Chemical Composition of some Samples of Scotch Ensilage. 470 



lower. The ash also is higher. It is true that the two 

 tables are scarcely in a position to be compared, for they do 

 not represent the same field of grass, and moreover they do 

 not represent the same mixture of gi'asses. It is well-known 

 by agricultural chemists that even the same variety of grass 

 differs in composition according to the age, approach or 

 otherwise to flowering, soil, height above sea-level, and even 

 climate. Still the average figures may be employed, and the 

 results of such a comparison is as stated above. 



An endeavour to further corroborate the figures as to the 

 proportion of nitrogen present, and from that the albumen old s, 

 using dried portions of the ensilage, led to results so different 

 from those obtained with the fresh moist sample that other 

 experiments became necessary. The results obtained when 

 the moist material was used agreed with those first found, and 

 further trials with dried samples showed that a considerable 

 loss of nitrogen was sustained during the drying operation. 

 The results are given in Table B, where it is shown that whilst 

 in No. 3 the total nitrogen present in the moist sample was 

 1'319 per cent., that after drying only 1'063 per cent, was 

 retained, showing a loss of nitrogen from the total amount of 

 0*256 per cent., or about one-sixth. No. 4 shows a still 

 greater loss, for whilst the total nitrogen was equivalent to 

 1-543 per cent., the nitrogen in the dried portion was only 

 1*030 per cent., or a loss of 0*513 per cent., equal to about 

 one-third. No. 4 sample lost nearly one-half of its nitrogen 

 on drying. The volatilisable nitrogen could not be present 

 in the state of albumenoids or flesh formers, but was evidently 

 in the form of amides, if not actually of ammonia. This 

 volatile nitrogen therefore should not be reckoned as 

 albumenoid, and consequently the results obtained from the 

 nitrogen of the moist ensilage were not representative of the 

 albumenoid of flesh-forming material present in the ensilage. 

 Table A therefore, although calculated by the usual methods, 

 is not correct, and conveys a wrong impression as to 

 the feeding value of the ensilage. It is the nitrogen left 

 after drying that should be calculated into albumenoids, 

 or in other words, the ensilage should be dried before 

 being analysed or a second nitrogen estimation be made 



