216 RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS IN SWINE FEEDING 



In the first test all the ]>ii;s were fed a uiixture of gTound 

 corn, wheat iiiiild])ii,i;s, and In'an; and in the second test, 

 hominy chop and middlings. Tn. each test ilry meal was fed 

 in the hoppers, and wet meal in the troughs. The results were: 



-V«^,#«(*l 



■-^^^ 



.^* 



W 





m^' • 



Fig. 4S. — A type of self-feediiit; hopper in use on some large farms. 



First Tent: Il()]i|i('r fed. — Average dailjf gain per pig, .71 pound. 



^leal consumed per 100 pounds gain, 520 pounds. 

 Trougli fed. — Average daily gain per ])ig, .73 pound. 



^ieal consumed per 1(10 pounds gain, 478 pounds. 

 <S'cco»rf 7'<'s(; Ilopjier fed. — Average daily gain per pig, l.'ili pounds. 



jNFeal consmued per 100 pounds gain, 387 pounds. 

 Trough fed. — ^Average daily gain per pig, 1.30 pounds. 



!Meal consumed per 100 pounds .gain, 348 pounds. 



Notice that in Imtli tests trc^ugh-fed pigs gained the more 

 rapidly and cheaply, though the lahor is less with hoppers. 



REVIEW. 



1. What was the okl lielief as to the value of cooking feed for swine? 

 ^^^lat do the trials show? 



2. Wluat is sliown r(garding the henefit of grinding small grains and 

 com for swine? Tender wliat circumstances does it jiay? 



3. r.ive advantages and disadvantage* of wetting or soaking feeds? 



4. Tell of the method of feeding hy use of a hog motor grinder. 

 .'). Compare it with the hopper nietliod. 



G. How docs hopper feeding compare with trough feeding? 



