166 
BUREAU OF animal [KDURTRY. 
Value of roots i forpiga—ContintLecL 
Nu m 
Total 
Nuin 
ber 
daily 
.. reed 
eat«Mi 
>. r 1i«i i».iiiik1s 
• .11. 
ber weighl 
at be- 
Iota 
md-root 
fed 
tungr. 
38 
111 
li:. 
Grain. 
I'tali: 
( torn meal 
8 
■A 
:\ 
167 
41M 
880 
667 
91 
9] 
.... 
LS8 
128 
188 
88 
68 
i.i:; 
80 
.7(1 
1.80 
1,606 
4-C{ 
Lb*. 
c (round wheel 
in ;iinl roota 
Oornmealand pease 
1,068 
< tround wheat 
>M and roots 
: oa: 
o 1,771 
< train and roota 
148 
.\\ erase 
44,> 
a Includes ill pounds of potato * 
In the experiments tabulated here roots were fed in seven tests to 32 
pigs, and in comparison grain was fed in aine tests to 38 pigs, making 
a total of sixteen lots and 70 pigs. In six of the seven tots where 
roots were (v(\ there was a saving of grain. In one instance (in 
Indiana) nothing was gained by feeding roots. Tin- average of feed 
per 100 pounds gain shows that feeding -i-7 pounds of roots saved 83 
pounds of grain, or L9 per cent, which is a very high value for roots. 
This teal lire of root feeding has previously been remarked upon 
in this bulletin. Attention is called to it in nearly every instance 
where experimenters have fed roots successfully. Plumb and Van 
Norman " do not regard their results as showing great value for roots, 
but think that they have an effect on the appetite, digestion, and gen- 
eral health that is beneficial, particularly in winter. In the Ontario* 
experiments the equivalent for L0Q pounds <>f meal was 319 pounds of 
roots in the first and 564 pounds in the second. Day calls attention 
to the fact that both figures- are very high values for roots, and points 
out that, "according to analyses and digestion experiments, there is 
approximately about nine times as much digestible matter in a mix- 
ture of corn and middlings as there is in mangels. Ii is difficult to 
explain, therefore, how 564 pounds of mangels should prove equal to 
!<»<> pounds of meal." The pigs receiving mangels showed the effects 
of their feed in more growth and thrift than the others. They had 
Less tendency to become fat, and the root ration was reduced for this 
reason. Day'' explains this effect of root feeding to be due to a 
"beneficial effect <>n the digestive organs of the animals, causing 
them to digest their food better than did the others; for there is Little 
doubt that hogs closely confined in pens are likely to suffer from 
indigestion.' 1 Shaw explains the marked effect of roots in similar 
r.ul. No. 79, Endiana Expt Bta. 
Bui. No. 27, Montana Expt Sta. 
Bpt., LW1, Ontario Agricultural College. 
