain, 1)ut did not return so large a profit as whole
soaked wheat, owing to the expense of grinding. The undesirability
of feeding whole wheat dry seems to be indicated by these results.
Ground wheat and corn gave considerably better returns than ground
wheat 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 frosted wheat.-Nine experiments with wheat that had
been more or less damaged by frost were conducted at the Central
Experimental Farm of Canada.a 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-
Frosted wheat for pigs.

4J +2 0 a,2 0
ho4 64. 0 Cd0 0
aD AdC0d 0
0 g 4 0 0d 0 0: 0
S Ration. How prepared. P a) I C o

hours. hq, r
14 WC, b y an .. d 8 7 9 7 07T
gi2 S E^ o 0.. 0 '00
DH E 1

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
1 Wheat---------- Ground, soaked 12 4 185 275 90 77 1.17 479 530
2 .....-do ------------ Whole, soaked 42 4 1861 273 86 771.11 570 659
3 Wheat, barley, and 7..... ............... 4 187 278 92 77 557 607
pease. 1.19
4 Wheat.---..---- ----Ground, soaked 12 5 61 167 104 120 .87 441 423
5 4 104 192 88 56 1.57 233 265
ISkim milk ----------------- ------ -- ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ 1,011 1,251
6 Wheat-------------- Ground, soaked 18 12 103 187 84 84 1.00 442 526
Wheat and barley.. Ground, soaked 30 21 117 179 62 84 .73 326 445
7 hours.
Carrots .-------------..... ................ ...............................----------------.. .......... 53 85
8 Barley, wheat, rye, Ground, soaked 12 36 54 108 54 105 I .51 207 385
and bran. hours.
Barley, rye, wheat, 31 108 191 83 83 1.00 268 323
9 and bran.

rSkim m ilk --------- ... - - - --.I--.. B.300. o. .
a Bul. No. 33.


Tlh' fact that this wheat had been injured by frost does not seem to
have had a serious (effect on its feeding value. In the majority of
instances the gains made were satisfactory, and those eases in which
a large amount of grain was required for 10) pounds of gain were
generally with hogs of considerable maturity and consequently
expensive feeders.
B1i r1 coinplred fri/Ih cot-r.-T-l'he following results were obtained
wit li barley alone in comuprlistn with corn alone in South Dakota,
Colorado, aMdl Canada:

Btirley r/omipart il with corn for pigs.


Colorado: a
Whole corn..........
Ground corn...........
Whole bald barley....
Ground bald barley..
Whole common barley
Ground common bar-
South Dakota: 1'
Corn meal...........
Barley ..............
Ontario Agricultural Col-
lege: r
Corn ...................
Barley .................
Central Experimental
Farm. Ottawa: d
Whole corn............
Ground corn-..........
Whole barley..........
Ground barley ........

Num- Nuim-
ber of her of
tests. pigs.




age Num-
weight Total ber of
at gain. days
begin- fed.

-Lbs. Lbs.
71 ----. ...
fK8 .... .. ........
67 ........ .......
67, .. .. ... I-.--.--.--.-
68 ........ ........
47 ........ .-- ..-.- .

:126 4; .'6
112 W13 56


Feed per 100 pounds
er- gain.



Lbs. Lb,. Lbs.
o.39 tJ ....
.46 54) .......
.58. ........ 500
.74 ........ 380
.49 .------.......-i 540
.71 ........ 430






4:3 ......... t
..... .... 457 . .

S 547 ------- --------

S 3 723 .54 91 1.30 290------- ........- 81
4 74 392 112 .87 416 .-------- .------.
4 19 41X1 84 1.19 ........--- 364
4 -3 444 112 1.00 -- 4MI
4' 7"3 444 112 !.00-------435------..
_ _ _ II I

a Bul. No. 40.
b Bul. No. 63.
cAn. Rpts., 1w)9 and 1mK).

d Bul. No.33.
e Quarts.

This table does not present an accurate comparison between barley
andi corn, as skim milk enters into the results in five instances when
barley was fed, as against only three instances where corn was fed,
but the results command interest in showing- that the value of barley
for hog feeding compares very favorably with that of corn.
Barley 'onimpartrd Ui, it4 Cio, in conIiati'Mfis.-The South Dakota
Experiment Station and the Ontario Agricultural College have
reported tests with l)arley in (cominlhfination with such feeds as shorts
and middlings.

[End of P'art I.]

-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
........ ........ ........ ........ .........


The following table shows the results:

Barley compared i with corn, nith shorts or middling for pigs.

Num- Nu- Average Num- Feed per 1(.00 of her of weight Total her of dAveralye pounds gain.
Ration. her of bet of at1 be gin. days ^
test.. pigs. be- gain. da gain.
test.;, pig.,ginning. fd. gain. Corn. Barley.

South Dakota: Corn and shorts equal
parts---........--------------.. 2 9 11 844) 56 1.67 413 -- ---
Barley and shorts
equal parts---------.. 4 17 115 1,561 56 1.64 ---------- 456
Ontario Agricultural Col-
lege: b
Corn and middlings-- 1 11 63 --- ---------.... 79 4 . .
Do ----------------- 1 12 ---------- -------- 140 .817 432 1-----
Do ----- ....---- 1 5 55 664 ------ .677 424.55 ----
Barley and middlings. 1 13 63 ------------- .80 ---------- 490
Do ----------------- 1 12 ------------------ 140 .841 ---------- 450
Do ----------------- 1 4 42 501 -------- .639 ----------'439.22

a Bul. No. 63. b An. Rpts., 1899 and 1900. e 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 Bul. No. 74.


adjoining. The pens were well bedded with straw. Water was given
in abundance and occasionally coal and ashes. The following table
shows thle results:

aroundd wheat al, intrley compared with spelled corn for pigs.

I to
fliti~f& to'

LRbs. Lbs.
Co'urn- .-------------- 4 96 71. 5
Wheat and barley. 4 94.5 120.25




9e tMc

.. 70

I Average
Amount of
feed eaten.

i C Wha
\ Corn. and









a gain. "

Wheat Po
and 4
barley. o

Lbs. Doa.
---- 7.001
450 4.50

This experiment shows a mixture of wheat and barley to be much
more valuable than corn alone for pig feeding. It also speaks very
well for the economy of pork production in those States where corn
is not a staple crop. Buffumn and Griffith state that it is a com-
mon practice in the neighborhood of Fort Collins for farmers to
exchange barley or wheat 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 grains in Colorado as 80.5
cents per 100 pounds for corn, 99.5 cents per 100 pounds for wheat,
and 55.1 cents per 100 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 for this purpose and in combination are superior to it.
Oats compared with corn.-Grisdale" reports a comparison of oats
and corn. The grain was fed whole and was soaked fifty-four hours
I)efore feeding. Both lots received skim milk in addition. The
results were as follows:

Oats compared with cmrn for pigs.


Corn ....

SAverage ven Nunm- Feed per 10pound
herNofu wht Average er of Ave gain.
Sfat g-at ceg ain. d5vs daily I
s. atnbing. at close.p feda. gain. Grain. Milk.

Pounds. Pounds. I IN
PP Pou1d.. P, mnds. Pounds. Pomed.
.. ......... 4 97 170 73 4 0.87* 421 ,
..... .. :1 72 190I 118 91 1.30 290 31

Bul. No. 33, Central Expt. Farm.





The results of this test are not very favorable to 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 front 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 fed 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
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 ratcdion.-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
aAn. Rpt., 1898-99.


is advised, especl-ially with feeds of a laxative nature. One of the
most .nzveuniiiint nitrogenous concentrates at the hands of tile Kansas
farmer is tlhe soy lean. In a series of experiments the effect of such
an adll itio i to lt(oth Ibndian d corn and Kafir corn rations was studied.
''i,.e fidlowitng summary (of five experiments shows that soy beans
increase gains an(d d(liminisih thle amount (if feed required for 100
Pll)llnl gain:

Fffret El/fH(f,( 1H-qjmj in t Kfiir r.m rntilin fur piqn.

Rati i4n.


First -xlr-riment: PFm".n: .
Kafir ci rn meal.......................... ,i. 6
Kaflir corn meal ........ ................ 1
Soy bean m eal .................................
Second experiment:
K aflr ,, rn m eal .... ............................ iA .i1
Kafir vorn meal----------------]t
Kafir corn meal ................................ 145.7
Soy bean m eal ................................. \
Third experiment:
Kafir morn m eal .................................. 74.2
Kafir corn meal -- .. .............................- 1

O w n m eal ----------------------------------------.Ile 6
C o rn m e~a l ......... ........... ............ ...-------.
Soy bean meal A .................................---------------------------------
Fourth experiment:
Kafir curn m eal .................................. 52.4
Kafir corn meal ....... --...-----------c.......... .8
Soy bIean meal --------- ----------------------
Fifth experiment:
Kafir corn meal-.................................. 44.1
Kafir corn mntal ..................---.......--...-.... i
S y iv ran m eal .................................

Inreased Feed pIer Feed aved
gain from (1) pounds by feeding
woy beans. gain. soy beau.

tindsl. 1Pounds. Per cent.




.. .. 5

Vi. 4






t4 4 ...- ........

749 ............


43 1


The effect of feeding soy beans is


Hogs receiving them

"fatten rapidly, look thrifty, have strong appetites, and the hair
and skin are glossy, like those of animals fed oil meal."
The following summary gives a more elaborate comparison of the
relative values of Kafir corn or Indian corn meal alone and in com-
bination within soy beanss" The results are arranged in order of
economy of gains, the total showing the number of pounds of feed
required for l i pounds of gain.

,Butl. No. 95, Kansas Expt. Sta.

542 -------------

fI53 .... .--.-...


Value of soy beans in a Kafir corn or Indian corn ration.

Feed per
Ration. pounds

Pouun d..
Corn meal 1, soy bean meal A ....----. 369
Kafir corn meal 1, soy bean meal A... : 374
Kafir corn meal r, soy bean meal 408
Kafir corn meal ., soy bean meal ... 409
Kafir corn meal soy bean meal ... 435
Kafir corn meal ., corn meal ------- 456
Shelled corn, dry ..--------------------- 457
Kafir corn meal 1, soy bean meal IF -468
Kafir corn meal, wet ---..-.----------- 471
Kafir corn meal 1, corn meal J, wet 477
Shelled corn, dry .---------........----------. 479
Corn meal, soaked forty-eight hours. 484
Kafir corn, whole, dry---.--------- -- 512
Kafir corn meal and cotton-seed meal 540
Kafir corn, whole, dry --------------- 542


Feed per

Kafir corn meal, soaked forty-eight
hours --------..........--. -------------..
Kafir corn, whole, soaked forty-
eight hours ----- ----------------.
Kafir corn meal, wet .................
Kafir corn, whole, soaked forty-
eight hours ------------...-..-------
Kafir corn, whole, wet -------
Kafir corn, whole, wet .----..-..--.----.I
Kafir corn meal, wet ------.....-.....-----
Kafir corn, whole, dry ---------
Kafir corn meal, wet ---------.-...--
Kafir corn meal, dry. ---. ----
Average..........---. ....- .....--

"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 Stationa 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.

Total Feed per
Ration. weight at Total gain. 100 pounds
beginning, gain.

Pounds. Pounds. Pounds.
Pease ............................................................ ---------------------------------------------------147 303 452
Wheat -...------..-....--.-----................................----------------------------------... 136 282 476

Cowpeas alone compared with corn alone.-At the South Carolina
Station b 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.






a Bul. No. 70.

bBul. No. 52.

... -.....


(round cou'peuas auld corni meal compared with corn meal.-At the l
AlalNmna Station1" I)uggar fed two lots of pigs to compare the relative I
value of a ration of half corn meal and half ground pease with an "
exclusive corn-meal ration. The pigs used were placed in covered i
pens, with small yards adjoining, and, after a preliminary period of a .
week, put into the experiment which lasted sixty days. The results
are as follows:
Ground uotepeas and cornm meal compared with corn meal for pigs.

SNunm- Feedper
R~tinn ft.i~i ber of Feed U*l|-
Ration. Gain. be of Feed pn. 1,
dar aa.pud
_____ ________________ _________ e._____ gaint
Pounds. Pounds. Found.
Ground corn alone-------------------------------------- ............................................ 68 60 548 m0
Corn i, cowpcasI---------------------------------------.............................................. 108 0 570

In this experiment the cowpea and corn-meal ration made gains 34
per cent more economical than corn alone. The quality of the pork
made was as good as that of corn-fed pork.
Pean uits compared with corn meal.-Duggara placed in pens the pigs
used to compare the values of peanut pasture and corn meal (see
p. 160) 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:
Pea n u is compared with corn meal for pigs.

Num- AegFeedjs
Ration. ber of r of Total a
pigs. s gain gain. ga

Pounds. Pound. Pbmfn.d
Peanuts J, corn meal j------------------------------ 3 42 84 0.67 8)
Peanutsonly ......................................... -------------------------------------3 42 59.5 .47 m8
Corn meal only ----------------------------....................................... 2 42 8.6 .10 1,10o

This experiment shows thie best daily gains from the combination of
peanuts and corn meal, and shows the best returns for feed eaten by
the pigs on peanuts alone. This lot made very much better gains....I
than the pigs fed exclusively on corn meal, which fed very poorly.
The pigs on peanuts alone made a gain of 9 pounds per bushel of pea- i
nuts. "This gives a value of 27 cents to a bushel of Spanish peanuts
wheni l)pork is worth 3 cents per pound gross, and 311 cents when pork
is wortlI 34 cents per 1)ound." The unthrifty appearance of the pigs H.
fed on corn meal only was commented upon.
At the South ('arolina Station, Newman and Pickettb fed two lots of
gra L(I, l'rkshire and I)uroc .Jersey pigs, from eight to eleven months
old, iii e'Ins, to stud(ly the relative values of peanuts and corn. Onland
of similar character they estimated the corn yield at 15 bushels per acre :|
ami. ;aIliits H1) bushels, and in their investigations they found that,

Bul. No. 93. b Bul. No. 52. ,

.......................... Ii



with exclusive corn feeding, 602 pounds of corn were required for 100
pounds of gain and with peanuts 443 pounds for 100 pounds of gain.
On this basis, an acre of corn will produce 140 pounds of pork and an
acre of peanuts 488 pounds, worth, respectively, when pork is 5 cents
per pound, $6.97 and $24.37.

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
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 supply 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 wiith corn meal.-Burketta 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:
Bran and corn meal compared with corn meal for pigs.

Nu- Average N im I Feed per 100
iue weight Total INumber Average, pounds gain.
Ration. berof atbegin- gain of days daily I_______
pigs. ning. fed. gain. Grain. Milk.

Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. I Potunds. Pounds. Pounds.
Bran and corn meal------------ 3 47.6 227 99 0.76 308 882
Cornmeal--...---.-..-.....-... 3 47 3231 99 1.08 263 663

a Bul. No. 66, New Hampshire Expt. Sta.


This experiment gave much better returns for a enorn-meal and
skim milk ration than for one where bran was added. Burkett does
not vailuei bran highly as a pig feed either alone or in combination with
corln illeal.
Sli'/,s rt compared w'ith corn.-At thle Colorado Station. Buffum and
CGriffitlih" fed purebred Blerkshire pigs about 5 months old to comn-
pare tlle feeding value of corn meal and shorts in combination with
wheat, barley, and oats. One lot received shorts, wheat, oats, and
barley in rotation-shorts with wheat and oats one day, with wheat
and barley the next, with oats and barley the next, and so on. The
lot'on corn liad 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 100 pounds; shorts, 75 cents per
100 pounds; wheat, 1.5 cents per 100 pounds; oats, $1.20 per 100
barley, $1.20 per 100 pounds. The experiment lasted from March 23
to May :11, 1901-sixty-nine days-the results being as follows:

Shorts compared with corn in mixed rations for pigs.


Shorts and grain ........
Corn and other grain...

Juin- age Aver' Num-
Sofweight ae berof
pig.. at be-g ag days
I gain. f^a
gin- fd

Lbs. Lb.'
3 112.5 M. 2 69
3 98 85.6 69

Average amount feed-
Aver- e n Feed Cost
age per l40) per 1o00
Daily Other pounds pounds
gain. Corn. Shorts. h gain g ain.

Lb.. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
1.:1 ....... 2. 6.5 225.60 5.1 8 4.70
1.2, w8 .6 -------- 209.1 48T 4.70

At the Indiana Station IPlumb and Anderson b fed two lots of 3 high-
grade Chester White gilts, each five and one-half months old, to com-
pare the 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
attachlied. Shorts were valued at $14 per ton and corn meal at $13.50
per ton. The results were as follows:

Feeding value of wheat s/horts.


S"l irts and '
(urn imeal -

N Average
erof- weight
pigs. at begin-

rn meal 3 121)
.......... 3 129)



S Total feed Cost of
Num- Aver-! Laten. Feedoper feed
b e r o f a g oe _. _I. .u1
days daily h Coro r tPCdn pounds
fed. gain. Shorts. Meal gain. gain.

Ls.. |I s. Li.n. Pounds. Dollars.
70I 1.56-i 718 71, 11 406 2.74
70) 1.. ........ 1,413 I 2.80

The mixture of corn meal and shorts gave larger, more rapid, and
m1re, e(.n011Mi0(iralI gains than a ration of corn meal only. In the Colo-
..B.i.. N .7 ....u. .No...71.


a Bul. No. 74.

',Bul. No. 71. ,;

"':: :l:"


rado experiments the pigs fed on a ration of shorts nimade larger and
more rapid gains than those on corn meal, but they required more
feed per 100 pounds gain.
Corni 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 yet the mills have no 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-product ol)tained 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
Rice meal compared with corn meal for pigs.

Feed eaten. Feed per 100 Cost of
Num-I Num- Aver- geepounds gain, feed per
Ration. er Total berof age 100
pigs.o gain. days daily pounds
fed. gain. Meal. Milk. Meal. Milk, gain.

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Dollars.
Rice meal 1 part, skim
milk 4 parts .-...--- .--- 3 314.5 61 1.72 779 3,116 248 991 3.84
Corn meal 1 part, skim
milk43parts --' 3 303 61 1.66 779 3,116 257 1,028 4.63

The corn meal was valued at $20 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
Feeding value of rice polish.-Owing to the high price of corn dur-
ing 1902, Duggarb devoted considerable attention to the investigation
of the value of those feeds whose composition seemed to indicate that

bBul. No. 122, Alabama Expt. Sta.

aBul. No. 55.

*: *'W Y



they could be used as substitutes for corn meal in pig feeding. In
this connection rice polish was fed to a number of pigs under different
conditions. Rice polish is a by-product of the rice mills and is diffl-
cult to (hl)tain in some sections of the country, as millers often mix it
with less valuable by-products and sell the mixture under the name
o)f rice meall" For this reason rice meal is said to be a variable and
uncertain quantity and all samples do not have equal feeding value.
In 1V)02 rice polish was quoted by a Savannah mill at 817.90 per ton,
delivered at Auburn, Ala., in less than carload lots. Two years before
the saime firm had been paid *26 per ton for it delivered at Auburn.
It is stated that some of it kept in good condition for more than
a year.
I),uggar reports seven tests with this by-product. He compared it
with corn meal with and without the addition of skim milk, and
in a mixed ration of cowpea meal andl 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 fed dry.
The following table summarizes the results:

Feeding value of rice polish.


Corn meal and skim milk ..............
Rice polish and skim milk .............
Corn meal....--.....--.............
Rice polish.............................
Corn meal......--..--.....--.........
Rice polish..............................
Corn m eal .............................
Rice polish ..............................
Corn meal 2, cwpea meal 2. wheat
bran I .................................
Rice polish 2. *.)wpea meal 2, wheat ,
bran 1 .................................
COwpea meal 2, 'orn meal 1. rice puxl-
i.)h L, and skim milk.............
Rirc polish aind skim milk .............
(OwIm'ea meral 2. torn meal 1. ric ixil-
is h 1 ........................... .. ......
Corn menial 1. rice polish 1 ............

beroNum- Total 'ber of Average
her of day(Ss daiy
pigs. gain. d I gain.
fed. i

3 g
3 109
3 54
3 79
3 68
3 13&

3 56

3 66

3 ........
3 l
3 . . .l





Feed per 100 pounds gain.









Rice pol-
ish lots.










.... ::

Jii i

In every instance where data were furnished, the pigs on rice polish
show m ore rapid gains than those on corn meal or mixed grain rations.
In unlyv two eases did rice polish fail to prove more economical. One
of I Ihes1( was 111e 'second test with corn meal, where 670 pounds of feed
were r-quired by the pigs on both rations. The other was a test with

- - - -

..... ........
420 ............


a mixed ration, where 2 parts cowpea inmal, I part corn meal, and 1
part rice polish, with skin milk, gave gains at an outlay of 178
pounds grain and 413 pounds skim milk, as compared witlhi 193
pounds grain and 474 pounds skim milk 1by thIe ration of rice polish
and skim milk.
Duggar summarized the results where rice polish andl corn meal
were compared directly, and found that an average of 373 pounds of
rice polish were required to produce 100 pounds gain, as compared
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
cent of the grain by the substitution of polish for corn meal."
Gluten meal compared withi corn 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.

Average Num- Aver- Dry Cost
Num-atio weight Total ber of age matter per 10) Dressed Nutri-
Ration. ber of per 10 rtieo.
pigs. at begin- gain. days daily pounds weight.
ning. fed. gain. pounds gain. i

Pounds. Pounds Pounds. Pounds. Dollars. Percent.
Gluten meal and milk. 4 87.25 214 50 1.07 319 2.70 77.40 1:2.7
Corn meal and milk -. 4 90.5 297.5 50 1.49 264 2.50 80.20 1:5.8
Gluten mealand milk 4 47.5 157.5 50 .79 252 2.40 ...... 1:2.7
Corn meal and milk.. 4 48.5 219 50 1.10 151 1.90 ---------- 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.
Hominny meal compared within corn meal.-In Massachusetts the
Hatch Stationb 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.
bEleventh An. Rpt.. Hatch Expt. Sta.


ane Or :f
an1d size.
mineal andi

to 1; ouinceS to each quart of milk, depending on appetite
One lot received corn meal and milk, and the other hominy
milk. Tho results are shown in the following table:

Iftci iny inul rompatred w rith eorn mril for pigs.


(j'1iI" I in'i l . ......
II'nitii y :iael .. .....I

Num- AC NuNm-!
Nn weilht Total ber of
I-rro at X.- gain. (dayn
P1KMi Kin- .f l.
pig". :b"fD..

Il.w. Il..i
4 W3\ 5 ON
3 i5 410 ON

Aver- Total
gain. Orain.



feeod F,, rmlpp;IV) Dry
m.. lwpndzf gm n. mattuar
S pounds
Milk. (rain. Milk. gain.

lA.. lJ. 1Nb. lbW.
5,79 14'a 1,41 3) 1
5,779 1H7 1,410 3ol

These figures show hominy meal, as fed in this experiment, tU) have
a feeding value equal to that of corn meal. In this one test corn meal
failed to give quite so good results as the hominy meal, showing an
average daily gain of 1.28 pounds to 1.39 pounds for hominy meal, and
320 pounds dry matter for 100 pounds gain to 306 pounds dry matter
for 10) pounds gain in the case of the hominy meal.
Corn imecal roinpam red with cerealine feed. -Two tests were made at
the Hatch Station" to compare corn meal and cerealine feed. Like
hiomininy meal, cerealine feed "consists also of the hull and a portion
of tihe starch of the corn. It contains rather less of the starch than
the ltominy meal. It is the by-product resulting from the preparation
of the 1)reakfast food known as cerealine flakes. It is very coarse
looking and appears very much like unground corn hulls."
In the first test 6 grade Chester White pigs about five weeks old
were used. They were fed G to 9 quarts of skim milk per head daily,
and the grain fed at the start was 3 ounces for each quart of milk;
the grain was increased with age and weight. The nutritive ration
was 1:3 at the beginning and 1: 7 at the close.
In the second test 6 pigs, "a cross between the Poland China and
the Chester White," about five weeks old, were fed. Skimi milk was
fed in connection with the cerealine feed, which was "eaten with
seeming relish at all times." The following table shows the results:

( 'ervline feed compared with corn mealfor pigs.

Num-- age
blrr weight
of at be-
pigs. gin-
' ning.


S 45



Num-' Aver Total feed I Feed per 100 Dry
Total mro! age eaten. pounds gain. matter
gain. Idaysadaily -. .....per 100uS
fel gin',Pounds
Sfedl. gain. Grain. Milk. Grain. Milk. gain.
I _

I.h. l Is. : l... Lh s. lh. L kbs. Lbf.
413 106 .:l 731 4. &7 177 1,1B 2Bm
:W 106l 1.25 7"31 4. &7 194 1.212 277
315 7S 1.34 1) 3,,11 216 972 281
W 13 7S 1.25i 671 3.1*1 21 1,041 35

th An. Rpt., Hatch Expt. Sta.


Hat i"71.

( ,'1. I IttI,'l ......
C',rui'liii, fui'ul
('urn 1u lal
(< 'ln lin]' fi-il .-



In these tests cerealine feed showed (onsider'able value as a pig
feed, but failed to give as good results, either in rate or economy of
gain, as corn meal. Digestion experiments at the Hatch Station with
sheep have shown that cerealine feed contains as much digestible
matter as corn meal. The station authorities suggest that the coarse
nature of cerealine feed lessens its value as a pig feed.
Value of corn hear'ts.-Duggara 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.



Corn hearts 1...-----------......-...------------- 1
Rice bran 1.----------... ....------------ .
Cowpea meal 1.------- ----- -----------I
Rice bran 1 ..- ..-- ----------..-.--... .--.-- ..
Corn meal 1 ------... -- -------------.----
Rice bran 1 ----------------------------f

Niun- Num-
ber of Total ber of
pigs. gain. da

3 65 35

Aveng Fed Feed per
daily Feed 10 0J)
gain eaten. 'pounds

Pounds. Pounds. Pounds.
0.62 480 738
.77 479 595
.93 540 550

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. Bothl
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.


Hominy chop g, lin-
seed meal --.----.
Hominy chop g, lin-

ber of


seed meal 5
Average ....... -------
Hominy chop ;, glu-
ten meal.--------- 5
Hominy chop ;, glu-
ten meal j ........... 6
Average ........ -----.....--

Average I Num-
weight at Total ber of
begin- gain. days
ning. fed.

Pounds. Pounds.

37 298 60




294 60











a Bul. No. 122, Alabama Expt. Sta.

Feed per 10)
pounds gain.
Grain. Milk.

Pounds. Pounds.

242 242

242 242
42 242
23 3

Cost per

Dolla rs.




220 220 2.07
226 226 2.13

b Bul. No. 63.

8396-No. 47-04--1 8



This table shows advantages in favor of gluten meal. Both rate I
and economy of gkdn favor the corn by-product. The cost of the
gluten-meal ration was much less than the one into which linseed
meal entered. *
No feed of the South has so wide a range of interest as cotton-
seed meal. It is a concentrated feed of high value for cattle and
sheep, and its effect on the fertilizing value of the manure is nearly
as great as its effect on the feeding value of the ration.
The influence of cotton-seed meal extends far beyond the States
where it is produced, and farmers over the entire country have come
to depend upon1 it to balance their rations and enrich their fields.
IDanger of use of cotton-seed meal in pig feeding.-For some reason
as yet unexplained this by-product is usually fatal to pigs in from
three to ten weeks after feeding has commenced, the mortality being
at least 50 per cent. In two tests conducted by the Texas Experi-
ment Station" boiled cotton seed gave the least serious results, while
soaked raw seed, roasted seed, and raw meal proved more serious.
In one test, 10 of the lot of 15 pigs fed cotton seed or cotton-seed meal
died. At the Iowa Experiment Station,b of 6 pigs that were on a
ration of cotton-seed meal, corn-and-cob meal, and buttermilk, 3 died.
At the Kansas Experiment Station,c' 4 young pigs on a ration corn-
posed 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 3 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 seed
cr cotton-seed meal and the first appearance of trouble varies some- .
what. Curtise 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; ('urtiss- lost the first pig fifty-one d(lays after feeding
commenced. Dinwiddie'sA first pig (lied thirty-five days after feed-
ing commenced, and Duggari lost the first pig thirty days after
feeding commenced. It therefore appears that there is no very deft-
nite period of time that is required for the poison to manifest itself.
However, ('ottrellJ states that cotton-seed meal may be fed for three
to four weeks before danger is imminent, and Burtis and Malone4
state that no case has come under their experience "where a pig has
(lied if the cotton-seed meal mixture has not been continued longer
than three weeks."
f Bul. No. 21. gBul. No. 28, Iowa Expt. Sta.
',Bul. No. 28. h Bul. No. 76, Arkansas Expt. Sta.
SBinl]. No. 53. i Bul. No. 122, Alabama Expt. Sta.
,Bidl. No. 7-i. Bul. No. 95, Kansas Expt. Sta.
Bn]. No. 21. Texas Expt. Sta. kAn. Rpt. 1901-02. Oklahoma Expt. Sta.
Bul. No. 60. Mississippi Expt. Sta.



Symptoms ofpoisoting..--Poisoning is manifested in a peculiar man-
ner. In many cases pigs that 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-
ing 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 rule; 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 struggles
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 Dinwiddieb 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
Pathologicalfeatures.-Francisa 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." Mayoc pronounced the death of the Kansas
pigs to be due in all cases to "congestion and inflammation of the
intestines, lungs, and heart;" but Nilesd 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
a Bul. No. 21, Texas Expt. Sta. c Bul. No. 53, Kansas Expt. Sta.
b Bul. No. 76, Arkansas Expt. Sta. d Bul. No. 28, Iowa Expt. Sta.



and jaws. Respiratory and buccal mucous membrane dusky red. Pleural cavi- i
ties contain a large quantity of yellow, cloudy fluid, compressing the lungs toless i
than half their normal mbulk. In the pericardial sac there is a similar dropsical
effusion. part of which has formed into a soft, yellowish-white clot. No evident i
phl'uritis. Lung dark red, congested, and collapsed. Cavities of heart contain
dark. soft -lh xd clots; slight petechial extravasations on the epicardium. No
obvio uns ieritoneal effusion. Liver is dark in color. friable, and deeply blood-
rugi irged. the lobular lIoindaries on section being unusually prominent, with dark-
red depressed centers. Kidneys on secti on appear congested throughout, capsule
n()nadht'rent. * *1
The stomach and intestines often showed abnormal features. The
small intestine jejunumm) frequently showed hyperemic patches on
both the serious and mucous surfaces, and the large intestine and
stomach in several cases contained considerable quantities of graveL
Trhe urine was slightly albuminous in two cases. In one instance,
where the brain was dissected, there was engorgement of the veins
and sinuses of the dura mater, which extended "backward into the
vessels of the neck."
The histological examination is described as follows:
Sections of the liver tissue reveal an intense congestion of the portal system, the
intralobular capillaries especially being enorjnously engorged throughout and the
liver cells compressed and shrunken. There is, however, no marked degeneration,
and the nuclei take the stain in the normal manner. Sections of the kidney
exhibit a similar capillary engorgement. though less intense. The glomerular
tufts are compressed by edematous effusion into their capsules. A degenerative
process 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 blo )d extravasations. but without cellular proliferation or .
infiltration. There is no evidence of pneumonia or pleurisy.
Treutlmenintl.-As a rule, hogs suffering from the effects of cotton-
seed poisoning, if taken from the cotton-.seed ration and placed on
rich green pasture, become apparently well in a week.0 A similar
result follows when they are simply deprived of the cotton-seed
meal of the ration and given an ordinary grain ration. However,
Burtis 'reports a case where a pig died during the winter after a
week's feeding on a straight corn diet that followed four weeks' feed-
ing on a ration of one-fifth cotton-seed meal and four-fifths corn meal;
and I)inwiddie and I)uggar had similar experiences. In some cases
pigs may pass through a season of cotton-seed meal feeding and
thereafter le indifferent to it. Curtis' found that if a pig lived
thirty days after the first appearance of trouble it could be regarded
as immune from the effects of cotton seed, ibut the experience of others
Seems t( )ontradid,.t this. I)inwiddier gives two montlths as the time

Bil. No. 6o. Mississippi Expt. Sta.: An. Rpts.. 1.900-01 and 1901-02, Oklahoma
Expt. Sta.
?'An. Rpt. 1901-02. Oklahoma Expt. Sta.
Bu3l. No. 21. Texas Expt. Sta dBul. No. 76. Arkansas Erpt. Sta.


required fora hog to be on cotton-seed meal before it (can 1)be regarded
as immune.
The cause of poisoning g tnot known.-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 has 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. Curtissa
`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 young
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 body weight at the begin-
ning of feeding. The amount of cotton-seed meal eaten per head was
23, 25, and 45 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 tliat 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 Duggar's" experiments resulted
fatally. In the first experiment the smaller pigs were the first to die.
They averaged about, 64 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 0.4 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

a Bul. No. 28. Iowa Expt. Sta. b BuL No. 122, Alabama Expt. Sta.
c Bul. No. 76, Arkansas Expt. Sta.



per I(K) pounds live weight daily, for forty-three days; the total I
amountti ( of (aottoIn-seed meal fed was 21.6O per cent of the average live J
weight. In the second fatal experiment one of the pigs died "after
having appeared gaunt and weak for two days." This pig averaged I
about 60 pounds in weight and up to the time of death had been fed
5.4 pounds of cotton-seed meal. This was a total of 9.2 pounds per 100
pounds live weight. The pig had not had more than 0.25 pound cotton-
sectl meal daily per 100 pounds live weight. The other pig in the same
lot showed an unthrifty condition and the ration was changed. (See
the Kansas experience on page 122, where a similarly small amount of 4
cotton-seed meal produced fatal results.) The ration in both experi-
ments was, cotton-seed meal one-fifth, corn meal four-fifths.
In another test with u ration of corn meal three-fourths, cotton-seed
meal one-fourth, the pigs were noticed to be out of condition toward
the tiiirty-fifth day, but no deaths occurred. They averaged about 118
pounds in weight, and the amount of cotton-seed meal which made
them sick was 25.5 pounds. This was 21.4 pounds per 100 pounds live
weight, or 0.61 pound daily per 100 pounds live weight.
The causes of death are regarded by Dinwiddie" as being both
essential and contributory, the essential cause being the toxic princi-
ple supposed to be present. lie describes the immediate cause of
death as follows:
In all our cases the immediate cause of death was obviously asphyxia, due to
pressure on the lungs by the dropsical effusion into the pleural cavities. In its
final manifestations the disease was an acute dropsy of the pleural and pericar-
dial sacs. 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 process secondary 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 from absence of any marked peritoneal effusion.
Ascites would be the first result of such extreme portal congestion if it were pri-
mary. All of these conditions, however, are necessarily the result of some 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 may be 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 causes 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 far as I
have seen.
Points that may in time lead to the discovery of the trouble are
that old meal seems to be more fatal than fresh, that cotton-seed meal
is inmore fatal than cotton seed in any condition, and that the poison-
ous agent is not in the oil, but seems to be entirely left in the cake

Bul. No. 76, Arkansas Expt. Sta.





when the oil is expressed. It is also well known throughout the South
that decomposed cotton seed has little, if any, dangerous character,
and it has been pretty clearly established by the studies of ('Curltissa
and by the experience of practical feeders that the meal is so changed
by the processes of digestion that hogs following steers which are
being fed a heavy cotton-seed meal ration are not injured by the
Feeding value.-Disregarding, for the moment, the fatal effects of
this product, let us consider its feeding value. Tle 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 hardly worth the risk of feeding, and (3) that it
is extremely valuable if means can be devised to feed it without fatal
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 stuff 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."
Curtisc 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
age; * 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" 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, Emerye 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 Bul. No. 28, Iowa Expt. Sta. d Bul. No. 60.
b Bul. No. 19. e Bul. No. 109.
c Bul. No. 21, Texas Expt. Sta.


the lirst three weeks and green feed during the first six weeks. Two
poll is of cottonl-seed meal daily made the pig sick, and for twenty-
two days t lie meal was dropped from the ration. Then the feed was l
made one-foulrth.i cotton-seedl meal, three-fourths wheat bran, with 12
pjimids skim milk daily for ten days, after which corn meal was
substitutedl for the colton-seed meal. Thie feeding was unprofitable, I
but tlhe pig ,lid not die.
Among th lie instances where feeding was fairly profitable, the results
at tlie New York (State) Station" may be noted. Trhe intention was
not to note the effects of cotton-seed meal feeding. Cotton-seed meal
inl 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 of H
them (lied from "congestion of the liver, following indigestion." This
may have been cotlton-seed meal poisoning. T1he pigs were on a ration
in which there was three-tenths pound daily for sixty-three days.
('arv's" results in Alabama are remarkable because of the large
quantities of cotton seed fed. lie conducted three experiments in
which cotton seed or cotton-seed meal were fed to 13 pigs. From 1i
to 4-1 pounds of crushed cotton seed were fed per head daily. In two
instances cotton-seed meal was fed, but in small amounts (three-
tenths pound daily in one case and three-fifths pound in the other). The
pigs receiving cotton-seed meal d(lid 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
In thle first test the p)igs on crushed cotton seed made fairly good
gains. They hlad some grain in addition, and all received green or
succulent feed. In the second test 3 pigs were fed rations of corn
meal and (crushed cotton seed or ground cowpeas and crushed cotton
seed. Tlie rations were heavy--i pounds when corn meal was fed
and GA p)oundsI(l when cowpeas were fed; the amount of cotton seed
was imore than half the ration. Fair gains were made and the after
effect does not seen to have been serious, as the pigs did well when
placedl on pasture and fed corn. One pig in this lot had crushed cot.-
ton S(e,(l alone, 1eing fed 4. potiounds daily. liHe lost in weight, but
gained ill size o(f frame. WVhen turned on pasture and given corn he
did well. Anot her pig that had 3 pounds crushed cotton seed and
3A pounds green rye daily lost 28 pounds in twenty-eight days. After
the rye was discontinued the pig failed to thrive, but recuperated
rapidly 1vn )pasture witli cormn.
In three cases where 3 pounds of crushed cotton seed were fed
daily, withI ground cowpeas and green rye or corn meal and green rye,

Eklventh and Twelfth Au. Rpts. t, Bul. No. 68, Alabama Expt. Sta.



nominal gains were made. No (lisastrolus effects followed when green
feed was discontinued; subsequent treatment on l)asturc a(nd corn
gave good gains.
In a third test 2 pigs were fed for forty-nine days on a daily ration
of 6 pounds of separator milk and 34 I)ounIlds crushed cotton seed,
then for fifty days on 6 pounds of whole milk and 3 pounds crushed
cotton seed. Their appetites failed twice, but they gained slightly in
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'sa 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 Mayb 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,c 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
a Bul. No. 122, Alabama Expt. Sta. c Eleventh An. Rpt.
b Bul. No. 101, Kentucky Expt. Sta.



winter.'. Tli' pigs were never sick nor off feed, and made their gain s ii
t('Co110ilically. Tli tal)bulattion of results shows that while on cotton-
seed linal thel pigs required 5 per cent less feed than while on oil
At thel Iowa Experiment Station, Curtiss a fed two lots of 3 Poland
('hina 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 1 )pound per head daily. The grain fed |
was soaked for wIvelve hours before feeding. Salt and ashes were :
also given. Everything went well until the sixth week, when the.
droppings of the pigs on the heavy ration became dark in color and
somewhat hard. However, the appetite was not affected. The first i
pig died fifty-one days after feeding commenced, and a second went
the day following. They had been on the heavy ration, but showed
no signs tof sickness, and their gains had been steady. Sixty-three
days after thlie start a pig in the lot receiving one-half pound of cot-
tonseed mea.l per head daily died, but not without symptoms of
trouble. For a day or two before death he had shown a "failing
appetite and quickened breathing." The rest of the pigs in this lot
showed the same symptoms, but survived, although their gains were
light. Thie Station veterinarian could find no assignable cause of
deat i.
In this experiment the fatal quality of cotton-seed meal seemed to
depend, to a certain extent, on the quantity fed. The first pigs to
d(lie were those in tlhe lots receiving the heavier ration of cotton-seed
meal. These pigs also made the better gains.
The Kansas Station b fed 4 small pigs a ration of one-sixth cotton-
seed meal andl 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 "l could not have eaten more than 5 pounds of
cotton-seed meal altogether," a fact. which seems to lessen the weight
of the theory that the quantity eaten has an influence on the fatal
property of the feed. This pig weighed about 18 pounds at the time
of its death. The last pig died on the forty-sixth day of the experi-
ment. (See ])uggar's experiments, pp. 117, 118.)
Two sows weighing, respectively, 135 and 308 pounds were put 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 s(,eond test, 6 pigs that had been stunted by exclusive corn
meal or ground wheat feeding were divided into two lots of 3 each
aInd put on rat ions composed of one-fourth cotton-seed meal and three-
fourtlis corn meal for one lot, and equal parts of these meals for the
oilier lot. The charrnge of condition is described as "magical and

Bul. Nu. 28. b' Bul. No. 53.

I -0C
1. w *o


immediate; the pigs began to gail iini weight. at once, and those receiv-
ing the greater amniount of cottlon-seedI meal IaLt41(e lil"harger gains.
No other feed was given. The first pig (die(l o1 the fority-fifth day of
the experiment, the second on the forty-eighthl day, thlle third on tlhe
fifty-third day, and the fourth on the fifty-sixth day from tile l)egin-
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 bulletin" from the Kansas Station mentions a lot of pigs
that had done poorly in another experiment; they 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 Iowa 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 10()0 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 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.
aBul. No. 95.
bThis is about the ration furnished dairy cows in milk.
cBul. No. 28, Iowa Expt. Sta.



l'Iie Kanlsas Station" states that the meal used in their early experi-
inetts was shi)pp)ed in from Texas during the previous winter by a
local feeder, to be fed to steers. lie turned about 40 hogs after them,
and all died in the course of six or seven weeks. Considerable evi-
dee net liat pigs may not suffer after steers that are fed on cotton-seed
mieal has recently been presented in the columns of the agricultural

The Oklahoma Station has made an extensive study of the possi-
bility of feeding this by-product so that good returns may be obtained
with little or no danger from poisoning. The conditions under which
it has been found that cotton-seed meal may generally be fed safely
are (1) 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-
ture or on a ration from which the cotton-seed meal has been omitted.
Following utip this system the Oklahoma Station has conducted
three experiments. In the first trial, in 1900, the alternating method
was tried with 17 thrifty shoats of various sizes.6 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 large paddock, where they got a little
green stuff. The trial began March 22. For twenty-seven days the
cotton-seed meal ration was fed; 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-seed
meal, closing with five days on the original ration. ""None of the pigs
had died, and all made very fair gains on a moderate amount of grain."
At the close of this trial part of the pigs were sold and the rest con-
tinued on the cotton-seed meal ration, 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 1 pig only.
In thle second trial of the same year 16 stunted shoats, about a year
old and averaging 79 pounds were used. For twenty-six days from
April 12, they were hurdled on wheat and fed a light ration of one-
fifth cotton-seed meal and four-fifths Kafir-corn meal. There was no
ill effect from the grain ration. The gains averaged 0.!9( pound per
head daily and were made economically. On iMay S the pigs were
taken from the wheat and fed time same grain ration in a lot for
twenty-one days with no serious results, making an average daily
gain of 1.71 pounds at time expense of 307 pounds o)f grain for 100
)poI(Il(s gain. Five of the largest were sold after forty-seven days
continuous feeding on a cotton-seed meal ration.
uBul. No. 53. bAn. Rpt., 1900-01.


The 11 pigs remaining were then given range and green feed and
the same grain ration continued. The gains made were satisfactory.
There were no losses, and they were sold on July 14, after ninety-three
days' continuous feeding on a cotton-seed meal ration.
In 1901, 16 uniform Poland China shoats, farrowed late in the pre-
vious fall, were used.a They 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 only 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
symptoms 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.
aAn. Rpt.. 1901-02.
bDinwiddie had a similar experience. See Bul. No. 76, p. 147, Arkansas
Expt. Sta.

ri _______________


Thlie following table shows the results of the one hundred and
twenty-.six days feeding for the pigs that survived:

Feeding pigs on cotton-seed meal rations.


L, it I:
Corn meal ........
Lot II:
Corn meal j.......
Wheat middling J.
Lot III:
Cot t'n-steed meal
Corn meal I.......
Lot IV:
Alternate rat i(ns.

Average A
Num- weight Average
Ixrofatbegin- weight
pigs. ni"g.Jan-M t l'
nary 11. ay 1.

Pou nds.




44 178

Average, Average
Average amount
gain. gain. i grain

Pounds. Pounds. Ptounds.
7M O.f2 3B8






--- I



per 1)





Burtis and Malone suggest Ihat had the cotton-seed meal lots been
running on green pasture from the beginning of the experiment ne
losses would have occurred. They also suggest the probability that
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.


In addition to throwing light on the pathological features of cotton-
seed poisoning, Dinwiddie" has 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 1
part and corn chops 3 parts; Lot II received cotton-seed meal 1 part,
;and corn meal 3 parts, within roots; Lot III received cotton-seed meal 1
part and wheat bran 3 parts, and Lot IV received bran 1 part and corn
(chops 3 parts. There were three pigs in each pen, and feeding began
January 1, 1902. The pigs were confined in pens with an open shed
for shelter, were watered and fed twice daily, and had a mixture of
hard-w)ood ashes and salt supplied constantly. The results are tabu-
lated ais follows:
Feeding pigs on cotton-srcud meal rations.

SNumber Eaten Eaten
o | f days. Eaten ,dan", daily to
Lt until flrst per head da er ,initial
de.ith. i weight.
I 1I~
Pounds. Poundis Prr cent.
,t I ....................;.... :~.~. 3 a 1.6
I...t II ............. 40 25 .64 1.5
l.t II1 . ... .... .....' 61 4'm .8 l 1.6
L.,t IV ........................ .............. ........ ........ -..........

"Bidl. No. 76, Arkanma.s Expt. Sta.

Initial Dailyr
weight. hear

Pounis. Poinda.
41 0.9
42 1I
4. 1 1
47 .9

i Cotof
:gra per




gain to




Dinwiddie points out particularly that ; corn-meal and cotton-seed-
meal ration, which one would naturally select as giving t he proper
proportions between nitrogenous and carol)lhydlrate constituents,
proved the most fatal in his experiments, and that the 1)ran and cot-
ton-seed meal ration, the most nitrogenous of the three, required the
most time for the dangerous property to assert 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, Dinwiddiea 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 which rye, oats, and alfalfa were given for two months.
The pigs were fed from February 26 to November 6, 1902. Only 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
Feeding pigs on cotton-seed meal rations.
SWeight of ailn Weight of Weight of
Number Weight of cotton-seed Daily con- cotton-seed cotton-seed
of days cotton- meal eaten sumption of meal eaten meal eateu
Designation of pig. fed cotton- seed meal daily in first cotton-seed daily i sec- daily for re-
seedealeatn, priod(80meal to in- ~daily in sec- daily for re-
seed meal. eaten. period (80 I- ond period mainder of
days), itial weight,. (59 days) test.

Pounds. Pounds. Per cent. Pounds. Pounds.
A --------------------.................... 139 80 0.58 1.4 a0.55 ..............
B -...-...----------------- 248 242 .58 1.4 .55 bl.5
C -------------------- 198 137 .58 1.4 ..55
D --------------------.................... 198 137 .58 1.4 .55 01

a Decrease probably due to a larer supply of green feed.
bOne hundred days. (Cotton-seed meal 1. corn meal 3.)
c Fifty-nine days.
A third test 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

a Bul. No. 76, Arkansas Expt. Sta.

'""SBjI-.nt" *

- ..:.. ... ..


were fed. The former rat ion was fed for ninety-five days to 6 pigs,
wlic.ll averaged about 50 pounds in weight. The latter was given for
nlillnty-nine days to 4 Tan worth pigs, averaging about 50 pounds in
weight. TIlte following table shows the results:

Freding pigs on cot ton-seed- meal rations.

Average Average Cotton- Average
u- Time fed' amount amot seed meal amount cotton-
ttn ctton- cotton- i cotton- seed meal
pattim). I er of ctonsoto ed.,. Itmeteaeele ele dly
Ratn oseed seed s e mated in seed meal eaten daily
meateened sedure atentdaily during
t meal. meal ... .lbody after first test.
I eaten month. weight. month.
I_ -__ __________________________ ________________________ ________________________
Days. Pouanids. Pounds. Per cent. Pounds. Pounds.
('cttnn-seed meal 1.
}Irnin 3 ................. fi 95 54 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.5
(',Ttii-,lsvt il in- al 1,
wheat chops: ........ 4 99 57 ".4 18 b.7 .5

First half of period, b Last half of period.
rIhllere were tno losses from these rations, and the pigs made small
Effect of cotMon-seed meal on pregnant sows.-Dinwiddiea fed a
native sow carrying her third litter on a ration of cotton-seed meal 1
part and bran 3 parts for eighty days before farrowing. She ate a
total amount of 112 pounds of cotton-seed meal, which was 1.39 pounds
daily and 0.8 per cent of the estimated initial body weight. The
ration agreed with her and there appeared to be no harmful effects on
the fetal litter, it being farrowed safely, with no stillbirths.
Effect of crude cotIon oil.-Dinwiddiea fed 3 pigs on a ration of corn
meal 1 part, wheat bran 2 parts, and crude cotton oil 0.1 to 0.4 part.
"1'he amount of cotton oil fed (estimating the fat content of cotton-seed
meal at 14 per cent) was equivalent to that contained in from 0.25 to
l.s 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
150 pounds of cotton-seed meal. The average daily amount of oil
(onsumned varied from 0.0(6 pound (meal equivalent, 0.4 pound) to 0.24
pound (meal equivalent, 1.6 pounds). The average daily amount of
(il fed for the entire test was 0.14 pound (meal equivalent, 1 pound).
The pigs made an average daily gain of 0.; pound, and suffered no
serious (etlfets from the oil.
'. (t ,frolton-sted m (ul in the feed lof.-The use of cotton-seed meal
in tlihe feed lot must be very carefully guarded, especially until the
conditions under which it may be used without danger and the cir-
cunistane(.s which govern the demonstration of its poisonous proper-
ties are more thoroughly understood. The feeding of the cotton-seed
meal which the Southi produces is one of the greatest problems of agri-

" Bul. No. 76, Arkansas Expt. Sta.



culture in that section yet to be solved satisfactorily. It is not diffi-
cult to appreciate what may be 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 States.


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 Van 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 ofpacking-house by-products. -Plumb and Van Norman 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 b 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,
etc. Quoting the words of the manufacturer, it is as follows: 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 under 40 pounds pressure for several hours, which thoroughly destroys
any disease germs which might possibly be in the raw meat. This product is
aBul. No. 90, Indiana Expt. Sta. b Bul. No. 65, Iowa Expt. Sta.
8396-No. 47-04--1 9


pressed and then dried in steam driers at a high temperature. It is then ground
and shipjqid in 100 and 200 pounds sacks."
Thel e lef meal, used iin the Iowa" test, is described as follows:

This product is made from scraps of meat and bone from which the grease has
been etxtracted, and, the liquors concentrated by cooking. These are then pressed,
dried, and ground in preparation for the market. It is claimed to contain from 40
per cent to 54) per cent of protein.
Ilnidy.sos uf 'a'ekiny hou.e by-prjoducis.-The analysis of tankage
ret)ort4 Per cent.
M oisture .... ............--- ......................------------------------------------ ...... 8.63
Protein-- ........ ..-..- . ............... ........ ..... 49.81
Ether extract- .------------------------------------------............................ 15.78
Crude fiber ....................................... ----------------------------------------......... ----4.78
Nitrogen-free extract---.-------------.--------------------...................... 5.06
Ash -------.--.----.----------------------------------- ............................. 15.94

The Iowa Station analyses, including that of the corn meal used,
are as follows:
Analyses of feeding stuffs. (lVeevnis.) a

fri~aNitrogen- in.
Ration. Water. Ash. Protein. Crude Nitrogene ex- Ether
fiber. tract, extract.

Percent. Percent. Percent. Percent. Percent. Percent.
Corn meal............................. 11.115 3 1.Vj 15.25 4.85 63.80 S.50
Beef meal............................. t6. 10 15.(91 61.10 5.20 3.12 8.88
Tankage .............................. 6.25!. 12.5K 42.15 6.9 15.50 16.30
Do-................................ 9.5 8'.0.65 39.10 10.090 8.60 11.70

"rBul. No. i5. Iowa Erpt. Sta.

F.edliny hlan yge in i corin-mineal ration.-In the Indianab experiment
16 young pigs were fed to determine the value of tankage. The pigs
were purebred Poland ('hinas and Berkshires. There were 4 lots, 2
of each breed in each lot. The tankage was specially prepared by the
packers who furnished it to tihe experiment station, and was "made
from bones and meat taken from the cutting room, tanked immedi-
ately, and I)ressed and dried."
The conditions of the experiment were equal for all lots; all had an
opportunity for gettingr exercise and each lot was in a separate inclos-
uire. There was no sickness and Lot III was the 0111only3 one showing
lack oif appi')tite at any time. The pigs were fed as follows: Lot I, 10
parts corn meal andI 1 part tankage; Lot. II, 5 parts corn meal and 1
part tankage; Lot III, corn meal; Lot IV, 10 parts of a mixture of
equal parts of corn meal and shorts and 1 part tankage. The feed was
weighled out and then mixed with topid water in the proportion of
about "2 parts of water to 1 1)art of feed, a slop of medium thinness
)(being made. Eacli lot of pigs had access to ashes and salt. The cost

a Bul. No. 65. Iowa Expt. Sta. 'Bul. No. 9(j. Indiana Expt. Sta.


of feed used was as follows: Corn meal, $20 per ton; shorts, $16 per
ton; tankage, $30 per ton.
At the Iowa Station a 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 [I received about 5 parts of corn
meal and 1 part of beef meal; b 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, $32 per ton;
tankage, $25 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.

Aver- I Feed eaten Feed per 100
Num- age Num- Aver- pounds gain. Cost per
Rationh ber weight Total berof age 1
otfion. o I at be- gain. days daily Tank Tank pounds
pigs. gin- fed. gain. Grain. ak-Grain. agk- gain.
ning. age.a

Indiana: Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. I Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Dollars.
Corn meal 10. --- g,^gg ^ 3 3 g
Corn 4ea 10. I 59 589 127, 1.16 1,982 197 337 33 3.80
Tankagel------ I
Corn meal 5.. 4 58 65 127 1. 23 1, 984 379 317 61 4.00
Tankage 1------ I
Cornmeal----- 4 58 342 127 .67 1,779 '-----........ 520 ........ 5.20
Corn meal and I
shorts10-. --- 4 58 579 127 1.14 2,001 199 36 34 3.60
Tankage 1--...-
Corn meal. 6 197 596 49 2.08 2.747 --1------' 461 - 5.10
Corn meal and
digester tank-
age----------- 6 2(2 757 49 2.57 2, t29 458 321 61 4.50
Corn meal ...1
Cornmeal .-.-- 6 198 668 49 2.27 2.438 461) 365 69 4.90
Tankage -------

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.

a Bul. No. 65.
bOne lot of pigs in this experiment were fed to note the value of condimental
feeds. (See pp. 133, 134 for the results.)


In tIhi Iowa test 140 pounds and 96 pounds, respectively, were saved
by tlhe uise of tankage-30.4 and 20.8 S per cent-not so good a record
as obtained in Indiana. The difference between the money cost per
10M4 pounds of the corn-fed and tankage-fed lots was also much less
than in Indiana.
The1 condition of the pigs in the Indiana test was remarked upon.
'The tankage-fed pigs handled better, had finer, silkier coats, and ate
with much more relish than those on corn alone. The corn-fed lot was
conspicuous by reason of its poor condition.
At the conclusion of their experiments, Plumb and Van Norman
gave the pigs that had been on corn meal a ration of 5 parts of corn
meal and 1 part tankage for 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 strongly 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.
Bef meal in a corn meal ration.-The results of the lot of pigs that
were fed beef meal at the Iowa Station are compared below with those
on corn meal. The price of the beef meal used in this test was $22
per ton.
Beef meal in a corn-meal ration for pigs.

S, Feed eaten Feed per 100
Num- Average i 'Num. Aver- Feean pounds gain. Cot
Ration, her 'weight 'Total ber of age pa- .. -- r
of at begin- gain. daas daily po
Pigs. ning. fel. gain. Bee Bee 'iaWg-n
nGrainmeal. Grain. meaL

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Dos.
Corn meal........ 6 197 596 49 2.08 2.747 ...... 461 -------- .10
Corn meal .5 part s, I I77 9 .4
beefmealpart. 707 49 2.40 2,448 458 3461 65 4.80
beef meal I part.

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 115 pounds, or 24.9 per cent.

Feedinii beet mohasses.-Clinton" fed 5 pigs averaging 87 pounds on
a ration of corn meal 8 pounds, beet molasses 12 pounds, and skim
milk 20 pounds. "This quantity was given in two daily feeds, and
the pigs apparently did not relish the molasses, yet they ate it."
Three d(lays 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

aBul. No. 199, Cornell Univ. Expt. Sta.



This experiment had results similar to thoso of German investi-
gators with beet molasses. It may be that this by-product is not a
safe feed for pigs. However, other 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

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 Marshallb 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 with and without stock food.

SA Aver- u-Feed eaten. Feed per 100
NI e- age Num Aver- a pounds gain. Cost
Ration weight Total of age e 100 profit
Ration. beroft b. ga of dy per
atg. b a d aiy Stock Stock pounds days. gain. pig.
ning fe gain. r food. i d gain

Indiana: Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Dolls. Dolls.
Stock food 4 66 682 122 1.42 2,547 64 373 9.38 3.00 c9.66
No stock food. 4 65 689 122 1.43 2,581 --- 375 -------.. 2.60 c 13.94
Stock food..-- 5 197 655 49 2.23 2,858 14 436 2.14 5.00 2.64
Nostock food. 5 197 596 49 2.08 2,747 -- 461 ....... 5.10 2.39

aBul. No. 93.

b Bul. No. 65.

c Profit per lot.


The Indiana results show that nothing was gained by the use of
the pr-epared feed; in fact, there was indicated a decided disadvan-
tage, Is 111 V feed was required per 100) pounds of gain and the profits
weir very much less than with the lot not having the prepared feed.
The Iowa results show a saving in cost of 10 cents er 100 pounds
gaiin forI the pigs receiving Standard stock food and a et profit per pig
of 25 cents in favor of this lot as compared with pigs o0 rn meal alone.
It is needless to point out that the results of thesetwo experiments
should not )le too closely compared. In addition to the stock food
given one lot, all the Indiana pigs were on a mixed ration; whereas
in thlie Iowa test the stock food was the only variation from corn
meal thliat was permiitted. The results from adding any palatable feed
to a straight corn-meal ration will lie greater than the addition of the
same or a similar feed to a mixed ration, because in the one case vari-
ety is thle greatest necessity of the ration, while in the 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 only a better showing in rate and economy of
gain for the stock food when conditions resemble those of the Iowa
test 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
Ranili's stock food was fed to 3 pigs for thirty-five days, after which
they received Standard stock food for forty-nine days. They had
equal parts of corn meal and shorts, and were compared with a lot of
3 pigs on corn 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 condimental feed.
The results were as follows:

Feeding pigs with and without stock food.

'Average Num- Aver- Feed eaten. Fe 1. cost
ve a eber iX)unaISgain. C s
Iti weight Total oI per 10) Total
Ratinof .~ pud rft
iatibegin- gain. as gain. Grain. Grain oodrofit.
Ran" tlxsi. fai. ,f ail iStock i~Stock P011 i
n1ing. t ga'in Grain. f k Grain. f o gain.

"'i1,1ou .. Irailiss I'P inds. P0ntlndf. O eices. Pounds. Oi DC's Dollars. Dollars.
St, k fMl, i I :3S7 s 1.54 1.W.'5 100 )t 25.8 4.19 6.98
NI fMId K 1 :M 3 4 1.45 1,.5- ........ 3 2 4.22 6.50
Bl. No. 93.I Iana Expt. Sta.
a Diii. No. 93. Indiana Expt. Sta.



These results favor the stock food in about the same proportion as
in the Iowa est.

The use of t e 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 not be fully appreciated, and anyone who has
fed pigs knows the 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 by-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



they kelvep the digestive system in better order, and thus enable the
aiiiiiil act ually to digest a greater percentage of his feed. The same
favt lIas been noticed when roots and green feed are fed. Pasturing
on ra1p<., alfalfa, or the grasses probably has a similar effect.
Tiheh effect of dairy by-prod(ucts on the carcass is one of the most
important results of such feeding. It is generally admitted that,
while excellent liams and bacon may be produced without dairy
iy-products, the use of these by-products will result in pork of a
110'14 uiearily uniform high quality.


('mn.'iisq grain a in milk ratios iratwitrations of grain alone and
k( ilkA dlme.-Linfield" reports the results of a series of investigations
at the 'tah Station. In all, seven distinct experiments are given.
Except in one experiment, the pigs were confined on the north side of
a barn, were furnished plenty of 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 skimni milk alone. They varied somewhat in details,
and some difficulty seems to have been experienced in obtaining as
much milk as the circumstances required.
r'l91e grain was fed in various combinations with the milk, and was
usually that which was available in that section for feeding purposes.
It insisteded of equal parts of barley and bran, corn and wheat, wheat.
and bran, and corn meal and bran, and in two experiments ground
wheat. Whey was fed in the fifth, sixth, and seventh experiments;
it formed not over 12 per cent of the by-product in the" fifth, but was
as munch as 40) per cent in the last two. It was a matter of remark
that thli results in these experiments were fully equal to those where
skim milk was fed throughout the entire feeding period, which shows
that whey has quite a high feeding value.b The quantity of skim
milk in the lots fed milk and grain in comparison with grain alone
or milk alone varied from 4 to (6 pounds of milk per pound of grain
fed at thie he)trinling of the experiment, the amount of milk being
gradually decreased with the age and weight of the pigs. The pigs
used were well bred, usually being lerkshires, Berkshire grades, or
Pol',ldl China grades. TIhe following table is a summary of these
aBul. No. 57.
I'See ()nitarii Agricultural ('ollge exl'riments with sweet and sour whey,
poi >. i-17 1 .1;




Economy of skim-milk feeding. a


Milk and grain -.---------
Grain ....---.....--....----------


Milk and grain--------------------
Grain .--....--...---...---.-------

of tests.

Number A verago
ofmpIg weight at
of pigs. beginning.

27 40
15 63
11 39

A .'ragt

Pou nds.

i of (lays


daily gain.


Feed eaten per Dry mat- Diges- 100 Average amount
100 pounds gain. erper tible dry pounds feed eaten per
10 onsgi.t00rmatter milk day.
pounds per 10) equal
Grain. Milk. gain. ponds pounds Grain. Milk.
gain, gain.

Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds.
292 768 334 258 23.2 3.73 9.74
470 -.-...--- 421 319 ---------- 4.41 -------
..---...- 3,312 298 285 14.2 --------- 22.28

aBul. 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 4.24 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.
Corn and dairy by-products.-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

a Vol. XV, Bul. No. 1.




l)pounls of corn meal and iX pounds of skim milk At the beginning,
increasing to S pounds of corn meal and 40 pounds of skim milk
toward thel close. Lot III had 4 pounds of corn meal and 12 pounds
of ski i miilk for the first fifteen days and 1.75 pounds of wheat meal,
6;. 21. puo'unds of corn meal, and 40 pounds of whey toward the close.
lot IV was fedl 2.66(J pounds o(if corn meal, 4 pounds of cowpea hay,
aindl s pounds of skin milk at the beginning, which was changed to
. l).a pounds of eorn meal, 1.5 pounds of chopped cowpea hay, and
26.7.5 pounds of skim milk toward the close.
"hliese rations were the amIounts of feed that each lot received at a
single, feel, so that thlie daily ration for one lot of pigs was double the
aLI0Iouts given above. The feeds were valued as follows: Corn meal,
$17 per ton; pealt hay, $13.50 per ton; wheat meal, *25 per ton; skim
milk, 22 cents per 100 pounds; whey, 11 cents per 1(0) pounds. The
results were as follows:


(.Corn nt'.al ...... .........
(',orn nxeal and skim milk ....
Mixed grain.skimn milk, and %
Corn meal, cowpea hay. and %k

Economy of skimn-milk

Num-, Total
her of Total
ber of grain.
pigs. gain.

P Pounds.
.......... 3 I 1S6
.......... 3 414

rvhey .....
im milk.



ITSDry mat
NuAM AvergeTotal dry' ry mat-
days daily matter
fed. gain. eaten. pound

Pounds. Pounds. Pounds.
60 1 775 416
fin 2.3 1,213 23
60 2.2 1,090 271
60 2.0 1,017 1 414


Corn n -t I-l ....... .. ..................
Corn mnal and skim milk..............
Mixed grain,.skim milk.and whey -....
Corn meal. cowpea bay,and skim milk

Cost of Slaughter test
Total cost feed per Net pro-
Sof feed. lUOpounds fit. a Dressed Intestinal
gain. weight. fat.

Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. Per cent. Pounds.
7.39 3.90 7.69 73.6 18
17.61 4.20 12.06 78.5 16
13. 4 3.40 14.89 76.2 16
S 12.97 5.20 4.12 77.7 9
1______________ 1

Value of manure and cost of care and feed considered.
The pigs were bought ou thie Knoxville market at 44 cents per pound
and weighed from 130 to 140 pounds at the time of purchase. They
were sold at 5_k cents per pound.
The great advantages to be gained by feeding dairy by-products
with carbonaceous concentrates are brought out in the results. The
pigs on corn meal alone ate less than any others, and although their
cost of feed 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 uniprofitably.
W'illi tlje pigs selling at 5 (entts per pound live weight, the authors
est ilmnate that tlis experiment returned, for the corn fed, 66.7 cents per
lbuslhiel of ) poulndS, which is said to be 26.7 cents per bushel more
thlm T'nniessee fanrmer.s usually get for their corn. The feeding value
of skim milk in this test was, al)p)roxilnatelv, 28.3 cents per 100 pounds



THE 11)0 INDUSTRY. 139

During the two years following the above experiment Sonle and
Faina 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 ('hester Whlite
and Berkshire blood, some being Chester grades and others said to
be Chester White-Berkshire crosses. They were above thle 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.
The 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 S 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 $28 per ton during the first year and at
$19 per ton during the second year. Skim milk was charged at $4
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.

Num- Tota Average Total feed eaten.
Ration. ber of ogain. daily -----
pigs. gain. Grain. Milk.
Pounids. Poutnds. Pounds. Pounds.
Corn meal .........................................------------------------------------------.. 7 119 0.50 489 ....-.....
Corn meal and skim milk.-----.... ---........------------------- 7 309 1.35 481 3.686

Feed per 10) Cost of
Ration. pounds gain. Total cost feed per Profit per
-- of feed. 10Opounds group."
Grain. Milk. gain.

Pounds. Pounds. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars.
Corn meal -------------------------------410 ......... 5.75 i 5.80) 1.05
Corn meal and skim milk ......---.-........ 160 1.lW)l 12.95 4.60 4.96

a Value of manure and cost of care not considered.

The favorable 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
$3.91 more than that of those on corn alone.
Value of skim milk in a miixed ration.-As part of the investigation
of the years just mentioned, Soule and Fain" studied the value of

"a Vol. XVI, Bul. No. 3, Tennessee Expt. Sta.


skii 1, iilk in various proportions with a mixed ration of corn meal
and whRat iimal or 'orn'll meal and soy-bean meal. The proportions
of these grains was 1 Ilpart of wheat or soy-bean meal to 2 parts of corn
mital. The following prices yer ton were charged for the feed:

F first year.

I Dollars.
('tIrli il tl w i 't r :l . . . . . . ......... . . ...... . . ..... ........... ...d29
(o'iii iLiel s.iy-lM'inti iii'il .'........................... ........................ 3
orni mi al ...... ....... .. .... ...... ................................... 28
Skim m ilk .... .. .. ................................. .. 4




'I'me conditions were those described in the foregoing paragraph.
The following table shows some of the results of the averages for the

two years as)u) publishled by the station:

Value' f skim milk in a mi.redf-grain ration.


ber of
I pigs.

. . ... ... .. .. ... ... . . . ... .....

. . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . ....

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . I
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. .... ... .... .... ... . .. .... . ....
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



7 anif





1 A lI

1.40) 1


I Total feed eaten.

SGrain. Milk.

Pounds. Pounds.









4, m6



Feed per 111
pounds gain.


(rain. Milk.

1*1111 tl+ P nijt s*n d.i/-

Grain 1...
Milk :s
Grain I
Milk (;
Grain I.
Milk s
Grain I
Milk i9.
Grain I
Milk 12
G(rain 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . i

. . . .. . . . . .. . . . I

. .. . . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . . II
...... .................,

. . .. . . . . . .. i

. . . .. . . .. .. . . . E

lim) 1,IS)


111, 1.4111

14U 1,>41)

I},l I.aa

Total cost'
of feed. I


12. 46


1:1. 5-



Cost of
feed per Profit per
ltx) pounds group. b

Dollars. Dollars.

4.40 7.03










'Th' tra i1, ttikb lot wias orn inral 2 liarts. sAvy-huan
wits vrrn in al 2 part., whenat ntmal 1 Ipamrt.
I, Valnu o()f inannro and cost of rare not c<-omsidt'redl.

meal 1

part That to all the other lots


Grain ... ...
M ilk 3 ............
Grain I ......
Milk ,; .
G rain ...........
M ilk -'; ........
Grain I ...
Milk 9 .. .......
G rain 1 ...........
M ilk 12 ...........
G rain 1 ....... ..
M ilk s ....... .


& "1tit

1. 411


-,FilF I 19 IA. A ....1Ij ..


The most economical ration is seen to be one in which the propor-
tion of grain to skim milk was as 1 to 3. Beyond a certain point, it
was found 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.
Skim milk compared with nitrogenous concentrates.-In order to
compare the value of skim milk as a balance with that of a mixture
S of gluten and linseed meals Patterson a fed two lots of pigs of 6 each
at the Maryland Station. Lot I received a ration as follows: IHominy
chop, 300 pounds; ground corn fodder (new corn product), 100 pounds;
skim milk, 2,400 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.

Feed eaten per 100
Average Num- Average pounds gain. Nutri-
weight Average her of Avrge r t
Ration. at begin- gain. days daily Grain tive
ning. fed. gain- and Milk. ratio.
Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds.
Grain, fodder, and milk ...---- 66 187 121 1.54 300 1,272 1:3.52
Grain and fodder-_ ----- 57 136 121 1.12 407---------- 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
A comparison of skim milk and green clover in a pig's ration.-At
the Maryland Station, Patterson,a fed two lots of Duroc Jersey and
4 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
S milk. The grain was corn-and-cob meal, 8 parts, and 1 part each of
i gluten meal and linseed meal. The clover was given only in such

a aBul. No. 63.



amount as the pigs would eat. It was not possible to get them to eat
enough to balance the ration completely. The feeding period lasted
one hundred and sixty-five days.

Skim milk euwnipred with green cloter for pigs.

Feed eaten per 100 pounds Digeft-
Average IAverage gain. ibledry Nutri
Ration weight Average daily I matter tire
ati at be- gain. gain per 100 M
ginning. an Grain. Milk. Clover. pounds rnt1.
___ ___ gain.__
'FnliiM, P 3nmnls. P aunds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds.
Grain and skim milk.. 46.3: NiT. 5 1.26 W777 1,470 .......... 406 1:4
Grain and cluver....... 47.1 99. ) .60 747 - I 145 6 1.6.6

This experiment does not show profitable results from the feeding
of green clover as compared with skim milk. The returns for the
green clover are not at all satisfactory, very much less so than the
results of other tests that have been made.
Corn meal and a mixture of corn meal and middlings in a skimn-milk
ration.-Clinton0 reports the resultsof four years' experimenting at the
Cornell 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 corn meal and wheat middlings in such
a ration. In two experiments the best results were obtained when
the ratios of grain to milk were as 1:3 and 1: 2.5; in the other two the
best results were with a ration in which the ratios of grain to milk
were as 1:6.7 and 1:6.2. There were 133 hogs fed in these tests.
Thle following table has been compiled from the results, and shows
the feed required for 100 pounds gain for the two feeds:

Econ omny of skimi -wi ilk feeding.
Nr- Feed required for
Nlum- Num- 100 pounds gain.
Ration. her of her of _______
tests, pigs. Grain. Milk.

Pounds. Pounds.
Corn meal and milk...................... ............. .... 17 811 273 1,016
Corn metal. middlings, afind milkr................................ 12 52 223 1,06

nTho proiHrtion of these feeds was 4:1 in thrte tests. In the fourth it was not stated.

Grain ruluyi-s of skim milk.-The following figures show the grain
values of skim milk as obtained under various methods of feeding at
Ottawa.' Tlie results are combined in the following table:

", Bil. No. 199. b Bul. No. 33, Central Experimental Farm.




Grain values of skim milk.

Skim inmilk Milk I
Number o pigs. consul med value of (K) il o rain.
lqNumber of pigs. per head poundss Kind of
daily. grain.

Po u(nds. P )ounds.
41.................... . .. ...... . ... .......-. 2 183 (C rnr --- -- --
7-------- ------------------------- 3 183 '---- do ------------
8 .......................................... ... 3 83 .... dale .............
8 ------------------------------------ 3 354 Barley--.......
81---....----.-----------------------------------. ........... 3 ,3 Mixed grain .....
4 ............................................---------------------------------------.. 5.4 538 '
4-------_-. ---- ---------------------- 5.41 534 -----
4 ---------------------------------.............................................. 13.6 791 Frosted wheat...
5---.. ------------------------------ ---- 15.7 699 Mixed grain ....
5---------------------------------------- 15.7 734 .....-do -----
2 8--------------.---------------------------- 17.1 882 .-_do -----
2 --....--..-----------.--------------------------- 17.14 882 -- do --.--........
2---..--------------------------------------- 23.7 776 -.. do ------
4 ........-------------------------------------.............................. 32.41 834 .__do -----
Average-------------------.------- --.. ....----.. --...-.-.... 604

value (of 11)


The average of results obtained by Danish experimenters is a value
of about 600 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
S proportions of milk ranging from 1 to 9 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" 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 early age, much grain
will disarrange the digestion and best, results can be expected from a
ration that is largely milk.
Grain required for 100 pounds gain when feeding skinm Mnilk and
grain as compared with grain alone and milk alone.-The following
table is adapted from one compiled by Linfield (I 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.

a Henry: Feeds and Feeding, p. 572.
b Bul. No. 57.
c Bul. No. 33. Central Experimental Farm.
dBul. No. 57, Utah Expt. Sta.

: ..*... !!11p.'..+t


Feed per 100 pounds gain.

Dry matter for 100 pounds
Grain Grain Milk
andmilk. alone, alone.

Pounds. Pounds. PoFnda.
W isconsin ..... ................-...................................... 5 456 1 0
Co raido................................................................ 576 ..........
New Hampshire" ....-...-.--..---.......---..-........................ 231 4 ----
Uta ,l | 334 4121 6m
Uta.h"C.----------------------.--------------------------- 258

a The results in New Hampshire and the second 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 thlie fact that none of the pigs fed milk alone attained a weight of
over 100 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.
TValue of milk (it various prices for grain.-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.

Grain Value of skim milk per 100 pounds when grain is worth, per
Num equal to 100 pounds-
Ration. ber of I d
pounds 5
pigs. kim 40 cents. 50 cents. 60 cents., 70 cents. 80 cents. 90 cents. 1.

Pounds. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cn.
Milk and grain. 27 23.2 9.3 11.5 13.9 16.2 18.6 20.9 23.
Milk ......... 11 14.2 5.7 .5 9.9 11.4 12.8 1.2

A similar study was made by Lindseyb and others from the results
at the IHatch Station, except that the figures do not include the results
of feeding on milk alone. The averages of their experiments are
given ini thle following table. "Starchy feeds" refer to such substi-
tutes for corn meal as hominy meal, cerealine feed, rye meal, wheat
meal, etc.; "other grains" are the nitrogenous feeds, such as wheat
bran, gluten meal, linseed meal, etc.:

"rBul. No. 57. Utah Expt. Sta. b Eleventh An. Rpt., Hatch Expt. Sta.


Value of skim mn ilk for pigs.

With dressed pork at With dressed pork at With dressed pork at
5 cents per lb., 1 i cents per lb., i 7 cents per lb.,
skim milk is worth- skimn milk is worth- skim milk is worth--
Cost of feed--____ _._ ..
Per Per 11N) Per Per N(K) Per Per (tN)
quart. pounds. quart, pounds, quart, pounds.
| _____________________ _I .. __ ____
Ct t. (C'en ts. Cent. Cen is. Cent. ('cts.
With corn meal and other starchy
feeds at $15 per ton, "other
grains" at $17.50 per ton--------........ 0.50 23.07 0.67 3). 73 0.83 38.19
With cornmeal and other starchy
feeds at $17.50 per ton, "other
grains" at $20 per ton ---------- .45 20.66 .61 28.14 .78 35.S6
With corn meal and other starchy
feeds at $20 per ton, "other
grains "at $22.50 per ton ........ 39 18.08 .56 25.82 .78 :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 Massachusettsa experiments at various prices for
grain and milk :

Cost of feed per 100 pounds of growth produced.

Cost per Cost per
100 100
Cost of feed- pounds pounds
live dressed
weight, weight.
__ 111( iN ____
Dollar r.s. D)olla rs.
With corn meal at $15 per ton, "other grains" at $17.50 per ton, and milk at
I cent per quart -..---.-----.-.-..... ----. -------... ------.--------------------- 2.78 3.47
With corn meal at $15 per ton, other grains" at $17.50 per ton, and milk at
j cent per quart----.--------------.. ------......... .-------..-------.-------.------ 4.00 4.99
With corn meal at $17.50 per ton, other grains '" at $20 per ton, and milk at
Scent per quart --------------.-----..-----... -.... ------------------....-...-------- 3.04 3.79
With corn meal at $17.50 per ton, "other grains" at $20 per ton. and milk at
j cent per quart ------.---- -------.... ---. --... -----.. ----.------....----------. 4.25 5.31
With corn mealat$20 per ton, "other grains" at $22.50 per ton. and milk at
cent per quart --------------.. ---.. ---------------.... -----.----------------.... 3.63 4.53
With corn meal at $20 per ton, other grains" at $22.50 per ton, and milk at
I cent per quart ------------ -------------------------------------4.51 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 by 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


more or less of an obstacle in applying the results of experiments to
actual farirming conditions, for the manure is not always carefully .
saved on the farm. Linfield/' of the Utah Station, studied the labor
cost as shown by 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 follows:
One creamery reports that one man would feed 1,000 hogs, clean all the pens
each day. and draw the grain feed from the mill 2 miles distant. Another says
that one man does all the work oif feeling and cleaning out the pens for 500 hogs
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 to 100 pounds
each. though sonime few are heavier. The hogs are crowded from the start, and at
mist not inmore than 10) days are required to fit the hogs for market, and in this
time 100 to 125. pounds have been added to the live weight of each hog.
By putting all of the above figures together we find that it costs five hours'
lalbo)r 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 1 hog for one hundred days, or for 100
pounds gain, which gives one-tenth of a cent as the labor cost of producing 1
pound of live weight of hog. It is thus evident from the results of these practical
men that when handled in large numbers, as hogs may be at a creamery, the labor
is a very 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 2j per cent of
its selling price.
Lest these results be misleading, Linfield calls attention to the fact
that the conditions were almost ideal for the greatest economy, the
hogs were "short fed, and all feeding appliances and pens were so
arranged as to have in view the greatest possible saving of labor. At
another creamery, where the hogs were raised on the place and fed
until they were fifteen months old and the accommodations were not so
good, the cost reported was as large for 300 hogs as the 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
back to the farm, the labor cost will be very much greater.
Skii-in-milk rdtions for groii yg piys.-The Hatch Station6b recom-
mends the following rations for pigs weighing from 20 to 180 pounds
when the feeder has an unlimited sup[)ly of skim milk at hand:

Rations for growing pigs.

Weight of pigs. Rations.

La) to i pous-ut.-........ 3 ounces of corn meal to each quart of milk.
60 to limp pounds--_......... i olnces (if oJrn meal to each quart of milk.
l(ittm 1t l iantILs ...... S tunft sit.if corn meal to each quart of milk.

B Eleventh An. Rpt.


" Bul. No. 57.


The following rations mnay be used where the milk supply is in
limited amounts:
Rations for qrowinq pigs.

Weight of pigs.


OD to 180 pounds ......

20 to 60 poundi3 .......

60 to 1) pounds..-...

100 to 180 pounds.....

20 to 60 pounds-.......

60 to 100 pounds...

100 to 180 pounds ..

:3 ounces of corn meal, wheat, rye, or hominy meals to each quart of milk,
and then gradually increase meal to satisfy appetites.
Milk at disposal,plus mixture of one-third corn meal, one-third wheat
bran, and one-third gluten meal to satisfy appetites.
Milk at disposal, plus mixture of one-half corn meal, one-fourth wheat
bran, and one-fourth gluten meal to satisfy appetites.
Milk at disposal, plus mixture of two-thirds corn meal, one-sixth wheat
bran, and one-sixth gluten meal to satisfy appetites.
3 ounces of corn meal to each quart of milk, and 4 ounces of gluten feed
as a substitute for quart of milk.
Milk at disposal, and mixture of one-half corn meal and one-half gluten
feed to satisfy appetites.
Milk at disposal, and mixture of two-thirds corn meal and one-third
gluten feed to satisfy appetites.

Sweet compared withvi sour whey.-At the Ontario Agricultural Col-
lege, Daya 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 whey 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 by feeding
whey for each experiment and for the average:

Grain saved by feeding swiveet and sour whey.


N o. 1 (1896) ....- ..............................................................
No. 2 (1896) ...- ..---.......................................................-----------------------------------..
N o. 3 (1897) ...... ................. -...........................................
No. 4 (1897) ...--...............................................................
No. 5 (1897) ........................................ .........-------------------------- ..... :
Average ----.------------------....----------------------..............................

Amount Amount of
of meal meal
saved by saved by
10Opounds 100pounds
of sweet of sour
whey. whey.

Pounds. Pounds.
13.32 13.61
13.32 13.81
14.88 7.87
No test. 10.07
6.08 9.34
11.90 10.94

aAn. Rpts., 1896 and 1897.


r ___


WheyIv feeding is often attended with difficulty, as it causes a stiff-
ening of the joints and serious lameness. This condition occurred
in the experiments of 1896; and in 1897 the group fed sweet whey in
experiment No. 4 was so seriously checked by this trouble that they
were left out of the comparison. Day calls particular attention to the
fact that the lots receiving sour whey were not at all affected.
If experiment No. 4 is omitted in the preceding table, the average
amount of meal saved by 100 pounds of sour whey is 11.15 pounds.
The value of whey in pork feeding is, according to these figures, about
half that of skim milk.
The following shows the results of six analyses of whey made dUir-
ing these experiments by the chemical department of the Ontario
Agricultural College:
Composition of whey.

Sweet Sour
whey. whey.
Percent. Percent.
N itrogenous m matter ...... ....................................................-... 0.900 0.9
Sugar... .....------ ----------------------------------------------------------....... 4.709 .081

Day suggests that the higher percentage of nitrogenous substances
in the sour whey was perhaps due to evaporation of the original

Value of pasture with a grain ration.-The Utah Stationa 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 other cheap foods." The fol-
lowing table shows the results of four seasons' study of this problem,
where rations of grain and pasture and grain alone were compared:
Value of pasture with grain.

Feed '*Average Feedeaten
Rationeae Total daily per 10
Rat ,, eten gain. poune&
daily. gain. gain

Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds.
(1rin and Imsture---....................................... 4.72 347 1.21 385
Orain.... ..... ..... .. ........ ..... ................... .. 4.t16 185 .94 430

These results strongly favor the use of pasture when feeding pigs
under coII(nditions similar to those that exist in Utah. In every respect
tlhe pigs on Ipasture show better results than those that had no pas-
ture; tlie total gain per head averaged 33 per cent greater for the

a Bul. No. 70.



S pigs on pasture than for those on grain alone; the average daily gains
S were nearly 29 per cent greater, and there was a saving of more than
10 per cent in the feed per 100 pounds gain for the pigs on p)asLure.
TValue of a grain ration with pJasture.-hlle converse of the Utah
S experiments is shown by two experiments by Morrow and Bonea in
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. In
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
A sow with a litter of 5 pigs was in the same lot with the grain-fed
pigs. The sow gained (1 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
Pasture in addition to dairy by-products.-Four tests were made in
Utahb 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.

Average Feed eaten daily. Feed per 100pounds
Total Aveagly gain.
Ration. gain. Milk. Grain. Milk. Grain.

Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds.
Milka and pasture--------------------- 218 0.69 21.00 -----------3,034 ..........-------
Milk.................................... --------------------------------202 .64 23.54 ---------- 3,672 ..---....
Milk, grain, and pasture ...... ..... 350 1.11 9.56 3.34 859 300
Milk and grain -------... ---.......-------------.... ... 366 1.16 10.71 3.13 921 269
Milk, grain, and pasture .............. 324 1.25 10.11 3.38 805 269
Milk andgrain -..----..------------------.............. 351 1.35 11.52 3.24 879 238
Milk, grain, and pasture.............. --------------- 273 1.05 15.65 1.09 1,479 139
Milk and grain.........------------------............ 284 1.10 18.12 1.62 1,837 147
Average with pasture --..----------..... 291 1.03 14.08 2.60 1,544 2.3
Average without pasture..... 301 1.06 15.97 2.66 1,827 218
a By L" 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
aAn. Rpt. 1898-99, Oklahoma Expt. Sta. b Bul. No. 70, Utah Expt. Sta.


given are fairly good and better than might be expected on a pasture
containing only a small amount of alfalfa. The addition of skim
milk did not prove beneficial in anyway. In the experiments where
grain was fed no advantage accrued through the use of pasture, except
that the pasture lots consumed nearly 300 pounds less milk per 100
pounds gain than those in pens. At 15 cents per 100) pounds, this
means a difference of 45 cents per 100 pounds of pork made. The
difference in grain fed was nearly 20 pounds per 100 pounds of pork
made in favor of the pen-fed lots.
These results are evidence 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 the least expenditure of feed
only one of the supplementary feeds is necessary; that the addition of
pasture to a ration which already contains a large amount of dairy
by-products is superfluous; and that the only advantage to be gained
by such a method of feeding is the exercise obtained by the pigs on
Pen compared with p)asturefeeding.-At the Utah Station, Linfield3
fed six lots of 3 pigs each. in two tests, to study the value of rations
composed of grain and milk, grain alone, and milk alone. Both tests
were conducted during the summer and fall of the same year. In
one test the pigs had the run of a pasture of 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.

Estimated '
Dry mat- I digestible :Drymt-
Method of feeding. Average ter per I(X) dry mat- eiret
Method of feeding daily gain. pounds ter per 100 terten
gain. pounds percay-

Lots fed on milk: Pounds. PounidL. Pounds. Pounds.
On pasture..- ----------------------------................................ 0.7 256 261 1.79
In pen .......................................----------------------------------------... .65 31(1 275 2
Lots fed on milk aind grain:
Onpasture- .... .................................. 1.12 319 261 3.58
In pen ----------------------------------------I 1.17 320 82 3.78
Lots fed on grain:
On pasture. .......................................... .81 35 268 4.35
In pen ......................................... ..51 443 334 2.28

rlThe onll y pigs that showed better results in pens than on pasture

were those on grain and milk. 1Those receiving grain alone on pas-
ture gave very much larger gains, required less feed per 100 pounds
gain, and ate more feed than those receiving grain alone in pens.
Linfield suggests that cither the exercise or the feed obtained by the
run on paslture gave these pigs greater appetite and enabled them to
digest a greater amount of feed daily. The fact that neither of

"Bul. N,. 7.iI



the other lots showed a marked advantage from pasture might be
explained by the skim milk in the ration. It, is p)erlhap)s a safe propo-
sition that in feeding pigs thie best results will follow the use of dairy
by-products, roots, or pasture, in connection with grain, but that it
is superfluous to combine two of these suppleimentary feeds, as their
'action on the digestive system seems to )e 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 5 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:
Corn compared with wheat on alfalfa pasture.

Nea' AAverage Aver- Aver- Feed Cost
wueig ht Average Aver- Ager- age pe 1 e Profit
Ration, herof weight age am t per 100 pen
Ration. pe.rof at be- weight age daily fed pounds pounds per
P ginning at close. gain. gain. feed gain. gain. lot.a

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Dolls. Dolls.
Ground corn-------------............. 6 146 228 77 1.22 308 400 4.00 3.77
Ground corn95percent. 6 145 227 82 1.30 308 376 4.04 3.88
Dried blood 5 per cent ..
Ground wheat-----------... 6 147 22'9 82 1.30 308 376 4.13 3.83

a Expense of pasture and labor considered.
The cost of feed in this experiment was, for corn, k1 per hundred-
weight; wheat, $1.10 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 Merrillb 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-
fully 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.

, Feeds and Feeding, pp. 578, 579.

a Bul. No. 75.

bBul. No. 70.


The experiment in 1899 was in some ways a continuation of that of
168US. 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,
and Lot II of 3i pigs about seven months old and nearly twice as heavy
as those in Lot I. The following table gives the results of the experi-
Pigs on pasture u'ithout grain or milk.

NuTot Total NuNm- Aver
Ntu.- weight Tqtal Totalhber of 41il7
Rati,,n. ber of at egin-[ weight jfd j *aj"
at begin.J d ia
pigs.* rng, at close., a i g

18.. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pound.
Lot I. Mixedl pasture... ----------------------.......................... 3 321 70 125 0.189
Lot II. Alfalfa pastur -------------------..................... -----.......--- 2S 280 w a4 109 .01 m
1l 9 iI
Lot I. Alfalfa pasture ---------------.....................I 3 165 188 23 129 .A
Lot II. Alfalfa pastur----------------.................... 3 330 322 a8 110 .G2

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 1498 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 than at
the beginning, but the scales failed to show any gains. What is said
above would also apply to the mixed pasture set, only in that case the
eye was not so badly deceived-small gains were made."
In 1899 pigs that were receiving small amounts of feed, 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 only.


Pas/uring on rapi'.-At the Utah Station Foster and Merrill pas-
tured 6 pigs on a plot of rape that had been seeded August 11, after
having been irrigated and plowed. The pigs were hurdled in pens 16
feet square and without shelter from rain or snow. They received
a ration of 1 pound daily of a mixture of equal parts of bran and
choppl)led whelat.
At the Canada Central Experimental Farm, Grisdaleb pastured 6
pigs on a plot llhree-sixteenthls acre in extent that had been drilled to
rape, time drills being 30 inches apart. These pigs received a daily

"Bul. No. 70. bAn. Rpt., 1900.

-~ ,,



grain ration of 1 pound per head at the beginning, which was increased
to 5 pounds at the close. At the Alabama Station, Duggar" hurdled
pigs, which had been weaned three weeks, on rape drilledI 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.

Num- Total Num- Aperag Grain
Wr fe f weight Total ber of tilge Grain per 10(
Where fed. ber of at begin- gain. das ai eaten, pounds
pigs. ning. fed. gan gain.

Pounds. Pouinds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds.
Utah----------... ---.... ---------- 6 296 60 49 0.204 294 490
Canada---------------------- 6 358 869 114 1.27 2,067 238
Alabama------------------------ 4 130 181 81 .56 524 290

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. They 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 wivth clover.-The Wisconsin Station6 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

a Sixteenth and Seventeenth An. Rpts.

..- Bul. No. 122.


rape; Lot II had the run of an 8-acre fielU of second-growth clover.
The results were as follows:

Rape compared with clover.


ber of

Grain and ran .......... 20
G rainand ratn,.................. 21

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

Grain and clover ----------------- 20
Grain and clover -----------------21

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

at begin-






Narm- I
A verge
berof dl Grain
gain, eaten.
f(T gadin.

Pounds. Pounds.
63 0.87 4,083.75
56 1.27 4,M65
.... .... .......... ----------

63 .78 4,083.75
56 1.22 4,966
-- - -- - -

These experiments give rape a greater value for pigs than clover
pasture. Rape has an advantage of over 7 per cent in grain required
per 100 pounds of gain.
The influence of rape on grain eaten.-At the Wisconsin Station
Carlylea 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.


STotal Total
wigtweight ,ih
at e g- atelose.
rang. ,


Pounds. Pounds. Pounds.
Lot I, without rape 1,017 2,211 5, 642
Lot HII, with rape .l,1) 2.412 5.,tA)


Poun ds.


Pou nds.

r in
rst i




per 100


Cost of
per 100


Exclusire rape feeding.-At the Wisconsin Station Carlyleb fed two
lots of 4)1 rape alone for two weeks. Two lots of 18 pigs each were
taken from rations composed of grain exclusively, grain and clover,
and grain and rape. They were given nothing but rape. They fed
nearly all day, appeared contented, and scoured but little, but 25 of

per 100
of gain.





a Eighteenth An. Rpt.

b Seventeenth An. Rpt.


the 36 lost in weight (during the two weeks. They were on rape, and
only 4 made gains. The total loss oiln 36 pigs was 60 pounds, or at the
rate of 11 pounds per pig. The 6 pigs that had been on an exclusive
grain diet lost 18 pounds, or 3 pounds each. The 8 pigs that had been
on grain and clover lost 19 pounds, an average of nearly 24 pounds
each, and the 22 pigs that were taken from a grain and rape diet lost
33 pounds, or 1 pounds each.
Soiling.-The Utah Station 1 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 yards. 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.

Num- Average Feed Fedper
Ration. ber of daily eaten 100
tests, gain. daily. pounds

Average of all: Pounds. Pounds. Pounds.
Full grain -..--...--...----------------...----------....................---------- 1.04 4.42 424
Full grain and grass---------------------------- 7-------- 1.13 4.74 414
One-fourth grain and grass --------------- --------- 3 .36 2.23 659
Average of pens:
Full grain---.----------------.. --------..........--.--.---.------- 4 .94 4.05 442
Full grain and grass. ---------------------------- 4 1.17 4.75 402

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 4 pounds of green feed and
a Bul. No. 70. See page 93 for explanation of" partial" and "full" grain rations.
b An. Rpt., 1901.

rr ~* 1 ____


4j pounds of meal. This experiment was part of a breed test, and
generally the best pigs were in the outside lots. Yet the meal required
for 100 pounds gain was, for all breeds, 510 pounds with the outside i
lots and 414 for those in the pens on grain and green feed. At the "
close of the experiment 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 n
those outside.
Punvul nt.-Pllumba reports a trial in Indiana with 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 c/t ufas.-Duggarb hurdled 9 Berkshire pigs from November
19 to December 17 on chufas, with some grain, and a mixture of corn
meal and cowpea meal in addition. They gained 121 pounds, grazed
7,986; square feet of chufas, and ate 262 pounds of grain, thus requir-
ing only 234 pounds of grain for 100 pounds gain. With the usual
allowances for the gain due to the grain fed, the return per acre for
the chufas, estimating pork at 34 cents per pound, was $13.09.
Grazing peanuts, chufas, and soy beans.-At the Arkansas Station,
Bennettc fed four lots of half-bred Berkshire pigs to compare the
grazing values of these three crops with pen feeding on corn. The soilN
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 3 feet apart-the peanuts 14 inches apart in the rows, the
chufasd 12 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 soy beans. The corn was fed dry on
the ear, and the grazing was done by using hurdles. The feeding
a Bul. No. 82.
bBul. No. 122, Alabama Expt. Sta.
cBul. No. 54.
d Chufas are coarse plants belonging to the sedge family. Two species are used
in the manner here mentioned-Cyperus rot (ius and C. esculentus. According
to Gray, C. rotundts 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. esculenins 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 as feed for hogs.
These plants form small tubers which enable them to spread rapidly and form
a thick, matted growth, each tuber being capable of producing a plant. The
tul wrs are relished by hogs, but the plants are of questionable value, as it is almost
impossible to eradicate them when once established, especially in sandy soils.
Botanists do not advise planting them in soil that can be used for any other

lasted forty-six days, except for the soy beans, which grave out soo ier
t than expected. The results were as follows:.

Peanuts, chiufas, and soy beans roI)ii'red With, corn.

AveraeNum- A Average
Nu-weight Total
1* ______Kldfed____ __ __
Kind 6f feed. ber of daily
pigs. at begin- gain.
pigs. mg gai n.

P--Pouind.s. Ponl.ds. Pnuwn.
|Peanuts ---------------------------------------------- 4 116.5 104.5 0.57
il;Chufas--. .... ... ... .............................................. 4 121.3 66 .3.5
Soy be& s .................. ............ ........................ 3 124.75 "22.75 ".24
Corn .....-----.--...-------...... -----... ----------... ------------. ..-----------. 139 12.3 .81
Soy beans----------------------------------------------- I 3_2475___.75 2
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
S 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 IV grazed chufas; Lot V grazed as Lot I. The grazing
lasted sixty days, except for Lots IV and V, which grazed ninety days.
Lots III, IV, and V 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 Bul. No. 65, Arkansas Expt. Sta.


pigs were slaughtered and the melting point of the fat determined,
continuing in this manner until all the pigs were slaughtered, so that
the last pigs to be slaughtered had been on corn eight weeks.
Thi pigs used in the 189.1 experiment were natives, not over one-
fourtlh of improved blood. They were from ten to twenty months old
and averaged about 115 pounds in weight.
In 1900) the feeding was as follows: Lot I grazed on a field of alter-
nate rows of peanuts and chufas for seventy-five days, receiving 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 corn equivalent to that fed the above lot. Lot III grazed
peanuts for seventy-five days and had corn as Lot I. Lot IV 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. The pigs of this lot were purebred
Berkshires, and were used to determine the effect of improved blood
on the melting point of lard.
The quality of these pigs was somewhat higher than in the experiment
of 1899. The pigs of Lots I to IV were from eight to twelve months old
at the 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, are of much interest. Those for 1899 are as follows:
Comparative gains in feeding pigs on peanuts, chufas, and corn.
Fu- NunerAvrag
Num- Average Total hrof Avers"
Lot. her of weight at' Ta fa daly
pigs. beginning. gain. gain.

PRntds. 'Pound.s. Pounds.
I ................ .................................... 10 116.7 981 60 1.68
II ............-------------------... -----------...---------- in 116.2 996 60 1.06
HI .....---------...........----------..... ---.. -----....---------------- 4 111.5 W 60 1.38
IV ...... ................-----------------------.. ... ....... --2. 2 115.5 246 90 1.37
V -..............-----------------------------.......... .....---..--.--------------. 2 116.5 2 66 90 1.47

The following gains were made during 1900):
Comhl),frtirl, gains in feeding pigs on peanuts. chiufas, and corn.

Num Average Num- Average
N Average Total her of
Lot. her of weight at a daily
pigs. beginning. gfln. gain.

Pma nAds. Pou nds. Pounds.
1...................................................---------------------------------------------4. 99.5 518 75 1.72
II--- -----------------------------------------4 954n 75 1.60
III .................. ... ............................ 4 96. 535 75 1.78
IV .................................................... 4 t'i 510 75 1. 0
V ..................................................... 6i 96 717 75 1.U

(ra z in/ pf'int itis.--At the Alabama Station, I)uggara grazed 6 Poland
China pigs on 1(anulllts, with some corn in addition. The lot made a

a Bul. No. 93.



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 62.6 bushels (1,565 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 190 pounds of
corn-a total of 330 pounds of concentrates, with vines eaten not
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 $10 or $12, 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 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 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 7 shoats were taken from corn meal, cowpea meal,
and sbrghum 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.
a Bul. No. 122, Alabama Expt. Sta.



... .. ... ... ..


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 six weeks and no grain was fed. The
total gain was 157 pounds, an average daily gain of 0.53 pound. The
area grazed was 13,887 square feet, and the return per acre, with pork
at 4 cents per pound, was $20.12.
Prttitt pasture compared with corn mneal.-The Alabama Stationa
fed one lot of pigs on a peanut field which was a poor stand, giving
some corn meal additional; another lot had nothing but the peanut
pasture, and a third lot corn meal only. There were 3 pigs in each lot,
and they were of rather ordinary feeding qualities. In four weeks
the 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 corn
per 100 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 (35.6 bushels) of
corn meal. With pork at 3 cents per pound and corn meal at 40
c nts per bushel of 48 pounds, this is a gross return of $25.20 anc a
net return (after subtracting the value of the meal) of $10.94 per
acre of peanuts."
The pigs on peanuts only pasturedd 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 $12 to
$20 per acre, the higher returns being made where corn meal supple-
ments the peanut pasture.
Peanuts and chuifas compared with grain.-Duggarb fed four lots
of 3 pigs each for eighteen days to compare the values of peanut
and chufa pasture with grain alone. Lot I grazed Spanish peanuts
and had a half ration of a mixture, by weight, of corn meal 2 parts
and cowpea meal 1 part; Lot II grazed Spanish peanuts without grain;
Lot III grazed chufas, with the same half grain ration as Lot I; Lot IV
was fed in a bare lot and given all the mixture fed Lot I that the pigs
would eat up clean. The following table shows the results:

IPan uit and chufa pasture compared with grain.

Average NmI Number l Average graztd and ration, weight at sNumber of days Total daily
beginning. ofpigs. fed
-------_____-------_ --I. -
Poundn. Pounds. I Pounds.
Spanish peanuts grazed, one-half grain ration. 121 3 18 81 1.50
Spanish peanuts grazed--------.............-------- --------- 85 3 18 22 .41
(c'hufa grazed, one-half grain ration -- 106 8 18 79 1.46
Fuil grain ration ................................ 131 3 18 71 1.81

Bul. No. 93, Alabama Expt. Sta.
bBnil. No.8 12., Alabama Espt. Sta.


Peanu t and Efi wfitist utirmrCoJKpCed wirill f/r i -( 'ColtinilUed.

I Tttal fct'l l Vi0tI.

Area grazed and ration. ArtLa Graih
graLzed, eat.n.

SqI. fe.l. letndnv.
Spanish peanuts grazed, one-half grain ration ......... 8,344 152
Spanish peanuts grazed ................................. 12,448 ...
Chufas grazed, one-half grain ration-.................. .- -7,'-7 \93
Full grain ration-. ................ ... .. ..... .- ........ 3114

Pas.t i1rii-rg
('i rain ip'r till 1 au'ru
1lK) i I(Iunds fir1a 11HI-
gLi1,. p o)nd

i'o itif(s. II I ,.




I This experiment shows the best returns when grain was fed with
these crops. Grazing peanuts alone was very unsatisfactory. The
return per acre of peanuts and chufas, with pork at 4 cents per pound,
was estimated, where grain was fed, at $9.56 and $9.62, 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 e"o-
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" 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, by 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 (t and cuwp'a..

Ration. ber of

Grain --................-
Grazed sorghum.....
S Spanish peanuts ..
Grazed sorghum....
Grazed ripe cowpeas

wAerge, Total ber of
w eight at gan d y
beginning, gain. days
I fed.

Pounds. Pounds.
59 75 :5

SBul. No.

54 35
51 35
124 1)

122. Alabama E

ITotal feed eaten.
ga in. Area Grain
gain. grazed, eaten.

Pounds. Sq. .feet.
0. 71 4,1172 244

.51 l,x72 ..........
.48 17,964 i------..........
-- i

1.18 -

xpt,. Sta.

- - 464

8396-No. 47-04--11

per (IN)

Pe, ufes.




F q -


I'liest LresuIlts are not very satisfactory for grazing on sorghum or
o1l CWpeas without a supplementary grain ration. The waste of feed
in tlie cowwpea lot was very great, large numbers of the ripe pease fall-
ing to thle ground and sprouting. Previous work at the Alabama
Stat ion halis shown more satisfactory results when grain was fed in con-
junction with the cowpea pasture.
),rggar" notes another experiment with sorghum grazing, in which
there was a large waste of feed, although grain was fed. Seven shoats
were on the sorghumn from June 24 to September 2, 1899, and received
at. lite sainte time about 1, )pounds per head daily of a mixture of equal
parts, by weight, of cowpea meal and corn meal. The pigs grazed
15,374 square feet of sorghum and 8,3s0 square feet of second-growth
sorghum. They ate 812 pounds of grain, or 360 pounds of grain per
1( ) pounds of gain. Making allowances for the value of the grain
fedl, thle return per acre of sorghum, with pork at 4 cents per pound,
was estimated at $7.80. The second-growth sorghum produced only
about one-half as much feed as the first growth. Large quantities of
thle 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 hw the more profitable method of feeding.
U('1J 1( imsture w'i/t corn.-Dl)uggarb fed 6 Essex shoats from the
saite litter to investigate tlie pasture value of cowpeas. Lot I received
corn only. Lot II was hurdled on cowpeas that were about half
mIatured at. the beginning of the experimnient. The field tested 13.2
bushels per acre of peas, on an unpastured portion. Both lota
received hard-wood ashes and salt. The results were as follows:

('orpea pasture and corn compared u'ith corn alone.

Num.- Average Nuni- Average Corn per
Total hxer of dl)rn 111
Kinid of ft-Ad. (er ,f weight at dadaily
pigs. beginning, gain. gain.n tn

J'.,aleci. Pounds. Pound. Puminds. Pounds.
Corn alint---------------------..................... 3 -1.9 45.2 42 0.3B 263.8 58
Cowp-alt wLstutre and corn-...... i :3 4. 4 122. 0 42- i .97 K4. 31?

Tihe pigs were pastured on an area of 7,280 square feet, or about
one-sixth of an acre. Valuing pork at 3 cents per pound and corn at
40) cents per bushel, the return for eowpeas per acre is $10.65, not
including the value of the manure made. By pasturing, 277 pounds
of corn were saved per 1) pounds gain, and therefore an acre of cow-
peas would replace 1,662 pounds of corn. using this test as a basis.
The Maryland Stationc fed a number of pigs on eowpea pasture
and ;1o1elciled that cowpeas are well adapted to pigs about three
Bnl. No. 12, Alabama Expt. Sta. "'Bidl. No. 93, Alabama Expt. Sta. CBuI.
No. 63.


":. ..
"E :"-

.:" E ..

:!i i ..

been ke
not thri


The older pigs that lihad been highly fed and ladl always
a pen evidently had lost their rustling ability and did
well on eowpeas.


Feeding pumpkins raiw a(nd cooked.-At Ottawa, (4risdalc" fed
pumpkins to pigs in considerable numbers. A field was specially pre-
pared, the seed being planted in hills 8 feet, apart each way. Thle
yield was about 9 tons per acre and the cost 9-I cents per toni. 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
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, Burkel tc fed pigs to compare cooked
and raw pumpkins. Lot I, consisting of 3 pigs, received skim milk,
cornmeal, 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.



Raw pumpkins-
Cooked pump-
kins ------....
Cooked pump-
kins ---. --..---
New Hampshire:
Raw pumpkins-
Cooked pump-

0 .' >Fe
b I b u 'C

^' j '^ I^
"$ < z ,
-, 10 'Grain.
> cC

Lbs. Lbs. Lb.. Lbs.
745 107 1.981

6 171.5

3 142

3 138.6

706 i 99


170 25



166 25 2.21

1,602 ....

924 ......

ed eat<




Feed per liwpoiinds

Pmp-, Grain.


7, .50)


514 6




712 3 I)9

Milk. Pulp-



1. 062


:fI-) 793 3.31

379 447 3..32

Averaging these results, the raw pumpkins rations show 273 pounds
of grain and 376 pounds of pumpkins for each 100 pounds of gain,
and the cooked pumpkins rations, 1222 pounds of grain and 1,150
pounds of pumpkins for each 100 pounds of gain.

aAn. Rpt., 1900, Central Experimental Farm. b Bul. No. 54. c Bul. No. 66.

apt in
[ive so




.514 6:WM 1,:348 ;3ir


him,' mpitmj'in (ilone.-Burkett" fed one lot of hogs on a ration of
tnicookIk' pumpkins with no other feed hut skim milk with the fol-
liwi,,r results:
Pigs ....... numnber.. 3 Pumpkins pounds.. 3,798
Average weight at begin- Milk per 100() pounds gain -do.- ..-- 70
ning ... .- .. poundHs.. 141 Pumpkins per 100 pounds
Total gain d.... 84 gain .--..-....... Ipoxunds- 4,520
D)ays fed.... -Tnumber. 25 Cost of feed per 100 pounds
Average daily gain lohmlnd 1.12 gain--- ...--..---------dollars.. 2.39
Milk rn.sumnied . do-- ...- 630
Fi uluif lnjiiup is o tlined iii the' preceding paragraph, Burkett fed a lot of 3 pigs on a
ra il IO ofl al))les (sand puIpkins, lialf and half, cooked. The pumpkins
il all 1lhe New IhlamiLpshire experiments were raised at a cost of 40
cents per ton; the apples were common cider apples, or windfalls,
anll were valued at 10() cents per bushel.6 The results are as follows:
Pigs ...----...------------- number- 3 Pumpkins and apples .pounds. 3,762
Average weight at beginning, Milk per 100 pounds gain -do -... 545
pounds ----- ---------------140 Pumpkins and apples 100 pounds
Total gain .--....-pounds-- 116 gain- ------ _---pounds_. 3,246
Days fed ..........-----------number. 25 Cost of feed 100 pounds gain. dol-
Average daily gain-... pounds-- 1.54 lars ------------------------.. 4.65
Milk consumed------ ........-- -do.... 6301
The hlighler cost of gain in this test is attributed to the apples, and
it is questionedd whether it pays to feed them at a cost equal to or
exceeding 10 cents per bushel.
Feeding roots to live stock is comparatively recent in the United
States. ('orn, with hay and ensilage, has been the principal mainte-
nanue during the winter months when pasture was not available. In
hog feeding it is safe to say that, until very recent years, almost the
only subst itutes for pasture were pumpkins, artichokes, and clover or
alfalfa hay in certain sections. In England and Canada, however,
much dependence is placed on roots, and, while we may never reach
thie pohit in this country generally of fattening animals almost
entirely (o1 a root diet, the peculiar advantages to be gained by them,
their gret' palatability, and the good effect on the health and thrift
of itl animal commend (l roots to the stockman.
A niiumlTer of experiments have been reported recently on feeding
roots to l]()(S.
At Ihe 111diana Station, I'lumb and Van Norman,' conducted two
extperimlents to compl)are a ration composed solely of grain with one

Bul. No. 6(. New Hampshire Expt. Sta.
',New Hampsl)hire haIs no legal weight per bushel for apples, and this bulletin
did ii it state thlie weight used. The legal weight in other States varies from 44 to
51) Iu) IIII(N s.
SBiluls. Nos. 7 and 82.




where roots were added. In both experiments the grain ration was 1
part, corn mneal, 2 parts shorts, fed as slop. No (drink other thanl wal Vr
was given. In the first experiment angels were fed; in thie second(l
the roots were sugar beets sliced and fed in the slop, and they were
relished more than the mniangels.
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 angels; Lot III received corn
and mniddlings; Lot IV received corn and middlings with an equal
weight of raw pulped angels. 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 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 they would eat. There
were 3 in each lot.
At the Montana Station, Shawc 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 (s feed for pigs.
I Total feed Feed per 100 pounds
Aver-Num.' a Num- A eaten. gain.
Num" age be Aver-_
Ration. ,ber weight' Total he ae Graii-aAd-root
of 1 at be- gain. days daily Grain- fed lots.
pigs.' gin- fed. gain. Grain. Roots. rd afed f lots
ning. lots. Grain. Ro',tt.

Indiana: LbIs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
Grain..............--------------. 6 46 443 77 10.96 1.643 .......--------. 371 ........ ........
Grain and roots .... 6 44 356 77 .77 1,320 514 ........ 371 145
Grain---.----------- 4 60) 444 98 1.13 1.697 ........ .......2--------.--........
Grain and roots.... 4 60 382 98 .77 1.146 1.;5& ........l- 310 4101
Ontario Agricultural
College: d
Grain--------- ----- 4 42 501 196 .64 .........'....- ... 439 ---
Grain and roots... 4 42 672 196 .86 ........................ 380 1 .......
Grain-....--- ..---------- 5 55 664 196 .68 -......- ...... 4.5 .....--. -..-...-
Grain and roots.... 5 55 744 196 .76 ------- I----- -------- 404 ........
aAn. Rpt., 1901. eBul. No. 27.
bBui. No. 70. dfThe grain per 10i pounds gain in the Ontario results is dry matter.


I valuee of roots as feed for pigs-Continued.


U Itii:
0( r nzrl dl.........
tilnld whli'tt ....
BrUlln and riNIt.
(r 'rn znIIIt'It III ]atIaSe
(r,1 c'und wII-itut
Ri-an azil ri'ts ....
M' ntaina:
( 1rIt- i ..............
(011t61 iIh l l ',,,l tS.l .. .

Num- are
I*rr weight
ojf at be-
pigKs. gin-


Total er
gain. I


97 229 91;
97 :324 91
97 167 91
87 41 132l
ti :3 1 122
89 ; 258 122

111 557 t66
115 576 66

A vN. lrgi t ................ ........ ......

" Includes 111 pounds of potatoes.

In the experiments talbulated here roots were fed in seven tests to 32
pigs, and( in comparison grain was fed in nine tests to 38 pigs, making
a total of sixteen lots and 70 pigs. In six of the seven tests where
roots were fed there was a saving of grain. In one instance (in
Indiana) nothing was gained by feeding roots. The average of feed
per 100 pounds gain shows that feeding 427 pounds of roots saved 83
pounds of grain, or 19 per cent, which is a very high value for roots.
This feature 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 healtlit that is beneficial, particularly in winter. In the Ontario6
experiments the equivalent for 100 pounds of meal was 319 pounds of
roonts 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
al)proximately about nine times as much digestible matter in a mix-
ture of corn an(d middlings as there is in angels. It is difficult to
explain, therefore, how 564 pounds of angels should prove equal to
1(0 pounds of meal." The pigs receiving angels showed the effects
o(f their feed in more growth and thrift than the others. They had
less tendency to l)theome fat, and the root ration was reduced for this
reason. I)ay', explains this effect of root feeding to be due to a
"lbenefi(cial effect on the digestive organs of the animals, causing
Sliem to digest their food better than did the others; for there is little
diubt thIat hogs closely confined in pens are likely to suffer from
indligesttion." Shaw" explains the marked effect of roots in similar

nl. Nr,. 79. Indiana Expt. Sta. r Bul. No. 27, Montana Expt. Sta.
1'An. Rpt.., 1901, O)ntario Agricultural College.


I Total feed Feed per 100 pounds
Aver- eaten. gain.
lI . Grasin-nd-root
Cdaiy G fed lot.
gain. Grain. Routs. f4 fdedo
lots. !,
Si ts. Grain.Hloobt.
- ----------
li,. lJbn. Lbs. Lbs. I Lubs. (..a.
.M5 l, 79 -....-- .- 5 -........----...
1.2 i 1,5 --------....... 4f --------.... ....
.62 471 2,761------ ........ -- 1,65
1.12 1,672 ....... 407 ,..--.....-...--.....
.9 1,3 ------- --- ........ -------
.70 80 1,771 ---------- 341 6m6
1. 2,967 --...---.... ................
1.26 2.497 819------- ........- 426 142

.......... ........ 44'2 M427
-I I _



words, stating that the value for sugar beets for pigs is "derived
not so much from the nutrients in the dry matter which they contain
as from the influence they exert o()n digestion and assimilation.'"
This action of roots in the ration is undoubtedly similar to what lhas
already been noted in the case of dairy by-products and pasture.
The improvement that roots bring about in the condition of the (liges-
tive system must also affect indirectly the entire system and thus
promote thie general health.
J Henry found the results at three American stations to be that about
615 pounds of roots saved 1(00 pounds of grain. The Danish experi-
ments give 600 to 800 pounds of angels 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 Shawb 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 $3.80 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 S pigs
to be $14.12, "or 33 per cent on the investment in fifty days."
Comparing rarious rools.-At the Central Experimental Farm in
Canada, Grisdalec' fed four lots of pigs to compare the feeding value
of turnips, angels, 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 tlhe roots lie would consume. The roots were fed
as follows: Lot I, turnips fed pulped; Lot II, mnangels fed pulped; Lot
III, sugar beets grown for forage, fed pulped; Lot IV, sugar beets
grown for sugar production, fed I)ulped. nlhIe results were as follows:
Value of vario ius roots for pigs.

... Feed ner 1()
1Num-' Aver- Numr- Aver- Feed eaten.
) aae ber onsgm
Ration. I br weight Total age pongi
I Janu- gain daily
i ary 7. fed. I gain. Meal. Roots Milk. Meal. Roots. Milk.
apg Ir 7 1. fel !.

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
Lot I, turnips ........ 4 101.2.5 363 106 0. 85 780 3,80J8 1,284 215 1,049 354
Lot II, mangels....... 4 ,96.75 1 389 106 .90 796 5,93)0 1,284 202 1,524 330
Lot HI, forage beets.. 4 76.75 500 106 1.18 793 4,298 1,2,4 159 8IQ 257
Lot IV, sugar beets. 4 57.(00) dr528 138 .95 1.032 4.266 1, FA) 195 808 318

a Feeds and Feeding, pp. 570, 571. cAn. Rpt.. i.1Al.
"Bul. No. 37j. 'd Feeding ceased May 2.5.

, ~w-uri


(I)n Lots I aind II no deleterious results are mentioned in either
lilinvyers' or Iakers' reports. (On Lot III the buyer reported 3 "select"
Mid 1 lfat," and tin packers' report was not so favorable to this lot
as t4) lots I and II. ( Oi Lot INV the buyer reported all select;" there
was no paceker's report on carcasses of this lot.
III this experiment tlie pigs on forage beets made the greatest aver-
age daily gains tlandi required the least feed for 10) pounds gain, the
other lo' its standing in the order of sugar beets, angels, and turnips.
lThe results are remarkably low in feed requirements and would seem
to slhow tli'I roots anld milk may lbe more advantageously combined
llhan pastir.e and iiilk.
D)y aIt (GIIlph)' aitd ShIutt at Ottawa have found that the effect of
roots on tlhe 'areass is not l detrimniental, but )ro(dues a firm bacon of
good qualily-a very essential matter to Canadian pig feeders. In
this experiment neither buyers nor packers criticised adversely the
pigs fed on turnips and angels, and the carcasses of the sugar-beet
pigs were all "select" (there was no packer's report on this lot); but
the buyer found one carcass too fat in the lot fed on forage beets, and
the packer's report was not. so favorable as on the others.
Suqr.i" beets (alone.-At the Colorado Station, Buffumin and GriffithG
fed 4 pigs on sugar beets alone. There was some difficulty at first in
indtlcing the pigs to eat beets, but after they had become accustomed
to su(h a diet they took to it readily. At no time were the pigs able to
e;lit beets enough to approach the conventional feeding standards;
12.50 pounds daily was the greatest amount they would take. For a
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 leginning- ... --....--- pounds. 100
Total gain -------------- --------------- 1do0.... 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 pounds gain .-.------.........- dollars 12.30
Average profit wiith pork at 7 cents per pound-------cent. 13
Dressed weight ---- ---- ---------------per cent- 77
Sugar lbeets alone are thus seen to 1)e only a very expensive main-
tenance ration.
.1 colVJ Ji'sou uf .s" .14 ilar-beet pulp 1)nd sugar i,'Ix.--In Colorado,
iuII It1InandG (riffil Ii" fed one lot of pigs on a ration of sugar-beet pulp
and equal parts of wlieat and harley; another on the same ration,
except thlat sugar Iueets were fed instead of pulp; the results with a
third lot, on equal parts of wheat and barley, are compiled in the
table h elow as a 'Icheck.

Bul. No. 74.



The pulpl) cost, laid lowni at lie '(college, $1 per ton. It was piled
on well-drained ground ;ind kept well wvithoit itain undue aniount of
fermentation. The beets fed were( grow vion t li e college farm. rle'liir
cost was estimated at $4 )per ton. I)ur in, g tlie last two weeks of
the experiment the sul)ply rani out and forage l()eets wvere sul)sti-
tuted for sugar beets. Tlie change is not thought to have influenced
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:

I Average amount Feed per 100 5 4
-P I feed eaten, pounds gain. 0 ,
r. 3 -- 3
Ration. 0. ,- ." . "
c >h p s .. I 'u = a >
5 L. 0
~C i i "

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Dulls. Dolls.
Grain--------4 95 120 104 .1 0 16 546.50 --- 4.-------) 4..- 3.90
grain-....... 4 97 88 99 .89 34.3 706 -------- 1 390 S ...... 4. 0, 3.35
Sugar beets
andgrain..i 4 101 98 104 .94 416 -...... i l 420 ...... 4M() 5.(01 2.9.3

Potatoes.-Clinton" 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 Farm6b very satisfactory results were
obtained from cooked potatoes, but raw potatoes produced little gain.
In one experiment the pigs were given all the raw pl)otatoes they 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, 1)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

('Bnl. No. 199. Cornell University Expt. Sta.
b Bul. No. 33.


pars Iy weight of groIuniid barley, ground rye, ground frozen wheat,
finl b anil:
(',dmked jftta(te's for piygs.

,t t t .. Average amount Feed per 100
U c i feed eaten. pounds gain-
mnti..n ^. ^ ._ .--
A s 3 -e -A ___0_ a .
.4 < a i

,,t n-',, ,'Hkfl, I. Il ihs. iJ.m. U ,.. l-, j Lbc. I.LA. I IM. ZbA. L2. Li .
.- tkd -,kfin. i i milk : .>ti 171 115 1. l0. W 177 51 : rlig 718 M
P-iollitrr 'llk- I ,'il
3-9.12 1116 M2k5

.-kiIi in ilk .... . :. :. I55- 11 1 ., 71 1 4 1 1 5. 74
11 'tat i'r,; 'w, kuil, i 1. 1l,.l1. I
.skimi milk ........... 3 :il 12 14242 41)1 l.111l 1I4 l.41 431) 1 729 S

Si,',rf.I.t. ludhw.l-The Alablmua, South Carolina, Maryland, and
Florida slaliolns have experitient.ed with sweet potflatoes with some-
whl;t va' i,,,g results.
At the Alabama -Station, D)uggar" fed one lot of pigs on a ration of
tHi ree-foutri ts sweet potatoes and one-fourth ground cowpeas and
ailot her olL a ration of equal parts of corn meal and cowpeas. After
four weeks they were put tlirougrh an intermediate period of one week
atid thlie rat ions were reversed, the lot that had formerly been on corn
meal anmid wpeas i'ecei-ing the sweet potato ration. This was con-
tinued for' fiur weeks longer, so that in all there were eight weeks'
feeding on .mi sweet potato ration.
The ration o f sweet potatoes and cowpeas proved very inferior to
tlhe ration of coiI meal and cowpeas; the increase in live weight was
nearly tIwic.e ais great in the case of corn meal and cowpeas, and the
h rvy ;titter iper i1 H pounds of gain was estimated at 6110 pounds where
sWe et p1wt l satoers ee edI to 36;1 pounds where corn meal was fed.
),g".;iVr refers to t1he difliculty of inducing tlihe pigs to eat enough dry
iattelr wiieii sweet potatoes l, ilade lup) so umuch of the ration, and sug-
ge.'sts a rt 11iio l' e(l-(ilal Mwits of ( cowpveas and sweet potatoes as being
o.', pla3tLa;i le iii( lit itit iols. lHie questions whether sweet pota-
toes Ca, i lie p 1 oit aly grown. stored, and fed to hogs unless the
ft..eliing value pel bushel wouldhl ei more than 1( or 15 cents. Where
tlie pigs d41) lie harvestingg, eslpe'ially 0on sandy soils, where the yield
of sweet. i(ta lttoehs is ten or iift eue times that of corn, they may be an
t'conoioiciiial feed.
T"Ie results ;at t ihe So tlh Carolina Station were much more favorable
to ,\weelh potatoes. Newima n and l'i.ket t' fed a lot of 3 pigs, averag-
inig 1;'2 p)o dls ii" weight, ,on sweet potatoes only for forty-three days,
bgiiiiig N,\oei'mher 2'3. Akt tlhe same I time corn was fed to 3 pigs,
ae'i.g lg pounds in weighlt.. Two. pigs iu each lot were high-
gr';t id Irk sslis itnd l11the ltir! was a grade l)uroc .Terseyv.

011.. N)o. 92. "Bnl. No. 52.



I an average daily gain of 0.8; po(. They ate 3247 pounds :4 OlJ(fl sweet
potatoes for 100 pounds of gain.
The pigs on corn ate an average of 9.2 pounds of grain daily, andL
4 i made an average daily gain of 1.39 1)ounds, requiring 602 poIunds of
4 corn for 100 pounds of gain.
It was estimated that, at 200 bushels per acre, sweet potatoes would
S produce 369.5 pounds of 1)ork per acre, worth $18.47 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
W N that on which the sweet potatoes were grown. At 5 cents per pound
S for pork, the money return for the corn was $6.97 per acre.
The Maryland Station reports an attempt to maintain pigs exc(lu-
sively on sweet 1)otatoes. 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
I 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 4 native hogs on a ration of equal
parts by weight of sweet potatoes 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
31.16 per cent, or 12643.5 pounds, at a cost of 5.6 cents per pound of
gain for feed eaten.
At the Alabama Station, Duggar penned 2 shoats, averaging 116
pounds, on sweet potatoes for thirty-five days. The1ey were trgiel, 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 then, due probably to the relatively large amount
of grain fed.
Artichokes.-At the Oregon Station l 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,

"Bul. No. 63. bBul. No. 55. 'Bnl. No. 122. dBnl. No. 54.



amid a trial plot showing a yield of 740 bushels per acre. The pigs had
free access to the field and did all the harvesting. An attempt to
sustain thenm entirely on the tubers failing, some shorts were fed in
At )ttawa, (Grisdale" sowed a plot of one-sixteenth acre with about
7" po indls of tubers 1on May 1!., planting in rows 24 inches apart, 4
inches deep, and 240 inches apart in the rows. Six pigs were turned
in ) October :i. Although the tubers were immature at that time, the
lops were from l( to 13 feet high. The pigs were allowed a daily grain
ration of 1.5 ) pounds of a mixture composed of one-half corn meal and
one-haltf of a mixture of equal parts of ground oats, pease, and barley.
In Iothi experiments the Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthustuberosus)
was used. The following table shows the results:

Alrtich okes as feed for pigs.

Cost of
Nur- Average Num- Are Grain
bur weight Total ber of Aeage Grain per 0oI
Static" n. Wer of daily
at Ae- gain daiy fd.Po
Pigs.ginning.,ggain. gain. pod

Pliinds. Peu iutds. Pounds. Piundis. Ptunds. Dollars.
Oregon-................. 6 1t'2.6 244 .5A) 0.81 756 309 1.86
Ottawa ............... 6 104.6 1W7 21 1.57 189 96 1.80
Average--------- ........... -------- ----------............ ---------...-------- ...---------- ..............------.... ...... 2.5 1.l

The cost of the mineal in the Oregon experiment was estimated at
$12 per ton; that in the Canadian one at $18 per ton. Valuing the
meat made at ;6.25 per 100 pounds, Grisdale estimates that, after
deducting the 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,
rent of land, etc., the one-sixteenth acre used gave a net return of
pork wortIh $8.76.
Rn U HA(;E.
Hogs arf- generally regarded as animals whose peculiar function is
thle conversion of concentrated feed into meat. Although the capac-
ity for bulky feed 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 paIlatal)le and profitable. In many parts of the country, where
co(.nenitrates are costly feeds, stockmnen are forced to use substitutes
forat least a lart of the grain ration, lnoth for fattening and mainte-
1nan.ce, and over the entire country the winter ration is a problem.
'To solve tllst, problems many western farmers have resorted to the
11use )of alfalCfa hay, and outside alfalfa districts (clover hay is used.
('4)J:-idH.lral)le study hlas lbeeni devoted to thissubject by the experiment
stat iolns. 1fi, hlt..-The Kansas Experiment Station' has reported a
series of exlirimnents within drouth-resistant crops. Three of these

a An. Rpit. 1Iw)(, Central Experimental Farm. tBul. No. 95.

experiments had to (1do with alfalfa hay. In the first, I1the hogs used
were of mixed breeding-Blerkshire and Poland China-representing
about the average of Kansas farm hogs. 'The' alfalfa was of good
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 lot received some cotton-seed meal-.; I) pound to
each pound of Kafir corn, which did not affect 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 thi time of feed-
ing. The alfalfa hay had been cut late and was rather 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 by 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 b fed three lots of hogs to compare the feeding
values of a grain ration with sugar beets and alfalfa hay as rougrhage
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 wheat 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.


Kafir corn meal, dry-----
Kafir corn meal, dry, and
whole alfalfa hay......----
Kafir corn meal, dry, and
ground alfalfa hay ------
Kafir corn meal, and cotton-
seed meal, wet.------
Kafir corn meal, wet, and
whole alfalfa hay -.----

No. age
of weight
pigs. at be-





















Feed eaten. Feed per100
pounds gain.

Grain. Hay. Grain. Hay.

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
3, 925 ----- 749 ......

4,679 659 515 72.4

4,479 656 538 78.7
681 ... 540 .....-

629 251 538 214

bBul. No. 27.



aBul. No. 70.

...... .. .. .


S"dulie f rvughnge for pigs-Continued.

It ltiun.


ill ll,.1' ('u1tilllu rd .
Kitilr i l'n.wihu'i' ..........
Kati r nir nt l .. ......
Kanlr ,.-'ri. wlid,. anml il-
falfl h y. ...........-.-.-...
Katfir ','rni Utiql itmid ilfalfl
1iNy ......................
('iihilk .l whetnt azinl liran ....
It'hqpim-d wheat Iand bran
Lndl r'hpeK'd alfalfa hay .-
Mniiit tna:
(,rain uly N ..................
rainn and alfalfa aLy........
Far hits fedl gruin inly. ......
Fa ,r li >ts fed hay .............


are iTotal
weight.' oa
atI gain.

I :n. 4.4
13 456
Irue 44

I days

) I

Aver- Fted nten. ed1j
pounds gain.
dally -I--- ---
dailyn. rai. Hay. Grain. Hay.

li. : 1,9 1 A [ .. Lb.
2,911 6401 ......-
W ,K . ----- .- .----

Io 142 W5 i .a 1.37 3.4:34 M m4

W11 141) 6(6 ) .:17 3,fii 844|

4 9 l: 1.2 3,196 i......

4 4Ti47



66 1.211
i6 1.19

2,i42 270

2, 6 a7 ......
2, K w 3

Thle feeding value of alfalfa hay, as indicated in the foregoing tables,
(does not. in the least warrant a claim that it can be used economically
as liih 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 are confined to an exclusive grain ration,
and especially where this is made up of a single grain, the addi-
tion of a moderate amount of hay to the ration will be relished and
less grain will be required. At the same time, better and cheaper
gains are usually made by hogs so fed than by those on grain alone,
but the value o(f the grain saved is out of all proportion to the value
of thlie hay fed, and the hay in the ration can not be used economically
in more than very moderate amounts. This is a similar fact to that
which has been found by many investigators with such bulky feeds
as green clover, rape, roots, and skim milk. rhat it is had economy
i o attemilt tthi vniaintenance of hogs on alfalfa hay alone is shown by
the experin ient noted below by Mel)owell in Nevada.
A consideration of the approximate proportions of hay to grain fed
i I l iese experimen1t1Us is of interest. The greatest proportion of hay
to grain was fed at tlhe Kansas Station and thle ratio was 1:2.5. With
liis ratio tlie least daily gain was made. The gains were the most
explensiiv' ofl any of the lots, and no advantage accrued from the use
orf hay. The least prl)l)1t.ionl of hay (1:11) was fed at Utah and gave
tlhe most icoomincal gains. The greatest daily gain and the greatest

;nioounlt of grain saved was in a Kansas lot fed whole alfalfa hay and











........ ... "'|............ ........ .....
. . . . . . . . . . . . .


dry Kafir corn meal in the prolpirtion of 1:7. wIl, allowing tI able
shows the effect of these rations in greater j itjaii. TI I' lst.S results
seem to come from the use of hay in tlie proportion of from ,lWt'-
: seventh to one-fourth of the ration when hay makes up all tle
seventh, to "oie I lie
: roughage:
a! Ratio of uit/y to {rv in i. feeding )mf/s.

I Fv'vd jMr ltIM
i Average p, Pine s gain. ('rain
Ratio of hlay to grai. daily G,. 'ai

-- - - - - - gain ___." ve,-].s
........ Grain. Hay.

Kan sas: P'I I.s. P1r i'/.s. Pii, i l^.S, l', itII.\.
1:2.5 ............ ........................ ................. t. 5 -38 214 1. K
1:4 ...... ...... ...... .............................. ........ 1.37 N 11 131 1i:.
1:4 ....................................................... 1.37 514 12:3 137
1:7 ........................................................ 1.44 515 72.4 2:4
1:7 ..... ---..---.- .- ..-.-.....----.---.-.-..-.-.-.-.-.-.. 1.32 538 7S. 7 211
1:7 ------------ ---..--- -- - --.-.- -.-.-..... -....-. --.. -1. 19 4Mi 67 46j
1:11 ........................ ....................... .... .... 1.19 4.V5 41.7 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 thle alfalfa-
growing districts hogs are frequently run through thle 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 (..7'
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 donee in a ravenous
way unlike that of a hearty, well-fed pig." After the hay-feeding
period both lots were given grain and roots a(nd made satisfactory
Sugar beets compared wihri ,alfaif /iay.-Thle Utah Station" 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 thlie alfalfa hay they would eat and 2
I pounds of corn meal per head daily. Lot II received all the beets
j; ~they would eat and 2 pounds of bran per head daily.
.1 In the second experiment Lot, I had all the alfalfa hay they would
S eat and 2 pounds of bran per head daily; Lot II had all the alfalfa
hay they 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

Sa Bul. No. 40. b Bul. No. 70.
i : ii":
a,^~f jB;

, .: :... ... ..+.- r .. .. -


dail* ; l.0t IV had all i the sugar beets they would eat and 3 pounds ofI
bran Pt'r head daily.
III til.- third .xI'perimelnt Lot I had all the alfalfa hay they would

eat and2l 2' ;pionids of a gr-ain mixture of equal parts by weight of bran
aiild clappedl frozen wheat per head daily; Lot II was fed all the alfalfa
liiiy tlhey' would .at. anl d : pounds of the same grain mixture as Lot I
lP.r hIlead daily; Lot III had all thile sugar beets they would eat and

lthl. samIe grain i ration as Lot I: Lot IV was fed all the sugar beets
Illn, wohld eat andI the same grain ration as Lot II.
*llite Molltltana StationI Ced uine lot of 7 pigs oni a grain ration con-

sist inig of 2 parts of danmaged (frosted) wheat and 1 part oats, with

ra1'v sugar beets; another lot of 7 pigs haid tlhe same grain mixture,
with chopped alfalfa hay. lHarlhy replaced the wheat during the
latlir Ipalt of thle exlpe'rilment.
'Tle fol lo01iwiig tIable col11ini1Ms tlie results of thliese experiments:

lftfif' hlfu t "! l rmulirri i with t ,vifr Iln'u's for piqnl.


Alfalfa mid( ,rn1 niitn'l
Su giar b'etts anld brn .
Alfailfai and I p( nAunds

Aifailfat ,and :t pounds
irai n pm-r head daily
Al1fulflt Miid 3. poundIs
foriin pqir hvitid daily .
Sug9r Ilets ILand 2
Ip ',iiilNd; brit 1Hper htad
4.6ily ...... .........
S-tzLr it" 1',ts and 3
1I, unls l'ian p'r lt-ad
d til.y ............-....
Alf:dfa iand 2 ptni ds
i-itin iw'r htad daily.
.\lfaifia and :3 pounds
rmtin p lr l,-ad daily
SI lar l.-4its tnd 2
Stiii l['.t grain pern
l'Id dtiNily. .........
IIIza r 1-, t aotlld 3
Subtilt|- [dirrti and r '*
|ii'izud-. urntin pci
i,-adl ld iia y ... ...
NI .sI\l'
A\lfafillfat ind ruln . ..i...
Sugar lnFttA Aind rLm:n -1
A v'rn :j '. ll fa If:i ....
.A\v 'yIr ii.f'. 'l t in *' t. .



l a



: 9s







l, hs.
II. 0i

Fetd eat-n.

rain. ay. Beets.
(tvri an.! Hay. Beets.

i.hI. ,-- -. : l,.
751 3 2 ... .
t,719 ... ..1i {

7 54 .47 Xi5 24 .......

ll W ,K 5-4 .-52 47-2 145

I lV I 121 I 54

3 lt 1- 2 I4
5g [21 *Ij 1




1 i -2":! 1 .79

i2 : 1ii 1 l.ili

Ill .W) 2 1mwi
111 -.1.i u;

1. 11:

.I1 '2 . . . 4 t.

7m ...... ....

I.fI ..19...... .

7l111 ,12


I. It9 ';. tL,'C
I *'; -I .iLI"


Feed per 1J00 pounds

Grain. flay. Beets.



407 312


''* 63

Wi3 f]70
553 2 173 ........

251 ...... 1.541

305 .... a

: Il 136 .......

:5 75 .......

247 ------ 1,0762

W ...... fill

4$;I 67 .......
426 ..... 142

423i 123.-
:3". .617

u, Includesh5r), pounds of corn meal.

17 ;

. . .. . .. .l,, , .. .. .-m . .. ..
. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

", ul. N,,. ".'







Grain and al-
falfa hay ..----- 3
Grain only .... 3-----3
Grain and
sugar beets.. 3

bb be
cd ad








1. 13
I. (I


Average amount feed

ai 0)"

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.

410 191 i5 .......
3 1 174 1 -.....

IVY- 1 4 ..... 99

Feed per It)
pounds gain.
I r






i T.

SDols. Dolls.
&0 A-

Dlulls. Dolls.


.I ... .I 1 l 5.20



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 thliose from
the pigs on grain only. The proportion of hay to grain fed in this
experiment was apI)roximnately 1: 11; that of beets to grain was a little
wider than 1: 5.
Corn J fodder.-The Maryland Station hlias conducted a number of
experiments with ground corn fodder, or "new cornl product," as it is
otherwise called. Thiis product is the ground residue of cornstalks
from which the pitli hlas 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 tlihe corn fodder, either in

"Bul. No. 74.

8396-No. 47-04--12

SThis table shows an average for pigs fed on grainl and alfalfa of 423
pounds of grain and 123 1po)llIunds of hay plr 1(>) podIlils of gaill, adl(
an average for pigs fed on grain anid sugar (beets 'of .) pl)l(ls of
grain and 617 p)oulids of beets-a difference of ;5 ploundls o1' grainl, or
over 15 per cent iii favor of sugar beets.
Alftlfa ihad an l sugar beets in a grain rution.-Since the foregoing
results were compiled the Colorado Station"' has reportedly 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;
SLot 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.


less.,nilig Ilnlt animIunlt of grain required for 1(K) pounds of gain or in
lowering Inq. (.ost, except after the pigs were six months old. For
fairly mat irtei pigs the "t new corn product" probably would have an
effect ini a ration somewhat similar to that of alfalfa hlay.



Ill tlhe foregoing pages attention lias been called to the fact that
t here is very little differ nee in the standards of excellence for the
v'ariolus breeds of what has come to be designated the "lard," "fat,"
'lplock," or "corn-belt" hog. Tests of the different breeds made in
different parts of the country show that, with standards that are simi-
hlr to a large extent, there is very little difference in the cost of pork
production by tihe best representatives of any of the established breeds.
IJd(lee(d, 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" lard type. Curtiss and Craig" quote IIayward of
the 1Pennsylvania Station to the effect that the results obtained in
Maine, M3assachusetts, and Ontario show the feed eaten per 10Opounds
gain by various breeds to be as follows: Poland China, 407 pounds;
Berkshire, 419 pounds; 1Taniworth, 420 pounds; Chester White, 500
potlln(ls; Duroc Jersey, 522 pounds. Thee writer hlias averaged results
for six leading 1)reeds obtained by various experiment stations when
there were a sufficient number of tests and a total number of pigs
large enough to make thle averages thoroughly representative. The
stations whose figures were used are Maine, Vermont, New York
State, Michigani, 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 feed per 100 pounds
of gain from 344 to 418 pounds:

Feet' I're'lpir'd fir Jiti jtOindsf gain by different breeds.

\ Feed
Bred. Number Number per 100
of tests. of pigs. | pouns

TauM worth ... ............... ................................. 16 92 344
Chicster W hiit.- ..... ........................................ 13 71 847
Poliand China . ....... ...................................... 22 196 857
B1 rk ir.. .. ......... ................................... 121
barg Y,-rkshiir .. ..... ............. ... ... .... ........11 67 40
D ir.M .r v ...... .......... .......... 11 .6 | 418

"Bul. No. 4. p. 444. Iowa Expt. Sta.

........................ ........................



Iowa e.a'peri.enis.-C('uirtiss and Craig hav' reported t.i1e results of
three years' feeding of purebred pigs of six lea(dintg hr.e(1s, incllud-
ing representatives of the Tanmworth and Yorkshire lre(eds. While
the pigs were with the dam, records were kept- of all feed (.'onsuiled
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.
HIenry reports the results of trials with 8 litters of pigs at. thie Wiscon-
sin Stationu 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
|B 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 ivweaning.

Sows and Sows and
Breed. pigs before igs after i Breed. pigs before Pigs after
weaning, weaning, weaning. weaning.
Berkshire. --------- -------$4.29 1 $2.33 Duroc Jersey ------------$5.61 $2.27
Poland China----.. ...... 3.15 2.23 Yorkshire -------------- 1.83 2.14
Chester White.----------- 3.27 2.46 Tamworth.............. -------------- 2.22 2.42
a Bul. No. 48, Iowa Expt. Sta.

According to these figures, sows of the bacon breeds (Yorkshire
S and Tamworth) only 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.
a Feeds and Feeding, p. 541. b Bul. No. 48, Iowa Expt. Sta.

p. !"


Bre'! tinsts of pigsa-three years' experiments. "

lh -t-l.

First 1x],-riienlt ...
Sit It'anl xIIti'l i 'iit .
Third XpL'rimutnt ....
A v trl'llgo....... ......
POliild ('hi liiL:
First extisjriuient .
S'r' ,nid txltriment.
Third ex iprimnlEit ....



A vtrigt. ........... ....
Chester White:
First &*xiK-riilnt .... I
St oid l xi' rin'nll t 1(1 '
Third ,x perimenit --.... -- 9

Avt',itrge .... .......
Duror .Jerm'y:
First ext' rintir it .....I ml
S,(n,(l deXlierilnit'lt 9.
Third experimenut ..... 10

A verrag- ...............
First eXIij-rilljint ..... i
Sve' iiitl cx 1Nr!iUtltt .. I!
Third txlQ-riment .... 5i

Av Lage .................i
Tain we rt ih:
First expe 'riment ... 7
SevLuli ixpkriitl'it l1
Third xix'rifeint t .... s

A v r ..t. . .. ....... ... ....







.* .

i .

L a


LJi'. lihne.

31 r2
'1 I2IM

43 214





107, m3;
:Il 1,Z94
193 l,01f;

.il 33 1(1
411 a' 15
5 26 I 179








ft. srn


1. (NJ



~ 0 o.
A -S
$4 '4


Libs. L b Dolls.
2, WS1 42! 8.01
6. (iC1 3m 2.17
........ 4 1 2.23

........ 441 l 2.38

1,418 424 1 2.76
4.44 ai"e 2.24
...... 441 t2.12


M9 2 2 .74 3.196
1l 153 1.01 6.113
164 : ........
.. . . .;. i .! ... .

:4 115 st S3
39 27 1 1,517 153
I 17 1,575 164

- -- - - - - - - - - - -

4I 2:5Z
45 Z236

1,-5 7

49 3:3 114 5112 I1
Ill 52 210 1,539 1
7. 52' 221 1.3M54 1

..Bi.. No. 4.............. Iowa Sta....
0,Bnl. No..484, Iowa Expt. Sta.

- twa
1. Iil



5, 124

12 .8 i 1.782t
i3 1.16 5.A-1
.I 1. 16 ......

1.14 ....- ....

ii 1

i i7



;g 2.55
3.5 2.09
iM6 2.04

4:23 2.14

403 2.62
407 2.31
5.58 2.47

45 6 2.42

These figures show tlihat the Yorkshires averaged highest in average
daily gains, with the Berkshires anld I)uroc Jerseys tied for second

p1la, ;I1d the Tamwortlh pigs next. In feed (digestible dry matter)
retjliil'l( for 1)0 pounds gain, the Duroc Jerseys were first in least, with the Poland Chinas next, the Yorkshires third, and
the Tainwort lis last. In cost of 1()( pounds gain the Yorkshires were
first, tlie Polandl (Chinas second, the Duroc Jerseys third, and the
'l;Ti urtls fil'ltli. This evidence seems to disprove the charges some-
liines iaii;ile atg-rij4st. the bacon breeds, namely, that these pigs make

smaller idiiI il0ol't expenisive gains than those of other breeds.


.um l



Ontario e.rprrineii/s..-Fronm the O)ntario Agricultuiral College, D)ay
has reported( a xinll)er of experiments with six leading g lr(eeds. 'I'hl
pigs were fed for (conilmrativt)e 1p)rposes. At the close o(h ecl lee(l iig
period carcasses were examined for their suitability for the export
trade, and reports were made thereon by the pac(kers 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.,


Yearof Average
test. weight at
test. beginning.

Pou nds.

1897 1
Berkshire----------------................... 18

Average of 4 tests ---... .....

Poland China.....------------- 1898

Average of 4 tests -.

Duroc Jersey ............

Average of 4 tests -... '

Chester White..............

Average of 4 tests -...

Yorkshire- -.....-..

Average of 4 tests -.. .


Average of 4 tests....

* 1896
X1900 :











weight at


her of



. . I . .
190 117
128 9)
187 112

199 117
149 90
119 i 112

185 117
127 IM
175 112
















rage Feed Meal per
rae Feed 1I K) pou nds
ily eaten. pounds
,.. gain.

Pts. P1iiiuIs. Poumt ids.
.011(1 47 398.00
1.020 3 :{ 1 3;7. 17
. .7 ..... 3 9.79
... .... 318.28
S .......... 409.00

978 .......37... 7 8.74

.030 5N17 417.00
." 2 :53 3Q2.89
.05" .......... :33.22
....... .... 349.99
.701 .......... 474.00

.915 -...-.... 401.78

.I ) 5.5-1 424.00
S940 :W3 :S.05
.070 ,-.-- - 376.04
.....------....-.. .. b337.10
.8 3 -,1- -- --- 426.00

.0114 I--....-------- ..... 396.02

.415 i 5 57 452.00
.S30 I 255 34)0.(0
. ---. ....... 377.77
- -- --------- 3:; .68
S66 ----.. ------ 433. 00

.902 ....---------- 400.69

.l) 589 468.00
.930 285 340.62
100 --------- .... 350. 10
-..... b......... 334.85
.9:30 --- 422.00

1.010 .........-, 395.18

1. (X 469 400.00
.970 289 330.92
1.060 .---...- 377.77
-- -- --..... ...- 331.16
.642 ---------- 462.00

.918 ---------- 390.17

aAn. Rpts., 1896-1900, Ontario Agricultural College. b Dry matter, not included in averages.


. ---- I a



Tese figures show that the Duroc Jersey averaged first in average
daily "aitls with 1.)14 pounds, the other breeds following in this
order: Ytrkshire, Berkshire, Tamnworth, Poland China, and Ches-
teif lhit-e. IllThere is, however, very little difference between the
l)uroe Jersey, Yorkshire, and Berkshire in respect of average
daily gains, and the Tamworth, Poland China, and Chester White
for'n a second group, with average daily gains of slightly more than
().11 pound. In the economy of gain the Berkshire stands first with
37S.74 pounds as thie amount of meal required for (M) pounds of gain,
the other breeds following in this order: Tamworth, Yorkshire,
Duroc Jersey, Chester White, 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 the Chester
Wlite and Poland China another group at 400 pounds. The Tam-
worth required 3:190.17 pounds meal for 100 pounds gain-somewhat
less than the Yorkshire and Duroc Jersey.
M3innesota e.rxp)erimens.-At the Minnesota Station, Shaw a fed pigs
of the Tamnworth and Yorkshire breeds in comparison with Poland
China. Like the Iowa trials, 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 12 feet, with access to yards, but with-
out past liure. 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, oats, corn, rape, and roots, was fed. During the firstexperiment
one lot of Poland China pigs was on a ration that was mainly of corn
meal, some shorts being fed in addition. The pigs in the first experi-
ment were sold at $4 per 100 pounds and those of the second at $4.85
per 100 pounds. The following are the results for thle purebred lots:
Breed tests of pigs-twfu experiment ts.
I Aver- N Feed eaten.
INe'm- a re Csm Aver- .... Cast
Aver-eight A~e pr1
Breed. age of^ ll pe 100 Profit.
er weight Aer oi Ada r Meal. Milk. Green pounds Profit.
pis. 'begin- an gain. feed. gain.
i ning. Ia

First experiment: Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. La ollars.-Dollars.
Poland China.--.. 3 44 88 126 0.70 378 84 74 2.58 I 0.86
Poland China I |
(c',ru-fed) ...... 3 4; 84 126 .67 398 44 1413 2.81 .96
Tamworth ........ 3 44 117 126 .93 418 44 144 2.01 1.89
Largr, Yorkshire. 3 :5 15?2 126 .97 419 53 161 2.02 2.07
S'ridl t.xwerimnnt:
Tanmwrth --------- 3 51 119 126 .94 415 2 2.32 2.8
Lur,.-Yorkshir.e.' 3 41 134 126 1.RW 427 ....... 2 .11 8.40
P,,ldnm Cliina ....._ 3 44 121 1 .\ 4754 ....... 224 2. 258
P'.l inil Chinat i ________________ ^^^^_____
I- I _ _ _ __. __ _. -

Ii.s',ops i CXJ.reriinc f-'1.The Wisconsin Station& tabulated the
results of feeding for the different breeds and crosses used in an

,,Bul. No. 78. ",Eighteenth An. Rpt., p. 57.



experiment with pease and corn meal. Tih following 1abl averages:
JRcsu/l.s ,f .l'd'dimj jiJfys rif rIrioS brl vlns 11,14 ru ss's.

Aragi I I Feed Cost per Thick-
Nnin un- amount AvTrago Total I)IN lEN0 Inter- m.n nof
B npigs. eteof goii, per iig" pounds pounds nal fat. surface
SI daily, igaii. gain. fat.

'uiitiids. Pound. tPoulnds. Pounds. Pounds. Inches.
Razorback-Poland China 2 4.27 0..95 166I 433 4. 9.7 13. :35 2 7015
Razorback-Berkshire ...... 2 2.86 .57 119 505 5.772 9.52 2.32
Small Yorkshire-............. 2 3.",2 .875 148 400 4.556 9.67 2.21
Razorback-----------------................ 4 2.73 .5)2 111) 547 6.227 10.378 1.99

Particular attention is called to the low gains of the Razorbacks,
the large amount of feed they required for 100 pounds gain, and the
large amount of internal fat.
In the Wisconsin"a experiment to compare pease and middlings with
corn 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, Shaw6 fed
four lots of pigs to determinee 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 (ldamin 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-alnd-oats diet and Lots III and IV a

Seventeenth An. Rpt., p. 16. b Bul. No. 60.



hari'ley-ainl-oats nrat ion; and ea(cth lot hlad an 8 by 12 foot pen in a pig-
ger", with i a.small )paddock adjoining, where they ran for an hour or
two daily.
Th first period; during lie second, 2: 2; (during tlie third, 3:1; and dur-
i.g th- foirtli, corn only. I the lar ley-and-oats rations barley
slibstitl cited corn inll thi sa-' plro)mlrt ion. (Grain was ground, soaked
twfl\v' ho(3urs, ald a little salt given at eaclih feed. The pigs received
all l they w%%onld eat w'iith irelishi. Somel(, green fee,] such as corn, second-

growth chl'Oer', 'Lape, atid caai)iIge,

waLs given.

I''vdiif Ifi '.x,, nf adiff ei l'r.t riosses.

r 2

Brk-4-4 i fig

C C-

I /li/s.
Lot I. flirt rous-....... ... . IO
Lot 11. swcofnd crcss .-.-.-. .- 1 (--- IS
Lot 111. flr-st cros...--------. :3 W
Lot IV, second fi'*rs....... 3;j S 1(

- Sa


'a- *
#. ..*

I -

Lbs. .1si.
6111 :154

5126 279
;">67 288






1, 174

Lbs. Lbs. h.8. DoU,8.
= U *

W232 31M.111 1.
a.' . d&S,

'0, -5 2 9 1. N
- a s

Lbs. Lbs.' LIa. Doll..

297 452B 9O0 1.89
2a7 42S. 95 1.83
21"7 445 18 1.96

Other ('olliparative results were as follows:

Average daily gain of first-cross-

pound_- -0.94

Average daily gain of second-cross .. --..-.--.------..... do ...
Cost of 100) pounds gain (if first cross ...... ------------... --... dollars. -
Cost ()f loo )pounds gain of second cross -----..-----.. .. do... -


Cumijrilq ,!l'.bf'-rin g c/'ossr.s.-Shaw" conducted two experiments
to ('01111mIr'(' crosses of different breeds. The pigs were fed in 8 by 12
foot pe'iis, witi access toi yards iand lots adjoining for exercise, but no
paistllre. Tihey were fed eighteen weeks. The feed was ia mixture of
shorts,( cm',111(1' and arley, some greenll ani(l succulent feed in season,
silch as p is, oats, ra)pe, ('orn, alnd( roots waits given inll each experi-
mel('it, ( and all (')conditiolns were sinilirt, exctpt thliat during the first
experime n1t lthe pigs had skim milk.
Te pigs (f the Ifirst experiment were s(old at $4 iper lKO) pounds;
those (it the se d ( (1, at $4.,3 'i i) per lKM) pouniids.
Thei' 1reeuiing wi.,s as follows:

First 'xpiriiment:
TariwIrth Toland China cross.
S.c(id l rcronss. Large Improved Yorkshire on Berkshire.
Thliird (ross. LLirge IImprmo'cIvl Yrkshire on Berkshire.
Larga Improved Yorkshire-Polunil China cross.

aBul. No. 73, Minnesota Expt. Sta.




Second experiment:
Third cross. Large ImpirveuId Yorkslhirr (i, m Birksliir..
Large Improved Yorkshire Poldnl (C'liia i c'rss.
Tauiworth-Poland ('lhinall; criss.
Large JImpr wed Y orkshire-Poland ('China cross ( Minnesota-Lbred dam).
Large Improved Yorrkshire-Berkshire cross.

In the first experiments. The rT11IVtlwortl-Pola14 (1Chlilt aMMl1 Large
Improved Yorkshire-Poland China crosses were ol)taiiled similar to
those above described" and front a Iapure TJ'amwortli a d Jpuire Large
Improved Yorkshire sire, respectively. The second l cross, or grade,
of Yorkshire on Blerkshire was from a damn the progeny of a Large
Improved Yorkshire sire and a dam essentially Berkshire, but not reg-
istered. The third cross of Yorkshire on Bierkshire was of breeding
similar in kind, but. once removed further f()rom tihe original lBerkshire
In the second experiment there were soime slight,. changes; thle pigscr
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-1bred daim.
"In several instances, however, the 1)blood lines were not only tlie
same, but the animals in tile experiment were from the same sire and
dam, as were those of the previous year." The results follow:

Feeding tests of crossbred pigs.


First experiment :
Tamworth-Poland China --------2
Second cross, Yorkshire-Berk-
shire ............................-----------------------.. 3
Third cross, Yorkshire-Berk-
shire .. - ..------...------..... 3
Yorkshire-Poland China.--------...... 3
Second experiment:
Third cross, Yorkshire-Berk-
shire---.-------------- 3
Yorkshire-Poland China.-- ----- 2
Tamworth-Poland China -------- 3
Yorkshire-Poland China (Min-
nesota-bred dam) .------------ 3
Yorkshire-Berkshire......------------ 3

L C t.cj
7 l 1 ..

tabL tLD M
S-~ -wz --'

LI's. k/is. Lips.
47 11 |1] i ()14

131 126

1014 126
128 126

1216 126
1if 126
147 126

15S 126
152 126

l. '4


1. (W)


- ra

Feed eaten.

in. Milk. Gr"en
tfi A.l-Ik.

.I,./,. L/ .s.
4.-)1; s3-
451 $ 3

4'Ii 7.'2

411) 47
4$3 44

577 .....

482 --

51j4 -----


- 54


1./i,. .; ui s.'
sI) 2.24

1li8 2.17

1412 2.21
1415 2. 16

2.)2 2. 25
252 2.2S
25-2 2.1Hi

252 2.18
1N; 2.43



1. ,54




Among Shaw's conclusions ariv the following remarks:
That the experiments do not sustain the view that the results will lie less satis-
factory from each succeeding cross of Yorkshire on Berkshire.
That the cross of Large Improved Yorkshire and Tamworth breeds upon the

See experiments with crossbred swine, pp. 183, 184.


Pouahi, ('hina -hws o(f the corn-reareil types produces animals at once vigorous,
s-LajINl'. ,if I m.tte.r gr',,wtl], aul refti y ore profitable than pigs from the afore-
iijyt4i i i-,1 iw .


For the sake i(f ,convenience the term "slaughter test" is used in
tilis bullletin to ileludth everything from weighing on the floor of a
pac'king otisI to ai chemical analysis. Sufficient attention has not
b'en paidl to tthe effect of feed and conditions of management on the
carcass, butd thi present drift, of sentiment among workers in animal
husbanldry 111,its lto a mnure thorough study of the carcass in detail as
a 1ieiani s of'solving tie problteIms that still confront the student and
tiae feeder. No one can dotibt that such investigations will have a
]iigl value when applied under feed-lot conditions.
At tlhe (close of tlie last two Iowa" experiments most of the hogs
were shipl)pedl to ('hicago and soldi on tithe open market. In both experi-
ments tlhe different, breeds had been fed on practically the same
rati ions, andi all conditions of feeding and management were similar;
so that whaleve.r differences might be found in the carcasses could
very properly be ascribed to breed influence. In the packing house
where the liogs were killed careful records were kept of the slaugh-
tering, a;nd C1 elaborate reports male of these records. The following
tale lias been arranged from these results. It shows the percentage
of dressed weight of each breed and the total and average weights of
the leads and viscera for each 1)reed:

NOTE.-ThIo writer is under obligations to Swift & Co.. (C'hitcago, who killed the hogs, for the
following explanation o-f terms used in these slaughter tests that are not self-explanatory:
IIirlfs. qri,'s.-.-Tih, grNoss. wright 'If tli heaIds just at R nt from the hogs. with tongues and lean
mtUait in.
IHrrh, ., it.- Thl' saium licadtl, trimmed for tank-tonguies, cheek meat, and cheek-meat fat
taken out.
Clevei ti't.-Refers meat in the rheek of thel hog. S'itnutifti-allyexpres aed, includes
matsset*.ter j itiri'yoil ii. i f-t.rc .its and l .i'i ,' 10.1 % u .tu'les.
h'-erk-,rua t fat.-Tht. fat trimmed off in saving the lean meat.
Hinh .ftc'il..-Refri.s to thet facing if fat which is taken off the inside of the hams in order to
giv. thi-m a llea aljivi.ariiLa2. and is taken off in all case'- where American cut hams are made
W'iri-re- Englih li,,ng-vut lhanis are i made this faring of fat is left on. accounting for the tact that
in S- nit ,If the ts-ts han1 facings ar'e shown; in other tests they are not.
I'l,,.ks.-The liver, hlart, aii1 lungs monmprise what is called the pluck. Total weight of the
livers. l-art.s, and lu hings ald'd tgethlcr shliouldl agree with the total weight of the plucks. Some in 1.i17 tt-t. lbut weights lalance apprtIximately in 1898 test.
lItladdrrs, !rtms. .--Tih- wright ,,f thet- bladders as taken from the hogs filledl, niiir or leo with
Bl/titIhtr.s. n, t.-Wriglit ,f tih- siime blladders with the urine pressd l out.
(;,t f/it.-Large inttestin.s washed out.
'*iul fat.- ( )In ilnt im.
l/,fKtt,..f,/.- 3[..f .n ter y.
i:P1 fl/ l! t.b, irulas. Floating 1',lon and re-tum comin)ined is called the luNing gut, anti hung gut,
..rr, ,. is wteiglit lw.ffre bring ,'leaned.
l:n f i''t\, Ill'I .-San lr S 3 1$ m 'e, hut l'iiiwi 'i.
/ ii it, I) .. .,'n. .--We.iglit ,if stoinaehs as taken from the hogs.
'I i , ... #n t. -VWet.ight of stui,,naths *leaned.
/',"0 iai' R.f'-'r1 tI uteri.

"Bul. No. 4S.


Slaughter tests of purebred hogs.


Number Dressed
of pigs. meat.


Percent. Pounds.
shire -----------------------------------f 10 76.20 3.00
9 77.90 1.75

Average....................................--------------------------------............ ----------77.04 .25

worth 10 78.40 5.00
worth ------------------------------------ -I 104 18.40) 1.50K
I 4 7S.60 1.50

Average -------------------------------------------' 78.46 .46

ter White-----------------------------..............................---. 9 78.S40 4.00
S1 77.80 1.5 )

Average...................................... .......... 7 ------------------------------------------78.10 .32

nd China...-.............................. 8 7s. 20 3.0o
S9 79.00 2.50

Average------------------------------------..........................................--------...... 7.62 .32


Gross. Net.

Pounds. Pounds.
105.00 85.00
96.1)0 78. 00

10.58 8.58

115. 00 95.00
43. 75 36.00

11.34 9.36

9. 00 75.00
78.75 65.(00)

10.40 8.24

75.00 1)0.00
84.25 70.00

9.37 7.65

Duroc Jersey------------------------------------ 4. (.
Duroc~~.............. f...................... 1 >: 7-1 41( I~~
[I 9 77.00 2.12 86.00

Average ------------------------------------------- 77.-)5 [ .34

Yorkshiire....-.................... ,- 7'.7 !4. (W) 110. A
I 4 79.1i(l 1.25 42.25

Average------------------------------------..................................... --......----- 79.18 .40 11.71









82.00 8.0)
70.00 6.25

S. 45 .79

913. (N)
35. (H)

9. 5













6.00 2.00
' 6.50 1.50

.4 .21

6.00 2.0)
7.00 1.25

.77 .19

8.00 2.(11)
7.25 2.25

85 .23

8.00) 1.0 1

3.25 .75

.. 7 .13

Leaf Kidneys. Gullets. Gullet

Pilunds. Pounds. Pounds.



70. O


3.0( Y



. ,)7





9.5-) | .50
2..0: ..50

."6 | .07

S 1.50 i .50



5.88 .44

48.0 M


(;2. (N0

5. 0M

. 5)0


5.73 ,4S

1,). IN) 4. :r3
23.00 2.54'

5.6(2 .53

.. 7 i


9. il

'I. IN,

2. "1I







1. (0










5I5.00 3.(X)

Siuiuilhtr I'.fs f t purebredI hoJs-Continuedl.



A vn 'Iinizi . ................................... .. .

Cbe-atrr -White.----------------------
T Aiw th ........a...............................

Poland (hiti,.......................................
Avr it ......................................

DPoln ('hixs ..j....................................
A vre-'age ............... ...................

D u r, M" ,I -,- wy .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. ... ...... .. .. .... .I

A Vt-rftI, R' .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ... .. .. ...

Y ork hire' .. .... .................................. .

A veragi .. .....................................

Ham Plucks.
fa,. ing..1"

I'su i',mdi. .

[ 4.1NI f(4. I )
I ......... 24. 75
S.i (I

-- I
| 4.011 i ).4 m


S 4. () )4. 7 )

I ... .... 7. :25

..... .... 5.13

| 4.(N) F .5lO.11
| 1(. 5 44.25

.X5 .5.54

fvar'ts. Lungs.

i'<,usa.d. I',,uilN.I

5.5-A) I I1. (X1
ti.OU 15.{NI

.11< 1.94

Is. IK) 18I .0(1
I). ."> 11.1m)

r i 2.70

5. (.Xl 10. I)O
4.5.i 14. (0)

54 1.41

5.0)0 10.0()
4.75 12.4l1

.57 1. 3

1). IX)
13. 0()

IS. (X)
9. 50




riws. NI t.

p1'itnfi. .. ml.i. I'. i i. mils.
. . . . . .K 1.111
. . . . . . . . . .

'q mi ;


14 Mire'rs.

2t5.. IX)

3. INI

11. M


I2,). iN)


27. (N)

:1. ix

1 Ml

1. 0. .

Blauuer Tnlt]
fat. h.weight
fat. ,f gilt...

1% aug sails.
II. 7i11

fli. (xi

2(X Io

.. .... .... .l.3.

.. 1. 201. (NI
... ....... 391.

.I21L 1

S!- I






. .......... ........... ..........
. .- . . . .. . .. . - . .- . . .

.... 1.00..


19. :3

12$. PW

17. 85

I~t. 1PO



(O tit flit ( '1111 t1 1

I 'imii jils.

2. HO,)

1:t3. (iI





an. no

I '..aI te ls.

3. .W
:)-5. iii



2V. ()



24. (h


.(K) 22.00
10.00 12.50

8.7 2.65


I m I ...........

. .1) . .. .. .. . . a.

.60--.. ....-.

so. . .. .

S. . 2.01)



Bung guts.




Pig bags.


I I I -

Pounds. Pounds. Pcunds.
P7.00 5.0I 10.(
Berkshire ---------------...------------------------------- ........----------. ................ ..005.10
| 14.00 6.00 -o-- --- ---

A erag 8.00 6.00 10.00
T am w orth ....................................................... j! 8 00 600 I0... ...
--50 3.O------------7

Average .- ....-.........................................--------------------------. .. 1.11 .64 -----.. --

Chester W hite....... . ....- . .....................................! 6.00
[ 10.00

Average -----..--... ---..---------....------------------------- ..... ...... ..... .. 98

PoladChina-------------------{ 5.00

Average ---..-----...---...---------------------------------......................... 1.18

Duroc Jersey --..----------... ----..... ----------...................

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


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



4. 00)



P.,imn 'Is.








.53 28

100 7.C(X) 7.00 3.00
14.75 6.75 ......-----------..... 2.25

1.27 .76 .-__- .29

5.0, 4.75 10.(0) 2.50
7.00 3.0 Iio--- .50

.92 0 ...... ..6... .23







27. 00
*a id

32. 5. "0. LC
32.00 20.001

3-3. 00) 22.00

-3.61 2.33

25.00) 18. (1K)
14.00 8. (1i0

3.0I) 2.00

Gross. i Net.









9 nq

Poun ds.
12. 00



- Nutritive



15.00 10.00 1:5.5
15.00 11.00 1:7.1

1.76 1.24

10.00 7.1) 1 1:5.7
15.50 13.10; 1:7.1

1.50 F





11. 00)




-- e










Small guts.



Hit i\itrtge orf tli,*se tests shows the Yorkshire to mbe in the lead in
ilr..sseul weight, lita other breeds following in this order: Poland
('Iiina. Tain wortll, t'hester Whit,, I)uroc Jersey, and Berkshire, the
v'ariat ioin 1liiiig from 7i9.1s pIr cent to 77.04 per cont.
l,1 11/in, w't iilh/O if rifil iorq highly illo.rtanIt. To ascertain what variations the Iowa" test showed
inl lltis respect thel table below has been arranged. It shows the per-
t(.'itlages of the weights of the vital organs to live weight for each
lreeil inll eachll experi ment., within the average of both.
Tn"e average live weights o(f the hogs at the abattoir were as follows:

.1 rrrft/' lie'' irv'ightfn (f hogm of different breeds-lfotra e.mrimentis.

Br,.-d. 1t. 1i .

Lbs. Lbs.
IT .rk iril.. ..... ...... ...... ..... ................................................. 190 2W5
T IL ll w I h ..... ......................................................................I 2 0 216
t'ht ster W hl it ............................................. .. ........................ 177 1 1
Po, m l t'hiMa- ................................................. ..................... I 11
D ur(- .h Tr ,v.y .........................................................................2W 180
Y rksh ire ............................... ............--......... .......... ..........- 215

Rehtltire ireights of vital orga us If pu rebred hogs.a

Br ed.

I Pi4

First .xim-rinint ..
S.'o-u)nd t-xjeriimint.

Average ... .....
Taiwi irl h:
First jxk1.riUnIInt
S''d l xil'rilmnllt .

Averag ..
('Jm.-stur Whlite:
First ,x ]Mrinitnt
AtI<'-(T(l fxin, ment .

AVfl'a ... ..-.r. .
P, 'land 'hina:
First ix'vrini-nt
S'eie l -d xim S-riTm-nt

A\ v't-rag .. -
la PrIu ."r, I.vy:
l-'lr,,t i'X ] ial'ill*lfIlT
,S,'' l~t ,'x lu-riiint'llt

m- Melts Tongues. Kid
of i spleen i.

Per ( '-lt. P'r cScri. fP*r
111 II. 16 I. 1 42
1 4t:3 .43






A Vilrml'

Y. -rk-liir.:
Fi -''t x1 iJ l "T i.1lt

A \ fl l ( r. .




:'4 ,1





evs. Gullets. Plucks. Livers. 1Hearts.

'rint. Per rent. Per cent. Percent.
(1. 16 o.6i 3.37 1.68
.31 2.68 1.38

. i .46 3.03 1.50

.25 .48 3.00 1.30
.4 .29 2.88 1.28

.28 .42 2.97 1.29

.19 3i 8.14 1.57
.31 .36 2.57 1 1.31

Z .49 2.8r, 1.46

.33 .46 3 1.7
.T ..) 2.58 1.57

.31 .lA 2.89 1.06

..ti 3. It
.40 2.Q6

.52 3.10
.-'7 a2.09

.44 2.97




1. 40

" Bil. N". 4m. Iowa Expt. Sta.

:i:: .












Rehilt ive weights of rifil orem ans of pa rrehrd lhiy/s-( 'unti

T reei. I gs. Blaid- Blal-
Rree. Ius. (hrs. dtkhr$i. nit

Berkshire: P''r CCII P r cI nt. l'<.r 'iit.
S First experiment.... 0. 79 ......... 0. I5

Second experiment 1.10 m.1It .........

Average-------- .92 ....................---------

First experiment.. -.
Second experiment

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

Chester White:
First experiment - -
Second experiment -

Average .--------

Poland China:
First experiment ....
Second experiment


Duroc Jersey:
First experiment....
Second experiment


First experiment --- -
Second experiment .

Average -----

c i
.90 ...... ..... ('5
1.328 .06 ..........
1.01 I--- -- -






.......07... ....

.......... .------
.... . .... I
.04 ...........

.8 3 ----- ----


) 44,
.0 44 .. .' .......

.93 ....-.. ..' .20
1.03 | .0 i .......- ..

- - - - - - - - - --n

weight of

POn.r 7' .


U. (NM

1). 19

1i0. ,I-

10. S3j





Iii. 143
8. S4


Buntgz. Siuiall Stilli.
gl ts. TI't. glltM. lit't. i-trII'. li't.

SIrE*I i 'rI.

1. 114

'o *r -r li t.
7 vil

1. 1;


1.v i;
.93 .s
; 74


. (02



.26 I 1.17 .46
.29 1.r2 .75

.2s 1.09 .61

.39 1.10 .60
.42 1.3' I .8)



1.22 .70

*.93 .67
.S6 .64

.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-
stitute 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 weights 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 orde(lr
named, the lowest weight being 2.86 per cent of the live weiglit. Yet,
in relative weights of the organs that are included in thle pluck, tlhe
Berkshires are but once in the lead-in the weight of Ilie heart, where
less variation is seen than in the weights of livers and lungs, the


..i[ ..."..


Yorkslhire being tIhe only breed that shows much variation from the
general aVerage. Tnhe variation in weights of livers and lungs is
quite erratic. l'olantd Chinas lead ill relative weight of livers, with
1.;ti; jper cent, tihe other breeds following thus: Berkshire, Chesater
White, I)uroc Jersey, Yorkshire, and 'Tainworth, the least amount
being 1.28 p ti\' % weight ojf lungs, wvithl 1.01 per cent, the other breeds following in
this order: Y'orkshire, Berkshire, Duroc Jersey, Chester White, and
Poland ('hinat, the lowest weight being 0.69 per cent of the live weight.
We find some appearance ot. uniformity in the weights of stomach
;nti intestines. iThe heading r"Total weight of guts includes, among
olthrs, the three items that follow it. The Berkshires lead in this
respect,(, with 11. 11 per cent, lthe bree(ls following thus: Duroc Jersey,
('Chester White, Ta1worthi, Y orkshire, and Poland China, the lowest
weight being 9.3 per cent of the live weight. The Duroc Jerseys lead
in net weightt of bung guts, witit 0.4 per cent, the breeds following in
thi is order: rTain worth, Berkshire, Poland China, Yorkshire, and
('Chester White, the lowest weight being 0.26 per cent of the live
weighlit. The rTamworths lead in net weight of small guts, the weight
being L1.37 per cent; the olither breeds stand thus: Duroc Jersey, Berk-
shire, Chester White, Poland China, and Yorkshire, the lowest weight
being 0.-91 per cent. Inl net weight of stomachs the Tamnworths lead,
the breeds following ini this order: Duroc Jersey, Berkshire, Chester
White, Yorkshire, and( Poland China, the weights ranging from 0.74
per cent to 0.(;1 per cent of the live weight. The record of the Berk-
shires and I)uroc Jerseys is seen to be fairly uniform. Definite con-
clisions can not be drawn from these figures and it may be questioned
whether, in the light of the facts concerning the feeding possibilities of
the different, breeds on similar rations, the improved breeds will show
any marked and uniform differences in the relative weights of the'
internal organs when fed on the same feed.
Land yil/d of different it rewed.s.-By common consent, the name "lard
hog has been applied by many people to that type of animal the
development of which has very largely been brought about on Amer-
(cal soil, i n contradistinction from the baconn type of hog which has
been brought to us from Great. Blritain and Canada.
Tlie writer is ulder obligation to Swift & ('o., Chicago, who killed
tI itlhogs tused in the Iowa e'xperiminents, for thle following information
re'; r( rling flie lard yield of the different breeds inll the test of 1898.
(o(('II.riiig th ir'i figures, they say:

We did noit. o any ,of the tests made. tank the fats of each lot separately, the
aluiun.ts l1iiiig too) small. However, we know approximately what these fats
shimid yield in rendered lard. and we have attached herewith a statement show-
ing thi. different test lits .slan uglitered 1by us during November. 189s, and what we
estiiii:ite the fats. etc., should yield in lard.
F'tr yvour iinflorilationm we beg ti say that the ham facings, heads, cheek-meat
fat, gullet fat. gut fat, caul and ruffle fat. Ixmes, tails, feet, and fat trimmings are,










47 1