N. C. DAS GUPTA 201
TABLE V
Per cent protein of fresh berseem
Experiment I
Period
30-1 to 19-3-39 . . .
20-3 to 2-4-39 . . .
3-4 to 16-4-39 . . .
17-4 to 28-5-39 . . .
Average
dry
matter
11.2
14.4
14.1
17.3
Average
protein
content
3.45
3.86
2.20
3.07
Experiment II
Period
8-1 to 28-1-40 . . .
29.1 to 18-2-40
.
.
19-2 to 17-3-40
.
.
Average
dry
matter
10.1
8.0
10.0
Average
protein
content
3.33
2.44
1.75
The animals were not allowed to leave any
residue from the amount of silage, concentrate or
berseem given to them. Incidentally, the intake
of dry matter per head from either silage and con-
centrate or silage, concentrate and berseem in the
three treatments was nearly the same during the
first test; but in the second test it decreased slight-
ly with increased replacement of concentrates with
berseem. Hence it may be expected that the
consumption of wheat straw should be nearly the
same or slightly higher for the animals getting
berseem to have the same dry matter consumption
per 100 lb. of liveweight. But Table III shows
contrary figures; the intake of wheat straw and
consequently that of total dry matter per 100 lb.
of liveweight decreases with increased intake of
berseem. This indicates that berseem, as it is
bulky, satiates the animals with less intake of dry
matter. Of course, it is of interest to note that the
consumption of feed per 100 lb. of liveweight is
slightly more in all the three treatments for Hissar
breed, though the liveweight increase per day in
the first two treatments is higher for the Murrah.
The slight lower consumption of wheat straw
which is poor in nutrients [Sen, 1938] cannot
account for the lower increase in liveweights of the
animals of berseem groups.
Results of the digestibility trials conducted dur-
ing both the tests discussed in the sequel also show
that the lower gain of the Murrah breed in the third
treatment cannot be accounted for by any differ-
ence in the digestibility of the ration.
Nutritive value of berseem
The gain per pound of digestible protein and
starch equivalent has been shown in Table VI.
To arrive at these figures the total intake of loth
digestible protein and starch equivalent during the
period of experiment and the corresponding total
gain in liveweight have been taken into considera-
tion.
TABLE VI
Treatment
Full concentrate . . .
50 per cent concentrate replac-
ed by berseem
75 per cent concentrate replac-
ed by berseem
Full concentrate . . .
50 per cent concentrate replac-
ed by berseem
75 per cent concentrate replac-
ed by berseem
Gain in weight
per lb. of digesti-
ble protein intake
(lb.)
Hissar
1.64
1.29
1.40
1.65
1.09
0.98
Murrah
Gain in weight
per lb. of S. E.
intake
(lb.)
Hissar
Experiment I
2.02
1.46
1.23
0.23
0.19
0.21
Experiment II
1.83
1.29
0.87
0.26
0.20
0.20
Murrah
0.27
0.21
0.18
0.27
0.23
0.18
The Murrah utilized both digestible protein and
starch equivalent better than the Hissar, except
in the third treatment where most of the nutrients
have been supplemented by berseem. This indi-
cates that when only the breed is considered ber-
seem appears to be more efficacious for Hissar than
for Murrah.
Digestibility of total feed under the three conditions
of feeding
In order to study if the variation in the rate of
growth in groups I, II and III is due to the differ-
ence in digestibility of the nutrients of the total
ration under the three treatments, digestion tests
were conducted towards the end of each feeding
experiment. The computed digestibility coefi-
cients of the total ration are set out in Table VII.
The figure for each species is the average of four
animals.