The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-06-25

Continued From First Page.)
ooo tons a year. A larger percentage
-si.5--of this Ia fed than of the
straw but the waste Ia nevertheless
astonishing. For this, poor methods
of feeding are largely responsible.
BY far the most economical method
OF handling corn Is by ensiling, but as
a matter of fact only 81 per cent
Of the acreage was put in the silo in
1914, the year In which these In
vestigations were made. About IL per
cent. was cut for green feed and 81
per cent. allowed to mature for
grain. IT is in the last portion of
the acreage that the greatest waste
occurs. Stripping the leaves from the
stalks which are subsequently burned.
removing the stalk above the top ear
only, leaving the stalks to stand in
the field until the loss OF leaves and
teaching have removed much of their
fertilizing value, are all unthrifty
methods. Furthermore, almost four
per cent. OF the slower Is burned, as
1 though, instead OF being a potential
source of revenue, 1t was merely a
nuisance to be gotten rid OF as a pre-
lfminary to blowing. In some States
the percentage of slower that Ia thus
thrown away is as high as 7 or s per
! cent, and the total loss to the eoun-
try from the practice is estimated at
nearly SIS. 200, 900 a year
Combine Concentrated Feed
! To obtain satisfactory results from
/ the feeding OF farm roughage such as
straw and slower. they must be COM
bined with some form of concentrated
| feed. At the present time large
quantities of such feed, in the form
| OF cottonseed meal and cake. corn.
/ ~ 10 ma 1ts nd hna
ported for the use of European feed
! ers. II the straw and slower that
are now wasted were employed TO
/ feed more cattle. these concentrates
could be consumed at home The re-
suit would be tremendous saving
not only in the cost OF producing beef
but in the cost OF enriching the soil
as well. In 1914, for example, about
100000 tons OF cottonseed meal
half the total production-were APP
piled directly to the soil as fertilizer.
If this had been fed to cattle instead,
three quarters of the fertilizing value
would have been returned to the soil
as manure. The loss of the other
fourth would have been far more than
Icounterbalanced by the profit on the
meat produced economically by the
meal and the necessary roughages,
Much the same thing is true of the
! other oil meals.
The value of these meals is far bet
ter appreciated in Europe than here
Denmark. for example. feeds annual
~ 47S pounds OF oil cake to each OF
her mature cattle. The United States
approximately % pounds, Further
more. the European feeder is aware OF
the fact that the high protein meal
while more expensive TO buy. Is more
economical to use. Meal OF this quail
ity Ia seldom sold on the domestic
markets because the American farm
err has not yet learned its value. Cot.
tonseed and linseed are perhaps the
best known of the oil meals. but there
are others the use of whtc has feed
could be profitably extended Both
peanut and soy bean meal and cake
for instance are IN good demand in
Europe.
The eficient use OF these and other
feeds discussed in the report la OF
the utmost Importance TO the Ameri.
can farmer. it is pointed out, because
the day when close calculation In
feeding was not necessary lis, in al
probability, past. Hereafter II IL
likely that success will depend upon
ability to put to the best use al
available products. A. greater knowl.
edge of what these products are and
of the ways in which they can be fed
will result in the elimination of enor-
nous waste.