422-710-30m TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS BULLETIN NO. 131 JULY, 1910. HOG FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. B JOHN C. BURNS Department of Anirr-al Husbandry POSTOFFICE COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS‘ AUSTIN, TEXAS: vow BOECKMANN-JONES 00., PRINTERS, 1910. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. OFFICERS. GOVERNING BOARD. (Board of Directors A. 8t M. College.) K. K. LEGETT, President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Abilene. T. D. RoWEL-L, Vice President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Jefferson. A. HAIDUSEK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..La Grange. JAMES CRAvENs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Houston. WALTON PETEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dallas. E. R. KONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Austin. A. R. MoCoLLUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Waco. W. P. SEBASTIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Breckenridge. PRESIDENT OF COLLEGE. R. T. MILNER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..College Station. STATION OFFICERS. H. H. HARRINGTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Director. J. W. CARSON . . . . . . . . .Assistant to Director and State Feed Inspector. M. FRANCIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Veterinarian. G. S. FRAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Chemist. J. C. BURNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Animal Husbandry. H. NEss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Horticulturist. RAYMOND H. POND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Plant Pathologist. WILMON N EWELL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Entomologist. H. L. MGKNIGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Agrioulturisit. N. C. HAMNER . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Assistant Chemist. J. B. RATHER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Assistant Chemist. E. C. CARLYLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Assistant Chemist. C. W. CRIsLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Chief Clerk. MISS CARRIE FUQUA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Stenographer. A. S. WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Stenographer. STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. GOVERNING BOARD. HIS PJMJELLIINOY, GOVERNOR T. M. CAMPBEIJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Austin. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, A. B. DAVIDSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cue1'o. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, HON. ED R. IQONE . . . . . . . . . .A_ustin. DIRECTOR O l? STATION S. H. H. HARRINGTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Col1ege Station. SUPERINTENDENTS OF STATIONS. A. T. POTTS, Beeville Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Beeyille, Bee County. J. L. Wnnou, “Troupe Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Troupe, Smith county. W. S. HOTOHKIss, Lubbock Station . . . . . . ..Lubboek, Lubbock County. J. T. CRUsE, Fort Worth Station . . . . . . . .Fort Worth, Tarrant County. J. H. TOM, Pecos Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Peeos, Reeves County. H. C. HOLMES, Denton Station . . . . . . . . . . . ..Denton, Denton County. , Temple Station . . . . . . . . . . “Temple, Bell County. I. S. YORK, Spur Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Spur, Dickens County. —, Angleton Station . . . . ..Angleton, Brazoria County. J.- K. FITZGERALD, Beaumont: Station. . . . .Beauinont, J etierson County. NOTE.—Tlze main Station is loesited on the grounds of the Agrieul- tural and ZlIeclzu/rz/ieal College, in Brazos County. The postofiice address is College Station, Texas. Reports and “bulletins are sent free upon aivplication. t0 the Director. [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] TABLE OF CONTENTS. iii Introduction .......................................................................................................... .. 7 Experiments Nos. I. and . 11 Molasses vs. Indian Corn ..................................................................................... .. 12 Corn vs. Corn and Skim Milk ............................................................................... .. 15 Experiments Nos. III and IV. .............................................................................. .. 17 Improved Hogs vs. Scrubs .................................................................................... .. 19 Corn vs. Rice Bran vs. Spanish Peanuts ......................................................... .. 22 Summary ................................................................................................................. .. 33 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] Hoc; FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. Y JOHN C. BURNS, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY. I. Black Strap Molasses Compared III. A Comparison of Well Bred or Im- ‘ with Indian Corn tor Pattening proved Hogs with “Scrub” or Hogs. “Razor-back” Hogs for Econom- II. The Value 0t an Addition oI Skim ical Pork Production. Q1, Milk to a Straight Corn Ration IV. Rice Bran and Spanish Peanuts for fattening Hogs. Compared with Indian Corn for Pork Production. The experiments reported in this bulletin cover all of those conducted with swine at this Station from the fall of 1907 to the spring of 1909, inclusive. Experiments Nos. I“ and II, pertaining, respectively, to the feeding of black strap molasses and skim milk, were conducted in the fall and winter of 1907-1908. Experiments Nos. III and IV, pertain- ing, respectively, to the comparison of well-bred hogs with scrubs, and to the comparison of rice bran and Spanish peanuts with Indian corn for pork production, were conducted in the fall, winter and spring of 1908-1909. The work of 1907-1908 was undertaken not only for the purpose of ascertaining the value of black strap molasses and skim milk as feed stuffs for hogs, but also for the purpose of determining whether they could be substituted for corn or combined with it in such a way as to fatten them more economically than. with corn alone. It has long been and is still the opinion of a very large majority of people that very little can be accomplished in hog raising without ‘the use of corn. Its im- portance can hardly be overestimated for this purpose, but can the pork producer afford to continue using it alone at its high prices of the last few years? It is a well known fact that the majority of the pork pro- ducers of our State feed corn and corn alone in fattening their hogs, regardlesp of age or size. When corn was below 50 cents per bushel there was probably a’ fair margin of profit in this method of feeding it, partic- ularly to mature animals; but at its present high prices, either some cheaper feed stuff of a similar character must be wholly or partly sub- stituted for it, or it must be combined with some one or more feed stuffs that will result i.n the combination giving it a much higher feeding value than it possesses when fed alone. BLACK STRAP MOLASSES. Black strap molasses, on the basis of its composition, is of the same class of feed stuffs as Indian corn. It is rich in carbohydrates, the same constituent that makes Indian corn valuable as a fat producer. Like Indian corn, it is deficient in protein, only more so, and this is the con- 8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. stituent which is necessary in a feed stuff to produce the lean meat or muscle of an animal and, to some extent, the frame work. Black strap or feeding molasses, a refuse obtained in refining cane sugar, is produced in this State annually in large quantities, and though its importance as a cattle feed has already been thoroughly demonstrated by this Station and by cattle feeders in different portions of the State and elsewhere, its value as a feedfor hogs has not been so clearly determined. SKIM MILK. Skim milk, on the basis of its composition, is of the class known as protein feeds. Being too deficient in starches and sugars (carbohy- drates), as Well as fat, it is not very valuable as a fat producer when fed alone. When combined with corn or some similar feed in the proper proportions, the protein of the skim milk supplies the deficiency of the protein in the corn, while the carbohydrates of the corn supply the de- ficiency of the carbohydrates in the skim milk, the two feed stuffs thus forming a “balanced ration.” This means one which contains the nu- trients in proportions which meet the needs of the animal body for its best development. With the dairy industry rapidly developing in this State it is important to know the value of skim milk as a feed for hogs. IMPROVED HOGS vs. “soRUBs.” The purpose of Experiment No. III, conducted in 1908-1909, was to compare improved hogs with scrubs in every respect that is important from the standpoint of pork production. The pork producer is in the business for profit; hence, if by feeding one type of hog he can realize more on his investment than by feeding another type, it is certainly apparent that he should feed the most profitable. Aside from his ability as a trader, which may enable him to buy at an unusually low price and sell at an unusually high one, the profit in feeding hogs will depend chiefly upon the margin which may exist between their selling price and the cost of production. The form, the quality, the condition or finish, and, to some extent, the weight of the hog, are factors which influence the price per pound in selling. Aside from the cost of feed stuffs, the ability of the feeder to supply them to the hog in the proper way, and environment—aside from these three things, the cost of production de- pends upon the ability of the hog to convert feed stuffs into pork Hence, in comparing improved hogs with scrubs in this experiment, the important points to consider were: (l) pounds of feed required per pound of gain; (2) rapidity of gain; (3) selling price; (4) percentage of dressed pork. Rice bran and Spanish peanuts were compared with Indian corn in Experiment No. IV for the same purpose that black strap molasses was compared with it in Experiment No. I, viz., to demonstrate their value, fed alone or in combination with other feeds, for pork production; and to ascertain whether they could be Wholly or partly substituted for corn to advantage. Hoe FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 9 RICE BRAN. From the fact that rice bran, like Indian corn, contains too little pro- tein in proportion to other nutrients, it should be considered of the same class of feed stuffs. The average composition of pure rice bran and Indian corn is here given for comparison as follows: Nitrogen- Feed _ Water Ash Protein Crude free ex- Fat fiber tract Rice Bran .................... .. 9.7 10.0 12.1 9.5 49.9 8.8 Indian Corn .................. .. 10.6 1.5 10.3 2.2 70.4 5.0 It is seen that the two feed stuffs contain practically the same per- centages of protein, but that rice bran contains a much smaller per- centage of nitrogen-free extract, (which, together with crude fiber, con- stitutes the carbohydrates of a feed), and a larger percentage of fat. The larger content of this latter constituent partly makes up for the smaller content of the former, from the fact that the fat of a feed stuff serves the same purpose as the carbohydrates when consumed by an animal, and its nutritive value is about two and one-fourth times as great, pound for pound. It is seen that rice bran contains much larger percentages of ash and crude fiber than corn. On account of the low nutritive value of crude fiber, however, the less a feed stuff contains the better, though the digestible portion serves the same purpose as the digestible portion of nitrogen-free extract. The ash or mineral matter, which forms bone or frame-work in the animal body, is contained in rice bran in an apparently sufficient amount for this purpose, as is the case in most feed stuffs. Though ash is deficient in Indian corn, the required amount can be supplied, largely, at least, in wood ashes, char- coal and salt, and when corn forms the larger part of a ration for hogs they should have free access to a mixture of these substances. It is apparent then that the value of these two feed stuffs chiefly depends upon their content of digestible protein, carbohydrates and fat. This is true, also, of feed stuffs in general, though the digestibility of these nutrients varies with different feed stuffs. The chemist’s analysis only shows the amount of nutrients a feed contains, as shown above for rice bran and corn. The feed must be fed in order to determine the percentage of each nutrient that is digestible. This percentage, known as the “coeffi- cient of digestibility,” has been determined for the nutrients of nearly all feed stuffs, so that by multiplying each nutrient as determined by the chemist, by its coefiicient of digestibility, the amount of digestible nu- trients in a given quantity of the feed stuff can be determined, thus indi- cating approximately its feeding value. If the ratio of the digestible protein to the digestible carbohydrates plus the digestible fat, reduced to its carbohydrates equivalent by multiplying it by 2;}, is about 1 to 7 in a ration, that ration may be said to be well balanced for fattening swine. This ratio, known as the “nutritive ratio,” is, on the average, 10 ‘TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. 1 to 9.66 in Indian corn, and 1 to 11.6 in rice bran, which shows that both need to be supplemented by some feed richer in protein to properly balance them. Otherwise, the excess of carbohydrates and "fat will be more or less xvasted, since there will not be developed lean meat enough for the amount of animal fat that may be produced from these nutrients. In milling rice there are two layers of cells removed after removing the hull, the first of these being bran and the second polish. The aver- age yield per 100 pounds of rice is reported in Bulletin 76 of this Station as being about seven pounds of bran and one and one-half pounds of polish, varying according to the character of the rice. In purchasing rice b1 an careful attention should be given to its chem- ical analysis, for it may be 111ixed or adulterated with rice hulls, which possess no feeding value, in which case the percentage of crude fiber and ash would be accordingly much higher, and the protein, carbohydrates and fat proportionately lower than in the pure product. ‘ This Station, in Bulletin 76, reported on rice bran and other rice by- products for steer feeding, and other Southern Stations have done like- wise, but as yet little or nothing has been reported about them for hog feeding. SPANISH PEANUTS. The kernels of the Spanish peanut are the only portions of the plant eaten by swine. The vine, however, is nutritious and makes a very good hay, which is especially relished by cattle, and would no doubt be relished by horses, sheep and goats. In the experiment in which Spanish pea- nuts were fed against corn. to hogs in the dry lot, the nuts were separated from the vine in order to make an accurate comparison. There was much labor involved in this which, of course, would be eliminated under practical conditions, where if it were desired to save the vines for hay, they could be cut wi-th a mowing machine and cured before hogs are turned on the field to root out the nuts. A good average yield of nuts per acre is about forty bushels. However, under especiallv favorable conditions the yield may be from sixty-five to eighty bushels, and has been known to be as high as 100 bushels per acre. The Spanish peanut is a leguminous plant and is, therefore, beneficial to the soil, enriching it with nitrogen taken from the air. It may be grown in almost any part of the State where there is an average amount of rainfall. It is best adapted to a sandy loam soil, which is neither too dry nor too sandy, yet light and porous. _ The composition of the kernel and hull of the Spanish peanut was reported in Bulletin 13 of the Georgia Experiment Station, as follows: I Nitrogen- Feed Water Ash Protein Crude free eX- Fat fiber tract l t Kernel ............................ .1 1315 2.72} 3218' 3.5 20.43 41.17 H1111. .............................. 19 2o 4.63, 7.19] 71.78 14.32 2.08 Hoe FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 1.1 The relative proportions of hulls and kernels were: Kernels, '78 per cent; hulls, 22 per cent. Hence, the composition of the kernel and hull combined was as follows: L , t i i Nitrogen- Feed Water Ash t Protein V Crude free ex- Fat- . ' - _ [ fiber tract y Spanish Peanut . . . . . . . . . . . 14.48 3.14 26.68 18.52 19.08 32.57 It is seen that the hull contains very little nutriment, being composed very largely of crude fiber. Since hogs Will not eat it, we need to con- sider the feeding value of the kernel only. The composition of the kernel shows it to be of the protein class of feed stuffs. Though con- taining an amount of protein above that required for a balanced fatten- ing ration, this extra amount is not wasted when consumed by animals as in the case with carbohydrates and fats when there is insufficient pro- tein to balance them. On the other hand, a surplus of protein in any feed sttiff or ration above that required to produce lean meat tissue and frame-work may be broken up in the animal body and in the rearrange- ment of its elements animal fat is one of the principal products formed. Hence, the Spanish peanut, being rich in oil or fat, in addition to pos- sessing a fair amount of nitrogen-free extract, and containing more pro- tein than is really necessary, should meet all of the requirements as a ration for either growing or fattening swine. As a rule, protein is the highest priced food nutrient on the market and on that account it is rarely ever economical to feed it for the production of animal fat. Only- in such feed stuffs as cottonseed meal and some of our leguminous crops, which may be so abundantly produced in the South, can we afford to feed it for this purpose. Oarbonaceous feed stuffs, meaning thoserich in carbohydrates, chief among which is Indian corn, are generally much cheaper for fat production. EXPEBIIIEXQS NOS. I AND II. HOGS UsED. The hogs used in Experiments Nos. I and-II were thirty-two head. of pure bred large improved Yorkshires, ranging in age from eight to ten months. They were fairly uniform in quality, and, although thin, were in thrifty growing condition. Of the thirty-itwo head, twenty-two were \barrows and the remainder were open gilts. PLAN OF EXPERIMENTS. The afternoon of October 8, 1907, the hogs were divided. into four lots of eight each, the-division being made as equally as possible with ' regard to size, conformation, qualitv and sex. Thereafter they were designated as lots I, II, III and IV. The weights of the lots on the y afternoon of October 8 were as follows: 12. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. No. Lot. N0. of Head. Total Weight. Lot I. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8 930 lbs; Lot II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 920 lbs. Lot III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 870 lbs. Lot IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 870 lbs. ‘Lots I, II and III were placed in separate pens, each about one acre in area, and practically similar in a-ll conditions, such as shade, water, etc., that might have a bearing on the results of the experiments. Begin- ningwith the evening feed of October 8, they were thereafter fed as follows: Lot I—One-half corn chops, One-half molasses. Lot II—Three-fourths corn chops, One-fourth molasses. Lot III——Oorn chops. At the same time that lots I, II and III were placed on feed as above described, lot IV was placed on a Spanish peanut patch of about two acres in area, the object being .to compare Spanish peanuts grazed by hogs with corn in dry lot for pork production. This lot was also amply supplied with shade and water. PRELIMINARY. In order to get each lot to eating its respective ration well before be- ginning the experiments, a preliminary period of four days was used for the purpose. During this time the total amounts of feed consumed by lots I, II and III were as follows: Lot I-—70 pounds corn chops, '70 pounds molasses. Lot II—105 pounds corn chops, 35 pounds molasses. Lot I'II—1%O pounds corn shops. MOLASSES VS. INDIAN CORN. Beginning with the evening feed of October 12, the test between lots I, II and III lasted. until the morning feed of January 11, 1908, covering a period of ninety-one days. The day’s ration for each lot October 12 was as follows: Lot I-—2O pounds corn chops, 20 pounds molasses. Lot II—30 pounds corn chops, 10 pounds molasses. Lot 111-40 pounds corn chops. That day, therefore, the hogs received five pounds of feed per head, which was about as much as they would clean up readily at that time. The rations were raised from time to time, as they were able to eat larger Hoe Fnnnmo EXPERIMENTS. 13 the increase, however, being gradual, seldom ever over one- quantities, By December 10 the day’s ration for half pound per head for any day. each lot Was as follows: Lot I——40 pounds corn chops, 40 pounds molasses. Lot II—60 pounds corn chops, 20 pounds molasses. Lot III-—80 pounds corn chops. The daily amount of feed for each hog at this time was, therefore, ten pounds. A few days later the rations were raised again, but finding that the hogs did not clean up readily a quantity of feed greater than ten pounds per head, they were reduced to that amount, and so continued until the end of the experiment. It was apparent from the time they had gotten well up_ on feed that the droppings from those receiving mo- lasses were of a much softer character than from those receiving straight corn, and this condition existed in a greater degree in lot I, receiving the larger amount of molasses, though the stage of diarrhoea was not reached at any time. Feeling that the hogs would do better with less range than that afforded by the large pens, they were changed on October 21 to pens 40x50 feet 1n area. The cost of the feed stuffs used was as follows: Corn chops, $28.20 per ton. Black strap molasses, at 10c per gallon, $16.66 per ton. It is seen that the price of the corn was unusually high, much more so than it would have been on the farm during the average year. The final results of the test between lots I, II and III are shown in Table I. TABLE 1.———RESULTS OF NINETY-ONE DAY TEST WITH CORN AND BLACK STRAP MOLASSES. a Average Cost Daily Pounds Feed Per No. Wt. at No. Feed Eaten Total Gain per 100 lbs. 100 Lot Start Hogs Gain Per Gain ’ lbs. Hog Gain I. 1,016 lbs. 8 3,211lbs.corn 487 lbs. corn chops; 3 , 067 658 lbs. .9 lb. chops; 466 lbs. molasses. lbs. molasses $10 .75 II. 970 lbs. 8 4,758 lbs. corn 449 lbs. corn chops; 1,538 1 ,058 lbs. 1.45 lbs. chops; 145 lbs. molasses. lbs. molasses 7 .53 III. “910 lbs. 8 6,344 lbs. corn 1,214 lbs. 1.66 lbs. 522 lbs. corn chops. chops. 7 .36 The table shows that the hogs receiving the straight corn made the largest and the cheapest gain, followed by those receiving one-fourth 14L Texas AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT Sixvrioxs. molasses; lot 1, receiving one-halfunolasses, making the least and most costly gain. These results, therefore, do not speak as Well for molasses for pork production as those of our steer feeding experiments do for beef production. It must be remembered, however, that both corn and mo- lasses are Very deficient in protein, and fed either alone or in combination With each other do not afford anything like a balanced ration for fat- tening. It. is more than likely that the molasses would have given better results if it had been combined with a feed stuff like Wheat shorts, or With corn to which had been added a supplementary feed stuff such as skim milk or tankage, thus making a better balanced mation. The hogs were shippe-d to Fort Worth January 11, 1908, and Were sold for the following prices: Lot I—$I.15 per cwt. Lot II——$4.15 per cwt. Lot III——$5L.2O per cwt. The better price brought by lot III Was evidently due to that lot showing a slightly better finish. Based on these prices and the results in Table I, Plate I. The hogs in Lot I (one-half corn chops, one-half molasses at the end of the experiment. corn chops Was Worth 80 cents per 100 pounds in terms of pork; molasses, When constituting one-fourth the ration, was Worth 38 cents per 100 pounds, or cents per gallon, and wihen constituting one-half the ration it was Worth only 6 cents per 100 pounds, or .7 cents per gallon. A report from Armour &_Co., Who purchased the hogs, stated that there Was practically no difference in the quality of the dressed carcasses of the difierent lots; that all of them were firm of texture as desired. Hoe Fnnrorno EXPERIMENTS. 15 Plate II. The hogs in Lot II "three-fourths corn chops, one-fourth molasses‘ at the end of the experiment. Pla.te III. The hogs in Lot III (corn chops) at the end of the experiment. CORN VS. CORN AND SKIM MILK. As stated previously, the same day (October 8) that lots I, II and III were started on their respective rations, lot IV was placed on a two-acre patch of Spanish peanuts, the original plan being to compare the "feeding value of corn and Spanish peanuts. There proved to be such a small yield 16 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. of peanuts, however, that the results from the test were not considered as meaning very much. October 21, lot IV was changed to a pen similar in all respects to those to which lots I, II and III were changed on the same day. It was then that it was decided to use lot IV in testing the value of an addition of skim milk to a straight corn ration for fattening hogs. Skim milk feeding, however, did not begin until November 10, corn chops alone being given in order to place lot IV on the same basis with lot III with which the comparison was made. By October 25, both lots were eating the same amounts of chops, which were fifty-six pounds each per day. The two lots were weighed the afternoon of November 9, and beginning then and lasting until the morning feed of January 11, 1908, the test covered a period of sixty-three days. The day’s ration for each lot November 10, the first day of skim milk feeding, was as follows: Lot III—64 pounds corn chops. Lot IV—64 pounds corn chops, 32 pounds skim milk. Each lot was fed twice daily, in the morning and in the evening. The corn chops for both lots was soaked in water twelve hours before being fed. The skim milk was thoroughly mixed with the chops for lot IV at the time of feeding. The corn chops for each lot was gradually increased as the hogs were able to consume more, as was also the skim milk for lot IV. The rations on December 10 were as follows: Lot III—80 pounds corn chops. Lot IV—-80 pounds corn chops, 64 pounds skim milk. The amount of skim milk remained sixty-four pounds daily until the end of the experiment. The corn chops was increased to eighty-eight pounds per day for each lot shortly after December 10, but it was found that the hogs would not readily consume that amount, and it was changed back to eighty pounds for the remainder of the test. The skim milk used was separator skim milk, obtained from the Ool- lege creamery, at a cost of 25 cents per 100 pounds. The final results of the test are shown in Table II. TABLE 2.——-RESULTS OF SIXTY-THREE DAY TEST WITH CORN OHOPS AGAINST CORN OHOPS AND SKIM MILK. y . l Average l Cost Daily ’ Pounds Feed Per No. Wt. at No. Feed Eaten Total Gain Per 100 lbs. 100 Lot Start Hogs Gain Per Gain lbs. Hog Gain III. 1,323 lbs. 8 4,700 lbs. corn 801 lbs. 1.58 lbs. 586 lbs. corn chops. chops. $8 .26 IV. 1,320 lbs. 8 4,700 lbs. corn 424 lbs. corn chops; 3,232 1,106 lbs. 2.19 lbs. chops; 292 milk. milk. $6 .71 lbs. skim ‘v lbs. skim‘ i Hoe FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 17 The table shows th.at the lot receiving skim milk made by far the larger and cheaper gain. Lot IV made 305 pounds more gain than lot III, and since both lots received the same quantity of corn chops, the gain of 305 pounds must be attributed to the 3232 pounds of skim milk. January 11, 1908, lot IV was shipped to Fort Worth With the other lots and sold for $4.30 per 100 pounds. Based on this price for pork, the skim milk was, therefore, worth 4L0 cents per 100 pounds in feeding value. These results certainly argue for a much more extensive use of skim milk in pork production and further emphasize the importance of giving more attention to the balanced ration. Plate IV. The hogs in Lot IV (corn chops, skim milk) at the end of the experiment. EXPERIMENTS NOS. III AND IV. HOGS USED. The hogs used in Experiments Nos. III and IV consisted of twenty- four grade Poland-Chinas and six scrubs, commonly spoken of as “razor backs.” The Poland-Chinas were obtained from a. farmer living near the College. In conformation, quality and breeding they represented about an average of the feeder shoats found on the Texas farm’ where pure bred boars are used. They were just in good growing condition and had had free access to pasture on the farm where they were raised. The “razor backs” were obtained from a farmer in the Navasota river bottom, about twenty-five miles from the College. They were narrow of body, leggy and of a type that would not generally be considered that of a good feeder. ll!" 18 . TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. In flesh, as compared with the Poland-Chinas, they were thinner, but apparently in just as he-althy condition. After their arrival at. the Col- lege all of the hogs Were fed alike 0n corn, in the dry lot, for about two Weeks previous to the beginning of the experiments. PLAN OF EXPERIMENTS. The afternoon of October 17, 1908, there were six pigs topped out of the bunch of Poland-(Thinas. Theyf were of the thick-bodied, short-legged type, which constitutes good feeder, but not such as could not. easily have been purchased from any farmer of the State Who had a wrell-graded herd of hogs. The remaining eighteen head were divided into three lots of six each, the division being made as equally as possible With regard to size, conformation and quality. Thereafter the six “razor backs” Were designated as lot I, the six head topped from the bunch of Polandi-Chinas as lot II, and the other three lots as lots III, IV and V. All of the lots were about equal in respect to the number ofsows and barrows they con- tained. Having been Weighed, they ‘were placed in separate pens, each of Which was 40x50 feet in size and equally provided With shade and water, making the conditions practieallyi similar in every respect. A small trough in each pen Was also supplied With a mixture of charcoal, Wood zishes and salt from time to time. Beginning wvith the evening feed of October I17, 1.908, the lots Were thereafter fed as follows: Lot I-—4 parts corn chops, 4 parts rice bran, 1 part tankage. Lot II--4 parts corn chops, 4 parts rice bran, 1 part tzinkage. Lot III—Corn chops. Lot 1V—Iiice bran. Lot V—Spanish peanuts. Y7: ‘ FEEDS USED. TABLE 3.——COMPOSITION OF CORN CHOPS, RICE BRAN, TANKAGE AND SPANISH PEANUTS. ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL SECTION OF EXPERIMENT STATION. l l Percentage Composition Feeds I l Crude Nitrogen- Water Ash Protein fiber free ex- Fat tract Corn Chops .................... .. 10 .68 1.220 9 .310 2 .270 72 .340 4.180 Rice Bran ...................... .. 9.36 8.280 13.250 9.615 45.685 13.810 Tankage ........................ .. 10 .22 10 .840 59 .870 4 .050 3 .100 11.920 Peanut Kernel .............. .. 4 .23 2 .045 22 .300 3 .215 14 .815 53 .395 Peanut 9.69 2 .965 4.875 65.700 15.705 1.065 Peanut, kernel and hull 5 .62 2 .279 17 .860 19.126 15 .040 40 .066 Hoe FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 19 Based 0n the analyses given in Table ‘III, Table IV shows the digestible nutrients in each feed: a TABLE 4.—DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS IN CORN CHOPS, RICE BRAN, TANKAGE, AND SPANISH PEANUT KERNEL. Dry Digestible Nutrients ' Mat- in 100 Pounds Feed. ter in 100 i lbs. Protein Carbohy-l Fat drates Corn Chops ...................................................... .. 89 .32 7 .07 68 .59 3 .59 Rice Bran. ...................................................... .. 90 .64’ 7 .55 37 .99 11.74 89.78 55.68 .............. .. 11.68 . Peanut Kernel ................................................ .. 95 .77 20.07 12 .73- 48 .05 Based 0n the digestible nutrients shown in this table, the nutritive ratio of the rations received by each lot Was as follows: No. of Lot. Nutritive Ratio. Lot I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1: 5.17 Lot II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1: 5.17 Lot III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 :10.80 Lot IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1: 8.50 Lot V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1: 6.00 It is thus seen that the ra-tions for lots I, II and V really" contained somewhat larger amounts of protein than was necessary for fattening, and especially was this the case with those of lots I and II. However, they may be said to have been about right for the early part of the feed- ing period, when the pigs, young and growing, required more protein for building lean tissue and framework. The rations for lots III and IV contained insufficient amounts of» protein for either growth or fattening, according to any of our feeding standards. The cost of the feeds was as follows: Corn chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$30.00 per ton. Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.00 per ton. Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . 4.0.00 per ton. Spanish peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.00 per bushel. The corn chops was purchased from a retail dealer and was, therefore, much higher than on the farm during the average year. Peanuts were scarce and, hence, more expensive than they would have been under ordi- nary conditions. \ IMPROVED HOGS vs. SCRUBS. This test was conducted with lots I and II, and covered a period of one hundred and forty-four days, from the evening feed of October 1'7, 1908, until the morning of March 10, 1909. The amount- of feed re- ceived by each lot October 20, when it had gotten fairly used to its ration, was : » 20 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. 8 pounds corn chops. 8 pounds rice bran. 2 pounds tankage. ' The feed was gradually increased as the hogs were able to consume more. Both lots received equal amounts daily until October 29, when it was found that lot II would consume more than lot I. By December 10, the difference between the amounts eaten by the lots Was very marked, the ration on that" day being as follows: Lot I—1O pounds corn chops, 1O pounds rice bran, 2g» pounds tankage. Lot II—18 pounds corn chops, 18 pounds rice bran, 4% pounds tankage. Lot II received this ration until February 26, when it was raised to 19 pounds corn chops, 19 pounds rice bran and 4?; pounds tankage, and thus continued until the end of the experiment. Lot I did not receive an increase until January 13, when its ration was raised to 14 pounds corn chops, 14 pounds rice bran and 3% pounds tankage. It was again raised February 9, and again February 26, when it received 18 pounds corn chops, 18 pounds rice bran and 4% pounds tankage, and thus con- tinued until the end of the experiment. Throughout the test care was taken to see that each lot received as much feed as it Would readily clean up each day. The corn chops and rice bran were soaked together in Water twenty-four hours, and the tankage Was thoroughly mixed with them at the time of feeding, the mixture being fed twice daily, in the nature of a thick slop. Neither lot received tankage in the ration from November 20 to December 9, inclusive, on account of our not having a supply on hand at that time. The final results of the test are shown in Table V. TABLE 5.——RESULTS OF ONE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR -DAY§;TEST WITH IMPROVED HOGS AND SCRUBS. l l Average Cost Daily Pounds Feed Per Gain Per 100 lbs. 100 N0 Wt. at No. ' Feed Eaten Total Lot Start Hogs Gain ‘l Per Gain lbs. Hog Gain ___ l I. 220 lbs. e 1,748 lbs. Com l 205.6 lbs. corn chops; 1 , 748 chops; 205 .6 lbs.rice bran; 850 lbs. 19837 lbs. lb s r i c e 376 lbs. tank- b r a n; 44.2 age. _ lbs. tankage. $6 .024 II. 340lbs. 6 2,288.5 lbs. 202.5 lbs. corn chops; corn chops; 2,288.5 lbs.1,130lbs. 1.3078 202.5 lk)s rice b r a n; lbs. rice b r a n; 495.62 lbs. 43.8 lb s. tankage. tankage. i$5 .938 Hoe FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 21 The table shows that lot II consumed a much larger quantity of feed, but also that it made, by far, the larger gain. It also shows that each 100 pounds of gain was made with a slightly less quantity of feed by lot II than by lot I and, hence, at a slightly less cost. It shows that the improved hogs converted. a much larger quantity of feed into pork in the same period of time than the scrubs, for in the same number of days lot II consumed 540.5 pounds corn chops, 540.5 pounds rice bran and 119.62 pounds tankage more than lot I and made 280 pounds more gain, which necessarily shows that they would convert a given quantity of feed into pork in a shorter time. This means that if one has a given amount of feed that he wishes to convert into pork, he would get quicker returns on the money invested by the use of improved hogs than by the use of the same number of scrubs. Such would hardly be the case, however, if the scrubs used were as large as improved hogs of the same age. In this test the scrubs were smaller, but apparently just as old and probably older than the Poland-Chinas. But so it is in general; the size of scrubs is usually much smaller than that of our improved breeds or high grades of the same age. About 11 a. m. March 11, lots I and II, together with lots III, IV and V and five hogs not used in the experiments, making a total of thirty-five head, were loaded for shipment to Fort Worth. Each lot had received its morning feed at the regular time. The hogs were unloaded at the Fort Worth stock yards the following morning about 8 :30. They were not sold until March 13, when they were weighed to Armour & Co. about 11 a. m., which was forty-eight hours from the time they were shipped. The thirty-five head were fed four bushels of shelled corn in Fort Worth, which was the only feed they received after being fed at College Station the morning of March 11. The results in Table V are based on the weights obtained at College Station, the same scales having been used throughout the experiment, and the final weights having been obtained the afternoon of March 10. A comparison of the final weights at College Station and at Fort Worth is shown as follows: College Station. Fort Worth. Shrinkage. Lot I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1070 lbs. 1060 lbs. 10 lbs. Lot II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II1470 lbs. 1420 lbs. 50 lbs. The much greater shrinkage in lot II is hard to account for unless that lot had a greater fill at the time the College Station weights were ob- tained, and, after shrinkage en route, did not take on as much fill at Fort Worth as lot I. If the Fort Worth weights are used as those ending the feeding test, then lot I made slightly the more economical gain, the cost of feed per 100 pounds of gain being 1.7 per cent less for that lot than for lot II. If, on the other hand, the College Station weights are used as in Table V, then lot II made the more economical gain by 1.4 per cent. The average of College and Fort Worth weights would show that there was practically no difierence between the two lots, as to the cost of making 100 pounds of gain. 22 ‘fuxiis AGRICULTURAL EIXPERIMENT STATIONS. The hogs sold. for the following prices: Lot I—$6.00 perihundred Weight. Lot II.——$6.65 per hundred Weight. From these prices it is plain that the improved hogs looked better to the packers than the scrubs. Valuing the hogs of both lots at 5 cents per pound when the test began each hog in lot I was Worth $1.83, and each hog in lot II Was Worth $2.83. At the end of the test, based on Fort Worth Weights, each hog in lot I at $6 per hundred Weight, Was Wrorth $10.60, and each hog in lot II at $6.65 per hundred Weight Was Worth $15.74. The cost of the total feed consumed by each hog in lot I Was $8.62 and the cost of the total feed consumed by each hog in lot II Was $11.28. Hence, not including labor of feeding and expense of shipment, the profit derived from each hog in lot I Was only 15 cents, While that from each hog in lot II Was $1.63. A report from Armour 8t Co. as to the killing qualities of the tWo Plate V. The hogs in Lot I (“razor backs”) at the beginning of the experiment. lots of hogs is given later in connection With a similar report on lots 111, 1v and v. CORN CHOPS VS. RICE BEAN VS. SPANISH PEAXUTS. This test Was conducted With lots III, IV and V and Was divided into tWo periods, the first lasting ninety-one days, from the evening feed of October 1'7, 1908, until the morning feed of January 16, 1909. The corn chops for lot III and the rice bran for lot. IV Were soaked in Water twenty-four hours previous to being fed. The Spanish peanuts for lot V Were fed on the vines from the beginning of the test until November Hoe FEEDING Exrnniixniviis. 23 Plate VI. The hogs in Lot II (improved hogs) at the beginning of the experiment. 2, but were thereafter picked off and fed without. the vines. Each lot was fed twice daily, in the morning and in the evening. The amount of feed received loy each lot Xoveniber 3, when it had gotten used to its rations, was as follows: Lot IH—12i pounds corn chops. " Lot lV——16 pounds rice bran. Lot V—12 pounds peanuts. Plate VII. The hogs in Lot I (“razor backs”) at end of theiexperiment. 24 TEXAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Gare was taken to see that each lot received as much feed daily as it would clean up readily. The lot receiving the corn chops would not eat at any time during the period much over 12 pounds per day. .As the test progressed, the hogs of this lot became less thrifty and showed less and less relish for their feed, though there was no evidence of such conditions at the start. Lot IV was eating 18 pounds rice bran and . lot V 14 pounds peanuts per day by December 10. Both of these lots seemed to relish their feed, and though the hogs of lot V consumed le-ss, they maintained a thriftier appearance. The daily amount of feed fed to each lot, when the first period ended, was as follows: Lot III--12 pounds corn chops. Lot IV—20 pounds rice bran. Lot V—14 pounds peanuts. Plate VIII. The hogs in Lot II (improved hogs) at the end of the experiment. The final results of the test for the first period are shown in Table VI. TABLE 6.——RESULTS OF NINETY-ONE DAY TEST WITH CORN, RICE BRAN, AND SPANISH PEANUTS. Average Cost Daily Pounds Feed Per No. Wt. at No. Feed Eaten Total Gain Per 100 lbs. 100 Lot Start Hogs Gain Per . Gain lbs. Hog Gain III. 250 lbs. 6 1,111 lbs. corn 115 lbs. .21 lbs. 965.8 1 b s. chops a corn chops. $14.49 1v. 25o lbs 6 1,535 l b s. 40o lbs. .73 lbs. 383 .6 lbs. rice bran. rice bran. $3. 84 V. 260 lbs. 6 1,082 l b s. 365 lbs. .67 lbs. 296 .5 l b s. F"; peanuts. peanuts. $13 .46 Hoe FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 25 The table shows that lot III made a very small gain at an abnormally i high cost. Though the price of corn was unusually high, it was not such as to cause such costly gain. It must be remembered that the pigs were young and small, and that corn does not contain in a very high degree the elements that produce lean meat and frame-work. Here 965.8 pounds corn chops were required to produce 100 pounds of gain. That a much less amount would have been required for hogs of larger size is indicated in Table I, where only 522 pounds of corn chops were required to produce 100 pounds of gain. Even with these larger hogs, however, much less corn was required and the cost of gain considerably cheapened by an addition of skim milk to the ration. The results in Table VI show plainly the importance of supplementing corn with feed rich in protein, to get the best results from it. Particularly should this be done for immature animals, and it will prove profitable in fat- tening mature animals, unless corn is unusually low in price and sup- plementary feeds unusually high. alfalfa, cowpeas, peanuts, skim milk, wheat shorts, wheat bran, tankage and cottonseed meal, though the last one named should be fed with care. The table shows that rice bran made the largest gain and at a very moderate cost. Only 383.6 pounds were required to produce 100 pounds of gain, as compared with 965.8 pounds of corn chops. Such a wide difference was certainly not expected, and the results should not be accepted as meaning that such a difference in feeding value really exists. Considering the digestible nutrients in rice bran, it would be expected that the results in this instance would be more similar to those of corn chops. In fact, more recent experiments conducted at this Station have shown rice bran and corn to be about equal, pound for pound, in pork production, and that they should be supplemented with some protein feed, in about the same way, for the best results. This should mean much to the Texas farmers and particularly to those of the rice belt, as long as rice bran can be obtained at a lower price than corn. The table shows that next to rice bran, Spanish peanuts made the largest gain and that only 296.5 pounds were required for 100 pounds of gain, as compared with 383.6 pounds of rice bran and 965.8 pounds of corn chops. At this rate, abushel of peanuts would produce 7.4 pounds of pork, which, at $6.25 per hundred weight, the price lot V brought on the market would make the peanuts worth 46 cents per bushel. Accordingly, an acre yielding forty bushels of Spanish peanuts, grazed by hogs, should produce approximately $18.40 worth of pork. The high cost of the gain from peanuts in this test should not be understood as representing what the cost would be on the farm where the hog could do his own harvesting. It was necessary to pay a dollar a bushel in this instance, in order to obtain the peanuts to conduct the test. At the end of the ninety-one-day period it was decided to change the rations for each lot, on account of the small gain lot III had made, and, in fact, to see if all of the lots could be made to gain more rapidly. The ration to which each lot was changed and the nutritive ratio of that ration is shown as follows: Some of these protein feeds are ' ¢h_.,‘.~.fl.-,r..r;_a__.=s..g_§z.4 B=K._.__,.=_.,_ ___ “i 1r‘ 26 A TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Ration. Nutritive Ratio. Lot III—4 parts corn chops, 4 parts rice bran, I 115.17 1 part tankage. Lot IV——l part corn chops, 1 part rice bran. 1:9.6O Lot V—1 part corn chops, 1 part Spanish peanuts. 1:727 "The second period of the test lasted thirty-nine days, from the even- ing feed of January 30, 1909, to the morning feed of March 10, 1909. The time intervening between the two periods was fourteen days and was used to get the hogs accustomed to their new rations. The amount of feed‘ consumed during that time was as follows: Lot III—113.5 pounds corn chops, 29.5 pounds rice bran, 8.9 pounds tankage. Lot IV——237 pounds rice bran, 43 pounds corn chops. Lot V——171 pounds peanuts, 31 pounds corn chops. The rations for lots III and IV remained proportioned, as already de- scribed, throughout the period. In lot V, however, soon after the be- ginning, corn chops was gradually substituted for more of the peanuts. By February 26, the ration was three parts corn chops and one part peanuts, and it was thus continued to the end of the test. The feeds were prepared the same as (luring the first period and the hogs were fed as much as they would readily consume twice daily. The daily amount received by each lot at the beginning of ‘the period was as follows: Lot III—-— '7 pounds corn chops, 7 pounds rice bran, 1% pounds tankage. Lot I'V——10' pounds corn chops, 1O pounds rice b-ran. Lot V——10 pounds corn chops, 1O pounds peanuts. These amounts remained practically the same throughout the period, with the exception that near the end it was necessary to make a slight reduction for lot V. - A noticeable feature shortly after the period began was that lot V seemed to show a more spright appearance and seemed to relish their feed more than when receiving corn chops alone. The final results of the test for the second period are shown in Table VII. Hoe FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 27 TABLE 7.——THE"RESULTS OF THIRTY-NINEEDAY TEST WITH RA- TIONS OF CORN, RICE BRAN AND TANKAGE, CORN AND RICE BRAN, AND CORN AND SPANISH PEANUTS. y y lAverage t Cost i ~ l Daily Pounds Feed Per v No. l Wt. at No. l Feed Eaten Total Gain Per 10o lbs. 100_ Lot Start Hogs Gain flier Gain Gibs. ' 0g ain. III. 382 lbs. 6 260.5 lbs. corn 248 lbs. 1.06 lbs. 105 .04 1 b s. chops; 260.5 corn chops; lbs.rice bran; 105 .04 lb s. 65.1 lbs. rice bran, tankage. ' 26.26 l b s. tankage. $3 .15 IV. 710lbs. 6 391 lbs. rice 134.82 lb s. bran, 391 lbs. 290 lbs. 1 .24 lbs. rice b r a n, corn chops. 134 .82 lb s. corn chops. $3 .37 V. 630 lbs. 6 236.5 lb s. 63.91 l b s. y peanuts;y370lbs. 1.58lbs.,peanuts; 1 458.5 lbs l123.9llbS. 1 y corn chops. corn chops. $4.76 I l The table shows that all the lots made much larger daily gains than duringthe first period and that these gains were made at a much less cost, especially in lots III and V. It also shows that lot III, receiving tankage in addition to corn chops and rice bran, made a cheaper gain than lot IV, receiving only corn chops and rice bran. The difference in this respect between these two lots and the much larger and cheaper gain made by lot I during this period over the first period, again em- phasizes the importance of supplementing corn With some feed rich in protein. During the first period lot III received corn alone, which did not contain the nutrientsin the right proportion for either growth or fattening. There was insufficient protein for. the formation of lean tissue and frame-work and, he-nce, a large part of the carbohydrates and fat were not made use of for the formation of animal fat, but on the other hand wasted. During the second period lot III received a ration which contained the nutrients in about the right. proportion to fatten pigs of their size. The response to this ration was very marked, each 100 pounds of gain being produced at a cost of $3.15 as compared with $14.49 from corn alone. The ration for lot IV, which was one-half corn chops and one-half rice bran, was really not as well balanced as was that of rice bran alone. However, the hogs of- this lot had attained considerable size when the ration was changed and, hence, required less protein than previously. The variety afforded by the change, no doubt, accounts largely for the more rapid and economical gain made in the second period than the first. The substitution of corn chops for a part of the peanuts in lot V ‘m-"a|;';*r—=\< 28 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. evidently improved the ration considerably. The hogs had attained considerable size and, hence, required less protein in proportion to car- bohydrates and fat than previously. The corn improved the ration, in tha-t it increased the carbohydrates, thus making it better balanced for fattening. The shipment of these hogs to Fort Worth March 11, and the Way they were handled from the time they left College Station until sold was the same as described for lots I and II. A comparison of the final weights at College Station and at Fort Worth is shown as follows: College Station. Fort Worth. Shrinkage. Lot III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 630 lbs. 600 lbs. 30 lbs. Lot IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1000 lbs. 970 lbs. 30 lbs. Lot V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1000 lbs. 1000 lbs. . . . . . . The hogs sold for the following prices: Lot III—$4.50 per cwt. Lot IV—- 6.10 per cwt. Lot V— 6.25 per cwt. Valuing the hogs at 5 cents per pound, at the beginning of the experi- ment each hog in lot III was worth $2.08, each hog in lot IV, $2.08, and each hog in lot V, $2.16. At the end of the experiment, based on Fort Worth. weights, each hog in lot III at $4.50 per cwt. was worth $4.50, each hog in lot IV at $6.10 per cwt. was worth $9.86, and each hog in lot V at $6.25 per cwt. was worth $10.41. The cost of the total feed consumed by each hog in lot III was $4.54, the cost of the total feed consumed by each hog in lot IV was $4.73, and the cost of the total feed consumed by each hog in lot V was $12.58. Hence, not including the labor of feeding and the expense of shipment, the loss on each hog in lot III was $2.12, the profit on each hog in lot IV was $3.05, and the loss on each hog in lot V was $4.33. - A report from Armour & Co. as to the killing qualities of the different lots of hogs, including lots I and II, is shownin Table VIII. TABLE 8.—-A REPORT FROM ARMOUR & COMPANY AS TO THE YIELD OF THE FIVE LOTS OF HOGS. l l L66 N6. ...................................... .. 1. l 11. l 111. l 1v. l V. Number 6f Hogs ........................ 6 6 l 6 l 6 l 6 Live Weight ................................ .. 1,060 1 , 420 600 .970 1,000 Dressed Weight——I-I0t .............. .. 747 1,034 439 659 699 Dressed Weight——Chilled ......... .. 729 1 , 008 435 643 683 Shrinkage from Hot to Chilled Weight, per cent .................. .. 2 .41 2 .52 .91 2 .43 t 2 29 Per cent Pork——Chilled Weight 68 .77 71 .00 72 .50 66 .29 68 .30 Per cent Leaf Lard .................. .. 3 .4 3 .45 2 .63 3 .40 3.30 Per cent Gut Fat ...................... .. 4.9 5.00 4.33 4.85 4.80 Per cent Dressed (including ‘ pork, leaf lard and gut fat)... 77 .07 79.45 79 .46 74 .54 76.40 Hoe FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 29 Comparing lots I and II we find that there Was a somewhat greater shrinkage from the dressed Weight hot to the dressed Weight chilled in lot II, but that in spite of this the per cent of dressed carcass (chilled) in lot II was greater than that of lot I by 2.38 per cent. In comparing lots III, IV and V we find that the greatest shrinkage from the dressed weight—h0t to the dressed Weighte-chilled occurred in lot IV that had been fed rice bran, and that the least occurred in lot III that had been fed corn. The dressing percentage of both lots IV and V was very low, and especially was that of the former. Lot III dressed much higher, but the difference was greater in its favor on account of the hogs of this lot being dressed with their heads on, While those of the other lots Were not. The following communication from Messrs. Armour & Co. will show how they estimated the different lots of hogs after they were slaughtered: NORTH FORT WORTH, TEXAS, March 20, 1909. John C’, Burns, Professor Animal Husbandrv, College Station, Texas: DEAR SIR--Herewith please find comments on quality of five lots of hogs, six each, killed at our packing house March 15 and cut on the 17th, chilled for forty-eight hours before being cut as per memorandum at- tached. The quality of the hogs was as follows: Lot I were just fair; they showed considerable fat and Were not firm and solid. . Lot II were good hogs, the meat and lard of same Was much firmer and a better quality. Lot III Were dressed as pigs with the head on and quality of same was verv good; they were firm and solid. Lot IV were poor hogs, soft and very thin. Lot V very poor, very soft and what we term oily; the meat was very soft and flabby. Attached memorandum will show the yield and cuts into which the above lots of hogs were made. Yours very truly, I AEMoUE 8r 00., Per Wm. Cargill. The results reported in the above letter furnish additional evidence that a peanut ration will produce a soft, oily pork. They would also indicate that rice bran will produce pork of a somewhat similar char- acter. Though, both the lot that was fed rice bran and the one that was fed peanuts were also fed some corn during the second period of the test, yet this was evidently not suificient to produce that firm, solid flesh reported "for lots II and III. Tn" _ . V. , 30 ‘Imus AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Plate X. The hogs in Lot IV qice bran) at the beginning of the experiment. Hoe FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. l f Plate XII. The hogs in Lot III corn chops at the end of the experiment. 3l i I. 1 . 3. i ~ 1 i 1 i: ‘E z l. § w‘ a ? z 1 3 1 2 f l 1 5 1 C23 NJ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Plate XIII. The hogs in Lot IV (rice bran) at the end of the experiment. Plate XIV. The hogs in Lot V (Spanish peanuts) at the end 0f the experiment. Hoe FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 33 SUMMARY. 1. Molasses combined with corn for hogs to the extent of one-half of the ration and even to the extent of one-fourth of it, caused a much less gain at a much higher cost as compared with corn alone. 2. There was practically no difference between the quality of the dressed carcasses of the hogs fed molasses and those fed corn alone. 3. The addition of skim milk to a straight corn ration for hogs caused a much larger gain at a much cheaper cost than did corn alone. At the present prices of pork, skim milk fed in combination With corn would. be ‘ much more profitable than at the prices of pork when the experiment was conducted. 4. There was practically nodifference between the “razor backs” and the improved hogs as to the quantity of feed required to produce the same amount of gain. The improved hogs gained much more rapidly, thereby making the much larger gain in the same length of time. They sold for 65 cents more per 100 pounds and were more profitable by $1.48 per head. They dressed out 2.38 per cent higher. 5. Exclusive corn feeding proved very unprofitable in both experi- ments Nos. II and IV, and especially so in the latter, where the pigs used were young and small at the beginning. When the mixed ration of corn chops, rice bran, and tankage was fed in the place of the straight corn ration the gain was much more rapid and the cost of that gain much reduced. 6. Rice bran was much cheaper than corn and yielded a larger gain. The pork produced by it was of an inferior quality to that produced by corn. The shrinkage from the dressed weight hot to the dressed weight chilled was much greater and the per cent of dressed carcass much less Rice bran should be used more extensively in pork production when corn is so much higher in price, and, for the best results, should be fed in connection with a feed rich in protein. '7. Spanish peanuts fed alone yielded a larger gain than corn fed alone. The results indicated that an acre of peanuts of a yield of forty bushels would produce approximately $18.40 worth of pork at $6.25 per 100 pounds. With pork at $9 per 100 pounds the same acre would pro- duce $26.64 worth. Peanuts and corn combined produced much more rapid gains than peanuts alone. The quality of the pork produced by peanuts was much inferior to that produced by corn. 8. It should be borne in mind that feed stuffs are no higher in price now than they were when these experiments were conducted; that the price of pork is now more than twice what it was in 1908 when the hogs used in experiments Nos. I and II were marketed; that it is about one and one-half times what it was in 1909 when the hogs used in experi- ments Nos. III and IV were marketed; and, hence, that the financial results of these experiments would be more favorable under present con- ditions than they were under conditions existing when they were con‘ ducted. '