Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1918-11-13
ARKANSAS HOGS
 ATTRACT ATTENTION
Swine Raised in State Exhibited At National Swine Show Topped
 Markets.

|
 ka1sas Experiment Station at Fayette
 vile, and exhibited at the National
 Swine Show at Cedar Rapids, Iowa
 topped the market at the close of the
 show at S1S.70 cwt. with the average
 run selling that day at $18.40 cwt
 tion at the swine show and astonished
 the hog raisers from the Corn Belt
 States who expected to find razor.
 backs from Arkansas.
 These Arkansas hogs fed on Arkan- sas feed by Professor H. E. Dvora- chek, head of the animal husbandry Department. College of Agriculture, Fayetteville, have attracted attention to Arkansas as a hog raising state, and why not? These hogs were re- moved only two crosses from native stock Yet they produced pork of such quality and finish that they sold at a price which the Corn Belt hogs could not bring. However they were sired by pure bred boars and were fed carefully.
 
 mind that if the tests were to do Ar kans farmers any good the proteid supplement should be from those feeds that can be easily grown in the state.
 In speaking of the tests, Professor DNorachek says: "Tankage has been recognized during the past few years as practically a standard supplement. However, prices have risen to such an extent and the supply has been SO limited that feeders have been forced to look for a substitute. The experi- rents conducted at the Arkansas Station show that the South is fortu- nate in being able to grow a number of crops whose seeds afe rich in pro- teid and therefore, if our farmers take advantage of the situation should be a source for a supply of supple ment feeds to take the place of tank age.
 With the purpose of studying few of these feeds, the Animal Husband.y Department undertook the test of pea liu' iIVoi uuN NIVl DCoA pOS- sible substitutes for tankage. Three lots of six shoats, each weighing on the average of 115 pounds were used in the first test Each lot was pro- vided with a self feeder so that the animals could have free choice of corn and the supplements at all times. This first test extended over an elev- on week feeding period and the fol- lowing results were obtained:
 Lot l. Corn, Velvet Bean Meal.- Gain, 393 lbs: average daily gain, .S5. Feed consumed ,c0 ID. gain: Corn, 5s5s; supplement-. s2.7. Cost 1oo-le. gain. $19.57.
 Lot ?. Corn. Peanut Meal.-Gain. sy4 lbs; average daily gain 1.24. Feed consumed 100 lb. gain: Corn. 384.1; supplement 7s.6. Cost 10O-lb. gain, $1419.
 Lot B. Corn, Tankage.-Gain. 475 lbs.; average daily gain. 1.o3. Feed consumed 100 lb. gain: Corn. 4S4.2: supplement 29.S. Cost 100lb. gain. s1704.
 The results show that the velvet bean meal proved rather unpalatable and the gains were made almost en- tirely on corn.
 hC lOt Ol uOSS Ol toAhoSC ulu ItOL consume much of this feed. Those on peanut meal relished the feed and ate iL freely. The peanut meal and vel vet bean meal were purchased at a cost of $2.S5 and 52.5O cwt respective ly laid down at Fayetteville. The tankage cost $5.20 cwt. while the corn was valued at $1.S0 per bushel or 56 pounds or about s3.20 cwt. With the hope of making the hogs consume lar: ger quantities of especially the velvet bean meal, a second test was under taken with three lots of five hogs 1 each, weighing about 100 pounds. This l time each lot was hard fed. The SUD- l plement was in each case mixed with 1 eight times it's weight of coarse, corn chops. The test lasted over a nine week feeding period and the following results were obtained: Lot l. Velvet Bean Meal. Corn Gain. S5 lbs: average daily gain, 10. Feed for 100 lb. gain Corn. 1726:2; supplement. 21s.s. Cost 1oo-lb. gain. $SO.63. Lot 2. Peanut Meal, corn:-Gain. 1sS: average daily gain, ..53. Feed for 
 6o.3. Cost 1O0-lb. gain, $17.15. Lot 3. Tankage, Corn--Gain. IA; aver 1 age daily gain. .4e. Feed for 100 lh. gain: Corn. 5s4s; supplement, ees. ] Cost 100 lb gain. $2o.b9.
 The results again show peanut meal i to be superior to tankage as a supple l ment to corn. The velvet bean meal | made very poor showing. The hogs l refused to eat only about mainte- nance ration of the velvet bean meal. l corn mixture and therefore what small | gains were made were made at great 1 cost. All lots made small gains as l the summer was too hot for large i gains.
 As a result of these tests, the con clusions can be drawn that Arkansas l farmers can produce pork of quality | and finish, economically:
 A. By grading up their hogs by the l use of pure bred boars.
 B. By proper care and attention,
 C. By careful feeding and by us- l iny NrCtoid SupnIereptc