corn-fodder, and you might wet it if you choose, cut it up, and wet it and soften it, you haven't got the succulence there that it had at the right stage, nor have you got the succulence that is in the silo. So there is that one great factor of succulence which plays a wonderful part in determining the value, because on succulence we depend largely for the least waste in digestion.

I said to you two years ago in my talk here, when I talked on the cow, that I cut 2 inch June grass with a lawn mower, and no one could tell me how many pounds a day of that grass a cow could eatno one had found out. So I put a cow in the barn and cut June grass with a lawn mower and weighed it into that cow, every bit of it, and weighed all she did not eat, and on that she made a pound and a half of butter a day; and I found she ate 80 pounds a day of 21-inch June grass. Then I said to myself, that cow would graze that much; that is about what a cow would eat if she could get it. Now she held right up in her butter yield when given that grass in that way.

At the same time I dried eighty pounds a day, thoroughly dried out, and it made from fifteen to twenty pounds, depending somewhat upon the soil it came from. It was the same kind of grass and I fed her this equivalent of eighty pounds a day of the green succulent pasture-grass, and all water she could drink, and she at once shrunk in her milk and butter. What had gone out of the grass? What had been dried out? Theorists will tell you water, simply. The cow will tell you something that would make milk and butter had gone

out.

Therefore, gentlemen, you see that the dried grass lacks the succulence that the green grass has, and it also lacks the same kind of water. The water that is in the plant is a distilled water; the water that you feed your cow is another kind of water. The distilled water evidently has a different effect on the digestion of the cow, and the cow takes the grass and digests it thoroughly and gets out of it sufficient to make me a pound and a half of butter, taking the green grass. With the dry equivalent of that grass she could not make a pound and a half of butter.

Therefore I want to say that there is a difference in the succulent, digestive value of ensilage over dry corn-fodder. That value I cannot estimate, but I know it exists.

Mr. Voorhees-I think Mr. Lippincott's idea is to find out whether it would pay to take the whole corn and put it into the silo, over taking that same corn and husking it. We conducted

an experiment two or three years ago on that line. Four acres of corn, right alongside of the corn that was put into the silo, was cut at the same time, put in shocks as carefully as possible and then brought to the barn, ears and all, and, when ready to feed, cut up and not shredded, both lots analyzed and rations prepared, whereby the animals would receive the exact amount of matter from the ensilage as from this dry corn-fodder. Records of yield and composition were accurately kept, as well as the cost, and it was found that the ensilage gave us 123 per cent. more milk than the dry corn- fodder. The corn did not constitute the entire, but the bulk of the ration, and we got 123 per cent. more milk from the same cow from the silage than from the corn fodder. An analysis was made of the milk at the same time and we got not quite 123 per cent. more butter-fat.

Now, following that up, and applying it to the crop of corn from which the silage and the corn fodder were derived, we find it was purely a difference between succulence and non-succulence. It is the difference between the succulent ration and one that is not succulent. As a further example, we feed a cow on forage crops, and sometimes for two or three days we lacked sufficient amount of this and substituted hay. They have exactly the same amount of nutriment but of a different kind, and it is of a kind which has not that succulence that is in the green material.

Now, I have to say, in the matter of succulent forage and dry forage there is a loss of something other than water. That is, we know that the chief difference between the dry and the green is water, but in the green forage there are a number of organic acids which do not exist in the dry forage. That is my opinion, and I think it is verified by such experiments as have been conducted along that line with these materials. Those acids in that combination do have a very decided influence upon the digestibility of the material that is given to the animals, and we lose that in part in the drying of the forage.

We all know that clover hay, when it is first cured, no water on it, is much better than clover hay which has been allowed to lay out in the dew and rain. The aromatic flavors in that plant, before wetting or drying, have influence in aiding digestion. I believe it is not only a question of water, but a change in the chemical composition during the process of drying.

Now then, it is my judgment, although we haven't absolute data to base it upon, that there is a very considerable change in the silo which

is right along that line. For example, this sample of dry corn-fodder and silage, a chemical analysis was made when the corn was cut, and a chemical analysis was made when the corn-fodder was brought to the barn; and then it was made again when the silage was fed and the corn was fed, and there was a very material difference in the composition of the corn as it went into the silo and the composition of the corn as it came out. Not a difference in the total amount simply, but a difference in the form of the constituents. In the one case there was a change in the protein or nitrogen compounds. The nutritive substance has been changed. Investigations are going on along this line, and I believe that we will untimately have information that will enable us to say exactly what the difference is between the dry and the green.

On the other hand, the matter of water. It is not altogether water, and I believe we as dairymen can not afford, even with the light we have—and we have not got all we would like to have-we can not afford to go on and feed dry corn-fodder in winter, when we have an opportunity of feeding it in better form.

We have evidence enough at the present time to make it the wisest thing to do, to adopt the silo or adopt such methods as will enable us to feed our animals on succulent rations during the winter.

One thing more in regard to the point the Governor made in regard to the cows I think is even more important than the matter of food, that is, we can feed a poor cow and it makes very little difference how we feed her, we cannot get much of a profit any way; but we can feed a good cow and it does make a difference how we feed her.

In one herd we have animals which range in yield from 4,000 to 12,000 of milk per year, while the cost to feed each is practically the same. In one case we keep the cow and in the other she keeps us. The cow is the factor which, after all, determines the profit, and there is nothing better than a good selection of a dairy cow.

Mr. Wright-What was the breed of these two cows?

Mr. Voorhees-One was between a grade Holstein and the other was a pure-bred Jersey.

Mr. Fithian-It shows New Jersey is not a whit behind other States in their Experiment Station, but I would like to ask one question, and that is in reference to the amount of butter-fat.

Mr. Voorhees In the matter of these two animals, I have to say that the cow giving 4,500 averaged 6.4 butter-fat, and she was not a poor cow; but the cow that gave 12,500 averaged 4.1 of butter-fat.

She was a better cow, but the difference is not so marked when you come to the question of the actual value of the two products on the butter basis, but when you sell it on a milk basis there was a difference between the two products. That was the Jersey cow, 6.4 butter fat. As to the difference between the Jersey and the Guernsey, that is a matter of individual preference.

Mr. Fithian-Didn't you make an experiment between them at one time?

Mr. Voorhees Yes; our experiment showed that the Guernsey produced butter at a lower cost than any other of the five breeds. But there was very little difference between what we call the butter breeds -Jersey and Guernsey.

Gov. Hoard-Your 4,500 cow was a good butter, maker?

Mr. Voorhees-Yeş; and our consumers recognize it now that they are getting a milk which runs very nearly five per cent. fat, and we have got to have in the mixture the product of a high-quality cow in order to make it the proper average.

Gov. Hoard-That shows the value of a clear distinction as to the

use to which a cow is put. One cow didn't pay for herself on a milk basis, but on a butter basis she did.

Mr. Voorhees—A great many have heard me make that distinction between a cow that produced six or seven thousand pounds of milk with a low percentage of butter-fat, and one with a lower yield of milk, but with a higher percentage of butter-fat. I still stand on the same rock that I always stood on, that we ought to sell our product on the basis of quality, and no other basis.

Mr. Evans-In regard to dry corn-fodder, and corn and fodder put in the silo, it is put in the silo in the green state and preserved in that condition until used. If it is yellow and dry, how much loss do you think there was in it?

Mr. Voorhees-It was measured by that 121 per cent., because the constituents were the same. There was 12 per cent. loss, or even more than that.

Mr. Evans-How much loss in digestibility? I know there was loss in fodder, but fodder is just like old clover cut for hay, but how much loss was there in the digestibility of that corn and corn-fodder, how much did it lose in the value in the drying process?

Mr. Voorhees-It was not exactly determined, but I should say about twenty per cent. It will vary in different seasons.

Mr. Pancoast-I would like to ask Gov. Hoard if he can tell us the average life of the stave silo made out of the commoner kinds of wood, hemlock or some cheaper wood?

Governor Hoard--That is pretty hard. I can only give you some instances. Mr. Goodrich has a silo. It is a square silo, cut off at the corners, which I believe he has had in use eleven years, and neighbors have had silos that have been in use all the way from six to fifteen years. One of them has been in use fifteen years. I think it has been repaired some in that length of time. I can't really determine that myself. I can get my hemlock a great deal cheaper than I can get the cypress, but I am afraid of it a little. Can you give me any information about hemlock silos?

Mr. Pancoast-No, I cannot.

Gov. Hoard-Can any one else?

Mr. Evans-About six years ago I built a hemlock silo, and gave it a coat of crude oil, and it has had no repairs. It does its work right, and I believe it will last as long as it has already lasted.

Secretary Dye-Is it a stave silo?

Mr. Evans-It is hemlock boards, undressed, with two layers of paper between. It is a square silo, with the corners cut off about eight inches, to get rid of that sharp corner, and I believe it will last twenty years longer. I attribute its durability to coating it with crude oil. I think it is often lost sight of that hemlock we put out in the weather, where they are wet and dried probably one hundred times a year, and it rots. But you must not forget that you fill this silo once a year. It is saturated with moisture, and has a roof on it, and will last a good deal longer there than it would out in the weather; and good hemlock lumber I have got a good deal more respect for than I used to have. I am satisfied I can take a hemlock board and put on crude petroleum and it will last pretty near as long as a good many men live.

Mr. Comfort-I would like to ask if there is any economy in stave silos? Is it not a fact that they cost more per ton than a well built silo of some other kind?

Mr. Evans-I always contend that stave silos dry out so in dry weather. How is it in your neighborhood?

Gov. Hoard-We have a good many, and nearly all that have been built in the last three years are stave silos. We had a very low temperature last winter. We had it 30° or 25° below zero, and those stave silos froze in about a foot, but they thaw out before the cattle.