i88 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XIV, No. 4 
The values given in this old French table are reversed by tests on 
the absorptive capacity of oat straw, wheat straw, and shavings, con¬ 
ducted by the writer in the spring of 1917. These tests show that oat 
straw absorbs 15 to 20 per cent more water than wheat straw and more 
than twice as much as ordinary commercial mixed shavings. The tests 
are well substantiated by records kept of the amount of bedding material 
of the different kinds actually used for different classes of animals. 
In order to determine the water-holding capacity of the various mate¬ 
rials, weighed quantities (5 to 7 pounds per sack) were sacked loosely 
and soaked for 12 hours. The sacks were then hung in a room in a barn, 
and after 5 hours, when dripping had practically ceased, were weighed. 
They were weighed again after hanging for 24 hours. This test was 
repeated several times. There was a small variation from time to time, 
probably due to differences in the particular samples of material obtained 
and to differences in the rate of evaporation on different days. However, 
they were relatively the same in each test. In addition to oat straw, 
wheat straw, and two kinds of shavings which were being used for bed¬ 
ding purposes, some cut oat straw, some mixed sawdust, and some very 
light, fine white-pine shavings were obtained for these tests. Approxi¬ 
mate averages of the results of the tests are given in Table I. 
Table I.— Water-holding capacity of litter 
Material. 
Water 
retained 
by 100 
pounds of 
material 
after 24 
hours. 
Relative 
water- 
holding 
power 
after 24 
hours. 
Oat straw (whole). 
Pounds. 
2 CO 
100. 0 
Cut oat straw (about ^-inch lengths). 
* J w 
OAA 
97.6 
84. 0 
47.6 
C2 O 
Wheat straw. 
210 
IIO 
Mixed shavings from Chicago car load. 
Mixed shavings from local planing mill. 
120 
Mixed sawdust from local planing mill. 
l6o 
64. O 
74-0 
Fine, dry white-pine shavings. 
i8 5 
It will be noted that whole oat straw retained slightly more water than 
cut oat straw, about 19 per cent more than wheat straw, and twice as 
much as the ordinary mixed shavings used for bedding material. Whole 
oat straw came out slightly above the cut oat straw in every test made. 
The fine white-pine shavings and the sawdust retained considerably 
more water than the coarser mixed shavings, the white-pine shavings 
retaining three-fourths as much water as oat straw, and the sawdust two- 
thirds as much. It was impossible to get any accurate comparison be¬ 
tween shavings and sawdust of the same kind, because the only kind 
of sawdust obtainable was mixed. The water-holding capacity of the 
sawdust varied more than that of any of the other materials. 
