PIG-FEEDING AT EXPERIMENT STATIONS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1626, 29 April 1903, Page 61

PIG-FEEDING AT EXPERIMENT STATIONS

Experiments in fattening pigs at the Sou ill Dakota, Tennessee, and lexas s tations have had to do primarily W'.th the iceiling value of wneat, skuu milk, and cotton-seed meal. The results obtained in tiio various cases are very mteieating, and well worth careful scrutiny by eve.y pig-leeder. All the work thus far 1 ep or ted by these stations us bi iefiy •summarised belowThe feeding tests witli pig’s at the South Dakota station have been concerned primarily with the feeding values of the different cereal grains. V\ nen wheat was bringing but 50 cents a bushel, tests were made to see if more could be realised from it by feeding it to hogs than by selling it. The test demonstrated that when lings averaging 100 pounds in v,-eight each could he bought about September Ist for 4.50 dollars per hundredweight, and fed for three months on nothing but wheat, water, ashes, and salt, then butchered and sold for 5.50 dollars per hundred, dressed weigh t, the wheat would return from 56 to 58 cents per’bushel, not counting the manure not the labour in caring lor the. hogs. When the wheat was ground it required; 481 pounds to produce a pound of gain. With wliolo wheat it took 4.91 pounds to make a pound of gain. The gain on the ground wheat was the more rapid and uniform. Still, unless the grinding could be done without much extra cost, the extra gam made would not be more than suhieielit to cover the cost of grinding. Other grains were also fed singly to hogs at the same time the above experiment was going on Ur comparison. The returns made for a bushel of the different grains were as follows: —Ground wheat, 58.39 cents; whole wheat. 53.83 cent-; pc-as, 05.36 cents; and corn. GO cents. The hogs fed peas did much better on this grain during the first part of the experiment than during the latter part. This is believed to indicate that peas are not as good, for a complete ration over a long lime as either wheat or corn. "The quality of the pork made from corn and ground wheat was about equal, and was superior to that made from whole wheat, peas, or mixed food. ThD- Dom mixed foot was the fattest. The average dsilv gain of hogs fed on peas was 1.21 pounds', on whole wheat 1.12 mounds, on ground emm 1.4 mounds, on ground wheat 1.32 mounds, and o-n mixed foodo i In some LATER EXPERIMENTS Professor Burnett, then at the station, found that hogs a tie tho cheapest gains in fattening before they reached 150 pounds in weight, but continued to make profitable gains up to or slightly past 200 pounds. In the experiments reported corn meal sold in the form of pork for 13.G0d01. per ton. or 38 cents per bushel, wheat shorts 13.20d01. per ton. corn meal and wheat shorts 15.4Gd01. per ton, barley and shorts 13.70d01. per ton, barlev and corn 12.01d01. per ton, and barley for 13.60d01. per ton. or 33 cents per bushel. The cost of gain per 100 pounds when corn formed a part of the ration was 1.78d01. as against 1.84dc1. when there was no corn in the ration. The Tennessee station has investigated the value of skim milk for hogs. The value of skim milk for hogs cannot be too. strongly emphasised. Practically every station thus far reviewed has testified to the improved quality of the pork and the more rapid gains made when skim milk has formed part of tne rations for fattening hogs. The Tennessee station contributes more data a.long the same line. When liog-s were confined in pens and fed on cornmeal and water alone they gained one pound per head per day each. When skim milk (12 to 26 pounds per hog per day) was added to the same corn-meal ration (4< to 5 1-3 pounds per head per day) the hogs gained on an average 2.3 mounds per head per day for 60 days. This is more than double the gain made on cornmeal alone. When whey and a little’ wheatmeal was substituted for the skbm milk, about as rapid and considerably cheaper gains were mad a. In another experiment chopped cow-pea hay was fed to ho'rs that received a smaller skim milk allowance tlmn the «We. Tlmv could not be induced to eat the hay readily, and made good but less profitable gains than any of the other lots of hogs in the test. In this connection it may be recalled that at the Oklahoma station hogs rewUl'* ate cow-pea hay, and made very good gains on it. In these experiments one bushel or 56 mounds of cornmeal produced 12.1 pounds of pork worth n.f 5 5 cents Per pound—66.6 cents. Ei'enrinn pork at the same rate, the skbm mvlk had a. value of 28.3 cents mer hundred mounds: There was an actual profit in feeding 11 boo-ei qq days on the above rations of 33.7 fi doll arc; or 53.9 per cent, on an investment of 71.04d0T. THE CHIEF WORK thus far reported by the Texas station in hog-feeding is the celebrated experiments with cotton-seed and cotton-seed meal more than ten years ago. In these experiments pens containing 1 hog, 10 to 12 months old; 1 hog, 5 to 7 months old; and one hog, 3£ to 4 months old each were used. Corn was fed in every case. One lot received in addition cotton-seed meal sufficient to constitute about f of, the grain ration. With another low raw cotton-seed soaked in water constituted about 3-7 of- the grain ration. With a third lot about 7-15 of the grain ration was made up of boiled cotton-seed. With a fourth lot a little more than f of the ration was composed of roasted cottonseed. A fifth lot was fed entirely on corn. The gains made the first 33 days of the experiment on the different feeds was as follows:—Cotton-seed meal, 501 b; raw cotton-seed, 871 b; boiled cotton-seed, 681 b; roasted cotton-seed, 531 b; corn alone, 1311 b. It will be observed' that none of the lots fed cotton-seed or cotton-seed meal made within 631 b to 941 b as good gains as the lot fed corn alone. Of those receiving the cotton-seed in any form, the lot fed boiled cotton-seed made the _ best gains. The hogs ate the. cotton-seed and the cotton-seed meal with great reluctance. it being almost impossible to induce them to consume enough to ensure a reasonable gain. Less accurately per-

formed experiments of the preceding year wjlu cotton-seed and cotton-seed meal gave resuits entirely in accord with those recorded above. . In from six to nine weeks after beginning i.o lend the above rations two-thirds of the pigs in each pen were dead, except ui me joc receiving boiled cotton-seeu, where only one-third died. No. more pigs died, though the feeding continued for 30 days aiterwards - . This .fact suggests that animals not attacekci within 10 weeks, from the time feeding begins "may be safely regarded a.s cotton-seed prooV’ The results secured in these tests extending over a period of two years lea l to the conclusion that "there is no profit wh:t!e- r er in feeding cotton-seed 'n. any form or cotton-seed meal to hogs of any ago.” Your readers will not fail to recall in this connection that more favourable results were secured at the Kansas and Oklahoma stations m feeding cot-ton-seed meal to hogs, and the suggestion there made that cotton-seed meal constitute but l-10tli to 1.-sth <3f the total grain ration, and bo fed in short periods oi two or three weeks, alternating with corn or other grain. Thus handled, cotton-seed meal promises’ much as a nitrogenous food for hogs. . , , In some earlier experiments at ke Texas station hogs following calcic fed cot ton hulls and cotton-seed meal required 4.391 b of corn addit oual to inane a pound of gain, and hogs following cat lie fed. silage, hay. corn in the ear and raw cotton-seed required 3.181 b of corn ‘it addition to make a. pound of gain.— "Breeders'’ Gazette,” Chicago.