SHRINKAGE IN WEIGHT OE ALFALFA 6 
represent percentage losses in the weight of samples allowed to cure 
with the leaves attached up to the time shown, while subsequent 
figures represent percentage losses with leaves removed. After the 
leaves were removed the stems and leaves were weighed_ separately, 
but the weights have been combined for the computations in this 
table. 
Table 1.— rCompar 'ative losses in weight of alfalfa in process of curing, with leaves 
attached and with leaves removed, at Redfield, S. Dak., in 1925 
[The original weight of each sample with leaves attached was 100 grams. Each result is the average of 
three samples. Losses in weight with leaves attached are shown in italic figures] 
Loss in weight by evaporation (per cent) 
Time from beginning of test 
Lotl 
Lot 2 
Lot 3 
Lot 4 
Lot5 
Lot 6 
Lot 7 
Lot 8 
Lot 9 
Lot 10 
6.1 
14.7 
29.7 
52.9 
58.2 
7.8 
19.7 
33.3 
54.5 
59.7 
16.9 
33.1 
53.8 
59.4 
62.6 
67.0 
69.0 
70.2 
69.6 
67.7 
70.3 
70.2 
68.9 
29.3 
56.6 
61.9 
65.1 
68.9 
70.9 
71.9 
71.0 
69.6 
71.8 
71.7 
70.8 
53.0 
61.1 
64.9 
69.1 
70.7 
72.2 
71.3 
70.1 
72.4 
72.3 
71.4 
57. A 
63.7 
67.8 
70.0 
71.7 
70.9 
69.8 
71.9 
71.8 
70.9 
62. 8 63. 5 
66. 3 \ 67. 2 
69. 69. 2 
70. 3\ 71. 
70. 5 70. 2 
70.0 68.4 
71.1 ! 71.3 
71. 1 71. 1 
64- 4 
68.0 
70.5 
71.8 
70.2 
69.8 
71.6 
71.5 
70.4 
66.4 
70.3 
71.7 
70.9 
70.3 
72.0 
72.1 
71.0 
96 hours 
69.3 
71.1 
70.3 
69.4 
71.1 
71.5 
70.1 
120 hours... 
69.6 
168 hours. 
69.9 
192 hours. 
69.2 
216 hours. 
71.1 
240 hours i 
71.2 
456 hours... 
70.3 
69.9 
70.2 
In comparing the data in the first two columns of Table 1 it is 
found that during the first 120 hours the losses were consistently 
someAvhat greater where the leaves had been removed from the stems. 
After this time the weights were practically stationary, except for 
minor fluctuations. Lot 3, from which the leaves were removed 
at the end of 4 hours, had lost less moisture up to this time than 
lot 2, from which the leaves were removed at the beginning of the 
experiment. During the remainder of the test, however, lots 2 and 
3 lost moisture very uniformly. At the end of seven and one-half 
hours, when the leaves were picked from lot 4, it weighed almost the 
same as lot 1 with the leaves attached, but had lost less in weight 
than the two lots from which the leaves had been removed pre- 
viously. Up to the time the leaves were removed from lots 5, 6, 8, 
and 10 they had lost moisture less rapidly than lots from which the 
leaves had previously been removed. Lots 7 and 9, on the other 
hand, had lost slightly more moisture up to the time the leaves were 
removed than some of the lots from which the leaves had been re- 
moved previously. In all cases the rate at which the various lots 
lost moisture was very uniform so long as the leaves were attached 
bo the stems. The same thing holds true for the lots with leaves 
detached, the variation in rate at which the various lots lost moisture 
seldom exceeding 2 per cent. As a whole, the losses were somewhat 
more rapid where the leaves were removed from the stems than where 
they were attached. This difference is so slight, however, that it is 
believed to be due in part at least to losses that occurred in handling. 
Table 2 shows the shrinkage in weights of alfalfa stems alone, as in- 
dicated by the actual weights in grams. The weights shown in italics 
were taken immediately after the leaves were removed. Here again 
