THE FRACT!CAB§L1TY OF THE SILO
AS APPLIED TC MILK
PRODUCNON lN THE CORN BELT

Thesis for the Degree of M. 5.
Walter j. Rawson
I935

 

 

 

‘1‘, -.

’<

'.."V’o".. .A- . ’ A
-4 "Saw «9 —. ;A . A
‘QL‘ -' V
‘ : 3:.
- 'MY. .‘

{A

 

The Practicability of the $110
as Applied to
Milk Production in the Corn Belt

 

The Practicability of the Silo
as Applied to
Milk Production in the Corn Belt

Thesis

Respectfully submitted to the Graduate School
of the Michigan State College of Agriculture
and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Master of

Science.

by

u’ “EL/K
Walter J. Rawson

4‘ L 5mm“.

1 9 5 5

IHLSié

v

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer is deeply indebted to mr.C.F.Buffman,
Research Associate in Dairying, for his guidance in
the planning of this investigation, and for his kind
and constructive criticism of the manuscript. Sincere
appreciation is expressed to hr. E.L.Anthony, Dean of
Agriculture, for his criticism of the outline and for
the helpful suggestions given.

Thanks are also due Er. Clyde Godfrey, Mr. Henry
Van Deusen, and Mr. Charles Tucker, dairymen, who so
generously offered their herds for the experiment;
to Wilbur Godfrey, DeWitt Van Deusen and Burr Tucker,
Future Farmers, for their assistance in the collection
of data; and to ur. C.W. Duncan, Experiment Station
Chemist,and his associates for making the chemical

analyses used in this report.

as
CD
Q3
33
as
Z:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Review of the Literature
reading Value
Digestible Nutrients and Production Energy
Succulence and Palatability
Succulence and Water Consumption
Comparative'reeding Tests
Compared with Corn Fodder
Compared with Grain
Compared with Glover and Timothy
Compared with Alfalfa
Summary and Discussion of Feeding Value
Cost of Production
Silage Production Costs
Filling Costs
Silo Costs
Permanent Upright Silos
Temporary Silos
Trench Silos
Summary and Discussion of Cost of Production
Comparative Losses,in Storing and Feeding
Harvesting and Feeding Losses

Storage Losses

Summary and Discussion of Comparative Losses

03030101 0| ()1 N H H

N N N N NNN N N H H H
(I) (I) a) U1 POEM-J H H 0‘ O} H

()3
H

 

 

Experimental Work
Object
Original Plan of the Experiment

Selection of Horde
Selection of Animals
Time

Kinds

method of Feeding
Feed.Records

'Feed Consumed
Nutrients Consumed

Feed Analysis
Production Records

Milk Records
Butterfat Records

Temperature Records
Water

Exercise

Experimental Procedure

Selection of Herds
Selection of Animals
Time

Feeds

‘Feed Records

32
32
32
32
32
32
33
33
33

33
33

34
34

34
34

34
34
34

35
35
35
35
36

Feed Analysis
Production‘Reoords
Temperature Records
Water
Exercise
Experimental Results
Production
Feed Consumption
Herd No. 1
Herd No. 2
Herd No. 3
Herd No. 4
Digestible Nutrients
Cost of Feeds
Total Costs
Cost of Digestible Nutrients
Milk and Butterfat Costs
Discussion of Experimental Results
Summary and Conclusion

Literature Cited

Appendix

36
36
36
36
36

37
38
38
39
4O
41
42
43
43
45

47

'54

56
61

INTRODUCTION

The first silo in America was erected by Manley
males of Michigan in 1875. In 1882 there were 92 silos
in the Uhited States. The increase in the number of
silos was quite rapid, and by 1920 the feeding of ensilage
had become a standard practice. Succulence was considered
an essential factor in dairy feeding. Profitable milk
production during the winter without ensilage was considerdd
practically impossible.

It is no doubt true that experimental evidence was an
important factor in the promotion of the use of silage. 0n
reviewing literature, however, it is surprising how little
useful data can be found. Silage feeding practices are
really based on evidence that is scanty because of the
small number of individuals used and the short duration of
most of the tests.

Early experiments(1) conducted shortly after the
introduction of the silo indicated a greater milk production
through the feeding of silage. This was interpreted also to.
mean a lower cost of production. The building.of silos was
again stimulated by the results of Christi(2) in 1916-17
in which he showed that silage was a most economical feed
not only for dairy cows, but for beef cattle and sheep as

well.

Several recent investigations(3,4), however, indicate
that either the importance of the silo might have been
exaggerated or that due to a change of roughage fed or to
superior methods of grain feeding and watering, the silo
is regarded as less of a necessity. .Also, since 1930,
especially during 1932-33, many silos remained unfilled.
This again raises the question as to the practicability
of the silo.

It was the purpose of this investigation to determine
if possible the value of corn silage in the dairy ration

from the standpoint of economy.

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Although the experimental work deals only with the
feeding value of corn silage, it will be necessary also
to present, in the review of literature, data on certain other
factors which have a direct bearing on economical production.
These.1atter factors will be considered under two headings,
cost of production and losses in feeding and storage. The
review of literature will then be presented in three distinct
topics, each topic being summarized and discussed separately.

Feeding'Eglgg

Digestible Nutrients and Production Energy

The feeding value of silage depends on the digestible
nutrients it carries, its succulence, and palatability.
' The following table gives the dry matter and digestible
nutrients found in a silage and in other crops which might be

substituted for silage:

 

Dry Protein Carbohydrates Fat Total

Matter Digestible

‘ Nutrients

% F % i»

Timothy 88.4 3 42.8 1.2 48.5
Red Clover 87.1 7.6 39.3 1.8 50.9
Alfalfa 91.4 10.6 39 .9 51.6
Corn Silage 26.3 1.1 15 .7 17.7
Corn Fodder 57.8 2.5 34.6 1.2 39.8

A‘

It is apparent from-the above table that 2.9 lbs. of silage
would replace 1 lb. of alfalfa hay on the basis of total digestible

nutrients.

2.

Pearson and Gaines (5) stated that a ton of ordinary
corn silage contained 354 lbs. of digestible nutrients. With
an average yield, 4.6 bu. of corn were found in each ton of
fodder. If 4.6 bu.of corn contain 211 lbs. of digestible
nutrients, this leaves 133 lbs. of digestible nutrients to come
from the roughage part of the silage. It takes 280 lbs. of .
timothy or 250 lbs. of clover to furnish 232 lbs. of digestible
nutrients. Therefore, 1 ton of silage equals 4.6 bu. of corn plus
280 lbs. of timothy or 250 lbs. of clover from the standpoint
of energy. Fraps(6) found that average alfalfa and corn silage
produced 37.4 and 15.6 therms of energy per cwt. respectively.
On the basis of productive energy 2.4 lbs. of silage should be
as good as 1 lb. of alfalfa.
Succulence‘ggd,Palatabiligy

The Mhine station (1) in 1889 found that the addition of
ensilage to the ration increased the milk yield over that which
was indicated by the dry matter eaten. This increase must have
been due to the superior value of the nutrients in the silage
over those in the hay or to a general physiological effect of
feeding a variety of feeds. An increase of 85 lbs. of milk to
a ton of silage was attained. This superior feeding value of
silage, however, was so slight that Bartlett(l) in his summary
is quoted as follows: "It should be remembered that greenness
and wetness add nothing to what a food can supply to the animal
body in the form of matter and energy, but are merely conditions

affecting palatability': ‘Drynessr he stated," is of no disadvantage

as to digestibility. Therefore, the old theory that cattle
foods have a nutritive value in proportion to the dry matter
they contain still holds good?

As a portion of the conclusion to their dairy cow
feeding experiment in 1920, Foster and Meeks(7) stated that
there was no evidence to show that the addition of silage
to the ration of alfalfa hay on account of its succulence
increased the milk flow or kept the cows in a more healthy
condition.

Converse(3), in 1928, found that the factor of silage
succulence did not increase the value of a ration containing
an ample quantity of good alfalfa hay and a satisfactory
grain ration.

Succulence £39 1313; Consmtion

While many experiments have been carried on to determine
the value of succulence in the ration, very little has been
done to determine the actual value of water in the ration,
its relation to succulence, or its value in a succulent feed.
Ihite and Johnson(8), however, conducted a series of experiments
in 1930-35 which had as their object the role of succulence and
water consumption. In a trial in which silage, moistened beet
pulp and hay were compared on the basis of total water
consumption and dry matter consumption very little difference
was found. They stated that at the prevailing prices, the hay

group produced milk more cheaply than either of the other two.

 

This close comparison may be seen in the following table:

.Average daily Dry Mhtter and Water Consumption

 

Dry Matter Water
.__ HayflvSucculenqe Roughage Total Feed Drink Total
Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
Hay 22.3 22.3 31.7 3.20 141.93 145.13
Silage 16. 6.3 22.3 31.6 21.53 122.44 144.07
Beet Pulp 17. 5.7 22.7 31.4 39.68 95.72 135.40

__‘1

The next table gives the results of different watering methods:

 

Total water Consumption
g Dry matter f Feed Drink Total
Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
Hay
watered once 29.4 2.47 110.96 113.43
Silage
Watered once 27.5 31.37 82.55 113.92
Hay
Iatered at will 33.5 2.81 136.52 139.33

._A ##M

.Adding silage to the ration failed to increase the dry
matter consumption, but providing a constant supply of water
increased it considerably. They concluded that the amount of
water drunk plus the water in the succulent feed is approximately
equal to the water drunk by animals receiving no succulence.

They also concluded that farmers are not Justified in
going to unusual expense to provide succulence for dairy
animals unless the dry matter in the succulent feed can be
secured at as low or lower cost than in good hay, and that if

animals have free access to water succulence is not necessary.

Comparative Feeding Test;

Compared with Corn Fodder At Vermont, in 1889,
Hills(9) compared corn fodder and corn silage from the same
source as to feeding values. The test showed that equal
amounts of dry matter from either source had the same feed
value. A similar test in Missouri wee unfavorable to silage.

Compared Illfl.§£§l§ In 1917, Christi (2) of Purdue
performed several feeding experiments which proved quite
favorable to the silo. He gave one group of cows a heavy
grain ration and the other a heavy silage ration. The amount
of feed consumed per 100 lbs. of milk produced is as follows:

Grain Silage Stover Hay

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
Heavy Grain Group 80 - 28 37
Heavy Silage Group ' 20.5 298 - 34

 

Therefore, 100 lbs. of silage replaced 20 lbs. of grain.

With grain at Silage is worth
$25.00 per ton $5.00 per ton
30.00 6.00
50.00 10.00
60.00 12.00

At this rate Christi(2) stated that the value of silage
exceeds the combined values of 4.5 to 5 bu. of corn in
each ton of silage, plus the value of the stover, plus the

cost of putting corn in the silo.

Compared gith Clover gnd Timothy The Montana
Station in 1913 (10) compared the value of clover and
corn silage as feed for dairy cattle. 0ne lot was fed grain,
clover and alfalfa. The other lot was fed grain, clover,
alfalfa and silage. The grain ration fed was 3 parts of
bran, 2 parts of shorts, 3 parts of oats, 1 part of barley
and 1 part of corn. The results indicated that 165.5 lbs.
of silage was equivalent to 3.6 lbs. of clover hay. With
grain at $20.00 and clover hay at $6.00, silage was worth
$2.50. One pound of hay was equivalent to 3.6 pounds of
silage. The cost of producing 100 lbs. of milk on clover
was 73.9¢ and on silage 73.8¢. The cost of producing
butterfat on clover was 17.9¢ and on silage 17.8¢.

In Minnesota(ll), in 1888, ensilage was compared
to timothy. A basal ration of 7 lbs. of wheat bran, 4 lbs.
of corn and 3 lbs. of oil meal was used. Fourteen pounds of
timothy hay were compared with 35 lbs. of silage. It was
found that the hay did more good than 2.5 times the weight of
the silage,and that the cows gained weight on the hay.

At the Maine Station(1), in 1889, 8.8 lbs. of silage
were found slightly superior to 1.98 lbs. of timothy, and
that silage was worth $2.25 when the hay was worth $10.00.

Compared.gfi£h.é;falfa In 1920, Foster and Meeks(&)
reported results of dairy feeding experiments in which corn
silage was compared with alfalfa. Lot I received 30 lbs. of
silage, all the alfalfa hay they would eat, and 1 lb. of

grain for each 5 lbs. of milk produced. Lot II received
all alfalfa and the same grain ration. The double reversal
method was used and the test consisted of four 25-day periods.
There were two lots of eight cows each. The addition of corn
silage made a more palatable ration with a wider nutritive
ratio. It increased the production of milk and butterfat.
A second experiment was conducted on practically the same
basis as above. The difference in the total quantity of
milk produced by corn silage and alfalfa with grain as
compared with the total milk produced with alfalfa alone
with grain was 166.9 lbs. Foster concluded that the results
favored the addition of silage to the ration, but was too
slight to be considered.‘ In this case the addition of the
silage increased the cost of the ration. With grain at $30.00
and alfalfa at $10.00 per ton corn silage was worth $3.50.
With grain at $60.00 and alfalfa at $20.00 per ton corn silage
was worth $8.00. As an average of the two experiments 30
percent was saved but the cost of milk production was not
reduced. It took 3 tons of silage to replace 1 ton of alfalfa.
Four percent more milk and 2.4 percent more fat were obtained
with alfalfa. There was little difference in the cost with
hay at $10.00 and silage at $3.50 per ton. He stated that the
results of these tests are not in accord with the common

belief in regard to corn silage since they do not show that it

§

either lowers the cost of the ration or the production. He
stated that silage in the ration will take the place of the
high priced alfalfa to the extent of nearly one-half.
Silage will decrease the cost of feed if alfalfa is worth more
than $6.00 per ton, without decreasing the production of milk
and fat. Home~grown alfalfa which cannot be profitably mar-
keted will make the feeding of ailage of doubtful value. He
concluded that with cheap pasture and cheap roughage the silo
is not essential to successful dairying in New Mexico.

In 1923, Utah(12) reported a similar experiment.

There were seven cows in each group. The experiment was
conducted for two years. There were four weeks in each period,
the reversal method was used, and one week's time intervened
each of the feeding periods. In one ration the cows were
given all the alfalfa they would eat three times a day, and
one-half pound of grain for each pound of butterfat produced
in a week. In the second period the Holsteins were given
30 lbs. of silage, and the Jerseys 25 lbs. of silage in addition
to alfalfa. The results showed a slightly higher milk and butter-
fat production, but Carroll (12) stated that it is questionable
that the difference is really significant. The amount of silage
required to replace 1 ton of alfalfa hay for fat production
was 2.69 tons; and for milk production was 2.9 tons. The
percent of increase on silage was 5.2. The average gain per
head on silage was 11.5 and without silage was 9.5 pounds.

Fairchilds and Wilbur(l3)‘found that comparatively
few experiments had been conducted to show the value of a

ration containing silage with one containing no silage.

Therefore they made three trial tests which they reported in
1925. Each trial comprised a 28-day feeding period with a
7-day preliminary period in order to accustom the cows to
the change. The reversal method was used. Silage was fed at
the rate of 3 lbs. per cwt. to one group. One pound of alfalfa
was fed per cwt. to the silage group and two pounds to the non-
silage group. In all feeding periods one pound of grain was fed
for each three pounds of 4 to 6 percent milk. Milk production
decreased markedly when silage was not fed. When silage was fed
milk production was maintained. The cost of the fat was reduced
6 percent; the cost of the milk was reduced 10 percent. The
cows on silage maintained weight better. The silage ration
contained 8 percent more protein than the requirements, and
the non-silage ration 40 percent more protein. The total
digestible nutrients were about the same as the requirements.
The alfalfa was valued at $18.00 and the corn silage at $5.00
per ton.

Their results are as follows:

(a) With silage 19,360 lbs. of milk.

(b) Without silage 17,601 lbs. of milk.

(c)‘With silage the feed cost was $1.03 per 100 lbs.of milk.

(d) Without silage the feed cost was $1.14 per 100 lbs. of milk.

(0) With silage the total fat production was 634.2 lbs.

(f) Without silage the total fat production was 600.5 lbs.

(g)‘lith silage the feed cost per 1b.butterfat was 31§¢.

(h) Without silage the feed cost per 1b.butterfat was 33%¢.

10.

Converse (3) found some very interesting results in his
study of the value of silage in the experimental ration. The
best method of attack, he stated, for many nutritional studies
is to find.the:ration that will allow the cows to give their
maximum yield year after year with no interruption in production.
The use of silage in such a ration increases the labor and
decreases the accuracy of the results. So he attempted to
determine whether silage was necessary.

Nine cows were fed alfalfa hay and grain. They were then
reversed for two calendar months and put on silage, alfalfa hay,
and grain. The cows on the non-silage ration produced an average
of 2.8 percent more milk and 4.2 percent more fat than on the
silage ration. He concluded that there was practically no
difference whether silage was fed or not as to the milk yield.
He also stated that from the result of the experiment it seems
that the factor of succulence does not increase the value of
the ration containing an ample quantity of good alfalfa hay
and a satisfactory grain mixture. The Idaho Station (14)
reported in 1929 no particular advantage gained by adding
corn silage to a barley-alfalfa ration for either yearling
or two year old steers.

The most recent work by way of comparison of alfalfa
hay and corn silage as a feed for dairy cows was reported by
lhite and Pratt (15) in 1930. The object of the experiment

was to determine if possible the optimum amount of silage

11.

that should be used in the dairy ration. In other words, to
determine whether a light or a heavy silage ration was the
more efficient or the more economicdl. In this experiment
one group of cows was fed 3 lbs. of silage per cwt. and the
other group 1% lbs. of silage per cwt. The heavy silage
feeding resulted in slightly greater dry matter consumption
and slightly greater milk production. With hay valued at
$16.00 and silage at $9.00 and grain at $52.35 per ton the
feed cost of 100 lbs. of milk was $1.95 for the heavy silage
group; and $1.70 for the light silage group. With silage
valued at $5.00 and hay at $25.00 per ton, the feed cost was
practically the same, being $1.82 for the heavy silage group
and $1.80 for the light silage group.

White concluded that this result would be received with
much surprise and doubt by many advocates of silage feeding,but
should stimulate the study of the adaptation of silage produc-
tion to the conditions existing on a given farm and area.
Summary‘ggg Discussigpwg£_Feeding‘Eglgg:

The succulence of corn silage is evidently of much less
importance than was formerly believed. Only one experiment
station attributed any value whatsoever to the succulence
factor, and this gain was so slight as not to be significant.
This was an early experiment in 1889. Tests in 1920 at New
Mexico Station(7), and by Converse(3),in 1928, show conclusively
that the succulence of silage did not increase the milk flow.

12.

In these later experiments alfalfa hay was used. The

following table is a brief

comparative feeding tests:

Investigator

Clark

Christi

Foster &
Meeks

Williams et a1

Carroll

Davis

Fairchilds &
Wilbur

Converse

Clark

White

Experiment
Station

Montana(10)

Purdue(2)

New Mexico(7)

Arizona(16)

Utah(12)

Nebraska(l7)

Purdue(l3)

U.S.D.A.(3)

Idaho(10)

Storrs(15)

Date

1913

1917

1920

1917

1924

1923

1925

1928

1929

1930

summary of the results of

Results

Cost on Clover 73.9¢
7 ' Silage 73.9¢

Ton silage exceeds the
value of 4.5 to 5 bu.
of corn plus the value
of stover plus cost of
putting in silo.

4% more milk and 2.4%
more B.F. pn alfalfa

2% more milk on
alfalfa and 6% more
nutrients in silage.

5.2% decrease on
silage

More milk and B.F.
on ration without
silage.

Cost of fat reduced
6% and milk 10%.Hay
contained 40% more
protein, other ration
only 8% more protein.

Non-silage ration
produced 2.8% more milk
and 4.2% more fat.

Nothing gained by add-
ing silage to ration
of barley and alfalfa.

Heavy silage ration
slightly more milk
much greater cost

13.

The following gives the replacing value of silage as
determined by various stations:
Name of Feed Station Date Lbs.Si1age Investigator

to one of
other group

Corn Fodder Vermont(9) 1889 2} to l Hills
Grain Purdue(2) 1917 5 to 1 Christi
Clover Montana(10) 1913 3% to 1 Clark
Timothy’ Nbine(l) 1889 4 to 1 Bartlett
Alfalfa New Mexico(7) 1920 3 to 1 Foster & meeks
Alfalfa Utah(12) 1924 2.9 to 1 Carroll
Alfalfa Arizona(l7) 1917 3% to 1 Williams &
Cunningham
Alfalfa Vermont(18) 1901 3% to l Hills
Hay 1930 3 to l Hughes(l9)

 

The amount of silage required to replace a ton of hay in
the various feeding experiments averages somewhat more than
three pounds. The ratio 4 : 1 obtained by Bartlett(l) with
timothy is undoubtedly due to a poor grade of silage. With
alfalfa the results are very uniform, ranging from 2.9 to
3.5, At this rate, Hughes'(l9) estimate of 3 : l is somewhat
low.

0f the investigations cited considering the feeding value
as indicated by either increased production, or decreased cost
of production, four should be considered unfavorable, three
neutral, and only three favorable. 0f the three favorable
reports, alfalfa was used in two of them. The first,
conducted by Carroll of Utah, found so little gain that he
concluded it to be questionable if the difference was really

significant.

14.

The one experiment which was conclusively in favor of
silage and in which it was compared to alfalfa, was conducted
by Fairchilds and Wilbur(l3) of Purdue. In connection with
this experiment it should be noted that while the total
digestible nutrients were about the same as the requirements,
the non-Silage group received 40 percent more protein than
the requirements. This would unnecessarily increase the cost
of the silage ration. Also, the alfalfa was valued at $16.00
and the silage at $5.00 per ton in computing the costs. The
alfalfa should not be valued at more than three times that
of silage as it contains only three times the total digestible
nutrients. The proteins cannot be considered of any extra
value as the silage ration already carried an 8 percent excess
of protein. Silage should then be valued at $6.00 instead of
$5.00 per ton. This mates one and one-half cents difference
in the daily ration, or 6d difference in the cost of the silage
group. This leaves a net gain of five cents per cwt. in
favor of ailage for milk production. A correction, however,
for excess of protein costs in the non-silage ration would have
left very little gain in favor of the silage. Hence this test
can scarcely be considered favorable.

The most unfavorable report in regard to the feeding
value of silage was that of the Connecticut Station in 1930.
It should be noted that in computing their costs they valued

15.

silage at $9.00 and hey at $16.00. This is giving silage much
more than one-third the value of hay which is an unfair
comparison when placed on a dry matter basis. Valuing
the silage at one-third the value of the hay would consider-
ably rcduce the cost of the heavy silage ration as compared
with the light silage ration. However, they stated that to
make the costs the same hay must be valued at $23.00 and
silage at $5.00. So the results must still be considered
unfavorable. An interesting fact in regard to the neutral
results is that corn silage was valued at approximately
one-third that of the hay.

Christi's(2) results seem.indisputably in favor
of silage as a feed. Clover hay was the roughage used, and

no statement was made as to the quality of the hay.

16.

Cost g§_Production

Silage Production gggtg

It is claimed that silage is a cheap feed; that more
digestible nutrients can be stored in the form of silage at
less cost than in any other form. The following cost

figures are taken from the U.S.D.A. Yearbook(20), 1921:

 

Cost of Silage ‘Yield Per Acpe Per Ton __
New York, 1914 7.2 $30.89 $4.29
New'York, 1913 6.3 31.07 4.93
lflnnesota,(Rice Co.) 1908-12 19.95

(Herman Co.) 18.01
Wisconsin, 1915 9.5 31.76 3.36
Iowa, 1915 9.76 29.36 3.01

Cost of corn

 

Iowa, 1917 48 bu. 24.16
New'York,19l4 34 35.98

Ohio, 1917 45 36.20

Ohio, 1921 45 35.16
Illinois,l9l7 46 23.33

Cost of hay_

New'York, 1914 1.28 tons 10.00 7.80
New York, 1913 1.39 11.58 8.33
New York, 1912 1.44 11.30 7.85
Mdnnesota(Rice Co.)1908-12 1.61 10.76 6.68
Iisconsin, 1909-18 2.02 11.12 5.05

Wisconsin, 1909-18
(Mixed hay) 1.4 9.00 6.43

 

17.

Wisconsin(21) gave costs as follows for Walworth County:

 

 

Silage Yield per acre Cost per ton Total cost
Tons _fi per acre
Average,1923 6.6 $4.75 $31.38
Average,1922 6.26 5.34 33.45
Average,1924 4.30 6.20 26.54
Average,(3 yrs.) 5.66 5.35 30.31
Corn Cost per b2.
Average,1923 .92 30.36
Average,1922 .80 35.62
Average,1924 .94 27.22
Average,(3 yrs.) .87 31.86

 

Wisconsin,(21), gave as the total cost for silage for

1927 $6.76, of which $4.59 is charged to labor.

Duggar(22), of Alabama, stated that corn harvested there

in 1929 required 0.93 days of labor and a total cost of $4.86

per ton.

the cost was $3.76 per ton.

Wallace(23) itemized the cost of producing silage per

acre in Iowa as follows:

Two tons manure $3.50
Spreading 1.30
Plowing 2.95
Repairing. 2.10
Cultivating 3.58
Twine 1.15
Cutting 1.17
Filling 9.00
Coal .60
Engine and engineer 2.85
Depreciation and int. on cutter 1.00
Depreciation and int. on plows 2.50
Land rental 9.00
Depreciation and int. on silo 2.75

Total $43.55

The yield was 10 tons per acre.

Compared with sorghum the labor was 0.86 days and

18.

Minnesota(25) gave the following comparative costs on

various methods of harvesting:

Cost per acre, cut, shocked and husked $23.50
Cost per acre, shocked and shredded 22.25
Cost per acre, husked in the stalk 20.74
Planted thickly,cut, hauled for fodder 19.51
Put in the silo - 25.37

Fallace(24),l923, stated that with corn selling at
75¢ silage containing 4% bu. of corn per ton, and made
from corn yielding 9 tons per acre can be produced at a
cost of $5.00 per ton, or roughly, for the value of 4 bu.
of corn and 300 lbs. of hay. Silage containing 6 bu. of corn
will always be very expensive but also quite valuable as a feed.
The cost of production of both silage and corn are greatly
influenced by yield.
The 0.8. Dept. of Agriculture Yearbook(20) of 1921 gave

the following tables of cost and various yield groups:

 

Yield Group Total Credit Net Cost
Bu.per acre Cost wg(Stover) Per acre Per bu.
7 $12.12 $1.56 $10.56 $5.28
8 to 17 16.97 1.18 15.79 1.21
18 to 27 20.41 1.53 18.88 .86
28 to 37 24.67 1.95 22.72 .71
38 to 47 28.34 2.41 25.93 .63
48 to 57 32.35 2.77 29.58 .58
58 plus 38.32 3.71 34.61 .52
Average 25.20 2.10 23.10 .70

For the Corn Belt only:

18 to 27 17.82 .86 16.96 .74
28 to 37 21.54 1.08 20.46 _ .64
38 to 47 24.36 1.19 23.17 .57
48 to 57 27.50 1.10 25.90 .51
58 plus 31.53 1.74 29.79 .47
Average 23.64 1.15 ’22.49 .58

19.

‘Metzgar and Sellman(25) found that the cost of silage
from 1925-30 was $33.87 per acre, with a yield of 12.87 tons
or $2.92 per ton. Of this total $14.04 was for harvesting
and storing.

Lipscomb(26) found that in Mississippi the amount of
land required to produce one ton of corn silage would produce
4.2 bu. of corn. Five and one-tenth hours of man labor and
2.8 hours of horse labor were required.

Willard(27) reported in 1920 a cost of $25.00 per acre
for corn raised for grain, and $33.00 per acre for lilage
corn in the silo. The yields were 17.5 bu. and 4.5 tons
respectively.

Minnesota Agr. Exp. Station(28) in 1906 and 1907 found
'that the cost of harvesting corn husked from standing stalks
was $10.35 per acre. This included interest of 0.73¢ and
depreciation of $1.43 per acre in the silo. The yields were
42 bu. for corn and 10.21 tons for silage.

The Canadian Station(29) for 1922 reported a cost of
$3.05 per ton for silage as compared with $9.83 for hay.
This was probably mixed clover and timothy.

Abe1(30) in his"Time Studies on Haying and Ensiling
on 86 famns in New Hampshird’found that corn silage required

6.5 hours per ton and hay 8.4 hours per ton.

20.

The cost of production of alfalfa and timothy were
compared under nearly the same conditions as possible.

The results were as follows:

 

Yield Cost per acpe Cost per ton
, ‘T6ns
Alfalfa 2.6 $27.44 $10.63
Timothy 1.4 16.72 12.00

 

The life of the alfalfa was considered four years.
The following table was taken from Haecker's work at the
Minnesota Station(28) and is a comparison of the cost of

hay, fodder corn, mangels 3nd silageé

 

Feeding Value Tons Feeding Value
Cost ,per acre ,per ton per acre __per ton
Clover and -
Timothy 3 6.96 $6.35 2.5 $15.87
Ensilage 19.17 1.88 ' 10. 18.80
Fodder Corn 12.19 4.90 3.5 17.15
Mangels 34.12 1.30 20. .gg 26,00

 

He reported that one dollar expended in labor and capital
with hay would give a return of $2.28; with fodder corn, a
return of $1.40; with ensilage 0.98 and with mangels 0.76.

Bailey(28) commented on Haecker's work in the following
manner: ' Emsilage and.mange1s are expensive feeds as compared
with hay and fodder corn. Ensilage is a profitable crop and
utilized to advantage when the type of farming is intensive
dairying, when markets are stable, and when cows are high
producers. Under these conditions and when silos are of

large capacity, the crop is profitable because it increases

21.

the numbercof cows that can be supported on a small acreage
and thus increases the gross income, waranting the high

wcost of production. But the farmer with few cows and who
carries on diversified farming, winter forage in the shape
of hay supplemented with a few mangels gives a cheaper feed.”
Filling‘gggtg

McNall and Hartman(31) reported that the average cost of
filling silos in 1926 was $2.06 per ton.

Jones and Smith(32) found that in Missouri the average
cost of filling was $2.00 per ton. Labor was 42 percent and
power 25 percent of this cost.

In 1930 Lush and Barr(33) found that the average cost
of filling 282 silos in Wisconsin was $1.60 per ton.
93.199.253.13

Silo costs vary greatly as to type, material and size.

Permanent upright gilgg Garret(34) gave the following
types of wooden silos in the order of value: Redwood,cypress,
white pine, Douglas fir and southern pine. He stated that cedar
is expensive and needs considerable reinforcing, and added that
the life of any of the above is from ten to twenty years,
untreated, and twenty-five years treated.

Ribald(35) stated that the stave silo is cheap and easily
constructed but that it is temporary and lasts only five to
fifteen years.

Shedd and Foster(36) reported that two wooden hoop silos
built in 1912 at the Iowa Station cost $254.84 each.

Five farmers at Litchfield,Minnesota(37) cooperated in

22.

buying materials and erecting home-made silos. The silos were
16 x 36 and of Washington fir at $32.00 per thousand feet.
According to Wilson the lumber cost was $111.36 and the total
cost was $228.78 per silo.

King(38) reported that the cost of thirteen hollow clay
building block silos in Iowa ranged from $215.00 to $403.00.
He stated that this type of silo is practically free from
cost of repairs and that the duration depends on the quality
of the blocks.

Jones and Swinehart(39) stated in 1929 that good silos
are built in Wisconsin at a cost of about $5.00 a ton capacity.
They continued that with strictest economy a silo can be
built for $3.00 per ton capacity.

Ives(40) concluded that the average for all manufactured
types is very close to $4.00 per ton capacity. It must be said
in all fairness that the manufactured or patented types
generally represent the greatest utility.

Ramsower(41) gave the costs of silos per ton capacity

as follows:

‘Wooden stave $2.75
Home-made hoop silo . 1.70
Monolithic concrete 3.93
Concrete block 4.20
Vitrified tile 4.75
Metal 4.00

The life of the wooden silo was from ten to twenty years.

These figures were the average of many Ohio farmers.

23.

The following table from the price list of the
Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co. gives 1933 prices:

Glazed Tile washington Fir
Cash Capacity Cost Cash Capacity Cost

 

Dimensions Price tons gper ton Price tons _per ton
8 x 20 $185. 18 $10.40 $170. 17 $10.00
10 x 20 226. 32 7.07 190. 30 6.63
10 x 25 279. 40 6.97
10 x 30 336. 48 7.00 285. 48 5.97
12 x 20 260. 46 5.67 218. 45 4.85
12 x 25 322. 60 5.37
12 x 30 383. 75 5.11 327. 75 4.36
12 x 35 447. 85 5.25
12 x 40 508. 115 4.40
14 x 30 433. 100 4.33 373. 100 3.73
14 x 40 578. 150 3.85
16 x 30 485. 122 3.97 416. 120 3.45
16 x 40 647. 178 3.65
16 1.45 741. 205 3.60
18 x 40 716. 224 3.20

 

Temporary Silos

Silos of a semi-permanent or temporary

nature are being used with success in many states. For the renter
or for the owner who occasionally has surplus roughage to store
they may prove very practical.

According to Jefferson and Bell(42) of the Michigan Station
crib silos have been used in the west for about five years.

A few have been used satisfactorily in Michigan. The cost of a
16-ft.,50-ton silo is approximately $30.00.

A.semi-permanent sheet metal silo was constructed in 1930
by the Agri.Eng. Dept. of Michigan State College. The cost of
this 10 x 30 silo was $150.00 or $3.00 per ton capacity
according to Jefferson and Bell (42). An estimated life of ten

'years makes the cost $.60 per ton per year.

24.

Trench Silos Trench silos are rapidly gaining in
popularity because of their low cost and adaptability.
Grimes and Nichols(43) reported that in Alabama where only
labor is necessary a 50-ton silo can be built for $20.00
to $25.00.

Jefferson and Be11(42) estimated that the labor cost of
a 50-ton silo was $18.00 and the reinforcing material was
$10.00, making a total cost of $28.00 to $30.00. They
stated that a permanent concrete lined silo of this capacity
will cost about $100.00.

In a comparison of the efficiency of the trench and
upright silos, Dawson and Van Horn(44) found that the cost
per 100 cu.ft. in the trench silo was $1.78 as compared with
$10.82 for the upright silo.

Jefferson and Bell(42) gave the following table on

comparative costs of various types of silos:

 

Type of Est. Cap. Cost Est. Cost Cost per
silo Cost tons. per ton life per yr. ton silo
,per yr.
Temp.crib $35.00 50 $0.70 5 yrs. $23.75 $0.47
Temp.trench 30.00 " .60 2 ” 18.75 .36
Sheet metal 150.00 " 3.00 10 " 30.00 .60
Perm.trench 100.00 " 2.00 20 " 14.15 .28
' upright 300.00 80 3.75 20 " 42.00 .53
fl

' ' 500.00 " 4.50 40 57.50 .72

Summagy and Discussion of Cost of Production

Silage Costs

25.

 

 

 

Station Date Yield Costgper ton
New York 1914 7.2 $4.29
New York 1913 6.31 4.92
Wisconsin 1915 9.5 3.36
Iowa 1915 9.76 3.01
Wisconsin Av. 1923-24 5.66 5.35
Oregon 5.7 7.40
Oregon 10. 5.03
Alabama 1929 8. 4.86
Iowa 1918 10. 4.36
Average 8. 4.73
Fallace estimate 1923 9. 5.00
Silage vs. Corn cost, per acre
Silage Corn
Minnesota
(Rice 00.) 1908-12 $19.95 $16.21
Minnesota
(Herman Co.) " 18.01 13.42
New'York 1914 30.89 35.98
Iowa 1915 29.36 24.16
Wisconsin 1915 31.76 -
Wisconsin Av. 1922-23-24 30.31 31.86
Hay Costs
Yield Per acre Per ton
per acre
New‘York 1912 1.44 $11.30 $7.85
New York 1913 1.39 11.58 8.53
New York 1914 1.28 10.00 7.80
Minnesota(Rice Co)1908-12 1.61 10.76 6.68
Wisconsin
Clover 1909-18 2.2 11.12 5.05
Mixed 1909-18 1.4 6.43 9.00
Canada 1923
Nevada
Alfalfa(34) 3. 36.00 12.00
Corn Belt Alfalfa 2.6 27.44 10.63
Corn Belt Timothy 1.4 16.72 12.00

M.—

26.

Silage vs. Hay in New York

1914 Silage 7.2 tons $4.29
Hay 1.28 7.80
1913 Silage 6.3 4.92
Hay 1.59 8.33

A L

Silage costs averaged $4.73 with an average yield of
8 tons. The lowest cost was obtained in Iowa in 1914 with
a yield of 9.76 tons. The highest cost in Oregon with the
lowest yield. Yield influenced the cost much more than the
location or the year.

A 10-ton yield in Iowa in 1918 cost $4.36. Wallace stated
in 1923 that for Iowa a 9-ton yield could be produced for
$5.00. It is reasonable to conclude that silage will cost
at least $4.00 per ton in the corn belt for a lO-ton yield,
and.more elsewhere.

The per acre cost of producing grain and stover is just
about the same as for silage when considering normal
yields( 45 bu. to 10 tons silage). New Yprk and Minnesota
reported a greater cost for silage. The Wisconsin average
is $1.00 per acre in favor of silage. Minnesota reported
a cost of $3.00 more per acre for ensiling than for cutting,
shocking and shredding. Haecker found that silage was expensive
when compared with either hay or fodder. Apparently ensiling
corn is an expensive as shocking and shredding and much more

expensive than? husking from the stalk.

27.

Silage costs averaged from two to three times as much
per acre and more than one-half as much per ton as timothy
or clover hay. Comparisons with alfalfa were not available.
A corn belt comparison with timothy showed that a 2.6 ton
yield of alfalfa costs less than a 1.4 ton yield of timothy.
A three ton yield of alfalfa in Nevada costs $12.00 under
irrigation. Two dollars and fifty cents is charged for
seeding. At that rate a 3-ton yield of alfalfa in the corn
belt should not cost more than $9.00 or $10.00, or two to
two and one-half times the cost of silage.

Silo costs ranged from $2.00 to $4.00 per ton capacity
depending upon the size and material. In computing silo
costs a depreciation charge of 10 percent was made on the
average cost of the wooden type silo, $2.75. It was
customary to charge the depreciation and interest rate of
15 percent on $2.75, or 41.5¢ per ton cost.

The present costs, however, are much higher. It will
be observed from the Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co.'s price
list that height has very little influence on the per ton
cost of the silo. This is greatly influenced, however,
by the diameter. This is true of both the wooden stave
and glazed types. Eight-foot silos or less than nine-cow
silos are prohibitive in price at $10.00 per ton capacity.

Ten-foot, or twelve-cow capacity silos are quoted at $7.00

28.

per ton. Fourteen-cow silos can be bought for $5.00 if
purchased in the twelve-foot size, but cost $7.00 per ton
capacity in the ten-foot size. Eighteen-foot silos, 40 ft.
in height, cost only $3.20 per ton in the semi-glazed tile
when their capacity is about 224 tons.

Comparative Losses in Storing and Feeding

The silo is recognized as a great saver of waste.
Harvesting and‘Feeding Losses

Turner(45) stated that much more of the corn crop is
lost in the harvesting and feeding operations when the crop
is not ensiled. He claimed a saving of 20 to 35 percent of
the total crop.

Storage Losses

It is also claimed that there is a great saving of dry
matter and total digestible nutrients.

Becker and Gallup(46) found that the loss of whole corn
in silage fed to dairy cows is much less than that which occurs
when cattle consume shelled corn. The corn voided in the manure
contains 5.22 percent of the digestible protein and 5.46 percent
of the total digestible nutrients in the corn silage. Eight and
forty seven hundredths percent by weight of the grain voided in
the menus and only 4.36 percent by weight of the whole kernels

was recovered as whole kernels from the manure.

Turner(45) stated that loss in dry matter is 16 percent

as compared with 30 percent in corn fodder.

29.

King(47) concluded in 1925 that there is a loss of
20.5 percent total dry matter and 20.6 percent loss of
protein.

Stadler(48) found in a careful study of 54 silos that
the unavoidable loss of nutrients was 7.59 percent of dry
matter as compared with field corn with a loss of 15.12
percent of dry matter.

At Wisconsin(49), silage containing 29.33 percent of dry
matter lost 8.53 percent. Silage containing 25.39 percent
lost 10.01 percent, and silage containing 20.66 percent dry
matter lost 24.35 percent. Corn silage well matured lost
5 percent to 10 percent and clover silage in full bloom lost
10 percent to 18 percent.

Shaw and Wright(50) found that there was a loss of 10
percent of dry matter, 6.34 percent of crude fiber, and some
less in total nitrogen, but a gain in ether extract. In 1921
they found that the loss of nitrogen in 2,579 lbs. of Juice
taken from several silos represented the protein in 1500 lbs.
of silage (150 ton silo). The second year with immature corn
the loss of nitrogen was equivalent to that found in 7500 lbs..
of silage. They concluded that there was a perceptible loss
of nitrogen, also sugar.

Perkins(5l) found that during the storage of corn silage
in Ohio in some cases the grain portion of the ensiled corn

lost one-half of its protein, but where the Juice was not

30.

lost the nitrogen increased. The protein lost from the
kernels was found in the Juice in the silo, not as true
protein, but as products of protein hydrolysis. These
results were obtained from three silos over a period of
five seasons.

Ragsdale and Turner(52) gave the following loss of

nutrients on 54 silos:

 

‘Dry Protein Fat Crude N.F.E.
Matter g Fiber
3 W W %
From silos 7.59 5.44 gain 18.04 1.95 10.29
‘rrom shocked corn 15.12 .84 gain 7.36 gain 3.82 22.51

 

They concluded that the loss of dry matter and the
nitrogen free extract in field-curing is twice as great as the
unavoidable loss of nutrients in the silo. The loss of nutrients
in the silo is inevitable but much less than in field-cured
corn, providing silage is properly made.

Perkins(49) found yhat in Ohio the grain, especially
the broken kernels, had lost a considerable portion of its
protein, which was recovered in the Juice of the silo. The
protein content of the silage was increased in many cases
probably due to the reduction in the other constituents
through fermentation. He further stated that there is a

transfer of nutrients from the grain to the Juice.

31.

Summary and Discussion‘gg Comparative Losses

The loss sustained in the harvesting and feeding of the
corn crop probably averages 25 percent of the stover. As
nearly 40 percent of the value of the crop is in the stover
this means a net loss of 10 percent of the corn crop.

The data on losses of dry matter and total digestible
nutrients are not satisfactory. For the silo they vary from
5 to 20 percent. The loss is probably 5 percent more for
shocked corn. Turner(45) in one case obtained 4 percent
greater loss with shocked corn and in another 7.5 percent.

Assuming that this loss is 5 percent, and the waste
previous to storing is 10 percent, a saving of 15 percent
should be credited to the silo. The cost of harvesting
the "saved" stover is probably about 20 percent per ton
of silage or 5 percent of its value. This leaves a net
saving of at least 10 percent of the value of the silage
due to the use of the silo.

32.

EXPERIMENTAL WORK
muse:
The obJect of this experiment is to determine the
value of silage in the dairy ration for economical milk
production. I

Ogiginal Plan 2: the Experiment

 

Selection _g_f_' M

Herds will be selected on the basis of accessibility,
uniformity of size and breed, and whether or not the proper
cooperation in supervision can be secured. It will be
necessary to depend on the owners for part of the feed records.
In most cases herds will be selected in which a Future Farmer
can work with his father and make this a home project for him.
Adequate facilities for weighing feed will be another consider-
ation in the selection of herds.
Selection 2£.Animals

Only healthy animals will be used in the experiment.
Cows with normal udders and appetites, and whose lactation
periods extend through the three months of the eXperiment
will be chosen. Cows freshening or drying off during the
experimental period will complicate results. If none of the
foregoing obJections exist in a herd the entire herd will be
used, thus making the records more easily kept.
SEER.

The first three months of the year will be used for

the experiment.

33.

M

Alfalfa and corn silage will be used for roughage. The
concentrates used will be a simple grain mixture.
Method _9_1_‘_ Feeding

All herds will be fed silage and alfalfa during January
and march, but only alfalfa as a roughage during the month
of February. Two of the herds will be fed a full ration of
silage and two will be given a limited ration. Alfalfa in all
cases will be fed ad libitum. The cave will be grained at the
rate of one pound of grain for each three pounds of milk
produced daily during the previous month.
{339 Records

{216. consumed Weights of silage will be obtained by
weighing the silage in a basket on platform scales. Grain for
the entire herd will be weighed in the same way and distributed
by measure to each cow. These weights will be checked against
the total amount ground for the period. The alfalfa will be
weighed on spring scales, the hay being tied in bundles by means
of clothesline rope. The roughage not consumed will be gathered
into baskets and weighed being being used for bedding.

nutrients consumed The amount of total digestible
nutrients will be com ared for each herd. These computations
will be based on the results of the analysis of the roughages
as obtained by the Section of Experiment Station Chemistry,

and the analysis of concentrates as obtained from Henry and

34.

Morrison. The digestible protein consumed will be obtained in
the same manner.
M Analysis

Analysis of the roughage feeds will be made by the Section
of Experiment Station Chemistry as to the amount of dry matter,
protein, carbohydrates, fat and ash.

Production Records

Mllk_records The amount of milk produced will be
obtained from the owner's monthly milk statement. Any milk used
in the home will be weighed and added to this to get the total
period production.

Butterfat records The amount of butterfat produced will be
obtained from the monthly milk statement using the butterfat
test as given by the Company tester.
ngperature Records

The daily temperature records for the time of the experi-
ment will be obtained from the United States Weather Bureau.
1212:.

Water will be supplied in two different ways. Two herds
will be equipped with drinking cups and two herds will be
supplied by outside tanks.

Exercise

Three herds will be allowed to go to the tanks in the yard
twice a day. On good days they will be allowed to exercise in
1H6 yard at will. One herd having access to drinking cups

will remain stanchioned constantly.

35.

Experimental Procedure

Selection _g_f_ 1193513

The selection of herds was made as planned. Results
of two of the herds could not be used, however. In one herd
where individual cups were used a frozen water system
necessitated driving the cows a quarter of a mile to water
in sub-zero February weather. There was such a falling off in
production that the experiment with this herd had to be abandoned.
Inaccurate feed records made the results of the other herd useless.
It was therefore necessary to run these experiments the following
year on two new herds.
Selegtion‘g£,Animals

The selection of.animals was made as planned.
$222

The experiment was conducted at the time planned except
that it had to be repeated with two herds the following year.
1.5.222

The feeds were used as planned except that a complex grain
mixture was used in the case of one herd during January and
March. This ration had been worked out by the local milk
tester. Some difficulty was also experienced in getting one of
the herds to consume a full silage ration. Also a small amount
of stover was used in one herd. This was fed in as near the

same quantities each period as possible.

36.

{333 Records

reed records were kept as planned.
Eggg,Analysis

Analyses of feed were made as planned. The analyses
of the silage and alfalfa used are found in Tables 1 and 2
of the Appendix.
Productigp,Records

Milk and Butterfat records were made as planned.
W Records

Temperature records were made as planned.
me:

later was supplied as planned except that only one herd
had access to drinking cups. However, one herd had water at
will from an inside tank.
Exercise

Exercise was given as planned, except one herd

exercised in the barn only.

37.

Experimental Results

Production

The average daily fat-corrected milk production and
butterfat production are given in Table l. The production
during the-silage period was obtained by averaging the
production for the January and March periods. The production

during the alfalfa period was obtained from the February

 

results.
Table l.
Fat-corrected Milk Butterfat Production
Lbs. daily Lbs. daily
Herds Herds

No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4
Jen.(Sil.) 16.3 20.97 21.67 24.88 .710 .912 .935 1.10
Ieb.LAlf.) 15.38 20.73 19.57 21.46 .678 .920 .845 .933
Msr.(Sil.) 14.14 19.78 18.29 19.92 .623 .861 .795 .734

Silage period 15.22 20.39 19.98 22.40 .666 .886 .869 .991
Alfalfa period 15.38 20.73 19.57 21.46 .678 .920 .845 .933

The production records from which the results in Table l,
were obtained are found in Tables 13 - 16 of the Appendix.
The formula used for obtaining the amount of fat-corrected

milk was .4“ plus 15F} (53).

38.

£335; Consupgption

Herd No.fil’ This herd consisted of eleven grade
Guernseys which averaged about 1000 lbs. in weight. The
silage was limited to not over 20 lbs. daily. The feed

consumption is given in Table 2.

 

Table 2.
January February Nmrch
Total Av.daily Total Av.daily Total Av.daily
_gg Feed ration Feed ration Feed ration

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
Alfalfa 5040 16.36 6768 22 4495 14.59
Grain 1400 4.55 1672 5.42 1524 4.62
Digestible
Protein 737,85 2.39 768.48 2.49 693.86 2.25
T.D.N. 4695.94 15.24 4669.09 15.16 4498.09 14.60
Energy 12.90 12.74 11.83

Therms

 

39.

Herd No. 2 This herd consisted of six grade Jerseys

which weighed about the same as in Hard No. l.

A full silage

ration was fed. Feed consumed by this herd is given in

 

 

Table 3.
Table 3.
January February March

Total Av.daily Total Av. daily Total Av.daily

Feed ration 11. Feed ration Feed ration

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
Alfalfa 2016 12 3696 22 2058 12.25
Silage 5040 30 - - 5040 30.
Grain 1008 6 840 5 924 5.5
Digestible
Protein 336.47 2.0 404.58 2.41 341.27 2.03
T.D.N. 2672.16 15.9 2451.86 14.59 2630.29 15.6
Energy

Therms 12.55 ‘ 12.53

13.17

 

Herd No.3

which weighed about 1100 lbs. each.

40.

This herd consisted of seven Guernseys

A limited silage ration

was fedJFeed consumed by this herd is given in Table 4.

 

Table 4 .
January February march
Total Av.daily Total Av.daily Total Av.daily
Feed ration Feed» ration Feed ration
Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.

Alfalfa 3206 16.35 3640 18.57 2885.4 14.7
Silage 2744 14 - - 2744 14
Grain 1484 7.57 1484 7.57 1484 7.57
Digestible
Protein 501.2 2.56 458.44 2.34 498.9 2.49
T.D.N. 3268.8 16.6 3086.37 15.7 3131.90 15.9
Energy
Therms 13.99 12.53 13.17

 

Herd No.

weighed about 800 lbs. each.

41.

_4 This herd consisted of six Jerseys which
It was planned that this herd

was to be fed a full silage ration, but it would not consume

 

 

that much. lead consumed by this herd is given in Table 5.
Table 5.
January February March
Total Av.daily Tetal Av.daily Total Av.daily
Feed ration Feed .ration Feed ration
Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
Alfalfa 1400 8-1/3 2:552 14 1200 7.12
Silage 2800 16-2/3 - - 5000 17.8
Stover 504 3 648 3.86 767 4.56
‘Grain 1316 7.83 1166 6.97 1053 6.27
Digestible
Protein 306.54 1.83 271.67 1.42 253.52 1.507
T.D.N. 2416.36 14.3 2482.1 14.7 2287.58 13.6
Energy
Therms 12.12 11.17 11.53

42.

Digestible Nutrients

The nutrients required according to the Haecker standard
as well as the nutrients received are found in the Appendix,
Tables 13-16. In.Teble 17 of the Appendix will be found the
digestion coefficients used in determining the digestible
nutrients of alfalfa samples, and in Table 18, the digestible
nutrients furnished by the alfalfa and silage used.

Table 6. gives the relative intake of protein, total
digestible nutrients and therms of energy of the silage and
alfalfa rations. The average consumption of the January

and.March periods gives the data for the silage ration.

 

Tab 1e 6 .
Digestible Protein
Herd Herd Herd Herd All
No.1 No.2 .1 No.3 No.4 Cows_
Silage ration 2.32 2.02 2.55 1.66 2.14
Alfalfa ration 2.49 2.41 2.34 1.42 2.16

Total Digestible Nutrients

Silage ration 14.92 15.75 16.33 14.0 19.5
Alfalfa ration 15.16 14.59 15.7 14.7 19.29

Therms of Energy

Silage ration 12.31 13.36 13.58 11.85 12.77
Alfalfa ration 12.74 12.53 12.53 11.17 12.26

43.

seesaw ,
In computing costs, the prices as quoted by Ulrey(54)

for 1933 and 1934 were used for the home-grown feeds. To

these prices were added the local cost of grinding. Commercial

feed prices were obtained from the Michigan State Farm Bureau.

Table 19 in the Appendix gives the prices used in computing

the costs in the following table of herd costs:

Table 7.
Total Costs

 

Herd No.1 Herd No.2 Herd No.3 Herd No.4
2 1bs.silage Full 1% lbs. 2 lbs.
per cwt. silage per cwt. per cwt.
Silage period 26.94 15.30 35.32 24.53

Alfalfa period 27.35 13.44 31.22 21.30

Cost‘gg Digestible Nutrients
Table 8 gives the cost per pound of digestible
protein, total digestible nutrients and cost per therm of

 

energy.
Table 8.
Cost of Total Digestible Nutrients per lb.

Herd Herd Herd Herd

No.1 No.2 , No.3 No.4
Silage ration .586¢ .577¢ 1.78 1.04
Alfalfa ration .585¢ .548¢ 1.01 .86

Cost of Digestible Protein per lb.

Silage ration 3.756 4.51 6.83 8.04
.Alfalfa ration 3.56 3.32 6.81 7.84

Cost of Energy per Therm
Silage ration .61 .68 1.33 1.23

.Elfalfa ration .7 .655 1.27 1.13

 

The cost of a pound of butterfat and 100 lbs. of

Milk

4% milk is given in Table 9.

Table 9.

and Butterfat Costs

Cost per 100 lbs. of 4 percent Milk

 

Herd Herd Herd Herd
No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4
Silage ration 57.65 44.6 90.2 65.2
Alfalfa ration 57.7 38.6 61.3 59.0
Cost per pound Butterfat
Silage ration 13.15 10.65 20.7 14.7
Alfalfa ration 13.12 8.70 18.8 13.5

 

The prices used in 1933 (herds 1 and 2) for silage
and alfalfa were $2.50 and $6.00 respectively.
prices were $3.00 and $9.00 respectively.

was particularly low in 1933.

the results might have been different.

In 1934 the
The price of hay

Had average prices been used

45.

46.

Table 10 gives the cost of milk and butterfat based

on 1910-14 prices and on 1924-33 average prices.
TablelO.

Cost of 100 lbs. 4% fat-corrected milk

 

1910-1914 Ave. 1924-1933 Ave.
Alf.& Sil. Alf. Alf.&Sil. Alf.
Herd No.1 1.37 1.42 1.33 1.35
Herd No.2 1.08 1.01 1.02 .975
Herd No.3 1.20 1.10 1.17 1.11
Herd No.4 .808 .829 .850 .853

Cost per pound Butterfat
Herd No.1 33.6 33.7 30.5 30.66

Herd No.2 24.8 22.8 23.5 22.0
Herd No.3 27.5 25.4 27.0 25.7
Herd No.4 18.1 19.0 19.1 19.6

 

The average prices of grains for the five-year period,
1910-14, and the ten-year period, 1924-33, are found in
the Appendix, Table 9.

47.

DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

In this investigation, rations consisting of alfalfa
and grain were compared with rations of alfalfa, corn silage
and grain. Feur farm.herds were used. Each herd was fed for
three periods of 28 days each. During the first and third
periods they received the silage ration and during the
second period they received the alfalfa ration.

The average daily milk production for all cows in the
four herds used in this investigation was slightly greater
on the silage ration than when alfalfa was the sole roughage
used. Milk production on the silage ration was 19.5 lbs.
daily, while the average on the alfalfa ration was 19.29 lbs.
daily. Production was higher in both herds on the non-silage
ration in 1933, but it was lower in both herds in 1934.
Temperature may have influenced these results. The mean
monthly temperature as indicated by Table 20 in the Appendix
for February (the alfalfa period) 1934 was 15.2 degrees, which
is 15 degrees below the January and February monthly average
for the lame year. The mean monthly temperature for February
1933 wasr23.40 degrees. This was nearly 10 degrees above the
average for the same month in 1934, and was only 8.5 degrees
below the January and March averages.

The digestible protein consumption was greater during the
non-silage periods than during the silage periods. This is to

be expected since a ration of alfalfa and corn cannot be

48.

balanced for low producing cows unless an excess of grain is
used in proportion to hay. In herd No.3, however, the
February protein consumption fell below that of January and
March. This was due to the fact that the owner desired to
feed home-grown soy beans as part of the grain mixture.

The average daily total digestible nutrient consumption
for all cows was 15.25 lbs. during the silage period, and
15.041 lbs. during the non-silage period. One and twenty-eight
hundredths pounds of 4 percent fat-corrected milk was produced
per pound of total digestible nutrients for each period.

The total feed cost was somewhat less for the non-silage
ration with the exception of herd No.1. Expecting their dry
matter consumption from roughage to fall off somewhat when
changed to alfalfa, the grain allowance for this herd was
increased. This,however, did not happen, with the result that
there was a larger consumption of total digestible nutrients
which increased the cost during the February period.

The cost of digestible protein was less in all herds on
a non-silage ration. The greatest difference in cost per pound
was found in the full silage ration and the least difference
in the limited silage ration. This was due to the fact that
the protein was furnished by alfalfa hay when the cows were

fed the non-silage ration.

49.

The cost per pound of digestible nutrients was somewhat
less in all herds when fed the non-silage ration. The silage
was valued at 40 percent of the value of the hay in 1933,and
at one-third of its value in 1934.

The cost per therm was less on the non-silage ration in
all of the herds except No.1. There was less difference in
the cost per therm during the two periods, however, than when
compared on a total digestible nutrient basis. The rations
including silage ran relatively higher in therms of energy
than in total digestible nutrients.

The real test of a ration is its economy for maintenance
and production. The production of these herds followed closely
their consumption of total digestible nutrients. The total
digestible nutrients seemed to influence production more than
did the protein consumption. This might have been due to the
fact that all herds were fed at all times more than their
protein requirements according to the Haecker standard.

While the cost of production of milk and butterfat was
practically the same during both periods with herd No. 1, it
was about 20 percent less in herd No.2 and 10 percent less in
each of the other two herds while receiving the non-silage ra-
tion. Herd No.1 was fed about 15 percent more grain and Herd
No. 2 was fed about 15 percent less during February, while the
other two herds were fed the same amount during both periods.

The least difference in the cost of production was found

in those herds which received a limited silage ration and the

50.

greatest difference in those herds which received a full
silage ration.

Low priced corn and alfalfa would be expected to be
favorable to a non-silage ration. Therefore, it appeared
desirable to use average feed costs over a period of years.
When applying 1910 to 1914 prices to all feeds except silage
and estimating the value of silage at one-third that of
alfalfa there was a slightly greater feed cost for the group
on the non-silage ration and a somewhat less cost for the
other two groups. When the 1924-33 prices were used the cost
of production was about the same in all four herds during the
two periods. Two herds favored the non-silage ration and two
the silage ration. The price of corn was higher, and the prices
of soy beans and cottonseed meal were cheaper in 1924-33 than in
1910-14. This made the cost of production somewhat less while
on the silage ration, and more on the non-silage ration.

Carbonaceous grain prices were higher in 1924-33 than in
1910-14, while alfalfa was cheaper. This accounts for the fact
that herd No.4 had a greater cost of production in 1924-33 than
1910-14. A greater corn and less cottonseed meal cost accounts
for the apparent discrepancy with herd No. 3. There was a
decrease in the cost of production while on the silage ration
but an increase during the non-silage period.

In obtaining the 1924-33 costs, alfalfa was valued at
$12.00 per ton and silage at $4.00. At these prices two herds

51.

produced milk and butterfat somewhat more cheaply on the
alfalfa ration than on the silage-alfalfa ration. The prices
for the same period as quoted by the Farm management Depart-
ment of Michigan State College were $11.50 and 64.34 respectively.
Had these prices been used for herd No.4, for instance, milk
would then have been produced on the non-silage ration for
82.7¢ per hundred and on the silage ration for 85¢ per
hundred, and butterfat for 19¢ per pound and 19.1¢ per pound
respectively. The price of silage as used here was only slight-
ly above one-third that of alfalfa, therefore, had silage been
valued at greater than one-third that of alfalfa the non-silage
ration would have produced milk and butterfat at the least cost
in every case..

Herd No.4 was watered by means of individual drinking
cups. The total digestible nutrient consumption was slightly
greater on the non-silage ration; the therms of energy slightly
less and the production was less. This herd was fed about 4
pounds daily of corn stover which they seemed to relish more
than the silage. An attempt was made to make them consume
more silage by withholding hay but with little success.
Possibly the constant water supply was responsible for the
lack of appetite for silage. Also the silage was high in
moisture and low in total digestible nutrients because of the

small amount of grain present. It is also possibly true that

52.

any benefits that might have been derived from the use of
drinking cups were offset by lack of exercise. This herd
was stanchioned constantly.

Herd No.2 had water at will supplied by a tank in the barn.
They were stanchioned only when milked and were allowed to drink
and exercise at will in the barn. This herd consumed less
digestible nutrients and therms of energy during the alfalfa
period than during the silage period, but produced more milk
and butterfat. The cost of production of milk was l3.5¢ per
cent less on the non-silage ration. When using 1910-14 prices
it was 4.4 percent less than on the silage-alfalfa ration.

Itdis apparent that a succulent feed is not necessary
where watering facilities are adequate; and that installation
of individual drinking cups should be considered seriously
before erecting a silo of the more expensive type.

These results indicate that the value of silage as a feed
is determined by the amount of total digestible nutrients it
furnishes, which makes it worth about one-third that of alfalfa
hay. It follows,then, that silage production is only profitable
when it can be made to produce three or four times as much
tonnage per acre as alfalfa, or when the cost of production is
one-third or less the market price of alfalfa.

In years when alfalfa is scarce and the corn crop is
abundant, the silo becomes a valuable asset to the dairy farm.
However, if average conditions of crop production and price are

assumed, the value of the silo must depend on other factors than

5 3".

the feeding value of the silage, such as prevention of loss

of dry matter and total digestible nutrients. But as alfalfa
becomes more abundant and cheaper this saving factor becomes
of less importance. Probably fewer silos will be erected where
alfalfa can be grown profitably. The type constructed in the
future will be more of a temporary or semi-permanent type,

especially on the smaller farms.

54}

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The total cost of feed was less in three out of the four
herds when on the non-silage ration.

The cost per pound of digestible protein and also total
digestible nutrients was less in all four herds when fed the
non-silage ration.

The cost per therm of energy was less in three of the four
herds while receiving the non-silage ration.

The production of fat-corrected milk was slightly greater
for two herds and slightly less for two other herds during the
alfalfa period.

The average daily production of fat-corrected milk for all
cows in all herds, per pound of digestible nutrients, was the
same for both the silage and the non-silage groups.

‘ Alfalfa and corn prices were abnormally low at the time the
trials were made. When 1910-l4 feed prices were used, there was
less difference in cost on the two rations, but the experiment
still favored a non-silage ration.

When the prices for the ten-year period, 1924—33, were used
and silage was valued at one-third that of alfalfa there was
practically no difference in the cost of production on the two
rations.

The least cost of production was obtained during the non-

silage period in the herd which had water at will and some

55.

exercise. The greatest cost was obtained in a herd when
receiving a limited silage ration where water was supplied

twice daily from a tank in the yard.

The results of this experiment indicate that where
water is constantly supplied, when average prices covering a
ten-year period are used, and when silage is valued at one-
third that of alfalfa hay, there is no advantage in adding

silage to the dairy ration.

4.

56.

LITERATURE CITED

Bartlett, J.M.

1889. The value of the Digestible Matter of Hay as
Compared with the Digestible Matter of Corn
Silage for Milk Production. *
me.Agr.Exp. Sta. Report, 1889, p.69-95.

Christi, 6.1.

1917. The Silo and Dairy Production. Purdue Univ.
Dept. of Agr.Extension Leaflet No.81.
Also, The Silo and Cattle Feeder, Purdue Univ.
Dept.of Agr. Cir. No.79. Also, The Silo and
the Sheep man. Purdue Univ.Dept. of Agr.Leaf.77.

Converse, H.T.
1928. The Value of Silage in the Experimental Ration.
Journal Of Dairy Science, Vol.XI. No.3, p.179.

White, G.C. and Pratt, A.D.

1930. Corn Silage Investigations. Optimum Amount of
Silage in the Dairy Ration for Econmmical
Production. Storrs Agr.Exp.Sta.Bul. 169.

Pearson, F.A. and Gaines, W.L.
1924. Evaluation of Corn Silage. Jour.of Am.Soc.of
Agron. Vol. 16, No. 4, p. 254-256.

Fraps, G.S.
1932. The Composition and Utilization of Texas Feed
Stuffs. Texas Agr.Exp.Sta. Bul. No. 461, p.45-48.

Foster, Luther and masks.
1920 Corn Silage vs. Alfalfa Hay.
NeMe Agr.Exp.Sta. BU]... N00 1220

lhite, G.C. and Johnson, R.E.

1934. The Role of Succulence in the Dairy Ration and
Water Consumption with Different Rations.
Storrs Agr.Exp.Sta. Bu1.198, p.12-21.

Hills, J.L.
1889. Feeding Tests with Milk Cows.
Vt. AgreExpeStao REPOI‘t, 1889, p075.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

81.

22.

57,

Clark, R.W.
1913. Clover and Corn Silage as Feeds for Dairy Cows.
Montana Agr.Exp. Station, Bul. No.94.

Haecker, T.L.
1888. Silage vs. Hay as a Feed for Dairy Cows.
Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Report 1888.

Carroll, W.E.
1924. Corn Silage in the Dairy Ration.
Utah Agr.Exp. Sta. Bul. 190.

Fairchilds, L.H. and Wilbur, I.W.
1925. The Value of Silage in the Dairy Ration.
Purdue Uhiv. Agr. Ext. Bul. 297.

1939. Idaho Agr.Exp.Sta. Bul. 164, p.20.

White, 5.6. and Pratt, A.D.

1930. Optimum Amount of Silage in the Dairy Ration
for Economical Production. JOur. of Dairy
Science, Vol. XIII. No. 4, p. 291.

Williams, R.H. and Cunningham, W.E.

1917. Alfalta Hay vs. Alfalfa Hay and Silage for
Dairy Cows.
Arizona Agr.Exp. Sta. Report, p.468.

Davis, H.P.
1923. Silage vs. No-Silage for Milk Production.
Nebr. Agr. Exp. Sta. Report p.54.

Hills, J.L.
1901. Dairy Feeding. Vt. Agr.Exp. Sta.Report,
1901, p. 350-355.

Hughes, H.D. and Henson, E.R. _
1930. Crop Production. MacMillan Co. Chicago, Ill.

U.S.D.A.'Yearbook.
1921. Cost of Crop Production. p.817

leall, P.E. and Ellis, L.S.
1923. Farm Costs and Practices.
Univ. of Wisconsin Agr.Exp.Sta. Res. Bul. 83.

Duggar, J. L.
1929. Cost of Producing and Storing Corn and Sorghum
Silage..A1a. Exp. Sta. Report, 1929.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

2.9 e

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

58.

Wallace, Henry
1918. Cost of Producing Silage. Wallace
- Farmer, Now. 15,1918. p. 1693

Wallace, Henry
1923. What is a Ton of Corn Silage Worth.
Wallace Farmer, April 1923, p.580.

Hetzgar, J.E. and Sellman, R.D.
1931.' Corn Silage Production.
Maryland Exp.Sta. Bul.329, p.12.

Lipscomb, J.H.
1925. Silage and Silage Costs.
Miss. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 229.

Willard, R.E. '
1920. Cost of Producing Wheat and Other Crops
in North Dakota. N.D. Exp.Sta.Bul. 142.

Bailey, L.H.
1909. Encyclopedia of Agriculture.Vol.IV. p.238.

McClary, J .A.

1922. Canadian Exp.Sta. Report, 1922, p. 25-77.
Abel, H.F .
1930. Time Studies in Haying and Ensiling Corn

Silage. N.H. Exp.Sta. Bul. 250.

MCNall, P.E. and.Hartman, W.A.
1926. Cost of Filling Silos. Univ. of Wis.Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bul. 386.

Jones, M.M. and Smith ,D.D.
1931. Silo Filling Methods and Costs.
. Univ. of MO. Exp.Sta. Bul. 303.

Lush, R.H. and Barr, H.T.
1930. Silage and Silo Construction.
La. Cir. No.2.

Garret, W.G.
1921. Wood in Silo Construction.
Mich. Quar. Bul. Vol.4, pp.60-61.

Ribald, H.
1914. Home Made Silos. U.S.D.A. Farmers Bul.589.

36.

37.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

Shedd, C.E.
1912.

Wilson, A.D.
1919.

King, J.B.
1910.

Jones, E.R.
1929.

Ives, F.W.
1922—23.

Ramsower, H.
1917.

.59.,

and.Foster, W.A.
Silo Construction. La. State Col. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bul. 189.

Silos. Univ. of Minn. Sp.Bul.43.

The Iowa Silo. Ia. Sta. Bul. 117.

and Swinehart, John
Univ. of Wis. Cir. 230.

The 8110- Its Construction, Capacity and Cost.
Ohio Sta. Univ. Bul. Vol XIV. No.4.

6.
Equipment for the Farmstead, p.89

Ginn & Co., Chicago, Ill.

Jefferson, C.H. and Bell, A.J.

1934.

Grimes, J.C.
1931.

Dawson, J.R.
1933.

Turner, WQF.
1917.

Becker, R.B.
1929.

King, F.H.
1895.

Temporary Silos for Michigan.
Mich, State Col. Ext. Bul. No. 141, pp.3, 13.

and Nichols, M.L.
The Trench Silo.
Ala. Exp. Sta. Cir. No. 59.

and van Horn, A.G.
Comparison of Trench with Upright Silos.
UOSODOA. Ciro N00 274.

Do You Need a Silo?
Mass. Ag. C011. Ext. Cir. No. 44.

and Gallup, W.D.
Grain Losses in Feeding Silage to Dairy Cows.
Jour. of Agr. Res. Vol. 39, pp. 223-227.

Necessary Loss of Dry Matter in Corn Silos.
Wisconsin Sta. Report, 1895.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

60.

Stadler, L.J., et al
1924. Production and.Feeding of Silage.
Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 226

King, 30H. ’
1917. Construction of Silos and.kuing and
Handling of Silage. Wis.Agr.Exp.Sta.Bu1.No.89.

Shaw, R.H. and Wright, P.G., et a1
1921. Nitrogen and Other Losses in Ensiling Corn .
U.S.D.A. Bul. No. 953.

Perkins, A.E.
1923. Losses and Changes of Material during Storage
of Corn as Silage. Ohio Agr.Exp.Sta.Bu1.No.370.

Ragsdale, A. C. and Turner, C .W.

1924. Losses of Nutrients in the Silo and During
the Field Curing of Corn.
Mb. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 65.

Gaines, W.L.

1928. The Energy Basis of Measuring Milk Yield
in Dairy Cows.
Ill. Agr. Exp.Sta. Bul. 308.

Ulrey, Orion
1934. Michigan.Farm Prices and Costs.
M.S.C. Tech. Bul. 139.

Mbrrison, F.B.
Cornell Agr. Exp. Sta. unpublished data.

APPENDIX

61.

 

 

mn.mH mm.m mam. as.H mm.m me.ne omsHHm m Hones
mm.nH nm.m one. as.H m.m os.mo omeHHm m .esa
om.mH Hm.m mm. mm.H ms.n mm.ma omeHm H noses
ne.mH AH.m ans. am.m Hn.n we.mo omsHHm H .ase
eH.ne mm.em Hn.H No.0 om.mH OH.e scHwaHa m Hopes
H.nn NH.en mm. an.e nH.eH He.m suHaqu m .poa
mm.mn mm.en me. we.e em.nH ne.m aeHseHa m ..asa
eo.mn as.mn on. mn.m em.eH eo.m maHseHe H .Hss_s.noh
om.mn so.@& am. nu.m me.eH me.m weHsuHe H .esb
nonHa
.m.a.z cameo sum. use eHopopm opspmHoa oHaawm .02 snow eoHaom

 

.l‘

.HH OHDUB

.nan ca mpsoaaaomuu 2H cons emsHHm ens suasuad uo moaqasm no mHthssd

62.

 

OHH. mno.nnH. om.Hm mn.mH so.H Hm.m sen. mo.m so.ms c e .uss s
.pom.ema
mmH. meo.meH. Hw.am mm.mH me.H «no.8 mom. Hm.m ms.eo omaHHm n .Hss s
.noa..ase
Hme. meH. am.H mo.He ee.en em.e mm.nn co.» be.mH ea.m . e .st
oon. onH. nH.H no.ne om.en mm.e as.mn on.m mn.HH se.m . e .noe
awn. Ham. em.H mm.oa mm.on mm.m so.en mo.H as.nH ee.m . e .csa
mmn. www.mes. mH.me ma.mn mm.e oe.nn om.m Ho.mH 08.8 x n .Hss
new. eeH. oe.H 0H.Ha mm.an me.e mH.nn mm.H Hm.nH me.m seHwaHs n .noa
s.awe
HopHm .oz
.8: .m .so .ppao .m.a.z and cause was” eHosopm oeepmHos oHaasm spam eoHpom

 

ean 8H mucoafipogxm nH use: omeHm one suaowad no monEom mo mHmSchw

.NH Gamma

63.

 

o.¢H nm.m an.ma ¢¢.H nmo. m.m o.ma gonna
ma.ma m¢.m ¢S.NH m.a mbm. m.m no.nH .noh
«m.ma mn.m no.wa .mm.H as. o.m H.8H .88H
.25 .25 .BH £3 .25 a .25
:Hoponm :Hoponm pounoppsn pmop :oHpoDUOHQ MHHE

hbfibh W carapmomwp_ .QHmHP oapfipmomwm SHHwe owwpopd .h.m haHmu owwnobw uoanom

cobmeoom mwnoH%WDz, bohmswom mvcownpwz, L

.vobfiooou npooansz oHanmoan
aspoa one :Hopoum oanfipwowan .unsesspm noxooem on» o»
waachooos donasdoh mpaofinpsz oHanmomHn Hepoe one cHoponm

}

eanfipmowwn .coHposoonq asunoppsn use xHHa maHsc smsnobm a H .02 chem

.nH OHQwB

64.

 

 

   

   

 

 

w.nH no.m ma.¢H ne.a mm. o.m m.sH .Hss
am.eH He.m mo.eH mm.H A mm. n.m em.aH .poe

m.mH no.m n.¢H ms.a Hm. o.m m.mH .esh
.mpH ..mnH .mpH .mnH .mnH a .mpH

nHoponm :Hopoum pomnoppsn poop uoHposuoam MHHB

.2.Q.B. oanwpmommn . mom SHHso owonobw .h.m SHHse owspo>d coHHmm

cobfiooom mpboHupsz uohfis om mucofiupsz
.cosHooou

mpesHHpaz oHpHpmomHn Hspoa was aHoponm oHanmoan
.cnsucmpm noxoomm map on wsaopooos confiswoh
mpeoanez oHanmomHa choe ens aHouoam oHpHpmomHo
.noHuoseonm pawnoupsp use MHHS haHsu omshobd u m .02 chem

.¢H OHDMB

65.

 

 

 

m.ma em.m bd.¢a NS.H mob. o.m m.mH .pwfi
s.mH ew.m mm.¢H ms.H new. 0.4 em.5H .pom
o.oa om.m m¢.mH mm.H mam. o.m s.mH .nsb
.nnH .mpH .mnH .maH .mpH a .mnH

caspOHm aflopOHm usuuouada poop coHposcona Mafia
. . . new . mom mHch owwnopd .w.m SHHsc owwno>< coHHom

   

  

cobaooom mucofinpsz confis cm wpnoansz

.co>fiooon

mpeoHHHsz oHpHpmoan Hspoa was eHopon oHanmomHn

.cnsccwpm Hoxeosm on» op wuficpooos confisuon

mseoansz oHpHpmowHa Hmpoa ecu eHoponm oHanmowHa
.noHposoona pampoppsp was xHHa SHHsc owmnopd n 9.02 chem

.mH Gamma

66.

 

 

 

 

Ho.nH .Hm.H me.HH oe.H «me. «.9 m.eH .sss
ms.eH mo.H mo.nH mo.H new. o.m so.mH .poa
mn.eH mm.H mH.eH mem.H H.H n.n 8.0m .esa
.mpH .mnH .mpH .mnH .mnH a .msH

:Hopoum aHopoum asunoppsn pmop :oHpodoon xHHa
nzun.e oHpHsmumwn .m.a.m owpwpmowHa sHHse swaaosa .a.m aHHae mmsampe eoHHmm
dopaooom mpsofiupsz vegan om manoeupsz

.oobfiooou

mpaoHapez oHanmomHa Hmpoe ecu eHopoum oHpHpmomHn
.cpocnmpm noxoosm on» on wcacnooos confiswen
mpaoHHpsz oHanmowHo Hssoe ecu :Hopoam oHanmomHn
.aofiposoopm pounoppsn was MHHE hawsc ewsnlbd s e .oz chem

.oH canwa

67.

.[ll'lil-" il': J'Ii- '. u \l‘ I... 5.5 . {(5

(Ike’s! tun «V..- (.I.¢nl‘.l.,t.’ .. r10 5.. t. v c «1 .!.MA .- .

 

 

en.mn mm.Hs NH.me o.ma eHm-mm .eae seHseHs
me m.mm H.eo «.me 0.50 ponHa.aen po>o .sas seHmaHa
oe H.Hn m.ao m.ne o.He noan_men-Hn .see aaHsuHs
ea me.mm ee.He eo.me o.me HopHc eHn-mm .swe aaHacHa
me o.me «.me o.He «.ma HopHc ammvmm .sma saHsuHs
mm m.mn m.ms 6.04. e.ne cunHa mam Hoes: .saa manaHs

a a a a
pomnpxm ,

mHsHHp co .02 use

oonuuz noth sHoponm

 

Al

isomthoa “on“ .meamaom wuHsqu no upcofippsz
oanfipmowwn wnficwahopon ca com: upcoHoHuhooo noapmowan

.bH Danna

68.

LI
111‘

 

mo.eH use. o.mH mo.H z c z e
mam.Hm mes. Hm.mH mm.H .Hsss.asa mmeHHm n
Hm.mn aH.H om.He me.m .Hss . e
oe.om mm. «o.me mm.e .pom . e
mo.Hm ems. oe.oe Hm.m .aoe . e
HH.em o.H oH.H¢ 5.0H .nas . n
mm.mn a. mm.He s.m .noms.ash seHweHe n
sno.oH eon. ae.eH ee.H .psz . m
mee.aH was. am.eH me.H .ase . m
eme.mH amo.H em.oH mm.H .ass . H
www.mH mHm. me.eH oe.H .asa owsHHm H
mm.mm mm.H mm.me ma.HH .uss . m
mm.me an. Ho.mn on.m v.noa . m
on.me e. em.mn ee.m .asa : m
sH.om an. om.o¢ mo.m .asss.nom . H
AH.me an. mm.en ma.o .ash scHsHHa H
.mnH .mpH .mnH .mpH
J 330.5.
.z.n.a use mopsuesaopuao oHanmowHa eoHuom oHaasm .02 spam

.apaoaHuoasa aH some owaHHm an» muHsHHa do .mnH OOH eH upsuHapsz oHanmean

. Wm 0H nah.

69.

nonmafipmm s

 

*on. wow. wow. po>0pm choc
.00.m 00.0 .00.H 0e. masom.aem
mn.m 00.H 00.H 0H.H aHe 12.0.0
00.H 00.H 00.H 00. exam passe
a0.H 00.H 0e.H 00. 0w00e easopu
sn.a an.H om.a om. muwo vcsono
.mm.H .00.H .mm. woe. H002 000 00a eaoo
0¢.H 0H.H 00.H 00. Hess enoo
.0m. wow. .nH. *0H. owsHHm
00. 0 0s. a we. a mm.» sancHe
anaemmH eH-0H0H «n0H nan

.pso hon oeHHm

 

.npmoo weHuHanopon ca use: noofinm cosh

.ma venue

70.

 

 

«3.2 2% 20m

H.5m. m.0H 0.0m

0.0H 0.0 a.wm

m.00 «.mm e.00
me em
«0 0
an m
«H 0H mm

7 0H s 00
0m 0 mm
em NH 00
mm 0 00
0H s Hm
eH 0H 0e
00 em me
00 0 00
em 0 mm
eH 0m 00
00 H0 0H
00 «H em
«0 mm 00
em mm mm
0e 0H e0
0m 0m 00
0H 0m 0m
0H 0H 00
«H 0- 00
mm e- «0
0m 0 00
mm 0H «0
00 0H 00
an «N 00
He 0H em
«0 «H 0H
mm 0H mm
.Hus .pom . .e

«noH

 

 

«.mn 0.00 e.mm anpaos Haaaoz
m.Hn e.nm 0.mn an0002 uses
0.0m 0.0H m.em .0H2 cams
mm 0.Hn 0.00 .ass mass
em 00 H0
0e em 00
en 0H mm
mm 00 Hm mm
mm 00 om am
we 00 e0 00
00 00 00 mm
mm on «0 am
am 0e 00 mm
mm 00 be mm
00 H0 0e H0
00 00 mm 0m
mm 00 0e 0H
00 00 00 mH
0e 0m en AH
mm 00 Ne 0H
00 0H 00 0H
00 am am 4H
0e em 00 0H
00 m 0H NH
pH 0 00. HH
NH e an 0H
0H 0- on 0
«0 m 00 m
00 0H 00 a
00 mm 50 0
00 NH m0 0
om 0H 00 e
«0 mm «0 0
mm on an m
pmllllllbwlllllmH, H
.32 . 03H . 5».
nnoH open

pHennoHAsh moohwoa 8H .mohgpenogaoe hHHsn use:
.om canes

manage onsaononsea

 

 

-v
.‘.

 

 

.‘3.

fi“? I
.3,
J?

1 .

£455.

a».

.J 3"

.. I“
_d” ' ‘ j 5‘ '
h, hr; :2, 1w.

 

V3

EL 7
5%

A. 4,.-

.V
a...
3: 4

‘-'A'“

.4-
~33 A
“a;

a
.1: 1';
l

 

.; L, .,;‘_n .
‘QH‘J.¥ ‘1“
m w
'JVCpW'W"

: 5 «Wu:- .1..-

E“
3‘,
eds E

U;
:r

(‘7.1
' A

.2 ‘3’. '
' v'p‘l I

5.?! _‘ ‘ V I.
f‘ ’19“-
91915934“
'I .{;Q '.
' J v

M.”

v .14
)- "7‘ a

. ~ , ~

 

1‘14.

‘7'
i
.

4
. .
A

’11!

. . _,‘ 5%.. ‘ aij r. (W ' .L- p . . ‘ 1‘. .‘ E. 7.?3‘ .
.r “figs " ’11- ‘ 3‘ ' « v y ‘ .‘J zfi ' ' s 1., ~ In“ W 55,,
‘3‘!” “Wt“, if“ r;- 5 .N R 3‘4. "3 ‘ 7 ' '5“ .w: ‘1 < iii-E":
- , '.. ‘ ' - .‘ . . ‘1 ‘ n _I- -.
. . . i, 'W ,3 ‘ . 2 wt ‘ . . **{‘f:‘j 7 .A-'-,_ f:

 

 

. WV;
v‘ .‘ .TLQ
. .i-wéih‘s-i} .
*‘r-‘f?’ .fifi'l’éf‘x
a y ,7
I

' 4.“

-, r: .‘fig

‘ J/rfixs‘,
v) ‘2,

. .E

.l‘
a
.

' " 1 ‘ A ‘.
t 5- 3b“ J
‘ “ - ”A ‘.:«~
f. x M , ,' mflmim \
H Alf?! ."_ “if"
.. *"""’%i
4 c 3a,."g;fl'§§>?,$
3m"

r: . J" ..

 

. (-

; x €595.33; ‘ -
v)" t" ' , ~' .
32?": ’

3 ~.)".‘.'.3,' I

 

MIN

.an
7 5 8422

31293 031