CORN 147 
Feed Consumed Per Hundred Pounds Gain. 
Shorts Ear corn Total 
Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. 
First trial........... { Field lot............ 139 696 835 
Yard loti. co ccseyes 169 831 1000 
Second trial......... { Field lot............ 103 532 635 
Yard lots. .3cexc. eos 146 573 719 
Average of two trials { oe a fees Pe i the 
10 it (a ere ‘ 
The larger amount of feed for 100 pounds gain in the 
first trial, as compared with the second trial, is due to the 
fact that the weight of the ear corn when first husked was 
used in the first year’s calculations, whereas the second trial 
is caleulated upon a cured corn basis, that is, corn dry enough 
for market. 
Results.—It will be seen that the field hogs made larger 
and more economical gains than the yard hogs in each 
experiment. 
In the second experiment a third group of hogs was used. 
These hogs were fed in a dry lot upon snapped corn,—that 1s, 
the ears of corn without the husks removed. This lot oceu- 
pied an intermediate position, both in rate and economy of 
gain, the snapped corn giving better results than the ear corn. 
A summary appearing in Bulletin 104 gives the following 
_ notes: 
“ The cost of fencing cornfields may be from $1.00 to $2.50 
less per acre than the cost of husking.” 
“Tt requires no more labor to prepare for subsequent crops, 
fields that have been ‘hogged off’ than those that have been 
treated by the ordinary methods of harvesting.” 
“ Hogs waste no more corn in field than when fed in yard. 
They pick the corn as clean as most men do in husking.” 
