FOODS ANIMAL PRODUCTION, 1075 



there was an undoul)ted advantao-e in the use of sugar beets, i. 6^, succu- 

 lent food, as part of a ration. At the end of the trial the sheep were 

 not in condition for market and were pastured for 4 months on burr 

 clover or alfalfa, and were fed wheat hay or barley in addition. They 

 were then sold. From the bejjfinning of the test to the end of the 

 pasturage period the a\'ei'ag"e daily gain was 0.82 lb. piM" day. 



On the amount of -water in slop fed fattening pigs, C. 8. Pt.umb 

 and H. K. Van Nokmax {In<li<ma Sta. Bui. 80^ pp. 151-158). — The 

 comparative value of grain fed dr}^ and mixed with different amounts 

 of water was tested with 4 lots of 3 pigs each. For the first 15 weeks 

 of the trial the grain used was corn meal and shorts, 1:1, and for the 

 remaining 6 weeks of the test hominy chop replaced the corn meal. 

 Lot 1 Avas fed the ration dry; lot 2 received it mixed with an equal 

 amount of water. For lot 3 the grain was mixed with twice, and for 

 lot 1 with three times, its weight of water. In addition to Avy grain 

 or slop, the pigs were given all the drinking water they desired, the 

 amounts consumed being recorded. The average dail}" gain of the 4 

 lots was li, 41, 4|, and 41 lbs.; the grain consumed per pound of gain 

 was 3.59, 3.80, 3.74, and 3.75 lbs., while the cost of food per pound of 

 gain was 2.87, 3.04, 2.99, and 3 cts., respectively. Lot 1 drank a con- 

 siderable amount of water; lot 2 a somewhat smaller amount, while 

 lots 3 and 4 received all the}" wished in the slop fed. During the test 

 the total amount of water drank by lot 1 was 3,379.5. Lot 2 received 

 a total of 3,031 lbs., while lots 3 and 4 received 4,871.3 and 6,927.9 

 1 1 )s . , respectively . 



•'Pigs weighing 60 lbs., fed dry feed, consumed on an average 2.35 lbs. daily, and 

 this amount increased nearly constantly until these same pigs, weighing 218 lbs., 

 consumed 11.07 lbs. per day. It is also shown that pigs fed water in their food aa a 

 slop, when weighing about 60 lbs., consumed either 2.42, 4.25, or 5.79 lbs. of water 

 l)er day, while these same pigs weighing 213 to 222 lbs. consumed either 8.17, 14, or 

 18 lbs. of water per day. Undoubtedly much of this water was consumed unneces- 

 sarily, and certainly lot 4 was given much more water with its grain than was 

 required. 



' ' There was no material difference in the appearance of the pigs in either lot, so far 

 as quality is concerned, and so far as this one experiment goes the use of about two 

 times the weight of water to grain indicates a satisfactory proportion. In view of 

 the fact that the pigs fed dry grain made slightly [better gains than the others], it 

 would appear that there is really no gain in feeding the pigs a slop instead of a dry 

 grain, excepting as a feeder may regard it a matter of convenience." 



Discussion of tlie terms digestibility, availability, and fuel value, W. O. 



Atwatek {Connect ictd Slorrii Stu. lipt. 1899, pp. 69-72). — The terms availaljility, 

 digestibility, and fuel value are discussed at some length and explained. It is pro- 

 ])osed to use availability for what is ordinarily termed digestibiUty — i. c, the total 

 nutrients consumed less the amounts of each excreted in the feces. The author pro- 

 poses the term digestibility for what is ordinarily called digestibility, with corrections 

 introduced for the metabolic products in the feces. "[By fuel value] is understood 

 tlie energy (heat of combustion) of tlie material of the food which is oxidized — i. e., 



