320 MAI^UAL OF OATTLE-FEEDIJNra, 



miglit "bo compensated by tlie improved c[nalitj of tlie 



re&idue. 



It does not appear from Grandeaii's analyses, liowever, 

 that there is any very marked difference iu this respect 

 between fresh maize and ensilage. If this is generally the 

 case, then fermented corn fodder has all the advantages of 

 the fresh fodder, and no others, except perhaps as regards 

 palatability, and ensilage is to be looked npon simply as a 

 method of preserving corn fodder, and the cpiestion of its 

 adoption is a purely economical one. 



Effect on Digestibility. — T^o comparative experiments 

 on the digestibility of ensilage have been made, but a few 

 experiments in which small amonnts of fodder were fer- 

 mented (compare page 2(16) showed rather a decrease than 

 an increase of digestibihty. In Weiske^s experiments the 

 digestibility of both the brown and sour hay was found to 

 be quite low. Weiske also fomid that the bi^own hay of 

 lucerne had about the same digestibility as that dried in 

 the field. It is not, therefore, to be anticipated that ensi- 

 lage will be found to materially affect the digestibility of 

 fodder. 



Quality of tlie Fodder. — The value of fodder pre- 

 served by ensilage must evidently depeiid on the quality 

 of the original material. The loss of non-nitrogenous 

 matters which it suffers narrows the nutritive ratio soirie- 

 what, and renders it more valuable, pound for pound, than 

 the green fodder. With this exception, the remarks al- 

 ready made conceming the quality and value of maize, as 

 well as of other fodders, are applicable here. It is espe- 

 cially important to recollect that the composition of the 

 ensilage, and its nutritive effect, must, of necessity, be just 

 as variable as those of the fodder from which it is pre- 

 pared. 



