62 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTUKE. 



(another advantage in weighting in this way). The process is similar to cut- 

 ting down a hiiy-inow. 



Is'ot one of the h'ust important considerations of ensihige is the fact that so 

 large an atnomif of it can be pauke.l in a comparatively small space. A 

 cubic foot of CMisiliige fi'otn our silo will weigh 35 pounds. From 5 to 6 per 

 cent of the live weight of the ;ininial will be a daily ration, or from 50 to 75 

 pounds for an ordinary cow. It is thus an easy matter to compute the num- 

 ber of cul)ic feet necessary to contain the food for a certain number of 

 animals, Tlie silo at the (Joljege is 14x15 feet inside the walls, and 8 feet 

 high, containing l,(i8U cubic feet. Allowing 40 pounds to the cubic foot and 

 we hiive a capacity for almost .')9 tons of ensilage, or enough to feed five cows 

 for "ZOO days a daily ration of 60 pounds each. When we take into the 

 account the large weights that can be packed in a small silo it seems that this 

 promises to be the most economical method of providing shelter for fodder — 

 no small item to farmers who are not well supplied with buildings. 



The ensil.-ige was slightly acid in taste, quite brown in color vvlien first taken 

 from the silo, but, after ex|)osure to tlic air a short time, regained largely its 

 fresh, green appearance. The cattle, from the start, with a few exceptions, 

 ate it with avidity. 



An analysis, made at the New Jersey Experimental Station by Prof. Neale, 

 is herewith given : 



Loss at 100° C 83.27 



Protein _ I.(j3 



Fat.- 7G 



Fiber 4.72 



Ash 1.94 



Carbhydrates 8.08 



100.00 



The analysis will be found, with several others, in the report of Prof. Cook, 

 director of the New Jersey Experimental Station, to which I refer elsewhere. 

 I have thus inserted it for the purpose of comparison. It will be seen that it 

 was an average sample. Our sample contains more protein or nitrogenons 

 elements tliaii either of the others, but falls a good way below the first four 

 in the per cent of carbhydrates. As the albuminoids are the most expensive 

 ingi'edients to produce, this sample would take average rank in feeding value. 



We began our feeding experiment Dec. 1st, feeding to the 15th in a pre- 

 liminary way, when we began to feed ensilage. 



Tiie following notes and table will, it is hoped, give some definite idea of 

 the object in view and the results reached. 



FEEDING ENSILAGE. 



Object of the Experiment. 



The aim of the experiment was to determine the comparative value of ensi- 

 lage, as a cattle food, for the production of milk, flesh, and growth. 



With tliis aim in view, the ensilage was fed in place of roots, and as a full 

 or |)artial substitute for the dry, rough feeds. A reference to the accompa- 

 nying table will show the different proportions and combinations in which the 

 ensilage was fed. 



