278 REPORT OF THE CHEMIST OF THE 
that the digestibility of the orchard grass hay was the same in the 
ration that it was when fed alone: 
AVERAGE AMOUNTS PER Day, IN OUNCES. 



NITROGEN-FREE | FAT (ETHER 
Dry MATTER. |ALBUMINOIDS.| ORUDE FIBER. EXTRAOT EXTRACT) 


Jem. Meg. Jem. | Meg. | Jem. | Meg. Jem. Meg. Jem, | Meg. 






Tay caste + den ole see} 245.908 | 245.908 | 23.828 | 23.828 | 96.691 | 96.691 | 100.601 | 100.601 | 9.221 | © 9.221 
Wa FOr: canal ann 1.937 9.544 141 698 -761 | 3.739 -861 4.244 056 274 



243.971 | 236.364 | 23.687 | 23.130 | 95.930 | 92.952 99.740 96.357 | 9.165 8.949 
Corn. mealixas|5 si. s 104.384 | 104.384 | 12.265 | 12.265 | 1.910 | 1.910 83.987 83.987 | 4.770 4.770 











Amountconsum’d| 348.355 | 340.748 | 35.952 | 35.395 | 97.840 | 94.862 | 183.727 180.344 | 13.935 | 13.719 







From data already presented we have the average amounts per 
day of these various constituents in the dung, and in the following 
table are presented the digestion coefficients for the components 
of the ration: 
OrcHARD-GRASS Hay and Corn MEAL, IN OUNCES. 





NITROGEN-FREE] FAT (ETHER, 
Dry MATTER. | ALBUMINOIDS.|CRUDE FIBER, EXTRACT EXTRACT) 



Jem. Meg. Jem. | Meg. | Jem. | Meg. | Jem. Meg. | Jom. | Meg. 


















Patel toed ali ele a 348.355 | 340.748 | 35.952 | 35.305 | 97.840 | 94.862 | 193.727 | 190.344 | 13.935 | 13.719 
Pete h EIR Ae Oa 121.862 | 117.741 | 14.742 | 12.993 | 39.683 | 40.012 | 54.042 | 52.227 | 4.522) 4.038 
Digested............ 226.493 | 223.007 | 21.210 | 22.402 | 58.157 | 54.850 | 129.685 | 128.117 | 9.413 | 9.681 
Per cenit digested ..... 65.01 65.44 58.99 63.29 59.44 57.81 |x. 70.59 71.03 67.55 70.56 
AV OPO Ol. vicaenhiok yes 65.23 61.14 | 58.63 70.81 69.05 





The results of this trial are somewhat of a surprise, since the per 
cent of albuminoids digested in this ration is but little higher than 
for the hay alone, while with the crude fiber the digestion coeffi- 
cient is nearly six per cent lower than was the case with the hay. 
Why this difference? In the case of the albuminoids there are two 
directions in which we may look to find acause. First, that in the 
previous trial the feed eaten proved to be less than a maintenance 
ration, as has already been shown, although the animals were 
offered more hay than they consumed, this being the case they 
might digest a larger per cent than where more was eaten than 
necessary for the maintenance of the animal as in the second case. 
On the other hand, these cows were fed the corn meal separate 
oe ee” ay ee ed 
