A98-31 9-1 5M TEXAS AGRIITULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AGRICULTUITAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, President ~ BULLETIN NO. 242 MARCH, I919 DIVISION OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY Hardening Peanut-Fed Hogs B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR College Station, Brazos County, Texas STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION _ B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S.,_ Director A. B. CONNER, B. S., Vice Director/o J. M. Jonas, A. M., Assistant Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary _ _ _ W. T. Bmmg, B. S., ErecutivgAssistant in Charge of Library and Publication _ .................................. Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE _ *M. FRANCIS. D. V. M., Chief _ H. Scmma-r, D. V. S.. Veterinarian D. H. Banmzrr, V. M. D., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY _ _ G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief: State Chemist S. E. Asnunv. M. S., Assistant Chemist S. LOIANITZ, B. S., Assistant Chemist FRANCES‘ SUMMERELL, B. S.;Assistant Chemist WALDO WALKER, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE H. NESS. M. S., Chief _ _ W. S. HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist ANIMAL INDUSTRY _ J. M. Jom-zs, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations. . C. Bonus, B. S., Animal Hiisbandman in Charge of Beef Cattle Investigations (on leave) P. V. Ewmo, S., Animal Husbandman in Charge of Swine Investigations_ _ C. M. HUBBARD, B. S., Assistant Animal Ilusbandman W. L. MAYER, Poiiltryman W. A. DOUBT, Dairyman ENTOMOLOGY F. B. PADDOCK, M. S.. ChieL-State Entomologist H. J. REINHABD, B. S., Entomologist .............................. Assistant Entomologist AGRONOMY A. B. CONNER, B. S., Chief A. H. Lizinrcri, B. S., Agronomist E. W. Gavan. B. S., Agronomist H. H. LAUDE, M. S., Agronomist PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief FORESTRY E. OJSEICKE, M. F., Chief; State Forester PLANT BREEDING E. P. Iluunam‘, Ph. D., Chief FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief J AMES Sunuvms, Executive Secretary FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS Tm: DIRECTOR, Chief SOIL SURVEY "W. T. CARTER, Jn., B. S., Chief J. F. Srnoun, Soil Surveyor T. M. Busnuatn, B. S.. Soil Silrvryir oi’ ."';*r.";,.,; SUBSTATIONS No. 1. Beeville, Bee County I. E. COWABT, M. S., Superintendent No. 2. Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County E. B. Ravuouas, M. S., Superintendent No. 4. Beaumont, Jelferson C_ounty A. H. PRINCE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5. Temple, Bell County _ D.'T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent 6. Denton. Denton County _ C. H. MCDOWELL, B. S., Superintendent No. 7. S ur, Dickens County _ ) R. E. IDIcKsQN, B. S., Superintendent fAs of March l, 1919. No. s. ‘ Lubbock, Lubbock County . E. KARPEB, S., Superintendent D. L. Jonas, Scientific Assistant No. 9. Pecos, Reeves County J. W. Jackson, B. S., Superintendent No. 10. (Feeding and Breeding Substation) College Station, Brazos County J. W. JENNINGS, B. S_., Superintendent ............................ .., Scientific Assistant No. ll. Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent ' No. 12. Chillicothe, Hardeman County A. B. CRON, B S., Acting Superintendent V. E. HAifNEn, B. S., Scientific Assistant l4. Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties N . o E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent IIn cooperation with School of Agriculture, A. & M. College of Texas. ‘In cooperation with the School of Veterinary Medicine, A. i}: M. College of Texas. "In cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. CONTENTS iii PAGE Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Plan of experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Feeding results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Hogs sold guaranteed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Method of identifying hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Killing test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Shrinkage test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 HARDENING PEANUT-FED HOGS BY L. B. BUBK,* COLLABORATING ANIMAL HUSBANDMAN P. V. EWING, ANIMAL HUSBANDMAN, SWINE INVESTIGATIONS During the winter of 1916-1917 an experiment was conducted at this Station to ascertain whether soft pork produced by feeding peanuts could be profitably hardened by finishing the hogs on a grain ration. The results of this test showed that after hogs had been grazed on peanuts for forty days and then fed a balanced ration of milo chops and cottonseed meal for thirty days that they killed out firm. In order to secure corroboration of these results and to acquire some addi- tional information on certain phases of the soft pork problem, another experiment planned along similar lines was conducted in the winter of 1917-1918. OBJECTS The objects of this experiment were as follows: 1. To determine the effects on the quality of pork produced by feeding corn alone to 115-pound hogs. 2. To determine the quality of pork produced by feeding eighty days on corn and cottonseed meal. 3. To determine the length of time required to harden pork with corn and cottonseed meal after feeding peanuts alone for forty days. 4. To study the relative economy of feeding corn alone; corn sup- plemented with cottonseed meal; peanuts alone; and peanuts, followed by corn supplemented with cottonseed meal for periods of varying duration. i 5. To study the shrinkage of pork produced by feeding certain rations during the curing and smoking process. PLAN OF EXPERIMENT Sixty-two head of late spring farrowed pure bred Duroc-Jersey hogs were used in this test. At the beginning of the experiment they were in good growing condition and ranged from 100 to 130 pounds and averaged 1.15 pounds per head. In order to determine the quality of pork the hogs carried, two of them were killed at the beginning of the test. Four more hogs were killed after forty days on peanuts. The other fifty-six were divided into seven lots of eight head each. The experiment was begun November 29, 1917, and continued until February 20, 191.8. The several lots were not placed on feed at the *Resigned May 31, 1918. 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. same time, but since the total number of days of feeding ranged from sixty to eighty-five, they were placed on feed at periods so arranged that alljwould come off of the experiment at the same time. The feed- ing was to range from sixty to eighty-five days, so as to determine, if possible, what time was required to harden the pork after forty days feeding on peanuts. The hogs were weighed individually for three con- secutive days at the beginning and at the end of the peanut feeding period and again at the termination of the experiment. Complete rec- ordswere kept of all feeds consumed, also of the weights of the hogs by lots and by individuals. The seven lots of hogs were fed as follows: Table 1.—Feeding arrangement. v Lots Date started I First period of 40 days Second period Sotal ays - 1 Dec. 3 . . . . . . Corn alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corn alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 2 Dec. 3 . . . . . . Corn and cottonseed meal Corn and cottonseed meal (6:1). . 80 3 Dec. 3 . . . . . . Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4 Dec. 22 . . . . . . Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corn and cottonseed meal (6:1). . 60 5* Dec. 11 . . . . . . Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corn and cottonseed meal (6:1). . 70 ~ 6* Dec. 11 . . . . . . Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corn and cottonseed meal (6:1). . 70 7 Nov. 29 . . . . . . Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corn and cottonseed meal (6:1). . 85 ‘Duplicates. FEEDING RESULTS. While the main objects sought in conducting this experiment were as previously stated, it was also found desirable to secure as much ad- ditional information as possible on the results of feeding the several rations. Records were kept of all the feeds consumed, together with the resultant gains. From these figures were calculated the results of the feeding, as given in table 2. Table 2.——Results of experiment. Lots. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number hogs in lot . . . . . . 8 8 8 7 8 8 8 Days on feed . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 80 80 6O 70 70 85 Corn fed, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . 2826 2597 . . . . . . . . 1106 1226 1226 1672 Peanuts fed, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2569 1295 1283 1283 1142 Cottonseed meal fed, lbs. . . . . . . . , , 411 . . . . . . . . 135 210 210 281 Total feed fed, lbs . . . . . . . . 2826 3008 2569 2536 2719 2719 3095 Weight at beginning, lbs. . 886 879 882 819 989 920 854 Final weight at feeding pens, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1509 1628 1770 1484 1605 1675 1625 Selling weight, lbs . . . . . . . . 1470 1600 1730 ‘ 1430 1630 1630 1600 Gain or loss in shipping, y s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —39 —28 -—-40 —54 +25 —-45 —25 Amount per lot lost in dressing, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . 312 331 228 267 326 316 _ 282 Dressing per cent . . . . . . . . 78.80 79.32 87.40 81 .33 80.00 80.62 82.38 Warm weight, lbs . . . . . . . . 1158 1269 1502 1163 1304 1314 1318 Killed hard, number . . . . . . 8 8 0 5 7 6 8 Killed soft, number . . . . . . . 0 0 8 2 1 2 0 Gain on feed, lbs . . . . . . . . . - 584 721 848 611 641 710 746" Daily gain per head, lbs.. . 0.91 1.13 1.32 1.45 1.15 1.27 1.10 Dailyfeed per hog, lbs.... 4.4 4.7 4.0 6.0 4.8 4.8 4.5 Lbs. feed per 100 lbs. gain 484 417 303 413 422 383 415 HARDENING PEANUT-FED Hoes. 7i Table 2.——Results of experiment—continued. Lots 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 l 5 I 6 I 7 lpnitial value per pig at 11c ' i q per lb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 12.21 12.10 12.10 12.87 13.59 12.65 11.75 Cost of feed per pig*. . . .. $ 10.59 11.28 16.05 14.57 13.40 13.40 14.46 Marketing casts . . . . . . . . . $ 0.75 .75 .75 .75 .75 .75 .75 Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 1.00 » 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total cost per pig . . . . . . . . $ 24.55 25.13 29.90 29.19 28.74 27.80 27.96 Average selling price. . . . . $ 30.36 33.00 31.32 32.50 33.14 32.64 33.00 Actual profit per hog..... $ 5.81 7.87 1.42 A 3.31 4.40 4.84 5.04 Eaalseanuts rated at five cents per pound. Corn and cottoneed meal at three cents per pound In table 2 there are two or three points of special interest to the practical feeder. The least economical ration, so far as quantity of feed per unit of gain is concerned, was that made up of corn alone, as supplied in lot 1, in which the feed required per 100 pounds of gain amounted to 484 pounds. When corn was supplemented with ordinary cottonseed meal, as in lot 2, the feed required per 100 pounds of gain was only 417 pounds. Probably the most noticeable feature of these results is the very low feed‘ requirement per 100 pounds of gain when peanuts alone were fed. The amount, 303 pounds, is very low, but in previous experiments a very low figure has been secured, which bears out the fact that 300 pounds of peanuts will produce 100 pounds of gain. The inferior quality of the pork, however, which tends to be produced by feeding peanuts alone, together with the high price (five cents per pound) which was paid for peanuts, counteracted their high pork producing value to such an extent that they proved the least profit- able ration of the test. The average profit per hog in lot 3 amounted to but $1.42. The results of the experiment showed the most.profit- able ration to be the corn and ordinary cottonseed meal (6:1) which was fed to lot 2. A profit of $7.87 per pig was realized from this ration. It is a well established fact that a large percentage of hogs finished in sixty to ninety days on a ration of peanuts alone will chill soft or oily after remaining in the coolers from forty-four to forty-eight hours. All such hogs when sold guaranteed to chill firm* receive a discount of $2.00 or more per hundred pounds live weight on all of the leading markets if they do not chill firm. This soft condition can be over- come to a greater or less extent by finishing on grain rations balanced with cottonseed meal, wheat shorts, or tankage. Corn and cottonseed meal, when properly fed, tend to produce a hard fat. A great many feeders, however, have met with misfortune in feeding cottonseed meal to hogs and- do not wish to take the risk of feeding it again, in which event- tankage, wheat shorts, or meat meal may well be substituted. ' The hogs in lot 2, receiving a ration of corn and cottonseed meal in *Hogs sold guaranteed to chill firm are referred to on market as “Diamond G.” 8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. the proportion of 6 :1, made excellent gains for the entire feeding period of eighty days, none of them at any time showing signs of sickness. _ All of the other hogs that received the corn and cottonseed meal ration during a period of from twenty to forty-five days made good gains. These results add more strength to the argument that hogs may be fed ordinary cottonseed meal (forty-three per cent. protein) as one-seventh; of the ration for a period of from sevent to eighty days, with profit and with little risk of poisoning. ‘ At this Station six similar feeding tests, in which cottonseed meal has- supplemented a grain ration in the proportion of six to one, have been completed?‘ Fifty-five hogs in all have been fed for a period of from seventy-five to ninety-six days, only one hog dying. This hog died after being fed corn, six parts, and cottonseed meal, one part, for seventy-two days, the symptoms being those of cottonseed meal poison- ing. Cottonseed meal, at present prices, is one of the most economical available protein hog feeds on the market. While there is a certain amount of risk in feeding it, the results of these tests show that it is not very great. Enough cottonseed meal could be used to balance a corn or milo ration during the fattening period with comparative safety. Although care was exercised in dividing the hogs in order that all of the lots would be as nearly alike as possible at the beginning, lots 5 and 6 fed out quite difierently. These two lots received the same kind and the same amount of feed throughout the fattening period. The hogs of lot 6, however, gained practically nine pounds per head more in the seventy days than the hogs in lot 5. This indicates that the many irregularities, grouped under the general heading “individuality” are a factor not easily controlled in feeding tests of this kind. HOGS SOLD GUARANTEED The hogs were sold on the Fort Worth market “Diamond G,”or with an understanding that all hogs that chilled firm would be paid for at the rate of $16.50 per hundred live weight, while all that were pro- nounced oily by the Federal expert grader should receive a discount of $2.00 per hundred pounds live weight. All of the hogs graded doubt- ful or slightly soft by the packer expert were not as firm as desired but were not soft enough to require the discount. METHOD OF IDENTIFYING HOGS At the beginning of the experiment each hog was hair-marked in such a way that it could be easily identified at any time. Individual weights were taken throughout the test and a complete record kept. A few days before the hogs were shipped to market, the test number of each - hog was tattooed on each ear. The hogs of the various lots were. then given a hair-brand lot number so that each lot could be easily separated at the yards. After the hogs were slaughtered and scraped the tattooed numbers in the ears could be clearly seen, so no trouble was experienced *Bulletins 201, 224 and 228. Three tests, results unpublished. HARDENING PEANUT-FED Hoes. Y 9 in identifying the hogs of the various lots after killing. When the head was removed the ears were left on the carcass so that no possible mistake could be made in identifying the hogs after they had been chilled in the cooler. The same number tattooed in the ear was re- corded on the ham, shoulder, and belly with an indelible pencil while in the cooler before the carcasses were thoroughly chilled. This was done so that after the carcasses were cut the several pieces could still be identified. By using such identification marks before curing and smoking, it was possible to follow each piece through these processes with accuracy. KILLING TEST The hogs were bought by Swift & Company and killed as test hogs. After the carcasses had remained in the cooler forty-six hours they were graded by a packer cooler expert and also by a Federal government expert. The packer expert first graded the carcasses, after which they were graded by the government expert without knowledge of how they had been graded by the packer. Table 3.——Temperatures of cooler and meat during the period that the hogs were in the cooler Temperature of cooler at start of filling ........................................................................... .. 27° F. Number of cooler .................................................................................................................. .. 7 Times filled ............................................................................................................................ .. 6 Temperature of cooler 6 hours after killing ...................................................................... .. 38° F. Number of hogs in cooler .................................................................................................... .. 400 Temperature of hams ............................................................................................................ .. 60° F. Temperature of shoulders .................................................................................................... .. 61° F. Temperature of cooler 12 hours after killing .................................................................... .. 32° F. Temperature of hams ............................................................................................................ .. 46° F. Temperature of shoulders .................................................................................................... .. 47° F. Temperature of cooler 24 hours after killing .................................................................... .. 29° F. Temperature of hams ............................................................................................................ .. 36° F. Temperature of shoulders .................................................................................................... .. 37° F. Temperature of cooler when carcasses were cut (46 hours after killing) ...................... .. 30_° F. Temperature of hams ............................................................................................................ .. 33° F. Temperature of shoulders .................................................................................................... .. 33° F. The following table shows the grading of both the experts, the total per cent. shrinkage, in cure and smoke, and the melting points of fat samples from each carcass and the average firmness test readings. (See Bulletin 226 of this Station for description.) Table 4.—-The grading of hog carcasses after being in _the cooler 46 hours and a comparison between the grading and total loss 1n smoke and cure. (F —Firm; D—Doubtful ; O—Oily) Graded Graded Percentage Melting point Firmness Number of hog by packer by gov’t loss in cure iii tests expert expert and smoke back fat leaf fat reading Lot 1 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 01 38.8° C 40 5° C 2.4 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.5° C . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O F 6 1 31.2°C . . . . . . . . .. 3.8 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 1 3 305°C . . . . . . . . .. 4.2 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 4 30.5°C 41 9°C 1.6 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F _ F 4 30.1°C 40.5°C 1.8 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 3 6 34.4°C 40.8°C 2.2 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 3 9 39.3°C 41 5°C 2.6 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 loss 34 2° C 41 0° C 2.6 ~10 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. - lTable 4.-.—The grading of hog carcasses after being in the cooler 46 hours and a comparison ‘ between the grading and total loss 1n smoke and cure-wontinued. (F—Firm; D—Doubtful; O—Oily) . . Graded Graded Percentage Melting point Firmness Number of hog by packer by gov’t loss in cure tests expert expert and smoke back fat leaf fat reading " Lot 2 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . - - -- F F 6.2 38.8°C . . . . . . . . .. 1.4 71 - - - . - - . - . . . _ . . - - -- F F 3.7 37.5w: . . . . . . . . .. 1.0 43 - - - - - - . . . . . . . - . - -- F F 0.5 gain 391° c . . . . . . . . .. 2.8 69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 05331;, 37_ (1 427°C g_3 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D F 5.6 32.8°C 43.6°C 2.6 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 9.7 34.2°C 419°C 1.8 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 8.2 40 3°C 44.6°C 1.4 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 4.1 37 5°C 41.4°C 1.8 Average . - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 313° c 42.s° c 2.0 Lot 3 67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O O 10. 22.5° C 29 3° C 66.2 52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O O 7.7 26.5°C . . . . . . . . .. 42.4 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O 0 9.0 32.9°C 34.6°C 11.0 58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O O 10. 24.4°C 33.4°C 67.2 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O D 5.7 27.3°C . . . . . . . . .. 67.8 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O 0 3.6 26.6°C 38.3°C 57.0 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O O 6.5 27.9°C . . . . . . . . .. 20.2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O O 6.7 28 0°C 37 8°C 30.0 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.01055 27.0<> c 341° c 45.2 Lot 4 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F .008 36 9°C 41.3°C 2.4 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 1. 43 0°C 41.7°C 3.0 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 7. ' 28 4°C 40.3°C 3.6 63* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. not shipped 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O O 12. 30.8°C 39.0°C 21.6 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 7. 381°C 41.1°C 2.0 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O O .011 gain 28 8°C 38 8°C 4.6 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D F 4. 28 1°C 38 6°C 10.2 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5. 33.4“ c 40.1° c 5.9 Lot 5 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 4.9 36.3°C 43.2°C 4.0 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D F 5.8 34.6°C 395°C 10.0 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D F 3. 35.5°C 41.4°C 2.8 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D F 4.9 28.2°C 40.2°C 8.6 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 6. 39.0°C 44.4°C 3.0 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D F 3. 27.8°C 40.5°C 9.4 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O O 1. 28.0°C 39.5°C 24.6 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D F 6. 35 5°C 41.3°C 5.6 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4. 33 1°C 41.3°C 8.5 Lot 6 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 1.8 34.8°C 383°C .8 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D F 5.0 35.5°C 41.9°C 9.0 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 6.9 336°C 39.8°C 10.4 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F O 2.0 346°C 39.3°C 4.6 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .. D e 0 7.0 30.0°C 40.1°C 12.0 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D F 10.0 331°C 39.2°C 16.4 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 5.0 303°C 40.7°C 7.4 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F D 6.5 33.0°C 40.1°C 4.8 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5. 33.1° C 39 9° C 8.5 Lot 7 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 7.1 40.6° C 41.7° C 2.2 62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O F 5.2 34.3°C 42.1°C 11.4 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D F 6.8 40.7°C 41 0°C 4.0 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 4.3 36.8°C 41 8°C 1.6 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D F 6.7 35.3°C 41 3°C 11.4 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 1.8 37.8°C 45 3°C 4.0 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O F 4.2 40.2°C 43 6°C 5.8 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F F 4.38 33.3° C 41 3° C 10.0 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.9 37.4°C 42.3°C 6.3 . ‘This hog became crippled and was not shipped. _ HARDENING PEANUT-FED Hoes. 1\l_ The grading results show that hogs which have been fed similar feeds frequently chill out differently and the same ration apparently may produce both hard and soft pork. Although this variation is a matter that has caused a great deal of misunderstanding between the shipper and packer, the results of this and former tests indicate that such a condition may be expected and suggest strongly that other factors than feed are probably of importance. Throughout the entire test great care was taken to avoid mistakes and to guard against prejudices. None 0f the men at the yards or in the packing house knew how the lots had been fed. It will be noticed that one hog in lot 1 and two hogs in lot 7 were pronounced oily by the packer expert while they passed as firm by the government expert. On the other hand, two hogs in lot 6 were pro- nounced oily by the government expert and were passed as satisfactory by the packer expert. This shows that with only an arbitrary standard for a guide any two qualified men will vary somewhaton carcasses that are close to the dividing line. l A The results of the tests from the feeding pens to fresh pork cuts are shown in tables 2 and 4. The effect of the feed on the quality of pork is shown in table 2, from which it is seen that thirteen hogs out of thirty-five chilled oily. Lots 1, 2 and '7 chilled out satisfactorily. In lot 3, which received peanuts alone for eighty days, seven carcasses were classed oily and one doubtful. Two hogs graded as soft in lot 4, which had been fed peanuts for forty days followed by corn for twenty days. Three hogs out of sixteen killed soft in lots 5 and 6. Both of these lots had been fed peanuts for forty days followed by corn and cottonseed meal (6:1) for thirty days. In lot 7 all chilled firm, this lot having been on peanuts for forty days followed by corn and cotton- seed meal (6:1) for forty-five days. The average melting point for the back fat and the leaf fat for the several lots is given in table 5. These determinations were made by the junior author and checked by the State Chemist, Dr. G. S. Fraps. Table 5.—Melting points of back and leaf fat in degrees Centigrade. Back fat Leaf fat Lot 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.2 41 0 Lot 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.3 42 8 Lot 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.0 34 7 Lot 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.4 4O 1 Lot 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 41 3 Lot 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.1 39 9 Lot 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.4 42 3 The results indicate that under favorable conditions it is possible to harden carcasses on the grain mixtures herein reported after forty days feeding on peanuts alone. The results also show that the length of time required properly to harden a carcass may be as short as twenty days, but the hardness test and the melting point test show that the carcasses will be firmer if the grain feeding period is from thirty to 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. forty-five days in length. The resultant pork from these hogs was fol- lowed through curing and smoking. SHRINKAGE TEST Through the courtesy and cooperation of Swift 82; Company of Fort- Worth, which slaughtered these hogs, it was possible to make tests on ‘ the different cuts through curing and smoking to ascertain what dif- ferences might be encountered in these processes that would be trace- able to the feeds. After the carcasses had been graded and cut, they were followed, through the regular channels of curing and smoking and were handled: as test meats, being given the same treatment as the rest of the meat. All of these meats were put into cure February 23 and pulled from cure April 26, making a total of sixty-two days cure. Before going into smoke the sweet pickle bellies were given four minutes soak per day in cure; dry salt bellies, five minutes soak per day in cure; all hams, four minutes soak per day in cure; picnicsf‘ four and one-half minutes soak per day in cure. Two waters were used at a temperature- of seventy to seventy-five degrees. - ' Table 6.-—Time meats were left in smoke. Hours Dry salt bellies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Sweet pickle bellies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Ten pound down hams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Twelve pound over hams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 All picnics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Records and weights were kept on each cut. As a result of these records it has been possible to construct table '7 showing the percentage gains and losses for hams, shoulders, picnic shoulders, sweet pickle and dry salt bellies for the hogs fed on each ration. Table 7.—Percentage gains and losses in cigre la rid smoke and net percentage gains and losses y o s. Shoul- ‘ Picnic Sweet pickle Dry salt Hams ders I shoulders ellies bellies 2 i’ .2 5g g: g as C; g‘? g: g g3 01% m; m?’ =6 =8 “=3 3s 3s 82* "s: 3s gs ‘s; 8E é" s2» s; s1- 0.» .1.» 4e we w... Q... .1.» cu: 4.». ~15 ..:-e .1... .18 1 . . . . . .. 10.5 13.1 4.0 0.016.0 22.0 9.5 16.0 15.0 5.8 .78 8.0 8.3 2 . . . . . .. 11.9 11.4 .035 . . . . . . .. 2.718.0 8.6 16.0 17.0 4.3 3.3 7.0 10.6 3 . . . . . .. 7.3 11.4 5.0 6.312.015.9 5.4 7.0 16.010.5 3.7 6.9 10.9 4 . . . . . .. 11.9 11.5 1.0 1.01.3.8 20.0 9.2 11.6 23.0 13.7 5.6 7.0 12.9 5 . . . . . .. 9.0 12.0 4.1 1.7 25.6 20.0 0.5 10.9 16.7 7.8 2.1 7.2 9.6 6 . . . . . .. 9212.4 4.3 0.7 14.6 20.0 8.6 9.7 17.0 9.5 4.0 7.3 12.0 7 . . . . . .. 7.612.0 5.3 2.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.9 16.4 5.7 3.3 8.0 13.8 *Small selected shoulders cured as hams are cured. HARDENING PEANUT-FED Hoes. 13 In order to compare the results in the curing and smoking of meats ‘of different firmness the figures given in table 8 were calculated. The arrangement of the figures are in accordance with the firmness of the carcasses by test lots. The first column of figures shows the average of those carcasses that were firm, the next column of those that were medium firm, and the third represents the hogs that were distinctly oily. Table 8.——Percentage gains or losses in curing and smoking. Hard Medium Soft hard Hams; Gain in cure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.2 9.4 7.3 Loss in smoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.7 12.0 14.0 Netloss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._ . . . . . . . .. 1.5 3.6 6.7 ‘Shoulders: Loss in cure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.55 1 5 6.3 Picnics: Gain in cure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.3 18.0 12.0 Loss in smoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.0 20.0 15.9 Net loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Sweet pickle bellies: Gainin cure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.0 11.3 7.0 Loss in smoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.0 18 .3 16.0 Netloss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.0 7.0 Dry salt bellies: Loss in cure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.0 3.8 3.7 Loss in smoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.5 7.4 6.9 Netloss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.5 11.2 10.6 From these results it is apparent that the pork cuts gain in sweet pickle cure and lose in dry salt cure and smoke. In connection with hams, picnic shoulders, and sides in the sweet pickle cure, it is note- worthy that the hard meat takes on more weight than the soft meat. In the case of the hams and bellies, the gain by the soft meat is approxi- mately only half that of the hard. The loss in the smoke, however, is not greatly different in the three kinds of meat. The soft hams lost a little more than the hard, but losses on the picnics and bellies were less in the. smoke for soft meat after sweet pickle cure. In the case of dry salt cure used with the extra large shoulders and bellies, the shrink- age was always greatest with the soft meat, but the shrinkage on the sides in smoke after dry salt cure was l.ess for the soft meat than the hard. The net loss through pickle cure and smoke of all soft or oily meat in this test ranged from 3.9 per cent. to 9.0 per cent., an average of 6.6 per cent. loss. The net loss on all firm meat in this test cured and smoked in a similar manner ranged from zero to 5.7 per cent., an average of 2.4 per cent. loss. This shows that the net shrinkage through cure and smoke 0f soft 0r oily meat in thistest was 4.2 per cent. greater than for firm meat. The difference in net shrinkage between oily and firm sides that received the dry salt cure and then were smoked was -only 1.1 per cent. The large shoulders received only the dry salt cure 14 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. and were not smoked. The-soft or oily shoulders lost 6.3 per cent., while the loss on the firm shoulders was only 1.55 per cent. Considering‘ the‘ shrinkage by lots on all of the different cuts, and by all three methods of curing ithe net loss for lot 3, containing oily hogs only, was 8 per cent., while the net loss for the other lots aver- aged about 5 per cent. Although the number of hogs used was not large enough to warrant definite conclusions, much valuable informa- tion was secured and the results indicate what may be expected when large quantities of meat are cured. ' _ The results of this test confirm results of preliminary work, in which it was found that soft pork in sweet pickle cure gains less than firm pork. Since the gain is less in sweet pickle cure, and the loss in smoke practically the same, the total net loss on soft pork is greater than is the loss on firm pork. It was also found that the appearance of the finished soft product was not so good and that it was more flabby and softer than the firm hogs. These results indicate that the soft meat is of inferior quality, judging from its appearance after being cured and smoked, and from the fact that the shrinkage is greater through cure and smoke. SUMIMARY 1. The corn supplemented with cottonseed meal proved more profit- able than corn alone and, was the most profitable ration. _ 2i. The greatest gain per hundred pounds of feed resulted from feed- ing peanuts alone, which ration proved least profitable. 3. Hogs fed peanuts alone for eighty days produced soft pork. , 4. Most of the hogs fed corn and cottonseed meal for twenty, thirty and forty-five days after being fed for forty-five days on peanuts, chilled firm in the cooler. v 5. The melting points of the back fat averaged from six to eight degrees centigrade lower than the melting points of leaf fat. 5i 6. Peanuts alone fed to 115-pound hogs for forty days produced soft carcasses. .i '7. Ilogs made soft on peanuts were hardened by twenty days feed- ing on grain. Hogs chill firmer, however, if fed for thirty to forty-five days on grain~after being fed for forty days on peanuts. i. i 8. _ Soft pork gains less in sweet pickle cure than firm pork. 9. Soft pork shrinks more in dry salt cure than firm pork. 10. The difference in shrinkage of firm and soft meat through ‘smoke is about the same. a 11,]. The total shrinkage of soft meat during curing and smoking was}? per centI greater than the shrinkage of firm meat. f; i121” The rations fed apparently influenced the cured and smoked pork onlyoin so far as they affected the firmness of the meat. 1' The results show that the same ration or feed may frequently produce both’ hard and soft pork.