I
.-,- 1‘
2m
I

1‘ I
6 ,_ ‘
. IK‘WVMJ 7‘1.- ,
. ,1}! , . ‘1‘ I.
I 1’. 3.3: d
2.. 353,343
'9

 
 
 
 

..{2'~lI’1;’I’
‘J 3‘ ‘

     

   

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
  
    
 
  
  

 
 
  

  
    

 
  
 
 

 
  
  
   

    
   

 
   

 

 
  

 
   
  
 

  
 
  
 
   

 

    
 
 

  
 
   

    
 

     
  
  

    
     
  
  
  

 

    
   
 
       
      

 

a ‘I ’. '-.
1“ 1.,“ I. ’I‘I'I‘ III. M . I' I - 9\th‘I11IIIv(:II‘IIIr . a
I If ‘ ,. '22 22,,“ I _ . , 1 H .2 - 42:." ‘7}; ‘
I 'I I I II" . O ’ ‘u II I. . z" . o A " ..I'JII.'AI . ‘U’II . \u
. ,I 1013, “v.11. ' 2.111%“, .. f l a. \wNII‘III'l: . . ’i; I, :m;"'éfl.I&?“I-lfl‘i~s§wa.¢“ 3.4. fig:
’ .- .1,ka ' L .’t .J I '- - -' " "'I-‘Ixm'f'l‘ I! L.
- .11.,15‘: " 452 I" “I021” :12 £12.. .’ES”II"‘.II'~‘Z.~:;5 IE"?
,;,."IE;~ .2». “firirgte‘fi‘u’ 9'- 331:.
. saw.“ .Icfizrfcmw '
.. w» . «‘1‘», 2.1

 
   

".
rztI'

       

    
 
 
  

  
  
  

    
    

2 $1.,”
QUIII 112% 11:1“? 2,."

1": ‘JIAI

LI“)- {111, O :I' . 'n‘” t .of,’_.,~,.‘

22:3,? 2:15:15» I‘

     

   
  
   

  
 

. ,flq‘: . .'.,II 4“,: .'A
. I24; . 213 11.1.2421 3‘21?
“’1 II 19.132151: ‘1'”: ‘1 I ' ‘L‘ 3.1"

I ' . 3. LII I: I ’2‘

   
    
   

 

      
    
 

    
 

 
 

 
  
    
  

 
   
 

 

    
 
      
   
   

 
    

 

 

 
 
 
 
  

     
 
     
  

  
   
   
 
 
    

      
    

   

 

   
  
  
 
  

    
  

     

  
  
 
  
 

  
   

     
  

  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 

    
 

 
   

    
  
 
  
  
   
  

     
   

      
    

     
 
 
  

   

  
  

 
 
 
 
 
 
      
 

   
  

     
    
   
   
  
 
  

 
  
    
  
  

       
  

 

 

  

 

 
   
   
  

    

  
  
 

3
f5 .3452!“ ,._ a (.5‘". . kit‘gf?‘ I,
, -: 22'" .....,..~.-.. 2 ,.. 3:: . 2 “HA 2. .
'I. 1‘I'I' I1? king,» 4521!” VIII}; 1""1‘212 ”$1,." V} . ”.ISI’IItifIII l
. Mila‘. 2:! {IN "0'. :21? ‘9‘?)“fpt'fg -‘ Mg," .. .- m¥$aj
I _ I‘ll!” ”A," ngb/ if»? IIIHertI’b“ . I I I
I . ' 3". “‘I 33:1}; anfi? III‘yI-IIIII I: II", ' .‘.-j; M” .‘..) - .
’j --' H IIIT‘I’II: ' 'IT'I‘ III III" :1 'III‘I'I'..2... ‘1 1‘ 1' duct: .2 ...?‘-I“.L;I:VL 3f”. ' .. ,.
u up". 36.. 1,182: I‘ll, NIH-I \“IIOI ,3“;sz ' _ %:i;% 4“ng ;v{ {ix-é}, {“5 “‘.";‘3 :INIII ‘V . II. I‘yflI I I 7‘1};
H 1 "1,11;- ,1: 1.2%" ..',I,£g ”7-1.,”121 .f'", '1}? IZ‘II Iii-HI . ”NJ IU" 5.“ 1", I
' ’ ' ’ ' 53.2222". ,1“? #22223 .'1‘2:I ‘ .51: Fifi,“ “ 1‘“ ' 11 131*". . ,.
o I ' 1 ._ . n. , I I. ’I ' U ' I '.
. 1‘12“ {9,121.3 \I’I . 1?!!! ,;f’ 1";‘4. l‘hI 1 .‘.-I-ié’3‘51133‘fr5fi 1:1 Klifi. {f I; :E‘Iéw” IIB‘;'1£‘I&* :IU-‘
. -I N g 3'" ' .'..I ? h," '.‘ ‘ , Lu-
" 21.4.... . .’. 37.222“ ‘22” "’I' ..~- “2&va'51-‘V‘3fi2722213: "’55:
. " "‘.-NF. 4. 2 *II I" .'
' M" I: _'7," ‘1‘..er 0 . Pin,
"I‘I f," I'JIII'1'1-ing"?£1?5 ~23,
:w.

   
 
    

I ' . 12;: It???“
”IIIIYII '-' ~ 313:‘1IIII-f’s J
1;: 3‘83. If‘.%“tr.f’ 'fi. :25 (II
. 313 '

7113121139 'I’ {m I" H .

"I ' I' " I H! , . .

I: S u , :52. . 2.,

. ‘ ‘gviygffigfimgjs' 012,111,215”, P,
. I *3 1M: "2, I!!!) 1,353.: ”if

.I,I .'.

    
         
  
   
  
    
  
 
 

‘1!“ {2'12“ ‘
1:“ng ,1 “71.;

 
 
  

  
    
  
  
 
  
     
 
  

*fsi'. . ,
‘9}: :5.

   

  

     
  
  
  

   
   

 
  

3’11““
II {.’.I‘trtiyllk . 'l (I.

‘ .". «II‘I‘R ’1 . ,1. .0 IJHIIIZIL ..

. P ’4 '4 “'91,"; , H ”:1; ’10:. v. 1 ‘1‘, . I,
' 11""? 'II" 'w IIIIwI. mm «‘92,; '5‘- ,- ‘ -

IL ‘ was

II“ 42:, . '- "1‘. 'vt' '21“!
”51;, 4 'V '31 2 #‘k
.’.”I- IV ‘1 v -' II:I .I '3‘

'“” ’IFI. r'Ig’nI‘ I I

"V
0
an.

«L

.I Uh!

   

'I‘
- -}
' ‘I

‘2 I!
. . 1;;st 52'3“}? ‘2"“"212:‘1""I“‘”"II
. 21.2'22‘2‘1'IJI32IW’31'I'” 1W1
. «I ItI-tI‘I‘III‘.'"'IM ”IkaI III'tII‘ III IIII’IIIIf
’TVIIII‘I I I f‘ ‘13 lllg, ‘37" I. J

(:17: If“: t

  
  
      
       

.
l.
y
'1‘- l.
s

2‘
2‘5; 1.
a:

   
 
    
  

2‘!“
'S.
L".=I

  

 

I 52:5": I [34‘
2}? £2.32. Irv”.
£v‘1’t "'13)“. :3"

  

    
  

 
 
 

 

  
 
 
 

 
 

   
  
 

       
        
     
     
    
 
   

 

 

 

d1
'. I!” W4"! d}:
O {I}. ‘ “1:1:3“ {Jl.. "I ‘{;I& *{tw'fig ' .
f I‘ :4 y“ 7".” fi". ’. .1. ‘ Efuf" u : I a
I .‘.)“, ‘II 1' \I”! filINI 1.1"» .'II'I! 1.. 1"»! .’.!I‘ 1‘“: :3. ‘7‘... “’h, :1 .
I61 1\,\ I .'. ”all, .. IL . I JP» .
- . .41 ‘- " mm. P ‘(v,.2:..a,. I?! 2.37' ”111.1 '22. 8,".le . ... '52:” II" I’m}. . .
b ,1?” 1“ IIII [In ,I’, \ I.’ ;3I:I. ‘I’II 1,”, :' .'. “'0ng :D ‘ ljy‘: ‘12. 1. , ' f If "I; I ‘*W .I §
1‘ I u R .I M II}? firjgkg {hI . ‘ -. . I. d. ’9' I: ~12-
13‘": 1‘31? -",3,;.i.'.'.;‘31'31‘"§f.+,i ,1“ (‘3: OW 3,17”. 4:! "'1 I" 3 1‘ ‘II‘IIPU _-|’_.'I3. I 1 ' III 'J - I.‘,£‘2 (mfé‘l‘ufézg'y I I L I”.
2;. I. . mm: :‘uI- .2." - 2 2 ~:- .. 2 - ~:r
.. w c; '2}; 2:“:292‘422‘2‘ :' -'.;3‘-.IIII:I.W.I5‘ 332221-22" :22»- .Itfi‘
. ’1 3;,‘30I1JIL4 ‘.I1:I"Il‘&I:I3L “z,;‘~‘- ‘II .. km *2. H .‘
.2: .. ~ 2.2-. 22M.- 22 -. 2:1 '2‘ . . ,. . ..-:.¢«
.I I. . I‘tlf.“:l.1"d.11aXIJO'Iul,-‘I"I*;I.‘: 32:;I‘1Igo';:‘£ I‘U‘ I ‘33.: . I .
I ~ :2" II' Iv. IIIII' I‘I‘I f. “I." ’III '1I;-.I‘II: ‘1‘, “It 3
II "I " - II7'1"I'I‘"IIH‘I'III.‘€‘III‘II‘ "LII: "It' 1‘ ,
. . z’.'flI:I"I“ I'!QItiI?I I{!,1IIIII:- 1“ ‘fI‘ fi}fi-!III ‘ . ItI
. I3.. JIM; up igubm 111., ' “ ‘ , 3 I .- , .. .yt‘q‘fig ,", .92'
.2. II"! .' L1]..§ ‘ I '9’." ' ' l ' I‘LI; ' “"l “rmfik I ,2, I . 1'. ‘I .oI, ‘ P. I . I “I. - 'I
.3..~2.,I-..I,~;~-.222,-» . .2 fab-2:2... g.“ ”'21? - . “-« :32. 22;; ~2<".2‘z’fi: .2 2:35: ’2':~I:5I..~‘$’I:‘I‘2«
2‘7"- “. r‘wfi'u‘ ’33-"? IIIIII;I3IIIIIIIII1I;,, '13.; 1D”:IIIILI . . 31's? I'I‘Lg'fi' 2‘,5II‘sI-’-'5"7:. .‘ 124223.1‘Ui
° ‘ IIPIIlf‘ILIII‘IIJr'VII'Ix I113“: IIP'I'.‘ ‘2“ ’III I I I ’I.III III.‘ ‘ I1‘IH .I kILP‘ILT-Ihtt é’fsi‘I «’1‘ ‘Z‘IIoI.I§~LI. $.15?”
.'. . ,..‘ ’.';“;",.‘ I" ”N‘s!!! IJ‘ , _- , I. " .~:“I ".'Uy‘.‘ ':.\Q"," 94V.'I*IVI ll" 5 ._‘\"“ le‘m
1'? I v 1 !( 1 O I} .1“) ~ I” I I I \
.'I' M?” “Vi: '2‘ ' 1“ 22"“.-I‘W 72" I-J-‘w‘ I‘M-ILFQ'V 1". ..
VIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIL “HI V3191? ‘2‘, , 311‘s." :17, pr“ 32,: .‘M—vgfg 11';'IIII‘..:II'II“§,;II"z" 1“ "4,14. 2" ., :‘E' ,1 {I2
- .'.‘J. .'g'o'”. 2 . , ,. I . 3‘ 1:". 'IL': '71" i, “‘9‘“ P...‘ V)! ,, 45.1,. ‘HrIII , Pr. _,'.-.
' 2'2‘22’5'21'5».11I~ LI “’:“‘§ ,,.,,,("““ $.25stqu .w- .'.I'I. =2 firmwgi“.‘2I‘gf'2éi*'-‘I-33?.,,1,;222.3~i"23“:.;,5'.713... 52.1, '22"?
' .1; I ' ,3‘ 'A' A) '-”I”-".’”'U'. .‘1 I“ ."I " ' .. 3;". II '-_ 1, ’ 2'. - at“? "PEI. 2':-
Q. .' .1” !I,,, 1.11”" 5.1.97- 71 9g, ‘15! mag; L21 3,1,,;¢,'-3,§,.:1.‘.’L,.1,I1IiI-I‘lIg..III: 113;}, 1;! _:,.,‘.'.'K,,..yJ ~Q.‘r#~;“..‘¥ (50,“, JP .21”P,-.1‘,Qe .' guru“; JV.
' ‘ 11:13" I 1‘1 I! "' u {.'. .-.. ~-'-‘ ‘I I‘m. 'I ‘ ~'rHI-.1Nl-I «2".I-t.-'I‘.I‘:’.’PI - ..“."- ‘2'». . w “
' ° - . ' . .. 9‘2 1 II; . z; 'JIIZTi 1'1;- 12,32,‘ ' :31: ',“‘I W113" III "21‘ I‘,.-1 .'-,‘.",}sl".P£¢‘-1'.l‘..~2 13-7: ”LN?" - . -.I"'."’;-‘ f ‘0 "1,,39221'0'Iiif,’ ‘11 --’,.‘;&..'.' $323?" 313;. 117133.» “’1
- '- ._ I" » I"I..' .2‘: t. I. ' ‘ 213' ,I%. .- *Io_'.- ":7 "K " ‘ :2 I“. 7 . .379 .I.43--s.r.-.',;,:._.I.;419...... ' 'M‘AI‘ '.o'.";' 2'5: .
.2 u .. " «.‘wa *2 . ..2.I»«:.-.I.I..As>=.2 I , 2.....2222
. V _ \Pnuuyl'u, ‘I I" ‘ '1. .3 -‘ “2"1I..;:J’IMI,IIIII‘-II? ‘J “LI; I" J .6" _~ VII“; 3:7,}- .)I’,~"I._I 11‘ :I ._ .1? ”{2}": “11“.“ '9'“ : .'._ II,
I I .'I' s II'I- 12“.}? . Hr . h‘pt-L: ‘ .I I». ”IgII‘Ih“I;'!:I’II::I“I‘I‘ICI;’int;- {510.1}? m III?!" 'II ’PI‘I” 24132;?” 1‘3?” ILIII‘III‘II I IJI‘II‘u‘fiIfictIIL‘fi/I: 'It1‘III‘ItfiI“. “.‘.” ‘. *fi'J‘ ”‘3‘ I’d“~'
III-.231».- II... was... .«2 I'II;.I«-2. 2:.Iv221't~i+.*.I»:I.=‘fvh- -‘ " #222321.- Q7152 v 4? 2:":New”?42.3.2-I"we!.2~.‘~fi'...I7r.':-I~é~2"‘.~2*I 23:74.22: 2: .121 P
‘ "I I I ' I "'3 ’ 'I” "7“ fag-'JGN-E' ’S"E.‘-‘:.21.,':§.'U"§I..«t' XI fTu.‘I..:l."’WMI 67‘” 1-3.,“ 5.11111;:;,',I"'!"IIII€.III.?'I-‘:I'I”~I "1' prighfib‘ 51 I1.
""'~""’;:‘ “72'2“; I“I.UI.:I *‘I2'."’TII‘II'I‘.I:-'.'w'I'I-wI71‘I2I—F-‘1' 1.2.73i?»:§.':'-L*:.-.;'.u.
' ;g’ u'I‘fi'v ‘ {JR-‘3‘ ‘f‘S‘IIII‘I’II‘II; II.

. OJ)... I1! .'. .‘.:I‘J'O‘.I:.I‘fl.}:'h
\ I7 :v ILI“‘IN7(1::II:’~ ‘;-,: ‘ 0“." 8". t'! “ ‘
I I5 “:1'4‘ 2“

 

._- ' ’ 2 .
.c . ‘1 . ‘I . ‘1 A1 _.
. - . J‘I I , . I
. . - ' ’ ~ 31‘» “”11.“ ’ tIkI I . fl ' . ’1 I-II I‘ ' 'I ' "-
. . I . ' ,. , _ .» .. .13”: J. ‘, ‘IEI‘l‘Ika‘ILCI.‘II";' v3.2. 0’3..." 9.1.:1331-1,‘ gI{:‘II;f' “fins“ . ' ,I6. 2:; ’ J ' '
J . H n ‘ L',.. ’ I 510‘ ' .’.“f 1“!” "I' ‘1‘ ‘y: z 2" XI: " $o\"\ II’. I :S "I ‘J: it; I kI'II I' w I I I
' ‘ . -. 3' L... '11'9‘5. .1‘1—"5‘ .- p,t‘,.-L.?IU ”If! .1 'r‘t. I“..?'."" 1‘ ‘1‘ -5“ I:¥"}p"Iy II.“A." 'I'! “P «I. H ‘ A I \ .' P- I '
.. -.. . .-.".l-.\1I~! an! I!" ' 1! r ‘ .‘--.L.-*~ ’P ,.;."I 65:2." .0, ~- _- HI -:, \.'-e.
'13-?! 1" 21‘ ’1 W}; ‘72 mun. UI~ ‘ "If-.11“ 1"“! 'q ‘ ”Li?! f“:°H--1-'7‘.‘ ' ’L~ .'.; 3» “In.“ ukuw‘ . -, . .... A , 1 In... .
9.5,,“ 5,2931%. Iu.‘V-’;LL’,1I1‘,;LL;‘, .9 25.2 g. I, '-' ’S§II'Z!;x‘.-5m' )‘s,.‘x,:%,’ '51:" ' ' “2 ‘1'" I . 3&3}, 2-1,;3'0'. 2.13:, ,,*.-~:- L. #53315. 5.2? l ;- 131-, 32,13.” signs. 1
" J"-\. ‘- "-'. v (A "'~'. "'I"~'5 . -. '-~.'I 'oa:".:' I "-' I'I 7r“ o .I ' I ‘.-.: "
.0 ‘1 I.- "J. ‘ to“ V, I" 1111*‘I‘L- LI q; I LI‘A'r “)1," N ‘6’; . ILA L -. .- ‘21." - v. . _ k, . -'. I. ‘ \\.I X” ' g I
.-. I ,r _ . . .. . . , . ‘ _' a... j ‘J k . ‘lt. , .'L - Qu.~" ; a". - ' ,-.. ““\ 3. ‘ .‘ .u;
I 73’1”"."’%‘.22.'I2".‘:I--.’.".. ~52! -~'. .171" "’ I‘m" I"'-53.'.‘.‘.""3" III'II‘E’I .. I33 211;“- 334-12394-222' 3"-’..I‘:;‘“ I.’II"‘I.'."IIMJ.I".'-'L-’I‘.‘I:I'2:... ."IIU’Irca‘7'22'sL":
I “‘1'":3I’332it‘22‘v'3'2'2". ‘3'1'3345? 259:5 I’II2’I5”fiI‘ "I" 47‘"? 2.9- "TI,“ 5'7"? I‘li‘iwI2’22§‘.a""'3222.1? LI'IT‘.‘ ".2IL‘""P'24,"-"~u 'éfi'wm ‘Iw'zf‘IIv ‘3 .'ri‘g"
P II! ’l- ‘ I‘ ‘ w" ' M" "P I I‘I 'I ‘I'I'v I” I III. ‘ I "- " ' . I ('0‘: I‘ I :9. VI‘ . ‘ ’ .. 'H. I‘ ‘I‘ I ‘ ... ‘5‘ '
«0-H (a . ,, . W ‘l \ .I'LIIT) “‘OVJ I - . . pg... u, v, ¢.n ., fl ”LI-.1 I .‘.,r.
."..I I ‘flih'uh‘ h “I. “‘.“) I3; if .- 12.2.52 ‘ n! 3 I ‘- I ”.47.. ,.J._ .~" fl.‘ .2 .’. ,1,” .7", ,. > .
,1 “1"” ‘J ‘ 2. ¢.I"..J‘|y1'_‘o_' .,:’H. I fift-I’glgw. 2-? '1‘“ -P4:‘.-"'1~‘ . 'I‘ 11" 41‘1"" " "t4 ' ' 1‘ . ."“ * '-‘.‘.'.' 1" "I'M. o II ’5‘
' .I‘.':.~“‘I.‘;Q~ . ‘br‘ '1. I ,t. ‘4‘“ ‘9‘ "k"‘: 5*, .__P’I .Iu,_.aI..“« I.-,u,n_~, ,4.‘,.o,g.[ 3.. v} 05.)}. 4'02”” 1.4-4 4“, 4.. .. fl- 1 ’,I ._ ,“ w-
'I III' III~3 R48“ I ‘. I‘VII'11"?3£(" "P1" .'."... I” 1"I'77I1'4"9““~'I1r ‘10:,” u)‘ ‘7‘"‘1 H ‘ .-,- , P‘ J.“ “ "‘«"-‘ ‘1-3‘" "‘
I' (III; Y‘&‘u "II';"1I I‘M )‘“"' i‘ ' ‘.I‘ 11" . ".-~v ‘J ‘) ‘ n w ‘fi - ."J‘ “P ‘2. I'm“! \- .'. .' ’GI g,“ , .K'I'v..'. ' - .I“. _M.
' “J.‘I _ ’ I’ I ' 'II"\ '7‘" .v" " “.‘r ‘- ' .' l D‘J’I: ‘ . "'., u . '1“: 4- .P'b I 0' l- . K's, g .N - " ‘ v.~‘— o ‘- .’ .o
g .0] ’.' H... .‘.?“ (. I, _' ‘Z-“i 3;. 'I\I ”‘95”. u; “‘01-'50 1, .\ 1.. ILL, fl~ _ . . "111W" . - '5‘: H... 1 . .'. n. ,- ,~. . 0' ,- .. u .‘.-N. l._ .I’,
IIT'I'IT: 7‘2..." "vv2.2a‘d‘W-fizi:.L‘2-2F2I27".-""'.I‘7I2:33.: “‘.-~- 32:22.. haw-inc“::1.”=:.:P22 22.? .I 2-way”? t2-L.~“,~~44I”II'~L"‘.I - ..I_..;,.,,., III? 9;“...I-%
. II" '- I' "'v - ' HI I" I. .I' I' ~" . n . ' ' .' 9 ". ' . . '2 " ,' "-' , I. '.
a ‘IIf'tS- I“ 'I 1”“! IL ' I:‘II’PI ‘ V-i‘ .’g..,11'_-‘{0§£ I‘ “1"? I'I-‘PtI‘ I"- ’ h'Iplt'ih . 75" 'I'.~‘I"II II‘IKIIg I. 'IPII-L-‘ -\“'o. ;.-."".'7‘ 7"." ‘1’}: “\kr-I. kx‘ I ".. "1"”!
. ‘2 w agar-22122.1;-..-.,.;..,I,;.~p-.,... ’i'i-‘tu 2-=In.v.-.~I=I~ an I~..IPI.-.-L~ 2:: tau. Ink-m: -2<II‘.'~L',I"¢’~'I'I.I WWI I172.» MW III. .2»
. . '. '- “ ' ~"1-.' .II.‘ 9' .- i' I -I.‘ '-" I ".5 ‘ I' h“II .V'|’-~‘ '- T3. "7. “ .'-‘ ‘H '51). ‘I
- fi .'JII:III'I‘I‘:I‘.II' ' ‘Ig PS! 5 fl’lv P1 P.‘N.4r . '9” W _.‘(',..‘ 'f 1!: kzl ‘- a.~ | L i. I . o .3 -, 4’" .3 I. ' 1.4 ,1. th' ‘.‘_ I ”W ’1“ .\£' (‘1‘:
‘ h. H” 'I'Q‘IJ'K‘LL . ,.’:.-‘.‘,.';?'v ' Hr. 1)|."‘°II,I'-o‘-.Ii 0:1: ’9’ I..q.‘r Ik‘r l ‘ 1H7“ ft? 5“” .’.H ‘ ‘ §Ip$". “I ‘h I“ .I Q '5 LII " T‘
t‘.‘ ' . .rv -_ .’.I '~ ,- ' ,r‘ IL ‘- .;. '-. fl... ,- u ,y .. 4. .'. .- ,. I!“ 1.13,. O’."’-V . u. o', ,~ .~ , ”‘., . 3.0;}. 4 - .
231,223.?”- ~,f,-ui:-., 5.132%.23‘ ?.L..I.'~':...!z.‘;1‘423w. '1..1-;\”~ Mm. "LEN-fl .'.?» '. -...:r~ .5ny 3193:". "-'-‘.‘.z~-1P"~‘421 ‘12-'12“. " I. __.. 49211:.‘j‘1 .‘.
. ..;f- .'. $229,132.21.2.5.1; 42,225.“:r122'fi43."QH’H ‘.'.'..*-.‘. ”a“; 1-1;.» {M342 I512: ' '2 'gl - . ”.‘.“ ‘1 -L~,I «r..~§:"‘". ’ ‘v213?fm°‘I';:71.;¢-"'1 22125..
’.,“.- ,‘ , ' a '. :1fvaI").-‘-"I' I 4‘ 9“.“ 0 ' ' ‘ b ’ r '1 -'L, ‘ I ‘I' '- ','* :1'11 '4'I'I'I'
E I - ‘ .J- aha-I1 I-"—. «1.2:. ' “.1- .f ‘ 'P .u- ‘I . ‘I‘ "IH "54 . $ -'1 \"N I ." " . r‘ ._ ' ‘Ir- '-
g'mfi 3:“.1". “.17: «.’I"_°.‘115 ‘ ' '3‘.'. 5.24.312“ 14"::.'1,‘.‘-PI§:‘" ’~.~v;':‘ 32W" ‘ I “Q,- J- 1‘ 6'.""" I3-‘,‘ I I“ :‘ILI. .'.I’,;15I:vl " \ 1‘90.‘ r‘fi, 355:9. - {‘IP-JI_¢Iu-.‘*
“.‘I. I1 'Ile‘.‘ ‘1.“"L2'7I 1 7'“ 1v “' ' P" 7h 1-1 "I'- .‘ 'JI‘P 2).; k ”‘ ‘ V “1' - p. ’ :‘I-II“ ‘13...» I ‘ ‘ ALI" ‘ " v ”‘1. \h '-
" I "1‘ I; .. 4..h:I-1u'.~ ‘ Hi." ‘Lfifldfl Q‘1;I” ‘II'I'IL14“" ~. I,':"4".. 11“}?A1‘I‘IINI ‘ ou-y. H,“ ',-.. ,. I .h- ‘90; - ' -.,.'v.».3,luly,h -. _ .. _',‘. '._ ‘
5' .| I ,1.,1'«,TI,';~.‘4:I.’I;".'.‘..‘1;. “fa, ”2'9; {‘1' {:4'.‘..~a.g~II',',‘P..;-‘.'L‘ 'f-.~",‘.‘-.;' 97".“ ‘ 15.x, -‘ “#9:; ~ .Pgu.‘ H 1': . (”9,114,5‘ I‘I'I‘II“‘*‘PI‘. 54“” 3"3'vu’1‘fi.“
._ h . -' ,94~ 1'... ‘ " ' . .-. .‘- 'L: 'H . ,a‘ . - r 'l ' ‘ - I I. ' If.' I . ' n 2"' . ' . "1 ‘ .’.... .’.-I
. . , ' ‘ ‘h'gHE'D' £1111 I!.L::.._1;.“I' "“35... F",l!f‘..~ ”’.“. “.11.“ L8 1),, .’.,b ”2‘, . 1» .:. r ‘ .‘..‘Lfi L . .1,“,‘ “y, I ; 'y'.‘,‘.1,v,'v| ,‘3 ”1‘” ‘ «r, I‘
v . ,u . .., LYLE; - .; 14.5”“,‘5‘: 4.35.171"; 3,“; ”171,5. K, ”$1.53.. ,‘f -‘P : "" ‘IlpfiI ,P, '35; -S.,“ ““11 3,925“. I’dfiuvspfflj. ' I“, . KL: f‘ Jr.’.f'-_-.”__
Q. . ‘ 111...... :{M ‘96-“. ‘f’.‘ ~ ‘41:!19‘1).,'u_g:.".: .'. ~..".P..;." “‘41,. L“I':I“II\;.',"'II'\""EI'I-’TIII‘I L-I" #, at?“ ’1, I". ,1?” .3": ’z I: :3’VI'\4‘~:\IVI31“IILI; kHz-1;,- (“2":
.0 ‘ I "1 I'I'IIlIIi. CIVIL.“ 1&1" L.."1‘. 24"IIIII‘L” IIQ'L'HC‘h‘.‘ (-15...“ 3,“ 1.34,,_;.‘.‘~h;-,".g:;..,.;‘,~ 1;.“ JII‘VII": 'IL-J #3:"..ij . LI aI'P'" 3‘49." ‘ I" I‘I'T‘QL kI‘Ih“ 1-}
I ‘I. ~II1 “I I‘ IIII I ‘Li E ”’3‘". II‘II‘I ““51"“ I.' ‘I' I 1‘. IM‘K} J‘I‘l:“‘~ I .".III‘ JJ-‘I II? "5 9‘ . I “.le I111‘u1\ LII. ‘ “" II-‘Ilwfi
I '3 y "1.. ' LIIV'L‘ ‘ -". " ~I‘K‘Ia‘7‘1-Iu-kiP-‘IL‘ I'M-5233‘ ‘-‘1-~'r-: .~.. 'I :-\ I 23.3 .-1I,-.:".“ 2.819% 54} '~l-_..‘- ‘Pijr ‘I‘:.'- “5:. .I WI.” 23¢ '-.'~.
‘ '10. . ¢ v. '..‘:v “I I‘III \ ' .'1r1l 1". ":.-1\-,3 . 31.. 'PI. ‘ , .‘.: ‘ ‘0 I t"‘x"1:I‘I-" .‘..l , ‘ (., I 0,.‘QI '1‘, 7 5‘- R‘"
t -. Q I IIIII. ‘, 1"1'. '4‘ 5-.‘2 - ‘..'.:'q ) J ‘9 " h ‘ .Ihf-I . P ' 11"‘1‘ .‘1;" ,- , z ' ' 'A'L I ' ‘ ' O, I _ .' - ".": ‘. It ‘ ”I". ‘4‘
‘ . «."M. ‘T‘II' I’-‘:"I.I'-"I‘IF.‘"’-:'mvlr.~”2'22. “5".“ '.'I- . -.II..I~ II “If"..I'I‘lv-f. 3.1.: 5 ~"'..I:I:~. 2“ ."72" “~31“, 2241.931, .' 2.. ., .2: .2L2I
y. ‘ ’ IL, Mg. \. ‘. :.. ‘ '6... "‘. .,' ‘W I, I ." . . ‘ ' 11' I ‘ “1‘. " IP, 1 I s "n 'a \ 5491‘3' L - EI ‘I 'I-‘I "' .5 21‘; '.~
>5 . .1 WV '-j.', ‘2 l,I-.‘III"\;I1,,'V‘I-‘!r~.' $035": I... J".;“..~.I... '4"; .7113; B',‘ P» {,L.‘ -'1,‘vfl, . , ' 4 ‘:",1-'\I'P~T'i-’~:-IU, P9,d;:.f’,'-‘=L "3v.“’ 'Iur1', .
. '. . ‘3‘“ I ' u ' n‘lI "‘.;I- .'I . .‘ I fit . . J‘ ‘5'15I,‘ I.‘ ‘ I" L-'.. I I. ‘ PI 4. ‘ ."u‘.. H I ' ' 28' r "’0 " ' ‘p:
’ .I . I, --I. ‘Ir1:":::'I‘.- ‘II"' -II .I' I ': " ‘~l‘- \I'! ‘2‘”. "1 .‘.‘IRII' . III" .1"! a .5 y In I. ‘ °u"-.'-'§.Tr h ":5 ':.':I. fl”) ’PI.‘ TIII'.“ Ir‘I’k'I I .15'31 II. "‘.;I ~ I! ‘T'{:
h . .‘. - p. _,.,'0|.;4I’.lln... , \.V.~4'Lh y I! I. .,,,I‘L‘s.,r... ._ w‘,.'.~ th 1- “L” ‘6 I .- ,,.\L,Q,"~"~ __ .'.. ‘ .N. I .‘. .'VS. 6
. AW. ."g"'P\ .I " IsIQQII 0" 'h I-'~ Pu V ' 7‘ .I' 1.”wa '.' .‘ . I I “."I I‘ III ’II'h1 “"8. I "‘." Ih"‘ ~1I11‘ ' I'?” ‘ 2 ‘IM' II: ‘—I‘r I! ' I‘ ‘ u: t
h I' .I” .IW'III ‘ .I-o.‘ " ' w " .I V I" Q 'u . . ‘< ,..‘ L"~|., ~‘.‘i V' I} . s - ...I } VI 9“”. P',-‘., O P-o.‘u._.. .
' ‘ ' II. '5'.” ' L") 0' " "N 4‘. I“‘I"'\‘ k‘ I: II“ I ‘ I ”(331s 'M‘IJIIP.‘ 31", ‘1‘ V." :I ”'6 “-3“ “I I I? I q.{ IIIIT‘fi“! .' "PI-”é ... \'-6"""- '9’. II
" II-"“ 2; ‘j‘z‘~b .X II.II\..‘II”‘I:|’.I.’ I“ '.“ . lit . o '11! ~I.II~I u‘ssz"; ‘iIHII '\ by! ”1“". :‘I ~ I .I“ a... '9‘;- ‘:“ I NII' :I.J.~I.“ILI4;’ fl'zf‘I-II T? ”‘1‘.“ - "I" . ' \‘Ifl‘u .'I‘L‘
V" “VI! \I-V ‘. ” .. ‘ ‘. I H' II'9'. ' ‘ "'I'I ‘2' ' .' ‘ ’I ' II' ' "- ' ‘h 23" 4 .IHILI I" 2 ’v'." ,“II 'I ‘ ’ “I ' ’fiU " I’FsI .'vI.
I “3‘ ’ I -~I.‘:::I"‘~..! I“ ‘lv;\‘-"" .... .IP. 2‘ sf" .3... -2-32Iw-“JW -. ~I2.“ 'I..I"‘v~.~ «"‘L: .I Lr .: - .. 9‘. . .I ;.~..?JI'“:'.’"-.-’*L§§.-II:'=‘.‘—~:u.w L‘s-m --
“\I-‘zy-IQNILW ‘2 L I,‘v..P"°...',-. L .‘;.‘..‘;- "I ‘~,I,.,~,-I Io.“ HI, -,~.t- . . r 'P ‘I! 1-‘2 .4 C‘; 4. Hit..- 8 22.; , I‘I‘I 224, ”4.1 ly..,‘-f,1,,.:1‘Ejvfinqrx’ “ .- aw. , ._
. ‘ I, .. ~ 1.4.. 0 ‘vos‘ . I. 1”,". -‘. . ‘0 .' ‘ .PI. ..c.,._‘ ‘.'a-.. ‘ ‘ P- f s"... n‘c'uj‘. “IV—“ iszI~ ' ‘ . .’ .‘. "‘.-.2 i _. .‘.-t K I. .'._ ‘ ‘ ‘. '. ‘0"
t '14.: I P', I‘d? u. w x . {2 ,I .. s .s, -, . - I -, , .L .4, . a . v .. .. g . I ,._ ,. ‘,...1. ‘:
filth.” V,;";‘::k‘ ‘1‘:IY::P‘1 ' I ”I 4‘ -I 1} rh‘." \III: #'V’v‘u’\'tiII" 1‘: ‘1‘ IIT‘II} ‘.".I~:‘ ‘0' I. I .tkI§§TI-' «'III‘Izfi‘IJ‘ VIZ’I I’ULE‘ IE».n‘I ‘rfi' ;;{:EIAI-I;<£I'.‘I’b“.figwa‘h“.[:“.th 5‘ 'I Ifi‘:.:
' V '5' . l .I. ‘ I 2. 9 , ‘ ‘n“ l ‘ . ‘ ' II o.‘."' .‘ I I. . , . ‘ o ' ’ - I o, I. " ‘I f‘., ‘ ?‘ " ‘.
‘ 37 13.2‘4‘.22‘:~22~{!..‘1..~ .1322" “3;". I.» n’a~’=.':- w fdf‘ s‘-U,L'I“'I-‘~",' U-.:=£.I'~-."~’I-~-.‘I-"-;:~~’-v 21-1.} gr...2r;.fi...,~:~..g:;....~.;.Q..,;.;,o..,~q,.....1.5 «*4.
' ' i. "p L ' ' '..' . .‘ . I “I "-‘ I u n "gt --'-~"‘. H‘OI'Q 'o .’.”. IV". " 'I .‘I _'- ‘- 0_!I' ‘I I ‘14 g‘- I“" ‘,I 0 . ‘ 7'“ I.” -..' ,5
.. . . “.’...‘vt Iok'lg'I" 0 I _,Ir‘“',‘,“;' _~.“.‘I‘t ,J... .‘. ‘2' .‘.;I‘Kt’: .‘.?”h ;‘. 2". L ~_.'nh...‘.1’12 "l'.’ 13"." :5.” ka‘. H...I;-,...;b, ”,fi.‘ “‘7: .: .'udLfit‘“
., m: ...2....~~-,,-4:é.-, "2z:.';‘;'° 2'2~“;o 2.»..i""}".'-.'IL;.I~ 1.4.. 2"; mm? ...I.u..;~2.,;m.....,e v» Jm wz’L‘waa. ‘. 2-1. 1““: . c -. Ham:
‘2‘. ”1.. I‘IR‘I'X‘I“ 6.. ~91" 1 '-.I”_1 3,. .._ 1 2 . \_ .'~ 5... . ”N... 5"‘M, \‘S. ', .‘V':,:" _,I‘>r ‘, 2‘ ‘ .- Io "2‘ '7‘ ;- .gv 5 '7‘ . II" ." '0
-' in '4 7'. -' “\L‘i . '-i ‘ .’.I -' "- §I .1 -“'P P.- ‘I. '00-» m ° 0‘ '~ L." 2‘0 . ' "‘L '..II-. .0- . .~'-I- s ~LL .. . . . ”A . mu.
. 5.. Il,)‘ .. :. , "Po '.'{u.,.‘ _, J. 1“. PM 53 \,‘ ,V. .’.,K i..'1."’w \L,‘- 4- ,_L.. .,I;....,.. .,_ ‘.0.‘\ . ‘ ,h.‘s‘.
~ ‘5. 1" fl. ". ’I o'- .f‘“~II\'I." "I . “I _. " 13“. 'I'Lt"§~ b“. 'P.‘ “2“. In”, ”' ‘K'W 4“ "0. '1‘? ’1'.” . ’v‘)?‘ I. '.‘~. ‘9' '
; ,TIYTEI.IL..3§2~IL’I‘:I'."2 f I';.'~,t, ~1;312I1~4.-.';-g§.2_ II.‘ ‘1 {.'i 3"} III‘I‘IL‘I‘”’d'.“I.~T:;‘:'Y:: ,I,-I'..~‘.-.:I...I; rap.)I,.I”I:;I:\I{I3l‘fi”>'p 322'”; . ‘ “3139-4, »'.‘L:~’“‘I;II
. ‘. ... .. WI”: ‘2 (it: “”1 "I‘ 5' '5” V "YIP -.'¢. * ‘5. ms: '-"~ ' '.. .I‘k‘"~' "‘4 "'.... .‘. 221"»? 3‘ .L-I‘ 4,13“? firm?“ ' C" - ~'I "I, 'I-s. I4.'I
‘p- h -- .i ‘.I .’., qr ‘ly' ' “ .‘.» .\ .“- ‘7‘ "lfi 4-_ _. , ‘2, $19.3 ,' ‘a‘- .v .-.‘ "‘..I'. 0‘ I~ I) ' ‘ ~ ' " 1“" “‘0 1
: {WM .I1;I£I.I7~“P‘”-‘1-<:- tI‘ =‘o.?:- .’.II"‘II.="I-I‘ n.1,“. «'42 .. <2~Jh'. I-.~.I~..P..,: I; 3::- 3,3... --: 2vI.‘.I~..~I~rI~ I25.§3‘2I~;I":2;2212‘. ’.7‘.<..‘.‘".Z'I‘ILI::~'3'
“a.“ ‘u.’..{«.i..‘.‘zv.~..r . "'. " ‘L'.‘ \‘I‘ 73:4.” :2: L“, yo . .. -. -.'L".'.:- ‘P. "1.2;. ~21I‘IifPi‘..‘-. .PI". '-":-I .LI‘K'I’I' . ‘P'm-‘M 2.; 2. I233“? ‘f“-’I’~.:.‘*~3‘."«’.'.r 43"»;
I ‘33.. 2:31 2:.er 72;;qu ~7¥{II.'I§'?L:.”;~;:\3I'I . :11".-i-‘;I.';‘-’f‘g?’I~’.1I'-'-i'$." "12973.,” 4. In.“ .~"-;.,.,~¢,L‘. 'L.‘ 3;, ,~',Sj.;' YtL'IJLIf' 4:; 4‘1? 1.}; {rah .- 27,3. :5
- .‘E‘ “‘O'I .»'.'. ‘.‘-I" ' '. '- . I'. "'---'- ' P'1".,-" .‘. .' I" .. -_ -A. ~.,I,-...‘ ' : ,- -_|.
«- ‘5'~'4.(|.:.‘II:;'0.I‘.-x u:.:~;' .'."I: mqwku \.‘I ' 5.; {2:53 ‘RII'I RI': ,0: é‘fixk‘II:JI 15'NI‘I poi]; .1. J‘: "(.u‘. D, . .‘ LJ.27.;I:.".’;..‘.,;.“ “2‘11“ Phi Q-QIISI“.BI‘”¢:!"I aunt-cw
It “(M-I. *h- ’ ”€0- . .45 P u'. y I. 1” . ' , 3" V.) II _ v o ..,, .I‘I l-o‘..-I..uo!-‘I,, fi ‘1. 4_.~.:u‘ ,‘ :23 q" I."II ‘ ,O- ‘9.
In. > MN". {1151. . I. .. P.“ o - \.._ ‘ My. .. (I Q .32 9"?» ,,‘~.§--u P5. -.. . xfi'm \ v. .f .tnn. q ‘3.
\ . . 4 I‘ .‘ ‘9‘ ‘1 “ 1‘ ‘5 0. ' o 0%! ‘ 1H,, I..l, " l'. I! I ‘1' , 5 ";-‘ 9; 5,1 Y..'l-0 . I ‘~ g‘.-"‘ ,, .'L I.‘ )5 ‘ . .
. gfi‘Ic ’z‘kuzIffl I}; A; ‘1 :‘I 3.41:3: I‘I’I aI"I‘:‘.‘Efl: I':!~'0;I‘:E".4I"I:I QQII‘ L‘H.’w:‘.'} I 1...: y" .‘.“... ‘ --1I"I.‘ III'SI;',:.‘ ". :TI" '5‘; NIH" ‘27.},17”: .'le I‘It‘I- ”HI: I‘fizk
' H. .' ”‘1. .o I'-.'I' , I. c 7" it .f 1,... ‘I~.-'. N I~-- .n 3 ("42. y.;":,, ‘u ”L‘; I .:', ! ufh'." ‘ ‘If‘y' "u’. u "A' ' ' I _
' 2 2. 42w.I.."".i~‘=°‘-'-‘."=I4.”-‘".2. 11¢°=E;"-?:I‘I.I-I.~.~*L’ .~,1-.I.,.-,.,I,..,.;I; :r-"::." w». ‘25:. 'I" 4...», .‘:~:JI~".‘.2I.,:I~ macawarifam ' ’2'
u . ' " \ ‘ ~ " I.’ u H ,. I I . ,. ua...‘ -I l, 1“ .9 .2. v -.. .| .‘ n I . . ,
Q\ I. “.8: “~‘\~ ‘ I ._ ”I o. '_ usuflég 91 “, “‘|~‘:‘ S 9 . ,, h _ Io 0‘ , u'u. ~ .. v c. v- 1" '1“
I "L 3““. IL‘fiI‘.‘~I "" "1‘0," ‘1 I' 'l " QII -~'-¢4.“,o ‘¥.II"‘I ”I .. flu) . 29’ "sir, Q; '2 1. “'-.§‘- H "’2’ .' " .. 1'
‘- ‘ v. . . . I. ‘ ~ : -' . , g o __ 0‘ I § ,_ V. 0\.I u - ‘2 s. 0, ' . 3" .
' 91"”.9“ ‘:"V: V‘" '3‘I:'I " ‘ "2' I ””v ~"‘I‘. .. .I .II‘I“. 1:4" 24“»:2'4 .I 'P' 1 2-: II” V“ :31; II::." 3"", ~ In“)- ‘.~”I§ P! ‘I““.‘t~f‘1-'B‘JOII’IRI\1I
. I " " 232““ 'I . "u‘rn L‘.’--".L'.“..}. e ‘- . 'nsmk“ :P " ‘~‘.““ " ‘4" ’ '29' '“Il: JNIREQM' ““43““: 2‘ ":-.I .~ ' '
- o 0‘: M. I? . '. ‘ ,I.I V."Pq“ 'II, I v I ' ‘r‘ - ~ I o I‘ "“'..v ‘ \""¢I“V~I‘ .3
: lik‘I.V . . V». .- P. : s.» . I I a
I I . “h“ "\::€‘_. ‘.‘ ,1...ah-~:‘3“ 9":3; 7‘ §.‘ ".I.I"""N , No: 4 ~31” ‘5 “ I.‘.: ."Ti‘15'3‘.'~.~!";o‘u Ilfi‘ 41!.t“ 39‘3“? ',‘,":t‘.‘~‘fi:.." .'.)»I‘. U.” ~ :
“ “(f-“- ’.I’ I1:2I.“I'I'..1P.!‘I"“\P‘I‘M}: fx .' t." V1007 22° 1"." V \‘I. "W "‘ It"? ”In. I‘ “3333‘“ \- ‘3 " m " "‘- v 5‘ I '-
II ‘ '- 11: I ”3“ ‘0 I . 1‘ .‘fi‘ "PM L: “"3 ‘2’: ‘1 I {‘ \‘fFIgwM “u' ‘ It. - io'l P 'v V
. ~.. L .. -- s "g." ,, ,.,.‘u,,::. I». \.~:‘1'“V1‘"«‘h54 (12;; ‘v- .‘ .3
I I :1...nl"?w::|“ :r‘1::‘:u‘r\- .I;'I’ .‘” An)...“ . 7
"4“ - Iv. w..~;.‘.‘r.:r\

 

 

‘

_ v L. . -
335-42..” _

- THESIS

HAY AND THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE
ITS CURING.

MYADT

 

A Thesis
Partial
’ 338169

3:028.

 

 

:5
‘V 3
L’J

HAY AND THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE ITS CURING.

A Thesis Prepared by FRED HENRY OTTO KAUEMANH in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of‘Master of Science, Department of Farm

Grape.

MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE.

1926.

THESIS

 

 

i!

“I

.1".le O WLED GE! II T .

The writer wishes to express his sincerest
appreciation and gratitude to all those who have in one
way or another assisted in the development of this problem.
Special appreciation is due Professor 0. R.
Megee and Professor J. F. Cox, who made the work possible;
Professor 0. R. Megee, for helpful and valuable criticisms
offered in the final review of the work; Dr. E. A. Bessey,
Dr. R. P. Hibbard, and mr. H. Clements, for their valuable
suggestions pertaining to the plant physiology of the prob-
lem; Professor J. R. Duncan and Professor H. R. Pettigrove
for their kindly advice; and Er. Ralph Hudson for his

courteous c00peration in the field.

101833}

 

 

-—

711
7111

Table of Contents.

I Introduction.

II~ Object of the Work.

III Distribution of Hay in the United States.
IV Distribution of Hay in Iichigan.

V Marketing.

VI Methods of Curing.

VII Experimental Work.

VIII Conclusions.

IX Bibliography.

....~....
*—

U1

in agricu

Naomi h

 

1356, we
Net 2213

yieli of

 

mival

mite f

5035 or

3111101

given .

in the

a,

N: 0.1

1.

Introduction.

Hay has always occupied a very prominent position
in agriculture, and in the United Stated it is today the
second leading agricultural crop. Where 60 years ago, in
1966, we were producing elf-million tons of hay valued at
over 220 million dollars, we are now having an annual
yield of 98 million tons of all kinds of hay with a value
on the farm unbaled of over 12 hundred million dollars.
Further this hay crop constitutes 24% of the total produc-
tion of all coarse forage and has a feed value that is
muumelent to the maintenance of 14 million live stock
units for an entire year. The production of this tremen-
dous crop requires an approximate annual acreage of 73 4
million acres which alone is 20% of the entire acreage
given over to harvested crops in the United States.

Likewise, the hay acreage.production,and value
in.the state of Michigan are very large,‘ the annual
bay crop yielding more than 5 million tons valued at over
60 million dollars and grown on more than 1/3 of the total
area devoted to agricultural crops in this state.

In the handling of this tremendous hay crop, a
problem of outstanding importance that confronts the pro-
ducer is that of'curing it. The difference between pro-
Perly and impr0per1y curedhay very frequently means a
difference of two dollars to ten dollars per ton in price

or an equal difference in home feeding value. It is ex-

 

4
I .

2.

tremely essential,therefore, that the farmer in preparing his
hay for his own.use,or for the market, should use such methods
of curing as will produce the best quality of hay, most econ-
omically. Any information,therefore, which will shed addi-
tional light upon the processes going on in hay while it is
during and which will more clearly emphasize the need for re-
commended curing methods, manifestly is very valuable and the
work conducted in obtaining such information certainly justi-

fiabl Ge

Obgect'gf the Work.

 

The purpose for which this problem was undertaken as
of a.two-fold nature.

First, to gather and compile into one report a review
of the distribution of the kinds of hay grown in the united
States and in Michigan and also a review of the marketing of

hay in the United States.

Second, to secure a more complete understanding,_by
means of experimental work,of the nature and extent to which

certain factors influence the curing of’hay.

Distribution gpray in the United States.

 

Pram a study of the distribution of the acreage upon
which the tremendous hay crop of the United States is pnaduced,
it at once becomes clear that comparatively little hay is
grown in the far western parts of this country and that the
regions of outstanding hay production,as shown in Figure 1.
are in the Middle Atlantic and north Central States. These 15
states have a combined acreage of 47,779,000 acres or 64% of
the nation's hay lands. Records, represented in Table 1,

Table 1.
Five Leading States in Acreage of Hay
in the United States

1856.1924‘

Year States Acreage Year State Acreage
1866 New York 3,966,264 1870 New York 3,651,219
Pennsylvania 1,642,363 Pennsylvania 2,103,076
Illinois 1,591,880 Illinois 1,605,932
Ohio 1,510,615 Ohio . 1,487,958
Maine 1,197,215 Iowa I 1,194,029
1875 New York 4,188,034 1880 New York 4,853,769
Illinois ' 2,226,277 Pennsylvania . 2,548,935
' Pennsylvania 2,181,818 Iowa 2,007,887
Ohio 1,727,282 Illinois 1,790,021

Iowa 1,422,222 Ohio 1,782,581

Table 1 Cont'd.

Year

1885

1895

1905

1915

1924

*

€12§_~

States
New York
Iowa
Illinois
Kansas
Pennsylvania
New York
Iowa
Kansas
Pennsylvania
Missouri
New York
Pennsylvania
Iowa
Missouri
Illinois
New York
Pennsylvania
Iowa
Missouri
Ohio
New York
Illinois
Missouri
Ohio

Wisconsin

Acreage

4,952,158
3,787,500
3,306,250
3,040,000
2,738,592
4,873,320
4,270,910
3,372,007
2,843,611
2,329,731
4,717,541
3,072,021
3,038,352
2,812,731
2,664,682
4,500,000
3,100,000
3,098,000
3,050,000
2,812,000
4,944,000
3,674,000
3,476,000
3,344,000
3,203,000

and U. S . ,D.A.Year Books.

Year

1890

1900

1910

1920

State
New York
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Illinois N
Kansas
New York
Iowa
Kansas
Pennsylvania
Missouri
New York

Iowa

Pennsylvania.

Ohio
Illinois
New York
Illinois
Ohio
Missouri

Iowa

Acreage

5,066,431
5,410,931
3,382,550
3,275,206
3,088,496
4,356,064
3,750,727
3,284,018
2,557,475
2,258,682
4,811,000
3,600,000
3,212,000
2,840,000
2,795,000
4,386,000
3,264,000
3,150,000
3,147,000
3,021,000

These figures taken from U.S.D.A. Bureau of Statistics Bul.

4.

Map of the United States

 

 

 

Figure I
Distribution of the Total Hay Acreage in I923

[Each dot represents 20,000 Acres)

Show
ma]
am;

Net

'1
UV.

 

Net
"2221

am
6

 

101

- :o:

.8
:99

~"

show that ever since 1866, which is as far back as statis-
tical reports go, have the five states leading in hay
scesge been of the Middle Atlantic, East North Central and
W'st North Central Divisions. The one exception to this
occurred in 1866 when Maine took fifth in hay acreage with
over a million acres. Since 1866 also, New York has always
been the leading state in hey acreage and, with but two ex-
ceptions, in hay production. These two exceptions were
lows and Kansas which, towards the close of the 19th Cen-
tury, produced more than New York in actual tonnage as re-
cords given in the U; S. Department of Agriculture Year
Books will show. Next to New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
and Iowa have always ranked consistently high as hay growing
states both in acreage and production.

In view of this regional distribution it is only to
be expected that the leading kinds of hay grown on these
acreages will be those that are especially adapted.to the
climatic and.soil conditions of these regions, and it is
interesting to note Just to what extent eadh kind of hay is
grown. The hay crop most extensively grown in the United
States, as shown in Figure 2, is timothy and clover mixed
which occupies an area of 15,596,000 acres or 20.7% of the
entire hey crOp. 20.6% of the total hay acreage is devoted
to growing wild hay. 14.5% is given over to timothy pro-
duction.end on only 13.2% of the acreage do we grow alfal-

fa hey. This condition exists in spite of the well-known

'Figure 2
«Composition of the united States Hay Cr0p
in 1925
metal Acreage
75,424,000 Acres

 
 
   
   
   
    
      

  

Wild Hay
20.6%

15,556,000 Acres
Timothy and

Clover Mixed

a) e 7% Elmo thy

14.5%
1,104,000 Acres

15,596,000 Acres

5,828,000 Acres
Annual Le ;.- :

 

 

 

_’-"AA"

fact that Alfalfa produces as much as 489 pounds of di-
gestible protein to the acre, timothy and clover mixed

hay only 115 pounds, wild hay no more than 88 pounds, and
timothy, of which over 11 million acres are grown, merely
76 pounds of digestible protein to the acre. Yet with this
large acreage, timothy yields less than is the tonnage that
alfalfa produces annually and can maintain only less than
a third as many live stock units as alfalfa does with its
compratively small acreage. The value of an increased
alfalfa acreage is only too apparent.

' The various types of forage crops grown for hay
making purposes are conveniently divided into the follow-
ing 8 classes or kinds; alfalfa, timothy, timothy and
clover mixed, clover, wild and prairie hay, miscellaneous
grasses, small grains cut green, and annual legumes.

Alfalfa covers an acreage as reported for 1925,
and, as already indicated, of over 9 million acres.
However, because of its large yields and high feeding
Value it ranks first among the forage crops used for hay.
The large alfalfa acreages, as shown in Figure 5, are in
the North West Central, Mountain, and Pacific states
Which have always been the leading states in this regard.

The 18 states that make up these geographic divi-
81(me together have an alfalfa acreage of 8 million acres
“101: is 81.6% of the entire acreage devoted to alfalfa
81“Wing in this country.

The three leading states in alfalfa production are
NeMama with 1, 165,000 acres, California with'981,000

map of the United States

 

 

 

 

3

Figure

ge in 1925

Hay Acrea

Distribution of the Alfalfa

,(Each dot represents 20,000 Acres)

 

 

 

ECIéS, 1111.1 .'
Mill; the !
m 110.11g

an 11th i

135 1851.211
faiths 11M
Central, ’4
nhner, 1.
92 31:3 ,1;
‘LES alree
ECIéaée I
catained

aEre 1.1.1

7.

acres, and nansas with 885,000 acres as reported for 1925.
nuring the sane year the leading alfalfa state of the east
was Michigan with an acreage of 558,000 acres, 100,000 acres
more than its nearest conpetitor ior that year, iowa.

as illustrated in rigure 4, the large timothy grou-
ing regions are located in the northeastern ; 01 the united
states uhich includes the north hast central, horth West
Central, and Middle atlantic states. these states, 15 in
number, have a conoined acreage of 9,479,000 acres or 86p
01 the entire timothy acreage of the country. attention
has already been called to the fact that tith this large
acreage an annual production 01 only 12,776,000 tons is
obtained. This, of course, is due to the let yield per
acre which for timothy throughout the United States was
1.15 tons in 1925, whereas, for alfalfa it was almost 5
tons, 2.65 tons to be exact. The four states uhich in 1925
produced over a million acres 01 timothy are New York with
1,315,000 acres, Ohio with 1,510,000 acres, missouri with
1,142,000 acres, and Illinois uith 1,004,000 acres.

As with tiiothy, almost all 01 the 10,596,000
acres devoted to the growing 01 clover and timothy mixed
hay are located in the northeastern one quarter or" the
United States. more Specifically, the acreage centers
itself'in the hiddle Atlantic states, North Central
truatos,.minnesota, Iowa, and aissouri, as shonn in

hfifgire 5. These states tith a comoined acreage of 11,

Map of the United States

 

 

Figure 4
Distribution of the Timothy Hay Acreage in 1923
(Each dot represents 20,000 Acres)

 

 

map of the United States

>"‘
”7: .0 vi?e-~
e ”K '~o

. l o Iy/I/Y'

ARI}.

 

 

Figure 5

Distribution of the Glover and Timothy Mixed
Hay Acreage in 1923
(Each dot represents 40,000 Acres)

 

 

 

50.00 acres 80°“ A"
an hay Wm“ '
319,000 tons. T“ 5

«deemse 01' this

_ —-—“-'—‘—

lisconsin with 1,62
acros, Iowa with 1,
acres, and Hisaouri

in 6121111113

clover hay acres ’5!

 

' figure 6, reveals
icrt‘aaaatern one

arena for 1923

-: agrarian sly 10

than states er

\: : -
497131

on as Chic
as well as low:
3‘03 lead the o

“3.000 acres 1

.-

ir ‘
tne product

'_-—-—'

3&59 third sit

an
93 and ‘iiis

THE t

120
I! may hay
Infigatgfi fro

_ legs
a. A3525 e

--"

8.

819,000 acres grow 73.3% of all the timothy and clover
mixed hay produced in this country or approximately 14,
819,000 tons. The states that are high in the production
and acreage of this hay are New York with 2,256,000 acres,
Wisconsin with 1,625,000 acres, Pennsylvania with 1,560,000
acres, Iowa with 1,240,000 acres, Michigan with 1,123,000
scres.and Missouri with 1,002,000 acres.

An examination of graphic representation of the
clover hay acreage distribution in the U. 8., given in
Figure 6, reveals another hay crOp grown primarily in the
Northeastern one quarter of the United States. The entire
acreage for 1923 was 8,091,000 acres with a production of
approximately 10,789,000 tons of hay. The outstanding
clover states are those locate? in the North East Central
Division as Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan“ Wisconsin,
as well as Iowa, Missouri and New York. Michigan during
1923 lead the other states in clover hay acreage with
808,000 acres and Iowa was second with 801,000 acres leading
in the production of this hay with 1,153,000 tons. Ohio
came third with 780,000 acres, Illinois fourfia with 775,000
acres and Wisconsin fifth with 668.000 acres.

The term clover hay, as referred to here, means
not only hay made from red and alsihe clover but also that
,prepared from crimson clover, bur clover, sweet clover, and

lespedeza. It is estimated that 65% of the clover hay

Map of the United States

 

 

Figure 6
Distribution of the Clover Hay Acreage in I923
(Each dot represents 10,000 Acres)

 

9.‘

grown in the main clover area is red clover, 30 per cent is
alsike clover, and 15 per cent is made up of the other clo-
vers.

Wild and prairie hay sometimes quoted as wild, salt,
and prairie hay, or merely wild hay, occupied an acreage in
the United States in 1923 of 15,556,000 acres producing
17,361,000 tons of hay. The bulk of this acreage, as shown
by the distribution map Figure 7, is in the North West
Central states with 11,468,000 acres for these seven states
or 73.7% of the entire wild hay acreage of the country.

The four leading wild hay states are South Dakota with
3,491,000 acres, Nebraska with 2,296,000 acres, North
Dakota with 2,222,000 acres and.Minnesota with 2,041,000
acres. The next nearest competitor is Kansas with less
than 900,000 acres showing that the four states just
mentioned bear the brunt of the production of the wild,
salt, and prairie hay of this country. The grasses that
come into this wild hay classification are of many kinds.
glue Joint, blue stem, Indian grass and switch grass are
common to the eastern part of this hay region, while
western.wheat grass, slender wheat grass, and side-oats
grama predominate in the western part with bunch wheat
grass and Nevada blue grass in the Rocky Mountain area,

and wild.oats in California. The production of tame

hay, next to wild hay in importance,is rather evenly dis-

out
tributed through/this country. is indicated by Figure 8

map of the United States

 

 

 

Figure 7
Distribution of the Wild Hay Acreage in I923
(Each dot represents 30,000 Acres)

map of the United States

 

 

 

Figure 8
Distribution of the Miscellaneous Tame Hay
Acreage in I923
(Each dot represents 20,000 Acres)

10.

the area of heaviest production is located in the New
England States and Eastern New York. Considerable tame
hay is also produced in southeastern Illinois, Tennessee,
and Kentucky. The total tame hay acreage in 1923 was
7,138,000 acres producing 9,566,000 tons of hay. Of
this,615,000 acres with 510,000 tons placed New York as
the leading tame hay state. Next in order were Texas
with 554,000 acres and 877,000 tons, Oklahoma with 468,
000 acres and 782,000 tons, and Maine with 435,000 acres
and 448,000 tons of hay. The main grasses coming under
the category 01 tame hay grasses are: red top, orchard
grass, millet, Kentucky blue grass, Sudan grass, crab
grass, Bermuda grass, Johnson grass and other grasses
not quite as well known. Red top, orchard grass, and
the bent grasses appear mainly in the New England and
Middle Atlantic States with red top particularly in south-
ern Indiana and Illinois. Johnson grass, crab grass, and
Bermuda grass are the principal tame hay grasses for the
South Atlantic States, the Gulf States, and Texas. Millet
and Sudan grass are the leading ones in the Great Plains
and Prairie States, while blue grass and orchard grass
occupy most of the tame hay acreage in Kentucky, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia.

The largest acreage of’grains cut green fer hay
occurs in three states, viz. California, Oregon, and Wadi-
ington, as indicated in Figure 9. These three states with

a combined acreage of’l,833,000 acres produdeas much as

map of the United States

 

 

 

Figure 9
Distribution of the Grains Cut Green for Hay
Acreage in I923

(Each dot represents 10,000 Acres)

11.

2,780,000 tons of hay or 47.3% of the nation's crOp of
grains cut green for hay. The total crop for the country
of this hay amounted in 1923 to 5,876,000 tons, grown on
4,295,000 acres of land. The state leading in acreage de-
voted to this hay is California with 930,000 acres, Wash-
ington comes next with 490,000 acres, and Oregon third with
413,000 acres. To show the comparative insignificance of
grains cut green for hay in Eastern United States the lead-
ing state east of the Mississippi river in acreage given
over to the growing of this hay is Indiana with only 947,
000 acres. The grains grown for hay making purposes are,
in order of importance, oats, wheat, rye and barley.
According to estimations that have been made, approximate-
ly 42,‘per cent of the grain hay is from oats, 31 per cent
from wheat, 24 per cent from barley, and 3 per cent from
rye.

The remaining hay acreage,3,828,000 acres, is given
over to the growing of 4,037,000 tors of hay prepared from
annual legumes, which constitute the eighth hay class.

This production, as shown in Figure 10, centers in the South-
eastern one quarter of the United States which includes the
South Atlantic and East South Central States. The highest
ranking state in point of annual legume hay acreage is
Georgia with 562,000 acres. Alabama is second with 404,000
acres and North Carolina is third with 386,000 acres close-
ly followed by South Carolina with 339,000 acres. The prin-

ciple annual legumes grown for hey are COWpeaS, soybeans,

P-

Map of the United States

 

Figure IO
Distribition of the Annual Legume Hay Acreage
in I923

(Each dot represents I0,000 Acres)

field_peas, peanuts, and vetch, named in order of their
importance. Available figures show that in 1923 approxi-
mately 54% of the annual legume hay was Cowpea hay grown
on about 2,065,000 acres. For the same year 213 was
soybean hay from 794,000 acres. In 1919 8.7 per cent of
the annual legume hay came from peanuts on an estimated
acreage of 307,000 acres, 1.7 per cent was prepared from
field peas grown for hay on about 60,000 acres, and .8
per cent was vetch hay from about 30,000 acres.

This in brief presents the hay situation in the
United States as it approximately was during 1923, relia-
ble figures not being available for the more recent years
of 1924 and 1925. however, whatever changes have occurred
during this time have had little, if any, effect upon
changing the relative position and importance of the vari-
ous craps reported upon. Figures used have been taken from
the Agricultural year books of the United States Department
of.dgricu1ture, particularly the year book issued in 1924,
and from the United States Department of Agriculture Sta—

tistical Bulletin Number 11 of April, 1925.

‘ . i 15.

Distribution 2; Egy.i2 Michigan.

The importance of hay production in the United
States as a whole has already been alluded to. It has
been pointed out that the hay crop is one of the leading
agricultural crOps of the country and second only to corn.

In the state of Michigan the hay crop occupies an
even more significant position than in the United States
at large. In Michigan hay is the greatest of any crop
grown in the state and is second to no other. In 1924
more than 1/3 of the total area devoted to agricultural
craps in this state was given over to the production of
hay, yielding more than 5 million tons and valued at over
60 million dollars. The importance of the hay crop is
only too apparent. Nor let it be forgotten that during
the same year Michigan stood fifth among the highest hay
producing states of the Union and at present is the lead-
ing alfalfa state east of the Mississippi River without
exception.

The increase of hay production in Michigan has
kept pace during the last 50 to 60 years with the advance
and expansion of all agriculture of the state. During the
past half century the acreage of hay has tripled itself
from 930,661 acres in 1866, to 3,000,000 acres in 1925.
At the same time the annual value of the crop has increas-
ed by over 500%, from eleven and a half million dollars in
1866 to over sixty millions in 1925.

A study of Table 2

1966
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1888
1883
1884
1885
1886

1887
1888

Tabl O 2.

Tame Hay Production in.Michigan.

1866--1925 Inclusive.

Acres
937,661
1,059,230
1,178,400
1,033,333
1,082,352
919,642
981,308
885,652
916,600
1,016,868
1,057,692
878,788
882,000
662,951
563,882
1,151,473
1,243,591
1,280,899
1,243,591
1,256,027
1,419,311
1,433,504
1,404,834

Tons
1,219,000
1,377,000
1,473,000
1,550,000
1,472,000
1,030,000
1,050,000
1,018,000

917,000
1,220,000
1,375,000
1,160,000
1,155,000

809,000

801,000
1,324,000
1,457,000
1,768,000
1,741,000
1,507,000
1,643,000
1,720,000
1,545,000

Dollars
11,656,000
15,925,000
16,440,000
15,721,000
14,760,000

'15;052,000

11,402,000
15,150,000
12,894,000
15,425,000
12,505,000

9,704,000

9,790,000
10,159,000

9,849,000
17,415,000
17,115,000
15,459,000
15,975,000
15,142,000
15,507,000
18,578,000
17,308,000

14.

Ttbla 2 Cont'd.

1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1896
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913

Acres
2,024,736
1,306,834
1,319,902
1,280,305
1,280,305
1,702,806
1,243,048
1,550,051
1,409,865
1,423,964
1,552,755
1,339,238
2,215,724
2,193,567
2,215,503
2,126,883
2,084,345
2,650,000
2,597,000
2,727,000
2,592,000
2,560,000
2,395,000
2,395,000
2,400,000

Tons
2,385,000
1,634,000
1,518,000
1,536,000
1,869,000
2,043,000

721,000
1,543,000
2,101,000
1,937,000
1,650,000
1,728,000
2,792,000
3,181,000
3,035,000
2,659,000
3,043,000
3,392,000
3,246,000
3,954,000
3,207,000
3,328,000
2,778,000
3,185,000
3,520,000

Dollars
19,081,000
15,058,000
15,597,000
12,955,000
17,122,000
18,472,000

9,457,000
15,084,000
16,280,000
15,847,000
14,028,000
15,525,000
24,058,000
25,400,000
27,105,000
24,157,000
25,452,000
55,107,000
40,575,000
54,598,000

55,550,000

45,251,000
47,225,000
40,450,000
55,012,000

Table 2 Cont 'd.

1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925

Acres
2,352,000
2,470,000
2,750,000
2,558,000
2,598,000
2,817,000
2,789,000
2,873,000
3,074,000
3,105,000
3,198,000
3,006,000

Tons
3,011,000
3,458,000
4,675,000
3,837,000
2,676,000
3,380,000
3,347,000
2,873,000
4,457,000
3,912,033
5,010,008
2,971,000

Dollars

36,132,000
42,188,000
46,750,000
65,996,000
62,886,000
75,092,000
70,287,000
37,349,000
45,016,000
56,724,000
60,621,000
49,022,000

 

 

17.

giving the annual acreage, production, arrl value of tame

Iwy in Michigan since 1866; reveals quite clearly, as
summarized in Table 11, how the crop has been steadily
increasing in prominence since that year. The increase has
been quite gradua1.udth the acreage hovering about the million
mark'up to the beginning of the twentieth century. Similar-
ly the production in tons remained at about the million mank,
and the value at an average of about 15 million dollars for
the first 34 years from 1866 to 1900. There seems to have
been a slight slump in the hay industry from 1870 to 1880
the acreage falling as low as 563,882 acres in 1880 with a
production valued at less than 10 million dollars. The con-
dition, however, had readjusted itself the following year,
in 1861, with the average acreage, yield, and value. In
1901 acreage and tonnage jumped up to over 2 million and the
value to about 24 million dollars. This remained the aver-
age for about five years when the increase again became
noticeable bringing the acreage up to over 2% million acres
in 1910, with a production of over 3 million tons and a
value exceeding 45 million dollars. In 1920, because af
high prices, the hay crop for that year was valued far in
excess oiftMat it had been in previous years or has been
since. With an acreage of 2,789,000 acres a cr0p of
3,347,000 tom was produced valued at over 80 million
dollars. Further advancein acreage and production chmei

about 4 years ago, when in 1922 over 3 million acres were

H,“

‘ .
n

.

V;

,., a,
..,.

“mace;
pram;

_._<

f

”ISL
._ _

q
_

a

03

QOKKxU0<JEQ

.. rill.

.\_..

.\

,,
...A .
A _ .
. s
to... _

kh'
A \
l k

.'.»;

'

M!CHIGAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

7-.—..a_o y -o -o—

 

,._..,-.-_. u-

.o'-.&~e—a
vfl-‘f

4~.‘4 - --_._. .—

- .7.
4 o—+>H—9-‘-

. .- e -... 1+.._.

-. .—o—¢
. ?-.4 . r~‘

i,»-».

e—' L_.+._?..,

‘
--.p.> ¢ . _.--

T" . . 4-? y .
_ .-,_._ t—‘»+—-O—v

.._..

 

-. ....—-.. a"

alzcst
1
I 151925
I
.‘ 51% iii

firing
; ad: to
He: sage
2'11' on

‘ :illion

. Matter

 

: 0
I

4": will
13;”. 9e}

:1: 1° Ea
Tease E

18.

being devoted to hay production in this state yielding
almost 4} million tons at a value of 45,000,000 dollars.
In 1923 further increase in acreage to 3,105,000 acres
gave Michigan seventh place among the leading hay pro-
ducing states. The following year, in 1924, advance was
made to fifth place with 3,198,000 acres, the largest
acreage in the history of the state producing over 5

million tons of tame hay at an estimated value of 60

million dollars.
During the past year, 1925, due to very unfavorable

weather conditions, an average yield throughout the state
of only .99 ton per acre was obtained, the lowest yield
since the year 1895. As a result , although the acreage of
hay was sustained at the three million mark, production
fell to 2,971,000 tons with a value of only $49,022,000
which is slightly less than the value of the 1925 corn crop,
which has been estimated at $49,260,000. However, with an
acreage exceeding 3 million, which is over 35.3% of the
total acreage given over to the production of all agricul-
tural crops in the state, hay is still the greatest of any
crap in the state and one of the three leading crops in
every county.

The majority of this hay, as a scrutiny of Figure
12 will show, is grown throughout the southern half of the

lower peninsula. The production centers itself particularly

in the East Central Di strict which has a higher average

acreage per county than any other district in the state,

  
  

’1
r I
o. ‘

. . (AK: .5 UPERIOR
' C
e ' '
ovfiomoou [.331 ‘ . .v
‘r-I. . 0 g I: e
: L"- .. .'...iBZRQGAy . e
GOGLBJCOI‘.O’_Le __I ',. 8 -~ ,
e ~--«— . -—' . . I e ! LUCI’. ' e .
. . .0 .OLMARQUETTE. IO‘ 0 I e ..o
\‘\. I ”‘0" _I' o . - ALGER SChOOLCRAFT' CHIPPEVIQQ.
.\.e.el r1.e I:-.---:m_.‘e:_..
' I ‘ '—d’—e e e .
0 I'mcxmsou . .J 'DELTA :1 . . MACEINAC —'.‘L. .
e 0 e T- 0 e e .1]
e . .0. e . .
. J ‘- /-\‘
\ O .’...l . Il/D 66"
(Hammett: - - ‘ e .
(/‘e e' o 9 \ CQMVOIX‘I ”3?, e .'. .
. "\ .
.. /. Gk. .\ . . lemma 0 . .
. ,/ \ ‘\ '72-! e msouusriO.
I LEELANAU \‘ ,ng I_2_ Lo. 4.
I Q ' .__e_vq1e”e!00.e.00
‘0 e ‘ 04— 'l MONT ALPENA
\, Emmy OTSEGO IMORENCY : , ,

-T- ‘
N l - RAN
8;.Z.El V.£ . C .i . . . .'.
."tH"-“a— “I. "re
' ' I’. 0 "0'4 Ibsco
wlsrazlwsxroao MISSAUKEEIROSCOMMONIOGSMAW ..

§ e 0 . .Ie '. I ' .. . . .
V. I: e tie—I. .:!_I..!_L 0 .'.—E. $1“. 5C.

(5 M3031 LAKE Io§c£oLAl 0.0%: jaw!" '.1e‘

\ O . . 00 .0 .I . Q . .0. .

r .:v:1——% . 1am; +,.,, In ,.
é) pcuu‘w. ‘:m°!fi(€.51:4lfsfl. .Lu:' M‘DLAN: :" 0e .1:

'22? :34;th . 63:01:31 ' 1L?” 3%..

at eO_O_, F‘W‘Tcfi‘fii '" 'lEmAvfi'fifi'.

Mugged? {23: .e:—. '. kg. egI._e.-;..~ .fg“&.{
O .0 o . .. '
19% .

   
    
     

 

I... . 'sguwn.‘ .'. 0- o 2.0..

x .'. 'AB .LLI‘I.‘151_“:& k:.:::

V 1.115.11’3:"‘1m: 'AT. .22: A5]. LIVIPEfiJNIéAKLxND FA
eeeel‘ EAOYe‘duwl'filb "’|ee

q ’0 0‘ . :1....O:: . ::$I..‘ 1. . .{.:. O O . P .0

  

on“ ‘0’. O o g a; .1; -n
:ANBUFfiMI laminate“ .‘CALHOUN “uflqggn 4311:;wa 0. .
.e e '.’.:‘.: lz'... ° e.e_.‘:e ’.’ ':.: .N" 9 0:2",
.'. .0. . ' C
.e. fll—tfis .I 5 JOSEPHI 8 "'3. II-fiLstzuz fifingga.’ IilONRIE
BERR'Efl 'H‘ e. 0.. e. - e 'e' .e
e__ _-___°_._'I_ opaJI-o' 8i__ ’lo:'

Figure 12
Distribution of the Total Tame Hay Acreage
in Michigan in 1925
(Each dot represents 2,000 Acres)

name

IRtan
i

I
ZIMh

fluri

 

 

 

19h

66,850 acres per county. In addition, this district also
includes Sanilac County, the leading hay producing county in
the state with 146,000 acres devoted to hay growing. Next
zuiimportance as a hay producing area is the Southeast
District with St. Clair the second hay-leading county and
with an average of 64,160 acres to the county producing hay.
The other leading hay producing districts are, in order of
their importance, the Southern District with an average
acreage of 50,090 acres to the County, the Southwest District
with an average acreage of 49,286 acres to the county, and
the Central District with an average acrcage of 56,975 acres
to the county. I

The two leading counties in point of’hay acreage have
already been indicated as being Sanilac ani St. Clair Counties.
A list of’the ten leading counties given in order of signifi-
cance, with their corresponding acreage for the year 1925,

will show what other counties lead in producing Michigan's

hay crop.
l. Sanilac --------- 146,000 acres
2. St. Clair- ------ 100,400 "
3. Tenawee- -------- 88,200 "
4. Huron----- ------ 80,000 "
5. Washtenaw------- 73,900 "
6. Kent ----- - ----- - 73,300 "
7. Lapeer ---------- 68,200 "
8. Hillsdale ------- 65,300 "
9. Genesee --------- 65,200 "

10. Tuscola ......... 63,800 n

 

-‘.—.—

—-—-c—.

Reference to Figure 12 will show that all of

flwse 10 leading counties are to be found in the four

lmMing hay districts: East Central, Southeast, Southern,

and Southwest distri cts.

Now, just as in the United States at large, the
Imy produced is not all of one kind,so also in Michigan
different types of forage plants are used in hay produc-
In Michigan seven types or kinds of'hay are recog-

tion.

nized: Alfalfa, Glover and timothy, clover, timothy,

annual legumes, grains cut green for hay, miscellaneous

tame hay grasses, and wild hay.
Alfalfa is mentioned first because, although not
yet leading in point of acreage, the increasing use of it

has been so phenomenal that this legume soon promises to

become the foremost hay crOp of the state. Whereas, other

hay crops such as clover, timothy, miscellaneous tame hay,
grasses, and wild hay have been falling off in point of
acreage, the alfalfa crop has been making amazing strides.
From only 1,087 acres in 1899 the alfalfa acreage of this
state has increased to 448,000 acres in 1924 and from a
production of 1,366 tons in 1899 to over a million tons
(1,053,000) in 1924 an increase of almost one thousand oer

cent. IBeginning with earliest available records, figures

show the alfalfa acreage and production to have been con-

tinually increasing from year to year. The first ten

,yearsrcrf the twentieth century witnessed an increase to

 

 

a'iu...

 

21.

6,553 acres growing alfalfa. In 1919 this had become
over 74,000 acres, in 1920 it jumped to 95 thousand, in
1921 to almost 150,000 acres, and each year thereafter
the increase has been approximately 100,000 acres annually
bringing the total up to 448,000 acres in 1924 as indi-
cated. Similarly, the production of alfalfa has been
advancing proportionately with an annual increase of 200,
000 tons of hay since 1920 reaching beyond the million
mark in 1924, as shown by the following figures taken from
the Agricultural Census and from the Annual Crop Report
forjMichigan.

Table 3.

Alfalfa Acreage and Production.

Year Acres Tons

1899 1,087 1,366
1909 6,553 13,872
1919 74,059 118,571
1920 95,000 218,000
1921 143,000 322,000
1922 246,000 578,000
1923 . 338,000 710,000
1924 448,000 1,053,000

Figure 13 gives an indication as to where most of
the alfalfa in Michigan, is produced. It will be seen

that the alfalfa production is mainly in the two southern- ,

m
mean :5 I [ARE 5 ”PER/0R

ONTONAGON L‘ I.
1g._ I IBARAGA I:
“W L. i-- -! . '- r .
. “I— IMARQUETTE I 8 I I LU“- I c PPE
.._.. 'ALGER l - H! WA
\.\II I— "I rI-.. _I-S-CHOOLCRAFTF. _,__,|_I

iDICKIN

I g._,__
5°" ,j DELTA -I I MAC INA 1__I
it.
J ' ! x433
. D -
Alumnus 9 /I,I\ I
( \QHARLEVDIX. er.
\
7 '93? \
' .LPRLSOUEISLL_
Ii LEELANAU\ \\ 0g. . —0I ‘—t __
I08 0" 'LirI— ° I “0'" ALPENA
\ ANTRIM- orsaco ImouchI
\ 9 o— o 0
' u -I-—-—I—-—+ -—-
sum? ’NmIWSMICRAWPORDI oscooAI ALCONA

-_ITIAV_EP:§I_' I

MANISTEEI WEXFORDI MIsSAUL—ELIRoscomouI ochAvfi '0 5 ‘30
| o o I
_L _...L_.
"Tl __I “I“L T 7mm
MASONI LAKE IOSCEOLAI CLARE IGLAowuNInI

§
2:.
1‘. Ni _I°|-
8
2

 

._ _. . L _r- H
T :1 I .0 . IBAY 2R”:
OCEANA E IMECOSTAIISAeeuA MIDLANO' o ._:.I_._-
' - o o
o l O o o _I ‘l. . . .
'”'"‘ l— “'L— __I- o o .‘1 TUSOOLAIW'LAC
I ' I MONTCALM F90
. .GRATIOT I SAGINAW Ig. . l'.“L
NUSKEGONIT _I o I . .‘. 3 . _I_:I__, .1
._..I—' . . I_...__. -__.._-I__._.-!—...I .. . .—
' O I . .'

. I LAPEER . r
OTTAWA‘ . . I IONIA ICLINTONISNWASSHI GKNESEE O S. CLAIR
‘

.‘. I .. O
5< ._°_.J_ .1 '__I'._'

Y

\1

  
 
  
  
  
   
 
 
  
  

 

 

r_._I_. [14..__Ir_. : —I-::1.O
o M
:uEGA; Tenant—I“ EATON III-iczAsaIuvmcsmuI "Am,” I“.
;.I 0.’ .I . . . '
..'o-T‘:‘.—r. —r.-.-. oIinT'fi’o
.IVANBURE:IKALANAZOOI CALHOUN | JACKSON IWASI-a’ wIwavus
.'.. .. .‘.. ‘°_.I_.:._.:d..
+44%.- .77.; q. ,,. ..
. oo o .8 2 {£—
I $50i33°¥PHI9RzNW IHILLSDALEI 1 NA EE MO:
“m'm' 0 0° IQ ::-‘$o"r.o
.LJ '...._1..._Il_’..!_9.‘l.'._ ' 3:513! ' In

-——.

Figure 13
Distribution of the Alfalfa Hay Acreage
in Michigan in I925
(Each dot represents 1,000 Acres)

 

 

fiction

inside

 

Irict p

Nil 001

 

54,103 1

; a1falfa
”Unties
1 her”; a

$2033 w

 

 

22.

uwst tiers of counties, with the Southeast, Southern

and Southwest Districts leading in this respect. The
Southeast District with 107,500 acres devoted to alfalfa
growing has the largest acreage of’all districts in the
state, averaging 10,750 acres for each county of that
district. The Southern District is the second leading
alfalfa growing area with 77,100 acres or an average of
7,019 acres for each county. Third in importance in the
Southwest District devoting 40,100 acres to alfalfa pro-
duction making an average of 5,729 acres for each county.
Considerable alfalfa is also grown in the Northwest Dis-
trict particularly in Amtrim, Grand Traverse, and Charle-
voix counties; the entire district has alfalfa acreage of

34 , 100 acres.

Lenawee leads all other counties of the state in

alfalfa.hay production with 52,500 acres. The other
counties competing with Lenawee for first place in alfal-
fa acreage are, in the order of theirimportance: Monroe
second with 20,900 acres, Washtenaw third with 16,300
acres, Hillsdale fourth with 16,2)0 acres, and St. Joseph
fifth with 14,900 acres.

The leading hay crop in Michigan in point of
acreage, is clover and timothy mixed, 1,456,000 acres
having been given over to its production in 1925. Al-

though the acreage of this hay has been significantly
large yet available figures indicate that it has been

 

 

23.

steadily declining, shown in the accompanying table.
Table 4a

Clover and Timothy Mixed Hay Acreage and
Production in Michigan.

Years Acres Tons

1909 1,625,229 1,991,618
1919 1,852,789 2,044,711
1920 1,436,000 1,651,000
1921 1,312,000 1,207,000
1922 1,291,000 1,782,000
1923 1,123,000 1,291,000
1924 1,150,000 1,725,000

In 1909 the clover and timothy mixed hay acreage
had been 1,625,229 acres with a yield of 1,991,618 tons
of bay. The advance within the next ten years increased
the acreage to 1,852,789 acres and the production propor-
tionately. From then on, however, the acreage and pro-
duction decreased year after year to 1436,000 acres in
1920; 9,312,000 in 1921; 1,291,000 acres in 1922, and
1,123,000 acres in 1923 with a Slight increase in 1924 to
1,150,000 acres and a production of 1,725,000 tons of hay.

A survey of the distribution of'clover and timothy‘

. in Michigan

Imixed hay] figure 14 reveals that the main areas of pro-
duction of this hay lie in general, in the Thumb and in
the territory westward to Lake Michigan. The production

is most intensified in the East Central uistrict in which

 

I . ..
0 e e ._._, .
6065.“. I O: ' -_.I.-:.__.I 0 g . . I LUCE ..
.\ . o I MARQUETTE . I .3. e I. . . .
~ ' 0N .
\‘ .l H: o """l . lfiLGGE'R SCHOOLCRAFTI _ :CHIRPEWA:.‘O
O O T '. .
‘ Imcxmsou I" _j DELTA ' ‘I MACKINA—‘c 0‘31.
. . T“ . O O. .
r“. 7 '
' e. , .‘
O .1 .
\ J... !. 'I.’D 96
(gummu 9 l\ E MMET .
‘ ... ‘mnAmvolxI‘. . ., 0
I‘ ‘\
.. / ©B\‘ \ ‘ ICKBCY C . .
. \\ rLI ' , masouuaio
I LEELANAU \\ e .._ .I...0__ __.-
I 8 I figwmml I 0 0 TT. 0 .e
' ' . .mI— I NON ALPENA
‘- e ANTRJM orsaco ImochI. .
\. 0 O ' e__I . e .‘.?
uum: . -—. I._._I_.. $7.. .
3942]: GRAND IKN-KASKAICRAWFORDI OSCODAI. ALCONA.
ITRAiRSEI— . '. .'.
:'—'— _KT'J‘.’ ‘6'.“
I IOSCO'

0 e
MANISTEEI wuuroat:I msSAUKEIInoscomoul OGEMAW I
IO e. e ':

e0 I _'Te
,.—f...‘I—..I: ,6

 

 

 

§
‘- 0 en—
b MfSONI LAKE Ioscmd! CLARE IGLADWIfijI—‘I
\ m“ - 1::o'I"I:§_'-.
5 .e 01.7.57]. .::OXITe’0J.e:IgAY
OCEANA limo IMECOST llsflagA‘IMIDLANDI— 57I
E ._.O__._Ie 'OOI‘E .’.;Hl' OIe .‘.. ,e.:‘e-
MOUSIEGOKI“ 3‘].° “:L-vs .“fi’fllfi‘f'm‘l” .'....fi'
eeee . e I .... ... .'.fiI-‘l.e.
I1 . 0 -e
. {2512.4}:

    
 
 
    
 
 

 

‘5’“... KEN:OI_ '1. :05.
0"“de ,K E. ”TsIo I;NIA.ICLMT0§ISH;£ASS.E.E1 3E: 313'
, ‘.._0I..:_:_]' u]: _e]‘ 01.4”? 2.1 'e'e_.'e.'. °
C O r. . O. .DAKLAND.. $22,?

In
.'....
X __.-1..
. e e {73.7” . 0t
‘ ALLEGANO ' 'WRy' UPflNoI m HA1: Iuvmssmul
e.. ee 5”; .eeeOe. "Ie'
N a. .4... ”'.... -I.._‘.L.'.... .CI. Ce.
ee‘e'e'lT ee e—TeeeeTT'... ears- 3T... 0 e
_IVANBURENIKALAMAZOOI CALHOUN .I JACKSON.IWASHT.ENAWI warn: '
0' .n.. _.:_. .I':.":..:I—‘-.. .'.:...:I..
"0e. .‘1 P e I'ee .e'i'];;“‘.'e‘.'[.e ."g
am, pm 'ENI CASS I5 105.5PHI ”.’WCM Hanson] LENAWEE IMONROE
_I__ .. ' - O Q . . .
1.1%... _J_’2_L'_O_I9__.._IO e

Figure I4
Distribution of the Clover and Timothy Mixed Hay

Acreage in Michigan in I925
(Each dot represents 2,000 Acres)

 

pl
3.

 

e
I
I
5
«{II
'1

24.

enlarea of approximately 290,000 acres is given over to

the production of clover and timothy mixed hay, making an

average of 48,335 acres for eadn county. The Southeast

District ranks second in this respect with an average

acreage to the county of 30,100 acres. The Southern Dis-

trict is third in clover and timothy production with an

average of 26,363 acres to each county. There is a cona

siderahle acreage of this mixed hay in certain regions of

the Upper Peninsula, especially the eastern extremity

where Chippewa County has about 60,000 acres seeded to
this crop placing it fourth among the counties in this re-

gard as will be seen. A conside ation of the leading

clover and timothy counties helps verify this acreage dis-
tribution.
Sanilac County, located in the East Central Dis-

trict,is the outstanding county with an approximate clover

and timothy hay acreage of 107,000 acres. St. Clair

County, of’the Southeast District, follows with 71,000
acres, Huron County in the East Central District is third

with 67,000 acres, Chippewa County in the Upper Peninsula

is fourth with 60,000 acres, and Genesee of the Southeast
District comes fifth with 45,000 acres devoted to this
cr0p.
I Clover hay, the second leading hay crop:of’Mich-
igan, was supported in 1925 on 714,000 acres. This acreage
is somewhat less than that of 1924 when a production of

over a million tons (1,160,000 tons) was had on approxi-

25.

mately 800,000 acres. This represents an increase, as

shown in Table 5,
Table 5.

Clover Hay Acreage and Production in Michigan.

Year. Acres. Tons.

1899 225,656 264,312
1909 168,180 216,862
1919 120,299 151,517
1920 ' 541,000 611,000
1921 584,000 526,000
1922 738,000 1,055,000
1925 808,000 955,000
1924 800,000 1,160,000

of almost 400% over the 225,636 acres that grew 51 clover
crOp of’264,312 tons in 1899. This acreage was doubled
during the first twenty years and then increased further
very rapidly as follows: By 1920, clover occupied 541,
000 acres with a production of 611,000 tons of hay. In
1921, 584,000 acres were reached and increased to 738,000
acres 1:11922 with a bumper cr0p of‘a million tons (1,033,
000 tom. ). The highest clover acreage ever reached was
808,000 acres in 1923 thnugh the crop was somewhat lower
than the preceyding year. The acreage then declined to
800,000 in 1924 and to 714,000 in 1925 as already mentioned.
JMost of the clover cr0p,as will be seen by consult-
ing Figure 15, is grown largely in the South Central part

of the state, in the thumb district, and in the Southern

"Talk"

 

(A KE .5 UPERIOR

 

0
L1
ONTONAGON I"
L._ ' . '
j
GOGLBIC I I - -_-__I 8 '_.-’
.\ “‘“I I MARQUETTE I i I LU“
-\. I IRON . __. "I iALGER IS-CI‘IOOLCRAFTI - CHIPPEWA
\_ . fl _ _I_ I" -'_""I_ '
I'mcxmsoul DELTA _I I I'VIACW‘I'IF'-Lj
a
\J .. I [.’D/ 93,
Incummu 9 I\ I I
(’ o \gnmrvond. "MET
" ."B. \- ‘. :Icncam e
2 '/ Q \ \. e
. \ museum LE
‘ I LEELANAU \ r:—I__ L, s
e 0 fl WW}— --I' —'

I Q I ..L_‘9 1 Q
- Q ‘ MONT ALPENA
IO ANTRIM I—orsaco mommy I

mum; .' ._'...I._._II_ ._I.. _-

35mg. AND IMMIGRAWFORU 05:000AI AchNA

$235.3- -_.I_. __ _ —.I—~——.-

‘ I
.
MANISTEEI wexroao. MISSAUKEEIROSCOMMONI OGEMAW W—I '05 co

OIO. 00. I..I
I_.

. -_I. __L.
w— __I .—I ,o I e Immac-
MASON LAKE IOSCEOLAI CLARE IGUDWIT-I'
0 I 0 I .’ I e ' e

a
Q)

\

t -—I—"—,I no]... eJ;IBAY
U
\
2

 

 

O.
Imccosm
_ ocuNA NEWAYGO . “$112qu MIDLANDI::
I— I. e .
e O -79.?! '
ONTfAI-g‘e. cam—I013:§AGI;AW:.I e
I '0 °

. .- 0 e' .'. ° 0'
._ I_._:_I ..... ..,' .
e I .0 151510” I51 (3% Cupid-”:55

 

e
NIA
e.‘ e.:.'d."0..:_ ;.

in

k: _ML.._f . . .
V o 0.1-0 9;...“ .WKFI'e00-I OAKMND‘rAgoMB 0
~: ' '

    
  

ALLEGAN IBARRYeI “Topsy INGHM’IWINSSTON .

.. . 'I .z. .:..i:.:..l..:—..l . ..
“TregIeeeIgeO.OOO'—I_e—
VANBURENIWM:ZOOI “WU” I JACKSON IWAsHTENgwI WAYNE

.-I .. g e. . . g 0 e
.e., ":7: :féITfiToT; e :I;:e:;.-:’I——L .11. ..

Eigure 15
Distribution of the Clover Hey Acreage
in Michigan in I925
(Each dot represents 500 Acres)

26.

tier of counties bordering Indiana and Ohio. The real
clover growing section confines itself primarily to the
Southern, Southeast, and East Central Districts. The
Southern District placed first in 1925 with an average
clover acreage per county of 6,682 acres; the Southeast
District follows with an average of 6,280,acres per
county; and the East Central District ranks third, in
this comparison, with an average of 5750 acres to the
county.

As one would expect, the five leading clover
counties of 1925 are to be found in these districts:
Lenawee, the leading alfalfa county, also leads the
counties of Michigan in clover hay production with appro-
ximately 13,300 acres. Saginaw county comes a close
second with 11,800 acres devoted to clever growing.
Eaton county and Branch county both vie for third place
with a reported 10,000 acres for each. Shiawassee
follows closely with 9,600 acres growing clover in 1925.

The Timothy hay crop, which in 1909 was second
only to timothy and clover in point of acreage,has since
then.fallen off very consistently, undoubtedly caused by
its loss in popularity due to its proven inferiority t3
alfalfa and clover. At the present time timothy is
fourth among the crops of the state with a reported
acreage of’only 355,000 acres for 1925. The highest

acreage ever held by timothy and the largest crop ever

 

II. I .‘Iu.|fl

 

27.

produced by it in Michigan was in 1909 when 749,563
acres were growing it, with a production of929,165 tons
of hay as given in Table 6.

Table 6.

Timothy Hay Acreage and Production in
Michigan.

Year. Acres. Tons.

1909 749,563 929,165
1919 655,784 718,012
1920 643,000 772,000
1921 655,000 603,000
1922 676,000 913,000
1923 686,000 755,000
1924 640,000 832,000

This had felled within the next ten years to
655,784 acres in 1919 with a production of 718,012 tons.
The decrease continued with 643,000 acres in 1920, but
changed within the following three years from 40,000
acres to 686,000 acres in 1923. In 1924 the acreage
was again reduced falling to 640,000 acres and a yield
of 832,000 tons, and retreating to as low an acreage as
355,000 acres in 1925, as already indicated.

Referring to Figure 16, it will be seen that again
as in the case of alfalfa, timothy and clover, and clover,

the timothy hay acreage is confined largely to the Southern

half of the lower peninsula of Michigan and more particu-

————_———

-Illlll’lnIIIYI‘lll. I

It'l-‘I”

  

44KB .5 UPERIOR

moon .
ONTONAGON L‘-
~~ .-» I :1
L.- ' .BARAGA . .
'I I ____, I
W: ---—-—I a. .11....
.\ ““I— IMARQUETTE I __I , I- I e
‘\.\I IRON [._-—"1 I ALGER FCIIOOLCWI..._.__I_' CHIPPEWA.
- ' -— -— . o ..._'_
ImcxmsouI JIJ DELTA . I MTCKINAC “Lj
FIE, . I
e ' -\,
I, J: I "If; Q6.
{NINMNH 9 I\ I. I
C e e rmmvom‘. "MET.
2. .’ $.5\\ \ . Imam
/ -—’ masoutlsu
I i LEELANAU\\I~ M__ I_ _. _ _
I 00 I I_'_°I—J . MONT “pm
\. ANTRIM orsaco MORENO/I

um. ._. ._._I__. _I.. _-
8mm TtRAND ImflIcaAwrono OSCODAI ALCONA
ITRAVCRSE-I I L
,'—I' . |—-.—-— —_ —-_i _._.
MANISTEEI waxioao- NISSAUKELIaoscoNNONI ocgmw. l '0 5C0
e I ' I
' -—I - ...L. ..|_.
:q —I I I I: ARENAC
”A50" LAKE IOSCEOLAI CLARE IGLADWI

:
Q)

\

t I P J- HURON
U
\
2

 

   
    
  
    
   
  
   
 
   
   
 

',— II_':'—,’I’ I e . IBAY ,
MtCOSTA MI um' ._.. __.4-

OCEANA NEMGO IISABELLA D. I—-. . . 'k’e’u”
O . I —L O ' e

 

. i .._.. .
.._., __r-‘ e . ' TUSCOLA IegmlLA
" '_I. m°"TCAI-M° ..ERIIyImI SAGINAW I. e r.2{_°::.:
NUSKEG ONI'—.' “if e e ._." . .10 .0:
. _. .'.I_-_r... . . .’....-

.. .r'II‘E NH: -' ' . . .' I GENESEI. .I'—8..
311mm,“. . I mm ICLINTONISMW. . . 1:; :

 

0., e 0.0!.eIHO
e ALLEGAN' ' BARRY EATON I'NG’I‘“ IuvmsngII OAKLAND "’.
‘ Ie OI . . e e I e
o O. O Q 0" O O . O .I 'g
_i.' L - ' -—'
g I} _I'. .I g .0 I . O O I O. 0.1—.— O
VANB RENIKALANAzooI' CALHOUN I JACKSON IWASHTENAWI WAYNE
C. i O. .0. I...

o'JI—E’ ."I_'..I‘_:.—T 5Tee0eIeee°

. T
sma’enI as Is JoszmIsRmcui' mu. 'DNII LENAWEE IMONROE
‘J'L—I‘“."-L~—--I——-—--I 0. I°oe ee .
L1..-A._--_.L..

Figure I6
Distribution of the Timothy Hay Acreage
in Michigan in I925
(Each dot represents I,000 Acres)

7""
28.

larly along the eastern boundary of the state below Huron

County with quite an acreage bordering Lake Michigan in

Ottawa County and vicinity.
Over half of this acreage, 58% in fact, is loca-
ted in three districts, the Southeast, Southwest, and

East Central Di stricts. The Southeast is the leading

timothy hay district with 101,900 acres or an average of

10,190 acres for the county. The Southwest District

comes second with an average acreage ner county of 19,014

acres for 1925. The East Central District follows in as

third with an average of 8,650 acres per county.

Sanilac County, already mentioned as the leading
timothy and clover hay county, also leads in the production
of timothy with a reported acreage for 1925 of 31,800 acres.

In the same manner, St. Clair takes second place in this

comparison with 18,900 acres growing timothy just as it
ranks second in timothy and clover growing. Ottawa county
comes third with 14,100 acres, Kent County fourth with 13,
900 acres, and Lenawee fifth with 13,300 acres.‘ It will
be notiCed that these five leading timothy hay counties are
located in the three districts mentioned, viz; Southeast,
Southwest, and riast Central Districts.

The fifth hay crop of importance is the miscellan-
eous tame hay cr0p which includes primarily such grasses

as Millet, Sudan grass, red top and orchard grass as will

be seen from Table ’7.

Table 70

iiscelleneous Tame Hey Acreage and Production
in Mi chigan.

Year Acres Tons

1899 1,926,131 2,167,808
1909 22,908 26,760
1919 47,931 50,581
1920 40,000 47,000
1921 81,000 106,000
1922 83,000 102,000
1923 87,000 122,000
1924 96,000 144,000

The miscellaneous tame hay grasses have been
gaining in prominence ever since 1909 despite a slight
drop from 96 to 54,000 acres in 1925. In 1909 the
miscellaneous tame hay crop was occupying an acreage of
22,908 acres with a volume of 26,760 tons of hey. Within
the following ten years, thereafter, these figures had
increased by more than 200}; bringing the acreage to 47,
931 acres in 1919 and a production of 50,581 tans. A
slight falling off in 1920 was overcome in 1921 with an
acreage of 81,000 which increased to 83,000 in 1922 and'
87,000’in 1923 with proportionate increases in prodrc—
tion. In 1924 the peak was reached with 96,000 acres
«devoted to the growing of’144,000 tons of miscellaneous

tame hay grasses. All through these years emergency

 

 

30.

hay craps, especially Millet and Sudan grass, had been
gaining in papularity to a remarkable extent, eXplaining
this consistent rise in acreage and production.

Very little of miscellaneous tame hay is grown
in the Upper Peninsula with perhaps the exception of
noughton County. This acreage is rather evenly distribup
ted throughout the lower peninsula of this state as the
graphic representation of this condition, Figure 17, shows.
However, the acreage is considerably heavier in Charlevoix
County and vicinity, as well as further south along the
'Lake Michigan Coast from mason to Berrien Counties. flhe
heaviest producing area is the northwest District with
14,387 acres or an average of 1,438 acres to the county
given over to producing miscellaneous tame hay grasses.

The West Central District is second in this re-
gard with an average of I,IBI acres to the county. Close-
ly following is the Southwest District withan average
acreage per-county of 1,050 acres. The five counties
leading in acreage of this hay crap in 1925 were as
follows in the order of their importance: Charlevoix
with 7,849 acres; Allegan with 2,250 acres; Sanilac with
I,936 acres; Boughton with 1,877 acres; and Midland
County with 1,727 acres.

Of less importance than the miscellaneous tame
hay crop is the wild hay crap composed primarily of
‘wild, salt, and prairie hay. This crap, as figures in
Dable 8 show, has been gradually declining in the last

' e
ou'rouAcou L"- :I
M

“*1 I...

\. I IRON

RAG-A

“f““I— Iii—4

(A KE .5 UPERIOR

O
'— "9
IMARQUETTE i . B i e I LU“ I e

CHIPPEWA

-._. . ' ALGER I
I— lSIZHOOLCRAI'PT _ , _

. . e ...—._.
Imcxmsou' _ .JI-L— DEL-IA __I‘ e I MTCKINAC .1.j
J r '
I

OIW O

" PRESOUEISLE
3?. .3 .::.t j... ._. .._. —

' 08 I "ONT ALPENA
I ANTgJM OTSEGO Imomch
\ O
LEEUMU -—-.' ._.—I_.
3943?; GRAND IWASKAICRIIMLFORD! OSCODAI ALCONA
. ITRA VERSE! 9 O I I

—--o.-—————

. ' ' ' ° ' W4 sosco
MANISTEEI wexroao unsauxjaoscosuouloccmw

‘ . I . I . I_..
. 31—7 _I—L I 0 ° J—I ARENAc
MASONI LAKE OSCEOLAI cum: Icuowu .I
O O I . i '. 0

§
5
t ._ _,__- m
U
x
2

.-:s

.’
I

 
   
    
   

HURON

 

. e , e O , ._.I Q J—OIBAY
OCEANA Iuamo "E205“! ISABELLA IMIM'

_l

""IT'T;

 

.._. e e e __-._|_ .l__I- , , .‘LI Tusc0LA I SANILAC

O O

Mgstfigof-II. .—~I eeI.. I_.:I— Ln]...— Ion.
--.-- °I"." " -- "4— Ta
.omwil KENT ’ lcmtsu ”PEER r10

I mm ICLINTONIsuIAmsu .I e Iee

e , l -
_i _I__l _‘I_i_; _L_,r ,

 

 

OAKLAND Inca“
I O

ALLEGAN' HI BARRY I EATON IINGHAMIUVINGSTONI
. .
e _.' . .._'.I.. I O I I O .. I
.I Q r 0! O O I_T- .
VANBUREN ‘ "
IKALANAzooI CALHOUN l JACKSON IWASHTENAWI WAYNE
_I. O C. . g . . . I . I O
, I_..__e. .._.. I_. . . _.. _
. Q I O 0 ._I— . . O .
s'~‘05”’“I BRANCH ImusoAuI LENAWEE IMONROE
e

 
     
     
 

Eigure I7

Distribution of the Miscellaneous Tame Hay

Acreage in Michigan in 1925

(Each dot represents 200 Acres)

.Wild Hay Acreage and Production in Michigan

Table 8

Tons

31.

Year Acres

1899 59,512 69,388
1909 55,345 59,970
I919 49,856 57,971
1920 50,000 64,000
1921 55,000 60,000
1922 56,000 75,000
1923 52,000 62,000
1924 54,000 68,000
1925 41,000 40,000

quarter century. In 1925 an approximate acreage of
41,000 acres of wild hay was reported with a yiild of a-
bout 40,000 tons. This is somewhat less than the acreage
of 49,856 acres and yield of 57,971 tons obtained in 1919,
which, in.turn, is considerably less than the 1899 crop
When 69,588-tons of wild hay were produced on 59,512 acres.
The acreage of this hay crop, as can be seen from
Figure 18, is very evenly distributed throughout the state
and more so than any preceeding cr0p discussed above. The
one exception to this statement is Jackson County where
almost 20% of all the wild hay of the state is grown.
Jackson County is, therefore, the leading wild hay pro-
ducing county of Michigan with a reported 8,066 acres.

ONTONAGON
‘1’1 .
L. _

LI.
r-‘O
I

\. I
\J

..I

Jnm' I
-I‘ "_I 8 ' ‘I LUC£.I

° ' :4 K5 .5 UPERIOR

O
' MARQUETTE i I .
I—--- I “Gm FCHOOLCRAFTF _,__,L_I
i I-J-—--— Q ._...——
IDIcIImsouI-I -J. DELTA _I I MACKINAC ‘I__I

.

DA

RON CHIPPEWA '
. .

_J

C, . Q .
\ .
/' . \. \ . . cum
7 ' /' QB \ \\ ‘ I 6“I O _ .
I .’LEELANAU\ --.--.—I LPRLSOUEISLE
‘ I \. mmI—--I- --- -—'—
I 09 I :1"— "I" ONT ALPENA
I .. ANTRJM OTSEGO IMORf-NCY O

\. um '_—I"—_I—H——I—‘.

emu: GRAND IKALKASKAIDRAerRDI oscoDAI ALCONA
0.: _....“ — — '— —-—-

r I'— 1 I -I Iosco
MANIs if. wexroRD- -III53AUKEEIR0$CDIAM0N OGEMAWI .

6“!“7 7* T mire

MAiONI LA“; IosccoIAI CLARE IGLADWIj

§

§ 1
$ I I L ._,— I-
8
2

 

O I! 0 :j r . IBAY
OCEANA INE WIMECOSMIISABEUJ MIDLAND‘ .
I—

 

G I_

uusxtcow ‘1
..rju—I . I_. _. _.I.._ _-I._. _..!—

KENT
OTTAWA- . I Iom ICLINTONISHW.

_.l I J
LTJj _LTTi_ T_r.

I mesa

 

LAKE

ALLEGAN BARRY won IINGHAMILIVINGSTONI
. I I .0... O O O

I I O O o ' I
5‘0' ‘T' ._.IT .' ‘o— o o ‘01——

vmauamIWMAZOOI CALHOUN .Acxsorggmsmmwj wrgm;

‘I“.—"I"—'I_‘—T fiz__I;’|.._.-_I _

l <1A$$°Is JOE‘PHI SWIG—T" IRILLsDALLI LENAWEE IMONROE

.EéRfl-f_..-i..._.J—-_.I ‘ I__'__I
Figure I8

Distribution of the Wild Hay Acreage

in Michigan in 1925
(Eadh dot represents 200 A0118)

"1. -
._. O . __- — . ol—{A . . . Tuscou SANILAC

ILAPEER I_.. —

" ’ OAKLAND IMO”

    
   
       
  
 
   
 

o
HURON
.—]—

-Ir‘—L1 Q

*r
S‘CLNR
._ 1+-‘I.

Next in significance in this connection, aTB in
order of their importance, Washtenaw County with 2,666
acres, Foughton County with 2,017 acres, Ingham County
with 1,840 acres, and fifth, Livingston County with 1,708
acres.

A small percentage oflthe_hay acreage of Michigan
is given over to the crop known as, grains cut green fer
hay. This crop occupied about 22,000 acres in 1925 and is
grown somewhat more extensively in the western tier of
Counties bordering Lake Michigan than elsewhere, as shown
in Figure 19. In general, however, the distribution is
exceedingly even, a few acres of grain being harvested
green for hay in almost every county. The five counties
which lead in growing grains that are cut green for hay
are: Houghton County first, with a reported 1,090 acres;
Manistee and Marquette Counties tieing for second and third
place, with 900 acres each; Wayne county fourth with 840
acres;and Allegan county fifth with 800 acres.

Of even less significance, but still of growing
importance, is the hay crop known as Annual Legumes.
Although reported as Occupying only 13,000 acres in 1925
this crop had reached 32,000 acres in 1924, as is to be

seen from the figures given in Table 9.

Table 9 0

Annual Legume Hay Acreage and Production in
Michigan.

Year Acres Tons

1920 5,000 8,000

32.

"”3531

was

"I.“ ZAKE SUPERIOR

.— .fi .
mgouarnei . 9 _I. I LUCE I
. . I— -I . I scuomcmni ._... e

. l . r*'—°— - - ._._._.
Imcxmm - .J DELTA :I I MACKINAC ‘Lfl
e 7' .

.1

\'0I

Imuoumu
‘ 9 \ CHARLLVOIXI ”MET I

O
(7 . ”©3\\ \ ‘. ‘Icmem
// ‘\\ - e PRLSOUEISLE
I I LEELANAU \1nzv:I--—IL--
e - —I

I09 " l-CM ._. I MONT ALPENA
\. ANTRIM- orsaoo Imoamch—

‘- uumu .—- I-—-—I—-—I—

I? cannb IMMIGRAWFORDI OSCODAI ALCONA

. ..-+-.-—. I “r“ —r-'—I ”f
musnthsxroaoo MISSAUKEEIROSCOMMONIOGEMAWI '05 o
I

. . .I __L ..L_
eTI— .—_I j” "_I— “I ARENAC
M“SONI LAKE IoscmLA CLARE IGLADW":I-
. . e .e I 0 J.

§
:3
\
1‘ r.‘ _."j' ' Iw
U
\
2

BENZ

 

comm molmcom ISABELLA M'DLANDL-I
. Q .. I . . . . .

 

 

“3.. I . ._-_.. I_.
e ' __I ‘40"me .cmnm I SAGINAW
uusxmonI‘“ _I‘ ‘ I .

 

e_-..|’ eI..' __ __I ..... I__.__I—' "I'J

‘ ' ' NT
OTJAWA' . I IONIA IcumouIsumwm

ALLEGAN . I BARRY I EATON ImchIuvmcsmuI
‘ I

In

K ._.'_1_. ._I. _I.—_I.. _I.-

V —I f _r—‘L 1 OAKLANDIMCOM
\I

°-1———rI—-°—I

.eICAss I__I .T

BERRIEN . I
._.. -._..-_I_..._ __-...I l
L_-.

Eigure I9
Distribution of the Acreage of Grains
Cut Green for Hay in Michigan in 1925
(Each dot represents I00 Acres)

.. __I-4 :“LI TUSCOLA ISANILAC
[- I—"I. °

I GENESEE. i WEE“ I smuun

.—"“‘I’.'T.

VANBURENIMANAZOOI' CALHOUN I JACKSON IWASHTENAWI my»:
. e e
. alt—:_ .. . I .._L __ _I....
I

v-J05E””I BRANCH IHILLSDALEI LENAWEE IMONROE

 
  
   
      
    
   

I
I_.-

“I 'I'

33.

Tmble 9 Cont'd)

Year Acres Tons

1921 12,000 14,000
1922 25,000 33,000
1923 36,000 54,000
1924 32,000 51,000

The rise in use of annual legumes was almost
phenomenal between the years of 1924 and 1920. During
those four years the acreage increased by as high as
600% and the yield almost 700,3. In 1920 Michigan was
growing only 6,000 acres of annual legumes with a yield
of'8,000 tons. The next year this acreage doubled it-
self to 12,000 acres with a 14,000 ton crop. This in-
oreese was repeated in 1923 bringing the acreage to 25,
000 acres and the production to 33,000 ton. In 1923,
36,000 acres had been seeded to annual legumes and a
hay crop of 54,000 tons harvested. There was a slight
decline in 1924 leaving the acreage at 32,000 with a
yield for that year of aoproximately 51,000 tons.

Thus we see that as a whole the hm? crop of nich-
igan is gaining in importance and rising to larger acreages
and higher production from year to peer. Timothy, and
timothy and clover are steadily declining in acreage as
I911 as grains cut green for hey, the latter, esoecially,

within‘the last two years.

 

34.

Alfalfa with its phenomenal rise is largely taking the
place of these decreasing acreages as are also the annual
legume crap which has been making unusually large in-
creases, the miscellaneous hay crop which has been advanc-
ing in acreage up to last year, and clover which up to 1&34
was steadily increasing in acreage and production.

The leading hay county at present has been shown
to be Sanilac County which is first in total tame hay pro-
duction, first in clover and timothy mixed hay production,
first in timothy hay production, and third in miscellaneous
tame hay production. The leading alfalfa county in the state
is Lenawee County which, in a.dition, is also first in clover
production, third in production of total tame hay, and fifth
in timothy growing. Jackson County leads in wild hay promic-
tion, Charlevoix County in miscellaneous tame hay, and
Houghton County in small grains cut green for hay. These
are the counties that have been outstanding in adding to
and increasing the Michigan hay acreage a) that already in
1921 it was 60% greater than the acreage of any other crop
and in 1924 occupied more than 1/3 of the total area de-
voted to agricultural crops in the state. It is a result
of this that Michigan today ranks as the Fifth hay produc-
ing state of the Union and the greatest alfalfa growing

state east of the Mississippi River.

Marketing.

 

A problem of outstanding influence in the hay
:umustny is the marketing of this product. The average pro-
ducer faces not only the difficulties confronting him in
the curing of his hay, but must also give serious considera-
tion to the details involved in the profitable disposal of
\Mmfiever he wishes to sell. Familiarity with the mechanism
of hay marketing means, in most cases, the difference be-
tween premium prices and only fair, or perhaps unreasonably
low prices.

As a rule, the hay producing farmer is in a com-
nmnity where his neighbors are in the same business as him-
self. His market, therefore, is outside of and beyond this
territory and the consumers, as a result, so distant that
it is impractical for him to deal with them directly. The
producer, consequently, turns to such men who, figuratively,
bring the market to him. They are men who make a business
of’buying and selling hay and who can be classified as

either country shippers, foreign speculators, outside buy-

ers, or track buyers.

In regions where farms are comparatively small
and hay is produced in somewhat limited quantities, as from
one half to four or five carloads per farm, the country
shipper is most important. In many cases he is also the

local grain shipper or perhaps the cattle buyer. His ser-

vice is a very valuable one in that he provides a cash

market for the farmer's hay, thereby relieving the farmer
of the responsibility of finding a market. To serve this
valuable function the country shipper must have his own
warehouse, a reasonably large capital, and a knowledge of
the profession. If he is in a minor section, he may handle
on an average of from 10 to 15 carloads annually. If,
however, he is in a hay producing area, he may handle from
100 to 500 carloads of hay per year. The size of his ware-
house, therefore, depends naturally upon the quantity of
hay that passes through his hands. The need of a warehouse
is paramount. It enables the shipper to grade his hay and
load the cars uniformly. True, the expense of this grading
and reloading may range from $1.00 to $1.50 per ton, but it
insures a reliable business and enables the shipper to sat-
isfactorily fill orders as they come in with little con-
fusion or loss of time. The practice of grading hay at the
warehouse also tends to do away with "plugging of cars",
that is, mixing poor quality of hay with high grade hay.
The annual turnover will also quite hargely de-
termine the amount of capital that the shipper requires.
With a fairly large business and good shipping facilities
from.$3,000.00 to $5,000.00 is usually sufficient capital.
This figure is no larger because of the fact that banks
will usually advance so"; of the value of drafts held
against shipments of hay. The necessity for this provision
becomes apparent when it is remembered that the country

shipper usually pays cash to the producer when delivery is

56.

37.

nude at the warehouse, but himself must wait a long period
before he has the money returned to him when settlement is'
made with those who buy from him.

In addition to the capital and warehouse, the
shipper must have the knowledge of what grades of hay are
:hldemand and in what way these grades are interpreted on
the market. Then too, he must be familiar with the finances
and honesty of those who purchase from him. Endowed with
these three qualifications, the country shipper can be of
service to the producer and of profit to himself.

Occasionally the hay producer feels an urge to
do business with foreign speculators., These are men who
contract for hay at prices higher than those offered by
the country shipper on the assumption that there will be
a future rise in prices. This is well and good if market
prices advance, for then the speculators live up to their
contracts. However, if the market fails they have a hab-
it of disappearing, leaving the producer stranded with his
hay. The more humane speculators may turn the business
over to the regular shipper if market prices dnlp, but
even therlthe producer invariably sustains a painful loss.

A third agency which sometimes offers an Oppor-
tunity to the farmer of selling his hay at tOp-notch prices
is the so-called outside buyer. This is the name given to
a country shipper who has come in from another territory to

fill a large order which he was not able to complete in hhs

38.

own territory. Such a buyer usually offers an exception-
ally good price because of the pressure he is under to meet
his contract. .

Finally the producer can profitably dispose of
has hay in still another channel and that is by selling to
track buyers. Track buyers are agents who are employed by
receivers and shippers located at the large hay terminal
markets. These agents travel about the country from one
section into another buying hay either from the shipper or
directly from the farmers.

In endeavoring to reach a satisfactory agreement
with any of these buyers of hay it is customary for the pro-
ducer to cantract his product in one of four forms. He may
sell his hay while it is still standing as uncut hay, or
while it is still in windrows or in cocks, or after it has
been stored in the mow or stack, or also after it has been
baled. V

Marketing standing or uncut hay is commonly re-
sorted to when the crOp has become quite poor in quality

due to neglect on the part of the producer to cut at the

proper time. Selling hay in this manner is not particular-
ly pOpuJar*because of the difficulty of finding a purchaser
and of coming to an agreement on the yield and price when a
purchaser has been found. To be abhe to calculate the per-
centage of dry or marketable hay which a given acreage of

standing hay will yield is far from simple, for it requires

a knowledge of the extent to which different kinds of hay

 

“All shrink while being cured. It has been found that
during the curing process timothy drOps from a moisture
content of from 47,148.73, or an average of 61.6%, while
it is standing to 12.8%, the average moisture content for
cured barn or stack timothy hay. Similarly, the moisture
content of red clover hay uncut is about 7073 and during
the curing process drops to about 10%, the percentage of
moisture at the time of baling. Uncut alfalfa hay is said
to have a moisture content of 73% which decreases to 875
by the time the hay has been baled.

,Marketing hay while it is still in windrows or
in the cock is rather uncommon. Hay contracted for in this
manner usually goes to feeders of loose hay who buy enough
for several months feedings. These men, to be able to
manipulate a profitable bargain, must be familiar with the
moisture content of hay at this stage and the extent to
Which it will shrink while in the stack or mow. Likewise
the producer, in order to realize profit on his crop, must

be in possession of this knowledge so as to be in a position

to demand a fair price. It can be safely said that timothy

out islzfull bloom and in the windrow or cock ready to be
stacked, has a moisture content of approximately 29%; if
out 1J1 late bloom or in the early seed stage it will con-
tain only about 22;; moisture. For the legume hays, as
clover and alfalfa, these figures are considerably highgr.

A much more general practice than the two men-

tioned above is to market hay while it is in the barn or

()3

 

t:-

we

iv;-

 

 

40.

stack, agreement on prices being made before the hay is
baled. This practice, however, is not entirely without

insdifficulties even though rather extensively resorted

'fl>by the average country shipper. In looking over a mow

(H'stack of hay to determine what price he shall offer for

:rn the shipper has no means 0f learning the condition of

the hay which is underneath the surface. Naturally, his

price is low enough to protect himself in case the quality

of the hay inside proves to be of poorer quality than

expected. The producer, being none tdafamiliar with hay

grades, can do little else but abide by the shipper's offer

and accept his price. Both are taking chances. The shipper

runs the risk of buying poorer hay than he judged it to be

and then being unable to sell it for perhaps even the sane

price at which he bought. On the other hand, if the hay

really is of excellent, uniform quality throughout, the

producer may be getting only a fraction of the actual price

to Which he is justly entitled.
It follows from this then, that the most desirable

time at which to sell hay is when it is in the bale. This

enables the shipper to accurately judge the quality of the
hay and to offer an honest, square price, relieving himself
of the hazard of’uncertainty and giving the producer a just
return for his effort. Marketing hay which has been baled
by the producer is a very common practice in the Black Belt

of the South particularly with alfalfa. and Johnson grass.

41.

In coming to an agreement consideration is, of
course, given to the cost of baling the hay and the cost of
delivering it from the farm to the country shipper's ware-
lmuse or the side-tracked cars of foreign speculators, out-
sflde buyers, or track buyers. Collier and McClure estimate
that it costs the average hay producer from $2.50 to $4.00
per ton to bale his hay. The cost of hauling or delivering
hay is quoted per mile and is based on a decreasing rate as
the distance of the haul increases. The fi>llowing figures
give the cost for hauls ranging from one to ten miles as
approximated under average or normal conditions in 1921.

Table 10.

Cost of Pauling Hay.

 

 

Length of Haul . Range of Cost per Ton
1 mile $.25 - $.55
2 " . '.50 - .50
3 " .75 - .80
4 " .90 - 1.00
5 " 1 .10 - 1.25
6 7 1.25 - 1.55
7 " 1.55 - 1.50
a " 1.50 — 1.75
9 " 1.75 - 2.00

10 " 1.75 — 2.00

It is manifestly evident that the producer has
many factors to take into consideration in profitably dis»

posing of this product and that he needs to exercise ex-

 

.981

 

.4.| . ..r A I .‘u _ - . 4qh All up . ‘uv‘ q~ RI.- Alrk. ' AL “1' v.
. . . .dv I . a ... . i g .1- u ’ A b
u . . . .1 a. ..I... V . W‘I 3' an; chi I at “V alv .Lh ‘ . N; . ‘1‘ at. ~Fnd I,‘ a U
.. . 1
u -.. . Jul. fir M a. a .5“ cf ~ 1!.“ I .. a: v s .7. IL .5 (a n. a. ..I
II III I n I . we 0 n n. A a 0 [Ln |. e 0- I‘ new)“ Adi-II \ e be e “WWI v... E
III! ‘ n u . . - ~-
d.lll\.¢u .
:11 I. . ll.’lu Ill-I, .ll IJIi'llll
.
0.
f
s
D
o
c
.
i O D v .0 O Q a. O l
x
C , ' V I - I I I ’
f
.
Y.
.
c
.e
C .
_<
I

42.

imeme precautions and sound judgment in contracting for
the sale of his hay.

Even more complex is the problem of the country
flNImer who after he has received the hay from the producers
must send it into channels of consumption with such tactful-
ness as to enable him to offer the producer a fair price ani
himself realize a sizeable profit. The markets which the
shipper seeks for his business can be divided into four
classes, viz: consumers, wholesalers and distributors, trad:-

6.
buyers, and the terminal markets.

Selling directly to consumers is a common practice
wherever the shipper is located near a consuming territory.
The methods employed in securing this trade are the usual
ones of advertisements, corresPondence, or visitation. It
is desirable to market hay in this manner because it enables
the shipper to sell at the highest price ( since the sale is
direct ) and the consumer to purchase at the lowest price.
The arrangement, however, is not without its disadvantages.
As a rule, shippers find it difficult to maintain a good
list of customers. But even when the patronage is satisfac-
tony, the shipper's supply of hay may not correspond in
kind or quality with the demand, as is quite frequently the
case. Then too, due to the discrepancies and short-comings
of advertising and corresponding there often ensues a lack
of pr0per interpretations of grade terms which leads to no
end,crf complications. In addition, the country-shipper is

subject to considerable losses because of the fact that

45.

nmny customers take advantage of their privilege to refuse
and reject the hay sent them by the shipper.

If, therefore, dealing directly with consumers
involves too many difficulties, then the country shipper
can sell to the wholesaler or distributor located at the
terminal markets. To facilitate trading with these agen-
cies the shipper employs either brokers or salesmen. These
representatives locate at the principle markets and distri-
buting points and sell directly to the wholesalers and dis-
tributors located there. The difference betweei brokers
and salesmen is that the brokers remain in one market and
sell hay on a brokerage or commission basis, while sales-
men cover a large territory, traveling from market to mar-
ket, and receive a salary in addifion to whatever commission
they realize. This practice of selling through brokers or
salesmen.is most common in the South.

If the country shipper is located in either New
York, Ohio, Indiana, or Michigan, he very likely will sell
to the so-called track-buyers. These are dealers who do
not operate warehouses but handle, or bill, the hay they
contract for directly from the loading track of the seller
to the receiving station of the consumer. The track-buyers
are able to carry on this method because of the provisions
they make for exceptionally favorable distribution facilit-
ibl. Because of‘comparatively small overhead expense, these
men can offer very good prices which are usually taken ad-

vantage of'by the small shippers who handle only a few cars

'0.

~., ~‘-

 

AW- ".5 —

”V

n l

Of hay.

When, as sometimes happens, none of these agen-
cnss which have been mentioned are available, the country
shipper can market his hay at the terminal markets. Here
the demand is usually maintained by two classes of buyers,
rmmely: receivers and terminal market shippers. Receivers
really are specilators buying merely when a raise in price
is anticipated so as to sell at a price so much higher than
the purchase price that excess profit is assured. Market
shippers are those who make a business of providing the ain-
suming areas with hay, usually realizing a profit of from
one to two dollars per ton for this service.

To market hay at these large distributing points
to advantage, country shippers must above all become famil-
iar with the practices that are common at these hay centers.
They should have a knowledge of the methods used in weigh-
ing, inspecting, and grading hay and they should familiar-
ize themselves with the amount and kind of storage which is
available. Particularly the shipper should know the detaiks
of the several different ways in which hay can be delivered.
When the hay is delivered 'shipper's track', the whole sale
is consumated right at the loading point. If necessary,
hay can.be sold while it is in transit to buyers in the sec-
tion towards which the carloads of hay are traveling. Such

an order is termed 'to arrive'. Under certain circumstances

hay is often shipped to market without having been contracted

for; then it is marked 'delivered' and all terms of sale

44.

 

. . all!!! [I l..|n. '.III I

 

45.

completed when.the shipment reaches its destination. When-
ever it is difficult to sell hay at all, it is sent to the
nmrkets and there sold to the highest bidder on Special
sale tracks or yards; such lots of hay are known as 'con-
signments'. Therefore, carloads of hay enroute from the
country shipper to terminal markets are marked either as
'shipper's track', 'to arrive', 'delivered', or 'consign-
ment'.

When hay has arrived in the large terminal mar-
kets from the country shippers, foreign speculators, out-
side buyers, and track buyers, certain methods must be
employed to facilitate the enormous trading which ensues
among the brokers and salesmen, agents of the wholesalers
and distributors, and receivers and terminal market shippers.
The method used at such hay markets as are located at Hem-
phis, Indianapolis, St. Paul, and Pittsburgh is that of
selling on the exchange floor. Here shipments are offered
for sale and bids received on the basis of grade, descrip-
tion, and the appearance of small samples of hey that are
ekhibited on tables placed there for that purpose. It is
on the exchange floor that daily cash-market prices are es-
tablished upon which are based the bids made to emintry
shippers and the offers of shipment received from them and
others.

At Chicago, St. Louis, and Minneapolis the sales

are conducted in the railroad yards at the opened car doors.

Agreements are concluded by seller and buyer on the basis of

.w

"X
0}
O

‘Um;quality of the hay that is visible from the car-door.
Itis understood, under these circumstances, that the cars
ewe uniformly loaded. If found otherwise after a sale has
been consummated,a part of the hay Can be rejected and the
remainder resold in a Special yard which is provided for
such rejected cars.

Plug track sales are conducted at Kansas City,
Cincinnati, and Omaha. Here too, the sales are carried on f,
in special railroad yards which in these markets are known Fl
as plug-yards.» The yards take that name from the fact that . Lj
a plug of from 15 to 50 bales of hay is removed from the
car and placed on a platform before it, so that the buyer
may carefully examine it and determine its exact value. In
Kansas City and Omaha the sales are made privately. At
Cincinnati, however, the hay is sold at auction, members of
the board of governors of the plug-yards being the auction-
eers. The cost of this plug-trad: sale service does not
exceed $3.00 per car nor fall below $.75 per car.

In eastern and southern markets such as New York,
Boston, and Baltimore the sales are conducted at warehouses
where the hay can be unloaded and sorted into kinds and
grades. The advantages of this system are evident. The
sales can be managed regardless of weather, the dealers
are able to see all of the hay, and for a reasonable cost

the hay can be kept in storage if desired.

As a further systematizing of the hmr commerce,

the trade is usually regulated by commercial organizations

1L-

such as the Board of Trade, Merchants' Exchanges, and Hay
and Grain Exchanges? MemberShip in these organizations is
made up of wholesalers, distributors, receivers, terminal
market shippers, and hay dealers in general who are par-
ticularly interested in the hay trade. These Exchanges or
Boards of Trade issue market reports, formulate and enforce
trade rules, and supervise the weighing, inspection, and
handling of the hay. This supervision is now to a large
extent being replaced by the Government Federal Inspection.
With the growth of hay marketing in the last 55
years to the extremely complex commercial machinery it has
now developed into, it has been found essential to adOpt
qualifying hay terms. To facilitate this, hay standards
have been recommended and adOpted and are now being applied
under Federal Inspection. The first important step taken
towards the standardization of the hay trade was executed
in about 1908 when.the National Hay Association adOpted cer-
tain grades of hay for the standardization of timothy, tim-
othy arm.clover mixed, clover, prairie hay, and alfalfg:
In naming these grades the terms commonly used were such as
Choice, No. 1, No. 2, No. 5, and No-grade hay. Though a
decided advance in'the right direction, these grades with
their qualifications were somewhat indefinite and left
much room for misinterpretation. The following grades of

timothy hay, with their explanations as used at that early
date, illustrate the lack of definiteness in so many in-

stances:

47.

f

"a.

 

48.

Choice Timothy Hay - Timothy not over 51% other gr‘as-Ses,g‘o-
perly cured, bright natural color, sound, well baled.

No. 1 Timothy Hay - Timothy not over 1/8 clover or

other tame grasses, properly cured, good color, sound,
well baled.

No. 2 Timothy Hay — Timothy not good enough for Dc. 1,
not over 1/4 clover or other tame grasses, fair color,

sound, well baled. a”

No. 3 Timothy Hay - Timothy not good enough for other

“~— ‘rL‘ .-

grades, sound, well baled.
No-grade Hay - Badly cured, stained, thrashed, or in
any way unsound.

With all their infirmities these standards took
effect and by 1912 were being used by as many as 23 leading
hay markets in the country. The system and its standards,
with certain minor modifications, has been in use up to a
comparatively recent datgz In 1925 the Secretary of Agri-
culture recommended standards for timothy, clover, and grass
hays. Two years later, in July of 1925, similar standards
were recommended for alfalfa and alfalfa mixed hay, Johnson
and Johnson mixed hay, and prairie and prairie mixed hay.
Ender these recently adopted standards all hay is divided
into four groups. Group 1 includes timothy, clover, and
grass hays; Group 2 includes alfalfa and alfalfa mixed hay;
Group 3 includes prairie hay; and Group 4 includes Johnson

and Johnson mixed hay. Each group is then divided into

classes describing the kind of hay or the mixtures of vari-

a)-
x.

‘1.

'4'

"l

49.

omskinds, such as: Timothy, Timothy Light Clover Mixed,
Thwthy Medium Clover mixed, and so on. These are accom-
pmfled with definite mixture percentages indicating ex-
acgy'what percentage of other hay is permissible in eadi
Idhms. The classes in turn are divided into U. S. Grade
No.1" no. 8, No. 3, and Sample Grade on the basis of

(mlor and presence of foreign material, the grade, there-
flnm, describing the quality of the hay. The terms used
hathe qualifications of these official hay standards leave
little room for misinterpretation. Hence, when a country
shipper notifies a terminal market wholesaler.that he has
three carloads of Timothy Medium Clover Mixed hay U. 3.
Grade No. 2 for sale, the wholesaler knows exactly what
the nature of that hay is and can reach a swift and satis-
factory agreement with the country shipper.

With this glimpse into the mechanism of the hay
trade we come to the actual production, marketing, and
consumption of the country's hay crop. The production of
hay in the United States for dispersion into marketing
channels centers itself mainly in three groups of statig:
These three commercial hay growing sections include the
extreme northeastern states in one group; the central Conn
Belt states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Hinnesota in the
other group; and the Mountain and Pacific Coast States in

the third group.

The extreme northeastern states constitute an

important hay growing section because it is there that most

_.fl

2:2:

 

of the large cities of the country are located. These“
(flties, despite the constantly increasing number of motor'
drivel vehicles, still employ horses to a considerable ex-
tent thereby maintaining the demand for enormous tonnages
of hay, mainly timothy, that have been coming from that

source. This hay growing section is also a great dairy

A;

region so that as a result the demand for hay, particular-

ly timothy and clover hay to be used on the farm, is quite

.._ _IA-‘It-i

extensive from this course.

The central Corn Belt states together with Midt- L-
igan, Wisconsin, and minnesota have developed into an im-
portant commercial hay growing region because of the demand
coming from its large cities, from home consimers, since
this section includes the great dairy states, and from less
local sources. Ohio and Michigan, for example, ship much
of their hay to eastern cities.

The third important hay production area is that
of the Mountain and Pacific Coast states. There is a good
local market in this section_because most of the land is
devoted to the range industry; a large demand, therefore
comes from the ranchmen who need hay as winter feeds. In
addition to this, there is also quite a demand for hay from
mining camps as well as from Alaska, Hawaii, and the Philipp-
ines along the western coast.

Now the kind or type of hay a producer is going a)
raise will depend quite largely upon the part of the cmlntry

in which he is located, since eadi section experiences de-

51.

mands for certain hay and can produce only certain types I
or kinds. As has been elsewhere already indicated in this

work, the leading hay crOp for Northeastern United States

is timothy and clover hay mixed. Where soils are inclin-

ed to be quite wet, or a little more so than the average,

alsike clover and red top are found to be most important

as in New Ensland, for. example. In Kentucky and Virginia,

on the other hand, orchard grass is the predominating hay

crop.

P.‘ w “--.—w

In the West, alfalfa of course, is without ques-
tion the leading hay crop. However, many other crops are
cut and cured into market hay. In some localities, for
instance, hooded barley is cut for hay. In the upper re-
gion of the Columbia River Basin wild oats are eminent, and
even pure stands of wheat are made into hay. Along the
eastern margin of the Western Plains area Sudan grass is
the hay crop, while in the Plains Region sorghum is very
impertant in this respect.

Although no standard hay crop is grown in the
South, the most important one, as has already been shown,
is cOWpeas. Other important forage plants that are made
into hay in this. region are sorghum, Johnson grass, sheaf
oats cut green, corn stover, and also some Bermuda grass.
Hence, if the market hay producer is in the South, he will
probably grown compeas for hay, in the North he would
specialise in timothy and clover mixed, but if he were in

the West his hay crOp would be alfalfa.

The largest percentage of commercial hay growers
rmturally are those producing nothing else but hay on their
land. Unfortunately, in many of these cases no steps are
taken to maintain the fertility of the soil so that conse-
quently the grade of hay produced each succeeding time is
poorer than the one before. However, there is a constant
increase in number of those producers who keep up the soil
fertility by using fertilizers, growing leguminous crOps,
and practicing rotation of creps. These are the successful
hay groWers and the ones to whom must go the credit of pro-
ducing the better grades of hay that appear on the market.
A small percentage of hay comes from farmers who are feeding
livestock and sell only their surplus hay. This product,
too, is of satisfactory quality, since in livestock produc-
tion the fertility of the soil is kept up, and meadows are

maintained in a prosperous, vigorous condition.

The transportation of hay from these large produc-

tion areas into the markets of consuming regions no longer
in as simple as it was about 55 years ago. For previous h)
1870 there was very little marketing of hay, and whatever
hay'liad to be transported was never shipped more than 20 or
30 miles. That was when producer and consumer were one and
whoever had need for hay grew it himself. Since then, how-

ever, transportation has become an immense problem. Already

in 1911 of the 67,071,000 tons of hay produced 8,182,662 tons.

were sent into markets as shown in Table ll.

52.

. .r

55.

Table 11.

Quantity and Percentage of Total Hay Crop Shipped on
3
Railroads (1911-1923).

Year Quantity sold Shipments of hay Percentage of
from the farm. originating on total hay marketed
Class 1 railroads.that is shipped on

 

railroad s.
1911 8,182,662 6,506,745 77 i
1912 11,541,750 6,828,297 60
1915 10,295,270 7,144,455 69 4H
1914 11,529,180 7,518,575 65 ;
1915 14,480,500 7,649,095 52
1916 14,985,920 7,565,948 50
1917 15,781,460 8,750,229 65
1918 12,759,460 8,655,185 67
1919 15,190,200 7,857,168 51
1920 15,270,670 8,555,251 54
1921 14,056,290 5,420,791 58
1922 16,554,690 6,008,160 56
1925 15,460,770 6,265,906 , 40

This tonnage has increased year after year until
in 1922 16,554,690 tons of hay were marketed. Large as
this tonnage of marketed hay is, it yet represents only about
14.5% of all hay produced; one can imagine the enormity of
of the shipping problem if all hay produced were marketed.
At the present time from 80;; to 85;? of the nation's hay crop
is consumed locally and from 1523 'to 20,3 is marketed, shipped

out of the county in which it is produced. The significance

 

l!!-|i

‘II

..- it!“ I

-———.———

——_—.—.—~~~————.—._ —-—____—-._———

._...... . .._.—._..- ___._

 

 

l n I !V
:04 ..., : . .4 . . .x
.
I.
s

0‘ I1 (

Ix
I1 01 f.

I,
.
'\ l\ r!
O!
Y I. f
\
A

of the situation is that about 16 million tons of hay

vflth a farm value of'approximately 200 million dollars

must be marketed annually in the United States. The trans-
;mrtation of this vast market commodity was once largely,
though not entirely, effected by railroads. In 1911, for
example, 77}? of the total hay marketed was done so over

the railroads. The percentage continued to decrease until
in 1922 only 36% of hay marketed was shipped on railroads.
This means for 1923 that out of the 15,460,770 tons of hay
marketed only about 6,263,906 tons were shipped to market
over railroad lines. This decrease is largely to be account-
ed for by the raise in freight rates instigating the use of
motor trucks and steam ships. At many of the large markets
that are within trucking distance of producing area a con-
siderable percentage of the hay marketed is delivered with
motor trucks. much of the Western alfalfa that is sent to
meet the demands of Eastern markets is transported by Pac-
ific Coast shippers by way of the Panama Canal since t‘e
rate ofer this route is only $12.00 as compared with $50.00

per tortby railroad.

Hay markets are quite numerous throughfige United
States and almost every large city is the seat of on: The
more important markets of the East are as follows: Baltimore,
hiaryland; Washington, D.C.; Boston, Massachusetts; New York
and Ihiffalo, New York; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania; Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus, Ohio; Detroit,

Michigan; Indianapolis, Indiana; Chicago and Peoria, Illinois;

and Milwauke e , ‘fli scons in.

,9

The leading hay markets of the South are loca-

ted at Jacksonville, Pensacola,and Tampa, Florida; Ft.
worth, Galveston, Houston, and San Antonio, Texas; New
Orleans and Shreveport, Louisiana; Jackson, Mississippi;
Iflrmingham, Mobile and Montgomery, Alabama; Atlanta,
Augusta, Macon, and Savannah, Georgia; Charleston and
Columbia, South Carolina; Little Rock, Arkansas; Raleigh
and Wilmington, North Carolina; Memphis and Chattanooga,
Tennessee; Norfolk and Richmond, Virginia; and Louisville,
Kentucky.

In the West the principal hay markets are to be
found at Seattle and Spokane, Washington; Los Angeles and
San Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon; Boise and
Pocatello, Idaho; Ogden and Salt Lake City, Utah; Phoenix,
Arizona; Butte, Montana; Denver and Pueblo, Colorado; Omaha,
Nebraska; Kansas City, Kansas; Duluth, Minneapolis, and

St. Paul, Minnesota; Des Moines and Sioux City, Iowa; and

St. Louis, and St. Joseph, Missouri.

2.
Available figures show that of these the hargest

market is at Kansas City where the reported receipts for

1923 amounted to 265,068 short tons of hay. st. Louis and

Chicago are next in importance. St. Louis with receipts of

141,296 short tons of hay and Chicago with 140,905 short

tons. (Dther hay markets in order of their importance are;

Cincinnati, St. Louis, New York, San Francisco, Boston,

Peoria, Minneapolis, Baltimore, and Milwaukee.

The kinds of hay received at these markets are,

55.

J

3“; la“- m

t
C
Q
(
I
f

mute naturally, in keeping with kinds grown in the pro-
duction areas in or near which these markets are locates:
Hence the kind of hay received in the principhd markets of
the Northeastern.states is timothy as well as some timothy
and clover mixed. This also holds true for the markets of
the Southeastern states; there, however, are received in
addition peanut hay, Bermuda grass, Johnson grass, and Les-
pedeza. West of the Mississippi River, as one would OXnect,
alfalfa and prairie hay are the principal hays received at
the mazkets and along the west coast grain hay, as well as
alfalfa, also is quite important.

The consumers represented at these markets, and
into whose possession the hay finally terminates, are
principally of two types, viz: the country or non-urban
consumers and the city consumers. As is to be expected,
it is to the country consumers that msst of the hay market-
ed finds its way: The demand from these consumers is parti-
cularly extensive in those areas which do not produce
sufficient hay to meet their own requirements and which are,
therefore, known as consuming areas. There are six consum-
ing areas that are at present recognized as such. These six
' areas are, briefly: the New England dairying section; the
mining sections of Pennsylvania; Michigan and Wisconsin;
the section south of’the Ohio and Potomac rivers and east

of the Mississippi river; certain sections of Louisiana,

Texas, and New Mexico; and the non—producing sections west

of the Rocky Mountains.

 

57.

Most of the hay used by the city consumers goes
to the maintenance of horses. The best quality and high-
est grades of hay disposed of through this channel, are
Imrchased by the owners of fancy driving and saddle horses
who demand and will pay a premium for the best obtainable
hay.> In contrast to these are the low grade feeders who
tmy the cheap, poor hay for use in transient and sales
ambles where the minimum of care and attention is given to
the animals and the one outstanding thought is the saving
of money. In addition to these two types of city consumers
are the economical buyers who maintain a demand for the
medium grades of hay. Such grades are usually quite as
nourishing as the choicer grades but are cheaper in price
due perhaps to poor color or mixtures with other grasses
or legumes.

Knowledge of this kind is an important factor
in aiding the producer to determine what kind of hay he
shall grow, how it needs to be handled to be marketed,

who are the most reliable dealers, and what markets are

most likely to give him the highest returns for his kind

of hay.

 

58. x

Methods of Curing. I

The practice of curing hay is no new one. It
has not become a major farm Operation just within the last
fbw centuries. Ho indeed, for the history of hay making
goes as far back as the histm?y of mankind itself. The
honor of being the original hay maker undoubtedly goes to

the pika or cony. This small, active rodent cut off fine-

stemmed grassed and other plants, gathered them together,

 

.?%.L ._ 'u‘oa

and cured them in sunny places among the rocks of its
the
habitat. What is morev/pika performed its work so well

that the hay retained the color and fragrance characteris-

tic of the green grasses.

It is thought that man's first attempt at curing
hay came about rather accidentally. The common occupation
in those very early days was, of course, that of driving
herbivorous animals from one region into another, thereby
keeping-thenlsuppliei with sufficient feed. Occasionally,
they cause to territories where forage was wanting and where
only‘tflue dried up stalks of previous season's pasture plants
remained. The discovery that the livestock consumed these
dried.£rtalks with almost as much relish as they did green
forage and thrived on it led to the curing of forage plants.
This IKJt only enabled the storage of hay so that it could

be held OVGI' ’60 lbe 1186(1 during the oor forage season of
P

each.3near, but it also made the forage more easily trans-

 

 

1mrtable from regions of plentiful pasturage to those I
lacking it.
As time went on and mankind progressed in civili-
zation, hay making was accomplished with greater facility
than before and even became a highly respected activity.
In fact, during the time.of the Roman Empire, before the
Christian Era, it was considered quite lawful to spend
holidays and days of worship at work in the meadows curing

hay. As civilization gradually spread over the EurOpean

 

continent, agriculture with all its farm enterprises, kept
pace with the movement.

When North America was discovered it was but
natural that the people who settled there should soon be—
gin tilling the soil and practicing the method of farming
that they had so successfully used in their mother country.

The difficulties encountered by these early settlers have

been told and retold and bear no repeating here. But it is

of interest to note that one of the first and important oro-

blems that the Northern settlers had to solve was that of

providing feed for their livestock during the winter. Hay-

making, therefore, became a very common practice during the

colorual times and a regular occupation of the New Englanders.

Consequently, all colonists who came to New Englani expecting (
1x) engage in agriculture, were supplied with scythes, forks,

and rakes for haying. In this connection it is interesting

'to otmerve that the order for tools and implements, which the

secretary for the Dutch West India Company requested in 1662 to

.‘C
'4

 

60.

be sent to the Colony on the Delaware River, included,
among other things, 12 two-pronged hay and grain forks

and 12 hey knives.
With the growth of cities and the development

of the dairy industry throughout various sections of the
country, a demand for certain kinds of hay began to mani-
fest itself and before long, large tonnages of hay began

moving from producing areas to regions from which the de—

mand was coming. The complex machinery of marketing soon

began to take form and gradually the business of making
hay took on the propmrtions of an industry so that today
the American farmer is growdng a crop of 98 million tons
valued at over 12 hundred million dollars.

In preparing this tremendous tonnage of hay for
home use or for shipment to the markets, those who are pro-
ducing the hay will usually cure it in one of three ways;

in the swath, in cocks, or in windrows. Just which. method

any single farmer will use depends largely upon the kind of
hay he is growing, because grass hays, such as timothy,

red top, and others, cure out quickly, having long, thin
leaves and hollow stems; whereas, legume hays, with almost

50% of the plant by weight in leaves and with solid, sappy

stems, require a long time for curing. Therefore, for ex-

ample, if the hay producer is in the timothy region of the
North, he will be growing timothy hay and, undoubtedly,

will cure it in the swath. If, however, he is growing

legume hay, he will cure it either in cocks or, if there
/

is a scarcity of’time and labor which.most farmer's ex-

perience, he will cure it in windrows.

Whatever the method employed, it is justified if,
vflth a minimum amount of labor, time, and expense it not
only reduces the moisture content to about lSfllbut also
enables the retention of the natural green color and the

saving of the greater percent of the leaves of the forage

plants being cured for hay.
Curing in the swath is commonly practiced by

those farmers producing grass hays. This is explained by

the fact that timothy, and the other grasses, because of

their hollow stems and long narrow leaves, dry out very

quickly, as already mentioned. In favorable weather tim-

othy, fer example, can be cut in the morning and hauled

to the stack or mow in the afternoon. This saves the

damage caused by rain when hay needs to be left in the

field fpr'several days, as is done with legumes. In addi-

tion, the comparatively small use of'machinery in curing

in tune swath makes this method very economical for curing

grass hays.

Many farmers cure legume hay in much the same
manner with the occasional use of a tedder to stir up the
hay'zrnd hasten its drying after which the hay is windrow-

ed with a side-delivery rake and loaded on to the

racks with a hayloader. This system of curing legume hay

however, is at the eXpense of excessive bleaching and loss

of leaves and, therefore, is not recommended.

 

Curing hay in the cock is most extensively

practiced in preparing alfalfa. hay and is also considerably

used with many of the other legumes. It is a practice that

hastmen followed for such a long time that farmers seem
reluctant to give up this custom for the windrow methéd,

vwnch cures hay more cheaply, more quickly, more efficiently,

.‘u

and with as good a quality, if not better, as that secured

:hmm the cock. The method of curing hay in the cock seems ,.

to have originated from a custom that was prevalent in Eng-
12
land previous to 1884,

every night so that the leaves would absorb the least anoint

{‘37 '~.. : Fxr.
._.;‘___—._ _ _

At that time, the hay was cocked up

of’dew or rain that might occur before the following morning.

EWery morning these heaps would be spread out and exposed to
the sun «my allow for further drying. This laborious pro—

cess of throwing the hay into bunches at night and speeding
apart again early the next day was continued until the hay

was thought to be cured. At present the procedure followed

in curing hay in cocks is to allow the hay to lie in the
swath, after mowing, until all surface moisture has evaporated.
Then it is raked and piled by hand into cocks where it remains
for froulzfive to ten days until it is considered cured. Very
often hmmr caps are used to protect the hay in case of rain.
These are sudd.to increase the quality of the hay, but it is
questionable and somewhat in dispute as to whether the cost
of hay'cnrps and the labor involved in using them is entirely
offset tar the increase in the quality of hay resulting from

theix'llse. This general custom of curing hay in the cock is

manifestly a very slow and expensive one and consequently

is becoming less and less widespread in its use.

The introduction of the side—delivery rake and
with it, the curing of hay in windrows, has come as a dis-
tinct measure of relief to producers of alfalfa. and other

legume hays. Where before, it required from five to ten

days to cure these legume hays in cocks, this is now done
with dispatch in from two to three days in the windrows.
The side-delivery rake is a farm implement devised to form

one or two swaths of hay at a time into long fluffy rows of
hay through which the air can circulate freely and in which

the greater percentage of the leaves are protected from

direct exposure to the searing sun. Two different proce-

dures of curing hay in the windrows are at present in use.
One is to allow the hay to lie in the swath, after having

been out, until it has wilted and then form it into windrows

13
with a side-delivery rake and leave until cured. The other

procedure, very effectively used in Michigan, is to follow

the side-delivery rake after the mower as soon as possible,
14

or even to mow and rake in the same operation. In cases of

rainfall the windrows are given a half turn after the rain
has stopped and the surface hay and ground have dried.
Half turning, once during curing, is also recommended for a

heavy stand or when the weather is unusually hot, in order

to facilitate a more uniform drying. [in important factor

favoring the curing of hay in windrows is the ease with

which the finished product can be loaded into the hay racks

64.

winia hey loader, a procedure impractical where hay has
twen_eoeked. The superiority of curing hay in the windrow
is established and it is only a question of time until every
ton of legume hay will be cured in that manner.

A very small percentage of the hay produced is
cured by methods other than those mentioned above. In some
vicinities, as in Washingtog and Coloradg, a few tons of
”brown hay'or'stack-burnt hay' are cured by stacking direct-
ly from the mower. Ensiling hay, a method advocated by the
Italian Government and becoming pOpular with Italian farmers,
has been experimented with somewhat in this country but has
found.1ittle favor berg. Curing of hay by means of artifi-
cial heat, already under consideration aigearly as 18%;, and

receiving;considerable attention in England has not yet been

found to be of’practical value for use in the United 8+ates.

1r"h131)1“".‘"mn .7 “x”
#L 4-5.1.“; <-- .'.“ I'D.~LL

A Review of'Literuture does not appear
with this report, because up to the time of writing
no scientific article pertaining to the phase of

curing hay presented herevith had yet been published.

Preliminary Field hperiment
Number I

ose
. This experiment was undertaken for the purpose
of determining the nature and differences of loss of mois-
ture from alfalfa plants being cured under conditions, here-
in known as Direct Sunlight, Medium Shade, Intense Shade,
and Partial Exposure.
Material

The alfalfa plants used in this work were of the
Hardigan Variety, obtained from the border plot of a series
of varietal test plots. There was need for at least 700
alfalfa plants and these, at the time of cutting, were se-
vered approximately two inches above the ground with a
corn knife. The plants, after they were out, had an average
height of 18.37 inches as determined by the accurate meas-
urements of twenty-two alfalfa plants the height of which,
with figures given in inches, are as follows:- 21.50 inches,
17.50 inches, 16.50 inches, 17.50 inches, 15.00 inches, 17.00
inches, 21.50 inches, 19.00 inches, 15.75 inches, 16.00 in-
ches, 17.75 inches, 16.25 inches, 18.00 inches, 21.75 inches,
22.50 inches, 17.75 inches, 18.50 inches, 20.75 inches,
16.50 inches, 20.25 inches, 16.50 inches, 20.25 inches,
19.50 inches, 19.00 inches. This gives an average height

per plant, as mentioned, of 18.57 inches.

65.

T—rT-h-H _P .
n
N-

The conditions of direct Sunlight, medium Shade,
Intense Shade, and Partial Exposure were provided for in
the following manner. For Direct Sunlight, alfalfa plants
were simply deposited on the ground and left there directly
exposed to the sunshine. Bunting draped over a wooden frame
four feet long, two feet wide, and two and one half feet in
heighth was used to effect Medium Shane. Intense Shade was
obtained by draping a double thickness of burlap over a
wooden frame of the size just mentioned. Partial Exposure
was secured by placing double thicknesses of bunting over
the upper half of alfalfa plants that had been placed on
the ground. All of these four conditions were effected on
freshly harrowed ground.

Thirty-one air-tight cans were used for taking the
ten plants samples hourly and were kept in a burlap sack in
a shady place while the experiment was in Operation. The
cans were number 2, plain tin, round Spencer friction cans,
three and one half inches in diameter and four and three
fourths inches high, equipped with friction caps, and menu-
factured by the American Can Company of New York.

An inclosed pal balance of the Torsion Balance
type, Style 254, was wed in making the periodical weighirgs
of the 100 plants of each group.

'Eosiht was used for the staining phase of this
experiment. It was prepared by dissolving 70 milligrams of
the Eosin powder in 200 cubic centimeters of tap water.
Twenty-two teo- dram glass vials, two and one fourth inche‘.

uni and one half inch in diameter were employed for the

 

staining, the stem of each plant to be stained being in-
serted to within one eighth of an inch of the bottom of the
vial, all vials being filled with Eosin up to the bottom of
the corks. A perforation had been made through each cork
sufficiently large to allow the easy passage of an alfalfa
plant stem; after this perforation each cork was split
lengthwise into two pieces. Parowax, heated over Sterno,
canned heat, and allowed to cool until a scum had formed
over its surface, was used in sealing each vial, the stems
being slightly moved to prevent air-tight sealing and the
consequent formation of a vacuum.

The Procedure.

 

At 7:50 A.M., June 5, 1926, 700 plants were out
off and divided into four lots of 175 plants each, each lot
being placed under its respective environment, one under
Direct Sunlight, another under Medium Shade, a third under
Intense Shade, and a fourth under Partial Exposure. In
each lot of plants 100 were kept apart, weighed at once,
and weighed hourly thereafter five times during the fore-
noon and every one and one half hoursduring the afternoon,
the results thus obtained being used to calculate the loss
in grams, the rate of loss in percent, and the percentage‘
of moisture content of the alfalfa plants under each of the

conditions at the time of each weighing. The 75 plants re-

maining in each.lot were used for moisture test purposes.

Samples, ranging from 7 to 10 plants per sample, were taken

l I--lv lllll'l-Illmlfllflfi

 

 

68. '

twurly five times during the forenoon and every hour and
one half, or three times, during the afternoon ffcneach of
the four lots of plants. These samples were placed in air-
tight cans and kept cool in the manner already referred to.

At approXimately hour and a half intervals during
the day individual plants were taken from each lot and
treated in Eosin as described above. In addition, whenever
weighings and samplings were made, the temperature of each
of the four different conditions was taken and recorded.

The can samples of alfalfa plants were removed
to the laboratory at the end of the day where the leaves
were cut off at their junction with the petioles. The
leaves from each sample were then weighed separately, and
similarly the stems, and all dried in an electric oven
for five hours at a heat of’llO degrees Centigrade. At
the end of this period all samples were again weighed and
the loss in weight used to calculate the moisture percen-
tages of the leaves and stems.

Results.

An inspection of the results of this preliminary

field experiment, represented in Tables, 12, 13, 14, and 15
Table 12.
Exp't. June 5, 1926.
DIREC SUHLIGHT.

Loss of Moisture from alfalfa plants.

wily-MA __.—*- *0

 

69. '

Con't.
100 Plants Weighed Hourly. ’

15mpera- Weight of‘Loss Percent Moisture

Table 12.

 

 

 

 

Hour ture °C . Plants in Loss Content
Grams Grams}
8:15 24 402 86 21.39 79.09
9:15 25 316 31 9.82 62.17
10:15 32 285 18 6.32 56.07
11:15 30 267 31 11.52 52.53
12:15 36 236 35 14.84 46.43
1:45 39 201 25 12.44 39.54
3:15 37 176 12 6.82 34.62
4:45 26 164 32.27 1
Samples Taken for Moisture Test.
Weight Weight Loss Percent
Number of Before After in ,Moisture
Plants Heating Beating Weight Content Hour
Grams Grams Grams ,
10 34.9 7.3 27.6 79.09 8:15
10 22.8 6.3 16.5 72.37 9:15
10 29.0 9.5 19.5 67.25 10:15
10 19.4 5.8 15.6 70.11 11:15
10 17.9 5.1 12.8 71.09 12:15
8 9.9 4.3 5.6 56.56 1:45
8 11.7 6.2 5.5 47.01 3:15
9 10.7 6.2 4.5 42.06 4:45

Total-238~59.20%

. . . . . . . . 1 _
u o
O
.
.
v e 0 u A D h o
l
_
_
i 1 o C O p I a
A t I a I O .
v
_ _
O I O I 9 l J I
_
I a I 1 I \ Q C u
D. at it I. II .1 I. .4
fl _
F
_ _
‘
' ‘
it’ll. II...

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12. Con't.
Loss of.floisture by Leaves.
Number Weight Weight i088 Moisture
Hour of Before After in Content
Plants Drying Drying Weight %
Grams Grams Grams
8:15 10 14.4w 2.9 11.5 79.87
9:15 10 9.8 8.9 6.9 70.41
10:15 10 11.9 3.6 8.3 69.75
11:15 10 9.2 2.8 6.4 69.57
12:15 10 7.7 2.4 5.3 68.84
1:45 8 3.9 1.9 2.0 51.29
3:15 8 4.8 3.4 1.4 29.17
4:45 9 4.2 3.2 1.0 23.81
Loss of Moisture by Stems.
Weight Weight Loss in Moisture
Before After Weight Content Hour
Drying Drying Grams %
Grams Grams
20.5 4.4 16.1 80.49 8115
13.0 3.4 9.6 73.85 9:15
17.1 5.9 11.2 65.50 10:15
10.2 3.0 7.2 70.59 11:15
10.2 2.7 7.5 73.53 12:15
6.9 2.8 4.1 59.43 3:15
6.5 3.0 3.5 53.85 4:45

.0,

“._"m—. _
'u _ I .
v

Table 13.
Expt. June 5, 1926.

MEDIUM SHADE

Loss of Moisture from alfalfa plants.

 

100 Plants Weighed Hourly

 

 

 

-_-—_Tampera- WEIght ss ing§ercent Moisture
Hour ture 00. of plant Weight loss Content
Grams Grams “

8:30 15 372 54 14.52 80.82

9:30 20 318 28 8.81 69.08

10:30 21 290 9 3.11 63.00

11:30 25 281 12 4.27 61.05

12:30 24 269 12 4.47 60.06

2:00 21 257 10 3.89 55.84

3:30 23 247 8 3.24 52.75

5800 21 239 51.91

Samples taken for Moisture test.

Number Weight Weight Loss in Moisture

0f before after weight Content Hour

Plants heating heating grams %

ggrams grams

10 31.8 6.1 25.7 80.82 8:50

10 27.7 8.7 19.0 68.60 9:50

9 24.4 9.0 15.4 65.12 10:50

10 25.5 7.9 17.4 68.78 11:50

9 20.5 5.1 15.4 75.15 12:50

8 20.5 6.2 14.1 69.46 2:00

9 14.4 4.7 9.7 67.57 5:50
5300

10:51 155-55. 76%-

71.

 

O

r“!

Table 13. Con'

t.

Loss of'Moisture by Leaves.

 

 

 

 

Number Weight’ Wiight —fbss In Moisture
ibur of Before After weight Content

Plants Drying Drying grams %

Grams Grams
8:30 10 13.5 2.7 10.8 80.00
9:30 10 12.2 2.7 9.5 77.87
10:30 9 11.3 5.7 5.6 49.56
11:30 10 9.8 3.0 6.8 69.39
12:30 8 8.6 2.3 6.3 73.26
2:00 8 8.8 2.7 6.1 69.32
3:30 8 6.1 1.9 4.2 68.86
Loss ofHuoisture by Stems

leight Weight Loss in Moisture
before after weight content Hour
gzlms grams
18.5 5.4 14.9 81.45 8:50
15.5 4.9 10.6 68.39 11:30
11.9 2.8 9.1 76.48 12:30
11.5 5'. 5 8.0 69. 57 2:00
8.3 2.8 5.5 66.27 3:50

72.

 

 

Table 14.

1.1

p't. June 5, 1336.
INTENSE SHADE.
Loss of.M0isture from alfalfa plants.

100 Plants weighed hourl .

 

 

 

 

Tempera- Wéight Loss in Percent Moisture
Hour ture 0C. of plants weight Loss Content
grams grams 3 3
8:45 14 447 46 10.29 72.33
9:45 15.5 401 26 6.49 65.24
10:45 18.0 375 18 4.80 60.68
11:45 a 18.5 357 11 3.08 57.77
12:45 19.0 346 14 4.05 55.98
2:15 21.0 332 13 3.92 53.72
3:45 20.0 319 8 2.51 51.62
5:15 19.0 311 50.32
Samples taken for moisture test.

No. of ' Weight Weight Loss in Moisture Hour
Plants before after weight Content

heating heating grams. 3

grams grams .1_
10 41.4 11.5 29.9 72.23 8:45
10 41.7 9.6 32.1 76.97 9145
10 22.7 6.4 16.3 71.81 10:45
7' 27.2 10.0 17.2 63.24 11:45
8 23.9 6.6 17.3 72.39 12:45
8 19.8 5.3 14.5 73.24 3:15
8 12.3 3.9 8.4 68.30 3:45
8 21.0 6.2 14.8 70.48 5:15

Total 156 50.4535.

'.5'- ‘,' 42"“..r

' .A-T‘._ .— __

 

74.

Table. 14. Con't.

Loss of Ioisture by Leaves.

 

 

 

 

 

’No. ofuf Weight Height LossTIn Ioisture
Hour Plants before after weight Content
drying drying grams 3
grams ggrams
8:45 10 16.2 6.4 9.8 60.50
9:45 10 16.1 4.9 11.2 69.57
10:45 10 9.5 2.4 7.1 74.74
11:45 7 10.7 3.9 6.8 63.56
12:45 8 9.5 2.6 6.9 72.64
2:15 8 7.7 2.1 5.6 72.73
3:45 8 5.0 1.8 3.2 64.00
5:15 8 8.5 2.8 5.7 67.06
Loss of Hoisture of Stems.
Weighf_ Loss in MoiSture
Weight after weight Content Hour
before drying drying grams 3
grams grams
25.2 5.1 20.1 79.77 8:45
25.6 4.7 20.9 81.65 9:45
13.2 4.0 9.2 69.70 10:45
16.5 6.1 10.4 \63.04 11:45
14.4 4.0 10.4 72.23 12:45
12.1 3.2 8.9 73.56 2:15
7.3 . 2.1 5.2 71.24 3:45
12.5 3.4 9.1 72.80 5:15

 

Table 15.
Exp't. June 5, 1926.
PARTIAL EXPO SURE .
Loss of Moisture from alfalfa plants.

100 Plants weighed hourly.

 

 

 

 

Tempera- Weight _fiioss in 58rcent Moisture
Hour ture 0C. of Plant Grams loss Content
grams ‘43 ;3
9:00 27 413 68 16.47 74.34
10:00 34 345 _ 38 11.02 62.10
11:00 34 807 33 10.75 55.26
12:00 39 274 30 10.95 49.32
1:00 34 244 37 15.17 43.92
2:30 40 207 24 11.59 37.24
4:00 33 183 7 . 3.83 32.94
5:30 176 31.68
Samples taken for Joisture test.
. Weight Weight Loss in Moisture
N0. of before after weight Content Hour
Plants heating heating grams 3
grams grams
10 41.3 10.6 30.7 74.34 9:00
10 23.3 6.0 17.3 74.25 10:00
10 26.8 8.5 18.3 68.29 11:00
7 15.5 4.4 9.1 67.41 12:00
8 13.8 4.6 9.2 66.67 1:00
9 16.2 6.2 10.0 61.73 2:30
9.2 5.7 3.5 38.05 :00
8 10.4 4.5 5.9 56.74 5:50

Total 257 57.59;.

 

._. w I . u .10 u |I| 4%” I l u:.- «~i AH. AA
. . — _ . - .I11 I n u n . u .0 «u [40:0 .....I ~ - 8 W... .1.“ n 7‘
.
00
II II II C.
n . - . u
1
.
a.
.
I!
o
a f
a
.
.
u
. ‘ . C . I C
.
I D u D Q I I H
n
—
u
M
m
I
Q

I 7' n
.n .7. u a. .In'IJ bflIll’

 

Table 15. Con't.

Loss of moisture by leaves.

 

 

 

 

To . 0 f We ight e igh t Lo es in 1.10 i stur 8
Hour plants before after weiglt Content
drying drying grams 3
ggrams grams
9.00 10 17.4 5.1 12.3 70.69
10:00 10 10.5 2.9 7.6 72.39
11:00 10 11.3 4.1 7.2 63.72
12:00 7 5.6 2.1 3.5 62.50
1:00 8 5.9 2.0 3.9 66.11
2:30 9 7.1 2.9 4.2 59.16
4:00 8 3.6 2.8 .8 22.23
5:30 8 4.5 2.2 2.3 51.12
Loss of Moisture by stems.
Weight Weight Loss in Moisture
before drying' after drying weight Content Hour
game grams gra m s 1%
23.9 5.5 18.4 76.99 9:00
12.8 3.1 9.7 75.79 10:00
15.5 4.4 11.1 71.62 11:00
7.9 2.3 5.6 70.89 12:00
7.9 2.6 5.5 67.09 1:00
9.1 2.3 5.8 63.74 2:30
5.6 2.9 2.7 48.22 4:00

5.9 2.3 3.6 61.02 5:50

 

.l 78": .

 

-——_..———

MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

0’ a“. ' .‘. ’33"- I -

/I' ,
ll!“ A: n. /3 :00 M. A,” fin.

 

 

 

'4

1H.

‘4.-

 

!
.'7

AM"

..

P
(I.

II.)

77.

and Figure 20, reveal several interesting facts.

It becomes apparent at once that the greatest
loss and reduction in moisture content occurred under
gmrtial exposure to sunlight and under direct sunlight.
Tables 12 and 15 show that during this one day curing
period the plants decreased by almost 603% of their weight.
Under Direct Sunlight the moisture content decreased from
79.09% to 52.27%, a loss in weight of 59.205; similarly,
the plants under Partial Exposure decreased in moisture
content from 74.34}; to 31.68%, or a loss in weight for
the day of 57.39%. In contrast to this, the curing under
Medium Shade and Intense Shade was comparatively mild, as
is evident from Tables 13 and 14, for under Medium Shade
the moisture content was lowered from 80.82% to only 51.91%
and under Intense Shade from 72.33% to only 50.32%.

It is to be observed, that the moisture content
dropped to 23.81% in the leaves of the plants drying in
Direct Sunlight, whereas, under Medium Shade and Intense
Shade, this figure was maintained at 68.86% and 67.06%
respectively, and only once fell below 51.12% under Par-
tial Exposure. This dr0p in the moisture content of
leaves from 79.87% to 23.81% under exposure to direct
sunlight within the first ten hours after curing perhaes
explains the excessive shattering of leaves always ex-
perienced in curing alfalfa hay in the swath.

Moreover, it is significant that in all condi-

tions but Direct Sunlight, the leaves and stems dry down

practically at the same rate with the moisture content
Imvering around the same mark. In Medium Shade, for ex-
ample, the leaves, at the end of the period, had a moisture
content of 68.86% and the stems 66.27%. In Direct Sunlight,
however, the drying of the leaves goes on at a rate for ex-
ceeding that of the stems, so that at the end of this period
the leaves have reached as low a moisture content as 23.81%
while the stems still have 55.85%. This means dry, brittle
leaves and green tough stems, a condition which, added to
that of shattering, makes exposure to direct sunlight, as
obtained in the swath particularly undesirable for curing
alfalfa hay.

Further inepection reveals that the greatest rate
of loss occurs during the first hour after cutting, follow-
ing which there is a marked decrease in the rate of moisture
loss which increases again after the second or third subse-
quent hour. For example, under Direct Sunlight the percent
loss of moisture was 21.39;? during the first hour and
dropped to 6.52% in the third hour and by the fifth hour
had recovered to a rate of loss of 14.84% again. Similarly,
under Medium Shade during the first hour of drying the per-
cent loss of moisture was 14.52%‘which dropped to 3.11%
in.the third.hour and by the fifth hour had recovered to
4.47%. The results appearing in Tables 14 and 15 also
further establish that fact.

Table 16.
The Effect of Sunlight, Shade, and
Partial Exposure on the Ability of

Alfalfa Plants to Take Up Rosin. *

78.

A,

. - in: __

1'. J 3.7

79.

 

3une 5, 1926 Amount §tain Height? Height‘ of—
Hour taken up Reached by Plant

Cubic Centimtrs. Stain inches. Inches.

DIRECT SUNDIGHT

9:30 2 cc. 5% in. 19 in.
11:00 1 " g " 15 "
12.10 9/16 " 4- " 14 "

1:50 11/16 " o n 15 "

5:00 7/16 " 0 -" 124 "
4:50 6/16 " 1 " 144 e

 

MEDIUM SHnDE

10:00 1 7/8 cc. 4 in. 19 in.
11:00 1 1/16 " 1 n 16% v
12:00 1 10/16 " 2-2 " 131; "
1:50 11/16 7 1% " 15% 7
5:00 11/16 7 1 578" 154 7
4:50 7/16 7 1 1/8 " 15:,"1 "

INTEhJE SHADE

10:50 1 6/16 00 8% in. 15% in.
12.00 14/16 " 3% fl , 19% n
1:50 1 n 5/8 7 20. "
5:50 1 a " 6 " 15: "
4:50 1 4 " 11.4 7 15' n

PARTIAL EXPOSURE.

10:50 1% CO 1 in. ' 18 1/8 in. l

i
12:00 13/16 " 1 1/8 " 14 7 ,
1:50 7/8 " 5 5/8 " 17 6/8 " ‘
“5:00 13/16 "' 1 4- n 17 " 1
4:30 5/8 H 1 5/8 " 16 5/8 " j

* Plants were remOved from stain during the early evening

80.

Tablelfi shows what happened when plants from the I
four different lots were placed in stain at the hours indi-
cated. Most stain was taken up and reached the highest
points in those plants that were kept under Intense Shade.
In contrast to this, the minimum amount of staining took
place in the plants that were kept in Direct Sunlight. Be-
tween these extremes are the plants under Medium Shade and
Partial Exposure which experienced only moderate staining,
with those under Medium Shade somewhat in advance of the
others. It is clear from this that the more the plants
with their leaves are protected from direct exposure to
sunlight the greater will be the activity of the plant sap
in the fibrovascular system of the alfalfa and the greater
will be the force which attracts the stain up through the
stems and out into the leaves. It follows from this that
to facilitate the greatest possible movement of moisture
from the stems out into the leaves, where it is removedby
transpiration, it is desirable to protect the plants and
their leaves from excessive exposure to sunlight.

SUMMARY

1. The greatest reduction in moisture content
took place under Partial Exposure and Direct Sunlight.
Moisture loss under Medium Shade and Intense Shade was mihl.

2. An excessive drying out, leading directly to

shattering, occurs in the leaves of those alfalfa plants

.._— *_1._~4 ‘—

exposed to direct sunlight.

3. The rate of loss of’moisture from the leaves

was about the same as from the stems under conditions of '

 

81.

Medium Shade, Intense Shade and Partial EXposure. How- I
ever, under Direct Sunlight, the leaves cured out far
nmre rapidly than did the stems, leaving the stems green
and Juicy when the leaveséw%£e already sufficiently dry,
obviously, a conditionafioideld in actual hay curing.
4. The greatest rate of moisture loss in
alfalfa plants takefi place during the first hour after
cutting, decreases markedly during the following two

hours, and then increases again.

5. The average moisture content of green, un-

 

cut alfalfa plants at this stage of’maturity, in which
they were 20.37 inches tall on an average and had not
yet begun to flower, is 76.64%.

6. Exposure of alfalfa plants to direct sun-
light greatly decreases the movement of’moisture from
the stems out into the leaves where the moisture is re-

moved by transpiration.

._...—.4

’—-— *wfi-

'82.

-Preliminary Field Experiment
Number 2

ese
, This experiment was performed to determine
whether a repetition of the work conducted in the First
Preliminary Field Experiment, using similiar materials
and technique, would produce the same results as obtained
then.
Materials

The materials used in this experiment were the
same as described above in the report of Preliminary Field
Experiment Number I, with these exceptions.

Twelve hundred alfalfa plants were used on this
occasion having an average length of 24.25 inches as taken
from the careful measurements of twenty-mine plants, given
in inches as follows:- 22.00 inches, 24.50 inches, 24.00 in-
ches, 25.50 inches, 22.50 inches, 20.00 inches, 25.00 inches,
27.00 inches, 25.50 inches, 24.00 inches, 25.00 inches,
26.00 inches, 24.00 inches, 28.00 inches, 26.50 inches,
5.00 inches, 22.50 inches, 24.50 inches, 22.00 inches,
19.50 inches, 24.50 inches, 25.50 inches, 2;.00 inches,
26.00 inches, 26.00 inches, 25.00 inches, 25.25 indies,
26.00 inches, and 21.25 inches. These figures give an
average height, as mentioned, of 24.25 inches per plant.

 

 

C

I? l
'p y. 1w”
I. 1 CI
ill I

I 0
" It!‘ I 1|. 4| I'I-:'"'
II... I,

0
.

 

“h

.‘m.

 

 

.
.t t .
Q
.
.
' c
t
D .
O
O. t
O
’\ t
.
'il" 'hal‘ '4'.[ “Ill-V!
. ‘ ’N f.“¥l"flld in 5 I J

Fourty air-tight, friction-cap cans, of the type
described in the foregoing eXperiment, were used for the
reason appearing in the account of the procedure shortly
following.

The Eosin stain used was prepared by dissolving
280 milligrams of the Eosin powder in 400 cubic centimeters
of tap water. This is double the strength of that used
before for the sake of effecting a more conspicuous stain-
ing of the alfalfa plants.

The contrivances used to effect Medium and In-
tense Shade were again two wooden frames, this time, how-
ever, being five feet wide, five feet long and two and one
half feet high. Over one of these a single thickness of
white bunting was tacked into place and over the second a
double thickness of burlap. To secure Partial Exposure
double thicknesses of green colored bunting were used and
placed over the upper half of the plants as before.

Procedure.

 

The experiment was started at seven o'clock of
Wednesday morning June 16, 1926, by cutting the twelve
hundred alfalfa plants. These were divided into four
groups of three hundred plants each. Each group was at
once transferred.to its respective environment of either
Direct Sunlight, Medium Shade, Intense Shade, or Partial
Exposure by placing on freshly harrowed ground and cover-
ing with the frames for shade, with green bunting for

partial exposure, and with no covering for direct exposure

£33.

1.‘Lz‘fi __.—HE‘-
I

135
v

84.

to the sun. Two sets of a hundred plants each were kept ;
separate in each group and these weighed separately and

regularly at the hours indicated, namely, every hour in the

forenoon, every hour and a half in the afternoon, and on

the following day once in the morning and oncein the even-

ing. The remaining one hundred plants in each group were

used to take can samples of ten plants each for use in de-

termining the moisture content of leaves and stems. In

taking these samples, which was done at the intervals just

.1‘rfih- - and—W

mentioned, the leaves were at once separated from the stems
with scissors at the junction of the leaves with the pet-
ioles and placed in a separate can prOperly labelled, the
stems being placed in another can. These can samples were
later taken to the laboratory, weighed, heated for five
hours in an electric oven at 110 degrees Centigrade, weighed
again, and the loss in weight used in calculating moisture
content of the samples. Temperatures for each of the conm.-
tions were also taken regularly as given in the tables.

The staining tests were carried on emplpying the
technique described in the report of the Preliminary Field
Experiment Number 1. These tests were made from each group
every hour from 7:50 to 11:30 £.M. and every hour and a
half thereafter up to 4:00 o'clock 9.x. The plants were
removed at the end of the following day and the results de-
termined and tabulated.

The weather during these two days was fair and

clear on the first day with average June temperature and

humidity, but was cloudy during the second day with increas-
ed humidity and lower temperature.
Results.
The results obtained and presented in Tables 17,
18, 19 and 20 and Figure 21 and summarized in Table 21

Table 17.

(33

U]

 

Set 1. Loss of Hoisture from glfalfa “lents

Time of Tempera- Weiglt of Toss in Rate of Moisture
day ture 0C. 100 plants weight moisture Content
Hour grams grams Loss %

8:00 22.0 465 47 10.11 65.72
9:15 25.0 418 25 5.99 59.10
10:15 27.0 595 27 6.88 55.56
11:15 30.0 566 55 9.57 51.75
12:45 54.0 551 41 12.59 46.80
2:45 51.0 290 25 8.65 41.00
4:45 26.5 265 8 3.02 57.49'
6/17

9:45 28.0 257 51 19.85 56.54
7:50 21.0 206 29.15

 

Table 17 Cont'd.

 

 

Set 2.
Weight Loss in Rate of’ Moisture
Hbur of Plants Weight Moisture Content
Grams Grams Loss % %
5:00 674 87 12.91 77.20
8:00 587 46’ 7.85 67.25
9:15 541 40 7.40 61.97
10:15 501 27 5.59 57.58
11:15 474 26 5.49 54.29
12:45 448 67 14.96 51.51
2:45 581 54 8.95 45.64
4:45 547 15 4.55 59.74
6/17
9:45 552 61 18.58 51.04
7:50 271
Loss of moisture from Leaves and Stems.
Leaves
Time of Initial Weight Loss Moisture
day weight after weight Content
Hour grams heating grams
grams
7:00 20.1 4.4 15.7 78.11
8:00 21.5 5.6 15.7 75.71
9:15 15.2 4.5 10.7 70.40
10:15 21.7 6.5 15.2 70.05
11:15 24.5 7.8 16.7 68.17
12:45 22.0 7.6 14.4 65.46
2:45 11.7 4.8 6.9 58.98
4:45 15.2 6.6 6.6 50.00
6/7
9:45 10.8 5.4 5.4 50.00

86.

 

Table 17 Con't.

 

 

Stems.
Time of Initial Weight Loss in Moisture
day weight after weight content
Hour grams heating grams 9
grams
7:00 25.5 6.0 19.5 76.48
8:00 2301 5.6 1745 75.76
9:15 19.7 5.7 14.0 71.07
10:15 28.1 4.6 25.5 85.65
11:15 27.2 7.5 19.7 72.45
2:45 18.2 6.6 11.6 65.74
4:45 20.5 8.1 12.4 60.49
6217
9:45 16.7 6.9 9.8 58.69
Table 18.
MEDIUK SHADE
Set 1. Loss of Moisture from Alfalfa Plants
Time of Temoera- Weight of‘ Loss in Rate of Moisture
day ture 0C. 100 Plants weight moisture Content
hour - grams grams Loss % ;a
7:50 18.5 655 56 8.85 77.20
8:50 20/0 577 54 5.90 70.57
9:50 21.0 545 27 4.98 66.22
10:50 25.0 516 25 4.85 62.95
11:50 28.0 491 42 8.56 59.88
5:50 25.0 417 18 4.52 50.86
‘ 0 21.0 599 27 6.77 48.66
g3?00 25.0 572 59 15.87 45.57
7:30 21.0 515 58.17

87.

88.

 

 

Set 2.
Table 18 Con't.
Time of Weight of Loss in Rate of Moisture
day 100 Plants weight moisture Content
hour grams grams loss 5
7:50 668 50 7.49 77.20
8:50 618 58 6.15 71.42
9:50 580 27 4.66 67.05
10:50 555 24 4.54 65.91
11:50 529 52 9.85 61.14
1:50 477 52 6.71 55.15
5:50 445 24 5.40 51.45
5:50 421 40 9.51' 48.66
5/7
10:00 581 58 15.25 44.05
7:50 525 57.55
Loss of‘Moisture from leaves
and Stems.
Leaves.
Time of Initial Weight Loss in Moisture
day weight after . weight content
hour grams heating grams
grams
8:30 1401 3.3 1008 76060
9:50 18.2 4.5 15.7 75.28
10:50 19.8 5.2 14.6 73.78
11:50 14.5 5.9 10.6 75.11
1:50 10.5 5.6 6.9 65.22
5:50 18.4 6.5 11.9 64.68
5:50 15.0 5.6 9.4 62.67
10:00 9.7 5.7 6.0 61.86
7:50 10.2 4.5 5.7 55.89

89.

Table 18 Con't.

 

 

Stems.
Time of Initial Weight Loss in Moisture
day Weight after weight content
hour grams heating grams 3

grams

7:00 25.5 6.0 19.5 76.48
8:50 14.5 5.2 11.5 77.94
9:50 21.0 4.9 16.1 76.67
10:50 28.5 6.8 21.5 75.98
11:50 18.4 4.4 14.0 76.09
1:50 16.2 4.2 12.0 74.08
5:50 29.5 8.9 20.4 69.65
5:50 24.2 7.9 16.5 67.56
10:00 14.2 5.1 9.1 64.09
7:50 16.2 6.2 10.0 61.75

Table 19.

INTEHSE SHADE.

 

Set 1. Loss of Moisture from Alfalfa Plants.

Time of’ Tempera- Weight of Loss in Rate of Moisture
day ture 00. 100 plants weight Moisture Content
(hourl, grams grams loss % 5 _g
7:45 16.0 656 52 5.05 77.20
.8:45 18.0 604 25 5.81 75.51
9:45 20.0 581 19 5.28 70.52
10:45 25.0 562 20 5.56 68.22
11:45 25.0 542 50 5.54 65.79
1:45 25.0 512 21 4.11 62.15
5:45 22.0 491 17 5.47 59.60
37%? 21.0 474 56 7.60 57.54
10:15 25.0 458 58 15.25 55.17
7:50 21.0 580 46.15

90.

Table 19. Con't.

 

 

 

Set 2. J
Time of Weight of Loss in Rate of .MOisture
day 100 Plants weight moisture content ‘
(hour) grams grams loss 3 g 1
7:45 659 28 4.59 77.20 ‘
8:45 611 19 5.11 75.82
9:45 592 29 4.90 71.52
10:45 565 18 5.20 68.02
11:45 545 28 5.14 65.84
1:45 517 25 4.45 62.46
5:45 494 18 5.65 59.68
5:45 476 56 7.57 57.51
5/17
10:15 640 64 14.55 55.16
7:50 576 45.45
Loss cf Moisture from Leaves and Stems.
Leaves.
Time of’ Initial Weight Loss in Moisture
day weight after weight content
(hour) grams heating grams ;
grams
7:00 20.1 4.4 15.7 78.11
8:45 12.5 5.0 9.5 75.60
9:45 19.7 5.0 14.7 74.62
10:45 19.8 4.9 14.9 74.25
11:45 14.9 5.9 11.0 75.85
1:45 15.6 4.2 11.4 75.08
5:45 16.8 5.0 11.8 70.24
5:45 15.3 5.0 10.3 67.55
10:15 8.1 5.1 5.0 61.75 3
7:50 5.8 2.8 5.0 51.72 ‘

Table 19 Con't.

 

91.

 

Stems.
Time of Initial Weight Loss in Moisture
day weight after weight content
(hour) grams heating grams 5

,grams
7:00 25.5 6.0 19.5 76.48
8:45 16.2 5.9 12.5 75.95
9:45 24.1 5.9 18.2 75.52
10:45 25.2 6.2 19.0 75.40
11:45 20.2 4.7 15.5 76.74
1:45 22.0 5.6 16.4 74.55
5:45 25.2 6.5 18.7 74.21
5:45 20.9 6.0 14.9 71.50
10:15 11.0 3.7 7.3 66.57
7:50 8.5 5.5 5.0 58.85

Table 20.

Set 1.

PARTIAL EXPOSURE
Loss of Moisture from Alfalfa Plants

 

Time of Tempera- Weight of Loss in Rateof Moisture

day ture 00. 100 Plants weight moisfure content

(hour) grams Exams loss % p4

8:00 19.0 651 51 8.09 77.20

9:00 21.0 580 51 5.55 70.96

10:00 25.0 549 58 6.92 67.17

11:00 29.0 511 35 6.85 62.51

12:00 28.0 476 62 15.05 58.25

2:15 28.0 414 45 10.86 50.65

4:15 55.0 569 14 5.80 45.14

6:15 22.0 555 16 4.51 45.45 i
6 17

1 :45 55.0 559 57 16.82 41.48 .
7:30 21.0 282 34.51 1

Table 20 Con't.

 

 

 

Set 2.
Time of day Weight of Loss in Rate of Moisture
hour 100 plants weight moisture content
grams grams loss % %
8:00 622 58 6.11 77.20
9:00 584 50 5.14 72.48
10:00 554 59 7.04 68.75
11:00 515 56 7.00 65.92
12:00 479 71 14.85 59.45
2:15 408 45 11.05 50.64
4:15 565 17 4.69 45.05
6:15 546 22 6.56 42.95
6/17
10:45 524 60 18.52 40.21
7:50 264 52.77
Loss of Moisture from Leaves and Stems.
Leaves.
Time of Initial Weight Loss in Moisture
day weight after weight content
(hour) grams heating grams grams p
7:00 20.1 4.4 15.7 78.11
9:00 14.4 5.7 10.7 74.51
10:00 15.8 4.0 11.8 74.69
11:00 11.1 2.8 8.5 74.78
12:50 19.0 5.5 , 15.5 81.58
2:15 12.1 4.5 7.6 62.81
4:15 _ 12.1 5.2 6.9 57.05
6:15 16.4 5.5 11.1 67.69
10:45 10.5 4.6 5.9 56.20
7:50 4.0 2.7 1.5 52.50 '

95.

Table 20 Con't.
Stems.

Time of day Initial Weight Loss in Moisture

 

(hour) weight after weight content
grams heating grams 5
grams
7:00 25.5 6.0 19.5 76.48
9:00 19.9 4.5 15.4 77.59
10:00 25.8 5.5 20.5 79.56
11:00 14.0 5.2 10.8 77.15
12:50 18.7 5.1 15.6 72.75
2:15 16.4 4.8 11.6 70.74
4:15 21.5 6.8 14.5 68.08
6:15 18.8 5.2 15.6 72.55
10:45 15.7 6.5 9.4 59.88
7:50 8.5 5.4 4.9 59.04

 

 

' MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE i
I
. I
i
h
‘
kl 1'.
2 .'
D
7
' ' |
~0 .'
~
“I t
2
D
3 ‘°
I
I ‘.
I
I
: I
I

 

94

 

r I n
‘
53.49 H1.)e >H.uo .mn.nb m5.hz 9H.mw . >33 3:“a
_
u 0
cu.)3 H¢.ao no.3: ~3.nH» 03.50 00.no . $3.90 no.mH 993 05.3H
7.3.1."...114 D
. :-\
new.) we. a 59.ne 41.6 . 55.66 2.30 aa.>o no.) Hfiuo
- 'Nlrohvuufl
34.03 15.3) 35.30 no.5 p D>.no 33.50 33.45 30.0 135 naufl
u . Inauwuuu
35.39 Hm.33 0>.33 DH.> — 33.99 Ho.mo 30.05 15.nH nHuu
. Influma
H..ee 99.51 me.ee ee.e . nH. e ee.ee ea.He 16.. new etum
p ImHHHH
nfl.fi0 55.3W Qw.u3 00.5 a no.30 afiofij 33 On nm.9 JDH4H
. AHDH
H).fla 00.35 53.93 99.5 . 33.3% 30.35 3H.nn mn.n DJHDH
» InHun
eaoafl >m.wfl >Q.Db 33.0 u Hr.mt 3m.rfi Mb.mo HH.DH film
u x
90.00 Ho.$fi Dn.bb mm.o . ma.an Ho.fiw OH.>> W
.. t u. 0H. . .).l.
1 . .. .1 H 3 .1. ;
0:10-511...” » Dim-4c. -HH
mum-.1. a. 1...“-..- 33 a. 1 an O.HD 1.11.. p 09:. u. an. .03
43959 H3 pisam 615m.1ow. HmpoH. .1 etaoH-m
mzopn an 55H 1H mHHedu th. afnpm mm>55H H pidHH mmqpue R mmeH oH\o

41H 9 41.33403 :13 P159100 D430 A23“ HHH 0.4.1.3 m..- . O u M5 p.10) 3.30 03....me 4.01. A 1.an 31.05 1.1.5..

ezem 5.- 6.H1H cejemqou Ho oped. oaem e166.-vm mafipmHoH Mo was: IHHHDA .Ho Head
1.16.4686 ._.... Had.” H.H..HHHbm HnHHH

.dvg..eo-Hd_1.....H mists-35131

6.4-Sm 5.3- .1593 ewe-H5656 madame. 0.8. He ...- mHs. 7.1.300

‘~,. _

 

p e
I. O
I I3

r

—‘ ~~a
q

. J
b a
Q: a
v I

1..a>
11.H1
a..oq
ab.b.
H4.oo
a>.o4
40.0n
ou.oo
H..nn

41.no

Nu.un
43.44
)fio)“
HH.na
00.30
nu.nm
bn.m9
EH0 59

)0
1; ab

03.>r

h

oat-ho-

’V

l.

(D

1'.

4)..”1 O )4:

\
D

x... \A.
..-. 11‘ |\
Ill. .1.
“I. _ a .u
INN-“wuuuw
n. .
. 0
I04.“
0
ma.
II 0
I ...u.

5A} ‘7

r'i r4 {-4 1"! ['4 (5‘2 7‘} ’J' '

J 1.051)“?
,3 .—-1 :D

Z) :4 H

I
3
.4

DDHUH
Influm

 

\J 11.114.44.11.
.‘\ | — .. f .7-

...JJ. .4... m..- 4... 31.4

.HH 9.10 ...-.3
91431100

PH...» 9. n4 0. ,.

04....19-.n...1_. 03

b-t-ho-O-o-Lb-t-t-t-t-b-o-O-b-o-o-o-t-t-u-

1HH::H 0..

.H1w H HVJ4M

96.

confirm the remarks made in the first experiment. On this

occasion the most extensive drying occurred in those alfalfa
plants that were directly and partially eXposed to the sun-
light with the former somewhat in the lead as will be seen
from an. inspection of Tables 17, 20, £1 and Figure 21. These
also show that the moisture content dropped more moderately
in medium shade and especially so in intense shade.

Further the leaves drOp to a lower moisture content

namely 30.44%, in the plants exposed to sunlight than in those

under any other condition. The next lowest are the leaves of

partially exposed plants in which the moisture content drOps
to 32.50%; 'It will be noticed that in the shaded plants the
moisture content in the leaves is maintained above 50%. For

leaves to dry out to as low as 30.44% even in two days allows

for little wonder concerning the reasons for shattering in

the swath.
Again, the greatest of moisture loss occurs during

the first hour, drOps down during the second and third, and
recovers perceptibly at the fourth hour again. Examination

of Tables 17, 18, 19, and 20 will reveal this fact clearly,

fully substantiating a similar remark made in reporting Pre-

liminary Field Exoeriment Number 1.
Attention is called to the tendency which comes
to the foreground here and was also observed in the first
experiment, namely that exposure to the rays of the sun in-
creases the rate of moisture loss from the leaves markedly

above that of the stem, so ”-that the leaves dry before the

stems do.

———.o.
a

"in. '2- -flr ‘. _

 

 

F—‘W 97.

Inlnreot Sunlight and Partial Exposure, for instance, the
diflfluences between the moisture contents of the leaves and
shmm at the end of the two days are resaectively 18.295
tum 26.54%, the leaves having become that much drier during
flmIlength of time indicated. Away from the sunlight under
Mflfinm.8hade and Intense Shade the differences in final
Imnsture contents between leaves and stems are only 5.84}
and 7.11% respectively. In the field this is to be inter-
;meted as indicating an even curing of alfalfa plants, in
the windrows and bunches with retention of leaves and an
uneven curing, in the swath accompanied with shattering

or loss of leaves.

The moisture content of green, uncut alfalfa
plants at this stage where they have reached an average
heighth of 26% inches with flowers not yet formed and
lower leaves still entirely green was found to be 77.20? .
This is .64;% higher than the 76.64}; received for the
younger alfalfa plants used in the First ?reliminary Field
Experinmnrt. Apparently there is no correlation between
the increase in maturity of alfalfa plants and the decrease
of their nmisture content.

Table 22.

The Effect of Sunlight, Shade, and Partial

bxposure on the Ability of Alfalfa Plants

to take up Eosin.

 

 

93.
Table 28 Con't.
DIRECT SUL‘LIGHT MEDIUM SHADE.
Hour at ' Stain Height: Height ' Stain 11a ght? I«’eight‘
which stain ab— reach-ed of ' ab- reached of plant
was applied. sorbed. by stain plant ' sorbed by stain
implant 'r injlant
$350 8.+cc. 9% in. 22 in.: 8.1- cc. 9.5 in. 25%in.
8:30 '7. " 6';- " 24%;- " :
9:50 6.4 " 3;}; " 24. " : 5.4 " 9.0 " 24. "
10:30 6.7 " 5% " 25%: " 1 3.0 " 9.3”: " 25. "
11:30 4.6 " 4. " 22% " ' 8.0 " 103-”; " 26. "
1:00 4.5 " 5. " 20. " : 5.0 " 9. " 24. "
2:30 2.0 " 3%- " 25. " E 4.8 " 8% " ‘ . "
4:00 3.0 " 5;} " 2’7. " ' 5.0 " 111$- " 26% "
INTENSE SHADE . . PARTIAL EXPOSURE
Hour at Stain Height Height ' Stain Height Height
which stain ab- reached of ' ab- reached of
was applied. sorbed by stain plant ' sorbed- by stain plant
inplant : in plant
7:30 8.} cc. 13% in. 25. in.: F.
8:30 5.8 " 8% " 22% " 1
9:30 2.6 " 5% *3 24% n I 7.2 cc 5%— in. 26 in.
10:30 3.4 " 8. " 22. " : 7.9 " ll. " 26 "
11:30 7.5 " at " 19% " : 6.0 " 5% " 25 "
1:00 5.2.- " 7. " 24%; n ; 4.6 " 5.3,; " 254} n
2:30 8.0; *" 5. " 25g- " : 3.2 " 4. " 26‘ "
4:00 3.6 " 5. " 21 " : 4.3 " Sé: " 21;,- n

99.

fable 22 gives the results secured from the
staining tests of alfalfa plants with Bosin. There is
not such a marked difference this time between the amount
of stain taken up by those alfalfa plants exposed to sun-
light and those shaded. However. the height reached by the
stain in the plants shows that the exposure to direct sunlight
considerably interfered with the maximum movement of moistun
through the plant. For example, in the plants under Direct
Sunlight the stain only attained a height of 5%- inches an).
5% inches respectively in the last two tests, whereas, under
lledium Shade the stain was attracted up into the plant to a
height of a} inches and 11% inches respectively in the last

two tests.

Summary.
1. The moisture content decreased to the greatest

extent in the alfalfa plants under Direct Sunlight, to a
less extent in those mner Partial prosure, still less in
those under Medium Shade, and decreased to the lowest extent
in the plants under Intense Sheds.

8. The leaves of alfalfa plants exposed to direct
sunlight dried down in only two days curing, to a moisture
content undesirably low because of the shattering that re-

sults from it.
3. The rate of moisture loss is at its greatest

during the first hour, drape during the second and third
hours an! increases again beginning with the fourth hour.

4. Exposure to direct sunlight tends to increase
the rate of drying of leaves above tint of the stems result-

100.

ing in uneven curing in the field. Protection from the
sunlight enables leaves and stems to cure at approximately

the same rate asmring even drying out.
5. Exposure to direct sunlight interferes with

, mximun movement of moisture in the plant from the stems

into and out through the leaves, as shown by the staining

tgat'e
6. The moisture content of green, uncut alfalfa

plants in the stage of maturity described above is 77.20%.

H

'{5' Ihm‘ _

101.

Preliminary Field Experiment.

Number 3

Purpose
This experiment of staining alfalfa plants with

Eosin solution at different stages under different condi-
tions was conducted to test, a little more extensively than
before, the effect that direct sunlight has upon the movement
of moisture up the stems and out through the heaves.
Material

The Eosin solution was prepared by dissolving
three and one half grams of powdered Eosin in five liters
of tap water. V

Two hundred 4-dram glass vials, which were used,
were two and three fourths inches tall and five eights
of an inch in diameter and were equipped with split corks
perforated lengthwise with a sufficiently large bore to

accommodate the stems of the alfalfa plants.

Two hundred plants were taken from the border

alfalfa plot mentioned earlier in this work. The plants

were in full bloom and after out were of the length indi-

cated in Tables 23 and 24.
Table 25.

DIRECT SUNLIGHT

Staining.Alfalfa Plants with Eosin.

Cut in Air Cut Under Stat n

12:15 M. Temp. 45%, Av. Am't. Stain-9.57 cc. Av. Hgt. 24.05 in.

No. of height height stain ' No. of Height Height amourt
' plants of plant reached stain

 

plants of plant reached used.
by stain ' by stain used. __
1 25.5 in. 25.5 in. so cc: 6 25.5 in 26.5 in 141 cc

Table 25. COn't.

102.

 

 

N0. of’ Hebght Height stain ' No. of Height Height Amount 1
plant of reached used ' plant of reached stain
,plant by stain .; plant by stain used
2 20.5 in. 20.5 in ,10.0 cci B 25.52fik 25.5 in. 2.9 cc.
5 27.0 " 26.0 " 11.6 " : 8 27.5 " 27.5 " 6.0 "
4 25.0 " 25.0 " 7.9 " ; 9 21.0 " 21.0 " 9.0 "
5 26.0 " 26.0 " 9.4 " : 10 25.5 " 21.0 " 9.1 "

,Average 24.2 " 9.58" ' Average 23.9 " 9.76" i
12:5OIM.-Temp 45°C. iv:-lnIE:-§téln:§:§5 cc.hv. Hgt. 22.80 in. F1
1 25.5 In. 25.5 in. 14.1 cc: 6 26.0 in.26.0 in. 12.0 ac. t
2 20.0 I 20.0 I 8.5 I : 7 24.0 n 24.0 I 7.5 I L}
5 21.0 " 21.0 " 6.6 " : 8 22.5 " 22.5 " 7.5 "

4 24.5 II 24.5 I 6.8 II I 9 23.0 II 23.0 I 5.1 II
5 21.0 n 21.0 I 8.8 I g 10 20.5 I 23.5 n 5.7 I
.Average . 22.4 " 8.967 i Average I 25.2 ". 7.74"

“u------—---------

12:45 M.- AV. Arn't Stain - 7.94 CC. 21V. Height-20.85 In.

1 17.5 In. 17.5 in.
2 25.0 I 23.0 I
3 24.0 I 24.0 I
4 21.0 I 21.0 I
5 20.0 " 20.0 "

Average 21.1 "

 

2.0 00'
I
9.1 II I
I
8.4 I I
I
4.0 I I
I
9.4 I I
g
7.5aI I

6
7
8
9

18.5 in.18.5 in. 4.8 a:.
26.0 " 26.0 " 14.5 "
22.5 " 22.5 " 7.8 "
16.5 " 16.5 " 9.5 "

19.5 " 19.5 " 5.1 "

Average 20.6 " 8.50".

1:CM3 P.M. Temp. 38°C. Av. Am't. Stain-8.05 cc.hv. Hgt. 18.5 In.
I

20.0 in. 20.0 in
22.0 " 18.0 "
19.0 " 19.0 "
17.5 " 17.5 "

tn PI Oi lb

16.5 " 16.5 "

.Average 18.2 "

11.5 00'

Q

8.5 "
8.6 "

I

I

I

I
5.5 I I
I
10.5 I I
'_""— I
I

6
7
8
9
10

19.0in. 19.0 in 5.5 cc.
22.5 " 19.0 " 6.0 "
20.0 " 20.0 " 11.7 "
18.0 " 18.0 " 5.5 "
18.0 " 18.0 " 6.5 "
Average 18.8 " 6.96"

103.
Table 25 Con't. w
mfl:in Air Cut under Stain

Nb. of Ebight Height Amount' I
plant of plant reached Stain ' Number Height - Height

inches by stain used ' of of plant reached Amount
inches cc. ' plant inches by stain stain
' - inches used cc.

 

I

1:30-2mMszemp..45°C-AV. Am't Stain-8.82 00- Av. Height 19.15 in.

 

1 20.5 in 20.5 in 9.5 ccE 6 16.0 in 16.0 in 9.400
2 18.0 " 18.0 " 9.5 " ; 7 15.0 " 9.5 " 4.5 "
3 23.0 " 23.0 " 13.9 " z 8 20.5 " 20.5 " 6.0 "
4 24.0 " 24.0 " 10.1 " z 9 18.0 " 18.0 " 9.9 "
5 22.0 " fl22.0 " _Z;§_" : 10 19.0 " 19.0 " 7.7"
Average 21.7 " 10.12" ! Average 16.6 " 7.50" i
2:00 Pam. Temp. 48°C h;:-tht—§Eain-:-s:52 00. Av. Height 17.9 irt
1 21.0 In 17.5 in 6.4 cc: 6 19.5 in 19.5 in 9.0 0::
2 18.0 " 18.0 " 12.9 " z 7 19.5 " 16.5 " 5.7 "
3 18.5 I 18.5 I 7.3 I : s . 19.0 I 19.0 I 11.4 I
4 19.0 " 19.0 " 8.0 " : 9 17.5 " 17.5-" 11.3 "
5 16.5 " 16.5 " 6.4 " : 10 19.5 " 17.0 " 7.8 "
Average 17.9 " 8.20" ' Average 17.9 " .9.04"

2:30 P.M. Temp-45°C-Av. hmIt.'3tain-7.17 cc-Av. Height 16.95 in.
I .

 

 

1 23.0 in 20.51n. 7.6 cc: 6 12. in 17.’ in 5.7 a:
2 22.0 I 18.0 I 9.0 I : 7 23.5 I 23.5 I 12.0 I
3 18.0 I 13.0 I 5.9 I : s 12.0 I 19.0 I 5.0 I
4 19.0 I 6.5 I 4.4I ' 9 20.0 I 12.0 I 3.5 I
5» 21.0 I 21.0 I 8.1 I E 10 22.5 I 19.0 I 8.5 I

Average 15.8 " 7.0 2 ' Average 18.1 " 7.34"
3:00 PAM.-Temp 54°C. Avt-Am:t-8gain:-7:33 cc Av. Height 17.60 in.
1 19.0 in 16.5 in 5.7 cc: 6 21.0115 19.0 in 8.0 cc
2 23.0 I 20.0 I 4.9 I I 7 20.0 I 15.5 I 5.8 I
3 19.5 I 16.0 I 5.9 I I s 18.0 I '16.0 I 11.2 I 3
4 18.0 I 15.0 I 8.3 " I 9 22.0 I 18.5 I 7.8 I
5 20.0 I 20.0 I 8.0 I I 10

2100 II 18.5 " .7 II ' ‘
Avior-onus 1a a :I 72 01:4 Jun-..-..- 1‘7 '1 fl ‘3", " _-...

 

104.

Table 23 Con't.

Cut in Air Cut under Stain
N0. Height Height Amount 'No. Height Height
of of plant reached Stain 'of of plant reached Amount
plant inches by stain used 'plant inches by stain stain
inches cc. ‘ inches used. CC

 

I

4:00 P.H. Temp 49°C- Av. Am't 'Stain—4.15 cc Av. Height 11.00 in.

 

 

1 17.5 in 12.5 in 5.8 cc ' 6 20.5 in 9.0 in 3.7 cc
2 20.0 I 14.0 I 3.6 I s 7 18.0 I 7.5 I 4.0 I
3 18.0 I 14.5 I 5.2 I : a 22.0 I 9.0 I 3.3 I
4 18.5 :3 13.5 I 3.7 I : a 15.5 I 4.0 I 2.8 I
5 20.0 I 20.0 I 5.3 I I 10 19.0 I 6.0 I 3.1 I
Average 14.9 " 4.92" 7 Average 7.1 " 3.38"
5:00 PAH. Temp 43°C. ”Av:-157t:§tein-5.44 00. Av. Height 14.17113
1 20.0 in 11.5 in. 5.7 cc I 6 16.0 in 7.5 in 5.5 cc
2 _15.0 I 9.0 I 4.0 I I 7 20.0 I 20.0 I 5.2 I
3 17.75" 15.25" 5.8I' I 8 19.0 I 19.0 I 9.3 I
4 21.0 I 19.00I 10.7I I 9 17.0 I 17.0 I 7.3 I
5 17.0 I 17.0 I 5.1 I I 10 18.0 ' 6.5 I 4.3 I
Average 14.35I . 6.46" I Average 14.0 I 6.32"

I!” ‘L'm
. - a a

_..__,._—-

105.

Table 24.
SHADE .

Staining Alfalfa Plants with Rosin.

Cut in Air Cut under Stain

N0. of Height Height Amount ' Height Height Amount

plant of reached stain ' N0. of'of reached stain
plant by stain used ' plant plant by stain used
inches inches cc. , inches inches cc.

 

12.15 m. Av. Am't Stain 8.03 cc. Av. Height 21.80 inches.
I
1 22.0 in 22.0 in 8.2 cc' 6 21.0 in. 21.0 in 7.5 cc

 

 

 

 

2 22.5 I 22.5 I 12.0 I : 7 19.5 I 19.5 I 4.7 I
3 25.0 I 25.0 I 10.6 I I s 22.5 I 22.5 I 9.5 I
4 19.0 I 19.0 I 5.4 I : 9 23.5 I 23.5 I 10.8 I
5 22.0 I 22.0 I 5.0 I I 10 21.0 I 21.0 I 5.3 I

Average 22.1 " 8.24" ' Average 21.5 " 7.82"

12:30 E. Temp 270"- Av. Am't Stain. 7.71 cc. Av. Veight 23.35 in.
7

 

 

1 25.0 in 23.0 in 11.8 cc: 6 21.0 in 21.0 in 7.0 cc
2 22.5 I 22.5 I 8.0 I I 7 25.0 I 25.0 I 7.7 I
3 18.0 I 18.0 I 5.9 I : s 24.5 I 24.5 I 5.5 I
4 25.0 I 25.0 I 7.5 I I 9 24.5 I 24.5 I 5.3 I
5 21.0 I 21.0 I 7.3 " : 10 27.0 I 27.0 I, 10.0 I
.Averege . 21.9 " 8.107 : .hverage 24.8 7 7.32”

 

 

 

13:45LLAV. Am't Strain 7.59 00.; av. Tfeight 20.85 in.

1 ' 25.0 in 24.0 in 8.7 cc: 6 22.0 in 22.0 in 7.7 cc

2 22.5 I 22.5 I 11.7 " I 7 20.5 I 20.5 I 7.0 I

3 23.0 I 23.0 I 7.4 I : s 21.0 I 21.0 I 6.3 I

4 19.0 I 19.0 I 5.2 I I 9 20.0 I 20.0 I 7.5 I

5 22.0 I 22.0 I 5.8 I i 10 14.5 I 14.5 I 5.5 I
Average 22.1 " 7.96" ' Average 19.6 " 7.22"

A'-

Table 24 Con't.

Out in Air Cut under Stein ’
No. of Height Height Amount' H0.of Height Height Amount
plant of plant reached stain ‘ plant of plant reached stain
inches by stain used ' inches by stain used
inches cc. ' inches cc.

 

I

1:00 P.M. Temp 27°C. Av. AmIt Stain- 8.5 cc. Av. Height 21.06 h1
I

 

 

1 21.6 in 21.0 in 7.6.00: 5 21.0 in. 21.0 in. 8.8 a:

2 21.5 " 21.5 I 6.0 I I 7 23.0 I 23.0 I 12.0 I *

3 21.5 I 21.5 I 9.0 I : 8 19.5 I 19.5 I 7.0 I I;

4 20.0 I 20.0 I 7.9 I I 9 20.0 I 20.0 I 7.0 I {f.

5 25.0 I 25.0 I 15.0 I : 10 18.0 I 18.0 I 4.8 I L"
Average 21.8 I 9.1 I I Average 20.3 I 7.92I

1:30 P.M. Temp. 2700. AV. Am't Stain 8.33 cc. Av. Hgt. 20.3 in.
I

1 18.5 in 18.5 in 9.0 do: 6 15.5 in 15.5 in 7.0 a:

2 21.0 I 21.0 I 10.6 I : 7 19.0 I 19.0 I 8.8 I

3 17.5 I 17.5 I 4.4 I : 8 -22.5 I 22.5 I 11.0 I

4 22.5 I 22.5 I 8.4 I : 9 20.5 I 20.5 I 8.7 I

5 ‘21.0 I 21.0 I 8.3 I I 10 25.0 I 25.0 I 7.1 I
I

Average 20.1 " 8.14" Average 20.5 " 8.52"

2:00 P.M. Temp 28°C. Av. Am't Stain 7.46 cc. Av. Height 19.15 hi.
I

1 18.0 in 18.0 in. 6.1 cc: 6 18.5 in 18.5 in 12.0 cc
2 20.0 " 20.0 " 4.6 " : 7 20.5 " 20.5 " 7.1 "
3 21.0 " 21.0 " 6.8 " : 8 19.0 " 19.0 " 8.5 "
4 22.5 " 22.5 " 5.6 " : 9 18.5 " 18.5 " 10.5 "
5 16.5 " 16.5 " _§;é_" : 10 17.0 " 18.0 " 7.0 "
Average 19.60" 5.9" ' Average 18.7 " 9.02"

Table 24 Con't.

107.

 

 

No. 01 Height Height Amount ' N0. Height Height Amount
plant of reached of ' of of reached of stain
Plant by stain stain ' plant plant by stain used
inches inches used cc.‘ inches inches cc.
I
2:30 P.M. Temp 28°C. Av. Am't Stain 8.03 cc. Av. Hgt. 19.40 in.
I
1 22.0 in 22.0 in 7.6 cc ' 6 20.5 in 20.5 in 9.1 cc.
I
2 17.5 " 17.5 " 6.6 " ' 7 18.0 " 18.0 " 7.8 "
I
3 20.0 " 20.0 " 6.1 " ' 8 16.5 " 16.5 "' 6.5 "
I
4 16.5 " 16.5 " 5.8 " ' 9 20.5 " 20.5 " 10.6 "
I
5 19.5 I 19.5 I 10.0 " . 10 23.0 I 23.0 I 10.2 I
.._.... ._.—__.; ' __.... ._.—__..
Average 19.1 " 7.22" ' Average 19.70" 8.84"
......... 1-----
3:00 Pam. Temp. 28°C. Av. Am't Stain- 8.32 cc Av. Height 19.65 hi.
I
1 18.0 in. 18.0 in 8.4 cc. ' 6 24.0 in 24.0 in 9.0 cc
I
2. 21.5 " 21.5 " 7.4 " ' 7 17.0 " 17.0 " 7.3 "
I
3. 24.0 " 24.0 " 15.0 " ' 8 16.5 " 16.5 " 7.7 "
I
4. 20.5 " 20.5 " 4.7 " ' 9 18.5 " 18.5 " 9.5 "
I
5. 20.5 " 16.5 " 9.4 " ' 10 16.6 " 16.0 " 5.0 "
Average '
20.9 " 8.98 " ' Average 18.4 " 7.66 "
4:00 P.M. Temp. 28°C. Av. Am't Stain 8.26 cc. Av. Hgt. 18.6 in.
1 17.0 In. 17.0 in 9.0 cc ' 6 22.0 in 22.0 in 11.4 cc.
2 25.0 " 23.0 " 8.5 " ' 7 18.0 " 18.0 " 7.6 "
3 22.5 " 18.5 " 8.4 " ' 8 15.5 " 15.5 " 7.8 "
4 18.0 " 18.0 " 12.7 " ' 9 16.0 " 16.0 " 5.1 "
5 18.0 " 18.0 " 5.4 " ' 10 20.0 " 20.0 " 6.7 "
Average 18.9 " 8.8 cc ' Average 18.3 " 7.72"
--------; .........
5:00 P.M. Temp. 27.500. Av. Am't Stain 8.36 cc Av. Hgt. 20.55 in
I
1 23.0 in 23.0 in 8.0 cc ' 6 17.0 in 17.0 in 6.3 cc
I
2 19.0 " 19.0 " 14.8 " ' 7 20.5 " 20.5 " 8.6 "
I
3 19.0m" 19.0 " 7.3 " ' 8 20.0 " 20.0 " 6.5 "
I
4 19.0 " 19.0 " 6.0 " ' 9 20.0 " 20.0 " 7.6 "
5 22.0 I 22.0 I 10.2 I r 10 24.0 I 20.0 I 8.0 I
Average 2004 " 9032 II ' ,";Ver3.ge 2003 II 704 H

...—_-.q— _.... _ ,
i . .. .' ’- ...
..

108.

For Direct Sunlight the plants were placed in the

open, on the stubble surface of an adjacent plot, directly

exposed to the sun. For Shade the wooden frame described in

the report of Preliminary Field Experiment Number 2, covered

with two thicknesses of burlap, was placed over the plants to

be kept shaded.
Procedure.

At 12:15 O'clock P.M., June 30, 1926, the two

hundred alfalfa plants were cut, the first group of one

hundred plants placed in Direct Sunlight and the second grOUp

placed in the Shade. At once ten plants were taken from each

group and their stems inserted into the glass vials which had

previously been filled with Eosin solution to the bottom of

the corks. The stems of five plants of each group were, how-

ever, first dipped into a dish of Eosin solution and their

ends clipped off under the stain to determine whether cutting
under stain facilitates the movement of the stain up into the

plants. This entire performance was repeated as Ihown in

Tables 23 and 24, every fifteen minutes up to 1:00 o'clock

13.1.1. , every half hour thereafter up to 3:00 o'clock P.M.,

and every hour thereafter up to 5:00 o!clock, at which inter-

vals temperatures were also taken and recorded. The plants

stained were kept in an upright position by supporting in ob-
long metal boxes, one box for the group left exposed to the
sun and another for the group kept in shade.

Immediately after five o'clock the plants were re-
moved to the laboratory where they remained until the morning

of July 2. Exactly 44 hours after the first ten plants from

... : .'-
I.
a

eadigroup had been treated, they were removed from the
vnfls and the other plants then removed in the order in

much had been originally inserted into the vials, namely

an fifteen minute intervals from 8:15 A.M. to 9:00 A.M.,

ewny half hour then until 11:00 A.M., and every hour fiallow-
ing up to 1:00 P.M. In this manner even? group of alfalfa
ahnns had been left with the vials of stain exactly 44 hours.
After the plants had been separated from the vials, the length

of each plant and the distance up with the stain had been

.‘.—._...“ .._WB'

Imlled in each was measured as well as the amount of stain
in cubic centimeters taken up as manifested by the amount
remaining in the vials. These results were then tabulated

and are given in Tables 23 and 24 and summarized in Table
25 and Figure 22.
Table 25.
Summary of Tables 23 and 24, comparing averages of amount of

stain taken up and height reached in alfalfa plants under
Direct Sunlight and under Shade.

 

Direct Sunlight Shade.

Time Tempera- Amount Height ' Temp- Amount Height

PgM. ture 03. of stain reached ' erature of stain reached

6/30/26. taken up by stain' OC. taken up by stain

Cub. 0. inches ' Cub. C. inches.

I

12:15 9.57 cc 24.05 in' 8.03 cc 21.80 In.
I

12:50 45 8.35 " 22.80 " ' 27. 7.71 H 23.35 II
I

12:45 7. 94" 20.85 I I 7.59'" 20.85 "
I

1:00 38 8.03 " 18.50 " ' 27. 8.50 " 21.06 "
I

1:30 45 8.82 " 19.15 " ' 27. 8.33 " 20.30 "

2:00 48 8.62 " 17.90 " ' 28. 7.46 " 19.15 "

2:30 45 7.17 " 16.95 " ' 28. 8.03 " 19.40 "

3:00 54 7.33 " 17.60 " ' 28. 8.32 " 19.65 "

4:00 49 4.15 " 11.0 " ' 28. 8.26 " 18.60 "

5:00 43 6.44 " 14.17 " ‘ 27.5 8.36 " 33.35 "

 

 

MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE 1' . 1
Jr ‘
- . 1 : I
*7“: ' k I . ,Ti‘ ‘ j
- . I
o"
I .'
I
I I
‘ .

(JU N E. 39"). ‘q Kb

 

D

-_.- _—
O
.'. ~

0

 

 

! __-—--_-.--
C
“-_-

I

H0.

The distances indicated in the staining of the plants are

those up to which the stems and leaves were plainly seen to be

stained and beyond which no staining was evident externally.
Results

It becomes clear at once that the special treatment

of clipping the stems of the alfalfa plants under stein did

not influence the staining to cry recognizable extent and that,

therefore, the same results are secured whether the stems are i

clipped in fine air or under stain. g '1
AT this point it is well to consider the action of I:

Eosin. The fact is well known and extensively taken advantage

of by Plant PhysiolOgists, that in passing up into and through
plants Eosin does not diffuse through the plant sap but follows
up after it as it recedes up and out of the stems into the
leaves with the moisture escaping into the atmosphere as vapor.
Therefore, the path taken by the escaping moisture in alfalfa

plants will be marked by the stain, for wherever the stain ap-

peers the moisture has preceded it. Hence, since in this ex-

periment such large majority of leaves were stained, as indi-
cated in Tables 23 and 24, it can only mean that the path taken
*This remark is substantiated by the statement made by Mr. H.
F. Clements, an instructor in the Plant Physiology Dopsrtment

of this College. Mr. Clements seys:"In all my class work I
find that Eosin will not diffuse through living cells or through

the walls of the vessels, but that the dye itself must be car-

ried in order to show its effect."

IIO.

{by much of the moisture in the drying of alfalfa plants is

through the leaves
On the basis of this, it is very evident from

the results obtained and represented in Tble 25 and Figure
22, that exposure to direct sunlight had a deleterious
effect upon the leaves by lowering their capacity for giving
off water and their subsequent ability of drawing up stain.
For under the condition of Direct Sunlight the plants had
been so effected that at the end of the day they were no
longer able to raise the stain more than from 11.00 inches
to I4.17 inches up the stems and leaves nor take up more than
from 4.15 to 6.44 cubic centimeters of stain. 0n the other
hand, the plants whose leaves had been protected in the shade
continued to take up stain from the beginning to the conclup
of this experiment with unbated intensity. At the beginning,
for excample, the plants in the shade were taking up over 8
cubic centimeters of stain and as high as 21.80 inches up the
stems with their leaves: and at the conclusionsthe plants
were still taking from 8.26 to 8.56 cubic centimeters of stain
and up as high as from 18.60 to 20.35 inches.

Summagz
I. Exposure to sunlight of cut alfalfa plants re-

duces the power of the leaves to give off moisture as mani-

'fested.by their ability to take up stain.
2. Eosin performs equally well regardless of whether

the stems of the alfalfa plants are cut in file air or under

the stain.

111.

Major Field Experiment.
Purpose.

The Major Field Experiment was carried on with
alfalfa hay cured in the field under five different methods,
viz.: hay cured in windrows made with a curved tooth, left-
hand drive, side-delivery rake; hay cured in windrows with
a straight tooth, left-hand drive, side-delivery rake; hay
cured by bunching with a dump rake and after three and one
half days built into cocks and allowed to remain there for
a day; hay cured in the swath; hay cured in the swath fa?
approximately three and one half days and then cocked. The
experiment was conducted for the purpose of determining as-
fas as possible, first, how moisture is lost from forage
plants in the process of curing into hmr; and second, what
influence different methods of curing have upon the rapidity
of moisture loss and upon the manner in which the loss takes

place, either through the leaves, through the stems, or

about equally from both.

Description.

COOperating with Mr. Ralph Hudson, who has charge
iof the College Farm, it was made possible to carry this ex-
;periment through under typical Michigan field conditions and
lmith the kinds of hay making implements actually used by
Michi gan farmers.

The work was conducted in Field 21 of the Michigan
Stuate College Farm. In this field a very good stand of alfalfa

.haji been secured, mowing of which was begun when the meadow

1“”.- ”;‘._-mfi' .

11:3.

was about l/lO in bloom and the lower leaves of the alfalfa. I

plants were just beginning to discolor. The section of the

field used for the experiment in question was centrally loca-
ted and in an area of the field in which an average growth
had been made constituting a stand which yielded about a ton

and one half of cured alfalfa hay to the acre, as near to the

average of the state alfalfa hay yield as could be secured.

The project itself was started at three o'clock in

 

the afternoon of Thursday, June 24, 1926, allowed to run its

course the subsequent Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and .‘.ionday,

terminating at about eleven o'clock in the forenoon of

Tuesday, June 29, when the hay was hauled in. During this

time the weather was also of about the average kind that the

Michigan farmer in general has to contend with during the

hay making season. There was a light shower during each of

the first two nights of this period and two days of rather

cloudy, cool weather. Reports from the Weather Bureau Show

that during the early morning of Fri day, June 25, from about

1 to 2..A.M. a light shower took place with a rainfall amount-

ing to ten hundredth of an inch. During the evening of the

same day (Friday, June 25) a light rain fell approximately

between the hours of 10 and 11 P.M. ‘30 the eytent 0f nine

hundredth of an inch. The Saturday and Sunday of this period

were quite chud'y keeping the temperature down to an average

of 17 degrees Centigrade during Saturday and to 22 degrees

Centigrade during Sunday, from 8 to 13 degrees lower than

 

-4

«2.1

...-

-..

115.

‘flm average of the other days when a temperature as high as ’

36 degrees Centigrade was reached at times.

Reference has already been made to the five differ-

entrnethods under which the bay of this project was cured.

These were arranged for as follows. Five swaths were cut with

a mower mowing an eight foot swath, with the swath side by

side running the width of the field. it ones one of the swaths

was raked into a windrow with a curved tooth, left-hand drive,

1 .
side-delivery rake; a second swath was windrowed with a
2

straight tooth, left-hand drive, side delivery rake; a third

 

swath was bunched with a dump rake; and the fourth and fifth

swaths were allowed to remain untouched. The out alfalfa

was left under these conditions until hauled,in, with these

two exceptions. The bunched hay after approximately three

and one half days was built into cocks each weighing about

from 80 to 100 pounds and left there until harvested. The

hay of one of the swaths also, after approximately three
and one half days, was built into cocks of about the same

size oi?those just mentioned, and then left untouched until

hauled in.

These five swaths were mowed and the first three

raked as described at three o'clock Thursday afternoon, June

24. :Dmmediately samples of ten plants each were taken from

the two windrows, the bunched hay, and from the swaths. This;

sampling was repeated at hourly intervals that afternoon

1. Manufactured by the John Deere Plow Company of Molina, Ill.

2. Ifialn1factured by the Iassey Harris Harvester Company of

Batavia, H.Y.

.I Illa-H. .

114.

until six o'clock and the following day, Friday, four times

during the forenoon. During the rest of the period, samples
were taken three times Friday afternoon, only once Saturday
forenoon and Sunday afternoon because of the unsettled wea-
ther described above, one Jonday forenoon, again Monday

afternoon, and then shortly before the hay was hauled in

Tuesday morning, June 29. The ten plants, chosen whenever

a sample was taken, were selected to be as representative
as possible, seven being taken from the inside of the wind-
rows and bunches and three from the outside, since for this
work it could be safely assumed that in the windrows and

bunches about 703 of the plants were inside and about 303

on the outside of these formations. is soon as the ten

plarms were taken in each case the leaves were at once

severed at the point of their junction with the petioles

inith.the use of scissors. Shese leaves were then placed in

811 air-tight, friction top can and the stems similarly
Lilaced in another, each can'being preperly labeled. The
(muss used were number 2, plain tin, round Spencer friction

caris, three and one half inches in diamet r and four and

tkuree fourth inches high, equipped with friction caps, and
xnaihifactured by the American Can Company of New York. In
'ccuijunction with this, whenever a sample was taken the

‘teuuperature was also taken and recorded in order that any

(iiififerences that may exist in the temperature of hay cured

andfxr these various conditions might be made accessible.

115.

In order to have these records as accurate as possible
the therometers used were kept buried beneath the surface
of the hay in all cases.

After the can samples of leaves and stems had
been taken, they were removed to the laboratory at the
end of each half day, the leaves and stems carefully
weighed, and these then placed in an electric oven in
which they were heated at 110 degrees Centigrade for five
hours. Following this they were again weighed, the loss
in weight determined, from which was calculated the mois-
ture content of the leaves, of the stems, and of the
entire plant for every hour at which the hay was sampled
under the five methods as well as the percentage of the
entire moisture of the plants to be found in the leaves
and in the stems.

Results.

With the aid of these figures it has been possible

to trace the loss of moisture from day to day during pro—

<3ess not only of the plants, but also of the leaves and
stems. Some idea is, therefore, obtained as to whether in
tlxis project the leaves'and stems dry down at about the sane
rerte, or whether the rate of moisture loss of one exceeds
tdiat of the other and how this holds true with the different
methods of curing.

The results secured from curing alfalfa hay in

\NiJldIOWS made with a curved tooth, left-hand drive, side-

delivery rake are given herewith in rl‘ables 26A and 26B

and summarized in Figure 23.

 

 

 

lie.

$9.43 o.q ¢.a

no.9a H.o fl.> 4.4H no.-a
RDOHQ $03. «mo. 3.4.4... 9000“.
am.mw ..y 3.n a.n ga.au

pn.vo s.n o.n b.3H 43.34
ba.sw ..na 5.0 H.4H om.ao
34.33 a.» o.v b.4H an.oo
Ho.mo w.na -

0. mo) 30$ Wow; fidua
mN\o
Q. $ofi 30$ 6.0m mHuw
In C
m.H ;.4 4.. 4m ou.fla
JnJ‘D
‘
n.a m.u H.o mu nauw
¢n\o
..u1 0 0 41..
m .4 o n. m n ma n38”
3n...)
4...\
9.4 b.4 4.9 mm Faun
m.n 4.3 b.» m 03.4

r!
O

’3'

.4

D

'.‘ 2
j

3

.4 r4

44...”... H405.» 00b HO... manflunfl
n...) .1...” ._.-.00 Win. QAHQH
Do 3 0H4 .‘....VODH «...—H ”mm

")ilH H

J)
0
fl
'J‘ :3 .3 H
O
”'3
ok\00
11):)J)

G>r33f3Io
'3

 

. . . l. . ..a
mo no D o 3 : 3H n..n. ».4 .4 ;.. 3m
GROW...) O \ Ous 0 I. 11. H. O O O .1
.4. -. 4 \h rk H .4 (D H ml fl. .\ a) H D Q m _.\.OJ 0)» ”JV
3 . N . ) .o .‘I \O . . .II ._(I
o .o m 3 v u b a o) no 0 n u . ;.na 4n Dana
\l
.-.. [.ln 1
m4 ,3 ..H . m ) .4. .u. "04.4. in .4- ‘ .
\ - \J ) a. \J J \J u I .. ..-
4 \1.‘ III I. a. l‘ .’.. ||\ 4 a
n. m . .. A 33.3 m: 3:- 1 m 4..- . . 42$). 4..-1...-
‘ ‘1 \I o. I 1) o D ‘1‘]44‘n - b v I n
3 )3 ..U Q. -. Huh. . 9034.11.” 2. .. \W» 014.DD-44..)_M) 3.. 32.13....” .1110.) 11.1w -441141 I.). o)\ DIE-JD
) . . . _. 4. .-.-n r. a -.
D 44v.J)\.l/..JI ....l 0%.4- 09 q 3 1 In \J .- {(0. \44 .a‘ .. In 4.1 I n- .. 1-]..1. 4)-. . 1
.. ,.o - .. c.v+ ... r..H flzo “Pdaaneoa- .fi mmvH 9. any; 3.; ma. .{yiB nu m.au.

w 4.43 DJMH n:oHJ:4: 2A 59433 .5: H) a.
: v . i :7. . .._-. r .x; .. 7U

40“.”.

.19334 du,H.)
..- rx.

_
~.. -.v.... l...

... DI. -

MUD;HINJ. .. 3 .1 l- .)
...o og,.mwoa :H mm.»hOoa

-:.o aoadzwx nuoaa dm>a c

34.33....-

 

LC is ”6131' 8

Total”

of

Distripuoion

.
(3

bit-

.
.4

d

5‘

z)

sunre Conteut of Pl

I
-

1A TQtRl LO’

inks)“.

N

0.1.0

. “
l
‘ by

.'--

Moped

.-

...

Coguioiuus

.-

b .-ch‘

T

1" 13 '3
CH .5) ‘ kg
0 i»3 .13 "

L4-3
9
1
__“J
r) L3
(0 .5
. 4 133
IQ 7*
.74 J
1)
H

{‘1 P  ‘|
”H :5 . 3
_2‘ a) i_,) .1.)

D ---i 4
o. :Jf‘x‘ p :_‘q ...)
m ‘
H

'.-' «33

3' f U)

m )3
.-.4 .-i .13
:3 '1) $4
-15!)
j.)

i 7

'H '33
l ‘-{

‘1 fl) .34
H

+3 ;; CD

Vififlim

_) -'/ ‘1 .--,
.H :4 ,3 {‘3

0 :19
‘:3 9'4

.3

..J
,1 .1
j) 4.)
U) £3
._4 ‘11
,3 o
. . D
.;():L
---4
.44
H 3
m')

.L
..

.33
.{3 fl
‘ ‘ H ..4 (Q
)®;)S
449.455
(D ;—4 ‘) $4
1 ~43 . 1 J
I 9
sH ;m
J -.) 1.
-.~1 H --—| '45
£14 _J "3 :14
c>fli3 1

 

U

UOQC

.—
f\

r' 4..
I J
“1
N

do.
1

DC.

00.60

3) h\ a.) .j '
o 0 ’ °
.‘. :_~ ' .0 *\2

lVD
I -__)
\ o.
L) :3

.1 3 H O"
I_ "‘.! 5‘} Cl )
o 0 °
0 d4I4
-v 3*‘fi
' Q 4" O3
o 0 .

O .O ‘ 3"

a d'
_‘- 5“
o O
i"Q
. '1)

"D
o

11.7

r!

”'3

7.
0.0

I)

:1.)
H

51.0

' ‘

LU

Q

30

Q

.33

oa.va

03
0.1

rrd

‘71 44

..\00

3 74)

9.1

eU.9l

0043

r'l
0‘)

Dog
17

z 1
’0.3

5..

ID}

if H
3) It)
. I
C) Q
;_--~ 0
b c»
o O
N‘50
H
- f) .33
.3 C)
. C
:33 5 '3
$2.3

a:
'0

J“

L\

0804.94)

C)
.d

8.3

10:15

"1‘

*1.87

r
a

9.0

r“!

A
h-

30L,

V.&7

u;

0
m

C)
L")

I
4'
.—

01. o 91""

5.1

1 " 5)
‘.; ‘J O ... '9

6.6

30

K')

4._ .) {>-

, .3 ‘ {'3
. O

.7) 1‘

:~ *0
3‘: I.“
. 0

m} L’)
Q '4”
. O
134 =‘.‘ I

2 F) 35
. O
.‘ 3 43 I

1") H
‘4 O
. O
.3 I?
J I xii
17}
O

6.5

9.7

10.3

0

5mm

q.)

-_
O

|

a;

L")

L!)
Q

r)
r“!

7‘3
{-1

Dob

-8

, ,. :‘
udov

f'"-‘

6.5

Do]- vb];

3.00

1“

.-4

.04

-
ol-
"J

w

14.4

7

0
Hot.

[_..
’\

C)

no .2“ :1“ 1'3 53'.) C)
I. 3‘} H :

..\‘.\‘)\ oo\\r—'
IO .0 H '0 NH {“3 [—4

{.0 o U‘i'

dot-v

lb.lb

~. [IL . UT)

)
.’.J ‘—

CD

0

‘4 -.‘
_LL/zo

CD

0
L)
H

i."

JJOSJ U.U

14.1;

"3
Q U

0.1

Lu.Lu

..l

O
1:)
r-l

IQSHQ

r4

r;\1 '1‘.

co\~‘ '.

fii

4:) (;: I

"t.
.L_L.(o

 

 

.'-

. Ein-

 

 

.
..‘g

‘5.

 

118.

It is evident from these figures that there is no dis-

tinctive difference between the rate of moisture loss

of the leaves and that of the stems. The moisture of

the stems is, however, maintained at a somewhat higher
figure than the leaves, since the leaves dried down from
a moisture content of 66.93% to that of 11.37%, while the

stems in curing dropped from a moisture content of 67.35,?

to one of only 23.64,?» Yet this is to be expected when one

8 5'.‘.’- .

considers the woody nature of the stems with their almost
impermeable epidermal layer as contrasted to the delicate g,,
tissue of the leaves with their fine, exceedingly porous r ‘
epidermal layer.

As a result of this difference in the rate of
moisture loss between stems and leaves the distribution of
the total moisture changes also, quite as is to be expected.
It will be observed from Table 263 that at the time the
plants are out almost half of'the moisture in the plant

is located in the leaves, 46.20,?) to be exact,and 53.80%

of the moisture is located in the stems. This tends to

conform, somewhat, with the proportion of leaves to stems,
for as is well known approximately 40% of alfalfa plants

is leaves and 630/; is stems. As curing proceeds, it

naturally follows, that since the leaves are giving off
moisture at ‘3 somewhat higher rate than the stems, less

U

of the moisture of the plant will be located in the leaves

and more in the stems at the time the ha; is ready to be

hauled in. That this is true, can be appreciated by the

fact that on the morning of the fifth day, 16.13,? of the
moisture was located in the leaves and 83.87,: in the stems.
Consideration given to the total moisture content
of alfalfa undergoing curing in the curved tooth kind of
windrow rcaveals in Table 263 a moisture content in green,
uncured alfalfa of approximately 67.16,?» and which, during
curing, drops to 20.133 moisture in alfalfa. hay ready for

the mow or stack. Closer analysis of these figures will

show, moreover, that the greatest moisture loss occurs
after the first four hours and, in this instance, during

the second day of curing. For during Friday the moisture

content of the hay dropped over 25,6, more than i of the

total moisture, which is at least more than twice as great
a rate of loss as occurred at any other time, regardless
of the fact that during that day the temperature was not

as consistently high as during Monday and Tuesday, June 28

and June 29 respectively.

Inspection of results represented in Tables

27A and 27B and Figure 24

Table 27A.
"Straight Tooth." Windrow Curing. Degrease in Moisture
Content of Leaves and Stems of Alfalfa Hay Cured in

Windrows blade With a Straight Tooth Left-hand Side

Delivery Rake.

 

. J. lilllllilliialleNlfllhpr—sN “l . .‘..
Sflv‘qflflh I3tfu; . ‘ .pa - .. . .

 

120

mwow) mo? 0 doc .m
3...“..003 Dow mob.
known n o QoflH now

‘1 O 3* w
.0 U3 .0 Q

o o o o
01 “O L‘- CD
If) "'3 ‘0 if)

3 H

_..
. "1
O to

~30 '0
o

’3

r 1

.
10
0-4

L0

.
V“.
H

J)

.o
{A}

o
if)

'
l
o

'0

L9 0 O5

O O O
:0 c>zo
rt r+.4

o o
-. ) If)
H 4"!

m.n 0.0 o
.m.em n.HH a.a

bd.oo

14 0 a)
P. ..V N. .A

ma.oo

e.HH
.ea
m.a

01

a}

Q!

.00. ....O
mafia-4..
\Lw..\3
DDHHH
\.
0...... C
.:\
O
O

I)
44
H

«3 .3

r) - 3
O rt
r4.4

)
e)
O“)

l-
o
\_

-’)

oo\ 0.

L0

15) '1’) C)
- ...:4 .'.-,1
:0 J.)

'0
m
d‘

gun
~-#
0.
.3

if]
bi‘

 

)1
midi; m dam
\ ... .-. 3- o - J. x - ...) ) A)...l a ..
n... as . Mann... ..4. H . ..Hd H. An...” an m. 2.24.. F... .55. A; m ...Upfifiw
‘ a I 6.. u (I I.
1 ‘1‘). { .‘Ol I )
4 \J. .13.). I1. ) d .a I I Iclx -
w. .- 0.4.3.... P.... l 05;. “(0. . L D ..r.-.....w u. .. Q... .00 PAH... ulna.» nHflJnflia. 3-4«J._1D.2 03m. 0H4.)
- .. -.- . - . . -r.... 4 .. .- -1- C . .. ...
0H9en_o aim amen. 9.141%, HUfiaar.‘J 4:) - l 4
.- .. - I - . -. II .. ... . L. .... .rac ...u. .-.D H 3 4‘ 4.4-”u Ola-1 -’. ..- . m. .i. 1d]- 4.
c _.. ; .. ...g sgzns: H.¢aa.no .a.. - .

.0. .1 9.4.4.. I

 

n w

31
i.“

‘3‘
.1)

Q

o
'3

L“ O3

O
' D
.4 .A

CL)
0

I.

H

H O)

o 0
0 OJ
\1 ..\I

10

O
:3
I 4

 

H

o
[.4
H

:4

o
1“)“
[-1

'3
o
D
‘1

LO

.
kg
[-1

m. ._V J...
.nxo

if)
f)

1
fl
.‘1
O
-D
O
I)
.4
co
0
~34
L)
.3
O
3
.A

O
O
\I
H
D
J"
O
J
4|
0
O
J5
n .O
O
r“.
\1
CD
I
O
O
'D
O
.4
" 1

LO '0 '3
LCD ‘9

«(fl CO

34
0.
<5:

’0

l
4!
(.‘.) IQ 1

Lo .0

 

 

 

4D

n.» fi#.n3 m.w >.ma 3».$o b.w
mu 9 n Jflw
um 04 pfifiaa mnapin
quAm mxmya flH maflomaoa fl mwdmn afiflpi
mfidmfi H3po+ mHup H: p @943v pudfiox
mHfiamwod Hz a nmaon pqnflon mafinwwofi fifl mung
.

.Eopm mm>de

.4bn mans. 2H wagon m;oflpfld:oo pud49 msmpa :4;

A. (a.

®.D.....-....m,.fio..,..m mfldb M3 AHOHPSQHHPmaQ D a .210. 5...... 3.3.3

a» C..- ”5% _ fir .HD pflflwflupfldoo ®.Hr._rpmw

oflka. OHfiflH

q)
A
E4

-.-l

MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

_-L-»_._. ...

... . ..

 

 

 

DEPDRTM
n

 

a-“

 

Hour

 

‘122.

and secured in curing alfalfa hay in windrows mzde by a
straight tooth, left-hand drive, side-delivery rake, sub-
stantiate the remarks just concluded and show no difference
in hay cured by the two types of windrows. The leaves cure
down practically to the same extent as in the other dindrow
namely from a moisture content of 62.50% to one of 15.593
and similarly the stems cure out at about the same rate,
from 66.13% moisture to 18.06%. These results also
emphasize again that there is a tendency for the leaves

to cure out more thoroughly than the stems and that, al-
though when green over 40,3 of the moisture of the plant is
located in the leaves, this drOps until 31.58fi3of the ‘
moisture is located in the leaves when the hay is cured.

In regards to the total moisture content of the
hay, the differences at various stages of the during in
these windrows is exceedingly small so that these results
do not substantiate the belief that hay in a "curved
tooth" windrow cures out any differently than hay in a
"straight tooth" windrow. The rate of curing again shows
the greatest reduction of‘moisture occuring after the
first fbur hours or during the second day in this instance.

The results given in Tables 28A, 283, and Figure 25

# Thissis in keeping with the capacity manifested by
the leaves of giving off moisture at a somewhat greater

rate than the stems do.

“ _

139.

 

 

O O O .0 O I. OH. O O 0.
as .n s n a a m a a. a a m - a n on on.»
33\3

)0. )o o 0 .0H 0 o )0... o . o
D; an s N m o n 3 0d . u a a J . >4 mH.Q

H3.nm m.w 0.0 m.HH $3.fld 3. wow non o.nm mHuoH

.£.d Jenn ovooo coda p44flu ma oqflw on exfl

'

a.ea o.m 4.9 s.44 ee.mn n.m 9.3 a.» .94 gene
- . . . . . . ! - \n 4O

.._.-.\ .
,a.nn 3.0 o.n o.n4 ea.ae s.n a.u e.HH .04 mauoa
O) \)

..\ \\
.J.so 3.» 4.4 5.9H ne.au m.» m.m 3.; n.qm ooum
;;.on m.o J.o a.» am.4: s.m m.o 4.0 m.em cans

 

d
oi
-—l

.Jq 3.» 0.3 p.04 4a.ne H.e 3.9 4.3; n.44 sauna
.33 9.3 H.9 w.na H».un 4.0 m.3 3.0H . u ovum
3.no «.0 3.0 3.3H nu.33 m.o 3.6 s.vm .>H onuw
9J.43 n.L v.0 o.p nH.mn 0.9 n.4 n.34 .JH swab
‘ fia2\\ ..U
#».H9 H.o J.v m.HH .u.mn 4.w 0.0 3.3a n.au Jana
‘- C .1 . ‘0 I.
c; Q v.0 H.n m 3H am.on v.5 n.m 0.0H mm :3u4
O O O C O O O O
1 n3 L ea 0 n H 9H be me A ma a e a ma mu dang
,lqu \0
I . |l II] 44 a) 11- .... I.|P fl
my _........u..., m ....r
.A mamas ngnwws ages» ”A mgla- q.;..4l mgjuu
«93:90 sfl)4u; Aupqw madam; 9:03:30 pio493 4094J pimfle; .o: whim Dian
@435 :4. nmaH 9-... ._..-... HJflA 4.40 P4. .... n40}. 44H mooH 91.1.3.2. 4.91.42.44.40 £949.45.»
.wfivpn mo>th

.mtoao 4H gmgsm ens 94am main a

meioflfiq ma 1 3 .J. J4 J . . J) 1 is 1 : > - . 3:
- : . day a . L a4.H44 H) m as d.J we-» 09 Ho 3 op.oo a: .u o. :w emseueon

.../”+30 -... a... _.4 n15. 3...... 3.. 5-4.45
. (L L .... .4. oo_.r

Gan/l. \In11..c)l.

 

 

 

)HJ...W.. .011 ..J)...J).u )l \. a.) 41.20)). 3.0.- .3044. 3.03 )_).H .
.\ .... -.\ ... ... :- .... 4 s . . l .G flyI “I” II . .
_ ..\ .
x.
-..J» 3.4 3g.” a. n.n an.ma o.w n.44 >.am mafia
J). J.) 301. I. 0.! \J. .0 “1.1.3.3 O OIJ- 7.. I0)!-
.,.S ...). 4.... “Q _...H r a . r . .. b m. L. _r- : >H 0..-.Cr
..su... . II I III II I I
.....4. any film» 030m 9.1.4 n flux. 0.0 «hupr. D1. _ _\.H m0... 0 4.th
4)..) o .1303} «103 0 O.) o. o 1.031 )nox).
... ..N. my Q T?! .U. n. W n \k b) 7. ma _...... \L HH .1 h .
_... 4?
...\
I l. I III I. III I .
«J40 fi... DOD :04 . .03 A). 0304.0 mucmufl 4.....“ “...... T “uh-wanna:
II I II I1 I II ...I II I. I I I I‘ll
fl..‘..l\..,\..ln
nJ.om a.» «4.44 n.n n.44 am.nm n.44 a.“ >.;u ooum
0 O \JWOII )0). O \J 04).. O) O. OII o
4.0 .3 3 a ...... s ,r x o o .....m ....w J 4 .... 3. .r 33.4..

“3
rl
O
"I
O
__I
O
D
*1
i
Z.“
'3
H
O
'3
A]
0
OD
. _‘:0
ML)
0
-4
IO
\1
o
I.)
4;
'7}
O
n
.-1
r)
4.)
-1 H

J

’3
o

3.}

If)

‘3
O

t“

C7
j!

o
J
J

O
l)

- o

‘\.

—{ r—i
') r!
L. ‘ o

D- ' 1)

V) '0

L" 1f)

o o

L.‘ "3

H 1
.3 ' 3

o o

J ‘2

r! r!

11‘" r“!
o o
D a
J 2

’3

1’) 4|
H I.
I. J
1

\do I.) 10.1 \O) .30. 30.1 O. )oxJn .1032. ....)
0.1. any...» .1 mag -m. _ . CH .VLU .xq, m.” CH J Mr .r r ma ..U

3
o
t)
l
41‘
o
“3
'3
\f‘
o
D
”3
D
o

')
a.
o
l"'I
F4
.1
\7
o
73
.3)
.
{-I
r“!
n)
o
’J)
_{
__.
'i
'3 11‘) V)

L; :31 \‘l

D
0
O
[A
j!
H
o
D-
h
0
:0
O
-‘J!
o
I)
o
.‘
.4
I»
3‘.
D
‘Q
10
O
J
D
O
i)
.1
L3
0
1
\l

'3
o
1’)
“I
J!
o
O
_4
.J
o
f‘
f)
0
r4
0
J!
4
C)
Q
o
D
‘ -)
H
0

fl
r“!
j!
o
3‘:
1") LO
0
’3
1
I)
D
0::

 

 

Ho.) 0 14. O) 01 07.7. ..1 O )0?) )0 0.1) )J0
a .fi n DH mm (w H 0H 0 .. rm GD : ax 0 HH : 2;.0
n11] \.
» LI» w
.) I: \J [.1 ,4-¢ \) II s; \a.. I... 3 -.-. \1 H“! «11.4‘) JIIJ 14
..J .r. J .0, p P.\.._. ..C 0.... tr .. ..JH..r D _. ...... 4
3.4 {\Illliv 3....IJI.:\H I_‘II JIID II 5\ )«Afijl—DWI .‘IJ..|II) uu‘!,1. )1 4i) J!)
I... _.m ...p 1.. _-...- 09-...--123. ...-.H ...v n. ...}..- .,. . ... 1.. . 0... kn.-.
II I ‘1‘ x 4 0 .. .. t v n I n J) 4 .)II
4.99p m.d: HJpcp mjdax marpweofl p mp.oo wa.H®3 hogan p . J:
I ‘ . . l- I II \ .J. I 11 . I )... o .u I I. \I . I \II ) II )II I ... .1
Law . mg an 42” $0 n.MVd um 0L H; u:.;xv. vawum.nrH4fifl mmrH 9.. At. .m1.4xrio m. u
. Q . r u 4 r a o

. 134 J- I I.
4mm wages La daunm m.oapfldfloo audwu mzmpo dun meJDA JH
Mommas U ... 04.4 m. 4.449 .1) 4.4: 4. . ...
. x: r .. . a». ..k -J....r.\.;4.r..n00...q .1. -J I I. .
. - .4..- no .3. _.... T-.. 5;“; me. tar... _ a Mo Pivpdoc 094443.393 390

N

9'0

 

3931—102) 'IVHnL1nDIHDV NVDIHDIW

 

125.

 

were secured from alfalfa hay cured in bunches for

approximately three and one half days and in cocks for

the remainder of the time. They demonstrate that alfalfa

hay cured in the manner just indicated undergoes the same

moisture loss that it does when cured in the windrows.

This set of figures substantiates also the fact that there

is a similar loss of moisture in leaves and stems, but
In addition, the

-.' :- m“__”.
h

less thoroughly on the part of the stems.

1'
loss of even i of the moisture during the second day is l;
._I

again strikingly noticeable.
These general statements are all further borne

out by the results obtained from curing alfalfa hay in the

swath as represented in Tables 29A, 29B, Figure 86. It is

evident from this that whatever the processes are that are
carried during the curing of hay, those processes will go on

regardless of which particular one of the methods described in

connection with this project is used. However, it is also

apparent and the fact should not be overlooked that the hay
curing in the swath was reduced in moisture content to an

unnecessarily low figure, physically manifested in dry,

brittle, easily shattered leaves. rThis. accounts for the 1915' ge

loss of leaves from shattering which always takes place when

alfalfa hay is cured in the swath and which was particularly

evident in this work as contrasted to the retentiun of leaves

where the hay was cured in windrows or bunches. Inspection of

the figures secured when hay from the swaths was built into

iii! a» .

Elli a v .

6

17-

b-

 

II 3...
3 o u. no) 3.fi b 3..;
”53.13 $04 0.0 (.m H) O V ..V . ot\_\!
n. r 3 l . .. ..
.II II . I )\‘I.")
.31 o .J J O b- a. b
330)) we? POO Wow DD 6: b b r
J _. \\ ’ II
3 T - l )3.-
I. 0.4.11 AJO OOH: -_...“). SON” l. flow/H
3.-.... a... a... a... :- . .. .....- . ....
L 03.044 3).. )I)...» 0.3.. a m. 4333 03.3... -..o...~._..:nw “.4099 _H. 33. ......i. Q\._
. ._. . .... J”. --- , - . . . -. 4 .3...) .... D
. . .. .0.) 120‘ JINOIflJI 0. >03... MA... .... Q3 0‘
4.4.3.4.... 4.04.- C .. v . n . - 1 .. . . Ting
I . .. o x. 01 HA..- x) ml.
Hfibl} HOT. 100.). 3.0 Qfluop...” H0 .‘rw M.“ ...... \. Fan LJo.
.\ I h r._ . .
«L f» ' I
Io.aa 0.3 3.0 0.? 33.3% o. fl.fi 9.0 03 n4.3

Hymn—...Omun .)_..\._ WOO ‘0)..Iml WNW“.
03.i3 I.> fl.m Q.W4 03.40 n.fl >.fi 0.3 0.0% DQHH
. . ...... . T . . {a f . .l . . o o . .

ow.n3 a.n Q.o 0.0H a..30 Q

_....U G; ... .... .. ...

3H.no n.w n.s a..

I
.)
r1
0
.0 PI H
9
3
o
.. '1“ _.
A)
.4
4
.._1
\7
D
\Q
U3

 

0
03.33 n.c e.fl $.HH no.mo .o m.6 H.34 0H 3).)
.\ . .. . .. ., u ».I..\ . .. . II ‘

on. a.
I. O) I... .1 .01 71)...) I.) 20... .0 )1 O
".50. . ... ... T J .... ..J 9...... _ L :3. J - C \ uV JH v a. mwxfiom
o. 10...... ...... .3031. )Jo. 0.) 0.... 1.03.... .15.. J 0....
30 as 7 :H a n r er g. cm H a H x a c: :s mH.z
\J o O O O . 07 )0)! )0) 0.3 w... I) .110)
m7 as... ._H DH \. \u D QM :3 t .1 .._.. _ r \L f A. firi.
”.7. \J
. 24‘ I.
..(‘1 It I .!\}II n
m Fr..... 0 3.....-
x - x) «d- I .. 3 f ...) , .- .3 .... J I)
... o . . . ._......H . m3}..- 1 m3.-. .3s :3 m .._....
.) x; \. ..\JI .. 3 ...J \1.‘ .. -..) I.) 3..)-l‘ c... \/ I..;.J allyll).. O) Junta.)
_.Ml.A ”M: ...\O ‘l . D..' Pfifi PM I”. I..I . . .0 ... P ..G .51 . lrl\ n\ J. .... ... ”lunar PHVI.‘ P..... ... DI m- Obur r.—\/ al\ flI—._l..l
.13} J .l )1 ...II . \ 4.‘) I II) -3 .. I I ...-.’.. .) \IW .)l. \- ..Aau \u 31 \ «:1 J:
ozynb _ ....-. mun...“ Page... Hu.,:._.fis.o ou:nm ”0....” 1. an. (...... p .. 3.... Hazarfluo 3.1.3-. r .. .-_.

......) a...) O-..) 4... J 4.0x...) ‘3- l.
.L.r .. . I . .\ r .v...‘ J) IQIVJIILI... . . .- ..\
-+ ._ .H -mrrc :. gkw-+.v Ho mums) din o3 J-l I. -3 f
r .- .- ... L C L . ... ._ . D) )) -
7 (v \ .r . A. .10 PP..\( 0C4.._) mg ““'.—4 '4.‘ )jj‘l ‘3):
- ‘ I.p|‘ .. x — .r .’IVJ ......
, c . I I s l ... a.... nun r“...

.m.._........n Hm. 5 a... .3)
._ r.

ll, PL.

is.

 

a..- m.s 33.¢H a. o.u n4.n4 n.m e.pH s.ma a..m
. v v .. ht .. .. .. ...! |
. .. - sm\o
u3.33 _.q 33.3m s. ..q ma... 0.3 e.cH 9.34 3.".
.... r h. ..r .. .
I1 I. c.
nh.ms H.Q mm. m w. . m.a 3».nu m.0 0.0: e. H 3mwwm
.9 4 .. ..
.£.d Dane non mid. maooo eous wanna Coma pafijh bah
.. . .1 {an 03 Do doDH DOWJ. 3.0”?
0),. o . .4. Q. O. .r 4 H H _ . - 1‘
m» a3 H H a. -m L ma\c
3 H‘OI1aI-l ”ll
.3.o. H.n mm.a a. m.» p...4 m.. n.. t _r a; J
- . ... n. I .0... ._-"
Ugomafl... DOW» 0.).\ufl 0. MVOflH ..VQ..H.~\ -_...“..Q .Hosfil w ._.... “ma/WIWVUJI.
- . a). . 0.- 43.-2 a.a p.3a n.ma -w".
idofifi w 3 u -H v t . L . t I\J
O
.17.. .10 ”.10 )u 1.) O OH). DDHQAI
0501) «.300. ....fiobm Won... 4 a _..? ... .._.... 3. my DH m. H If-
3..\3
.13 .. I. . ... 3...":
us.e> 3.0 33..m e.H o.s as.r. s.s 7.)r a as r -
.. .. . ) ......1 o ... u
as.oo a.n su.sn n.u o.b 3w.n3 a.» m in H er ta 3
03.00 3.> 33.40 3.9 ..0H Nd.nh 3.0H o.HH N.HM nH.H
3-... 2.. 31.33 ..e 4.n- Hq.a. 4.n. H.3H m.nn .Juaa
.5 .. x . I ..- . f

i
o
_)
D
l
o
)1
Ev
O
o
:3
)
H
O
.3
'0
H
:‘l
.0
g}.
3
"3
o
"D
H

0
43
O
I
D
O
‘0
H
K)=O
O
LQ
O
Q
:‘2
D
D

 

 

rllll‘lllf

O _ .
No.00 m.h no.0h a.9 r ma 9 : - .
”I. . .. . 2 O )
\q.zn n.o .\.\4 3.0 n.mH 0 H9 m ma 3 o n 2 3:.a
L... g L L L “J7... \xu.
|\.|.\ .-
O O O O u. 01)“ o
...): a.» m..m- m o 0 ma so 93 a ma 0 o _ .: nH.m
0.. ) . .lcll . . \l.\J H...“-
m¢.H3 m.ma 3n.m: H.a Q.Hn ow no a no 0 m n : 0H :
l l. O I. I O ...). 01...]... OW... "do
wuodm H.0H 0H.O¢ w.wr fl )2 O >0 O as m .r L .4 nm\;
A.\
-MH.AJ flu 03.39-0H m,dm- 9 “mp m_wnfi
. . ..t 3|! I1. Oil ll. IIIAI \ «:1 ll . 1 II I 0.. .t’)
p.3au. ma Jag p ..r- my_. T a. m menu mw .-p.c w:::iu
43909 akipa3ci thap m JAJ Hyunwog 9;».10o pt-nn; H3p3. 94min:
\ \l \ ‘1) lo ‘- Iul ) ‘\|.\IJ| \; n\ I. .l .. In 4. I) . 1))! ‘ll . lo.‘
.0 9 H. w er.pm.oa 3: . agar ones.,oi pa 9.9 p :.u: _E, £uo orrm
F . . I a r . I u I
.maopm ma>nmm P.33HH carpi:
O 3).. J. ...J 4......1. ) ..t .... -.. .
dgn o.n.4 :: dcns_ m_a 34;. a 4 1. 2; 2 . .
l I . .. . .... . ...- ... .. 3C med. ._H U....®Qt0 dfifiw mm>ud®qr 4% PA

osflpmaoi mad. 43 104319. 4..m3
vi .- .-.. ...! m:- c. q $4.13. dun-MW rwli |. J!“ I... .$
. : dwermad we prcpgoo manpmaos Aspaa :H one .00:

E 7.,

Mfin $4 0J4

er:

MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

DEPgiTMEN ”F MA

 

338.

cocks about thirty hours before being hauled in shows that

this had some effect in retarding too excessive a loss of
moisture from the entire plants during the last day of curing.
But even so, lying in the swath up to that time had such an

influence that the leaves continued to dry down as quickly as

before with just as much shattering. The inferiority of

 

curing hay in the swath to curing in windrows or bunches is
only too apparent.

Conclusions.

 

The conclusions to be arrived at from the results of

 

this major field experiment, further summarized in Tables 20

and 31
Table 30.

Comparison of the Reduction in Moisture Content of the Five

 

During Methods. Percent Moisture Content.
Time Humid- Straight Bunches - Swath
ity 5 00 Curved 00. tooth followed Swath followed

tooth windrow CO. by coch300 TC by cocks

#_f windrow. .__

5/24

51) 24 67.16 24 64.80 28 65.51 50 67.20-- --_.

4:) 57 25 64.79 24 66.88 25 60.00 24 68.86 .. --..

5;) 20 65.94 18 64.78 2455 60.79 25 69.65-- --..

6 25

7:45 85 16 65.98 16 65.79 14 59.21 16 61.40-- ---..

8:45 19 65,91 21 64,84 17 61.57 21 52.46-- ---.—

9:45 22 68.55 20 59.54 21 57.66 25 57.52-- ----

10:45 62 21 61.87 24 57.46 22.5 56.71 26.5 54.51-- ..--—

1: 28 59.47 28 49.46 50 51.58 54 48.12-- ----

5: 4o 21 49.12 24 56.72 2725 46.16 56 39.80-- ----

5: 22 40.15 18 44.61 2653 55.56 25 41.09-- ----

6 26

g -%5 67 18 49.01 19 51.55 16 51.55 16 47.24 ......

{g 46.- 22 55.88 20 29.65 26 59.07 23.5-2.9.61 ----- -
30:35 75 24 29.04 24.5 27.49 2245 55.14 28.24.64 225 26.90
5:15 57 26.5 24.06 25.5 24.09 27 18.25 54 19.50 27 25 18
6/29
9:50 60 28.5 20.15 52 17.12 26 25.25 54 15.54 27 la'r

 

Table

Note:

30.

Cont.

Rain occurred on the morning of June 25 at from 12:

t0 1: A.H.

during the evening of June 25 from 10: to 11:00 P.M.

extent of .09 of an inch.

Comparison of the Decrease in

with that of
Moisture Percentage of Leaves

n“
J.

p

rble

31.

to the extent of .10 of an inch;

the Stems.

Moisture

and occurred

to the

Moisture Content of the Leaves

1“,
‘5}

Percentage of Stems.

 

Curved Straight Bunches Curved straight Bunches
Time tooth tooth & Swath tooth tooth & cocks Swmfll
windrow windrow cocks Camihliwindrow windrow
6/24~ ”
3: 66.93 62.50 65.77 66.67 67.35 66.13 65.22 67135
4: 64.22 66.21 59.24 66.40 65.26 67.42 60.96 70350
5; 62.03 63.16 59.99 59.62 65.39 66.17 61.74 78.34
6 25
7:45 66.45 63.64 57.15 62.38 365.61 67.26 61.46 60333
8:45 60.58 63.85 60.55 61.61 66.43 65.56 62.69 63213
9:45 64.20 -54.91 54.91 54.96 70.17 62.61 60.39 59.36
10:45 56.42 55.39 52.99 51.05 64.97 59.32 59.88 573.5
I: 59.61 39.45 44.93 37.65 59.36 55.96 56.67 55J.2
3: 41.56 55.31 41.80 28.05 55.44 57.84 50.00 48133
5; 25.40 34.62 31.43 25.00. 49.50 50.58 67.89 495 9
6 26
19:15 45.66 45.79 49.11 43.75 51.82 54.55 53.97 69J58
6 27
3:30 19.68 12.83 29.34 13.21 40.80 36.46 54.71 38J39
6/28 cocks
10:15 15.79 11.30 14.04 12.03-14.82/ 36.18 34.79 42.61 3182-34. 07
3z/15 10.21 11. 95 4.45 34542.97 30.28 30.65 25.00 26.7 1433.9:
6 29
9:30 11.37 15.39 15.79 119l~9.31 23.54 18.06 27.53

14.11—2 £3. 62]

(300

‘7
['50

r;

O.

'17 ,1. .

 

v.

MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

~—o~-t¢—H‘

. y “-4...”

1- o.» ._...f- -

 

do”: 21

JUNL 18

dam-1'17

h .
d '
u Q
I .
3
V
C

Java. 1+

 

130.

and Figure 27, are as follows:-

1. No significant differences exist between the
results secured from curing alfalfa hay in either the windrow
made directly after mowing with a curved tooth, left-hand
drive, side-delivery rake, the windrow made directly after
mowing with a straight tooth, left-hand drive, side-delivery
rake, or in bunches made directly after mowing and cooked,
three and one half days later.

2. Curing alfalfa hay in the swath results in too
rapid a loss of moisture particularly in the leaves thereby
causing an unnecessary amount of shattering. This effect
is not counteracted even when the hay which has been in the
swath for three and one half days is cooked 30 hours or
less before actually being hauled in.

3. The rate of'moisture loss from the stems is
similar to that from the leaves in alfalfa plalts urotocted
from the sun. In plants exposed to the sun the rate of mois-
ture loss from the leaves significantly exceeds that from the
stems.

4. Stems do not dry down as thoroughly or to as low
a moisture content as do the leaves.

5. The moisture content of green, uncured alfalfa
plants at the stage of maturity at which the flowers are com-
ing into bloom and the lower leaves are becoming disallored
is approximately 65%. The moisture content of cured alfalfa
hay ready to be hauled to the mow or stack is approximatelyZOfi.

6. From 40% to 50%, of the moisture of green,

131.

uncured alfalfa is located in the leaves. After the al-
falfa has cured from 16.13% to 31.58%<0f the moisture is
located in the leaves and from 68.575 to 83.875 in the
stems.

7. The greatest moisture loss, over 253,
occurs after the first four hours of curing and, in this

experiment, during the second day of curing.

 

Qpnclusions

 

The results secured from the experimental work
conducted in connection with this thesis proolem are of
such a nature that the writer feels justified in lormula-
ting the following conclusions.

1. The leaves are an important agency in the
removal of moisture from alfalfa plants 'oein-c cured in
the preparation for hay. This remarx is warranted because:

a. staining tests have sheen the loath taxen by
moisture in escaping irom alfalfa plants to be through the
leaves.

b. An even drying out of leaves and stems is
secured when alfalfa plants are protected irom exposure to
the sun during the time of curing, whereas, the leaves dry
excessively rapid and the stems comparatively slouly on
these plants that are exposed to direct sunlight. ror
when a moisture percentage of 15p is assumed for the
leaves under all conditions it has seen sheen that the
stems of the plants in the windrous have from 18-252
moiStuIe, whereas, those in the swath still have as Iigh
a moisture content as from 31-342. This demonstrates
that when the function of the leaves is destroyed 0y the
searing action 01 the sun the normal loss 01 moisture irom
the stems is inhioited.

2. To secure comparatively even drying oi the
alfalfa plants and the retention of leaves alialfa hay

should oe cured in uindrows or in ounches that are later

153

cocaed. Curing in the suath.should not be practiced oe-
cause it causes too rabid a loss of moisture from the leaves
which become dry and brittle uiile the stems still have a
high moisture content.

3. In this morn alfalfa hay cured equally tell in
bunches that were later doomed as it did in windrows. oe-
cause of the tins and laoor saved oy curinb in windrows, a
well eStaolished fact, the latter is ooviously the method to
be recommended.

4. In this worn alfalfa hay cured equally tell in
windro’ws made with a curved tooth, left-hand drive, side de-
livery rane as it did in windrows made with a straiaht tooth,
left-hand drive, side delivery rage.

5. while alfalfa hay is curing the greatest mois-
ture loss seems to occur durin¢ the first hour immediately
after cutting, and during the tuelve hours of sunshine lOllO-
wing the first half day, or four hours of curing.

6. The average moisture content of green, uncut
alfalfa at the stage of naturity recommended ior cutting
namely, when l/lO of the alfalfa is in bloom and the lower
leaves are oeginniné to discolor, has oeen found to oe
65.00m. The aVcrace moisture content of alfalfa hay, field

cured, ready to ca hauled to the mom or stacn is b0.UOp.

 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

15.

154.

Bibliography.

Ola-1.3:, O'C.
Hay Crepe of the United States
U. S. D. A. Bureau of Statistics. Bu1.63 (1908)

Hay and Feed Statistics.
U. S. D. A. Statistical Bul. 11. (1925)

Year Book.
U. S. D. A. (1924)

church, V. H. '
Crop Report for Michigan.
Annual Summary (1925) (1924) (1923).

Mo. Clure, H. B. and Collier, G.A.
Marketing Hay at Country Points.
U. S. D. a. Bul. 977. (1921)

Mo. Clure, H. B. and Collier, G. ..
Marketing Hay through Terminal Markets.
U. S. D. A. Bul. 979 (1921)

Me. Clure, H. B.
Market Hay.
U. S. D. A. F. 3. 508 (1912)

Me. Clure, H. B.
Conditions Affecting value cf’harket Hay.
U. S. D. A. F. B. 362 (1909)

Parker, E. C. and Seeds, 1. B.
Handbook of Official Hay Standards.
U. S. D. A. Bureau of Agricultural Economics (1925).

Spillman, W. J.
Farm.Management (1923)

Carrier, L. L.
The Beginning of Agriculture in America. (1923)

Lloyd, F. J.
The Science of Agriculture (1884).

Graber, L. F.
Making Alfalfa Hay.
Hoard's Dairyman. Vol 69 P. 649, May 15, 1925.

 

 

155.

14. Rather, H. C.
Curing Alfalfa.
Michigan State College Ext. Bul. 55 (1925)

15. Linklater, W. A.
Brown Hay
Washington State College Monthly Bul.
Vol. VII, No. 3 (1919)

16. Cumings, G. A.
Methods of Handling Hay in Colored)
Colorado Sta. Bul. 281. pp. 3-39. (1925)

17. Samarani, F.
The Italian.Method of'Ensiling Hay {
Hoard's Dairyman. Vol. 63. No. 24. p. 806. (1922)

 

18. Thomson, R. D. 7
Theory of Haymaking. '
U. 3. Patent Office. Report 1847. pp 421-425. (1847) '

19. New Use for Hot Air in Curing Hay.
SCI-O .Amo V0. 132. pp. 47-8. (1924.)

,1
'1

i
e.
1.

 

f C
Y O
. . ' I
O O
O ' l
I
I O
I l e l
a
I I .
O
I p l I I

 

 

..

.75. A
h. - ..
w. u.
... . ....

.... 1..
.
.y
m.
2.. . ...
...]. n

...: nth...” .....H .
...-fr .... .. .....

.- ritzygth

 

. .. . D. . . v . ~ d. »~ 7.? s. .. r
. «... .. . ... . .... .1}. ...un.... .. .. -...1. ..
veggies .... M .1,“me Tm rt.
......n. . ...“. .... . if...

owe:
‘9

 

I €
l. +

 

. .. . ..v. . . .V
W...“ {Mr

2.58%

......
... ~z .

Lat....tt:fi...

. ... a. .
J . Il- .
f ... ‘12.}.

l

9

......I. ..e ..IIe.‘ I» .

I.I....._ .. 1!“

I fKtthIIanv. -
"hWeIOnothII

  

\‘fi‘
"i I.

 

 

*R‘ 4 ‘1. P’Q
i.4....~9|\3.‘!

 

.m.;1.1-IIP\IJ. “1.11.. {I fur...

      

.....L...,.... ..x ...

 

 

 

"Illll’ll’ll'll‘ll’lll'1'“