NEGenWeb
Resource Center
On-Line Library

around the outside of hog carcasses. This is rendered, and reduced down to 85-88 per cent lard. The layer is trimmed off in the packing house where none of it is wasted. The fat on the back of the steer does not trim well, so they leave it on. It is bought with the meat and taken home, some eat it, but a large part of it is wasted. There is where we draw the line on the kind of animal.

     MR. DAVIS: Is a pound of pork made from four pounds of corn with .2 pound of tankage an unusually good showing?

     A. That is just about the average showing, that is to say, under winter conditions, the hog usually consumes from four to five pounds of corn to produce one pound of pork. Under summer conditions on alfalfa a pound of pork is made, as a general role, on less than four pounds of corn. The average is from 3 1/2 to 4 pounds of corn under favorable weather conditions.

A pound of pork may be produced from approximately four pounds
of corn and two-tenths pound of tankage

     The lamb is about as economical a gainer as the hog. He will take about four pounds of corn in conjunction with about from 2 1/2 to 3 pounds of alfalfa to make his pound of gain.

     MR. BROWN: The ordinary farmer, feeding hogs, keeping them in a feed lot with 100 other animals, all being fed the same feed and all uniformly of the same size--would you expect him to get as favorable gains as you do in your experimental feeding lots?

     MR. GRAMLICH: I would be inclinded (sic) to think that the farmer would get almost as good gains as are obtained in an experimental feeding lot. Hogs in an experimental feeding pen might not be kept under any better conditions than hogs on the average farm. I would expect the farm hog to show up just as well as an educated hog. Supplying plenty of water is a very important factor entering into the successful raising of hogs.

     MR. KIESSELBACH: A few years ago we heard so much about feeding alfalfa to hogs with corn. Now more emphasis seems to he placed on tankage, even though we have alfalfa hay. Is alfalfa hay not more practical to feed than tankage?

     MR. GRAMLICH: Tankage is relatively a new feed. It has proven its value within the past few years. This year the reason we are not hearing so much about alfalfa is because it was a dry year, following a good deal of winter killing, and many farmers don't have it to feed.

     MR. HOGUE: If you had it, would you feed it?

     MR. GRAMLICH: I would use it, but I am inclined to think the hog will not consume sufficient alfalfa to meet his needs for protein. So far as protein is concerned, the hog should have a limited amount of tankage in conjunction with alfalfa hay. We are having our alfalfa ground and we mix it with ground corn. The old sows are given a mixture of three parts ground alfalfa and one part ground corn. Young sows that are growing receive the mixture with proportions reversed.

     Question. Is it economical to grind alfalfa?

     MR. GRAMLICH: With alfalfa at present prices it would probably pay to grind it. I am inclined to think you would he justified in grinding it because there is no waste. The cost of grinding would conservatively not run over $2.00 to $2.50 per ton. I might say that many farmers are using silage cutters, for chopping up their alfalfa. We have a grinder that grinds about a ton in an hour, with two men to handle it.

     MR. GADDIS: I would like to know if you have had any experience threshing alfalfa hay to put it into a condition more readily eaten by stock.

     MR. GRAMLICH: No, that is a new suggestion for me, but I am not surprised at anything nowadays.

     We are here in the cornbelt region where we can grow corn and alfalfa. Wheat can be grown on every continent, but when you

stop to consider that corn and alfalfa are the two essential things in live stock production, we have surely a great subject for discussion. I think our stockmen hardly appreciate alfalfa as they should. Early in November I was at the Illinois University and they were buying Nebraska alfalfa at $38.75 a ton. We are right here in the heart of the region where we can grow alfalfa and corn, and if we do raise it, we must have animals to consume it with a reasonable amount of grain.

---

     According to statistics compiled by the United States Food Administration, the production of dairy products in the United States did not in the years just preceding the war, keep pace with the increase in population, to say nothing of the enormous additional demands on account of the war. The further fact that, according to Hoover, the cattle of Europe have been reduced some 28,000,000 since the war began, indicates an alarming decrease in dairy products abroad. This decrease is further emphasized by the enormous increase in dairy exports of the United States.

     Government statistics recently compiled show that the exports of butter increased from 3,693,597 pounds in 1914 to 26,835,092 pounds in 1917. For the same period, the cheese exports increased from 2,427,577 pounds to 66,087,213 pounds. The increase in the export of condensed milk is even more striking, the exports in 1914 being 16,209,082 pounds and in 1917, 259,102,213 pounds.

     On account of the depletion of European food resources and of the constantly increasing number of American soldiers in Europe, it is absolutely certain that, at least, until the end of the war, we may expect a constantly increasing demand for dairy products abroad. In addition, it is safe to assume that this market demand will continue for at least a period, after the war, for naturally, the first action of the peoples of devastated Europe toward reconstruction will be directed toward the growing of such crops as will bring at least partial

relief to the shortage of bread. It is reasonable to suppose that it will take them years to bring up their depleted dairy herds to the place they held before the war. In the meantime, the people must have milk and butter and cheese, and it will fall to America to supply a large part of these, at least, for years to come.

     Then, too, Europe will look to us for breeding stock to replenish her impoverished herds which it will take time to develop. Cows can not reach maximum production in less than four or five years; therefore, it seems fairly safe to assume that there will he an unusual demand for dairy products and breeding stock for some time after the war.

     It is reasonable to assume also that the home consumption of dairy products will show a marked increase, especially in the form of milk and soft cheeses, since, under general conditions, these are not capable of export, but can be used at home and thus release for export meat and fat which are of more concentrated form and of better keeping quality. Add to this the further fact that we are just in the beginning of a nation wide campaign to educate the consumer to the real merit of dairy products--that milk is not only food for infants but that it contains nutrients which should form a part of the diet of everyone; that butter is not a luxury simply to make bread taste better but is one of the best and most desirable sources of energy; that cheese is a valuable muscle builder and one of the best substitutes for meat.

     Those behind the food conservation movement and those who have made a real study of the food situation do not advise the limiting of the consumption of dairy products. They rather urge a liberal tho not wasteful use of milk and soft cheese especially, in order that less bulky and better keeping foods may go in increased quantities to our Allies.

     The warring countries of Europe are in dire straits for fat (energy foods). Thru the press we note the constant appeal of the German leaders for fat, fat and more fat, for the soldiers and civilians alike. The same is true of our own Allies, and we must not let them suffer for want of fat so long as we have an abundant supply of coarse, bulky feeds that can not otherwise be used for human consumption, to produce the best of all fats--butterfat.

     We are getting away from the idea which formerly was prevalent among dietitians and chemists as well as among people in general, that all fats regardless of their source, yield only heat and energy when consumed by the animal or human body. just recently, investigators like Dr. Mendel of Yale and Dr. McCollum of Johns

Hopkins have made discoveries of vital importance in regard to the value of the milk fats. They have found that unlike other fats, butterfat has the ability or power to produce growth after growth had ceased in young animals used in their experiments. In other words, milk fat has been found to contain a vital principle necessary for growth and life itself.

     In the light of their experiments and observations made upon young animals it is reasonable to suppose that as great or greater discrepancies would be found in the growth and general health of young children. Just how much or how little butterfat can he used and still maintain growth has not yet been determined, but enough has been proved to give the dairyman sure footing to his claim that butterfat is a better food than butter substitutes composed of vegetable oils and fats. And the dairyman's duty becomes the more imperative when he realizes that by increasing his herds, he will be able to supply economically the finest of all fats--the one without which normal growth in children does not take place, and the one which should be available alike to the weakened soldier and hardworking civilian.

     In this connection it will he of especial interest to compare the food vaues (sic) of dairy products with other well-known food products. The following tables give some idea of the value of dairy products as food:

ONE QUART MILK--on energy basis equals

8 eggs	3.35 tbs. oysters
2 lbs. chicken	1.2 doz. bananas
.79 lb. sirloin steak	.79 lb. English Walnuts
7 oranges	3.5 lbs. asparagus
6.55 lbs. tomatoes	.76 lbs. fish

---

© 2002 for the NEGenWeb Project by Pam Rietsch, Ted & Carole Miller