171 
m BE \i OF ANIMAL QTDUS1 Rl . 
i 'iiin, of roughage for pigs < kmtbraed. 
1 v;it i. .!i 
A\.-r 
. Total 
£8 
l\;iii->;i- ( '• 'fit in ii«-« 1 . 
Katie .-.pi-ii. \vli..|.- 
Kafir OOCTI im-al 
Kafir «•< >rn. wh«>].-. ami al 
falfa hay 
Kafir oarn meal ami alfalfa 
hay 
Utah: 
i hopped wheal and bran 
Chopped wht-at and bran 
and chopped alfalfa hay 
Montana: 
( train only 
( train and alfalfa haj 
Avers 
Por lota fed grain only 
Por Lots ff<l hay 
10 
10 
10 
10 
I 
1 
ginning. 
L8B 
1 IS 
140 
Ml 
GO '.'l 
BO .88 
60 1.87 
E0 L8I 
889 186 
567 
186 1.19 
m 1.20 
88 1.19 
;.r Kll 
1*1 
IKlUIKl 
11,., 
."-•I 
181 
:»i»; 188 
186 
II. 
The feeding value of alfalfa hay, as indicated in i he foregoing tables, 
does not in the least warrant a claim that it can be used economically 
as the sole ration. In all but two instances a considerable saving of 
feed was found to be effected by its use, but the statement that its 
feeding value is almost equal to that of corn is true only within 
certain Limits. Where hogs arc confined to an exclusive grain rat i<>n, 
and especially where this is made up of a single main, the addi- 
tion of a moderate amount of hay 1<> the ration will l>e relished and 
Less grain will l>e required. At the same time, better and cheaper 
gains are usually made by hogs so fed than by those on grain alone, 
inn the value of the grain saved is out of all proportion to the value 
of i he hay fed, and t he hay in t he rat ion can not be used economically 
in more than very moderate amounts. This is a similar fact to thai 
which has been found by many investigators with such bulky feeds 
as green clover, rape, roots, and skim milk. That it is had economy 
to attempt the maintenance of hogs on alfalfa hay alone is shown by 
the experiment noted below by McDowell in Nevada, 
A consideration of the approximate proportions of hay to grain (>'*\ 
in these experiments isof interest. The greatest proportion of hay 
bo grain was fed al the Kansas Station and the ratio was L: 2.5. Willi 
this ratio the Least daily gain was made. The gains were the most 
expensive of any of the lots, and no advantage accrued from the use 
of hay. The Least proportion of hay (1:11) was U^\ at CTtahand gave 
the most economical gains. 'The greatest daily gain and the greatest 
amount of -rain saved was in a Kansas lot [\-([ whole alfalfa hay and 
