TEXAS AGRICULTURAL E ENT STATION AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, President ' BULLETIN NO. 305 FEBRUARY, 1923 DIVISION OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS Al93-223-14M-L TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, Preside! BULLETIN NO. 305 FEBRUARY, 1923 DIVISION OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS PART I Experiment I. Three Methods of Pig Raising Experiment II. Dried Buttermilk for Growing Pigs PART II Experiment III. Cottonseed and Cottonseed Meal for Fattening Pigs Experiment IV. Peanut Grazing and Seif-Feeders for Fattening Pigs Experiment Protein Supplements in Fattening Rations for Pigs B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION B YOUNGBLOOD. M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Vice Director and Chief Division of Agronomy CHARLES A. FFZLKER, Chief Clerk A. S WARE. Secretary A. D. JACKSON. Executive Assistant i; CHARLES Gdnzvcm. Technical Assistant M. P. HOLLEMAN. JR., Assistant Chief Clerk -R. N. BURROWS, M. A., Research Librarian VETERINARY SCIENCE *M. FRrwcis. D. V. M., Chief H. Scnmm", D. V. S.. Veterinarian V J. BRAUNER, D. V. M , Veterinarian CHEMISTRY G. S FRAPs. Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S F. ASBURY, M S., Assistant Chemist IS LOMANITZ. B. S.. Assistant Chemist WALDO WALKER. Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE H NFSS. M. S. Chief W. S. HoTcRKiss. Horticulturist ANIMAL INDUSTRY J. M Jovizs. A M.. Chief R. M. Sherwood. B S.. Poultry Husbandman R. WARREN, B S.. Swine Husbnndman G J. L Lusn. Ph. D., Animal Hushandman (genetics) L. J. D. SUNKEL, Dairyman M MURPHY. Wool and Mohair Specialist ENTOMOLOGY M. C. TANQUARY, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H J REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist H. B. PARKS, B. S., Apiculturisl C. S. RUDE. B S , Entomologist A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder AGRONOMY A B. CONNER, B. S., Chief A H. Lennon, B. S., Agronomist E. B. -BF.vNnLos, 1W. S., Agronomist G. N. STROMAN, M. S., Agronomist; Farm Superintendent **PEARL DBUNIMOND, Seed Analyst PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief COTTON BREEDING G. F. FREEMAN, D. Sc., Chief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS L P GABBARD, M. S., Farm and Ranch Economist SOIL SURVEY **W. T. CARTER, JR., B. S., Chief H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor H. V. GEIB, B. S., Soil Surveyor FEED CONTROL SERVICE B YouNcBLooo. M S , Ph. D , Director F. D. FULLER, M S.. Chief Inspector S. D. PEARCE, Inspector J H. Roe-Ens. Inspector W. H W000. Inspector J. J. KELLY, Inspector SUBSTATIONS No. l. Beeville. Bee County I. E. COWART, M S., Superintendent No. 2. Troup, Smith County W. S. Horcmnss, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent No. 4. Beaumont, Jefierson County A. H. PRINCE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5. Temple, Bell County I D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent No. 6. Denton, Denton County P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7. Spur, Dickens County R E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent TA: of February l, 1923. No. 8. Lubbock, Lubbock County R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent No. 9. Balmorhea, Reeves County J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent No. 10. College Station, Brazos County (Feeding and Breeding Substation) L. J. MCCALL, Superintendent No. 11. Nacogdoches Nacogdoches County G. T. MCNESS, Superintendent "*No. l2. Chillicothe, Hardeman County A. B. CRON, B. S , Superintendent No. 14. Sonora. Sutton-Edwards Counties E. M. PETERS. B. S., Su erintendent D. H. BENNETT, V. M. ., Veterinarian *In cooperation with School of Veterinary Medicine, A. and M. College of Texas. "In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. tOn leave. CONTENTS PART I . Page. Experiment I: Three Methods of Pig Raising Time; Pigs Used; Method of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..9, 10 Feeds and Pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..10 Individual Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..12 Summary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14, 15, 16 Financial Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1’7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Experiment II: Dried Buttermilk for Growing Pigs a Objects; Time; Pigs Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19 Feeds; Method of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1.9 Summary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..21, 22 Summary Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART II I Experiment III: Cottonseed and Cottonseed Meal for Fattening Pigs Time; Objects; Pigs Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..25 Feeds; Method of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Summary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..26 Shrinkage; Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2'? Experiment IV: Peanut Grazing and Self-feeders for Pattening Pigs Time; Objects; Pigs Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..28 Feeds; Methods of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..28, 29 Individual Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3O Summary Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..31 Melting Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Killing Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [I34 Shrinkage; Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 Experiment V: Protein Supplements in Fattening Rations for Pigs Time; Objects; Pigs Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..36 Feeds; ‘Methods of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..36, 3'7 Individual Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Summary Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..39 Melting Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GU40 Killing ITest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Shrinkage ; Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 BULLETIN No. 305 FEBRUARY, 1923 SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS GENERAL INTRODUCTION This Bulletin is divided into two parts. Part I is devoted to two tests in which‘ young growing pigs were used. Part II deals with fin- ishing rations in three different tests» A total of twenty-three differ- ent feed combinations, or rations, have been tried. Reference to the appropriate summary tables will show the results obtained with each ration. Tankage, cottonseed meal, peanut meal, wheat shorts, and 'dried buttermilk were the protein supplements used. The basal feeds used were corn chops, milo chops, rice bran, and rice polish. One lot was finished on peanut grazing alone, one lot was partly finished on peanuts and completed on a grain ration, and three lots were finished on free-choice self-feeders. All experiments herein reported were conducted at the Feeding and '- Breeding Station, Substation No. 10, College Station, Texas. In most cases the lots have been fed at a profit over feed costs. It is thought advisable to submit the results in the form of tables showing the feed requirements per hundred pounds of gain, rather than the cost per hundred pounds of gain or profit or loss per lot. The cost of feeds varies greatly from year to year, but the number of pounds of any given ration required to produce a hundred pounds of gain is not subject to such varying fluctuations. Hence, this method of reporting the results is thought to be less misleading than would be the use of - tables showing the profit or loss per lot or the cost per hundred pounds of gain. By noting the amount of feed required to produce a hundred pounds of pork, the pork producer can, easily calculate the cost with prices prevalent at any particular time or place. PART I FEEDING GROWING PIGS EXPERIMENT I THREE METHODS OF PIG RAISING BY G. R. WARREN INTRODUCTION The feeding demonstration here reported was conducted to secure accurate data on an application of a well-known swine feeding prin- ciple, namely, that it pays to supplement the grain sorghums (or corn) with a protein concentrate and pasture. Accurate data were secured r on the entire life of each of the three litters used and-the following report of the results gives an impressive picture of the kind of pigs that might be expected from improper, as Well as proper, methods of feeding. While this test was of necessity limited to three litters, it is nevertheless indicative of results generally arising from similar meth- ods of feeding on farms. Pigs do not thrive on the grain sorghums alone, but the addition of a palatable protein concentrate and pasture is invariably followed by a liberal response in growth if the pigs are healthy. In connection with health, it is Worth while to mention that the general stimulative effect of pasture, as well as its feeding value, is of primary importance to the pig. The general physical condition of pigs on good, clean pasture is highly favorable to rapid growth and economical use of the concentrates fed. The milo-tankage mixture used in this test is a good simple ration, but there are numerous oth- ers equally as good and many even better. Growing pigs should al- ways receive some protein supplement along with their corn or the grain sorghums. Twenty-seven pounds at eight months of age was the greatest weight reached by any pig fed grain alone in this test. TIME OF TEST This test was begun on March 18, 1921, when the pigs were farrowed, and continued until November 17, 1921, when they were 245 days old. Pres Usnn Three mature, purebred, Duroc-Jersey sows of similar size, type, and breeding and their respective litters, sired by the same herd boar, were selected for the test. The dams were fed together during the ges- tation period. At birth, there was no noticeable difference between the three litters as to type, but the Lot 1 pigs were slightly larger than the pigs in the other two litters. When the pigs nrere reduced to eight in each litter, they represented a comparison of as much fairness as might be expected from any three litters. One pig was mashed to death in Lot 2 on the fourth day, leaving only seven pigs in that litter. 10 . A BULLETIN N0. 305. ‘METHon OF PROCEDURE The pigs were divided into three lots, each lot containing one sow and he-r litter. The litters in Lots 1 and 3 were farrowed during the evening of March 17th and the litter in Lot 2 during the evening of March 19th. All pigs were given an individual ear number and weighed when twenty-four hours old. The dams were also weighed twenty-four hours after farrowing their litters. Individual weights were taken each fifteenth day throughout the test. All Weighings were made just before the morning feed was given. A record was kept of the feed consumed by each lot. A portion of the feed placed in each lot was put in the regular trough and the balance placed in a creep for the pigs, but since the pigs ate from. both troughs a record of the amount consumed by’ the dam alone was not obtained. Lots 1 and 2 were in dry yards 720x50 feet and had access to shade and clear water in the barn at all times. Lot 3 was on a half-acre grass pasture and had access to a small house and clear water at all times. The feed was given twice daily to all lots as a fresh, thick slop. The two litters on dry yards were full fed at all times, while the litter on pasture Was fed a somewhat limited concen- trate ration. Since the pigs in Lot 1 fed grain alone were very ir- regular in the amount of feed that they would clean up, it was decided to feed their ration dry in a trough near their drinking water, in order to avoid waste from sour feed and inaccuracy from weighing back wet feed. Dry feed was kept in their trough at all times. Lots 2 and 3 were not difficult to keep on regular feed. The lots were fed as follows: Lot 1. Milo chops alone on a dry yard. Lot 2. Milo chops 9O per cent. and tankage 10 per cent., on a dry yard. Lot 3. Milo chops 90 per cent. and tankage 10 per cent., on a half-acre grass pasture. Lot 1A. Same as Lot 1 (after weaning only). Lot 1B. Same as Lot 3 (after weaning only). The boar pigs were castrated when they were thirty days old. Each litter was weaned when the pigs were seventyi-five days old. At wean- ing time, the pigs in Lot 1 were so small and undeveloped it was decided to divide the lot and change the ration for half of them. Ac- cordingly, the lot was equally divided into two lots, and designated Lot 1A and Lot 1B. Lot 1A was a continuation of Lot 1, using only four of the pigs in the litter. Lot 1B contained the other four pigs in the litter and was given a ration and pasture identical with that of Lot 3. Fnnns AND PASTURE Bright No. 2 milo grain of good quality was secured for the test. It was ground into medium fine chops as needed. Swift’s Digester Tankage was used. ‘Fxventy-fixre dollars per ton for milo chops and seventy dollars per ton for tankage are considered average local prices for the period covered by the test, and these figures were used in cal- culating the feed costs. i The Lot 3 pigs were grazed on oats until weaning time. From wean- SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 11 ing time until September they were on Sudan grass. Owing to a scarcity of Sudan pasture, it was necessary to graze them on a half- acre plot of Bermuda grass after September 1st. The Lot 1B pigs were grazed on Sudan pasture from weaning time until the test closed. During the suckling period and for about two months after weaning, the‘ pasture was excellent, but owing to dry, hot weather it was not very succulent after that time and furnished rather poor grazing during the last few months of the test. Since it was necessary to shift from pasture to pasture in order to have good grazing, it was impossible to determine the cost of the pasture used. However, forty cents per sow and litter per month prior to weaning time and ten cents per pig per month after weaning time were decided upon as fair charges for the quality of pasture utilized. These figures were used in calculating the total cost of pasture per lot. ' iThe following table gives the percentage composition of the concen- trates fed: Table 1. Percentage composition of feeds used. ~ ‘ Nit 0- Feeds Protein Fat Crude gen-liree Water Ash No. of fiber extract analyses Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.62 2.76 2.50 71.15 ‘ 11.05 1.92 2 Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.50 9.17 2.79 3.51 8.06 17.97 2 (Analyses by Dr. G. S. Fraps, Station Chemist.) ' Table 2. Individual weights in Lots 1,* 1A, and 1B. (Milo chops—dry lot.) Weight Weight Weight Weight Average daily gain, lbs. Dates Weighed Mar. 18, May 31, Aug. 14, Nov. 17. _ _ pounds pounds pounds pounds To Since Since (weaned) weaning weaning birth Age of pigs in days . . . . . . . 1 75 150 245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sow pigNo. 65 . . . . . . . . . . 3 22 78 215 .253 1 135 869 Boar pig No. 66 . . . . . . . . . 3 25 16 62 187 . 170 1 006 750 Boar pig No. 67. . . . . . . . .. 3 25 24 50 86 231 283 1 215 .929 Boar pig No. 68 . . . . . . . . . 3 25 2 60 175 22 .912 .701 Boar pig No. 69 . . . . . . . . . 3 18 50 17 _ 16 220 (loss) .015 053 Boar pig No. 70** . . . . . .. 3 17 ~ 16 . . . . . . .. 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Boar pig No. 71 . . . . . . . . . 3 25 50 25.50 27 .0 .098 Sow pig No. 64 . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 21 20.5 253 (loss) .009 071 Average per pig. . . 3 09 20.69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weight of dam . . . . . . . . . . 322 206 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .547 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (loss) *This lot was divided into'two equal lots at weaning time and designated Lot 1A and Lot 1B. _The ration for Lot 1B was changed to milo chops, tankage, and pasture. Lot 1B contained pigs numbered 65, 66, 67, an 68. _ **Pig No. 70_ ied September 14th, a few hours after weighing time, apparently of starva- tion, although it had access to milo chops at all times. 12 " BULLETIN N0. 305. Table 3. Individual weights in Lot 2. (Milo chops—tankage—dry lot.) Weight Weight Weight Weight Average daily gain, lbs. '_ Mar. 20, June 2, Aug. 16, Nov. 17, _ _ Dates weighed pounds pounds pounds pounds To_ Since Since (weaned) weaning weaning birth Age of pigs in days . . . . . . . 1 75 150 243 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sow pig No. 82 . . . . . . . . . . 2.75 19 38 113 " .217 .550 .454 Sow pig No. 83 . . . . . . . . . . 3.25 26.50 63 152 .310 .747 .612 Sow pig No. 84 . . . . . . . . . . 2.75 24.50 43 136 .290 .663 .548 Boar pig No. 85 . . . . . . . . . 3 29.50 74 172 .353 .848 .695 Boar pig No. 86 . . . . . . . . . 2.50 33.50 86 173 .413 .830 .701 Boar pig No. 87 . . . . . . . . . 2.50 21 70 , 168 .247 .875 .681 Boar pig No. 88 . . . . . . . .. 2.25 3.50 69 185 .417 .902 .752 Average per pig. . . . 2.71 26.79 63.29‘ 157 .321 .775 .635 Weight of dam . . . . . . . . . . 382 342 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .533 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (loss) Table 4. Individual weights in Lot 3. (Milo chops——tankage—pasture.) I Weight Weight Weight Weight Average daily gain, lbs. ~ _ Mar. 18, May 31, Aug. l4, Nov. 17, _ Dates weighed pounds pounds pounds pounds To_ Since Since (weaned) weaning weaning birth Age of pigs in days . . . . . . . 1 75 150 245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sow pig No. 73 . . . . . . . . . . 2.75 39 95 231 .483 1 129 .932 Sow pig No. 74 . . . . . . . . . . . 2.75 41 87 235 .510 1 141 .948 Sow pig No. 75* . . . . . . . .. 2.25 42 100 . . . . . . .. .530 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sow pig No. 76 . . . . . . . . . . 3. 45 103 265 .557 1 294 1 068 Sow pig No. 77* . . . . . . . .. 2.50 40 101 . . . . . . .. .500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Boar pig No. 78 . . . . . . . . . 2 35 92 222 .440 1 100 .898 Boar pig No. 79 . . . . . . . . . 3.25 46 113 282 .570 1 388 1.138 Boar pig N0. 80 . . . . . . . . . 3 43 104 259 .533 1 271 1.045 Average per pig... . 2.72 41 38 99.38 249 .515 1 221 1.005 Weight of dam . . . . . . . . . . 312 244 . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . .907 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (loss) *Due to overheat, No. 75 died on August 20th, and No. 77 on September 23. Their records are discarded from the tables that report data on this litter after weaning. INDIVIDUAL WEIGHTS Tables 2, 3, and 4 show.the individual Weights or" the pigs and dams. They also show the average daily gains made by the pigs t0 weaning time, after weaning time, and from birth to the close of the test. The damswere removed from the test when the pigs were weaned. Table 2 shows the weights of the pigs in Lot 1 until weaning time and the weights of the pigs in Lots 1A and 1B after Weaning time. The first four pigs listed in the table were put in Lot 1B after weaning time. The last four pigs in the table constituted Lot 1A after Weaning time. It is interesting t0 note that the pigs iii this lot just about maintained their body weight during a period of 170 days after Weaning time. Reference to the last line in each table shows considerable variation in the average daily loss per dam in the (lifferent lots. There is some difference, noidoubt, due to the greater natural tendencies of some sows to lose more Weight during the suckling period than do others. However, the exceptionally large loss made by the dam in Lot 1, fed grain alone, was due largely to the fact that she could not be induced to SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. “l3 FIGURE 1. Lot 1. Lot 2. Lot 3. 2O pounds. 26 pounds. 41 pounds. Average pig from each lot at weaning time, 75 days old. FIGURE 2. Lot 3. Lot 2. Lot l-A 249 pounds. 157 pounds. 21 pounds. Average pig from each Tot at close of test, 245 days old. 14 BULLETIN N0. 305. consume as niuch grain as was consumed by the sow in Lot 2. The addition of tankage iii Lot 2 made the ration more palatable and the sow consumed more feed and maintained better condition than did the sow in Lot 1. The concentrate ration for the Lot 3 sow was limited in order to force her to utilize more pasture. The tables show that her average daily loss was midway between the losses made by sows 1 and 2. DEVELOPMENT or THE PIGS A fair idea of the development of thepigs in the several lots can be obtained by reference to the individual weights in Tables 2, 3, and 4. However, there are a few facts that these tables and the pictures do not show. At Weaning time, Lot 1 contained bunch of scrawny, long-nosed, pitiful looking pigs. They were fairly active and showed no swelling of the joints or abnormal developments, other than that they were weak and very thin. There was very little change in their appearance during the 1'70 days following weaning. The development made by the four pigs taken from this litter and placed in Lot 1B at weaning time is shown by their xveights in the first part of Table 2. During the first two months that they were on pasture they were very “pot-bellied,” but after they had been. on pasture for some time they smoothed up and finished into a uniform lot. At the close of the test they had much the same appearance as did the pigs in Lot 3. The Lot 2 pigs presented the greatest variation in size and finish of any pigs in the test. At the close of the test, they ranged in weight from 113 to 185 pounds and varied in degree of finish from a medium stocker pig to a well fattened market ‘pig. It seemed that no two of them carried a similar degree of finish. The Lot 3 pigs showed more uniformity of size and were remarkably uniform in degree of finish. At no period of the test was there any marked tendency for the pigs to put on finish at the expense of growth or to continue growth at the expense of finish. Table 5. Summary of results from birth of pigs to weaning time. Avera e Average Average Average Feed per 100 lbs. gain No. pigs A e in initia weaning daily daily by the litter Lot per ays weight weight gain feed No. litter when per pig, per pig, per pig, per pig, _ Total, weaned pounds pounds pounds pounds Kinds, pounds pounds 1 8 75 3.09 20. 69 .235 .91 Milo chops 388.8 388.8 (Dry lot) 2 7 75 2.71 26.79 .321 1.50 Milo chops , 422.5 469.5 Tankage 47.0 (Dry lot) 3 8 75 2.72 41.38 515 1.10 Milo chops 190.9 212.1 Tankage 21.2 (Pasture) REsULTs TO WEANING TIME. Perhaps the most important point brought out in the summary of the results to weaning time is the difference in the average weaning weight per pig in the different lots. The pigs in Lot 1 averaged 20.69 pounds in weight at a feed cost of $0.86 per pig; those in Lot 2 averaged A SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 15 26.79 pounds, at a feed cost of $1.67 per pig; While those in Lot 3 averaged 41.38 pounds, at a feed and pasture cost of only $1.34 per pig. The average cost per pig and the grain required for 100 pounds of gain by the litter are based on the total feed consumed by the dam and litter. No account is taken of the fact that there was a great dif- ference in the loss of weight by the different dams. Lot 2 perhaps shows at a slight disadvantage, due to the death of one pig on the fourth day, which left only seven pigs in this lot. It should be es- pecially noted that the average weight per pig in Lot 1, fed on milo chops alone on a dry lot, was only half the average weight per pig in Lot 3, which had access to pasture and received a protein supplement in the ration. Good, growthy pigs cannot be produced on a dry lot with grain alone. Table 6. Summary of results from weaning time to close of tet. Average Average Average Average Feed per 100 lbs. gain Lot No. pigs No. weaning final daily daily by the lot N0. per lot days weight weight gain feed per pig. per pig. per Dis. per Dis. _ Total. pounds pounds pounds pounds Kinds, pounds pounds 1A 3 170 22.00 21.2 .005 .594 Milo chops 303 Lost (loss) (Dry lot) weight 1B 4 170 20.62 202.0 1.067 3.384 Milo chops 285.5 Tankage 31.7 317.2 , (Pasture) 2 7 168 26.79 157.0 l .775 2.825 Milo chops 328.0 Tankage 36. 5 364 . 5 (Dry lot) 3 6 170 41.50 249.0 1 .221 4.363 Milo chops 321.7 Tankage 35 .7 357 . 4 (Pasture) RESULTS AFTER WEANING TIME The data in Table 6 are based upon the number of live pigs per lot at the close of the test. As noted elsewhere, one pig died in Lot 1A and two in Lot 3. This table shows that the Lot 1A pigs consumed an average of only .594 pound of grain per pig daily. This was not sufiicient to maintain their body weight, as is shown by the avelrf- age daily loss of .005 pound per pig. Reference to Table 2 shows that in Lot 1A, one pig gained slightly and two lost slightly in body weight during this period. The largest average daily gain was made in Lot 3. The second largest daily gain was made by Lot 1B. The fact that Lot 1B made the second largest daily gain, exceeding by one- fourth pound per pig per day the gain made in Lot 2, fed on. the same grain mixture but without pasture, is a strong argument in favor ' of the pasture furnished Lot 1B. The lowest feed requirement per 100 pounds of gain was in Lot 1B. That they surpassed Lot 3 in this respect is partly due to the fact that they consumed a relatively large amount of forage and a small amount of grain during the first month or so that they were on pasture. A 16 BULLETIN N0. r305. Table 7. Summary of results from birth of pigs to close of test. _ _ Avera e Average Average Average \ Feed per 100 lbs. gain Lot No. pigs A e 1n initia final daily daily . by the lot No. per lot ays‘ weight weight gain fee _ “ per pig, per pig, per pkg, per pig, _ _ Total, pounds pounds poun s pounds Kinds, pounds pounds 1A 3 245 21.2 .074 .691 Milo chops 930. 6 930. 6 , (Dry lot) 1B 4 245 3. 19 202.0 .812 2.627 Milo chops 294.8 Tanka e 28.9 323.7 (Dry ot—pasture)* 2 7 243 2.71 157.0 .635 2.418 Milo chops 342.7 Tankage 38. 1 380. 8 Dry lot) 3 6 245 2.83 249.0 1.005 _ 3.362 Milo chops 301.1. Tankage 33 . 5 334. 6 (Pasture) *_Lot 1B contains four pigs from the litter that received milo chops alone on a dr lot until weaned. After weaning time, these fourgeceived a ration of 90per cent. milo c ops and 10 per cent. tankage on pasture. RESULTS or ENTIRE PERIOD Table 7 summarizes the results from the birth of the pigs to the close of the test. This table shows that the Lot 1A pigs attained a final average Weight of only 21.2 pounds per pig on a feed require- ment of 930 pounds of grain per 100 pounds of gain, as against a final average Weight of 249 pounds per pig on a feed requirement of’;334 pounds per 100 pounds of gain in Lot 3. Lot 1A was fed grain alone on a dry yard, While Lot 3 was fed a balanced ration on pasture. The results are too striking to be overlooked. Feeding grain alone on a dry yard is not a satisfactory method of pork production. Feeding a Ebalaneed ration on a dry yard in Lot 2 proved some better than the grain-alone method in Lot 1A. But the final average Weight of 157 pounds per pig on a feed requirement of 380 pounds per 100 pounds of gain in Lot 2 does not compare favorably to the results obtained in Lot 3 on pasture in addition to the balanced ration. The pigs in Lot 1B, which Were fed grai11 alone on a dry yard until Weaning time a11d changed to a balanced ration on pasture after Weaning, made a final average Weight of .202 pounds per pig on a feed requirement of 333 pounds per 100 pounds of gain. They required about a month longer toreach the market Weight of 200 pounds per pig than did the Lot 3 pigs. Thus, the Lot 3 method of utilizing a balanced ration and pas- ture from the birth of pigs to market size is superior to the other meth- ods, in that it saves a month of labor and produces pigs ready for the earlier market, which is usually the best. SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 17 Table 8. Financial results. Lot 1A 1B 2 3 _ Milo chops* _ Milo chops (dry lot) Milo chops Milo chops Rations fed (dry lot) milo-tankage tankage tankage ‘ (pasture) (dry lot) (pasture) Average cost of feed per pig. . . .. $ 2.12 $ 9.34 $ 8.67 $ 12.15 Average cost of pasture per pig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.57 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.69 Average cost of feed and pasture per pig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.12 9.91 8.67 12.84 Average final value per pig . . . . . . . . No value 13.64 10.21 17 .43 Profit orlossperpig.............. 2.12 3.73 1.54 4.59 (loss) *Lot 1B changed at weaning time from milo chops on dry lot to 9O per cent. milo chops and 10 per cent. tankage on pasture. FINANCIAL RESULTS o Table 8 gives a financial statement based upon prices prevalent dur- ing the period of the test. The profits shown are profits above feed and pasture costs alone. No account is taken of the value of the‘ manure, cost of labor, interest, depreciation, marketing costs, etc. It is well to point out that the pigs in Lot 1A, which were eight months old and weighed an average of only 21.2- pounds each, had no sale value and that the entire cost of this lot Was practically ‘a loss. The final value per pig in each. of the other three lots was calculated from the following prices per hundred pounds of live weight: Lot 1.B, $6.75; Lot 2, $6.50; and Lot 3, $7.00. It is recognized that the pigs in Lots 1B and 2, though lighter than those in Lot 3, would have sold for as much per pound on some markets as would have the Lot 3 pigs; yet it is thought fair to give the heavier pigs the higher value per hundred pounds of live Weight, since they reached the best market weight much earlier than did the lighter ones. Under these conditions, the profit per pig was $3.73 in Lot 1B, $1.54. in Lot l2, and $4.59 in Lot 3. Strange as it may at first appear, it is well to note that the profit per pig in the different lots was in the same order as the feed cost per pig, that is, the greater the cost per pig, the greater the profit per pig. This is not necessarily alivayis true, but pork producers should not be misled by the false belief that pigs should be produced by the cheapest possible method. The method followed should be based upon both the cost of production and the value of the product produced. Lot 1A represents a comparatively inexpensive method of pig raising if the costs alone are considered, but when it is noted that the pigs produced have no sale value the method is clearly very uneconomical. Lot 3 represents a method involving greater expense; nevertheless, pigs produced by this method can ordinarily be sold at a fair profit rather than at a loss. If Table 8 is sufficient to generalize from, it shows that the pork producer who does not care to go to the expense of pro- viding pasture and balanced rations for his pigs should not be dis- appointed if his profits are relatively low. - 18 BULLETIN N0. 305. THE Pres IN Lor 1A The three scrawny pigs alive in Lot 1A at the close of the test were continued under observation. No. 64, which weighed only 16 pounds, was continued on the dry lot with milo chops alone and died as a result of malnutrition on January 19th, at which time it was ten months old and weighed only 14 pounds. No. 69, which weighed 20.5 pounds, was put on oat pasture and fed the milo tankage ration of Lot 3. No. 71, which weighed 27 pounds (the only Lot 1A pig that had gained in weight since weaning time), was put on oat pasture ‘and continued on milo chops alone. N inety-two days later, the one re- ceiving tankage in addition to milo chops had consumed 529 pounds of concentrates and weighed 162 pounds, while the one receiving milo chops without a supplement had consumed 552 pounds of grain and weighed only 154 pounds. By the use of the tankage supplement, No. 69, which weighed 24 per cent. less than No. 71 when the two were put on pasture, gained to a weight of nearly five per cent. heavier than No. 71, which received milo chops alone on pasture. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This practical feeding demonstration brings out clearly, as have a great number of similar tests, the fact that pasture and balanced rations are essential factors in economical pork production. At eight months of age, the average weight and profit per pig in the different lots were as follows: Lot 1A. Milo-dry lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 lbs., no sale value Lot 1B. Milo-dry lot to weaning time and milo-tankage-pasture after wean- ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..202 lbs., $3.73 profit per pig Lot 2. Milo-tankagedry lot . . . . . . . . . . . .157 lbs., $1.54 profit per pig Lot 3. Milo-tankage-pasture . . . . . . . . . . . .249 lbs., $4.59 profit per pig SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 19 EXPERIMENT II DRIED BUTTERMILK FOR GROWING PIGS BY D. W. WILLIAMS?!‘ AND G. R. WARREN INTRODUCTION Dried buttermilk is a feed of considerable importance at the present time, and while it seems to be used in greatest amounts by poultry raisers, yet there is a large amount being used by swine raisers also. There is very little known in regard to the feeding value of this feed for growing pigs, and it was with this fact in mind that this experiment was conducted. OBJECTS 1. To study the relative value of dried buttermilk and tankage as supplements to milo chops and also as supplements to milo chops and wheat shorts, in feeding growing pigs and in finishing pigs for the market. . 2. To study the value of additional variety in protein supplement by using both buttermilk and tankage with milo chops and shorts. TIME The experiment began on November 15, 192-1, and ran for a period of 155 days, closing on April 19, 1922. Pros UsEn Sixty pigs, representing three breeds, were used in this experiment. They were divided among the breeds as follows: Poland-China, six in each lot; Duroc-Jersey, two in each lot; and Tamworth, four in each lot. All of the pigs were farrowed during September and they were started in the experiment as soon as they were weaned. The handling of the litters previous to weaning had been as near the same as possible. FEEns UsEn All the feeds used were of good quality. The percentage composi- tion of the feedsused is shown in the following table. ‘Professor of Animal Husbandry, in charge of swine, School of Agriculture, Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. 20 BULLETIN N0. 305. Table 9. Percentage composition of feeds used.* _ Nitrogen-- Feeds Protein Fat Crude free Water Ash fiber extract _ Milo chops . . . . . . .. 12.40 2.44 2.39 71.28 9.96 1.53 Wheat shorts . . . . . . ' 16.48 4.22 9.24 53.46 10.34 6.26 Dried buttermilk**. 33.41 6.50 .50 33.42 12.45 13.72 Tankage . . . . . . . . .. 63.10 8.38 2.61 .64 8.34 i 16.93 *Analyses by Dr._G. S. Fraps, Station Chemist. **Furn1shed by Mistletoe Creameries, Fort Worth, Texas. lllnrrron or PROCEDURE. The sixty pigs were weaned and started on the experiment at once. They were divided into five lots, consideration bei.ng taken of breed, Weight, sex and breeding. Litter mates were distributed among the several lots. Three individual Weights were taken on successive days at the be- ginning and close of the experiment. An average of these three weights was considered the initial and final Weights, respectively. The test was considered as starting with the evening feed of the third day of the initial weighings and closing with the morning feed of the third day of the final weighings. During the progress of the experiment in- dividual weights were taken every fifteen days. The pigs Were fed in dry lots, having no access Whatever t0 any pasture. They were fed all they would clean up twice daily, the feed being given as a thick slop. The feeds used in the five lots were as follows: Lot 1. . Milo chops and tankage. Lot 2. Milo chops and dried buttermilk. Lot 3. Milo chops, shorts, and tankage. Lot 4. Milo chops, shorts, and dried buttermilk. Lot 5. Milo chops, shorts, dried buttermilk, and tankage. In determining the amount of the protein supplement to use in each of the lots the nutritive ratio of each ration was kept the same. The nu- tritive ratio used at the beginning of the test Was 1 :44. This was wid- ened on January 2-9, 1922', to 1 :4.8, and on March 30th again widened to 1 :5.7. The amount of shorts in Lots 3, 4, and 5 was kept constant. The following shows the ratio of milo chops to shorts, to dried but- termilk, and to tankage in pounds: Table 10. Feed combinations used. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot Lot 4 Periods Let 5 Nov. 12 to Jan. 29.. 7:O:O:1 7:O:2.75:O 7:2:O:.95 7:2:2.7:O 7:2:l.4:.48 Jan. 29 to Mar. 30.. 9:O:O:1 9:9:2.75:O 9:2:O:.95 9:2:2.7:O 9:2:1.4:.48 Mar. 3O to April 19.. 14:O:O:1 15:O:2.75:O‘ l5.5:2:O:.95 17:2_:2.7:O 17:2:1.4:.48 SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 21 DEATHS AND REMOVALS During the progress of this experiment there was a great deal of rain, which meant damp, cold concrete floors. This was probably the chief cause of the deaths and removals. - December 20, 1921, Tamworth barrow No. 40, Lot 5, died of pneu- monia. December 22, 1921, Poland-China gilt No. 57, Lot 3, died of pneu- monia. February 13, 1922, Poland-China barrow No, 32, Lot 3, removed because of rupture. March 30, 1922, Duroc-Jersey barrow No. 60, Lot 3; Duroc-Jersey giltNo. '73, Lot 3; and Duroc-Jersey gilt No. '75, Lot 5, were removed on account of unthriftiness. The following tables are a summary of the results: Table 1'1. Summary of first period. (75 days) Avera e Average Average Average Feed per 100 lbs. gain Lot No initia final daily daily N0. pigs weight weight gain feed per pig, per pig, per pig, per 1T3. p Total pounds pounds pounds pounds Kinds, pounds pounds 1 12 29.4 63.7 .46 1.63 Milo chops 311.8 Tankage 44. 6 356 .4 2 12 29.0 59.8 .41 1.34 Milo chops 234.3 Dried buttermilk 92.0 326.3 Milo chops 276.7 3 11 30.5 61.8 .42 1.64 Shorts 79.1 393.3 ‘ , Tankage 37.5 Milo chops 195.2 4 12 29.7 62.2 .43 1.42 Shorts 55.8 326.3 - Dried buttermilk 75.3 Milo chops 212.6 5 11 30.5 69.5 .52 1.71 Shorts 60.7 330.4 Tankage 14.6 Dried buttermilk 42.5 Table 12. Summary of second period. (80 days) Avera e Average Average Average Feed per 100 lbs. gain Lot No. initia final daily dail No. pigs weight weight gain_ fee _ per 111g. per mg. Per we. per 111g. _ Total pounds pounds pounds pounds Kinds, pounds pounds 1 12 63.7 131.2 .84 _ 3.37 Milo chops 363.1 Tankage 35.9 399 . 0 2 12 - 59.8 136.4 .96 3.16 Milo chops 216.4 » Dried buttermilk 68.8 330.2 Milo chops 311.4 3 8 69.1 134.8 .82 3.27 Shorts 59.4 399.0 Tankage 28.2 Milo chops 240.0 1 4 12 162.2 136.0 .92 3.17 Shorts 44.3 344.1 " Dried buttermilk 59.8 Milo chops 283.5 ' 5 10 71.7 141.9 .88 3.39 Shorts 53.1 386.5 Tankage 12.7 D-ied buttermilk 37.2 22 BULLETIN N0. 305. Table 13. Summary of entire test. (155 days) Average Average Average Average Feed per 100 lbs. gain Lot No. initial final daily dailgr No. pigs weight weight gain fee _ per pig, per pig, per pig, per pig, _ Total pounds pounds pounds pounds Kinds, pounds pounds 1 12 29.4 131.2 .66 2.53 Milo chops 345.9 - Tankage 38 .8 384. 7 2 12 29.0 136.4 .69 2.28 Milo chops 253.6 Dried buttermilk 75.5 329.1 Milo chops 290.8 3 8 34.6 134.8 .65 2.49 Shorts 63.7 384.8 . Tankage 30.3 Milo chops 226.3 4 12 29.7 136.0 .69 2.32 Shorts 47.8 338.7 Dried buttermilk 64.6 Milo chops 255.4 ‘ 5 10 31.6 141.9 .71 2.58 Shorts 55.2 362.6 Tankage 13.3 Dried buttermilk 38.7 Table 14. Cost of producing 100 pounds of pork. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Milo chops, _ _ Milo chops, Milo chops, Milo chops, shorts, Period Milo chops, dried shorts, shorts, tanka e, tankage buttermilk tankage dried drie buttermilk buttermilk First period—75 days. . $5.24 $7 . 53 $5 .77 $7 .04 $6.13 Second period—80 days 5.62 6.71 5.63 6.65 6.58 Entire period—155 days 5.49 6.94 5.50 6.78 6.35 Milo chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 25.00 per ton. Gra wheat shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.00 per ton. Tan a e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.00 per ton. Dried uttermilk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.00 per ton. SUMMARY It was noted from the first that lots receiving the larger percentages of dried buttermilk would not consume amounts of feed as large as those being fed tankage. Lot 2, receiving dried buttermilk and milo chops, was especially easily thrown ofi feed. This lot scoured some during the first month, but later there was no trouble of this _ nature. There was no material difference in the appearance of the pigs on the several lots at the close of the experiment. So far as the average daily gain was concerned, there was little difference from the rations used. The most striking difference shown in the test was in the amounts of feed required per 100 pounds of am. g There was no advantage gained by adding shorts to the ration. Very little importance should be attached to Table 14, which shows the cost of producing 100 pounds of pork in the various lots. The relative costs of feeds vary a great deal over comparatively short periods of time and the best ration to be used will depend on local feed prices. Actual feed costs as they prevailed during the experiment are given above. PART II iii- RATIONS FOR FATTENING PIGS EXPERIMENT III -COTTONSEED AND COTVIDNSEED MEAL AS SUPPLEMENTS _ TO MILO CHOPS FATTENINGP PIGS BY G. R. “TARREN AND D. W. WILLIAMS TIME or TEsT This experiment was begun January 16, 1921, and continued for a period of 120 days, closing May 15, 1921. OBJECTS The objects of this experiment were: 1. To study and compare the feeding values of cottonseed, cotton- seed meal, and tankage as supplements to milo chops When fed to hogs in finishing rations. . 2. To determine whether a ration one-fourth of which is cottonseed can be used for fattening hogs without fatal results. Pros UsEn AND THEIR PREVIOUS TREATMENT Forty purebred Duroc-Jersey barrows and gilts raised by the Experi- ment Station were used in this test. Six barrows and four gilts were used in each lot. They were all farrowed in September, 1920. Until the beginning of the test, the feed _and management of all pigs were the same. During the suckling period they were fed on milo chops and tankage. _Shortly after weaning time, they became somewhat stunted by the use of ear corn without a proper protein supplement. This accounts for their light weight at the beginning of the test.~ Later, milo chops and tankage were secured and they were fed a ra- tion of these feeds until the test began. . FEEDs UsEn The feeds used were purchased as No. 2 red milo grain; Swift’s Digester Tankage, 60 per cent. protein; and choice cottonseed meal, 43 per cent. protein. The feeds were all of good quality. The follow- ing table shows the percentage composition: Table 15. Percentage composition of feeds used. » Nitrogen- , Protein Fat Crude free Water Ash fiber extract Milochops . . . . _ . 11.28 2.76 2.24 70.11 11.36 2.25 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . 41.39 8.42 10.56 25.81 7.50 6.32 Tankage..........-... 56.11 6.98 3.12 3.52 9.35 20.92 (Analyses by Dr. G. S. Fraps, Station Chemist.) 26 BULLETIN No. 305. v Mnrnon or PROCEDURE The forty pigs irvere equally divided into four lots. An average of the Weights of each lot taken about 1 p. m. each day for three successive days at the beginning and close of the test was considered the initial and final weights, respectively. The lots were also separately weighed each fifteenth day during the test. Each lot was fedrin the hog barn and had access to a 20X50-foot dry lot. The feeds for each lot were thoroughly mixed and fed twice daily as afresh, thick slop. All lots were full fed during the entire test. The folowing rations were planned to furnish approximately the same nutritive ratios, but with a different protein supplement for each lot: Lot 1. Milo chops 8 parts, cottonseed meal 1 part. Lot 2. Milo chops 8 parts, tankage .6 part. Lot 3. Milo chops 8 parts, cottonseed meal .5 part, and tankage .3 part. Lot 4. Milo chops 8 parts, whole cottonseed 2 parts, and tankage .3 part. ' COTTONSEED LoT DISCONTINUED The pigs in Lot 4 would not eat fresh whole cottonseed. They con- tinued to pick out the milo chops and tankage and leave the cotton- seed in the trough. The daily ration was reduced and still they re- fused to eat the cottonseed. It is known that some pigs will eat cotton- seed; but these would not. Since it was not possible to obtain an ac- curate record of the amount of feed that they were actually eating, and since they continued to lose weight, it was decided at the end of three weeks to make no further effort to force them to eat cottonseedand the lot was discontinued. Table 16. Results of the test. Average Average Average Average _ Feed per 100 lbs. gain Lot No. initial final daily dailg No pigs weight weight gain fee _ T t l ' , P's. per pig. per me. _ o a . gilnllig gfallnds pounds pounds Kinds, pounds pounds 1 9 67 .4 170. 9 .86 4. l4 Milo chops 427 , Cottonseed meal 53 480 2 1O 65 . 1 ' 200 . 5 1 . 13 4.79 Milo chops 395 - Tankage 30 425 Milo chops 440 3 1O 67 .2 186 .99 4 .79 Cottonseed meal 28 484 Tankage 16 DISCUSSION or RESULTS Table 16 shows that while the feed requirement for 100 pounds of gain was fairly satisfactory in each lot, the average daily gains were too low. The pigs were underweight for their age when the test was begun, which fact probably accounts for their low daily gains. Lot 2 made a fairly satisfactory gain. The addition of tankage to the cotton- seed meal in Lot 3 increased the palatability of the ration and produced a larger gain than was obtained with the ration in Lot 1, but failed to SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 27 lower the amount of feed required per 100 pounds of gain. The Lot 1 pigs could not be induced to consume as much feed as the pigs in the other lots. One pig in Lot 1 died on the 70th day, apparently of cottonseed meal poisoning. This pig’s sheath had been considerably swollen for about ten days when it died and it is possible that this might have brought on a complication that caused death. However, the carcass showed every symptom of cottonseed meal poisoning. Using cottonseed meal to the extent of eleven per cent. of the ration over a 120-day feed- ing period did not prove to be satisfactory. The smaller amount of cottonseed meal used in Lot 3, however, developed no objectionable features except that the daily gains were slightly low. SHRINKAGE AND KILLING RESULTS The pigs were shipped to Fort Worth, Texas, and sold to Armour & Company as test pigs at $8 percwt. All carcasses killed firm and were of good quality. The shrinkage in shipment was as follows for the difierent lots: Lot 1, 3.77 per cent.; Lot 2, 4.23 per cent.; and Lot 3, 4.30 per cent. SUMMARY 1. The ration in which tankage was the source of protein produced the largest daily gain and produced 100 pounds of gain on the smallest amount of feed. v 2. The ration in which cottonseed meal was the source of protein for the 120-day period produced the lowest daily gain. Lot 1 could be induced to consume only about 86 per cent. as much feed as was con- sumed by the other lots. _ 3. When approximately half of the protein was furnished by tank- age and half by cottonseed meal in Lot 3, the ration was more pala- table than in Lot 1 and the average daily gain was larger, but the amount of feed per 100 pounds of gain was not lowered. 4. Lot 4 was dropped from the test after the pigs ref weeks to eat whole cottonseed. 5. All carcasses killed firm and were of good quality. used f or three 28 BULLETIN N0. 305. EXPERIMENT IV PEANUT GRAZING AND SELF-FEEDERS FOR FATTENING . PIGS BY G. R. WARREN TIME OF TEsT This experiment Was begun September 24, 1921, and continued for a period of 57 days, closing November 20, 1921. OBJECTS The principal objects of this experiment were: 1. _To determine the firmness of pork produced by finishing pigs sixty days on the rations herein given. 2. To determine whether cottonseed meal can be safely fed for sixty days with milo chops in a free-choice self-feeder. 3. To determine the proportion of cottonseed meal, tankage, or peanut meal that swine will consume when fed with milo chops or corn chops in a free-choice self-feeder. _ Pros UsEn AND THEIR PREVIOUS TREATMENT. Fifty purebred Duroc-Jersey barrows and gilts raised by the Experi- ment Station were used in this test. Four barrows and six gilts " were used in each lot.‘ They were all farroWed during March, 1921. Previous to the beginning of the test, the feed and management of all pigs were practically the same. They were fed a balanced ration of milo chops and tankage. From birth until the test began they had access to pastures of Sudan grass, oats, or Bermuda grass. FEEns UsEn The feeds used were all of excellent quality. The corn was N o. 2 white, though several sacks contained some yellow corn. Good, clean No. 2 red milo was used. The corn and milo were ground into fine chops as needed. Table 17 shows the composition of the feeds used. Table 17. Percentage composition of feeds used. Nitrogen- Feeds Protein Fat Crude free Water Ash fiber extract Corn chops . . . . . . . . .. 10.02 3.68 2.33 71 73 10.89 1 35 Milo chops . . . . . . . . .. 9.96 2.77 2.75 72 19 10.75 1 58 Tankage . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.88 11.36 2.45 3 51 6.78 15 0'2 Cottonseed mea‘. . . . . 38.48 7.52 15.34 23 73 8.32 6 Peanut meal . . . . . . . . . 42.85 5.98 8.75 28 56 7.87 5 99 l (Analyses by Dr. G. S. Fraps,‘ Station Chemist.) SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 29 I METHOD or PROCEDURE The fifty pigs were divided into five lots of ten pigs each, the lots being arranged as nearly equal in Weight, sex, size, condition, and gen- eral appearance as possible. All pigs were individually weighed on three consecutive days at the beginning and close of the test, and the average of the three weights considered the initial and final weights, respectively. They were also Weighed individually each fifteenth day during the test. . The lots were fed as follows: Lot 1. Grazed on peanuts for 57 days. Lot 2. Corn chops and tankage, free-choice self-feeder for 57 days in a dry lot. - Lot 3. Milo chops and cottonseed meal, free-choice self-feeder for 57 days in a dry lot. Lot 4. Milo chops and peanut meal, free-choice self-feeder for 5'7 days in a dry lot. ’ Lot 5. Grazed on peanuts 3O days, followed with six parts milo chops and one part cottonseed meal by weight for 27 days, hand-fed, in a dry lot. . lfiach lot had access to shelter and fresh water at all times. The two lots that grazed peanuts ran together during the first 30 days, being separated only for individual weights on weighing dates. Spanish pea- nuts of average production were grazed. The quantity produced per acre was not determined. About five acres were grazed, the field being divided into two sections so the pigs could secure a full fee-d; of peanuts without too much exercise. During the latter part of the test the peanuts were not as plentiful as they should have been for the production of the largest daily gains. The self-fed pigs received their concentrates in separate compart- ments of free-choice self-feeders. A good supply of excellent quality dry feed was kept before them at all times. During the last 27 days of the test, the pigs in Lot 5 received a full feed of their concentrate mixture twice daily, fed as a thick slop. Table 18. Individual weights in Lot 1, grazed on peanuts 57 days. Pig number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 97 102 51 92 3 26 48 i 2 58 . Average Sex* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B B B B S S S S S S nitial wei ht, pounds . . . . . . . . . . 145 117 107 96 142 124 99 131 125 106 119.2 Final weig t, pounds. . . . . . . . . . . 234 200 184 176 254 212 200 234 214 204 211.2 Averagedailygaimpounds..... 1.561.461361.401.961.541.771.811.56‘1.72 1.61 I *B—barrow; S-sow 30 BULLETIN N0. 305. Table 19. Individual weights in Lot 2, fed on corn chops and tankage in a free-choice self-feeder 57 days. Pig number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 38 52 98 1O 37 57 107 96 49 Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B B B B S S S S S S Average Initial wei ht, pounds. . .. . . . . .. 127 138 109 104 130 145 90 109 112 128 119.2 Final weig t, pounds. . . . . . . . . . . 250 270 246 196 234 280 202 222 210 258 236.8 Average daily gain, pounds. . . .. 2.16 2.32 2.401.611.82 2.361.961.98 1.72 2.28 2.06 Table 20. Individual weights in Lot 3, fed on milo chops and cottonseed meal in a free-choice self-feeder 57 days. Pig number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 100 59 41 16 29 30 4O 93 11 ——— ——— ——— ——— Average Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B B B B S S S S S S Initial wei ht, pounds . . . . . . . . . . 127 120 118 128 127 112 103 138 114 103 119.0 Final welg t, pounds. . . . . . . . . . . 256 210 220 216 224 180 178 232 176 166 205.8 Average dailygain,pounds..... 2.261.58l.791.541.70l.191.32l.651.091.11 1.52 Table 21. Individual weights in_Lot 4, fed on milo chops and peanut meal in a free- choice self-feeder 57 days. Pig number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 44 99 31 4 45 55 i 32 17 106 Average Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B B B B S S S S S S Initial wei ht, pounds . . . . . . . . .. 134 134 103 125 116 109 98 133 125 114 119.1 Final weig t, pounds. . . . . . . . . . . 246 200 200 244 174 196 172 200 202 210 204.4 Average dailygain,pounds..... 1.961.161.702.101.021.531.301.181.351.68 1.50 Table 22. Individual weights in Lot 5, grazed 30 days on peanuts followed by 27 days on milo chops and cottonseed meal 6 to 1, hand fed. Pig number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6 7 103 12 56 47 94 95 46 Average Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B B B B S S S S S S Initial wei ht, pounds... . . . l. . . . 152 101 125 107 134 108 109 125 128 95 118.4 Final weig t, pounds. . . . . . . . . . . 232 186 218 186 228 200 210 216 214 178 206.8 Average daily gains, pounds 7da s) 1.401.491.631.38l.651.611.771.601.511.46 1.55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.531.571.701.431.471.601.831.631.47 1.63 1.59 Average daily gains, pounds (last27,_days) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.261.411.561331.851.631.701.561.561.26 1.51 Average gaily ‘gains; iiariridg i i i l a INDIVIDUAL WEIeHTs Tables 18 to 22, inclusive, give the individual weights and average daily gains of the pigs in the different lots. Individual weights have an advantage over lot Weights in that it is made possible to eliminate any pig that is not making normal gains. These tables show that no pig made an average daily gain below one pound. Therefore, since the individual gains are all apparently normal, the average daily gain per lot is a fair basis of comparison between lots. A summary of the re- sults is presented in Table 23. ' 3]. SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. H0000 00. M05503. 00. 0.0000000. >400.» 0 ><00mm0 0200.000 ><0.0.0m0 0.1000 000. 000 00000000 0.00 20.. 00 . 0000500 000000 0000.7. 000w. @0000 Z0. Emu 000000000 00 0000005 29000.0 £00.50.» n05. 0.000. . l. 000. 00» 000. Em. 000. Em. 000. Em. 000. Em. 090000. 00000000 H0000. 00000000 0 00000000 000000000 00000000 00000000 0 00 Q3000 0000000000 0.0. 000.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000.0 000 b 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . 90.0000 000000000 . . . . . . . . . . 0 00 000.00 000000 0000 5000mm? 00000000000 0000000000.. 00 000.0 000 b ~00 . 0 0 . 00 0 . 00 000.00 000000 .000 b ~0.m0000mm0 00 . 0 0g .0 0 00 Z0000 000000 0000 0030000000 0000m0..00.00|0000000 0000.|..00000.. Z0000 000000 .000. . q 3 000.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000 .0 000.0 0 .00 0.00 0030000000 000000 0.0 000.0 B» 00 Z0000 0000000 0000 000000000 000000. 00000000000 0007000000.. Z020 0000000 000.0 00 00500-... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0000.0 M0010 0.00 0.000 10000000. 0000000 0b $0.0 0 00 600.0000 0000000000 00 00000. 00:90.00 0J0 000000 000000 0000 Z000 000000 000.0 . 00000000000 000000. 000. 000000 0.00 00 0300 . . . . . . . . . 000.0 M000 0 .00 .500 0030000000 0000000 00.0 04000.0 050000 000 $00 0.000 0000000 P000 0. 0. 0000 0. 0.0.00 0.000030 0.00. 00000 0000 S00 000000 000000 0001mm $00 000» 00 0» 0. 000000 0000 005m 0000000000000 0.00. $00 0000.000 00- H0000 00000000 0000. 0.... 00000000000 00 0000 0000 0.005000 000. 00o 000000000 00000 000 0% 000.000. 32 BULLETIN N0. 305. y DISCUSSION or RESULTS Table 23 gives a summary of the results. It will be noted that Lots 3 and 4 consumed very small quantities of cottonseed meal or peanut meal. While the feeds Were before them at all times, they consumed less than one-tenth pound per pig per day of cottonseed meal or pea- nut meal, respectively. Prior to the test, they received milo chops and tankage. They seemed to prefer milo chops alone to the cottonseed meal or peanut meal. They selected cottonseed meal or peanut meal in the proportion of about one per cent. of their ration. Since they were finished, therefore, practically on milo chops alone, the lowest daily gains were made by these two lots. It is a striking coincident that while they were fed in free-choice self-feeders, the final calculation showed the average daily feed consumed by Lots 3 and Ll- happened to be exactly the same, although the amount of cottonseed meal con- sumed in Lot 3 was slightly less than the amount of peanut meal con- sumed in Lot 4. The average daily gains in the two lots and the amounts of feed required per 100 pounds of gain are very close. Perhaps the most interesting feature of Table 23 is found in the consideration of Lot 2. Of the three lots that were fed grain during the entire test, Lot 2 required the smallest amount of feed per 100 pounds of pork produced. Yet, under average conditions, the cost of 100 pounds of pork with this feed mixture would have been greater than with either of the other lots. Also, the greatest feed consump- tion per pig and the greatest total feed cost per pig were in Lot 2. But, on the other hand, the average daily gain was greatest in this lot. Therefore, under prevailing prices, Lot 2, though requiring the great- est feed bill, yielded the greatest profit per pig. They selected one part tankage to 16.8 parts corn, which gives a rather wide nutritive ratio. This test serves to emphasize the fact that it is not always the cheapest feed nor the lowest total feed bill that brings the greatest profit. It often costs more to get higher daily gains, and yet the greater cost is justifiable if the total profit per pig is increased. For example, if the profit per 100 pounds of pork is $0.90 in Lot 2 and $1.10 in Lot 3, the total profit per pig in Lot 2, which made a gain of 117 pounds per pig, will be $1.05; while in Lot 3, which made a gain of 86 pounds per pig, the profit per pig will be only $0.95. This, of course, does not take into consideration the “spread” between the value of feeders and finished pigs. In Lots 3 and 4, which consumed practically a milo-alone ration, the feed cost per pig was lower and the cost per 100 pounds of gain was lower than with the corn and tank- age ration in Lot 2; wret the average daily gains were too low in the former lots to justify the use of the cheaper feed. It is seldom advisable to feed corn or the grain sorghums alone, despite the fact that most of the protein feeds’ usually available with which to balance a ration are higher in price than corn or the grain sorghums. Fair daily gains were made by Lots 1 and 5, which grazed. peanuts. In regard to daily gains, they ranked below Lot 2, which consumed a balanced ration of corn and tankage, and somewhat above Lots 3 and ' 4, which consumed a ration of practically milo alone. The five acres of peanuts grazed produced’ 1396 pounds of pork. The yield was es- timated at 25 to 30 bushels of nuts per acre. All pigs in Lot 1. on SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 33 peanuts 57 days were graded “soft” by the packers and docked $2 per hundred pounds live weight. Three pigs in Lot 5 0n peanuts 30 days followed by 2'7 days 0n grain killed “soft” and were docked $2 per hundred pounds live weight. The other seven pigs in Lot 5 killed firm and were not docked. With a carefully estimated value on the peanuts, it proved profitable in this instance to finish Lot 5 twenty- seven days on grain. Table 24. Individual final weights, dressing percentages, carcass grades, and melting pornts o back fat and leaf fat samples. Final Melting point C.° _ _we'1ght Dressing Carcass Lot number and method of feeding Pig No. _1n feed- per cent. grade ing pen, pounds Back fat Leaf fat 9 234 79.1 Soft 33.2 38.4 97 200 76.0 ft 28.2 39 9 102 184 78.8 Med. soft 36.4 39.3 51 176 75.0 oft 30.3 36.3 Lot 1. Grazed on peanuts 57 92 254 77.6 Soft '32.0 37 9 days. 3 212 76.4 Soft 30.7 39 2 26 200 76.5 Soft 30.8 35 9 48 234 76.1 Soft 30.9 37 9 2 214 76.6 Soft 31.7 36 6 58 204 76.5 Oily 27.6 36 0 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 211 76.8 . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 37 7 1 250 80.8 Hard 38.3 43 8 38 270 83.3 Hard 39.7 42 1 52 246 80.5 Hard 39.3 43 0 » 98 196 79.6 Hard 39.2 43 3 Lot 2. Corn chops and tankage 10 234 79.5 _ Hard 37.5 41 4 1n a free-choice self-feeder, 37 280 Not obta med . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 days. 57 202 77.7 Hard 34.5 42.5 107 222 77.9 Hard 37.1 42.2 96 210 79.5 Hard 39.9 43.8 49 258 79 .8 Hard 36 .0 42 . 6 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 71.8 . . . . . . . . . . 37.9 42.7 101 256 78.1 Hard 42.8 45.0 100 210 76.2 Hard 40.6 43.8 _ 5 220 79.1 Hard 38.7 42.0 Lot 3. Milo chops and cotton- 16 224 79.0 Hard 39.4 41.8 seed meal in a free-choice 29 180 76.1 Hard 36.3 42.3 self-feeder, 57 days. 30 178 73.6 Hard 37.4 41.8 40 232 75.9 Hard 40.9 44.4 93 176 72.7 Hard 39.4 44.8 11 166 75.9 Hard 37.4 42.5 41 216 79.6 Hard 39.6 44.2 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 76.6 . . . . . . . . . . 39 .2 43.3 36 246 80. 5 Hard 39 .7 41 . 9 44 200 77 .0 Hard 40. 7 43 .2 99 200 77.5 Hard 41 . 3 44 . 4 31_ 244 ‘ 78.3 Hard 38.7 41.5 Lot 4. Milo chops and peanut 4 174 77.0 Hard 40.5 45.8 meal in a free-choice self- 45 196 77.0 Hard 38.9 43.2 feeder, 57 days. 55 172 76.2 Hard 37.9 43.4 32 200 75.5 Hard 36.3 42.8 17 202 72 .3 Hard 37 .5 41.7 106 210 76.7 Hard 36.4 43.6 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 76.8 . . . . . . . . . . 38.8 43.2 34 232 78.0 Hard 40.4 43.5 186 73.1 Hard 38.5 41.9 7 218 76.1 Hard 39.6 43.6 Lot 5. Grazed on peanuts 30 103 186 72.6 Hard 39.8 43.1 days followed by 27 days on 12 228 75.0 Med. soft 37.9 41 .7 on mllo chops, six parts and 56 200 72.5 Hard 38.9 41 .5 cottonseed meal one part, 47 210 75.7 Soft 38.9 42.8 hand fed. 94 216 73.1 Hard 39.7 42.6 95 214 76.2 Hard 41.1 44.1 46 178 73.6 Med. soft 37.0 42.5 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 74.6 . . . . . . . . . . 39.2 42.7 M34 ' BULLETIN N0. 305. THE KILLING TEST The pigs in this experiment were purchased by Swift & Company, Fort Wprth, Texas. The oflicials of the company very graciously assisted in collecting the slaughter data. The company furnished the fat sam- ples free of charge. After the carcasses had remained in the packer coolers 48 hours, the oflicial “Soft Pork” grader for Swift & Company classed each carcass. All carcasses in Lots 2, 3, and 4 were classed as “hard.” In Lot 1, which grazed peanuts 57 days, 8 carcasses were classed as “soft,” one as “medium soft,” and one as “oily.” In Lot 5, which grazed peanuts 80 days followed by grain 27 days, 7 carcasses were classed as “hard,” 2 as “medium soft,” and one as “soft.” The grader made an impartial classification, as he had no means of know- ing from which lot any particular carcass came. The author could see clearly enough the reasons for the grades assigned each carcass. So far as appearances were concerned, each carcass had a good white color and satisfactory quality, except that the fat was too soft. Table 24 gives the dressing percentages, carcass grades based on the firmness of the pork, and the melting points of the leaf and back fat samples. The dressing percentages were calculated from the live weights in the feeding pens obtained November 20th and the weights of the warm carcasses obtained in the slaughter rooms on November 23rd. The warm weight of each carcass was obtained after the re- moval of the head, offal, and leaf fat. The back fat samples were taken from just under the skin where‘ the median back line crosses the loin region. The leaf fat samples were taken from the posterior portion of the leaf fat. The fat samples were taken from the same relative position in each carcass. The table shows that the average melting points of the leaf fat and back fat were considerably lowe-r in Lot 1, grazed on peanuts during the entire test, than in any other lot. In this respect, the other four lots differed very little. In Lot 5, it does not seem that thirty days on peanuts during the first part of the test affected the melting points of the fat samples. However, the three pigs that killed “soft” ranked among the lowest in this lot as to mel-ting points. Feeding grain 2'7 days to Lot 5 after they had grazed" peanuts 30 days, not only produced seven carcasses that graded “hard,” whereas all carcasses graded “soft” in Lot 1, but it also re- sulted in higher average melting points of the fat. The melting point determinations were furnished by Dr. G. S. Fraps, Station Chemist. ’ SUMMARY The average daily gains ranked as follows: Lot 2, 2.06; Lot 1, 1.61; Lot 5, 1.55; Lot 3, 1.52; Lot 4, 1.50. It is important in con- sidering the gains to study in connection therewith the feed require- ments as given in Table 23. Lot 2, fed corn chops and tankage in a free-choice self-feeder, was the most profitable lot in this test. The peanuts used in this test produced 2'79 pounds of pork per acre. Ten pigs in Lot 1 and three in Lot 5 were docked $2 per hundred pounds live weight for being “soft.” ' SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 35 The feeding system followed in Lot 5 produced both “hard” and “soft” carcasses. Under the results obtained in this test, it proved more profitable to change Lot 5from peanut grazing, after 30 days, to a 27-day period of grain feeding, than it did to hold Lot 1 on peanuts for the entire period of 5'7 days. The use of a free-choice self-feeder is an excellent method of fin- ishing market pigs if appropriate feeds are utilized. It is highly im- portant that a good supply of each feed used be kept in the feeder at all times. In a free-choice self-feeder system of fattening pigs, the pigs may not consume sufficient protein to balance the ration if they are sud- denly changed to a protein feed to which they are not accustomed. This proved true in the case of lots 3 and 4. If pigs do not consume a sufficient quantity of the protein feed offered, it should be mixed with the grain. until they become accustomed to it. " 36 . BULLETIN No. 305. EXPERIMENT V PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS IN FATTEN IN G RATION S FOR - PIGS BY G. R. IVARREN TIME OF TEsT This experiment was begun March 5, 192-2. and continued for a period of 85 days, closing May 29, 1922. , OBJECTS The principal objects of this experiment were: 1. To determine the firmness of pork produced by finishing hogs eighty-five days on the rations herein given. ' r 2. To secure a direct comparison of Wheat shorts, tankage, and cottonseed meal as supplements to milo chops as a finishing ration for swine. 3. To secure a direct comparison of corn chops and milo chops supplemented with the same proportion of tankage. 4. To determine the pork producing value and relative economy of the rations herein tested. ' 5. T0 compare peanut meal and cottonseed meal as supplements to rations composed of rice bran and milo chops. Pros UsEn AND THEIR PREvIoUs TREATMENT Sixty Duroc-Jersey barrows and gilts ‘raised by the Experiment Sta- tion were used in this test. Six barrows and four gilts were used in each lot. They were all farrowed during September, 1921. Previous to the beginning of the test, the feed and management of all pigs were practically the same. They were developed on a balanced ration of milo chops and tankage. From birth until the test began they had access to pastures of Sudan grass, oats, or Bermuda grass. FEEDs UsEn ,The feeds used were all of excellent quality. The following table shows the analyses of representative samples. Table 25. _ Percentage composition of feeds used. Nitrogen- Feeds Protein Fat Crude free Water Ash fiber extract _ . I Cornchops . . . . . . . . .. 10.37 4.33 2.57 69.45 11.78 1.50 Milochops . . . . . . . . .. 9.94 2.76 2.48 71.72 11.36 1.74 Rice bran . . . . . . . . . .. 13.20 14.22 13.73 36.44 9.30 13.11 Tankage . . . . . . . . . . .. 61.35 8.31 . 2.01 2.11 9.85 16.37 Cottonseed meal. . . . . 42.24 6.32 11.56 25.64 8.64 5.60 Peanut meal; . . . . . . .. 42.01 11.52 11.52 21.03 6.96 6.96 Wheat shorts . . . . . . .. 18.30 4.61 4.82 56.42 11.88 3.97 (Analyses by Dr. G. S. Fraps, Station Chemist.) SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 37 METHOD or PROCEDURE The sixty pigs were divided into six lots of ten pigs each, the lots being arranged as nearly equal in weight, sex, size, condition, and gen- eral appearance, as possible. All pigs were individually Weighed on. three consecutive days at the beginning and close of the test, and the average of the three weights considered the initial and final Weights, respectively. They were also weighed individually each fifteenth day during the test. The lots were fed in dry pens as follows: Lot 1.. Corn chops nine parts and tankage one part, by weight. Lot 2. Milo chops nine parts and tankage one part, by weight. yLot 3. Milo chops six parts and» cottonseed meal one part, by weight. Lot 4. Milo ‘chops four parts and. wheat shorts one part, by weight. Lot 5. Rice bran five parts, milo chops four parts, and cottonseed meal one part, by weight. Lot 6. Rice bran five parts, milo chops four parts, and peanut meal one part, by weight. Each lot had access to shelteranrl clear water at all times. They were fed and watered in concrete troughs in pens with concrete floors sheltered by the north half of the hog barn. Each lot had access to la 20x50-foot dry pen. The feed was thoroughly mixed in the correct proportion for each lot, and moistened to a thick slop just before feed- ing. They were all fed twice daily. The rations seemed of about equal palatabilityr and each lot received the same amount of feed. They were all fed about what would be readily cleaned up twice daily. Table 26. Individual weights and gains in Lot 1, fed corn chops and tankage 85 days Pig number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s5 7 s2 177 24 12 e3 2o 2s 4e Average Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . B B B B B B S S S S Initial wei ht, pounds . . . . . . . . . . 132 98 85 84 82 86 104 85 71 108 93.5 Final weiglgmt, pounds... .. . . . . .. 258 189 169 170 186 191 217 188 155 240 196.3 Average daily gain, pounds..... 1.481.07 .991.011.221.241.331.21 .991.55 1.21 Table 27. Individual weights and gains in Lot 2, fed milo chops and tankage 85 days. Pig number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 68 11 33 69 84 13 61 22 49 _ Average Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B B B B B B S S S S Initial wei ht, pounds. . .. . . . . . . 115 94 94 114 88 75 101 89 84 84 93.8 ' Final weig t, pounds... .. . . . . . . 222 189 209 210 207 170 212 188 198 186 199.1 Averagedaily gain, pounds“... 1.261.121.351.131.401.l21.311.161341.20 1.24 38 BULLETIN N0. 305. Table 28. Individual weights and gains in Lot 3, fed milo chops and cottonseed meal 85 days. Pig number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i 32 i 41 4 82 90 14 71 42 39 18 Average Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B B B B B B S S S S Initial weight, Donnds . . . . . . . . . . 120 99 100 86 86 82 104 94 81 88 94.0 Final weight, pounds. . . . . . . . . . . 235 205 214 187 191 184 218 209 181 181 200.5 Average dailygain,pounds..... l.351.251.341.191.241.201.341.351.181.09 1.25 Table 29. Individual weights and gains in Lot 4, fed milo chops and wheat shorts 85 days. Pig number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 21 25 74 62 6 45 17 81 Average Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B B B B B B S S S S Initial weight, pounds . . . . . . . . . . 115 102 8 ~ 94 90 68 107 90 93 85 93.3 Final weight, pounds. . . .. . . . . .. 209 207 181 199 193 150 198 16’. 179 176 185.4 Average dailygain,pounds..... 1.111.241.081.24l.21 .961.07 .851.01 .07 1.08 Table 30. Individual weights and gains in Lot 5, fed rice bran, milo chops, and cottonseed meal 85 days. Pig number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 67 51 78 72 64 36 6 80 3 . Average Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B B B B B B S S S S Initial wei ht, pounds... . . . . . . . 108 106 94 93 85 77 105 90 77 100 93.5 Final weight, pounds. . . . . . . . . . . 201 197 183 173 183 .162 209 200 162 201 187.1 Average dailygain,pounds..... 1.09l.071.05 .941.151.001.221.291.001.19 1.10 Table 31. Individual weights and gains in Lot 6, fed rice bran, 'milo chops and peanut meal 85 days. Pig number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 55 65 70 87 8 57 76 47 5 Average Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B B B B B B S S S S Initial wei ht, pounds . . . . . . . . . . 109 108 90 88 89 79 89 79 112 90 93.3 Final welg t, pounds. . . . . . . . . .. 216 211 163 177 179 177 191 174 209 181 18.7.8‘ Average dailygain,pounds..... 1.261.21 .861.051.061.151.201._121.141.07 1.11 P V, . INDIVIDUAL WEIGHTS The six tables above give the individual weights and gains. The in- dividual Weights show that no pig made an abnormally lOW gain. It is interesting t0 note the variations in daily gains between individuals of similar weights. The daily gains vary considerably, even with pigs of equal or similar weights that eat from the same trough. SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 39 Table 32. Summary of results. No. Average Averagef Average Average Feed per 100 lbs. gain Lot pigs initial final g. daily daily No. per weight weight gain feed lot per pig, per pig. per pie, per we, _ Total. pounds pounds pounds pounds Kinds. pounds pounds 1 10 93.5 196.3 1.21 4.89 Corn chops 363.94 V Tankage 40.44 404 . 38 2 10 93.8 199.1 1.24 4.89 Milo chops 355.29 Tankage 39.48 394.77 3 10 94.0 200.5 1.25 4.89 Milo chops 334.57 ' - Cottonseed meal 55.76 390.33 4 10 93.3 185.4 1.08 4.89 Milo chops 361.08 Shorts 90.27 451.35 Rice bran 222.06 5 10 93.5 187.1 1.10 4.89 Milo chops 177.65 444.12 Cottonseed meal 44.41 ' Rice bran 219.95 6 10 93.3 187.8 1.11 4.89 Milo chops 175.95 439.89 s Peanut meal 43.99 DISCUSSION or RESULTS Table 32 gives a summary of the test. It will be noted that the average daily gains fall into two groups. The first group contains the first three lots, which differed very little in average daily gains. The second group contains the last three lots, which differed very little in average daily gains, but were somewhat lower in this respect than was the first group. Since the amount of feed consumed by each lot was the same, a similar grouping follows for the amount of feed re- quired per 100 pounds of gain. The difference between the amounts required in the three lots was not very great either in the first or sec- ond groups, but the difference between groups is quite noticeable. This is partially accounted for by the fact that the first group received feeds that contained more digestible nutrients per 100 pounds of feed mix- ture than was contained in the more bulky feeds receivedby the second group. Rice bran and Wheat shorts are rather bulky. When fed the same number of pounds of feed, Lot 2, receiving milo chops and tankage nine to one parts by weight, made an average daily gain of 1.24 as com- pared to an average daily gain of 1.21 by Lot 1, receiving corn chops and tankage nine parts to one part by weight. In Lot 3, which re- ceived a ration of milo chops and cottonseed meal combined to give the same nutritive ratio as used in Lots .1 and 2, the average daily gain was 1.25, which is slightly higher than that in the first two lots. The lowest daily gain was made by Lot 4 in which wheat shorts was used as the source of protein. Considering the usual cost of wheat shorts, this lot was fed the least desirable ration. If these results may be considered representative of results to be expected from the use of the rations tested, a pork producer can easily figure out the approximate cost of producing 100 pounds of pork by the use of local feed prices. The pigs receiving cottonseed meal for the entire 85 days were thrifty and hearty at all times. BULLETIN N0. 305. 4O A2 sumo E WE 33am: 2t. wan m3 fiat/won o5 59C woEwEo .953 335mm En? Ywm tow hiya am; Em 2: m» . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . ¢ . w mam Com 2Em=w 9w. Q: 8 mo Haw :3 rEMEm mm; 3N m2 3 . . §.xm , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ 2a.. zq... 2296 2: Q: R E wsm v.53 :3 mom m: w . i . - - - . - . . - . - ~ . . . . - . . . . . v . - . . . » . . . . ~ . fiwm usm ma. c2 ww mm m . Q v.82 mm; mmm Qfl mm . c . - . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . x 5? wsm S; S: ww M2 || w . 3 v.53 “N; mmm 2 ~ om . . m . . . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . - . - v . ~ . . ~ . . - . . . . - N m . 8 v25 NH A at m“. i Mammaz @322 3. fi Maw m2 mm . . N . . . . ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - ' . . - . . . - ? m. 5 “Kai 8. m2 C. mm 1| umm~u>< iwswtiwfi =6» mwasom @953 222w 23w .289: .39»? .02 ME we.“ mnoSmM .o Z 9.0 J3 x23 mmwEwU om§o>< 13E 151G 3A Mo QEoQ miivz . Y fmnxnfimw um.“ xona .3 35.5 wcgog dm 03mm. SWINE FEEDING EXPERIMENTS. 41 THE KILLING TEsT These pigs were purchased by Armour & Company, Fort Worth, Texas, nd handled as test pigs. The company furnished the, fat samples fee of charge. The officials graciously cooperated in collecting the ecessary slaughter data. The regular “Sort Pork” grader for the ompany passed 0n each carcass. All carcasses in the first four lots 'ere classed as. “hard.” Eight carcasses in Lot 5 and eight in Lot were described as of “a. softish nature,” but Were not considered soft nough to require the customary $2 per hundred pounds live Weight ockage i.n price. Two carcasses in Lot 5 an.d two in Lot 6 were passed s “hard” Without notice of any soft tendency. ~ Table 33 gives the melting points of the back fat samples obtained rom the heaviest and the lightest pig in each lot. The samples were aken from the same relative position in each pig. This position was ust under the skin Where the median back line crosses the center of ;he loin. A great variation is shown. between the melting points ob- ained, both as between lots and between pigs Within a given lot. The .0west average melting point Was in Lot 6, While the highest average nelting point was in Lot 3. The melting point determinations Were furnished by Dr. G. S. Fraps, Station Chemist. SHRINKAGE IN SHIPMENT The pigs were Weighed at the feed lots on the 29th of May and weighed in Fort Worth on the 30th, or the next day. The shrinkage in shipment was as follows for each lot: Lot 1, 3.2 per centx, Lot 2, 3.6 per cent; Lot 3, 5.7 per cent; Lot 4, 5.1 per cent; Lot 5, 5.9 per cent; and Lot 6, 4.2 per cent. SUMMARY Each lot in this test was fed the same number of pounds of feed. The resulting average daily gains ranked as follows: Lot 3. Milo chops and cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.25 lbs. Lot 2. Milo chops and tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.24 lbs. Lot 1. Corn chops and tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.21 lbs. Lot 6. Rice bran, milo chops, and peanut meal . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11 lbs. Lot 5. Rice bran, milo chops, and cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . 1.10 lbs. Lot 4. Milo chops and Wheat shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.06 lbs. Under the conditions fed, all rations proved. fairly satisfactory. The average daily gains are sufficiently close as to indicate that the feed combination selected would depend very largely on local feed prices. The rations used in the first three lots seemed to be somewhat superior, pound for pound, to those used in the last three. lots. Rice bran was used at the rate of 50 per cent. of the rations in Lots _ 5 and 6 without producing pork sufliciently soft to require a dockage in price. There was no obvious difference between the carcasses from Lot 5, receiving rice bran and milo chops supplemented with cottonseed meal, and those from Lot 6, receiving peanut meal as the supplement instead of cottonseed meal. Milo chops and tankage proved slightly superior to corn chops and tankage in this test.