ALlALi A FOR SWINE 205 



cents less in the lot fed corn. Every item of comparison 

 in the results of this test is in favor of corn rather than 

 corn and shorts. 



Comparing Lot 26, fed 2 per cent grain, and Lot 27 

 fed a full ration amounting to between 3 per cent and 

 4 per cent, we find that the daily gain per pig in Lot 

 26 was .53 pound, and in Lot 27 .84 pound, and that the 

 grain required to produce 100 pounds gain in Lot 26 was 

 196 pounds and in Lot 27, 273 pounds. These figures 

 agree with previous comparisons in emphasizing the 

 fact that with the lighter grain rations there is required 

 less grain to produce 100 pounds gain. The cost of 100 

 pounds gain in Lot 26 was $1.45 and in Lot 27 $1.88 

 The profits per day, however, are all in favor of a heavy 

 ration. The daily profit per pig was .9 cent more and 

 the profit per pig in 12 weeks 76 cents more m Lot 27, 

 fed a full ration, than in Lot 26, fed a medium ration. 

 The prices per bushel received for corn fed to Lots 26 

 and 2j were $1.54 and $1.13 respectively, figuring corn 

 and shorts as having the same feeding value in producing 

 gains. 



Comparing the results of all pigs having grain and 

 alfalfa pasture, and using the daily profit per pig as the 

 unit of comparison, we find that the most profitable 

 ration has been the heavy rather than the light or me- 

 (h"inn rations. The lowest daily profit per pig was 1.3 

 cents from a ration of >2 per cent corn (Lot i) and the 

 highest profit 3.6 cents from a full ration of corn (Lot 

 24). The daily profits range quite closely witli the per- 

 centage of grain fed. The gain froni the same ration 

 was more rapid in 1906 than in 1904, due largely to a 



