than those in Pen No. i, although to the eye they seemed 
to be closely equal. The fact that, when put on grain feed¬ 
ing, Pen No. i on corn surpasses Pen No. 6, on barley and 
beets, notwithstanding the seeming better quality of the 
steers in Pen No. 6, gives added weight to the superior feed¬ 
ing value of corn. 
The total amount of hay eaten by Pens Nos. i and 6, 
from October 23 to December 19, is 11,581 pounds. This is 
for six steers fifty-seven days, or 34 pounds of hay per day per 
head for steers that weighed on the average 1,220 pounds. 
If steers eat according to weight, this would be 25 pounds 
per day for a 1,000-pound steer. During this time there 
was taken from their mangers twelve pounds of hay per 
day per head. This refuse was fed to horses and stock cat¬ 
tle, so that it should not be charged against the steers. 
1 his refuse amounts to just one-fourth of the entire hay fed. 
The amount charged as eaten also includes the amount 
thrown out of the manger, trampled under foot, and wasted. 
I he proportion of refuse holds good to the end of the win¬ 
ter, though the steers eating beets leave much more hay 
than those on grain alone. On alfalfa alone the average of 
the six steers from November 8to December 19 is again of 
112 pounds in live weight in 42 days, or 2.4 pounds per head 
per day. This is a greater gain than was made by either of 
the pens having ensilage or beets. Indeed, the poorer of 
the pens on hay did better than either of the ensilage or 
beet pens. 
Alfalfa and Ensilage .—During the feeding of 1894-95 
the ensilage gave the poorest result of any of the feeds 
used. Hie record is much the same for the following year. 
Prom November 7 to December 19 the three steers in Pen 
No. 3 ate as much hay as the average of Pens Nos. 1 and 6 
that had hay alone. But, in addition to this, Pen No. 3 ate 
2,250 pounds of ensilage nearly equivalent to another 
thousand pounds of hay, and gained less in live weight 
than the steers on hay alone. Thus, the addition of ensil¬ 
age to the ration produced a less gain in weight from one- 
fifth more food. The only explanation is, that the entire 
feeding value of the ensilage was employed in getting rid 
of the extra water taken into the system with the ensilage, 
i. e., the ensilage was worse than thrown away. 
The result of two years’ feeding of ensilage shows that 
it is not a profitable feed for steers that are fed in the open 
air without shelter. These results, however, have no bear¬ 
ing on the question of feeding ensilage to milk cows stabled 
in a warm barn. 
