THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY .2. 7 have noted that the feeding of sunflower silage had no apparent effect upon the composition of the milk and produced no objectionable flavor. One report 20 states that the butter fat produced on sunflower silage rations had a slightly higher olein content, while another mentions a slightly increased iodin number and refractive index of the butter fat. Summary. The lack of uniformity in the results secured at dif- ferent experiment stations would indicate that the sunflower silage used varied greatly in character and quality, possibly owing to cli- matic factors but probably, in part at least, to the ensiling of sun- flowers at different stages of maturity. It should be pointed out further, that corn silage varies greatly in composition, being in- fluenced by such factors as maturity of the crop at the time of en- siling, water content of the crop, proportion of ears to stalks, etc. The data secured thru analyses of a large number of corn silage sam- ples at this Station, together with a survey of analyses reported from other stations, indicate that there is ample justification for the assump- tion that the corn silage fed in comparison with sunflower silage at different stations was not of exactly the same composition, and that the comparison of sunflower silage with corn silage upon a pound- for-pound basis is not a thoroly reliable method for arriving at the feeding value of sunflower silage. 188 BULLETIN No. 253 [July, GROWING AND ENSILING THE SUNFLOWERS In beginning the experimental work at this Station, a field was planted to Mammoth Russian sunflowers on May 18, 1921. The rows were 3 feet 6 inches apart and the plants averaged about 10 inches apart in the row. Three wooden stave silos, each 10 feet by 24 feet in size, and roofed, were used for ensiling the crop. The first cutting was made on August 13, eighty-seven days from the time of planting, and was ensiled in Silo No. 8. At that time about 23 percent of the plants were coming into bloom ; that is, they plainly showed the yellow rays of the heads, and most of the rest of the plants were in the bud stage. The estimates of the proportion of the plants in bloom were made by actual count of the number of blossoms in one row of the sunflowers (about one-fourth mile in length) upon the day of filling the silo. The leaves on only the lower two or three feet of the stalks had died. The plants contained so much water that soon after they were ensiled, a large quantity of juice oozed out around the doors and at the bottom of the silo. 1 This silage was subjected to leaching by rains, a total of 1.22 inches falling before the roof of the silo had been completed. A second cutting was made on September 1 and 2, 106 days from the time of planting, when approximately 95 percent of the plants were in bloom. At that stage nearly one-half of the leaves on the plants had been killed by rust. These plants contained a smaller per- centage of water than those ensiled August 13. Only a small amount of juice was lost by leakage from the silo (Silo No. 7). A third cutting from the same field was made on September 21 and 22, and was ensiled in Silo No. 9. At that stage of maturity, the weight of the crop per acre had decreased greatly, the plants having become very low in water content. Most of the plants had seeds in the dough or more mature stage, a small amount of them shelling out in the handling of the crop. A few of the plants were entirely dead at the time of cutting, owing largely to the effects of rust, but most of the plants had a number of green leaves near the tops of the stalks. During most of the growing season some plants were much more ad- vanced than others. The silage thus secured was fed to dairy cows as described in the following pages. ' It is suggested that this difficulty can be avoided by allowing the plants to wilt in the field after harvesting before bringing to the silo. THE SUNFLOWER AS A SILAGE CROP 189 PLAN OF FEEDING TRIAL ANIMALS USED As many cows of the pure-bred dairy herd as were available were employed. These were divided into two similar groups. The make-up of the groups remained constant thruout the feeding of sunflower silage from the first silo, but when feeding from the second and third silos was begun, it was necessary in a few cases to make substitutions of cows because of decreased milk production occasioned by advancing lactation. The groups were also increased in size as additional cows became available. However, records of production are reported for only those cows which were in milk during the two consecutive periods in which a certain cutting of sunflower silage was fed. The age, breed, and stage of lactation of the cows used are shown in Table 1. EXPERIMENTAL PERIODS In order to get the best possible comparisons of the feeding values for milk production of the sunflower silage obtained from plants at three different stages of maturity, it was planned to compare each TABLE 1. BREED, AGE, AND STAGE OF LACTATION OF Cows USED IN EXPERIMENT Cow No. Breed Age, 10-7-21 Days in milk at beginning of periods Period I (10-7-21) Period III (12-16-21 ) Period V (2-17-22) Group A 155 Jersey yrs. 16 mos. diys 13 44 114 117 280 Jersey 2 7 4 157 227 235 Jersey 7 4 3 9 270 Guernsey 3 7 3 63 282 Guernsey 7 2 2 73 143 206 287 Guernsey 2 5 12 54 124 187 74 Ayrshire 15 4 21 62 125 134 Ayrshire 13 9 202 272 335 277 Ayrshire 2 10 11 8 254 Holstein .... 6 9 2 26 89 263 Holstein 3 9 26 98 168 231 Group B 253 Holstein 6 10 15 21 84 255 Holstein 6 8 27 31 101 264 135 Ayrshire 12 10 21 122 192 255 224 Ayrshire 6 7 22 2 65 271 Guernsey 3 3 4 27 90 278 Guernsey 2 7 26 181 250 245 Guernsey 5 6 5 28 291 Guernsey 2 3 1 2 65 232 Jersey 12 10 67 130 279 Jersey 5 11 6 279 190 BULLETIN No. 253 [July, cutting of silage with corn silage. This plan accomplished the two- fold purpose of comparing the values of the three cuttings of sun- flower silage with each other and at the same time of comparing the sunflower silage with corn silage. Accordingly the feeding periods were arranged as follows: Period Group of cows Silage fed I A Sunflower silage, 2d cutting B Corn silage II A Corn silage B Sunflower silage, 2d cutting III A Sunflower silage, 3d cutting B Corn silage IV A Corn silage B Sunflower silage, 3d cutting V A Sunflower silage, 1st cutting B Corn silage VI A Corn silage B Sunflower silage, 1st cutting Each experimental feeding period was 28 days in length and was preceded by a 7-day preliminary, or transition, period. Whenever sunflower silage was to be fed during a certain period, it was gradu- ally substituted for the corn-silage ration during the preliminary period, but whenever the ration containing corn silage replaced the sunflower silage ration, the change was made abruptly. In one in- stance, Period IV, the length of the period was unavoidably short- ened to 21 days because the sunflower silage in the bottom of the silo was found spoiled. Several conditions made it necessary to employ shorter experi- mental periods than are considered desirable in most feeding experi- FIG. 1 HARVESTING THE FIRST CUTTING OF SUNFLOWERS Hand cutting seemed the best way to prevent losing any of the crop in harvest- ing! At this cutting the stalks were from ten to fifteen feet tall and were not tangled to any extent. 19S4] THE SUNFLOWER AS A SILAGE CROP 191 merits. Since the chief object of the feeding trial was to compare the feeding value for milk production of silage made from sunflowers harvested at three different stages of maturity, it was necessary to complete the comparison within a relatively short period of time in order to finish it during one lactation period. Also it was desirable to feed the silage during the cooler months of the year in order to avoid any changes in the composition of the silage which might be induced by hot weather. It is believed, further, that the results se- cured in the short periods used were more favorable than might have been the case had longer periods of sunflower feeding with conse- quently greater decrease in milk flow been employed. RATIONS The two groups of cows were fed grain and hay from the same sup- ply thruout the experiment. The grain used consisted of a mixture of 600 pounds ground corn, 600 pounds ground oats, 600 pounds wheat bran, and 250 pounds of old-process linseed oil meal. A sup- ply was ground and mixed twice weekly. The amount of grain fed was proportional to the milk production, adjustments being made at the close of each experimental week after feed and milk records for that week had been compared. A supply of western alfalfa hay of good, uniform quality was purchased in a quantity (about two carloads) sufficient for the entire test. It was planned to feed the hay in an amount proportional to the amount of silage consumed, but this was found impractical on account of the failure of a few cows to consume a reasonable amount of silage. It was fed, therefore, in such amounts as the cows would consume readily. Sunflower silage was to form as large a proportion of the ration as possible in order that its influence on milk production and health might be exerted to the fullest extent. The amounts consumed, how- ever, were much less than had been anticipated. The cows were al- ways fed all they would consume, and in a few cases the amount of hay was limited somewhat in order to induce the cows to eat more of the silage. The corn silage was fed in such amounts as the cows would clean up readily. Forty pounds daily was found to be the maximum amount desired. In feeding the cows, the silage was first weighed out in a large weighing scoop, the grain added, and the whole emptied into the manger. The hay was fed after the bulk of the silage and grain had been consumed. The silage, grain, and hay were each fed twice daily, and any refused feed was weighed back each day. 192 BULLETIN No. 253 ANALYSIS OF FEEDS [July, The silage and hay were sampled at two-week intervals from the supply to be used the following two weeks." A core of silage to a depth of 24 to 30 inches was taken at several points on the surface of the silage in the silo. These several portions, in total about 1.5 pounds, were united for the silage sample, immediately weighed, and dried in a drying oven at a temperature of 45 to 50 C. In most cases two silage samples, together representing a four-weeks feeding period, were composited for the chemical determinations. At two-week intervals a few bales of hay were selected at random from the supply and a core was taken centrally lengthwise thru each FIG. 2. THE SUNFLOWERS WERE CUT AT THREE DIFFERENT STAGES Silage made from sunflowers cut 87 days after planting (illustration at the left) was the most palatable and kept the milk flow of the cows closest to the level of corn silage rations. About one-fourth of the plants were coming into bloom at this cutting. Most of the upper leaves were green and succulent, altho those on the lower two or three feet of the stalks were dead. By the time of the second cutting, close to 95 percent of the plants were in bloom and nearly half the leaves had been killed by rust. When the third cutting was made, the leaves on all but the upper two or three feet of the plants had died and many of the plants themselves were dead. Both this cutting and the second were made too late for the best silage. "A roughage sampler which has been developed in the dairy production labora- tory of this Station was used for the purpose. See Jour. Indus, and Engin. Chem. 16, 386. 1924. W24] THE SUNFLOWER AS A SILAGE CROP 193 bale while still unbroken. The cores, about one pound in total weight, were united for the hay sample. Two samples were composited later for analysis, as in the case of the silage. As each batch of grain was ground, samples were taken by means of a double-tube brass grain trier. Three trierfuls were mixed for the sample of each batch. Eight samples, representing the same four-weeks feeding period as/ for the silage, were composited for analysis. The grain and hay samples and the dried silage samples were kept until analyzed in half -gallon glass fruit jars provided with rubber rings and tightly fitting glass covers. The methods of analysis described in the Proceedings of the Asso- ciation of Official Agricultural Chemists were followed, except where otherwise noted. RESULTS OF FEEDING TRIAL MILK AND FAT PRODUCTION In Table 2 is presented a summary of the milk and butter-fat pro- duction of the two groups of cows while on sunflower silage and on corn silage, and their gains or losses in live weight. One of the most striking results shown in this comparison is the greater production of the groups while receiving corn silage over their production on the sunflower silage ration, the increase ranging from 15 to 25 percent in milk yield, 10 to 13 percent in butter-fat yield, and 12 to 16 percent in fat-corrected milk production." The production of the cows when fed silage made from the first cutting of sunflowers more nearly approached their production when fed corn silage than when they were fed silage made from either the second or the third cutting of sunflowers. While the degree of super- iority of the sunflower silage made from the early cut plants over that from the late cut plants, as shown in this manner, was not marked, it is indicative of the greater nutritive value of the silage from the early cut plants. ECONOMY OF PRODUCTION The relative efficiency of the sunflower silage and the corn silage rations was studied by computing the digestible nutrients and net energy consumed, above the requirement for maintenance, per unit of production. Comparisons on these bases are given in Table 3. The total nutrients consumed were determined by applying the results of the chemical analyses of the feed samples to the net weights of the feed consumed. The digestible nutrients of the feeds consumed, The values for the fat-corrected milk production were determined accord- ing to the formula of Gaines and Davidson. 18 194 BULLETIN No. 253 [July, CO o O n live weight Av. per cow co N- OS O (N ~ 1 1 os i-H 1 > co ?5 CO CO coco 1 1 co CO 1 CM 1C i-H 1 1 | 00 1 b O a 3 O a 3 "3 w ,88 i-H 1 O CO CO 00(N O i-H (N s 77 i-H CO 1 1C CO i-KN 1 7 00 CO 1-H 1 1 1 5, o CO 1 1 T 1 CO CO c CD O !> 1 s * ^^ l-H CO(N CD co i-H li 1C CO "3 "3 CO 00 COCN co os o o 1-H CD i-H to d HO .t^o .co i-H 1-H _o n 1 1^ ?! O500 i-H l>00 rt< O5CN (N co eo os 1-H 1 1 .i-H CO eo 1C >C -0 T-H CO CO i-H ! CO 1C (M CO 8 ~ V 8 O500 OS 00 t C i reduction r reduction T: 1 -a " n, 1 3fe fc3 R, 1 CQ 1924} THE SUNFLOWER AS A SILAGE CROP 195 > ^ 1 8 S s j3 *H eo if O5 *O C OO IO & A O i 1 i 1 i I "* i i I CM ^H 1 1 1 ++ + .g ^ a o 3 (H O 1 ^gS J2 CN l 00 CO CO i 1 1C s * 3 O J^ 1 | Tj< CN f'*^ (NO COrfi O: 00 OCO QOCO (N "-H CN CO IN IN CN IN IN IN CN i-i s; (N 1C CNCN c3 & ^O o il.S S c} o u M o c^ **5 fl *-" 13 co ill si j HI F CO CN * CO COT}* OOCO * IO i-H b- S 1-1 i-H COCO (N O H O o i -*^ ^ T3 oo CO OO CO ^f t^- CO ^f Oi OO C^ CO 1C ^2 ^ "^ co co co co co CN co "^ co co 0) I 0tS l '^ S -1 1 . fe ooOOCM OOOS O5O5 00t>- OSi-H O5O5 43 G *^ -^ M 3 -0 la X! JJ'S '-13 M 0) M Q i 1 GO I-H O t^- CO CN t^- ^C Oi i* CO 00 *C [O -^ 1C CO CO "^ CO CO CN "^ "^ CO CO | i c f *l i bio bfi hi) bC ^y * i G G G G .".a ' IS ij *S : sS . b ^ ^ "a ^ S S * ' oo 55 oo-. ~* ^* +*-** ^3 ^J CO CO CN (N CO CO I-H i-H o o o o o o i '. ^ ^G G C ^ en G G ^n C* G G GG feS GG fe GG gfe -o 33 OO GG OO 3G OO COO2 OO ODO2 OO O1O5 OO 'C J S ij CO <* CO rfl O5OO O500 O OO OCX) 1 ( 1 1 a/ -2 II j X r 1 - ^ ^ p>- |L| ^H i i 4 -<< 198 BULLETIN No. 253 [July, pounds of gain or loss and the correction made by adding the result to the net energy consumed by the groups suffering a loss in weight, and by deducting the result from the net energy intake of the groups gaining in weight. After making such corrections, there is not a wide discrepancy between sunflower silage and corn silage rations in the calculated amounts of net energy for milk production, as may be noted from the last column of Table 3. However, the degree of variability between the groups receiving the same ration is so wide that no great importance can be attached to this particular comparison. It seems likely from these results either that the factor used for the net energy value of the sunflower silage underestimates the value of this feed for milk production, or that the factor used in the calculation of the energy value of the losses in weight are too small. 1 PALATABILITY Palatability is an important factor in determining the value of any feed, in that consumption so largely depends on it. The sunflower silage used had a slightly bitter taste and was not eaten so readily as the corn silage. Of the three cuttings of sunflower silage, that made from the first -cutting was the most palatable, while that made from the third cutting was decidedly the least palatable, as may be judged from the consumption shown in Table 4. The difference in consump- tion of silage of the first cutting and of the second was slight. The silage from the third cutting seemed very distasteful, possibly because of the effects of rust which late in the summer had attacked the plants severely, and also perhaps because of . the presence of resins which develop as the plant matures. The small percentage of moisture present and the woodiness of the stalks at the time of cutting were undoubtedly important factors contributing to the unpalatability of the third cutting. This silage tended to spoil more quickly than that made from either the first or the second cutting. The consumption of the second and third cuttings of sunflower silage decreased slightly from week to week as the feeding trial progressed. The consumption of the first cutting of sunflower silage and of the corn silage was prac- tically the same week by week. The pronounced difference in the palatability of the silages of the various cuttings caused the proportion which they formed of the total feed intake to vary widely (Table 5). The percentages were approxi- mately 24, 18, and 13 for the first, second, and third cuttings, respectively. Corn silage, on the other hand, furnished an average 1 The discussion of the results of the feeding trial from the standpoint of net energy has been included as a matter of interest, altho the deductions made from the results so calculated should not be unduly emphasized. The method of calculation as applied to sunflower silage is subject to revision on account of comparatively low digestibility of the total dry matter of sunflower silage as compared with the feeds used in the original experiments by Armsby and Fries. THE SUNFLOWER AS A SILAGE CROP 199 of about 40 percent of the total digestible nutrients of the ration. Considered on the basis of net energy, the sunflower silage contributed an even smaller proportion of the total net energy intake. As pointed out above, this may have been due to some extent to the underrating of the net energy content of the sunflower silage. TABLE 4. DAILY CONSUMPTION OP SILAGE Period Group Number of Kind of siliisc Average s sumed ] ilage con- aer cow cows Fresh weight Dry matter I II A B 6 4 Sunflower, 2d cutting Sunflower, 2d cutting Ibs. 27.3 22 8 . Ibs. 6.2 5.2 II A 6 Corn 30 9 10 I B 4 Corn 31.2 9.6 111 IV A B 9 8 Sunflower, 3d cutting Sunflower, 3d cutting 12.3 10.2 3.8 3.2 IV A 9 Corn 29.7 9.2 III B 8 Corn . . 29 7 9 2 V A 10 Sunflower, 1st cutting 28.4 6.0 VI B 8 Sunflower, 1st cutting 27.3 5.8 VI A 10 Corn 31.3 9.7 V B 8 Corn 32.2 9.9 PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS All group totals for loss or gain in live weight show a loss with the sunflower silage ration, altho a few individual cows gained in weight during some of these periods. The totals for the groups fed corn silage show losses in two instances, but most of the period totals show substantial gains. As with sunflower silage, there were individual exceptions to the group gains or losses. The gains and losses in live weight by groups and periods are reported in Table 2. The sunflower silage proved to be less laxative than the corn silage. This was particularly noticeable in the digestion trial, in which sun- flower silage composed the entire ration. Under these conditions the sunflower silage seemed to exert a constipating effect, the dry-matter content of the feces ranging from approximately 24 to 29 percent, while at the same time a cow on a mixed ration containing corn silage produced feces having a dry-matter content ranging from 16.9 to 17.4 percent. The average dry-matter content of the feces of steers while re- ceiving a ration of ground corn and clover hay is reported by Grindley et al. 20 to have ranged from 14.59 percent to 19.13 percent, 200 BULLETIN No. 253 [July, and while receiving a ration of ground corn, linseed meal, and clover hay to have ranged from 17.61 percent to 19.06 percent. Several reports have appeared in experiment station literature and in the popular press to the effect that the feeding of sunflower silage causes an excessive excretion of urine. In the experiments reported in this bulletin no such effect was noted. On the contrary, during the course of the digestion trial, in which sunflower silage was fed ex- clusively, there was even less urine excreted than was the case on a mixed ration (see Appendix, Table 5). The condition of the hair and the general appearance of the animals was not quite so good during the sunflower silage periods as during the corn silage periods. No digestive disturbances were noted during the course of the feeding trial. It was necessary, however, to drop a fifteen-year old cow from the experiment on account of her persistent refusal to eat the sunflower silage. GENERAL DISCUSSION When the cows were fed sunflower silage from the first cutting, their yield of milk and butter fat more nearly approached the yield with corn silage than it did when they were fed sunflower silage of either the second or the third cutting. From this it may be inferred that the silage produced from the first cutting of sunflowers was superior in feeding value to that produced from the other two cuttings. Inquiry into the causes of these apparently better results from the first cutting brings to light the facts that a larger amount of this silage was consumed daily (Table 4) than was consumed of the second or the third cutting, and that at the same time it contained a larger amount of total digestible nutrients per pound (Table 11). A com- parison of the requirements for milk production as expressed in the Haecker standard 21 with the amount of nutrients supplied by the sunflower silage and the corn silage rations shows clearly that the sunflower silage rations were theoretically insufficient to maintain the normal level of milk production (Table 6). The experimental data show that the greater the difference between the actual consumption and the theoretical requirement, the more rapid the decrease in milk yield. From a practical standpoint, palatability proved the most decisive factor in determining the value of the silages from the different cut- tings. Whether this would hold true under different climatic and seasonal conditions was not determined. Under the existing condi- tions it seemed evident that had the consumption of the sunflower silage been sufficiently large, the production of the cows would have been nearly or fully as great as when corn silage was fed. The basis 1924] THE SUNFLOWER AS A SILAGE CROP 201 for this assumption is that a few cows consumed almost as much of the first- and the second-cutting silage as they consumed of corn silage and produced nearly as well as when fed corn silage. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that had the sunflower silage been more palatable, the cows might have eaten a sufficient amount to provide enough digestible nutrients to maintain a normal, or nearly normal, milk yield. Doubtless much of the loss in live weight occasioned by the sun- flower 1 silage feeding could have been prevented by liberal grain feed- TABLE 5. PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL FEED CONSUMED FURNISHED BY SILAGE Period Group Kind of silage Proportion of total feed in- take furnished by silage Total digestible nutrients Net energy I II II I III IV IV III V VI VI V A B A B A B A B A B A B Sunflower, 2d cutting : perct. 16.9 18.8 42.3 40.7 13.8 12.9 43.2 37.9 24.6 23.9 44.3 40.8 perct. 1.4 2.5 40.2 38.3 1.5 3.9 40.6 36.5 15.3 14.5 42.1 41.3 Sunflower, 2d cutting Corn Corn Sunflower, 3d cutting Sunflower, 3d cutting Corn Corn Sunflower, 1st cutting Sunflower, 1st cutting . . . Corn Corn ing. In that event, however, the sunflower silage would have formed but a minor part of the ration and any important physiological effects or influences on production might have failed to materialize. Since it was the object of the investigation to study such effects or in- fluences, it was thought advisable to carry out the experiment as planned and to feed the grain in proportion to the milk yield. It would have been much more satisfactory to have eliminated the variable factor of gain or loss in weight by feeding both groups so that the gains or losses would have been uniform than to make corrections for these gains or losses, since such corrections can, at best, be but approximations. The lack of condition in the hair and the change in appearance of the cows while being fed sunflower silage may have been caused by the lack of sufficient digestible matter to maintain their live weight and possibly by the effect upon the system of compounds contained in the silage, altho evidence of the latter was not established. 202 BULLETIN No. 253 TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF NUTRIENT INTAKE WITH REQUIREMENTS OP HAECKER'S STANDARD Period Group Number of cows Week ending Ration Av. milk daily per cow Av. live wt. per cow III IV A A 9 9 12-23-21 1-27-22 Sunflower silage .... Corn silage Ibs. 18.6 20.7 Ibs. 975.7 937.1 COMPARISON OF SUNFLOWER SILAGE RATION WITH STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Digestible Nutrients Required Daily Period III Carbo- hydrates Crude protein Ibs. 0.682 For 18.6 Ibs. of 4. 8 percent milk 1 . 130 For maintenance of a 975.7 Ib. cow. Total (Nutritive ratio 1 :7) 1.812 6.83 5.02 11.85 Digestible Nutrients Consumed Daily Period III Crude Carbo- protein hydrates 13.6 Ibs. sunflower silage. 6 . 4 Ibs. grain 9.0 Ibs. hay Ibs. .055 .813 .937 1.805 Ibs. 1.218 3.233 3.500 7.951 Fat Ibs. .0975 .4660 .5635 Fat Ibs. .131 .183 .077 .391 Total (Nutritive ratio 1 :4 . 6) Variation from requirements -0.007 3.90 0. 1725 COMPARISON OF CORN SILAGE RATION WITH STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Digestible Nutrients Required Daily Period IV Crude protein Ibs. For maintenance of a 937. 1 Ib. cow 656 For 20.7 Ibs. of 4.7 percent milk 1.221 Carbo- hydrates Ibs. 6.559 5.589 Total (Nutritive ratio 1 :7) 1.877 12.148 Digestible Nutrients Consumed Daily Period IV Fat Ibs. .0937 .4968 .5905 30 . 4 Ibs. corn silage Crude protein Ibs. 460 Carbo- hydrates Ibs. 5.529 Fat Ibs. .292 6 . Ibs. grain 764 3.051 .237 8.7 Ibs. hav 973 3.373 .087 Total 2 197 11.953 .616 (Nutritive ratio 1 :6) Variation from requirements +0.320 -0.195 +0.025 1924] THE SUNFLOWER AS A SILAGE CROP 203 COMPOSITION OF SUNFLOWER SILAGE Large composite samples of sunflower silage and of corn silage were taken as the finely cut material was placed in the silo. At the close of the working day or at the time the filling was stopped, the sample was subsampled and the subsample dried. Other composite samples were taken during the course of the feeding and digestion trials, as described on page 192. Average analyses of these samples, calculated on the fresh basis, are presented in Table 7 ; the individual analyses, calculated on the water-free basis, are given in Tables 8 and 9. COMPOSITION OF FRESH MATTER The sunflower plants ensiled at the more advanced stages of ma- turity produced silage higher in every constituent, other than water, than was the silage from the comparatively immature first cutting. It was considerably higher in dry matter, crude fiber, and ether extract. The variation in the amounts of some of these constituents is evidently not due simply to differences in the water content of the silages, but is doubtless a result of physiological changes in the plant. For example, the increase in dry matter of the third cutting over that of the first was 46 percent, while the crude fiber increased 77 percent and the ether extract 90 percent. Sunflower silage has a higher moisture content than has corn silage. Even the silage from the third cutting of sunflowers had a slightly higher content than the corn silage fed, yet it evidently was too low in water content, or in sugar and starch content, to allow the normal fermentation processes to take place. As a result, this silage did not keep well, as noted above, while the corn silage was of excel- lent quality. This leads to the conclusion that if sunflowers are to produce a good grade of silage they must have a higher moisture con- tent at the time of ensiling than corn. The crude-protein content of sunflower silage of all three cuttings was found to be less than that of well-matured corn silage but was about the same as that of immature corn silage. The true, or albuminoid, protein forms a larger proportion of the crude protein in sunflower silage than in corn silage, in the first, second, and third cuttings forming 68, 76, and 82 percent, respectively, of the crude- protein content, while in corn silage it formed only 53 percent. It is likely that the differences in true-protein content of the silage made from sunflowers at the different stages of growth were due to a trans- formation of the soluble nitrogen compounds into protein as the plants approached maturity. COMPOSITION OF DRY MATTER When the analyses of the different silages used in these experiments are expressed in terms of the percentage composition of dry matter 204 BULLETIN No. 253 [July, - OO CO iCi-H O O I-H 1C O Tf< CO Tt< SI 00 00 I-H O5 I-H 1C I-H I-H l-H I-H "f S3 CD 1C t-H TJ< OO 1C i-H Tt< O 00 CO t^. O5 00 l> 1C CD l-H srl (NCNt^Ic *t l-H I-H l-H l-H "2*1 OOCOO5 COO OO CD O OO O5 1-1 at l-H I-H (N O5CO O CO Q| i-H (N O (N i-H CO v ^W THE SUNFLOWER AS A SILAGE CROP 205 CO l| "^'aT ll i -^> ^l"t-^ !z X -S " f-t aj M a || O--i r*^ ^ ** *GO (H .9 3 ^ g y> H 2 $~ & w -S-i S "o u B. P| .S - "S b^ ^-o "^ o Q " *" ^ oj fe CO S.g x a t4 O O )^ ti CO *S p rt CO ID S P SS8 00 OJ IO CO CO 't 1 t^ CO O OSOO -* S 88 (N OOSOi-H OS 1 1 t 1 T 1 I 1 i-H OS O OS OS OS 1-H 1-H OS OS OS l"*w t-H i-H ^1 OS OS CO OS OO 00 OS ^ C^ I-H O O OS OS o co oo OO OS OS (N CO CO CO CO CO IN* .OiOTh^ CO ^ CO (N i-H t-- IO CO OOOS Tt'* OOCO IO OO IO OS-* OO t>- COlO OS Oi-H CO CO IO CO ^ CO i 1 CO * 00 (NOO I-H OS CM OOOS CO l>-b-CO^ CO IN COCO CO CO CO o M* I-H I-H oo os CO CO Tji Tfi CO CO 21 T*CD CO O IO CO OS I-H (N 1> 00 >O O IO CO IN OS "^ i-H i-H CO OO CO t^ CO O COOO OS OO t^ OS OS OS 00 t^ t^* t** t""- CO 00 COCO SOOOOO OO O O O bC O O O O O O O O O O bC O OO O OO '3 +3 b- i-H COTf COJ> O ^* 00 ^1^ ^* ^^ OS I>O COCO CO 00 3 O (N 1> 00 T-H 1-H O O t^b- IO i-H Tfl (N i-Hi-H C 1C CO CO CO 1C CO C >C CO CD l> ktg ll rH COOOOO Sg^gFt 00 O5 CO 00 L * IN (NC CO CO CO 1C i-H OS CO C II -si N Oi IN CO CO 1C5CO <*! 1C O5 r-l OOOO^H (N * 00 C O' rt ^(C 8j| I-H 1-1 IN IN O W IN C^l 3 ._ ^ -^ _ ^.^ *& S| ^ O5 O5 O> N c C rt a- - - - s i OQ tc O OO (M CD t^ CO CO 0)^ ^"o3 IB O OOOSCO t^ 5C I < II T-H Jo 3^ 53 1 O 0*3 O O O lOb- O Tf I> .Sg ^ -is O O 1-1 O O S o H x ^3 *a^ ^ 05 o ^ s^ G73 (NOOOOOO "d 03 O 1C CO i I ^ O 03 03 O It 00 CD l^ ^H 1C 2 aT f"H I-H ^ ^ -^J2 H "3 ^to 11 CO CCi-H 00-* TjH If **? -J3 Tt* co c X I <-l QJ 1 =3 1 J 1 3 S ^ c^t^ ' J* 2 - 00 CO * o ^ G ' 02 1 '*3 bC : G> T3 05. S < (-4 05 G t* i^ O5 SPS 1 o "Ca5 ^H O(N 73 3 s" 8 05 3 -*-* P-i ^ O T 1 1 1 1 1 S-o * hfi Q CJ Q f 1 ^ MJ ; 03 3 4 *= -J i fl -. 2 T^ OS H ' fc 3 05 S-- COlM rt< O O CD CO CO O fH -^ 3 a ^ "o OC5Oi-Hi-H 'oi ^ H Oc pH ^3 2 "~ a x ^T i 1 ^ h CD t^ C<1 O O i>oo r> o co II H X A ~ l " ) oi 1> O i-i co *' i) S ^H (M O500"5 I -S >o b-ooo OJ CNt^O O OS OS CO h; 1* OSgOS fo w-sj g g-8 Ol t^ OS CO CO CO CO CO CO t-INCO OS COINCO CO CN-HCO 2 . . 3 30 o H ,TltN,CN jos-gs ^ CO 00 00 S fc8 *O co co ^* 00 MOOOO CO OCOC- -l 0)000 8OOSCO COcOCS -i coOi-i CO U51OOO IN :~ - CO M OOS O) co "8 00 2 0000 S S2K >-i b-OO "5 00-HOO N. O)Tf"IN h- cooso O) OSOO) 8 V .^COCO l>- t^COCS s ^^^ o ocoo ^' -HOOCO 3 H _gcoc S B sss CO OSt^OJ os 22 CO 5SS 8U5COOS - i - r. o ,, _ ,JH COO^ 2 N-free exi N Cf CO CO 00 "5 OOOSCO S gi ^ CO 00 O CO OCO-i ^ COO100 CO rHt^UJ | | c; i SS 00 OOTflcO 00 U50000 S ggJOS CO CO 00 CO U5 OOCO^t" (> OSOS^ CO Crude fi .OJNOO * "5IN-* CO IN^OJ IO ~Z f '~. 00 00 -t N O OSl^CO CN rl CO o 2 e USOCN 00 OCOT* fc ^!5o 0> OOCOrl CO rHOJCO CD OOl-Oi CO t-O)00 S !1 3 a ;OCNOOOO OS CNOOt- CN O O 00 00 CO rHiHiH * -^OJCO US i-icOCO 00 OJ-HCN CO i-lrtrt B1 00 1 I- 00 CO OOCNCN 00 OOJOO CO CO US CO t- CNi-HO US Or-lrt CN COCO * t- O)i-l^-< t- USOOO CN COCO^ co 1 .us us cc -H i-H-^i-l I-- COOOCN ^ US i-l O5 COCOCO 2 1 SINUS 5; "2 00 TJII-.00 CO CO O) US <-< USOiCO Tt< t-OOOS 0-^US i-l 00 CO N-free ext .CNCNi-" to O5COCO t- U5CO O5 US CN usoco cot- co IN CNOCO t OCOUS 2CNCNOO -HOOCO CO CNt-CO CM i-l * COCDOO CO COt-US CN S ;5 8 SSi O t Ol t t CO O5 00 CO CNiHUS Soot- co O^CN GO -HCOCO S Crude fil if* O5 00 CO 00 US t-CN-H O5 OUSO CN (N CO CN t-USCO 21-H US ^ CO CN CO T)0 I 00.-IO OJ OCCU3 t- CO O O S HS2 S 8SS CN OOCDUS CN t US ^ O5 2 a 1 o .OOCD-H ^WOO^JOO US T*l-Q ^ t us CO i-lCN 3858 CO COOOCO CO O CO CNCN oo CO V t-ppco 00 CN-HOO i-l t-O.CN ^ O O 090000 CO CO CO CO CO COTt~ > > 220 BULLETIN 253: APPENDIX [July, Q rt B| S a> w ^ 93 O O 0> H b &i CP o g wg Jrt CN^-H(NCO O5 (N -H OS - JUSUS** OCNOCOt- O5t^OOCO *O-*COO COOCqoO 5-HOii-i OOi-00 ii h- 00 *# I OO >0M rH INCOUSM^ a vHlQ CO CN TO O ^H 00 US CO CO 1-1 COt-COMCO Olt-COOJt- corocoooco USCC-HCNi-l COUSOOOOCN -*-nO>COOO CO-K35O5-* O CO CO US OCOOS^CN INCOCNNCO' U5-HCJUSU5 il NWOCOO5 h-OOCOtNM --^ JO CO 00 CO *O * Tt< CO CO CO ii5(NCO^< iiCONCOOO t~USCOTJ'Tj( U300K5CO OOOMCOIN MO5O5O5CQ COOOCOCOOO O5NCOOSO5 NCOO500 OOOOZ OO&Q : :^ :*-' O5 * | O5 oo ; ; oo : ; : :^ : ^ " * ^3 |rs s^ : us ; ; o o _c o oT * o oT o_o a?_o \ :I?I S a f|*|{ I s . osjn i 5-C3 g^ ** -* *=; * * - OajwOQ D jg V A M .S -03 --S - C t- d %& C8^S u O u O B J* OOOOO OOOC 19X4] THE SUNFLOWER AS A. SILAGE CROP 221 TABLE 4. COEFFICIENTS OF DIGESTIBILITY AND NET ENERGY VALUES USED CALCULATION OF DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS AND THERMS OF ENERGY IN FEEDS CONSUMED Coefficients of digestion Dry substance Crude protein Corrected crude protein Crude fiber N-free extract Ether extract Sunflower silage, Silo 8, 1st cutting 1 . Sunflower silage, Silo 7, 2d cutting 2 . Sunflower silage, Silo 9, 3d cutting 5 . Corn silage 4 46.16 34.68 34.68 66.00 60.00 75.50 33.36 19.58 19.58 51.0 71.0 78.2 62.46 61.71 61.71 48.94 35.55 35.55 65.00 43.00 43.00 55.31 40.04 40.04 71.00 72.00 81.80 61.41 64.74 64.74 82.00 38.00 83.40 Alfalfa hay 4 Grain mixture* 1 From Appendix Table 6, average of Cows 234 and 155. 2 From Appendix Table 6, average of Cows 234 and 217. 1 Assumed same as 2d cutting. 4 From Henry and Morrison, Feeds and Feeding, Appendix Table II. * Compiled from Henry and Morrison. Weighted average of coefficients for grains composing the mixture. NET ENERGY VALUES' Net energy value of silage equals 1 . 588 therms per pound of digestible organic matter minus 52.54 therms per cwt. of total dry matter. Net energy value of alfalfa hay equals 1 . 588 therms per pound of digestible organic matter minus 53 . 03 therms per cwt. of total dry matter. Net energy value of grain mixture equals 1 . 808 therms per pound of digestible organic matte r minus 55.01 therms per cwt. of total dry matter. 1 Calculated from values given by Armsby and Fries, Pa. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 142, 1916. TABLE 5. URINE EXCRETION OF Cows FED SUNFLOWER SILAGE ONLY AND OF ONE FED A MIXED RATION CONTAINING CORN SILAGE Cow No. Ration Volume daily Specific gravity Total nitrogen in urine 234 Sunflowe silage 1st cutting gms. 8583 1.0159 percent 0.40 234 Sunflowe silage 1st cutting 9030 1.0145 0.34 234 Sunflowe silage 1st cutting 10793 1 0148 37 155 Sunflowe silage 1st cutting 8176 1.0153 0.40 155 5380 1 0187 0.51 234 Sunflowe silage 2d cutting 11231 1.0149 0.28 234 11783 1 0156 27 217 Sunflower silage 2d cutting 9397 1 0124 0.37 217 Sunflower silage 2d cutting 9014 1.0108 0.31 274 Mixed ration, ad lib 14089 1.0288 0.70 274 Mixed ration, ad lib 14775 1 0295 0.73 274 Mixed ration 9245 1.0285 0.80 274 Mixed ration 11516 1.0271 0.60 222 BULLETIN 253: APPENDIX [July, I i tf a I -COIN rH^,t,CO JS R If SS : coco-^ CO^O^CN 5 Ether extrac i ft CO CO SO (N ^ 8 |! .rt U51C S S (N ^ t^ SO cs JiCOi I 1 w~*t. 0) 11 ^2 }f digestib ^ i-.i-i- O5 00 gOl 1 TCOCO ^cooot--. 8 3 01 |8M ,< CO Q (N 00 Tf 0-CO fc 1 1 l-l O V a) u , , r ents in silage fed . . . r ents in orts r ents consumed r ents in feces tr ents digested >. u 'c ^ - 4> 33333 c Tf i-H Ql ocot--- !""" S iO o 10 00 co coo US CO IN CO OJ g ' ' ^CMMgOJg SO^StNCO Cft 9 THOOI^ OTf.cor-o> O "000500 ^"O CO 00 CO 1-1 CO IQCNCO S i-l 00 ^f .$ USOOt^CO- 2 S .0 V .y (N CN O3 00 ^ Qi CO o oo.o c o 00.-WCO IQ ^ ^H S a O O ft Calculat ^Or-lNlMOJ S < ' co oo 'O Ql S ej . .8 -o [J i c in 3 1 i i I s i 1 -Hl^-* U5^^.co CO 04 "gddd a. l^iS : .t^Wf ft OCNOOCOiO Sioco--iSi-i 6 "5 -H ^"00 CO OB M T Jsi Ct^ CO I rients in silage fed rients in orts rients consumed . . rients in feces .... rients digested .... 15 1 I 8 "5 03 ,- w cZOfe 33333 5 1924] THE SUNFLOWER AS A SILAGE CROP 223 si ~i tf f 3 2 "S.-s 1 OH w--^ ^. -00'!)' 2INMOO TC g^iOOO CCO CO 10 (M, X55OO-HOO oc ?OOWO5 digestibili IN M 00 CS O 2 1^ *i ic co -< e *-*ooj'-' ^CO COM CM -f 07 O COTd 1 *o e >O-*'-iOOCC CO c 1 a o y I-'-" Calculatio t^ i- CO CO CM 2OiCCCO(NT< BCN IN aim <3:^ t^ C^l 1-J . . -o ?) CC 1 d n. S < I : : : s : a ... t CC 2fe lOOOt^O ?ddc 1 CNT). 00 ScO b-CNin a cc OOIN OWX50.0 5 I"- CO COMIN S 0-HM fe U5U50-05 oo "jPoroo A digestibili CO COCOCM 0? a COO3O "o 0-Wr*. S Compositi I- Calculatio 2l>COOOO(N S Id ...(-. 00 1 d ... .to 1 : : :* : a bb ..3 "CO5CM ?^-o . 2 ?OOO B & a nitrogen c ilo 7, secor OCCOl WNMO^ ro ,005 "o v felNCNIN a g CO 'C OS * ClOWCC 1 F ; gOOl- 'S Ether extract 'godo b O> >O 0) " g^. 0-"*0>U5 e- gg "gooooo ft> ' ft. CO U5WCN T 9 >, OOOCNOO e< P *-H a digestibili i! s !?! p B OJ5- "o B 1000X014 8 ~ "S'l y 2 I a? C 1 c. y i-f Dalculatio ^ CN co oo c^ co a co J J-c a * . . ., . bo 00 5 O 52 -d _o i | : : :* : s H c I - 8fc UJOUSCO H. If IM Is O O Iddd K i rs i ^ * rients in silage fed rients in orts .... rients consumed . rients in feces . . . rients digested. . . 15 nOh 33333 O CO 1* 000? COCO 11 S5f !7 K * ' i. coe OOC5 -o 1*1 o >o 00 "5 bS P COCO o a v S 11 (H O Of 1 (NtM osoo al coco a a 'C-o C a S $x tSt : Mr- OOOMCOOJ 3 1" ^ O CO CO OO t 5 aseoS i INNCO 00000^ 3 fe *-H ft a S? 0>CO .| ooooo ft )f digestib 2 <35 O 00 30 O b 8 o O-< OJ o OW-HTCt- -o Compos i- Calculat ilSlll = :S . . .31 . g 1 : i;;! e ; 8 CO CO ot-coo I 000 ' w - o oo -i oo fcSS ONOOCOfrJ S I** 2 CO O CM 00 IM " M ?o o OON So coo 1 ents in ailage fed .... ents in orts ents consumed ents in feces ents digested X IS I -3 "o -~f r I' i- U fc. t- <-^ 33333 ~- i;-: ^eo co O O ^. S5;g Nacot^o S! a. 000 ft 00 ^ CO ^* 3SS CO t* CO I s " O5 f~ ft OOOO(^ a 00 t-CO'* g ^.^r- ^ 3 ot-aooco - ,(- >f digestib 00 Ob* CO *-< K 8 _o -S58 a o WrCOCON 5 1 o O I- 1 -" Calculat Qi ** - 'J . . -o 2 1. : I ; ; ; s i g i ^-N0> 0>0t~ "o ft 000 |Sco^o : c nitrogen tfooS WCOt-^CO 1 a" COOOC3500 X \ Q "o a a ^""COO SgOCM after deducti cutting, d cutting. 1 08 -2 O :3 "- * dBOw Nutrients in ailage fed Nutrients in orts Nutrients conaumed Nutrients in feces Nutrients digested Coef. of digestibility 'Corrected protein coefficient 'Sunflower silage, Silo 8, first 'Sunflower silage, Silo 7, secoi UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS URBANA