FODDER ANALYSES—CONCLUDED 
Ash. 
-- 1 
Ether 
Extract. 
Crude 
Protein. 
Crude 
Fiber. 
Nitrogen 
Free 
Extract. 
Total 
Nitrogen. 
Leaves.. 
14.61 
3.750 
24.690 
11.650 
44.300 
3.950 
Leaves. 
15.03 
3.078 
25.500 
13.760 
42.630 
4.088 
Leaves. 
15.54 
3.109 
24.500 
13.830 
43.420 
3.920 
Stems. 
5.19 
.953 
6.480 
57.510 
29.870 
1.035 
Stems. 
5.30 
.900 
6.470 
57.610 
29.720 
1.035 
Stubble, includes614 in. of the roots.. 
4.47 
.518 
12.160 
38.190 
45.000 
1.945 
Stubble, includes 614 in. of the roots.. 
4.51 
.610 
11.750 
37.400 
45.730 
1.880 
Roots. 
3.90 
.760 
11.500 
26.530 
57.310 
1.758 
Roots. 
4.04 
.680 
11.210 
26.120 
57.950 
1.717 
Roots. 
3.88 
1.090 
10.690 
25.430 
58.910 
1.710 
Roots. 
3.89 
1.190 
10.640 
25.490 
58.790 
1.703 
Barks of roots. 
5.40 
2.160 
14.750 
22.790 
54.850 
2.360 
Inside portion of roots . 
3.64 
2.920 
8.000 
30.330 
55.140 
1.280 
COMPILED ANALYSES. 
Ash. 
Ether 
Extract 
Crude 
Protein 
Crude 
Fiber. 
Nitro¬ 
gen 
Free 
Extract 
Total 
Nitro¬ 
gen. 
Fertilized. 
7.97 
1.12 
16.27 
34.39 
40.25 
2.603 
Mass. State Expt. Sta. 
Not fertilized. 
7.10 
1.04 
14.41 
32.41 
45.04 
2.306 
Mass.Rep. 1888, p. 165. 
No description given. 
8 25 
4.47 
12.60 
32.94 
41.74 
2.020 
Vt. Rep., 1891, p. 49. 
Drilled, 1st cut.. 
9.88 
4.34 
20.30 
24.34 
41.14 
3.240 
New Jersey Rep., 1888 
“ 2nd cut. 
7.89 
3.73 
15.24 
18.36 
54.78 
2.438 
tt tt tt 
“ 3rd cut. 
9.19 
4.22 
17.72 
18.24 
50.63 
2.835 
fct tt It (t 
‘ 4th cut. 
10.55 
5.14 
21.72 
21.06 
41.53 
3.475 
tt (4 tt it 
Broadcast, 1st cut. 
10.52 
4.07 
20.73 
23.11 
41.57 
3.316 
t‘ tt tt tt 
“ 2nd cut. 
8.22 
3.24 
16.76 
23.70 
48.08 
2.681 
tt tt tt tt 
“ 3rd cut. 
9.80 
0.69 
17.64 
21.60 
50.27 
2.822 
tt tt tt tt 
4th cut . 
10.42 
5.81 
19.64 
21.58 
42.55 
3.142 
tt tt tt tt 
Cut April 20, irrigated.... 
12.91 
6.14 
18.13 
27.56 
35.27 
2.900 
Texas Bui. No. 20,1892 
“ 29, irrigated_ 
12.30 
5.18 
19.93 
29.87 
32.72 
3.190 
tt tt tt tt 
“ May 11, irrigated_ 
10.34 
4.87 
19.18 
33.61 
31.98 
3.070 
tt tt tt tt 
“30, irrigated_ 
8.00 
3.61 
15.31 
34.23 
38.85 
2.450 
•t <t tt tt 
“30, 2nd cut. 
15.26 
3.10 
23.56 
25.20 
32.88 
3.770 
tt tt tt tt 
“ April 3, not irrigated 
10.94 
6.30 
25.75 
16.64 
40.37 
4.120 
tt t< tt tt 
“ 21, not irrigated 
10.59 
7.25 
25.68 
22.98 
33.50 
4.110 
tt tt tt tt 
“ May 11, not irrigated. 
8.04 
6.60 
17.37 
30.25 
37.70 
2.780 
tt tt tt tt 
Flowers begin to appear.. 
11.85 
4.48 
23.3* 
19.76 
40.53 
3.140 
Ky. Rep., 1889-90, p. 19 
In bloom. 
7.72 
3.00 
16.86 
25.15 
47.27 
2.698 
tt tt tt .t 
Pods formed. 
9.67 
2.07 
14.83 
25.19 
48.22 
2.405 
tt tt tt tt 
* No description given_ 
7.93 
2.49 
17.42 
33.54 
38.62 
2.787 
N. C. Rep., 1889, p.82 
t Sample inferior hay. ... 
5.79 
1.66 
9.06 
39.97 
43.52 
1.450 
(’ala. Rep., ’91-2, p. 125 
No description given... :. 
4.28 
2.22 
21.86 
29.55 
42.09 
3.498 ' 
Gra. Bui. No 7., 1890. 
No description given. 
7.87 
2.66 
16.24 
31.08 
42.15 
2 569 
N. Y. State Rep. 1889 
Beginning to bloom . 
10.5 
2.5 
16 3 
25.4 
45.3 
Mass. State Expt. Rep. ’85, n 70 
First cut (b). 
9.3 
2.6 
20.1 
28.3 
39.7 
N. J. Exp. Sta- Rep, 1886, p. 160 
Second cut (b). 
6.9 
1.9 
18.6 
35.0 
37.6 
t 4 tt tt 14 tt tt 
Third cut (b). 
6.6 
2.1 
16.0 
33.5 
41.8 
tt tt tt tt tt t 
In bloom. 1st cut fertiliz’d 
7.2 
1.5 
11.1 
28.5 
51.7 
Mass. St. Exp. Rep. ’87, p. 131 
tt tt 11 tt tt tt 
“ “ not fert’z’d 
7.8 
2.0 
13.0 
27.9 
49.3 
Coming into bloom. 
8.8 
2.2 
18.8 
30.1 
40.1 
Yt. Expt, Sta. Rep. 1887, p. 130 
Seed in dough. 
8.6 
2 4 
16.1 
32 .-8 
40.1 
tt tt tt tt tt t« 
Time of cutting unknown 
8.1 
3.2 
16.6 
24.2 
27.9 
Colorado Expt, Sta. Bui. 8, 1889 
t> tt tt tt tt 
$Third cut. not irrigated.. 
11.5 
3.0 
21.9 
18.6 
45.0 
Cut for seed, Sept. 25. 
7.9 
4.2 
12.3 
24.5 
51.1 
tt ti tt tt tt 
Third cut, very coarse. 
Cut July 15, in bloom. 
9 1 
2.4 
12.2 
26.3 
50.0 
tt *t tt <t tt 
11.2 
2.5 
11.6 
15.4 
59.3 
tt ti tt tt it 
“ June 6, not irrigated . 
9.8 
2.8 
13.5 
21.0 
52.9 
tt tt tt tt «f 
“ July 25, irrigat’d twice 
“ July 25, irrigated once 
7.9 
2.0 
12.4 
25.0 
52.7 
tt tt tt tt tt 
8.5 
2.9 
11.3 
24.1 
53.2 
t. tt tt tt «t 
Second cut. 
8.8 
2.7 
12.9 
22.2 
53.4 
tt t» tt ft tt 
* The analysis of the North Carolina sample, as it appears in their report, contains a typograph¬ 
ical error, as the analysis shows an excess of 5 per cent. I have assumed that the error was in the 
nitrogen free extract, and have re-calculated the analysis giving the percentages on the basis of 
dry matter. 
f The writer of the article in the California report states that the sample was mostly stems and 
that it was not a fair sample of California alfalfa hay. J 26 days from time of previous cutting. 
