n 1 u‘ ‘I b AS AGRICULTURAL Exmzmmléwisiulor; LATIN NO. 201 ~ ' DECEMBER, 191s i; . f.‘ DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY EEANUT MEAL AND GRQUND wz/HQLE PRESSED PEANUTS FUR HOGS POSTOFFIOE: COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. ‘E AUSTIN, TEXAS VON BOECKMANN-JONES co., PRINTERS, 1916 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] A30-1216-15m TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN NO. 20l DECEMBER, 1916 DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY PEANUT MEAL AND GROUND WHOLE PRESSED PEANUTS FOR HOGS BY L. B. BURK, B. S., Associate Professor of Animal Husbandry Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, cooperating with the Station POSTOFFIOE: COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. ~i= AUSTIN, TEXAS: _ VON BOECKMANN-JONES 00., PRINTERS, 1916. um '7'!‘ AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, A. M. D. C. L., President TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS - L4 O i “WP ”>m“m~ . . WILLIAMS, Paris.......... . . BATTLE, Marlin ...... .. . . BREIHAM, Bartlett ........ .. . . KUEENA, Fayetteville ........ .. . MILLER, JR., Amarillo.. EH gut > > U3 L. J. HART, Chairman N I. GuioN, Ballinger, President; .................... .. . HART, San Antonio, Vice-President .............. .. . . AsTIN, Bryan ................................................... .. . DAvIDs0N, Cuero ............................................ .. . MAIN STATION COMMITTEE J. S. WILLIAMS .................................................... ..Term expires 1919 ............ ..Term expires 1919 ............ ..Term expires 1919 ......... ..Term expires 1917 ......... ..Term expires 1917 ......... ..Term expires 1917 ......... ..Term expires 1921 ......... ..Term expires 1921 .................................................... ..Term expires 1921 W. A. MILLER, Jr. GOVERNING BOARD, STATE SUBSTATIONS P. L. DowNs, President, Temple CHARLES RoGAN, Vice-President, Austin .............. .. W. P. HOBBY, Beaumont ........................................... .. J. E. BOOG-SCOTT, Coleman .................................... .. .................................................... ..Term expires 1919 .................... ..Term expires 1919 ................ ..Term expires 1917 .................................................... ..Term expires 1921 STATION S'I‘AFF* ADMINISTRATION B. YUUNGBLOOD, M. S., Director A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Vice Uirector CRAs. A. FELRER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary DIVISION OF VETERINARY SCIENCE M. FRANcIs, D. S., Veterinarian in Charge _ _ H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chemist in Charge; State Chemist W. T. P. SPRoTT, B. S., Assistant Chemist H. LEBEsoN. M. S., Assistant Chemist CHARLES BUCHWALD, . Assistant Chemist DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE H. NEss, M. S., Horticulturist in Charge W. S. HoTcnKIss, Horticulturist DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY J. C. BURNS, B._ S.,_ Animal Husbandman, Feeding Investigations _ J. M. JJNES, A. M., Animal Husbandman, Breeding Investigations DIVISION OF ENTOMOLOGY F. B. PADDOCK, M. S., Entomologist in Charge; State Entomologist _ H. J. RINEIIARD, B. S., Assistant Ento- mologist ' County Apiary Inspectors R. C. Abernathy, Ladonia; William Atch- ley, Mathis; J. W. E. Basham, Barstowfi Victor Boeer, Jourdanton; T. W. Burle- son, Waxahachie; W. C. Collier, Goliad; E. W. Cothran, Roxton; G. F. Davidson, Pleasanton; John Donegan, _ Seguin; A. R. Graham, Milano; H. Grossen- bacher, San Antonio; J. B. King, Bates- ville; N. G. LeGear, Waco; R. A. Little, Pearsall; H. L. Mofield, Hondo; M. C. Stearns, Brady; S. H. Stephens, Uvalde; M. B. ally, Victoria; Jas. W. Traylor, Enloe; R. E. Watson, Heidenheimer; W. H. White. Greenville; W. P. Bankston, Buffalo; F. C. Belt, Ysleta. DIVISION OF AGRONOMY _ A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Agronomist in Charge A. H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronomist Louis WERMELSKIRCHEN, B. S., Agronomist DIVISION OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Plant Patholo-l gist and Physiolojggst in Charge A. D. JOHNSON, B. ., Graduate Assistant ‘DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY R. N. HARvEY, B. S., Poultryman in Charge J. M. SCHAEDEL, Stenogra her DAISY LEE, Registration lerk '- W. F. CHRISTIAN, Stenographer ELIZABETH WALKER, Stenographer E. E. KILEoRN, Stenographer *As of December 1, 1916. DIVISION OF FORESTRY J. H. FosTER, M. F., Forester in Charge," State Forester DIVISION OF PLANT BREEDING E. P. HUMBERT, Ph. D., Plant Breeder in Charge J. S. MoGFoRE, B. S., Graduate Assistant DIVISION OF DAIRYING J. E. HARPER, M. S., Dairyman in Charge DIVISION OF FEED CONTROL SERVICE JAMES SULLIVAN, Executive Secretary J. H. RocERs, Inspector . H. WooD, Inspector . H. WoLTERs, Inspector . D. PEARCE, Inspector . M. WICKERS, Inspector T. B. REESE, Inspector SUBSTATION NO. 1: BeeviIle,_Bee County E. E. BINFORD, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 2: Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 3: Angleton, Brazoria ounty N. E. WINTERS, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 4: Beaumont Jefierso County H. H. LAIJDE, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 5: Temple, Bell Count D. T. KILLoUoII, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 6: Denton, Denton COUIU V. L. CORY, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 7: Spur, Dickens Coun‘ ' R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent sUBsTCitTIoN N0. s= Lubbock, Lubbock ounty R. E. HARPER, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 9: Pecos, Reeves Coun m“ J. W. JACKSON, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 10: (Feeding and Breedii Substation), College Station, Braz‘ County . E._R. SPENCE, B. S., Animal Husbandmi in Charge of Farm _ G. F. JORDAN, B. S., Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. 11: Nacogdoches, Naco . doches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent **SUBSTATION NO. 12: Chillicothe, Hard man" County R. W. EDWARDS, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATIQN N0.._l3: ..S9,nqra, Sutton Cpur E. M. PETERS, B. S., Acting Superintendi seas CLERICAL‘ ASSISTANTS 'C. L. DURsT, Mailing Clerk - .A..-T_ JACKSON, Stenographer W. E. TURNER, Stenographer CARL ABELL, Scientific Assistant **In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. PEANUTMEALANDGRglgNélpvt/HOLEPRESSED PEANUTS to?’ OGS.* 7l:t/-.f;2i5“ BY L. B. BURK, B. 8., ANIMAL HUSBANDMAN, SWINE IlWVESTIGATIONSt The peanut industry is rapidly becoming a very important one throughg out the South. Although peanuts have been sold as a confectionery " article throughout the World for years, only recently has the crop been grown extensively for its oil content and as a feed for live stock. The lpeanut is not only one of the best hog forage crop-s, but when converted into hay, it makes a very desirable legume roughage. It yields satis- pfactorily and is almost a sure crop. Peanuts, therefore, have become la staple crop in Texas and have assumed’ an important place in our cropping systems. ' y, The peanut, however, when fed alone to hogs does not produce a sat- fisfactory pork. It is not as firm as pork from grain-fed hogs, and for ._that reason the producer has been forced in many instances to take from ‘Tione-half cent to two cents a pound less than was being paid for ho-gs ‘lyfattened on a grain ration. _ This situation, together with the high price f oil, caused the cotton seed oil companies to use their machinery for double purpose-—to crush peanuts for oil, as well as cotton seed. In going this there was left a by-product corresponding to cotton seed meal ,;or cake. This peanut cake was ground i11to a meal thus making a feed gsery rich in p-rotein and fat, as is shown in the composition table. The experiment herein reported was conducted inorder to- answer two Important questions: ' 1. What is the relative value of peanut meal as a feed for hogs? 2. Will peanut meal produce soft pork and lard? ’ yyThe peanutmeal used in this experiment was of two kinds: meal ade from hulled nuts, and meal made from the whole pressed peanuts, meal containing the hull. Although these two products were fed in ifierent proportions in combination with milo chops, both ivere eaten 7th great relish, and both gave satisfactory results. In fact, the results 0w that peanut meal is practically equal to tankage and. cotton seed Ital for supplementing the milo in a fattening ration for hogs. ‘The following tables give the composition and digestible nutrients the feeds used: TABLE l. i Percentage Composition. t Nitrogen— Feed. Water. Ash. t Protein. free Crude Fat. y extract. fiber. y l cho s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.60 9.56 77.24 2.43 3.22 y e cotton seed meal . . . . . . . .. 7.67 6.15 43.00 24.88 10.65 7.65 ,- - d whole pressed peanuts. . . 6.71 3.66 35.82 22.26 22.33 9.22 put meal (without hulls). . . . . 6.51 5.14 41.94 23.26 8.34 14.81 '_ 4,17 53.57 10.21 3.79 10.99 meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.27 1 . gGround Whole pressed peanuts is the ground residue obtained by grinding [slab or cake which results from pressing the oil out of the whole peanuts M the ‘hull left on. It is often referred to as whole pressed peanut meal. goctaliate Professor of Animal Husbandry, Agricultural and Mechanical Col- .; 0 exas cooperating with the Station. ' ~ .’ r7070 I 4 TExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. _ TABLE 2. Digestible Nutrients. Protein. Carbohydrates Fat. Feed. per cent. per cent. per_cent. Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.099 67.31 2.83 Cotton seedlmeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.12 22.60 7.26 Ground whole pressed peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.43 13.586 8.298 Peanut meal (without hull) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 .74 20.288 13.329 Meatjmeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.77 PLAN OF EXPERIMENT. This experiment was conducted under dry-lot conditions at the feed- ing and breeding station hog barn. The pens in which the hogs were confined were equal in every respect. The pens were inside the barn, each pen measured 9 x 20 feet in size, and opened into a. 20 x 50 feet open lot, where the hogs were free to exercise themselves. All the pens had south front exposures and all the inside pens had concrete floors and feed troughs. i TIME OF EXPERIMENT. The duration of this experiment was '77 days, beginning May 14, and closing July 30, 1916. OBJECTS. The objects of the experiment were as follows: 1. To determine the value of both peanut meal and ground whole pressed peanuts when used as a supplement to milo chops in a ration for fattening hogs. 2. To compare peanut meal and ground whole pressed peanuts with meat meal and cotton seed meal as supplements to milo chops. 3. To compare a narrow peanut meal-milo ration with a balanced peanut meal-milo ration, and to compare both rations with a ration of milo chops when fed alone. 4. To study the effects of peanut meal and ground whole pressed peanuts on the quality of the pork and lard. HOGS USED. Sixty pure-bred Duroc-Jersey hogs were used. They weighed an average of 126 pounds at the beginning. The hogs were not as uniform in size as was desired. Considering their breeding, however, they were ‘more uniform than cotfld be purchased locally at that time. The hogs Were divided into six lots, of ten hogs each. Every effort was made to make the lots as nearly equal as possible. WEIGHING. The hogs were weighed by lots for three consecutive days at the begin- ning and again at the close of the experiment. The averages of these PEANUT MEAL AND GROUND WHOLE PRESSED PEANUTS FOR Hoes. 5 weights were used as the initial and final weights. Weights were taken every thirty days duringthe experiment. A. RATIONS. ‘_ e rations fed were proportioned as follows: Lot 1: Milo chops, alone. *- Lot 2: Milo chops, 6 pounds. Cotton seed meal, 1 pound. Lot 3v: Milo chops, 10 pounds. Meat meal, 1 pound. Lot 4: Milo chops, 7 pounds. I Peanut meal (without hull), 1 pound. Lot 5: Milo chops, 2% pounds. ‘ . Ground whole pressed peanuts, 1 pound. Lot 6: Milochops, 1 pound. ' Peanut meal (without hull), 1 pound. a, p oosi‘ OF FEED USED. ,_ Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1324 0O per ton.’ i. ‘Cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 O0 per tons V Meat meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45 0O per ton.” Peanut meal (without hull) . .’ . . . . . .. 35 00 per tona/ l’ Ground whole pressed peanuts . . . . . . . . .. 28 0O per tom?’ feeding was done very regularly twice each day. After the ‘(week the hogs in each lot received all of the feed they would 8.3 gives the essential facts of this experiment in condensed form. 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE 3. Results of Experiment. as s: “is; as" "s1; _<_>_ vi w w, 58 m E a “Al; m E Q N a C1 o‘ E Q-QH m 3 g a‘ "' 2% 23815222 ‘B252 “$38 225% Rations Fed. o4 008W ‘5’ v Qofi-r: “sée Se“: >4 ° >4‘ ° 9 .4 ° E ._1 a.» .3 ._1 °~ 2 2 -- 2 . 2 -g 22?, 2 “g "-4 um wi --< m _ "-1 m --| ' -_n __ 2 21:3 2:1: 2:5 2%: 2:5 ‘<3 s 32‘. 3E 8E8 2'5 Number of hogs in lot._. .. . . . . . .. .. 10 10 10 10 10 0 Weight per hog at beginning, lbs. . . 124.6 125.8 124.8 125.6 125.8 *129.6 Weight per hog at close, pounds.. .. a 180.5 222.9 216.1 218.9 220.4 239.3 Total gain per hog, pounds. . . . 55.9 97.1 91.3 93.3 94.6 109.7 Average daily gain per hog, pounds. .727 1.26 1 .18 1 .21 1.228 1.424 Average feed consumed daily, per hog, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 4.51 4.90 4.60 3_.767 2.62 - milo milo milo milo milo milo chops chops chops chops chops chop .75 .49 - .65 1.50 2.62 cotton meat peanut ground peanut seed meal meal whole meal meal presses peanu s Total amount of feed consumed, pounds . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3620 4050 4050 4050 4050 4035 Feed consumed per 100 pounds gain 648 417 455 434 428 368 Cost of feed per 100 pounds gain. . . $7.77 $5.33 $5.89 $5.51 $5.38 $5.42 *In Lot -6 one hog was found dead on May 29. It ate well at the evening feed of the previous day, and evidently died from heat after eating. When found the next morning it had been artly eaten by the other hogs in the lot, hence an estimated weight was all that could be taken. t was estimated to wei h 120 pounds. The nine remaining hogs in the lot weighed 1400 pounds May 29th. _On June rd, another hog, weighing 150 pounds, was placed in Lot 6. The ten hogs then weighed 1574 pounds. The entire record of the hog that died was eliminated from ' theiresults of the experiment. The inefficiency of the ration of milo alone was very noticeabll after the second Week. The hogs grew tired of their feed and did no eat with the same relish as did those in the other five lots. In fact during the latter part of the feeding period it was necessary to reduce the amount of milo feed to the hogs in Lot 1, because they would no clean up their feed. On the other hand, the hogs in the other lots ha< good appetites and continued to eat a larger amount of feed daily. Th hogs which received a ration of milo chops alone required 231 pound more feed to produce 100 pounds of gain than the milo-cotton seed mea lot; 193 pounds more than the milo-meat meal lot; 220 pounds H101‘ than the milo-ground whole pressed peanuts lot; 214 pounds more thal the lot getting a ration of milo and peanut meal 1.7; and 280 pound more than the lot receiving a ration of equal parts of peanut meal ant milo chops. The average daily gains show a similar difference, but th< total gains show an even greater relative difference. I It is also interesting to note that the four lots which were fed balancei rations, namely, Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, the amount of feed consumed pet 100 pounds of grain is fairly close together. In Lot 3, receiving mil< chops supplemented with meat meal, 455 pounds of feed were requirei to produce 100 pounds of gain. In Lot 2, receiving milo chops supple mented with cotton seed meal, 41'? pounds of feed were required to pro PEANUT MEAL AND GROUND WHOLE PRESSED PEANUTSFOR Hoes. 7“. duce 100 pounds of gain. Lot 4, receiving milo chops and neanut meal,.. and Lot 5, receiving milo chops and ground whole pressed peanuts, re- 1, quired 434 pounds of feed and 428 pounds, respectively, to ‘produce 100 “pounds of gain. This would indicate that hogs fed a balanced ration of milo chops and peanut meal required more feed to produce 100 pounds of gain than hogs fed milo chops supplemented with ground pressed peanuts. Although ot 6 was fed a ration unusually rich in protein, the gains were more rapid and they were more economical than in any‘ of the other lots. i It may be noted that the hogs in Lot 2 were fed an ‘average of three-fourths of _a. pound of cotton seed meal per day for 77 ‘ ays with excellent results. A * In figuring the net profits, much depends on the relative price of Yfeeds and the “spread” between the buying and selling price of the hogs. ,1. this experiment the “spread” was 2.45 cents a pound,which is a. good Wargin. Onaccount of the high price of cotton seed ~meal and the Iglower price of peanut products, the difference in net profit is less than it ordinarily would be. TABLE 4. Financial Statement. Lot Number. 1 2 3 4 . 5 6 erhogat7centsperpound.. $ 8.72$ 8.813 8.743 8.79$ 8.81$ _, 9.07 ta cost of feed consumed . . . . . . . 43.44 51 .78 53.81 51 .38 50.91 ;_59.52 t_of feed consumed per hog dur- mg experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.34 5.18 5.38 5.14 5.09 , 5.95 I ight charges per ho at 17 1-2 A cents per 1.00 poun s . . . . . . . . . . .32 .39 .38 .38 v .39 .42 .1 ' t of yardage per hog . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 ' It of feed 1n Fort Worth Stock , Yards per hog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 \ .07 mmission per hog in selling . . . . .. .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 i _ Tot_al cost per hog . . . . . . . . .. 13.64 14.64 14.76 14.49 14.55 15.70 mg price per hog at $9.45 per cwt., Fort Worth weights . . . . .. 16.35 19.66 19.37 19.47 *19.37 21.26 Netprofitper hog . . . . . . $ 2.71$ 5.028 4.613 490$ 482$ 5.56 tprofit per lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 27.10$ 50.203 46.10 49.00 $ 48.20$ 55.60 *Lot 5 shows a lower net profit than it should show. This is due to one of the sbws proving p _ be pregnant at marketing time and a 40-pound dock being received on her. a Another good feature about the peanut meal as a feed is that the _gs when marketed killed out firm. A committee composed of S. S. nway, assistant superintendent of Fort Worth plalltflf Armour & H; F. M. Sherwood, head hog buyer, and A. J. Kelly, superintendent i, the hog killing department, also of Armour & C0,. passed on each it of hogs and pronounced them satisfactorily firm. The carcass fat i, the hogs of Lot 6, however, appeared to the author to be slightly ter than the other lots. In order to get a further check on the quality of the pork and la.rd, tr samples were taken from each of two hogs of each lot and the melt- point was determined for each sample. A medium sized and well ‘ihed hog was selected from each lot for this test. The samples were from each hog as follows: (a) immediately back of the shoulder; 8 'l‘EXAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. (b) immediately in front of the thigh in flank; (c) along the center of the back; (d) leaf fat. The samples were packed in ice and shipped by express from the pack- ing house to the chemist and the melting points were determined. LIELTING POINTS OF FAT. Table V shows the melting ‘points and iodine number of fat taken from hogs of the different lots. The “A” hog of each lot was a well finished fat hog, while the “B” hog was only medium in condition. The lower melting point of the fat, the softer is the pork, and the lower the iodine number, the firmer is the pork. Although the melting points 0f the samples from all of the lots, except Lot 2, were very much lower than 42 degrees centigrade, it was not oily or soft pork. The melting point "(if firm pork, according to the Alabama Experiment Station, is about @2- degrees centigrade. TABLE 5. Melting Point. Iodine Number LotNumber. 9 I 11-|8 4|5|61,2;814156 Shoulderfat“A” 28.6‘ 884i 29.6 29.7 28.0 28.9 61.7] 52.5 55.6 57.4t 56.5 62.2 Shoulderfat“B” 28.8 89.2 29.6 80.8 84.1 27.2 61.2 54.1 55.8 56.8 58.1 66.0 Average . . . . . . . .. 28.7 88g; 29.6 80.2 81.0 28.0 61.41588 55.4 57.1 57.8 64.1 . ' 18.46am "A".... 84.5 41.8 81.5 81.0 81.8 27 6 62.8‘ 52.5 57.2 57.5 58.0 66.0 Backfat“B”.... 80.5 40.5 88.2 80.5 29.8 88 0 61.1l 52.8, 54.8 57.7 54.6 68.8 Average . . . . . . . .. 82.5 41.1’ 84.8 80.7 80.5 80 8 61.9II52.4I1§$5 576i 56.8 64.6 Leaffat“A”..... 41.0 46.7. 42.5 42.1’ 40.8 41.8 557M156, 49.9 51.2 50.0 57.1 Leaffat“B”..... 89.6 42.9; 89.9 41.6 42.1 41.4 550* 48.91 51.2‘ 50.8 47.6 56.5 Average . . . . . . . .. 40.8’ 4_4___8; 41.2 41.8 41.2 41.6 55.8: 47.2 50.5 51.0, 48.8 5L8 Rearflankfat“A” 81.8, 89.4 29.5 82.8; 28.0 29.8 59.7l 582i 56.9‘ 56.9. 57.1 65.0 Rearflankfat“B” 29.91 82.21885 85.21 81.4 84.5‘ 58.8! 54.8; 54.6! 54.6; 58.8 60.5 Average . . . . . . . 808T 85.8} 81.5 84.0] 29.7 81.9| 59.2; 54. 55. 55.41 55.2 63.7 ll : | 1 , In comparing the melting points of the samples of fat taken, it will be noticed that there is quite a wide variation. Lot 1, which received milo chops alone, is strikingly similar to Lot 6, which received a ration of equal parts of milo chops and peanut meal. Lot 3, which received a ration of milo chops and meat meal, shows melting points very similar to those of Lot 6, with the exception of the back fat, which is much higher. Lot 4r, which received peanut meal without hull, and Lot 5, receiving ground whole pressed peanuts, show melting points that are very similar, with the exception of the rear flank fat. With the excep- tions of the back fat of No. 1 and 3 and the flank fat of No. 4, the melt- ing points of all of the sa iples from Lots 1. 3, 4. 5, and 6, are strikingly low and close together. Lot 2, which received milo chops and cotton seed meal, shows a. much higher melting point from each sample taken. This would indicate that cotton seed meal does have a hardening quality when fed in a balanced ration with milo chops.‘ It is also quite notice- able that the samples of leaf fat show a much higher melting point than the samples of fat taken from back, shoulder and flank. r“ PEANUT MEAL AND GROUND WHOLEPRESSED PEANUTS FOR Hoes. 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Much credit is due the oflicials of Armour & Co. for their complete cooperation and untiring efforts in assisting the author in getting the samples of fat necessary for the melting point tests. No charges were made by them for these samples, and every effort was made to get sam- ples that would give an accurate test. Credit is due Dr. G. S. Fraps, the Station chemist, for analyses of feedsand determinations of the melting points of fats. Credit is also due Mr. T. E. Owens, the swine herdsman, for his careful and accurate work in carrying out instructions h the feeding of all lots. T SUMMARY. 1. Although Lot 1, fed milo chops alone, produced a profit, the fgains, and hence the profit, were unsatisfactory when compared with other lots. 2. Lot 2 rendered 85 per cent; Lot 3, '70 per cent; Lot 5, '77 per Lot 4, 81 per cent., and Lot 6, 105 per cent. greater profits than t 1. 3. Lot 2, which received a ration of 6 pounds milo and 1 pound cotton ,1 d meal, made greater and more economical gains than Lot 3, which ived a ration of 10 pounds milo and 1 pound meat meal. The ten hogs of Lot 2 received an average of three-fourths of a und of cotton seed meal each day for 7'7 days without any indication cotton seed meal poisoning and without deaths. 5. Lots 4 and 5, which received milo chops supplemented with peanut sfieal, produced more profitable gains than the milo-meat» meal ration, t less profit than was secured from the milo-cotton seed meal ration. ‘,6. In Lot 5, milo chops supplemented with ground whole pressed uts, produced greater gains than did milo and peanut meal without e hull. Lot 6, which received equal parts of milo and peanut meal 'l I the hull, producedthe fastest and most economical gains of any ‘ the other lots. . 7. Although half of the ration that was fed to the hogs of Lot 6 as peanut meal, the pork proved to be firm. v~ 8. Although some of the melting points of samples of fat were as w as 29 degrees Centigrade, the pork was pronounced by the packers to firm.