Nov. 15,1925 Net Energy Values of Alfalfa Hay and Alfalfa Meal 989 
DIGESTIBILITY 
The digestibility of the ration was determined in the usual manner. 
Table III sets forth the digestion coefficients of the hay and of the 
meal. 
Table III .—■Digestion coefficients of alfalfa hay and alfalfa meal 
Feed and period 
Dry 
matter 
Organic 
matter 
True 
protein 
Crude 
protein 
Crude 
fiber 
Nitro¬ 
gen-free 
extract 
Ether 
extract 
Carbon 
Energy 
Alfalfa hay, dry matter: 
58.7 
58.8 
Period I, 6,638.3 grams... 
59.9 
62.2 
71.4 
76.6 
40.6 
74.0 
14.4 
Period III, 5,320.2 grams. 
60.4 
61.7 
67.7 
74.1 
45.0 
70.7 
19.4 
59.0 
58.6 
Period V, 3,052.4 grams.. 
63.7 
64.4 
71.0 
74.4 
47.3 
73.6 
35.2 
63.0 
62.3 
Average. 
61.3 
62.8 
70.0 
75.0 
44.3 
72.8 
23.0 
60.2 
59.9 
Alfalfa meal, dry matter: 
2.4 
57.5 
56.8 
Period II, 6,670.7 grams.. 
58.2 
59.4 
66.1 
72.7 
38.0 
72.2 
Period IV, 5,407.8 grams. 
57.8 
59.5 
66.3 
72.5 
37.2 
72.5 
31.1 
56.5 
56.6 
Period VI, 3,154.9 grams. 
61.3 
61.7 
69.3 
75.8 
43.1 
71.9 
35.1 
60.5 
60.5 
Average. 
59.1 
60.2 
67.2 
73.7 
39.4 
72.2 
52.9 
58.2 
58.0 
In all periods the hay was appreciably more completely digested 
than was the meal. This difference prevailed consistently, without 
exception, in regard to dry matter, organic matter, true protein, crude 
protein, and crude fiber. There were exceptions to this order, in 
some cases, with reference to nitrogen-free extract and ether extract. 
Naturally these differences in the digestibility of alfalfa hay and 
alfalfa meal depended on the meal being used as the sole roughajge. 
While the writers do not have positive evidence to explain this dif¬ 
ference, it seems proper to suggest a probable explanation. In view 
of their understanding of the conditions which determine the course 
of the food in the alimentary tract of ruminants, especially the 
influence of fineness of grinding on the passage of the food when 
swallowed, into the first, second, and third stomachs, and its tendency 
therefore, to suppress rumination, it seems likely to the writers that 
the lower digestibility of the meal was due to its having been swal¬ 
lowed, in part at least, past the paunch, and, consequently, to having 
escaped to this extent the usual prolonged soaking and fermentation 
in that organ, and the subsequent regurgitation and remastication, 
while normal conditions prevailed in the case of the coarsely cut hay. 
The higher apparent digestibility of the hay and the meal m 
Periods V and VI than in Periods I to IV is not unusual in periods of 
of very low feed intake, this being due in part to the slower passage 
of the feed through the alimentary tract and increased fermentation 
per unit of weight of feed. In these periods of low feed intake there 
was also evidence of slight abnormality in the condition of the 
subject, perhaps as a result of slow movement of alimentary residues, 
the indications being irregular drinking, abundant sediment in the 
urine, mucus in the feces, and foul odor of urine and feces. The 
daily fecal elimination, however, was not unduly variable, not suffi¬ 
ciently so to warrant a conclusion that fecal elimination was so 
delayed as seriously to compromise the accuracy of the digestion 
coefficients. 
