476 



Missouri Agricultural Report. 



results with timothy hay justifies a conclusion that if a man 

 has a large quantity of timothy hay and a flock of lambs he had 

 better sell them both before he ruins his lambs. We have 

 quit feeding timothy hay to lambs and we hope everyone else 

 will soon follow our example. 



Another roughage we have been trying for fattening lambs 

 is corn silage. There are in the cofn. belt enough cornstalks 

 to feed three times as many cattle and sheep as we are now 

 feeding. Approximately forty per cent of the feeding value of 

 corn is in the stalk. Under the present system of farming little 

 of the feeding value of the cornstalk is secured. Silage makes 

 use of the entire corn plant and furnishes the stock a succulent- 

 feed which is so highly appreciated by good shepherds. Table 

 II shows the results of three trials with adding corn silage to 

 a ration of corn and clover hay. 



TABLE II.— CORN AND CLOVER HAY VS. CORN, CLOVER HAY AND CORN 

 SILAGE. AVERAGE OF THREE TRIALS. 



Ration. 



Shelled corn, 

 clover hay. 



Shelled corn, 

 clover hay, 

 corn silage. 



Initial weight 



Final weight 



Gain per lamb 



Daily gain per lamb 



Daily feed eaten: 



Grain 



Hay 



Silage 



Feed per pound gain: 



Grain 



Hay 



Silage 



Cost per 100 pounds gain: 



Corn, 40 cents per bushel. 



Corn, 50 cents per bushel. 



Corn, 60 cents per bushel. 



Pounds. 



59.4 



82.2 



22.8 



.325 



1.23 

 1.41 



3.77 

 4.35 



$4.99 

 5.63 

 6.26 



Pounds. 



59.6 



82.2 



22.6 



.323 



1.19 

 .90 

 .94 



3.68 

 2.80 

 2.90 



$4.79 

 5.28 

 5.90 



Clover hay, $10.00 per ton; corn silage, $3.50 per ton. 



It will be noted in Table II that the lambs receiving corn 

 silage did not eat as much corn as those receiving no silage. This 

 was not due to poorer appetites of the lambs fed silage, but' 

 to the effect of the grain in the silage which replaced a part of 

 the corn in the grain ration. The rate of gain was so nearly" 

 the same in both lots that the difference can very well be ig- 

 nored. The only marked difference between the two rations 

 was in the cost of gain. Two hundred ninety pounds of corn 



