141 



I'lic results of the writer's cxpci-iciici' iiiid observation are thus 

 summarized : 



(1) The silo should he huilt as near as possible to where the silage is to be fed. 



(2) A solid fomidatiou and well-constructed walls, whether of stone, concrete, 

 brick, or lumber, are essential to success. 



(3) Fodder corn, such as the R. & W. r.lounfs Prolific, Sheep Tooth, and 

 other silage varieties, will yield nmch larger croi)s of fodder than any of our 

 field corns or sweet corns. 



(4) Corn for silage in Ohio should be planted from the liOtli of Mny to the 

 middle of June. The fertility of the soil should be a guide in the distribution 

 of seed. 



(5) P"'odder corn sh<;uld be cut when the corn begins to glaze, and when the 

 stalks begin to dry near the ground. 



(6) The silage may be cut from 1 to 4 inches long, and no inconvenience will 

 follow in the feeding. 



(7) The filling of the silo may l)e continuous, or it may be postponed for a day 

 or two without serious injury. 



(8) We advise weighting and otherwise securing well the top of the silo, 

 making it as nearly air-tight as possible. 



(9) Silage may be successfully, and oftentimes most conveniently, removed 

 from the silo for feeding by mining. 



He is thoroughly convinced that the silo is destined to become an 

 important factor in farm economy, and is satisfied that dairymen gen- 

 erally may increase their incomes and decrease their outlays by the 

 use of silage, and that many farmers may also use the silo with profit. 



SlI.AGE VERSUS FIELD BEETS AS FOOD FOR MILK PRODUCTION, C. E. 



Thorne and J. F. Hickman, M. A. S. (pp. 89-100).—" Twelve grade 

 Shorthorns were selected, as nearly uniform as possible in breed, 

 condition, and rate of milk production.'' This herd was divided into 

 four lots (A, B, C, and D) of 3 cows each. The plan was to feed the 

 cows on a uniform ration of 10 pounds of clover hay, 2 pounds of corn 

 meal, and 1 ])ounds of wlieat bran. In addition, lot A was to receive 

 40 pounds of corn silage daily per cow, and lot B 50 ])Ounds of beets 

 dail}'^ per cow, throughout the experiment; '* while lots C and D were 

 to have the same rations as A and B, but in alternate periods of two 

 weeks each. (' I'eceiviiig the ration containing sihige, while D received 

 that coiitaiiiing l)eets. and r/'rr rri'sti." Details are given in five tables 

 under the following headings: Feed required; percentage of fat in 

 milk; average weight and dry matter consumed in food; production 

 of milk and milk fat and gain or loss; Aveight and average daily con- 

 sumption for entire test. The authors exi)lain and insist that this 

 exj)eriment is only i)reliminarv : that its purpose was to ol)tain ex])eri- 

 ences, and that for this puri)ose " it has been worth its cost." The 

 results '• point to two conclusions which they believe will be confirmed 

 by further ex[)eriment." 



(1 ) The dry matter of corn silage and of field beets is at least equal in value 

 to the dry m.itter of the better grades of stock feed in ordinary iise. when feti in 

 property ad.iusted rations. 



(2) Corn silage is slightly superior to field beets as a flesh or fat producer, 

 and beets are slightly better than corn silage for milk production. 



