IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
^
1.0
I.I
I !f iiiiiii
iM mil 2.0
1.8
1.25
1.4
1.6
150mm
V.
<?
7
O^
^a
>>
^>
/y
V
/APPLIED A IIVU1GE . Inc
.^s; 1653 East Main Street
-^= °- Rochester, NY 14609 USA
_^^:= Phone: 716/482-0300
-^=r.= Fax: 716/288-5989
© 1993, Applied Image, Inc , All Rights Reserved
^%
t^
i>^
<\
'<i
\
,^:m. .^%
^ '^'^'^
<». O
;\
•o",* ^Sf.
^
CIHM
Microfiche
Series
(Monographs)
ICI\/IH
Collection de
microfiches
(monographies)
Canadian Institute for Historical MIcrorciproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques
Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques
The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original
copy available for filnning. Features of this copy which
may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any
of the images in the reproduction, or which may
significantly change the usual method of filming, are
checked below.
Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur
n
I I Covers damaged/
Couverture endommag^
Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restauree et/ou pellicul6e
Cover title missing/
Le titre de couverture manque
Coloured maps/
Caites geographiques en couleur
n
D
n
Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)
Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur
Bound with other material/
Relie avec d'autres documents
Tight binding may cause shadow:; or distortion
along interior margin/
La retiure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distorsion le long de la marge interieure
Blank leaves added during restoration may appear
within the text. Whenever possible, these have
been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties
lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas ete filmees.
Additional comments:/
Commentaires supplementaires:
This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/
Ce document est filme au taux de reduction indique ci dessous.
L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il
lui a eti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet
exemplaire qui sont peutfitre uniques du point de vue
bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image
reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification
dans la methode normale de filmage sont indiques
ci-dessous.
□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur
□ Pages damaged/
Pages endommagees
□ Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurees et/ou pellicul^s
Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages decolorees, tachetees ou piquees
□ Pages detached/
Pages detachees
I yj Showthrough/
Transparence
□ Quality of print varies/
Qualite inegale de I'impression
□ Continuous pagination/
Pagination continue
□ Includes index(es)/
Comprend un (des) index
Title on header taken from:/
Le titre de ren-tfite provient:
□ Title page of issue
Page de titre de la
□ Caption of issue/
Titre de depart de la
n
livraison
livraison
Masthead/
Generique (periodiques) de la livraison
lOX
1 ,
14X
18.^
22X
26 X
30X
__
_^_
J
UX
16X
20X
24X
v^B^i^^
7Hit
lu'il
cet
de vue
e
tion
lis
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:
National Library of Canada
The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.
Original copies in printed naper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.
The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — ♦- (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.
Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:
L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce d la
g^n^rosit^ de:
Bibliothdque nationale du Canada
Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en
conformit6 avac les conditions du contrat de
filmage.
Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprim^e sont filmds en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une emprointe
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commengant par la
premldre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.
Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbole V signifie "FIN".
Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Stre
film6s d des taux de r6duction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
roproduit en un seul clichd. il est fllm6 d partir
de I'angle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre
d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.
1
2
3
32 X
1
2
3
4
5
6
ADVANCE BEPOET
3
TO
THE HON. S. C. WOOD.
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE FOR ONTARIO,
ON
SOME SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL FACTS
IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GRAm, BEEF, AND MUTTON,
AT
THE ONTARIO EXPERIMENTAL FARM, DURING 1878-
BY WILLIAM BROWN,
PROFESSOR OF AGRICULTURE AND FARM SUPERINTENDENT.
79.
PRINTED BY C. BLACKETT ROBINSON, 5 JORDAN STREET.
1879.
CONTENTS.
I. — Various Manures on Wheat.
II.— Wheat, Barley, and Oats, after Roots and several Manures of pre-
vious YEARS.
III.— Cattle Feeding for Beef— Breeds against each other.
IV.— SiiEEP-FEEDiNG— Different Breeds and Kinds of Food.
V. — How MUCH should be paid for Steers to Fatten.
VI. — What is Costs to make Beef. •
.' (h
ADVANCE REPORT
TO
THE HON. S. O. AVOOD
-»—•<•>*--•-
.' •»
' f
I
I.— VARIOUS MANURES ON WHEAT.
{Field B. Plots 10, 11 and 12.)
Having in our 1876, 77 and '78 reports made that ordinary acquaintance with Farm-
Yard Manure and the principal fertilizers of this country which was considered hest as
introductory to a more thorough and exhaustive knowledge of their conduct, I have now
to report the first result of a plan upon these plots, whereby it is proposed to follow up for
a series of years, the effects of the various manures specified. It must be obvious to tlie
careful reader and thinker, that the agricultural world is still at school in regard to the
actual practical value of many forms of food for plant lite. This field of course is an
immense one, and has been laborously handled during the last quarter of a century, so much
so indeed that to some it may appear a waste of time and means, if not a savouring of pre-
sumption, to attempt adding to the of things that go and come like a barometric chart,
puzzling alike the scientist and the i-au of mature practical experience. It is not our
spirit however to cry "enough" so long as so much of this uncertainity seems to hinge upon
variations of soil and climate, nor need it be said that youthfulness as experimenters is
in any way a barrier to investigations wortliy of a Liebeg or Lawes.
The subject under this head has to be handled briefly by the following divisions:
1. — The object of the experiment.
2. — Previous cropping of plots.
3. — Present manures and cropping.
4. — Midsummer report of condition.
5. — Results as to grain and straw.
6. — Pi-esent conclusions,
l.—The Object.
Very nearly all farm practice hitherto has been conducted upon the assumption that
almost every form of what are termed "artifical," or "special" manures, or "fertilizers" are,
or should be conducive to the growth of its crops, and that by a proper knowledge of the
soil and plant, as wt'l as the time, form, and modes of the application of food, the cultivator
ought to be able to . .antain the fertility of his fields, either with or without the aid of
Farm- Yard Manure. Much of the present line of investigation at some of the German
anfl AmoHcan ScIiooIh, those in AljorrloenHhiro, an also by thn ontnrpriso of sovoral privato
iiidividuaiH, goes to rimko the use of fertilizors a piumcoa for most agricultural ovils, or at
least as deserving of attention towards the rtimoval of some of them. It is desirahhs that
every encouragement be given such investigations, but during their progress, and pending
their final results, it is very dangerous that much of the farming of any country should bo
led or misled by their current testimony, real or apparent.
As desirous of soothing this fertilizing fever, I start the broad question : Are artificial
manures needed in any case with the fact that Farm- Yard Manure contains, in every
shape, every material that any artificial or combination of artificials can supply? If we
know how to make, preserve, and empfoif our Farm-Yard Manure, along with thorough
tillage and systematic rotation, the aid of any fertilizer is surely superfluous. Is it not
the fact that most fertilizers are really not manures in the senbo of direct plant food aa
associated with Farm-Yard Manure experience 1 Do they not act more as stimulants and
correctives under most conditions of soil— pointing to the medicinal use, at certain suc-
cessive stages of the working science and practice plan of the intelligent farmer— it may
be part long previous to, or only shortly before, sowing, another when sowing, another
when growth is far advanced, and another before maturing ? Has not previous practice
and experiment gone to show that fertilizers, as a rule, are not of much practical value
except on well-cultivated land—to stimulate, to force, to make active, to correct noxious
matters, and not so much to add to food of crops? These and other arguments are on
hand to support the object of this experimental enquiry.
Besides, I cannot follow the chemi.st when h. says that lime, silica, magnesia, potash,
soda, sulphuric acid and ammonia — either soluble, insoluble, organic or inorganic are
the same things as added to the soil from manufactured rocks or bones, as they are from
the animal system, per farm-yard dung, nor are they the same even as those of the same
name in the natural composition of the soil itself ; and here, let me say, are reasons for
many grevious disappointments in past agricultural practice. We understand so little
yet of the ways of the plant and soil in their natural conditions— how the one serves the
other, how food is offered and taken — that, it may be, most of the forms in which our
special manures have been submitted have been far wrong, or, at least, not in accordance,
for the first period of cropping at loast, with the unknown habits of many of our farm
crops.
The object, therefore, of this experiment is to ascertain, by a series of crops in the
ordinary rotation of our farm, how much and to what period of time the soil may be
influenced by various manures.
It will readily be understood that such an investigation in my hands— those of a
practical farmer— can only bo presented by a list of facts without much chemical acumen.
As a practical farmer, I make for myself some, and receive certain other, materials said
to be fertilizing to crops : I know the physical character of my soil and its general con-
stitution by previous cropping, and being aware, as any well-read farmer should, that the
conduct of soil, manure and plant, is, for the greater part, regulated by climatic influences,
and our own special management, the conclusions to be drawn from particular results thus
studied and carefully overlooked should subserve the ends of general farming in our new
country more than any elaborate scientific digest — valuable as it would undoubtedly be
to many others, and I trust also to every farmer amongst us ere long.
First, then, with regard to
cr
ai
bi
tr
re
hi
in
h(
n(
2. — The Previous Cropping.
These plots, as forming part of field A, and adjoining the barns as they do, are not
likely to have wanted for Farm-Yard Manure previous to Government occupation.
In 1875 the crop was Indian corn.
" 1876 it was carrots and mangolds, manured with farm-yard dung and mineral
superphosphate.
" 1877 it was spring wheat, without manure.
" 1878 the crop was mangolds, with farm-yard dung, bone dust and salt.
It 18 safo to asHume, then, that the Hoil ih n«'ith(«r very rich nor poor by proviouR
cropping and manuring, and in any ciiho, a« ovt^ry part of tiin plot wan similarly trt^ato.l
and managed each seaHon, wo have now a subject to deal with tliiit in all ordinary proba-
bility prcsentH exactly similar conditionH of surface soil - physical and chemical. It is
true, however, that by the use of Farm- Yard Manure, Bono Dust, and Salt in 1H78, the
resvUs from the application of similar manures since will be different to wliat tliey would
have b(!en had nothing been applied after 1876. We have therefore to be careful in keep-
ing sight of this, and in paying particular attention to the liehaviour of the sub-plot now
held, as that will always be hold, un-mnnuret/.
The soil consists of a light clay loam, having a slight north-easterly exposure, is
naturally dry, and submitted to careful separation gives the following analysis ; —
Coarse grit 1 2 40
Fine gritty sand 16'80
Clayey sand 4880
Very tine clayey sand 800
8G-00
Soluble matter 1400
100 00
It contained 9 per cent, of organic matter, and had a specific gravity of 1 "32.
«'•
.1
3. — Prtsent Manures and Cropping.
It will facilitate future work to have a reference plan of these plots.
X. XI. XII.
4
1
4
1
4
1
i'.-Y. Dung
and
Superphosphate.
F.-Y. Dung
and
Superphosphate,
o.
Salt.
Bone dust.
F.-Y. Dung
and salt.
F.-Y. Dung
and Salt.
a.
5
2
6
2
6
2
Superphosphate.
F.-Y. Dung.
F.-Y. Dung
and
Bone dust.
1
F.-Y. Dung
and
Bone dust.
a.
F.-Y. Dung
and
Gypsum.
F.-Y. Dung
and
Gypsum.
a.
6
3
«
3
6
3
Nitrate of Soda.
No manure.
i F.-Y. Dung
and
Nitrate of Soda.
F.-Y. Dung
and
Nitrate of Soda.
a.
Gypsum.
Lime Compost
Tl.0 whol.. was fall ploughed (Octobor, 1878). ManurcH wore anpliod Vv Hoittn-intf
ovor tho Hurfaco on 2r.th April , ploughinK and harrowing under on •]! I. ; .Iri 1. ?
Nation variety of wheat overall on 28th of mune month, at rate of lOr. !I,h p.! a e .
1 r''x,rHt''w"f ' 'T '"": '''^^' ^'^ «*"""""^ "' ''^■'''' -> ^^'' •^"■j^- '^"^j '-v-toa
(iuiiii>{ the nrHt wt-ck of AugU8t.
The plan nhowH three plotH, 10, 11 and 12, of one-tenth of an acre ,.ach, sub-.Uvided
mentB*' 'Th?'." ""' "" ""^ '"'?'"' "'V' «"«-«^»i«th of an acre in each of ihe«e ex^ r !
menta. Iho manures and (luantities used were : ^
Form- Yard Dung, 26 loadH (of 2,000 lbs.) per acre.
Superpliosjjhate (mineral) 400 lbs. <•
Nitrate of hiodft oqo » •<
Bone DuHt 4qO <. .<
^*1* 400 " «
^'ypsujn 400 " '<
Compost, 26 loa.ls (of 0,000 lbs.) "
„«.. ^^f" '"^^«, *^'r separately, as also, with the exception of Compost, all in duplicate
association with Farm- Yard hung, making seventeen distinct applications -tl.atwUhout
any manure completing the list. The Farm- Yard Uung was got from cover Jhameirwl ere
young cattle were be ng suckled by their dams visiting twice .laily, and fed ou fodder
of corn straw, and hay, with a mixture of bran, corn meal, ami a li oik-^ke £
Superphosphate was the ordinary kind from Belleville; Bone Dust from Toronto manufac!
e^dZlZZ'f T^ "°* new; Salt from Goderich ; Gypsum (land plaster) from Parts,
and the Compost of our own making from two year's gathering of experimental vegetable
refuse mixed with one of lime to seven of itself *> F ' "''"i vefeetaoie
for t?!:,!'r^''"''f r5 ^T''^^"^ ^""« ^•*'» *^>^' ^^^ purchased fertilizers was primarily
for the purpose of testing to what extent they would be artected-for good or bad-by
admixture o«« vwnth previous to application, that is on the 1st April, while the others
were left to the 28th, or immediately before ploughing and seeding.
Ihe man of science may be able to indicate pretty correctly what changes are likely
10 take place on the admixture of certain salts and crushed nfinerals with moTst fS
yard dung but I respectfully submit that few coul.l give any safe guide to the pracS
farmer aa to what kinds of fertilizers should be associated with farm-yard dunu for at me
inore or less in order to add, and how much would be added to their maiSl vairby'
uch association. It is not only possible, but stands as a considerable fact that much
ui^aown loss and gain is yearly realised in farm practice by the alteration of condit ons
from the mixing of one manure with another, either before, with, or after seeding. This^s
4- — Midsummer Report.
«^v.;f' * great fleal of the future value of many of our crops depends upon the stage of
advncemen about 1st July, when the conditions of growth are often affected by dSes
o,dt Sf- ^ °/^«^^«^^her relations, and as special management either by m^anures ';
S'ettrm%lZtTd jV '""-^ ''' '^-' - -'' ' '^^ *° -^-^'^ very briS
Plot X.— Farm yard manure and superphosphate early mixed, and that without anv
manure were poor; farm-yard manure alone was strongest in straw; farl-yld manure
and superphosphate mixed on application had plants most advanced in head ; superphos^
ph.at^. alone was abou as poor as 1 and 3; while sub-division 6, under nitrkte of soda
was very strong and dark coloured, but irregular. '
.n.i ^''^^ XI.~Bone dust alone was poor, but with farm-yard manure on sub-division 2
early mixed, the crop was very regular and in every respect a good average ; farm-yard
^1
inanurf' rind nitrato of noda early tiiixcMl hiul a stronx rcKulrir crop ; 8/vlt Imd a scry poor
hIiow ; furiii-yanl nmmun uiid l)oiu) duMt inixt'd on application wan altout a lat'diuiii ; wliiln
Huh-diviMioii 0, an oppoHcd to 3, nIiowwI irrcjjularity, but witli htraw and Idadf much
Htron^ur.
I'l.oT XII. — Fariii-yard tnaiiurc; and Halt early mixed was rejjular and a f.iir avera;^n ;
the wmie inixful oidy on application had a fair exiiiliit, hut not so iiold a.s otli.TM. Karly
mixed farni-yurd dun>,' and gypsum had above an average of pointn, hut mmit^what irre-
gular ; the other (huIi. r>) wax regular but not «trong in compariHon ; gypMum alone was
very irregular and poor, while compost gave strong dark plants, somewhat j.atchy.
Altogether a state of titings favourable to early admixture by as much as fifteen per
cent.— juilging by ai)pearaiioL'H — tho prominent exception being Farm- Yard iJung and
Superphosphate.
•'i. — fiesuUs as to first year's Grain and Htm
w.
Maturing came with little distinction over all, excepting those under Nitrate of Hoda,
both with or without Farm- Yard Manure, which were four days later, and had also more
8trong/r««/t weeds than any of the othei-s. Harvesting was well made under favourable
conditions, and after careful thrashing and measuring, we had the following table : -
Plot.
Sub.
Diviiion.
ManureH Applied.
Pkodick Pkp Acrk,.
Grain. Straw.
Small
Grain.
X.
1 a
2
3
4
5
U
1
2 a
3 a
4
5
6
1 a
2 (t
3
4
6
6
Farm Yard Manure and Superpliosphate ....
Fiiini Viird Miinuro
Bushels.
14i^
131
1
16
Hi
194
23
S!
23
20
2o|
20
204
1'4
Lbs.
.3720
3810
3270
3870
3120
.■«40
2820
36S0
3840
3030
3750
4140
3420
2tll0
3.510
3420
3210
3090
Bushels.
2!
Without .Manure
1
XI.
Farm Yard Manure and Huperphi>Hphate ....
.Sni)HrphiiBphate
Nitritt'' of Soda
Bone i >ttiit
3
P
4
2
1
1
1
1
XII.
Fann Yard Manu: e and Bone DuHt
Farm Yard Manure and Nitrate of Soda . . .
Halt
P'arni Yard Manure and U(,v Dunt
Farm Yard Manure and Nitrate of Soda. . , .
Farm Yard Manure and Salt
Farm Yard Manure and Gypsum
Lime Compost
?*
Farm Van. Manure and Salt
1*
Farm Yard Manure ami Gypsum
Gypsum
1
Means
184
3466
18
It will be best to sy.stematise the analysis of this table, and make comparisons as
we proceed. Those marked with an "a" were early mixed, as elsewhere explained :—
1. — Produce without Manure.
2. — " by Farm- Yard Manure.
3. — " by Lime Compost.
4. — " by Bone Dust.
5. — " by Superphosphate.
6. — " by fJypsum.
7.— " by Salt.
8.— " by Nitrate of Soda.
9. — " by Farm Yard Manure, with early and late admixture of others.
10
ment^ named tlTrHnLAlT^] "TT '""'^ ^' ^^'^> ^"'^ ^^^'' ^^' '^^eral treat-
tToulh Zl 070 Ih, V 1^ - ," 't ""i '^'^" "P""S ''^'^^ ''^""^t ^>^ s'^'^l to be rich,
to ) „ In t ,' °. "^r^"^. '' ^^'''^ *° ^'^^ "'^'^'^ «f 3,466. This result, first of all has
to be looked upon as he basis of any further comparison with manures-what the land
does without help should be a guide to estimating the effects of any form of fertilizing
(2) Remembering that Farm-Yard Manure and Bone Dust were applied in 1878
we have to be cautious in our judgment of 13| bushels of grain and 3 810 lbs o strlw
from Farm-Yard Manure this year. What is the meaning%f this,-only the iike oZ
Z^ZTr *''* "'''""' ,"r""" '^. '"'^y ^°^*' '^'^* «---th nior; straw? DesCe."
made dung of a superior quality, not give grain ; is " muck not the mother of meal" or
IS It a breeder of straw only? Is it po.ssible that the management of W8 gave Stion
for grain but not for straw ? In order to check this observf the result fronSlarapSr
cations this year to those of 1878-that is from Farm Yard Manuil an Eoriust ^^Se
mean of sub-divi&ions 2 and 5, from Plot XL, is 21 bushels of erain a, 1 WiQO k«^f
tte^Va^llThaTJhetr ^™f V ''I' '"^'^"""^ 'vit^f trials "iid' not saSsfy
aee iflrdn^^OiTS' T *^' i"' i * °^ost natural manure, gave considerably over the aver-
age ot gram, 20i bushels, and also well up in 8traw_3,510 lbs. The erain is about
SmpoS tvrawT-''r't''r." ^"' ^°"^ ^"«*' ^" -'^^^^ indicat:sroni1tion"o
(4) Bone Dust alone is 16 bushels of grain and 2,820 lbs. of straw per acre Of
apXallon • '"' *T* *!!f "^"■'^"°"" '''''' «^*i- °^ ^°- Dust buTS the 18?8
application in view it would appear that we get only 2| bushels more of grain and one
sixth less straw by applying 400 lbs. more of Bone Dust in 1879. In company! however
S^rL^rrSw^^pT^^^^^^^ -' '-' --' ^* ^-« -*-"^ ^- bush^elsLXTn
.rtiiSr."^^£::S£ -^ sr^^ifr s; jif ^iS:=th^::^S
aTellT ^'"''^ "°.' Btraw-producing constituents, so here was ffvourabk o^portuS^^
a specially prepared mineral to make good its reputation as a fertilizer for cereals. One-
half bushel more grain and 600 lbs. less straw is the result of its private actioHnd even
when associated with Farm-Yard Manure there is nothing in a mean of two to represent
over 17 bushels of grain and 3,795 lbs. of straw per acre represent
in stml^^l^Tld°? nqo^'''w^t?'TJ' """"Z^^'. "n-manured standard, and slightly deficient
ha. nnIZ - ?"^, ^'^^O" W^*b Farm-Yard Manure it rises to 21 bushels ^ain and
nas no increase in straw. °
i« » tP .^*/°".''^ ^T' *^** ^^* ^"'^^^' °^ g*"^^^ ^""^ 3,030 lbs. of straw from Salt alrne
ZoJ^V^'t T-1 '*! ^^^^ ^''.*¥ «oil-^lietber that want be as direct food or f,. a
SaTtoLeTii. -^ on f ^^^°«^ .«^ 300 lbs. per acre in 1878. Farm-Yard Manure and
Halt together give 20 bushels grain and 3,420 lbs. straw.
ar„i J?J. ^^T' ^**''''*^°f So'i'^' ^itb its 16 and 3,840, is no better than Bone Dust for
nln of r? ^""1 a T^^ 'T^ ''' '*''^^- ^^« '^^g^^^* g^^i'i »"^ «traw is from a combina-
3 QQO 11, r ' ''^ ^"''^ ^""^ Farm-Yard Manure, being no less than 23 bushels grain and
d,990 lbs. straw per acre,— what they left behind theiu time will tell.
t 1 ^V 7^! T'L'^ ^"i^ ^^*^ admixture of the five fertilizers with Farm-Yard Manure have
to be looked at first from a classification of them. The two rock materials-Superphos-
phate and Gypsum-m their pure ground state, cannot be supposed as of an effervessing
nature, that ,s to say exposure or association with moist rotted vegetable matter such as
tarm-yard dung for one month should not detract from their value as plant food. The
Sri^T?.! f ,1"''?*^'°? ^' otherwise. However, as we have an average of 18 bushels
grain and 3,315 lbs straw from early mixing, and as much as 20 bushels grain and 3,540
lbs. of straw from the result of theii- not meeting until the seeding time. Here we must wait
i
4
m >
i
11
i
I
the opinion of the Chemist to say whether or not this result may be owing to a locking-up
or spoiling of certain constituents from too long admixture before application to the .soil.
The Salts proper in this early and late association make no admission in regard to
utility one way or another— the result being precisely alike in grain (2U bushels) and
only 151 lbs. more straw for the late combination ; this from what has always stood as
loosers by exposure seems strange to the practical farmer.
The greatest difference in this aspect of our subject occurs with pure Bone Dust, which
favours late association with Farm Yard-Manure to the extent of 3 bushels of grain and 120
lbs. of straw. The practical farmer, accordingly, would argue that Bone Dust suffers by
being combined with Farm- Yard Dung for one month previous to application to the land
at seed time.
But another interesting view of these results is this : Farm- Yard Manure alone, and
Superphosphate alone, give a mean of 13f bushels grain and 3465 lbs. straw, and in
association 14| and 3720 ; Farm-Yard Manure alone, and Nitrate of Soda alone, give a
mean of 14f and 3825, and associated, give 19.^ and 3870 ; Farm Yard Manure alone, and
Bone Dust alone, give a mean of Uf and 3315, against 19,^ and 3630 by association ;
Farm-Yard Manure alone, and Salt alone, give a mean of 15^ and 3421, but associated
show 20 and 3420 ; Farm Yard Manure alone, ar i Gypsum alone, give a mean of 15.1 and
3450, and in association give 20| bushels of grain and 3210 lbs. of straw. For easy re-
ference - nult the following table of these : —
Mean of Separate Results.
Result of
Association.
Grain per
acre.
13|
14|
141
15i
15^
Straw per
acre.
3465
3825
3315
3421
3450
Grain.
Straw.
Farm- Yard Manuie and Superphosphate
" " " Nitrate of Soda
14i
19i
19i
20
20i
3720
3870
3630
3420
3210
" " " BoneDust
• " " Salt
" " " Gypsum
General mean
15
3495
19
3570
Under independent action the Farm-Yard Manure and five other fertilizers give a
general mean of 15 bushels grain and 3495 lbs. of straw per acre, which is 30 per cent.
less grain than when associated with each other— or rather when each of the special fer-
tilizers are mixed with Farm- Yard Manure, and allowed to exhibit a separate result.
The mean of all classes of manures gives 19 j% bushels and 3,504 lbs. for early, and
21-i^j bushels of grain and 3,478 lbs. of straw for late, being 1^ bushels of grain in
favour of the late combination of materials, and a proof that our July examination
deceived the eye so far as regards ultimate results.
The grand result of the seventeen different applications is, — for grain a mean of 19 J
bushels, or about 6 bushels over the unmanured, and for straw a mean of 3,460 lbs.
6. — Present Coticlusioiis.
What then is the verdict, basing upon these notes of the first year's result of a crop
of spring wheat from the application of several manures, alone and in combination with
each other, in a commercial point of view ?
The commercial conclusion is at present the only one that can guide the practical
fanner, who is not, at least at this stage of the experiment, supposed to know anything
12
about tlio chemical conduct of tliese inaiiurea as regards exhaustion of tlieniselves or the
soil m which they have been acting,— time alone will effectually solve these.
Adopting such a practical form, lot us make a table in the order from greatest to least,
and calculating value by $1 per bushel for grain and «5 per 2,000 lbs. for straw.
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
U
12
18
Manurb.
Farm-Yard Manure ami Nitrate of Soda
^. " " " BonoUust ....
Linie Compoflt
Farm- Yard Manure and Gvpsum
;; " " Salt
... " " " Superphosphate.
Nitrate of Soda
Gypsum
Salt.
Farm-Yard Manure
Bone Dust
Sujjerphosphate . . . .
Without Manure .
Mean .
Fan
equa
opp(
kind
Value of Pi-oduce
per acre.
30
29
28
28
2(1
2,'j
2.T
25
23
23
21
21
00
25
25
05
55
50
60
25
05
05
05
80
(15
320 28
N.B, — Cost of Manures per ton and per aero : —
p -tr 1 ^r '''°^' ACRE.
J*arm-\ard Manure |0 75 $19 50
^"•npost 75 19 50
Bone Dust 27 00 5 40
^^1* 4 25 85
Cfypsuiu 5 00 106
Superphosphate 33 00 6 60
Nitrate of Soda 60 00 6 00
The range in value of produce per acre is not so great as might be expected, the
highest reaching to 611.35, and the mean only $4.63, over the unmanured. Eann-yard
manure as a whole, especially in combination with others is largely over the mean— that
IS, it takes a lead in every case except when alone.
Allow me to note here that, looking to the many points that go to make a good
sample of grain, such as evenness of berries, colour, and plumpness, the one from Lime
Compost was best, and Gypsum second. Superphosphate being poorest, with Nitrate of
boda and Bone-dust following ; others were almost equal or meilium in sample.
Another point that should form part of all careful work of this nature is the propor-
tion of small grain in each case as shown in a previous table ; these in another form are :
From Farm-yard Manure and Nitrate of Soda j^
Bone Dust 1
II " " Salt ; ; ; j;
" " Lime Compost j^
" " « Gypsum "' J
" Salt ^/. ;......:;: jj
" Gypsum 1
" Bone Dust '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. '^^
" Farm- Yard Manure and Salt .' " ' '^
" Nitrate of Soda 1
" No Manure 1.
" Super-phosphate 1
" Farm-Yard Manure and Super-phosphate ^
" Farm- Yard Manure alone j
up s
inal
tob
the
load
seve
not
futu
mail
rela
Mai
unn
our
six (
awa
imp
Klin
13
es or the
'
to least,
I'liiiluce
'
iiore.
00
25
25
(i5
55
50
GO
25
05
05
i
05
80
.
(!5
28
]
ted, the
nn-yard
u — that
) a good
ui Lime
trate of
propor-
m are :
Taking the two extremes, it is possible that Nitrate of Soda, in conjunction with
Farm-Yard Dung, has a peculiar effect in filling all heads, or every part of each head
equally, while Farm-Yard Manure alone, or in company with Super-phosphate, has the
opposite effect.
The cost of production without reference to labour, and the balance in favour of each
kind of manure makes the next table : —
No.
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Manurks.
< lypsum
Salt
Without Manure
Nitrate of Soda
Bone Dust
Superphosphate
Lime ComrwiHt
Farm- Yard Manure and Salt
Gypsum
" " " Nitrate of Soda .
Bone Dust
Farm Yard Manure .
Cost
per Acre.
Vahie of
Produce,
Deductint,'
Manures.
and Super-phosphate
Means ....
$1 00
85
00
C 00
5 40
6 00
19 .50
20 35
20 50
25 50
24 90
19 ,50
26 10
$13 50
$24 25
24 20
21 (i5
19 (K)
17 65
15 80
9 75
8 25
8 15
7 .50
5 35
3 55
40
$12 77
If not so much as a kingdom, how little less would we now give for the skill to take
up a handful of soil and tell, by a few simple processes, what and how much of the orig-
inal soil and manures there are in each of these experimental plots and the crops likely
to be raised under an average of seasons, without having to wait, it may be ten years by
the farmer's way of it— that is by actual continuous cropping 1
Of course, while apparently a fact that for the first year an application of twenty-six
loads of Farm- Yard Manure and 400 pounds of mineral Superphosphate per acre gave
seventeen bushels of spring wheat and 3,79.'? pounds of its straw, and left no profit, it is
not yet our province to assert that this form of fertilizing was a dead loss, or that their
future effects will be more or less ; and, on the other hand, as little right have we to
maintain that gypsum, of all the manures used, has given the largest profit when the
relations of coming years tell their story.
It will be observed that I have placed a value on Lime Compost equal to Farm-Yard
Manure, and that it stands between the two extremes of profit. To the matter-of-fact and
unreasoning person it will appear strange that so soon as we place a money value upon
our home-made farm-yard dung, so soon does the balance sheet narrow itself ; in all the
six examples of Farm- Yard Manure, with or without help from others, the profits are
away below the mean, and their own mean is only 15.50 per acre.
We leave the subject at present, and look to other years for valuable lessons.
II.— WHEAT, BARLEY, AND OATS, AFTER ROOTS AND SEVERAL
MANURES OF PREVIOUS YEAR.
(Plot 36, field B.)
By reference to last year's report you will find that this is the second result of an
important trial of four manures against each other, beginning with 1878. The applications
v>ie comparatively heavy — consisting of 40,000 pounds Farm- Yard Manure ; 600 pounds
laineral Superphosphate ; 300 pounds Nitrate of Soda, and 600 pounds of coarse Bone Dust,
14
each per acre. As this plot should be carefully followed up for a number of years, it wiU
be best to plan the ground now : '
C
B
so
H
O
BONE DUST.
73
H
<
O
NITilATE S OF S
SODA.
00
00
SUPEK-PHOSPHATE.
FARM YARD MANUR
a
<^
5
<
<
E.
There are, therefore, twelve distinct experiments under this head
The ground was ploughed in fall of 1 878, again ploughed on 24th and seeded on 28th
April last, with "Lost Nation " Wheat ; Rennie's Two Rowed Barley, and Swiss Oats.
Brairding of wheat on the 15th, Barley on Uth, and Oats on 18th May; Headin- of
wheat on 6th, Barley on 8th, and Oats on 9th July. Harvested, Barley on 2nd Wheat
on 7th, and Oats on 1 5th August. Those on Superphosphate stood best as regards strength
of straw ; with Farm-Yard dung second ; third on Bone dust ; and poorest on Nitrate of
»oaa. On JN itrate or Soda the crops were worst rusted.
Results of Second Year's
Cropping,
Manueks Applied in 1878.
Wheat, 1879.
Barley, 1879.
Oats, 1879.
Grain,
B.
Straw,
Lbs.
Grain,
B.
Straw,
Lbs.
Grain,
B.
Straw,
Lbs.
Farm-Yard Manure
12§
114
12
12
2800
2560
2640
2560
,..-1
33
31§
26§
5040
2800
2960
3040
67§
47i
52i
40
Superphosphate
4400
Nirate of Soda
Bone Dust ,
3280
4240
3840
Means
12 1 2640
1
30
3460
494 3940
The first strikmg feature in this table is the almost identical amount of grain of wheat
from land manured the previous year with four distinct kinds of fertilizers ; the slight lead
18 by Farm-Yard Manure and the least from Superphosphate, but so little all over that
practically they come to the mean of 12 bushels per acre. What has to be gathered from
16
8, it will
on 28th
ss Oats,
.ding of
Wheat
strength
trate of
879.
Straw,
Lbs.
4400
3280
4240
3840
3940
E wheat
;ht lead
er that
5d from
this? Is It a fact that, after a crop of Mangolds in 1878 manured separately with farm-
'7is7o""^' ""'^^'^.^/"P^T^o^Phate, Nitrate of Soda, and Bone Dust, the wheat crop
ot 187J shows no difference in amount of grain? Are we to understand that Nitrate of
>3oda usually consideretl the most volatile ol our Salts, is as good as substantial Bone Dust
and the best of Farm-Yard Manure upon the succeeding crop of wheat? The management
ot 1877 and 1876 could not afiect this (being wheat without manure, and turnips with Farm
Yard Manure respectively). There is even comparatively little difference in amount of
straw per acre, upon the basis of 220 lbs. straw giving one bushel of gi-ain. I am not
prepared to explain the chemical changes that have been at work upon soil and manures
during the past twelve months, but there is usually supposed to be such a difference in the
action of the materials used that the second year would certainly begin to tell it We can-
not possibly conclude that all were removed by the 1878 cropping, or are not yet accessible.
Another cor elusion may be this : that, incidentally, the character of the 40,000 lbs of
.if'"'^n^^n ^^'^"^''t™^'''' ^y "^ ^^'^ corresponding nutritive properties* for wheat, that
the 600 lbs Superphosphate, 300 lbs. Nitrate of Soda, and the 600 lbs. of Bone Dust had
by distribution over one acre, during the second year.
As regards barley after turnips, we have a va'riation in grain not very largely differing
among the kinds of manures ; Farm-Yard Dung is again the highest, but only U bushel
more than Nitrate of Soda, and 6J bushels over Bone Dust ; this latter result is no doubt
considerable, i-epresenting as it does, fully an annual rent per acre, but yet it cannot be
called extraordinary. Farm-Yard Dung gives an excessive quantity of barley straw-no
less than 2,240 lbs. over that of Superphosphate; there is otherwise no material difference
in straw; and meantime therefore, we have to credit Farm- Yard Manure all over with
^lii per acre more than the average of the three others.
Oats give the g^reatest variation in grain production ; Farm-Yard Manure heme
again in advance,-l , J- bushels over Bone Dust and 10 bushels more than the mean of all
Straw follows grain very closely, so that we have some results more distinct than with
wheat or barley. It is evident that oats, after carrots, manured with Bone Dust the previous
season, ha^-e not received the same favourable conditions for the production of grain as offered
by any of the o her manures and accepted by the like crops; Superphosphate is 7i bushels
better in gram but 560 less in straw than the Bone Dust. Has Bone Dust not yet unloosed
notTptT 'V Y% :Tlf- ^°^^^ ^''^' ''' ^2-* ^"^^^1« "^°^^ Sr^^^ ^«d 400 lbs. straw
not yet lost much of its fertilizing power ?
The conclusions for the present stage of this experiment are that the second year's
F„T,' %^''^'\^^^^'' ^^nm^A roots of the previous year, is 18 per cent, more valuable from
n^^? al 1 1 ■ T f^Z ^°"''' ^"P^'-phosphate, or Nitrate of Soda, and that the
mlr« f T^'IT ^I "f P'V'"*- °''"" *^^^ °*^^'-«' ^^^'^'^ tl^^y are 40 cents, bariey
of 2,000 lb").-" ^'' ' ""'"'''^"'^ *° *•"" ^""^''^"S ^^^^ ^^^''^^ ^5 P*^'- t«^
Values realised in 1879 from Manures of 187S.
Manures.
Wheat.
Barley.
Oats.
■
Total Mean ^^H
Value Per ^^H
Acre. ^^|
Farm- Yard Dung
Superphosphate
a c.
19 66
17 75
18 CO
18 40
8 c.
32 30
24 00
26 40
23 60
8 c.
34 10
27 20
31 60
25 60
69 ^H
Nitrate of Soda
Bone Dust , ....
98 ^H
53 ^H
22 SO |__|
Means
18 60
26 52
29 62
24 92 BS
* See previous paragraph— "i, The Object."
16
III— CATTLE FEEDING FOR BEEF- -liREEDS AGAINST EACH OTHER.
Along with tho knov ledge of what foods and the forms thereof are best for the
rapid production of good and clieap flesh, there arises the very important point of what
breeds are best under like conditions,— whether of age, management, kind and form of
food, quantity of it, return per head per centum of cost, proportion of offal to marketable
beef, mutton, or pork, and otherwise, the bearing of the animal in general farm economy.
In previous reports we have so far eliminated the relations of Durham grade steers in
several of these connections, and now have pleasure in reporting an experiment conducted
here between tv»o distinct grades or cross breeds of cattle during the past winter.
On 6th December, 1878, we purchased five steers of the stamp called Durham grades,
or the first cross by a thoroughbred Short Horn bull out of a Canadian cow, ageing then,
as near as could be ascertained, about 29 months ; and also, five Hereford cross steers, that
is, the produce cf a thoroughbred Hereford bull out of a Canadian cow, the average age
of which was 35 months. As the experiment was conducted solely with a view to testing
increase of flesh, irrespective of cost, it is unnecessary meantima to enter upon the latter.
Of course it will be understood that, in purchasing as we had to do, there always exists
some uncertainty in regard to the exact breeding, especially whether the dam had or
had not much, if any. Short Horn blood, in her veins ; as, indeed, it may well be asked,
What is a Canadian cow? "Without attempting to tell this, I shall merely class her by
saying that if not an Ayrshire in detail figure she is very much so in size and milking—
not so far behind in quantity and decidedly better in quality of milk— with an irregularity
in form that speaks, it may be of distant Durham relationship from the United States, or
the earlier Canadian importations from Britain.
In order to allow the animals to settle down and get accustomed to changes the food
given being the same as in the future experiment — twenty-one days were passed ere
weighing for entry, so that on the 27th December we had the following :
5 Durham grades 5,416 lbs.
5 Hereford crosses 6 245 lbs.
To start with therefore we had Herefords, on an average, 166 lbs. per head more
than the 0v^ers, two of them weighing no less than 1,402 each, the lowest being 1,051
lbs., or 20 less than the smallest l3urham.
The animals were tied up in pairs by sliding chain, in the usual manner, in a large
range among fifty others ; no exercise was given except to water once daily at about fifty
feet from the stalls, and to weekly weighings 150 feet distant.
The duration of the experiment was for 151 days, ending 6th May 1879. Food con-
sisted of, daily :— 90 lbs. pulped roots ; (turnips from 27th December to 28th March ;
mangolds from 29th March to 6th May ;) 10 lbs. cut straw and bay, and corn fodder ; 10
lbs. meal of pease and corn ; (9 lbs. of pease meal from 27th December to 6th March ; 10
lbs. of corn meal from 7th March to 14th April; 13 lbs. of com meal from 15th April
to 6th May). ^
The progressive conduct of animals under similar treatment being interesting, examine
first the following weighings : —
Durham grades.
Hereford croBsea
1.
6416
5469
6245 I 6440
3.
550O
6540
4.
6540
6546
6595
6510
5581
6556
6824
6832
8.
9.
.5890 5988
6872 I 6890
10.
6029
7034
11.
62a5
7108
12.
6459
13.
6415
7344 I 7334
In this observe the steady, increase in weight — with one exception in each — from
commencement up to the 6th stage, being a term of 42 days, in which we have a gain of
12.
13.
459
344
6415
7334
17
165 lbs. for the Durham grades and 311 for the Hereford crosses, or under one pound oer
head per day for the one, and U lbs. per head per day for th^ other FoUow^nfthk
weighing was not made for 14 days, so that from No's. 6 to 7 lepresents that fTtni^ht •
roTthe%?fco "l «t F. ^t. ^^'" "^"^- ^' '' "°* ^^"^ *° g"««« '^* *''« <^'^"«e or causes
ofTnv sot at that in "^^^ ' ^Tu' ""^ 'T'' "^ ^"^ ^'^*™ 8"°'' conditions, nor cliange
01 any sort at that time, so it must be set down as one of those irreeuhirities brou^),^
the"slretoK'dth;f'"f"f P^^*^''"^ ^'^^"«^' ^"'^^ - te^p^ZirdlfferSn
™e was kctual V S"ir '^ ? "^^"'^ ^''Y ^"^" *° ^'g°''°"« assimih.tion. The
Here?ords ^ " P'' ^"""^ P"" ^^^^ ^°'" ^^^^ Durhams, and 6| lbs. for the
the,r?erir/*^'';h*lr^?wT "^ J" experiment, both classes show a steady addition to
L"L uS;;:;: '''' ''^"•"^ ''^ "^ ^°^"™" '' ^^^'"S been caused by the ha'y being given
£s?i??-S
being 1^ lbs. per head per day,-making therefore 9 per cent, in favour of the Herefords
Final average weight per head :
Durhams .
Herefords
1,243 lbs.
1,467 lbs.
Increase upon original weight,-18% for Durhams and 17% for Herefords.
IV.-SHEEP FEEDING-DIFFERENT BREEDS AND KINDS OF FOOD.
experfmT^IL'S^rll^f?^^^^^^^^^
and making provision for anticipated changes Xeieafwl f A "''^"' "* association
beef, as in the van now, may ha?e ere lon/to divide Sp ^.^ 1 lif the commercial world ;
and why, I shall at present^eave with thf spe ^ £ ^W^^^^^ Thf "^^"r"'-/'--. ^ow,
indicate the following heads of argument :-' "^"^'"^^ ^^^^^^ ^"°^ "»«
1. Greater choice of adaptable varieties of animals.
2. Earlier returns.
3. As a manurial agent.
4. Two crops per annum.
more S:y;ret;fng':f~e sizZi^tin ^'"p 'r'^'^'^^-^ ^« -^" ^--. -y
foods is a safe sort' of^ kno^^tdge fTe^'ery fa me Z\'tT ,^'=^-i-*--^„-th theiir
to the special feeder. I am fully alive to the S.^L. ? f , times especially valuable
produce good and cheap muttr from finnH" ^ . '^""^"^ ^^ P^^*'^^ upon, how to
I accom^plished by suprrirl^X^rdthT^t:^^^^^^^^
rraCu^srsp^Sti:^^^^^^
head for exportation ' ^ ^natenah, m view of quicker and heavier weights per
practical purposes the analysis of one countrrwiH suit'tTat oi atlhT"'' *'^* '''' ^"
B
l8
Water.
Ash.
Oroanio
Matter.
1. Linseed Cake
2. Palm-Nut Meal
11 6
9
14 3
14-4
7-9
3-9
2-4
1-5
80 '6
87-1
8. Pease
83-3
841
12 2
3-8
84-0
Here then are four distinct kinds of feeding stuffs, having no relation to each other,
even in scientific classification : the first being the seed of the lint or flax, made into
cake after the extraction of the oil, the second the kernel of palm fruit from Lagos, Africa,
ground into meal, from the manufactory of Alex. Smith and Co., of Liverpool, England ;
the third, our ordinary golden-vine pea in the unbroken state ; and the last the common
horse-tooth corn (or Maize), also unbroken, got as "high grade."
If it follows that the less water any food material possesses the more value it is pro-
portionally to weight; the Palm-nut Meal should be in advance in this respect, with Linseed,
Pease, and Corn in order respectively ; and it is worth noting that what are always spoken
of as dry foods afford no less than a mean of 12 -2 per cent, of water, or moisture in certain
form.
The ash or mineral ingredients are considered to indicate value in framing the animal
body by growth of bone, tfec. ; in which relation we would expect order according to the
list in the previous table. The mean of 3-8 per cent, is not high however, at least compara-
tively so with others such as the grasses and clovers for hay, which give 7 per cent, on
an average of thirty varieties.
The close agreement of proportion of organic or vegetable matter of the four will be
noted, — an agreement which goes through nearly all kinds of grain, and makes us therefore
advance another step in order to ascertain wherein lies the difference of value for feeding.
Crude Fibre.
Albuminoids.
Extractive
MATTER free
FROM Nitrogen.
Fat, &o.
1. Linseed Gate
2. Palm-Nut Meal
11-0
28-6
6-4
5 -5
28-3
18-5
22-4
100
«
37-3
367
52-5
62 1
10-0
3-3
3. Pease
2-0
4. Com
6-5
12-9
19-8
47-1
5-4
What is called Crude Fibre, or rough indigestible matter, must largely affect the
nutritive properties of any form of food, and in our present examples we have nearly one-
third of Palm-Nut Meal thus characterized,— corn especially showing only 5 J per cent, of it.
The Albuminoids, to use plain language, are the solid gases of food or flesh, — indicating
richness for feeding according to the Wheat standard which is 13 per cent. ; if then, our
II
o
•w
a
fo
n(
Oroanio
Matter.
SOU
«7'1
88'8
84-1
84-0
•0 each other,
X, made into
jagos, Africa,
lol, England ;
the common
ilue it is pro-
svith Linseed,
Iways spoken
ire in certain
ig the animal
jrding to the
sast compara-
per cent, on
I four will be
i US therefore
B for feeding.
Fat, &c.
10-0
3'3
2-0
66
6-4
ely affect the
e nearly one-
5er cent, of it.
I, — indicating
; if then, our
19
cake, meal, pease, and corn, give other ingredients in proportion to this albumen, <fec., the
feeding value iiui.st be very high, particularly with lin.>4eed cake and pease.
We have now to di.stinguish two great classes in fattening materials,— one, Nitrogmoiia,
which inelud(! the Albuminoids, the JVon-iiitroffenous, having no Nitrogen, but (Jarbon,
Hydrogen, and Oxygen,— hence called also Carbo-Hydrates, which includes the fatty
groups.
Of course, both classes are indispensable to animal life, but, when we come to force
that life or overfeed it, we find the non-nitrogenous clivsa the better for the purpose. Ex-
amine therefore the culumn of " Extractive matter free from Nitrogen " and judge that
corn should lead in tliis respect,— followed respectively by pease, linseed cake, and palm-
nut meal, the mean being 47 per cent., or nearly one-half of the whole weight of the four
kinds of food under discussion, wheat being 66 per cent.
Yet again, however, the next column exhibits fatty matter or oils, which, if guiding
the value of animal fattening would place linseed cake first, corn second, palm-nut meal
third, and pease as last of the list.
Now gather up all these facts and make the following table :
Nourishing Constituents.
Albumen.
Carbo-
hydrates.
Fat.
Totals.
Linseed Cake
23 '8
18-5
20 '2
8-4
29-0
33-8
49-9
57-8
8-9
3-3
17
4-8
707
B4'8
71-8
70-2
Palm-Nut Meal
Pease
Corn
Means
177
427
47
67
. '^^"^' y°" "^i'^ observe, the non-nitrogenous or carbo-hydrates largely in the lead and
indicating high fattening properties. This may be good or poor according to the proportion
of the one thing to the other, the albumen to the carbo-hydrate especially ; so that taking
wheat as our standard we have in it a proportion of 1 of albumen to 5^ of carbo-hydrates,
and in our four :
Linseed Cake 1 to 1 J roughly.
Palm-Nut Meal 1 '< 2 "
Pease 1 " 2A "
Corn 1 " 7 "
Mean 1 " 3i "
In one case higher, in all the others much lower, and on the average 50% less than the
Wheat standard.
Finally, in these introductory notes, consider, for a while the relative cash value of the
four foods used. If we take Wheat again as our type and call it 1, it is easy to make the
next table of feeding ratios : —
Feeding R.atio.
Wheat 1 -00
Linseed Cake \ .52
Pil-"-Nut Meal ..!!..!..!.. 1-20
I 1-39
Corn .94
20
f'heck thiH with the actual average of market prices :—
Wheat ^,
Linneed Cake *?5 P^"*. *""•
Palm-Nut Meal 'it „
5^"^^'' 20 "
<^°'" 18 .«
But chemically they Htand thus :
Wheat 4„„ .
Linseed Cake ^Z ^^'"a
Palm-Nut Meal }i „
Pease ^^
p ^ 46 "
Corn 3j „
of thise four k!ndf o7 fl'.^ r f f '^^''«»'«.''* ^^^^^'^ the market and chemical values
^L ?I r * • °^ ,°''' "^^'i'"^' *** °"°" P«»nts t« the need of repeated experiments in
the feedmg of various classes of animals, and makes us look with some interesT o the
results now to be examined in this sheep one. interest to tlie
made^l^^*^ ^^''^ *^' ^"""''^''^ ''•''*^°'' °^ ^^'^^ '^"''^^ «f «I^«ariing aethers was
4 Cotswolds, pure bred.
4 South Downs, pure bred.
4 Oxford Down crosses, out of Canadian grade ewes, by a pure bred Oxford Down ram.
For one month previous the animals were similarly treated to hay bran and man
golds, m the pens set apart for this experiment, and for the last week of^hIt month Tach
class received the special experimental food that was to be continued durinTthe first sta^e
of the regular experimental period. The result of this latter proof Cs^d^2uat^nt
weight m every case except two, as follows :— i' "^ wu,s a aivunuatton m
Cotswolds, on Pease f^o^ 269 to 265 pounds.
^orn K 265 " 254 "
South Downs, on Linseed Cake .. " 17^ " lfi7 "
" Palm-Nut Meal ..:;;:: : '< 1.^3 " 159 »
Oxford Down crosses, on Mixture << 296 " 293 <<
Cotswolds, on Mixture ". '.' << 289 " 296 "
The regular experiment began on 17th March by placing the animnla +w« » a^
together, in order to duplicate each sort of food, so tha^i reTmlJfnrthe Lus ^t tTll
imders and that all were checked by alternating, not only with diffient breeds C £
with different animals of the same breed every three weeks Th^^ V,ori 1 ^^^p out also
to water and rock salt, and were fed daily at f I^ S'a. J. ^d 5 3^ "T. '^ '" *^""
The course extended to eighteen weeks, or six stages of three weeks P«r.|, nnrl *«,. *v
BvL '"■■';!"i;;;;;;::;;:;::;::;;; spounds.
Mangolds t «
?_t?Vn "''"^^"^'^g *:^° «*^,gf ' ^ place of hay and mangolds, green fodder of red
eJuvei- Mid lucerne, was given without stint. ' a l. .luer, oi rea
Having thus shown the plan we are left to deal with two tbinira ■ n \ ti,« u
m.
m.
mical values
)eriraent8 in
erest to the
i^ethers was
Down ram.
I, and man-
month each
e first stage
inuation in
ro and two
ts, you will
is, but also
tt all times
md for the
re supplied
ler, of red
e alternate
2) different
Pimt, with reference to
21
Food aoaivst Food.
(a.) lAnsaed Cake.
Two sheep in three weeks for each item.
1. Increase from 360 lbs. to 380 lbs.
" " 321 " 322 "
3.
4.
5.
6.
167
177
309
306
" 183 "
" 178 "
" 310 •'
" 324 "
+ 20 lbs,
+ 1 "
+ 16 "
+ 1 "
+ 1 "
+ 18 «
head per day.
Total Increase = + 57 lbs., or nearly \ lb. per
(b.) Palm-Nut Meal.
1. Increase from 315 lbs. to 320 lbs.
2. " " 380 " 400 '•
3. " '« 159 " 176 «
4. " '« 183 " 189 "
5. Decrease 311 " 306 "
6. " " 310 " 326 "
+ 5 lbs.
+ 20 "
+ 17 "
+ 6 "
— 5 "
+ 16 "
head per day.
Total Increase = + 59 lbs., or nearly { lb. per
(o.) Pease.
1. Increase from 265 to 280 lbs.
2. Decrease " 271 " 270 "
3. Increase " 189 " 190 "
4. " « 178 " 198 "
5. " " 326 " 339 "
6. " " 345 " 366 "
= +
= +
= +
= + 21
15 1b&
1 '«
1 '«
12 "
13 "
head per day.
Total Increase = + 61 lbs., or nearly \ lb. per
(d.) Corn.
1. Increase from 254 to 271 lbs.
2. Decrease " 306 " 296 "
3. Increase <' 177 " 178 "
4. " " 190 " 209 "
5.
6.
«
II
11
II
II
325 " 345 "
332 " 361 "
+ 17 lbs.
— 10 "
+ 1 "
+ 19 "
+ 20 "
+ 29 "
head per day.
Total Increase = + 76 lbs., or nearly ^ lb. per
(b.) Mixture of Linseed, Palm-Nut Meal, Pease and Com.
1. Decrease from 362 to 350 lbs. = 12 lbs
2. " " 304 « 299 « = _ 5 " ■
3. Increase " 350 " 360 " = + 10 "
4. « '< 299 " 314 " = + 15 "
5. " '< 211 " 223 " = + 12 "
6.
190 " 196 "
6
II
II
223
II
246
II
:=
+
23
II
II
<l
196
II
209
II
+
13
(<
\
9Q
|!i if!
I
i ii
9. l>f>ffreMo from 280 to '27 i \\m. = — 6 Ilm.
10. fm'JvvMio " 2'J7 " :(()() " = + 9 "
11. Decfetti^. '• 312 " 309 " =_ 3 "
12. Increawo " .100 " .'HI " = + ;. <•
Total InuroHHf - + (i7 Ilm.
Hat ime to oonipare with othtsrH — + .'J.'U HtH., or ii<arly i lb. n«>r
hcdd [M)r (lay. ' j f
Total Incnintes compnrfil:
From LiiiHowl Cako ,17 jbg
" Palm-Nut Meal fi9 «'
" PtittHO g I t(
" C.'wrn 7(j (t
" Mixture 3^;^ «
Mean = 57J lbs.
Wf! have now niatcrial to work up Homc rather important chemical and practical
feeding questions ; but tirnt let us ascertain what (juantitics of food were consumed in
each case :
Linseed Cake 90^ lbs.
Palm-Nut Meal Hot "
Pease 117 \ "
Corn 1591 u
Mixture : — Linseed Cake 63 lbs. \
Palm-Nut Meal e.*) " ( „„, ,,
Pease 125.^ " ("^ ^^
Corn 12r)| " )
Half for comparison ~ 190^ lbs.
In addition therefore to the accompaniments of liay, bran, and mangolds, it took
90i lbs. of Linseed Cake to produce b7 lbs. of mutton and wool.
80| " Palm-Nut Meal " S9 " " «
177A " Pease " 61 " " "
159| " Corn " 76 " «« «
190| " Mixture «' 33^ " " «•
The clmmical values of these, according to pr \iouK data, are as follows :
90i^ llj'i of Linseed Cake costs, chewiailly, $2 2,^
80| " Palm-Nut Meal ' '• 1 60
177| " Pease " " 4 08
159i " Corn « " 2 50
190i " Mixture " " 4 00
The relative chemical cost of production is
By the Linseed Cake 4 cts. per lb.
" Palm-Nut Meal 2| "
" Pease ..." 6J "
' ' '. 'rrn 3^f «
" Mixture 2i "
Mean of 3 9^ "
But the market, or actual cost of the increased flesh has been,
m
III
tl
St
ci
ol
Li
Vi
Pf
Cc
CO
ea
98
I, !b. pf«r
practical
Humcd in
; took
By LinnPfd Cake 2ij ctH. per lb.
" Pulni Vnt Meal 2 ctH. (fully) p.-r !»).
" Pease 2V'o ctB, pur lb.
" Com 1 ^j '•
" Mixture 6| "
Mean of 3i "
It appears that chinnical and mai'k«t valueh *gree IwHt in the following mler :-
Ist, Palm-Nuf Meal.
2nd, LiriHei'd ( n,k»>.
3rd, Mixture,
4th, Corn.
Bth, Pease.
The final present result of the experiment of food against fooci as regu ^ roat, \h
Ist, or least cost fm- the Com.
2nd " " Palm-Nut Meal.
3rd •• " Liiiseod Cako.
4th ♦• " Pease.
6th " " Mixture.
Let us briefly review l)y saying it appears that the effects of these foods on ^ sep are
not regulated by the amount of water in their ouiposition, nor by the (iiuintit' '' ash.
nor by thi; amount of crude fibre present ; to a '•crtain exd-nt they agr<'.> witli ^nst
quantity of albuminoids beingyiVs^ in results, bur this may be only ii»cidental.
Ist, Corn r= 10 of Albuminoids
2nd, Palm-Nut Meal . . . . = 18.^ "
3rd, Pease = L*2| "
4th, Linseed = L'6 •*
Neither do they agree witli the proportions of fatty or oily matters ; note, however,
the rather close agreement there is with the noi nitrogenous elements ; and, keepim
strictly to the suggestion given in the intiHKluctory | vt of this chapter, by which we ant
cipatcd conclusions according to relative positions of rtain chemical elements in each kind
of food, let us summarize their order.
Linseed Cake ....
Palm-Nut Meal..
Pease
Corn
Water.
Ash.
Crude
Fibre,
Albumen.
2nd
Ist
3rd
1st
Ist
2nd
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
2nd
2nd
4th
4th
Ist
4th
. )N-
Fat and
NlTKc ENOUS.
Oils.
3ird
1st
4th
3rd
2n.
4th
l8t
2nd
Wheat
Standard.
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Totals.
15
20
18
17
Placing Linseed Cake 1st, Corn 2nd, Pease 3rd, and J'alm-Nut Meal 4th.
Breed against Breed.
Examine now how the several breeds of sheep gave account of the different foods
consumed by them in submitting which the means of the results reduced are to one head of
each breed for twenty-one days.
X.
^>^A
t
24
On Linseed Cake.
Cotbwolds increased from 170 lbs. to 175i lbs
(South Downs " 853 u qq*
Ox. Downs Crosses " 153 « 152
= 5i.lbi
Mean = 6J lbs.
On Palm-Nut Meal.
Coltswolds increased from 174 to 180i lbs.
South Downs " 854 " 91
Ox. Down Crosses " I55 « 153
(I
(I
6i lbs.
5| «
8 "
Mean = 6f lbs.
On Pease.
Cotswolds increased from 134 to 1374 lbs
South Downs " 91| " 95 <<
Ox. Down Crosses " 1724 " 183 "
Mean = 5f lbs.
On Corn.
Cotswolds increased from 140 to 1414 lbs.
South Downs " 9l| « ggi « "
Ox. Down Crosses " 166 " 1804 "
Mean
\\ lbs.
5 "
14^"
7 lbs.
On Mixtures.
Cotswolds increased from 164| to; 1654 lbs.
South Downs " 1024 " 1094 "
Ox. Down Crosses " 1544 « 155 «
1 lb.
6f lbs.
#«
Mean = 2f lbs.
1st Oxford Down Cross, ^ lbs. per head per stage.
2nd, South Down, 5 <« .< ®
3rd, Cotswold, 31 « «
There was a little scourinc: amonc the r!ota«'old° HuHnrr +K- =, j x
among the Houth Downs in the first stage of the experiment ° ^""^ '^^'' ^' ^^«°
As regards Breed again, t Breed, it results that the Oxford Down cross is Wi n.r
A
26
2nd. Experiment with Sheep.
In this I wish simply to record the weights of several breeds of one and two shear
wethers put up together from December 1878 to September 1879, as fed upon hay, pease,
bran and green fodder. j> f y
The weights are an average of each kind :
Leicesters, two shear 258 lbs. per head.
South Down crosses, one shear 205 "
Cotswolds, two shear 195 «
Oxford Down crosses, one shear 175 "
South Downs, two shear 158 "
The South Down crosses were from grade Cotswold-Leicester ewes by a pure South
Down ram, and the Oxford Down crosses out of similar ewes by a pure Oxford Down ram.
Allow me to mention that several of these wethers after being bought from us took
1st and 2nd prizes both at the Toronto Industrial, and the Dominion Exhibition, at
Ottawa, this year.
ncreased
us also
143 per
)ver the
v.— HOW MUCH SHOULD BE PAID FOR STEERS TO FATTEN.
It is well to be acquainted with the chemical and actual values of all our field pro-
ducts, as also how they act upon varieties of animal life, but one of the primary conditions
of success, in the case of not having any from your own breeding, is to know the inaxi-
mum price it is safe to give for the particular animal, independently of the indespensable
and peculiar knack of choosing the best for the purpose. Of course as a rule in present
times, it is a poor steer that will not pay to be bought ia at 3 cents per lb. live weight,
but, can any one say that a superior one will do so at 4 cents ?
Our past winter's experience in the purchase and feeding of cattle will help to show
this ; as owing to several disadvantages, such as difficulty in obtaining the right sort and
at a great distance from home, and for a certain purpose, the animals were got at a higher
figure than, it may be, the purely profit seeker would venture to give.
The lot comprised fourteen head of two and a half year old steers and two three
year old heifers, mostly Durham grades, all in medium condition from a month's stall
feeding.
The sixteen head weighed 17,529 lbs., and cost delivered $728, or an average of 4i^
cents per lb.
They consumed the following quantities, and cost, of food during five months
December to May : —
Swede turnips 162.480 lbs. at 8 cents per 60
Mangolds 54.480 " 10 " "
Pea Meal 12.960 " 1 " lb.
Corn Meal 10.448 " 45 cents per 56
Fodder 24.000 ". $4 per 2000
Total cost of food consumed = $569 00
$217 20
90
50
129
60
83
70
48
00
The cost of attendance was $52 50
And cost of bedding 15 00
|67 50
Total expenditure $636 50
26
P
II '
I i"
b '4
Mi
4,593^11*^' '"'^ °^ ^^' '"°"^^' *^' ^""''^^' ''''^^''^ 22,122 lbs., being an increase of
They were disposed of for $974.80 or 4l cents per pound, live weight.
First Balance Sheet therefore:
Cost of 16 steers bought in ^ ^^28 00
Cost of food, attendance and bedding 636 .50
$1,364 50
^^^" 974 00
Present debit $390 50
The story, so far, may be a surprise. It is well known that few, very few farmers
ever know the actual cost of making up a fat beast; they put no value upon knythine
except grain, no value upon fodder, roots, bedding and attendance, so that were we or
they, to deduct those items, amounting as they do in this case to S423 '0 there would
appear the small credit of $32.70, but I ask for no such conces.sion
The next question is, upon what authority do we place 8 and "lO cents per bushel for
turnips and mangolds respectively 1 The answer is-from our own pa.st experience here
with British hgures as a check, and with the acknowledgement that the rates are hi'^h'
though It has also to be admitted that by thorough management in root cultivation— when
tillage, manuring and cropping are considered in their invaluable effects upon future croDs
they may well be thrown into the bargain, or go all for present credit '
Let it be held '^oyever, that by the keep of 16 head of steers during five months we
have an apparent deficit of $390.50. °
_ Now-a-days it is not enough to say, with reference to any form of manure, " throw it
into the bargain, " let it stand for attendance and bedding," or, " slump it at fifty cents
per load. This unsound mode of valuation even under the old regime of straw and
turnip feeding, is certainly much more so with the addition of grain and cake and
therefore, keeping to the times, I beg to submit a valuation of the materials used iii food
m this instance, according to the chemical money standards established by Dr Lawes of
Rothamstead, England. Of course, the figures given have been fixed upon chemical data
and cannot in every case be taken as the real commercial value of the animal droppings
or other so-called refuse in the management of these steers :
80
17
^
5
12
Quantity Consumed.
tons Swede turnips
" Mangolds . . . .
" Pea Meal . . . .
" Corn Meal . . . .
" Fodder
Value Per Ton
$1
00
1
25
15
50
7
50
2
50
Total Value
$80 00
22 00
100 00
37 00
30 00
$269 00
Such is the apparent or real extravagance of these figures in comparison with what
we have always been accustomed to recosnise as the value of Farm-Yard Manure that
much caution is desirable in admitting this sum of $269, as the actual commercial stand-
ing of the materials from 16 steers during five months of winter. Our old practice would
have said—" one steer will give about one load per month, so that really we cannot cal
culate upon more then 100 tons at 75 cents, or say $75.00 in all." This will not do now
aa otherwise science is no handmaiden of practice. '
farmers
27
Debit of first balance ^390 50
Credit Manure 269 00
Second balance, being debit $121 50
It appears then that after debiting and crediting every possible item, it does not pay
to purchase steers at 4l cents, per lb., feed them on some of the best of materials, and at the
end of five months dispose at 4;^ cents, per lb. live weight. It will be asked, how was it
that hardly any advance per lb. was obtained for better beef; two reasons: the one for-
merly mentiond, (1) that extra expenses were incurred in purchasing, and (2) the animals
had to be sold at a time when the market was unusually low by reason of the uncertainty
of the trade with Britain during cattle plague restriction. There must not only be an
increase of weight, there must also be an advance of price per lb., and this, I need hardly
say, is always the case with well-doing animals. I am justified then in making the final
balance sheet, thus :
Purchase of 16 steers, 17,527 lbs. at 4^ $728 00
Cost of keep, &c 636 00
$1364 50
Actual sale of 22,122 lbs. 4| cents per lb $974 00
Sum overpaid for cattle, 3^ cents, being ordinary
market value 112 00
Would have received 5^ per lb. in place of 4? :
difference 187 qO
Value of manure 269 00
1542 00
Balance being credit $177 50
This balance is equal to 43 per cent, per annum on the original investment.
VI.— WHAT IT COSTS TO MAKE BEEF.
Few of us have any idea, as I have elsewhere remarked, as to the actual cost of feed-
ing, because few of us are in the habit of placing a value upon the produce consumed upon
our own farms. Dr. Laws, of England, recently asserted that in no case would an animal
pay for the cost of its food by the direct increase of its weight from such food. What has
been our own experience here of late %
1878— To make 1,610 lbs. cost $193.27, or 12 cents per lb.
1879— To make 4,593 lbs. cost $636.00, or 13 cents per lb.'
6,203
Mean 12| cents per lb.
This is charging every possible item in food, bedding, and attendance; and I have no
doubt the figures are in correspondence with the average of the country.
So then it costs 12| cents per lb. live weight to make good beef that is usually sold
at 6 cents per lb. live weight ! How is this accounted fori
88
Debit, as above
Credit actual increase at market price for improved
beef
Credit also for extra quality given by 6,203 lbs. new
to 26,139 original lbs. = 4 at 2 cents per lb. . .
Credit manure, according to chemical value, $0 06c. (
" " ordinary value, 02c. j
$0 12^
$0 05^
08
04
m
„ , Balance, being credit of $0 05 per lb.
over all the animals.
This needs explanation. We purchase a steer, or take one of our own breeding, and
put it into regular systematic feeding when 1163 lbs. weight and worth $40.70 at 3i cents,
per lb. During six months it is fed upon materials that cost, with attendance and bed-
ding, the sum of $43, which have added 360 lbs. to its weight, thus making the prime
animal 1523 lbs. But the food has not only added 360 lbs. to weight, it has improved all
the original 1163 lbs. —raising them from H to 5| cents, per lb., as a purely marketable
subject. It it obvious therefore that tJie food and its associations have to be credited with
what they have done at the ratio of 4, that is every 1 lb. of new weight improved the
quality of 4 of the old, thus making 8 cents, as given in foregoing statement. The real
value of manure not being known, or rather, as the chemist and practical farmer do not
agree as to its value, I have adopted a mean, or 4 cents., as resulting from the refuse
th: t goes to make every additional lb. of flesh.
Our example steer cost originally $40 70
And to feed, (fee, cost 43 00
$83 70
It sold for $83 76
Showing no profit or loss.
But according to honest bookeeping there is, as we have seen, 5 cents per lb. on 360
lbs. or $18 of clear profit for six months from an investment of $83, which is equal to 43
per cent, per annum. Compare this result with that shown at end of previous chapter.
Wm. Brown,
Professor of Agriculture and Farm
Superintendent.
Guelph, Ist October, 1879.
' -3