FOODS ANIMAL PRODUCTION. 



73 



ensiled ("whole silage'')^ from t lie next 2 rows tlie ears were i^icked 

 ott", liusked, and gronnd, and tlie stover and Lusks were ensiled, the 

 silage and corn meal being afterwards fed together (" stover silage and 

 nieal*'); from the next 2 rows the corn was stooked near the barn and 

 cut lip as wanted for feeding, ears and all ("■corn fodder''); and that 

 from the fourth 2 rows was stooked near the barn, the ears picked off, 

 a little later husked and ground, and the stover cut \\\) as needed and 

 fed with the corn meal ('' corn stover and meal''). This plan was fol- 

 lowed throughout the entire field. The corn crop was thus divided 

 into 4 equal parts, 2 x>iirts of which were ensiled and the other 2 parts 

 field cured, the ears from one part in each case being cut up with the 

 stalks and from the other part ground and fed with the respective corn 

 fodder or silage. 



The i)erceutage of loss in preserving corn by each of the 4 methods 

 is summarized below : 



Percentage of losses in preserving corn fodder in different ways. 



" Notwithstanding the very different inetliods of handling, the losses are essentially 

 the same in kind and degree, falling mainly upon the carhohydrates (stareh, sugar, 

 etc.). 



"The character of the losses is similar to those found in the 2 experiments previ- 

 onslj^ reported. . . . There is a close relation hetween the losses of weight and of 

 dry matter in the silages. . . . 



"The experiment of 2 years ago showed an average of 25 Djs. dry matter lost for 

 each 100 lbs. of loss iu weight, average percentage loss of weight and dry matter of 

 15.8 and 18.7, while the averages of 8 experiments at the Wisconsin Station show 19 

 per cent loss in both weight and dry matter. It would appear I'rom these figures 

 that, roughly, a fourth of the gross loss iu the silo is dry matter, and that the jierceut- 

 age loss of dry uuitter usually exceeds that of the entire weight. . . . 



"There appears to have been much greater losses with the ears put into the silo 

 than with thos*; which were husked, the reverse of the results 2 years ago, when the 

 losses were 15 i)er cent with the ensiled and 23 i^er cent with the stooked ears. The 

 stover silage ears of 1892, however, Avere exposed for several days to heavy rains, 

 which probably accounts for their large losses. . . . 



"The cars of tlie other 2 parts lost but little in feeding value. The showing is not 

 favorable to the ensiled ears.' 



A feeding experiment to test the corn preserved in the ditferent 

 ways was made with 14 cows. One lot was fed alternately ou the 2 

 kinds of silage for 5 four-week periods, and lot 2 on the 2 kinds of 

 dry fodder for the same time. 



As explained above, the corn meal from the ears which had been 

 picked off" were fed with the stover or silage to which they belonged. 



L 



