163 
“upon as a waste material in Queensland—namely, corn stover. Of course a lot 
of it went out as bedding, and mieht consequently be reckoned as wasted; but 
still the stock always got about 75 per cent. of excellent fodder out of it. 
Mr. W. D. Lame asked for information about the general cost of ensilage, 
particularly with regard to chafling, elevating, &e. . 
Mr. Tyne said that any machine that would do chaffeutting would do 
to chaff ensilage. Individual farmers who did not own chaffcutters, could 
doubtless hire them without difficulty, and the cost of a plain four-sided build- 
ing could be easily calculated. In the College silo, tests of different kinds of 
timbers and other experiments were being carried out, so that in’ connection 
with it several expenses were incurred which the ordinary farmer would not be 
put to. In Canada, if he remembered rightly, only one thickness of inch 
tongued and grooved pine was used for the walls of silos, and perhaps this 
would also do in this colony, although many considered the Queensland pine. 
Was not as tough and as durable as the Canadian. However, even if it did 
decay, it would last a few years at any rate. 
A gentleman mentioned that cornstalks could be cut up with a common — 
machine, and that there should be little difficulty in: chafling this kind of 
fodder. The same delegate also asked how ensilage was to be kept from 
going bad, after the silo had been opened, in the event of the owner not being 
able to feed it out quickly enough to his stock. 
Mr. Grorcr Stuckey expressed his approval of the practice of supplying 
dairy stock with chaffed fodder during the winter months. He was also 
against allowing calves to suck their mothers; but when the former were fed 
on whey, he advocated adding a little pollard to it. With regard to the — 
importation of butter, there were tons of it brought into Queensland from the 
south, and, as far as the price was concerned, he did not think it was likely to 
rise much higher, at present at any rate. In this connection he mentioned. 
that shipments of Victorian butter which had been sent to England were 
being returned to Victoria, the price in the home market not being profitable _ 
enough evidently. 
At the request of Mr. Wilson, Mr. Manon gave an explanation of why 
the btitter had been returned to Australia. There was, of course, always a 
market in England, but the price may not have been profitable enough for the 
exporters. Butter in England was selling at 10d. per lb., but at present 1s. 5d. 
er lb. could be obtained for it in Victoria. In fact, at that moment, the. 
ictorians were not able to supply their own markets. If Queenslanders at | 
present could not compete in their own markets with the Victorians who had 
to pay 3d. per Ib. duty and freight, then they had better give up dairying 
altogether. In reply to a question of Mr. Coulson’s, he might state that 
Victorians sending butter to Queensland ports, did not have the advantage of = 
cold storage on the coastal steamers. They were in exactly the same position — 
as shippers of buiter from Brisbane to Northern ports, With regard to. 
feeding calves, he knew farmers who used whey without pollard and with very 
successful resulis. At Trelawney, a little linseed was mixed with the whey, 
and this was found very satisfactory. However, there was plenty of nutriment 
in whey, including sugar and a good deal of mineral matter. They knew pigs 
did well on whey; and if there was nutriment in it for pigs, there must also be. 
nutriment in it for calves. 
Mr. M. O’Kzrre (Lockyer) concurred in this opinion of the feeding value 
of whey. One mistake farmers, however, made was to give their calves skim 
milk on Monday mornings, and this caused them to object to whey on the 
Temaining days of the week. 
Mr. W. H. Srepnens (Beaudesert) agreed with Mr. Mahon in his remarks 
about the advantages of co-operation, but still the private factories, he thought, 
were good friends to the farmers. With regard to milk-testing, it should be 
remembered that the amount of butter fat in milk varied, and this could not be 
always satisfactorily accounted for, although the cow was doubtless responsible 
for it. It should not vary, however, so much as 1 per cent.; but it was not. 
