FIFTEENTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK — PART IX. 621 



Peculiarly enough, the "dry lot fed" pigs to a group outgained the 

 "alfalfa ones,'" but this may be more apparent than real, inasmuch as 

 the dry lot pigs did not begin to outgain the pasture pigs until the feeding 

 period was well along. This fall (1914), the heavy rains of September, 

 and the cold, damp weather in October, gave the dry lot pigs at the barn 

 some advantage, but this is nearly always an expected advantage of dry 

 lot feeding, that is, better, more controlled conditions overhead and under 

 foot. The indications are that the pigs on alfalfa could have been re- 

 moved a little sooner and put in the dry lot for their finishing touches; 

 in other words, it might have been better to practice the time honored 

 scheme of growing to a fattening age on forage and then finishing in 

 the dry lot. 



The important consideration is that after all is said and done, the 

 forage fed pigs produced gains at the least cost. When corn costs 60 

 cents, the gains here cost $4.42 per 100 pounds, as compared to the 

 cheapest gains produced in dry lots, namely, $4.73, this being where the 

 pigs received corn, meat meal and oats in addition to the mineral feeds. 

 Here is a difference of 31 cents in cost of gain in favor of the forage 

 over the dry lot method. Of course the alfalfa was charged at only $10.75 

 an acre, which may not be enough under some local conditions. Where 

 hay is exceptionally high in price, a higher cash value is attributed to 

 said alfalfa. However, as much as $41.44 could have been paid for this 

 alfalfa to the acre, and still produce gains at the same cost as the best 

 dry lot, or $4.73 100 pounds. Really, this would mean, therefore, that 

 pasture is superior to dry lot feeding. Under the conditions given, alfalfa 

 would be worth for hog feeding purposes $41.44 an acre. 



When it comes to the production of gains at the same cost, putting 

 all of the profits upon the corn, hogs selling at $6, we have returns for 

 a bushel ranging from 74.9 cents to 78.8 cents, in dry lot, as compared to 

 the somewhat greater return of 81.6 cents on the forage of alfalfa. 



In a comparison of hand versus self feeding methods, on alfalfa pas- 

 ture, in the year of 1913, we had some very striking developments in 

 favor of the self feeding scheme. After the forage was gone in late 

 November, all of the pigs that had not reached a weight of 250 pounds 

 were fed corn in one self feeder and meat meal in another. All of the 

 pigs were started at w-eaning time in May, and were carried until they 

 reached a weight of 250 pounds before the experiment was discontinued. 



The results are given herewith: 



Where hand feeding was practiced, it paid to supplement the alfalfa 

 with meat meal or tankage, even though it cost $2.50 per 100 pounds, 

 in that gains were more rapid; less feed was required for 100 pounds of 

 gain, and less outlay was necessary from the dollar standpoint for 100 

 pounds of gain; then, too, the return for a bushel of corn was greater. 



Where the ear corn and meat meal were hand fed, as compared to 

 where the meat meal was self fed, there was no time saved as regards 

 days taken to make a 250-pound hog, but feed was conserved, in that 

 13 pounds less was required for 100 pounds of gain. It happened that 

 the costs of gains were identical with 60 cent corn. With 50 cent corn, 

 however, there was 4 cents on 100 pounds gain advantage in favor of the 



