A<5RICL"LTCRAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 



121 



These are the quantities of digpstible ingredients iu 100 pounds 

 of the different feedingr stuffs. A determination of what our ration 

 will furnish is now a simple matter. For instance 40 pounds of en- 

 silage contains four-tenths as much as 100 pounds, so we have: 



Organic matter 12.74X4-10 = 5.10 



Protein. 1.09X4-10= .436 



Fats .51X4-10= .20 



Nitrogen-free extractive matter 6 87 X 4-10 = 2. 75 



Crudj fiber 4 09X4-10 = 164 



A similar calculation for the hay. meal and bran gives the follow- 

 ing figures : 



Digestible Material in Proposed Ration. 





ttcr. 







o •- 

 a ii 







a 







<^ 2 



u 





— 







' a 



a 











c "^ 



J2 





o 







© o 



ta 





c 



.z 





tc > 



o 







^ 



rn 



^ *-» 



rs 





tb 





4^ 



*J ^ 







u. 













~ 



Ch 



f^ 



S2 w 



O 



Ensilage, 40 lbs 



5.10 



.436 



.20 



2.75 



1.63 



Timothy hay, 10 lbs 



5.13 



.345 



.10 



2.92 



1.76 





3.15 

 1.18 



.326 

 .235 



.17 

 .05 

 .52 



2.57 



.84 



9.08 



.06 





.06 







Total 



U.oG 



1.342 



3.51 







A comparison, shows this ration to-be widely difl[erent from the 

 German standard. 



Proposed ration. German ration. 



Organic matter (total nutrients) 14.45 15.40 



Protein 1.32 2.5 



Nitrogen-free extract and fiber 12.59 12.5 



Fats .52 .40 



Nutritive ratio 1:10 3 1:5.4 



The proposed ration differs from the German standard mainly in 

 having a much less quantity of digestible protein, the total digestible 

 material being somewhat less hIso. 



While it is doubtful if feeding 2.5 pounds of protein would be 

 good economy, but little over half that amount is undoubtedly too 

 small a quantity to secure the most profitable results. It is evident 

 that the thing to do is to feed for a portion of the grain ration some 



