Report ok the First Assistant, 650 



The cost of all food eaten during the twenty-eight weeks made 

 the cost of all gain in weight during that period by pigs of the 

 Tamworth-Yorkshire cross 3.8 cents per pound. For the Tam- 

 worth-Duroc cross the cost was 3.83 cents; lor the Yorkshire- 

 Tamworth 3.25 cents; for the Tamwoith-Pokind China 3.44 cents, 

 and for the Ohio Improved Chester-Poland China 3.01 cents. 



Estimating the cost of food at more recent wholesale prices: 

 Wheat bran, at |10.60; wheat middlings, at |12.40, and corn 

 meal at .fl2 per ton, and skim milk at 20 cents per 100 pounds, 

 would more ueaily sshow the actual cost of the gain made. ThivS 

 would give 2.54 cents as the cost per pound for the Tamworth- 

 Yorkshire, 2.G8 cents for the Tamworth-Duroc, 2.10 cents for the 

 Yorkshire-Tamworth, 2.28 cents for the Tamworth-Poland China, 

 and 2.44 cents for the Ohio Improved Chester-Poland China pigs. 



The food cost of all gain made by the pigs after they were 

 removed from the sow was 2.48 cents per pound for the Tam- 

 worth-Yorkshire, 2.41 cents per pound for the Tamworth-Duroc, 

 2.17 cents for the Yorkshire-Tarn worth, 2.33 cents for the Tam- 

 worth-Poland China, and 2.37 cents for Ohio Improved Chester- 

 Poland China pigs. It will be seen from these figures that there 

 was little ditference in the efficiency with which each lot utilized 

 the food, although the pigs of the Yorkshire-Tamworth cross 

 made somewhat the better showing. 



Taking the cost of the growth nmde throughout the trial, 

 different lots rank in profit in the following order: Yorkshire- 

 Tamworth, Tamworth-Poland China, Ohio Improved Chester- 

 Poland China, Tamw^orth-Yorkshire and Tamworth-Duroc. In 

 rapidity of growth made by the different lots of pigs there were 

 greater differences. At the same age the pigs of Tamworth- 

 Poland China cross were much the largest, averaging at the end 

 of the feeding trial about 11 per cent, heavier than those of the 

 Yoi'ksliire-Taui worth cross, the lot nearest them in size. Thev 

 were over 30 per cent heavier tlKin the {)igs of Ohio Improved 

 Chester-Poland China cross. Althougli both Poland China sows 

 were mature and vigorous, the one used in the latter-named crosa 

 was of the smaller frame. The Tamworth-P(*land China cross 



