166 EXPERIMENT STATION. [Jan. 



The results secured from a single experiment should not be 

 regarded as conclusive. The composition and digestibility of 

 the alfalfa meal, as well as the feeding exjDeriment described, 

 all point in the same direction, and strongly indicate that the 

 above conclusions are correct. It is believed that if the grain 

 ration had consisted of alfalfa and corn meal, or bran and corn 

 meal, — that is, if gluten feed had been excluded from the 

 ration, — the results would have been more favorable to the 

 bran. The gluten feed supplied a sufficiency of protein, and 

 had it been omitted its loss would have been more noticeable in 

 case of the alfalfa ration. 



The writer can see no advantage in replacing bran by alfalfa 

 meal, for the reason that the quality of the latter as measured 

 by the grade of the hay employed is likely to vary considerably. 

 Late-cut alfalfa has a low digestibility, and will prove decidedly 

 inferior to a good quality of bran. Mairs ^ made an experiment 

 to compare bran and alfalfa meal and drew the following con- 

 clusions: (1) " The results of this test do not warrant the recom- 

 mendation of alfalfa meal as a substitute for wheat bran as a 

 feed for dairy cows at the present market prices (bran $20 a 

 ton, alfalfa meal $23)." (2) " The alfalfa meal was less pala- 

 table, and resulted in a decreased milk production in every 

 case." (3) "At the same price per ton, alfalfa meal produced 

 milk in one case for a cent less and in another case at the same 

 price per hundred pounds." 



The writer noted that the quality of the alfalfa meal used by 

 Mairs was superior to the average alfalfa hay. 



1 Pennsylvania Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 80. 



