UNIVERSITY OF NQN CIRCULATING CHECK FOR UNBOUND CIRCULATING COPY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 146 ALFALFA HAY VS. TIMOTHY HAY AND ALFALFA HAY VS. BRAN BY WIL,BER J. FRASER AND CASSIUS C. HAYDEN URBANA, ILLINOIS, JUNE, 1910 SUMMARY OF BULLETIN No. 146 1. A ration containing 10 pounds of alfalfa hay produces 17 percent more milk than the same ration when timothy is substi- tuted for the alfalfa. Pages 132 to 137 2. A ration containing 8 pounds of alfalfa hay proves to be equal to the same ration when bran is substituted for the alfalfa hay. Pages 138 to 144 NOTE Bulletin No. 145, entitled Quantitative Relationships of Carbon, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen in Soils, is of a technical na- ture and consequently the issue was limited; but anyone desiring a copy may secure it on application to the Agricultural Experi- ment Station, Urbana, Illinois ALFALFA HAY VS. TIMOTHY HAY AND ALFALFA HAY VS. BEAN FOR DAIRY COWS BY WIL,BER J. FRASER, CHIEF IN DAIRY HUSBANDRY, AND CASSIUS C. HAYDEN, FIRST ASSISTANT IN DAIRY HUSBANDRY ALFALFA HAY VS. TIMOTHY Two conditions exist in this State, in the feeding of dairy cows, which operate against the economic production of milk. The first is that large amounts of timothy hay are produced on dairy farms and fed to dairy cows, tho all authorities agree that it is of little value for this purpose, and the second is that while feeding this hay, dairymen must purchase and feed large quantities of expensive concentrates in order to supply the protein lacking in the timothy. Legumes not only give larger yields per acre than timothy, but are also of far greater value, ton for ton, as feed for dairy cows, be- cause they can be made to supply a large part, or all of the protein furnished by the high-priced concentrates usually purchased, and at a great reduction in cost. Because of these conditions, the demonstration here reported was planned to show the relative value of alfalfa and timothy hay in the ordinary ration for dairy cows. A dairy herd in the north- ern part of the State was selected for this work. It was kept on the farm and cared for by the owner, Mr. Charles Gilkerson, of McHenry County. PLAN OF THE DEMONSTRATION Sixteen cows were divided into two lots of eight each, a lot standing on either side of the barn. The plan was not to compare the two lots, but to compare two feeding periods in the same lot, using one lot as a check against the other. The cows in Lot i had calved shortly before or during the preliminary feeding, but before the actual test began, while those in Lot 2 had been in milk longer. 131 132 BULLETIN No. 146 [June, (See Table I.) This variation in time of calving of the cows in the two lots really made no difference in the final comparison. The table also shows that some cows were not in milk at the beginning. However, this does not affect the final results, as all the cows were in milk during the two periods compared. 1. DATES OF CALVING Lot 1 Lot 2 No. Cow Date of calving No. Cow Date of calving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 December 5 September 14 September 8 January 3 December 25 November 16 December 6 December 15 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 J6 September 24 November 8 August 15 September 3 October 25 August 31 September 19 September 30 The records of feed and milk were kept for twenty-five weeks, from November 26 to May 20. The first 3 weeks were taken for a preliminary period^ the next 18 weeks were divided into two feed- ing periods of 9 weeks each, and this was followed by a subsequent period of 4 weeks. The feed was weighed to each lot, but not to each individual cow. Thruout the entire demonstration the basal ration consisted of a grain mixture of 2,^/2 pounds of corn meal to i pound of wheat bran, and shredded corn stover. The rations are shown in tabular form below. Mixed grain, Corn stover, Timothy hay, Nutritive ratio* Mixed grain, Corn stover, Alfalfa hay, Nutritive ratio* AVERAGE RATION Ldti First Period 13 Lb. 10 Lb. 10 Lb. 1 : 10.2 Lot 2 13 Lb. 10 Lb. 10 Lb. 1 : 6.6 Second Period 12 Lb. 10 Lb. Alfalfa hay, 10 Lb. 1 : 6.6 12 Lb. 10 Lb. Timothy hay, 10 Lb. 1 : 10.2 During the preliminary period, besides the basal ration both lots received mixed alsike and timothy hay. An average of 13 pounds of the mixed grain was fed per cow, daily, during the first feeding period of 9 weeks, and 12 pounds daily during the second feeding period of 9 weeks. The last week of the first period the grain was raised to 14 pounds. The corn stover was fed at the rate of 10 pounds per cow, daily. The above part of the ration was the same for both lots. After the 3 weeks' preliminary period, *A nutritive ratio of 1 to 10.2 means that the ration contains 1 pound of digestible protein to 10.2 pounds of digestible carbohydrates plus the fat multiplied by 2%. ALFALFA HAY vs. TIMOTHY 133 the hay was changed to that which was to be fed during the first feeding period, Lot i receiving 10 pounds of timothy hay, and Lot 2, 10 pounds of alfalfa hay per cow. At the end of the first feeding period the timothy and alfalfa hay were reversed on both lots, and the second feeding period began, one week being taken to make the change of feed. In other words, during each of the two periods both lots were fed the same, with the exception that alfalfa hay was fed to one lot, and an equal amount of timothy to the other, making a direct comparison between alfalfa and timothy hay, when fed with the other feeds mentioned. During the subsequent period of four weeks, all of the cows were fed alfalfa hay and pastured on green rye for a short time each day. May 9, the grain was reduced to 8 pounds per cow for both lots. TABLE 2. L/OT 1. POUNDS ot? MILK PRODUCED PER Cow PER WEEK Preliminary Period. -Mixed Hay No. Cow 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Average No. Week 1 203 199 202 240 220 198 250 218 216 2 202 206 204 240 220 194 250 218 217 3 203 205 207 240 220 189 252 218 217 First Feeding- Period, Timothy 4 198 193 208 240 215 180 248 219 213 5 192 192 206 238 2IO 177 235 198 206 6 175 158 179 236 221 177 235 187 191 Period Taken for Comparison 7 169 172 180 235 199 174 193 198 190 8 170 181 181 228 205 166 188 178 187 9 170 181 187 222 204 168 197 187 190 10 172 181 189 210 206 173 203 176 189 11 174 181 190 213 189 173 214 157 186 12 179 185 190 230 194 168 213 173 192 Total 1034 1081 1117 1338 1197 1022 1208 1069 1134 Second Feeding Period, Alfalfa 13 187 189 190 231 203 160 212 181 194 14 193 205 200 232 207 173 225 199 204 15 199 212 201 247 216 181 234 203 212 Period Taken for Comparison 16 203 205 202 243 221 184 242 187 211 17 207 210 201 244 225 176 243 181 211 18 199 208 194 239 221 170 240 187 207 19 202 200 196 235 202 177 235 202 206 20 200 197 195 240 205 174 230 202 205 21 201 208 189 229 229 175 225 200 207 Total 1212 1228 1177 1430 1303 1056 1415 1159 1247 Subsequent Period, Alfalfa and Green Rje 22 205 212 195 230 155 181 237 210 203 23 207 221 186 240 165 190 247 208 208 24 204 211 174 250 182 195 238 205 207 25 206 213 175 252 192 191 242 188 207 134 BULLETIN No. 146 [June, TABLE 3. I^of 2. POUNDS OF MILK PRODUCED PER Cow PER WEEK Preliminary Period, Mixed Hay No Cow 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Average No. Week 1 2 3 150 151 155 196 198 2u4 111 121 122 153 155 148 179 176 179 144 150 156 189 195 206 180 1*5 190 167 166 170 First Feeding" Period, Alfalfa 4 165 213 124 159 185 162 206 191 176 5 162 215 128 151 182 160 206 197 175 6 19 218 123 148 181 152 199 188 171 Period Taken for Comparison 7 157 219 127 154 182 164 204 193 175 8 166 215 127 156 184 163 207 193 176 9 169 224 130 154 182 170 211 195 179 10 146 225 125 145 184 166 214 200 176 11 158 221 130 144 183 170 217 202 178 12 161 221 136 149 180 169 225 207 181 Total 957 1325 775 902 1095 1002 1278 1190 1065 Second Feeding Period, Timothy 13 158 208 131 150 174 167 209 195 174 14 148 185 116 139 156 151 190 172 157 15 140 168 112 136 144 149 184 163 149 Period Taken for Comparison 16 137 167 105 140 153 153 185 164 150 17 134 164 80 115 148 157 186 162 143 18 136 164 59 116 148 154 172 160 137 19 131 149 87 117 143 148 157 152 136 20 130 158 83 116 134 149 142 154 133 21 124 153 76 118 141 143 133 152 130 Total 792 955 490 722 867 904 975 944 829 Subsequent Period, Alfalfa and Green Rye 22 136 169 88 129 153 154 115 120 133 23 160 189 98 123 178 166 174 188 159 24 177 189 114 143 182 180 166 200 169 25 164 190 121 133 173 175 159 196 164 Tables 2 and 3 show the amount of milk produced per week by each cow, and the average production of the eight cows in each lot for the twenty-five weeks during which the records were kept. The four divisions of the demonstration are shown in each table by the sub-headings. The first change in the hay, from alsike and tim- othy to alfalfa on one lot, and to timothy on the other, w r as made abruptly at the beginning of the first feeding period. The second change in hay was made gradually during the first \veek of the sec- ond feeding period. The tables show that in each case it required about three weeks for the cows to adjust themselves to the change in hay. Consequently, only the last six weeks of each period \vere taken for the comparison between the hays. The portion of the tables set in bold-faced type represent these periods. All of the /p/o] ALFALFA HAY vs. TIMOTHY 135^ remaining portions of these tables are used only in the construc- tion of Charts i and 2. In Lot i, some of the cows were not in milk at the beginning of the preliminary feeding. Their production has been estimated from their later records and the production of the other cows, so that the averag'e may be given during this time. The averages for these first six weeks are used only in the construction of Charts I and 2, and not in the actual comparisons between the differ- ent kinds of hay. The amounts of milk which were estimated are in italics. DESCRIPTION OP How THE CHARTS ARE MADE The average amount of milk produced per cow per week dur- ing the different periods, and the effect of the different feeds on milk production in each lot, are shown more plainly by Charts I and 2. Each space from the bottom to the top represents 10 pounds of milk produced, and each space from left to right repre- sents one week's time. The distance from the heavy base line at the bottom, which stands for zero, to the undulating line extending across the page at the top of the shaded portion, represents the av- erage amount of milk produced per cow per week. For example, at the beginning of the preliminary feeding, the cows in Lot i were producing an average of 216 pounds of milk per week, as is shown by the undulating line starting about midway between 210 and 220 pounds. For the next two weeks, the production was practically the same, and the line runs almost horizontally. The next three weeks there was a gradual decline in production, until at the close of the week ending January 7 the average production of the cows was only 191 pounds, and the undulating line drops nearly to the intersection of the line representing 190 pounds, and in this man- ner follows the average production of Lot i across the chart. A study of Chart i and Table 2 shows, at a glance, that as soon as the hay was changed on Lot i, December 17, from mixed alsike clover and timothy to timothy, there was a sudden drop in the milk flow of about 25 pounds per cow in three weeks, and that this flow remained down to a little below the i9O-pound line until the close of the first period, when the hay was changed from timothy to alfalfa. As soon as this change was made there was a rapid rise, during the next three weeks, or up to the close of the alfalfa period. When the cows were turned on green rye, April 22, this 136 BULLETIN No. 146 [June, CHART 1. LOT 1. AVERAGE! MILK PRODUCED PER Cow PER WEEK ( Second feedinq period Alfalfa h&u flow was still maintained, on rye and alfalfa, for the next four weeks. A study of Chart 2 and Table 3, shows that when the hay was changed on Lot 2, December 17, from mixed clover and timothy to alfalfa, there was a slight increase in the milk flow, which con- tinued during the alfalfa period. When the hay was changed from alfalfa to timothy, there was a rapid decrease during the next three weeks of 32 pounds of milk per cow, and during the remaining six weeks of the timothy hay period the average flow continued to drop until there was a further decrease of 19 pounds. In other words, the milk flow dropped 52 pounds per cow during the nine weeks on the ration containing timothy hay. When the hay was changed from timothy to alfalfa, April 22, and the cows turned onto green rye, it is interesting to note how rapidly the milk pro- duction increased to the same point as at the beginning of the pre- liminary period, 25 weeks previously, notwithstanding the fact that the grain had been reduced from 12 to 8 pounds. jp/o] ALFALFA HAY vs. TIMOTHY CHART 2. LOT 2. AVERAGE MILK PRODUCED PER Cow PER 137 fx.r Wk. 220 210 ZOO 190 180 no 160 ISO 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 3D 20 10 Mixed hay Prclimirr- an/fkrfa J 10 \ * F/hf' feeding per/od Alfalfa A>ay Period .31 Period of- J&n ' . & 28 4 II , ? 15 * /I 5tcond feeding period > Timothy fay Period of Companion r Apr 18 Z5 t 8 15 i Green rye A/ay 6 13 Lto. per Wk 220 The average amount of milk produced per cow in Lot i for the six weeks' timothy period was 1134 pounds, and that for the six weeks' alfalfa period was 1247 pounds, a difference of 113 pounds per cow, or 9.1 percent in favor of the alfalfa hay. The average amount of milk produced by Lot 2 for the six weeks' al- falfa period was 1065 pounds, and that for the six weeks' timothy period was 829 pounds, a difference of 236 pounds per cow, or 28.4 percent in favor of alfalfa hay. Taking the average for the two lots, we find that they produced 17.7 percent more milk while fed alfalfa hay than while fed timothy. This great difference in favor of alfalfa over timothy was not only true of the lots, but of each individual cow in the lots, which adds greatly to the evidence in favor of alfalfa hay. Assuming that the above difference would continue for the win- ter feeding period of six months, the total difference in milk pro- duction for a herd of 16 cows would be 12,100 pounds of milk, 138 BULLETIN No. 146 [June, which, at $1.30 per hundred pounds, the price received, would be worth $157.30, which equals $9.83 per cow; $157.30 is equal to six percent interest on the money invested in sixteen cows at $163 each. The total amount of milk produced by both lots for the six weeks during which they were fed alfalfa was 18,496 pounds and for the six weeks fed timothy it was 15,704 pounds. The differ- ence in milk between these two periods was 2792 pounds, which is 834 pounds in favor of each ton of alfalfa over timothy. This total difference of 2792 pounds of milk, at $1.30 per hundred pounds, the price received, was worth $36.30. Three and thirty- four hundredths tons of hay were fed during- this time, therefore in this test, alfalfa hay was worth $10.86 per ton more than timothy. The average yields per acre obtained in Illinois are approximately four tons of alfalfa hay and one and one-half tons of timothy. If timothy hay is worth $10 per ton, one acre of alfalfa is worth $68.44 more than an acre of timothy, when figured on the above basis. The value of the alfalfa will vary with the price received for the milk, and for this reason the following table of values has been constructed : 4.- -SHows THE GREATER FEEDING VALUE OP ALFALFA HAY THAN OF TIMOTHY, WITH MILK AT DIFFERENT PRICES Milk per 100 pounds Value of alfalfa, per ton, above tim- othy. Value of alfalfa, per acre, above timothy, when timothy is worth $10 per ton. (Alfalfa 4 T. per acre; timothy \V 2 T. per acre.) $1.00 $ 8.36 $58.44 1.10 9.19 61.76 1.20 10.03 65.12 1.30 10.86 68.44 1.40 11.70 71.80 1.50 12.54 75.16 1.60 13.38 78.52 1.70 14.21 81.84 1.80 15.06 85.24 1.90 15.88 88.52 2.00 16.72 91.88 - It must be borne in mind that the above figures can be applied to alfalfa only when fed with the feeds used in this test, or with other similar feeds. CONDITION OF Cows Besides the greater returns in milk, the condition of the cows counts for much. At the end of each period, the cows which were fed alfalfa hay were in much better condition than those fed tim- othy. The timothy, altho of good quality, was not palatable, and the cows receiving it lost in flesh, their hair was rough, and they 1910} ALFALFA HAY vs. BRAN 139 were in poor condition, generally. A number of them were more or less "off feed" at different times. Such was not the case with the same cows while being fed alfalfa. They had better appetites and ate their corn stover more readily than when receiving timothy hay. If the effect is so great in so short a time, it is easy to see why many of the dairy cows in Illinois come out of the winter in poor condition and have a small milk account to their credit. This shows that it is easily possible to get much better results from alfalfa hay than from hay made of the grasses. What is true of alfalfa also applies largely to the other legumes. Besides mak- ing a better and more palatable roughage, legume hay will furnish all or a large part of the protein commonly supplied in purchased feeds. To show this more conclusively, the following demonstra- tion was carried out at the Agricultural Experiment Station: ALFALFA HAY VS. BRAN The plan of this demonstration was to feed equal amounts, by weight, of alfalfa hay and bran, with a basal ration made up of farm products only. Six cows in the Station herd (all that were available at the time for the purpose) were selected and divided into two lots of three each. While this is too small a number from which to draw general conclusions, some importance must be at- tached to the results. The test began December 3 and continued until April 27. This time was divided into two periods of nine and one-half weeks each. RATIONS The same basal ration, consisting of the following, was fed to both lots: Clover hay, 6 pounds Corn silage, 30 pounds Corn meal, 6 pounds For the first period. Lot i was given, in addition to the above, all the choice alfalfa hay they would eat up clean, and Lot 2 was given an equal amount of bran, by weight. For the second period, the alfalfa and bran were reversed on the two lots. Each cow con- sumed nearly 8 pounds of alfalfa hay or bran, daily. The com- plete rations were as follows : Ration 1 Ration 2 Clover hay, 6 pounds 6 pounds Corn silage, 30 pounds 30 pounds Corn meal, 6 pounds 6 pounds Alfalfa hay, 8 pounds Bran, 8 pounds Nutritive ratio, 1:7 1:6.9 140 BULLETIN No. 146 [June, Both lots were kept as nearly as possible under the same con- ditions, except as to feed. Cow No. 24, in Lot i, got loose during the night and ate a large amount of grain, which caused her to go "off feed" and produce at least 100 pounds less milk than she other- wise would have done. The results of the test are shown in the following tables and charts : POUNDS of MILK PRODUCED PER Cow PER WEEK AND AVBRAGH FOR EACH L,OT L,ot 1 L,ot 2 Alfalfa Bran Cows Cows Week ending No. 24 No. 37 No. 26 No. 12 No. 54 No. 13 Dec. 9 206 244 176 2U9 213 144 244 200 16 205 238 182 208 203 142 230 192 23 198 224 168 197 201 135 223 186 30 96 221 169 162 192 132 220 181 Jan. 6 13 3 213 170 174 194 129 219 180 13 162 218 162 181 194 126 225 182 20 159 207 155 173 185 122 200 169 27 159 191 142 164 176 116 181 157 Feb. 3 158 181 136 158 177 113 171 153 7 90 109 87 95 99 66 104 89 Total 1571 2046 1547 1721 1834 1225 2017 1689 Bran Alfalfa Feb. 10 69 83 63 65 76 50 86 70 ' 17 155 176 145 158 186 118 219 174 ' 24 152 175 137 154 176 115 217 169 Mar. 2 148 172 134 151 171 110 199 160 9 146 171 135 151 176 108 211 165 ; 16 154 179 141 158 176 107 201 161 ' 23 149 173 137 153 166 109 188 154 < 30 149 171 131 150 162 106 176 148 Apr. 6 156 176 133 155 168 113 188 156 ' 13 157 177 133 156 161 111 179 150 ' 14 21 26 19 22 24 16 24 21 Total 1456 1679 1308 1478 1642 1063 1888 1528 Table 5 shows the pounds of milk produced by the individual cows for each week. A study of this table shows that in Lot i, which received the alfalfa hay during the first period, there was a gradual decrease in milk from the beginning to the close of the test, except in the case of cow No. 26, which increased temporarily when changed to the bran. In Lot 2 there was a marked increase of about 20 pounds of milk per cow in two weeks, when changed from bran to the alfalfa hay. This difference cannot be attributed to a difference in the protein of the ration, as in the previous test, because the protein was practically the same in both rations. Chart 3 shows graphically the average production of the two lots. Each space from bottom to top represents ten pounds of milk and each space from left to right represents one week. It will be noted that Lot i, which received the alfalfa hay first, was ALFALFA HAY vs. BRAN 141 CHART 3 AVERAGE; POUNDS OF MIL.K PRODUCED PER Cow PER WEEK Pec J&n feb Mar Apr 9 It 23 jr> 6 13 20 7 3 /0 i7 24 2 9 /6 ? 3? 6 /3 Z.foJ per wk. ZiO ZIO zoo 190 180 no 160 150 140 130 120 110 ino 2io 200 no ISO 130 120 no inn I ffjf Ft r/o 1 J f .COt ^ /=5?/ /^ Lo I. Lot a. s \ s $ \ * v &f~ n \ / V N 1 , -^ \ / V x t / \ x > *, X _ - X / J 1 "^ ^1 / ^^s s^ ^ ^,, * 4 producing", at the beginning, about 8 pounds of milk per cow per week more than Lot 2. This difference continued until the fourth week, when the line representing Lot i drops below that represent- ing Lot 2. This was due to cow No. 24 being off feed, as previ- ously stated. Had this not occurred, the line representing Lot I would have continued above the line for Lot 2. At the close of the first period, when the alfalfa hay and bran were changed, the line representing the production of Lot 2 immediately rises above that for Lot I, and continues above until toward the close of the test. The fact that these lines follow each other closely across the chart indicates that there was little difference in the effect of bran and alfalfa hay. A study of Table 6 shows that the production of fat has not exactly followed the production of milk. In changing from alfalfa hay to bran, (Lot i) there was in every case an increase in the amount of fat, tho the amount of milk decreased. In changing from bran to alfalfa hay, (Lot 2) there was a slight increase in the amount of fat, but not in proportion to the increase in milk. This is shown graphically in Charts 3 and 4. 142 BULLETIN No. 146 [June, TABL.K 6. PRODUCTION OF FAT PER Cow PER WEEK, AND AVERAGE L,ot 1 L,ot 2 Alfalfa Bran Cows Cows No. 24 No. 37 No. 26 No. 1. No. 54 .No. 13 Average Dec. 9 9.08 10.23 7.81 9.04 8.92 6.60 7.33 7.61 16 8.60 10.00 7.83 8.81 8.52 6.24 6.67 7.14 23 8.71 9.66 7.38 8.58 8.45 6.62 6.69 7.25 30 4.11 9.51 7.45 7.02 8.07 6.86 6.37 7.10 Jan. 6 5.62 8.93 7.92 7.49 8.35 6.07 6.36 6.93 13 7.30 9.38 7.60 8.09 8.32 6.18 6.74 7.08 20 7.01 9.12 7.14 7.76 8.13 5.83 6.38 6.78 27 6.82 8.23 6.68 7.24 8.03 5.56 5.60 6.40 Feb. 3 6.61 7.95 6.40 6.99 7.34 5.41 5.63 6.13 7 3.98 4.56 4.01 4.18 4.13 3.28 3.10 3.50 Total 67.84 7.57 70.22 75.20 78.26 58.65 60.87 65.92 Bran 'Alfalfa Feo. 10 3.02 3.50 2.91 3.14 3.18 2.51 2.58 2.76 " 17 7.30 8.41 6.68 7.47 7.42 5.41 6.80 6.54 " 24 6.69 7.74 6.71 7.05 7.58 5.28 6.09 6.32 Mar. 2 6.82 7.98 6.35 7.05 7.00 5.15 5.76 5.97 9 6.73 7.16 6.75 6.88 7.04 4.98 6.00 6.00 16 7.17 7.53 6.77 7.16 7.04 5.25 5.63 5.97 " 23 6.55 7.45 6.58 6.86 6.65 4.99 5.46 5.70 30 6.87 7.02 6.30 6.73 6.24 5.04 5.28 5.52 Apr. 6 6.85 7.58 7.03 7.15 6.38 5.17 5.62 5.72 13 7.07 7.43 6.90 7 13 6.02 5.34 5.01 5.46 " 14 .93 1.13 1.01 1.02 .94 .76 .72 8.1 Total 166.00 72.96 63.99 67.64 65.49 49.88 54.9.S 56.77 CHART 4 AVERAGE POUNDS OF FAT PRODUCED PER Cow PER WEEK Dec. J&n. Feb. M&r Apt 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 Z4 Z 9 16 23 30 6 13 Lto (*r Wk, 10 9 8 7 f L/u per WK 10 9 d 7 b a Fi it Pe -tot r 5ec ML Pt riot i Lo I X ^ \ ,-^r< m Lo\ n . \ \ \ / / X, k f^ k x / ,^ ^ Br ^ v * 3/7 ^s; Alfa y~~ If* X; . /* 1 1 % 5$> X N N *' "" ^v % ''' v ALFALFA HAY vs. BRAN 143 TABLE 7. TOTAL POUNDS OK MILK AND FAT PRODUCED AND FOOD CONSUMED FOR EACH PERIOD; TOTALS FOR THE ALFALFA HAY PERIODS AND THE BRAN PERIODS Lot 1 Milk Fat Corn meal Silage Clover hav Bran Alfalfa hay First period, alfalfa Second period, bran, 5161.8 4445.8 225.63 202.93 1186 1206 5916 6030 1112.2 1170.0 1608 1546 L,ot2 First period, bran, Second period, alfalfa, 5068.7 4591.9 197.80 170.32 1206 1206 6030 6030 1136.0 1161.5 1561 1608 Totals Alfalfa periods, Bran periods, 9753.7 9514.5 395.95 400.73 2392 2412 11946 12060 2273.7 2306.0 3169 3154 Difference in favor of alfalfa hay, 239.2 -4.78 -20 -114 -32.3 -15 Table 7 shows that while fed alfalfa hay the cows produced 239.2 pounds more milk, and 4.78 pounds less butter fat than while fed bran. They also consumed twenty pounds less corn meal, 114 pounds less silage, 32 pounds less clover hay, and 15 pounds less alfalfa hay than bran, because one cow was off feed. This differ- ence in the amount of feed is small and amounts to little more than one day's ration for the lot, and could not account for more than 75 pounds of milk. On the same feed basis, therefore, the cows produced 314 pounds more milk and 3.5 pounds less butter fat while on the ration containing the alfalfa hay. This shows alfalfa equal to or a little better than bran for milk production, under the conditions which are the same as those existing on most dairy farms. This result does not quite agree with the findings of the Penn- sylvania, Tennessee, and some other stations, which found alfalfa meal and alfalfa hay slightly inferior to bran. It is safe to say that, when alfalfa can be grown on the farm, it is the best substi- tute for bran in feeding dairy cattle. It should be noted that in this demonstration only choice alfalfa hay was fed. The cows receiving the alfalfa hay were in better physical condition at the end of each period than were those re- ceiving bran. These two demonstrations indicate that alfalfa hay will not only supply a palatable roughage and a large amount of protein, but also that alfalfa keeps the animals in better physical condition 144 BULLETIN No. 146 [June, than such rations as timothy hay with grains high in protein. Like the other legumes, it takes large amounts of nitrogen from the air and causes it to be fixed in the soil. For these reasons we urge that every dairyman make a strenuous effort to grow at least a small piece of alfalfa. For methods of growing, see Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 76. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBAN*