ANIMAL PRODUCTION. 869 



" It was not possible to detect any abnormal condition of tlieir internal 

 organs, nor of their dressed carcasses. Xo particular study was made relative 

 to the quality or chemical composition of the fat. It was noted that neither of 

 the animals was excessively fat." 



It is stated that satisfactory results were obtained at the Massachusetts 

 Agricultural College farm when growing and fattening pigs were fed 50 lbs. 

 of !ow-grade wheat flour stirred into a barrel of water to which a gallon of 

 molasses was added after the mixture had been steamed for an hour or two 

 until well thickened. 



" If molasses is used for the nutrition of pigs, it must be mixed with foods 

 reasonably rich in itrotein. If skim milk is not available, a combination by 

 ■U'eight of 2 parts bran, 1 part gluten feed, 1 part corn meal and 1 part mo- 

 lasses; or 1 part tankage. 4 parts corn meal, and 1 part molasses ought to 

 prove satisfactory. The writer sees no particular advantage under ordinary 

 conditions for the northern farmer to employ molasses for pig feeding other 

 than as an appetizer." 



In a test with 2 lots of 3 dairy cows each molasses and corn meal were com- 

 pared, the test covering 2 periods of 5 weeks each, separated by an interval of 

 2 weeks, the ration being reversed in the second period. The molasses was 

 diluted with water and mixed with dry grain before feeding. On the molasses 

 ration there was an average gain of 10 lbs. and on the corn meal ration of G7 

 lbs. The daily milk yield on the 2 rations was 18.04 and 19.65 lbs., respectively, 

 the corn meal ration showing an increase over the molasses ration of 11.3 per 

 cent total milk solids and 13.1 per cent total milk fat. The cost of 100 lbs. of 

 milk on the 2 rations was $1.28 and $1.10 and the cost of 100 lbs. of butter 

 $21.50 and $10.41, respectively. 



According to the authors — 



•'Any particularly fa^'orable effect of Porto Rico molasses uijon the general 

 health and appearance of the G milch cows employed in the above-described 

 experiment was not observed. The feces from the molasses-fed animals were 

 darker in color and softer than from those receiving the corn-meal ration. 



"A dally ration containing nearly 4 lbs. of corn meal produces some 10 per 

 cent moi*e milk and 11 to 13 per cent more total solids and fat than a similar 

 basal ration containing a like amount of Porto Rico molasses. 



" The molasses ration seemed to produce milk with slightly less fat and 

 solids-not-fat than did the corn-meal ration. 



"A like amount of milk and butter from the molasses ration cost S to 11 per 

 cent more than from the corn-meal ration. 



" Molasses did not produce any unfavorable effect upon the flavor of the 

 milk. . . . 



•'All things considered, the writer does not see any advantage to be gained 

 by northern farmers from the use of molasses as a food for dairy stock in 

 place of corn meal and similar carbohydrates. As an appetizer for cows out 

 of condition and for facilitating tlie disposal of uni)aiatable and inferior rotigh- 

 ago and grain, 2 to 3 lbs. of molasses daily undoubtedly would prove helpful 

 and economical." 



When a commercial molasses feed was compared with wheat bran and gluten 

 feed, the total milk yield of 4 cows on the former ration was 7,357.4 lbs. and on 

 the bran and gluten ration 7,639.6 lbs. According to the authors' calculations, 

 there was an increase of 6.8 per cent total solids and 6 per cent total butter fat 

 on the bran ration as compared with the commercial feed ration. 



In a test with another commercial molasses feed the average daily milk yield 

 on the molasses feed was 16.76 lbs. and on the bran and gluten feed 18.61 lbs.. 



