44 ; [AssEMBLY 

Meg 
Alb. Crude fiber. Nit. free Fat. 
. x ) extract. 
Daily food and water, lbs........ 2.18 2.27 14.71 40 
Pa lyse el decks ay 5 vite owes 92 1.61 3.92 24 
Difference, or digested, lbs....... 1.26 .66 10.79 16 
Buoiierence: per-cent.-... vcvaers ae 58. 29. [3 ea 
gisig 
We may now group our results in order to bring into view the cor- 
respondences between the results from the two cows. 
Digestion percentages of the rations. 
I, II. III. IV,. Vi. 
Jem. Meg. Jem. Meg. Jem. Meg. Jem. Meg. Jem. Meg 
Adbnminoid.4% 23. .6 58 638. 62 62 .7%73.70 58:57 (95158 
rude fiber:,.¢..¢... 61 67 64.65 (56.55 . 50 45 sieaiegyg 
Nit. free extract...... 69 72 %5 T4 8282 67 67 #£x2474 T 
"TEA Fy eee ane a i a RS 7 7 87 86 69 66 60 62 £42 40 
a 
Digestion percentages of the ration. Average of the two cows. 
pe aie L tie) 1 IV, Ve 
BAT DUM GLU) 2s asin shee bees ane ate ees 60 62 71 5D ae Oe 
Crude fiber....... ERE RON ar 09S: 64 64 55 4'7 30 
INA tree: extracts 4 «cee ee cee e 70 74 82 67 13° 
© APS Mh es apa ena aR Es. PR [5 86 67 61 4] 
Povakiry matter. 4:5 o% «ase sents 66 70 70 52 55 
In order to determine the digestibility of any component of the 
ration, we must know the digestibility of one of the foods, and by 
subtraction obtain the digestion value of the other. Using the 
German figures for the digestibility of the grain fed,* we can form 
the following provisional table: 
*It is probable that by using the German results, we are reducing the apparent 
percentages of digestion in our trials, as there is indication that the figures 
taken for the digestion of the grain are in excess of the real digestion in our case. 
