LIBRARY»
A 8a M COLLEGE.
CAAfiPUg.
E27-832-6M-L180

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIUN

A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS

BULLETIN NO. 454 SEPTEMBER, 1932

DIVISION OF CHEMISTBYET ‘

.-v m”.
. , .,

Digestibility and Production Cbefficiefits
of Hog Feeds   

 

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS
T. O. WALTON, President A

STATION STAFF?

Administration :
A. B. Conner, M. S., Director
R. E. Karper, M. S., Vice-Director
Clarice Mixson, B. A., Secretary
M. P. Holleman, Jr., Chief Clerk
J. K. Francklow, Asst. Chief Clerk
Chester Higgs, Executive Assistant
Howard Berry, B. S., Technical Asst.
Chemistry:
G. S. Fraps, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist
S. E. Asbury, M. S., Chemist
J. F. Fudge, Ph. D., Chemist
E. C. Carlyle, M. S., Asst. Chemist
T. L. Ogier, B. S., sst. Chemist
A. J. Sterges, M. S., Asst. Chemist
Ray Treichler, M. S., Asst. Chemist -
W. H. Walker, Asst. Chemist
Velma Graham, Asst. Chemist _
Jeanne F. DeMottier, Asst. Chemist
R. L. Schwartz, B. S., Asst. Chemist
C. M. Founders, B. S., Asst. Chemist
Horticulture:
S. H. Yarnell, Sc. D., Chief
"L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist
H. M. Reed, B. S., Horticulturist
J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist
L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist
Range Animal Husbandry:
J. M. Jones, A. M., Chief
B. L. Warwick, Ph. D., Breeding Investiga.
S. P. Davis, Wool and Mohair
Entomology:
F. L. Thomas, Ph. D., Chief; State
Entomologist
H. J. Reinhard, B. S., Entomologist
R. K. Fletcher, Ph. D., Entomologist
W. L. Owen, Jr., M. S., Entomologist
J. N. Roney, M. S., Entomologist
J. C. Gaines, Jr., M. S., Entomologist
. E. Jones, M. S., Entomologist
. F. Bibby, B. S., Entomologist
. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist
W. Dunnam, Ph. D., Entomologist
"R. W. Moreland, B. S., Asst. Entomologist
C. E. Heard, B. S., Chief Inspector
C. Siddall, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector
S. E. McGregor, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector

‘D
Q
pmqm

Veterinary Science:

‘M. Francis, D. V. M., Chief

H. Schmidt, D. V. M., Veterinarian

I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian
"F. P. Mathews, D.V.M., M.S., Veterinarian

W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian

—-———————, Veterinarian
Plant Pathology and Physiology:

J. J. Taubenhaus, Ph. D., Chief

W. N. Ezekiel, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist

W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist

C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist
Farm and Ranch Economics:

L. P. Gabbard, M. S., Chief

W. E. Paulson, Ph. D., Marketing

C. A. Bonnen, M. S., Farm Management
"W. R. Nisbet, B. S., Ranch Management
"A. C. Magee, M. S., Farm Management
Rural Home Research:

Jessie Whitacre, Ph. D., Chief

Mary Anna Grimes, M. S., Textiles

Elizabeth D. Terrill, M. A., Nutrition
Soil Survey:
“W. T. Carter, B. S., Chief

E. H. Templin, B. S., Soil Surveyor

A. H. Bean, B. S., Soil Surveyor

R. M. Marshall, B. S., Soil Surveyor
Botany:

V. L. Cory, M. S., Acting Chief

S. E. Wolff, M. S., Botanist
Swine Husbandry:

Fred Hale, M. S., Chief
Dairy Husbandry:

O. C. Copeland, M. S., Dairy Husbandman
Poultry Husbandry:

R. M. Sherwood, M. S., Chief

J. R. Couch, B. S., Asst. Poultry Hsbdman
Agricultural Engineering:

H. P. Smith, M. S., Chief
Main Station Farm:

G. T. McNess, Superintendent
Apiculture (San Antonio):

H. B. Parks, B. S., Chief

A. H. Alex, B. S., Queen Breeder
Feed Control Service:

F. D. Fuller, M. S., Chief

James Sullivan, Asst. Chief

Agronomy: S D. Pearce, Secretary
E. B. Reynolds, Ph. D., Chief J. H. Rogers, Feed Inspector
R. E. Karper, M. S., Agronomist K. L. Kirkland, B. S., Feed Inspector
P. C. Mangelsdorf, Sc. D., Agronomist S. D. Reynolds, Jr., Feed Inspector
D. T. Killough, M. S., Agronomist P. A. Moore, Feed Inspector
H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist E. J. Wilson, B. S., Feed Inspector
- B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist H. G. Wickes, B. S., Feed Inspector
Publications :
A. D. Jackson, Chief
SUBSTATIONS

No. 1, Beeville, Bee County:
R. A. Hall, B. S., Superintendent
Ne. 2, Lindale, Smith County:

P. R. Johnson, M. S., Superintendent
"B. H. Hendrickson, B. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion
"R. W. Baird, B. If , Assoc. Agr. Engineer
No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County:

R. H. Stansel, M. S., Superintendent

H. M. Reed, B. S., Horticulturist
No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County:

R. H. Wyche, B. S., Superintendent
‘TH. M. Beachell, B. S., Jr., Agronomist
No. 5, Temple, Bell County:

Henry Dunlavy, M. S., Superintendent

C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist

H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist

S. E. Wolff, M. S., Botanist
“H. V. Geib, M. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion
"H. O. Hill, B. S., Jr. Civil Engineer
No. 6, Denton, Denton County:

P. B. Dunkle, B. S., Superintendent
"I. M. Atkins, B. S., Jr. Agronomist
No. 7, Spur, Dickens County:

R. E. Dickson, B. S., Superintendent

B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist
No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County:

D. L. Jones, Superintendent

Frank Gaines, Irrig. and Forest Nurs.

No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County:
J. J. Bayles, B. S., Superintendent
No. l0, College Station, Brazos County:
R. M. Sherwood, M. S., In Charge
L. J. McCall, Farm Superintendent
No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County:
H. F. Morris, M. S., Superintendent
**No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County:
"J. R. Quinby, B. S., Superintendent
**J. C. Stephens, M. A., Asst. Agronomist
No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties:
W. H. Dameron, B. S., Superintendent
I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian
W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian
O. L. Carpenter, Shepherd
**O. G. Babcock, B. S., Asst. Entomologist
No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County:
W. H. Friend, B. S., Superintendent
S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist
W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist
J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist
No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County:
C. H. McDowell, B. S., Superintendent
L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist
No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County:
E. Mortensen, B. S., Superintendent
**L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist

Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station:

W. Adriance, Ph. D., Horticulture

W. Bilsing, Ph. D., Entomology

P. Lee, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance
Scoates, A. E., Agricultural Engineering
K. Mackey, M. S., Animal Husbandry

*Dean School of Veterinary Medicine.

PPFF/‘P

J. S. Mogford, M. S., Agronomy

F. R. Brison, B. S., Horticulture

W. R. Horlacher, Ph. D., Genetics

J. H. Knox, M. S., Animal Husbandry
A. L. Darnell, M. A., Dairy Husbandry

iAs of April 1, 1932.

'“"In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture.

 

The value of a pig feed depends chiefly
upon its content of digestible protein and
productive energy. The average compos-
ition, productive energy and digestible pro-
tein are given for a number of pig feeds.
Tentative stamdlards for pig feeding are
given, for use in connection with the pro-
ductive values here presented. The results
of 14 digestion experiments on pig feeds
are given, with a compilation of 139 other
digestion experiments with pigs. Pigs have
lower digestive powers than ruminants and
higher digestive powers than chickens.
The power of pigs for digesting crude fiber
and fibrous feeds is especially low. Tenta-
tive production coefficients are given for
pig feeds. They can be used to calculate
the productive energy of pig feeds.

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 3
Digestion experiments with pigs 5
Method of work  5
Feeds used in the Texas digestion experiments __________________________________________ __ 6
Digestion coefficients secured 6
Compilation of digestion experiments ._ 6

Digestion by pigs as compared with digestion by poultry and ruminants -- 6

Productive energy M15
Energy-production coefficients for pig feeds ______________________________________________ __16
Use of the production coefficients ._ ._ “W16
Composition and feeding values of pig feeds , 17
Standards for pig feeding 22
Summary 23

References , 24

BULLETIN NO. 454 SEPTEMBER, 1932

DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF

PIG FEEDS
By G. S. FRAPS

The value of a feed to an animal depends upon the ability of the animal
to digest and utilize it, as well as on the nature of the feed. The digesti-
bility of various feeds is measured by experiments with the animals which
use it. It is known that digestive powers vary with different kinds of
animals (4,5); the differences are» greater with coarse feeds, such as hays
and fodders, than with concentrated feeds, such as corn or cottonseed
meal. Ruminants such as sheep and cows (4) have the power to digest
and utilize part of the crude fiber and other constituents of roughages,
while poultry (5) and hogs have little power to digest such material.
Animals also vary in their ability to utilize the digested material; pigs
seem to make better use of digested material than ruminants. There are
also differences in the value of the digested material to animals. The
digested portions of fodders and roughages have less value to cows than
the digested portions of concentrates, such as corn, pound for pound
(6 9). This fact is taken into consideration in calculating the productive
energy of feeds.

DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS WITH PIGS

The number of digesttion experiments which have been made with
pigs is considerably less than the number made on ruminants and about the
same number as have been made on poultry. Texas Bulletin 329 (4)
contains a calculation of 1028 American digestion experiments on ruminants.
Bulletin 372 (5) contains 151 experiments on poultry, 39 of which are
forign experiments. This Bulletin gives coefficients of digestibility for
153 digestion experiments with hogs or pigs, 14 of which are here reported
for the first time by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, and 54
of which are German experiments.

METHOD OF WORK

The animals were kept in elevated pens, on metal screen with 78-inch
openings which permitted the passage of the solid and liquid excrement.
A wire screen of 4 meshes to the inch retained the solid excrement While
the liquid excrement was conducted by means of a galvanized iron funnel
to a glass vessel in which it was saved for analysis. The preliminary
period was 5 days and the digestion period was 6 days. The excrements
were collected daily and the solid excrement weighed and dried for ana-
lysis. The liquid excrements were made up to volume and aliquots taken
for analysis; this work will be presented in, a subsequent publication.
When a mixture of feeds was used, as was done in some cases, the co-
efficients of digestibility of one of the feeds were calculated by the use
of the coefficients of digestibility of the other feed taken from averages
of other experiments made by us.

s BULLETIN N0. 454, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

FEEDS USED IN THE TEXAS DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS

The ordinary chemical composition of the feeds used in the experi- A

ments are given in Table 1. The barley used was whole barley, ‘with
the husk. All the feeds are of good quality and of good composition,
as is shown by the analyses given in the table.

Digestion Coelficients
The coefficients of digestibility secured from each pig in the Texas
experiments are given in Table 2.

the two animals

COMPILATION OF DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS

A compilation. was made of a number of digestion experiments with
pigs, and all those which were found are given in Table 3. Both Ameri-
can and foreign experiments are included. The average coefficients
from the Texas experiments given in Table 2 are also included in Table 3.
No attempt was made to find all the foreign digestion experiments on
pigs. The feeds are listed in alphabetical order, and averages are
given when two or more experiments were made.

DIGESTION BY PIGS AS COMPARED WITH DIGESTION BY POULTRY
AND RUMINANTS

The rather limited data on the digestion coefficients of feeds for pigs
here presented are compared in Table 4 with digestion coefficients for
similar feeds fed ruminants (3, 6, 9) and poultry (5). As a rule, pigs
have lower digestive powers than ruminants and higher than chickens.
There are, however, many exceptions to this rule. The protein of corn,
of linseed meal, and of rice polish is digested to a greater extent by
pigs than by ruminants. The extent of digestion of the protein of
cottonseed meal, oats, rice bran, wheat bran, and wheat gray shorts
or flour middlings, is practically the same for pigs as for ruminants.
Fat is digested to a smaller extent by pigs than by ruminants in
almost all cases. The nitrogen-free extract is digested about the same
by pigs as by ruminants, and to a greater extent by pigs than by poultry,
with almost all feeds. The exceptions are wheat and wheat gray. shorts,
which are digested to a greater extent by ruminants than by pigs or
poultry.

The most pronounced differences in digestion for the three groups
of animals are for crude fiber. Pigs have a greater power to digest
crude fiber than have chickens but much less than ruminants. Neither
chickens or pigs are adapted to use feeds which contain much woody
or fibrous material. The digestive organs of pigs and chickens can
handle concentrated feeds, high in sugars, starch, or protein, but are
poorly adapted to handle hays, fodders, chaff, oat hulls, rice hulls, stems,
or other fibrous materials.

As is to be expected, there are}
differences between the digestion coefficients secured on the same feed by if

km -‘

i
§|

4421s.... '

DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF HOG FEEDS

m. MBA. 3w $5 .22 £3. 3.2 ............................................. .- 38% muuw 235$ .32;
w $2 E3. 53m 8w S4. 23H =55 p865» 8N3
m .23 3s 22s $3 24. 3.5 n95. e85.» 38w
3 5d 3w $5» 2a 5.3 ~92 £23m 03M 3N8
.3 32 Si. 3am 3...: 8.2 $.§ swan. v33 2.2....
Z B; Si: 3.2. Nmé 3N 32 03A? 65¢ 1Z3
2 s3 i; >9? 3a £3 3.3 936mm 6H2 33m
m 3% 3a Ea £4 5H .34.“. .......................................... -. masaom ones via £32 3.5m
w. 3m 9:. SEN 22: 5E ~12. .......................... -- E393 $3. .185 w$m=88o .235
m $6 $3. 33a 3.2 m3. 2Q.  amfinzn $3. Java vwwmaofioo 2M3
w 2K m3. 3.3 3.3 £3 3.3 dawi QwQwQoMBcO mwmww
3 3A 3w 3.2. w? a3 m3: mnofiv F30 Bu?“
2 34 2.3 23> HNN $5 2.2 28% F30 32w
m $4 3.3 mg» mg Q3. 3a .32.» F30 3.3m
m $4 $5 2.? Efiu 34. m5: 28% F30 33w
m “N; 2.3 mafi $4 $4M 2.3 .26.? ch00 mzzw
H 3A 3.3 mmfi. mma 5d 3.2 n95» F50 Hmvmu
3 $4 w; 2%? 3N “$4. .22.. F50 33m
w 3N NW3 3.3 2E 3A 3.3 ................................................ .- wnfioamcz Swiwm 2K5
N. 5a 3w 8.5 8s flaw Efi v5.6.5 Qwiwm SQN
.02 damn uoabxw 32G uuaufinu uonfiuz
Gm flmmD Amaq nova? 09¢ c250 uonafl Ewwoam anouauonnd
LEMPSMZ

AwdNwFv mwon ca“? macwfiionxo comumwwmw 5 wwms mwoww wc nowfimomgoo wwwacwouom A 32x9

 

BULLETIN NO. 454, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

m m mi. v.8 mi H.vv $33 inc»? F50
H m Héw Q2. Q3 v.Hv .... .- 5H3 H63 ca»: 22E? $3.3
N w v.3. v.3 v.3 wdw 3.3% 32;» $23
H w H.vv mdH v.3 i; 3.8% Haws? v23
u w w.Hv 3N Ha... 2w Hwwfiw Hwwi @8258“.
H w wHv N3 HHE v.3 5H8 3b =53 225B 3N3
m mH 3a van Maw .1; GHNHm inc-Ho F30
H mH W? _ 3K 3w 2w “““ .. fir; H65 .515 35H H35
.N mH 3% mam Qmw M42. . 23$ agfi. FHoo
H 2 HiHw w.vH w? v.3 .- 5?» H63 =95 3E HENH»
m HH Q8 Q5 13 WE @158 6HHH>H EH?
H HH N3 W3. Q9. 3m oHoHHB .oHHH>H 33m
m NH W; w? Q5 waw H2595 6HHH>H mvHHm
H NH mvm v.2. 3a wvv Hésfiw 65H M55
N m. 3.3 w?  223m .82: E8
H m odoH vvm .......................................... : HHHHB 0R3 mawnum ~55 Him 83S Efiw
u m 3a w? Q3 wi ...... a HwHmwm .32? F50
H m 9S mam Q8 3w f?» H63 HwwE wwwmncfioo v4.2a
N H. 3v HHm Q2 Q8 Hmnofi F50
H H. wdv wdH mvw 1% 5H3 H63 Hmwfi wwwéofioo .253
w oH HiHm HiHH. v.8 H.vw HH-HOO 82m
H oH v.3 HHH. iv Q8 F30 32m
m H i; Htww mHv 3w  .500 SEN
H H W8 9mm w? H46 H500 SEN
m v mi HiHm W? iv “E22... $2.8m 5&3
H v 3w H.wH mam H.vv Hvcuonw $2.3m Mama
. m u 3w #2 3N 3v Hwiwm $$N
H m v.Hw v.3 NH; v.8 vwiwm mwvmm
nonfisZ awnfiwZ Howbxw 30G Howfixw MQQHHHHHZ
MPH $3.3m 09G owFHO hwivm cmouoanH znouwnonwd
cmwofizz

auwunoQmrWoaw-H wHHHQEMHQQNO Cw MHOQHHOQM munomofiwoou HHQ-Smwwwfi HanHvHfiwcH .N U186?

DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF HOG FEEDS

Hflww mHm Hmmm Hév m . wwwuw>< £38m FHHV .388 wnokzfim
Nfi Haw  www Maw». ...................... .. fimmw  mmwmafl $5 n63 $8 8:88 mm§wpm
H . . . . ..................... .. . . ~95 a m8 hp .288 203w»
wwH mdm méH  mmmw ...................... .. vuonmw $5.. 5:508  mwmaw haw. .2888 20.52%
mHH Hmwm wdw ..... z H.HH H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . I , . . , -- Hvoimwmm H28 Hvoiw mdawflw fiaowm
vHH mama mdw .... -- Hbu H w. ........................... .. Anonfi gwd fimwaonm Hxzwmv womb. HNMHHQ ipwwm
mHH mam odoH .... -- W8 H Wm ........... .. Ammmwm EH. nwnfi eximm fimoaonm e83 Hwmsw dpoom
wHH mHm Hdw ..... .  H  .............. .  and Hana wAéHH imwuonm QEwdV v3.5 AHHEH uowm

Hdm Wmw . . . . . . . . . . z m   ..... .. Ammmwn PHH. 1on3 e\emH-wH Emwaoum “$5 AHHHKH uwwm
omH 9mm Hiwm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Ammwdm FHH. .525 $3-3 533.3 $5 dHEH Hwwm
mHH Haom m6» ................. a . 3E8: .$.HH. nwfim $212 EHQHQHHH $5 AHHHHQ Hwwm
HNH Hwmm Q2 HRH W3 H .... .Ammm.w.fl mafi Jmw $3 5mm H§HiNH JHHQHOMQ gwv flied _mo>.wwH uwom
rHH Q3 >8 .... : Hnmm H .....   Hmwfi... EH. 8am o\o~..m Jimuoam Qewdv 39H Wigwam fiuwwm
wHH Hém Hiww .... .. Wwm H ..................  28p haw 5.5 $86 Emwaonm Qmflwv 8:68 duowm

mdm m6 mmHv Wmw  , ........ -- owwno>< JGQE mama was mnwmm
HHH %.HH.M  wmm Www  ......................... .. H82: 88H .8 mnwwm
8H . . . . . ................  ...... .. QUE flaw .Ho mcmw

3w w: 2m q: 2 asH....-.HHHHHHHHHHH.@m§s>< 82m .5 8 ._. .25.“... as k5. .2...“
m2 8W m?   ................. ,. Mwmmmwww  § 8 m. .259.» E8 2a.? $2.8m
8 S. . . . ....................... .. . fix. o» . 56am .8 mo >> $w Ham
Hw mam H; v.5 mdm ....................... ., Qzgonwv H25 88% 3 w @528 W5 8W0“... $oT8m
3 3% v.0 Q8 H.Ho Ewmmmm ,,,,,, .. AHEHSHMV 82W “XL. ca w €H§9Hm was 3on3 $wH8m
m2 MAM Wm“ mm EM ........ .. Mmfimww wwwmv Hwfi .5 2 w .85....“ 2. 2,5. 828m
H5H d . . .. ................. : . C Q o . 55am HHd o o B $o .8
m: 95 ad Hiwm Qww . ..... ..  .. Cwfiskb 8&5 $vwvopp ww Hwcwobw HHvvcm 0H~OHH~~3 $QT8MHH
2H 8w QwH Hi3. m5. .............. .. AHEPH casiwwv no.5 ‘x; 3 H. 6:50am E8 “mos? $2.8m
SH Q5 m.» QNH WE. .............. .. Hwwwm cwHmmnmv 85m fix; o» H. Hzmzomw H28 oHofip $2.8m
3H i; mam WE. Hlfi. ............. .. 26mm cwmmwumv .85“ fit. o» H. .3595 H28 wHonB $2.8m
8 mdw QMH Wow m4; .............................. .. HwHoHHBv Hwnfi Q; o» H. .HE:o.Hw E8 v3.1‘, $3.8m
m. 9mm v.3 9E WHw 1.............mzmHWMHMMMMMMMMMMM ~25 Q; o» H. .9598 E8 oHonB $2.8m
E Raw HxHH mdw mam  ............ -- pwnm ox; 3 H. .3503 H28 015B $2.8m
3 8.5 Q3 Ham 9mm  ............. .. 85% Qt. o» H. .3595 H28 QHBHB $2.8m
3H     % immfiwww .................... ..H.....w...~.wm.xmmwc EHEZQ gwwcm. Haoavm ca; Mwvém
w: . . . .  . H o .50 9H a . can v.8

88w HRH 8.5 mam m .......................................... -- wwfiyflmAwwp Hv H560 wwmwbm cum $wT8mmHH
mm 3w mdH v.3 Haw   ,,,,, .- AH 3 2 8.80 H2598 Hi8 $2.8m
HE H8 v.3 Q2. H35 ............ ,. Q . ,,,,, .. AH 3 H E3 H.565». E8 $2.8m
SH Haw HAN H»? H MMHHHMM ............... hwé kmm. nfiwin 883V 8.62 8 mficfiwwn 83824
8H Q2 55 m8 w S H 22mm xvvm GHwHoaHH exqmmv M55003 waomwn swmHwmH<

HwHHEBZ uowawxo Hofiw uownfino womanokvw
oocouomom 09G wwFHO L 85m nwHobm dZ
flowonfiz

6M3 How muflwmummmwoo nomamwmmw mmmno>< .m v38?

10 BULLETIN NO. 454, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

ww . www www w.ww H =  C2155 55:52.8 i3 E5 58a 05. E: .8555... .580
»H w.ww 85w www H |-i.!-i-.......... ..   HHwww 58a 05. H5 E5 H.585 .580
www www iww .......................................... 1 005.83.. 55.65858 i3 E5 85.8.5. .580
ww H.ww www .............................. .. HH-w.ww 2-8: 5050858 “i3 8.5 .5585 .580
»w _ Eww H.»w .............................. .. Aiwwv 26C 805E898 i3 E5 @5850 .580
ww www www .............................. .. Awwwv 2-80 wwcmiwwo i3 E5 85.8.5 .580
ww w.Hw ».ww .............................. .- Se: 2-8: ww5Hiw8 i3 E5 E595 .580
5w w..»w w.Hw .......................... .. 3-2.3 M38: ww508w8 i3 E5 E550 .580
ww 3w w.ww .......................... .. AH-w.wHv H563 wwnwiwwi» i3 E5 E550 .580
ww waw www .............................. ., M18 AfimdC ww5Hiw8 i3 E5 E595 .580
Hw www Yww 8.5 .............................. .. H-w.ww 2-50 ww5Hiw8 583 E5 E580 .580
Eww ».ww www w.ww w. ..................................................... .. 005.83.. .3585 .2055 H885 5.80
5w 3w www w? www ............... 1 2858.5 .2250 H005 580
ww H.ww w.w» ».ww www  2.585 >855 H585 580
E. w.H.w iww ».Hw H.ww ............ .. A8585. >853 H85 580
www www ww» ww» wH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 00.8554 .8585 .580
w... www www ww» w.H.»  858.5 .580
E w.ww ».ww w...» MAE. E595 .580
w... w.Hw www iww w.H.» .. 8858.5 .580
3 w.Hw www w.»w w.w» E580 .580
w“. ».ww 8w ww» Hwww 8.595 .580
w“. iww H.ww 5.3 H..ww E520 .580
5. iww w. w.»w w.w» H.585 .580
5. www w. ».ww www 8.585.. .580
ww www w.Hw w? 30w  E550 .580
wH w.ww .... .. we» w.w»  858.5 .580
».ww w? w.»w 1w» w . 1 www8>< .255... =80
ww ».ww H8 wi w.w» .... .. @585 580
w w.ww #5. w.w» iww .... .. 528 580
www 8.2. H5 w.w» w.  38.8.2. .5855 580
S www ».ww. w.»» www A0855 580
ww w.ww www 8.5. ».ww A8855 580
8H w.ww www. 3.» iw» .. H8855 580
5w w.Hw wd. www ».ww . A2855 580
ww www www www ».w» H .  ........................... .. Hwwfi .88 E5 580
wwH w$ H42. . 5w 8.5 H 6555 .5.
nSQG 88am .Hi0uoum $umv M55003 003w >~0Hewmv0555 .005 £0.56
wwH we» w.wH w..HH www H H555 5H. 505w 88$ 58.853 wwwH 533 8 0555503 E: .8550
wwH w.H» www 3w wwH. H .2555 .5. .585“ wwww .5285 85»: 055855 8580B E: .8250
.3555: aoduuno nowmw #09503 0008558
00:05.33 00am 0550 i 505W 5330mm u0n5=Z
GQMO-numz

. AwQncBcoO v l-MMMQ MOM

mwifiummmwvoo iomummwmmu UMQNQ><  UTHNB

11

DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF HOG FEEDS

 

0.5 0.00 0.0.... m 000003» .000? .052

00H H400 0.0m ~00 000E .0500
0w HZSH 0.03 H60 SE0 .052
6.2: 0.8 6.8 N 0602.4 .600. 0002

NHH 0.0m HAO H0000 £62
0w 0.03 0.03 0.0m H0000 000E
5 98H 0.0a H @0003 205 00w 000E
0.3 QmH 0.2. 0.0m m 00000004 400E 000003

w» 0.2. 0.2 0.8 6.6 H0000 00.605
S. 6.0m 60H 0.0m 6.8 H0000 06003
0 0.2 0.5 H00 HE. H 06M
HH $.60 0.0m- _ 60w H ....... .. 60 02 .620
0.00 0.6 0 06.064 .620 0.00

00H .... .. 0.6 m .660 000
00H H60 0.2 4 .0020 02.0
NNH 0.5. 0.8 H020 02.0
00H 0.00 0.0m 00H 0.0m H 00.00.6000
Q3 0.3 Hdw 0.0m m 0000030. .3000 000008.060

2 0.00 Ndm 9H0 M30 H0000 000000300
0w 0.00 0.2 0.66 0.6m H0608 H0000 00063060
0. 0.00 0.0m 0.0m 0.3 H005 030060060
00w 0.0m H00 0.60 m ............................. -- 0000.30 AH-Hv 00000008 0000B 00¢ 00066 .060

N... 0.0m 0.0. w? 0.3 ......................................... .. 2-0 00000000. 0600B 00w .00.=Ew .060
H... H00 0...: H00 0.2. .......... .. AH-Hv 00000000 0000.0 000 .0060». .060
0H 0.6 0.00 .000 0.5 ......................................... .. HHHV 000200000 0.60.0 000 .0065 .060
0N H068 0.0m 0.00 H ...................................... .. 005E606 0H60 00w 000x03 .0566 .060
bém v.00 qmr fiNb b QMQHO>< 6.000106“. 000 UHMHHOQM JHHOU

m0 0.6 0.3 6.0m 0.5. $0 8 H0 6.00:0 0.6 0.066 .660
3. 0.6 0.5. 0.0m 6.5 3.0. 8 H0 00.0060 000 00066 .060
0H. 0.8 0.3 0.2. 0.2. S.» 8 H0 00000.8 00¢ 00020 .060
NH. 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 3.... 8 H0 0060060 000 0006.00.00.60
om Cnmwv 0.00 Qmo 320v 0000153 0:0 0:50pm .0000
0H Htmm odH mdw 0.3. AHLEH-mv 00.00153 0:0 005000 .0000
wH WHa ma; H60 :03 00.00123 000005000 .0000
06w mdm 9mm H. 00000.04 6002x0000 030m 0:0 000010.00 £52m 000 00a 005000 .0000

0m N? 06w .............. -. 00020606 0H60 000 000x08 .0020 60 03 .0003w .060
mm 0.00 0.0.0 .............. -- 60000606 0060 00¢ 060060 56G 60 02 .0003m .060
N0 0.00 0.3  00020696 0H60 000 000x03 .0020 60 03 .0063 .060
Hm 6.0m 0.60 02$. .............. -- 00000690. 0060 000 06x03 .620 060 02 .0565 .060

000550 00.000020 005w 00.0.5000 00.00.0020
0000u0w0fi 00.0w 00500 uwflafl 0030mm .0 Z
GQMOMDZZ .

A0owfl$ic0vlkmmma HOW muflfiowwwooo 00500000 QNNHU>¢ -M Qfififi-H»

. . : Hmifi 13H. a3: Q35

H2 H 3 N3 c z H imwuoum H$HWHNV wwom 5H3 M55003 wpowwnwiopw>

. as
i; 2m ma. N. m3»; wwmmsh.

m3 P2: 0.5. wwwxswm.
cH Hmwv . o.Hw o.Hw mcwwnhom
Hw HfiHoH m? w? w? % ~ nonG Qxlhm éHwuoanH okmwH dauonw 93H
wuH fivw wmw Fem Hflmw Uni $2 Hiwuoum QQWNH Hwwfi 93w
    H |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| I Hwflmmn  JnHQHCHQQ»  JNUE wow“ Q>hm
omH Fwm . FE wxw . nwnfl dxvw EHwHoHQ $5 5.95 93H
w: whv Pwu Fwm HMNH. H .om.w~m>< snwnfl okm £23m 86H
FHA“ WE» wEw Hfimw m nwnrw Qem £3.75 003w

mm mxmm Hfimm Www FE. Hon? oxen £23m ooHmH
m whm N3 HMw mkw wwwuw>< 5095 85H
nmmb  wbw wfimmvw m .................................................. z MQQHM Qbmd JHHQHOHQ QQQNH JHFHQ wuWH

mNH Hwwv . .u.w~_ PHI ................................................ .. uonHw QsméH £82m QSnmH in»: 85H
g flmw Pom F2. . P5 .- . Hwnfi §H..¢.H JHHQHO-Hggma 5x5 woHM
w. w ow  om. m8 Pmv . . $2 6pmfiwm
E. H.wm . ...... 1 fiyw % ; wwwnwiw fiwHaw dfifiom
9H5 Wwm  Hwmm ,,,,,, 1 .. Hvwiw dfifiom

NHH Pww M3 ...... : . woHHH. dfivbom
HHH Pm» F3 ...... .. mmw v23. dfifionH
oHH W2 fig ...... a ohm woiw dumuom
2H FHA“ ohm ,,,,,, .. M2 v3.3 dpmpom
woH fig  ...... c F5 wmxooo 683cm
B. w g . Pmw H wmw~w>< dwcflxosh. uHaonH
H.moH wfim m wwnflxowao vHHonH
H~H m.moH w.Hm mMGHHvHQsHo vHHonH
mH aha Wwm ...... 1 mwnzxuwuu viom
NH . . WMHH HRHHH  HEBPHM dawm
8 . Hhm F? Pom ohm H ...... .. mvHwo us: EHwm
wmH F3. 9mm mm» Pow H omunw>4 .UHHH.HO.HM 2on3 60x0
Pwv mmHH wk» Fwv m UHHHHOHM 0H2?» dwwO
m2 a? Po is w? vascum 2on3 dpwO
m m? HMHN mww i; QmHHmV oHona» .oHHH>H
2 P2 m.$ F?“ N.Hw E AmvHHmv HEsoHw .012
m; FEW HA5. wbw m8 H mo: .353
E P; 3m FE fix. QHQA? JHHQH

vmH H. .3 m. g w i“ H . >

pwnfis: wownuxu nwnfl uoaufino uwwwuw?»
wuconmwwfi Q owam 25.6 i hwflamm Qmwpopm dZ
qwuonfiZ

 

12 BULLETIN NO. 454, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Huo5=Hp¢oOv|dwHQ no“ manoHomHwoou flow-mourn mmw~w>< .m wHnfiH.

13

DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF HOG FEEDS

W3 9mm W2. N .......................................... ,. wu§$>< $55G $m€ 63G Hui: £2.33
2. 9% 3:. 3:. .. A225 §<8 v.5 2.2.2.25 e25?
Ma méw Q3 9E.  A225 $3; E8 85E 225?
3w 9mm Qmw 3% 3 -.  wwmnoiw

2.65m $6 .5395 QwwC miosm 2.2m .6 mmcflwwflfi 26G 6.2.653
a ma... gm mg mam ..... 1 22E .63 .=§.Q2Q§WHV @622; zxau .6 mwfiawmfi 56G paws?
8 i; v.5 w? 9% .... G. 23¢ Q3 émwpo2a§wfiv mtfim >3». .6 wwdzwwmfi 2.5m 28;?
H Ew 3m i; fiw ..... z 253G eke éwaca§wfiv $2.5m >93 .6 mfifiwwmfi 250G Q6055
3H 5w Q5 w...» 3w .... .. 23m RE éwaoa§wfiv @292 zsnw .6 wwfiawmfi 252G i355
E. 3w W: Nd» Q? .... .. 16.5 Qé émwfih§wflv $.85 zwuw .6 mmizzzfi 250G fiwwfis
C. adv wwfi wfiw flow .... .. Auwfiw 66w fimouonfl§wflv muaozm mdum no wwflflwwmfi 56G uwmnkw
3 Q8 ZN w? Q3 \\\\ .. 22E Q1. émwaoz§wfiv mionm .82». .8 6:52.25 26a 2:53
am Ea wfi 2w i; ..... r285 $2. 66262623: £22m 28w 8 mwczwfifi 2.6a 22g
mm WE. YNH Ndm 9E. \\\\ z 262G 66w imwaoaa§w$ 3.6mm .32» .6 mwcflwwih 56G Haws?
g QR. Nd mdw 9E. ...... zAnonmm 66w iwmuonno§wfiv 3.25m 52w .6 mucflwgi 56G pawn?
mm 2w 92 mdw flaw ...... $65G Q3. Emwuonflgmi mfiosm .86 .6 mmcflwutn §6G Haws?
5K 93. Q3 Q...» m . wmn6>< .8662» “E655
M; is o6»... is 3;   wwxomau Haws?
u» o? Q3 3:. 9cm .- woxowfi. awash’
m3 mdm 93  mam H .............................................. .. 22mm $93 .5395 o$mév Gwwsu uwwsg
.36 Q3 3a w...» w omwaw>< 5.95 paws?
S; WE. 9mm WE. Nam =95 paws?
mm WC. 3N 9S Q3 : imam, among
aw ma“. W: 3m 9C. =55, Haws?»
C. o? Z5 $2 YE. Gflhfl Q8255
2. 06m Q3 in... W? ““““ 1 CNHQ Hmong
2. fix. i: New ma» ‘ : \ Cdhfl paws?

m2 N? wfl v.2 N3 H  Ammwdn. haw imam“ exlflwm
imououm Qomdmv mwom adosfi? M55003 maowon .533’

b03852 abdHHNO M03?“ abdhuvnw . mvvwflhmfiwd
ounwnmwwfi ovum 35.6 uonufi cmovonm 1 uonfiuz
flowonfiz

 

. Awwflcwpconvvuldwmn now

wucwmowfiwoo cofimwuww wmwnw>< .m Baum.

14 BULLETIN NO. 454, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

H. oHH. o.mH Qmw mdw .3225 fiwaonm hdnw no mwcflwuih .52.“ uswskv
H. 92w 9mm 9% Néw 8.5585 dies» 22m aoamuczwwmfi 55G “Haws?
HH 9% 9mm 9% Haw 8E .885 >95 .5 mfliwwmfi 55G 88.8?
8m Hwww 9w H5. 9E 9516a .H.8_8.B 8E5?
m 04$ 9E Hi5. 95 Bfiwnmifi H.288 88E?
N ma» 92. 9? 9i 8E .H§H8H8 88s?
Hem 3. 93 9% unison cwhH £855
2 9E Ham 95 93 flnwecui =95 285$
w 92. 3N 9E 93 8E =95 88s?
H. .93. 111111 .. 9mm 9mm zufisoa dmamcmm.
N 92. ,,,,,, 1 9S 9% muE awwxeflH.
w. 9% 9H. 9% 9% mnflai. £25 88w dmzon 82E
w. 92 9E 9% H95 $5.552 5:5 88w i=3 83m
N mi 9S. 9% 9% mmE awpm $N 526E 8E
a 9% 9m Hsw 9E >532» £95 83H
m 9%. 9% 9% 93 manefifis... d2... 8E
m 9m» 93 98 93 8E :53 8E
Hm m3 HE 5w HAA. unison E58» 86f» 6E0
w mHw wQw Hwww 9E. 3.52:5...» wnnouw 2on3 iunO
N 9w» mHH 9E 9E. 8E H525». 86.? .380
H. odm .  Hdm vdw manque.“ Hmwi “$3.2
N 98H ...... .. 9S 9% muE 1W2: "$32
H. 9% #3 92 84% 34.2353 HuoE @8825
N 1% 9E 9E. 3w 8E H88 umwwfiq
w 98 92 N8 Hdv amide.» 13E 8.82.8380
2 95 9mm 9% 9% munfiini $35 wwwmfifiao
m 98 93 Hdw 9% mwE HwwE wwwmfizéo
3 Nda 93 8.3 8.2 unison Sw 5.50
mH 92 93 9% fig M28589. S.» .930
_ 2 98 Ham 9:. 92. 8E =8 6.80
N 93 v.2. Ea 9% mEQEEE 952M waoBwnm
m. 93. WHN 9mm H42. wuE mfiapw EQBQEMH
Hm Haw wdH Ham Qfi. zuison
w 9S 5s 9% 93 885.58.... nwwnm ..Hw_.HwmH
3 9% 9E N9.“ 9:. 8E 5.5 Q; 3 H. .2595 H28 815B ..§.8m
i” HXH 9E 9% .533 .55 8E5 $5 8.6 >2 £53
www Hi3. Mwwm wdw wucacihs» nHwnG wwsouo oxvmm nw>o ma: afiwfidw
H H3 H.H~.. ...... -- 9% 8E .285“ $2 .5893 $8: 8.83 B MEEEQH 828:4»
Hi5. 9.2. 9% .93 mfiGEEE .38“ 8E8 $3 BoHon ma: $122.
H Qmn mdm m6 wéw mwa 552$ Qxlh .5893 exvmmv wfifiooHn wnowon $2.33..
womsfirfim 3.9383 uonrH aoanfinw
nwnfisZ wwnm t UUBLU uwspfl nmoaonfi
ucowoaumz

 

.hh..SHHOQ “Es 3:55.295 £33 wwnaaioo m.» mwmfi .3 wwumummw moudafiwouufi i 05d?

DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF HOG FEEDS 15

PRODUCTIVE ENERGY

A portion of the energy in the food eaten by an animal passes through
in the undigested compounds in the solid excrement. Another por-
tion appears in the liquid excrement, and in the metabolic products
found in the solid excrement. Some of the energy is 10st by fermenta-
tion in the intestines, and a portion is consumed by the work of digestion
and other processes consequent upon the ingestion of the food. There
finally remains a portion of the energy of the food, termed the net
energy, which can be used for the maintenence and repair of the ani-
mal body, and for productive processes, such as the production of fat,
flesh, milk, eggs, or for work or motion. *

The proportion of the net energy which can be used for the various
purposes of the animal appears to vary to some extent (2). It aplpears
probable that a larger proportion of the net energy can be used for
maintenance of the animal than for the production of fat. Thus, the
process of transforming the various constituents produced by digestion
into the form of fat, and into the other compounds formed in the gain
of weight, involves a larger consumption or loss of, energy, than does
their use for the maintenance or repair of the body. In the production

~ of milk, eggs, or even for Work, different percentages of the net energy

may be required for the transformation of matter involved in the pro-
cesses, so that the percentage of the net energy which appears as
milk, eggs, etc., may be different. Therefore, if the excess of net
energy of a ration over maintenance requirements is measured in terms
of different uses made of it, different values may be obtained; one
value when used for maintenance, another value when used for work, a
third value when used for fattening, a fourth when used for milk,
and so on. The net energy of a feed measured in terms of maintenance
of an animal is considerably higher than when measured in terms of fat.
H. H. Mitchell (11), for example, assumes that 100 per cent of the
metabolizable energy may be used for maintenance, while 76 per cent

»of the metabolizable energy is used for fattening of hogs. The net

energy of a feed measured by work done by the animal, or by milk
produced might also be different from the value measured by maintenance
or fattening.
- It is important to know how much of the energy of a feed can be
used for the various functions of the animal. But for the practical
purposes of comparing energy values of feeds, calculating rations, and
other services, it is necessary to avoid the confusion of several net
energy values of the same feed, and adopt a single unit to be used
for all feeds and for all calculations. For these purposes, Kellner (9)
adopted the measurement of the fat produced on a fattening animal
as the measure of the productive value of a feed. Of the various uses
made by an animal of his feed, the production of fat is probably the
most easy to measure. Kellner expressed the productive value in terms
of starch. The same value is here used, is expressed in terms of energy.
The productive value of a feed, as here used, is measured by the quantity

16 BULLETIN N0. 454, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

of fat which a unit of the feed Vwill put on a fattening animal, receiving
a basal ration sufficiently above maintenance to ensure that the added
units of feed will be used only for fattening purposes. While the net
energy of a feed for production of milk, eggs, or work, or for mainten-
ance, may be different from the productive energy measured by pro-
duction of fat, yet the food required for these purposes can all be
expressed in terms of such productive energy. For practical purposes,
the single measure of net energy adopted is called the productive energy.
and is measured in terms of fat.

ENERGY-PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS FOR PIG FEEDS

It has been claimed that pigs have a greater power of utilizing the
digested portion of feeds than have ruminants. Fingerling (10), by means
of respiration experiments, ascertained that one pound of digested
starch produced 0.355 pound of fat with hogs, compared with 0.248
pound with steers, while one pound of digested cane sugar produced
0.281 pound of fat on hogs, and 0.188 pound on steers. There was
practically no difference with crude fiber; one pound of digested crude
fiber produced 0.248 pound of fat on hogs and 0.253 pound of fat on steers.
Fingerling estimates that the hog can produce about 30 per cent more
fat than ruminants from the digested nitrogen-free extract of feeds.
On the other hand, Mitchell (11) found no such wide differences in
slaughter experiments with fattening hogs. When calculated by the
method used for ruminants (3) with the coefficients of digestibility
for hogs, the productive energy for the mixture of corn, tankage, and
wheat middlings used by Mitchell, we found to be 83.7 therms per
hundred pounds, while he calculated the value of the mixture to be
89.5 therms from the first experiment and 74.8 therms from the second
experiment. The average productive value for the two experiments
would be 82.1 therms, which is nearly the same as that calculated
by the methods for ruminants (83.7). In view of the uncertainty re-
garding the exact power of the pig to utilize feeds as compared with
ruminants, it was considered inadvisable to select a factor to make
a correction for this power. It can be taken care of in formulating
feeding standerds. (The energy production coefficients were accordingly
calculated by the method given on page 17 of Bulletin 329, except that
the correction for crude fiber was omitted.

The results are given in Table 5, which also contains the reference
to the factor used for fat or for correcting the values, if any, as
well as the average coefficient of digestibility for protein. While the
production coefficients here given are not considered to be strictly cor-

rect, they can serve as a starting point for the calculation of more
exact coefficients.

USE OF PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS

The approximate productive energy of pig feeds can be calculated
from the chemical composition of the feed by multiplying the per-

DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF HOG FEEDS 17

centage of each constituent of the feed by the corresponding factor
given in Table 5 and adding the products. The sum will be approxi-
mately the therms of productive energy furnished by 100 pounds of
the feed. The digestible protein can also be calculated by multiplying
the percentage of protein in the feed by the corresponding average
coefficient of digestibility of protein given in Table 3. The product is
the pounds of digestible protein in 100 pounds of feed. It must be
recognized that neither the digestible protein nor the productive energy
so calculated is exactly correct, since there are variations both in the
nature of the constituents in the various feeds, and in the powers of
individual animals to digest the feed and to utilize the digested material.
Furthermore, as pointed out in the preceding section, hogs may have
a greater power of storing energy than is provided for in the pro-
duction coefficients here presented. However, the productive energy
calculated by the method here given can be used to compare the values
of different kinds of hog feeds with one another, in terms of pro-
ductive energy. They can also be used to compare feeds of the same
kind, but with different compositions. In connection with appropriate
feeding standards, (discussed below) they maybe used to calculate
rations for feeding hogs. They can serve other useful purposes, even
though the productive energy may be comparative values and not abso-
lutely correct values.

COMPOSITION AND FEEDING VALUES OF HOG FEEDS

The average and minimum composition, the digestible protein, and
the comparative productive energy for some hog feeds are given in
Table 6. The production coefficients of the corresponding feed in
Table 5 were used in these calculations; the productive coefficients
for a feed nearly resembling it were used for feeds not listed in
Table 5. The average composition is based chiefly upon analyses made
in this Laboratory and applies to Texas feeds. The minimum guarantees
used by the Feed Control Service are also given in the tables, and
the digestible protein and productive energy are calculated for them. In
some cases, the nitrogen-free extract is made a little higher than the
minimum guarantee, in order to avoid too high a content of water, and
to come nearer to giving the correct productive energy. Commercial
feeds are frequently sold in Texas with the minimum guarantee given
in this table. The guaranteed composition of mixed feeds may be
calculated by the use of percentages of the various feed combined and
of the minimum guarantee of each ingredient. The digestible protein and
productive energy of the mixture can also be calculated in the same
way. The results of such calculation would be the minimum guarantee
of the mixture. Ordinarily the composition of the mixture should ex-
ceed the minimum guarantee in protein, fat, and nitrogen-free extract,
and fall below it in crude fiber. The content of digestible protein
and of productive energy should usually slightly exceed the results of
the calculation made in this way.

18 BULLETIN NO. 454, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

mw Zm ma. owo. ommé moo. we: .0053
mw 4 83 o $3 moo. 0505B J55
U. m owoA o Ram moo. i550 .055
ow 4 E3 o oomm woo. fiQOE 000E
om 4 . o o omom wooA mnsaum 0E5 vcs $.02
mm Z4 mmm. 2A.! .104 woo. i005 v00m5m
5 Zm omoA mow. ~34 mo». ufisvm
om m 00o. o mmm. moo. Mov v0» £55k
om m o o 53 m3. 30E 55m
wm Z0 NS. 2:. Em. m5. 0000002000,
mm Z4 :0. 2o. womm mow. “s05 5000050300
mm 4 owo. omofa owfim omm. 3-3 0055555 0002B vns 056.5 5.50
mm 4 ooo. o oomm 2K. 005750000 5.3a vcs 00.0050» vcsobw .2000
om Z4 moo. $0 owom mfi. 0050500 vcs 655$ .2000
om 4 moo. o owmm mmm. 00220-0000 x30 vcs 0Msv5s0 £50m.“ wov v0n 056.5 i000
om 4 :3. o mm: 3w. Cuoflomo 0.053020 x002 vcs .502 mov v0» 6500.5 .0000
5 m ooo. o ommA owm. 55G 00v v00 vcs 0560.0 E000
om 4 moo. o mmmm wow. mmcflxosau 020a vcs 055.5 .2000
om Zm moo. 5o. $04 3m. 2s 5.30
wm Zm 2:3 2N. ommm mmo. 100E F30
mm Zm ooo. 2Q! owoA m5. 056.5 5.30
mm Zm wooA wmm. mwoA 8w. 00050 F30
mm Zm ooo. m3. omwé EB. 2053 E000
om Em mom. SW! womA m3. F05 n00 vcs F30
2 Z0 ma. wwm. mwo. ma. A0535 .3. 25m 00om .5395 e0mmo 055003 0000s 03000885 i: ..~0>0_0
m: Z0 woo. 3A.! mwm. Sm. Ammmsa iv 005w 00wm 55000.5 002v E003 00 05555000 .v0.~ ..~0>0_0
S Z0 m3. ooo.]. oow. moo. 050s: >50 005w 50mm .5305...“ 000C 055003 000M505 .v0.~ ..~0>0_0
om Z4 wmm. mmoil ommA m3. 0500mm 0.50pm
om o~ omo. mow. ...... .. 2:. 5005.00.00 vcs v55. dswzw .300m
wm o. mmo. oow. ...... .. mwm. i050 009m .5305“ 00m.o.o v0€v fismsm 600m
mm o. woo. mwo. ...... -. 5w. Amvwsn iv 005m .006 .5395 ~03 nsmzm £00m
mm o. mom. Hmm. ...... .. wom. Ammmsn Ev 005m u0omm .50»0.~Q 00w.mv v0€v .550 000m
S o mom. oom. ...... .- ..  Emsn 3v 008.5 Q03 6500000 0S 5:0 000m
om ZN Em. ooo. mow. 2w. A5005 >5. nws w0oo £05m u0wmm .5395 00mv v50.» .w0>s0_ 000m
o o0 t2. mom. ...... .- oom. Aims: mnv 005w 000d .5395 w0wmv 38H $550000 £00m
m oZ omo. mwo. ...... .. mmo. A533 Ev 00.5w 00mm .5395 00o.mo M55000.“ 5000mm
0 Zm wE. 2m... omo. Gm. F05 c005 n0 m:s0m
o Zm wmo. m5... Sm. mm». T05.“ 00m. o0 wo v5.0.5.0 vcs 2053 $3.5m
o Zm mwoA oom. womA moo. 305w 00w.o .5395 00o.oG 100E v00.“ mflpsm
w 2m ooo. mom.| ommA oom. @050 00m .5395 00950 cs5 >0€sm
m Zm moo. 02.! $3 ooo. Q 0» C F30 056.5 vns >0€sm
m E m3. 8m..- ...... : mwm. i050 00mm .5395 QewC E003 0» w5n5m0a £01054
H E0 o5 oom I. 2: omo @050 000m .5395 00mm, M58003 0.8000. .5324
0055:: 0000.300 005m 00.05000
00=0.~0o0m 030.0% 00am QQQHO nwflamw flmuaOhfim
Evwonfiz.

 

.mv00w Mo: 00w 05505053000 comooflvoum-mwn0i0 050.055? .o 050B

19

DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF HOG FEEDS

5 Zm. 5w. m8. ...... .. m5. iwnfi fig. comm coin: Haws?
mo Z< 5w. ~51 wfia 3w. imam.“ gm .5393 §wC 3.8mm .33 no mw-JEHE 55G uav-FF
mm zm 3w. 3:. Ea; N3. UMOGHU anon?
E E #3 oS.| o SN. Anwnfl §o6~ Ewwaonn Qxvmdflv. “was”. “Ems?
2 wfi N3. m3. 3AA $9 can: axon?
mm Sm $3. Q2. 2a. Sh. Awmma; ab. .35“ fizwfi .5395 §§s @525 “saga? “$.82; wfiafi 58$,
E E N3. <3. Q 54. Amid... .3. 25w fimew .5803 QQQE maafi fir.» M5583 28B £33»
8 < 3w. o $2 2;. omwxflum.
.3 Z< wwoé o Hid Em. wcwonhom
mm Zm >3 “.2. “i; 9%. .35.“ ab?» .5395 Qédfi .335. mam
S m 2a. Q 8w. omw. .90.: $3 .530...“ $5.2 .32: Km
mm m E54 a £5 N3. 55G fiéé .5302» $92 . QUE wwum mam
.3 2m 2K. NmQI 3w. $2.. .85“ §w Emovoun a 5 Ewan Pom
E Z4 ~54 2:. $5M 5%. .55“ Qmw £23m 03M
2 Z4 2;. 2:. 25d 2w. ca»: 02M
mm 13A o o 3w. Bu» Suauom
Hm REA wwm. o Q3. wwiw éauuom
om 35A o o mmw. woxoou .o..-w.<_om
3 < a a 3i :04 nmnrxuupo viom
ma. Zm 20A 3m. $3 25. wznouw imam
a5. ...... .. 2a. o 8g 23.. Awufismmsv 2oz? .3556.»
S. Z4 “aw. m8. m“: S». $13 as: 83m
S. Z4 Qw. 3N! m5...“ 2:» @585 .20.?» 6.30
5. Zm m3. 5N. MSNA N3. “ion? :52
3. Zm m2; o3. m3; 2w. 350mm .232
uonfin: Quauvxw pwnfl aodnaxo
oocwuwwwm uovowh $3 2:50 pwsfim Eouopm
cuwoufiZ

Svozcmuconvv .253 Mo: now mwnomomwwoou cowuuwwoufl-amuocm ozudaflum. 6 03am.

20 BULLETIN NO. 454, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

9» N88 98 9NH 9»8 98H 95. 9HH  .55 .8888 88555855.
8.» 8.5.» N.N 8.8 9N8 98 N.N 9HH . 5.888 585552
9NH 9HN N.8 95.5 988 8 N. 98N .55 .5558 5.8555. .5552
9N8 95.N 8.85 N.8 ».H N.N N.HH N.H8 5888.5 8.888 .8853 8885.5
9H8 988 9NN 8.8 N.N 9N ».8H H.N... .8885 8888 .888588 8.8.5 5.88 8885.55
H985. ».88 98N 98 9N 9N 98 98... .......................................... 1 .55 .5885 8888 .8855 8.8.5 5.88 8885.5
N88 8.8» N.8N N8 H.N N.N 8.8 N88  5858.85 9.885 5885 888.5 5.88 8882
».NN 98» N... 8.8 8.»N 8.8 N85 N.NN 8585855 88NN .5885 5.888855
N.HN 8.5.» N... H.N 98N 8.N 98 8.88  88888.5 5.58 .5885 5.88855
8.N 9»N 9N 98H H.H» N.N 9N N.HH 888.58 8 8558 .5585
   0.8mm  04m. m.N  iii-l.......I...ll.l.....l..l....2¢.; It?‘illilvfll... .5558 Qwwfivm
8.» N.N» 988 9» 98 98H .55 .8885 55585.5
N.N 9»N 9H N.HH N8» 9N H.N 9HH 58.58.58 .8 85585 558N885
».» ».H.N 98» 9N 9N 98H .... .. .55 .8558 558N885
9NH N.N» 9N 9HH 9N8 98 9H. 98H .55 .885. 5.8.. 5.85m
9N8 99.. 8.NN 9» 8.5. N 8.» ».88 ...... ..  .... .. 888.88 585m
N85. 9N5. 9NN 9HN 9H 9H 8.8 988 .55 .5885 585m
N.8H 9NN ».H 98H N88 9N H.N ».NH 888.58 .8 5.888 855.8885
N.N 988 9H ».8 8.N» 9N N.N 98H  .5258 .8 5.888 858m
N.NN 9N8 .... .. 1 . 9NN 98H 98 985. .55 .8588... $85. .5885 5.8888880
98N 9»8 . . . . . . . . . . .. 9NN 9NH 98 9N5. . .55 .8588... 9N5. .5885 8888885580
98N 9N» 98 8.8 N.8N 98H 9» N85. 55858.5 8\.N5. .5885 5.8858880
8.58 8.88 .... ..  98N 95.H 98 5.5.. .55 55858.5 ..».NH.H5. .8885 8888.85.80
N8 9NN N.H 98H H.N» ».H 9N 5.85 5885 8.80
N.» 9NN ....H 9NH 98» 9N 9N 98  .55 .8885. 880
8.» 98N 9H N.HH 9H» 9N 95. 98H 8.58.58 58o
98H H.N» 98 9N N85. N.HH 98H 98H $8 .5885 558 85588880
9NN 9NN 9HH N.N 8.85. 9 98 9H.N ...... .. 5.855. 855555858885
98H N85. 5.5. ».8 9N5. N.»H N.8 8.HN s... .8858... 5.8555. 85858.5
9N N8 .... .. 1 95. 9N 8 9... .......................................................... .. .55 .5.8588..8 5858888 .5885 888m
8.» 98 N.8N N.N 95. ».N 98 ».»  s8 .5.8588..8 58588.58 .5885 8.8m
N.8N N.HN ».H8 N... N... 8 N.N ....8N   .2. .8858888 .5885 888m
9N 988 , . . . . . . . . . .. 9N... 9NN 98 9N  55 .8855. .555 888m
9N 8.5.8 9N 9N 988 N.8H 8.8 98 .3. .8855. .8555 888m
N.8N 9NN N.H. N.N H.NN H.H. 9H 9NN 55.8885 88.5.5 588m
98 N88   9N» 9N 9N 98H .55 85555 88 ..585.8m
9HH 9N8 ».H 9N 9H» 9N 9N 9NH .2. 85555 88 .585.8m
9N 9H» N.N N.N 9»8 N8 H.N 9NH 85858 .8 8.58.58 885.585
N.» 9N8 9N 9NH 988 98 9H 9HH .55 858555
8.5. 98H N.N 9N N.8N 9NN 9H 8.5.H >8 .5885 85585558
9NH H.NN . . . . . . . . . .. 985. 9NH 9N 9NN .55 .5885 5885 85585.54
95.H H.5.N 9HH ».» 98H. 98H 9N 9HN .>< .5885 .5885 8558855..
88H 58.5 5 88H
85.555500 50m NHFH 500.5850 .5025 50.0.5550
555050.50 .053 >058 5585.. 5095;? 005.5 05.55.50 505E 85505505.."
035 -550 0Z8. 550M0m557.
5809C 6:00am

052380055. 5.55m >Mm0=0 035503.059 m0 9555053 58050550500 15.50 .00»55m.H.05H.w 955555555555 H353 N000.“ Mo: m0 5505558085500 9000550050.“ 0Mdm0><

85.55055 o2 H55 55505050
.8 85.585.

21

DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF HOG FEEDS

 

 

9w: :.::. 9w c.:: c.mw 9w 9w 9w: ......................... .. ..  1 \\\\ 1 .55 awow :00» .8 wfosw 05:3 @0055
w.:: 9wm 9m m.w: c.wm m.w 9w 9w: , .. .55 000.: @055 @002?
w.w: :.cm 9w .c.c: :.wm w.v :.w 9v:   :60: @0035 500:3
w.w: w.mv c.w 9w 9cw c.w c.w c.v:  .... .. .55 550cm 900m @0055
9m: w.mv :.w c.c: w.vm w.m 9w 9w: ....... ..  $.85 v0.3 265$
w.w: w.mv w.w w.c: w.vm :.w w.w v.v: 55500000 :50 0:00.? 52w 0.02:3
m.ww 9mv .... -. . . .. 9mw m.w c.c: 9cm ........................................................... ..    .55 .500“: #00:?
w.w: w.vv w.w :.c: 9ww w.w w.w :.w: 02. :00: £02.: 0.02:3
9:: 9:v w.w 9c v.vw w.w c.w :.m:  52:0 paws?
m: 0.3 w.w 9c: v.0... w.w v.w 9w: . . . . . , . . . . .. $005 c805 00055
:.: 9ww 9m 9w: c.wm c.c: 9w m.w: .55 .505: @0055
9w: w.ww w.w v.w 9cm w.w: v.w w.v: .  ........... .. 0:005 :50 @509: ww>:0>
9ww w.ww w.w: m.v w.w :.w 9w 9cw ........ .. E38 5300M? 008:5»:
9ww wcm 9mw v.w 9w w.w v.w w.ww  Qwcmlmwc $3090 008:5:
9:. vaw 9w 9v waw :.m wv 0.3. R08 :0 085cm
:.vw v.cc: v.w w.w m.ww w.v w.v: 9cm 5:909: wcwonzom
w.ww wcw m.ww 9w 9w 9w: w.w 9cm ........ : 00.0.50 05:55
9ww v.wv :.w: 9w 9ww w.w w.w 9c:. .... ..  . :55 ::0 055mm
9:: w.cw 9w 9c: 9vw 9w 9: 9w: ............ 1 . z 55:0 0.3:
w.w :.wv c.m m.:: 9ww w.w 9: 9v “£05m 0:053 60:»:
w.w w.ww 9w 9w: c.cw 9w c.w c.::  5:5 52:05 00:»:
w.w: wwc w.w v.w 9wm 9w w.:: v.w: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 9050:: 00S:
w.v vdw . . . . . . . . . . .. c.vv c.: c: 9m .55 4005020 .003:
w.v 9ww c.c: 9w: c.ww c.m: 9c: c.:: .55 .55.: 00$:
w.w w.cv v.c: 9c v.:w v.w: :.w: w.w: . . 5.0.8: 00$:
v.: :.:w w.: 9vw :.ww 9: w. :.w  $50.0: 3555c @0030 609330.“:
9:: 9ww w.w v.0 wvm w.w w.w 9ww . .............. : 00o»:

9w v.m :.w: 9v: 9ww m.mw ................. : 3mg: o: 02:5» 0c wo =05“ Qwmw :55 22:3 60.0500:
v.vw 9vv w.w 9m 9ww w.w :.w m.ww ................................ :  ........... :   58.0.5 9ww .235 @0500:
v.ww :.ww: w.w :.m c.c: w.w w.vw m.:w  $005 .5 205.60: 0.05000:
:.ww 9ww: .... ..  c.v: 9w 9ww 9ww .55 £100.60: 5000A:
w.w w.mw. . . . . . . . . . . 1 c.ww 9ww 9w c.c: : ........... 1 .55 $5: wzcnwn:
www w.cw . . . . . . . . . . z 9ww c.c: 9w c.mw .1005 :0 00:00 0.25000:
9ww 9vw . . . . . . . . . . : 9ww c.w: 9w 9ww .............................................. .. .55 .5305: 9ww .135 >0 00:00 5:50.“:
9mw 9wv v.w v.m 9ww w.w: c.: www l ...... a 5:305: avww 60:00 @5500:
9c 9mw w.w w.w vdm w.:: :.w w.w:  05:3 0:053 .300
v.w :.ww 9w m.c: c.wm c.w: 9w c.:: .55 .2053 .306
9c 9ww v.w 9w c.wm w.w: 9w w.:: .......... .. @0550». ::w .90.: .300
w.w: 9ww 9: w.w v.mw 9: 9w :.w: .... .. @020» .5095 :00
9w w.ww 9: v.c: 9cv 9w 9w :.:: 59:0 00 0:05.... 22>:
9w www 9w 9w: 9cv 9w m.w 9c: : I . . .55 .550 05>:

cc: :05 n: cc:
0:509: :2: 05.: 30.30:. .65.: 3.0.303
53:00:: .04: .38 :90 550:5 005.: 0:500 505m: 5:86am:
01:: -50 P»: iwwoafi?
éwwmF: 00:00am

01.30005. :50 >326 03:05:00.5 we @535: 6005:5050 v5.0 .o0:50.:0:M 555515 :3?» wwwuw

:.:00=:E=0Oc|l.w:05:0:: cc: c: 530.5

m2: :0 55532500 0030000000 00303.. .w 030:.

22 BULLETIN. NO. 454, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

STANDARDS FOR PIG FEEDING

Standards for feeding various kinds of farm animals have been pre-
pared, for the purpose of aiding in formulating rations and otherwise
aiding in intelligent feeding. It is generally recognized that, while such
standards are helpful, they cannot be used as ironclad rules, for the
reasons that feeds are variable in composition, animals vary in ability
to digest and utilize the feeds, and conditions under which the animals
are fed also vary. For these reasons, the same mixture does not always
produce the same results. However, although the standards have their
limitations, they are also useful and helpful in feeding and in solving
feeding problems.

Standards for feeding swine have been prepared by Wolff-Lehmann,
Kellner (10), Armsby (1), Henry and Morrison (8), H. H. Mitchell (11),
and others. The Wolff-Lehman and Henry and Morrison standards are
based upon the digestible crude protein and the digestible nutrients
in the feeds. The standards of Kellner are based upon digestible pure
protein (though the crude protein is given), and the starch equivalent;
the starch equivalent is really the productive energy, expressed in terms
of starch. The standards of Armsby are based upon digestible pure
protein and the net energy. The standards of Mitchell are expressed
in terms of protein and metabolizable energy.

The object of the standard is to permit the requirements of the pigs
to be expressed in terms of any particular combination of feeds. It
is obvious that the productive energy of the feed must be expressed
in the same terms as the productive energy of the feeding standard,
if the calculation back to feed is to be correct. Not any of the feeding
standards mentioned above are’ expressed in the same terms of pro-
ductive energy as are used in this Bulletin.

Tentative feeding standards for hogs, for use in connection with the
productive values given in this Bulletin, were based upon the feeding
standards mentioned above, and are given in Table 7.

Table _7. Tentative feeding standards for fattening hogs, per day and 1,000 pounds live

weight.
Weight of animal Toal dry matter Digestible protein Productive energy
pounds in feed pounds pounds therms
30 —-—- 50 44 —— 63 7.0 —— 8.0 35 —— 50
5O —— 100 33 —- 43 5.3 ——- 6.0 30 -—— 34
100 —- 150 30 -— 41 4.4 -— 5.0 26 -—— 33
150 —— 200 28 — 38 3.4 — 4.2 24 — 31
200 —— 250 25 -—— 36 2.9 —- 3.8 21 —— 29
250 —- 300 20 -- 32 2.6 —— 3.4 18 —— 26
Brood sows with pigs. 20 -—— 28 2.4 »— 3.0 16 -— 24

In addition to digestible protein and productive energy, animals re-
quire minerals and vitamins. The discussion of these does not come
within the scope of this Bulletin, but will be taken up at a later date.

The feeding standards here given may be used to calculaterations
for pigs, using the productive energy and digestible protein given in
Table 6 or the productive energy and digestible protein calculated from

DIGESTIBILITY AND PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS OF HOG ‘FQEEDS 23

the analyses of the particular feed and the coefficients in Table 5.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Analyses and other work involved in the preparation of this work were
done by Mr. E. C. Carlyle, S. E. Asbury, J. A. Blum, Mrs. Velma Graham,
and other members of the staff.

SUMMARY

This Bulletin reports 14 digestive experiments with pigs on various
feeds, with a compilation of 139 other digestion experiments with pigs
made elsewhere.

Pigs as a rule have lower digestion powers than ruminants and higher
than poultry. For many concentrates, pigs have as high digestive powers
as ruminants, but their power is low for digesting crude fiber and fibrous
feeds.

Pigs probably utilize a larger percentage of the net energy over
maintenance for fattening, but the exact extent of the difference is uncertain.

Tentative production coefficients are given which may be used for
making an estimate of the productive energy of corresponding pig feeds
of known chemical composition.

The average composition and minimum guarantee of a number of pig
feeds are given, together with their corresponding productive energy
and digestible protein, calculated by use of the production coefficients.

Tentative standerds for pig feeding for use in connection with the
productive values given in this Bulletin are presented.

References to Digestion Experiments, Table 3

Experiments No.

1— 8 Arkansas, Bulletin 133

9—-35 Illinois, Bulletin 170
36-—61 Illinois, Bulletin 200
62—64 Maine, Report 1886
65—71 Minnesota, Bulletin 26
72-73 ‘ Minnesota, Bulletin 36
74-75 Minnesota, Bulletin 42
76—77 Minnesota, Bulletin 4'7
78—84 Ohio, Bulletin 271
85--98 Texas (this Bulletin)
99—153 German--Bericht des Deutschen Landwirtschafsrats

betreffend Futterungsversuchs mit Schweinen uber die Verdaulichkeit ver—
schiedener Futtermittel, ausgefuhrt an den Landwirtschaftlichen Versuchs-
stationen zu Gottingen, Mockern and Munster I. W. von Prof. Dr. Fr.
Lehmann, Geh. Hofrat Prof. Dr. O. Kellner und Geh. Regierungsrat Prof.
Dr. F. Konig. Berlin, 1909, Verlagsbuchhandlung Paul Parey.

24

(1)

(2)

(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

(7)
(3)
(9)
(10)

(11)

BULLETIN NO. 454, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

REFERENCES

Armsby, H. P., 1917. The Nutrition of Farm Animals. The Mac-
millan Company,‘ New York.

Forbes,vBraman, Kriss et al, 1930. Further studies of the energy

0f metabolism of cattle in relation to the plane of nutrition. Jour.
Agri. Res. 40:37
Fraps, G. S., 1916. The production coefficients of feeds. Texas

Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul. 185.

Fraps, G. S., 1925. Energy-production coefficients of American
feeding stuffs for ruminants. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta., Bul. 329.
Fraps, G. S., 1928. Digestibility and production coefficients of
poultry feeds. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta., Bul. 372.

Fraps, G. S., 1929. Supplementary energy-productioncoefficients of
American feeding stuffs fed ruminants. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta.,
Bul. 402. _

Fraps, G. S., 1931.
feeding experiments with sheep.
Henry, W. A. & Morrison, F. B., 1923.
Henry-Morrison Co., Madison, Wisconsin.
Kellner, 0., 1905. Die Ernahrung des landwirtschaftlichen Nutz-
tiere. Paul Parey, Berlin.

Kellner, O., 1924. Die Ernahrung der landwirtschaftlichen Nutz-
tiere. Tenth Edition, 1924. Paul Parey, Berlin.

Mitchell, H. H. and Hamilton, T. S., 1929. Swine Type Studies.
III The energy and protein requirements of growing swine and
the utilization of feed energy in growth. Ill. Agr. Expt. Sta.,
Bul. 323.

Productive energy of feeds calculated from
Texas Agr. Expt. Sta., Bul. 436.

Feeds and Feeding. The