Farm Notes. 7 
February 16 all the layers of the stack and in the barn were 
again weighed and sampled. The stack was about the 
same height and width of the usual alfalfa stack in Colorado 
and its being shorter than the average scarcely affects the 
results. 
As would be expected the top and bottom layers of the 
stack suffer more loss than the middle layers. The top layer 
lost, about five per cent of its weight in spoiled hay and the 
bottom layer about the same per cent of waste hay that was 
so injured by the dampness of the ground as to be unsalable. 
All the layers lost considerably in weight as follows: 
LOSS OF WEIGHT IN STACK. 
Weight as put in Weight when taken Per cent of loss 
Layer. 
June 15. 
out Feb. 12. 
in weight. 
Bottom. 
.5048 
4160 
17.6 
Second . 
.4906 
4244 
13.5 
Third. 
.4754 
3946 
17.0 
Top. 
.4664 
3554 
238 
Average. 
. 4843 
3986 
17.7 
This loss, however, is largely due to the drying out of 
the water in the hay. As put up the hay averaged 18.9 per 
cent of water; as taken out this had dried to but 11.1 per 
cent of water. The changes that took place in the dry 
matter give these figures: 
Layer. 
Bottom. 
Second. 
Third. 
Top. 
Average . 
LOSS OF DRY MATTER IN STACK. 
Dry Matter as put 
in June 15. 
. 4069 
.4031 . 
.4030 
.3585 
3929 
Dry matter when 
taken out Feb. 12 . 
3593 
3818 
3550 
3197 
Per cent of loss 
in dry matter. 
11.7 
5.3 
11.9 
10.8 
10.0 
This latter table does not show the loss in real feeding 
value, for both the top and the bottom layers had some hay 
that could not be used for feeding. If the amount of this 
spoiled hay is subtracted, it leaves the following as the losses 
of feeding value: 
LOSS OF FEEDING VALUE IN STACK. 
Feeding value as put Feeding value when Per cent of loss 
Layer. in June 15. taken out Feb. 12. in feeding value. 
Bottom...4069 3390 16 8 
Second.4031 3818 5.3 
Third.4030 3550 119 
Top.3585 ' 2997 161 
Average..3929 3439 12.4 
The results show that for every hundred pounds of hay 
