94 ON SWINE. 



was a common sized five pail kettle, set in brick work in the 

 house ; and it was remarkable that the peck of meal produced 

 nearly the same quantity of pudding, that we obtained from the 

 half bushel, which showed the importance of inducing the meal 

 to take up all the water it couW be made to absorb. 



The price of Indian Corn was at that time 75 cts per bushel 

 •—30 qts 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, making no 

 allowance for the ga|a 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 was 

 $3,94. The live weight could not he estimated at less than 4 

 cts per lb. when pork was at market 6 cts. 



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

 5 cts to $9,15 cts. 



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

 Apfil, 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 attributa- 

 ble to the diminished quantity of meal. The question then arises, 

 whether the first mode of feeding was as economical as the sec- 

 ond. 



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

 « next 63 " 5 " 1 " " " 183 " 



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

 ference to the meal consumed, the 7^ bushels which gave 104 lbs. 

 should have given 252f lbs. This great disparity can be ex- 



