122 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



two, without pulp, the yield was 130.27. Group II, on the other hand, gave 131.25 

 pounds of butter fat during the second period, with pulp, and but 128.00 pounds during 

 the first period and without pulp. Both groups gave more butter fat in the second period 

 than in the first, but when the amounts given with pulp are compared with the yields 

 without pulp we find a difference of but one pound and four-tenths, 259.07 pounds of 

 butter fat with pulp and 258.27 without it. 



The milk yields tell a rather different story. The two groups when receiving pulp 

 yielded 7,25S.6 pounds of milk, while, when the pulp was withheld, the yield for the ten 

 weeks was but 6,843.6 pounds, a difference of 415 pounds. 



EXPERIENCE OF FARMERS IN FEEDING PULP. 



There are given l>elow several letters from fanners who have had experience in feeding 

 pulp to cattle or sheep. They are published here to show, in a general way what the 

 farmers who have fed pulp think of its value. The statements made in the letters are not 

 claimed to be based upon careful experiment and the station does not vouch for their 

 accuracy. The letters as a wliole do express the opinions of practical feeders. 



Bay City, Mich., July 31, 1901. 

 Director Michigan Experiment Station: 



Dear Sir — I have fed beet pulp to dairy cows for two winters. During the last cam- 

 paign of the factory I fed pulp to an average of 55 cows, registered Jerseys, the milk of 

 the herd being sold to regular customers in Bay City. The pulp was hauled fresh from 

 the factory each day, or at short intervals, and fed unfermented. The cows without 

 exception ate the pulp readily from the start. 



I used the pulp as substitute for corn ensilage. The cows had been receiving two 

 feedings per day of corn silage, with hay and grain. After beginning with the pulp the 

 hay and grain remained practically the same, and one feed per day of pulp was sub- 

 stituted for one feed of the silage. Unfortunately, at the time the changes in the feeding- 

 were made I was building a new barn, and the frequent changes in the stalls of the cows 

 made it impossible to continue our regular records of the yields of each individual cow. 

 I cannot, therefore,, give a definite statement as to the influence of the feeding of pulp 

 i u the quality of the milk or its quantity farther than to say that no shrinkage in the 

 yield of the herd as a whole seemed to follow the change from silage to pulp nor was 

 there an apparent increase when the change was made back again to silage. 



In the winter of 1899-1900 I also fed considerable quantities of beet pulp. While 

 there was no bad effect from the feeding of pulp from unfrozen beets, I noticed h tendency 

 to bloating and to bowel disorders as soon as I attempted to feed stored pulp from 

 frozen beets. 



Yours respectfully, 



T. F. MARSTON, 

 President State Board of Agriculture. 



Alma, Mich., August, 1901. 

 Director C. D. Smith: 



Dear Sir — Through last winter I fed five cows and twenty-five sheep with beet pulp. 



I fed the twenty-five sheep four bundles of fodder daily, and no grain until grass 

 started, when I gave them a panful of corn each day. In addition, the sheep ate two 

 bushels per clay of the pulp. The sheep did splendidly all winter, were strong and 

 healthy, but I do not think the lambs are quite as good. 



To the cows, I gave cornstalks, mixed hay, timothy and clover, and the usual quantity 

 of grain. They had daily about a bushel and a half each of beet pulp. This pulp they ate 

 readily. It kept the coats sleek, and the cows kept up their flow of milk far better than 

 they would have done without it. I am sure that the pulp saved me one-half of the 

 coarse fodder. 



Yours respectfully, 



BYRON NEVINS. 



