42 The: Coi.orado Exp^rime:nt Station. 
TABT^ XTVII. 
UIvTiMATK ANALYSTS. 
CORN FODDER. CORRESPONDING FECES. 
Carbon . 
. 42.661 
Carbon . 
. 42.754 
Hydrogen . 
. 5.892 
Hydrogen . 
. 5.494 
Nitrogen .. . . . 
. 0.739 
Nitrogen . 
. 1.145 
Sulfur . 
. 0.099 
Sulfur . 
. 0.133 
Chlorin . 
. 0.342 
Chlorin . 
. 0.152 
Ash . 
. 9.530 
Ash . 
. 12.630 
Oxygen (approx.) . . . . 
. 40.737 
Oxygen (approx.) . . . . 
. 37.692 
100.000 100.000 
§109. The chlorin and sulfur determinations were made on 
the fodder and not calculated from the ash. The oxygen percentage 
is only approximate, as the ash contains most of the sulfur and 
chlorin and probably oxygen taken up during the burning, and 
these elements enter the analysis in part, at least twice. 
§110. The ratio of the air-dried feces to the weight of air- 
dried fodder consumed is i :2.33; in the case of alfalfa it is i 12.7. 
The portion of the corn fodder left by the sheep amounted to 24 
per cent, of the fodder, while the portion of alfalfa left amounted 
to 7.38 per cent. This-difference is considerable when, considered 
in pounds only, but when the character of the two fodders is taken 
into consideration, the proportion of the corn fodder consumed 
seems quite favorable. The ratio of the leaves in this fodder to the 
stems was 2:1, which is not very different from the ratio of leaves 
to stems in the alfalfa plant, but the corn stalk is very different from 
the alfalfa stem. Sheep will not eat the alfalfa stems when they 
are coarse; this is probably due to the hardness of the stems, but, 
in the case of the corn stalks, they will not eat them even when they 
have been ground. The results show that only about 10 per cent, 
or even less of the corn stalks was eaten when cut in lengths of from 
34 to inch. The fodder had been cut close to the ground, so 
that the whole of the plant was represented in the fodder. 
§iii. It was hoped that the elementary analyses of the fod¬ 
ders might show some differences suggestive of the wide differences 
in their actual feeding values, but the range in the ultimate composi¬ 
tion of both the fodders and the feces shows that they are of but 
little value for the purposes of this study, as they show nothing 
more, that we can interpret, than the fodder analysis. 
