« ElőzőTovább »
According to this, the hay had rather more than less nutritive power than the corresponding green clover. Yet the differences in the live weight at the three trials are so small, that these results can hardly be considered reliable. • 5. The nutritive power of the different varieties of clover are stated in the analytical table. It shows, for instance, that white clover is somewhat more nutritious than red clover; that the Scarlet clover is not as nutritious as Swedish clover, &c.
6. Which is more profitable—to let cattle and sheep graze in the clover field, or to mow it? This question is answered pretty definitely by an experiment instituted by Ockel at Frankenfeldt, and commented on analytically by Stockhardt
A clover field of uniform growth was divided into three equal parcels. Parcel I was mown six times between the 29th of May and the 24th of August, and every time manured with a little guano, in order to supplant the excrements of animals grazing on it as a fertilizing agent for the clover. Parcel II was mown twice-on the 15th of June at the beginning of blooming, and likewise on the 24th of August. Parcel III was mown on the 7th of July, toward the end of blooming, and the second time on the 24th of August. The crops and cuts of said two parcels were carefully gathered, weighed, dried and analyzed, and the results were as follows: ",
Yield in pounds per Prussian morgen.
tuzte of nitrogen. Pareel I (grazed)............ 3,420
1,291 Pareel II (beginning of bloom) 6,300
1,662 Parcel III (end of bloom).... , 6,750
Thus, grazing a clover field would not be as profitable by far, as mowing it. If a sheep eats daily 2 lbs, of hay, then only 20 sheep could have been sustained from the 29th of May to the 24th of August, on parcel I, while the crops from parcels II or III would have yielded the same amount of food for 38 sheep fed in the pen. But in this calculation the difference in the nutritive value of the hay has been omitted, it being less on parcel III than on parcel II, and considerably less than on parcel L.;
LEADOW GRASSES." The meadow grass is a mixture of heteorogenous plants differing in smell, taste and composition. Its nutritive value is more or less, accord ing as the one or the other meadow plant is predominant among it.
In respect to their quality the grasses may be enumerated in the follow ing descending series: .
...........Sweet-scented vernal grans. ........... Kentucky Blue grass.
We are indebted to that celebrated investigator, Way, for the commentary on this enumeration, who, in 1849 and 1850, subjected these grasses to an accurate chemical analysis. He gathered them on the meadows of Cirencester, while they were in full bloom, between the 8th of May and the 19th of July.
Name of Grass.
Water. Proteio. Fat
Non-nitrogenous Woody nutritive fibre. matter.
Authoxanthum odoratum .....
Mean of all analyses........
8.54 8.59 11.21 18.66 19.16 22.60
9.04 19.64 13.30 12.46 11.92 20.06 12.08 12.89 14.11 22.85 10.79 14.15 10.54
1.24 1.55 2.36 2.72 2.01 4.17 1.36 2.38 1.59 1.66 1.93 2.54 2.15 1.99 2.21 2.26 0.59 1.95 2.20 1.78 2.24
6.30 12.49 10.11 313 8.76
• There is no grass in the entire catalogue of grasses which varios so much in natritive, ac cording to soil and climate, as the Poa pratense or Kentucky blue grasa. The above table is
A similar but"less thorough investigation was made by Scheven and Ritthausen. They also gathered all the grasses at the period of their bloom (1855), and analyzed them in the green state.
pratense ...... Vloia sepium..........
eraca ............ Lathyrus pratensis..... Lotus corniculatus. ES 16. Mean......
Thus, it will be seen that the grass of the English meadows appears to be somewhat more nutritious than that of the German meadows.
The average analysis of the tables, by Way and Ritthausen, represents quite accurately the composition of the green forage of a meadow. For the dry state, that is, for meadow hay, the analyses by other authors is here presented :
copied from an European work. In Kentucky no grass is superior to this as a pasture grass ; it is very much in favor in southern Ohio, whilst in northern and northeastern Ohio it is by ao means a welcome inhabitant of the pasture-fields.-KLIPPART,
Hay from Cirencester .... “ Möckern .....
fall bloom.. 16 16 “ beginning of bloom, Aftermath from Mocken, 1853 Hay Aftermath
1854............. " Aftermath · Rüdigsdorf... Hay Aftermath 46 46 Swiss mountain hay............
" aftermath ...... 4 valley bay ................ u
aftermath ........ Hay from Salzmünde, 1860.....
" Weende, 1858........
41.1 29.1 5.8 Way. 14.21 7.4 36.2 34.7 7.5 Ritthausen 14.9 9.1 38.8 1.8 5.4 Koopp. 16.91 10.7 40.1 27.2 5.0 Wolif. 14.31 11.7 43.0 24.01 7.01 " 13.1 10.7 49.7 19.0
4 9 .1 42.7 27.1 7.6
38.1 30.71 8.3 Crusius.
48.21 24.4 7.6 Boussingaall. 14.1" 440 21.50 80 14.3 9.7 412 27.4 7.3 Stockhardt 14.3 11.9 40.7 23.3 9.7 14.3 12.1 40.6 25.91 7.11 14.3 13.9) 39.3 22.9 9.4 " 15.4) 9.2 28.9 39.9 7.0 Grouven. 17.04 14.1] 33.9 25.51 9.4 Stohmann.
Proportion of nutritive matter - 1:4.
A comparison of these average analyses of meadow bay with that of elover hay, exhibits clearly the greater nutritive value of the latter, based on the larger amount of protein contained in it. If both contained an equal amount of indigestible woody fibre, the proportion of their value as forage would be 13.1 to 10:4; but as it is, and the clover hay containing a somewhat larger amount of natural moisture, its value can at best be estimated to be but one-sixth greater than that of meadow hay—that is, 85 to 90 lbs. of good clover hay may be regarded as equivalent to 100 lbs. of good meadow bay.
The remarks on clover hay, in regard to the variations in the amount of its nutritive substances, according to its age, the time of mowing manuring, &c., holds equally good with respect to meadow hay. Yet one peculiar circumstance is connected with the latter, namely, that if it is grazed repeatedly, it does not, like the clover, produce a smaller but a larger crop, and this of a better quality, according to an analysis by Wolff.
As to whether the hay of the first mowing, or that of the second, called after math, is more nutritious, the farmers do not agree in their opinions. While in some localities it is generally deemed less valuable than hay, others hold it to be decidedly more nutritious. The chemical analyses of after.
math heretofore made, and especially the following, by Karmrodt, (St. Nicholas, 1858), seem to confirm the opinion of the latter class, since they have shown aftermath to contain a smaller amount of woody fibre, but a much larger amount of protein substances and mineral salts. It is also in accordance with the tenderness of the stems of the meadow plants. at the time the aftermath is cut-in fall.
But when the quality of aftermath is superior to that of hay, it may be attributed to the more or less frequent showers at the time when it is cut, which injure it. While the more hardy hay cut will not be much injured by a shower of rain falling during the curing of it, aftermath may easily be spoiled by it, partly by being soaked, partly by beginning to ferment. Therefore dry meadows will produce a good, but wet ones generally an inferior aftermath.
That dry, warm weather is very desirable for curing hay and aftermath, is shown by the comparative analyses of hay on which several showers bad fallen, and of hay which was cured during dry weather. Such analy. ses were instituted by Isidore Pierre, with good meadow hay wetted several times with cold and warm water, and then pressed.
In 100 parts of
good bay. Dry substance ..............80:10 : Protein.....
..... 8.75 " Ashes.........
.... 6.90 Phosphate...
Of hay moistened
Of hay moistened with warm water.
16:57 2.20 4:04 0.270 1.480 1.120
According to this, the amount of valuable substances which may be ex