North Dakota State University * Dickinson Research Extension Center
1089 State Avenue, Dickinson, ND 58601-4642 Voice: (701) 483-2348 FAX: (701) 483-2005


HOGS Winter 1959-60 Feeding Trial

Three lots of 48-pound pigs and 3 lots of 62-pound pigs were paired and fed 3 meal-type rations as follows:

  Commercial Supp. Soybean Meal Dry B. Milk
Barley 1260 1220 1200
Oats 640 616 600
Soybean Meal 0 120 0
Dry Buttermilk 0 0 160
Steamed Bonemeal 0 36 30
Trace Min. Salt 0 10 10
Commercial Supp. 100 0 0

 

Table 13. Three rations for fattening pigs, Winter 1959-1960
  Dry Buttermilk Soybean Meal Commercial
  Lot 1 Lot 4 Lot 2 Lot 5 Lot 3 Lot 6
No. Pigs/lot 11 11 11 11 11 11
Initial Wt. 48 62 48 62 48 62
Final Wt. 185 214 179 205 182 203
Av. Daily Gain 1.30 1.45 1.24 1.36 1.28 1.34
Days on Feed 105 105 105 105 15 105
Feed/100 Lb. Gain 421 443 463 462 458 510
Feed Cost/100 Gain $10.53 $11.08 $9.58 $9.56 $9.89 $11.02
Feed prices used: Barley, .80 bu., Oats, .56 bu., Soybean Meal, $4.00 Cwt., Dry Buttermilk, $9.00 Cwt., Steamed Bonemeal, $6.00 Cwt., Trace Min. Salt, $2.75 Cwt., and Commercial Supp., $8.00 Cwt. A fee of 15 cents per Cwt. was added for grinding and mixing.

Gains were highest on the ration containing 8% dry buttermilk, but the simple soybean meal supplement was the most economical in producing pork. All top hogs in the six lots sold together for $13.60 per 100 pounds.

A later experiment with 4 lots of pigs on concrete compared a soybean meal ration similar to that fed lots 2 and 5 above, with a ration containing 3% each of soybean meal and dry buttermilk. Table 14 presents the results obtained with these two rations, both pelleted.

Table 14. Soybean Meal vs. Soybean Meal and Buttermilk Supplements
  5% Soybean Meal 3% Each, Soybean Meal & Buttermilk
Initial Wt. 56 27 55 27
Final Wt. 192 165 209 184
Av. Daily Gain 1.23 .95 1.39 1.18
Days on Feed 111 147 111 133
Feed/100 Lbs. Gain 376 379 356 334
Feed Cost/100 Gain $8.91 $8.98 $9.08 $8.52

The soybean meal and buttermilk supplement was superior to soybean meal alone for both the 27-pound and the 56-pound pigs; with the greatest difference showing in the light weight pigs. While the soybean meal supplemented ration appeared to give satisfactory results in 56-pound pigs, it was inferior to a ration containing both soybean meal and buttermilk when fed to 27-pound pigs.

Limited-fed vs. Self-fed Fattening Pigs, 2 rations

Experimental evidence presented by workers in the United States Department of Agriculture has shown that pigs on good pasture will make more economical gains when fed only about two-thirds as much feed per day as they would eat if self-fed. Also claimed for limited feeding is the production of leaner pork, which is desirable from the consumer's viewpoint.

An experiment, using 2 rations and 4 lots of pigs on pasture and 2 lots on concrete, was conducted in the summer of 1960 to learn whether limited feeding would pay under our conditions.

The same ration as that used for lots 3 and 6, Table 13, was self-fed and hand-fed both on pasture and on concrete. A second ration containing the same grain mixture, but no supplement other than .5% of trace-mineralized salt was self-fed and hand-fed on pasture. The pastures were spring seeded winter wheat, and all rations were pelleted. Results are summarized in Table 15.

Table 15. Limited-fed and Self-fed Pigs on Pasture and on Concrete
  Complete Ration Grain & Salt Only
  Concrete Pasture Pasture
  Lot 1 Hand Lot 2 Self Lot 3 Hand Lot 4 Self Lot 2-p Hand Lot 3-p Self
Initial Wt. 40 41 40 40 41 40
Final Wt. 183 202 190 225 200 210
Av. D. Gain .98 1.10 1.02 1.40 1.09 1.28
Days on Feed 147 147 147 133 147 133
Feed Consumed/day 3.47 4.34 3.41 4.71 3.58 4.59
Feed Consumed/100 Gain 355 395 333 344 331 359
Feed Cost/100 Gain $8.66 $9.64 $8.13 $8.39 $7.25 $7.86

The hand-fed pigs made more economical but less rapid gains than the self-fed pigs in each of the three comparisons. The hand-fed pigs on concrete were fed an average 80% as much feed as their self-fed mates. The cost of gains was $.98 per 100 pounds higher for the self-fed pigs than for the hand-fed pigs, but this large difference may be partially due to the fact that several pigs in self-fed lot 2 were poor doers. The hand-fed pigs in lot 3 were fed 72% as much feed per day as the sel-fed pigs in lot 4 consumed.

There was a much greater difference in rate of gain between hand-feeding and self-feeding on pasture than on concrete. The most economical gains were made by pigs in Lots 2-p and 3-p, which were fed only grain and salt. The hand-feds consumed 78% as much feed per day as the self-feds, and as in all other comparisons, made more efficient gains than the self-feds. No carcass data were secured on the pigs in these lots.

The relatively good showing made by the pigs on a grain and salt ration in Table 15 is in agreement with the findings of an earlier trial with fall pigs. In that trial, the self-fed complete ration pigs gained 1.28 pounds per day and the grain and salt-fed pigs gained 1.16 pound per day. The latter lot put on weight for $1.45 per 100 pounds less feed cost than the former.


Back to 1960 Research Reports Table of Contents
Back to Research Reports
Back to Dickinson Research Extension Center
(http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/dickinso/)
Email: drec@ndsuext.nodak.edu