378 U. S. BUREAU OF FISHERIES 



ground dolomitic limestone (except in lot 2, which received calcitic 

 limestone), 10 pounds of superphosphate, and 2 pounds of salt. 

 The average daily gains in the respective lots were 2.36, 2.54, 2.31, 

 and 2.4 pounds per head, while the feed required per 100 pounds of 

 gain was 371, 356, 391, and 368 pounds in the respective groups. 



North Carolina (1928a) said that, on 3 acres of standing corn, 66 

 pigs averaging 11 pounds per head and self-fed fish meal and mineral 

 in addition gained 610 pounds of pork per acre. The estimated yield 

 was 29.7 bushels of corn per acre, and the 3 acres furnished feed for 

 the pigs for 32 days. 



For hogging down immature corn (North Carolina, 1928b), 66 

 pigs were turned into an 11.85-acre field when the corn was in the 

 dough stage. They were self-fed fish meal and minerals as supple- 

 ments. It required 48 pounds of fish meal, 7.6 pounds of minerals, 

 and 1 acre of corn to produce 283 pounds of gain. 



In this connection, it is Avell to quote from Evvard (1929) : 



We have computed a test in which we compared 60 per cent protein tankage 

 with 54 per cent menhaden fish meal in the balancing of corn for young growing 

 pigs in dry lot feeding. These pigs were carried from the OO-pound weight 

 until they went over the scales at 225 pounds. The check group of pigs receiv- 

 ing corn, self -fed, and tankage, self -fed, block salt being allowed free-choice 

 style, made an average daily gain of 1.59 pounds per pig and the feed required 

 for the 100 pounds of gain amounted to 353 pounds of corn and 34 pounds of 

 high-protein packing-house tankage. The total feed requirement therefore was 

 387 pounds of feed per hundredweight of gain produced. 



On the other hand, where menhaden fish meal was fed in the same manner 

 as the tankage along with corn the showing was better on the whole. These 

 pigs took 354 pounds of corn and 28 pounds of fish meal per hundred pounds 

 of gain made. The total therefore amounted to 382 pounds. The fish-meal fed 

 pigs gained practically the same or 1.55 pounds per head daily. 



But the fish-meal pigs ate less fish meal out of the self-feeder than did 

 those pigs across the fence which got tankage. The average daily tankage 

 consumi)tion was 0.53 pound, as contrasted with 0.45 for the fish meal. The 

 difference is quite considerable, amounting to approximately 15 per cent, the 

 fish-meal pigs eating that percentage less of supplementary high-protein feed 

 than did the tankage ones. 



Since the corn-consumption requirement was so close in both groups the big 

 difference tlierefore was in the supplement consumed, 100 pounds of the fish 

 meal going as far as 121 pounds of the 60 per cent protein tankage. 



In figuring the protein consumed per hundred pounds of gain put on we 

 find that the tankage-fed pigs took 55.7 pounds, this counting the protein in 

 tlie corn as well as in the tankage. On the otlier hand, the fish-meal fed pigs 

 took only 50.5 pounds of total protein for the hundredweight of pork made or 

 a difference of 5.2 i)Ounds of protein, which was saved b.v the fish product fed 

 pigs. In round numbers, the protein saved by the fish meal, therefore, amounted 

 to close to 10 per cent. 



Twelve American experiments have been run with fish meal in comparison 

 to high-protein tankage and in 11 out of 12 of these trials the fish meal 

 produced larger and more economical gains. 



In these 12 trials the pigs averaged approximately 75 pounds when the experi- 

 ment started and the days fed. figured approximately in months, clo.se to 

 three. The average daily gain with tankage and corn was 1.43 pounds per 

 pig, as contrasted with 1.58 pounds when fisli meal was allowed. Here we 

 have a difference of practically 10 i)er cent in tlie gnins, in favor of the fish- 

 meal feeding. The feed required for Ihe luuidnHl pounds of gain produced 

 on corn and tankage added up to 435 pounds, on the average, whereas with 

 fish meal and corn it was 401 pounds, a saving of 34 pounds of feed on this 

 amount of gain. This is equivalent to approximately 8 per cent saving in feed. 



And what is more important, the pigs receiving fish m< al took not only less- 

 corn, hut also less suiiplement. On corn and tanlcage the corn requirement 

 amounted to 398 pounds and the tankage figured 37 pounds. With fish meal^ 



