\.

on,

 

 

TH 5515

Oh... . ' ‘

 

 

A STUDY OF RYE AS A FEED
FOR
GROWING FAT TEL-I IN G SWIN E

THESIS

Submitted to the faculty of the Michigan State College
in partial fulfillment of the requirementa for the

degree of Maatar of Science.

N.

by
George A. Branaman

1926

THESKS

 

 

ACE-J OZ'JLLLDGLIEN TS

The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness
to Professor George A. Brown, Head of the Department'of
Animal Husbandry, for his coOperation and assistance in
planning and conducting the experimental work, and for
his kindly criticisms and advice in preparing the
manuscript.,

He also wishes to express his gratitude to
Doctor R. C. Huston, Professor of Chemistry, fer his
assistance and advice in planning the experiments.

To Professor W.E.J. Edwards, Associate in.Animal
husbandry, and V.A. Freeman, Extension Specialist in
Animal Husbandry, the author is likewise grateful for
suggestions and OOOperation in planning and conducting
the trials.

Appreciation is also expressed to Doctor
E.T. Hallman and Doctor L.B. Sholl, of the Department of
Pathology, and Doctor W.L. Chandler, of the Bactnriology
Department, for the conduction of autOpsies and the
suggestions regarding the health of the animals.

Likewise the analysis of feed by the Department
of Experiment Station Chemistry is gratefully acknowledged.

94115

INTRODUCTION

TABLE or CONTENTS

GENERAL DISCUSSIOH AHD REVIEW OF LITERATURE

I
II
III
Iv
V
VI
VII

vIII

Preparation for feeding

Unfavorable Results with Eye

Results at the Michigan Experiment Station

Other Favorable Results

Some Laboratory Experiments

Further Chemical Phases
Digestibility

Conclusions

EXPERflEN TAL FEEDING TRIALS
Experiment I I

I
II
III

VI
VII
VIII
IX

Objects of the Experiment

Plan of Experiment

Previous Treatment of Pigs

Allotment of Pigs

method of Weighing

Lots. Water, Etc.

Rations Fed and Method of Feeding

Treatment for Parasites

Experimental Data

A Gains of Pigs

(I)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Gains of’Pigs by Periods
Some Pigs-Fail to Gain
All Pigs Gain.Well on Corn

Conclusions

10 01 N H I—' m

15
16
2O
21
24
24
24
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
29
5O
54
39
3?

B Gains of Thrifty Pigs
C Comparison of Rations
(l) Feed.Deduction.for Pigs Removed
(2) Average Daily Ration
(3) Feed Required for Gain
(4) Nutrient Requirement
(5) Cost of Gains
(6) Differences between Lots in rate
of Gain with Probable Error
Summary of Results
Tables
' Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

QOO'IOFOIIOH

Experiment II

I
II
III

VI
VII

Object of the Experiment

Plan of Experiment

Previous Treatment-of Pigs
Allotmentiof’Pigs

method of Weighing

Lots, Water, Etc.

Rations Fed and Method of Feeding

4O
41
41
44
46
49
50

52
55

30
4O

46
49
5O
52
54
54
55
55
56
56
56
56

VIII Experimental Data . 57

A Gains of’Pigs ’ 58

(1) Influence of'Iodine 65
B Gains of Thrifty Pigs 66
C Comparison of Rations 67

(l) Feed.Deduction.fOr Pigs Removed 67
(2) Average Daily Ration. 68
(3) Feed.Required for Gain 71
(4) Milk Lots Compared with Check Lot75
(5) Nutrient Requirement 74
(6) Cost of Gains 75
(7) Differences between Lots in rate

of Gain with Probable Error 76
D Summary of Results 77
E Tables fl
Table 8 ' 58
Table 9 66
Table 10 68
Table 11 7l
Table 12 74
Table 15 74
Table 14 75
Table 15 76

BIBLIOGRAPHY 79

APPENDIX
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

II
III
IV

VI
VII
VIII
IX

85.
84
91
92
99
101
105
109
110
116
118

III“ TRO DU CT ION

The use of rye as a grain feed for livestock in
the State of Michigan is of considerable importance. Its
greatest p0pularity is found in the areas of lighter
soils where it makes a satisfactory growth and produces
a moderate amount of grain on soil that will not produce
a fair crOp of the more papular grains. In a program
of soil improvement, rye is often used as a cover cm]:
and as a green manure crop on worn-out soil, and after
a few rye crops have been grown and some organic matter
and other fertilizing materials have been added to the
soil, other crOps may be grown more successfully. Rye
will withstand the rigours of the spring wheat belt
and on the lighter soils of that area it will produce a
greater yield than the spring wheat.

Rye has not been so pOpular for milling purposes
as has wheat in the United States, consequently the bulk
of the cr0p grown has been used. for feed.

The Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture for
1922 gives some interesting figures on the trend of rye
production in the United States, summarized as follows:
”The production of rye, being the result of both acreage
and acre yield, has fluctuated considerably from year to
year. A gradual increase was apparent, however, from
1874 to 1911 and a rapid increase from 1912 to 1918. In
1922 the production of 95,497,000 bushels was second only

to the record of 108,289,000 bushels in 1918."

The CrOp Report for Michigan for July, 1926,
prepared and issued by the U. S. Department of Agri-
culture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, in coopera-
tion with the Michigan Department of Agriculture, gives
the condition of the various grain crops and the estim-
ated 1926 yields for each crOp for Michigan and for the
United States. The rye amp is summarized as follows:
”The indicated average yield is approximately 12.8
bushels per acre, based upon the reported condition of
80 per cent and a revised acreage of 199,000, or a total
production of 2,547,000 bushels. The condition is eight
per cent better than last year, but nine per cent below
the ten year average.

The outlook for the United States is rather poor.
The acreage is about ten per cent less than last year, and
the prospective production of 59,666,000 bushels is
9,000,000 less than 1925 and only about 60 per cent of
the 1924 crop."

The estimates given for the other grain craps
show the relative importance of rye as compared to these
other crOps. The Michigan rye cr0p represents 6.4 per
cent of the rye crap of the United States, while the
estimates of the corn crop indicate that Michigan will
have 1.5 per cent of the nations corn cr0p. Michigan's
corn crOp is estimated as practically the same as the
United States' rye crOp, consequently Michigan's rye cr0p

will represent 6.4 per cent of her corn crop, while

the rye crOp of the United States will be 1.5 per cent
of hereon]. crop in bushels. The rye crOp of Michigan
will equal 4.4 per cent of her oat crOp, and the rye
crop of the United States is estimated at 5 per cent of
her cat cr0p in bushels. The rye crop of the State is
to be approximately 78.6 per cent of the barley croP

in bushels, and the Nation's rye crOp is to be 20.7 per
cent of the barley crop. These comparisons ShOW’that
rye is relatively more important in Michigan than.it is in
theLHation as a whole. In fact the Yearbook of the
Department of Agriculture shows Michigan to be the lead-
ing rye producing State in 1909, second to North Dakota
only in 1919, first again in 1920 but surpassed by both
North.nakota and Minnesota since that time.

The use of rye as a feed for live stock and
especially swine, has been a subject for considerable
investigational work. The results have been almost as
varied as there are numbers of unvestigators. In some
cases the pigs have done as well or better'than similar
pigs have done on supposedly much better nations, while
in other cases the pigs have not been.maintained, in fact
in a few cases they have actually wasted away. Many
farmers and hog raisers maintain that they can grow pigs
as well or better on rye than any other farm grain. Other
feeders will assert Just as firmly their experience that

rye simply will not do as a hog feed. Yet no one seems

to be able to explain the difference in such results

nor to offer a ration containing rye that will produce
results in the feed-lot regularily under average
conditions. The purpose of this work is to determine
if possible the causes fer such divergent results and to
try to find a satisfactory combination of feeds in which

rye may be the chief grain constituent.

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE

_ Rye is one of the hard grains that must be pre-
pared by either soaking or grinding before it may be eaten
readily by live stock. Rye, wheat or barley are very
' seldom fed as dry whole grain. However, Rays (1) of the
Delaware Experiment Station, conducted an experiment with
pigs weighing from 65.1 to 78.9 pounds on the average,
in which he compared soaking, grinding, and both grinding
and soaking, with the whole dry rye and with hominy feed.
Tankage was fed all lots as the protein supplement. The
results of 80 days feeding showed the hominy feed lot to
have made the fastest gains, 1.27 pounds, with the lowest
feed per pound gain, 5.91 pounds. The whole rye and
soaked rye lots made the same gains .91 pounds, with 4.96
and 5.71 pounds feed, reapective1y3per pound gain. The
ground rye lot made 1.08 pounds gain per day on 4.56 pounds
of feed, and the soaked ground rye lot made an average of 1.14
pounds gain on 451 pounds of feed per pound gain. Soaking
the whole rye did not hasten the gains and increased the
feed cost. Grinding the grain increased the rate of gain
and lowered the feed cost. Soaking the ground grain
increased the gains further but raised slightly the feed
required per pound of gain. The two soaked lots showed
practically the same daily feed consumption, 4.7 and 4.8
pounds of rye, which.was some what higher than the whole
rye lot or the ground rye lot, at 4.1 and 4.4 pounds,

reapectively.

In spite of these results, soaking is commonly
considered to be a desirable practise as compared to
feeding the whole dry grain. However, grinding is
recommended by Henry and Morrison (2) as a much more

desi rable method 0 f pr eparat ion.
Un favo rable Re sult s wi th Rye

Beginning in 1925, Ferrin and McCarty (5) have
conducted a number of eXperiments at the University of
Minnesota dealing with the problem of rye as a hog feed.
"At first the effort was made to devise satisfactory
methods of utilizing rye when the grain ischeap in price
but during the past year the trials have been planned
to locate the causes of the unfavorable results obtained
from rye feeding.” This statement explains the results
being obtained by these investigators. During this time
21 lots of pigs were fed, chiefly without pasture. The
average initial weight per pig has varied in the different
trials from 62 to 104 pounds, although the average
initial weight per lot in each trial was coxnparable.

The protein supplements used were tankage, buttermilk,
tankage and alfalfa hay, tankage and rape pasture, and
milk casein. The pigs were carried to an average final
weight of 200 pounds except when it was found to be
impossible to get them to that weight on some of the heavy

rye rations.

Some of the combinations found most satisfactory
were rye and creamery buttermilk in equal parts; ground
rye 2/5, ground oats 1/5. plus tankage; and ground rye 4%,
either ground corn or ground barley “1*, plus tankage.

Rye, tankage and minerals was found to be in some
way deficient as a satisfactory ration and various sub-
stances were added in an effort to solve the problem.
Neither vitamin A as contained in butterfat, the vitamins
from cod liver oil, protein from milk casein, iron oxide,
potassium iodide, nor alfalfa hey were found to furnish
anything of significance in improving the ration. Cooking
the rye resulted in lower rates of gain with increased
feed costs. When some of these same pigs were changed
to rations containing chiefly com, the gains immediately
Jumped up and in some cases more than trebled, which showed
the trouble to be in the ration rather than in the pigs.
The question of feed intake is thought by Ferrin to be
one for investigation.

The favorable results secured in feeding rye in
Montana (4) led Ferrin and McCarty to get a shipment of
Montana rye to feed alongside some Minnesota rye. The
results obtained were very much. the same, with the
Minnesota rye holding a very slight advantage. In these
trials during the winter of 1925-6, alfalfa hay constituted
the only supplement fed with the rye. The pigs made fairly
satisfactory gains with a moderate feed cost. In fact

near the close of the experiment the results were considered

to be more satisfactory than had been the case with
the rye and tankage ration.

Fieldsted.and.Potter (5) compared rye and wheat as
the sole feed for fattening swine under’Oregpn.conditions.
The rye fed pigs gained.an avarage of 1.06 pounds per day
as compared to 1.6 pounds fer the wheat fed pigs. The
feed required for one hundred pounds gain was not so much
different, however, 440 pounds of rye and 425 pounds of
wheat. They concluded that rye as a sole feed.f6r fatten-
ing purposes was not satisfactory since it was not so
palatable and did not give returns equal to other grains.
The rye-fed pigs were lacking very much in finish as com-
pared to the wheat-fed pigs.

Eastwood (6) found that pigs weighing 44 pounds
could not hog down rye in the field successfully. They
made an average gain of’only 0.51 pounds, although the feed
required per hundred pounds gain was only 572 pounds.

When fed rye and.tankage in a dry lot for 112 days after
49 days in.the rye field, these same pigs gained exactly
1 pound per day on 4.44 pounds of feed. (A lot beside them
on corn and tankage gained only 1.09 pounds per day, and
required 5.99 pounds of feed fer each pound of gain.

Kennedy, Evvard, Kildee and Robbins (7‘ received a
return of only 9.4 cents per bushel fer rye hogged.down
in the field with pigs weighing 70 pounds and rye yielding

41.25 bushels per acre.
thford and Weaver (8), on the other hand, obtained

an acre return of $16.95 for an average of five years
with rye yielding slightly less than 14 bushels per acre.
One pound of.gain was made for each 1.96 pounds of rye
consumed. Other additional feed was fed at times.
Results at the Michigan Experiment Station
Brown, and later Brown and Edwards (9) of the

Michigan Experiment Station, have also found some con-
flicting results in their rye feeding eXperiments. A
ration has failed entirely in some trials to give results
while the same or a very similar ration may give fairly
good results in another trial. In.Hovember, 1925. a
series of experiments was begun in which the ground grains
of barley, rye and corn were fed with tankage as a protein
supplement. In one series of three lots the ration was
mixed and self-fed and in another three lots the grain
and tankage were self-fed, free choice. In another lot the
three grains were mixed equal parts and balanced with
tankage. .A simple mineral mixture was offered in self
feeders. The pigs were thrifty Spring pigs, weighing
approximately 120 pounds. After 60 days on feed, the two
corn lots averaged approximately 220 pounds per pig, one
of the barley lots 185 pounds and the other 211 pounds,
the mixed grain lot 186 pounds, and the rye lots only 156
and 126 pounds per pig. The feed consumption was small in
the rye lots as compared with the other lots which would
indicate that the palatability of the ration might be a
limiting factor.

Four lots of pigs were started on feed by Brown

and Edwards (9) in Marcn1924, to compare the value of
corn, oats and middlings in mixtures with rye and tankage.
Two parts of rye was mixed with one part of the other
grain and the mixture balanced with tankage. A lot .fed
corn and tankage mixed and self-fed was also used as a
check. The pigs weighed 98 pounds when started on feed. ‘
At the end of 90 days the check lot averaged 255 pounds
while the other lots varied from 158 to 174 pounds in
weight. The com mixture showedslightly superior to

the other two, and the cat mixture a trifle better than
the middlings. The check lot made an average gain of
1.52 pounds as compared to 0.67 pounds for the middlings
lot. The feed consumption and the gains during the first
50 days were very good in the lot fed the mixture contain-
ing corn and the one containing oats- The mixture with
middlings did not show so well, however. Even the second
50 days was still fairly good with those lots. During the
last period the feed consumption fell markedly, and a
loss in weight was shown by the corn and the cat mixture
lots. While the middliigs lot did not show a loss during
this period, their gains were still very low. The
behaviour of the two lots would indicate that there might
be something lacking in the ration, or that something

in the ration finally upset the system so that they did
not relish the feed. It did not seem to be a simple case
of palatability, however, since pigs on a fairly low feed
intake usually continue to grow slowly and show a thrifty

app earanc e .

~ In June, 1924, a lot of 17 pigs averaging 45 pounds
in weight was started on a self feeder of rye and tankage
on rape pasture. At the end of 60 days these pigs averag-
ed 60 pounds in weight. Only a few days after the begin-
ing of the experiment the pigs started to scour badly.
Their consumption of tankage was very heavy, in fact it
was found necessary to hand feed the tankage to keep them
within reasonable limits. At the end of 60 days, the pigs
were divided into two lots and an attempt made to get

them on rations of rye and tankage and rye and butter.-
milk ‘ . fed as slop feeds. They refused almost completely
to take either ration for a period of 50 days, and were
turned out to pasture on a mixed ration of corn, oats,
middlings and tankage. They soon began to grow and take
on flesh so that before winter they were all thrifty feeder
pigs.

In fact some of these same pigs were in a drove that
was sorted up in November of the same year and put on another
experiment. Four lots of pigs averaging 125 pounds were
fed on rations of rye, oats and tankage, with minerals in a
simple mixture. Another lot was self-fed free choice on rye,
tankage, and minerals. The four lots were all fed a mixture
of cats 1 part and rye 2 parts, balanced with tankage. In
one lot the mixture was self-fed, in another lep-fed,
another mixture was soaked 24 hours before feeding and the
fourth mixture was fermented with yeast for 24 hours. The
average daily gain varied from 1.25 pounds in the self-fed
mixture lot to 1.48 pounds in the yeast fermented lot, with

the self-fed free choice lot showing an average gain
of 1.56 pounds. An average weight of 225 pounds was
reached in each lot in from 68 to 79 days.

This trial would indicate that the age of the pig
might change his appetite or make his system unre tolerant
of the disagreeable features of rye as a feed.

In January, 1925 another series of trials was
launched at the Michigan EXperiment Station (9) with a
bunch of pigs averaging 70 pounds in weight. Identically
the same rations were fed as in the previous trial. No
lot made a satisfactory gain, in fact some of them were
carried for a period of 171 days and had not yet reached
a weight of 200 pounds. Contrary to the previous trial
the self-fed mixture lot was highest in average gain and
the self-fed free choice lot was second low lot. These
pigs did not seem to relish their feed andthey took on
an appearance of unthriftiness, recognized by a harsh
rough coat of hair and a listless attitude. Such a condition
would again indicate that it was more than a mere case of
unpalatability.

The average results of three earlier feeding trials
are reported by Brown (11) in which rye compares very
favorably with corn and barley. Neither the initial weights
of the pigs nor the length of the feeding period is given.
All feed was fed in self feeders. The rye and barley were
ground and the corn fed as shelled corn. Arranged in order

of rapidity of gains produced on the pigs, the rat ions

were as follows :

Average Feed per
da. gain cwt . gain
lbs. lbs.
Corn-tankage 1 . 56 477
Corn-rye -barley-tankage 1. 50 487
Barley-tankage 1 . 51 515
Rye -tanknge 1. 24 495
Rye ~barl ey-tankage 1 . 1 9 486
Barley-middl ings-tankage 1 . 17 482
Rye-middl ings-tankage 1.16 457

The feed consumed per hundred pounds gain do es not
follow the rate of gain, in fact the greater the gain the
more feed required in many of the lots. The author con-
eludes that "considering the rate of gain and time re-
quired to get the pigs ready for market the rat ion.....
consisting of corn, rye, barley and tankage and the ration
of corn and tankage proved most satisfactory. ... The
above experiments would show that a much better return would
be received from rye and barley when fed in combination with
some middlings in addition to the tankage.“

Other Favorable Results

Perrin and Winchester (12) report an experiment in
which 60 pound pigs were fed on various grains both free
choice style and in mixtures. On a percentage basis of
efficiency in production of gains, the rations ranked as
follows: ground rye -ground wheat equal parts, 491.5 lbs.,
100%; ground corn-tankage free choice, 507.5 lbs., 96.85%;

lO

ground rye-tankage free choice, 510.18 lbs., 98.54%;
ground rye-ground corn equal parts, tankage self fed,
518.08 lbs., 94.87%; ground rye-shorts equal parts, 555.14
lbs., 88.88%.

A preliminary report of hog feeding trials in
Montana (4) gives some comparisons of barley and rye as
feeds for hogs. Four trials were ooh,ducted, chiefly! under
dry-lot conditions with alfalfa hay in racks. Quite con-
sistent results were obtained both when fed alone and in
combinations. The barley seemed to be the more palatable
feed and the hogs gained a little more rapidly. Considering
the cost of gains, there seemed to be but little difference
in the rations irrespective of the proportions of rye or
barley contained. The rye fed pigs ate somewhat more
alfalfa. than the barley fed pigs. The rye produced a
larger percentage of lean meat and the hogs fed largely on
this grain were preferred by local butchers.

Gibson (15) fed three lots of pigs during the winter
with mixed rations containing shorts and tankage and
combined with either barley, oats or rye. The average
initial weight was approximately 120 pounds and the feeding
period 62 days. The barley lot gained 1.59 pounds per day
on 515.4 pounds of feed per hundred pouné gain. The other
two lots gained at the same rate but somewhat slower than
the barley lot, 1.55 pounds, and at a greater feed require-
ment. 560.4 and 564 pounds. Still the rate of gain was

good and the feed requirement low.

11

_ Mathews (l4) fed another bunch of 54 pound pigs
comparing oat chop with mixtures of oat and rye chop,
and cat and barley chop. The average daily gains were 1.21,
1.55 and 1.55 pounds, respectively. The feed per hundred
pounds gain was 520, 551 and 555 pounds, respectively.
The‘rate of gain was fairly good and the feed requirement
was not especially high considering the type of ration.
Snyder (15) summarizes two series of seven lots
each and ten pigs per lot, one series with alfalfa hay
in racks and the other without: "Ground rye moistened
ranked slightly lower than ground wheat moistened and
higher than shelled corn in rapidity of gain and slightly
lower than corn in the amount of grain to produce 100 pounds
of gain. This would make the feeding value of ground rye
and shelled corn about equal per bushel for fattening
hogs. Grinding the rye increased its feeding value 15 per
cent and also increased the rate of gain. Ihole rye was
unsatisfactory. It produced slow gain and required too
much grain for the gains produced. One bushel of corn
produced the same gain as 1.16 bushels of whole rye."
Hays (4), as mentioned before, obtained only fair
gains, 1.08 and 1.14 pounds, on ground rye fed dry and
soaked. However, the feed required was relatively low,
456 and 451 pounds, respectively, per hundred pounds gain.
Faville (16) secured very good results in feeding
rye to fattening pigs farrowed during the previous summer

and carried through the winter on a maintenance rat ion.

12

Starting at a weight of 88 pounds, an average gain of 1.55
pounds was made on rye and water as compared to 1.46 pounds
on barley and water for a period of ten weeks. The feeds
were soaked during the last four weeks of that time and
greater feed consumption was noted but less gain per pound
of feed than was made earlier in the period. He attributes
the less gain late in the feeding period to the fact that
the hogs were near a market finish.

Hultz (17) draws the following conclusions from
the first years work in feeding rye to fattening pigs:
"1. Ground rye ranked highest and above shelled corn for
producing rapid gains on fattening pigs.
I'2. Less grain was required for 100 pounds gain when rye
was fed than when the grain consisted of hulled barley,
bald barley, or shelled corn.
"5. Pigs receiving bald barley or rye as a grain feed
consumed a relatively negligible quantity of mineral
mixture. .
”4. Pigs fed corn and bald barley dressed a higher percent-
age of carcass to live weight than pigs fed rye or hull
barley.
|'5. Pigs receiving bald barley, rye or shelled corn finished
with the fat in good hard condition. Hull barley produced
a flabby, oily, fat.
'6. In general, it appears that Wyoming small grains can
be very profitable substituted for corn in a fattening
ration, and that either bald barley or rye is superior to
hull barley for this purpo se."

Freeman (18) reports quite a few farmers in the

15

State of Michigan who get good results in feeding rye to
growing fattening pigs during the summer. In fact one or
two ton litters have been produced with a considerable
percentage of rye in the ration. In most cases the farmers
who get good results from rye are feeding it with milk
in the form of a s10p, and many of them allow the rye to
soak in the milk from one feed to the next. The milk is
no doubt sour before it is fed when it is allowed to stand.
Some Laboratory Experiments

Osborne and Mendel (19) made a comparative study
of barley, oats, rye and wheat as sources of protein in
rations for rats. The finely ground entire grain was
fed with an adequate salt mixture and sufficient butter fat
to supply the fat soluble vitamin. It was considered that
the grains supplied ample water soluble vitamines B and C.
"Barley proteins as a whole were sufficient for nutrition
and growth. The total protein of cats and wheat was also
adequate for nutrition and. growth. Rye gave rise to growth
but rats failed to attain large size and showed exception-
ally high mortality on prolonged feeding. This mortality
can scarcely be attributed to the rye proteins. Gliadin
is comparatively deficient in lysine, containing enough
of that amino acid for repair, but insufficient to produce
growth."

McCollum et a1 (20) conducted a series of exper-
iments with rats dealing with the supplementary value of

proteins derived from two seeds. Rations were prepared

14

each containing 9 per cent protein derived from two seeds.
one furnishing two —thirds and the other one-third of the
total protein, supplemented with dextrin, certain salts

and fat-soluble vitamine A. The growth curves on these
rations were compared with those on diets containing 9

per cent of cereal grain proteins which have been shown

to bring about growth at approximately half the normal

rate. “The most interesting point brought out by the

growth curves in these experiments is the failure of the
proteins of two seeds to sipplement each other to any
greater degree than they do in most cases,......one strik-
ine exception noted was the case of six per cent rye protein
and three per cent flaxseed protein. This mixture has
superior biological value to an equal amount of protein from
any single variety of seed yet examined. Indeed this
prOportion appears nearly or equal to milk protein for growth.
Charts show much better growth secured with a ration contain-
ing eight per cent protein from milk powder than with nine
per cent protein from wheat,rye, maize, flaxseed, barley,
oats or kaffi‘r, and that in a mixture of rye and flaxseed,
six per cent and three per cent, protein was secured

which has superior biological value to an equivalent amount
of protein from any. single variety of seed yet examined."
With the protein from rye alone two females produced three
litters. The mothers were aged at eight months. Only in
case of wheat was another litter born, and no others were

weaned from single grains.

In another trial, McCollum, Simmonds and Parsons (2’1)

l5

fed a lot of rats on a nine per cent protein ration de-
rived from rye six per cent and milk powder three per cent.
Growth was slow but the animals reached nearly the adult
size after some delay. These rats aged decidedly early,
they looked old at feurteen months. The second generation
Wire all more undersized than the first. 0f three females,
two were sterile, the other had 28 in three litters. In
a ration.with maize substituted fer rye, growth was slow
but the animals reached nearly the full size. All three
females were sterile. The hair was short and silky,
suggestive of a moleskin.

Osborne and Mendel (22) fed other groups of white
rats finely ground seed of barley, oats, wheat or rye
each mixed with three per cent solution of salt mixture,
five per cent butter fat, and corn starch sufficient to
make the total protein of the ration five, eight,or ten
per cent. They concluded that the total proteins in the
kernels of the grains studied can furnish all the nitrogen
units essential fer growth if the intake of food and its

concentration of’protein are adequate, and the protetns of

the feur grains are not widely different in their efficiency
in promoting growth. “Many ultimate failures of growth
and.well being and.numerous deaths were encountered in the
later periods of many of the experiments, but sufficient
successful prolonged growth in the case of all the cereals
studied has been observed to make it unlikely, not to say
mmprobable, that the protein factor is responsible fOr this

16

untoward outcome of many of the cereal experiments."
Further Chemical Phases

Studies of the chemical nature of the subject seem
to cause almost as much difference. in results and equally
as much difference in their interpretation as do the more ‘
simple feeding experiments.

Ostwald (23) made a study of the proteins of wheat
and rye in their relation to the colliodal chemistry of
bread making. He found that “gliadin behaved in a manner
similar to that of other proteins. The particles are
charged positive in acid, negative in alkali and near
neutral in pure water. Under the influence of acid or
alkali gliadin swells, suffers dehydration and the neutral
particles become ionized because salts are formed. The
preperties of gliadin from rye differ} very little from
those of wheat gliadin."

Groh and Friedl (24), on the other hand, found
considerable difference between wheat gliadin and the proteins
from rye meal. The several fractions of gliadin obtained
from wheat gluten and rye meal were examined by physico-
chemical (colliodal chemistry) methods. They found wheat
gluten to contain only one individual protein soluble in
alcoholic gliadin. The protein extracted from rye meal
is a mixture of several portains whose separation is very
difficult. A preparation identical with wheat gliadin
could not be 'o'btained. The methods used were viscosity.

determination according to Scarpa, estimation of surface

17

tension, specific rotation, gold number according to
Zsigmondy, and refraction.”

The following conclusions concerning the supple-
mentary value of protein and of amino acids were made by
McOollum, Simmonds and Parsons (25) in discussing the
results of a series of experiments dealing with the feeding
of legume seeds: "It is a most remarkable fact that the
legume seeds when combined with each other do not form
protein mixtures which are superior to the proteins of the
individual seeds themselves. This is apparently to be
explained on the assumption that a certain amino acid,
which is present in such small amounts as to be the limiting
factor in determining the biological value of the proteins
of these seeds. is the same in each of the legume seeds
used in these experiments. Otherwise,it seems that a
supplementary effect should have been observed in some of
these combinations. It is by no means demonstrated that
all the indispensable amino acids have been indentified,
but if one may judge from the recorded data relating to
yields of various amino acids it seems suggestive that the
low content of cystine yielded by legume proteins may be the
explanationfor their failure to enhance each others values
when combine d."

In an earlier article, Hart and Bentley (26) take a
somewhat different view of the situation. "It is needless
to say that the hOpes expressed in certain quarters of

formulating rations on their amino acid content, secured by

18

, direct hydrolysis will not even begin realization until

at least safer methods for the quantitative estimation of
.these substances are available. .... The very fact that
there is no approximate agreement between the results
secured by Grindley on cottonseed meal and those of.Nollan
on the same material indicates inherent difficulties

in the quantitative estimation of amino acids by direct
hydrolysis of the feeding stuff. .

arginine lysine
Grindley 19.5% 4.7%
Hollan 12 . 7,3 1.975

"........ the amide nitrogen of feeding stuffs is
largely composed of free amino acids and peptide linkings.
In most cases the nitrogen in these structures constitutes
fifty to seventy per cent of the water soluble nitrogen.
The acid amide nitrogen is relatively small, seldom exceed-
ing twenty per cent of the water soluble nitrogen and more
often below ten per cent. Corn stover is an interesting
exception, showing approximately forty per cent of the
water soluble nitrogen in acid amide form. The ammonia
nitrogen rarely exceeds five per cent of the total water
soluble nitrogen and in some cases was wholly absent."

The following table shows the distribution.of
nitrogen in the various proteins as determined by Turner

and Spears (27):

Rye
grain
7;
Ammonia H . l5.
Melanin N . 1.54
Oystine H. 2.2
Arginine N. 10.49
Histidine N. 10.48
.Ly81ne No 1024:
Amino Nitrogen
of filtrate 37.96
Mono -amino acid
Non-amino acid
of filtrate 21.63

proline , oxy-
proline, tryptOphane
3130. V

Total 100.52

Wheat Mai 26
bran kernel
5%
9.67 4.63

13.75 7.
5.96 4.06
12.53 16.19
3.84 4.45
4.04 8.53
49.95 49.69
0 O
99.74 94.55

Oat
grain
fl
,0
13.31

2.97
4.48
11.42

9.58

43.49

11.29

19

Barley Swift's

gr 8111

fi

16.19
2.87
4.38
8.65
6.7

44.16

18.37

96.54 101.32

digester
tankage
6’
1'9
10.03
6.88
2.46
12.34

2.18

9.01

100.13

A study of this table indicates that rye is not

particularly low in any of the nitrogen forms except in

those in which the other grains that give very good results

as feeds for livestock are also approximately as low.

Probably, cystine has given the most noticeable results in

nutrition experiments of any of the known nitro gen carry-

ing compounds.

Osborne and.Mendel (28) concluded that

“such information as we have indicates lysine and tryptOphaue

are relatively abundant," in the ration under investigation.

"The addition or withdrawal of cystine facilitates or

represses growth at will."

The cystine content of rye is

approximately half of that ofVany'of the other grains and

slightly less than that of tankage.

However,

the addition

20

of these other grains to a ration of rye and tankage does
not improve the ration as much as might be expected, and the
addition of wheat middlings, which should show much the
same analysis as wheat bran, has given poorer results
than the addition of the other grains although it is
considerable higher hi cystine than the grains. Such results
would tend to eliminate the theory of a lack of amino acids
in the ration. The indifferent results from rations con-
taining various protein supplements which are recognized
as efficient supplements to any of the other grains would
further tend to eliminate such a conclusion.
Digestibility

Digestion trials were conducted with sheep fed the
brans of wheat and rye in conjunction with meadow hay and
dried Brewers yeasts by HonCamp and Nolte (29). The flour
extraction was made in three different degrees. These
trials showed that the crude protein of the wheat bran was
slightly more digestible than that of the rye bran with a
smaller extraction of flour. The ether extract, or fat,
of the wheat bran was more digestible than that of the rye
bran in all cases. The nitrogen free extract of the rye
bran was less digestible with a heavy extraction of flour
but more digestible with.a lighter extraction. The
organic matter and crude fiber of the rye bran was more
digestible in all cases.

in digestion experiment of coarse rye meal and coarse

wheat meal was conducted by HonCamp, Heumann and Hullner (30)

21

with both sheep and swine. The protein of rye was slightly
less digestible in the case of the sheep than was the
protein of wheat but was practically the same in the case
of swine. The fat was more digestible in wheat meal in
both trials. The crude fiber of the wheat was slightly more
digestible. In all other nutrients there was very little
difference but slightly in favor of the rye meal.

It was estimated that the meals of rye and wheat
vary in digestibility according to the degree of grinding,
the coarser meals being invariably the more digestible.

Conclusions

.A survey of the experiments cited shows a wide
variation in the rates of gain made by the pigs in the
different trials conducted. In.some cases the pigs have
done almost as well as in the check lots fed a recognized
standard ration. In other cases very disappointing results
have been secured. .A study of the feed consumption indicates
that in most cases fairly good gains were made fer the
feed consumed, regardless of the rapidity of gains. The
pigs sometimes made very good gains fer a time on feed.and
then more or less suddenly drOpped off in the feed consumption
and in the rate of gain. In fact, it appears that the
pigs either do well on rye ration or else they practically
refuse to do at all.

A.more detailed study of several of the experiments
conducted at the‘Michigan.Agricultural Experiment Station
shows that in the same lot some pigsmay eat well, gain well

22

and present a very thrifty appearance while other pigs
make a complete failute of the fattening and growing process.
The ability of such pigs to thrive and make satisfactory
gains when removed from the lots and put on most any

type of standard ration indicates that it was a fault of
the ration rather than of the pig. Although no data is
available comparing pigs fed on rye with pigs fed on a
similar energy or total nutrient intake of other feeds,
these pigs that fail to thrive on a lighter rat ion than is
necessary for satisfactory gain do not present the thrifty
appearance of growing pigs that are often being carried on
a limited ration of other feeds. The question of mere
palatability of the ration would thus seem to be somewhat
upset, although it may still be quite a factor, especially
in the rations fed in self feeders.

No consistent results have been obtained that would
indicate the need for a study of the proteins.

The excellent condition of the bones of the pigs
fed at the Michigan Station, the lack of any particular
craving for minerals when fed on rye, and the complete
failure of some pigs to thrive when on pasture, or when
offered other mineral and vitamin carrying feeds under
favorable conditions, helps to eliminate minerals as a
vital consideration.

Neither do such substances as butterfat, cod liver
oil, milk casein, iron compounds, or potassium iodide seem

to have lent any beneficial effects to otherwise apparently

23

complete rations.

The following investigatianal work was therefore
p1anned.with the idea that there may be some factor present,
or absent, in those cases in which favorable results are
obtained, and that same factor may be omitted,or present,
in those cases in which entirely unfavorable results are
obtained. If that factor, or at least its sources, can
be determined by some means, then successful rations may

be intelligently planned.

24

‘EXPERIMENTAL FEEDING TRIALS
Experiment I.
July lO--November 7, 1925 120 days

Objects of the Experiment

The object of this series of feeding trials was
to determine, if possible, the factor, or factors, that
are contained in rye which are different from those in the
other grain feeds and which often seem to have a detri-
mental influence on the animals fed largely on rye. As
noted in the review of literature, the pigs do not seem
thrifty when they are consuming a light ration consisting
largely of rye. On a similar light feed of other grains
the pigs have a thrifty appearance as a rule even though
they are making light gains.

The feed required per pound of gain, when rye fed
pigs are making somewhat less than normal gains for pigs
of such weight, would indicate that the ration was being
well digested.

The absolute failure of some lots of pigs and of
individual pigs in a lot to make even a fair gain on a
ration that has given good results with other pigs would
indicate there might be some factor that is not so detri-
mental to some pigs and yet others may not be able to
tolerate it at all. The tendency of a few pigs to gain
sell for a short time and then suddenly go to pieces would

also tend to substantiate this theory.

The experiment was planned with the idea of comp
paring some of the more satisfactory rations previously
fed with some of those which have given good results in
one case and not so good results in others. Also some
other rations were included which it was thought might
have some effect on the results.

Palatability no doubt deserves some consideration
in the study of rations containing an appreciable percent-

age of rye.

Plan of Experiment

1. Tankage was compared with buttermilk as,a
source of protein and as an appetizing agent.

2. Linseed oilmeal was added to the rye and
tankage ration to test its supplemental protein value
and also any possible appetizing or conditioning values.

3. Locust bean meal was added as an appetizing agent.

4. Godliver oil was added to test any possible
vitamin deficiencies and also for its lubricating value.

5. Fresh-cut green alfalfa was compared with alfalfa
hay as a carrier of minerals and vitamines.

6. A fresh mixture of buttermilk and rye was compared
with a similar mixture soaked twelve hours, as a palatability
factor.

Since the results studied indicate that older
and heavier pigs have less difficulty with rye rations than
do younger pigs, it was planned to start a bunch of healthy,
growthypigs on feed soon after weaning in the Spring and
carry them on a full feed until they reach a marketable
weight. Weights were taken regularily and a careful check
kept on the condition and progress of each pig throughout
the experiment.

Previous Treatment of Pigs

Three litters of late pigs had been weaned about
two weeks before they were started on experiment. They had
been treated for round worms with an organic iodine compound

by Dr. Chandler, of the Bacteriology Department of the

27

'lichigan State College. -Previcus to weaning a self feeder
containing a mixture of cracked corn, ground oats, middlings
and tankage had been accessible since the pigs would take
the feed. All of the pigs seemed to be healthy and thrifty
when the trials begun.

Allotment of Pigs

The pigs were divided into seven lots as near equal
as possible according to breed, weight, sex, type and
thriftiness. There were six Duroc Jersey pigs, seven
Hampshires and eight Berkshires available for use from
the three litters, so that there was one of each‘breed for
‘ each lot except one, which was composed of two Berkshires
' and one Hampshire.

Method of Weighing

Weights were taken at eight to nine o'clock in the
morning on weigh days. The pigs were weighed for three
mornings in succession at the beginning of the experiment
and the average of the three weights taken as the initial
weight. The first experimental feed was given.at the even-
ing feed of the second day. .

Lot weights were taken every ten days and individual
weights every 30 days. .

A quantity of feed was mixed for each lot, or lots
receiving the same grain ration, and each food was weighed
fron.the box and recorded on a sheet for that purpose.

All records were kept in a loose leaf note book

prepared for the purpose.

28

Lots, water, Etc.

Each lot of pigs was kept in a pen in the College
central hog house with an adjacent outside yard fer exer-
cise and sunshine. Both the inside pen and the yard were
floored with concrete. Good ventilation made the quarters
very comfortable during the warm weather.

All the fresh water desired was allowed at noon in
the concrete feeding trough. Slat racks were provided for
the alfalfa hay or green forage. Self feeders were used
for mineral mixture and salt.

Raticns Fed and Method of Feeding

Lot 7 received fresh green alfalfa similar to good
tender pasture once daily. All other lots were allowed
good quality, bright green alfalfa hay in racks which were
kept filled at all times. The rack was fastened to the
partition fence and two lots ate from it.

.1 simple mineral mixture of ground limestone, acid
phosphate and salt was allowed each lot. Very little was
consumed, however, and later salt was supplied as desired.

The grain rations were fed twice daily according
to the appetite and were composed as follows, all contain-
ing the same nutritive ratio as near as possible and .
balanced according to Morrison Standard.

Lot 1. Ground rye and tankage fed as a s10p with
water.

Lot 8. Ground rye, tankage and oilmeal, fed in a

similar manner to Lot 1.

Lot 5. Ground rye, tankage and locust bean meal
fed in similar manner to Lots 1 and 2.

Lot 4. Fed the same mixture as Lot 1 with cod
liver oil added and fed in a similar manner.

Lot 5. Ground rye and buttermilk, mixed and fed
as a slcp.

Lot 6. Ground rye and buttermilk, mixed, soaked
12 hours, and fed as a 810p.

Lot 7. Fed the same grain ration as Lot 1 and fed
in a similar manner.

Treatment for Parasites

All pigs were given 011 of chenOpodium and castor
oil for worms on the 55th day of the eXperiment and again
on the 72nd day.

Experimental Data
The following tables will be found in the appendix:
Table I Weights of pigs by periods.
Table II Total gain per lot of thrifty pigs by periods.
Table III Feed consumption by periods.
Table IV Feed deducted for pigs removed.
Table V Feed consumed by thrifty pigs by periods.
I 'Gains of Pigs
Since the main object of the eXperiment was to

find firation.that would produce satisfactory growth and
gain rather than to compare the value of the rations for
producing economical gains, a study of the gains made by
each pig will be considered first.

Table l
Gains of pigs by periods

Lot 1 Tankage check lot
3.3. 9 D.S. 15
lbs. lbs.
lst. 35 days 6 29
2nd. 31 ' 13 31
3rd. 30 " -2 (10 da) 55
4th. 24 ' removed 36
Total 120 days (17) 131
Av. daily gain (.224) 1.092
Lot 2 Linseed oilmeal
' 3.3.29 D.8. 5
lbs. lbs.
1st. 35 days 15 29
2nd. 31 ' 25 29
,3rd. 30 ' 5 36
4th. 24 " 2 (10 da) 27
removed
Total 120 days (47) 121

Av. daily gain (.443) 1.008

H.B. 3
lbs.

31

38

39

35

143

1.192

H.B.43
lbs.

22

32

32

26

112

.933

Total

lbs.
66
82

g 72

71

291

.921

Total

lbs.
66
86
73
55

280

.809

 

Table 1 continued
Gains of pigs by periods

Lot 3 Locust Bean Meal
Begs 49 DeBe 15 HeBe 33 TOt‘l

lbae IbSe lbs. lbss
lit. 35 days 22 24 ' 22 68
2nd. 31 ' 20 34 26 80
3rd. 30 ' 25 41 47 113
4th. 24 " 15 35 33 83
Total 120 days 82 134 128 344
A70 daily gain e683 loll? 1e067 e956
Lot 4 Cod.1iver 011

3.3. 19 B.B.419 3.3. 13 Total

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
lst.35 days 9 19 32 60
2nd.3l h" 6 22 42 7O
3rd.30 ' -2 (10 da) 28 51 77
4th.24 ' removed 25 27 52
Total 120 days (13) 94 152 259

AVe daily 88111 (e171) 0 783 lo 267 e 82

 

 

J. . ‘4I 1......III.|. I]?

Table 1 continued
Gains of pigs by periods

Lot 5 Fresh Buttermilk
B.S. 39 D.B. 5
lbs. lbs.
1st. 35 days 4 (34 da) 32
211‘s 3]. I died 4:5
3rd. 30 " worms 33
4th. 24 " - 33
Total 120 days (4) 143
Av. daily gain (.1180) 1.192
Lot 6 Soaked Buttermilk
B.3. 59 D.B.25
lbs. lbs.
1st. 35 days ' 28 30
2nd. 31 ' 31 40
3rd. 30 " 37 32
'4th. 24 ' 23 19
Total 120 days 119 121

Av. daily gain .992 1.008

H.B.23
lbs.
29

31

41

35

136

1.133

3.8. 3
lbs.
30

37

46

31

144

Total
lbs.

65

76

74

68

283

1.033

Total

lbs.
88
108
115
73

384

1.067

34

Table 1 continued

Gains of’pigs by periods

Lot 7 Fresh Alfalfa
BeBs 29 DeSe 25 HeSe 15 TOtal
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
1st. 35 days 22 33 23 78
2nd. 31 ' 36 38 27 101
3rd. 30 ' 20 40 35 95
4th. 24 ' -3 (10 da) 17 22 36
removed
Total 120 days (75) 128 107 310
Av. daily gain (.708) 1.067 .892 .896

Some Pigs rail to Gain

It will be noticed that no pig in any lot made as
fast a gain as would be expected when fed on a good ration.
The majorityof pigs, hmwever, made a consistent gain
throughout the feeding period. One pig in Lot 5 died on
the 34th day and an autopsy showed a bad infestation of
round worms in the intestines. The remaining pigs were
treated for worms and a large number were eXpelled. All
pigs received a similar treatment again on the 72nd day,
but no worms were found. .

One pig in Lot 2 showed a very good gain the first

66 days and then failed to make a further appreciable gain.
One pig in Lot 7 made a fair gain the first two periods

but began to drop off during the next period and later lost
rapidly in weight. One pig in Lot 1 and one in Lot 4 never
did make even a fair gain at any time.

At the time a.failure to gain is noticeable, it was
also noted that those pigs were not consuming their share
of the ration offered the lot. They would eat very sparing-
ly of the slop-fed grain ration and exhibit a dissatisfied,
hungry and somewhat irritable attitude. After once going
off feed, none of them ever improved in appetite or showed
a noticeable gain in weight as long as they remained in
the lots.

After being removed from the lots on the 76th day,
the two pigs from Lots 1 and 4 were fed on rye and butter-
milk for 44 days in an.attempt to get them to take more
feed. They ate a very little, however, and made only very '
small gains.

The pig from Lot 4 was killed at this time, and a
thorough autopsy conducted by Drs. Hellman and Sholl, of
the Department of Pathology. No indications whatever could
be found of any physiological or pathological disturbance
which might be responsible for the failure to thrive.

The pigs that had been.removed from lots 1, 2 and 7
were put on a number of miscellaneous feeds in self feeders
on the 120th day of the experiment. The following feeds

'were available: shelled corn, ground oats, ground barley,

36

ground rye, middlings, wheat bran, linseed oilmeal,
locust bean meal, tankage, charcoal, mineral mixture
and alfalfa hay. Buttermilk was also fed according to
the appetite.

A.ravenous appetite was manifested for shelled
corn. (A moderate amount of buttermilk was taken. A
small amount of each of the other grains was eaten and a.
moderate amount of linseed oilmeal was desired but only
a very little tankage. Some alfalfa hay was eaten.

The gains immediately showed the effects of the
feed being eaten. There was not so great an increase in
gain during the first 20 days as there was during the
second twenty days, however, the pigs showed more life
and vigor, and their coats took on a sleek, shiny appearance.
The pigs from Lots 1 and 2 weighed 63 and 73 pounds when
turned loose to the feeders and 40 days later they weighed
119 and 138 pounds, or an average gain of 1.4 and 1.6
pounds per day. The pig from Lot 7 had not been in an
unthrifty condition as long as the other two, but he was
slower to get under way again. Starting at a weight of
117 pounds, he weighed 160 at the end of 40 days, an
average gain of 1.07 pounds.

These three pigs were put back on a ration of one
part rye and two parts buttermilk after 40 days on the self
feeders. Alfalfa hay was also allowed in a rack and mineral
mixture and salt in.a feeder. Practically no mineral was

eaten but some salt was relished. Some alfalfa was also eaten.

The grain feed was consumed very readily for a period of
61 days and they were fed all they cared for.

The gains continued even better than they had been
during the last part of the time on the self feeders. On
February 16, the weights were 237, 259 and 272 pounds, or
an average gain of 1.9, 2.0 and 1.8 pounds per day.

The barrow from Lot 7 was slaughtered and the
carcass showed to be in prime condition and very firm.

The two gilts were continued on rye and an attempt
made to breed them. In fact they were bred February 5.
One received rye and alfalfa until March 12, and the other
received rye and buttermilk. The ration was cut down con-
siderably in order to reduce their fattened condition. On
larch 12 both gilts were put on rye and.water and the feed
continued until May 12. 0n that date they weighed I27 and
340 pounds, showing slightly over a pound gain per day.

One gilt was then put on a ration of rye and butter-
milk and the other continued on rye and water. On July 12
they weighed 400 and 330 pounds. The one on rye and milk
still continued her gain of better than a pound a day, but
the other gilt did not eat her feed well and later lost
quite a little that she had gained previously so that she
showed a loss of 10 pounds in 61 days.

Neither gilt proved to be pregnant although they had
been bred several times. Their heat periods did not occur

as regularily as is commonly found in swine.

 

 

 

All the Pigs Gain well on Oorn

All the other pigs were changed from the rye ratiom
on November 7 and put on.810p rations of corn, tankage and
linseed oilmeal, with alfalfa hay supplied. They were
sorted into three lots according to size, with the large
and small pigs separate. The rate of gain during the next
30 days was practically the same in all the lots, the
average rate being 1.6 pounds per day. The lightest gain
was made by one of the heaviest pigs and the heaviest gain
by one of the lighter pigs, 1.3 and 2.2 pounds, respectively.

Conclusions

1. There seems to be little difference among these
rye rations in effectiveness for producing satisfactory
gains on growing fattening pigs, with the possible exceptions
of the buttermilk lots. Even then Lot 5 shows only slightly
faster gain than.Lot 1, and Lot 6 slightly less. The one
pig in Lot 6 did not do so well as the other two but it did
finish the trial with a consistently steady rate of gain.

2. No ration has produced a satisfactory rate of gain
at any time during the experiment.

3. No pig has produced an entirely satisfactory
'gain throughout the period of rye feeding although all of
them made good gains on the corn ration.

4. The fact that most of the pigs in the experiment

produced a fairly good and a fairly uniform gain, and that
those that failed to gain on the rye rations did gain well

40

on the self feeders, indicates that the trouble was not in

having pigs Who were poor feeders but that the rye rations

affected them in some adverse way.

5. The ability of the poor doing pigs to continue

to gain on the rye ration after a short period on other

feed again suggests the point of age as a factor.

6. A very heavy feed of alfalfa was taken by the

pigs in all lots, so much so in fact that practically all

the pigs looked extremely paunchy throughout the feeding

period.

A more restricted alfalfa ration might furnish the

necessary beneficial factors in the ration and still leave

more capacity for increased grain consumption.

following table:

Gains of Thrifty Pigs

The average daily gain per pig is shown in the

Table 2

Average daily gain of‘thrifty pigs by periods

lst. 2nd. 3rd. 4th. Total
35 da. 31 da. 30 da. 24 da. 120 da,
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
Lot 1- 2 pigs .857 1.113 1.233 1.479 l.l42t.023
Lot 2- 2 pigs .728 .984 1.133 1.104 .97lr.018
Lot 3- 3 pigs .648 .86 1.255 1.153 .955:.075
Lot 4- 2 pigs .728 1.032 1.317 1.083 1.02513115
Lot 5- 2 pigs .871 1.226 1.233 1.417 1.1621.014
Lot 6- 3 pigs .838 1.161 1.278 1.014 1.0663623?
Lot 7- 2 pigs .8 1.048 1. 25 .813 .9913042

 

”-

s I
V C

e c
I C O
O I C
e e a
I I I

i‘ ‘-
a a. ,. C C
O s O

 

41

The probable error has been figured for the entire
period only.

This table illustrates more clearly the data shown
in Table 1. Lots 1 and 5 are the only ones which Show a
' consistent increase in rate of gain throughout the period.
Each of the others shows a decrease during the last period.
Lots 2, 3, and 7 show the smallest rates of gain. Lot 4
shows the largest probable error, which indicates that in
another trial the results might be somewhat different in
either direction. Lot 5 shows the smallest probable error,
indicating that its rate of gain is fairly representative
for that set of conditions. The gain in Lot 1 is almost_
as great as in Lot 5 and more than one tenth of a pound
greater than any other lot. The pigs in the milk lots
showed more finish and looked more thrifty than those in
the other lots.

Comparison of Rations

The rations fed in the different lots are compared
on the basis of the thrifty pigs which continued on feed
throughout the experiment. The following method was used
in deducting feed for the pigs removed. The figures by
Dietrich, which are given by Henry and Morrison in "Feeds
and Feeding", page 606, were used as a basis for the cal-
culations of maintenance requirements. One tenth pound
digestible protein per hundred pounds live weight was used
as the maintenance requirement. The total nutrient require-

ment was determined from the nutritive ratio of the ration

hr“
3 'a

consumed. Subtraction of the maintenance requirement for the
initial weight of the lot for the period,from the total
nutrients consumed during the period, leaves the nutrients
remaining for the gain that was made. The percentage of
the nutrients required for maintenance and gain of the pig
removed gives the percentage of the ration consumed by that
pig. If the pig lost in weight, it was considered that only
enough feed was consumed to maintain the low weight, and of
course no gain was credited.

The feed analyses were obtained from Table III of
the appendix to "Feeds and Feeding" by Henry and Morrison,
Eighteenth Edition, except for locust bean meal which was
analysed by the Experiment Station Chemistry Department of
Michigan State College. The digestibility of the locust
bean meal was considered to be the same as for shelled corn
as given in Table II in "Feeds and Feeding”.

An example of calculation is as follows:

Lot 1
First 35 day period
Final Wt. 180 lbs. Initial Wt. 114 lbs. Gain 66 lbs.

35 da. feed Digestible Total
for lot Crude Protein Digestible
Nutrients

lbs. lbs. lbs.
Ground Rye 178.4 17.662 144.504
Tankage 19.6 11.015 13.994
Alfalfa 45. 4.77 23.220

Nutritive Ratio 1:4.43 33.447 181:718

 

35 da. feed Digestible
for lot Crude Protein
lbs. lbs.

Nutrients for daily
maintenance per cwt. .10

Nutr. for 35 da. maint.
per cwt. 3.5

Nutr. for 35 da. maint.
of 114 lbs. 3.99

Nutr. remaining for 66 lbs.gain29°457
Nutr. for 1 lb. gain .4463

B. S. 9 for 35 lbs.

maintenance 1.225
For 6 lbs. gain ‘ 2.678

T0 t3]. as 903

Percentage of lot total
consumed by B.S. 9 11.67

Therefore
Gre Rye

2.3. 9 ate 11.67% of feed
consumed by the lot 20.8

Total feed consumed by lot 178.4
With B.S. 9 out,t0ta1 feed 157.6

43

Total
Digestible
Nutrients

lbs.

.543

19.005

21.666
160.052
2.425
6.652

14.55

21.202

11.67

- Tanks A1 falfa

2.3 5.3
45
17.3 39.7

The average daily ration consumed per pig is shown

in the following table:

Table 3

Average daily ration per pig

Lot 1- 2 pigs
Ground Rye
Tankage
Alfalfa

Total

Lot 2- 2 pigs
Ground Rye
Tankage
Linseed Oilmeal
Alfalfa

Total

Lot 3— 3 pigs
Ground Rye
Tankage
Locust Bean

Alfalfa

Total

lst.

55 0.8»
lbs.

2.251
.247
.567

3.065

1.717

.093
.261
.491
2.562

1.443
.192
.16
.381

2.176

2nd.

31 age

lbs.

3.031
.267
.537

3.835

2.442
.106
.279
.46

3.287

2.154
.235
.24
.441

3.070

3rd.

30 da.

lbs.

4.103
.27
.4

4.773

3.743
.127
.255
.458

4.583

3.293
.274
.366
.344

4.277

4th.
24 dam

lbs.

4.933
.171
.312

5.406

4.181
.125
..252
.362
4.920

4.464
.347
.496
.285

5.592

Total

120 ds.

lbs.

3.45
.243
.467

4.160

2.904

.111
.262

.449 '
3.726

2.693
.255
.299
.368

3.615

 

45

Table 3 continued
Average daily ration per pig

lst. 2nd. 3rd. 4th. Total
35 da. 31 da. 30 da. 24 da. 120 da.
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
Lot 4- 2 pigs
Ground Rye 2.01 3.243 4.078 4.717 3.387
Tankage .221 .287 .268 .283 .262
Alfalfa .474 .689 .392 .281 .445
Total 2.705 4.119 4.738 6.281 4.094
Cod Liver 011 oJ5°15 20.69 20.66 21.87 19.25
Lot 5- 2 pigs
Ground Rye 1.951 2.298 4.183 4.896 3.187
Buttermilk 4.871 4.443 5.583 6.876 5.14
Alfalfa 5.81 5.16 .533 .229 .482
Total 7.403 7.257 10.299 11.000 8.809
Lot 6- 3 pigs
Ground Rye 1.586 2.392 3.689 4.486 2.876
Buttermilk 3.933 4.656 4.733 5.444 4.622
Alfalfa .429 .527 .367 .236 .4
Total 5.948 7.676 8.689 10.166 7.897
Lot 7- 2 pigs
eround Rye 1.896 2.66 4.51 6.666 3.498
Tankage .209 .232 .296 .34 .262
Alfalfa, fresh 1.81 2.229 3.328 , 3.102 2.556
Total 3.915 6.111 8.133 9.107 6.316

Some variation is noticed in the amounts of feed
eaten no doubt due partly to variation in weight among '
the lots after the unthrifty pigs were remodedQ. Con-
trary to what might be expected, neither lots 2 nor 3
showed greater feed consumption, indicating that neither
linseed oilmeal nor locust bean meal were effective as
appetizing agents in rye rations.

The addition of cod liver oil to the ration did not
increase the feed consumption.

The fresh alfalfa lot showed no greater feed con-
sumption than the ckeck lot.

The soaked buttermilk lot showed a lighter feed
consumption than the fresh buttermilk lot, although the
average weight per pig was slightly less.

reed Required for Gain

Table 4 shows the feed required for each hundred

pounds of gain in the different lots: A
Table 4
feed per‘hundred pounds gain

1st. 2nd. 3rd. 4th. Total

35 da. 31 da. 30 da. 24 da. 120 da.
Lot 1- 2 P183 lbs. lbs. lbs.‘ lbs. lbs.
Ground Rye 262.7 272.3 332.7 332.8 302.2
Tankage 28.8 24.1 21.9 11.5 21.3

Alfalfa 66.2 48.3 32.4 21.1 40.9
Totdl 357.7 344.7 387.0 365.4 364.4

Table 4 continued

Feed per hundred pounds gain

lst.
55 age

lbs.
Lot 2- 2 pigs

Ground.Rye 235.7
Tankage 12.7
Linseed Oilmeal 35.9
Alfalfa 67.4

’ Total 361.7

Lot 3- 3 pigs

Ground Rye 222.8
Tankage 29.7
Locust Bean 24.7
Alfalfa 58.8

Total 336.0

Lot 4- 2 pigs

Ground Rye 275.9
Tankage 30.4
Alfalfa 65.1

‘ Total 371.4
00d liver Oil 2079.8

2nd.

3]. da.

lbs.

248.2
10.8
28.4
46.7

334.1

260.4
27.4
27.9
61.2

366.9

314.2
27.8
57

399.0

1994.7

3rde

50 da.

lbs.

330.3
11.2
22.5
40.4

404.4

262.3
21.9
29.1
27.4

340.7

309.8
20.4
30

360.2

1560.8

4th.

24 63.

lbs.

378.7
11.3
22.8
32.8

445.6

387.1
30.1
43
24.7

484.9

435.4
26.2
26

487.6

2019.2

".2 7

Total

120 dae

lbs.

299.1
11.5
27.
46.3

383.9

281.8
26.7
31.3
38.6

378.3

330.4
25.6
43.4

399.4

1878._

Table 4 continued

Feed per hundred pounds gain

1st. 2nd. 3rd. 4th.
35 da. 31 da. 30 da. 24 da. 120 da.
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
Lot 5- 2 pigs
Ground Rye 223.9 187.5 339.2 345.6 274.2
Buttermilk 559. 362.5 452.7 414.7 442.1
Alfalfa 66.7 42.1 43.2 16.2 41.5
Total 849.6 592.1 835.1 776.5 757.8
Lot 6- 3 pigs
Ground Eye 189.2 206. 280.9 442.5 269.5
Buttermilk 469.3 400.9 370.4 537. 433.3
Alfalfa 51.1 45.4 28.7 23.3 37.5
Total 709.6 652.3 680.0 1002.8 740.3
Lot 7- 2 pigs
Ground Rye 237. 252.8 360.8 697.2 357.2
Tankage 26.1 22.2 23.6 41.8 26.8
Alfalfa, fresh 226.2 212.6 266.3 381.8 261.1
Total 489.3 487.6 650.7 1120.8 645.1

Total

~ These results show a slightly different relation
between the lots than was shown in feed eaten or rate of
gain. .4 gradual increase in amount of feed required is
seen as the feeding period lengthens and the pigs get

heavier and older. Lots 4 and 7 show the highest feed

 

49

'requirements and the greatest difference in these lots is
in the last period. Lot 7 shows extremely poor results at
that stage of the game. The other lots are too close
together to draw any very definite conclusions. The feed
per pound of gain is reasonably low in all lots except for

the last period in Lot 7.

Hutrient Requirement

The following table showing the total digestible

nutrients required for each hundred pounds gain in the
different lots emphasizes even more the similarity of the
results among the lots and the failure of any of the
other rations to show materially better results than the
check lot of rye, tankage and alfalfa hay.
Table 5

Total Digestible Rutrients per hundred puunds gain.

1st. 2nd. 3rd. 4th. Total
35 da. 31 da. 30 da. 24 da. 120 da.

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

Lot 1- pigs 267.5 262.6 301.8 288.7 281
Lot2 - pigs 262.7 255 313.9 349.5 295.4

Lot 3- pigs 250.8 270 264.4 380.5 291
Lot 4- pigs 278.7 303.7 280.8 384.7 308.3
L05 5- pigs 262.8 204 335.1 323.1 280.7
Lot 6- pigs 219.1 224 273.4 415.5 274.1
Lot 7- pigs 237 245.4 348 650.3 343.4

50

Lot 7, the fresh alfalfa lot, shows a marked
difference from the other lots and the chief variation
is found there in the last period. The lot receiving cod
liver oil with the rye and tankage ration shows next
highest nutrient requirement. The soaked milk and rye
lot made slightly the most efficient gain of the series.
The check lot of rye and tankage and the fresh rye and
milk lot are exactly equal. The linseed oilmeal lot and
the locust bean meal lot are practically equal and
slightly higher than the milk lots or the check lot in

nutrients required for each pound of gain.
Cost of Gains
Table 6

Feed cost per hundred pounds gain

lst. 2nd. 3rd. 4th. Total

30 da. 31 da. 30 da. 24 da. 120 da.
Lot 1- 2 pigs $5.30 26.17 $6.89 $6.60 85.47
L
Lot 2- 2 pigs 5.23 5.04 6.10 6.78 5.78
Lot 3- 3 pigs 6.60 6.01 6.89 8.60 6.49
Lot 4- 2 pigs 6.37 6.77 6.11 8.32 6.80
Lot 6- 2 pigs 6.09 4168 7.22 6.96 6.20
Let 6- 3 pigs 5e10 5003 5e91 8096 6006
Lot 7- 2 pigs 4.76 6.86 6.62 12.43 6.65

Ground Rye $30 per ton, tankage $60 per ton,

buttermilk 40 cents per cwt., alfalfa $15 per ton, fresh

51

.alfalfa $5.75 per ton, linseed oilmeal Q45 per ton,
Locust Bean heal 995 per ton and Cod Liver Oil 40
cents per liter.

At the prices used in calculating the feed
costs the check lot of rye and tankage, with alfalfa
hay self fed, is the most profitable lot in the series.

Lots 4 and 7 are the least profitable lots, and Lot 3
is a close third due to the high cost of the locust
bean meal. At forty cents per hundred pounds, butterilh
is too high as compared with tankage at sixty dollars
per ton.

Due to the small numbers of pigs in each lot
and the variation among the pigs, these results are
important'as an indication only of the comparative
value of these rations for pigs of this age.

The following table shows the differences between
the lots in rate of gain with the probable error of

the differences:

 

Table 7
Difference between lots in rate of gain with

Probable Error.

Greater Lesser Differences Probable

Gain Gain in Gain Error
Lot No. ' Lot No. lbs. lbs.
1 2 .171 .029
l 3 .187 .079
l 4 .117 .117
l 6 .076 .044
l 7. .163 .048
5 l .02 .028
5 2 .191 .022
5 3 .206 .076
5 4 .137 .116
5 6 .096 .039
5 7 .183 .044
6 2 .095 .041
6 3 .111 .084
6 4 .041 .121
6 7 .087 .055
4 2 .054 .076
4 3 .07 .137
4 7 .046- .122
7 2 .008' .045
7 3 .024 .086
2 3 .016 .094

The following lots only show a significant
difference in rate of gain: 1 and 2, l and 7, 5 and 2,

5 and 7. Their differences in rate of gain are more
than three times the probable error, which indicates
that a similar lot will show the greater rate of gain in
q_majority of further trials.

Summary of Results

1. The palatability of the ration was not
materially increased by adding linseed oilmeal or locust
bean meal .

2. The vitamines contained in cod liver oil were
of’no apparent benefit.

3. The vitamines and other factors carried by
fresh green alfalfa were no better than those in well
cured alfalfa bay of good color.

4. The rye and buttermilk ration was slightly
more palatable than the rye and tankage ration. The pigs
also showed a more thrifty appearance and better finish.

5. It Was not possible to put a desirable market
finish on the pigs in a reasonable length of time when
fed on a full feed.

6. The vital factors necessary for pr0per
nutrition are evidently not in preper balance.

7. The feed required fer each hundred pounds of
gain was not exceedingly high.

8. All pigs gained much faster on a similarily

supplemented corn ration.

Experiment II
February 11 - June 1, 1926 110 days
Object of the Experiment

This second series of trials on feeding rye to
growing fattening pigs was planned with much the same
purpose as the previous experiment. Some of the conclu-
sions from the study of earlier trials have been strengthened
by the results of the previous experiment.

1. Pigs consuming a relatively light ration consist-
ing chiefly of rye as the grain feed do not show a normal
thrifty appearance.

2. Good digestion is indicated by the feed re quire-
malt per pound of gain.

3. Some factor in the rye ration seems to be
responsible for the failure of certain pigs to use such
a ration to advantage, while other similar pigs may do
acceptable well on it. 1

4. Palatability is probably one factor in secur-
ing good results with rye rations although it is likely
not the greatest factor.

The new angles developed from the preceding experiment
were also included in this trial. The question of limit-
ing the alfalfa seemed to be an outstanding one. The
possibility that a liberal supply of buttermilk through-
out the period might exert some beneficial effect also
looked favorable. Since the buttermilk pigs, especially
those in Lot 5, made the most consistent gains throughout
the period considering the one pig which failed to gain in

55

Lot 1, it seemed worth while to make a more detailed study -
of the preperties inherent in the buttermilk.
Plan of EXperiment

1. A.limited ration of alfalfa was compared with
one self fed in a rack.

2. Soaking the rye in buttermilk was compared with
feeding the mixture fresh.

3. .A liberal feed of buttermilk was compared.with
a more restricted feed in which the ration was balanced
according to the Morrison standard.

4. The acid properties of creamery buttermilk were
studied by feeding one lot on sweet skimmilk.

5. Tankage was compared with buttermilk as a
protein supplement to rye.

6. The younger pigs of the September pig crop
were used in order to have pigs which did not possess too
much possible advantage of age and weight. It was planned
to feed them to a market weight of approximately 200 pounds
as quickly as possible.

Previous Treatment of Pigs

The pigs received a grain mixture in a creep while
nursing and were weaned.when about eight weeks old. A
short time after weaning they were treated with.oil of
chen0podium and castor oil for ascaris infestation. Only
a very few worms were eXpelled. .A grain mixture of corn,
oats, middlings and tankage with a small amount of butter-

milk was fed and alfalfa hay was supplied.in racks. All

56

the pigs were apparently in thrifty growing condition
when put on experimental feed.
Allotment of Pigs .

The pigs were divided into six lots as nearly
uniform as possible according to breed, type, weight, sex
and thriftiness. Four pigs were available for each lot.

Method of Weighing

Three weights were taken on successive days at
the beginning and at the close of the eXperiment and the
average of these three weights was considered as the initial
and final weights respectively. Individual weights were
taken every ten days throughout the eXperiment. The feed
for each lot was weighed and recorded at each feeding.

The first experimental feed was given in the evening after
the second initial weight and the last feed was given in
the morning of the second day of the final weight.

Lots, Water, etc.

The same lots and yards were used in this experiment
as in Experiment I. 110 water was allowed except what was
necessary to make the proper consistency of the 810p feed.
Alfalfa hay was fed in slat racks to all lots except Lot 1.
Self feeders were used for mineral mixtures and salt.

Rations Fed and Method of Feeding

The alfalfa hay for Lot 1 was ground and mixed with
the grain ration. All other lots were self fed alfalfa hay
in racks with two lots eating from each rack except in

case of Lot 6 which had a rack alone.

57

A mineral mixture of ground limestone 20 lbs.,
salt 30 lbs., and steamed bonemeal 45 lbs. was kept in
one compartment of a self feeder and common salt in
another compartment.

The grain rations were fed twice daily according
to the appetite and were composed as follows:

Lot 1. Ground rye, ground alfalfa (531’. to 735 of the
grain ration),buttermilk, the ration balanced according to
the Morrison Standard for pigs of corresponding weights.

Lot 2. Ground rye and buttermilk, the same
nutritive ratio as Lot 1, allowing a similar amount of
alfalfa hay in the calculations.

Lot 3. Ground rye and buttermilk soaked twelve
hours and balanced in the same manner as Lot 2.

Lot 4. Ground. rye 1 part, buttermilk 2 parts.

Lot 5. Ground rye 1 part, sweet skim milk 2 parts.

Lot 6. Ground rye and tankage balanced in the same
manner as Lots 2 and 3.

Experimental Data
The following tables will be found in the appendix:

Table VI Weights of pigs by 10 day periods.

Table VII Total gain per lot of thrifty pigs by 30

day periods.

Table VIII Feed consumption by periods.

Table IX Feed deducted for pigs removed.

Table X Feed consumed by thrifty pigs by periods.

Lot 1

lot.
and.
3rd.
Total

Gains of pigs by periods

- 4 pigs

nine days

eleven,"

ten '

30 days

4th.ten days

5th.
6th.
Total

7th.
8th.
9th.
Total

n u
w u
30 days
ten days
a n
u n
30 days

lOth.ten days

11th
Total

Total

20 days

110 days

flmlee

Limited Alfalfa

YeB. 7 0.3. 35
1b8e lbs.

2 16
14 20
16 15
32 51
14 16
14 22
12 15
4O 53
16 2O
16 21
14 13
46 54
12 23
20 24
32 47
150 205

1.864

Average daily gain 1.364

P.S. 3
lbs.
11
-8

3
6-

‘c.s.26
7

22
22
51

18
22
17
57

24
23
47

161

1.464

58

H.S. 15
lbs.
6
7
4
l7

2
4
4
10

Removed

April 12

(27)

(.45)

'"(3.8.26 substituted for P.S.3 at the end of 30 days.

Total

lbs.
35
33
38
106

39
62
53
154

54
59
44
157

59
67
126

543

1.392

 

Table 8 continued

Gains of pigs by periods

Lot 2- 4 pigs Fresh Buttermilk
BeSe 2 CeSe 5 PeBe 3 HeSe 5 T0581

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
lst. nine days 3 9 ll 5 28
2nd. eleven ' 13 12 17 12 54
3rd. ten ” ll 10 ll 11 43
Total 30 days 27 31 39 28 125
4th. ten days l5 19 12 13 59
5th. ” ' 16 15 20 14 65
6th. ' ” ll 4 9 8 32
Total 30 days 42 38 41 35 156
7th. ten days 14 13 16 18 61
8th. ” " 16 9 12 9 46
9th. " ' 10 15 13 19 57
Total 30 days 40 37 41 46 164
10th. ten days 14 13 23 6 56
11th. ” " 10 12 13 16 51
Total 20 days 24 25 36 22 107
Total 110 days 133 131 157 131 552

Average daily gain 1.209 1.191 1.427 1.191 1.266

 

60

Table '8 continm d
Gains of pigs by periods
Lot 3- 4 pigs Soaked Buttermilk
Y.S. 3 C.B. 26 D.B. 4 H.S. 4 Total

lbs. 1133. 1b8e lbs. lbs.

lst. nine days 12 12 ll 12 47

2nd.eleven ' 14 9 l4 9 46

3rd. ten ' ll 13 9 12 45

Total 30 days 37 34 34 34 138
4th. ten days 2O 19 _ 16 ll 66

5th. 7 " 15 18 6 ll 50

6th. " " 12 14 3 0 29

Total 30 days 47 61 26 22 145
7th. ten days 19 19 -5 -4 29

8th. ' ' 15 25 7 Removed 47

9th. " " ll 20 3 April 22 34

Total 30 days 45 64 5 -4 110
lOth.tln days 19 20 2 41

11th.." 7 6 21 9 36

Total 20 days 25 41 ll 77
Total 110 days 154 190 75 (51) 470

Average daily gain 1.4 1.727 .682 (.729) 1.175

 

61

Table 8 continued
Gains of pigs by periods

Lot 4- 4 pigs Liberal Buttermilk

Y.S.2 0.B.6 D.B.l H.B.2 Total
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
lst. nine days 9 ll 9 8 37
2nd. eleven 7 16 13 15 15 59
3rd. ten ” 12 15 12 8 47
Total 30 days 37 39 36 31 143
4th. ten days 20 l4 l3 14 61
5th. ” ' 22 32 -10 19 63
6th. " " ll 6 3 4 24
Total 30 days 53 52 6 37 148
7th. ten days 19 23 4 10 56
8th. ' ' 26 18 Removed 8 52
9th. " ' 15 23 April 22 10 48
Total 30 days 60 64 4 28 156
lOth.ten days 16 22 15 53
11th. ' ' 24 16 14 54
Total 30 days 40 38 29 107
Total 110 days 190 193 (46) 125 554
Average daily gain 1.727 1.755 (.657) 1.136 1.385

C)
to

Table 8 continued
Gains of pigs by periods

Lot 5- 4 pigs Liberal Skimmilk
3.3. 5 0.3. 33 D.B. 6 H.B. 4 Total

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
lst. nine days l4 12 15 2 43
2nd. eleven ' 16 8 13 ll 48
3rd. ten 7 9 l9 l4 4 46
Total 30 days 39 39 42 17 137
‘H.s. 6

4th. ten days 14 23 14 13 64
5th. 7 ' 14 18 18 9 59
6th. ” " l5 . 23 8 9 55
. Total 30 days 43 64" 40 31 178
7th. ten days 9 16 12 8 45
8th. ' ” 9 l9 l7 13 58
9th. ' " l4 14 ll 15 54
Total 30 days 32 49 4O 36 157
10th. ten days 15 16 12 8 51
11th. " " 13 ll 16 16 56
Total 20 days 28 27 28 24 107
Total 110 days 142 179 150 108 579

Average daily gain 1.291 1.627 1.364 .982 1.316

*H.3. 5 substituted for H.B. 4 at the end of 30 days.

Table 8 continued
Gains of pigs by periods
Let 6- 4 pigs Tankage
Y.B. 8 0.3. 3 P.B. 5 H.S. 3 Total

lbs. lbs. lbs. 1bs.’ lbs.

lst. nine days 9 4 9 6 28

2nd. eleven 7 ll 16 11 4 42

3rd. ten 7 ll 6 6 11 34

Total 30 days 31 26 26 21 104
4th. ten days 8 19 7 16 50

5th. 7 7 8 ll 7 8 34

6th. 7 7 16 15 4 12 47

Total 30 days 32 45 18 36 131
7th. ten days 13 22 removed 14 49

8th. 7 7 19 10 April 12 16 45

.9th. 7 7 10 27 19 56
Total 30 days 42 59 49 150
10th. ten days l5 19 10 44

11th. 7 7 l6 l5 ' 9 40

Total 20 days 31 34 19 84
Total 110 days 136 164 . (44) 126 469

Average daily gain 1.236 1.491 (.733) 1.136 1.203
p.

It will be noticed immediately that those pigs
made considerably larger gains than those in.the first
experiment. .A part of this difference might be explain-
able on the basis of age and weight since these pigs
averaged approximately 70 pounds in weight and those in
the other trials averaged slightly less than 40 pounds.

One pig in Lot 1 and one in Lot 5 was removed at
the end of the first 30 days on account of an extremely
unthrifty appearance evidently not due to the ration being
fed. Other pigs were substituted fer them. One pig was
removed from Lot 6 at the end of 60 days for the same
reason.

The Hampshire sow number 15 in Lot 1 shows a very
light gain from the beginning of the feeding period. She
did not seem to relish the ration offered and.ate only
enough feed to keep from.starving. Her tail hung straight
and she seemed dull and.atupid. At the end of 60 days she
was removed from the lot.

The Hampshire sow and the Duroc barrow in Lot 3
showed very good gains for the first part of the period.
It will be noticed that their gains suddenly'dr0pped off
after 40 to 50 days feeding. The Hampshire was removed
from the lot soon after ceasing to gain and the Duroc
was continued on the original ration throughout the experiment.

The Duroc barrow in Lot 4 showed the same tendencies

as the two pigs in Lot 3. He was also removed at the and

0f 70 days.

These three pigs showed exactly the same symptoms
at the time they failed to gain. A very laxative condition
was noticeable, and they ate very little feed. This
condition continued in the pig left in Lot 3 until the
close of the exPeriment..

The other two pigs and the one from Lot 1 were put
on a ration of rye and buttermilk in the proportion of one
to two, with alfalfa hay in the rack. They were also
given an organic iodide preparation recommended by Dr.0handler,
of the Bacteriology Department. A rather heavy dose was
given at two day-intervals for a week for the purpose of an
intestinal antiseptic. The pig left in Lot 3 was also
given two of these treatments and a liberal dose of castor
oil. A few drops of the preparation were given in the
ration of the three pigs once daily for a period of 71 days.

The pig from Lot 1 which had never eaten the farmer
ration well at any time, began to eat greedily and her gains
increased pr0portionately. She gained 86 pounds in the
71 days, an average of 1.21 pounds per day.

The pig from Lot 3, which had been off feed and
losing weight for only a few days, was more slow to get
started on feed. The tendency to scouring gradually dis-
appeared, however, and she showed a very good rate of gain
later in the period. During the last 41 days she made an
average gain of 1.27 pounds per day.

The pig from Lot 4, however, which had been losing

weight for some time before being changed and had gained

U U

it all back before the change, did not show much improve-
ment with the addition of the iodine to the ration. He
gained a total of only 30 pounds during the 71 days on
this ration.

The Duroc pig from Lot 3 was also put on the iodized
ration at the close of the original eXperiment. At the end
of 32 days he had lost six pounds in weight.

Evidently the addition of iodine did not make the
ration satisfactory fer all pigs although it may have had
some influence on two of the pigs.

Table 9

Average daily gain of thrifty pigs by 30 day periods

lst 2nd 3rd 4th Total

30 da. 30 da. 30 da. 20 da. 110 da.

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
Lot - 3 pigs .989 1.6 1.744 2.1 1.56413084
Lot - 4 pigs 1.042 1.3 1.367 1.337 1.25513034
Lot - 2 pigs 1.183 1.633 1.813 1.65 1.56412078
Lot - 3 pigs 1.189 1.578 1.689 1.783 1.53913111
Lot - 4 pigs 1.142 1.483 1.308 1.337 1.31613078
Lot - 3 pigs .867 1.256 1.667 1.4 1.28813058

67

The average daily gain by periods of the pigs
that finished with steady gains throughout the experiment
shows some variation. Quite a bit of this variation is
probably due to individuality of the different pigs. The
initial weights varied somewhat in the beginning so that
the lack of uniformity among the lots after some pigs were
removed may have been partly responsible. The pig sub-
stituted in Lot 1 develOped into a very growthy pig
that gained very well. Lots 2 and 5 did not contain pigs
that were as good individuals as some pigs inthe other
lots. This situation was evident soon after the beginning
of the exgeriment.

However, the milk-fed lots as a whole showed
faster gains than the tankage lot, Lot 6, and yet the pigs
in the tankage lot seemed to be equally as good individ-
uals as those in any other lot, except possibly Lot 1.

The outstanding point of the eXperiment as shown
by the rates of gain is that some pigs in various lots
failed ent irely to utilize to good advantage the rations
offered, while all the other pigs made gains that would
be considered good average results with other rations of
recognized value for growing and fattening pigs.

Comparison of Rations

The comparative value of the rations fed is
made on the basis of the pigs which finished the entire
trial with continuous gains. The deduction of feed for the

pigs removed from the lots is made in the same manner as in

EXperiment I .

Average

Table 10
daily rat ion per pig

Lot 1 - 3 pigs
Ground Rye
Ground Alfal fa
Buttermilk
Minerals
Salt

Total

Lot 2 - 4 pigs
Ground Rye
Buttermilk
Alfalfa
Mineral 8
-Salt

Total

Lot 3 - 2 pigs
Ground Rye
Buttermilk
Alfalfa
Minerals
Salt

Total

lst 2nd 3rd
30 da. 30 da. 30 da.
lbs. lbs. lbs.
3.024 3.983 5.221
.159 .573 .446
5.051 5.141 6.478
8.234 9.497 12.145
2.858 3.779 4.759
4.829 4.958 5.717
.5 .425 .438
8.187 9.162 10.914
2.848 4.82 6.375
4.785 6.428 7.77
.513 .548 .661
8.146 11.796 14.806

4th
.20 da.

lbs.

6.266

.4
7.333

13.999

12.632

5.717

6.992
.307

13.016

68

Total
110 da

lbs.

4.475

5.88
.0076
.0076

10.7092

4.135

5.451

.418
.0068
.0068
10.0176

4.87
6.449
.526
.0073
.0073
11.8596

Table 10 continued

Lot 4 - 3 pigs
Ground Rye
Buttermilk
Alfalfa
Minerals
Salt

Total

Lot 5 - 4 pigs
Ground Rye
Skim Milk
Alfahfa
Minerals
Salt

Total

Lot 6 - 3 pigs
Ground Rye
Tankage
Alfalfa
Minerals
Salt

Total

lst

30 (18.0

lbs.

2.858

5.716

.541

9.115

2.517

5.034
.542

2.908
.218

3.462

2nd

30 da.

lbs.

4.708

9.168

.588

14.464

3.5

6.783

.483

10.766

4.6

.272
.346

5.218

3rd
30 da.

lbs.

5.37

10.74

.39

16.5

4.2
8.4

12.963

5.416

.284
.167

5.867

4th
20 (18..

lbs.

5.333

10.667
.3

16.3

15.3

5.7

.3
.117

6.117

69

Total
110 da.

lbs.

4.498

8.928

.468
.0073
.0073
13.9086

3.695

7.332

.433
.0068
.0068
11.4736

4.561
.266
.252
.0076
.0076

5.0942

These pigs ate quite a little lighter percentage
of alfalfa than did the smaller pigs of Experiment I. They
did not show a paunchy appearance at any time. In fact,
the amount<3f alfalfa in the ration of the limited alfalfa
lot was increased after a short time when it was evident
that the others were not consuming an excessive amount.

The tankage lot, Lot 6, shows a considerably lighter alfalfa
consumption than any of’the other lots. 0f the other lots,
two were eating from the same rack so that the amount taken
by each lot was considered to be in preportion to the
number of pigs in the lots after some were removed. There
was no doubt some error there on account of the pigs which
were going off feed. A small amount of mineral mixture

was eaten and.an equal amount of salt.

The daily ration probably was governed somewhat by
the individuality of the pigs in the same manner as the
gains produced. It seems reasonable that pigs consuming so
large a rat ion and making greater gains per day would show
a greater individual variation in the daily ration and in
the rate of gain than should pigs which are taking only a
light ration and gaining more slowly, as in the case of
Experiment I. The possible inaccuracy in deducting feed
consumed by pigs removed may account for some of the
variations among the lots. This is especially trueibr
Lots 3 and 4 when.they show a decreased feed consumption

during the last period.

Table 11

Feed per hundred pounds gain

Lot 1- 3 pigs
Ground Rye
Ground Alfalfa
Buttermilk
Minerals
Salt

Total

Lot 2 - 4 pigs
Ground Rye
Buttermilk
Alfalfa
Minerals
salt

Total

Lot 3 - 2 pigs
Ground Bye
Buttermilk
Alfalfa
Minerals
Salt

Total

1st

30 da.

lbs.

505.8

16.1

510.8

832.7

274.4

463.6

48

786.0

240.7

404.4
43.4

688.5

2nd

50 C130

lbs.

249

23.3

321.3

593.6

290.7

381.4

32.7

704.8

295.1

393.6
33.6

722.3

3rd

50 (139

lbs.

299.3

25.5

371.3

696.1

348.2

418.3

32.1

798.6

350.9

427.7
36.4

815.0

4th

20 6.3..

lbs.

298.4

19

349.2

666.6

422.4

502.8

19.2

944.4

346.5

423.8
18.6

788.9

71

Total
110 (130

lbs.

286.2
21.7
375.
.48
.48
684.86

329.6
434.5
33.4
.54
.54
798.58

311.4

412.4

33.6
.47
.47

758.34

Feed per hundred pounds gain

Lot 4 - 3 pigs
Ground Rye
Buttermilk
Alfalfla
Minerals
Salt

Total

Lot 5 - 4 pifs
Ground Rye
Skim Milk
Alfalfa
Mineral s
Salt

Total

Lot 6 - 3 pigs
Ground Rye
Tankage
Alfalfa
Minerals
Salt

Total

Table 11 continued

1st 2nd 3rd
30 da. 30 da. 30 da.
lbs. lbs. lbs.
240.4 298.4 318
480.8 581.1 635.9
45.5 37.3 23
766.7 916.8 976.9
220.4 236 321
440.8 457.3 642
47.4 32.6 27.8
708.6 725.9 990.8
335.5 366.4 324.9
25.1 21.7 17.
38.7 27.5 10.
399.3 415.6 351.9

4th
20 (130

lbs.

299.1

598.2

16.8

914.1

373.8

747.7

22.4

1143.9

407.1

21.4

8.3

436.8

72

Total
110 da

lbs.

292.2

579.9

30.4
.47
.47
903.44

280.8

557.2

32.9
.52
.52
871.94

354.1
20.6
19.6

.59
.59
395.48

There is doubtless more or less error in.the
deduction of feed for the pigs remcved since it is abso-
luteley impossible to tell how much feed was consumed by
the individual pugs. Although they were eating very light-
ly, more feed probably is required for each pound of gain,
and more especially for maintenance, than is given in the
standards used.in the computations. A.sing1e weight between
30 day periods is also a likely source of'error since a
pig or a lot may vary in fill at different times.

A moderate increase in feed required per pound
of gain is seen in all lots except Lot 1 as the feeding
period progressed, and in Lots 2 and 6 a sharp increase is
noted in the last period. The two pigs removed from Lot 1
early in the feeding period and the extra good pig substituted
no doubt account ficr the more economical gains later in the
period.

Taking the lots individually and as a whole, the
amount of feed required fer each unit of gain is no higher
than would be eXpected for any g®od ration under similar

conditions.

Milk Lots compared with Check Lots.
A comparison of the milk fed lots with the tankage
check lot shows the following differences between each milk
lot and the check lot in feed required to produce one

hundred pounds gain.

7%

Table 12

-Differences in feed requirements per cwt. gain

Milk Lots Check Lot;

Milk Alfalfa Ground Tankage
hay rye

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
LOt l 576 2.]. 1‘6placed 6709 2006
Lot 2 434.5 13.8 24.5 20.6
Lot 3 412.4 14 42.7 20.6
Lot 4 579.9 10.8 61.9 20.6
Lot 5 557.2 13.3 73.3 20.6

Nutrient Requirement
The total digestible nutrients used in producing
each hundred pounds of gain in the various lots shows agann
the similar results obtained from the different rations.
Table 13

Total Digestible Nutrients per hundred pounds gain

1st. 2nd. 3rd. 4th. Total
30 da. 30 da. 30 da. 20 da. 110 da.
lbs. lbs. leQ leQ - lbs.
Lot 1- 3 pigs 298.9 240.7 286.9 280.9 274.6
Lot 2- 4 pigs 285.9 284.4 333.7 394.3 320.7
Lot 3- 2 pigs 251.3 289.3 339 326.2 304.3
Lot 4- 3 pigs 258.6 309.7 322.8 301.2 301
Lot 5- 4 pigs 243.2 249.5 332.7 382.4 295.1
--1 c a “2:: 505.7 326.4 280.5 349.4 310.9

75

As mentioned before, the individuality of the pigs
doubtless was reSponsible for some of the differences shown.
The good pigs in Lot 1 show the best results and the common
pigs in Lot 2 show the poorest results. The check lot of
rye and tankage, Lot 6, is slightly higher than the other
three milk lots, which are quite close together in nutrients
trequired. No lot shows a material advantage over the check
lot of rye, tankage and alfalfa hay.
Table 14

Feed cost per hundred pounds gain

lst. 2nd. 3rd. 4th. Total

50 d3. 30 d3. 30 (18.. 20 6.80 110 d8.
Lot 1- 3 pigs $6.75 $5.19 $6.16 $6.01 $5.97
Lot 2- 4 pigs 6.33 6.13 7.14 8.49 6.95
Lot 3- 2 pigs 5.55 6.25' 7.24 7.03 6.59
Lot 4- 3 pigs 5.87 7.08 7.49 7.00 6.94
Lot 5- 4 pigs 5.42 5.61 7.59 8.76 6.70
Lot 6- 3 pigs 6.08 6.35 5.46 6.81 6.09

Ground Rye $30 per ton, tankage $60 per ton, milk

40 cents per cwt., alfalfa $15 per ton, mineral and salt

$30 per ton.

The cost of the rations was figured on the same basis

as in.EXperiment 1. Lot 1, the limited alfalfa lot, again

shows an advantage, part of which may be due to the ration

and part to the individuality of the pigs.

With the

76

,exception of Lot 1, Lot 6, fed Ground Rye, Tankage and
Alfalfa hay shows the cheapest cost per pound of gain.
However, they did not show as good finish as the pigs in
the milk lots.

The differences among the other lots receiving
milk with the rye are entirely within the possibility of
experimental error.

Table 15
Differences between lots in rate of gain

with Probable Error.

Greater Gain Lesser Cain Differences Probable
in gain Error
Lot ho. Lot no. lbs. lbs.
1 2 .31 .09
1 3 .0 .115
1 4 .025 .139
1 5 .248 .114
1 6 .276 .102
3 2 '.309 .085
3 4 .025 .136
3 5 .248 .11
3 6 .276 .077
4 2 .284 .116
4 5 .223 .136
4 6 .251 .125
5 2 .061 .084
5 6 .028 .097
6 2 .033 .067

.77

In only three cases is the difference in rate of
gain between two lots greater than three times the probable
error. The probable error of many of the differences is
practically as great and in some cases even greater than the
difference in gain. This table emphasizes the conclusion
mentioned previously, that with the small number of pigs
and the individual differences among the pigs there is little
significant difference among the lots.

Summary of Results

l..A ration containing ground rye as the chief
source of grain feed can not be used efficiently by many pigs.

2. Older and heavier pigs seem to utilize rye to
better advantage.6

3. Limiting the alfalfa in the ration may be of
some advantage.

4. There is little if any benefit from soaking the
ration ofhrye and buttermilk before feeding.

5. Increasing the amount of buttermilk beyond the
amounts necessary to balance the ration prOperly is of
little or no advantage.

6. Buttermilk and sweet skim milk are apparently
equal as supplements to rye.

7. Buttermilk or skimmilk seems to be supprior to
60% meat meal tankage in producing gains and finish on pigs

with rye as the source of grain.

78

8t Iodine does not seem to be efficient in all
cases, if any, in completing the deficiencies in a ration
of ground rye and buttermilk, with alfalfa self-fed.
9. Ground rye produces economical gains if the pigs
will consume enough feed to gain consistently.
10. Palatability is probably not the only
limiting factor.

l.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

79

Bibliography

Hays , F. A.

Delaware Station Bulletin 124, 1919.

Henry and Morrison.

"Feeds and Feeding".

Ferrin, E. F. and McCarty, 11. A.

Mimeograph Sheets.

Paper delivered at the American Society of Animal
Production, IIov. 27, 1925 by E. F. Ferrin.

Personal information from Ferrin and McCarty.

University of Minnesota.

Morgan, George, Supt., North Montana Branch Station,
University of Montana Agricultural Experiment Station,
Thirtieth annual report, February,1924.

Fieldsted, E. J. and Potter, E. L.
Oregon Agricultural College Station
Bulletin 165

Eastwood

Ohio Station Bulletin 268, pages 147-164.

Kennedy, Evvard, Kildee and Robbins
Iowa Agricultural Station
Bulletin 136

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

80

Mumford, F. B. and Weaver, L. A.
Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station

Bulletin 110.

Brown, G. A. and Edwards, W. E. J.

Unpublished data from Experiment Station

'TMichigan State College.

BrOVV-Al, Go A. 811d Edwards. 170 E. J.
Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 8, No. 2,.Nov. 1925.

Michigan Experiment Station.

Brown, G. A.
Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 4, Ho. 1, Aug. 1921.

Michigan Experiment Station.

Ferrin, E. F. and Winchester, H. B.
Kansas State Agricultural College
Circular 89.

Gibson, U. H.
Dominion of Canada EXperiment Farm, Indian Head, Sask.
Report of Supt., 1925.

Matthews, Victor
.Agricultural Experiment Station, Scott, Sask.
Report of Supt., 1924.

Snyder, W. P.

Supt. Horth.Platte Substation

Hebraska.Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 147
Horth.P1atte Substation Bulletin 16.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

81

Faville, A. D.
Wyoming Experiment Station Bulletin 114, 1917.

Hultz, Ered S.

' flyo. Annual Report,Experiment Station 1924-5.

Freeman, V. A.
Extension Specialist in Animal Husbandry
Michigan State College

Personal Information.

Osborne, T. B. and Mendel, L. B.
Carnegie Institute
Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 16, page 4255.

McCollum et a1
John.H0pkins University
Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1919, pp. 155-178

McCollum, Simmonds and.Parsons

J. B. C. 47, 1921, pp. 255-420

Osborne and.Hendel
J. B. Co 41. 1920, pp. 275-950
Chemical Abstract, Vol. 14, page 2365.

0stwa1d, U0

Colloidal Chemistry of Bread

Kblloid Zeit., Liepzig.

Chemical Abstract, Vol. 14, page 1167.

e4.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

82

Groh, J. and Priedl, G.
University of Budapest
Biochemical Zeitung, 66, pp. 154-64.

Chemical Abstract, Vol. ', page 3446.

McCollum, Simmonds and Parsons

J.B.C. 47, 1921, Page 215.

Hart and Bentley
University of Wisconsin

J.B.C. 22. 1915, pp. 479 and 483.

Turner, J. D. and Spears, H. D.
Kentucky Station Bulletin 203

Experiment Station Record, Vol. 36, page 269.

Osborne and Mendel

Connecticutt Agricultural College and
Carnegie Institute

J.B.C. 20, 1915, page 352.

HonCamp, F. and Nolte, 0.
Landwerts Vers. Stat. 96, 1920.

Experiment Station Record, Vol. 44, page 867.

HonCamp, ileumami and Mullner
Landierts Vers, Stat. 81, 1913

Experiment Station Record, Vol. 30, 1914, page 565.

APPENDIX

83

84

Table I
Weights of pigs by periods

Lot 1 - 3 pigs Tankagi check lot.
9.3. 9 5.3. 15 H.B. 3 Total
lbs. 159. lbs. 153.
July 9,1925 35 34 43 112
' 10 36 36 45 117
7 11 33 34 43 110
Avirago Initial at.
July 10 35 35 44 114
' 25 140
465. I 169
' 14 41 64 75 190
' 25 209
s.pt. 4 236
' 14 54 95 113 262
i 24 *52 299
Oct. 3 I"5358
' 14 130 152 *292
i 24 146 164 310
Nov. 7 166 197 353

* 3.3. 9 ICmOVCd SCPto 24

Table-I continued
Weights of pigs by periods

hot 2- 3 pigs Linseed meal
5.5. 29 5.5. 5 H.B. 43 Total
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
July 9,1925 32 39 40 111
' 10 33 39 42 114
7 11 33 39 40 111
Average Initial It.
July 10 ' 33 39 41 113
7 25 136
.... 5 ' 159
7 14 49 69 53 179
7 25 205
Sept. 4 235
7 14 73 97 95 265
7 24 294
o... 3 319
- 7 14 79 133 127 339
7 24 *90 145 139 365
55v. 7 150 153 *313

*5.5. 29 removed Oct. 24

86

Table I continued
Weights of pigs by periods

Lot 3- 3 pigs Locust Bean.Meal
3.3. 49 D.B. 15 H.B. 33 Total
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
July 9, 1925 31 30 48 109
' 10 80 29 48 107
' 11 30 30 49 109

Arerege Initial Wt.

July'lo 30 30 49 108
7 25 132
Aug. 5 168
7 14 52 54 70 176
7 25 199
Sept. 4 228
7 14 72 99 96 256
7 24 296
out. 3 337
7 14 ' 97 129 143 369
7 24 103 144 159 405

Nov. 7 112 164 175 452

Table I continued
Weights of pigs by periods

.Lot 4- 3 pigs Cod liver oil
3.3. 19 D.B. 419 H.B. 13
lbs. lbs. lbs.
July 9, 1925 36 35 41
' 10 36 35 43
' ll 36 33 41

Aterege Initial Wt.

July 10 35 34 42
' 86

1... 5
' 14 45 53 74
" 85

3.55: 4
' 14 51 75 116
" 24 *49

Oct. 3
" 14 103 167
" 24 112 176

Nov. 7 128 194

* 3.3. 19 removed Sept. 24

87

Total
lbs.
112
11}
110

112
135
154
178
190
221
242
271
*243
270
288
322

88

Table.I continued
Weights of pigs by periods

Lot 5- 3 pigs Fresh Buttermilk
3.8. 39 D.B. 5 H.B. 23 Total
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
July 9,1926 37 4O 30 107
' 10 39 4o 31 110
" 11 37 43 31 111

Average Initial Wt.

July 10 39 41 31 110
7 25 135
.... 5 155
7 14 *42 73 60 175
7 25 *155
Sept. 4 p 179
7 14 119 91 209
7 24 232
Oct. 3 ' 269
7 14 151 132 293
7 24 ‘155 152 317
Nov. 7 194 157 351

* 5.3. 39 5144 August 13.

89

Table I continued
Weights of pigs by periods

Lot 6- 3 pigs Soaked Buttermilk
5.3. 59 5.5. 25 5.3. 3 707.1
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
July 9,1925 34 39 37 110
7 lo 35 7 41 39 114
7 11 33 4o 40 113
Average Initial Wt.
July 10 34 4o 39 112
7 25 149
lug. 5 190
7 14 52 7o 59 200
7 25 232
Sept. 4 ‘269
7 14 93 110 105 309
7 24 345
o... 3 - 394
7 14 130 ' 142 151 423
7 24 140 156 169 464

Nov. 7 153 161 182 496

Table I continued

Heights of pigs by periods

Lot 7- 3 pigs Fresh Alfalfa
' 5.5. 29 5.3. 25 5.3. 13
lbs. lbs. lbs.

July 9, 1925 37 40 33

‘ n 10 36 41 31
n 11 37 40 30

Average Initial Wt.

July 10 '37 4o 31
7 25

Aug. 5
u 14 59 73 54
" 25

Sept. 4
n 14 _ 95 111 81
'" 24

Oct. 3
u 14 115 151 115
n 24 *112 170 126

Nov. 7 7 168 158

* 5.5. 29 removed Oct. 24th.

Total

lbs.
109

108
107

Table II

91

Total gain.per lot of thrifty pigs by 30 day periods

Lot 1- 8
Lot 2- 2
Lot 3- 3
Lot 4- 2
Lot 6-72
Lot 6-_3

Lot 7- 8

pigs

9183

918'

pigs

9183

918'

pigs

lot
35 da.

lbfie
50

51

68

51

61

88

56

and
31 ds.

lble
69

61

80

64

76

108

65

3rd
30 dCe

lbs.
74

68

113

79

74

115

75

4th
24 ds.

lbs.
71

53

83

52

68

73

39

Total
120 do.

188s
274

833

344

246

279

384

235

Table 111

read Consumption.by periods

Lot 1 Tankage oheok lot

lat 15 da.(rye ao-manr.6i)
8nd 11 ' '
3rd 9 9 5

Total 35 days

4th 11 da.(rye 60-2.nk.6&)
6th 10 ' (rye 50-Tank. 4)
6th 10 * (rye SO-Tank. 4i

Total 31 days. I

7th 10 da.(rys 60-Tank. 4)

8th 9 " (rye 60-Tank. 3)

9th 11 3' ' ‘
Total so days

10th 10 da.(rye 50-Tank.3)
11th 14 * " '
total 24 days‘

Total 120 days

* Approximately 16% alfalfa deducted for waste

Ground Tankage
Rye

lbs. lbs.
.....59.... 0
0.0006600...

0.00.6300...

178.4 19.6

00.0.7105...
.....8‘05000

0.00.9000...

226 20

00.0.8905...
.....77.5...

00.0.9900...

249.5 16.5

0.0010500...
0.0.1‘105000
236.3 » 8.2

890.2 64.3

9 £3

Alfalfa

lbs.
14
24
16

*45

18
15
15
I"4O

12
9.6
7.2

I“24.5

9.6
8
*15

*124.5_

from,raoks.

Table III continued
lead consumption by periods
Lot 2 Linseed Oilmeal
Ground Tankage Linseed Alfalfa

rye Oilmeal
lbae lbse 1b8e lbs.
lit 15 110(2). 46-L.0.M. 7;
tags. 205 eeeeee 69 eeeeee 14
2nd11 II I eeeeee 67.5 eeeee 24
3rd. 9 I ll eeeeee 53 eeeeee 15
303.1 36 days 157.1 3.3 23.9 *45
4th 11 dlo(r70 45-L.0.M. 7)
t‘nkaga 205 eeeeee 7105 eeeee 18
5th 10 " (rye 50-L.0.M. 5) a
. tankage 2 ) eeeeee “e5eeeeee 15
5th 10 7 ' ...... 90 ...... 15
902.1 31 days 212.4 9.3 24.3 *40
7th 10 da.(rye so-L.o.m. 5)
, tankag. 2 ) eeeeee 89.5 aeeee 12
8th 9 " (rye so-L.o.u. 3)
. , tankago 105 ) 00.9.. 80 eeeee 1404
gth 11 age I! eeeeee 110 eeeee 10e8
fatal 30 a... 262.8 8.5 17.2 *31
10th 10 da.(rye BO-L.0.M. 3)
tmkage 105 ) eaeeee 100 eeeee 14e‘
11th 14 n ' eeeeee 130 eeeee 8
133.1 24 a... 211 6.3 ' 12.7 *19
Totll 120 days 833.3 32.5 78.1 *135

* Approximately 16% alfalfa was deducted for waste from racks

94

iable III continued

Feed consumption by periods
Lot 3- Locust Bean.Meal

Ground Tankage Locust Alfalfa

- rye Bean.Mea1
lbaa lbae lbs. lee
lst 15 da.(rye 45.1.3.3. 5)
tankage 6 ) eeeeee 69 eeeeee 14
2nd 11 n R eeeeee 66 eeeeee 21
.3rd 9 u n eeeeee 53.5 eeeee 12
Total 35 days 151.5 20.2 16.8 *40
4th 11 da.(rye 45-L.B.M. 5)
tankage 6 ) eeeeee 71e5 eeee 18
5th 10 d8e‘ry0 45-LeBQMe 5) eeeeee 84.5 eeee 15
tankage 4.5 )
6th 10 n 7' .0000. 8805 O... 16
58581 31 days 200.3 21.9 22.3 *41
7th 10 da.(rye 45-L.B.M. 5)
tank‘s. 3.5 ) eeeeee 89.5 eeee 12
8th 9 “0‘”. ‘E'LeBaMe 6)
. tankage 3.5 ’ eeeeee 110.5 eeee 1‘04
gth 11 d‘e N eeeeee 154 eeee 10e8
Total 30 days 295.4 24.7 32.9 *31
10th 10 da.(rye 45-L.B.M. 5)
. tankage 3.5 ) ...... 150 .... 14.4
llth 14 9 7 ' ...... 232 .... 9.5
703.1 24 days 321.3 25 35.7 *20.5
lotal 120 days 959.5 91.8 107.7 *132.5

‘ Approximately 16% alfalfa deducted for waste from racks

Table III continued

Feed consumption by periods

Lot 4 Cod Liver Oil
Ground Tankage
rye
1b8. lbs.
lot 15 da.(rye 50-Tank. 5.5) .... 69 ....
2nd 11 ' ' .... 55 ....
3rd 9 7 * .... 53.5 ..
5...; 35 days 159.8 18.7
4th 11 da.(rye BO-Tank. 5.5) .... 71.5 ..
5th 10 ' (rye BO-Tank. 4 ) .... 84.5 ..
6th 10 5 " .... 90 ...
Total 31 day. 225 20
7th 10 da.(rye BO-Tank. 4) .... 87.5 ..
8th 9 " (rye BO-Tank. 5) .... 77.6 ..
9th 11 7 ' .... 99 ...
Total 30 day5 247.! 15.3
10th 10 da.(rye 50-Tank. 3) ... 100 ...
11th 14 " ' ... 140 ...
Total 24 day. 225.4 13.5
Total 120 days 859.9 58.5

lbl.
14
21
12

*40

18
15
15

*41

12
9.6
7.2

*24

9.6
6.4

*13.5

*118.5

* Approximately 15% deducted for waste from racks.

Alfalfa Cod Liver

Oil
5.0.
500
440
340

1280

435
500

L500
1435

450
500
300

1250

400
650

1050

5015

96

‘Table III continued

Peed consumption by periods

Lot 6 Fresh Buttermilk
Ground Tankage Alfalfa
rye
lbs. lbs. lbs.
Lat 15 days 66.6 140.6 16
2nd 11 7 43.5 108.8 24
3rd 9 7 51 127.5 12
4.4.1 35 days 151 375.8 *45
4th 11 days 43.5 108.7 13.5
5th 10 7 41.5 71.5 12
525 10 7 57.5 95 12
roto1 31 days ' 142.5 275.5 *32
7th 10 days 72 117 9.5
8th 9 7 79 98 9.5
9th 11 7 100 I20 7.2
Total30 days 261 336 *22
10th 10 days 96 114 7.2
llth 14 7 140 158 5.4
Total 24 days 235 282 *11
Total 120 days 779.5 1259.3 *110

* Approximately 16% alfalfa deducted for waste from racks.

97

Table III continued

FIOd consumption by periods

Lot 6 Soaked Buttermilk
Ground rye Buttermilk Alfalfa
soaked 12 hours.
lbs. lbs. 158.
1st 15 days 55.5 150.5 15
2nd 11 7 54 135 24
3rd 9 7 47 117.5 12
Total 35 days 155.5 413 *45
4th 11 days 52.5 154.5 20.4
55a 10 7 73 131.5 18
6th 10 7 87 147 18
Total 31 days 222.5 433 *49
7th 10 days 90 153 . 14.4
8th 9 7 101 119 14.4
995 11 7 132 154 10.8
Total 30ndays 323 425 *33
10th 10 days 127 154 10.8
11th 14 7 195 238 9.5
Total 24 days 323 392 *17
Total 120 days 1035 1554 *144

* Approximately 16% alfalfa deducted for waste from racks.

98

Table III continued
Deed consumption by periods
Lot 7 1.... 41:51:.

Ground Tankage Fresh
rye Alfalfa
lbs. lbs. lbs.

let l6 da.(rye 50-tank. 6.5) ..... 78 ..... 83
2nd ll 7 7 ..... 55 ..... 48
3rd 9 7 7 ..... 53 ..... 47
Total 35 days 185.5 20.5 178

4th 11 da.(rye 50-tank. 6.5) ..... 71.6 ... 68
6th 10 7 (rye 60-tank. 4 ) ..... 94.5 ... 54
6th 10 2 7 .....109.5 .... 81
fotal 31 days ' 253.3 22.2 213

7th 10 da.(rye 60-tank. 4) .....108 ..... 94
8th 9 7 (rye 50-tank 3 ) .... 115 ..... 83
9th 11 7 7 .... 151 ..... 82
Total 30 days 351 7 23 259

1075 10 days(rye 60-tank. 3) .... 140 ..... 73
11th 14 7 7 .... 155 ...... 80
Total 24 days. 279.3 15.7 153

Total 120 days 1070.1 82.4 803

99

Table IV

'Feed deducted for pigs removed

lst 2nd 3rd 4th Total
36 da. 31 da. 30 da. 24da. 120 da.
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
Lot 1
10 da.
5.5. 9 711.57% 16.87% 3.93%
Ground Rye 20.8 38.1 3.3 62.2
18338.8. 2.3 3.4 .3 60
Alfalfa 5.3 6.7 .5 12.6
Lot 2
1 10 da.
B.S. 29 “723.52% 28.74% 11.15% 11.23
Ground rye 36.9 61 28.2 10.3 136.4
Tankage 2. 2.7 .9 .3 5.9
Linseed Meal 5.5 ‘7. 1.9 .5 15.1
Alfalfa 10.6 11.5 3.6 1.6 27.2
Lot 4
10 da.
3.8. 19 717.13% 11.04% 3.7
Ground Rye 29.1 24.9 3. 57.
Tankage 3.2 2.2 .2 6.6
Alfalfa 6.8 4.5 .6 11.8
Cod Liver 011 219.3 0.0. l58.4c.c. l7c.c. 394.7c.c.

* Percentage of total feed of the lot consumed by pig later

removed.

100

Table IV continued

Feed deducted for pigs removed

lat 2nd 3rd 4th Total
35 da. 31 da. 30,da. 24 da. 120 da.
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
Lot 5 ' ‘
3.8. 39 * 9.51%
Ground Rye 14.4 14.4
Buttermilk 36.8 35.8
Alfalfa 4.3 4.3
Lot 7
. ‘ 10 da.

B.B. 29 *28.84% 35.14% 22.9% 6.62%
Ground Rye 63.8 89 .80.4 7.4 230.6
Tankage 5.9 7.9 5.3 .4 19.5
Alfalfa 61.3 74.8 69.3 4.1 189.6

fresh

* Percentage of

remove d 0

total feed of the lot consumed by pig later

101

Table V
Feed consumed by thrifty pigs by periods

lst 2nd 3rd 4th Total
35 da 31 da 30 da 24 da 120 68..
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

Lot 1- 2 pigs

Ground Rye 157.5 187.9 245.2 235.3 828

Tankage 17.3: 16.6 16.2 8.2 68.3

Alfalfa 39.7 33.3 24 16 112
Lot 2- 2 pigs

Ground Rye 120.2 161.4 224.6 200.7 696.9

Tankage 6.6 6.6 7.6 5. 26.7

Linseed 18.3 17.3 16.3 12.1 63.

Oilmeal

Alfalfa 34.4 28.6 27.5 17.4 107.8
Lot 3- 3 pigs

Ground Rye 161.6 200.3 296.4 321.3 969.6

Tankage 20.2 21.9 24.7 26 91.8

Locust Bean 16.8 22.3 32.9 36.7 107.7

Alfalfa 40 41 31 20.6 132.6
Lot 4- 2 pigs

Ground Rye 140.7 201.1 244.7 226.4 812.9

Tankage 16.6 17.8 16.1 13.6 63

Alfalfa 33.2 36.5 23.6 13.6 106.7

God liver oil

1060.700 1276.600 1233 00 106000 4620.300

102

Table 7 continued

Feed consumed by thrifty pigs by periods

lst 2nd 3rd 4th Total
36 da 31 da 30 da 24 da 120 da
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
Lot 6- 2 pigs
Ground Rye 136.6 142.6 261 236 766.1
Buttermilk 341 276.6 336 282 1233.6
Alfalfa 40.7 32 32 11 116.7
Lot 6- 3 pigs
Ground Rye 166.6 222.6 323 323 1036
Buttermilk 413 433 426 392 1664
Alfalfa 45 49 33 17 144
Lot 7- 2 pigs
(Ground Eye 132.7 164.3 270.6 271.9 839.5
Tankage 14.6 14.4 17.7 16.3 63
Alfalfa 126.7 138.2 199.7 148.9 613.6

fresh

103

Table VI
Weights of pigs by 10 day periods
Lot 1- 4 pigs Limited Alfalfa
‘ Y.B. 7 C.B. 35 P.S. 3 H.S. 15 Total

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

Feb. 10,1926 66 77 57 74 274
Feb. 11 65 80 57 74 276
" 12 66 82 58 72 278

Average Initial Wt.

rob. 11 55 80 57 73 275
7 20 58 95 58 79 311
Mar. 3 82 115 50 _ 86 344
7 13 98 131 53 90 382

7 23 112 147 *124 92 *475
Apr. 2 125 159 145 95 537
7 12 _ 138 184 158 *I100 590
7 22 154 , 204 186 **544
May 2 170 225 7 208 503
7 12 184 238 225 547
7 22 195 251 249 705
7 31 217 281 259 757
June 1 214 284 273 771
7 2 ' 217 290 275 783

Average Final Wt.
June 1 216 285 272 773

* P.S. 3 removed Mar. 13th. 0.3. 26 put in the same date,
weight 117 lbs. Gain in weight by change 54 lbs.
** 3.8. 16 removed April 12th.

104

Table VI continued
Weights of pigs by 10 day periods
'Lot 2- 4 pigs Fresh Buttermilk

B.S. 2 0.8. 6 P.B. 3 H.S. 6 Total

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

Feb. 10,1925 79 50 so 73 292
" 11 77 61 79 76 293
" 12 75 59 82 *67 283

Average Initial Wt.

Feb. 11 77 50 80 73 290
7, 20 80 - 59 91 78 318
Mar. 3 93 81 108 90 372
7 13 104 91 119 101 415
7 23 119 110 131 114 474
Apr. 2 135 125 151 128 539
7 12 145 129 150 135 571
7 22 150 142 175 154 532

_ n4, 2 175 151 188 153 578
7 12 185 155 201 182 735
7 ‘ 22_ 200 179 224 188 791
7 31 210 191 239 207 847
June 1 210 193 237 205 845
7 2 210 195 234 200 834

Average'Final Wt.
June 1 210 191 237 204 842

* H.S. 6 not eating Feb. 12, weighed empty.

 

Lot 3- 4 pigs

Table VI continued

105

Weights of pigs by 10 day periods

Y.S. 3
lbs.

Fob. 10.1926 82

" ll
" 12
Average
Feb. 11
' 20
Mar. 3
' 13
" 23
Apr. 2
' l2
" 22
May 2
" 12
7 22
" 31
June 1
" 2

82
81
Initial Wt.

82

94
108
119
139
154
166
185
200
211
230
234
236
240

Average Final Wt.

June 1

236

C.B.
lbs.
61
63
62

62

74

83

96
115
133
147
166
191
211
231
250
252
253

252

* B.S. 4 removed April 22nd.

26

Soaked Buttermilk

D.B. 4
lbs.
73
74
77

74

85

99
108
124
130
133
128
135
138
140
151
146
149

149

3.8.
lbs.
68
66
67

67
79
88
100
111
122
122
*118

4

Total
lbs.
284
285
287

285
332
378
423
489
539
558
597
*525
550
501
535
534
542

637

106

Table VI continued
Weights of pigs by 10 day periods
Lot 4- 4 pigs Liberal Buttermilk
Y.S. 2 0.3. 5 D.B. 1 H.B. 2 Total

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

353. 10,1925 83 75 55 53 278
" ll 82 77 66 61 276
" 12 81 77 67 50 276

Average Initial Wt.

Feb. 11 82 77 55 51 275
7 20 91 88 75 59 313
1.4. 3 107 101 90 74 372
7 13 119 115 102 82 419
7 23 139 130 115 95 480
Apr. 2 151 152 105 115 543
7 12 172 158 108 119 557
7 22 191 191 *112 129 523
May 2 217 209 137 *553
7 12 232 232 147 511
7 22 248 254 152 554
7 31 272 255 178 715
June 1 . 274 27: 173 ‘ 7.19

" 2 271 273 176 720

Average Final Wt.
June -1 .272 270 176 718

‘ D.B. 1 removed April 22nd.

107

Table VI continued

Weights of pigs by 10 day periods

Lot 6- 4 pigs Liberal Skim milk
B.S. 5 0.3. 33 3.5. 5 8.3. 4 Total
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
Feb. 10,1925 79 72 71 51 283
7 11 77 71 74 52 284
7 12 75 71 *53 53 273

Average Initial Wt. 1

lab 11 77 - 71 72 52 282
7 20 91 83 87 54 325
I23. 3 107 91 100 73 373
7 13 115 110 114 79 419
7 23 130 133 128 574101 **492
Apr. 2 144 151 145 - 110 551
7 12 159 174 154 119 505
7 22 158 190 155 127 551
May 2 177 209 033 140 709
7 12 191 223 194 155 753
7 22 205 239 205 153 814
7 31 220 251 ' 222 179 872
Jun. 1 220 249 225 178 872
7 2 217 251 219 179 855

Average Final Wt.
June 1 219 260 222 179 870

‘ D.B. 6 not eating Feb. 12, weighed empty.
3* H.B. 4 removed.Mar. 13. 3.5. 5 put in same date,

weight 88 lbs. Gain in weight by change 9 lbs.

108

Table VI continued
Weights of pigs by 10 day periods
,LOt 6- 4 pigs Tankage
.r.3. 8 0.5. 3 P.B. 5 H.S. 3 Total

- lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
Feb. 10, 1925 57 50 75 57 259
7 11 72 5o 74 70 275
7 12 58 52 73 ' 58 271

Aterage Initial Wt.

Feb. 11 59 51 74 58 272
7 20 78 55 83 74 300
Mar. 3 89 81 94 78 342
7 15 100 87 100 89 375
7 23 108 105 107 105 425
Apr. 2 115 117 114 113 450
7 12 132 132 *118 125 507
7 22 145 154 139 *438
may 2 154 154 155 483
7 12 174 191 174A 539
7 22 189 210 184 583
7 31 200 222 192 514
June 1 205 225 193 523
'7 2 210 228 193 531

A7erage Final Wt.
June 1 205 225 193 623

*IP.B. 5 removed.Apri1 1233.

"Lot

Lot

Lot

Lot

Lot

Lot

139

Table VII
Total gain per lot of thrifty pigs by 30 day periods

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total

30 da 30 da 30 da 20 da 110 da

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

1- 3 pigs 89 144 157 126 516
2- 4 pigs 125 156 164 107 552
3- 2 pigs 71 98 109 66 344
4- 3 pigs 107 112 152 107 508
6- 4 pigs 137 178 157 107 579

5- 3 pigs 78 113 150 84 425

110

Table VIII.

Feed consumption by periods

Lot 1- Limited.Alfalfa
Ground Ground Buttermilk ZMineral Salt
Rye Alfalfa -
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
let 10 days 102.5 5.4 172 1 1
2nd 7 7' 114 5 190
3rd. 7 7 114 5 190
Total‘30 da. 330.5 17.4 552 1 1
4th 10 days 119.2 5.3 189.5 1 1
5th 7 7 140.4 15.5 152
6th 7 7 135.8 15.2 170
Total 35 da. 395.4 '37.1 511.5 1
7th 10 days 132.3 14.7 153.5 1
8th 7 7 150.9 12.4 199.5
9th 7 7 175.7 13.3 220
Total‘30 days 459.9 40.1 583 1
10th 10 days 185 14 220
llth 7 7 190 10 220
Total 20 da. 375 24 440
Total 110 days 1572.9 118.5 2085.5 3

111

Table VIII continued

Feed consumption by periods

lot 2- Fresh Buttermilk
Ground Buttermilk Self fed Mineral Salt
' Rye Alfalfa
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
let. it days 100 170 20 1 1
2nd. 7 7 113 189.5 20
3rd 7 7 130 220 20
Total 30 da. 343 579.5 50 1 1
4th. 10 days 143.5 234 23 l 1
5th 7 “ 158 171 V 13
6th 7 “7 152 190 15
Total 30 da. 453.5 595 51 l 1
7th 10 days 150 190 24 1 1
8th 7 7 193 238 11.4
9th 7 7 218 258 17.2
Total 50 da. 571 585 52.5 1 1
lOthmlO days 220 250 11.4
11th 7 “ 232 278 9.2
Total 25 da. 452 538 20.5

Total 110 days 1819.5 2398.5 184.2 3 3

ll 2

Table VIII continued

.Feed consumption by periods

Lot 3- Soaked Buttermilk
‘ Ground Buttermilk Self fed, Mineral Salt
Rye Alfalfa
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
lst.10 days 100 170 20 1 1
2nd 7 7 113 189.5 20
3rd 7 7 120 200 20

Total 30 days 333 559.5 50 l 1
4th 10 days 140 240 23 1 1
5th 7 7 155 157.5 13
6th 7 7 152 190 15 _

Total 30 days 448 597.5 51 1 1
7th 10 days 160 190 24 l 1
8th 7 7 140 170 8.5
9th 7 7 131 155 12.8

Total 30 days 431 525 45.4 1 1
10th 10 days 124 150 8.5
11th 7 7 152 187.5 5.8

Total 20 days 275 337.5" 15.4
Total 110 days 1488 2019.5 171.8 3 3

113

Table VIII continued

Feed consumption by periods

,Lot 4- Liberal Buttermilk
Ground Buttermilk Self fed Mineral Salt
Rye Alfalfa
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
1st 10 days 100 200 20 m 1
2nd 7 7 113 225 20
3rd 7 7 130 250 25
Total 50 da. 343 585 55 l 1
4th 10 days 125 238 24 1 1
5th 7 7 159.5 291 15
6th 7 “ 171 350 17
Total 30 da. 455.5 889 57. 1 1
7th 10 days 180 350 15 1 1
8th 7 “ 150 320 8.5
9th 7 “7 150 320 12.8
Total‘30 da. 500 1000 35.4 1 1
10th 10 days 150 320 8.6
11th 7 7 150 320 9.4
Total 20 da. 320 540 18

Total 110 days 1619.5 3215 176.4 3 3

 

Table VIII continued

Feed consumption by periods

Skimmilk

lbs.

200
204
200
604

210
284
320
814

320

368

1008

400
400
800

Lot 5 Liberal Skim milk
Ground
Rye
lbs.
1st. 10 days 100
2nd “ ". 102
3rd " " 100
Total 30 da. 302
4th 10 days 112
5th " “ 156
6th 7 ‘7 152
Total 30 da. 420
7th 10 days 160
8th " “ 160
9th " " 184
Total 30 da. 504
10th 10 days 200
11th “ " 200
TotalA2O da. 400
Total 110 days 1626

3226

Sfilf fed ‘Hineral
Alfalfa

lbs.
20
20
25
65

25
16
17
58

15

11.4
17.2
43.6

11.4
12.6
24

190.6

Salt
lee 1bSe
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 l
1 1
1 1
3 3

Table VIII continued

“Feed consumption by periods

'Lot 6 Tankage
'Ground
Rye
lbs.
lst 10 days 93
2nd “ “ 120
3rd 7 7 134

Total 30 da.347

4th 10 days 142.3
5th 7 7 159.1
6th 7 7 180.5

Total 30 da 491.9

7th 10 days 152
8th " " 164.4
9th 7 7 171
Total 30 da 487.4
10th 10 days 171
11th “ " 171

Total 20 da 342

Total 110 day81668.3

Tankage

lbs.
7
9
10
26

10.7
8.9
9.5

29.1

98.7

Self-fed
Alfalfa

lbs.
10
25
5
4O

22
5

99

115

mineral

Salt

Feed deducted for pigs removed

Lot 1
B.S. 15
Ground Rye
Alfalfa
Buttermilk
Kineral
Salt

Lot 3
D.B. 4
Ground Rye
Buttermilk
Alfalfa
mineral
Salt

H.S. 4
Ground Rye
Buttermilk
Alfalfa
Mineral

Salt

* Percentage of

removed.

1st
30 da.

lbs.

*17.55;
58.4

*24.83fl
82.7
138.9
14.9
.25

.25

*23.85fl

79.4
133.4
14.3

.25
.25

Table IX

End
30 da.

lbs.

9.55;
37.9
3.5
48.8

.25

.25

18.74fl
84
112
9.5
.25

.25

15.70;
74.8
99.8

8.5
.25
.25

3rd
30 da.

lbs.

9.68fi
40.9
49.8
4.5
.3
.3

10 da
4.753

7.6

9.

1.1
.1
.l

116

4th
20 da.

lbs.

17.15%

47.3

57.8
3.1

Total
110 da.

1bSe

96.3
6.6
146.2
.5

.5

254.9
358.5
32.2
.8

.8

161.8
242.2
23.9
.6

total feed of the lot consumed by pig later

Feed deducted for pigs removed.

Lot4
D.B. 1
Ground Rye
Buttermilk
Alfalfa
Mineral
Salt

Lot 6
P.B. 5
Ground Rye
Tankage
Alfalfa
Mineral
Salt

Table IX continued

lst
30 da.

lbs.

*25.0 %
85.8
171.5
15.3
.25

..25

*24.58;
85.3
5.4
9.8

2nd 3rd
30 da. 30 da.
lbs. lbs.
10 da.
7.19% 9.28;
32.8 16.7
63.9 33.4
4.1 1.4
.25 .1
.25 .1
15.84%
77.9
4.6
5.9
.25
.25

4th
20 da.

lbs.

117

Total
110 da.

lbs.

135.3
268.9
21.8
.6

.6

163.2
11
15.7

.5
.5

* fiercentage of total feed of the lot consumed by pig later

removed.

118

Table X

Feed consumed by thrifty pigs by periods

lst 2nd 3rd 4th Total
'30 da. 30 da. 30 da. 20 da. 110 da.
lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
Lot 1- 3 pigs
Ground Rye 272.2 358.5 469.9 376 1476.6
“. Alfalfa 14.3 33.6 40.1 24 112
Buttermilk 464.6 462.7 583 440 1940.3
Mineral .75 .76 'l 2.6
Salt .76 .76 l 2.5
Lot 2- 4 pigs
Ground Rye 343 453.6 671 462 1819.6
Buttermilk 679.6 696 686 638 2398.6
Alfalfa 6O 61 62.6 20.6 184.2
Mineral l 1 l 3
Salt 1 l l 3
Lot 3- 2 pigs
Ground Rye 170.9 289.2 382.5 228.7 1071.3
Buttermilk 287.1 385.7 466.2 279.7 1418.8
Alfalfa 30.8 32.9 f39§7 12.3 116.7
Mineral .6 .6 .6 1.6
Salt .5 .6 .6 1.6

Table X continued

Feed consumed by thrifty pigs by periods

lot 4- 3 pigs
Ground Rye
Buttermilk
.Alfalfa
Mineral
Salt

Lot 6. 4 pigs
Ground Rye
Skimmilk
Alfalfa

Mineral
Salt

Lot 6. 3 pigs
Ground Rye
Tankage
Alfalfa
Mineral
Salt

1st
50 (18..

lbs.

257.2

514.4

48.7
.75
.75

302
604
65

261.7
18.6
30.2

.75

.75

2nd
30 da.
lbs.
423.7 4
825.1 9
62.9
.75
.76
420 6
814 10
58
1
1
414 48
24.6 2
31.1 1
.76
.75 1

3rd
30,da.

lbs.

83.3

66.6

35
19
.9

04
08
43.5

7.4
5.6
5
1

4th

20 da.

1b

320
540
18

400
800
24

342
18

8.

Total

110 da.

lbs 0

1484.2
2946.1
154.6
2.4
2.4

1626
3226
190.6

1505.1
87.7
83.3

2.5
2.5

 

an...
flu
3......

7'

f7?”
7: . ,,
uh I».

3‘, P
i
5“” £7; :.'

5 "‘
7._

1.9”.934"? fl
.3

 

fl

 

 

/“‘*

 

 

. . .t. llluufl

. ...... ....ie wit!

 

K. .
'4: ..1
.1‘.' 2.3“].

m" ':.
‘7 s.’ . _
4‘. ,._. \-
7‘7,

4“

' fa
\

<. :15.“

c.
e

“W"‘
_v_-
.' l

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Ll

Illl ”um ”mu

3 1293 3 96 472

 

BRARIES
3