"It will be observed that the expenses per acre of handling and preparing silage were about 9 per cent. greater than for the dried fodder. At the time the green crop was stored in the silo it contained 28.21 per cent. of "dry matter," and when the dry fodder was stored it contained 75.37 per cent. of "dry matter," thus the cost of storing and preparing the dry matter in the form of silage was $3.54 per ton, and in the form of dried fodder, $3.33 per ton, a difference on the dry matter basis of 21 cents per ton, or 6.3 per cent. in favor of the dried fodder."

In summarizing the results, the following is given:

"Applying the results in a practical way, that is, to the actual amount of corn put into the silo, namely, 135 tons, it is shown that what did cost $134.64 to store and prepare in the form of silage, would have cost in the form of dried fodder $123.72, or $10.92 less. Deducting from the amount put into the silo the 4 per cent. loss, it is found that there remained for feeding 73,120 pounds of dry matter, sufficient for one cow 6,647 days, or for 30 cows 222 days. This, or its equivalent, was practically what was done with the silage, and with an actual average yield during the period of 17 pounds per cow per day, we have a total of 112,999 pounds of milk. If, as the experiment indicated, this yield of milk was 12.8 per cent. greater than could have been produced from the same dry matter in the form of dried fodder, there is a gain of 12,822 pounds of milk, which at 13 cents per pound, which was the price which could have been received for the milk at wholesale-the milk sold at retailwould have amounted to $192.33.

Assuming that only one cent per pound could have been secured, which is probably nearer the actual price received from November to April in districts distant from the city, the increase would have amounted to $128.22; deducting from this the $10.92 representing the greater cost of storing the silage, and we have a difference on the basis of one cent per pound of $117.30, which shows the increased value of the corn crop on twelve acres (nearly $10.00 per acre on the basis of one cent per pound) when fed in the form of silage, rather than in the form of dried fodder."

THE THEORY OF FEEDING.

In Bulletin No. 39 of the Maine Experiment Station, Prof. Bartlett gives the following compact, concise and excellent review of what is now known as to the theory of the use of feeding stuffs:

"The valuable ingredients in animal foods are ash or mineral matter, protein, and fat and a class of compounds called corbohydrates, of which starch, sugar and crude fibre are the most important examples. Although the ash or mineral matter is essential to the well being of the animal, it is abundantly supplied by most of the materials one is likely to feed, so what one most needs to consider in buying and using cattle foods are protein, fat and carbohydrates. A sufficient supply of protein in the food is indispensable. The working animal depends upon it to replenish and repair its working machinery, the growing animal to make muscle and build up its whole system, the sheep to make wool and the milk cow to make the casein and albumen of its milk. No other substance can take its place or be manufactured into protein by the body. When more protein is fed than is needed for the growth or repair of the body, the excess performs the same functions as the fats and carbohydrates. As a rule, however, this is not an economical use to make of it. It is worth but slightly more than the carbohydrates and about six-tenths as much as fats for this purpose, and is, commonly, the most expensive ingredient for producers to buy.

The office of the other two substances, fat and carbohydrates, is two-fold. First, they serve as fuel and are oxidized or burned in the body to supply heat and force. The fat is worth about two and one-fourth times as much as the carbohydrates for that purpose. Second, they are used as material for making fat.

For convenience in stating the relation of protein to carbohydrate material the term nutritive ratio is used. By nutritive ratio is meant the relative amount of digestible fat and carbohydrates compared with the digestible protein. That is, if a food is said to have a nutritive ratio of 1 to 6, that means that for every pound of digestible protein it contains six pounds of digestible carbohydrate material. To find the nutritive ratio, the digestible fat is multiplied by two and one-fourth and the product added to the carbohydrates. This sum, divided by the number of pounds of digestible protein, gives the number of pounds of carbohydrate material to one pound of protein.

It has been ascertained, by accurate experiment, that the amount of food required to keep an animal from losing weight is not

materially different for different animals of the same size and species. All the food that they will profitably eat above that amount depends on their individual digestive and producing capacity. It is therefore evident, that a ration which would be profitable for one animal would not be for another, and no hard and fast rules can be made. For this reason the accuracy of feeding standards has been questioned by some feeders, but they certainly must be considered a vast improvement over the commonly practiced, haphazard feeding of any materials at hand. The successful and progressive feeder can, by studying his herd, learn the capacity of each animal and vary its ration from the standard to suit the individual.

The German feeding standards recommended by Wolff are the ones generally employed in this country when any standards are made use of. A so-called American standard for dairy cows, which was obtained by Woll, by means of extended correspondence with dairymen in all parts of the country and the use of averages for composition and digestibility of foods, gives a somewhat wider ration with a nutritive ratio of 1:6.9 and only 2.13 pounds digestible protein per day. This ration can hardly be said to be based on scientific data, and is probably too wide to give the best results in most cases. In fact some of our best dairymen in this State claim to derive the most profit from a ration having a nutritive ratio of about 1:4, which is much narrower than the Germar. ration and perhaps cannot be continuously fed dairy cows with safety. Authorities quite generally agree that a thousand pound cow, of average capacity for producing milk, should have about 2.5 pounds of digestible protein per day, and it would be questionable whether a Maine farmer, who is obliged to buy commmercial fertilizers, could profitably feed any less to a cow of that size. At the present low prices of cotton seed and gluten meals one can afford to feed the maximum amount of protein for the sake of increasing the value of the manure. Both of the above feeds contain fertilizing materials enough to amount to more than their cost when valued according to the valuations given to commercial fertilizers."

REMOVING ABSORBED ODORS FROM MILK.

On this subject Prof. Russell, of the Wisconsin Station, gives us the following:

"In case the defective milk is caused by the direct absorption o