PIG RECORDING.

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume XL, Issue 1, 20 January 1930, Page 11

PIG RECORDING.

FIRST REPORT ON WORK OF WAIKATO, MANAWATU, AND MID-CANTERBURY GROUPS, SEASON 1928-29.

Introduction.

This report is issued by the Pig Industry Research Committee of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, and has been prepared from data and conclusions furnished by the three directing officers of the recording groups — M. J. Scott, Canterbury Agricultural College ; Professor W. Riddet, Massey Agricultural College; and Mr. C. M. Hume, then of the New Zealand Co-operative Herd Testing Association, Hamilton. » '

The renewed interest in the pig industry of New Zealand apparent during the years immediately preceding 1928 gave possibilities of considerable expansion being made in this branch of production, and the need for information which might assist to guide this expansion into right channels led the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to inaugurate, during 1928, pig-recording investigations in various districts of the Dominion.

Canterbury Agricultural College, Lincoln, had for some time previously been engaged upon experiments connected with the feeding and management of pigs, and had pioneered the way in pig-industry research. The results of some of -this research had been. published already in bulletin form (“Pig Production and Results of Feeding Trials,” M. J. Scott, 8.A., B.Sc., A.1.C., Bulletin No. 2, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research), and these results indicated that further investigatory work dealing with the pig industry was warranted.

During 1928 the Government signified its intention of helping the industry by providing a subsidy on the export of pork, and its interest in the pig-recording investigations was shown by a grant of £1,050 for their promotion. With this grant the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research was enabled to establish three pigrecording groups in the Mid-Canterbury, Manawatu, and Waikato districts. These districts were selected on account of their being typical of different feed conditions prevailing throughout the pig-raising districts of the Dominion. Trials with various pig-feeds were also inaugurated, special attention being given to the use of meat-meal and whey paste.

In the Waikato district skim-milk predominates as the pig-feed.. In the Manawatu district the balance between skim-milk and whey is fairly even. In Mid-Canterbury skim milk is available generally in somewhat small supply, while quantities of cereal and grain feeds are available in generous amounts. In the Waikato and Manawatu. districts, especially the former, there is a dearth of concentrated feeds,, and such as are used require to be imported from the South Island and the maize-growing areas of the Poverty Bay and Bay of Plenty districts.

In view of the potentialities of greater utilization of the excellent pastures in the dairy districts, more attention should be devoted to the-

possibilities of securing from them a better-balanced diet, which, used with the supplies of dairy by-products, would in some measure make compensation for the present dearth of cereals.

Economic factors in all districts necessitate the feeding of pigs on ill-balanced rations, whatever feed is available in greatest amount being fed to excess in all cases. Furthermore, both in the Waikato and in the Manawatu areas, the disposal of these surplus dairy byproducts — and —presents a problem on every farm. If discharged into drains or streams the consequent pollution quickly reacts on the farmers themselves. The only practical means, therefore, of disposing of these products is by pigs, and this very often in the not too sanguine hope that these will bring in some return. Statistics show that the pig industry in New Zealand is more closely associated with the dairying industry than with any other, and this association is very largely accounted for by the reason just mentioned.

During the last ten years methods of improving live-stock production have received considerable attention, with the result that “ selection on performance ” has come to be recognized as the surest way of making improvement. Whereas in the past selection for breeding purposes has been based on pedigree only, it is now clearly realized that unless purebred stock are also stock of high productivity their pedigree can be of little use. Breed associations should decline registration to animals which characteristically produce small litters. Performance has to be tacked on to pedigree, and the only way of evaluating performance is by keeping records of growth-rate and of production-costs. By doing so all the poor performers can be eliminated, and ultimately only the proven high producers will be used. To this end various systems of pig recording have been instituted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, and Canada, and, while there are differences in the details from country to country, they all agree in collecting data concerning (i) number of piglets farrowed per litter, (2) litter weights and numbers per litter at four and eight weeks old, (3) details of feeding where possible, (4) details of housing, management, and care, (5) breed of sow and of boar.

To this end a recording officer goes round the locality and enrols those farmers who are willing to co-operate. Once contact is established the farmer keeps the recording officer informed by telephone or letter of dates of farrowing of sows. At the officer’s convenience these pigs are earmarked and weighed at somewhere between three and five weeks old, and again between seven and nine weeks. From these weights those at four weeks and at eight weeks can be deduced. As a result of weekly weighings of about fifty litters at Lincoln College during eighteen months, it was found that little or no error is introduced by adjusting the weight in this way.

The three recording officers appointed in 1928 worked under the aegis of Canterbury Agricultural College, Massey Agricultural College, and the Waikato Group Herd Testing Association. They were supplied with means for weighing pigs, with travelling-allowances, and with standardized recording forms on which data relating to each farm and each pig were entered.

In addition to weighing litters, the pig-recording • officers collected what information was available regarding breeding, feeding, systems of management, and mortality, and weighed as many fattening pigs as possible in order to get information on the normal rate of growth under varying conditions of management. It was not possible to follow the weights of all individual pigs till time of disposal, as farmers availed themselves of any opportunities of sale that arose, and accordingly in only a few cases were the final weights recorded.

The data so collected were partly worked up by the • recording officers and partly by Mr. Scott, Professor Riddet, and Mr. Hume. Quarterly reports of the data were circulated between these three gentlemen, and thereby each was enabled to follow the results being secured in districts other than his own, and to set out a standardized scheme whereby comparisons between districts were possible.

At the outset of the work the recording officers visited those farmers who indicated their willingness to join in the scheme, an endeavour being made to secure, within as near a radius as possible, a total of between two and three hundred sows for recording purposes.

In the Manawatu district the local Pig-breeders’ Federation showed much interest in the movement and used their endeavours to induce farmers to participate in the work. In other districts the interest displayed by pig-breeders was laudable, but during the course of the season a good many who at the beginning had indicated their readiness to participate in the scheme found themselves unable to do so. Pressure of work on the farm at the time of the recording officer’s visit was often responsible for a farmer dropping out. The recording officer was almost entirely dependent upon the active assistance of the farmer himself in order to conduct the weighing expeditiously. At such seasons as haymaking time this assistance was not forthcoming. Again, in some instances farmers were so disappointed with the litters of young pigs farrowed that they were reluctant to have these figures recorded. The sale of young pigs as weaners was also responsible for a number of breaks in the records.

On many farms the facilities for yarding and weighing the pigs were poor. Recording of pigs is by its very nature somewhat difficult and arduous work, and during wet weather the actual labour of weighing became a task which most were reluctant to undertake. For these reasons there was some defection of farmers as the season progressed, a trouble which was common to all the districts.

Table 2 summarizes the data secured in regard to litter-size and litterweight at various ages in the three districts.

Points from Tabulated Data.

MORTALITY. Columns 1 and 3 of Table 2 show that there is a 20-per-cent. mortality occurring from birth to weaning date. Most of the deaths ■occurred within two to three days of birth, and where deaths are low they could be prevented by more care on the part of the owner. There is considerable ground for the belief that mortality is due to faulty feeding and management prior to birth, and that this point is worthy of closer consideration from a nutritional aspect. Proper feeding and care of the sow prior to farrowing and due attention to sanitation are powerful influences tending to reduce the mortality which occurs among very young pigs.'

BREED INFLUENCES.

By the average farmer the influence of breed upon mortality-rate and litter-weight is given greater importance than is accorded to individuality. Tables 3 and 4 set out the relation of the breed to litter-weight at eight weeks. The averages would appear to indicate advantages in favour of the two bacon breeds, Large Black and Large White, but the smaller numbers of these recorded give less significance

to the data than those of the Berkshire and Tam worth breeds, and this obscures the position considerably. It is important to appreciate that all breeds can produce good litter-weights, at eight weeks old, just as in the case of dairy cows, but more influence should be attached to factors other than breed.

The comparison of all breeds together is open to the objection that this ignores the type of pig. Breeders have in the past aimed at producing pork types as opposed to bacon types, the former being plumper than the latter and accordingly more prime for slaughter as pork from 90 lb. to 130 lb. live-weight. Thus it may be stated that the larger frame of the bacon breeds is more conducive to heavy litterweights at eight weeks. There is some evidence that such a contention is not fully justified in that bacon types can also suit the porker trade. Further experience on this point is required. Meantime it can be said that other factors appear to be more important than breed, and in a general survey of breeds the Large White and Large Black have possibly some advantages.

SIZE OF LITTER.

It is evident from Table 6 that the size of the litter does not materially affect the individual weight of piglets at eight weeks (column 4). This, then, is a point in favour of sows having large litters. The size of the

litter does very materially affect the litter-weight, as is seen from column 3. Farmers aiming at prolificacy need fear no loss in weight of piglets, provided they give attention to individuality, feeding, care, and management. The differences in the average weights per piglet appearing in column 4 are not significant, but the table shows that larger litters are not secured by sacrificing the weights of the individual piglets of which they are composed.

LITTER-WEIGHT AT EIGHT WEEKS.

' Litter-weight at eight weeks of age appears to be the crux of consideration. It is related to numbers in the litter, but not alone to the question of number. There can be heavy litters at eight weeks with litters of average size, just as there can be with litters of larger size. Feeding, management, and breeding no doubt all play a part. It is undoubtedly an aim well worthy of attainment to secure good weight at eight weeks, and, while the present average is 225 lb., it is possible to obtain more than double this weight.

It will be seen from Table 8, column 5, that the weight per piglet increases progressively, so that the piglets in the heaviest litters are twice as heavy as those in the lighter litters. The produce of the sow is the thing that counts, and it is by increasing the weight per piglet that these can be most improved, as heavy piglets indicate good feeding, housing, and management, while the lighter ones indicate the reverse. Indeed, litter-weights provide a good index of the quality of management. The number of pigs born cannot be subsequently increased, and although this number is largely influenced by the treatment received by the sow prior to farrowing it is not entirely controlled by man, and lies largely in the power of the animal. Until the management factor is standardized the influence of heredity cannot be definitely measured. The part played by the owner in the care of the sow is of the greatest importance, and reference to Table 8 shows that the heaviest litters are about four times as good as the lightest.

It has been found as a result of the past year's work that, whatever the conditions obtaining on the farm, the litter-weight at sixteen weeks old can be forecast from the litter-weight at eight weeks old, because in general the feeding remains the same throughout in the cases reviewed.

The distribution of litter-weights at eight weeks in the three groups brings into prominence the large proportion of sows which produce litters whose, eight-weeks weight is less than 200 lb., while only some 15 per cent, of all litters reach weights of 300 lb. or over at this age. This large percentage of low-weight litters is a serious economic handicap to the industry, and emphasizes the need for paying, due attention to weaning weights and the factors upon which they are dependent’— amely, breeding, feeding, and management.

Table 9 gives actual data on the relation of litter-weights. In general if the weight at eight weeks is multiplied by 2| the result will be very close to the weight at sixteen weeks. Piglets weighing 20 lb. at eight weeks weigh 50 lb. at sixteen weeks, and will require feeding for another six weeks to reach pork weights. Piglets weighing 40 lb. at eight weeks weigh from 90 lb. to 100 lb. at sixteen weeks —

system of feeding being almost constant throughout —and are then ready for killing (the best reach pork weights at fourteen weeks old). Conditions that produce heavy litters save nearly half the feedingcosts, or, looked at from another point of view, they increase considerably the returns from the feed available.

' It has been found that some sows produce less than 150 lb. weight of pigs at eight weeks, while others. of the same breed produce up to 400 lb. weight. This difference is, of course, not entirely attributable to the sow. . The importance of getting piglets up to good weight at weaning-timeeight weekscould not have been realized, but it has now been proved from the result of the past year’s work that getting piglets up to heavy weights at eight weeks old is the key to the whole question of economic production. The relationship between litterweight at eight and sixteen weeks old respectively forcibly demonstrates the all-important part played by management, feed, and care. These factors mask completely the animal factors of prolificacy and thrift, which alone have been too much looked to in order to bring about an improvement in production.

FEEDING.

That rational balanced feeding plays an important part is shown by Table io. ' ■ ■ ■ Nursing-sows fed on ill-balanced feeds such as whey and skim-milk, from which they have to abstract all their solid nourishment after the ingestion of large volumes of liquid, give disappointing results. It was possible only in a few cases to collect sound information relating to feeding, • but it appears clear that those who use various meals with dairy by-products discreetly, and who get satisfactory results,

do so at a profit. In the figures collected in the Waikato the best return amounted to £5 18s. per cow from pigs after paying for concentrates, the basic diet being skim-milk. Even the average of about £3 ios. secured on other good farms indicates the beneficial results to be derived from paying attention to details. In Canterbury, where grain was freely used, the best breeders realized a return of £4 16s. per cow, an amount rendered possible largely by the copious supplies of cheap grain. It is unfortunate that our national supplies of skimmilk and whey on the one hand and cereals on the other are so widely separated by distance. The great bulk of New Zealand pigfeed consists of dairy by-products. In other countries 6 lb. of milk is held to have the same feeding-value as 1 lb. of grain. Since in New Zealand grain has generally to be bought for dairy-farms its value as opposed to its cost does not enter the question, and it can be purchased only when its use renders a higher net return possible for skim-milk or whey. The results secured where whey was used as a basic diet did not, of course, approach those where skim-milk was used. Nevertheless, while the results from whey seem to be at least one-half as good as those from skim-milk, it is significant that whey could be satisfactorily and profitably fed by some breeders.

MANAGEMENT.

Tables 11 and 12 indicate the importance of management. Good pigs, careful feeding, and attentive management all play a part in returning a profit. Undue attention to any one feature has serious limitations, and the results emphasize more than ever the fallacy of the idea that the pig is only a convenient means for disposing of skimmilk and whey.

WINTER FEEDING.

An outstanding feed factor which limits economic production in every district in New Zealand is the incomplete nature of winter feed, with the resultant loss of thrift, high mortality, and long recovery period when milk comes in. Almost 50 per cent, of sows are barren for half the year because dairy by-products are unavailable and the price of other fattening-foods is not sufficiently attractive. This represents an enormous potential loss to the industry. This condition of affairs is due to some extent to the absence in the past of any cheap supply of flesh-forming feed to make up the deficiency in milk byproducts. As a result of local research in pig-feeding there are now available in almost every district in New Zealand plentiful supplies of meat-meals from freezing-works at prices of about £l3 a ton. With any class of winter feed (grass, roots, potatoes, artichokes, marrows, &c.) the use of | lb. of meat-meal per pig per day will give entirely new values to the feeds used. Where meat-meal has been used in trials during the last three years it has increased the return from these winter feeds bv as much as ten times.

DISTRIBUTION OF PUREBRED PIGS.

Farmers who realized that such wide variations occurred in their litter-weights were keen to improve their stock of pigs. Accordingly some who owned crossbred and mongrel types, and who considered that pig-raising held some promise of profitable returns, took steps to

purchase purebred sows and boars. In their purchases they were assisted by the pig-recording officer, and this aspect of his work should, with discreet handling, be productive of distinct improvements in the general quality of pigs kept.

Summary and Conclusions.

(i) Three recording groups —in the Waikato, Manawatu, and MidCanterbury districts respectively—made regular weighings throughout the 1928-29 season of the litters of some five hundred sows.

(2) Records of the number of piglets and their weights were made at farrowing, at four weeks and eight weeks of age. In some cases records of management and feeding were also made.

(3) The average of all litters weighed was 225 lb. at eight weeks old. Litters of five piglets gave the lowest average weight —140 lb. — while those of twelve piglets gave the highest average —418 lb. 72 per cent, of all litters weighed did not exceed 250 lb. at eight weeks.

(4) Heavy litters comprised of piglets of 40 lb. weight at weaning pay better than light ones —that is, piglets of 20 lb. It has been found that whatever the piglets’ weight at eight weeks it is two and a half times as great at sixteen weeks (40 lb. weaners weigh 100 lb., and 20 lb. weaners 50 lb., at sixteen weeks), the assumption being that feeding and management during the period remain consistent and show no marked variations.

(5) The management of the sow and the litter was found to be a most important factor in the production of pig meat per sow per annum.

(6) The records made so far give no reliable information regarding strain and breed influences. The predominant influences are those concerned with feeding and management. Strain and breed influences can be assessed only after several years of continuous recording.

(7) The numerical size of the litter makes no significant difference in the weights of the individual piglets.

(8) Litter-weights are a good index of the quality of pig-management.

(9) Pigs under proper conditions are capable of producing a return of up to £5 per cow where skim-milk is used as a basic diet, and about one-half this sum where whey replaces skim-milk.

(10) This return is obtained by having clean and dry housing conditions, feeding a little grain judiciously (about 6 per cent, of the total turnover), looking after sows before farrowing, giving due consideration to correct farrowing-dates, buying no store pigs, and selling only fat stock, mostly as pork. These things . are the essence of profitable production. Large quantities of grain used in a haphazard manner do not provide the solution of the problem until the points detailed are attended to.

(n) Skim-milk and whey in themselves form good basic diets for pigs, but are very greatly improved by the addition of concentrates in the form of grain or meat-meals.

(12) The use of | lb. of meat-meal per day for sows and stores in winter would make it profitable to have two litters per year, and to carry stores through the winter on present feeds in a thriving condition that would avoid present losses and give a quick return for the early milk.

* No record kept of particular meals used.' t First litters from young sows only participated in this trial.

District. Number of Farms. Number of Sows recorded,. Number of Feeding Trials conducted. Waikato 37 245 About 40 Manawatu 37 121 Mid-Canterbury 37 126 20

Table 1. —Summary of Completed Records.

Pigs born District. . per Pigs born per Litter. Litterweight at Four Weeks. Pigs per Litter at' Four Weeks. Weight per Piglet at Four Weeks. Litterweight at Eight Weeks. Pigs per Litter at Eight Weeks. Weight per Piglet at Eight Weeks. lb. lb. lb. lb. Waikato • . . 97'7 7-4° 13-2 207 7’4 ! 28 Manawatu 9'1 106-5 7-3 14’7 229 7’3 3i-5 Mid-Canterbury IO-I 109-0 8-oo 13-6 230 7'95 ■ 29

Table 2. —Litter Numbers and Weights at Various Ages

District. Berkshire. Tam worth. Devon. Large White. Middle White. TamworthBerkshire Cross. - Berkshire. Tam worth. Devon. Large White. Middle . . White. TamworthBerkshire Cross. lb. lblb. lb. lb. lb. "Waikato . . 213-8 216-3 299-9 141-8 198 Manawatu ' . . • . . 213 219 277 263 231 217 Mid-Canterbury 225 225 3°° 220

Table 3. —Litt -weights at Eight Weeks from Various Breeds of Sows.

District. Berkshire. Tam worth. Devon. Large White. Middle White. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. .Waikato . . . . 188 205-9 381-2 154-8 Manawatu . . 217 225 290 244 232 Mid-Canterbury 225 . 292 273 180

Table 4. —Litter-weights at Eight Weeks from Various Breeds of- Boars

Number of Pigs - per Litter. Number of Litters,. Average Litter-weight. Average Weight per Piglet. Canterbury. Waikato. Manawa tu. Canterbury. Waikato. Manawatu. Canterbury. Waikato. Manawatu. 3 ■ • 2 lb. lb. lb. 102 lb. lb. lb. 34 4 • • 8 185 162 40-4 5 • • 5 25 14 137 164 37 27-4 32-7 6 . . 14 30 25 188 171 200 31-2 28-5 33'3 7 • • 19 43 23 203 197 228 29 28-2 32-5 8 . . 21 44 21 247 221 226 30-9 27-7 33’2 9 . • 18 27 13 258 232 283 29-4 25-8 31'4 IO II 22 ' 8 295 26l 299 29’5 26-1 29-8 ii . . 5 2 6 346 367 28l 3i-5 33-3 25’5 12 2 1 418 257 34-8 21-4

Table 5. —Size of Litter in Relation to Litter-weight and Average .Weight per Piglet

Number of Pigs per • Litter. Number of Litters. Average Litter-weight. Average Weight per Piglet. lb. lb. 5 44 lb. 151 • •lb. 30'2 6 69 185 30-8 7 85 206 29-5 8 86 238 29-8 9 58 252 28-0 IO . . . . 4i 276 27-6 ii . . 13 319 29-0 12 . . . 3 361 30-0

Table 6. —Average of all Records : Litters grouped by the “ Number per Litter.

Class of Litters. Weight Number of per Weight Piglet. Average Deaths per Litter. Waikato. Canterbury. Manawatu. Waikato. Canterbury. Manawatu. Waikato. Canterbury. | Manawa Waikato. Canterbury. Manawatu Manawatu. Manawatu lb. Up IOI-15O 5 I 201-250 251-300 3 351-400 401-450 451-500 501-550 45 54 55 24 7 4 3 1 1 1 10 24 26 14 11 3 5 I 12 ' 36 31 20 12 6 I I I 128 175 234 276 331 374 437 481 54i lb. 140 180 224 278 324 367 429 lb. 67 127 178 224 271 318 369 412 460 524 99’7 126*8 77'7 89’1 9'3 wo 3’0 5'5 6-o 7’9 89’3 8’5 99’0 8-o lb. 19’7 25 28-7 32 39'3 41-6 45’2 43'7 45'1 lb. 20-8 25’3 29'1 32-6 35'7 39’4 42’9 lb. 2329’7 28-1 34’0 34'6 43’4 45'8 5i-i 65-5 8-0 3-2 2-3 i-4 i-5 i-3 i-3 1-0 Table 8.-—Average of all Records-. Litters arranged by Weights; those of similar Weights in one Group. Class Intervals of 50 lb. Class. Number of Litters. Number of Pigs per Litter. Average Weight per Litter. Average Weight per Piglet. lb. 101-150 I51—200 201-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 401-450 451-500 501-550 67 114 112 58 30 13 9 2 6*4 99'1 9-8 10-0 wo lb. 129 176 223 274 323 369 429 lb. 20-2 26-3 28-8 32-6 35'9 41-0 43'9 47-o 53-2 10 2426 14 11 3 5 I 12 ' 36 31 20 12 6 I ' I I lb. 128 175 234 276 331 374 . 437 481 54i lb. I40 180 224 278 324 367 429 . lb. 67 127 178 . 224 271 318 369 412 460 524 6’5 7-0 99’7 II-O 12*0 67- . 7‘7 8’5 9’1 9-3 wo 3’0 5’5 . 89’3 89- ' 9-0 / 8-o lb. 19-7 25 28-7 32 39’3 41-6 45'2 43-7 . 45-i lb. 20-8 25’3 29-1 32-6 35'7 39’4 42’9 lb. 2329’7 28-1 34-o 34’6 43‘4 45’8-5i-i 65-5 8-o 3’2 2-3 .1’4 i-5 i-3 i-3 .1-0 1 / . Table 8.-—Average of all Records: Litters arranged by Weights; those of similar Weights in one Group. Class Intervals of 50 lb. Class. Number of Litters. Number of Pigs per Litter. Average Weight per Litter. Average Weight per Piglet. - lb. 101-150 ... 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 . 401-450 451-500 . . . . 1 501-550 67 114 .112 58' 3° 13 9 ■. ■ 2 6-4 6-7 7’8 99’1 9-8 WO wo lb. ’ 129 . 176 223. 274 323 369 429 lb. 20-2 26-3 28-8 32-6 35'9 41-0 43-9 47-o 53-2 9

Litter-weights Eight old, lb. of

Records. Litters weighing less than 250 lb. at Eight Weeks. Litters weighing more than 250 lb. ■ . at Eight Weeks. Canterbury 257 per cent. (13 litters) 251 per cent. (16 litters) Waikato . . ' 257 per cent. (13 litters) 242 per cent. (53 litters) 251 per cent. (16 litters) 241 per cent. (18 litters)

Table 9. —Relation of Litter-weights Eight Weeks old to those at Sixteen Weeks old

' Feed. • Number of Litters. Average Number per Litter reared. Average Weight per Litter. Average Weight per Piglet. Average Deaths per Litter. lb. lb. Whey only 6 • 5-8 lb. 136-6 lb. 23-4 . . 4-1 Whey and meal* 32 8-2 258-9 . I-2 2-1 Skim-milk only 7 7-6 187-7 25-8 2-3 Skim-milk and meal* 42 6-6 226-4 33-8 I ‘3t Buttermilk and meal* . . 25 6-9 223-7 32-5 i-8

Table 10.—Litter-weights at Eight Weeks classified by Food given to Sows while nursing. (Manawatu Records.')

77 Reference Farm o _ No. “ Acreage. Cows. of Number 2? pro- Butterfat -2- duced. Calves of Number 0 reared. Cows of Number P Milk supply to Calves. for y supplying Cows 0 Pigs. 2 Sows. of Number (9-) dates. F Pigs Store 2- wintered. (n.) Gross from Return Pigs. (12.) Cost Concentrates. (13) Net from Pigs. (14.) ■ General lb. / s. d. £ s - d - £ s. d. 220 75 30 lb. 5,000 15 8 22 7 Aug. to Feb. 42 135 0 0 7 10 0 5 18 0 Good houses and sties in good repair. All weaners run together till put into sties to fatten. 5.000 15 8 QO 7 Aug. to Feb. 42 £ 135 s. 0 d. 0 £ s. d. 10 0 £ 5 s. 18 d. 0 Good houses and sties in good repair. All weaners run together till put into sties to fatten. 135 200 55 12,000 18 9 46 10 July 18 225 O O 7 0 0 4 15 O Each sow separate pen, J acre. After weaning all run together. No sties. Pigs fattened in small paddock. 225 0 0 7 0 0 4 15 0 Each sow separate pen, J acre. After weaning all run together. No sties. Pigs fattened in small 75 42 20 4 6 3 17 6 to Sept, 67 O O 080 3 15 0 Two sows together on 1 acre. Sells weaners and stores. 67 0 0 0 8 0 3 15 0 paddock. Two sows together on 1 acre. Sells 214 200 52 14,500 10 5 47 8 to Sept, 155 O O 420 3 4 6 Housing fair. Sows farrow outside. All piglets run together. Maizemeal. 155 0 0 1 4 2 0 3 4 6 weaners and stores. Housing fair. Sows farrow outside. 227 150 36 12, 9 5 31' 4 Mar. to 23 156 12 O 74 8 0 2 13 0 Good sties. Farrow’ outside. Good grass always. Pollard and pigmeal. 156 12 0 74 8 0 2 13 0 All piglets run together. Maizemeal. Good sties. Farrow outside. Good grass always. Pollard and . pig215 113 45 14,130 IO 5 40 7 June to Dec. >7 179 0 0 56 0 0 3 1 6 meal. Sows farrow outside. Well wintered. 194 113 80 28 8,120 3 2 26 5 Aug. to Feb. 18 60 0 0 2 10 8 Good grass always. Barley-meal. Conditions bad. All pigs run to80 45 28 14,130 8,120 10 3 5 2 4° 26 7 5 June to Dec. Aug. to Feb. 7 18 179 O O 60 O O 56 0 0 3 1 6 210 8 Sows fa.rrow outside. Well wintered. Good grass always. Barley-meal. Conditions bad. All pigs run together; sold as stores and weaners. 109 30 13 3,260 7 4 9 2 Aug. to Mar. 25 8 0 2 8 0 0 12 5 gether; sold as stores and weaners. Good houses in bad repair. Pigs all run in one paddock. 84 30 50 28 7,000 5 3 25 4 July to Nov. 9 57 0 0 2 5 7 Sows farrow in small runs. Piglets 5° 13 28 3,260 7,000 7 5 4 3 9 25 2 4 Aug. to Mar. July to Nov. 9 25 8 0 57 0 0 280 2 12 5 2 5 7 Good houses in bad repair. Pigs all run in one paddock. Sows farrow in small runs. Piglets in paddock till put in sty to fatten. 43 36 18 4,500 10 5 13 5 to J 30 0 0 30 0 0 6 8 0 I 16 0 in paddock till put in sty to fatten. Small pens; bad conditions ; bad I i drainage ; wet sties. | | 6 8 0 1160 Small pens ; bad conditions ; bad drainage ; wet sties.

Table 11.-Data from Waiko Skin-milk Farms (showing Returm per Cow from Pigs in Column 13).

-p Reference Farm No. Acreage. £ Number of Cows. Butterfat pro- 7? duced. Number of Calves 57reared. - Number of Cows to supply Milk o' for Calves. Cows supplying Q Pigs. Number of Sows. (9-) Farro wing-dates. Store Pigs Fl wintered. (II.) Gross Return from Pigs. (12.) Cost of Concentrates. (13-) Net Return per Cow from Pigs. (14-) General Conditions. <D 162 106 50 lb. 15,720 7 4 46 6 May to Aug. Nov. to Feb. 140 £ 26 £ 2. S. 12 d. 0 Sows in 4-acre paddock; good shelter. Pigs weaned on same paddock till drafted to sties to fatten. Pollard. Cl 141 208 • 90 23,078 IO 5 85 8 . Sept., Dec. to Mar. 8l 216 27 2 3 0 Run of the farm. This year litters carried through, and fatten next year; abundant grass. Sows poor. Pollard. 76 100 ' 35 11,030 8 4 31 5 July to Sept. 23 70 8 2 0 0 Sows farrow r in one paddock ; housing bad. Pigs have run of farm. Good shelter. Casein, whey, pollard, and linseed. <D 180 149 70 18,000 21 12 58 IO May to Oct. 28 120 12 I 15 2 Small pen for each sow ; not pig i' proof. Flouses fair. Pigs run together. Plenty of grass. Fair shelter in paddock. CD 13-5 97 52 14,800 6 3 49 5 July to Dec. IO ■ . 93 7 I 15 0 Sows run together. Pigs after weaning have run on gullv. Good sties, <D .232 140 5° n,75o 16 8 42 8 July to Feb. 95 3i I 10 7 used only for fattening. Pollard and pigmeal. Skim-milk and whey. Good pens and sties. , Pigs neglected for first six months. Green oats supplied in spring. Good pollard available. g© Acreage. !J (3.) £ (O 0 0 s £ Butterfat pro- f duced. r-' Number of Calves Q reared. r_Number of Cows to supply Milk cn for Calves. (7.) 'OB •S w S) 0 Number of Sows. (9-) Farro wing-dates. Store Pigs 7? wintered. ?, (II.) Gross Return from Pigs. 1 (12.) Cost of Concentrates. (I3-) Net Return per Cow from Pigs. (I4-) General Conditions. lb. £ £ £ s. d. Sows in 4-acre paddock ; good shelter. Pigs weaned on same paddock till drafted to sties to fatten. Pollard. 162 106 50 15,720 7 4 46 6 May to Aug. Nov. to Feb. 140 26 2 12 0 141 208 90 23,078 IO 5 85 8 Sept., Dec. to Mar. 8l 216 27 3 0 Run of the farm. This year litters carried through, and fatten next year; abundant grass. Sows poor. Pollard. 76 IOO 35 II,030 8 4 31 5 J uly to Sept. 23 70 8 2 0 0 Sows farrow in one paddock ; housing bad. Pigs have run of farm. Good shelter. Casein, whey, pollard, and linseed. 180 149 70 18,000 21 12 58 IO May to Oct. 28 120 12 1 15 2 Small pen for each sow ; not pig proof. Flouses fair. Pigs run together. Plenty of grass. Fair shelter in paddock. 13-5 97 52 14,800 6 3 49 5 July to Dec. IO 93 7 1 15 O Sows run together. Pigs after weaning have run on gully . Good sties, used only for fattening. Pollard and pigmeal. 232 140 50 11,750 16 8 42 8 July to Feb. 95 3i 1 IO 7 Skim-milk and whey. Good pens and sties. Pigs neglected for first six months. Green oats supplied in spring. Good pollard available.

Table 12.-Data from Whey Farms (showing Returm per Cow from Pigs in Column 13).