1176 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XXXI, No. 12 
Table II .—Comparison of peas, barley, corn, and tankage in the following 
combinations for finishing hogs (part 1) 
Ration 
Loti: 
Peas 
Lot 2: 
Peas 3, 
barley 7 
Lot 3: 
Tankage 
1 , barley 
15 
Lot 4: 
Tankage 
1, corn 9 
Average daily gain (pounds)___ _ _ _ . 
1. 36 
378.40 
77.03 
1.41 
410.90 
80.46 
1.31 
438.34 
78. 57 
1.41 
409.52 
81.13 
Pounds of feed per 100 pounds gain_ ... 
Dressing percentages.-1_ ___ 
Table III.— Hogging-off peas as the only ration: Hogging-off peas with 1 per 
cent barley, and alfalfa forage with full grain ration (part 2) 
Ration 
Lot 1: 
0.85 acre 
peas 
Lot 2: 
0.95 acre 
peas, 
barley 
1 per cent 
ration 
Lot 3: 
Alfalfa 
forage, 
barley 
15, tank¬ 
age 1 
Lot 4: 
Alfalfa 
forage, 
corn 12, 
tankage 1 
Average daily gain (pounds)____ _ 
0.96 
Per cent 
1.07 
1.17 
1.30 
Pounds of supplementary feed per 100 pounds gain __ 
101.20 
400.30 
360.80 
Table IV .—Forage lots continued on the following rations (part 2) 
Ration 
Peas 
Peas 7, 
barley 2 
Barley 
14, tank¬ 
age 1 
Corn 10, 
tankage 1 
Average daily gain (pounds) _ _ _ __ 
1.49 
362.20 
74.00 
1.64 
393.40 
74.20 
2.02 
411.30 
79.10 
2.01 
414.70 
78.50 
Pounds of feed per 100 pounds gain____ 
Dressing percentages_____ 
COOLING AND CURING RESULTS 
The carcasses were cooled 48 hours in a direct-expansion type of 
cooler at a temperature of 35° F. It was deemed sufficient to keep 
records through the curing and smoking processes on the sides 
(bellies) only. The bellies in part 1 were placed in the sweet-pickle 
cure (salometer reading 60) for 33 days, then removed and drained 
for 10 hours before weighing into the smoke. After smoking 14 
hours at a temperature of from 90° to 110° F. they were cooled for 
8 hours and weighed. 
In part 2, the bellies were cured by the dry-salt process for 25 days. 
After removing from the salt they were soaked 4 hours and allowed to 
drain 10 hours before weighing into the smoke. From this point the 
procedure was the same as in part 1. 
A summary of results, as shown in Table V indicates very small 
difference between the various lots in either part 1 or part 2. It would 
seem rather difficult to point to any significant variation in these 
tables which might tend to indicate any appreciable difference in the 
lots involved. 
