' B'AMSDALE LlSilW
WEST VIRGINIA
UNIVERSIIY
Restricted
Circulation Only
bulletin 210
November, 1927
Agricultural experiment Station
College of Agriculture, Witut "Virginia Wini\itviitv
N. J. GlDDINGS, Acting Director
Morgantown
Sunflower Silage vs. Corn Silage
for Milk Produdion
By
H. O. HENDERSON and WARREN GIFFORD
Publications of this Station will be mailed free to any citizen of West Virginia upon
•ritten application. Address Director of the West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Sta-
lon, Morgantown, West Virginia.
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION STAFF \
FRANK BUTLER TROTTER, A. M., LL. D President of the Universit
N. J. GIDDINGS, Ph. D Acting Dean and Directc
WALTER C. SCHNOPP, B. S. Agr Agricultural Editc
JOHN C. JOHNSTON Chief Clei
AGRONOMY (Includes Genetics)
R. J. Garber, Ph. D.
Agronomist
E. P. Deatrick, Ph. D.
Associate Agronomist (Soils)
T. E. Odland, Ph. D.
Associate Agronomist
T. C. Mcllvaine, Ph. D.t
Assistant Agronomist (Soils)
D. R. Dodd, M. S.
Assistant Agronomist
M. M. Hoover, M. S.
Junior Agronomist
H. K. Rowley, M. S. Agr.**
Seed Analyst
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
E. A. Livesay, M. S.
Animal Husbandman
Chas. V. Wilson, M. S.
Assistant Animal Husbandman
J. H. Longwell, M. S.
Assistant Animal Husbandman
J. H. Rietz, D. V. M.
Associate Veterinarian
R. H. Tuckwiller, B. S. Agr.*
Assistant Animal Husbandman
CHEMISTRY
R. B. Dustman, Ph. D.
Associate Chemist
Chas. E. Weakley, Jr., B. A.
Assistant Chemist
L. P. Hansen, Ph. D.
Assistant Chemist
T. B. Leith, B. A.**
Assistant Chemist
Paul Daughenbaugh
Assistant in Chemistry
DAIRY HUSBANDRY
E. L. Anthony, M. S. Agr.
Dairy Husbandman
H. O. Henderson, M. S. Agr.
Associate Dairy Husbandman
G. Malcolm Trout, M. S.
Junior Dairy Husbandman
ENTOMOLOGY
L. M. Peairs, Ph. D.
Entomologist
W. E. Rumsey, B. S.**
State Entomologist
L. E. Dills, M. S.**
Assistant in Entomology
FARM ECONOMICS
A. J. Dadisman, Ph. D.
Farm Economi:
Paul A. Eke, Ph. D.
' Assistant Farm Economi:
F. D. Cornell, Jr., M. S.
Junior Farm Mechanicia
W. W. Armentrout, M. S.
Junior Farm Economi
HOME ECONOMICS
Rachel H. Colwell, A. M.
Home Economi
Hazel C. Cameron, M. S.
Research Specialist in Fooi
Nell Nesbitt, A. M.
Research Specialist in Home Mj
HORTICULTURE
H. E. Knowlton, Ph. D.
Associate Horticulturi
H. L. Crane, M. S. Agr.
Associate Horticulturi
K. C. Westover, M. S. Agr.
Assistant Horticulturi
Ernest Angelo, M. S. Agr.
Junior Horticulture
L. F. Sutton, B. S. Agr.l
Assistant Horticulturi
H. P. Sevy, M. S. Agr.
Assistant in Horticultu
M. B. Hoffman, M. S.
Assistant in Horticultv
PLANT PATHOLOGY
N. J. Giddings, Ph. D.
Plant Patholog
Anthony Berg, M. S.
Assistant Plant Patholog|
L. H. Leonian, Ph. D.
Assistant Plant Pathologj
E. C. Sherwood, M. S.
Assistant Plant Patholog|
POULTRY HUSBANDRY
Horace Atwood, M. S. Agr.
Poultry Husbandnr;'
E. T. Wightman, M. S. Agr.
Junior Poultry Husbandn;
RURAL SOCIOLOGY
T. L. Harris, Ph. D.
Rural Sociolog
ZOOLOGY
F. E. Chidester, Ph. D.
Zoolof
*In cooperation with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.
tin charge of the Lakin Sub-Station, Lakin, W. Va.
**ln cooperation with the State Department of Agriculture, Charleston, W. Va.
Jin charge of the Reymann Memorial Farms, Wardensville, W. Va.
Sunflower Silage vs. Corn Silage for Milk
Produdion *
During the past few years, the use of sunflower silage as a sub-
stitute for corn silage has aroused considerable interest. The interest
has been particularly keen in those sections of the country where corn
does not grow satisfactorily on account of climatic or other unfavor-
able conditions, or in sections of limited tillable acreage where it is
difficult to grow sufficient silage and other roughage for dairy cows.
A preliminary report was published by this Station in 1920, in which
the results of one trial comparing the feeding value of corn silage and
sunflower silage were given, t These results were such that it was
thought that further study should be made in order to obtain more
definite information as to the feeding value of sunflower silage as com-
pared to corn silage. Accordingly, two more trials have been com-
pleted. The results of these, together with the results of the first trial
are published in this bulletin. A report on a study of the culture of
sunflowers is given in Bulletin 204 of this Station.
RESULTS AT OTHER STATIONS
Since the previous report was published in 1920, many of the
experiment stations have reported experimental results on the use of
sunflower silage. Only a brief summary of them is possible in this
bulletin. A study of these reports shows a wide difference in the
results obtained. Several of the stations report that sunflower silage
was equal or superior to corn silage for the production of milk, (3),
(4), (5), (7). Others report that it was inferior to corn silage (1),
(2), (6), (8). Among these Bechdel of the Pennsylvania Station
(1) found that the cows fed sunflower silage produced only about
86.4 percent as much as those fed an equal amount of corn silage.
Schafer and Westley of the Washington Station (8) found that sun-
flower silage was 92 percent as valuable as corn silage for milk and
butterfat production. Nevens of the Illinois Station (6) obtained
from 15 to 25 percent more milk when the cows were fed corn silage
than when they were fed sunflower silage. Hicks of the Agassiz, B. C.
Experiment Farm (2) obtained an average milk production with
corn silage of 33.6 pounds and with sunflower silage 31.52 pounds.
♦Submitted for publication April, 1926. At the time this experiment was conducted
Mr. Gifford, the junior author, was a member of this Station staff. He resigned July I,
1926, to join the faculty of the College of Agriculture, University of Missouri.
tWest Virginia Experiment Station Circular 32.
4 W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION (Bulletin 2 1 0
In regards to palatability the reports also differ. Some of the
stations (Jf)y (5) found that sunflower silage was palatable to live-
stock. Others, however, (l)y (3), (6)y (8) found that sunflower
silage showed a distinct lack of palatability as compared to corn
silage. Nevens (6) found that the time of cutting had a great in-
fluence upon palatability, the earlier cuttings being more palatable
than later ones. This w^as the most decisive factor in determining
the value of the sunflow^er at the different stages of cutting.
THE PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENT
Tw^o well balanced groups of cow^s were used in each of the
three trials and are designated as Groups 1 and 2 in Trial I, Groups
3 and 4 in Trial II, and Groups 5 and 6 in Trial III. Care w^as taken
to divide the groups in each trial so that they were as nearly uniform
as possible in regard to breed, w^eight, stage of lactation, and amount
of milk and butterfat w^hich they v*rere producing. The plan, how^ever,
w^as not to compare the two groups, but rather to compare the two
feeding periods of the same group, using one group as a check against
the other.
The different groups were fed for the period of the tests on a
ration consisting of grain, hay, and silage. The ration w^as fed so
that the cows w^ere receiving an approximate nutritive balance of pro-
tein and energy as required by the Armsby Feeding Standard.
The grain ration in Trials I and III consisted of 200 pounds of
cottonseed meal, 200 pounds of linseed meal, 300 pounds of wheat
bran, and 1 00 pounds of ground barley, while that of Trial II con-
sisted of 300 pounds of corn meal, 200 pounds of wheat bran, 200
pounds of gluten meal, 100 pounds of cottonseed meal, and 100
pounds of linseed meal.
The amount of grain fed depended upon the amount of milk
produced. One pound of grain was fed to each three to four pounds
of milk produced, the exact amount depending upon the percentage
of fat in the milk. The amount of silage fed differed in the three
trials. In Trial II, 30 pounds, Trial I, 35 pounds, and Trial III, 45
pounds were fed per day. It was thought best to feed as much as the
cows would eat, so that the effects of the silages would be more
pronounced.
The cows w^ere placed on a week's preliminary feed in order to
accustom them to the change of ration, after which the experiment
was begun and continued for three weeks. The feeding was theni
changed so that the group which during the first three weeks was
November, 1927)
SUNFLOWER VS. CORN SILAGE
getting corn silage was fed sunflower silage, and the group w^hich w^as
fed sunflower silage the first three weeks was then fed corn silage.
The weights of the cows in the different groups were taken on
three consecutive days both at the beginning of the trial and at the
end of each period. The average of these w^eights w^as taken as the
weight for that particular time.
The milk from each cow was carefully weighed after each milk-
ing. A w^eekly composite sample was taken from each cow and
tested for butterfat.
THE COWS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIALS
Tables 1 , 2, and 3 give the breed, weight, time of lactation, and
average amount of milk produced by each cov/ for the seven days
previous to the beginning of the trials.
TABLE 1. — Breed, Lactation, Production, and Weight of Cows in First Feeding
Trial.
Herd Number
of Cow
Breed
Time in
Lactation
Daily Milk Produc-
tion in Pounds
Weight of
Cows in Pounds
IM
22
Purebred Holstein
197 Days
25 8
930
au
9
Grade Holstein
160 Days
21 6
1400
O
21
Purebred Holstein
94 Days
28 6
1020
oi
O
5
Purebred Jersey
44 Days
34 6
760
17
Grade Holstein
26 Days
41 6
1210
Average
104 Days
30 4
1064
7
Purebred Ayrshire
259 Days
16 3
1 120
N
6
Purebred Holstein
1 89 Days
32 I
1290
D
O
16
Purebred Holstein
167 Days
43 7
1230
23
Purebred Holstein
81 Days
32 5
970
g
18
Purebred Ayrshire
44 Days
38 3
900
Average
148 Days
32 6
1 102
THE FIRST FEEDING TRIAL
In Trial I each cow in Group 1 was fed 35 pounds of sunflower
silage and each cow in Group 2 was fed 35 pounds of corn silage for
the first four weeks of the trial. The feeding of the groups was then
changed so that during the second four w^eek period Group 1 received
corn silage and Group 2 received sunflow^er silage. Each cow^ received
1 0 pounds of mixed clover and timothy hay per day and one pound
of grain for each 3.5 pounds of milk produced.
W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION
(Bulletin 210
TABLE 2. — Breed, Lactation, Production, and Weight of Cows in Second Feeding
Trial.
M
Ok
D
O
Herd Number
of Cow
Breed
Time in
Lactation
Daily Milk Produc-
tion in Pounds
Weight of
Cows in Pounds
48
Purebred Holstein
98 Days
21 .2
1 100
4
Purebred Holstein
8 7 Days
39.7
1500
a
50
Purebred Guernsey
65 Days
30 7
925
43
Purebred Ayrshire
20 Days
41 3
1025
Average
68 Days
33 2
1138
^
47
Purebred Holstein
93 Days
29 0
1200
Qu
16
Purebred Holstein
75 Days
41 2
1500
O
O
52
Purebred Jersey
66 Days
20 9
670
36
Purebred Holstein
13 Days
25.7
1200
Average
62 Days
29 2
1143
TABLE 3. — Breed, Lactation, Production, and Weight of Cows in Third Feeding
TriaL
Herd Number
of Cow
Breed
Time in
Lactation
Daily Milk Produc-
tion in Pounds
Weight of
Cows in Pounds
in
Ok
D
O
107
132
106
139
138
Purebred Guernsey
Purebred Holstein
Purebred Jersey
Purebred Ayrshire
Purebred Ayrshire
121 Days
1 I 7 Days
75 Days
67 Days
5 7 Days
17.9
16 3
14 5
37.5
38 4
1005
1090
795
1145
1060
Average
87 Days
24 9
1019
(0
D
0
PES
22
89
100
137
136
Purebred Holstein
Purebred Jersey
Purebred Jersey
Purebred Ayrshire
Purebred Ayrshire
291 Days
205 Days
79 Days
65 Days
1 9 Days
23 3
117
16 3
41 1
34 7
I 120
850
1035
1080
972
Average
132 Days
25 4
1012
Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7 give the production of the different cows
by periods, a summary of the production by groups, the weight of each
cow at the beginning and end of experiment, and a summary of the
weights by groups. The production during the preHminary week is
not included in these tables.
Tables 4 and 6 show that the five cows in Group 1 , while being
fed sunflower silage during a 2 1 day period, produced 3042.7 pounds
of milk containing 121.27 pounds of butterfat, and lost a total of
1 40 pounds in weight. The same five cows, when fed corn silage
November, 1927)
SUNFLOWER VS. CORN SILAGE
during a second 21 day period, produced 2865.6 pounds of milk
containing I 12.33 pounds of butterfat, and lost a total of 23 pounds
in weight.
I The five cows in Group 2, while being fed the sunflower silage,
• during a 21 day period, produced 2821.1 pounds of milk containing
98.64 pounds of butterfat, and lost a total of 47 pounds in weight.
The same five cows v^hen fed corn silage for a 2 1 day period, pro-
duced 3260.9 pounds of milk which contained 107.52 pounds of
t butterfat, and lost a total of 77 pounds in weight.
Bringing together the results of the two groups. Tables 5 and 7
<show that the ten cows, w^hile being fed sunflower silage during a 21
day period, produced 5863.8 pounds of milk and 219.91 pounds of
butterfat, had an average butterfat test of 3.75 percent and lost a
total of 187 pounds in weight. The same ten cows when fed corn
TABLE 4. — Production of Cows in First TriaL
Herd
Number
of Cow
22
9
21
5
17
Total
SUNFLOWER SILAGE
Pounds of
Milk
503 4
439 5
538 6
684 9
876 3
Percent of Total Pounds
Butterfat Butterfat
3042 7
3 97
3 53
3 68
5 07
3.56
3 99
20 00
15 53
19 81
34 71
31 22
121 27
CORN SILAGE
Pounds of Percent of Total Pounds
Milk Butterfat Butterfat
543 2
397 I
525.8
612 7
786 8
2865 6
3 53
3 23
3 40
5.78
3 44
3 92
19 20
12 83
17 87
35 39
27 04
1 12 33
Herd
Number
of Cow
CORN SILAGE
SUNFLOWER SILAGE
7
6
16
23
18
298 8
692 4
870 5
692 7
706.5
Total 3260 9
86
17
04
97
84
3 30
1 1 52
2! 92
26 43
20 55
27 10
283 9
625 4
759.9
554 6
597 3
107 52
2821
4 30
3 31
3 13
3.40
3 87
3 50
1 1 20
20 68
23 81
18 86
23 09
98 64
TABLE 5.— Summary of Production of Cows in First Trial.
Feeding Periods and Differences
Sunflow^er Silage Period
Corn Silage Period
Difference in Favor of Corn Silage
Difference in Favor of Sunflower
Silage
Pounds of
Milk Produced
5,863 8
6.126 5
262 7
Percent
of Butterfat
3 75
3 59
0 16
Total Pounds
of Butterfat
219 91
219 85
0 06
8 W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION
TABLE 6. — Weight of Cows in First Trial.
(Bulletin 210
Herd
Number
of Cow.
22
9
21
5
17
Total
SUNFLOWER SILAGE
Weight at
Beginning
(Pounds)
930
1400
1020
760
1210
5320
Weight at
End of
First Period
(Pounds)
900
1390
990
730
1 170
Gain or Loss
( — ) in Weight
During First
Period
(Pounds)
—30
— 10
—30
— 30
—40
5180 — 140
CORN SILAGE
Weight at
Begining of
Second
Period
(Pounds)
925
1385
990
750
I 175
5225
Weight at
End of Sec-
ond Period
(Pounds)
932
395
975
737
163
Gain or Loss
( — ) in Weight
During Sec-
ond Period
(Pounds)
7
10
— 15
— 13
— 12
5202 —23
Herd No.
of Cow
CORN SILAGE
SUNFLOWER SILAGE
N
7
1120
1 1 10
— 10
1100
1 1 12
12
Qu
D
O
6
1290
1240
—50
1255
1225
—30
16
1230
1210
—20
1215
1192
—23
23
970
990
20
995
1007
12
18
900
883
— 17
880
862
— 18
Total
5510
5433
—11
5445
5398
—47
TABLE 7. — Summary of Weights of Cows in First Trial.
Feeding Periods and
Difference
Weight of Cows at
Beginning (Pounds)
Weight of Cows at
End (Pounds)
Gain or Loss ( — ) in
Weight (Pounds)
Sunflower Silage Period
10,765
10,578
— 187
Corn Silage Period
10,735
10,635
— 100
Difference in Favor
of Corn Silage
87
silage for a period of similar length produced 6126.5 pounds of milk
and 219.85 pounds of butterfat, had a butterfat test of 3.59 percent,
and lost 1 00 pounds in weight.
THE SECOND FEEDING TRIAL
In Trial II, each cow in Group 3 was fed 30 pounds each of sun-
flower silage and those in Group 4 were fed 30 pounds of corn silage
daily for the first four weeks.
The feeding of the groups was then changed so that Group 3i
was fed corn silage and Group 4 was fed sunflower silage during the^
second four w^eeks of the trial. Each cow in both groups was fedl
eight pounds of alfalfa hay daily, and one pound of the grain rations
to each 3.5 pounds of milk produced.
November, 1927)
SUNFLOWER VS. CORN SILAGE
Tables 8, 9, 1 0, and 1 1 give the production of the different cows
by periods, a summary of the production by groups, the weights at
the beginning and end of the experiment, and a summary of the
weights by groups.
Tables 8 and 1 0 show^ that the four cow^s in Group 3, w^hile being
fed sunflower silage during a 21 day period, produced 2664.5 pounds
of milk and 99.6 pounds of butterfat and lost a total of 146 pounds
in w^eight. The same four cow^s, w^hen fed corn silage for a 2 I day
period, produced 2405.6 pounds of milk and 85.61 pounds of butter-
fat, and gained a total of 1 00 pounds in w^eight. The four cows in
Group 4, when fed sunflower silage during a 2 1 day period, produced
21 14.0 pounds of milk, 70.37 pounds of butterfat, and gained a total
of 40 pounds in weight. The same four cow^s, w^hen fed corn silage
during a period of similar length, produced 2280.9 pounds of milk,
78.76 pounds of butterfat, and lost a total of 43 pounds in w^eight.
TABLE 8. — Production of Cows in Second TriaL
Herd
SUNFLOWER SILAGE
CORN SILAGE
n
of
Cow
Pounds of
Milk
Percent of
Butterfat
Total Pounds
Butterfat
Pounds of
Milk
Percent of
Butterfat
Total Pounds
of Butterfai
D
0
48
409 2
3 60
14 73
443 6
3 40
15 08
4
795 8
3 28
26. 13
746 8
3 08
23 03
O
50
609 5
4 20
25 60
509 3
4 45
22 64
43
850 0
3 90
33 14
705 9
3 52
24 86
Total
2664 5
3 74
99 60
2405 6
3 56
85 61
Herd No.
of Cow
CORN SILAGE
SUN
FLOWER SI
LAGE
47
558 3
3 83
21 36
525 1
3 23
16 97
D
0
06
16
708 7
3 00
21 26
693 5
2 95
20 48
52
402 1
4 07
16 36
337 7
4 4!
14 88
O
36
61 1 8
3 23
19 78
557 7
3 23
18 04
Total
2280 9
3 45
78 76
21 14 0
3 33
70.3 7
TABLE 9. — Summary of Production of Cows in Second Trial.
Feeding Periods and
Difference
Sunflower Silage Period
Corn Silage Period
Difference in Favor of
Sunflower Silage
Pounds of Milk
Produced
4.778 5
4.686 5
92 0
Percent of
Butterfat
3 56
3 51
.05
Total Pounds of
Butterfat
169 97
164 3 7
5 60
1 0 W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION
TABLE 10. — Weights of Cows in Second Trial.
(Bulletin 210
Herd
Number
of Cow
48
4
50
43
Total
SUNFLOWER SILAGE
Weight at
Beginning
(Pounds)
1117
1514
960
1025
4616
Weight at
End of First
Period
(.Pounds)
1060
1470
960
980
Gain or Loss
( — ) in Weight
During First
Period
(Pounds)
—57
— 44
00
—45
4470 — 146
CORN SILAGE
Weight at
Beginning of
Second
Period
(Pounds)
1050
1460
980
980
4470
Weight at
End Of
Second
Period
(Pounds)
1080
1460
1000
1030
4570
Gain or Loss
( — ) in Weight
During Sec-
ond Period
(Pounds)
30
00
20
50
00
Herd No.
of Cow
47
16
52
36
Total
CORN SILAGE
285
510
678
170
4643
1 180
1520
700
1200
4600
— 105
10
22
30
— 43
SUNFLOWER SILAGE
1240
1490
680
1 190
4600
1220
1520
700
1200
4640
-20
30
20
10
40
TABLE 11. — Summary of Weights of Cows in Second Trial.
Feeding Periods and
Difference
Sunflower Silage Period
Corn Silage Period
Difference in Favor
of Corn Silage
Weight of Cows at
Beginning (Pounds)
9,216
9, 11 3
Weight of Cows at
End (Pounds)
9,110
9,170
Gain or Loss ( — ) in
Weight (Pounds)
106
57
163
Bringing together the results of the two groups, Tables 9 and 1 1
show that the eight cows, while being fed sunflower silage during a
21 day period, produced 4778.5 pounds of milk, 169.97 pounds of
butterfat, had an average butterfat test of 3.56 percent, and lost a
total of I 06 pounds in weight. The same eight cows, when fed corn
silage, produced during the 21 days, 4686.5 pounds of milk, 164.37
pounds of butterfat, had an average butterfat test of 3.51 percent,
and gained a total of 5 7 pounds in weight.
THE THIRD FEEDING TRIAL
In Trial III, each cow in Group 5 was fed 45 pounds of sunflowei
silage and each cow in Group 6 was fed 45 pounds of corn silage
daily during the first four weeks of the trial. The rations were ther
changed so that the cows in Group 5 were fed corn silage and the
cows in Group 6 were fed sunflower silage during the second foui
SUNFLOWER VS. CORN SILAGE
I I
November. 192 7)
weeks of the trial. Each cow in both groups was given eight pounds
of alfalfa hay daily and one pound of grain for each 3.5 pounds of
milk produced.
Tables 12, 13, 14, and 15 give the production of the different
cows, their weights, a summary of the production of each group, and
a summary of the weights of each group.
Tables 1 2 and 1 4 show that the five cows in Group 5, while being
fed sunflower silage during a 21 day period, produced 2028 pounds
of milk, 85 pounds of butterfat, and lost a total of 195 pounds in
[weight. The same five cows, when fed corn silage for a similar
period, produced 1944.5 pounds of milk, 81.08 pounds of butterfat,
and lost a total of 1 20 pounds in weight. The five cows in Group 6,
TABLE 12. — Production of Cows in Third TriaL
i
Herd
SUNFLOWER SILAGE
CORN SILAGE
Number
of Cow
107
Pounds of
of Milk
Percent of
Butterfat
Total Pounds
Butterfat
Pounds of
Milk
Percent of
Butterfat
Total Pounds
Butterfat
304 6
5 16
15.71
292 8
5 42
15 86
-J
o
132
273 6
3 85
10 53
263.5
3 46
9 13
o
106
236 9
5 23
12 40
255 8
4 95
12 66
139
600 8
3 94
23.69
560.7
4 06
22 78
138
612. 1
3 70
22 67
571 7
3 61
20.65
Total
2028 0
4 19
85.00
1944 5
4 17
81 08
w
Herd No.
of Cow
CORN SILAGE
SUNFLOWER SILAGE
22
363 0
4 46
16 19
192 7
4 69
9 03
D
O
89
233 8
3 93
9. 18
169 8
4 20
7 14
100
297 9
5 95
17 72
260.4
6 00
15 63
137
672 1
4. 17
28 01
544 4
4 30
23 41
136
597 3
3 41
20 38
458 3
3.70
* 16 96
Total
2164 1
4 23
91 .48
1625 6
4.44
72 17
TABLE 13. — Summary of Production of Cows in Third Trial.
Feeding Periods and
Differences
Pounds of Milk
Produced
Percent
Btitterfa
of
t
Total Pounds of
Butterfat
Sunflower Silage Period
3,653 6
4.30
157 17
Corn Silage Period
4,108 6
4 20
172 56
Difference in Favor of
Corn Silage
455.0
15 41
Difference in Favor of
Sunflower Silage
0 10
1 2 W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION
TABLE 14. — Weights of Cows in Third Trial.
(Bulletin 210
Herd
Number
of Cow
SUNFLOWER SILAGE
CORN SILAGE
in
Weight at
Beginning
(Pounds)
Weight at
End of First
Period
(Pounds)
Gain or Loss
(—) in Weight
During First
Period
(Pounds)
Weight at
Beginning
of Second
Period
(Pounds)
Weight at
End of Sec-
ond Period
(Pounds)
970
1045
800
1087
1065
Gain or Loss
( — ) in Weight
During Sec-
ond Period
(Pounds)
a.
D
0
O
107
132
106
139
138
990
1 127
800
1 150
1165
990
1070
in
1130
1070
00
—57
—23
—20
—95
990
1077
795
1150
1075
—20
—32
5
—63
— 10
Total
5232
5037
— 195
5087
4967
— 120
Herd No.
of Cow
CORN SILAGE
SUNFLOWER SILAGE
Ul
11
1 155
1 130
—25
1165
1170
5
a.
89
865
870
5
875
880
5
o
O
100
1005
iOlO
5
1010
1007
—3
137
1090
1057
—33
1025
1080
55
136
997
977
—20
977
970
—7
Total
5112
5044
—68
5052
5107
55
TABLE 15. — Sumniary of Weights of Cows in Third Trial.
Feeding Periods and
Difference
Sunflower Silage Period
Corn Silage Period
Difference in Favor of
Sunflower Silage
Weight of Cows at
Beginning (Pounds)
10,284
10,199
Weight of Cows at
End (Pounds)
10,144
10,01 1
Gain or Loss ( — ) in
Weight (Pounds)
— 140
188
48
when fed sunflower silage for a 21 day period, produced 1625.6
pounds of milk, 72.1 7 pounds of butterfat, and gained a total of 55
pounds in weight. The same five cows, w^hen fed corn silage, pro-
duced 2164.1 pounds of milk, 91.48 pounds of butterfat, and lost a
total of 68 pounds in weight.
Bringing together the results of the two groups, Tables 1 3 and
1 5 show that the ten cows, while being fed sunflower silage during a
21 day period, produced 3653.6 pounds of milk, 157.17 pounds of
butterfat, had an average butterfat test of 4.3 percent, and lost a
total of 1 40 pounds in weight. The same ten cows when fed corn
silage produced 4108.6 pounds of milk, 172.56 pounds of butterfat,
had an average butterfat test of 4.2 percent, and lost a total of 188
pounds in weight.
November. 1927) SUNFLOWER vs. CORN SILAGE
SUMMARY OF THE THREE FEEDING TRIALS
13
Tables 1 6 and 1 7 give a summary obtained by bringing the re-
sults of the three feeding trials together.
TABLE 16. — Summary of Production of the 28 Cows Used in the Three Trials.
Feeding Period and
Difference
Total Poun
Milk
ds of
Percent of
Butterfat
Total Pounds of
Butterfat
Sunflower Silage Period
14,295
9
3 83
547 05
Corn Silage Period
14,921
6
3 73
556 78
Difference in Favor
of
Corn Silage
625
7
9 73
Difference in Favor
of
Sunflower Silage
0. 10
TABLE 17. — Summary of Body Weights in the Three Trials.
Feeding Period and Difference
Weight at
Beginning (Pounds)
30,265
30,047
Weight at )
End (Pounds)
Loss in
Pounds
Sunflow^er Silage Period
Corn Silage Period
Difference in Favor of Corn Silage
29,832
29,816
433
231
202
Table 1 6 shows that when twenty-eight cows were fed for a
period of 2 I days on sunflower silage, together with a basal ration of
hay and grain, they produced 625.9 pounds of milk and 9.73 pounds
of butterfat less than did the same twenty-eight cows w^hen fed corn
silage with the same basal ration for a period of similar length. Put-
ting the results on a percentage basis, the groups fed sunflow^er silage
produced 95.8 percent as much milk and 98.2 percent as much
butterfat as did the groups fed corn silage. In all trials, the percentage
of butterfat w^as slightly higher in the groups fed sunflower silage than
in the groups fed corn silage. Table 1 7 shows that there was very
little difference in the loss of weights of the cow^s w^hen fed the differ-
ent kinds of silage.
ANALYSES OF SUNFLOWERS
Samples w^ere taken at different stages throughout one season
from the time the sunflow^ers came into bud until they w^ere mature.
These samples w^ere analyzed in order to determine their chemical
composition at the various stages. The results of these analyses are
given in Table I 8.
These analyses, w^hile limited in numbers, indicate that the sun-
flower plant does not reach its highest feeding value until about the
dough stage. Results from the Illinois Station (6), however, show that
1 4 W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION (Bulletin 2 1 0
TABLE 18. — Average Analyses of Sunflowers at Different Stages.
j0^
^^
^m^
^^
4->
*j
4J
Stage Analyzed
= Si
.sS
ji 0
G
a
(U
a
(V
w o
a o
0 O
i- "
u
u
o <u
t. a*
S (u
w OJ
JG <U
so-
,'■0-
i«b
^0,
14 H,
jJO,
0,-^
U^
h^
U,^
<w
Bud Stage ....
80 75
1 41
15 76
5 48
0 55
1 53
Full Blossom . .
86 69
1 21
10 01
3.90
0 50
1 59
Petals Dropping
83 97
1 12
12 47
5 56
0 66
1 78
Dough Stage . .
83.34
1 10
12 81
4 96
1 06
1 69
Mature
84 26
1 .61
1 1 03
4 75
1 36
1 74
Silage
76 20
1 86
18.43
7.45
1 18
2 33
the sunflower plant becomes less palatable as it grows older, and that
the best results were obtained when the crop was cut not later than the
full blossom stage.
PALAT ABILITY OF SUNFLOWER SILAGE
In a few^ cases, in all of the groups, some of the cow^s refused to
eat all of the sunflower silage at the beginning of the trial. All the
cows, however, after they had been fed the sunflower silage for sev-
eral days, ate it satisfactorily. They did not, however, seem to relish
it as much as they did the corn silage.
There were no indications of ill health or digestive disarrange-
ment from the feeding of sunflower silage. All the cows were in
good health throughout the trials. The sunflower silage did not seem
to be as laxative as the corn silage, but this was not noticeable to any
great extent.
SUMMARY
The object of this investigation w^as to determine the relative
feeding value of sunflower silage and of corn silage for the production
of milk and butterfat, and for the maintenance of the weight of cows
in milk.
Twenty-eight cows were used in the three trials. They were
fed sunflow^er silage and a basal ration for a 2 I day period, and corn
silage plus a similar basal ration for another 2 1 day period. It w^as
the plan, however, not to compare the two groups but rather to com-
pare two feeding periods of the same group using one group as a
check against the other.
November. 192 7) SUNFLOWER vs. CORN SILAGE 15
Under the conditions of the experiment, the cows when fed sun-
flower silage produced 95.8 percent as much milk and 98.2 percent
as much butterfat as they did when they were fed corn silage. In one
trial, the cows when fed sunflower silage produced slightly more milk
than they did when they were fed corn silage, but during the other
two trials, the cows w^hich w^ere fed corn silage produced more milk.
When the amounts of the silages fed were increased so that their ef-
fects would be more pronounced, the advantage of corn silage w^as
increased.
The cows when fed sunflower silage maintained their weight al-
most as w^ell as they did when they w^ere fed corn silage.
Sunflow^er silage w^as slightly less palatable than corn silage, al-
though most of the cow^s ate the sunflow^er silage very readily after
they had become accustomed to it. Some of the cow^s, however,
never did seem to relish it as well as they did corn silage.
In West Virginia, w^here sufficient good silage corn can be grow^n,
there is no advantage in growing sunflowers for silage. In sections
w^here sufficient corn cannot be grow^n, either because of short seasons
or limited tillable acreage, the sunflowers w^ill make a satisfactory
substitute.
16 W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION (Bulletin 210
LITERATURE CITED
(1) Bechdel, S. I.
1922. SUNFLOWER SILAGE FOR MILK PRODUCTION. Pa. Agr. Sta. Bul.
172.
(2) Hicks, W. H.
1924. CORN SILAGE VERSUS SUNFLOWER SILAGE. Report of the Super-
intendent, Agassiz, B. C, for the year 1923.
(3) Jones, Roy C.
1922. oats and vetch versus corn or sunflowers for silage.
Ore. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 194.
(Jf) Joseph, W. E. and Blish, M. J.
1920. STUDIES ON the DIGESTIBILITY OF SUNFLOWER SILAGE. Montana
Agr. Exp. sta. Bul. 134.
(5) Knight, C. S.
1918. SILAGE CROPS FOR NEVADA. Nev. Agr. Exp. sta. Bul. 91.
(6) Nevens, W. B.
1924. THE SUNFLOWER AS A SILAGE CROP. 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 253.
(7) QUESENBERRY, G. R., CUNNINGHAM, 0. C, and FOSTER, L.
1921. THE CULTURE AND FEEDING OF RUSSIAN SUNFLOWERS. N. Mex.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 126.
(8) ScHAFER, E. G. and Westley, R. O.
1921. sunflower PRODUCTION FOR SILAGE. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 162.
November, 192 7) SUNFLOWER vs. CORN SILAGE 17
APPENDIX
Experimental Data Records
W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION
(Bulletin 2 1 0
[L,
M
0.
3
o
CJ
-IB
B
It
a
0 b
s "
T3 "0
0 0
05 bp
I-" .5
Ul
o
in
o
CO
c^
■^
nO
CN
en
ON
'0 +j
T
^
t^
'^
00
in
oo
nO
^
y—
r^
NO
CN
—
vO
CN
^
ON
o
C3N
o
n£>
""
t>.
a<
vO
U~l
in
' —
—
r^
-^
nD
00
nD
00
NO
JU
■"
■"
CN
en
^
00
in
^
o
o
o
o
CN
00
O
r^
CN
T3
en
en
en
in
"^
■^
•<3-
en
CN
en
en
en
1-
Oh
'£
H
m
(N
O
00
00
(N|
o
_
t^
_
"^
a-
'^
"c-
§i
'^
t~>,
vD
TT
r^
00
CN
t>.
NO
o
o
CJN
vO
-*
sO
fS
00
ON
o
1 —
00
CN
CN
o
cu
'
~
"
(N
CN
"
""
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
(N
r>,
vO
_
r^
Nn
CN
in
ON
NO
^
CN
CN
"V jj
m
en
t^
00
00
00
•<3-
CN
CN
00
CN
C (8
^
in
in
o
CO
^
CN
t^
00
r^
in
Ou
r>.
in
t^
-
O^
00
en
t^
oo
nO
ON
t^
^
9)
U
^
s
o
00
(U *j
en
00
o
CN
en
o
CN
CN
^
<3N
o
CN
T3
S
11 '^
■^
en
"^
in
en
'T
en
en
en
CN
^
en
0
Oh
0)
w
m
t^
■^
-^
vO
r^
en
TT
00
O
_
<3N
T3^
m
in
CTn
o
On
t^
—
—
'^
'a-
oo
O
r^
'^
00
en
On
o
o
^
00
en
en
y—
Du
^~~
CN
(N
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
■^r
■^
sO
in
en
00
00
CN
t^
ON
in
■^
■B 4J
o
'T
vO
00
■<*•
o
ON
en
00
■^
o
C rt
en
00
in
TT
00
00
^—
CN
in
y—
TT
m
3ii<
0
cu
vD
■<r
vO
,^
ON
t^
■<r
t^
CJN
t^
ON
t^
Ji
^
1
4J
00
en
v£)
O
■<r
in
00
'*■
-
CN
o
00
en
■M
(A
S;f^
en
en
en
in
en
en
'i-
en
en
en
en
en
J>
Ok
b
M
o-
00
■*
i^
in
ON
•*
en
NO
en
in
00
"c-
is
U"!
vO
(N
o^
ON
CN
in
en
C3N
00
t^
CN
sO
-^
00
(N
00
O
ON
en
ON
en
•^
CN
Oh
'
'
^~~
(N
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
m
en
0^
O
^
n£)
OO
C3N
-^
TT
NO
nO
>n
■<1-
_
1 —
On
OO
00
en
r-^
O
t^
t^
t~^
-*
■-O
sO
^
t^
r^
CN
1 —
in
^
o
2f^
^
0
CU
t->.
in
t^
(N
o
00
TT
00
ON
t^
o
t^
(U
^-
^—
^
^
>,
4^
c
CN
t^
b
<U •"
en
vD
oo
(N
^
^
CN
in
o
en
00
■<J-
(«
u n>
B
-4-
en
en
in
en
'^
TT
en
en
en
en
en
■g
OlH
"2
cu
in
\D
fN
in
in
in
en
O
TT
oo
"^
oo
—
O
_
o
(N
en
^
in
in
r>.
t^
o
00
in
o
Tj-
ON
*—
. —
en
o
CN
nO
en
0.
—
■■"
eN
CN
<N
CN
^
CN
en
CN
CN
CN
c
0
; 0
5^
o
«N1
in
r-»
M
a
u
D
>
t^
nD
nO
en
CN
00
u
M
CO
>
a
<
<
I
dflOHO
Z
dnoHO
November, 192 7)
SUNFLOWER VS. CORN SILAGE
19
O
'u
V
Qu
c
'"V
o
V
tu
no
e
o
a
s
o
Vi
O
TJ
e
O
o
r^
CO
vD
TT
00
nD
in o
m
r^
. —
m
o
ir-i
O
vO
o
•^
sO —
O
vD
c «
■>r
v£)
>r^
r^
in
•^
og
CO
OO 1^
(N
-^
Si^
o
vO
tT
m
O
OO
t^
^
^D
r^ s£)
r^
nO
ji:
Ol,
00
00
^
in
vO
(N
lr^
tN
i^
CN
tN
— nO
CO
■«1-
"O
0)
0^
(^
CO
lO
CO
CO
^
CO
CO CO
CO
CO
J.
Bu
IS
H
Ul
■»»•
vO
vO
00
<N
CO
r-N -"l-
nD
NO
•VJH
C:3
CO
CO
<N
ir\
in
ON
o
OO
CO nO
ON
in
00
<N
I^
O
-O
OO
o
ON
in 00
OO
OO
Ol,
~
"
~
~
<N
~
CN —
"
O
_
^
O
_
r^
ON
vD
in CO
in
■<»■
t/)
C ni
un
(^
CO
00
■^
vO
CO
r>,
(N CO
■>r
tN
a^
OO
—
(N
—
o
rs,
in
— vO
o
■*
3U,
0
IPI
r<^
vO
^—
00
t-~.
CO
nO
00 in
OO
vO
a.
^
Jii
v
(U
^
■5r
uTl
O
^
m
CN
00
•^
(N
(N CO
OO
"J-
"0
CO
<~0
CO
in
CO
CO
■^r
CO
CO CO
CO
CO
0
u
Ou
(U
^
'■ !
c/)
o
r^
CO
_
■<r
in
(N
•^
ON r>s
I^
VO
T3^
C~
o
r^
o
in
TT
in
^
in
CO o
<—
vO
§2
Ol,
t^
CN
t^
O
in
OO
On
o
in r>.
—
00
"~
■"
~~
tN
(N
■"
(N
tN -^
tN
~
CO
in
vD
v£>
t^
r>
in
vO
— r-s
o
CO
c^
vO
CO
in
ON
CO
in
in
tN —
-*
CO
OO
CO
(NI
CO
CO
fN
CN
t>
CO in
00
<»
Oh
vO
■^
vO
CO
o
00
^
rs
t^ vD
t^
n£!
'—
—
4-*
in
nD
s*-
vO
^-
-T
CO
ON
-o
in
— CO
o
in
u (d
4-1
J;^^
m
ro
CO
vO
CO
^
•^
CO
CO CO
TT
CO
^
0.
tH
in
00
00
Tj-
o
nD
in
in
vO
CO in
o
O
'B.Ji!
o^
O
CO
<N
vO
OO
<N
^—
(N t^
-o
tN
00
■^
CO
vD
ON
ON
tN
in o
<JN
On
Oh
'
<N|
<N
~
tN
tN —
Ul
m
0^
r~^
t~^
O
Tj-
_
O
nO O
ON
CO
"^-^
r<^
O
_
0^
vO
vO
NO
■<1-
ON —
o
nD
ij-i
(N
vO
CO
in
00
On
tN
On (N
-*
r^
r>i
■<«•
vO
O
O
l^
CN
vO
OO r^
00
nO
Qi
^
■^
CO
(N
O
v£)
00
00
O^
-r
O
tt in
—
-^
H
U (Q
a
^
m
CO
^
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO CO
^
CO
! 1
a.
(U
u
a.
TT
CO
00
vO
ON
sD
~~
o
nO O
"~
tN
a^
o
CO
>-o
r^
ON
t^
00
■<r nO
uo
■<r
r>.
^
OO
—
t^
ON
CO
o
nO o
o
tTN
0.
'"*
'~~
~
<N
tN
tN
tN tN
(N
-
?^
4)
1)
2
; 0
(N
o^
_
in
r^
a
r^
nO
sO CO
OO
(0
n
3
<N
CN
—
V
— tN
*—
d)
>
>
,
<
<
1
dnoHO
Z dflOHO
20
W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION
(Bulletin 210
bn
'Z
s
Q
V
bn
It
&
9
O
u
o
TJ
C
'-' S
u
oa
5fc
CN m vO vi^
r<^ vO iTv rv,
O^ ir\ O^ "^
-'I- 00 r^ O
CO CO -^ r<^
35
5u.
C (It
o CT^ c^ o
r^ — oo t^
C<^ I^ <Js 00
— CN — (N
& IS
3U.
Z o
00 'fl- en ■T
— rn ■^ O
t^ CN TT 00
•<r 00 00 o
m CO 'i- -^
o
CO
—
—
sO
tN
!>.
■^
o
CO
CO
m
ON
r^
—
'"'
CN
""
CN
CN
■* — — fN
OO CO O vO
O CO (N OO
in ^ O^ >—
CO CO ■^ ■*
CO ^ "A O^
Ov vD vD (N
rr, vO ^ On
— <N CN CN
00 t>. in O
tN r>. o u"!
in \0 CN CO
in 00 o —
O o in in
t^ Tj- ro 00
CO CO ■^ CO
-^ (N vO 00
On in Tj- tT
Tj- in CO On
— CN CN CN
00 ■^ O CO
e dno^s
CO o o -^
\0 t^ in o
o o o o
in o — <N
CO CO ■* CO
t^ vO CN —
— vO --J- <N
00 CO CN O
— On! — CN
— t^ t^ o
ON CO n£) t>«
CO -^ — ""a-
00 i>. m nD
in o in o
CO O ON (N
■* CO CO CO
O^ ON oo CN
<S t^ O «N
On TJ- CO O
— CN — CN
CO »o in t-".
— cs o ■*
vo i^ — oo
\0 vO vO vO
o o m o
vD O — CO
CO CO ■^ CO
t^ cs — m
CO ■* t>. r^
00 tN -"I- o
— CN — (Vl
-.£> On — t-^
00 — r^ -"T
r>. r>, o in
vJ3 t^ vO t->
in CO CO i~^
00 t->. vO On
00 in Tj- t->.
— (N — —
t^ v£) (N nO
■<j- — in CO
f' dflOHO
November, 1927)
SUNFLOWER VS. CORN SILAGE
21
c
'•V
0)
V
u,
-0
13
0
TJ
C
ti
a
9
O
u
O
9 Id
! 0
<N CO
OQ
<
1
00
ON
ON
ro
00
_
(N
00
•^
in
in
in
•B 4-
rr\
t^
■^
—
00
nO
ON
—
nO
C (0
m
rr,
rn
1=°
■<r
<N
en
t^
■«r
0
0.
•*
I^
r>.
t^
, vO
in
nO
■<J-
in
in
c
o
O
o
o
1
' OO
o
O
o
o
1 ^
O It
in
^
vO
""T
in
m
00
en
(N
<N
OU
CA
f<^
"T
m
m
en
(N
■*
rn
en
Ic
1
H
!
«
00
o
■<a-
ON
in
en
r^
(N
nO
r~>,
■0 j:
(N
ro
o
in
o
nO
en
<N
oo
r^
TT
■"T
vO
•^
ON
nO
CN
O
nD
ou
~
Cn|
~
fN
~
"^
(N
<n
t^
o
o
•<1-
00
<~Nl
<N
en
<:^
■^
a.
ON
•>r
in
NO
m
<N
O
en
•T
oo
oo
in
rs
—
r>.
-^
o
o
O
^
r^
[^
CO
r^
in
t~^
in
v£)
nO
j>:
01
1 ^
44
a,'-'
o
O
O
in
^
O
mi
in
O
m
-8
B
O
o
<u
73
(^
'I-
in
m
in
m
en
O
en
CN
en
en
en
■0^
^
ON
sO
oo
•*
oo
t^
r>
_
en
15:2
is
00
tN
_
(N
00
(N
in
CO
_
■^
in
r>.
m
o
tv.
'i-
_
oo
oo
cu
<N
(N
!N
""■
<V|
""
^~
""
t/i
(N
(N
CO
ON
_
o
en
^
en
N
■V ^
00
in
.^
in
in
nD
.—
in
o
00
C IS
^
nO
i^
(N
■^
I^
oo
^
en
o
?,^
0
Oh
un
t^
r^
On
r^
in
nO
in
NO
NO
-s
(U
4-t
^
G
O
in
in
O
nO
O
o
in
o
ON
O Ifl
^
O
r<^
o
in
<N
o
in
en
en
4-»
Ou
(A
f<^
m
-"T
en
en
en
en
Tf
en
en
'iZ
v>
-^
ON
en
(N
-*
o
_
OO
o
in
<N
o
t^
t^
ON
o
r^
ON
—
ON
u-i
in
tv.
in
o
00
«N
o
i>.
CL
~
«N
""
(N
fS
^
<N
~~
■"
""
to
■^
__
__
v£>
00
en
00
o
oo
t^
■O *j
r^
t^
t^
<—
o
■>r
vD
o
t^
CTn
C fl
■«•
OO
00
■^
tT
00
TT
^
,—
oo
gt^
1 0)
1 u
0
Oh
^
00
!>,
00
t^
in
sO
in
sO
in
^
j
A-t
a
(U -M
o
o
in
O
ON
in
o
in
in
nO
(N
TT
<vj
(N
-«•
in
o
in
<N
"T
c
a.
1
en
ro
•^
m
en
en
en
-r
en
en
I.
0.
lA
is
00
ON
(VI
o
es
nO
vO
—
—
vD
ON
O
in
m
(N
TT
in
fs
O
o
m
vO
CO
nO
'—
vD
^—
•—
ON
1^
a.
~
fN
~
(V)
(N
~
CN
"
""
*■"
6
Z
o
V
bo
-0
U
00
'I-
o
m
(0
u
r>.
v£)
(N
nO
ii
'>»•
in
■*
TT
—
in
en
d
0
>
>
X
<
<
C
dnOHD
P
dno^i
)
22
W. VA. AGR'L EXPERIMENT STATION
(Bulletin 21
G
a
li
^_
en
i^
vn
in
o
,^
o
o
en
t^
CN
13 *j
vO
'^
■^
CN
CN
CN
O
in
o
00
t^
■^
S R!
t^
m
O^
en
t^
CN
T—
•—
r^
en
00
00
5SI.
o
a.
^
m
m
t~>.
vO
in
in
en
in
00
sD
in
4-1
&
o
in
o
in
00
o
o
in
O
in
vO
^
vC
sD
—
O
o
sO
O
CN
vD
a^
CN
vO
en
•o
fel^
-^
m
in
'^
TJ-
-*
■*
in
■<a-
en
■<J-
J.
(3h
en
2
H
"^
-^
in
vO
TT
<3s
00
o
C3S
o
oo
so
-^
OS
c^
_
t^
O
vO
00
O
in
in
Cjs
00
en
o
ON
t->,
00
00
CN
—
i~>
a^
C3S
00
en
Oh
~
~
~
~
~
t/l
r~^
CN
en
sO
in
en
o
t^
sD
00
OO
CN
"0 4.,
o
en
r-N
00
00
■*
c^
in
en
■^
OS
c «
m
■^
CN
J —
00
00
CN
o
CN
OS
■^
O^
Sti.
1
0
0.
•j-i
m
-^
00
t^
in
in
en
sO
00
sO
in
■^
J"
^
4J
a
00
t^
a, 4J
CA
o
eN
o
00
CN
■^r
OS
CN
^_
CN
^—
"0
in
■^
in
'3-
m
^
'i-
en
vO
■*
en
Tl-
0
u
a.
a
tn
00
lA
Ov
en
■>«■
■<r
in
in
_
o^
o^
o
in
vO
"BJi
m
o
^—
■f
t^
t^
c^
00
o
00
^—
en
o
ON
oo
o
o
en
*—
t^
o
^—
o
■^
0,
^~~
CN
CN
"
"
^
CN
CN
~
m
vO
t^
CJs
OS
t-M
CN
-£>
00
a^
CN
en
•0 ij
■^
r^
^
OO
in
OS
in
in
v£)
00
in
vO
C rt
■*
in
CN
^—
o
00
00
OS
r^
vO
o
■>!l-
St.
0
a.
in
m
■*
00
oo
in
in
CN
m
o
t^
so
X
0)
4J
vO
OS
""J-
00
t^
CN
■<3-
t^
r^
CN
■>r
vO
4->
(A
m
m
m
en
en
■<J-
■<*■
en
in
■•a-
en
■q-
I.
b
fc
vO
10
T3 jg
<N
t^
—
in
oo
o
O
crs
CN
in
■^
CN
r>.
,__
00
in
t^
o
en
OS
_
"^
r^
in
<:^
OS
r>.
—
^-
T
en
t^
o
in
o
in
a,
CN
CN
"
'
^~~
CN
CN
^
t^
in
00
■^
in
CN
_
vO
■<r
00
CN
CN
■a jj
in
(N
in
CN
-*
o
en
r^
t^
t^
O
1 —
C rt
Tl-
O
^—
r^
vO
o
<o
^
r^
o
vO
*—•
Sl2
j<:
0
vO
tT
in
a^
C3S
r^
sO
en
vO
^—
t^
t^
<u
H.
—
^
>,
s
t^
—
b
(U J-
sO
OS
vO
o
OS
en
^
o
o
^—
■^
CN
10
O (tf
B
in
m
in
^
en
^
TT
^
vD
^
en
'^
1
0,
"a!
vO
(X
T3 Jd
m
tN
—
—
en
CN
t^
OS
-<1-
CN
vO
r^
is
in
en
(N
en
t^
o
o
vO
CN
o
en
00
—
o
Ov
■*
^
^
in
00
. —
t^
CN
vO
a.
^
~
CN
CN
'
■"
~
CN
CN
~
c
; z
0
t^
tN
v£)
OS
oo
1)
M
CN
c:^
O
t^
vO
(L)
(0
'Z
<->
o
m
O
en
en
)-i
CN
oo
o
en
m
u
}.
4)
d)
a
"o
>
>
, X
<
<
s
dflOHO
9
jno^o
November, 192 7)
SUNFLOWER VS. CORN SILAGE
23
bo
e
e
4)
bo
„
t^
OO
in
CO
CN
CN
en
-^J-
_
-<i-
r^
-«•
"0 *j
^o
fN
o
o-l
en
• —
en
in
o
t-^
—
r^
<N
00
(N
in
t^
ON
in
—
00
en
1-
-"T
01
a,
u-v
fN
T
vO
in
"f
fNg
CN
'i-
t^
in
""T
01
e
vn
o
O
o
o
ON
o
in
o
O
o
ON
in
m
o
00
'T
o
in
■ —
ON
en
r>.
en
Ou
in
en
in
en
en
-I-
-<r
-*
in
■*
en
■^
X
H
^
"V X
ON
00
—
OO
vO
o
en
ON
ON
in
■<»•
OO
GTZ
a.
■<r
o
■<»•
—
OO
o
nO
—
tN
^—
vO
^
a^
OO
00
r^
sO
CN
in
in
00
l^
•^
o
~
~
■^
^
""■
~
«
in
o
«N
CN
o
00
TT
CN
CN
OO
(J"
__
"0*^
§,""
i'*"
o
sO
in
I^
o
o
O
, —
Ov
00
o
00
■*
—
(N
—
o
in
—
in
en
nO
t^
OO
Ou
in
m
^
00
r>.
in
en
CN
in
t^
in
■<»■
ji:
<U
J"
^
s
0) **
o
o
in
O
o
•^
in
in
o
o
o
ON
-"T
in
o
in
t^
en
ON
CN
en
t^
■<1-
s
U (0
m
m
in
^
en
-"I-
TT
^
nD
•^
ee^
■<1-
0
o
Ou
Vi
00
vO
—
en
«N
vO
CN)
o
r^
—
'ij-
00
en
v£>
cn:
a.
O
o
-r
^
ON
ON
CN
Ov
00
00
-r
OO
o
ON
OO
OO
00
CN
nO
in
00
r^
in
O
~
■"
^~~
^~~
""
""
~
in
r<^
cs
O
in
•^
in
o
o
nO
v£>
^.
I^
00
■*
O
CO
*-
o
ON
r~^
■<»■
'i-
en
t^
""
CN
o
ON
t^
en
•T
en
en
00
o
Ou
in
en
■^r
OO
t^
in
en
CN
in
00
in
in
0)
'
0)
^
a
(U 4J
u Id
f<*i
^
00
O^
t^
00
O
v£>
CN
o
en
t^
en
4j
a,«
Om
>>
in
en
-"T
en
en
-^
-*
■*
nD
^
en
-"T
b
in
13^
OO
vO
00
•^
in
en
ON
t^
r->.
00
—
—
vD
vO
cs:
■
is
Ou
r^
(N
r^
r^
en
o
en
OO
o
^
r>,
^ 1
O
ON
00
o
—
en
t^
in
00
ON
in
(N
rsi
'
—
—
^
10
l^
en
O
t^
in
OO
o
sO
-^r
vD
^
1
o
e IS
Sbu
vD
en
vO
in
r>.
t^
en
CN
CN
ON
CN
CN
00
en
o
'i-
—
en
en
'n
■^
ees
—
o
i5
0
Ou
'I-
en
-<r
r^
r^
in
en
CN
in
OO
in
■<J-
1
>.
c
U IS
O
o
in
o
O
vO
o
O
O
O
m
o
OO
r^
o
ON
■O
O
sO
vD
o
CN
O
o
c
0.
1
"*
en
in
en
en
^
en
en
nO
-^
en
•"S-
0.
■<J-
■<r
(N
en
00
in
vO
-^
O
O
00
o
flr:
a.
*—
o
o
*—
ON
CN
CN
■<r
o
ON
00
en
o
0^
00
ON
ON
en
CT^
vD
ON
ON
vO
CN
"~
—
~~
^
^~~
^~~
^
2
8^
h».
CN
nO
ON
00
4)
to
CN
ON
o
r->,
vO
4)
bo
(0
>^
O
en
o
en
en
u
CM
00
o
en
en
u
«
<o
V
n«
>
>
»
<
<
<
3 dnOHO
9
dnOHO
i
HECKMAN IXI
BINDERY INC. |S|
JUNE 99
„ J T PI ,J- N. MANCHESTER,
Bound -To -Plea-^ |^p|^^;^ 46952
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11