Chapter V: Part 5

“Blankets wrung out of cold water and wrapped around the abdomen or belly, or cold water dashed on with a bucket, often give relief. Turpentine given as a drench, in milk sufficient that it will not irritate the animal, is good, two ounces of turpentine for adult cattle and one-half ounce for sheep being a dose. Hyposulphite of soda, dissolved in water and given as a drench, is good; one ounce for cattle and two drachms for sheep. This can be repeated every half hour for two or three doses. Aqua ammonia, two ounces for cattle and one-half ounce for sheep, well diluted with water; carbolic acid, cattle 30 drops, sheep 8 to 10 drops in sufficient water; common soda, in half-ounce doses for cattle and one-half drachm for sheep, can be given. In giving medicine as drenches, they should be well diluted with water or other substances until they will not burn when touched to the tongue. In giving drenches, be careful and not choke the animal. If the animal coughs or struggles violently, stop at once until it recovers somewhat. Give drenches slowly.

“Drenches are mostly administered from a long-necked, thick, glass bottle, or drenching horn. Take hold of the nose with the left hand, by putting the thumb and finger in the nostrils, while an assistant takes hold of the horns, and tips the head back. Standing on the right side of the animal, with the right hand put the neck of the bottle in the right corner of the mouth, and pour the medicine in slowly. After the bloating has been relieved, it is a good plan to give the animal a purgative--one pound of Epsom salts, with one-half pound common salt, for cattle; and for a sheep, six ounces of Epsom salts and three ounces of common salt, dissolved in plenty of warm water, and given as a drench. The animals should also be dieted until their digestive organs regain their normal condition. By dieting, I do not mean starving, but plenty of easily digested and nutritious food. An animal that bloats once is very liable to bloat again. By judicious handling and feeding, by watching animals closely, and treating them in time, few will be lost by alfalfa bloating.”

ALFALFA AS A SOILING CROP

Alfalfa may be cut for soiling just when it contains the highest per cent of protein, while if pastured some is eaten before its best period, the most of it after that point is reached, and probably a large portion of the leaves is lost entirely. Cut for soiling and fed daily, when wilted, there is less danger from bloat, as in this way animals will eat stalks as well as leaves: the entire product is used and there is no loss from trampling the fields nor by plants being covered and smothered with animal droppings.

SOME COMPARISONS

The Nebraska station reports that in an experiment there it required .71 of an acre to keep a cow for a given time by soiling, while by pasturing it required 3.63 acres; also that the cows kept on pasture during the experiment actually consumed more grain than those that were soiled. This report further states that while the pastured cows gave more milk each day, the cost of production was greater. By another experiment with cows for a single year it was indicated (Bul. No. 69) “that about twice as much feed was secured from the land when the alfalfa was soiled as when it was pastured. The average daily production of milk and of butterfat was markedly greater when the crop was pastured than when soiled. In one test this amounted to one-third more, but in the other test the difference was not so great. The profits from soiling as compared with pasturing will depend largely on two factors--the price of labor and the value of the land.”

A western Kansas farmer writes that one acre of alfalfa cut daily for soiling maintained as many cows as he was able to keep on a five-acre field used as pasture.

The Kansas station reported that in an experiment, lasting 144 days, the cows on alfalfa pasture returned an income, less cost of grain fed, of $4.23, while cows soiled on alfalfa cut and fed green returned an income, less the grain fed, of $18.08. This station also reported that a neighboring dairyman maintained ten milch cows for a whole summer, without any grain, on two acres of alfalfa, cut and fed to them fresh three times a day.

A METHOD FOR THE SMALL FARMER

In the Central West where labor is scarce and land comparatively low in price, farmers are not likely to adopt the soiling system while such conditions exist; but east of the Mississippi river, and especially in New York, Pennsylvania and New England, where land is high and labor scarce, alfalfa offers great possibilities as a soiling crop. The small farmer who now cannot afford to raise many pigs, because he does not raise enough corn to fatten them, will find that by soiling alfalfa he can maintain from May to September from five acres as many as ten cows and fifty pigs; and that these pigs, with some grain from the first of August, while being fed green alfalfa, may by the middle of November be made ready for market. If he has another five acres of alfalfa for hay, it will yield enough in three cuttings to go far toward wintering his cows, a team of horses, and his sows. His ten acres will be growing richer every year, and at the end of five years be in prime condition to yield him big returns in corn, wheat, or potatoes and other vegetables. Alfalfa is distinctly a crop adapted to the small farmer, everywhere; there is, as a rule, little question that this method of utilizing it brings much greater returns per acre than if it were used as pasturage or hay.

Green alfalfa when pastured, (barring bloat), or cut and fed daily is peculiarly valuable for all such young stock as colts, lambs, calves and pigs. It tends to develop strength of bone and hastens the growth of muscle.

Showing growth August 22, 1907, seven days after third cutting]

Photo taken in September]

This was sown on the last half of the preceding September. Four cuttings probable with an aggregate yield of four tons per acre]

_CHAPTER X._

Alfalfa as a Feed Stuff

AS AN APPETIZER

The feeding value of alfalfa is largely in its chemical compound known as protein; its extreme digestibility is another desirable quality to be considered, and not least is its appetizing character. Not only do all animals like it, but when given in moderate quantities it seems to increase the general appetite for more fat-making feeds. Steers beginning to “fall off” on a heavy diet of corn will come to their appetites after being fed only a few pounds of alfalfa daily, and will eat and assimilate more corn than before.

Alfalfa alone is not a fat-making feed. Animals fed upon it grow in weight, but the weight is principally of bone, blood and muscle. It is without a sufficiency of fat and carbohydrates, and these should be added in such foods as corn, corn meal, Kafir corn, or Kafir corn meal; or to a limited degree even in corn stover, sorghum or millet. When alfalfa is fed alone all the protein cannot be digested, and, therefore, it is always economical to add some carbonaceous foods, if animals are fattening for market.

For several years feeders have been deploring the fact that fattening mainly with corn was becoming less and less profitable. When they began to figure the exact cost of each pound of gain on a steer or hog, they saw clearly that corn alone made the pound of gain cost too much; sometimes as much as it was worth in the market, leaving neither profit nor interest on the investment. The problem then became how to produce the pound of meat more economically.

Such a condition has prompted the state stations to make tests to determine the feeding value of various articles, and especially the value of alfalfa as a balance to the more carbonaceous foods. The tables here appended are worth studying:

FOOD VALUE OF SEVERAL FODDER CROPS

(From New York experiment station Bul. No. 118.)

------------------+----------+--------+----------+----------
| | | Total |
| Yield per| Dry |digestible|
| acre of | matter | matter |Digestible
|total crop|per acre| per acre | protein
------------------+----------+--------+----------+----------
| _Pounds_ |_Pounds_| _Pounds_ | _Pounds_
Alfalfa | 34,100 | 8,000 | 5,280 | 875
Corn, entire plant| 28,000 | 5,800 | 3,800 | 300
Red clover | 18,000 | 5,220 | 3,200 | 491
Oats and peas | 13,000 | 3,120 | 2,521 | 350
Timothy | 10,000 | 3,500 | 2,000 | 228
Rutabagas | 31,700 | 3,400 | 3,000 | 279
Mangels | 25,000 | 3,500 | 2,750 | 232
Sugar beets | 17,800 | 2,500 | 1,800 | 213
------------------+----------+--------+----------+----------

ANALYSES OF FEEDSTUFFS

The following table gives the analyses of a number of feedstuffs, showing the percentage of digestible nutrients and fertilizing constituents in each:

(From Texas experiment station Bul. No. 66)

------------------+------+--------------------+--------------------
| | Digestible | Fertilizer con-
| | nutrients | stituents in 1000
| Dry | in 100 pounds | pounds
|matter+------+------+------+------+------+------
| in | |Carbo-| Ether| | Phos-|
| 100 | Pro- | hy- | Ex- |Nitro-|phoric|
|pounds| tein |drates| tract| gen | acid |Potash
------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------
HAYS: | | | | | | |
Alfalfa | 91.6 | 11.0 | 39.6 | 1.2 | 21.9 | 5.1 | 16.8
Cowpea | 89.3 | 10.8 | 38.6 | 1.1 | 19.5 | 5.2 | 14.7
Oat hay | 91.1 | 4.3 | 46.4 | 1.5 | .... | .... | ....
Fodder corn | 57.8 | 2.5 | 34.6 | 1.2 | 17.6 | 5.4 | 8.9
Sorghum | 82.04| 2.4 | 40.6 | 1.2 | .... | .... | ....
Cottonseed hulls| 88.9 | .3 | 33.1 | 1.7 | 6.9 | 2.5 | 10.2
GREEN FEEDS: | | | | | | |
Alfalfa | 28.2 | 3.9 | 12.7 | .5 | 7.2 | 1.3 | 5.6
Cowpea | 16.4 | 1.8 | 8.7 | .2 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 3.1
Oat fodder | 37.8 | 1.6 | 18.9 | 1.0 | 4.9 | 1.3 | 3.8
Corn silage | 20.9 | .9 | 11.3 | .7 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 3.7
Sorghum | 82.4 | 2.4 | 4.1 | 1.2 | .... | .... | ....
Rape | 14.0 | 1.5 | 8.1 | .2 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 3.6
GRAINS: | | | | | | |
Wheat bran | 88.1 | 12.2 | 39.2 | 2.7 | 26.7 | 28.9 | 16.1
Cottonseed meal | 91.8 | 37.2 | 16.9 | 12.2 | 67.9 | 28.8 | 8.7
Corn | 89.1 | 7.9 | 66.7 | 4.3 | 18.2 | 7.0 | 4.0
Cowpea | 85.2 | 18.3 | 54.2 | 1.1 | 33.3 | .... | ....
Cotton seed | 89.7 | 12.5 | 30.0 | 17.3 | 31.3 | 12.7 | 11.7
------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------

From the above table we find that five tons of alfalfa hay contains 1,100 pounds of protein, equal to this food element in

Cotton seed meal 2,956 pounds
Linseed meal 3,754 pounds
Wheat bran 9,016 pounds
Cowpea hay 10,185 pounds
Red clover hay 16,176 pounds
Timothy hay 39,285 pounds

RELATIVE VALUES OF DIFFERENT CUTTINGS

The most interesting experiments comprehending tests of the comparative yield, composition and digestibility of early, medium and late cuttings of alfalfa, of the first, second and third crops; the relative feeding value of the various cuttings, and of the different crops, have been made at the Utah station, details of which are recorded in the station’s bulletins Nos. 31, 44 and 61. These tests and investigations extended continuously through a period of five years, and following are the more important facts developed and the conclusions that may be legitimately drawn from them, as summarized (Bul. No. 61) by Profs. Luther Foster and L. A. Merrill who supervised the work:

1. The largest annual yield of hay per acre is obtained by the method of early cutting and the lowest by the late, the average result standing as follows: early cutting, 100; medium, 92; and late, 85.

2. The early cut alfalfa contains the highest per cent of protein and fat, the most valuable food constituents, and the lowest per cent of crude fiber, the most indigestible portion. The former decrease constantly while the latter increases rapidly from early bloom to the full maturity of the plant.

3. The proportionate amount of leaves to stems is greater at early bloom that at any subsequent time, and both leaves and stems contain a greater per cent of protein and a less per cent of crude fiber at this time than at any later period in the growth of the plant. The relative proportion of leaves to stems in the different cuttings is as follows: early, 42 to 58; medium, 40 to 60; and late, 33 to 67.

4. Alfalfa leaves as compared with stems are very much richer in protein, fat and nitrogen-free extract, and they contain a much smaller proportion of crude fiber. The per cent of the protein and fat grows constantly less, and that of the crude fiber greater, from the time of early bloom to maturity. The average composition of all cuttings and crops shows the leaves to contain 150 per cent more protein than the stems, 300 per cent more fat, 35 per cent more nitrogen-free extract, and 256 per cent less crude fiber.

5. The more important nutrients, protein and fat, have the highest per cent of digestibility in the early cuttings and it grows less and less with the age of the plant.

6. In the feeding tests, the highest gains were made from the early cuttings and the lowest from the late, the results standing proportionately as follows: early cutting, 100; medium, 85; and late, 75.

7. The variation in the amount of the different cuttings eaten per day was very slight, being the highest for the early cutting and the lowest for the late, but the quantity of dry matter and also of digestible matter required for a pound of gain was decidedly lowest for the early cutting and highest for the late, the relative amounts of dry matter standing as follows: early cutting, 100; medium, 131; and late, 166.

8. The annual beef product per acre was largest from the early cuttings, not only in the general average but in each separate season’s test, and that from the late cuttings was smallest, the proportional products standing as follows: early cutting, 100; medium, 79¹⁄₂; and late, 69¹⁄₂.

9. Taking all points of comparison into consideration, both separately and collectively, including everything that pertains to the largest yield and the highest feeding value, the tests favor cutting alfalfa for cattle feeding when the first blooms appear.

CROP COMPARISONS

10. The first crop gave the largest yield in each of the five tests and in fourteen out of the fifteen cuttings, while the third crop gave the lowest for every test and in every cutting but one. The average acre yields for the five years, including all cuttings, stand in the following relation: first crop, 100; second, 78; and third, 39; for the early cuttings alone, first crop, 100; second, 83; and third, 66.

11. In the average composition of all cuttings for three years, the nutrients of the three crops vary but little. The second has slightly the highest per cent of protein and fiber; and the third the most fat and nitrogen-free extract.

12. The third crop has the largest proportion of leaves to stems; but the per cent of protein in the leaves is highest in the second crop; and next highest in the first. The leaves of the first crop contain the most fat and of the second, the least.

13. The third crop produced a higher average rate of gain in the feeding tests than the first or second and also higher than any of the separate cuttings. The amount eaten daily was also highest of all, but the dry matter and digestible matter for a pound of gain were the lowest. In a pound per pound comparison the gains stood as follows: first crop, 100; second, 81; and third, 126; dry matter for a pound of gain, first crop, 100; second, 115; and third, 69.

14. The beef product per acre, taking the average result of all cuttings for the five years, was very much the highest for the first crop and decidedly the lowest for the third, standing as follows: first crop, 100; second, 61; and third, 45. But taking the early cuttings alone they stand, first crop, 100; second, 80; and third, 69.

15. Pound for pound, taken as a whole, the results show the highest feeding value for the third crop and the lowest for the second.

16. The average annual beef product from early cut alfalfa was 705.61 pounds per acre; it required 9575 pounds of timothy to produce an equal weight; 11,967 pounds of red clover, and 10,083 pounds of shredded corn fodder.

Prof. John A. Widtsoe at the Utah station (Bul. No. 48) made a study of the nutrients of the alfalfa crop, and some of the facts gathered are given in the following table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST CUTTING
------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------
Condition of growth | Protein| Nitro- | | |
| |gen-free| Crude | Ether |
| | extract| fiber | extract| Ash
------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------
|_Pounds_|_Pounds_|_Pounds_|_Pounds_|_Pounds_
May 4. Height, 6¹⁄₂ in | .... | 607 | 168 | 40 | 167
June 1. Height, 18 in | 697 | 1,247 | 618 | 103 | 369
July 7. Full flower | 745 | 2,278 | 2,108 | 118 | 431
Aug. 10. Flowers fallen,| | | | |
leaves dry | 644 | 2,298 | 2,531 | 116 | 423
Aug. 24. Still drier | 428 | 1,776 | 2,544 | 94 | 311
------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------
SECOND CUTTING
------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------
July 7. Budding | 334 | 657 | 357 | 50 | 197
July 20. Medium bloom | 519 | 1,140 | 1,031 | 78 | 314
Aug. 3. Full flower | 551 | 1,529 | 1,316 | 81 | 323
Aug. 24. Leaves dry | 388 | 1,484 | 1,329 | 81 | 333
------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------
THIRD CUTTING
------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------
Aug. 17 | 138 | 317 | 155 | 17 | 85
Aug. 31 | 322 | 757 | 634 | 33 | 211
Sept. 14 | 298 | 934 | 818 | 43 | 214
------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------

COMPARATIVE CROP AND FEEDING VALUES

The following is another table showing the average yield of alfalfa as compared with some of the more common fodder crops and hays, as found in New Jersey station Bulletin No. 148.

-------------------+------------+--------+--------
| Total Yield| Dry | Total
|Green Forage| Matter | Protein
| per acre |per acre|per acre
-------------------+------------+--------+--------
| _Pounds_ |_Pounds_|_Pounds_
Alfalfa | 36,540 | 8,258 | 2,214
Corn (entire plant)| 24,000 | 5,040 | 408
Red clover | 14,000 | 4,088 | 616
Barnyard millet | 16,000 | 4,000 | 384
Crimson clover | 14,000 | 2,674 | 434
Cowpeas | 16,000 | 2,624 | 384
Oats and peas | 14,000 | 2,107 | 363
-------------------+------------+--------+--------
| Dry | Total
| Matter | Protein
--------------------------------+--------+--------
|_Pounds_|_Pounds_
1 ton alfalfa hay contains | 1,809 | 265
1 „ red clover hay contains | 1,694 | 246
1 „ oats and peas contains | 1,375 | 175
1 „ timothy contains | 1,736 | 118
1 „ wheat bran contains | 1,762 | 308
1 „ wheat middlings contains | 1,758 | 312
1 „ rye bran contains | 1,768 | 294
1 „ oats contains | 1,780 | 236
1 „ rice meal contains | 1,796 | 240
1 „ buckwheat bran contains | 1,790 | 248
--------------------------------+--------+--------

At the Colorado station (Bul. No. 26) Prof. W. W. Cooke compared an acre of dent (Golden Beauty) corn, planted May 16 and harvested September 21, with returns from an acre of alfalfa on an adjoining plat, three years seeded. The corn crop was a fair one, and including ears and stalks weighed 15,500 pounds, containing 35.62 per cent or 5539 pounds of dry matter. The alfalfa yielded three cuttings of hay weighing respectively 4600, 3350 and 3250 pounds, or 5.6 tons, containing 10,304 pounds of dry matter. But, as Professor Cooke says, this is not quite a fair comparison, for a pound of dry matter from the corn crop is more digestible and has a higher feeding value than an equal amount from the alfalfa. The corn crop contained 3605 pounds of digestible feeding material, while the alfalfa crop contained 5611 pounds, or a little more than half as much again. The corn crop per acre in feeding value was equivalent to three and a half tons of alfalfa hay.

The total digestible nutrients of the two crops are presented in the following table:

-------------------+-----------------+-----------------
| TOTAL | DIGESTIBLE
+--------+--------+--------+--------
| Corn |Alfalfa | Corn |Alfalfa
-------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------
|_Pounds_|_Pounds_|_Pounds_|_Pounds_
Dry matter | 5,539 | 10,304 | 3,605 | 5,611
Albuminoids | 405 | 1,602 | 296 | 1,198
Starch, sugar, etc.| 3,263 | 4,782 | 2,186 | 3,114
Fiber | 1,472 | 2,800 | 1,060 | 1,198
Fat (ether extract)| 84 | 246 | 63 | 101
Ash | 315 | 829 | .... | ....
-------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------

COMPARATIVE VALUES OF ALFALFA HAY AND OTHER FEED STUFFS FOR PROTEIN

-------------------------------+------------------------------
|Value per ton when prairie hay
| is worth per ton--
Feedstuff | $2.00 | $3.00 | $4.00
-------------------------------+---------+---------+----------
Alfalfa hay (average) | $6.05 | $9.08 | $12.11
Red clover hay | 3.88 | 5.82 | 7.77
Orchard-grass hay | 2.74 | 4.11 | 5.48
Millet hay | 2.57 | 3.85 | 5.14
Timothy hay | 1.65 | 2.48 | 3.31
Sorghum hay | 1.37 | 2.05 | 2.74
Corn-fodder (stover) | 1.14 | 1.71 | 2.28
Oat straw | .91 | 1.37 | 1.82
Wheat straw | .45 | .68 | .91
Sugar beets | .62 | .94 | 1.25
Mangel-wurzels | .57 | .85 | 1.14
Alfalfa hay containing 12.9 per| | |
cent digestible protein | 7.36 | 11.05 | 14.73
Wheat bran | 7.02 | 10.53 | 14.04
-------------------------------+---------+---------+----------

It is seen that the alfalfa yielded nearly twice as many pounds of dry matter as the corn, with the digestible nutrients far in the lead, and the protein of the alfalfa was three times that of the corn.

THE BALANCED RATION

No feeder can learn to use alfalfa, or in fact any forage or grain, in the most economical way until he understands somewhat the compounding of a balanced ration. All foodstuffs for either man or beast are, as already stated, made up of three classes of substances--namely, protein or proteids, carbohydrates and fats. The animal’s digestive and assimilative organs are so constructed that it cannot use these three classes of substances interchangeably; in other words, an animal fed wholly upon any one of these three would be in process of gradual starvation. Given in the proportions needed to best supply the vital organs of the body, these substances become the sustenance for animal life and growth. The protein builds up the brain, nerves, muscles and other tissues in which the life force is active, and without protein there would be no life.

To balance a ration for domestic animals is to so adjust the quantity of digestible proteids, fats and carbohydrates it contains that the animal economy may use each without waste. The balanced ration means an economical ration, allowing the digestive organs to work at their highest efficiency; an unbalanced ration is one in which one of the three classes of food substances is in excess, or is deficient. Fed such a ration, the animal retaliates upon its owner by failure to digest the excess, which is worse than wasted; for the feeding of any class of substances in excess adds to the labor of the digestive organs and reduces their efficiency.

MAKING A BALANCED RATION

In Press Bulletin No. 12, from the Kansas station, the following is given to illustrate somewhat how a balanced ration would differ from others into which consideration of a proper balance had not entered:

“There are three important groups of substances in feeds--protein, carbohydrates, and fat. Protein includes all materials in feeds which contain nitrogen. It enters into the composition of milk, blood, muscle, hair and the brain and nerves; is necessary in the formation of these, and no other substance can take its place. Protein is also used in the body in producing heat, energy and fat. Carbohydrates include the fiber of feeds, the sugars, starch, and gums, and furnish heat, energy and fat in the body. Carbohydrates and fat can take each other’s places, one pound of fat being worth 2.2 pounds of carbohydrates for production of heat in the body.

“Extended investigations have shown that to obtain the best results, feed should be given which will furnish these materials in the following proportions:

“Dairy cow--protein, 2¹⁄₂ pounds; carbohydrates, 12¹⁄₂ pounds; fat, ¹⁄₂ pound.

“Fattening steer--protein, 2¹⁄₂ to 3 pounds; carbohydrates, 15 pounds; fat, ¹⁄₂ to ³⁄₄ pound.

“Growing cattle--protein, 4 pounds; carbohydrates, 13¹⁄₂ pounds; fat, 2 pounds.

“For a young animal (cattle) gradually decrease the proportion of protein until at the age of two years the proportions are similar to those for the fattening steer, but less in quantity. A pig two to three months old needs feeds containing seven and one-half pounds of protein to each thirty pounds of carbohydrates and fat, while a year-old pig needs seven and one-half pounds of protein to each forty-eight pounds of carbohydrates and fat. Feeds containing a greater proportion of protein than called for by these standards can be fed, because protein can take the place of the other materials. Carbohydrates and fat cannot take the place of protein, however, and no matter in how large quantities they may be fed, if protein is lacking, the growth or gain will be less.

“The weak point in feeding is that the average rations are greatly deficient in protein, and have too much carbohydrates and fat. Every feeder knows that good pasturage produces rapid growth, good gains, and abundant milk yields. It furnishes nutriment in the proportion of three pounds of protein, twelve pounds of carbohydrates, and one-half pound of fat. The proportions in some of our feeds in pounds per 100 pounds of feed, are as follows:

-----------+-------+--------+-----
| | Carbo- |
|Protein|hydrates| Fat
-----------+-------+--------+-----
Corn | 7.8 | 66.7 | 1.6
Kafir-corn | 7.8 | 57.1 | 2.7
Prairie hay| 3.5 | 41.8 | 1.4
Corn fodder| 2.0 | 33.2 | 0.6
Sorghum hay| 2.4 | 40.6 | 1.2
-----------+-------+--------+-----

“It will be seen that none of these contain a sufficient proportion of protein to secure best results, and all combinations of these feeds will have the same defect.

“Some feeds have too great a proportion of protein to be fed alone, as shown below, the figures indicating pounds per 100 pounds of feed:

-----------------+-------+--------+------
| | Carbo- |
|Protein|hydrates| Fat
-----------------+-------+--------+------
Alfalfa hay | 10.6 | 37.3 | 1.4
Gluten-meal | 31.1 | 43.9 | 4.8
Linseed-oil meal | 28.8 | 32.8 | 7.1
Cottonseed-meal | 37.0 | 16.5 | 12.6
Soy-beans | 39.6 | 22.3 | 14.4
-----------------+-------+--------+------

“Making a balanced ration is combining the feeds deficient in protein with those having an excess of it, to make a ration which will contain the right proportions for the animals fed.”

VARIATIONS IN ANALYSIS

Variations in the foregoing tables would indicate that the analysis is likely to vary with the product of different soils and different cultivations. In spite of variations it may be readily seen that alfalfa with its high protein value makes a very effective and economical balance for corn for heavy feeding. When it is taken into consideration that this forage so rich in protein can be raised at home, and that its growing is at the same time enriching the soil, the conclusion is easy that alfalfa hay may profitably constitute a part of all the fattening operations; it is also clear that the economical way to market alfalfa is through the farm’s live stock.

_CHAPTER XI._

Alfalfa in Beef-Making

The cattle feeder is not much given to sentiment and cares less for the beauty of the purple flowers of the alfalfa than he does for the best method of converting those purple flowers and the accompanying foliage into marketable beef. An accepted but unwritten rule of cornfeeding is that 1000 pounds of grain with ordinary forage will produce 100 pounds of gain, under normal conditions.

SOME FEEDING TESTS

The Kansas station in a careful feeding test of 153 days produced 100 pounds of gain with 718 pounds of grain by using alfalfa hay for roughness. This test also gave the following table of gain in values, from the use of different feeds in the same given time:

Corn and alfalfa hay $109.74
Corn and prairie hay 56.96
Corn and sorghum hay 27.09
Corn and oat straw 43.28
Barley and alfalfa hay 57.16

The Utah station after a feeding test published the statement that to produce 705.61 pounds of beef it required:

Of alfalfa hay 7,182 pounds
Of timothy hay 9,575 „
Of red clover hay 11,967 „
Of shredded corn fodder 10,083 „

Showing ten days’ growth after first cutting in 1907]

At this station steers made a most rapid gain when fed upon early cut alfalfa hay, either with or without an accompanying ration of grain. “By early cut hay was meant hay cut just before bloom. The gain upon this early cut alfalfa hay was one-third more than that upon hay cut when in full bloom or later.”

The Utah station also reports a cattle feeding test (Bul. No. 61) in which 100 pounds of gain from feeding alfalfa hay cost $3.76; from timothy, $4.71, and from corn fodder, $6.21.

At the Nebraska station Prof. Howard R. Smith (Buls. 85 and 90) fed 50 yearling and 50 two-year-old grade steers in lots of ten for six months, each lot of each fifty having rations different from the others, and the table herewith shows the average cost per pound of gain made by each steer of each lot of yearlings:

Lot fed corn and prairie hay 8.27 cents
„ „ corn 90 per cent, oil meal 10 per cent, and
prairie hay 6.82 „
„ „ corn 90 per cent, oil meal 10 per cent, and
corn stover 6.09 „
„ „ corn 90 per cent, oil meal 10 per cent, and
sorghum hay 7.00 „
„ „ corn and alfalfa hay 6.04 „

Below is shown the cost under similar conditions with the two-year-olds, (the cost of the corn and oil meal fed them having been slightly greater than that fed the yearlings):

Lot fed corn and prairie hay 8.23 cents
„ „ corn 90 per cent, oil meal 10 per cent, and
prairie hay 8.27 „
„ „ corn 90 per cent, oil meal 10 per cent, and
corn stover 6.49 „
„ „ corn 90 per cent, oil meal 10 per cent, and
sorghum hay 7.87 „
„ „ corn and alfalfa hay 6.89 „

Among the deductions from these experiments, Professor Smith records the following, bearing upon the use of alfalfa:

“Alfalfa is much superior to prairie hay when the grain consists of corn alone. It also proved to be a cheaper source of protein than oil meal. The returns on the cattle fed alfalfa hay, were the alfalfa figured at $11.14 per ton, would have been as great as the returns on prairie hay at $6 per ton, with corn as the grain ration at 39 cents per bushel. In comparison with prairie hay at $6 when oil meal worth $28 per ton was a part of the grain ration, the alfalfa returned a value of $8.28 per ton. (In these experiments the cost of all alfalfa hay and all prairie hay was figured at the one price of $6 per ton.--Author.)

“Bright, well-cured corn stover fed with an equal weight of alfalfa, the grain consisting of corn alone, gave slightly larger gains than corn and alfalfa, and proved the most economical ration in the experiment. The addition of corn stover may have improved, to some extent, the corn and alfalfa ration by furnishing greater variety, and by its tendency to check scours sometimes caused by alfalfa. The stover fed with alfalfa returned a value of $4.57 per ton in comparison with alfalfa at $6 per ton as the sole roughness.

“By feeding alfalfa hay, which is a protein-rich roughness, extremely palatable and readily masticated, in place of prairie hay with corn alone, 14 per cent less grain was required for each pound of gain on two-year-olds and 27 per cent less on yearlings.

“Alfalfa hay, fed once per day in connection with corn and well-cured cornstalks, furnished sufficient protein for two-year-olds to make the three foods a combination producing heavy and very economical gains--more economical than any other ration in the experiment.

“Alfalfa is pronouncedly superior to prairie hay for beef production, and the more rapid the extension of the area of land devoted to the production of alfalfa, supplanting the less valuable and lower yielding native hay, the more rapid will be the production of wealth from our soil.”

One authority who has made a study of such problems says, “steers can be fattened on one-third less corn with alfalfa for roughness than without.”

W. H. Jordan, director of the New York (Geneva) experiment station says: “Probably no species of forage are known that are more economical sources of high-class cattle food than alfalfa and corn, and if in the realms of stock raising corn is king, alfalfa is queen.”

FEEDING TOO MUCH ALFALFA

Many feeders make the mistake of feeding too much alfalfa hay to young steers grained heavily on corn. Careful tests seem to prove that cattle on a heavy feed of corn, corn meal, Kafir-corn or Kafir-corn meal gain as much with 15 or 20 pounds of alfalfa hay per day as by having 35 pounds, the very common quantity in feeding. It is also reported by experienced feeders that steers over three years old may be fattened on alfalfa with a moderate feed of corn, while for younger steers the heavy feed should be corn with 15 to 25 pounds of alfalfa hay per day.

A Colorado feeder put a lot of steers nearly four years old on a daily ration of ten pounds of corn chop and fifteen pounds of alfalfa hay for 100 days. The gain was surprising and the steers weighed on the Denver market about 1430 pounds per head.

A feeder in Osborne county, Kansas, reported to the author the following: “Began feeding 22 two-year-old steers on February 3rd, averaging 941 pounds in weight. Gave them no feed but alfalfa hay until March 4th. From March 4th until May 1st fed all the alfalfa they wanted and 243 bushels of corn chop, when they weighed out at an average gain of 259 pounds each in 86 days, or three pounds per day on a feed of 11 bushels of corn chop and plenty of alfalfa hay per steer.”

Western feeders generally claim to be able to put fat cattle on the market from 20 to 30 per cent cheaper with alfalfa as the balance than on corn alone, or with corn and bran or any purchased protein foods. The cheapest beef-making in the West is the raising of calves on alfalfa, and at 20 to 24 months fattening them by a heavy feeding of corn and alfalfa hay for 100 days. Cattle carried to 1000 to 1200 pounds on alfalfa, and then finished by strong feeding on corn with alfalfa hay for fifty to sixty days, make beef of a choice quality at a low cost.

_CHAPTER XII._

Alfalfa and the Dairy

MAKING A MARGIN

The most enthusiastic advocates of alfalfa are dairymen. The market price of milk is quite well fixed and the price of butterfat at the creameries remains, in the different seasons, pretty much the same year by year. Hence, the problem of increasing his financial returns must depend upon the dairyman’s being able to increase the volume of his product or to decrease the cost, or both. If he is selling butterfat at a profit of five cents and he cannot force the price any higher, it is the sensible thing to decrease the cost per pound and thereby enlarge his profit.

The dairyman who buys all his feed has but little margin. To raise enough clover calls for considerable land. Alfalfa will yield a large bulk of excellent feed from a few acres of well treated land. For profit he must raise more feedstuff and buy less. The Kansas station reported that with common scrub cows fed on alfalfa hay and Kafir corn meal it was possible to produce butterfat at a cost of seven cents a pound.

SOME MILKING TEST VALUATIONS

The New Jersey station as a result of a very painstaking milking test reported: (1) In a ration where alfalfa hay was tested against wheat bran and dried brewers’ grain the saving in the cost of milk was 12.7 cents per hundred, and 2.3 cents per pound of butter when alfalfa hay was used. This saving means a great deal when it is considered that the alfalfa is raised and not purchased. (2) That the milk value of one acre of alfalfa was $74.

A Kansas dairyman is reported to have kept ten cows through one summer on the alfalfa cut daily from a patch containing four square rods less than two acres.

Some dairymen believe that there is a great saving in the alfalfa hay by cutting it into two-inch lengths, and feeding it dry. It is also believed that it will always be a matter of economy to feed with the alfalfa, green or as hay, a small ration of carbonaceous food, even corn-stover serving such a purpose.

Former Governor Hoard, editor of _Hoard’s Dairyman_, says that with alfalfa hay at $10 and bran at $20 per ton there is a saving, by using alfalfa, of $2.80 for every 100 pounds of butter made, and a saving of 19.8 cents for every 100 pounds of milk.

In a section of New York where alfalfa has been quite generally introduced, dairymen claim an increase in their profits of 15 to 30 per cent by its use, besides the enrichment of their farms for other crops.

Prof. D. H. Otis, telling of experiments with the dairy herd at the Kansas agricultural college, states that, “it is usually recommended to feed a cow all the rough feed she will eat, and then balance up the ration with grain. The experience at the college indicates that much rough feed is wasted in careless feeding. The cow will eat the best first, and, if given too much, will pick the most desirable morsels, leaving what might be called passably good, which too frequently is treated as waste and thrown under foot. No more hay should be given an animal than it will eat up clean. This refers to first-class quality, however, as a cow could not be expected to eat poor hay clean.

“In feeding the rough feeds, the following table has been used by the college as a guide:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROUGHNESS.--Value per ton when alfalfa is worth $1.00 per ton
---------------+-------+-------+-----------------+---------+-----
| Total |Protein| | Total |Protein
| nutri-| nutri-| | nutri-| nutri-
FEED | ents | ents | FEED | ents | ents
---------------+-------+-------+-----------------+-------+-------
DRY ROUGHNESS | | |GREEN ROUGHNESS | |
Alfalfa | $1.00 | $1.00 | Alfalfa | $0.34 | $0.37
Corn-fodder | .32 | .19 | Corn silage | .13 | .12
Cowpeas | .97 | 1.02 | Fodder corn | .14 | .09
Fodder Corn | .40 | .24 | Pasture grasses| .03 | .24
Millet | .64 | .42 | Sorghum fodder | .12 | .06
Oat hay | .59 | .41 | Soy-beans | .28 | .30
Oat straw | .33 | .15 | | |
Orchard-grass| .60 | .45 |ROOTS AND TUBERS | |
Prairie hay | .51 | .33 | Mangels | .10 | .09
Red clover | .70 | .64 | Sugar-beets | .14 | .10
Sorghum | .43 | .23 | Turnips | .11 | .08
Soy-beans | .98 | 1.02 | | |
Mixed hay | .67 | .56 | | |
Timothy | .47 | .27 | | |
Wheat straw | .25 | .08 | | |
---------------+-------+-------+-----------------+-------+-------

“Students working with the dairy herd were anxious to have the cows make the best possible yields, and were tempted to give all the good alfalfa hay the cows would eat. When we discovered the alfalfa hay going too rapidly we looked for the cause and found that the dairy cows had consumed an average of forty-three pounds per head daily, besides fifteen pounds of Kafir corn fodder. The quantity of alfalfa was reduced to thirty-three pounds and the Kafir-corn fodder to three and one-half pounds daily per cow, and we found that the daily yield of milk was slightly increased. The quality of the hay was the same in both instances. In the latter case it was eaten up clean, while in the former considerable was hauled away and fed to dry cows. Later records show a still greater reduction in the allowance of alfalfa without decreasing the flow of milk. This experience shows some of the leaks that may take place in feeding roughness, especially when those feeds are appetizing, like alfalfa and red clover.

“For ease of calculation the roughness is figured on the basis of alfalfa hay selling for one dollar per ton. When alfalfa is worth six dollars per ton the other rough feeds are worth six times the amount indicated in the table; when alfalfa is worth eight dollars per ton the other feeds are worth eight times as much, and so on. Usually we find that we can give practically all the rough feed that the cows can eat, although, as indicated above, with a good quality of alfalfa or clover hay more may be eaten than will be consumed at a profit. At this writing alfalfa hay is selling in Manhattan at seven dollars per ton. This would make the feeding values of the other rough feeds worth seven times the amount indicated in the table. Red clover, for instance, would be worth seven times seventy cents or $4.90 per ton; prairie hay would be worth $3.57 per ton; and millet hay would be worth $4.48 per ton. If the problem was to select the most economical roughness, we would select alfalfa at seven dollars per ton, in preference to red clover at six dollars per ton, or prairie hay at four dollars per ton, or millet at five dollars per ton. Knowing the cost of these different rough feeds and having this table before him, a feeder can tell which is the most economical feed to use. It will be noticed that the table is divided into two parts, the first part giving the value of the total nutrients, and the second one the value of the protein nutrients. It frequently happens that we have plenty of carbohydrates and fat, but that we are lacking in protein. In this case we would consult the ‘protein nutrients’ column in order to determine what feed to buy in order to furnish the protein most economically. If it be carbohydrates and fat as well as protein that is required, as was the condition in the dry year of 1901, then we should take the total nutrients’ column. When it is possible to get a rough feed containing a large amount of protein, we find that in feeding a liberal allowance of roughness the grain can be reduced. Hence, the importance of providing roughness rich in protein, like alfalfa.”

SELLING FARM PRODUCTS THROUGH THE COW

No other branch of agriculture presents more advantages than dairying--disposing of the products of the farm as milk and butterfat. When the latter may be sold to creamery stations and the skim milk fed to calves and pigs along with alfalfa the profits are greater than from almost any other form of agriculture. No other business tends so rapidly to build up the fertility of the farm, and, when judiciously conducted, no other branch of farming yields more satisfactory financial returns. Raising and feeding alfalfa will add from 15 to 30 per cent to the profits of dairying over the use of any other feedstuff that may be raised or bought. The profit problem for the dairyman is constantly to find the feed that will decrease the cost of his production.

The diagram below, prepared by the editor of the _Nebraska Farmer_, is to “represent the digestible protein or milk property contained in different kinds of roughness. Points represent the decimals of a pound, and the bars are an exact representation of the superiority of one kind of food over another for the production of milk. Each bar represents 10 pounds of roughness. The approximate yield is also given per acre:”

Approximate Yield Per Acre.

Corn Stover 6 to 8 Tons 17 Points
-------------
Drilled Corn Fodder 10 to 14 Tons 25 Points
-------------------
Timothy Hay 2 Tons 28 Points
--------------------------
Prairie Hay 2 Tons 30 Points
--------------------------------
Millet Hay 3 Tons 32 Points
---------------------------------------
Oat Hay 3 to 4 Tons 43 Points
---------------------------------------------
Red Top 2 Tons 48 Points
---------------------------------------------------
Red Clover 2 Tons 68 Points
----------------------------------------------------------
Alsike 3 Tons 84 Points
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa 6 to 8 Tons 110 Points
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A. S. Hitchcock cites as an illustration of feeding alfalfa alone, the case of the dairy farms in the vicinity of Moneta, Cal., where the stock are ordinarily fed no other ration than alfalfa. As alfalfa is not a balanced ration, a number of local dairymen tried to replace a part of the alfalfa by sorghum, thus giving a more nearly balanced ration. The cows, however, did not give as much milk upon this combination as upon pure alfalfa. “This result may be assigned to the fact that the cattle were unable to consume a sufficient quantity of the mixture to produce the same results as the alfalfa alone. These dairymen find they can secure a larger yield by feeding a little grain; but the increased yield does not pay for the grain, which is high priced in this locality.”

AN ESSENTIAL IN MILK PRODUCTION

Oscar Erf, professor of dairying at the Kansas experiment station, writing for this volume, says: “Alfalfa is quite indispensable in successful dairy operations, being one of the cheapest sources of protein, that most essential compound in feeds for milk production. The Kansas station found that for milk 1¹⁄₄ pounds of well-leaved alfalfa hay, containing a high per cent of protein, is equal in feeding value to a pound of bran. In case the alfalfa is of a stemmy nature it requires 1³⁄₄ pounds to equal the feeding value of a pound of bran. Alfalfa hay is worth from $4 to $7 per ton on the farm, while bran costs from $14 to $20 per ton, hence it is far more economical to feed the alfalfa hay.

“Like other hays alfalfa varies in composition according to the time of cutting, the soil on which it grows, and its per cent of leaves. It has been found that three-fourths of a pound of alfalfa hay is equal in feeding value to a pound of clover hay of equal brightness and quality. A good stand of clover yields about 2¹⁄₂ tons per acre per year, while a good stand of alfalfa yields about 5 tons per acre per year. Hence, on an acre of land, 1100 pounds of protein can be produced by raising alfalfa while only 340 pounds can be produced by growing clover, the protein in the alfalfa and that in the clover being equally digestible. This comparison is chosen from the fact that clover is the next cheaper source of protein found on the farm.

“At the Kansas station the following experiment was conducted, and illustrates the low cost of a ration including alfalfa hay for roughness as compared with a ration in which prairie hay was used. The experiment was with ten cows. The first ration consisted of 21 pounds of alfalfa hay and 9 pounds of corn. While the cows were on this ration each produced an average 26 pounds of milk per day, the milk containing 3.9 per cent of butterfat. To formulate a ration from prairie hay and bran which had the same amount of nutrients, we were obliged to feed 19 pounds of bran and 15 of hay. Fed on this each cow produced only 24 pounds of milk per day, containing 4 per cent of butterfat. The 21 pounds of alfalfa hay at $7 per ton, which is rather a high estimate, and 9 pounds of corn at 70 cents per hundred weight cost 13.6 cents per day. At this rate it cost 3¹⁄₃ cents to produce a gallon of milk, or approximately 13.5 cents for a pound of butterfat. Estimating bran at $16 per ton and prairie hay at $5 per ton, the cost of the second ration was 18.95 cents per day, and milk approximately 7 cents per gallon, making the butterfat worth 19.7 cents per pound.

“The following two tables show the difference in cost between a ration in which alfalfa is used for part of the roughness and one which contains no alfalfa but has the same amount of digestible nutrients:

Alfalfa hay 19 lbs at $ 7.00 per ton $ .066
Corn 7 lbs at .70 per cwt .049
Bran 2¹⁄₂ lbs at 18.00 per ton .0225
-------
$ .1375

Sorghum hay 10 lbs at $ 3.50 per ton $ .0175
Prairie hay 12 lbs at 6.00 per ton .036
Ground wheat 8 lbs at .80 per bu .1066
Cottonseed meal 3 lbs at 24.00 per ton .036
-------
$ .1961

“As shown by the table a gain of 5.86 cents is made by feeding the alfalfa. Being a proteinaceous feed it can to a great extent be substituted for cottonseed meal, linseed meal or gluten meal, and will entirely substitute other leguminous hays and forages, such as soy bean hay, cowpea hay, clover hay and vetch hay, any one of which is more expensive, for nutrients contained, than alfalfa hay.

“The Kansas station has found it practicable, from results obtained in the past three years, to ensile green alfalfa for dairy cows. This is superior to dry alfalfa, owing to its succulent nature. In the eastern part of the United States ensiling alfalfa has another advantage in that all cuttings can be harvested in perfect condition. As a rule the first cutting throughout this whole territory is liable to be damaged more or less by rains. By putting the green alfalfa into a well constructed silo this loss can be obviated and the full value retained. For example: a man has 40 acres of alfalfa, from which he harvests for the first crop 1¹⁄₂ tons per acre. Estimating the price of good, clean alfalfa hay at $7 a ton, this would be worth $420. Should the hay be damaged by rain its value would be greatly reduced and, as has been the case for many years, such damaged hay could be purchased for $2 or less per ton. Accordingly this damaged hay would be worth $120. The loss caused by rain would therefore be $300. Put into the silo this first cutting would be equal in value to the best bright hay.

“The cost of a 100-ton silo is $250, hence the owner could not only save the first cutting, but money besides. Furthermore, it is not infrequently the case that alfalfa of the first cutting is of a stemmy nature, and it has been estimated that fully 28 per cent of such hay is wasted when fed to cows, as they do not eat the coarse stems. This loss can be entirely eliminated by the siloing, for cows will readily eat the stems as silage.

“The value of alfalfa silage in influencing the milk flow was indicated when a ration was fed to sixteen cows, in which 12 pounds of alfalfa hay, 20 pounds of corn silage, 5 pounds of bran and 4 pounds of corn meal were used; this ration was afterward changed by substituting alfalfa silage for the corn silage, and at the same time the bran was reduced to 1 pound, and the corn increased 1 pound. By these changes the milk was increased 10 per cent.

“With butterfat worth 23 cents a pound the value of a ton of alfalfa silage has been estimated at approximately $8. This silage solves the problem of feeding cows economically in summer, as well as in winter, under a system of intensive farming.”

W. J. Fraser, chief in dairy husbandry at the University of Illinois, says: “Corn silage and alfalfa, two of the best feeds for dairy cows, make practically a complete or balanced ration in themselves. Several years’ experience in supplying the university dairy herd with various kinds of soiling crops in midsummer has led to this high recommendation of corn silage and alfalfa.”