December 4, 1885.] 



SCIENCE. 



501 



any testimony of an unfavorable nature, but en- 

 deavoring to induce persons believed to be opposed 

 to the system to give their opinion, has in their 

 opinion, without exception, established the claims 

 of the system to a considerable amount of success ; 

 and, although in some cases the results have been 

 evidently more satisfactory than in others, never- 

 theless, all the systems seem to show that a 

 nomishmg, useful food for animals can be pre- 

 served, independently of any drying process, 

 within wide lines of divergence in the details of 

 the methods adopted. Different degrees of weight- 

 ing and of exclusion of atmospheric air are the 

 causes of different degrees of heat, and of conse- 

 quent chemical change produced. It is apparently, 

 as yet, largely a matter of opinion whether such 

 chemical changes increase or diminish the feeding 

 value of the ensilage, or its relative value in com- 

 parison to the green crop. The solution of this 

 question the commissioners naturally regard as 

 of gTeat importance, and consider that careful 

 feeding experiments, conducted with a view to test 

 the exact effect of these changes, are very desir- 

 able. They find that whether the ensilage has 

 been covered in immediately after cutting, or put 

 in at intervals, the air not being immediately 

 excluded and considerable heat developed, yet in 

 both cases a useful feeding material has been 

 obtained which would have been lost if any at- 

 tempt had been made to convert it to hay in 

 unfavorable weather. 



As to the economy of different systems of mak- 

 ing and storing ensUage, the commission is not 

 prepared to express an opinion ; nor does it desire 

 at present to compare the advantages of different 

 systems, the quality of the ensilage being not 

 materially affected thereby. Special circumstances 

 affecting particular localities must influence and 

 regulate the methods employed. It was found 

 that some of the best ensilage was produced with 

 a pressure of not more than seventy pounds per 

 square foot, but the degree to which weighting is 

 necessary or desirable remains to be decided. 

 Good results are claimed with weights between 

 seven and three hundred pounds. Evidence shows 

 that all differences in actual results, not depend- 

 ent on composition of food-plants employed, are 

 traceable to the variations in the degree to which 

 fermentation is allowed to be set up in the silo, and 

 the length of time it is continued. The fermen- 

 tation, too, is controlled by or dependent on the 

 manner of constructing, filling, covering, and 

 weighting. 



The testimony of the dairy farmers does not 

 ajjpear to justify the assertion, which has been 

 more or less circulated, that dairy products are 

 affected by ensilage ; on the contrary, there is 



much valuable evidence to show that well-made 

 ensUage distinctly improves the yield of milk and 

 cream, and the quality of the butter. Tliis is of 

 interest on this side of the water, as a similar report 

 has gained ground here, without, as far as has 

 been learned from our investigations, any reason, 

 unless the ensilage is fed too soon after coming 

 from the silo. It should be exposed, at least in 

 the case of sour maize ensilage, for a period of 

 twenty -four hours to remove an odor which some- 

 times affects the milk when the feed is fresh. 

 Tainting of the milk, the commission considers to 

 have been due in many cases to proximity to 

 strong-smelling ensilage after milking. The report 

 concludes by saying that they have heard suffi- 

 cient evidence to warrant the extension and de- 

 velopment of the system as a valuable auxiliary 

 to the farm. 



The second part of the report of the commission, 

 soon to appear, will contain the documentary 

 evidence obtained in answer to twenty-five 

 practical questions sent to the proprietors of silos 

 in various parts of the kingdom. AVe have before 

 us the answers to similar questions sent out by 

 the agricultural department, privy council, which 

 have been pubhshed in the second report which 

 has been alluded to, in much the same way as 

 was done by the U. S. department of agricul- 

 ture two years ago. From the summary of 

 the replies, we learn that the silos in Great Britain 

 have doubled in number in the space of twelve 

 months, that they vary in capacity from 96 to 

 55,440 cubic feet, averaging 2,801, and that they 

 are buUt both with and without provision for 

 drainage, but largely without. Drainage, it is 

 suggested, requires care to prevent admission of 

 air, and, we would add, loss of nutrients when 

 the pressure is not properly regulated. The con- 

 struction of the silos varies in material and location 

 according to the locality where they are built. 

 Any material furnishing the absolute requisite of 

 rendering the walls air-tight seems suitable and 

 successful, and locahties where there is sufficient 

 difference to enable the filling to be done at one 

 level, and the drawing-out at a lower one, seem 

 to be most favorable. Oats, green barley and 

 wheat, maize, buckwheat, sanfoin, rye and all 

 sorts of grasses, hop-vine, turnip tops, peas and 

 beans, with mowings from hedges, and fences, and 

 ditches, including nettles, sedges, and rushes, have 

 all been more or less successfully made into palat- 

 able ensilage. The addition of salt was mentioned 

 unfavorably in many reports, as was the case with 

 the testimony before the parliamentary commis- 

 sion. The methods of compression have varied 

 very much, but dead weight has been largely em- 

 ployed, and water-tanks so aiTanged as to be au-- 



