THE SUNFLOWER AS A SILAGE CROP. 



21 



Table 3. — Digestible nutrients in 100 pounds of sunfloicer, corn, and sorghum 



silage. 





Animals 

 used. 



Digestible nutrients (pounds). 



Nutritive 

 ratio. 





ICind of silage. 



Crude 

 protein. 



Crude 

 fiber 

 and 



nitrogen- 

 free 



extract. 



Ether 

 extract. 



Authority. 



Sunflower 



Do 



Do 



3 steers.. 

 ...do 



3 cows . . 



3 sheep. . 

 ...do 



1.24 

 1.14 

 .97 

 1.10 

 1.00 



10. 13 



10.83 

 7.72 

 9.C2 



e8. 17 



0.37 

 .85 

 .91 

 .95 



1.45 



a 8. 8 

 11.2 

 ' 10.1 

 10.6 

 11.4 



Mont. Bui. 134, p. 8. 

 W. Va. Circ. 32, p. 3.b 



jjour. Agr. Res. v. 20, p. 881. 



Wash. Bui. 158, p. 11. 



Do 



Do 





1.09 



9.30 



.91 



10.4 









Com i 1 



1.39 

 1.04 



.87 



17.39 

 10.78 

 12.92 



.67 

 .45 

 .82 



13.5 

 11.8 

 16.4 





Com stover 



1 Farmers' Bulletin 1240, " Feed- 

 j tag Farm Animals." 



Sorghum ■ 







a This figure was Lncorrectly given as 9.8 in Mont. Bui. 134. 



b The coefficients of digestibility for sunflower silage determined in the Montana experiments were 

 used in computing the digestible nutrients of the silage made in West Virginia to show the difference in 

 results when a silage made from more nearly mature plants is considered. It is recognized that this method 

 is subject to criticism, but the results, it isbelieved, are approximately correct. 



c In Washington Bui. 162, p. 15, this figure is given as 8.29. 



PALATABILITY. 



There are some differences of opinion regarding the palatability of 

 sunflower silage. Most of the evidence from feeding trials conducted 

 in the United States and Canada leads to the conclusion that even 

 though animals may hesitate at first to eat sunflower silage freely, 

 they soon become accustomed to it and, with the possible exception 

 of corn silage, show no preference between it and other kinds of 

 silage. In a number of instances where adverse reports were made 

 as to the palatability of sunflower silage, it is apparent that the crop 

 was not in the right condition when it was put in the silo. At the 

 Huntley (Mont.) and Scottsbluff (Nebr.) experiment farms the sun- 

 flowers were not always cut before the seed had reached the hard 

 dough stage, and some of the silage remained hard and woody in 

 the silo. 



It is difficult to determine just why the sunflower silage is so uni- 

 formly good at Bozeman, Mont., and so often of poor quality or at 

 least low in palatability at Huntley, in the same State. Chemical 

 analyses of sunflower plants grown at Huntley show a lower sugar 

 content than plants grown at Bozeman. This deficiency in sugar 

 may diminish the fermentation processes necessary to produce good 

 silage. A similar difference in the composition of the plants may 

 explain the difficulties which have been encountered at Scottsbluff, 

 Nebr. Holden (9, p. 26-28) , in his report for the years 1918 and 1919, 

 says that while cows ate the sunflower silage in 1917 very well when 

 it was fed for short periods alternating with corn silage, they did 



