14 



that the outlay iucuri-ed for feed, as a rule, has been larger in our 

 three late experiments, where gluten meal and wheat brnn have been 

 used as additional feed ingredients. The following short abstract of 

 the results of our second experiment, above referred to, will show 

 the exact difference in the cost of feed per pound of pork produced. 

 For obvious ronsous the same market prices have been adopted here 

 for the different fodder articles used on both occasions. 



Six Pigs Fed tvith Skim-Milk and Corn Meal. (1884-1885.) 



Total Cost of Feed Consumed during the Experiment. 

 •2,2r)0 lbs. Corn Meal, S24.U0 per ton, !$27.00 



1,^)00 gals. Skim-Milk, 1.8 cents per gallon, 27.60 



S54.60 



As the cost of the feed consumed in the production of 990.5 pounds 

 of dressed pork was in this case $54.60, it follows that the cost of 

 feed for the production of one pound of- dressed pork amounted to 

 5.51 cents, or 0.41 cents less per pound, than in our three more 

 recent experiments. 



Conclusions. Judging from our own experience there remains but 

 little doubt whenever the mere cost of the feed consumed is con- 

 sidered, that the diet consisting of skim-milk and corn meal alone, 

 as described in connection with our second feeding experiment, has been 

 the cheaper one. It is not less clearly proven in connection with the 

 same series of experiments, that the diet of skim-inilk and corn 

 meal as carried out on that occasion has furnished us thus far the 

 most eflicient feed iov Yvasxng \)\gs for the home meat market; for in 

 every instance during four independent feeding experiments has a 

 smaller quantity of dry matter contained in that diet, sufficed to 

 yield a given quantity of dressed pork, than in case of our other diets 

 whicli contained an addition of gluten meal and wheat bran. 



Although these two important circumstnnces, hnvcr marlet j^^'ice 

 and higher nutritive value, are in favor of the skim-milk and corn 

 meal diet for pigs, its superior claim of good, econoniy as compai(>d 

 with others used by us cannot be considered as established w'ithout a 

 due considei'ation of the agricultural and the commercial value of the 



