24 Grain Screenings. 



The foregoing is interesting for two reasons : 1st, because it 

 corrobomteTrSulfs obtained preliously in IQ^^^-^akeady reported 

 to the effect that molasses meals are an expensive foo^f,nd their u.e 

 in a well-balanced and already palatable ration is of doubtful benefit 

 2nd, because of the very slight increase m production which it induced 

 in comparison with corresponding periods m the previous three tables, 

 an increase out of all proportion to the increased cost , 



In this experiment, 298 pounds of meal mixture is equal to 327 

 pounds of Caldwell's molasses meal, 20 pounds of tay 37 pounds 

 roots, and 67 pounds ensilage. At the given valuations of the regular 

 feeds, Caldwell's molasses meal has a valuation of only about 35^2.5U 

 per ton. 



General Conclusions from Four Experiments.— Lest too hasty 

 deductions be made from the results given, there are several points 

 to consider in the feeding of elevator screenings. Judging _ from 

 these experiments, such material has a fair feeding va ue. Only m one 

 experiment (Experiment No. 1), however, did the period when 

 screenings, were fed show any increase over the average of the farst 

 and third periods which in this instance was due to a heavy and 

 rather unaccountable falling-off in Period 3, perhaps caused by the 

 protracted effects of an unpalatable ration fed for the first time. 

 In the next two comparisons the falling-off in milk flow was quite 

 marked: wholly insufficient, however, to prevent the regular ration 

 from suffering when compared on a cost basis. 



It is safe to say that for a period of one or two weeks, one-third 

 of the meal ration fed to a cow in average milk flow might be removed, 

 and, provided the animal was consuming a KbemZ, well-proportioned 

 roughage ration of fair quality and containing some succulent feed, 

 the milk production during this short period would not be sufficiently 

 affected to balance the consequent cheapening of the meal ration due 

 to a removal of one-third of the latter. If this supposition be true, 

 one is almost equally, safe in assuming that the continued feeding 

 of only two-thirds the required or optimum ration, would show a 

 decrease that could not be balanced by the saving in meal at the end 

 of the year. 



That the same would aipply to the experiment in question is 

 probable. Furthermore, considering that certain cows refused all 

 feed, that is, ensilage, roots, cut straw, etc., that came in contact 

 with the meal mixture containing black seeds and pulverized screenings, 

 it is quite pfobable that from the standpoints of both pounds of milk 

 produced^ and cost to produce, the entire omission of the by-product 

 might have still further reduced the cost of production. 



The attitude of the individual cows to the screenings meal rations 

 differed widely. Some showed little preference for one or the other; 

 others ate only portions for a few days; others refused it altogether, 

 carefully cleaning up all the roughage with which the meal was fed, 

 and leaving practically all of the meal in the manger; others, again, 

 refusing throughout the entire period all food containing screenings. 

 With the exception of certain animals that consistently refused this 

 meal ration, however, the herd during the second week of the period 

 as a rule consumed it. cleanly. 



