A220-218-20m TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN NO. 224 . JANUARY, 1918 DIVISION OE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY THE INFLUENCE OF PEANUTS AND RICE BRAN ON THE QUALITY OF PORK B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, BRA ZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. KGKICUEIUIUIE AND MECHANICAL LULLLUL U1‘ ILAAS W. B. BizzELL, A. M., D. C. L., President TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS i-n OHN I. GuioN, Ballinger, President Term expires 1919 HART, San Antonio, Vice-President.... . ASTIN, Bryan...... ........ ..Term expires 1919 ....... ..Term expires 1919 . J. . H . R. KUEENA, Fa etteville .......................... .. . B. DAvipsoN, uero ............ .. ........... ..Term expires 1921 ........ ..Term expires 1921 ILL A. MiLLER, JR., Amarillo ..... ._. ................ .. HN T. DICKSON, Pans A. BREIHAN, Bartlett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. m§g>~mr ........ ..Term expires 1921 Term expires 1923 ....... ..Term expires 1923 '11 . M. LAw, Houston ............................................... .. .................................................... ..Term expires 1923 MAIN STATION COMMITTEE L. J. HART, Chairman WiLL A. MiLLER, JR. GOVERNING BOARD, STATE SUBSTATIONS P. L. DowNs, Tem le, President ..... .._ ..................... .. ustin, Vice-President ............ .. eman .................................. .. W. A. JonNsoN, Memphis ...................................... .. CRARLEs RooAN, J. E. Booc-ScoTr. Col .................................................... ..Term expires 1919 ...................... ..Term expires 1923 ...................... ..Term expires 1923 .................................................... ..Term expires 1918 *STATION STAFF ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S.,_Di'rector A. B. CoNNER, B. S., _Vice Director CHAS. A. FELRER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary _ _ _ W. T. BRINK, B. S., Executive Assistant in Charge Library and Publication EniTn H. PHILLIPS, B. S., Technical Assistant DIVISION OF VETERINARY SCIENCE "M. FRANc1s, D. V. S., Veterinarian in Charge _ _ H. Scmmrr, D. V. M., Veterinarian D. H. BENNETT, V. M. D., Assistant Veterinarian DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY _ _ G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chemist in Charge; State Chemist _ _ T. B. LEITH, B. A., Assistant Chemist SCOTT PowELL, B. S., Assistant Chemist E. SEicK, B. S., Assistant Chemist DIVISION 0F HORTICULTURE _ H. NEss, M. S., Horticulturist in Charge W. S. HOTCI-IKISS, Horticulturist DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY J. BuRNs, B. S.,_Animal Husbandman, Feeding Investigations _ J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Animal Husbandman, Breeding Investigations P. V. EwiNo, M. S., Animal Husbandman in Charge Swine Investigations _ "L. B. BURK, B. S., Collaborating Animal Husbandman, Swine Investigations DIVISION OF ENTOMOLOGY _ _ F. B. PADDOCK, M. S., _Entomologist in Char e; State Entomologist _ H. J. EiNi-iARn, B. S., Assistant Ento- mologist _ W. E. JAcRsoN, M. S., Assistant Ento- mologist County Apiary Inspectors R. C. Abernathy, Ladonia; William Atch- ley, Mathis; J. W. E. Basham, Barstow; T. W. Burleson, Waxahachie;W. C. Col- lier, Goliad; E. W. Cothran, Roxton; G. F. Davidson, Pleasanton; John Donegan, Seguin; A. R. Graham, Milano; J. B. King, Batesville; N. G. LeGear, Waco; R. A. Little, Pearsall; S. H. Stephens, Uvalde; M. B. Tally, Victoria; R. E. Watson, Heidenheimer; F. C. Belt. Ysleta; R. A. Nestor, Buffalo; J. E. Bush, San An- tonio; H. A. Jones, Oakville; T. A. Bolwdon, Palestine; E. R. Jones, Bee- e vil . DIVISION OF AGRONOMY _ A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Agronomist in Charge A. H. LEipioH, B. S., Agronomist "‘**H. H. JoBsoN, B S., Agronomist _ Louis WERMELsRiRcREN, B. S., Agronomist DIVISION OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J .~ J. TAUBENHAUS, _Ph._ D., Plant Patholo- gist and Physiologist in Charge DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY R. N. HARVEY, B. S., Poultrgman in Charge DIVISION OF FORESTRY J. H. FosTER, M. F., Forester in Charge, State Forester DIVISION OF PLANT BREEDING E. HUMBERT, Ph. D., Plant Breeder in Charge DIVISION OF DAIRYING W. A. DOUBT, Dairyman ****SOIL SURVEY T. H. BENTON, Soil Surveyor J. F. STRoup, Soil Surveyor DIVISION OF FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief JAMES SuLLivAN, Executive Secretary J. H. RocERs, Inspector H. W000, Inspector . D. PEARcE, Inspector M. WicKEs, Inspector F. Ci-iRisTiAN, Inspector . W. SNELL, Inspector . J. KELLY, Inspector W. I. HAMPSTON, Inspector SUBSTATION N0. 1: Beeville, Bee County I. E. CowART, M. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 2: Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent SUBSTéATION NO. 3: Angleton, Brazorla ounty N. E. WiNTERs, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 4: Beaumont, Jefferson County H. H. LAUpE, B. S., Superintendent G. PURvis, Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. 5: Temple, Bell County D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 6: Denton, Denton County C. H. McDowELL, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 7: Spur, Dickens County R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 8: Lubbock, Lubbock County R. E. KARFER, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 9: Pecos, Reeves County J. W. JAcKsoN, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. l0: (Feeding and Breeding Substation), College Station, Brazos Coun E._R. SPENCE, B. S., Animal Husbandman, in Charge of Farm. G. C. WARE, Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. ll: Nacogdoches, Nacog- doches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 12: Chillicothe, Harde- man County ****R. W. EpwARps, B. S., Superintendent V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. l4, Sonora, Sutton County E. M. PETERs, B. S., Acting Superintendent “reams CLERICAL ASSISTANTS DAISY LEE, Registration Clerk MAE BELLE EvANs. Slenographer ' IRENE PEVERLEY, RUTH CAMPBELL, Slenographer MARGARET SHELDON, Slenographer H. L. FRAziER, Slenographer C. L. DuRsT, Mailing Clerk R. C. FRANKS, Stenographer W. L. HEARN, Stenographer ‘As of March 1, 1918. Copyist J. B. FRANKS, Copyist RUTH LoRp, Slenographer EMMA CAMPBELL, Slenographer "In cooperation with A. 6i M. College of Texas. ***On leave. "“"**In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. s 4i CONTENTS PAGE Purposes of Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Hogs Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Time of Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Placing the Hogs on Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . 6 Cost of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 How Hogs Were Fed When Taken oft Peanuts...‘ . . . . . . . . . .. s Cottonseed Meal Proves Successful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1O The Killing Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Melting Point Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Explanation of Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 14 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BULLETIN No. 224 ‘ JANUARY, 1918 THE INFLUENCE OF PEANUTS AND RICE BRAN ON THE ’ QUALITY OF PORK BY L. B. BURK Collaborating Animal Husbandman, Swine Investigations Soft or oily hogs, as they are called by the packers, have been greatly increasing in numbers on the Southern markets during the past two years. They are objected to by the packers because they will not get firm at ordinary co-oler temperature-32 degrees Fahrenheit to 38 degrees Fahrenheit—but remain soft and flabby. It is also claimed that they will not stack Without slipping, the pork loins cannot be pulled, the shrinkage is much greater, and the consumer objects to the quality of the pork. In view of these objections, the packers first docked oily, or peanut hogs, one-half cent per pound. Later they docked one cent, then one and one-half cent, and now they are docking two cents per pound for all hogs that kill oily, provided, of course, that they have been bought sub- ject to test. ' A ~ Since it is impossible to tell soft hogs from firm ones when they are alive in the yards, if the buyers do not buy them subject to test they are compelled to depend upon the shipper telling them the truth about how the hogs are fed,“ or buy them according to the district from which they are shipped. This has not been satisfactory for either the packers or the shippers. The shipper objects to this arrangement for the rea- son that he does not want to wait two days* for his money after his hogs are sold. It is not satisfactory to the packer because he finds too many soft hogs in the lots that he bought without a guarantee. This con- dition is no doubt partly due to the hogs being fed other feed than peanuts that will also produce soft or oily pork. In this test, it seems that the rice bran and rice polish have been the cause of the* packers declaring that the shippers do not tell them the truth, and, in turn, the shippers claiming that the packers are not fair, because rice bran will produce soft pork. Since rice bran has been selling for a much lower price than corn or milo, there have been enormous amounts of it fed this year. The fact that oily hogs have been coming from every locality is no doubt the cause of much misun- derstanding. ‘The hogs are not passed on until they have been in the cooler forty-eight hours. 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. PURPOSES OF EXPERIMENT. A recent experiment conducted by the Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station at College Station, Texas, promises to solve this very im- portant problem for the South. The purposes of the experiment were as follows: 1. To determine the value of peanuts as a hog feed. ‘2. To determine the kind of pork peanuts will produce. 3. To learn if soft, or oily, pork could be profitably hardened by feeding a grain ration. 4. To determine whether or not the hogs could be prevented from getting soft grazing on peanuts b'y feeding a halt grain ration. 5. To determine the kind of pork produced by milo, rice bran and a mixture of the two. 6. To compare the different rations as to their values in making gains. 7. To compare an unbalanced ration with a balanced one. HOGS USED. In this experiment 120 pure bred Duroc-Jersey and grade Essex and Poland China hogs were used. These hogs were divided as equally as practicable into 12 lots of 10 head each. All of these hogs were ted a balanced grain ration of milo chops and meat meal twenty days or more previous to being started on the experiment. TIME OF EXPERIMENT‘. The experiment was begun October 12, 1916, and closed January 19, 1917. The weather was cool and dry practically throughout the entire feeding period. Apparently the conditions were normal. All the feed was weighed as it was given to the hogs and a complete record kept of all the feeds, weights of hogs, and weather conditions. The hogs were weighed by lots three consecutive days at beginning, ‘as they came off peanuts, and ending of the experiment. PLACING THE HOGS ON EXPERIMENT. On account of the fact that it was necessary for all of the lots to come off the experiment at the same time, and, also due to some of the lots being on the experiment longer than others, the lots were started at varying intervals, as follows: ' Lot 8 was started October 12. ‘ Lots 7, 9 and 10 were started October 26'. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 1.2 were started October 31. Lot 6 was started November 10. . Lots 6, '7, 8, 9 and 1O grazed peanuts 40 days, and Lots 3, 4 and 5 grazed peanuts for 80 days. ~2 INFLUENCE or PEANUTS AND Bron BEAN ON PORK. Rations and feeding periods were as follows: Lot 1. Milo chops alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80 dayst Lot 2. Cottonseed meal, 1 lb.;* milo chops, 6 lbs . . . . . . .. 80 days. Lot 3. Peanuts alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . 80g days. Lot 4 Peanuts together xvith 2 lbs. milo chops per 100 lbs. of live Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80 days. Lot 5. Peanuts together with a 2 per cent. grain ration of 1 lb. cottonseed meal, 6 lbs. milo chops . . . . . . .. 80 days. Lot 6. Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40 days. Cottonseed meal, 1 1b.; milo chops, 6 lbs . . . . . . . . . . 30 days. Lot 7. Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4O days. Cottonseed. meal, 1 1b.; milo chops, 6 lbs . . . . . . . . .. 45 days. Lot 8. Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 4O days. Cottonseed meal, 1 lb.; milo chops, 6 lbs . . . . . . . .. 6O days. Lot 9. Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4O days. Milo chops alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45 days. Lot 10. Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4O days. Meat meal, 1 lb. 5 milo chops, 10 lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 days. Lot 11. Cottonseed meal, 1 lb.; rice bran, 10 lbs . . . . . .. 8O days. Lot 12. Rice bran, ~1- lbs.; milo chops, 4 lbs; cottonseed meal, 1 lb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80 days. It was intended that the hogs in the peanut lots should graze 40 days, but the peanuts did not last quite long enough, and Lots 4, 5 and 6 were fed peanuts in dry lots for '2’, '7 and 20 days, respectively. Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 were fed peanuts three days each. All of the lots except 1, 2, 11 and 12 grazed on peanuts a part of the time. Lots 3, 4 and 5 grazed in similar sized plats, While Lots 6, '7, 8, 9 and 10 all grazed together in the same field. With the exceptions of Lots 4 and 5, the hogs received nothing but water and peanuts while graz- ing. The dry lots in which the hogs were fed were all the same size, and equipped with same space of concrete troughs, concrete floor, and shelter. . At the bieginning the hogs averaged 107 pounds each, and 227 pounds at the close. Their value at the beginning was $7.50 per hundred, and they sold for $10.90 on the Fort Worth market. COST OF FEEDS. Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$48.00 per ton. _ Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.00 p-er ton. Meat meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.00 per ton. Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.00 per ton. Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 1.25 per bushel. Peanuts grazed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.00 per acre. i *The mixtures of grain refer only to the proportion of each feed given in the ration and not the amount fed daily per hog or per lot. After the hogs were on full feed they were given all of the grain they would clean up twice each day. The feed was weighed and mixed dry, then it was weighed again just before feeding and enough water added to it to make a thick slop. 8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Fifty hogs grazing on 16 acres of peanuts made a total gain of 2,540“ pounds, or the peanuts produced an average of 158 pounds of pork per acre. This 10w yield was due to the fact that the estimated yield of peanuts was only 19 bushels per acre. Considering the cost of peanuts grazed at $12 per acre, 100 pounds gain costs $7.55. Had these hogs been finished on peanuts costing $12 per acre, instead of being finished on grain at the price stated above, provided they received the $2.00 dockage, they would have sold for $37.34 less money than was received. In other words, by feeding grain the docking was avoided, and the difference in profit on the 5 lots or 50 hogs was $37.34 in favor of hardening on grain. This is significant, since the packers are now paying $2.00 per hun- dred less on the Fort Worth market for hogs that kill oily than they do for those that kill firm. ' HOW HOGS WERE FED WHEN TAKEN OFF PEANUTS. Owing to the fact that sudden changes in feeding often throw ani- mals “off feed,” it was deemed advisable to change gradually from pea- nuts to a grain ration. This was done by taking the hogs oif the pea- nuts in the morning and keeping them off until after they were fed a grain ration in the evening. Then they were turned into the peanut field and left until the next morning. This practice was kept up dur- ing the three days that the hogs were weighed off the peanuts. The success of this method was shown when every lot made its best gains during the week of the change. There was no sign whatever of hogs going ofi feed. Table 1.—Result of experiment. Lot P 1 I 2 ' .. 3 ’ 4 I 5 6 3 31E m g m3“ n1 w? .2 :8 ” - a 5° 5-? . 541g’ ~ i co E5 a ‘E W S: "=2 g _ ,, ... a . ' m sEZ Z 38g seas’ as?’ Rations and number of days fed. go o 2w a0 "8'; g a g g8 °°° '32s ‘E ‘32 3 328$ ‘$28.5 at; 2'52 g 55s 55%! 555.‘: S 2 - a. c. o. o. Date 11°85 were Placed on experiment . . . . . .. Oct. 31, Oct 31, Oct. 31, Oct. 31, Oct. 31, Nov 10, _ 1916 9 1 1 191 191 1 Date hogs were taken of? exper1ment.... . . . . JGIILQ 1,9, Jangrl79, Jan. 19, Jan. 19, langrl79, Jané 179, Number 0f days hogs were on experiment. . . . 1 1 1917 1917 1 3 1 1 umber of hogs in each lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ 10 10 10 10 '10 0 Initial wei ht of hogs on peanuts, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 1056 1048 1151 Final weig t of hogs ofi’ peanuts, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1849 . . . . . . . . 1888 1730 Gain in weight of hogs on peanuts, pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801 . . . . . . . . - 840 579 verage daily gain per hog on peanuts, lbs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.335 1 .53 1.55 1.45 Initial weight in dry lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061 1046 1849 . . . . . . . . 1888 1730 Final weight at College Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1917 2214 2203 2280 2405 2303 Total gain in d lot, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856 1168 354 . . . . . . . . 517 575 Total gain for w ole period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856 1168 1155 1224 1357 1152 Average dailygain in dry lot, er hog, lbs. . . . 1.07 1 .46 1.44 1.53 2.068 1 .91 Amount of fee consumed per 0t. pounds. . . . 4377 4974 1125 2607 2623 3239 Amount of feed consumed per 100 lbs. gain ' 111_»dl'y lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511 426 318 . . . . . . .. 193 565 INFLUENCE or Pmmrrs AND RICE Bum on Ponx. 9 v Table 1.—Result of experlment—Coiitlnued. Lot 7 8 9 10 11 12 ‘deg "Um i "O z ti: c a "1' a g’ m T1 . we sea-g 2%» 8&2. L's-i 3g. Rationsand number of days fed. m-f gg J5 g3 _ “fig, mi g. E g3 3g a 322g- 9.28,,- 32v gags sag “e23 --~-A-I,_‘ ~-~¢-?_‘ I-I ~-— OJ,_,, »,—'¢i ,. g: s- 52 s- 52:: @223 g 2.. 253a n. n. o. o. c: “ n? "' Date hogs were placed on experiment . . . . . .. Oc1t9l26, Ocltéltlsl Oclté 26, Ocltélgfi, Oclt9131, Ocltélgl, Date hogs were taken 011' experiment... . . . 185191479, Jarliélg0, Jai1ig119, 1311191179, Jaiigr179, Jflilglgg, Number of days hogs were on experiment. . . 8 100 I85 85 80 80' Number of hogs in each lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 10 10 10 10* Initial weight of hogs on peanuts, pounds. . . 1156 968 1101 1160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final weig t of hogs ofl’ peanuts, pounds. . . . . 1697 1667 1627 1691 . . . . . . . . . . . Gain in weight of hogs on peanuts, pounds. . . 54 69 526 531 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average daily gain per hog on peanuts, lbs. . . 1.31 1.748 1 .315 1.327 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial wei ht in d lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1697 1667 1627 1691 1016 1064; Final weig t at CJHBQG Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2487 2651 2353 2475 1693 2135 Total gain in dry lot. pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . 790 984 726 784 67 1071 Total gain for whole period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1331 1683 1252 1315 677 1071 Average daily ain in dry lot, per hog, lbs. . . 1 .755 .64 1.61 1 .74 .84 .889‘ Amount of fees consumed, per lot, pounds. . . 3654 4174 3654 3654 3945 4981i Amount of feed consumed per 100 lbs. gain in dry lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463 424 503 466 583 465- l Table Zr-Shrinkage by lots and per cent., and dressing per cent. of hogs by lots. Lot 1 2 3 4 5 6* Final weight at College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1917 2214 2203 2280 2405 2303' Weights at Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1860 2120 2200 2260 2350 2240' Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 54 l 03 20 55 63' Per cent. shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .03 .024 .001 .0089 .023 .027 ' Dressing per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.64 75 .47 78. 18 79.20 78 .29 78. 12 Lot 7 8 9 10 l1 1.2 Final weight at College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2487 2651 2353 2475 1693 ‘ 2135 Weights at Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2370 2520 2280 2430 1540 2050 Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 131 73 45 153 ‘ 85= Per cent. shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .047 .049 .03 .018 .09 .04! Dressing per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.52 80. 15 79.82 77 .36 77.92 76.58» The shrinkage on these hogs was very light, except for Lot 11, receiving rice bran and cottonseeé 11103 The shrinkage on this lot w'as 9 per cent. and is very hea . Lot 3, receiving peanuts alone, shrunk so little that the amount 1S negligible. The dressing per cent. was very uniform for every lot. 10 TExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 3.—F1nancial statement. Lot 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total cost of feed._..._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 105.053 118.313 85.263 94.333 129.193 133.65 Cost of hogs at be inning, at $7.50 per cwt. 79.58 78.45 78.60 79.20 78.60 86.33 Cost of freight at 0.970 (per cwt . . . . . . . . . 4.02 4.64 4.62 4.78 5.04 4.83 Cost of corn at stock yar s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.25 1 .25 1.25 1.25 1.25 ' 1,25 Cost of yardage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 .79 .79 .79 _79 _79 Cost of insurance and inspection . . . . . . . . . .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.34 1 .34 1 .34 1 .34 1.34 1.34 Cost of labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.26 11.26 2.82 11.26 11.26 7.04 _Total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 203.34 3 216.093 174.74 3 193.003 227.52 3 235.28 Sellingprice at Fort Worth at310.90 per cwt. 202. 74 231 . 08 210 .10 229.39 238 . 52 246.34 Profit perlotui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $** .603 14.993 35.363 36.393 11.003 11.06 Lot 7 8 9 10 "11 12 Total cost of feed._.. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 129.463 132.523 130.253 132.243 52.893 93.255 Cost of hogs atbeginning, at $7.50 per cwt. 86.70 72.60 82.59 87.00 72.20 79.80 Cost of freight at 20.97c per cwt . . . . . . . . . 5.22 5.57 4.93 5.19 3.55 4.48 Cost of corn at stock yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .25 1 .25 1 .25 1 .25 1 .25 1 .25 Cost of yardage . . . . . ._ . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 .79 .79 .79 ,79 ,79 Cost of insurance and inspection. . . . . . . . .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .34 1 .34 1 .34 1 .34 1.34 1.34 Cost oflabor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.33 8.45 6.33 6.33 11.26 11.26 Total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 231.14 3 222.57 3 227.52 3 234.19 3 147.25 3193.02 Sellingprice at Fort Worth at 310.90 per cwt. 258 .33 274 . 68 248 .52 264 . 87 164 .20 223 .45 Profifper lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 27.193 52.113 21.003 29.683 16.953 30.43 Total profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3284.22 “FAn 81-pound pig taken out of Lotll on account of continously losing in weight instead of gaining. Espitrpdated value 8 cents per pound. oss. These results show that in every case the average daily gains were greater when the hogs were in dry lots after grazing peanuts than when they were on peanuts alone. It also shows that unusually good gains were made. The amount of feed required to produce 100 pounds of gain was practically equal to those lots not receiving any peanuts. The lots allowed to graze on peanuts 40 days previous to grain in dry lot also made better daily gains than Lots 2, 11, and 12, receiving a bal- anced grain ration during the entire 80 days. Hence, according to this test, a grain ration may be profitably fed to hogs that have previously been grazing on peanuts. COTTONSEED MEAL iPROVES SUCCESSFUL. Cottonseed meal was fed to Lot 2 in the proportion of 1 pound of cottonseed meal to 6 pounds of milo chops for 80 days without sick- ness or death. This result compares favorably with the results of four other experiments at this Station, where the same proportions were fed for similar lengths of time. Three of these experiments were com- pleted without deaths, and in the fourth one hog died at the end of 72 days with symptoms of cottonseed meal poisoning. Cottonseed meal and milo in this proportion is one of the best rations for producing gains that we have, because 100 pounds of gain has been produced with INFLUENCE OF PEANUTS AND Bron BEAN ON PORK. 11 417 pounds, 419 pounds and 426 pounds, respectively, in difierent experiments. a Although Lot 1, receiving milo chops alone, required a less amount of feed to produce 100 pounds gain than usual, it, nevertheless, was fed at a loss of 60 cents, while all the other lots were fed at a profit. THE KILLING TEST. At the beginning of the experiment, two average sized hogs were slaughtered, placed in the coolers at College Station at a temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit, and after 24 hours examined by the author and an expert meat cutter, and found to be firm. At the end of 40 days, four hogs that had grazed with Lot 8 011 peanuts were also slaughtered, placed in the cooler at freezing temperature for 24 hours, and all four hogs remained soft. They were allowed to remain in the cooler at the same temperature for 48 hours, and still they did not get firm and white, but at the end of this time were flabby, and presented an oily appearance. ' Since these hogs received nothing except peanuts and water, it may be inferred that the softness was due to the peanuts. , At the close of the experiment the hogs in each lot were double marked, with different hair brand and ear mark, so that errors would be avoided. The ration each lot received was not made known to the buyer or commission man, so that there was no chance for prejudice ‘against any particular lot. In fact, both the hog salesman, Torn Frazier, and the hog buyer failed. to pick out the lot that had been ‘fed on peanuts alone. These hogs were sold to Swift & Company, Fort Worth, Texas, sub- ject to killing test. The author, with the able assistance of J. K. G. Fisher, of Swift & Company, followed the hogs through the packing plant to the coolers. After they had been in the coolers for 24 hours, at a temperature of 32 degrees to 38 degrees Fahrenheit, each carcass was examined and each lot checked by an expert cooler man and myself.. All of the hogs in Lots 1, 2, 6, '7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 were pronounced - to be firm by the expert. In Lot 3, receiving a ration of peanuts alone, 9 were oily or soft, and 1 firm. In Lot 4, receiving 2 pounds of milo chops per 100 pounds live weight daily while grazing on peanuts, 5 were oily and 5 firm. In Lot 5, receiving 2 pounds of cottonseed meal and milo chops (in the proportion of 1 to 6) per 100 pounds live weight daily while grazing on peanuts, 5 were oily and 5 firm. In Lot 11, receiving a. full ration of rice bran, 10 pounds, and cot- tonseed meal, 1 pound, 4 were oily and 5 firm. (One hog in this lot was taken out before the end of the experiment, on account of sickness.) This indicates that peanuts will make soft or oily hogs, and that a half grain ration of milo and cottonseed meal will not prevent it from getting soft or oily. It also indicates that a ration of rice bran and cottonseed meal will produce soft or oily hogs. This corroborates results obtained by Prof. J. C‘. Burns of the Texas 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Experiment Station in 1909f“ when rice bran alone and peanuts alone were used to fatten hogs, both feeds producing soft or oily hogs. It also shows that if half of the rice bran is replaced by corn or milo, that the hogs will kill firm. These results also show that, although the hogs were soft after grazing on peanuts 40 days they killed firm after being fed rations 30, 45 and _60 days, thus showingthat the soft hogs can be made firm and satisfactory to the packer within 3O days on a grain rationf - MELTING POINT TESTS. 1n additio-n to this slaughter test, a further check was made. Sam- ples of fat were taken from the leaf, shoulder and along the back of three hogs out of each lot. Samples offat were also taken from the same places in the carcasses, from the hogs slaughtered at the begin- ning ofthe experiment and when coming off peanuts. These samples of fat were sent to the State Chemist, where the melt- ing point determinations were made with the following results. ‘Bulletin 131, Texas, Experiment Station. . . -‘_.._ . ..._n-vvnnnv l\l nuru 13 INFLUENCE OF PEANUTS AND R1012 BRAN ON YORK. #3 swam Ho “so $2 00.2.3. 89a swxfi 3.3 E2 was moan .8323? Mo pflom wfifiwfi unmkosm 0W0 Q 2V3 KO $543K 9E Nu? NQYNNA‘ N6? 5 \ Y I l” IIII- IIIIIIIIIIIIII ‘ ' kwwQ KS QNQNQQWR§Q§ . I "l! I-IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Q" BR QQR HQ \\§\\2\ \ Q? 1,1 m lbw 1111 [l I v1 I u W I N k on Q Q» n Q\>\Q\K LQQR stxwi Q\\<§w= sv>ww gmfi 33o \.\Q\\ 4 wxwc w_§® $36 . fiafisw Q3 s“ “x TQ W». “N TQ§ héa. an _Qu\k 32 TwL QQQ 3L m-» ui3$< 0Q,» hmwwbb 6n Q\\\ $6?» DQQ hsutu bxQxxb .QN . ~ \>\ Exwfi mi». mw Q3? .35 Q§N§ SQQ ¢Nb\Q s§§ ¥>3w~ QM? ‘ab? bQq 53w? W§$~ $9M fimwfi qvfi? Qbxfi QUNNW $3.0 Q». QQW w\§\\\.@. $05 QQR Q\\\.\ Esxxsu Qaxxsu $