4 BULLETIN 1424, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
the figures given are the averages of three samples which originally 
weighed 100 grams each with leaves attached. In comparing lots 2 
and 3 it is seen that lot 2, from which the leaves had been removed 
two and one-half hours before they were removed from lot 3, had 
lost just about the same in weight. The stems of lot 4 at the time 
the leaves were detached had lost practically the same as lots 2 and 
3, from which the leaves had been previously removed. Lot 5 
seemed to have lost weight slightly less rapidly than the other lots. 
Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 at the time the leaves were removed had 
lost moisture at about the same rate as the various lots from which 
the leaves had been removed from time to time. In some cases the 
losses were a little more rapid and in other cases a little less rapid 
with the leaves attached. However, such differences as occur tall 
easily within the limits of experimental error. 
Table 2. — Shrinkage in weight of alfalfa stems and leaves, each cured alone, 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. Weights taken immediately after leaves were removed are shown in italic figures] 
Time from beginning 
of test 
Weight at intervals during the process of curing (grams) 
Stems 
Lot 
2 
Lot Lot 
3 4 
Lot 
5 
Lot 
Lot Lot 
7 8 
V/i hours. 46. 2 L 
4 hours 40. 2 39. 6 | 
IVi hours 33. 6 34. 3 S3. 4\ 
25 hours.. 24. 6 25. 24. 1 26. 4 
31H hours 22. 2 22. 7 21. 6 23. 2 23. 4 
48}/ 2 hours |21. 1 21. 1 19. 7 21. 0J21. Z21. 3 
72 hours. 18. 3 18. 16. 9 17. 5 18. 18. 19. 1 
96 hours 16. 4 16. 2 15. 1:15. 6.15. 9 15. 7 15. 9 
120 hours. .15. 15. 4 14. 4 14. 5'14. 7|14. 7 14. 8 
168 hours.. '15. 4 15. 8 14. 8 15: 1J15. 15. 6 15. 2 
192 hours |16. 2 16. 7 15. 6 15. 8 15. 3; 15. 8 15. 5 
216 hours... 14. 8 15. 3 14. 4 14. 4 14. 3,14. 8 14. 6 
240 hours. !l4. 9 15. 4 14. 5 14. 3 14. 4 ! 14. 8 14. 5 
456 hours 15. 7 16. 1 15. 0,14. 9|14. 8,15. 4 15. 2 
Lot 
9 
Lot 
10 
15.9.... 
14. 9 \15. 4 
15.3 15.7 
15.515.9 
14. 8,14. 
14.7| 14. 
15.3-15. 3 
Lot 
2 
Lot 
3 
Lot 
4 
Lot Lot 
5 i 
Lot 
7 
Lot 
13.9 
Lot Lot 
9 i 10 
45.9 
40. 2 37. 
33. 1|32. 6 30. 8___ 
20. 9 21. 2 19. 4 US. , 
17. 41 17. 9 1 16. 5 15.7 16. 6 
15. 5 16. 3 15. 2 14. 115. 014. 1 
14. 5 ! 15. 14. 3 13. 4 14. 214.1 
14, 4 14. 8 14. 13. 6 14. 1 13. 7|13. 9\14. 3 
14. 14, 4 13. 6 13. 3 13. 6 13. 5 13. 5jl4. 14. 1 
14. 4|14. 5 14. 2 13. 6 14. 2 14. 3 13. 9 14. 4 14. 5 
15. 4 15. 6 14. 9 14. 1 14.9 14. 4 14. 2 15. 1 14. 9 
13. 8 14. 4 13. 8 13. 2 13. 7 13. 6 13. 3 14. 1 13. 9 
13. 914. 4 13. 8 13. 4 13. 8 13. 7; 13. 4 13. 8 14. 
14. 4 ! 15. 0, 14. 2, 13. 7; 14. 3, 14. 2, 13. 8 11 6, 14. 4 
Table 2 also shows the shrinkage in weights of leaves alone, as indi- 
cated by the actual weights in grams taken at more or less frequent inter- 
vals. The italicized weights were taken immediately after the leaves 
were removed from the stems. There is no way of determining the ac- 
tual weight of the leaves before they were removed from the stems, but 
the material was ver}^ uniform, and as the results in all cases are the 
averages of three samples it would seem that the figures should be 
fairly comparable. In comparing lots 2 and 3 it is seen that the 
leaves from lot 3, which had cured up to this time on the stems, had 
lost more rapidly than leaves from lot 2, which had been removed 
about two and one-half hours previously. Similar results were shown 
in lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, where for the most part the weight of the leaves 
immediately after they were removed from the stems was somewhat 
less than for any of the lots where the leaves had been previously 
removed at times of varying lengths. In general, the leaves from 
lots 9 and 10 weighed slightly more when removed than those lots 
from which the leaves had been removed 4 or 5 days earlier. At this 
