• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 County map of state of Florida
 Live stock growing and feeding...
 Report of condition and prospective...
 Fertilizers, feed stuffs, and foods...














Title: Florida quarterly bulletin of the Agricultural Department
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00077083/00034
 Material Information
Title: Florida quarterly bulletin of the Agricultural Department
Uniform Title: Avocado and mango propagation and culture
Tomato growing in Florida
Dasheen its uses and culture
Report of the Chemical Division
Alternate Title: Florida quarterly bulletin, Department of Agriculture
Florida quarterly bulletin of the Department of Agriculture
Physical Description: v. : ill. (some fold) ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida -- Dept. of Agriculture
Publisher: s.n.
Place of Publication: Tallahassee Fla
Publication Date: -1921
Frequency: quarterly
monthly[ former 1901- sept. 1905]
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agricultural industries -- Statistics -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Dates or Sequential Designation: -v. 31, no. 3 (July 1, 1921).
General Note: Description based on: Vol. 19, no. 2 (Apr. 1, 1909); title from cover.
General Note: Many issue number 1's are the Report of the Chemical Division.
General Note: Vol. 31, no. 3 has supplements with distinctive titles : Avocado and mango propagation and culture, Tomato growing in Florida, and: The Dasheen; its uses and culture.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00077083
Volume ID: VID00034
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 28473206
 Related Items

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    County map of state of Florida
        Page 2
    Live stock growing and feeding in Florida
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Making and feeding of silage
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
        Silage for beef cattle
            Page 36
            Page 37
            Page 38
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 45
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
            Page 62
            Page 63
            Page 64
            Page 65
            Page 66
    Report of condition and prospective yield of crops
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Division of the state by counties
            Page 69
            Page 70
        Condensed notes of correspondents
            Page 71
            Page 72
            Page 73
            Page 74
            Page 75
            Page 76
            Page 77
            Page 78
            Page 79
            Page 80
            Page 81
            Page 82
            Page 83
            Page 84
            Page 85
            Page 86
    Fertilizers, feed stuffs, and foods and drugs
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Home-mixing of fertilizers
            Page 89
            Page 90
            Page 91
            Page 92
            Page 93
            Page 94
            Page 95
            Page 96
        Commercial fertilizers from the manufacturer's view point
            Page 97
            Page 98
            Page 99
            Page 100
            Page 101
            Page 102
            Page 103
            Page 104
            Page 105
            Page 106
            Page 107
            Page 108
            Page 109
            Page 110
            Page 111
            Page 112
            Page 113
            Page 114
        Regulations governing the taking and forwarding of samples of commercial feeding stuff to the commissioner of agriculture for analysis by the state chemist
            Page 115
            Page 116
            Page 117
            Page 118
        Rules and regulations governing the analysis of water, soils, commercial samples, and samples involving criminal cases
            Page 119
            Page 120
            Page 121
            Page 122
            Page 123
            Page 124
            Page 125
            Page 126
            Page 127
            Page 128
            Page 129
            Page 130
            Page 131
            Page 132
            Page 133
            Page 134
            Page 135
            Page 136
            Page 137
            Page 138
            Page 139
        Special fertilizer analyses
            Page 140
            Page 141
            Page 142
            Page 143
            Page 144
        Official fertilizer analyses
            Page 145
            Page 146
            Page 147
            Page 148
            Page 149
            Page 150
            Page 151
            Page 152
            Page 153
            Page 154
            Page 155
            Page 156
            Page 157
            Page 158
            Page 159
            Page 160
            Page 161
            Page 162
            Page 163
            Page 164
        Special feeding stuff analyses
            Page 165
        Official feeding stuff analyses
            Page 166
            Page 167
            Page 168
            Page 169
            Page 170
            Page 171
            Page 172
            Page 173
            Page 174
        Special food and drug analyses
            Page 175
            Page 176
            Page 177
            Page 178
            Page 179
            Page 180
            Page 181
            Page 182
Full Text






Volume 24


Number 4)
~~r41


FLORIDA

QUARTERLY


BULLETIN

OF THE

AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT


OCTOBER 1, 1914.


W. A. McRAF
COMMISSIONER OF AC, RICULTURE


TALLAHASSEE, FLA.


Part 1-Live Stock Growing and Feeding in Florida.
Part 2-Crop Conditions and Yieldi.
Part 3-Fertilizers, Feed Stuffs and Foods and Drugs.

Entered January 31, 1903, at Tallahassee, Florida, as second-class
matter under Act of Congress of June, 1900.

THESE BULLETINS ARE ISSUED FREE TO THOSE REQUESTING TIEM

T. J. APPLEYARD, State Printer,
Tallahassee, Florida
S _____










COUNTY MAP OF STATE OF FLORIDA.


















PART I.

LIVE STOCK GROWING AND FEEDING
IN FLORIDA.














LIVE STOCK GROWING AND FEEDING
IN FLORIDA

By H. S. ELLIOT, Chief Clerk,
Department of Agriculture.

In discussing this subject we know that much has been
said and written for and against the possibility of live
stock production in Florida on a profitable basis. It is
contended on the one hand that this State does not afford
the native pasturage necessary to make the industry a
success, and that the climate is not suited to the best
development of animal life. Some show of reason is
given for this contention because of the neglect on the
part of the growers, of cattle in particular, in permitting
their stock to take care of themselves from one year to
another without attention, and to inbreed promiscuously
for years without hindrance, and these statements com-
prise about the sum of objections raised against live
stock production in Florida. They are simply claims
based on past experiences of the rage cattle growers,
and not on consideration of true economic conditions,
proven by facts as they exist and the experience of intel-
ligent experiment by private individuals, live stock com-
panies and the State Experiment Station.
Among the principal general reasons why Florida is
adapted to successful live stock growing of all kinds,
almost without limit, is its unlimited and unfailing water
supply, which is absolutely essential to successful stock
raising, as are its green pastures. Another equally im-
portant condition is the short period necessary for feed-
ing and sheltering of stock as compared with other sec-
tions of the country. Another of equal, if not of greater
importance is the adaptability and capacity of the soils











of this State to the production of nearly all kinds of
grains and forage crops at as small, if not less cost than
any other section of the country. In all of this, the
equable climate of the State has much to do, of course,
but it is because of these advantages and conditions
that Florida should and can compete with any, and excel
most of the States as a live stock producing country.

Of the entire area of Florida there are approximately
three million acres in farms and under farm control.
There are approximately thirty million acres that can be
used to a greater or less extent for the production of
grasses, forage and grazing purposes for live stock of all
kinds in every portion of the State. There is no question
but that Florida has within her borders the greatest
grazing region east of the Mississippi river, and conse-
quently an almost boundless capacity for the production
of all the forage crops necessary to maintain all the
live stock that can be grown upon it.

The number of live stock of all kinds in the State is, in
round numbers, 2,000,000, having a value of about $25,-
000,000. Instead of this small number, there should be
not less than 20,000,000 head, and 10,000;000 head of
them should be cattle; the State can easily maintain such
a number.

If the vast area of idle lands in Florida and the South
as well were put to this purpose with intelligent direc-
tion, there would be no necessity for the big packers of
the West to go to Argentina for their meat to supply
American consumers. There is land enough idle in the
South, including Florida, to produce all the beef cattle,
hogs and sheep necessary to supply the demands of the
people of the United States and also about all of the
export trade that this country can control. In all of this
Florida should and can bear a very large and important
part.












FLORIDA SOILS ADAPTED TO FORAGE PLANTS.

The soils of Florida embrace practically all of those
best adapted to the various agricultural purposes. In
the several sections of the State soils varying from stiff
red clay with all of its gradations of the loam soils, is
found in immense areas, and all of these with possibly
one or two exceptions are productive soils, some of them
to a high degree naturally, and all can be made so at
reasonable cost by proper methods of control or man-
agement. On these soils are produced nearly all of the
crops suited to the temperate zone and of the semi-
tropics, for be it remembered Florida includes in a large
degree the climate of both. In the soils above referred
to, the reclaimable swamp and other overflowed and wet
lands are included.

FORAGE PRODUCTS.

On the soils just discussed can be produced practically
all of the forage crops necessary for pasture or for the
making of hay or silage. Included in this are all of the
sorgh ums, both saccharine'and non-saccharine, all of the
legumes, except possibly a small number of clovers, which
can probably also be grown with aid of inoculation with
bacteria. To give an idea of the number of these plants
used for grazing, forage and hay-making that are adapted
to Florida soils, we append the following list, viz.:

SORGHUMS.

Yield per acre of Yield per acre of
NAME OF VARIETY. green.forage grain in head,
in tons. In pounds.
Red Kaffir Corn......... 3.968 1,187.50
Sirak .................. 10.225 1,050.00
Honey ................. 6.281 562.50
Sapling ............... 5.900 550.00
Brown Durra .......... 5.350 450.00












Minnesota Amber .......
Planter's Friend, No. 36
Orange ................
Gooseneck, Erect .......
Planter's Friend, No. 37.
Amber ...............
Sumac ...............
Shallu ...............
White Kaffir ...........
Gooseneck, Pendant ....
Collier .................
Red Amber ............
Cigne ................
Jerusalem Corn ........
Yellow Milo ...........


8.612
13.068
13.813
16.907
16.318
10.461
12.449
11.556
8.153
19,036
13.896
12.283
12.450
8.204
9.487


975.00
787.00
1,366.50
793.00
887.50
1,033.50
429.50
2,112.50
727.00
856.25
742.50
1,500.00
900.00
458.00
900.00


CLOVERS, GRASSES AND VETCHES.
Yield per acre
in tons of Dry Hay
per Season.
1 Hairy Vetch .................. 2 to 3
1 Alfalfa ....................... 5 6
Lespedeza ..................... 1 2
1 Burr Clover ................... 2 4
Crimson Clover ................ 2 4
Rhodes Grass ................ 4 6
Natal ................ 1 2
Orchard ............... 1 2
Bermuda ............... 1 2
Crab ................ 1 2
Tall Meadow Oat Grass......... 1 2
Para Grass .................... 2 4
Herds or Red Top Grass......... 1 2
Crow-foot Grass ............... 1 2
M illet ......................... 3 5
Johnson Grass ................. 3 6
Rape, (never cut) ..............

1 Should be inoculated.










8

LEGUMINOUS CROPS OTHER THAN CLOVERS.

All Cow or Field Peas.
Velvet Beans.
Soy Beans.
Beggar Weed.
Kudzu.
Peanuts.

The following table gives the average composition of
a few of the best hays and will serve to further impress
those interested with not only the capacity of the soils
of this State to produce the most valuable forage and hay
plants, but with their high quality and value, as feeding
products.

The following tables gives the average composition of
some of the best hays:


Dry Hay-


0


-o
0c:
c.0
0'


Cowpea ....... 11.9 8.4 14.4 41.2 21.5 2.5
Alfalfa ....... 8.4 7.4 14. 42.7 25.0 2.2
Soy Bean ..... 11.3 7.2 15.4 38.6 22.3 5.2
Clover (Red) .. 15.3 6.2 12.3 38.1 24.81 3.3
Peanut Vine 7.6 0.8 10.7 42.7 23.61 4.6
Lespedeza ..... 11.5 4.1 9.6 40.1 31.41 3.3
Timothy ...... 13.2 4.4 5.9 45.0 29.5 2.5
Johnson Grass 10.2 6.11 7.2 45.9 28.5 2.1










9

Per Cent of Digestible Matter. -Continued.

Cowpea ........ 9.3 29.1 2.1 1.9
Alfalfa ........ 10.6 28.2 10.7 0.9
Soy Beans ..... 10.9 26.6 13.6 1.5
Red Clover .... 7.6 26.3 12.1 2.0
Peanut Vine .. 6.7 29.9 12.3 -
Lespedeza ..... 7.61 31.0[ --- 1.8
Timothy ....... 2.8 28.3 15.1 1.4
Johnson Grass. 3.2 24.8 16.5 0.8

Food Elements in Other Hays.

Protein Carbohydrates.
Beggarweed ...............16 per cent............69 per cent.
Cowpeas .................16 per cent............67 per cent.
Velvet Bean .............14 per cent............72 per cent.
Peanut ................... 13 per cent............73 per cent.
Crowfoot Grass .......... 8 per cent............75 per cent.
Crab Grass .............. 7 per cent............79 per cent.
Timothy ................. 6 per cent............82 per cent.
Millet ................... 6 per cent............76 per cent.
Mexican Clover ........... 5 per cent...........79 per cent.

Showing Value of Some Hays.
Timothy .................... ....................$20.00 per ton.
Velvet Bean ................................... 20.05 per ton.
Peanut ......................................... 20.00 per ton.
Beggarweed ................................... 19.95 per ton.
Crab Grass ..................... ............... 19.60 per ton.
Cowpea ....................................... 19.50 per ton.
Mexican Clover ................................ 19.05 per ton.
Crowfoot Grass ............................. 19.00 per ton.
Millet .......................................... 18.65 per ton.

PASSING OF THE RANGES.

The time has about passed when the growing of cattle
on the ranges can be done profitably, because, mainly, of
the cutting up of the vast tracts of prairie and wood lands
and turning them into orchards or small farms; conse-
quently it becomes necessary to change the method of
live stock raising. Undoubtedly the change will be bene-
ficial to the industry and be productive of greater profits,
through the building up in both size and quality of the
animal, for with the change will come about the substi-
tution of better breeds of stock and a general grading up












and improvement in the native stock. This applies to
sheep and hogs as well as cattle.

BREEDS FOR UPGRADING.

We suggest that from a large number of improved
breeds of cattle, that there are a number which have
proven themselves well adapted to Florida conditions.
These are the Short Horn or Durham, Hereford, Aber-
deen, Angus, Red Polled and Devon. There are others
also of great merit, but these are well known to be
adapted to the conditions and climate in Florida, and
besides they represent the very -best beef producing ani-
mals in America.
By grading up with the best of native cows and
thoroughbred bulls of the above mentioned breeds, it will
require but a short time comparatively to bring about a
complete change.
We have shown that our Florida soils are capable of
and do produce all of the grasses, forage and hay plants
necessary to support all of the live stock and more than
we can raise. The next most important question is to de-
termine the best method of feeding this forage to the
stock. We, of course, can arrange to have the grazing
always with us. Scientific experiment and experience
have abundantly demonstrated in the past few years,
that the best as well as the most economical method of
feeding live stock, especially cattle, is in the form of
silage, as well as roughage.

SUGGESTIONS AS TO MANAGEMENT OF LIVE STOCK.

Before giving consideration to the subject of silage
and its feeding, we offer a few suggestions as to necessary
points to be considered in stock raising; these are, that
good pastures are essential to successful and profitable
live stock production, especially where beef is the object.












Use pure-bred bulls for grading up the native stock, and
be sure to select the best heifers for breeding purposes.
Eradicate the ticks on the farm the cost is not great.
Use all coarse forage, such as straws and stalks in the
fields to assist in carrying the herd of breeding cattle
through the winter. When pastures get short wean the
calves, and put them in the corn and pea fields while
weaning and teach them to eat corn and cotton seed
meal. After raising your cattle, finish them on the farm
if possible. A mixture of cotton seed meal, hulls and pea
vine hay is a good ration for fattening calves. Silage is
the best kind of roughage for fattening any class of cat-
tle. Give more care to the feeding of calves than of
grown cattle. Corn silage is a cheaper and better feed
for fattening cattle than cotton seed hulls.
Summer feeding on pasture is usually more profitable
than feeding in winter. The pse of corn in small amounts
in addition to cotton seed meal has proven profitable
while feeding steers on grass. In feeding your grain or
other products in the form of silage to live stock, thus
converting it into meat, you get a higher price for both
and in addition add fertility to the soil through the
manure. It converts the farm into a factory, so to speak,
and it becomes the creator of a finished or more nearly
finished product, instead of being the producer of mere
raw material.

LIVE STOCK RAISING AS AN UPBUILDER OF RUN DOWN FARMS.

There are in some portions of the State large areas
which have for many years been devoted to short cotton
planting that through lack of proper farming systems
and worse methods of crop cultivation, have been robbed
of their fertility to the extent of practical ruin, that can
be, through the aid of live stock growing, rehabilitated
and restored to their original fertile condition. To these
sections, live stock growing and feeding should prove a
manifold blessing.











SOME ADVANTAGES OF THE SILO.

All or nearly all of the forage crops previously men-
tioned herein can be made into silage either separately or
in combination. The conversion of a crop into silage
enables the maximum amount to be saved and fed and
produces a greater per cent of feed than by any other
method known. The silage assures a succulent feed for
all the months of the year, regardless of favorable or
unfavorable climatic conditions. When turned into hay
green crops necessarily lose some of the available food
material contained in them, but with the silo and the pro-
cess of fermentation to which the silage is subjected, the
food value is increased and much of the tough or woody
parts are made available for the stock.
Corn is the best and principal silage crop, and with
our practices offers the comparison most advantageous
to the silo. If only the ears are gathered from an acre
that produces say, thirty bushels, we save but little more
than a ton, or about twenty-one hundred pounds. If this
acre of corn is cut at the proper time and made into
silage, it will easily furnish ten tons of excellent feed,
and will often exceed these figures by several tons. The
stalks and fodder usually left in the field to rot or blow
away, will, with the aid of the silo, be made into splendid
feed and eaten with relish by the animals. It will be
readily seen that under the conditions described herein,
relative to modern stock raising, that the use of the silo
in the making and feeding of silage becomes a necessity
from an economic standpoint and is a vast improvement
over old and wasteful methods.
If a system somewhat on the lines herein suggested is
put in practice by the live stock growers of Florida, the
necessity to import beef from the West for Florida mar-
kets will cease.
To continue past (ancient) methods is the height of
folly and wasteful in the extreme. Florida should export
the best quality of beef; she can do so if she will.














MAKING AND FEEDING OF SILAGE.

In considering this subject we cannot do better than
give place to the following article taken from Farmers'
)Bulletin No. 556, of the U. S. Department of AgricuL
ture:

MAKING AND FEEDING OF SILAGE..

By T. E. WOODWARD, of the Dairy Division.

SOME POINTS IN FAVOR OF SILAGE.

Within the last 30 years silage has come into general
use throughout the United States, especially in those
regions where the dairy industry has reached its greatest
development. Silage is universally recognized as a good
and cheap feed for farm stock, and particularly so for
cattle and sheep. There are several reasons for the popu
clarity of silage.
1. More feed can be stored in a given space in the
form of silage than in the form of fodder or hay.
2. There is a smaller loss of food material when a crop
is made into silage than when cured as fodder or hay.
3. Corn silage is a more efficient feed than corn fodder.
4. An acre of corn can be placed in the silo at less,
cost than the same area can be husked and shredded.
5. Crops can be put in the silo during weather that
could not be utilized in making hay or curing fodder.
6. More stock can be kept on a given area of land
when silage is the basis of the ration.
7. There is less waste in feeding silage than in feeding
fodder. Good silage properly fed is all consumed.
8. Silage is very palatable.
9. Silage, like other succulent feeds, has a beneficial:
effect upon the digestive organs.









14

10. Silage is the cheapest and best form in which a
succulent feed can be provided for winter use.
S11. Silage can be used for supplementing pastures
more economically than can soiling crops, because it re
quires less labor, and silage is more palatable.
12. Converting the corn crop into silage clears the
land and leaves it ready for another crop.

SILAGE CROPS.

Almost any green crop can be successfully made into
silage if sufficient care is taken to force out the air from
the material. On account of the difficulty, however, of
expelling air from plants with a hollow stem, such as
timothy, oats, and barley, these crops are rarely put in
the silo
CORN.

In all parts of the United States where the silo has
come into general use the principal silage crop is corn.
One reason for this is that ordinarily corn will produce
more food material to the acre than any other crop which
can be grown. It is more easily harvested and put in the
silo than any of the hay crops, such as clover, cowpeas, or
alfalfa. These crops are much more difficult to handle
after being out. Furthermore, corn makes an excellent
quality of silage. Sorghum makes a sour silage, and the
legumes, such as clover and alfalfa, are liable to rot unless
special care is taken to thoroughly pack the silage and
force out the air. The fermentation which take place in
leguminous silage are more extensive and in soncequence
the loss of food materials is greater than with corn.
The only objection which has been raised concerning
corn silage is the fact that it contains insufficient protein
to fully meet the requirements of animals to which it may
be fed. Some persons have advised mixing' clover, cow-
peas, or alfalfa with the corn when it is being put into












the silo in order to correct this deficiency of protein.
Such a procedure is not to be advised, however, if it is at
all possible to cure the clover or other crop into hay, and
it usually is possible if hay caps are used. Since some
dry forage should always be fed along with the silage,
the leguminous hay would better be used in this way
rather than by converting the crop into silage.

VARIETY TO PLANT.

The best variety of corn to plant is that which will
mature and yield the largest amount of grain to the acre.
since the grain is the most valuable part of the corn
plant. The variety commonly grown in any particular
locality for grain will also be the most satisfactory to
grow for silage. As will be seen from the table below,
taken from the First Annual Report of the Pennsylvania
State College, 63 per cent of the digestible food materials
present in the -corn plant are found in the ears and 37
per cent in the stover.

Yield of Digestible Matter in Corn.


Yield per acre.
Constituent.
Ears. Stover. Total crop
Pounds. Pounds. Pounds.
Protein ............................... 244 83 327
Carbohydrates ................... 2,301 1,473 3,774
Fat .................................... 125 22 147
Total.......................... 2,670 1,578 4,248

CULTIVATION AND YIELD.

Corn for silage may be planted and cultivated in the
same manner as when grown for grain. Weeds should be
kept out, else they will be cut with the corn and may im-
pair the quality of the silage. The yield of corn silage













per acre will vary from 4 or 5 to 20 tons or more. A 50-
bushel per acre crop of corn will yield about 8 to 12 tons
of silage per acre, depending upon the amount of foliage
and stalk that accompanies the ear. Southern varieties
of corn as a rule carry a larger proportion of the plant
in the form of stalk and leaves than do the northern-
grown varieties.

TIME TO HARVEST.


Corn should be harvested for the silo at about the same
time that it is harvested for fodder-that is, when the
grain has become glazed and the lower leaves of the stalk
have turned brown. The following table taken from the
Eighth Annual Report of the New York Experiment
Station will furnish valuable information as to the
proper time to cut corn for the silo:

Chemical Changes During Growth of Corn Plant.

Stage of growth


Yield per acre



Total yield.
Water .......
Dry matter...
Ash .........
Albuminolds .
Crude fiber...
Nitrogen free
extract ....
Fat ........


Tasseled Silked
July 30 Aug 9.


Pounds.
18,045
16,426
1,619
138.91
239.77
514.19

653.91
72.20


Pounds.
25,745
22,666
3,078
201.30
436.76
872.93

1,399.26
167.75


Milk Glazed Ripe
Aug. 21. Sept. 7. Sept. 23.

Pounds. Pounds. I Pounds.
32,600 32,295 28,460
27,957 25,093 20,542
4,643 7,202 7,918
232.15 302.48 364.23
478.69 643.86 677.78
1,261.97 1,755.85 1,734.04

2,441.29 4,239.82 4,827.60
228.90 259.991 '314.34


The table shows that there is a steady increase in the
amount of dry matter and food ingredients in the corn
plant up to the time it is ripe. Immature corn is a poor
feed, whether fed fresh or as silage. The protein and car-
bohydrates especially undergo changes from,the imma-












ture to the mature stage which increase their food value.
Silage made from immature corn is not only less nutri-
tious but also more .acid than that made from more ma-
ture corn. The corn should not be allowed to become
thoroughly ripe and dry, however, because the stalk and
foliage are rendered more difficult to digest, and, besides,
the corn can not be packed into the silo tightly enough to
prevent "fire-fanging" without using excessive amounts of
water. In case the corn is frozen before it is properly
matured for cutting, it should be harvested at once, before
it has had time to dry out to any great extent. Enough
water should be added to replace that lost by evapora-
tion through standing in the field after frosting.

SORGHUM.

Sorghum is readily made into silage. The only advan-
tages which sorghum has over corn are that it will some-
times yield heavier on poor ground and that the operation
of harvesting may extend over a greater period-that is,
it stays in the right stage for harvesting longer than corn.
Sorghum, however, makes a poorer quality of silage, being
more acid, not so palatable, and less nutritious. Where
corn yields well there is no advantage in growing sor-
ghum.

CLOVER.

Clover is a successful silage crop yielding a palatable
product high in protein. It does not pack so well as corn,
so great care should be exercised in the tramping of the
silage at the time of filling, and the depth of the silo
should also receive particular attention. A shallow silo
will not prove satisfactory. Clover should be chopped be-
fore siloing as a matter of convenience in feeding and also
to secure more thorough packing, although it can be
placed in the silo without chopping. Clover should be
harvested at the same time as for making into hay-that
2-Bul.












is, when in full bloom and some of the first heads are
dead. As stated elsewhere, it is usually inadvisable to
make clover into silage if it can be. made into hay, as is
the case under most conditions. It is better practice to
grow corn for silage and use the clover in the form of hay
as a supplement to the silage.

COWPEAS, ALFALFA, AND SOY BEANS.

These crops can all be successfully made into silage by
exercising the same precautions as with clover. They
should be cut at the same time as for haymaking. How-
ever, it is ordinarily preferable, as with clover, to make
them into hay rather than silage.
Other good silage materials are kafir corn, milo maize,
teosinte, and beet pulp.

HARVESTING THE CROP AND FILLING THE SILO.

Harvesting the Corn.

The corn is cut for the silo either by hand or by
machine. Hand cutting is practiced on farms where the
amount of corn to be harvested is so small as to make the
expense of purchasing a corn harvester too great to jus-
tify its use. Hand cutting is also resorted to through
necessity when the corn is down or lodged in such a man-
ner as to prevent the use of the machine. This method of
cutting, however, is slow and laborious and there are
probably few localities now where the purchase of a har-
vester would not be a profitable investment. In case the
expense is considered too great to be borne by a single
individual two or more neighbors might well arrange to
purchase a partnership machine.
In using the harvester it will be found a great advan-
tage to make the bundles rather small. This will take
more time, but the extra expense will be more than offset











by the ease of handling the bundles and in feeding them
into the silage cutter. Two or three horses, the latter
preferable, and one man will be required to run the har-
vester, and they should be able to cut about 6 acres a day.
The harvester should not get so far ahead of the haulers
that the corn will dry out to any considerable extent.

Hauling to the Cutter.

This is ordinarily done with the common flat hay
frames. An objection to their use is that it is necessary
to lift the green corn fodder to a considerable height in
loading, which is hard work. A low-wheeled wagon is
preferable to a high-wheeled one. A low-down rack quite
commonly used in some ports of the United States can be
easily made. The following are the directions for making
this rack, taken from Farmers' Bulletin 292:

The rack consists of two 4 by 6 inch bed
pieces, 18 or 20 feet in length, bolted together at one end
to form a V. On top of these timbers is built a rack 6
feet in width. The bottom of this rack is about 8 feet
long. The end boards are 4 feet high, built flaring so they
do not quite touch the wheels. The apex of the V is sus-
pended below the front axle of an ordinary farm wagon
by means of a long kingbolt. The other ends are attached
below the hind axle by U-shaped clevises. The materials
needed in its construction are 80 board feet of 4 by 6 inch
plank, 96 feet of boards 1 by 12 inches, 22 feet of lumber
2 by 4 inches, 1 long kingbolt, 2 stirrup rods, and bolts
and nails.

The load should be as large as possible, especially when
the haul is for some distance. This is a matter which is
rarely given sufficient attention by persons filling silos,
and in consequence the expense of filling becomes un
necessarily high.












CUTTING THE SILAGE.

The Cutter.

There are several different makes of silage cutters on
the market that will give satisfaction. The capacity of
the machine to be purchased is an important considera-
tion which should not be overlooked. Many persons make
the mistake of getting a cutter which is too small, thus
making the operation of filling the silo very slow and in-
terfering with the continuous employment of the entire
force of men. It is better to get a machine large enough
so that every one will be able to keep busy all the time.
Another matter to be considered is the fact that the
larger cutters are equipped with a self-feeding device
while the smaller sizes are not. Such a device saves a
great deal of labor. Other factors to be taken into ac-
count in purchasing a cutter are the amount of work to
be done and the power available. Of course, for the fill-
ing of a very small silo it would not be wise to buy a
large machine. Neither would it be advisable to over-
load the engine or motor by using a cutter which is too
large for the power available.

The Elevator.

Two types of elevators are in use-the old-style chain
carrier and the blower. The chain carrier requires less
power, but is harder to set up and there is more litter
around when it is used, especially in windy weather. For
these reasons the blower is now fast displacing the
carrier.
The blower should be placed as nearly perpendicular as
possible so as to reduce to the minimum the friction of the
cut corn upon the inside of the pipe and reduce the danger
of clogging.











Power Required.

The power necessary to operate the cutter will depend
upon its size and whether the elevator is a chain carrier
or a blower and upon the rate of feeding. It is possible to
feed slowly and to get along with less power than would
be required with full feeding. As a rule, however, a
person should have power sufficient to run the cutter at
full capacity, and even, a little surplus is advisable. The
power required for a cutter and blower, if a gasoline
engine is used, is about 1 horsepower for each 1-inch
length in the cutting cylinder; that is, a 15-inch cutter
will take a 15-horsepower engine, an 18 inch cutter will
require an 18-horsepower engine, and so on. If a steam
engine is employed, the power should be at least two-
thirds of that indicated for the gasoline engine.

Length to Cut.

The usual length of cutting varies from one-half to 1
inch. The latter is considered a little too long, since
pieces of this length will neither pack so closely in the
.silo nor be so completely consumed when fed as will the
shorter lengths. On the other hand, the longer the pieces
the more rapidly can the corn be run through the cutter.

Packing the Silage.

Ordinarily the blower or carrier empties the cut corn
into the top of the silo and there are one or more men in
the silo to distribute and tramp the material. Unless
there is some one to do this the cut material will be
thrown too much in one place and the leaves, stalks, and
grain will not be uniformly distributed throughout the
silo. The sides should be kept higher than the center and
much of the tramping done close to the wall.
Various contrivances have been used for distributing











the silage. The one most to be recommended for this pur-
pose, however, is a metal pipe similar to the one in which
the cut corn is elevated, but put together loosely in sec-
tions. The corn from the blower passes down this pipe
into the silo, and being loosely put together it can be
swung so that the material can be placed anywhere in the
silo. With this contrivance no work with a fork is neces
sary and one man can do the work of two or three and do
it easier. There is very little loose material flying about
in the silo and the work is much cleaner. Another advan-
tage is a lessening of the danger of being struck by some
foreign object which has passed up the blower pipe.
Heavy knives of the cutter have been known to pass
through the blower and into the silo. As has been men-
tioned, this pipe is put together in sections, sp that as
the silage rises in the silo the sections can be readily de-
tached as required.

Adding. Water.

In case the material has become too dry before it is put
into the silo water should be added to supply the defi-
.ciency of moisture and so make the silage pack better.
Unless it is well packed the silage will "fire-fang" or de-
teriorate through the growth of mold. Enough water
should be added to restore the moisture content of the
corn to what it would be if cut at the proper stage. The
water may be added by running directly into the silo by
mears of a hose or by running through the blower. It is
claimed that by running it into the blower the water is
more thoroughly mixed with the cut corn.

It seems to be good practice, no matter what the condi-
tion of the corn, to thoroughly wet down the material at
the top of the silo when through filling. This will help to
pack the top layer and lessen the amount of spoiled silage
on top.











Covering the Silage.

Several years ago it was a common practice to cover
the silage with some material, such as dirt or cut straw,
in order to prevent the top layer from spoiling. At
present when any provision at all is made for this pur-
pose it consists usually in merely running in on top corn-
stalks from which the ears have been removed. By this
method some of the corn grain is saved. The heavy green
cornstalks pack much,better than straw does and so ex-
clude the air more effectually. The top is thoroughly
tramped and then wet down. Sometimes oats are sown
on the top before wettifig. The heat generated by the fer-
menting mass will cause the oats to sprout quickly and
form a dense sod which serves to shut off the air from the
silage beneath, and in consequence only a very shallow
layer spoils.

Labor and Teams Required.

The labor and teams to be used will of course depend
upon the help available, the length of haul, and the effi-
ciency of the machinery. With plenty of help, a short
haul, and good machinery the following distribution of
labor might well be used:

1 man and 3 horses to bind the corn.
2 men to load the corn.
3 men and 6 horses to haul.
1 man to help unload.
1 man to feed t!he 'utter.
1 or 2 men to work in the silo.
1 man to tend the engine, if steam is used.
Total, 10 or 11 men, 9 horses, and 3 wagons.

The least amount of help which it would be possible to
work to advantage might be arranged as follows:











1 man and 3 horses to bind the corn.
1 man to help teamsters load.
3 men and 6 horses to haul and unload.
1 man to feed.
1 man in the silo.
Total, 7 men, 9 horses, and 3 wagons.

A good manager is required to so arrange the help that
each man and team can do the most efficient work. With-
out careful attention to this matter the operation of fill-
ing the silo becomes needlessly expensive.

Cost of Harvesting and Filling.

It is not possible to set any definite figure as the cost
of filling the silo because of the great variation in condi
tions in different parts of the country. ,But just in order
to give some idea of the probable cost a few figures are
taken from Farmers' Bulletin 292. The investigation
reported in this bulletin included the work done upon 31
farms in Wisconsin and Michigan. The labor of each
man was rated at 15 ;cents per hour and the same value
placed upon each team of two horses. Engine hire was
estimated at $4.50 per day, including the engineer. Twine
was rated at 11 cents a pound, coal at $5 a ton, and
gasoline at 13 cents a gallop. The farmers owned their
own cutters. In this investigation the cost per ton varied
from 46 to 86 cents.
Investigations conducted by the Dairy Division during
the past few years with 87 silos in various parts of the
United States indicate the cost of filling to be an average
of 87 cents per ton.

Cooperation in Silo Filling.

The high cost of silo-filling machinery makes it often
times advisable for several farmers to cooperate in the











purchase of a cutter and engine, or at least a cutter,
since an engine is easier rented than a cutter. By vary
ing the time of planting in the spring each man can
get his silo filled when the corn is at the proper stage of
maturity. Besides this the farmers can help one another
in filling, so that there need be a very small cash outlay.

TOTAL COST OF SILAGE.

As with the cost of filling the silo, no definite figure
can be set as to the cost of silage. This will depend upon
the yield per acre, the cost of growing an acre, and the
cost of filling. Several yeais ago the cost was variously
estimated at from $1 to $1.50 per ton. At present this
is much too low. The before-mentioned data collected by
the Dairy Division on the filling of 87 silos in various
parts of the country show the cost of growing the silage
crop to average $1.58 per ton. This added to the 87 cents,
which represents the cost of filling, makes the total cost
of the silage $2.45 per ton. The cost of the silage for the
individual farms varied from $1.10 to $5.42 per ton. In
general, it may be stated that $1.50 to $3.50 per ton repre-
sents the limits between which most of .the silage is pro-
duced.

LOSSES OF FOOD MATERIAL IN THE SILO.

When any crop is made into silage certain fermenta
tion takes place, which results in the production of a con-
siderable amount of heat and the consequent loss of food
material. The extent of this fermentation is dependent
upon the amount of air in the silo. The more air there is
present the higher will be the temperature of fermenta-
tion" and the greater the loss of food ingredients. Fer-
mentation will continue until all the oxygen of the air
has been used up or has been displaced by carbon dioxid.
In the deep silos of the present time the pressure is so











great that very little air is left in the silo, consequently
the losses of food ingredients are reduced to a minimum.
As before mentioned, on account of the difficulty of press.
ing out this air in crops with hollow stems they are
seldom put in the silo.
There have been some experiments conducted at the
Wisconsin station which show that the losses in the silo
ing of corn are not nearly so great as in the field curing
of corn fodder. According to Prof. Woll, in modern,
well-built, deep silos the loss should not exceed 10 per
cent. More food material can be saved by putting the
corn crop in the,silo than by harvesting and storing it in
any other way.

FEEDING VALUE OF SILAGE.

Composition.

The composition of silage will, of course, vary accord-
ing to the crop from which it is made, the degree of ma-
turity of the crop, and other factors. The following
figures, taken from Henry's Feeds and Feeding, represent
the digestible nutrients in 100 pounds of average silage:


Digestible.
Crop. Total dry
matter. aro
Protein. Carboy- Fat.
drates.
I Pounds. Pounds Pounds. Pounds.
Corn ........ 26.4 1.4 14.2 0.7
Sorghum ..... 23.9 .1 13.5 .2
Red Clover.. 28.0 | 1.5 9.2 .5
Soy Bean ...,. 25.8 2.7 9.6 1.3
Cowpeas ..... 20.7 1.5 8.6 .9


It will be observed that about three-fourths of the total
weight of silage consists of water. It will also be noticed
that both corn and sorghum contain a large amount of











carbohydrates in proportion to the protein. Silage is a
bulky, succulent feed with a wide nutritive ratio, and for
these reasons it will give the best results when fed along
vith some other feed richer in dry matter and in protein.

Succulence.

It is quite important in the feeding of cattle that the
ration include some succulent material such as fresh
grass, root crops, or silage. A feed containing a large
amount of natural water is not only more easily digested
but is also more palatable and, besides, serves the useful
purpose of keeping the whole system of the animal in a
state of healthy activity. A silage-fed animal is rarely
troubled with constipation or other digestive disturb-
ances, the coat is noticeably sleek and soft, and the skin
is soft and pliable. It is a well-known fact that a cow
usually reaches her maximum production when she has
access to a good pasture. The cheapest and best substi-
tute for fresh pasture grass during the fall and winter
is silage.

Palatability.

No rough feed is more palatable than good corn silage
Sometimes, however, a cow will not eat silage readily
until she has acquired a taste for it, which may require
several days. But silage is not peculiar in this respect,
for it has been observed that range horses or cattle ship-
ped into the corn belt will refuse corn the first time it is
offered to them. This quality of being palatable is a
decided advantage for silage in that it induces a large
consumption and promotes the secretion of digestive
juices.

Relative Feeding Value.

The value of silage as a food ma.v be best shown by











comparing it with other feeds. The most accurate com-
parison which is available is found in Farmers' Bulletin
346. The figures given below are taken from this bulletin.

Energy Value of Various Feeds in Therms Per 100

Pounds of the Feed.

Corn Silage ............ 16.56 Oats ................... 66.27
Red Clover Hay......... 34.74 Linseed Meal ........... 78.92
Timothy Hay ........... 33.56 Cottonseed Meal ........ 84.20
Mangel-wurzels ......... 4.62 Wheat Bran ............ 48.23
Corn ................... 88.84

These figures were obtained through experimentation
with beef animals and are not claimed to be other than
tentative and subject to correction later on. While they
have not been prepared as a result of work with any kind
-of animals other than those for beef, it is thought that
they are approximately correct when applied to sheep,
horses, and dairy cows. At any rate they are the most
reliable figures which we have at present.

From the table given it will be observed that clover hay
is a little more than twice as valuable, pound for pound,
as silage, that bran is three times as valuable, and that
corn is more than five times as valuable. In other words,
the feeding values of silage, clover hay, bran, and corn
are in the approximate ratio of silage 1, clover hay 2,
bran 3, and corn 5.

SILAGE FOR DAIRY CATTLE.

Silage has been found to be particularly well adapted
to the dairy cow and as a consequence silos are more
numerous upon farms devoted to dairying than upon any
other kind of farms. In many sections silage has come
to be the dairy farmer's main reliance for cow feed.












Supplementary Feeds.

While silage is an excellent feed it is not a complete
one for dairy.stock. It is too bulky and watery and con-
tains insufficient protein and mineral matter to fully meet
the requirements of the dairy cow. It should be combined
with some leguminous hay such as clover, cowpeas, or
alfalfa. These will tend to correct the deficiencies of the
silage in dry matter, protein, and mineral constituents.
A ration of silage and, say, alfalfa hay alone is satisfae
tory, however, only for cows which are dry or giving only
a small amount of milk and for heifers and bulls. Cows
in full milk require some more concentrated feed than
hay or silage, else they can not consume enough feed to
meet the demands of the body. The result will be that
the cows lose in flesh and in milk flow.

Amount to Feed.

The amount of silage to feed a cow will depend upon
the capacity of the animal to take feed. She should be fed
as much as she will clean up without waste when con-
sumed along with her hay and grain. Raise or lower the
amount until the proper quantity is ascertained. Gener-
ally speaking, a good cow should be fed just short of the
limit of her appetite. If she refuses any of her feed it
should be reduced at once. The small breeds will take
25 or 30 pounds per day; the large breeds about 40; and
the medium-sized ones amounts varying between.

Rations.

Ironclad directions for feeding cows can not be given
In general, however, they should be supplied with all the
roughage they will clean up with grain in proportion to
butterfat produced. The hay will ordinarily range be
tween 5 and 12 pounds per cow per day when fed in con-













section with silage. For Holsteins 1 pound of concen-
trates for each 4 pounds of milk produced will prove
about right. For Jerseys 1 pound for each 3 pounds of
milk or less will come nearer meeting the requirements
The grain for other breeds will vary between these two
according to the quality of milk produced. A good rule
is to feed seven times as much grain as there is butterfat
produced.
The following rations will be found good:
For a 1,300-pound cow yielding 40 pounds of milk test
ing 3.5 per cent:
Pounds.
Silage ........... .......................... 40
Clover, Cowpea, or Alfalfa Hay.................. 10
Grain mixture ................................ 10

For the same cow yielding 20 pounds of 3.5 per cent
milk:

Silage ............................. ........... 40
Clover, Cowpea, or Alfalfa Hay ................. 5
Grain mixture ....... ........................ 5

For a 900-pound cow yielding 30 pounds of 5 per cent
milk:

Silage ........................................ 30
Clover, Cowpea, or Alfalfa Hay................. 10
Grain mixture ................................ 11

For the same cow yielding 15 pounds of 5 per cent
milk:

Silage ...................................... .. 30
Clover, Cowpea, or Alfalfa Hay.................. 8
Grain mixture ................................ 5

A good grain mixture to be used in a ration which in
eludes silage and some sort of leguminous hay is com-
posed of

Parts.
Corn Chop ................................... 4
W heat Bran .................................. 2
Linseed-oil Meal or Cottonseed Meal ............. 1











In case the hay used is not of this kind some of the
corn chop may be replaced by linseed or cottonseed meal.
In many instances dried brewers' grains or crushed oats
may be profitably substituted for the bran.

Time to Feed.

The time to feed silage is directly after milking or at
least several hours before milking. If fed immediately
before milking the silage odors may pass through the
cow's body into the milk. Besides, the milk may receive
some taints directly from the stable air. On the other
hand, if feeding is done subsequent to milking thevolatile
silage odors will have been thrown off before the next
milking hour. Silage is usually fed twice a day.
Many objections have been made to the feeding of
silage; some condenseries even refusing to let their
patrons use it. These objections are becoming less com-
mon, since milk from cows fed silage in a proper manner
is in no way impaired; besides which there is nothing
about silage that will injure in any way the health of
the animals.
Feeding Frozen Silage.

Frozen silage must first be thawed before feeding. If
ir is then given immediately to the cows before decom-
position sets in no harm will result from feeding this
kind of silage; neither is the nutritive value known to be
changed in any way.

Silage for Calves, Bulls, and Dry Cowvs.

Calves may be fed silage with safety when they are
about 3 or 4 months old. It is perhaps of greater im-
portance that the silage be free from mold or decay when
given to calves than when given to mature stock. After
the calves are weaned they may be given all the silage












they will eat up clean. Yearling calves will consume
about one-half as much as mature stock, that is, from 15
to 20 pounds a day. When supplemented with some good
leguminous hay little, if any, grain will be required to
keep the calves in a thrifty, growing condition.
There is a decided opinion among some breeders of
dairy stock that a large allowance of silage is detrimental
to the breeding qualities of the bull. Whether there is
any scientific foundation for this opinion remains to be
determined. Pending further investigations, however, it
is advisable to limit the allowance to about 15 pounds of
silage a day for each 1,000 pounds of live weight. When
fed in this amount silage is thought to be a good, cheap,
and safe feed for bulls. It should of course be supple-
mented with hay, and with a small allowance of grain
also in the case of bulls doing active service or growing
rapidly.
Cows when dry will consume almost as much roughage
as when milking. Silage may well form the principal
ingredient of the ration, in fo",t, with 25 to 40 pounds of
silage and a small supplementary feed of clover, cowpea,
or alfalfa hay, say 5 or 6 pounds a day, the cows will
keep in good flesh and even make some gain. Cows in thin
flesh should receive in addition a small amount of grain.
Silage will tend to keep the whole system in a state of
healthy activity and in this way lessen the troubles inci-
dent to parturition.

Silage for Summer Feeding.

One of the most trying seasons of the year for the dairy
cow is the latter part of the summer and early fall. At
this season the pastures are often short or dried up, and
in such cases it is a common mistake of dairymen to let
their cows drop off in flow of milk through lack of feed.
Later they find it impossible to restore the milk flow no
matter how the cows are fed. Good dairy practice de.











mands that the milk flow be maintained at a high point
all the time from parturition to drying off. It becomes
necessary, therefore, to supply some feed to take the place
of the grass. The easiest way to do this is by means of
silage. Silage is cheaper and decidedly more convenient
to use than soiling crops.
The amounts to feed will depend upon the condition of
the pastures, varying all the way from 10 pounds to a full
winter feed of 40 pounds. It should be remembered in
this connection that silage contains a low percentage of.
protein, so that the greater the amount of silage fed the
greater must be the amount of protein in the supplemen-
tary feeds to properly balance the ration.

SILAGE FOR HORSES.

By GEORGE M. ROMMEL, Chief of the Animal Husbandry
Division.

Silage has not been generally fed to horses, partly on
account of a certain amount of danger which attends its
use for this purpose, but still more, perhaps, on account
of prejudice. In many cases horses have been killed by
eating moldy silage, and the careless person who fed it
at once blamed the silage itself, rather than his own care-
lessness and the mold which really was the cause of the
trouble. Horses are peculiarly susceptible to the effects
of molds, and under certain conditions certain molds
grow on silage which are deadly poisons to both horses
and mules. Molds must have air to grow and therefore
silage which is packed air-tight and fed out rapidly will
not become moldy. If the feeder watches the silage care
fully as the weather warms up he can soon detect the
presence of mold. When mold appears, feeding to horses
or mules should stop immediately.
It is also unsafe to feed horses frozen silage on account
of the danger-of colic. This is practically impossible to
3-Bul.












avoid in very cold weather, especially in solid-wall silos.
By taking the day's feed from the unfrozen center of the
silo and chopping away the frozen silage from the edges
and piling the frozen pieces in the center the mass will
usually thaw out in time for the next feed.
Corn to be made into silage for horses should not be
cut too green, as sour silage will result and may cause
colic when fed. The corn should be well matured and
cut when the grain is beginning to glaze. The silo should
be filled rapidly and the corn should be vigorously tramp-
ed and packed while filling. At least three men should be
inside the silo, moving constantly, two around the edges
and the third across and around the center. This is b-
far the most important point in connection with feeding
silage to horses, and the lives of the horses fed on silage
may depend on the thoroughness with which the tramp-
ing is done. If properly done no danger is likely to re
sult; if not properly done air pockets may form and cause
the accumulation of a small mass of mold which the feed-
er may overlook but which might be sufficient to kill one
or more horses.
The value of silage for horses is greatest as a means to
carry them through the winter season cheaply or to sup
plement pasture during drought. As the danger of mold
is greater in summer than in winter, silage should not
be fed to horses in that season unless a large number of
animals are getting it and the daily consumption is so
large as to preclude the formation of mold on the sur
face.
To cheapen the ration of brood mares in winter no feed
has more value than good corn silage. If the grain goes
into the silo with the stover no additional grain is need
ed for brood mares, hay being the only supplementary
feed necessary. If there is little grain on the corn the
silage should be supplemented with 1 pound of old
process linseed-oil meal or cottonseed meal daily per 1,000
pounds live weight, sprinkled over the silage.











Horses to be wintered on a silage and hay ration
should be started on about 5 pounds of silage daily per
1,000 pounds live weight, the grain and hay ration being
gradually decreased as the silage is increased until the
ration is 20 pounds silage and 10 pounds of hay daily per
1,000 pounds'live weight. It will require about a month
to reach the full feed of silage, but the period may be de
creased somewhat, depending on the judgment and skill
of the feeder.
Mares fed in this manner will be in splendid condition
for foaling, and, so far as the writer's experience goes,
the foals will be fully as vigorous, with just as much
size and bone, as if the mares were fed the conventional
grain and hay ration.
Work horses when idle can be wintered satisfactorily
in this manner, but much silage is not recommended for
horses at heavy work for the same reason that a driving
horse can not do his best while on watery grass pasture.
The writer knows of cases where stallions receive a
ration of silage, but has had no experience in feeding
tlem in this manner. There seems no reason why silage
should not be a valuable-feed for stallions during the idle
season.
Silage should also be useful for young horses, especial
ly drafters, but here again the writer can not quote his
own experience and experimental data are meager.
To summarize, silage is safe to feed to horses and
mules only when it is made from fairly mature corn,
properly stored in the silo. When it is properly stored
and is not allowed to mold, no feed exceeds it as a cheia
winter ration. It is most valuable for horses and mules
which are not at heavy work, such as brood mares and
work horses during the slack season. With plenty of
grain on the cornstalks, horses will keep in good condi
tion on a ration of 20 pounds of silage and 10 pounds of
hay for each 1,000 pounds of live weight.











SILAGE FOR BEEF CATTLE.

By W. F. WARD, Animal Hu8sbandm-an in Beef Cattle
Investigations.

There is no roughage which is of more iinportance to
the producer of beef cattle than silage. The value of
silage to the beef producer varies considerably and is
dependent upon a large number of other factors. It
rough fodders are scarce or are high priced, if the grain
is high priced, or if the grain is so near a good market
that much of it can be readily sold, silage will have a
greater value than if the opposite conditions exist. It iA
a great saver of grain regardless of whether it is to be fed
to stock cattle or fattening cattle. It will lessen the
grain feeding by practically the same amount as is con-
tained in the silage. The value will also depend some-
what upon the kind of cattle to which it is to be fed. If
there is an abundance of rough fodders which can not be
marketed, silage will not be so valuable. But in a case
of this kind the silage would prove more valuable if used
for the calves and pregnant cows and the coarse fodders
used for the other stock.

SILAGE FOR THE BREEDING HERD.

For wintering the entire breeding herd there is no
roughage better than silage. All of the animals will
relish a ration containing it and it will create a good
appetite for all other feeds. Cows that are fed all of the
silage they will consume along with clover hay will go
through the winter in fine shape and make small gains.
If the amount of silage is limited, a more economical
method of wintering them will be to reduce the silage to
a half ration, letting them have the run of a straw stack
and feeding about 2 pounds of cottonseed meal or oil
meal per day. Some dry coarse fodder or straw should












always be kept before animals getting silage, as it re
duces the amount of silage consumed and prevents the
bowels from becoming too loose. The succulent feed will
cause the breeding cows to give a good flow of milk even
though the calf be born in midwinter, and a thrifty calf
will result. If the silage is free from mold or rotten
spots there will be no danger in feeding it to breeding
cows.

Silage is especially beneficial for calves which have
just been weaned. They take to this ration quicker than
to dry feed and there is usually little loss in weight from
the weaning. The silage should be supplemented with
some good leguminous hay, as alfalfa, cowpea, or.clover,
and the calves should be given a small amount of grain
A mixture of one-half corn chop and one-half cottonseed
meal is excellent.

SILAGE FOR STOCK. CATTLE.

Each farmer will have to plan the rations for his cattle
according to the amount of the various feeds he has on
hand. Stockers can be wintered on silage and some good
hay, fodder, or straw, but this may not always be the
most profitable. When hay is high priced and grain is
reasonably cheap or plenty of silage is available, it may
be more economical to omit the hay altogether. A ration
of corn silage alone has often been profitable for thin
cattle. Stockers which have been fed liberally all winter
and made to put on good gains usually do not make as
large daily gains when put on grass as do steers which
have not been quite so well fed.. The time the cattle are
to be finished for market and the degree of fatness to be
attained should govern to a large extent the method to be
followed during the winter. When beeves are expected to
sell high in the early summer and the steers are to be
finished for market at that time, a heavy roughage ration











with a small amount of grain should be fed during the
winter months.

SILAGE FOR FATTENING ANIMALS.

Silage stands first in rank of all the roughage for
finishing cattle. Formerly, during the era of cheap corn
and other concentrates little attention was given to the
roughage, as it was usually considered merely a "filler"
and of very little economic value in feeding. No especial
care was taken in selecting any particular kind, nor was
the quality of it seriously considered. As the prices of
the concentrated feedstuffs advanced, the feeder looked
about'for methods of cheapening the cost of producing
beef and soon found this could be accomplished by using
judgment in selecting his roughage with respect to tne
grain fed. This has continued until at the present time
the roughage receives as much attention as the concen-
trated feed, and has been made to take the place of a
large amount of the latter. The feeding of silage came
into general use with the advent of expensive grain and
is becoming more popular each year. With the present
prices of feedstuffs there is hardly a ration used for feed-
ing cattle which can not be cheapened by the use of this
succulent feed. By combining it with other feeds the
efficiency of the ration is increased to such an extent
that the amount of the daily gains is invariably greater
and the cost of producing a pound of gain is lessened
The heaviest daily gains are usually made during the first
stage of the feeding period, and silage can then be used
to advantage in large quantities with a small amount of
grain, but as the feeding progresses the amount of silage
should be lessened and the grain increased. In some
places the price of hay and stover is so high that the
greater the proportion of silage used in the ration the
more profitable is the feeding.
Conditions in general are such that any given ration












will not suit a large number of farmers, nor will it be
so profitable for some as it will for others, so each farm
er must determine for himself just what combination of
feeds will be most profitable for his use.

Rations Suitable for Florida Where Cottonseed Meal is
of Moderate Price and Cowpea and Other Hays
Are Raised on the Farm.

Pounds.
(1) Corn silage .............................. 35
Cowpea hay ............................. 8
Cottonseed meal or oil meal ............... 7
(2) Corn Silage .............................. 30
Cottonseed hulls ..: ....................... 12
Cottonseed meal .......................... 7

BALANCED RATIONS FOR DAIRY COWS.

By JoUN M. SCOTT.

In the lists of rations given below, home-grown feeds'
are separate from purchased feeds. The amount given in
each ration is sufficient for one day's feed for a cow
weighing 1000 pounds and giving about three gallons of
milk per day. (Dairy cows in Florida usually weigh
from 600 to 800 pounds.) For cows giving a heavier flow
of milk, it will be necessary to increase the amounts of
feed accordingly. No attempt has been made to estimate
the cost of these rations, or to say which will be the
cheapest, as the prices of feeds vary in different places.
The amounts of each feed being given, it will be an easy
matter for the dairyman to calculate the local cost of the
different rations mn!1 in this way find out which will be
the cheapest for him to use.

RATIONS OF HOME GROWN FEEDS.

(1) Velvet beans in the pod ....................... 10 pounds
Japansese cane, cured in shock................. 10 pounds
Cowpea hay .................................. 8 pounds










40

(2) Velvet beans in the pod............... ........ 10 pounds
Cottonseed meal .............................. 2 pounds
Japanese cane ........ ..................... 12 pounds

(3) Velvet beans in the pod....................... 8 pounds
Cowpea hay ................................. 10 pounds
Japanese eane ............................... 10 pounds

(4) Corn ........................................ 3 pounds
Velvet beans in the pod....................... 7 pounds
Cowpea hay .................................. 9 pounds
Japanese cane silage ........................ 20 pounds

(5) Velvet beans in the pod ...................... 8 pounds
Cowpea hay ................................ 10 pounds
Sorghum, green ............................ 20 pounds

(0) Velvet beans in the pod ..................... 8 pounds
Cowpea hay ................................. 8 pounds
Crabgrass hay ............................... 8 pounds
Sweet potatoes (or cassava) ...................... 25 pounds

The above are well-known home-grown feeds, or feeds
that can be grown at home. Feeds can be grown more
cheaply than they can be bought on the market. In these
rations, cowpea hay can be replaced by an equal weight
of beggarweed hay, velvet bean hay, or any other good
legume hay. Which of these hays should be used will
depend largely on the cost of the hay on the market, or
rather on what it will cost to produce it. One may be so
situated as to be able to grow beggarweed hay, or velvet
bean hay, to better advantage than cowpea hay. All of
the hays in these rations are considered to be of good
quality, cut at the proper stage of maturity, and properlJ
cured.


RATIONS OF PURCHASED FEEDS.

(1) Alfalfa hay ................................. 10 pounds
W heat bran ......:.......................... 41 pounds
Shorts ...................................... 4 pounds

(2) Alfalfa hay .................................. 10 pounds
W heat bran ................................. 9 pounds
Crabgrass hay .............................. 13 pounds










41

(3) Alfalfa hay ....:........................... 10 pounds
Shorts ............................... ...... 9 pounds
Crabgrass hay ............................... 13 pounds

(4) Alfalfa hay .................................. 10 pounds
.W heat bran ................................. 6 pounds
Beet pulp .... ............................... 10 pounds

(5) W heat bran ................................. 9 pounds
Cottonseed meal ............................. 3 pounds
Cottonseed hulls ............................. 20 pounds

(6) Shorts ...................................... 8 pounds
Cottonseed meal ............................. 22 pounds
Hay (any non-legume) ....................... 15 pounds

(7) Wheat bran .................................. 6 pounds
Cottonseed meal ............................. 21 pounds
Beet pulp ................................... 10 pounds
Timo'hy hay ................................ 7 pounds
(8) W heat bran ................................. 9 pounds
Cottonseed meal ............................. 3 pounds
Japanese cane ............................... 15 pounds

(9) Corn ............... ......................... 5 pounds
Cottonseed meal .................. .......... 21 pounds
Cowpea hay ................................. 12 pounds
Silage ....................................... 30 pounds

It should be understood that the above rations ire not
necessarily to be fed in the exact quantities given above,
but should be modified to suit local conditions or the
actual conditions on each farm. They are given to show
approximately the average amounts and character of. feed
that would be consumed daily by a 1,000-pound steer dur-
ing the feeding period.
It is well to feed as near a balanced ration as possible
without materially increasing its cost. Sometimes the
prices of available feeds are such that a farmer is justified
in deviating from the standard. Such conditions are
illustrated by the use of some of the rations given above.
The second ration shown for the South is an example, as
that ration is very narrow, but in certain localities it is
more profitable than one which is balanced by the use of
high-priced carbohydrate feeds.












Two rations are shown for the West where kafir-corn
silage is used. With some farmers it would undoubtedly
be more profitable to use alfalfa hay as a substitute for
cottonseed meal, while with others the purchase of the
cottonseed meal would be more economical.

MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS.

Silage is a quick finishing roughage in that it produces
large daily gains and produces a glossy coat and a soft,
pliable skin. Moreover, it can be used to advantage at
times for carrying cattle for a longer time so as to pass
over a period of depression in the market, or to carry the
cattle along in thrifty condition so they can be finished at
a later period.
For many years the belief was general that cattle which
received silage as a major portion of the roughage would
have to be kept in warm barns and not be exposed to the
cold. While they do need protection from the cold winds
and rains and need a dry place to lie down, it has been
clearly demonstrated that warm barns are not only un
necessary but that fattened cattle make both larger and
cheaper gains when fed in the open sheds than when con-
fined in barns. Stocker or thin cattle receiving silage will
of course need more protection than animals which are
being fattened.
Silage can be profitably used to supplement the pas
tures for steers during a time of drought, when they are
being finished for market, but it is still an open question
whether it can always be used profitably for feeding to
breeding cattle during such times.
The theory that silage-fed cattle shrink very heavily in
shipping to market is erroneous. While the actual
shrinkage during transit is sometimes greater, the fill
taken at market is usually good, and if good judgment
is used in preparing them for shipping the net shrinkage
is no greater than for cattle which have been fed on dry












feeds. For 36 hours previous to shipping nice bright hay
and stover should be substituted for the silage in the
ration.
SThe general impression that choice or prime carcasses
can not be made by the use of succulent feed is equally
untrue, as the silage-fed cattle usually make more desir.
able carcasses than cattle fed a similar ration, except
that silage was replaced by one of the coarse fodders.
There is no appreciable difference in the percentage of
marketable meat that steers will dress out which have
been finished on a silage ration and a. dry ration. The
meat seems equally bright and the fat as well intermixed
with the lean.
If silage makes up the bulk of the roughage it will be
necessary to haul large amounts of bedding into the sheds
to keep the animals dry, as there is no waste in silage,
or else make a cement floor and cover with bedding to
absorb the urine and prevent the animals from' slipping
and to give them a warm place to lie down. When the
enormous saving in the quality and amount of the feed
is considered, this disadvantage does not seem so hard to
overcome by the stockman who has the capital to put up
the silo and pave his feed sheds or feed lots.

SILAGE FOR SHEEP.

By E. L. SHAW, Animal Husbandman in Sheep and Goat
Investigations.

The use of this succulent feed for sheep has attracted
the attention of most farmers only during the past few
years. Although a few sheepmen fed silage many years
ago with good results, most flock-masters have been slow
in giving it a trial. Owing to the wonderful increase in
the use of silos on farms, and owing to the cheapness of
silage as compared with other succulent feeds, such as
roots, farmers are constantly raising the question regard
ing the feeding of silage to sheep. A great deal has been












said of its bad effects upon sheep, but these have arisen
either because an inferior quality of silage was fed or on
account of carelessness on the part of the feeder in not
feeding it properly.
A good quality of silage is extremely palatable and can
be fed to all classes of sheep with good results. It must
be borne in mind, however, that silage which is either
very sour, moldy, or frozen should not be fed.
The amount of silage reported in feeding trials varies
from 1 to 5 pounds per head per day. The amount to
feed depends upon the class of sheep and the character of
the other feeds comprising the ration. As a general rule
from 2 to 4 pounds per head per day is considered as
much as should be fed.
Lamb feeders have found silage a very satisfactory
feed, and the amount fed ranges from 1 to 3 pounds per
day. Where lambs are on full feed of grain, such as corn,
and are receiving a fair allowance of hay, they will, as a
rule, only consume from 1 to 2 pounds per head per day
In feeding breeding ewes before lambing a daily al.
lowance of from 2 to 3 pounds should be considered a
maximum quantity. After lambing the amount can .be
slightly increased.
In feeding silage or any other succulent feeds it must
be borne in mind that the value of such feeds to a large
extent is to act as an appetizer and to keep the digestive
system in good condition. Under ordinary conditions
where silage is fed it should not constitute more than one-
half of the entire ration, and it should be fed with other
feeds that will properly balance the ration for the pur-
pose intended.

SILOS.

THE KIND OF SILO TO BUILD.

There.are silos and.silos. Nearly all of them will keep
,silage. Some of them cost more money than others











Some are, on account of material and construction, only
temporary. Others are permanent. A man must decide
for himself whether he will invest a smaller amount of
money, in a temporary silo that will last from ten to
twenty years, or invest a larger amount of money in a
permanent silo that will last his lifetime, and that of his
children perhaps. However, before building a si4 we-
should make some investigation of the various silos on-;
the market, learning their relative costs and efficiency..
A silo is not a piece of furniture, neither is it a piece of'
machinery. But a silo must have attention, just tiha
same as if it were a piece of machinery. The very best
silo may prove a failure if neglected. Hence, the things
to determine upon are these: Build a silo. Build a good
one. Take care of it.

THE STAVE SILO.

By far the greater number of silos in the State are of
the wooden stave type. This is a good silo. It will keep
silage with as little loss from spoiling as any silo on the
market, but not better than some other silos. There are
many different wooden stave silos put out by many dif-
ferent companies. Each company has a strong talking
point for its particular silo. However, it should be re.
membered that the best are none too good. That is, the
best silo that any company puts out is none too good.
If a man has not money enough to buy the best grade of
silo offered, he can be excused for taking an inferior one.
But it is never economy to buy a cheap silo of an inferior
quality. If possible, buy only the best grade of lumber,
the one piece stave.
The wooden stave silo demands more attention in the
summer time while it is empty than at any other time.
Since the silo is usually empty in the summer time it is
apt to be neglected. But during the summer when the
weather is hot and dry the staves will shrink and the











hoops get loose. If the nuts are iot kept on tight the
hoops may get so loose that the silo will fall down or
"fall to staves." When the hoops and staves of a silo be-
come loose; it sometimes does not take a very strong wind
.to blow it down, even if it is anchored.
A stave silo should be built or put up right. It should
not lean. It should be perpendicular. If the silo leans,
the silage will settle to one side, leaving a space between
the silage and the opposite wall. Where there is not
something else there will be air. The air getting into this
space will spoil a lot of silage..
Again, if the summer is hot and dry and the hoops of
the silo have been tightened several times, it will be neces
sary to loosen them when the silo is filled in the fall. If
this is not done the moisture from the silage swelling the
staves will cause them to "buck" in places, sometimes
letting in the air, or break the hoops. In either case
serious results will follow. When buying a stave silo,
remember the instructions given by the company from
whom it is bought. Even though some of us, it seems,
do like to be "hum-bugged," we are not living in the age
of gold bricks and fakes and fakers. Each company is
trying to put out a good silo. They are all trying to
"deliver the goods." Buy a good silo if you buy any, and
follow instructions. For best results a thin coating of
creosote should be applied to the inner wall of the silo
once in two years. Never paint the inner wall of a
wooden stave silo. If this is done, wood mold will likely
form in the wood and rot the stave. Paint the outside
wall. It will protect L.e wood from the weather and add
to the appearance of the silo.
The stave silo as it comes from the company is ready
to be put together. However, the purchaser must have
prepared a foundation on which to set the silo. This
foundation can be made of stone, brick or concrete. The
latter is preferable. The wall of the foundation should
be from eight inches to a foot in thickness, extending.











from two to three feet into the ground, and from 1 to
11 feet above the ground. A 32-foot continuous stave
with a foundation of four feet makes a good combination
for a silo 36 feet in height. It is a good practice to make
the foundation wall a foot thick at the bottom, tapering
to eight inches at the top, the slope being on the outside
In this way the inner wall is kept perpendicular. After
the wall is complete a floor of concrete should be laid.
The floor should be concave, several inches lower in the
center than around the wall. The cost of a stave silo
varies according to the size and quality of lumber, etc.
A stave silo of good quality, 16x32 feet, together with
the foundation, will cost about $375.00.

THE SOLID CONCRETE SILO. (MONOLITHIC.)

This is one of the permanent silos. When built proper
ly it will last longer than a lifetime. It will not blow
over. No guy wires are necessary. It will not dry out
and fall down. It will not burn down. If proper care
is taken in the construction, this type of silo will keep
silage perfectly. The question, "Will the solid concrete
silo keep silage?" is growing obsolete. Time was when
the stave silo men objected to the solid concrete silo on
the ground that it would crack and it would not keep the
silage, that too great a per cent of silage would spoil in
it. However, since we have learned how to build concrete
silos there is less objection of this nature. Much that has
been said against the concrete silo is not warranted. It
is true that some concrete silos have cracked, and silage
has spoiled in some. But if the solid concrete silo is
reinforced in the right way it will not crack. If the
proper proportion of cement, sand, and gravel or chats
is used in the wall with enough water to make the mix
ture impervious to air this type of silo will preserve
silage perfectly. One difficulty has been in not using
enough cement. Another has been that of not getting











the right amount of water in the mixture. If the mixture
is too dry, there will be porous places that will admit
the air. Again, if too much water is used the cement
and sand will "run" leaving the gravel or chats, which
ever is used, without enough cement to prevent cracking
and to exclude the air. Some skill is required in building
a concrete silo. However, any man who has had experi
ence in making concrete walks, concrete watering
troughs, etc., on the farm can build a concrete silo. If
a man has had no experience in making things of con-
crete, he had better secure the services of some one who
has had experience to build his concrete silo for him. He
can employ men who know how to do concrete work and
let them carry out his plans, or he can have the silo built
by contract by a man who makes the building of concrete
silos his'business.
Regardless of who builds the silo, the farmer or a con-
tractor, these two things must be remembered: First,
use enough cement. Second, use enough reinforcing
material. The mixture of cement, sand and gravel (in.
stead of gravel, crushed rock or chats may be used) gen-
erally used is one of cement, two of sand and four of
gravel. This proportion is generally designated thus:
1:2:4.
For reinforcing, woven wire has proven very success
ful. A woven wire fencing, 38 inch, No. 9 wire, with a
5 or 6-inch mesh, answers the purpose very well.
The following estimate of cement, sand, gravel and
woven wire for a solid concrete silo, six-inch wall, 16x32
feet, may be of assistance in building such a silo:

Portland cement (mixture, 1:2:4)........... 220 sacks.
Sand ............................... 15 cu. yds.
Gravel ............................. 30 cu. yds.
Woven wire (38-inch fencing, 40 rods).2,090 sq. ft.

The table given below, taken from bulletin 103, Mis
souri Experiment Station, gives the amounts of cement,
sand and gravel for silos of different sizes:












Material for Silos of Varying Sizes.


Silo Silo Silo
12 x 28 ft. 14 x 0 ft. 16 x 32 ft.
Cement, barrels......... 37 45 55
Sand, cubic yards ....... 11 13 15
Gravel or stone, cu. yds.. 21 26 30

The forms for building concrete silos can be homemade
or bought. If the forms are made at home they will cost
about $50. If they are bought, the price will vary. The
steel forms on the market are serviceable, easily handled,
and can be rented out for enough to pay for the first cost.
However, in either case, whether homemade or bought,
it is advisable sometimes for several men in a community
to share equally in making or buying the forms. All can
use them and the expense when shared in this way is not
very great. The cost of a solid concrete silo, 16x32, six
inch wall, will vary from $350 to $450, depending upon
the price of labor and cement and the distance that ma
trial must be hauled.
The expense of maintaining the solid concrete silo is
practically nothing. During the summer when the silo
is empty the walls become very dry. For this reason the
walls should be wet thoroughly before new silage is put
in. This precaution should be taken with all concrete
silos, and with stave silos as well. It will prevent the
walls from absorbing moisture from the silage, causing
it to mold. Just as the stave silo should have a treatment
of creosote on the inside once in two years, so should the
concrete silo have a thin coat of cement and water every
two years. This should be of the consistency of white
wash. It will serve to stop up all poses and to keep the
wall smooth.

THE CONCRETE BLOCK SILO.

It is not claimed that the concrete block silo will keep
4-Bul.









' 50


silage any better than will the solid wall type. However,
the concrete block silo has one advantage over the mono-
lithic type-i. e., the blocks can be made at times when
other work on the farm is not pressing. Anybody can
make the blocks for a concrete silo. Since the blocks can
be made at leisure times and by cheap labor, and further,
since the blocks are more easily handled than concrete,
some men prefer this type rather than the solid wall type.
The blocks are hollow (of dimensions to suit the builder)
and are made with a groove in one side through which
passes an iron rod for reinforcing. This type of silo must
be well reinforced to prevent cracking. Strong iron rods
are used for this purpose. There are a great many silos
of this type in use in the States. The concrete block silo
of a given size costs, on an average, about the same as
the monolithic type, or a good stave silo.

THE GURLER SILO (PLASTERED).

This type of silo is in common use in Missouri and
other States. It gets its name from Mr. H. B. Gurler, of
Illinois. He was the first man to try it and advocate its
use. The claim of this silo for recognition is on account of
its low cost as compared to that of other temporary silos,
and because native lumber can be used in its construc-
tion. It is a homemade silo.
The foundation is made of concrete extending from 11
to 2 feet into the ground and the same distance above the
ground. Before the foundations hardens a sill is laid in
the top of the concrete. To this sill two by four scant-
lings or studdings are nailed. These studdings are set
on the sill 18 inches apart. To the inside of the studding,
running round and round, is nailed half inch sheeting of
native lumber. Either elm, sycamore, cottonwood, pine,
cypress or oak will do. Inside of this laths are nailed.
The laths can be homemade. But if they must be bought
the steel laths are better. The laths should run with the












sheeting. To the laths a half-inch layer of cement plaster
is applied. When this is done the silo, though not com-
plete, can be used. There should be a cement floor, con-
cave, lower in the center than around the wall. In order
to protect, the inner wall, boxing should be put on the
studding outside, and the boxing painted. Vents or holes
should be made in the boxing below and in the inner wall
above to allow a free passage oi air between the walls.
This will prevent wood mold from forming and destroy-
ing the sheeting. A roof should be put on to keep the
rain or snow out in the winter time. Snow will riot in-
jure the silage. It is disagreeable to handle. A roof is
necessary to keep out water in Florida, though not
enough water to injure the silage is likely to fall into the
silo in winter, but all silos should be covered in Florida.
This type of silo, when properly built, will keep silage
perfectly. However, it is as stated obove, only a tem-
porary silo. It will last from ten to fifteen years, accord-
ing to the material used and the attention it receives
It will last as long as the average stave silo. It will not
dry out and collapse. There are no hoops to keep tighten
ed. Where all the material for the Gurler silo must be
bought, a silo 16x32 feet can be built for about $225. If
native lumber sawed from timber on the farm can be
used, the expense will be less. Many silos of this type
and the size mentioned have been built for an expenditure
ranging from $125 to $150.
Another type of silo very similar to the Gurler is in
common use. Instead of putting on the laths and cement
plaster, a layer of tar paper is used. Inside of this is
put another thickness of half-inch sheeting. A silo of
this kind is even cheaper than the Gurler. It will keep
silage well and last from 10 to 12 years, maybe longer.
depending, of course, on the material used.

THE SIZE OF SILO TO BUILD.

The diameter of the silo should be determined by the












number of head of stock that must be fed, and the height
should be determined by the number of days desired in
the feeding period. It is necessary to feed from an inch
and a half to two inches a day off of the top in order to
keep the silage fresh and sweet. It will readily be seen
that if the diameter is very great and the number of head
of stock to feed is small there is a chance of having to
take out of the silo each day more silage than the stock
can eat. This, of course, would result in a great waste
of feed. It is much better to have two small silos than
one very large one, especially when-the number of stock
is small and the feeding period desired is long. Again,
if two small silos are built in preference to one large one,
one silo can be left undisturbed until needed, or perhaps
can be -had for summer use when pastures are short or
feed scarce. In general, the following rule is a good one.
"The height of a silo should never be less than twice the
diameter." The taller the silo of a given diameter the
greater the weight on a given area of surface and the
greater the amount of silage it will hold. Not only will
a tall silo hold proportionately more silage, but it will
keep silage better. The greater weight serves to pack the
silage more tightly and to exclude the air, one of the two
agencies that cause silage to spoil.
Since a mature beef animal will eat about the same
amount of silage in a day as a dairy cow of the same
size, the following tables taken from Bulletin 103 of the
Missouri Experiment Station are offered here. Table No.
1 will serve to give a better idea of the relation existing
between the size of the silo to the length of the feeding
period and the number of head of stock to feed. Table
No. 2 will serve to show the capacity of silos of varying
sizes:












Table No. 1.


Relation of Size of Silo to Length of Feeding Period and
Size of Herd.


Feed for 180 days. Feed for 240 days.

No.
Cows Estimated Size of Silo. Estimated Size of Silo.
in tonnage tonnage
herd. of silage Diam. Height, of silage Diam. fHeight,
consumed, feet. feet. consumed, feet. feet.
tons. tons.

10 36 10 25 48 10 31
12 43 10 28 57 10 35
15 54 11 29 72 11 36
20 72 12 32 96 12 39
25 90 13 33 120 13 40
30 108 14 34 144 15 37
35 126 15 34 168 16 38
40 144 16 35. 192 17 39
45 162 16 37 216 18 39
50 180 17 37 240 19 39

The following table gives further figures regarding the
capacity of silos of different sizes:

Table No. 2.

Capacity of Silos of Varying Sizes.


Inside diameter of silo in feet.


Depth of silage, ft. 10 12 14 16 18

Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons.
25 ............... 36 52 68 96 122
28 ............... 40 01 81 108 137
30 ............... 44 G6 00 11o 150
32 ................ 50 72 95 126 162
34 ............... 53 77 108 142 171
36 ................ 57 82 114 158 194












After ascertaining the capacity of silos of various sizes
and learning the length of time the silage in each will
last with a given number .of animals to feed, our next
question will probably be, "How many acres of corn are
required to fill a silo of given dimensions?" The answer
to this question can be found in the data given below.
This data is taken from Bulletin 103, Missouri Experi-
ment Station:

Average Yield of Silage Per Acre.
Yield of corn, Yield of silage,
bushels, tons.
30 6
40 8
50 10
60 12
80 16
100 20
It will be seen from the figures just given that corn
yielding 50 bushels to the acre will make ten tons o'1
silage to the acre. Quoting Professor C. H. Eckles, in
the bulletin just mentioned, he states:
"'Upon the basis of total food value 21 tons of silage
are equal to one ton of timothy hay. This means that a
yield of 10 tons of silage per acre is equivalent in feed
ing value to 4 tons of timothy hay per acre. On the same
basis, when corn is worth 50 cents per bushel a ton of
silage is worth $3.35. Calculated in this way, an acre of
corn yielding 50 bushels per acre when put into the silo
is worth $33.50, while at 50 cents per bushel the grain is
worth $25.00."

HOW TO DETERMINE THE WEIGHT OF SILAGE IN THE SILO.

Sometimes we would like to know just how many
pounds or tons of silage remain in a silo after we have
begun feeding. Feeders have been heard to say: "If I
had known that my silage would run out before grass was
good enough for pasture, I should have fed a little light-
er." If the silage is partly used out of a silo and we wish











55


to sell the remainder, we would like some method of com-
puting the number of tons that we may have for sale.
The table given below shows the computed weight of
well-matured corn silage at different distances below the
surface, and the total weight to those distances, two days
after filling. The table was compiled from Wisconsin
Bulletin No. 59:


Weight per Total weight
Cubic foot of one square
Depth of silage, feet. silage at foot area to
different depth given.
depths, lbs. lbs.

1 .......................... 18.7 18.7
2 .......................... 20.4 39.1
3 .......................... 22.1 61.2
4 .......................... 23.7 84.9
5 .......................... 25.4 110.3
6 .......................... I 27.0 137.3
7 ........................... 28.5 165.8
8 ........................... 30.1 195.9
9 .......................... 31.6 227.5
10 .......................... 33.1 260.6
11 .......................... 34.5 295.1
12 .......................... 35.9 331.0
13 .......................... 37.3 368.3
14 .......................... 38.7 407.0
15 .......................... 40.0 447.0
16 .......................... 41.3 488.3
17 .......................... 42.6 530.9
18 .......................... 43.8 574.3
19 .......................... 45.0 619.7
20 .......................... 46.2 665.0
21 .......................... 47.4 713.3
22 .......................... 48.5 761.8
23 .......................... 49.6 811.4
24 .......................... 50.6 862.0
25 .......................... 51.5 I 913.7
20 .......................... 52.7 061 6.4
27 .......................... 573. 1020.0
28 .......................... 54.6 1074.6
29 .......................... 55.5 1130.1
30 .......................... 56.4 1186.5
31 .......................... 57.2 1243.7
32 ........................... 5.58.0 1301.7
33 .......................... 58.8 1360.5
34 .......................... 59.6 1420.1
35 ....... ................... 60.3 1480.4
36 .......................... 61.0 1541.4












ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE METHODS
OF CALCULATING SIZE AND COST OF SOME
HOME MADE SILOS, AND OTHER VALUABLE
AND NECESSARY DATA ON SILOS, FEEDS, ETC.


The concrete silo has the advantage over all others in
permanency and stability. A well constructed con-
crete silo will last indefinitely; there is no danger of
its blowing or burning down, rotting out, or being at-
tacked by vermin. Little attention is required to keep it
in good condition. The chief objection to it is, its cost.
In the end it is cheapest.

COST OF SILOS.

Recent data on the cost of home-made silos collected
from all parts of the country show the following relative
cost of the three types:


Average
So s. Nuner Average Average cost per
Tye of silo. capacity, cost ton ca-
tons. pacity.

Concrete: |
100 tons or less....... 71 71 $220.47 $ 3.10
101 to 200 tons....... 50 135 348.68 2.59
More than 200 tons... 23 219 446.42 2.04
Total concrete.... ] 144 117 301.08 2.58
Modified Wisconsin ..... 8 116 185.52 1.61
Stave:
100 tons or less....... 25 C3 118.40 1.87
Over 100 tons........ 16 129 187.46 1.45
Total stave....... 41 89 145.35 1.63


The following table will show the proper diameter of
the silo for herds of different sizes to be fed different
amounts for winter feeding, when 2 inches of silage are
removed daily:












Relation of size of herd to diameter of silo for winter feeding (on
.basis of 40 pounds of Silage per cubic foot.)

Number of animals that may be fed,
Inside Quantity allowing-
Diam- of silage
eter of in depth of 40 30 20 15
silo. 2 inches. pounds pounds pounds pounds
per head. per head. per head. per head.
Feel. Pounds.
10 524 13 17 26 35
11 634 16 21 31 42
12 754 19 25 37 50
13 885 22 29 44 59
14 1,026 25 34 51 6S
15 1,178 29 39 59 7S
16 1,340 33 44 67 89
17 1,513 38 50 75 101
18 1,696 42 56 83 113
20 2,094 52 70 104 139


A 900-pound cow will ordinary consume 30 pounds of
silage a day; a 1,200-pound cow about 40 pounds. Year
lings will eat about one-half as much as mature animals;
fattening cattle, 25 to 35 pounds for each 1,000 pounds
live weight. A sheep will take about one-eighth as much
as a cow. Horses should be limited to 15 to 20 pounds
daily.
In general, the depth of the silo should not be less than
twice nor more than three times the diameter. The great
er the depth the better the silage, on account of the pres-
sure from above. If less than 24 feet in height the quality
of silage will not be the best. A very great height, how
ever, is to be avoided on account of the excessive amount
of power required to elevate the cut corn into the silo.










58

CAPACITY OF ROUND SILOS.

Approximate Capacity of Cylindrical Silos, for -Well-Matured
Corn Silage, in Tons.

(From Modern Silage Methods.)


Height of
Silo Inside, Inside Diameter of Silo, Feet.
Feet.

l8 10 11 12 31 1 15 16 17 17 8 19 20
20 ......... 18 30 36 45 51 60 66 -
21 ......... 19 31 39 48 54 63 71 -
22 ......... 20 33 41 50 57 6 76 87 -
23 .........22 34 43 52 60 70 80 91 -
24 ......... 23 36 45 55 64 73 85 104 120 122 -
25 ......... 24 38 48 57 68 77 90 99 110 125 129 145
26 ......... 25 40 50 60 71 80 94 103 116 130 137 155
27 ......... 27 42 52 63 75 85 98 107 121 136 145 161
28 ......... 28 44 54- 66 79 90 102 111 126 140 152 170
29 ......... 30 46 56 70 83 95 1061116 132 145 160 177
30 ......... 31 48 58 75 86 100 110 120 136 150 168 185
31 ......... 33 50 62 79 90 105 114 125 141 156 176 193
32......... 5 53 66 84 94 110 118 131 148 162184 200
33 .........36 55 69 89 98 115 123 137 155 169 192 208
34 ......... 37 58 73 94 102 120 1311 143 162 1751 200 217
35 ......... 39 61 77 100 1061125 136 149 169 1831209 226
36 ......... 40 64 82 105 110 130 139 155 176 1901 218 235
37 ......... 41 67 86 109 115 135 144 161 183 200 227 245
38 ......... 43 70 89 114 1191140 151 167 190 212 236 256
39 ......... 45 73 95 118 1241 145 157 173 197 220 245 267
40 ......... 47 75 98 121 129 150 165 180 204 228 255 279
41 ......... 77 101 125 134 155 170 187 211 236 262 290
42 ......... 80 104 128 139 160! 176 193 218 244 270 300
43 ......... 132 1441166 181 201 225 252 280 310
44 ......... -135 15011711 188 207233 2611 289 320
45 ......... -I -- --176 195 215 240 2691298 330
46 ......... 182 200 222 247 277 307 340
47 ......... -- -229 254 285 316350
48 ......... -- -- -- 236 261 293 325 361
49 ......... -- -- -- -- 301 334 371
50 ......... -- -- -- -- -- 310 3441382













Table Showiing Required Acreage and IStoclk Feeding capacity
for Silos of Various Sizes.

(From Modern Silage Methods).


Capacity in
Dimensions. Tons.

10 x 20 30
10 x 24 36
10 x 28 44
10 x 32 53
10 x 40 75
12 x 20 45
12 x 24 55
12 x 28 G6
12 x 32 84
12 x 40 121
14 x 20 60
14 x 22 66
14 x 24 73
14 x 28 90
14 x 32 110
14 x 40 150
16 x 24 05
16 x 28 111
10 x 32 130
16 x 40 180
18 x 30 150
18 x 36 190
18 x 40 229
18 x 36 277
20 x 30 185
20 x 40 279
,20 x 50 382
20 x 60 500


Acres to Fill. Cows it will keep
15 Tons to cre mos., 40 lbs.
S Feed per day.

3. 8
3. 10
3. 11
3.4 14
4.6 19
3. 11
3.2 13
4.1 15
5. 20
7.3 27
4.2 15
4.5 17
4.7 19
5.6 22
6.7 27
9.2 37
6.2 24
7.2 29
8.7 35
12. 49
10.2 41
13. 50
15.3 62
18.8 .77
12.5 50
18.8 77
25.5 104
32. 136


APPROXIMATE COST OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF SILOS.


The cost of a silo will depend on local conditions as to
price of labor and materials; how much labor has to be
paid for; the size of the silo, etc. The comparative data
for the cost of two round silos, 13 and 25 feet in diameter.
and 30 feet deep, is given by Prof. King, as shown in the
following table:












S(From Modern Silage Methods).

la Feet Inside 25 Feet Inside
Diameter. Diameter.
Kinds of Silo.
Without With Without With
Roof. Roof. Roof Roof.

Stone Silo.............. $ 151 $ 175 $ 264 $ 328
Brick Silo.............. 243 273 437 494
Brick-lined Silo, 4 inches
thick .............. 142 230 310 442
Brick-lined, 2 in. thick.. 131 190 239 369
Lathed and plastered
Silo ................. 133 185 344 363
Wood Silo with Galvan-
ized Iron ........... 168 185 308 432
Wood Silo with Paper.. 128 222 235. 358
Stave Silo............. 127 183, 136 289
Cheapest Wood Silo.... 101 144 195 240


The following rule for feeding good dairy cows is a
safe one to be guided by: Feed as much roughage (Succu-
lent feeds like silage or roots, and hay) as the cows will
eat up clean, and in addition, 1 pound of grain feed (con-
centrates) a day per head for every pound of butter fat
they produce in a week (or one-third to one-fourth as
many pounds as they give milk daily.
The farmer should aim to grow protein foods like
clover, alfalfa, peas, etc., to as large extent as practica-
ble, and thus reduce his feed bill.
The following table gives actual chemical analysis of
the products mentioned and includes the entire contents
of the various feeds. The next table shows the average
amount of digestible nutrients in the more common
American fodders, grains and by-products, and is the
table that should be used in formulating rations. The
table gives the number of pounds of digestible nutrients
contained in 100 lbs. of the feeds and these figures can,
therefore, be used in figuring out the amount of digesti-
ble nutrients in any given amount of a food material.














Average Composition of Silage Crops of Different Kinds,
in Per Cent.

(From Modern Silage Methods).


Corn Silage, Ma-
ture Corn ....
Immature Corn .
Ears removed...
Clover Silage ...
Soja Bean Silage
Cow-pea Vine
Silage .......
Field-pea Vine
Silage .......
Corn cannery re-
fuse Husks...
Corn cannery re-
fuse Cubs ....
Pea can'y Refuse
SorgLum Silage.
Corn-soja Bean
Silage .......
Millet-soja Bean
Silage .......
Rye Silage......
Apple Pomace
Silage .......
Cow-pea and
Soja Bean
mixed .......
Corn kernels ...
Mixed grasses
(Rowen) ....
Brewers' Grain
Silage .......


Water



73.7
79.1
80.7
72.0
74.2

.79.3

50.0

83.8

74.1
76.8
76.1

76.0

79.0
80.8

85.0


69.8
41.3

18.4

69.8


Crude Nitrogen Ether
Ash. Protein Fiber. free 'ct.
Extract.


1.6 2.2 6.5 14.1 .61
1.4 1.7 6.0 11.0 .8I
1.8 1.8 5.6 9.5 .6;
2.6 4.2 8.4 11.6 1.2:
2.8 4.1 9.7 6.9 2.2

2.9 2.7 6.0 7.6 1.5

3.6 5.9 13.0 26.0 1.6

.6 1.4 5.2 7.9 1.1

.5 1.5 7.9 14.3 1.7
1.3 2.8 6.5 11.3 1.3
1.1 .8 6,4 15.3 .3

2.4 2.5 7.2 11.1 .8

2.8 2.8 7.2 7.2 1.0
1.6 2.4 5.8 9.2 .3

.6 1.2 3.3 8.8 1.1


4.5 3.8 9.5 11.1 1.3
1.0 6.0 1.5 46.6 3.6

7.1 10.1 22.8 36.0 5.7

1.2 6.6 4.7 15.6 2.1











62


Analysis of Feeding Stuffs, of the More Common American
Fodders, Grains and By-lroducts.

(From Hoard's Dairyman).


Digestible Nutrients in
100 Pounds.
Dry
Name of Feed. Matter in Ether
100 Lbs. Protein. Carbohy- Extract
S rates. (Crude
Ls Lbs. Fat)
Lbs.
Green Fodders.
Pasture Grasses, mixed. 20.0 2.5 10.2 0.5
Fodder Corn ........... 20.7 1.0 11.6. 0.4
Sorghum .............. 20.6 0.6 12.2 0.4
Red Clover............. 29.2 2.9 14.8 0.7
Alfalfa ................ 28.2 3.9 12.7 0.5
Cow Pea............... 16.4 1.8 8.7 0.2
Soja Bean.............. 24.9 3.2 11.0 0.5
Oat Fodder............. 37.8 2.6 18.9 1.0
Rye Fodder ............ 23.4 2.1 14.1 0.4
Rape ................... 14.0 1.5 8.1 0.2
Peas and Oats......... 16.0 1.8 7.1 0.2
Beet Pulps.............. 10.2 0.6 7.3

Silage

Corn ................. 20.9 0.9 11.3 0.7
Corn Wisconsin Analyses 26.4 1.3 14.0 0.7
Sorghun .............. 23.9 0.6 14.9 0.2
Red Clover............. 28.0 2.0 13.5 1.0
Alfalfa ................ 27.5 3.0 8.5 1.9
Cow Pea............... 20.7 1.5 8.6 0.9
Soja Bean.............. 25.8 2.7 8.7 1.3

Dry Fodder and Hay.

Corn Fodder .......... 57.8 2.5 34.6 1.2
Corn Fodder, Wis. Anal.. 71.0 3.7 40.4 1.2
Corn Stover............ 59.5 1.7 32.4 0.7
Sorghum Fodder........ 59.7 1.5 37.3 0.4
Red Clover............. 84.7 6.8 35.8 1.7
Alfalfa ................ 91.6 11.0 39.6 1.2
Barley ................ 85.2 56.2 46.6 1.5
Blue Grass............. 78.8 4.8 37.3 2.0
Cow Pea................ 89.3 10.8 38.6 1.1
Crab Grass ............. 82.4 5.7 390.7 1.4
Johnson Grass.......... 87.7 2.4 47.8 0.7
Marsh Grass ............ 88.4 2.4 29.9 0.9
Millet ................. 92.3 4.5 51.7 1.3













Oat Hay .............. 91.1 4.3 40.4 1.5
Ort and Pea Hay...... 85.4 9.2 36.8 1.2
Orchard Grass.......... 90.1 4.9 42.3 1.4
Prairie Grass........... 87.5. 3.5 41.8 1.4
Red Top .............. 91.1 4.8 46.9 1.0
Timothy ............... 86.8 2.8 43.4 1.4
Timothy and Clover..... 85.3 4.8 39.6 1.6
Vetch ................. 88.7 12.9 47.5 1.4
White Daisy........... 85.0 3.8 40.7 1.2

Grain and By-Products.

Barley ................ 89.1 8.7 C 5.0 1.0
Brewers' Grains, dry... 91.8 15.7 3(.3 1.0
Brewers' Grains, wet.... 24.3 3.9 9.3 1.4
Malt Sprouts........... 89.8 18.6 37.1 1.7
Buckwheat ............ 87.4 7.7 49.2 1.8
Buckwheat Bran....... 89.5 7.4 30.4 1.9
Buckwheat Middlings.. 87.3 22.0 33.4 5.4
Corn .................. 89.1 7.9 (' .7 4.3
Corn and Cob Meal..... 89.0 6.4 03.0 3.5
Corn Cob............... 89.3 0.4 52.5 0.3
Corn Bran............. 90.9 7.4 59.8 4.6
Atlas Gluten Meal...... 92.0 24.6 38.8 11.5
Gluten Meal............ 88.0 32.1 41.2 2.5
Germ Oil Meal......... 90.0 20.2 44.5 8.8
Gluten Feed............ 90.0 23.3 50.7 2.7
Iominy Chop .......... 88.9 7.5 55.2 6.8
Starch Feed. wet....... 34.0 5.5 21.7 2.3
Cotton Seed............ 89.7 12.5 30.0 17.3
Cotton Seed Meal....... 91.8 37.2 16.9 8.4
Cotton Seed Hulls...... 88.9 0.3 33.1 1.7
Cocoanut Meal......... 89.7 15.6 38.3 10.5
Cow Peas........ ...... 85.2 18.3 54.2 1.1
Flax Seed............. 90.8 20.6 17.1 29.0
Oil Meal, old process.... 90.8 29.3 32.7 7.0
Oil Meal, new process... 89.9 28.2 40.1 2.8
Cleveland Oil Meal..... 89. 32.1 25..1 2.6
Kaffir Corn............. 84.8 7.8 57.1 2.7
Millet ................. 86.0 8.9 45.0 3.2
Oats .................. 89.0 9.2 47.3 4.2
Oat Feed or Shorts...,.[ 92.3 12.5 46.9 2.8
Oat Dust............. 93.5 8.9 38.4 5.1
Peas .................. 89.5 16.8 51.8 0.7
Quaker Dairy Feed..... 92.5 9.4 50.1 3.0
Rye ................... 88.4 9.9 (7.0 1.1
Rye Bran .............. 88.4 11.5 50.3 | 2.0
Wheat ................ 89.5 10.2 69.2 1.7
Wheat Bran............ 88.1 12.6 38.6 3.0
Wheat Middlings........( 87.9 12,8 53.0 3.4
WHeat Shorts.......... 88.2 12.2 50.0 3.8
1I












OTHER REASONS FOR RAISING LIVE STOCK.

From earliest times man has owned flocks and herds
of live stock. It has been from time immemorial one of
the most universal and profitable industries. In fact it
was in ancient times, as it is now, the great necessity
for many's comfort and support; it was his greatest
source of livelihood, as well as of wealth, being his chief
occupation. At present live stock is growing scarcer all
the time; already this year the number of hogs has de-
creased over ten per cent and cattle over twelve per
cent as compared with last year. The short supply has
increased the demand and, consequently, the value also.
Another point not usually considered is, that our
lands are as yet, cheap by comparison, and therefore an
additional reason why live stock production in Florida
must be profitable. And another is that the condition
of the wreck and ruin that is blighting humanity across
the seas, is destroying millions of live stock that must
be replaced either for man's active physical use, or food.
The devastation that follows in the wake of war always
increases the demand for the necessities of life. It will
be doubly true in this instance because of the magnitude
of the occasion. Therefore, grow cattle, hogs, sheep,
horses and mules. All that can be grown, will be in de-
mand in the near future, and grow them by modern
methods, herein suggested. The present opportunity for
this industry is without example in recent times.

CONCLUSION.

In the foregoing pages we have endeavored to convince
those interested in this subject, of the ability of this
State to produce live stock successfully and profitably,
and to show how this industry can be maintained. There
can be no reasonable doubt of its practicability. We
have the soils to produce the grasses, forage crops and
grain crops; a climate favorable throughout the year, a











blessing which we have not yet even begun to appre-
ciate at its full value, yet it is one of the most marked
and singular advantages of the State when it is realized
that, in more northerly States, live stock must be housed
and fed six to eight months of the year. In any part of
Florida three months is ample time. In the not distant
past, Florida shipped a large number of cattle to Cuba
and other nearby countries. These were generally range
stock, but in recent years these countries have to a great
extent supplied their own market. The stock ranges of
those times are practically passed, for good, ahd it is
well that it is so. In the past it may have been good
business policy to adopt the methods then pursued, but
that which may have been sound policy in one condition
of affairs may be just the reverse in another. We have
never availed ourselves of the full natural resources with
which our State is blessed. On the contrary we have
either overlooked or wasted them. It behooves us to
turn our errors to good account, and when we have
availed ourselves of these natural resources, have grasped
the real meaning of new ideas and adopted modern
methods of agricultural and industrial science, we will
quickly attain a degree of prosperity which will make
our State a marvel of 'even this progressive age.


5--Bul.






















PART II.


REPORT OF CONDITION AND PROSPEC-
TIVE YIELD OF CROPS.













DIVISION OF THE STATE BY COUNTIES.


Following are the divisions of
ties contained in each:

Northern Division.

Franklin,
Gadsden,
Hamilton,,
Jefferson,
SLafayette,
Leon,
Liberty,
Madison,
Suwannee,
Taylor,
Wakulla-11.

Western Division.

Bay,
Calhoun,
Escambia,
Holmes,
Jackson.
Santa Rosa,
Walton,
Washington-8.


the State, and the coun-


Northeastern Division.

Alachua,
Baker,
Bradford,
Clay,
Columbia,
Duval,
Nassau,
Putnam,
St. Johns-9.

Central Division.

Citrus,
Hernando,
Lake,
Levy,
Marion,
Orange,
Pasco,
Seminole,
Sumter,
Volusia-10.


Southern Division.


Brevard,
Dade,
DeSoto,
Hillsborough,
Lee,
Manatee,


Monroe,
Osceola,
Palm Beach,
Pinellas,
Polk,
St. Lucie-12.
















DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
W. A. McRAE, Commissioner. H. S. ELLIOT, Chief Clerk.


CONDENSED NOTES OF CORRESPONDENTS.

BY DIVISIONS.

NORTHERN DIVISION.-From careful reports by our cor-
respondents throughout this district, the conclusion is
readily arrived at that the crops generally, with one ex-
ception, are from 10 to 20 per cent. poorer than last
year at this time. Cotton is the exception and undoubt-
edly cotton shows the best condition and the best indi-
cated yield that it has shown for several years. We,
therefore, cannot help but conclude that the cotton crop
in this section will be as large, if not larger, than yet
produced. The other crops, as before stated, are con-
siderably decreased. Corn averages from 20 to 25 per
cent. less than last year in both condition and indicated
yield. The season so far with the exception of a short
time in the beginning of the year, has been an especially
favorable one for the growing of cotton and it has had
its effect in a large crop. This has also been a favorable
season for pastures and for live stock. Although at
times the season has been a dry one, yet very little in-
convenience has been felt because of it. Stock generally
is in good condition and less complaint of the effects of
fatal diseases than there was last year. The best crops
that we will have Ihis year are the hay and forage crops
which, if properly used to advantage, are among the most
valuable of farm products when it comes to the support
and maintenance of the farm.
WESTERN DIVISION.-In this division conditions are
practically the same as in the foregoing division. Crops











of all kinds indicate about the same condition and yield.
The best crops noted in this section are cotton, peanuts
and velvet beans. Cowpeas are good, but the rest of the
crops, including corn, will be short about the same per-
centage as in the foregoing section. Live stock is re-
ported in good condition and doing well. The season has
been favorable for the production of pastures and forage
plants. No fatal diseases are reported.
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION.-In this division there is
practically no difference in the condition and prospective
yield of the crops, especially the important ones. Cotton
is slightly shorter in this division than in the previous
ones, but in this division sea island cotton predominates.
Both varieties of cotton, however, are shorter than in the
divisions first above mentioned. Corn is about the
same. Sugar cane slightly better, and the forage crops
average just about the same as in the former two. In
these conditions of cotton we have the proor of the char-
acter of the season, especially when we compare it with
the condition of the indicated yield of the corn crop.
One requires a uniformly warm and dry temperature, the
other uniformly moist and moderate temperature. The
first condition has prevailed throughout all the foregoing
districts. The fruit in this district indicates a slightly
better crop than last year, and the condition of live stock
is also good as in the former. No reports of diseases
have been made.
CENTRAL DIvIsIoN.-There is no appreciable difference
in the condition of crops in this division and those just
above considered. In this section of the tSate the citrus
fruit crops begin to show up in preponderance of the
others, but the usual farm crops adapted to that section
show about the same condition and indicated yield as the
former sections. It shows that there has been a remark-
able uniformity in climatic conditions throughout the
State for this to occur. There is little cotton grown in
this section, but what is grown is in good condition and








73

indicates a good yield. The condition of live stock in
this section is also good.
SOUTHERN DIVIsioN.-In this division the climatic con-
ditions that prevailed were about the same as throughout
other sections of the State. There has been little rain
in some sections and much less than was necessary for
the regular crops, but they have done tolerably well con-
sidering the slight precipitation that has fallen through-
out the district, and it is quite possible that with the
improvement of the last few weeks that the grape fruit
and orange crop will be somewhat superior to that of
last year. The principal increase, in the opinion of the
correspondents, will be on the part of grape fruit, which
they expect to see far exceed any former crop. It is,
therefore, possible that the citrus fruit crop of this sea-
son will exceed that.of last year by 10 to 12 per cent.








, 2


75


REPORT OF CONDITION AND PROSPECTIVE YIELD OF CROPS,
FRUIT AND FRUIT TREES, AND CONDITION OF LIVE STOCK,
FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPT. 30, 1914, AS COMPARED WITH
SAME PERIOD LAST YEAR.


COUNTY. Upland Cotton. Sea Island Cotton.


Northern Division.

Franklin ..............
Gadsden ................
Hamilton ...........
Jefferson ................
Lafayette ...............
Leon ............ .
Madison .. .........
Suwannee ...............
Taylor ..................
W akulla ..............
Div. Av. per cent......


j condition. IProspective Condition. (Prospective
Y field. Yield.
- '.. .. ..
i120 125 100 100
90 100 70 80
65 80
......5 so .... ..100 80
100 110 .......... .........
90 90 110 110
80 80 99 99
S.......... .......... 00 90
80 80 75 80
S 89 1 96 92 I 91


Western Division.
Calhoun ............. 125 125 100 100
Escam bia ............... 50 50 .......... ..........
Holmes ............... .......... .......... 100 105
Jackson .......... ... 100 110 ... .. .. ..........
Santa Rosa ........... 65 65 ....................
W alton .................. 75 75 .....................
W ashington .... ....... 90 00 .......... .........
Div. Av. per cent........ 84 I 86 100 102
Northeastern Division.
Alachua ................ 90 80 75 80
Baker .............. 75 75 80 80
Bradford ............... 70 85 70 85
(lay .............. ...... ......... 100 100
Nassau ................. 100 100 100 100
Putnam ................... ............... ...
St. Johns .. .......... ........ I ... .... .. ..... ".
Div Av. per cent........ 84 85 I 86 85
Central Division.
Citrus ........... .. .......... ......... .. .........
H ernando ............... .......... .......... .... ...... .
Levy ......... ..... 85 75 80
Marion ................. 100 100 100 100
Orange .. .. .. ..... ". ....... .
P asco .................... ..... .......... .........
Seminole .... .................. ......... ... ...
Sum ter ................ ......... ...... .. ....... .. ......
Volusia ................ ...... .... ...... ... ..............
Div. Av. per cent........ I i92 87 I 0 I 87
Southern Division.


Brevard ......... .... .. ...... ... ........ .. ......... ..........
Dade ............ ................. I .. .......... ...... ..
DeSoto .............. .......... .. ........ ..... ..
Hillsboro ............... .......... --.......... ..... .
Lee ..................... ... .... .. ... .
O sceola .................I ....... ***------- *
inellas ................. ....... .. .......... ......... .....
P alm B each .'.. ..'.. I ....... .. I .......... .......... ..........
Polk .... ............ ... .. .... ... ...... .. ...
St. Lucie ... .... .......... ...... -
Div. Av. per cent........ .......... I .......... I .......... ............
State Av. per cent........I 87 I 88 I I 91











76


REPORT OF CONDITION AND PROSPECTIVE YIELD.-Continued.


COUNTY. Corn. Nugar Cane.

Northern Division. ondiion. di Prospective Condilion. [I r., T.,
_______________ Yield. l)1It 1
Franklin ............... 75 80 100 100
Gadsden ................. 90 90 :O 65
Hamilton ............... 75 75 95 fi
Jefferson ................ 50 65 50 65
Lafayette ............... 70 70 80 k0
neon ................... 100 100 00 10l
Madison .......... .... 85 85 100 101
Suwannee ............... '5 85 8O O
Taylor ................. 50 50 10 90
Wakulla ................ 95 100 !10 100
Div. Av. per cent........ 78 80 | 8 I 87
Western Division.
Calhoun ................. 50 50 75 50
Escambia ............... 60 60 75 75
Holmes ................. 60 0 80 85
Jackson ................. SO I 5 85 CO
Santa Rosa ............ 75 75 !10 00
Walton ................. 75 75 80 80
Washington ............. 60 60 80 85
Div. Av. per cent........ ...66 66 | 81 I 84
Northeastern Division.
Alacuua ................ 50 50 80 80
Baker .................. 85 85 100 100
Bradford ............... 05 75 110 115
Clay ................... 80 80 100 90
Duval ................... 9.0 90 70 70
Nassau ................. 80 75 75 80
Putnam ................ 75 75 100 100
St. Johns .............. 90 90 85 90
Div. Av. per cent........ 77 78 90 91
Central Division.
citrus .................. .. 75 50 100 100
Hernando ............. 75 60 90 !5
Levy .................. 65 60 90 90
Marion .................. 80 80 100 100
O range ................. .......... ... ... .... .. ..
Pasco .................. 40 40 75 75
Seminole ............... 100 100 .......... ..........
Sumter ................. 60 60 60 60
Volusia ................. 70 70 100 90
Div. Av. per cent........ 71 65 88 87
Southern Division.
Brevard ............. ... .. ........ ......... 0 00
Dade ................... 100 100
DeSoto ................. 90 100 100 100
Hillsboro ............... 90 90 85 90
Lee ..................... .......... .......... 90 100
Osceola ............... ........... .......... 0 95
Palm Beach ........... .......... .......... 100 150
Pinellas ................ 90 90 90 100
Polk .................... 50 50 60 60
St. Lucie ............... .......... .... ...... 95 95
Div. Av. per cent........ 84 I 86 | 85 | 94
State Av. per cent...... 75 | 75 I 85 I 89















REPORT OF CONDITION AND PI'OSPECTIVE YIELD.-Continued.


COUNTY. Field Peas. Rice.

Northern Division. Condition. lProspectivel Condition. IProspective
_I Yield. Yield.
Franklin ............... 100 100 ..........
Gadsden ................ 100 100 ..... .....
Hamilton ............... 85 85 ..... .....
Jefferson ............... 100 100
Lafayette ............... 80 85 .... ....
Leon .................... 100 100 ....... ...
Madison ................ 75 75 .........
Suwannee .............. 100 100 60 60
Taylor .................. 75 80 ..... .....
Wakulla ................ 100 100
Div. Av. per cent........ 02 ')2 60 i 60
Western Division.
('alhoun ................ 70 70 65 60
Escambia ............... 100 100 75 75
Holmes ................ 90 95 80 80
Jackson ................ 95 100 ........ ..........
Santa Rosa ............. 100 100 90 90
Walton ................ 100 100 100 100
Washington ............ 100 100 ..
Div. Av. per cent........ 94 I 95 82 83
Northeastern Division.
Alauua .................. 100 100 ...............
Baker .................. 80 80 60 00
Bradford ............... 100 100 80 )0
Clay .................... 100 100 ....................
Iuval .................. 100 100 ..... .
Nassau ............... .80 80 100 100
I'utnam ................ 50 50 70 75
St. Johns .............. 90 90 00 90
l)iv. Av. per cent........ 87 87 | 80 | 83
Central Division.
Citrus .................. 100 1 .......... ..........
lernando ............... 90 100 .......... ..........
Levy ................... 90 95 ..........
Marion ................. 100 100 98 98
Orange ................. 90 85 ....... .
I'asco .................. 90 90 .. .
Seminole ............... 100 90 ....... .......
Sumter ................. 40 40
Volusia ................. 90 90
Div. Av. per cent........ 88 I 88 98 1 98
,southern Division.
Brevard ................. 80 80
Dade ................... 100 100
DcSoto ................. 100 100
HIillsboro ............... 90 95 80 80
Lee .............. ... ... 100 100 ..... .....
Osceola ................. 100 100
Palm Beach ............ 100 100
Pinellas ................ 100 100
Polk ... ................. 50 50 50 50
St. Lucie ............... .... ..........................
Div. Av. per cent........ 91 I 92 65 65
State Av. per cent....... 90 I 1 I 77 78












78


REPORT OF CONDITION AND PROSPECTIVE YIELD.-Continued.


COUNTY. Sweet Potatoes.


Cassava.


"7;-- -7--


'" liii ,..ii | Con.ition. Prospective Condition. IProspective
SYield.\ Yield.
Franklin ................ 100 | 100 .........
Gadsden ......... .. 60 I 50 ........ .....
Hamilton ............... 100 85 ......
Jefferson ......... ...... 50 75 ............ ...
Lafayette .............. 100 100 1. ........ .. .
Leon ................... 100 100 .... ..j...
M adison ................ 100 100 .......... .........
Suwannee ............. 100 100 .......... ......
Taylor .................. 65 65 ..... .. ..... ..
W akulla ................ 90 100 ......... ..........
Div. Av. per cent......... 8( 80 .......... ........
Western Division.
Calnoun .............. .. 80 85 .......... ......
Escambia ................ 80 80 75 75
Holmes .................. 85 90
Iackson ................ 85 90
Santa Rosa ............ 85 90
W alton ................. ,100 100 .
Washington ............. 100 100 .. ..
Div. Av. per cent........ 88 | 91 | 75 75
Northeastern Division.
Alacrua .................. 100 100 ...
Baker .................. 100 100 .......
Bradford ................ 00 95
Clay ................... 100 100
Duval .................. 75 75
Nassau .................. 80 60
Putnam ................ 75 75
St. Johns ............... 100 100 100 100
Div. Av. per cent........ 90 I 88 [ 100 1 100
Central Division.
Citrus ... ............. 100 100 .. .
ernando ....... 95 100 ...... ..........
Levy .......... ...... 90 85 ......... .
Marion .......... ....... 100 100 . . .
Orange ................. 90 100 ..
Pasco .................... 60 60 ......... ...
Seminole ................ 100 110 ............
Sumter ................. 75 75 ...... ...
Volusla .............. ... 100 80 .... .... ..
Div. Av. per cent........ 80 1 90 1 .......... ...
Southern Division.
lOrevard ............. 0 70 ....... .......
Dade .................. 100 0100 100
eSoto ............... 100 100 ...

StLboroue ............... 105 100
PLee ....... ......... .....
Osceola .................. 100 100 ........
Palm Beach ........... 100 125 ......
'inellas ......... ...... 100 100 ......
nlk ........... ... 100 160 100 120
St. Lucie ................ 105 100 ...... ......
Div. Av. per cent........ 97 | 104 | 98 1 157
State Av. per cent....... 88 I 72 V 91 1 111












79


REPORT OF CONDITION AND PROSPECTIVE YIELD-Continued.


COUNTY. Peanuts, Broom Corn.

Northern Division. condition. Prospective Condition. Prospective
I Yield. _Yield.
Franklin ............... .... ... ............. .........
(:adsden ................ 100 100
Hamilton ....... ... 85 85
Jefferson ............... 75 85
Lafayette ................ 80 85
Leon ................... 0. 0 100
Suwannee ............... 100 100 ....
Taylor ................. 100 100
Wakulla ................ !00 100
Div. Av. per cent ........ n 87 93 1..... .. ..........
Western Division.
Calhoun ............... 00
Escambia ............... 80 80 75 75
Holmes ................. 90 05 ......
Jackson ................ ..00 100.
Santa Rosa ............. 100 100 .......
W alton ................. 90 100
Washington ............ 100 105 .
Div. Av. per cent........ 91 I 6 I 75 I 75
Northeastern Division.
Alac ua ................ 80 .......... ......
Baker ............... 100 100 .......... ..........
Bradford ............. 125 125 .......... .. ....
Clay .................... 100 100 .
Duval .................. 85 85 ..
Nassau ................. 00 100 100 100
Putnam ................. 90 90 ......
St. Johns ............... 100 100 .. ....... ..
Div. Av. per cent........ 0 I 97 I 100 I 100
Central Division.
Citrus .................. 100 100 .......... .....
H ernando .............. .......... . .. .......
Levy .. 90 .85. ... .... ..........
M arion ................. 105 105 .. ... ...
Orange ................. .......... .......... ........ ..........
Pasco ................... 90 90 ....... ..........
Sem inole ............... .......... ......... .......... ..........
Sumter ........... ..... 100 100
Volusia ................. 100 100 ..... ....
Div. Av. per cent......... 97 I 07 ............. I....
Southern Division.
Brevard .......................... ....... ..... .....
Dade ................... 100 100
DeSoto ........................................................
Ilillsboro .......................... .......... ....... .. .........
Osceola ............................................... ..... .
Osceola ................................... ........... ..... ....
Palm Beach ...................... ..... ............
Pinellas ..............................
Polk .................... 100 120
St. Lucie ......... .........................................
Div. Av. per cent.......i 100 I 110 I ................
State Av. per cent......... 94 98 | 87 I 87












s8


REPORT OF CONDITION AND PROSPECTIVE YIELD--Continued.


COUNTY.


Northern Division.


'Franklin ................
Gadsden ................
Hamilton ...............
Jefferson ..............
Lafayette ..............
Leon ..................
M adison .................
Suwannee ...............
Taylor ..................
W akulla ...............
Div. Av. per cent........


Ilay-Native Grasses.

Condition. Prospective
IYield.
100 100
110 110
100 100
75 75
100 100
100 100
100 100
75 75
100 *100
95 95


Alfalfa.


Condition. IProspective
I Yield.

.. i5.." 25.... ..




602 0

92 02


Western Division.
Calhoun................ 80 80 1. .o I........
Escambla ............... 100 110 I. ::::: .. .
Holmes ................. 85 85
Jackson ................ 00 5 ....... ...
Santa Rosa ............. 100 100 ..........
Walton .........0..... 90 95
Washington ............. 100 110 .. ..........
Div. Av. per cent........ 92 I 96 |.......... ..........
Northeastern Division.
Alachua ................ 80 80 .......... ......
Baker ................... 100 I 100 .......... ..
Bradford ... ............ 70 75 ....
Clay .................... 100 I 100 ..... ..
Duval ............ .... 90 90 ..
Nassau ................. 90 1:00" .. ::..... ...
Putnam ..... ........ .. 100 I 100 ...........
St. Johns .............. 100 I 100 ...:: :.........
Div. Av. per cent........I 91 1 3 ........ ........
Central Division.
Citrus .................. I 110 115 I .. ........
Hernando ............... 100 100 ...................
Levy .................. .. 90 .. .I ........
Marion....... .. ..... ... 110 110 ..... ..
Orange .............. 0 0 I . ...
Pasco ..... 8 .
Seminole................ 100 100 .......... .....
Sumter ..............". .

Div. Av. per cent ....... 99 99 .......... ..
Southern Division.
Brevard ................ 75 75 .......... I ...
Dade ................... 105 110 100 100
DeSoto ................. 100 100 ....
Hillsboro ............... 0 1 90
Lee ............. .... 100 100 ........ ..........
Osceola ................ 100 100 I. . .
Palm Beach ............1 100 115
Pinellas ................. 90 100
Polk .................... 100 115 ...............
St. Lucie ............... 100 100 .......... .........
Div. Av. per cent........ 96 I 100 100 100
State Av. per cent...... 96 I 97 | 96 96


I


I












81


REPORT OF CONDITION AND PRlOSPECTIVE YIELD-Conlinlud.


COUNTY. Velvet Beans Pastures.

SCondition. Prospective1 Coondition.
Yield.
Franklin ............................. 60 70 100
Gadsden ............................ 75 75 100
Hamilton ........................... 95 90 100
Jefferson ............................ 75 85 75
Lafayette ......................... 75 75 75
Leon ............................... 100 100 100
Madison ......................... 90 00 100
Suwannee ........................... 100 100 100
T aylor .............................. ........... ......... .......
W akulla ............................ 100 100 100
Div. Av. per cent.................... 79 0 87 905
Western Division.
Calhoun ............... ........9..... 90 90 80
Escambia ........................ 75 75 100
Holmes ............................. 95 95 00
Jackson ............... ...... 90 95 90
Santa Rosa ........................ 100 100 100
W alton ........................... 100 100 100
Washington ......................... 90 85 100
Div. Av. per cent .................. 91 I 91 I 91
Northeastern Division.
Alachua ................. .......... 80 80 100
Baker .............................. 100 100 100
Bradford ........................... 05 75 75
Clay ............................... 100 100 100
Duval ..................... ..... .... .. ... .. ....... .00
Nassau ............................. 190 100 100
Putnam ........ ..... ......... ... 75 75 ...
St. Johns ........................... 100 100 100
Iiv. Av. per cent .................... 87 ] 90 95
Central Division.
Citrus ............................ .. 100 90 t00
Hernando .......................... 90 0 100
Levy ............................ 90 95 5
M arion ........................... 97 100 110
Orange ............................ 100 100 100
Pasco .......................... ... 00 90 90
Seminole ......................... 100 90 100
Sumter ........................... 60 60 100
Volusia .......................... 100 100 100
Div. Av. per cent.................. 92 91 I 99
Southern Division.
Brevard ................................... .... .. ... ..... .
Dade .......................100 100 1
DeSoto .... ............ .. 100 100 100
Hillsboro ..... ................. 80 80 90
Lee .......................... 90 100 100
Osceola ................... 100 100 100
Palm Beach ..............................
Pinellas ............................ 100 100 100
Polk ......... .............. 100 100 70
St. Lucle .......... .............. 905 100 100
Div. Av. per cent.................. 96 97 83
State Av. per cent................. 890 91 1 95


6-Bul.















REPORT OF CONDITION AND PROSPECTIVE YIELD.-Continued.


COUNTY. Bananas. Mangoes.

Northern Division. I Condition. IProspectivei Condition. Prospective
___________________ Yield. Yield.
Franklin ............... 50 1 75 ....... ... ....
Gadsden ................ ..... .... ........ ... ....... .....

Lafayette .................... .. .. .. .
L eon ................... ......... .. ......... .......... .. ...
M adison ................ .......... .......... . .
Suwannee ........... .. ....... ...... .. .. ..
Taylor .................. .......... .......... .... .. .
W akulla ....... ...... .......... .......... ........ ..
Div. Av. per cent........ 0 I 7 .......... ..........
Western Division.
Calhoun ................ ...... ... ......... .. ... .. ............
Escambia ............... ....... .................... ...........
IIolmes ........................... ....... .........
Jackson ............... ...... ... .. ........ .
Santa R osa ......... .. ... .. .. ......... ......... .
Walton ................. ... ..........
W ashington .... ........ .......... I .. ........
Div. Av. per cent.. ... I ... ....... I .......... .......... ..... ..
Northeastern Division.
Alachua ................ .......... ..........
Baker .................................... .........
B radford ....... ....... ... ... ........ .....
C lay .............. .. .......... ....... .. .......
D uval .................. ......... ..... ...

Putnam ................ ........ .......... ...... ... ..........
Nassau................. .......... I ......
Putnam .........,........
St. Johns ............. .......... ..........
Div. Av. per cent........ 90 I 75 I ......... .........
Central Division.
Citrus ................. ....... ............. .......... ........
IIernando .......... .... .......... .
Levy ................... ..... ... ....... ........
M arion ................. ....... ........... ..
Orange ..; ........... ........ .. ........ ........... ..........
Pasco ................ ........ .......... .......... ........
Seminole ............... ........................... ........
Sumter ............... ................... ........ ........
Volusia ........................... .......... ....
Div. Av. per cent ........ I ....... ...
Southern Division.


Brevard .................
Dade ..................
DeSoto ................. .
Hillsboro ...............
Lee ....................I
Osceola ................
Palm Beach ...........
Pinellas ................I
Polk ............. ... I
St. Lucie ...............
Div. Av. per cent........
State Av. per cent.... .


60
100
.i66 0
100
9(Q
100
100
100
90


ou
60
100

"" i66.
100
9;o
125
100
100
70


00
75


85

100


60


75

73


- 8 94 1 857f.- 75
78 1 81 1 87 1 75


^ .


**











83


REPORT OF CONDITION AND PROSPECTIVE YIELD.-Continued.


COUNTY. Avocado Pears. Guavas.

Aorthern Division. I Condition. \Prosective\ Condition. |Prospective
Yield. \ Yield.
Franklin ............ ...... ... 50 60
Gadsden ........... .. ... .
H am ilton ........... ... ...... .. ... .. .i ..........
Jefferson ............... ... ...... ........ .... .. ..........
Lafayette ............ .......... ... ......... ..........
Leon ................................... .......... ........ ..
Madison ................ ............................. ..I.........
Suw annee ............... .......... .......... ......... ......
Taylor ................. ........ .. ........ .... ...
W akulla ............... .......... ...... -.. .......... ...
Div. Av. per cent........ .......... .......... 50 I 60
lVestern Division.


Calhoun .............. .. ... .......... .......... ........
Escambia ..............
IIolm es ................. ..... ..
,ackson ...... .......... ....... ... .......... ........ I ..........
.Tack.son.......
Santa R osa ............ ..... .... ......... ........ .. ....
W alton .......... .. .. ...... ...... ....
W ashington ............. ...... ......... ....... .. ..
Div. Av. per cent...... ...... ......... ..... ... .. ........
Northeastern Division.
Alachua ............... ........... .......... ........
Baker ................. .........................................
Bradford ............... .......... ............................
Clay ................... ......... .......... .......... ... .....
D uval ................... *
Nassau ................. .......... .......... ..... ..
Putnam ..... ................. ..........
P tnam .......... .... ..... ...... ... ... . .. ........
St. Johns .............. .......... .. ...... 100 00
Div. Av. per cent........ ........ ............. 100 100
Central Division.
Citrus ................. I ........ ........... .........
Hernando ... .............. ......... ........ .I ...... .
Levy .............................. ...... ..........
Marion .......... ... ....... .. .
Orange ............... .......... ..........I 100 1
Pasco .................. I..... .. .......... 100 100
Seminole ........................ ......... 100 110
Sumter ................. .................
Volusia ...........................: : :.........: :' 100 110
Div. Av. per cent........ ..................... 100 114
Southern Division.
Brevard ................................. .... .. 9100
Dade .............. 100 | 100 100 I 100
DeSoto ............... ....... .... 100 125
Iillsboro ............... .......... .......... 95 100
Lee .............. 100 100 10' 110
Osceola ............... ... .. I. 100 100
Palm Beach ............ 100 110 95 100
Pinellas ........ ..... .. .. 100 100
Polk ........ ... .. ... 100 1,5
St. Lucie ..... ...... I 100 65 90 1 (5
Div. Av. per cent........1 100 94 907 102)
State Av. per cent....... ) 00 94 | 04











84


REPORT OF CONDITION AND PROSPECTIVE YIELD.-Continued.


COUNTY. Orange Trees. Lemon Trees.

Northern Division. Condition. IProspectivel Condition. Prospective
S______Yield. Yield.
Franklin ............... 90 100 90 100
Gadsden ................ .... .. .......... ..... .. ....
Hamilton ............... ................... ... ..............
Jefferson ............... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Lafayette ............... ...... ...............
Leon ................... 100 75
Madison .................. ... ........... .........
Suwannee .............. 50 50 40 40
Taylor .........................................................
Wakulla .................................. ..........I.........
Div. Average per cent.... 8 0 75 1 65 70
Western Division.
Calnoun ................ 100 90 100 0
Escambia ............... ................................
Holmes .. .................. ................... ... ........
Jackson ............. ......... ..... ....
Santa Rosa ........
W alton ........
Washington ..................... ................... .........
Div. Average per cent.... | 100 90 100 I 90
Northeastern Division.
Alacnua ................. 100 100 .......... ........
Baker .................. 100 100 100 100
Bradford ................ 200 200 200 200
Clay ................... 90 75 .. .... ....
Duval .................. 75 75 .... .
Nassau ................. 100 100 00 100
Putnam ................ 50 50
St. Johns .............. 90 95 .......... .........
Div. Average per cent.... 101 99 133 I 1:3
*Central Division.
Citrus .................. 80 90 .......... ..
IIernando ................ 90 95 ......
Levy .................... 95 95 .......... .
Marion ................. 100 100 100 1 100
Orange ................. 100 125 ..... .
Pasco ................... 90 90 90 I 00
Seminole ............... 110 125 ....... ..........
Sumter ................. 75 75 ...... ..
Volusia ................. 90 70 ....... ..
Div. Average per cent.... 92 096 I 95 | 95
Southern Division.
Brevard ................ 75 95 ........
Dade ................... 100 100 100 100
DeSoto ................. 80 95 ......... ........
Hillsboro ............... 100 105 90 90
Lee ..................... 100 100 ......
Osceola ................. 100 100
Palm Beach ............ 95 105 .
Pinellas ................ 100 100
Polk .................... 100 110 .100 90
St. Lucie ............... 100 100 100 ,80
Div. Average per cent.... 95 101 I 97 I 90
State Average per cent... 93 | 92 I 98 I 96











85


REPORT OF CONDITION AND PROSPECTIVE YIELD.-Continued.


COUNTY. Lime Trees. Grapefruit Trees.

Northern Division. Condition. |Prospective Condition. Prospective
I| Yield. II Yield.
Franklin ............... ......... ........ 90 100
Gadsden ................ .......... .......... ......... .... .
Hamilton ................................... ... .... ........ .
Jefferson ............... .... .. .. ..... ......... .. ......
Lafayette ............... ........ .. .......... .... .--- ........ .
Leon .................. ......... .......... 100
M adison ............ .. .......... ... : .. .
Suwannee .............. .......... .......... 40 40
Taylor .................. .......... ........ .. ..... ....
W akulla ............... .............. .. ..........
Div. Average per cent .... .......... I.......... I 77 72
Western Division.
Calnoun ............. .......... .. 100 90
Escambia ............... .......... ..... ............... ........
IIolmes ..... .........................................
Jackson .......... .. ..
Santa Rosa ............ .......... .......... .. .. .
W alton .. .................... ........ ......
W ashington ............. .......... ....... .... .... ...... ...
Div. Average per cent.... .......... |.......... 100 I 90
Northeastern Division.
Alachua ............... .................... 100 100
Baker .................. .......... .......... 100 100
Bradford .............. .......... .......... 200 200
Clay ................... ........................................
Duval .................. .. ...... 75 75
Nassau ............................. 100 100
Putnam ....................50 50
St. Johns .............. ..... ..... ..... 90 95
Div. Average per cent..... .. .......... I 102 103
Central Division.
Citrus ......... .... 90 80
Ilernando............... .5
Lernandovy .................. ...... ...... .... ...... 0 5
Marion ....... .... 100 100 100 100
Orange ..................... ........... 100 125
Pasco ................. 90 90 90 90
Seminole .............. ........ ....... 110 125
Sumter .......... .............75 75
Volusia ............ .. .......... 90 110
Div. Average per cent,... 95 I 95 93 I 99
qNovthern Division.
lieaO........ 40r 00 -o I n


Brevard ................ 40 o 50 8 "
Dade ..................1 100 100 110 110
DeSoto ............................ ..... 90 95
IIillsboro ............... 90. 0 110 120
Lee....................................... 100 115
Osceola ................................. 100 100
Palfn Beach ............ 95 100 95 110
Pinellas ............... 90 90 100 110
Polk .................... 100 90 100 110
St. Lucie ............... 100 80 100 100
Div. Average per cent.... 88 89 91 97
State Average per cent... I 91 91 1 92 92






















PART III.

Fertilizers,
Feed Stuffs, and
Foods and Drugs.































































































r'N'













HOME-MIXING OF FERTILIZERS.

Some years ago there was much discussion in the agri-
cultural Press on this subject, "The Economy of Home-
mixing of Fertilizers." Many writers advocated the prac-
tice, though few practiced it themselves.
For several years the practice has not been generally
recommended, and the advocates of "home-mixing" have
become less in number. Numbers of growers who have
a favorite formula, and who use large quantities of com-
mercial fertilizers, find it more satisfactory and economi-
cal to send their formula to a reliable Florida factory,
stipulating the quantities and particularly the grades,
or percentages, of each material they desire in each ton,
and the final analysis of the mixture to be guaranteed by
the factory.
It has been but a few years, comparatively, that facto-
ries would accept such orders-they preferred to sell their
own particular "brands" or mixtures. Frequently numer-
ous "brands" of the same mixture, and of identical analy-
sis, were sold by the same factory, some recommended for
one crop, some for another, all being the same goods un-
der different names. The multiplicity of brands was, and
still is, confusing to the average farmer or grower.
A list of brands not to exceed ten or a dozen, would
easily cover all the various necessary formulas, five or six
made with organic materials as a base, and the same num-
ber using the so-called "High Grade Salts" as the princi-
pal ingredients of the mixture.
Of recent years, however, the factory has recognized
the necessity of catering to the demands of their cus-
tomers, and few of our Florida Factories now decline to
make the "special mixtures" demanded by their customers,
charging for the materials used at current prices f.o.b.
factory, with an additional charge of $1.50 per ton for
proper mixing and sacks.











I have discussed this matter with a number of our most
successful truckers and orange growers, who, as a class,
are probably the best informed users of commercial fer-
tilizers in the world, generally trained men-often sci-
entists-who know what their soil and their crops require.
from careful study of local conditions; who were but a
few years since, advocates of home-mixing, finding it diffi-
cult, if not impossible, to have their particular formulas
made by a factory, mixed their own raw materials, who,
now that Ihey can procure their materials at ton prices,
and have them properly mixed and sacked under full guar-
antee, at an advance of but .1.50 per ton above the price
of materials in ton lots, have informed me that they no
longer advocate or practice home-mixing.
When small lots of five t6 twenty tons are used by the
individual farmer, I do not advocate home-mixing, but
rather to buy a standard brand of so-called high grade
goods-say 4-6.8 (nominal value $30.10 at factory), which
cannot be adulterated with a "filler"-and apply to his
crops one-half the amount he would use of cotton goods
(normal value $17.80 at factory), of low grade 8.2.2 goods,
which cannot be made without a "filler"; obtaining in one
ton of 4.6.8 360 pounds of High Grade Plant Food, the
normal value of which would be $30.10 f.o.b. factory, while
two tons of 2.2.8 would contain 240 pounds each, or 480
pounds of Low Grade Plant Food (principally acid phos-
phate) with from 125 to 500 pounds of filler in each ton
(250 to 1,000 pounds), in the two tons.
One ton of 4.6.8 goods wold produce better results on
a given area than two tons of the 2.2.8, and save the cost
of freight, drayage and hauling of one ton of low grade
goods.
SHowever, a neighborhood, or Farmers' Union, may join
ilgethcr, ordering 100 to 500 tons of raw goods. They may
establish a local factory, purchasing their raw goods at
car lot prices (at large discount for cash) and, by em-
ploying a competent man to mix the goods-with proper











apparatus-can probably save a considerable sum. A
number of co-operative farming communities are now pur-
chasing in large quantities their supplies of mixed fer-
tilizers of their own formulas, of materials of prescribed
percentages of nitrogen, phosphate and potash, from or-
ganiic sources, or from salts, as experience dictates, and
paying form.them at current market prices of materials in
ton or carload lots, as the case may be, for cash at the
factory, thus obtaining all the trade discounts for a cash
transaction.
Few farmers in Georgia, Florida or Alabama in the cot-
ton regions read Iheir guarantee tags. They do not pur-
chase their goods on account of their value in plant foods,
but base their value on the cost per ton, irrespective of
quality, selecting a "brand"-"Big Boll," "Champion,"
"Sure Crop," "Mortgage Lifter," "Alligator", "Boar's
Head"-as the criterion of its value. Probably seventy-
five per cent of the goods sold in the farming districts-
where the advocates of "home-mixing" are most numer-
ous-is the common 8.2.2 cotton goods which contains 160
pounds of available phosphate, 40 pounds of potash, and.
40 pounds of ammonia, or 240 pounds of plant food in a
ton, with 125 to 450 pounds of "filler." Such a formula
cannot be made without a "filler"-some inert matter,
slate, clinkers, cinders, etc., for a make-weight-it being
impossible to make a mixture of complete goods of so
low a percentage of plant food, of the lowest grade ma-
terials, without a "filler" or "make-weight."
For those who may desire to mix their own goods at
home, the following formulas are given:
For 2.2.8 "Cotton Goods," No. 1.
540 lbs. 2.00% cotton seed meal= 40 lbs.-2.00% ammonia
540 lbs. 2.00% phosphoric acid...- 10 lbs.=0.50% phosphate
540 Ibs. 1.50% potash ........... 8 lbs.=0.40% potash
950 lbs. 16.00% acid phosphate... =152 lbs.=7.60% phosphate
250 lbs. 12.00% kainit ...........= 30 lbs.=1.50% potash
3,740 lb ;
260 lbs. "filler"
2,000 lbs. or one ton=2% ammonia, 2% potash, and 8% phosphate











For 2.2.8 "Cotton Goods," No. 2.
540 lbs. 7.50% cotton seed meal...........=2.00% ammonia
540 lbs. 7.50% cotton seed meal.......... =0.50% phosphate
540 lbs. 7.50% cotton seed meal........... =0.49% potash
950 lbs. 16.00% acid phosphate.............=7.60% phosphate
60 Ibs. 50.00% muriate of potash......... .=1.50% potash
1,550 Ibs.
450 lbs. "filler."
2,000 lbs. or one ton=2% ammonia, 2% potash, and 8% phosphate

Materials for either of these formulas could be pur-
chased in ton lots for cash f.o.b. factory at normal prices
(July 1, 1914), mixed and bagged under full guarantee
as to analysis, for-

Ammonia 2% x $3.50........$ 7.00
Potash 2% x 1.10....... 2.20
Phosphate 8% x 1.00....... 8:00
Bags and. mixing. ............ 1.50

For cash f.o.b. factory per ton. .$18.70

These examples are given for low grade goods with
250 to 450 lbs. of necessary "filler" to make up the weight
of the material to 2000 lbs. Such goods are not econ-
omical. Much better to select one of the formulas
published in each bulletin'. A good general formula
.would be one of those quoted in each bulletin costing,
mixed and bagged, from $27.50 to $34.50 per ton, bearing
in mind that the "unit value" or price per each 20 lbs.
of plant tood in the ton of fertilizer is:

Ammonia ................... 3.50%
Potash .................... 1.10%
Phosphoric Acid ..............1.00%

under normal conditions such as prevailed on July
1st, 1914.
Excepting when materials can be purchased in carload











lots, under full guarantee as to the grades or percentages,
for cash f.o.b. seaports or factories, and mixed by proper
machinery by skillful and competent men, my opinion is
that home-making will not be as economical, or the.result
as satisfactory, as to have the required ,formula. mixed
and manufactured by a reliable Florida factory under
full guarantee as to materials and percentages of plant
foods.
A large number of Farmers' Co-Operative Associations
are now following this plan with satisfactory results,
agriculturally and financially. Purchasing for cash in
car lots, they obtain all the trade concessions granted to
dealers, save commissions to agents, and get the benefit
of car lot freights.

POTASH SALTS. "

Owing to the fact that German Potash Salts cannot
be imported on account of the war in Europe, much dis-
cussion is had at present as to the potash supply. Much
of this agitation is, in my opinion, inspired by speculators
who have secured the control of the supply, for the pur-
pose of increasing the price. That more potash; has been
used than required in ordinary soils, is generally con-
ceded. No great falling off in crops may be anticipated
for the coming season on account of the lack of potash.
There is no necessity to fear a failure.of crops on account
of the scarcity of German potash.
The latest prices obtained were $100.00 per ton for
50% Potash, or 10 cents per lb. for actual potash (K.O),
($2.00 per unit of 20 lbs.) actual Potash (KO).. These
prices have doubtless increased as the supply is limited,
and mostly controlled by fertilizer,, companies and
speculators. .
ASHES.

We are having many inquiries as to the percentage of
potash in ashes, and numerous samples have been.sent












in for' analysis. The average potash content of unleached
hardwood ashes is from 2% to 8%, with some 40% of
lime. We seldom find more than 3%-more frequently
from 0.50% to 2.00%. We therefore caution purchasers
to purchase only under full guarantee of the minimum
-percentage, and of reliable Florida dealers, from whom
collections can be made in case of failure to meet the
guarantees. Understand that in a guarantee stating
from 3% to 5%, or from 4% to 8%, of potash, the guar-
tee is the minimum figure only.
SAshes have been largely used in Florida. Their value
has been derived more from the lime content than the pot-
ash content. Lime can be purchased for $1.75 per ton-
ashes are quoted at $20.00. On the basis of 4% potash
(which is seldom found) under normal conditions their
value would be $4.40 per ton for the potash, the balance
being paid for the .40%, or 800 lbs. of lime (Calcium
Oxide).
GROUND LIMESTONE.

Many inquiries have been recently received as to the
value of Limestone as a substitute for Potash.
A number of newspaper articles have recently advo-
cated Lime as a substitute for Potash.
Lime cannot be substituted for Potash.
However, as Lime, by its chemical action decomposes
soil, particularly soils rich in vegetable matter, it re-
leases Potash and other plant foods in the soil. It will,
to a large extent, improve most crops by making avail-
able the insoluble and unavailable plant food present in
the soil, including Potash.
Probably 90% of our Florida soils would be materially
benefited and made more productive by the application
of from two to four tons of ground Limestone per acre.
Many growers have obtained good results from the use
of Hardwaad Ashes, containing from two to four per cent
of Potash (E20), twenty to forty pounds per ton. These











ashes also contain practically 55% Carbonate of Lime
(1,100 lbs. Lime per ton). At normal prices (Ashes at
$20.00 per ton) 3% Potash as worth $3.30, the Lime cost-
ing, therefore, $16.70 for 1,100 pounds with added
freight.
First class ground Limestone, 95 to 98% aCrbonate
of Lime, can be purchased f.o.b. Florida factories for
$1.75 per ton in carload lots, 1,900 to 1,960 pounds of
Carbonate of Lime for practically one-tenth the cost of
1,100 pounds of the same material in ashes.
Growers.are advised to write to the "Southern Settle-
ment and Development Organization, Jacksonville, Fla.,
for Dr. COrel C. Hopkins for pamphlet: "Ground Lime-
stone for Southern Soils," also to the Director of the
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Gainesville,
Fla., for Press Bulletin No. 148: "Using Ground
Limestone." ,
Lime has been used by farmers for centuries. The
old proverb: "Lime makes rich farmers and poor sons,"
is as true today as when first spoken many years ago.
Lime without added manures' (vegetable matter), Pot-
ash and Phosphoric Acid, will certainly deplete soils of
their plant foods.
Lime, however, used intelligently together with ma-
nure, legumes, Potash and Phosphates, will produce lar-
ger crops and increase the fertility and productiveness
of soils.


















































j













COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS FROM THE
MANUFACTURER'S VIEW POINT.

Read by Mrs. N. M. G. Prange Before the County
Demonstration Agents, Gainesville, Florida,
February 3, 1914.



MR. CHAIRMAN, GENTLEMEN:
I am asked to speak to you today of fertilizer from
a manufacturer's viewpoint. The manufacturer has no
particular viewpoint, since to achieve greatest success
he must take truth for his standard and seek real
knowledge. I will speak of fertilizer as I know it after
twenty-one years on a Florida farm and six years' asso
ciation with the largest fertilizer company of the
South-years of actual and successful field work, and
years of careful scientific study.

LEARN TO UNDERSTAND THE TAG.

The first thing a grower should learn about commer-
cial fertilizer is to read and understand the tag. The
tag is the surety given by the State that the contents
of the sack are not misrepresented. It must show the
number of pounds of fertilizer, the analysis, and the
materials from which it is made.
The moisture content is to guarantee good physical
condition-that it is dry and easily handled, instead of
a wet, sticky mass,-while the percentage of chlorine is
given to protect the grower of those crops upon which the
use of chlorides is detrimental. The percentage of am-
monia, available phosphoric acid, and potash, show the
amount of commercial plant food present, and the list
7-Bul.











of materials gives the grower a chance to know whether
this plant food is in a form suited to his use.
Note, I say "gives the grower a chance to know," for,
as a matter of fact, a large percentage of the growers
seldom read their tags, and when they do read them, do
not understand them.
The State stands back of the tag, but a manufacturer
can suit himself as to advertising matter.

THREE DISTINCT VALUES.

Fertilizer has three values: The State value, which
makes no distinction as to sources; the market value,
which is governed by supply and demand; and the agri-
cultural value, which is determined by the field results
secured.
It is the agricultural value in which we are most inter-
ested today. We want to consider the factors of really
good fertilizer.
Though there are ten different elements essential to
plant growth, Nature provides all these in abundance to
the Florida grower except ammonia, phosphoric acid and
potash. I expect some of you are wondering why I do
not include lime, since practically all our soils need lime;
but this need is as a base, not as a plant food, hence
does not come under our present discussion.
While these three essentials of fertilizer all work to-
.gether, each is most active in certain ways: ammonia
inducing growth; phosphoric acid, fruiting; and potash,
hardening the tissues. Both phosphoric acid and potash
are active in plant developments apart from those in
which they enter through actual combination; phosphoric
acid bringing other elements into availability, while
potash is essential to the formation of starch and sugar,
though not a constituent of these compounds.











AS TO DETERMINING PLANTS' NEEDS.

The functions of plant organs are very intricate; they
are not thoroughly understood by anyone, but we will
not attempt even to go into the details that are well
known. It is sufficient to emphasize that plants use in
their growth far different proportions of the various ele-
ments than is shown by chemical analysis, that all author-
ities agree that a chemical analysis of the soil does not
determine the amount of food available to the plant.
This makes impossible the plan usually advocated by the
novice to analyze the soil and take the result from the
general analysis of the crop to be grown in order that
the lacking elements be supplied. Nature allows us no
such cut-and-dried method.
The needs of crops must be learned through actual
field work. It takes years of experience to get this in-
formation, and the man who is depending on field results
for his living cannot afford to test out the many com-
binations possible in fertilizer applications. One season
is wet, another dry; one extra warm, another extra cold;
while other seasons may combine extremes. With these
variations and others not mentioned, how is a grower
to know to just what extent his results were governed by
the fertilizer applied? Very often he forms conclusions
based on his field work that are entirely at variance with
the findings of carefully trained scientific men working
under controlled conditions. Why? Because, in the field,
results may be controlled by factors unnoticed by him.
There is much said about theory and practice in farming,
but when dealing with basic principles, it Is the grower
and not the scientist who is theoretical.
It is not at all unusual to have such good condition
of the soil and favorable climatic influences as to produce
a fine crop with very poor fertilization; neither is it
unusual, especially where people have been experimenting
with all sorts of mixtures, to have such abnormal soil con-











editions as to cause-a most; abnormal fertilizer to give
excellent results; but these are only exceptional cases
and form 'no standard for general work. A man may
spend year after year trying to "exactly meet his special
needs," and each year he will find these needs to be dif-
ferent from those of the year before.
Now, I suppose you are asking, "If he can't do it, how
is the fertilizer man going to do any better?" I will tell
you. The fertilizer man has a very much broader ex-
perience than any single grower. Instead of one farm,
one town, or even one section, he has spread before him
the entire State, and, with less intimacy, the whole world.
He does not try to meet special conditions except in a
very broad way. He furnishes fertilizer suited to the
different crops on different types of soil, but of such well
balanced proportions as to give good general results
whichever way the weather may turn.
How can he do this? Just as the life insurance man
can tell what percentage of his risks will die In the next
five years, or the transportation companies foretell the
number of their passengers, the hotel man- his guests,
the merchant his trade, or any business man who deals
in the law of averages. As the history of other businesses
lies before these people, so does the history of crop pro-
duction lie before the fertilizer manufacturer. He must
know what will be most likely to produce a good crop
under any of the many conditions which may.occur.

MUST PLEASE THE CROPS.

Now, going into the fertilizer business does not givo
this knowledge to a man any more than buying a farm
makes a successful farmer, but it is necessary for him to
gain it if his business is to grow year after year. He may
be ever so honest or of pleasing personality, but his suc-
cess is dependent upon actual field results. In other
words, he may please the people. but his fertilizers must




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs