RATIONS FOR WINTERING PIGS.

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume 54, Issue 1, 20 January 1937, Page 36

RATIONS FOR WINTERING PIGS.

RESULTS OF FEED-TRIALS AND OBSERVATIONAL TRIALS.

C. P. McMeekan,

Massey Agricultural College, Palmerston North

On the, majority: of - dairy-farms • engaged, in pig-raising the question.of how best to deal with a large proportion of the late-farrowed summer and autumn, litters presents many difficulties. Owing to the rapid decline at this period in the supplies of fatteningdairy by-products as a result of the seasonal system of dairying practised, it is ' impossible to ? fatten to satisfactory marketable weights the whole of the pigs normally on hand. Separated milk and whey are in insufficient supply for the purpose, and, under normal conditions, the use of grain or other concentrates to the extent necessary is unprofitable. As pointed out in a previous paper(i) The judicious and limited use of concentrates as supplements can play a material part in reducing the number of unfinished animals during this period, and especially is this so when combined with rational control of farrow dates of breeding-stock so as to fit more closely the ’ seasonal supplies of food; (2) useful as these methods have proved, however,' they have not offered a complete solution to the problems. Fattening being out of the question, farmers are faced with a choice between either selling .as . weaners or ' light' stores in the late autumn at the low prices resulting from the small demand for such animals at this time or of maintaining them through the winter months in a growing condition for sale as forward stores' when prices improve in the spring, or to be fattened when milk is again available at the commencement of the new season. The latter method is associated in practice with many difficulties, and, in consequence, tends to be avoided when possible by many producers. Of these difficulties the rationing aspect is only one, but it is one upon which little- definite information exists, and which becomes particularly acute during the mid-winter period when j milk-supplies either disappear altogether or are required by the breeding-stock.. It is apparent : therefore that the : problem from the rationing angle involves the provision of cheap milk-by-product substitutes suitable for .the purpose. With the object of obtaining information on the suitability of certain rations in this. connection,- and of investigating generally the economy of the practice of “wintering,” the following feed trials were conducted by the writer during the winter of 1935, . together with certain observational trials carried out with large numbers of pigs under practical farming conditions. It should be emphasized that this work relates not to winter fattening, but to' the practice of maintaining otherwise unsaleable pigs in a fit growing condition through a period of feed -shortage. Outline of Experiment. Forty pigs from six litters were taken and evenly distributed between five groups so as to eliminate differences due to strain and weight. The pigs were first-cross Tamworth-Berkshires, and all had

a common sire. The trial covered the May-July period. Each .'group was provided with comparable and comfortable feeding, and housing quarters, together with a grass run-out pen. . ■ One group was fed on the normal ration of the farm, and served as a control pen. The remainder were rationed in such a way as to provide comparisons between meat-meal and peas as winter protein supplements,” and between mangels and pumpkins as winter “ roots.” The actual rations were as follows : ■5?;-..; ‘ Ration per Pig Daily. Group 1 (Control) —Buttermilk gallons for fourteen days ; mixture + pumpkins 2 gallons thereafter. ' - Group 2-Barley, meat-meal, | lb. . meat-meal for fourteen and pumpkins , .days ; lb. thereafter. : Group 3Barley, peas, and | lb. peas for fourteen days; pumpkins jib. thereafter. Group Barley, meat-meal, . lb. meat -meal for' fourteen and mangels days ; j lb. thereafter. Group Barley, peas, and lb. peas' for -fourteen days mangels f lb. thereafter. 5 Barley (whole grain) was fed to all groups except the control at -the rate of | lb. per . pig daily , for the .. first thirty days, . and at J lb. per pig daily thereafter. / The “ roots ” were fed at a standard rate to all groups—so lb. per group daily in the case of both pumpkins and mangels. The “ buttermilk mixture ” used with the control group was a mixture used on the farm, and consisted of 200 gallons of buttermilk, 200 gallons of water, 100 lb. of meat-meal, : and 80 lb. •of molasses. ' ’ . The meat-meal used was commercial “ pure meat-meal ” showing "65 per cent, crude protein on analysis. It will be noted that this, arrangement provided the following •comparisons : Group 2 with Group 3—Meat-meal compared with. peas in ; association with pumpkins. •• • . - ' T. - . Group 4 with Group ,5 —Meat-meal compared with - peas in . association with mangels. ' Group 2 with Group 4— Pumpkins compared .with mangels in association with meat-meal. . ’ , ‘ . Group 3 with Group s—Pumpkins5 —Pumpkins compared with mangels in » ■ association with peas. ' ' \ , The trial extended over fifty-nine days. Live-weights were taken at the commencement and at the end of the period. These were taken in. the morning prior to . feeding, the pigs being virtually in an empty ” condition. ‘ ' Results obtained. ’ _ , \ ' The pigs came through the winter well; health was good, - and the animals finished in a thrifty condition. Increase in weight ..appeared to have occurred mainly through increase in size' or frame rather than in condition or flesh and fat. There were no differences apparent in the appearance of the groups, except for a slight -advantage in “ bloom ” of the pigs in the control-pen receiving

milk. Little nourishment appeared to be obtained from the grass pens, the pasture being, at a dormant stage of growth and tending to disappear under the trampling effect of the animals as a result of wet weather. The following shows the live-weight increases

Food-consumption results are set out in Table 2.

Consideration of Tables 1 and 2 indicates that from the point of view of the suitability of the rations for wintering” all provided a satisfactory rate of growth as measured by the performance of the control group. Individually, both the meat-meal groups show less efficient results in both growth-rate and economy of food as compared with the two pea groups. Further, it is clear that — Peas gave better results than meat-meal when both were used with pumpkins ; peas gave better results than meat-meal when both were used with mangels; pumpkins and mangels gave similar results when both were used with meat-meal; pumpkins gave slightly better results than mangels when both were used with peas. This superiority of peas over meat-meal is of considerable interest in view of the usual recommendations with respect to these two foodstuffs. The agreement between the two meat-meal groups and the two pea groups respectively is very close, and the difference in growth-rate considerable. In view of the relationship of protein to flesh-production, and of the relative protein content of the two foodstuffs, it is generally believed that meat-meal, with its higher protein content, is the more effective of the two for use with pigs whose principal requirement is one of flesh and bone production rather than one of fattening. It is conceivable, however, in view

of the slow growth-rate of the pigs, that the greater part of the ration was utilized for maintenance- purposes, and that accordingly much of the protein was unable to fulfil its normal function, but necessarily served as . a source of energy. Since on theoretical grounds it is less efficient than carbohydrate for this purpose, it is possible that part, at least; of the difference noted may have been due to-this cause. The matter warrants further investigation. Economy. ■< : Table 3 setsmut the actual costs for supplements in each group and the costs' in relation to the increase in weight. • The latter figures .provide a better guide as to the economy of the various rations, though the former are useful in indicating the expenditure involved in wintering pigs with the methods employed. ?. Barley, ■ peas, and meat-meal- are charged for .at id. per pound, a figure approximating the average., price of these foods. The home-grown materials, roots and milk, have not been allowed for... .

It will be observed that the cost for purchased milk substitutes in Groups 2 to 5, over a two-month period during which gains of from 12 lb. to 25 lb. per pig were registered, amounted to 6s. 6d. per pig. This figure compares well with the control-pen co;st where milk used permitted smaller quantities of concentrates to be employed. The figure excludes the cost of the roots employed, which if added at the rate of 12s. 6d.' per ton (a normal, commercial value), brings the total, food-cost for wintering of the experimental groups up to Bs. pd. per pig. At this figure all . the groups were profitable, the price-margin between an autumn and a spring store pig being well in advance of this figure. The difference in growth-rate of the individual rations is, of course, responsible for the differences in the economy of the individual rations on a cost basis. Here Groups 3 and 5, using peas and barley with pumpkins and mangels respectively, show to advantage. Observational Trials, In addition to the above, careful .observations were made on two large lines of farmers' -pigs being wintered under conditions similar to those of.. the experimental groups on rations ' normally employed by the farmers concerned.

Trial No. 1.

In this trial-there was a line of fifty-one pigs, born during FebruaryApril, and weaned'on to carrots ' and chou moellier prior to coming under observation on the -ist June. From this date until the ist August the pigs were wintered on a ration of grain, chou. moellier, and roots (carrots ’ and mangels). The pigs were weighed at the commencement and at the end of the period, and records kept of the quantity of food given. The following results were obtained: — .Yr.;.'' ’3J’ ' ~ Initial weight .. .. 2,819 lb. (average, 55-2 lb.) Final weight .. .. 3,682-lb. (average, 72-2 lb.) . Total: gain . .. ' ... . 8041 b. (average, 16-9 lb.) Days on trial .. < :.. Sixty-two. Average daily gain ~. 0-27 lb. .■ • t The ration consisted of | lb. per'. pig per day of a mixture of 1 part of crushed barley and 2 parts of crushed oats for the whole of the' period. This was supplemented with a run-out on chou moellier for the first thirty-five days (if acres), and during the last twenty-seven days by an allowance of 25 lb. of mangels plus 2 oz. of meat-meal per pig per day. The ration and' cost of same per pig for the whole period was thus as. follows : ■ Ration. Cost. s. d. Grain mixture, 31 lb. .. 2 7at id. per pound. -meal, 4 lb. .. ..0 4 at id. per pound. Mangels, 625 lb. .. .. 3 6at 12s. 6d. per ton. Chou moellier ; . 65 : It was observed during the course of the trial that the larger pigs seemed to thrive better and withstand the somewhat cold and wet weather prevailing than pigs that' were small in size at- the commencement of the trial. This observation was confirmed by the- individual .weights; many of the latter showed only small increases in weight, while some even lost . weight though increasing in size during the period. A comparison . between the rates of gain of “ heavy ” and “light”. pigs gave the following results: Heavy pigs (average, 70 lb.), daily gain, 0-50 lb. ; light pigs (average, 47 lb .) /. daily gain,. 0-20 lb. - This observation is of considerable interest, and if substantiated by further investigation will provide a further reason in addition to ' those already operative in favour of early farrowing, so that pigs will be of sufficient size before the winter commences. It might be noted that the difference between the light and heavy pigs was not due to competition between them for food ; , feeding was organized in such a way as to ensure 'each 7 , pig- obtaining its share of the daily ration.

Trial No. 2.

Two lines of pigs of . twenty-nine. and twenty-four animals respectively were kept under observation under similar conditions

to the above. The trial extended : over the same period. .. The ration consisted of. a small allowance of j buttermilk daily, which, was fed warm (approximately : i gallon, per head daily), supplemented with | lb. of peas in the case of Lot i and | lb. of barley in the case of Lot 2. Both groups also received an allowance of mangels of approximately 12 lb. per head per - day. The results were as follows : LOT 1 (peas). Initial weight .. .. 2,5301 b. (average, 871 b.). Final weight .. .. ,2,9371 b. (average, 101 lb.). Gain in weight .. .. 4071 b. (average, 141 b.). . Average daily gain ... 0-24 lb. Days on trial .. .. Fifty-nine. - - LOT 2 (BARLEY). Initial weight .. .. '2,2701b. (average, 94-5 lb.). Final weight .. .. 2,8831 b. (average, 120 lb.). Gain in weight .. .. 613 lb. (average, 25-5 lb.). Average daily gain .. 0-43 lb. Days on trial .. .. Fifty-nine. - ;???’•;-L’’' -S r "; : . It will be observed that the two lots received the same ration apart from the concentrate supplement. The lot receiving barley showed the better growth-rate. This difference cannot be considered significant, however, for the two lots were not strictly comparable on a breed and strain basis, while the barley group had a possible advantage through. having continuous access to good-quality leafy pasture, while the pea group were provided with soiled pasture of inferior quality/ l .' ‘ ' . The data 1 are of interest, however,: in. indicating the results being obtained in practice with rations similar in type to those, of ■ the’ experimental groups. The pigs maintained a satisfactory rate of growth for the purpose of • wintering, and came through in good, thriving condition, increasing in . value .by , many times their feedcost during the period. The, cost was low, being- that of 30 lb., of grain per pig in each case. At id. per pound this' gives a wintering. charge for . purchased foods of 2s. 6d., to which must be added the mangels, at .3s. 6d. per head. . . ■ '. ■ - Summary. The trials discussed show that pigs can be successfully carried over the winter period of food-shortage on a ration of milk substitutes. - “ Mangels and pumpkins ■as cheap home-grown sources of energy are compared for the purpose, as also are meat-meal and peas, which, as concentrate supplements to' a basal ration of' roots and grain, are readily available. . • Peas gave - more efficient results than meat-meal, both / with mangels and pumpkins. The latter two foodstuffs gave similar results. The nations ..'employed, ' however, were sufficient only to : maintain - the pigs in a thriving condition, and added but slightly to their ■ live-weight. Any increase in . weight occurred mainly “ini respect to size rather than condition.

For . the . purpose for which . they were designed, . however, the results indicate that the . rations employed present definite possibilities as an. alternative to the method of disposal of late-farrowed pigs during periods of'low prices. . The results of the trials are supported by observations on large groups of pigs on similar rations under practical farming conditions. , Acknowledgments. The investigations reported were carried out in conjunction with the Manawatu-Oroua Pig Development and Recording Club. The thanks of • the • writer and the club are due to the Cheltenham Dairy Co. for the facilities provided for the feed trails; to the manager, Mr. H. E. Thurston, who carefully• carried out the feeding and provided other assistance ; to other farmers who co-operated in respect .to the observational trials' at considerable inconvenience to themselves ; and to Mr. W. J. Croucher, recording officer of the Club, for generous assistance in the ■ organization of The work. References. .. ■ . ' (1) Use of Concentrates with Factory Buttermilk in Fattening Bacon Pigs. . New Zealand Journal of Agriculture; December, 1936. . (2) Management of Pigs on Dairy-farms. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture ; July, 1936. ' .

Group. Initial Weight. Final Weight. Gain.: Total. Average Gain per Pig per Day. ■ Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. 1 .. 576 (average, 72-0) . 736 (average, 92-0) 160 ■ (average, 20-0) 0-34 2 588 (average, 73 • 5) 715 (average, 89-4) ■ 127 ■ (average, 16-o) 0-27 3 579 (average, 72 • 4) 776 ' ■ (average, 97-0) . 197. (average, 24 • 0-42 4 593 724 ■. 131 ; 0-28 ■ (average, 74 • 724 (average, 90 • 5) 131 (average, 16-4) ' 0-28 5 • • • 600 761 161 : 0-34 t : . >'. : • • ■ ... (average, 75 ■ 0) 761 (average, 75 • 0) (average, 95-1) 161 (average, 95■j) (average, 20-1) o-34 (average, 20-1)

Table 1.-Live-weight Increases.

- ■ Group. ' Milk. Pumpkins. Mangels. Barley. Peas. ' Meat-meal. ■ Gallons. Lb. Lb. ■ Lb. , Lb. Lb. I. ■ 555 1,828 2 256 2 > ’ . • ‘ • . 2,322 229 256 3 1.497 148 165 4 2,254 223 . 249 5 1,828 181 202

Table Food-consumption per 100 lb. Live-weight Increase.

Group. Actual Costs. Costs per roo lb. Weight Gain. , s. d. ' £ s. d. I . . 4 2 i O i 2 . . 6 6 ■ ' • ’2' o 5 3 • ■ 6 6 ■ d 6 3 4 . . 6 6 , . I. 19 . 4 5 ■■■ 6 6 . i ii ii

Table 3.—Relative Costs for Concentrate Rations