1. By Lots:

Comparisons Based on the Table.

LOT I.

During the first fortnight this lot had a daily ration of 14 pounds meal, 62 pounds dry cornstalks, and 30 pounds roots-a full ration. During the second and third fortnights, the daily ration was 14 pounds of meal as before, and 109 pounds ensilage-a full ration during the second fortnight, but the cows would have eaten more ensilage during the third, had it been given them. During the fourth, fifth, and sixth fortnights the daily ration was again 14 pounds meal, and 129 pounds ensilage-a full ration.

Although the 92 pounds of roots and fodder had been entirely substituted by 109 pounds ensilage,-little more than pound for pound,--the returns of the second and third fortnights are little below the first; and when the ensilage is increased during the next three fortnights to 129 pounds,-less than 14 pounds ensilage to one pound of fodder and roots,-the results are considerably better than during the first period. Of course, in interpreting the results of the above feeding, the natural shrinkage in milk yield must be taken into account. That the above shrinkages are not great, the following comparison will clearly show. Stewart Queen,-the only other cow that became fresh at the same time of year,-dropped her first calf Aug. 28, 1881. This cow had all the dry cut cornstalks she would eat, a little hay occasionally, a meal ration, richer, but a little lighter than that of Lot I, and, during February, a peck of roots daily.

Stewart Queen is 34 years old, and Nos. 1 and 2 of Lot I, 3 and 3 5-12 years respectively. It will be seen at once, from the above figures, that the cows in Lot I not only, gave, on the average, about 5 pounds more milk daily apiece, but their per cent of shrinkage is less than that of Stewart Queen. Nor is this all; for the cows of Lot I gain 40 pounds in weight apiece, while the other cow loses 40 pounds. A reference to the table will show, too, that the gain in weight of this lot was almost wholly upon the meal and ensilage ration.

LOT II.

The effect of ensilage in the mixed ration of this lot is very marked. For the sake of perspicuity the feed and returns are given side by side.

The ration of this lot was a full one during all the time covered by the above comparison; that is, the animals had all the rough feed they would eat.

LOT III.

This lot, of two dry cows, had 7 pounds meal, 15 pounds hay, 22 pounds cornstalks, 21 pounds oat straw, and 30 pounds roots, daily, for the first two weeks. The gain in weight during this time was 52 pounds.

During the second and third fortnights, the daily ration of this lot was pounds meal, 13 pounds hay, 184 pounds each of cornstalks and oat straw, and 30 pounds ensilage. In other words the ensilage was substituted for roots, pound for pound, while the dry feed ingredients of the ration were cut down a little, to get the cows to eat the full allowance of ensilage. Again the gain in weight was 52 pounds each fortnight. This lot and also lot II were divided at the end of third fortnight. They will be noticed again.

LOT IV.

This lot, consisting of three bull calves, received daily during the first fortnight, 16 pounds meal, 294 pounds hay, and 42 pounds roots. During the second, third, and fourth fortnights, the average daily ration of the lot was 17 pounds meal, 144 pounds hay, and 80 pounds ensilage. For the fifth and sixth fortnights, the calves consumed daily, on the average, 174 pounds meal, 15 pounds hay, and 894 pounds ensilage. The gains of the lot for the different periods are here given:

First fortnight, gain in weight..

Pounds. 122

Second, third, and fourth fortnights, average gain in weight per fortnight 107 Fifth and sixth fortnights, average gain in weight per fortnight. - - - - 118.5

The comparison seems to be unfavorable to ensilage; but before drawing any conclusions let us review the facts. At the end of the first fortnight, ensilage was made to take the place of the roots pound for pound, and also of 15 pounds of the hay, three pounds for one. The ninety pounds of ensilage had in the 15 pounds hay and 45 pounds roots, a strong competitor, to say the least. The calves could not take this allowance of ensilage, as the table clearly shows. Yet, during the last two fortuights, on nearly the full feed of ensilage, the gains approach very closely to that of the first period.

2. By Individuals:

As Lots II and III were divided at the end of the third fortnight, the following

comparisons are of single animals, and cover the whole time of the experiment. Each animal is referred to by the number given in the table, and the daily rations and returns are brought together.

The superiority of ensilage over cornstalks as an ingredient in a mixed ration is marked. The loss on the 39 pounds of ensilage-all the steer would eat-is also significant.

Here the fluctuations are similar to those of No. 3, though not nearly as marked. During the last 4 weeks of the experiment, this steer would have eaten more ensilage had the allowance been increased. It is worth while to note that, with three pounds of meal added, No. 4, though not so hearty a feeder as No. 3, could eat 42 pounds of ensilage, while No. 3, on ensilage alone, ate only 39 pounds.

2 weeks..Meal, 3 lbs.; hay, 7 lbs.; cornstalks, 11 lbs.; oat straw, 9 lbs.; roots, 15 lbs.. 4 weeks.. Meal, 3% lbs.; hay, 7 ibs.; cornstalks, 9 1-5 lbs.; oat straw, 8% lbs.; ensilage, 15 lbs 6 weeks.. Meal, 3 lbs.; ensilage, 78% lbs.

Gains per fortnight.

14 lbs.

20 lbs.

22 lbs.

The above is a strong showing for ensilage, especially as compared with roots.

Time fed.

No. 6.

Daily Rations.

Gains per fortnight.

lbs.; hay, 7 lbs.; cornstalks, 10% lbs.; oat straw, 111⁄2 lbs.; roots, 15 lbs.
lbs.; hay 7 lbs.; cornstalks, 9 lbs.; oat straw, 8% lbs.; ensilage, 14 lbs..
lbs.; hay 25 lbs.

32 lbs. 171⁄2 lbs.

This cow would not eat the full allowance of ensilage for several days, still her gain is a large one, though not equal to that of the first fortnight. During the next period, though getting all the good hay she would eat and the regular allowance of meal, the gain is less.

Condition of the Animals at the Close of the Experiment.

The cattle continued to eat with relish throughout the experiment. All the animals were sleek, lively, and apparently in excellent health when the experiment closed. Even the Devon steer, No. 3 that had been losing weight on an exclusive ensilage diet, began to gain at once, on a ration of ensilage and meal, showing that his constitution had not been injured.

Comparative Feeding and Cost Value of Ensilage.

The meal fed to the cows is worth $22.40 per ton. That fed to the bull calves, $25. Hay is worth $10, and corn stalks and oat straw each $5 per ton, and rutabagas 40 cents per bushel.

Compared with the other feeds at the above rates, the ensilage has a feeding value four times the cost of growing the crop and putting it into the silo.

I was not at all sanguine, when we began the experiment, as to the decided merits of ensilage as claimed by many writers, but I have been greatly pleased with the results of the feeding. The convenience in handling the prepared fodder; the large amount that can be stored in a small space; the avidity with which cattle eat it and thrive and grow when a meal ration is fed with it; the fact that it can be stored in a wet time, during lowery weather, when fodder could not be cured; the furnishing of succulent food for stock during our long winters at very small cost,- these are some of the reasons that lead me to think that the ensilaging of corn especially will prove to be a practical and profitable method of preparing food for stock. I think it may take the place of roots and be a cheap substitute for them. I am disposed to believe that the best results will be secured by feeding one daily ration of dry fodder in connection with the ensilage. The experiment shows that it is not a complete food ration. A meal ration adapted to the animal and the desired result must be fed with it. The winter has been exceptionally favorable for the feeding of fodder of this character, on account of its extreme mildness, the mean temperature having been about 28° during the time embraced in the feeding With severe weather the results might be less favorable. On account of changes in his laboratory, and domestic afflictions, our chemist, Dr. R. C. Kedzie, was unable to make such chemical investigations during the feeding experiment as we had desired. A sample of ensilage from the college silo was therefore sent to Prof. George H. Cook, director of the New Jersey experimental station, with the request that it be analyzed. Prof. Cook had the analysis made very promptly and refused all proffered compensation. I am under special obligations to him for this favor and his permission to publish in this connection his report of an experiment in feeding ensilage, giving results of interest, especially from a chemical standpoint.

To Mr. W. P. Latta, my assistant, I am greatly indebted for most faithful and intelligent work during the entire time of carrying out this experiment.

It will be borne in mind by any who may think we have been needlessly lengthy in making our report in detail, that it is published mainly for the purpose of giving plain facts to the farmers of our State, who have not given much attention to this subject.

The experiments will be continued another season. We shall plant several varieties of corn, sugar cane, millet, and other forage crops, to ascertain as far as we can their comparative values for ensilage.

Hoping that the expense incurred may result in giving practical information

of real value, and so aid in advancing the agricultural interests of our State, I respectfully submit this report.

SAM'L. JOHNSON,

Professor of Practical Agriculture and Supt. of the Farm.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, June 1, 1882.

The report of Prof. Geo. H. Cook, Director of the New Jersey Experimental Station, referred to above, is as follows:

On November 16th four cows of native breed were taken from the herd at the college farm, placed side by side in the same barn, and for a term of ninety-one days were fed, exercised, and milked at the same time.

During the first period of twenty-eight days a ration was divided among them, made up of twenty-two and one-half pounds of clover hay, forty-nine pounds of wheat straw, seventy-five pounds of brewers' grains, seventy-five pounds of turnips, and seven and one-half pounds of cotton seed meal. It was calculated to furnish daily to each 1,000 pounds of live weight,

2.5 lbs. digestible protein.

0.5 lbs. digestible fat.

12.5 lbs. digestible carbhydrates.

This being, according to German investigators, the necessary amount of food. For the second period of twenty-eight days no change was made in the ration fed cows Nos. I andII, while in that fed III and IV, 100 pounds of ensilage were substituted for 40 pounds of turnips; in other respects it remained the same as that fed during during the first period; it furnished daily to each 1,000 pounds of live weight,.

2.50 pounds digestible protein.

.90 pounds digestible fat.

14.90 pounds digestible carbhydrates.

This was fed in order to determine whether an increased amount of the heatproducing compounds, fat and starch, was rendered necessary by the severity of the weather. The additional food caused no increase in the yield of milk; cows I and II on the poorer ration gave during this period more milk than during the preceding.

Our intention thus far was to ascertain the quantity of food required to keep these cows up to their full yield of milk.

For the third period, of five weeks ending February 17, Nos. I and II were fed the same as during the first and second periods; to III and IV an equal amount of digestible food was given daily, in 120 pounds of ensilage and five pounds of cotton seed meal per cow; it was eaten without waste and with apparent relish.

We tabulate below the yield of milk for 13 weeks. It must be remembered that during the first period all four cows received the same ration; that during the second and third periods cows I and II received the same as during the first; that cows III and IV were fed during the second period with an unusually rich ration, and during the third period with one made up of ensilage and cotton seed meal alone, containing, however, an amount of food equal to that fed during the first period.