278-618-8m TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN NO. 228 MAY, I918 DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY INFLUENCE OF PEANUT MEAL ON EQUALITY OF PORK B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. AUKILULI UKAL AINU IVIILLHAINILAL LULLIZUIZ Ur IIZAAD W. B. BuzELL, A. M., D. C. L., President TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS JOHN I. GUioN, Ballinger, President HART, San Antonio, Vice-President Term expires 1919 Term expires 1919 L. J. E. H. AsTiN, Bryan... J. R. KuBENA, Fa etteville A. B. DAvinsoN, uero ....... .. WILL A. MiLLER, JR., Amarillo JonN T. DICKSON, Paris . A. BREmAN, Bartlett F. M. LAW, Houston ............................... .. . I! MAIN STATIC L. J. HART, Chairman Term expires 1919 Term expires 1921 Term expires 1921 Term expires 1921 Term expires 1923 Term expires 1923 ................................................. ..Term expires 1923 N COMMITTEE WiLL A. MiLLER, JR. GOVERNING BOARD, STATE SUBSTATIONS P. L. DowNs, Tem le, President. CnARLEs RocAN, ustin, Vice-President Term expires 1919 Term expires 1923 Term expires 1923 J. E. BOOG-SCOTT, Coleman. W. A. JOHNSON, Memphis Term expires 1918 *STATION STAFF ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S. Director A. B. CQNNER, B. S., ice Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary W. T._BRINK, B. S., Executive Assistant in Charge Library and Publication EDITH H. PHILLIPS, B. S., Technical Assistant DIVISION OF VETERINARY SCIENCE "M. FRANcis, . V. S., Veterinarian in Charge _ _ H. SCHMIDT, 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 OF HORTICULTURE H. NEss, M. S., Horticulturist in Charge W. S. HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY J. C. BuRNs, B._S.,_AnimaI Husbandman, Feeding Investigations _ J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Animal Husbandman, Breeding lmzesti ations _ P. V. EWING, M. 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. IEINRARD, B. S., Assistant Ento- mologist _ W. E. JACKSON, M. S., Assistant Ento- mologist County Apiary Inspectors R. C. Abernath , Ladonia; William Alch- ley, Mathis; . W. E. Basham, Barstow; T. W. Burleson, WaxahachimW. C. Col- lier, Goliad: E. W. Cothran, Roxton; G. F. Davidson, Pleasanton; John Donegan, Seguin; A. R. Graham Milano;J. B. King, Batesvilie; N. G. LeGear, Waco; A. Little, Pearsall; S. H. Stephens, Uvalde; M. B. Tally, Victoria; . atson, Heidenheimer; F. C. Belt, Ysleta; R. A. Nestor, Buffalo; J. E. Bush. San An- tonio; H. A. Jones, Oakdale; A B_owdon, Palestine; E. R. Jones, Bee- v e. DIVISION OF AGRONOMY A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Agronomist in Charge A. H. LEinicR, B. S., Agronomist "*H. H. JOBSON, B. S., Agronomist Louis WERuELsKiRci-iEN, B. S., Agronomist DIVISION OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAunENRAus, _Ph. D., Plant Patholo- gist and Physiologist in Charge DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY R. N. HARVEY, B. S., Poultrgman in Charge DIVISION OF FORESTRY E. O. SIEKE, M. F., Forester in Charge, State Forester DIVISION OF PLANT BREEDING E. . HUIBBBT, Ph. D., Plant Breeder tn Charge DIVISION OF DAIRYING W. A. DOUBT, Dairgman ""SOIL SURVEY T. H. BENTON, Soil Surveyor J. F. STRouo, Soil Surveyor DIVISION OF FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chi . JAuEs SuLLivAN, Executive Secretary J. H. RocERs, Inspector W. H. W000, Inspector S. D. PEARcE, Inspector . M. WICKES, Inspector . F. CHRISTIAN, Inspector . W SNELL, Inspector J . J. KELLY, Inspector SUBSTATION NO. 1: Beeville, Bee County I. E. C0wART, M. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 2: Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 8: Angleton, Brszoris County N. E. WINTERS, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 4: Beaumont, Jefferson County H. H. LAUDE, B. S., Superintendent G. PURvis, Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. 5: Temple, Bell County D. T. KiLLoucn, B. S., Superintendent _ SUBSTATION NO. 6r 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. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent DoNALn JoNEs, Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. 9: Pecos, Reeves County J W. JACKSON, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 10: (Feeding and Breeding Substation), College Station, Brslol County E. R. SPENCE, B. S., Animal Husbandman, in Charge of Farm. _ G. C. WARE, Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. 11: Nscogdoches, Nseog- doches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. l2: Chillieothe, Harde- man County *"*A. B. CRoN, B. S., Superintendent V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. 14, Sonora, Sutton County E. M. PETEns, B S., Acting Superintendent CLERICAL ASSISTANTS DAisv LEE, Registration Clerk (I. L. DuRsT, Mailing Clerk H. C. FRANKS, Stenographer W. L. HEARN, Stenographer ‘As of April 1, 1918. MAE BELLE EvANs Stenographer IRENE PEvERLEv. ' RUTH CAuPaELL. Steno rapher MARGARET SuELnoN, Copgisl Rirru LORD, Stenographer EsusA CAuPnELL, Stenographer H. L. FRAziER, Stenographer tenographer _!’fI_n cooperation with A. 6: M. College of Texas. VLTBULLETIN NO. 228 MAY, 1918 IIINFLUENCE OF PEANUT MEAL ON QUALITY OFPORK. L. B. BURK, GOLLABORATING ANIMAL HUSBANDMAN. During the spring and summer of 1916 an experiment was begun to _ determine the feeding values of peanut meal, ground whole-pressed peanuts, and cottonseed meal and to compare them as supplementsto t) milo chops in rations for fattening hogs. A report of ‘the first test was _ published in Bulletin No. 201. The test described here is a contin- uation of that experiment. Two feeds were fed in this test, however, I that were not used in the previous one, namely, rice bran and rice polish. OBJECTS The objects of this experiment were: 1. To obtain additional information pertaining to feeding pea- nut meal and ground whole-pressed peanuts to hogs. 2-. To compare peanut meal and ground whole-pressed peanuts with cottonseed meal as a supplement to milo chops. 3. To compare rations of milo chops and cottonseed meal with one composed of rice bran, rice polish and cottonseed meal in re- spect to gains produced and quality of pork. a HOGS USED Sixty pure bred Duroc-Jersey hogs were used. They weighed an i average of 120.5 pounds at the beginning. They were divided equally into six lots of ten each. WEIGHIN G The hogs were. weighed by lots for three consecutive days at the beginning and at the end of the experiment. From the averages of ’ these weights were obtained the initial and the final weights, respectively. In addition, the hogs were weighed every week. ‘ on June. 11, 1917. TIME The duration of this experiment was seventy-five days, beginning with the evening feed on March 28, 1917, and closing with the morning feed RATIONS i d The feeds were proportioned as follows: Lot 1. Milo chops, 6 parts. Cotton seed meal, 1 part. 4 ‘ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL .EXPERIBIENT STATION. Lot 2. Rice bran, 4 parts. Rice polish, 4 parts. Cottonseed meal, 1 part. Lot 3. Milo chops, '2’ parts. Peanut meal, 1 part. Lot 4. Milo chops, 1 part. Peanut meal, 1 part. Lot 5. Milo chops/Qé- parts. Ground whole-pressed peanuts, 1 part. Lot 6. Milo chops, 2 parts. Peanut meal, 1 part. Two weeks were used in starting-these hogs on full feed, after which they were given all they would clean up twice each day. cosr OF FEEDS The cost of feeds at the beginning of the test were: Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$51.50 per ton. Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.00 per ton. Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.00 per ton. Rice polish . . . . . f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.00 per ton. Peanut meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.00 per ton. Ground whole-pressed peanuts . . . . . . . . .. 38.00 per ton. Table l.--Composition of feed used. _ Nitro- . Feed. Water. Protein. Fiber. qen-frcc Fat. Ash. extract. Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.38 13.41 14.49 37.82 15.34 12.56 Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.21 11.38 2.41 71.86 3.06 2.08 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. O1 4.2. 63 10. O5 28. 51 6. 96 5.84 Peanut meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.24 49.69 4.89 25.62 10.47 4.09 Ground whole-pressed peanuts. . . .. 5.49, 35.56 22.63 23.17 9.67 3.84 Table 2.—Digestible nutrients in feeds used. Carbohydrates Feed. Protein. —-—-—-_-——- Fat, Fiber. l N.-f. e. Rice bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.71 3.62 29.87 11.81 Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.21 1.32 66.11 2.32 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.81 3.72 21.38 6.61 Peanut meal. . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.72 4.40 21.52 9.44 Ground whole-pressed peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.24 2.71 11.34 8.70 w --.-< --.-.-,w‘,,¢ g , Table 3.—Results of experiment in condensed form. INFLUENCE or PEANUT MEAL ON QUALITY OF PORK. 5 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Milo chops Rice bran _ _ 2.5 parts, _ ' Milo chops 5 parts, lMllo chops Milo chops ground M110 chops Rations fed. 6 parts, rice polish 7 parts, 1 part, whole- 2 parts, cottonseed 5 parts. peanut peanut pressed peanut meal cottonseed meal meal peanuts meal 1 part. meal 1 part 1 part. 1 part. 1 part. 1 part. Number of hogs in each lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1O 10 10 10 1O 10 Weight per hog at bc- - ginning . . . . . . . . . . .. 121.0 120.8 120.5 120.2 121.5 119.2 Wei ht per hog at close 235.1 197.2 244.0 217.5 235.6 218.1 Tota gain per hog.... 114.1 76.4 123.5 97.3 114.1 98.9 Average daily gains... 1.52 1.01 1.64 1.3 1 .53 1 .31 Total amount of feed consumed . . . . . . . . . 5027 3515 5080 4017 5081 3896 Feed consumed per 100 pounds gain . . . . . . . 440 460 411 412.8 441 338.8 Amount of feed con- sumed daily per pig. 6.7 4.69 6.77 5.35 6.77 5.0 Cost of feed for 100 i I pounds gain . . . . . .. $11 . 14 $ 9.10 $10.42 $ 9.95 $10.51 $ 9.30 Lot 6 on peanut meal alone, average daily gain (22idays), .54 pounds. Lot 6 on peanut meal s, milo chops 1%, average daily gain, 1.64 pounds. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Owing to the fact that many inquiries have been received regarding the feeding of peanut meal alone, it was attempted with lot 6 and carried on for twenty-two days. ' The results of the test showed very clearly that it was not‘ advisable to feed such rich protein feed alone. On the second day after the pigs received peanut meal alone they began scouring, and they seemed to lose their appetite. The hair and the behavior of the pigs showed a lack of thrift. At first the feed was cut downwith the hope that the pigs ivould soon become accustomed to it and that it could be increased gradually. The pigs ate so little and appeared so sick that it was deemed advisable to change the ration. Even in such a bad condition, they had ‘made an average daily gain of .54 pounds. After twenty-two days the pigs were fed a mixture of two pounds of milo chops to one pound of peanut meal, and the average daily gain from then on to the end of the experiment (fifty-three days) was 1.64 pounds. Immediately after the mixture was changed the pigs began to consume more feed, scouring was stopped, and the gains were more rapid. In lots 2, 4 and 5 it was also noticed that the hogs scoured occa- sionally. It was attributed to too much peanut meal in lots 4 and 5, and to tl1c rice bran and rice polish in lot 2. Peanut meal in this test, when used to balance ground milo, gave very good results. Based on the amount of feed required to produce 100 pounds of gain, peanut meal was more eflicient than cottonseed meal even when it was used as a third and a half of the ration instead of just enough to balance the milo as was done in lot 3 with a mixture of seven parts milo chops and one part peanut meal. 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. In lot 3 hogs fed a mixture of milo chops and peanut meal in the proportion of seven to one required twenty-nine pounds less feed to produce 100 pounds gain than lot 1, receiving a ration of milo chops and cottonseed meal in a proportion of six to one. Lot 4, fed a mixture of equal parts of peanut meal and milo chops, required 27.2 pounds less feed than was required with lot 1, and lot 6, receiving a mixture of milo chops and peanut meal in the proportion of two to one, required fifty-eight pounds less feed to produce 100 pounds of gain than lot 1. Lot 5, receiving a ration of milo chops, 2.5 pounds, and ground whole- pressed peanuts, one pound, required just one pound of feed more than lot 1 to produce 100 pounds of gain. ' * The hogs in lot 2, receiving the feed mixture of rice bran, rice polish and cottonseed meal, made the smallest average daily gain and required a larger amount of feed to produce 100 pounds gain than any of the six lots. On account of the smaller amount of feed consumed and the cheaper price of the feed, however, 100 pounds of gain was produced with less cost than any other lot. The rations with reference to average daily gains ranked as follows: 1. i Milo chops, '7 parts; peanut meal, 1 part . . . . . . .1.64 2. Milo chops, 2:,‘- parts; ground whole-pressed pea- nuts, 1 part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1.53 3. Milo chops, 6 parts; cottonseed meal, 1 part. . . . .1.52 4. Milo chops, 2 parts; peanut meal, 1 part . . . . . . . .1.31 5. Milo chops, 1 part; peanut meal, 1 part . . . . . . . .1.3 6. Rice bran, 4 parts; rice polish, 4 parts; cotton- seed meal, 1 part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1.01 KILLING TEST The hogs were slaughtered by Armour and Company. After the car- casses had remained in the cooler for forty-eight hours, they were exam- ined and all except one were pronounced firm by the packer experts. When they were cut they were re-examined and graded as follows: Lot 1. All firm. Lot 2. All very soft. Lot 3. Good firm hogs. Lot 4. Soft and oily. Lot 5. Soft not oily. Lot 6. Very soft. The samples of fat were tak'en from the back shoulder and leaf and the melting points of each determined. It may be noticed that all of the melting points in the 1917 test were slightly lower than those in the 191.6 test, with the exception of lot 1. In the 1916 test all of the hogs in each lot were pronounced firm. Since lots 1, 3, 4, 5 of the 1917 test were fed exactly the same rations as lots 2, 3, 5, 6 of the 1916 test, the same results would naturally be expected. The lots re- INFLUENCE or PEANUT MEAL 0N QUALITY OF PORK. '2’ ceiving milo chops balanced with peanut meal and cottonseed meal were very similar in both tests. The lot receiving equal parts of peanut meal and milo killed soft in the 1917 test and passed as firm in the- 1916 test. The melting points of the fats shown in the chart are a little lower in the 1917 test but the difference is so slight that it would indicate that hogs fed peanut meal in large quantities would sometimes kill firm and at other times kill soft. In other words, they would. be classed as doubtful hogs. TlzxAs ‘AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. .233 d2 awn 32m . canon oww Jfiww munson 00H pom woasmqoo wowrm duqsom and 655a H Java uwwwnoppoo “mwnson w dmo ammwcionxw Mo A8293 owofio cum Aokwonmv wfinfiwmn. 3w H QOQIIH wwrm 62mm 33w om§$>< no ozalwfi nfifim ENCE OF PEANUT MEAL ON QUALITY OF PoRK. INFL 2.55m oww a dobdw i: 3Q :85 qwmw 2.5.3 ooH .82 uwfiswmoo uowh H.526 H .308 wowwnofloo $353 m 52:5 mo ¢mwfiv$nxw we H8203 wmSQ cum Hwkwonmv wfiqfimwn p“ m pOwHIIN w“ 2.56m Ho. E “wunzon m m H a 61mm EMS. mm9$>< amps wofillufi noSmm 1O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. c‘ U06 #1:. |<¢o dnfl(lfu. dunsom Haw éfiw 25:3 ooH .25 coaswnoo uwwh Jnwaiwmxo we Cvofionv wwofio can .325 H Java @3223 “wwwsom T323 oflaliuou flofisfi $2.83 wfiafiwwp Hm m Balm Em 11 F PEANUT AIEAL ON’ QUALITY OF PORK. INFLUENCE 0 2.55m wNHw . 0 1.10 0 w; J3 awn 62m 3mm wwcsoa ooH pun uwfismmoo comb ¢ venom H Q dumlon m H imam .222. ¢w¢$>< 13E fiflnwmm £56m H .336 oifiluww nofitwm acofiimnwm mo H3223 wwo? was e@>.O@fi@ mficfiwwn “E w wO1H||¢ m5 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. dUQSOQ 3% a 625w J2 8Q 32m nwmw muusoa ooH 3Q wwfiswmoo amok .953 H 328mm uowwonm $153 unsohw a .2555 mmé munson m QQQEEQQNQ Mo A3293 owe? can 28525 mmwmfimwn um m poAllm wE N .323 can 53m n23. ow§o>< l3. noBdM 13 INFLUENCE 01-‘ .PE.ANIJT MEAL on QLnuJTY OF PORK. w ucsom w ddfi; J3 mom 88m . wwm Jsmw 355cm ooH pom uofiswcoo woorm 656m H .368 gunman Hwunson N . wE JQQEEQQNQ we A3225 32o was Ao>onwv mmfizbmon Hm w uOQl w dunsoa HmH Jnmw ~52. mm§o>< wmono ozalloow uowpmm 14 Inxas AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 4.—Average melting points (degrees centigrade) of fats taken from three hogs of each lot. 1917 test. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Shoulder fat A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.9 29.3 34.9 26.9 34.2 30.0 Shoulder fat B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.1 27.1 31.6 27.3 31.3 35.5 Shoulder fat C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 .5 28.0 28.0 27.3 28.6 28.3 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.2 28.1 31.5 27.2 31.3 31.2 BackfatA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.9 29.1 37.8 27.5 35.2 29.8 BackfatB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.3 27.5 33.9 28.4 ‘ 34.5 29.3 BackfatC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.9 28.0 29.8 27.1 28.6 28.5 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.3 28.2 33.8 27.6 32.7 29.2‘ LeaffatA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.1 39.6 42.1 38.6 40.1 38.5 LeaffatB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1. 45.0 38.8 39.6 38.0 40.1 39.3 LeaffatC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.4 37.1 38.8 36.5 38.3 39.3 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.5 38.5 40.1 37.7 39.5 39.0 Table 5.—Comparison of two tests when the hogs received similar rations. 1916, 1917 1916 1917 1916 1917 1916 1917 ‘é £3 £2 £15 £3 $78 {*3 if s... Q h O $- 08 s. m i- v1 s. g q; cu q {'3 =1_ c: cu Q, w Q, m 3*; cu OJ QQ ma‘ 0“ 0.7“ 0.0 0.0 0.._ ,__ 0.5g v o o c) c 0 a: 0 $- “1 , Q o c: v 0' 35E 355 o0 o0 “QQO- H700. a0 1:0 w w >7. 5a "6 e "E v °a ‘>1 w-c w-c 3 o w o ma: g m4: g a, o m a. 0.8 0.8‘ w E w E 0.3 , n? 0E 0E o "1 Q "1 ON» on.» ¢~g£ Q-g-g ow o» .5 C.‘ .1: G c g o g .42 g .42 g .42‘ g .12.‘ g °°+$ °°...i "=0 ‘=0 Qgc: "g: “s: “c: 0% 0% is o°g o3 o5 x30. =30 =0. m0. 0:500. 05:0. a0. :0. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Number of hogs in each Qt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 10 10 1O 10 10 10 10 Weight per hog at begin- ning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125.8 121 125.0 120.5 125.8 121.5 129.6 120.2 Weight per hog at close. . 222.9 235.1 218.9 244.0 220.4 235.6 239.3 217.5 Total gain per hog . . . . .. 97.1 114.1 93.3 123.5 94:6 114.1 109.7 97.3 Average daily gains . . . . . . 1.26 1 52 1 .21 1 .64 1.228 1.53 1.424 1 .3 Total amount of feed con- I ' sumed . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4050 5027 4050 5080 " 4050 5081 4035 4017 Feed consumed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 440 434 411 428 441 368 412.8 Amount of feed consumed perprg . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.26 6.7 5.25 6.77 5.26 6.77 5.24 5.35 Cost_ 0f eed for 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 5.33$11.14$ 551$ 10.4215 5383510513 5.423 9.95 Profit per hog . . . . . . . . .. 3 50.20 3 81.80$ 49.00 $ 93.40$ 48.208 89.20 $ 55.603 88.20 F’ Average for two tests. Average gain penhog. . .. . . . . . .. 105.6 . . . . . .. 108.4 . . . . . .. 104.3 . . . . . .. 103.5 Average ally gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.39 . . . . . . . 1.42 . . . . . . . 1.38 . . . . . . . 1.36 Average amount of feed consumed per 100 lbs. gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428 . . . . . . . 422 . . . . . . . 434 . . . . . . . 390.4 Average amount _of feed consumed per pig . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.98 . . . . . .. 6.01 . . . . . .. 6.01 . . . . . .. 5.29 In comparing the results of the two tests where the lots were fed under almost identically the same conditions and within two days of the same feeding period, it may be noticed that three of the 1917 lots consumed almost 1000 pounds more feed in the same length of time than those in the 1916 test. The fourth lot consumed practically the 15 INFLUENCE 01v PEANUT MEAL ON QUALITY OF Form. 5C 53A n.0< .._<._ .0403 ~02 .?.,.4 44440010 4.0: w dflrfluP Pzudufia 04E. E 0:04.25 kzuaufiza 9C n00: LC P &z:_fiZ 20.: PIOdm 0:... &z_>>onn...ra 011:0 hOZ PLOW QK< FLOP.‘ id?“ .1004 >35 2.5L 4.; . 18 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. SUMMARY Lot 3, fed a ration of milo chops, seven pounds, and peanut meal, one pound, produced the largest daily gain and required practically the same amount of feedto produce 100 pounds gain as the ration com- posed of equal parts of milo and peanut meal. Cottonseed meal and ground whole-pressed peanuts gave practically identical results when fed in connection with milo chops. Rice bran and rice polish produced the smallest total gain, the small- ' est average daily gain, and required the largest amount of feed t0 produce 100 pounds gain of the six lots. This feed also produced very soft hogs. The cost of 100 pounds gain was the smallest. This test indicates that when peanut meal is fed with milo chops in the proportion of one pound peanut meal to six pounds milo, the hogs will kill firm, while a larger proportion of peanut meal may cause the hogs to be classed as soft or oily. The amount of feed saved by feeding more peanut meal than is required to balance the ration is not worth the risk of being docked $2.00 per hundred for oily hogs. Peanut meal, whenfed alone, produced scours and the hogs did not make satisfactory gains. A ration of two parts milo chops and one part peanut meal made the most economical gains but the hogs were classed as very soft. These hogs were sold without a guarantee and consequently no dock- age was made. Had they been sold under guarantee and docked $2.00 per “hundred for all soft and oily hogs, the discount would have been $110.30. Hogs fed a mixture of milo chops and cottonseed meal in the pro- portion of six pounds milo chops to one pound of cottonseed meal were classed as firm. When soft or oily hogs are docked $2.00 per 100 pounds live weight, the milo chops-cottonseed meal mixture is 83 per cent. more profitable than the rice bran-rice polish-cottonseed meal mixturef The milo chops-peanut meal mixture (seven to one) is 112 per cent. more profitable than the rice bran-rice polish-cottonseed meal mixture. The milo chops-peanut meal mixture (seven to one) is 95 per cent more profitable than the milo chops-peanut meal (two to one) mixture and 132 per cent. more profitable than the milo chops-peanut meal (one to one) mixture. ~