v .. 



246 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



They would not deserve mention, were they not thoughtlessly 

 allowed to influence opinion. 



2d, Others have done in this way, — weighed their animals 

 eating dry food at the time when they were thirsting. Eat- 

 ing ensilage they get all the water needed. The next weight 

 is honestly taken, and found at the end of a month to give a 

 gain of a pound a day, wliich may in reality be a loss. Thus 

 I find that a steer of eight hundred to a thousand pounds' 

 weight will drink fifty to sixty pounds cf water a day. The 

 first weight was without drink : the last, with drink ; because, 

 feeding on ensilage, they drink as they eat. 



3d, It is said that ensilage costs but two dollars a ton, 

 and that a cow consuming sixty pounds, and five pounds of 

 cotton-seed meal, — costing in total thirteen cents and a 

 half daily, — will do as well as on thirty pounds of good hay 

 costing thirty cents, if not better. The fallacy of rating the 

 hay at a handsome profit for raising, and ensilage at less than 

 cost, ought to be apparent to all. A captivating fallacy can 

 be met in no better way than by similar illogical reasoning. 

 I published the cost cf a sixteen-acre field of corn ; and, 

 rating the corn at thirty cents, the stover cost two dollars 

 and eighty-five cents per ton. 



As the result of weights for long periods, not only of 

 fodder, but of cow and milk, a change from corn-fodder and 

 straw and 2 J pounds each of corn and cotton-seed meals to 

 hay was followed by decline of milk-flow. My cost of 

 ration tlien was 222- pounds stover and straw at $2.55 per 

 ton, 3.2 cents ; 2^ pounds of corn meal at 30 cents per 

 bushel, 1.34 cents ; and 2^ pounds cotton-seed nieal at $30 

 per ton, 3.75 cents : total cost, 8.29 cents. If this is not fair 

 comparison, will not some one point out the fallacy ? Sup- 

 pose we get up a little revclution in favor of rotations and 

 air-dried crops ? But, as none of us are working for cost, I 

 presume that no one will get excited in the matter, and 

 hence no caution from me will be necessary. I may say that 

 I have seen results from most of the silos of the county for 

 the years 1880 and 1881, and have seen no trial above criti- 

 cism that is very favorable. Professor Cook of the New 

 Jersey Experiment Station made an accurate trial, so far 

 as it went, and is decidedly unfavorable to all claims made 

 regarding the peculiar feeding-value of ensilage. Animals 



