258 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
voi. xxviii, No. a 
Table II.— Composition of silages as put into and taken out of silos 
Dry matter 
in moist 
material 
Water-free basis 
Kind of silage 
Total 
protein 
Albumi¬ 
noid 
protein 
Ash 
Crude fiber 
Ether 
extract 
Nitrogen- 
free 
extract 
In 
Out 
In 
Out 
In 
Out 
In 
Out 
In 
Out 
In 
Out 
In 
Out 
Per 
Per 
Per 
Per 
Per 
Per 
Per 
Per 
Per 
Per 
Per 
Per 
Per 
Per 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
Sudan grass alone 
Sudan grass and soy- 
30.3 
28.9 
6.0 
6.4 
5.3 
4.5 
5.5 
6.1 
34.0 
35.2 
1.5 
1.9 
53.0 
50.4 
beans.. 
30.3 
30.1 
11.0 
11.3 
9.0 
7.1 
6.8 
7.5 
31.6 
34.0 
1.4 
2.3 
49.3 
44.9 
Soybeans alone_ 
36.3 
34.8 
16.7 
17.6 
12.7 
9.8 
6.7 
8.3 
30.5 
32.7 
1.2 
2.0 
44.9 
.39.5 
Cowpeas alone. 
Sudan grass and 
31.8 
31.0 
16.0 
15.9 
13.4 
9.9 
7.7 
8.8 
23.8 
27.1 
1.5 
2.6 
51.0 
45. ft 
cowpeas. 
33.3 
30.6 
11.8 
12.3 
9.8 
8.9 
7.1 
8.1 
29.9 
30.6 
1.7 
2.5 
49.6 
46. ft 
Table III gives the percentage of loss or gain in different feed constituents of 
the silage, based on the weights of each put in and taken out of the silo. Gain 
in weight of any of the feed constituents can be explained only by down wash 
from the filler portion of each silo of portions of these constituents. The loss 
or gain of weight in moisture and dry matter as shown in Table III is not remark- 
able in any of the silages. Sudan grass and cowpea mixture shows the greatest 
loss of dry matter, followed by Sudan grass alone. As usual, in silage there is a 
large loss of albuminoid protein due apparently to the breaking down of the more 
complex protein into simpler nitrogen compounds. These simpler nitrogen com¬ 
pounds are generally considered to have less feed value than the original albu¬ 
minoids. The losses of albuminoids are larger in each legume silage alone than 
when Sudan grass was ensiled with this legume. This would indicate that a con¬ 
siderable loss of feeding value was prevented by the presence of the Sudan grass. 
The ash shows an unusual gain in all cases, from 5 per cent in the Sudan grass, 
silage to 21 per cent in the soybean silage, and 23 per cent in the Sudan grass, 
and cowpea mixture. These gains correlate very well with the gains in amount 
of moisture, and may be due to a down wash of soluble ash from the filler por¬ 
tion of the silage which lay above the experimental portion. Crude fiber shows 
a gain of 9 per cent in the cowpea silage and a gain of nearly 6 per cent in the 
Sudan grass and soybean mixture, while in Sudan grass silage and the Sudan 
grass and cowpea mixture, losses are indicated. Ether extract shows gains of 
from 7 per cent in the cowpea silage to 54 per cent in the Sudan grass and soy¬ 
bean mixture. There is a loss of nitrogen-free extract in every silage, varying 
from 9 per cent in Sudan grass silage to 15 per cent in soybean silage. Tho 
loss of nitrogen-free extract and therefore of feeding value is somewhat larger 
in the soybean silage than in the soybean and Sudan grass mixture. No such 
difference is shown between the cowpea silage and the cowpea and Sudan grass 
mixture. 
Table III.— Loss (—) and gain (+) in weight of silage constituents as put into 
and taken out of silos 
Kind of silage 
Green 
mate¬ 
rial 
Mois¬ 
ture 
Dry 
matter 
Total 
protein 
Albu¬ 
minoid 
protein 
Ash 
Crude 
fiber 
Ether 
extract 
Nitro¬ 
gen-free 
extract 
Per cent 
Per cent 
Per cent 
Per cent 
Per cent 
Per cent 
Per cent 
Per cent 
Per cent 
Sudan grass alone. 
+0.25 
+2.2 
-4.3 
-1.8 
-19.3 
+5.2 
-1.2 
+23.9 
—9.0; 
Sudan grass and soybeans 
-1.0 
-0.7 
-1.8 
+1.4 
-22.7 
+8.5 
+5.8 
+54.0 
-10. 5. 
Soybeans alone._. 
+1.2 
+3.7 
-3.2 
+1.7 
-25.4 
+21.0 
+3.9 
+52.2 
-15.0 
Cowpeas alone.. 
+0.4 
+1.5 
-1.9 
-2.3 
-27.7 
+11.1 
+9.1 
+7.3 
-12. a 
Sudan grass and cowpeas_ 
—0.3 
+3.6 
-8.1 
-4.0 
-17.0 
+23.0 
-6.0 
+33.5 
-13.0 
