Burlington Vermont. Agricultural experiment station.

Annual report online

. (page 13 of 25)
Online LibraryBurlington Vermont. Agricultural experiment stationAnnual report → online text (page 13 of 25)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


ences



1071
068


80
170




681
711


842
854


1208
1258


2140

2288
H- 08


140.6
158.8

+ 4.2


24.86
24.08
+0.62


114.0
111.6
- 2.4


16.8

16.2

-0.1


20.02
80.76
+0.84














+■ 5


+- 8


+ 8


- 2


- 1


+- 8



16.46

17.01

1+0,55



Total value of butter, sklmmilk and two-thirds of fertilizing ingredients ;
beet pulp ration (I) $44.63, beet pulp ration (II) $46.01.

Difference In favor of II ration, $1.38.

Gain ($1.38), less extra cost ($0.62), gives net gain $0.76, daily net gain
0.55 cents.

IV. THE FEEDING VALUE OP INDIA WHEAT MEAL.

"India wheat" is a plant of the buckwheat family,* grown to quite
an extent in Vermont hill towns. Its seed when ground is commonly
used there like the common buckwheat flour for human food and also
as a cattle food. It rarely enters into trade as a cattle feed, being
simply a home grown concentrate. Its use seems to be lessening, but
it still cuts quite a figure in the feeding practice on many farms back
from the railroads and out of easy access to the byproducts now so



^ This India (Indian) or Tartary wheat {Fagopyrum Tartaricum) differs
from the common buckwheat (F. esculentum ) in having the grains smaller, dull,
roughlsh, with angles wavy and less acute.



Digitized by



Google



492 Daibt Feeding

widely offered. So far as is known no estimation of its feeding value has
ever been made. Two trials were planned with a view of filling this
gap, one comparing it with wheat bran and one with cottonseed and
linseed meals.

The meal fed in these trials was somewhat irregular in composi-
tion. It averaged about 2 percent richer in protein than the whole
buckwheat and 5 percent richer than buckwheat flour. It carried con-
siderably less nitrogen-free extract matter than average buckwheat
flour, and 2 percent more protein and 4 percent less nitrogen-free ex-
tract matter than average corn meal. It is obviously not adapted to
narrowing a ration. It was freely eaten without any observed ill ef-
fects, two and two-thirds pounds daily being fed in combination with
bran (as feed No. 2), or with bran, cottonseed and linseed meals (as
feed No. 3).

1. Compared with Wheat Bran

Six cows were used in the trial with wheat bran, five mature
and one a heifer, five fresh in milk and one farrow at the outset, hav-
ing been a year in milk. Three of these were fed mixed feeds 1 and 3
in alternation, two No. 3 and one No. 1 continuously.

COMPARISON WITH STANDARDS

Wolff. — The four mature fresh cows ate a suflftciency of nutrients,
but the farrow cow and the three-year-old did not eat enough to meet
the demands of the standard.

liVolff-Lelimann, — The exact reverse of the statement just made ob-
tains with this standard. The four mature fresh cows making 25 to
30 pounds of milk daily did not get food enough to satisfy the re-
quirements of the standard, while the two which, on account of long
lactation on the one hand and youth on the other, made but little milk,
ate enough and to spare.

The result of this trial seems fairly measured by the data pre-
sented in Table VII in the appendix.^ These indicate that when grain
feeds Nos. 1 and 3 were fed, each for 161 days, with hay and silage as
roughages, there were:



^ The "difference figures" afforded by the combined continuous-alternation
system are fauity, yet the comparison is not an extremely bad one; those ob-
tained by alternation are Identical with those of Tabl^ VII. See remainder o^
footnote statement on page 4i^3.



Digitized by



Google



BREEDING I'RIAt.S 'WITH Cows



m



Percentage gain

No. 1 No. 3 or loss when

ration ration No. 3 was fed

Pounds of dry matter eaten 3,136 3,136

Pounds of milk made 2,744 2,709 — 1

Percent total solids 15.00 14.98

Percent fat 5.52 5.47 — 1

Pounds of total solids made 387.9 387.3

Pounds of fat made 132.9 133.4

This trial further shows that there were made to the 100 pounds of
dry matter eaten:

Percentage gain

No. 1 No. 3 or loss when

ration ration No. 3 was fed

Pounds of milk 79.8 79.8

Pounds of total solids 11.5 11.5

Pounds of fat 4.00 4.02 +1

Ratio of fat to solids-not-fat ; 1 : .. 1.72 1.74 +1

A closer outcome could not have been looked for on uniform feed-
ing. What minute difference occurs favors the No. 1 ration. Unfor-
tunately the oat hay feeding introduces an element of doubt. When
the No. 1 ration was fed, 1,229 pounds of hay and 148 pounds of oat
hay were fed; when the No. 3 ration was used 1,086 and 339 pounds
respectively were eaten. The protein content of the hay eaten when
the No. 3 ration was fed was over 4 pounds greater than that consumed
when No. 1 was used; and its carbohydrate content was lowered. The
digestible protein content was probably about 2 pounds greater.
Whether or not this was a factor in the result cannot be told. Its
effect if any would seem more likely to have increased than decreased
the milk flow, and hence to have afforded the India wheat ration undue

^COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCE FIGURES (SEE NOTE TO TABLE VII APPENDIX,
AS WELL AS TEXT AND F00TN01:E, PAGES 472-473)



a










































<a






























HXS


M










a>


0) <x>














a^


B








S


OS










OQ


s-i


S


^li


o


m


d


^2


^








'O




§


Fl.§


>>




ft


11


^

^


a


>,s


g


^2.


-m"


^


o


u ft


p


o ft


OS


p+J


p


H


Q


a


H


fo


a


a



Products per 100
pounds of dry matter



In entire
ration



In experi-
mental feed



Table
VII,

Alterna-
tion,

Contin.-
Altem.,



0—1—1 —1

0—1—1 —1

-3 -t-1 — 2 — 4



-fl 0+1+1

+1 —1 +1 +1 +1 +2

-1 —3 +4 +2 —1 +1 —3



Digitized by



Google



494 Daibt I^cedH^o

aid. Bearing this in mind one seems warranted in saying that the
India wheat meal proved nearly if not quite as good a milk maker as
did the bran. i

FmANdAL C0NSIDERATI0l7S

There is no market for or quotations of India wheat. It is locally
ground for the owners. The Station bought it from an Orange county
miller in small lots at a relatively large price (|32), one which was
prohibitively high; hence the calculation of the mcmey side of the
matter has really but little value. It is given, however, as a matter of
record.

The tabular statement on page 497 is all in favor of the No. 1
ration. It made more milk, as much butter, cost less and made better
manure. The total value of butter, skimmilk and two-thirds of the
fertilizing ingredients for 161 days on each ration were. No. 1, 147.34;
No. 3, 146.70; or 64 cents in its favor. It cost 86 cents less and figures
a daily net gain per cow of 0.93 cents. If, however, the India wheat
can be grown and the meal made at not to exceed |20 a ton, one might
expect — ^judging by the result of this single trial alone — to find it as
serviceable as is wheat bran at the same price. It should be remarked,
however, that it is a "heavy" meal, that it does not possess the well-
known mechanical properties of bran, and that it is less well adapted
than this bran to form the bulk of the grain ration.

2. Comparison with Cottonseed and Linseed Meals

Six cows were used, four mature, two with their first calves, all well
along in lactation, and two of them farrow. Three were fed grain feeds
No. 1 and 2 in alternation, two No. 2, and one No. 1 continuously. Each
teed contained bran, cottonseed and linseed meals. No. 2 contained
India wheat meal in addition to and in place of one-half of the bran.

COMPARISON WITH STANDARDS

Wollf. — Speaking broadly the rations eaten were less rather than
more than standard in amount. This statement is particularly true of
the protein when No. 2 was fed. Eva and Mermaid ate in excess of
standard, except of protein. Queenie ate far less than she should have
done.

Wolff-Lehmann. — Total dry matter consumption was less than
standard; in all other respects standard or more than standard amounts
were eaten.



Digitized by



Google



Feeding Trials with Ck)ws



495



The outcome of these trials is displayed in the data given below,
drawn from Table VII in the appendix, which is amply confirmed by
that obtained by the other method.*

These indicate that when two and two-thirds pounds India wheat
meal is substituted in an 8 pound daily grain ration for an equal
amount of half cottonseed and half linseed meal, — hay and silage as
roughages and twice as much bran as the main concentrate being fed
for a length of 207 days on each ration, — there were made:

Percentage gain
No. 1 No. 3 or loss when

ration ration No. 2 was fed

Pounds of dry matter eaten 4,281 4,259 — 1

Pounds of milk made 2,480 2,422 — 2

Percent of total solids 16. <0 16.75

Percent of fat 6.59 6.59

Pounds of total solids made 413.7 405.7 — 2

Pounds of fat made 162.3 158.9 — 2

This trial further shows that there were made to the 100 pounds of
dry matter eaten:

Percentage gain

( No. 1 No. 3 or loss when

ration ration No. 2 was fed

Pounds of milk 57.5 56.5 — 2

Pounds of total solids 9.6 9.5 —1

Pounds of fat 3.79 8.73 —2

Ratio of fat to solids-not-fat; 1 : .. 1.53 1.54 +1

According to this showing, when the India wheat meal was sub-
stituted for the byproducts of the oil mills, there were made:

1. Only 2 percent less milk, solids, fat and butter;

2. As rich milk;



*CX)MPARISON OF DIFFERENCE FIGURES (SEE NOTE TO TABLE Vll APPENDIX,
AS WELL AS TEXT AND FOOTNOTE, PAGES 472-473)



B



3
S


M




B


, -M


%4


feg


o


II


+3


fl


d


>»o


rt







Q


0^



®S3






Products per 100
pounds of dry matter



In entire
ration



1^



d
fo



In experimen-
tal feed



S



Table




VII,


— 1


Alterna-




tion,


—2


Contln.-




altem.,


— 2



_2 0—2 —2 —2 —1 —2 +1 +2 -f2
—3 +1 —2 —3 —2 —2 —2 -t-1 +2 +2
_8 +1 +2 —3 —2 —8 —2 —2 +1 +2 +2



Digitized by



Google



496 Daibt Feeding

8. But 2 percent less production to the unit of dry matter eaten.

The oat hay— hitherto mentioned as possibly a disturbing factor-
was fed in the larger amount when the No. 1 feed was used (No. 1,
1,584 pounds ordinary hay, 424 pounds oat hay; No. 2, 1,627 and 370
pounds respectively). This difference is too slight to have had ap-
preciable effect. It seems safe to conclude that in these trials the India
wheat meal proved almost if not quite equal in feeding value to the
mixture of half cottonseed and half linseed meals.

FINANCLAX CONSIDERATIONS

For the reasons cited on page 494, the validity of the monetary
estimate of the India wheat ration is questionable. The tabular state-
ment on page 497 favors the No. 1 ration . The usual calculations of
the value of the butter, skimmilk and two-thirds of the manurial con-
stituents show for No. 1, |57.79, and for No. 2, |53.83. The former cost
87 cents more than the latter; hence the net gain was |3.09 and the
daily net gain 1.49 cents. If the India wheat meal is rated at |20,
most, but not all, of this difference disappears, the rations being nearly
on a parity. Most of the gain in either case is found in the extra
amount of manurial constituents brought onto the farm when the by- ,
products are purchased.

The ground meal does not appear to keep well, after the spring
weather comes on, due probably to its considerable moisture content.
SSo far as single trials can determine, India wheat meal seems a fair
substitute for standard concentrates like wheat bran, and cottonseed
and linseed meals, pound for pound, when fed in quantities of less than
3 pounds daily per cow. This outcome is not one which the analysis
of the meal would have led one to anticipate. The cow, in other words,
seems to find more milk-making food in India wheat than does the
chemist.



Digitized by



Google



Feeding Trials with Cows



497



COMPARATIVE VALUES OP VARIOUS RATIONS FROM THE FINAJJCIAL

STANDPOINT

























f4






















•o


Cost of


IH


%4










d

?!


li


1
1








food for


43




RATIONS




(4

5


!s






1


OQ




d'k)


1
1






1


1

i




1*


11
1^




lbs


lbs


lbs


lbs


lbs


lbs


lbs


lbs


1


cts


Cts


1


1



161 DATS ON NO. 1 RATION ±161 DAYS ON NO. 3 BATION



Total value of butter, skimmilk and two-thirds of fertilizing ingredients;
No. 1 ration $47.34, No. 3 ration $46.70.

Difference in favor of No. 1 ration, $0.64.

Gain ($0.64), plus lessened cost ($0.86), gives net gain $1.50, daily net
gain 0.93 cents.

46 DAYS ON NO. 1 RATION VS. 46 DAYS ON SAMB



Total value of butter, skimmilk and two-thirds of fertilizing ingredients;
No. 1 ration (I) $19.83, No. 1 ration (II) $19.56.

Difference in favor of I ration, S0.27.

Gain ($0.27), plus less cost ($0.02), gives net gain $0.20, daily net gain
0.63 cents.

115 DAYS ON NO. 8 RATION VS. 115 DAYS ON SAMB



No.81

No.811

II ± I

Percentage differ-
ences



808



8879
8241



805



1710 106.6
1716 108.1
- 6 - 8.6


21.99

21.60

-0.49


124.0
126.8
+ 1.8


20.6

20.9

+ 0.8


21.82

20.62

—0.70


f •


- 2


+ 1


+ 1


- 8



18.29

12.97

-0.82

- 2



Total value of butter, skimmilk and two-thirds of fertilizing ingredients ;
No. 3 ration (I) $33.18, No. 8 ration (II) $32.29.

Difference In favor of I ration, $0.89.

Gain ($0.89), less extrp, cost ($0.49), gives net gain $0.40, daily net gain
0.35 cents, T Q p



Digitized by



Google



498



Feeding Tbials with Cows



RATIONS






^ i;?;? a















b








•o


Cost of


?i








^


food for




1










is












a>




:a


s






S




B








S


s

^


1


i


Is


1






d








lbs


lbs


lbs


1


cts


Cts


1






Total value of butter, skimmilk and tvvo-thirds of fertilizing ingredients ;
No. 1 ration $57.79, No. 2 ration $53.83.

Difference in favor of No. 1 ration, $3.96.

Gain ($3.96), less extra cost ($0.87), gives net gain $3.09, daily net gain
1.49 cents.

23 DATS ON NO. 1 RATION VS. 23 DATS ON SAME



Total value of butter, skimmilk and two-thirds of fertilizing ingredients;

No. 1 ration (I) $5.13, No. 1 ration (II) $5.48.

Difference in favor of II ration, $0.35. '

Gain ($0.35), less extra cost ($0.13), gives net gain $0.22, daily net gain

0.96 cents.

92 DATS ON NO. 2 RATION VS. 92 DATS ON SAME



No. II

No.lII

II ± I

Percentage differ-
ences



581
647


875
229


2509
2496


454
452




227
226


1125

1072

- 58


87.8

85.7

-2.1


15.51
15.84

-0.17


187.9

148.4

+ 5.5


17.7

17.9

+ 0.2


17.56

17.14

-0.42












■^


- 5


- 2


— 1


+ 4


■{-■ 1


-'



8.78

8.52

-0.26

— 8



Total value of butter, skimmilk and two-thirds of fertilizing ingredients ;
No. 2 ration (I) $25.39, No. 2 ration (II) $24.69.

Difference in favor of I ration, $0.70.

Gain ($0.70), less extra cost ($0.17), gives net gain $0.53, daily net gain
0.58 cents.

V. THE FEEDING VALUE OF HOMINY FEED

Hominy feed or chop is a byproduct of the manufacture of hominy,
a human food largely used in the South. The harder and outer por-
tions of the corn kernel are separated from the softer or inner part
?ind the germ by mechanical means, the former constituting the hpm-



Digitized by



Google



Deeding Tibials with 6ows 496

iny used for human feeding and the latter the chop used as a cattle
food.

The distinctive differences in the composition of the com kernel
and the two derivatives are shown below, the analyses being calculated
to a common moisture basis:

Crude Crude Crude Nitrogen- Ether
Water ash protein fiber free extract extract

Corn meal 15 1.4 9.2 1.9 68.7 3.8

Uomlny 15 0.4 8.2 1.0 75.0 0.4

CHOP 15 2.4 9.4 3.6 61.6 8.0

The chop varies from the corn meal mainly in its fat content,
which, however, seems somewhat less digestible. Its protein content,
on the other hand, is somewhat more digestible than that of corn meal.
Hominy feed is sold quite extensively in New England and enjoys
considerable esteem among dairymen as a milk-maker. No experi-
mental trials of its merits are known to the writer; hence it seemed
worth while to define more clearly its location in the list of dairy feed-
ing stuffs. Three trials were made during the year designed to meas-
ure its feeding value as compared with wheat bran, gluten meal and
with a mixture of cottonseed and linseed meals, 16 cows being used.

1. Compared with Wheat Bran

Six cows, four being nine months in milk, two four months along
in milk, and all with calf, were chosen for this trial. They obviously
were not the pick of the herd, yet they served the purpose fairly well.
Three ate in alternation (two for three periods only) grain feeds Nos.
1 and 5, while two were fed No. 5 and one. No. 1 continuously.

COMPARISON WITH STANDARDS

Wolff. — Two cows ate enough, two a little less than enough and
two far too little to meet standard requirements.

Wolif-Lehrnann. — Four cows ate enough digestible dry matter and
carbohydrates and all ate enough digestible protein; two, however,
failed to get enough dry matter and carbohydrates to fulfill the stand-
ard requirements.



Digitized by



Google



600



DAiity Fesdino



The outcome of this trial seems to be correctly summarized in
Table VII, from which the following data are drawn; *

It appears that when two and two-thirds pounds of hominy feed
were substituted for an equal weight of wheat bran in an 8 pound g^rain
ration containing bran, cottonseed and linseed meals, — one-half of the
bran being thus replaced, — hay and silage being fed as roughage, there
were made in 115 days' feeding on each ration:



Pounds of dry matter eaten

Pounds of milk made


No.l
ration

2,499
1,556
14.88
5.20
229.5
79.5


No. 5
ration

2,499
1,613
14.71
5.12
233.6
80.2


Percentage gain
or loss when
No. 5 was fed



-1-4


Percent total solids

Percent fat

Pounds of total solids made

Pounds of fat made


—1
— 2

+ 2
-hi






and that to the 100 pounds of dry matter eaten there


were made:


Pounds of milk

Pounds of total solids

Pounds of fat


No.l
ration

62.4
9.2
3.18
1.86


No. 5
ration

64.9
9.4
3.22
1.87


Percentage gain
or loss wh«i
No. 5 was fed

-1-4
- 2

+ 1


Ratio of fat to solids-not-fat ; 1 : .


-fl



These figures indicate that the hominy feed ration, both directly
and per unit of dry matter made as compared with the full bran ration :

1. Four percent more milk;

2. Two percent poorer milk;

3. One percent more fat.

In this trial the hominy feed appears to outrank its competitor
for milk production and to equal it for butter production.



^COMPARISON


OF DIFFERENCE


FIGURES


(SEE


NOTE


TO TABLfi


VII


APPENDIX,


AS WELL AS TEXT AND FOOTNOTE, PAGES 472-473)




a














Products per 100
pounds of dry matter




£


















a

s


M














In entire


In experimen-




Z


^










■M


ration


tal feed




a




B

s




1


00

5*


JH

^

^
^










2
1






1

02






r^


>*o


s





*S


aS


i


M


S


■fj


M


5


■M






uo


p


o P<


d


P-M







o


ed




P


,*




H


Q


a


H


b^


"^


0^


>i


H


f^


>!


^


fe



Vll, 0+4—1 —2 +2 -Fl -F4 -t-2 -fl -F3 -fl -fl

Alterna-
tion, +1 +4 —2 —3 +2 +1 -1-4 -1-3 +1 +3 -|-1

Contin.-
altem, —1 -|-4 —3 —5 +2 —1 +5 +3 +1 -f 4 -f 1 —1



Digitized by



Google



Feemi^g TRiAts wiTtt Cows 601

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The tabular statement on page 507 shows that the No. 1 ration
yielded in butter, skimmilk and fertilizing ingredients 130.73, and the
No. 5 ration 130.26. The former, moreover, cost 26 cents less, hence
the net gain is 0.64 cents daily.

The No. 1 ration came out ahead, but solely on account of its extra
manurial value. The No. 5 ration made 18 cents worth more butter
and 9 cents worth more skimmdlk, and it cost 26 cents more, a gain of
only one cent. But a dollar and eleven cents worth of total extra plant
food, or even two-thirds of this sum (which represents what is assumed
to be available), is worth the extra cent several times over.

Viewed solely from the standpoint of milk-making and disregard-
ing the plant food item, hominy feed would seem in this trial to have
equalled or perhaps slightly outranked wheat bran at |22.50 and |19.50
respectively. When manurial values are reckoned upon it comes out
distinctly second. To afford a money equivalent to bran at |19.50 it
would have had to be sold at |20.

2. Compared with Cottonseed and Linseed Meals

Six cows were chosen, five mature, one with her first calf, three
fresh, one a month, one three months and one four months along; three
being fed in alternation, grain feeds 1 and 4, two No. 4, one one No. 1
continuously. Both rations were readily eaten.

COMPARISON with STANDARDS

Wolff' — Two cows ate too little, two ate too much and two enough
total and digestible dry matter and of carbohydrates. When No. 4 was
fed protein was always short, but not when No. 1 was used.

WollT-Ijehmann. — Digestible dry matter and carbohydrates were
insufficient only in the case of one large cow. Protein was always
lacking when No. 4 was fed.



Digitized by



Google



502



Daibt pESDtm^



The outcome of this trial is fairly well indicated by the figures
derived from Table VII in the appendix.^ It appears that when two
and two-thirds pounds of hominy feed was substituted for an equal
weight of a mixture of half cottonseed and half linseed meals, bran
being also fed in each case, and hay and silage used as roughages, the
results were as follows from 161 days' feeding on each ration:

Percentage gain
No. 1 No. 4 or loss when

ration ration No. 4 was fed

Pounds of dry matter eaten 3,222 3.330 +3

Pounds of milk made 2,683 2,747 +2

Percent total solids 14.64 14.23 —3

Percent fat 5.06 4.78 — «

Pounds of total solids made 390.5 389.4

Pounds of fat made 134.8 131.2 —3

and that to the 100 pounds of dry matter eaten there were made:

Percentage gain
No. 1 No. 4 ' or loss when

ration ration No. 4 was fed

Pounds of milk 82.7 82.4

Pounds of total solids 12.1 11.7 —3

Pounds of fat 4.16 3.92 — 6

Ratio of fat to sollds-not-fat ; 1 : . . 1.89 1.98 +5

The latter figures are in three cases a little wide of the others,
boing due to the eccentricities of Hallowe'en, as set forth in the article
comparing methods of feeding trials further along in this report. The
figures indicate that the hominy feed ration made, as compared with
the cottonseed-linseed rations:

1. Two percent more milk;

2. Six percent poorer milk;



^COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCE FIGURES (SEE NOTE TO TABLt VII APPENDIX,
AS WELL AS TEXT AND FOOTNOTE, PAGES 472-473)



















Products


per 100




^














pounds of dry matter




t


B
























t^


S


M










In entire


In experimen-




■M


4S


B


OD


■M

d


n

y^^




ration


tal feed






OQ






CO








^u




'O


0)






•c






•O








Sg


^


o a


^


>.^


£•




o






o






as


a


00 <x>

3|




So


a


M


OQ




J4




4.>










o o<


ei









o


a




o


03




H


Q


(J


H


b^


a


—3


^


H


b


^


H


b


VII,


+3,0 +2


—3


—6


_3 —6


+ 2 —1 —4


Alterna-














tion,


+ 3 +3


—3


—6 — 1


—3


—1 —3 —6


+ 2 —1 —4


Contln.-














Altem.,


-t-2 — 1


—2


—2 —2


—3


__3 _5 _6


—1 —2 —3



Digitized by



Google



Feeding Trials with Cows 503

3. Tliree percent less fat;

that to the unit of dry matter it made:

4. No more milk, and

5. Six percent less fat; and that

6. The quality of the milk was so affected as to cause a dispro-
portionate drop in its fat content, an unusual occurrence and one on
which, because of lack of confirmation* in the trials when No. 5 was
fed, no stress should be laid. It was sufficient, however, to convert a
gain in milk into a loss in fat, which on an equal dry matter basis is
a considerable one (6 percent). This peculiar result was obtained with
each of the three cows fed in alternation. It is the controlling factor
in this particular trial. If confirmed by further tests it would look as
If hominy chop were a better milk-maker than butter-maker.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Online LibraryBurlington Vermont. Agricultural experiment stationAnnual report → online text (page 13 of 25)