SWINE FEEDING IN COLORADO. 
27 
pond with those reported on other experiments in this 
bulletin, in showing that corn alone is not a balanced ration 
and does not produce the gains that result from feeding 
other grains with or without corn. This is not so apparent 
at first from this table as it is after carefully studying the 
conditions and results. 
The pigs in Pen I. were older and larger than those in 
the other pens. It took 6.43 pounds of corn to produce a 
pound of gain and their average gain per day was only .98 
pounds, compared with much larger gains in the other pens. 
The cost per pound of gain is high, but the apparent profit 
and cost per pound of dressed meat is low. This is because 
they were 64 pounds heavier than the other pigs and at the 
increase of one cent per pound this weight makes the ap¬ 
parent profit 64 cents higher that it should be when com¬ 
pared with the smaller pigs in the other pens. The real 
profit in such comparison would be 97 cents instead of $1.41 
as actually shown in the table. The cost of one pound of 
dressed meat figured on the basis of these smaller 100 
pound pigs in the other lots, would be 5.77 cents instead of 4.03 
cents, and the corn ration would be the most expensive one 
in this series. This shows the fallacy of figuring all of the 
pigs at the same price at the beginning of the experiment, 
regardless of size and age, and illustrates the advantage of 
selecting larger animals for feeding. With this understand¬ 
ing it appears that mixed grain was superior in every case 
to corn alone. 
The gains per day increased with the increase in the 
variety of food eaten, and the amount of grain for each 
pound of gain decreased with the same condition. In Pen 
I. it took 6.43 pounds of corn for each pound of gain; in Pen 
II. 6.09 pounds of corn and shorts per pound of gain; in Pen 
III. 5.31 pounds of mixed grain per pound of gain. In Pen 
IV. 4.87 pounds mixed grain per pound of gain. Comparing 
Pens III. and IV. gives an idea of the comparative value of 
corn and wheat shorts. It took more shorts with other 
grains in Pen III. to produce a pound of gain than it did 
corn with other grains in Pen IV. and although the shorts 
were figured at a less price than corn, the total profit from 
the pen is less than—approximately one-half—that in 
Pen IV. 
It is likely that the ration given in Pen III is as much 
too narrow as the corn ration in Pen I. is too wide. The 
nutritive ratio of corn is about 1:9.4, and °f the ratio in Pen 
III. is 1:5.9. The nutritive ratio called for in the German 
feeding standard for fattening hogs is 1:7. The nutritive 
