FOODS ANIMAL PRODUCTfON. 



1013 



is based on bran at $10 and corn meal at 817.50 per ton and skim milk 

 at 15 cts. and buttermilk at 13 ets. per 100 lbs. The amonnts of food 

 consumed and the gains made by eacli pig are recorded. 



At the close of the test the pigs were sold at 5 cts. jier ponnd, dressed 

 weight. The average results from feeding tlie dilTereiit rations are 

 shown in the following table: 



Summarn of retsnlts of pin-t'cedimi cjperinunts. 



In the author's opinion, if corn meal and corn are rated at the same 

 price, the results were slightly in favor of the meal. If the cost of grind- 

 ing and transportation is taken into account, feeding whole corn will 

 frequently prove more economical. The pigs fed buttermilk grew faster 

 and shrunk less in dressing than the pigs fed skim milk. Iiatiug the 

 buttermilk at 13 cts. and the skim milk at 15 cts. ]ter 100 lbs., the 

 financial returns were considerably in favor of buttermilk. Rating both 

 at 15 cents per 100 lbs., the two gave about the same profit. 



The relative value of skim milk and buttermilk is discussed at length. 



Wet. feeding vs. dry feeding was tested with 4 Chester White pigs 

 about 12 weeks old at the beginning of the experiment. The test, which 

 began June 22 and closed November 9, was divided into 5 periods, of 

 from 18 to 41 days' duration. All the pigs were given 12 (^t. of skim 

 milk daily. At first 1.5 lbs. of corn meal was fed in addition, the 

 amount being gradually increased. Two of the pigs received the corn 

 meal wet and 2 dry. The financial statement is based on the same 

 prices as above. At the close of the test the pigs were sold for 5 cts. 

 per pound, dressed weight. 



The average results for the two methods of feeding are shown in the 

 following table: 



Results of feeding corn meal wet and dry to pigs. 



Weight 

 at begin- 

 ning. 



Corn meal, wet (average of 2 pigs). 

 Corn meal, dry (average of 2 pigs) . 



Pounds. 

 86 



83 



Gain in 



live 

 weight. 



Pounds. 

 243 

 208 



Dressed 

 weight. 



Pound*. 

 281 

 235 



Dry mat- 

 j ter con- 

 ; sumed | 

 per pound 



of gain. : 



Pounds. 

 3.88 

 4.35 



Loss per 

 pig- 



$1.07 

 2. 27 



Although both lots were fed at a loss, in the author's opinion feeding 

 the meal wet was more economical. 



The proper time to market pork is discussed and the fact jjointed out 

 that the pigs could not be profitably fattened beyond 200 lbs. The 

 659— i^o. 11 



