321 



— 30 quarts of meal to a bushel deducting the toll. The amount 

 of meal consumed in the whole time from 3d April to 25th 

 June was 14:^ bushels — the cost $10 69 — the total gain, mak- 

 ing no allowance for the gain of No. 4, from 22d April to 30th 

 May, which was not ascertained, was 287 lbs. 



The gain of No. 1, 2 and 3, from 22d April to 25th June 

 was 183 lbs. in 63 days ; and allowing one peck to serve the 

 three hogs for three days, required 5| bushels, the cost of which 

 Avas f 3 94. The live weight could not be estimated at less 

 than 4 cents per lb. when pork was at market 6 cents. 



The value of the 183 lbs. therefore was equal to $7 32, or 

 at 5 cents to $9 15 cents. 



The gain of the swine for the first 19 days, from 3d to 22d 

 April, was 



No. 1, 26 lbs. or 1,368 per day. 

 " 2, 34 " or 1,789 " 

 " 3, 20 " or 1,052 " 

 " 4, 24 " or 1,263 " 

 The gain from 22d April to 25th June, 63 days, was 

 No. 1, 62 lbs. or 0,984 per day. 

 " 2, 73 " or 1,158 *' 

 '' 3, 48 " or 0,761 " 

 The difference of daily gain in the two periods was attribu- 

 table to the diminished quantity of meal. The question then 

 arises, whether the first mode of feeding was as economical as 

 the second. 



In the first 19 days, 7 bs. 1 peck consumed, gave 104 lbs. gain. 

 '' next 63 " 5 " 1 " " " 183 " 



Had the first gain been in proportion to the second gain in 

 reference to the meal consumed, the 7^ bushels which gave 

 104 lbs. should have given 252 5-7 lbs. This great disparity 

 can be explained only in the more economical preparation of 

 the meal, by which a peck, taking up as much water as it would 

 contain, gave a kettle nearly full of pudding, whenhalf a bushel 

 of meal, imperfectly prepared, gave little more. This seems 

 to demonstrate the great advantage of cooked food, both as it 



41 



