l O
.. A. ow
. s c; I
. cs ..
.. bk:
. . . . a 3
w. .. . c . .c ..
.v I a. .u.N nu
... o . . .. 1n . u
. . s . . CH?
75..
o .
. 2 .. . 4.
. u. ._ o... 1.8 o. n
5 o o .o J .Q. a. o
J .— ol .uh f n .o
p . l n . . a. ..
.r 4 u
. \ .
. .d . u at.
‘
r . a»... .. .. was
I no . u .
.. . . .
up h\ w a 3.: AWV.
‘Wul. r u . . I. l—
a. ‘ . s. r
. 1:! it . q. 8W»

. z. a ‘ u o.
. r . y g.—
a I ~ .
a 0... Id. ’O.... .lu
.0 win. .5 In...
... . . a. Y. tr. .
.. . - .. . . «dsonue u
. an . 2.
. x . .. ‘ In... 3
3 ha. 20. . .5015 g 3.. oi. .
IAAI‘ .\~IO
. . o .
: _:n x 1 . .. 9...
o‘ u. D Qu‘ ‘o n
f. o a .:J A. Va. Re
.~ . . I. ..
.. .. 6

‘ o ‘3‘ If. 0
.l . I O. ‘ m-
&. | I a ‘u 4, I: 2 O
. a u h
a fi a. N ‘u .0 ‘
H .o. .5: w”...
u .. . 4» .IK
. .4.
i .s 3.....1
n .
"n‘n

 

 

‘J'efl-
k I

 

Thistltoeertifgthatthe

thesis entitled
The Quality of AlfaJJ.‘ a and
Alfalfa-Drone Grass Silage When
Made by Various Methods Using
Glass Jars as Miniature Silos

presented by
Gerard Philippe-Auguste

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

2'1. 5. degree in Farm QPOQS

 

 

Major 'professor

 

 

 

 

VT 17
.-.I —
I

 

.1‘?5>I.,'.;'
. A a- 'l k N
' _.-1- IL ' 1?“.MJ- "f”
It??? ‘1 {)3}; r2" " _ f” "’15): —:{' 4.
«$3.: - f w € .
.~ , a J L: .a - '~ . .
f Afid S: (4 .‘gl _£/,/.:pf'3§ a.“ ll {‘Q -
,e 5.; ‘It :74: ”-47 " J} . "x.
_ I «(I .. (if: ‘5 [VJ/12,»; "
I \ II I 1;; “-9. I) 71"} I-I..I-.I_ I. .3» 6*
- 1“} .r' ‘ ‘ . '.
I L ué I ‘ - 5 if 5‘” " "1'; >x" h -.:2 ‘. .2
. ' \. V7 ~ ‘ I .I
. .2574? 7.9%» 2.3m . ”Es-I: .2 '.~
' ’ ‘ .2'1 '~". .\ " h.‘t“-; .5 ' -' " V.
| I I .53 ,3 ‘:-.f 4-. hr,‘ \\ m4 7. _ “a” ...
. . “v “‘ 9‘. “Vl‘- n n. V. h ..\. .".’é‘.+"‘.
0 . ‘I*. (3)53 '4 :'III3:’I‘IG" (l t! s r€.§~“2;yhm\/{1u \50/ 4
; "4. ’ l Lop”? " ' «3: L - . 3 4&3? .
I - I " "C1,. ' 1‘ «1" «3.14? " ' . ‘ 3‘ ‘1”
‘ . ,t .I._ . «‘37.. t , ' ,.
A. . -: Lyra 32.3%” 4“. sfi"~“r"““."3‘ '.
t ‘L ('v \I“, "V’" ' 349:3: ("- . “'1. ‘-. ' I
"y . " ' v l‘."\¢“'.'-’f='3 ['12. H‘~‘:P"JI 'A‘Ps: . “A"
E\. H . a: ' «W .. >1“ fizz-N Jaw 'o.
3 .‘2' ”a, I, a 1‘ (’{HJL‘fiW-‘d "51".; .‘L . ,J-tr
' < «,4 W— et“; 4‘ -~ 9“" ' W» ”N «0 ="~
. . . c.‘ . . . . ' _, _ ft .. , . . _.. l«
» A - ’ - ,_ . n-—-~V.~'--. 7“ ‘~ 9.. 2 «(m er. "'4.- .«’1,"514)x:-2¢-?; “F5“. s". ‘
I I; J .' ._f'“ r ' J, [49,» . 1 -' 2 r') I’. . 6“! .‘I-l \\ f " nl‘y.’ .' 4 " ‘ .{J' “J ‘ ‘v '1',"w-"I I
. II. {I ‘ ‘ Ir I ??— 33"}. . A? . (I; .I'I V . ; I. . . . f.I It 37“,“ ‘ 1 'I‘J~ €154" ‘3.;J’s":?"':/‘3f~f;“‘ ‘5.“ .gn‘z
.. V _ ~ - ~ . o -- "‘ '0 ' ‘0 -' h ' - , 3‘ ;,.' _ . ' '. ’ \ '
I .. - .- I" 'I (V ‘I ‘..'? kw} J’i II.I-\ ‘ -"-‘ -. 7‘ \tu‘- Iggy: . ". \I' >2 75' ’f‘iix‘.’ ti". "- é‘f‘? SKJ ‘(I' I, .~\ a . ‘1
I1... ‘I' I, q j :I. . 6 3‘- l' 11 ' I. i ' -l I I: . L. I fr"; ' 5'1- " 1“,“. L \i‘!’ : p.34) ‘. -fl t‘h'J'Jt-‘thaé yT/y: QJM}; ‘ 4 '
. . . . o .- . h. J -. -_ ‘L‘ .1 ‘. . L1 (”I -..M . . . H ‘1‘ ‘.‘Il.‘ v V'IVI’ U: ..I.~ . . . ,' 141‘ II. " , t a
1’ l V . . f I - x I r -. if {-154 5/ 1' \ \a‘ I. I” ',. J k a” " ,5“. .._".' ' . v *‘V
1‘ ; /_‘- sf" " 4 ".o ' ‘5" I. I, . . K.{'§"A " .. ', ‘ K ‘ v1 " gaff“ ‘ “f ' . “c S‘ ' "f "24—" '- l :L, r. ’ «3X; ~ A51, Hob"-
o ‘24: I ‘ ' J _ 1’ .-,v " ‘ V ‘ ., .‘ " .! .w '4. t . ' .2 ; ' ‘- 77 ”a" x ‘T'. -‘. ~ - ”'3 \-
‘ 7 o I l ;.-_\.I 3. u. . g | ‘ . If 't ) W' x 'I‘, ‘I,-'d:.‘:c“‘ I'.-‘ N I?“i~ .‘ I. "\"k;‘,‘ {a . “. r: “2“.\: h‘ K.“ .. ‘ "9: ‘ . 'fi‘ .‘1::.“";" “.-:|k.4'4 v... I
1., ’.. -" “ , ‘ ' V 5R ’{ 2’",,,Z)'L:'-‘-". "‘4‘ a .. L 4 .".,‘~.\ » "I . .' t \ ’3" a; ‘ . ‘~ .':"‘-'.' x". .- ' ‘Vi '
\ II. . '9 \ I \ tr, , ‘ “f. I ‘3‘ .. J . lf'./"*' - t- ' ”(u lg ‘v“¥f \ O
‘ x , ‘ ,IQ'."":. "5. \ '4 '_ . a . ' :$~ __-I'- I‘ nI ' 'Zfif \‘o L” ‘ <‘\ .Y 231‘ ’> W ()5— -’ ' ., -.' . .i 5‘ I} S 4
' .4 g: 4 ‘ H J, . ’ - v' ‘ J'fi' L~(.“'_.'- ‘- “4‘ ‘ 'u‘ 'n 'C.. x ' JV» .,- W "-5‘ ‘0‘- ‘(QQ r”% - °.' ._. .‘4
v T "C V, -~ .\ _ .' ‘ ‘ - f I,t‘<.\” p(, D 32 ‘4“) at .' ’I ”fit" ~'. , .’ .L‘A ,4 . ‘u u": -\ 5 ,. ("hiya k\~" ? J ’
" "4’-" ' 4.. ' Cu'“ (‘1' 3m H." "t F}. ' ‘L a 14'} ; w [1' «31- iii/M: {. 2’41‘5‘ \ 5-." '- ‘ 5'
‘ . - ‘ S _ _. y~ , . "4' . I I . .2 - , . v } . f._ . , u .I.
’<. ' lv'J-L ‘ , ‘.\-'-"\. EMU ' .1‘ “1-3?“ (i’rv'n’ 'v;":f‘ «J. .\ "L" #1:; t” k”
v" {‘1 " ' ./r «la 3 f '5“ I . H" 1 ‘7- 'i‘ " ' ' .4. ~ _. . " '
I I l .- II. ‘ - l l ‘ | ”L . i '
' -‘-' . 1 c 1 s ‘ ' x' 1".“ '4! v". 4 ‘~ ‘ 'I' \
.': 5“ 'r1"~.i.".\a'i . _- -J'ot , ‘. - . . -
‘ .8 \' ¢ I‘fi “1' ( . * i: \ } | ' .
. ‘ " ,‘n1 A J: . ‘ ‘ ‘ .--.'. ‘ '
f.’ 31 5 \I. . I. .
'4' '20 ‘3“ I_ "' I3. J I
:' I ‘1' . k‘. n,- '1‘}; (‘D‘ \
II;II i.4 ‘I ‘ ‘51 ET}. r, I]
4 n '.'I-
e ‘ w. u. ‘2'
_/#. . ' ' ‘4
. i ii
' I'

‘>\\'

 

 

 

A»:

 

 

 

 

THE QUALITY OF ALFALFA AND ALFALFA-BROME GRASS
SILAGE WHEN MADE BY VARIOUS METHODS USING
GLASS JARS AS MINIATURE SILOS

By

Ge’rard Phi lippe-Auguste

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science '
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Farm Creps

1952

THESIS

“J

N.
. s JOB-1:5

J

..H.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS r”

The writer wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. S. T.
Dexter for his guidance and valuable suggestions throughout the ex—
periments and to Dr. C. M. Harrison for his help in the preparation
of this thesis.

He also deeply appreciates the financial support and the
scholarship provided by the Department of Agriculture of Haiti, which

made it possible to complete this study.

300058

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION ............................. 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................... 2
MATERIALS AND METIIODS .................... 8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................... I4
SUIVII‘VIARY AND CONCLUSION ................... 34
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................. 36

INTRODUCTION

For many years, farmers and research workers have tried
to control completely the important fermentation that occurs follow-
ing the ensiling of green plants, in order to preserve a feed high
in total digestible nutrients, carbohydrates, vitamins, and with a
good flavor. At the present time, putrefaction, formation of amines,
butyric acid fermentations, growth of molds, and severe loss of dry
matter and digestible protein frequently occur. Certain methods
and principles have been worked out which aid in successful silage-
making, but the effects of certain practices and techniques are still
somewhat obscure, which makes the ensiling process occasionally
unsuccessful in the hands of farmers. Conditions of soil and climate
affect the composition of the plants and, no doubt, their microflora.
It seems likely that a complete list of the limiting factors will in
time allow a reliable system of silage-making to be described. The
present experiment was set up in an attempt to study some of the ef-
fects of different methods and chemicals on the quality of silage,

using glass jars as miniature silos.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Many researches have been conducted in recent years on
the different methods of making forage-crop silage. Watson (27,
28, 29) proved that the optimum p11 for silage preservation was
between 3.5 and 4.0. At that pH level, the undesirable products
were not formed, and the decomposition of proteins was pre-
vented. To reach that pH level, research workers in various
countries have suggested procedures along the following general
lines (5, 6, 16, 17, 14, 18, 19, 22):

1. Addition of various acids to the green material as it
is being ensiled;

2. Addition of fermentable carbohydrates, either sugars
(as in molasses) or starchy grains;

3. Inoculation of the fodder with a culture of lactic acid-
forming bacteria;

4. Partial wilting of the forage to favor greater inclusion
of air, higher temperature, and reduction of the activity of unde-
sirable bacteria;

5. The use of carbon dioxide; and

6. Sterilization of the green forages.

The idea of preserving silage by addition of acids was first
advanced by Giglioli, in Italy (26). He added hydrochloric acid to
beet leaves at the time of ensiling. In the resulting fermentation,
there was developed an acidity calculated at 2.2 per cent of lactic
acid. There was a loss of 11.8 per cent of the digestible nutri-
ents. The A. I. V. method outlined by Virtanen (26), used mineral
acids in ensiling green forage. Here a mixture of equal parts of
sulfuric and hydrochloric acids in a. 2-normal solution is added to
the fodder as it is ensiled. The amounts added to various forages
are intended to raise the acidity of the forage to a pH of 3.6 to
4.0. Bender, Bosshardt, and others (2, 5, 6, 13, 30) recommended
the use of a mixture of hydrochloric and phosphoric acids, or of
phosphorus pentachloride that yields these acids on hydrolysis.

_In 1917, Reed and Fitch, at the Kansas Experiment Station
(20), were successful in making palatable alfalfa silage by means
of adding fermentable carbohydrates in the form of molasses.
Their eXperiments showed that when cowpeas were ensiled alone,
a poor quality of silage was obtained, but that a first-class silage
resulted when a mixture of cowpeas and corn were ensiled. This
finding suggested the role of additional fermentable carbohydrates

in the formation of lactic acid. Since that time, many experiments

have been performed in which the beneficial effects of molasses
or starchy grains have been demonstrated. Wilson, Webb. Shaw,
Wright, Swanson, Tague, and A. King (37, 31. 25, 32, 33, 34, 35,
36, 8) reported that molasses is the best source of carbohydrate,
being superior to starchy materials. Alfalfa Silage prepared with
molasses was found to have a higher acid content, together with a
reduced breakdown of protein when compared with silage prepared
with no added preservative. Bender (7) proposed a combination of
phosphoric acid and molasses as a means of lowering the pH of
silage.

Considerable attention has been given to the role of bacteria
in the fermentation of silage. Particular emphasis is laid on the
action of the lactic acid bacteria. Cultures of lactic acid bacteria
soon appeared on the market, for addition at the time of silage-
making. Watson, and Watson _e_t a__l_. (29, 28, 15, 16, 3, 27, 2) re-
jected the method for the following reasons:

1. Addition of cultures of lactic acid organisms has never
been accompanied by tangible improvement, since the crop usually
has a sufficiently large natural flora of these organisms.

2. Fermentation does not vary according to the type of

bacteria present, but according to the forage and the conditions

under which it is stored. Therefore, an attempt to control the
fermentation by mere addition of bacterial cultures can hardly be
effective.

The field—wilting process is the most widely used method
on farms in the United States (6, 8, 26). Woodward and Shepherd
(38) stated that prOper wilting prevents rotting of silage. Archi-
bald and Parsons (4) reported in 1945 that many farm Operators
had obtained satisfactory silage when the crop was slightly wilted,
with no preservative.

The use of carbon dioxide as a preservative involves the
replacing of air in the filled silo with carbon dioxide. The method
is tedious and uncertain, since it is difficult to know when all air
has been replaced. The value of creating an anaerobic condition
lies in the fact that the respiration of the plant cells and other
aerobic activities, such as those of the molds, will be eliminated
(2). Such a c0ndition, however, is favorable for the growth of un-
desirable, as well as desirable, bacteria.

The use of antiseptics to stop respiration and undesirable
fermentation was suggested as early as 1886 (2). Since then, at—
tempts have been made to sterilize the fodder by heat produced by

steaming the silage in the silo, and also through the use of electric

currents. Chemical sterilizing agents such as formaldehyde (12,
37, 23. 24) have been tried, but the results did not warrant their
further use. According to many workers, it is not practicable to

use such a method in silage-making (3, 28, 29).
Other Factors in Silage-IVIaking

The weather may play an important part in silage-making.
Dexter (ll, 10, 12) found [considerable difference in the sugar con-
tent of alfalfa plants at various times of day, and pointed out that
the highest percentage of sugar was found in alfalfa plants during
sunny days. Ahlgren (1) called attention to the fact that alfalfa
usually contains about 4.3 per cent sugar, whereas field corn con-
tains about 27 per cent. Santleman (21) investigated the effects of
fertilizer, lime, and other soil treattnents on the quality of silage
produced. Gneist (9) noticed that crushing, or macerating, the
forage resulted in smaller losses of nitrOgen-free-extract and di-
gestible protein during ensilin g. Grazein and Heinzl (9) found that
lactic acid fermentation was speeded up by crushing. According to
deMan, a pH of 3.9 was obtained with crushed forage, compared
with a pH of 5.4 with uncrushed. He suggested a plausible explana-

tion; "It is generally known that the stems of grass have a higher

*1

carbohydrate content that the leaves and a lower protein contei.t;
so it might well be that the distribution of the c0ntenis of the
stems through the silage explains to a certain extent the effect of

crushing."

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experiment 1

A mixture of alfalfa and brome grass cut at early bloom
(June 13) provided the material for silage. The green fodder used
was divided into two parts. One part, 12 tons, was crushed with
an ordinary hay crusher-mower and then chopped at approximately
1 inch with dull field chopper knives. The other half was chopped
with sharp knives and not crushed. Each lot was put in an ordinary
upright silo. The two silos were filled the same day; no preserva-
tive was added, and wilting'was avoided. The material was approx-
imately 20 per cent dry matter.

For the purpose of the laboratory experiment, the same ma-
terial was used 0n the same day. From each lot, chopped and
crushed-chopped, about 200 pounds were taken during filling for
special treatments in the fruit jars.

The methods of preparation of the material were:

1. Chopped;

2. Crushed and chopped;

3. Ground.

The grinding was a thorough maceration of the tissues with
a meat grinder. Six different treatments in triplicate were applied
to each of these lots. These treatments were:

1. Wet untreated (20 per cent dry matter);

2. Partly wilted (24 per cent dry matter);

3. Partly wilted plus sugar (2 per cent sucrose);

4. Partly wilted plus lactic acid culture;

5. Partly wilted plus manganese sulfate (2 lbs. per ton);

6. Fully wilted (30 per cent dry matter).
The miniature silos used were quart glass jars with metallic covers.
Six hundred thirty grams of crushed and ground silage and .550
grams of chopped silage were preserved in each jar. In the lots
crushed and ground, the 630 grams were exposed to the air at room
temperature until that weight was brought down to 525 grams for the
"partially wilted," and down to 427 grams for ”fully wilted." The
550 grams used for the lot "chopped" was reduced to 458 grams
for partly wilted, and down to 367 grams for fully wilted. In all
the cases, only the "partly wilted" material was treated chemically.
Lactic acid culture was added at the rate of one 4-ounce bottle of
Ericsson's lactic acid starter per ton of wet silage. One cubic centi-

meter of suspension was put on per quart jar and thoroughly mixed.

10
The manganese sulfate was applied in solution; 5 cubic centimeters

per jar, equivalent to 2 pounds of dry manganese sulfate per ton.

Experiment 2

A second experiment was started 26 days later, on July 9.
Alfalfa ot prebloom stage was harvested with a tractor-niounted
n.3vu r between ten and eleven o'clock in the morning. The mater-

ial was preserved in one-quart glass jars, and the leth-; and stems

were ChOpped in the laboratory with a paper cutter. The alfalfa
contained 28.9 per cent dry matter, and each sample was made of
500 grams of material. The experiment consisted of seven treat-
ments, each replicated three times. The treatments were:

1. Ensiled at once;

2. Unwilted, warm, in the dark;

3. Unwilted, cold, in the dark;

4. 0.5 per cent of H3PO4 (commercial sirupy phosphoric
acid);

'5. 2.0 per cent sugar;

6. Wilted in the dark;

«.1

Wilted in sunlight.

11
The alfalfa whivh was unwilted and kept warm in the dark was
placed unchopped in a closed box at. room temperature for 9
hours. When reweighed at the end of the period, it showed a
loss in w ight of 20 grams that was corrected by addition of water.
The ni'iterial was then chopped into small pieces at once and the
jars filled. The unwilted alfalfa which was kept cold in the dark
differed front the first only by bei;.g kept in a refrigerator for the
same length of titrie.

The alfalfa which was wilted in the dark was placed in a

closed box. while the wilting in sunlight was accomplished by ex-
posing the alfalfr '.o the sun long enough to bring the weight down

to 420 grams.
Experiment 3

Alfalfa at the 1/4 bloom stage, harvested on July 29 at
three different times of day, provided material for this experiment.
The times of cutting were: 1:30 p.m., 5:00 p.m., and 5:00 a.m. the
following morning. Two mechanical treatments-~"chopped" and
"ground“--for each cutting were made in triplicate. The green

fodder was divided into two parts; one part was ground and the

Other chOpped and put up at once, and 500 grams of each were

preserved in glass jars.
Measuring the Quality of the Silage

In all three experiments, the same measurements were
made and the same code—system was used. Odor desirability was
scored. (1) excellent, (2) good, (3) fair, (4) offensive, ('3) poor,
et cetera. The quality of the preserved silage was judged addi-
tionally by the pH level. For the determination of pH, 5 grams
of silage were put in a 50 cubic centimeter beaker, where it was
mixed with 25 CUblC centimeters of distilled water. That mi:-:ture
was stirred to facilitate the diffusion of the silage juice, and the
pH was taken with a Beckrnan pH meter with extension glass
electrodes. In addition, the buffer capacity between pH 3 to 11
was determined. A 5-gram sample was put in a Waring blender
containing about 10 Cubic centimeters of distilled water for 2 min-
utes. The sample was completely removed from the blender by
Washing the latter with the remaining 15 cubic centimeters of
distilled water. The buffer capacity was studied by using a solu—
tion of sodium hydroxide and anOther of hydrochloric acid, both

being of equal normality--0.2563. The natural pH of the sample

13
was taken first and recorded. Then, the pH was brought up to 11
by addition Of the solution of sodium hydroxide, and brOught down
to pH 3 by adding the hydrochloric acid solution. The amount of
hydrochloric acid required to reach pH 3 was the buffer capacity

of that particular saznple.

RESURTS AND DISCUSSION
Experiment 1

The results of Experiment 1 are presented in Table 1.
Analysis of variance of the data, presented in Table II, was made
in order to determine whether or not the treatments and methods
were significantly different. This analysis showed significant
differences between the Inethods and between the treatznents. In
either case, these differences were highly significant at the l
per cent level.

The "ground" alfalfa resulted in the best silage, followed
by "crushed" and then "chopped."

It has been commonly observed that good silage should have
a pH of 4.2 after a few days of fermentation. In Table I, it can
be seen that the method "ground" untreated approaches this fig-
ure, while the "crushed" and the "chopped" untreated are at about
pH 4.7. A clear-cut difference between these silages becomes more
evident as time proceeds, since bacterial fermentation is still active.
After seventeen, twenty-four, thirty-three, and fifty-two days, the

value of the grinding method had become definitely established, since

15

TABLE 3'

pH OF SILAGES MADE UP OF YOUNG ALFAl-.I~‘A—BROME
GRASS AND TREATED DilV’r‘ERENT WAYS,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFTER 4, 17, 24, .33, AND 52 DAYS
i‘reatment
P P P r P ‘
Davs Wet 'artly artly vartlt 'artly fully
‘ U W ilted Wilted W ilted W ilted W ilted
t nt d Un- + + Lac- + Un—
a
re e treated Sugar tic Acid MnSO4 treated
.930211‘193..M3Q19d' - Replic ate;
4 4.71 5.88 4.68 6.22 5.86 6.28
17 4.38 5.7 4.38 5.74 5.84 5.74
24 4.50 5.80 4.37 5.94 6.00 5.59
33 4.62 5.92 4.47 5.82 5.91 5.72
52 5.50 5.78 4.31 5.70 5.60 5.72
Chopping Methoaneplicate ll
4
17 5.21 5.68 4.24 5.74 6.20 6.42
24 5.45 5.78 4.31 5.75 6.15 6.36
33 5.70 5.89 4.34 5.56 5.89 5.87
52 5.60 5.51 4.29 5.51 5.64 5.89
Chopping_Method——Replicate .ll
4
17 4.78 5.69 4.31 5.74 6.70 6.00
24 5.22 5.78 4.42 6.00 6.09 5.83
33 5.78 6.03 4.38 5.91 5.94 5.80
52 4.50 5.59 4.25 5.65 5.60 5.60

 

16

TABLE 1 (Continued)

 

_.._ M-..“ __

 

 

T re atmerzt

 

.-—.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wet Partly Partly Partly Partly Fully
U Wilted Wilted Wilted Wzlted Wilted
n.—
t at (1 1511— + + Lac- + Ur.-
I‘
e e treated Sugar tic Acid 1‘\i_nSO4 treated
919 212 i "g. M 212119451412 :12 : £14.31 1.21:
Afjsz $.53: 1' 53.12115“ b 9 r .9}; -1251:
1 4 2 3. 2 2
1 3. 1 4 3 z
2 .3 1 4 5 5
2 3 1 4 5 3
5 3 1 5 4 .4
E}: 18.21.1315. M 9.21194-..:R.92Li§:1t5‘—_-i
4. .3 5311. 4 77 5.90 5.02 cm.
4.:7 5.94 4 3 5.83 5 7 5.77
4.51 5.92 4.40 5 71 5.70 5.98
4.7 5.83 4 55 5 74 t.82 5.07
5.49 5.50 4.2 5.49 5 to 5.80
41.9.1314 MG'EILQQ;RCPESBEE- I
4.3- 6.02 4.24 5.92 1.3.05 5.97
4.39 5.5;: 4.15 5.89 5.12 2.59
4.43 5.75 4.28 5.78 5.52 5.95
5.59 5.51 4.51 5.50 5.52 5.72

 

kw»--

 

TABLE 1 (Continued)

._,..t _.—_—<.___..—_—HHA. --_.—_.-__ —-_.__-_._..._.- ._ -- -2- -__ _-..._ - wt m .--~._____r-_.rf_-—-_, ’ H

T re atm exit

.— r-“ .-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Da '5 Wet Partly Partly Partly Partly Eully

‘/ , Wilted Wilted Wilted Wilted Wired

Ln- ,
t (1 Un— + + Lac» + in-
"at
R 6 treated Sugar tic Acid MnSO4 “reated
”1.4-111 512:4- 53:39:99 742-94

4,

17 4.50 5.98 4.30 5.87 5.90 5.87
24 5.02 5.52 4.38 5.84 5 84 1. 0
3' 5.28 5.76 4.34 5.66 5 20 c _
52 4.59 5.30 4.15 5.51 5.59

9:48.133; .35. 92119.9- ~ Ave r489 Qualit:
After Given Nungber of Days

4 2 4 2 4 2 2
17 1 5 1 5 5 5
24 1 5 1 5 4 4
33 1 5 1 5 5 5
52 3 4 1 4 5 4

£45351} agitatbpég;8921.i 24:9. .1.

4 4.48 5.28 4.53 5.41 5.29 5.28
17 4.22 6.16 4.13 5.17 6.19 5.38
24 4.28 5.85 4.22 5.32 6.30 5.50
33 4.18 5.35 4 09 5.79 5.02 5.80
52 4.01 4.13 4.19 5.79 5.80 5.79

 

TABLE 1 (Continued)

 

—- _-._.

 

18

 

Treatment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Partly Partly Partly Partly Fully
D W t
a” U: Wil‘ed Wilted Wilted Wilted _Wilted
" Un— + + Lac— + Un-
treated . .
treated Sugar tic Ac1d MnSO4 treated
grinding 1v1ethod—-R€;glicate II
4
17 4.2 6.18 4.09 6.18 6.33 5.69
24 4.2 6.02 4.20 6.10 6.54 6.05
33 4.22 5.68 4.05 5.88 6.10 5. 3
52 4.10 5.50 4.21 5.59 5.88 5.82
grinding Method—-Replicate Ill
4
17 4.24 6.17 4.11 6.07 6.29 5.52
24 4.27 6.21 4.20 6.11 6.33 5.56
33 4.18 5.79 4.31 5.80 6.10 5.98
52 4.12 5.51 4.22 5.68 5.80 5.80
Grinding l\4ethod-—Average Quality
After G.ven Number of Days
4 Z 2 1 2 2 3
17 l 5 1 4 4 3
24 1 5 1 3 5 3
3 1 5 1 5 6 3
52 1 2 1 5 4 2

 

'L"AB1‘E

ANALYSIS OF VAR'IANCE Oi“

 

19

71'
11.

THE DATA FOR EXPERtMENT l

 

m..__-————‘_._‘—. —— -__——__—-

 

 

 

 

D.F. S S M.Sq 1‘1

Total 269 130.08

ileplicates 2 0 44 0.22

Methods 2 2 9) 1.48 74.0**
Replicates x Methods 4 0 23 0.06

Treatments 5 104.60 20.92 1046.0**
Methods x Treatments 10 4 81 0.48

Error (c) 216 16.39 0.08

 

 

a

*‘1‘ Significant at the 1% level.

th-g silage prepared by this n‘iethod was obviously of far higher
quality than the silage prepared by chopping or crushing.

Mechanical preparation of the forage before ensi ling ap-
parently affected the fermentation process that is reSponsible for
the production of good silage. By grinding, cell walls Were broken,
and a solution of nutrients was available to bacterial action withOut
the delay of diffusion from the interior of the plant tissues. Thus,
a very rapid action of lactic acid bacteria was possible in the case
of the ground silage and high acidities were produced promptly,
which c0uld inhibit the action of bacteria which produce the weaker
butyric acid and other undesirable materials.

The difference in the behavior of the silages might be at.-
tributed additionally to a difference in the cycle of carbohydrate
utilization and forn'tation. 1n the "ground" silage, the readily fer-
mentable carbohydrates would be quickly converted into lactic acid,
with the production of high acidity promptly. This high acidity
would inhibit the aetion of bacteria and enayrnes that hydrolyze
proteins into amino-acids, and would prevent their breakdown into
basic substances (amids, amines, ammonia) which would neutraliae
the acids previously formed. In the meantime, enzyme action would

gradually transform the higher carbohydrates, such as starch, into

2.1
simpler fermentable forms, which would be converted into‘ acids,
with gradual increase of acidity.

In the "crushed" and "chopped" samples, fermentation to
give high acidity was delayed, permitting degradation of the pro-
teins and continual neutralization of acids. The formation of
butyric rather than lactic, acid was favored. At the higher pH,
later fermentation of available sugars into acids was slower than
the formatio.t of basic material by proteolysis, and the pH rose.
Thus, grinding the silage appears to have been beneficial due to
rapid initial lactic acid fermentation, which prevented the develop-
ment of an adverse proteolytic and butyric fermentation.

The t test of the statistical analysis revealed that the dif-
terence to be significant between treatments was 0.06. The treat-

ments with sugar staying at a pH of 4.4, 4.43, and 4.24 for the

three methods "chopped," j'crushed," and "ground," respectively,
were by far the best.

The sugar treatment (Figure l) for the three methods may
be considered as proof of the action of the microorganisms upon
the readily fermentable carbohydrates and the value of the "'ground"
technique. As seen in Table I, the sugar treatment was most help-

ful in the methods "chopped" and "crushed," but was not different

22

 
    
 
   

PH's of Silagcs

     

 

 
   
 
     
 

_ 5.5
Wet untreated "Chopped"
A
— 5.0
__, 4.5 plus sugar
ugarN ‘~‘~““
\ T“\"
\\ "Ground" plus sugar
\\ -“----‘..
\ ___fl_,....
\\ ’I ~ _____ ——-‘"
\ s" v-
\‘ "/
7 Wet untreated "ground"
4 ll 24 33 52

Number of Days Since Ensiling

E‘i gure l. The fluctuations of the pH of the silage during the storage
period.

frond "wet untreated" in the method "grOund." The statistical
analysis did not show any significant difference between wet, un-
treated ground and partly wilted sugar ground. In this experiment
sugar was always helpful in making good silage when the partly
wilted green fodders were "chopped" or "crushed" or "ground."
It also looks probable, as shown in Figure 1, that a "grOthd" wet
silage treated with sugar could stay unspoiled longer than one
treated mechanically the same way, but put up without sugar. As
shown in Table III, the treatments with sugar had the lowest buffer

capacity after thirty—three days, but no difference was Observed

between this treatment and the "wet untreated," followed by the
"lactic acid," "partly wilted untreated," "manganese sulfate," and
"fully wilted untreated." The "wet. untreated" material in all

three methods was better than either the chen'iically treated ones
or those wilted except where sugar was used.

The material which was partly wilted but untreated in the
methods "chopped" and "crushed" was found to be better than the
fully wilted material. The "ground" silage which was partly wilted
was almost equal to the fully wilted.

The lactic acid culture treatments, in all three methods,

were better than both manganese sulfate and fully wilted treatments.

[v

,1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II).ALB:.E ill
BUE‘..‘ER CAPACITY A17 YER 3:} DAYQ'
(cc. of N/4 acid required to bring 5 gms.
of silage from pli 11.0 to p11 3.0)
Experiment 1
Silage

T t- ~—.«-.~—--»-——~——~-—*.— ~.~——

rea Chopped Crushed Ground Quality

ments _ "M_-*__

p11 B.C."‘ p11 B.C."‘ p11 B.C.”“
wet “n“ 5.70 18.0 4.13 18.2 4.18 17.3 1
treated
Partly
dry un- 5.89 20.4 5.7(3 19.5 5.b8 19.0 3
treated
Partly
dry + 4.40 15.1 4.28 17.1 4.09 17.3 1
sugar
Parfly
+

dry 55b 18b 518 20.1 588 179 3
lactic
acid
Parfly
dry + 5.89 20.5 5.90 19.4 6.10 19.7 3
M. SO

11 4
Fully
dryr un- 5.72 21.0 6.07 21.4 5.33 20.1 4
treated

 

———————....__—~ w___._. ____.._- ._ rr‘___v._-_-...—._.~-.s-_._'— ..
—- -.— .. hm.--._.— _-_'.._._ - ..._- -7- _—._.__—~_._-_-— m——.

 

 

* Buffer capacity after 33 days.

4”“ "Partly dry" and "fully dry" mean partly wilting and
fully wilting, respectively.

25
The addition of lactic acid bacteria starzers did not show any ad-
vantage in silage—niaking. it appeared that the forage as har-
vested carried enough of this type of bacteria to p1 rforrn the de-
sirable fermentation.

The addition of manganese sulfate was not at effective way
of improving grass silage quality.

In ge.1eral (Table 1), within the three methods the treat-
ments can be classified from a pll standpoint from the lowest to
the highest. as follows:

1. Partly wilted plus sugar;

2. Wet untreated;

3. Partly wilted untreated;

4. Partly wilted plus lactic acid,

«.31

Partly wilted plus manganese sulfate;

6. l’ully wilted untreated.

The odor of the silage did not. invariably indicate the pH
level, since it was found that the "fully wilted silages" nad a
better odor than did the "lactic acid" or the "manganese sulfate"

treatments.

.26

Experiment 2

The results of this experiment are recorded in Table IV.
An analysis of variance of the data (Table V) shows differences
highly significant between the treatments.
silage "ensiled at once" was more acid eleven days after
ensiling than it was five days after ensiling, but showed a slight
decrease in acidity by the twenty-sixty day. However, the quality
of the silage was not poor, nor its odor offensive, in spite of a
pH around 6.

Silage prepared from forage stored "unwilted, cold. in the
dark" (about 16 hours at around 40° F.) was more acid than for-
age similarly stored at about 75° Fa;.renheit. Again, pH did not
adequately indicate quality, since “one was Offensive.

The effects of sugar and phosphoric acid were conspicuous,
though neither one had, even after twenty-six days, a pH in the
vicinity of the ideal (4.2). The phosphoric acid showed the lowest
pH 4.79 after eleven days which stayed almost unchanged as time
proceeded. It seems that the amount of acid added to the material
was enough to favor the action of the lactic acid bacteria and in-

hibit that of the proteolytic enzymes and other microbes since even

after twenty-six days this silage was still mild. Table VI shows

 

27
TABLE i‘v'

pl'l OF SILAGE MADE UP OF SECOND CUTTING ALFALFA
TREATED IN DIFFERENT WAYS, AFTER
5, 11, AND 26 DAYS
Experiment i1

 

 

 

Replicate I

 

 

 

Treatments Days Quality

After

5 11 25 25 Days
Ensiled at once 5.86 5.45 6.00 l
Unwilted, warm in the dark 0.08 0.20 6.09 2
Unwilted, cold in the dark 5.86 5.20 5.87 2
0.5% phosphoric acid 5.21 5.49 5.01 l
2% sugar 5.74 5.32 5.39 2
Wilted in the dark 5.58 5.32 6.60 2

Wilted in sunlight 5.57 4.85 5.39 2

 

 

 

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2': 3:121:35 f”: 33;: TESTEJ 122:5; ’2:
Days Quality ' Days Quality
Afte r m”"* * Afte r
5 ll 2b 2b Days 5 ll 2f) 20 Days
4 89 5 20 l 5 :3 5 8? l
5 95 5 82 2 b 08 b 05 Z
5 71 5 49 2 5 (.7 6 22 Z
4 79 5 75 l 4.80 4 bl l
5 59 4 82 Z 5 95 5 10 2
5 51 4 39 Z 5 '12 5 U9 2
4 55 5 l9 2 5 35 5 0 Z

 

Z9

 

TABLE- V

ANALYSlS OF \VARiAN' ‘ OF DATA FOR EXPERIMENT ll

D.F. 5.8. MB .

q F1 F2

Total 62 11.93
Replicates 2 0.74 0.370 3.135 3.34-5.45
Treatments 6 4.45 0.742 0.28439” 2.44-3.53
Replicates x 12 1'1: 0.096
treatments
pll 2 0.80 0.400 3.390 3.34-5.45
"T
p“ X 12 1.45 0.120
treatments
Error 28 3.33 0.118

 

 

 

 

 

M Significant different at the 1% level.

TJXBIJE I‘ I

BUFFER CAPACITY AFTER 5 DAYS

Experiment Ll

 

 

Per Cent

 

13 f
Treatments of Dry plI ufe'r Quality
. CapaCitv
Matter '
Ensiled at once 28.90 5.86 19.10 1
Unwilted warm
’ - b 8 21
in the dark 0 '90 1
Unwilted cold
I - 8i 2 l-
in the dark 5 " 2 ”O 1
”,7 h
5'° phOSp ”“3 252 90 5.21 2120 1
aCid
“70 sugar 29.85 5.74 20 75 l
Wilted in
— 5 8 2’3
the dark 9 D O 1
Wllted 1“ 22.15 5.58 19.00 1

sunlight

 

__~

 

 

 

31
their different buffer capacity. The addition of sugar to the
second cutting alfalfa did not develop a low pH as it did when the
treatment was made with immature alfalfa in Experiment 1. This
might have been due to a lack of water in the woody alfalfa (70
per cent water) which became a limiting factor to enzymes and
microorganisms that were present in the material.

The treatments ”wilted" in the dark and sunlight were not
very different in odor, but they were remarkably different to the
standpoint of acidity. The material kept in sunlight was definitely
more acid. After eleven days, the bacteria built a pH level be-
tween 4.85 to 5.35. The same material kept in the dark did in-

dicate a decrease of the pH only after twenty-six days. This dif-

ference may be explained by the fact that the material kept in the
dark could not continue to build simple carbohydrates through the
photosynthetic process, while the one kept in sunlight could. There-
fore, the sunlight—treated silage had a better chance to produce a
lower pH after a few days, or to be kept longer in storage without

spoilage.

32

Experiment 3

The results of this experiment“ are recorded in Table VII.
in every case, silage from "ground" material was better than
silage from "chopped" forage.

When judged on a pH level, the silage prepared from for-
age cut at 1:30 pm. appeared better than that from forage cut
at .5200 p.m. the same afternoon. Silage prepared from forage
cut at 5:00 a.m. the following morning appeared better than silage
prepared from forage cut in the late afternoon of the day before.

In spite of an apparently inadequate acidity, all the silages
had a mild, inoffensive Odor, and did not deteriorate on extensive
storage. This is in striking centrast to the results in Experiment
1. In this experiment, pH does not seem an adequate criterion of

quality.

Tr‘iBl.E ‘\ :1

p11 or SIlAGE MADE or WOOD? ALFAl FA AT DTFFERENT

Time of Day

TEMES OF DAY, AFTER 10 DAYS

Experiment lll

 

 

p'ii After 10 Days

 

 

Silage Made Treatments Repli— Repli- Repli- Quality
cate cate cate
I ll Ill
1:30 p.m. Chopped - 5.50 5.04 1
(Aug. 4) Ground 5.08 5.09 5.05 1
5:00 p m Chopped 5.03 5.50 5.59 1
(\ug. 6) Ground 5.31 5.10 5.38 1
5:00 a m Chopped 5.10 5.33 5.20 1
(Aug. 5) Ground 4.35 4.49 4.40 l

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Immature first-cutting alfalfa in mixture with brome grass

was "clxopped,’ crushed and chopped (or "crushed"), and chopped
and "ground" before ensiling. In all cases, "ground" silage ap-

peared more desirable in pH and odor than the otht rs. Silage

made with 2 per cent added sugar was much better than untreated,

partly wilted silage, whether "chopped," ”crushed," or "ground,"
but. was not better than "groand, wet untreated." Wilting before
ensiling in glass jars was always detrimental 5.0 quality. Lactic

acid bacterial cultures were not helpful, nor was addition of rnan-
ganese sulfate. Silages at pH values greatly above 4.2 were highly
offensive in odor.

Second-cutting alfalfa was wilted in sunlight, in the dark,
at warm and at cool temperatures in variOus combinations. Wilt—
ing or storage in sunlight or at low temperature was better than
similar exposure in the dark or at higher temperature. Addition
of 2 per cent sugar was remarkable ineffective in lowering the pH
of these silages. Silages were inoffensive in odor, even at pH

values of 5.5.

35
silage was made from alfalfa cut at various times of day.
In all cases "ground" silage was lower in pH than "chopped."
Effects due to time of dav appeared inCOnClus‘iVe. All silages
were inoffensive in odor even at pH of 5.6. The pH was not an
effective criterion of silage quality.

It is suggested that by grinding, all membranes are broken,
and plant juices are made free to bacterial action. Prompt fer-
mentation of the free solutioa results: This produces a high
initial acidity which inhibits butyric and proteolytic fermentation.
By avoiding protein splitting, neutralization of silage acids is pre-

vented and preservation is assured.

‘1

10.

BIB Y .IOGRAPHY

Ahlgren, G. H. Forage Cr0ps. First edition (1947), page 356.

Allen. N. W., Bohstedt, G., and Duffee, F. W. Making and
feeding grass silage. Wis. Ext. Ser. of College of Agr.
Madison Cir. 405, Sept., 1951.

t/

Allen, L. A., and Watson, S. J., and Ferguson, W. S. The ef-
fect of the addition of various materials and bacterial
cultures to grass silage at the time of making on the sub-

sequent bacterial and chemical changes. Jour. Agr. Sc.
27:294-308 (1937).

Archibald, J. C., and C. H. Parsons. Grass silage. Mass. Agr.
Expt. Sta. Bull. 425 (1945).

c}

Bender, C. B., and D. K. Bosshardt. Grass silage. A critical
review of the literature. J. Dairy Sci. 22:637-651 (1939).

Bender, C. B., Dairy husbandman and Howard B. Sprague.
Silage without molasses. N. Y. Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 439.

Camburn, O. M., H. B. Ellenberger, J. A. Newlander, and C. H'M/
Jones. Legumes and grass silage.

Corncross, W. John. Allen G. Waller, and Emil Rauchenstein. A
survey of practices and costs of producing grass silage on
fifty New Jersey farms. N. J. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 684.
Oct., 1940.

DeMan, J. C. Influence of crushing on the pH of grass silage.
Nature, June, 1951.

Dexter, S. T. The yield and sugar content of alfalfa cut at vari-
ous times of day and the Sugar content of the hay after
various methods of drying. Reprinted from JOurnal of the
American Society of Agr. Vol. 37, No. 5, May, 1945.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Dexter, 5.7. T. Professor at the School of Ag

37

riculture. Farm

Crops Department, Michigan State College. iJersonal

communication.

Eckles, C. H.. Oshel, O. 1., and Magruder, D. M. Silage
investigations. Normal temperatures and some fac—

tors influtncing the quality of silage.
Sta. Res. Bull. 22 (1916).

Hegsted, D. 1\;’1., Quackcnbush, F. W., Peterso

N10. Agr. Exp.

n, W. H., Bohsted,

C., Rupel, l. W., and King, W. A. A comparison of

alfalfa silages prepared by the A. I. V

. and molasses

methods. Journal Dairy Sci. 22:089-500.

Kendall. Grass and legume silages for dairy
Ext. Cir. 605 (1940).

Malsalm, R. C., and F. R. The fermentaticn of alfalfa silage.

Penn. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 444, IVlay,

MOnroe, G. F., C. C. Hayden, A. E. Perkins,
C. E. KnOOp, and R. G. Washburn. Fe

cattle. Ill. Agr.

1943.

W. E. Krauss,
eding value of

hay crop silage. The bimonthly Bull. Vol. XXIII, Sept.-
Oct., 1938, No. 194. Ohio Expt. Station Bull. 194.

Morrison, J., and I. H. Htaney. Grass silage for winter
fattening of bullocks. Reprinted from Agriculture: The
Journal of Ministry of Agriculture: Vol. LVI. No. 2,

May, 1949.

/

Nevens, W. B., K. E. Harshbarger, and K. A. Kendall. Legumes L/

and grass silage. lll. Agr. Sta. Bull.

529.

Ragsdale, A. C., and H. A. Herman. Legumes, grasses and

cereal crOps for silage. Missouri Agr.

Circular 209, June, 1940.

Reed, 0. E., and J. B. l‘itch. Alfalfa silage.
Expt. Sta. Bull. 217 (1917).

Expt. Station.

Kansas, Agr. L“

21.

22.

23.

24.

26.

28.

29.

30.

38

.Jantelrnan, W. Paul. Effect of fertilizers on the sugar con-
tent, buffer capacity and acidity of red clover and a1-
falfa before and after ensiling. 'Jhesis for the degree
0: N1. S.. Kiichigan State College, 1952.

.-haw. R. 11., and l’. A. Wright. and E. r‘. Daysher. Nitro-
gen and other losses during the ensiling of corn.
USDA Bull. 953. l‘v'lay 4. 1921, pp. 12-13.

Silage. How to make and feed it. ISsued by the Ministry
of Agriculture: and F.s}.eries, Government buildings,
l..ythaxn St. Annes Lanes.

SiIOgerm. For the preven;io:i of molds and decay’ in the silo.
Co. 77 Washingtozi Street, B100U1f1L1C1, New Jersey.

Swanson. C. D., and E. 1.. Tague. Chemical studies in mak-
ing grass silage. Jour. Agr. Res. 10:275-292 (1917).

Virtanen, A. 1., and Karstrom, H. The decisive importance
of pH in silage problem. "Extrait des Compt. rend.
du lab. Carlsberg Ser Climi. V01. 22.

Watson, D. S., 1‘. R. l. C.. E. R. S. E. The Edinburg and
East of Sc0tland College of Agriculture. Scale Hayne
Agr. College. "A series of lectures delivered during the
1950-1951 session under the Devon County Agr. Asso-
ciatiOn lectureship, pp. 37-41.

Watson. Silage and Crop Preservation MacMillan Company,
Londom 1930.

Watson, S. J.. D. Sc., 1‘. R. I. C., F. R. S. E. Conservatioa
of forage crops. JOur. of the ROyal Agricultural So—
ci-Jty of England, Vol. 108, 1947.

Wight. Taylor N., C. B. Bender, and Walter C. Russel. Effects
of ensiling upon the composition of forage crOps. N. J.
Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 683, Nov., 1940.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39

Wilson, J. I”... and H. J. Webb. Water soluble carbohydrates
in forage crops and their relation to the production of
silage. Reprinted from Jour. of Dairy Sci., May. 1937.
Vol. XX. No. 5, pp. 247-263.

Willis A. King. Comparison of molasses-alfalfa silage and
phosphoric acid-alfalfa as feeds for the milking cow.
N. J. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 704 (1943).

Willis A. I‘Ling. Comparison 'of rnolasses—soybean silage and
corn meal soybean silage as feeds for the milking cow.
N. J. Expt. Sta. Bull. 713 (1944).

WilLis A. Kiztg. Comparison of molasses—lot silage and Phos-
phoric acid-oat silage as feeds for the milking cow.
N. J. Expt. Sta. Bull. 708 (1944).

Willis A. King. Comparison of molasses-timothy silage and
ground barley-timothy silage as feeds for the zriilking
cow. N. J. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 728 (1945).

Willis A. King. Comparison of molasses-timothy silage and
ground barley-grass silage as feeds for the milking cow.
N. J. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 722 (1945).

Woodman, H. E., M. A. P. H. D., D. Sc., and Arthur Amos,
M. A., both of the School of Agriculture, Cambridge.
Ensilage Bulletin No. 37 of the Ministry of Agriculture
and fisheries published by his Majesty's stationery
Office Price.

Woodward, T. E., and J. B. Shepherd. Methods of making
silage from grasses and legumes. Tech. Bull. No. 611
USDA, March, 1938.

.
.a'fi
\
_ Q
|
I:
I
3
I
, r
l
),
l
I a"
I
. r
_ \.'
‘l .'
O
. \ ‘
'
I
i
.1 ‘n
I
A
I
‘ .
I
'\
‘.
I
it
I
. .
I
r'
.
k
. 1., c
x ‘1
‘

 

 

. ‘ ‘» . . .4 ' A
‘J' (I ‘y ‘ ‘3' l ' ,\ * 1|.
f x ‘f t ‘1‘ ‘ l- ’1‘“
\ \ I ' \ \' )‘h i "f
~ ‘ k h L‘ " I .‘ .v _f.‘ K
r I .
. . s1 7 1r! .I 4
I ' ' IL U
' I .
. . \_ I " I ‘ I u
I V . ‘ ‘ v
I. t ' Vt .
l ’ I I
‘ .
I ' I a-
. 7 I ~ I . ‘
.d' ' .
. ROOM ‘ t I.
‘ ._
‘ l
l " ' ‘1 I ‘
z, i t I
. p'
' .
. .‘ 1 I. ‘
1 1‘ l
I
l ' Y
i i
I
I
7 ' . ‘ ht, ‘
r . ; ,’ ‘. 4" -
. I {)I .
.\
,.
K
‘ .
I
‘ -
I 0
\
. ,,
I
x
—A ‘ "
‘-
‘z
.‘ J
. .
u' o
7 I
‘ 'l' Viv j ‘ r
I i l‘ 7
I
. - V I ( "
I u ’ 4. _ ‘ I
- I ’
t I ‘
“ l
a ' .» ' '
.- ‘ \\ ‘ r i
. K ‘ _
' I I l I
V
1 1 . I ‘4
. , _v .
Q 1‘ I
. t . ' i i
u \ - ‘ I .
. \ . ' \ 7
a l — '
. 'l
. '| .‘x' I
I 7‘ 7 '
. ‘ : ’ .
o . I ’ —. . .
‘ \' . ' ‘
.' n 7‘
r ‘ ‘ I ' ' " . \
v' |
u ‘, |
I l l
O . '. I .
{I ‘ It | T I v
- ‘ .
I
L

 

ltlujlllfllfllwllllllll

3 031