PWIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA HOG FEEDING EXPERIMENTS BY J. I. THOMPSON and EDWIN C. VOORHIES i mi hi 1 1 1 1 iiiii mn I' l iift i i 1 i f I' l l » ^I'SLsmsmmmmMikMmtimmMizt^ mmKm BULLETIN No. 342 April, 1922 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY 1922 David P. Barrows, President of the University. EXPERIMENT STATION STAFF HEADS OF DIVISIONS Thomas Forsyth Hunt, Dean. Edward J. Wickson, Horticulture (Emeritus). ', Director of Resident Instruction C. M. Haring, Veterinary Science, Director of Agricultural Experiment Station. B. H. Crocheron, Director of Agricultural Extension. H. J. Webber, Citriculture ; Director of Citrus Experiment Station. C. B. Hutchison, Plant Breeding; Director of the Branch of Agriculture. Hubert E. Van Norman, Dairy Management. William A. Setchell, Botany. Myer E. Jaffa, Nutrition. Ralph E. Smith, Plant Pathology. John W. Gilmore, Agronomy. Charles F. Shaw, Soil Technology. John W. Gregg, Landscape Gardening and Floriculture. Frederic T. Bioletti, Viticulture and Fruit Products. Warren T. Clarke, Agricultural Extension. Ernest B. Babcock, Genetics. Gordon H. True, Animal Husbandry. Walter Mulford, Forestry. James T. Barrett, Plant Pathology. Fritz W. Woll, Animal Nutrition. W. P. Kelley, Agricultural Chemistry. H. J. Quayle, Entomology. Elwood Mead, Rural Institutions. H. S. Reed, Plant Physiology. L. D. Batchelor, Orchard Management. J. C. Whitten, Pomology. fFRANK Adams, Irrigation Investigations. C. L. Roadhouse, Dairy Industry. R. L. Adams, Farm Management. W. B. Herms, Entomology and Parasitology. F. L. Griffin, Agricultural Education. John E. Dougherty, Poultry Husbandry. D. R. Hoagland, Plant Nutrition. G. H. Hart, Veterinary Science. L. J. Fletcher, Agricultural Engineering. Edwin C. Voorhies, Assistant to the Dean. Division of Animal Husbandry Gordon H. True Edwin C. Voorhies Fritz W. Woll Carroll E. Howell Robert r. Miller James P. Wilson Elmer EL Eughes Walter E. Tom son "JOHN I. Thompson Resigned. HOG FEEDING EXPERIMENTS By J. I. THOMPSON and EDWIN C. VOOEHIES The importance of pork production as a phase of the business of the California rancher is likely to increase. Large ranches are grad- ually being subdivided, the alfalfa acreage is increasing, and more intensive methods are coming into practice. The value of livestock as a part of general or specialized farming is receiving more atten- tion each year, and hog raising is being given due consideration. The price of barley generally fluctuates quite independently of the price of hogs. Barley is therefore often too costly to yield a profit when used as hog food. This condition compels the producers to try one or more of the various farm or factory by-products as a substitute for all or part of the barley, and accounts for the great variety of feeds found in various hog rations fed in this state. It is doubtful if there is any other part of this country where hogs can be utilized so profitably to consume farm by-products. Alfalfa has no equal as a forage crop for hogs under the conditions obtaining in this state and is the common roughage fed here, either as pasture or green feed, or as hay. Barley, on the other hand, is the standard grain fed to hogs. Since barley is often high in price, it is important that definite information should be obtained as to how barley can best be supplemented for most economical returns in hog feeding, and what feeds, if any, are satisfactory substitutes. Pasture is generally available in this state throughout the year except for the months of December, January, and February. Fall pigs marketed at about 200 lbs. to 225 lbs. receive most of their finishing in dry lots. Hence, experiments in swine feeding conducted by the Division of Animal Husbandry during the past six years have been carried on along the two lines of pasture feeding and dry-lot feeding. The present bulletin contains accounts of this experimental work, and is accordingly divided into two parts : Part I, Pasture Feeding, from 1914 to 1919, inclusive, and Part II, Dry-Lot Feeding, 1914 to 1919. The specific subjects concerning which information was sought in the experiments were as follows : 1. How much pork can be produced on alfalfa when supplementary grain is fed? 2. How much barley is needed in conjunction with alfalfa pasture to produce a pound of pork 1 374 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 3. What are the relative values of various supplementary hog feeds, such as tankage, wheat shorts (middlings), coconut meal, beans, etc.? 4. Is it feasible to cut alfalfa and feed it in racks instead of allow- ing the hogs to graze on it? 5. Are self feeders practicable for hogs? Animals used. — All of the pigs used were pure-breds. Each lot contained the same number of animals and these were equally divided as far as possible in regard to breed, sex, weight, and vigor. The following breeds were used : Berkshire, Chester- White, Poland-China, Hampshire, and Yorkshire. Weighings. — All pigs were weighed separately on the second day of the experiments, and collectively for the first two days. The aver- age of these weights is taken as the initial weight. They were further weighed collectively each two weeks during the experiments. On each of the last two or three days they were weighed collectively and individually, and the average of these last weighings used as the final weight. All experiments began with the evening feeding on the first day and ended with the morning feeding on the last day. Feeding. — All lots fed by hand received their daily feed in two equal parts at regular hours in the morning and evening. All grain rations were soaked from one feeding to the next, except those in the self-feeders and the milo fed in Trials III and IV, which were fed dry. The beans were cooked in an open kettle, a little salt being used. All proportions given are by weight. Water was freely supplied. Feeds used. — The barley used was home-grown, of average quality, and was nearly always rolled. When it was impossible to get it rolled, a small amount was ground. The wheat shorts, so-called, were meant to be choice "white middlings," but varied considerably in quality and in per cent of flour. The tankage was digester tank- age, supposed to contain 50 per cent total protein. The coconut meal was guaranteed to contain about 21 per cent of protein, 40 per cent of Nitrogen-free extract, and 8V4 per cent of fat. PART I TRIAL I. — The Value of Supplementary Feeds in Conjunction with Alfalfa Pasture for Pork Production Forty-four spring pigs, about four and one-half months old and weighing about ninety-five pounds each at the beginning of the experiment, were selected and separated into two lots of twenty-two each, and fed as follows : Lot I. Rolled barley, alfalfa pasture. Lot II. Rolled barley, alfalfa pasture, and tankage. It was necessary to feed wheat shorts to Lot II in this experiment for two weeks time, because the shipment of tankage failed to arrive. Each of these lots was placed in a half -acre alfalfa pasture and allowed all the grain or grain and tankage from self-feeders that they could consume. The results are shown in Table I. The only advantage from feeding tankage shown in this experi- ment was in the last forty days after the pasture became poor, and in the increased finish. So long as the alfalfa was abundant and fine, there was apparently no need of additional protein. The increased finish secured on Lot II, however, more than paid for the extra cost of the tankage. TEIAL II. — Pork Production with Concentrates and Alfalfa Pasture Ninety-six spring pigs averaging four months of age and weighing on the average about seventy-two lbs. each at the beginning of the experiment, were selected and separated into eight lots of twelve pigs each, that were fed as follows : Lot I. In dry corral. Soaked rolled barley only. Lot II. Alfalfa pasture. Soaked rolled barley. Lot III. Alfalfa pasture. Rolled barley in self feeder. Lot IV. Alfalfa pasture. Rolled barley and tankage in self •feeders. Lot V. In dry corral. The same amount of soaked rolled barley as Lot II, with green alfalfa cut, weighed, and fed in racks twice daily. Lot VI. Alfalfa pasture. Same amount of concentrates as Lot II, but consisting of soaked rolled barley two parts, and wheat shorts (middlings) one part. 376 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION >>o3 >>o3 <»^ -a 8 g ^ 3 ^ o3^£ ^^-^ o3"£ t^h o3 ^ • • o3 cd 03 hf) co c3^ B ft 111 iO 03 O a o ^3 in ^ ^ ^"~g a 3 3 O tH Tti 00 ^ 0) bfi (^ O os B^fl'ft co ^ H - i-3 £-d M03 ^ S OS OS £o ° - 1 W ^r OS <| H ^ +» i-H LO * H H ^ 3 j§|| g « g M to ►"^ g I ~ 3 3« g; s os os £ >-" i i - - ^ cs (1 v 3 Mo^ fl-g n • r* S c/) 3 x> id CD o o M > CO CD -(-5 "3 ° o3 rj hj o3 CO* ^2 ^ 05 q 10 CO tO* 35 a? GO o3 CO -O o3 P CD CD Jh bfi o3 A H w «« W 10 1— I <35 (M CM fi CD rO O -4-3 O O 1 o CO P >-3 ~h ' „ *> M d -AS S'S oi; o j -■ tL^ C ^ « rQ rH Hh '3 OJ -rH j » s S fl ft CO o t-l Ph CM ■ ^ CI -P ft ■£ ?8. bD J|fS» Mrs ? ie-Sf a (S O CO T— I CO o 05 GO CO* CO GO i CD 03 T3 CD "o CO CM 05 GO CO* CO o ^1 CM CO o3 & o3 CD "o -a ■as o CM GO CM CO GO* O CM CO* GO CO CD T3 CD CD CD VI CD CD +3 T* CO o CD r/j ^ 03 03 Oh O CO T— I GO <35 CO lO CO* CO o GO CO o3 CD ft Qi3 2 3 03 «*_i 03 J2 CD CO 03 Sh CD ft tj'd ^ ^ CD S _CD ^3 o « CD^H £3 ^ CD ^ O CD CO lO* T3 i-H CO o3 O cm^: co CM GO d CO CO CO* CO CD CD 5-t bD 4^> CD H-3 ^^ CD *■""""! b o3 M-H ^^ CD <4_i o3 i3 CO o3 CM ^ t^ CM CM* CO (35 CO* CO GO Tt* CQ 03 ^^ O o3 co o3 sh-t! 03 CD Oh 5 -" ^ — ' o3 lO CO CM O GO CM CO cd .a t3 CD GO CM* CO CM LO CM CO GO* CO >o 1> 373 CD CD CO H-3 c3 Ph » CD. 1 — 1 (h o3 ^3 p CD o3 P 03 H Ph o3 03 73 CD 03 «+H fH P 03 03 Ph^3 2 73 CD P3 03 O P3 •I; 03 , — 1 ft-o rH IJ ^ CJ CD +3 rH . rH p r*"J 03 H-J CD Q, CO T3 <$ 03H ft -° "eg aPi $£ rQ 03 CI 73 CD O' Ph Bulletin 342] H 0G FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 379 CD t>- CO 00 i—i 00 t^ CO o i—i CO fl CO a) CD o r>.' ! co os oi 00 oo d d CO t^r^ t- t^ r^ i> 00 00 oo Jr 1 '-' M a 00 s- O oo Fh CD — 43 O F- C fail thH < H-H •-.CD — ■ ' t-i io o tO lO iO iO IO >o »o i> q OS OS C5 en o o CO CD Q. od od oo GO od 00 OS OS OS 13 03 CD CD 03 03 03 H - Fh Fh CD h 03 cQ 13 - r. o9 ft -d 3 +3 X S3 CD CD H 9 X CD U B3 X 43 Fh O 3 43 X o3 ft 43 d c o o d CO o3 -3 2,2 22 d - ! o3 c3 ^2 aa 43 CD o3 03 X S3 O o o o3 S ^^ u . g OS © r iO j3 CO -t O' s3 C r^ o s3 cr Tt o Th s3 O c3 o _. 13 &£'* OS CO i— i ■-+-< O 1— ; «+h o to id' - r^' 3a TJH oa io',o i-H 33 CO-O ^H la CO-O ^H c3 rtH "^ CD >, S3 << Q CO o OS i—i i— 1 6' _c, ^H 1—1 r^ CO t* ■— CD CD 03 CD s3 CO tO to iO '-4-I 13 CO co' oo to CO CO 00 CD CD CD 03 03 CD OS ;- Fh ;- Fh Fh Fh '3 3 s 3 d Q X -(-3 X CO 43 X 43 cc 43 H CO -d aa -d 03 13 oa a3 o3 c3 m < l— 1 d ft fl ft a ft ~ ft a OS i— 1 -a o3 aa ca c3 oa o3 >% a3 o3 03 oa A CD 3 O bfl co Q/?£ CO O H-j o e« °. r^ CD iO e*H TtH b*h o e+H CO^j t— 1 t— 1 1— ( 00 00 CO oa o CO o3 S: oa E4H 00 o3 io 5a 00 1—1 e3 CH to 00 --t-i h-H Fh o tO tO oa to It >o "3 tO-Q 1— 1 ol CO 13 to 03 O °3 w H O J O o ffl H co e3^? ■Sfew 6&S r«5 -H CM iO i—i CO r^ •* <3 O O i jus C3 OS 1—1 i-H OJ i— i Ol 1—1 o 1—1 CO 1—1 00 i—i LO i— I H i—i < CD . bC— co cj c3 CO 1— 1 i— i Oi CO I- 00 CO o CO 1—1 z <3 OS 1—1 i— i Ol OS Ol 00 tO M 1— I i— i 1— 1 1— I 1— 1 1—1 02 © CO .a 1^ CO CO CO o o CO 00 o cd CO o *3H i— t Hi average ave initial fii weight we OS 1—1 Oj ci o i— i >> CD i— i CO © 1— 1 o 1—1 CD 00 00 a o o 1—1 S-, CD -d CD CD ten CO CO 00 o o 1—1 CD oi M o Ol 1— 1 ci o 1— 1 >> CD o3 S3 33 03 Fh ciO 43 3 CO CO CO CO o 1— 1 CO CO CO CO o 1— 1 tO CO 00 CO o 1— 1 CO Fh CD CD?, a '■+3 S3 T- 1 o3 CD "o Fh -d CD o3 O 3 in Fh o o Q T3 c3 -O -d CD »— ■ i 'o -d CD M o3 O 03 U +3 on oa aa la 'o C/3 1 >J CD T^ c3 -d CD CD in a X 93 a, o3 a CD Si -d CD "o Fh CD -d 03 O X CD 3 X o3 |M It ttH 13 -d CD o Oi -d CD "o Fh Fh CJ >. u n CO CO CD T^ o3 -d CD 'o r-H X 43 Fh J= CQ 43 o3 03 03 3 43 X 03 33 «H It 1 CO CD Th ca CD 'o Coconut meal 1 alfalfa pasture round milo maiz Tankage-self fe< Alfalfa pasture & tf P^ a4 ti O l-H i— i h-1 i— i h— 1 > > I—I > 1— ( > l-H > 380 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TRIAL IIa. — Continuation of Trial II The only difference between this trial and the previous one, is in Lots VI, VII, and VIII. In Lot VI the proportion of barley to shorts was started at two to one, as before, but gradually widened to three to one as the experiment progressed. On account of the trouble with scouring experienced in the previous trial, Lot VII of this bunch was started on barley three parts, coconut meal one part, and gradually widened to four to one. Lot VIII was entirely different, ground milo maize and tankage being fed in Separate self feeders, instead of barley and beans as in the previous one. The pasture lots were the same, one-half acre each. The results are shown in Table III. The pigs in this experiment were heavier at the finish, so that more feed was required for each pound of gain than in the previous one. Other than this, the only irregularity is that Lot IV did not show nearly so favorably in dressing percentage and did not make relatively so large gains as pigs similarly fed in previous years. The showing of Lot VIII on milo maize is especially interesting, but should not be considered final. Further tests on this feed are to be made as soon as possible. TRIAL III. — To Determine the Relative Economy of a Limited Compared with a Heavy Grain Ration in Conjunction with Alfalfa Pasture As before stated, grain is often relatively much higher in price in California, when compared with the price of hogs. At such times it is important to know whether the concentrated part of the ration may be limited, thereby forcing the pigs to eat relatively more alfalfa. It is conceded that the gains will be less rapid. How limited a grain ration can be profitably fed is the question. In order to acquire some data on this question, five lots of ten pigs each were fed as follows, each lot being allowed one-half acre of alfalfa pasture. Lot I. One pound rolled barley daily for each 100 lbs. of live weight. Lot II. Two pounds rolled barley daily for each 100 lbs. live weight. Lot III. Three pounds rolled barley daily for each 100 lbs. live weight. Lot IV. Barley in self feeder. Lot V. Barley and coconul meal in separate self feeders. Bulletin 342] HOG FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 381 On November 23, 1917, the results were as follows TABLE IV July 11-November 23, 1917, 135 Days Lot I* II III IV* Ration 1% ground barley 2% ground barley 61 3% ground barley 61 Full feed, ground barley (self feeder) 59 Full feed, ground barley & coconut meal (separate self feeders) 60 Ave. initial weight lbs. Ave. final weight lbs. Ave. daily gain lbs. Average daily feed lbs. Feed consumed for 100 lbs gain 60 103 .34 .79 230 61 138 .57 1.80 317 61 174 .83 3.18 382 213 1.14 223 1.21 *Nine pigs — one pig in each of these lots died. 5.49 [5.46 { barley .15 coconut meal 5.61 480 (450 \ barley 13 coconut meal 463 It will be noted that there was a wide variation in the average weights of these lots at the close of the feeding period of 135 days, when Lot V was ready for market. It was decided to continue feed- ing all of the other lots in dry corrals until each lot had reached an average weight of 223 lbs. Since Lot IV had only ten pounds per pig to gain, the ration was not changed. The other lots were fed barley and cocoanut meal. It required seven more days for Lot IV to reach this weight, the feed consumed for 100 lbs. gain remaining the same, namely, 480 lbs. Twenty-eight additional days were required for Lot III to reach 223 lbs., the average feed for 100 lbs. gain being for the entire period 404 lbs. barley and .05 lb. coconut meal. Forty-five days more were required for Lot II, the feed for 100 lbs. gain being 409 lbs. barley and .06 lb. coconut meal for the entire period. It was impossible to estimate accurately the relative amount of pasture needed by these various lots, but it was very evident that Lots I and II needed more area, and Lot III consumed relatively more of their pasture than did Lots IV and V. In fact, the areas allotted to IV and V could readily have carried twice as many pigs. Lot III was about balanced, Lot II needed some more, and Lot I about twice as much. The grain consumed for 100 lbs. gain increased directly with the amount of grain allowed for the first period, but there was little difference in the amount required by the time they were ready for market. 382 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The question that the individual hog raiser will need to decide for himself is when the price of grain is sufficiently high to justify the additional risk, labor, and interest in investment incurred when much additional time is required to get the hogs ready for market. The indications are that at least a 3 per cent grain ration is desirable for economical gains. Ground barley and coconut meal in self feeders was found more economical than ground barley fed alone. Summary of Trials. Part I TABLE V Number Average of daily Kinds of Feed trials gain, lbs. Barley, dry corral 2 .82 Barley and alfalfa pasture 2 .96 Barley in self-feeder alfalfa pasture 3 1 .27 Barley, tankage, self-feeders, alfalfa pasture 3 1.34 Barley, dry lot, cut green alfalfa 2 .91 Barley, shorts, alfalfa pasture 2 1.00 Barley, coconut msal, alfalfa pasture 3 1.03 Average feed consumed per lb. gain. lbs. 5.63 4.48 and alfalfa pasture 4.31 and alfalfa pasture 4.21 barley .18 tankage and alfalfa pasture 4.73 barley 3.27 alfalfa 3.01 barley 1.37 shorts and alfalfa pasture 2.99 barley 1.11 coconut meal and alfalfa pasture If greater gains are made from a given amount of barley and alfalfa pasture than from the same amount of barley fed in a dry lot, the difference should be credited to the alfalfa, When lots so fed are compared from the above table, it will be found that pigs on alfalfa pasture gained .14 lb. more rapidly per day, and that 1.15 lbs. less of barley were used to make a pound of gain. The greater gain per day and the less feed consumed per pound of gain should be credited to the alfalfa. The self feeder lots show even greater gains and more saving in feed. Approximately 4% lbs. of barley were required for each pound of gain to grow pigs from 75 lbs. up to 200 lbs. when they were hand fed. Approximately 4 per cent less barley was required for each pound of gain between 75 lbs. and 200 lbs. weight when hogs had access to self feeders. As much barley and tankage were required for each pound of gain as of barley alone, but the extra finish of those fed tankage produced, on the average, a slightly greater profit. Bulletin 342] HO g feeding experiments 383 The soiling system seems to produce gains about 5 per cent more costly in grain than when pasture is used. Unless shorts (middlings) are of good or excellent quality, they are worth no more per pound than barley for pigs weighing 75 lbs. or more when being fed for market, so long as good alfalfa pasture is available. However, the pigs fed barley and shorts were slightly trimmer in the paunch, glossier in the hair, and dressed somewhat higher than those fed barley without shorts. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 1. Pigs having access to self feeders eat more grain daily on the average than those fed by hand. 2. Pigs on self feeders grow evenly. When hand-fed, the larger pigs usually grow relatively faster than the smaller. 3. Self feeders reduce the labor cost, and make it possible for less feed to produce a pound of gain than is true of hand feeding. 4. Self-fed pigs gain faster than hand-fed. The difference in the economy of the two systems is greater than is apparent in the figures given, for, owing to a better finish, high dressing percentage and greater uniformity they sold higher in all cases and made a greater profit. 5. In all the self feeder lots, there has been an over-supply of alfalfa when twelve pigs were pastured on a half-acre field. It seemed that these lots could have carried 50 per cent more pigs, or eighteen to the lot, as efficiently as the hand-fed lots carried twelve pigs. 6. Beans produced a fair rate of gain, but the carcasses were soft, flabby, and watery, and the dressing percentage very low. 7. Coconut meal proved to be a desirable supplement for barley, when fed in the proportion of one pound to three or four pounds of barley. A larger proportion of coconut meal exerted too laxative an effect when fed in conjunction with alfalfa pasture. 8. Coconut meal may be used to make up from one-third to one- fourth of the ration, so long as it does not cost over 20 per cent more than barley. According to the results of this single experiment, beans are worth only 40c per hundred pounds when barley is worth $1.25. and coconut meal $1.50 per hundred. 9. There is a marked difference in the rate of gains of different individuals in the same lot. Even on the most favorable rations, the rate varies from 60 per cent gain on the original weight to as high 384 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION as 160 per cent gain in the same lot. On the average, the self-feeder lots show the most uniformity, simply because the lighter pigs have just as good a chance as the heavier ones. This is not generally true when they are fed in a trough. 10. The cost in feed of each pound of gain increases as the weight increases. A pig should weigh from 200 lbs. to 225 lbs. to command the top market price. Hence it is usually not profitable to market them much lighter than this weight. PART II DRY-LOT FEEDING There has been no opportunity to duplicate several of the tests carried on during the winter months. There is so much inquiry, how- ever, concerning the rations that may be efficiently used when pasture is not available, that it seems advisable to give a brief summary of the main dry-lot feeding trials that have been conducted. Some of these not yet repeated will be duplicated as soon as possible. The results given here are only suggestive and do not warrant drawing general conclusions. TRIAL I. — The Value of Alfalfa in Different Forms for Pork Production In this trial four lots of pigs, ten in each lot, all pure-breds, weigh- ing about 78 lbs. each, were used. The first week was preliminary feeding to accustom the pigs to their rations, so that the experiment proper began on January 5 when the pigs weighed about 87 lbs. each. They were fed as follows : Lot I. Soaked rolled barley. Lot II. Soaked rolled barley and whole alfalfa hay in racks. Lot III. Soaked rolled barley, and cut alfalfa hay soaked with the barle}". The amount of hay fed was the same as was put into the rack for Lot II. Lot IV. Soaked rolled barley and alfalfa meal soaked with the barley. Same amount of meal as Lot II received of whole hay. The tabulated results are given in Table VI. Alfalfa meal was the most efficient in this test, and it is interesting to note that only 4.1 lbs. of barley were required for each pound of gain, although the pigs weighed 157 lbs. at the finish. The long hay (Lot II) was second in efficiency, requiring no more barley than that used with the chopped-hay lot, and 40 per cent less alfalfa. The hay for Lot II is the amount placed in the rack, not the amount actually eaten. The pigs wasted some of it, but the results indicate that it is more economical to let these animals waste some hay than to attempt to force them to eat all of the coarse material, as was done in Lot III. The ; 'chopped-alfalfa" lot made their gains more economically than did the lot on barley alone, but did not gain so rapidly. The fact that alfalfa hay and alfalfa meal are quite bulky, should not be over- looked when formulating a ration for growing pigs. 386 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION >> 03 43 o3 «-4-H "o3 «+H >"3 03 43 "-H 03 c3 o t>> >>,.03 T3 T^ ,o3 _CD ox^^ 1 M O Jh ,o3 rcTi S s- . (3 o3 c323 o3„£ o323 J.2 g »~ M ,£2 ^ 03^0^2 c3 ^lOOOMNOM O o HCOCOCOCOHCO co «< Q o © CO to 43 45 O C3 O ga (-t >T5 03 ^ to J* O n o lo l— I > PG ^ H o o3 • Eh i O lO J ►» a o3 o 2 <5 a W o3 t-5 £ ►H CO o Ph o T3 o o CM iO 00 C5 00 CM CDCOMOOOCO ^ -* "tf T^ o3 o3 >> o3 43 1— 1 o3 73 o3 CD s CD CD 23 CD ££ CD ^3 "£ ^ c3 7h oTh^ o3 o3 23 o3 ,13 o3 23 40 42 o342 & £l o3 CO l> «D CO iC CO CN N CN ^' »C H iO CO CO CO CN CM H CO CT> OS 00 00 OS OS 01 . M — co c3 ?3 I— I > -u e8 CO LO CD CO LO CO CO OS CD rt j§ 2-J3 w O)-; Oj T3 a) O CO OJ O C^l r- t^ >o >o ■*# LO 1—1 1—1 43 CO >o CO^ LO cd l> O^N / f 00 «£ OOr-J r— 1 03 c3 4^ 03 O, >> c^m .£ S 2 £-£ 3 O 00 MH CO 00 8 g a " M 05 (N OS CO 00 r. t . ^ o ^ o ^ H- 1 H CN > >* c3 H i PQ ^ - o CM H H h3 >> c3 P. 1-5 83 ii -Q <3'3 as 5 5s -rH »0 t>- CO O (N 9 ^-gg J« ^ 2 ° -* "*' eo o d d 1 I— ' OS a) ;£ c aj 7 >>.g k M « ^>^ M So So S ^§ oa r SgoS -* d d oo +»« ^ ^ 2 -a Qj o3^o ; I— I O 3 * oo co oo -S fe-fl SMI *. °- S sgs S S § *§:§ 2 «s-g £ CO. O i -SJ< o oo ft. oo „ os o^ S ^ as, oo Os o^ 3 a § xi c -O a a, ^^^ ^3 o BULLETIN 342] . H 0G FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 389 2 ji 2 i^ 2 -^ 2 ^ 2 '^ „ T3 'o3 C 'o3 C 'o3 C 'o3 C 'o3 C S, ^ • *-> o3 *- o3 *-■ o3 ^ o3 ^ cj aid-cS^c b£ ,p bC -2 bC -2 bC -2 bfi^ •^aJoS^'g.'^OO -tf ^ 0000 tO iO 0*0 oo -^ -* lo oo i— i co oa to m id *d id *d tjh c3 O _, .2 ^ .2 -^ .2 ^ .2 -^3 .2 ^ a> ew * C o3 G o3 C o3 fl o3 G jg gi?"a K a bC -2 bfi +2 bC += bC -12 bC 42 hJ?^< Q "S .2 ^ '3 ^ .2 ■* .2 M .2 ^ C S5«3 K d bfi c3 ^ o3 t-oj s-c o3 O^ SoaJffl Mi J „ -S bfi +-> bfi 42 bfi 42 i-t 3 000 00 0*0 100 100 5 2 u r|i^ Nh iotd did MH P COO'^OOi'fOOOiMiO * ,-r r^coocoO'-H(M(MOiM a^£ ft co co t* ■<* rj< &j >> felS'S co *o o ct) M 00 O OS O iO ^ c3 l>- O O O Ol < J b op SIS £ 3 £ § § CO S3 fl H « o3 ^o"3 < ^ CO l>- b- 00 o j2 a.s ^h o oo oo oi 2 ^* > O 00 CO CO PL, oo i uj <^j yv * CO ^t iO iO b- — *- co • c3X T3 h-J'S'5 -^ *0 i-i CO CO Xi •- ? CO CO l>- cO Ocor- ^ ft *- ft ^ a> t- 03 r- m .S bC bC o3 O o3 bfi bfi o3 fl c3 » 08 fa 3 cS +3 "43 i2 M 2 » ® j. « o -o 2 ^ -^ .2 cu J5 CJ O u t> X OX CO M H I— ( t-H »— I l-H K* "^ ^ c cS 2 a o3 o3 CO T3 •+J T3 ^ — O G ^ d >> t*-. 3 _d B CU to O o '3 bC o S-H o o3 O o 390 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION _q 03 3h'2 oS r^ CO o CD >-> CD IN CO 00 O CD CO CO (N X PQ -d 03 d. 03 s Bg &JD P 61 CI o so ■* >* < 03 03 ft 03 C6.5 'r 1 os £ 'CJO CO Oi tH 00 CO . IS iH cc e3 ^rg J #2 . 03 IS 03 £. " 03 C3 13 oj !-; ^3 h-H r- 1 CD T}H (N 03 ^ - 9> t S 3 03 ^ i • — ' ^ 03 Jo 2-43.M 03 ^ ? CD n-< c3 rf 03 03 Ph ^ a 3 £ +j i o K- i-l t— 1 CD P^ CD C3 t— I (N CO ^ >j CD 1 CD >> r^ aj oS'd S'S. ^3 7^ CD i—i OS 1 1 1 O 0) a; h 1— 1 +J «<-i ?4 03 O & d (N* r-1 C3 r^ ^w C5 r^ of LO 1^. i— i LC r-H OQ >. OS 03 bs. av daily gain per pig 00 T— t CD T— 1 1— 1 1—1 1— 1 1— 1 hi >> oS 03 CO iO 2 03 _g.S [3 bJD OQ o c3 «i 5 M ftft CD T— 1 CD r-4 i-S rO THH (N i— I cD 00 rj5 CO CD C5 CD CO CO O CD CO 00 73 01 J> 1> 60 o ^ 00 00 Mg w (NCO lOGO S3 g3 co'ai cocj o3 on ,0 X W PQ <^ as «! Q o 00 M O fe ©. H O ►Q o «! 02 o h-l Ph 00 00 1— I as o CO c3 o S-c o3 o a 03:2.5 £ M on -0 6C ►* n e3 J.S £ M • O 03 £•- en +S 60 a °* ■ a) tfl a) o cX' c3.£ 03^3 id a) o> >> o o cd ^ rp X 1 1 a £ CD CD CM tO Ci tO o OS t^ Ci TjH 05 00 o 73 (3 p o o PQ < c3 j>> tfi'oS -Qt3 o J2 • 03 z- 3 CD CO 5 CD PQP^ o 1-^ 392 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TRIAL IV. — The Belative Fattening Value of Skim Milk versus Whey From January 11 to May 24, 1917, a period of 138 days, two lots of six pigs each were fed respectively rolled barley one part and skim milk three parts, and rolled barley one part and whole milk whey five parts. This project was duplicated from March 11 to May 30, 1918— eighty days — with eight pigs in each lot, ground milo being used instead of rolled barley. The milk and whey were fed in three feeds per day, the barley or milo was placed in self feeders. The tabulated results of the two trials are given in Tables X and XI, and the combined results in Table XII. Most authorities agree that 5 to 6 lbs. skim milk equals 1 lb. grain. From this experiment therefore 12.88 lbs. of whey equals approxi- mately 7.94 lbs. of skim milk in producing gains. Sixty-two per cent more whey than skim milk is required to make a pound of gain. Results less favorable to the whey would be expected with smaller pigs, from the fact that young animals require relatively more pro- tein in their feed than older ones, and skim milk is higher in protein than is whey, which is essentially a carbohydrate feed. TRIAL V. — On the Comparative Value of Various Protein Supplements in Pork Production Since skim milk and buttermilk are not available on many hog ranches in sufficient amounts to balance the ration correctly, the progressive hog breeder is always on the lookout for commercial sub- stitutes. This trial was to secure some data on the relative value of digester tankage, fish meal tankage, and milkolene* compared to skim milk or buttermilk. Five lots of ten pigs each, all pure-breds, averaging about 122 lbs. each at the beginning of the trial, were fed as follows : Lot I. Rolled barley, self fed. Skim milk, hand fed. Lot II. Rolled barley, self fed. Milkolene, hand fed. Lot III. Rolled barley, self fed. Tankage, self fed. Lot [V. Rolled barley, self fed. Fish meal, self fed. Lot V. Rolled barley, self fed. * Milkolene is :i patented condensed buttermilk preparation that lias lately been placed on the market in this state. Bulletin 342] HOG FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 393 Approximately 3 lbs. of skim milk and of milkolene, the latter diluted according to directions, were fed for each lb. of barley. The tabulated results appear in Table XIII. Lot V Barley Lbs. 1228 2182.5 *909.5 1.30 5254^ 7.50 TABLE XIII Ten Pigs in Each Lot. Fed 70 Days October 10-December 20, 1918 Lot 1 Lot II Lot III Lot IV Barley Barley Barley Barley Ration Skim milk Milkolene Tankage Fish meal Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Initial weight 1236 1231 1234 1226 Final weight 2306 2145 2288 2158.5 Total gain 1070 914 1054 **932.5 Average daily gain.. 1.53 1.30 1.50 1.33 Total feed: Barley 5321 5295 5338^ 5160^ Supplementary 6720 6720 120 164 feed skim milk milkolene tankage fish meal Average daily feed Grain 7.6 7.56 7.62 7.37 barley barley barley barley Supplementary feed 9.6 9.60 .17 .23 skim milk milkolene tankage fish meal Feed consumed for lib. of gain 4.97 5.79 5.06 5.53 barley barley barley barley 6.28 7.35 .11 .17 skim milk milkolene tankage fish meal Cost of 1 lb. gain at prices listed below 11.51c 13.41c 10.58c 11.74c ♦November 8 one pig died, another 45 lbs. heavier put in, which reduces total gain **One pig in this lot gained only 13 lbs., her litter mates gained 100 lbs. or more, more satisfactory results are to be expected from fish meal than are shown here. All lots self fed. Feeds — Cost: Barley $2.00 per 100 lbs. Skim milk 25 per 100 lbs. Milkolene 25 per 100 lbs. Tankage 4.20 per 100 lbs. Fish meal 4.00 per 100 lbs. It should be noted that the pigs were heavier than average feeders at the beginning of this trial, so that the feed required for each pound of gain appears to be relatively high. Apparently no gains were secured from the milkolene, the amount of barley required for a pound of gain being almost identically the same in Lots II and V. Little was learned on the comparative value of fish meal and tankage because of the unthriftiness of one pig in Lot IV, which was not evident at the time the trial was begun. This project was duplicated two months later with pigs averaging about 112 lbs., and the summary follows in Table XIV. 5.78 11.56c 45 lbs. Therefore, 394 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION In this trial, fish meal gave about the same results as tankage. Because of a scarcity of pigs, no lot was fed barley alone, but it is interesting to note that the amount of barley required for a pound of gain in Lot II was very similar to that required in Lots II and V of the previous trial where no gains could apparently be credited to the milkoline. In this trial skim milk was somewhat more economical than was tankage in the first trial. The average of the two trials is as follows : TABLE XIV Ten Pigs in Each Lot. Fed 58 Days February 25-April 24, 1919 Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV Ground barley Ground barley Ground barley Ground barley Skim milk Milkolene Tankage Fish meal Ration lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. Initial weight 1118 1128 1129 1122 Final weight 2045 1864 1922 1904 Total gain... 927 *676 793 782 Average daily gain per pig 1.60 1.17 1.37 1.35 Total feed 3833 barley 3890 barley 3887 barley 3831 barley 6534 milk 6534 milkolene 229 tankage 226 fish meal Av. daily feed 6.6 barley 6.7 barley 6.7 barley 6.6 barley 11.3 sk. milk 11.3 milkolene .39 tankage .39 fish m. Feed consumed for 1 4.13 barley 5.75 barley 4.90 barley 4.89 barley lb. of gain 7.05 sk. milk 7.05 milkolene .28 tank. .29 fish m. Cost of 1 lb. gain at prices listed below 10.2 13.26 10.98 10.84 *March 4 one Berkshire gilt, weight 115 lbs., taken out, Durroc barrow, weight 175 lbs., put in, which reduces total gain 60 lbs. All lots self fed — each feed in separate feeders, except skim milk and milkolene — they were hand fed. Feeds — Cost: Barley $2.00 per 100 lbs. Skim milk 25 per 100 lbs. Milkolene 25 per 100 lbs. Tankage 4.20 per 100 lbs. Fish meal 4.00 per 100 lbs. TABLE XV Summary — Protein Supplements No. of Lbs. average Kind of Feed trials daily gain Hurley.. 2 1.56 Skim milk Barley 2 1.23 Milkolene Barley 2 1.43 Tankage Barley 2 1.31 I i h meal Feed required for 1 lb. gain 4.55 barley 6. GO skim milk 5.77 barley 8.47 milkolene 4.98 barley .19 tankage 5.21 barley .23 fish meal Bulletin 342] H0G FEEDING EXPERIMENTS 395 The averages shown in Table XV would indicate that the prices paid for skim milk and tankage, namely $0.25 and $4.20 per hun- dred are the correct relative prices of these two feeds according to the averages of those two experiments. TRIAL VI. — The Value of Raisins as a Feed for Swine* The market price of raisins has sometimes been very low and there has often been an available supply of second-grade or cull raisins that may be fed to hogs. This trial was conducted for the purpose of determining the value of this material for feeding hogs. The different lots included in the trial were fed as follows: Lot I. Ground or rolled barley and alfalfa meal in the propor- tion of 5 :1, by weight. Lot II. Barley, ground or rolled, and raisins, equal parts, with the same amount of alfalfa meal as Lot I. Lot III. Raisins and alfalfa meal, the same amount of alfalfa meal as fed to Lot I. The experiment proper began February 25, 1916, when the pigs averaged about 110 lbs. each. The results of this experiment are shown in Table XVI. Fourteen different varieties of dried grapes were used in this trial. While no attempt was made to determine the difference in feeding value of the different varieties, it was noticeable that the pigs relished some much more than others, and throve accordingly. The pigs seemed to relish the raisins at first, but tired of them toward the close, especially Lot III. It was hard to keep this lot on feed. Occasionally they scoured severely. Lot II gave none of these troubles. The sugar in the raisins, according to the chemical analysis, ran as high as 73.9 per cent and as low as 52.9 per cent; the crude fiber varied from 10.40 per cent to 1.35 per cent, and the acid (calculated as tartaric acid) from 3.0 per cent to 1.20 per cent. It will be noted from Table XVI that the raisins were much more effective when constituting only one-half of the ration than when fed alone. When fed half and half, 2.97 lbs. of raisins equalled 2.66 lbs. of barley. They were, therefore, 89 per cent as efficient, but when fed alone it required 11.13 lbs. of raisins to equal 5.63 lbs. of barley, an efficiency of 50 per cent. They had, in reality, even a still lower efficiency when fed alone, for the pigs on raisins only reached a weight of 149.5 lbs. on the average, while those on barley reached an average weight of 213.7 lbs. * This trial was conducted in cooperation with the Division of Viticulture, at the suggestion of Professor F. T. Bioletti. 396 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION ►» TO CD >> pped lfa ha CD d a 03 pped lfa ha O o3 Th CO O 03 r^S o3 *03 <-*— i -dS3 » o3 d2 !h c3 O c3 id ^M WW OS C5 Tf 00 cu ^> 1> !>. lO *r* to o3 o3 tJ) M 1-H OS 00 ^%^% « <" CM Ik-'* > 03 33 03 CD h|n CD CD »o a s?« a *» a _i ► kj _, co _» "8 frs? ^.a^ .a ^ * o3 S3 £ o3 S3 o3 PQ ^ pq tf << Pm 3 o »d 03 ft T3 o ■« jjasa £ -d dj aS3 .d g aS3 h3 .•■tfSiSd o3S3J3s3 * *3 S3 j*S3 'S^dd - ^J^'S ^ cj ooj d h d Oo3 fa, c3 o 33 S ^^Sft^co^io t^r-^io con® 6 W) • 1-4 ft X ?n^ H 53 CD ' O 73 ® S3 SS3 ^ .a ^3 d^S3 .3 Sd aS3 «io3>>^£ft ^ S3 id S3 03-3S343S3 3 S3 ^3 S3 a M >t5<~ C^OOt^CO lOiCNCO Cj> O £- 03 g^COiOi-H to cq >o H w >o o j§ 2 "3 IS ^ °° ^ CD ^ CD ,. 0> ►. T) 3 -3 -£ 13 oS3 7} to 33 oS3 co 33 oS3 f, O 2 i-^ifeS 1 d2-3«S3 d2 g 33 «S3 S o3 oS3 S g OS 3.8«2 g ft ft i> i-t cm * Nt-^tN 03 cq cq q * -d w ^ o ^ o t)h o6 oo o tjh d in m ^ 7 Cj ■<3 O ^ c3 +a H ^ d "I J» » Shi d fa M »C CO TJH ^ c o a ^ OJ d a r/> O; ■ — i T3o CO :d « H t) fa s n 50 fl(N o ■—I *s l # X w 9i H 'S O S5 ^ 03 • --« a STATION PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BULLETINS No. No. 185. Report of Progress in Cereal Investiga- 300. tions. 304. 241. Vine Pruning in California, Part I. 246. Vine Pruning in California, Part II. 308. 251. Utilization of the Nitrogen and Organic Matter in Septic and Imhoff Tank Sludges. 309. 253. Irrigation and Soil Conditions in the Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. 310. 261. Melaxumaof the Walnut, "Juglans regia." 312. 262. Citrus Diseases of Florida and Cuba 313. Compared with Those of California. 316. 263. Size Grades for Ripe Olives. 317. 266. A Spotting of Citrus Fruits Due to the 318. Action of Oil Liberated from the Rind. 320. 267. Experiments with Stocks for Citrus. 321. 268. Growing and Grafting Olive Seedlings. 323. 270. A Comparison of Annual Cropping, Bi- ennial Cropping, and Green Manures 324. on the Yield of Wheat. 271. Feeding Dairy Calves in California. 325. 273. Preliminary Report on Kearney Vineyard Experimental Drain. 275. The Cultivation of Belladonna in Cali- 328. fornia. . 330. 276. The Pomegranate. 331. 278. Grain Sorghums. 332. 279. Irrigation of Rice in California. 334. 280. Irrigation of Alfalfa in the Sacramento Valley. 335. 282. Trials with California Silage Crops for Dairy Cows. 336. 283. The Olive Insects of California. 285. The Milk Goat in California. 337. 286. Commercial Fertilizers. 339. 287. Vinegar from Waste Fruits. 294. Bean Culture in California. • 340. 297. The Almond in California. 341. 298. Seedless Raisin Grapes. 342. 299. The Use of Lumber on California Farms. Commercial Fertilizers. A Study on the Effects of Freezes on Citrus in California. I. Fumigation with Liquid Hydrocyanic Acid. II. Physical and Chemical Pro- perties of Liquid Hydrocyanic Acid. I. The Carob in California. II. Nutritive Value of the Carob Bean. Plum Pollination. Mariout Barley. Pruning Young Deciduous Fruit Trees. The Kaki or Oriental Persimmon. Selections of Stocks in Citrus Propagation. The Effects of Alkali on Citrus Trees. Control of the Coyote in California. Commercial Production of Grape Syrup. Heavy vs. Light Grain Feeding for Dairy Cows. Storage of Perishable Fruit at Freezing Temperatures. Rice Irrigation Measurements and Ex- periments in Sacramento Valley, 1914- 1919. Prune Growing in California. Dehydration of Fruits. Phylloxera-Resistant Stocks. Walnut Culture in California. Preliminary Volume Tables for Second- Growth Redwoods. Cocoanut Meal as a Feed for Dairy Cows and Other Livestock. The Preparation of Nicotine Dust as an Insecticide. Some Factors of Dehydrater Efficiency. The Relative Cost of Making Logs from Small and Large Timber. Control of the Pocket Gopher in California. Studies on Irrigation of Citrus Groves. Hog Feeding Experiments. CIRCULARS No. No. 70. Observations on the Status of Corn 164. Growing in California. 165. 82. The Common Ground Squirrels of Cali- fornia. 166. 87. Alfalfa. 167. 110. Green Manuring in California. 169. 111. The Use of Lime and Gypsum on Cali- 170. fornia Soils. 113. Correspondence Courses in Agriculture. 172. 115. Grafting Vinifera Vineyards. 173. 126. Spraying for the Grape Leaf Hopper. 174. 127. House Fumigation. 175. 128. Insecticide Formulas. 129. The Control of Citrus Insects. 178. 130. Cabbage Growing in California. 179. 138. The Silo in California Agriculture. 144. Oidium or Powdery Mildew of the Vine. 181. 148. "Lungworms." 182. 151. Feeding and Management of Hogs. 152. Some Observations on the Bulk Handling 183. of Grain in California. 184. 153. Announcement of the California State 188. Dairy Cow Competition, 1916-18. 189. 154. Irrigation Practice in Growing Small 190. Fruits in California. 193. 155. Bovine Tuberculosis. 198. 157. Control of the Pear Scab. 201. 158. Home and Farm Canning. 202. 159. Agriculture in the Imperial Valley. 160. Lettuce Growing in California. 203. 161. Potatoes in California. 205. Small Fruit Culture in California. Fundamentals of Sugar Beet Culture under California Conditions. The County Farm Bureau. Feeding Stuffs of Minor Importance. The 1918 Grain Crop. Fertilizing California Soils for the 1918 Crop. Wheat Culture. The Construction of the Wood-Hoop Silo. Farm Drainage Methods. Progress Report on the Marketing and Distribution of Milk. The Packing of Apples in California. Factors of Importance in Producing Milk of Low Bacterial Count. Control of the California Ground Squirrel. Extending the Area of Irrigated Wheat in California for 1918. Infectious Abortion in Cows. A Flock of Sheep on the Farm. Lambing Sheds. Winter Forage Crops. Agriculture Clubs in California. A Study of Farm Labor in California. Syrup from Sweet Sorghum. Helpful Hints to Hog Raisers. County Organizations for Rural Fire Con- trol. Peat as a Manure Substitute. Blackleg. CIRCULARS— Continued of in No. 206. Jack Cheese. 208. Summary of the Annual Reports of the Farm Advisors of California. 209. The Function of the Farm Bureau. 210. Suggestions to the Settler in California. 212. Salvaging Rain-Damaged Prunes. 214. Seed Treatment for the Prevention Cereal Smuts. 215. Feeding Dairy Cows in California. 217. Methods for Marketing Vegetables California. 218. Advanced Registry Testing of Dairy Cows. 219. The Present Status of Alkali. 220. Unfermented Fruit Juices. 221. How California is Helping People Own Farms and Rural Homes. 223. The Pear Thrips. 224. Control of the Brown Apricot Scale and the Italian Pear Scale on Deciduous Fruit Trees. 225. Propagation of Vines. 227. Plant Diseases and Pest Control. 228. Vineyard Irrigation in Arid Climates. 229. Cordon Pruning. 230. Testing Milk, Cream, and Skim Milk for Butterfat. No. 231. The Home Vineyard. 232. Harvesting and Handling California Cherries for Eastern Shipment. 233. Artificial Incubation. 234. Winter Injury to Young Walnut Trees During 1921-22. 235. Soil Analysis and Soil and Plant Inter- relations. 236. The Common Hawks and Owls of Cali- fornia from the Standpoint of the Rancher. 237. Directions for the Tanning and Dressing of Furs. 238. The Apricot in California. 239. Harvesting and Handling Apricots and Plums for Eastern Shipment. 240. Harvesting and Handling Pears for East- ern Shipment. 241. Harvesting and Handling Peaches for Eastern Shipment. 242. Poultry Feeding. 243. Marmalade Juice and Jelly Juice from Citrus Fruits. 244. Central Wire Bracing for Fruit Trees. 245. Vine Pruning Systems.