Coi^oRADo Fodders. 
table IvXIV. 
49 
COEEEICIENTS OE DIGESTION FOR THE FUEL VALUES OF THE VARIOUS 
EXTRACTS OF CORN 
FODDER. 
Hea4: units 
Heat units 
Heat units 
Coef. 
Conisumed 
Voided 
Appropriated 
Alcoholic extract . 
, . . . 10,238,976 
3,211,195 
7,027,781 
71.10 
Aqueous 
extracts .. 
_ 2,337,996 
848,780 
1,489,213 
63.69 
One per 
cent, hydric ohlorid 
ext. 7,691,970 
2,774,812 
4,914,158 
63.88 
One per 
cent, sodic hydrate 
ext. 6,098,657 
3,952,639 
2,146,018 
35.17 
Chlorin, 
etc., extract.. 
_ 1,482,734 
1,859,328 
(-376,594) 
* • • • 
Residue 
or cellulose .. 
. ... 9,264,294 
3,829,138 
5,435,160 
58.67 
alfalfa and corn fodder compared From the standpoint of 
THEIR calorimetric RELATIONS. 
§120. The two fodders first chosen for a complete study were 
alfalfa and corn fodder. In making this choice, I considered the 
fact that alfalfa is, beyond all question, our best fodder and, after 
it, for general all round purposes, corn fodder, probably stands 
next. Timothy is grown in considerable quantities in some sec¬ 
tions of the state, but it is too limited in supply, and too high in 
price to be thought of as a general fodder, either by itself or for 
the purpose of balancing an alfalfa ration, unless it be for horses. 
Timothy has further been studied, and from this standpoint would 
have been, in part at least, a repetition of other work. Our native 
hay is a very much better fodder than timothy hay, but the supply 
of it is limited, the price is high, and its composition is variable, i. e., 
the grasses, rushes and sedges forming it vary with localities and 
seasons. I chose corn fodder because it can be produced cheaply 
in large quantities over a large territory and because the results of 
feeding indicate that it is as good a fodder as the native hay and a 
very much better one than timothy hay. I was, in short, guided by 
the consideration of the utility of the respective fodders. It would 
have been a mistake to do so to the exclusion of other fodders, as my 
object has really not been to study good, acceptable fodders, but to 
discover, if possible, the reasons why one fodder is better than 
another, why one is good and another poor. While the difference 
between the values of corn fodder and alfalfa is considerable, it is 
not wide enough to give the best opportunity for presenting such 
a study with thoroughly satisfactory results. We will find larger 
differences when we come to the study of the saltbush, Atriplex 
argcntea, which is an exceedingly poor fodder. 
§121. There are very salient and interesting contrasts be¬ 
tween these two fodders, alfalfa and the saltbush, Atriplex argentea, 
which I may digress to state briefly. The sheep fed on alfalfa 
gained nine pounds; those fed on saltbush lost eight and one-half 
pounds in five days. It is true that the sheep to which alfalfa was 
