THE SOIL.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLV, Issue XLV, 1 April 1910, Page 7

THE SOIL.

FARHS & STATION. COST OF FATTENING PIGS. ' ——— WHEN IT IS GBEATKST. Amongst the many old-fashiouod ideas which appear to slit! hold p<'ssession of the minds of agriculturists is one which has not evidently been affected by the number of experiment j which have proved its falsity. It if. \ that as the ago and dugree of i'aiticss of nigs increase the cost of adding to the not weight ef the. pig In a lengthy article in the 'Tanner and -Stockbreeder" Mr Sanders Spencer deals with ihis point, aud quotes the result of a number of valuable experiments which, have lately been made abroad. In the United States, fur instance, there are now records oL 404 trials carried out. at thirteen different experiment stations in the States, with 2303 pigs. These show that pigs, weighing from fifteen to fii'tv pounds, with an average of 381b., made a live weight increase of lOlilb. on 293iib. of food; pigs averaging 7S!b. needed 4001b. of food; pigs weighing 1281b. dequired 4371b. for the same in- \ crease; those weighing 1741b. con- | sumed 4S2tb.; Iliose weighing 2201b. ate -19811). for each 100 Lb. increase; ! lip,pigs of 2711b. required 5111b.; and those whoso average weight was 3201b. required H3olb. of food to enable them to make an increase in their live weight of 1001b. We have her 0 a certain, albeit, gradual increase in the quantity of food whiclM-aeh |>:g eats a s it grows older and heavier in orb".' to add to its weight. A further interesting light is thrown on the situation by taking the approximate cost of the food required with each average age and weight of pier to enable it to add 1001b. lo_ i's weight. I began with *tho lot weighin? some 381b. each. The cost of this lot was 12s, the others following in the order given were: 16s, 18s 9d. 19s. >os. 20s od. 21s Id. respectively. If •.re omit again the youngest lot o f pigs, we find a difference of 5s Id m the cost of obtaining an increase of lOClb gross weight, or of 7nlb of meat. This showed that the heaviest lot of •rigs required nearly onelthird mor.food or cost the greater part of Id per lb? more for food for each poin-.d of meat. From Canada comes the same convincing evidence, as Professor G. R. Day expresses himself after conducing a series of experiments with var:ms pure breeds of swine:— i( A s pi.s>s increase in weight the quantity of food ■ateii daily increases rapidly, the daily Tain increases also, but not in :l-> wine ratio, so that the quantity of food consumed per 1001b. gain increases with the weight of the pigs. The following is a statement of food consumed for one pound of gain by oigs of different weights. While i;i'reasing from "541b. to 821b. hogs repiired 3.101b. of meal per pound of >ain. while increasing in live weight 'rom S2!'b. to 115lb. hogs required 4.38 b. of meal per pound of gain, and vhile increasiuo' from 1481b. to 170lb. logs required 4.551b. of meal p<'-' pound of gain." Even more surprising results from ;ixty-one experiments carried out at iVipenhagen, where it was found Hint 'o increase the weight of pigs from •15!b. to 7511). it required at the rate •f 37011). of food for each 1001b. of 'a in; from 751b. to 1151b.. to 195:').. •131b. of food were needed; from 1!)5 \\ to 2351b.. 5401b. of food; from 235 1). to 2751b.. 0141b. of food; and from 1751b. to 3151b.. 6391b. of food were equired for the 1001b. increase in the jve weight of the fatting pigs.