1882.] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
289 
a crop is worth growing at all it is worth 
having land devoted to it, and a suitable cul¬ 
tivation. Yet it would hardly pay to devote 
land to the production of pumpkins. A good 
crop might easily be secured and it would 
possess some value. But, with a little more 
expense, the same land might be made to 
yield a crop of squashes, which would be 
much more nutritious and valuable. When 
grown in connection with other crops the 
squash does not succeed as well as the 
pumpkin. It does much better with pota¬ 
toes than with com, but is not a sure crop 
when planted with either of them. 
A Halter Attachment for a Pulling 
Horse. 
The accompanying engraving, from a 
sketch sent us by G. D. John, Whiteside Co., 
Ill., shows a device to cure a horse of the 
bad habit of pulling upon the halter. A ’/ 2 - 
inch rope passes around the shoulders and 
along the back, under the tail; the halter- 
strap is run through a ring on the rope at 
the front of the shoulders, and then it is at¬ 
tached to the post or manger; a short piece 
of strap is used to fasten together and hold 
up the two parts of the rope that pass along 
the back. When the horse pulls upon the 
halter, a pressure is brought under the base 
of the tail, and the habit is soon abandoned. 
A Barrel Well-Curb. 
Mr. I. G. Fargo, Genesee Co., N. Y., writes 
us: “ Perhaps some of your readers may be in¬ 
terested in my well-curb, which is convenient 
and durable. A common cooper made it, 
setting up the 
staves, which 
are iy 4 inch 
thick, as for a 
barrel, using 
3 iron hoops. 
The shaft of 
the windlass is 
also of iron, to 
which a wood¬ 
en cylinder is 
fastened by a 
couple of bolts A “barrel” well-curb. 
driven through the wood and iron. In 
making the windlass, I fashioned the wood 
to the right size, and then split open the 
cylinder, cut a place for the shaft, fitted 
it in, and then drove bands over the ends. 
But a great deal will depend, as to its cheap¬ 
ness, whether one has the material on hand 
to make it. In this case I had the lum¬ 
ber (white-ash) for the staves, old wagon-tire 
for hoops, and a shaft for the windlass from 
a threshing machine cylinder. Even the 
spout was appropriated from an old chain- 
pump.” Such a curb is strong, and looks 
much better than a common square one. 
A Few Facts about Ensilage. 
BY PROF. J. H. MCBRYDE, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE. 
The following facts bear directly on two of 
the most important questions connected with 
the subject of ensilage. 1st. The estimates 
of the loss involved in the process vary. By 
some the loss is considered ruinous, by others 
infinitesimally small. The methods of de¬ 
termining the loss vary as much as the esti¬ 
mates. It is deduced from the percentage 
of ash or of diy matter hi the ensilage, from 
the weight of small quantities of green for¬ 
age packed away in bags or boxes in the 
silo, or a cubic foot of the ensilage, etc. 
Such methods are confessedly inaccurate. 
The only safe procedure is to weigh every 
pound of green matter put into the silo, and 
every pound of ensilage taken out of it. 
All the green forage put into our silos last 
October was accurately weighed. Silo No. 
3 (built of brick, and lined with cement) 
was opened early in January last. The en¬ 
silage was of excellent quality, with a pleas¬ 
antly vinous odor. This silo was not ex¬ 
hausted until the last of March. Every 
pound of the ensilage was fed to our cattle 
after being first carefully weighed. We put 
66,630 lbs. of green forage into the silo, and 
took out 52,890 lbs. of ensilage. This shows 
a loss of 13,740 lbs., or 20.62 per cent. The 
loss was no doubt increased by the length 
of time the silo stood open (nearly three 
months), and is, perhaps, greater than what 
would occur in general farm practice. It 
would appear from these figures that a farmer 
can reasonably expect to get 1,600 lbs. of en¬ 
silage from every ton of green matter. Will 
any of the other methods of curing or pre¬ 
serving forage crops give him equal, or any¬ 
thing approaching equal, returns in weight ? 
But it will be immediately replied, “If not 
equal returns in weight, they certainly will 
in the superior quality of the food so pre¬ 
served.” Many hold that the loss falls prin¬ 
cipally, if not entirely, on the organic matter 
of the ensilage. Some assert that from 20°/ o 
to 50°/ o of this matter is destroyed. The nu¬ 
tritive value of ensilage is a physiological 
question, that can only be practically settled 
in the stall. If the greater part of the or¬ 
ganic matter is destroyed by fermentation, 
and the ensilage is but little better than so 
much acidulated water, a few simple feeding 
tests will bring out the facts more effectually 
than a dozen analyses. And if it should be 
found that 4 lbs. or 5 lbs. of green forage, 
converted into ensilage, are only about equal 
in feeding value to 1 lb. of the same matter 
made into fodder or hay, then, clearly, the 
large saving of weight secured by the pro¬ 
cess of ensilage would not be sufficient to 
counterbalance the loss of nutritive value. 
If, on the other hand, 2 lbs. or 3 lbs. of en¬ 
silage are equal to 1 lb. of the dry forage, 
this saving of weight would be a matter 
worth considering. 
In the August No. (1881) of the American 
Agriculturist, I gave a short account of nu¬ 
merous experiments bearing directly on this 
point. The results of these showed that, in 
mixed rations, 2 lbs. of ensilage would fairly 
replace 1 lb. of good hay. The same experi¬ 
ments, carefully repeated last winter, af¬ 
forded results confirmatory of those of the 
preceding year. It should be premised that 
the animals experimented with this year 
were not the same as those fed last year, and 
also that all were fed, for about a month 
previous to the commencement of the tests, 
on a mixed ration of hay and ensilage —2 
lbs. of corn ensilage were fed against 1 lb. of 
hay. The tests continued through the month 
of February. In order to allow of easy com¬ 
parison, the amounts actually fed to each 
animal are not given, but simply the ration, 
that is, the daily ration allowed for every 
1,000 lbs. of live weight. Three animals, all 
yearling steers, were fed exclusively on long 
forage : No. 10, weighing 428 lbs., received a 
daily ration of 20 lbs. of hay, and gained, in 
the 28 days, 22 lbs. No. 9, weighing 457 lbs., 
received 10 lbs. of hay and 20 lbs. of en¬ 
silage, and gained 28 lbs. No. 12, weighing 
442 lbs., received 40 lbs. of ensilage, and 
gained 38 lbs. It is evident that, in these 
three tests, 2 lbs. of ensilage gave better re¬ 
sults than 1 lb. of hay. 
Three 2-year old steers were fed on mixed 
rations of hay and meal: No. 4, weighing 
770 lbs., was allowed 20 lbs. of hay and 6 
lbs. of cotton-seed meal, and gained 70 lbs. 
in the 28 days. No. 5, weighing 800 lbs., 
was fed the same amount of hay, and 6 lbs. 
of corn-meal, and gained 50 lbs. No. 6, 
weighing715 lbs.,was given the same amount 
of hay, and 6 lbs. of durra-meal, and gained 
55 lbs. Three 3-year old steers were fed on 
mixed rations of ensilage and the same 
meals : No. 1, weighing 1,175 lbs., received 
40 lbs. of com ensilage and 6 lbs. of cotton¬ 
seed meal, and gained 65 lbs. No. 2, weigh¬ 
ing 1,150 lbs., received the same quantity of 
ensilage and 6 lbs. of corn-meal, and gained 
77 lbs. No. 3, weighing 1,040 lbs., received 
the same quantity of ensilage and 6 lbs. of 
durra-meal, and gained 70 lbs. It* is suffi¬ 
cient for our purpose to notice only the rela¬ 
tive effects of the hay and the ensilage. On 
comparing the results of the two sets of 
tests, it is seen that No. 4, fed on 20 lbs. of 
hay and 6 lbs. of cotton-seed meal, gained 
5 lbs. more than No. 1, fed on 40 lbs. of en¬ 
silage and the same quantity of the same 
meal, but that No. 2, fed on corn-meal and 
ensilage, gained 27 lbs. more than No. 5, fed 
on the same meal and hay, and that No. 3, 
fed on durra-meal and ensilage, gained 15 
lbs. more than No. 6, fed on the same meal 
and hay. In two out of the three tests, the 
results were much in favor of the ensilage. 
From March 1st to March 15th, all six ani¬ 
mals were allowed 50 lbs. of ensilage and 6 
lbs. of cotton-seed meal a day (for every 1,000 
lbs. of live weight). The weights taken on 
the latter date (15th) show that No. 4 had 
gained 70 lbs. in the two weeks, No. 5, 50 
lbs., No. 6, 55 lbs., No, 1, 45 lbs., No, 2, 20 
lbs., and No. 3, 30 lbs. On comparing the 
effects of a change of rations on Nos. 4, 5, 
and 6, the remarkable fact appears that, in 
the case of such animal, 50 lbs. of ensilage 
and 6 lbs. of meal gave in two weeks exactly 
the same gain that 20 lbs. of hay and the 
same quantity of meal gave in double the 
number of days (28),—No. 4 gaining in each 
test 70 lbs., No, 5, 50 lbs., and No. 6, 55 lbs. 
On March 15th, our supply of ensilage being 
nearly exhausted, 12'/ 2 lbs. of hay were 
substituted for 25 lbs. of the ensilage, and 
for a week each animal received a daily ra¬ 
tion of 25 lbs. of ensilage, 12 1 /* lbs. of hay, 
