842 (fdl 1111(1 Tare Siluijc 



about 2 ft. l)elo\v bag '1 aud possessed the .same pleasant ■'fruity' suiell 

 but the colour, though still green, was not quite so good. 



Bag 3, which was taken from the same sample of crop as bags 1 and '1, 

 was retrieved from the big silo on March 28th, and when opened was 

 found to contain silage very similar to that taken from silo No. 1. It 

 possessed an olive green colour and a^ pleasant, slightly "fruity"' smell. 



Table 1. 



No. of bai; 



Iiitorvrtl li<-t\vei!ii cutting 



aiul ensiling (hours) 

 Initial t(MUiH'r-ature (° (.'.) 

 .Maximum tompci-atui-e (" ('.) 

 % moisture a.s ensiled 

 % moisture after ensiling 



Dry matter as ensiled (ozs.) 

 Dry matter after ensiling 



(ozs. ) 

 % loss of ilry matter 13-2 13-4 11-4, 8-2 91 7-2 lO-o l(i-5 



* (n) Unsjjoilt sample, (b) Spoilt sample. 



An examination of Table I shows that the conditions of silage in 

 samples 1, 2 and -'5 are very similar, except in one respect. They were 

 ensiled at the same initial and maximum temperatures, which latter was 

 very low, the quality of silage was very similar, and the jiercentage loss 

 of dry matter was rather high in all cases. The one condition which 

 varied greatly. was the percentage of moisture in the final product; this 

 in the two samj)les in the small silo remained practically the same as 

 in the original crop, whereas in the big silo the percentage of moisture 

 fell from TO-u per cent, at the beginning to 09 per cent, at the end, 

 indicating that the superimposed weight of silage in the tall silo had 

 caused some of the moisture to be expressed and this drained away. 



The drainage licjuid was not analysed, but similar drainage in other 

 years has contained varying quantities, between 4 and 10 per cent., of 

 soluble material and is therefore an im])ortant source of loss during 

 ensilage whenever it occurs. 



As before mentioned, the percentage loss of dry matter in each of 

 these three sam])les was high, namely, 13-2 ])er cent, and l."5-4 per cent, 

 in the small silo, aud 11-4 per cent, in the large silo. 



There seems no very obvious reason to account for the greater loss 

 of dry material from the small silo than from the similar sample in the 

 large silo, especially in view of the fact that httle, if any, water drained 



