J 922.] 



tSiLAGE toR Milk Production. 



35 



The following were the two experimental rations fixed upon, 

 the two being estimated to supply similar quantities of starch 

 equivalent (about 12.6 lb.) and digestible protein (2.72 lb.) a day. 



Silage Ration. Roots Ration. 



40 II). Silage. 40 lb. Mangolds. 



G lb. Seed Hay. 15 lb. Seed llay. 



4 lb. Oat Straw. 4 lb. Oat Straw. 



8 lb. Mangolds. 2 lb. Earth Nut Cake. 



2 lb. P:arth Nut Cake. 3 lb. Soya Bean Cake. 



3 11). Soya Bean Cake. l^lb. Oats. 

 1| lb. Oats. 1 lb. Barley. 

 1 lb. Barley. 



It will be seen that in the silage ration 40 lb. of silage was 

 substituted for 32 lb. mangolds and 9 ]b. seeds hay. 40 lb. of 

 Bilage was expected to contain 4. 64 lb. starch equivalent and 

 0.41 lb. of digestible pure protein. 32 lb. mangolds and 9 lb. 

 seeds hay were taken as containing 4.58 lb. starch equivalent 

 and 0.42 lb. digestible pure protein. In making these calcula- 

 tions at the commencement of the experiment it was assumed 

 that the composition of the silage would be similar to that given 

 in Wood and Hainan's Tables for Oat and Vetch Silage. As 

 stated below, it w^as subsequently found that the silage used 

 did not come up to these figures, and therefore it is probably 

 safe to assume that in the experiment, silage suffered from a 

 slight handicap. The silage was made in 1920 from spring-sown 

 oats and peas, which produced an excellent crop. A shallow pit 

 was excavated in the field and filled with the green oats and 

 peas, the clamp ultimately being carried up to a considerable 

 height, and compressed by drawing the loaded carts over it. The 

 soil thrown out from the pit was then placed on the sides and 

 top of the clamp. When the heap was opened in the following 

 March it was seen that the material had rotted to a depth t^f 

 about nine inches on both the top and sides of the clamp. 

 Mr. Hooson estimated that the amount of w^aste was 25 per cent, 

 of the whole, but. unfoi-tunately. there was no means of weigh- 

 ing the material to check this. It is doubtful, however, w^hether 

 the proportion of weight was really so high. The waste material 

 seemed large in bulk, but owing to the greater solidity of the 

 main mass' of the heap as compared with the outside, the weight 

 would probably t)e much less than the volume of the waste 

 material would suggest. Except for the waste at the outside, 

 the silage taken out in March, April and early M;ty was in 

 ■excellent condition and veiy much relished by the stock. 



c 2 



