1881 .] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
323 
The Nutritive Value of Ensilage. 
BT J. M. MCBRYDE, PROP. OP AGRICULTURE, ETC., UNI¬ 
VERSITY OP TENNESSEE. 
The success of Ensilage appears to be fairly estab¬ 
lished by experiments in many different localities, 
and is therefore no longer an open question. Con- 
animals were confined in separate stalls—and were 
as nearly as possible alike in age, blood and general 
condition, except in Section II. of Series 1st, de¬ 
signed simply to test the life-sustaining power of 
ensilage, and in Series 3d, establishing its forcing 
qualities when properly combined with other foods. 
In Sections II and III (Series 1st), the results of 
the experiments are not as unfavorable to ensilage 
SERIES 1st.—Experiments testing nutritive and milk-producing value of Ensilage, Jan. 2 to Feb. 1, ’81. 
No. off 
Daily Rations 
j Weight 
Weight 
Gain per 
Gain per 
Gain per 
An'al. \ 
Per 1,000 lbs. Live Weight. 
1 Jan. 2d. 
Feb. 1 st. 
month. 
day. 
sent. 
(I) Bay for Standard of Comparison. 
15 (20 lbs. of Hay. 
14 
9 
16 
6 
1 
4 
7 
12 
13 
2 
3 
5 
8 
11 
10 
17 
18 
19 
140 lbs. Ensilage. 
50 “ 
60 “ 
as. 
.... i 687 | 
(II) Ensilage alone. 
825 I 
965 
900 1 
as. 
700 
805 
957 
875 
(III) Ensilage with Dry Forage. 
10 lbs. Hay, 20 lbs. Oat-straw. 
10 “ “ 20 lbs. Ensilage. 
20 “ Oat-straw, 20 lbs. Ensilage.. 
700 
580 
535 
720 
540 
537 
as. 
13 
—20 
— 8 
—25 
20 
—40 
2 
(IV) Ensilage with Dry Forage , and Foods rich in Albuminoids. 
10 lbs. Hay, 20 lbs. Oat-straw. 61 lbs. Corn-meal 
10 “ “ 20 “ Ensilage, 61 “ 
20 “ Oat-st.20 “ “ 61 
505 
555 
450 
525 
595 
480 
(V) Hay and different Meals. 
120lbs. Hay, 61 lbs. Rice-corn Meal... 
20 “ “ 61 “ Corn-meal. 
120 “ “ 61 “ Cotton-seed meal. 
800 
865 
705 
860 
915 
745 
40lbs. Ensilage, 61 lbs. Corn-meal. 
40 “ “ 61 “ Cotton-seed meal. 
40 “ “ 61 “ Rice-corn meal— 
(VI) Ensilage and different Meals. 
680 
640 
590 
750 
705 
607 
(VII) Ensilage and Bran (Milch Cows.) 
24 lbs. Hay, 1 peck Wheat-bran. 
12 “ “ 24 lbs. Ensilage, 1 pk. Wheat-bran. 
‘ Whe ' 
4S 
Ensilage, 1 peck Wheat-bran. 
850 
820 
700 
840 
805 
690 
20 
40 
30 
60 
50 
40 
70 
65 
17 
—10 
—15 
—10 
0.43 
— 0.66 
-0.26 
—0.83 
0.66 
—1.33 
0.06 
0.66 
1.33 
1.00 
2.00 
1.66 
1.33 
2.33 
2.16 
0.56 
-0.33 
—0.50 
—0.33 
as. 
1.8 
—2.4 
— 0.8 
—2.7 
2.8 
— 6.8 
0.3 
3.9 
7.2 
6.6 
7.5 
5.7 
5.6 
10.2 
10.1 
2.8 
— 1.1 
— 1.8 
—1.4 
(VIII) Milk Production same cows and rations as VII. 
(Cows from 5 to 7 months with calf.) 
1 st Period—2nd Period- 
Average No. Average No. 
of lbs of milk of lbs of milk 
per day from p’r day from 
3rd Period- 
Average No. 
of lbs of milk 
per day f'm 
Jan'y 30 to 
Feb’y 8, in¬ 
clusive. 
12.3 
Loss or gain 
in 3rd Peri¬ 
od as com¬ 
pared with 
1 st in lbs. 
—0.5 
Loss or gain 
in 3rd Peri¬ 
od as com¬ 
pared with 
17 
i Jersey, 4 Scrub . 
Jan. 1U to 
Jan. 19, in¬ 
clusive. 
12.8 
Jany 20 to 
Jan’y 29, in¬ 
clusive. 
12.7 
1st, per cent. 
—3.9 
18 
4 Shorthorn, 4 Scrub. 
8.0 
9 2 
9.6 
1.6 
20.0 
19 
4 Jersey, 4 Scrub. 
9.6 
9 3 
8.6 
—1.0 
—10.4 
eerning the nutritive value of the new food, how¬ 
ever, the views are many and conflicting. We have 
enthusiastic farmers, on the one hand, declaring 
that ensilage is almost equal, pound for pound, to 
hay—that it is sufficient by, and of, itself not only 
to sustain life, but to fatten—that it can hardly be 
improved upon ; and on the other hand scientists 
assert that its value is to be estimated by its per¬ 
centage of dry matter alone. The first refer you to 
the results of experiments where estimated amounts 
of this and other stuffs were roughly fed to differ¬ 
ent farm animals of various weights and ages, the 
second, to the results of recent analyses showing 
that it contains 80 per cent and upwards of water. 
The last affirm : “ Average ensilage contains 821 
lbs. of water and 171 lbs. of dry substance in 100, 
and a ton of it skillfully fed will make 20 lbs. live 
weight of beef which, at 51 cents, would be 81.10. 
The manure might bring it up to $1.50perton feed¬ 
ing value. In view of the above showing the claim 
that ensilage is a nutritious feeding stuff is simply 
preposterous.” Now any one who will take the 
trouble to make the necessary calculations from 
the data furnished by No. 14 in Series 2nd, of the 
subjoined experiments, will find that 1,223 lbs. of 
ensilage made 27 lbs. of beef (live weight), or about 
431 lbs. to the ton. In other words the estimated 
amount is wide of the mark by upwards of lOOper 
cent. Again, the results of all the following ex¬ 
periments go to show that ensilage is not of itself 
a perfect food, and that its nutritive value is great¬ 
ly increased by the addition of other matters. 
I do not propose, however, to discuss in detail 
the experiments of the several series, my space is 
too limited for this, but simply to ask that all those 
interested in the subject will examine them can¬ 
didly and fairly, for themselves. I have said 
enough, I hope, to show the importance of experi¬ 
ments carefully and accurately made, without 
previous bias or prejudice. As such these are 
offered, for no expense or labor was spared to make 
them thorough and reliable. They are herewith 
submitted in full and without reserve, along with 
the fewest possible words explanatory of their 
history and bearing. It must be premised that 
every pound of food was carefully weighed—the 
as they at first sight appear. For it must .be ex¬ 
plained, first, that the month of January, during 
which this Series was continued, was the coldest 
and most inclement experienced in this section for 
years—second, that No. 14 was a cow, dry upwards 
of a month prior to the commencement of the 
tests, but which, about one week thereafter, came 
backtohermilk(she 
alone appeared to suffer much more from the cold 
than the others. Here we have practice confirming 
theory, for the conversion of a portion of the 
carbohydrates into acid and other principles by the 
fermentation incident to the process, and the con¬ 
sequent loss (comparative) of the fat-formers—the 
fuel of the animal body—would lead us to expect 
just such results. 
In Series 2d, the animals were the same as those 
designated by similar numbers in Series 1st. Each, 
No. 15 excepted, received during the interval be¬ 
tween the two Series a daily ration, per 1000 lbs. of 
live weight, of 50 lbs. of ensilage (corn), 6 lbs. of 
the best hay, and 3 pints of corn meal, and in this 
time (about six weeks) No. 15 gained 40 lbs., No. 9, 
38 lbs., No. 14, 53 lbs., No. 8, 17 lbs., and No. 10, 37 
lbs. The weather during the continuance of this 
Series was damp and unfavorable, but by no means 
as cold as in the January preceding, hence the bet¬ 
ter results in case of No. 14 fed on ensilage alone. 
No. 9 demands a word or so of explanation. Our 
farm animals relished the corn ensilage from the 
start, but rejected the clover ensilage at first, and 
it was several days before they became accustomed 
to its use. This animal (9) refused its rations for 
nearly a week, and in that time lost 25 lbs. All the 
loss occurred in the first week. After that time, 
becoming reconciled to the new food, it made 
steady and continuous gains. This experiment en¬ 
forces the necessity of frequent weighings. It is 
evident that the highest percentages of gain in both 
Series were made by animals fed on mixed rations 
of ensilage and matters richer in albuminoids. 
In Series 3rd, the animals were forced for the 
June market, and all the dates save the first show 
the day when each was sold to the butcher. In 
the interval between this Series and the preceding, 
all the animals except No. 15 received the same 
rations as in the first interval. No. 15 alone of all 
our farm animals (upward of 40 head) persistently 
refused the ensilage from the first. It was therefore 
allotted the ration of hay in Series 1st and 2d, and 
in the first interval 3 pints of meal in addition. 
After the close of Series 2d, we endeavored to force 
it to eat the ensilage, but without success. Hence 
its loss of 30 lbs. between the last two Series. The 
rapid gain of No. 21, a thorough-bred Shorthorn 
(3Vs lbs. per day) is especially noteworthy. No. 14 
was quite heavy with calf. One striking fact greatly 
was finally dried off' 
about the middle 
bf February), and 
third, that No. 16 
was a singularly 
savage and un¬ 
thrifty 2-year-old 
Shorthorn bull, that 
ill-brooked the close 
confinement inci¬ 
dent to the experi¬ 
ment. Again, Nos. 1 and 4 of Section III, were 
yearlings, weaned only a week or so prior to 
January 2d. They had received up to within 
a few days of that time, hay, meal, and slops. 
No. 1 refused its rations at first and never ate 
SERIES 3d.—Testing forcing value of Ensilage.— May 2d to June 3d, 1881. 
No. of 
Ani¬ 
mal. 
Daily Rations 
Per 1000 lbs. live weight. 
Weight (lbs.) 
Gain 
in the 
several 
Periods. 
Gain 
per 
day. 
Gain 
per 
cent. 
May 
2 . 
May 
19'. 
May 
27. 
June 
3. 
26 lbs. Hay. 8 qts. Corn meal, 1st 10 
lbs. 
lbs. 
% 
15 f 
days, 10 qts. 2d, 12 qts. 3d. 
750 
830 
80 
2.58 
10.6 
9 
10 lbs. Hay, 20 lbs. Ensilage, 8 qts 
1075 
1150 
75 
3.00 
6.9 
14 
Meal 1st iO days ; 10 qts. Meal 2d 
920 
1025 
105 
3.38 
11.4 
8 
10 days ; 12 qts. Meal 3d 10 days. 
830 
867 
37 
2.17 
4.4 
6 
842 
895 
53 
2.12 
6.2 
20 
Hay and Meal in this and two pre- 
1085 
1150 
65 
2.09 
5 9 
21 
ceding series of the best quality. 
1040 
1135 
95 
3.80 
9.1 
SERIES 2d.—Testing nutritive value of different kinds of Eusilage. 
March 15 fh to April 9th. 
No. of 
Daily Rations 
Weight (lbs.) 
Gain 
Gain 
Gain 
Ani- 
Ma'ch 
Ma'ch 
Ma'ch 
April 
April 
in 25 
per 
per 
mat. 
For evei-y 1000 lbs. of live weight. 
8th. 
\Uh. 
23 d. 
1st. 
9th. 
days. 
day. 
cent. 
lbs. 
lbs. 
°/n 
15 
737 
740 
750 
765 
782 
42 
1.68 
5,67 
9 
990 
995 
970 
985 
—10 
—0.40 
—1.00 
14 
58 lbs. Corn Ensilage. 
850 
858 
860 
869 
885 
27 
1.08 
3.14 
8 
j 5 lbs. Hay, 64 lbs. Corn meal I 
j 40 lbs. Corn Ensilage _j 
757 
767 
782 
802 
815 
48 
1.92 
6.25 
10 
) 5 lbs. Hay, 64lbs. Corn meal | 
| 40 lbs. Clover Ensilage.j 
636 
642 
655 
680 
700 
58 
2.32 
9.03 
more than half of the amount allowed. No. 3, 
after the first week, ate nearly all. The close cor¬ 
respondence of the results of Nos. 3 and 5 in Sec. 
V, and Nos. 8 and 11 in Sec. VI, is especially 
worthy of notice, and makes these four experi¬ 
ments particularly valuable. In No. 18 of Sec. 
VH, the heavier loss is perhaps explained by the 
greater flow of milk as shown by same number in 
Sec. VIII. It was remarked by several in attend¬ 
ance on the animals that those fed on ensilage 
in favor of ensilage was noticed during this Series. 
The animals, although receiving heavy and con¬ 
stantly increasing amounts of meal, never became 
gorged. From the beginning to the end of the 
Series their appetites were hearty and vigorous— 
their bowels open 
but not too loose— 
theirdigestion good. 
One word as to the 
cost of the rations. 
The prices of meal 
and hay, of course, 
varies in different 
localities. The corn 
ensilage, from the 
planting to the final 
weighting down in 
the Silos, cost us 81.50 per ton, or 71 cts. per 
cwt. This estimate includes the price paid for 
fertilizers, interest on land, etc. 
[The experiments given above are worthy of the 
careful consideration of all who are interested in 
the subject of ensilage, and with the explanations 
given of them, these tables convey the story in a 
most compact form. Tables with figures repel 
many persons, but there is no other method in which 
facts like these can be presented so compactly. Ed.] 
