West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletins Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources And Design 1-1-1923 Soybean Vs. Alfalfa Hay for Milk Production Ernest L. Anthony H. O. Henderson Follow this and additional works at: hps://researchrepository.wvu.edu/ wv_agricultural_and_forestry_experiment_station_bulletins is Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access by the Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources And Design at e Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletins by an authorized administrator of e Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Digital Commons Citation Anthony, Ernest L. and Henderson, H. O., "Soybean Vs. Alfalfa Hay for Milk Production" (1923). West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletins. 181. hps://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wv_agricultural_and_forestry_experiment_station_bulletins/181
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry ExperimentStation Bulletins
Davis College of Agriculture, Natural ResourcesAnd Design
1-1-1923
Soybean Vs. Alfalfa Hay for Milk ProductionErnest L. Anthony
H. O. Henderson
Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wv_agricultural_and_forestry_experiment_station_bulletins
This Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access by the Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources And Design at The Research Repository@ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletins by an authorized administrator ofThe Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Digital Commons CitationAnthony, Ernest L. and Henderson, H. O., "Soybean Vs. Alfalfa Hay for Milk Production" (1923). West Virginia Agricultural andForestry Experiment Station Bulletins. 181.https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wv_agricultural_and_forestry_experiment_station_bulletins/181
Agricultural lExpnitmmt £iattnnainlbgp of Agnrulturp, HJpat Hirnima Hmnrrattn
HENRY G. KNIGHT, Director
Morgantown
SOYBEAN Vs. ALFALFA HAY FOR MILKPRODUCTION
Soybeans, ili«- \\.-i \ iruinin i.,
BY
ERNEST [j, ANTHONY and II. <>. HENDERSON
Publii Station will i-- maJl< d f
i
tKinlaupon written application. Iddrei Director of the \v.-nt Virginia Agrl.ultural
rlment Station, .Morgantown, W. Va.
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION STAFF
FRANK B. TROTTER, A.M., LL.D President of the UniversityGEORGE R. LYMAN, Ph. D Dean of the College of AgricultureHENRY G. KNIGHT, Ph. D Director of the Experiment StationC. E. STOCKDALE, B. S. Agr Agricultural EditorJOHN C. JOHNSTON Chief Clerk
AGRONOMYR. J. Garber, Ph. D
Associate AgronomistT. E. Odland, M. S
Assistant AgronomistK. S. Quisenberry, B. S
Assistant Agronomist
ANIMAL HUSBANDRYE. A. Livesay, M. S
Animal HusbandmanJ. H. Longwell, A. M
Assistant Animal HusbandmanChas. V. Wilson, B. S. Agr
Assistant Animal HusbandmanR. H. Tuckwiller, B. S. Agr.*
Assistant Animal Husbandman
CHEMISTRYHenry G. Knight, Ph. D ChemistChas. E. Weakley, Jr
Assistant ChemistF. B. Kunst, B. A.**
Assistant ChemistT. B. Leith, B. A.**
Assistant ChemistT. J. Cochran, B. S.**
Assistant Chemist
DAIRY HUSBANDRYErnest L. Anthony, M. S. Agr
Dairy HusbandmanII. O. Henderson, M. S. Agr
Assistant Dairy HusbandmanWarren Gifford, B. S. Agr
Assistant in Dairy Husbandry
ENTOMOLOGYL. M. Peairs, M. S EntomologistW. E. Rumsey, B. S.**
State Entomologist
FARM ECONOMICSA. J. Dadisman, M. S. Agr
Farm EconomistJ. H. Shaffer, B. S. Agr
Assistant Farm EconomistF. D. Cornell, B. S
Assistant Farm Economist
HORTICULTURE
M. J. Dorsey, Ph. DHorticulturist
H. L. Crane, M. S. AgrAssociate Horticulturist
H. E. Knowlton, Ph. DAssociate Horticulturist
K. C. Westover, B. S. AgrAssistant Horticulturist
Ernest Angelo, B. S. AgrAssistant Horticulturist
L. F. Sutton, B. S. Agr. t
Assistant HorticulturistP. M. Daly, B. S
Assistant in Horticulture
Troy M. Currence, B. S. AgrAssistant in Horticulture
PLANT PATHOLOGY
N. J. Giddings, Ph. DPlant Pathologist
Anthony Berg, B. SAssistant Plant Pathologist
L. H. Leonian, Ph. DAssistant Plant Pathologist
E. C. Sherwood, M. SAssistant Plant Pathologist
POULTRY HUSBANDRY
Horace Atwood, M. S. AgrPoultry Husbandman
SOILS
E. P. Deatrick, Ph. DAssociate Soil Technologist
O. C. Bryan, Ph. DAssistant Soil Technologist
T. C. Mcllvaine, M. S. $
Assistant Soil Technologist
VETERINARY
C. A. Lueder, D. V. M.Veterinary
*In Co-operation With the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.•*In Co-operation With the State Department of Agriculture, Charleston, W. Va.tin Co-operation With the Reymann Memorial Farms, Wardensville, W. Va.tin Charge of the Maggie Sub-Station, Maggie, W. Va.
Soybean Vs. Alfalfa Hay For Milk Production
Alfalfa has long been recognized as one of the best forage crops
for milk production. It is a legume, high in protein and mineral
matter. It is palatable, and has a very beneficial effect upon the
digestive system of the cow. For these reasons alfalfa has becomevery popular where it can grown to advantage.
On much of the land in West Virginia, because of the type andcondition of the soil, alfalfa cannot be grown economically. A satis-
factory substitute, however, is found in the soybean which can be
grown under less favorable soil conditions. The soybean is but lit-
tle affected by many of the conditions which interfere with the
growth of alfalfa. Analysis shows the soybean to be high in protein
and in mineral matter, but just how it compares with alfalfa in
feeding value for milk production has not hitherto been definitely
determined. Many dairymen have, however, used it with very sat-
isfactory results.
In order to ascertain how the soybean compares with alfalfa as
a feed for the production of milk, the following experiment wasplanned in which soybean hay was to be fed in comparison with al-
falfa hay.
THE PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENTTen cows were divided into two lots of five each. The groups
were carefully selected and balanced against each other as to milk
production, percent of butterfat, weight of cow, and length of lacta-
tion period. The plan was not to compare the two lots, but rather
to compare two feeding periods of the same lot, using one lot as acheck against the other.
Each lot was fed a basal ration consisting of corn silage and a
grain mixture. The silage was fed at the rate of 30 pounds to each
1,000 pounds live weight of the cows, and the grain was fed at therate of approximately one pound of grain for each three and one-
half pounds of milk produced. The grain mixture in the first trial