THE USE OF CONCENTRATES WITH FACTORY BUTTERMILK IN FATTENING BACON PIGS.

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume 53, Issue 6, 21 December 1936, Page 340

THE USE OF CONCENTRATES WITH FACTORY BUTTERMILK IN FATTENING BACON PIGS.

C. P. McMeekan,

Massey Agricultural College, Palmerston North

It is well recognized that the addition of suitable concentrates to dairy by-products enhances considerably the nutritive value of the latter . foodstuffs, but it .is equally well recognized also that concentrates cannot be used, however desirable the practice may be from' the nutritive point of view, if such use is not accompanied by a greater profit from pig-fattening than can be obtained from feeding dairy by-products alone. Accurate information upon the rates of meal-feeding with different types of meals and dairy byproducts profitable to use at varying prices for meals and for the fattened product is not only very limited, but is also of importance. Pig-fattening trials with dairy by-products have been' carried out in many parts of the world, but unfortunately the results, in’ a very large measure, are not applicable to New Zealand because they nearly all relate to the minimum amounts of dairy by-products that can be used to advantage to supplement cereals, since in these countries, cereals are in abundant supply and dairy by-products are scarce.. Throughout the major dairying and pig-raising districts our problem is exactly the opposite. . It may be stated thus: What are the minimum amounts of meals which we can feed to' advantage with maximum quantities of separated milk, buttermilk,, and whey, the latter being our surplus foods and the former. our scarce and therefore relatively expensive materials ? . While it is certain that heavy meal-feeding at the rates shown to be desirable in other countries —viz., 2 lb. to 3 lb. per gallon of separated milkare definitely unprofitable under our- normal prevailing prices, if is possible that the limited use of concentrates may pay under favourable conditions. . Current farming practice supports this view, and, where meals are' employed, the quantities used are normally extremely small relative to the ration of dairy by-products fed. Thus the rate may vary from 1 part of meal to. 30 parts .up to 100 parts of by-product as . compared. with the Danish .system of feeding where. the rate is commonly from 1 to 2 parts of meal to 1 part of by-product. Due largely to the paucity of information on the subject, little uniformity of practice exists even amongst farmers using concentrates; while a . large number confine their attention to the utilization of dairy by-products alone. . It is important that the subject cannot be decided wholly upon, the relationship of the price of meals to the price .of pork and bacon. Thus factory whey is of little value alone as a fattening food, being deficient in essential flesh-forming constituents. Supplementing with minimum quantities of suitable concentrates to make good this deficiency is essential before whey can be utilized adequately in pig-fattening at all. Further, even on the economic side, the problem is no simple one. While it is possible in carefully controlled feeding trials to compare the relative cash returns from dairy by-products used alone and from dairy by-products used

with meals in various quantities and varying. types, such results do not present a complete picture of . the financial results of supplementing with meals. The feeding of meals possesses certain advantages, the precise financial effects of which are impossible to ■estimate with accuracy. The time taken ,to fatten a pig enters largely into the question for various reasons : . (a) Even small amounts enhance the value of the by-product fed. ■ Although the daily consumption of milk is not reduced by a low plane of meal-feeding, the total fattening period is reduced, and a saving effected in the total amount of milk required per pig. This results in a greater turnover and a quicker turnover, both of which affect production-costs by reducing the overhead •charges on each pig fattened. ' * (&) This shortening of the fattening period by the limited use ■of concentrates may be of particular value when milk-supplies fall .at the end of the season, by allowing of profitable marketing of pigs that otherwise would have to be specially handled either by •carry-over in the winter or marketing at low weights of inferior quality. In this way the judicious use of’ meals may play a •definite part in the successful fattening of two litters per year—a practice often impossible on milk alone, yet one essential for low -overhead costs. ■ ' . (c) It frequently happens that prices of pig-meat fall at certain ■periods of the year, or that a fall of price is anticipated. If the ■farmer can .adopt a system by which he can produce an accelerated rate of growth it often pays him ?to do so, though ordinarily that .•system of feeding may not be profitable. These points should be kept in mind when examining the results •of the feeding, trials herein described. These trials have been •designed, primarily to investigate the economic aspects of the use •of concentrate meals as supplements.. The financial results for the. reasons set out above underestimate rather than overestimate the •case for meal-supplementing in pig-fattening. A further important aspect of meal-supplementing which has been . investigated coincident with the economic side, has been the effect ■of the use of limited amounts of meals upon the commercial quality •of the bacon carcass. Quality in the finished product is such an important factor to-day in profitable production that any feed trial ■designed to provide data upon the relative merits of various methods must consider the carcass quality. Moreover, much of the. criticism ■of the quality of our export baconers by the British market has been attributed to,the system of feeding, and numerous .suggestions' have been made from time to-time by responsible authorities that ■considerable improvement would result from the greater use of ■concentrates along with our dairy by-products. The data collected, in this connection will be the subject of a separate paper. Technique employed. . .. ' : All trials have been conducted by the Group ” method. The various groups in any one series have been composed of pigs of known breeding and comparable pre-weaning history, selected shortly after

weaning, and evenly “ balanced ” between the various groups according to breed, breeding, initial live-weight, age, and sex. All groups in any one series are comparable in these respects. Care has been taken to ensure similar housing, pen accommodation, and general management in feeding for all groups, the only difference being the actual rations employed. The quantity of milk fed has in all cases been governed by the appetite of the pigs—the quantity which each group would clean up readily when fed three times daily. In meal-supplemented groups, the concentrates have been fed at the morning and evening feed in equal amounts. All feed has been accurately measured. Initial live-weights have been taken before feeding in the morning after an all-night fast. Every pig has been carried to approximately the same final dressed carcass weight — 140 lb. —by removal from the experiment for slaughter when a live-weight of approximately 200 lb. has been'reached. Economic results have been based upon the food required to produce 100 lb. of dressed- gain. . This has been calculated from the actual final dressed weight obtained on slaughter, and the “ initial ” dressed weight, obtained by deducting an amount for offal of 331 per cent, from the initial live-weight. This system has been adopted in preference to stating results in terms of live-weight. Pigs are paid for on a dressedweight basis, and the data have therefore a direct bearing upon cash returns. Live-weight is not' so useful in this respect, and, in addition, is very difficult to ascertain with accuracy owing to the many factors not under control affecting it. The writer’s experience over several years of pig-feeding trials has indicated the use of live-weights to be associated with material difficulties, particularly when the greater part of the rations fed is composed of liquids, and despite the possibility of error introduced by estimating “initial dressed weight,” the use of dressed weight is likely to be associated with greater accuracy. After slaughter the commercial quality of each carcass has been carefully examined, and subsequently, in the majority of cases, the pigs have been shipped to London for examination and report by English experts. It must be noted that the trials reported in’ this paper cover the use of factory buttermilk ; trials using separated milk and whey will .be the subject of a separate report. While the results outlined are thus not strictly applicable in detail to the use of separated milk, it is fairly safe to assume that they have a general bearing on the use of the latter material, as the two foodstuffs are similar in type. Information from trials with separated milk so far available lends support to such a view. SERIES A. The use of Different Types of Meal over the Weaner-baconer Weight Range. Forty-four Tamworth-Berkshire first-cross pigs from recorded litters were evenly balanced into four groups, each of 11 pigs. All pigs were by the same sire, and were placed under trial when twelve weeks old. During the pre-weaning period, and for the month thereafter, all had received limited daily rations of a cereal meal amounting to lb. to i lb. per pig daily, in addition to buttermilk. The rations of each group during the progress of the trial were as follows : Group I—Control:1 —Control: Factory buttermilk only.

Group 2-Meat-meal* : Factory buttermilk plus | lb. of meatmeal per pig daily. Group 3 —Meat-meal and pollardf : Factory buttermilk plus | lb. meat-meal plus | lb. pollard per pig daily. Group 4—Cereal-meali : Factory buttermilk plus lb. cerealmeal per pig daily. GROWTH-RATE AND FOOD-CONSUMPTION RESULTS. " The growth-rate and food-consumption results. are set out in Table 1 : '

* Dressed weight calculated. t Dressed weight actual. ' - It will be observed from the above that in every case the mealsupplemented pigs consumed less buttermilk in the .production of 100 lb. of dressed-weight gain, fattened at a greater rate, and, in consequence, required less time to make marketable weight than the pigs fed buttermilk alone. At the same time the control group put up a good performance, the figure, 700 gallons of buttermilk per 100 lb. dressedweight gain being of considerable interest in indicating the value of this dairy by-product in pig-fattening. Of the three types of concentrate used, ‘ Cereal-meal (Group 4) gave the best results on a food-consumption and growth-rate basis. It will be noted that in this group the feeding of approximately 85 lb. of cereal-meal per 100 lb. of meat produced resulted in a saving of * Meat-meal; pure meat-meal, 60 per cent, to 65 per cent, crude protein, 10 per cent. fat. f Pollard. New Zealand commercial sample. J Cerealmeal; mixture of 55 per cent, barley-meal, 10 per cent, pea-meal, 20 per cent, pollard, 5 per cent, maize-meal, 10 per cent, meat-meal.

160 gallons of buttermilk as compared with the control group for the same increase in weight. This is equivalent to a saving of 22 per cent, in milk-requirement. Similarly Group 3 gave a saving of 12-5 per cent, and Group 2 .of 10 per . cent, of buttermilk over the amount required when used alone. . 1 ’ . ■ . . ECONOMY RESULTS. Table 2 sets out the respective cash returns in pence per 100 gallons of buttermilk fed under the four systems. These have been calculated for varying bacon and meal prices, the cost of the meal used having been deducted from the gross returns in the case of the meal-fed groups, the balance only being credited to the buttermilk used..

' The intimate dependence of the economy of meal-supplementing upon the bacon-meal' price relationship \ can be seen from the \ data presented in this table. With meal costing £6. per ton and bacon worth ed, per pound all three meal groups show-greater cash returns than the control group. When the price of bacon falls to qd. per pound, however, Group 3 becomes unprofitable. A rise in meal price to £lO per ton leaves Group 4 only showing, a ' greater cash return per 100 gallons of milk, and this only when bacon is worth sd. per pound or more. As indicated previously, it must be remembered that these figures understate the financial returns from the use of meal; the lower overhead costs possible as a result of the saving in milk and fatteningtime must be credited to the meal-feeding systems. The precise effect, in this connection unfortunately cannot be assessed from - the data available from this experiment. It is likely to be considerable, however, as witness in Group 4 where the 20-per-cent. saving in milk would permit six pigs to be fattened to bacon weights under this system of feeding for every five fattened using buttermilk alone. The saving of ten days per pig in time will also affect cash returns under average conditions. These points are of great importance, particularly since on the majority of dairy-farms . the seasonal supply of dairy by-products introduces severe difficulties relative to fattening when milk-supplies fall towards the end of the season and unfinished pigs in large, numbers still remain to be marketed. The exact effects of these factors _■ in practice . are intimately bound up with management generally, and are capable of measurement only by examining farm pig-raising operations as . a whole. In this connection it is of direct interest to note in a recent survey of pig-management on Manawatu farms* where the whole pig-keeping

operations came under review showed higher net cash returns per pound of butterfat in favour of farms using meal concentrates at similar fates to those employed in this trial, even although experimentally the margin of profit appears . to be small. - It is considered that the influence of the factors mentioned above played a definite and material part in producing this result. ' ... Though therefore subject to the disadvantage of underestimating the case for meal-supplementing, the figures arising from the foregoing trial are of considerable interest, and do indicate the approximate prices at which meals would have to be purchased, and the prices which would need to be received for bacon, for the use of supplements to be profitable at the rates, employed. Table 3 sets out the position in this connection more clearly. < ,

. * Per ton of 2,000 lb.

This table gives the price per ton for meal at which the cash return from buttermilk . approximately equals the return when the. latter is used without meal. Thus, in Group 4, cereal-meal would have to be bought at £ll per ton or less when bacon is worth sd. per pound in order for'this system of feeding to show a profit margin. ’ With bacon at 5d., the pollard-meat-meal mixture of Group 3 would need to be bought at £6 .per ton or less, and the meat-meal of Group 2 at £7 10s. or less. SERIES B. . Use of Cereal-meal at varying Rates over the Porker-baconer Weight Range, . . . Following the trial described above, the following was laid' down to investigate the effect of varying the rate of meal-supplementing. In Series A different types of concentrate fed at similar rates were compared. . Cereal-meal having given the best result was selected as the concentrate, and three groups each of twelve pigs were taken and evenly, balanced as previously indicated. The pigs were of similar breeding to those of Series A, -but were heavier at the commencement of the trial, averaging approximately 80 lb. dressed weight, as compared with 40 lb. dressed weight in Series A. This trial thus covers what may be termed the “ porker-baconer ” weight range, as distinct from the first trial which covered the “ weaner-baconer ” weight range. The rations of the different groups were as follows : ' Group I—Control:1 —Control: Factory buttermilk only. Group Light meal: . Factory buttermilk plus | lb. cerealmeal per 100 lb. live-weight per day. Group 3 —Medium meal : Factory buttermilk plus if lb. cerealmeal per 100 lb. live-weight per day. - * .

A variation in the method of rationing the meal might be noted. In Series A the meal was employed at the same rates per pig per day throughout the trial. In Series B the rate varied with the growth of the pigs, the amount increasing with increased weight. The pigs were weighed fortnightly, and the meal ration adjusted according to the gross weight of each group on the basis indicated above. General methods of feeding, housing, and pen accommodation were similar to the conditions operating for Series A. GROWTH-RATE AND FOOD-CONSUMPTION RESULTS. The growth-rate and food-consumption results are set out in Table 4.

* Dressed weight calculated. f Dressed weight actual.

Again less buttermilk was consumed by the meal-supplemented groups per 100 lb. of dressed weight produced, and a greater rate of fattening maintained than on buttermilk alone. Supplementing at the 11 lb. rate gave a greater saving in milk and time than supplementing at the | lb. rate, but it is of interest to note that the saving in milk was not directly proportional to the increased amount of meal used. That is, Group 2, using only half as much meal saved 21-5 per cent, milk, as compared with Group 3 (31-2 per cent.). The saving in time amounted to six days and a half and twelve days and a half per pig respectively. This effect of a lower proportional increase in efficiency with heavier rates of meal-supplementing is in keeping with similar results of numerous trials carried out by the writer with both separated milk and whey under similar conditions ; small quantities of meal though producing a smaller gross effect produce a greater proportional effect than larger quantities. As compared with the.results of Series A, the greater amounts of food required to produce 100 lb. of pig-meat in this series are of considerable interest. Thus, comparing Groups 1 and 4 of Series A with Groups 1 and 2 of Series B shows that significantly more buttermilk

was required for the production of the same amount of increased weight in the buttermilk-alone groups, and more buttermilk plus meal in the meal-fed groups, i.e., — Series A: Weight range 40 lb. to 140 lb. required'7l4 gallons milk, or 555 gallons milk plus 84 lb. meal, per 100 lb. pigmeat produced. • Series B : Weight range 90 lb. to 140 lb. required 876 gallons buttermilk, or 688 gallons milk plus 132 lb. meal, per 100 lb. of pig-meat produced. While the two series are not strictly comparable, the only material difference between the groups compared above is the weight-range over which they extended, and, although the trials were not designed to investigate the point, the results are so striking as to indicate that the weight-range factor has probably been largely responsible for the difference in the economy of food noted. Such a result is consistent with the fact that small animals have a lower maintenance requirement than large animals, and in consequence a larger proportion of the ration of the former is available for conversion into increased weight. ECONOMY RESULTS. Table 5 sets out the economic results on a cash return per 100 gallons of buttermilk basis. Costs of meal .used have been deducted in the case of the meal-supplemented groups, the balance only being credited to the buttermilk used.

The most significant feature arising from these results is the fact that only at higher prices for bacon and at lower prices for meal than those normally ruling in New Zealand was there a margin of profit over the control group fed on buttermilk alone. 'Meals can seldom be purchased at £6 per ton, while the price of bacon is normally well below 6d. per pound the relative prices which would need to exist for a profit margin from meal-supplementing as in Group 2. A slightly higher price could be paid for meal as used in Group 3 if bacon is worth 6d. per pound. The low efficiency of food-consumption of the pigs in this series would appear to be partly responsible for this result, and if this be so it throws considerable doubt on the wisdom of the common practice of pig-fatteners in using meals during the later stages of growth of pigs rather than during the early stages. “ Topping off ” on meal would appear to be a questionable practice on a profit basis under normal prices..

In so far as the two rates of supplementing are concerned, the results of this series show that supplementing at the lighter rate was productive of greater cash returns than supplementing at the heavier rate at normal price-levels; both, however, were unprofitable compared with control. This feature of a smaller loss at price-levels at which a loss exists, and a smaller profit at prices conducive to a surplus, associated with the lighter rate of supplementing as compared with the heavier rate is a characteristic feature of the effect of different planes of supplementary feeding, and from a practical point of view means that under New Zealand prices where the meal-bacon price ratio is unfavourable to any extensive profitable use of concentrates feeding of small quantities is r a less risky practice than the use of medium to heavy quantities. . ; SERIES C. Effect of Meal-supplementing over Varying Weight Ranges. In order to investigate further the possible effect suggested from the results ,of Series A and B of the range l of growth over which meal supplements are used upon the economy of food-consumption and upon the cash returns from by-products, a third series of trials designed for the purpose have been completed. These also provide additional data on the general problems of meal-utilization. Five groups each of eight first-cross Tamworth-Berkshire pigs were taken. All pigs were of similar breeding to. those used in the first two series, and had a similar pre-weaning history. The trial extended over the weaner-baconer weight range, but the stages of growth during which meal was used as a- supplement to the milk ration varied. Feeding, housing, and pen accommodation conditions were comparable for each group, and similar to those of the previous trials. The respective rations were as follows : Group I.Control: .Buttermilk only.. Group 2. —Meal, weaner-porker (whole period)-: Buttermilk plus 1 lb., of meal per 100 lb. live-weight per day over whole fattening period. Group 3.- —Meal, weaner-porker (early period) : Buttermilk plus 1 lb. of meal per 100 lb. live-weight per day from 50 lb. . • to- 120 lb. live-weight, thereafter to 200 lb. live-weight, ■ • buttermilk only. • . ' Group 4. —Meal, heavy to porker, light, porker to baconer (heavy early, light late period) : Buttermilk plus 2 lb. meal per 100 lb. live-weight per day from 50 lb. to. 120 lb. liveweight, 1 lb. meal thereafter to 200 lb. live-weight. Group 5.—-Meal, porker to baconer (late period) : Buttermilk plus 1 lb. meal per 190 lb. live-weight per day from 120 lb. to 200 lb. live-weight. From 50 lb. to 120 lb. live-weight, buttermilk alone. The buttermilk was fed three times daily in quantities which the pigs readily consumed. The meal was fed with the milk at the morning and evening feed. It will be noted that the rations given cover the use of meal as a supplement during the whole period, during the early period, and during ..the late period of fattening, as well as introducing the modification of feeding at a heavy rate during the early stages, and at half - this rate thereafter. The meal used was in all cases cereal-meal as used in the previous trials. .

FOOD-CONSUMPTION AND GROWTH-RATE RESULTS. Table 6 sets out the growth-rate and economy of food-consumption results calculated on a dressed-weight basis.

♦Dressed weight calculated from live-weight. f Actual cold dressed weight. . Examination of the results in Table 6 will indicate that the growthrate and fattening-time of the respective groups was in keeping with the amounts of meal fed, groups receiving the larger quantities fattening at a faster rate. It will also be noted that the growth-rate of all groups was lower than that obtaining in the previous trials. This effect is considered to be due to the more severe climatic conditions existing during the progress of this series. Weather was markedly colder, and rainfall abnormally higher for the season as compared with the conditions obtaining during the previous series. With pigs fattened out-of-doors it was only to be expected therefore that growth would be slower. This lower efficiency in growth-rate was similarly carried to economy of food-consumption, each group showing a higher food requirement for the production of 100 lb. of dressed-weight gain than in Series A, where the trial covered a similar growth-range. The relative efficiency of the different systems of supplementing can be more, clearly seen from Table 7, where the relative amounts of meal fed and milk saved per 100 lb. of pig-meat produced allow the milk saved per pound of meal fed to be calculated (Column 5).

From the figures in Column 5, Table 7, it appears clear that the efficiency of meal-utilization is greater when concentrates are fed over the early stages of growth than over the later stages. A high level of efficiency is also apparent when they are employed so as to take advantage of the greater efficiency of food-utilization of the pig at young stages of growth, by being fed throughout the whole fattening-period. Thus Group 3, where the meal was fed up to porker weights only, thereafter being discontinued, shows the highest efficiency, with 2-37 gallons of milk saved per pound of meal fed. Group 4, where a heavy rate of feeding occurred up to pork weights, followed by a lighter rate to bacon weights, shows up well with a slight advantage over Group 2, where meal was fed at the same rate throughout. ■ In both these cases 1 lb. of meal saved approximately 2 gallons of buttermilk. Feeding meal from pork to bacon weights only produced the least efficient results, I lb. of meal saving 1-77 gallons of milk (Group 5). A further significant feature from these results is the fact that, although Group 3 shows the maximum efficiency of utilization, the gross effect is small, as indicated by the total amount of milk saved of II per cent, as compared with a saving of 40 per cent, in Group 4 and 30 per cent, in Group 2. This is due to the small total quantity of meal fed, as must be the case when it is employed in such limited quantities to small pigs. This point is of practical significance : while the feeding of meal during the early stages of fattening only would appear to result in the most efficient utilization per pound of meal fed, the total effect on milk-reduction is small. A system of feeding as in Groups 2 and 4 which takes advantage of the former point but which, in addition, through the use of a greater total quantity of meal, produces a far greater gross effect in milk-saving and fattening-time, would appear to be the better method of feeding. The results are also suggestive that a still heavier rate of supplementing during the early stages only might be advantageous. ECONOMY OF RESULTS. The relative cash returns per 100 gallons of buttermilk are set out in Table 8 for various prices for bacon and meal.

It will be noted that at 4d. per pound for bacon all groups , show a profit margin over the use of buttermilk alone providing meal costs £6 per ton or less. When the price of meal rises to £8 per ton, however, Group 5 becomes unprofitable with bacon worth 4d. per pound. At £lO per ton for meal Group 5 becomes unprofitable even with bacon worth as much as 6d. per pound, while the remaining three groups are still profitable even with bacon returning sd. per pound. With meal costing £l2 per ton Group 3 is still profitable at' sd. per pound, while Group 4 shows a margin at 6d. per pound. These results are in line with the efficiency of meal-utilization, Group 3, using meal during the early stages only, being profitable at higher meal prices and lower bacon prices than any of the other systems of feeding. It is important, however, that although the Group 3 system of supplementing is profitable at higher prices for meal and at lower bacon prices the margin of profit is small, due, as already emphasized, to the small total quantity of meal used. Group 4 system shows to outstanding advantage in this respect. Although unprofitable price-levels are reached sooner than in the case of Group 3, the margin of profit when a profit is obtainable is far greater. It is also evident that Group 5 system on a cash return per 100 gallons of milk basis has little to recommend it, being productive of a definite loss at normal price-levels. It must further be emphasized that if the saving in milk and fattening-, time be taken into account the advantages shown in these respects by Groups 2 and 4 give them a still greater advantage on . the profit side over the other systems of supplementing. Table 9 sets out the prices at which meals must be purchased by the farmer for the various systems of feeding used in this trial to show a cash surplus over the use of buttermilk alone.

From Tables 8 and 9 it would appear that feeding as in Group 2 or as in Group 4 offers the most attractive systems of fattening with the use of supplements so far as the growth-range factor is concerned. With the latter where 2 lb. of concentrate per 100 lb. live-weight per day was fed up to porker weights (120 lb. live-weight) and 1 lb. thereafter to bacon weights (200 lb. live-weight), as much as £l2 per ton could be paid for meal when bacon is worth sd. per pound. Remembering that this system also saved 40 per cent, in the amount of milk required to fatten a pig and over one month per pig in fattening-time, the large increase in turnover and more rapid output thereby possible should result in a worth-while profit margin in favour of this method of meal-utilization and as compared with using milk alone.

- Relationship, of the Results of these Trials with Practice. The results of the three series of trials reported in this paper emphasize that the whole question of meal-supplementing" is no simple one, and its profitableness is intimately bound up with the relationship of meal and bacon prices and with the system of utilization followed. The first point, emphasizes that, so little is the margin of profit at average prices and with common methods of feeding, either more will have to be received , for the product or less paid for the concentrates before meal-supplementing can play, any extensive part in the industry. Bearing this fact in mind,-the second point becomes of even greater significance. With a small margin only available, the actual method of supplementing must be closely watched, and in this connection the trials completed emphasize that the, type of concentrate, the quantity used, and the stage of growth over which it is used . are three important factors likely to affect the profitableness of any meal-feeding programme. It is suggested, therefore, for the guidance of farmers that (#) The amount of meal concentrates used should be limited to too lb. to 150 lb. of meal for every 100 lb. of dressed meat produced. This can be secured by feeding at the rate of 1 lb. to r| lb. per Too lb. live-weight, per day. . (5) That the concentrates be used at the above rates when meal is procurable at from £8 to £lO per ton when bacon is worth i 4d. to sd. per pound. (c) That the concentrates should be fed particularly. during the early stages of growth and advisedly at a heavier rate during the early stages than' during the later stages. (d) That “ topping off ” pigs on meal as a regular practice be avoided ; " that this should be employed only when essential as an aid to marketing unfattened pigs when milk-supplies alone are in inadequate supply. - \ Value of Buttermilk in Pig-fattening. One further aspect ,of interest arising from the trials is the data obtained upon the fattening-value, in the production of bacon pigs, of factory buttermilk, a by-product which is available in considerable quantities in New Zealand. With a production of some 150,000 tons of. butter, approximately 45,000,000 gallons of this foodstuff is available annually for conversion into pig-meat. ‘ The figures show that between 700 and 800 gallons of buttermilk produced 100 lb. of dressed pig-meat in pigs fattened from the weaning stage to bacon weights. Expressed another way, 100 gallons produced 13-3 lb. of bacon (dressed pig-meat). Theoretically, the manufacture of 1 ton of butter should result in the output of approximately 1 ton or 200 gallons .of buttermilk. In actual practice the yield is nearer 300 gallons per ton of butter, due to the addition of water during the manufacture process. It might be noted that it is this added water which is probably largely responsible for the lower food-value shown by the buttermilk as compared with skim-milk, which it closely resembles in composition. The latter material yields under comparable conditions 100 lb. of dressed-weight gain from 500 gallons. On a basis of a yield of 300 gallons of buttermilk per ton of butter, the possible yield of pig-flesh per ton of butter should be approximately 40 lb. of dressed weight. This figure should prove useful as a guide

to the cash value of this by-product under any given set of conditions i.e., at 4d. per pound for pig-meat buttermilk should have a gross cash value under average management conditions of 13s. 4d. per ton of butter. Note that the figure is merely indicative of gross cash value ; all incidental costs of production, which are many and variable, must be taken into account in estimating the probable net cash value should the data be used by farmers tendering for factory buttermilk outputs or by factories contemplating the installation of their own pig-fattening equipment. ■ - ■ - Acknowledgments.' The thanks of the writer are due to the directors of the Cheltenham Dairy , Co. for permission to . use their pig-farm for the work and for generous donations, and to the manager of the farm, Mr. H. E. Thurston, for the many facilities provided and for his efficient handling of the feeding and management of the pigs. Appreciation is expressed also to Professor W. Riddet for advice in designing the trials and preparing this report, and to Mr. W. J. Croucher, Recording Officer of the ManawatuOroua Pig-recording and Development . Club, under whose auspices the work was carried out, for generous assistance during the progress of the trials. Thanks are. also due to the Meat Producers Board,. the financial assistance of which made the work possible.

* Management of Pigs on Dairy-farms. N.Z. Journal of Agriculture, July, 1936.

* Dressed weight.

Group i : ControlMilk only. Group 2 : J lb Meat-meal. Group 3 : I lb Meat-meal, -J lb. Pollard. Group 4 : J lb. Cereal-meal Growth-rate. * Initial weight ■ 486 lb. 396 lb. 366 lb. 360 lb. Average .. .. 44 • 2 lb. 36 lb. 33-2 lb. 33 lb. f Final weight . 1,603 lb. 1,563 lb. i,564 lb. 1,570 lb. Average .. .. 145-7 lb. 142 lb. 142-2 lb. 143 lb. * Total gains . . 1,117 lb. ,167 lb. 1,198 lb. 1,210 lb. Average 101-6 lb. 106 lb. 109 lb. no lb. Average days on trial .. 123 . 120 120 113 Average daily, weight- ■ 82 lb. o-88 lb. 0-91 lb. 0-96 lb. gam

Table 1. —Series A : Effect of varying Types of Meal Supplements.

Total—Buttermilk . . 7,980 gals. 7,480 gals. 7,480 gals. 6,710 gals. Meat-meal . . 653 lb. 326 lb. Pollard 653 lb. Cereal-meal . . 1,026 lb. Per 100 lb. gain of dressed weight— Buttermilk .. . . 714 gals. 641 gals. 624 gals. 555 gals. Meat-meal . . .. » . 56 lb. 27 lb. Pollard .. ' 54 lb-Cereal-meal . . . 84-8 lb

Food-consumption.

- Group 2 : Meat-meal. Group 3 : Meat-meal and Pollard. .. Group 4 : Cereal-meal. Bacon price per pound 4<i.‘ 5d. ' 6d. 4d. . 5d. 6d. 4d.- ' 5d. 6d. ' Con trot buttermilk only 56d. 7od. 84d. 56d. 7od. 8 4 d. 56d. . 7od. ■ 84d. ■ Meal at £6 per ton - .. 56 -od. 7x-9d. 1 87-5d. 54-8d'. 70 • 8d. 86- 8d. 61-od. 79-od. 97-od. Meal at £8 per ton .. 54 -od. 69 ■ yd. 85-6d. 51 -6d. ,67-6d. 83-6d. 57’4d. 75 -4d. 93-4d. Meal at £'ro per ton 52-od. 67•7d. 83’3d. 48•6d: 64-6d. 80 • 6d. 53-8d. 7r-8d. 89-8d. Meal at £12 per ton 50-od. 65 -6d. 81 ■ 2d. 4.5'5d. 61 -5d. 77’5d. 5o-2d. 68 -2d. 86-2d.

Table 2. —Series A : Cash Returns Ter 100 Gallons Buttermilk (deducting Cost of Meals).

Price of Bacon = 4d. per Pound. 5d. per Pound. 6d. per Pound. Per Pound. £ s - d - S. d. £ . s. d. Group 2 £ S. d. 6 o o £ s- d. 7.10 o £ s. d. 900 = Price of meal per ton.* Group 3 500 600 700 = Price of meal per ton. Group 4 . . 900 11 0 0 13 0 0 = Price of meal per ton.

Table 3. —Series A : Profitable Meal Price - Bacon Price Ratio.

—■ Group i : Milk only. (Control.) ■ Group 2 : Milk + Jib. Cerealmeal. Group 3 : Milk 4- 1 J- lb. Cerealmeal. Growth-rate. * Initial weight .. . . Growth-rate. i , ooo lb. 1007 lb. 1,001 lb. Average . . . . 83-3 lb. . 84 lb. 83-3 lb. j- Final weight . . ,610 lb. 1, 642 lb. 1,678 lb. Average . . .. 134 lb137 lb140 lb. * Gain in weight . . 601 lb. 635 lb. 678 lb. Average . . . . .. 5° lb. ■ ,531b. 56-5 lb. Average days on trial . . 62 ■ 0 55’5 49-5 Average daily weight-gain 0•80 lb. . o-95 lb1 • 14 lb. Food-consumption. Total Buttermilk . . 5,267 gals. 4,367 gals. 4,082 gals. ' Cereal-meal . . ’ . . 837 lb. 1,390 lb. Per 100 lb. gain of dressed weightButtermilk . . ■ . . 876 gals. 687 • 7 gals. 602 gals. Cereal-meal . . 132 lb. 205 lb.

Table 4- —Series B : Effect of varying the Rate of Supplementing.

— Group 2 : J lb. Meal. Group 3 : it lb. Meal. Bacon, price per pound ,4d. 5d. ' 6d. ■ ■ : 4 d. ■ 5d. 6d. Control; buttermilk alone 45'5d. 57-od. 68 -4d. 45 '5d. • ■ 57-od. 68- 4 d. Meal at /6 per ton ... 44-4d. 5 8 -9d. 73 -4d. 43-od. 59-8d. 76 -yd. Meal at /8 per ton 39 ; 8d. 54-3d. 68-8d. 34-7d. 5i-6d. 68•4d. Meal at /io per ton 35 ; 2d. 49-7d. 63-2d. 26 -6d. 43 -5d. 60•4d. Meal at /12 per ton ... 3o-6d. 45 ‘id. 58 -6d. .18 J 4d. 35’3d58 -2d. '

Table 3. —Series B : Cash Returns per 100 Gallons Buttermilk (deducting Cost of Meals.

— Group i : Control. . . Group 2. Group 3. Group 4. Group 5. Growth-rate. * Initial weight .. 272 lb. 276 lb. 283 lb. 284 lb. 274 lb. Average ... .. 34 lb34’5 lb. ■ 35’4 lb. 35’5 lb. 34-2 lb. f Final weight .. 1,167 lb. 1,195 lb. 1,166 lb. 1,138 lb. 1,175 lb. Average .. ... 146 lb. 149 lb. 146 lb. 142 lb. 147 lb. * Gain in weight 895 lb-, 919 lb. 883 lb. 854 lb. 901 lb. Average ... .. 112 lb. 115 lb. no’4 lb- . 107 lb. 112-6 lb. Average days on' trial .. 187I : 170 '' 1771. 1551 173 * Average daily weight-gain 0-59 lb. 0-67 lb. 0-63 lb. , 0-69 lb. ' 0-65 lb. Total— Food-consumption. „ Buttermilk .. . -. 7,520 gals. 5,459 gals. 6,578 gals. 4,304 gals. 6,217 gals. Meal 1,109 lb. 349 lb. 1,366 lb. . 768 lb. . Per too lb. gain of dressed weight-■ • Buttermilk .. .. 840 gals. 594 gals. 745 gals. 504 gals. . 690 gals. Meal ' .. 120 lb. 40 lb. 160 lb. ' 85 lb.

Table 6.-Series C : Effect of Supplementing over varying Weight Ranges.

No. of Group. Meal used per loo lb. : Gain.* (i.) Milk saved per 100 lb. Gain. (2.) Milk saved. ’ (3.) Days saved per Pig. (4.) Milk saved per Pound Meal used. (5.) Lb. Gals. Per Cent. Gals. Group 2 ... 2 120 120 246 246 29’3 29’3 i7i 171 2; OO 2-00 Group 3 . . 3 . 4° 40 95 95 .11-4 n-4 10 10 2-37 2-37 Group 4 .. 4 160 160 336 40*0 32 2 • IO Group 85 336 40-0 5 18-0 32 2’10 Group 5 .• 85 150 i8’O 14I 14I 1.77 i-77

Table 7. — Series C : Efficiency of Meal-utilization.

— ■ Group 2. Group 3. Group 4. Group 5. Price of Bacon .. 4 d. 5 d. ’. 6d. 4 d. 5d. 6d. 4d. 5d. 6d. ' 4d. 5d, 6d. Control group .. 47’5d. 59’5d. 71-5d. 47‘5d. 59'5d. 7i-5d. 47’5d. 59'5d. 7i-5d. 47’5d. 59’5d. 7i-5d. Meal at £6 ton . . 53-od. 70 -od. 86-5d. 49 • 8d. 63 • od. 76-5d. 56-5d. 76 -5d. 96-od. 49-od. 63-5d. 78-od. Meal at £8 ton .. 48 - od. 65-od. 81 -5d. 48-5d. 61 -7d. 75’2d. 48-5d. 68 -5d. 88-od. 45 • od. 58-5d. 73-od. Meal at £10 ton \ . 43-od. 60 -od. 76-5d. 47-2d. 60-4d. 73-9d. 40 -5d. 60-5d. 80-od. 40■od. 53’5d. 68-od. Meal at £12 ton'.. 38-od. 55'°d. 7i-5d. 45 -9d. 59-rd. 72 • 6d. 32 -5d. 52 -5d. 72 - od. 35-od. 48-5d. 63-od.

Table 8.- —Series C : Cash Returns per 100 Gallons Buttermilk (deducting Cost of Meals).

Price of Bacon ,. .. 4 d. per Pound. 5d- ' per Pound. . 6d. . per Pound. — z s. d. £ s. d. z s. d. Group 2 . . 2 . . 8 8 o o o< o IO IO o o o o 12 12 0 0 0 0 = Meal = Meal price per price per ton. ton. Group 3 . . . . 3 • ■ IO io o o o o 12 12 o o o o 14 14 0 0 0 0 .= Meal = Meal price per price per ton. ton. Group 4 . . . . 4 . . 8 8 o o o o IO IO o o o o 12 12 0 0 ' 0 0 = Meal = Meal price per price per ton. ton. Group .5 .... 5 • • 7 7 o o o o 8 8 o o o o 9 9 0 0 0 0 = Meal = Meal price per price per ton. ton.

Table 9.—Series C: Profitable Meal Price - Bacon Price Ratio.