WILL MORE FORAGE PAY? 35 



average of 92.5 percent of the original crop used for silage was taken 

 off the field and 82 percent was fed. Compared with this, 81 percent 

 of t he field-cured forage was taken off the field and 76. 5 percent was 

 fed. 5 These results were obtained under generally favorable weather 

 conditions. Further investigations under very poor haying conditions 

 have shown the spread between the silage and field-cured hay to be 

 much wider than the above. 6 



It is not presumed that the above findings would be applicable to 

 the central Corn Belt. But in the absence of specific data of the same 

 kind for the Corn Belt, they may be used to explore the possibility of 

 making silage from some of the forage harvested on the 225-aere gen- 

 eral farm under study. 



Although silage made from forage crops may make up the entire 

 roughage ration of dairy cows, beef cows, and fattening cattle, it is 

 generally suggested that these animals be fed at least small amounts 

 of hay along with such silage {38). 



This feeding practice is followed when grass silage is made and used 

 in connection with plan 4 for the farm. 



Production of hay under plan 4 is based upon three cuttings of field- 

 cured forage from 34 acres of a bromegrass-alfalfa mixture. Analysis 

 indicates that if the first and third cuttings from this acreage were 

 made into silage rather than into hay, approximately three additional 

 tons of dry matter in the form of roughage would be available for 

 feed. 7 Storage of silage would be no serious problem as two concrete- 

 stave silos are now on the farm, although they would have to be rein- 

 forced and equipped with new doors. 



Because the farmer would be carrying a heavy work load under 

 plan 4. it would not be feasible to utilize the three additional tons of 

 dry matter in forage gained by making silage to increase the dairy 

 enterprise. The most practicable use of this feed would be through 

 2 feeder calves bought locally and added to the 19 head handled under 

 plan 4. If this were done and the silage were made by the wilt method 

 with a stationary chopper, the net farm cash income would be increased 

 $•250 above that of plan 4 under medium prices. Additional invest- 

 ments required would approximate $550. The farmer's work load 

 would be slightly increased. Were silos not already on the farm, it 

 appears that this increase in net farm cash income would not justify 

 investment in a new tower silo that might cost $1,200. A trench silo, 

 however, constructed at low cost, would be practicable. Should the 

 saving in dry matter in forage by use of silage be greater than that 

 assumed here for discussion, even construction of a new tower silo 

 might be economical. Specific information of actual year-to-year 

 losses of feed nutrients in field-cured forage on the individual farm is 

 needed for determination of this. 



5 This investigation also showed that the silage, at time of feeding, contained 

 more protein than did the field-cured hay. 



"Continuation of work reported in (18) data not yet published. 



' There would also be a gain in protein. For purposes of analysis, the increase 

 in protein is not considered. In practice, the use of grass silage would mean 

 rations of higher protein content, if the rate of feeding concent fates were not 

 changed and the same amount of dry matter in roughage were fed as when field- 

 cured hay was used. 



