Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1901-01-29

Skim milk when fed in combination
with grain makes very valuable fOoC
for hogs at all periods of their growth
but particularly so during the earlier
periods.
Skim milk and grain in combination
make much more economic ration fol
hogs than either milk alone or grair
alone.
When fed 10 combination with grain
skim milk has 63 per cent greater feed.
| ing value than it has when fed alone.
Hogs fed on the milk and grain ration
made much more rapid gains than either
those fed on milk alone or grain alone,
The time required TO make 100 pounds
of gain was 20 davs for the hogs fed on
grain and milk, 1l6 DAYS for those fed
on grain alone and l47 days when the
food was milk alone.
Hogs fed on milk alone gained very
slowly aud did not keep in good health,
in some cases they were off their feed
so FRI equently that II change Of feed had
to be made. The milk and grain fed
hogs, however, without exception, kept
in good health.
do well and appeared TO make poor use
of the food they ate. When the food
was changed TO milk and grain marked
Improvement was effected in their
growth and thriftiness.
Hogs fed on milk alone or grain alone,
when on pasture, did much better than
hogs similarly fed in small pens. On
the other hand, however, the hogs fed
milk and grain in combination did bet
ter in the pens, gaining .05 pounds more
per day than did those on pasture, and
required practically the same amount
of food to make pound Of gain. The
milk and grain fed hogs ate 81 pounds
more digestible matter per day than
those fed on grain alone, and LAG
pounds more than those fed on milk
alone. They gained Al pounds per day
more than the hogs fed grain alone and
80 pounds more than those fed milk
alone.
Young hogs are in every way the
more economic producers of pork. The
hogs fed milk and grain required 81
per cent more TO grow u pound OF live
weight when they weighed from 200 to
255 pounds, than they did when they
weighed from IS TO 100 pounds, and for
those hogs fed on grain alone the differ
ence in favor of the smaller weight was
sc per cent.
Calves may be raised very profitably
on skim milk when it is properly fed.
From the standpoint of gain in live
weight and quality of meat, whole
milk is the best food for calves, but it
makes too expensive ration TO be
profitably fed. Butter fat has been
worth l6 cents per pound. The gain in
the live weight of these calves at cents
per pound returns but l07 cents per
pound for the butter fat fed; at cents
per pound for the gain but cents per
pound.
The calves whose ratious we're COM
posed largely of skim milk, while they
gained one-half pound less per day, yet
required practically the same amount
of dry matter TO each pound Of gain as
did those fed on whole milk, they made
Just as good use of the food. The calves
Ted whole milk alone gave greater pro-
portion of dressed meat TO live weight
than did those fed on skim milk, and also
gave more fat on the carcass.
Young calves, up TO 3 l-2 months OF
age, required less milk and less dry mat
yer 10 each pound of gain than did the
hogs. When the calves were five and
six months old, however, more dry
matter was required, but At least half of
il WAS hay.
When fed TO calves, fully AS large
financial returns were obtained for the
skim milk AS when fed to hogs.-New
England Farmer.