TIME FOR OVERHAUL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 286, 4 December 1933, Page 10

TIME FOR OVERHAUL

NEW ZEALAND AGRICULTURE

MUST MEET THE ALTERED WORLD CONDITIONS MJTRITIVE VALUE OF DIFFERENT FOOD CROPS The .time has arrived vs hen it would be a crime for those knowing the dreadful position into which our agriculture has drifted to not speak out on the subject. There should be no doubt in the minds of all intelligent people in the Dominion that our first duty is to see that a progressive policy is pervadi ng and functioning to help the primary industry of the country on which all of us have to depend for our present and future welfare, no matter what our position or stand-, ing may be. If agriculture is, as some would have it, “with its back to the wall” then it is high time an immediate investigation should be undertaken and every branch thoroughly overhauled from top to bottom. No stone should be left unturned, no avenue left unexplored, if we are to win through and overcome the economic conditions now in front of us. Thus Mr. A. MacPherson, formerly Fields Instructor for the South Island, and specialist in lucerne culture, Do panment of Agriculture.

What is it that agriculture requires in the Dominion? First, brains, vision, enterprise and will force; second, the removal of all obstacles that hinder and stifle real progress—let it be institutions, men, systems or practice. Third, adopt rational, progressive and common sense methods; scrap all crops that are uneconomic and a scourge; grow crops that will assure to the farmer at small cost an annual profitable return and abundance for both man and beast under all weather conditions. Fourth, get olf the rail, stop whining and get busy. New Zealand, to-day, is facing an unprecedented position in regard to the future of her primary industry—agriculture. Great Britain, the principal outlet of her farm products in the past has resolved and plainly intimated that we are no longer allowed to unreservedly dump on her markets what produce we care to send; that our marketing in the future is to be restricted and the share or quota of our principal exports are to be admitted on a fixed basis. This serious position in our agriculture became known about a year ago yet there is no evidence that either the Government, agricultural institutions or any of the many farmers’ societies functioning throughout the country have in any way taken the gravity of the situation to heart or are endeavouring to evolve an agricultural policy to meet the altered world conditions fac;ng the Dominion as a wholestagnation. Writing with an intimate and skilled knowledge of agriculture in New Zealand for a period of 57 years and still actively engaged in some of its pursuits, I;have no hesitation in saying (without fear of contradiction) that the farming industry of the Dominion has stagnated for the last 20 years: has not moved with the times, or equipped itself to meet the world’s changed conditions; has not advanced or shown the same enterprise as its competitors in the markets of the world. To-day we are reaping and will have to reap for many years to come the harvest of our apathy and slothful indifference to the agricultural progress that has been made by other countries during that time. New Zealand’s agricultural institutions, educational, instructional and otherwise, as well as her farmers, are responsible for this deplorable condition. They still cling to ancient and obsolete farm practices and still advocate and grow the same kind of crops their grandfathers grew, quite oblivious that progress has never ceased, but is gaining \elocity in other industries with each succeeding year. It has never dawned on them that agricultural progress has been made by men who were not satisfied with what was good enough for their grandfathers and that the successful man in any business is the man who can and w ill make use of the experience of others, who has the courage to discard his own errors and adopt the truths discovered by others, and the same axiom fittingly applies to every branch of agriculture. Viewed from any angle, the advanced and high position attained by New Zealand agriculturally 20 years ago, and at that time freely acknowledged by other countries has passed away. To-day she finds herself fixed to quotas in regard to her principal primary exportable products, which, had the progressive agricultural policy enunciated and advocated over twenty years ago been continued to this day, would have been so mightily increased in that time, that the quota that could be fixed on her past export ability in any branch would have been at least more than 100 per cent, greater than it now will be. We missed the bus’

Wrong Pastures. No phase of our agriculture has dune more to bring about this calamitous condition than the insane and idiotic prominence, advocacy, and continuance given during the last two decades to root growing as the staple forage crop of the country and to growing pastures of inferior grasses on our best arable lands where more reliable and higher class food crops should be grown, that would long ago have enormously increased our primary exports and placed ihe Dominion in a different position financially from what she is in to-day. Progressive authorities in advanced agricultural countries agree that root crops are the most soil exhausting, costly to grow and handle, unreliable, dry weather and disease affected, subject to insect attacks, with low feeding value per ton, that can be grow n. They are, moreover, crops that on account of quick deterioration cannot be stored for any length of time to tide over lean periods or be a stand-by for any food eventuality that may take place. Some months ago there appeared in most newspapers published throughout the Dominion reports of what was con sidered to be exceptionally good yields of some root crops and that such yields showed what can be done by what is called “modern scientific methods of farming.” The crops referred to were one of long red mangels grown by George Yule, of Sourn Featherston, vmich has just been pitted, and under official test went 94.65 tons to the acre. In the same paddock he had a crop of white Belgium carrots which yielded over 100 tons to the acre. Another crop yield reported was that nf D. James, of Nelson, who grew a variety of swede turnip called Horning, that gave a yield equal to 90 tons tn an acre, and were not affected with the disease known as club-roof, while other varieties grown in the same pad

’ I dock were badly affected. This crop of , swedes was being eaten off by cattle. Another Side to Picture. The paragraphs published regarding these yields were no doubt intended to stimulate and encourage other growers to likewise excel in heavy yields of such crops. But there is another side to this glamorous picture, little known or understood, that should be looked at and receive from farmers the strictest scrutiny in every detail, and it is with this phase of tne agricultural picture that I purpose to deal. Writing with skilled experience in root growing on an extensive scale and keeping in close touch with the production of root crops for over 65 years I would here preface what is to follow' on the subject by saying that quite 50 years ago all that was worth knowing about root crops, their cultivation, , manuring, fertilising, etc., pests, diseases, and rapid deterioration, as well as the fact that there were at times in turnip varieties, strains, w’hich were, for a time, immune from clubroot disease, but which eventually became affected like others. Particularly would I emphasise the fact right away, that few farmers in the Dominion today, growers of turnips and mangels, have the slightest knowledge of the nutritive food value of these crops, and the relative position they hold in regard to this most vital essential—nutrition—when compared with other forage crops that in the farming economy of the country should long ago have ousted root crops as the staple supplementary forage crop of the i Dominion. Animal nutrition and the nutritive value of different foods that form so | conspicuous a part of the education imparted to farmers in various ways by agricultural institutions in progressive agricultural countries throughout the world, has at no time received in the Dominion that foremost prominent position it is entitled to, otherwise there is little doubt that had the need ful information been made available to the farming community root crop growing would long ago have been relegated to its proper place.

Animal Husbandry. To successful animal husbandry in all branches there are certain fundamental factors on which it depends—v iz., keeping animals adapted for the purpose in view, providing in abundance the necessary animal nutrition both in quality and quantity, and giving them the necessary care and attention to maintain the animal in a healthy condition.

At no time have the main principles underlying the nutrition of farm animals been so important to the Dominion as now’. The changed world-wide conditions call for a higher type of farming and stock raising, than that followed by the majority of farmers in the past. To farm successfully in the future he requires to have an intimate knowledge of all stock foods and their nutritive value; grow only those of high digestible nutrient food value, that will assure to him year in and year out a certainty of feed no matter the weather conditions, and that can be stored and held in reserve for long periods if necessary. To give the farmer an opportunity to acquire this knowledge and grasp the true position regarding the crops to grow, and their relative nutritive composition, I here give in table form the average com position and digestibility of some feeding stuffs generally fed to stock in New Zealand taken from “Productive Feeding of Farm Animals, 11 by F. W. Woll, Ph.D., Professor of Animal Nutrition, University of California, acknowledged to be one of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject:—

Water. . I he water or moisture of any feed ' has no nutritive power and is no dif- '■ fcrent from water taken from any I

clean source. Too much water in roots diminishes their feeding value, as a part of the heat produced by the food in the animal is used up in raising the water contained in the roots to the temperature of the body. An excessive water content renders plant material liable to decomposition through the growth of bacteria and moulds. All foods for man or beast are made up of three classes of substance, namely» protein or proteids, carbohydrates aud fats. Protein is the most valuable substance in foods and is absolutely essential to animal life. It consists of nitrogenous organic compounds of a

very complex chemical structure all of which contain the element nitrogen. They furnish the materials for building up body tissues and fluids such as red flesh and blood, and make brain, nerves and muscles. Other nutrients cannot take their place for this purpose. Protein may also serve to supply energy that may be used for maintaining body heat for performing work or for storage as body fat. Protein the 1 armor must have, especially when growing any sort of young animals or making milk, or farming for pork or e gff s - ft is the most costly food element to buy, therefore the farmer should make it a first consideration, to grow crops having a high protein content that will produce at lejst abundance for all his requirements. Carbohy drates supply fuel to keep the animal warm and produce energy for muscular work. Excess of this is also stored up as fat. Fat furnishes fuel to keep the animal warm and produce energy and aid in the production of fatty tissues.

Farmers should retain the foregoing table and have it handy for reference. It will be a guide, to them in their operations in many ways: enable them to no longer blindly follow the ruck; to choose the most suitable crops to grow on their farms; crops that will gix e the best and most economical value. This table will guide them in the matter of feeding balanced rations to stock of any kind, for any purpose desired, and lit them to have an intelligent understanding of their busi-

0 I now come to present, the opposite g side of the glamorous picture regarding i, the. heavy yields of root crops pres, viously mentioned. With the foregoing s table for reference every farmer can t intelligently follow the details given, li and when the evidence is completed, will i- then be in a position to give a clear i- verdict for or against root growing. y I take it, that it can with safety be r , assumed that in all instances the soil >- in w’hich the heavy root crops before5, mentioned were grown was of good e quality and suitable, and the season I was favourable for good growth. Crops Analysed. • Taking the 94.65 tons lung red man- ® gels grown by George Yule, youth Featherston, and analysing those into e their component parts we have— Tons e Digestible nutrients—o I Protein 0.93 Carbohydrates and fat .. .. 5.71 s Fibre .1.98 '* Water 86.03 t , 1 Total 94.65 t e All the mangels were pitted, which would mean that the 86 tons of watei 3 they contained would have to be lifted, . and handled at least four times. Thus - 344 tons of water would have to be lifted and handled besides the 86 tons water would have to be carted or carried twice, making 172 tons before the t food portion of the 94.65 tons of mangels, which amounted to only 6.64 tons digestible nutrients were fed to stock. , Taking the 100 tons white Belgium ' carrots grown by G. Yule and subjeeting these to the same process of analysis, we get the following:— Tons ■ L Digestible nutrients— Protein 0.8 * ’ Carbohydrates and fat .... 8.4 ’ Fibre 2.2 • Water 88.6 Total 100.0 i As the carrots would be pitted or j bagged, this would mean that the 88.6 > tons water they contained would have r to be lifted and handled four times. ’ Thus 354 tons of water would have to , be lifted and handled besides the 100 1 tons would have to be carted or car- • ried twice, making 200 tons before the l food portion of the 100 tons of carrots, ’ which amounted to only 9.2 tons diges- • tible nutrients were fed to stock. Taking the 90 tons swede turnips, reported to have been grown by D. James, of Nelson, and subjecting these ‘ to the same process of analysis we have:— Tons Digestible nutrients— Protein 0.90 , Carbohydrates and fat .. .. 7.74 Fibre 1.62 Water 79.74 Total 90.00

As these apparently were being fed off in the field as reported, there would be a loss thereby of 15 to 20 per cent, of the actual yield through deterioration and waste. That percentage of

waste being authoritative. Taking the average decrease as 17.5 per cent., that would mean a loss of 15.75 tons in weight, making 75.25 tons as the actual weight of material from which nutrition would be obtained, therefore the result by the same process of analysis would be as follows: Tons Digestible nutrients — Protein 0.71 Carbohydrates and fat .. .. 6.48 Fibre > , 1.36 Water 66.70 Total 75.25 Digestibility. Chemical analysis alone can in no sense replace feeding experiments. With a new forage plant a chemical analysis can throw no light on palatability, digestibility or physiological effect. To determine the digestibility of a feed, it is fed to an animal under test conditions, and the voided matter in the faeces is then analysed. The difference is the digestible portion, which is usually expressed as a percentage of the whole, and is called the co-efliciont of digestibility. Digestibility of a food is not appreciably affected by drying, moistening or cooking. In roots, large, coarse, overgrown roots whether mangels, swede or other turnip varieties are both costly to handle and of little nutritive value for stock. In all roots there is a maximum weight according to the variety, and soil in. which grown, at which the per cent, of its nutrition is at its highest point, and for every pound beyond the maximum weight the nutritive value would decrease and the water and fibre content increase.

The nutritive value of root crops are materially injured in their food value by diseases to which they are liable, insect pests, and drought conditions, making them a precarious and uncertain crop to grow at any time, in fact a gamble.

The aim of the farmer should be to glow foods high in the proteins. It is a characteristic that most farm crops are low in this material, so low’ that when fed alone they do not produce normal development, necessitating so often the purchase of large quantities of costly concentrated foods, such as oil cakes and meals, and wheat bran as supplementary feeding stuffs.

To determine the relative value of foods, authorities agree that this should he based on the digestible pro tein content as being the most valuable constituent in a food, and is what costs to buy. Oats having a high digestible protein content is often accepted as a basis to illustrate values and is here taken for that purpose-*-

Soil-Exhausting Crops. Agricultural authorities thioughout the world agree that root crops, especially mangels, swede, and other turnip varieties, are among the most soil-exhausting crops a farmer can grow. Professor Primrose McConnell. England, gives the quantity in pounds per acre of the fertility removed from the soil by growing mangels and swedes. In heavy crops such as those being discussed, the quantity of fertility removed and its monetary value today would be as follows: — Mangels, 94.65 Tons Per Acre.

The foregoing plainly shows the enormous toll taken by such root crops from tho fertility of the soil, particularly when removed from the field and fed to stock, without the resultant manure from the animals fed thereon being returned to the land again. Even when root crops are fed off in the field only a very small proportion of the fertiliser constituents would be returned to the laud, ami this would be injuriously counter-balanced by the tramping and consolidating of the soil by the stock in the process of feeding off. As proof of this, over forty years ago 1 carried out a number of tests for some years in South Canterbury which showed that in wheat and oat growing (following a turnip crop eaten off by sheep, and an area of the same land left in open fallow and then sown to these crops) the land on which the turnips were grown and fed off yielded in wheat from six to nine bushels, and in oats from eight to fifteen bushels per ax:re less than the yield obtained from the fallowed land. With the experience gained in many years 1 know how hopeless it would be on my part to figure out for any fanner the costs incidental to root growing, cultivation, fertilisers seed, handling and feeding, etc., as each would have his own price and way of | doing. The two root crops we have been »

considering are undoubtedly heavy ones, as the aveiage for such crops in New Zealand would be for mangels 25 tons and for swedes 20 tone per acre. However, with the data hereinbefore given, it will bo good exercise for progressive farmers to figure out for themselves the cost of labour and loss of fertility, etc., attaching to tho growing of root crops such as he grows, with the ever present uncertainty at every stage as to whether there will be a crop or not, and put against this the nutritive value of the crop obtained.

Great Britain and New Zealand are the only units of the British Commonwealth of Nations that have continued for long years to grow these root crops as their staple forage. No other country in the world has so blindly followed this most uneconomic, and disastrous agricultural practice. Consequently both New Zealand and Great Britain arc to-day suffering more than any of the other units of the Empire through the incompetency in the past of their agricultural institutions. Lucerne. England and Wales, however, appear for a considerable time back to have been steadily decreasing their acreage in turnips and swedes, which before the war was over a million acres. In 1932 it had been reduced to 579,000 acres. The acreage in mangels, also for over a decade, has been rapidly decreasing, the drop in acreage from .1931 to 1932 was 40,900 acres, bringing the acreage in that crop down to 229,800 acres. This continued and rapid decrease in acreage, particularly in mangels, no doubt indicates that farmers there now realise their costly and unprofitable character. Strange, however, but only too tiue, in fact of that evidence the New Zealand agricultural institutions and advisors are using every expedient to induce farmers to continue to carry on this insane and obsolete practice. Canada for a time grew a comparatively limited acreage of roots, but many years ago noting the success made by other progressive agricultural countries throughout the world the acreage in roots has been rapidly decreasing every year, lucerne growing taking its place. Lucerne for many years past has been grown in Canada right across the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and north into the 51st degree and within a few years has increased its acreage Io millions of acres. Australia has also, of late yea

made rapid increase in its acreage in lucerne which has given a great impetus to its dairying industry. In South Africa, the lucerne acreage is increasing by leaps and bounds. In Cape Colony lucerne can be cut from four to six times in the summer and from once to twice in the winter.

Although lucerne was introduced into Great Britain over 200 years ago, the acreage in 1932 was only 39,400 acres. In New Zealand likewise. Although .lucerne was grown successfully in many parts 60 years ago, the acreage in 1929-

30, the latest official record available was only 31,690 acres. The reason for the comparatively small acreage in both these units of the Empire can in no sense be attributed to unsuitable soil or climatic conditions, but purely to ignorance, following antiquated ideas, wrong cultural methods and growing strains of lucerne not suited to the cbmatic conditions, and of poor forage yielding capacity. Should Anchor.

If lucerne can be grown successfully in the backwoods of Canada, on the high plateaus in the United States of America, on the Rockies, 8000 feet above sea level, and California 60 feet below sea level; on the cattle ranches of Mexico; on the Pampas of South America and the wind-swept lands of Patagonia; on the desert sands and

Kopjics of Africa; on the rigorous slopes of Siberia; on the parched lands of Australia; in New Zealand from the sands on the sea shore, over the plains, valleys and downs, to high up among the mountains without manure, fertilisers, or irrigation, only lime, why cannot lucerne become the universal staple forage in both Great Britain and New Zealand? Instead, we grow root crops which are costly to grow, soil exhausting, unreliable, subject to diseases and ravages of insect pests, quickly deteriorate, and cannot bo stored or held in reserve for any food contingency. These root crops arc low in nutritive food value per ton. Let the agricultural institutions of both countries answer this. Lucerne should be the sheet anchor of the pastoral, dairy, meat producing, poultry and bee industries of both countries. The value of lucerne hay as a stock food, either in its total digestible nutrient content or protein content is high per ton when compared with other stock foods generally used in Now Zealand as the following table shows: —

| It has to be remembered that lucerne . is not a one-horse forage, producing only one crop a year. It may produce from three to six or more crops in a season and in digestible nutrient content, particularly in protein, excels in a season both in quantity and quality all other known forage crops. As an illustration, I here give the results ob tained for two seasons, 1931-32 and 1932-33, from a lucerne area on a hill on the Otago Peninsula on poor soil, a light loam on a sandy clay subsoil, with solid rock five feet below. Such .soils and conditions, under the crude and fossilised lucerne cultural notions of our present day agricultural institutions and teachings would be considered as quite unsuitable for lucerne growing, but under rational methods and using a high strain of forage producing lucerne, unprecedented results have been obtained for years, completely proving the fallacy of ancient beliefs in this connection and rudely exposing them. The stand at no time was manured, fertilised or irrigated, but received a dressing of one ton ground burnt lime. When planted out with “Subtergrini” lucerne plants in 1925, each plant was given a space of two square feet in which to develop its continually spreading crown and branching root system. In its seventh year of production, 1931-32, the area was under the observation of a committee of disinterested persons, farmers and businessmen who certified to the results obtained, five crops being out during the season yielding 12.4 tons per acre of pure lucerne hay. In its eighth year of production, 1932-33, the weather conditions were very dry, pastures burnt up, and root crops generally a failure. The area was under the observation of Mr. R. B. Tennent, Fields Superintendent, Department of Agriculture, who certified to the poor quality of land, the dry season experienced, that five crops were cut, the first on November 3, 1932, and the fifth on June 9, 1933, and that the yield was 8.36 tons per acre of pure lucerne hay. He further remarked regarding the long period during the year that “Subtergrim” lucerne produced

and had a further opportunity to observe that it continued to grow right on during the winter months. Tho following table gives the authenticated yields of tho “Subtcrg.iin” lucerne hay crops obtained during the two last seasons from the poor land previously mentioned, with their digestible nutrient content also showing in contrast to these lucerne crops, the relative quantity of other food stuffs that would be required to equal the nutritive content of these and the years it would take average crops on average land of these other food stuffs to equal the value of the nutritive con stituents in tho lucerne hay crops. Table at foot of column. It has to be remembered that all the above foodstuffs are annual crops, requiring an annual recurring cost in cultivation, seed, harvesting, etc., whereas in lucerne growing alter the initial cost the first year, with rational treatment, a vigorous forage producing strain, when once established will last longer than the life of man without renewal. During that long period the lucerne would require no annual dop ing with fertilisers like other ciops. All it would require would be I ton ground burnt lime per acre when planted out and a similar dressing every five or more years, unless grown on limestone country. Tho average price of best grade oats jin the Dominion during season 1931-32 was 3s fid per bushel and in 1932-33 I2s fid per bushel. The relative value | of tho “Subtcrgrimlucerne hay crops 1 before mentioned based on their protein content value per ton, would therefore be as follows: 12.4 tons lucerne hay, 1931-32 at £9 12s 8d per ton, equals £ll9 9s per acre. 8.36 tons lucerne hay, 1932-33 at £6 17s 8d per ton, equals £57 10s lOd per : acre. With results like the foregoing secured from lucerne crops grown on poor land, one crop of which produced during a season of drought, it will j readily be recognised that with lucerne 1 established on the farm lands the ■ Dominion, no farms at their present > values would be considered too high, i There is at present an outcry in some I quarters to have certain lands disrated. | Is this step necessary? No! It should [ have come home to farmers with the experience gained during the last four years of depression, that, if to succeed in the future, he must drop hi? grandfather’s farming practices, and select crops to grow that will rather enhance the value of his lands, and not scourge them. As an example, take the floor land on which those lucerne crops were grown: The land has not been scourged and its fertility lowered by grow’ing lucerne on it; quite contrary, its manur ial content has boon increased every year by at least £1 per acre. That would mean that if the said land was valued at £lO per acre before being planted in lucerne, its value now, after being in lucerne for eight years, would be £lB per acre. Remove the lucerne and grow something else and its value ■would increase no further. But was it the land that should be given credit for the returns of £ll9 9s and £57 10s lOd during the two years? No, it was poor land, and was simply the medium made use of, it was the high yielding forage lucerne that gave such splendid results. That fact, in an emphatic manner, disposes of the generally accepted but erroneous theory that the value of land fhould bo based on w'hat it produces. This is entirely wrong. That would mean it would depend upon tho nature of the use made of the land (perhaps retained in poor grass pastures or other low food value producing crops). In a country like New Zealand, unpeopled as it is, and a tempting morsel for other nations desiring expansion of territory for their teeming millions, I am of opinion that it would be a step in tho right direction and wwnld bo an incentive to occupiers of land to use it to greater advantage, were the incid once of land taxation altered and made on tho basis, that the more a man produced from his land, tho less taxation he would have to pay at least in regard to local rates of any description. That occupiers of land not using it to tho advantage of the Dominion ns a whole should bear the heaviest proportion of the taxation.

Were this done, tne millions of acres in the country at present non-produc-ing or only to a limited extent would get settled quickly. Such taxation would force thoso holding at present some of the best arable land in the country and producing little from it. to sell out at a reasonable figure. The Dominion could then have the country peopled as it should be, and thereby I e strengthened financially and otherwise to meet any contingency. The question has often been asked: Ts there any way of increasing the total output of the farm without, causing a corresponding increase in tho overhead charges? Tn other words is there anything that can be done to put the balance on the credit rather than on the debit side? The answer is: Yes! and the way to do it effectively is to grow high yield producing lucerne under rational and progressive cultural methods.

Average Composition and Digestibility of Some Feeding Stuffs Generally Used in New Zealand. In po r cent.

The Relative Value of Some Food Stuffs Based on the Digestible Protein Content of Oats at 2s 6d and 3s 6d Per Bushel.

□ c * . ? • . ± a 2 & x heeding Stuffs Is - £ S 2s £ =, s Wheat bran . .. ., 11.9 88.1 J 1.9 47.6 *1186 Lucerne, green .. , .. .. 71.b .i.h I y> i> Lucerne hay . .. 8.1 91.9 10.5 4 j .1187 Barley fodder, green . .. .. 79.0 21.0 J.9 I 1.1 291 Oat fodder, green . . • .. b2.2 37.8 • 5 20.5 Wheat fodder, green . •’2. 1 | 7 12.9 Pasture grass ,. .. 80.0 20.0 9 - 1 1.2 307 Mixed grasses, hay , ,. .. Io.J 84.7 4.2 44.9 1099 Italian rye grass .. . 26.8 1.5 .14.2 Cocksfoot . .. 73.0 2 / .0 1 ° 1 1.5 Timothy 61.6 38.4 1.5 51 (l Cabbage ,. .. 90.0 10.0 2..’. 6.1 188 Carrot .. .. 88.6 1 1.4 0.8 8.4 206 9.1 1 0 6.0 157 Swede . .. 88.6 1 1.4 1.0 8 6 Turnip .. .. 90.1 9 !' 0.9 6.6 163 Pumpkin . .. 90.9 9.1 1.0 6 3 16;: Artichoke • . . .. i 9.-J 20.5 1 “■ 15.2 369 Potato . .. 79.1 20.9 1.1 15.9 380 14.3 2.0 8 7 °".O Maize, green 20.7 1 J) 12.8 ::o9 Oat st law 90.8 1.;; 4 1.;; 954 Barlev straw . .. 14.2 85.8 0.9 41.5 950 Wheat straw 9.6 90.4 0 8 36.1 S‘.’G Oat hav . .. 14.0 86.0 1.7 40.5 1012 Oats, grain Barley grain . .. 10.4 89 6 .10.7 62 3 1635 . .. .10.8 89.2 9.4 1 r).9 1910 U heat, grain . .. 10.5 89.5 8.8 70.9 1785 Skim milk . .. 90.5 9 5 ,».,. 5.4 195 Whev . . . 92.4 7.6 0.9 7.71 9‘2 * The total digestible short ton of 20001bs. food per ton in wheat bran is based on the

I ■ 'e C *3 4- ® ■5 > XCI -• 5 ° •g -•5 a Cropfj and Foods. 3 oi £ ** £ 3 o £ s. d. £ s. d • »ats grain 2391 bs. 7 0 1) 9 16 (I \\ heat bran .. *2381bs. 6 19 n 9 15 y Lucerne hav .. 2351bs. 6 17 8 9 12 8 Barley grain .. .. ... • • • .. SlOlbs. 5 15 (i 8 12 o Wheat grain ;i!)71bs. 5 6 Oat hav 1051bs. 3 1 b 4 6 1 Lucerne, green • • ■ • .. .. 811bs. 1 i ti i n i ] 11 731bs. (.) 2 19 10 Oat fodder, green .. .. .. .. 5Glbs. 1 12 1 1 1 9 10 2 1 9 441bs. 1 5 9 1 16 Barley fodder, green .. .. 421bs. 1. 4 1 14 r. W heat fodder, green .. .. 38 lbs. 1 2 .; .1 11 1 Oat chaff H31bs. .19 4 .1. 7 0 ( )* 11 1 1*") w 291bs. .16 11 1 3 9 Artichokes 291bs. 16 11 1 3 9 Potatoes .. 241 bs. .14 0 19 8 Mangels 2i!lbs. 12 10 .18 0 vv o d s 221bs. 12 10 18 0 Pumpkins 221bs. 10 18 0 Maize, green .. 221bs. 12 10 18 Q Turnips 201bs. 11 8 . 16 4 Barley straw eoibs. 11 8 .16 4 Whey 201bs. 11 8 .16 .4 Wheat straw JSlbs. ID 6 14 9 <’arrots .. •• 181bs. .1(1 fl 14 9 * The total digestible protein in wheat bran i s based on the short ton of i’OOOlbs.

lbs. per acre value per ac £ 8. (1. Nitrug on 374 5 13 o Phosphoric acid . 146 1 6 0 Potash 9a 5 12 15 0 Total .. .. .. £19 14 p Swede Turnips, 90 Tons P er Acre. lbs. value per acre per acre. £ s. d. Nitrogen 450 6 15 0 Phosphoric Acid . IOS 19 0 Potash 407 5 10 o Total £13 4 0

o J T ons. o? sa Tons. Tons. a CI2 T«fhs. ■S » . • P- <5 o Tons. Tons. Tons. 5 33 £8 Tons. a M S x 43-H M-s M g ii O K O tf M C Tons. Tons. Tons. Bus. Bus. a Bus. One tone lucerne Weight or quanhav contains 1187 titv of other foodlbs. digestible nu- stuffs required to trients. equal the quantity 6.3 5.76 7.5 j.o2 7.28 7.28 3.21 3.12 5.0 3.8 f 1.17 40.6 27-8 n t 8 of digestible nutrients in 1 ton lucerne hay. One ton lucerne Weight or quanhav contains 235 tity of other foodlbs. digestible pro- stuffs required to tein. equal the quantity 4.6 of digestible protein in 1 ton 13.0 10.68 10.GS 11.75 10.63 8.1 9.S 5.34 10.68 2.23 570 5 1.13 44.53 lucerne hay.

® in 2 tiC (ft •“ e S b -? ? fl> c M = i-.a - = Subtergrim Hay Yield, 3 t c ° S 1931-32— 3 d S » H fc •- rt .2 t < £ £ « 3 o c5 t£ o Yield 12.4 tons lucerne , 1 c.’i . Lons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Height or quantity of other foodstuffs 'J ons. '1 oiih. Lons. Tons. Tons i. Bus. Bus. Bu ? . hay. Total digestible nutrirequired to equal the quantity of 78 71 94 68 90 90 digestible nutrients in 12.4 tons lucerne hay. 40 38 62 47 14 503 344 308 limo it would take to produce above Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Y’rs. Y’rs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrt. ents 14,7.181b8., or 6.6 quantity of digestible nutrients from tons per acre. an average crop and 1 acre of aver- 3.0 4.43 3.76 3.4 5.6 3.0 ago land. 6.66 6.33 3.S7 2.35 7.0 11.0 7.7 10.26 Yield 12.4 tons lucerne hay. . Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. \\ eight, or quantity of other foodstuffs Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Bus. Bus. Bub. required to equal the digestible pro 57 162 132 132 146 !:;•» 100 121 66 132 28 tein in 12.4 tons lucerne hay. Total digestible protein 29141bs. or I.:; tons Y'rs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. '1 nnc it would take to produce above quantity of digestible protein from an 2.19 10.0 5.28 6.6 9.0 4 4 Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. .16.66 20.0 4.12 6.6 14 Yrs. 15 Y rs. Y rs. average crop and 1 acre of average land. Subtergrim Lucerne Hay Yield, 1932-33 - ™”- T *’"* T °"’- l '’" S T °"’- 1 ons. Tons. Tons. 'Tons. Tons . Bus. Bus. Bub. Yield 8,.>l> toiis lucerne hay. Weight or quantity of other foodstuffs 52 48 63 46 (it 61 required to equal the quantity of 27 26 42 32 10 339 232 207 digestible nutrients in 8.36 tons lueeiuo Total digestible nutrihey. ents 99231bs. or 4.43 Yrs. Yrs. Y rs. Y rs. rs. Y rs. lime, it would take Io produce above 'r rs. Y rs. Y rs. i rs. Y rs. Y rs. Yrs. Yrs. quantity of digestible nutrients from 2 3 2.52 2.3 3.SI 2 an average crop and 1 aero average land. 4.5 4.33 2.62 1.6 5 7.5 5.15 6.9 ield 8.36 tons lucerne hay. Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Weight or quantity of other foodstuffs lens. Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Bus. Bus. Bus. required to equal the digestible pro- 38 109 89 89 98 S9 1ein in 8.36 tons lucerne hay. 68 81 45 89 19 460 419 372 total digestible protein Y rs. Y rs. Y rs. Y rs. Y rs. Y rs. Time it would take Io produce allOve Vrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. 1964lbs. or 0.87 tons quantity of digestible protein from an 1.46 6 3.56 4.45 6.1 3 H.3 13.5 2.81 5 9 10 9 12 per acre. average crop and 1 acre of average land.