16 BULLETIN 138i, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
TABLE 9.—Average disposition of each 1,000 pigs farrowed 
Spring litters Fall litters 
Where pigs went ene 
Aver- Aver- | SPrn 
: 1921 1922 age | 1921 1922 age | and fall 
Lost belore weaning 2. te 4 2 ee Te 314.8 | 403.3] 357.8 | 356.8 | 329.6 | 339.6 353. 6 
WViGnNeetme Petes Ron ees 3 Ne ee 685. 2 596. 7 642. 2 643. 2 670. 4 660. 4 646. 4 
Died after: weaning y. 2. _hvestiugss. Sls 45.0 48.7 46.8 88.9 | 116.2] 106.2 60. 3 
Selected for breeding herd________--__-_-_-- 95. 0 85. 4 90. 2 37.8 10.0 20. 2 74.4 
Butchered for home use_--___-_------------- 13.7 14.6 14. 2 4.7 1.8 2.9 11.6 
Saldion market. .2- 90 2. 2;008:.1¢ Of1 306 Be 531.5 | 448.0] 491.0| 511.8 | 542.4 | 531.1 500. 1 
1 2-year weighted average. 
The number of pigs dying after weaning was 6.0 per cent of the 
total number of pigs farrowed in the spring and fall of both 1921 and 
1922. The death losses for the spring pigs alone was 4.5 per cent in 
1921 and 4.9 per cent in 1922. The losses for the fall pigs was 8.9 
per cent in 1921 and 11.6 per cent in 1922. The number of pigs 
dying after weaning from various causes is given in Table 10 for the 
spring and fall pigs. Since no diagnosis was made to determine the 
exact cause of death, this classification of causes of deaths is only 
indicative and not absolute. 
TaBLE 10.—Causes of losses in pigs after weaning (number lost in each 1,000 
weaned) 
Spring Fall || Spring Fall 
litters litters litters litters 
Cause ae AA ie Oe | Cause 
| | | 
1921 | 1922 | 1921 1922 || 1921 | 1922 | 1921 | 1922 
et CS | et 2 ee ae ee 
Missing 32. 2... 22232 22. Sas Aste Le Si as Ol Sick: +." _ oe eee ei ees 5 SO.1 8 falas 
METMO WS Ee = ot. 5 Tam We 9). cee 8) 8621) “Smothered ~~~ + ee Dinin eres 10.4 
Miscellaneous - - -----_--- AO [ee (“SRD erent cee e* ene 3.5 | 122] 387 
So 3.2| 44) 4:9 2:1) “Roosmmuch milk + 25 = Gs. Sets Se eee 
eition vas 2+. =. 22s 13.8 | 10.1 | 44.1 32.5 || Necroenteritis__...._.__- 10) Lee 
Cholera? 3st ee 6.4 Bs: \y (ee 2) ee Sore: mouths: =-2.22-.22- 12 see 
ReRSPaLION 6 2 5. ee 1,2 Ac al ee oe 48: Swollen joints: s2:20 28 Bie ee Pa | pe peel ide 
ipeure- = .t 22 ee Aidt eae 1.2 fo}| MSNOked 22 2 oe 5 Rees ee my Pegs el ies 
Vaccination. -.___-_- Cael ae 2AM eee | Ce NCOMps et. eee Shs Fe See as og | Sear S Noel (8 Ss a 2 
Drowned. —:.—=2=-.-22-23 .7 3 P| es PEGA sont RO ee eee a ee | yy be ak 
MogMN PS cee LS bee 1S Ee jal Ae Se | SM Worm: medicine 28 et a ee | ae Ft so, [eee 
WROnIS S36 a2. - ores Pe Ocho aie 4 2 R854 1839.11 Vien oe 2 A ee ee “i, 
aocksnw. 2 Ft eee a8 Ft fees ee Vag pal Biged poison 22 see ele eee a) 
Heat prostration________- Fe eee oy | eed ee ——— oo 
Mixed infection -__--___- Sy i hae re eae fase ss. TOU L.2 See 67.5 | 88.1 |138.2 | 176.5 
The failure of sows to farrow may be a cause of financial loss to the 
producer. If the sows gain sufficiently to pay for their feed, the 
rincipal loss will be a short pig crop. Since young gilts are more 
boa to pay for their feed than old sows, many producers breed extra 
gilts as a form of insurance against failures to farrow, but many of 
the best producers strive to keep their breeding herds working to 
their full capacity. The sows that farrowed spring pigs in 1921 were 
87 per cent of the number of sows bred. In 1922, 88 per cent 
of the sows bred for spring litters farrowed pigs. Of the failures 
to farrow, 8 per cent were due to barrenness, 3 per cent to abortions, 
and 2 per cent to deaths in 1921; and 8 per cent to barrenness, 3 
per cent to abortions, and 1 per cent to deaths in 1922. In 1921, 
23 of 61 producers svdheatind’ in getting all of the sows to farrow; in 
1922, 11 of 39 producers were as successful. The details of these 
variations are shown in Table 11. 
