Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1883-02-16
AGRICULTURAL.


held in New York City, Col. LeGrand b.
Cannon, was invited to give the results
of his use of ensilage on his extensive
Stock Farm near this city.
Col. Cannon, as reported in the New
York papers, said that his experience with
ensllage was confined exclusively to fat
tenlng cattle. With view to determine
the relative economy in diet of ensilage
and hay, he last year separated herd of
ninety short-horn grades into three
groups. The first group he treated as
the average New England farmer treats
his cattle in the winter He turned them
INTO the yard with open shelter and fed
them daily twenty pounds Of chafied hay
and three pounds Of grain. The second
lot lie kept in stanchions and fed them
twenty pounds of hay and one peck of
mangels. The third lot were also kept
in stancliions, and fed on ensilage with
three pounds of grain. He weighed all
the fodder and also weighed the animals
once month. Assuming the cost of hav
to be SO a ton, add the cost Of chatting
1t 81 more, he found that the relative cost
OF feeding the three lots was as follows
for six months First lot. 1920 sec
ond lot, S23. 40 third lot, Sl4.4 the
ensilage being counted at 3 cents day.
The economy of ensilage over hay was
S4.SO, or 20 per cent. Of ensilage over
hay and roots, 80, or 30 per cent. The
gain IN weight of the animals was First
lot, per cent second lot, 81 per cent
third lot, II! per cent. The gain in
quality was about equal in the second
and third lots. He sold both lots for 6
cents pound on foot at the farm for ex.
port, but for the first bt he could not get
an offer above > cents. The total gain
III favor Of ensilage was 81 per cent.
Prof. CnIdwelrs Views.
In recent communication to the New
York TrjjMc Dr. G. c. Caldwell, OF
Cornell University, says;
This system of storing fodder is new
with us, though old in Europe. 1t has
really been on trial here hardly more
than three years, for previous to the
winter of lS79-sO the feeding of ensilage
had been tested Dy only very few far
mcrs, here and there. 1t is too soon to
look for the sober, second thought about
the matter but, aside from that, it IL
probably without n precedent that new
idea to the agricultural community has
in SO short time been so. widely tested
and with results 50 largely predominating
i'll its favor. In my own collection OF
references to the subject in the agricultu.
raj press during the last eighteen month,
| find sixty favorable testimonials from
! experience, against twenty either con
demnatory or doubtful notices and il
! justice to ensilngc it should be observe {
that of these twenty writers only three
have themselves tried the method. Til,
Agricultural Bureau. in response to Il
series of questions ON the cusilage o.
fodder, gets from farmers i'll all parts o
the country who have tried 1t eighty NOR,
or less hearty Endorsements of the meth
cd and gets nothing else. We should b,
able to find some sound reasons for thu
remarkable favor with which the system
has been received if we cannot, it mus
be feared that 1t is delusion, and tha
its days will soon bs numbered Wheth
er there are such reasons can best bC
learned by defining the qualities of
; superior article of fodder and gauginl
: ensilaged fodder by this definition. First
then, as to palatabcness, andus to whole
someness when used in reasonable man
ner, good ensilage is not exceeded by any
other coarse fodder these qualities az,
so well established as to need no discus
/. sion. Second, superior article Of fod
der must be reasonably nutritious ant
productive it should be IL complete fod
, der with about the right proportions o
the several nutrients for the best utiliza
ton Of all of them for profit. Judge,
by the German feeding standards, tn
dry substance of fodder corn, which con
stitutes the bulk of the material for ell
D silage, does not meet this requirement
: like ordinary hay of timothy, redtop an,
bluegrass, 1t is much too poor i'll albu
v minoids, Although these feeding stand
. ards have of late been somewhat severel
criticised, still there is not yet sutficier
. ground for setting them aside altogether
and they are i'll the main in accordanc
: with experience. Judged by effects, alsc
ensilage Of maize and ordinary hay ar
about equal, If the same weights of Or
substance are compared In numerou
! cases this ensllage appears to have take
the place Of hay in the ratons Of cows
: milk, and of growing and fattening al
imals without dctrment to production
Especially noticeable is the testimony &
l. to its favorable effects ON the WELD an
|, quality of milk and the quality Of butte
e 1t is not uncommonly thought that it
J. even equivalent to the best hay Of IL
e farm, but the opinion lacks soull
If foundation on the results of careful con
J. parative experiments with the two kinl
of fodder, as well Us theoretical supper
II Third, an important quality of a superi,
N fodder is ease and cheapness of produ
II tiol, for however palatable, wholesom
l. nutritious and productive il may he.
r much care, hard labor and expense Al
it required to get 1t raised and safely store,
4 it may he practically inferior to anoth
le kind of fodder of lower quality that
ut more easily produced. Fodder maize
le commonly spoken of as Il highly produ
Of tive crop perhaps it gets more credit
l. thi- respect than it deserves Leuvil
t. out all claims Of yields of forty to six
IL tons or more to tae acre, we will tai
ne twenty tons, as an average crop III ia
TO seasons and with fair culture this won
c contain about $500 pounds Of dry su
stance. Almost rs extraordinary crops
fodder roots are claimed as of fodd
corn but under like favorable condition
IL as assumed above, $50 bushels of ma
10 Colds, may be safely counted upo
Io weighing, ut sixty pounds to the busht
" -. . tons, and containing 5,4O0 poun,
ie of dry substance. An average crop
10 hay, say 1900 pounds, would coma
y about 5000 pounds of dry substanc
IL Now MS to the cost of the yield of
er acre in the three cases Judging fro
the few reports that have been made pu
at lie of careful account with the cnsila
h, ed maize crop, it may be safely allow,
I'd that the entire cost OF every ton of fo
d der deposited in silo soil need not exec,
III 81. 80, or Sl9, % for every ton Of dry su
is stance. Tho cost of bushel of ma
al Colds is given at from to S cents at t
40 cents bushel the cost of the ), Al
e. poun'is of dry substance per acre won
M be S52. or of ton Sl926. Ii is col
rh monty acknowledged that roots are costl
nj - ,,,,nt E,ul;sl ,,.,;t ~, ,o,.., A., :. /, Al