34 BULLETIN 353, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
March of the following year. Jordan?‘ in his work at the Pennsy]l- 
vania State College, 1882, found the loss of weight on hay stored in a 
barn to average 24 per cent. On this basis he figured that hay sold 
for $10 per ton when taken from the field should bear a price of 
nearly $12.50 per ton at the beginning of winter, provided no con- 
ditions affecting the price had changed other than loss in weight. 
Calculation indicates the exact price warranted by such a change in 
weight to be about $13.15 rather than $12.50 per ton. A lossof 8 
per cent in weight when the price of hay was about $10 per ton at 
baling time would require an advance of 85 cents to $1 per ton, in 
order to insure the owner against loss. 
Table XIV also shows that at Chico, Cal., baled hay following its 
loss of weight during the dry summer months takes up moisture dur- 
ing the wet winter months and gains back nearly all the weight lost, 
so that there is only a slight difference in weight between the time of 
baling and the weight at the end of the following February. The 
difference in this case was only 2.2 per cent, the hay having taken up 
5.9 per cent of moisture between August 31 and February 25. This 
gain did not really begin, however, until after the October 16 weighing. 
An almost equivalent gain was found in 1913, where the baled hay 
showed a gain in weight between September 25 and December 1 
equal to 1.4 per cent of the original weight of the bale. At Chico, 
Cal., holding the hay until late winter would, it seems, overcome to 
a great extent any decrease in weight caused by loss of moisture 
during the summer months. This gain, however, takes place slowly. 
It appears from a consideration of the results obtained in both 
years that baled hay in a humid atmosphere will take up about 1.5 
per cent of moisture the first month and in four months increase in > 
weight approximately 6 per cent. 
The shrinkage in loose timothy hay and the variation in its weight 
because of changes in atmospheric humidity are shown in Table XV. 
The hay used in both lots 1 and 2 was practically pure timothy 
which was cut July 10. The hay in lot 1 was allowed to cure in the 
field and the 108.5 pounds were taken from the windrow July 11, 
when it appeared to be in about the right condition for placing in 
the mow. The hay in lot 2 was taken immediately after cutting and 
weighed, while green, 512 pounds. After weighing, it was spread out 
on a canvas and allowed to cure until the following day, being 
turned or stirred several times to hasten the drying process. On 
July 11 it was placed in burlap sacks and removed to a barn, where 
it was kept under the same conditions as lot 1. The first weighing 
of lot 2 was made on July 17, and even at this date it was evidently 
not so dry as lot 1 had been on July 11, although both lots appeared 
1Jordan, W. H. Experiments and investigations conducted at the Pennsylvania State College, 1881-2, 
p. 7-14. Harrisburg, Pa. 
