The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-07-09
IarirnKnraL
t. II. HosKINs. Newport. VT. Editor.
EnsiIage against Fodder Corn.

Last year Professor Henry of the Wis
consin experimental farm tried an expert
ment to test the relative feeding value of
ensilage and fodder corn when fed to COWS
for butter. Four COWS as near alike as
could be found, all such as had been in
milk some time, and none of them with
calf, were selected. The fodder and en-
silage were both made from the same
field and cut the same week. The COWS
were divided into couples as equal as pos
sible, and one couple was fed ensilage and
the other fodder, three weeks. Then they
were changed about, those having had
ensilage being given fodder, and those
having had fodder being given ensilage,
for three weeks more. Every pains was
taken to have the trial as fair and equal
in all respects as possible. The feed, the
milk and the butter were all carefully
weighed. Grain was given equally to all
during the whole test, the only difference
being that between ensilsge and fodder,
and these being reversed at the middle of
the trial. The butter was made by the
same person (the milk being all treated
exactly alike by the Cooley system) and
sent for sale at the end of each week to
the same commission house in Chicago,
which reported that they were unable to
distinguish any difference in the quality
of any of it from first to last. This is the
report of yield:
Lot l., on fodder corn, gave $50 pounds
and / ounce of milk in the first three
weeks, which made 81 pounds and 7
ounces of butter, or one pound of butter
from 800 pounds of milk. Fed on en-
silage the next three weeks the same COWS
gave 664 pounds and II ounces of milk,
which made 81 pounds and s ounces of
butter, or one pound of butter from 81
pounds of milk.
Lot H., on ensilage, gave 791 pounds of
milk in the first three weeks, which made
% pounds of butter, or one pound of
butter from 2S2 pounds of milk. Fed on
fodder-corn the next three weeks, the
same COWS gave 633 pounds and IA ounces
of milk, which made p pounds and IA
ounces of butter, or one pound of butter
to 26 0 pounds of milk.
1t will be noted that the COWS changed
from fodder to ensilage shrank very
slightly in their milk, and only one ounce
in their butter in consequence of the
change of feed, while the COWS changed
from ensilage to fodder shrank largely in
both milk and butter. This was no doubt
due to the distastefulness of dry fodder
after ensilage. But both lots gained in
the weight of the COWS on the first feed
given them, and lost on the second-that
is, Lot 1. gained on fodder and lost on
ensilage, while Lot II. gained on ensilage
and lost on fodder. This shows the evil
of changing feed.
The ensilage was all eaten clean, but
1865 pounds of the fodder stalks was re-
fused and removed from the managers. 1t
is interesting to note that while the lot
that begun on corn-fodder wasted only
AL pounds of stalks, the lot that begun
on ensilage wasted 1,137 pounds of stalks,
showing that ensilage gave them dis
taste to dry stalks. As feeding material
the ensilsge exceeded the fodder-corn in
cheapness nearly fifty per cent, at the
same time yielding ten per cent more
milk and eleven per cent more butter.
This was the fairest trial we have ever
seen of ensilage in competition with other
feed, and was especially fair in that grain
was used, sufficient to make well.bal-
anced feed with both kinds. So far as
one test can prove anything it proves that
ensilage is worth enough more than fodder
corn to pay well for ensilaging. But as
this entire gain was due to the fact that
of the 1874 pounds of fodder fed 1865
pounds was rejected by the COWS, the
experiment goes to show that there is no
gain of nutriment in ensilaging over dry
ing fodder.corn, but only a gain of &C.
ceptability to the COWS.
Professor Henry took pains to weigh
the green crop, and also the half of it that
was made into fodder. The gross weight
of this was 1920 pounds, which shrank
by drying in the field to 6,643 pounds, or
more than two-thirds, and this again
shrank in the barn before feeding to 4,615
pounds. The ensilage shrank in the 'silo
from 1920 pounds to 1903 pounds, a
larger loss than is usually believed posi-
BILE. AS the silo had an earth floor, it is
probable that most of the loss was juice,
pressed out and absorbed into the ground.